{"text":"I love sci-fi and am willing to put up with a lot. Sci-fi movies\/TV are usually underfunded, under-appreciated and misunderstood. I tried to like this, I really did, but it is to good TV sci-fi as Babylon 5 is to Star Trek (the original). Silly prosthetics, cheap cardboard sets, stilted dialogues, CG that doesn't match the background, and painfully one-dimensional characters cannot be overcome with a 'sci-fi' setting. (I'm sure there are those of you out there who think Babylon 5 is good sci-fi TV. It's not. It's clich\u00e9d and uninspiring.) While US viewers might like emotion and character development, sci-fi is a genre that does not take itself seriously (cf. Star Trek). It may treat important issues, yet not as a serious philosophy. It's really difficult to care about the characters here as they are not simply foolish, just missing a spark of life. Their actions and reactions are wooden and predictable, often painful to watch. The makers of Earth KNOW it's rubbish as they have to always say \"Gene Roddenberry's Earth...\" otherwise people would not continue watching. Roddenberry's ashes must be turning in their orbit as this dull, cheap, poorly edited (watching it without advert breaks really brings this home) trudging Trabant of a show lumbers into space. Spoiler. So, kill off a main character. And then bring him back as another actor. Jeeez! Dallas all over again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Worth the entertainment value of a rental, especially if you like action movies. This one features the usual car chases, fights with the great Van Damme kick style, shooting battles with the 40 shell load shotgun, and even terrorist style bombs. All of this is entertaining and competently handled but there is nothing that really blows you away if you've seen your share before.

The plot is made interesting by the inclusion of a rabbit, which is clever but hardly profound. Many of the characters are heavily stereotyped -- the angry veterans, the terrified illegal aliens, the crooked cops, the indifferent feds, the bitchy tough lady station head, the crooked politician, the fat federale who looks like he was typecast as the Mexican in a Hollywood movie from the 1940s. All passably acted but again nothing special.

I thought the main villains were pretty well done and fairly well acted. By the end of the movie you certainly knew who the good guys were and weren't. There was an emotional lift as the really bad ones got their just deserts. Very simplistic, but then you weren't expecting Hamlet, right? The only thing I found really annoying was the constant cuts to VDs daughter during the last fight scene.

Not bad. Not good. Passable 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"its a totally average film with a few semi-alright action sequences that make the plot seem a little better and remind the viewer of the classic van dam films. parts of the plot don't make sense and seem to be added in to use up time. the end plot is that of a very basic type that doesn't leave the viewer guessing and any twists are obvious from the beginning. the end scene with the flask backs don't make sense as they are added in and seem to have little relevance to the history of van dam's character. not really worth watching again, bit disappointed in the end production, even though it is apparent it was shot on a low budget certain shots and sections in the film are of poor directed quality","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Former New Orleans homicide cop Jack Robideaux (Jean Claude Van Damme) is re-assigned to Columbus, a small but violent town in Mexico to help the police there with their efforts to stop a major heroin smuggling operation into their town. The culprits turn out to be ex-military, lead by former commander Benjamin Meyers (Stephen Lord, otherwise known as Jase from East Enders) who is using a special method he learned in Afghanistan to fight off his opponents. But Jack has a more personal reason for taking him down, that draws the two men into an explosive final showdown where only one will walk away alive.

After Until Death, Van Damme appeared to be on a high, showing he could make the best straight to video films in the action market. While that was a far more drama oriented film, with The Shepherd he has returned to the high-kicking, no brainer action that first made him famous and has sadly produced his worst film since Derailed. It's nowhere near as bad as that film, but what I said still stands.

A dull, predictable film, with very little in the way of any exciting action. What little there is mainly consists of some limp fight scenes, trying to look cool and trendy with some cheap slo-mo\/sped up effects added to them that sadly instead make them look more desperate. Being a Mexican set film, director Isaac Florentine has tried to give the film a Robert Rodriguez\/Desperado sort of feel, but this only adds to the desperation.

VD gives a particularly uninspired performance and given he's never been a Robert De Niro sort of actor, that can't be good. As the villain, Lord shouldn't expect to leave the beeb anytime soon. He gets little dialogue at the beginning as he struggles to muster an American accent but gets mysteriously better towards the end. All the supporting cast are equally bland, and do nothing to raise the films spirits at all.

This is one shepherd that's strayed right from the flock. *","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off let me say, If you haven't enjoyed a Van Damme movie since bloodsport, you probably will not like this movie. Most of these movies may not have the best plots or best actors but I enjoy these kinds of movies for what they are. This movie is much better than any of the movies the other action guys (Segal and Dolph) have thought about putting out the past few years. Van Damme is good in the movie, the movie is only worth watching to Van Damme fans. It is not as good as Wake of Death (which i highly recommend to anyone of likes Van Damme) or In hell but, in my opinion it's worth watching. It has the same type of feel to it as Nowhere to Run. Good fun stuff!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had high hopes for this one until they changed the name to 'The Shepherd : Border Patrol, the lamest movie name ever, what was wrong with just 'The Shepherd'. This is a by the numbers action flick that tips its hat at many classic Van Damme films. There is a nice bit of action in a bar which reminded me of hard target and universal soldier but directed with no intensity or flair which is a shame. There is one great line about 'being p*ss drunk and carrying a rabbit' and some OK action scenes let down by the cheapness of it all. A lot of the times the dialogue doesn't match the characters mouth and the stunt men fall down dead a split second before even being shot. The end fight is one of the better Van Damme fights except the Director tries to go a bit too John Woo and fails also introducing flashbacks which no one really cares about just gets in the way of the action which is the whole point of a van Damme film.

Not good, not bad, just average generic action.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Isaac Florentine has made some of the best western Martial Arts action movies ever produced. In particular US Seals 2, Cold Harvest, Special Forces and Undisputed 2 are all action classics. You can tell Isaac has a real passion for the genre and his films are always eventful, creative and sharp affairs, with some of the best fight sequences an action fan could hope for. In particular he has found a muse with Scott Adkins, as talented an actor and action performer as you could hope for. This is borne out with Special Forces and Undisputed 2, but unfortunately The Shepherd just doesn't live up to their abilities.

There is no doubt that JCVD looks better here fight-wise than he has done in years, especially in the fight he has (for pretty much no reason) in a prison cell, and in the final showdown with Scott, but look in his eyes. JCVD seems to be dead inside. There's nothing in his eyes at all. It's like he just doesn't care about anything throughout the whole film. And this is the leading man.

There are other dodgy aspects to the film, script-wise and visually, but the main problem is that you are utterly unable to empathise with the hero of the film. A genuine shame as I know we all wanted this film to be as special as it genuinely could have been. There are some good bits, mostly the action scenes themselves. This film had a terrific director and action choreographer, and an awesome opponent for JCVD to face down. This could have been the one to bring the veteran action star back up to scratch in the balls-out action movie stakes.

Sincerely a shame that this didn't happen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It actually pains me to say it, but this movie was horrible on every level. The blame does not lie entirely with Van Damme as you can see he tried his best, but let's face it, he's almost fifty, how much more can you ask of him? I find it so hard to believe that the same people who put together Undisputed 2; arguably the best (western) martial arts movie in years, created this. Everything from the plot, to the dialog, to the editing, to the overall acting was just horribly put together and in many cases outright boring and nonsensical. Scott Adkins who's fight scenes seemed more like a demo reel, was also terribly underused and not even the main villain which is such a shame because 1) He is more than capable of playing that role and 2) The actual main villain was not only not intimidating at all but also quite annoying. Again, not blaming Van Damme. I will always be a fan, but avoid this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Technically I'am a Van Damme Fan, or I was. this movie is so bad that I hated myself for wasting those 90 minutes. Do not let the name Isaac Florentine (Undisputed II) fool you, I had big hopes for this one, depending on what I saw in (Undisputed II), man.. was I wrong ??! all action fans wanted a big comeback for the classic action hero, but i guess we wont be able to see that soon, as our hero keep coming with those (going -to-a-border - far-away-town-and -kill -the-bad-guys- than-comeback- home) movies I mean for God's sake, we are in 2008, and they insist on doing those disappointing movies on every level. Why ??!!! Do your self a favor, skip it.. seriously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly awful film, bad editing, awful lighting, dire dialog and scrappy screenplay.

The lighting at is so bad there's moments you can't even see what's going on, I even tried to playing with the contrast and brightness so I could see something but that didn't help.

They must have found the script in a bin, the character development is just as awful and while you hardly expect much from a Jean-Claude Van Damme film this one manages to hit an all time low. You can't even laugh at the cheesy'ness.

The directing and editing are also terrible, the whole film follows an extremely tired routine and fails at every turn as it bumbles through the plot that is so weak it's just unreal.

There's not a lot else to say other than it's really bad and nothing like Jean-Claude Van Damme's earlier work which you could enjoy.

Avoid like the plaque, frankly words fail me in condemning this \"film\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This flick is a waste of time.I expect from an action movie to have more than 2 explosions and some shooting.Van Damme's acting is awful. He never was much of an actor, but here it is worse.He was definitely better in his earlier movies. His screenplay part for the whole movie was probably not more than one page of stupid nonsense one liners.The whole dialog in the film is a disaster, same as the plot.The title \"The Shepherd\" makes no sense. Why didn't they just call it \"Border patrol\"? The fighting scenes could have been better, but either they weren't able to afford it, or the fighting choreographer was suffering from lack of ideas.This is a cheap low type of action cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Blind Date (Columbia Pictures, 1934), was a decent film, but I have a few issues with this film. First of all, I don't fault the actors in this film at all, but more or less, I have a problem with the script. Also, I understand that this film was made in the 1930's and people were looking to escape reality, but the script made Ann Sothern's character look weak. She kept going back and forth between suitors and I felt as though she should have stayed with Paul Kelly's character in the end. He truly did care about her and her family and would have done anything for her and he did by giving her up in the end to fickle Neil Hamilton who in my opinion was only out for a good time. Paul Kelly's character, although a workaholic was a man of integrity and truly loved Kitty (Ann Sothern) as opposed to Neil Hamilton, while he did like her a lot, I didn't see the depth of love that he had for her character. The production values were great, but the script could have used a little work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I first watched this movie back in the mid\/late 80's, when I was a kid. We couldn't even get all the way through it. The dialog, the acting, everything about it was just beyond lame.

Here are a few examples... imagine these spoken real dramatically, way over-acted: \"Oreegon? You're going to Oreegon? Why would anyone want to go to Oreegon?\"

\"Survivalists? Nobody ever told us about any survivalists!\"

This movie was SO bad, my sister and I rented it again for her 16th birthday party, just so our friends could sit around and laugh at how awful it was. I don't think we were able to finish it then either!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw the Mogul Video VHS of this. That's another one of those old 1980s distributors whose catalog I wish I had!

This movie was pretty poor. Though retitled \"Don't Look in the Attic,\" the main admonition that is repeated in this is \"Don't go to the villa.\" Just getting on the grounds of the villa is a bad idea. A character doesn't go into the attic until an hour into the movie, and actually should have done it earlier because of what is learned there.

The movie starts in Turin, Italy in the 1950s. Two men are fighting, and a woman is telling them the villa is making them do it. One man kills the other, then regrets it, and the woman pulls out the knife and stabs him with it. She flees the villa, and after she's left a chair moves by itself (what's the point of that?), but when in the garden a hand comes up through the ground and drags he into the earth.

From there, it's the present day, thirty years later. There's a s\u00e9ance that appears suddenly and doesn't appear to have anything to do with the movie. The children of the woman from the prologue are inheriting the house. The main daughter is played by the same actress who played her mother. At least one of the two men from the prologue seems to reoccur as another character too. She's haunted by some warnings not to go to the villa, but they all do, since if they do not use it, they forfeit it. People die. A lawyer who has won all his cases tries to investigate a little. The ending is pretty poor. Why was the family cursed? An unfortunately boring movie.

There's an amusing small-print disclaimer on the back of the video box that reads \"The scenes depicted on this packaging may be an artist's impression and may not necessarily represent actual scenes from the film.\" In this case, the cover of the box is an illustration that does more or less accurately depict the aforementioned woman dragged underground scene, although there are two hands, and the woman is different. It's true, sometimes the cover art has nothing to do with the movie. I also recall seeing a reviewer who had a bad movie predictor scale, in which movies with illustrations on the cover instead of photos got at least one point for that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of heirs to a mysterious old mansion find out that they have to live in it as part of a clause in the will or be disinherited, but they soon find out of its history of everybody whom had lived there before them having either died in weird accidents or having had killed each other.

You've seen it all before, and this one is too low-budget and slow paced to be scary, and doesn't have any real surprises in the climax. No special effects or gore to speak of, in fact the only really amusing thing about the whole film is the quality of the English dubbing, which at times is as bad as a cheap martial arts movie.

3 out of 10, pretty low in the pecking order of 80's haunted house movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now, I LOVE Italian horror films. The cheesier they are, the better. However, this is not cheesy Italian. This is week-old spaghetti sauce with rotting meatballs. It is amateur hour on every level. There is no suspense, no horror, with just a few drops of blood scattered around to remind you that you are in fact watching a horror film. The \"special effects\" consist of the lights changing to red whenever the ghost (or whatever it was supposed to be) is around, and a string pulling bed sheets up and down. Oooh, can you feel the chills? The DVD quality is that of a VHS transfer (which actually helps the film more than hurts it). The dubbing is below even the lowest \"bad Italian movie\" standards and I gave it one star just because the dialogue is so hilarious! And what do we discover when she finally DOES look in the attic (in a scene that is daytime one minute and night the next)...well, I won't spoil it for anyone who really wants to see, but let's just say that it isn't very \"novel\"!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This cheap, grainy-filmed Italian flick is about a couple of inheritors of a manor in the Italian countryside who head up to the house to stay, and then find themselves getting killed off by ghosts of people killed in that house.

I wasn't impressed by this. It wasn't really that scary, mostly just the way a cheap Italian film should be. A girl, her two cousins, and one cousin's girlfriend, head to this huge house for some reason (I couldn't figure out why) and are staying there, cleaning up and checking out the place. Characters come in and out of the film, and it's quite boring at points, and the majority of deaths are quite rushed. The girlfriend is hit by a car when fleeing the house after having a dream of her death, and the scene is quite good, but then things get slow again, until a confusing end, when the male cousins are killed together in some weird way, and this weirdo guy (I couldn't figure out who he was during the movie, or maybe I just don't remember) goes after this one girl, attacking her, until finally this other girl kills him off. Hate to give away the ending, but oh well. The female cousin decides to stay at the house and watch over it, and they show scenes of her living there years later. The end. You really aren't missing anything, and anyway, you probably won't find this anywhere, so lucky you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just finished watching this movie and am disappointed to say that I didn't enjoy it a bit. It is so slow Slow and uninteresting. This kid from Harry Potter plays a shy teenager with an rude mother, and then one day the rude mother tells the kid to find a job so that they could accommodate an old guy apparently having no place to live has started to live with his family and therefore the kid goes to work for a old lady. And this old lady who is living all alone teaches him about girls, driving car and life! I couldn't get how an 18 year old guy enjoy spending time with an awful lady in her 80s. Sorry if my comments on this movie has bothered people who might have enjoyed it, I could be wrong as I am not British and may not understand the social and their family structure and way of life. Mostly the movie is made for the British audience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ben, (Rupert Grint), is a deeply unhappy adolescent, the son of his unhappily married parents. His father, (Nicholas Farrell), is a vicar and his mother, (Laura Linney), is ... well, let's just say she's a somewhat hypocritical soldier in Jesus' army. It's only when he takes a summer job as an assistant to a foul-mouthed, eccentric, once-famous and now-forgotten actress Evie Walton, (Julie Walters), that he finally finds himself in true 'Harold and Maude' fashion. Of course, Evie is deeply unhappy herself and it's only when these two sad sacks find each other that they can put their mutual misery aside and hit the road to happiness.

Of course it's corny and sentimental and very predictable but it has a hard side to it, too and Walters, who could sleep-walk her way through this sort of thing if she wanted, is excellent. It's when she puts the craziness to one side and finds the pathos in the character, (like hitting the bottle and throwing up in the sink), that she's at her best. The problem is she's the only interesting character in the film (and it's not because of the script which doesn't do anybody any favours). Grint, on the other hand, isn't just unhappy; he's a bit of a bore as well while Linney's starched bitch is completely one-dimensional. (Still, she's got the English accent off pat). The best that can be said for it is that it's mildly enjoyable - with the emphasis on the mildly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Every movie I have PPV'd because Leonard Maltin praised it to the skies has blown chunks! Every single one! When will I ever learn?

Evie is a raving Old Bag who thinks nothing of saying she's dying of breast cancer to get her way! Laura is an insufferable Medusa filled with The Holy Spirit (and her hubby's prot\u00e9g\u00e9)! Caught between these harpies is Medusa's dumb-as-a-rock boy who has been pressed into weed-pulling servitude by The Old Bag!

As I said, when will I ever learn?

I was temporarily lifted out of my malaise when The Old Bag stuck her head in a sink, but, unfortunately, she did not die. I was temporarily lifted out of my malaise again when Medusa got mowed down, but, unfortunately, she did not die. It should be a capital offense to torture audiences like this!

Without Harry Potter to kick him around, Rupert Grint is just a pair of big blue eyes that practically bulge out of its sockets. Julie Walters's scenery-chewing (especially the scene when she \"plays\" God) is even more shameless than her character.

At least this Harold bangs some bimbo instead of Maude. For that, I am truly grateful. And if you're reading this Mr. Maltin, you owe me $3.99!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Low budget horror movie. If you don't raise your expectations too high, you'll probably enjoy this little flick. Beginning and end are pretty good, middle drags at times and seems to go nowhere for long periods as we watch the goings on of the insane that add atmosphere but do not advance the plot. Quite a bit of gore. I enjoyed Bill McGhee's performance which he made quite believable for such a low budget picture, he managed to carry the movie at times when nothing much seemed to be happening. Nurse Charlotte Beale, played by Jesse Lee, played her character well so be prepared to want to slap her toward the end! She makes some really stupid mistakes but then, that's what makes these low budget movies so good! I would have been out of that place and five states away long before she even considered that it might be a good idea to leave! If you enjoy this movie, try Committed from 1988 which is basically a rip off of this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dr Stephens (Micheal Harvey) runs a mental asylum. He has a different approach to the insane. He conducts unorthodox methods of treatment. He treats everyone like family, there are no locks on the patients doors and he lets some of the inmates act out their twisted fantasies. He lets Sergeant Jaffee (Hugh Feagin) dress and act as a soldier and Harriet (Camilla Carr) be a mother to a doll, including letting her put it to bed in a cot. Dr. Stevens is outside letting Judge Oliver W. Cameron (Gene Ross) chop a log up with an axe, it turns out to be a bad move as once Dr. Stevens back is turned the Judge plants the axe in his shoulder. Soon after Nurse Charlotte Beale (Rosie Holotik) arrives at the Sanitarium having arranged an interview with Dr. Stevens about a possible job. She is met by the head Nurse, Geraldine Masters (Annabelle Weenick as Anne McAdams) and is offered a trail position. She gets to know and becomes well liked among the patients. However things eventually start to turn sour, the phone lines are cut, an old lady named Mrs. Callingham (Rhea MacAdams) has her tongue cut out and she starts to get a strange feeling that things just aren't right somehow. Then, one night all the Sanitariums dark secrets are violently revealed. Produced and directed by S.f. Brownrigg this film has a great central idea which builds into a cool twist ending, but ultimately is a bit of a chore to sit through because of it's low budget restrictions and a rather slow script by Tim Pope. There are just too many long boring stretches of dialogue by the inmates, not a lot really happens until the final twenty odd minutes. The film has no real visual quality as it's set entirely in the Sanitarium and it's grounds which is basically just a big bland house in the middle of nowhere. There's no graphic gore in it, a few splashes of blood here and there and thats yer lot. There's a bit of nudity, but like the gore not much. The acting is pretty strong, especially Holotik and Weenick. The photography is flat and unexciting and I can't even remember what the music was like. The twist ending is great, but it just takes far too long to get to it. A film that had a lot of potential that was probably held back by it's budget. OK I guess, but I think it would have worked a lot better if the story had been turned into a half an hour 'Tales form the Crypt' episode.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Forgotten (AKA: Don't Look In The Basement) is a very cheaply made and very old looking horror movie.

The story is very slow and never really reaches anything worth getting excited about.

The patients at the asylum are embarrassingly funny especially Sam and the old woman who always quotes an old saying to everyone. (Look out for the bit when she gets close to the camera, tell me you can watch without laughing!).

Now the gore is very poor looking, with the blood looking pink in many scenes so it doesn't really deserve its place on the video nasties list!.

Overall if you aren't looking for a fantastic horror film and have some time to spare then it's worth a watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had a very unique effect on me: it stalled my realization that this movie REALLY sucks! It is disguised as a \"thinker's film\" in the likes of Memento and other jewels like that, but at the end, and even after a few minutes, you come to realize that this is nothing but utter pretentious cr4p. Probably written by some collage student with friends to compassionate to tell him that his writing sucks. The whole idea is \u0085 I don't even know if it tried to scratch on the supernatural, or they want us to believe that because someone fills your mind (a very weak one, btw) with stupid \"riddles\", the kind you learn on elementary school recess, you suddenly come to the \"one truth\" about everything, then you have to kill someone and confess\u0085. !!! What? How, what, why, WHY? Is just like saying that to make a cake, just throw a bunch of ingredients, and add water\u0085 forgot about cooking it? I guess these guys forgot to, not explain, but present the mechanism of WHY was this happening? You have to do that when you present a story which normal, everyday acts (lie solving riddle rhymes) start to have an abnormal effect on people. Acting was horrible, with that girl always trying to look cute at the camera, and the guy from Highlanders, the series, acting up like the though heavy metal record store (yeah, they're all real though s-o-b's). The \"menacing\" atmosphere, with the \"oh-so-clever\" riddles (enter the 60's series of Batman and Robin, with guest appearance of The Riddle) and the crazies who claim to have \"the knowledge\" behind that smirk on their faces\u0085 just horrible, HORRIBLE.

I'm usually very partial about low budget movies, and tend to root for the underdog by giving them more praise than they may deserve, in lieu of their constrictions, you know, but this is just an ugly excuse for a movie that will keep you wanting to be good for an hour and a half, and at the end you will just lament that you fell for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"too bad this movie isn't. While \"Nemesis Game\" is mildly entertaining, I found it hard to suspend my disbelief the whole length of the movie, especially the situations that Sara was putting herself into. Are we supposed to believe that:

1) this hot chick is going to go slumming unarmed around abandoned buildings and dark subway tunnels in the middle of the night just to solve some riddles?

2) the protagonists are supposedly such experts that they play riddle games for fun, but don't put the whole \"I Never Sinned\" riddle together until the very end...and then...and then...get this...she has to do the whole mirror thing to finally put the pieces together?? I know it was the filmmaker's device to show the audience what was going on, but do they really think we're that stupid?

3) when Vern and Sara go to the Chez M to question the blonde, there is not ONE topless chick in the whole building. Nada. C'mon. I know it's Canada, but I would expect more from a country that gave us Shannon Tweed.

And anyone else notice that when Vern was surfing the Web and found that riddlezone site, that when he moused over the link the cursor stayed an arrow, and didn't turn into a little hand (LIKE ALL CURSORS DO WHEN YOU CLICK ON A HYPERLINK)?!? I mean, if you're gonna have the internet play such a prominent role in your movie, at least get the little things right. Geez.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I of course saw the previews for this at the beginning of some other Lion's Gate extravaganza, so of course it was only the best parts and therefore looked intriguing. And it is, to a point. A young college student (Sarah)is finding riddles all over the place and is becoming obsessed with answering them, and in doing so she's unwittingly becoming involved in some game. Now that's fairly intriguing right there but unfortunately it all gets rather muddled and becomes so complicated that the viewer (like myself) will most likely become frustrated. Characters appear with little introduction and you're not really sure who they are or why Sarah knows them or is hanging out with them. All of this has something to do with this woman who tried to drown a young boy years ago and her reason for that was that it's \"all part of the design\". In reality, it's all part of the \"very sketchy script\" and when the film is over you'll find yourself feeling that you've lost about an hour and a half of your life that you want back for more productive uses of your time, like cleaning the bathroom, for instance. 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I gave this a 3 out of a possible 10 stars.

Unless you like wasting your time watching an anorexic actress, in this film it's Carly Pope, behaving like a ditz, don't bother.

Carly Pope plays Sara Novak, a young college student, who becomes intrigued with a game of riddles, that leads her down into subway tunnels underneath the city - a dangerous thing for even a well-armed man to go in alone.

There are various intrigues in the film -- a weirdo classmate who is apparently stalking Sara, a cynical shopkeeper who runs some kind of offbeat hole-in-the-wall establishment that appears to be located in the back alley of a ghetto, a nerdish dim-wit that hangs around the cynic's shop, and a woman named Emily Gray, who is back in prison.

Sara's father is a lawyer who is handling Emily Gray's case.

A few years back, Emily Gray attempted to drown a 12 year old boy. Emily was put in a mental hospital for 5 years, and for some cockeyed reason they let her out again, even though it is obvious she is still dangerously deranged.

The only explanation Emily has ever given for her crime is: I never sinned.

It's all part of the design.

Well, my friend, don't expect to ever get any better explanation than that, because you won't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking forward to this movie. Trustworthy actors, interesting plot. Great atmosphere then ????? IF you are going to attempt something that is meant to encapsulate the meaning of life. First. Know it. OK I did not expect the directors or writers to actually know the meaning but I thought they may have offered crumbs to peck at and treats to add fuel to the fire-Which! they almost did. Things I didn't get. A woman wandering around in dark places and lonely car parks alone-oblivious to the consequences. Great riddles that fell by the wayside. The promise of the knowledge therein contained by the original so-called criminal. I had no problem with the budget and enjoyed the suspense. I understood and can wax lyrical about the fool and found Adrian Pauls role crucial and penetrating and then ????? Basically the story line and the script where good up to a point and that point was the last 10 minutes or so. What? Run out of ideas! Such a pity that this movie had to let us down so badly. It may not comprehend the meaning and I really did not expect the writers to understand it but I was hoping for an intellectual, if not spiritual ride and got a bump in the road","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Four things intrigued me as to this film - firstly, it stars Carly Pope (of \"Popular\" fame), who is always a pleasure to watch. Secdonly, it features brilliant New Zealand actress Rena Owen. Thirdly, it is filmed in association with the New Zealand Film Commission. Fourthly, a friend recommended it to me. However, I was utterly disappointed. The whole storyline is absurd and complicated, with very little resolution. Pope's acting is fine, but Owen is unfortunately under-used. The other actors and actresses are all okay, but I am unfamiliar with them all. Aside from the nice riddles which are littered throughout the movie (and Pope and Owen), this film isn't very good. So the moral of the story is...don't watch it unless you really want to.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

Never ever take a film just for its good looking title.

Although it all starts well, the film suffers the same imperfections you see in B-films. Its like at a certain moment the writer does not any more how to end the film, so he ends it in a way nobody suspects it thinking this way he is ingenious.

A film to be listed on top of the garbage list.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lowe returns to the nest after, yet another, failed relationship, to find he's been assigned to jury duty. It's in the plans to, somehow, get out of it, when he realizes the defendant is the girl he's had a serious crush on since the first grade.

Through living in the past by telling other people about his feelings towards this girl (played by Camp), Lowe remembers those feelings and does everything in his power to clear Camp of attempted murder, while staying away from the real bad guys at the same time, and succeeding in creating a successful film at the same time.

I've heard that St Augustine is the oldest city in the US, and I also know it has some ties to Ponce de Leon, so the backdrop is a good place to start. Unfortunately, it's the only thing good about this movie. The local police are inept, the judge is an idiot, and the defense counsel does everything in her power to make herself look like Joanie Cunningham! I don't know whether to blame the director for poor direction, or for just letting the cast put in such a hapless effort.

In short, this movie was so boring, I could not even sleep through it! 1 out of 10 stars!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seriously, I can't imagine how anyone could find a single flattering thing to say about this movie, much less find it in themselves to write the glowing compliments contained in this comment section. How many methamphetamines was Bogdonovitch on during the filming of this movie? Was he giving a bonus to the actor that spat his lines out with the most speed and least inflection or thought? The dialogue is bad, the plot atrocious, even for a \"screwball\" comedy, and claims that the movie is an homage to classic film comedy is about the most inane thing I've ever heard. The cinematography is below the quality and innovation of that exhibited by the worst made-for-TV movies, the acting is awful (although I get the feeling that the fault for that lies squarely in the lap of the director), and speaking of which, did I mention the direction is so haphazard and inscrutable that it defies the definition of the word? The whole thing is a terribly unfunny (even in the much-beleaguered world of so-bad-it's-funny clunkers), soul-sucking, waste of two hours of your life that you'll never get back. Be afraid, be very afraid...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm the type of guy who loves hood movies from New Jack City to Baby Boy to Killa Season, from the b grade to the Hollywood. but this movie was something different. i am no hater and this movie was kinda enjoyable. but some bits were just weird. well the acting wasn't to good, compared to Silkk The Shockers performance in Hot Boyz (quite good) and Ice-T in new Jack and SVU (great). the scene where Corrupt (Ice-T) kills the wanna be Jamaican dude he says something and lights himself on fire burning both Ice-T and the other dude, this kills the Jamaican, however Ice-T is unharmed, very similar to Ice's other movie Urban Menace (which stars both of these actors) were Snoops character is supernatural, however after this there is nothing suggested that Corrupt is like a demon. When MJ (Silkk) gets stabbed at first he struggling but after that he fights normally and was stabbed in the thigh-WITH OUT BLOOD. and when MJ confesses killing a cop cos the cop was beating up his friend Benny was weird, Benny isn't introduced in this movie and the scene isn't in the film. it does hold weight to the fact why Corrupt wants to kill MJ but is still makes u scratch your head. wen Jody writes a letter to Miss Jones character explaining what happened to them afterwords doesn't mention what happen 2 other main characters MJ and Lisa. the film did show the horror and poverty of the ghetto-which plagues the lives of Latinos and Blacks word wide-was a good part of the film, even though the clip of the projects was re-used thousands of times. and the scene where Miles kills the Latino brother by crashing his bike at full speed (not wearing a helmet) and running into my Latino brothers car would of killed him. the movie was similar to the film Urban Menace and half the actors were in both of these movies as well as the production team. it was OK tho. but me being from poverty i love hood films, however if u don't love em like i do Don't WATCH IT. only thing saving me from walking out is it reminded me of the first movie i made which was made with 100 dollars, and my love of the genre.

Nathaniel Purez","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most positive points in this film were the credits (text style) and some moments in Ice-T's acting. The story-line; two rival gangs having to fight it out, with the sub-plots of betrayal, power and change are well worn plots but in this case painful(very) to wade through. The decrepit scenery, which added slight believability in places, and questionable lighting, constantly distracted from any interest\/identification with the characters (the shine off of the actress's forehead\/nose was blinding, not to mention other scenes with the same problem.) Not even half way into the film I wanted to know more about how and why it came about as opposed to what was going on on screen. A disappointment if you have seen Ice-T in other roles. Kudos to other actors\/actresses who seemed to get into their roles despite the weak direction; Corrupt's side kick and the other restaurant worker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I quite enjoyed The Wrecking Crew (1999), which was the last of the three films in this series (the first being Urban Menace (1999) which I've yet to see). I know it was baaaaad, but the three leads did a pretty decent job, all things considered.

This, however, was truly atrocious. Ice-T was dreadful, and he's the producer! Can't say I've ever heard of Silkk The Shocker (who apparently never learnt how to spell), but his performance was one of the worst I've ever seen in a movie.

Miss Jones did pretty well in her small role, though she later went on to make some atrocious, racist \"jokes\" on her radio show after the SE Asian tsunami (plus other occasions sadly). Way to go, girl...

No-one else comes out with any credit. Strangely, TJ Storm and Ernie Hudson (who are both pretty bad here) are far better in The Wrecking Crew, which was made, along with Urban Menace, at the same time as Corrupt. How that works, I don't know.

I'm going to try the Ice-T commentary now, to see whether he apologises for the film, or tries to make us think it's a great piece of film-making.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this film has no plot, no good acting, to be honest it has nothing, the same songs play over and over awful acting and if you can actually sit there and watch the whole thing and enjoy it there is something wrong with you. I wish i could give this 0 out of 10 but i cant so it has to be a 1 which is generous! ice-t isn't even a good rapper and even worse at acting, every bit of the film is rubbish, i got this film on DVD without knowing what it was for the price of \u00a31.99 and thought that i had picked up a bargain, i then looked at the IMDb rating and didn't take it into consideration but after watching it found out that the DVD i had bought was a complete waste of time, money and electricity. if you have this film there are two things you can do sell it to someone who doesn't know about it or burn it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Beware, My Lovely (1952) Dir: Harry Horner

Production: The Filmmakers\/RKO Radio Pictures

Credulity-straining thriller from the pioneering producer team of Collier Young and Ida Lupino, aka The Filmmakers (with Lupino pitching in with some uncredited direction).

Robert Ryan is the 'peril' and Ida Lupino is the 'woman' in this entry in the 'woman in peril' style film. Ryan plays Howard Wilton, a tightly-wound psychotic handyman drifter (noooo, Ryan? I know, hard to believe). Lupino is the lonely war widow, Helen Gordon, who hires Howard to do some work around her house. Things go downhill from there as Howard makes Helen a prisoner in her own home.

Howard has a nasty secret, not that he could reveal it. You see, consciousness is a real challenge for him. Maintaining it, that is. He has an unfortunate habit of coming to and finding his employers dead. This is part of the film's problem. The nature of Howard's psychosis is so extreme that it is nearly impossible to believe that he's been free to roam from town to town unobstructed, even in the year 1918 (when the film is set). He can't remember anything that happened ten minutes ago. His violent, threatening, anti-social tendencies are set off by the smallest and most common of things (a young girl flirting, inadequacies involving the war, due to his being rejected for service). I don't know how he even made it past the interview with Helen. There are other implausibilities. If you were locked in your house with a madman, but nonetheless left on your own for periods of time, couldn't you figure out a way to escape?

Ryan, I think, is defeated by the material. It feels like he's overplaying his hand. His series of tics and spasms and the tightly coiled bursts of dementia all have a been-there, done-that robotic feel to them. At this point in his career he'd probably played this character, to some degree, ten times and it shows. We are encouraged to empathize with Howard (I didn't) through shown bits of humanity, like him being stopped in his tracks by a music box and his relating to a group of children who won't judge him. Lupino just has to act frazzled and in distress, which she is more than capable of and does.

The picture had one thing going for it; what would be the eventual resolution of the conflict? So naturally there was a disappointing ending that was abrupt and ineffective.

Of slight interest was a recurring motif where the camera would catch Howard's reflection (in mirrors, water, Christmas tree decorations). This indicated something going on, or about to go on, in his head. Horner (1953's Vicki), who made his reputation in production design, does a fine job of making the house feel like a prison. Credit too, the always reliable RKO art department for the work on the house. In the end, sub-standard work from the principals, who all have much better films to their credit.

*\u00bd out of 4","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason this movie is not given a 1 (awful) vote is that the acting of both Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan is superb. Ida Lupino who is lovely, as usual, becomes increasingly distraught as she tries various means to rid herself of a madman. Robert Ryan is terrifying as the menacing stranger whose character, guided only by his disturbed mind, changes from one minute to the next. Seemingly simple and docile, suddenly he becomes clever and threatening. Ms. Lupino's character was in more danger from that house she lived in and her own stupidity than by anyone who came along. She could not manage to get out of her of her own house: windows didn't open, both front and back doors locked and unlocked from the inside with a key. You could not have designed a worse fire-trap if you tried. She did not take the precaution of having even one extra key. Nor could she figure out how to summon help from nearby neighbors or get out of her own basement while she was locked in and out of sight of her captor. I don't know what war her husband was killed in, but if it was World War II, the furnishings in her house, the styles of the clothes, especially the children and the telephone company repairman's car are clearly anachronistic. I recommend watching this movie just to see what oddities you can find.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Artificial melodrama with a screenplay adapted by Mel Dinelli from his play \"The Man\" concerns a boarding-house proprietress taking in a troubled handyman who may be homicidal. Despite solid work from Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan (both trying their best), this tedious yarn isn't very inventive within its one primary set (which quickly becomes visually dull) and underpopulated cast of characters (there is however a smart pooch who senses the worst!). Hokey and humorless, with a stilted direction from Harry Horner (perhaps Lupino should have directed?). Where's all the suspense promised by the ads? Dinelli also served as a co-producer. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, what an overrated movie this turned out to be! It was supposed to be \"an extremely suspenseful tale of a crazed killer holding a woman hostage and in terror in her home.\" Well, I doubt it terrorized audiences in the early '50s and I know it would put today's audiences asleep.

\"Sends shivers down the spine,\" proclaims the New York Times. No, the only shivers I get is that anyone is left on the planet who believes anything the N.Y. Times prints about anything.

Well, it was about a deranged man who held a woman hostage for a short time in her house but the man. \"Howard Wilton\" (Robert Ryan) was actually harmless and friendly. In fact, this was one of the nicest roles Ryan ever played! Yes, \"Wilton\" was nuts but he never harmed the woman and only wanted a friend to trust.

The film even turned boring after awhile with very little going on except a lot of yakking.

Beware, my reader.....this sucks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe the high marks people have given this film on this site. The writing is incredibly bad with people coming in at just the right time and revealing exactly what the heroine is doing to try to escape. (Don't you just hate it when that happens?). And the acting is so very, very bad that you may get a splinter in your eye from all the scenery being chewed.

A nut is holding her hostage, children are outside the open screen, so she whimpers for help instead of screaming when only a moment ago she was brave enough to be smashing windows to yell to these same children.

She's finally free and alone in the house. Her chance to go for help, so what does she do? Wanders around the house and lies down. She's in the basement, locked away. So what does she do? Takes a little nap. Come on! Most of the movie is the nut wandering away and finding her sitting there snoozing when he wakes her up. Four times! What? If the writer is too bored to actually write a real plot why should we be paying attention? I think the key here is that it was originally a play for the radio, so they filled in with the heroine just sitting around rather than pretending to be screen writers and actually writing any action.

And the ending is horrendous.

The whole movie is completely implausible, horribly written and almost comically acted. Beware this movie at all costs!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Widow hires a psychopath as a handyman. Sloppy film noir thriller which doesn't make much of its tension promising set-up. (3\/10)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have no idea how anyone can give this movie high marks. I didn't rent it thinking it was the next great horror flick, the next great horror spoof, or the next great low-budget horror spoof. Obviously, this isn't meant to scare, but one fatal flaw with the production entirely sapped the joy out of the viewing experience. The sound editing was horrible. I had to work the volume control the entire movie. You can imagine how difficult it is to get into something - even a low-budget spoof - when you're either turning the volume up or down, or trying to anticipate the next time you have to do so. The regular dialogue is very low, and all screams, noises, etc., are VERY loud. We're not talking about toggling between 5 and 7 on the volume control, finding a happy medium at 6. We're talking toggling between 2 and 9 on the volume where it is virtually impossible to leave the volume alone. Again, this movie might be a decent example of what it is meant to be, but you're going to be spending so much time adjusting your volume control that you'll never have the chance to enjoy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seeing the title of this movie \"Stupid Teenagers Must Die\" made me believe this was a spoof of some kind. I discovered later on the original title was \"Blood and Guts\". Both titles are misleading, though. This is not a spoof, neither a serious splatter movie. This is something in between, failing in both areas. A group of teenagers is attending a s\u00e9ance at a spooky house and then the killing starts. Sounds over familiar, doesn't it. Well, this movies adds nothing whatsoever to the endless stream of similar movies. And it is badly made. Because of the lack of light the entire film is grainy. Now this effect can be highly effective, but it isn't in this case. The young cast isn't acting too badly, but the director has no clue as what to do with actors. In numerous scenes the actors are clearly waiting for directions, but these are given too late. It could also be an editor's mistake, of course. The characters are unrealistic and the story line just stinks. The sound is terrible at times: conversations are undecipherable, but when talking loudly or screaming the actors are very loud indeed.

This is not the worst horror movie I have ever seen, but it still is a bad one. For me a 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now I understand that this took two months to shoot. Really? I'm pretty certain my crew could do it in less than a week. This movie sucked so bad I couldn't even pay close attention. Just more proof that boob bearing women can't always save you from horrible writing, acting and direction. Now I understand it was a no budget endeavor, but there is also no continuity and no real reason to not to turn it off and watch infomercials or foreign news in a language you don't understand. Oh, there are a few decent looking females showing the goods. Still, there aren't enough sexy women alive to warrant watching this travesty perpetrated on the film industry. One of the longest 80 minutes of my life. I trooped it out though with the help of my old friend Jim Beam. Do yourself a favor and get your gun ready cuz you may want to use it after this hack job. Lastly, the individual (moron) who left a comment before mine thought this was a great movie and LOVED it. Just more proof that siblings shouldn't pro-create. Ow, BURN!!! - Captain J","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"STMD! is not a terrible movie, but it IS quite forgettable. The lighting is intentionally poor in many scenes and unintentionally poor in all the rest, so you are likely to come out of a viewing with a headache or eye-strain. Special effects are imaginative, but obvious. The gratuitous nudity essential for teen slasher flicks is there, of course, along with the archetypical teenagers, but the whole movie just doesn't gel. What was needed was some snappier dialogue and more tongue-in-cheek humor.

I can't really recommend that you use your time watching this movie. I often give a nod to a movie based on just a scene or two that demonstrates imagination or humor, but these are sadly lacking in this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, so it was never going to change the world, and it bombed at the box office, but Honky Tonk Freeway is one of those films I fell in love with as a child (the BBC showed it a few times during the 1980s and I happened to have a high quality VHS tape in the machine - lucky, that!) and watched endlessly. I watched the DVD last night and sadly, time has not been kind to this would-be blockbuster. Either that or I've just grown out of this kind of broad, dopey humour. Come on, when Schlesinger is so desperate for laughs he gives us close-ups of novelty underpants with 'amusing' slogans, what can you say about the cast or screenplay?

Certainly, it's ambitious, interesting, unusual and sprawling, but it's never once laugh-out-loud funny. I'd describe it as a children's film with some 'adult' overtones - you can safely let your youngsters watch this, despite the 15 certificate. They won't get the drug references, so don't worry about it. I had a pleasant surprise when I realized I'd forgotten just how catchy both the title song and the song-writing truck driver's 'Everybody's Going Faster, Faster' song were, not to mention the town of Ticlaw's patriotic anthem. The whole cast give commendable performances, the photography is crisp and captures the mood of the various locations perfectly, and there's a real time capsule feeling about the fashions, the cars, the gadgets (especially the dashboard-mounted drum machine), the interiors and the pop-culture references - I was more than a little surprised to hear the nutty bum in the bank loudly telling everyone \"I'm OJ Simpson!\", particularly now Simpson's legal tangles have overshadowed his sporting achievements. The snag is, there's almost no plot to speak of, it's way too obvious to be witty and not funny enough to elicit many genuine laughs. I wish I'd left this one as a pleasant memory.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A sprawling, overambitious, plotless comedy that has no dramatic center. It was probably intended to have an epic vision and a surrealistic flair (at least in some episodes), but the separate stories are never elevated into a meaningful whole, and the laughs are few and far between. Amusing ending, though. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No, no, no, no, no, no, NO! This is not a film, this is an excuse to show people dancing. This is just not good. Even the dancing is slow and not half as entertaining as the mediocre 'Dirty Dancing', let alone any other good dance movie.

Is it a love story? Is it a musical? Is it a drama? Is it a comedy? It's not that this movie is a bit of all, it's that this movie fails at everything it attempts to be. The film turns out to be even more meaningless as the film progresses.

Acting is terrible from all sides, the screenplay is definitely trying to tell us something about relationship but fails miserably.

WATCH FOR THE MOMENT - When Patrick Stewart enters the scene and you think the film might get better as he brightens up the dull atmosphere. For a second.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this movie really hard to sit through, my attention kept wandering off the tv. As far as romantic movies go..this one is the worst I've seen. Don't bother with it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, so my summary line is a cheap trick. But the movie is full of them and it gets absurdly praised, so...

I caught this one on TV (uncut, as TV here shows all movies, that's for you Americans who might say I didn't like it because I saw a cut TV version - fortunately that's only an US thing), and had no idea about what it was. I switched on, caught the last minutes of a show, and the movie began. Within a minute, I was begging it was a comedy, given the particularly ridiculous clich\u00e9d beginning (yes, it's a bad movie-within-the-movie, I know, but what a way to try to keep the viewer interested! I don't even know why I didn't switch channels). And, yes, in fact the movie turned out to be a comedy, albeit an unintentional one.

Marina Zudina is pretty enough, but gosh, what a dreadful performance! While casting a foreigner in the role is smart enough (she doesn't talk so bye bye language barrier), yet, sorry, Marina baby, playing mute doesn't mean impersonating Harpo Marx. Her acting is unintentionally funny in many moments, just look at her when she draws an X in the air while stalked by the killer. He wants to kill you, it's no time to play Zorro. We get plenty of \"running upstairs\" stuff passing for tension, as in the worst slashers, and things like pulling a carpet and a bad guy shots the other. Ugh! Will Hollywood ever learn? Yet the best\/worst pearl is having a guy electrocuted in a bathtub and... Well, I have never seen anyone being electrocuted to death in a bathtub, but I'm sure you can't see the blue cartoon rays in real life, do you? And how about immediately trusting a mean-looking guy because he SAYS he's a cop, and not asking him to show you his credentials? OK, so he turns out to be a real cop. But still, not asking for the badge makes no sense (plot-wise, we could always think the credentials might be phony or he might be a crooked cop. Screen writing 101). And how about the big twist? Don't tell me you didn't see that coming from 200 miles away...

I feel sorry for poor old Alec Guinness and his useless stock footage cameo. Now I think about this, what's the point in giving him a \"Mystery Guest Star\" credit... in the END titles? The movie's over, there's no mystery anymore, and everybody and their brother have identified Guinness (even non-movie buffs will recognize \"the old guy from 'Star Wars'\"). Yet better off this way, so we can pretend it's not the late great actor.

People keep comparing this to, of all people, Hitchcock. I suppose it has to be John Hitchcock the milkman, as the late Sir Alfred would feel embarrassed out of watching this, let alone making it. And this gets a 6.8\/10???? It's Bottom 100 material! But then, we're talking a rating system that allows 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' to appear as the third best movie ever made (check Top 100), so...

2\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An obscure horror show filmed in the Everglades. Two couples stay overnight in a cabin after being made a little uneasy by the unfriendliness of the locals. Who, or what, are the Blood Stalkers? After awhile they find out. Watch for the character of the village idiot who clucks like a chicken, he certainly is weird.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is about a couple that decides to take a vacation to The Everglades along with another couple and the family dog. When they first get there, they are not welcomed by the neighboring gas attendant that warms them to stay away from the cabin in which they are to spend the night at for the week. After pestering with the old man, three hillbillys also do not take kindly to their arrival as they approach their car and threaten them to leave. After asking some of the local dummies that can't speak or just don't want to answer, they finaly find the cabin. After they settle in, strange things happen to the visitors including discovering crap on their car, the man thats the head of this trip thats an idiot shoots the family dog thinking it was a killer clawing at the door and a series of deaths later on in the end. Adding a church group did not make the story any better. Then at the end, the idiot that survives the whole ordeal goes around the town carrying a shot gun. Lame. thats what this movie is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Talented screenwriter Alvin Sargent sadly cannot get any engaging ideas cooking in this artificial trifle about a wayward mother and her mature teenage daughter trying to make their lives work in Los Angeles despite mom's flighty behavior. Apart from several good sequences, I didn't quite buy Susan Sarandon as a flake (she's too intrinsically smart and focused to be passed off as this devil-may-care lady), and her naturally grounded personality is a bad fit for the role of an irresponsible parent. Natalie Portman fares much better as her kid, and yet there's a creepy aloofness to her work (and some of her scenes, such as the one where she asks a boy to strip, are misguided and uncomfortable to watch). Certainly not an incompetent piece, \"Anywhere But Here\" does have moments that work, but it isn't an embraceable film, nor has it proved to be an important one. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An Italian\/American co-production co-starring Linda Blair and David 'The Hoff' Hasselhoff: how could any fan of trashy horror resist such a treat?

Well, based on the uneventful, extremely tedious, and utterly nonsensical first forty minutes or so, I would have said 'very easily'; thankfully, however, things do eventually get a tad more entertaining with the introduction of several inventive death scenes, and for those lucky enough to find an uncut copy, a smattering of nudity too (unfortunately, my copy was optically edited to remove such offensive material).

The Hoff stars as Gary, a photographer who accompanies his beautiful girlfriend Leslie (Leslie Cumming) to a run-down hotel on a seemingly deserted island in order to take pictures for her latest project, a book about witches; whilst there, frustrated Gary also hopes to try and cure a bad case of blue balls by relieving Leslie of her virginity.

His plans for nookie are scuppered, however, by the unexpected arrival of property developers Freddie and Rose Brooks (Robert Champagne and Annie Ross), their pregnant daughter Jane (Blair), son Tommy (Michael Manchester), pretty nymphomaniac architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland), and estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who have come to inspect the island's hotel.

After explaining their unexpected presence on the island, Gary and Leslie are welcomed by the property's new owners, and when a violent storm suddenly picks up, making it perilous to return to the mainland, everyone agrees to spend the night in the old building. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the hotel's new guests, the place is also home to the spirit of an evil witch (Hildegard Knef), who requires human sacrifices in order to bring herself back to life. One by one, victims are pulled into a swirling red vortex (which is guaranteed to provide unintentional laughs), before meeting a terrible fate.

None of this makes much sense, and the acting is atrocious (Manchester as Tommy is particularly bad, whilst Hasselhoff proves to be one of the better performers, which speaks volumes about the others), but those viewers who make it past the dreary first half are rewarded with some pretty decent moments of gore: Rose has her lips sewn together, before being roasted alive in a fireplace; Jerry is crucified and burnt alive; Linda is tortured by hags and impaled on a swordfish(!!); Freddie's veins pulsate and erupt in geysers of blood; and Gary gets stabbed in the back.

Oh, and Leslie is raped by a guy with no lips and Blair gets possessed (again).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh my... bad clothing, worse synth music and the worst: David Hasselhoff. The 80's are back with vengeance in Witchery, an American-Italian co-production, helmed by infamous Joe 'D'Amato on the production side and short-careered director (thank heavens for small miracles) Fabrizio Laurenti directing . Marketed as a kind of sequel to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series in Italy (that was dubbed \"La Casa\" in there), Witchery delivers some modest gore groceries and bad acting.

A mix of ghost story, possessions and witchcraft, the film bounces clueless from scene to another without letting some seriously wooden actors and hilarious day and night mix-ups slow it's progress to expectable ending, topped with some serious WTF surprise climax. (I just love the look on her face...) Surprisingly Laurenti manages to gather some suspense and air of malice in few - very few - scenes; unluckily for him, these few glimpses of mild movie magic go down quickly and effectively.

The plus sides are experienced, when the gore hits the fan. This department is quite effective and entertaining in that classic latex and red paint style of the 80's Italo-gore, when things were made 100% hand-made and as shockingly and vivid as modest budgets could allow. I could only watch with sadistic glee and few laughters all the over-the-top ways that obnoxious characters (and actors) got mangled and misused, one by one. I only felt sorry for Linda Blair, who apparently haven't been let to try any other than that good old possessed girl \/ woman role ever in his career, or so it looks like when checking out his filmography.

Well, folks - not much more to tell, and even less to tell home about. Don't expect too much when spending some rainy afternoon with this, and probably you'll experience at least some mild fun. It also helps if your rotten little heart pounds in the beat of 80's euro gore horror. And speaking of hearts - every movie that has David Hasselhoff getting skewered by a sizeable metal object and bleeding heavily around the room and corridors, MUST have it's one on the right place.

This is my truth - what is yours?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are many different versions of this one floating around, so make sure you can locate one of the unrated copies, otherwise some gore and one scene of nudity might be missing. Some versions also omit most of the opening sequence and other bits here and there. The cut I saw has the on-screen title WITCHCRAFT: EVIL ENCOUNTERS and was released by Shriek Show, who maintain the original US release title WITCHERY for the DVD release. It's a nice-looking print and seems to have all of the footage, but has some cropping\/aspect ratio issues. In Italy, it was released as LA CASA 4 (WITCHCRAFT). The first two LA CASA releases were actually the first two EVIL DEAD films (retitled) and the third LA CASA was another film by the same production company (Filmirage), which is best known here in America as GHOSTHOUSE. To make matters even more confusing, WITCHERY was also released elsewhere as GHOSTHOUSE 2. Except in Germany, where GHOSTHOUSE 2 is actually THE OGRE: DEMONS 3. OK, I better just shut up now. I'm starting to confuse myself!

Regardless of the title, this is a very hit-or-miss horror effort. Some of it is good, some of it isn't. I actually was into this film for the first half or so, but toward the end it became a senseless mess. A large, vacant hotel located on an island about 50 miles from Boston is the setting, as various people get picked off one-by-one by a German- speaking witch (Hildegard Knef). Photographer Gary (David Hasselhoff), who wants to capture \"Witch Light,\" and his virginal writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming), who is studying witchcraft, are shacking up at the hotel without permission. Along comes real estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who's showing off the property to potential buyers Rose (Annie Ross) and Freddie (Robert Champagne) Brooks. Also tagging along are their children; pregnant grown daughter Jane (Linda Blair) and very young son Tommy (Michael Manchester), as well as oversexed architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland - Hasselhoff's wife at the time). Once everyone is inside, their boat driver is killed (hung) and the boat disappears, so they find themselves trapped and basically at the mercy of the \"Lady in Black.\"

So what can you expect to find here? Plenty of unpleasantries! One of the characters has their lips sewn shut and is then hung upside down in the fireplace and accidentally slow-roasted by the rest of the cast. There's also a crucifixion, witches eating a dead baby, a swordfish through the head, someone set on fire, a possession, a Sesame Street tape recorder, the virgin getting raped by some demon, a guys veins bulging and exploding thanks to voodoo doll pokes and some other stuff. From a technical standpoint, it's a nice-looking film with pretty good cinematography, a decent score and good gore effects. The hotel\/island setting is also pretty nice. Blair (particularly at the end) and Ross both seem like they're having fun and Knef is great as the evil witch. Even though people like to ridicule Hasselhoff these days, he's not bad in his role, either.

On the down side, despite all the gore, the film seems somewhat dull and it gets monotonous after about an hour. The supernatural themes are muddled and confusing, too. When characters are being swept into the witches lair to be tortured and killed, the filmmakers unwisely decided to superimpose the screaming actors over some silly looking red spiral vortex effect that looks supremely cheesy. And the witch lair itself is vacant and cheaply designed with unfinished lumber. And while most of the cast is at least decent, a few of the performances (particularly the \"actress\" who plays Hasselhoff's girlfriend and the kid) are so bad they're constantly distracting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Witchcraft\/Witchery\/La Casa 4\/ and whatever else you wish to call it. How about..Crud.

A gathering of people at a Massachusetts island resort are besieged by the black magic powers of an evil witch killing each individual using cruel, torturous methods. Photographer Gary(David Hasselhoff)is taking pictures for Linda(Catherine Hickland whose voice and demeanor resemble EE-YOR of the Winnie the Poo cartoon), a virgin studying witchcraft, on the island resort without permission. Rose Brooks(Annie Ross, portraying an incredibly rude bitch)is interested in perhaps purchasing the resort and, along with husband Freddie(Robert Champagne, who is always ogling other women much younger than him), pregnant daughter Jane(Linda Blair)and grandson Tommy(Michael Manchester, who just looks bored throughout, probably wanting to watch Sesame Street instead of starring in this rubbish), go by boat to the resort being treated to a look at the property by Realtor Tony Giordano's son Jerry(Rick Farnsworth), obviously a pup in the business getting his feet wet. Along with these folks is architect Leslie(Leslie Cumming, whose character is a nympho)who might help Rose re-design the resort. The boat's captain is killed by The Lady in Black(Hildegard Knef, wearing her make-up and lip-stick extra thick)and a storm is brewing. The boat drives off by itself(..guided by the invisible power of The Lady in Black, I guess)with everyone stuck in the decrepit resort, which is in dire need of repairs. Most of the victims, before meeting their grisly fates are carried through a type of red wormhole whose vortex leads to another dimension(..perhaps a type of hell or something)where they are tortured by these fiends dressed in raggedy clothes with a crummy visage. One victim has her mouth sown before being hung upside down in a chimney, roasted as the others light the fireplace. One poor soul is tortured by harsh twistings of rope wrapped tightly around her flesh before being found hanging from the snout of a swordfish penetrating through her neck. One fellow is slowly suffocating as his veins bulge(..and bleed) and neck's blood vessels burst squirting in Hasselhoff's face! One fellow is crucified with nails hammered into his hands before being hung upside down over an open flame. Blair's pregnant victim becomes possessed with her hair standing on end speaking in another woman's voice. One is raped by this demonic man with a \"diseased\" mouth as the hellish hobos stand nearby gleefully cheering. The film, despite it's excesses, is mostly dull fodder for those who really wish to see the lowest point in the careers of Hasselhoff and Blair, who deserve better than this. Almost unbearable at times, building little-to-no suspense. Clumsy execution of the death sequences which look cheap and laughable. Sure some gore is okay, but most of the film shows victims after they've been run through the ringer. We do get a chance to see pregnant women(..who look exactly like stuntmen in costume with bad wigs) jumping out three story windows. Oh, and The Lady in Black's reflected face often pops up on inanimate objects for characters to see. Tommy has a little Sesame Street recorder which tapes The Lady in Black's mumbo jumbo chants, obviously used for later. For some reason, The Lady in Black likes to visit little Tommy. He's not at all scared of her, for Tommy's just too bored to show any expression on his face, much less fear. Need I say more? This one's a real stinker. Ugh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Witchery\" might just be the most incoherent and lamentably scripted horror movie of the 80's but, luckily enough, it has a few compensating qualities like fantastic gore effects, an exhilarating musical score and some terrific casting choices. Honestly the screenplay doesn't make one iota of sense, but who cares when Linda Blair (with an exploded hairstyle) portrays yet another girl possessed by evil powers and David Hasselhof depicts a hunky photographer (who can't seem to get laid) in a movie that constantly features bloody voodoo, sewn-shut lips, upside down crucifixions, vicious burnings and an overused but genuinely creepy tune. Eight random people are gathered together on an abandoned vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts. The young couple is there to investigate the place's dark history; the dysfunctional family (with a pregnant Linda Blair even though nobody seems to bother about who the father is and what his whereabouts are) considers re-opening the hotel and the yummy female architect simply tagged along for casual sex. They're forced to stay the night in the ramshackle hotel and then suddenly the previous landlady \u0096 an aging actress or something who always dresses in black \u0096 starts taking them out in various engrossing ways. Everything is somehow related to the intro sequence showing a woman accused of witchery jump out of a window. Anyway, the plot is definitely of minor importance in an Italian horror franchise that started as an unofficial spin-off of \"The Evil Dead\". The atmosphere is occasionally unsettling and the make-up effects are undoubtedly the most superior element of the entire film. There's something supremely morbid and unsettling about staring at a defenseless woman hanging upside down a chimney and waiting to get fried.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Witchy Hildegard Knef traps a group of people in an isolated hotel and picks them off one by one in twisted, disgusting ways. I thought I'd seen it all until one unfortunate man here is crucified and then has his head set on fire. Hildy is quite the prankster too: she takes a nagging harpy and sews her mouth shut...then hangs her upside down in the chimney just in time for a roaring fire! \"Witchery\" made me sick. It made my eyes hurt. I was ready to write it off as the worst movie ever-ever-ever made by otherwise competent people...until the finale. I have to admit I loved the ending. It involves a boy and his toy tape-recorder cornered by Linda Blair looking fantastically possessed. The scene only lasts for about a minute and the movie's over, but you know that old saying: \"If you've got a great ending, people will forgive you for just about anything!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A really very bad movie, with a very few good moments or qualities.

It starts off with pregnant Linda Blair, who runs down a hallways to flee what might be monsters or people with pitchforks, I'm not sure. She jumps through a window and wakes up, and we see she is very pregnant. The degree to which she is pregnant varies widely throughout the movie.

She and an annoying and possibly retarded little boy who I thought was her son travel to an abandoned hotel on an island. Italian horror directors find the most irritating little boys to put in their movies! On the island already are David Hasselhoff and his German-speaking virgin girlfriend (you know how Germans are said to love Hasselhoff...). He's taking photographs, and she's translating an esoteric German book about witches, I think.

Also traveling to the island are an older couple who have purchased it, and a real estate agent, and a woman I thought was their daughter. Evidently she was an architect, and Linda Blair and the boy are the older couple's children. I guess they all traveled to the island together, but it really seemed like Linda and the boy were apart from the rest of them (maybe they were filmed separately).

The hotel seems neat, certainly from the exteriors, but it isn't used to any great effect. An old woman in bad makeup and a black cloak keeps appearing to the boy and chants something in German sometimes, which he eventually records on his Sesame Street tape recorder.

People start getting killed, either in their dreams, or sucked into hell or something. Some of these gore scenes are OK, but not enough to recommend the movie. Though the copy I watched stated it is uncut on the box cover, the death of one character whose veins explode really seems to have been cut. Much of the scene is showing another character's reaction shots, since we're not seeing anything ourselves. The creepiest scene is one in which a man or demon with a really messy-looking wound of a mouth rapes someone. He looked particularly nasty. There's a laughably and painfully bad scene in which Linda Blair is possessed. I wish if a horror movie is going to cast her, they would do something original with her role, and let her leave Exorcist behind her (except for the yearly horror conventions).

In the weird, largely Italian, tradition of claiming to be a sequel to something it is unrelated to, this is also AKA La Casa 4 and Ghosthouse 2. That is, it is supposedly a sequel to Casa 3 - Ghosthouse, La (1988) - it's not (that's also a better movie than this one). La Casa 1 and two were The Evil Dead (1981) and Evil Dead II (1987) - again unrelated to Witchery and La Casa 3 (and much better than those). There's also a Casa 5, La (1990) AKA House 5, which seems to want to be a sequel to the fake La Casa series and the series House: House (1986) House II: The Second Story (1987), The Horror Show (1989) AKA House III, and House IV (1992). How's The Horror Show fit in there? It doesn't really, it claimed to be a sequel, thus requiring the real series entry to renumber itself to cause less (or more?) confusion. Oddly, The Horror Show is also AKA Horror House, and La Casa 5 is also AKA Horror House 2. Does your head hurt yet?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film features two of my favorite guilty pleasures. Sure, the effects are laughable, the story confused, but just watching Hasselhoff in his Knight Rider days is always fun. I especially like the old hotel they used to shoot this in, it added to what little suspense was mustered. Give it a 3.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie purely for the setting. It was filmed in an old hotel that a friend owns shares of. The plot was predictable, the acting was mediorcre at best, the scares were all gross-outs, not true scares.

I don't remember much of the plot, and I think that's because there wasn't much of one to remember. They didn't even use the hotel to it's fullest potential...The beaches are fantastic and the hotel is situated on a peninsula. At low tide, you can walk almost 1\/4 mile into the bay, which is actually an eerie sight first thing in the morning or late at night when the wind is howling through the cracks.

The best way to see this movie is with the remote in your hand so you can fast forward through the action (and I'm using that term loosly)scenes and pause at the beauty of the surroundings!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This only gets bashed because it stars David Hasselhoff. Well, then let me bash it to. Compared to the garbage they call horror coming out nowadays, this film isn't too bad. It has the beautiful Leslie Cumming. She is super hot, but can't talk very well. There is a great scene with her when she is supernaturally raped. She shows off her nice body. Linda Blair does nothing here as well as Hasselhoff. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We brought this film as a joke for a friend, and could of been our worst joke to play. The film is barely watchable, and the acting is dire. The worst child actor ever used and Hasslehoff giving a substandard performance. The plot is disgraceful and at points we was so bored we was wondering what the hell was going on. It tries to be gruesome in places but is just laughable.

Just terrible","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Humm, an Italian movie starred by David hasselhoff and Linda Blair, I wasn\u00b4t expecting very much, to be honest and in fact, I took even less than I was expecting. It doesn\u00b4t mean this movie is the worst I have seen because I have watched worse things than this but the plot was most of the times confusing and uninteresting and some good gore scenes are the only thing saving this. Apart from that you are going to love some special effects, they are really cheesy and bad. Now I only want to watch \"Troll 3\" by this same director, sure it is not going to be worse than that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I and a friend rented this movie. We both found the movie soundtrack and production techniques to be lagging. The movie's plot appeared to drag on throughout with little surprise in the ending. We both agreed that the movie could have been compressed into roughly an hour giving it more suspense and moving plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm gettin' sick of movies that sound entertaining in a one-line synopsis then end up being equal to what you'd find in the bottom center of a compost heap.

Who knows: \"Witchery\" may have sounded interesting in a pitch to the studios, even with a \"big name cast\" (like Blair and Hasselhoff - wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and the effervescent likes of Hildegard Knef (I dunno, some woman...).

But on film, it just falls apart faster than a papier-mache sculpture in a rainstorm. Seems these unfortunate folks are trapped in an island mansion off the Eastern seaboard, and one of them (a woman, I'd guess) is being targeted by a satanic cult to bear the child of hell while the others are offed in grotesque, tortuous ways.

Okay, right there you have a cross-section of plots from \"The Exorcist\", \"The Omen\", \"Ten Little Indians\" and a few other lesser movies in the satanic-worshippers-run-amok line. None of it is very entertaining and for the most part, you'll cringe your way from scene to scene until it's over.

No, not even Linda Blair and David Hasselhoff help matters much. They're just in it to pick up a paycheck and don't seem very intent on giving it their \"all\".

From the looks of it, Hasselhoff probably wishes he were back on the beack with Pam Anderson (and who can blame him?) and Linda... well, who knows; a celebrity PETA benefit or pro-am golf tour or whatever it is she's in to nowadays.

And the torture scenes! Ecchhhh. You'll see people get their mouths sewn shut, dangled up inside roaring fireplaces, strung up in trees during a violent storm, vessels bursting out of their necks, etc, etc. Sheesh, and I thought \"Mark of the Devil\" was the most sadistic movie I'd seen....

Don't bother. It's not worth your time. I can't believe I told you as much as I did. If you do watch it, just see if you can count the cliches. And yes, Blair gets possessed, as if you didn't see THAT coming down Main Street followed by a marching band.

No stars. \"Witchery\" - these witches will give you itches.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not like I went in expecting a lot out of it, but I was at least hoping for a fun dumb big budget movie. This isn't even that. This item ranks in the bottom half of all the vampire movies I've ever seen (and believe me, I've seen a lot of them). Bad acting, zero characterization, little to no thought, almost non-existent plot (and that that's there you can drive semi-trucks through the holes in). Sure, it has action and is loud, and has more action, and more noise, and blood, and action... These things alone do not make a good (or even halfway decent) movie. Beats me how some people can say this is the best vampire movie ever made--all I can assume is they haven't seen many. I suggest seeing Near Dark instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That snarl...

That scowl...

The acts of random violence...

The gutteral voice...

The fetish wear...

That shaven head...

It can mean only one thing...

GRACE JONES IS BACK!

Actually my sources tell me that the title role in Blade wasn't played by the 1980s diva, but by Wesley Snipes.

All in all this is not an improvement.

Blade is an adaptation of a comic character; somehow in the transfer from the simplistic, two-dimensional world of the printed page it has become even more simplistic and lost a couple of dimensions.

The plot is hackneyed almost beyond belief and adds nothing to the vampire genre, in fact, much like Nosferatu, it seems to suck the life out of the audience. In brief, upwardly mobile vampire wants to become more powerful but is opposed by Blade, half-human, half-vampire, all annoying. It all climaxes with Blade being put in a vampire juice press, some bad martial arts and the most pitiful CGI since 1968.

Blade has to be the least empathic character since Dolph Lundgren's Punisher (also a comic adaptation, perhaps there is a trend here?). Surely the audience is meant to be on the same side as the 'hero'? And whilst a vampire can be a tragic character, this is not true of Blade, he is relentlessly cruel, scornful and not a whole lot better than the bad guys.

I assume that Wesley Snipes has an 'acting' career purely so that everyone else can be compared favourably. As he snarls his way through his movie you find yourself looking for a stake - even a ballpoint pen - anything to put Blade in the grave.

As a piece of narcissism, Blade is pretty much unbeatable - we are treated to endless lingering shots of a gym-fresh Snipes for no reason whatsoever. Likewise no other actor is allowed any chance to give a reasonable performance; the likes of Steven Dorff *CAN* act, but they have to play second fiddle to Snipes' tedious performance.

Kris Kristofferson used to appear in good movies, here he is reduced to a sidekick that you just know isn't going to make it through to the final reel. And what happens when Blade finds out? Yes, you guessed it, he rushes to the scene to wreak his revenge in the villain's giant underground lair.

Why can't world-domination take place in a quiet country house? They always go ahead in underground cathedrals that would have had Albert Speer wondering if they were a little grandiose. A lot of these plans could be stopped right now if local councils paid more attention to plans for extending sub-basements.

The rest of the movie is just as dull and unimaginative with nothing new to add to the genre. Vampires have been done to undeath and perhaps they should be laid to rest for a while - at least until someone can think of some way to make them interesting again.

To finish, there *IS* a Grace Jones vampire movie, it's called Vamp and it's about ten times better than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"generally speaking I don't make negative comments on here. But since this is a festival piece, I don't want you to waste your time when you could see something else that might not be playing again.

I thought the actors were pretty bad. For instance, they totally didn't play off each other, rather, they waited to RECITE their lines which were pretty poor to begin with. The dialogue sounded really forced. Norman or whatever his name tried, or so it would appear, to be witty and biting in the lines he chose but just fell really short.

After words he asked if anyone saw the ending coming and some people were all \"yea\", and he all but called them liars. Look there were so many clues, the biggest being a briefcase full of cash for a $500 an hour whore. I mean the john gave her at least 20g's... tell tale sign. Now no you couldn't see exactly what was going to happen but by the time the twist actually occurred, I for one, didn't even care. I was just glad to get out of there. I asked him which draft he shot and he said 8.1, maybe next time he will wait to shoot 'til 15.3 cause this needed a lot of work.

But he seemed like a fairly nice guy, he is making his own films, he'll probably get better and I hope he does, not in a snotty way either, I mean it, I wish him luck. Just remember, this is just my opinion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show should be titled, \"When Bad Writing Happens To Good Actors\" considering most of the players have demonstrated immense talent in other venues, e.g. Andre Braugher in Homicide: Life on the Street and David Morse in St. Elsewhere. I'm hoping that the frenetic pacing of the show is adjusted as the series develops along with the obvious cliches and dialogue so absurd I wondered just how stupid the writers imagined the core audience to be. We're beat over the head with the main points of this show instead of being left to gradually figure it out, almost as if the writers feel that they must spell out that the main character is some sort of avenging angel, sentenced to redeem himself from sins, both venial and mortal, via butting into his cab fares many affairs. Watching the premiere required much suspension of disbelief, that Mike Olshanskey's fares would so rapidly spill their guts and he would feel driven to intervene in the lives of utter strangers. That he possesses those \"Super-Cop\" abilities, to be all things to all people, weapons expert, martial arts master, psychologist, father-confessor, locksmith, and so on, ad infinitum. Pure drivelesque fantasy. What is it about recent televisions shows based in Philidelphia that they all seem to be imbued with a nasty ex-wife and a very disrepectfully bratty child? Overdone. I wanted to like this show, really I did, because it had the virtue of having a premise slightly different than many of the clones appearing in this season's fare and it stars some of my preferred actors. But I'm afraid this is just another possibly good idea ruined by careless execution.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought maybe... maybe this could be good. An early appearance by the Re-Animator (Jeffery Combs); many homage's to old horror movies; the Troma label on the front\u0085 this movie could be a gem! I thought wrong.

Frightmare is a boring, overplayed, half assed homage to the fright films of yore. The story is an old one, young people breaking into a house, getting drunk, making love, and tampering with things that shouldn't be tampered with. The oft \u0096 recycled slasher film formula is used here, this time with a thought to be dead actor named Conrad Radzoff doing the killing. In fact, the performance by the Radzoff's actor Ferdy Mayne is the only redeeming quality of this film. He does the snooty Dracula style character very well. But as for the kids, its not so good, with Combs only having a minimal part.

The film lacks entertainment value, and only features one cool character, and one or two scenes that can hold your attention. I do not recommend this film unless you are desperate for something to watch, and this is the only movie left at blockbuster.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1983's \"Frightmare\" is an odd little film. The director seems to be trying to combine the atmosphere of classic '30s\/'40s style horror movies with the shock factor of the then-exploding '80s slasher genre. It isn't totally successful (mostly due to very obvious budgetary restraints, and the less-than-professional caliber of its cast of young actors) but it still has its moments, mostly due to the classy performance (classier than the movie deserves) by the late German actor Ferdinand Mayne, who plays an aging old time horror movie star (ala Vincent Price) named \"Conrad Ratzoff.\" At the beginning of the movie we meet the has-been horror star as he's shooting a commercial for dentures and we quickly learn that ol' Conrad is a bit of a hoity-toity, prima donna jerk-off. Just when you think he couldn't be any more un-likable, the commercial director berates Conrad for blowing a take for the umpteenth time and the old goat pushes him off a balcony to his death. Nice, huh? Conrad then visits some fans at a college campus horror movie club, unfortunately he suffers a heart attack in the middle of his speech to them and eventually ends up back at his mansion waiting to die. Still feisty even at Death's door, he manages to do away with a despised business associate by smothering him with a pillow before he finally kicks the bucket himself. Conrad is then laid to rest in true Hollywood style in a high tech neon tomb with video screens above the casket, which will play personal video messages from Conrad himself for visitors who enter to pay their respects.

It is at this point that the kids from the college Horror Movie Society decide to pay Conrad's grave an after hours visit, breaking into the tomb and taking his body back home with them for an all night party. (Not exactly my idea of fun, but hey, these are characters in an '80s horror film. Logic has no place here.) The college kids spend the evening having dinner with Conrad's body seated in a place of honor, posing for photos with it and even dancing around the room with it, before parking Conrad and his coffin in the attic, planning to return him to his crypt in the morning. In the meantime, Mrs. Ratzoff, distraught over the theft of her husband's body, has called in a psychic friend to try and \"reach\" Conrad through a seance. You can pretty much figure out the rest from here. Since Conrad wasn't a very nice guy in life, it's not much of a stretch to assume that he won't be any friendlier in death. Psychic Lady makes contact with Conrad and he re-awakens in predictably ticked off fashion, then spends the rest of the movie strolling around the corridors of the students' ridiculously huge house, picking off the young grave robbers one by one. This is where the movie falls apart. Endless scenes of teens wandering around empty hallways saying \"Hello? Is anyone there?\" are intercut with occasional bursts of violence (we do get a pretty gnarly decapitation scene, which is the highlight of the movie) before the last two survivors finally figure out (WAY later than any semi-intelligent people would have figured out the same thing...but again, we're in an '80s horror film!) that the only way to stop the mayhem is to get Conrad's body back to its crypt where it belongs. The sluggish pacing is padded out with a lot of weird lighting and dry ice fog effects backed by a soundtrack made up almost entirely of sound effects rather than music(thunder, moans and groans, howls, etc.) that becomes severely annoying after a while.

I can't really recommend \"Frightmare\" to anyone who didn't grow up watching cheap movies like this on late night cable back in the '80s. \"Modern Horror\" fans will doubtlessly find \"Frightmare\" incredibly slow moving and goofy. If you came of age in that magical decade, however, you may get a blast of nostalgia from \"Frightmare.\" Fans of Jeffrey (\"Re-Animator\") Combs may also want to check it out, as the future Dr. West appears in an early role here as one of the unlucky film students.

I will advise the reader to avoid the version of this film on the EastWestDVD label (paired with Roy Ward's \"Vault of Horror\" and sold at dollar stores) because the print quality is terrible. I'm told the film has gotten a deluxe release via the fine folks at Troma, which seems appropriate. If you're a Troma kind of person then \"Frightmare\" will be right up your alley.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't get it! The teenage leads in \"Horror Star\" supposedly all are devoted horror fans, yet when their favorite idol (Conrad Radzoff) passes away, they dig up his corpse and do all sorts of disrespectful stuff with it, like disco-dancing it around the house and throw food leftovers at it. That doesn't sound like something real horror fans would do, now does it? I'm a big horror fan and I immensely idolize departed icons like Vincent Price, Peter Cushing and Boris Karloff, but it would never come to my mind to ridicule their memory. No wonder Conrad comes back from the dead \u0096 admittedly, after a s\u00e9ance \u0096 to wipe them all off the face of the earth! Mr. Radzoff already wasn't known for his friendliness in life, since he occasionally killed the directors that disagreed with his visions, and even after his death he suffers from a tremendous ego. Even inside his tomb there are video messages to petrify possible visitors and the group of teenagers will vividly experience that he also enjoys the murdering business outside his film sets. \"Horror Star\" (a.k.a. \"Frightmare\" and \"Body Snatchers\") is a pretty lame 80's horror flick, but there are a handful of cheesy & gory highlights to enjoy. The film mainly suffers from its own stupid plot, since no one \u0096 not even a film school student \u0096 is stupid enough to steal a recently buried corpse and actually think he'll get away with it, and there are too many tedious moments to struggle through. Conrad's video-speeches from beyond the grave are overly talkative and definitely undermine the tension, but on the other hand his killing methods are pleasingly inventive. One teenager enjoys the experience of getting cremated alive and another one (Jeffrey Combs in one of his first roles!) loses his head in a delightful decapitation sequence. In the absolute messiest sequence, a poor girl' head is crushed by a coffin. Writer\/director Norman Thaddeus Vane wanted to bring homage to vintage horror cinema and he obviously how to make film look sinister. The locations and scenery are great, but Vane lacked the necessary funds to provide his film with a proper continuity and editing-job. The acting performances are overall decent, with Ferdy Mayne (imitating Christopher Lee) and Jeffrey Combs delivering the most memorable roles. \"Horror Star\" can hardly be called a must-see or even a good film, but it's worth tracking down in case you're an admirer of enthusiastically made B-horror.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Conrad Radzoff(Ferdy Mayne), a hammy cult icon, dies from a heart ailment(not before disposing of an ungrateful assistant and TV commercial director, both of whom disrespected him with showers of insults). His body is removed from his mausoleum by some film students(they wish to \"invite him to dinner\"..they are quite big fans). What these kids(..including a young Jeffrey Combs)don't expect is that Radzoff will be resurrected by a medium to wreak havoc on those who removed him from his place of rest.

The list of violent acts include Radzoff pulling one guy's tongue out, setting a woman on fire, elevating a casket which crushes a woman's face, decapitates one fellow, and cremates another guy alive in a coffin. A really weird soundtrack and pesky fog wraps around Radzoff's ghoulish activities.

Silly hokum from Troma is limited by a very, very low budget and slowwwwww pace. The film feels a lot longer than it is. The film isn't really that gory and we can hardly see much violence because the film is often too damn dark. At times, Radzoff is an ominous presence, yet at other times he just looks real silly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the last surviving horror screen greats - Conrad Radzoff - dies and has his body placed in a mausoleum with televised-before-death snippets of the great Conrad greeting you as you visit. Unfortunately for him and his captors, Conrad's body is \"borrowed\" by a gang of four boys and three girls and taken to a huge manor where they drink with him, toast him, dance with him, laugh with and at him, and then put him to bed in a casket which just happens to by lying in a room upstairs. News of the missing body reaches Radzoff's widow and her friend(who happens to be proficient in the black arts) and she holds some kind of ceremony that brings Conrad back to life so he can, in his own words, get \"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.\" Well, Frightmare is an interesting \"bad\" film. Sure, it is cheap. The sets look like they were borrowed(which I am sure they were). The special effects and blood and guts are done liberally and with little credibility. The acting is average to below average with a few exceptions. Jeffrey Combs of Re-Animator fame is in tow, but really he does little in this rather thankless role as a horror obsessed teen that needs to steal a dead man's body for kicks. None of the \"kids\" except the pretty girl playing Meg is any good. Nita Talbot plays the \"friend\" of the Radzoffs with withering interest. Also, look for the big - I mean big - guy that plays the policeman. That is Porky himself of Porkys fame. But thankfully for all of us, one performance does rise above the material. Ferdy Mayne, an oft overlooked actor from Germany who had Christopher Lee features and did star as a vampire in The Fearless Vampire Killers, does a more than commendable job as the aging horror icon in public life and a real demon of a man in private life. Conrad Radzoff in a bad human being in life, living solely for his own pleasures and we see him kill twice before he is even dead(obviously none of the swinging teens at that point). Mayne is able to look very regal, speak very elegantly, and convey menace with ease. If for no other reason, one should see Frightmare for his performance. I do; however, believe that when they showed black and white clips of Radzoff that they used Christopher Lee footage(anyone have any thoughts?). Anyway, one can guess what happens and it does indeed: Radzoff goes out and goes after the kids that disturbed his peace. Again, the formula is trite and overused. The acting for the most part is anemic, and the direction oh so ridiculous. But Mayne gives a good performance in a sea of ineptitude. Definitely worth a little peek. Watching Mayne keep popping up on screens in his mausoleum brought a wry smile to my lips each time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My parents used to rent a lot of horror movies when I was a child. We loved watching them even when they were bad they made for some enjoyment. This was one such movie, kind of hard to review as I have only seen it the one time as a child, but it is not anything I want to track down again so I can do a more in-depth review. The story has some old horror actor legend dying. I seem to remember he acted a bit like an over the top Vincent Price, without being likable and classy. He commits murders and dies, but what is this? Is the movie over already? No, as some kids for some reason snag the body and are prepared for a fun night of being killed by the ham from beyond the grave. I remember the murders were nothing all that special after the first couple and I remember this movie was rather disappointing. Seemed to have a good premise, but it just failed to deliver the goods as more cool kills were needed and that super horror actor needed to add a bit to his repertoire.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Frightmare begins with a horror movie icon killing a director and then his servant before he is laid to rest. This icon, who has some Christopher Lee qualities to him, then continues to haunt those around him when a group of horror film society students steal his corpse from the mausoleum he is in.

The first ten minutes is well-filmed, good writing and lots of potential for murderous mayhem. But the film drags in the middle (although thankfully not as much as \"House of Death\") and never really gets that initial spurt of energy back.

Lots of the deaths are confusing, as they seem to have people just falling over scared when they see a floating coffin or other odd things. Twice we see poisonous gas being used. But the box promises that this horror star will be the embodiment of all the monsters he has played. Boy, is that false advertising, unless he spent his career playing boring old men who take naps and watch \"Matlock\".

The general principle of the film is decent: horror society kids stealing a corpse of a dead icon. A modern equivalent (digging up Vincent Price or Peter Cushing) would make a great film. Maybe a remake is in order if that wouldn't be too disrespectful. Sometimes theory doesn't come across as well in application, and this film offers that example.

The only redeeming quality of this film (besides the beginning) is the brief appearance of a very young Jeffrey Combs. I saw him and thought \"that's Jeffrey Combs\" but felt I was mistaken as the box never mentioned him. But sure enough, Combs was present. (A note to this movie's film-makers: mention Combs on the cover of the DVD, you'll sell more copies if if you would be deceiving customers.) If you're a Jeffrey Combs die-hard, check out this early role. Otherwise, I cannot offer this as a great selection for a horror movie marathon. Let me suggest \"Intruder\" or \"Popcorn\", as those are both pretty decent and will stand the test of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's Saturday, it's raining, and I think every movie should have at least one comment... so I just watched \"The Crime Doctor's Courage\" all the way through. It's a murder mystery with a typical cast of characters, and a couple of the usual suspects -- each with their own possible motive for the crime. The story starts abruptly and the viewer is thrown into the plot with no character development or storytelling whatsoever. I guess that's not too surprising for a B movie of this period. There are also some moments which look and feel like this is pre-WWII, but perhaps that is due to the writer's background in radio shows.

The \"Crime Doctor\" is the sleuth who happens to be visiting California for some R&R from his psychiatry practice on the East coast. He hooks up with a mystery novelist friend with whom it is implied has been along for one or more previous mystery solving capers. The novelist occasionally fills the role of sidekick to our sleuth (AKA Dr. Watson), and also occasionally lightens things up with a bit of comic relief (sort of).

There is also a somewhat simple, but not quite bumbling police captain who at times is annoyed by the meddling sleuth. And then there are the mysterious Braggas, a brother and sister who are dance artists at a night-club. The dance is sort of an interpretive dance that happens to be one of those moments which feels more like the 30's than the 40's. Though the story location is California, the Braggas appear to live in a castle!

There was one plot element which managed to keep me somewhat amused, but I won't divulge any more than that because I always enjoy movies more when the story is discovered, rather than known in advance. (even though I can think of many, many, B films which would rate higher and it is difficult to say that watching this one is time well spent) I have not seen any other movies from the \"Crime Doctor\" series, so I can't make any comparisons.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I caught this on IFC last week and I thought it was typical of the indie short subject film: heavy on style, little on substance and originality. Does it comes as any surprise that a coming out film stars an unusually attractive (and blond to boot) boy with 70s shag hair and too-cool-for-school clothes? Plus, this film wallows in late 1970s chic, which works for some (Sofia Coppola's \"The Virgin Suicides\" comes to mind) but not for this director.

Another reviewer compared this to Harmony Korine's work and I agree. Yet I don't view this as a positive thing (what has HE done lately, anyway?). \"Bobbycrush\" is really just a waste of time and energy for all involved. If you happen to see it late night on cable, turn the channel and watch something else instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Acolytes presents an interesting mix of original concepts in \"screaming teen\" clich\u00e9 horror with a more thriller-like pacing. In some ways Acolytes is very successful, but in many other ways the film fails miserably.

Overall Acolytes avoided the typical archetypes of the naivety and innocence of youth of endless horror films in the like of Cabin Fever, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and countless other films where unsuspecting and relatively naive and innocent teenagers, have sex, run around screaming and one-by-one are plucked off by some sort of monster. Instead this innocence is replaced with pride, retaliation, and arrogance. The characters had several opportunities to save themselves from immanent death and despair, but failed to do so due to their own personal demons. In the end you were left with the feeling that there were no (and perhaps are no) innocent victims.

As the name implies, the film also touches greatly on following a leader or authority. This was used in a direct sense of if the main character would become like the serial killer and was also used less directly throughout the film. Following a central figure is a reoccurring theme throughout the film.

Through all this, the film makers also incorporated a lot of clich\u00e9, which I suspect was intentional and gave the film a unique mixture of depth as well as shallowness which I found intriguing. This, perhaps inadvertently, plays well with the characters who are, at first appearance very shallow but as the story unfolds it becomes obvious that they are, at least the two main male characters, quite complex.

Technically the film has a lot of problems however. The cinematography, which is typically regarded highly, I find rather sophomoric and over-stylized, utilizing formulaic 2\/3 approaches far too rigidly. Many transitions I felt were also over-stylized. The use of symbolism was not only vague, but also greatly over used.

The plot was poorly planned and relied exclusively on misinformation in order to achieve a rather hokey twist ending, which was poorly resolved and leaves viewers confused. Methods used to resolve the climax are cheap and ill-prepared, motivations are routinely unclear, and major plot points remain untied in the end.

Overall, the film's relative originality, themes and thesis are lost in a maze of poor technical execution, over-stylized imagery, unclear motives, obtuse and unnecessary symbolism and cheap twists maintained only by a lack of or entirely incorrect information.

If the film were better executed, it would have been excellent. However, Acolytes receives only two stars in my opinion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a decent movie for the first half. Too many cheap BOO! moments but the tension builds, the bad guys are creepy and everything seems to be setting itself up nicely. The kids are not particularly deep but hey, that works for teens.

Then it just gets ridiculous and tries way too hard- the \"why in the world would he\/they do that?\" moments overwhelm anyone's capacity for suspension of disbelief, the twist involves too many ridiculous coincidences, and the title comes from a late attempt to philosophize some meaning into the film that goes nowhere and is quickly dropped. There was laughter in the theater at moments that were in no way supposed to be funny.

Great premise but just badly written and doesn't hold together. Some very nice shots but they're hard to enjoy while you're rolling your eyes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A rather lame teen slasher from Brisbane. While the plot hinges on a fairly decent idea, the writing is profoundly lame and two of the three main teens are absurdly wooden. The problem is that for the kids to go through with their plan they have to be far more reckless than shown, but if they were that devil-may-care, it would perhaps be hard for them to be likable, so they end up being neither really. In fact, I only started enjoying the film when I started wishing for their death. One of those movies where in about a thousand places the most sensible option would be to call the police. I realise we wouldn't have a movie if they did, but it would be nice if we could believe that they actually wouldn't. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was completely bored with this film, melodramatic for no apparent reason. Every thing just becomes so serious and people are swearing with really dumb expressions. Then there is a serial Killer who apparently can Kill one person to get the title of serial Killer. Well the serial Killer likes butterflies and is illustrated by sound effects you might hear in the dream sequence of most modern films;

why oh why? I nave no idea. It really really wants to be scary, but I think in this universe scary equals talk a whole bunch and add dark ambient noises.Just for the record, this is in no way is a horror film, its most definitely a thriller (barely). Really movie makers nowadays need to do their homework before making \"horror\" films or at least calling a movie a \"horror\" film. it makes me say (in too may words ironically) \"acolytes, you take forever to say nothing.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Art-house horror tries to use unconventional aesthetics to cover the fact that this is just another serial killer chiller which ultimately relies on pornographic combinations of teen sexuality and violent gore. The suburbs come across about as well as they do in every piece of Australian writing (book or film) since 1960 - surprise surprise, the suburbs have a dark underbelly - and the plot is as contrived as any you've seen. \"The neighbours would never know about this guy,\" one of the filmmakers says about Joel Edgerton's character. \"But he was completely plausible as to what he was. Serial killers don't all have patches over their eyes and scars down their cheeks. They look like the guy next door.\" Another trader in pornographic violence who sees a serial killer in every street. But the real insignificance of this film is in the fact that it's a genre film that nobody saw. Backed by substantial funds (including some from Film Finance - that's government), this got a run at the Underground Film Festival in Melbourne and had to rely on ACMI kindness for a *very* short release season. Q1: What is the FFC doing funding genre flicks, even if they are 'arty' and aesthetically unconventional? Q2: Why are these nasty movies (ACOLYTES; BEAUTIFUL; PUNISHMENT; NO THROUGH ROAD) being made in the first place? Richard Wolstencroft & co encourage their creators to believe they're giving the masses what they really want, as opposed to what the culture elite in government funding think they want. The truth is that these brutal and forgettable nasties earn far more critical acclaim - and win far more obscure awards - than they're due.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film opens with a cult leader attempting to resurrect a dead member with his followers chanting for his rebirth as the sun strikes upon them in the desert. Reanhauer(Bill Roy)believes wholeheartedly in his power, and gets so worked up that he collapses with what appeared to be a heart attack. Unable to keep him alive, all those involved, doctors and nurses, are sentenced for attack with Reanhauer's demonic spirit invading the curvaceous body of nurse Sherri(..big-chested Jill Jacobson)targeting each one using her as a tool of vengeance. Forced against her will, with no memory of inflicting such harm, Sherri's host body murders selected victims. Fortunately, Sherri's fellow co-worker, nurse Tara(Marilyn Joi)begins a rather blossoming romance with a blinded patient, Marcus Washington(Prentiss Moulden), once a star football player, whose mother was a practitioner of voodoo. Through Marcus' knowledge, passed down from mom, Tara finds out about possession and how to possibly save Sherri before she murders everyone unknowingly. Meanwhile, Sherri's lover, Dr. Peter Desmond(Geoffrey Land)worries about her present condition and welfare.

Well, this was my first Al Adamson film and I must agree with his detractors that, just from this film alone, it seems he holds them together with paper clips and Elmer's glue. The animation with which we see the spirit take control of Sherri is beyond awful and rather laughable. A little soft-core nonsense as filler, some demonic possession thrown in the mix(Sherri actually speaks in another voice when she's possessed), with naughty nurse behavior(..the three nurses focused on in the film all are quite sexually active and free-spirited)and a little bit violence\/gore. The film is essentially shot in tiny rooms with dull dialogue from a rather mundane cast. The sexual situations aren't that hard-core and Al often shoots them without revealing all that much. The film looks embarrassingly cheap and there's an absence of thrills, although the chilling score(..which sounds like something from Dark Shadows)does help a little bit. Jacobson and Mary Kay Pass(..as nurse Beth who seems to be a nymphomaniac if she'll even screw a nutty patient, always complaining of illnesses he really doesn't have, with enough chest hair to declare him a Neanderthal)aren't bad looking, and Adamson's story-line, although frail, is somewhat coherent(..it seems he rarely directs films which are). Overall, the movie looks like it cost 5 bucks and Adamson just can not overcome the budgetary restrictions(..or, in my opinion, create an unpleasant enough atmosphere due to a sometimes plodding narrative and tedious scenes which do little for the story). John F Goff has the role of the hospital's psychiatrist who wants to commit Sherri, not believing the idea that she was possessed;he constantly bickers with Peter over her. I watched the unrated \"lost\" version which I guess is the real version to watch of Nurse Sherri.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this on VHS as \"Terror Hospital\", and when I got home I checked IMDb and was like OMG it's the legendary \"Nurse Sherri\"!!! So here's another one from Al Adamson, who had clearly learned some minuscule amount about film-making since the \"Blood of Dracula's Castle\" days. Where that earlier effort is a more or less totally sclerotic lump, this one mixes it up a little, adding a definite element of variety and surprise amid the incompetence. Sure half of the movie is a blind post-op football player shooting the breeze with his stacked nurse, but at any moment we might be cutting away to the cackling disembodied head of the satanist mastermind, or Nurse Sherri running a farmer through with a pitchfork, or a wee bit of abstract student-film quick cutting to go with the pulsing-blob effects in the possession scene, or the most gratuitously half-hearted topless bit ever, or god knows what else (I forget, to be honest). As dumb-ass pieces of sh*t go, this one runs toward the high end. Congrats, Al.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a hard film to rate. While it truly deserves its 3 (or perhaps even a two), for an Al Adamson film, it's exceptional--and practically Adamson's very best. That's because unlike many Adamson films, there are times when NURSE SHERRI almost looks competent. But, being an Adamson film, you know that sooner or later that crappiness MUST rear its ugly head!

The film begins with some bizarre cult leader of a huge congregation (six) trying to resurrect a dead guy who looks like he's made of blue cheese. However, in the process, the cult dude has a heart attack and it taken to the hospital. He apparently dies, but it also seems like many of these hospital scenes are missing and a few of them appear much later in the film. In other words, when you see the film, he appears to have possibly recovered--only to hear later that he'd died. Because the guy is the b.f.f. of Satan, however, his evil soul can't die and he comes back to both haunt one of his henchmen and to possess Nurse Sherri.

Now, Sherri is obviously a very disturbed lady--demonic possession or not. At times she acts like a zombie and at others she's violently homicidal. So I ask...\"why didn't her boyfriend (a doctor) think this was, perhaps, problematic?!\". In other words, after trying to kill a patient, he neither gets an exorcist nor commits her to the booby hatch!!! Oh, and speaking of boobies...this movie is NOT the breast-filled sex romp its title and posters would indicate. While there are a few bare breasts here and there, they are irrelevant to the plot and only seen very briefly (1\/2 second or so) in all but one scene. So, if you are a perv, this movie is not for you--though a few places in the film (such as the nurse undressing for a patient) make it look like the film MIGHT have, at one time, been designed as a porn flick.

If you are a bad movie fan, however, there is enough to whet your appetite. Some examples of incompetence are the inability of many of the actors to deliver lines that aren't zombie-like--and I am not even talking about Sherri. Especially noticeable is one of the very final scenes--I have never seen and heard some stilted acting and dialog in my life--and this includes Ed Wood's films! There are also a few more cheap touches, such as the bad animation of the \"green stuff\", the doctor finding a murdered nurse yet continuing to investigate in a house where walls are covered in blood (I'd get a cop...better yet, an army of cops).

So despite these problems, why do I think it's good for an Adamson film? Well, the story isn't all bad and he was able to build tension very well. Many false alarms early on made my heart race a bit. Also, the car crash, while irrelevant, came off pretty well and was practically big-budget for Adamson.

Overall, not a good film and one most people would be bored watching. However, fans of Adamson or inept films will like it--it does deliver some entertainment in a cheesy manner that will provide a few laughs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I only came here to check Terror Hospital for an alternate title so I'd know what not to pick up. Not only do I get the original title, but I come to find Terror Hospital is one of seven more aliases.This one is a real clunker. Movies like this can usually be forgiven for any number of reasons, mostly unintended consequences of the feature on every level of production that result in at least a mild form of entertainment, mostly amusement. This has none of that. Instead, the viewer is witness to redundantly unnecessary and way-too-convenient-for-the-situation exposition and drawn out scenes of characters warily moving from room to room, and all this is half of the film. Forget trying to figure out where anybody is (or who they are) during darkened or nighttime scenes, too; you probably won't care, anyway. There is also a random car chase sequence that seems quite dull when compared to some of the old driver's ed movies I slep... er, I mean sat through and watched way back in high school. Really, we're talking about mysticism, possession, and a killer on the loose here - not a bad recipe for trash cinema. Unfortunately, there's nothing here to make it even \"good\" trash; when joined to the aforementioned, the bad acting and not-so-special effects are just that - bad acting and not-so-special effects. This one's just trash, pure and simple. Leave it on the rack at the pawn shop or in that box at the yard sale. There's a reason its there...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first 20 minutes were a little fun because I don't think I've seen a film this bad before {acting, script, effects (!), etc....} The rest of the running time seemed to drag forever with every cliche in dialog used to no effect. These people seemed to not really like horror movies or how to make them or any other movie. There's no adult language, a bit of brief nudity, and no gore except fake blood smeared over no open wounds, etc.. It would have been rated PG in the early eighties and PG-13 nowadays. I'm not sure how it got an R rating or if it really did. I saw the American International release titled Hospital Of Terror. I've seen 100 horror films in the past 12 months and this is probably the worst film I've ever seen. Here's an example of how bad it is: There's one scene where something green comes through the door. I'm not sure what it's supposed to be but what it is on screen is some kid's green crayon scribblings {I'm not exaggerating} super-imposed over the film, semi-moving inside the door, then its supposed to do something to Nurse Sherri to possess her I suppose. I could not believe they had the lack of pride to show this embarrassment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film, which I rented under the title \"Black Voodoo\" should be avoided. I was expecting a blaxploitation\/horror flick; but what I got was a very dull, standard \"ghost extracts vegence\". In this case the ghost was that of a religious cult leader who tried to refuse treatment, but who's plea was ignored and he died in an operation. The result: his spirit posesses Nurse Sherry and forces her to commit acts of murder. The only voodoo connection was to one of the three black characters, in this case a blinded ex-football player, who's mom practiced voodoo. The film is very slow and very dull. There is a very standard ending that provides on excitement, followed by a horrificly stupid ending (warning: SPOILER)

In which a woman actually manages to defend herself against murder charges by saying she was possessed. This movie is slow, and bad in a non-funny, just stupefying way. Avoid it at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maniratnam, who in India, is often compared with prominent world film makers and is regarded a genius in film-making, has yet again proved that he can only make the frames look visually good, without offering much food for thought.Forget about pure cinematic pleasure that can be derived from cinema as a very old form of art.

While I would not like to claim and portray myself as someone who has seen all the beautiful movies made around the world, still any thoughtful and a bit educated film goer can identify that his films do not contain innovative ingenuous plots, does not contain lingering effects afterward and MOSTLY contain ridiculous ending and a LOT of melodrama, seen profusely in Indian movies.

Overall, Maniratnam has successfully confirmed my distaste for his films once again.

Sorry for those who on this board were claiming otherwise. My suggestion to you: WATCH SOME BEAUTIFUL CINEMAS MADE AROUND THE GLOBE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jacqueline Hyde starts like any other normal day for telemarketing individual Jackie Hyde (co-producer Gabriella Hall) until her boss (Robert Donovan) fires her for taking personal calls at work, however it's not all bad news as the call she took was from a lawyer informing her that her Grandfather (Malcolm Bennett) has recently died & that he left her his mansion & fortune (why doesn't stuff like that ever happen to me? Sigh). Very excited Jackie heads on over there & makes herself right at home, while looking for the thermostat late one night Jackie stumbles upon a secret room where her Grandfather stashes the bright red formula that he invented that allows whoever drinks it to change their appearance. Being a bit on the porky side Jackie finally settles on the glamorous Jacqueline (Blythe Metz), however Jackie's better looking alter-ego starts to take control...

Written, co-produced & directed by Rolfe Kanefsky I thought Jacqueline Hyde was complete total & utter crap from start to finish & it's as simple & straight forward as that. According to the opening credits Jacqueline Hyde was 'inspired' by the classic Robert Louis Stevenson novel 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde', frankly if Mr. Stevenson could see what was being done to his story here he'd turn in his grave. For a start I think Jacqueline Hyde was\/is intended to be a horror film, the IMDb certainly lists it as such but there isn't any horror in it at all apart from just how bad it is. I would say that Jacqueline Hyde is more a soft-core porno than anything else & extremely tame with it, why sit down & watch this softer than soft porno crap when you can watch you proper hard-core stuff that actually delivers the goods? Why, that's the question I ask here. It's not even good porn either, besides being far too soft it's dull, boring & the not-worth-mentioning sex scenes are few & far between. The most intelligent aspect of this film is the title which would have been quite clever if not for the fact that another film used the Jacqueline Hyde (1998) title during the last century & judging by the IMDb's plot summary it sounds a hell of a lot better than this piece of rubbish. This is one of those films you have to watch yourself to see just how bad it is but just hope that you never get the opportunity.

Director Kanefsky was obviously working on a low budget but that's not an excuse these days, shot on a digital camcorder the film looks cheap & the few instances of CGI look like they came from a Nintendo Gameboy, the final 'shocking' twist has probably the worst morph effect I've ever seen & is pretty good for a laugh as is the scene when Jackie's breasts grow via more terrible CGI. That's another thing, the film takes itself far too seriously. The subject matter sucks, is far too predictable & makes for a poor film but maybe if the dialogue had been intentionally funny with some dirty porn talk the film might have been more fun to watch, alas it isn't so it isn't. Forget about any decent horror, violence or gore as there isn't any apart from a surprisingly bloodless decapitation at the end.

Technically Jacqueline Hyde is home made film type stuff, the photography is of the flat hand held point-&-shoot variety, the music, production design & special effects are of a suitably low standard to match the script. The acting was awful, seriously this is bad.

Jacqueline Hyde in my opinion a load of crap, there is not one positive thing about this turgid film that I can think of. Any proper film lover will have an almost impossible time trying to find any redeeming value in this crap, definitely one to avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry, but Jacqueline Hyde (get it??? - Jack L and Hyde - Jekyll & Hyde) has some of the worst acting this side of hardcore porn, not to mention a script apparently written by a first-grader with undiagnosed learning disabilities.

Jackie Hyde inherits an old mansion by a grandfather she never knew she had. Guess who? Yes, an inventor of the special formula that slowly takes over one's body and mind - yes, that Mr. Hyde!

Despite some nice skin scenes, this film fails to register any feeling or emotion other than uncontrollable laughter.

As much as poor Jackie tries she just can't stay away from granddaddy's special formula and the result is an hour and half of wasted time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film seems well made, and more efforts should be made to promote films by women. That aside, this film is also profoundly disturbing in that it justifies the manipulative and psychotic machinations of a character that is profoundly disturbed. If you've seen any of the promotional material, you might think this is a poignant film about a relationship that's reached its end, but none of that suggests how really disturbing the central premise is:

A woman threatens suicide unless her soon to be ex agrees to relive here most treasured memories of their relationship. When told how unfair (to say the least) that such a threat is, Tessa (the purported protagonist) suggests that \"life's not fair.\"

Huh??? This character also uses tears to manipulate her former lover into staying, and coaxes him into sexually oriented behavior (which she initially denies as a motive) all the while assuring him \"this isn't sex.\"

Reverse the genders, have the leads played by Tracey Gold and Brian Austin-Green and this could air in feature length on Lifetime with a title like \"Hostage to Obsession.\" There is no medically accepted definition of sound mental and emotional stability that would encompass Tessa's behavior in this film.

Props to Kristen Thomson for playing a border-line psychotic, manipulative ex to a T, perhaps too well because there is no well-adjusted person, male or female, who could watch this and not have shivers run up their spine.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It hurt to watch this movie, it really did... I wanted to like it, even going in. Shot obviously for very little cash, I looked past and told myself to appreciate the inspiration. Unfortunately, although I did appreciate the film on that level, the acting and editing was terrible, and the last 25-30 minutes were severe thumb-twiddling territory. A 95 minute film should not drag. The ratings for this one are good so far, but I fear that the friends and family might have had a say in that one. What was with those transitions? Dear Mr. Editor, did you just purchase your first copy of Adobe Premiere and make it your main goal to use all the goofy transitions that come with that silly program? Anyway... some better actors, a little more passion, and some more appealing editing and this makes a decent movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rita Hayworth is just stunning at times and, for me, the only reason to watch this silly film. Despite the overdone 1940s lipstick, Rita was one of the all-time glamor women of Hollywood. In fact, for a couple of years I can't imagine anyone that looked better, except maybe Elizabeth Taylor in her prime.

Anyway, the co-star of the show, Gene Kelly, does not play his normal likable, at least the kind of guy we all know him from in \"Singin' In The Rain.\" Here, Kelly's \"Danny McGuire\" pouts much of the time. Phil Silvers, who I loved on TV at \"Sgt. Bilko,\" is so stupid in here as \"Genius\" you will just cringe listening to his dumb jokes....and they are stupid.

The visuals are good with great Technicolor, which almost looks terrific. You get to see a lot of pretty women in here, too, not just Hayworth. Unfortunately, the story isn't all that much. It centers around Hayworth deciding about a career choice. Along the way, we get the normal shabby treatment of marriage and we get an insultingly-dumb ending. All in all, an unmemorable film, except as a showcase for Hayworth's beauty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like 'Singin' in the Rain', 'Cover Girl' has a trio of two guys and a girl. In 'Cover Girl', Phil Silvers (Genius) is the comic relief. He corresponds to Donald O'Connor's funny man part in 'Singin in the Rain'. In Cover Girl, Gene Kelly's love interest is Rita Hayworth and in 'Rain', it's Debbie Reynolds. That's where the comparison ends.

Whereas \"Singin' in the Rain' is a classic American movie musical, 'Cover Girl' is mediocrity incarnate. The story isn't very complicated. Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth) is a dancer in Danny MacGuire's low-rent nightclub in Brooklyn. Rusty decides to enter a Cover Girl contest sponsored by a wealthy publisher, John Coudair, who made an unsuccessful play for Rusty's grandmother years ago. Coudair introduces Rusty to Broadway producer Noel Wheaton who makes her into a star. Danny feels slighted when Rusty starts showing up late for rehearsals at the nightclub and decides to close the club down and go on the road entertaining the troops along with his sidekick, Genius. At the last minute, with Rusty at the altar with Noel, she realizes the error of her ways and runs back to Danny. They live happily ever after.

Gene Kelly has the least developed part in the movie. All we find out about him is that he owns a nightclub and is madly in love with Rusty. Coudair and Wheaton act like besotted teenagers toward Rusty and Phil Silvers delivers some thoroughly goofy but unfunny shtick. The most interesting aspect of Rita Hayworth's performance is the scene in which she gets drunk. This foreshadows what happened to her in real life. Anyone who has read her biography will learn that she disliked Hollywood, pined away for a normal home life which she could never attain but eventually began drinking and ended up with full-blown Alzheimer's during the last years of her life.

Almost all of the songs in Cover Girl are old-fashioned and not very tuneful. Gene Kelly has only one really excellent dance number and that's the scene where he dances with his 'alter ego'. Earlier, the trio has another number which is a pale precursor of 'Make em Laugh' from 'Singin' in the Rain'.

The most annoying thing about 'Cover Girl' is the way in which Rita Hayworth is put up on a pedestal. A couple of decades later, Raquel Welch had the same problem. Both actresses later in their careers would always try and find scripts that showcased their acting abilities. They wanted to be known as 'actresses' and not 'pinup girls'. Unfortunately, 'Cover Girl' is an example of how Hollywood used to exploit women for financial gain.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rita Hayworth plays a Brooklyn nightclub dancer named Rusty who specializes in cheesecake chorus revues; she manages to get herself on the cover of a national fashion magazine, but her impending success as a solo (with romantic offers all around) has smitten boss Gene Kelly chomping at the bit. Terribly tired piece of Technicolor cotton candy, with unmemorable musical sketches (the two worst of which are irrelevant flashbacks to the 1890s, with Hayworth portraying her own grandmother). Kelly, as always, dances well but acts with false sincerity; when he's serious, he's insufferable, and the rest of the time he's flying on adrenaline. The script is a lead weight, not even giving supporting players Phil Silvers and Eve Arden any good lines. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Cover Girl\" is a lacklustre WWII musical with absolutely nothing memorable about it, save for its signature song, \"Long Ago and Far Away.\" This film came out before Gene Kelly really hit his artistic stride, and while there are evidences of his burgeoning talent here, mostly he plays sidekick to Rita Hayworth. And there's the problem. Rita Hayworth is gorgeous, no doubt about that. But she's simply not a compelling screen presence. I've always found myself wanting to like her more than I actually do, and this movie is no exception. She's simply not a very good actress, and she's not even a very good dancer. Good looking as she is, there's something vapid about her, and this movie suffers because of it.

Grade: C-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Formulaic slasher film, only this one stars three ten year olds (all born during a lunar eclipse) as the killers. Nice, huh? A little bit of gore and a nice nude scene may make this worthwhile for diehard fans of the genre, others beware.

*1\/2 out of ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Is it a poorly acted, cliche-ridden pile of trash? Of course. Anyone who doesn't realize that when they pick up the box in the video store probably doesn't have any right judging movies in the first place. Thus, I will now rate the aspects of the film that we actually care about on a scale of 1 to 10:

Violence and gore: 4 -- For this genre, there are very few deaths, and the gore is almost non-existent. Anyone looking for a little blood should probably look elsewhere. The only redeeming quality is the fact that kids are doing these awful things, which raises the bar a little.

Suspense: 1 -- Okay, I feel bad for anyone who gets scared by this trio of dorky looking kids.

Nudity\/sex: 7 -- Lots of boobage from three different women, one of whom is the MTV vj Julie Brown. There are two sex scenes, but little is shown in them.

Unintentional humor -- 4 -- There are a few good laughs with the kids trying to act scary, but all in all, it's just bad, not funny bad.

Overall -- 4 -- It's not unwatchable. There are a few fun moments, and enough nudity to keep your attention for the entire movie. However, only watch this movie if you're a big fan of the 80's slasher flicks. This definitely falls on the lower end of the scale, but it's not all the way at the bottom. The real downside is the disappointing ending. It almost ruined the movie for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Bloody Birthday' is an odd and, at times, humorous low-budget horror flick along the lines of 'Mikey' or a less intelligent version of 'The Good Son'.

Set in a small Californian town, three babies are born at the height of an eclipse, where planetary alignment means they are somehow born without emotions. Ten years later, our three little psychopaths take themselves on a killing spree, doing away with parents, siblings, teachers and anyone else who irritates them. Only one teenage girl knows the truth to be able to stop them. There is no explanation for why babies across the world born at the same time aren't equally as twisted but there you go!

For a slasher film, it's very tame in terms of violence and gore, which I suppose highlights the problem of casting child characters as the killers as there is only so much you can expose the young actors to. Instead, it's amusing and a little disturbing seeing three ten-year-olds plotting murders and carrying out their plans using guns, knives and crossbows. The main reason why it doesn't descend into being totally ridiculous is because the child actors are very convincing in their roles with the way they slyly play the little innocents in front of undiscerning adults while showing their dark side to the girl who knows the truth.

'Bloody Birthday' is rather mediocre as a horror flick, with few scares and little blood, but because it has the shock factor of having kids as the killers, it is a bit unique in that way. One to watch if there's nothing else on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When people say children are annoying u think ya my little cousins can be annoying and i said LITTLE. These children are turning 10 and they are without a doubt the most annoying bratty children you will ever encounter (in a film). Lets start with the blonde - Debbie - She's a slut of a girl, i mean come on she wears mini skirts, she has stupid frizzy blonde hair and a freckley red bunny like face. She acts so innocent. Next we have the second child - the Geek - who thinks he's so cool, with his long range shooting and his use of a silencer (a coat over the gun) and most of all his evil bratty smile. The next kid is the quiet one you don't care about so thats all on him. This film angered me at the children's intelligence and the only enjoyment i got was from my cousin who kept bitching about them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When you make a film with a killer-kids premise, there are two effective ways to approach it; you can either make it as realistic as possible, creating believable characters and situations, or you can make it as fun as possible by playing it for laughs (something which the makers of \"Silent Night, Deadly Night\" did, for example, on an equally controversial subject: a killer Santa). The people who made \"Bloody Birthday\", however, do neither of those things; they simply rely on the shock value of the image of a kid with a gun (or a knife, or a noose, or an arrow) in his\/her hand. The result is both offensive and stupid. The whole film looks like a bad idea that was rushed through production (and then kept from release for several years). It's redeemed a tiny bit by good performances from the kids, but it's VERY sloppily made. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bloody Birthday is a totally rubbish slasher movie from beginning to end.

I found the acting to be pretty good considering the genre of movie and its obvious low budget. I don't know what was going on with the cinematography but it looked ghastly. Way too over-saturated. Maybe this is a bad transfer to DVD or maybe it always looked like that, I don't know.

There really are no redeeming qualities to speak of. There are a few deaths but not really gory. I wouldn't bother with it if I was you. The best thing about the DVD was the 15 minute interview with producer Max Rosenberg who was very amusing and honest. He didn't have anything good to say about director Ed Hunt and admits the movie was a failure, but he would like to re-make it as he believes it has a decent plot. However, he died in 2004 so I guess it will be up to someone else to take on that challenge. With the way things have been going in the last few years it wouldn't surprise me, there's at least one re-make per week at the cinema these day. It couldn't be any worse than the original I suppose but I couldn't care less whether it got re-made or not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A mean spirited, repulsive horror film about 3 murderous children. Susan Strasberg is totally wasted in a 5-minute cameo, even though she receives star billing. If your a Julie Brown fan, you'll want to check it out, since she's naked in a couple of shots. All others,avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie cannot be serious because it has a nerdy looking kid named Curtis killing people. The other two psycho kids are kind of cute but that Curtis kid is just so ugly because he wears these huge, brown, ugly glasses. The actor probably wandered on the wrong set and he was really supposed to go to Revenge of the Nerds.

Another thing that I hate so much about this movie is that Curtis takes his sweet time shooting people. I kept my finger on the fast forward button because he took too long and what was up with his voice? He sounded like he was fourteen and not ten. Another thing I hated was that he kept smiling like an idiot and there was no point to that.

Then they put that annoying kid in the freezer and somehow he found a flashlight in there. That didn't make any sense and neither did the music. The music didn't fit any of the scenes.

This movie is slow, boring and a waste of time. Watch a different movie on your birthday.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bloody Birthday opens to a shot of Meadowvale General Hospital. There three babies are being born at precisely the same time during a total eclipse. A caption informs us that it is now 'Meadowvale, California June 1, 1980'. Two teenage lovers, Duke Benson (Ben Marley) and Annie Smith (Erica Hope) are getting down to business in an open grave. They hear noises and Duke investigates. Both Duke and Annie are murdered. Sheriff Jim Brody (Bert Kramer) is baffled and only has the handle of a child's skipping rope that Annie was holding, as a clue. Unfortunately before Sheriff Brody can solve the case his youngest daughter Debbie (Elizabeth Hoy) and two of her friends Curtis Taylor (Billy Jayne as Billy Jacoby) and Steven Seton (Andy Freeman) murder him. Just as they are finishing Sheriff Brody off another young boy from their class named Timmy Russel (K.C. Martel) turns up, the three killers are unaware of how much he saw. Soon after the incident Timmy plays with Steven and Curtis in a junkyard. Curtis locks Timmy into an old locker. Timmy manages to escape and tell his sister Joyce (Lori Lethin), but she doesn't believe him at first. The three children carry on their murder spree. Their strict teacher Miss Davis (Susan Strasberg) a lovemaking couple (John Avery and Sylvia Wright) in a van and Debbie's older sister Beverly (Julie Brown) are among their victims. Joyce begins to have her suspicions about Debbie, Curtis and Steven which makes her and Timmy a target for the evil trio. Will they be able to convince the authorities that these three innocent looking 10 year olds are really soulless killers?

Co-written and directed by Ed Hunt I have an intense dislike for this film. I think it's absolutely awful and doesn't have a single enjoyable aspect to it's 83 minute running time. The script by Hunt and Barry Pearson gives us no explanation for the child killers motives beyond the solar eclipse that blocks out Saturn and therefore for some bizarre astrological reason these three children don't have any conscience, so these are the only children ever born during a total eclipse? If that is true why do they wait until just before their tenth birthday's before starting their killing spree? I guess it just suddenly kicks in, right? To it's credit it is reasonably well paced but I still found it incredibly boring and tedious to sit through. The film as a whole is very unexciting and predictable, the children are revealed as the killers within the first 10 minutes and as I've mentioned next to no motive is given. It's very silly at times, too. Check out the scene where Debbie stops Steven by throwing a bowl of water over him! The Sheriff's death is put down to him falling down some steps, yeah right the injuries suffered from that type of accident aren't going to be the same as if your beaten to death with a baseball bat like he was in reality, any competent Doctor or Pathologist would have spotted that within 5 seconds. There isn't a single drop of blood spilt in the entire film and all of the lame killings are dull and unimaginative. There is some out-of-place looking nudity as Debbie charges 25c to let boys peek through a hole while her sister Beverly strips. There is an early scene just after the 5 minute mark when Joyce walks from the kitchen to the living room and the boom mike is clearly visible at the top of the screen, not even a little bit of it the whole damn thing. The general incompetence continues throughout the film. The whole production is bland and instantly forgettable. The acting is poor throughout, those three kids are very annoying and got on my nerves right from the start and made sitting through this film even more of a chore, especially Curtis in his geeky over-sized glasses. I just hate this film really, simple as that. I can't think of a single good thing to say about it. Definitely one to avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Might end up being the biggest disappointment that I will see in 2009. I seem to be the rare person who disliked Park's Oldboy, but I think that his \"Lady Vengeance\" and \"Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance\" are among the best films I've seen in the 2000's decade. Therefore, I really was looking forward to see this, especially as it got such positive reviews. Instead, I found the film clich\u00e9d, and broke little, if any new ground to the vampire genre. And while I can appreciate a bit of gallows humor in movies like this, I felt Park did this at very inopportune times.

Others have compared\/contrasted this to \"Let the Right One In,\" and I have to say that \"Let the Right One In\" was far superior to this one, and was a fresh take on the vampire genre. Sadly, Park's take was a tired one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For years, I've been a big fan of Park's work and \"Old boy\" is one of my all-times favorite.

With lots of expectation I rented this movie, only to find the worst movie I've watched in awhile. It's not a proper horror movie; there's no suspense in it and even the \"light\" part is so lame, that I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

I introduced my younger brother to Chan-Wook Park and what a disappointment he got from this. For me, an idol has fallen.

If you loved movies like \"Old boy\", the Mr & Lady \"Vengeance\" or even his short films on \"Three extremes\", don't waste your time, the film's not worth it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.

Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie:

* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.

* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.

* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.

* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.

* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.

* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.

In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some may go for a film like this but I most assuredly did not. A college professor, David Norwell, suddenly gets a yen for adoption. He pretty much takes the first child offered, a bad choice named Adam. As it turns out Adam doesn't have both oars in the water which, almost immediately, causes untold stress and turmoil for Dr. Norwell. This sob story drolly played out with one problem after another, all centered around Adam's inabilities and seizures. Why Norwell wanted to complicate his life with an unknown factor like an adoptive child was never explained. Along the way the good doctor managed to attract a wifey to share in all the hell the little one was dishing out. Personally, I think both of them were one beer short of a sixpack. Bypass this yawner.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An obvious vanity press for Julie in her first movie with Blake. Let's see. Where do we begin. She is a traitor during a world war; she redeems that by falling in love; her friends (who are presumably patriots because they are German citizens) are expendable and must die; and she winds up as a heroine. OK. The scenes with the drunken pilot and the buffoons who work for French intelligence can't even be described, and we won't even mention Rock's romantic scenes with a female. (By the way, when they visit a museum, look at his gaze - I reran it on video and it's priceless). Is it a farce or is it a romantic classic or is it a war movie? I don't know and you won't either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Blake Edwards tried very hard to change Julie Andrews image in this film. He tried to make her sexy not realizing she already was. I think they were both still a bit irked that Julie had not been chosen to film her Broadway success of Camelot and was passed over as not being sexy enough. Unfortunately, they chose this vehicle to try and assuage this belief. It gets to the point where it is almost funny seeing Rock Hudson, who we all know now was gay, kissing Julie every 2 minutes throughout this movie. It seems now that they were not only trying to make you believe that Julie was a femme fatale but that Rock was straight. Sadly, they have absolutely no chemistry together and the unending kissing scenes start grossing one out. The other error they made with this picture was not knowing what kind of movie they were making. It is almost three separate movies. There is the drama of Julie as the German spy trying to get military secrets from Rock. There is an air war movie with lots of footage of WWI vintage planes swooping about and there is the stupid attempts at humor that Blake Edwards seems to think he has to insert in every one of his pictures whether it is appropriate or not, In this case, it was not. The only truly redeeming qualities in this film are looking at the always lovely Dame Julie and hearing her sing in that crystal clear bell-like soprano. Of course if you love her, you may overlook the weaknesses of this film just because of her. You can always tell yourself, afterward, that it was a hell of a lot better than sitting through STAR!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Julie Andrews satirically prods her own goody-two-shoes image in this overproduced musical comedy-drama, but if she approaches her role with aplomb, she's alone in doing so. Blake Edwards' film about a woman who is both music-hall entertainer and German spy during WWI doesn't know what tone to aim for, and Rock Hudson has the thankless task of playing romantic second-fiddle. Musicals had grown out of favor by 1970, and elephantine productions like \"Star!\" and this film really tarnished Andrews' reputation, leaving a lot of dead space in her catalogue until \"The Tamarind Seed\" came along. I've always thought Julie Andrews would've made a great villain or shady lady; her strong voice could really command attention, and she hits some low notes that can either be imposing or seductive. Husband\/director Edwards seems to realize this, but neither he nor Julie can work up much energy within this scenario. Screenwriter William Peter Blatty isn't a good partner for Edwards, and neither man has his heart in this material. Beatty's script offers Andrews just one fabulous sequence--a striptease. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Years ago, when DARLING LILI played on TV, it was always the pan and scan version, which I hated and decided to wait and see the film in its proper widescreen format. So when I saw an inexpensive DVD of this Julie Andrews\/Blake Edwards opus, I decided to purchase and watch it once and for all.

Boy, what a terrible film. It's so bad and on so many levels that I really do not know where to start in describing where and when it goes so horribly wrong. Looking at it now, it's obvious to any fans of movies that Blake Edwards created this star vehicle for his wife simply because so many other directors had struck gold with Andrews in musicals (MARY POPPINS, SOUND OF MUSIC, THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, etc) but also because Andrews was snubbed from starring in projects made famous on stage by Julie herself (CAMELOT, MY FAIR LADY, etc) because Hollywood thought she wasn't sexy or glamorous enough. So Blake created this stillborn effort, to showcase his wife in a bizarre concoction of spy story\/war movie\/romance\/slapstick comedy\/musical. DARLING LILI suffers from multiple personalities, never knowing who or what it is. Some specific scenes are good or effective but as a whole, it just doesn't work at all to a point of it being very embarrassing.

Mind you, the version on the DVD is the \"director's cut\", or in this case, \"let's salvage whatever we can\" from this notorious box office flop. In releasing the DVD, Edwards cut 19 scenes (19!!!!!!!!) from the original bloated theatrical version into this more streamlined and yet remarkably ineffective version. The film moves along with no idea of what it is. We are 25 minutes into it and we still don't know what's going on or why we're watching what's going. What kind of spy is Lili? How powerful is she? Was she ever responsible for someone's death? Instead we watch a thoroughly bored looking Rock Hudson trying to woo a thoroughly bored looking Julie Andrews. Things aren't helped much with the inexplicable reason why the two fall in love. Why does Julie fall for Hudson? Why him and not other men she got involved with? There should have been one of her ex hanging around, trying to win her back or trying to decipher her secret. This would have given us some much needed contrast to the muddled action. It would also have given us some impetuous to the sluggish proceedings. There's no catalyst in this story.

One only has to look at the cut scenes to clearly see that Edwards and the writer just came up with ideas inspired by Andrews' (and Edwards') previous successes. The best (or worst) example is the scene when Andrews and Hudson follows a group of children who sing in the middle of a forest. Edwards channeling SOUND OF MUSIC. It's no wonder he removed it from the DVD. Back in 1970, that scene might have worked on a certain level but today, that moment reeks of desperation. There are other plot elements directly inspired by Andrews\/Edwards other films. The endless scenes of dogfights is inspired by the much better MODERN MILLIE. The musical moment \"I'll give you three guesses\" was created just to make fun of Julie's MARY POPPINS persona, which is turned \"raunchy\" with Julie doing a striptease in the act. The ending, bird's eye view of Julie running towards Hudson's plane, is another \"wink\" at SOUND OF MUSIC.

The whole thing is confusing. Julie plays a singer, born from a German father and British mother, who lives in England but sings her (English) songs in Paris. You never know exactly where the story takes place. Some moments are just badly edited. Like when Julie and her \"uncle\" are on horseback. They talk and talk and then Julie suddenly sprints off in mid-sentence. I'm like \"what happened here?\"

The comedy bits are unfunny and cringe-worthy. Every scene with the French police are pathetic. Where's Peter Sellers when you really need him. The action is stupid beyond belief. When Julie and her \"uncle\" are on their way to Germany on that train, Hudson's squadron shoots rounds of bullets at the train, almost killing Lili in the process. Brilliant. What's also funny about that scene is the two leave on the train in the middle of the night but Hudson and his squadron reach the train even though they fly off the next morning. That's one slow moving train there.

The musical moments. The beginning is the best part of the entire film (and the reason I gave this film 3 stars) but it's effect is diminished considerably because it's repeated at the end. Speaking of redundant, did we really need to see a can-can dance, Crepe Suzette stripping scene and Julie stripping too? The \"Girl in no man's land\" is OK even if it's bleeding obvious, but that moment just doesn't make any sense whatsoever because Lili sings it to a group of injured soldiers at a French hospital, making me wonder: how many soldiers there were injured indirectly by the result of her spying?

The whole project is listless and without energy. The romance is 100% unbelievable. Rock Hudson is way too old and tired looking (check out the museum scene). Julie looks dazed, like she's on Valium. But what really kills this ill-conceived project is Julie playing a German spy. Edwards desperately wanted to dispel the Mary Poppins syndrome afflicting his wife and believed that playing a traitor was a good career decision. As much as I like Julie, she's no Greta Garbo, who pulled it off so beautifully in MATA HARI. Funny enough, even if Julie plays a German spy, she still comes across as cloying and cute.

How bad is DARLING LILI? Even after 37 years since its release, Blake Edwards felt he still needed to work on it for its DVD release.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"David Bryce's comments nearby are exceptionally well written and informative as almost say everything I feel about DARLING LILI. This massive musical is so peculiar and over blown, over produced and must have caused ruptures at Paramount in 1970. It cost 22 million dollars! That is simply irresponsible. DARLING LILI must have been greenlit from a board meeting that said \"hey we got that Pink Panther guy and that Sound Of Music gal... lets get this too\" and handed over a blank cheque. The result is a hybrid of GIGI, ZEPPELIN, HALF A SIXPENCE, some MGM 40s song and dance numbers of a style (daisies and boaters!) so hopelessly old fashioned as to be like musical porridge, and MATA HARI dramatics. The production is colossal, lush, breathtaking to view, but the rest: the ridiculous romance, Julie looking befuddled, Hudson already dead, the mistimed comedy, and the astoundingly boring songs deaden this spectacular film into being irritating. LILI is like a twee 1940s mega musical with some vulgar bits to spice it up. STAR! released the year before sadly crashed and now is being finally appreciated for the excellent film is genuinely is... and Andrews looks sublime, mature, especially in the last half hour......but LILI is POPPINS and DOLLY frilly and I believe really killed off the mega musical binge of the 60s..... and made Andrews look like Poppins again... which I believe was not Edwards intention. Paramount must have collectively fainted when they saw this: and with another $20 million festering in CATCH 22, and $12 million in ON A CLEAR DAY and $25 million in PAINT YOUR WAGON....they had a financial abyss of CLEOPATRA proportions with $77 million tied into 4 films with very uncertain futures. Maybe they should have asked seer Daisy Gamble from ON A CLEAR DAY ......LILI was very popular on immediate first release in Australia and ran in 70mm cinemas for months but it failed once out in the subs and the sticks and only ever surfaced after that on one night stands with ON A CLEAR DAY as a Sunday night double. Thank god Paramount had their simple $1million (yes, ONE MILLION DOLLAR) film LOVE STORY and that $4 million dollar gangster pic THE GODFATHER also ready to recover all the $77 million in just the next two years....for just $5m.... incredible!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not a big fan of musicals, although this technically might not qualify as a musical. But I thought I would give it a chance as I love war movies. It was mediocre at best.

Hudson seems totally out of kilter in this role. It just didn't work for me. Julie Andrews probably played her part as best as she could, but I just find it hard to buy her as a conniving, deceptive spy. Sorry, I know that is classic stereotyping on my part. But I have to say I think this is Julie at her most beautiful and feminine looking. I always thought of her as more matronly, but then surely that's a result of her roles in Sound of Music and Mary Poppins. No doubt they were desperately trying to get her out of that typecasting in this role. She was quite beguiling in appearance here, but I still didn't buy her as a spy.

I couldn't keep my focus through the whole movie and found myself tuning in and out - and having conversations with those in my room (which I usually never do - I'm always shushing everybody). So that tells you how little it held my attention. Don't waste your time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Blake Edwards' legendary fiasco, begins to seem pointless after just 10 minutes. A combination of The Eagle Has Landed, Star!, Oh! What a Lovely War!, and Edwards' Pink Panther films, Darling Lili never engages the viewer; the aerial sequences, the musical numbers, the romance, the comedy, and the espionage are all ho hum. At what point is the viewer supposed to give a damn? This disaster wavers in tone, never decides what it wants to be, and apparently thinks it's a spoof, but it's pathetically and grindingly square. Old fashioned in the worst sense, audiences understandably stayed away in droves. It's awful. James Garner would have been a vast improvement over Hudson who is just cardboard, and he doesn't connect with Andrews and vice versa. And both Andrews and Hudson don't seem to have been let in on the joke and perform with a miscalculated earnestness. Blake Edwards' SOB isn't much more than OK, but it's the only good that ever came out of Darling Lili. The expensive and professional look of much of Darling Lili, only make what it's all lavished on even more difficult to bear. To quote Paramount chief Robert Evans, \"24 million dollars worth of film and no picture\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A tough sell: British playwright Ronald Harwood adapts his autobiographical stage drama into loud, bellowing film about WWII Shakespearean theatrical troupe saddled with an aged, blustery, brilliant-but-unreliable star at the end of his tether. The actor's effete assistant works diligently to get his master coiffed and costumed for a production of \"King Lear\" (during an Air Raid!), yet both men are losing their grip on their unraveling situation. Based on the waning years of actor Donald Wolfit, whose dresser was Ronald Harwood, this acclaimed production would seem to be a welcome haven for scenery-chewing thespians. Unfortunately, Albert Finney (at this point in his career, not at all elderly) seems too robust and quick-thinking to play the actor; Finney (and Oscar-nominated director Peter Yates) cannot modulate Sir's moods and bouts of coherency in a way that makes sense to us, so that in one scene he's stopping a train with the commanding echo of his voice, and in the next he's curiously falling apart. With such a wreck of a human being in the midst of failing health and aptitude, one would assume a dedicated assistant would go to great lengths to protect his boss (and his future), yet servant Tom Courtenay prods and badgers and goads Finney to carry on rather than rest. Courtenay, who played this part on stage (and was nominated for an Oscar alongside Finney for Best Actor), is far more attuned to his role, and eventually his bleating commands and confusion achieve the only real feeling in the film. These two, thankfully, do not peck at each other's heads, and scenarist Harwood is careful not to fall into a love-hate pattern (which could possibly be perceived in the film's first act); but, without a juxtaposition of servant vs. celebrity, there's nothing much to behold in this portrait except for the deterioration of narcissism, the hint at what once was. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wish I knew what to make of a movie like this. It seems to be divided into two parts -- action sequences and personal dramas ashore. It follows Ashton Kutsher through survival swimmer school, guided by Master Chief Kevin Costner, then to Alaska where a couple of spectacular rescues take place, the last resulting in death.

I must say that the scenes on the beach struck me as so stereotypical in so many ways that they should be barnacle encrusted. A typical bar room fight between Navy guys and Coast Guardsmen (\"puddle pirates\"). The experienced old timer Costner who is, as an elderly bar tender tells him, \"married to the Coast Guard.\" The older chief who \"keeps trying to prove to himself that he's still nineteen.\" The neglected ex wife ashore to whom Kostner pays a farewell visit. The seemingly sadistic demands placed on the swimmers by the instructors, all in pursuit of a loftier goal. The gifted young man hobbled by a troubled past.

The problem is that we've seen it all before. If it's Kevin Costner here, it's Clint Eastwood or John Wayne or Lou Gosset Jr. or Vigo Mortenson or Robert DeNiro elsewhere. And the climactic scene has elements drawn shamelessly from \"The Perfect Storm\" and \"Dead Calm.\" None of it is fresh and none of the old stereotyped characters and situations are handled with any originality.

It works best as a kind of documentary of what goes on in the swimmer's school and what could happen afterward and even that's a little weak because we don't get much in the way of instruction. It's mostly personal conflict, romance, and tension about washing out.

It's a shame because the U. S. Coast Guard is rather a noble outfit, its official mission being \"the safety of lives and property at sea.\" In war time it is transferred to the Navy Department and serves in combat roles. In World War II, the Coast Guard even managed to have a Medal of Honor winner in its ranks.

But, again, we don't learn much about that. We don't really learn much about anything. The film devolves into a succession of visual displays and not too much else. A disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alas, another Costner movie that was an hour too long. Credible performances, but the script had no where to go and was in no hurry to get there. First we are offered an unrelated string of events few of which further the story. Will the script center on Randall and his wife? Randall and Fischer? How about Fischer and Thomas? In the end, no real front story ever develops and the characters themselves are artificially propped up by monologues from third parties. The singer explains Randall, Randall explains Fischer, on and on. Finally, long after you don't care anymore, you will learn something about the script meetings. Three endings were no doubt proffered and no one could make a decision. The end result? All three were used, one, after another, after another. If you can hang in past the 100th yawn, you'll be able to pick them out. Despite the transparent attempt to gain points with a dedication to the Coast Guard, this one should have washed out the very first day.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, another Kevin Costner hero movie. Postman, Tin Cup, Waterworld, Bodyguard, Wyatt Earp, Robin Hood, even that baseball movie. Seems like he makes movies specifically to be the center of attention. The characters are almost always the same ... the heroics, the flaws, the greatness, the fall, the redemption. Yup, within the 1st 5 minutes of the movie, we're all supposed to be in awe of his character, and it builds up more and more from there.

And this time the story ... story? ... is just a collage of different movies. You don't need a spoiler; you've seen this movie several times, though it had different titles. You'll know what will happen way before it happens. This is like mixing An Officer and a Gentleman with Backdraft, but both are easily better movies. Watch Backdraft to see how this kind of movie should be made ... and also to see how an good but slightly underrated actor, Russell, plays the hero.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It seems ever since 1982, about every two or three years we get a movie that claims to be \"The Next Officer and a Gentleman.\" There has yet to be one movie that has lived up to this claim and this movie is no different.

We get the usual ripped off scenes from OAAG (\"I want you DOR,\" the instructor gives the Richard Gere character his overdose of drills in hopes he'll quit, the Gere character comes back for the girl, the Gere character realizes the instructor is great, etc.) and this movie is as predictable as the sun rising in the East and is horribly miscast on top. Costner plays his usual \"wise teacher\" character, the only character he can play, and you really get a sense of his limited acting abilities here. Kutcher is terrible in the Richard Gere character, just miscast with acting skills barely a notch above Keanu Reeves.

The main problem with this OAAG wannabe is the two main characters are so amazingly one-dimensional, you never care for either in the least and when Kutcher's character finally turns around (just like Gere did in OAAG) you just go \"so what? The movie leaves no plot point unturned and seems to never end as if to say \"oh wait, we forgot to close out the girlfriend story, or the what happens after he graduates story, or the other six plot points in the movie...\" What's more baffling is the great \"reviews\" I see here. The general public's opinions never cease to amaze me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a pale imitation of 'Officer and a Gentleman.' There is NO chemistry between Kutcher and the unknown woman who plays his love interest. The dialog is wooden, the situations hackneyed. It's too long and the climax is anti-climactic(!). I love the USCG, its men and women are fearless and tough. The action scenes are awesome, but this movie doesn't do much for recruiting, I fear. The script is formulaic, but confusing. Kutcher's character is trying to redeem himself for an accident that wasn't his fault? Costner's is raging against the dying of the light, but why? His 'conflict' with his wife is about as deep as a mud puddle. I saw this sneak preview for free and certainly felt I got my money's worth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once again Mr. Costner has dragged out a movie for far longer than necessary. Aside from the terrific sea rescue sequences, of which there are very few I just did not care about any of the characters. Most of us have ghosts in the closet, and Costner's character are realized early on, and then forgotten until much later, by which time I did not care. The character we should really care about is a very cocky, overconfident Ashton Kutcher. The problem is he comes off as kid who thinks he's better than anyone else around him and shows no signs of a cluttered closet. His only obstacle appears to be winning over Costner. Finally when we are well past the half way point of this stinker, Costner tells us all about Kutcher's ghosts. We are told why Kutcher is driven to be the best with no prior inkling or foreshadowing. No magic here, it was all I could do to keep from turning it off an hour in.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I`m in two minds about FOLLOWING , the film debut of Christopher Nolan . Part of me admires it for costing 6,000 dollars to make but part of me hates it for being too art house . In many ways it reminds me of the cult movie PI , a film I disliked , and I can`t get my head around the central plot of a man who wants to be writer following people around . Wouldn`t it be more logical for someone wanting to be a writer to sit in front of a keyboard and write ?

Oh well I guess FOLLOWING gives indie film makers hope that just because they made a no budget movie costing $6,000 over two thousand IMDB members will vote for it and over five hundred members will comment on it , but you have to wonder if this movie would be so well regarded if it wasn`t made by the director of MEMENTO ?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the usual disclaimer - I do not give 1 star ratings to movies which are harmless, bad, low budget and silly, although they may deserve it. These films are often funny, and get rated 2-4 based sheerly on entertainment value - not as a representation of their exemplary film artistry. This film fits this model perfectly. It is a Mexican monster movie, riddled with voice-over narrative and extremely weak not-so-special effects. The makeup is not that bad, and the acting is sometimes quite entertaining, but this film is almost as silly as Aliens vs Predator and the script isn't half as slick (Aliens vs Predator might get a 1 from me, but I want to see it again before I commit).

The plot is ridiculous, but deliciously convoluted. If you've read this far, you must really want to know... A group of remarkably unscientific scientists comprise the main characters. Most of them are heroes - sort of - but one is (of course) mad, and quite perverse. This mad scientist invents a laughable nuclear powered robot (who looks a bit like the tin man from Wizard of Oz, but has a human face inexplicably located inside its head). An Aztec mummy, discovered by the same 'scientist' whose wife just so happens to have been an Aztec princess in a past life (don't ask), is pitted against the robot for the big \"climax\" the fight scene alone is enough to put the most stoic movie watcher on the floor in belly laughs.

For what its worth, given the budget and the utter silliness of the script, this is a very entertaining low budget goof ball monster movie. If you're into that sort of thing, go for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have watched this movie twice in the past six months (what I go through so you don't have to).The first viewing left me half crazed and babbling.The second viewing at 5am on a rainy morn was a little better.I only screamed in agony once.

Seems Pocona (The Aztec Mummy)had the hots for a certain Aztec Princess who was\"supposed to keep her maiden\".Obviously they gave each other the business and were put to death for it.(Now that is severe!).But before they are the film tries to put us to death with a screeching Aztec ceremony.The singing will make your ears bleed.

Anyhow there is the usual reincarnation nonsense. Not to mention a treasure map on a breastplate & bracelet guarded by that swathed slob,Pocona.By this time Pocona looks like he's been on a 2000 year bender and is after the defilers of his tomb.His groans & moans sounds like he has a bad case of Montezuma's revenge(or he read the script for this movie).That will make your breath stink.

An evil Dr Von Krupp appears wanting the Aztec treasure(possibly to finance acting lessons & screenwriting classes for cast & crew).He is called The Bat because in The Curse Of The Aztec Mummy he wore a bat like cape, hat and something like a ski mask over his face.Guess it's better than the Laughing Fat Man.

The Bat in typical mad scientist fashion wants to rule the world. He stresses this by rolling his eyes,laughing maniacally and chewing the scenery.He has cobbled together an invincible robot.Looks like the 'bot was made from a garbage can, a chandelier and the grill of a 1957 Buick.This will make your eyes bleed.A company even takes credit for making this tin can!

Well the mighty showdown between Pocona and the Robot takes place in the Mummy's new crypt having been made homeless earlier.

About half of this movie is culled from \"La Aztec Momia\"never released in the US in its original form but in a chopped atrocity from Jerry Warren(see my review on \"Attack Of The Mayan Mummy\") and \"Curse Of The Aztec Mummy\".The robot is frankly stupid as are most of the characters.If that and the plot doesn't make you howl with laughter nothing will.

My first impression was so bad it would have gotten a one. But after seeing \"Mayan Mummy\"(which is a movie deserving of being burned) and watching \"Robot\" again, it garners a 3.You have to watch this with no expectations at all. Then it can be naively pleasant.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"RVAM\"'s reputation preceded it. I first heard of it in one of those Medved style movie books, \"The 50 Worst Movies Ever\" or \"The Golden Turkey Awards\", or something like that. Every review of the film basically said that this movie was so bad that it would make you bleed from the eyes to watch it. So when the Exposed Film Society finally got around to showing it, I was anticipating the kind of cathartic experience that only a true cinematic stinker can provide.

However, \"Robot\" wasn't really all that bad.

Oh, this is definitely a \"Z\" film through and through. Some of the voice dubbing (as is usually the case for K. Gordon Murray imports) is awfully cheesy, and the movie itself seems to be structurally something of a Frankenstein, since a huge chunk of it seems to be footage from a previous \"Aztec Mummy\" movie, narrated with a voice-over by the leading man. A dead giveaway: anytime the question \"Then what happened?\" is asked more than twice in the dialog, you are looking at reassembled footage put together with little regard for plot coherence or momentum. In RVAM, \"Then what happened?\" or \"What happened then?\" is uttered at least four times in the 1st hour.

Even without the structural problems, the plot and dialog don't translate well to an older American audience. For instance, as the hero explains (and explains and explains) the back-story. he includes a remark about Doctor Krupp, \"a doctor who suddenly turned into an evil master criminal\" and began his quest for the treasure that the Aztec mummy guards. No background, no explanation, he just \"suddenly turned evil\". Obviously, this was aimed at a pretty undiscriminating audience.

The clincher, though, is the \"Robot\", the supposed \"showcase\" of this movie. This Robot is the worst robot special effect since \"Undersea Kingdom\" or even \"Santa Claus Vs. The Martians\". Compared to this hunk of junk, the Tin Man from the \"Wizard Of Oz\" looked like the Terminator chassis that chased Linda Connor through the foundry in T2. The Aztec Mummy himself is well designed and executed; he's recognizably undead, familiar enough to look like a mummy, and yet distinct from the \"Boris Karloff\" bandage collection familiar to most American audiences. But whoever designed the Robot in this followup had no feel for the concept...or no budget. They could at least have given him some knees, for heaven's sake.

In addition, the titular battle is terribly executed and lasts less than 60 seconds. (I've seen shoving matches on junior high playgrounds that are more convincing.) Then the movie basically just stops. That seems a bit of a rip off considering the amount of time the movie spends building up to the battle itself.

In spite of all these problems, the movie isn't horrible or incompetent the way a Coleman Francis film or a Larry Buchanan film was. Compared to \"Monster A-Go-Go\" or \"Attack of The Eye Creatures\", \"RVTAM\" is like a Coppola film. It's just kind of dull and boring and silly. The actors are competent (in a mannered B movie way) and reasonably photogenic; Dr. Krupp, in particular seems to be having a wonderful time as he leers and plots and capers about in his cape and \"Phantom Of the Opera\" suit. I often found myself rooting for him, in spite of his being the villain.

Anyway, I've seen much, much worse. File this with \"Samson Vs The Vampire Women\", under \"interesting Mexican juvenile oddities\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie should have been billed as three movie-summaries linked together to form a full-length feature film (including lots of shots of people slowly walking down dark corridors and streets). BE WARNED! The first hour of this movie is simply a re-hash of the first two Aztec movies as told by the main character. The actual movie doesn't start until the thing is almost over. I must say, the overacting on the part of the Bat is quite hilarious.

As for the robot, I thought a robot was a mechanical device that may or may not resemble a human. The Bat's \"robot\" consists of a radioactive reanimated corpse encased in a lead robot-body. As Tom Servo put it, \"He's not that impressive; he doesn't even have knees!\" That, and it takes the robot about an hour just to lumber across the room. But once he catches you, WATCH OUT! He'll disintegrate you with a touch (powered by radium? Pluh-ease!).

This is a great movie when accompanied by Joel and the Bots. Otherwise, you're just a glutton for abuse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite having a very pretty leading lady (Rosita Arenas, one of my boy-crushes), the acting and the direction are examples of what NOT to do while making a movie.

Placed in southern Mexico, Popoca, the Aztec Mummy (real Aztecs, by the way, DID not made mummies) has been waken up by the lead characters and starts making trouble in Mexico City suburbia, during the first movie (The Aztec Mummy). In this second part, the leading man and woman want to find th mummy and put it in its final resting place (a fireplace would have been my first choice...)

Into this appears The Bat, a criminal master-mindless stereotype of a criminal genius who creates a \"human robot\" (some idiot inside a robot SUIT) to control Popoca and (get this) take over the world. The final match between the robot and the mummy is hilarious, some of the worst choreography ever witnessed. The funniest part is that this movie was made and released by a serious Mexican movie studio!

The acting is just as awful hearing the movie in Spanish as it is in English (they dubbed the over-acting!). You should watch this movie through MST:3000. The comments are even funnier.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a big fan of bad horrors, cheap horrors, b movies, and all that bottom 100 movies, and I do not deny those are the worst stuff ever to enter the big screen, or even your home video for that matter. Some of them, e.g. the infamous Manos The Hands of Fate, are truly bad, and watching them, especially on your own without any friends and beer around, is a torture for a good cinema taste.

La Momia Azteca Contra El Roboto Humano, however, was not that bad. Well, of course it's BAD - it's silly, dated, corny, cheap, etc., there's an Aztec mummy, a tin robot, a fat masked villain, a mad scientist, Mexican mobsters, etc. the montage is poor, the lines, well, let's say the lines are not theatrical, the FX and SFX are the best what the Mexican low budget production could've offered, etc. etc. Still, the movie is FUN. it's so bad it makes you laugh cheerfully for an hour time. Sure it depends on one's sense of humor, however I'm pretty sure La Momia should teach any newcomers to this kind of cinema how to enjoy it. Please note: the movie lasts for about an hour, and I think it's just enough time of silliness one is able to easily digest.

There's also another thing - watching La Momia can give you a clue what was the whole SF\/Horror genre concept back in the fifties, when you compare it to the present day Matrix era of cinema entertainment. I think it also shows how both the industry and the audience evolved, due to the fact the watches like La Momia still attract full house in the theaters for some special shows (movies like this are special alright), and very often receive a standing ovation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and even that show couldn't really make this movie bearable. I could make a better movie with a broken camcorder and action figures. Of course, you expect terrible special effects with a movie this old, but I've seen silents that were better. The storyline has enormous gaps that leave you trying to figure out why they are even at certain scenes. The cameraman apparently doesn't know what a tripod is, and had too much coffee, or something harder maybe, because the camera is ALWAYS shaking around. I couldn't even follow the plot, but suffice it to say, this is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen in my life.

UPDATE: I saw \"Epic Movie\" a while back and have decided to give this movie a 2. It's NOT the worst movie I've ever seen anymore!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ah, such an original title for a very shoddy film. The dubbing is hilarious since the voices and mouths never seem to match. As a result, I had no idea what was going on as I watched this mess unfold. There are flashbacks within the flashbacks and no real time takes place until towards the very end. The Aztec ceremony had me laughing. I rewinded it twice and got the best ab workout ever. The singing Aztec lady is comic naturale and the dancing and costumes are a hoot. Some guy gets a face full of acid, there's a lot of fighting, you have no idea who any character is (not that I really cared), and it's a whole noir mess. Oh, and the actual fight doesn't happen for awhile, so during the movie feel free to get up, take a nap, take a trip. You won't miss anything exciting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"2\/3 of this movie is recycled footage of the previous movies, a fact that's sadly obvious even to someone like myself who hasn't seen the original movies. And somehow it feels like a rip-off even though I haven't seen the stuff before. It's like that episode of every TV show where the characters sit around a photo album or something and you just see recycled footage of other episodes. I've seen some producers do extended montages of recycled footage, but never anything beyond 5 minutes or so. This movie is mostly stuff that had already been seen by audiences, so you could mount a case that it's one of the biggest rip-offs ever foisted on the motion picture public.

I got to see it in the theater, in a 16mm print, which is good enough I suppose considering how rare this kind of material must be on film these days. I give the movie some credit for semi-convincing Gothic atmosphere and for unintentional humor, but that's about it. The Aztec mummy monster looks good, even has some mobility in his face which is better than most movie monsters of the period. But the robot is pitiful, although it's interesting that they made the human face totally visible. It's a \"robot human\" or something of the sort as they somewhat explain in the movie. I think that's considered an android. So technically in hard sci-fi terms this movie should be called \"Android vs. the Aztec Mummy\", but I doubt anyone was too worried about technicalities here anymore than they were worried about quality. In fact the movie is so sloppily put together that it makes television look good. Even the dubbing from Mexican into English is lazy and weak -- for example at one point the hero says \"I might as well begin at the beginning....\" what the heck kind of translation is that? Couldn't they at least have him say \"start at the beginning\" so that it doesn't sound repetitive? A high school newspaper editor could have fixed the screenplay of this movie. It's the epitome of utilitarian film-making, just absolutely nothing is in this movie that doesn't need to be there for the basic commercial purpose of the film. They put no more effort into making it than they had to, and considering the extensive recycled footage I would doubt that they actually spent more than a week making this movie.

I will now cease posting about it on the principle that I don't want to expend more energy in the process of commenting than the creators of the movie actually expended while making it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first 2\/3 of this film wasn't that dissimilar to the American mummy films of the 30s and 40s. Two lovers in ancient Mexico dared to defy the law and were doomed to die. One became an Aztec mummy whose job it was to guard the sacred treasure and his lady love. And the lady was reincarnated in the present day and the mummy was naturally attracted to her. So far, it's all the typical mummy film...though it's quite a bit slower and duller than the American versions. Oh, and of course the Aztec mummy looked really, really crappy.

However, into this standard but boring film there is a super-villain. Why? I dunno--it sure didn't make any sense to have one. It seems this villain wants the treasure and he manages to hypnotize the lady and have her show them where the Aztec treasure is buried. Why does he need the treasure? Well, to buy the equipment needed to make an army of atomic robots, dummy! But first he has to construct a single mummy to defeat the mummy, as the mummy has so far been unstoppable.

You've got to see these \"human-robots\" as they look like the enormous clunky robots from Flash Gordon and other serials BUT they have a rubber head of a supposed dead guy inside! They really look hilariously funny and seeing the conclusion when there is a huge battle between the lethargic mummy and the equally slow robot is worth sitting through the rest of the dull movie. Both battle in super-slow-motion like they are bathed in taffy... and it's done in such an artless and silly fashion that it is bound to elicit chuckles--certainly not thrills.

Overall, the film is dreadfully dull and a muddled mess--especially at the end. However, for bad movie fans, it's a must-see--it's bad but unintentionally funny and great to watch and laugh at with friends.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Following the pleasingly atmospheric original and the amusingly silly second one, this incredibly dull, slow, and uneventful sequel comes across as a major letdown. Once again the nefarious criminal mastermind the Bat (hammy Luis Aceves Castaneda) is trying to steal valuable jewelry from the Aztec mummy Popoca. The Bat builds a hilariously clunky lumbering robot with a human brain in order to achieve this heinous goal. Flatly directed by Rafael Portillo, with a talky and tedious script by Alfredo Salazar and Guillermo Calderon, cruddy continuity (for example, the Bat was clearly killed at the end of the previous film, but is miraculously alive and well here!), an excruciatingly sluggish script, an excessive amount of stock footage from the first two flicks, a meandering narrative, a crippling lack of action and momentum, largely dreary going through the motions (non)acting from an understandably disinterested cast, and a poorly staged climactic battle between the mummy and the robot (the movie finally bursts to sidesplitting stupid life with said big bash, but alas it barely even lasts two lousy minutes and thus proves to be much too little far too late to alleviate the severity of the general overwhelming boredom), this numbingly dry, drippy, and draggy snorefest rates as a complete washout.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**SPOILERS** The third and mercifully last of the Aztec Mummy trilogy in the fact that the series major star-besides the Mummy- actor Ramon Gay, as Dr. Eduardo Almada, was gunned down by the outraged husband of a woman he was having an affair with on May 28, 1960! Still that didn't stop Gay, in him being edited into them from his previous films, from being in a number of future Mexican horror movies made over the next four years after his death.

In \"Robot vs the Aztec Mummy\" we have the once again mad scientist Dr. Krupp trying to get his hands on the Mummy's golden breastplate and bracelet in order, by having them deciphered, to find the Aztez treasure that's been secretly buried somewhere in modern Mexico City over 500 years ago. \"Robot vs the Aztec Mummy\" is not much as a movie in itself in that its made up of stock footage of the previous Aztec Mummy films that take up over half of the films running time.

After getting introduced to the movie's cast members, some who have been killed in the previous Aztec Mummy films, we get down to the real nitty gritty in it involving the evil as well as criminally insane Dr. Krupp also know as \"The Bat\". Dr. Krupp-who looks like a wild eyed and crazed Orson Wells-is a man with boundless visions of grandeur in him not only uncovering the long lost Aztec treasure but now, unlike in the two previous movies he was in, creating life and using it in making an army of human robots to take over the world. An idea he must have gotten from watching Ed Wood's 1955 \"Atomic Superman\" classic \"Bride of the Monster\".

Unable to handle the Mummy in his two other encounters with it, where he ended up getting thrown by it into a snake pit filled with deadly rattlers, Dr. Krupp had created a robot, with a human cadaver stuffed in it, to the job, of doing in the Mummy, for him. With he Mummy sleeping in its tomb at a local Mexico City cemetery Dr. Krupp has his Robot-Man brake into the Mummy's crypt to do battle with it and destroy it with its bolts of deadly radiation.

***SPOILERS*** The big built-up to the Aztec Mummy Robot-Man confrontation turns to be a big let-down with the Mummy having no trouble at all dispatching the \"Tin-Man\" in less then 30 seconds together with its creator Dr. Krupp. All this while both Dr. Almada and his friend and assistant Pinacate, who came to the Mummy's aid, have nothing at all to do but sit back and watch the action. Now without the mad and off-the-wall Dr. Krupp annoying it the Mummy can go back to its eternal resting place without ever worrying about the problems of the modern world at large, like Dr. Krupp, that it has really no interest in.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With the dialogue in the dubbed version of this film, I don't think that Shakespeare is in any great danger. This is the story of an ancient Aztec mummy who has been disenfranchised. His stuff has been taken and this really ticks him off. He seems to know who's doing this even though he's a gyrating, raving entity. I loved the two dull men who tell the story of how the mummy was found and the doctor who is determined to destroy the creature. There are all these scenes in this ridiculous graveyard, full of cheap crosses and other junk. There's a mausoleum where the mummy is kept. I can't begin to reproduce the idiocy of this, including a snake pit where the good doctor is thrown (there is a door next to it so he can crawl out) to the robot, a mass of metal cans with a guy inside. The dialogue is awful. There are long pauses between speeches as if someone offstage is feeding them their lines. I love the scene where the two little kids accuse their mother of going out at night (she goes into this zombie state or something). Nonetheless, if your looking for a film that you can laugh at and never takes itself seriously, watch this. Have a couple beers first. Like a direct line from the mummy's tomb, \"Watch this and your eyes will bleed and your breath will stink.\" What more can I say?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mexican 'classic' was the third entry in the Aztec Mummy series. As you will soon find out, this movie is anything but a classic, instead, it's more like a movie that deliberately tries to bore you.

Some scientist wants to steal Aztec treasure from a tomb, but guarding that tomb is that walking toilet paper commercial: The Aztec Mummy. Knowing he can't beat the Mummy, he then builds a robot, and a very bad one at that. We only get to see Mr.Robot in the last reel, as he clunks around, and does battle with the Aztec Mummy.

I have seen a lot of lousy Sci-Fi films, hell most Sci-Fi films I see are lousy, but this one, for it's entire duration of 64 Minuites, is the worst movie I've seen, with Fubar coming in a close second....

In conclusion: Don't waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There must be an error. This movie belongs with \"Plan 9\", and a lot others as a quite entertaining, silly diversion. You'll never accept you like it, yet you will watch it whenever it comes out on TV. It's as simple as that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, man, they sure knew how to make them back then. Hollywood has forgotten the basic ingredients of bad movie making: cardboard steel and the god fearing scientist action hero!

This film was so close to a masterpiece, alas it was not to be, as it failed to feature ray guns and invaders from the Moon. The MST3K version tried to fix this by adding a pilot of a show called Captain Cody, where a guy with a rocket propelled jacket fights bad make-up people from the Moon, but it didn't quite add up.

Also, the comments of the guys in the theater were not nearly as funny as I expected them to be. All in all, a great disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Awful, confusing bit of crap from South of the Border. I've now watched it twice and I STILL don't really know what was going on. It had something to do with a stupid looking Aztec mummy, a 'human robot' that's the dumbest looking robot I've ever seen bar none, and a woman who is the reincarnation of some ancient Aztec chick. Most of the story is told in a painfully slow and droning manner by an incredibly dull scientist. This guy is a marvelous sleep aid. His nemesis is a fat slob called The Bat, which is a pretty unimaginative name for an evil scientist.

I guess the boring scientist and his wormy assistant dug up the mummy, and what a shocker, the scientist's wife just HAPPENS to be the reincarnation of the mummy's girlfriend. They keep the mummy perpetually in a mausoleum for some reason, I guess so that the overacting bad guy can steal it. It takes him five years to do this, because he's inventing a 'human robot' to steal the mummy, or attack it, or whatever. He's after some treasure that the mummy has, so that he can be rich. But excuse me, if the guy had this huge an intellect and a strong drive to succeed, why didn't he just patent some of his ideas and get rich that way?

Oh, well, I suppose that would make too much sense. Instead, there is ridiculous fight between the mummy and the robot, and it's really hard to tell which one is faker looking or more cheesy. To tell you the truth, I watched this because I thought a film with a name like The Robot Vs. the Aztec Mummy just HAD to be fabulously cheesy. Instead it was just dully awful and mind blowingly confusing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Robot vs. the Aztec Mummy was one of the silliest and least believable films I've ever seen. O.K, I can buy that the woman in the film is a reincarnation of a virgin that was sacrificed to an Aztec God. What I can't buy is that the incredibly phony looking mummy and the even worse looking robot. When you want to watch a film like this, you want to see lots of fighting action. But the robot and the mummy fight for about a minute total! Probably worst of all was the dia de los muertos art they had in the credits. It's the worst I've ever seen. Avoid this one if possible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like a lot of movies involving little kids, this starts off \"real cute\" and likable...and then, after about a half hour or so, becomes the reverse.

That's certainly the case here in this time-travel story (which I usually love) where an adult meets a kid who his really him at the age of eight! Great premise and a great lead actor in Bruce Willis, but.....

The kid \"Rusty\" is a smart-aleck and whiny brat and Willis Rusty grown up now as \"Russell\" gets abrasive with his constant yelling. That is entertainment? No, thanks.

Young Breslin has gone on to become a very good child actor, being involved in a number of films including \"The Cat In The Hat\" opposite a more famous child actor: Dakota Fanning.

Overall, a disappointing film, especially with all the good press this movie got when it was released.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, I wasn't sure who this film was aimed at - it seemed like a story for kids but had stuff in it kids wouldn't understand and find boring. There wasn't really much to it, Bruce Willis wasn't stretched as an actor at all. He did a lot of glancing to the side with that half smile of his - unless you are a big fan of his I wouldn't bother. And if it's the story you're interested in (guy who seems to have it all but is lacking emotionally is taught lessons from a child), I would go to see About A Boy. It has everything this film lacked, humor, sadness and reality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Kid was born retarded. It pulls in a half-dozen directions, features dialog and action lifted from much older and better-known flops, and might be funny -- if only the writers knew what funny is.

Disney stuff has gotten a lot better in the last couple of decades, but don't let that fool you. They should have given The Kid a wide berth, sang it a lullaby, then ran the train into a ravine. Mercy killing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"what was Bruce Willis thinking when he signed on for this one?? this one made no sense to me.. i was so confused by it, it wasnt funny at all.. I dont even know why Disney made this one.. Bruce is a Great actor whom ive liked for a Long time .. and this disappointed me a lot.. Pass this one by on the video shelf....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't emphasize it enough, do *NOT* get this movie for the kids.

For that matter, you'd best spare the adults from it as well.

All right, perhaps I'm overexaggerating a little. This isn't the worst kids' movie... no, let me rephrase that. This isn't the worst movie made by dissilusioned adults FOR dissilusioned adults and somehow marketed towards kids (that would be \"Jack\", which I've been meaning to review \/ gut like a fish).

Adults won't learn anything surprising (well, if you must, fast-forward to just before the end credits for a Educational Bit about an Interesting Cosmic Phenominon). We don't usually end up doing as adults what we wanted to do as kids as reality tends to get in the way. Well, duh, I could have told you that (so can four years of college at an art school, but I degress).

I have no idea what the heck kids could possibly get out of this movie. Most likely it will only upset them (we get to watch the moment when Russ was traumatized at eight years old). There's a better movie, \"Kiki's Delivery Service\", that has essentially the same message but handles it litely instead of drilling it into your head. And the adults will like it too!

By the way, there is a moment in the movie made with amature MST3K-ers in mind, if they think of that OTHER Bruce Willis movie with a sad little kid in it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After 15 minutes watching the movie I was asking myself what to do: leave the theater, sleep or try to keep watching the movie to see if there was anything worth. I finally watched the movie: what a waste of time. Maybe I am not a 5 years old kid anymore!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bruce Willis, as usual, does an excellent job.

[warning: may be considered a \"spoiler\"]

While my friend thought it was good, I kept glancing at my watch during the entire movie wondering when it would end. After seeing such great flicks as \"The Patriot\" and \"Chicken Run\" I was really disappointed in Disney's \"The Kid.\"

Willis plays a middle-aged man with a harsh and realistic attitude on putting a positive spin on people's images (he's an Image Consultant). An unknown kid shows up. Yes, it's him but younger, and even Lily Tomlin can see him. At this point I'm reminded of a cross between a poor \"Quantum Leap\" episode and a bad time traveling flick.

Kid and Willis go through trying to figure out why he's in that time period. They figure it out. They meet Willis when he's older. Nevermind that it never goes into detail how old Willis teleports them between time periods and gets them together to begin with, how he got that knowledge to begin with, how he came to the realization that he needed to do this, and so on.

Basically, it's a very tired, unoriginal, uninspiring plot that has some great actors in it. The good news is that \"the Kid\" actor is nowhere near as annoying as he's presented in the trailers on television.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are a few scripts like this one floating around Hollywood; this one is not even close to the best--just the first. This is all production value, no substance, but the Disney name probably will help it. A good idea, a wasted opportunity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first few minutes showing the cold and crusty the Willis character were pretty enjoyable, especially with Jean Smart, but it really tanked after that. This is just hackneyed big man and little irritating kid stuff from way back with no innovation at all. I know that the casting probably picked this kid to show that Willis was just as irritating in his younger self, but I found this kid ESPECIALLY irritating and whinney.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this only because my 10-yr-old was bored. He and his friend hated it but of course liked being at the movies. This is the first time I've strongly disagreed with Ebert in many years. There is not a single thing to recommend this film. Willis is good, as always. But the story stinks, is unbelievable, there is no real story, no action, no interesting cinematic sequences, no surprises, and worst of all, the child star is A thoroughly repulsive slug guaranteed to turn off any parent who does not have a dweeby fat slob for a kid. By all means stay away and spare your child - unless you want to punish him or her. There is no excuse for such lousy directing or writing and one hopes these filmmakers will suffer accordingly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Fool for Love\" is one of the several now forgotten films Robert Altman directed throughout the 1980s. This one, a screen adaptation of a Sam Shepard play that features Shepard in the lead role, just simply isn't very good. Altman made many not-very-good films over the course of his fascinating career, and many times the fault was his. But here I think the fault lies with Shepard for writing such a flimsy play. Altman's direction is assured, the performances are o.k. given what the actors have to work with, but this inconsequential screenplay goes nowhere, and takes its time getting there.

Shepard is Eddie, a stuntman who has a love\/hate relationship with May (Kim Basinger). The two fight endlessly over the course of an evening spent in some dusty motel in the middle of nowhere, while a mysterious man (Harry Dean Stanton) who may be either a figurative or literal father to both Eddie and May quietly observes. Randy Quaid rounds out the four-person cast as a gentleman caller.

The only dramatic hook in the entire plot is the suggestion that Eddie's and May's relationship is incestuous. However, this hook feels more like a gimmick than anything. The screenplay doesn't explore their relationship in any detail, and it doesn't use their relationship to explore any more universal themes. Shepard and Basigner create eccentric, mannered characters who grow irritating within the first five minutes; Stanton and Quaid have little to do but provide reaction shots.

The last half hour or so of the film is especially bad, when Eddie's and May's back stories begin to play out in flashback over monotone, somnolent voice over.

Chalk this up to another of Altman's experiments gone awry.

Grade: C-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After reading Fool For Love in a Drama class of mine, I was looking forward to seeing how Sam Shepard's wonderful play would be translated to the screen. Much to my dismay, it was nowhere near as entertaining as the play. The film seemed to drag, the music was inappropriate for the tone of the movie, and all the raw energy of the play seemed to have been sucked out of this film version. It's a shame to see this come out this way even with Shepard's involvement, playing the role of Eddie. Do yourselves a favor...see the play next time it's being performed in your area or simply read the book instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had been amazed by director Antal's Kontroll back in 2003. His first American project, Vacancy, was less impressive but a decent start. Armored is his second feature and while the visual signature is recognizable, the film never rises above the level of a B movie.

It's a shame because the main premise has all the ingredients for twists and turns and the ensemble cast featuring many quality actors should be able to deliver. Antal could have made a great heist film but instead goes for an action flick. Then again he could have shot a cool action flick but it doesn't really deliver in that department either.

What you are left with is one implausible situation after another, a group of poorly sketched characters bicker and fight over a sum of money. If you look past the sharp cinematography, cast and the tight music score, you're left with what could have been a below average direct-to-video featuring Van Damme or Seagal.

This was probably the most disappointing movie for me in quite some time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At the heart of almost every truly great crime thriller is a carefully considered, methodically planned-out high stakes super-crime, which 9 times out of 10 is committed by a bunch of likable, grey-scale morality underdogs for who life isn't fair, for whom getting back at the man is, well, something worth cheering for. First-time screenwriter James V. Simpson's script for Armored gets this half right. He made extra-double-sure that we've got nothing but sympathy for the recently orphaned, Iraq war veteran Ty Hackett (Stomp the Yard's Columbus Short), who's about to have his house taken away by an evil bank (brother, I've been there). And he gave Ty a good family friend in Mike (Matt Dillon) who is super nice and gets him a job at the armored car company that he works at with Baines (Lawrence Fishbourne) and some weird French dude (Jean Reno). These guys like to have fun and play pranks, but they are also serious armored car guys too, so that means they carry guns and are tough.

After a short while, as one theoretically watches Armored, one might start to think as I did, that maybe - just maybe - this is going to be some kind of awesome, tongue-in-cheek, cornball heist movie with some on-the-nose characterizations that move the story along its natural course, cranking up the personal stakes of all involved in hopes of unveiling a really, really clever plan with lots of potential 'holy sh*t' moments. I mean, the music alone is textbook heist-movie - gritty, edgy beats working overtime as we're treated to close-ups of characters who say things like \"As a matter of fact I do,\" and \"Are you crazy??\" For 45 minutes or so, the movie had some serious genre-flick potential.

Then things start to really stink. These dudes, these idiots, have no plan. There's no \"Ok, here's what we're gonna do...\" scene, no blueprints, no explosives, no black van or ski-masks (despite their 'test-run', as can be seen in a trailer). No, these guys are going to steal $42 million dollars from their own trucks (which are only being tracked by HOURLY contact over the radio, despite being equipped with some fancy, big-deal 'GPS technology'), and they aren't even going to sit down and discuss it. Hell, Mike only tells Ty about the plan the night before, which is completely ridiculous. But of course, Ty's got his house to think about so as long as Mike promises that 'no one will get hurt,' he's on board. Guess what, though. Somebody gets hurt. Why? Because, besides driving the trucks into an abandoned factory to hide the money, they have no plan. That was it. That was how far they thought things out. So, naturally, things start to unravel. These cats deserve everything they get for being so unprepared.

This script, frankly, feels like it's like the product of some bad improv game: \"Armored Car, robbed by its own guards...GO!\" Despite some half-decent buildup that could have maybe taken the film in a few interesting directions, the story just completely falls apart, and pretty soon, NOTHING makes sense, or is even remotely plausible.

When filmmakers don't have a cool \"hook\" for their heist, their characters seem stupid, and bungling. And when characters are stupid, and bungling, it's hard for an audience to invest in them, and their story. And when that happens, any suspense drains out the bottom of the movie, leaving a laughable, hollow husk.

Skip it. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this movie today, with hopes that it would involve an at least half-intelligent story. I was extremely disappointed, as it did not. The plot, and the decisions by the main character, were so far-fetched. I was hoping for a \"Dog Day Afternoon\"-type movie, but instead got something totally unacceptable. I actually found myself totally hoping for the \"hero\" to be knocked off, and I nearly walked out of the theater on several occasions when this should have happened but didn't. Heist movies are notmeant to be feel-good flicks, and this one tried to be just that. Every couple of minutes during the second half of the movie, I found myself saying, \"no way\". Without giving the whole story away, it revolved around an armored car guard who was financially down and out, and whose house was going into foreclosure. He was invited in on a heist, and accepted, only to back down once the action began. Weak.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am so angry to the point i normally down make reviews with spoilers but in this case I'll make an exception.The first scenes of this movies are weak and then when they get to the meat and potatoes of the movie it sucks. This is one movie were i rooted for the bad guys because the captain-save-the-day was unbelievable and there was no connection to him or nothing to make you like him. The lead actor gave the weakest performance and Laurence Fishburne or Matt Dillon couldn't even save this movie. Sometime there are eye openers or great moments in a film that may not be that great..this movie has none. If you are looking for a movie to see in the meantime while nothing peeked your interest...don't choose this one..save your money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is not much to add to what others have already commented, the movie fails hard where it shouldn't, it has no depth in the planning of the heist and the characters are so unbelievable.

One thing that got me thinking, was that although the rest of the gang is trying hard to remove the pins from the doors of an armored truck, because there is supposed to be no other way of opening it, the guy inside the truck, with great ease manages to remove the floor of the truck which happens to have a hole in it so he can get out, and then get back in, without being noticed by anyone, because no one else could think that he could get out from there or even better, that they could have gotten into from there.

Promising but not quite there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The cast was fantastic, but the movie itself was horrible. It was so awful, I had to register just to say how bad it was.

I watched this movie, and I wanted to break it every minute I watched. It could have been great. Had a great premise. If you're going to rob an armored car, and there's a homeless person which sees you, you have to do, what you have to do. For the main character to decide to get a cop killed, and kill his friends and co-workers after the homeless guy was already dead, it's just ridiculous. And yes, I'm sure there will be responses to this about how his conscious got to him, but come on.

The main character crawled out the bottom of the armored truck, no one saw him. He blew up the stash of money and grabbed and dragged the cop right behind the other guards and no one saw him. He was able to get back in the armored car, and no one saw him... This movie had potential, but blew it.

You couldn't pay me to watch this movie ever again! DON'T EVER watch it! Aggravating...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unbelievably disappointed. The pace was slow. The characters unbelievable and throughout the film as a whole just let me feel bored and unfulfilled. There was no real plot that could keep you revolving around the film and keep you interested. The heist itself never offered any excitement and didn't seem very well though through.

There was not enough depth or background to any character and Laurance Fishbourne's character was one I eagerly awaited for, unfortunately Laurance has no idea how to play the thuggish brut and is much preferred as a likable character. Columbus short one of my favourite actors (in stomp the yard) let me down with his performance, his character was dark and you could hardly see what drove his reasoning.

The only character I think offered anything to the film was Milo Ventimiglia (Peter Petrelli in Heroes). Though his character quite small and insignificant I think his touch added to an all around dull film.

In Conclusion buy the DVD if you want to find a new way to waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to admit that I am disappointed after seeing this movie. I had expected so much more from the trailers. The movie was absolutely horrible. It lacked a real story line and the acting was not exactly the best. Don't waste your time. The movie is not what the trailers lead you to think it is. I would have to say that I don't usually write anything about movies on IMDb (in fact this is my first one) but this movie was such a disappointment that I registered just to let people know not to waste their time or money. The story line is that of a heist that is to happen and it looks like it had potential to be good but the things that happen in the movie are a little far fetched to be believable. Watch another movie instead, maybe the inside man???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How do you take a cast of experienced, well-known actors, and put together such a stupid movie? Nimrod Antel has the answer: Armored. Six co-workers at an armored car business decide to steal a large shipment of cash themselves. But, just as they get to first base with their plans, everything unravels quickly. With a plot like this, you'd think it couldn't be too bad, at least for an action movie. However, in the first 40 minutes or more of this movie we see what appear to be 6 normal, everyday kind of guys. They joke, they laugh, have a few drinks together, etc. Then, we suddenly learn they're planning to rob their own business. The hero Ty, (Columbus Short), is sucked into the scheme because of the cold, cruel world, even though he's a decorated veteran, nice guy, and reliable employee. Oh my, oh my! Then in the last 40 minutes of the film, these former regular guys nearly all turn into money-crazed psychos, willing to butcher each other for cash. In the last scenes Mike, (Matt Dillon), goes on a suicidal rampage for no other reason than to kill his former friend. The viewer has no hint before this ending that these men are this ruthless and bloodthirsty. It's utterly unbelievable and \"B movie\" is almost too kind for this sort of cheesy plot. I would say don't waste your time--too bad no one gave Laurence Fishburne, Jean Reno or Fred Ward the same advice before making this picture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A new guard in in the armored truck gig is recruited by his co-workers to steal 42 million from the truck. No bad guys, so no one will get hurt, right? Of course things go wrong and the new guard decides to have a conscience and make things right by saving the life of a dying man.

I'll admit that I didn't really have any interest in this film, but I didn't have any interest in Fantastic Mr Fox either, and that film made my top ten of the year. Armored is even more of a disappointment then I thought it would be. As a heist film, it fails to deliver the goods, it's boring and full of plot holes and leaps in logic that one will hurt themselves thinking about it.

Despite this the film somehow has a really great cast, but the film doesn't even use this to it's advantage. Everyone seems wasted in wooden characters that make stupid choices. Columbus Short is an uninteresting lead that is never charismatic and never makes the audience want to give a crap. Matt Dillon is the mastermind behind the heist and he plays Mr. Nice Guy at first, then when things don't go his way he quickly becomes the villain. The rest of the impressive cast include Lawrence Fisburn, Jean Reno, Skeet Ulrich, Fred Ward, Amaury Nolasco from Prison Break and Milo Ventimiglia from Heros. Non of them do much and when they actually do something, it's without much reasoning behind it.

The film is relatively short, but even with it's running time under 90 minutes, it felt dragged out. How long can you make a movie about a guy trapped somewhere? Phonebooth did a decent job and it was even more restricted. The leaps of logic concerning the plot here are tragic. 42 million and all the security they have are check ins every hour or so? The entire plan from my understanding was to drive the trucks into an abandoned warehouse and hide the money. Pretend to get hit and burn the trucks. They would then walk away with the money. Of course something goes wrong, or there would be no movie right? Through a series of unfortunate events out so called hero has trapped himself inside the truck with an injured officer. The rest of the movie is Dillion and his crew banging on the doors to get in. How very exciting.

The script calls for our hero to have financial problems, he might lose his house, which would in turn make him lose his brother. You see, both their parents died and it's just the two of them looking out for each other. So now he has a reason to join the heist. At first he didn't want in, but his money problems is just the right push to throw him in the thick of things. How convenient.

Armored's whole spin on the heist genre is that it's from an armored truck, from the guys who drive it. After that basic premise, the film falls flat on it's face. I found myself wanting it to end sooner and sooner each time someone spoke. Speaking of the ending, it sucks.

Skip it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie is sooooo bad that it forced me to create an account with IMDb just to warn others about it.

i have been using IMDb for a long time, and many movies have come close to making me want to register to either praise or bash them, however none have ever been that worthy. Until now!

I am a huge Matt Dillon fan. all i could ask myself throughout this movie is \"how did Dillon choose this script\"? really. i mean there are holes in it larger than Vredefort.

i mean it is a modern day heist movie, not one set in the seventies. For crying out loud, even a child knows that armored trucks have gps tracking and the sort. makes you wonder what it takes to get a script produced in Hollywood.

i could go on for ages, but i wont. believe me when i say this. save yourself the time and give this a skip.

Sorry Matt, I'm still a fan, but this movie sucked.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK I for one thought the trailer was quite good so was hopeful for this film, plus with the cast line up I was sure it couldn't get less than a 6 in my books. However I got annoyed half hour into the story... just where normal films get good, this film hit rock bottom.

SPOILER * The guy who everyone is trying to help is so caring of other people getting hurt in the middle of the hustle that he turns on his colleagues to save a tramp and then locks himself inside one of the armoured trucks. Not only that, he constantly tries to get other peoples attention by which he ends up endangering more people and long story short, the outcome is that he is responsible for not just the tramps death, but also a police officer getting shot and the kidnapping of his younger brother... oh and all 5 of his colleagues dying disgraced deaths.

But in the end he is HAPPY because he came to his senses halfway through the endeavour, so what if all his colleagues are now dead rather than sticking to the plan and being a millionaire. This film tried to be so politically correct it makes me sick! Ruined a good story. Shame really.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Disappointing heist movie indeed, I was actually expecting a pretty cool cat and mouse stuff going on through out the movie and it does have few of those cat and mouse stuff going on, but it was just pretty stupid. And it basically showed all the good scenes in the trailer, as a matter of fact if you seen the trailer to this, you basically seen the whole film cause it is just that predictable. So basically the plot is about a few armored truck company workers that try to steal the 42 million dollars they are suppose to transport, until one of the members grows a conscience. I thought the movie would be better with it's cast of well known actors, but I was wrong. I mean this isn't necessarily a bad film but it just wasn't that good either or has any depth. This is most definitely a rental at best, just not really worth seeing it in theaters. heist

4.8\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After watching this for 15 minutes I knew how it would end. Its a clich\u00e9 film with a stupid setup. I'm a big fan of thief films, but this one does not deliver anything new smart or special. It's about an insider heist gone bad because \"hot head-bad guy\" shots a bum, and of course \"do goody-bad guy\" goes on a moral trip. The reason why it's stupid and not believable is. When you've already gone so far to kill a bum, why not just kill the one guy that stands between you and 43 million. They got 45 minutes to stash the money and stage a robbery nobody in there right mind would hesitate to shoot Mr \"do goody\" and in this case he is a guy they known for a few days.... All and all I was leaning to fast forwarding from the middle of it, but I duked it out and boy do I regret it","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of those movies in which there are no big twists whatsoever and you can predict pretty much whats is going to happen. Matt dillon was awesome once again, but the rest didn't played a bigger part as they should have.

It was exciting in the beginning but kinda slow paced and predictable in the end.Its one of those flicks in which the good guy wins no matter happens.If you have absolutely nothing to do, you can give it a try I personally found it not worth watching. The story could have been more interesting and the director could have made it less of a B-movie by engineering a happy ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dillon, Fishbourne, Reno, should have teamed up for a much smarter effort, because this one slides in the B-Category and could have been done with no-name actors and a much smaller budget, since anyway, 2 armored trucks and a wasted warehouse could not have coasted too much. Since the writers did not manage to come with a smart heist plan, they targeted the dramatics of the situation, but there was not much to exploit there either. Fishbourne and Reno do not bring anything to this movie except the media interest, they're only expensive advertising. Dillon is OK, but this was a walk in the park. The choices of the main character, Ty Hackett, are quite uninspired and the final, with the \"reward\" is quite childish. Waste of time, money, actors and so on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film had it moments, but was disappointing in my eyes anyway. It was a reworking of Trespass (Walter Hill) and so The Treasure Of the Sierra Madre, with less tension, bite and human emotion. There was some nice acting but the story was limp and lacked any real depth. I watched the movie for Mr Reno and Mr Fishburn, neither were inspired and both had little to say or act out of their skin for. This movie has been done to death in the past and did not have to be made, eats up money which could be used on better movies. For an action movie it was sparse of action and as a thriller did not thrill. Better than watching snow fall, but not for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The sounds in the movie were so mundane and ridiculous, seriously banging on the door hinges for about 30 minutes really crunches your teeth and makes your head hurt.

i love bad puns more than the next guy, but come on \"no blood on our hands\" being said about a million times by Matt Dillon' character, and when Matt Dillon's character shoots the bum the lead character which i fail to remember his name because i don't really think anyone cares gets blood on his hands literally.

the background music with the heavy metal guitar ringing an A-chord for about 5 minutes isn't my idea of music, come on i was having the worst headache by the end of this garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A heist film with Jean Reno, Matt Damon and Laurence Fishburne... sounds great on paper? I suspect it must have done when someone green lighted the production of this movie but the end product is terrible!

The story is dull, the action boring, and, for a film that is only 88 minutes it seems to just drag on. I could feel my life slipping away and was sure there was something better I should have been doing... any paint to watch dry somewhere perhaps?

Sigh. I'm a huge fan of Jean Reno, but what on earth was he thinking when he signed up to this? There are so many other great action movies around... go watch one of those and let this movie be best forgotten.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a bad movie, the premise was all there, the actors were all there. And yet a believable plot, good dialogue, characters to relate to were somewhat missing.

Typical heist gone wrong premise set against a backdrop of everyman being shafted by the system. The lead character Tye and his little brother have been having no luck and their house is going to be repossessed, along comes godfather Matt Dillon (Who does not look much older than Tye so not exactly sure how that happened)to the rescue with a plan to steal money from an armoured van which they work on as security guards. Tye has a brief flirtation with a conscience but decides to go along with it. And thus begins a truly awful hole ridden 30 minutes of unbelievable trash. I will not list all the ways in which this movie was unrealistic but let me point out the major ones:

Because of Tye deciding to be a good guy because a homeless guy became collateral damage, all of his close friends including his godfather die. His godfather who is supposedly family and the man who brought him into the caper at the last minute to help him out dies because of Tye. Tye in the process of thwarting his friends and godfather destroys all the money. The money came from the same bank that was repossessing his house. And yet he chose it over the supposed family of Matt Dillon.

There are many more, needless to say that this film was tripe and I earnestly hope nobody else goes to see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well where do we start, there was a lot of potential for this film with such big stars playing a role. But the whole story was ruined by a horrific plot. This movie did not pan out to be what i would expect, the good guy makes it out alive, i mean co mon nobody wants the good guy to be successful. The ending was cringe worthy and very clich\u00e9 no thought what so ever, YOU GOT THE PLOT ALL WRONG THE BAD GUYS ARE MEANT TO COME OUT SUCCESSFUL.

If you want to waste 1 hour and 2 minutes of your time spend it doing something else this movie was the epitome of CRAP. I really think the actors did this movie for some quick Vegas cash no doubt about it. SAVE your money watch a better movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Armored

The best part about driving an armored vehicle is that if any bums approach you at a red light asking for money, you can shoot them in the face.

And while the armoured guards in this thriller aren't using their protective power to purge the drifter population, they are using their position to fleece their employer.

When newcomer Ty (Columbus Short) lands a job with an armored trunk company, he feels like he has found his lot in life. Unfortunately, however, when he discovers that his co- workers (Matt Dillon, Jean Reno and Laurence Fishburne) are plotting to take the $42 M shipment for themselves, Ty must fortify himself \u0096 and the funds \u0096 inside the armored truck.

A tedious caper with a plodding plot and phoned-in performances, Armored is an utterly forgettable film.

Besides, if you really want to jack millions, it's a lot simpler to just disguise yourself as an ATM. (Red Light)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This looks so good on paper - Matt Damon, Lawrence Fishbourne, Jean Reno, nice right? And a heist with $42 million - sounds like a kick-ass crime movie.

Big disappointment - I reckon the stars got all the money because the production values on this are lousy.

But more than that it the pseudo reservoir Dogs atmosphere when the easy crime goes wrong. It's very much made for TV stuff.

All in all hugely disappointing - it score points for being what it is - but loses them massively for being, bluntly, not very interesting at all...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie, despite its list of B, C, and D list celebs, is a complete waste of 90 minutes. The plot, with its few peaks, was very predictable. It was so silly that I cannot believe that I am taking the time to even write a review of it. Flex, to his credit, has grown in his ability to act since playing Michael Jackson in a made for TV movie a few years ago. Tangi, on the other hand, has regressed, as she was more talented in her role as Felicity's flunkie some years ago. As I sat watching this train wreck of a film, with its pitiful production and horrible sound quality, other four letter words came to my mind to qualify what I thought of this film. However, in an effort to keep my writings G Rated, I'll simply say this film is another four letter word starting with an L. LAME!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was at Wrestlemania VI in Toronto as a 10 year old, and the event I saw then was pretty different from what I saw on the Wrestlemania Collection DVD I just watched. I don't understand how the wwE doesn't have the rights to some of the old music, since most of those songs were created by the WWF they shouldn't have to worry about the licensing and royalty fees that prevent shows like SNL from releasing season sets. Its pretty stupid to whine about, but for me hearing Demolition come out to their theme music at a Wrestlemania in person was a memory that I never forgot, and it didn't exist on this DVD. What is the point of them even owning the rights to this huge library of video if they have to edit it so drastically to use it?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just watched on UbuWeb this early experimental short film directed by William Vance and Orson Welles. Yes, you read that right, Orson Welles! Years before he gained fame for radio's \"The War of the Worlds\" and his feature debut Citizen Kane, Welles was a 19-year-old just finding his muse. Besides Vance and Welles, another player here was one Virginia Nicholson, who would become Orson's first wife. She plays a woman who keeps sitting on something that rocks back and forth courtesy of an African-American servant (Paul Edgerton in blackface). During this time a man (Welles) keeps passing her by (courtesy of the scene constantly repeating). I won't reveal any more except to say how interesting the silent images were as they jump-cut constantly. That's not to say this was any good but it was fascinating to watch even with the guitar score (by Larry Morotta) added in the 2005 print I watched. Worth a look for Welles enthusiasts and anyone with a taste of the avant-garde.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When a friend once lambasted me for my first movie (a pretty bad videotaped affair), I argued that I could grow; Orson Welles' first movie, indeed, was even worse. He challenged me that it couldn't be, so I pulled out the Criterion laserdisc of (I think) CITIZEN KANE and played HEARTS OF AGE. My friend lasted just a few minutes before conceding the point.

There is a little humor in this short, but it's basically as pretentious as (and perhaps a collegiate answer to) BLOOD OF A POET and other avant garde films of the time. It is what it is: a succession of images with a vague theme, and unless you really enjoy any footage of Welles (in heavy makeup, to boot), this isn't really even worth tracking down.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was a hippie age 22 in 1965, have seen the play 5 times, have 2 versions of the music, and have read the script many times. Maybe taken as an separate thing, the movie is OK, but as an adoption of the play, it's terrible.

First the good. The songs are sung well, and the production values are pretty good. The homosexual implications in Black Boys, White Boys is cute. The Claude\/Berger switch was interesting. Hair is a fluid production, and constant changes in it are inherent provided the basic spirit of it is retained.

But the basic spirit was very much distorted. It seemed like all the producer wanted was to sing certain songs, and fit the story-line to them regardless of what that did to the original intent of the play.

Claude, Sheila, and Hud were presented as a selfish brats who could care less about anyone outside their tribe. Claude destroyed Sheila's parents party (it's hard to believe that she smiled while her parents were being hurt), and repeatedly stole cars. Sheila stole the soldier's clothes and car. Then she left him in the middle of the desert where he would certainly sunburn badly, probably be busted in rank, and could likely die on that lonely Nevada road. Good fun. And Hud found it fine to break his son's heart while yelling at his ex. This is not what hippies were like, not what the play described, and is directly opposite to a love generation.

I've never seen a hippie beg for money. The point was to be self-sufficient outside the capitalist system, not beg from it.

After Berger is thrown in jail for ruining Sheila's party and Claude offers to bail some out, Berger insists on being bailed instead, with no better plan for bailing the rest that hitting on Sheila's parents, and then hitting on his own mommy.

\"Be In\" has always been a very spiritual point, but here it is wasted on silly brides floating around. Even if this is part of his trip, it ruins a beautiful song. I know they're contrasting \"Floating In Space\" with the Army. But again, it totally ruins a beautiful song.

While Sheila and Claude are skinny dipping, Berger steals their clothes, laughing \"it was fun man\" even after he could see both were very annoyed. Then a little later, Berger does one thing that no hippie ever does. He hits Claude. Terrible.

Then they have the perfect opportunity to sing \"Starshine\" at night in some beautiful SF spot with the stars twinkling down, maybe working into an inventive duet. Instead, the whole tribe sings it in the blazing sun speeding down the road in a convertible (stolen of course).

I was vastly disappointed with the movie in 1979, and I like it even less now. I think it would have been possible to do a reasonably close adoption of the show, but this ain't it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've liked Milos Forman's movies since I saw \"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest\" and \"Amadeus\" (two big masterpieces), but when I saw \"Hair\", I kept wondering if this was the same Milos Forman. This movie is boring and uninteresting to say the least. OK, the music is pretty good, but on screen it only seems like a bunch of drugged people dancing around (wait a minute... that's what it really is!). In fact, the only interesting part, and the only part where Milos' talent shows up, are the last 15 minutes or so, (SPOILER!!) since when Berger takes Claude's place as a soldier set to the Vietnam war. That 15 minutes are moving and well-directed, but it's a shame that we have to endure so much awful material before that.

Well, maybe this is one of those movies you need to be \"on the subject\" to enjoy (the subject being marijuana, acid and other drugs the film glorifies). I'm not, so...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I should start off by saying I have something of a love-hate relationship with musicals. Some of them are fantastic, some are downright crap. So I expected Hair to fall into one of those categories. However, it didn't, falling instead in the middle.

The songs aren't brilliant, though the \"Sodomy\" song did make me smile a lot, and everything is rather dated looking. But the movie didn't draw me in as others have, such as Rocky Horror. Although that's a bad example, since for years I hated Rocky Horror, then all of a sudden I got it and have loved it ever since. Maybe Hair will be the same. Although I doubt it will get as much exposure as Rocky Horror due to the language and nudity content, so I doubt I will get the chance to have it grow on me. Gettit? Hair....grow...oh suit yourself.

Anyhow, I didn't get to see the last fifteen minutes or so due to a technical glitch, which was a shame, since I would have liked to see how it ended, especially after reading some of the reviews here.

Not a film for the casual cinema-goer, but definitely one for musical lovers. I really hope they don't re-make it, though, since I think any such re-make would end up a shallow, pale, PC version of the original.

Worth a look for lovers of the genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is an insult to the play upon which it is based. The character of Claude has been warped beyond recognition leaving a painful performance that does not even vaguely resemble the original plot. Shame, shame, shame. They have also cut a fair number of the original score of change the context in which the songs are sung. This warps the air of the film and causes the viewer who is aware of how this should be to wince as the writer of this screen play gives Hud a wife,turns Sheila into a spoiled rich girl, characterizes Claude as a cowboy, and kills Burger by sending him to Vietnam instead. If one is not familiar with the original plot I assure you this is not a bad film for you to see, but if you ever wish to see the original or are, as I am, a die-hard fan of the classic play, you would do best to avoid the film altogether. One really must stick to one or the other.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"hair, the movie based on the broadway hit,fails to achieve any redeemable cinematic qualities. you cant really take the play and make it a movie. whether one is so tempted by the rock music to see this movie, it really detracts from the quality of a broadway show. worse than seeing sitcom reruns. musical fiasco, and cant believe others rated it so high.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sadness was the emotion I felt, after the screen went dark. Puzzled, was another. Why would two seasoned screen vets like Matthau and Lemmon sign on to this putrid project? I'm under the impression they didn't read the script, before the cameras started rolling. All the cast is wasted, in this unfunny, uninteresting and unimpressive movie. Sadly enough, this was one of elegant Edward Mulhare's last projects, here as the heavy. Dyan Cannon tries, Hal Linden looks bored, Donald O'connor reciting a few lines laden with profanity. (??!!). I'm not with the \"Legion of Decency.\" My point is they were spouted purely for the strangeness of hearing him use off-color language. That is a desperate attempt to infuse \"humor\" into a picture. He actually did deliver the film's only morsel of entertainment, when he pattered about on the dancefloor, though. I save my harshest criticism for the leads. Walter Matthau should have known better. He still delivers great solo performances (IQ, Dennis The Menace, etc.). His character, although affable, is rather dull and one dimensional. Seen him once, seen him all. Jack Lemmon gives another one of his trademark, weepy, \"just too darn sensitive\" male portrayals. When he starts that mode, I vicariously want to hand him a box of tissues. OUT TO SEA is painfully unfunny, and whoever produced this mess should be made to walk the plank.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I never heard of this film when it first came out. It must have sunk immediately. :o) I saw it on cable while sick in hospital so I hardly had enough energy to watch it, let alone turn the channel. Better choice than the Style Channel. ;0(. Filmed on location, this travelogue should have been on the Travel Channel. The plot is recycled from ship board farces of the thirties and forties. The cast seems to have been recycled from the fifties. Donald O'Connor, star of musicals and Edward Mulhare as a card shark. As to the main cast, Walter Matthau is still playing the same part as he did in Guys and Dolls or was it the one about the orphan girl? Wiseacre irresponsible gambler and rounder. But it just doesn't take with a man of his age. As to Jack Lemmon, he plays his part so straight, he can hardly dip and glide when dancing. And as mentioned, Dyan Cannon is outstandingly attractive as another swindler sailing with her mother who thinks Walter is rich, while he thinks she is rich. Elaine Stritch plays Dyan's mother, another retread from the fifties. The most fun is the running feud between Brent Spiner as the domineering and snotty cruise director who immediately spots Walter as a poor dancer, and spends his time trying to get him dismissed so he will have to pay for his free passage. In the end, though he receives his comeuppances. Meanwhile Jack mopes about, meets an attractive woman, with mutual attraction, but their affair is broken up by Walter's lies that Jack is a doctor, when he was actually a retired department store buyer. But finally, the two men take to the sea in a rubber boat to intercept her seaplane and all is well. There does not seem to be any principal player under the age of fifty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's not fool ourselves, okay? We all know that this film was made because of the success of the \"Grumpy Old Men\" movies. Unlike those, however, this travesty has zero humor and very little heart.

Gloria DeHaven is the sole shining light to be seen. It breaks my heart that she was finally given the chance to show off her skills to a new generation of moviegoers, only to end up in a piece of dreck such as this. There was a touching scene which featured her being stood up by someone she was falling in love with. Her fine performance was the only quality acting going on in \"Out To Sea\". Everyone else is just going through the motions. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In 1904 Tangier, a wealthy American woman and her two children are kidnapped by Berbers, murderous desert pirates who scorn the Moroccan government and, by doing so, kidnap \"American pestilence\", which attracts the attention of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Fictitious historical epic is less a grand adventure than it is a peculiar, somewhat exhaustive throwback to the desert-sheik films of the 1940s (with a bit of \"The King and I\" interjected, besides). Portraying the cloaked, mustachioed, bloodthirsty leader and his snippy, haughty captive, Sean Connery and Candice Bergen could be acting in two entirely different movies (neither one seems to know how far to carry the camp-elements of their characters and dialogue, and both seem singularly without proper direction). The various (and anonymous) slashings and beheadings which occur are arbitrary: we don't know any of these victims, and the big action scenes become blurry, noisy montages of sand-swept violence on horseback. The pluses: a much-lauded music score by Jerry Goldsmith (Oscar-nominated, but a loser to John Williams' \"Jaws\"), fine location shooting and cinematography. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Luscious Candace Bergen as a prim Victorian beauty, kidnapped by Sean Connery as a devilish desert Sheikh! How can you go wrong? How? Oh, let me count the ways!!! Earthy, primitive Sean Connery, exactly the right man to tame a brittle, classy beauty like Candace, is . . . well, underwhelming in the role. That's because, instead of having dialog about the real issues (\"you are a woman . . . I am a man!\") he has to babble nonsense about \"the will of Allah\" and \"the wind blows destiny across the desert sands.\" John Milius, a director known more for the worship of naked male bodies and brute military force than any insight (or interest) in conventional human relationships, has a maddening way of cutting away from his desert lovers every time it looks like Candace might get kissed. Instead of watching nature take its course with two fabulously attractive people in a picturesque landscape, we are treated to endless, (and I do mean ENDLESS) shots of Brian Keith flashing his walrus sized choppers and delivering gritty sermons on the joys of being Teddy Roosevelt. I have nothing against Teddy Roosevelt, but watching him test out his new rifle or make speeches about the heroic death of a big bear just doesn't excite me the way the love story between Candace Bergen and Sean Connery would have . . . if it had ever actually gotten underway! The weird thing is, Milius spends most of his time building up characters and story lines that have no resolution. Candace's two little children in the story both get more screen time than she does. There's no humor, no chemistry, no sizzle, in any of the things that happen to her in the desert. Unless you think it's funny that after weeks of galloping around on horseback her hair is still perfect.

The only \"real\" moment in the story is when, late at night, Candace Bergen shakes her little daughter out of a sound sleep on soft cushions and says, \"we must escape.\" The little girl turns over and, without missing a beat, replies, \"but mother, I was sleeping!\" That one line sums up what's really missing from the story. No danger, suspense, or sizzle in the basic story line, of a cultivated lady in captivity. She (and her children) are both so snug and well cared for that it's hard to believe anyone is worked up about their fate.

Mind you, if Candace herself had said the line it might have worked better. If the tension came from her enjoyment of her captivity, (or her delight at being in the arms of Sean Connery) and her guilt about all the trouble being caused by her abduction, then the story would have had some tension. But Milius makes the odd assumption that the audience is just as worked up as he is over whether Teddy Roosevelt will get the chance to prove his manhood three thousand miles away. In the end the pretty lady and her children don't seem to matter worth a damn to him . . . and since they're at the center of the story the whole thing seems rather dry and endless . . . like the burning desert sands.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"and I still don't know where the hell this movie is going? I mean really, what is this movie about? Is it about demonstrating Sean Connery's complete lack of Arabic? Is it about showing that if he could play the role of a Moroccan warlord then he was a natural to play the role of Ramirez in highlander? Why was Teddy Roosevelt even in this movie? Why was there so much sand that was put to so little use? Where was there so much table slapping? Why did Teddy ignore the Japanese guy who he was shooting archery with? Did he realize the man was Japanese? Why was no no credible excuse given for Connery's accent? At least Jean Claude Van Damme has an excuse for his French accent, whether it be being raised by French nuns in Hong Kong (Double Impact), being raised on the bayou in Louisiana (Universal Soldier), or having a French mother and being raised in Indochina (I cannot even remember the name of that movie)? Can anyone explain this?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I laughed so much when I saw this film I nearly soiled myself !. Awful acting, laughable effects (super imposed explosions), and dodgy slow motion fighting.

One of the worst films I've ever seen !.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't get me wrong. I really love the \"arena-martial arts genre\", and I get more and more surprised over how many films like this there are out there. This one is one of those, and it's not even close to be one of the best. With Mathias Hues in it, I thought it would be good. He can't save this movie though, and to be honest, he wasn't very good either. Just don't pay attention to what other people say; The fighting scenes in this movie are NOT good at all. I really know what I'm talking about, since I have seen so many movies like this. There are also a bunch of scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot whatsoever. I guess they added these only to make the movie last a little bit longer, in addition to manifest the bad guy as,uuuuuuh.......bad (like we didn't know that already).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is not at all like City of God, you might get the same feeling but it isn't, there's no intense shooting nor intense drug scenes, you get the idea. If you ask me I think this film was a waste of time, there are a lot of other films which gives 100 times better meaning and teaching than \"Wooden Camera\". Yes I might be the only one to give a negative comment for this film but it's only in my opinion. It's one of those films where I can get the feeling that I'll be blown away but when the credits start to role my friends and I all gave mutual looks, and we all laughed at how ridiculous this movie was. So to conclude this matter, I advise not to watch it.

Personal note - Making Africans talk English was a big mistake. In City of God they used their native language which gave the film much more power and reality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Yes, this is from Nietzsche's Aphorism 146 from \"Beyond Good and Evil\". And that's what you find at the start of this movie.

If you watch the whole movie, you will doubt if it was the message that the Ram Gopal Varma Production wanted to pass on. As the scenes crop up one by one, quite violent and at times puke-raking, the viewer is expected to forget the Nietzsche quote and think otherwise. That to deal with few people you need dedicated people like Sadhu Agashe who will have the licence to kill anyone, not just writing FIRs (something unworthy of the police to do, as we are made to believe).

When TADA was repealed and the government wanted to pass newer and even more draconian laws, RGV's \"Satya\" did the required brain surgery without blood transfusion for the multiplex growing thinking urban crowd whose views matters in a democratic country like India. Within a year MCOCA was passed.

When real life encounter specialist Daya Nayak 'became a monster on the path of fighting them' and was himself booked by MCOCA, \"Aab tak Chhappan\" was made to heed out \"false\" impression among the people about this. With it's \"you have to be a monster to save your nation\" approach.

And people consumed it. No questions raised. Only praises and hopes that they get a Sadhu Agashe in their local police station who will solve all problems and hence let only milk and butter flow all over. Blood? You can ignore.

Every time Israel attacks Palestine or Lebanon, we hear voices like \"India must also similarly attack Pakistan\". This movie is made for such psychopaths. If you don't give them this, they will probably die out of boredom and LSD and what not.

Hence this game of the passion of hatred.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honest young insurance agent Ronald Reagan (as Eric Gregg) is optimistic, but poor. His wife, scheming Sheila Bromley (as Nona Gregg), longs for the finer things in life. Describing herself as \"not weighted down with tons of righteousness,\" Ms. Bromley begins to spend more money than Mr. Reagan earns. Bromley obtains the finer things in life, but puts the couple in debt. Bromley is a fun shrew.

Handsome Reagan attracts other women, like perky clerk Gloria Blondell (as Patricia Carmody); but, he doesn't indulge. To pay the bills, Bromley gets tangled up in the insurance fraud racket - which helps get her husband fired. An unemployed Reagan seems to be tempted into a life of crime - will he remain straight up, or get crooked? Clinton Rosemond has an uncomfortable \"broken arm\" scene.

*** Accidents Will Happen (1938) William Clemens ~ Ronald Reagan, Sheila Bromley, Gloria Blondell","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An interesting period picec showing us what was amazing in 1938. Gosh, Ma, a fake accident ring suing for $25,000!!! I guess projected into the 21st century it would amount to a lot of money. The acting would amount to pure 21st century ham. Nice to see the president as a hard-working newcomer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film appears to be an expos\u00e9 of the current trend towards globalization and homogenization in the wine industry. Wineries around the world are more and more either joining large conglomerates (the American producer, Mondavi, in the case of this film) or paying high-priced experts to help them make \"the perfect wine\"--and as a result, wines are becoming very standard and predictable. To some, this is a good thing (especially since few can afford to pay $50 or more for an everyday wine) and to others this is horrible as the uniqueness of smaller wineries is disappearing. I truly can understand the concerns of both sides and don't think there is a villain or hero in this business. Sure, good and cheaper wine is a nice thing, but like what's happened with beers (with giants like Unibrew and Anheiser-Busch), food (McDonalds), shopping (European shopping malls are almost indistinguishable from American ones) and mega-stores (like Walmart\/Asda) are taking away much of the uniqueness of \"the little guys\". So I definitely was ready and willing to listen to these film makers. However, with a product that is almost two and a half hours long AND a general lack of focus, the film simply became too big a chore to watch and I lost interest. An 80-90 minute focused film would have been MUCH more effective--especially since the average viewer is NOT an oenophile (that's the high-brow word for a \"wine aficionado\").

On the very positive side, the film makers are smart not to do much talking at all--and simply let those on both sides of the issue do the talking. Plus, the topic is so relevant and timely. However, despite choosing a good style of documentary making, the film simply goes on way, way, way too long and ended up making a very dull film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Did Beavis and Butthead make this movie? It is just that bad. Truly an uneven and unfair portrayal of \"bad\" vs. \"good\" in the wine world. Did you notice the filmmaker trying any of the wines from the featured protectors of individual wines and terroir. The camera work is dizzying at best while the content may put you to sleep before long. This is not insightful journalism. What I got from this movie was that the filmmaker was trying hard to make a point about the globalism of wine by showing, for example, that the Mondavi family owned wineries in all parts of the world. Okay, that is a good start. So, how do these wines compare? Does the Mondavi Napa cab taste like their Italian wines. We never find out because no one in the film comments on this. Instead, there is a lot of innuendo about Nazi's and fascism. Well, those things don't grow grapes. Hmmmm.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i do not understand at all why this movie received such good grades from critics - - i've seen tens of documentaries (on TV) about the wine world which were much much better when (if) you watch it, please think of two very annoying aspects of mondovino : first, the filming is just awful and terrible and upsetting : to me, it looked like the guy behind the camera just received the material and was playing with it : plenty of zooms (for no purpose other than pushing the button in\/out) for instance - - i almost stopped to watch it because of that ! secondly, the interviewer (the director i think) is not really relevant : he looks like and ask questions like a boy scout, not like a journalist, even if the general idea and themes would have been interesting, too bad conclusion: overrated documentary, maybe only for guys who do not know nothing about wine => not recommended at all (2\/10)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film is annoying.

Technically, there are too many times you see unfocused and very roughly edited scenes. One could easily get a cleaner film using a decent amateur camera and 100$ video editing software. Down to earth, man on the street doesn't mean sloppy editing. Unfocused scenes that don't contain important statement should have been deleted. The same goes for making sure that the object's head\/hand\/others stay in the frame. My 8 years old son knows that by now.

The film is way too long. The main point (anti globalization) is understood after 30 minutes, why bother with all the rest. After the interview with James Suckling I pressed the \"stop\" button. What a waist of time.

The main theme just doesn't work for me anymore. I've seen too many small wineries which produce mediocre, commercialized wines and many big wineries that produce great and unique wines. The movie identifies the small producers as the ones that are producing wines with more Identity, or terroir. The bigger ones are accused of producing \"internationalized\" or \"commercialized\" wines. The film is trying to make a black and white statement in a world full of gray tones. However, the movie hasn't proved this claim. They look at a couple of sporadic examples, \"tie\" some of the big producers (Frescobaldi) with fascism and provided \"interviews\" with key people. Well, did all the small producers spent WWII in the resistance? Is it relevant to see that Parker has a thing with Bulldogs? The movie is very manipulative and unconvincing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The filmmakers try to paint the influence of the Mondovis and Robert Parker as a travesty on par with the German occupation of France and the reign of Fascism. But they never find a victim in this film. We hear wine makers, critics and distributors bemoan that while the wine industry grows it becomes increasingly homogeneous. But the film never makes a case that this has resulted in the loss of any good wine or exploitation of any person or culture other than naive Wine Spectator readers with lots of cash. If they want to pay hundreds of dollars for a dull wine, so be it.

If this were a film about the diamond trade, where the DeBeers corporation's market domination results in human suffering, the muckraking style might have been appropriate. But as it is it just comes off as anti-American, anti-modernization and anti-capitalist. Had the filmmakers been around in the 1870s they most likely would have protested the grafting of American vines in the effort to save French wine.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i was looking forward to this, and to be honest there were some bright spots, but it would have worked better if it had concentrated on one story rather than shooting all over the world. The many dogs were a lot of fun but i got bored of the wine fascists pompously whining (;-)) on about their achievements.

I felt it would have worked better as an hour long TV documentary, concentrating on one of the many different issues it explored. The most interesting being the french town near montpelier fighting off a an American wine company's campaign to get rid of the historic forests. A socialist mayor agreed to a deal, a nicely timed election arrived, and a communist mayor was elected, who turned it down, much to the exasperation of the American wine execs...

hopefully the director's cut will be shorter than the original..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've heard people compare this movie to Sideways. How this comparison was made, I'll never guess because this movie was in no way comparable to Sideways.

These 2 films were as different as Star Wars and the Thornbirds. The only thing they had in common at all was they both had wine as a subject.

Though the interviews in this documentary were semi-interesting, they were ruined by the absolute worst camera work ever...attempted. I've never seen worse camera work in my life and I'm comparing it to home videos accidentally taken by 5 year olds.

I give this two stars, ONLY for the interesting interviews with French wine types and for showing how pushy and corrupt the American wine companies are (Aren't all companies pushy and corrupt?) I'd give it -10 stars (Yes, that's NEGATIVE 10) for the deplorable, terrible, horrible, awful, VERTIGO-INDUCING, 5-year-old-could-do-better camera mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Was it really necessary to include embarrassing footage of non-participants in a documentary. And why all the silly dog scenes, and then repetition of all the same silly dog scenes? This film starts with a great promise - to expose the international politics and the business of wine. It got off to a great start and included all the right characters. But the production is a mess. Points started and developed most of the way, then never finished or left with dangling ends. Very poor and disorienting camera work and editing. They should have used subtitles for the British mumbler from Christie's.

Too much fluff and not enough fact for a documentary.

Probably honored at Cannes because of the US bashing (although in my opinion there was too little of it).

We left at the 2:00 hour mark - I have no idea how much longer it ran on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As noted in other comments here, the camera-work is laughably bad. I am tempted to say that the director of photography is a 7-year-old, but that would be mean -- to 7-year-olds.

Okay, but what about the subject? I was looking for some insight into the state of the wine industry worldwide, you know, Mondovino. What the film is about is a very narrow view of one intrigue in that world: the struggle between Mondavi and the French and Italian wineries that they would like to buy. There is no enlightening narration that would put the whole deal into context, so we are left with the selective process of the director and the interviews with the various characters in this little psychodrama. There's no shortage of despicable characters, or even despicable dogs, in sight. There is a shortage of evenhandedness, however.

Is the director a Marxist? I wondered as I tried to maintain some semblance of focus as the camera dipped, swerved, zoomed in a chaotic flourish. Small grower in France: good. Huge grower in USA: very, very bad. Forget about the hundreds of small wineries throughout North America, Australia, and South America. There is a dead horse to beat here for over two hours.

To learn about the intrigue more, you are better off reading about it elsewhere. And you will be able to sample your favorite wine without feeling sick while doing so.

I suggest a new award at Cannes for Best America-bashing Diatribe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh God! It could be a very interesting film and in fact it is. I would have like to give it a 5 but i give a 2 for my vote. Why? I saw it in a theatre! See this film on DVD or on TV! The shooting is really really POOR!!!!! It keeps shaking all the time, in a completely tasteless framing!

Its really painful to see this very interesting film in a cinema. You got quickly seasick and you have to make some huge effort not to puke on your neighbor 's seat!

It's really a shame 'cos, the story is edited in a non-linear way which is quite rare (and a very good idea!) for a documentary.

Watch this at home!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There were so many classic movies that were made where the leading people were out-and- out liars and yet they are made to look good. I never bought into that stuff. The \"screwball comedies\" were full of that stuff and so were a lot of the Fred Astaire films.

Here, Barbara Stanwyck plays a famous \"country\" magazine writer who has been lying to the public for years, and feels she has to keep lying to keep her persona (and her job). She even lies to a guy about getting married, another topic that was always trivialized in classic films.

She's a New York City woman who pretends she's a great cook and someone who knows how to handle babies, etc. Obviously she knows nothing and the lies pile up so fast you lose track. I guess all of that is supposed to be funny because lessons are learned in the end and true love prevails, etc. etc. Please pass the barf bag.

Most of this film is NOT funny. Stanwyck was far better in the film noir genre. As for Dennis Morgan, well, pass the bag again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think I watched a highly edited version because it wasn't nearly as graphic as I expected - based on the other reviews that I have heard.

Other than 1. being written by the same person who wrote the original \"Emmanuelle\" (1974), Emmanuelle Arsan, 2. the lead character being a sexually free spirit, and 3. being set in the exotic locale of Asia, \"Laure\" doesn't have the same flair as its predecessor.

I just found this film way too talky with philosophical topics that I'm really not that interested in, i.e. the voyeuristic, open relationship between Laure and Nick, \"I'm just happy with whatever brings her pleasure\"...something along those lines. I cannot relate to this mentality and the film\/characters don't really shed any light.

The second half about finding the Mara tribe just seemed as though it were a completely separate film. One that I didn't care for. By that time, I was just hoping that it would turn into a porn so that at least it would keep my interest.

Maybe I just didn't get it.

I'll leave it at that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the most awful movies I've ever seen, probably only surpassed by the dreadful and utterly meaningless Blueberry. How can Harald Zwart even have put his name on this crap. I'm feeling every ounce of respect I had for him waning fast.

So what is it about this film that makes it so poor? Is it the story? Yes. Is it the actors? Yes. It it the whole \"look and feel\" of the movie? Yes.

To start off with the story, my god!It's about as clich\u00e9-ridden and predictable as what you would expect from a drunk 14-year old who is late writing his\/her paper on \"What I did this summer\". The feel-good vibe the makers try to achieve just completely drown as we suffer through yet another embarrassing turn to the story.

The actors are amateurs, I know, and thus we cannot expect them to be of the same quality as professional actors. But for this to work, the characters HAVE to be charming and\/or funny (preferably both), so that the viewers don't mind the cheeky acting, or perhaps it even adds to the characters. In this case, not even close baby! You start off disliking the characters mildly, and by the end of the film (I think it's about 90 minutes long, although it feels like 4 hours) you have a strong desire to hurt somebody to get your mind of these annoying stupid guys! It should be impossible to find this movie's attempt at humor successful unless you're actually yourself like these stupid hickeys. Their before mentioned lack of talent and credibility as far as acting goes, only makes the foolish and overly simple scenes fall harder to the ground. Even the family of the people involved will have a hard time finding this anything but very, very embarrassing (I'd rather have my sister make a fool of herself on American Idol).

Finally, why cram in a bunch of misplaced Norwegian celebrities? They look even more out of place than the actors, if this is possible. These celebrity cameos just add to the cheap feeling of the film and is in itself a pretty see-through shot in the dark at trying to improve something broken even before inception.

I cannot even begin to stress how much I'd rather watch paint dry than ever watch this movie again...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is actually so poor in its desperate attempts at being \"feel good\" and casual it really made me embarrassed watching it. I can't imagine how the inner circle of Norwegian celebs and press must have felt trying to pretend to like it at the star-packed premiere. Its great media reviews is a sickening example of how ridiculously small and inbred the Norwegian media scene is. Had a foreign film of this quality reached the silver screen it would have gotten the rain of rotten tomatoes it truly deserves.

The combination of literally amateur actors, home-made style visual effects, awkward dialogue, painfully idle attempts at working class humour and the overly cozy and meaningless plot, really makes this a movie of rock bottom quality. Stay away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An odd, willfully skewed biopic of Dyan Thomas in which we hear little more than a dozen lines of his poetry. Instead we have to endure a raw character expos\u00e9e seen through the prism of his proto-bigamous relationship with wife (Sienna Miller) and childhood love (Keira Knightley). Matthew Rhys plays Thomas with sufficient charm to inoculate us against his otherwise repellent self-interest and Cillian Murphy makes up the persistently tense lovetet.

The film never seems to decide on where it's going. There's no arc so much as a viaduct from one end of the war to the other. Maybury seems much more interested in his two female leads (who wouldn't!?) than in the man who brings them together and then divides them. Miller is the choice of the two (I found Knightley competent at best but then I have never found her sympathetic) but they both offer dreadfully inconsistent Welsh accents. Other funny decisions include too much for the inconsequential character of William (Murphy), arty production (eg double crossfades) that is neither impressionist nor symbolic and the old chestnut act of period footage which doesn't blend. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After I saw this I concluded that it was most likely a chick flick; afterward I found out that Keira's mother wrote the screenplay so that pretty much confirmed it. However, a chick flick can have some appeal to men; this one does not and really seems not to appeal that well either to women (looking at the dismal box office receipts). One item that I believe both genders agree upon is the stupidity of the the scene, in the movie, whereby an analogy is made between the pain of childbirth to the pain of a limb being amputated w\/o anesthesia. Though men do not undergo the pain of childbirth we understand that it is a painful process; yet it is a natural pain whereas an amputation certainly is not! Women understand this even better. I suspect some woman was trying to make a feminist statement that is in poor taste. In fact, a lot of things in this movie are in very poor taste. Though movies nowadays are known for having poor taste this one really \"excels\" in that department. This could have been a good movie that shows the struggles of Dylan Thomas during WWII; and how strong the sentiment was against men who somehow managed to avoid serving in the military then. Keira's screen writing mother tries to show how this sentiment was used against Dylan but really muddles this. Instead we get a chick flick about how two young mothers bond together; sort of. In a way. Perhaps. Somehow. Of note is the fact that a soldier (the husband of the friend of Dylan's wife) is sent back home after serving in combat; yet it is unclear if the war has ended!! A lot of things about this movie are similarly unclear; and though I have stated that already I will do so again as it seems to be the central motif of this mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so dull I spent half of it on IMDb while it was open in another tab on Netflix trying to find out if anyone thought it was one of the more boring, ponderous, gimmicky films they've ever seen. A warning: I actually could not finish it, so these are my impressions up to minute 54.

Keira Knightly gets loads of screen time. As others have mentioned, her mother penned the script (perhaps during some sort of drug-induced stupor wherein utter inanities and emotionless statements about emotions sounded like interesting dialogue) and it seems that the film is a showcase for Knightly. Oops! Although I agree she is lovely (with her teeth unexposed...her barred teeth cause me anxiety and fear) I found her reactions forced and poorly timed. As in, William or Dylan does something cute...pause...HAHAHA from K with dimples and a playful arm jab. Like a minute too late. What? And she cannot match Cillian Murphy's intensity. He somehow manages to really look at her and look as though he is fascinated by her and falling in love with her whereas she seems totally disconnected, almost like she is interacting with a mirror. That must be torture, acting opposite someone who isn't delivering the same level of energy as you. Know what else is torture? This movie.

Knightly does look stunning during her cyclical \"I've got 1940s pin curls and a hot dress. Watch me sing!\" shots, but what's the point? Is she an altar or an actress? When she talks it's bizarre, \"Ooow, Mehster Deelan. Whur eer ya going?\" This makes me confused because the accent is so mixed up and unauthentic, yet so thick at times I have no idea what she's saying (or maybe fell asleep). If no one knows who Vera was or cares, or few do, was it so important to give her this supposed Welsh accent? It distracts from all the rest of the action (just kidding there).

This movie seems like someone dreamed a movie, maybe after reading a little Dylan Thomas before bed. But instead of adapting to the waking world was like, \"Man, that dream was so interesting\" and tried to replicate it. Then someone else cautioned, \"Your script needs work. Nothing that happens furthers a story or creates necessity\" and the writer is all, \"But that's the way I dreamed it!\" It's like the rambling fantasy of a child, one of those wild and meandering yarns they spin to get your attention. And THEN William went to a war and then Vera had a baby and then some blond chick drank too much and there were so many airplanes and pin curls and everyone had ruby red lips and...

As for the Dylan Thomas character (so bland that's all I can call him), why didn't he have any lines in this goofy biopic? All he does is drink beer and smoke cigarettes and roll around with Sienna Miller, who is so wild and artistic she'll do a cartwheel in public! Get outta here, you crazy poets! (I realize she is not a poet, but she and Thomas are like this one nauseating unit of crazy guys havin crazy times, like a lukewarm Sailor and Lula from Wild at Heart.) Someone asks in the message board if they should buy this film. I say do it. Leave it on your shelf and only utilize it as a weapon to narcotize children, the elderly, or lingering house guests.

P.S. to Murphy's character...when someone asks if you were \"in the sh**\" you can say yes, because your war scenes appear to have been shot at a landfill.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i can't believe how dumb this movie truly is. the storyline (written by keira knightley's mother) is what ruins the movie to the extreme. it is straight out dull, absurd, and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...

this movie lagged so bad for most of it, especially at the beginning. the story just kept going on and on about their everyday flirts with each other, often times seeming like a threesome. in this movie, you have an annoying deadbeat couple (the poet and his wife) who are complete total drunks from the start. the wife sleeps around with other men to make ends meet, while the poet is a pervert who thrives on cheap boos and women. the wife, who waaayyyyyy too quickly becomes friends with his former childhood lover (played by keira) suddenly gets jealous, knowing full well that the two were lovers since they were kids. something doesn't seem right here....i mean, come on... get with the program lady! what'd you expect.

bottom line is: former lovers meet again with new wife embracing it, then gets jealous, then former woman lover gets married and her husband gets jealous, bombards the crazy drunk couple's home, crazy husband calls police, and they end up going to court for the man's attempted murder charges. that's it summed up in a nutshell...

this movie had it's moments such as the quality and good acting by cillian murphy, but other than that, i cannot believe i watched it... i complained about it during the movie and some family members watching it with me fell asleep. i decided to give it a chance and i should have stuck to my first instincts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just got done watching The Edge of Love (by the way, this is one of the worst titles so far this year) and it felt like a chore. Watching Keira Knightly's unlikable, skeleton-looking character made me cringe even more throughout the coarse of the film.

It took me four nights to watch this it was so boring. The only good thing about it was Cillian Murphy. He's always good\/believable and is severely under looked in many films. This, however, was just not good enough for him.

Apart from the unlikable characters, boring storyline, the plot was also emotionally unsatisfying. I felt like I spent my time watching this for nothing (which I did). I should have done the smart thing and turned it off, but I kept it on out of respect for Cillian Murphy and the great cinematography.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is about the complicated friendship, romance and deceit between two men and two women during the World War II.

A lot of effort has been put to make \"The Edge of Love\"look the right period. However, I find this effort too excessive, particularly in terms of the tone of the colours. Most of the first half of the film is processed so much to have a strong bluish tone. It's hard to make out who's who in this tone.

Another detrimental point is the fancy use of image splitting lens. There are many scenes that have three or four images of the same thing, such as three Keira Knightley smiling face or four pairs of arms in embrace. That simply makes the film confusing and hard to follow, instead of being artistic.

As for the plot, it is plain boring. The way the story unfolds is not engaging at all. Sienna Miller's unstable character is annoying. In fact all the main characters are annoying and unlikeable. Keira Knightley's accent is impossible to understand, making it a further impediment to understanding the plot.

I strongly advise avoiding \"The Edge of Love\", unless you watch a film only to appreciate great costumes, nice sets and lighting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My god...i have not seen such an awful movie in a long...long time...saw it last night and wanted to leave after 20 minutes...keira knightley tries really really hard in this one, but she cant handle it..dropped her accent every once in a while and didn't have the charisma to fill the role...sienna millers acting gets you to a point where you start to ask yourself: Has she ever had acting lessons? judging by the edge of love shes never been to acting class, but should consider to go in the near future...they both look really pretty..maybe thats what they should focus on in their future career..if they can be actresses everybody can!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film fails on every count. For a start it is pretentious, striving to be \"significant\" and failing miserably. The script was banal in the extreme, nobody at any time said anything remotely interesting. It was impossible to care about any of the characters. Knightly was a self-regarding waste of time whilst Sienna Miller was just a waste of time. The bit about the soldier who went off to war was a clich\u00e9 even before the film Atonement used it. The use of the Second World War as a backdrop was in itself a clich\u00e9...the bombs, the sheltering in tube stations etc...employed to import a bit of much-needed drama. Why anybody thought for a moment that this film was worth making is quite beyond my comprehension. It was yet another case of \"let's get the costumes looking authentic, never mind about the story, the script or the acting!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I tried to watch this adaptation, but it was just so awful I couldn't torture myself like that. The performances were quite sub-par, with the exception of Ariel. Fonda was way over the top in a role that should be handled with some subtlety. I have studied Shakespeare and seen many adaptations, and this is, by far, the worst one I have ever seen. I have to wonder why on Earth someone made this film. Shakespeare can, and has been, beautifully adapted in many cases. This is not one of them. If you must watch this film, may I suggest a drinking game? Take a drink every time they go off book from the original idea and two drinks every time Fonda overacts. You should be quite drunk in a very short time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The (DVD)movie \"The Tempest\", directed by Jack Bender, was published in 2001. It didn't make its way to German cinemas and neither the director or an actor were able to receive an important award for this movie. The movie refers to the Shakespearean play \"The Tempest\" which was published at the end of the 16th century. The director tried to create an modern version of this play, but failed. At the beginning of the movie the plantation owner Prosper gets in a conflict with his brother Antonio about the treatment of their slaves. Antonio sets his brother a trip and tries to kill him but with the help of a witch, Prosper is able to escape and flees with his daughter and a slave called Ariel to a small island nearby the Mississippi river. For over twelve years he has lived isolated on this island, till a lucky chance enables him to take revenge on his brother....If Prosper will be lucky you have to find out by yourself.

In my opinion this film is really a bad try to create a modern version of the original play by William Shakespeare. The story of the movie is confusing as well as the characters. Prosper doesn't have the same powers as in the tempest..... END OF PART I","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Bender's \"The Tempest\" is an adaption of Shakespeare's play \"The Tempest\". Bender transports the plot from medieval Italy to Mississippi during the time of the American civil war. He includes the slavery problem and the role of revenge in wartimes.

Prospero, re-named Gideon Prosper is not the Duke of Milan but a landowner in Mississippi. He learns voodoo magic from the female slave Mambo Azaleigh. He saves her son Ariel, who thus accompanies him into his exile. The island is not situated on the sea but in a swamp near the banks of the Mississippi. There lives an Alligator hunter, a so-called \"Gator-Man\", who later tries to rape Prospero's daughter Miranda. During the time of the civil war, Ariel wants to join the Union troops to help fighting against slavery. Prospero does not care about the war. He is only interested in his personal revenge on his brother Antony. When Antony and his bookkeeper Willi Gonzo (Gonzalo) try to cross the river, Prospero raises a storm. The Union soldier Frederick gets lost in the swamp and finally comes to the island. He and Miranda fall in love with each other but Prospero won't accept that. Meanwhile, Ariel transformed into a raven by Prospero, finds out that Antony has feigned to ally with the Union but plans to betray them. Antony and Gonzo meet Gator Man in the swamp and conspire with him against Prospero. They kidnap Miranda and Ariel but Prospero freeze them and helps the Union defeat the Southern army. In the end Ariel is free, Frederick and Miranda are bound to marry, Prospero returns to the plantation and Gator Man gets back the island.

Peter Fonda represents Gideon Prosper powerfully and convincingly while the character of Antony stays rather flat. It was no bad idea to perform the Tempest before the background of the civil war but perhaps the director has risked too much. In some parts the story seems constructed or comical. Gator Man for example does just appear without any explanation. That it needs a kidnapping to bring Prospero to his mind and that he loses confidence in his power shows that Bender tried to make Prospero more human but only made him a weak old man without his magic. Prospero's original authority and wisdom is not made clear.

-------------End of Part 1----------------------------","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I keep waiting for Peter Fonda to start acting. For someone who comes from such a talented family, it's a mystery to me why Peter Fonda can only play Peter Fonda trying to play someone else. And, that's the good news in this disappointing dog of an adaptation of The Tempest. A string of loosely connected ideas that only suggest a relationship with the Bard's great play is what we're served. The setting is the Civil War and Prospero's (here Guideon's) evil brother looks like an 1890's melodrama villain, complete with Snidely Whiplash moustache. I kept waiting for him to go \"Uh ha hah!\" which would have been a high point in this dreary presentation. None of the supporting cast was memoriable and Peter Fonda's lack of expression and wooden body movements made the lackadaisical story drag on and on.

The Tempest is the Bard's statement about the rage of man's unjust treatment of man. The only believable character was the Gator man, the Caliban counterpart. The transferrence to the swamp had possibilities but the Civil War setting just didn't make it. All in all, a very disappointing production. I saw it on video and would advise, if you want a Willy Shakespeare fix, save your money on this one. Rent something else, like Branagh's Much Ado about Nothing, or Kevin Kline in Midsummer's Night Dream.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Shakespeare would have been outraged. The writers mutilated Shakespeare's amazing work. Ariel is the only believable acting performance. The African voodoo, secluded swamp, and \"Gator Man\" character make the movie a mockery of Shakespeare's true Tempest.

Don't waste your eye-sight on this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I suppose I can see why critics give this film two out five stars, it isn't fantastic, but I think it is worth a look, from director Shawn Levy (Cheaper by the Dozen, Night at the Museum). Basically 14-year-old Jason Shepherd (Malcolm in the Middle's Frankie Muniz) is often lying to his parents and teachers, and his teacher warns him that if he doesn't do his creative writing, he will fail his whole semester and have to repeat the grade during summer. So he completes his work, but getting a lift from Hollywood producer Marty Wolf (Paul Giamatti), who hit him on the way to school, he manages to leave his paper with the story \"Big Fat Liar\" in the car. He finds out from a movie trailer that Marty stole his paper and is turning it into a major movie, so he and his best friend Kaylee (She's the Man's Amanda Bynes) are on a mission to prove Jason is for once telling the truth. Marty of course is too nasty and smug to give Jason's father Harry (Michael Bryan French) a phone call, and he evens burns the \"Big Fat Liar\" paper. So now Jason and Kaylee are determined to make Marty's life as hellish as possible, until he agrees to call Jason's Dad. They put blue dye in his swimming pool, and orange hair dye in his shampoo, and much more naughty pranks creating chaos for Marty's career. There is the obvious point when Jason looks like he wants to give up, but don't worry, all characters that despise Marty help out in the final operation, and with Jason's parents coming, he wants to finally prove his truthfulness, and boy does he deliver, big style. Also starring Amanda Detmer as Monty Kirkham, Lee Majors as Vince, Donald Adeosun Faison as Frank Jackson, Sandra Oh as Mrs. Phyllis Caldwell, Russell Hornsby as Marcus Duncan, Christine Tucci as Carol Shepherd and American Pie's John Cho as Dustin 'Dusty' Wong. Muniz is likable, Byrnes proves a very surprisingly talented support, and even though he is wasting his time and talent a little, Giamatti is great at being nasty. It is a kids film, so if it seems corny, cheesy or predictable, just keep that in mind, and try to enjoy the performances and slapstick. Okay!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Frankie Muniz plays Jason who is a high school student. His biggest problem is his life is built on small or big lies that puts him into trouble most times. However, he cannot escape from his teacher and he finishes his creative writing homework just before its deadline. While he is biking fast to hand his homework to the teacher, he crushes into a car. As he explains the situation to grumpy man(Giamatti) in the car, he gives him a lift to his school. But the problem is Jason leaves his homework in the car, the other way of saying this is Marty Wolf(Giamatti) steals it.

After a few months Jason goes to a movie and sees a trailer that takes him aback. Because the story of the movie is based on his homework. He tells that to his parents but of course they don't believe him. Especially his father uses words which insults him. Jason decides to go to LA and find Wolf to tell his father that Jason is not a liar. When Wolf refuses it, Jason takes action and ruins his life.

This is the short story of the Big Fat Liar. Well, as a kids movie it might be a light hearted one but there are some errors that even could would ask if that is possible. Such as, having such a small amount of money and going to LA with a friend to sort the problem out, having access to this cinema producer's highly protected house and office, setting up a telecommunications system overnight.Does it seem believable? It does not. Well this is a kids movie but kids are not that gullible.

Big Fat Liar offers some little pleasure to its target audience. Unfortunately, I am not a big fat liar to say that this is a good movie. ** out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie just didn't do it for me. I like horror and splatter movies but this one has very little to do with horror. The effects are cheap and when they chop of one of her feet it looks so fake. The same goes for the other effects like the tongue torture and the gut sex. They could have spent of few extra bucks on the effects.

With lots of sex (with pixelization as in all Japanese movies) this is just a sick fetish porn and there seems to be a market for sick stuff like this. While bloodier, for me it fits in with titles like Squirmfest \/ Purge and the Genki series. These movies feature girls eating and playing with every fluid that comes out of your body, eating bugs and fish in a gross way and having sex with all kinds of weird animals, like toads, eels and... One look at the covers will tell horror fans to look elsewhere. No horror here,just sick and degrading sex scenes.

Horror fans should avoid this one and are better of checking out Guinea Pig2: Flowers of Flesh and Blood or even August Underground Mordum. While these are not great they at least offer a horror experience and Niku Daruma absolutely fails in that department.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not near as well made as the \"Guinea Pig\" flicks it was inspired by (\"Flowers of Flesh and Blood\" or \"Devil's Experiment\") and not conveying any real philosophy, this video feature, which is barely feature length, adds hardcore sex (with mosaic censoring) to its inspiration. The special make-up effects, which include stomach slitting and disembowelment, are pretty good, if overlit. The amateur feel of the production is a distraction. It all looks cheap and lazy. The lighting is harsh and the sound and editing are sloppy. The simple story involves a porno actress who ends up starring in a real snuff movie. Just when she gets tired of being abused, the real abuse begins. In the film's hero scene, an actor cuts the woman's stomach open in graphic close-up, stuffs his member inside it, and proceeds to do his thing. I didn't find \"Psycho - The Snuff Reels\" shocking. On the contrary, I found it to be a desperate attempt by amateurs to one-up \"Guinea Pig\" and its bloody ilk. Interestingly, this was distributed by Aroma, a leading fetish producer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"just watched this \"film\" and it actually made me want to write my first comment on IMDb.com, even though i've been a user for more than 9 years. the reason that i watched this, is because i like splatter films and sometimes i like to test my limits and see what actually still shocks me. first of all, the gore in this film didn't shock me, not even the idea that someone came up with this and made it into a film - what really shocked me, is that there seems to be a market for this kind of crap. don't get me wrong - i'm all against censorship, but this film seems to me like it was made for some kind of fetish crowd that seems to get off on this type of sh*t.it didn't give you that same kind of disgust and guilt that one felt after watching films like \"august underground\". that film is terrible to watch, but at least you get the feeling that the filmmakers want to show you how disgusting violence is. in the case of \"niku daruma\", it seems like it was made strictly to arouse people. i prefer films that shock, because they are well done and thought through, like Gaspar Noe's films, or Takashi Miike's, or Funny Games or Man Bites Dog - those films will stick with you for a while. this film i will have forgotten by tomorrow, and the only thing that will stick with me, is the thought, that somewhere out there, there are people getting aroused by watching this sh*t. if you read this, please check yourself into the next hospital or shoot yourself - this of course does not apply to gore hounds, who just love splatter. you're cool! peace","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i came across this film on the net by fluke and i was horrified by its content of vivid abuse violence and torture scenes. it was a relief to know it was not real after reading the comments. what dangerously sick animals of a person make something like this and for what purpose goes beyond belief. i was even more shocked to see people appraising the film in the comments section of this site. this is a extremely disturbing film indeed which could change your life forever. the people behind this should be bought to justice asap. today they shown a girl getting raped and butchered on screen tomorrow it could be a child. even its fake or not its very very deathly disturbing,nauseating indeed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually enjoy watching Laurel and Hardy, but this is obviously one of the films they made while they were on their way to becoming a successful comedy team.

The plot is all too simple, and is mainly based on one joke; how strange kilts and Scotsmen are. And that's all. Okay, there are some other jokes, but I didn't find them very funny at all; they are outdated and (I guess) were not very entertaining when the movie was first released.

Still, the movie has got two of the most charming faces in history, and they make the best out of the awkward story (which I expect was filmed without a proper script) and the scenery is nice to look at.

In my opinion, watching this is only worthwhile for Laurel and Hardy fans, other people should stay away from it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Exceptionally silly actioner with braindead leads in a story which would have suited a fill-in issue of Spiderman. The action sequences never really flow as they should, leaving some cool bits orphaned in a sea of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I really wonder how they'll release this one in the West. Sam Lee overacts like crazy, newcomer Edison Chan doesn't display any acting talent yet. The robot is clunky and not very impressive, and the CGI effects (though done by US sfx-people) are ridiculous, totally destroying any remaining suspension of disbelief. I am NOT looking forward to Gen-Z Cops...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is really a big piece of trash trying to make itself look like a Hollywood production.Poor story outline(stupid robot story)...ultra bad acting by untalented pop idols...and they are trying to\"FIGHT\"!!!My goodness...those miserable actors uses wires to make them look like they are \"good fighters\"...:(and I hate that arrogant Edison Chen...the worst actor I have ever seen!!!I will never touch his movies again.AVOID this movie at all costs!!!I wanted to give it a negative value out of ten...not even worth a 0\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I somehow managed to make it all the way through this movie, but was dumbfounded by the complete lack of entertainment delivered. My friends and I are fans of HK film, but WOW. This movie has it all, and by all I mean everything a movie shouldn't have. Underdeveloped and stereotyped characters, way over-the-top overacting, cheesy special effects, talking robots, no less than 20 double-foot jumpkicks, impossible situations, unfunny \"gags\" and \"jokes\", elementary school premise, mindless killings, and too-long running time for the material. Throw in the fact that Gen-X Cops was a decent film and this movie becomes even harder to bear. Quite simply, if you're entertaining the idea of watching this film...don't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie on VHS some time ago (27 Jan 2003), just because of the name of Paul Rudd on the cover. I liked his performance in `The Object of My Affection' very much and I really expected a good work. However, I found this film a complete mess. The story has a very confused screenplay and the characters are not well developed. Further, the low-budget special effects do not help much. I do not know the previous generation of Gen-Y Cops, but this next generation is not good. I do not recall exactly why I gave this grade (and I do not intent to see this movie again), but my vote is four.

Title (Brazil) : `Gen-Y Cops A Nova Gera\u00e7\u00e3o' (`Gen-Y Cops The Next Generation')","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is over hyped!! I am sad to say that I manage to watch the first 15 minutes of this movie and anything beyond that, I will have to force myself real hard to sit down and watch the rest of the movie. It's totally stupid and very fake. The robot in the movie looks like a man wearing those steel suit and the acting is really bad especially the one playing the character Alien.He is totally annoying!! Don't waste your money watching this sequel to the popular Gen-X Cops. I'd rather sleep or spend my money on some other things rather than watching this movie. 1 out of 10. If possible,I'd give 0.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Her bit-part as a masseuse, in the lurid sequel to the original 'Emmannuelle', evidently gave someone the bright idea of putting a spanner in the works of the French soft-core series' gambit by inverting the Caucasian carnality and casting Javan stunner Gemser in a leading role in this, the rather tame first of a series of sexploiters that became increasingly depraved as sleazier directors took on in-name-only sequels.

Someone (and surely not the English-language over-haulers Warner?) was also anticipating an 'A Star Is Born' type meteoric rise out the results, judging by the way the actress is credited merely with the eponymous moniker of the on-screen heroine, albeit with a couple of consonants sacrificed as insurance against litigation.

Gemser's tenure in the series saw her as an 'intrepid' photographer, allowing of course for all manner of subsequent globe-trotting adventures. But, whilst she may well have been one the very most beautiful actresses on the screen at that time, any thespian talent that may have been there to discern becomes mired in the same sort of unfeasibly facile cogitation (\"I have to confess that since I've been in Africa, I find white skin less appealing...\") that was to be found in the French films.

And in this particular entry, much to the consternation of the raincoat brigade the essence of on-screen carnality is as much to be found in puerile symbolism (pumping engine pistons!) as it is in prosaic couplings - although naturally these include generous dollops of 'exploratory' lesbianism. Connoiseurs of kitsch are however guaranteed a continuous stream of aural delights, what with such epithets of ethnographic wisdom as \"I do nothing to be a perfect black, she does everything to be a perfect white\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The success of the original French \"Emmanuelle\" series (I've only watched the first, which wasn't too bad considering) led to a spate of imitations; the Italian counterpart, which even changed the race of its heroine, was clearly less polished and more exploitative - descending more and more into vulgarity as the series went along. Incredibly, there were 16 \"Black Emanuelle\" films in total, with the heroine even having the spelling of her name changed to avoid copyright issues!! Still, Laura Gemser - the titular object of desire - became almost as much of an icon as the original Emmanuelle, Sylvia Kristel (although, personally, she's too skinny for my tastes)! Here she's even billed as \"Emanuelle\" rather than with her real name - with the director, likewise, becoming \"Albert Thomas\"!

In itself, the film offers little of interest: as a matter of fact, one would do best to approach it as a travelogue with some decent footage of the African wildlife. With respect to the sex scenes, I don't know how complete the version I watched was but, while there was a lot of nudity, none of it was very explicit - or even titillating (the scene that came closest, perhaps, was when Gemser - who works as a photographer - and her companion Karin Schubert turn the camera on each other, naturally sans clothes, in the middle of the jungle)! The film also features an artist made up to look like Salvador Dali but, mercifully perhaps, his scenes do not take much of the running time. The score by Nico Fidenco is typically bland 70s pop and, really, nothing to write home about.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I was young, I'd get up early every Saturday morning not to watch cartoons but to turn on the local channel for what was called 'Kung Fu Theatre.' It wasn't as if these films were works of art. It wasn't as if these films all came from China, Japan, Korea, or any country in particular; if the story had to do with fighting \u0096 be it swordplay or fisticuffs \u0096 and if the fighting didn't resemble much of anything going on in any American gym class, then that was good enough. It wasn't as if they were really even very good. They were just great action flicks with incredibly over-dramatic music where the hero reaped his vengeance over a whole host of bad guys, and then the credits would roll.

\"Sword in the Moon\" is much like these films of my youth, arguably a bit of a thematic throwback given a welcome twist by muddying the characters up enough that it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the bad guys from the good.

Yun (Cho Jae Hyun) is known throughout the kingdom as 'the human butcher.' He kills quickly and mercilessly on behalf of the Chun Dynasty, the chief bodyguard of an Emperor who spared his life and the life of his men in exchange for his service. However, an equally merciless rebel and his lovely sidekick appear in the countryside and start murdering imperial ministers, and Yun agrees to find these rebels and kill them. His task becomes one of personal discovery when he learns that the two rebels are Choi (a friend from his past) and his former love, Shi Yeong.

Sadly, \"Sword\" doesn't have much to distinguish itself from other action films. Some stunning cinematography is nearly entirely wasted on shoddy editing with portions of the film put together so loosely its hard to believe that what inevitably made it to the film was what anyone intended. While the atmosphere and story tend to gravitate toward a dark mood, the tone is almost sacrificed to the never-ending parade of flashbacks as each of the main characters is given a healthy story arc. What should've been a quick and easy action film gets weighed down by far too much personal baggage, and the film suffers as a result.

I've read that this film marks Korea's first real foray into the world of art-house action pieces along the likes of \"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.\" Next time, I'd strongly suggest that the producers stick with a little more 'martial' and a little less 'art.'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'M BOUT IT(1997)

Developed & published by No Limit Films

>>Pros: Absolutely none

>>Cons: I don't even know where to begin!

Plot summary: Master P plays a drug dealer that looks, talks, and acts more like a live-action cartoon character. That's all the plot I got out of this movie.

Review: I remember back when I was in the ninth grade during its release and everyone in my class praised this clown called Master P. This movie is so bad, it's not even funny. All the characters in this film are extremely tired stereotypes, the audio is only audible when music plays, and the movie looks like it was videotaped off a public access channel. Luckily, I didn't buy this film like all my other inner-city degenerate classmates.

My rating:1 out of 10

My verdict: Avoid this video like its a sexually-transmitted disease.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is one of the more poorly made movies I've ever seen. One has to take anything by Truffaut seriously; it's not just some B-movie cranked out by hacks.

evidently Truffaut couldn't decide whether he was making a noir or a sentimental chick flick. and neither could Deneuve, whose dozen (?) character flip-flops are simply unbelievable -- not even badly acted; just not acted at all. Among other things, how a woman as beautiful as Deneuve could be a person such as Julie\/Marion is simply beyond anyone's ability to suspend disbelief; the role absolutely demands someone not so beautiful. Belmondo's acting also suffers although imho his character is not quite as unbelievable as Deneuve's. The clich\u00e9 ending (which I won't describe) is unfortunately all too appropriate for this complete mistake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm trying to find something of value here. The best I can muster is that Truffaut wanted to make a movie as tedious, painful, puerile, annoying, illogical, and brainless as the experience of being in love. If that was his goal, then he succeeded, but the solution to his exercise is really a drag to watch.

There is one scene that screams for a spoof: Belmondo compares the features of Deneuve's face to the features in a landscape . All I could think the whole time was \"glacier,\" \"ice floe,\" \"two lonely fishermen wearing Army surplus on a frozen lake in Minnesota.\"

The only other point of interest was the resurrection of Buffoon's theory of climatic determinism. The tropics are presented as paradise, and things get progressively worse as they get colder, hell being Calvinist French Switzerland. That was kind of funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first 1\/3 of this movie I loved and thought it was going to be one of Truffaut's best films. I loved the plot where a pen pal marries a man from half way around the world--sight unseen. Especially when this woman turns out to be a fraud and was responsible for the death of the REAL pen pal so she could take her place! She then cleaned out the husband's huge bank account and disappeared! I was really hooked and wanted to see more,...

And then, the movie fell apart and became just plain dumb! Despite her coming from New Caladonia (an island in the Pacific) and he from Reunion (an island in the Indian Ocean), when he goes on a trip to the South of France, he stumbles upon her almost immediately. Hmm,....odds are 187,000,000 to 1 but he finds her. Then, instead of either killing her or turning her over to the police, he forgives her--even when she acknowledges what she has done. Okay--this is tough to believe, but okay,...but then he helps to hide her from a private detective by murdering him!!!! No one is that stupid! Yes, the character Catherine Deneuve plays is quite beautiful but come on folks--this is just silly. Plus, if he only wanted her as a sex object, then why would he do this for a woman who is often frigid and completely selfish and evil.

This movie, due to it's very ridiculous plot, does not deserve such high ratings! Unless you are a die-hard Truffaut fan, try another film--even one of Truffaut's--just NOT this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Fran\u00e7ois Traffaut's \"Mississippi Siren\" had an unconvincing plot. The screenplay required too much elasticity in suspension of disbelief. The plot went at a glacial pace. It started off in an interesting setting but soon drifted onto the shoals of melodrama that lacked logic or intelligence. What were the critics thinking? This one is overrated even to be described as a loser. Even Catherine Deneuvue, who charmed in \"The Umbrellas of Cherbourg\" and \"Belle Doe Jour,\" managed to be simply annoying.

We rented this movie at the same time as we rented another Traffaut film. We watched this one first, and found it to be so bad that we sent the other one back unseen at the same time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"These days, writers, directors and producers are relying more and more on the \"surprise\" ending. The old art of bringing a movie to closure, taking all of the information we have learned through out the movie and bringing it to a nice complete ending, has been lost. Now what we have is a movie that, no matter how complex, detailed, or frivolous, can be wrapped up in 5 minutes. It was all in his\/her head. That explanation is the director's safety net. If all else fails, or if the writing wasn't that good, or if we ran out of money to complete the movie, we can always say \"it was all in his\/her head\" and end the movie that way. The audience will buy it because, well, none of us are psychologists, and none of us are suffering from schizophrenia (not that we know about) so we take the story and believe it. After all, the mind is a powerful thing. Some movies have pulled it off. But those movies are the reason why we are getting more and more of these crap endings. Every director\/writer now thinks they can pull it off because, well, Fight Club did it and it made a lot of money. So we get movies like The Machinist, Secret Window, Identity, and this movie (just to name a few).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me first start out by saying 1 out of 10 is too good for this movie. It's unfortunate that IMDb doesn't have tenths of a star... I watched this abortion of a movie in the middle of the night due to insomnia, and it was absolute garbage. The plot was horrible. The acting was horrible. The movie was utterly boring. \"malachi\" looked like the Shadow with Alec Baldwin (The Shadow is infinitely better than this as well) The character Eve was so undeveloped and 2 dimensional she didn't even grab my attention. I didn't even know her name was Eve. Don was interesting when he kept his mouth shut. The \"TWIST\" (if you can call it that) was laughable and pathetic. When it came, the movie had done such a horrid job of building suspense or attachment to any character that I simply thought \"Who gives a S***.\" The only thing that made me even lift an eyebrow about this movie was the fact the med. teacher was Dyson in Terminator 2 (Also a movie that was light years ahead of this motion picture massacre.) Anyone who was involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves for wasting 90 minutes of countless people's time. It's no wonder no actor from this movie ever had a fruitful career. In summary.... This movie is so bad, I feel dirty and need a shower. Worst movie in history, Gigli was better, Prom Night (the remake) was better and dare I say it Saw IV was better...........","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Breaking Dawn starts in a Californian college as Professor Simon (associate producer Joe Morton) tells his students that they have to perform an intensive six week study of a mental patient in Cape State Hospital as a crucial part of their education, fail & they will never become qualified Doctors. A bright, young, attractive & intelligent student named Eve (Kelly Overton) is given a particularly difficult patient to study. His name is Don Wake (James Haven) & is a convicted killer, he was found covered in blood besides the dead body of a woman (Diane Verona) & her young daughter (Jenette McCurdy). At first Don won't even look at Eve much less talk to her, but like the trooper she is Eve persists in trying to figure him out. Eventually Don begins to talk but what he says frightens Eve, he says that someone is watching her & mentions the name Malachay. Eve then begins to see a dark shadowy figure at her every turn, as Don churns out the conspiracy theories & bizarre statements Eve slowly begins to lose her mind as the line between fantasy & reality becomes more & more blurred. Is there something more to the supposed nonsense that Don talks other than being the insane ravings of a psychiatric patient...?

Written & directed by Mark Edwin Robinson I have nothing but negative feelings towards Breaking Dawn. Now, we all like a good twist ending, the sort of ending which catches us unawares, surprises us, works well with the rest of the film & stays in our memory like the cool twist endings to The Sixth Sense (1999) & Fight Club (1999) to name just two good examples & to a lesser extent the endings to films such as Scream (1996) where the identity of the killer comes a nice surprise & isn't that obvious. Then, of course, there are films whose endings spoil everything that has gone before & as an example lets take, oh I don't know lets say Breaking Dawn because I have never seen such an awful ending to a film, never. Breaking Dawn starts out as a decent psychological horror thriller with spooky things starting to happen to Eve, it's not the most action packed film ever by any stretch of the imagination but it holds ones interest, it's not the most absorbing film ever either but it is more than watchable & it's not that bad a film until the twist ending, I have to keep mentioning it because everything else up to that point (which was OK to be fair to it) suddenly becomes irrelevant. I am sure there are people out there who think they have this muddled mess of an ending figured out down to the last detail, all I can say is that no one will be able to explain this thing in a satisfactory way to me & as far as I'm concerned it doesn't make a bit of sense & never will. Breaking Dawn is crap & it's a waste of time watching it to be rewarded with the lamest ending in film history, it's as simple & straight forward as that.

Director Robinson doesn't half make a mess of what could have been a decent thriller, maybe he thought what he had shot would play out OK or maybe it was ruined in the editing room but I'd imagine it was more likely down to a rubbish script as he tries to tie all the absurdities together within the space of a few muddled minutes & give us all a happier than happy final shot. He builds the tension quite well during the first 80 odd minutes but it's all for nought at the end of the day.

Technically Breaking Dawn is fine & it is generally well made throughout. The acting is pretty good, Overton is nice & easy on the eyes & puts in a decent performance. Was it just me or did the guy who played Don look like John Morghen star of such Italian sleaze classics as Cannibal Apocalypse (1980), City of the Living Dead (1980), The House on the Edge of the Park (1980), Cannibal Ferox (1981), Stagefright (1987) & The Church (1989)? OK, maybe it was just me...

Breaking Dawn is rubbish, I hated it all because of the final few minutes. Don't get me wrong it wasn't exactly getting me excited up to that point but it was OK. Definitely one to avoid as far as I'm concerned although it seems to have it's fair share of positive comments on the IMDb...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From watching the trailer, the movie looked pretty interesting. The production of the movie is also pretty good--it looks like they had a good budget and doesn't look like a cheaply made movie. The acting ranges from good (Joe Morton as Professor Simon) to OK (Kelly Overton as Eve) to bad (James Haven as Don).

The actual content and plot of the movie is weak. The movie starts out like it could become interesting and ends with a poorly executed, disappointingly boring, twist. Watching the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes of the movie would have made this movie OK but everything in between makes this an absolutely boring movie to watch. It's as though they made a short movie then tried to force it to be over an hour long by stuffing the middle with an hour of filler material.

If you want to waste a good hour and half of your life, watch this movie. Otherwise, stay away from this extremely boring movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cant explain what a load of rubbish this film is. Like really i cant. its just that bad.

plot=crap acting=crap budget=so low its laughable

Jesus, its like the only good thing in this movie is the fact the main character was fairly hot.

The only people i feel, that think this movie is good are the ones who took part in the film. I'm sure they are not the ones who funded it because there was no money put into this. (HAHAhaha to the bit where there heads get shaved)

This movie has already wasted too much of my life so i am not going to waste anymore time writing my review for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The opening of \"The Jungle\" promises us a safari adventure with a science fiction element, but mostly what we get is a travelogue with lots of stock footage and padding (and the odd leopard attack). The movie is leisurely when you want it to be gripping, and tries to inject interest into the proceedings with badly staged matches between various wild animals (I had no idea that lions and wild boars were natural enemies in the wild, did you? I thought the big cats stuck to hunting herbivores, but apparently the producers knew better).

As for the actors: Cesar does his usual great job of rocking the mustache, and Marie Windsor is reasonably believable as the progressively thinking rajah's daughter (nice eyebrows, btw!). However, Rod Cameron is barely watchable as the hunter returning as the sole survivor of his expedition. I'm sure he was in demand in his day, but here he comes off as a Rent-A-Center Bogart : rough looking, but with none of Bogey's range or timing. He spends the movie going back and forth from stoic anger to angry stoicism, and any time the screenplay attempts to crank up some romantic sparks between himself and Windsor, you just have to laugh. That crabbed, knobby face isn't a good vehicle for tenderness.

The screenplay is not entirely without merit, although it does make some odd choices. Early in the first act, the screenplay makes a point of spending several moments where the heroes decide to bring along the obligatory clever young boy and monkey mascot, but then basically ignore them until ***SPOILER*** the monkey somehow gets hold of a live hand grenade during the mammoth scene and accidentally tosses near Windsor. This is so Cameron can prove his bravery by diving on it and saving her life at the cost of his own.***END SPOILER. It's possible that the Indian version of this movie (which I understand ran better than 2 1\/2 hours), might have given the kid and the monkey more to do.

Another thing that makes the film show its age **SPOILER**is the issue of the woolly mammoths (the plot device that sets the safari into motion in the first place). When they finally appear, the way the scene is filmed, it's obvious that the \"mammoths\" (obviously elephants draped in shag carpeting) aren't really \"attacking\" anyone, or even moving all that fast, and yet Cameron immediately sets to trying to wipe them out with hand grenades. These days, the idea of destroying the last known specimens of a species thought to be extinct would be unthinkable, especially when all they seem to do is roll through the jungle at a nice walking pace.***END OF SPOILER***

So IMO, four stars, which is pretty good for a Robert Lippert production (normally Lippert hack jobs rate two or three stars at best). It's not a train wreck of a film, or anything; plus, it seems to mean well,with the rajah's daughter arguing for amelioration of the most repressive aspect of the \"traditional ways\" and the elements of \"mixed race\" romance that was pretty progressive in 1952. And there's some nice scenery and exotic spectacle. See it if someone offers to show it to you for free, but don't expect much except an interesting historical chapter of early fantasy cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What do you do with all the material that does not make the final edit of a film? You might keep it aside in case a director's cut or extended version is released one day. You might sell some it as stock footage to be used in a part of another film. You might just bin it. Or you might collect it, accumulating more and more from each film you make and then use it to make another film, disregarding coherence or any sense. Throw a very primitive skeleton of a narrative into it and line up a number opportunities (nay, excuses) to slot in your celluloid cast-offs. Excuse the abjectly nonsensical nature of the plot by framing it all in the mind of a horror film director and you've got yourself an awful film. This can all be done with just a few days shooting. And idiots like me will waste two hours of their life watching it. And then come on here and try to warn others away. The whole chain of events is one big waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Starts off with Fulci playing a version of himself, writing down some ideas for how people could die. Followed by a fake-looking cat eating what is presumably a brain. The copy I watched was dubbed in English, which I always hate, but I was particularly disappointed not to get to hear Fulci in his own voice.

Fulci is in a sort of feverish state working on his latest horror movie. His stomach turns when he sees things that resemble effects from his movie, and he starts to hallucinate that he is witnessing acts of horror. He visits a psychiatrist, who hypnotizes him and unfortunately he does not have his improved mental health in mind. I was reminded of the psychiatrist played by David Cronenberg in Clive Barker's Nightbreed (1990). The shrink in this one is played by David L. Thompson, who is pretty bad. Probably a real life friend of Fulci's, he has a big toothy grin when he kills people, though this may be Fulci's black humor at work which I thought was pretty poor too.

The movie is composed of a lot of clips from Fulci's movies, either as if Fulci is on the set directing them, watching recordings on TVs, or witnessing the acts. I've never been too much of a fan of clip shows in TV series, and I also think things like Charles Band's Full Moon Entertainment cutting their old films down and putting three such cuts together as new anthologies are pretty lame. I guess they need to make money?

The shrink in Cat in the Brain makes reference to the theory that violence in movies begets violence in real life. One of Fulci's co-workers talks about having a documentary crew follow Fulci to see what his life is like. Lots of self-referential stuff like this.

In the end, some of the characters sail away on a boat named \"Perversion.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mr. Bean is just a bunch of unfunny slapstick humour. It is the most shallow humour TV series ever made in history. The scenes are often disgusting and the horrible canned laughter sends chills through the spine. Mr. bean is a selfish and rude character and one can only sympathies how pathetic he is. It is incredible that such a TV series of low quality can be sustained for 5 years. It is a complete waste of time to watch even 1 episode and one can't help but to express disgust and pity why Rowen had portrayed himself as such a 2-dimensional, unfunny and ridiculous character. Or pity yourself why you had even bother to watch an episode. Watching this is an aggravating experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This one kind of is like an earlier movie from 1987 \"Masters of the Universe\" based on the cartoon \"He-man\". Basically, you have a great old world and they for some reason have to have nearly all the action of the movie take place on modern earth. Well I guess it is not so modern earth now and that it is an ancient world now of strangeness and a den of good times gone by. Well I guess I can figure why they did in fact place nearly all the movie in modern times in this and that movie. To save money on costumes and sets. It is a lot easier to recreate what is going on in the present than a strange world like that of Eternia in He-man or an ancient world with cults and strange pyramids, sacrifices and strange creatures that hug you to death. This movie is forgettable and not very entertaining, your first clue that it is not going to be the best movie in the world is that Robert Z'Dar is in it. The only thing this one has going for it is the animals which are not as prevalent in this one as they were in the last. Marc Singer is back and it is sad to seem him in this state, the guy was a fairly good actor reduced to trying to make a sequel to a movie that really did not need one, and even if it did it came five years to late.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are ever in the mood for a truly terrible film, it would be hard to find something that could even compare to this. I have spent a lot of time watching a lot of terrible movies just for the sheer joy I get from it, and man, this is one of the worst. This movie was so bad, I had to buy the third Beastermaster online. That one wasn't as bad, which is amazing since it was straight to video. This is one of those films that is hard to comprehend how it was made in the first place. I mean, someone had to actually have read the script (or many scripts, I'm sure they made several drafts) and said \"Yeah, that's it. Here's some money.\" Actually, they probably just wanted to make a Beastmaster 2 before they even had a script, then went with whatever they had. Ack, horrible. So, if you are a fan of really bad movies, watch this one. It is a true classic, and film doesn't get much worse than this. And if it does, please let me know.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love the first and third Beastmasters, but this one was an abomination. It was almost as horrible as 'The Never Ending Story 3', for the same reasons. They took a fascinating fantasy world of Barbarian tribes, farming villages, witches, supernatural creatures, and a cult of religious fanatics using a pyramid; and thought it would be funny to mix in our materialistic pop-culture world of rock & roll, sushi (I think thats what it was), and flashy sports cars. These two worlds do not belong together. I do not want to see a bunch of ancient barbarian looking people dancing to some rock song on the car radio. I have a sense of humor, but this is just stupid. This is what Hollywood does to good fantasy movies when they run out of ideas. Don't give up though, the Eye of Braxus is much, much better. That one I gave a 10. This one, Portal of Time, I give a 1. Believe me, I don't always give such extremely high or low ratings. I just tend to comment only such movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Truly flatulent script, and I was very disappointed with Marc Singer for agreeing to be in it.

I actually walked out of the theater about 15-20 minutes into it, and demanded my money back. I have actually walked out of a movie only 3 times in my life (I am 43 years old) and this is the only one that made me mad enough to demand my ticket price back. If I could have, I would have gotten a refund on the popcorn, too. This was a truly lousy movie, and there is no excuse.

For one thing, how does someone who was raised as a pre-tech barbarian learn to DRIVE A CAR? IN California!!!? (Driving a car is a somewhat tricky skill, and in California, even tricker...I should know, I live there.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the greatest example I can think of to prove the theory that when Hollywood runs out of good ideas, they make an awful sequel and ruin the first one. Now don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the first Beastmaster; I even liked the third one pretty good, but this movie is atrocious. I am a huge fantasy\/sword & sorcery movie fan and I hated to see such a terrible sequel made to such a classic as the first Beastmaster. So why do I hate this movie so much? Well, where do I begin? First of all, the whole idea of the movie is ridiculous. Dar and his evil older brother Arklon(who was nowhere mentioned in the first movie..Huh?) cross over into our world via a handy dimensional time-portal gate. Ya see, Earth just happens to be on the same parallel interdimentional plane as Dar's world. Whereas with the first movie, you're led to think the movie just takes place in the past, but with this one you're shown it's a completely whole other world altogether...that's just one of the many things I hated about this sequel. It didn't work with \"Masters of the Universe\", and it sure doesn't work here either! Movies like this should take place and stay in their own time-line and their usual surroundings. For Christ's sake, what's next? Hercules in New York...er, uh..bad example! Moving on...

Arklon's after a device called a neutron detonator to use as a threat against his enemies to rule his own kingdom. So, it's up to Dar, his ferrets,his eagle,and his tiger(not a spray-painted one this time) to go off and save the world...but along the way they have the help of a young, cool, and hip Senator's daughter who gets caught up in this whole mess and she show's Dar around L.A., takes him for a joyride in her BMW, and helps get him out of tight situations here and there. How convenient right? And speaking of convenient, I found it awfully convenient and easy for Arklon to sneak into a highly guarded military base and get away with a stolen, highly destructive nuclear weapon...even with half the U.S. Army and L.A.P.D. after him....waaaaay to easy, even for an evil barbarian sorcerer from another world. There are sooo many plot holes in this I don't know where to begin; like why did Arklon go to the L.A. zoo for at the end of the movie?!? He absolutely has no reason whatsoever to go there; and wouldn't that be like the last place you'd lure your greatest enemy who just so happens to have the handy ability TO CONTROL ANIMALS?

And don't you just love these kinds of movies where the police are portrayed as total idiots and even with half a dozen cops firing at one guy, they still don't manage to hit him? The police in this movie belong in the \"Police Academy\" series! They are about as useful in this movie as reading glasses are for the blind! Even the title of the movie makes no sense: \"Beastmaster 2 : Through the Portal of Time\"...they never actually went through a \"time\" portal because the movie isn't set in the future of Dar's world, it's set in a parallel world along ours in the astral plane, so they NEVER actually go through time, only a dimensional world along theirs; so NO actual time-travel is involved at all! This movie tries to come off as funny and it does...not because of the humor, but because it's just so bad...and that's putting it mildly. The acting, dialogue, plot, characters, and ending are all so cheesy it's hilarious. What more can I expect from the guy that brought us \"Return of the Swampthing\"(another bad sequel)? Sorely missed here is Don Coscarelli's wonderful directing and serious feel of the first one!! Avoid this stinking piece of garbage like the bubonic plague and stick which the first one and maybe the third one if there's nothing better on T.V.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This time The Beastmaster(Marc Singer) returns only to face off a new enemy Arklon(Wings Hauser) however due to an annoying teenager(Kari Wuher) they are transported to the future where they then duke it out. Lots of (lame) fish out of water jokes ensue. You honestly don't get sequels this rotten to the core. Beastmaster 2 is a painful movie to behold. The references and \"hipness\" date the film badly (This was made in 1991) and really who wants to see The Beastmaster in the present times? Also of note is Wings Hauser who's embarrassing performance is easily the film's best asset. Singer looks awkward, Wuher is irritating and the whole 1991 slang just makes the movie downright unwatchable. This is easily one of the worst movies ever made.

1\/2* out of 4-(Awful)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although the story is good and portrayals what I expected of Sam Elliot my DVD copy contained almost unbearable synchronization problems. The dialogue was almost 3 seconds behind the lip movement throughout the whole film.

I would therefore be very careful in purchasing any DVD of the film without checking for the problem.

I would also follow the recommended censors classifications particularly in relation to language and drug usage.

This film could become a silent classic cop movie and with the above cautionary notes I can recommend it to prospective viewers","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just finished watching Dog Watch. I thought parts of the movie were hokey with more than a few implausibilities. The acting wasn't too bad and the plot wasn't bad. BUT, as the saying goes, the devil was in the details.

Some examples:

1) The bleed-through on Charlie Falon's (Sam Elliott) bandage was shown to be coming from the back of his hand while it was his knuckles that were bleeding.

2) Would a detective dispose of his murder victim from a very well-lighted area? This seemed very silly to me.

I am not unusually picky about a movie but, in my humble opinion, this one is definitely NOT recommended by me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I made it about 8 minutes into \"Steel Frontier\" before I turned it off. Then, glutton for punishment that I am, I watched some more the next day. Today I had to iron a pile of clothes, so I decided to finish the movie, and that was its own punishment. Here's what I don't understand: Robert Rodriguez and Shane Carruth each spent $7,000 on their debut features and created two remarkable movies. Yet here we have two directors with arguably way more money, and they churn out a huge, steaming pile of crap. Let me see if I can figure out the logic: \"It's 'Road Warrior' but it's like a future Western. We'll get the cheapest 'actors' we can find, we'll have my mentally challenged cousin write the script, and we'll spend the budget on a bunch of explosions. We can't lose!\"

Seriously. I don't think even the MST3K guys could improve this. But if you insist on watching it, I recommend getting very drunk first.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As other reviewers have noted, this movie is a cross between (i.e. stolen from) stories we have seen before. Specifically, this looks like Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter inserted into Mad Max. Remove Clint's cigar, and replace with a cigarette; remove his horse and give him a high-tech motorcycle, and voil\u00e0, an updated drifter. In this movie, the \"hero\" is even more blatantly a \"Savior\" than High Plains Drifter. Now our hero has long brown hair, suffers a wound to his left side, and his entry into town is preceded by a plea for \"salvation\" by the surviving townspeople--a pretty transparent reference to a \"Second Coming.\" I watched the movie on a hot, humid morning. Sleep was impossible and upon arising at 4:30 am, there was nothing else on TV. So the movie served its purpose. While unoriginal, with characters that are almost comic caricatures, the movie is still somewhat entertaining...at least at 4:30 in the morning.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you take the films, Mad Max, Beyond Thunderdome, and the movie Steel Dawn with Patrick Swayze, you will have a pretty good idea what the film is about. The only problems is, that the film lacks the production values of either, and represent mainly cheap copy of the former two. True, the film has plenty of action, but asks the viewer to suspend belief. No one can shoot a 50 Caliber Machine gun by holding it in his hand - and miss everything to boot, nor can you shoot at a group of people with an automatic weapon and miss the whole bunch. There is also a problem with poor editing, when the school bus flips over, it is easy enough to see the cannon used to do the job. And the lady driving the truck through it is superfluous, since she had more than enough time to stop the truck. If you are interested only in mindless action and violence then the movie is easy enough to watch. But don't expect anything on paar with Thunderdome, or even the somewhat cheap and tacky Steel Dawn.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know that Trey Parker and Matt Stone really hate celebrities and spoof them in every single episode of South Park (if not showing them, then mentioning them) and they love to mock and joke and make fun of themselves too, but I felt this mockumentary went too far.

For one thing, the most common running theme in the \"documentary\" is that they're episodes are meaningless pieces of crap they put out just for the money. Obviously, that's completely untrue if you even bother to watch any episode, and the constant \"You know, I learned something today...\"'s said at the end of almost every episode by the main characters. The creators are also depicted as pompous, arrogant asses who only care about money, including a supposed-to-be-funny-but-isn't scene involving Isaac Hayes delivering lines for Chef (over the phone) and Trey Parker yelling and screaming at him for sucking and hanging up. I guess it's supposed to be funny, but the pretension in it just really made it... cringe.

The way they interview employees working for Trey and Matt shows the duo as tyrants who push their employees to the limit, all just for money, in the end. Completely untrue, obviously, and all a joke, but it's just not funny. It's disturbing, even though it's just a joke.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some spoilers**** A Soap has some wonderful moments to recommend it. When Charlotte and Veronica get close to intimacy is a beautiful, low key, truly erotic scene. I also loved the music score and the soft, muted cinematography. I'm not clear if the curious stop and start structure of the film comes from it being digested originally in serialized form (the announcer describing the action in sections is quite annoying). My biggest problem with this film is its rather absurd depiction of a transwomen and her life. Of course, she has to be shown as a sexworker (what else), scatterbrained, impractical, absurdly frilly\/girly, completely hopeless when it comes to dressing and incapable of making any interpersonal attachments in the world. Moreover, she's always shown with two days growth of beard (for some bizarre reason) as if to emphasize how tawdry her life is. And she's waiting to get gender reassignment surgery when she seemingly has done nothing else to forward her transitioning. In truth, the character resembles a drag queen, not someone in the midst of transitioning.

These are typical fantasies of people from the outside who really aren't connected to transpeople. The film's fetishization of GRS surgery is a way of objectifying people who are going through transition. Not impressed with this aspect of the film in the least. At the very least, why not have the character played by someone who really is transgender... I thought the male actor portraying Veronica was okay but no better than that. Much better was the woman portraying Charlotte, a very complex character full of energy, self-loathing, desire and contradictions. If she was so fascinated by someone with female energy, a Charlotte could go out to a women's bar in two seconds and find it. Yes, she was drawn to Veronica but more as an abstract idea of someone with male\/female characteristics (a gentle touch but with a good punch), not as a unique person. Yes, what A Soap says about love is often lovely and moving, but that doesn't mean an already stereotyped minority has to be stereotyped some more in the process.

This film also proves that Danes are lousy dancers. For such a promising premise (better executed in a film like \"Different For Girls\") the final film is a letdown.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am so disappointed. After waiting for 3 years for repeats\/the DVD of the original masterpiece series \"Darkplace\" i couldn't wait for this series. The first episode just ended and I am appalled. Everything that was great about Darkplace has been erased here, pretty much. Worst introduction: canned laughter. this takes the original point of it away and just renders it nearly unwatchable. (one joke about Garth's eyes fertilizing the audience was good... the rest i can hardly remember...) it feels like a poor quality \"Knowing Me, Knowing You.\" I hope this improves as the series goes on, otherwise i shall be seriously disappointed. back to \"Darkplace...\"

\"You are the most compassionate man I ever known. And i know God...\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay now this movie is a piece of work. It's full of stupid jesus refrences and dialougue that would render most human biengs to question whether or not they should be wattching movies at all. Big names like Roddy Piper, and David Carradine draw you in but, take it from me, this movie sucks. The story is incomprehensible, and lacking completley in intellegence. The sets, veihicles, and costumes come of as a cross beetween bablon five, and a bondage flick. I'm sure theres porn with better dialougue.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I say \"flick\" because this doesn't deserve the appellation \"movie\", and certainly not \"film\". I regret paying for the rental, and although I've never walked out on a movie before, this would have been it, had I seen it in a theatre. A society living underground in the future (oooh, THAT'S original), lots of burning barrel drums, unexplained ambient light shining through windows, an ungrateful woman and her shock-muted son...the list goes on and on. C. Thomas Howell affects the husky voice of the stereotypical loner; you know like Eastwood's been done to death. He needs special sunglasses to remember his wife and child, yet in the flashbacks, he's the same age! Talk about a poor memory! I stared incredulously when the little boy Abe randomly pushes a code into a door and it opens! No tension, pithy religious (what religion?) under\/overtones...saddest of all: I expected better from Roddy Piper;

Quite possibly the worst movie experience in my life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, let me start by saying that I have been a devoted follower of C Thomas Howell's career ever since \"The Outsiders\" and \"The Hitcher\". He was an up and coming star in the 1980s - with hits such as \"Soul Man\" also. The future was bright for this young actor and he had the potential to go on from there and really assert himself in Hollywood. Put it this way - Tom Cruise had a bit part in \"The Outsiders\" while Howell had the lead. Look at Cruise today !!! But picking material like this drivel will only denigrate Howell's career even more - if that was possible. Why does he pick stuff like this? A small part in a major movie would be of more benefit to him than this rubbish.

Essentially the story here takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where everybody lives underground where chaos reigns. Howell is a Shepherd - protecting the flock of various religious leaders by killing off any undesirables. He's a hit-man in other words.

The sets are so bad, they wouldn't look out of place on a Thunderbirds episode. The use of slow-motion needlessly repeats itself throughout the movie but is well backed up by bad acting (and bad is a kind word here), no continuity, scenes that are thrown in for no reason whatsoever, vehicles that looked like they were made from a Corn Flakes box and a directorial style that bordered on stupidity. Oh yeah, and the storyline was pathetic too.

I hate writing bad reviews about films - especially those in which I really like the star - but this film is so bad I don't believe for one second that anyone could have been proud of it. I am not a filmmaker nor am I a director but I would hide my head in the sand if I'd spent whatever amount of money and time on this movie.

In short - this was a monumental waste of time and energy and I would not recommend anyone to EVER see this film. It came free with a DVD player I bought but I still turned the thing off halfway through because I was embarrassed for Howell. Come on C - give yourself some credit and wrestle yourself away from these non-hit wonders and try to knuckle down and get a good part - however small.

1\/10 - and only because there is no setting for 0\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Planet Earth has suffered a terrible environmental disaster so humanity now survives underground split in to different religious cults . What caused the catastrophe ? I have no idea ? why is humanity split in to different ecclesiastical factions ? I have no idea . Since the surface of the Earth can no longer support human life how are the humans able to grow crops in order to feed the population ? I have no idea . What sort of producer thought this screenplay deserved to receive funding ? I have no idea

SHEPHERD is one of these films that creeps up late at night on cable channels . The sort of film where you consult the IMBb to see if it has any merits . The number of people who've commentated on SHEPHERD on this page hasn't yet reached double figures and this is a film that was released nine years ago . Perhaps the people who have never seen it are the lucky ones ?

As for the rest of the plot it's very routine . Grumpy former cop Boris Dakota whose wife and child died several years previously meets a woman and her child and it's up to him to save their lives , almost like a futuristic western . Throw in a former wrestler who now runs the God channel , a fascist Christian bloke who's trying to snuff out Boris , a ventriloquist , some T&A for the sake of it and you've got a mess of a film . I guess after seeing this Neil Marshall's DOOMSDAY is possibly a masterwork of cinema in comparison","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If \"B\" movies, tired and corny scripts, and golf carts dressed up as some sort of futuristic mode of transport are your sort of entertainment, you'll probably enjoy this. Otherwise, forget it. The topless newsreader, though completely irrelevant, did give a few seconds of amusement.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have NEVER fallen asleep whilst watching a movie before.

I did with this one.

Avoid at all costs, give your time and money to a worthy cause instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the story of a maniac cop who, for some reason, has it in for a young college stud and his mates. After they report him to his supervisor who in turns suspends him pending psychiatric evaluation, he finds an opportunity to psychology torture them when, on a bet, the kids hack into a department store's security and unlock the door. Only, they get locked in the store, along with the weirdo. Murder and mayhem are afoot, and the kids are running around trying to survive until morning when they may be able to escape.

'Dangerous Game' would have been a successful cat-and-mouse psycho thriller probably if it was set in a different location. The thought of psychotic cop chasing around a bunch of innocent teenagers in a department store just didn't work. Especially when he comes face-to-face with his flinching prey quite frequently and yet, does nothing serious quite often. There was no real confrontation as would be sufficient for this kind of story, and may've worked better if say, for example, the teens were loose in the neighborhood and left to fend for themselves against this weirdo (especially if that took a few days while he makes them increasingly paranoid...although granted, even that is clich\u00e9d).

What a shame, too, that it could not have been a better thriller, considering a funky cast of young Australian characters. Even a light hearted adventure despite the madness of the villain interspersed through the picture might have even made it a more satisfying picture. Instead, it started out fresh, and sure did have plenty of action sequences, but wound up verging on the ridiculous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Man with the Golden Arm (the movie) is a decent career vehicle for Frank Sinatra, but fails abysmally as a good adaptation of a fantastic book. You always hear about how books are \"changed\" when they are made into films- things are cut out, dumbed down, etc. Well, you can't even say they \"changed\" anything with the movie- they just told a completely different story. The characters and setting are the same sure- but not the ambiguous characterization, the depth of the men and women of Polish Chicago in the book. As for the setting, it's become merely a play stage, complete with the unnecessary \"supporting role\" players walking all too busilly down the claustrophobic, interior exterior streets. The movie is a dumbed-down, completely different take on Frankie Machine and drug addiction. When this happens, Zosh, Frankie, Sparrow, all lose their psychological edge. Frankie's drumming, a modest dream in the book, becomes his full passion in the movie (probably because Sinatra is a musician). And drug addiction is treated as shlock, exploitavely. The acting is decent, especially the snakelike Louie, who is more menacing in the movie than the book. But it's just a shame this kind of movie can be heralded as a classic alongside the book it is \"based upon,\" the real story of Frankie Machine. The movie just goes to show Hollywood can' get anything right without dumbing it down and adding a happy ending. In this case, they just changed it completely, cheapening an important and realistic story into Hollywood fluff. I'm sure as hell biased because I read the book first, so I can't really treat the movie honestly by knowing how good the book is. I actually thought about turning the movie off (and I never do that), just so I wouldn't get its silly plot confused with the beauty of the book. But this is an overrated film, and while it's not so bad, the book should come first, as it was the first. And it should have remained the only story of Division Street and Frankie Machine.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite the fact that this was a Made-For-TV movie (and an obvious one at that: ie., cheap looking), CLASS WARFARE left me wishing I could get my money back, and considering this lame production was partially funded through Canadian dollars, I might just be entitled.

What made me sit through it in the first place was seeing actress Lindsey McKeon, who I've watched for the last couple years in her role as \"goody-goody\" Mara Lewis on the soap-opera GUIDING LIGHT, taking a turn at playing \"the bad girl\" for a change.

Surprisingly she does quite well, as Kristen, a spoiled rich-b*tch who suddenly finds herself dirt-poor, but with a conniving streak, and a twist of fate, that will possibly change her fortunes back around. The twist of fate is provided in the character of Richard (Robin Dunne), a socially-radical outcast who discovers that he has just gone from having nothing to winning $23 million on a lottery ticket. Now, put Richard, Kristen, her jock-boyfriend Jason (Wade Carpenter), and their camcorder-obsessed mutual buddy Graham (Dave McGowan) together for the weekend in a remote cabin, cut off from the world by storms, and just guess what unfolds.

The film suffers from congesting both the story and characters'personas and motives too much. Everyone is pretty one-dimensional and it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out that some things, and some people, are going to go very bad, very quickly. I don't think this is that original a plot and it doesn't go out of it's way to make itself anything more. The acting is OK, McKeon is spot-on as the manipulative female lead, and Dunne is very good, perhaps a little too good at times, but no one else is worth writing home about. The only other real credit I can give the film is the one twist I didn't see coming towards the end (not the very end though, that one is so obvious it hurts). Regardless, I sat through all of it and lived to tell the tale so I can't say it was a complete write-off.

4\/10. A \"something-to-watch-when-nothing-else-is-on\" type movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just watched this movie on Bravo! and it was absolutely horrible. It has the plot of a Shannon Tweed movie without the nudity. The premise was interesting enough, a winning lottery ticket in a secluded area and people who have reasons why they want the money. The characters were trite as were the observations on human nature and greed.

For a movie called Class Warfare it had very little to do with class differences other than the first 20 minutes and the predictable ending. This movie could have done a lot better if there had been more characters with motivations to get the ticket and was a \"who done it?\"

The acting wasn't fantastic but it's hard to seem believable with such a terrible script. Lindsey McKeon is very cute and I'd like to see what she could do in a better production with a better script. She's probably the only reason why I sat through the whole movie.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Clifton Webb is one of my favorites. However, Mister Scoutmaster is not one of his best. His patented curmudgeon role seems forced and even unpleasant rather than funny. The film itself is overflowing with mawkish sentimentality. In addition, the viewer is presented with numerous ham-handed references to religious faith and U.S. patriotism that come off as over-reverent rather than genuine. Clifton Webb does his best with a poor script. Edmund Gwenn plays yet another jovial clergyman and is given nothing to do. The child actor lead is played by a talentless child who displays a flat affect throughout the entire film. His sole claim to fame as a performer evidently is a bullfrog-like low voice unusual for someone of his age. However, once you've heard it, you've heard it and you don't need to hear it again. Unfortunately, he is in the majority of the film's scenes. I find this child so irritating that I fast forward whenever he shows up. Since he has a lot of scenes in this film, this means that I fast forward through a lot of the film. There were and are so many talented child actors; it's a pity this film doesn't have any of them in it. Still, Clifton Webb in the traditional broad-brimmed hat and shorts is a sight worth seeing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a physicist, talk about blackholes and cosmology gets my heart racing. However I found this presentation too slow and not packed with enough information for the interested layman (who is most likely to see it). If you have more than a passing curiosity in this sort of stuff, go to the library and check out some books. You will find they explain current scientific cosmologies with far more detail while at the same time filling you with more of a sense of wonder than this movie does. Also to set the record straight: Hawking is NOT considered the \"greatest mind\" or the world's \"smartest person\" as commonly asserted even among the user reviews here at the IMDb. Hawking himself has commented that \"It is rubbish. It is just media hype. They needed somebody to fill the role model of disabled genius. At least I'm disabled.\" To be fair, he is probably a genius but among history's greatest scientists, people like Einstein, Newton, Gauss, and many others easily are even more highly regarded. This is not to disrespect Hawking who is a undoubtedly a great scientist but rather not to disrespect others who have done even more than he has. Anyhow, see the movie if you are truly into science. But if not, I think it would be boring for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You'd hardly know that a year later MGM put Norma Shearer in THE DIVORCEE which glows with MGM technical know how. How far they came in one year. CHENEY is a very stagey early talkie. The camera hardly moves. Shearer is her usual charming self and Rathbone does well in a romantic leading role. They are all very careful to speak clearly and slowly into the microphone source which does mitigate against a naturally flowing dramatic scene, but the play is a sturdy and fun warhorse so one can enjoy oneself if one's expectations are not too high. Oh, by the way, the plot involves a ring of upper class jewel thieves who infiltrate themselves into society to prey on their victims. There are some clever twists in the script and true love conquers all. An Oscar nom for Best Screenplay Adaptation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this early talkie difficult to watch and I'm a Norma Shearer fan! It's not her fault, but the primitive production values of this film would cause any viewer to become bored. 90% of the movie is filmed with \"medium shots,\" and it's very similar to watching a dull play.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This version is very painful to watch. All of the acting is very stilted but especially that of Norma Shearer who is still acting as though she were in a silent movie instead of a talkie. Check out the 1937 version with Joan Crawford, Robert Montgomery and William Powell which is much more entertaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie as part of a Billy Graham program. The church I attend was part of a community wide outreach to present God and Christianity to our community (Hartford, Ct. USA). I was one of the counselors who helped attendees (who were invited to come forward and make whatever kind of religious profession they wanted...and to follow up on them after the movie. As such, it did what it was supposed to do, and I personally found it to be a medium to strengthen my faith in God.I also found it to be very helpful to those I counseled. I especially like the work of Kim Darby in this movie. And the parents (the Wintons?) were , in a way, a little overdrawn....no one says to their child if they think that he or she may be the parent of an illegitimate child something like the Wintons did \"oh, no, no, not thaaat.\" That isn't exactly what they said, but the sympaathetic audience I saw had a laugh at whatever it was they did say, and also at the son's emphatic \"No, MOm, not me.\" Don Berghuis","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's exactly what the title tells you...an island inhabited by fishmen. Shipwrecked doctor Claudio Cassinelli and crew land on the island, they're either picked off by the fishmen or roped into working for treasure hunting lunatic Richard Johnson. Cassinelli discovers that Johnson, who believes he's found the lost city of Atlantis, has been keeping disgraced scientist Joseph Cotten and his daughter Barbara Bach hostage for 15 years so the fishmen can uncover a treasure trove beneath the sea. Cotten, of course, is a complete madman. Bach and Cassinelli have great chemistry. This insanity was directed by Sergio Martino and is not, surprisingly, without merit. It's fast paced, reasonably well acted and the fishmen look pretty convincing (though it's unlikely anyone could prove that these things DON'T look like actual fishmen). There's an excellent music score by Luciano Michelini.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, the video cover of this movie made me want to watch this film as a child. It was called \"Screamers\" on this particular cover with the tagline \"Men turned inside out!\". It even featured this warped looking skeleton on the cover as well that made all sorts of cool gory images run through my mind. Perhaps some sort of movie about some strange virus that caused a person's flesh to burn off, maybe a movie about undead zombies that are more bloody looking than what you usually get, a science experiment gone incredibly wrong and now strange men with the flesh dripping off their bones go on the rampage. Yes, all these thoughts ran through my mind, one that did not was fish guys on some island with virtually no gore and all bore. This movie is really more like the Island of Dr. Moreau than anything else and quite frankly that movie bored me too, it is way to much scientist and not enough killing for my tastes. These films are to much figure stuff out and not enough blood for my tastes. Yes I know, I have strange tastes, but I can not help it, I like my horror movies either really bloody or fast moving and exciting this movie is really neither.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK by the time you read this I MIGHT have stopped crying. This movie was so horrible as to be quite vexing. The creatures are kinda cute, but the only really good thing about the movie was the growing attachment among the prisoners and their guard after getting marooned on this daffy island. Even seeing Barbara Bach with her hair all riffled was no payoff for buying this sterling bit of poop. She goes about with a whispery I've-never-used-my-voice-before breathiness that just don't wash when one is screaming bloody murder. (Hey the leading man was cute too but I'm still not assuaged.) This is a cry-into-your-beer ripoff of the good ole Island of Dr. Moreau. Poor Richard Johnson, who was surely born for better things, is just unrelievedly bad as the bad guy. I mean, HOW bad can a BAD guy BE? (Ask Richard Johnson). Joseph Cotten tries hard not to look embarrassed as he staggers through his cameo appearance. In the name of all that's holy, don't rent this darned bomb.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie only because I was under the impression that I was going to be treated to a cheesy horror flick. I mean, look at the tag line: \"They're men turned inside out! And worse... they're still alive!\" Does that not scream cheesy horror movie to you? And the then there's the title itself-- \"Screamers.\" What a perfectly apt title for a horror movie, I thought! Unfortunately, I wasn't aware that the real title was, properly translated, \"The Island of the Fishmen.\"

So, about an hour into watching this I realized that this was not a cheesy horror movie at all-- it was a cheesy \"adventure\" story about slimy fish-men from Atlantis. \"Men turned inside out\"? No. There was nothing of the sort. I was grossly disappointed.

Damn you, misleading taglines! I want those 81 minutes of my life back!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think that you can not imagine how these people really work...!! Before I came to the studios to watch the guys work there, I actually thought quite the same as you do. But since I saw and did the work the guys on that TV-show have to do, I have to say that they really do deserve respect for what they are doing all day long. That really is no easy work. And also the actors, which in your eyes may be terribly bad, are really great people and a lot of them really can act! I don't think that the material given to them can really show that, as I think this material isn't very good. But THEY are truly good! So I don't think that you, before you haven't seen these guys doing there work, can judge over them! And I shouldn't have judged over them as well before I met them, but I did and am now terribly ashamed of it. So please, do not allow yourself to judge over these great people unless you haven't seen them doing there job.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think its safe to say that if you only really watch box office standard films or any premium production don't bother with this film as you will hate it. If you are an overly critical film buff don't bother either. If you love science fiction films and don't care what capacity you get a glimpse of the future in then you'll be mildly entertained. It is very obvious that the budget for this was super super low but what they have done with the money is worth a pat on the back. Some of the burning fire scenes were pretty bad and the evacuation scenes were terrible but it is quite obvious that they had some good support from a computer perspective as the planet scenes and the alien images were quite inventive. The dialog is down right hilarious but acting not altogether poor. As for the story well, I'm not too sure what actually happened at all to tell you the truth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is proof you can't just go to a Redbox and read descriptions of films and pick one and give it a try.

While I'll give 'em great credit for having produced a film with halfway-decent special effects on such a low budget, and at least a halfway decent script and story line... unfortunately, it was only just that: halfway decent.

If you like movies where things aren't all neatly wrapped up, and don't mind low-budget effects, you might like this film. Honestly, it wasn't really my cup of tea. I should've just gone to bed rather than spend my time watching.

For a better science-fiction movie produced on an even LOWER budget (!) have a look at \"Primer.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is OK movie if it would be done by high school kids for their friends. It is way below limits be called \"professional\". There isn't plot, no actors' play and visual looks like you see it through the plastic film. I was so glad that I have FF button on my remote, 32x worked really well. I understand that everyone need to start somewhere, but it shouldn't be reason to bring it to the public. If you have concerns about quality and budget - \"Open water\" was made on $60000 and more than half went to the guy who provided the security in the ocean and trained sharks. And that movie looks 100 times more professional and it was an event in the indy film-making.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was excited about this movie after reading other reviews. What a disappointment! There are so many ways that this movie is bad. The computer graphics were lacking to say the least. I found the acting stiff and unbelievable. Watch the sand as the lost \"e-pods\" (what an original name!)are found. Where did all the tracks come from? I immediately recognized portions similar to other movies, ie Alien, Pitch Black. Come on,one huge ship to transport one prisoner? And what is with the prisoner? Does he speak, can he speak? I kept waiting for something to tie the bits of the story together, but it never came. If this movie was made on a low budget, it shows. The only part of the movie I liked was when it finally ended. I don't mean that I liked the ending, I didn't. I just liked the fact that it was over. A trip to the dentist would have been more enjoyable. In my opinion. don't waste your time on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Going to need to take a deep breath for this one...

Terrible special effects that tried to reach far beyond the limitations of the budget. Blatant and unashamed plagiarism of other sci-fi movies (like Pitch Black). Terrible acting. Endless slow motion scenes of characters walking aimlessly across sand dunes. Meandering dialogue that does nothing to further the story. Characters wearing turtle neck sweaters on a desert planet with two suns. A \"cargo\" ship staffed by a camouflage-wearing crew of gun-toting soldiers (why exactly would you need forest-camouflage in space anyway?). Some of the worst casting choices in the history of no-budget film-making - a steroid swollen \"captain\" who comes across more like a muscle-beach jock than a trustworthy commander, and a \"convict\" who looks and acts about as dangerous as a bunny rabbit. 70 minutes in length, 35 of which could have been trimmed out if the director had any concept of \"compression of time through editing\"...

I won't go on. Suffice it to say that while some components of this awful movie can (and should) be forgiven due to it's low budget; the bad conception, laughable plot holes, and snore-inducing script are unforgivable on *any* budget. The end result is a tedious, dull, waste of time. Sorry guys, I hate to be so harsh on an amateur film, but you've no excuse for turning out this kind of work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even with it's low budget this movie could have been worth watching if there was a story to tell here. It started out pretty good, and fairly engaging and believable. The actors and characters were interesting although there wasn't much character development. My favorite scene was when they were all eating their rations. Some seemed to hate it, and some seemed to think it wasn't too bad. The story starts out very airtight. And then...

And then it dipped into a little horror which is usually a death sentence for most sci fi. Suddenly no scientific basis for any of the goings on. No real believable end game for the villain? No real explanation of what's going on. Generally if a movie has to use the F word for every other word it usually spirals down from there too. I still get offended believe it or not. I often wonder what inspires people to make bad sci fi? Isn't there a universe of fantastically good stories out there? Don't people feel like they are wasting their time and everyone else's when they put out stuff like this. Why do we get so much mediocre sci fi like this? No female actors\/characters either? None at all? This had the makings to be another \"Predator\" but alas fell far far short.

My final comment - poor editing and finally too low a budget to build a real campfire? What gives?

My advice for any low budget sci fi movie production companies out there. Make sure you got a good story before you start, and edit out bad special effects - it's better we see nothing than something that looks fake or ridiculously fuzzy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really didn't like this film~!!!! it was boring and didn't interest me that much at all.. i'm more of an action girl, and it had NONE. i went and rented this movie because of the other comment that was left.. but was totally mislead! don't get this movie unless you like the dessert and plenty of boredom. i just really didn't like the movie. it wasn't my style, but it could be yours.. you would just have to watch the previews or something but it's my recommendation if you're a girl.. don't get this movie! This Scandinavian production draws on some of the observational strategies of Godfrey Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi, allowing us to reflect on patterns and phenomena of human and natural existence from both intimate and sweeping viewpoints. this just isn't for me!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've got 10 plus year old computer games with better special effects! Plot is choppy and very predictable. Most of the actors seem like extras with no experience! Everyone has Scottish accents. It's like watching a crew of 'Scotties' from Star Trek without the personality or charm. Needless scenes of people putting up tents! Tents with all of the supposedly high tech equipment! Actors looking like they were not sure the camera was on them. Nothing to make you care if these people survive or not! Looks like it was made in someone's backyard and garage using low end equipment! Nothing seems original or even slightly entertaining. Do not waste your time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was awful, plain and simple! The animation scenes had absolutely terrible graphics. It was VERY clear to see that this film had about the budget of my grocery bill!! The acting was just as bad.. I've seen better acting in pornographic films. I would seriously like the hour and twenty minutes of my life back. In fact, I registered on IMDb just so that other people don't get sucked into watching this like I did. Don't get me wrong though, I love sci-fi films! This one seemed more like the intro to a video game :( I'm glad I only spent a dollar to see this one! The story line reminded me of the movie pitch black, A prisoner on a ship in outer space escapes. Oh my goodness.. what are we gonna do??? I would not even let this play in the background of my house while I was cleaning! Bottom line here, you can do better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I pride myself in being able to sit through everything. I think \"if I've paid the rental fee, then I'm going to at least watch it\". I have found the exception to this rule- The Planet. I don't know what the exchange rate is, but reading through the other comments I can only guess that \u00a38000 must be around $150. I'll date myself but this movie reminds me of the old Steve Reeves movies of the 50's. He was a bodybuilder turned actor. He was in these really awful Italian, dubbed movies that starred Reeves as Hercules or some other muscle bound hero. As a kid watching them you couldn't quite articulate why these movies stunk- you just knew they did. Mike Mitchell IS the new Steve Reeves. That's it.. that's what this really was- a new telling of an old Italian \"Spaghetti Sand and Sandals\" movie. And, I kid you not- where was Reeves born? Glasgow, Montana. This movie isn't so bad that it's kind of fun to watch- it's just plain bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went through great efforts to get this movie after reading the comments on this site. I really don't have time to write reviews but I felt this was my duty as a sci-fi horror buff. This is only the second review I have written. The other was for Dracula 3000. Now to the point. This movie sucked. Plain and simple. I kept wondering if I was watching the same movie as those who wrote all those \"lovely\" comments. I have seen movies with bad effects, bad acting, bad sound, you name it and I've seen it. But this really sucked. I don't care how much it costs or didn't cost to make, movies like this and Dracula 3000 should be banned and the whole cast and crew arrested and jailed for time murder. By the way, Did I mention that this movie sucked. I mean really sucked. The plot was non exist and the acting was weak. It seems like the writer saw Pitch Black and got upset because he didn't think of a plot like that first so he decided to make his own ripped off version. But instead, the suck factor took over and possessed him. DON'T WATCH THIS. You'll have more fun if you pull down your pants and sit on burning coals.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really did not want to write a harsh review of this movie because I genuinely appreciate how hard it is to make any kind of movie on an incredibly low budget, let alone attempt something as ambitious as a sci-fi.

However this movie is truly awful. The acting is among some of the worst I have ever had to endure and as a fan of low budget movies that is a pretty serious accusation to make. There are plenty of aspiring actors out there who would work on a deferred payment scheme if they believed in the movie and what the director was trying to achieve. I'm sure the actors did their best as did everybody else involved in this production, but it simply was not good enough to pull off something of this magnitude.

Then there is the dialogue. Very poor indeed. There is no excuse for that. I got the impression the script was hastily written on the back of a beer mat after some epic boozing session. I hesitate to use the word 'laughable' but that's exactly what the script is. I had no empathy with any of the characters. Indeed they grated on me with the result that on more than one occasion I wanted to thump a couple of them Mr Stirton has overstretched himself by taking on too many roles. Clint Eastwood he is not. Again, there are talented people out there willing to work on deferment if they believe in the project.

Much has been made of the special effects in this movie. For the money, they are exceptional, if somewhat overused. It is like someone said \"I have after effects and boy am I gonna use it\". Whoever did the CG work was among the most talented of this crew.

Quite simply the money was not available to make as ambitious a movie as this attempts to be. Kudos for attempting it, but unfortunately it fails to reach its heady goals in far too many ways.

I salute everyone involved with its production, I really do, but for their next effort they either need to get a better producer or lower their sights to something more manageable.

In conclusion I cannot recommend this effort to anyone other than the most enthusiastic of film students or habitual insomniacs. If you want to watch a true masterpiece of low budget sci-fi films try the student made \"Dark Star\" by a certain Mr John Carpenter.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I felt compelled to write a review after seeing the only review which gave this film a suspiciously high 9\/10 rating. I say suspicious because it looks less like a review but more like a publicity statement. Perhaps the filmmaker himself, or one of his mates, has written that \"review\"? Naughty, naughty.

I watched this movie on the Propeller channel on Sky TV expecting it to be truly awful. The special effects used were to be honest very, very good for a low budget film, and some of the acting wasn't that bad either, but most of the acting was really awful, but well done for trying, as I expect most were pals of the filmmaker.

I think the filmmaker has done really well by trying to punch above his weight. I did find some of the film funny because it was trying to be super cool when it just wasn't.

If you don't take this film too seriously and watch it whilst drunk with some mates you might well have a good time but probably not in the way it was intended. This film is no way a 9\/10 but worth watching for a laugh bearing in mind it was made on a very very low budget and in fairness due credit to those involved in it's production.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had known Brad Linaweaver at Florida State U in the early 70's when he was an inspiring, inventive writer who I thought was headed for greater glory.

And that is why I rented this video. Well, well, well, the time has not been kind to Mr Linaweaver. I suppose the pressures of making a living makes higher aspirations expendable. Another flower whose bloom has come and gone un-noticed in the summer breeze. Amen. There is nothing more to say. And nothing more to add. A sad epitaph to a once blossoming career as stated above. But it is the price one pays for chasing shadows without a firm foundation or goals for oneself in life. Because this movie has no goal, no purpose, and I kept telling myself, what happened to Brad's creativity, his once shining genius? Gone, gone, years of neglect has deteriorated his once shining mind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this out of curiosity. How did John Carradine (who died in 1988) and Cameron Mitchell (who died in 1994) make appearances in a film made in 1995? Thanks to the miracle of unused film can footage that's probably been sitting on a shelf somewhere for ten years, that's how! You can tell because the film stock used to shoot their scenes doesn't match the film used for shooting \"Jack-O.\" The curse of Ed Wood lives on. The good thing for both Carradine and Mitchell is that this is exactly the kind of movie you'd expect to find on both of their filmographies. Same goes for Scream Queens Linnea Quigley, Brinke Stevens and Dawn Wildsmith.

The setting is Oakmoor Crossing on Halloween, and some kind of curse is released when dumb, beer-guzzling teens disrupt a grave. The result: a hulking killer with a scythe and a big plastic pumpkin on his head! He (it?) goes after the wholesome Kelly family for revenge (and kills others who get in his way). The father opens a Haunted Garage for the neighborhood kiddies. The son (Ryan Latshaw, son of the director) has one continuous, perplexed facial expression for all his scenes and one hilariously badly acted dramatic scene lying in a grave. At least he's a kid. The mother's eyes about pop out of her head while she strains to read her dialogue. There is also an annoying woman who shows up to explain things who seems to be trying to phonetically pronounce all of her dialogue.

So what about the name actors? You see Stevens, Wildsmith and Mitchell briefly on a TV screen (they're used to pad out the time). Linnea has a bigger role as a babysitter, and she does exactly what she can with it. Her enthusiastic performance helps a little bit. There's also one out-of-nowhere laugh when an ultra-conservative couple who watch a Rush Limbaugh clone on TV bite it. The woman slips on a rug and stabs a toaster with a knife. She's electrocuted and the end result looks like a flame-broiled Muppet.

All and all, pretty entertaining stuff! I wasn't bored!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man, this movies sucked. It appeared to have like seven different plots going on at once and they all made little to no sense. The special effects, costumes, and all that stuff were beyond awful. The acting was particullary bad. Everything seemed so forced, especially the lines from the woman with the huge eyes and the little kid (his \"Noooooo\" as he gets burried is so unenthusiastic it's laughable). A good portion of this movie is rather funny anyway. The one woman's death where she shoves a knife into a toaster, gets electrocuted, and magically turns into the crapiest skeleton dummy in the world had my friends and I laughing for a good ten minutes.

Bottom line: If you're into watching really horrible movies, seek this one out. If not, run for your life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've always loved horror flicks. From some of the usual well-known like \"The Exorcist\" to some of the more underrated like \"Black Christmas\" or \"Just Before Dawn\". But who are people kidding,even calling this trash a b-movie. It's straight up bottom-of-the-barrel Z-grade. The acting is the worst ever on film. Really,I've seen better on an episode of the \"Young and the Restless\"...SPOILER...Lookout for when the woman comes to tell them about the legend of Jack-o. She pauses sometimes for a matter of seconds as if someone is flashing her cue cards and she's struggling to read her lines. A RIOT!

Oh,and besides the bad acting,absolutely no gore or F\/X. And Jack-o looked like a plastic lit pumpkin. Watch Linnea Quigley in \"Night of the Demons\",or \"Silent Night,Deadly Night\",far superior flicks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought Jack-O a number of months ago at a Blockbuster video sale, and at the time I wasn't expecting anything outstanding from it. Upon watching it, I realized I not only got less than I could have ever bargained for, but a whole lot more as well. It seems, strange, I know. And it is. But it's perfectly fitting when you consider that the utter weirdness that is \"Jack-O\"

The movie follows a young boy named Shawn Kelly. Somehow, thru ancestral ties, he is marked for death at the hands of a demented, scythe wielding Pumpkin man. This pumpkin man was killed by Shawn's Great-grandfather-uncle-cousin-etc, and now that the villain has been resurrected, Shawn's death is apparently crucial to his hell-bred mission of vengeance. Anyway, much \"horror\" ensues as Jack-O hacks his way thru various neighbors before battling Shawn to the finish.

I'm not so much here to discuss the plot as I am to determine who may find any worth in this movie. I can honestly tell you that Jack-O is one of the most poorly made movies in the history of time. The acting is deadpan (except when it should be), the script is apparently a 1st grade group project, and the production budget must not have exceeded $150. Some of the most laughable death scenes are carried out in this anti-thriller, and they're all the more humorous when you realize director Steve Latshaw actually seems serious in his movie-making.

And yet I heartily enjoyed the film. I can call it a terrible horror movie, yes. But I can also say I had a great time watching it with my friends, and have watched it several times since that fateful first viewing. Many people (including some of my friends) will find this movie intolerable and needlessly time-consuming, and that's understandable. If you're like me and enjoy ridiculously bad horror movies that take themselves seriously, you'll find Jack-O an instant classic, which is also understandable.

That's why it's so hard to rate this movie. If I were rating Jack-O's quality as a film, I wouldn't give it anything. In fact, the studio would owe me stars. Yet if I were rating it's on the basis of pure enjoyment, I'd give it an 8 or a 9. I'll give it a 4, so to be somewhere in the middle. I recommend everyone go out, rent this, and form their own conclusion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When you watch low budget horror movies as much as I do, you get to where you can tell who was involved in creating the movie, as each film-maker adds his own flavor to the cheese. Such is the case with Jack-O. When I watched this truly awful movie, I was left with the undeniable feeling that Fred Olen Ray was involved, maybe not as director but in some fashion, and as I researched, I found that I was correct. Only Fred and a handfull of others could write something this pathetic, and this movie just reeked of Fred Olen Ray. Unless you like Fred Olen Ray (and God only knows why anyone would)avoid this movie. If you're going to rent an Olen Ray pic, rent Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers, it's the only bright shining star in Olen Ray's dark cheesey universe of terrible movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is, without a doubt, the most hilarious movie I've ever seen. Seriously, if the makers of this movie are ever discovered, they'll put guys like Jim Carrey out of a job. Rent \"Jack-O\" tonight! Believe me, you won't regret it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This thing, it shouldn't be called a film, is almost worse than \"Manos\", but you just have to see it it's hilarious. If you see it at video store rent it, if you see the 10th anniversary edition, yes there is a special edition, for under $10 buy it, if your friend has it borrow it, you just have to see this. The acting is so bad, and the gore is is so fake. After viewing this you'll be asking yourself why did they make this insult of the art of film? That's assuming your face doesn't melt off like the Nazis's in \"Raiders\" . If you manage to see this, be sure to vote this movie as 1 (awful) so it can make the bottom 100, it really deserves a spot there. I'm surprised it's not number 1, right now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In Halloween, three friends seek an ancient cemetery in the suburb for fun and remove a cross from a tomb, where Jack-O was buried many years ago by the farmer Arthur Kelly. The evil creature is unleashed, kills the trio and seeks the descendants of the Kelly family for revenge.

The cheesy \"Jack-O\" is a combination of a terrible story with awful acting. I was curious with the name of John Carradine in the credits and I can not imagine how a relative authorizes the use of archive footage in such a bad movie, showing a total lack of respect with the name of this great actor. It is impressive how bad the acting is, shifting the film to a comedy instead of the proposed horror genre. This is the type of movie good to see with a group of friends, drinking beer, making comments and laughing a lot. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): \"Jack-O \u0096 Dem\u00f4nio do Halloween\" (\"Jack-O \u0096 Demon of the Halloween\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ugh. Pretty awful.

Linnea Quigley gets top billing, but her character doesn't have a big part. Who is her character supposed to be anyway, the little boy's aunt? Another user commented on her getting nude in a shower scene. While there was a shower scene in the movie, it was a head and shoulders shot. Perhaps there are some alternate versions of this movie.

Quigley does have a bigger part than John Carradine, Cameron Mitchell, and Brinke Stevens, though. Carradine shows up briefly in a monkish robe reciting vague dialog. No other characters are in the scene with him, though he's sort of composited in, or else there are over-the-shoulder shots unquestionably belonging to someone else. There's also a really bad photo of him in a cameo locket (it looks like a bad photocopy), and a decent picture of him in a family bible. He conjured up Jack-O originally, or something like that.

Cameron Mitchell briefly shows up on a TV as a TV horror host. Brinke Stevens is in the movie he's showing \"The Coven,\" in which she runs around a cemetery in a robe. Evidently there's more of the Brinke footage as a bonus feature on the Retromedia DVD double feature Mark of the Witch\/The Brides Wore Blood.

Jack-O: what's it about? Darn if I know. A little boy is told a story about a pumpkin-headed demon killer, and he and some other kids are scared by a woman they think is a witch for some reason. She follows him home and offers to help his family with their haunted garage for Halloween (put your hand through a hole and feel eyeballs that are actually grapes, etc.). The pumpkin-headed killer shows up several times to hold onto branches while he watches people, or hold his scythe in front of the camera and pose with it for a while. Sometimes he manages to do more than just stand around holding things, and actually kills people.

There are also some flashbacks to a western or prairie family, with the little boy playing the little boy in that family too: ancestors of his, I think. I think they figure into Jack-O's backstory, but I'm not sure how.

The little boy is ostensibly the main character, but we don't really learn anything about him except that he wears glasses, has nightmares, and will fight bullies even if he'll get beat up in the process. More time should have been spent establishing his character. I couldn't have cared less if he died.

Not recommended, not even for Halloween.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow! What a movie if you want to blow your budget on the title and have it look real bad ask the guys that made this movie on how to do that. They could have spent the money on a good rewrite or something else. Or they could have spent it on beer when they made this movie at least it would have come out better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hope this group of film-makers never re-unites.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are looking for a cinematic masterpiece, this ain't it. If you are looking for one of those awful movies that are so horrible that they are actually good, then this may be for you. There are so many unintentional laughs in this film, that it could almost be considered a comedy. Let's start with the opening titles, that say \"Jack-O\", and then add the word \"Lantern\", as if the viewer wasn't able to figure out the movie was about a pumpkin by the giant pumpkin shown on both the cover and in the opening scene of the movie. After that, the movie goes in about 20 different directions, none of which make much sense. Jack-o is everywhere, he's in people's houses, in the woods, and yet he doesn't ever seem to do much of anything. He does make a few kills, but the long buildup to those killings is so poorly acted and constructed you almost wish Jack-o would take out his rage on you the viewer. Other than that, the plot consists of poor acting, gratuitous nudity, and a ridiculous plot line. The acting in this film is among the worst I've ever seen in my 35 plus years of movie-watching. The boy who is the lead in the film (the director's son) has about as much emotion as a corpse, and just about all of the other actors\/actresses are just as bad for numerous reasons (especially the bug-eyed lady with eyes bigger than saucers). But, having said all this, if you take this for what it is, (that is a steaming pile of dung) then you will get a few laughs from this movie. What I also found amusing is that the makers of the DVD saw fit to release a \"10th Anniversary Version\" of this movie (as if the original wasn't good enough). And someone actually had the idea of making a \"behind the scenes\" mini film which is also included in the 10th anniversary edition (I'm not sure why).......I'll give this 3 smashed pumpkins out of 10...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are in search of a masochistic thrill, rent this movie, and show it to a group of your friends sober. This movie is just plane lame, but there not completely without value. The brief tits are nice, and there is one victim's death that is funny as hell. Other than that, this is straight garbage. But it is still better than \"Grim\" or \"Spookies\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My mother and I rented this gem a few years ago while she was here visiting for Thanksgiving. I have rarely laughed so hard. This is a typical low-budget horror movie with dumb special effects, a worse plot, and even worse acting. But are you really expecting a classic when Linnea Quigley receives top billing? I thought not.

Since this movie does have some entertainment value, I give it a 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Three delinquents disturb the tomb of an ancient warlock who after summoning Jack-O (a less then menacing pumpkin-headed figure) to dispatch said hoodlums, continues on his sworn vengeance to kill every decedents of the family that offed him. That includes young Sean Kelly and his horror-loving family. Of course it's up to Sean to find a way to save the day.

Such a stupid low-budget B-movie. The acting's atrocious and the plot isn't much better. Throw in a extremely lame killer, a possible pedophile who laughs way too much & a couple of stereotypical cardboard cutout 'conservative' couple and you have this film in a nutshell. Not really worth your time save to see how superbly well Linnea is aging.

Eye Candy: Linnea Quigley is always good for some T&A and she doesn't disappoint here with a lengthy shower scene; Rachel Carter also gets topless (although it could be a body double)

My Grade: D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Warning Might contain spoilers

i just sadly spent 5 bucks on this movie on amazon and i wish i never spent it. I have never seen suck horrible special affects, or acting. I mean Jack-0 is just a laughable monster and his costume looks like something u could buy at a Halloween store or make yourself. The acting is just horrible especially Sean Kelly i mean come on he is so pathetic with his little lines \"COme get me PUmpkinman\" low i laughed so hard on this its just stupid. I mean the movie is so awful they had to put a few minutes of nudity in it just for people not to shut it off low. I think the most laughable scene is when the woman sticks a butter knife in the toaster and gets electrocuted. I mean come on that looked so fake and the dummy i could buy that at any Halloween store or make it myself. Well I recommend not watching this cheesy movie cause it will be time you will never get back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, I could only find three reasons to consider this film worthwhile considering the extremely low budget.

First there was Linnea Quigley and Rachel Carter. Actually, the two of them gave me four good reasons to watch, and watch I did.

The only other reason to watch is that a lot of was filmed right down the road. Now, I didn't know this beforehand, but I saw an Orange County car tag and said, wow! this was shot in Florida.

I was impressed by the flashback to the past and the ancestors of the young kid, but that was really it. The killings by the pumpkin man were pretty lame, with the exception of the biker.

If you want to see Quigley and Carter, OK, but Return of the Living Dead will give greater thrills.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack-O (1995) was a really bad movie, we are talking snoozefest x 100, no entertainment value whatsoever, no budget, no gore, Z-grade actors etc etc, this film was an awful addition to the horror movie industry and shouldn't have been made!!! The only reason i purchased this movie was because i knew Linnea Quigley was in it, and sure enough, she does her obligatory nude shower scene, which is lovely yes.

But as for the film itself........ i fell asleep at the 40 minute stage and had NO desire at all to finish it, it's just bigtime lame OK.

I love horror movies, i'm an avid fan, a MASSIVE fan, i love low budget horrors, i love it all, but i hated this rubbish, so i think that will tell you all you need to know about \"JACK-O\".

I give this movie 2\/10, the \"2\" is for the 2 minute Linnea shower scene, the movie itself is a total ZERO!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can not believe I even wasted a NetFlix rental on this complete piece of CRAP. How long did it take to make this film? 15 minutes? On a budget of what? Fifteen bucks? I can spend a few hours with my Sony Camcorder and come up with something better than this treacherous lump of bile, and it's even available on DVD!?!! A very sad thing to think classics like The Stepfather have not been released on DVD but this chunk of steaming dung makes it to the format. Here's hoping my rating of ONE ONE ONE ONE makes the overall (already) pathetic rating of 2.5 go DOWN.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On Halloween a town is terrorized by a lunatic with a big pumpkin for a head. Bad acting compromised mostly of local talent and laughable special effects makes this one baaaaad. B-Movie Queen Linnea Quigley looks embarrassed to be a part of this one and even her considerable charm which has helped so many of her other films can't help this one. Pass this cheesy flick if you are looking for a good Halloween horror film and rent \"Night of the Demons\" which also stars Ms. Quigley.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We were excited to rent this one after reading a few reviews and seeing that it scored so highly here. Well, we got it home and could not believe what we saw. Its basically comes off as if its written by some hard up perverted old guy who could not help inserting his sexual frustrations and fantasies into an anime film that really lacks in plot and humor. The main character is all over the place... one moment, he is like an immature little kid, the next moment he is mature and intelligent, then heroic, then a perverted stalker.

The worst part is all of the out of place sexual content. I have no problem with sex and dig a movie that has some good sexual energy, but this is just presented in a way that is creepy. Nipple slips, close ups of a girls crotch (many times) in white panties, or a swimsuit. It was totally out of place and it seemed as if the person who wrote it was trying to live out some fantasies through his cartoon characters.

We were expecting something of a mature nature, but we just kept looking at each other and asking what the heck the point of this was... besides jiggling cartoon boobs and poor dialogue. If you want to see some cartoon characters cleavage and crotch's... this is for you. If you are looking for something beyond that, this movie was empty. The characters and dialogue were just plain irritating.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film made no sense to me whatsoever. Good actors(SergioCastellittoaparticular favourite; he was great in \"Uomo DelleStelle\"\/\"TheStarmaker\"but that was made by Giuseppe Tornatore, a great Italian director as opposed to the mediocre one who made this effort),but awful, rambling script, terrible editing,and a director who seemed to have no idea of what he was trying to say, and ended up saying exactly nothing. Apretentious load of rubbish, but the sort of film that certain Italianpseudo-intellectuals whom it was my misfortune to have known in the dim and distant past would have loved it, and unfortunately Italy has no monopoly on these, they can be found everywhere and probably acclaim this as a great masterpiece. I never thought much of Bellochio as director. I remember seeing his first film \"PugniNella Tasca\"\/\"Fists in the Pocket\" (or some such title) in Rome when it was first shown close on 50 years ago (I was living thereat the time). All the usual pseudos raved about it, but it left me pretty cold. I didn't think he was much of a director then, and still don't. Age has certainly not improved him, and this film must rank as one of his worst.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I agree that this film is too pretentious, and it is not easy to know where it is going. I have been teaching literature and film for many years, and I find this film to be one of the most over rated, according to some of the previous reviews here.

However, let me remind you that this is the same director who has L'ora di religione (Il sorriso di mia madre- My Mother's Smile) to his credit -- a gem of a film!

Was he trying to outdo Fellini's 81\/2 here???? The scene with the dogs, which has also been pointed out, is absurd and excessive \u0096 just one example. Others would take too much space, and some reviewers have already noted them.

Overall, a most frustrating and annoying experience!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This would have to rate as one of the worst films of all time. The film screened at the Italian Film Festival in Melbourne, Australia. After the screening, not only did I want my money refunded, I wanted the 1.5 wasted hours of my life back too. I have a very broad tolerance level when it comes to the indulgences of some European film-making, but this is one of those films that is selected for festivals based on the reputation of the filmmaker alone. This film is proof that while such selections may satisfy the egos of the film-maker and the selection panel, there is absolutely no joy for the audience. There is no character development whatsoever, the plot is a garbled mess, the style is nonsensical, the shot selection is appalling, and the editing is worse. By the end of the first reel, you'll wonder if you walked into the wrong cinema, and by the end of the third reel, you'll be begging to be put out of your misery. This film is an abomination.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I checked this out at the Vancouver International Film Festival and was not impressed.

The only area of the film I enjoyed was the commentary on film-making. For the most part, this film seemed random and somewhat fantastical (I don't say that in a complimentary way, however) and just silly. It was as if he was mixing fantasy with everyday life, which may sounds intriguing in some films, but the fantasy merely seemed needlessly perverse.

My criticism of this film is not upon the actors, rather the story itself. I found it boring and narcissistic. I wanted my money back, but considering it was a Film Festival, that wasn't about to happen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Fat Girls\" is among the worst films within the indie gay genre.

The premise is promising: an average-looking gay teen is trapped in a repressive small TX town. His only kindred spirits are the other village HS misfits: the class 'fat girl', a na\u00efve immigrant from Cuba, and the sensitive drama teacher. So far, interesting. In theory, this plot line creates a decent setup for an appealing coming of age story with a built-in audience---the thousands of gay men who grew up in small towns across America and experienced this adolescent anxiety first hand, peppered with a dose of self-deprecating humor.

Unfortunately, rather than a nuanced dramedy, Ash Christian approaches his autobiographical subject matter with a poorly executed attempt at irony and dark humor. The result is a cast of unlikeable, derivative, two-dimensional characters which the viewer cannot but help feel indifferent toward. Sabrina (Fink) is a quasi-Goth bitter navel-gazer. She is such a prickly, unsympathetic person; there is little doubt as to the reason for her friendless condition. The chemistry between her and Rodney (Christian) registers zero. This may have been bad casting, but is more likely due to a screenplay which is simply unsalvageable. Consequently, one is left wondering when there is such a non-existent bond, what could possibly warrant their near-constant companionship throughout the story.

Sabrina's newfound boyfriend, Rudy (de Jesus), and Rodney's mother Judy (Theaker) are among the most exaggerated of the clich\u00e9d stock characters ripped off from dozens of other films. Rudy is the horny undersexed immigrant\/nerd lifted directly from every raunchy adolescent \"comedy\" ever made within the realm of TV or film. Judy is the born-again obsessed with Jesus- talk and big hair. Just when you thought the Tammy Faye thing had been done to death, Christian inserts a scene where Judy's mascara is running with her tears! Is there anyone in the civilized world that can possibly think this tired old stereotype gag is still funny after seeing it ad nauseum for 20 years?

In addition to the failed attempts at sardonic humor, there are many puzzling story inconsistencies. Rodney considers himself a \"fat ugly\" loser. However, he simultaneously manages to participate in casual and regular impromptu trysts with the ubiquitous school jock\/hunk, Ted (Miller). Although these liaisons are devoid of emotional fulfillment, most gay teens (filled with raging testosterone, just like their hetero brethren) would find this to be a rather enviable arrangement given the more common alternative of involuntary celibacy.

Rodney finds an object for his affection in Bobby (Bruening), an exotic transplant from England. Against all believable odds, the lad not only happens to land in this tiny TX hamlet, but is conveniently openly gay to boot. Like Sabrina, Bobby is an icy, angry smart aleck and the viewer is left head-scratching as to his magnetic appeal.

Much to his delight, Rodney is invited by his new crush to the town gay bar, where Bobby claims to be the DJ. Upon arrival, the boyfriend-to-be promptly leaves Rodney solo and heads off to another area of the bar for a quick encounter with a rather handsome young man. This is yet one more of the ridiculously inexplicable plot elements since Rodney's feeling as an outcast are supposedly derived largely from his lonely existence in a parochial town. As tiny as the town is, they have openly gay students at the high school? A secretly bisexual football captain? Lesbian moms? A Gay teacher? and it has a gay bar downtown (patronized by attractive men, no less)? Apparently, the place is not so backwater after all.

Ten years earlier, Todd Stephens' \"Edge of Seventeen\" covered nearly the same material with a much more creative, honest, touching, and humorous film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The premise of the film was very promising - sort of a gay Napoleon Dynamite type of film. And to be fair, there were some funny moments and funny lines but it really wasn't very good overall. The script and dialog felt like a local sketch production, full of clich\u00e9s and scenes that were predictable.

However, there was enough that was amusing, that I stuck around to see how it finished, since there were hints that something special happens at the end. But it seems that either the film ran out of money or the writer ran out of ideas because the ending is extremely abrupt, almost skipping directly from what looked to be the key conflict in the film to the final credits.

Overall, it was very disappointing but not completely unwatchable...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wasted enough time actually WATCHING this chore of a movie, I don't want to waste more writing a big review. Not once did I so much as crack a smile. ALL the jokes were boring, forced and lacked any kind of wit. I kept saying, \"wheres the punchline?\" Almost every single character was an obnoxious stereotype and all the situations were clich\u00e9d and half the time there wasn't even any kind of solution. Things just happened to get to the next scene. For the life of me I can't understand how this got as many good reviews as it did. If you like clunky acting and poorly composed film making Fat Girls is the movie for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has been done before. It is basically a unoriginal combo of \"Napoleon Dynamite\" and \"Sordid Lives.\" There are some funny bits, but otherwise it is a clich\u00e9 bore. It is a good first film attempt and the director (who also stars in and wrote the feature) shows a lot of promise. But the writing was kind of choppy and the story was not very original. I swear I had heard some of the lines in other films. However, the acting was very good and the film was shot in an interesting way. It is also refreshing to see gay-themed movies not be so bogged down with political correctness and tired stories of angst. The main character seemed fairly well adjusted for a gay teen in rural Texas so no saccharine, coming out drama here!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Secret Life\" starts with the worst possible narrative intro: \"The crimes committed by Jeffrey Dahmer are too horrible to make a film about...\". Okay, so what are you suggesting? That we shouldn't bother to continue watching as the film won't be accurate or bloody, anyway? And they were right, too! The film isn't the least bit shocking and contains almost no blood or gore at all. Although I think that's mainly due to the low budget production values and not because of Dahmer's crimes being too horrific. Basically, \"The Secret Life: Jeffrey Dahmer\" is just one sequence repeated over and over again. Young, pitiful and mentally confused Jeffrey picks up victims (always males, as he was a homosexual), kills them and then talks about how it wasn't his intention to hurt them and about how lonely he is. This gets boring really quick and even the admirable performance by unknown actor Carl Crew can't save this movie from being a total dud. Still, this version is much better than the pretentious and hopelessly muddled \"Dahmer\" that got released in 2002.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***Possible spoilers***

I've read up on Dahmer a little and saw the new Dahmer film (with the same name) at an earlier time. This movie here concentrates rather much on the victims and killings, too little on Dahmer himself. The film called \"Dahmer\" had the opposite problem, it was too little about his crimes and too much about himself.

I did not find the acting to my satisfaction, it had a certain amateur feel too it, especially the probation officer. It also seemed as if the Dahmer acting got worse every time he played against the probation officer actor. But I might be wrong about that.

What annoyed me a bit was that some of the scenes were quite disturbing but that the filmmakers seemed to try and show \"the real deal\" about what he did anyway. That is ok - but what I then don't understand is why the guy who ran away from his flat while Dahmer was out getting beer, was not depicted being naked, since that is also how it happened. It's not a big deal, but it just eats away further on the movies quality that such details are left out. What wasn't shown either or not even really hinted was Dahmers sexual obsession with the dead. Again, I don't mind they didn't SHOW it, but at least they could have mentioned it or built it in to the movie somehow.

Conclusion: I think the really good Dahmer film is still to be made, a movie that incorporates not only Dahmers crimes but also who he was, and why he did what he did. I think that 1.5 or 2 hours are just not enough to grasp the complexity of it all. This movie was just a cutout (excuse the pun) of Dahmers life and personality and does not give you any 'close to good' insight into his life or personality.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jefferey dahmer was one sick guy. There's not much to say about him that hasn't already been said, except that the many documentaries, and films made about him are probably better than this one. It's Ridiculously cheesy. It's so cheesy, a guy who posted the whole film on youtube added some annotations to make the viewer laugh.

Carl Crew (Who's he?) stars as Serial killer Jeffrey dahmer, Who's killing spree began in 1978 with a young guy dahmer just wanted to be friends with, a finally in 1991 with a man he wished to have sex with, and eat.

I didn't bother to watch the whole film through. it's basically a documentary that shows all the attacks dahmer pulled off before he got caught. And since this film was made in 1993, one year before dahmer was bludgeoned to death by a fellow inmate, The death of dahmer isn't shown. but it Probably would've been as cheesy as this cheese-fest.

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Hoods\" doesn't deliver the goods. This half-baked mafia comedy boasts a stellar cast, including Joe Mantegna, Kevin Pollack, Joe Pantoliano, Jennifer Tilly, and Seymour Cassel, along with a number of faces familiar to those who watch crime movies, but it is truly a misfire if there ever was one. Writer & director Mark Malone, best known for writing \"Dead of Winter\" for \"Bonnie & Clyde\" director Arthur Penn, has penned up a pedestrian potboiler that has an ailing but vengeful mob boss Louie Martinelli (Seymour Cassel) dispatching his son Angelo (Joe Mantegna of \"House of Games\") to whack Carmine DellaRosa. It seems that a rival mob fire-bombed one of Pop's warehouses (in the opening scene) and Martinelli wants payback. Trouble is that nobody has a clue as to who Carmine DellaRosa is. In any other mob comedy, such a complication might be amusing, but here is just plain flat. Angelo and a carload of wiseguys, including his best pal Rudy (Kevin Pollack of \"Deterrence\") spend half of the time trying to find out who Carmine is. Neither Rudy nor Angelo want to perform the hit, so they track down a crazy mob hit-man Charlie (Joe Pantoliano of \"Bad Boys\") to do the dirty deed. Before they can convince Charlie to make the hit, they have to locate him, and Charlie's slutty wife Mary (Jennifer Tilly of \"Bound\") reveals that he is locked up in a mental hospital. Our misfit heroes cruise out to the mental hospital and break Charlie out. About half of the movie is over before they discover that Carmine is a kid in short pants (Vincent Berry) who is bland and harmless. Indeed, Carmine has the only decent line in the movie. As our brainless bunch of heroes wheel away from his house with him in the backseat to take care of business, Carmine warns them that they need to get him home in time or his father will kill him. Charlie tries to ice the urchin but he cannot. Instead, he reconnects with his feelings and wants to go back to the mental hospital so he can report the good news to his doctor. Meanwhile, after Charlie decides not to shoot Carmine, the kid gets his paws on the pistol and pops off several aimless rounds. Angelo and he struggle over the automatic. The pistol slips out of their collective hands and hits the ground, goes off, and blows a hole in Rudy's chest. Now, keep in mind that Rudy never wanted to shoot the kid in the first place, and Angelo and he argued over the wrong-headedness of the hit. So Rudy winds up on the ground with a fatal wound, while Angelo struggles to stop the bleeding. Talk about a dull death scene. Angelo is conflicted himself because his father ordered the hit and Angelo fears that dad will do him in if he doesn't execute orders. There is a flashback subplot about Angelo's father teaching him how to handle a gun that provides some insight into Angelo's reluctance to pack a gun.

There is nothing remotely redeeming about this depressing comedy with a downer of an ending. Things gets worse, and if you last through this 90 minute nonsense, you'll see what I mean. The comedy is largely laugh-less. Good actors wallow in sketchy roles that aren't even funny. Perhaps director Malone was trying to do another comedy like \"The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.\" If he was, he missed by a mile. Big-breasted Jennifer Tilly shows cleavage and snarls through a couple of scenes with Mantegna, but she doesn't do much of anything else. She's the stereotypical slut who doesn't even get naked. A paycheck is the only way to explain the presence of such a talented cast, otherwise this picture is pathetic from start to finish. Initially, I had hoped that this might be a \"Ransom of Red Chief\" knockoff where the kid drives the wiseguys nuts, but no such luck here. Of course, the biggest surprise is that they have to kill a kid, but it's not the kind of a surprise that makes you want to watch it up to its resolution.

I actually bought this movie on a Canadian DVD label\u0097Seville\u0097and it contains only the most basic special features. If you hate previews that give away the plot, don't watch the trailer. If you ever meet Joe Mantegna, one of your first questions should be why he helped to produce this yawner. It is neither hilarious nor dramatic. There are no quotable lines, and none of the characters stand out as either interesting or sympathetic. The Seville DVD presents the movie in full frame with no subtitles or closed captioning.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How can you make a joke about Mafia? It is not the kind of subject to laugh at! A near movie cannot make me laugh, because I am comparing it to Jane Austen's Mafia!. Mafia! wasn't a good movie but Hoods is really worse! In Mafia!, there were some good jokes but in this one there are maybe two or three...that make you smile. Not too bad actors but very bad scenario!! We sure prefer something serious like The Godfather. I give it * out of *****.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've watched the first 15 minutes and I can tell that there was no consultation with any military type personnel. Judith Light's charactor (an officer) has her hair down past her shoulders! One of the first officers that greets her as she walks in to the medical facility she works at is so overweight that his pant pockets gap! No - there was no military advising them on this movie. Even an ex-military enlisted could have assisted here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've been hearing a lot of this new bird flu that has killed dozens of people in South East Asia over the last three years . Apparently it's on the thresh hold of mutating into something very contagious and millions upon millions of people are going to be wiped out in a global pandemic . Just thought I'd mention this in case you haven't got round to writing your will yet .

I'd also thought I'd mention it since I was watching something called CARRIERS tonight which wasn't about naval warfare but opens with a scene that's a cross between OUTBREAK and an episode of THE X FILES I saw many years ago . I thought I'd be watching something with added resonance after hearing the stories about the danger posed by bird flu but after the not unimpressive opening CARRIERS descends into a cheap and cheerful TVM and like every other TVM you'll see the lead characters are female , one of which is a ballsy authority figure while the other lead female is a mother of young children . It goes without saying there's a sick child subplot too

What is irritating about the TVM format is that it overwhelms the potential of what could have been quite a good film if it was made for cinema . There's a fairly gory scene of someone coughing blood all over a nurses face and a very impressive jay walker getting run down stunt but these bits are quickly forgotten as the mood descends into family sentiment since this - And just about every other TVM ever made - was made for an essentially female audience","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, imagine that every state in the US, nay, every country has exactly the same trees growing and ground foliage. Imagine, also, that a monkey-trapper's camp so far off the beaten track you had to do the first half of the approach by river has a beautifully tarmac'd, perfectly straight road leading up to it. Imagine a world where you have to wear a full biohazard suit to collect a floppy disk, then you just drop it in a ziploc bag and transfer it to your pocket with no precautions as soon as you get back to the office. A world where two nine-year old girls are happy to give lots of blood without complaining. This is the world this movie is set in.

On top of that, it's one of the most clich\u00e9-ridden pieces of excrement it's been my misfortune to witness in many a year.

I liked it. :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not going to bother mentioning any of the plot - this is strictly a B movie on its way to obscurity. The shock to me, though, is seeing what has become of some of the actors in this film. Erika Eleniak, never anything you'd call a thespian anyway, seems to have morphed into Anna Nicole Smith (in her Big period). Daniel Bernhardt - I almost shed a tear. He's always been a favorite of mine because of his martial arts prowess, as seen in the Bloodsport series (also B movies but, if you like martial arts, eminently watchable). Here, he is a shell of his former self - sure, he's older, but doing the mercenary thing and not even looking interested ... I just don't get it. Don't these people invest? William Forsythe is another \"heavy\" that I've always liked, but his last several roles are what you would call \"mailing it in\". I'm not going to even mention Mr. Reynolds - his gig here amounts to a throwaway, nothing more. The only winner is Andrew Divoff, as usual a creepy, evil, pockmarked villain with a sandpaper voice that can curdle milk - the best kind! This is a movie you watch for laughs. There's nothing else to it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like a terrible cancer raining out of the sky, I wandered into this crock on some movie channel the other night. Being a fan of bad movies, and actively engaging in the purchasing and viewing of said bad film, i was intrigued by the idea of a genuinely terrible looking action movie coming from modern times. After that wore off though, I found my hands inexplicably turning against me, grabbing at anything in range and stabbing about my head and neck. Something sinister was in that tape...err...where was I...anyway this ranks among the more embarrassingly bad pieces of film I've run across. William Forsythe can't play more than one character, and that character is always a walking joke. Even when set into a comic background and given things to do and say that are supposed to be funny (ala Deuce Bigalo) he's laughable in the wrong way. Erika Eleniak is much the same, having starred in her fair share of terrible movies and done terrible jobs in all of them, she doesn't fail to help scum up this one. Classic b-movie villain guy Andrew Divoff does a respectable job but barely even has any scenery to chew on. Even reliable standby for b-movie action Daniel Bernhardt fails to deliver anything bordering on entertainment. As for the film's own merits, the plot is lame, the script, just like the action and the plot movement, is both dull and...well, stupid, for lack of a better adjective(lord knows they didn't put any effort into it, why should I?).

Anyone who has seen enough movies has seen some bad ones, and anyone who has seen enough bad ones can learn to appreciate them, but there is simply nothing here to be enjoyed unless you are among the most bad movie tolerant and simply feel so inclined as to test your mettle. Before you do though, take it from me, this one isn't even terrible enough to be enjoyed (unlike say...some of the more ludicrous Italian zombie films). A fan of b-movie action would be much better off checking out most any of Bernhardt's other films, or pretty much anything else that has ever been put to film for that matter. America simply is not the place to go to for action it seems, especially not now. If you have a craving, check out anything from over the seas, films like Heroic Duo or the slightly less normal Hakaider(along with anything else in the awesome Keita Amemiya's cannon) will provide a lot more fun and way better action than your apt to find elsewhere, especially here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Recap: Simon leads a little team of special agents that has specialized in finding and returning missing people, against all possible odds. Their latest mission is about the granddaughter of a friend of them. She seems to have been caught in the web of a particularly brutal criminal and everyone that has gone looking for her has gone missing. But now The Librarians are on the case.

Comments: This is pure B-action, through and through. The key phrase for this is unlimited supply. There is unlimited supply of ammunition, they don't have to reload once. There is an unlimited supply of bad guys, so the heroes have something to shoot at. There is an unlimited supply of breasts, many of them bare, in an vain (and as always failed) attempt to distract from the plot holes. And there is an unlimited supply of bad acting (it is almost like Erika Eleniak's performance shines in this, what about that?), and actors that don't seem to care more than the paycheck (and why should they when no one else seem to?).

And as in most B-action movies there are an unlimited supply of bad gunfights. But these almost seem to be of a ridiculously bad kind. I think I saw more realistic gunfights when I played cowboy as a kid.

But then again I didn't really expect much either, how could I from a action movie named The Librarians? And it actually delivers about what could be expected. 90 minutes of more or less bad action with some scenes to connect the dots between. But I am unsure if I can call it entertaining, it didn't keep my interest very long.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I heard the stories of the ravers in the movie and thats great but that is only 1\/100 of the movie. The problem with this movie is the cheesiness. I never really got the plot or why the guy was stealing girls. That makes no sense but hey...why they were in a club randomly was curious also. Many parts of this movie make no sense but overall I was interested. It was confusing on many levels...maybe I am just not indie enough for this movie but judging from the B looking end scene they ran out of money, just cut some stuff in, and forgot about the plot. Its low budget and appears so. I like the fact that they used little special effects which were bad, but they used none that were quality. I would say this film is the quintessential bad script, with alright production. It is definitely not as random as many movies I have seen but the pieces of the puzzle just don't make sense together. In effects, I would give exception to the final battle when all the effects went 1950's on my ass. Sparks out of models and the like. Watch it if you like an unintentional comedy from an action movie. Mystery science theater has a candidate.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As stated by others, this is a ludicrously horrible movie (NOT A FILM!). It is not bad in a funny way, just painful to try to endure. Don't waste your time.

Erika Eleniak is pretty hot, but there is one scene where she is in a bathtub, and you can see the wrap covering her breasts under the bubbles. Also, she's getting fat.

The fight scenes are so bad as to be unwatchable, if you know or care anything about martial arts, or even decent choreography, and the editing\/effects are abysmal.

There is no payoff, it goes nowhere, and sucks getting there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All things old are new again.Erika E. is on celebrity fitness (VH1);Florida State Rep. Mark Foley is the national buzz for allegedly sending sexually explicit Emails to a 16 yr. old male page.As I edit this Mr.Foley is resigning from his representative seat. Mr.Foley you see does his turn at acting as the father of the recovered girl seen during the opening sequence. My place in movie history will forever be solidified with my appearance in the graveyard scene.I should have looked at this as a omen.I hate to say it but be warned If you place this in your DVD be prepare to put your toe on the trigger of the shotgun you'll soon have between your teeth. Your level of depression has reached its zenith.I have seen better writing put to screen on an Etch a Sketch.Shot in 1999-00 under the working title \"The Librarians\" in and around Palm Beach Co.Why the Librarian's you ask,well you would need to be wrapped as tight as binding to be able to read anything into this frat party of over the hill stunt men plying their trade onto celluloid for one last time.Oh well enough with the accolades...Burt Reynolds as a Irish mobster, in Miami no less...possibly the worst forced accent impression since Linda Lovelace in \"Deep Throat\". .William Forsythe as a hip, slick and cool tough guy...doubtful,possibly 10 years ago.I'd say it's curtain time for Mike Kirton.You now have the Forsythe to pass up this sub par movie,more like a film school project, for anything on tape,disc or paper your local retailer has to offer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"QUESTION: How does a film merit two different titles like \"The Librarians\" and \"Strike Force\"?

ANSWER: The film is sooooooooo bad that the filmmakers couldn't even decide on a title!!!!

This film is a hodgepodge of martial arts, death wish-vendettas, melodrama, romance, and other clich\u00e9 film techniques. The story focuses on a vigilante group called The Librarians led by Agent Simon (WIlliam Forsythe). The group is hot in pursuit of a nefarious, multi-lingual, pockmarked creature named Marcos (Andrew Divoff) who captures women and holds them hostage in the lawless urban world of south Florida.

Burt Reynolds appears as a cameo in this film, and his scene is entirely extraneous to the action. Burt delivers a long monologue in one of the strangest drawls I have ever heard. This may have been Burt's attempt at an Irish dialect, but the overall effect is a kind of perverse imitation of Marlon Brando in \"The Godfather.\"

Also appearing in this film is Erika Eleniak, who has infiltrated the inner circle of Marcos' bizarre world. Erika's character kick-boxes her way into an alliance with Simon. The Librarians and Erika will become a powerful strike force against evil in a film that has been delivered directly from the editing room to your cable TV converter box.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought it was comedy!! What a hoot! I can't believe Forsythe or Reynolds would actually appear in this piece of trash..And then there's the beautiful Erika Eleniak or whatever this piece of eye candy is called..Appears she put on a few pounds since her Playboy centerfold..Like about 50!! The story line is ludicrous, the acting absolutely horrendous, and the tired old clich\u00e9's that are run over and over and over again, boy it took a lot of stamina to sit through this dog..The only thing worth it was the LAUGHS!! And there are PLENTY! If you really want to kill say, an hour and a half pick this baby up at the rental shop, but make sure you have a room full of brain dead people to watch it with you. I think that's who it was written for.. it plays like they were thinking of a real low rent, drug induced audience for this one..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had very high hopes walking into this movie. After all, Ocean's 11 was a truly great Hollywood product. Its rapid-fire jokes, incredible star power and tight script made it one of the most fun caper films I have ever seen. Of course, with all the money it made, a sequel was on the way, and I, for one, was excited.

Needless to say, I was absolutely blown away by this movie. Blown away by how horribly wrong things can go. This movie had everything going for it; the return of the entire original cast, the same director, news stories of crazy on- and off-set antics. How could it possibly have gone so wrong?

It starts immediately with one of the most awkward and unnecessary opening sequences ever and goes downhill from there. After reasonably goofy short scenes between Pitt\/Zeta-Jones and Clooney\/Roberts, the film spends several minutes watching Andy Garcia waltz from scene to scene, telling each individual member of Danny Ocean's original eleven that he wants his money back. Believe me when I say that these scenes are only here to pad Andy Garcia's running time, because without these ridiculously awkward shots, his screen time would be WELL under five minutes.

This leads me to another major qualm I had with this film. The pacing is so uneven that characters are dropped completely from the story, and only sometimes brought back later. Bernie Mac's character is dropped from the script early on, and never comes back except for 2 short scenes with no dialogue. Garcia appears for the first few minutes, and returns for an exceptionally brief scene at the end. Roberts shows up for about 5 minutes at the beginning, and isn't even mentioned again until there's about 20-25 minutes left. Even Clooney himself spends a large chunk of the film in prison.

This would all be excusable if the film was funny. At all. 90% of the jokes fall completely flat and the ones that do work are worth a chuckle at best. The \"plot\" is undeniably worthless, and left me feeling cheated. At one point in the film, the team takes on a job worth $2.5 million of the nearly $100 million they need to raise before Garcia's two-week deadline. Several characters even acknowledge how absurd wasting the time to do this job is, but they do it anyway! Over 30 minutes of the film revolve around this job that they shouldn't even be doing, and one gets the feeling that this part of the plot was simply added to pad the running time. Furthermore, the equipment they use to pull this job off CLEARLY cost millions upon millions to fund. Just wait until you see what they do to pull this job and realize it would cost far more than $2.5 million to pull off. Obviously, because of this, they have to pull off several jobs to make the money. The beauty of the first film was the one big con and how ingeniously and intricately it was pulled off. Here, they pull so many jobs, in so many different ways, that they rush through all of them because to explain them would make the film several hours long.

We all know walking into this film that there will be a big twist at the end. Thus is the nature of the caper film. The twist at the end of Ocean's Twelve made me laugh; not because it was funny, but because I couldn't believe how cheated I felt. I won't give it away, because I know most of you will be foolish enough to throw down the money to see this movie anyway.

What I will say is that it makes most of the 2 hours you have sat through already completely irrelevant.

I was excited to see this film, after absolutely adoring Ocean's 11. I left the theater feeling like I had been the victim of a truly great con pulled by the cast and crew of this movie in tricking me into thinking that this movie would actually be worth watching. I have never given a 1 to a movie on IMDb.com, but there's a first time for everything. Consider yourselves warned....1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Every James Bond movie has its own set of rules. Just like every Indiana Jones movie has ITS own set of rules. And the fact that screenwriters don't break these rules maintains the integrity of the characters. With a completely unnecessary plot twist, the integrity of both Ocean films plummets somewhere between Airplane 2 and a Roadrunner cartoon.

Imagine what would happen, while teetering on the rope bridge outside of the Temple of Doom, if Indy told Shorty and Willie not to worry because throughout the entire first two movies he's secretly had super powers and can fly them both to safety.

Entertaining? Sure, for a Roadrunner cartoon. But Spielberg would never have done that because it would have destroyed the integrity of the film. More importantly, it would have ANGERED the audience. They'd already sat on the edge of their seats through 3 hours worth of Indiana Jones movies and they were counting on Indiana to get them off that bridge in a believable way. If he were to fly off? People would have walked out of the theaters the same way people did during Ocean's 12.

SPOILERS

1. Julia Roberts'character, Tess, infiltrates a museum by disguising herself as...Julia Roberts?!? A clever twist? By breaking the fourth wall three hours after we've been introduced to these characters? Is this the Naked Gun 33 and 1\/3? It's a textbook example of how a cheap laugh can ruin an entire film. But wait...just in case you haven't walked out yet...

2. The suspense builds throughout the last hour of the movie -- how will they pull off the heist -- there are only 10...8...5...2 DAYS LEFT! And then in the last 12 minutes of the film, the ONLY entertaining part of this movie, we see that the heist was made days earlier and took Matt Damon all of 30 seconds to pull off. The past 10 days? A complete waste of your time.

BACK TO INDIANA JONES ON THE ROPE BRIDGE...\"Just relax, Willie! I stole the REAL stones back about a month ago! Besides, I convinced them you were Kate Capshaw!\"

If you haven't already seen it, cut your losses and go see the Polar Express. I don't want to ruin the ending for you, but there really is a Santa Claus. Most importantly, you won't feel cheated leaving the theater.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILER!! Terrible camera work, horrible writing, non-existent plot, and numerous plot wholes. Wonderful acting! Except for Julia Roberts. Who poorly plays someone who is impersonating Julia Roberts, poorly. Catherine Zeta Jones is adorable in this movie.

During the movie, we repeatedly zoom in, on each of the twelve (!) characters. Twelve is too many, even for a classic like 12 Angry Men. And the problem is, we tediously zoom in on the characters, when all of them are in the same room, doing the same thing.

Yep, Clooney's eating. Yep, Pitt's eating. Yep, the \"Jew\" is eating. Yep, the geek is eating. Yep, the bodybuilder's eating. Yep, Mr. Sensitive is eating. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep--Yep. Yep. Phew! This happens at least three other times in the movie. Yep, they're all sitting in cars, bored. Yep, they're all getting arrested, frightened. Yep, they're all being led out of a jail, depressed.

But it wasn't until I was home that I realized how badly they'd \"got\" me on this one. This is a heist movie, right? That's what I went to see, right? But when I walked in and set my car keys in the change jar, only then I realized: NOTHING WAS ACTUALLY STOLEN IN THIS MOVIE! That's right. It's a heist movie, where nothing gets stolen. Oh, they try. They go to try and steal some boring document or something, from some guy's house (whatever), and it turns out it's already been stolen. 20 minutes of my life, wasted. Then they try to steal some egg from some museum (YAWN!), and they screw that up and get arrested.

Then we see how some fairy french guy stole the egg even before they did, and we get all the joy of \"Entrapment\", except this time the person inside the tight catsuit dancing around the fake lasers is... an ugly skinny french guy. Um.

But it turns out he didn't actually steal the egg either. Actually, our heroes stole the egg, LOOOONG ago, in another movie entirely, which would have been a GREAT movie to watch, had they made that movie.

Instead we see a 30 second clip in black-and-white about how they robbed some college student of his back-pack. You heard me... the daring caper, the ultimate heist-- the buildup of this 2 and a half hours of utter boring crap-- is them stealing a back-pack from a college student, by creatively getting into a fight over baseball teams and distracting him, and replacing his back-pack with an identical back-pack? What??

Ugh. I'm telling you, this was so bad, I didn't even realize just how bad it was-- just how badly I'd been robbed-- until I got home.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unfortunately I think this is one of those films that if you or I took it to the studio and said, 'can I make this great movie with my friends Mary, Mungo and Midge from school?' the studio would have you kicked to death on the spot. However, if a bunch of massive Hollywood names say, 'look, I fancy a jaunt to Italy with my mates, how about it?' the studio writes a cheque.

We kick off with the casino boss from Ocean's 11 tracking down the robbers who made off with his cash, and then Brad Pitt is shagging Catherine Zeta Jones, and then there's some monkeying about in Amsterdam and Italy and such and such and then it all ends somehow.

The film does, however, include the most shameful moment of both Julia Roberts' and Bruce Willis' careers, which is a cinematic gem. I nearly vomited in my lap and tore my eyes out when Julia Roberts, playing Tess in the movie, pretends to be (you guessed it) Julia Roberts! Bruce Willis stands about clearly wondering when he can leave, and how much the cheque will be.

Ah well, to be fair, I'd have done it for the cash, so I suppose I can't really criticize the poor loves, but I'm a penniless slob not a Hollywood legend. I guess what really annoys me about this film is not that it is boring and pointless and has a terrible story, but that I think the actors probably all had good fun doing it! I think the actor's entire job is to project emotion outwards...I feel like I paid to go to the party, but had to stand outside in the rain. Booo!

Watch it if you like Como, or fancy CZJ or something, but otherwise go for a walk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) catches up with Danny Ocean and his team and demands that they repay the money that they stole from him (in Oceans 11) plus interest. He holds back from violent action however as he is under the instruction of the world's greatest thief, the Night Fox. The team then have to pull off a series of heists to pay Benedict back whilst testing their abilities against the Night Fox who wishes to maintain his position as the greatest thief ever. Put simply, this film is a complete mess. The masses may argue that it is \"cool\" and that Clooney and Pitt put in great performances but these are the same people who have a subscription to \"Hello\" magazine and think that David Beckham has the potential to be a great actor. The story is convoluted, it is not complex or clever and it does not have intelligent twists and turns, it is just a complete mess that spills out in multiple directions with the hope that the audience will think it is cool and intelligent (Hello magazine readers). Any respectable movie watcher will however see the film for the farce that it is. Whilst Oceans 11 wasn't a great film it had a decent pace, was stylish and had some decent twists and turns. This movie loses its way very quickly and then basically gives up. It is as if the director and cast said to themselves, hey this isn't really working out, lets just have a laugh! Indeed the cast looks like they are enjoying themselves but I was not. I will not delve into the plot as its confused evolution does not warrant any examination. The addition of Catherine Zeta Jones is largely annoying. The scenes where Julia Roberts impersonates herself (with Bruce Willis undertaking a cameo role) whilst mildly amusing appear to be a desperate move to keep the audience interested. The movie is so full of plot holes that it as if Arnie has emptied an Uzi 9mm into the film studio. Credit can only be given to some scenes where the Night Fox uses Caopeira to undertake a heist against the back drop of some funky music but this is hardly justification to watch the movie. The final scene features the team in a nonsensical drunken stupor; this accurately sums up the movie. Stick with the original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I felt compelled to write about this movie after i joined IMDb because i thought it was the worst script writing i have seen in a while.

The acting\/direction\/other-areas of the movie are fantastic. I love brad Pitt with George Clooney. It works. The witty banter was still there too from the first movie. My question is how in the world did they let this script out of the drafting process? I thought that not only did the plot develop like a slug racing to the end of the sidewalk, but that twist? (can i call it that) was so incredibly stupid that i wanted to go demand a refund from the ticket booth. I have never felt so played and used from a movie in my entire life. Here i was expecting something similar to the first movie (good chemistry, good acting, good direction, amazing plot) only to find that they had taking my 8 dollars and made a mockery out of it.

The part that gets me still is that this movie has now grossed more than 125 million dollars.

In summary, I felt that this movie insulted my intelligence. I still feel like the only part the writers concentrated on was that little bit with Julia Roberts acting like Julia Roberts. This movie made me sad and angry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ocean's 12 starts off on annoying and gets worse from there on. Like a celebrity awards presentation, each major actor\/actress is introduced in short 60-second scenarios that seem to stop just short having a blinking \"applaud now\" sign. The first 60 minutes of the film are incredibly disjointed, poorly edited, and at times, utterly unrelated to the story and confusing. Speaking of the story,...there is one, kinda,...but its barely visible for all the \"look at me\" shots and cameos. Only Matt Damon seemed to actually \"act\" during this film...the rest of the cast appeared to only be there to participate in a rat-pack-wanna-be session. As for the heist, the action, the drama....it was put into the last 8-10 minutes of the movie and was pathetic and anticlimactic. Horrible! Horrible! Horrible!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had read the newspaper reviews of this film and I must say my expectations were very low before watching Ocean's 12. I really enjoyed the first movie but this successor is one of the worst movies ever. I would rate it top 5 of the worst movie I have ever seen. Why do I say that? First of all there is a story so thin that Britney Spears Crossroads looks like the perfect action thriller. The fragments that could be assigned the term \"story\" is loosely held together at times but most of the time the movie just moves along with no purpose or drive. The entire story seems forced and the script surrounding the story is even more forced that it become farce at times.

The actors show up but doesn't do anything to deserve any credit or appraise. Most embarrassing are leading ladies (Roberts and Zeta-Jones) that either overplay or are extremely plain. Damon, Clooney and Pitt aren't brilliant either. To be honest I really don't understand how they would want to be associated with something as bad as this movie.

=== May contains spoilers ==== Camera and editing, sigh where should I begin. There are many unnecessary camera movements that just make the experience painful. Combine that with extremely untactful editing and you start looking for a wooden spoon to carve your heart out. Especially the scene where the entire gang is moved out of the prison to be transported away by car. The camera zoom to each person just get boring and when you are at number 3 of 12 you got the message: wow you are cool and can do simple zoom effects - NOT. I understand that the scene with Tess Ocean (Julia Roberts) playing Julia Roberts is supposed to be funny but it just gets extremely embarrassing and you turn away to avoid experiencing the mess. Bruce Willis. Why? Please explain it to me! WHY???

To summarize ... if you have to choose between root canal work and watching Ocean's 12 I recommend the former. Make sure they do all the teeth while you are at it ...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was the biggest disappointment of a movie...:( Sucks, cos I was really looking forward to it.

All the twists were crap. They were ALL flashbacks!!!

What makes a good heist movie is the BELIEVABILITY of the the job. Yes it has to be surprising so the audience is stunned, but if you walk away and go that's bulls#!t... what's the point?

Plus the main heist was a bag snatch anyway! You didn't get to see the team operating at it's full deceptive and brilliant potential. There was not even ONE good heist in this movie! They were all rubbish.. including that french idiot's break dancing crap to get through the lasers... it's easy to do that when they are composited in afterwards! Plus that kind of stuff has already been done in at least one other movie.. and it was stupid then as well...

Also, there's no reason to have even HALF of the 12 or 11 in this movie! What difference do half of the cast really make to the outcome of this movie??? Half the SCENES don't even need to be there!

The first one was classy. This was CHEAP! And it makes the whole team loose credibility. Especially Ocean himself for bowing down the Bennett.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was watching this movie and getting increasingly bored with the silly plot that was going nowhere, when suddenly, the story takes a surreal turn for the worse and has an actor playing herself. Oh how I guffawed. Because it's sooooo funny, isn't it? We know Julia Roberts is playing the character of Tess, and here they are, in the film, cracking the joke that the character of Tess looks a bit like Julia Roberts. So Julia plays someone impersonating Julia. How well she does this, we'll never know, because 99.999% of the audience don't actually know Julia Roberts personally (and reading about her in Hello magazine doesn't count).

And then Bruce Willis turns up! Apparently, he's Julia Roberts' best friend. Well, he is in the film... how would I know whether or not Bruce Willis and Julia Roberts even know each other? I'm not in the least bit interested in the personal lives of actors - I just pay my money and expect them to do the job they're paid to do. Anyway they start cracking jokes about the plot twist in the film where Willis (rather unconvincingly) plays a psychiatrist... the one with the little kid in it... you know the one? I don't, I've forgotten what it's called. Willis even drops in a comment about how well that film did at the box office - how modest of you Mr Willis!

The problem is that, not only are these scenes pointless and horribly horribly self-indulgent, it also remind us, the viewers, that we're simply watching a bunch of actors strutting around and getting paid vast sums of money for very little effort. You see, when I see a movie, I want to suspend disbelief and forget that I'm watching actors - I want to believe in the story I'm watching. When you start pulling the scenery down, mid- movie, you simply ruin the illusion for me.

You know that a TV series has jumped the shark when it starts introducing celebrities, playing themselves (stand up and be counted The Simpsons, Friends, etc.), but this is the first time I've seen a movie jump the shark. I usually stay away from movies like that (e.g. Scary Movie, The Naked Gun, etc.). The trouble is, I honestly never thought the Ocean's 11 films would go in this direction. What a shame.

So with suspension of disbelief thrown out the window, and the plot now languishing in the movie then cracks the most wicked joke of all on the audience - the heist actually happened way back in the story, and the final 90 minutes or so of the film was pointless posturing. Yes, that's right: Steven Soderwhatsit and his actor friends all get up, point at us the audience and say, \"Ha haaa... you've all been had... thanks for your money!\". Then they give us the single fingered salute.

Well, right back at you. I didn't actually pay to see this movie... I downloaded the DVD for nothing. How d'ya like them apples? Now THAT'S a plot twist.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man I loved Ocean's 11.

Smart movie. All eleven characters were crucial to the heist as each had their own specialised skill that was necessary to pull of the grand finale.

What on earth was Oceans 12? What was the purpose of the twelfth person? I assume it's supposed to be Zeta-Jones but she wasn't really a part of the 11 as she was trying to trip them up and working against them the whole film?? It was more like the story of Brad and Zeta-Jones' characters boring relationship with some bits from the original movie thrown in just to get some bums on seats to watch the movie.

With O-11, the gang were always a step ahead of Benedict (Garcia). They were always able to outsmart him. What happened here? He catches up with them after a tip-off and suddenly they're all wusses? The whole movie is so that they can raise the money they stole plus interest to repay back Benedict for the heist they pulled on him 3 years earlier. So next movie they're going to develop courage and brains again and get him back for making them pay him back for the first heist? Puh-lease...

This movie could have been achieved with just Brad Pitt, Zeta-Jones and 5 mins of Matt Damon for the switcheroo scene.

Slow moving movie, not the energy of the first one. I tried hard to like it and I'm usually very easy to please but I'm really disappointed.

SPOILER!!! The twist - the whole movie didn't need to have been made as the real heist was done before everything you just saw over the past 2 hours.

END SPOILER.

Wait until it comes on TV or if you're a fan of the original from 2001 please don't watch this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a ridiculous waste of time and money!!!! This movie was the biggest loser of the year. All the hype was a warning. I am disappointed for Julia Roberts, by far she is the most talented cast member. I think her ability to truly act carried the film. The buddy buddy boys club was a little too phony, and to add insult to injury why bother to cast Catherine Zeta Jones? She only has the ability to ruin a film. She lacks the ability to have on screen chemistry with anyone, not to mention she lacks the ability to act. She lacks chemistry with the other characters: kind of reminiscent of \"America's Sweetheart's\". She made \"The Terminal\" terminal. This movie is headed nowhere, what a shame, please please don't tell me \"13\" is on the way!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hadn't planned on watching O12 because I didn't like O11 that much. I thought O11 was a nice but slightly boring little bank robbers movie with a sensational arsenal of stars. Anyway I was talked into watching O12 one night and I regretted it a lot. The plot is not only boring but also senseless. I honestly don't even know what it was all about. I left the movie after 3 quarters and got some coffee with another girl who didn't like it. Much more pleasure I can tell you that. But even the guys who stayed till the end later reported to me that the plot continued being awful and useless. My advice: Don't watch. Go watch Team America (hilarious btw;-)) and forget about Ocean's Twelve.

In my opinion the most boring and senseless peace of crap to be on the screen in years.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen \"professional\" reviews claiming Julia Roberts playing herself was \"clever and very funny\". I think NOT. An actress playing herself? And doing it with her same usual dizziness whenever she tries comedy? Talk about Hollyweird narcissism at it's utmost. Why doesn't she just stand there and go, \"Me, me, me. Look at me!.\" The director and writer should be shot for not thinking of something better then this in what could have been a charming sequel. and by the way Steven, when the audience starts paying more attention to the weird camera angles then the story you have a problem. Capra, Hitchcock, all used some creative cameras but they were talented enough not to lose the audience in them or just show off with the camera. You seem to have forgotten a cardinal rule of film-making in the name of \"style\". The Pitt and Zeta Jones chemistry is quite good however, perhaps if they had made the film more focused around them and dispensed with the narcissism it might have worked. Once again Zeta Jones shows how she's got more talent and beauty then Roberts could dream of. Sadly, this film wastes talent and fails on many accounts. I want my money back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just like most people, I couldn't wait to see this Ocean's 11 sequel but it really stinks, I must say. It stinks because there's simply no good screenplay,it was just cheap. I hope the producers donate all the money this movie has made (or will make) to the tsunami-victims in Asia so this movie will have at least one good reason to exist. It is so bad I even can't write a decent comment about it but....i still advise the creators of this thing to make \"Ocean's 13\". Ocean's 13 will be about the same thieves who are trying to steal a screenplay well hidden somewhere in Hollywood. The 13th member will be a foreign (maybe,Russian) screenplay-writer who knows all tricks to write a copy of this well hidden screenplay, so they can replace the original they'll have to steal. Or they need to find at least 13 people to write a decent screenplay for a movie in which not only Julia Roberts plays herself but even all other star-members of the Ocean's-films. 13 People because it's the lucky number of Andy Garcia's character.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The people who bash this movie were looking for it to be as cool and slick as the first one, which this isn't. This movie was supposed to be the complete opposite as Ocean's 11. This has been said by a lot of the cast members and also the director, Steven Soderbergh. Ocean's 12, while it did lack a gripping plot, is being bashed because it was different then what people wanted. If it were released before Ocean's 11, it would be taken much differently, not as a failed sequel. The problem with sequels is people go into it with a preset idea of what it should be like it and have lots of expectations. They should go into this movie with an open mind and not expect it to be \"Ocean's 11, again\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't expect a lot when i went out to see this, but my god what a disappointment. The original was kind of fun within it's genre, but this is so bad, i felt abused when i left the theater. There's no plot, it's not funny, it's not enjoyable to watch, it's straight out embarrassing. After an hour i hoped my patience would be rewarded but now i regret not leaving the theater. Do yourself a favor and ignore this one, see it when it comes to the small screen. Or see it on budget DVD, whatever you do don't waste any money on it. Don't say i didn't warn you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Comparing Oceans Twelve to the 2001 Oceans Eleven, did anyone else notice all the things that stayed the same?

- All the stars returned for Twelve, and Zeta-Jones was added;

- Twelve had the same director;

- Twelve had the same producers;

- Twelve had the same production designer;

- Twelve had the same music director;

- Twelve had the same film editor.

Did anyone notice the things than changed once the \"Oceans\" franchise was established?

- Twelve's budget was $25 million (30%) greater;

- Eleven got great reviews, but Twelve largely got panned;

- Eleven made $450 million but Twelve dropped to $362 million;

- Domestic box office for Twelve dropped 32%;

- Soderbergh teamed with a different screenwriter.

Movies are a director's medium, of course. I almost forgot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watching this movie brings several words to mind: \"sophomoric\", \"ridiculous\", \"improbable\", \"self-indulgent\" and finally (and fatally), \"boring\". Badly directed, badly photographed and badly acted, the film is a confusing mess with plot lines (if one can call them that) veering in all directions. Someone may have used a five-year old's finger painting as a template. As punishment for this childish crime of a movie, this cast of \"stars\" should be spanked soundly and sent to their respective beds without dinner. . All in all, it seems like George needed an excuse to get together with his little buddies for a paid summer vacation and we're the suckers paying for it. Bad George! Bad!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can I say about Ocean's Twelve? Who thought that it would ever come to this? A gigantic mess that loses itself halfway and can't retrace. I found myself amazed at how bad this really was. Really! I have never seen the ending properly because this film is just insufferable. I'm a huge fan of the first but this is a lame excuse for a sequel.

What was the point of the heist if they were going to give the money back? The movie is just boring and so drag along that I can't ever sit through this. It really is bad. Just stay as far, repeat, far away as possible from this movie. It's worthless.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I enjoyed Oceans 11, I thought it was quite enjoyable, helped by the performances and the direction. However, I was disappointed with this film. Don't get me wrong, it is not a complete dud, thanks to the stellar performances from Brad Pitt, Catherine Zeta-Jones, George Clooney and Matt Damon especially and the efficient direction from Steven Soderbergh. However, the film really does suffer from truly lethargic pacing, some of the film was so slow I almost fell asleep between one key twist. Second, the plot is very convoluted and there are many twists and turns that makes it hard to keep up. The camera work wasn't as innovative as it was in the first movie either. Whereas in the first movie, it was smooth and professional, it was jerky and awkward here, and the music wasn't particularly memorable. The screenplay also wasn't as witty or as fun, and the film felt anti-climatic. At the end of the day it all felt a bit too lazy, despite the expert playing and direction. So much potential, but really a missed opportunity. 4\/10 Bethany Cox","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ocean's Twelve: just plain stupid, bad and nothing compared to the other two.

An art robbery. 10 known actors, at least. A weak script and very slow developing idea. That's why I characterize a movie I only saw at least 20 minutes of it. Don't get me wrong, you may like it. But I only like the Ocean's films because of the Heist theme. If Ocean's 12 it's not about Heist then what's the point to see it? Glad Soderberg saw his main error and redeemed himself by making a film far superior to the first one. Kudos for that.

Steven Soderberg isn't really a good director. Apart from his hit \"Sex lies and videotapes\"... nothing else happened so much great to the career of this director. Shame on him. But his fault only.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, how the critics fell all over themselves to praise their goldenboy Paul Schrader (author of Taxi Driver) when this movie came out. I never saw the qualities they were detecting when I watched this movie back in the day, so I re-viewed it, to see if I got it wrong. Mishima is extremely uninteresting. This is a chilly, unremarkable movie about an author living\/working in a chilly abstruse culture. The flat reenactments don't hold your attention because they are emotionally adrift and stagy. And the rest of it just sits there being awful... with soldiers singing songs about the masculinity they pledge themselves to, hairsplitting about purity, the admiration of swords, etc.

It must be a triumph when you learn you've landed Philip Glass; but then you have to get something out of him. Glasses score offers not a whit of distinction from his other work, nor does it provide the film any perceptible value. In 2010 it should be clear to anyone that Schrader squandered his career on work of no impact or importance (Cat People, AutoFocus, Light Sleeper, Patty Hearst, American Gigolo). He can bore you to pieces, and kill the momentum of a movie, quicker than anyone else. Schrader has made a resume full of lousy, amateurish films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is officially the terrible, boring, corny, and ridiculous movie ever created. The movie is all about a crazy kid and his friends, and they land a 747. His dreams are very corny and make no sense at all, and is very poorly done. Every special effect looks as if it was done without any modern technology, and might have been created by the kid that plays the \"leading role\" in the movie. If you watch this movie, it will definitely make you stupider. I advise you to never consider watching this movie, and if you do, good luck and don't miss the brain cells you killed off. My comment does not even fully grasp the awful creation from hell that has been made. The person that wrote the comment before me did not watch the same movie that I dreadfully watched, and wish I never watched. Peace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are no - NO redeeming qualities to this film. They didn't check a single fact - NOT ONE about... anything. I feel sorry for Larry Miller, and even more sorry for his agent for not being more capable for finding him a more suitable venue.

The adults are all idiotic. The effects are cheesy and devoid of any sense of reality. The music is honestly cheesy. The plot is beyond belief.

I you want to see something good with your family, see anything else. Take some time and check for mildew in your attic. My ten-year-old is mocking this film as we watch it. He's unfortunately learning that not every movie is worth watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I read the reviews of Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye, I thought, \"Huh?\". It was THAT confusing. To be sure, I went to watch the film and what do you know? It's a remake of \"The Wedding Singer\". Several scenes have been changed to suit the whole essence of Indianness, but the rest of it is a direct lift from the 1998 Hollywood hit. Bollywood is no stranger to remakes, but this is one so poor that it pains me just to watch it. I groaned so much watching this and I realized I wasn't the only one doing so! One guy actually walked out of the theater and never came back! Salman Khan should seriously stop doing comedy roles. He shrieks and whines too much. Why can't he just take it easy? He doesn't do justice to the role originally acted out by Adam Sandler. He doesn't have Sandler's sense of comic timing. Rani is a wonderful actress and one of my favorites, but she's no Drew Barrymore either. The scene where she stands in front of a mirror practicing to say her new surname (\"Hi, I'm Mrs Pugalia\") doesn't match up to Barrymore's version (\"Hi, I'm Mrs Julia Gulia\"). I felt embarrassed watching that scene, even though I had loved the original. The music is not too bad. It's probably the only saving grace of this otherwise horrible film! Avoid this at all cost!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"K Murli Mohan Rao made the much better BANDHAN in 1998 This film is an awful remake of THE WEDDING SINGER

Basically in short, the film consists of: Salman Khan who in those days used to have the role of a dejected lover who looses his girl and also he had his comic scenes where he hammed badly even today he does well he does it all here too and also looses his shirt in scenes

Jackie Shroff- wasted, bored and tired, his role is so stupid He is shown as a lover of Pooja Bhatra then in 1 scene he is shown as a womanizer?

Inder Kumar- confusing characterization again

Rani Mukherjee- boring, overweight and does nothing special Pooja Bhatra- tall, fair and actress worthy but lacks talent

Kashmira Shah- says a dial as if a poetry

Mohinish Behl- poor fellow the 2 kids were awful too

The story is the same and has awful comic scenes, a sudden love story and boring drunken scenes plus a forced comic track of Shakti Kapoor

Direction is poor Music is decent

Salman khan just goes through the motions, Jackie is bad, Rani is as usual, Pooja is bad, Mohinish and Kashmira are nothing great Inder is awful","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where should I begin with this movie. All I know is that it is a mess. Be the script, story, or the actors. First of all, this movie is very disappointing from Salman Khan who gave us a fun Dulhan Hum Le Jayenge and Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega before this. Second Rani is getting really annoying, appearing in every stupid movie since Kuch Kuch Hota Hai (glad Saathiya stopped this nonsense). The story is stolen from The Wedding Singer, but ruins the funny movie. The dialogues are lacking. I may have laughed here and there, but entertained? NO!!! Salman Khan was tolerable in the above mentioned movies, but here he is insane. His character is poorly written. One minute he is poor and next minute you wonder how is he poor. Rani Mukherjee looks like a plain jain and wasn't putting any effort. She luckily redeemed her career with Saathiya because her career was going haywire around this time. Pooja Batra put a little charm here with her looks but it is still not enough. Jackie Shroff is wasted. Kashmira Shah's beauty and acting has ran away from her because she chose such a horrible script. Raveena Tandon looks beautiful, but puts little performance. Mohnish Behl gets the award for Worst (Supporting) Actor (they need Razzie's because there have been terrible movies in India). He says stupid dialogues, dances terribly, looks weird, and is not in his regular form. Just to tell you, there is more to the cast who are also terrible. If it weren't for Raveena's awesome beauty in Aa Meri Life Bana De, I wouldn't give the movie a point. Otherwise the dancing by Salman was terrible. Pooja Batra was dancing like a wind in Savariya, otherwise I wish the costumes were given a make-over and the rest of the cast (and their monkey dancing) had been blown away from the wind. The good song of the album was O Priya O Priya which doesn't have a good enough picturization. Same goes for the half way decent title song. Otherwise this movie (and the rest of the songs) are a no-no for everyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is so embarrassing. It's a REMAKE of The Wedding Singer, which happens to be my favorite movie which gives me another reason to disapprove of this film. It has the same plot, same jokes, same characters. Jeez, people need to be more original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In 1932, Humphrey Bogart was a relative unknown--an unproven actor who was starring in one of his first films. And, because he was an unknown, the movie they gave him was clearly a B-movie--a quick film with relatively low expectations. After seeing it, I could see why it would still take Bogart many more years AND another film studio before he became a household name. While the film isn't terrible, it certainly isn't good--making it more of a curiosity than anything else when seen today.

Bogart is a pilot who has dreams of building his own aircraft engine company. However, when a vacuous rich playgirl comes his way, his dreams all seem to go on hold. As one of the characters in the film said, the combination of the two is like oil and water--they just don't mix.

While Bogart is throwing away his promising career, his sister is going full speed on the Road to Skankville--having met a sleazy guy who convinces her to sleep with rich guys so they can shake them down for tons of cash! Bogey has no idea his sister ISN'T the actress she claims to be and doesn't realize later that the rich woman he loves leaves him for the same guy whose mistress is....Bogart's SISTER!!! All this leads up to a finale that is reasonably enjoyable. However, what follows is one of the dumbest scenes I have watched in a very long time! By now, the rich lady is not going to marry the guy sleeping with Bogey's sister (whew!) but because she's now poor and no good for Bogart, she's about to fly away and kill herself. Bogey finds out, chases the plane on foot, jumps on the plane as it's taking off and crawls up the fuselage to take control of the plane and save her!!! This is so utterly silly and ridiculous, I found myself laughing out loud. Up until then, I might have scored it a 4 or 5--this sunk the movie to a 3 (how one reviewer gave this an 8 is beyond me).

The bottom line is that this was a talking and silly film. On top of that, it's all wrong for Bogart, as the action hero at the end and the simpering lover are horrible matches for his persona that was so wonderfully created in the early 40s. Manly and solid better suits the man--one of America's great actors but clearly out of his element here.

By the way, those who love Pre-Code films and their very adult sensibilities may want to see this one. Practically everyone in the film believes in and practices pre-marital sex and Bogey curses in the film--things you never would have seen after the toughened and more moralistic Production Code was adopted in 1934.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On Humphrey Bogart's first trip to Hollywood, he got his first leading man role in this B picture Love Affair. The first thing you ought to realize is that this film has absolutely nothing to do with the classic Love Affair later in the decade with Charles Boyer and Irene Dunne or the two remakes that followed. It's not half as good any of those films.

In fact Bogey is second billed to Dorothy Mackaill as a spoiled heiress who finds out she's been living her extravagant lifestyle courtesy of her late father's best friend and financial adviser Hale Hamilton. It comes as quite a shock to Mackaill. She considers a show business career as a way for an income.

Bogart is a test pilot who is also an aeronautical engineer and he's designing an ultimate airplane motor and is looking for investors. Mackaill is willing to do it, besides she likes what she sees in Bogey.

Considering the cynical roles that Bogart later made a specialty, it's a bit disconcerting to see him as this highly moral and self righteous character in Love Affair. The part doesn't wear well on him.

Love Affair is your average B program second feature, nothing terribly special about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Attention, possible spoilers

This film is so lousy that it actually becomes funny. The director has put in all the clich\u00e9s that have ever plagued B-series movies. The stupid bimbo (nice rack) getting caught again and again by the bad guys, chief villain smirky and revealing his plots before they happen so they can be ruined and who, of course, bullied\/killed the hero's father in an unclear past, a side-kick in the person of a policeman - small, bald and whose only preparation for the last battle (another clich\u00e9) is returning his baseball-cap rim-backwards etc.

The film's end really tops it. After the chief villain dies when the hero Paralised Stoneface Jack or whatever throws him from the roof of a building ten stories high, they walk out of the building. Which, from the exteriors, looks three stories high only and very much like your regular city hall.

When they exit the building, the side-kick can't walk, being that his right leg appears to be wounded. How, nobody can tell: ten minutes earlier he fell down shot in his shoulder and his feet were fine. There is no further explanation for the inquisitive mind of the viewer who would be curious to know such trivial things as \"Where is the villain's body which should lay near the building?\" and \"Why is there no police or even curious folks gathered round the said body?\".

I could go on forever with the list. Why does another one of the bad guys claim to have invented martial arts when he gets his ass kicked in no time? Why do bad guys in general make silly movements when attacking? Why does the hero look so faggy? Is there anyone really thinking \"yes, these characters and this plot makes this a film to remember\"? And the actors suck. Our hero and saviour of the day wears the same expression on his face. The whole film. That disgusted-trying to be cocky smirk must be some copyrighted feat of him.

Also, thinking that until now 12% of the people having rated this film gave it a 10 makes me full of fear inside. They might have been serious and then we're doomed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is unsettling seeing so many people giving outrageously high ratings to this film. Some of the praise uses such twisted reasoning (and transparent agendas that betray a simple love of anything that is in any way critical of the U.S.) that it approaches hysteria.

Heaven's Gate is a bad movie, it is fundamentally awful. Endless scenes using elaborate shots that serve no purpose, muddy dialogue, murky narative, no sense of any theme aside from excess...

The high rating of this disaster is a product of revisionist history and temporary shifts in perception.

For some perspective watch Lawrence of Arabia before watching Heaven's Gate. You will see just how aimless and lost this film truly is. The \"issues\" it may have been trying to deal with are lost in a miasma.

I have no problem with films that are critical of the U.S. per se, but when a terrible film gets such undeserved praise purely because of that element... that's worth challenging.

The film is worth seeing for two reasons; curiosity, and as a cautionary tale for young filmmakers.

I saw this at home for free, imagine the torture of being in a theater and sitting through it... for 4 meandering hours!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched the 219 minute version and have to say that dollar-for-dollar, it it probably one of the worst films ever. Now I am NOT saying it's THE worst film ever--but if you look at a ratio of cost over how much an average person would enjoy it, this is a very, very bad film.

I would say that the single biggest factor making this a bad film is the writer\/director, Michael Cimino. Rarely can so much blame be placed on a single person. Had he not been so self-indulgent, a film just as bad could have easily been made at about 90 minutes--saving the studio millions!

The film begins with a completely unnecessary prologue that's supposed to be set at Harvard. The scene is HUGE but completely without context. You have no idea exactly what is occurring nor do you know why the students (in particular, John Hurt) are behaving so boorishly. I find it very hard to imagine a commencement going like this in 1870--and it looks a lot more like 1970. This is a half hour where you have no idea what is happening, who the characters are or their motivations.

The next scene is 20 years later. Inexplicably, the two Harvard grads (Hurt and Kris Kristofferson) are in Wyoming. So, they went to the best school in America and now one is only a law man in the middle of no where and the other is....well, what IS John Hurt in the film?!?! He just appears here and there and seems to be either a jerk (the prologue) or a pathetic and pointless drunk who hangs out with murderers--even though he is apparently against them!? His entire character made no sense. They never explained why he was a Brit living in the middle of nowhere (it was impossible to hide his accent), why he bothered to come along with the hired army IF he was so against their wicked plan nor why he would risk his life for a cause he didn't believe in at all. As for Kristofferson, his excellent acting and better defined character made his character more believable, though having him move to Wyoming AND risk his life for a prostitute made no sense at all.

This brings up the worst aspect of HEAVEN'S GATE. While the scenes are WAY TOO LONG and needed trimming, the worst part of the film is that the characters were like cardboard. John Hurt (a wonderful actor with nothing to do in the film), Jeff Bridges and many other big names are there but you have no idea why. In fact, other than Kristofferson, Isabelle Huppert (as a hooker with a heart of gold--quite the clich\u00e9) and perhaps Christopher Walken, EVERYONE is completely one-dimensional. It's hard to imagine a movie THIS long where you don't know or understand the characters.

Much of the film also seems anachronistic. Who would have thought to have a giant roller rink constructed in the middle of no where in 1890? I am sure that just getting the basic supplies in this region in the West would have been very, very difficult--and yet we are expected to believe that trains filled with roller skates and lumber arrived instead of FOOD. Maybe if they hadn't spent a bazillion dollars building and frequenting the roller rink, the farmers could have afforded to BUY food and avoided this war over purloined cattle!!! And what's with the guy on roller skates with the fiddle? What did this have to do with a land war?

The most obvious problem you are left with is that it's a film where very, very little actually happens until the big battle late in the film. There are lots of scenes of filth and flat nothingness. So much nothingness that by the time the battle occurs, many audience members would have left or are now so hostile to the film that it's inevitable that nothing could salvage the film.

As for the final battle, it was done reasonably well but had problems. First, this minor skirmish on the prairie lasted longer than the D-Day invasion!! Second, while details of the actual events of the so-called \"Johnson County War\" are a tad sketchy, we do know that the characters played by Huppert and Kristofferson never actually were there, as they'd both been hung BEFORE the battle. Third, I can't believe that Cimino actually killed animals throughout the film--especially during the final battle. While I am far from a bleeding heart about animal rights, his need to use animal guts and actually kill some of the horses is a low point in cinematic history. Watching and knowing that some of the horses died to achieve Cimino's \"vision\" for the film is very sad.

Finally, after the big battle, we have an epilogue. While it is blessedly short, it also seemed completely unnecessary and vague. We see Kristofferson on a fancy yacht, so we can assume that he's finally putting some of that Harvard education to work for himself. We also see a woman who appears to be one that Kris looked at a couple times during the prologue. Most importantly, nothing is said and you have no idea what the final outcome. I read up on it myself and found that the film often got the facts wrong.

Overall, to say the film is long and needed tons more editing was like saying WWII was a \"minor tiff\". Well, I've certainly seen a lot worse, but if you factor in the cost of production, I truly think it might just be one of the worst films in history.

Finally, when a film has this much explicit nudity I warn parents. However, as no child COULD sit through this film (even with a promise of sex), the warning is not necessary.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The recent death of Stephen Bach, one of the producers of HEAVEN'S GATE, has raised the specter of at least a partial resurrection of the reputation of the cursed film. Moreover the original release, the \"long version\" was recently shown on TCM exposing the film, in ail probability, to its largest audience ever.

I saw the film when it first came out at a packed screening in a 3rd Avenue cinema across the street from Bloomingdales. I think it was released on a Friday and withdrawn on the following Wednesday. Maybe that wasn't a fair release but it was and is a terrible film. Seeing the full-length version recently confirmed that judgment and with some thirty years more experience watching and writing about films I am better able to articulate why.

First there is the dreaded phrase \"mise-en-scene\" whose definition is at the same time so simple yet so amorphous that it puzzles even after being defined. Basically it's everything that happens in front of a camera. For example, a crowd extra will be given a piece of action, say just walking by on the sidewalk and a spot to start from. When the assistant director yells action the extra will go through their action. If there's another take the extra will return to the start spot and go again on \"action\". All of the extras do this. Then say a cab drives up to the sidewalk and the star gets out and embraces another principal while all the while the crowd extras are doing their thing. This is mise-en-scene. In the theatre they call it blocking but cinema is far more multi-dimensional.

The importance of defining mise-en-scene is because when the French critics developed their theory of the auteur the opposite of an auteur was a m\u00e9tier-en-scene, even more derogatorily referred to as a \"traffic cop\". An auteur was intimately involved in the meaning of a film and through the director's body of work a theme or themes discerned. The metier-en-scene was basically a company man rendering in film what had been handed to him on paper. It is the difference between say John Ford and Sam Wood.

The second point is how the director, Michael Cimino, got into the position of directing films. Cimino first gained prominence directing the first million-dollar TV commercial. This depicted a Chevrolet floating down the Grand Canal in Venice. This commercial never appears on any lists of greatest TV commercials of all time and is notable solely because of how expensive it was and how utterly exaggerated it was. The effect is like that of a three year old girl brought out to entertain company who gets her biggest response when she flings her dress over her head. Cute for a three year old, embarrassing for a thirty year old. So Cimino was praised early on for spending a huge amount of money for some over-the-top image and so he learned.

His first film, THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT (1974) has a scene where Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges are passengers in a lunatic's car that drives back and forth, back and forth, until it drives off the road and the driver opens the trunk full of rabbits which he proceeds to shoot one by one. I had the feeling that if the producer, Eastwood, hadn't stepped in, that the scene would have lasted until every rabbit had been killed.

Which brings us to HEAVEN'S GATE. I guess if one watches the film on a DVD in snatches like a mini-series it can be impressive. This is because scenes are directed with such a dense mise-en-scene that each scene is like an encyclopedia it's just plain exhausting to sit through nearly four hours of this. Its like sex, at some point it just becomes a whipping. There is the opening 40 minutes, which takes place at Harvard. Brilliantly photographed at Oxford, it is something of a non-sequitur. I personally favor the artistic way of unfolding a story as opposed to the more commercial _\"Now I'm gonna tell you what I'm gonna tell you\" of most films. However the whole preface adds up to only one line- Kris Kristofferson and John Hurt went to Harvard together. Now twenty years later\u0085 All of that time, money and effort, not to mention all of the audiences' attention and energy just to deliver this almost useless piece of information.

Then there's the scene in the street between Kristofferson and Masur which just goes on and on with a populated city of background extras and horse drawn vehicles in the background in continuous motion to deliver a tiny bit of expositional information. It's just so exhausting. There is just one scene after another like this. It's like trying to eat a thirty- pound pizza. Then there are these long conversations of inconsequential details and unintelligible, witless dialogue, which go on and on and are exhausting and boring.

Of course any single scene excerpted looks brilliant. Overall it's a rich piece to spin praiseworthy articles about. Seen in snatches with the possibility of fast-forwarding through the boring bits or turning it off if feeling mise-en-scene whipped, it's basically painless. But don't let anybody tell you it's a good film. When I saw it in 1980 there was a guy sitting in front of me who commented on the scene where Kris Kristofferson is on his horse and he turns one way and then the other and does this about six times. \"That's symbolic,\" he said, \"of he doesn't know which way to go.\" That is basically, at its kernel, the basis of every pro- Heaven's Gate critique.

Watch it, if you must, but be forewarned, this is not a film whose time has come, this is a stinker which will smell for all time.

HEAVEN'S GATE is historically inaccurate in the extreme. I recommend the book BANDITTI OF THE PLAINS by Asa Mercer on the Johnson County War.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's see. What annoyed me most? The extra long dance scene in the beginning watching people twirling around so much I got dizzy... Without even showing where the music was coming from... All part of a college graduation that had nothing to do with the rest of the film. Or perhaps it was the fact that each scene lasted about fifteen minutes longer than they had to. What a drag this film is. And the most annoying aspect is the bad guys are so bad, so obviously horrible that it seems as if the director were making this film for second graders. \"These people are bad... These people are good\". Whenever a movie has its agenda-heart on its sleeve I am beside myself. There's a scene in a rollerskating rink that seems totally out of place. Long drawn-out love scenes with the main character and a Russian prostitute that seems more like a rock star and his sexy groupie. John Hurt's character, who is part of the overlong beginning scene, drinks and disagrees with the overdone villains. His death scene could very well be the stupidest in history. And I hear everyone, even the haters of this film, talk about how gorgeous the cinematography is. I think it looks washed-out. Watch \"Days of Heaven\" if you want to see gorgeous backyards. This movie is even worse than the anti- hype. It's pointless. The epilogue, showing the main character in a yacht, was almost as dumb as the prologue. The battle scenes are tedious and dizzying. This movie is really bad. Avoid it unless you love bad movies, because this is the king of them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the movie that, pretty much, sounded the death knell for the auteur in Hollywood. At over 40 million bucks, Heaven's Gate is so poorly conceived and executed it would take a lifetime to break down every area of failure. What really galls me the most about it is that technically it's very bad, an unforgivable sin for the money that went into it. John Hurt's commencement speech at Harvard is inaudible, as is a conversation between Kris Kristofferson and Richard Masur at the train station. Some people seem to think Cimino intended this as a \"style\". He didn't. It's just bad sound recording. The characters are not particularly well-drawn, except for the four or five leads; in the climactic battle scene, it's difficult to tell who's the bad guys and who's the good guys. Even on that level, it's impossible to enjoy the movie. The casting of Isabelle Huppert as the town madam is a joke, her French accent renders the whole character a fraud. The acting is generally stiff, without any range or depth of feeling; even Christopher Walken is bad. John Hurt's character is the only one with any swagger or vitality (although Hurt, in his 40s, playing a fresh-faced Harvard grad with bags under his eyes is patently ridiculous).

I guess to say that it's overlong is overkill. The roller-skating sequence could have been easily cut, the cockfight scene is rapidly becoming a movie cliche, and the final scene on board the ocean liner is right out the Twilight Zone. Having Rod Serling appear before the camera at the end to explain what we just watched would have been the perfect finale. Actually, those scenes in and of themselves are not bad, but Cimino has not earned the right to include them, because what he's given us as the \"meat\" of the picture IS so incompetently bad. The editing is poor, especially in the grand battle climax. At one point, the same explosion with the same wagon wheel flying from the blast is used three different times. I wish could I say something- anything- nice about this movie: a great scene, a great performance, even one memorable line of dialogue, but I can't. It is all just one big unholy mess. About the only thing I did like was the cinematography and the Montana locations, which are stunning. Even Cimino couldn't screw that up. This is a long, boring, bad movie by all standards. And the people who say that it gets bashed only because of the cost overruns are just kidding themselves. 1\/2 * out of 4","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now infamous Western that was (at its time) the biggest budgeted disaster in Hollywood history. I was \"lucky\" enough to see the full 220 minute version at a theatre in 1990. It was truly staggering how BAD the film was!

They had a great cast, a story based on a true incident (a fight between foreigners and Americans in the 1800s), magnificent scenery...so what went wrong? Three words--director Michael Cimino. He was so full of himself after \"The Deer Hunter\" he went out and made this god awful Western. He's not totally to blame. His previous film \"The Deer Hunter\" was considered a masterpiece and United Artists gave him free reign to do anything. They let him all alone...and everything went wrong. The cost went barreling out of control and Cimino insisted on redoing sequences again and again until they were perfect.

First off, the sound is horrible. Entire sequences go by and you can't make out a word the characters are saying. For instance, Jeff Bridges' character is introduced during a dance sequence, but I STILL have no idea who he was! The dialogue in his introductory scene is incomprehensible! That's the director's fault--he should have made sure the dialogue could be heard. Some scenes are shot with so much dust flying around you can barely make out what's going on. The story line doesn't make a whole lot of sense and Cimino took great liberties with the facts--in the real story only one person was killed--Cimino turns it into a massacre. There is some admittedly beautiful sequences here totally destroyed by lack of story and incomprehensible dialogue. Also the bad sound was not the fault of the theatre--all the prints sound that way.

This garbage effectively closed down United Artists and was the end of Cimino's career. A textbook example of a director so full of himself he doesn't realize what he's doing. Jeff Bridges has said this is the worst movie he ever did. This is from a guy who made \"Tron\"! A definite must-miss.

There is a pretty good book called \"The Final Cut\" which details the whole disaster. This gets a 1. I wish IMDb had negative numbers--this deserves it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The director spent a lot of time making the scenes look real right down to the historical photos and all the sounds of the old west bustle. Too bad the Producers and Writer\/Director, Michael Cimino, spent zero time on any of the historical facts of what the Johnson County war was really about. A lot of the war was over how public lands should be used for grazing. The cattlemen didn't want the poor sheep herders on the land to compete for forage on this cold, windswept plateau. The entire epic makes no mention of grazing sheep which was one of the most important reasons for the war.

The worst scene is the battle between the peasants and the hired killers. The peasants are shown circling the gunmen like a bunch of Indians would do in much earlier Hollywood movies. The true fact is that Johnson County Sheriff William (Red) Angus, with a posse of 200 to 300 men, intercepted the gunmen and trapped them in a barn at the TA ranch. I doubt any women took part in the siege.

Ellen (Ella also known as Cattle Kate) Watson and her second husband, James Averell, were hanged by a lynch mob about three years before the Johnson County invasion. Ella was never a prostitute. This was a canard spread by the Wyoming Stock Growers Association (WSGA) in order to discredit her. The fact that the plot makes her out to be a brothel madam only serves the interests of the WSGA.

I object to the use of names of real people in a plot that is so obviously fiction. There is no fact in the events, time lines, or backgrounds of the characters. Why Michael Cimino would use real names of people who were loosely connected with the Johnson County war (and events leading up to it) is beyond me.

The movie could have been much more interesting if it had dwelt on the political ramifications of the Federal Government intervention in a State Government's affairs and what happened after the WSGA gunmen were saved by the Calvary. Some effort was made to prosecute the Cattlemen who were responsible by the Johnson County attorney. But since Johnson county could not afford the court costs and the Governor of Wyoming, Amos W. Barber, backed the WSGA, the charges were eventually dropped.

Overall I think the movie was just an excuse to show Isabelle Huppert naked for much of the three and 3\/4 hours of running time on the DVD version.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The operative rule in the making of this film seems to have been \"never make a 1 minute scene when you can make it a 10 minute scene.\" This was a principle set right from the start with an interminably long portrayal of the graduation of the Harvard class of 1870. The point of that scene, I suppose, was to introduce some of the primary figures in the story and give a bit of their background - which is somewhat effective when comparing the idealism of the Harvard graduation ceremony to the realism of life in Johnson County, Wyoming, but it just keeps going and going, and that sets the stage for a film that features repeated stretches of mind-numbing nothingness, made even worse by the fact that I found a significant amount of the dialogue to be almost incoherent. In the end, I couldn't even watch this in one sitting. I got through about half of it and had to set it aside for a couple of days before I could drag myself back to see how it turned out.

My reaction to this movie in many ways is a shame, because there are positives here. The performances are generally of a high calibre, especially from Kris Kristofersson as Averill, Christopher Walken as Champion and Isabelle Huppert as Ella. The basic story - interspersed as it is around that ever-present mind-numbing nothingness - is potentially interesting, focusing on the efforts of immigrants to establish themselves in Johnson County and a local cattle company's efforts to stop them by killing a number of them in collaboration with the government and the military. There's also some absolutely breathtaking scenery shots. Having said that, the whole thing could frankly have been done in half the time - and should have been. In the end, all those potential positives are washed out by - again - the mind-numbing nothingness that the movie seems to revolve around. Seriously - 2\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film, Heaven's Gate, was a good view, although still tedious at over 4 hours. But the film took great license - as usual with Hollywood. James Averill (Chris Christopherson), and \"Elle\" were actually married in real life. Their main contribution to the Johnson County war, was to start it by being hanged. Well, by starting it, I mean it came at the beginning, not the end. Here's the real scenario: James Averill and Ellen Watson were secretly married because one homestead could be given to each family. By filing as single individuals, they could get two homesteads. They chose homesites on Crazy Woman Creek actually controlling the water above the land held by a powerful member of the Cattleman's Association. He offered to buy them out repeatedly, which they refused.

Although characterized in real life as the owner of a brothel (Cattle Kate), and a prostitute herself (and also in the film), there is no real evidence that was true. It is known that she bought many head of sick cattle, nursed them back to life, and was later accused by the Cattleman's Association of receiving the cattle in trade for \"lewd acts'. In the end, she was accused of rustling - an act almost certainly untrue. So much for this part of the myth of the \"American West\", which is a gooble-de-gook of myths spanning a time period of about one hundred years.

In real life, she and Jim Averill were surprised one day by several members of the Cattleman's Association, taken in hand, and promptly hanged. Those perpetrating the injustice were never brought to trial. But that was the first link that led to the murder of Nate Champion, and the start of the Johnson County war.

Quite different from the Hollywood version which shows her shot at the end.

Other than that, I think the main problem with the film was the editor, who could have made the action a faster pace by more skillful editing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have just recently seen Heaven's Gate. After i watched this 3 hr 40 min epic western that's not a western, i read the book by Steven Bach. After considering all events and the movie itself, i still think this movie is a complete waste of time. I believe that when someone tells you to watch it, they are, in fact, trying to bore you to death. If for some reason you can enjoy this self indulgent over thought truely bad movie, i have to ask why. Though this isn't a reason to hate it, it is historically way off. It pretends to be about a situation that happened in Wyoming called the Johnson County War. Simply, the cattle barrons of the time wanted to kill all cattle thieves and claimed they were all immagrants. You find that you simply do not care about these people and hope they all get killed because at least then, something would happen. Everybody in the movie talks about things that happen, and it is never shown. After you sit though this giant waste of time you wonder how someone could actually make a 4 hr epic in which nothing happens. Oh and by the way the Johnson County war was not a war, it never happened. The Johnson County war, in fact, was called that because it almost happened, in actual fact, 2 people died. I can't warn you enough off this movie. However, if you're like me the, the idea of watching a movie that ruined careers and put United Artists on the \"for sale\" lot, sounds like an interesting case to study, then by all means, watch this terrible, narsisistic, movie with no sub-text, and a lot of photography.(which is lovely sometimes)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this last nite with an open mind. Sorry to say it is still bad. first, the movie is too noisey and you can't hear what people are saying. The accents are bad especially Richard Masur. What is the French chick doing in this film ??? Miscasting at its worst. Walken's makeup is strange. The Harvard scene is useless and not needed. Kristoferson's character is unlikeable and I wanted him to get killed and go away. Meanwhile, the Walken character gets killed too early and easily ( despite the makeup). The settlers are all stupid. GET ORGANIZED you bunch of hicks, people are coming to kill you !!!!! John Hurts character provides some humor buts thats all.

I have nothing good to say about this excessive piece of crap. The only good thing is it ruined the director's career and killed United Artists.

Still Crap after all these years.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You have to acknowledge Cimino's contribution to cinema. He gave us both the most over-rated film in history (The Deer Hunter) and the worst film in history (Heaven's Gate). And before you start with the 'It's bad but not the worst ever' let me explain.

For 20+ years I listened to the critics and avoided \"Heaven's Gate\"-actually this was not hard because you are hardly bombarded with opportunities to view this film. Then a few days after seeing the 'Final Cut: The Making and Unmaking of Heaven's Gate' documentary I stumbled on a used $9.99 DVD of the long version. My advice after 229 minutes is to seek out the most negative review ever written about this film (you will find a wide selection), and imagine that the reviewer is Cimino's devoted mother and that she is doing everything she can to put a positive slant on her dear son's movie. Then you will have an idea of just how big a mess Cimino made.

While pretty much everything is wrong with this film, what ultimately tips the scale to make it the worse ever (and a classic 'less than zero' example) is its shameless distortion of history. Although the cattlemen's association did send a group of regulators\/gunmen to Johnson County and did have a list of targeted names, the actual facts of an interesting historical event are hopelessly exaggerated. On the morning of April 9, 1892, Nick Ray and Nate Champion were besieged and eventually killed by an army of about 50 cattlemen and Texas hired guns who had come to Johnson County to clean out \"rustlers.\" The citizens of the county then besieged the regulators who finally were arrested (or rescued) by the Army. Women did not actively participate in the fighting and aside from Ray and Champion there were minimal casualties. After all, these were sieges not assaults-and there were not wagons of immigrants riding in circles around the encampment of regulations (early westerns to the contrary this was a film making device and not an actual tactic of the Indians). And weeks prior to the arrival of the regulators a number of Johnson County residents were hanged without trial including Jim Averell, the keeper of a modest road ranch, and his wife Ella Watson (who Cimino resurrects as his two leads and he even shows Averell living to a ripe old age).

There is no movie-making sin greater than fictionalizing history, if you are going to play fast and loose with historical facts, then change the names and locations to protect the unsuspecting audience members who might go away from a film believing what they saw actually happened. Fortunately so few people saw this film that the damage was minimal. Perhaps it is harsh to blame Cimino for his distortion of history. He could probably escape blame anyway with an insanity defense-the film provides plenty of support. If Cimino was insane during the production of Heaven's Gate it would explain a lot of things. But my vote goes to 'lack of directing talent' instead of insanity.

There are some good things about Heaven's Gate. You can actually see on the screen where some of the huge budget went; expensive sets-beautiful epic camera shots-artful dance sequences. Isabelle Huppert (a strange casting choice that actually worked) gives an agreeable and likable performance although most of her scenes are extremely boring (that tends to happen when the director forgets to give the viewer any reason to care about the characters). The dialogue is generally solid if rather ordinary.

But don't fall for the crap that this film experiments with storytelling by intermixing carefully crafted moments of character interaction with textured pageant-like explosions of communal action. This implies that there was a method to Cimino madness. 'Experiments' is another word for when a filmmaker gets so lost in his project that a coherent story is no longer possible. The simple fact is that there is no evidence Cimino storyboarded a single scene or made any attempt at control or organization. What it looks like is that he just turned his DP loose to stage action and to get an endless selection of colorful shots-1.5 million feet of loosely staged scenes. Then he tried (without success) to pare this down and fit everything together in post-production.

The final battle scene is genuinely hilarious as babushka wearing townswomen (perhaps borrowed from a 'Fiddler On The Roof' touring company) throw countless sticks of dynamite at the regulators. Unfortunately each explosive falls just short of the target and explodes harmlessly. After you see this happen 50-60 times you can relate to the woman (the one who looks like something out of 'The Grapes of Wrath') who puts a huge gun in her mouth and pulls the trigger. This is probably what Cimino's mother did after writing that review.

So believe what you have been hearing about this film since 1980. It is a sloppy, disconnected, poorly paced, and historically distorted mess. Of value only as a 'how not to make a film' example for film historians and as a source of amusement to those knowledgeable about the actual history of the American west.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Critics love this movie. I personally found it senseless and tasteless. This is the millionth time I've fallen into the \"critics love it\" trap and came out wishing someone would throw boiling hot water on my testicles because it was less painful than watching the movie. There are many scenes that are completely unnecessary. A warning to Animal lovers: Don't see this movie if you don't want to see sheep killed and molested.

If you want to see a good Asian film, see Afrika. If you want to see a film about escaped convicts, see the Gene Wilder\/Richard Pryor classic Stir Crazy. Avoid 9 Souls like the plague.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The idea of nine stupid prisoners escaping and going on a road trip sounds pretty good for a movie. Especially because it's meant to be funny and I guess heart-warming in some weird way. The problem is, the movie was very rarely funny and often just seemed pointless and needlessly gross. It was as if jokes or interesting scenes were being set up again and again but no one bothered finishing any of them--there was just no payoff. Also, the movie was just brainless and had the crooks meandering across Japan even though they left so many crime victims alive that it's impossible to believe they wouldn't have been caught almost immediately--especially since they continued to keep using the same stolen camper for days on end. And as far as being gross goes, I just didn't need to see scene after scene after scene of guys peeing along the side of the road. Plus, believe it or not, there is a scene where four of the guys are out raping sheep!

All in all, I really hated this movie. And it's a shame, as I almost always love Japanese films--just not poorly made and uninteresting ones like this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here is another great film critics will love. The problem is that it is not a very good movie.

The films premise is simple. Nine convicts escape a prison after the tenth one goes crazy and tells them where the treasure is.

The first half has a lot of slapstick some of it very broad while the second half is a character driven descent into fantasy and melancholy.

The two halves simply don't mix. Individual scenes do work very well (The guys crashing a friends house who has a new Filipino bride is hilarious While a later scene with the big guy working in the restaurant tugs at the heartstrings.) They simply don't mesh with each other.

The movie as well is missing entire set-ups. One scene shows the guys desperately looking for change under a deserted vending machine to buy a snack. The very next scene has the whole crew in drag sitting down in a restaurant. Where did they get the dresses and wigs? (The crew includes both the big guy and a midget) How did they get all the clothes and money to buy the meal? And most puzzling is why are they in drag? They are clearly guys in drag and lets face it is there anything more memorable to witnesses than a big guy and a dwarf eating a meal dressed as women? I mention the big guy and the dwarf because besides the old guy everyone else seems to blend into each other. (In fact they wear matching white jumpsuits throughout most of the movie) The movie has very little character development in the first half and as a result the second half really lacks an emotional punch. As we are often trying to figure out who is who in their individual payoff scenes.

Speaking of a drag the second half has all those wonderful sweeping camera shots and big emotional moments and great symbolism that makes a great film. It is also excruciatingly slow which makes for a boring movie.

9 Souls is a big disappointment, the reviews gush about a great film and it's in there somewhere, good luck finding it yourself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No emotion. Bad music (and I am a reformed eighties metal guy, so I would be vulnerable to some good stuff.) Everything is half done. The brother is a parody, there is nothing to hold us in except to see what horror from the eighties they'll pull up next. The tour manager tries to bring a humanity to the thing but isn't given enough time. Wahlberg is okay and Aniston is slumming. We know she didn't need the money. Is this the only role she could fit into her summer break? Surely she must slap her forehead every time it pops up on VH1--which is only slightly less often than Ozzy does. It barely qualifies as a TV movie. It's just hard to believe that it was actually released theatrically.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know any idiotic rock'n'roll clich\u00e9 not used in this movie. Ouffcourz , rock enroll life is only sex drugs and parties and tons of supermodels trying to ride with you. Say it to stupid young boys. The filmmakers seemed to have read too much Guns'n'Roses or Motley Crue stories. I have seen everyday life of usual rock band closely and there are nothing to do with reality in this movie. If you are successful enough your life is touring touring touring. Its means that you are mostly in a bus and trying to sleep. Just sleep. Because you must be fresh, sober and clean in evenings. After live you have a little time to discharge your stage excitement. Then you have a bit time to have fun. But its not any luxury or dream. Artistically this film was zero. Stupid characters and idiotic dialogs. The ending of movie was funny -- main character left heavy metal band and formed a grunge band! Yeah, what a moral. Real 90s.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the movie that is somewhat based on the exit of Rob Halford from British Metal Gods 'Judas Priest' and how the band replaced him with Ripper Owens, who used to front a Priest tribute band. Originally titled Metal God this movie could have been something great. Instead, someone in an office somewhere who knows little to nothing about metal music decided to water it down. From the title change of Metal God to the 'safe' middle of the road 'Rock Star' to the lame soundtrack this movie plays out badly. Having spent most of my life in a professional metal band I was really looking forward to seeing this, I was very let down by several points of the film. The soundtrack is very NOT metal for one, and the ending of the movie is lame as well. The movie does have a few bright spots in the writing and acting but as a whole, it fails in the end because...1)A movie based on a metal band should have a metal soundtrack. 2)There is NOTHING metal about Marky Mark or Jennifer Aniston. If Bon Jovi, Warrant, Def Leppard and Poison are your idea of 'heavy metal' go see this movie. If Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Dio & Black Sabbath are your idea of metal see this movie for a good laugh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well........how and where do I start to describe this utter nonsense? Imagine the morals of a cheesy Hollywood Western, throw in a lavish helping of the most trite soap opera storyline, and try to dupe the kids into thinking its cool by dressing it up to be about something 'contemporary'. This film is all package and absolutely no substance.

It starts with promise......young men dreaming of becoming rockstars and engaging in the kind of excessive hero-worship everyone can laugh at. After that, it all goes downhill.....quicker than a bobsleigh with no brakes. The scene involving the first gig with Steel Dragon is one of the most pathetic pieces of 'cine kitsch' I have seen in a long time. The singer appears on stage for his debut and falls down some stairs.....will he get up and sing???......or will he stay there on the floor and not sing......who cares by now?? It gets worse, but I don't want to bore myself by having to remember it in all its excruciating detail. If you watch it after this review, its your own fault!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"80's sleazy (glam)rock is like 90's house music or current boybands: it's boring and has no ideas or ideals. The only thing that makes it a bit 'cult' nowadays is that it's a long time ago, so we can laugh at its sillyness. Too bad 'Rock Star' has no laughs at all, as it must be one of the most boring movies of recent years.

Chris (Mark Wahlberg) is singer of a Steel Dragon tribute band. When he's kicked of the band at the same time the real Steel Dragon singer is kicked of as well, he becomes the next lead singer. You already know how this is gonna end up at that time, with Chris losing it with sex, drugs and r&r and forgetting about his long-time girlfriend\/manager, Emily (Jennifer Aniston).

There's way too much (boring) music in this standard formula-packed excuse for a movie and should be avoided for it at all cost. Watch the (over-rated, but still more fun) Almost Famous instead, or even better, a movie about real people playing real music having real emotions, That Thing You Do.

What a stinker. 2\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, the genre of this movie isn't comedy, it's more of a drama.

I had low expectations on the movie, and still they didn't come up them. As some of the other reviews point out, there are some nice music in the movie. But if you want to listen to good music I suggest spend the time looking at some concert recording with Bon Jovi, or M\u00f6tley Crue, it'll be more quality time.

Last, if you want to watch a GOOD movie in this rock'n'roll genre, I recommend \"Almost Famous\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Contains Spoilers

But if you weren't dropped on the head as a child and then used as a football then you'll agree with me that this is one of the worst and yet hilarious series ever made. Centreing round a woman who as a young girl was beaten by her father who also killed her mother, she spends her time drawing, but wait for it, then she becomes her superhero drawings and goes on to fight crime, therefore being \"drawn by pain\", so clever. The story itself is actually OK, but it's just how it's done, Jesse the writer and director has no idea how to write a script, just listen to a monologue featuring the 8 year old version of the hero and it sounds like it was written by a 30 year old man, while her dad, who sports a great moustache, just walks around the house all day while looking angry, just showing how bad the characterisation is, especially the bit where he gets angry in the first episode and begins repeating the phrase \"no more\" while holding his wife's head before killing her using the marble work surface. The following bang sound effect and just his terrible acting as all he can convey is angry just is brilliant, including after where he goes to beat his daughter using his belt which is all done with him moaning and looking angry in slow motion. The episodes themselves could contain easily a good clean script ranging over 5 minutes, but oh no Jesse doesn't want this. Little Jesse, is shitting out post modernism as if he'd just eaten Donnie Darko and then douched himself to death. Pointless camera jerks, all at weird angles, overly repeated lines and even pointless sequences just muddled up every now and again to fill the overlong episodes. In conclusion the idea isn't bad it's just how it's done, also there is a great character of a fat guy on a bench who doesn't come up enough and is great, i just wanna hug his Lil chubby cheeks cause they look so soft. The character development is non existent as the main character just says the first philosophical sounding thing that comes to her head although they all contradict one another. But all in all, mainly s**t

Indiana Jones 4 however is much better, Type \"Jeeharv\" into you-tube as well, the results may make you weep at the beauty of the world also you'll hear a lot of cheap sex jokes, mostly gay ones.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This short was director Del Lord's last and only Shemp short. The problem: It was quite weak and the cafe scene was pretty much a carbon copy of a Curly short \"Busy Buddies\" (1944). The interrogation scene was pretty funny, and the beginning part of the cafe part. But there are a lot of plotholes in this short. For example, why are the stooges hiding in the garbage can when the police come? In the remake, \"Of Cash And Hash\"(1955), director Jules White fixes this and the reason for the stooges hiding in the garbage can is because there is a gunfight between the police and the armored car robbers. The scene in which Moe is having trouble with the oyster was done before with Curly in \"Dutiful But Dumb\" (1941). The spooky house part wasn't all that great except for the hilarious scene on the outside of the spooky house. To top it off, the ending had no sting to it. Rating: C-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was not expecting a classic, but at least a funny film. There were only a few scenes that makes you laugh but nothing more. You don't scare it is full of American teen-slasher cliches and you can guess what will happen easily.

But it tells much about a senior student in a Turkish High-School. Pressure of Student Selection Exam (OSS) that 3-hour-exam determines which university you'll go and thinking about the exam when a ghost is after you is not exaggeration. The movie is bad. Don't waste your time to watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okul\"The School\" is a result of a new trend in Turkish cinema. Having used the same stories over and over again new generation directors finally come up with different ideas. Of course, it doesn't mean that they are all grand. I think Okul is one of them. It is supposed to be a scary movie but it is not. It is not successful on being scary either. So what is it? Actors are so average especially Deniz Akkaya is pretty annoying with the teacher role. I am sure it could have been better if it was tried on harder. Maybe concentrating on one topic such as making it scary or vice versa. But directors have missed the target this time. ** out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is better than the early Cronenberg horror films, but nothing more than your basic what-is-real story. The videogame theme has been told before too. Nothing original is left except the weird Cronenberg atmosphere (which is not that strong here) with the amusing sexual references and Shore's dark score. The story never grabs your full attention. It just flows forward event after event with boring pace. Rating 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was subjected to this terrible excuse for a made for TV movie. I only watched it because I don't have cable and my only other choices were Golf, College Basketball, or local news. The plot is very generic and has no substance that I could see, not to mention it had a major flaw in my eyes. The main character, Dr. Sorensen, is a washed up astronomer who believes that an asteroid named \"Nemesis\" will strike Earth, causing all life to cease. He bases his belief on his discovery of cave paintings by an Aboriginee (I'm sure I spelled that one wrong). The paintings show an apparent timeline, showing significant events throughout history, such as the building of the Great Wall of China. All of the events are shown in perfect chronological order, and the very last picture on the timeline is Earth being destroyed. Now to me, if the painting showed things that had indeed happened, why would the great Doctor believe that he could somehow change what was going to happen? All that aside, the movie moved along with extreme formulaic precision. There was nothing in the movie that surprised me at all. The actors were not very good, and on a few occasions I just felt that they didn't even take the movie seriously to put forth enough effort to try to convince me that the characters were worth caring about. The whole movie was cliche ridden and a downright waste of time and money. I'd recommend Armageddon over this piece of crap any day. At least Armageddon has some good acting (compared to this), not to mention the eye candy that is Liv Tyler. Now that I think about it, Golf isn't that bad.......","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Dolemite\" is the touching story of Dolemite (Gotta love blaxploitation film titles), an ex-con who probably should still be in jail. He gets in trouble with cops, friends, drug dealers, women, prostitutes, and society in general. He's just not that likable a guy. Neither is the movie, though it's still hilarious and worth watching.

The flimsy premise is that Dolemite (played with as much enthusiasm as star Rudy Ray Moore can muster) is in jail for a crime he claims he didn't commit. When a drug hit or a drug bust or drug something is about to go down, the warden releases him to stop it, or help it, or just watch it. Not very clear. All I know is that I was unaware that the justice system frees convicts in order to allow them to prove their own innocence. My ignorance, I guess.

The plot is convoluted and unimportant, basically Dolemite goes around killing people (Usually with very poorly choreographed karate), having sex, and cursing out people, sometimes even rhyming too. The joys of the movie are its total incompetence, and its total indifference in the matter.

I stopped counting the number of times I saw the boom mike after it was in one scene for the entire duration (about two minutes of film). I stopped questioning why the warden was looking down at where Dolemite was sitting, even after he stood up and walked around, when they cut back to the establishing shot and Dolemite was inexplicably sitting down again. I stopped wondering why Dolemite dressed like that when he got naked on the street to change, because he didn't want to get in his car with the ugly (read: normal) clothes the jail gave him. And I stopped wondering where he learned karate when he jiggles his hand on a guy's stomach and somehow cuts him open. The only time I was ever remotely nervous and tense was when the disgusting, flabby white mayor is walking around totally naked with nothing but a towel hanging around his neck which just barely covers him up. You keep saying \"Cut away...cut away...cut away\" but by the time they do, you are already emotionally scarred.

The movie is ridiculous in every way imaginable. Moore as Dolemite, is either funny, cool, or both. If you're on the lookout for a bad movie, you have found it with \"Dolemite.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love the so-called \"blaxploitation\" films and have seen dozens. Some, such as COTTON COMES TO HARLEM, SHAFT and HAMMER have excellent production values and are very entertaining, while many others are very cheap and silly, but still entertaining, such as BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH or COFFEY. However, DOLEMITE manages something rare for the genre--it's just cheap and silly and not the least bit entertaining! It's like blaxploitation made for very, very stupid people.

Years ago, I saw a takeoff on the Dolemite films on \"Mad TV\" and unfortunately, the real DOLEMITE isn't any better. Like the parody, the acting is just atrocious. Rudy Ray Moore has all the charm and charisma of a piece of balsa wood. He can barely read his lines and his \"karate\" is a joke--with his kicks obviously missing the target again and again. As for the rest of the actors, many might be even worse. My favorite was the FBI guy who couldn't even remember his lines and really struggled to get them out--yet they didn't even bother to re-film these scenes! In fact, so much of it was inept that I had a hard time figuring out whether the film was intended as a joke.

If you think that despite horrible acting and action that there is something worth seeing about this film, you're wrong. Even for the perverts out there hoping to see some skin, will be disappointed. The naked women in the film really do look like hard-luck prostitutes and there's nothing remotely sexy about their sagging bodies. I think looking at old people naked--REEEAALLY old people naked--is no worse than looking at these \"ladies\". And as for Rudy Ray, he has \"man boobs\". No Black super-hero or anti-hero should look that bad naked!! For goodness sakes, put on your clothes people and come up with a script that doesn't look like it was written by winos!!!

FYI--Apparently, there are actually sequels to this film!! I can't imagine watching them, so you'll just have to find someone else to review them. I have watched PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE and ROBOT MONSTER, but I just don't think I can bring myself to see another Dolemite film--they are that bad!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's so fake! The plot seems like a generic adaptation of the average blaxploitation film. The common themes of blaxploitation like racism, oppression and fighting for the integrity of your community are outlined so simplistically\/shallowly. And the jokes aren't even funny! Dolemite does these stand up monologue comedy routines that are really painful. All the people around him deliver this canned laughter. Even the soundtrack sounds like it's fakin' the funk. For far better comedy in a blaxploitation try \"Coffy\" & \"Friday Foster\" with Pam Grier. For a more realistic blax experience try \"Black Heat\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a Bruce Campbell fan for nearly two decades, I was thrilled to have an opportunity to see his latest film on the big screen with the man himself in attendance. Unfortunately, \"Man with the Screaming Brain\" was itself a disappointment.

Set in Bulgaria--where the Sci-Fi Channel makes its Saturday night original films--\"Man with the Screaming Brain\" is a curious mix of '50s B-movie horror, body-switching comedy, violent revenge flick, and overdone slapstick with a touch of romantic reconciliation. If that doesn't make sense, well, neither does \"Man with the Screaming Brain.\" Campbell plays a pharmaceutical company CEO who visits Bulgaria with his estranged wife in an inexplicable attempt to invest in the former Communist country's half-finished subway system. The two fall in with a former KGB agent turned cab driver, and all three ultimately meet their demise at the hands of a vengeful gypsy woman.

A local scientist (Stacy Keach) and his goofy assistant (Ted Raimi), who have developed a technique to allow tissue transplants without the possibility of rejection, steal the bodies and place a portion of the cab driver's brain into Campbell's damaged skull. Also, they put his wife's brain into a robotic body they just happen to have at hand.

Campbell escapes, and with a hastily-restitched skull and the voice of the cab driver--whose transplanted brain tissue controls the left side of his body--echoing in his head, sets off to find and kill the gypsy. (His robot wife does the same.)

But first, there's an attempt to emulate Steve Martin\/Lily Tomlin's \"All of Me\" when Campbell's two personalities battle for dominance over a restaurant dinner. Just as he was playing his own evil hand in \"Evil Dead II,\" Campbell is adept at making his body appear to be inhabited by more than one mind.

At times, \"Screaming\" comes closest to another Steve Martin film, \"The Man with Two Brains,\" as it also takes a silly approach to '50s sci-fi clich\u00e9s. However, it tries too hard for too little result, and that goes double for Ted Raimi's semi-comprehensible Bulgarian oaf, who gets entirely too much screen time. (Nothing against Raimi, it's just that he's better in smaller doses.)

In the end, it's neither outrageous (or funny) enough to satisfy as a spoof, nor is it serious enough to enjoy as a B-movie pastiche. I was glad that Campbell had already left the screening by the time it ground to a halt, as I feared having to say, \"Gee, Bruce, that was really...something.\"

Perhaps the best praise I can give it as a film is that at least the images stuck to the emulsion. And it was twice as good as \"Alien Apocalypse.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Written by, directed by and starring the champ of camp Bruce Campbell. Easy on its easy to tell this is a budget on a shoestring affair; filmed independently in Bulgaria. All I can really say for sure is that silly is not always funny. Campbell plays an affluent American business man with a cheating wife(Antoinette Byron)and trying to close a business transaction before he is murdered. He hires a cabbie to drive him around a strange little town; not knowing that his wife is 'carrying on' with the taxi driver. Within moments of Campbell being bludgeoned; the cabbie is killed in the same location. A mad scientist(Stacy Keach)proceeds with an experiment putting the cabbie's brain inside the American's head. With massive stitches on his forehead, Campbell breaks free and roams the streets looking for his wife; all the while he is arguing with a strange voice inside his over-sized head. Campbell contorts his rubbery face making silly expressions as he argues with himself. Thus, Bruce is doing what he does best and no doubt his many fans will be pleased. I get the impression this must have been written as a straight comedy. Rounding out the cast are Ted Raimi, Tamara Gorski, and Vladmir Kolev. Watch for this on the Sci-Fi Channel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm 35. Bruce was THE man in Evil Dead, and I still love to watch ED1 and ED2. It was cool also to see him as The King two or three years ago in Bubba Ho Tep in which he showed versatility and great acting talent. But this Screaming Brain adventure is certainly not for Bruce's early fans. Either I'm getting too old for this sh17, or I'm just not part of Bruce's target audience anymore. I'm positive kids age 9 to 13 will love this film. But this over extended matin\u00e9e sci-fi comedy contains about 5 minutes total of interesting moments, and the rest is cheap kids slapstick humor. Campbell better talk seriously with Sam Raimi and get their brains screaming together for a last Evil Dead reunion picture to get back my interest. At least there would be a good director behind the camera... Sorry Bruce, this just doesn't cut it for me. Take care.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My brain was screaming \"why do you keep watching! Turn it off and go to bed!\" But couch potatoness won out, and I watched until the predictable ending. I guess when it's Bruce Campbell I need to give it a chance.

I find it hard to complain about a low budget movie purely because of the low budget... time and time again we see low budget movies proving that a good story, good writing and good acting are enough to make a good movie. Ted and Bruce got their start on just such a movie, but they didn't seem to learn from Sam that it takes a bit more than slapping it on film to make a movie.

It's sad, too, because Bruce has always been a favorite. After the 70's and 80's, I just can't believe movies this bad are still being made. Bruce, I'm really disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Guys, what can I tell you? I'm Bulgarian. I can't remember how many times I talk to Americans and let alone that they don't have a slightest clue where is Bulgaria, but they say things like: \"There's a war going on there, right?\" or \"I've never imagined that in a place like Bulgaria people have Internet\" Go watch Bruce Campbell's \"The Man With The Screaming Brain\". I was curious about this movie, cause 1) I'm Bruce Campbell fan - \"Evil Dead\" trilogy and \"The Adventures of Brisco County Jr.\" 2) The movie was shot entirely on location in Bulgaria, the second after \"Alien Apocalypse\" which is also nearly unwatchable. 3) I enjoy nice B-movies

Well... The movie presents our country like a never-ending Gypsy Town where they raid your car, wave around illegal guns, and you can get killed any moment. And Bruce's line \"Bull$h1t Bulgaria\" is more than offending.

Ted Raimi and Stacy Ceach make a great team, Bruce does his special - beats himself up and that's all. Nothing more to see here.

Peoeple give this movie 10 just because of Bruce's cult status, but it doesn't deserve more than 3. Waste of film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just saw this movie last night at a midnight sneak preview screening (I work for an independent theatre chain in Colorado - it's one of the perks)...I'm sorry, but this is one of THE WORST movies I've ever seen! I know that there are some Bruce Campbell fanatics out there who (like Star Wars die-hards) will string you up from the nearest tree if you DARE speak any ill of their beloved cinematic icon...nevertheless, Campbell-teers, this particular work from The Chin is a celluloid black hole.

Before you make any assumptions that I'm some hoity-toity film buff who only watches \"real\" movies like \"Ladies in Lavender\" and \"Sideways\", think again - I'm a huge fan of B-movies, and Bruce Campbell in particular. His trademark character Ash is one of my favorites, and his portrayal of the aging Elvis in Bubba Ho-Tep was phenomenal.

But hey, B-movies still have the potential to be reeeeally, reeeeally bad (and not in that \"good\" campy way we all love)...and that's what watching this particular one was like for me and my fellow co-workers. With the exception of that one tracking shot where Bruce runs through the square and scares the kids, there were no laughs to be had. Overall, we found the story to be mind-numbingly stoopid, the pacing mollasses-like, and the so-called humor dumber than a bag of hammers. (I'm sorry, but Ted Raimi's \"Pavel\" character was not comic relief...he was just plain retarded!) Believe me, we all went into this really wanting to like it, but left feeling incredibly disappointed and robbed of two hours.

If you absolutely loved this movie, plan to see it multiple times, want to marry and have kids with it, etc., that's fantastic - we all like what we like, so you get no judgement from me. But don't go questioning the sense of humor or fan loyalty of those who aren't having multiple orgasms over Campbell's latest cinematic coupe. This flick was a steaming turd sandwich in my humble opinion...and as a true Campbell fan, I'm allowed to say that!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I enjoy B movies. I think Bruce Campbell is a very watchable actor. I love how he delivers his lines. 'Evil Dead 2 and 'Army of Darkness' were great movies. I liked 'Running Time'. However, I don't know if I'll ever watch this movie again...and I bought it. Now, after saying that, I bet the commentary tracks and special features will be worth watching! This movie just has far too many holes for me to actually enjoy, even as a cheapo movie. First off, Ted Raimi was annoying, just flat out annoying. There was nothing to his badly acted \/ written character that hasn't been done better a thousand times before. The directing sadly was sub par and the choice of some shots...yikes. I don't expect Woody Allen or James Cameron here, but Campbell did not deliver.

I did not purchase this thinking it was going to be an Oscar movie like 'Annie Hall', but still I'm disappointed. I would have been happy with 'Mallrats' or 'The Rhino Brothers'. I got much less. By the end of the movie there were no scenes that popped out to me, no dialogue that resonated within me. Even 'Hostel' had a classic line for petes sake! I do not recommend this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lets get one thing out of the way. I am a HUGE Bruce Campbell fan, I have the Evil Dead series, have the action figures, and have seen Bubba Ho-Tep. I am a fan of cheesy, laughable horror flicks and know how to appreciate the whole \"it's so bad it's good\" deal.

I wish I could say the same about this movie. I watched this movie with high expectations, I wanted it to be good, campy, something from the BC we have all come to know and love. It started out promising enough, but after the first 20 minutes I resided to watching the rest of this sorry excuse of a movie as if I had just been shot with tranquilizer darts.

The idea itself isn't a bad one; two men, don't get along, both killed by the same psycho woman, half of one man's brain is transplanted into the other's head, they argue, disagree and the comedy ensues.

What killed me is how extremely unorganized and boring it was! It had potential, even as a camp flick to be so much better than it was. The plot was boring, even Bruce's zany physical slap stick couldn't make it work.

Word's cannot even properly express the ridiculous robot that Bruce's wife's brain ends up getting put into. Easily the worst looking robot I have ever seen anywhere (even for a B movie.) The whole idea is dumb.

What the hell was going through Bruce's mind when he made this steaming pile is beyond me. Why Ted Raimi didn't go running to his big brother asking him to slap some sense into Bruce and not to mention some lessons about making an enjoyable movie on a budget is beyond me.

Shame on you Bruce!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man with the Screaming Brain is a story of greed, betrayal and revenge in the a small Bulgarian town. William Cole, wealthy industrialist, winds up with part of his brain replaced by that of a Russian cab driver Yegor. The two couldn't be more different, but they share one thing - both were killed by the same woman. Brought back to life by a mad scientist, William and Yegor form an unlikely partnership to track down their common nemesis.

Bruce Campbell returns to the B horror movie genre that gave him his cult status, this time not only in front of the screen, but behind the lens. Unfortunately for this time around, the laughs don't deliver and Campbell has to resort to what he does best to try and fill the gap in this film.

As a fan of Campbell, who has the movies, the books and the action figures, I was hoping for another hit to add to my collection. Although, after seeing this film before the purchase, I am glad that I don't have the \"pleasure\" of adding it.

The film first goes wrong in the story, which at first sight, seems like harmless fun but turns out to be boring drawn out dribble. Which is a sad thing to say because it was written by Mr. Campbell himself. The comedy never really hits, it only makes us scratch our heads. It seems that Campbell ran out of things that are funny and resulted in giving the audience what we've already seen...him fighting himself.

Ted Raimi, the brother of Evil Dead director Sam Raimi, is undoubtedly the highlight of the film. He brings a freshness to it and an entertaining time when the film really needs it. It helps if you are a fan and have been following these stooges from Evil Dead to Xena, which is why I felt compelled to like this film.

Campbell's experience as a director, from directing episodes of the TV series Hercules is apparent. Campbell makes the film work well enough, even with the low-budget. In the end, there aren't as many things going for this as one would hope for, but the fans of Campbell will stick behind it no matter what, unfortunately for this fan...I won't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This could have been a great movie with plenty of educational potential for teachers around the world about evolution, biology, the creative work in science, research and Darwin's life, but it is not.

The screenplay is mostly historically inaccurate and transforms a true story into a Mexican soup-opera melodrama. While it is true that Darwin gradually lost his religious beliefs, this was in great part due to his findings during the voyage of the Beagle and not solely due to the loss of his daughter. He was certainly disturbed by his loss, but that did not made him literally insane, delusional and detached from his friends and family. The such portrayal of Darwin is an invention of the script writer. Thus it cannot be used in any way as place to learn a bit about Darwin's life and psyche. According to most historians, Darwin had the theory ready by the end of the Beagle voyage, and kept it from going public because he wanted to develop further the consequences of it and check against more data. In the movie, it is an imaginary conflict of Darwin with his religious beliefs and the mental illness that he developed after his daughter's death that kept him from going public.

The movie brings a modern situation, the creationists vs scientists debate, into the life and times of Darwin, thus it is anachronistic. It depicts Thomas Huxley not as a man trying to develop further understanding of biology but as someone eager to \"kill God\", in his own words from the movie, and destroy the church, who would accept the theory of evolution for such purposes and not because it was a synthesis of plenty of disconnected data. Huxley is presented as a very arrogant and insensible person, a combination that I interpret was an attempt to ridicule active atheists who speak up against religion. In real life, Huxley accepted Darwin's ideas after publication only gradually, and before the work of Darwin he thought that there was not enough evidence to support evolution. His first support of evolution was published one month after the Origin of Species became public. He was agnostic but did not think it was necessary \"to kill God\", only thought that there was not enough evidence to believe in the supernatural. The debate creationists vs scientists appears throughout the movie, and creationists catch-phrases such as \"It is only a theory\" are part of the discussion. Of course, no such dispute or catch-phrases existed at that time. In fact, the Anglican Church published a positive review of the Origin's saying that they saw God's work in evolution, in some sense, quite in fact in contradiction to the way that the clergy is portrayed in the screenplay.

Another awful aspect of this movie is that it gives the wrong impression to the general public that scientific research is done by a solitary crazy man who just writes a lot. Nothing could be further from the truth. The conception of the theory of evolution was the result of thorough observations of living forms by Darwin during five years in the HMS Beagle, and was developed gradually as it can be seen from Darwin's notes of the voyage. Even though the Beagle voyage was the sole most important part of Darwin's life to the conception of \"Origin of Species\", the voyage is briefly mentioned only once at the beginning, and no attempt is made to show that the book came as an elaborate analysis of observations. To make it worse, Darwin is shown performing a single experiment (pigeon breeding) to test his theory and, in the end, quits it. And I'm not really sure whether such experiment did actually occur.

Great disappointment. It is not in any way a homage to Darwin and science.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can remember reading that Darwin had a pivotal experience in the Galapagos islands, seeing the vast range of animal life there, and intern, penned his theory of evolution. Not according to this movie-it was inspired by the British countryside. OK, and as John Cleese would say-Right-. I also did not think that Darwin was a man suffering from deep personal conflict and someone who suffered dark reveries and flights of anguish. According to this film he was. It is sad that he apparently lost one of his daughters to illness, but I don't think him losing a family member would have impacted on the mans scientific abilities very much. Well, not according to...you get the picture. I think there is nothing worse than when science gets turned into fable, and to an extent this film comes off as trying to debunk evolutionary theory by saying it came from a man who was emotionally unstable, which to me, is just plain gross. I think Charles Darwin was the soul of scientific enquiry, cool and calm, and always thinking logically. This film seeks to dramatize the undramatic and sensationalize clear headed scientific exploration. It is like a Canterbury Tale. I would not recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How to take Charles Darwin's fantastic intellectual journey and turn it into a chick flick. His pivotal and seminal ideas and their radical influence on Western thought and capitalist society are untouched except for two brief scenes, in one of which it is claimed he is \"killing God\"; pure demagoguery to make the movie emotional. And the rest of the movie buckles to that purpose: it consists entirely of melodramatic and long family scenes with overloud music at which one is beholden to cry. Anyone who actually read \"Origin Of Species\" would be vividly aware that there was no breach with God in any of Darwin's work; to the contrary, there was an increased awe and respect, and a revolutionary new way of looking at things. A good movie about Darwin could be educational, thoughtful, and deeply inspiring, even in a religious sense - but that would contradict the soap-opera intentions of this flick. This is a flick that is designed to make people wail in contrived sympathy and then feel transformed although unable to understand why; it makes fast use of Darwin's great name only as marketing clout, as one would drop a famous name at a party to create an impression. Sad that the sets and costumes are so good: production values, except for the writing, were obviously high. See it if you want to weep, for the loss of intelligence in American literature.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"what a waste of a film once again the film industry does not trust to make a film that could have been just about the man's ideas. there is virtually nothing on his theories or evolution, instead the most boring story of home life and relationship with one daughter, a ponderous script, great liberties taken with Darwin's life, dialogue given to his character that i find hard to believe he would have voiced. Darwin never gave up his believe in a higher power, he may not quite rightly have believed in the established Christian idea of God , but was not an atheist. which this film implies. what would have been a riveting and much better film, is if they had started with the publication of On the Origin of Species and constructed a story of the great revolution that entailed, and of an amazing cast of characters involved on all sides. instead we got a plodding, boring drama, mostly made up, a great injustice","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wish I could tell you that this film is as exciting as the theories it espouses. But I can't. Another species could have come and mutated while I waited for some action. For such a controversial man, Darwin lived the most conventional life. If you didn't know about the mad theories, you could almost mistake him for a stamp collector.

The film-makers have cast Darwin as a dullard which does him a disservice. Even when he briefly loses his mind due to his tireless theorising, it wasn't interesting to watch. Maybe great thinkers are dull people? I don't know what I was expecting: a forehead-banging eccentric with wild hair and eyes espousing his love of all things simian, the glint of madness straining from a furrowed brow? A long-haired hermit who babbled to animals? A head-cradling lunatic with eyes lit up like beacons of truth? All of the above would have been great. This is the movies for Scorsese's sake.

But there was none of that. No lightning, no thunder, no wonder, no awe. Just Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly fresh from the Subtle as Breath School of Method Acting. I imagine that someone with Darwin's ideas had a brain like a speeding train so why did this film just pootle along - chug chug chug - like a slow winter? The disappointment is immeasurable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had high hopes going to see this, as I always enjoy Paul Bettany's performances. I thought he was very good as Darwin, and did his best considering the terrible material he had to work with.

Darwin's book On the Origin of Species was one of the most ground-breaking, controversial and innovative publications ever, yet you'd never think it based on this tedious movie. It's like a two-hour episode of a soap opera in a Victorian setting. There is virtually nothing about Darwin's five-year voyage on The Beagle to the Galapagos Islands, for example, surely of supreme significance to the story, as it was from his investigations of the wildlife thereon that he began to form his theory of evolution.

This is just one long, dreary, domestic drama, with Darwin portrayed as a slightly loopy eccentric, seeing visions of his dead daughter everywhere and being given the cold shoulder by his emotionally-constipated wife. Jennifer Connelly's portrayal of Emma Darwin is nothing short of awful and bears little relation to historical descriptions of the real Emma. There could have been an opportunity here to present the creationist interpretation of life on earth, from either Emma or from the local priest, as played by Jeremy Northam (a blink-and-you'd-miss-it part which is a complete waste of a talented actor) to act as a counterbalance to Darwin's views, but it wasn't taken up.

The story focused too much on endless mawkish sentiment about Darwin's grief for his daughter Annie, and too much time was also wasted in Darwin wondering whether or not to write his book. Eventually I was so bored it was difficult to care.

All in all, this was a bit like making a movie about Picasso and spending two hours concentrating on him having a fight with his girlfriend and not bothering to mention that he was an artist.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must say that I wasn't impressed at all, probably because I was expecting much more from this movie. Maybe an accent on religion vs science or on the meaning of life, not just a few lines. So, if you expect something to think about after you see this movie, don't. It's more psychological than philosophical. I vote 4 because of the end, it clears up a bit and because I have a great respect for BBC documentaries. There are a couple of very interesting scenes that actually gave some sense. It was a brilliant idea to add it in a movie related to theory of evolution, too bad that this wasn't the main subject. Ah, I just forgot to say that for more than 1 hour, the movie is quite boring and in a way, cruel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the movie is precious, and cage is a babe.

but will anyone agree with me in saying that the punk representation in this movie is ATROCIOUS?!?!

where's the clash? the ramones?? misfits? social distortion? the cramps?? sex pistols?! ANYONE?!?!?!?! the music is this movie is incredibly disappointing! at LEAST they play the cure.

plus, randy's feathered hair and pleated khakis...

this definitely looks like a movie about \"punks\" the way that a bunch of movie industry squares see punks.

although it's a 90's movie, SLC punk paints a much more accurate picture of the punk rock scene in the early 1980's. just sayin'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How can anyone even begin to like this film is really beyond me.

The idea? It has none. \"A guy fell apart\". That's the idea. Wow. An environment was slowly killing him... now THAT's original and worth watching.

This is the first Fasbinder's film I've seen... I've heard that he's a genius of mise-en-scene, but I've seen student films with more attention, inspiration, idea, and craft than this... this.... this nothing. It has nothing!

Each and every shot is too long. There's so much emptiness in them... The acting's horrible. You can see the actors had no preparation at all, no understanding of their roles, not even an attempt at showing emotions... it's so... superficial... The lines are so explicative that you could removed 90% of them and still have the same crappy film. Tempo? Who cares about it. Atmosphere, dynamics, that's for pussies! One shot per scene, 80% of the time people staring unrealistically, having no idea how to represent emotions and importance of the moment besides hollow staring at the camera or one another... EDiting? All rules of editing have been disregarded with no pa pay-off of any kind... Photography? Half of the shots have reflection in them, and crappy lighting with no stylization of any kind. Shadows, play of shadows... who needs that? We need a guy pissing, drinking, hitting his wife like he's... like he's acting. We need a bunch of close ups of a not-so-beautiful woman... we need an amateurish climax of his capture by an unconvincing arabian torturer... This film has so much wrongs that it isn't worth the no-budget it had.

Frankly, I haven't seen a film this bad since American Pie 5. Yup. That bad.

I've just started watching his \"Veronica Foss\" movie, which seems much better, based on the first 15 minutes (since it does have a hint of directing and artistic idea, unlike this crap), so I won't argue that Fasbinder's clueless.... but this.... this film SUCKS!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The filmmakers apparently had enough money to be able to afford decent makeup effects, but not enough for a creature that would move around and attack convincingly. We never get a chance to see the \"monster\" move from one place to another - whenever that happens (supposedly), the camera focuses on the \"terrified\" reactions of the humans that are nearby. And when a man is attacked by it, he simply seems to be holding an inanimate object against himself so that it won't fall to the ground. This is still not the worst \"Alien\" rip-off around (the two \"Xtro\" films are even worse, for example); it's actually sufficiently entertaining if you've got 68 (!!) minutes to spare. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am the kind of person who can enjoy a good B Movie if it has some kind of redeeming value to it, but Dead Space has nothing to redeem it! This is the kind of film that will make you frustrated, restless and sick to your stomach.

Bad acting. Lame story. Terrible effects. Horrible, excruciating dialogue. Dead Space has it all!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alien was excellent. Many writers tried to copy it. They all did a bad job (or almost). But Dead Space is the worst Alien copy. Because of the bad actors, the bad special effects, the BAD scenario and other bad stuff (it would take about 3 pages to tell everything that is bad in this film. The movie wasn't very long and this is a very good thing (the only one). You cannot laugh because it is too serious...that is a bad thing because, in almost each B-series sci-fi film, you can laugh during the whole time. It can be terrific sometimes, but instead of watching this stupidity, just watch Alien or Event Horizon...these are much better!!! I give it 1 out of 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Less than two hundred and fifty years ago, the last of the great pirates wrote their names in blood and fire across the pages of maritime history. This is the story of a buccaneer Captain whose name for one short year struck terror in the hearts of seafarers and merchants from the ports of the Caribbean to the trading houses of London.....

Hmm, that opening to the film sounds like we are in for one hell of a swashbuckling, pillaging, ripper of a movie doesn't it? Well it's not. Tho it's not totally without value as a curio piece. Out of 20th Century Fox, Anne Of The Indies is adapted by Philip Dunne & Arthur Caesar from a short story written by Herbert Ravenel Sass. Direction is by Jacques Tourneur, the score is by Franz Waxman and Harry Jackson is providing the Technicolor photography. Jean Peters is in the titular title role of Anne {AKA Captain Providence} and support comes from Louis Jourdan, Debra Paget, Herbert Marshall, Thomas Gomez & James Robertson Justice.

Originally meant to be be based on true life pirate Anne Bonny, the film ultimately turns out to be a tale of a woman seeking identity, and finding herself, in the predominantly male led world of piracy and sea based shenanigans. Filled with clich\u00e9s and over familiar set pieces, the film also suffers from a cast that is largely misfiring. Peters gives it a right good go, and Paget lights up the screen with effervescent beauty. While Robertson Justice, although underused, actually looks the part and doesn't overact like the rest of the male cast does. Some reviewers have desperately tried to dig deep into the film to find intelligence and hidden meanings, purely because it's Tourneur in the directing chair. But there is no depth here, this is merely a job for Tourneur, a professional one granted, but its thinly plotted and actually lacking swash to go with the buckle in the action stakes.

Disposable at best. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After the turning point of NIGHT MUST FALL, Robert Montgomery (for the most time) came into his finest films and performances: HERE COMES MR. JORDAN, THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, THE LADY IN THE LAKE, RIDE THE PINK HORSE, THE SAXON CHARM, JUNE BRIDE. Even some of the failures he was in were interesting enough to be still watchable (RAGE IN HEAVEN, MR. AND MRS. SMITH). But Montgomery wanted to do more and more production and directing work. In 1949 he made what would be his last movie performance - he played Collier Lang, an egotistical movie star, who is dragged into helping the authorities do an investigation about a young girl's boyfriend.

Apparently my view of this film is a minority view. Most of the views given are favorable about it. I thought it was a dull, witless script, with Ann Blyth's groupie heroine not very appealing as a character. She admires Montgomery as a star, and this \"helps\" when he is called in to assist the authorities, but after awhile I found there was no chemistry between them. The script was also devoid of much fun, although Montgomery and Roland Winters did try. The only thing I recall to this day as a joke point was that Taylor Holmes is the wealthy father of Blyth, and he is an admirer of Winston Churchill. So he always dresses up as Churchill, and we see him wearing a floppy broad brimmed hat, smoking a large cigar, and painting (Holmes' bald head helps in the disguise). That was the most memorable joke from this film - not much of a real memory.

Montgomery went into early television, and finally won the attention and respect he always had deserved in motion pictures. His last contact with the movies was his direction of THE GALLANT HOURS about Admiral William \"Bull\" Halsey, starring his friend Jimmy Cagney. It is a far better film than this. For his overall film and television career, I will give this mediocre film a \"4\". That strikes me as generous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Poor second-string feature from Universal Pictures about a mama's boy movie actor doing criminal investigation work for the military, fending off the advances of the brash young woman he's been assigned to romance. Robert Montgomery directed and stars in this adaptation of the short story \"Come Be My Love\", and his acting performances of this era are unrelievedly lazy. The plot is sappy, predictable stuff, and writer Robert Carson has given all the really funny lines (as usual for films of this period) to the feisty black maid. It's always nice to see Ann Blyth and Jane Cowl in support, but they can't do much with this hokey material. * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The One is a very aptly name show, mostly because it comes close to being the only network shows on in prime time that barely more than one person is watching.

When I first heard of The One, I thought to myself \"Weee!! Another sing-song show! We don't have enough of those!\" and then proceeded to strap on my helmet and run about my home hitting my head on blunt objects and sharp corners. Because in all honesty, the constant, year round pain and suffering inflicted by having only one or two \"talent\" based reality shows running just isn't enough. We needed another one. And not just any one - \"THE\" One. The one with slightly less attractive contestants with slightly less talent. The one with slightly less of a point, though it's hard to imagine a scenario in which that's possible. The one with pointless footage of the contestants when they're not performing included. Because I care what Johnny Sings-a-lot does in his off hours! I really do! Now, you may be thinking \"Hey! On the entire continent of North America less than 4 million people watched the first episode. Doesn't that mean this show sucks?\" Well, to that I say less than 4 million people in North America have syphilis, so sometimes low numbers bring good news now don't they?. Think about it.

In the end, The One may be horribly unoriginal, a show that even the airing network couldn't be bothered to promote because they too realize how absolutely worthless it is, but it's still not syphilis! Yay!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No surprise except in how quickly ABC reacted to the dismal ratings. According to published reports (Variety) the show garnered the worst ratings in the history of the ABC television network.

And I quote: ABC's music talent competition \"The One\" opened Tuesday night to cancel-me-now ratings.

The article went on to say that the show received a \"shockingly low 1.1 rating\/3 share in adult 18-49 and 3.08 million viewers overall.\"

That makes it the weakest premiere for any reality show on any network and also below all series bows in ABC history.

From the first moment I saw the commercials for this I knew it would fail. We don't need another American Idol clone. But ABC should have given this show a fair chance to succeed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the weeks and weeks of promotion for this, ABC's \"The One\" was supposed to be \"The Real World\" meets \"American Idol.\" We were to watch these singers perform, compete and see how they lived together in a house as well. The Drama! The Tension!

Where does one begin with this atrocity? Let's start with the \"judges\" who were known as \"Music Experts\" on this program. \"Experts\" implies they have expertise. Andre Harrell at least had a pedigree. He was in charge of Motown Records for a time. The other two... eh. Kate Hudson's uncle, who could have been labeled Mr. Weird Beard. He dyed his facial hair three distinctly different florescent colors. I wonder how scary he would have been with a black light! And The Paula Abdul wannabe, who did something I didn't think could happen: she was even more gushing and cloying than Paula! She then over corrected and became harshly critical after the first episode. The farce of \"critiques\" that these three offered was a true joke and an insult, not only to the process of finding the best singer, but to the audience that is now quite savvy, already having done this numerous times on Fox.

There was the host. George Stroumboulopoulos was no Ryan Seacrest. In fact, he was as lackluster as can be. He actually sucked what little energy there was in the program, dry. How he got that job was the second biggest mystery of the show.

The first was how did they pick the 11 competitors for this program? This was literally a talent-free talent show. OK. Perhaps that's an exaggeration. And granted, the performers all have to be relatively close in ability, because if they were not, there wouldn't be a \"contest.\" If only one person was \"good,\" there would be no \"suspense.\" So, I get that they all needed to be comparable. But they all should have had *some* chops! Additionally, the judges were running a \"Singing Academy,\" so the program was part \"Fame,\" as well. Clearly these performers desperately needed those lessons. But you need some extremely talented people to teach those with little talent to be talented. And that definitely wasn't what was happening here.

It seemed in casting the show, the priority was on the \"homelife\" elements, as all of the players were very attractive to look at, in equal parts to how badly they vocalized. But the filmed segments in their house were so chopped and sliced, you couldn't get into the stories that were starting to happen, so the show didn't capture the events there, either.

As badly devised as all of that was, \"The One\" had an incredible, unbelievable, fatal design flaw built into the results that made it completely laughable.

The audience phoned in their votes for who they liked the best, just like on \"AI.\" But then, after the audience vote was revealed, the bottom three contestants were forced to sing a final song. The \"music experts,\" based on that performance, chose one person from the three to save for the following week. And THEN, the contestants who were safe got to vote for who they wanted to keep from the remaining two, sending the remaining contestant home.

The \"design flaw\" was that the contestants had the final say. I mean, if you were in a music competition and you wanted to get as far along the path as you could, would you vote to KEEP the better singer, or would you try to get rid of your toughest rival? Any first season viewer of CBS's \"Survivor\" could answer that one! And that's exactly what happened on the program. The person who had the better potential was lost, and the contestants voted back \"the one\" who had no talent at all! On top of that, the contestant who was just saved from the bottom by the \"experts\" was also allowed to vote against the remaining two! It was a complete farce!

Maybe if they let the contestants vote first, at least the \"experts\" would save the better of two evils to finish. But this just confirms how not ready this show was for broadcast, how unsatisfying the whole process was to view and how misguided the producers were in attempting it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I a huge fan of when it comes to Doctor Who series and still am, But I was very disappointed when i began to watch this new series.

Children under the age of 15, or even better under the age of 10 will probably will enjoy it the best, and possibly new fans who haven't seen any of the original series, But as far as fans of the original series, will find this series missing much of the charm the made the original series so great, It took David Tennant to get me to Appreciate how Much better Christoper Eccellestion was as a Doctor in the 1st season.

I would only recommend this series for people who haven't seen much of the original series, people who are under 15, and EXTREMELY DIE HARD who fans, everyone else will just get a laugh and mumble curse words about Russel T. Davies screwed up one of our favorite TV shows.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rose \u0096 Does anything actually happen in this episode? It introduces our two leads, a slow-witted grinning idiot of a Doctor and an utterly un-interesting companion. There's no plot to speak of, childish humour, mixed with some extremely bad pacing and incidental music. What else is there to say, really?

The End of the World \u0096 A marginal improvement, in that we see our first outer-space scenario. Subsequently brought down by poor contemporary humour, paper-thin logic, very poor pacing, and tired SF clich\u00e9s.

The Unquiet Dead \u0096 Best episode to date showing what can happen when someone knows how to structure an episode, write interesting character dialogue, AND integrate an intriguing plot. Let down solely by the Doctor and Rose.

Aliens of London\/World War Three - Doctor who degenerates into farce. What more can be said. Penelope Wilton brings the proceedings a little gravity, trying her best in dire circumstances. Some poorly written, and out-of-place soap opera elements come to the fore in these two episodes, and a return to poor pacing, bad plotting and cringe worthy humour\/satire.

Dalek \u0096 Not great, however still far above the RTD fare to date. The pacing and script are all fine (though the Doctor and Rose still irritate). The effects and menace of the Dalek are introduced well. The finale, however, took an interesting premise that reduced the Doctor's most notorious foe, into a cuddly touchy-feely mess, and turning a previously un-seen menace, to a blue rubber squid that looked like a child's toy.

The Long Game - The first RTD script to show any plot, even if it was in a clich\u00e9d 80s style. Still, it was marred somewhat by his usual over-reliance on juvenile jokes, placing it too far in the future to make logical sense, and again poor pacing. Not as bad as his previous efforts, but instantly forgettable.

Father's Day \u0096 The initial premise could've been vaguely interesting, but common sense and logic abandon this episode from the very beginning. Also, we are treated to a whole episode of Soap Opera. Before you start thinking this is all about characterization, remember, there's a big difference between lame Soap Opera and characterization. On the plus side, it does prove RTD isn't the worst script writer so far.

The Empty Child\/The Doctor Dances - This started off in a mediocre way, with some cringe worthy moments, and some illogical mistakes that even a primary school pupil wouldn't make (Well lit windows in a blackout, anyone?). After this, the first part takes a more interesting and sinister turn. Florence Hoath truly steals these episodes, showing us what an interesting companion could've been like. She could also act. Instead we get the annoying and politically correct Captain Jack as the new companion. The conclusion was a little hasty, but sufficient. The pacing and script improved with a reasonably good storyline, making these two episodes quite atmospheric and intriguing.

Boom Town - I have to be honest, except for a few examples, I had been so disillusioned by the current series, that upon seeing the trailer for another 'Slitheen' episode, I gave up and didn't subject myself to the torture.

Bad Wolf - Reality TV, arguably the worst facet of the modern media, is basically used as the premise. There's no subtlety whatsoever. Do we get any interesting social commentary as in the likes of The Running Man or Truman Show? No, of course not. This in an RTD episode, so they're basically here to cynically try and pull in the audience of said shows. Once again, logic goes out the window, as we're placed 200,000-something years in the future. RTD tries pointlessly to shoe-horn in some 'over-arcing' story here, with no relevance other than it's own existence and when the villains are revealed at the end... They make empty threats, and the Doctor grins once more like an idiot for the climax! Faster paced for the most part, than RTD's other efforts, this has one or two interesting moments. Otherwise, another lacklustre instalment.

The Parting of the Ways - The big finale. More of a damp squid, literally. All of the Dalek menace set up in 'Dalek' is brought crashing down, as they become rather pathetic. So many plot holes riddle this episode, with typically poor contrivances. Daleks want to harvest humans as Daleks, but then vaporize entire continents? Dalek's can vaporize said continents, but not destroy the Tardis in space? The Tardis is now indestructible and can land anywhere, even over people so they can be saved in it? This ability can't be used to easily destroy the Dalek 'god'? The Daleks can vaporize entire continents, but don't just nuke satellite 5 to destroy the doctor, and instead let him play around? The doctor is a pathetic coward without the conviction of his actions, after eradicating his whole species to try and eliminate the Daleks? These and many other holes aside, we are treated to the lamest dues ex machina solution ever conceived, joined with a near pointless story arc.

So what can we say about the new series, all-in-all?

Would this have gained a second series if it were anything other than Doctor Who, with RTD behind it? Would most of the episodes have been seen as anything other than un-original and forgettable, if they were anything other than Doctor Who, and had RTD's name attached? I think not.

Some people would have us think we can't say anything against RTD, since we owe him for bringing Doctor Who back to our screens. However, this at the expense of good characters and stories. Personally, I'd rather not have a poorly planned, ill conceived product, churned out at that price. I'd rather wait till someone could come along and make a genuine effort. For the most part, this is the kind of puerile rubbish that gives SF a bad name, marring what is otherwise the most creative genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To be fair, I didn't see a lot of this show. Probably because it wasn't as good as the original M*A*S*H, but I seem to recall them moving it around on the weekly schedule. Some shows just aren't worth the trouble of following around every week. But I really did try at first, so it wasn't all bad. Maybe I just kept expecting it to improve, but I can't give this show a 1. In all honesty, I can't give it any more than a 2 either.

It wasn't MASH (I'm not going to type those stupid *'s every time). And it was trying to be MASH without putting forth any effort, like it would just magically happen. Well guess what? No magic. The best I can do here is to compare it to other shows.

Trapper John, M.D. was a much better show by far. However, they should have called it B.J. Hunnicut, M.D. because Pernell Roberts looked exactly like an older BJ, but nothing at all like Trapper John. Keep everything else the same, just change his name and the name of the show. Presto! After MASH wasn't the only sequel to completely bomb and dishonor the original. Archie Bunker's Place was a lame follow-up to All In The Family. It had no heart, no conflict, no depth \u0096 all of the things that made All In the Family so memorable. Likewise, MASH was funny because the doctors were reacting to the impossible absurdity of war. Remove the war and you remove the drive for 99% of the humor. Potter can't yell at Klinger for wearing a dress, because Klinger isn't wearing a dress, because he's not trying to get kicked out of the Army, because he's already out of the Army, because the war is over. (breathe) All of the jokes became forced because there was no motivation for anything. The least motivated was the viewer, to stay around and watch the show.

And from what I remember, the whole show seemed to be Potter, Klinger, and Mulcahy just standing there unnaturally, facing the audience like a trio of Vaudeville performers. It was reminiscent of Good Times, where they spent 90% of the show standing behind that couch and talking to the audience, trying to make it look like they were having natural conversation. They weren't. And it felt even less natural on After MASH.

Another random tidbit I recall is that the people who made MASH never got any royalties from the spin-off. The studio used the absurd excuse that After MASH was really a spin-off of the movie MASH (which they owned) and not the TV series. Nice try, but Mulcahy was the only one of the three in the movie, and he was never deaf. I guess studio execs will do anything for a buck. Anything other than make a worthwhile sequel, that is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Every time I watch Larry King Live, he rolls out the most softball questions for his guests. He rarely gets any useful information because he doesn't ask the hard questions. This comes from his start on radio.

King established himself on the radio and basically has not changed one bit of the format for television except for his talking head being visible. He becomes like a puppy for his guests & the only time he really gets useful information from them is whee they volunteer it or a caller to the show actually asks a hard question.

Larry is a nice, fatherly type of interviewer. This means he should not have a prime time show on a major news network if you consider CNN one. I don't because of the history of CNN.

Copying (ie. Cable) New Network was started by Ted Turner as an alternative to network news in that it could broadcast news 24\/7. When it first started, the only TV competition was from NBC,ABC, & CBS. Because of this, CNN Copied the format of their competition & achieved respectable ratings.

This worked fine for CNN until they got competing networks which were innovative & provided better\/ fresher news coverage. In response to the heating up of competition, CNN went into denial & panned its competitors who were eating their lunch & ratings because CNN wanted to resist change. This didn't work very long & their ratings began to plummet.

Now the Copying News Network is trying to re mold itself by re-inventing itself by copying the leading news network format. Unfortunately, this show represents a big piece of the problem. It is 21 years old & showing it's age very badly.

Sorry to say, King needs to be moved out of Prime Time or scrapped altogether.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Larry is a perfect example of the Democratic Party in the United States, of which he is a staunch member. King used to be somewhat fair and unbiased and had a variety of guests on. The Party used to be centrist, too, but that was another era. Now, like, Larry, it's Far Left.

At least 90 percent of all the guests on King's show in the past year or two are Liberals who sit there and bash President Bush and every Conservative they can think of.....night after night. Bill Mahar, one of the more viscous ones, is - and you can look this up - the most frequent guest in the history of King's TV show. You can count on other outspoken Left Wingers to be on King's show each week, but don't hold your breath waiting for a Conservative. They are few and far between.

King was also one of the innovators of the media overkill. That all began with the O.J. Simpson trial. Night after night after night that's all you ever saw back in the mid '90s. Whatever latest gossip on Anna Nicole Smith, or the Petersen murder case, or Paris Hilton, Britney Spears or some other tabloid subject, you can bet Larry will beat it to death. Sadly, all the other networks do the same thing now. Larry was a leader in that regard.

King also has the nerve to sometimes give advice, such as on marriage. I am not kidding; I 've heard him say it. The joke is that he has been married and divorced a half dozen times! This man has few scruples, believe me. When it comes to morality, he is clueless. Maybe that's why he has Dr. Phil on, to explain some facts of life to him regularly. Larry will nod, but he doesn't understand any more than when Billy Graham used to talk to him.

King also is becoming famous for the \"softball\" interview, meaning he asks no hard questions. That is a lot due to the fact that most his guests are of his political persuasion. People know being on King's show is liking having an hour public relations gig.

What all this has meant is a serious decline in ratings the past five years. People see through him and his Liberal-and-tabloid-TV mentality and switched over from King and CNN to Fox News.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's describe Larry as an interviewer: a complete suckhole, in every way possible. He laughs at all his guests jokes, he asks the most boring questions and he would never dare contradict them. He hits me as the type of person who wants to be liked by...everyone. Friendly, boring, ol'predictable Harry. He probably owes his success to being a dream interviewer for celebrities because they don't get bombarded with what we, the people, want to know and have a right to know. Let's put it this way: he interviews as if he's in a red country. 02\/10, 2 for the guests that come on the show yet it all seems pointless when Larry starts asking his mind numbing questions such as \"What's it like to be a mother?\" followed by the usual answer along the lines of \"Being a mother is the greatest thing that ever happened to me: it's wonderful, but tiring\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't honestly believe that this is a sequel or follow up of John Landis classic comedy horror movie from 1981 . I suppose you can't really describe it as an original werewolf movie either since the bare bones of the story steal elements from the one set in London: An American tourist visits a famous European capital , he narrowly survives a werewolf attack that kills a colleague , he embarks ( Pardon the pun ) on a sexual relationship with someone in the medical profession , he turns into a werewolf , he's visited by apparitions of his dead victims , etc etc . and reading the previous line I've just discovered how much the storyline has in common with the original that it seems very similar indeed . The difference lies in how enjoyable and entertaining the Landis movie is

With this Paris based movie there's no scenes that really stand out . There's no naked man waking up in a zoo wondering how he's going to get back home with no money or clothes , there's no bizarre dream sequence of Naziwerewolves and there's no spectacular climax . AAWIP does try to be funny but is there anything more embarrassing than failed humour ? I'm thinking of the scene where Andy McDermott has to convince someone he's got chewing gum in his pocket and not condoms ! Perhaps the biggest difference between the two movies is that there's no poignancy involved with this dubious follow up . You really do feel sorry for the protagonist's fate and dilemma in the London movie , here you just feel Andy is nothing more than a cypher going through the literary motions of a script . There's also a large number of plot holes visible . Is this the first time The Lunar Club have carried out a massacre ? If not then aren't large numbers of corpses with their hearts torn out been reported in the world's press ? Why haven't the police got leads ?

Everyone else has mentioned it and so will I - The visuals are poor . Look at the bungee jumping scene at The Eifell Tower , it's painfully obvious that it's achieved via some blue screen projection while the werewolf transformation is done by some very cartoonish CGI . I won't put Anthony Waller in the same bracket as Stephen Sommers as a director who totally ruins a movie because of an over reliance on CGI ( The major problem with AAWIP is the screenplay coupled with a high degree of expectation from those who saw the 1981 movie classic ) but I would have preferred the Rick Baker type special effects used for the transformation . To be fair it's reasonable to speculate that perhaps the budget didn't stretch that far . But at the end of the day this is a fairly poor horror movie that didn't need to be made and DOG SOLDIERS is much better entertainment","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Woeful and unnecessary sequel to a bonafide classic. An American Werewolf in London was, indisputably, a gem of a movie: humorous, demented, with just a dash of romance and so very, very British it made me want to stand up and sing God Save the Queen every time the movie ended. Then came this abomination. You know you are in real trouble when the leads are so utterly unlikeable you are glad when they are slaughtered, and actually start cheering for the lycanthropes. Tell you the truth, folks, I only got about half way through this CGIed travesty before losing the will to live and turning it off. Absolutely pitiful and a putrid waste of anyone's time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once upon a time there was a great American film. Which combined horror and comedy with equal thrills. This film featured clever direction. Groundbreaking special effects and superb comedic and serious acting. It was entitled 'An American Werewolf in London.' Sixteen years later the long awaited sequel was finally pinned onto the poster board outside your local theater. Surely it would have at least some of the thrills of the original. Think again. 'An American Werewolf in Paris' is an incomprehensible mess from start to pitiful finish. The problems begin with the leading man. Tom Everett Scott's performance is stiff and tiresome. From the outset he seems intent on proving that all young people are simpletons. In his defense, not even a seasoned Shakespearean thespian could have extracted a good performance from the juvenile and witless dialogue. At one point, one of Scott's deceased friends, who's soul is doomed to walk the Earth after being carved up by one of the werewolves, Is finally able to leave for the afterlife. He then quips to Scott and his friends. 'Okay guys, see ya.' What a memorable goodbye. Julie Delphy soon shows up as Scott's mysterious European love interest. Basically, she's a French girl playing the French girl. It isn't much of a stretch. But all this stupidity isn't even the most disappointing thing about the film. The special effects, such an integral part of the superb original film, fall far short in this flop. The werewolves look like cartoons. And no matter how well you sculpt a cartoon with sinewy lycanthrope muscles. It's still hard to get scared of a cartoon. So instead the vacationing American gang, led by the ultra weak Scott, keep finding excuses to return to the werewolf's catacombs lair. Here it's much easier for this incompetent special effects crew to keep the computer enhanced creatures or absurd beast masks under the cover of darkness. Some have said that if you don't look on this film as a sequel it's not as bad by comparison. I disagree, this film can not stand on its own, and is even more of a disgrace when compared to the brilliant original. If it doesn't want to be looked on as a sequel it should not have borrowed most of the title from the 1981 film. I , don't care how much you love werewolves. Or how much you worshiped 'American Werewolf in London.' as I myself did. This one is simply not worth wasting your time. 'Okay guys, see ya.' Terrible. 3 out of a possible 10 T.H.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"God, that sucked. You can't end a horror movie with a happily-ever-after family setting. Yeash. I was kind of ambivalent going in to the final act. But, my god. He didn't have to kill the girl, she didn't die, the ghost father appears with a cure (which makes no sense, because his spirit would have been liberated after the yank kid killed all the bad werewolves). What a hunk of junk. This is the worst horror movie I've seen in a long time, and I've watched a lot of horror movies. This is a slap in the face for Landis and everyone else involved in American Werewolf in London. Blegh. I hope that this ruined the career of every one in it bar Julie Delphy. And CGI: Kind of new and chic back in 1997, but today it just looks drab compared to the artful prosthetic\/makeup work of London. Anyway, I'm done, I hope I've scared a few people of. Get the original instead, or failing that The Howling. Or failing that watch American Idol reruns. Just don't watch this mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Perhaps I'm being too generous when I give this film two and a half stars out of five, but there was an occasional moment. However, as \"An American Werewolf\" movie this one is a missed chance! There are no real plot connections to the superior original to speak of, but the story is similar in some ways to \"London\".

*Possible Spoiler Warning* American kids go to foreign country, one falls in love with a beautiful girl. Another one of the kids gets slaughtered by a werewolf in the same night that one gets bitten, and despite his undead friend's warnings, by the light of the full moon he sprouts fur, fangs, and claws!

But there are some differences in the story, for one; the girl is one of the werewolves. Second; there are three American Kids. And third; there's some weird-@$$ werewolf cult intent on taking over the world! As crazy as it sounds, that last one, WASN'T a joke! *Spoiler Ends*

The films suffers from many things, first the weak acting drags it down immensely! Tom Everret Scott's performance is amatuerish at best, and he and Julie Delpy, who plays his love interest, don't seem to have any chemistry together at all. Second; A weak script that seems to be all over the place. Many elements of suspense and dark comedy, that made the original one great, are missing in this one. And whoever said that eating out the heart of the werewolf that bit you will change you back human? Last I heard this wasn't part of werewolf lore at all! Third; terrible special effects; The werewolf effects are done with computer animation, which works for things such as dinosaurs, ghosts, and space ships. But seems choppy, fake and artificial, when used for furry creatures like werewolves.

However there were a few things that saved this one from total \"turkeydom\", there's one hilarious scene in a Paris cafe when Andy (Scott) is having coffee with Serafine (Delpy), he drops a bunch of condoms on the table, and tries to pass them off as chewing gum, by chewing and blowing a bubble! Also; the soundtrack, a very cool mix of alternative rock bands like Bush and Smashmouth. Although none of the songs have the word \"moon\" in their title, like the original movie, the soundtrack is great nontheless. And another funny scene when a rotting corpse, played by Julie Bowen, attempts to whistle and her eyeball pops out, had me laughing out loud.

But as a whole this film seems to lack the wit and suspense of the original. And the overly contrived ending doesn't help it out much either.

**1\/2 Two and a half Out of Five Stars (Average.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was a fan of the AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON movie and so was curious whether a 16-year later sequel could be done with French language and local re-cast major, supporting, and minor characters. Tonight I watched the \"edited for FOX Network\" version that was some sort of curious hybrid of several hyperactive sequels. The screenwriters and directors pay homage to certain of the key plot concepts: Tourist gets wolf bite, full moon comes out, boy meets girl, boy becomes beast, boy dies heroic death after help from ghost victim. For me, the oddest aspect of this \"formula\" teen horror special effect-ride was the casting of the school teacher-love interest of the TV comedy \"ED\" as one of the werewolf's clueless victims who is more or less totally unsympathetic in the scripted lines they handed her. I haven't seen another horror-flick that this movie is \"sequelling\" (a vampire fighting flick titled BLADE), but I guess that parts of its plotline must explain how villain werewolves (they're spoofish) are threatening the \"good\" werewolf pair during a long part of the movie. There is also a final conflict in a Paris subway train, a la SPEED. This 1997 studio product is an odd hybrid of a film since considerable technical effects are shown for scary purposes but the authentic terrors of the original have been completely undermined, in my opinion. Such an odd re-write of the werewolf legend and \"movie-mythology\" !?! My suggestion to those considering this at the video store -- go for a classic \"top of the line\" Thriller instead : Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The odd mixture of comedy and horror sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Had the main male character been a little more interesting, the film would have been as well. A trio of young Americans visit Paris, run into a beautiful werewolf, and the problems confound from there.

Numerous logic holes make the possibly intriguing story difficult to take.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This DVD is missing its calling as a Heineken coaster.... This is a great example of why no one should ever go see a sequel with a different director\/writer than the original. Two hours of this turkey left me begging for Exorcist 2 reruns.

NO legitimate laughs. NOT ONE decent scare. The script was just a mess and I felt bad for the actors who had to perform it (they must have had sick relatives at home or monster coke habits or something).

The original was a makeup effects landmark. So naturally, the producers of the sequel thought it would be a great idea to to scrap makeup FX and do CG werewolves instead. These CG werewolves had me laughing a lot harder than any of the \"comedy\". It was just a total miss. If ya want a night's entertainment, go rent the original again. Or go take a film class and make your own horror film. You're bound to do better than these fools did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, what can be said about a \"horror comedy\" that features neither horror nor comedy? There are no characters in the film, but much too many plot lines - all underdeveloped and mostly superfluous.

The computer generated creatures look bad, a bit like Disney versions of oversized rats without a tail. The walking dead are the biggest rip-off apart from the title, the shall look like the dead in Landis' movie, but are far removed. They just look like bad actors with abit of plastic and bull's blood added.

Two plot lines really showed some promise (the love story and the \"company\" story), but failed as miserably as the director, the writers, the SFX department, the production and the actors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had been wanting to see An American Werewolf in Paris for a long time because I loved its predecessor, but this film didn't impress me as much as An American Werewolf in London. Actually, to be quite honest, it didn't impress me at all.

Tom Everett-Scott and his dude pals are wandering Paris and, in a preposterous bungee stunt off the Eifel Tower, rescuing wolf-babe Julie Delpy from death. Before you've time to work out if the constant mugging and lumpy dialogue is meant to be the stuff of comedy, a full-moon has hit and the brats are being chased by dreadful CGI werewolves down Parisian sewers.

The script is disgustingly poor, the actors were made to make this film, they're horrible performances match the status of the movie. From start to end, this movie is never entertaining, engaging or even slightly watchable. I had trouble watching this whole film without throwing up my dinner, to be quite honest.

The action scenes aren't exciting, the jokes aren't funny and the werewolves aren't scary. In short: Miss out or be haunted forever.

I rate An American Werewolf in Paris 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"AWiP tries to be funny, scary, tense, and romantic ... and fails in every respect. The acting is average at best, but mostly stupid. The special effects are not enough to make up for the stupid plot devices, and the chemistry between *ANY* character is juvenile.

If you don't want to be mad at yourself, don't pay money to see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Take an utterly stupid story. Couple it with unprofessional performances, 2 bit graphics, add ultra-lame comedy bits, and you get this film. I thought the original was bad, but at least that story was simple and straightforward, though idiotic. May nobody produce another in this series.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just don't get it. Why call this a sequel to the film \"American Werewolf\" when it has absolutely NO connection with it whatsoever? The first film was funny *and* scary with ground breaking special effects. (If memory serves, the Oscar category for special make-up effects was *created* for this movie). \"Paris\" is none of these things. Awful effects, and not much else. Do not see this movie. Rent the original \"Werewolf in London\" instead. You'll be much happier.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of two movies I have actually thought about asking for money to stay until the end. Most movies have at least one thing that is worth staying for, even if it just to laugh at how bad it is. I never found it for this movie. Nothing was good, from the script, to the very bad effects. The worst movie I have ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hello people,

I cannot believe that \"Shades\" from That Thing You Do took this role. I don't think Cory Feldman would have taken this role. This movie was a fuming pile of dung. Save your money and time, and see every one of the top 250. I swear I wanted to slap the lady at Blockbuster silly for permitting me to rent this. Stay away!!!!!!

Mr. Hipp","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"you will likely be sorely disappointed by this sequel that's not a sequel.AWIL is a classic.but this movie is about as far from being a classic as you can get.what a joke.special effects that aren't very special,horrible dialogue,non acting.and a laughably ridiculous subplot quickly and unconvincingly,(not to mention fleeting)tacked on with about a third of the movie left.did i mention the story is less then lame.there's no way this was supposed to be serious horror movie,yet it's to stupid to be funny in any good way.the rating it currently has(4.8\/10)is too generous if you ask me.my rating for An American Werewolf in Paris:a 3.5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a title in search of a movie. It's a pitch that sounded lucrative to some studio executive and the rest be damned. When this film was made there were still two things that CGI did not do at all well: people, and fur. Furry people were thus not destined to look good when rendered by computer. This is the only example I can think of where effects for a well-funded sequel took a giant leap back landing well behind those of the original movie. For the record, the design of the werewolves doesn't help a bit. The film-makers apparently couldn't decide between quadruped and biped, tried to do both, and wound up with a creature that looks equally awkward either way. The transformations are anatomically nonsensical and the end result with a relatively high forehead and short snout looks like a cross between Ron Perlman and a hyena. But back to the crass part. This is a movie which exists PURELY to cash in on its forebear. I am not a fan of Landis' original film but boy, does it look good in light of this. If you thought some of Landis' humor was forced try some of the excruciating attempts here. The bubble gum scene, the corpse humor, the dog that...you know, you'll just have to watch that bit yourselves. Thomas Everett Scott is on vacation in Europe with friends and decides to take a break from acting the \"ugly American' and bungee jump off the Eifel Tower in the middle of the night. This leads to him rescuing a young woman (Delpy - Julie it's not worth this just to become a star in America. Ask Rutger Hauer) from jumping to her death. She turns out to be part of a cult of werewolves who are plotting to...I'm not sure, something bad. Ghastly French stereotypes, gaping plot-holes, a muddled ending. No matter, the studio cared only that the title would likely fool millions of \"American Werewolf in London\" fans into handing over their cash. For the most part, happy to say, they were wrong.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is really but one thing to say about this sorry movie. It should never have been made. The first one, one of my favourites, An American Werewolf in London, is a great movie, with a good plot, good actors and good FX. But this one? It stinks to heaven with a cry of helplessness.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An American Werewolf in Paris wasn't really that good compared to the original.The original didn't use computer effects for the werewolf and they looked more realistic .The werewolf effects in this film looked too cartoonish.most of all,the movie did not have enough for me for a horror film to enjoy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film probably would have been good,if they didn't use CGI (computer generated imagery)for the werewolf scenes.It made the creatures look fake and the werewolves looked cartoonish.CGI is great for certain effects like the dinasours in Jurassic Park or Twister.But when we see a film where the creature must look completely real,CGI is not the way to go.Look at An American Werewolf in London.No CGI.Just makeup and a mechanical creature and what you come up with was more realistic than what was shown in the sequel.This film did offer a few gags that was fun to watch and the humor in this movie seemed to have drawn me in but it's nothing more than a film that I thought was O.K.And that's not good enough.In my opinion,An American Werewolf in Paris doesn't hold up to the original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An American Werewolf in London had some funny parts, but this one isn't so good. The computer werewolves are just awful: the perspective is all off, it's like seeing them through a distorting mirror. The writers step on the throat of many of their gags. American boy says to Parisian girl, \"Is there a cafe' around here?\" Instead of just leaving it at that, they have to have the girl sigh and respond, \"This is Paris.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jeff Speakman never really made it beyond the lowest ranks of martial-artists-turned-actors (lower than Don \"The Dragon\" Wilson, for example), and with vehicles like \"The Expert\", you can see why. There are three major problems with this movie: 1) The plot - or should I say plots - are all over the place, there are some characters who get a lot of screen time but serve little purpose, 2) There are only 4 fight scenes in total, some of them completely unrelated to the main plot and some taking place in the dark, 3) The music score is overzealous and overbearing. Strange as it may seem, this is really the most annoying thing about this film: the score persistently tries to convince you that you're watching some sort of grand epic, instead of the low-budget limited-action film you are indeed watching. With all that said, at least there's James Brolin around to lend a touch of credibility. *1\/2 out of 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, well I thought it should be a good action, but it was not. Although Jeff Speakman stars there is nothing to watch.Only two fight for almost 1,5 hours, yak.A lot of talking and everything is so artificial that you could not believe it. The plot is clear from the beginning. If you want good action don't rent this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE EXPERT, starring Jeff Speakman, is the definition of DULL!!!

Dull, characters, dull situations, dull direction, dull actors, dull cinematography, dull music.

I don't really understand this movie. Is it supposed to be an action movie? It's almost as if Speakman wanted to be in a serious movie but the level of acting and writing found in THE EXPERT is below your average TV drama. And there are some typical \"Speakman pummeling bad guys\" scenes here and there but the main aspect of the movie relies on some sort of believable drama, which is totally wrong for Speakman or is so badly directed that it just doesn't work with the action star. In the end, this confused movie looks and feels very nondescript and bland. The worst aspect of THE EXPERT is the music. The composer is a Jerry Goldsmith wannabe, with his pompous and melodramatic score, which simply doesn't belong in this kind of (dull) movie. It's as if the producers knew they had a very dull product on their hands and they asked the composer to make the film feel more compelling and dramatic with his score, which makes the entire movie look even more confused, goofier and dull.

Don't waste your time watching this, even if you're a Jeff Speakman fan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think I would probably not hate this movie if I spoke Polish. I selected the English version at the first menu, but it gave me Polish dialogue with English subtitles, just as the Polish version did. Maybe the dialogue was so disjointed because the person that did the subtitles could not translate it into English very well. To exacerbate the issue, some of the dialogue had no subtitles at all. The acting was pretty bad, especially the female lead, who was melodramatic about everything! One scene that bothered me was when a German woman was caught stealing and as the mob was jostling her around, her shirt opened and the director showed close-ups of her naked breast for the next 15-20 seconds. I couldn't see how her breast added to the drama of the scene or the film. Maybe the director was trying to increase the numbers of teenage boys in the audience. Much of the film takes place in an extermination camp liberated by the Americans. First, the \"American\" uniforms did not look anything like U.S. Army uniforms. Second, none of the extermination camps in Poland were liberated by the Americans. I would think that a Polish film director who turned 19 in 1945 would know better than an American born in 1966 that all six extermination camps were liberated by the Russians. All in all, it's just not a very good film if you don't speak Polish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not in favor of death penalties but in this movie, it couldn't happen fast enough. Just to end the movie. I don't understand why this movie is rated as high as it is. It fooled me into a bad night.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is difficult to imagine how the engaging Dan Brown novel \"Angels and Demons\" could misfire as badly as this film version. Here are ten reasons why the film was a failure. Due to the spoilers, please do no read on unless you have already seen the film.

(1) In the film, there was no love relationship between Robert Langdon and Vittoria Vetra. Worse still, there was not even any chemistry between the two leading actors.

(2) The breathtaking locations in Rome, as described in the novel, were not realized visually in the film. I am aware that director Ron Howard encountered difficulties in filming on location. But there are superior photographed depictions of Rome on The History Channel than in this film where the Eternal City was presented in eternal stock film footage. The great art works described in the novel were only briefly depicted in the film. The magnificent Bernini sculpture of the \"Ecstasy of St. Teresa\" was only momentarily glimpsed, and the West Ponente relief in Vatican Square was not visible at all.

(3) The most tasteless choice made by the film-maker was in the depiction of the deceased pope who actually resembled the beloved John Paul II. In the novel, the pope is clearly fictional with no resemblance to any real pope.

(4) One of the most colorful (and important) characters of the novel, Maximilian Kohler, Director of CERN, was cut out of the screenplay.

(5) There were numerous instances when the lines of dialog were inaudible due to extraneous background noise.

(6) There were moments when the faces of characters were not visible due to the shadows and chiaroscuro film lighting. This technique worked in \"The Godfather\" films, but Ron Howard is no Gordon Willis.

(7) The College of Cardinals was quite a motley crew with one of the electors speaking in a Southern drawl. This dude would have been more at home on a Texas ranch than in the Sistine Chapel.

(8) The crucial relationship of the Camerlengo and the deceased Pope was not defined in the film. This relationship was central to the theme of science vs. religion and the relevance of the Illuminati to the plot against the church.

(9) In the novel, the character of Hassassin was an unforgettable villain. In the film, that assassin character's role was a cardboard cutout villain.

(10) As a whole, the filmmakers did not trust the workings of the successful novel.

In the novel, Langdon makes an impossible fall out of the sky and into the Tiber River. In Ron Howard's film, it was the movie itself that landed in the Tiber.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Personally, the book was a very well written, amazing, thrilling piece that was not brought to justice to the movie. Watching the movie at 12.01 in the morning to see that major parts of the book were left out frustrated me, seeing that it affected the \"different\" outcome of the movie. There was something to be desired out of this movie, but all in all, it lacked in plot.

For someone who has NOT read the book, I could see how this movie would be seen as inviting and entertaining with its controversy and suspense. However to a dedicated reader who has read it seven times, I did not see the strong connection between the two: both the movie and the novel.

With major characters missing (such as Maximilian Kohler) and the abrupt turn in plot with the survival of the last cardinal in the preferiti, the plot of the movie was slightly strewn thus leading to a different take in the conclusion of the story. The Hassassin too was portrayed as a common white man, compared to that of in the novel where he was portrayed as a Muslim; his motives in the book are predominately based his ties with the Illuminati, however, in the movie, his motives are based on money and seemed more like work than some personal tie to the task at hand.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this movie tonight, trying to keep an open mind. I had hoped to enjoy a movie that I expected to be different from the book. There were considerable differences from the book, much like the changes made in the DiVinci Code. I went to see the DiVinci Code with the same thought process and managed to enjoy the film, in spite of, the changes from the book. It was still enjoyable, filled with action, and the process of deciphering the symbols was interesting and mentally stimulating. Unfortunately, Angels and Demons disappointed on almost every level. Throughout the movie, symbols are found and figured out quickly, without any interest for the viewer. They blow past the various Immuminati symbols so quickly that we had no chance to get a look at them and appreciate how they work. The final Illuminati symbol, which was the most interesting and creative one in the book, was replaced with the crossed keys symbol. In my opinion, that was a missed opportunity to focus on and spend a little more time on the symbols, which is what the Langdon character is all about. Overall, this movie is a very poor interpretation of the book, and fails at the attempt to be an action movie \/ thriller. 4 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why did they not follow the book ... I am really sad and disappointed. I was so looking forward to seeing this movie, however, if you have read the book (maybe recently) it might be very difficult to remain objective. My wife had not read the book, and she loved the movie.

Reasons for the disappointment are: 1) Cern's involvement ... gone with the wind, such a shame, there is a very small part at the start, where the antimatter is created, but even that does not stick to the facts (why not, the fact that Vittoria's father was burned with the first Illuminati brand, which is how Langdon got involved would have been a perfect start to the Movie_ 2) Story-line between the (deceased) pope and Camerlegno completely gone ... this completely screws up the motive for the stealing of the antimatter 3) Story-line between Langdon and Vittoria Vetra completely non-existent

All-in-all, too flaky storyline, and cannot understand that Dan Brown allowed them to put his name against it. Maybe I should revisit this film in 10 years time, when I cannot remember the excellent book anymore (fat chance on forgetting the book I am afraid)

Really sorry for the negative review, which was spoilt by expectations","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The implausibility of the plot has been noted by several commentators, particularly the immense amount of trouble Fr McKenna would have had to have gone to, and the sheer impossibility of some of the calculations he would have had to have made, including that Langdon was going to decipher each clue in minutes. McKenna is branded; a few seconds later he is giving orders, and a few minutes later, he is running (literally) around in charge of operations -- in real life, he would be in shock. And, as usual in thrillers, the assassin doesn't kill the heroes, giving as his only lame explanation that they were not on the list of those to be killed, as though every other innocent bystander he shot was. I have always used Independence Day as the hallmark of a truly awful film (US President commandeers jet plane and beats off aliens, ha ha), and this effort runs it close. For such an implausible film, Angels and Demons contains a remarkable number of predictable incidents. Who didn't laugh knowingly when the assassin went to get his reward in the Volkswagen? I felt like shouting, \"You are going to be blown up\". Who didn't know that the heroine was going to find a body in the lab? Who didn't spot the baddie? Technically also, the film was awful. The dialogue was more often indecipherable than clear, while the races across Rome to the next church were accompanied by deafening music. Moreover, many scenes looked like mud. The one redeeming feature was the shots of Rome and what looked like the Vatican -- an achievement, because I am sure that the Vatican officials would not have wanted this dross shot in and around St Peter's -- and the interiors were convincing. Rome is a magic place, and I enjoyed seeing it fleetingly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ron Howard and his \"editors\" only had one job to do... Follow the guidelines of the book which was \"rich\", \"mysterious\", \"moving\" and highly cinematic in its approach!

What they did? They changed EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING! What is left is something that has no right being called \"Angels & Daemons\"!

I really love the book and find it very hard to see it being treated this way!

I wonder what was the opinion of Dan Brown himself for \"this\" film.

I really have no patience to sit down and right the 1.000.000 changes they made, it is pointless.......","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Firstly I loved the book, more so than the more popular Da Vinci Code and although the DVC film was not well received, I liked it and bought the DVD. However, there is no chance that I will ever want to watch Angles and Demons ever again.

The film barely resembles the book, in fact only the general premise of the story is there.

From the very start of the film I was disappointed, in the book Robert Langdon receives a call and fax from Maximilian Kohler, Director of CERN. Who finds the body of Father (can't remember the name) and then requests Langdon to come, using the super fast plane... In the book the only people who knew about this technology that the Father and Daughter team had created were themselves and the camerlingo... In the film however, there was a massive team involved... so the tension was never there... how did they find out etc.

Leaving out or rather changing this whole part of the story was a massive mistake and was in my mind what made it a poor movie... it changed everything that happened from then on, when the Camerlingo was confronted in the pope's locked room, it should have been Maximilian Kohler who shot the video from his wheel chair, the commander rushed in to get the camerlingo but was shot by Olivetti, in the film it was the commander in the room and Olivetti was shot... (err I think I got this right, but I was bored and can't really remember the events in the film)...

There was no love interest between Vittoria and Robert and in the book she wasn't at CERN when he arrived and was indeed was flown in from her research work. In the book all four of the preferratti were killed, but in the film the last one of the four survived the fountain. In the book Vittoria was kidnapped and Robert had to rescue her and it was they that killed the Assassin at the Church of the Illuminati, not blown up like he was in the film by the Camerlingo. The bit where Robert was confined under a stone coffin was not there, saved by his Mickey mouse watch alarm. OK in the book we are led to believe that Langdon bailed out of the helicopter, fair enough to say that this was a bit far stretched, but it was important in the film, because he had to race back with the film... There was no mention of how Vittoria and her adopted father became involved, this was also important in getting to know the character of Vittoria.

In all one of the worse films I have seen, I would have left early, but my brain went numb and I lost the use of my legs temporarily. A really really reeeeeeaaaaaaalllly poor attempt and not one of Ron Howards finest, in fact, how he will get work again is beyond me!!! I want my money back!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a historian. This movie is so wrong it hurts. Tried to watch with an open mind, but if you're going to delve into a movie or anything for that matter of this nature at least do some homework regarding history, locations, church protocol, et cetera. Stop playing to the dumb audience, please. There are those of us out there that actually put on our shoes and venture out to the theatre when something of this nature, worthy of a theatrical release comes to town. A little research, all I'm asking. But then again, the book it's based on is somewhat of a joke in itself. So basically, they took a novel with many errors and decided to make it into a screenplay, pour millions and millions and millions of dollars into it and make an incredibly promoted world distributed theatrical release and at no time have anyone take the time to do a little research on the lot of it. I know several of my colleagues who would have done it for just the credit alone or at least given it to a body of students as an assignment for several weeks to research various aspects\u0085 or just pay someone knowledgeable a couple of bucks just to run through it because trust me, there are plenty of starving historians out there who would have jumped on the opportunity if it had presented itself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Recension: Angels & Demons

The movie is directed by Ron Howard. He has had also made famous movies like The Da Vinci Code & Cinderella Men. He directed also the famous TV-series 24. The most famous actors are Tom Hanks(The Da Vinci Code,The Green Mile, Forrest Gump,\u0085) & Ewan McGregor(Cassandra's Dream, Moulin Rouge, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace,\u0085).

In the begin I was shocked because they changed the beginning from the movie so big. Because they changed the father of Vittoria Vettra(Ayelet Zurer) in someone else, Silvano Bentivoglio(Camren Argenziano). Another Change is that Robert Langdon(Tom Hanks) never goes to the CERN. It was nice that they could film on location in the CERN.

Then movie goes on, They are spectacular car races in Rome. An I also like the part in Chirstian Archives very much when they destroy the work of Galileo, it was funny. It was also funny that they where locked in the archives the second time they get in, Robert Langdon destroyed half of the archives and when they bust out, the electricity get on\u0085

I found It very stupid that Robert Langdon not went in the helicopter, but that the Camerlengo(Ewan McGregor) gets in alone, another detail is that in the movie the Camerlengo is an adopted son from the pope. In the book He is the real Son of the pope.

When I should give the best acting performance then I should say Pierfrancesco Favino who plays inspector Olivetti. The worst acting was from the assassin, who was played by Nikolaj Lie Kaas, I think he was underachieving, because in Adams Apples he played Faboulous.

I think the whole movie is underachieving because director Ron Howard made some many stupid changes. I would rate the movie by 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went into the movie expecting a little action mixed with a strong story line. I understand that changes between written works and movies must be made...for many reasons.

The changing of the relationship between the scientists ( they were father - daughter in the book) The Director of CERN was eliminated thus causing the scene between the Carmelengo and the Director to be changed to the Carmelengo and the head of the Swiss Guard in the Pope's office.

Ron Howard made sure to get his dad inserted as a Cardinal with a hayseed accent but missed all the symbolism. Both Lagdon and the Carmelengo ascended to the heavens in the helicopter with Hanks character landing in the river and the priest landing upon the chapel in what was described as a Christ-like image.

At some point this film needs to be remade by a director who is up to the job","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An EXTREMELY fast paced,exhilarating, interesting, detail rich book. Its a huge shame that the film had none of these qualities. not only was Tom Hanks' mild mannered portrayal or Robert Langdon Laughable, but the name changes to key characters, huge deviances from the original story line, and poor Irish\/Italian accent from Carmalengo Played by Ewan Mcgregor, made for the worst book to film EVER.

As a huge fan of A&D the book, i had high hopes for a more lavish, true to book detailed movie, where it would start and finish just as the book did - leaving me wanting more.

All the film really did was depress me within the 1st 10 minutes.

what was impressive was how the... sorry! i couldn't even finish that sentence without laughing.

in short - Vittoria was the token hottie, a very second to Audrey Tatou and there were some very nice Alfa Romeos.

i would recommend reading the book to understand that, if Ron Howard must insist on making ANOTHER book to film, i would be happy saving my \u00a36.40 for a KFC zinger meal and some chicken wings - far more entertaining and deeply more satisfying!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This critique tells the story of 4 little friends who went to watch Angels and Demons the movie on the first night it came out, even though it was a school night, because \"Angels and Demons is worth it.\" Two of the four had read the book. Of those that didn't, a guy, was wearing pink skinny jeans. This was the least eventful part of the evening after watching the abhorrent Angels and Demons.

The movie starts out in a lab where the antimatter is being created while another process is going on. And apparently someone knows about it or something. Notice how very confused I am.. I don't get what happened: they were just making the antimatter. Vittoria finds her own father dead... WHAT? The Illuminati symbol sent to Langdon is a PRINTOUT, not a burn on someone's chest. They take out the X-33 scene. They take out Maxmillian Kohler. They, pretty much, take out CERN and the symbology connected to it. They take out the Hassasin and replace him with some religious, British dude. They take out the Illuminati Diamond. They take out Vittoria's near-rape scene. They take out Langond's fight with the Hassasin (now British dude on crack). They take out the press dude following them around. They take out the death of the fourth cardinal. They take out the fact that the Camerlengo becomes pope. They take out the Camerlengo's grand scheme. They take out Langdon's being in the helicopter and landing on that island toward the end. They take out the fact that Vittoria's father was a scientific priest. They take out Langdon's fun and most unfortunately, they take out Vittoria's sexual appeal.

Other than the movie COMPLETELY losing focus of the details, the movie is acted HORRIBLY. One must admit, though, there were some good things. For example, the Sistine Chapel recreation must have been extremely difficult and it was extremely well done. The explosion scene was MIND-BLOWING. Other than that, SCREW THIS MOVIE FOR RUINING THE BOOK FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T READ IT.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had neither read any of the books nor seen the first movie so after receiving passes to a preview show, I had no expectations.

'Angels and Demons' was a muddled, convoluted film lacking direction or any believability. There was very little character development and I never found myself caring about the plight of the protagonists; the reverse was true, I was more interested in seeing how the antagonists would succeed as the first half of the film was almost exclusively focused on why the Illuminati are who they are.

The film jumps from location to location with little explanation or reason and expects the viewer to believe that everybody in the movie is an ally when they first meet. Any analytical mind will realize this is highly improbable.

The climax is extremely clich\u00e9 and leaves you asking what happened and wondering why nobody considered some of these points, it feels very tacked on and unnecessary.

The actors are not particularly believable in their roles, mostly because I found it difficult to believe that scientists, professors, and men of the church would act in the manner that they do without regard to the consequences of their actions. Events that happen are not plausible in the slightest and the pace of the movie is questionable with the characters jumping around while on a tight schedule and I had to question how the protagonists manage to get from location to location on time, every time.

The most pleasing part of the film is the cinematography, I found it a beautiful film to watch but it was such a mess, that I found it would not be worth paying to view in theatres.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Angels and Demons: 3 out of 10: Clearly something bad has happened to Ron Howard. I don't know what exactly, but something has gone very wrong.

Howard has always been a decent workman director. While he will never be mistaken for an artistic savant both Cinderella Man and Apollo 13 were excellent films, Parenthood was pretty good and even Angels and Demons prequel\/sequel The Da Vinci Code was a fun romp. In addition none of his films have been downright awful. (Note I have seen neither How the Grinch Stole Christmas nor his newest film Heidi Montag Says No to Plastic.) Whats more Howard managed to hold this quality is such devise genres as star driven Oscar bait (A Beautiful Mind), star driven costume drama (Far and Away), star driven revenge fantasy (Ransom) and comedies about prostitution and mermaids (Night Shift, Splash).

Angels and Demons is at its center a poorly directed and shot film. Scenes are too dark, camera angles are all wrong, the actors block each others shots and the whole affair is often out of focus. This makes the telling of an already confusing story even more muddled.

Dan Brown gets picked on a lot but I found The Da Vinci Code a fun readable romp (so sue me). The movie version of the Da Vinci code kept the same where are they going to next vibe of the book and added an attractive cast and attractive location shooting.

Angels and Demons however takes place in the claustrophobic confines of Vatican City and since Howard wasn't allowed to film in many of the real locations we end up with a lot of running around a CGI back lot. The entire film is as if Rick Steves did a Vatican City special and instead of actually visiting the Holy City and pointing his camera, Rick had to use Lego bricks and a second hand art book with all the tits erased.

While the Da Vinci code had what I still think is an intriguing central mystery (again sue me), Demons and Angels story consists of a plot by the Illuminati (roll eyes now) to destroy the Vatican. Their idea was to take positions in schools for the deaf around the world and raping every student in the ass repeatedly. Oops my bad; apparently the Vatican doesn't need any help on that one.

Anyway their plan is to infiltrate Europe's Large Hadron Collider, kill the head priest, and steal three vials of Anti-matter. This begs more than a few questions. Can the Hadron Collider create anti-matter? Can you capture the anti-matter once created? Why is the EU collecting it? (Perhaps they fear a Godzilla attack?). Why is the head of Anti-matter gathering a Vatican priest? Now once they get the anti-matter they are going to use its incredible destructive power to take over the world\u0085 no just kidding; unfortunately the Illuminati haven't quite grasped that Pinky and the Brain level of sophistication just yet. Instead the current pope has just died and it's conclave time. The top seeded cardinals for the final four pope tournament are all kidnapped and the Illuminati are killing them one by one Seven style. They being good sports however are leaving clues at every murder like some Latin themed Riddler. Oh and the last kidnapped Cardinal has the anti-matter and if he isn't found in time Rick Steves will have to go straight to Venice next year to see decent frescoes. If only there was some Latin themed Batman to save the day\u0085? Okay the story is truly awful and it is poorly told, but maybe this is one of those films saved by great performances. A true character study\u0085 (Okay you know where this is going). Tom Hanks gives an incredibly wooden performance and simply looks awful (he is also to old to play the character by about twenty years. ) his love interest Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer has zero chemistry with either Hanks or the screen. Ewan Macgregor plays the Pope's personal assistant\/cabana boy as an Irish man who looks like he is about to break into a musical number at any moment providing no one steals his Lucky Charms.

On the plus side Stellan Skarsg\u00e5rd puts in a fine turn as head of Vatican Security and as far as we know no deaf children were raped during the making of this film which puts it ahead of its Vatican critics in at least one area.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In a way, you have to respect Arachnia. It's clearly meant as a tribute to the big bug movies of the fifties, and while the special effects look terrible; at least the film doesn't feature CGI. However, on the other hand; you can't respect the film too much because it's a load of rubbish. The acting is terrible, the special effects (as mentioned) are impossible to take seriously, and once you've seen one giant spider being blown up; you've seen them all, so it gets boring rather quickly. The plot follows a bunch of people who are unlucky enough to be in a plane crash after a meteor shower. They go to the only house in the area; which just happens to be a house where a man has a huge spider he used to use as a circus attraction. Coincidently around the same time, the meteor shower has caused more giant spiders to rise from underground. All the characters in this film are poor caricatures; none of them have anything even resembling a third dimension and they will soon begin to thoroughly bore you. You've got to feel for director Brett Piper as he clearly didn't have much to work with for this film; but that doesn't make Arachnia worth a damn, and overall there are better giant bug films than this, and therefore Arachnia doesn't get the seal of approval from me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I picked this up because, having spent time in the Albany region of New York, I knew a couple of people in the movie and I happened upon it by chance. The attempts at comedy are lame, the compulsory girl-on-girl scene is sickening, the plot is nonexistent, the acting is among the worst I've ever seen, and don't even get me started on special effects. I realize this is a very low budget film made by a small independent company, but if you're going to do a sci-fi horror flick with giant bugs, don't make the giant bugs completely unbelievable. People want to see giant bugs. That's half the fun right there. And if you're going to make the giant bugs completely unbelievable, at least get the actors to make some sort of tongue-in-cheek allusion to that fact (\"You idiots! These aren't them! You've captured their stunt doubles!\"). Be prepared to waste two hours of your life that you'll never be able to get back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"36\/100. This is not to be confused with the decent Arachnophobia, this film is a very low budget and cheap rip-off of that movie. This one is so bad, it actually does have some entertainment value on that level. There are numerous unintended (I think) laugh out loud scenes. I wasn't expecting much from the film, and it was actually worse than I had imagined it would be.

It's a clich\u00e9 ridden and predictable direct to video mess. Fortunately, it doesn't take itself too seriously. The acting, as expected, is not quite Oscar caliber. The special effects are poor, worse than I would have thought they would be. Poorly edited and the score is intrusive.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie based on the comments of a few that said that is was bad but funny. But you need to be warned that this movie has the worst special effects ever produced. They make 1950s science fiction movies look like works of art. This is funny at times, but annoying for the most part. And to compound the problem with the seriously pathetic special effects is the total lack of logic that characterized a majority of the events depicted. One of my favorites is where three of the characters drop hundreds of feet into a tunnel created by the arachnia and arrive to find it fully lit. Apparantely the arachnia have also managed to hook into the power grid. Very impressive. But this is just one example. And for what its worth, the music sucks, the acting sucks, the two cute girls are annoying, the obnoxious guy is annoying, the so-called handsome lead man is a geek, and the black girl who fall for him is a fool. Her father is the worst actor I have ever seen. I am not sure the brief moments of humor can possibly make up for the experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those movies that you watch because it's bad. Such a movie that you watch just to see it's shitty craftsmanship. Supposedly a horror, I cannot imagine how anyone can be afraid of a claymation bug, especially one that is translucent in nature where you can see the actor's legs behind it.

Even with no budget, a little bit of attention to detail and even an attempt at making this movie believable would have sucked the fun right out of it, as they would have had to replace all of the actors and the entire story with it. If I had nothing to make fun of while it was playing, I would have stopped it after 10 minutes, and put on some quality show like Spunge Bob Square Pants (HAR HAR HAR).

I Strongly recommend that Brett Piper get with Quintin Terrantino and Really pump out some feces.

:)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually love these movies. Give me a good old B movie any day but this one was simply awful. The acting(?) was terrible almost to the point of my turning the movie off completely. I thought I saw the all time worst but this one is right up there with Attack of the Killer Tomatoes! In all honesty - it was the acting that did this film in for me.

I found the actor's to be clumsy and the lead male\/female were extremely dull. This movie had absolutely nothing going for it. I may be asking a ridiculous question here but why the nudity and sex scene? Did the producers think nobody would watch if they left them out? I think they were probably right! Oh where is Price and The Tingler when you need them?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife and I watched this after DVR'ing it off of Encore action this past week. It has to be the worst horror flick either of us had ever seen. Predictable dialogue ( my wife and I were guessing the lines before they were spoken), hokey special effects, a screenplay that drifted all over the place. I think the part that was the most annoying was the stereotyping of the various characters in the plot, not to mention the gratuitous sex scene between two of the young heroines in the movie, neither of which had any real purpose other than to bare certain parts of their anatomy for the cameras. This movie should be categorized as comedy, not horror as the villains of the movie (spiders) were stop motion animated and not believable in the least. I can't say that I would have done a better job making a film myself, but it was very amateurish and wasn't even a \"B\" movie, somewhere closer to a \"d\" movie, or \"f\" if that is possible. I think even Science Fiction 3000 would have to pass on this one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This...... Movie.... Is..... Horrible!!!!!! You won't believe this hunk of junk is even a movie!!!! Critters4 was better then this!!! And Critters4 was pretty frigging bad too!!! A bunch of stupid teens crash in a desert, find an old run down bungalow, and end up fending off horrifically badly stop motion animated spiders. Pardon my french, but the acting was bad as hell!!! The person who wrote this probably didn't even know what a spider is, because he had the spiders living in a colony serving an alien-queen-ripoff queen spider! SPIDERS DO NOT LIVE IN COLONIES!!!!!!!!! THIS \"MOVIE\" IS A PIECE OF CRUD!!! At the end, the marines suddenly pop out of no where and kill all the spider without even being called!!!! If you see a copy of this movie at a video store, douse it in gasoline and throw a match at it!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was entertained to see that some of the reviews here were topped with **SPOILERS** the joke in my family is that the only part of this movie that isn't given away on the back of the box, is given away in the title. Perhaps I am just a dense American 17-year-old who wouldn't know art if it bit me in the leg, but I prefer movies that have at least some words. This movie makes the second half of 2001: A Space Odyssey down right chatty. This movie is just so slow it isn't even art, it is merely boring. We follow this creepy guy who is following this boy around Venice. The end was incomprehensible until I read the end of book. A movie shouldn't make you refer back to the book, it should be able to stand alone. This movie has no way to stand. It doesn't even have the bones of a plot to lean on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The opening of MORTE A VENEZIA resembles a Duran Duran music video with classical music and this is the highlight of the movie

\" In terms of what Theo ? \"

In terms of everything , but especially excitement . I doubt if there's ever been a more sluggish slower moving movie than this one . Yeah okay it's a European art house movie so I wasn't expecting Charles Bronson to massacre hordes of bad guys but even so I did expect some substance if not an actual plot

The film revolves around Professor Gustav Von Aschenbach visiting Venice . Gustav visits Venice and goes on a gondola , Gustav eats in an expensive restaurant , Gustav looks out of his hotel window and if it's excitement you want Gustav has a flashback

Bad enough if this was the entire movie but it gets worse because Gustav notices a pretty boy teenager . So you've got a middle aged academic lusting after some teenage boy he has seen , some old queen is becoming obsessed with a stranger . Great idea for a movie ? I don't think so either and thank gawd it remained a yawn fest instead of some sleazy precursor to gay porn

I notice a lot of people who praise this movie have tried to intellectualise it . I can only be monosyllabic and unpretentious in my view and say that the only subtext I could relate to was the physical and emotional disintegration of Gustav but it wasn't caused by the effete beauty of the teenage boy - It was caused by watching such a boring and ostentatious movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This program was shown in an early morning time slot on SPACE, a cable sci-fi station. I am amazed that anyone would pay for this or broadcast it; it is incredibly amateurish.

The entire show is a sequence of short monologues or scenes performed on a set that looks like a closet with a bunch of circuit boards taped to the wall. There is very little continuity between scenes, and no plot. A typical scene revolves around some lame joke or special effect and is only a minute or so long. The dialog makes little sense and the special effects look like Photoshop filters. The actors are all adults, but I have literally seen high-school plays with better writing and sets. This program is an embarrassment.

Perhaps each scene would work as an interstitial; a filler between shows instead of commercials. Stringing all the scenes together makes the limitations of the material extremely obvious.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kazuo Komizu, who hasn't made one decent film, directed this \"notorious\" shocker and should be ashamed that it was a hit upon its Japanese release.

Yes, it does feature scenes of rape, gore and dismemberment, but so what? It has the style of a bad American porn film shot and badly photographed by Ed Powers (\"Dirty Debutantes\") and is incredibly slow.

It seems to have earned its notoriety based on its roster of anti-social acts.

There is a huge difference between this and horror that is well produced.

Just because someone likes their cinema a little wet does not mean they'll accept crap like this. On the contrary, that kind of fan (myself, for example) tolerates even less crap than the average punter out there because he's seen so much and has become overly discerning. It's a shame production companies don't realize that.

One reviewer here (ZombieKilla81) commented that the film's \"near obsession with gang rape\" is one of the factors that killed it. I disagree. The subject matter is never the issue. The issue is how that subject matter is treated. In ENTRAILS OF A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN, it is treated so unimaginatively that it is boring.

Personally, I like graphic depictions of psychopathic behavior (with an intriguing context) if the material is well directed, freshly photographed and aesthetically pleasing. This Nikkatsu horror\/pink hybrid is woeful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those movies I watched, and wondered, why did I watch it? What did I find so interesting about it? Being a truck driver myself, I didn't find it very realistic. No, I've never used a 'lot lizard', nor have I ever seen, nor heard about one traveling around the country in a brand new seventy thousand dollar RV, either.

Same thing about a pimp whom has never sampled the lady in question (until the end of the movie, and well, he still really didn't...), and only getting 50 bucks 'a cut', when the prostitute gets $200.00 (well, $150.00 after his cut, yeah...).

I still laugh at the lot lizard comment Ivey made (them's Lot Lizards, they'll screw anything with 20 bucks, and some are men dressed as woman... or something equally as weird), meaning, we're better then them, as we may still be prostitutes, but we get paid BETTER.

Other then that, it's just a story of a young woman whom wanted something more from life then a dead end job while living at home (she's 18, remember?) and embarrassed by her mother basically doing the same thing (dead end job). At least she had a roof over her head and a job. She turned FIVE tricks on the road... I wonder if the $750.00 she made was worth it? I'd guess not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Really, average is the only word that comes to my mind when you see this.

The acting was average (maybe a bit above average), the camera usage was average (actually below average. The picture was so shaky and the colors were grainy and blurry.) The plot was a good one but moved at such a slow pace and wasn't put to good use.

This could've been so much more if it didn't go at a snail pace and we saw more into the characters backgrounds.

All we see are flashbacks here and there of Alice and how her home life is so \"bad\" (her mother is a working class woman trying to make end meet for her and her daughter.) We see a flashback of her of when she was in high school and her friend says to her \"tell your Mom to make some better food\" and \"everybody says it's your mom.\" Yeah that's embarrassing but why would you run away from it.

I could definitely see if her Mom was a drunk or somebody was abusing her but nothing was wrongwith her home except she was embarrassed by it. How immature!

We're not even given a glimpse of what the couple's lives have been like (except that they've been prostituting for awhile and the woman, forgot her name, gave her baby up when it was 9 months old.) This really could've been so much more. It could've had Alice who was abused by her drunk mom go down to Florida with her friend but then becomes a prostitute. Or something along the lines of that other then the real plot of this movie (that is) Alice, a girl with a home life of probably 90% of America's population (WORKING CLASS) runaways to Florida but then gets sidetracked by turning into a prostitute.

I don't see why it won an award at Sundance (it must've been up against some really weak competition to have won that one award.)

Also to me, Alice's Boston\/New England accent seemed forced. It didn't seem genuine. (I should know, I was born and raised in Boston, but now live in Georgia.)

4\/10 Not really worth your time in my opinion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i have one word: focus.

well.

IMDb wants me to use at least ten lines of text. okay. let's discuss the fine points of focus. i don't know about the rest of you, but in my first year of film school they taught us a lot of useless crap, like 'you'll all be famous avant-garde filmmakers someday'--but they also taught us how to do this crazy thing called FOCUSING the lens! it was amazing! you give a little twist and wham! everything is clear as a bell. the person who shot what alice found needs to learn a few things about the finer points of focus. lighting, too. this movie is not only completely out of focus, it's also lit like the corner of someone's basement.

don't even get me started on pacing or plot. they could have trimmed about ten seconds off the beginning and end of every single shot.

but who cares about that anyhow? there is not enough lurid in this movie to make up for the utter lack of regard to film's best friends--FOCUS, and LIGHTING.

words to the wise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now, I loved \"Lethal Weapon\" and \"Kiss Kiss Bang Bang\", but I cannot believe Shane Black wrote this pile...or that David Morse and John C. McGinley are in it. I screened it for a film festival. Awful. Everyone was laughing. It's preachy and heavy handed...not to mention stupid. Also, it's surprising how little L.A. looks like Cambodia. The entire idea of time traveling through post-traumatic stress disorder is kinda dumb. Imagine \"Born on the Fourth of July\" mixed with \"The Butterfly Effect 2\" (I used to sequel as the example to really show how bad this movie is) but directed by Michael Bay's 2nd unit director. That bad. The 2 stars are purely based on the production value.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's been over 30 years now but I still remember that this movie was the worst I've ever seen. I would have thought that in this length of time something worse would have been filmed but I was mistaken. I just finished watching \"STARSHIP TROOPERS\" and it came mighty close but it was still more entertaining than \" POOR COW \".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The best scene of \"The People Across The Lake\" is the genuinely creepy, nightly opening-scene featuring a house, a murder & a lake. After that, it's pretty much downhill from there on as far as the horror is concerned. A family (mom, dad, sister & younger brother) is fed up with the (mildly) dangerous environment of suburbia, and decides to go and live near the titular lake. From then on, the film features too much lame happy family-related doo-doo near the lake, with occasionally some corpses popping up here and there. The couple of scenes where they discover the bodies, are pretty convincing (in terms of creepiness), but they are in shrill contrast with the rest of the goings-on (featuring just every-day-life stuff of the family settling in). The truth to the matters (the mystery as to who's doing the killing) is learned too soon, leaving only the family unknowing and the viewer yawning during the unexciting finale (featuring a discovery in a basement and running around the house), like if this made-for-TV thing suddenly remembered it was supposed to be a horror film. It's not really badly made; the content & story is just not interesting enough. The only highlight in the cast is Barry Corbin, though his performance\/character is just a bit too goofy to be taken serious. Blond cutie Tammy Lauren (the daughter) might be a recognisable face for avid horror junkies too, as she also starred in \"Wishmaster\" (1997), and made-for-TV outings like \"I Saw What You Did\" (1988) & \"The Stepford Children\" (1987). She hasn't got much to do in this film, though. Skippable, but watchable, if anything.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie includes 2 well known actors I have previously enjoyed watching. There actions are great and each action is heart felt. But it makes me think these 2 were thrown into a speech\/drama class at college for the first time and told for one to act dominating and constricting to the other in a room without allowing her to leave and the woman to be truly innocent and treat her with enough mind-humping to drive the audience into tears for her release.

The only good part IS the acting abilities, the plot has the same ruse as Hitlers influence and I started to hate the protagonist for that. But all of this could have been done within 15 minutes in my opinion, so to drag it out for over an hour was just pure punishment for all who watched it.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Closet Land is a nasty piece of work with superb actors. Nothing more (or less) happens in the movie besides the unending abuse of an attractive woman prisoner by a sadistic police official. The setting is minimalist. This might be considered soft core S&M porn because the drama is devoid of all reference points such as time, place, and political context. Since what happens is cut adrift in a fantasy futuristic environment, the abuse becomes purely personal. The pornographic aspects are justified by being a warning about the evils of totalitarian government, but because there is no real context for the torture of this young woman, we come away disturbed but having learned nothing.

What is the point? That torture exists in the world? That abusing prisoners is bad? That dictatorships abuse innocent people? We know that already. Closet Land has echoes of such works as Darkness At Noon and Ionesco's Rhinoceros, but both those works were made by competent artists whose work had historical context and depth of meaning. This work is amateurish and the dialogue sophomoric. A definite thumbs down.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is possibly the hands down worst movie every made, that actually took itself seriously. And not as a result of the acting, because being an actor, I have to say that Rickman and Stowe had to be at their best, just to escape needing electro convulsive therapy after the principle photography wrapped. Being one of the 57 people that actually saw this movie in theatrical release, I have to say I have never before or since experienced a movie where the movie ended, credits rolled, the house lights went on, and no one moved from their seats. About five minutes after the house lights went up people started coming out of their comas to look around, and I think most of us thought, okay we get it, that was a joke, right?, they are going to show the real movie now. Eventually, after the ushers handed out disguises, and we swore an oath of secrecy to never admit we were there, we felt that it was safe to leave, praying that we would not be seen leaving the auditorium. I have seen some pretty bad movies in my day, (I have Cinemax for goodness sakes), but I am still bitter that I will never, ever be able to recover those two or so hours of my life that I lost watching Closet Land.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I classify this as the worst movie of all time.

If there ever was a movie I would wish upon my enemies, this would be it. The plot is ridiculous, there are only 2 characters, and the coincidences between these characters just completely strain belief.

These factors combined to make this an extremely boring movie.

My wife and mother walked out on the movie about 15 minutes in. I figured that a movie this boring and slow *must* have some cool interesting plot twist, and a was quite disappointed when nothing exciting materialized.

I briefly considered sending the filmmakers a bill for my 2 hours of lost life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Out of 15 people I loaned this movie too.. NO One finished it.. It was so Awfully.???????? Not good... Just awful. She sits in a chair the whole movie. She's in a Closet. The Chair she's sitting is nice. I can't think of anything more to say. But 10 lines of text. To print this up. My friend Nick thinks this is a great movie.,, because,,, he can give it to his friends,, and not have to worry about THOSE calling him back. He's passed it around as a gag movie for 10 years. Which is how I got it.. Then.. I tried to get my friends to finish this extremity's awful awful piece of crap... To no aval.. no one could finish it.. Takes boredom to a whole new level. They could use this in Iraq INSTEAD OF WATER BOARDING... PLEASE SEND COPIES Guantanamo BAY CUBA. Makes great Xmas gift.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dr. Lucio Fulci (Lucio Fulci) is a director of gory horror movies who is starting to feel the effect of having filmed too many bloody scenes. He visits his local psychiatrist to see if he is losing his marbles; this proves to be a bad idea, since the shrink is actually a crazy murderer responsible for a spate of grisly killings. Seizing the opportunity to make Fulci his fall guy, the loopy nut doctor hypnotises the horror hack into thinking that he is responsible for the recent series of murders.

On the surface, Cat in the Brain appears to be a fantastically gory treat from spaghetti-splatter god Lucio Fulci. Chock full of chainsaw dismemberment, axe attacks and various other bloody killings, the film certainly spills enough claret for even the most hardened gore-hounds. But when one looks closer, it turns out that many of the gruesome scenes are lifted from earlier movies (mostly Fulci's own 'masterpieces'); remove these from the equation and one is left with a nifty basic plot idea that is totally wasted, some welcome nudity, and dreadful performances from Fulci himself and David L. Thompson as the psycho shrink.

As the film progresses, it develops into an incomprehensible mess, with the 'borrowed' gore footage inserted randomly, with no attempt at working it convincingly into the story. If you've seen Fulci's Touch of Death and Ghost's of Sodom, or Mario Bianchi's the Murder Secret, then you've already seen the best bits of Cat In The Brain before.

After much bloodletting, the film wraps itself up rather quickly, leaving the viewer feeling bewildered and somewhat cheated. Watch the film if you're a Fulci completist, but I would suggest seeking out the films from which the 'good bits' were taken.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a big fan of sci-fi movies. So, when I saw this movie in the EPG, I thought I was in for a pleasant evening. What a disappointment ! Such a poor display of \"special\" effects I could not imagine in 1980, but in 2005 ? Come on, why would you do special effects of an helicopter flying in the desert when you can film a real one for a much lower price (I guess) ? And those killer \"muppets\"... well, I could do better than that in a couple of hours in the garage. You can expect to have a low budget on a movie, but I don't think it's reasonable to have a low movie for any budget. As for the \"star\" of the movie (I use a lot of quotes tonight...), Lou Diamond Philips, the guy is not even remotely an actor. Maybe he should have stayed to the martial arts movies. All in all, an awful movie. Maybe I am in a bad mood tonight. Then again, maybe not. A sincere 1 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What do you get when you put Lou Diamond Philips, Todd Bridges, Barry Corbin with a bad toupee, and an alien all on a train? You get a very bad movie called \"Alien Express\" or \"Dead Rail\" that would be more entertaining on Comedy Central's old series \"Mystery Science Theater 3000.\" You name it, this awful movie suffered in areas of acting, plot, storyline, and special effects. In fact, the exterior passenger train shots looked like the production staff used a common HO scale model in front of a painted background! The rest of the special effects goes downhill from there.

The plot is very predictable and is similar to two 1970's movies called \"Horror Express\" and a disaster movie called \"The Cassandra Crossing.\" At least \"The Cassandra Crossing\" had a better cast, an engaging storyline, and real train scenes.

If you want a good laugh and a movie to mock at a \"B movie\" party then watch this; otherwise, \"Alien Express\" derailed long before departing from the station!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is fairly typical for the Sci-Fi Channel: one-dimensional characters, a ridiculous plot, and terrible special effects. We've got some alien sock puppets loose on a train, and Lou Diamond Phillips does his best with what little he's given to eke out a performance. And save the day. Everyone else in this is utterly dispensable; the ex-wife who goes through the time-honored clich\u00e9 of first disliking Lou, then of course comes to love him again at the end. The obnoxious State Senator who gets munched early on, and a gaggle of dull security guards who run around a lot. Then there's an eco-terrorist who is in this movie for absolutely no reason whatsoever, except to provide us with 3% more running around. He spends the whole middle part of the movie hiding in a box.

The special effects really deserve their own paragraph. We start with a meteorite that flies through the air, trailing flames behind it, at about 100 miles per hour. According to the physics of this movie, if you exceed the posted speed limit in your car, atmospheric friction may cause you to burst into flames. Then it lands on the hood of a car, coming in horizontally. Sort of like a velcro ball landing on a velcro floor I guess. It really doesn't damage the car much, just bends up the hood a little bit. Later on Lou gets in a helicopter and goes chasing after the train. Even though the train only had a two minute head start, it takes a good half hour to catch it. The CGI is so bad that the helicopter looks like it's as big as the hills it's flying over. Then it flies into the side of a mountain - this effect must be seen to be believed. It looks like they took a jar of gasoline and threw it against a wall, then superimposed the flame effect over the helicopter. About 10 times too big. No wonder the helicopter couldn't pull up in time, it was carrying five tons of nitro glycerine. Then the eco-terrorist eventually blows himself up, but instead of exploding in all directions like most explosions do, he explodes upwards like a cannon aimed into the air. Then there's the whole deal with not being able to stop the train because that would allow the little aliens to get off, but it appears that the aliens can actually fly faster than the train is traveling, so why this would keep them on the train I have no idea.

Overall, if you've got a couple of hours that absolutely need killing, and it's down to this movie or reruns on the Food Network, well, come to think of it, some of those chefs are kind of cute. Usually these movies have at least one or two things about them that make it possible to sit through them; maybe there's a sexy girl, some T&A, or a character that actually has some personality, or some suspense or, well, something. I really didn't see any of that here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is way beyond me how this script was ever sold much less produced and distributed. The dialogue was so bad it was sickening. The train and helicopter scenes appeared to have been done on flash cards by high school students. Lou Diamond Phillips must have hidden under his seat when this --- this \"movie\"? was shown at a private screening afterwhich he most likely left by the back door. The only emotion it aroused in me was pity for the cast, they had to \"bite the bullet\" to get through this one. I couldn't stand to watch all of it, it was so predictable that it was funny. Who knows maybe it will be picked up by one of the networks as a situation comedy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watching ALIEN EXPRESS inspired feelings of awe, shock, pity and, yes, sheer terror. To think that actors who have done good work in the past should come to something like this. The horror, the horror.

Tell me if any of this sounds familiar.

A train especially built for a political campaign is on it's way to Las Vegas for a big rally for the candidate, a Senator from Texas (Barry Corbin, the only actor with roles both ALIEN EXPRESS and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN in the same decade). At a railroad crossing in Utah a meteor incinerates a car waiting for the train to pass.

The train stops. Local law enforcement is summoned. Oh, can it be? The Senator has a lovely young lady (Amy Locane from CRY-BABY and MELROSE PLACE) who just happened to have once been married to one of the officers answering the 911 call. Lou Diamond Phillips (STAND AND DELIVER, LA BAMBA) is the ex-husband.

Meanwhile eeeeevil aliens have managed to stow away on the train.

The train leaves. Lou gets his buddy to pilot a helicopter so that Lou can drop onto the moving train (about 70 miles per hour) so that he can save the day. As the buddy's reward, he crashes the helicopter into the mountain.

Which is another example of how poorly written ALIEN EXPRESS is. The cop hero's sidekick must die, we all know that. But he's supposed to die near the end of the third act, usually while saving several lives.

Once on the train, Lou manages to lose his shirt so that he can channel Bruce Willis in DIE HARD by wearing a wife beater t-shirt. Yeah, Lou is 46 years old but he hits the gym. The part he's playing isn't worth bothering with, but he's in good shape.

The Senator is going to have an afternoon delight with Miss Utah, but aliens intercede and both he and the woman young enough to be his granddaughter pay the ultimate price.

Soon we have bomb threats, multiplying aliens, and of course the train goes out of control and speeds toward its date with destiny while Lou and Todd Bridges (DIFF'RENT STROKES) try to save as many lives as they can.

There is exactly one surprise in the entire movie. Early in the story a couple lift wine glasses to their thirty-fifth anniversary, with hopes for thirty-five more years together. The dude gets banged up, but he and the Mrs. both live. Maybe the writers just lost track of them.

This is the kind of movie that you'd love to be a fly on the wall. These actors who have done better work (and, really, deserve much better than this) are probably just happy for the work. Did they actually think they were working on something worthwhile, or did they cry (and\/or drink) themselves to sleep at night? At the end of the story the (fairly numerous, all things considered) survivors gather in the last car of the train, which is unhooked. The other cars go over a cliff but the one containing the protagonists stops just inches short of the cliff.

Lou and his ex are reunited. Happiness reigns. I'd have thought that the first thing they'd do was get off the train so they'd have solid ground under their feet, but I digress.

Someone looks out the window and sees a shooting star. Look, make a wish. Then another. Then more and more. The Earth is being bombarded with meteors that will crack open and creepy crawly hand puppets with big teeth will be everywhere.

It's gotten to a point that seeing the words \"The Sci-Fi Channel Presents\" on an \"original\" movie tells us that we'll be glad we have Ti-Vo so that we can fast forward through the next two hours. Or, better yet, just go ahead and erase it two minutes into the story and spend that time more wisely.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS... OR MAYBE NOT. THE WARNING IS THE SAME FOR ALL*

Dang it. Just when I thought that SCIFI Channel had used all of its ridiculous ideas for movies, they give us THIS. Actually, the plot itself it's nothing we haven't seen in movies like Snakes On A Plane, Deep Blue Sea, etc... That means, a monster\/animal\/menace of some kind is lurking in a close environment threatening a bunch of people. In this case, an alien in a train. Wow.

I must say that, when I first saw this thing on cable, I couldn't stop laughing. No SCIFI film had prepared me for this; it was so incredibly pathetic I couldn't believe it! The actors are all a bunch of stereotypical-genre characters. But since they're not so famous (to say the least), I wasn't expecting much of them. Except Diamond Phillips. No comments there, but I think the guy was desperate to find a job. The problem was something called 'special effects', horrible even for SCIFI Channel standards. That model\/toy they made us believe it was a real train (not to mention the model\/toy helicopter, bigger than a train's wagon), the meteor coming HORIZONTALLY from space, the 'baby' alien (a sock puppet, and I ain't kiddin'), the regular aliens who looked pretty ugly... while they were static; when they started \"moving\", it was awful, the explosions (the terrorist blew up LITERALLY! And what about the exploding helicopter! Just how many barrels of gas was that thing carrying?), the insane mathematics used (they couldn't even solve a school problem right!)... And I won't talk about that doomsday-like ending, by that time I didn't know if to keep laughing or to start crying. If I remember right, I did both.

It's an ideal movie to have a good laugh, alone or with friends. But be warned; it's so ridiculous at SO MANY levels... and you need a heck of a lot of suspension of disbelief...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We all know that special effects cost money, but it seems as if they could have used the money they saved writing the script to get some better shots. The train is obviously a model in most moving shots, the helicopter is obviously computer generated, the alien looks like the one from the end of Spaceballs, except it's a decade later and Spaceballs had an excuse.

The only smart thing they did was blur all of the special effects to make them harder to see.

Not even the actors could compensate for such a poorly written script and it's pretty obvious they didn't really try either.

Please, don't waste your time. Please.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I did my best to watch this two hour fiasco. It combined the awful special effects and plot of the original \"Blob,\" with an execrable boosting of the (outstanding in the original) screenplay of \"Runaway Train.\" The only explanation for this movie is that someone needed to take a huge tax deduction and figured they'd combine it with a shot at hosting a casting couch. What an incredible stinker! Lou Diamond Phillips is anxious to show us why he will take any part, no matter how bad. Barry Corbin continues his career as a typecast creep, a U.S. Senator from Texas and plays it well. He should next do the lead role in the story of Trent Lott or Jesse Helms. The women in this flick all seem to have gotten their roles as consolation prizes in the Fay Wray Memorial screaming contest. Special effects are unbelievably bad. H.S. kids in film class in North Dakota could have done a better job. The writers must have pulled a heist at the clich\u00e9 bank to accumulate this many. I couldn't watch any more without being forced to sit in the Clockwork Orange chair. I have no idea how it ended, except obviously, 119 minutes too late. Ugh! Caveat emptor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not a terrible movie... But there are monster scenes where you will be rolling on the floor laughing - not a good thing for a action\/thriller. The acting is generally pretty decent for a SciFi channel movie. Barry Corbin plays a credible US senator, and Lou Diamond Phillips again gives us a decent military\/police\/sheriff\/agent\/marshal figure. The special effects are well, \"special\" - for example, the external train shots are very obviously a model train.

Goofs: A meteor strikes a stationary car in the opening scene. The car bursts into flames but does not budge an inch. After the impact, the meteor is lodged in the top of the car's hood - impossible from the low angle that the meteor came in at.

Spoilers...

A good portion of the movie's events are predictable, from the helicopter crash (\"Pull up, pull up!\"), to the fact that the annoying people get it in the end, to the classic blown bridge over a 1000 foot gorge awaiting the train, to the sequel set-up at the end.

The scenes showing the aliens attacking are hilarious. They are vicious cute puppets and move at lightening speed - remember the Monty Python rabbit? Spoiler Goof: In one scene four people shooting clip after clip cannot hit a single creature because they move at lightning speed. Later in the movie Todd Bridges rigs up a mini flame thrower which he uses to dispatch a number of creatures at close range. On several occasions, Lou Diamond Phillips is able to easily grab creatures with his bare hands.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was really looking forward to seeing this movie, having spent a few (fantastic) college weeks in Barcelona myself. The premise is right on cue--a confused & disordered young individual enters a world of equally confused & disordered young individuals. But the director's weak swats at symbolism, philosophy and social commentary were completely off the mark, and it leaves us, the audience, feeling confused & disordered. Bravo.

Perhaps if this movie had been presented as a European \"American Pie\" flick, then I'd be able to turn off my brain and go along for the ride. But right off the bat, the director piques our deeper senses by introducing the symbolism of the twisted highways and the dichotomy of the \"inner self\" vs. the \"public self\" (one's \"mother tongue\" vs. one's \"secondary language\"). Furthermore, it dives boldly into the subject of racial\/national stereotyping. Off to an interesting start, eh?

WRONG. That's as far as it goes. These interesting topics are hardly mentioned again except at the contrived epilogue-type ending which seemed to be the director's way of floundering to get back on topic. It reminded me of a meandering speech which goes nowhere, but the speaker ends by saying, \"So in conclusion, I hope you see how this relates to my original thought!\"

Furthermore, as other reviewers have pointed out, the cynical jab at stereotyping betrays itself. If the point is to ridicule the use of national stereotypes, then why did the director introduce a cockney-speaking, beer-swilling English brat as a caricature of prejudice? Why did the director portray the American as a neanderthal (literally banging his chest & making ape noises at one point) whilst the Europeans tolerate him superciliously? Why is the British girl the one who sinks to uttering slurs (calling French people \"frogs\" and butchering the French language) while everyone else is above all that? The answer is that this isn't a deep or well-thought out film. It's simply an Anglophobe's retort to the Anglophiles. But really it's no different from the prejudice it seeks to ridicule! Now there's a funny irony to consider.

OK, philosophy, artistry & socio-political commentary aside, I was still very bored by this movie. There is one very funny gag which involves deceiving one of the girls' boyfriends, but aside from that I was hardly entertained at all. The only reason why I watched it through to the end is that I'd like to brush up on my French & Spanish. (You see, we monolingual Americans may be stupid, but we do try.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen previous movies from C\u00e9dric Klapisch, and therefore expected a quality movie with psychological depth. Having been an Erasmus student myself and having visited several friends studying abroad, I know very well what it means to spend some time abroad and mix with different cultures at the same time. Yes, it is great fun! Because of that I thought I should not miss this movie. Unfortunately I was disappointed to find that L'Auberge Espagnol fails to satisfy in many ways: the characters are stereotyped, the events are trite and the story is shallow. Although there are quite a few familiar situations, they are irritatingly clich\u00e9 and do not go beyond the trivial events. This made the movie uninteresting to watch, and gave me a strong \"been-there-done-that-don't-you-have-anything-to-add?\" feeling. Apart from that, the movie lacks a firm story. It sometimes looks more like a documentary or 'real-life' show than a seriously made movie.

However, I can imagine that if you haven't studied or travelled abroad, this might be fun to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"L'Auberge Espagnole is less funny and less interesting than any episode of Dobie Gillis. Where is their Bob Denver? Do they even have a Dwayne Hickman? A French man moves to Barcelona to attend classes. He moves in with some other students who are no more interesting than himself, and they do and say uninteresting things. This movie is unbelievably bland. The only bright spot was a pretty French girl who played a Belgian lesbian. She places her hands behind her head and reveals shaven underarms, not the usual tufts of dark, smelly hair. But bare armpits does not a good movie make. L'Emmerdeur was funny, so was La Cage aux Folles. L'Auberge Espagnole and Le Placard makes you wonder what is going wrong with French comedy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretty, stereotyped, good looking cast, the story loops in a wide and confusing arc, leading you down a number of garden paths (without attendant fairies) before plummeting to an end that feels you leaving - hollow.

If you are after a film that has climax or ends with a satisfying thump, this is going to be a disappointment. Inspite of the main character's notionally overt sexuality I felt that he was androgynous, lacking a clear male persona, rather like his lacking of a clear French persona. Even though he is notionally laid naked (or rather sat naked) at the end of the film, the viewer is as unaware as the character as to motivations - that little thing called plot. Probably a stereotypically English speaking point of view, at least if you take the side of the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Irwin Allen's first venture into all star spectacle was one all star disaster. The Story of Mankind contains some of the most incredible casting decisions of all time. Virginia Mayo as the blond Cleopatra, Dennis Hopper chewing the scenery with Napoleon, Peter Lorre dining on the scenery for weeks as Nero, Marie Wilson as Marie Antoinette as a roadshow Marilyn Monroe, that's just some of them.

The film also is known for being the last film which featured all three of the Marx Brothers though they all have different roles. Chico plays a monk who is Christopher Columbus's confidante, Groucho euchres the Indians out of Manhattan island as Peter Minuit, and most astonishing of all, Harpo Marx as Sir Isaac Newton who discovers gravity when an apple conks him on the bean.

Holding all these portrayals together is a story where mankind itself is being judged. A super H Bomb is about to be discovered and let loose will do in the world's population. It's Judgement Day a coming.

But mankind has its advocates and detractors. Speaking for the prosecution is Old Scratch who's been bringing the worst out in man for centuries in the form of Vincent Price. But man has his good side as well and who better than Ronald Colman to demonstrate man at his most civilized best. Colman and Price plead their case before The Judge played by Cedric Hardwicke.

In those three individuals you have some of the finest speaking voices the English language ever knew. When the film is on them as they each bring out the exhibits for their case it's a pleasure to listen to. Then when the focus is on the individual stories, you want to scream in agony.

What was Irwin Allen driving at, I'm still trying to figure it out. Was he deliberately camping it up with some of these casting decisions? If it was satire, it just doesn't get off the ground.

This was Ronald Colman's farewell film and while it's hardly something I'd like to go out on, I can't think of any man who could have stated the case for civilization any better.

So when you see The Story of Mankind, fast forward through some of the exhibits and treasure every moment the advocates are before the judge.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I was 8 years old, and going through my Marx Brothers phase, my father read in the TV Guide that they were showing the Marx Brothers film, \"The Big Store\" late on Friday night, and set the VCR to tape it for me. When I woke up on Saturday -- due no doubt to a misprint in the TV guide -- my father and I discovered \"The Story of Mankind\" had been recorded instead.

\"The Big Store\" was probably one of the least funny of all the Marx Brothers movies and nevertheless it stands as one of the century's finest works of cinema when compared with \"The Story of Mankind.\" I can almost justify TV Guide's error, in that the Marx Brothers -- Groucho, Chico, and Harpo -- appear in both movies. Although in \"The Story of Mankind,\" they are divided up into a series of unrelated scenes: Groucho plays Peter Minuit, Chico plays some guy talking to Christopher Columbus, and Harpo plays Isaac Newton????? Harpo's scene lasts about half a minute; Chico only has two or three lines; Groucho's scene is at least funny, but horribly racially insensitive by today's standards. The rest of the movie doesn't bear mentioning. They trotted out some of the finest actors of the day, and made them recite total garbage. What a disappointment.

TV Guide, I sent you a nice letter, I'm still waiting for an apology.

For the record: \"The Big Store\" has a wonderful bit of physical comedy with the Marx Brothers on roller skates, and a couple of songs by Virginia O'Brien. I was really looking forward to seeing it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't understand why many seem to hate this.

This movie ties together many of the overlapping settings of the historical and Biblical epics of the fifties, using set pieces, props, and costumes similar to those seen in other movies. Here, however, the story attempts to run through all of human history, with a frame story about the human race being on trial, with a guilty verdict meaning h-bombs will go off all over the world. The prosecutor is the devil, played with fiendish glee by Vincent Price. OK, so it's a little hokey calling the defender \"The Spirit of All Men,\" but I think that's one of the things that gives this movie a sense of period charm. The Spririt of Man is incidentally played quite well by Ronald Coleman, in his last film. It is also the last movie in which Groucho, Harpo, and Chico Marx all appear, but not together. Groucho plays Peiter Minuet buying Manhattan from the Indians, in a scene played purely for campy humor. Chico isn't funny at all as a monk who thinks the world is flat, and Harpo, we are told, is meant to be Isaac Newton, discovering gravity. Most of the other performances are well done, though.

Other hokey things are that the trial is supposedly taking place in outer space, which is depicted as a region of clouds and blueness. There is something called \"The Great Clock of Outer Space,\" which, when striking midnight, may signal the end of the world.

But at its heart, the movie addresses the problems of WMDs and the eternal question of whether Man is basically good, or basically evil; and poses it in what I think is an interesting way. Also, anyone who likes the look of costume epics of the fifties should like the look of this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm an atheist. To me history and truth mean a lot.

This film is made after a novel published in 1921, which is still being updated up to this day as if it was a history book. Well it's not. The movie is about the novels 1950s version. Some actors were GREAT but that doesn't cover the plot.

In short man invents a super-bomb so God and his friends hold a tribunal to see if they must intervene. The devil analogy persecutes man, and for defense we have the spirit of man. What is the spirit of man anyway? And why was the first defendant Adam? Eventually you just get US Christian propaganda in a 5th grade history book of the time. Though other religions are mentioned, only European Christianity is explored.

First we get the caveman story. The women are scrawny stereotypes of damsels in distress. Real cave women were as strong as men and just as resistant. Hard times, hard life, adapt and survive. All this is watered down by mid-century stereotypes.

Next we get Egypt's first pyramid construction. Today we see a different story and know that there were a lot less deaths and regular citizens at work as well. Loosing mentioned amount of many lives in the process would have been a national disaster and nobody after would try to beat it. As if there was only ONE pyramid build.

The part about Moses and one true god was as if the Spanish inquisition was asking nicely. Inquisition itself was never even mentioned in the movie.

Helen of Troy's evil grim was so vile that I didn't see why so many were even interested in her. In reality they were just soldiers, following commanders orders, who were \"discussing\" a political issue of power. She was just an excuse.

The Cleopatra story was were I saw this film was to inaccurate and filled with propaganda. Here brother was a LOT younger. She was not obsessed with poison, was quite educated to restore library content, and was politically competitive to drag beaten down Egypt out of dirt.

The part with Nero and praying Christians in a cave were disgusting. Yes, Rome burned down. Yes, there was persecuted Christianity. But the way they portray it was as if the Coliseum build itself and there was no Vespasian to rebuild Rome.

Attila the Hun appears in a short seen and than we jump to King Arthur. The crusades are mentioned with minimal bloodshed. And there is no mention of the crusades east to Russia that ended in an ironic battle. The knights just went home and started jousting for fun of it. A LOT of stuff is put down like no indoor pluming, hygiene and plagues.

Then they cover Joan of Ark, where she always has to much makeup and looks like a princes. Territorial politics were replaced with an unjust court. The sidesaddle alone on a stool makes me want to ask how someone could follow here. At here burning I wanted to yell \"Hura! Now die already! Cheap special effects, where is the fire?\".

By the time they mentioned Leonardo I already got fed up with the movie. Columbus, Spanish slaughter of America, yelling Queen Elisabeth \"kick the Spanish armada\" and so on and so on.

The ONLY reason I wanted to see this movie was the fact that it was the last one with all 3 Marks brothers. And all they got was the scene with Manhattan and Indians. Amusing, but no more than a smile.

The witch-hunts are mentioned briefly, as well as plagues (after renascence). When they start portraying revolutions, things gut power-hungry and anarchistic. The US revolution was pursued by the French revolution. Oppression and incompetence are bad, but you can't just blow the old way up out of anger, you must replace it with something. So they replaced the French monarchy with new French monarchy. So we get Napoleon and his ambitions to go to India by land. But they replace his motives with unity and band him for only the title \"Emperor\". The conquests in Europe, defeat in Russia are sacked to Waterloo.

The US civil war, the English rich inventors (Tesla not included). \"Mister Watson, come here, I want you\" almost made me laugh for teenage reasons. Technological hard work was watered down to the final discovery and comedic misuse.

Eventually after 85 minutes we come to world wars and organized crime, but none of its horrors. Adolph's words \"I invade Russia. This is my last territorial demand\" were hilarious. It was his LAST territorial demand.

To build suspense God puts a countdown clock to doomsday on the \"wall\" for the final words. All mighty cant pause the universe for a second? There was no need for the persecution speech but the defense made one last throw.

Last we see the man of tomorrow as the final defense. Apparently a paradox man, because the bomb was to go of today. His toys are a music box in the shape of a gun and a pencil box sword. Now that is so wrong\u0085 Pens and pencils drew so many weapon blueprints that its kill count surpasses the atom bomb. And making music out of a weapon? Deluded egoistic generals make music out of weapon fire. So the man of tomorrow is already a monster.

The way I see it, all the defense had to do was blame the devil as the true conspirator for mans demise and case closed. And honestly, compared to all barbaric stuff our ancestors did centuries ago we are pretty humane at painless backstabbing these days.

To summarize all I will just quote \"Firefly\"s episode \"Jaynestown\": \"It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of son of bitch or another. Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Leave Ed Wood alone. To call \"Plan 9 from Outer Space\" the worst film ever made would be to deny this abysmally vulgar heap of Hollywood guano its rightful title. This pretentious fusion of witless whimsy and bathetic sociopolitical \"commentary\" actually does seem to be formed along the lines of \"Plan 9,\" with badly-staged scenes of down-on-their-luck actors on cheap sets interspersed with what appears to be footage of battle and crowd scenes cribbed from higher-budget epics. But whereas \"Plan 9\" occasionally manages to be funny when it means to be and reasonably entertaining overall, this tacky pageant is appallingly lacking in basic showmanship, with scenes ranging from offensively unfunny (the disgusting burlesque of Groucho Marx stealing Manhattan from the Indians) to low camp (Hedy Lamarr attempting to impersonate Joan of Arc hearing her \"voices\") to tedious (Dennis Hopper doing absolutely nothing with the role of Napoleon) to the unexpectedly poignant performance of Peter Lorre as the psychotic Nero. Give the worst director trophy to Irwin Allen, for turning so much into so little.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Making a film based on a true story, particularly one as incredible and horrifying as the 1972 Andean plane crash, is hard for even the best filmmakers. But the Mexicans behind this forgettable and cheap exploitation flick don't even try! The actual names of both the survivors and the casualties of the Uruguayan air force plane crash have ALL been altered, the crash itself is obviously staged in a very slip-shod manner, and the cannibalism aspect has been unnecessarily and gorily played up. Shockingly, it made a ton of money on both sides of the border. Thankfully, thought, it has mercifully been forgotten. But the same people behind this would later give us the equally revolting GUYANA: CULT OF THE DAMNED!

This cheap horror exploitation flick necessitated the making of ALIVE some fifteen years later. That film was a masterpiece. SURVIVE!, to put it mildly, is not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I couldn't. I was bored, not just because the acting was terrible and the tragic story was simply a b-movie whose plot was all about the cannibalism, but the fact I was watching a subtitle foreign film, which doesn't bother me at all, but was STILL dubbed.

The \"special effects\" were awful. As the back of the plane splits off, you can see the model is hollow as it \"breaks away\" in the phony snow. Most of the movie takes place on a sound stage that clearly is not real and almost looks like a play, as the \"sounds\" of snow blowing all over are heard but not actually scene.

\"But how what will they eat? They have no food\" one military person (It's never clear what this guy does or why he's in charge) says, which I'm sure no one ever said in reality or even thought about food, since they were concerned if the people were alive, not how they'd eat. It was simply a stupid line written to point out that, yes, they will have to eat the dead bodies to survive.

When they finally decide to eat the bodies, one man finds one shirtless body, who despite being in the snow for however long, is not remotely frozen, in fact, his flesh is very flexible and fresh. He cuts the fresh meat off his back, that again, is not frozen or even cold it appears, and this scene goes on for five minutes. That's where I had to stop. The remake \"Alive\" was a far superior film about trying to survive in a horrible situation that I'm sure the real survivors praised whereas I can't imagine any of them had anything nice to say about this version. It was simply about eating dead bodies and everything else was secondary. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst things a film studio can do is exploit the tragedies of others, commercializing a 'shock' or 'gore' factor in order to sell tickets to be able to buy their Birch a new diamond necklace. Another worst thing is to totally misrepresent the true facts of an incredible saga by fabricating events, dialog and images to the director's own liking. Lastly, one of the worst things a film studio can do is to use bottom-of-the-barrel actors and shoot it all on a sound stage that was rented for fifty cents a day. All three of these travesties the makers of this film are guilty of. This is, hands-down, the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen thousands. A score of '1' is too good for this waste of celluloid. Not only should the filmmakers be ashamed for making it, they should be ashamed for negatively exploiting the heroes of this story, which are the people who experienced this tragedy firsthand, both the living and the dead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lance Henriksen has a knack for being the top name in a B-movie, even in this case starring along side Charles Napier, Master Control Program, and Joe Don Baker. As always he does a great job of being the bad guy, but the plot is just bad (don't even get me started about the ending). And the editing is so horrible it might actually be a thing of beauty. Is it just me, or does it seem that Joe Don Baker was spliced into the movie at the last minute? Also, anytime glass is broken in this movie, the editing is so anti-phenomenal. Lastly, after watching this, I figure David Warner is dying for Tron 2.0 to finally get the green light.

Unfortunately for Felony, this will be the third movie I give the rating of 1\/10, joining Iron Eagle IV and No Mercy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Felony' is a B-movie. No doubt about it.

Of course, if you take a look at the cast lineup you might have some high hopes for its entertainment potential. This film is stuffed with all of those wonderful character actors that you grew up with, the ones with the faces you immediately recognize even though you probably don't know their names. It's amazing that the filmmakers were able to get all of these people together on one project, almost like they decided to do a B-movie actor reunion. The cast even includes a couple of really first-rate actors: David Warner, who most people will recognize from 'Titanic' (although my favorite of his roles is Jack the Ripper in 'Time After Time') and Lance Henriksen, who many will remember as Bishop in 'Aliens'. These two actors have done some excellent work in their long careers and made some very fine films.

However, as impressive as this collection of actors is, their talent is never fully manifested on the screen. The writers of 'Felony' spent a lot of money to assemble a dream-team cast and then missed their golden opportunity because of one important factor, the common denominator of all B-movies: a silly script.

We start with a silly premise. The bad guys are caught on tape committing a gruesome murder and they relentlessly pursue the film crew in order to acquire the videotape and destroy the evidence. But honestly, why bother? In the time it takes them to track down the film crew, a thousand copies of that tape could be made and circulated to every law enforcement agency and media outlet. The criminals don't seem to realize how futile their effort is, and they talk as if stealing and destroying the one original videotape is going to solve the whole problem. Silly...but I suppose if the bad guys were so logical there would be no movie.

Then there is the dialogue. It is at times silly, at times clich\u00e9, and at times unbelievable...everything you have come to expect from a B-movie. Of course, I have always believed that strong performances can overcome a lot of weaknesses in the material. This cast includes actors who are definitely capable of strong performances, and although a number of the cast members are not good actors at all and have achieved B-movie status quite deservedly, one still might be hopeful that the stronger part of the cast would be able to infuse some life into their parts. However, it's disappointing to see that few of the actors in this film really seem to take the movie seriously enough to give it their best shot. There's not much inspiration evident in these performances, but then again it's an uninspiring script. Now, I'll admit that some of the more colorful actors in the cast do manage to add a certain amount of pizazz into the delivery of their lines, but honestly, even the very fine actors I mentioned earlier seem mostly disinterested and uninvolved with the story.

Speaking of the story...even if the acting had been of a high enough caliber that it made the dialogue seem a little less cheesy, it still would not redeem 'Felony' from the fact that its writer commits the ultimate faux pas of low budget action movie scripts: a plot with as many holes as a block of Swiss cheese. You can watch this movie a hundred times and you still won't figure out how everything adds up. In an effort to create suspense and always keep the viewer guessing, the writer throws in all kinds of surprises and unexpected twists into his script and ends up with a jigsaw puzzle, but when you get to the end you find there are a bunch of pieces that just don't fit anywhere and others that are missing. I admire a good thriller that keeps me guessing, but creating plot twists that exist just to confuse you and which are not consistent with the rest of the story is amateurish. There was so much that was never explained that I felt extremely frustrated at the end. If you decide to watch it, be prepared to be confused.

I haven't even mentioned all kinds of other silly things about this movie, but I won't bother. The funny thing is that despite everything I've said, I have to admit that I can't give 'Felony' 1\/10 stars. Although I can't exactly put my finger on why, I actually found this film to be somewhat likable. The silliness can actually be fun at times if you are in the mood for it. Plus, I really like some of these character actors, and even though their performances are somewhat lackluster considering their talents, I still got a kick out of seeing them.

Now, I realize I have been rating this film from the standpoint of a serious moviegoer. It's entirely possible I have completely missed the point. It could be that the filmmakers' intention all along was to make a B-movie. Maybe the silliness is all completely intentional. If that's the case, and if I were to rate it on those terms, I would have to say that 'Felony' is a classic in the genre of tongue-in-cheek action flicks. B-movie fans will love seeing all of their favorite actors together in one film, will get some chuckles from the script, and will be entertained by the healthy dose of guns, explosions, and chases.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With several name actors (Lance Henrikson, David Warner, Joe Don Baker), why was Jeffery Combs given the lead? Henrikson would have been a perfect fit for the lead, as would Warner, Baker or even others in the movie such as Charles Napier. Combs was miscast in this, and did a poor job of it. Everything he did seemed fake or contrived.

The script is poor. Meaning that if Lance Henrikson (or another) had the lead role, he might have saved the film (removed it from my \"waste of time\" category), but it still would have been a bad movie. The screen play was completely lacking. The director should have recognized this and helped the movie along.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a film that really makes me cringe. In 1951, MGM and Looney Toons were making some of their very best cartoons--with amazing animation, exceptional backgrounds and great stories. Then, in the late 40s, a new style of animation began to appear (such as the \"Crusader Rabbit\" series on TV)--animation with extremely simplistic artwork in order to save money. Unfortunately, Columbia Picture's cynical ploy worked!! Instead of the public hating the toons (as they should have), many accepted them and the Oscar people (AMPAS) actually gave this film the award for Best Animated Short--giving legitimacy for an inferior product. Unfortunately, in the dollars and sense world of Hollywood, this soon began to creep into the products of legitimate studios--resulting in rather crappy cartoons. Later, it got even worse as in addition to lousy animation and backgrounds, the stories themselves became almost unbearable for adults to watch. The cleverness and style of the classic cartoons were gone. And for this tragedy, I blame, in part, GERALD MCBOING-BOING--one of the granddaddies of cheap cartoons. The story isn't that bad but the animation is a horror and listening to the kid saying \"boing-boing\" incessantly is a pain.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"hey ....i really do not know why this film has been appreciated so much,perhaps i missed the point.The way i see it , a lot of international film makers have made brilliant films that have dealt with 'schizophrenia' and have informed ,excited ,shocked,evoked emotion and compelled the audience to step aside from their own reality and think.........while it is true that aparna sen's endeavor was an ambitious one ,in light of all the other movies , this one falls short..... miserably......it was too slow, there were no details about anything and the ending .... was completely ...pointless......it was not open ended or anything ....just pointless.....so watch it if you want to see a good concept completely wasted.......","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've become a big fan of the Carpenters, and I didn't really enjoy this movie.

I feel it focused far too much on her anorexia and didn't let her true personality shine through. I wasn't overly fond of Cynthia Gibb's portrayal; especially knowing she decided Karen's anorexia was suicide, which it clearly wasn't. Although her family was not big on hugs and kisses, I thought the movie portrayed Agnes (their mother) as being terrible.

I did find a few scenes to be harrowing in a way, such as where she sees herself in a mirror that seems to distort her and make her look heavier; I thought the metaphor (so-to-speak) there was rather effective. When the family is playing pool and discussing her divorce and she breaks down and Richard is shocked when he comforts her and feels her frail body was pretty moving (which is probably the wrong word) as well.

Overall, I feel they needed to bring out her more bubbly, quirky side--her genuine personality. Even as the focus of the film, there really wasn't a point that caused one to understand what would lead her to anorexia (though of course no one can really know), and almost made it seem baseless. The film was more poor-singer-with-anorexia than Karen Carpenter's story, in my opinion.

I would assume that they changed her husband's name\/profession and all because they couldn't get his permission to actually include him (there were some bad terms there), but that whole aspect was inaccurate with the changes. On this note, I can't recall the movie bringing out her longing for a family and kids, which greatly prevailed in her life and explains her whirlwind romance and quick marriage to her husband.

On the whole, it ends up as a low-budget made-for-TV movie that just isn't very high quality and can be disappointing if you're a hardcore fan who is hoping to see beyond Karen's disease. I feel that such a legend deserves\/deserved a better film as a tribute to an amazing person and an awesome voice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have been a fan of the Carpenters for a long time, read the biography, watched the specials, and saw the Karen Carpenter Story. This movie really didn't show the real Karen Carpenter. In the movie she seems to be a shy and a pretty much of loner (except for one girl friend). The real Karen Carpenter was much different. She was outgoing and friendly. She had lots of friends, especially Olive Newton-John. The movie doesn't even show Karen's attempts for a solo album and her meeting Phil Ramone and his wife Itchy \"Karen\". Itchy knew the real Karen Carpenter in New York. When Karen was in New York, she did see a psychologist, but it was voluntary and once a day and then she would leave to go to her hotel room. Also, Karen was taking pills to increase her thyroid, so she could loss weight, but stop taking them because the psychologist recommended her not too. Also, the Karen's husband in the movie is named Bob Knight, but in real life was named Tom Burris. Also, Karen wasn't divorced from Tom, but only separated. Karen was to sign the divorce papers on the day she died. Also, Agnes found Karen naked in the closet unciousness, unlike in the movie where she was dressed in white. The music was very good. That was the only thing I would recommend on seeing it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am very diplomatic in my reviews, and as an academic writer, try to give creative license to TV writers trying to explicate a true story. This story, about Karen Carpenter, could have helped so many, yet due to the directing and editing, does not.

The story, in this case, is not fully addressed, unless one reads psychological journals. While Cynthia Gibb portrays a realistic Karen, it is sad that so much has been edited...Louise Fletcher portrays her mother, and does an excellent job, with limited material and dialogue. In this case, I give the actors credit for surviving this project.

Why is the audience not permitted to see causation factors?....American audiences are quite savvy, and if they have cable, usually educated.

I sincerely feel that I could have written a better story, would not have edited out the truth, and allowed the actors to project the reality.

Richard Carpenter, as director, has seriously underestimated and insulted American audiences. Karen's story is important, and it is sad we will never hear it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show uses a rather tired sitcom formula of the fat idiot blue collar slob with the pretty (and sometimes shrewish-seeming) wife and crazy in-law(s). With this show, it's fat unfunny comedian Kevin James as Doug Hefferman who works as a delivery driver for a parcel service. He has a pretty wife, Carrie (Leah Remini), who works as legal assistant, and senile father-in-law, Arthur Spooner (Jerry Stiller), who lives in his daughter and son-in-law's basement. Kevin James' Doug is your typical beer drinking, sports loving, TV watching slob of a sitcom husband who would rather watch the tube than deal with his marital issues. He also has a couple of idiot friends who lend extra stupidity to the problems encountered by this show's couple. Beyond the few laughs supplied by Jerry Stiller's crazy old man character this show was generally unfunny. Kevin James' imbecilic behavior usually caused the show's problems that usually resolved by his wife. This show continued a run of sitcoms with the fat stupid father\/husband and their pretty wives that all seemed to run on ABC for some reason.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A show about an incredibly dumb, man-child and his shrewish hot wife. 99% of the plots revolves around Doug doing something unbelievably stupid and then comes a variable: a) either he hides it from his wife or b) tell his wife, she emasculates him and then it's up to the father-in-law (Arthur: the typecast character from Seinfeld) to aggravate the situation.

And the writers dare to say it was influenced by the \"Honeymooners\" (an absolute classic) and that the plots are drawn from real-life situations, unless you live in a cave, you know that's not true.

Anyway, let's just put it this way. If Kevin James had been thin, the show would have got canceled fromm the pilot. If you're 12, or you're fond of fat jokes.. be my guest, watch this show (or any of Kevin James movies for that matter).

I've noticed some posters compare this travesty to much superior shows like Friends, Seinfeld and Everybody Loves Raymond -- I'm still wondering how could anyone do that","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a lame comedy.

Here's why: A man and wife sitcom. Okay.

The Husband is a douche bag. The Wife is the Einstein.

How original is that?

Jerry Stiller is just the same guy on Seinfeld.

The gags are lame. No witty one-liners.

I have had enough. Stop this now.

The Last Word: Stupid. The destruction of the average white guy continues on ABC. The worst part? Kevin James is actually a funny comedian. He just isn't here. Leah Remini is great eye candy, but is unlikeable. Wasted talent is the word. Bad sitcom.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't help but be completely annoyed by this sitcom. It's like they didn't even bothered trying ro write good comedy, just rehash third rate jokes and hope it sticks. The worst of all this is that it's all so damm uninteresting and lacking in every way.

To make things worse leading man Kevin James has a permanent \"I'm so funny\" smug grin on his face that would be tolerable if only he once delivered in the comedy department, which he doesn't, he just lies there doing nothing like a big unfunny baby. Which takes me to the relationship between the Heffernan's- easily the most insincere and poor representation of a married couple on any TV show, really headache inducingly obnoxious Remini spends the whole show as if it where a violent chore to even be around her own husband. Jerry Stiller yanking the few laughs on the show is doing a 100% repetition of his role as Frank Costanza in Seinfeld only this time his hints mostly tread on water due to the inability of the central duo in recognizing a joke even if it flew by them. The episodes just drift along in a stream of nothingness, their jobs add nothing and their interaction is even worse.

This is not even a waste of talent, there is no talent here, this is a laughless creative desert.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is not one character on this sitcom with any redeeming qualities. They are all self-centered, obnoxious or two dimensional. My husband watches it, claiming that there is nothing else on, but I would rather watch nothing.

The only sitcom that I can think of that was worse was Yes, Dear. At least that one didn't get 9 seasons.

Being overweight does not make a comic genius, and Kevin James does not have the talent of John Goodman, Jackie Gleason or John Belushi. Leah Remini may have talent, but if so, she is wasted on the shrewish wife. Jerry Stiller is convincing as an annoying old man. Maybe there is a reason for that.

This is a perfect example of why sitcoms are derided.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"When a Killer Calls\" is an unusually nasty slasher flick, with some very unpleasant and unsettling sequences. The decision was clearly made to try and cash in on the remake of \"When a Stranger Calls\" by pretty much putting in -- almost word for word -- the phone call sequences from that movie. They seem very forced.

Additionally, the filmmaker commits the cardinal (but all too common) sin of having the heroine's friends being repulsive jerks. So for the beginning of the film, we really like and are rooting for the babysitter (a nice believable job by Rebekah Kochan), but then she's joined by standard slasher-flick teenage friends and the mood is ruined.

The flick sort of works, but it probably a lot more unpleasant than you'll be expected, so be fore-warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To sum it up in a nutshell, this film was disappointing and could have been shortened by twenty minutes.

The acting was sub-par, the only decent actors of the bunch being Trisha, the killer and Molly. The music was slightly lame but fitting and the special effects were much too overused. The story\/scriptwriting was poor, the unnecessary torture\/romantic scenes being dragged on for way too long and a disappointing ending.

The start of the film was rather slow, the fake-looking gore not much of interest. Trisha arrived at the house, and there was some premise for a good storyline.

Trisha started to receive the threatening phone calls, which heightened the suspense. This momentary suspense, the best feature of the movie began to build, but then the friends crashed the place, wrecking all potential suspense\/horror in the film.

The plot then becomes obtuse from here on. Chemistry sparks between the two couples, and then the killer picks off Frank and the other girl. This scene was dragged on and unnecessary.

The killer then makes her way for Trisha and ties her up. There is an overdone torture scene which goes on for at least ten minutes too long. As the gore is done badly this is not entertaining at all, and it bores more than shocks.

In summary, the first thirty minutes of this film sound promising but then poorly written dialogue and general lack of plot ruins this film.

3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i found this movie to be mostly a P.O.S.it was low budget,but that isn't the problem.the problem is,the movie is just lame.it doesn't really make a lot of sense.yes,it does explain why things happened,but that's not what i mean.there was just no reason for it all.the movie also moved very slow.the last ice age was quicker than this.also, i think they went overboard a bit in the kills.i don't mean they were too gross,but the killer just seemed to spend too much time smashing his victim over the head,or stabbing his victim. maybe i'm being petty,but i just didn't like the movie.the whole thing seemed like a lower rate version of \"When a Stranger Calls\" and maybe that was the whole point.but so what.for me \"When A Stranger Kills\" is a 4\/10*","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had horrible lighting and terrible camera movements. This movie is a jumpy horror flick with no meaning at all. The slashes are totally fake looking. It looks like some 17 year-old idiot wrote this movie and a 10 year old kid shot it. With the worst acting you can ever find. People are tired of knives. At least move on to guns or fire. It has almost exact lines from \"When A Stranger Calls\". With gruesome killings, only crazy people would enjoy this movie. It is obvious the writer doesn't have kids or even care for them. I mean at show some mercy. Just to sum it up, this movie is a \"B\" movie and it sucked. Just for your own sake, don't even think about wasting your time watching this crappy movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When A Killer Calls has got to be the biggest ripoff released by Asylum so far. It's about a sexy babysitter on duty who receives spooky calls from a creepy voice who asks her repeatedly, \"Have you checked the girl?\" Naturally she has the calls traced by the cops (after having to perform some realistically unnecessary tasks -- hanging up when \"he\" calls, waiting ten seconds, and dialing *57). Sound familiar? Yeah, that's why I rented it, too.

Well, it should. And I hate to say it, but this could've been more entertaining than the big-screen crapfest that was released around the same time if not for one fatal mistake -- Rather than revelling in B-movie ripoff glory, it tried to do something original. It tried to make the lead character sympathetic, rather than having clich\u00e9d, campy fun with her. Mind you, this could've worked with a talented actress. But she wasn't. Sure, she looked good, and she screamed, and cried, but . . . oh well, whatever.

Then came the horrific ending. Not horrific in that it was horrifying, horrific in that it was BORING. The pacing up until that point (about an hour in) was campy, clich\u00e9d, and fun. Then it heads in another direction, and it veers away from just another dumb, fun slasher movie with a sexy \"teenage\" cast to a Hostel-esquire gore\/borefest.

I guess this falls into the \"Oh well, whatever\" category. The lead actress flubbed a line? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like reshooting it. We forgot to give the killer motivation? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like rewriting it. The pacing completely changes halfway through? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like shaving fifteen minutes off. Continuity errors? Oh well, whatever.

If you like this kind of movie (dumb, cheesy, predictable, campy splatter movie with sexy cast), then you'll be fine up until the ending. The ending is stupid, it's not fun, it's not scary, it's not campy or cheesy or quickly-paced. In fact, there was almost exactly five minutes of the character doing nothing but being tied up (and that's not a spoiler because it's on the back of the DVD) and looking around at the stuff in the room, then screaming, and . . . whatever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this film is basically a poor take on the old urban legend of the babysitter who gets crank calls telling her to check the children, she calls the police who trace the calls and find there coming from inside the house. when a killer calls has a story so simplistic a little kid could have written it. not much suspense, it becomes clear who the killer is halfway through the film. at the beginning, when the first victim is killed it looks like a bondage fetish scene from a porn site or something. whats up with that? the film is oh so typical slasher fare with a plot about as original as a Beatles concert. even by low budget slasher standards its cheesy. don't waste your time with this. nuff said","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would have given this LESS than a 1 rating if it were possible. The entire film should have been left on the cutting-room floor. What a pathetic waste of time, money and effort! Let's see...assemble the prettiest cast you can find (which of course is in direct proportion to the amount of talent they lack)...throw together the thinnest plot you can dig up...and viola! An abominable piece of trash that the director and\/or producer should be ashamed to put their name on. How much WORSE can the horror genre get? And don't use \"low budget\" as an excuse...I have seen many GREAT low-budget films....in fact some of the best horror classics of all time were low-budget. If you don't have the talent and ingenuity to make a GOOD horror film, then for God's sake don't make one at all!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie probably began with a good idea but that's as far as it went. When I read the cover at Blockbuster I thought it had promise but that was based on the overall idea for the movie. The movie began with a professor talking about how in the future we will be able to see creatures from other dimensions. There was no explanation of how that would happen but that's okay I thought it would be developed that in the movie. It wasn't. In the next scene we see two young men lying on tables with tubes taped to their heads. Beside each one are two attractive women. The men begin asking \"Do you hear that\" or \"Do you see them\". We conclude they think they are seeing ghosts or some other creature that seem invisible or they are hallucinating. The women do not see these creatures. This was fine for the first five minutes BUT THIS SCENE GOES ON FOR A FULL HOUR. It is briefly punctuated by flashbacks that have no correlation to the so called \"plot\" of the film. We are also introduced to a man in a lab coat and what appear to be Middle Eastern terrorists. What is this about? We never find out. The flash backs lead us to believe that the terrorists are forcing the man in the lab coat to perform diabolical experiments on these young people but we never understand why. At the end of the movie the terrorists finally do what terrorists do \u0096 they blow up the lab, but why? What is the point? We have no idea. This film contains so many disconnected thoughts and ideas that there are too many to enumerate but one more notable one is that fact that the man in the lab coats and the terrorist pop in and out of the room throughout the movie and not once do the young men attempt to escape or even leave the tables on which they are laying even though they are not strapped down! The makers of the movie also bring in cameo appearances by cockroaches on several occasions but again we never learn what that has to do with the storyline. Sorry but this movie was a waste of $4 and the time I spent driving to the rental store and then watching it. Take my advice. Don't rent it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I gave this movie a four-star rating for a few reasons. First, I felt that this movie was definitely preaching and I hate that. Still, it's my own fault for watching a Christian movie in the first place.

My friend and I rented this movie because it sounded interesting. The back of the case said something along the lines of a spiritual battle, someone opening some sort of boundary that let demons into our world and the like. Something I am very interested in, indeed. This movie almost hit the target. It was more like on the edge of the target, more on the tree than the target itself...

The basic plot of this movie is two couples are abducted by a group of terrorists to be victim to experiments. However, because their experimental serum is derived from the research of a scientist who claimed to be able to bridge the gap between the physical and the spiritual realms, the men of the couples are now able to feel, smell, hear, and see the demons of the spiritual world. In that order. Apparently the sense of taste is not present in that realm.

This movie is very clich\u00e9d. They took the title seriously as the men, while chained to the beds, demand their women look behind them because there is something there.

Although a good effort for what it was, I think the special effects could have been done so much better. The demon scratching at the woman was, in a word, hilarious. The wife was obnoxious as hell and everyone in the room practically cheered when she died. We were all hoping she'd be beaten by the other woman with the chair, though.

The message is one that I don't care to comment on, other than I think the Christian filmmakers should have found a better medium for it.

And so I give it four stars because it is not the movie's fault I am not a Christian and don't like this type of message, and I got a kick out of making comments throughout. My friend and I watching this movie seemed to resemble an episode of MST3K.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Evil Behind You, was created for a specific purpose in mind, to shove the writer\/directors personal views on who either gets to walk on water or who gets to dance with the devil. Sadly it would seem that the creators were so focused on making their point that they took it's power away completely by force feeding their point to the viewer.The way its message is presented Almost reminds me of the stories I've heard of the Spanish inquisition! From one real Christian to another, Avoid this like the plague, fear tactics never work when trying to send this kind of message!!

The acting was horrible,the selection of Muslim terrorists was racist and unfair(they're terrorists so they must be Muslims). The premise of this was good, the story provided a great conduit for its message, however it was the execution of these ideas that fell short making it very difficult to even separate the message from the messenger so to speak.

You'd be better off dusting off your old \"Ghost\" DVD with Mr Swayze to better receive this message. at least that movie didn't try to shove itself down your throat. Or if you like Good Christian movies with a powerful message, try \"End of the Spear\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's see, cardboard characters like Muslim terrorists have forced a cardboard scientist to perform some exotic drug tests on some cardboard people who have been drugged and kidnapped. You'll be sure to laugh when these pathetic excuses for humanoids get their just deserts! Turns out the drug experiments have given them the ability to sense another world....the world of religious fantasy!--complete with cardboard demons who look like they are made of Papier Mache. Everybody gets dragged off to Hell except for one poor chap who goes to Heaven where he can presumably spend Eternity with the blockheads that created this Masterpiece of the Absurd. I think I'd opt for Hellfire myself. Go see something else, unless you are stoned, in which case, you might actually like it! Couldn't hurt!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do not waste your money or time. Terrible movie. Bad acting, plot all over the place. Really, really bad acting. Man, this movie is just plain bad. I shut it off at 7 minutes. The script is bad, the directing is bad, it seems to me that a high school group got together to do a project for their drama class. Yes, it's that bad. The acting is not convincing at all, mind you I saw only 7 minutes of it. How this movie made it to DVD, is beyond me.

It should have been left in the editing storage room. I saw the cover and thought it was pretty cool, I sure's heck won't do that next time :_)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am completely into this type of story line but once the movie fired up, I honestly said out loud, \" I just rented a two dollar budget Christian POS\". The only thing I could find to like about this film was it has a descent story but it was awfully executed. Horrible actors, horrible direction and producing.

The director and producer need to go watch the cube before trying to pull off a movie in a single room. There was absolutely nothing that kept you intrigued to the point that you didn't notice you were in the same room the entire movie. Horrible! The two main actresses were very easy on the eyes and you could tell that was the director counting on to hold your attention. But these two and their bios can speak to this, are horrible in front of the camera.

Don't rent this. Unless you are blind, because it might go up a few stars if you only listen to it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All those who are into the PC culture are aghast at the dogmatic Christian view of this film, claiming it contains racist ideation and\/or religious intolerance.

Those who don't care about this, but are oriented towards slick production values and competent acting are dismayed at the lack of such here.

Those who decry both of these are apoplectic that this production was let loose on the general public, as evidenced in comments here.

What is an interesting premise, which isn't original, but is a combination of GHOST and FROM BEYOND, is dealt with in a rather immature manner in this film, yet done with gusto. What the crew and actors lacked in sensibility, professional abilities and technical expertise is somewhat offset by the intensity they display.

It isn't nearly as bad as many here think, and would have been fine in the hands of someone with maturity and common sense, and it is enough below mediocrity to elicit laughs and groans. However, it unfolds with enough intensity to keep interest throughout, and is close to on par with a Corman-produced entry of his earliest period of work, or the material of Arkoff or Sam Katzman. If you get it for $2 (or less) as did I, you won't feel disappointed, but will wish you could have had a say in how it was made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I did and I lost two and a half hours of my life that I can never regain again.

I honestly have no idea what the critics and fans see in this movie. And that's not because I can't appreciate \"art\". I love a good film with profound messages, brilliant cinematography, and great directing.

This film just isn't one of them.

My main complaint about this film is that it's so horribly slow-paced, to the point of boring its audience to death. On the other hand, sequences of dialog go by too quickly and there's not enough exposition to let people who haven't read the book know what's going on (My mother had mercy on me and explained everything before I watched it). Would it have killed them to hire a narrator? At least for the beginning and the end?

Let me break it down for you: (Spoilers throughout)

For the first two minutes you are treated to a black screen with no music, waiting for the actual movie to begin.

For the following minute and a half, you see several pictures of sunrises and savanna landscapes. Like the audience couldn't figure out how to set the scene unless they saw the establishing shot three or four times.

The next eleven minutes are occupied with the grunting monkeys. They fight, see the monolith, fight some more, pommel things with a bone. Supposedly they are prehistoric men whose evolution is being influenced by the monolith's singing. Not that you could tell if you hadn't read the book.

*Finally* we get into space. Only to be subjected to twelve minutes of ships slowly spinning to the Blue Danube Waltz (A pretty quick-tempo-ed waltz as I understand, yet here it feels absolutely agonizing). At last we get some innocuous dialog and rather cryptic exposition about the government not letting people land on the moon. We are left to wonder about this for fourteen more minutes of Blue Danube and spinning ships and neat camera tricks with anti-gravity.

Next comes four minutes of watching a ship travel over the surface of the moon and dock at a space station. We get a little more exposition in a board room scene that follows. Then we're back outside traveling at a snail's pace over the moon. A second monolith is revealed, again filling our ears with that horrible ringing (I had no idea that was an actual piece of music!). The monolith does its little light show and then the plot jumps forward.

*Seven* minutes of watching the ship to Jupiter travel. By this point in time my brains had turned into mush. Could it be moving any slower? Maybe it's \"realistic\" to portray it as such, but we still don't need to see five or six different shots of the same thing to grasp the concept of its \"realism\". Let me tell you about this \"realism\" thing; I cheered when the secondary astronaut character died. Not because I'm a sadist and like watching people die, but because after five minutes I was just so annoyed at the sound of his darn breathing! I'm supposed to care about this character, feel when he dies! Instead I found myself waiting for blissful silence whatever way it came.

Anyway, now we get to the most interesting part of the film-the part with HAL. Forget Dave the stick-of-wood protagonist. The real star of the show is that coldly impersonal, chillingly villainous, ruthlessly merciless bad guy of a computer. He's great. And the \"Open the pod bay doors\" sequence is wonderful. But it's too short. And it's not long before the director once again lapses into too-long goings on.

Four minutes for HAL to die. And die he does. Slowly, painfully, losing intelligence with every minute, voice getting lower and slower, singing \"Daisy, Daisy\", all with a low and constant hissing that becomes just as annoying as the heavy breathing.

Seven minutes of flying colors as Dave enters the monolith. Seven. I could FEEL my brains melting and dripping out of my ears! Seven full minutes of absolutely nothing but some guy's whacked out psychedelic version of space travel, again with that thrice-cursed chorus! We got the idea at the beginning of the sequence! Why drag it out so long? Unless he wanted to make LSD users go psychotic and have flashbacks.

I'm not even going to try to explain the ending, mostly because I don't quite get it myself. Supposedly he's in an alien research laboratory and they're teaching him deep and profound things while he watches himself getting older and older and then they send him back to earth as some kind of cosmic celestial space baby. None of this comes across in the film. For all you know, it's just a sequence of images with no purpose or plot whatsoever. A lot of the movie felt that way.

The first time I tried watching this movie I gave up halfway through. The second time I suffered through this sore excuse for a film, it was to help my sister time the sequences to see how long they lasted. It's that boring.

Call this crummy film \"art\" if you wish. I wouldn't. I've seen more interesting \"art\" in the local museum. And I am never subjecting myself to this kind of suffering ever again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"2001 is one of those movies where, if you don't like it, you are told that you don't 'get it' and need to look at the deeper meaning and symbolism. You're told that you clearly have a slow attention span, and just want to see sex, explosions, and have the plot handed to you on a platter.

Let's break down the movie shall we? Three minutes of blackness, with something that sounds like a dying hippo in the background. Then we get the opening credits. A minute of fascinating shots of the Savannah. Then a bunch of monkeys find a black rock and start killing things with bones. Cut to the first of many 20-minute shots of ships doing things while the 'Blue Danube' plays in the background. A bunch of pointless dialogue, and a group of moon scientists find another monolith.

Cut to a spaceship that's too long for the crew complement--three sleeping people, two people named Dave and Frank, who have only slightly more personality than the stiffs in hibernation. And then there's HAL, the 'perfect' supercomputer who runs the ship. Predictably, he snaps and starts breaking the First Law of Robotics. Now this is something that has potential. An evil, coldly ruthless super-mind who controls the surrounding environment and can predict your every move. And what does he do? He lets one guy float into space and turns off the hibernation machines so the three sleeping guys die, leaving Dave floating in a pod. He simply uses the airlock, puts on a spacesuit, and turns HAL off--agonizingly slowly. Then, apparently, there's some psychedelic 'evolution' at Jupiter.

Here's the movie with the pauses taken out: Apes see monolith, kill things. Scientists find moon monolith. HAL kills people. HAL dies; Dave gets a prerecorded message, and evolves at Jupiter.

This is not me 'not getting it.' This is me being bored to tears by long stretches of absolutely nothing. Sure, it's realistic, but I find I have no reason to care. No matter the message, no movie can be good without being entertaining. Frankly, every character could be replaced with Keanu Reeves, and nothing would change.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will never get back the three hours of life this film has stolen from me.

The film is basically a psychedelic drug trip disguised as an important creative process. I'd love to know what they were on when this film was being made.

Its also the most historically-inaccurate film in existence; 2001 has come and gone without any of the events or predictions taking place.

Characters are unlikeable, design is simplistic and everything just rambles on without any sense or logic to it.

And the ending is probably the worst of it: its supposed to be thought-provoking but the only thought that entered my mind is \"What the F$*K is going on?!\"

I'd say for anyone looking for serious entertainment purposes, AVOID this film at all cost and choose a sci-fi movie that ISN'T stuck up its own @$$.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't like this movie for many reasons - VERY BORING! It was interesting how they thought what the future would look like in this, but seriously I was very bored watching this. There was hardly any action. Although the Classical orchestra soundtrack was very nice. The visuals were very creative. Whenever this movie pops on TV, I feel like changing the station instantly. Not because it is a bad movie, just because I know what I am in for when watching this - complete and total boredom. It is a movie I saw when I was young, but I never got into the science fiction thing... because it simply wasn't real. Just like this movie - very unrealistic. I never understood half the movie anyway.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, well, you know those shock things they use in hospitals to get your heart pumping again? I needed one for my brain after watching this movie. It literally took me almost 4 hrs in total to watch because I had to take a break and restart my brain to semi-normal functionality every so often. I mean this movie goes soooooo slooooow its ridiculous, to say that the script had about 10 pages of dialogue would be generous. They just don't talk!! And while talking isnt everything, and i admit there were some scenes where only the music was necessary, and the music is great, that was probably the best part, but then go listen to a symphony or something and forget about the movie. So many people give this awesome reviews, and for its time, i'd say the special effects and filmography is quite good, but as for the acting, or lack thereof, it just needed a little something more, no shootem ups or sex etc., profanity isnt even required, but a little more emotion, these guys were like stones, just sitting there with long faces. All in all, if you need something to calm yourself down, just play the movie, dont even start at the beginning if you've seen it before, just start anywhere, lay down, and relax, it'll put you right to sleep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very strange screenplay by Cameron Crowe (following on the heels of his \"Fast Times at Ridgemont High\") has little inspiration and flails away at dumb gags. At least \"Fast Times\" had a fair share of satire and sensitivity behind its slapstick (courtesy of a good director, Amy Heckerling, and Crowe's undeniable penchant for capturing letter-perfect teen-speak); here, Chris Penn (Sean's brother, natch) is the goof-off who makes life hell for straight arrow Eric Stoltz, and the filmmakers seem to think he's hilarious. Jenny Wright has some good moments as a mall-worker, but Illan Mitchell-Smith is lost in a head-scratching subplot about a teen who seems to be infatuated with a shell-shocked ex-soldier. Queasy, confused nonsense given a shiny sheen and a soundtrack full of pop-rock tunes, but characters one would hope to avoid. Supporting players Lea Thompson, Rick Moranis, Lee Ving, and Sherilyn Fenn are wasted in stupid roles. * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terrible. The only way I could even begin to consider it funny is if it made fun of itself. \"Amazing. It's about an ass that fights crime. And he drinks\/smokes! How very funny! It's funny because where most people put things in their mouth, he puts them in himself! And now he's getting sexual service from some lady! This show is so great!\" That is what I would have to say if I liked the show, though I'm sure you can see the obvious sarcasm. I've noticed some people have been comparing this show to 12 oz. Mouse and Squid Billies. Why would you even try? There's nothing to compare. The other two shows actually have some decent character development. In conclusion, I hate Assy Mcgee. I twinge at the name of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Though the Our Gang comedies still have their followers, I've got to say that their attempt to graduate to feature films, courtesy of Hal Roach came up way short. Why did Roach have to pick the Civil War as is subject with all the attendant racism that would follow.

Dashing southern cavalier Phillips Holmes takes in young orphan Spanky McFarland and his young black friend Buckwheat Thomas after Spanky inadvertently exposes a card cheat on a riverboat. All is placid and serene in the Old South and then the Civil War comes to ruin it for everybody.

But even children can charm the worst in the world and there's none worse than those damn Yankees. They just come south and ruin it for everybody.

Criticized though it was for its southern viewpoint, Gone With The Wind did make a good case for the southern cause and the blacks portrayed even though servile which they would be out of necessity are still three dimensional characters. Hattie McDaniel would not have won her Oscar if it were not so. Butterfly McQueen's character of Prissy as silly and vacuous as she was has some dimension.

Here though is maybe some of the worst racial stereotyping ever brought forth in Hollywood. The companionship of Spanky and Buckwheat does show that kids get along, racial feelings are acquired not inbred. It's not the servility of the blacks that's objectionable, but there total acceptance of it. Right from that horrible watermelon song, sung over the title credits, the message of General Spanky is a bad one.

Yet it did get an Oscar nomination for Sound recording, probably one of the very few Hal Roach ever got out of the short subject field.

General Spanky is far from Gone With The Wind though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OUR GANG got one chance at a feature film in its 22 year history, and this was the best that could be done? It's boring, forced and pointless, and I must respectfully disagree with the other poster on this film; the 1994 LITTLE RASCALS remake was better than this. Almost anything is. The kids are subordinate to the Civil War proceedings; it doesn't feel like an OUR GANG film at all, but like a humorless second-rate Shirley Temple clone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lou Costello (sans Abbott) plays a small town self-employed \"rubbish collector\" (and the inventor of a time-controlling machine!) who is secretly courting the niece of the town big-shot. After a spat, Lou's girl (Dorothy Provine) runs into a misty cave--why it's misty we never learn--and emerges as a 30 foot giant. Provine is certainly a good sport, and she doesn't bother trying not to look ridiculous (it would've been impossible anyway), yet the screenwriter is really cruel to this character, turning her not only into a giant but a nagging harpy as well. Provine bosses Costello around while creating havoc with the Army troops who get called in, but nothing funny is done with the transformation. Trumped by \"Attack of the 50 Ft. Woman\" the previous year, the film does feature Lou Costello in his final bow, but provides little else. The special effects are marginal, while the script needed funnier lines and the direction snappier pacing. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"May contain spoilers\" Sadly Lou Costellos' last film has the distinction of being slightly better than Abbott & Costello's last movie together \"Dance With Me Henry\". This movie isn't all in all outright terrible it is an amusing career misfire. Dorothy Provine is nice to look at and makes the movie somewhat bearable. You can't blame Lou Costello for this because a major studio released it which meant somebody had to give it the \"green\" light. In my opinion Lou Costello was getting over problems of his own losing his son a few years earlier and the unwarranted attacks from the IRS. If you look at the last 3-4 Abbott & Costello movies you can notice the magic was gone. Check out \"Dance With Me Henry\" now that's a painful movie to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dorothy Provine does the opposite here: She keeps growing and growing. I didn't detect any subtext, though. \"The Incredible Shrinking Man\" and other movies of its ilk during the period were parables about radiation, nuclear war, and other horrors. Provine's growth is the result of an inept computer\/robot.

And who operates this computer but Lou Costello! I like some of his movies with Bud Abbott. But, though this is a pretty bad movie, he does fine without him. And Gale Green is an excellent foil.

Green plays the pompous town big shot. He is Provine's father. He is intent on being elected Mayor. So when his beloved daughter starts having issues, he dumps her. He doesn't exactly dump her but gives up his battle against her longtime admirer Costello.

This is pretty implausible: Costello is the local garbage collector.

The special effects are minimal. And the subplot involving the military is lame in the extreme.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a huge Robert Taylor fan and I have been trying to find all of his films. This is one I did not have, but I watched it recently on Fox Movie Channel, and was very disappointed. I know he was a contract player with little control over his scripts, but the acting was as bad as the script. Victor McLaglen was even bad, and Brian DonLevy was almost unrecognizable. Considering the relations off screen between Taylor and Stanwyck, it was surprising how little chemistry there was on screen between the two of them. But the premise of the film was so ridiculous: that the President of the U.S. would order a Navy Lt to leave the service secretly to hunt down bank robbers, and report only to the President, that it made it hard to appreciate anything else about the film. The death row scenes were entirely unmoving. The only thing worse than Taylor's acting was Stanwyck's singing. She got better later in Ball of Fire-thank heavens.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Divorced single mom in picturesque seaside town finds an anonymous love letter and allows it to spur into action her dormant love life. Pet project for actress\/co-producer Kate Capshaw, who gives a warm, nicely-modulated lead performance, yet this story is so slim and the direction and editing so erratic that a faint dissatisfaction creeps in. Initially, Capshaw's Helen envisions several of her friends reading the love letter to her (an interesting visual joke) but the first person they do this ploy with is Ellen DeGeneres, who doesn't play a lesbian but who comes off as one because of this gimmick. Different ideas are flayed about in the hopes that one would stick, and the continuity is extremely choppy. Supporting cast (including Tom Selleck and Tom Everett Scott, who mostly acts with his shirt off) is very good, but they can't save the final act, which is disappointing. Low-keyed, in a quirky, pleasant way, but it is blandly good-natured, nothing more. **1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must be honest, I like romantic comedies, but this was not what I had hoped for. I thought Ellen Degeneres was having the biggest part, which should have been, because I didn't like the two struggling bed partners. It was awful. Poor Tom Selleck!! He had to act with someone who was that much in the picture while it should have been him and Ellen to be in most of the film. They were the only believable ones. And the only really funny parts starred them, not Kate Capshaw and that Everett guy.. Cool that mummy is coming out of the closet, I thought that was a nice surprise.

I'm just glad I saw it on the cable and I didn't pay any money renting it..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is about a mysterious love letter that turned 4 people's love life upside down.

The idea of the film is interesting, and the film could have been funny. However, this film is simply what a romantic comedy should not be. The characters are inadequately introduced at first, so it gets so confusing. The supporting characters come and go without adequate reasons, as if they exist just for one particular scene and then vanish into thin air. The pacing is awfully slow, that it makes 90 minutes seem more like 180 minutes.

It could have been romantic and funny, but this film spectacularly failed to do either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, Blythe Danner doesn't look anywhere NEAR old enough to play Capshaw's daughter (and in fact she isn't -- only ten years apart).

I understand this is supposed to be one of those magical, Moonstruck type supernatural romances but this is beyond the pale. Very, very weak in terms of acting, script and direction.

The only one who really shines here is Ellen DeGeneres, who makes this film watchable -- if not really believable herself as she's cast as a bit of a heterosexual sex hound. But endearing nonetheless. Actually, DeGeneres and the skin shots of the young guy Capshaw dallies with together make this watchable. But no one can really tell if Capshaw is really in love with the young guy or not; neither the script nor her acting pull it together for us and we're left to wonder how she really feels.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Love Letter\" is one of those movies that could have been really clever, but they wasted it. Focusing on a letter wreaking havoc in a small town, the movie has an all-star cast with nothing to do. Tom Selleck and Alice Drummond had so recently co-starred in the super-hilarious \"In & Out\" (also about an upset in a small town), in which they were both great, but here they look as though they're getting drug all over the place. I can't tell what the people behind the camera are trying to do here (if anything), but they sure didn't accomplish anything. How tragic, that a potential laugh riot got so sorrowfully wasted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a movie about people receiving a love letter. Nobody knows who sent in and nobody knows who it is for. A good cast, headed up by Kate Capshaw, Tom Selleck and Ellen DeGeneres. This, however, is a completely dopey plot. As an example, the Capshaw character, one of the leading citizens of a small town in New England, takes up with an immature college student who works in her bookstore during the summer. She chooses him instead of Tom Selleck, the town firefighter who is crazy about her. If that isn't the epitome of stupidity, I don't know what is. Just an example of how dopey this movie is. Watching Kate Capshaw jog is a pleasure, but you immediately realize that she has never jogged a day in her life. Another obviously dopey part of a dopey movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A movie about a mysterious love letter that puts a small town on its ear should be fun, romantic and easy-going entertainment. Instead this movie is more about things not said and not expressed, so it gets to the point where you are grateful anything is said at all, even if the dialogue is not exactly quotable.

SPOILER --

When the relationship that says the most is the one least seen on the screen (Danner and McEwan), you know you're in trouble. But those two actresses are a very welcome sight in a movie screaming for some genuine people.

END OF SPOILER

Capshaw is given the task of creating a character from not much and she is not entirely successful. Like I said above, the theme seems to be repression and I understand that is an element of life and love but I don't want to see a movie about it either, at least not this one.

I can't recommend this at all, despite the very talented cast who are left to fend for themselves.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**Possible Spoilers**\tFrom Dreamworks and director Peter Chan, `The Love Letter' is a romantic comedy that takes place in a picturesque, New England coastal village where single mom Helen (Kate Capshaw) owns a quaint, little bookstore. One day at work, Helen happens across an anonymous letter (the `love letter' of the title) that has somehow become lodged beneath the cushions of a reading couch. Upon reading the amorous prose therein, she believes it has been written to her, purposely placed in the couch for her to find, and, for reasons of her own, thinks she knows the identity of her secret admirer. Inadvertently, however, Helen leaves the letter out where her employee, Janet (Ellen DeGeneres) finds it, believes it to be for her, and, of course, thinks she knows who wrote it. Circumstances then bring it into the possession of a young man named Johnny (Tom Everett Scott), who thinks Helen has written the letter to him. And before it all gets sorted out, you can only imagine the hilarious situations into which all of those involved have been cast; and I do mean imagine, because the way this movie plays out, the audience gets little more from it than what it brings along itself. There are two specific areas in which this romantic comedy fails miserably: It simply isn't very romantic, and it's not funny; and that is a potent combination that causes this film to misfire practically from the opening credits. Once the setting and main character (Helen) have been established, it basically goes nowhere for the next ninety minutes or so. By the time you finally find out who actually wrote the letter, and to whom, you could care less. Rounding out the cast is Tom Selleck, Blythe Danner, Julianne Nicholson, Gloria Stuart and Geraldine McEwan. It's a shame to see such talent wasted on such claptrap as this, and looking bad in the balance. Kate Capshaw, who usually brightens up the screen just by showing up, looks tired here, while Selleck appears to have just come in off a three day bender that's lasted a week. Ellen DeGeneres actually comes away looking the best of the bunch. It is said that the journey is often a more heady experience than the destination. In the case of `The Love Letter,' however, it would have been best for all concerned if everybody had just stayed home in the first place. I rate this one 1\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't waste your time. The plot drags, the characters are wooden and uninteresting, the motivations of their actions are completely indecipherable. Kept waiting for the \"romantic\" or \"comedy\" to occur, and nothing happened. Worse yet, the love letter isn't even romantic, but sounds like it was written by someone desperate to make a deadline. Did I mention that the \"plot twist\" which we saw coming from 15 mins into the movie was \"Hollywood clever\", meaning it is intended to shock, but given the Hollywood mentality- does nothing of the sort, and instead is vaguely offensive.

It's not even worth the $2 to rent. Don't bother seeing it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I liked most of the dialogue, I liked the cast, I thought it was well acted. I particularly enjoyed Ellen DeGeneres' perfect deadpan performance.

What didn't work for me was: (1) the drawn-out affair with the younger man (too long, too seemingly out of character for Helen), (2) the seemingly endless cinematic cliches, mostly visual but including interminable voiced over re-readings of the love letter itself (its contents should have a mystery); (3) a young woman feminist-scholar and, ironically, a fireworks scene (no wonder this reminded me of that horrid How to Make an American Quilt movie); (4) the bumbling \"gotcha\" cop who smells \"dope\" everywhere (no cliche there either!); and (5) a nauseatingly romanticized small town setting.

I would have preferred the film to more persuasively explore the source of (or even glorify) Helen's bitterness, to have included much more of DeGeneres' character, to have eliminated or reduced the various intergenerational artifices, and to be a little less uncritical of small town life.

Had it been developed as a play first, those criticisms might have been addressed before committing the material to this film, which unfortunately is decidedly mediocre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A really funny story idea with good actors but it misses somehow. The actors are older but none of them looked particularly good. They needed better make up,photography or something.It is supposed to be a love story and yet the film had more of the rough look of a street film. I liked the cast but I think the performances were rather bland. This is where the weakness of the director shows. Perhaps if Mrs. Spielberg had Mr. Spielberg directing it would have been a much better film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The person making taffy in this movie was so realistic. That person must have been trained so well! If I were buying taffy from the store featured in this fine romantic comedy, I would demand to be served by the guy who trained the person who played the guy selling taffy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved the first 15 minutes, and I loved some of the dialogue in the tribunal--which proved to be the best showcase for the director's ahead-of-its-time method acting technique--but this movie ultimately disappoints. Even when viewed purely as a metaphor of the oppressor\/oppressed dynamics that were and are prevalent in the relationship between the US government and its more \"disobedient\" citizens, it still lacks punch and believability, and ultimately left me looking at my watch hoping the obvious ending would happen already.

And for the record: despite rampant rumors to the contrary, this movie has never been banned in the US (I can't comment on the rumors of UK censorship, but I'm suspicious). Hollywood refused to distribute it after its initial film festival showing, and I am more than willing to believe the Nixon government had some influence on this decision; however, the fact that it never appeared on American television is merely a reflection of this medium's rather careful and advertising-driven fashion of doing business. As for the present, you can have your very own copy of the DVD delivered to your door via Amazon in a few days.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Committed doom and gloomer Peter Watkins goes slummin' across the pond to take on the American justice system circa 1971 with this priceless piece of zeitgeist paranoia that leans so far left it falls over constantly. Watkins is pure tourist as he assembles this our gang tragedy with clich\u00e9 freaks, hippies and black revolutionaries pitted against trigger happy cops and military and a kangaroo court tribunal made up of disapproving calcified adults making poor fashion statements. Talk about a revolution.

In Punishment Park we have radical youth versus corrupt system as dissenters convicted of crimes are given the choice of imprisonment or a three day trek across Punishment Park (Death Valley) and freedom. Of course the law enforcement officials monitoring their journey aren't about to play fair and combined with the stifling heat the fate of our protagonists looks sealed.

Punishment Park has elements of Kafka in setting as well as theme. Trials are held under a large canvas tent where shackled prisoners shout defiance at a hardcore love it or leave it group of inquisitors (such as members of Silent Majority for a Peaceful America) who snarl back. Neither group spends much time listening to the other and the proceedings sometime takes on a teen parent battle over the keys to the car look. Mostly its just one side saying what's wrong with America the other saying what's right with no one offering solutions for change. Meanwhile the Punishment Park martyrs stumble endlessly about the dessert while cops with guns act like twelve year olds. It kind of has the look and feel of some of my 70's college film making class when we were younger and knew more then than we do now.

Peter Watkins has always been on the side of the underdog and the common man against what he perceives as a corrupt powerful few. Culledon was a strong indictment of military atrocity in 18th century Scotland that still resonates. War Game is a raw sobering look at nuclear aftermath that should be required viewing for all. Punishment Park has its value as well but for other than intended reason. Watkins vision today is a textbook example of the left in full tilt counter culture 70s paranoia and given the times ( Vietnam, Kent State, The Chicago 7) such strident hysteria seemed not that great a distance from the truth. But 35 years later the fever has subsided and Punishment Park with it's unrestrained narrow viewpoint is a pretty silly ride.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Done in a mock-documentary style, late 60's subversives and supposed detractors of the mainstream government are arrested and given a choice. Upon sentencing for their wrong doings,there is a choice of going to prison for 7 years to life or spending three days and two nights in a southern California desert at Punishment Park. In the 100 degree heat, the prisoners are to trek fifty some odd miles to an American flag for their freedom. US and state law enforcers will follow two hours latter. If the dissidents are captured it means prison.

Appearing in this pseudo-documentary: Carmen Argenziano, Katherine Quittner, Mary Ellen Kleinhall, Stan Armsted, Scott Turner, Patrick Boland and Kent Foreman.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie should have been called \"The Eyes of Alexander\", and they should have done away with the Bogart concept altogether. The film started out with a lighthearted approach to Bogart's legacy and some comical moments with his surgery oriented face, but after the first 15-30 minutes it morphs into a more serious thriller, where two palm size sapphires, purportedly laid as eyes into a marble headpiece of Alexander the Great, for him, and seen by him, right before his death. So the gems are of great value not only because of their quality and size, but also because of the tie to the Greatest conquerer the world has ever known. Being an expert on Alexander qualifies me to say that this is wholly and completely a fiction, but it makes for a good movie anyway. So the film winds around some early silliness and stumbles along with all sorts of Alexander allusions in both the foreground and background (which I really liked), ending with a dated shark attack (you couldn't go to a movie in '79-'80 without some shark showing up to menace the audience). There is a yacht named Euridice (Alexander's father's young wife), a man named Alexander, Philip, Cleitus?, (it's been about 5 years since I've seen the film, so can't remember all the details), Olympias, some street names, and many others. It was fun to watch the film just to try to catch all the background details that the director (obviously an Alexanderphile himself) put in. When all is said and done, the eyes are retrieved and the camera pans in on them on a bed as the credits roll by. Kind of a neat ending. What would have been more fun would be if they went the Indiana Jones way and had an action adventure. There were many, many real artifacts that could have been used to make this more interesting, or instance, the hand-annotated (by Aristotle) version of the Iliad that Alexander kept with him all his life, even on his many journeys across Asia (would be of incalculable value if found today). Olivia Hussey (my all time favorite b-movie actress)is killed off way too early, and should have been the main actress throughout, not the girl from the Momma's and the Poppa's...though she was herself easy on the eyes. If you can find this flick, it might be worth checking out for the historical stuff and to see Olivia Hussey in an extremely funny deadpan humor bit early on, but beyond that, I'd pass on it for something more entertaining.

Yours, Nick","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Man with Bogart's Face sets it self up to mine the viewers nostalgia for the late 30's-late 40's film era. It fails miserably for several reasons. First, Sacchi, while looking reasonably like Bogart and even speaking like him on occassion and using his mannerisms, completely lacks any of Bogart's charisma or acting ability. This is really apparent whenever Sacchi is not clearly imitating a scene from one of Bogart's films. Second, the film does not have the first rate character actors Bogart was able to work with. There are no Peter Lorre's or Sydney Greenstreet's in this one, folks. Sure we are treated to performances by Victor Buaeno, Olivia Hussey and George Raft amongst others, but they just aren't of the same caliber (or aren't given enough screen time or are miscast). Third, the attempts at \"modern\" humor all fall through. All of the underwear jokes, having Marlowe almost *never* remove that damn hat and trench coat (even though Bogart would have), etc. just aren't funny and really pull down this film. Fourth, I've never heard a goofier theme song this side of Mitchell. Finally, the film's false reverence for Bogart (and other classic actors work) is truly irritating. Bogart almost *never* played a straight hero, on those occasions he was a hero. He played complicated characters. This movie makes Bogart out to be a trigger-happy, moralistic do-gooder. While this may have been true about some film characters, Bogart's characters rarely fit that bill. It's movies like this that make people unexposed to the cinema of the past think that all of it is hokey, \"good guy beats the bad guys and gets the girl\" crap with low production values.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The screenplay is the worst part of this film, as it lurches from one premise to the next, missing all the important bits that would have made a number of different stories possible. (This film is confusing, because the audience doesn't know what the story is.) I had no problem with the low-production values and the acting wasn't great, but this is telly, so it was fine. I don't mind if some scenes looked like they were done in one take. But having such a non-sensical screenplay is completely unnecessary. Did any executive actually read it before forking out the cash? Avoid this at all costs.

The prologue in particular was so poorly written, it needed a voice-over to fill in all the details that had been left out. The prologue was rushed, it wasn't clear what was happening, ie. The Russian Revolution was reduced to \"Some riots are happening in Petersburg\", with the next scene being soldiers arresting them. I know the basic history of the Revolution, so I could fill in the details, \"those pesky Communists\". The prologue is best ignored.

This could have been a thoughtful study of a person who is confused about who she is. It sets up this premise in the asylum. It could then have her struggling to identify herself for the rest of the film. No. Gone. The film assumes she is who she says she is (even though there is still no empirical evidence.) It sets up a melodramatic romance, a love so strong, it'll believe anything she says. Okay, a soppy romance. No, because it makes no sense. The love interest seems like a crazed (and incidentally, sleazy) lunatic, bursting out in wild gestures. This also doesn't work, because the film stupidly decides to tell the truth in the monologue at the end. They never got married and she returned to America. The love story collapses. Despite there being plenty of love scenes, I was never convinced of the reason that they were in love. I find rom-com romances more convincing, despite there only being one or two scenes which establish that they've even spent any time with each other.

It could have been a thriller-type thing where the film assumes she is who she says she is, and she struggles to prove her identity. No, the court case is summed up rather than dealt with. The bizarre voice over comes back, again to fill in the details of a better film.

The funniest thing to consider is what really happened. Anna Anderson was a loony who went to America and married another loony and they did crazy things together. Throughout her life, she had bouts of lunatic behaviour. None of this in the film either. There's a really annoying character in the asylum who crops up from nowhere and announces herself as a 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next\/'Twelve Monkeys'-type informant. Thankfully, she vanishes, having brought nothing to the story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Young spinster, who doesn't associate with women her own age and is eyed by gentleman from the retirement set, invites an apparently mute young man into her apartment on a rainy day. Nervous and overly-polite to hide her own sexual insecurities, she is most pleased when the boy makes himself to home in her guest bedroom...but not so happy when he begins sneaking out the window at night. Sandy Dennis is not a hapless actress, but why she was attracted to these sad-sack roles I guess we'll never know. Based on a book by Richard Miles, and about as far removed from a commercial drama as one could get, this lurid material not only attracted Dennis but also director Robert Altman (whose work is static, at best). The narrative seems almost a sex-reversal of \"The Collector\", a tag which may have sold the film-rights but which doesn't turn out to be a good idea cinematically. Even the film's best sequence (Dennis shopping for a prostitute to satisfy her prisoner) doesn't quite come off, with Sandy acting both ill and indignant (whose idea was this plan?). Michael Burns is quite good as the kid who uses this frumpy, pasty-sick woman just for her comfy digs, but he's handled too bashfully by Altman, with lots of strategically-placed towels and flesh-colored undies (Altman clearly wasn't ready for a mature picture with adult themes at this point). Sandy Dennis has a handful of very good scenes; she doesn't chatter away mindlessly here, she thinks before she speaks and she's alarmingly careful in her actions. Unfortunately, the role itself is a bummer, with an apparent slide into mental deterioration which seems to happen off-screen. As such, the abrupt finale is maddening, and the overall results tepid. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought this movie was going to be a disgrace to the series. After all, part 3 didn't measure up to part 2, and this one doesn't have Daniel Sawn. Miyagi's humour wasn't quite as witty in this one as in part 3, but it was funny enough to make the movie worth watching.

The girl's part was pretty good. She's a lost teenager who needs direction. I find the plot a little hard to believe. That the aunt would simply agree to leave her home and her niece under the care of Mr. Miyagi, a man she just met. Of course, he was a friend of her brother.

I did appreciate the monastery. One might think from some of my other reviews that I wouldn't have liked the dancing monks, but I thought it was amusing. It showed that they know how to have some fun. Now if these were monks in ancient China dancing to pop-music, that would have been another matter.

Probably the most intelligent part of the movie was when the girl thought it was stupid that the monks wouldn't kill a bug. Miyagi told her that street gangs killing each other is stupid, nations trying to destroy each other is stupid, but having respect for all life is not stupid. Miyagi has expressed such wisdom in the other films as well.

I give this movie a 4 out of 10. Sure, there were some things I liked about it. It wasn't as funny as part three, and no character could ever live up to Sato in part 2. This movie has no re-watch value. I can't imagine watching it again, but it is worth seeing once.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had been avoiding this movie for sometime...because I viewed it as an unneccesary installment to a series that should have only had 2 parts. But, after reading some fairly favorable reviews...from some IMDB watchers...I spent $1.50 and rented it at my local video store. Need I go further...when I say....this was a buck-50 lost. This movie is one of the 10 worst movies I have ever seen. First off....I realize that noone wanted to see a 33 year old Macchio in this film.....But, why could'nt they have had Miyagi read a letter or something from Daniel-san...maybe explaining what happened to Daniel...hell, they could have at least made a quick mention of daniel or something. But, no...and to compund the already bad script....they added those stupid monks...I thought monks take a vow of silence...guess these yapping monks don't take their vows seriously...hehehe. The training the girl went through in the movie was hurried and stupid...and the paramilitary group of young males....were a confusing concept to say the least....this was far from even being a martial arts movie...with the girl only fighting briefly in the final scene....and then she didn't even come close to getting hit even once...by the male fighting her....give me a break...she would have gotten hit at least once....I guess the writers and directors thought it would be to shocking to see a girl get punched by a male in this one. I could go on and on...but, basically...I'll end by saying that this movie was just so bad....even the girl they chose wasn't nice to even look at(she was sorta \"butch\" looking)....I can only think of a handful of movies that I have sit through...that compare to just how bad this flick was.....DON\"T WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS ONE..........","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Next Karate Kid\" is a thoroughly predictable movie, just like its predecessors. Its predictability often results in a feeling of impatience on the viewer's part, who often wishes the story could move a little faster. Despite its lulls and its extreme familiarity, however, this fourth entry in the series is painless, almost exclusively because of the presence of Morita. He doesn't seem tired of his role, and he does inject some life and humor into the film, becoming the best reason for you to see it. Not awful, but nothing much, either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hillary Swank is an unattractive piece of work in this unattractive piece of work of a film. Pat Morita, desperate for work, any kind of work, agreed to reprise his role as the \"Karate teacher\" and bring his brand of Karate to the silver screen once again, except this time, Hillary \"skank\" Swank is the student.

I can just see the Hollywood writers getting excited about the idea of having a \"tormented, spoiled brat\" female take the role from Ralph. The film does not work on any level and it's boring on every level. There's nothing interesting here and not even a lesson for anyone to hold on to. The film was made without any thought of making money because it's just so bad.

I would gladly spit on all the actors in this film for having been involved with it and have the writers black-listed for their miserable and insulting efforts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can accept the fact this was the NEXT karate kid so Ralph Macchio can be happily retired from the series, and while Hillary Swank is great for the role....the plot to the movie is just dreadful.

Mr. Miyagi's old buddy from World War 2 dies, leaving his widow to take care of her rebellious grand-daughter when her parents die in an accident. The girl has no discipline yet is the hero because the local ROTC...which I'll explain in a minute, has it out to get her. You know the drill...Miyagi takes her under his wing and in the end they beat the bad guys and everyone lives happily ever after.

Its hokey, its cheesy, its the 90's....but that's not even the long and the short of it. My first case of \"huh?\" is why is there a \"military division\" in high school? I thought that stuff went out in the 1960's, especially in a public school. As much as Michael Ironside kicks booty in his role as the main heel, since when is military involved in a high school? My next gripe is that during the prom scene, the militants bungee jump to scare the crap out of people....why? The thing I noticed throughout all 4 movies was at the very end the heels suddenly turn face after all the nonsense they put the main character through (Billy in part 1, Sato in part 2, Kreese in part 3). This movie is no different. After Ned and cronies basically sabotage the senior prom, blow up Eric's car and threaten Hillary Swank the whole movie.....Ironside tells them to beat her up and they're like \"um...no\" If you're gonna do pathetic face turns, at least make sure the characters haven't done anything too over the top such as blowing up a hot rod.

As for the rest of the love plot between Eric and Hillary Swank....corny but nothing to melodramatic, which is a breath of fresh air from the garbage Ralph Macchio pulled in the first 3 movies.

I will say for its own movie, after watching the first 3 movies, I can accept it being more or less a spin off...but I can't accept the whole military thing, way too uncommon for it to be taken seriously. Now if Ironside and crew was a wrestling\/football team and he was the coach, THAT would have been more believable.

Ironside and Morita deliver the goods, Swank is OK...the rest are the same as anything, the one highlight is when they blow up the hot rod, THAT was cool 4 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am truly sad that this is the first bad review I've ever made for a movie...EVER.I could stand to watch this movie, and it is the second movie in all the movies I've seen that is just...a downgrade. The first is Open Water, that just had NO point whatsoever. The Next Karate Kid didn't have any mention of Daniel(correct me if I'm wrong, please.),and that ending line came as a shock. It was like, \"If must fight...win.\" then it showed the bird flying around and the pan flute was playing, and I was like, oh. Okay, so it'll take a while for this next part. AND THEN THE CREDITS HIT THE SCREEN.

GEEZ MAN!! Hopefully, I will never have to review a movie in a bad manner again, I apologize for those of you who like The Next Karate Kid, I really, really do...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is so bad. I mean, who commissions this stuff? And the costume designer deserves an award for making everyone look like they had just stepped out of 1983. A bloke puts a female wig on and fights....nuff said.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"They missed up the film when the tried to use some one diffrent. They should of keeped Ralph Macchio as Danny instead of changing it. And made more Karate Kids with him in it.And also many people were woundering what happen to Danny when they jumped from 3 to 5 and no four.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In 1984, The Karate Kid had some charm to it, even if it was little more than a poor man's Rocky. Alas, producer Jerry Weintraub failed to realize it was best to leave the story at the point where it had ended, and convinced Ralph Macchio and Pat Morita to make an extra effort to turn the film into a trilogy. Part III was the definitive low in the franchise, yet someone must have thought the series still had some potential. What other explanation could there possibly be for the existence of The Next Karate Kid?

Wait a minute. Next? Yep, Macchio's gone (at least he was smart enough to stop eventually), and his replacement is Hilary Swank (!), playing a troubled teenager (what else?) named Julie Pierce. Now, the girl has family issues. She also gets in trouble at school. Said school has a sadistic gym teacher (Michael Ironside). As it turns out, though, one of his students is actually a nice guy, and Julie falls for him. This gets her in bigger trouble than before, of course. Lucky for her, she is currently living with Mr. Miyagi (Morita), an old friend of her grandfather who happens to know how to get back at the bad guys.

All those factors ad up to seven clich\u00e9s, and that's just a generic plot summary - imagine what the detailed scenes must be like! From beginning to end, The Next Karate Kid is a tired, flat and dull marathon of idiotic lines and set-ups. Swank does, thankfully, have the likes of Boys Don't Cry and Million Dollar Baby to redeem this disaster, but why did Morita accept to come back? He may have received an Oscar nomination for the first movie, and was quite enjoyable in the sequels, but has nothing to speak for him here - even the revival of the \"wax on, wax off\" gag is stillborn. As for Ironside, he is slightly better than Martin Kove and Thomas Ian Griffith in Part III, but that's hardly a stretch.

So, is this picture really that awful? Not exactly. There is one sequence that manages to achieve a weird beauty, but when the best bit in the whole film involves a group of Asian monks dancing as they hear pop music for the first time in their lives, it doesn't qualify as a recommendation to see the rest.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The final installment in the Karate Kid series is predictable, poorly acted, and so bad it borders on the enjoyable. But not quite, it's just bad. In this installment Ralph Macchio's Karate Kid is absent, already having been in one too many of the episodes. The new Kid, played by Hillary Swank, is the teenage granddaughter of one of Mr. Miyogi's WWII buddies. Her parents are recently deceased and her grandmother is unsuccessfully trying to raise this young hellion. In steps Mr. Miyogi to set things right. True to formula, there is a group of neo-Fascist bullies, called the Alpha Troopers that must be put in their place and a new karate move, called the Praying Mantis. As I said before this movie is a mess, and should be avoided.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had been delighted to find that TCM was showing this, as I love the 1992 version with Josie Lawrence, Jim Broadbent, Joan Plowright...This film had a luminous Ann Harding, a wonderful performance by Frank Morgan, but others' acting made the film more of a farce then the wonderful unfolding that the later film. Reginald Owen's Arbuthnot is painful to watch and you can't understand why his wife adores him. I found out after watching the film that it was based on the stage play where the 1992 film is based on the book. The original film also felt like it was a snippet of a larger piece and felt incomplete. Too bad it was such a let-down.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Enchanted April was one of Harry Beaumont's last movies- he only directed a few more after this one. He had made the \"Maisie\" movies in the 1930s and 1940s. In the opening credits, it says \"From the novel by Elizabeth\", and completely leaves off the author's last name... rather odd, but since it was von Armin, they may not have wanted the German association at the time... Sad to hear it was a flop when it was released, with those fun names like Frank Morgan (the Wizard) and Jessie Ralph, who played W.C. Fields' disapproving mother- in- law in \"Bank Dick\". Two gals in London (Ann Harding & Katharine Alexander) decide to rent a castle to host two of their friends, but things don't go the way they planned. Reginald Owen plays the husband with multiple personalities. Aside from a few funny moments, it DOES move pretty slow. Ralph is the only bright spot here, as the overbearing take-charge type, and the picture is quite fuzzy and out of focus for much of the film. The views of Italy are all obvious backdrops. The only saving grace here is that the Turner Classic version is only 66 minutes long. Too bad they didn't give Frank Morgan a larger role. This was remade in 1992 by the BBC as a British Film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this to be a tremendously disappointing version of a charming story. I thought the acting was on the whole quite good. Reginald Owen did chew the scenery, as mentioned by others, but I found him moderately amusing in his brief scenes. TCM has made an Ann Harding fan of me, and I thought she was fine as usual here. Jessie Ralph had a field day as the old battleaxe, ordering everybody around, and Frank Morgan, as always, played Frank Morgan with a twinkle.

For me, the problem was the script and\/or the editing--transitions were awkward, motivations were murky. The movie was just too darned short to convey the story properly! I felt completely let down, particularly since I had such fond memories of the later version.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The 1935 version of \"Enchanted April\" manages to be simultaneously tedious

and perfunctory. It is difficult to show the transformative magic of Italy shooting in a studio with only stereotypical Italian behavior to belabor. The transformation of the four strangers fleeing London is instantaneous in the cut from the first day to a week later. Rather than develop, the screenplay flips a switch and the

characters are different.

The husbands are boring enough in flashbacks without turning up, even if their presence does not drive the four women back into their shells and\/or hostilities.

Jessie Ralph has the most fun (moving instead of entirely chewing up the

scenery) and Katharine Alexander has some poignant charm out of her

husband's shadow (and away from his hideous droning). Ann Harding is

unremarkable here (with the Production Code being enforced). She had an

appropriate line in an earlier (pre-Code) movie, \"When Ladies Meet\": \"You're

not worth a minute of one anxious hour that either one of us has given you,\" but in \"Enchanted April\" can only look hurt, rush out, and proclaim fealty to her errant husband.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The basic story idea of ENCHANTED APRIL is excellent--two very unhappy wives meet and decide to pool their funds to rent an Italian villa for a month. To further defray costs, they get two other strangers to come along. What makes it interesting are the relationships both before and during this vacation--in particular, showing how this beautiful setting actually changes their outlooks on life. Unfortunately, this good idea is totally spoiled by two key performances in the ensemble cast that are so bad that they ruin the film. Ann Harding plays the most important role in the film in a manner that makes her seem ridiculous. Her \"doe-eyed\" expression and vacant stares really make you wonder if this isn't a zombie movie or she's just meant to be an idiot! And to make it worse, Reginald Owen plays a character so obnoxious and bombastic that I was very close to turning off the film--he was that awful and unbelievable. I noticed that at least one reviewer gave this movie a 10--which is very, very difficult to understand. Sure, the film has great ambiance and a good plot, but these two glaringly silly performances cannot be overlooked as they undermine the rest of the picture. Sorry, but this film was aching for a re-make!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Comic Strip featured actors from 'The Young One's' - a student based sitcom from the 80's. Comic Strip features included parodies of westerns, 'The famous 5', and The Professionals - all a lot funnier than this. Having said that Alexei Sayle puts in a good turn as a traffic cop with ambition and the soundtrack features great music from the era. 5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I struggle to see the point of this movie. It is supposed to be a comedy but I didn't laugh once. The storyline is one that could have been interesting in a well made movie, but since this is acted by comics, the result is totally unbelievable (as comedies should be). The Comic strip series was very hit and miss, even withing the episodes, and it is fair to say all of the people involved have gone on to do greater things. One to avoid. I have also just found out that comments have to be 10 lines long. The whole point of these comments is to give an indication of whether the movie is worth watching: not write an essay gushing about it or taking it apart. If you like: Seinfeld, Larry Sanders, the Young Ones, Alan Partridge, Arrested Development, Curb, Red Dwarf, then you might like to pass on this. On the other hand, if you like lame jokes such as can be found in Friends and Dodgeball, enjoy watching this!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, I just wanna say that I'm a very big Naruto fan. I love the Anime and the Manga stories. Also, the first movie just confirmed that Naruto is all about great fun, great action, great story, ... But then came the 2nd movie. I was very hyped because the first movie turned out great. But it didn't satisfy me one bit... The story was lame, action wasn't all that great... especially compared to the Anime series... same goes for the quality of animation. I found it very poorly... Could the story get any lamer... ANY ??? Where's the kyuubi of Naruto ?? Not once does he turn demon... I mean ... COME ON !!! My advice is... see the series ( until episode 140 , then it's just fillers ) and then read the Manga because that's still great. Ignore this movie and hope for something better in the future...

All and all I gave it a 4, just because it's Naruto...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This ultra-low budget kitchen-sink yawn is the kind of film that can only be made in the UK in that, anywhere else in the world the fact the a market would need to exist before a green-light would be given. Most probably self funded this is clearly an attempt to redress important issues but ultimately undermines its point of existence in that the question needs to be begged, who would ever put money into distributing this and secondly if a market audience doesn't exist to watch, buy or rent this film, why would anyone bother in the first place? My opinions may sound unfairly harsh on a first time director but, this is the kind of film that only goes to undermine the commercial viability and quality standards which have only just kept a British film industry in existence. Reviewed in Edinburgh. 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hard up, No proper jobs going down at the pit, why not rent your kids! DIY pimp story without the gratuitous sex scenes, either hard core or soft core, therefore reads like a public information film from the fifties, give this a wide miss, use a barge pole if you can.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well OK, I've seen Wrath of the Ninja.

It isn't something that I would recommend to people who aren't seriously into japanese fighting movies. This is a sort of japanese fighting ninja movie, with a complex plot. It's about these 3 old ninja schools that had these 3 \"Swords of Sorcery\". I saw the subtitled version (NOT recommended by the way, it's easy to miss something) and I didn't really keep up with it all. It had some good scenes tough, but in general, it wasn't much to my liking.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's perfectly ok that people dies in an animation, but there are just way too many death in this one. Start from the very beginning, the story is all around battles, fights, death, and revenge. It goes on and on for entire one and a half hour. It was interesting at the beginning, but I grew very tire after before the show was half way through. Unlike other animations, this one is lack of humor. There are not many interactions between the characters either. The good thing about it is the sword fight scene looks pretty good and the characters look nice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd have to agree with the previous reviewer: This film has awesome animation, but has problems throughout the rest of the movie.

Plot holes are huge, dialog barely explains the concepts of the plot--the MAIN PLOT POINTS aren't even fully explained until the last five minutes of the film. The characters state the obvious, while failing to explain the more confusing points of the film. There are characters that pop up and have importance in the storyline that are never explained--most of them have names that are only mentioned *once*, and it is exceedingly confusing to a viewer.

Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you are in it for a good laugh and how DUMB it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie stinks majorly. The only reason I gave it a 3 was because the graphics were semi charming. It's total disregard for a plot and the lack of even insubstantial surface character development made it seem like just a bunch of nice drawings. This is by far THE worse anime that came out of Japan. I can't believe they actually put their names on this garbage. What a rip off selling this thing for $20. If you haven't seen this don't bother. If you have, I pity you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I kind of had somewhat high expectations for this movie. I've always thought that Tom Selleck's lesser known movies (ie Runaway and Coma), where well above the ones he had more press for. Maybe the producers should have had a little more knowledge about former major league baseball players who became stars overseas. The majority were players too good for triple a baseball, but not exactly major league mat\u00e9riel. I admire the idea of putting Selle's's character in Japn, versus the clich\u00e9 of having play in the minors. Sad to say, this movie, much like the title of the post, is stranded at third by a movie that seems to be running on autopilot. I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel, and hopefully, the producers would learn from the mistakes. The premise is just way too unique to be left alone with this uneven flick","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a kinder, gentler Cyborg movie with a love story. Awww. It's not as bad as it sounds. The action, when it is there, is decent and Jack Palance, Elias Koteas, and Angelina Jolie are always dependable. It's the fact that this is a sequel to the terrible Jean Claude Van Damme film, or is that the capper to the Masters of the Universe trilogy? I'm still confused about that. Either way, there was really no need for this movie. What was there a need for? Angelina Jolie. She may play an assassin robot that can explodes mid-coitus, but, what a way to go and even though this is her first movie, she still has the presence that made her an award winner.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a sci-fi and casual Angelina Jolie fan, I thought this obviously low-budget movie might be worth a look... maybe it had a few scenes or a storyline that would make up for all its other faults. Plus, it might be interesting to watch Angelina as she was embarking on her star-bound career.

Oh how wrong I was. One thing I learned -- at 18, Angelina Jolie couldn't act. So, to make her comfortable, the producers cast this entire movie with people who couldn't act. Seeing this, Jack Palance (who can actually act) decided to overact. Watching 10 minutes of this happen is enough to burn your eyes out.

To the horrible acting and overacting add a nonsensical script, insipid dialog, bottom-of-the-barrel cinematography... in fact add bottom-of-the-barrel everything.

The story features Angelina as a cyborg programmed by her corporate overlords as an assassin. She escapes the corporate HQ with the help of her combat instructor. The corporation sends bounty hunters after them. Stupid stuff happens. The end. I would tell you more but I didn't want to waste my life watching this dreck.

I implore you -- this is not worth watching. Its not even worth thinking about watching. Save yourself the pain and move on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a cyborg in and of itself: half nonsense\/half Lifetime Original Movie.

As a cyborg, this movie has but one objective: to make you wish that you had spent the duration of the film in a dark room punching yourself in the testicles.

Unlike many people, I did not rent this movie because of Angelina Jolie(I'll explain why I rented it shortly). I am not a big fan of Ms. Jolie's, though I will say that her performance was stellar! Her blank stare and robotic acting really did have me believing that she was an android hooker. If anyone has a clip of her on 'Inside the Actor's Studio' explaining how she prepared for this role, please send it my way. I'll make sure to use it when I try James Lipton for Crimes against Integrity.

So what drove me to rent this movie? One would think that it was the hope of seeing Angelina Jolie's nipples, but it wasn't. No, the reason behind this rental rested solely on one of the images on the cover of the DVD; that of Jack Palance's face! HALF OF HIS FACE WAS ROBOTIC! When I saw that, I imagined legions of \"Palances\" slowly marching through a fiery wasteland, laying waste to any humans that were foolish enough to resist. In my mind's eye, every member of this Unholy Army of Palances had a red, glowing eye; a red, glowing eye that looked at humans and saw only \"meat\". They were to be the Architects of Oblivion...a cold, steely Apocalypse...a Nightmare from which Humanity would never awaken. It's a beautiful image that I will cherish till the end of my years.

Like most things in my life, the actual movie did not live up to my expectations. No, there was only 'one' Jack Palance, and the only visible cybernetic enhancements that he had were located on his legs. Sadly, those enhancements didn't really \"enhance\" anything. That is unless, you count WALKING LIKE A POLIO VICTIM as a super power. At least their was a scene where Jack--grinning like a trigger-happy Alzheimer's patient--got to shoot the hell out of some people. I was waiting for him to yell, \"I'm damn tired of paying too much for prescription medication!\" Unfortunately, any outbursts of geriatric rage were few and far between.

What the movie did have an abundance of was a poorly developed love story about a man(Elias Koteas, a.k.a. poor man's De Niro) and a cyborg(Angelina Jolie, a.k.a. Demon Spawn of John Voigt). Oh man, can the love between a Romeo of Flesh and a Juliet of Silicon ever be able to last?!?!?! It can if you follow Jack Palance's simple advice: \"You have to TASTE each other's TIME\".

Yeah, I'm not sure what that means. However, I am sure that I do not want Jack Palance to be the one to explain it to me. I sure as heck don't want him to show me! As an experiment, I suggest that you ask your significant other if he\/she \"thinks that we have reached a level in our relationship where we can begin to TASTE each other's TIME?\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cybrog 2:Glass Shadow stars Elias Koteas as Colton Hicks (Rhymes with kicks!) a karate instructor who helps a Cash (Jolie) escape from Pinwheel, her creators who look to detonate her and destroy a rival company. Along the way Billy Drago and Karen Shepherd show up to displace the duo, while Jack Palance is there to deliver guidance to the duo on the run. One of the things that is quite shocking about the Cyborg franchise, is how the series has managed to have quite prolific and off beat actors in the cast. The original had Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dayle Haddon (Don't know her? Well she was in a bunch of 70's pornos) this one has Jack Palance, Elias Koteas,Billy Drago and Angelina Jolie. The third one has William Katt, Zach Galligan and Malcom McDowell. (Okay so, Cyborg 3's cast isn't that impressive.) I've never seen Cyborg 3, but I did see this on Sci-Fi channel and must admit I wasn't impressed. Actually strike that, Cyborg 2 is an often lovely looking movie, it's shot with excellent style and the visual detail make this easy on the eye. However Cyborg 1 was the same way, indeed the movie was directed with a certain amount of style, slow motion and music that made it all easy on the eye. Unfortunately like the first, this one doesn't have any new ideas or anything resembling a plot or texture. Most of the ideas are taken from Blade Runner and Max Headroom, so for various reasons the movie doesn't have much to offer beyond it's look. Another aspect is the terrible acting. Karen Shepherd and Billy Drago are absolutely terrible and Angelina Jolie isn't much better. Elias Koteas and Jack Palance come off fine but seriously Palance is playing a cyborg warrior and Koteas is a karate instructor. I guess on the positive side you can't accuse Michael Schroeder of not being ambitious with casting. Still the movie is dull and I for one lost interest in the story fifteen minutes in. Also why did they tie it in with Cyborg anyway? It has nothing to do with it's predecessor, which this manages to be worse than.

* out of 4-(Bad)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two things are always signs that you`re going to be watching a bad movie :

1 ) If you`re instantly reminded of other movies like THE TERMINATOR, HARDWARE or BLADE RUNNER during the title sequence

2 ) If there`s a death during a sex scene straight after the title sequence

There`s actually a third warning sign and that`s a caption indicating lazy exposition warning the poor ignorant naive audience of the dangers of corporate greed . Guess what ? CYBORG 2 starts with a caption warning us of corporate greed in the future , followed by a title sequence that reminded me of THE TERMINATOR , HARDWARE and BLADE RUNNER followed by a death during a sex scene ! Hey you don`t suppose I`ll be watching a bad movie by any chance ?

As you can guess this is a bad movie . It`s basically a series of action scenes written around a thread bare plot of a cyborg on the run from a greedy corporate company . It`s badly written , directed and acted and most especially it`s badly lit which means it`s very difficult to see what`s happening on screen , though I`m not entirely sure this is actually a bad thing . The only interest to be had is that it`s the film debut of Angelina Jolie who plays the cyborg on the run and who says the prophetic line \" They`re lovely , I wonder if they`re real ? \" which is something I ask myself whenever I see one of her movies","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Simply awful. I'm including a spoiler warning here only because of including a coupla jokes from the movie - there is nothing else to spoil, as it is already rotten. This dross was made during what must have been one of Sellers' \"For A Few Dollars More\" periods, when he'd participate in any crap for a few bucks. I'd seen this as a 15-year- old high school student in 1972, and loathed it then. No need to view it again; after 35 years I remember it now as one of the top five worst movies I'd seen as a kid. As I recall, Sellers had more of an ongoing cameo role than a lead here, but even his presence couldn't ameliorate the stale jokes, lame plot, and infantile repartee. One ongoing theme revolves around Sellers' use of his fingers: In one scene, he holds up his open hand to a group of medicos, and by folding down his fingers, enumerates the groups for which a hospital exists - the interns, the nurses, the administrators, etc. - until only his middle finger is left up, whereupon he says \"...and the patients!\" Har Har. In another scene, to avoid costly lab tests, he dips a finger into a urine sample and sticks it into his mouth to check for sugar, then exhorts the interns gathered around him to do the same, which they do. He then advises them that he'd placed his middle finger in the urine, but sucked on the index finger, and admonishes them to pay attention. Hee Hee. (The only reason that I remember this, and this movie, and am writing this review, is that a friend told me an even dumber version of this 'joke' today). If yu laik thiss, you gonna luv dis movey. If not, see 'Hospital', with George C. Scott (came out the same year, 1972) for some genuine, marvelous black medical humor. Better yet, read 'The House of God', by Samuel Shem, and if you can, see the movie version of it, which has never been released (please make a copy and send it to me - I'd love to finally see it).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wasted 35 minutes of my life on this turkey before I gave up. The main character is completely clueless and astoundingly unsympathetic, but there is no humor in his blundering. As soon as he arrives in Germany, the screenwriter pulls the old \"there's only one room in the hotel, you'll have to share a room with a pretty girl\" stunt. Come on, at least you could let them develop their relationship a bit first. Watch \"It Happened One Night\" to see how to do it right--or any of a thousand movies since then.

The acting is consistently third-rate, and the improvised dialogue should have been left on the cutting-room floor. It meanders with no plan at all, despite the fact that the film telegraphs the relationship's destination from the moment Greta is introduced.

The first song, in the boardroom, is mildly funny but badly sung. The rest of the songs (well, to be fair, I only heard those in the first half-hour) are just pointless and awful. Most of the singers are painfully out of tune, but not in any intentionally humorous sort of way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie moved much too slowly for my taste.The concept of the story is refreshingly different in that it explores the family dynamics of living with a mentally-retarded family member in a way that I have not previously seen on-screen.However,the execution of the concept was flawed.Each character was developed fully within the scene of her first appearance,then one had to endure the feeling that each character was treading water the rest of the way.That is,each character flailed about awkwardly in her interpersonal relationships with others in the movie,which I found to be a form of emotional and social retardation.I suppose this has artistic merit,given the irony that the story centers around an intellectually retarded individual surrounded by way above-average intelligence friends and family.The acting,however,was well-done without exception.I agree with other reviewers that the cinematography was beautiful.In summary,I think the film has strong artistic merit because of the fine acting and cinematography,but fails on an emotional level due to the shortcomings described.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I finally got hold of a DVD copy of this production and was agog with curiosity, since I had read so many people praising it to the skies, particularly Angela Lansbury's portrayal of Mrs. Lovett. I saw the Tim Burton movie a few months ago and thought it over the top and overly bloody; thankfully this version is not so horrifying gory but it suffers dramatically in too many other ways for it to be in the least satisfying to me.

To begin with, the casting. George Hearn is adequate and at least shows some expression (as opposed to Johnny Depp's unending wooden face in the movie). Angela Lansbury is, quite simply, annoying. At least she has enough power in her voice to get the point across as opposed to Helena Bonham Carter's piping and expressionless little girl's voice, but subtlety seems to be only a word in the dictionary to Ms. Lansbury. One cannot be drawn into the story when one of the main characters spends her entire time mugging and winking in a \"look, Ma, I'm acting!\" fashion and being far too aware of the audience. This is not something that is typical of stage productions, heaven knows--I have been a regular attendee of many productions at the Stratford Festial for many years and stage actors do NOT behave in that fashion as a rule (at least those who want to continue to find regular employment do not!)...

Betsy Joslyn. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Did anybody besides me notice that she can't sing this role even vaguely appropriately? And her playing George Hearn's daughter is just creepy, considering that she was married to him at the time. Isn't she supposed to be a sweet little sixteen-year-old? Yes, I realize that this is what acting is all about, but not once did she convince me that she was any younger than about thirty-five, and the phrase \"mutton dressed as lamb\" seems to have been coined just for her. Her butchering of \"Green Finch And Linnet Bird\" had me gnashing my teeth and ready to turn off the DVD player at once. That song was done so well in Tim Burton's movie, and this was a sad shock. The song requires the vocal range of Julie Andrews in the 1960's and a purity of voice that is only comparable to that of a boy soprano. Any vibrato at all kills it dead, and Ms. Joslyn spent the entire time warbling so hard that I thought she was about to fall off of her ladder because she was trembling so much from the effort at sustaining coloratura notes with a voice that is a mezzo at best. Let us pass over the spectacle of her vibrating at least a quarter tone flat on at least three of the higher notes... This is quite simply not a coloratura role and perhaps a discerning director should have told her that--but the fact that she was married to the star might possibly have tied the director's hands.

Cris Groenendaal was adequate, but again obviously far too old for the role and there is zero chemistry between him and Ms. Joslyn, which makes the whole subplot fall completely flat. I am reminded a little of past stage productions of Wagner's Ring cycle where, due to the vocal power required for the singers to bellow over the sound of a full Wagnerian orchestra they would have to cast based upon ability to penetrate vocally as opposed to any appearance or acting ability or even a good voice, which is why you have the caricature of the massive mountainous Viking-horned Brunehilde with a triple chin and a beard, when the libretto calls for an ethereal beauty who is eternally young and bewitching. The casting of the \"juvenile\" leads is exactly like that--if you close your eyes you can almost believe in Mr. Groenendaal's Anthony, but as soon as you look at the screen the illusion is shattered. (And at NO time can you ever believe in Ms. Joslyn's Johanna...) For me, the rest of the production was completely lost because of three out of the four major characters were so obviously miscast. I cannot give a proper review of anything else because they were so distracting that they spoiled the rest of the production. I really can't understand why people rave about this badly-shot and self-conscious filming of a stage play. Surely there's more to camera work in the theatre than just plunking a camera down in the front row? If I want that, I'll go to a decent play, preferably at the Stratford Festival, where at least they work together for the production and aren't constantly mugging for the camera. I give it three stars only because the quality of the production apart from the antics of Lansbury and Joslyn seems adequate if not spectacular.

Probably the best thing one can do is buy the soundtrack of the film and a cast recording of this play, and then combine the two to make a bearable whole. That's what I'm going to do, and try to forget that I ever bothered to rent this wholly unremarkable production.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some aspects of this production are good, such as the performances of Angela Lansbury, George Hearn, Cris Groenendaal, and Sal Mistretta. But am I the only one who is distracted by the horrible performance by Betsy Joslyn as Johanna? She is terrible! She slauters the songs with her screechy voice and overacts in a role she clearly doesn't understand. I also think the chorus isn't up to snuff. They drag the tempo and make the worst facial expressions. Overall, I think this production is okay, but Sweeney Todd can be so much more if done correctly. This production doesn't come near the level this material demands. The concert version with George Hearn and Patti LuPone is much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Among the many accolades here for this production, there was one individual whose comments asked if he\/she were the only one (who wasn't that enthralled by it) - i.e. giving this film 3 stars. However, the comment went on to indicate an overall liking of the story, and other production of same. Well, this person isn't the \"only one,\" who didn't like this production (include me!) but there I part company even with him\/her. If you put a gun to my head and asked me to make a choice between your shooting me or watching this flick again, I'd watch it, certainly - but I'd probably spend 10 seconds thinking about it. I'd much prefer being locked into solitary confinement, or having to watch paint dry on a wall, though. Further, I wouldn't want to see this story again, anytime, anywhere, or in any alternative presentation. Sometimes you feel like comedian George Gobel's \"pair of brown shoes when the rest of the world is a tuxedo,\" and this is one of those for me. I liked Angela Lansbury in a favorite movie of mine, \"Long Hot Summer,\" and while not a huge fan of the show, enjoyed \"Murder, She Wrote.\" But HERE -- I not only didn't care for the story or other aspects, but I found Angela's squealing, squawking, singing, and everything else about her over-the-top performance, perhaps the MOST ANNOYING presence in any movie (or presentation in any other media) I've ever experienced. It was like an unending continuation of Audrey Hepburn's equally \"over-the top\" Cockney chortling at Rex Harrison - in the earlier portions of \"My Fair Lady.\" But that was incident to the plot, presented for light, comedic effect, and (mercifully) brief. Unmercifully, this was anything but brief, and to me seemed as if it had gone-on for about 10 hours (Einstein's layman's explanation of \"relativity\" at work.) If I hadn't been with friends, with the necessity to remain, MY viewing would have been brief. I laughed, though, at the \"Seinfeld\" episode where Elaine pisses everyone off because she tells them how much she disliked \"The English Patient.\" My friends somewhat regarded me the same way when I interrupted their waxing ecstatically over this movie. Give me some dragging fingernails loudly over a chalk board anytime instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was one of the worst I have ever seen (not including anything by or with Pauly Shore). I couldn't believe that a film could actually be THIS bad!

Coolio has to be the single worst actor (again, not including Pauly Shore) to ever \"star\" in a movie. The temptation to hit the STOP button during this movie was huge (in fact, if there was a THROW IN THE TRASH button on my VCR, I would have been inclined to press that).

Do yourself a favor, and do something more interesting than watch this movie, like watching the grass grow, or watching golf on TV.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, I just had to sound off on this one... Like a tremendous mental-gimp, I've just sat through this film in its entirety.

You'll note that the trivia section of IMDB points out that portions of the raising of the 747 were \"borrowed\" from Airport 1977. This really doesn't scratch the surface... Virtually all exterior shots of the plane skimming the ocean, landing in, sinking, and even the at-rest shots are borrowed from Airport '77. All of the \"raising\" shots are pulled from '77, including most of the interior flooding clips, with the exception of Dennis Weaver's drowning. I couldn't help but wonder if Olivia Dehavilland might come floating by at any moment, or maybe a \"dead\" Tom Sullivan. Another eye-roller: Dennis Weaver's name in this film is Stevens, which is to compensate for the fact that Airport '77's plane is owned by the Stevens Corporation (headed by Jimmie Stewart of course).

This is a veritable calvalcade of actors who don't work much, or at least haven't worked in a while, which might have been the first clue that it was going to be a real stinker.

I've rated this film a 2 - It's quite worthy of a \"1\", but if this film can't offer any other redeeming quality, at least somebody helped Coolio, Max Caulfield, Nicolle Eggert, and Dennis Weaver make their car payments that month!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Boring, ridicules and stupid \"Submerged\" is a waste of time. The shootouts were a joke, real people do not just stand out in the open with out any cover, hoping to get shot first! So many things wrong or bad, not worth the effort to list, except one major flaw. At 500 mph for 20 minutes = about 166 miles west of L.A. and the water is 100ft deep??? Even at that, none of the people would have survived the decompression from being subjected to 100ft of water pressure for more then 20 hours when they were brought up. Just a awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a terrible movie that only gets worse and seems to never end. The acting was bad, the plot was worse, and the special effects seemed to have been created by a 5th grade science class. Dennis Weaver is such a great actor and should have never taken such a part. My advise, DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has to rank down there with Ed Wood films. A terrible script and bad, bad acting.

A machine gun fight in front of plate glass windows; minutes go by before anyone is hit and nobody has cover - not one window ever breaks. You'd think after a fire fight like that the big U-Haul truck might be riddled - not a scratch.

Do CIA agents and government contractors =shout= Top Secret information at a stand-up cocktail party with hundreds of people around.

There isn't one actor you care about; everyone is shallow and basically unlikable.

A Hawaii bound 747 flies out of Los Angeles and crashes twenty minutes later in the Pacific \"...in 100 feet of water...\". A short time passes when the stewardess announces to the five other passengers they only have two hours of air left; on a 747?

The next day the rescue teams show-up and amazingly the six passengers are still alive.

A movie that starts out mediocre and goes from bad to worse.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Submerged\" is definitely NOT \"the worst movie ever\". It does have its flaws, such as borrowed footage, crazy script and non-existent special effects (these are the worst), but it also has some good points too. The acting is surprisingly good, there are LOTS of familiar faces whom you probably know if u're a b-movie fan like me.

I was very glad to see Brent Huff playing one of the heroes, knowing him mostly for his 80's action films, and i must admit, he is not a bad actor at all. Fred Williamson, Maxwell Caulfield & Tim Thomerson get some limited screen time, but are believable in their parts. The \"eye-candies\" in this Fred Olen Ray movie are Yvette Nipar and Nicole Eggert, both looking very sexy and very mean. Michael Bailey Smith adds some muscle to the background as a Navy SEAL. Unfortunately the only cast member who (in my opinion) is completely out of place is Coolio. He doesn't act at all, talks like he didn't even read the script, and being a badass in the beginning of the movie, gets shot like a wimp a hour later. Not a good choice.

To sum this movie up - this is not such a bad choice for late night entertainment. If you can get over the special effects thing (so many guns, so much fire, and not a single wound on anyone), Coolio's annoying performance, and the recycled footage from Airport 77, you might like this no-brainer after all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is part of one sequence where some water rushes into the sunken plane, everything else that happens in this movie is stock footage for Airport 77. You can even make out Jack Lemmon and Christopher Lee in some of the shots. A total rip off? Well almost by definition. There may be more stock footage in this film than in Plan 9 From Outer Space.

All the new material, actors sitting around in an airplane set talking, is bland and terrible on every level. Dennis Weaver is totally wasted in a career low movie, though that's true for everyone other than this films director Fred Olen Ray, who uses one of this many necessary fake names in order to keep working.

There is a level of scant professionalism that makes this film such a waste of time, it would actually be better if shot by someone with no technical knowledge at all, because Ray has just enough knowledge about how to put together a scene in the worst old school TV fashion that this film, like most of his films, is totally devoid of life. The worst kind of hack work. The worst kind of film. Boring.

This type of film is a waste of money, an affair where the crew on all levels are ghosts hoping to get whatever scant pay check they can and that no one will see or know they appeared\/ participated in this rip off. There are so many people who want to make movies it's disgusting to see Ray burn up the money given to do nothing more but fill time.

His commentary track is interesting in that he has to start it by explaining that he is really Fred Ray as he isn't credited on the film itself. That tricked me into seeing it don't let it trick you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You have to see this movie, it's a big footnote in the history of film. When this film was made, American film industry reached the bottom of sucking. See this movie, laugh, and feel sorry for yourself for wasting the last 2 hours of your life. It's the worst acting I've seen and even worse directing. The villains laugh like they're taken from a clown circus and if the guys who did \"Scary Movie\" want to do a parody on superhero movies they only have to take the script from this movie and do a remake, called Black Scorpion III: The threat of really really bad movies who in some way manages to lure the production companies into a sequel suicide.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is really a terrible film by any of the regular yardsticks. Plot, storyline, acting, effects, direction - I could go on. Suffice to say it's poor. However, it has a certain appeal. Many totally out of context sex scenes appear, it's fun looking for the Batman references. Umm - that's it. Poor really, don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pun intended. This low budget action\/horror vehicle for Don Wilson's ability to kick things is the stuff direct-to-video fare is made of.

The plot: Wilson is a humorless vampire hunter who comes under fire from local law enforcement after he is forced to slaughter creatures of the night in view of the public. Police chase him, vampires chase him, he responds by kicking...a lot.

There is a little more to the story, but it is so inconsequential that I honestly can't remember it; I think people actually spoke in the movie, but that's up to debate. The plot is nothing more than a set-up for Wilson to kill as many vampires as possible in the running time, usually by kicking them.

The technical specs are, in a word, anemic. Little color treating, amateurish use of lighting, simplistic use of camera and angle. Blood and gore is noticeably limited, odd for this type of film. The most hurtful of the filming foul-ups is the jarring shift to super-shaky cam during each and every fight scene. If the camera begins to bounce around like a reese monkey on speed, then you know Don is about to start kicking everything in sight.

All in all, this is the kind of bad movie that can be made good with a few friends and a lot of cynical humor. Otherwise, do not watch, unless you really like to watch things get kicked.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don Wilson stars as Jack Cutter (Ooh real tough name!)a vampire slayer who goes up against a vampire army, you see the story is a little different because vampires can't be killed with silver, crosses or sunlight but rather through snapping their necks (How convenient as it cuts down on the budget) and it's here Cutter runs into a reporter (Melanie Smith of Trancers III fame) Night Hunter's action sequences shake for no reason during the fight sequences and although it's meant to emphasize the mood, it just makes the movie more jarring. What is worse is that these fight sequences are botched beyond belief as Wilson's martial artistry is disguised by disjointed editing. Of course the most interest comes from the fact that indeed this predates Blade, however the problem is that this was done on a small budget and that it had Don Wilson in it. It's from Roger Corman and basically this turkey is a movie most people would pay NOT to see. I unfortunately am a bottom feeder and I cater to the section of the store looking for gems, in this line of work you always run into turds. With Night Hunter, I just may have the world's stinkiest turd.

1\/2* out of 4-(Awful)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think vampire movies (usually) are wicked. Even if the film itself isn't all that good, I still like it 'cos its got vampires in it. But this stinks. It really does give vampire movies a bad name.

For a start, the cheapness really shows. I'm not usually that bothered about low budget films - one of my favourite all-time movies is El Mariachi which only cost $7000 - but I hate this. The actions a load of crap as well, resorting to a 'stylish' wobbling camera which gives you headache.

Theres not much more to say other than don't watch this. I bought it for \u00a31.50 as it was an ex-rental and I feel cheated out of my money, even for that low price.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While credited as a Tom and Jerry cartoon, this is not the cat-and-mouse team but an earlier Mutt-and-Jeff rip-off featuring them going to Africa and disguising themselves in the stereotypical burnt cork makeup to try to blend in. While the dialect humor is mostly lame, there is a brief musical sequence involving \"black skeletons\" that was entertaining. I have to ask however, how could Tom and Jerry still have their makeup stay on even after being dumped in the water a couple of times? One of many entries produced by the Van Beuren Corporation for distribution by RKO Radio Pictures before RKO made a deal with Disney. Only worth seeing if you're an animation buff or is interested in how certain ethnicities were stereotyped as entertainment way back when.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tom and Jerry are transporting goods via airplane to Africa. But being white men, they're worried they won't be safe, so they put on blackface to fit in. Once they're wearing it, they adopt black dialect and fully inhabit their new characters. They crash into the ocean and use the wing of the plane as a raft. Before reaching land, they suffer the advances of an over-affectionate octopus and more serious danger from sharks, a swordfish and a whale. Once on land, they're frightened by fantastic creatures, and duck into a cave. Inside it's even worse when they encounter living skeletons in blackface. And upon exiting the cave, things are even worse than that when they are discovered by cannibals.

\"Plane Dumb\" is an especially sloppy effort from Van Beuren Studios. One example: a lion, unknown to Tom and Jerry, enters the cave before they do. But the animators must have forgotten about it, because the lion never appears again. Another example is the ending that's not an ending: it's just an arbitrary stop.

According to a YouTube poster, the cartoon \"was originally intended to feature the voices AND caricatures of a popular 'Negro' comedy team known as Miller & Lyles. But Aubrey Lyles died of tuberculosis before the recording session was completed, and co-directors John Foster & George Rufle were forced to rework the animation into a 'Tom & Jerry' story.\"

They shouldn't have bothered. The crude animation and poorly-executed gags make the film a loser from beginning to end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was under assumption that this was the cat and mouse duo but it wasn't instead it was something that shouldn't have been made not even for its time. They disguise themselves in the \"blackface\" fashion because they fly to Africa and they even act like Stepin Fetchit and all the others rolled into one. There are some cartoons that are racist but they are classics, being a mixed woman I have the right to say this, but if you are into the historical aspect of these cartoons try Merrie Melodies \"Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs\" or \"Angel Puss\" you won't find them on DVD because the distributors promised not to put them in the mainstream, but you can find them on a site as YouTube. I don't recommend little kids seeing this but if you want to see how early America was racist and ignorant these are better suggestions, not to mention this particular cartoon has poor animation, i know it was 1932, but I have seen better for its time.

\"Plane\" unnecessary. -1 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My God, the things that passed for entertainment in this country...

This is *not* the \"Tom and Jerry\" you may have enjoyed on Saturday Mornings, featuring a hapless cat and a clever mouse. This is a much earlier animation series, featuring a pair of Mutt-and-Jeff clones who get themselves into various scrapes that result in any of the then-typical dancing-skeleton-type gags that made up so much of early animation.

This particularly vile outing, apparently originally intended as a vehicle for a pair of actual black stage comedians of the time, has the pair crashing in the ocean while flying to Africa, necessitating black-face make-up, exaggerated \"negro\" dialect and \"Feets, don't fail me now\" situations.

It only shows that in the 70 years between emancipation and this film, the American view of Africans hadn't progressed much. Then again, at least one of them apparently had a pilot's license.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For a scientifically-engineered super-dog that was supposed to be the answer to petit crime, CHOMPS was a chump.

All I ever saw Chomps do was sit, or walk, or run. Or run, then walk, then sit... and then get back up again and stretch, and then walk, and then jog to K-Tel dance hits. And sometimes it had all the answers to the daily Jumbo. But mostly it just sat a lot.

All I am saying is: In a Celebrity Death Match, Chomps couldn't take out Mr. Bigglesworth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"C.H.O.M.P.S. is very much like any number of cheesy late 70s Disney family comedys-The Cat from Outer Space or Unidentified Flying Oddball, for instance. Utterly devoid of anything creative, beating the same cliches to death, yet vaguely entertaining in a mindless sort of way. The actors won't win any awards, nor will the director, writer, or FX crew, but in its inoffensive ness and bland predicatability there is some vague entertainment to be had. The idea of the robot dog as security system is so full of holes you could use it as a colander. The incredibly repetative disco soundtrack will stick in your head, so beware.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i think south park is hilarious, and i have no problem w\/them taking shots at people on the left, but you'd think that, after taking a whole movie to attack celebrities for risking their careers taking on an illegal war, and then being GASP right along, they would have the sense to start giving w. and the bastards ruining the country a shot or two. bush seems to get a pretty free run from these guys for as stupid and messed up as he is.

gore is fair game, but please, what do the republicans have to do, how bad do they have to f^&k up the country before these guys finally act like maybe they aren't just trying to do the best they can, and that they have done some true screwing up...or maybe just go after rush limbaugh...hes a good target...or even just make fun of condoleeza rice's gap teeth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An awful film; badly written, badly acted, cliched, hackneyed, dross. The premise is such a good one and a chance to educate about black cowboys but the film is truly dire. It is a curious mix of a bad 1950's Randolph Scott B movie and a bad 1970's spaghetti western. The villains are cardboard, the flashbacks laughable, the dialogue excruciating.

The deliberate anachronisms (such as 'Victorian' rap singers and modern swear words like \"motherf****er\"), are irritating to the extreme.

A Frankenstein monster that died on the lab table.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This move is bad on so many levels I don't even know where to start. OK - the good points - Peebles is beautiful as a dirty outlaw in black leather. Some of the landscape photography was stunning. That's about it. Oh, and it was a nice touch having the buffalo head above the bar door in Freemanville, I figure it was a nod to the Buffalo Soldiers. The movie starts sort of OK but the characters are so flat, so comic book, so 'much', the bad guys are just over the top bad, I choke trying to describe them further. The Spanish-Cuban-American war was 1895-1898 with America being involved only in April to August of '98. I think the movie said it took place in 1893 (I could be wrong but I don't want to look at it again to check). A big part of this movie hinged on the KKK killing Jessie's daddy. Well boys, the original KKK started in 1865 and was destroyed by President Andrew Johnson in 1871. The Klan wasn't even around during the time period of this movie. Of course the nasty bas**rds got busy again in 1915 and we know the rest of that. BUT for the purpose of the movie it is historically incorrect and that was a major part of the plot. I think I could make myself crazy going into it a lot more so here a few jabs and I'm done. I didn't know that Boyz2Men and other bands like that got their inspiration from New Orleans street singers from the 1890's. I also didn't know that fetish necklaces were all the rage for Sioux women in the 1890's...but then I was surprised to see a bar singer doing jazz while wearing acrylic 1\" nails... We just about died laughing and I like a cheesy western more than most people do. Such a waste of talent and money - this really had the chance to show a part of American history that isn't well known. http:\/\/www.coax.net\/people\/lwf\/bkcwboy2.htm for some more information. This could have been so good but it was just....bad from 1-10 this gets a 1 instead of a zero because Mario looks good in his hat and there was an Appaloosa horse in the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's not just that the movie is lame. It's more than that. This movie is just unnecessary. Do we need another Western? How about a western with afro-Americans in the titles roles? Sound stupid, implausible and a lame attempt at modernizing the genre? It is. Incredibly lame and simple minded. It's like that lame Baz Luhrman film \"Romeo and Juliet\" where he set it in modern times to attract young folks and create some hype with his revamping of a classic tale. Well, Baz Luhrman failed miserably and so does this mess. The story is actually not bad however the whole idea of removing the racism out of a racist genre by casting an all afro-American cast is racist in itself. It's also puerile and simple minded (like Baz Luhrman-man he's a bad director). Hey (I hear you say) this was directed by Mario Van Peebles! He's also IN the film! How can it be racist? It's not. I said the idea of casting all afro-Americans instead of Caucasians was. The film isn't racist, it's just pointless, stupid and very very boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst movie of ALL TIME! It's one of those that is so ridiculous and the acting so bad that you turn off the video 1\/3 into it so that you can use your time for better purposes like cleaning the toilet. If you actually watch the whole thing, GOD help you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, what a racist, profane piece of celluloid garbage, and what an insult to the great genre of Westerns.

Exploitive? Sex scenes abound, profanity abounds, violence and gore abounds.....everything that gives modern movies such a good name, especially among those who prefer classic-era movies. This is the kind of sleaze that gives the old folks ammunition against today's films.

Somehow I just can't picture nude male bathing scenes in Randolph Scott or Gene Autrey films. Nor can I picture hearing \"motherf---er!\" exclaimed here and there. I sincerely doubt that word was even around over 100 years ago. Yet, the f-word is so prevalent here you'd think you were watching a story centered in today's urban areas, not the old west of the 1800s.

Prejudice? Well, what if all the white characters were good guys and every black person was the nasty, brutal villain? Do you think someone might complain about a racist movie? Home come we don't hear an outcry when the reverse - as demonstrated in this film - is shown in hundreds of theaters across the country?

Mario Van Peeples wrote, directed and starred in this bomb. Remember that name. Apparently, he is the \"Ed Wood\" of today's filmmakers. Even Spike Lee wouldn't be this racist. You can't get much worse than this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In my opinion, the movie was laughable--bad dialogue. Whoever wrote the script--please keep your day job. It's definitely NO Godfather or Goodfellas. It's good to be on the otherside of the table--poor choice of words. Some of the characters were clowns. But what do you expect from a low budget movie with no name actors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes, changes to novels when they're made into films are not only necessary, but a good thing. However, in the case of Northanger Abbey, it's a very, very bad thing. Not only is the story itself ripped to shreds, but the satire is almost completely absent from the film, and it's mixture of romance and intrigue doesn't even touch upon the biting commentary that Austen put into her work. It fails to be amusing or satirical at all, and instead turns the character's fascination with her fantasy world into mostly a drama.

This affects the romance as well. It's meandering and aimless. Chemistry and interest are never established. The reasons Tilney is attracted to Catherine are completely absent from the film, leaving the audience to wonder what it is he sees in her at all.

Hopefully some day soon, we'll get a more faithful version if Austen's satire.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Poor Jane Austen ought to be glad she's not around to see this dreadful wreck of an adaptation. So many great Jane Austen movies have come out recently that this one deserves to be permanently buried along with two other movies I despise-The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit and the 1969 version of David Copperfield. My main beef with the movie is that it completely misses the point of the book. Jane Austen was poking fun at the Gothic mania in her society, and much of the novel is tongue in cheek. The movie, however, is serious and comes across terribly melodramatically. The lighthearted, fun-poking flavor of Austen's writing is completely and conspicuously absent from this ponderous foray iinto horror meets period drama. The scenes of Catherine's imagination are both gratuitous and uninteresting. Also, Henry Tilney is dreadfully unappealing. Why, I ask, would anyone fall for him? If you are looking for a fun-filled Jane Austen evening, watch Emma instead!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Normally BBC productions of Jane Austen are pretty good but Northanger Abbey is just odd. What were they thinking? This film has little of Austen's charm and ironically mimics the Gothic novels that Austen so wonderfully mocked. Not only that, the \"gothic\" sequences are tacky, over-the-top, and frankly silly. The actress playing Miss Morland is poorly cast with no obvious appeal to attract the attentions of an eligible bachelor, and though I rather liked the creepy Peter Firth as Mr. Tilney, he is not a bit like the novel, even when delivering dialog straight out of the book. Robert Hardy as General Tilney turned in one of his few terribly \"ham\" performances. This film was so bizarre and strange that I actually watched it again just to savor how freakishly wrong it was.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Is it possible to give a 0 out of 10 rating? Because this one deserves it. While I'm not a big fan of Jane Austen's books, I sat through this one with two women who are. Well, at least we had a big laugh about how bad this film is. Robert Hardy was the only actor with any charisma in the whole thing, though he overdid it as he usually does (nearly as bad as William Shatner). But that wasn't enough to save this stinker from total suckitude. It's often hard to separate the girl's dream sequences from what is \"really\" happening, and so many holes are left in the story that you can barely figure out what is going on. Too many loose ends and the ending feels like a \"tune in again next week\" climax. The lead actress is too ditsy and weird-looking to be a heroine, the leading man is too goofy-looking and effeminate to be a convincing hero and the music sounds like some kind of cheap new-agey pet project of the director's hippy daughter (I mean saxophone??? mixed in with some kind of spacey operatic female wailing?). So, in conclusion, I suggest you blow the budget and order a DVD of this one as soon as possible. Especially if you like disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My first hugely disappointing BBC\/Jane Austen flick. The tone is off, the costumes are off, the hair is off, the music is from outer space, and Robert Hardy, bless him, looks like he's really annoyed to be in such a stinker. Even some of the casting is off. No, I take that back, a good director can make a silk purse out of a sows ear, so to speak. The performances in this thing are so over the top and melodramatic that it's almost a farce of a Jane Austen story, which is ironic since Northanger Abbey is a sort of homage\/send up of the early Gothic novel. I wanted to slap the female lead after awhile; who made the decision that she should be such a ninny? I had to watch Pride & Prejudice ('95) immediately to get the bad taste out of my mouth. Phew!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My mom, my cousins, and I are pretty big Jane Austen fans. We know all the words to the 1995 Pride and Prejudice masterpiece, and have watched Gwyneth Paltrow's Emma an embarrassing number of times. I've read all the books, and I've even sat through Sense and Sensibility and Persuasion a few times. So my mom and I thought it would be nice to see Northanger Abbey on film.

Bad idea! This is just about the worst movie I've ever seen. It's even worse than the 1998 version of Alice Through the Looking Glass, or the 1939 Nancy Drew movie I bought at Wal-Mart for $1 (my previous \"worst movies.\") The first thing wrong, which you notice in the opening scene, is that the \"heroine,\" Catherine, has a gruesome and weird imagination, inspired by trashy novels that a Jane Austen heroine would never touch. Throughout the novel, she has dreams (day and night) in which she is carried off by some hideous man with a greasy wig, dragged across a field headed for God-knows-what-all, and suddenly rescued by a dashing guy on a white horse.

The second thing any viewer of the movie will instantly notice is the high-pitched wailing and saxophone music that is supposed to be the soundtrack. No dainty classical music or English country dances here! It is also evident, almost at first glance, that the actress (for lack of a better word) chosen to play Catherine is completely off. First, she is rather unattractive, and is rendered even more so by her un-Austenlike behavior. Her looks and movements are just wacky! Plus, they're completely affected and unbelievable.

This sad lack of acting skills affects pretty much all of the actors in the film. Not even Mr. Tilney, the supposed \"dashing young suitor\" is decent.

As more and more characters are introduced, a strange taste in costumes on the part of the filmmakers becomes evident. Huge, Marie Antoinette-style headdresses clash with the (for the most part) correctly styled Empire gowns. A French woman, apparently a friend of General Tilney's, is made up all in black as some sort of ancient Goth nightmare--she bears a striking similarity to Michael Jackson in a black dress. Her appearance is made even sillier by a HUGE half-moon beauty mark on her cheek. I also had to wonder about the historical accuracy of the bright red lipstick that almost all of the women were wearing.

Another anomaly that kept my mom and I howling with laughter for about ten minutes was the \"bathing\" scene. The first thing we noticed was that men and women were bathing in a big bathhouse together--probably not very likely in the early 1800s. Then we saw that all the women seemed to be wearing large china or plastic plates, worn around their necks with strings. The plates floated horizontally on the water, containing some mysterious pieces of...something. We guessed it was soap, then aromatic herbs, then finally, when the mystery substance began disappearing between shots, we deduced it was food. But I'm still not sure.

And that's not even half of what's wrong with Northanger Abbey. My warning to anyone who is considering renting this movie: stay your hand. And if anyone is considering BUYING it--well, I don't even know what to say to that.

You'd think that when the actors and others making this film got about 1\/4 of the way through, they'd realize what a monster they were creating and stop. Unfortunately, they didn't, and Northanger Abbey was let out into the world.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie started off well enough, sticking to the mood of the book fairly well even if the acting was not top notch. The soundtrack was torturously bad. Saxaphone and electric guitars? It was gratingly incongruous. The female singer was positively dreary! In the second half of the film the story takes a decidedly darker turn. Too dark for Austen. Northanger Abbey is made a dark and scary place whereas in the book it was disappointingly tame and modernized to Catherine's eyes.

Who in the heck is this Marchioness with the ghastly makeup and wig? A totally extraneous and unnecessary character.

One of the key elements in the book is the General is not a Gothic monster like the characters in Catherine's books. His monstrosity is far more complicated in his oppression of his children's spirits and his treatment of Catherine based on money concerns alone. He does not lock up his wife or kill her but he does send Miss Morland on a 70 mile trip alone in a hired carriage with not enough money to pay her way home. Only her friend Miss Tilney's thoughtfulness in handing her some money on the way out the door saves her from being stranded. This whole point gets seriously muddled in the film. They make the General too dark from the outset.

Peter Firth should have not sung! This part was painful to watch. His depiction of Tilney wasn't too bad but it was a shade dark in places. Henry Tilney of the book made sport of Miss Morland's imagination on trip to Northanger but he was never dark. Firth would have benefited from better direction. The young lady who played Isabella needed a better acting coach. John Thorpe was appropriately odious. The striped waistcoat and coattails combo he wore was ghastly! It certainly fit his character.

I think the film would have fared much better with a completely different soundtrack. It cast an oppressive pall over the entire movie. If I watch it again it will be with the sound OFF and subtitles on. Perhaps I would give the film a 4 then.

The sound quality of the DVD was quite poor. The picture quality was not much better. This is glaringly noticeable on a digital television.

When I think of what this film could have been, I think of Persuasion with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The BBC and the Arts & Entertainment Network should be ashamed of themselves for foisting this unfortunate production onto the world. The acting is, with the exception of Robert Hardy as General Tilney, amateurish at best and excruciatingly painful at worst. The costumes are over-the-top and feature some truly ghoulish excesses -- was the costume designer obsessed with feathers for women's hats? Surely EVERY woman in Bath didn't have feathers in her headpiece in the early 19th century. The production values are poor and the pacing of the film makes one feel it was hastily and clumsily edited at the last minute. Altogether an agonizing film that I had to force myself to watch to the end. It's a shame, as the producers obviously spent a lot of money on costumes and location shooting. Compared to Emma Thompson's sublime \"Sense and Sensibility\" or the extraordinary 1995 production of \"Pride and Prejudice\" or the subtle intensity of 1995's \"Persuasion\", this production of `Northanger Abbey' surely has Jane Austen turning in her grave.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Shaky hand held cameras (this piece was shot for television mind you, not film) not only keep you utterly conscious of how horrible the cinematography is in this film, but make you absolutely unable to become immersed in the story. Poor Miss Austen must be rolling in her grave. All I can say is, if you enjoyed the novel, stop there, until the BBC creates one of their smart & sensible period masterpieces (like Pride & Prejudice with Colin Firth, which, speaking for what I imagine in my opinion, Austen would have revered). The BBC would never dare overdub cheesy saxophone solos and Indigo Girl hollers over a shot of an historic castle and a loving embrace. Giles Foster seemed to be often confused that they were editing the music to The Specialist. If you want Austen as you love her, look for the BBC logo...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The filmmakers were clearly on drugs. That's the only explanation I have. How else do you explain this travesty of a Jane Austen adaptation? Northanger Abbey is a parody of a Gothic novel. But this film was made as if it WERE a Gothic novel. The bizarre music and dream sequences to me suggest drug-induced hallucinations rather than a naive, innocent girl with an overactive imagination, as Catherine of the novel is...

The actress who played Catherine just stands around bug-eyed all the time. Peter Firth looks at least 10 years too old to play Henry and he actually seemed a bit on the gay side to me. I don't see the attraction between him and Catherine. John Thorpe's portrayal was rather odd but Isabella actually wasn't that bad. But nothing could save this PIECE OF CRAP movie! One more thing- This film invents a character not in the book, a French friend of General Tilney's, \"The Marchioness.\" Why exactly they added her is beyond me. Must have been the drugs. She is scary-looking beyond belief, with white foundation, red lips and black lines randomly painted on her face (dimples?).

You'd think this would at least be entertaining in a \"so bad it's good\" quality but unfortunately, it's not. It's just BAD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Northanger Abbey is not my favorite Jane Austen novel, but it has its charms. This movie doesn't. It has some of the same character names as the book, but the story is drastically altered, and the sweetest man in the whole Austen canon (unless Emma's Mr. Knightley gets pride of place) is made out to be a heartless and mercenary creep. One or two totally extraneous characters are introduced, and a palpable air of corseted perversion hangs over it all. I was so disappointed when I first saw it on its release in 1986; even today it ranks high on the list of films that disgrace the books on which they're based. Even Robert Hardy fans should give this one a wide berth. It has nothing, and I mean N-O-T-H-I-N-G, to recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What an awful adaptation. The worst part was the music. Saxophone muzak and synthesizers playing in a story set in the early 1800's?????? The only character that didn't bore me to sleep was Robert Hardy. I had to fight to keep my eyes open on this one, and I love Jane Austen movies usually. I didn't even rent it, I borrowed it from the library. They should have paid me to take it. I don't quite understand how Catherine and Henry managed a passionate kiss at the end when throughout the movie they had no chemistry or indication whatsoever that they cared for one another. Isabella and her brother were way overdone; it was no secret to me immediately that she and her brother were the \"bad guys\" and part of the excitement of Jane Austen movies is the discovery that who you think is good, isn't. This is probably on my list of the ten worst movies I've seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm afraid I did not like this adaptation. When I started watching it I had a strange feeling of watching some 70s TV series, due to the filter and the musical score. I did not like the end scene. Mr Tilney appears dressed only in his waistcoat. Jane Austen would never have a gentleman ride out without a frock coat. Looks like the producers made a modern misinterpretation of a romantic girl's dream. I appreciate the more modern JA adaptations much more, that show an eye for these details, that makes the BBC series so worthwhile. Sorry, looking forward to the 2007 adaptation. I hope that will be better and will show the benefits of 20 years of Jane Austen adaptations.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Poor Jane Austen. This dog of a production does NOT do her wonderful tongue in cheek novel any justice. Starting at the top ... poorly adapted. The screenwriter deserves extra low marks for trying to -- come to think of it, I don't know WHAT she was trying for, but suffice it to say she missed the mark by light years!! Couple that with all the over-acting and awful production values, this is one adaptation that should never have happened. It would have been far better if they just gave all the money they poured into this flop and donated it to a worthy charity. Do yourself a favor, read the book. It is almost certain that you will enjoy it a thousand times more than trying to sit through this excruciating production!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(This might have a spoiler)

When I first started watching this movie, I thought it was OK. The music was good and that bizarro dream sequence I was willing to forgive, but the lack of looks in the main character and all of the other characters for that matter made me uninterested in watching the rest of this film. (I know, totally vain.)The music at the beginning was spirited and fitting I thought for a mock Gothic novel. But, come on! Saxophone music for an early 19th century film? It totally didn't fit. This movie was totally boring and if you're looking to watch a good period film or an Austen don't rent Northanger Abbey! I give it a 30%. 30% = a failing grade!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a terrible movie, that is barely recognizable from the book, although they have sort of similar plots. The time it takes to watch this movie (which is only 1.5 hours) would be much better spent doing anything else, including watching grass grow. The addition of poorly done fantasy scenes make Catherine seem insufferably silly. The actress who plays Catherine also comes across ditzy as all goodness and looks constantly surprised, even when she's supposed to be looking lovingly into her Tilney's eyes. Honestly!! The movie ends with a Catherine fantasy-like scene where one can't help but wonder if it's happened or if she's merely delusional, and not in the good way that makes you think but in a perfectly horrible way that basically sums up the terrible movie. The only good thing about the movie is the title, which was written by Ms. Austen herself. I generally love the BBC's productions but this one is horrid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is hard for a lover of the novel Northanger Abbey to sit through this BBC adaptation and to keep from throwing objects at the TV screen-in fact, if Jane Austen herself were to see this, she would be somewhat amused and possibly put out. Maggie Wadey's adaptation has made Northanger Abbey into what it satirized, the Gothic novel (and the readers of Gothic novels).

The role of Catherine Morland in the adaptation is portrayed fairly closely to Austen's Catherine, a open-hearted, generous girl whose imagination simply runs away with her. But the Henry Tilney of the novel is not a snuff-taking, cane-wielding, sappy-line-making hero of a Gothic novel-he is a tease, a nearly-handsome man with a messy room and a living (that's right, Henry Tilney is a clergyman, a charm that is completely dropped from the script). Some of the best scenes from novel, when Henry, completely deadpan, outrageously teases the literally-minded Catherine on diction, journals, Mrs. Radcliffe, etc., are not portrayed in the adaptation. A large section of Henry's personality is lost when those scenes are not adapted. Besides, Peter Firth's appearance is not accurate-Henry Tilney is supposed to be 24 or 25, dark hair and a brown skin, not 35 or 40 and blond.

There are so many other absurdities within the adaptation that invoke surprise and disgust-who is the Marchioness, and what is she doing in the story?! Why is John Thorpe less of a dunce and more of a schemer? Why is Northanger Abbey a castle? Catherine of the novel, with her romantic visions, expects hidden passages and dark tapestries, but is very disappointed to discover that Northanger Abbey is actually a comfortable, modern house-another element of satire! Why portray General Tilney as a drunk? Why does Catherine have those strange visions of Mrs. Allen threading her finger, etc.? Catherine's imagination only runs away with her at Northanger, with Henry there to correct her gently. And lastly, why are so many facts concerning the Tilney family and Mrs. Tilney's death altered unnecessarily? To make the story more `horrible?' All of these oddities and more simply are too strange to be overlooked.

>","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We really don't know where to begin when talking about this movie. But we'll start with the plot. We sincerely suspect that whomever wrote\/produced\/directed this movie never read the book. Because they missed the entire point. SATIRICAL, not horror. Just a hint. Second, the bath scene. Enough said. Third, the added characters. The sketchy Gothic french lady and her black page who enjoys holding hands and cartwheeling. We don't understand where this came from either. And then there was the casting. All of them were really unlikeable. We were very upset that Catherine and Mr. Tilney ended up together, because they were so unlikable that no one would ever wish to see them happy. And...the music. We think that the BBC producers ran out of money, so raided their grandmother's attic. And they found some old records. Saxophone, wailing female voices, and an occasional electric guitar. *shudder*

Plus, the best line ever: \"Since you left, the white rose bush has died of grief.\" If anybody has any explanation, we would love to hear it. Because it makes absolutely no sense.

We are still wondering what on earth everyone involved was thinking when they cruelly released this pathetic excuse of a movie out on the public. We think it should be considered a federal offense. Torture is illegal.

This movie is by far the worst we have seen to date. And I've seen a lot of movies.

Our recommendation: Give this movie to whomever you hate. They will watch it, and want to kill themselves. And we agree with a previous post, we would give this 0 stars, if at all possible. DO NOT WATCH!! And we strongly suspect that everyone who commented so far in favor of this movie were involved in its production. Or were mentally insane. These are the only reasons we have been able to come up with that would instigate giving a favorable review.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen some terrible book-to-film adaptations in my day, but this one tops them all! The bizarrely unattractive cast detracts from the story, which is, in itself, untrue to the book. Mr. Tilney is nothing like handsome; as for Catherine Morland, a rat-like appearance makes this heroine a difficult one to sell to a sympathetic audience. Isabella is nothing like the Aphrodite one reads about in the original text, and James Morland appears in the film far too little to leave the viewer with any understanding of his important role in the story. Also, as others have pointed out before, this novel was intended to satirize the Gothic craze prevalent in Austen's time, but it appears that this \"soft horror\" film was designed and meant to be taken seriously. I'm sure Jane Austen turns over in her grave each time one of her fans is disappointed by this awful interpretation of what was supposed to be a joke.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Awful, dreadful, terrible. The actors are bad, the music is ridiculous and the filming pathetic. I rented the DVD and had to force myself to watch it until the end.

My advice: read the book, it is much better and you won't have to put up with all these silly images and ridiculous dreams Catherine has.

I think I have never watched such a bad movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now and again, a film comes around purely by accident that makes you doubt your sanity. We just finished studying the novel, \"Northanger Abbey\", at school and decided to refresh our memory of this unexciting piece of humourless garbage with the BBC adaptation.

The funny thing about Northanger Abbey is that it actually makes you want to kill yourself. The film is NOTHING like the book, for example, the subtly evil characters seem to have been turned into transparent stereotypes. John Thorpe looks like a leprechaun on acid while Isabella plays the role of slut. Catherine, the main character, is the most depressingly stupid and irritating actress on god's earth (she looks like a coffee addict, her eyes are like basketballs) whilst Mr Tilney looks and acts like a retired porno stunt double. The plot goes completely off the rails at certain points of the film, I don't know what the hell the director was thinking when for no reason at all, a 7 year old black kid who we've never met before takes the main character out of the abbey and starts cartwheeling in front of her. Yes, that's right, cartwheeling. Nonsense of this kind is occasionally interrupted by Catherines \"fantasies\" in which she is being carried around a cathedral by an ogre.

Northanger Abbey is basically visual euthanasia so if you want to murder your boss or something like that, BBC have basically discovered a new way to kill someone. Northanger is a barely laughably bad film. Don't watch it unless you're in a padded cell.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched \"Fuckland\" a long time ago. I lied if I'd tell that I remember it in detail; what I remember most vividly is the irritation it provoked me and the feeling of a total waste of precious money and time, not only my time and money invested in watching the movie but also the director's.

Supposedly, \"Fuckland\" is a critic of Argentinians, presenting us (I'm an Argentinian too) as little people who take credit for and even boast about petty, ridiculous victories, and think we're the best thing that God (who is also an Argentinian) created. I'm not going to argue that. It's probably a true statement about a quite big part of the population (the part I despise, by the way). And even if this weren't true, that's not my point. The worst sin \"Fuckland\" committed was to express such a statement about its own director.

The continuous impression I received was that the director was too busy trying to impress us for sneaking a camera inside the islands to worry about making a good (even a mediocre) movie. Many of the takes made with a hidden camera are pointless. The director chooses to show off with a silly edition of old war takes and his own ones. And there's no plot at all.

Moreover, this movie proudly presents a Dogme certificate before the opening titles, only to disrespect its principles afterwards (for example, by including the director in the credits - another sign of his pride?).

I found the movie offensive, not as an Argentinian, but as a watcher. I felt underestimated. \"Fuckland\" is simply one of the worst movies I've ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will confess that once I started watching this movie, it had a hold on me that forced me to watch it through to its conclusion. Quite possibly this was some latent voyeuristic tendency in me that wanted to see our hero get it on with his victim, or maybe fascination that they got funding to make, distribute, and show this film that kept me searching it for merit, or possibly some bizarre wish-fulfillment fantasy that there might be a point at the end of all the pain. But no such luck.

So you are warned to not start watching it in the first place, lest the same thing happen to you. There's nothing here worth wasting your hour and a half on.

The first-person mockumentary and the schtick about Fabian's \"quest\" to impregnate women of the Falklands comes out even more like a sophomoric (maybe Freshman - high school Freshman, that is) film student project than you might imagine. The effect ends up being both sneering at the local inhabitants (who, other than the two professional leads, are in fact real people) as well as engaging in rather disgusting sexual politics (no matter whether you take it all literally or symbolically, it's pointless and sexist).

The reason I ended up watching it all the way is the same reason that once one starts to pick at a scab, there's an irresistable fascination of continuing to do so until it's completely off, even when you know it's bad for you. You just want to see what happens.

In the end, this is rather dishonest filmmaking, because it seems ultimately to have no moral center, no elucidation of the local political situation, nor any place in the type of political-sexual-personal film universe a la Goddard. In short it's got nothing to say and spends a long time pretending it does. Smug would be the one-word tagline.

I'd suggest the filmmakers rent 'Waiting for Guffman' a few times, or hell, even 'Blair Witch Project' if they want to pursue the schtick with a little more style and a little more genuine emotion. Or at least entertainment value.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The preposterous premise of this flick has to do with Argentina reclaiming the Falkland Islands, having failed through force in 1982, by impregnating the European women inhabitants with Argentinean sperm thereby diluting the ethnic purity until it favored Argentina. Yeah, right. The reconnaissance is done by our hero\/villan and cad, Fabian, who hauls his fish-eye camcorder from pillar to post secretly filming his encounters with the Falklanders including his courting and eventual conquest of one woman, Camilla. An unfortunate indie and fraudulent documentary, this flick favors us with lots of boring tourism shot from the hip....yada, yada, yada. The film has no plot potential and only begins to become interesting as Fabian and Camilla wend their way through the usual moments of awkwardness and uncertainty as they get from the handshake to the bed. \"F*ckland\" is only for those cinema purists who can appreciate the bleak, no frills, jigglecam austerity of Dogme indies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an absolutely horrid excuse for a show. People say its witty and intelligence? I don't see how? Maybe because the characters use fancy words? Maybe because they are snooty, use dry humor, and have 2 dimensional personalities. I went to an Ivy league school and nobody acted anywhere near as obnoxious as these characters. In fact had I met someone like them I would have likely strangled them! The men act like little emotional pre-teen girls and all the minority characters are based off stereotypes... The characters are no AT ALL AUTHENTIC. Simply put they sound like a trailer park family trying to be rich and sophisticated. This show is just another cookie-cutter hit that brain-dead prime time viewers eat up on a regular basis.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Usually when I don't see a show on an original run, I find it later on cable and realize it's a gem. The \"Gimore Girls\" is one of those rare exceptions. I'm glad I missed it.

I truly despise shows that fill every minute of the actors space with rambling, stupid, boring banter. This is one hour of just that. The mother, Lorelei, made me wonder if she is Bipolar and off her lithium. She never stopped talking; every minute, every second, talking to every person she interacted with. Worse yet, her speech is childish and soooo, like, Valley Girl. She talked about guys, her hair, her mother, her clothes. Like, what's the sitch?? (for situation). I've watched this show three times and still don't get the point of this series. It's not a comedy, it's not a drama, it has no point except to make three generations of females in one family look like the \"Girls\" from Planet Mars. The males by comparison are smart and make the show somewhat watchable. If Lorelei ever existed and attempted to latch onto me with conversation, I'd have to mace her to get rid of her. She obviously doesn't know how to take a subtle hint to stop talking and start listening to someone else. She also doesn't know how to really notice the existence of others.

In one show Lorelei comes home from a date close to 10 pm. She got the date after pursuing a guy she met at an auction. She goes into her daughter's room where the daughter asks how it went. She dithers on about how boring the guy was. Her date somehow got a few words in edgewise. Lorelei complained about how the man didn't stop talking (choke). Hopefully the date learned how fortunate he was.

One other person here commented on how the mother acts like a teen and the daughter is the adult personality. Lorelei even dresses like her kid. This obviously 40-something mom dresses and looks like she hit the mall with her high school pals in tow.

I thought that this show should have been followed by \"Just Shoot Me,\" because that's exactly how I felt.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I tired on several attempts to sit down and watch this program \"Gilmore Girls\". It baffled me for I just couldn't put my finger on what this was about. Was this about a young woman having a baby young in life and never growing up? Was this about the daughter being more responsible than the mother? Was this about a rebellious rich girl and her non-rebellious daughter? What the heck is this show about? Finally, I just didn't care. The cast makes me want to scream. The writing is neither \"smart\" or \"intelligent\" it's syrupy and tedious.

So why did I watch? Because I heard SO many good things about this and I am not one to voice an opinion until I have watched. Knee-Jerk reactions are usually wrong, so I watched a few times. The first time I watched this, I saw the mother running around like she was 12 and the daughter acting like she was 40. Maybe that is what didn't attract me. I never liked any of the \"Freaky Friday\" films - not to say this is like that, but there are some similarities.

Also I have a friend who watches this show every week. So I asked her, \"What is this show about?\" A very bright young lady, usually articulate she never could give me a straight answer. So I asked others who rave about it - they really don't know either.

Gilmore Girls is turning out to be a TV program that's like an \"art house movie\". Many of us wont get it, but those that go try desperately to find a meaning where there really isn't one, just to be \"hip.\" Yes, I find Lauren Graham's Lorelai annoying - whine, whine, nasally WHINE. A whole hour of that. Wow. And the rest of the cast is about as memorable as yesterday's cheese sandwich. The town is hokey, the men are wimps, the grand parents are boring, and sadly I find nothing redeeming about any of these characters or care about anything they do. It's like watching paint dry on the wall.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first watch this series, the impression I got was that the characters were charming and funny, Lorelai and Rory in particular were witty and intelligent conversationalist albeit a bit too talkative. After watching it for some time, however, my opinion changed.

The main characters slowly revealed themselves to be self-centered self-obsessed narcissists, who treated tiny wounds to their pride as the worst insults in their existence. For example, Rory wouldn't speak to her mother for months when Lorelai didn't consult her on her impulsive marriage, while Lorelai dumped Luke for simply wanting a little time to adjust to his new life circumstances. These people are shallow, see themselves as the center of the universe where everyone else should behave exactly according to how their own rigid rules, and if they don't, they will hold grudges against them for an eternity. They don't want to see other people's problems and treat the smallest slight as the gravest offence. Most of the characters appear to lack the ability to behave in a grown-up way. They think they should do whatever that they wanted and everyone else be damned.

The series is character-based, so when the main characters became so unlikeable the show also became impossible to watch. I still have the rest of the series, but I doubt if I will ever finish watching them. I will also hold anyone who think highly of the show and its awful characters with the greatest suspicion - they must just as horrid as Lorelai et al.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I decided to watch this show and give it a go but I found it to be boring, and more importantly dull.....Dull.

There is far too much sarcasm and the characters are all dull, there is far too much talking and the character Lorelai...just keeps talking on and on and on.... During a second glance felt like suffocating the characters, the banter doesn't work and the whole love and romance thing just ruins what is already a crap show....I can't believe this show survived past the pilot.... This seems to be a show which forces the 'Listen to your parents' line....No actual drama exists....

Should have stayed a pilot.....and a pilot alone...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's been mentioned by others the inane dialogue in this series and I agree.

If Mom and daughter were really that sharp-witted they should be Queen and Princess of the Universe, not kicking around in some little town.

I've really tried to watch a few episodes but when the witty staccato mumbling pop culture drivel starts I flip the channel.

I watched a bit of a new episode to see if anything had changed (for the better I'd hoped) but nope, same old \"we're so clever with our references to pop culture\" that I nearly barfed.

Long time fans who aren't happy with the newer seasons might just be wising up and getting sick of the regurgitated pablum that never stops.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of four 1970s movies by TV writer Lane Slate about sensationalistic murders in small towns. They feature likable TV personalities as police chiefs and quirky characters as town regulars, including light-touch love interests. The others are: They Only Kill Their Masters (James Garner, 1972); and The Girl In The Empty Grave and Deadly Game (both Andy Griffith, 1977).

Alda's is set near Vermont (\"Mount Angel\" next to \"Horse Creek\"); the others in California, Garner's at seaside (\"Eden Landing\") and Griffith's in the mountains (\"Jasper Lake\"). All try to capture the feel of a small town, to move at a relaxed pace among comfortable characters, and to tell a mystery with at least some complicated twist or turn to it. On that level, they are somewhat entertaining (that they were often re-run itself suggests they have some appeal). But they suffer from overall thin stories and dialogue, slack pacing, bland settings, flat or exaggerated characters, and off-putting, forced attempts (often juvenile or crude) at color or humor.

Alda's and Garner's are the most serious about story, characters, pacing, and tone. They have the best supporting casts, though Alda's is put to better use; the Griffith casts pale in comparison. Alda's has the best director.

\"Shocking\" has some surprise and drama. The killer's method is inventive. The tone is more even, and the dialogue more natural, than in Griffith's. Alda's film does not suffer like the others from smug big-city transplants to the town or from hokey, exaggerated local characters, both of which come across as figments of a Hollywood scriptwriter, not as genuine (the worst offender is the Griffith movies' pipsqueak, mumbling moron \"Whit,\" who, we are told, tried to hook a jeep up to and make off with a trailer serving as a temporary bank branch, dragged away the dock for the police boat, stole tomatoes from a farmer's truck only to get nothing for them, and filled out $11 on the withdrawal slip of \"Spiro T. Babylis\" only to be discovered by the teller). Mercifully absent is the clunky, heavy-handed repetitive-style dialogue from the Griffith movies (\"You going to lunch?\" \"I'm going to take out the boat.\" \"You going to take the boat to lunch?\" \"I'm not going to lunch.\" \"You're not going to take the boat to lunch?\"; \"There aren't any fish in this lake. Why are you fishing here?\" \"It's illegal in Horse Mountain.\" \"It's posted here too, you're breaking the law.\" \"Some law. There aren't any fish in this lake.\" \"Then why are you fishing here?\" \"I told you, it's illegal in Horse Mountain.\"; \"Please call me Lloyd. My name is Lloyd.\" \"Okay, Lloyd...\" \"Call me Lloyd. That's my name. My name is Lloyd.\")

But Alda is too low-key and unimpressive to be taken seriously as even a small-time police chief, certainly not a red-hot lawman in demand by a rival town. Slate has the character admit as much, when he comes late to the scene of a by then obvious clue, as a result of an accidental name recognition. Rather than detect or investigate, Barnes strikes out blindly in emotional denial. His secretary Lasser feeds him a key clue (\"Why didn't I think of that,\" he says!). An embarrassing funeral scene, plus a plot contrivance, leads to another gift clue.

Worse, Barnes is more interested in deriding the military-style helmets of the county police sent to help him (Deadly Game also suggests Slate has something against the military) than leading them or his own men effectively. He allows a late murder by incompetently guarding a known target. Barnes allows his car to be repeatedly rammed by the killer fleeing one crime scene, without drawing his gun or trying to take control. Again, he is ineffective, and nearly killed, in the climactic scene, which results from multiple errors on his part that are only partially corrected, by accident. The erratic Northeastern accent that Alda affects does not help believability.

There are plot holes. Why would the killer strike after all these years? And committing the first two murders without a trace seems implausible. But they are nothing compared to later ones -- a couple together, a shopkeeper in his store during business hours, a fully clothed deputy seated in his office and, unbelievably, his dog!

Alda's movie also suffers from some offensive elements that Slate injects into all the movies. Barnes first appears in a motel clerk's bed. He then treats her rudely at every turn and insults and tries to avoid her kids. This, and talk about the female doctor, smack of a crude, mean-spirited pattern (Garner's film has been described as \"sleazy,\" including a scene where he and a deputy laugh about how a girl in the back seat of a car that hit a bump in the road had part of her anatomy bitten off by a guy in the car with her. Griffith's feature an ersatz Ropers routine, in which the woman embarrassingly tries to coax the man into \"the supply closet\"; a gratuitous locker-room-type exchange with a deputy in discussing a young woman's car accident death (\"Did you take her out?\" \"I took her in once.\"); a reference to bank teller \"Bernice\" as \"swollen-up in places\" and to \"sticking a pin in\" her and to \"hating\" and firing secretary \"Maude\" because she was \"too hairy\"; a description of the female doctor's practice as \"two stirrup tables and a flashlight\"; a humiliating scene in which Fran Ryan propositions Griffith, offering \"some home grown\"; and an insulting subplot in which a woman, pursued by a deputy played as a drippy buffoon, seems to \"sleep around\").

Finally, Alda's film has a grim, bleached-out, colorless, lifeless look and feel. Only Louise Lasser adds spark. At least the other films had some spirit, scenery, and pleasant music; Griffith's got out onto the mountainside, onto the lake, and even out into the big city. You feel more like re-watching Masters or Empty Grave than Shocking.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"at first i thought 'nasaan ka man' might be one of those progressive new filipino films. as someone noted earlier, the movie does not look poorly made. it's clear that the directors used more expensive cameras to shoot, better angles, better sound equipment, good-looking actors, and nicer locations.

however, the improvements are all purely superficial. if it weren't for all the polish and expensive filters, 'nasaan ka man' would feel just like your typical, second-rate local movie - - hyperactive drama, predictable plot twists, \"yeah right!\" moments, crying, screaming, and characters you could care less about, all shoved down your throat.

a couple of things annoyed me about this movie. first of all, since when is it okay to have sex with adopted family? that not-blood-related argument does not make an ounce of difference. second, would a woman really not tell anyone for 40 years that she was raped, simply because the father told her to keep it secret? and, where the hell were the lights in this movie? i know the director tried to make things look super dramatic, but i was simply forced to turn up the brightness feature on my TV set.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Derek Jarman has shown us time and time again that dialog is not his strong suit. He is a painter, and paint he does. His films are almost always visually splendid, but about as exciting to watch as paint that is already dry. Watch his movies in fast forward, the really fast setting that you can only get on DVD. In The Tempest, Jarman does very little with the script or the characters, using them as simply a lattice to hang a very long and well-constructed cinematographic frame. He even goes so far as to contradict Shakespeare's original script to achieve these excrucriatingly slow and lifeless scenes. There is none of the romance, magic, trickery, or urgency the script calls for, little spontaneity, and the character of Caliban in particular is reduced to a quivering and insane idiot of sorts, similar to Gaveston in Jarman's Edward II. It is too bad that this is just about the only film version of The Tempest available.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was loaned this DVD by the director of a film I am working with, in which I play an actor who is playing Prospero. Knowing his own style, I did not expect anything resembling a \"classical\" interpretation of the text.

What I have found is sometimes striking, sometimes evocative, but often meandering and tedious. Like most experimental music, I find that in films such as this, the building blocks of powerful film-making are crafted, even if they have not found their most useful form in a more coherent format.

Thus we have a Caliban who is more a clown than a threat, and who not even Miranda seems terribly afraid of (which is odd, since we know that he has attempted to rape her at least once). A Stefano and Trinculo who are more annoying than funny. An oddly young Prospero who looks like Amadeus. And a great loss of character development and plot through creative editing and highly stylized posturing.

Interestingly enough, I do not have an issue with the way in which Ferdanand or Miranda are portrayed. His stunned rapture and her slightly freaky innocence are actually quite appropriate.

I do not say that this is a bad film, but an experimental one. One that takes huge risks, but is meant more for students of art and film and not really for anyone with an interest in the Tempest for its own sake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was an interesting adaption of William Shakespeare's last known solo play but in my humble opinion, a terrible one. Jarman tries to change the personalities of the characters for a start. He makes Miranda seem insane after being stuck on the island for so long, Prospero is no different - a mix of madness and self-pity on his part. I could not imagine Shakespeare thinking his characters to be anything like the way Jarman portraits them.

Caliban's appearance is maybe the only thing he got right, but then again, I was under the impression that Caliban was a tormented, deformed monster but turns out to be an insane rambling, northerner who is constantly cackling, not as I would have imagined him. Ferdinand makes a brief appearance, naked most the time and quiet.

In fact, to the point I stopped watching this awful adaption, their had been so many lines cut from the play. If anything, I think Jarman was trying to re-write Shakespeare and include his own scenes most the time. So much text is cut out in the first part it makes it not a Shakespeare play, but a load of 70's melodramatic, preposterous rubbish.

An attempt to interpret this play more realistically in the end, but this play was never a realistic one and it was made nothing like the text displays it to be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have read all of Shakespeare's plays, seen productions of a majority of them and even acted in and directed some. I do not necessarily believe that Shakespeare must be done in the \"traditional\" fashion, but I hated this movie.

There is nudity that is gratuitous and unnecessary. There is grotesqueness that is far beyond what I believe Shakespeare intended. Some of the dialogue is incomprehensible, and there are those elements, like the singing and dancing that add no meaning to the movie, but replace Shakespeare with the director's self-indulgences.

I am sorry to say that I wasted perfectly good money to buy the DVD of this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was recommended to me by some academics. From their comments, I had some pretty lofty expectations. But this movie was nothing but disappointing. The aim of the director is obvious--to use an interweaving of speeches\/poems as a way to argue against the Bush doctrine. But the director fails miserably at this. Also I seriously question the director's choice of main character. It's a bum who is definitely not worthy of being heard. The rise of corporation power, so what? Most importantly, this movie gets a failing score in its persuasive power; it's clearly intended for those who've already formed their opinions. It's true that the movie's aesthetics are quite pleasing. But pretty much everything else in the movie simply sucks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite the fact that the plot follows the well-known recipe of \"who did it\", which has characterised all the Perry Mason movies so far, the characters of the present film are not so well-developed and the selected cast fails to give them flesh and blood. Of course, in general, the Perry Mason movies are not significant, but, even for their low standards, this one is weak.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Of all of the post-1985 Perry Mason movies I have seen, this one is my least favorite.

I confess I have never liked Diana Muldaur as an actress. She only seems to know how to play one type of character - a hard-bitten career woman with some undefined chip on her shoulder who for that reason is extremely difficult to in any way sympathize with. This one is no exception - it runs true to form.

The only thing that saves this movie, in my opinion, is an earnest performance by Scott Baio as the prosecutor - I actually found myself rooting for him to win, and the movie is worth seeing for him alone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"People stranded in a country house during a storm discover that the home was the sight of an unsolved murder years before. During a dinner discussion of the incident, the lights go out and, when they come back on, they discover that one of the guests has been killed. Fearing for their lives, the guests attempt to find out the secrets behind the death before others can occur,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

There are a couple of clever twists in this murder at the \"Old Dark House\" story, with the \"Play within a Play\" being its most interesting feature. However, the direction is rather ordinary, which serves to highlight a certain cheapness of production. Like most movies of this type, there is (or, should be) an ensemble of intriguing characters. Herein, only old-time Broadway producer Richard Carle (as Herman Wood) and his fey secretary Johnny Arthur (as Homer Erskine) maintain interest.

**** The Ghost Walks (12\/1\/34) Frank R. Strayer ~ Richard Carle, Johnny Arthur, John Miljan","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I find Herzog's documentary work to be very uneven. Fata Morgana, a companion piece of sorts to Lessons of Darkness, lacks not only the harrowing spectacle but mostly the discerning eye of an author. It is by comparison amateur looking, aimless pans left and right across the desert the kind of which you would expect from any German tourist equipped with a handycam, the camera left running from the window of a car picking up all kinds of meaningless images, wire fences, derelict buildings and patches of dirt going through the lens in haphazard order, intercut with shots of sand dunes. At one point Herzog encounters a group of starved cattle rotting away in the sand, yet the image is presented much like you and me would, perhaps worse, the camera peering hand-held from one cattle to the next. For a documentary that attempts to be a visual feast, a hypnotic, surreal excursion in uncharted landscapes, it lacks the visual orchestration and conviction of a disciplined author. It's all over the place, half-hearted and tedious, Mayan creation myths recited in voice-over, then some other text Herzog fancied for literature. It's not until near the end that Fata Morgana jumps alive through a series of bizarre encounters. First with a man and a woman playing music in a room, the man singing in a distorted voice through a mic, both of them apathetic in their task. A man holding up a turtle. A group of old people trying to get out of some holes in the ground. Other than that, this one seems to have very little of substance to offer or visual splendor to offer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is not a movie. This is a collection of random shots taken in a fascinating part of the world, dubbed over with some random text. The footage is not that great and the text is not that great either. The end product is excruciatingly dull.

On the DVD, turning the commentary on can provide some entertainment value, as the director makes a rather deranged argument that this is a sci-fi movie. It's also fascinating to read about the extraordinary risks and hardship that the crew endured to collect this footage. Too bad it's rubbish. But I think \"The Making of Fata Morgana\" would be a fascinating film, sort-of like 'Ed Wood\" was.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Released at a time when Duvivier was going again from strength to strength .\"Black Jack\" which was sandwiched between the overlooked extraordinary \"Au Royaume des Cieux\" and the dazzling stunning \"Sous Le Ciel de Paris\" , is a jumble,which Duvivier himself hated,which is not surprising.There's almost nothing to write about this dud.We can notice that:

1.Orson Welles used to admire Duvivier .That may explain why Wellesian actors were featured in Duvivier's movies :Joseph Cotten in \"Lydia\" (1941) ,and here a totally wasted Agnes Moorehead .It's the first time

I have not enjoyed Moorehead's performance!On the other hand,Welles borrowed his Desdemona (Suzanne Cloutier) from Duvivier's \"Au Royaume des Cieux\" for his \"Othello\".

2.In any Duvivier's movie,there's one or two worthwhile sequences and this one is no exception: the search in the caves where Duvivier's sense of mystery works wonders (for a short while);then the chase when Dalio gets caught up in the fishnets.Duvivier's touch can be felt in the unhappy end too.

As for the rest ,as my dear pen pal writer's reign writes,it's a black joke.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK so it's not great either, but only because of how great Laurel and Hardy have been in the past. If this film received a total overhaul, with picture quality enhanced, add new dubbing to the badly dubbed voices and added a nice unobtrusive background music then this film would truly start to take shape. As it is, it does have it's problems. People do slate it for how old the boys look. Quel surprise! they were in their 60's and had led a 'life'. However, to me, they still came across as having bucketfulls of charm, and while this doesn't even come close to tickling the feet of their classics( I gave it a 4), it's worth a watch simply because it's them. To think otherwise would be impostorous!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, why did it have to end like this? Laurel and Hardy's last film, from the crudely cranked-up Cuckoo theme (with erroneous credit to Hal Roach) to the closing \"Nice mess\"\/\"I couldn't help it\" schtick, this is the duo as a grotesque parody of themselves. In between, their relationship is now solely constructed of uncertain acting, asinine dialogue and half-hearted slapstick. People slate King of New York, but Chaplin's final bow-out was nowhere near as undignified as this.

What really hurts to someone who loves Laurel and Hardy is the appearance of the two comedians. The video cover I'm holding shows them at their prime, all boyish smiles and glowing skin, with a blurb on the back that reads \"The photograph on this sleeve is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect the content of the film.\" Necessarily? It doesn't even come close. The actual film sees them at least fifteen years older than the photographs that adorn the sleeve, with Ollie distressingly overweight. This is not humorously, or comically, fat, as he would normally appear, but ill looking and on the verge of obesity. He would be dead seven years after this film was made, after a series of strokes. Stan, meanwhile, suffering a prostrate problem and dysentery, looks ghoulish as his weight has plummeted drastically. Every time something bad happens to him, such as getting squashed between a lifeboat and a table, you fear for his life. Even Ollie giving him a traditional slap makes you terrified he could be killed. He would last for another fifteen years after the completion of this film, eventually passing away from a heart attack in 1965. It's upsetting to think of such cherished performers growing old and dying painful deaths. And it's distressing watching their deterioration, both in health, and in performance, on screen. When I, and, I'm sure, almost everyone else, likes to think of Laurel and Hardy, I think of Way Out West, Busy Bodies or Our Relations. Seeing them in such physical ill health and performing dire routines at the dog-end of their career is a blight on my happy memories of them.

The warning signs are clear right from the opening credits, which list not only four writers, but also someone to come up with the concept, and a credit for \"gags\". So if Monty Collins was writing the \"gags\", then what were the other four writing? And in that case, why was Monty Collins paid a fee, given that there's no evidence of a single \"gag\" in the whole film? Over 40% of the movie is spent travelling to the eponymous island, during which we experience some of the most painfully unfunny scenes the boys were ever involved in. When I saw the bat scene I wanted to curl up and die, so great was its childish ineptitude. Yet what kills the film stone dead is that all of the support cast are dubbed, unable to speak English. Not only does this make the film disjointed, but also it severely depletes Stan and Ollie's reactions to their co-stars. Flatly directed with appalling film stock and absolutely atrocious editing, this totally belies the rumoured $2 million that was spent on it. Frankly, it looks terrible, and while a DVD release might clean up the picture, the sound and image quality is vastly inferior to any of their Hal Roach work.

Stan and Ollie's \"friends\", Giovani and Antoine are charisma-free bores who stand out greatly against Laurel and Hardy's outdated repertoire. This is another major problem with the film, in that none of the supporting characters are funny, or keyed in to the boys' innocent mentality. The dubbed harshness shown to L & H (\"you - the fat one\") makes them stand out as isolated social misfits, rather than loveable sub-anarchists. There is evidence of some darker political satire - though Duck Soup this ain't - and the concept of an island with no rules is an interesting topic. Perhaps more relevant now than it ever was, a film that looks at the problems of immigration and the American constitution suddenly becomes most topical in 2003. Sadly, however, beyond an amusing scene where Stan is elected \"the people\", this doesn't really go anywhere. And this somewhat black humour does have its harsh edges - or is a Laurel and Hardy movie where rape is directly implied and Stan threatens a man with a bottle, only to accidentally glass someone in the face, your idea of a good time? After all the years of Stan and Ollie sharing a bed, we also get a definite reference, with Stan accidentally kissing him - Ollie wipes off the kiss in disgust. Also worrying is the implication that Stan and Ollie's illegal immigrant friend, Antoine, ends his life being eaten by a lion. Mind you, I never thought I'd see a Laurel and Hardy movie where they were due to be hanged, either. The need for the intrusive and unfunny narration is a further pointer to how messy the whole thing is, with the American release (the same version available on video) hacking out 16 minutes in a vain attempt to improve it.

Almost completely unwatchable, this horrifically made, relentlessly unfunny movie serves only to tarnish the reputation of Stan and Ollie - avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just watched Atoll K-Laurel and Hardy's last movie together and known here in the states as Utopia-on Internet Archive expecting to see some extra footage since the IA version had a running time of 2 hours and 21 minutes. Turns out that it's basically the same version I previously watched on the bargain basement VHS tape from Goodtimes Home Video that ran an hour and 23 minutes (with the exception of no product placement of the Welch's Grape Juice label being inserted when a bottle was shown) with the rest of the running time devoted to dark blank space. While Stan does look like he might be dying anytime soon, he still performs fine physical comedy with Ollie during much of the first 45 minutes or so. Then the plot of taking a yacht with a stowaway and a man with no country aboard-not to mention a charming female French singer also coming to inhabit an uncharted island they all end up on-takes over with eventual complications that pretty much bogs the comedy down and never really recovers despite the familiar ending of Ollie saying for the last time to Stan, \"Here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!\" before Stan cries uncontrollably before the fade out. In other words, if you're a die-hard Laurel and Hardy fan, this movie is recommended for you to see at least once. Anyone else wanting to get familiar with this classic comedy team should seek their earlier work they did for Hal Roach from the '20s up through 1940 when they completed their final Roach film, Saps at Sea. Come to think of it, even some of the L & H Fox flicks (have yet to see the two they made for M-G-M) from the '40s are better than this one...Update-8\/29\/09: Just watched some missing scenes that appeared in the Italian version on YouTube. Cherie sings in one and has a conversation with the Captain. In another, that Captain's wife pulls a gun on Cherie. In one more, Giovanni explains why he left his country with a flashback scene. Stan is dubbed in high pitch here!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was difficult for me to watch. Stan looked very old and ill compared to what I remembered, and Ollie was heavier than I ever recall in another film. Most difficult though were gaps in the script\/production where I found myself wondering, \"How did they get from here to there???\" It took nearly half the film before I could deal with the dubbing of non-American actors -- that was also a distraction.

Although I miss great actors such as Laurel and Hardy -- will there ever be great actors like those of the old studio era??? -- this film helps me understand why actors sometimes \"bow out\" in their prime.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When the movie begins, it's obvious just how old and sick the boys are. Although Oliver Hardy is enormous, it is Stanley that looks like death warmed over. Apparently, he was deathly ill during production and had obviously lost a lot of weight. Although he would eventually recover and live another decade and a half, here he looks like a dying man. Additionally, as I watched the film I was shocked how many pratfalls Stan took--I half expected his to drop dead from the exertion. I really can't understand WHY they came out of retirement considering their health--especially when the story and production values are as poor as they are with this film.

Stanley inherits an island and a boat. He and Ollie are ready to leave when Antoine, a stateless man, is literally dropped into their boat and they begin their voyage to find the island. Along the way, they discover that Giovanni has stowed away, but despite this the four men become friends and land on a different island. It seems like paradise and they are all very happy. A bit later, a pretty young lady joins them and everything looks grand.

Unfortunately, uranium is discovered on the island and the place becomes flooded with riffraff. Eventually, the mob decides to hang the four men and take over--at which point the island sinks back into the sea and the men are spared.

I will give the film some credit for being original and for being interesting. However, one thing it is not is FUNNY--and that is unforgivable for a Laurel and Hardy flick. While not a bad film, it certainly isn't a good one. A sad end to their brilliant careers.

All the actors, except for the duo, are dubbed into English, as the movie was made in France. While it may not be the very worst film they made (this would be THE BIG NOISE), it sure is close!! Watching this film is painful and like watching people clean up after a severe accident.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Atoll K\" aka \"Utopia\" is one of Hollywood's saddest swan songs. Filmed in France, \"The Land That Loves Lewis (Jerry)\" in 1950 and released the following year after a five-year layoff, the boys are in truly terrible shape physically. However, they aren't in nearly as bad a shape as the script.

This movie is one of the un-funniest \"comedies\" ever filmed.

It's painful to see this legendary team, the funniest duo in the history of motion pictures, the twosome that made \"The Devil's Brother\" (1933), \"The Music Box,\" (1932),\"Pack Up Your Troubles\" (also 1932), \"Babes In Toyland\" (1934), \"Bonnie Scotland\" (1935), \"Flying Deuces\" (1939) and so many more gut-wrenching, laugh-til-you-choke classic comedies, in a film such as this.

But fighters and ballplayers do it all the time. They stay in the game one season or one fight too many. In this case, while is morbidly fascinating to see Laurel & Hardy at this late stage in their legendary careers, they, too, stuck around for one too many.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, let me start by saying that I am a Laurel and Hardy buff. I have read every book printed about them, and have seen all of their available films more than once. I even took a chance once, and called Stan on the telephone. He was very kind, and spoke with me for over ten minutes. I followed with a letter, and he wrote me a letter back. I still have that letter.

This film has some fine comedy moments, but Stan and Ollie are not up to their usual form. Stan was gravely ill during the production and looked worse than he did ten years later. In my opinion, any Laurel and Hardy film is worth seeing.

But the Ultimate opinion of this film comes from the great Stan Laurel himself. To quote him, \"This film should never have been made.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I never want to see this movie again!

Not only is it dreadfully bad, but I can't stand seeing my hero Stan Laurel looking so old and sick.

Mostly I can't stand watching this terrible movie!

Frankly, there is no reason to watch this awful film. The plot is just plain stupid. The actors that surround Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are really really bad and Laurel and Hardy have been funnier in any of their earlier films!

I warn you don't watch it, the images will haunt you for a long while to come!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I could almost wish this movie had not been made. Stan Laurel was dying, and it shows in his face, even more angular and gaunt than usual. A poor script, and inept supporting cast.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst films i've ever seen, don't watch it even if your life depends on it.

This Laurel and Hardy film is when they inherit an island, become shipwrecked and are set to be hung. An incredibly boring film that is no where near funny.

This was the last Laurel and Hardy film and what a very low note to end such a superb career. The 40's films weren't great, this film was made in 1950. If you want to remember Laurel and Hardy, remember them in their prime, the 1930's. The short talking films are better than the feature length films, my favourite is \"Me and My Pal\". Another reason this film is awful is because it's dubbed. The actor opens there mouth and the words come out three days later. Absoulutley crap, but let's end on a high note, Laurel and Hardy have been, in my opinion, the best double act ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Riders of Destiny\" was the first of several westerns Wayne made for the Lone Star arm of Monogram Pictures between 1933 and 1935. In this entry, the producers try to make the Duke into a singing cowboy called \"Singin' Sandy Saunders with hilarious results. Any Wayne fan knows that the Duke couldn't have carried a tune if his life had depended on it. His voice was apparently dubbed by Smith Ballew whose deep baritone sounds nothing like Wayne. Wayne looks awkward and uncomfortable in \"performing\" the musical numbers. Thank heavens the singing cowboy experiment soon ended.

As for the movie itself, it contains a standard \"B\" western plot of the fight over water rights between the villain (Forrest Taylor) and the local ranchers. Duke, of course plays the hero. He had not yet developed his on screen character and still looked like a poverty row cowboy.

Also cast in the film were George (pre-Gabby) Hayes as the heroine's father, Cecilia Parker as the heroine and Yakima Canutt as \"one of the boys\" who performs his \"falling from the racing horses under the wagon\" stunt while doubling Wayne. Both Canutt and Hayes would go on to appear with Wayne in most of the other entries in the series. Canutt, in particular would have a profound effect on Wayne's future development teaching him, among other things, how to move, fight and look comfortable on a horse.

As \"B\" westerns go this one isn't too bad, however, I have to give it a failing grade because of the \"singing\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not the best of the Lone Star series, but it moves along quickly with good performances.

Introduced as \"Singin' Sandy\" in the main title, John Wayne as a 'singing cowboy' isn't successful-- you never even see a front close-up of him while he's 'singing.' The actual singer is the director's son, Bill Bradley, who warbles away sounding like many popular singers of the day such as Hutch or Joseph Wagstaff.

The film features: Cecilia Parker (also seen in \"The Lost Jungle\" serial, \"Tombstone Canyon,\" and as older sister Marian in the Andy Hardy movies) doing her best Katherine Hepburn-- \"Really they mustn't; really I'm not\"; Al St. John, before he literally became \"Fuzzy\" filling all his available screen time with his characteristic business of hat flipping, head and chin scratching, grimacing, and gawky physical gestures and movements; George (pre-Gabby) Hayes as a gentle pipe smoking father; and Forrest Taylor, minor vet of 395 movies and TV shows, playing the oily villain with string bow tie and prop cigar.

Fun or odd moments: Yakima Canutt's great 'under the stagecoach' trick; the 'gay' scene when Singin' Sandy ties Bert and Elmer together face to face, drags them roped to his horse, and dumps them at Kincaid's office, where Kincaid says, \"You're a fine pair of lovebirds!\"; Denton's rapturous comment after an atrocious song and guitar playing performance by 'Sandy,' -- \"Ummm. I could listen to that all night!\"; Kincaid's reply, We won't go into that,\" after being told by a rancher \"You've got the soul of a snake!\"; and, of course, he utters the immortal, \"I've made Denton an offer he can't refuse.\"

The plot of the movie is saved by Sandy's tricking Kincaid, and later saying the three magic words in many of these films: \"I'm from Washington.\" FDR has saved us from the Depression! (Is that why the villains are always either bankers or in real estate?)

The shootout sequence is taken from the earlier Bradbury film \"Man from Hell's Edges\" (1932). All of the Lone Star westerns are special because of their unique mixture of interesting characters, the troupe of actors and stunt people, and the spin on the clich\u00e9s and repetitive back stories and situations. This one ranks a little low, marred by the inappropriate and mis-used \"Singing Cowboy\" gimmick. I'll give it a 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm in a film class and i know that i don't know everything about film but truthfully this is one of the worst, stupidest, retarded and waste time, movies that i have ever seen and i saw NAPOLEAN DINAMITE. they are both equally terrible. Conrack is boring and nothing interesting even happens in the film its not really a heart warming story and Pat Conroy overcomes nothing! I'm not saying there should be fighting and crap blowing up but it would liven up this more than bland film. the kids they fond to act in this film may have been the real kids from yammacraux island they sounded stupid and couldn't act as as far as i am concerned this was a stupid idea for a book and an even worse idEa fOr a movie I don't know why this movie was even made, deviantly top five worst movies of all time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really enjoy this genre but The Cell was one of the worst movies I've ever been unfortunate enough to watch. While about 25 percent of my audience wandered in and out of the theater during the viewing (or left entirely) I was dumb enough to stick it out. The main problems with this story (there were too many to list all) is that with this type of film you have to do two things... one, provide fear of the killer (being that they catch him twenty minutes into the film that's gone) and you must give the victim whose life is at stake (the girl in the tank) enough character development that you actually care whether they get to her in time or not. Not only did I lose track of the girl, I was given such little insight into her that she was only a blurry face and when I did remember she was part of the story I really didn't care what happened to her. While the visuals were interesting in an LSD flashback sort of way, they often times made no sense and this should be a lesson that visuals can't make up for lack of a good story (see Phantom Menace for another example) Finally, does anyone know or care what was up with the women kneeling in that field and staring at the sky? Ridiculous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I said the idea itself was great and it had plenty potential. I was truly sad of discovering that this was another typical American mass movie: \"We are in this for the money...\" If only the producers had had more time to actually MAKE the movie. This one was not finished when they let it out...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you like to watch movies because they are pretty, you should be okay with this one. If you like to watch movies that start out with a good guy trying to catch a bad guy, then reveal clues to the motives of each throughout the movie, skip it. At the end of the movie i still didn't know why Stargher killed the women the way he did. When you set up such a ritualistic serial killer it would be nice to know where the rituals originated from. In Dreams was a similar pretty movie with a serial killer which also wasn't the best, but at least the whys of how he killed the girls was explained. They also hinted at a dark background for Vaughn's character but didn't explain, didn't really say why Lopez's child psychologist was so much better suited for this task than the rest of the people they interviewed, didn't give much of an explanation for the little kid's problem, etc. If the rest of the story is compelling, I don't care about details like how Stargher afforded all the fancy electronic equipment and underground chambers or why the FBI wasn't checking to see if he owned any other property or had access to out of the way places while they were waiting to see if the whole entering the killer's mind thing would work, but I do like to have a sense of what motivates the serial killer in a serial killer movie when he kills in such a complex manner.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love exotic science fiction\/fantasy movies but this one was very unpleasant to watch. Suggestions and images of child abuse, mutilated bodies (live or dead), other gruesome scenes, plot holes, boring acting made this a regretable experience, The basic idea of entering another person's mind is not even new to the movies or TV (An Outer Limits episode was better at exploring this idea). i gave it 4\/10 since some special effects were nice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why do the powers that be continue to cast Jennifer Lopez in unbelievable roles? She was excellent in Selena, and pretty good in Money Train, which both cast her in roles where she could basically be herself. However, roles like this just draw the line. I could never see Lopez as an FBI agent (see Out of Sight for that unremarkable performance), but as a psychotherapist? Give me a break!

Basically, Lopez plays the aforementioned psychotherapist, who is involved in virtual reality experiments in which she enters the minds of her patients in order to help them sort out their issues. When she enters the mind of a comatose serial killer to help save one of his victims, she breaks all the rules to try and crack the insanity of his inner mind.

Lopez's acting here is typically below average. I can't get over that high-pitched squeak of a voice she has. She's no Julia Roberts, but yet she comes across on screen as though she believes herself to be on the same playing field. Well, she's not even in the same stadium. Sure, she is a very sexy lady; however, that isn't going to carry a film, and it certainly doesn't carry this one. With anybody else cast in her role for this film it would have been excellent, especially if it was cast with someone who could lend more credibility to the character.

Having said all that, this film is visually stunning. The colors are fabulous, and the story line isn't half bad in a B-movie kind of way. The audio here is superb as well. This movie gains some points for the fairly original storyline, and major points for how it looks and sounds. Unfortunately, the acting and poor casting bring it down a few notches.

My Rating: 6\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wrestlemania 2 is the only Wrestlemania|thank god| to be held at three different locations, and While it was an interesting idea, it didn't really work. There are only really two matches that really struck out, with the rest being decent, or most of them, pretty terrible. There are some entertaining celebrity's on hand, like Susan Saint James, Ray Charles and Cathy Crosby, but the experience was a waste of time for the most part. The British Bulldgos Vs The Dream Team match, is worth the price of admission itself, but you can honestly see that anywhere.

Matches.

Nassau Coliseum.

Paul Orndorff Vs The Magnificent Muraco\/W Mr.Fuji. For the time it had, and despite the crappy finish, this was surprisingly bearable stuff, with the crowd being really into it. Crowd chants \"Bullsh*t\" at the end. That being said it did nothing for either's career. Match ends in a double count out with them fighting outside the ring

2\/5

Intercontinental Championship Match. Randy Savage|C| Vs George \"The Animal\" Steele. Not that great wrestling wise, but heavily entertaining due to the antics involved, and some great comedy from Steele, besides savage can wrestle a potato and make it look interesting. Savage wins when he puts his feet on the ropes, for leverage.

2 1\/2 \/5

Jake \"The Snake\" Roberts Vs George Wells. For a throwaway match, this was better than it should have been, but it's too short to make any impact what so ever. Roberts wins with the DDT, pulling out the snake afterwords, which disgusts Saint James.

1 1\/2 \/5

Boxing Match. Mr.T\/W The Hati Kid&Joe Frazier Vs Roddy Piper\/W Lou Duva&Bob Orton. A huge failure in my opinion. I was bored senseless throughout this, and while it may have been a marketing success, it certainly didn't succeed at entertaining me. Lot of Rowdy chants are noticeable as well. T wins by DQ, when Piper slams T.

1\/5

Rosemont Horizon

Women's Title match. Fabulous Moolah|C| Vs Velvet Mcintyre. Ends too quickly, before it even gets a chance to start, making a record for quick pin fall, as far as Woman's matches are concerned. Moolah wins when she takes advantage of Velvet's missed splash from the top rope

0\/5

Corporal Kirchner Vs Nikolai Volkoff\/W Classy Freddie Blassie. Big pop for the Corporal. Stupid match up, with boring offense from both involved, while being much too short to matter. Corporal wins when he whacks Volkoff with Blassie's cane.

1\/5

Battle Royal. William Perry and Andre get the biggest pops. This is pretty entertaining stuff, despite all the NFL talent involved. It's also noteworthy for Bret Hart's 1st ever Wrestlemania appearance. Andre wins when he chucks The Hart Foundation out.

2 1\/2 \/5

Tag Team Titles. British Bulldogs\/W Lou Albano&Ozzy Osbourne Vs The Dream Team\/W Johnny Valiant|C|. Absolutely tremendous match, that is one of the best wrestlemania matches of all time. You won't have time to catch your breath, with all the maneuvers on hand, and the excellent in ring psychology. This is pure wrestling at it's finest, you cannot call yourself a Wrestling fan, if you dislike this match. Bulldogs win when Dynamite Kid collide's heads with Valentine

4\/5

Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena

Ricky Steamboat Vs Hercules Hernandez. Pretty decent match up here, with both men putting on solid performances. Hercules is a nasty brute, with above average skills, and it contrasted well with Steamboat's high-flying style. Steamboat wins with a high-flying cross body off the top rope.

2 1\/2 \/5

Adrian Adonis Vs Uncle Elmer. Terrible match, with annoying comedy involved. The fans love Uncle Elmer, but I do not. Adonis wins with a top rope maneuver.

0\/5

The Funk Brothers Vs Tito Santana&JYD. Pretty solid match here, with a lot of memorable bumps taken from Terry Funk|the one through the table was something else for that time|. I would have to rate this as my 2nd favorite. Funks win with help from Jimmy Hart's megaphone.

3\/5

WWF Championship. Hulk Hogan|C| Vs King Kong Bundy. Decent pop for Hogan. One of the most over-hyped matches in Wrestlemania history. Hogan can't wrestle worth a lick, and Bundy is not that great himself. The violence was brutal for the time, but Hogan's superhero act is kind of annoying, and there are too many boring moments. Hogan wins when he escapes before Bundy.

1\/5

Bottom line. Wrestlemania 2 is a failure in most aspects. Die hard wrestling fans should see this once, but you really don't have too. There isn't enough here, to satisfy a true wrestling fan. Vince blew it on this one. Don't be fooled by the hype of the main event, it really is a boring affair, like most of the card. Not recommended, and ranks as one of the worst Wrestlemania's, outside of the brilliant tag title match.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD*

I'll only say what hasn't already been said here (and I'll continue this for the rest of my WWF\/WWE comments).

If you're going to have a Women's title match, at least make it interesting, rather than just a squash to put over the current champion. I guess Moolah couldn't handle an intense match but they wanted to have the legend in a WrestleMania.

I thought the Killer Bees were wasted in WrestleManias, especially here. I became a fan in 1989, about a year after the B. Brian Blair was gone and Jim Brunzell became a canvas back. So I didn't realize for a while that they were a top tag team, even top contenders.

But I loved seeing Bill Fralic in the battle royal. He really came into his own here, creating a cocky heel character in a pre-match interview and even making an elimination in the battle royal. Besides Steve McMichael and Kevin Greene, he is the only professional athlete from my generation with any respect for wrestling (anyone remember Dennis Rodman?). And what was with the Hart Foundation's ridiculous green tights?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was the worst Wrestlemania in history. The only good matches were Ricky Steamboat vs. Hercules Hernandez, and the tag title match between the British Bulldogs and the Dream Team (this one bordered on classic). Everything else was either poor or awful. The idea of having three host cities was unnecessary, confusing and messed up the fluidity of the show. The celebrity guests were terrible on commentary, especially Susan Saint James.

If you're interested in the mid 80's WWF, you're better renting or buying Wrestlemania 3, or just about any other PPV for that matter.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although Humphrey Bogart got star billing in King Of The Underworld, I'm willing to bet he didn't thank Jack Warner for it. In fact this film was one hollow crown.

King of the Underworld was supposedly a remake of the Paul Muni film, Dr. Socrates, but given Humphrey Bogart was in the cast, the character is written more like Duke Mantee in The Petrified Forest. He even has an English writer along in the person of James Stephenson.

Kay Francis and John Eldredge are a pair of married doctors and Eldredge pulls off a tricky bit of surgery on one of Bogart's henchmen. Bogey's a man who appreciates good work done on his behalf and gives Eldredge $500.00 and there's more where that came from if he plays his cards right. Eldredge who has a gambling problem sees a good way to get some undeclared income.

But when he's killed in a raid on the gang's hideout, Francis is also thought to be involved by the law and the American Medical Association no matter how much she protests her innocence. It's no good and she and her aunt Jessie Busley move to a small town to get away from the notoriety.

Of course the notoriety and Bogart and an itinerant Leslie Howard like writer in Stephenson all meet up with her again. But Kay is plucky and resourceful to say the least.

Bogart's character was ridiculous, no wonder the poor guy was screaming for better parts. He's a gangster who both shoots down people without mercy and gives his henchmen hotfoots just for laughs. He's concerned about his image and therefore kidnaps writer Stephenson to ghost write his autobiography and of course confesses enough to burn him in all 48 states. And then let's Kay Francis completely outsmart him, hard to believe he was king of anything.

Definitely one of the lesser works for either of the stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a cinematic collage of gangster clich\u00e9s. The writing is grade z and the plot and story are constructed without care or logic. It a messy pastiche of stereotypical gangsters (think of Bugs Bunny cartoons) and silly supporting characters (the lady doctor and the writer). There are much better Bogart films out there. In fact, Bogart looks like he slept through this performance. He puts very little effort into this character. I think the directorial advice he received was something like \"He's a bad guy. Act bad\". This guy is the era's equivalent of Darth Vader; obvious, evil and the anti-hero. Don't waste your time with this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Following his role in the fine caper SEVEN THIEVES (1960) \u2013 which I\u2019ve watched several years back \u2013 Edward G. Robinson seemed to be stuck playing elderly criminal mastermind types (apart from the odd juicy role as in THE CINCINNATI KID [1965]). I\u2019d previously watched the pretty good \u201cEuro-Cult\u201d effort GRAND SLAM (1967) and, apart from this, I\u2019ve yet two more similar titles from Italy to check \u2013 one of which was directed by future goremeister Lucio Fulci! Anyway, this is the kind of international production \u2013 featuring American and Italian actors and a British director \u2013 which was prevalent during the 1960s; it\u2019s harmless and easy-going in itself but hardly memorable and definitely overlong \u2013 especially since to procure finance for the heavy-duty equipment required for the heist (such as an army tank and an airplane!), the gang involved have to pull a variety of minor thefts first.

The gang, of course, is an incompetent lot led by an American (Robert Wagner) and his bimbo girlfriend (Raquel Welch) \u2013 the others are a \u2018pacifist\u2019 black man, a perennially hungry Italian and a diminutive Englishman. They try to induce an ex-gangster (Vittorio De Sica) to turn over his fortune to them, except he\u2019s destitute\u2026but, under the auspices of \u201cProfessor\u201d Robinson, he proposes instead a caper of 5 million dollars\u2019 worth of platinum! Needless to say, the gang members don\u2019t trust one another (Wagner instructs Welch to seduce De Sica so as to get the name of their fence in Morocco \u2013 where they are to retreat after the robbery), or else bungle the job (commissioned to hold up a restaurant, the Italian can\u2019t resist sitting at table and order a multi-course meal for himself!). Amusingly, in the face of similar failures, De Sica tries to show them how they used to do it in the old days \u2013 however, ostensibly holding up a petrol station, it transpires that the owner is a nephew of his and he merely asked to borrow some cash!

The central heist sequence is typically elaborate: while the gang, including Welch, \u2018take\u2019 the train transporting the platinum, Wagner kidnaps pilot Victor Spinetti and his airplane. When the job is done, he fully intends to double-cross De Sica \u2013 but neither his partners nor Welch herself are willing to go along with this, so he\u2019s forced to relent. Coming from the time when crime didn\u2019t pay, the gang contrives to lose all their stash in mid-air when the plane\u2019s bomb-bay doors are accidentally opened\u2026","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've got as much testosterone as the next bloke, and Raquel Welch at her finest is certainly worth a look; but the fact is that a cardboard cut-out could act better, and an hour and half of Ms. W showing off her considerable assets does not a movie make.

Considering the cast, it's surprising that it's as bad as it is. I've never been a big fan of Wagner, and his tough guy Harry is about as convincing as a 9-dollar bill. Godfrey Cambridge and Vittorio de Sica, both of whom I usually enjoy, seem to be sleeping through their lines; and as for Edward G...well, I can only assume he was there for the paycheck.

This film is a mess: from non-existent plot, through stop-start action and unfunny script to puerile slapstick and annoying 60's 'caper' music. If it weren't for Miss Welch, I'd have given it a 0.

That said, she is a treat to the eyes - even better than her delicious cameo in 'Bedazzled' - and for that reason alone I gave it a 3.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this movie were in production today it would probably have the christian right-wingers screaming 'child porn'. It is far from a great film, in fact it is rather pedestrian. However, if you have an imagination and a fond remembrance of youth and first love I recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Last fall (of 2001), I took a film class that was taught by the director of this movie (Mark Hoeger). His vast knowledge of filmmaking, his ability to dissect any scene of a film, and his winning of an Academy Award in some obscure category seemed to give him more credibility than your average independent film director. When he mentioned during one of his classes that he had just finished directing a film called \"Full Ride\" and was in the post-production stages, my interest was piqued. However, that would be the last I would ever hear of that film project. Until last week...

Last week, I saw in a TV listing that \"Full Ride\" was going to be showing on the WB network. This immediately raised a red flag, as I can't help but associate WB with teensploitation shows such as Dawson's Creek, Charmed, etc. PLUS, the fact that Full Ride was going to be released straight to TV wasn't too flattering in itself. But, nevertheless, I set aside that time and sat down to watch my former film teacher's creation.

After two hours passed and the end credits began to roll, I thought long and hard about what I had just seen. What I had just seen was a typical WB-quality show stretched out to the length of two hours. In fact, it almost seemed as if this movie was made with the sole intent of only showing on the WB network. Critiquing this movie will basically be like critiquing a typical WB show.

Where to begin? The characters are shallow, the story is cliche in every sense of the word, the scenes are completely contrived, and the character development is forced and unbelievable. This movie just screams `unoriginal.'

The main character, Matt Sabo, is some hot shot from the wrong side of the tracks (literally) who plays solid high school football as a fullback, but then fizzles off into a life of crime. He is then offered a chance at a full ride scholarship instead of going to jail. Obviously, without much of a choice, he agrees to play football with an all-star football team, but is not excepted among his peers because of his poor team spirit and bad attitude.

Then comes the love interest. Of course! Where would this predictable fanfare be without a love interest? She comes in the form of Amy Lear (played by the beautiful Meredith Monroe). She is actually a likable character, as opposed to the ever-so-abrasive Matt Sabo, so we almost applaud her when she rejects him at first. But, of course, the inevitable comes to pass. She falls for him, changes his attitude towards everything, and all seems good and happy. But now it's time for conflict!

Earlier in the movie, Amy makes it clear to Matt that she doesn't want to score with him, because it would be `shameful' to her and her mother. This is much to Matt's dismay, and his football buddies (yes, they eventually warm up to him) who bet him he wouldn't get any. But, of course, Matt eventually comes to accept these terms and decides he's not all about the nookie. Here's where the exciting plot thickens. If you don't want me to ruin this surprise, then skip ahead.

[BEGIN SPOILER]

Matt finds out from some local guys that apparently Amy Lear always tries to score with a guy each year from the All-Star team so that she can try to use him to escape her small town life of working in a cafeteria (which is baffling in the first place) and make it to the big city. Suddenly realizing he's been used and that his love was a sham, Matt it tempted to turn back to a life of crime and leave the football camp before `the big game.' Amy tries to reassure him that she was really in love this time, but he's too hot-headed to buy it. So what will Matt do? Will he take her back? Or will he go back to robbing gas stations and being an all-round jerk? I won't ruin the super-ultra-surprising ending for you.

[END SPOILER]

So, if I somehow got you pumped up for this movie, please realize that that was my sarcasm and not genuine enthusiasm. This movie is an uninspired version of `Varsity Blues' or `Summer Catch.' And that's not saying much. There's hardly any comedy to save it and the characters are too shallow to care about. So what do you have left? Not a whole lot.

What I most disliked about the movie was how much of an unflattering picture Hoeger painted of Nebraska through this film. It seems like he was trying to capture the essence of rural Nebraska and teenage life in the small towns, but his approach is all too stereotypical and shallow. The characters' high hopes for making in `the big city' and the actions they take to do so are greatly exaggerated, and it only further cements the stereotype of Nebraskans being a bunch of hicks living in farm communities. I am unsure of whether or not Hoeger's intentions were good in trying to put his home state in the spotlight, but I think he ended up with a very shameful product. If Hoeger wanted to portray Nebraska in a favorable light, he should have taken a note or two from Alexander Payne. While Payne simply chooses to use Nebraska as a backdrop for his films, Hoeger integrates it into the plot of Full Ride and becomes so entangled in his awareness of where he's shooting, that he ends up churning out superficial garbage that would seem to come from an outsider. If Hoeger actually lived here, you'd think he'd know better than that.

All in all, I am completely disappointed in Hoeger's first big film, and I hope that next time he can combine his knowledge with a little bit of originality to create something different and thought-provoking.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is movie is really bad. I like to flip on the TV while napping and this movie looked like it would be something good to sleep through, and boy was I wrong. My body literally woke me up from sleeping and said \"Hey... this movie is awful... you gotta watch it\". I love bad movies with bad actors and stupid plots. Something about unintentional comedy gets me going. This movie is impressively crappy. I really don't know how to properly express it aside from recommending you watch it just to see how bad it is. I mean, seriously, you should watch it with people. I was making the best jokes outloud during this movie and no one was there to hear them.

Worse than Swimfan. It's that bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Excellent example of the disaster that happens when you combine a challenging script with two actors chosen for physical appeal. It is rare for me to be consciously aware of the acting during the first viewing of a movie because I try to just go with the story and save the analysis for the second viewing. In the case of \"Full Ride\", the acting was so weak that the movie was impossible to appreciate as a story; I was too busy (during first and only viewing) alternating between laughter and nausea.

Fortunately for most individual members of the cast, pretty much everyone in the ensemble is weak, the individual talent limitations do not contrast with any actual competent acting. Riley Smith and Meredith Monroe are at least well matched physically, finding common ground in looking far too old for the credible age of their characters.

Unfortunately the script requires especially intense and convincing performances to portray their characters which just exposes Smith and Monroe's staggering lack of talent. On the positive side, they know enough to not look directly into the camera and they do not stutter.

Better to have used a less attractive pair who could physically pass for the proper age. The basic story is not particularly original, just another variation on \"An Officer and a Gentleman\", but it would have provided a nice showcase for a talented pair of \"teenage\" actors.

Then again, what do I know? I'm just a child.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After seeing the movie, I feel the father and the mother are both reasonable person, although not perfect at all. On the contrary, I don't like the author, and his two sisters.

Is a person's journal an accurate portrait of herself? No. Most of time people only write problems in her journal because she want to solve the problem. So a journal is always a more negative side of a person. In this movie, the author judge his mother's life by her journal. Not a wise choice.

The author's elder sister is so ugly, external and internal. First, she said her father's second marriage is \"not fair\" for her mother. Then, she said she doesn't love her mother. So, she don't love both father and mother. I doubt she love anybody in the world. Her face is so ugly, just a reflection of her heart. Through out the movie, I feel the author and his sisters are lack of love and respect to their parents. However, I feel the father are mother are very loving to their children, even the author try to portrait them as cold, deceitful person.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This documentary is rife with problems.

How arrogant is it to make a documentary about your own family? I understand you think the subject is interesting. I was bored with it. This isn't a fascinating story to me, and I don't know why you would think it was.

I don't want to come off as mean, but I have to say: Most of the people in this film are just not attractive. And that's OK, not everyone is pretty. But your camera technique, to stick the lens in their face so you can't help but be overwhelmed by their unpleasant appearance because it is filling your 47\" TV, is not enjoyable. I had to put my hand up half the time to shield myself from the warts, wrinkles, bags under eyes and yellow teeth. Really, I'm trying not to sound inhuman, but pull the camera back so its not like total strangers are breathing in my face.

The camera work in this \"film\" is rank amateur level. It's the kind of camera work you see from everyone with a camcorder at a family picnic. Uninteresting framing, unsteady, even static shots are done carelessly. Put a little effort into it, if you're going to do this for a living.

I honestly can't see what the big deal is about this thing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The director seems like a good, solid man. His parents struggle with the same issues we all cope with. They strayed from each other. They loved each other. They misunderstood each other. And the poor audience has to sit through ninety minutes of what is possibly the trials and tribulations of one of the most boring families ever to come out of Long Island.

There are few interesting choices in this documentary--the music is banal, the filming uninspired, and the story is the same story that has played out on every Birch Street in every town in America. I don't mean to sound too harsh--seldom has a sweeter, more well-intentioned documentary been made. The director is the kind of man with whom you'd want to be friends. You just wish he had struggled as much presenting the material as his parents did keeping their marriage alive.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tamara Anderson and her family are moving once again, as her itinerant painter father chases his next landscape. Fifteen years old, she is in her rebellious stage. Already angry at her father for their frequent relocations, her anger is exacerbated when her mother is suddenly confined to a sanatorium for tuberculosis. Her mother's absence causes Tamara to lash out at her father and seek comfort in religion, the boy next door, Rusty, as well as the spirit of the dead teenager who used to live in her rented house.

The story is modest to a fault. It's oddly paced, and even during its emotional scenes there isn't any tension. The actors portraying the parents are fine. Alberta Watson is incredibly charismatic as the sick mother, and Maria Ricossa is particularly effective as the guilt-ridden mother of the dead teenager. But Katie Boland, as Tamara, is too amateurish to carry the movie. The dialog is very natural and Boland can't quite pull it off. She has her moments and when she hits them she can be good but there were too many times when she came off awkward. One can see her thinking 'ok this is what my line is and this is the face i'm supposed to make' rather than actually reacting to the other actors. She's not the only one, Kevin Zegers as Rusty and Megan Park as his sister Brenda also suffer from stilted delivery but at least they're in fewer scenes.

If done right, the screenplay could have made her an affecting movie. And it has it moments but much of it is bogged down with an amateurish lead performance and flat directing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was wondering what possessed the organizers of the Victoria Film Festival to include this film in their program. I guess they must have agreed with the others who have reviewed this film. I, on the other hand, consider it the worst film I have ever seen. It starts with a bad script, full of holes, and dialog so unlikely it's embarrassing. Ideas are introduced, then dropped with no development. The acting left me totally cold and uninvolved. The set decoration was appropriate for the time, but a decorator's nightmare. The only way the characters could love this house is if their previous homes had been ghastly. The attic looked as if the items had been thrown in for the scene with no attempt to create the look of a real attic that has been filling with junk over the years. The photography was leaden and lacking in variety. Save your money for something worthwhile.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the most vapid, idiotic, insanely stupid show that has EVER been on the air, and this is coming from someone who remembers \"San Pedro Beach Bums\".

My wife loves watching reality shows--and there was one episode of this drivel where the wannabes had to develop a \"walk\". The end result was straight out of Monty Python's \"Ministry of Silly Walks\" sketch. I couldn't laugh hard enough.

And then there's the ubiquitous Ms. Banks (as in laughing all the way to the...). She has to be the most annoying self-important woman on TV since Rosie O'Donnell left \"The View\". As if modeling was doing great things for mankind. Please. I've never found her attractive, and I don't find her intelligent now that she has the temerity to open her mouth.

Someone needs to tell these human clothes hangers to eat a healthy diet and actually look like real women.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tyra Banks needs to teach these girls that it's not all about being beautiful on the outside. The inside counts for something too. A lot of the past winners have looked semi decent but are horribly cruel and starting trouble for the other girls. I see Tyra less involved with the girls in every season. About the only thing worth watching Top Model for is Mr. Jay Manuel. Recently, Tyra had a contestant who was a pre-op transsexual. I felt that she should have done more to encourage her. It was obvious that she had insecurities about her original anatomy showing through her feminine look. Tyra should have given her tips or perhaps she could have sent resident Trannie Ms. Jay to help the girl out. Instead, the contestant was met with harsh criticism and not enough positive criticism. It's a shame because I truly enjoyed the first 3 seasons. There's a reason why Project Runway has all 4 seasons out on DVD and Top Model only has 1 season on DVD. It's called taste. Top Model seriously needs a lot of revamping an some more humanity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In watching this off and on for a few seasons, two things come to mind: One - wondering what kind of girl wants to be a \"model\" and two - run to the nearest ice cream store and have a low fat sundae.

I tried to be a fan because I liked the idea of this reality show competition. No other \"famous\" model thought of this, and it is very admirable for Tyra Banks to do so. But as the series goes on and on I've come to the conclusion that this is a sorry lot of folks trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Women shouldn't watch this, teens should stay clear of it unless they're doing book reports on the subject.

Many women try out for slots to compete for \"Americas Next Top Model\". They live together, cat fight together, cry together, get put through pointless modeling shoots with pointless modeling people and fashionatas and get eliminated and almost all of them claim, \"You will see me again\". Heck, I'm trying to see what happened to the ones that DID win, actually.

This is the dream of some girls, and good for them. In watching this I hope the other girls that see this and run like Hades the other way - like to college.

I just happened to watch more of this recent season because of the \"ploy\" of full figured models joining the group. That even made me think more of this as a sorry lot of folks. The \"full figured models\" were no more than average sized ladies competing with what I think is the thinnest group of models they ever chose - so of course that would make them look even fatter - a \"ploy\" fashionatas use all the time. Bad, bad, Tyra and crew.

But to be fair, \"Americas Next Top Model\" is not about \"full figured\" models, it's about projecting an imagined image a beauty that can be mass marketed and sold as the ultimate in beauty - and this show is just looking for the next fresh piece of meat to add to the mix. Hence the name of the show. Hence the sorry lot of judges, photographers, associations. Hence Tyra and her consistent \"this was me\" plugs every camera angle you can get. But then again, that IS the one thing I like about this show - the ex-model giving others who wouldn't have the chance -- a chance to enter the doors. But after that...everything else is status quo for that industry which is why there are no surprises or week to week interest in the program.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tyra & the rest of the modeling world needs to know that real women like myself and my daughter don't care to see all the ridiculous modeling to sell something. Weird locations, too much makeup & too much skin is not necessary. Sex does not always sell when you are selling to women. The same goes for the horse stomping runway walk that looks unnatural. People come in all shapes & sizes & they need to have that on the show. My daughter has a 36\" inseam, is tall & slender & a size 5, I am more average at a size 12. We would like to see both- I can not picture how something would look on me when a size 2 is wearing it, it will not fit the same way on me. I do not buy magazines anymore because they are one sided on this matter. We would really love the show to consider women of all sizes. Thank you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would like to comment on how the girls are chosen. why is that their are always more white women chosen then their are black women. every episode their is always more white women then black one's. as if to say white women are better looking then black women. I would like for once see more black women then white. and it not just your show it's like that in a lot of shows always more white's. but i would have thought since you as the head honcho of the show you would see this yourself and have more black women on your show. but you are just like the rest trying to act like you are so fair and nice. you are just a big fony hypocrite.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The CinemaScope color cinematography of Leon Shamroy is quite remarkable here,including his use of colored filters for

various scenes. The Alfred Newmann Score has to be the most sensual and seductive score Hollywood ever produced. It's a shame it is no longer available on CD. The actors, however, never rise to the occasion. The accents are so varied, from the subdued British of Ustinov and Purdom to the Hollywood of Baxter and Mature that it seems a true hodgepodge with no central vision. Tommy Rettig is jarringly American. Acting styles span the range from zombie-like to stilted. Only Ustinov as a conniving one-eyed servant steals the show - what there is of it to steal. The premise - the story of a young Egyptian doctor, seduced and abandoned by the rich - and the parallel theme of the cult of the single God, Ra - persecuted by the authorities, has its interesting points. But when the film's plot fades, it is the haunting music and visuals that remain.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am surprised that so many comments about this film are positive. Having read the book several times (and all the other historical novels by Mika Waltari) there is no way to say much good in this film. If I forget the origins of the story I might consider it a reasonably good epic. Of course to bring such a brick of a book to the big screen is a task not to be envied, but it could be done with class. I can't understand why even the name of Nefernefernefer had to be shortened to just Nefer. I love Peter Ustinov as Kaptah and Marlon Brando probably would have made a better Sinuhe but the overall attitude is too Hollywood to ever make justice to the book. Mind you Mika Waltari left the Premier of this film in the middle of the showing. That's how much he liked it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In comparison to other \"sand and sandal\" fare, The Egyptian leaves much to be desired. The film is very LOOSELY based upon Mika Waltari's well researched novel, which centers around the Egyptian physician Sinhue's adventures at the court of Akhnaton as well as his travels throughout Canaan, Minoan Crete and Africa. Unfortunately, due to the moral strictures of the time, much of Sinhue's story (which is rife with romantic and sexual exploits) remains on the cutting room floor and instead, the audience is treated to reels and reels of Victor Mature's wooden acting. Even Gene Tierney \u0096 a leading lady \"staple\" of the time \u0096 can not manage to look nor act her best in this flick and gives a rather somnambulistic performance which can only be justified by the fact that the actress was having some serious psychiatric problems at the time. There is a great deal of rhetoric and theological machinations over the idea of monotheism vs. polytheism, but Michael Wilding is so tiring as the revolutionary Akhnaton, that one is surely cheering for someone to off him and restore the old religion before the second reel. My advice: buy the book from E-Bay, rent something more entertaining like Solomon and Sheba and then call it a night!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ho humm - - - More of nothing. If you are a long-time Rush fan you know what this video contains: loathsome songs from the past, the \"BIG 3\" hits from the 80's and their \"last-ditch\" efforts to remain contemporary. They do succeed in making fun of themselves by beating the critics to the punch by portraying themselves as \"dinosaurs.\" Unfortunately, they FAIL at protecting themselves from embarrassment. Close-ups of their faces only add to the fact that these guys HAVE BEEN.

If you are have been following (as much as you can stomach) the band for a couple of decades from the 70's, then you know there is no new material here. Same old, same OLD: 1) Neil avoids the press, 2) no real behind-the-scenes (Geddy looses his SHOES?! Give me a break! Even HE thinks it's absurd!) 3) no new insights.

A better video would have been to show the CREW setting up for 3 or 4 hours \u0096 just let the camera run. And stop changing camera angles every 2 seconds! I understand the director wants to try to do something artsy. But then offer a full concert version of 2 or 3 shots the VIEWER can choose. We know what the band looks like \u0096 let us see what WE REALLY want to see.

Do yourself a BIG favor: RENT this movie first.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All right, let's be realistic about this. Nobody goes into a movie produced by WWE Films (whose owner has challenged God to a wrestling match), directed by a former porn director (the man gave the world the Between the Cheeks trilogy), starring a wrestler named Kane, and expects a little slice of art on a golden platter. If you do then you probably need to find something other than watching movies to occupy your time.

So what exactly are we to expect from a movie like this? Well, here's what I was looking forward to:

1) Bad acting. 2) A fairly non-existent, clich\u00e9d storyline. 3) Kane walking around with a scrunched, sour face that indicates his nostrils just found the potato salad he misplaced a month ago. 4) Tons and tons of gore.

Well, if you're hungry for some \"so bad it's funny\" entertainment then this might satisfy your appetite because it delivers on all counts.

Obviously, movies like this are best seen for free, but if you do choose to sacrifice box office bucks then have some fun and make a game out of it. The filmmakers are nice enough to introduce us to each of the annoying delinquents by flashing their names and legal offenses on the screen. This makes it easier for you to write down which ones you want to see killed and in what order. You and your friends can see whose predictions are most accurate.

I also suggest that you and your pals write down every single moment of stupidity and inanity that you can find. Tally them up at the end and see who comes up with the most. I think my grand total was 107; can you beat that? I personally want to know how after 35 years and a fire does this abandoned hotel still have electricity, running water, and a working elevator?

I know, I know, the filmmakers are assuming that if you pay to see this then you obviously don't put much thought into what you spend your money on and therefore likely won't put much thought into how silly the movie is, but that doesn't mean we can't point it out and laugh at it.

I also like how the city wants to turn this huge hotel (which would be condemned and recommended for demolition by any sensible inspector) into a homeless shelter and they think the best way to get it cleaned up is to give eight punks a few mops and brooms. Uh-huh.

I think you pretty much know what to expect, but I feel the need to provide you with a couple of warnings. First, if you hate crowd interaction no matter the movie then you might want to stay away. The people in the audience acted like they were at an actual wrestling show. Shouts of \"Kill him, Kane!\" and \"I hope you die first!\" and \"Chokeslam!\" echoed through the theater, showcasing what I hope is NOT the best of what America has to offer. I usually don't appreciate such audience interaction, but for a cheesefest like this I thought the commentary added to the entertainment value. However, I can see how others could be annoyed by it.

Second, and this shouldn't even warrant explanation, the film doesn't shy away from the gore. If watching a big ugly dude rip eyeballs right out of their sockets doesn't scream \"fun night at the movies!\" for ya then you know good and well to save your dough.

I must say that I was a little surprised by the extreme lack of dialogue on Kane's part. I wasn't expecting him to put on an acting clinic, but I was hoping he'd have some cute little catchphrase like \"Say goodnight\" (his character's last name is \"Goodnight\") right before he killed a victim. Instead he uttered four words in the entire film - \"Nooooooo!\" and \"I see it.\" But hey, he delivered them flawlessly!

If I were a bad guy in a movie then my catchphrase would be something like \"Place your BETTS!\" or \"All BETTS are off!\"

It'd rule and you know it. We need a new genre term for bad horror films like See No Evil that induce so much unintentional laughter that you almost have to label them comedic. Feel free to send me your suggestions. For now we'll just call 'em HOR-larious!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eight teen convicts are brought to the abandoned Blackwell Hotel to clean it out as community service. They soon discover that it's the residence of a hulking psychopath (Kane) who has a thing for pulling out and collecting eyeballs. It doesn't help that the guard watching over them (Steven Vidler) has had a previous run-in with the beast four years earlier.

A guilty pleasure of mine are slasher films. Most of them are poorly directed and acted but they still hold some appeal and entertainment value. See No Evil is a good example of this. It features atrocious writing and acting but the death scenes are pretty good and the movie proves to be entertaining. The premise sounds like a mixture between Friday the 13th, Saw 2 and Halloween: Resurrection. I really liked the idea but it didn't work out too well. It was really just a bunch of clich\u00e9s and everything was predictable. Screenwriter Dan Madigan just focused on the death scenes and nothing else apparently. The death scenes themselves are pretty good and gruesome. Director Gregory Dark did a good job with them and he came up with some creative kills.

The acting is pretty bland and unremarkable. This is because all of the characters are one dimensional and we don't know much about them. It was hard to feel for these people because they were pretty unlikable. Kane is surprisingly mediocre. I was expecting his on screen presence to be scarier but he didn't do that good of a job. A second rate Jason Voorhees, if you will. The rest of the actors are relatively unknown and this film will probably neither help nor hurt their careers.

While the death scenes are gory, they aren't necessary scary. There's really no suspense just some gory death scenes. Because of this, the movie doesn't hold much of a repeat value. Also, if you don't like slasher films then don't waste your time with this one. It will do little to change your opinion. In the end, See No Evil is a decent slasher film but it is generic and forgettable so it's not exactly worth watching. Rating 6\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first official release of World Wrestling Entertainment's film division is a pretty basic horror\/slasher movie called \"See No Evil\" starring Kane, one of their big men wrestlers known for having an intimidating presence, hard-hitting moves, and one of the most convoluted backstories in wrestling. And let's not pull any punches here; while this movie is promoted as the greatest horror movie of all time (mostly by WWE), it goes without saying that after having seen this movie, I can confirm it as one of the greatest comedies of all time.

\"See No Evil\" sees a bunch of juvenile delinquents sent to a hotel so they can clean up. Of course, a monstrous murderer (played by Kane) also happens to be living in this hotel and we all know where that goes. Without giving away too much of the movie plot, this film has all the semblance and structure of an early-1980s slasher flick with most of the clich\u00e9s intact, but without any of the scares that those films accompany. And that's sort of the main problem with \"See No Evil\". It tries so many of the tricks implied by its predecessors in the genre that it comes off as predictable; veteran horror fans will easily recognize some of the gimmicks ahead of time and even those who have only seen a few flicks should tell what happens next. It's too generic to be scary.

The movie's gory, no doubt, but it's only there for the effect. The dark atmosphere instilled in the movie gives off that feel of terror initially, but as you get towards the end, it somehow feels out of place and gets tiresome quickly. The death scenes don't come off as gory and horrific as much as they do laughable, although some of them are pretty inventive.

And the acting in this movie is pretty bad too, as the main characters aren't developed enough for us to care when they eventually do get axed. Some can't even portray fear properly; they just scream and cry in a vain effort to emote. So when they die, it only adds to the comedy because you don't care enough about them that you simply consider them the equivalent of Starfleet Redshirts to the monster Kane.

As for Kane, he simply portrayed his movie character the same way he portrays his wrestling character, only he uses axes and hooks instead of hellfire and brimstone. There's no doubt in my mind that Kane can be a great fixture in the horror genre. He has the look and presence for it; he just needs better material (specifically a script that isn't written by someone who writes wrestling shows) to work with.

Now, despite what may seem like a harsh review, I actually enjoyed the film. It's one of those laughably bad movies that you can't help but sit down and enjoy. My main gripe with the film, again, is that it's simply an exercise in filming gory kills and doesn't have any frightening or shock moments. I enjoyed it, but I enjoyed because it was easy for me to laugh off some of what was supposed to be scary moments in the movie. If that happens because it was supposed to be that way, the movie would have been rated higher. But it didn't. It got laughs because it's a B-movie and it doesn't help that the director's previous experiences was porn flicks and music videos; not exactly overcomplicated things to direct anyway. Nonetheless, I enjoyed it tremendously.

If you don't mind a fun B-movie or funny horror film, I'd highly recommend \"See No Evil.\" If you are a true enthusiast of the genre, I'd wait until the DVD comes out before checking it out. Everyone else should probably go watch something else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After watching this movie, I have nothing but contempt for any of those who were involved in the making of this abysmal film. For one, as a general comment, the storyline was literally unbelievable and filled with incredible clich\u00e9s all around. The same obviously goes for the dialogue which panders to the lowest common denominator and manages to offer absolutely zero unpredictable original lines. The acting was terrible as well with Kane showing, throughout the entire movie, at the very most 3 separate and distinct emotions. Even the use of modern special effects failed, as each prop was easily distinguishable from its real life counterpart. Overall, I would not recommend for anyone to even think about viewing this feature, as it will most surely waste 83(not even 90!) minutes of your life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another movie with a star of a wrestling. So far I have noticed....wrestlers can't act on the movie screen. This movie is no exception.

The action is dreadful. It makes you laugh at what they say, and they can't be serious, they try to act scared but they fail and look stupid. The acting is horrible, possibly from the bad director.

The plot was stupid....Just some people get placed in a hotel because they're criminals, and they get randomly killed off. The movie is stupid all the way through, making it one of the worst I have ever seen.

The only think and this is why I give it a 3 and not a 1 is because of the way Jacob Goodnight dies. The pole through the head and the stories of him plunging was awesome.

Overall this is a really horrible movie, and you definitely shouldn't waste your time with it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got stuck in traffic (I live in Sicily) on the way to the theater (at a military base) to see Superman Returns, was 15 minutes late, and the only other movie playing was \"See No Evil\", there was no poster up for it, and just a short description of the movie on the schedule...but my girlfriend and I decided to check it out...As soon as I saw it was produced by WWE I just knew it was gonna be awful. The few people in the theater were laughing most of the time, and it was the first movie that I honestly considered walking out on, and I've seen \"The Ringer\"...okay, I would have walked out of that one, but I was too busy sleeping. The death of the bad guy at the end was pretty good, but other than that, it was just stupid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had no idea this movie was produced by \"WWE\". Wrestling is lame enough. Why did they have to soil their name further by making a movie as crappy as this one was?? I found it to be a complete disappointment. If i had of known this movie was going to be as stupid as it was, I would have stayed home and done something more entertaining. Sure, I'll give them the credit of the cool effects; but the killer didn't seem as scary as he could have been. He lacked a number of things. But I'll let you point them out for yourselves. The plot was a great idea, just could have been done in a much better way. Maybe in the future, WWE will stick to its moronic wrestling and stay out of the film industry..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, lets start with the best. the building. although hard to believe it had electricity and running water after 35 years and a fire, the gruesome walls and odd items found throughout were interesting. other than that, its not worth it.

as far as the bad, its done by WWE films. WTF? is that supposed to make you want to see it? if anything, stay away. horrible, horrible idea for them to make movies and allow Gregory Dark to direct it. bad choice. the previews beforehand were more interesting and entertaining.

i cant even begin to discuss how bad this film is. untalented actors & a disappointing, vague storyline. apparently many of the actors are from that show \"all saints\". its a wonder why i haven't ever heard of them or their show. other than that, the bus driver, which you never even see, just him closing the door, has had more action that just about everyone together. at least he handles stunts for some decent films.

i like to see scary movies, i really do. but this one blew so much, the entire audience was laughing at it and cheering the characters on halfway through. very annoying. the child behind me was yelping more during the previews of other horror films.

this is not a film to see, even less if you have to pay for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Porn legend Gregory Dark directs this cheesy horror flick that has Glen Jacobs (Kane from WWF\/WWE\/ whatever it calls itself nowadays) in his cinematic debut. He plays Jacob Goodknight, a blind serial killer who's forte is taking people's eyes out. The plot, be it as it may, has a group of troubled youths cleaning up the historical hotel that GoodKnight resides in and subsequently being offed by him. Hemmingway it's not. Starts of as fun dopey B-movie, but soon gets too tedious to be enjoyable. Glad I went in with pretty low expectations, but even those weren't met. How can you have a porn king directing and still suffer from a lack of nudity??? for shame.

My Grade: D-

Eye Candy: Samantha Noble bares her ass briefly","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Cheesiest movie I've ever seen, Not scary, just bad. 1st movie made by the WWE, and trust me,the only person this movie might appeal to is wrestling fans. It has terrible acting and The worst directing I've seen yet.I Found myself laughing at the storyline, and bad actors. I saw that the WWE people tried really hard to Put a lot of the wrestling moves in the kills, and Several camera effects. I think they copied a lot from silent Hill. This movie's not engaging either, so If you do see it, you're gonna find yourself tuning out because of it's lack of Suspense. The ending's the worst, No matter what, you'll come out wanting your money back","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Compared to the recent gore flick HOSTEL, which this movie reminded me a lot of-- I would say that See No Evil is slightly better but not by much. The very complex plot involves a handful of delinquents who are sent to clean up a rundown hotel for a shorter jail sentence. The kids soon end up being killed off by a lumbering religious psychopath who is cleansing them of their sins (I guess). The one thing I dreaded most prior to seeing this was the fact that it stared a WWE wrestler, Kane. He ended up doing a decent job considering he only had 2 one-word lines in the movie. There are a couple fairly gory moments, mainly involving eye-gouging and a quite memorable scene in which a girl gets a cellphone shoved down her throat-- probably the most effective demise in the movie.

I can't say that this movie really shows us anything new and is definitely far from great. Can't recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"By the standards of Hollywood this movie was filmed and edited as Hollywood movies are and therefore looked like a movie you would get out of a big-time production studio within Hollywood. Thats where anything remotely close to having Hollywood standards ends. This was THE WORST MOVIE I have EVER seen in MY LIFE! I am not joking. The story was so unbelievably stupid and unrealistic that I could not contain my laughter in the movie theater through the course of watching this film. I know what you're saying, \"its a horror film its not supposed to have a good story it's supposed to scare you.\" Well let me tell you something, the movie is not even scary in the least bit. Its too full of stupid bits that cancels out the little suspense there may have been. The acting was awful as well, along with the scariness of the murderer, who you constantly see through flashbacks locked in a cage jacking off. Throughout the movie I kept getting a sense I was watching something that was thought up, written, produced, and directed by a high-schooler who watches too much pornography. Please, don't see this movie, spend your $8.50 on other things, like a snow cone, which would be much more worth your while.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A wildly uneven film where the major problem is the uneasy mix of comedy and thriller. To me, the unusual premise is clearly a comedic one, and they should have gone for an all-out comedy. For example, Rock has some funny lines but occasionally he is too unlikable for a comedy. The scene where Betty's husband gets scalped is too nasty for what should have been a less violent comedy. An even better example is the Hollywood leftist writer preaching to us tritely through Freeman's character, early on, about the plight of the Indians; I mean - yawn! They should have given Freeman something funny to say in that segment, but that is of course much more difficult than to simply write him a boring PC speech.

There is yet more New Age PC-ness in the form of the ending: the girl not only doesn't get the boy - she gets no boy at all; in fact, the message is that the girl needs no boy at all! Bit of a feminist statement there. The first half-hour is weak, but the movie gets better - ironically - once Zellweger gets to Kinnear. I say \"ironically\" because I'm not much of a fan of Kinnear's, though he's solid here. Zellweger is very cute, as usual; she has the sort of all-American cute looks which should appeal to almost every guy, and I have to wonder why more of such women aren't \"represented\" nowadays, instead of the dogs who inexplicably became stars, such as Diaz, Roberts, Aniston, Lopez, or Barrymore.

Since the movie tries to be very serious at times, I have no choice but to criticize Freeman's character which is the gangster's equivalent of the movie world's hooker-with-the-heart-of-gold. There is also absolutely nothing in the relationship between Freeman and Rock to suggest even remotely that they were father and son.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was pretty enthusiastic about seeing this movie when it came out. Commercials for it made it look quirky and I generally like Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock, and the combination of the two seemed like an interesting idea. Sadly, I was terribly disappointed with Nurse Betty.

Personally, I've usually found that graphic violence and comedy don't go all that well together, and the only directors that have ever combined the two successfully, in my opinion, are Tarantino and the Coens. There isn't that much violence in Nurse Betty, but what violence is in it made me feel kind of weird when I was supposed to laugh. Of course, for me, part of the problem was also that there didn't seem to be many places where I was being asked to.

The film doesn't much work as a drama, either. Renee Zellweger's Betty, the story's protagonist, is clinically insane and impossible to relate to in any real way. I will say Zellweger acts the role quite well, and Freeman, Rock, and Greg Kinnear all do good jobs too. The problem is in the writing; Freeman is the only person that gets to play an interesting character. It's really too bad. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, this movie starts out and it *looks* like it's going to be a cute comedy about a completely obsessed soap opera fan. She has no touch with reality whatsoever outside of the soap (sort of the inverse of the main characters in \"Pleasantville\") and runs away to Los Angeles to meet a fictional character. Well it is a cute movie... but at the same time, it is ALSO a dark, very violent movie about two hitmen who are out to kill Betty for reasons way to complex to recount here. Either plotline would have been enough on it's own, but \"Nurse Betty\" contains both stories at once, and the effect is very jarring. I didn't much enjoy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Renee Zellweger is radiant, but the rest of this movie just does not work. It's like a hamburger-jello-mold salad--interesting idea, but who ever thought it would actually work on film? I like director LaBute's two previous films--they were mercilessly honest and chillingly funny. This film manages only to be merciless and chilling--with jumbo dollops of the cutes. (As high concept, think: the Doris Day-Rock Hudson movie Sam Peckinpah might have made--now reduce your expectations to match the present, mass-produced state of Hollywood.) That actors as talented as Freeman, Kinnear, Eckhart, Vince, and Janney ALMOST make their scenes come alive is a testament to the immensity of their talents to rise above material that just does not cohere. I would have found Freeman's corny, feel-good-about-yourself speech at the end of the movie funny (in a Lynchean way) if it weren't for the nagging suspicion that this unconvincingly tacked-on moral is meant to be accepted seriously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To sum this movie up, it is LaBute carrying his sadism over into the realm of comedic farce. The predictable result is that he is constantly stepping on all the jokes by insisting on surrounding them with blood-curdling violence and extremely hateful characters. There is also evidence of his continuing efforts to insult and ridicule everything in sight but then to apologize for it with weak gestures to the PC. Basically the movie just doesn't work, its plot is beyond contrived, the characters are one-dimensional cliches, there is no consistency or development of anything, and the comedy (where it is not totally out of place) is the worst kind of High Concept drivel.

Morgan Freeman and Renee Zellweger are completely wasted on characters that seem like parodies of studio-driven audience pandering--no matter what, make them likeable, neutral (and neutered), and full of moral platitudes. Crispin Glover is in here just long enough to convince you that he doesn't belong in movies anymore. Chris Rock actually has negative chemistry with fellow hitman Freeman--it's as if they are acting in different rooms even when they are two inches away from each other. In effect, Chris Rock seems like a digital insert. At least he isn't as annoying as Jar-Jar.

LaBute's 15 minutes may well be up by now. It's already looking like he's overstayed his welcome.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Little did I know that when I signed up the the \"all pay channel\" package with Direct TV that I would face a movie like this. It came on right after another movie we had been watching... and I was a teenager in 1981 so am not sure where I was at the time... but I missed this movie.

I also can't believe we left it on. It is kind-of funny as it takes you back in the time machine to the early 80s... but I think even then this would have been a painful movie. It was just... well... \"too cute\"! ET was \"cute\" in a way... but not obnoxiously cute... and stupid.

When I see a movie like this... I come on onto IMDb to see what others say. I am blown away that this thing was nominated! Wow... the movie industry has come a long way since the 80s! Oh well... it did show some old actors... btw that is the other thing I was surprised about... the lineup... not a bunch of no-names... but some real actors\/actresses. Must have been in their drug days! Anyways... odd, interesting, bizarre, and makes one happy they grew up!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to like this movie, but the pacing was just way too slow.

It was a nice story, but it was really like watching a slug race.

The movie would have been better served, if it had some more action. I don't mean anything grand, but at least something in the background.

It could have also been helped by songs that set the tone\/mood of the more lengthy periods that were absent of dialogue.

It's been about 10 years since I've seen it, so I may have to give it another chance.

3\/10 or *1\/2(out of four)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you like bad movies, this one's a real treat. Kaufman & Peters stagger around in robot costumes, escape slavery only to wander aimlessly, and find true robot love. I believe this is the first movie that ever made me consider walking out. I should note I was 12, and could be entertained by shiny objects.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"I presume you are here for damage to your mental circuitry.\" - VAL

Mike Nelson made me watch this...he mentioned it in his book, \"Movie Megacheese.\" I asked myself, \"Why would Mike Nelson steer me wrong?\" I now know why the bots never trusted Mike Nelson.

The music is by John Williams, which is probably part of his payment to the Devil. In fact, I'm sure anyone who worked on this movie is probably in league with ol' Slewfoot, or is now cursed, from the Executive Director down to the guy who ran the catering truck outside the studio. Don't watch...for the love of God...don't watch!!! Not even making a copy and showing someone else will un-curse you...I'm doomed now, I understand this. I accept this. But save yourself...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife and I saw this in the theater when it first came out.

There were only 3 couples there and we all walked out about the same time.

This is the only movie I have ever walked out on.

It was just painful to sit through.

The theater actually stopped us on the way out and asked if we wanted a refund.

Never had that happen before or since Pleae do not rent this You will really regret it I am really sureprised by the vote summary Perhaps personal tast has something to do with it","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought of this movie when i watched pluto nash...why..because both movies have randy quaid playing a retarded robot, this movie made years earlier but probably written by a screenplay writer that drank the same biotoxic coffee or something like that...Whoa...AVOID AT ALL COSTS even to pay tribute to the late great Andy Kaufman is hard to do here...find another film or just watch taxi reruns on latenight tv...his latka gravas character is so much more loveable...TANK YOU BERRY MUCH","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first thing that struck me about this movie was the terrible acting. The whole cast was so uniformly inept at delivering their lines that I started laughing at the awful dialog midway through the film. An even bigger issue with this movie is that at no point do we ever find out what motivates the actions of each character. The one somewhat redeeming aspect of the movie is Halfdan Hussey's innovative visual effects. However, as eye-catching as they may be, they do little to make up for the gaping flaws mentioned above. A dreadful script mixed with community theater level acting does not make for a pleasant viewing. I was honestly shocked at how bad this movie was.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some Plot Spoilers Ahead.

The Nashville Network's so-called rebirth as \"The First Network for Men\" is a complete disappointment, as was its block of adult cartoons. The new Ren and Stimpy was just plain awful, \"Gary the Rat\" mediocre at best, and \"Stripperella\" pretty unwatchable. This cartoon is mostly boring; if \"Ren and Stimpy\" suffered from gross-out overkill, \"Stripperella\" lacked any decent shock gags, funny witless gags, clever gags, or gags, period. The concept is bad to begin with: Pamela Anderson, a stripper-cum-superheroine, saves \"The City\" from an assortment of goofy supervillains. This cartoon seems like an homage to superior wacky superhero spoofs, like \"Darkwing Duck\" and \"The Tick,\" but without those cartoons' wit and good writing---or even good storyboarding. \"Agent 0069\" tries to vacillate between being goofy and sexy, but she is neither, and this cartoon's failure to make her one or the other brings this series down.

Watch your taped episodes of \"The Tick,\" and see what a real superhero spoof cartoon is like.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After watching this movie on tv, I looked it up in the IMDB and imagine to my surprise a user rating of 7.6! This is not a good film. Especially bad is the editing; the poor way the story jumps from one point to another was amateurish and a huge distraction. It's not very fluently done. I do agree that the acting was fairly decent, especially Kelly Kapowski, and that the story was intriguing enough.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alien Express is one of the worst movies I've bothered to experience.

The plot is predictable. The aliens look like rubber sock puppets. The effects would have been mediocre in the 70's, but are just atrocious by today's standards. Couldn't they take a shot of a real train instead of using an obvious model?

The acting isn't great but, really, the dialogue is the worst part. It gouges its way into your mind. \"Don't you die on me. Not now.\" If you ever manage to suspend disbelief long enough to be absorbed into the movie, you'll rapidly be jolted painfully back to reality by the aliens, the model train, or the clich\u00e9d dialogue.

The only reason I didn't give this movie a \"1\" is that it doesn't deserve to be rated so badly that some poor suckers might watch it for the pleasure inherent in a truly bad film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Eh-heh eh-heh hey, dude - look at these aliens. They're like - biting the humans and stuff! Eh-heh eh-heh eh-heh\"

This must rank amongst the worst movies of all time. It's utter drivel for anyone with a modicum of a brain. Sure, you have the reviewers on the payroll who give glowing reviews and vote highly for this abomination but it's easy to tell who these sell-outs are. Their reviews are TOO good. To give a movie like this even a mediocre review claiming it had some B-movie remedial appeal would be a glowing review! Calling this a great movie tips the hands of the corporate shills.

But enough of that.

This movie had about all the bad characteristics a movie can have without being SO bad that it's enjoyable just to laugh at. The old Japanese 60's monster films had a quality that this movie lacked. At least in those 60's films you could laugh at just how bad the rubber monster suit looked. Or laugh at seeing the strings holding the space ships, how the models dangled on the strings and how the flames curved UPWARDS out of the back. Those movies made fun of how BAD they were. Alien Express (aka Dead Rail) seems to actually think of itself as a GOOD movie - which makes it incredibly absurd.

The effects were awful by today's standards. Beyond awful. However not quite as bad as the 60's monster movies hence they lacked the comedic appeal. The plot and dialogue were about as sophomoric as I've ever seen, made even worse by being every bit as predictable as you might expect. I won't even point out the plot and logic holes in this one; it just wouldn't be fair to this pitiable plot (plus it would take to long to even get started). Most of the acting was awful; Lou Diamond Phillips must have been very desperate to agree to touch this one.

SciFi Channel is rapidly becoming the \"cheap thrills channel\", producing movie after movie without an iota of concept or intelligence in the lot. I can only wonder - why bother?

Don't bother with this tripe. It doesn't get any worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a truly awful film. Lou Diamond Phillips simply calls this one in. The use of miniature models of the train are laughable. The plot seems to develop on the run (there is an alien on board; oh, and an eco-terrorist is on board too; oh, and the conductor is dead and the train is out of control; oh, and the train is going to run into another train one hour ahead; oh, and that train has nuclear waste on it...). I mean, come on really! The alien monsters are not scary (although there are a lot of them), and the acting is abysmal. Check out the guy playing the \"next President\" - do you really think he could be President? For goodness sake, he has spent his whole acting career playing bad guys!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know it sounds crazy but yes, I am a huge fan of House Party 1 and 2 (and proud of it!!). I hated part 3, and then here comes part 4. I was like are you kidding me with this? Kid 'n Play are nowhere to be found in this movie, and that would've been okay, had they not foolishly entitled the movie House Party 4, as if it was in any way, shape, form, or fashion related to its predecessors. Every time this movie comes on late at night on USA, I shoot my TV with a rifle. Quite frankly, it really is just that atrocious. *hurling*

As the only remaining fan of Kid 'n Play that will actually admit to being a fan (tee hee hee), I was appalled. Remember that stupid little boy group Immature? They snuck their way into House Party 3. Okay, fine and well but how can part 4 be just about them and nothing else and it also seems like they're not even the same kids from part 3. *confused!!!!* House Party fans: do yourself a favor and stick to House Party 1 and 2 and Class Act. Beyond that, everything else is ridiculous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(Spoilers Ahead!) This same exact plot from this movie has been done before. It has been done in Ferris Bueller's Day Off! Marques \"Bat Man\" Houston plays sick. His gullible parents believe him. His sister knows that he's faking, but she still must go to school! She is mad. He has a party with his friends while his parents are away. By the time his parents get home, he is sick again and his parents never found out about the party. I like Immature better when they were in House Party 3 and still immature!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've never saw the first three, but I know they're all better than this...trash. It's about some kid who throws a party. Wow. Sounds amazing(sarcasm). Is it? NOOO! It starts off with a kid laying in bed and he's getting woke up by his mom. So, the kid pretends to be sick so he doesn't have to go to school. He goes to his uncle's house and rounds up some people and throws a party. I didn't laugh at all while watching this trash. I can't imagine someone sitting down and writing down this dialogue thinking \"Man, dis !@#$ is gunna be big, yo!\" Makes me wonder if they even had a script for this movie. I watched this knowing it would be bad, but usually watching a bad movie makes me feel good because it gives me something to make fun of. This just disgusted me. TWO THUMBS DOWN!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw House Party 1-3 and I loved them but this one wasn't funny at all.First it can't be a House Party movie without Kid n'Play right? This one sucks and it was more like a black version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off than a House Party movie.Second who the heck is John-John?These new character's can't even compare to the ones from the other three movies.Now i know why they put it straight to video.It has horrible music, weak plot, untalented actors,and no hilarious jokes at all.My advice,watch this movie at night only if you can't get to sleep.They should have ended the series after House Party 3 since Kid'n'Play separated after that one.I hate this one am glad my local video store doesn't have this film and never want to buy it or want to see it on Comedy Central either.Just because Chris Strokes has talent managing an up-and-coming R&B group doesn't mean he has talent directing and producing films am I right or what? Finally, the female characters were all dressed up like cheap two-dollar hookers throughout most of the flick.IMX separated a year after this flick got released probably due to the failure of this film and are all but forgotten nowadays. In simplier terms this movie just plain old sucks!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I too am a House Party Fan...House Party I is my favorite movie of all times. House Party 4 is a disgrace to all of the HP's and to Kid n Play...This was supposed to be part of a series really..there was nothing about kid n play in this movie or any of the other veterans..yea kid n play was probably too old to be throwing a House Party movie b\/c its kind of focused on teens..but kid n play could have at least made a cameo appearance ... you can tell how good it was b\/c it didn't even make it to the movie theaters. Immature was in House Party 3 so it made sense for them to carry on the legacy...but they should have represented right...they should have left it at House Party 3. I am 27 years old and I have been watching House Party I since I was 11 when it came out in 1990(16 years ago) and I have been a fan ever since. When I first seen House Party 4 I was like what are they really thinking about...There was nothing familiar about this movie that would compare to the previous 3 movies.. I thought it was a black Ferris Bueller days off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watching this movie, you just have to ask: What were they thinking? There are so many noticeably bad parts of this movie, you might get the feel that its intentionally poor, as some sort of joke.

I think the worst part about the film is the directing. There are so many bad uses of camera angles and other cinematic elements in this movie that are laughably bad. The funniest example of this would be in the beginning where the party guests are receiving their invitations by email - The same camera angle is used for each shot (which last an awkward 2 seconds a piece) and the same computer screen with the same desktop\/window\/program etc appear. It even looks like the thing is shot on the same set each time. The whole sequence was also completely silent, with no music, or sound effects. Overall, it was a poor way to convey the idea that an email was being sent all over town.

If you listen closely, you may notice that the music sounds very similar to other movie sound tracks. This is no surprise- most songs, including the one that opens the movie, are in fact slight alterations of scores from other movies (See if you can guess which ones). Also, I noticed that the music is not played by a real orchestra. It sounds like its been written and played through a low end midi keyboard. If you are familiar with the LucasArts SCUM adventure games, the timbre of each instrument sounds like something from the IMUSE engine.

Everything else about the movie just plain sucks. The acting is terrible. The script is derivative (Ferris Beuller?). There is no joke in the movie remotely funny, unless you see the whole film as one big joke, being played on a paying audience. Don't rent this. Don't even watch it when it's rerun on comedy central. Just forget this - it's terrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not sure why the producers needed to trade on the name of a somewhat successful movie franchise because the title suggests that it is a sequel to the first three movies..which it is not. Even though Marques Houston did appear in \"HP3\", he played a totally different character (he was, eight years older) in this film. Okay...so Reid and Martin weren't the most talented and couldn't carry a film all by themselves..but to trade on the HP franchise seems to me that there could have made some sort of reference (albeit minor) to the earlier movies. I'm sure everyone who wanted to see it was \"hoodwinked\"--into thinking that they were seeing a sequel--not a totally different film with a familiar name. And I'm sorry...Kym Whitley is not funny, and could not hold a candle to the late Robin Harris, Ketty Lester, or DC Curry in the earlier films. Although Meagen Good and Mari Morrow are a substantial visual diversion...I have to give this a THUMBS DOWN!! Just naming the film \"Down to the Last Minute\" would have been OK. Furthermore, the Hudlin brothers (who produced the first three movies) were not involved in the making of this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen a lot of bad movies in my life. Date Movie. That was bad. But this...this is just...it's not good. House Party 4 is the worst movie ever. It's as simple as that. It's basically Ferris Bueller with black people in it. Oh, and it's not funny. It's awful. So awful. Chris Stokes may be a superstar on BET, but he's an idiot. He can't write a comedy. Or a horror movie. I like to refer to him as a blacker, lesser-known Uwe Boll. Except Uwe Boll's films are funny awful, if you know what I mean. You can invite some buddies over, pop in Alone In The Dark, and have a great time laughing and eating snacks with your buddies. Chris Stokes is like that, except if you invite friends over to watch House Party 4 with you, no one will be laughing. Not even the biased token black guy or the illiterate jock. I'm serious, I didn't laugh once throughout this whole movie. The acting is terrible, and the movie looks like a bad indie film. What was the budget for this movie? 5 damn dollars? I mean, what the hell? This movie just sucks; don't waste your time with this crap. It's disgusting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In all honesty, I haven't seen this film for many years, but the few times I have tend to make parts of it stick in my memory, as anyone who has seen it will understand. I first saw it as a child at a YMCA Halloween party in the early Sixties, and it scared the hell out of us kids, in a fun way. I remember feeling genuine anxiety about the unknown thing lurking in the maze. I can't risk giving away the ending, except to say that it was surprising, to say the least. I remember vaguely the entire audience of young boys letting out a big scared holler, followed by laughter when the terrible secret was revealed. The ending has been seen by most viewers as one of the greatest unintentionally funny climaxes to a movie in film history, and yet oddly moving, in a way. You have to see it for yourself, which is not easy these days. I don't know if it's available on home video or not, but it would still make a great Halloween feature for both kids and adults.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow. Not because of the 3-D imagery, which at times was used nicely to provide good deep imagery, but what a lame ending! The end of the movie just seems to implode on itself. This film has got to be one of the goofiest movie monsters ever and one of the most pathetic attempts to try to explain it. The misogyny of this film is painful as well. If you are looking for a bad 50s sci-fi film to laugh at (aka 'bot fodder), go for it. Otherwise, look for better films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like all different types of movies, so this is not a bash on romantic movies from a guy who only likes The Matrix etc etc.

I just felt it was a lousy movie. I don't feel that there was enough buildup of the characters to fall in love. They were there for a few days and while dealing with a severe hurricane and major issues in each of their lives, Richard Gere and Diane Lane fall hopelessly and helplessly in love?? It isn't realistic. This movie didn't make me buy into it and feel it emotionally and that is something that you look for in a good plot. Some emotional connection. If someone can relate to them falling in love that quickly, without any true substance , than so be it. You are neither right or wrong. Different strokes for different folks.

Another very unbelievable component to the movie was Diane Lane's very rude teenage daughter becoming nice and sympathetic at the end of the movie. Does a teenage girl who is that miserable and aggravated at her mother for not getting back with her cheating husband going to just have a switch turn on and be nice? This movie, in a nutshell, had some big names, but to me, was a major disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me get this straight:

\"Hotshot plastic surgeon loses a patient on the operating table while removing a cyst from her face and ends up falling in love with recently separated bed and breakfast hostess within about 24 hours of meeting her due to her solid advice on bedside manner.\"

Wow. Move over \"The Notebook\", there's a new kid in town.

Where to begin. Well, how about the depth of this \"relationship\"? I think we can safely sum up the foundation of this undying love in the following steps:

1. Exchange polite pleasantries over a bite of salad. 2. Drink copious amounts of Jack Daniels; play basketball with old food 3. Provide glib, unsolicited advice to each other on your crappy lives. 4. Make love during a hurricane. 5. Devote your lives to each other via airmail.

I noticed George C Wolfe has \"The Hairball\" and \"United Kanye West Project\" in his dossier. Would \"stick to your genre\" be too harsh? Enough said. I think most would agree that the best love stories make us cry, or laugh or even hope. But the reason they are able to do that is that, somewhere during the storyline, we really start to care about the characters we're watching on screen. To make us care, there must be time spent developing these characters...their lives, their history, why we're watching them now. Wolfe didn't seem to want to \"waste our time\" with such trivialities, and instead provided us with all of about 8 minutes of background information on each character before hurling us into an intense one-on-one interaction between two ACTORS we've all come to adore, but two CHARACTERS we could care less about.

For one brief tender moment when Richard Gere exclaims that he doesn't expect her to listen to his problems, and she invites him for dinner, the viewer sees a glimmer - a beginning - of something special between these two characters. But instead of being allowed to enjoy the anticipation and playfulness of \"what happens next\" in the wonderful, unpredictable joy that is courtship, we are instead pushed headlong into a love affair between two people we hardly know.

Let's face it. We have all heard cheesy one liners in Romantic films. But the reason we cut some slack to Bogart in \"Casablanca\" or Nicholson in \"Something's Gotta Give\" is because our hearts and minds have been lifted to the heavens and dragged through the mud and back again with these characters, and by the time they deliver the line, we're so deeply involved with their plight, we don't even notice the cheese factor. Since Wolfe doesn't allow us to love or even like our protagonists, all we're left with a fromage sandwich and a few snickers in the audience.

Wolfe takes the old Hollywood director's phrase \"cut to the chase\" much too literally here. As each stilted one liner is delivered by our cast, the viewer is left wondering if director Wolfe is subliminally saying to the audience: \"c'mon. it's a Richard Gere romance. just buy in.\"

It is as a result of this stunning lack of character - or relationship - development that the film's climax fails miserably to tug at our hearts. When Gere's character dies, I felt like I was watching the news about someone I didn't know passing away. Or watching a ladies' eights rowing race during the beijing olympics. Just. Didn't. Care.

Epic. Fail.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you read the book before seeing the movie you may be disappointed like I was. The book was great and I was sure after seeing the movie preview that the movie would be great as well, however I felt like I was watching a movie where the director and cast did not even read what these characters where like. The movie is short and they do not really ever make us feel that these people were truly in love and felt like sole mates. Even if the movie did not go in the same direction as the book at least they could of made the romance between these two characters feel more intense. I think both Diane Lane and Richard Gere were perfect for these two characters and they have good chemistry however they just did not develop a long enough storyline for us to see how they longed for each other. The book was true love story and I think this movie could of been a lot better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My husband brought this home from the video store, so I could watch something while stuck home sick. The sort of sick where you could never concentrate on a book, but a sorta silly, light, romantic flick sounds just right (that, and a bowl of chicken soup). Well, he meant well.

My first thought (as some others post here also) was that the house MUST be fake...it's not only isolated alone on the beach, but set on moorings into the loose sand, and so close to the ocean that the surf waves go directly under the house! This looks so obviously dangerous (in hurricane country, in THE FALL), so potentially disastrous that I was sure filmmakers had simply CGI'd the whole thing (or used movie magic to plunk a cute B&B into the surf).

But I have to tell you guys, thanks to \"teh interwebs\", I can say that the house, \"Serendipity\" is very real, is indeed near Rodanthe and except for some window dressing and shrubs, appears mostly as it does in the film. You can rent it yourself, off season, for $1710 a week (or about $3850 in summer)! Go for it! But...interestingly, the house has severe problems. The second thing that struck me after \"would be washed away\" was \"what about the plumbing\/electrical? in that surf?\", and sure enough, \"Serendipity\" was condemned for a break in the sanitation, caused by overwash from the ocean. (They are rebuilding.)

And the house isn't from the \"Civil War\". Not to mention that Viola Davis, playing \"clich\u00e9 black best friend\" (thankless role for a fine actress, last seen in \"Doubt\"), is not remotely old enough that her GRANDMOTHER could have built anything in the Civil War! HELLO! that was 150 years ago! Try great-great-GREAT! (In reality, \"Serendipity\" was built in 1988, laughably recently.)

The basic film is built on a typical Nicholas Sparks weeper, which means a lot of coincidence and trite predictable happenstance. It is also aimed in a very pandering way towards \"women\" -- you know, us women who love B&Bs, fusty antiques and knick-knacks...who dream of romance and guys who look like Richard Gere and dancing in the moonlight. Don't give us plot, or thoughtful character development; just set up some mechanisms and bring on the love scenes!

Gere plays a plastic surgeon, who lost a female patient during a routine surgery for a benign cyst on her cheek. Of course, she died of an overdose of ANESTHESIA, so you wonder right away why the surgeon is guilted up and not the anesthesiologist! HELLO! where is that guy? Why is the wrong doctor feeling guilty?

Gere has come to pout and confront the woman's husband, and is staying at the remote B&B...who should be there, why the ONLY OTHER PERSON IN THE INN...Diane Lane! She's a lonely divorc\u00e9e, with rotten kids, and an ex-hubby who wants her back. While she's trying to decide about that, the clich\u00e9 best black friend has her subbing as hostess at the B&B.

Now, in the real world, if this set up ever even happened, the doctor would look like Ernest Borgnine...and the lonely divorc\u00e9e, like Rosie O'Donnell. He'd spend his vacation horndogging 22 year old girls on the beach, while she sulked and thought about going on a diet. But this isn't the real world; I digress.

The couple confess all, fall in love, a hurricane hits...they make love, fall in love, he has to go away, he dies and she cries a lot about that. The end.

There, I've saved you from it; now you don't have to torture yourself or any male acquaintances (husbands, sons, boyfriends) from sitting through this tripe. Very wearying.

Someone else asked why Diane Lane, a perfect tiny woman (whom filmmakers seem to love to cast, because she's just pretty and thin enough that most women would like to look like her, but she's 45ish and not over-the-top, so she isn't threatening) is constantly covered in big tarp-like shawls. This would make sense if she was chubby, but she isn't.

Anyways, someone throw a pretty, paisley shawl over this film. So we don't have to watch it. Conclusion: read a book, unless you are too sick. If too sick, go to sleep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Richard Gere and Diane Lane star in a chick flick romance with the sort of ending I get really angry about...lets just say its not my cup of tea, just like the dime store romances are not my cup of tea.

The plot has a doctor stopping at an inn and meeting a woman that he has a deep but brief affair with. He goes off to meet his estranged son and she goes back to her life.

Well acted and well made the filmmakers forgot to get a real plot line. This is the stuff of dime store romances that makes the women swoon and the men shake their head in disbelief. I wouldn't be so adverse to the film as a mindless romance, except that the film takes a turn in the final reel that is so out of left field as to be completely unbelievable. Why must certain types of movies do stupid things like this? It really ruined it for me.

If you like romance give it a shot, though wait for cable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Frankly, after Cotton club and Unfaithful, it was kind of embarrassing to watch Lane and Gere in this film, because it is BAD. The acting was bad, the dialogs were extremely shallow and insincere. It was well shot, but, then again, it is a big budget movie. It was too predictable, even for a chick flick. I even knew from the beginning that he was going to die in the end, the only thing I didn't know was how. Too politically correct. Very disappointing. The only thing really worth watching was the scenery and the house, because it is beautiful. But, if you want that, watch National geographic. I love Lane, but I've never seen her in a movie this lousy. As far as Gere goes, he's a good actor, but he had movies like this, so I'm not surprised. An hour and a half I wish I could bring back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here in Australia Nights in Rodanthe is being promoted in the same class as the Notebook. Quite frankly what a lot of rot.

This film is a like a recipe. On paper we have all the right ingredients... Richard Gere normally perfect in this genre, Diane Lane an old favourite from \"Under Tuscan Sun\" and \"Unfaithful\", ocean side location, solitude and yet the movie sucks. At the session we went to yesterday afternoon a women next to my wife fell asleep and half way through the movie got up and left! The main problem is there is no build up or credibility to the relationship in the first place. And perhaps there are too many long faces and downbeat if you like histories that Gere and Lane's characters bring to the movie. There's hours of those balanced out with perhaps 5 minutes of what we can to see... romance! There's no warmth from Gere's character, Lane looks dreadful at the start of the movie and all washed out. So as the viewer we cannot really connect to the characters.

Others here say the book is great. Well be it the screenplay, direction or production someone here has made a real mess of this movie. It's like the scenes and the buildup are a deck of cards except instead of being in the correct order they've just been thrown together all over the place.

Very disappointing... save your money for when it hits the video shops and even then wait for a good deal when it goes to the weekly rate.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the more unromantic movies I have ever seen.

Casting: Richard Gere is just too old looking for romantic lead roles anymore. Diane looks a bit eager to please and frowning as usual but she seems unconvinced by the romance herself. Supporting cast not too memorable.

Story: The medical drama he has to deal with is unconvincing and is not interesting. The story is weak - not enough happens to make a movie about. There is nothing new to say or no new way to say it here.

The setting is a little bleak and the house it is set in is unattractive.

NOT destined to be a great one to remember.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While I am not a woman, I can enjoy a chick flick if its good. This one however is beyond bad. You have the by the book story, girl is getting divorced, boy with issues shows up. BOOM magic happens and his demons are banished as she realizes her life has a new purpose.

Now while I can believe that kind of thing might happen, I am not an idiot. It wouldn't happen over a weekend of geriatric rumpy-pumpy, it would take time. Yet here the producers know they only have 1 hour and 30 minutes so they force the changes of the two to happen, I suppose a night of getting hammered and a night of gramps and granny going at it like dogs in heat might be enough if you believed romance novels were the gospel... but most people don't.

Now, if that isn't enough... the producers remembered that a chick flick needs to make the viewer cry... well they tried to make you cry with the two senior citizens getting jiggy with it by failed... so how could they hit you again? Why I know, lets kill off one of the characters for no good reason at all except that a random death will surely bring a tear to the eye.... and now lets have the teen daughter magically bond with heart broken mom for no reason besides the fact that it would be nice (completely unreal, but who cares).

So there you have it... girl find boy, boy find love, death finds boy and mom cries.... what a movie - NOT.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lonely, disconnected, middle-class housewife in the midst of a divorce seeks solace to reflect on her immediate future. At some sort of bed and breakfast by (well, literally in the sea) the ocean that for some sort of odd reason she subs for the owner. Enter lonely, arrogant Richard Gere. He is a plastic surgeon. He is the only guest at the inn in the sea. Diane Lane is the lonely housewife. You'll never guess these two fall immediately in love. A tropical storm makes them true lovers.

The subplots in this melodrama make little or no sense. The locations, photography are fine. Gere remains one of the most over-rated actors in cinema and does not disappoint. Ms. Lane must've needed the money, but phones in her part with grace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had high hopes for this film, even though I had not read the book. Richard Gere and Diane Lane together--should be good already. But the film does not deliver on the promise. I kept waiting for more depth to the characters and there wasn't. I have no problem with the fact that it only took a weekend for them to fall in love. That can happen. But we never really get to know the characters. I would have liked more focus on them. The film reminded me in places of Bridges of Madison County, and that film was far better. I really felt for the characters in that film, and there was a chemistry (much more passion) between Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep that there wasn't between Gere and Lane. Each of them are very good actors in his or her own right. Simply not the right movie for them together.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not quite a bomb? The only thing missing was the enriched uranium. Actually the script \"may\" have worked if the lead roles had been cast with younger actors, but the dramatics of an aging Diane Lane acting as if she was a teenager (or even a twenty-something) was too much to stomach. Every time she (Adrienne) would jump into the arms of Richard Gere and then pull both heels up behind her, you could almost see the grimace of pain on his face as he was probably thinking, \"Oh, my aching back...this babe sure doesn't weight 125 lbs. anymore!\" Anyway, both characters were distinctly unlikeable, especially Richard Gere's: a self absorbed plastic surgeon (Dr. Paul Flanner) that was on some kind of \"soul quest\" after a botched operation left him with a dead patient (an older woman from a small farm). Then there was her angry husband and son he had to deal with to explain what happened. Dr. Flanner is on his way to meet said angry husband (at the husband's request) when he meets up with Adrienne. She is recently split from her unfaithful husband (shock) and is helping out a friend by watching her beach-front cottage rental. Of course, that's where Dr. Flanner ends up staying and they both end up falling MADLY in love (especially after she finds out he is a rich doctor AND a plastic surgeon). In between romantic interludes and a nauseating song\/dance routine that Lane (Adrienne) performs while listening to an old LP (no CD's?), they both try to figure how their lives got so totally screwed up. Dr. Flanner was also not much of a father and has a son (who is also a Dr.) who resents him for not being there for him while he was growing up. (Naturally Dr. Flanner was more interested in his medical career at the time rather than raising an impetuous, distracting boy.) To make a long (predictable) story short, Adrienne helps Dr. Flanner face his inner demons as well as confront said angry husband and son of the woman who died on his operating table (after going in for a \"routine\" cyst removal of the face). Dr. Flanner is FINALLY able to tell the husband (played excruciatingly sympathetic by Scott Glenn) that he is sorry for what happened - even though it was all the fault of that danged anesthesiologist. \"I told him she was too old for that much juice!\" Glenn's character,(Robert Torrelson) appears to accept Dr. Flanner's apology. It's hard to tell because his emotional response is so passive by this time that you wonder if if he is even hearing the good Dr. at all or thinking about some acreage that he needs to plow. Ever more circumspect, Dr. Flanner then decides he needs to visit his son (who is now practicing medicine pro-bono in a third world country) to mend their relationship. Unfortunately, that means he must temporarily bid adieu to Adrienne. Of course, while entertaining the natives in Timbuktu, he writes a love letter every hour on the hour to Adrienne (who nearly swoons like a school girl every time she gets one) and tells her that the hardest thing he ever had to do was to tell her goodbye. Evidently, apologizing to Robert Torrelson for his wife's death was the second hardest thing. In the end he gets killed in a freak mud slide (poetic justice as in mud pack?) and she is left with just the memories of what could have been...hopefully no more Gere\/Lane sequels!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*Warning: 1 tiny inconsequential spoiler* You're right. This was no Bridges of Madison County. As soon as the lonely woman and Richard Gere checked into the big empty hotel, it was a foregone conclusion something kind of fun would happen. The question is: how will it come about? The answer is some stupid connect-the-dots story not worth sitting through. In one supposed bonding experience, they get drunk and clean out the cupboard of old cans.(That was my spoiler.) And the next day they put them back. LOL It wasn't compelling AT ALL. I'm an old married lady like the one in the movie and MY friendships are more interesting than HER romance with Richard Gere. LOL . . . It did have that advantage. You walk away and go, oh brother . . . even I could have written something more believable than that. I guess my life isn't quite as dull as I thought it was if I can scoff at a romance with Richard Gere. LOL! And that friend inherited that totally contemporary, probably computer-generated mansion, resting half in the ocean, from her GRANDMOTHER who built it AFTER THE CIVIL WAR??? Maybe her grandmother is Oprah and this was WAY after the Civil War? And yes, WHERE WAS THE EMAIL? What alternative universe do these people live in? I never want to see another movie that pretends we don't have email, and facebook,and texting. And OK, maybe these people have a horrible aversion to delivering news over the phone, but don't ask me to believe anyone in this age of instant communication that someone just drops into your life without calling first.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We thought this was one of the worst movies ever. I had to volunteer to watch the end. The romance was not believable; the characters were not developed; the love affair made hardly any sense; it was miscast; and scenery was absolutely stupid because it was either (my opinion) like the ADAMS FAMILY GOES ON VACATION...just creepy, gypsy and cheesy; and the OUTERBANKS does not look typically like those houses on the surf; and who would spend the night in one during a hurricane if it was not theirs. Also..it was not realistic. hurrricanes give you plenty of notice to batten down the hatches.

Also the friend was superfluous; and did not match the story What did the civil war have to do with the outerbanks anyway? I also have to mention the wardrobe...did D. Lane have to have a scarf\/pashmina\/shawl on in every scene? It was overdone. She looked good enough to not have to hide things; without making them obvious like with light slacks.

Lastly I am concerned with the impact on our landfills when everyone has to dispose of this stupid, and I mean STUPID movie!!!! Don't fall for the hype on this one!!!!!! We did. Not even watchable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is the final straw. As two dedicated fans of the romantic comedy, this movie has finally made us realise that nothing good has come out of this genre since Love Actually. There was nothing good about the film whatsoever. It was an affront to love, death and everything in between. Including horses and beaches. There was absolutely no chemistry between the characters. This movie took the spark out of Nicholas Sparks. Diane Lane cannot act to save her life. She was unconvincing in her laugh, cry, and dance. And she needs a better haircut. There is no reason to watch this movie. Save yourself. The romantic comedy is officially dead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Every great romantic comedy needs conflict between the romantic leads to lend suspense, anticipation and allure to the plot. This story falls completely flat in this area. There is no conflict - at least none that would inhibit the eventual joining of the two lead characters, and so suspense is flat, there is no anticipation, and there really is no allure at all.

The chemistry between Richard Gere and Diane Lane is representative of friendship at best, and with the talent of these two particular actors, I was quite surprised. During the movie, I expected them more to play a game of checkers and chat about the weather than see any moving passion.

While I'm a fan of both actors, I do believe that the casting in this movie was off - or, perhaps the direction was off-base and it impacted their deliveries. The writing was very weak, which also might have impacted the performances; most certainly, the script could have used some help from some Harlequin writers who have real experience putting the heat in romance.

This movie may be worth watching on a rainy Sunday afternoon, but only after it's on the cheap shelf.

(Sorry Diane Ladd and Richard Gere).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is probably the most uninvolving film I've ever seen. I watched it because I have a soft spot for Leon (everything else Besson has done has been just awful, in my opinion, with the exception of the script for Wasabi) and Jean Reno. It's a testament to just how bad this film is that Reno, one of the most charismatic and effortlessly affable actors (admittedly he's just starting out here) can't make this film, or the moments in which he is on screen, watchable.

It's all very film-schooly: black and white, no dialogue, people doing things for no apparent reason, people chasing each other while in turn being chased by a shaky camera. And, predictably, none of it is entertaining.

It's not a \"French Mad Max\" as some people have claimed (actually, I think they mean \"Mad Max 2\") - that is a superficial comparison based only on the fact that both films have a post-apocalyptic setting, and is just the kind of comment you'd expect from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Mad Max 2 was pulsating, Mad Max 2 was exciting, Mad Max 2 was worth your time - Le Dernier Combat is none of these.

I know it's supposed to be cool to like arty black-and-white French films and equally cool to say you saw something in them that other people did not (or you managed to sit through it without feeling drowsy), which is why I wouldn't trust anyone who claims to like Le Dernier Combat, because I see nothing of worth in it whatsoever; it asks for so much and gives nothing back. I found myself drifting from it after about five minutes and it never did anything to regain my full attention. Anyone who can sit through it undistracted isn't human, or, at the very most, is psychotic. (Actually, they're probably just trying to seem \"cool\").","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lame B-horror that takes itself too damn seriously considering its subject matter concerns an aging old dear who has been turned into a creature of the night by a lodger who has come to rent a room from her. When said lodger is killed off, Mom has to go out to feed on her own and that causes some family strain and also garners some attention from the authorities.

My main complaint is that this film should have brought THE FUNNY. It failed to do so although it did have some mild gore and schlocky creature makeup effects to keep the B-movie crowd happy. I've seen worse but I wouldn't give this one a rec--4.5\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mom begins at night in the middle of nowhere, at what looks like a wooden building in the desert. A pick-up truck pulls up & an angry Father chucks his slutty daughter Virginia Monroe (Claudia Christian) out & leaves her there, but she isn't alone as the shadowy figure of Nestor Duvalier (Brion James) watches her from a short distance. Virginia tries to make conversation but as she grinds a cigarette out under her Leopard print, thigh high, high heeled boots Nestor grabs her by her throat & drags her off into the darkness. Nestor then rips her top open, turns into a monster & starts to eat her innards. Virginia is the latest victim of a serial killer that have Lieutenant Carlo Hendrix (Art Evans) & the LAPD baffled, or at least that's the message a local TV news reporter named Clay Dwyer (Mark Thomas MIller) is telling his viewers. Clay is happily living with his pregnant girlfriend Alice (Mary Beth McDonough) & therefore his Mother Emily (Jeanne Bates) has a spare room going which she decides to rent out to the 'blind' dark sunglass wearing Nestor. Unfortunately for Emily she accidentally knocks Nestor's sunglasses off which reveal he has strange coloured eyes, Nestor then turns into a monster again & bites Emily turning her into a flesh-eating monster just like himself. Nestor takes Emily out to train her, they find a suitable homeless bum (Rory VanSaint), murder him & eat his guts but Emily's son Clay has witnessed the whole thing & he must choose between doing what is right & his love for his Mother who now just happens to be a grotesque bloodsucking & flesh-eating monster!

Edited, written & directed by Patrick Rand I thought Mom was a pretty awful film. Looking at some of the other comments on the IMDb & the genre listing it has been given it appears many seem to think that Mom is a comedy horror. Well I can tell you now that I didn't see any comedic elements in Mom at all because there aren't any, unless they are very subtle. The only thing that I can assume is that people see comedy in the actual situation which Mom presents, that being an old lady turning into a flesh-eating monster & the predictable problems & emotional angst that it causes to her son who finds out. There are no jokes (apart from naming a prostitute Beverly Hills (Stella Stevens)), slapstick humour or anything even remotely funny in the film itself & as far as I could see it is played totally straight throughout it's 90 minute run time. So with there being no comedy in Mom that must mean there's lots of horror right? Wrong, Mom sucks & is painfully slow to watch especially after the first thirty odd minutes which consist of Nestor turning into a monster a couple of times, biting Emily, showing her how to hunt for food & Clay finding out. Until this point Mom was moving at a fairly decent pace, had some OK special make-up effects & had me interested, unfortunately Mom runs for another hour which is basically the emotional crap suffered by Emily's Son, the eventual breakdown of his marriage & him being torn between love for his Mother & the fact that she's a flesh-eating monster. This part of the film is incredibly slow, boring & as dull as dishwater even having the nerve to resort to a clich\u00e9d role-reversal scenario where Clay tells his Mom to go to her room & stay there locking the door behind her, telling her off & putting bars over her window so she can't escape her room. Mom's script totally ignores the monsters origins & ask's us to just accept that this thing exists without giving a single reason why we should, no matter how silly an explanation might have been I think some background to the monster would have helped. Technically Mom is bland & cheap looking, although I can't say it's badly made it's very average stuff all the way with nothing that particularly impresses or anything with which I could make fun of to pass the time. The special make-up effect's on the monster are OK but their used in very quick flashes, blink & you'll miss them. Don't be fooled by any fancy video box artwork like I was, the monster is only in it three times maximum & all of those are within the pacey first thirty minutes. There isn't much gore either, a severed arm, some brief intestine eating, a burnt body & a drill in someone's arm is all we get. The acting is OK but please Mr. Brion James what is that dodgy accent all about!? At least James had the good sense to know he was in crap & sensibly opted to be killed off early on in the proceedings, everyone else are nobodies expect the black Lieutenant who was also a black police officer in Fright Night (1985) but you may recognise him from Die Hard 2 (1990), he made Mom & Die Hard 2 in the same year?! Talk about opposite ends of the spectrum! Overall there is nothing by which I can really recommend Mom as a horror film & it certainly isn't a comedy as far as I'm concerned. Very poor, very disappointing & yet again I've been conned by fancy video-box artwork with lots of stills of cool looking monsters. Definitely one to avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has to be one of the most boring and stupid movies that Perrugorria have done.

It looks like a commercial from beginning to end. The \u00a8director\u00a8spent the whole time on a tripod, it doesn't have pace, rhythm. It's illogical. what a mess. You can tell what's gonna happen since the first 15 minutes, and the ending...Wow

------spoiler-------

Jesus Christ, how the hell Perrugorria got shot? Are you serious? Worst scene of someone getting shot ever!

------end of spoiler-----

Bad directing, bad script, bad acting...Really bad overall. I wouldn't recommend this movie at all. It's a waste of money and time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have just seen Caribe a couple of nights ago at the annual Vistas Film Festival held here in Dallas, and I must express my discontent. The opening caption tries to tell us that the film is a portrayal of the current invasion of South American countries (Costa Rica, in this particular case) by North American oil companies, and the negative effects, both economic and environmental, of this invasion. The main characters are a married couple who live a simple, pleasant life maintaining a banana farm. Right away, a woman arrives and announces that she is the wife's half-sister. I'm not going to go into specifics about this (and to be honest, I don't feel that I'm spoiling anything with this review), yet another key point is that the company to whom they distribute their bananas drops them due to budget demands in a poor economy. So, the main conflict that is supposed to be addressed in the movie is of the husband between the rock and the hard place, trying to preserve his livelihood. On one hand, the Reynolds oil company has basically offered him employment and financial compensation (basically a bribe) to use his public influence to encourage the town to allow the company to begin drilling in their town (compromising his standing with the community and the community itself). On the other hand, he is faced with being dead broke, but on the side of his community, protesting the drilling. Given the length of this film, it would have been ample time to explore the issues just described, but it just doesn't happen, and I'll tell you why. You will notice that this film has won a couple of awards so far, one for direction and an audience award. I'm not going to pick apart Esteban's direction, it wasn't bad or good enough for me to be all that passionate about writing anything. The audience award was at a film festival in Spain, and for it to gain an audience award, I'd have to imagine that Spanish people just dig soap operas. In fact, Central and South America dig soap operas as well, I know that much. I assume that Esteban was either aiming to take advantage of this or that he himself digs soap operas, because that is what unfolds over the course of this film, so much to the point that it kicks the whole oil company plot to the side, almost as if they imagined halfway through the making of this film that it had become tiresome, because it seems like at least three of the supporting characters have had their back story and character development severely compromised to make room for more sex and crying scenes. The only true villain in the movie is one of these three characters, and at no point do you actually get to find out who the hell he is. It's almost as if they cut his screen time just short of taking him out of the film entirely. From time to time, they toy with the oil against community plot, but these are digressions at best. What we see a lot more of are scenes of passion, jealousy, betrayal, adultery, etc. These themes saturate the story to such a degree that the oil company 'sub'plot becomes unnecessary. It's almost as if this was a stunt to legitimize a romantic drama (soap opera) by throwing in a little political relevance. Nevertheless, the film gets so caught up in the romance that it ultimately doesn't know what to do with itself, resulting in an ending so tacked on that you're left wondering what it is that you've been waiting around for, or if there was ever anything to begin with. Here are two things that I think could have saved this movie: either cut out the half-sister or cut out the oil company. It's obvious which one of the two they were more interested in. Or, perhaps if Caribe had been an hour longer, they could have worked this all out. Regardless, I'd have been fine with a straight-up soap opera and I think that the subject of oil companies exploiting foreign nations is in dire need of addressing by the film community. Caribe is both and neither. These two angles could have worked together had they been balanced accordingly, but with a romantic plot running around in circles and taking up almost twice as much time as necessary at the expense of an oil plot that's barely been established to begin with, both sides suffer. Best of all, the romance plot is never even resolved. I'd like to say I'd watch this movie again to see what I've missed, but I have a strong feeling that I already know what it is. As far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't matter if I saw Caribe ten more times. I've missed it because it is simply not there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was produced by the biggest producer in Costa Rica. Although their authors brag about it as a the biggest movie in Costa Rica ever made and their actors even dare to say that they didn't get an Oscar Nomination due to it's political relevance with oil (-he he, right) ...Well, this is all a lie. This movie was supposedly based on a book written by Carlos Salazar Herrera about a love triangle (super clich\u00e9 soap opera-like subject) and it secondary story is about an oil problem on the Atlantic Coast of Costa Rica with an American oil company who wanted to explore oil deposits on the region, but at the end it never was approved by the government. Now, it may have some nice footage about the beaches, but that's it; nothing bigger than that... it is all in the camera. Most of the actors are lousy, except for two or three. The rest lack of sense of what acting means: they overact most of the time. The story is completely common and clich\u00e9, worthy of a cheap Mexican soap opera as I said.. because the crew advertised it as a protest movie about oil, but 80% of the movie is based on a stupid love triangle. The script is nothing impressing, it is very simple and the dialogs are not very thought. It has also got some editing problem on a couple of scene changes... but besides that is pretty decent. The director did an alright job, I mean, he is not like an Oliver Stone,but he did his job with the resources he had handy. I would like to question him why instead of using Costarican actor he spent most of the money on foreign ones.. I mean after all they bragged about being an 100% Costarican Production... that's what you at least expect. Final the end is is not well done, there are flaws and details that don't match or are useless. Besides being the most elaborated movie in all Costarican history, I think it's mediocre. You can make way more interesting and better pictures with less cash. Never heard of \"Pi\"? Anyway, if you are curious about Costa Rican or Central American movies, this one will do, but you are definitively not missing anything.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I happened to catch this movie on late night TV. I saw the opening credits and thought this looks good. Well I was very wrong. While not excruciatingly bad (it had some funny and tender moments)it lacked any sense of cohesion.

It started off well enough with Kathy Bates'character having a midlife crisis of sorts when her husband leaves her and her singing idol is murdered. But Kathy has played these disaffected women so well before - think Fried Green Tomatoes. The problem wasn't Kathy, it was the clueless screenplay that wandered all over the place. It was as if the writers must have been thinking what will we do next. The script also felt very contrived.

Some others who have posted comments on this movie have wondered why it didn't receive a cinematic release. The main reason I think would have been to avoid embarrassment and the critics would have murdered it.

Having said all that I thought the small woman who played Maudie was fantastic and stole the movie, not to mention how beautiful she is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Opening with some blatantly reused footage from 'Kit for Cat', 'Tweety's S.O.S' fails to live up to that classic cartoon. Instead, we get an example of Friz Freleng's Tweety and Sylvester series at its most generic. Unlike Chuck Jones's Road Runner series, which strived to introduce new jokes to the same setting, Freleng's series seemed happy enough to recycle jokes as long as the characters were in a different place. 'Tweety's S.O.S', then, basically amounts to \"this time let's put 'em on a boat\". It's not an entirely weak cartoon. There are a few good jokes, mostly involving Granny's glasses, but they are outweighed by gags you can see coming a mile off (the seasickness routine) and it all builds to another of those endings where someone else other than Tweety says \"I tawt I taw a putty tat\", a joke that worked well once but has diminishing returns. 'Tweety's S.O.S' will probably please children who enjoy virtually any cartoon but for big kids like me who are looking for more than the same tired gags it's definitely one to avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sylvester the cat stowaway upon a ship that Tweety bird happens to be on with his owner Granny. Oh I don't even have enough words to convey how much I disdain both the Tweety and Granny characters. They simply are not funny to me and made this short quite the chore to sit through indeed. Sylvester is a great character on his own, but there's only so much he can do when confronted by the sheer awfulness of that accursed bid and senile old witch of a Granny. This animated short can be found on disc 4 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1 and features an optional commentary by Micheal Barrier.

My Grade: D+","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nothing special to see here, the animation has being outdated and the plot is a typical futuristic era. This film has an original story, but if it doesn't have an original plot or characters, so in my opinion it's not worth seeing. I'm not saying that the movie was bad, it was just a typical anime story and I thought I watched this movie like a thousand times. So if you are looking for something original see another thing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had the misfortune of seeing this crapulous effort on television a few years ago. Suffice it to say Michael Gross phones in his performance, and Hasselhoff is the least convincing thief\/psycho...EVER! If you have a couple of hours to kill, watch it and prepare to laugh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Duke\" is a film based in the heart of the British aristocracy where an old Duke (John Neville) dies and to avoid his large property and the vast riches to be taken from him after death by 2 devious aristocrats (Oliver Muirhead and Sophie Heyman); he passes his Dukeship down to his dog. The dog's \"best friend\", an American girl named Charlotte (played by Courtnee Draper) whose parents die becomes orphaned by the former Duke due to him being her great uncle. A young chef named Florian arrives, with him and Charlotte instantly connecting creating a romantic sub-plot which in its own way, acts as the under tone for the main plot line being the activities of Hubert, The 'Duke' and his many activities and love interests with other dogs. All this is watched over by James Doohan who plays a Butler who is determined to try and serve his old Duke by doing his best to serve his new master, Hubert. Doohan acts as the older character there to comfort and advise the younger ones whilst he over looks and performs various ridiculous tasks under his new master. A fine comedic performance mixed with elements of drama to end the career of a fine and influential actor.

Though from the technical viewpoint, I dislike this film as I only watched upon discovering James Doohan's role. Though the plot is good, elements of the writing and directing have to be obscured. Ignoring the absurdity of a \"Doggie Duke\", I personally dislike the over use of comedic and outrageous jokes upon the 'bad' characters due to their ludicrousness. The dependence on hygiene related humour as you like is much too apparent and general silliness of many characters doesn't appeal to me. The director, Phillip Spink uses mid-long shots too often with either an overdubbed voice or affecting the overall sound quality. Plus, the acting of Muirhead and Heyman, whilst good at the dramatic and romantic sequences, fall drastically short fulfilling the wholesale requirements regarding the role.

But, as a mature movie fan, I find it easy to be over critical of a simple family film designed to make you laugh. I can admit I found certain bits funny and other bits touching along with a plot that may be far-fetched, but has definite connections. I do not recommend this film to mature movie fans but I do highly recommend it to Dog lovers, families who wish to enjoy a funny film for their child and James Doohan fans who wish to see 'Scotty' in his final role.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even those of us who like cute animal pictures --- and I abhor them ---would be hard pressed to find any merit in this abysmally bad travesty of a film. Perhaps inspired by \"101 Dalmatians\" with its smart and loyal dogs, its dumb and devious humans and its absurdly \"happy\" and predictable ending, the alternate title \"101 Turkeys\" springs to mind. That would just about cover everyone involved in its unfortunate production. I dismissed it as some inane Hollywood perversion of British customs before learning, to my horror, that it actually is a Canadian film, done in Victoria BC, that phony British theme park of a town, while sucking tax dollars out of Ottawa ON, that equally phony pit of Canadian mediocrity. Let me count the ways it is bad. The dizzy plot? The asinine script? The dismal performances and sophomoric direction? The cloyingly clever animals? The endless clich\u00e9s and predictable slapstick? On second thought, neither I nor those browsing the IMDb have time for a complete catalogue of its failings. Yet were I to detail its merits, this space would remain blank. Trust me, it is bad; a signal monument in the vast pantheon of truly terrible (Canadian) cinema. If you have seen it already, my condolences. If you have not, stay away from it as you would SARS or bubonic plague. Or other movies with cute animals. Don't even let your children see it lest their tiny minds be warped by the even tinier minds of those who financed, fabricated and filmed this frightful folly. Perhaps tonight, when I retire, I will have a nightmare with ghastly fanged beasts springing from the bed table as I flee in frantic flight. I hope so. It will be a far far better thing I do than watch this beastly banal boondoggle. But then, I might dream that I had to watch it a second time and the sheer terror and cold sweat of that makes me want to stay up all night, trembling at the very possibility of seeing it again even as a bad dream. I might even find something worthwhile to watch in its stead. Maybe \"Godzilla\" or \"Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes\" Perhaps the instruction video for my built in vacuum cleaner.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, now I am pretty sure that my summary got your attention and my commenting that Zazu Pitts is Satan is not without some basis. Let me explain. The film at first appears to be a dandy B-movie about an evil organization called \"the Crooked Circle\" and their vow of revenge in the form of murder on a rival organization dedicated to solving crimes. While this is very odd (especially the idea of a club of private citizens who solve crimes) and COULD have been interesting, this film falls apart despite a rather impressive list of familiar supporting actors. Why? Well because Zazu Pitts (never one of my favorite actresses) spends most of the movie whining just like Olive Oyl with a bad toothache!! While murders are being committed, people are being kidnapped or whatever, you can always count on Zazu whining at full volume--almost like someone's obnoxious 3 year-old who wants everyone at a party to pay attention to her! At the same time, she's NOT an integral part of the film but received top billing. Why she is even there is beyond me--I assume it's just to whine and yell. As a result, I found the movie practically unwatchable and it was completely ruined. Now you probably know why I referred to this actress of dubious talent as \"Satan\"! I'm sure that when the actors in this film saw the final product, they, too, felt pretty much the same way I did about her horrible overacting and amateurish performance.

This film is in the public domain and can be found for free download on the internet. I can see why.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Spike Milligan was one of the funniest men I've ever seen, and a huge influence on my life.

This movie is limp and awful, and does his memory no credit. The script is cluttered and preserves too many lines from the book intact (the leg jokes here are incomprehensible). The actors' performances are uniformly ineffective, a great cast wasted, and the lead, Sean Hughes, delivers Milligan's belligerent hostilities in a plaintive whine, which misses the point completely.

The gentle pacing is a killer as well. Farce should accelerate towards the end. The Goon Shows often did, the novel \"Puckoon\" definitely did, but this film, if anything, slows down just when you want the various elements to smash together in a final climax.

Milligan narrated an abridged audio recording of \"Puckoon\" in 1980, with T.P. McKenna, Dermot Kelly, Norma Ronald and Jack Hobbs. Now, that's funny. Ten minutes of that is funnier than this whole film. I believe the LP was transferred to CD, but don't know if it's still in print.

There is a movie of \"Adolf Hitler: My Part in his Downfall\" with Jim Dale and Arthur Lowe. It too is a godawful mess, but it's funnier than this thing.

It's possible that Milligan's spirit is too rambunctious for the screen. The other reviewers here are indulging in politeness and wishful thinking. This film fumbles virtually every opportunity and never misses a chance to disappoint.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"technically, this movie would have had it all: decent actors, a nice landscape, no obvious sights of a lack of budget, a celebrity like richard attenborough. the plot summary also sounded promising, suggesting a satire on silly bureaucracy and common people outwitting it.

however, it never delivers. the plot is simply too illogical. throughout the whole movie, not one person does a single sensible thing. mad politicians, ridiculous soldiers, brain-dead villagers - all just hustle from one incredible situation to the next. what they all do never makes sense in a context beyond the current scene.

of course, this kind of movie has to be absurd and exaggerated. however, it's also supposed to have at least one instance to point out the madness behind splitting a city in the middle. actually, there are (at least) two attempts, which unfortunately fail: the main character, who doesn't seem to have a clue about what's happening to him, and the \"writer\", who occasionally cracks jokes from the off that might be considered funny by an audience consisting solely of 12 year olds.

what i found most impressing is that the movie tries to be funny all the time, but didn't made me laugh once. i've seen several bad \"funny\" movies, but until yet every single one of them featured at least 2 or 3 good laughs. so in this sense, \"puckoon\" is really remarkable.

if you want to see a great movie with a comparable plot, check out \"brazil\". don't waste your time on \"puckoon\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first looked at the back of the cover of this film, it seemed like me and my friends could be looking forward to 82 memorable minutes. And it certainly was memorable. Puckoon was the kind of movie where you keep asking yourself how this was possible. How it was possible that it was released on DVD at all. Out of all of the movies available at the video rental store that night...we might just have picked the worst. And yes, they had Tomb Raider. Absolutely nothing in this movie amused me even slightly. Who came up with the idea that it would be funny if the narrator could change the story by suggestions from the main character? Out of all the stupid things you can totally ruin a movie with, this is now my favourite. The character Foggerty, the village idiot, played by Nickolas Grace is the most annoying character since they started making movies in color. If there is one single movie that you definately not should see this year, please let it be Puckoon, cause I don't think it can be any worse. I still wonder if this just might have been the worst way I have spent my money, and take my word for that I have made many lousy purchases over the years.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a mish mash of a film that started out going nowhere, got lost on the way then suddenly found a plot in the last 5 minutes when the title character is FINALLY introduced. There were so many ugly, mutton-chopped guys in this film, I lost track of who was the owner and who were the overseers. I have a theory about the casting though; all the bad guys were played by ugly actors (and one ugly actress) and all the good guys\/victims were played by beautiful actors. Indeed the actors who played the ultimate victims, the slaves, were gorgeous as was the innocent priest's daughter, while the plantation owner, his minipulative mistress and his overseers were pretty hard on the eyes. On purpose? You make the call.

I hung in there till the end and some others might be able to make it as well. If you just want to look at bare breasts, there are plenty of them here and if you have a slave\/master fetish then you'll love this film. Otherwise, watch it once, vomit, shower and never speak of it to anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Italians are undeniable masters in the questionable \"art\" of ripping off and imitating movies. What they do is take an innovative, money-making and foreign concept, maintain the basic plot and just add a whole lot of action, sleaze and political incorrectness. But what to do when the non-Italian original is already a reputedly notorious film and quite difficult to surpass in terms of slop and controversy? Well then, I guess, you simply disregard everything in terms of story-building or stylishness and fully focus on making something that is practically a porno movie! This Italian turkey was inspired by Richard Fleischer's successful slavery-saga \"Mandingo\", released one year earlier, but since the makers were even too lazy to think up a different title, you shouldn't expect anything that even remotely resembles a narrative depth, character drawings, unsettling atmosphere or thought-provoking statements regarding cross cultural relationships. \"MandingA\" is pure and simply a sexploitation effort where the plot only develops itself throughout the last ten minutes, in other words when you stopped caring a long time ago already. The characters in this film are a gathering of despicable bastards, which is of course to expect when you're dealing with wealthy and obnoxious white folks running a plantation in South America. The elderly and supremely sleazy owner of the place is a widower (who probably also won a couple of \"Moustache-of-the-Year\" awards) who exploits and extendedly whips the slaves working for him. His mistress, who if I understood correctly is also his cousin (?), is a genuine bitch of a woman who enjoys provoking arguments and sneaks out of the house overnight to copulate with crucified slaves. When the plantation owner's son returns from Europe, after approximately 25 minutes of purely wasted running time, the plot slightly begin to develop itself at last. The handsome young man has sex with the bitchy woman a couple of times (even in front of the slaves, supposedly to \"demonstrate\" how their masters do it\u0085) but eventually he falls in love with the cherubic preacher's daughter. His romantic preference obviously makes the bitchy woman mad with anger, and she plots a horribly cruel act of vengeance that will alter life on the plantation forever. Hey \u0085 I just realized this brief description of the plot actually makes \"Mandinga\" sound like an interesting film! Well, it's NOT and I apologize if I raised anyone's anticipations. It's an incredibly boring and hideous film to struggle through, but if the themes appeal to you, then definitely check out the aforementioned \"Mandingo\". Much rather than sick exploitation, that film is a truly insightful portrait of one of mankind darkest history pages and it was also a properly produced film, with real actors, great music and impressive filming locations. \"Mandinga\" has nothing, absolutely nothing to offer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Trading on the success of the 1975 hit, this film is a cheaply made story of a plantation where Massa gets down with the slave women, and the Missus gets down with the big black stud, and with massa'a son also. In fact, there is so much getting down going on, that I really don't know why anyone bothered to get dressed.

So, if you want to see white women rolling their naked bodies all over tied up slaves, or you just like a movie with tits on display every five minutes, then this one is for you.

There is a funny\/sad story in here, but it only comes at the very end so as to not interfere with all the hot sweaty sex going on on the plantation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Italian rip off of Mandingo and The Drum is a badly dubbed Italian life on the plantation yarn. Lots of people who don't look like they belong in the American South wear badly tailored costumes and wander around locations that look nothing like the American south. The plot has something about the romance between a rich man and a certain young woman, the jealousy that ensues and the tragedy that follows. The film promises hot steamy sex and lots of twisted violence but nothing ever really comes of any of it, its all tease. Its all probably racially insensitive, I couldn't notice since its artistically bankrupt. The final twist is at best laughable. A major turkey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1st watched 3\/17\/2002 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Mario Pinzauti): Silly, sex-filled master & slave having too many intimate relations movie. This movie seemed to care more about the sex than the story and kind of worked the story around the sex. Laughable dubbing of the original Italian language in the version I watched with ridiculous ending where the attempt is made to give an anti-slave statement(or should I say one line). What a waste of time for everyone who watches this trash.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I actually was looking forward to this movie. After reading a number of reviews before the release, it sounded like a genuinely nice film, one that was beautifully filmed and one with an interesting cast (Nicholas Cage, Penelope Cruz and John Hurt.)

Well, it might have been all of those things BUT it is so boring that I defy almost anyone to sit through this in its entirety and keep attention. Also, Cage's attempt at speaking with an Italian accent is embarrassingly bad. He's such a good actor that I cringed every time he spoke in this film.

'Disappointing\" seems to be the most-often word used by reviewers here to describe this film, and I totally agree.

I guess it didn't take long for word to get out about how bad this movie was because, like Cage's accent, it did not do well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I give it a 2, because of the beautiful Mediterranean Greece, otherwise it would be 1. When Nicholas Cage came into with his first lines, I thought he was just kidding. Cage as an Italian ?? I'm sorry, but very wrong actor who's acting is also BAD, not to mention his Italiano accent. The story is very loose, it might have been good, but with other actors and obviously with other screenplay. The camera is great, photography also but why the hell did you cast Nicholas Cage and Penelope Cruz for the role. Please don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against Cage, he has some really great movies, but he obviously isn't for every role. It's really a pity that the cast wasn't better set, because the story has potential.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In 4 words, Captain Corelli's Mandolin was \"completely out of tune\" with the book. The novel provided sufficient character background to understand the relationships and personal challenges the characters needed to overcome; the script writer chose to ignore the details. In ignoring them (e.g. the priest's role initially as a buffoon, but later as a spiritual leader, the fiancee's inability to read until taught by a socialist rebel, the bomb experts advice to Corelli and his eventual ironic demise), the story and characters fall flat.

This was the first movie that I've ever walked out of midway through. Interesting cinematography, great actors do not MAKE a film; the story does.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An awful travesty of the Greek resistance. Senorita Cruz badly miscast as a Cephalonian Greek girl (there are plenty of attractive good English \u0096speaking Greek actresses so why pick a Spanish lady for one of the leading roles and with an English actor as her father, supposedly a Greek doctor!? Many of the supporting cast are well known actors and actresses from Greek theatre and TV series. The only foreign actor, to my knowledge, who has successfully portrayed a Greek was Anthony Quinn (as the Macedonian lignite miner Zorba in Zorba the Greek, as the plutocratic shipowner in the Greek Tycoon,and as a Greek colonel in the Guns of Navarone.

There is some historical truth reflected in the film. People who remember the Italian occupation of the Ionian Islands agree that the Italians were not harsh, unlike the Germans who succeeded them. Also Mussolini's forces, as hinted in the movie, had been defeated by the Greek army in the Albanian campaign. After the Germans intervened in the Balkans they allowed the Italian military to occupy certain parts of Greece, so the refusal of the local government to surrender to Italian forces, rather than to the Germans. as portrayed in the film is quite plausible, although I am not certain this actually happened.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is supposed to be based on Wilkie Collins' _The_Woman_In_White_, but the only resemblance it bore to that story were the characters' names, the time period, and the settings. If they were going to change the story so thoroughly, I don't understand why they needed to keep up the pretense that it came from Wilkie Collins. Go read the book. It's much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having first read the novel, I don't mind,for the purposes of filming, how differently it is scripted, as long as it adheres to, or at least includes, the plot. For reasons known only to Hollywood, important parts of the story are completely ignored, and a different story line added. The reason this novel passed the test of time, is, no doubt, due to the interweaving of both the characters, and plot, as a whole. To interfere with this structure, is to destroy the intricate balance of the story line, and therefore the intension of the story teller. Although a matter of opinion, the casting of this film leaves a lot to be desired. Characters, described as very fat, should, at least, be made to look portly, to allow for the character to have credibility. The days of slavery can't be over, or surely, actors of this calibre would have been in revolt, at such a travesty of the story. The face of Marian Halcolme is described as being manly in appearance,... Tara Fitzgerald's very feminine appearance doesn't ring true. Again Laura Fairly is described as being 'fair', if not 'ethereal', so, with dark hair, she does not quite fit the impression gleaned from the novel. ....Badly done, Hollywood!

J. Hunter","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, so one night me and some friends decided to get really stoned and watch a movie. Unfortunately for us, we chose 'Ernest Goes to Africa.' I have never laughed so hard in my entire life. This movie is beyond bad. I have literally pooped out better films than 'Ernest Goes to Africa.' (I poop films)

The highlight of this movie, for me at least, was the opening sequence, when Ernest is making silly faces. When they showed him with a head the size of a peanut, I lost it. Perhaps I found this so funny because at that point I was the most high. Perhaps you are right.

If I had to guess what George W. Bush's favorite movie is, I would guess 'Ernest Goes to Africa.' Never before have I seen a movie rely more on 1950's stereotypes of people of color. There were times when words escaped me and I just stared in awe.

As I was watching this, I couldn't help but wonder, is this movie meant for children? Do literate adults actually watch this? How could there possibly be a whole franchise of 'Ernest' movies? Is this really my life? Is this real?

I hated this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I honestly don't know where to begin when reviewing a movie as pathetic as Ernest Goes to Africa. Aside from two or three good laughs dispersed throughout the film, there is nothing positive about this hour-and-a-half waste of time and life. It is incredible that someone was able to round up a group of people willing to act, film, and edit this piece of trash, and even more incredible that this is the eighth installment in the Ernest series.

During the opening credits of the movie, we see Ernest posing next to various African objects, such as wooden masks and the heads of African animals, making faces and gestures that would probably make most 3rd graders laugh. This opening scene gives the viewer a taste of Ernest's frequent attempts at humor, and demonstrates how his comedy falls flat 95% of the time.

The first thing that really hit me about this movie is how bad the acting is. Everyone in the film is a typical C-movie actor, but Linda Kash stands out as especially terrible. She is the epitome of overacting; all of her lines are delivered with shockingly inhuman enthusiasm that you'd find only in a middle school play. Most high school theater students probably could have replaced these actors and delivered a more powerful performance. Jim Varney at least displays some comedic ability every now and then, but for the majority of the movie he just acts like a complete retard, trying to be humorous by making stupid faces and speaking in different voices.

Ernest Goes to Africa begins in Africa, where an archaeologist has stolen two priceless gems from an African tribe. The gems then make their way back to the United States, where an unidentified man is seen running from several henchmen through a flea market. He hides them in a bucket of \"two for a dollar\" items, and then runs from the scene. Ernest is looking for a gift to buy for Rene, a waitress he likes, so he goes to the flea market and of course buys the priceless gems. He later takes them back to his house, paints them, and glues them together to make a yo-yo. He gives the yo-yo to Rene and she explains that they can never be together because he is just an average shmoe, and she wants a man of adventure. Rene and Ernest are tracked down by the henchmen, and are then brought to Africa to be kept as prisoners.

Most of the movie really doesn't make sense. Once Ernest is in Africa, he falls out of the truck that they are carrying him in and lands in a river. In the next scene, we see him as a Hindu servant named \"Hey You.\" His skin is dark and he is wearing a loin cloth. At first, I thought Jim Varney was playing another role in the film in addition to Ernest, but I immediately recognized Ernest's idiocy once Hey You began to speak.

Another scene that sticks out in my mind as being completely ridiculous is the car chase scene in the African wilderness. Rene and Ernest have taken an ostrich farmer's truck and are being chased by the henchmen. Driving at about twenty miles per hour on a fairly straight road, both henchmen are shooting at Ernest, who is in the back of the ostrich farmer's truck. Ernest, on the other hand, is throwing ostrich eggs at the henchmen and their driver. The henchmen never hit Ernest once during the five minute chase, but Ernest is able to fend them off by hitting them and their driver in the face, making their car swerve off the road and explode in a giant column of smoke. I should also add that Ernest is slingshotting the eggs, two at a time, from a large bra.

The set design is also incredibly poor in this movie. There is a large portion of the film in which Rene and Ernest are walking in Africa, trying to find civilization. During their hike, we see them walking through fields and jungles, which probably could have been shot anywhere in the United States. The fields are simply plain grassy fields, with no indication whatsoever of being anywhere near Africa (they could have at least digitally added some African trees in the background), and the jungles look like the woods of rural Connecticut with papier m\u00e2ch\u00e8 skulls, vines, and thorns hanging from trees. According to IMDb.com, the film was actually shot in South Africa, but I still wouldn't believe that at all.

The movie goes on and on, Ernest joke after Ernest joke. The rest of the movie doesn't really make any sense either; the African tribesmen all speak English for some reason, and Ernest is later challenged to a \"Battle of Truth\" by the lead henchman, who is suddenly dressed in an outfit that resembles that of a ninja, yet also somewhat resembles that of a bondage submissive. The henchman has a table of axes, swords, knives, and maces before him, while Ernest has a table with a sandwich, a teddy bear, and a few other worthless items. However, Ernest wins the battle and somehow ends up saving the day.

Overall, this movie is painful to watch. I couldn't handle it in one sitting; I had to stop halfway through and do something productive for a few hours to compensate for the brain cells lost while trying to appreciate Varney's humor. They should really put a Surgeon's General Warning on the box to let people know that they will in fact be slightly more retarded upon finishing this movie. I would have to say that out of all the movies I have ever seen, none comes close to being as pitiable as Ernest Goes to Africa.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's considerable amount of money behind this production, so the look of it is very good. It includes some interesting appearances by Gilbert Roland, Eddie Burns, and a brief cameo at the beginning by Christopher Lee. There are a few exciting gunfights, and a humorous bit or two - the satire on Django, the Man with No Name, and Sabata is amusing, especially when they are given the names of failed presidents of the Mexico revolution.

The trouble is, there isn't any purpose in satirizing the Spaghetti Western as is attempted here. The key element in the Spaghettis is IRONY, which easily blends into comedy; in fact the source of all Spaghetti's is Kurosawa's Yojimbo, which is universally recognized as one of the great black comedies of all time, and most Spaghettis easily slipped over the edge into real comedy of a very sophisticated variety. Perhaps the best evidence of this is found in the Trinity films, which are both openly Spaghettis and openly slap-stick comedy. So why bother satirizing a genre that - by its very nature - satirizes itself? Consequently, I found the whole enterprise essentially unconvincing. None of these characters were people I would ever care about, the story was generically clich\u00e9, and the production values only reflected the money involved, not the passion of the director. Over all, a banal and futile effort to cash in on the phenomenon it mocks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lately, I've been watching a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the present. There are some great low budget spaghetti westerns from the late 1960s and early 1970s. This movie had all the elements of a decent western: a good story with talented actors and everything else. Although, it's a spoof of this genre, and for me the way it was done just didn't work and made for a disappointing movie.

This movie can easily be divided into two parts.

The first part is great; it has a great opening scene and an interesting story develops of a bounty hunter (a.k.a. the stranger) going after a bandit who is going after a large bank shipment guarded, in part, by a banker. Over the course of the movie these three characters form shifting alliances in an attempt to get the money. There are subtle comic nods to the contrivances of earlier films from this genre, but the comedy doesn't disrupt the overall story.

The second half of the film is where the comedy goes over-the-top and essentially ruins the movie. The turning point is right at the part where the barmaid causally scolds the dwarf to stop shooting the customers as she goes about waiting on other patrons seemingly oblivious to the four dead bodies laying about the place. From this point onward the movie shifts from a decent spaghetti western with comic undertones to a stupid-silly spoof.

There are three horrible fist-fight scenes (one at the river, one in the market and one at the baths) that follow in rapid succession as if one wasn't bad enough. The fighting is so fake it's ridiculous, and since the sound is out-of-sync with the picture it makes it even worse. In the market fight scene the banker bounces about the place on hidden trampolines and twirls around on poles like he is in the circus; it's clownish. Although, the worst part of these fight scenes is the music; it's this light-hearted, sprightly mix more suited for a square dance or a cheesy episode of 'Hee-Haw'. These scenes practically derail the main story.

Overall, this movie was disappointing because it had a lot of potential as a decent western, but the comic turns just mucked it up. If you want to see a good western spoof then see 'Blazing Saddles'. If you want to see a good spaghetti western, then avoid this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film begins with a dandy gunfight, where three bandits are quickly gunned down by a bounty hunter--a bounty hunter who bears more than just a superficial to the Man With No Name from the Clint Eastwood trilogy (FISTFUL OF DOLLARS, FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE and THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY).

Immediately after, you see this man in a gold train filled with Union soldiers. Naturally, the shipment is attacked and the soldiers all fight like blind guys, so they are quickly neutralized. However, in a twist, one of the bandits cheats the gang leader (Gilbert Roland) and rides away with the gold. Soon, Roland catches up and is about to find out where the gold is hidden. But, just at that moment, the army turns up and kills the traitor....bummer. However, the Man With No Name wannabe thinks Roland knows about the treasure and perhaps a medallion given to Roland by the traitor holds the key. A strange banker, also is thrown into the mix. All three want the gold and all three seem pretty macho.

Overall, this is not a particularly distinguished Western. Much of it is the plot, some of it is that George Hilton (a Uruguayan despite the American sounding name) isn't as interesting as Eastwood or some of the other premier Spaghetti Western stars but most of it is because the soundtrack simply sucks. So often the music doesn't even come close to matching the acting and it seems almost randomly added. Plus, it just isn't very good stuff as well. This clearly isn't the work of Ennio Morricone--music master of the Spaghetti genre.

Overall, just a time passer--and not a particularly good one to boot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Undoubtedly, the least among the Spaghetti Westerns I've been watching lately: basically a low-brow rip-off of Leone's THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY (1966) with three disparate characters outwitting one another (and occasionally forming shaky alliances) in their search for hidden gold. Leonard Maltin rated it a BOMB; while it's harmless enough, it's also totally routine and, fatally, the three main roles are stereotypes, that is to say, uninteresting: Eddie Byrnes is a bank employee with ideas regarding his consignment being transported by train; Gilbert Roland is the \"legendary\" but ageing Mexican bandit (his frequent lapses into Spanish when excited are quite corny!) who, apparently, is still irresistible to women; George Hilton as an enigmatic bounty hunter tries too hard to emulate Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name figure. Director Castellari - whom I saw at the Italian B-movie retrospective held during the 2004 Venice Film Festival, where he came off as the most pompous of the cult movie directors present! - shows little genuine feeling for the Western (on the strength of two above-average Franco Nero efforts in the genre, I ordered his collaboration with Castellari KEOMA [1976]...I'm keeping my fingers crossed now!) and the film's tongue-in-cheek approach is equally lamentable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"ANY GUN CAN PLAY (2 outta 5 stars) Totally routine \"spaghetti western\" starring that guy who used to play \"Kookie\" on \"77 Sunset Strip\". The plot is some convoluted nonsense about some stolen gold coins and various gunmen of dubious motivation trying to track it down. This is one of those \"lighthearted\" westerns... which means lots of labored attempts at \"comedy\"... and some really atrocious music during most of the action sequences (you can tell this isn't Ennio Morricone's work). George Hilton plays a bounty hunter called \"Stranger\"... but he doesn't leave much of an impression... he just doesn't have the style of Clint Eastwood or Franco Nero, who are able to do a lot with a sparsely-written character. The ending is a complete homage\/parody of the ending of \"The Good, The Bad and the Ugly\"... though it's barely amusing enough to be considered a \"parody\". The highlight of the movie is the first 5 minutes... which features actors patterned after Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and someone else (Is he supposed to be Eli Wallach? Franco Nero? It's not very clear...) who are confronted by Stranger. It's an amusing in-joke for fans of Sergio Leone fans and spaghetti western aficionados... but I imagine no one else would see the point.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unlike the other spaghetti Westerns, this one has characters that almost make sense, and can be identified to some degree. It still has the goofy gunplay of other spaghettis Westerns. A spaghetti, by the way, is another word for a Western with no plot, no characters you can care about, and goofy gunplay that doesn't make a bit of sense for the era, and relying on great music to make audiences feel something. This one is more lighthearted, like the ones that Bud Spencer and Terence Hill made together. They, too, were superior to the junk made by Eastwood and others, which sado-masochists make their friends watch, if they get a chance. It looks like everyone had a lot of fun making the movie, too. It was good to see a giant actor like Gilbert Roland, who wasn't even mentioned on the movie rental box, yet who was clearly the biggest name. His character was very enjoyable. There is a three way standoff at the end, which is much superior to the one it spoofs (The Good the Bad and the Ugly), simply because the characters are at least a bit likable and a bit identifiable. Not a good movie, but has a bit of fun to it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a classic example of what happens when a sit com is on TV for far far too long. Everything gets tired and the jokes start getting repeated over and over again. OK, from the start, the first couple of series were quite good. You had an Entertainment Manager (Simon Cadel) being pursued by his deputy played by Ruth Madoc, a cleaning lady wanting to become a yellow coat, an alcoholic child-hating Punch and Judy man, a bent Jockey, and a stand up comedian. As said earlier, it started well but went on way too long. Once Simon Cadel left it went downhill fast, you were getting dire story lines, and a new entertainments manager who Ruth Madoc (again) threw herself at. When a comedy is all filmed in one place there is a limit to the number of jokes that can be cracked. Unfortunately this went on so long every joke was cracked 3 or 4 times over. If this comedy had been stopped after 2 series it would have gone down as an all time classic. As it is, it will be largely remembered for the dreadful last few series.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, yes I know I'm a Philistine, and I have no knowledge of, nor love for opera. I readily admit that I might feel differently about this film if I did. But I don't. So, for those of you like me, skip this one unless you want to look at the pretty (sometimes unclothed) girls. For what it's worth, I thought the first segment with Theresa Russell (who I didn't recognize) was the best of the lot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, let me say I wasted Halloween movie night by watching this garbage. Second, let me inform you that the current DVD available by Shriek Show is not uncut, so you gore hounds will be very upset. Third, that one scene is the highlight of the film and since it's been cut, well, you see where I'm going.

I know a lot of horror fans dig this movie. It is atmospheric, shot in the woods with some very nice scenery, waterfalls and such. But after the opening kill, which has a very brutal shot of a machete being jammed through a hunter's crotch, you get no real brutal kills after that. And, with a slasher movie, you sort of want that. At least, I do. The director and co. do nothing new with the killer in the woods idea, several of this type of movie were all made right around the same time in the very early eighties. The only thing this has going for it is that you don't hate the actors as much as you might in other films. They are sort of likable. The kids have a reason for being there: one of them owns a deed to some property on the mountain. But what is not explained is why his family has property there. There is no cabin or house, so why buy property in East Jesus, especially if you aren't a hunter or whatnot? Well, I'm sure some people do buy land for camping purposes, but that just seems unusual. Anyway, two squealing backwoods inbreds show up and start stalking the campers and picking them off one by one. And, as I said before, you get pretty much nothing in the way of decent deaths after the machete kill in the beginning. The ending has a sort of off the wall kill by Connie, but even that isn't enough to save this from being almost equal with the completely forgettable film, The Forest, which is mind-numbing.

If Shriek Show had been able to get a real uncut print, then this review might have been a little more forgiving, but this is the day and age of uncut\/unrated DVD releases of old obscure films for cine-hounds like me. When you slight us, you get the crud review. Sadly, the presence of the great fatherly George Kennedy is the only highlight of this movie to set it apart from the other garden variety trash that was churned out back in the day.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even before this film it is clear to see that Ali G has become the exact character he set out to parody. I am not a fan of Sacha Baron Cohen's character anyway but was curious to see how a man of so little talent was able to convince universal studios to fund a near 1 and a half hour feature film out of a 3 minute joke.

A paper-thin plot is just a torrent of penis and marijuana jokes and I must admit I did cringe when I saw such respected thespians as Charles Dance and Michael Gambon stoop so low for employment. Saying that I must admit (even if I am quite ashamed to) that I did raise a titter on more than one occasion, and however bad this film was it was never boring, and never once did I consider switching it off (mainly due to the gorgeous Rhona Mitra). Saying that, only watch this film if you are a teenage lad aged between 14 to 17 and you find dick jokes hilarious.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I went to see this film, let's not say that I had high expectations. But merely that I had a faint hope that this full length feature would have at least some of the hilarity and wit of TV's \"Da Ali G Show\".

But as one might expect, this cannot translate from a half hour TV show to a 90 minute film. The movie had no appeal what so ever, and resorted entirely to toilet and juvenile sexual humour. Basicaly, I should have ditched it halfway through but was silly enough to think it might somehow improve by the end, how wrong I was. I loved the show but hated the movie. This movie is only for those who find fellatio by canines amusing...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS For about the last four years I've been a keen fan of Ali G. Sacha Baron Cohen is undoubtedly a very funny and intelligent guy and, in my view, his best creation is Borat who's as funny as Hell and quite shameless in what he does and says to people.

Anyway, to the movie. I didn't bother paying money to see this in the cinema; I suppose because I didn't expect a lot but when I hired the DVD recently, I found the whole thing pretty sad. The best part of Ali's taking the mickey out of others was largely missing and the script an plot was pretty damned awful; hooking all the car batteries together to blow a safe - REALLY!!??

This movie goes to show I think that some things can run for too long and definitely don't translate to the big screen. The movie also had that syrupy sweet ending that I've come to expect from British films. Where have all the good British movie making ideals gone to? That said, there were the odd very funny moments such as the dog in Ali's bed and Ali's audience with HM the Q with the \"Shaven haven - RESPECT\" remark.

So, in summary, I am an Ali G and Borat fan and I have enjoyed many of his interviews (notably the one with Anita Roddick of the Body Shop) but this movie fell really flat with me. If there's to be another movie, I hope it's a whole lot better than this lot of old tripe.

Weasel100

Canberra, Australia","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have absolutely no idea why I watched Ali G Indahouse except for the fact that Salon seemed to think a crime was committed by not nominating Sacha Baron Cohen for a Emmy for his work on Da Ali G Show. It is a sure bet that I will never watch that show as there was absolutely nothing funny about the movie. Comedy? Torture was more like it. It was just about the stupidest thing I every watched. I will admit that I was captivated by Rhona Mitra. I had not seen her in anything. She wasn't on The Practice during the time I was watching, so I guess I will have to check out Boston Legal one of these evenings to see how she does in something that may be worth watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ali G was funny at first. His interviews were fresh and original. The idea of a mock gangster wearing OTT clothes and using street wise lingo was appealing at first.

But this film is just a rehash of old jokes, the humour was mainly childish and revolved around the male sex organ for the most part. The film claimed good actors like Charles Dance, but their talents were wasted as they played silly 2-d characters. It is not 'terrible' but isn't really funny at all a second time. It could be said that the movie was Ali G's last bastion of comedy. After that he ran out of steam.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My god how bad this is. Who is this impostor pretending to be Ali G? Avoid this at all costs. It replaces the smart multi-layered satire and humour of his show with down and out toilet humour.

This was obviously an attempt to get him known in the States before he released his show there on HBO.

One commentator here pleads that we not judge the movie on the merits of the show due to the difference in the mediums. While it is true that the standard format of the show could never have been transferred to the big screen Mr Sacha Baron Cohen could have ensured the smart use of his comic style in a more conventional movie storyline. Instead we have this mess, which in all honesty has nothing at all to do with Ali G except for the packaging.

Terribly disappointing. Go seek out the DVD's of Innit, Aiiii, or Bling Bling for some real Ali G.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I compare two films with Sacha Cohen, Borat and Ali G then Ali G is immeasurably better. I'ts no master piece, but it's a film at least. Borat is complete garbage and I do not understand how it rated better then Ali G.

I cannot put my finger on it, there something wrong with the Ali G script: half of the jokes are as if written by a 15 years old, not by an adult scriptwriter. And a number of jokes including Mr Cohen's lower body are quite tasteless.

But the film actually comes together as a comedy and there are some valid jokes too that are funny: such as how Ali G becomes a member of government for doing something scandalous and stupid in the public (sadly true in today's western society: people get careers for doing stupid things in public), also Ali's advice about immigrant policy and some others.

Ali G overall remains a sympathetic character, even though a kind of mentally underdeveloped for his age. But it's OK to watch,it's quite funny.

But never ever watch Borat, it's awful and makes every intelligent movielover sick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bean, Kevin & Perry, UK TV creations that have made successful transitions onto the BIG screen. Now its Ali G's turn and I m afraid to say this is not one of them!

Ali has always been obscene but funny with it. This film was extremley sick and not funny at all. Scenes involving bestiality, gay sex and paedophilia should not be portrayed for entertainment's sake.

Ali G In Da House is rubbish and deserves making very little money.

1 out 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't tell me this film was funny or a little funny. It was a complete disaster, and one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Ali G is only funny on Channel 4's Ali G Show. After watching his performance, all i can say is He is not made for Movies. With a Daft script, or more like no storyline, there's nothing to keep you entertained. Full of annoying, unrealistic character's this movie is a complete garbage all the way. At the end of the film, Ali G gives a speech. He mentions, if you hated this film, tell people it was good. Not even the speech could save the movie, He probably knew its gonna be a stinker. I would of given this a 0\/10, but the minimum start is 1. Overall, Don't even waste your time on this rubbish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had already heard of Ali G in Madonna's music video \"Music\". I always think he's funny. (In fact, he really is.) Just last year I always thought of buying a VCD of \"Ali G Indahouse\". That's why some months later, I bought it cheap and I started watching it.

But the movie surprised me. My older brother and I were expecting it to be a great laugh-out comedy. It turns out that \"Indahouse\" is just a stupid piece of garbage. It was really really bad. It also contains explicit sexuality content and very crude humor. It also didn't made me laugh, even just a big smile. We definitely hate that movie. Oh by the way, I have plans to sell it.

Ali G was really different in his movie compared to his TV shows-- in such a negative way. Maybe he wasn't really well-focused and enough serious to make this flick. Just because there's some sex scenes in it doesn't mean it's freaking hilarious (because sometimes, too much isn't that laughable anymore). For the first time ever, I was disappointed at him. That really made me sad rather and happy.

I gave this movie 1 over 10. Actually, I really want to give it a 0 rating. It's one of the worst movies I've seen in my entire life. I wouldn't recommend to anyone who wanna watch good comedies that aren't too explicit or horrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like Ali G's show, I believe the guy has comedic instinct, but hasn't (yet) developed it to a talent.

The movie is a little worse than I was expecting. I don't find Ali-G offensive, just stupid. Jokes for 5-year olds, some good, some terrible.

If you want to watch a movie that seems \"offensive\", but is actually funny, see Tom Green's 'Freddy Got Fingered'.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"it really is terrible, from start to finish you'll sit and watch this ridiculous idiot, thinking hes cool when he's really not, rubbish plot line, terrible acting and complete waste of time and money, do NOT bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After seeing this piece of crap you will know why the limeys drive on the left side of the street...this movie is an absolute NO-BRAINER! The jokes (if this is the right word for it...) are mostly sub-standard (about 98%) and do miss any punch-line at all. Save the money and get drunk. You might enjoy this movie being totally wasted, perhaps!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I say this. If you want to see art, you go to an art gallery. If you want to see a movie, you go to a theater. Trying to intertwine art and film proves disastrous in \"Where the Heart Is\". An interesting cast is totally wasted in this embarrassment. You like Dabney Coleman, see \"Short Time\". You like Crispin Glover, see \"Bartleby\". You like Uma Thurman, see \"Kill Bill\". Above all, if you like Christopher Plummer, see \"The Silent Partner\", because his character here, is a terrible embarrassment. In fact this entire production is an embarrassment. Sure the human artwork is intriguing for a few minutes, so make a short, but do not subject an audience to pointless nonsense, masquerading as filmed entertainment. - MERK","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a Boorman fan, but this is arguably his least successful film. Comedy has never been his strong suit, and here his attempts at screwball farce are clumsily done. Still, it's almost worth seeing for Boorman's eye for talent: this is one of Uma Thurman's first starring roles, and as always she is ravishing to watch. (On a sad side note, Boorman wrote the script with his daughter, Telsche, who died a couple years ago.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hard to imagine what they were thinking of when they made this movie (i.e., the writers, directors, producers, actors, editors, etc.). Christopher Plummer, veteran of 129 movies, frolics along among scores of other actors with apparently no more motivation than to collect a paycheck. I guess there is nothing wrong with that, but once they are paid that doesn't mean anyone has to watch it.

It bugs me that there are actually good reviews for this movie here at imdb. Art? If you want to see art go to an art gallery, don't watch this movie. Comedy? Watch a re-run of the Flintstones, about the same plot with less time wasted.

Dabney Coleman gives his usual performance, for better or worse. And some of the young actors may have gotten some good experience from doing this movie. But Plummer???? It was embarrassing to watch his performance, in fact I was positively transfixed on him throughout the movie, knowing this was Plummer of Sound of Music fame! I see from his bio that he called Sound of Music \"sound of mucus\", so guess he didn't like it as much as the 100's of millions who liked him in it.

I wonder if today he was asked, how do you rate Sound of Music compared to Where the Heart Is, what would he say.....?

Probably something like \"Where the Money Is\"....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Jaded\" offers a premise with potential as it looks at the rape of a woman by two other women and ask the question \"when is rape not rape?\". Unfortunately the flick seems to suffer from bad direction as it slogs through legal minutia while trying to weave some kind of story with a handful of foul mouthed and poorly portrayed characters only to end abruptly. \"Jaded\" is lame stuff only for the bleary-eyed couch potato in the mood for some dark drama.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had this movie given to me, and have to admit, I am glad that I did not pay money for it.

The back of the box makes it seem like some kind of sex triangle, with 2 women trying to seduce her. But the reality in this movie is far from that.

In reality, the main subject is the victim of a vicious and sadistic rape by the two other characters. There was absolutely nothing in this that I found interesting at all.

Even movies like Silence Of The Lambs and Wild Things (which the box tries to compare this movie to) were riveting, because of the unexpected turns and suspense.

But Jaded has none of this. It concentrates on the rapeists and the sick relationship with the boyfriend of one of them. And the persuit of a videotape that may prove the victims story is true.

While it does show that same sex rape is possible, it is not a movie worth watching.

If at all possible, pass this movie up at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Outside Sweden you are not expected have seen this movie. Happy you. The cast includes several actors that are important part of modern the Swedish movie history. And still..

Seems like Peter Dalle only had a an idea lasting for about 20 minutes. Robert Gustafson is totally misused in this movie, trying to copy a younger G\u00f6sta Ekman. Ekman, by the way, is the only actor fulfilling the expectations.

Credit that can be given is for the photo, splendid idea using black and white. Music is OK.

But over-all it's a waste of god actors and the time of the audience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Set in 1945, Skenbart follows a failed Swedish book editor who decides to take a non-stop train to Berlin. Unfortunately for everyone around him, he's a walking disaster, causing mayhem everywhere he goes. The train also holds a man and his mistress scheming to murder the man's wife (who's also on the train), a soldier on his way home, two gay elderly gentlemen, an angry train conductor, two nuns, a bunch of refugees, and even more people.

Meant as a mix of noir-ish thriller (which it does quite well - at least to begin with), and comedy, the film fails with both. It doesn't sit right as the film changes tone with every new scene. And as the train races towards its final destination, the film turns more and more bizarre, ending on a truly surreal note.

The good bits are wasted in a myriad of pointless plots and characters. Skenbart is packed with famous Swedish actors, no matter how small the part is. It feels like the filmmakers rang everyone they've ever worked with and offered them a part in the film. Too bad that the performances are just as bad as the script (act your lines - don't read them!).

The comedy is more or less slapstick, with the same jokes repeated over and over. The pace is incredibly slow at times (quite often, actually) with on scene in particular dragging on for about ten minutes for no good reason. The screenwriter also seems to think that swearing is a good way to replace decent dialogue. The film looks great though, in moody B&W, but it's wasted on such inept film-making in every other department. [1\/10]","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I could give this movie a negative rating I would. The humor is the cruelest I have ever seen in a film. Horrible things happen to good people and people who have already suffered horribly through no fault of their own. There are 2 plots, neither of which supports half of a film. Where is the \"depth\" others see in this movie? That no good deed goes unpunished? That only the heartless can succeed? The film does start well and the black and white is very moody and well done. The acting is very good and convincing witch makes the cruel humor even more horrifying. If you think that the 3 Stooges are too nice to each other, if watching the beheading of a kidnap victim with a Bowie knife is a real thigh slapper, if you thought \"Schindler's List\" was hilarious, then this movie is for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't see this movie! It's... repulsive! The start is indeed very good, but in the middle everything falls and I really regret spending 80 crowns (about 11 dollars) on the ticket! Peter Dalle should consider this as his last chance to gain peoples interest. AWFUL picture! The only bright spot is the splendid work of Robert Gustavsson, Lena Nyman and G\u00f6sta Ekman.

Hope you take my advise... The picture is rubbish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a South African, living in South Africa again after a 32 year stay in the UK, I am sorry to say that this movie is a huge disappointment. The three main problems I had with the movie was a) why Swank and Ejiofor - an American and a Nigerian - to play the leads. This country is bursting with talent and has no need of imports... b) Gillian Slovo has been trading off her Struggle credentials for years now. She's a very mediocre writer and even her novel doesn't stand up the flaccid direction of Mr Hooper... and c) Hilary Swank again, such a great actor, as proved in Million Dollar Baby (but that's Eastwood too), here dressed in the contemporary New York style whilst roaming freely around the poverty of the Karoo. Where was the consideration and sensitivity needed by the costumer and director? Yes, the film is ultimately moving - how could it not be? - but the overall mood at the conclusion is one of tremendous letdown. Heart's in the right place but needs a pace maker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Arthur Hunnicutt plays a very stereotypical role as a mountain man (probably the Ozarks) who goes hunting with his favorite coon dog. However, the dog appears to be drowning when Hunnicutt jumps in after him. It becomes obvious pretty soon that despite Hunnicutt and his dog roaming about after leaving the water that they both died in the water--as no one responds when he talks to them and sees and hears people talking about his and the dog's death. Yet, oddly, Hunnicutt is REALLY slow on the uptake and it takes him a while to understand they are talking about him! I think this was actually done as padding, as there really wasn't enough material to fill the half hour time slot.

Later, in the \"surprise twist\", he comes upon Heaven--or at least his concept of the place. He's invited in, but since they won't allow dogs, he has other ideas! Overall, reasonably well acted but of dubious spiritual value! With no twists or irony, this episode is a bit dull--not \"Twilight Zone-y\" enough for my tastes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"who's responsible for these \"behind the scenes\" things? who are these actors? did they crawl out from beneath rocks? 'yuks, lots of yuks!' no. no yuks for me. only loathing and shame that i am a human being. i have to avert my eyes from the set, it's so embarrassing. in fact, i changed the channel.

i've always had a problem with robin williams' non-stop 'i forgot my lithium today' rantings, but at least he's funny once in a blue moon. watching someone who isn't funny at all impersonating robin williams is like having each tooth in your head pulled slowly and sadistically, without novocaine, for all eternity.

please stop making these absolutely horrifying TV movies. please.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Drab, dreary and a total waste of my time. The plot is incomprehensible (so don't think about it too much). The acting is odd and wooden - I would have sworn that they were all professional body builders trying their luck at acting, but that might be an insult to body builders. There are no interesting special effects to redeem this disaster, but lots of fires, explosions, a gratuitous sex scene, etc. The only thing that caught my attention was that it takes place after a war between the US and Iraq that somehow goes nuclear...hmmm. Is Roger Corman psychic? Let's hope that \"Iraq\" was just a lucky choice for Corman and that the rest of his scenario doesn't come true.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where do I begin? The story was so bad, it must have been written in a high school film club! The acting was so wooden I felt sorry for the actors! One actor even reminded me of what a deer must look like when staring into a car's headlights! Another actor has this constant look of being constipated! But it was the dialog that takes the cake!

Our hero says to his captors - all holding submachine guns - if you lay a finger on a female prisoner you will be dead. Moments later, the strongest guard, built like a truck, and the only women prisoner go at it. When our fearless leader, who has this very annoying raspy gangster voice catches wind of this transgression, he calmly walks up to the guard, while machine guns are trained on him, and in a split-second snaps this giant guy's neck like he was breaking a tooth pick! He then gets back in line while all the villains with their machine guns do absolutely nothing, but essentially yell at him!

I could go on and on! This movie is camp gem; and if you have any sense of humor, it's guaranteed to make you laugh so hard your eyes will tear!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Without being really the worst science fiction film ever made, or the worst I have seen, 'Time Under Fire' is still much under average. The premises and the first 10-15 minutes are not that bad, it starts as a X-Files story, combining Bermuda triangle mysteries with time travel. Pretty soon elements of other genres (too many) mix together, but the story never takes off beyond the level of interest of a TV series. Soon, 'Time Under Fire' quickly degenerates into a series of clich\u00e9s, not only mixing altogether too many genres but also being unable to create anything memorable in suspense or special effects that would help viewers remember the movie until tomorrow. Acting is bad, and the rhetoric lines in the script do not help at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This must be the first movie I've rented and not seen to the end. Complete garbage! The acting, the plot, set and wardrobe looked like it came from a porno movie with a plot. Not even a B move.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Set in 1976 for no apparent reason other than to keep the set dressers busy, 'The Box' was directed by Richard Kelly ('Donnie Darko'), and stars Cameron Diaz and James Marsden as Norma and Arthur Lewis, a young couple who are supposedly struggling financially even though they both have successful careers--she as a high school teacher, he as an optical specialist at NASA's Langley, Virginia, Research Center. They have one child, Walter (Sam Oz Stone).

One day the Lewises find a parcel on their doorstep, containing a black box with a big red button. There is a note from a 'Mr. Steward' indicating that he will return at 5:00 PM to explain about the box.

The mysterious Arlington Steward, played by Frank Langella, shows up at the appointed time, nattily attired in an elegant Savile Row suit. He is polite but businesslike, however his most noticeable feature is his face, half of which appears to have been blown off and improperly attended to. Langella is the only thing worth watching in the movie, however he is unfortunately upstaged by his own makeup, which resembles that of Harvey 'Two Face' Dent (Aaron Eckhart) from Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight.' It's like the elephant in the room: one can try to ignore it, but it's more than a little distracting.

Steward explains that he will return in 24 hours to collect the button. If, during that time, they decide to unlock and push the button, he will give them $1 million cash. The only catch--and it's a big one--is that somewhere a stranger will die. It might be across town, it might be on another continent, however Steward assures them the victim will be someone unknown to them. As a show of good faith, he leaves them with a crisp $100 bill, theirs to keep whether they push the button or not.

Arthur and Norma are skeptical, believing the whole thing to be a scam or an elaborate hoax, however it isn't long before they begin to wonder what would happen if they did push the button? Would they really get a million dollars? Would somebody really die? Weary of the speculation, Norma slaps the button. Nothing happens. However, their initial relief gives way to alarm when Steward shows up the next day with a briefcase full of cash. They decide to call the whole thing off, however Steward tells them it's too late. \"You've already pushed the button,\" he explains. As Steward's limo pulls away, Arthur notes the license number, which he later discovers is registered to the NSA (National Security Agency).

At this point the film begins to veer deeply into unfollowable territory as the secondary characters start springing nosebleeds and flashing peace signs. Meanwhile, the town becomes invaded by pudgy, slack-jawed geeks in bad shirts who start following Arthur around like an advance scouting party for a race of zombie alien nerds. Arthur eventually becomes trapped by the menacing bookworms in the library (?), where Steward's spinsterish wife shows up--whom we haven't seen till now--and informs Arthur that in order to get out of the library he must step into one of three vertical columns of cheesy-looking digital water effects. 'What happens if I choose the wrong one?', Arthur asks, seeming far less baffled than he ought to be under the circumstances, and certainly far less baffled than the audience is by this time. 'Eternal damnation,' the spinster says ominously.

Arthur steps into the middle column of digital liquid effects, and after a brief absence suddenly appears, still in his water cocoon, hovering over Norma's bed. When she wakes up and sees him, the water bubble bursts and Arthur tumbles onto the bed in a shower of water which, oddly enough, continues to drip from the overhead water pipes just out of camera range while a sodden Marsden and Diaz flop around on the bed.

It's confusing, I know.

We eventually learn that Steward was once the public relations officer for the NSA, until he was struck by a lightning bolt that destroyed part of his face. He was pronounced dead, but later came back to life, having been transformed into a sort of superman who now serves 'the ones who make the lightning,' and whose powers have enabled him to take over the CIA, the NSA, and NASA all by himself.

And what is the point of all this nattering rubbish? Apparently, Steward's mission is to subject humans to a kind of biblical character test (e.g., the 'Binding of Isaac'), to determine whether humanity is worth saving. If enough people pass the button test by refusing to push it, Steward's god-like overlords will spare the race. Unfortunately, those people who do push the button, such as Norma and Arthur, must be punished for their moral spinelessness, to which end they are subjected to a series of dreary 'Lady or the Tiger' ordeals that play out like one of those 'Saw movies,' except without the entertaining gore or the benefit of a coherent plot.

'The Box' represents the sort of pointless mental masturbation that freshman philosophy students like to blather on about after a few beers. Richard Kelly's tedious exercise in existentialist pettifoggery eventually collapses under the weight of its own incomprehensibility; the tortured melange of insupportable ideas eventually congeals, as with the mixing together of too many colors, into a meandering gray goo of a film as insipid as one of those narcotizing in-flight movies the plot of which suffers no more or less from having been interrupted by a leisurely nap.

There is a point in 'The Box' where Arthur, who is a technically-minded guy, becomes curious about how the button works. Opening up the unit, he is disappointed to find nothing inside.

Having seen The Box, I know exactly how he feels.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A box with a button provides a couple with the opportunity to be financially free, but the cost is the life of someone they've never met. This is a very tedious film to watch. Richard Kelly, who wrote and directed it, decided to make a film without any payoff. You are taken on a ride of slow build ups, one after the other with minor revelations at best. At certain moments, I thought to myself, this will have major significance at the end, but nothing does. The film just leaves one thinking, \"This story could have been told in 30 minutes, without all the stretched out nonsense.\" I will hope you avoid this god-awful film and maintain your sanity by doing so.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In 1976 a mother named Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz) lives with her son Walter and her husband Arthur (James Marsden). One night a box is placed on the doorstep of their home and the following morning they cut open the box to reveal a button device that must be opened with a key. By the late afternoon, a man with terrible scarring on his face comes to their door and presents Norma with an offer. This man is Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) and he announces that if they push the button someone in the world that the family does not know will die and they will receive a million dollars in cash. If they don't press it, nothing will happen and the offer will move on to someone else. Norma and Arthur are not allowed to tell anyone including their son about this deal. The incentive for the family to push the button is heightened by their financial difficulties. Arthur, who is currently working for NASA, fails to be accepted into a new job he applies for and Norma, who is a teacher, learns that her faculty funding is being cut.

One's enjoyment for this bizarre sci-fi thriller, based on the short story \"Button Button\" by Richard Matheson, will be determined by how far they are willing to take this ludicrous premise. The opening of the film is particularly problematic in grounding itself in a sense of realism with the household. Richard Kelly's previous film Donnie Darko cleverly used the condition of schizophrenia to justify its excursion into paranormal activity and parallel universes. Without the dream-like state of that far superior film, The Box and the very thought of a device that can kill anyone in the world, is entirely implausible. That Norma would also accept someone into her house that has almost the same scarring as Two-Face from The Dark Knight and believe this offer, seems equally contrived.

If this sounds unlikely so far, what follows is even more absurd, involving a conspiracy about someone who was struck by lightning, the possibility of alien life or some other Godly being influencing these situations. Scenes involving gateways opening up in public libraries, random nose bleeds and mindless drones stalking the Lewis family, become almost unintentionally comical in their absurdity. To a point, the film could be called intriguing purely to see where it is going. Kelly is occasionally clever in his ability to hold our attention through many of the films contrivances. In one scene Norma is teaching a class and then is asked by a strange boy about her foot. He taunts her about it as she is missing four of her toes. Later, at a rehearsal dinner for a wedding that Norma and Arthur are attending, this same student appears as a waiter and seems to be stalking them. Yet the eventual justification for these all of these oddities is wrapped up in a highly contrived sci-fi revelation that many will find implausible and difficult to swallow.

What is most disappointing about the film is that once the button is pressed surprisingly early on, many of the moral implications that were initially promised are diminished for much of pictures duration. The ending, which won't be spoilt here, resurfaces these moral questions again in the hope of echoing that of a Greek tragedy. While the resemblances can be seen, by this point, given the unlikelihood of so much of the film and the uneven performances, there is little reason to care. Cameron Diaz's Southern accent might be unnecessary but it is surprisingly Langella who is the most disappointing in the film, with a very unsubtly written role, as the mysterious scarred man, who seems to be hiding a military base that would make Dr. Evil proud. It really is just a shadow of his towering performance in Frost\/Nixon. There is not a lot for many of the other actors in the film to do; in particular both Norma and Arthur could not be regarded as characters but mouthpieces for Kelly's pastiche of ideas. Underdeveloped and brief conversations, such as where Norma sympathises with Arlington over their deformities and also when Norma and Arthur question whether they really know each other in case the button kills either of them, highlights this.

Since 2001, Richard Kelly has failed to make a film that has lived up to the quality and the imagination of Donnie Darko. Though this film might be intriguing for a little while, it is too absurd and implausible to be fully enjoyed and it would certainly not warrant multiple viewings given the film's rather illogical revelations. Science fiction fans might be able to appreciate it somewhat more and draw their own conclusions, but what Kelly is really trying to say beneath the surface remains cryptic. The Box is one film this year that should have been shelved.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know that so many reviews on IMDb are extreme, with reviewers either praising a film to the hilt or inarticulately tearing it to pieces. I find neither of these kind of reviews helpful, and so I do not give this film the awful review I am about to, lightly. The film is art-house science-fiction of the worst kind dressed up as a Hollywood blockbuster. The trailers draw you in by showing you what appears to be a cohesive plot, but is actually just a tiny part of a wilfully baffling series of events which are never properly resolved. I like films which challenge the viewer and I do not need to be spoon-fed a plot, and so my complaint against this film is not that it is too highbrow. No - the film is just terrible. As the credits roll you will feel genuine anger at having wasted your time on Cameron Diaz's wooden acting and a faltering plot-line. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Be warned, the next time you see \"Richard Kelly\" involved in any production, run away. Fast.

Kelly proved to the world after his last movie, \"Southland Tales\", that he is one pretentious director. It was indulgent and convoluted. In \"The Box\", not much has changed.

I can picture what his pitch to Warner Bros must have been, and I bet the executives at the studio ate it right up: a full-feature film based on one of Richard \"Twilight Zone\" Matheson's old short stories.

Big mistake! Do not read any further unless you want this movie COMPLETELY spoiled for you:

Norma (Cameron Diaz) pushes the button.

Turns out that Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) has an Alien using his body as a vessel to conduct \"experiments\" in which the fate of mankind rests. His face is scarred because he was struck by Alien lightening, which killed him, but then brought him back to life to do all of this red button testing. Obviously since Norma pushes the button, knowing full well that someone may die, she must suffer the consequences for failing to consider someone else's life instead of her own. In the end she and her husband (James Marsden) choose to kill Norma instead of having their son grow up deaf and blind.

Kelly dances around his film's \"message\", trying to make the audience figure out what the moral of the story is. Obviously, any person with a brain is saying at the beginning, \"What if I was the person who dies?\". Richard Kelly doesn't even let his character's have this normal, HUMAN conversation. In fact, they avoid it all together. They appear to both be educated, working at a prestigious school and also for NASA, so why wouldn't they both have a better ability to LOOK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX???

If he had the main characters actually have this conversation, the entire movie could have ended right there! Instead, we have to watch weddings go on forever, NASA and the NSA be complacent to Arlington Stewart taking over these government programs, teleportation to show Marsden life beyond our world so it will be \"easier\" to kill his wife, and drone's controlled by Steward which can be anywhere and nowhere, at any time.

The most painful part of this movie is the pacing. Nothing really happens. Its a muddled mish-mash of ideas that are laughable.

It is insufferable how this film is being marketed. The commercials make it look like \"Saw\" and even use the music from those films to sell it. In reality what you get is a slow, dull, laughable (yes, half the theater was laughing at the acting and visual effects), and messy film which is neither imaginative, interesting, nor cohesive. At one point, Cameron Diaz and her son are abducted and then suddenly, she is back in the NSA's big black car with her husband on the way home. Where did she go? Why did they take her? Do we really care? Not anymore you won't.

By the end you really won't care what happens to any of the characters. You will be rooting for all of them to die so the film will just end. Go see anything else that's playing. Don't waste your time, or money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ha ha. - oh no - what to say about this film? Yes - green eggs and ham makes more sense than this movie. Where does one start? A lot of the good stuff has already been said - so I won't divulge into the same territory. I believe you already have the movie summary - so I won't paraphrase the movie.

First - let's start the with good.

1). If you like psychological thrillers that make you think (as I do) the first 29 minutes of this film will be for you - this is one of those films that illustrates the question that you always talked about on long car drives when you were kids like (what if you had to chose one family member live, another to die, or, what if you had to die by drowning or fire) This movie is a great concept - bottom line.

2) The wardrobe group did a fine job with bringing us back to the 70's. Realistically though, how difficult is that to accomplish? .....Okay, that's about all for the good. Let's talk about the bad.

1). This movie feels like a 2 hour \"Twilight Zone\" episode. This could easily be 90 minutes. That might have made the movie tolerable.

2). Do you remember in the movie \"From Dusk til Dawn?\". The movie started out interesting, then halfway through the movie it just took a degrading turn? Yep - same thing here. I would venture to say that the writers started with a concept, then had no idea what to do with it. I've gotten deeper thought provocation out of Transformers 2.

3). Yes - we get the dilemma in the film. We understand the philosophical undertones and Utilitarian approach - but the story jumped around way too much, didn't elaborate on the current story arc, and took a(forgive me)completely insulting direction.

4). The ending didn't make sense. Not at all. None.

This movie would make a great term paper in college philosophy 101. If you're board out of your mind, in bed sick, or have ever enjoyed being hit in the face with a pie, and can view this free on-line - by all means, go for it.

If you need to pay anything to view this movie, don't waste your time - you're better off watching old Howie Mandel stand-up on You Tube. You will get more philosophical stimulation reorganizing your sock drawer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before you dismiss my post as \"not getting it\", let me say...I'm one of the biggest Richard Kelly and \"The Twilight Zone\" fans out there. Donnie Darko is one my all-time favorites and I even thought Southland Tales had it's moments. I'm a HUGE sci-fi fan. I was very excited to see \"The Box\", couldn't wait for it to come out.

Having said that...\"The Box\" is terrible. Behind \"Drag Me To Hell\", this was the worst movie I've seen in 2009. And it just simply WILL NOT end! Whenever you think you've reached the end, another change in the plot and you're off to more torture. I was actually groaning in the theater by the end of the film...I could hardly take it anymore.

The biggest problem with \"The Box\", no matter how you slice it or try to justify it, is that it simply makes little sense. Trust me, I \"got it\", I understood what was going on. But that doesn't mean it makes a lot of sense looking back on it. Take the basics for example. The main couple...Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, playing Norma and Arthur Lewis. Diaz loses her finances at her job, then bemoans to her husband that they are \"living paycheck to paycheck\". Well, sell that f-ing Porsche your husband is driving then!!! They live in a beautiful 2-story house in a nice subdivision. Marsden is working what seems to be a high-paid job at NASA and Diaz is an accomplished teacher. And, yes, Marsden drives an overly expensive car. But they are somehow living paycheck to paycheck?!? No need to press the button, just cut down your high-priced lifestyle a bit! The movie would have worked better if they showed the couple jobless and in serious debt. Instead, they are seemingly desperate for money...all the while living what I would call a luxurious lifestyle. Like I said...you can understand what's going on, yet it still makes little sense! That's a rare combination.

There was an awful scene in a library that I feel will go down as one of the worst segments in movie history (terribly acted too by the way). It was idiotic, illogical and out of place. I can't even begin to fully describe it actually, so I will move onto a subplot that involves nose-bleeds and body possession by aliens. (Yes, I'm being serious unfortunately). A kid is in Diaz's class with a wicked and smile on his face (a sinister smile that seemingly goes by completely unnoticed by everyone in authority at the school). He starts asking Diaz personal questions, literally embarrassing her in front of her class. No punishment is given to the kid whatsoever...he didn't even get asked to stay after class for a talk! Then Diaz is at a party...and the same kid is one of the hired help...ironed shirt, apron and all! I don't know many alien-possessed kids (who appear to be in Junior High) that also moonlight as a bus-boy at parties sponsored by teachers and school officials...but we found one here! (See what I mean...you can understand it completely, but it still makes no sense...a rare combo!) Like many things in the movie, the kid comes and goes...no real explanation about him, no ending to his character. Moving on... A lady then approaches Diaz in a grocery store, telling her that experiments are being ran secretly and her family is one of the test subjects. Well...hmmm...if aliens possess the powers where they can take over a body remotely...and the aliens don't want to help Diaz...then who was taking over this lady's body and giving Diaz advice?! Again...The lady was trying to help Diaz...and the aliens weren't interested in helping Diaz...so who the hell was controlling her body?! Never explained. Never talked about again. No nothing!! It goes on and on and on like this for, what seemed to me like, 2 weeks. It would not end! I wonder if this movie underwent a massive re-shoot at some point. It was poorly edited. Diaz's accent was there one minute, gone the next. Sub-plots began but never ended. The numerous push-backs of the release date obviously shows the problems the producers had with the finished product. It's truly a train-wreck.

Pass on this one...there's no redeeming value in it whatsoever. 3 out of 10, just because I like Diaz and sci-fi! But it probably deserves a 1 out of 10.

Thanks for reading!

JD","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE BOX (2009) * Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella, James Rebhorn, Holmes Osborne, Sam Oz Stone, Celia Weston. Truly disappointing adaptation of genre legend Richard Matheson's sci-fi chiller \"Button, Button\" by on the wane wunderkind filmmaker Richard Kelly who truly stretches a small, well-crafted piece into a grab-bag 'WTF'-a-thon! Mysterious (and ridiculously maimed!) man, Langella, posits a million dollar offer to 'struggling' couple Diaz and Marsden (both surprisingly vanilla bland to the hilt!): a box with a red-button, that when pushed, will kill some stranger in the world (!) Sure strings are attached but does that really matter here? What does is why in the name of God does Kelly trowel on so much oddness (i.e. nose-bleeds; watery transport systems \u0096 that's right \u0096 Watery.Transport.Systems) when the tension should be strung as tautly as possible (oh the possibilities). If this sounds like a bad TWILIGHT ZONE episode you are half right (the '80s TV re-boot actually did a decent small-screen adaptation; in fact rent that instead!) One of the year's worst films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First time I ever felt I needed to write a review.

I have seen thousands of movies in my life and I like a wide range of movies. I am reasonably opened minded, and can easily say I enjoyed a movie while still saying \"yeah it was not good but I enjoyed it\". I can appreciate the mastery of great movies like The Shaw shank redemption, the godfather, and American history X. I can like good movies in a genre like horror, or comedy, even if the movie might not be that great. I can even enjoy a bad movie that just happens to entertain me (Bloodsport). I also will try to rate movie fairly even if I did not like it. City lights by Charlie Chapin was not a movie I enjoyed, but I can appreciate the acting and story lines for the time.

I think some people when they go on this site instead of randomly click a rating, should take a few ideas into account. Try to rate the movie based on how good it actually was. Do not let your personal bias affect the rating. Also look at other moves you rated and compare the movie you are going to rate.

This \"movie\" was the worst piece of trash I have ever seen. 2 hours of my life where just stolen. The acting was awful, across the board. The scenes where choppy at best. However the real disgrace was the story. The first 20 minutes we actually had a story that tried to make sense and take the viewer from point A to B. However after that it was a nightmare. They kept trying to add new elements but nothing was every explained. Nothing really ever made sense, was steward dead, is he alive, did he hit by lighting, was it really lighting, was it aliens, is he an alien, etc. The ending tied nothing together and really did not answer any questions. The only positive was nobody cared we where just happy to leave the theater.

6.5\/10??? What is wrong with some of you? I will admit that the 8 of us where so mad about seeing this, we did think \"what would make it better?\", and we decide to tell a few of our friends that this movie was good so they would have to suffer and see this movie. What can I say misery loves company. That is really the only reason I can see for a 6.5 rating.

Do not waste your life!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i thought id check this film out as I'm currently making a film about a mysterious box, therefore it would be great to see how this film took and developed the idea of a mysterious and unexpected box.

before going to the cinema i had a high expectation of this film. with actresses, like Cameron diaz you would expect the acting especially hers to be great. the acting was a sort of let down for the film, the characters accents changed throughout the film it made it unbelievable.

the whole idea of a weird box that can make your dreams come true but destroy others is such a brilliant story but i feel the director let it down, this film had potential it could of been a lot lot better than it was.

this film had no middle to it. it was too confusing and needed a steady storyline. nobody wants to go into the cinema and come out thinking what have i just watched 'i didn't get it at all,' sometimes it can be exciting and make people want to watch it again, but this film made people want to never ever want to hear of the film again. throughout watching i noticed that half the audience had left before the ending. i feel every single person had been let down watching this film because of the high expectations and how slow parts of the film was.

lets put the bad points to one side... i did like however the scene where the son is in the bathroom at the end. it was unexpected, it reminded me of a horror movie and the way it was put together made me imagine it and how devastating and scary it would of been to be in that position. the lighting and the effects made it look excellent, this scene looked slightly more 1990's than the 1970's that this film is supposed to be.

this film was confusing because it had so many different bits to it. parts that you would expect to be sumned up at the end where everything comes clear but it didn't, it totally went against an audiences expectations, even though leaving the film on a cliff hanger, not giving the audience a reason why things happen could work and do really well, but this one didn't, it was a creative, different unusual film i thought, it had potential could of been better, disappointed didn't enjoy it, wouldn't buy it on DVD to be honest.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Couple having financial trouble gets a box delivered to their door. If they push the button they get a million dollars but someone they don't know will die. Do they push the button?

This is an odd film based on a Richard Matheson short story has a few chills but mostly is a messy affair. The trouble is that there is so much going on it feels as though writer director Richard Kelly didn't know what sort of movie he was making. Is this a straight out horror film with supernatural overtones? At times it seems like it with talk of moral choices, damnation and the afterlife. Is it a science fiction film? Possibly, there are lots of questions about that Mars project. And what are the strange looks that people seem to have as if in some grand conspiracy? Is this Invasion of the Body Snatchers or a demonic take over film? Don't know, maybe. And that's the problem there are lots of questions, most of them intriguing, but there are too many. Little seems to have been explained and when we get to the end of the film things seem more to stop then to conclude (even in an open ended way). I'm all for making a film rich with themes and points but writer Kelly fills his script with simply too many that director Kelly can't handle, or does so in such away that each theme or plot thread gets its ten minutes of screen time and for those minutes it hold court before its cast off the next bit. It made me crazy. (I won't get into the two leads, Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, who aren't very good or more likely don't know what to make of the material which is so ever shifting )

It's a heady mix that doesn't work (there are ultimately too many holes). I got to the end and suddenly realized I had no idea what I just saw. I really didn't like it, but its more in a this isn't good because it just misses sort of a way rather. I'd take a pass or wait for cable where its not going to cost you anything","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now, this movie is the worst i have ever seen!! It is simply a disaster. I think it's really a sick movie, i just wasted my time watching this cheap crap. I can't believe anyone would produce such a disaster. Such a waste of money and time. Nothing to learn from this movie, it's just a hollow sick evil flick. I don't think they could've make it worse, this movie just earned it's title as the king of lowest crap. The acting is a disaster, the meaning...oh well there is no meaning just a sick pain and sorrow introduced by the suffering child in the end of the movie, and the killing of the wife which again was another dumb blow to this movie. Do yourself a favor, if you actually have some self respect, keep away from this awfulness!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like to like movies, but I found nothing to like about The Box. I was interested in the 'hook' of the plot, but unfortunately it never went anywhere and was impossible to follow. Anyone who states that they understand this movie is probably faking it so that they can feel like they are a part of something, well I have news for them, the emperor has no clothes.

The only undertone in this movie is that women are to blame for original sin, and corrupting mankind. I've heard that story before, and it makes less and less sense every time. It's true that this movie is different than a lot of films currently showing in theatres, but that doesn't make it worth the ticket price.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"quite possibly one of (if not the) worst film ever conceived, cast and acted in the history of cinema. Who on God's green earth would ever think to cast Cameron Diaz and James Mardsen as a couple? She looked like his mother. God forgive me but I am just being honest. And that was the least of the many problems plaguing this horrible excuse for a film. It was a horrible statement against women but at least if you're gonna blame women for the problems of the world, tell a decent story not one with so many annoying loop holes and pathetic excuses for suspense and thrills. Everybody should get their money back who went to see it in theaters or bought the DVD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is my first review on IMDb.com and probably first ever written review of a film I've done of my own accord - not for some class assignment. I think that fact alone says something about this movie... not a good thing! I am no seasoned journalist or critic (though I have seen my fair share of movies), but I found this particular film so terribly painful to watch, it was necessary for my own peace of mind to vent about the experience. Where better to do it than IMDb? As I forced myself to sit through the movie, physically writhing from the inability to connect-the-dots, I was sure there would be some \"light at the end of the tunnel\" - a revelation to explain what in samhe.-.ll was going on. The movie ended and I was as enlightened as dog****. After several rewinds to review certain scenes I still could conclude nothing sensible. I found myself wanting to yell \"Does this make sense to anybody?\" I would recommend to not waste your time, but then again if I were you I'd probably want to experience it myself. If that's the case, bring a crossword puzzle or something so you don't get bored.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella: that's an all-star power cast but \"The Box\" proves once again that it is not a guarantee for a solid movie. The premise sounds promising: a couple gets a visit from a mysterious person who offers them a million dollar. The downside is that someone will die, a person they probably will not know. So What Do You Do ? This gives us an interesting story for about 30 minutes. After that, the story derails completely. Vague an uninspired plot lines about an alien conspiracy involving the NASA, nothing really is explained here.

\"The Box\" is a disappointment, could have been so much better. But since it is based on an ultra short story, that explains the continuity errors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Don't be greedy\" sums up the depth of this movie. All the rest of the baloney is big budget window dressing. The movie rotates through hiding the ball annoyingly and revealing too much. None of the potentially interesting plot tangents are developed yet the trite ones are hashed and rehashed to excess.

The charm of DD, as others have pointed out, was in the schizophrenia device,the humor woven into the fabric of the movie, and most importantly, the acting. There is enough wooden acting in The Box to attract a giant mound of martian termites.

The biggest problem with suspending disbelief during this mess is the glaring question, \"why would a technologically superior power capable of taking over the government need to do any testing at all?\" Awful failure of a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all. Should Cameron Diaz ever be allowed to act again? To call that a bad performance would be an insult to bad performances. That was a historically horrific performance. Any small chance that Diaz had at being a serious actress is now completely done after that. Laughably horrible.

Two, the movie was extremely boring, and not very thought provoking at all. I can sit around and ponder human nature without having to watch terrible actors, play out a terrible story.

Third, there was not a single likable character, and even worse, it seemed like that was done by design. You were not supposed to like, or feel sympathy for any character. It was quite effective. I wanted them all to just die to be honest. Aliens included. Kid included. Everyone was just one big mope in this movie. Everyone literally just moped around, and they called it a movie. You could barely distinguish the zombie \"employees,\" with regular people, because they all seemed like zombies.

Lastly, nothing really makes sense. From the characters reactions and emotions, to the literal story line, it all just seems random. This is just a really bad movie, disguised and couched as a \"thinking mans movie,\" which is meant to be confusing. Give me a break. A bad movie is a bad movie. And this movie was bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How truly sad that this sprung from the same mind as Donnie Darko, possibly one of the best films in this genre. Where do I even begin? I think one of the must infuriating aspects of the film is that we are supposed to be critiquing humanity, and yet we see no humanity in the film. No more than 5 minutes of the film is spend agonizing about the possible death of another human. These are horrible one dimensional cardboard cutouts of human beings. Sadly, that's how they are played with what can only be described as dreadful acting. Is this truly how Kelly sees humanity? Judging from the reaction of viewers, this is a horrible encapsulation of humanity. Why don't the characters in the film ask the questions that all the viewers have? This is not an indictment of humanity. It's an indictment of the straw men that Kelly sets up who bare almost no resemblance to real humans in this situation.

To those who say this was a wonderful thought-provoking film, to what are you comparing it? Armageddon? I even saw someone compare this to the works of Kurosawa. How truly deprived must you be to think that this would promote good existential discussion? For the love of all that's good in film! Even Indecent Proposal is ten times the indictment of humanity that this is. There we see people truly agonizing about greed and the human condition. Yes, even Indecent Proposal puts this film to shame for philosophical discussion and yet it gets 5.3 vs 6.0 for this mindless tripe.

Rarely have I seen a more pretentious, pontificating, and self aggrandizing, film fall so flatly on its face. This has the depth of a high school film project, and a poor one at that. Truly, that's about the level of the discussion promoted by this film. If you want to see GOOD psychological film making, do yourself a favor and check out Das Experiment. If The Box had lived up even to this one goal, I would have been willing to forgive some of the atrocious acting, gaping plot holes, and sheer nonsensical storyline. Sadly, it can't even do that.

The true indictment of humanity is that there are people out there who think this film is a deeply delving introspective look into the human condition. This is not Sartre! This is not even the Cliff Notes version of Sartre! This is a hastily conceived and hack-written 9th grade term paper on Sartre based on some internet message board ramblings. If Sartre were alive, he would sue Kelly for defamation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Box is a film with great potential, but the makers totally misused that potential. The film seemed to take for ever, because of the boring family dinners and scenes about school and job-dialogs between the action. Those scenes could and must be deleted in my opinion to keep up the tensity and thrill. The philosophy of human free will has potential and seems to referring to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), but we find ourselves regretfully struck with magic and nosebleeds, were even Harry Potter would flunked his class with!

Probably the best part was that moment when Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz)has been shot to death, by her loving and caring husband as an act of human free will. I wonder how Hobbes would react if he could...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a flic that you can safely avoid. childish plot and poor acting from Cameron (she really shouldn't take on these serious roles - they don't suit her)Besides she looks most unglamorous, Lets face it, shes' great in Charlies Angels and She was superb in There's Something about Mary... The Pope wouldn't be a good President of the USA and vice versa, my point being that there are some actors\/actresses who are suited to a particular type of character and Cameron is most unsuited for this serious housewife type - there are a dozen other actress' would have done a far better job. The movie itself is rather unbelievable and juvenile in its plot (did I spell Juvinile right??) I noticed a comment from another reviewer who has given The Box a 10 rating, who was derisive in his comments on other reviewers who gave the movie a 1 or 2 rating and couldn't spell. I mean whats spelling got to do with a movie review? Does he mean that persons who spell perfectly could appreciate this movie more that the ones who couldn't? C'mon 'professor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oddly, I have very little to say about \"The Box\" so this will be pretty brief. I have never read the Richard Matheson novella \"Button, Button\" from which the film is based, but considering what I saw in this \"adaptation\", there couldn't have been much semblance to such a legendary author's work. \"The Box\" is about a family who discover a strange contraption on their doorstep that has a button on it. Frank Langella shows up and explains how they will be given one million dollars if they push the button - the only 'catch' is that it will automatically kill someone, somewhere... ??SPOILER?? They push it ??END OF SPOILERS?? That whole concept was interesting on its own, but somehow they managed to extend the movie into some convoluted Stargate knock-off that pads it out until a pretty decent ending with a pretty profound message. While I'm trying to be as 'fair' as possible, I still must say that this was not my cup of tea and it bored me severely. I guess its from the same director as \"Donnie Darko\" which I remember liking when I saw it years ago. \"The Box\" would've worked well as a short film, but since it was so lifelessly adapted this way, I can't come close to recommending it...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe if you smoked enough weed this would seem funny or would make you nostalgic for how completely unhinged people allowed themselves to be in the early 70's. There's an odd innocence to this movie and the sex is a lot more awkward and playful than the steely pros who do it for the cameras now.

The real curio here - and really the only reason to watch this movie - is the appearance of Kristine Debell as Alice. She was a Ford model and it shows. She's got classic, WASP-ish good looks - like a really cute Ivy League sorority girl. So what the hell is she doing in this cheap, cheesy skin flick? From my vantage point she does not appear to be at all on drugs in this movie (which might explain it) and she actually seems incredibly committed to the part. When she sings her first song she really does act like she thinks she's flippin' Julie Andrews or something. I just get the feeling that this girl truly believed this was gonna be her big break or something, instead of the near career killer that it was. Anyway, she is damn cute and you kind of can't believe she would even get naked on screen, much less do a masturbation scene, a couple of oral sex scenes (with men and women) and then do the real deal as a climax to the film (snark). It is also definitely not a body double at all. That is our little Kristine taking one for the team, or for the greater glory of showbiz or something. It's pretty amazing to watch and it is definitely stimulating (ahem) but in a way I kinda wish she hadn't done it. That was a very pretty, talented young girl getting some really bad advice.

Anyway, my guess is that Kristine Debell, wherever she is, has long, long since wished this movie would go away. She was very cute and appealing in \"Meatballs.\" Almost impossible to believe this is the same girl - but it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't understand why so many of the comments here seem to indicate that this is acceptable entertainment. The eye-popping horror of this cinematic monstrosity cannot be overstated. Me and my girlfriend just watched it together, and I'm not sure we'll ever be able to have sex again. I'm not sure what was worse, the scrawny, unattractive cast, their supremely unphotogenic genitals, the rancid attempts at humor, the screeching noises that claimed to be songs...

No, I know what was worst of all. The girls in the green leotards, with green facepaint, licking Alice to dry her off, then proposing, in broken childlike speech, that they suckle milk from her breasts. That was the worst.

Also, what was with the nurses, and why do they seem to have so much trouble finding each other's vaginas? Why are all the male actors gay? Why does Humpty Dumpty waggle a dildo in the air and pretend that it's his penis? Why did my eyes have to see this? There are no words.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was greatly disappointed by the quality of this documentary. The content is poorly produced, very poor quality video and, especially awful audio. There's extremely little about how Bruce Haack produced his music and virtually no examples of direct connection to later and contemporary electronic music. The interviews of people who knew Bruce Haack are ad-hoc mostly inarticulate mumbo-jumbo. Too much yak and not enough Haack. Although I have a serious personal interest in electronic music and have a higher than average attention span, even for slow and\/or difficult subject matter, I fell asleep while watching this documentary and had to review it to see the parts I slept through. If you watch this, make sure that you are set up, before viewing, like Alex in A Clockwork Orange. Bruce Haack deserves much better than this. Shame on the producer and director.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm Mike Sedlak. I co-wrote the score for this movie. And proud of it.

And I love all of the comments. Some have not gone far enough.

The movie premiered in San Francisco in the summer of 1973. The theater was packed with friends and family. We all clapped.

Five days latter, it was pulled from all of the screens in the Bay Area.

If anyone is interested hearing some of scene by scene details, which might make the movie even more enjoyable, please let me know.

We could start with the shot where Gideon Blake throws the toilet plunger to distract one of the evil henchmen guarding the radio transmitter on the deck of Bud's house.

Or how Gideon diffused the bomb in the original version.

Didn't help. It still bombed.

Bring it on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is absolutely beyond question the worst movie I have ever seen. It is so bad in fact that I plan on renting it again as soon as I can find it. This movie makes 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' look like an Oscar contender. Just LOOKING at the actors makes me want to laugh out loud. I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. It's awfulness aproaches perfection.

The plot is based on a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon in San Francisco (I think). That's as far as I can go ... I am laughing too hard. I know it shouldn't be funny but ..... *LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL*

MOVE OVER ED WOOD !!!

Regard's *DATo*","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this could have been better,but it was alright...it helped me get away from my boredom.I didnt even wanna see it,the only reason i wanted to rent it is because Jamie Martz is in it..he is a unknown actor but he is shining and is the highlight of the movie...the ending was so horrible and the acting was good for a b movie...i give it a 4 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stay away from this movie. Far away. Phil Fondacaro stars as the demented ringleader of a Freakshow. Every performance is flat and unfeeling, except Fondacaro's. The plot is a simple one, and follows almost every horror movie cliche possible. A group of high-school kids go to a carnival, see a side-show, and get in over their heads.

Fans of Fred Olen Ray should be warned, this is not like any of his other films. This one is lacking in all departments (humor, sex, horror, etc.) other F.O. Ray movies excell in.

The version I saw also contained a Making-Of documentry, in which the director makes comments like \"We had a limited budget\" and \"with our limited timeline\" which speaks volumes about how much Charles Band cared about this film. Go rent \"Droid Runner\" (Fred Olen Ray) or \"The Dead Hate the Living\" (Full Moon) instead. Full Moon should be ashamed of themselves (and that's saying a lot after seeing \"Killer Eye\")

Grade: D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sideshow is a good example of a basically interesting idea gone very, very wrong. As far as horror movies go, and especially with the influx of teen movies at the moment, a film based around a bunch of teens attending a mysterious freak show is something you could have a lot of fun with.

However, the writer decided to make a very straight, very boring, very plain tale about five teens who become part of the show when enraged midget Abbot Graves transforms them into freaks using some pathetic machine that mutates them into beasts.

The five teens are picked off one by one until the last guy is left, his 'punishment' being that he is unable to join his friends and thus 'be alone'. What a load of rubbish!

The 'actors' are really poor, this film has no comedy (and it could have been so funny!), no gore (and it could have been so gory!), no action and no horror (and it could have had so much of both!)

The director has failed in his duty to even try to make this a little interesting to watch. His experience in soft-core has obviously disabled any creativity he may ever have had, as all the shots are the same, with very few edits and little movement. The quality overall is poor.

I'm not usually swayed by nudity in movies, but believe me the only high point in this film was a pair of breasts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Someone else called this film a \"fable-horror\" movie, and I think that fits pretty well. That's the concept at least. A group of teenagers, each with their own vice, catch the eye of a twisted sideshow barker. He decides to teach the teens a lesson by making them part of the freak show. A cool idea, but could have been executed better. The fate for some of the teens is shoved in your face too obviously, while other characters could have been fleshed out more. Also, the ending was a serious let down. No resolution or big twist or anything.

But as a low budget horror movie, it's pretty fun to watch. If you're into cheesy spookfests, you should have a laugh watching this one. I think one of it's faults though... that it takes itself too seriously. It's a silly movie, and if it was a little more self-aware when it comes to that, I think it would have been better. But at least there's enough neat carnival themes and b-movie monster makeup to keep you watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was not a very good movie, the acting pretty much stunk and the effects were bad most of the time. But there were some funny moments but most of those were not meant to be funny. The most hilarious part of the movie to me was the part were a little kid in wheelchair falls out (thats not the funny part What kind of person do you think I am)anyway the kid falls out and starts screaming for his big brother, well the brother comes running and the way the kid runs is so funny he's all stumbling and really over acting I had to rewind it several times so I could laugh some more. so if your looking for something to rent but just can't seem to find anything check this one out and watch for the running part.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dumb is right: Tom and Jerry reach their goal of a non-stop air flight to Africa but then worry about mixing in with the natives. They put on \"blackface,\" crash the plane, try to survive on an airplane wing floating in the ocean, and then survive the wild animals once they get on land

Having read a few reviews before seeing this, I knew what to expect. It was simply these two guys doing their Amos and Andy\/Stepin' Fetchit impressions. Offensive to blacks? Of course, but that's the 1930s for you. Some of their lines were funny, some were stupid. The main fault I had with this cartoon was the audio, as it was often not easy to understand what these two guys were saying.

In all, a curiosity piece, but don't let the racism stop you from checking it out. At least it gives you an idea of how times have changed....for the better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tom & Jerry are visiting Africa and disguise themselves in an \"Amos-n-Andy\" fashion. They even act and talk differently, with the standard degrading usage of extremely poor grammar associated with the stereotypical image of blacks portrayed in many cartoons of the era. Aside from the offensive images, this cartoon just isn't very good. Why were they going to Africa in the first place? Apparently just to provide the audience with another Amos-n-Andy and the additionally overused cannibalistic portrayal of native Africans. The only reason this got a 2 instead of a 1 was there is a decent few seconds involving an octopus.

Worth one view, which will still leave you shaking your head wondering how ignorance could prevail...

(Note. I consider some cartoons containing such racially stereotypical images very good. It all depends on if there is good content surrounding the cartoon, or if the only reason for the existence of the cartoon is to make fun of those incorrectly portrayed. In other words, if you get rid of \"Mammy,\" shuffling feet, the poor grammar, and black-face with giant lips images is there anything left? In the case of \"Plane Dumb\" there is not.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terrific production and a good comedic performance by George Clooney can't save curiously detached, occasionally clumsy quasi-comedy from Joel and Ethan Coen. Depression-era road tale hearkens back to yesterday with three escaped chain-gang prisoners seeking a hidden fortune, and inadvertently becoming country music stars in the process! The film meanders along but never builds any momentum. It does get a big boost from Clooney's charismatic, Gableesque mugging, and also from the art direction and T-Bone Burnett's lively music. Otherwise, the screenplay (by the Coens) is seriously lacking in humor and interest, supporting cameos by John Goodman and Holly Hunter fail to add any lift, and the second-half of the movie slides precariously into self-indulgence. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Formula movie about the illegitimate son of a rich Chilenian who stands to inherit a fortune and gets mixed up in the affairs of bad guys and falls in love with a beautiful female lawyer (Vargas). It looks very much like a TV movie, not really exciting. The only reason I bothered to see it was because Valentina Vargas was in it. No real surprises here, though it is nice to see Vargas. Great looking Chilenian landscapes on display but Malcolm McDowell's part is very small and doesn't add much to the movie. Michael Ironside plays as usual a bad guy but this is not one of his most memorable parts. The chase scenes are standard fare.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Southern Cross, written and directed by James Becket is a waste of good celluloid and actor's efforts. A formula film is not necessarily bad if it pays off on it's promise, which this film does not. It is a tiresome concoction of movie cliches that can be traced to a thousand different films from the past. It is full of random and empty plot twists that add nothing but aimless action, such as a trip by the protagonists to a ghost town where the villains (unexplainedly) follow them. This was obviously concocted as an excuse for a shoot out and escape scene bordering on the preposterous, with people popping in and out of doorways and running past windows while firing pistols at each other. It makes one believe that somebody told Becket there was a ghost town in the Chilean foothills and he said, \"Oh great, lets do a shoot out scene there.\"

Don't even waste your rental money on this. It is a bunch of random bits and pieces from a hundred different films thrown together to call an action drama.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"He's the only reason to see this film. He gives a very good performance--much better than this crap deserves. He's very handsome and very talented--he deserves better than this. Also depressing is to see Malcolm McDowell in this. He's another talented actor who deserves better but, like Esai, he gives a very good performance. So, if you're fans of either of them you might want to watch. Otherwise, stay away. One more complaint--couldn't we have had more scenes of Esai shirtless?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is really BAD, there is nothing appealing or worth of commentary in it except for the beautiful settings: Chilean landscape. I know I must supply four lines as a commentary for this movie, but the thing is that it is such a bad movie, that I can only say that is actually BAD. Michael Ironside is the only one who saves the money in the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The DVD for this film is by Alpha Video--a company that almost always releases the poorest quality prints. In Alpha's defense, often that is the only print available, but the specialize in public domain and cheap-o films. If you can find another print by a different company, try it first as the print for this film is scratchy and faded. Still, compared to most Alpha DVDs, this one is excellent--especially since the sound is pretty clear (and Alpha never seems to include closed captionings--even with films with horrid sound).

A man has been dating a lady for a very long time. One night, he's a bad boy and spends the night with another woman. Soon afterwords, he comes clean to his fianc\u00e9e about this, she forgives him and they marry.

Very soon after the wedding, he gets a frantic call from the other woman--she NEEDS to see him and has just tried to kill herself. When they meet, he learns that she has an STD and she wanted him to know that he, too, might now have it. Then, although there is a nurse there and they are treating her for the suicide attempt, she somehow finds a gun and kills herself! The makes a HUGE mistake. He does not tell his doctor and he doesn't tell his new wife. Some time passes and now she and the baby are infected! At this point, the doctor meets with the guy and tells him about the importance of getting treatment and they shows him rooms filled with horribly infected people (actually, these were just films of people with STDs that they spliced into the film--most of whom have syphilis).

In some ways the film is very progressive. It addresses a serious issue and it's interesting how the film encourages couples NOT to wait to get married but to marry fast and give in to those sexual urges--but only with each other (not bad advice at all). On the other hand, the film never exactly says what it's talking about. They never use the terms STD, VD or the like, nor does it even name the diseases. Often it is referring to syphilis but at other times it's talking about herpes or other STDs--the information just isn't very clear or specific--a VERY common problem with such films from this era. Audiences at the time must have felt quite confused about what they were seeing and many of the more naive probably needed to have some of their 'faster' friends explain it all to them!

Speaking of \"such films\", in the 1930s-50s, lots of small and often sleazy production companies made films decrying the dangers of drugs and sex (though often they really just wanted to promise a bit of cheesecake for audiences who usually could not see such racy fare in Hollywood films). Many of these are hysterically funny since they are so over-done and the information so inaccurate. The most famous examples are REEFER MADNESS and SEX MADNESS (both by the same two-bit production company) and compared to how salacious and stupid those two films are, this cheap film seems like it should be in the Criterion Collection!!

Interestingly, there are weirdos out there (I would definitely be included among them) that enjoy seeing the films because they are often so bad and so horribly made that they are great fun. This one, however, isn't THAT bad nor is the message that convoluted and the film of the victims isn't as grotesque as some similar films. While the message really should have been more explicit and useful, for a 1933 film it's pretty good--despite the occasionally poor acting and the ludicrous suicide scene. Remember kids--just say 'NO' to suicide!

Oh, by the way, the \"two years of treatment\" they talk about in the film was actually the norm for syphilis back in 1933. Nowadays, it's a lot more treatable--as are the rest of the STDs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director Fabio Barreto got a strange Academy Nominea for his last movie O Quatrilho. Quatrilho is a bad movie, but in Bella Donna, Barreto did one of the Worst movies of All Time. His adaptation of the novel Riacho Doce is ridiculous. Think with me how poor brazilians fishermen speak a perfect english? In the film they do. There isn't a Screenplay, It's only a very long videoclip with a beautiful places and many sex scenes with Moscovis and Henstridge.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie is a happy lullaby, was made to make us sleep. And that\u00b4s what we do, as we dream about the top beautiful Natasha Henstridge. No screenplay, no deep characters, nothing special. So, let\u00b4s sleep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Since Paul Kersey was running short of actual relatives to avenge, the third installment in the \"Death Wish\" saga revolves on him returning to New York to visit an old war buddy. He arrives only to find out that Brooklyn entirely changed into a pauperized gangland and that youthful thugs killed his friend and continuously terrorize all the other tenants of a ramshackle apartment building. Kersey strikes a deal with the local police commissioner, conquers the heart of his blond attorney, blows away numerous villains with an impressive Wildey Magnum gun and gradually trains & inspires the petrified New Yorkers to stand up for themselves. Okay, there's no more point in defending the \"Death Wish\" series after seeing part three. The 1974 original was a masterpiece that revolved on the social drama as much as it did on the retribution and, even though it was pure exploitation, part two still had quite a few redeeming qualities and at least the events were a logically linked to those occurring in the first. Number three frequently feels like a totally separate franchise. Apparently, Kersey isn't an architect anymore, he's ten times more social and talkative than he used to be and suddenly nobody, not even the police, is against vigilante actions anymore? All these changes and several other aspects make it more than obvious that Michael Winner and Charles Bronson reduced their \"Death Wish\" success to being a purely brainless and exploitative action series, with a death toll that gigantically increases with each episode, armory that becomes more and more explosive and criminals that get nastier, sleazier, meaner and a lot harder to kill. However, the gentlemen didn't seem to realize that the non-stop spitfire of violence actually creates an opposite effect, namely this extremely monotonous and much more boring than the previous two. I once read a brilliant review that referred to \"Death Wish 3\" as the pure definition of cinematic masturbation. This description couldn't be more spot-on, as the script tiredly moves itself from one repugnant execution sequence to the next. Particularly the final twenty minutes are a complete \"orgy\" of gunfire, explosions and executions realized through improvised homemade measures. Yi-Haaa! This entry in the series has quite an interesting supportive cast, including Martin Balsam (\"Psycho\", \"12 Angry Men\") as the fatigue neighbor who keeps machine guns in his closet, Ed Lauter (\"Family Plot\", \"The Longest Yard\") as the slightly unorthodox copper and even Alex Winter (from \"Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!) in his debut role as one of the thugs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The 3rd in the series finds Paul Kersey (Bronson) turning vigilante to get revenge on the thugs that murdered his old buddy. I don't know why this movie shoved me into it, but somehow it did. I found myself rooting for Bronson to wipe the floor with those punks. Every time he blew one of them away I felt good. This movie does not take itself seriously, but what if it did? There is a good build-up to the fireworks finale in which Bronson goes on a rampage. But as far as acting and plot go, it just doesn't measure up. If I lived in that neighborhood, I would get out as fast as I could, but it seems like the people are asking for trouble. I know there is that mentality that we need to save our streets, but there is a limit here folks. I had to give it a 4. Sure there are good \"blow 'em away\" scenes but that's about it. At that time, Bronson was 64. I'm sure if those thugs really wanted to they could have their way with Bronson. Bronson takes the place of a Schwarzanegger or Stallone in this movie. This movie gives you a sense of rejoice. The common man can save the neighborhood, save the day. To sum it up, this is far from being the original Death Wish, but it is rather good if you are just looking for an hour and a half of shoot 'em up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Naked Deanna Troi!

Richie's brother Chuck (from \"Happy Days\") with a reverse mohawk!

Death Wish 3 has all this and more, including one clever scene where Chuck Bronson's character sets up a mousetrap like device that brains a punk when he opens the window.

Chuck also places a board with a bunch of nails on the floor near another window and smiles when he returns and sees bloody footprints leading away.

All I can say about Death Wish 3 is that it is one of most incomprehensible \"serious\" movies that I have ever seen--loaded to the hilt with mayhem, and nearly zero police response, despite the use of military weapons to mow punks down by the score.

As I understand it, Bronson disowned this film, but happily cashed the check from Golan Globus.

If you enjoy quality movies, avoid this one, but if you're in for a cheap \"Jackass\" kind of thrill, check it out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, I just flipped channels and caught DW3. I watched it knowing it would be trash..BUT..as a person who has seen tons of films, this one stands up there as one of the most purely bad films I have ever seen...I'm not kidding. It is so bad you have to watch it, like a bad accident you can't turn away from. Sometimes these kinds of films work, IE, Troma movies...but watching Martin Balsam and Charles Bronson slum it up like this is painful....What's even funnier is I pulled up IMDb to see what other people said and it actually scores a 4.1\/10??? I can't believe it made it past 1.5! Equally as funny is this is not even the pinnacle of this series...somehow this garbage warranted part 4 and 5? And to top it all off, some dude's comments on here referenced this as the best of the series and his favorite film of all time??? Statements like that scare me about this world!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Death Wish 3\" is the movie equivalent of a shooting gallery. All the characters (apart from Bronson's Paul Kersey, of course) exist merely to be killed, either as \"provocation\" (the good guys) or as \"retribution\" (the villains). The director simply pours on the mindless violence (people even get burned alive and blown up), turning this into an urban version of \"Commando\" (and Charlie, like Arnold, rarely bothers to protect himself from the enemy gunfire). Fans of this short of thing (and, apparently, there are many) will enjoy it, others....beware. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is slightly less sickening than the first two films, but otherwise it's business as usual: a scuzzy, sleazy and unbalanced slice of diseased cinema. Charles Bronson is back, blasting into action when his friend is killed by yobs terrorising the neighbourhood. Crime, you see, is up 11% in the South Belmont area... so what's to be done? A stronger police presence? Tougher jails? Harsher sentences? Nope, the only solution is to send in a loose cannon like Bronson to mete out bloodthirsty revenge \u0096 or, as the writers would have it, justice: this time he's the personal killing machine of police chief Ed Lauter.

The writers bend over backwards to make Kersey the hero, sending the useless cops into the area only to confiscate a weapon from an elderly resident who keeps it for protection, and supplying a scene in which Kersey has his camera stolen and shoots the thief right in the back, to applause from the watching crowd. Capital punishment for theft? Well, okay. The attitude of everyone in the film is that this is a solution, and the dishonest twisting of the characters into ciphers who exist only to cheer Kersey on or back him up is appalling.

Sure, these villains are scum, but shouldn't the film leave the audience to make up its mind, rather than slanting the entire thing towards Kersey and his mindless answer? Funnily enough the beleaguered residents don't fear gang reprisals or blame Kersey for any of the violence, which is odd as one character is killed precisely because of Kersey's involvement. At the end of the film they all take guns from their sock drawers and gleefully join in with the massacre, never stopping to think things through or struggle with the thought of having to kill another human being.

The atrociously shallow performances don't help \u0096 Bronson has literally one facial expression throughout and can't even put inflection on the right words. New heights of stupidity are reached here \u0096 a machine gun? A rocket launcher?! \u0096 and new lows of misogyny: the movie contrives to desecrate every female character in sight, whether by rape, explosion or throat-slashing; and it sets them up in supremely stupid fashion, like one victim who ventures into the crime-ridden, gang-controlled neighbourhood to ask out a stranger, or another who goes shopping alone at night. This is dreck, pure and simple, mindless garbage put together without style or sense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie lacked credibility for two reasons. One, no mayor of a major city, and New York is certainly as major as it gets. Would allow a borough in his city to degenerate into such a violent place to live; especially for voters who could have much to say about his or her future job security. All of the victims in the movie were mostly elderly, Jewish or defenseless. At 62-years of age, I have never seen a movie that depicted such utter lack of respect for authority as this movie did. Even \"Escape from New York,\" which was fictional, up front, i.e. they told you that this was science fiction, didn't resort to such deep-seated violence. In this movie, most of the elderly victims were victimized and yet had guns but were unwilling to use them. Also, in this movie and I have not seen the prior two, is more lawless than the \"Escape\" movie. Secondly, gangs as far as my research shows have never been as cooperative as this movie makes them out to be. On the one hand they catch a gang member from another gang working in their area and he's killed. Yet when the heroes start shooting at the local gang bangers, the next gang over is welcomed with open arms. Outside gang members are always viewed as outsiders and are stopped. We are supposed to believe that when automatic weapons are used against our gang, the other gangs want to be all into it. Why did the outside gangs come to help? I believe that more than one gang from outside came to help. What did they come for? Another question, why was the gang leader in jail and why do fellow jail inmates ask his permission to attack Bronson's character? This was not a great movie and I could go on, but I won't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie could very well have been a propaganda movie for the North americian falangist party - or some similar group... The strong man (Kersey) places himself above the law (but not outside the law) and liberates upstanding citizens by killing worthless trash. The only thing that made me think it wasn't made by the KKK was the fact that a jew starred as a good guy... Try watching it again while thinking of it as a propaganda movie for an extreme right wing group - and you'll see what I mean...

It's a tragedy that Jimmy Page actually made music for this movie... :(","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was disappointed with the third film in the \"Death Wish\" series and wouldn't recommend this unless you are really into Bronson. He is his usual self in this one, maybe a bit lighter hearted than in the others; the rest of the cast is good if your watching a movie of the week on T.V. - the whole film has the production value of a bad episode of the A-Team and I like the escapism fun of a show like the A-Team but not on the big screen, even if it is an action movie that doesn't claim to be anything to sophisticated. The film takes a while to get going and then when it finally does, it gets out of control to the point of ridiculousness. The plot is something out of an episode of \"Highway to Heaven\" and Bronson seems like a fish out of water with the majority senior citizen cast and the gun play is so out of control you don't even get any satisfaction from Bronson's revenge against the bad guys. Skip this and go on to the 4th installment which I highly recommend.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would put Death Wish 3 in the same box as Stallone's Cobra and Commando. The box that I would sell for $2 at a garage sale with all the videos inside. The story is about the main character coming back from the previous movies' success to ruin it all with this load of trash. Why did the makers want to destroy the reputation of the past 2 films with this cheap junk. The story is so lame that had to be a outrageous sequel. I mentioned Cobra earlier because it has the same mood, that one man can kill 20 or 30 gang members without a scratch. Both this movie and Cobra were bent on showing the hero firing his guns at hip level and the enemy falling in large numbers. Police officers spend hours at the shooting range so why did they get gunned down by gang members firing aimlessly from their hips? This movie was so bad I thought for a minute it was Death Wish 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Three businessmen are involved in a bar fight with three mysterious men. The three businessmen take revenge, which escalates to a murder after another. Supposedly the story is about the violence that could happen to ordinary people.

The plot has too many holes. The details were ignored in order to move the story forward. The acting was uneven. The color balance was awful even though I watched this movie in DVD. The small budget and tight schedule were apparent. The whole thing seems to be an excuse to shoot the final gun fight, and the ending was just unbelievable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seeing this film for the first time twenty years after its release I don't quite get it. Why has this been such a huge hit in 1986? Its amateurishness drips from every scene. The jokes are lame and predictable. The sex scenes are exploitative and over the top (that is not to say that Miss Rudnik does not have nice boobs!). The singing is \"schrecklich\". The only genuinely funny scene is the big shoot out when the gangsters die break dancing, a trait that dates the movie firmly to the mid-eighties. It's really quite puzzling to me how incapable I am to grasp what evoked the enthusiasm of the cheering audiences in 1986 (and apparently still today, reading my fellow IMDBers comments).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This tale of the upper-classes getting their come-uppance and wallowing in their high-class misery is like a contemporary Mid-Sommerish version of an old Joan Crawford movie in which she suffered in mink. Here, people behave in a frightfully civilized manner in the face of adversity. A well-heeled London solicitor, (Tom Wilkinson), discovers that not only is his wife having an affair with the local gentry but that she has also killed their housekeeper's husband in a hit-and-run accident. He throws up, but otherwise his stiff-upper-lip hardly quavers.

Written and directed by Julian Fellowes, who won an Oscar for writing \"Gosford Park\", (this is his directorial debut), from a novel by Nigel Balchin, it's quite comical although I am not sure how much of the comedy is intended. It's like a throw-back to British films of the forties where characters all behaved like characters in books or plays rather than like people might in real life. However, it's not all bad. Wilkinson is terrific, even if you never believe in him as a person while Emily Watson, (the adulterous wife), and Rupert Everett, (the highly amoral high-class totty), are both very good at covering the cracks in the material. Tony Pierce-Roberts' cinematography ensures that no matter how hard it is on the ear it's always good on the eye.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was pulled into this movie early on, much to my surprise, because I hadn't intended to watch it at all. Now I wish I hadn't. The suspense starts out well, with the hit-and-run resulting in death and the question of whether the guilty character will confess, or be found out, or (doable now, though a no-no in the old days of movie-making) get away with it. The plot's been done before--what plot hasn't--but the tensions inherent in it, with the additional complications and motivations arising out of the illicit love affair, make for an absorbing first half. Then the film abandons the hit-and-run to embark upon a misty exposition of two unrequited, all-suffering loves. The two tracks of plot--hit-and-run and unreasoning love--just don't have enough to do with each other, and that they involve the same characters doesn't bind them enough to justify the departure from the original story line. The screenwriter should have chosen one plot or the other. At the end of the film, in the midst of the movie's second funeral, I found myself thinking, \"Now, what does any of this have to do with that hit-and-run?\" The filmmakers may think the answer obvious, but I think the movie was plotted and executed flabbily.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a huge fan of both Emily Watson (Breaking The Waves) and Tom Wilkinson (Normal) and was amused to see them upstaged by Rupert Everett (Dellamorte Dellamore) in this shockingly rather minor movie that had all the ingredients to be so much more. The too brief scenes in which he portrays a languid, infinitely entitled, worthless son of a rich Lord are spot-on and entertaining. But for a love triangle there was remarkably little chemistry to speak of between anyone. The music was annoyingly movie-of-the-week quality, and the voice-over jarring and totally unnecessary. Clearly the work of a first-time director with a small budget who either lacked or didn't sufficiently heed good advice. Too bad.

I can appreciate how the people you kind of hate at the beginning are the ones you kind of like at the end, and vice-versa, so there is some sort of character arc, at least in terms of perception. For example, Watson's character, while refreshingly honest to her husband about her feelings for another man, began to grate on me near the end, particularly when she announced to her husband that she simply had absolutely no control over her actions, and later when she simply declared that she would be moving back into their marital flat, with no asking of permission, no apologies offered. And I went from disliking Wilkinson's control freak \/ moral relativist character to sort of understanding him and not really wanting him to change (unlike his wife).

This movie awkwardly morphed from a whodunit to a \"Love Story\" or \"Steel Magnolias\" illness drama without sufficiently informing me of the fact, so I was left distractedly guessing what the next plot twist might be long after they had all been revealed (Was it the Lord driving the car? The Lord's dog?). The scene where the Lord visits Wilkinson and relates how brave Watson is, the bestest nurse any dying boyfriend could ever ask for, Florence Nightingale incarnate, etc. was OK until he started over-the-top sobbing like a baby. Good God! If you ask me she's just another flitty rich person with way too much time on her hands, and so she drives her hard working, well providing spouse crazy with unnecessary drama. Her screwing around was just another way to occupy her empty life; the dying guy thing was an added bonus for her as it somehow made her previous actions completely above reproach.

Look, everyone would have been better off if Wilkinson had just left her for his secretary, who seemed to appreciate him for who he was. Instead he acted like an abused dog, his open craving for his wife's affection increasing with every kick she gives him. I'm not anti PC or anything, it just didn't ring true, even after taking into account all of the harsh realities of middle age we all tend to face. The ending for me was (and not the director's intention I am certain) depressing. The movie spent the last 80 minutes convincing me that these two people just don't belong together, so I found no joy in the promise of their relationship continuing. I'm not above wanting my emotions manipulated by a story, it just has to be somewhat plausible and not hackneyed. Is that asking too much?

My score: 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, I would like to say that I am a fan of all of the actors that appear in this film and at the time that I rented it, I wanted to like it.

I think that the main reason that I was so disappointed was that the outside box promised me a suspense thriller. In my eyes, a suspense thriller for British movies is like something out of a Ruth Rendell novel, something that has a lot of dark twist and turns and leaves the viewer with an ending that is unlikely to be forgotten anytime soon.

This movie started out with the promising note of being such a film. We have our main character, that suspects a man that he does not like, of being involved in a hit and run that killed the husband of one of his servants.His notions prove to be right, but the idea that his wife might be involved, does not occur to him until that she confesses to him that she was a part of the crime.

The elements of a good suspense thriller were in place, at this point, but from there, I felt that the film took a different direction and became almost some sort of a mild soap opera about who wants to be with who and what the love of a real relationship is. The film might have been enjoyable to me, if the outside box had talked of a twisted lover's triangle and had not been labeled as suspense thriller.This seemed to be more of a soap opera story and the beginning setting seemed to be a mild distraction to the true content of the film. I felt like this film could have done a whole lot better than it did. I felt like it kept leading the viewer up to a big event that never materialized. So, I have to give it a lower rating than I would have liked to and say that it fell short of my expectations.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The basic genre is a thriller intercut with an uncomfortable menage-a-trois. Fellowes has tried to make a lot more out of this, using the lies of the title in order to bring about all manner of small twists, invariably designed to surprise the characters more than the audience.

It's really rather messy though. Fellowes doesn't seem interested presenting the thriller elements in a fashion that will keep us seat-edged. Rather his focus is on the moral predicaments themselves.

The dialogue is inconsistent, stagey here, vernacular there and with the constant surprise of realism undone by the occasional clich\u00e9-landmine. Though there is no fussing over the locations so that the actors can get on with existing in their space the dreadful score can't create a further dimension and often works against the emotional momentum of given set pieces. There's also a very prosaic, dare I say it British feel to the filming. I didn't want to see a document of two successful middle class people caught in an extraordinary situation, I wanted to see some sort of artful recounting of the story.

Finally it is, in fact, the story which lets the rest down. Just as the elements of suspense are rather flat so the story is an asymmetric sum of subplots of different shapes and sizes, woven as a vehicle for character examination. Wilkinson and Watson support this meta-essay with good performances and John Warnaby's ebullient colleague Simon to Wilkinson is a welcome foil for much of the brow-furrowing.

I'm disappointed; not that it's bad, but that it could have been much better. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Starting with a tearjerking poem and images of american missiles, starving children and mutilated palestinians I quickly realised that this was not going to be a objective documentary. 5 youths convicted after the gothenburg riots are interviewed and give a very confused explaination why they had to trash the citycenter and then (oh my god) actually have pay for what they have done. I kept watching and many questions are raised, were the trial properly done and did the cops have the right to do what they did? Lots of questions asked... and then dropped. No interviews with judges or going through documents about the trial.. nothing.

In short: Nothing new from what every Swede has seen on tv a hundred times - just poor propaganda.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Writer & director Robert Downey, Sr., a pioneer of the underground film movement in the 1960s, satirized the New York Madison Avenue advertising world with his avant-garde comedy \"Putney Swope.\" Downey doesn't confine his ridicule to advertising, but tackles black militant culture, the dynamics in Hollywood's portrayal of race, the elite white power structure, and character of corruption in any power struggle. As audacious and ambitious as \"Putney Swope\" strives to be, it qualifies as a terrible film, amateurishly made on a shoe-string budget with a no-name cast and humor that lacks hilarity. Everything about this movie reeks with improvisation. \"Putney Swope\" stirred up controversy during its initial release with its politically incorrect handling of race issues and consumer culture. Like most Marx Brothers movies, the plot is thin, providing an excuse for Downey's anecdotal gags, most of which are terrible.

The chairman of a prestigious Madison Avenue ad agency dies during a board meeting. Before the body has been removed, the board holds a secret ballot vote to determine who will replace him. Each member understands that they are forbidden to vote for himself. Sheer accident occurs when everyone votes for the token black member, Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson), since none thought anybody would cast a ballot for him. Swope pink slips all but one of the white executives, surrounds himself with black, pistol packing employees, and renames the firm \"Truth and Soul Advertising.\" Swope decides to alter the face of American advertising. He refuses to accept clients whose products are alcohol, tobacco, or war toys. Swope's clients stage an exodus after he becomes the CEO, and grandstanding attracts a new line-up of clients that show up at his office lugging bags of money and prepared to suffer abuse from Swope's militant employees. Swope exploits his African-American staff, too, ruthlessly appropriating their ideas after he fires them and conjures up a number of offensive advertising campaigns, all of which are hailed as a 'new wave' of marketing genius. Incredibly, Swope's conservatism proves successful but the agency becomes the target of government operatives who argue Swope's advertising tactics constitute \"a threat to the national security.\" The high point of this black & white, 85-minute comedy are the television commercials shot in color. Unfortunately, Downey doesn't know when to cut off these ads that consistently start out cleverly but wear out their welcome. The funniest part of \"Putney Swope\" involves our eponymous protagonist's dealings with U.S. President Mimeo in Washington D.C. (Pepi Hermine), a marihuana-toking midget with a Kissinger-like Teutonic adviser (Larry Wolf) spouting tasteless jokes while trying to convince Swope to come up with an advertising campaign for his new car, the Borman 6.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Black and white satire of a Madison Avenue ad agency being taken over by blacks. They're headed by Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson) who is determined to change things. However he turns out to be even WORSE than his white predecessors. That's about as original as this gets.

I'm sure this was considered daring and shocking in 1969 but it just seems silly today. The jokes are either unfunny (the president is a midget. HOW is this funny?), cruel or obvious and the film is full of unlikable characters. It's done in a very experimental way which makes it even harder to take...or understand. The movie just gets more bizarre and surreal as it goes along. The ending comes out of nowhere. To make it worse, with the sole exception of Johnson, ALL the acting is bad. Antonio Fargas (a regular in these types of films) is especially annoying as the Arab. This gets three stars because the commercial parodies (done in bright color) ARE amusing and there's a rare good line here and there. I heard this was a cult classic but this is more interesting than good. Skip it...unless you're in experimental 1960s films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think Downey was perhaps inspired by French new-wave.

Who wasn't?

Unfortunately, what he ended up creating here was more along the lines of crackhead new-wave.

A synapse is obviously a terrible thing to lose and Downey appears to have lost plenty.

Just say no, indeed. In more ways than one. Including to watching this film.

I couldn't bear it after a while and began fast forwarding through it. It would have been wiser to have just skipped it altogether.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a poor excuse for a movie. A film noir done by Busbee Berkeley? Please! First, let's forget about the plot, a truly simple-minded version of a cynical tough guy turned into a saint by the love of a pretty blonde. Yechh. So what turns her from despising him to loving him? Along with a group of other guys, he helps keep a kid from drowning as they all swim in a water tower and try to survive as the water is siphoned off, stranding them. It isn't exactly heroics, but she's suddenly smitten. It's truly painful to watch Claude Rains trying to portray a hard-bitten, tough-talking, noir-type cop. A crooked grimace is his main and rather pathetic acting tool, along with a growling voice. Most of his energy seems to go into trying to hide the intelligence that shines in all his other roles. How he ever got talked into taking this job I'll never understand. Enjoy it, if you can, for a few period details, the old cars and gas pumps, but don't expect a decent film experience. It wasted 1-1\/12 hours of my life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Monkees \"Head\" is one of those peculiar phenomenons I've noticed- that when something doesn't make sense, people will try to read things into it and give it great deep meanings, which its creator never intended. Such is the case here.

The movie is a stream-of-consciousness spectacle of The Monkees floating in and out of various sketches, blackouts, set pieces, etc. similar to the ones on their TV show. But while the TV show was played for laughs, this doesn't seem to be played for anything except a sort of deep, trippy, pseudo-intellectual state that this brand of psychedelia imposes. All in all, it's The Monkees doing the same schtick, but now it's \"consciousness-raising\" because the laugh track is removed. There is not a stitch of humor or meaning to the whole thing; it just drones on with colored lights.

The music in \"Head\" should prove to anyone, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the Monkees had not a scrap of songwriting ability. The tunes are mostly garbage; the only one that's even listenable is \"Porpoise Song\", which opens and closes the film. But the thing is, that was a Gerry Goffin-Carole King song, and, while it's above-average for the Monkees, it's below-average by Goffin and King standards. It's like hearing one of the old Peter And Gordon songs that Paul McCartney wrote for them: you might think it's a pretty good song, but then you find out who composed it, and you realize it's a throwaway. Mike Nesmith's song is maybe passable, the rest is worthless. Davy Jones has, I guess, what the filmmakers imagined to be \"the big number\" in the picture, since it's the only song presented As Show Biz and not cut into a film montage or dream sequence, but it falls flat, too, just because the song isn't any good.

I have to admit I always liked the Monkees, so the movie is a real disappointment. Sure, they were cheesy, but they were so cheerful about it.

They knew they were cheesy and they were cool with it. But then they got ambitious. In \"Head\", they actually joke about being a manufactured pop product, but the truth is, they wanted something more. They wanted to be Great Musicians and taken seriously as artists. Maybe not like the Beatles, but something approaching that. \"Head\" proves that they failed on all counts. 1* out of 4","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"at a Saturday matinee in my home town. I went with an older friend (he was about 12) and my mom let me go because she thought the film would be OK (it's rated G). I was assaulted by loud music, STRANGE images, no plot and a stubborn refusal to make ANY sense. We left halfway through because we were bored, frustrated and our ears hurt.

I saw it 22 years later in a revival theatre. My opinion had changed--it's even WORSE! Basically everything I hated about it was still there and the film was VERY 60s...and has dated badly. I got all the little in-jokes...too bad they weren't funny. The constant shifts in tone got quickly annoying and there's absolutely nothing to get a firm grip on. Some people will love this. I found it frustrating...by the end of the film I felt like throwing something heavy at the screen.

Also, all the Monkees songs in this movie SUCK (and I DO like them).

For ex-hippies only...or if you're stoned. I give this a 1.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As their entire career was a pale impersonation of The Beatles, it is no surprise that, shortly after the great fiasco of the Beatles \"Magical Mystery Tour,\" the Monkees would follow up with their own insipid and creative morass of a movie, called \"Head.\" Both movies are not so much a true story with a plot (though MMT attempted to define a plot) as they are a hodge-podge of skits and snippets, interspersed with music and songs and out-takes.

\"Head\" has no plot, other than the pre-fab-four trying to break free of \"the box\" they are in (i.e. the type-casting of being \"Monkees\" and the surrounding commercialism) and yet, always finding themselves back in the box. Most skits involve breaks in the \"fourth wall\" and crossing over into other, seemingly unrelated scenes. Filled with anti-Vietnam war messages and attempts by the group to show their other talents, the film bounces around haphazardly- also to be blamed on the multiple directors.

The film, like Magical Mystery Tour, is now excused by some fans as \"wonderful symbolism and misunderstood artistic statements.\" Phooey. Like MMT, it is too many guys with access to too many drugs all trying to make something artsy and making crap.

Like MMT, \"Head\" has some clever moments and offers some relatively unknown Monkees songs that are quite decent. It does develop a bit more charm than MMT and is a bit easier to sit through, but it is not ironic at all that, like everything else the Monkees did, this was just a mimicry of something the Beatles did first... even when it comes to laying an egg.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is possibly the worst movie i've ever seen, it was horribly done it didn't flow it was very choppy, because of that many people didn't understand the movie at all. I had to watch this movie several times before I got an idea about what was happening, OK its like this a kid stole someones car and while running from the police he totals it, for some reason the cops let him off and he has to face his parents who sent him to live with his uncle out in the wilderness, there he meets a girl who loves to rock climb and he gets into the sport and has to beg his uncle to let him enter a contest for climbing, and yeah thats about it like i said horrible movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Talk about being boring!

I got this expecting a fascinating insight into the life of the man who wrote the mythical Night on the Galactic Railroad. I expected to see crazy stories and hijinks of an eccentric man and to discover his inspirations for such bizarre material. Boy, was I wrong.

Spring and Chaos is mostly boring with only sporadic moments of innovative animation. It's certainly nothing to write home about and nowhere near as good as NOTGR which is something that I suggest you watch instead. Leave this bore alone. If you absolutely MUST see then either rent it or find it somewhere cheap. Do not pay top dollar.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a history buff, I rented this movie because of the subject matter. The idea of the Ellis Island experience at the turn of the century focusing on one small group is intriguing. Unfortunately, the movie falls flat. Much of the story is simply boring; nothing much happens for long stretches. The director uses goofy imagery (offered up in the form of daydream sequences) in an apparent attempt to break up the glacial pacing, but instead, it clashes with the authentic look and feel of the movie. The characters are also poorly drawn. In the end, we don't really care as much about them as we should. It's a shame that this wasn't what it could have been. I would still like to see a good movie about the American immigrant experience, but this one isn't it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW***

What a long and mostly uninteresting movie! Who were these characters? Why didn't I care about them? If I'm going to watch a movie for two hours, I'd like to care about somebody or something.

We know that Salvatore dreamed of the riches to be found in the new world. Beyond that, though, we learned little about most of his family's hopes, fears, etc., as they embarked on an adventure into the unknown.

And why was Lucy even in this movie? She said little; we knew little about her or what she was doing (was she forced to service men in exchange for being allowed to board the ship?) or what her plans were upon reaching New York. To those who might suggest that she was needed to underscore the point that a single woman, however cultured, could not get into this country alone, I say that that fact is not enough justification to give her so much screen time. That point could have been made in five minutes, with Lucy as a momentary character.

More questions: Why wasn't the twin brother at the boat to meet the family? We heard about the brother, and some closure on that point would have been helpful in giving the movie some cohesiveness. Also, how long was the journey from Italy to New York? Given the conditions on the ship, it makes a difference to the viewer if the voyage took five or 10 or 50 days. (Someone said something about seeing land a \"week\" at one point, but I think that was when they were already en route.) I needed these types of details to better appreciate what they were going through.

The only scene I really liked was when the boat, filled with passengers, left the dock.

If you choose to rent this movie, do so with remote in hand; you may want the Fast Forward button handy.

Finally, may I suggest that, with the right voice-over providing helpful information about the times and the circumstances for immigrants--particularly during the slow stretches of endless shots of the countryside, people walking, etc.--this movie might have made an interesting public TV documentary.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The best part in this movie is the first one, located in Sicily, I suppose. Crialese shows a good talent for photography and the movie start is delightfully surprising. The rest of the story is quite boring. Crialese uselessly insists on stereotypical situations and characters, trying to melt neorealistic suggestions and video-music technique, Fellinian surrealistic remembrances and a very annoying and completely off-topic soundtrack, leading the whole thing towards an end which gives you the sensation of an exaggeratedly long story cut abruptly short. Frankly, this is a real overrated movie and Crialese is a real overrated director.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most generic, surface-level biography you could hope for. Busey's impersonation of Holly is accurate -- but who wants to hear Gary Busey sing \"Maybe Baby\"? Typically, the members of the Hollies are used for comic relief and melodrama (Smith and Stroud, respectively) instead of as people or even characters. When Holly uses a string section, the old jewish-looking guys who come in tell him he's using the same techniques as Mozart. It's just this kind of cheeky statement that makes film biographies like this (and \"Amadeus\", about the aforementioned Mozart) so worthless. Some entertainment can be derived from Holly's excellent styles and songs done in a B-variation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I always think it would be nice if you could somehow have a 'sneak preview' at some of the old movies that are re-released on DVD, before you purchase them. That way you could save yourself some time, money and a certain degree of aggro when you feel so utterly let down.

\"The Buddy Holly Story\" is such a movie.

I do not wish to go into the characterizations, or the holes in the plot, or the messing around with historical facts that this movie encompasses, for I had already come to terms with them twenty years ago, when I first began watching it.

I had recorded it on the old (Monaural) Beta machine back in the early 1980s, and liked it so much, that it became a regularly-played favourite. The best part, to my mind, was Gary Busey's performance as the young Buddy, and his near-perfect vocals and guitar playing.

I looked forward to the day when I could have it in ...STEREO..., and that is where the disappointment comes in.

This DVD version is (supposedly) re-mastered in both audio and video, according to the shell information, but I'm afraid it left me sadly let-down and glancing at my watch, wishing for it to end.

The sound is murky, bordering on the unintelligible, and so unprofessionally mixed that it had me yearning for the crystal-clarity vocals of my old Beta tape!

Despite what you think of the images, or the plot, or the characters, the real draw card here is the MUSIC......and if you can't hear the lead vocals because they are drowned out by the cymbals, or the backing harmonies, or other ambients, then there's not much left, is there?

I'm going to convert my old Beta version to (Mono) DVD for subsequent viewings, and put this one where it belongs, out with the rubbish!

\"Extinction is the Rule, Survival is the Exception...\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie would have been alright, indeed probably excellent, if the directors would have left the interviews and the concert footage separate. \"Into the Void\" is a great song, and I hate how it is cut off at the best part to go to an mumbling interview with Ozzy Osbourne. That should have been at the end of the film, or located in a special feature. The best part of concert DVDs is to put them on and let the music play, but \"Black Sabbath: The Last Supper\" is hard to put and and simply let play because the music is continually interrupted. Nevertheless, there are a few strengths to this film; the concert footage, when it does play, it excellent. Black Sabbath returns to the stage after a long hiatus without Osbourne and this film captures that well: Sabbath basically rocks the fans. The fans, of course, have a sweet advantage in the film because they are seeing the band live, of course, but also they do not have to put up with the incessant interviews that the DVD viewers are burdened with. Shame on Jeb Brien and Monica Hardiman (the directors) for doing this to the film! Also, shame on Wyatt Smith for editing the film in such a way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To remake \"Lost Horizon\", as a musical, the need for a Rodgers & Hammerstein or Lerner & Lowe type musical composition was needed. Burt Bacharach and Hal David were the wrong choice. Having said that, my favorite thing about \"Lost Horizon\", is its score. It's just that the score doesn't fit the piece. The cast, is made-up of mostly non-musical talents (Ullman, Finch and Hussey, were all dubbed, and still don't sound all that great).

Frankly, the novella, on which this, and the earlier non-musical film versions were based, is mediocre, at best. While the possibilities for a truly good, cinematic musical version exist, they are not realized here. The film succeeds at being a good, rainy-day vehicle, to pass the time. Otherwise, you are better off, buying the CD of its soundtrack. Only recommended as a curiosity piece, due to the film's awful reputation. I've seen much better; but I've seen MUCH worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was an extra on this film, in the part shot at the airport in the first 15 minutes or so; I was one of the fleeing (mostly Mexican) Bangladeshi refugees running across the runways at Ryan Field in Tucson. At one point, standing around in our turbans as we waited for another shot, one of my fellow extras turned to me asked me what the move was going to be about. I told him it was going to be a remake of Lost Horizons, only as a musical. There was a long pause, then he replied: \"Man, this movie is gonna suck\". Pretty perceptive of him, I thought. I had a good time and made a bit of money, but even with some interesting personal memories attached to this movie I can't sit through the whole thing.

If you ever saw the movie \"The Swarm\", you can pretty much get the idea. You get to see a lot of famous and talented people wasted on an an idea that on the face of it is just BAD. The idea seemed to be that if you throw enough money at a movie and hire enough big names, then a good story and good writing aren't necessary. Just turn the big crank, and out comes the product. It's just not worth watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"..but unfortunately no one thought about having Van killed in order to save this doomed production. The only positive thing about him in the film is his nice singing voice...too bad the songs are mostly insipid and sappy. Why did I hate Van so much? Well, throughout the film he seemed like he was doing a third-rate Soupy Sales imitation--with lots of mugging, bad jokes and way too much energy spent trying to make everyone laugh. The worst of these moments was when he was \"teaching\" the class--these kids laughed at EVERYTHING he did. Heck, Van could have read the phone book or showed them autopsy photos and they probably would have laughed! Now Van was not the only bad casting decision in the film--he was just the most obvious. Of course, having John Gielgud (a lovely actor) play an Asian was ridiculous as well as having Michael York play Peter Finch's brother!! The bottom line is that because of these insane casting choices, the film was doomed from the start....and the worst of them was the god-awful Bobby Van. Now in real life, he might have been a lovely person and it's sad that in real life he died so young, but with the material they gave him here I just wanted to rip out his tongue to get him to be quiet.

Now I also mentioned the songs--egad, those terrible songs!! The original LOST HORIZON by Frank Capra was a subtle delight throughout--and not a single song and dance number in the film. So why did they decide to add a bazillion songs that did nothing to help the film? They only served to make it seem like a gooey mess--like the original DOCTOR DOOLITTLE combined with LOST HORIZON. The end result is a sickly sweet children's movie--not one that can be enjoyed by anyone over 8.

Now if you can remove these problems, you have the basis of a decent film. After all, the plot is lovely and is still hidden beneath all the goo. Peter Finch is particularly good (though certainly not the equal of Ronald Colman in the original). But, considering that the original was a near-perfect classic, why bother with this sticky confection. Who wants to wade through the treacle?!

By the way, this film was included in \"The 50 Worst Films\" book by Harry Medved. While I, too, disliked the film, it wasn't bad enough to merit inclusion in the book. I think it was included mostly because it was such a huge box office failure and because it was released just a few years before the book appeared. An excellent book--just not one of the best selections to the \"hallowed hall\" of dreck.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can imagine what happened for this film to come into being: a bunch of studio guys are sitting around, drinking gin-and-tonic, maybe a joint, and one of them comes up with the idea that it would be great if they could find a film that would bridge the generation gap, which at that time was about as far apart as Archie Bunker and Mick Jagger. Something that both college-age rebels and their parents would find equally interesting-- for different reasons, perhaps, but still, a ticket is a ticket. What interested hippies? Asia, philosophy, pacifism, and wild sets and costumes. What interested their parents? Musicals, eye candy, a feel-good script, and nostalgia. Very well, then, \"Lost Horizon\", the old classic, as a musical, in color. Can't miss, right? It was a bomb. Lost Horizon, by James Hilton, is perhaps less than a classic, but not a bad novel. In broad terms, he sketches out a utopian society in Shangri-la, \"The Valley of the Blue Moon\", near Tibet, inhabited by peacefully contented villagers who serve an abbey of very<\/i> long-lived monks. Intruding into paradise is a Gilligan's Island-like planeful of outsiders (a veteran of WWI, a missionary, etc.) each with their own spin on the situation -- what plot there is concerns the reaction of each of them to being presented with a choice to live in paradise, or try to return to the tumult of the Twentieth Century. Taken on its own terms, it's gentle, pop-lit fluff, presenting Hilton's own conservative British views in \"Oriental\" dress, as exotic and as familiar as a fortune cookie. As captive honored guests of the monks, the castaways are forbidden to leave the valley, but never pressed into work or prayer (not that the monks do too much of that themselves), treated royally, and given simple, yet luxurious accomodations --who'd want to escape? In this Middle American Heaven-on-Earth, the monks are both cultured and wise, the climate is warm, the food is plentiful and tasty, the villagers are picturesque nonentities and nothing ever changes. The nuns are chaste, but encouraged to look pretty, and even flirt a bit ( the reason given is one of the most hilariously inaccurate explanations of Tantric Sex I've ever read). Even their religion is nonthreatening: revealed as a best-of-both worlds blend of Christianity and Buddhism, there's little to offend any but the staunchest fundamentalist or the oddballs out there who actually knew something about Tibet (which in the early Thirties was a very small number).

As a Capra film focussing on the adventure\/character interplay angles it was enchanting; and perhaps Steven Spielburg could have made it fly, if he'd been around. As an early-Seventies Hollywood product, the adventure was over too quickly, and the updated roster of characters too bland, to make much of an impression. Deprived of the sketchy, suggestive qualities of classic B&W, the monastery resembles a de luxe beauty spa in white and pale blue, and while at least some of the monks' robes tried for historical accuracy, most of the rest of the inmates looked as if on their way to a morning massage and fango bath, with a couple of holes of golf in the afternoon. Maybe Stephan Sondheim could have restored some grit to the story, playing up the very real conflict inside each character's reaction; just five years afterwards, Brian Eno would have captured the tranquil atmosphere to a T; instead, Bert Bacherach and Hal David were given the job of writing the songs, which marry Muzak-like melodies with some of the clunkiest New Agey lyrics ever penned. Quite naturally for the time, every song calls for a dance number, which range from the merely forgettable to the completely boring, and so is the script, which has not one line worth quoting.

Tie-ins with this movie were legion -- there were everything from cookbooks to posters planned to promote this film, and such was the hype that I actually went out and bought the sountrack album. Just about the only thing good I can say about it is that it made enough of an impression on me to write this review completely from memory nearly thirty years after -- the next month I read Aldous Huxley, bought a copy of the Bardo Thadol, and hence learned about real Tibetan culture. Moan.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched \"Deadly Voyage\" because David Suchet was in it, after enjoying him in the \"Poirot\" series. And Joss Ackland is always worth watching, so I went into the film with an expectation of it being a potentially worthwhile film. Alas, it was not to be.

I won't bother critiquing the performances, the pacing, the cinematography or any other structural aspect of the film; others here have already given their opinions on those elements. The only thing I want to address is the film's message, since it proclaims in the intro that it's based upon a true story, and therein hangs the film's supposed importance.

\"Deadly Voyage\" primarily focuses upon an impoverished black African man named Kingsley who wants to move to the US, because he believes that he can make money there. Nothing more, nothing less -- his motivation is utterly selfish. (Of course some people will prevaricate by saying that he was doing it for his family, but in fact he decided to have children on the income he could make in Ghana, so he really just created his own problem.) To that end, Kingsley decides to stow-away aboard a Russian freighter bound for New York. In the process of doing this, he faces harsh conditions, racist crew members and other challenges.

But this is precisely where the film leaves me unsympathetic. Why should the audience be expected to care about Kingsley? Simply because he has a goal? Goals aren't such a rare commodity that his should be privileged above say, the goal of the ship's captain or the woman he left at home with his newborn child. Kingsley's goal is illegal in the eyes of the US Government. It is also illegal in that it steals from the Russian shipping company. If he makes it to the US, it would involve taking out of a system that he has not put into. And if he gets caught, the shipping company will be fined $45,000. I doubt very much that any of the stowaways care about what their chosen course of action is costing anyone else; they're clearly just out for their own gain. He could've spent the $1,000 he won in the lottery at the beginning of the film, for legal passage to the US, and applied for residency and a work permit. Instead, he takes the illegal (and dangerous) route.

So since Kingsley's voyage is illegal, selfish and cannot be ethically justified, why should we care about him or his ordeal? Simply because he faces challenges? Why should his challenges be privileged above the challenge of the Russian shipping company getting to New York without stowaways? Because he's black and the shipping company is white? The reason seems to be because Danny Glover (the film's executive producer) and others involved want us to root for Kingsley, as if he's a hero on some sort of noble voyage. But once you accept that illegal immigration, theft and a fool's mission aren't noble at all, you can't really care about him.

Before anyone plays the race card, I assure you that I would've felt the same no matter what ethnicity\/nationality the involved parties were. Imagine if a British person decided to stow-away in a train headed for Bhutan, sneak across the border, and collect \"unwanted\" Buddhist antiquities, to bring back to Britain to sell. How much sympathy could the challenges he faced generate? Very little, I'd bet. So why should we feel different for Kingley? Because he's black? Because he's poor by American standards? The filmmakers are banking on us sharing their views that the ends justify the means, and that a shipping company being fined $45,000 is inconsequential compared to the remote possibility of an unskilled laborer earning slightly more in the US than he could've if he had just stayed in his own home country. I didn't buy it for a minute.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I put down this vehicle from Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy, and Murphy in particular the first time but having seen it again, recently, I can see that it does have some very funny bits.

This is by no means to say that this is the greatest buddy comedy of all time, but really what can you do to the already exhausted subgenre? What director, Tom Dey, has tried to do is make it a satire of the clich\u00e9s of buddy comedy and the media. Early in the movie the executive of a cable network asks: \"How is this different from Cops?\", when Chase Renzi is pitching the idea of a reality show dealing with De Niro's character, Mitch Preston (hilariously boring name by the way). That's when I saw it in a new light that I hadn't previously noticed.

The idea is to show all the elements of the buddy comedy and put a twist on them. De Niro's reluctance to star in the show and to partner up with Murphy is right out of every cop film you can think of. You can say that De Niro is actually playing himself asking: \"Why would I do another movie playing a cop?\" Chase Renzi is portrayed to be a Hollywood phony but if you look at her opening scene again, she is merely doing it to save her job. She somehow sees the ridiculousness of what she is doing but she wants to succeed despite that. One line says it all: \"Who doesn't want to be on TV?\" Maybe this is reading too much into what is essentially a lightweight film, merely set to entertain, but it does give it a little spin that I hadn't noticed before.

As for Murphy. You got to applaud him for looking this ridiculous. Trey wants to be a star so bad that he is willing to sell out everything he comes in contact with. Murphy was a big star and maybe it struck a nerve that it is all so fleeting.

The plot with the gun is of course pretty boring. The action sequences are nothing special, except the end which required a lot of effort both from cast and crew. One thing that I noticed about the villain is that he is dressed like an 80's pop star. George Michael comes to mind and that adds to the whole media spin.

So, I trashed it the first time around but what the heck; if you are gonna do this, why not point out how ridiculous it really is and De Niro and Murphy took a big chance doing this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watching Showtime I got the impression that the producers got the idea to put Robert DeNiro and Eddie Murphy just for the sake of having a film that co-starred the two of them. Other than that I can't think of a reason to justify the film's existence. Not that it isn't amusing in spots, it certainly is, but the concept is so completely ludicrous that the laughs are somewhat muted.

The thing that really got me was Eddie Murphy's character. I can't seem to wrap my mind around the concept of someone being a police officer as strictly a day job. When I was working person at New York State Crime Victims Board I had to deal with all kinds of cops and they ran the gamut between the really dedicated and some real slugs, but I can't think of one who thought that this was just something I do until I get my career going in an area far afield. I mean, can you really see Eddie Murphy or anyone else going through the rigors of the real Police Academy, not the screen version, just to get a day job?

Anyway DeNiro is your basic hard working detective who's on the trail of a major gun dealer. He's undercover and Murphy is part of his backup. So what does the showboating Murphy do, he calls a reality based TV series like COPS to film the action.

So DeNiro's bust gets blown sky high, but the producer of the show gets some good footage of Murphy and DeNiro and decides on a new reality based television series. So these unwilling partners get joined and try to continue working DeNiro's case with all the TV cameras around.

Eddie Murphy's a funny guy, I loved him in Beverly Hills Cop and in the Doctor Doolittle movies, but he's done better things than Showtime and Robert DeNiro certainly has.

I guess Murphy wanted a chance to work with DeNiro and DeNiro must have gotten one hefty paycheck to do this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two popular actors are paired in showtime like De Niro and Murphy playing a police and an actor. Although they share the most screen time together, they do not reach their expected performances such films like Analyse This, Meet the Parents, Dr Doolittle and Nutty Professor. The film starts interestingly but becomes a thin, ordinary comedy which is quite disappointing.It feels like especially De Niro doesn't enjoy being in Showtime. Thats a shame because he really shows his feelings thats what I think. Unfortunately, if the idea had been used cleverly this could have been a more interesting piece of work and could be followed with a sequel like any other popular Hollywood movie. Well, I don't think there would be a sequel to this at least casting De Niro and Murpy again. ** out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With all the hype surrounding the stars of the movie, this movie left me wanting. I expected a much better movie considering the inclusion of the talents of Murphy, De Niro and Russo but found that the movie fell flat on it's face. Comedy sequences were overdone and the superior performances of the stars especially De Niro and Russo couldn't save this one!

** out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie is not as funny as the director's preceding (and only other) movie, Shanghai Noon. Showtime did have its moments, but it did not satisfy me. Why it needed to be so foulmouthed, I don't know, but I give Showtime **\/****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There comes a time in every big name actor's career when they get sloppy and accept projects that they wouldn't have touched with a 1000 ft. pole in their golden days. Remember \"Taxi Driver\"? That was a fine film. I can hardly believe that the De Niro of \"Showtime\" is the same actor.

I would rather watch \"Time Chasers\" twice than see this film again. If anyone offers to take you to see \"Showtime\" or gives you free passes, or whatever, run away as fast and far as you can.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"MINOR PLOT SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

How did such talented actors get involved in such mindless retreaded

drivel? Robert DeNiro plays a Dumb Hollywood version of the standard

violence prone tough cop (i.e., he beats up the bad guys and rolls his

eyes at cops who prefer to stick by the book), and Eddie Murphy plays a

not so tough cop who would rather be an actor (i.e., he screams out,

\"Freeze, police!\" and has his \"tough look\" down pat). Naturally, they

are partnered when Bobby's loose cannon tactics get him in hot water

with the media and he is essentially blackmailed into starring in a

\"Cops\"-like reality show. Take a breath, cuz that's as funny as it

gets.

No energy was put into the script - it feels like a pale retread of

every copy buddy movie tossed into a blender with \"15 Minutes\" starring,

yes, DeNiro himself as, pretty much the character he is playing here.

The jokes fall flat, the action feels listless, and no one seems to be

having a good time. It's dead on the screen.

Please don't waste your time. Even if you have an overwheming affinity

for one of the actors - avoid it and do them a favor. Becauze if this

makes money, these kinda of scripts will be deeemed perfectly acceptable

for actors of their quality.

And to Mr. DeNiro. You used to make serious films. I remember them -

they were good. You were nominated for awards for them - remember how

much fun that was? Now after \"Analyze This\" (which was good), \"Meet the

Parents\" (which was also good), and \"The Adventures of Rocky and

Bullwinkle\" (which was NOT good), I think we need to see you parodying

yourself less, and BEING yourself more. \"Casino\" feels like a long time

ago. And no, I don't count \"15 Minutes\" as serious Bobby. Anyone who

took that media satire seriously must get their weekly world news","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eddy Murphy and Robert De Niro should be a combination that results in a great comedy. Great expectationa often lead to dissapointment, and this proves to be the case.

When Eddy as a police officer spoils a drug deal being done by Detective Robert, they botch it so badly that they end up doing a live action reality TV cop show. Logic is not a great component of this movie. The super-gun that they spend the second half of the movie chasing down confirms it. A twelve guage machine gun that leaves large holes in sheetmetal and three will destroy a house in about a minute (without reloading) is as more a fantasy than science fiction. A five pound gun, firing hundreds of shots per minute without any recoil, is certainly the weapon of the future using the technology of the past.

It is clear this movie was designed for neither adults nor children, so if you are somewhere in between, this is the movie for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bubbling just beneath the surface of Showtime is a good idea. Actually, it's more like two or three ideas that constantly fight for screentime. This film doesn't just have its cake and eat it too; it has the whole bakery.

Detective Mitch Preston (Robert De Niro) has a drug bust interrupted by the media and a brash, cop-slash-actor named Trey Sellars (Eddie Murphy). When Preston's partner is shot, he angrily shoots the camera out of the hands of a pestering newsman, and the tiff lands him in a new reality cop show produced by Chase Renzi (Rene Russo). In the first of many errors and oddities in the movie, that injured partner is never heard from again or alluded to for the remainder of the film.

De Niro's best gag is his speech to a classroom of small children to open the picture about how TV cops don't act like real cops. Funny thing is, as the movie progresses, his character and Murphy's begin to act more and more like the clich\u00e9s they supposedly clash so strongly with. In a smarter movie, De Niro's diatribe could have played as ironic comment; here, it only shows to point out how truly lame the movie is. While a spoof of a reality based cop show could be funny, the team of writers and director Tom Dey (Who made the far superior Shanghai Noon a few years ago; see that movie instead) seem to be on unsure footing, and instead of slamming the TV industry, they really let them off light (The harshest thing they seem to be able to say about network execs is they like to play ping pong at work). Russo's character has a glint of fiendish delight in her eye, but her dialogue and actions rarely match the actress' enthusiasm.

With little on screen to keep my attention, my mind began to wander, and that's dangerous in a movie with this many plot holes. For instance; if Showtime (the name given to the cop show) is such a popular smash, why doesn't anyone seem to recognize De Niro and Murphy when they are on the job? For that matter, if their investigation of smuggler and all around mean guy Vargas is being televised, why the heck hasn't someone mentioned to him that they are on his trail? Then again, given this villain's actions maybe I shouldn't be surprised; this is the same joker who is very angry at an associate for using his new supergun without approval, jeopardizing a deal, and then dispatches him how? By using about ten of the superguns to level his entire house, of course! That's like putting out a fire with a bigger fire.

Occasionally, Showtime gets laughs, but there simply aren't enough for the film's nearly two hour running time. Even worse, the really smart gags suggest that this movie really could have been on to something, if only they had put in a few more drafts of the script. Murphy mugs and talks as fast as he can with minimal results, and De Niro looks flat out bored through most of this. After a completely unnecessary fistfight between cops and gangsters (That remarkably results in no injuries and no arrests) Russo's character shouts `That's great television!' Perhaps it's great television, but it's far from a great movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't understand jokes. I do believe this is my problem with modern cinema, or those films that are made with millions of dollars in hopes that it will become the next greatest sensation. Isn't it odd \u0096 people just don't laugh as much anymore, and I do believe one of the diseases to that problem is the film \"Showtime\". There was absolutely nothing, from the beginning to the end of the credits, with all of the bantering between Murphy and De Niro, with Russo as eye candy, with even standard clich\u00e9s which make the general population swoon with pre-programmed laughter, there was nothing in this film that made me laugh. There weren't the overbearing physical jokes or the calculated mental vocal jokes at all throughout this debacle of a film. From the beginning, I didn't buy the match-up of De Niro and Murphy as anything more than Hollywood excitement, throughout the commentary the director vividly talks about the hijinks and laughter going on during the shoot \u0096 where was it in the film? This falls to either two problems \u0096 the director really doesn't have a sense of comedy or the editor didn't understand the value of the film. Either way, they both doomed the entire hour and a half spent on the Hollywood nightmare \"Showtime\".

Outside of finding no reason to laugh, there was no reason to follow these characters through any moment of the film. There was a glimpse of humor with De Niro's desire to pick up pottery as a hobby (but the director had to write KILN on the machine so audiences would understand \u0096 WHO DOES THAT?), but that was dropped and never developed. There was the idea that Murphy was an actor, but outside of that one opening monologue, nobody would have understood that. He rents a room in a producer's house in which he can afford on a police officer's salary? This just didn't compute even for Hollywood standards. There was a bad guy who wanted a big gun, but the gun was never developed, nor was there any true test of the weapons capability \u0085 even at the end. It became a bigger joke to laugh at an accent than remember the guns. Where was the television show in this? Russo had to get permission from this random guy at the beginning, but there were no consequences. There was nothing in the middle of this film outside of further questions and meaningless dribble. Random characters were introduced, forgotten, re-introduced, and forgotten all over again. The director and producer laughed at this, while we, the meager viewer, must suffer through inside jokes and clich\u00e9 stereotypes.

Was there a love interest in this film? Was there a truly sinister bad guy that went apart from the comic duo to bring true evil to the screen? Were there any pop culture references that didn't come back to Robert De Niro? Was there random chaos throughout this film? If you need the answers to these, obviously, you won't find them in \"Showtime\". The fact that I am riddling this review with question upon question, only means that this sub-par (actually, well below sub-sub-sub par) filled no quota or resembled anything of value to the cinematic world. Sure, it had big names and one really neat explosion, but there was nothing of substance to this at all. It was almost as if the director said prior to the shoot that he wanted clich\u00e9s, but not regular clich\u00e9s \u0096 go with the bad ones. The plot had no linear structure. The jokes were boring. The characters were drab and underdeveloped. This ranks below even the best of \"buddy-cop\" films. I like to give films the benefit of the doubt, but nothing worked in this film. Not even Shatner could save this film, and he even tried hard.

Overall, I cannot, nor will I, suggest this film to anyone with a pulse. The commentary only confirms the pathetic nature of the film with obvious flaws, horrid jokes, and creators questioning the validity of their work. If creators can't stand behind \"Showtime\", why should we? I didn't want a \"Lethal Weapon\" when I watched this, but I did want something like that. I understand there was some form of criticism of \"reality television\" and the corrupt nature of the media, but that message didn't make it off the page. In fact, I believe I saw \"media\" leave the theater first when I watched this. Shame carries its heavy hand with this film and I cannot blame it. Murphy used to be a big star, comedy was his middle name (see \"Coming to America\"), but lately he seems to have lost his edge. De Niro obviously wants to get away from an image that haunts him, but making these sort of films is only going to set him back further. One of these films is equal to one Scorsese picture.

Skip this one. I promise, it will make your final cinematic days worthwhile. Oh, and if you laughed at any of the jokes in this film \u0096 I am truly sorry!

Grade: * out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For all intents and purposes, Showtime was the worst movie I have ever seen.

Why? Because having Deniro in the cast adds immediate credibility and makes you want to watch the movie. I had also made the mistake of watching 48 Hours and Beverly Hills Cop recently before seeing Showtime and for some strange reason thought Eddie Murphy was still funny. Well he's not. In fact it almost seems like he has been neutered. As I watched this movie I was in amazement that Deniro decided this was a good enough script to lend his name too. No chemistry between him and Murphy whatsoever. Horrible writing, horrible jokes, a movie that you THINK is supposed to be good can't get much worse than this. Not too long after sitting through the wretch that was Showtime I happened to watch National Security starring Martin Lawrence. The movie had its funny parts but wasn't that great. But still it was 20 times better than Showtime. Please if your a Deniro fan DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This 3-hour made-for-TV miniseries came home with us from Blockbuster's this weekend. The production company clearly spent a lot of money on sets, costuming (Bridget Fonda, especially), and special effects (including a great Jim Henson talking polar bear & reindeer). They should have spent a bit more money getting a coherent script. The story line was so loose that it really never came together. One can overlook Irish-accented Germans, but not herky-jerky storytelling. With senseless loose ends which included a special guest appearance by the Devil, this one is certainly not destined to be a Christmas Classic. A shame that they wasted good performances by the two female leads.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes Hallmark can get it right - like The 10th Kingdom - but many of their fantasy films plod, and this falls into the latter category. The version I saw may have been cut (a demon [?] shown in the trailer and publicity stills didn't appear), but anything that made the movie shorter can only be a blessing.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS IF YOU ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE ORIGINAL FAIRY TALE:

Anyway, the film updates the story to the early part of the 20th Century (?), and makes Gerda and Kay (here called Kai - being a Lexx fan, I kept expecting him to say, `The Dead do not solve puzzles') 18 year olds. Hans Christian Andersen's basic story is followed: the boy gets a shard of ice in his eye, goes bad, is taken off by the Snow Queen to solve a puzzle in her palace and Gerda goes to find him, having various adventures on the way.

As the two main characters are older than in the original, a lot of time is spent getting them together and `in love'. Unfortunately, I was never convinced that they were particularly in love, and certainly not enough in love to make sense of Gerda's quest. By the time the main plot kicks in, the movie's pace has slowed to a crawl. Alas, when Gerda begins her search for Kai, it only manages to pick up the pace to a leisurely stroll.

There are a few odd additions to the story that seem to go nowhere. At the start of the film the Snow Queen kills Gerda's mother, but no explanation for this is given. A polar bear living in the Snow Queen's palace is more than he seems (though this is possibly because the producers realised that the bear's feelings towards the Snow Queen would be OK in a Fairy Tale, but not in a modern film). Again, this is never explained. Also, hints that the Snow Queen has an erotic desire for Kai are dropped, but never followed through. The script is also full of anachronisms that really jar you out of the `fairy tale' mood.

The production looks good, though there is evidence of penny-pinching: the Snow Queen's palace is the hotel where Gerda and Kai lived covered in ice. The three main characters are played with varying degrees of success: Kai comes across as bland as does Gerda initially, but once she sets off to find Kai you warm to her. Bridget Fonda looks great as the Snow Queen, but seems to be in a different movie to everyone else.

Ultimately, the film is unsatisfying. It looks good, but drags and lacks magic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Snow Queen\" is based on the famous and very beautiful fairytale by Hans Christian Andersen, about a girl, Gerda, who goes on a dangerous journey to rescue her friend Kai from the clutches of the Snow Queen. This adaption attempts to capture that story's sense of adventure and luminously intricate imagery through lavish sets and production design, but fails on a number of counts.

Like so many Hallmark productions, the potential of the story is completely undercut by heavy-handed scripting and direction. The two actors playing Gerda and Kai are blandly pleasant but forgettable; Bridget Fonda as the Snow Queen looks the part but is otherwise miscast for the role. There's a notable lack of dramatic tension to this meandering three-hour miniseries. At least some of the pacing problems can be attributed to the addition of filler scenes that add very little to the original story, particularly in the opening hour that introduces the main characters.

That said, \"The Snow Queen\" would be just about ideal for pre-teens with a liking for fantasy and a bit of patience. It's great eye-candy without being scary, and the acting is pitched at the sort of pantomime over-the-top level that spells out the storyline in very, very bold text. Just make sure you read them Andersen's story too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"DANGER: Watch for falling spoilers...

Boy, was this a bad movie. I know that they were going for a \"true love conquers all\" kind of thing, but about all this film conquered was about 3(which felt more like 9) hours of my afternoon which I will never get back. The movie is about two young lovers named Kai and Gerta who live in a remote town in a fantasy world. Kai is the much-abused bellboy at a hotel owned by Gerta's father. At first Gerta ignores Kai's advances but she eventually warms up to him much to the disgust of (You Guessed It!) Gerta's father. As if this obstacle wasn't enough to overcome, an evil snow queen shoots a shard of glass in Kai's eye and he becomes a mean person treats Gerta poorly. Kai is eventually taken to the Snow Queen's fortress (Which is the same set as the hotel just covered in ice, because the good people at Hallmark like to go all out) and Gerta sets out on a mission to get Kai back. Along the way she runs into the 3 other seasons that are evil in their own special way, but Gerta escapes them with the help of some dull and forgettable characters she meets along the way. (All the while you will want to turn it off, but can't force yourself to do it. It's probably the most evil and most effective spells cast by the Snow Queen) Anyways, I will spare you from the ending because anything you can think up in your head right now is probably better then how they ended it. So, in conclusion, the Snow Queen is an incredibly boring movie, which takes the fan out of fantasy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rudolph Mat\u00e9's film from 1950 is given a revamp for the 80's, Dexter Cornell(Dennis Quaid) is a university lecturer who used to have a successful writing career, but thats now gone down the tubes along with his marriage. The initial exposition plants the notion in the viewers mind that everybody has something against him, so when the revelation comes that he has been poisoned, we are not that surprised, unless of course you are familiar with the original. Dexter after being told he has less than 48hrs to live, decides to trace back his steps with the help of one of his students Sydney Fuller(Meg Ryan), but they find they have many obstacles in their way.

The film begins promisingly in black and white, as Dexter staggers in the rain towards the local police station where he wishes to report a murder...his own, but the Huey lewis style 80's beat that accompanies this scene only serves to remove any sense of tension and tells the viewer that this is going to be pretty bad, its only a question of how bad? Sure enough we are soon using the old flashback medium, but now the film resorts to full Technicolor. There are some brief homages to Noir, as the embracing couple stand in front of a venetian blind, but there's really nothing here to recommend it, the performances are awful, Ryan in particular doing her usual dizzy blonde with a cutesy pie smile routine. The film is a lazy attempt to put some unneeded ooomph into an already fine movie premise, obviously trying to cash in one the Body Heat audience, the seeming results are undoubtedly aimed at a teen audience and to be sure, they are welcome to it. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Great story and great lead actors (Quaid and Ryan) but the movie suffers from bad directing,bad screenplay and bad script.The lead actors do their part but could not save the movie at all.Too bad because this could have been a good 80's style Hitchcock suspense\/mystery\/thriller.Ryan looked so young and fresh in this one though.An ok look for big Ryan fans.....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a fan of the 1950's original and about 20 minutes into this remake I started to think this was going to be as good as the original but it wasn't. The motive for the murders was incredibly stupid. Two of the lovers in the movie turn out to be brother and sister-excuse me while I barf. The main character stops in the middle of the movie to have sex which doesn't make sense considering the situation he's in. If the film makers wanted a sex scene they should have put it earlier in the movie before the main character (Dexter played by Dennis Quaid found he's about to die and that he's accused of a crime. There is a reason for where the sex scene is at. Early in the movie Dexter isn't living life to the fullest so he's not interested in sleeping with Meg Ryan. I still feel it would make more sense for the sex scene to have either been cut or earlier in the film and the two siblings not to have been lovers.

One of the dumbest parts of the movie involves a gun fight, a couple people getting killed and one person being run over all within 15 yards of a crowded carnival and yet NOBODY AT THE CARNIVAL NOTICES!!! Also in the scene is the tar pits the university where the movie takes place is built on. If you fall into the tar you sink to the bottom and in a matter of seconds. Not only is it hard to believe stuff would sink that fast in tar, but more importantly who builds a university on tar pits. I would say more about how stupid the end of the movie is but I don't want to put a spoiler in my post.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Interesting plot but painfully dull. The script lacks... lacks acting. To me this film compares with \"Made for TV\" type movies. I was lucky to survive the film without falling asleep in my popcorn. I watched this film with my family. It is fairly safe to watch with your kids. (only 1 semi sex scene)If you wish to see a young Meg Ryan...check out this movie. Very 80-ish. You will like this movie if you like the combination of depressed people at Christmas, booze, super glue and tar. Or maybe you are like me... and have have a higher standard for acting in films. However I did like the way the movie began and ended! Mark.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This review contains a partial spoiler.

Shallow from the outset, 'D.O.A.' at least starts as if it might be a slick, entertaining piece of nonsense like Fincher's 'The Game'. It's central character(Dennis Quaid) suffers from a nightmarish sequence of events that appear to be setting up a twisted and cunning thriller. But the plot rattles along at too great a pace, leading to a dramatic twist not half way through, when the character learns that he has been poisoned and has only 1-2 days to live. And this, simply, is too big a twist to add casually to a story. Once this has happened, the film's only chance of success is if it treats the psychology of someone in this situation as its principal, indeed, its only subject matter: but 'D.O.A.' continues as if this was just a normal revelation like any other you might usually encounter in a thriller. The problem is two-fold: firstly, Quaid's actions don't convince as what someone is his situation would be likely to do; and secondly, even if they did convince, it's hard to care about what happens next when the most significant point of plot has already been prematurely resolved. The rest of the film is pretty standard fare for a film of this sort, but made more tedious than usual by the character's slightly-treated predicament, which logically dwarfs the events the film is interested in. Dennis Quaid, in the lead role, doesn't convince either as a burnt out professor or as a man who is destined to die: Meg Ryan is, as often, ditzy and annoying. Another negative feature is the ugly 80s soundtrack. Watch 'The Game' instead, which from similar roots remains tight and character-driven, whereas 'D.O.A.' drifts into developments that only undermine its own premise. As the premise is itself quite intriguing, it's a shame to see it drowned in a surplus of over-cooked plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"POSSIBLE SPOILERS --

I love Dennis Quaid and I like Meg Ryan. I was looking forward to seeing them together, being married and all, I wanted to see their on-screen chemistry. Okay, that being said, I guess the fact that they are actors, their off-screen relationship didn't have to permeate their performances, especially with this script.

How stupid can a professor be to glue himself to anyone. I don't remember the original, but I can only assume that O'Brien probably was handcuffed to his leading lady, probably in a more inevitable way. If I were \"bonded\" to someone I'd be pretty angry. The crush I would have would definitely have dissipated quickly. Meg showed not even a little annoyance only slight surprise. Dennis would have to take me kicking and screaming. That whole section of the movie was so horrible -- especially Meg having to go to the bathroom (#2) between dumpsters in the dark at night. Ewww. No f****ing way!

What's with Dennis socking every single suspect in the movie. Sock first ask questions later. Not once, not twice but too many times -- I could have kept count if I were so inclined.

The most interesting part of the movie was Nick and his family drama. Too bad that couldn't have become more of the plot. The assumed off-screen drama leading up to this tragedy. I think it could have been written in without distracting from Dex' quest.

My blame lies with the writer of this screenplay. Unless the director and others doctored it up so much that it's unrecognizable.

I won't even get into the real reason poor Dex was murdered. How ludicrous is that. Even when Dex confronted the real killer and the reason was explained, (a true \"film noir\" moment) everyone on screen seemed bored. Oh, _____ happened. Oh. (yawn) \"Dex even says this is a silly reason for a triple murder. Oh the tension, you could cut it with a spoon.

If anyone but Dennis had been in this movie, I'd have to give it 1\/2 star (only because I really have seen worse), but in this case 1 1\/2 stars.

For Dennis and Meg stars, see ANYTHING ELSE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"D.O.A.\" is a non-thrilling thriller from directors Rocky Morton and Annabel

Jankel. The acting is okay and the screenplay is pretty bad. This movie also has some moments which will make you laugh at how stupid the scenes of violence

are. For example, someone is shot near a window. We then see from outside

the building what looks like that person jumped. I laughed my head off when this happened. This movie tries hard, but ultimately fails. Only watch this movie

when you have no other choice.

My Critique: **

Rating: [R]

Rating Reasons: Violence and language.*

*There was no rating reason available due to its age.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie primarily because it had Meg Ryan in it, and I was disappointed to see that her role is really a mere supporting one. Not only is she not on screen much, but nothing her character does is essential to the plot. Her character could be written out of the story without changing it much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This meandering tale of mob revenge is simply not very interesting, even with Ed McMahon in a ripe role as the chief heavy. Jim Brown kicks ass effectively, Gloria Hendry proves again that she can bring life to even the poorest roles, and Brock Peters is decent as The Cop Who Plays By the Book. It's still dull and badly constructed, and even the print shown on cable is now emasculated of its original James Brown score.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a flagship show, Attack of the Show (AOTS) is endemic of the larger fall of G4 TV; it is a show (and a station) that has fallen so far that it parades sex to try and cover its glaring faults. Its predecessor, The Screen Savers, was a venue for troubleshooting technology problems and scouting out the latest and greatest in technology. It was a nice show with a likable staff and it was fun to see some of the modding and other experiments the crew could put to together.

The acquisition of TechTV by G4 bothered some longtime fans of the station, but early returns were actually promising. The emphasis on gaming was a nice addition and I really enjoyed a lot of the coverage of E3 and other big entertainment events.

Unfortunately, AOTS now stands as but a shell of its former self. Those overseeing the channel have shifted the focus of the channel away from technology and gaming and toward anything that might elicit drool from young adult men. The result is that AOTS spends as much time parading Olivia Munn or touting the adult film industry as it does covering games. It is so bad it is practically unwatchable.

While some may get puerile joy out of this sort of thing, those who genuinely enjoy gaming may wonder where the good coverage went. Equally troubling, young gamers who might tune into G4 thinking their getting gaming - that active gaming group between 10-15 - are instead being fed things aimed toward a more mature audience. On a channel like HBO or Cinemax, things like that are expected. On G4, it's tragic.

At least SpikeTV, another male-aimed channel, has good programming like CSI. AOTS, and G4, has very little good left to offer.

Too bad, really.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show is what happened to The Screen Savers after G4 got its hands on it, taking it from a useful source of computer-related information to a show that had as its high point the shoving of a miniature web server up someone's posterior.

As G4's ratings plummeted, they moved away from their original target audience, gamers, to generic hormone-driven young men, adding eye candy to the staff and a sex advice segment. Now even the gamers who applauded the show initially are turning away in disgust. I look forward to the show's, and the network's, overwhelmingly overdue and well-deserved demise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Since this show was changed from TSS (the screen savers) to AOTS (attack of the show)it has gone down hill. TSS with Yoshi and Kevin Rose Alex... etc. Made the show awesome, then they got fired from TSS for an unknown reason. When the show switched to AOTS, it became less about computers, and more about gaming and magazines. It also promoted bands that nobody had heard of, or cared about. Finally I couldn't watch it anymore once Kevin Rose left. He kept it interesting, but he went off to do his own thing, which is good. Kevin Rose now has several online pod casts, and shows, etc on the REV 3 network. Check it out. REV3.com I think, you can get to it by going to www.systm.org. If you want a real tech show rather than aots, then go watch Kevin Roses shows or listen to the tWit podcast.

J<","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie a while ago and I was looking forward to it. My biggest problem was having seen the trailer I was expecting a very stylish marshal arts movie with plenty of action and maybe a bit of plot to think about along the way. I was sorely disappointed as it would seem that once you have seen the trailer there is nothing else worth watching (if what you are expecting is as described above). My girlfriend at the time gave up half way through and whilst I continued to watch in the hope that something interesting might happen... nothing did. I found no attachment or real interest in any of the characters. I would say just don't bother unless you have a few hours of your life that you don't really care about losing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm still laughing- Not! I'm still asking my myself what the point was. I barely got a chuckle, this movie sucks. It tries to be charming and touching, but it turns out stupid. I do not recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the most predictable movies I have ever seen. And this supposed to be funny..... Boring, boring, boring. Find the fast forward button at your remote and use it... I can`t say I laughed once, and the only good feeling this movie gave me was relief when it ended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most accurate description of how Billy Crystal fairs in \"My Giant\" is to say that this movie is to his career as \"Ishtar\" was to Warren Beaty's - it didn't ruin it, but it slowed it down.......a lot. Crystal should know the three golden rules of Hollywood: 1) never play opposite a kid 2) never play opposite an animal 3) never play opposite someone that is almost 3 feet taller than you, is as innocent as a kid and \"acts\" like an animal.

What is this story? A comedy? I guess, but I didn't laugh, except at the scenes where Crystal is on his own and not burdened with his (what-is-her-role-in-this-movie) ex-wife or the afore-mentioned Giant. Did I mention there's also a kid in this film? Well, forget about him. The son is brought in to make us feel sorry for Crystal, and we do, but for the actor, not the character. Billy Crystal is a funny man. If you don't believe me, watch him in old episodes of \"Soap\" or \"Saturday Night Live.\" Go rent \"City Slicker\" or \"Running Scared\" or \"When Harry Met Sally.\"

\"Giant\" is more ho-hum than fee-fi-fo-fum.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Synopsis: Kid is not accepted into any colleges. He creates a \"college\" where he and his friends can party by using their parent's tuition money.

Wow. A Paean to ignorance.

If you believe that we're all OK, man, then this movie is for you. Furthermore, you must understand that:

1. Kids have it all inside them--they just need to let it out.

2. Teaching really stifles the innate creativity that everyone is born with.

3. Someone else should pay for you to follow your passion.

4. 300 teenagers can live together in harmony, as long as you take away those restrictive rules.

5. Extemporaneous speeches are often much more convincing than a prepared presentation.

6. If the Board of Education allows you to open a \"charter school\" with \"nontraditional teaching techniques,\" it's because they have your best interests at heart. (Not that they are willing to let go of low-functioning students who will end up working fast food anyways.)

This movie is one in the college comedy genre, i.e. Animal House. It follows the pattern pretty closely. What's new here though, is a complete attack on higher education, not a parody of the bad elements. It's missing the sympathetic insider, a professor who embodies the worthwhile part of university life.

This lack of balance will doom this film to the back rows of Blockbuster. It is so one sided, that I wondered if it was an ironic self-referential take on the whole genre--for about one minute. The movie has no deep meaning, no layers, no introspection. It's as if they let some kids who never went to class do what comes naturally. And what is natural is what the name of the school is: S***.

(Never thought I'd say this: Go see something with Will Farrell instead. His comedies can be surprisingly sophisticated.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie was downright awful. most of the comedic scenes seem stale and trite, and possibly the funniest scene in the movie had already been given away in previews. the entire premise of the movie is so unbelievable and ridiculous its hard to really get into it. the actors themselves portray the most unrealistic characters. its not just the fact that the movies so hard to swallow, but its how they keep forcing it down your throat expecting you to dumb down and accept it. the plot itself is so shallow and easy to predict. boy somehow gets rejected from every school he applied to(i suppose he completely forgot about attending community college) and decides to create his own school for fellow rejects. all goes well for awhile until the validity of his school comes into question. all the while the dorky character manages to woo his beautiful neighbor into falling for him with his witty sarcasm, which apparently is a skill only he possesses. then comes the final struggle with the students somehow all bonding together and fighting for the survival of the school. of course the main character then persuades the state board of education to allow his school to stay alive with some \"inspirational\" speech. this movie would have been more fun to watch if i was under the age of 16 and still ignorant of all college matters and issues.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seriously, I don't understand how Justin Long is becoming increasingly popular. He either has the best agent in Hollywood, or recently sold his soul to Satan. He is almost unbearable to watch on screen, he has little to no charisma, and terrible comedic timing. The only film that he has attempted to anchor that I've remotely enjoyed was Waiting... and that is almost solely because I've worked in a restaurant. But I digress. Aside from it's terrible lead, this film has loads of other debits. I understand that it's supposed to be a cheap popcorn comedy, but that doesn't mean that it has to completely insult our intelligence, and have writing so incredibly hackneyed that it borders on offensive. Lewis Black's considerable talent is wasted here too, as he is at his most incendiary when he is unrestrained, which the PG-13 rating certainly won't allow. The film's sole bright spot was Jonah Hill (who will look almost unrecognizable to fans of the recent Superbad due to the amount of weight he lost in the interim). His one liners were funny on occasion, but were certainly not enough to make this anywhere close to bearable. If you just want to completely turn your brain off (or better yet, don't have one) then maybe you'd enjoy this, but I can't recommend it at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me start by saying that there's really no reason to watch this movie. I only sat through it because I was trying to kill some time before going to work.

Basically, it's your typical sophomoric \"comedy\" aimed at the teenage set. There's nothing remarkable about it other than the complete ridiculousness of the story, not to mention that there are plot holes big enough to sail a Carnival cruise-liner through. Obviously this isn't supposed to be a realistic movie, it's supposed to be funny. Sadly, it mostly fails on that count as well. I must admit that I laughed a few times, but mainly in a \"holy sh*t, I can't believe how stupid this is\" kind of way.

If you never see this movie you're not missing a thing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I see absolutely nothing funny---even remotely funny---in this stupid movie. An unrealistic, silly, ridiculous idea--just completely ridiculous. Hard to believe that the main character, who seems so articulate, intelligent and imaginative, would not be accepted to any college. Even more difficult to believe is that no one shut the place down. The actors portrayed characters straight out of Characterville. We have seen their lot many a time over in many films. Nothing new here. I found it on late night TV, and since there was really nothing else on, I watched the whole boring, stupid film. What a total waste. Maybe if you are a teenager, you may find it amusing. Films are made for an immature mind, so teens, go for it. The rest, no way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Inane, awful farce basically about a young man who refuses to conform or better uses non-conformity to attain his objectives-fool his parents into thinking that he is attending a college. Truth is that this jerk has been rejected by every school he has applied to. After viewing this junk, you will see why.

What a ridiculous name- South Hampton Institute of Technology. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the initials of this school of nonsense. Problem with these type of films is that in the end, the non-conformist becomes the accepted mode.

Let's step back to the world of reality and call this film what it really is- excessive manipulative junk!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wasn't so impressed with this film, finding it quite tiresome and plain. The plot line was interesting, a kid creating his own college and enrolling hundreds of kids, but the laughs were few and far between. The jokes weren't really funny and i didn't bust a gut at any of the scenes. The characters weren't intriguing and I didn't feel for any of them, even the dawky, fat kid with glasses who tried to enter the frat group. It was a good first watch, but it didn't blow me away and its not one that I would recommend. Comparing it to other films in the same genre, ie, American Pie is just cruel, because there is a film which was laugh-a-plenty. This ACCEPTED failed to raise a smile!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A quick, funny coming-of-age matin\u00e9e romp appealing to the underdog aldolescent in us all. It functions, in effect, as a vehicle for Justin Long who has subsequently erupted onto our screens in the fourth Die Hard via PC vs Mac ads, Dodgeball and The Break Up. He's funny, earnest and young - a big career ahead.

A town's worth of college wannabes find a fake website Bartelby (Long) has set up to delude his judgemental parents and descend on the 'college' like it were a short notice Facebook party. Lewis Black summises the anarchic philosophy as a stand-in Dean - Long's delinquent friends provide support for the subterfuge and consequent appeal to grander traditions of education and friendship (Adam Herschman deserves special mention for his never-flagging slapstick contribution). Well executed, feelgood and instantly forgettable. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Saw this as part of the DC Reel Affirmations Film Festival. I hope they got better movies than this, because this film failed to deliver on any of the hopes that audience may have entertained, from the fantasy of seeing James Franco without his shirt, down to more simple wishes, such as decent acting, coherent direction, character development, or actual production values. Plagued by film school effects such as freeze frames to show moments of emotional distress, and obvious influences ranging from My Own Private Idaho to Terminator 2, this film failed on almost every level to engage the audience. After the first twenty minutes of valiantly trying to take it seriously, the audience collectively threw up it's hands and just started to enjoy the inherent crappiness of the film. I could be upset that I paid nine bucks to see it, and it was two hours I'll never get back, but on the other hand, it was an entertaining two hours I'll never get back. This would have been a classic Mystery Science 3000 episode.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Lifetime channel aired this in October but I only got around to watching it now. It's the old eternal triangle again \u0097 small-town Connecticut boy Dave Ford (Matt Long) has a quick fling with his best friend's girlfriend, Emily Darrow (Emmanuelle Chriqui), on the eve of his departure for law school in New York, thinks about her for the next five years while he isn't doing contracts and briefs, runs into her again when he returns home after the death of his father on the eve of a big exam five years later, and gets involved with her romantically again. But director and co-writer Matthew Cole Weiss goes way over the top, framing the whole thing in flashback as Dave confesses to murdering Emily, her husband and another one of her lovers in front of (here comes the spoiler) a Lesbian cop who's also a flame of Emily's. Weiss overdoes the \"flanging\" effect by which Dave gets to see chunks of his previous life flash before his eyes even before he's actually dead, cutting those in even while Dave and Emily are having sex and thereby ruining the soft-core porn shots that give even some otherwise pretty lame Lifetime movies at least a bit of audience appeal. I couldn't help but flash back myself to James M. Cain and how much better he wrote women like this in his classic thrillers (all adapted into hit movies) \"The Postman Always Rings Twice,\" \"Double Indemnity\" and \"Mildred Pierce.\" It also doesn't help that the film ends with the bad guys (the bad girls, actually) triumphant and the decent, if na\u00efve and stupid, hero seemingly on his way to the lethal injection table \u0097 or that the actors playing the people Dave and Emily are cheating on are both better looking than they are. Incidentally, though this film went straight to cable in the U.S. there were some blank spots on the soundtrack indicating where swear words were blipped, so I presume this got a theatrical release somewhere in the world.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All I can say is, this movie is made for the Lifetime Channel on TV, which means no solid characters, no particular style, weak acting all kinds of suggested sex but no-breasts and tushs (because boy, that would just catapult the film into the depths of sleaze wouldn't it?) but the heavily simulated sex, well, that's OK.

When watching these films I have to ask myself, when will these types of TV channels and their advertisers ever grow up? I think these companies are actually way behind the times. They really have no clue what the younger generation is in tune with and if they knew they would demand we change. The whole point of many American TV channels like these seems mostly to regurgitate the same sanitized, diluded garbage over and over like a generic movie assembly line. I guess it works for them... or at least it has. Not sure about the future though.

Don't bore yourself to death like I did. Seek out some real TV movies on HBO, Showtime, IFC, Starz, etc. Any channel that puts effort into their work and doesn't have to ask a priest what they can or cannot show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie considering this as a normal Hollywood movie but then came to know that its a Movie made for TV channel.On my DVD cover out of 2 critics comments one of the critic stephen farber from moviline reveiwed it as A best movie of the Year..

All the character were simple and decent performances except the Brain's character which never gets scope which director wanted to keeps mystery till end.. there was suspense till end but when you see the end that lady Police Officer and main culprit had a Lesbian affair seems to be totally stupid idea.God knows what happens to DAVE the male lead character..

The other Critic from Mr. Brown's Movies said that Shocking and Effective but doesn't quite live up to all the Hype... which i saw after watching the Movie .for which i was partially aggree...i should have read this first before taking the movie..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I do not know what some of these filmmakers are thinking, by making the same type of clich\u00e9d film over and over, where the bad guys (bad girls in this case) win. Weak acting and very predictable. Nothing original about it. This same movie has been made over and over again- not different from GOODBYE LOVER (1989), SLOW BURN (2005), or at least ten other movies with the exact same storyline and ending. There are a lot of holes in the movie too. It is as if they ran out of money and just stopped filming. Or perhaps they ran out of ideas. But do not waste your time with this one. It will only leave you upset by having wasted your time watching it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was watching the beginning of this on a Friday, mid-day, while working at computer at home, relaxing a bit after a hectic week, and cleaning-up some files and answering some communications. Got interrupted a couple of times, so had trouble getting all the details straight (although it's hardly a work of Hitchcock proportions, where missing a detail can through the whole story off-kilter), and besides it was not exactly an \"engrossing\" piece of work.

So during a commercial, read the only prior comment here (by \"mgconlan-1\"), and pretty much can agree with its details.

Not quite in the category of a film so awful it is fascinatingly \"good,\" but I'd like to catch on tape when run again (rather than seeing it as aired), so I can fast forward as needed and see the parts which I missed this first time.

Give it a \"3*\" because of the attractiveness of the four primary characters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's like someone took a fantasy-type video game and put it in a blender, and the resulting scene mishmash is what we have to sit through.

Now let me go on record by saying how much I love Chinese fantasy films. From the fun and silly, to those focusing on martial arts, to the more dramatic and romantic types\u0097it's a genre I very much enjoy. Films like \"A Chinese Odyssey: Pandora's Box\" and \"A Chinese Odyssey: Cinderella\" (both of which were written and\/or directed by Jeffrey Lau); \"The Bride with White Hair\"; \"Butterfly & Sword\"; \"Green Snake\"; \"A Chinese Ghost Story\"; \"Swordman II\"; \"Zu: Warriors from the Magic Mountain\"; \"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon\"; and others. Which is why I was looking forward to \"A Chinese Tall Story.\" One of the film's characters is the \"Monkey King\" (aka Sun Wukong), an extremely well-known character in Chinese mythology, first told in the stories of the \"Journey to the West,\" the epic adventure written about 500 years ago. (The story of the Monkey King and his disciples is also the focus of the \"Chinese Odyssey\" films, amongst many others). Other familiar characters that appear in the film are Zhu Wuneng (the pig character) and Sha Wujing.

So how does it all go wrong? Well, let's take an example familiar to Western audiences. How about the Robin Hood mythology? A well known story from ye olden days. Let's say that our Robin Hood film starred Wesley Snipes as Robin Hood, and Haley Joel Osment as Friar Tuck. Maid Marian is none other than Rosie Perez. Let's give Sir Robin an Uzi as well, because you never know when you might have to waste the Sheriff of Nottingham. They might need rocket packs also, and while we're at it, give them a tactical nuclear weapon because that sure could come in handy. If you think this sounds like a really neat retelling of the Robin Hood tale, then \"A Chinese Tall Story\" is the movie for you! As I indicated above, this movie is a jumbled mess. In the first 30 minutes, we are introduced not only to Sun Wukong, Zhu Wuneng, and Sha Wujing, but also to the monk Tripitaka (who is actually the main protagonist), kidnapped children, a \"millennium bug demon\" (which shoots laser beams), an underground Tree God, a lizard imp tribe, an angelic girl in an intergalactic egg, the Lord Chancellor Tortoise, a Sea Dragon King, a ever-morphing magic golden staff, a chatterbox imp girl, wormholes in space, and the Four Heavenly Knights. All this wouldn't be too bad--the tales and myths passed down over the years certainly do have all sorts of fantastical elements. But I guarantee you the Chinese mythology does not include much of the stuff we get subjected to in the last half of the film. (Helpful advice to the filmmakers: Just because your computer effects guys CAN come up with cool looking spaceships and depictions of intergalactic war, does not mean they SHOULD).

You know your Chinese mythology movie is on the wrong track when the director asks (and I am not making this up\u0097it's a direct quote from the commentary) \"I asked the composer whether or not we can have a more rock-and-roll type music when she transforms into some kind of android-like thing.\" Is there a story hidden in here somewhere? Yes. Yes, there is. Most of the adventure follows Tripitaka (played by Nicholas Tse\u0097\"Gen-X Cops,\" \"Time and Tide,\" \"My Schoolmate the Barbarian\") and Meiyan, the lizard imp girl (played by Charlene Choi and a computer). Choi is the best thing going in this film. You may know her as half of the Canto-pop group \"Twins\" and from other films such as \"The Twins Effect\" (a fun flick) and \"Just One Look\" (a surprisingly good drama\/romance\/comedy). Poor Choi, being a lizard imp and all, is hardly recognizable with her warts, snagged out teeth, doughy nose, and hunched back. That is until the computers get a hold of and beautify her, which somehow makes it worse. Tse is passable, but all of the supporting actors were abysmal. A couple of recognizable faces in bit parts are wasted.

At one point I was debating with myself if \"A Chinese Tall Story\" was a spoof. I was almost able to convince myself that it was when the intergalactic egg girl (played by a very pretty Fan Bing-Bing) got out and lit up a Marlboro (!) while talking with Tripitaka who was practicing martial arts dressed in a Spider-Man costume (!!). But it is not a spoof. Of course there is the typical Hong Kong silliness, but the movie takes itself seriously enough, with enough scenes of romance and pathos (scored with a sledghammering of violins and evocative cellos) and rousing action and adventure.

You might think that you could watch this on a Netflix rental and it wouldn't cost you anything. (Oh, but it'll cost you, all right).

Is there anything good to say? Sure. The colors are vibrant (they are the best thing about this movie). And the filmmakers certainly were trying very hard. Too bad all that effort went into a movie that is not much more than a bad video game.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First there was Tsui Hark's Zu Warriors (2001), which is visually ground-breaking, but much lacking in the acting and writing departments, now this movie, which is visually almost as good as Zu (though no longer ground-breaking), but is even worse in the acting and writing departments. It's really sad that there seems to be an almost complete lack of acting and writing talents in the HK movie industry. I guess you need to understand Cantonese to understand how bad and vulgar the dialogs in the movie really are. It's like some delinquent kids talking in the street, it's that bad. To make it worse, the actors and actresses themselves look like delinquent kids, and can't act even if their life depend on it. I understand that this movie is supposed to be a comedy aimed at the younger generation in HK, but has HK youths really become so brain-dead that they can't appreciate anything but such juvenile and vulgar acting\/writing? If that's the case, it makes me ashamed to be from HK.

I wish HK movie makers will learn some lessons from directors like Zhang Yi-Mou or Ang Lee, and finally make a movie that's both visually stunning as well as competent and mature in the acting and writing departments. And stop using young singers\/idols\/heartthrobs as actors because they can't act however many fans they may have in HK!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It borrowed scenes from LOTR, Matrix, Star Wars, etc. The humor is so dry, contrived, and corny, that you can't help but laugh occasionally at its inanity and the fact that you are watching it. Exactly what you'd expect from an HK comedy. The average person would enter with an IQ of 100 and leave with less than 80. Stephen Chow is an obvious omission from this movie. The humor would have worked better with Stephen. The Mandarin version of this movie is not as good as the Cantonese original. The graphics are poor compared to its Hollywood counterparts. There is overdependence on low quality CG. My biggest complaint is its ending. The origin of the white horse is so clearly described in the \"Journey to the West\" (JW), that this alternate explanation does not work well with story line. Despite its many flaws this movie has far more entertainment value than the other movie Nicholas Tse starred in--The Promise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Is this a game FMV or a movie? In all honesty, I watched this one out of \"choice-less-ness\". It is a very big waste of time and money.

It seems HK movies are heading in the opposite direction of the rest of the world.

Try to put more effort and money into a production and make us want to watch, rather than something you want us to watch.

The graphics are so horrible than they looked like something out of the early to mid-90s low resolution games (in comparison to today's).

The way they made this movie is almost exactly what they did in the 90s' Wing Commander game, namely the third installment of the series. Stop regressing and make us Asian look so bad at this compared to the big guns in Hollywood.

Sure! They have big budgets and better actors. But we have some of the oldest histories, the myths and the legends, the best technophiles and possibly the largest computer graphic talent base in the world! So what went so very very wrong? Did you start using the same old companies that have been working with you for so many films?! Please stop wasting our time and money. This is the reason why HK movies are heading downhill so rapidly. Didn't you claim to be the Hollywood of the Orient? Guess not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A horrible, horrible, horrible film. I saw the original when I was a kid and it gave me nightmares into my teens. When I found out a remake was on the way, I groaned. WHY OH WHY remake a good film? Well, we can thank Dark Castle for buggering yet another classic horror film. This time they've replaced a somewhat interesting story with gore, slower than slow pacing, and yawn-inspired characters. Someone previously said that s\/he was surprised that Paris Hilton can act. Uh, were you watching the film? She plays a prissy little tramp. Sounds like typecasting to me. Half of the people in the audience actually CHEERED when she died! That tells you why people are seeing this film. If that's your only reason, then find a better one, because like a black hole this thing will suck out more of your life than you'll want. Had I been alone, I would have left 10 minutes into the boring exposition. This thing is like a moron's guide to crap film-making: In bred Southern git, stupid but attractive leads, knives a plenty, gore a plenty, stock menacing truck, I could go on. After watching this film, I began to really appreciate Jeepers Creepers, and I thought that film sucked. Save yourself and avoid this crapfest at every cost.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The third film based on Charles Belden's play entitled \"Mystery of the Wax Museum\" (1933) targets generation X-tasy. Twin screenwriters, Chad Hayes and Carey W. Hayes, spend more time developing the main characters than other slasher movies--a promising start. Their condition guarantees an authentic point of view. The role of Paige (Paris Hilton) was not much of a stretch for the world's favorite heiress. She peruses \"In Style,\" stripteases boys, chats on a cell, and frets over an ill-conceived pregnancy. Her regular routine has been altered beyond repair. Hilton reached the peak of her performance--not so hot--during the \"1 Night in Paris\" (2004) parody. While the pimp-my-ride is in motion, she zealously \"looks for lip balm\" in her boyfriend's (Robert Ri'chard) lap. Finally, the \"actress\" atones for using the \"N\" word on the sex tape. Director Jaume Collet-Serra molds his take on the twin thing contrary to the theme of the past. Each exhibited opposite characteristics back then, whereas a pair of either good or bad can come out the womb today. However, the latter does not rule out the former. Childbirth constitutes the luck of the draw. Spectators can hardly consider Vincent (Brian Van Holt) a contemporary Quasimodo. Granted, the recluses share some similarities such as artistry, disfigurement, submissiveness, and murder. Yet, one small variable between the two makes all the difference. Vincent is even uglier on the inside than he is on the out. Collet-Serra's \"House of Wax\" pays homage to actor Vincent Price from the first remake in 1953. The film leaves obvious van Gogh puns to the imagination of the audience. Still, the choice to split the antagonist in two eliminates a vibrant twist at the end. Professor Henry (Vincent Price) Jarrod's unmasking receives runner-up, but the most terrifying one in horror movie history belongs to Lon Chaney in \"Phantom of the Opera\" (1925). As far as the new contender is concerned, the aftermath of separation surgery downplays the effect. A surgeon should know operating on Siamese twins scars them--physically and psychologically. Their father needs to call a couple colleagues--Dr. Phil to consult and Dr. McNamara to nip\/tuck. Despite what the trailers said, \"Wax\" is not forever. In fact, you can rid yourself of it by burning it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ignore the extreme votes about \"House of Wax\", in no way is it either a \"1\" or a \"10\". I will try to be of help to anyone thinking about seeing \"House of Wax\" or for those who saw it based on the trailer and feel cheated. The trailer makes this movie look very promising, which is what trailers are supposed to do. There is only one thing for sure with trailers, if the producers can't cobble together a minute of interesting elements to make a trailer, it is a pretty much a sure thing that the movie is a major suck-fest. But a good trailer only tells you that a few things about the movie are good, it does not give you much idea about the total package. Here a little research can be valuable.

\"House of Wax\" stars Elisha Cuthbert (whose acting skills are closer to Kathy Ireland than to either her fellow Canadian Sarah Polley or her lookalike Rose McGowen), and was directed by a music video artist formerly known as Jaume, in his feature debut. These are not good signs but if you are like me you ignore them and go to see the work of Production Designer Grace Walken, who was responsible for the look of \"Ghost Ship\". Once again Walken's work is worth seeing, so much so that it looks like 90% of the movie's $30 million budget went to production design. The rest went to Cuthbert to compensate her for the abuse she has to take throughout the film (finger cut off, lips glued shut, tied up, and lots of wading around in assorted gooey stuff). By-the-bye, Cuthbert looks considerably heavier than she did in \"The Girl Next Door\", about one big pig-out away from having a major weight problem.

Which means they had little left over to pay the rest of the cast and crew. And judging from the what was on the screen, this might actually be true. It looks like everyone else donated their time to get their first acting or crew credit. Unfortunately, whether it was inexperience or jealousy over the pay disparity, the contributions of all these inexperienced\/incompetent volunteers amount to less than zero.

Inexperienced Steven Window's DP work was about as awful as you are likely to see and working in league with an incompetent editor like Joel Negran (insert \"Pearl Harbor\" here) they manage to take away most of the value added by the production design group. Rather than linger over and showcase the sets, Window filmed this stuff with bad lighting and jerky-zooming-bobbing camera work. Negran compounded the problem with an insane number of disorienting cuts. Poor lighting, an ADD-like camera, and flurry cutting are what you use to hide cheap and crappy production design; not what is needed when the movie's only strength is its expensive and detailed sets.

Chan Hayes did the screenplay and Charles Belden (who wrote the original story) is credited as the writer although except for the title and the use of wax figures there is absolutely no similarity. One saving grace is that the movie does not take itself seriously as a horror film and is mostly parody (insert \"Van Helsing\" here). The murders are played for laughs, too extreme to be scary or even creepy to anyone over age six. The audience particularly cracked up when a certain high profile hotel heiress got her homely face run through by an steel bar, although her earlier half-baked striptease was the only genuinely creepy thing in the film. Another comedy highlight was when Cuthbert sticks her finger through a grate and has it clipped off by the bad guy.

The good scenes take place in Trudy's House of Wax, a waxworks that has something to do with a closed sugar mill, conjoined twins, and a lot of roadkill (which Cuthbert gets to bathe in). All this is supposed to be happening somewhere in rural Florida although from the many hills it sure looks like Paul Hogan's country (attention location scouts-the gulf coast is not noted for it's rolling terrain). The screenplay apparently intended to play up the connection (bad pun) between the two sets of twins, but somewhere during production or post-production most of the dialogue concerning this was trimmed. Since what is left about the twin connection makes no sense and goes nowhere, you wonder why it wasn't also cut to reduce the boredom factor.

What is particularly sad is that the producers did not have the brains to recognize in mid-production that they had the ingredients for a first rate horror classic-even with the existing cast. What was staring them in the face was a chance to go somewhere with the illusion of a town of wax. Because it is a photographic medium, modern film is intrinsically naturalistic, almost without exception prone to creating an illusion of reality. Here they had a ready-made opportunity to give the photographic medium a theatrical element of extreme stylization. Like an impressionist painting, the town creates the illusion of reality from a distance but reveals itself as a highly stylized wax fabrication up close. Of course they would have had to find a visionary Director and DP to bring the thing off successfully, but everything else was already in place for this to happen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this film is an undisguised attempt to appeal to a younger demographic of fourteen to 24 yr olds', and an insult to all of them. i refuse to believe that that age group is that vapid as to be entertained by this unnecessary \"remake\". early in the film one of the characters proclaims, \"i am surrounded by idiots\". this is the defining moment in the film, which goes steadily down from there. full of clich\u00e9s, red-herring \"scares\" and unexplained events, the film is also full of characters who are not exactly brainiacs, a formula all too familiar in dumb horror movies. and that crappy \"it's so dark i cant see\" scenes stolen from Chainsaw Massacre but merely annoying, not building any tension, nor horror. it's difficult to film in the dark, and sometimes darkness is a great vehicle in a film that's suppose to have tension. but my own feeling was that the less you see in this case, the better. maybe he didn't want to wait until morning because he didn't care, other than it might cost him more money to do night scenes well, or he doesn't know how. who knows? unless you have never seen a horror film in your life, or you are two or three years old, every aspect of this film is predictable and done before. warning: Paris Hilton is in this movie. enough said. all in all a blas\u00e9 slasher film which begs the question, where the h*ll is the wax?it was treated like a lost leader. if you're bored as possible and all other rentals are out or you're just in the mood for a bad horror film, which isn't really scary,or you'd like to see Paris have a pole smash through her head, go ahead and take a chance. it's not the worst movie i've ever seen, but if this is what the producers of this film thinks a younger audience wants, i pray that they are deluded. a profit-driven film with no attempt to achieve any kind of art nor respect for the genre. you know, smart characters make for a scarier movie. i believe this is Collet-Serra's debut as a director, besides commercials and music videos. he has another one coming out in 2006 called Goal 2. hopefully his goal is to make a better film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When they announced this movie for TNT I was excited. A Travesty from Donald Westlake's \"Enough\" was one of my all time favorite stories. After I watched it I was not all that thrilled. Recently I had the chance to watch it a second time with my aunt, and once again I was disappointed (she didn't like it much either, and she'd never read the book). In this movie they managed to sap all the charm from the book and turn it into dull mush. A big part of the problem was William H. Macy. I like him fine in other films, but he played (Terry\/Carey) Thorpe as a stammering, incompetent yutz. In the book Thorpe takes a lot of valium for his nerves, but remains outwardly collected at almost all times which is part of the fun. SPOILERS follow: They also left out a big part of the story (other than a 2 second glimpse at the embassy), where Thorpe solves not 1 but 4 homicides for the police. This is important not just because it's funny, but because it helps set up the relationship between Fred and Thorpe. In the movie Fred's betrayal in the end is not nearly as affecting, because they don't seem all that close. In the book they become pretty good friends especially on Fred's side, which makes it all the more ironic that he is he one that arranges Thorpe's downfall. Fred also suffered a bit from casting, I love Adam Arkin but he was not a cheerful, happy to be alive upbeat sort of Detective, character traits which book Fred possesses which makes it more obviously out of character for him to mess with evidence and thus more shocking. Patricia and Edgarson were pretty close to the book, and James Cromwell was great despite not looking much like Martin Balsam. The whole boring boat house scene which was entirely added for the film was much less interesting than the police finding Edgarson's body after Thorpe ships it to Seattle and blaming the death on the mob. Kit was okay although she was mostly rewritten, and it would have been nice to see her die as she did get slightly annoying. I don't mind changes to books to make movies, I know they are necessary because of length and difficulty, but it would have been nice if some of the changes in this movie had been funnier or smarter instead of duller.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a recent convert to Curb Your Enthusiasm, which prompted my viewing of all season's episodes, I expected more, much more from Jeff's efforts.

When I view a film offering a slice of an average 'Joe's' life I need reasons to be interested, to care, to feel and believe. And with Jeff Garlin at the helm I also expected a bevy of shining comedic moments. This film failed me time and again.

Jeff plays a living with mom, plump sad sack who is a social disaster. He has not had a relationships, real or even casual, for many years. He appears to be mostly unemployed and, as noted, shacks with his mommy dearest. Can things get worse? Sure. In short order he gets sacked by everyone around him including Silverman, Second City (his comedy workshop) and his agent. All reinforce his 'loser' status. Silverman's 'fatty' experiment was as cruel as it was absurd. His obsession with the role of \"Marty,\" as the means of his career's salvation, also hits a big dead end.

While the film's final moments offer a glimpse of better things to come the cinematic 'journey,' albeit with occasional golden glimmers, was sadly lacking.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Great ensemble cast but unfortunately a bunch of undeveloped ideas make the film drag. One feels not fulfilled at the end after waiting for some kind of conclusion, closure, or at least an ironic twist.

It had that familiar \"Curb\" feel without dare I say it, Larry as the annoying polar opposite. The music was there, the 'show about nothing' scenes pop up, but without any common thread or suspense - it falters as a solo project that ran out of budget.

Spoilers: The movie title speaks about cheese but she prefers the rice pudding. Is cheese a better selling title than rice pudding? He prefers just any junk food, regardless of the sell by date. Maybe I want someone to eat 'cheese-dogs' or ice cream in a pirate suit would have at least tied some scenes together.

Marty: this is just not funny and overdone. People just don't care about a 'show' within a show. A coffee book table about coffee books was funnier.

Unless you are big fans of the cast, save your time and eat some cheese. It doesn't even have to be with anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How i deserved to watch this crap??? Worst ever. The acting was awful, when i read that this was a comedy i expected at least to smile, once - or twice, but.... If you are wiling to loose hour and a half of your lives, this is the right movie. I recommend just look in a wall or something, anything else but watch this \"film\". Yoy can even watch a documentary (if you are a guy) about pregnant women, i guarantee it will be more entertaining :)The actor in this one (i forgot his name) is not that bad, and i am surprised how hi accepted the role. Anyway \"I want someone to eat cheese with\" is the right film if you want to punish someone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is absolutely awful. It's everywhere & nowhere & doesn't have any sort of point. I have never understood what is good about Jeff Garlin or Sarah Silverman. Bonnie Hunt is so above this drivel she must have been personal friends w\/people involved because there is no way she would have read any part of this so-called \"script\" & thought, \"Yeah I wanna do that!\" Most movies I can find at least one or two things that are redeemable or funny. There is ZERO of that in this. It's extremely dumb. There really isn't any other word to describe this. This is quite possibly the biggest waste of money on making of film that I have seen in a long time. Skip this at all cost, you'll be glad you did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is about a struggling actor trying to find satisfaction in life, especially love which he has not had a taste of for 5 years.

It basically is a film featuring a man with very poor social skills, and he says wrong things all the time. The plot is hollow and contrived. The main character, James, is lonely, but this theme of loneliness is not adequately explored. It is more like an empty statement which other subplots stem from. Sadness and disappointment after being dumped are superficial. There is a serious lack of emotions in the film.

It is not funny as a comedy either. There are some funny one liners but that is it. It lacks the happy and uplifting atmosphere to infect people with happy mood. I don't find \"I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With\" funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This experimental silent film, made in Switzerland by an independent British film company, is chiefly remembered as Paul Robeson's first film. It's very artistic, with shots often seeming meaningless to the story, which is difficult to understand anyway because of the lack of enough inter-titles. From what I gathered, Robeson's wife, Adah, is in an inter-racial love affair with a white man called Thorne. It doesn't bother the cigar-chomping owner of the bar\/hotel where Thorne lives (and she seems to be having a lesbian relationship with a barmaid), but an old lady expresses the town's point of view in an inter-title: \"If I had my way, we wouldn't allow negroes in here.\" Thorne is also called \"nigger lover\" by someone in the bar. Adah tries a reconciliation with Pete (Robeson), but eventually leaves him. Thorne's wife, Astrid, goes off the deep end, brandishes a knife, cuts Thorne's arm and cheek, and somehow dies. Thorne must have been accused of murder because we learn he was acquitted. As for Pete, he gets a letter from the mayor telling him it is best for everyone that he leave town. So the film is more about racism than anything, but in an up note, the owner tells Pete \"The sad thing is, they think they're right. That's the way we are.\" The meaning of the title is a mystery. It may refer to Adah being light-skinned (a borderline negro) or to the borderline behavior of of the main characters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm usually a fan of \"art\" and \"foreign\" films, but when I saw this one my reaction was \"it must be called experimental because it makes no sense.\" The \"action\" is static, while at the same time it bounces from one location to another. There aren't enough titles to make it clear who is who and what their relationships are. Apparently the main point was to show that in the face of murder, adultery and generally weird and dissolute behavior, the cure offered by the powers that be is to banish a totally innocent black man.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why did I buy this movie on DVD?, Well the short answer would be: I really don't know. As for the longer version, it pretty much comes down to the fact that I genuinely like Tatyana Ali and she plays Alicia in this.

Now does Tatyana Ali give a genuinely good effort in this movie? I must say that it is one of the better, and she is shaping up to be a rather decent actress. I am very much looking forward to see her in action, when better material will be available.

This being said, this movie was terrible - and my score is given based on this: 1 star for not being the worst movie I've seen, 1 star for the performance of Tatyana Ali, and 1 star for not thinking that it only deserves 2 stars, there are worse movies for that.

Ja Rule should stick to rapping, not my favourite rapper to say the least, but some seem to like him - and if he is contained there, I would be delighted not to see him contaminate the acting scene.

Ving Rhames: Ah man, Marcellus Wallace what are you doing here - you used to be cool man. Just because Michael Caine is a fiercely brilliant actor, who has been in so many terrible flicks as well as good, you don't have to copy him Ving.

The rest of the semi big names in the cast: It's OK, there are bills to be paid, and we all have to do things we're not proud of time to time.

The movie itself. It so massively flawed, it's pretty difficult to know where to start. It's more like a bunch of scenes thrown in together, as were the director to say \"we need to tell this, and we need to tell that\". There is a story, unfortunately there is nothing surprising about or within it. To say the least, the plot changes in the story were overly obvious and it was therefore predictable what was going to happen all the time.

To sum up in one word: Reallynotgood","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is difficult to rate a writer\/director's first effort. After all, it is one more movie than I have written or directed. James Hunter wrote a story that was interesting, but suffered from an uneven flow.

After all, the idea that a man (Ja Rule) has to choose between the thug life and going straight is common, and even falling in love with the daughter (Tatyana Ali) of the man you killed has been done. Doing it again demands something that is original, and originality is lacking in this film.

I was drawn by the inclusion of so many favorites: Tia Carrere (Trues Lies, Wayne's World), Pam Grier (Jackie Brown), Frank Langella (Dracula, Good Night and Good Luck), and Ving Rhames (Rosewood, Dawn of the Dead). They did not disappoint in their performances, but they had little to work with.

Direct to video is becoming more and more common, but that doesn't mean it has to be a waste of time. Maybe the sophomore effort of Hunter will be more enjoyable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"o dear god i suffered having to watch this film FOUR times in my sisters house and was it dreadful a story of sex and guns and very cheap unexplained acting unless you are at gunpoint being told to watch this avoid it Ja Rule just proved he cannot act Ving Rhames also gave the most dreadful acting ever in any of his films there was not one part of this film made me laugh or make me jump or feel any emotion i would be surprised people actually enjoyed this i have seem some dreadful films in my life but this would be in my five worst films ever the music in it wasn't good and the storyline i think was made up by a couple of guys who ordered a pizza and just sat down wrote ten bullet points and then made it into a film absolutely dreadful","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"people, get a clue! I mean, the writers dont have one, so I would expect you to...this show is SUCH a pale imitation of the '60 show that you can laugh at it! and the sixties show is the one with the cheap special effects, and is in B&W fer Chrissakes! Yet the mood and the writing on the old show is MILES ahead of this drivel. Get HiP kids! if 98 Degrees or Brittany told you to watch it, you would! You know it! Just bypass them and tell all your friends you were 'IN' with the 'scene' BEFORE it became too cool!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first 4 episodes of season 6 are just to throw up, to predictable and the worst scenario i've seen. Won't and hopefully i din't buy it. Also seen in seasons back that episodes about space they did, suck even more. All i want to say to the people who make this is: don't do whole episode about space, because they suck. The point is that season 6 sucks even more than the seasons before. Gets worse from season to season. I got so disappointed and frustrated watching first 4 episodes of season 6 that i just had to write this. Only people who are brain washed can watch this crap. Seems that people writing the scenario are getting out of ideas for a long time. Think that my 2 year old nephew had a better idea for the episode than these people do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rob Lowe must have eaten up the entire budget, but I can't fault him for running with the money. Even he would have to agree, there was nothing good about this movie. Filming, editing, direction, dialogue, sets, makeup, writing, casting (especially the young girl and imposter child psychiatrist), and the story all were just the worst. I have never seen such a horrible movie. Pass this one up for any other rental selection, or find yourself shouting out vile comments at the TV. Dead Silent should be silenced for all time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Julia Kerbridge (Catherine Mary Stewart) is working hard to become a doctor. Suddenly, Julia finds herself the guardian of her young niece, Amanda, after her parents are found murdered. Julia has a new neighbor, the mysterious Kevin Finney (Rob Lowe). Her hectic life comes crashing down when it becomes apparent that the young Amanda holds the key to a terrible secret. For she too is now the target of the killers. Julia must discover whether Kevin is friend or foe, and unlock the sinister mystery before the murderer strikes again,\" according to the DVD sleeve synopsis.

This thriller quietly falls apart at the seams, but it is interesting some of the time. Stalker Sean Devine's background telephone scene (outside the police station) and Mr. Lowe's violin (restaurant) are tensely played. But, early on, it's difficult not to miss the fact that one of the supposedly sophisticated killers purposely twists his foot in some red paint at the murder scene. Unfortunately, this is not an intricate plot point; and, there are worse story stumbles afoot. Overall \"Dead Silent\" is not a bad way to spend some time, if there is nothing better on, or you're into Lowe and his co-stars.

**** Dead Silent (1999) Roger Cardinal ~ Catherine Mary Stewart, Rob Lowe, Arlen Aguayo-Stewart, Larry Day","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story starts off in the home of a little girl who is going to have a Birthday Party and both the mother and father seemed to act rather quiet and reserved with each other. They proceed to give their daughter her present which is from both of them and it stuck me funny the expressions on the two parents faces as they gave their child this gift, it was almost like, 'I hope she likes it'! There is a killing in the film and Catherine Mary Stewart,(Julia Kerbridge),\"Reaper\",2000, gets involved with the case because of family ties. Julia is working hard to become a doctor and this particular murder disrupts her entire life. Rob Lowe, (Kevin Finney),\"View From The Top\",03 is a next door neighbor in the same apartment dwelling as Julia and he eventually goes to bed with her and tries to help her in other ways. This is not a bad film, but it is certainly nothing to go crazy about, unless you like a film location in Canada and a good looking Catherine Mary Stewart, a native from Canada.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie uses motifs that could be plagiarized from \"Wait Until Dark\" (1967), a much better movie by Terence Young, starring Audrey Hepburn. \"Dead Silent\" is a pale paraphrase. There is nothing new here -- the hidden object in the doll, the bad men wanting it, the bad guy posing as a good guy. The disability, though, has shifted : Audrey Hepburn couldn't see, the child in DS cannot speak. But both stories hinge on the handicap. Where \"Wait Until Dark\" built up unbearable suspense, \"Dead Silent\" lets you guess the outcome, the story being such a stereotype.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sigh. I'm baffled when I see a short like this get attention and assignments and whatnot. I saw this film at a festival before the filmmaker got any attention and forgot about it immediately afterwards. It was mildly annoying to see it swiping the Grinch Who Stole Christmas heart gag along with the narration, the set design seen many times before, the whole weak Tim Burton-ish style, and the story that goes nowhere. And we got the \"joke\" about shooting the crows with the 45 the first time, alright?

But I guess what's really unacceptable is that it even swipes its basic concept from a comic book circa 1999 called LENORE, THE CUTE LITTLE DEAD GIRL by Roman Dirge! As any quick internet search will reveal. I mean, what is this? This is what they base a Hollywood contract on and opens doors in Canada for a filmmaker? \"Give your head a shake\" as Don Cherry might say.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You may like Tim Burton's fantasies, but not in a commercial-like show off lasting 8 minutes. It demonstrates good technical points without real creativity or some established narrative pace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sigh. I'm baffled when I see a short like this get attention and assignments and whatnot. I saw this film at a festival before the filmmaker got any attention and forgot about it immediately afterwards. It was mildly annoying to see it swiping the Grinch Who Stole Christmas heart gag along with the narration, the set design seen many times before, the whole weak Tim Burton-ish style, and the story that goes nowhere. And we got the \"joke\" about shooting the crows with the 45 the first time, alright?

But I guess what's really unacceptable is that it even swipes its basic concept from a comic book circa 1999 called LENORE, THE CUTE LITTLE DEAD GIRL by Roman Dirge! As any quick internet search will reveal. I mean, what is this? This is what they base a Hollywood contract on and opens doors in Canada for a filmmaker? \"Give your head a shake\" as Don Cherry might say.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A 10 year old kid fed up with his parents arguing decides to hot wire a car and go on a surreal journey across America to find Motorama cards, which is a gas station card game, that if he can find to spell out \"Motorama\" he has a chance to win 500 million dollars. He meets many bizarre characters along the way. No one can make an 'instant cult classic', Joe Minion's previous \"After Hours\" achieved that by sheer merit & an amazing director, but it wasn't instant. This movie, on the other hand, is just bizarre just to be bizarre. No rhyme or reason to any of it. The plot is incidental at best and seems to exist just to showcase various cameos. It's just not a fun film nor a thoughtful one. It's way too slapped together. I've heard many comparisons between this and David Lynch films. That's damn near heresy as even Lynch's 'worst' film (worst in quotes, as he doesn't have an bad films really) is still miles above this dreck.

Eye Candy: Cynthia King is topless very briefly

DVD Extras: Trailer for \"Joe Dirt'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This oddity contains Bunuel-like touches, but doesn't sustain one's interest. A 10 year old roams a bizarro America in a stolen Mustang, while the usual cult movie suspects (Dick Miller, Mary Woronov, Susie Tyrell) commit malicious acts in the name of comedy. Like his AFTER HOURS and VAMPIRE'S KISS, the screenwriter delights in making you squirm. I remained unaffected, due to the broad acting. You know you're in for it when Meat Loaf and Flea give the most appealing perfs. (And what did this kid's screen test look like? He's insufferable.) Recommended to the dozen or so fans of SONNY BOY ('87).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some movies are off-beat, but enjoyable, but many movies are just mind-numbingly weird. \"Motorama\" fits not-so-nicely in the latter category. Many seem to like it because of endless guest appearances and a total lack of sense, but those two things can only take a movie so far, and \"Motorama\" simply doesn't have any other merits to its credit.

\"Motorama\" delights itself on plot improbabilities. Its main character, Gus, is a cussing 10-year old on a roadtrip across an imaginary country trying to collect game pieces to win $500 million. When interacting with adult figures, none of them seem to notice or be concerned with the fact that he's 10 years old. At first it's incredibly funny, but it quickly becomes just too unbelievable, especially considering the people he runs into and the fact that he seems so unfazed by a lot of the disturbing (to someone that age) imagery going on around him. Gus has no depth, and, as an anti-hero who has no problem causing misery for others to get his game pieces, it's hard to feel sorry for him when he encounters trouble.

That trouble is provided by a slew of guest appearances, each mistreating Gus in more and more strange ways. Besides making the already worn-out plot even more unbelievable and less enjoyable, the characters share Gus' lack of depth and are equally unmemorable. The character's actions can get a little interesting, but the actors themselves don't add anything to them, thus negating the whole point of getting big names (they could've been played by anyone and the character would've been the same). These guest appearances seem to have been signed more for marquee value than anything else.

\"Motorama\" should be interesting - it's a unique idea, but there's too little semblance of sense in the script for it to work. Incidents that should have a lasting effect on the anti-hero and the viewer don't, as the movie quickly moves from incident to incident, in the hope that something will eventually make the audience feel sorry or understanding for Gus. That never happens, as by doing so nothing is allowed to connect, it just jerks back and forth as if on a conveyor belt, one incident after another. With a story so nonsensical it ceases to be enjoyable, and a main character who never evolves to care for himself or anyone else on a higher level, \"Motorama\" has little to offer except a brat sneaking around and trying to get rich. Why should we care about that?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not going to say too much as this movie isn't worth the effort. To put it simply the movie absolutely sucked! This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The storyline was stupid, you couldn't follow what was happening, the characters were so annoying especially the main guy. I wanted someone to kill that kid and put him and the movie out of it's misery.

Very, very bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know what the makers of this film were trying to either accomplish or say, but they badly failed at whatever it was. Unless of course the object was to totally confuse the viewer. I watched this movie simply because Drew Barrymore was in it, and it turned out that she had a smaller than small cameo in it. The whole idea of having this kid go on some wild car trip to win a big money prize from a gas station game and meet up with all sorts of wackos is utterly ridiculous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't really care for this. Had they gotten rid of the comedy\/slapstick and focused on the dramatic\/philosophical aspects of the script, this might have been worthwhile.

The more the film went on, the less I liked the protagonist\/mailman. He does have interesting things to say, but he's also a hypocritical, insecure jerk.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I did not quite get Barnens O \u0096 it is one of the weirdest ones I have watched. The soundtrack was quite unusual as well \u0096 written and performed by Jean Michel Jarre - it makes the movie weirder than it was. I have to admit that I was almost going to change it and watch another one instead \u0096at times the movie seemed plain dumb to me, or boring \u0096 or confusing. There are quite a few sexual references in that movie \u0096 trough they too are kind of messed up . Probably the only phrase that I will remember out of it is going to be \"When you are alone, you can control things \"\u0096 and \"I will show them \"- or something like that .The boy in that movie was obsessed with the idea of not growing up \u0096 \"the last summer as a child \"he thought once \u0096 and he sure lived it to the max. So if you have few hours to spare you can watch this movie \u0096 but you won't miss much if you don't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A long time ago, way back in the early '80s, a late-night TV show \"Fridays\" came to ABC, trying to steal the limelight away from NBC's badly-listing \"Saturday Night Live\". It didn't but it did introduce some repugnant sketches and semi-talented \"comedians\" to the world. Like Mark Blankenfield, for example.

Which, in a roundabout way, brings us to \"Jekyll and Hyde... Together Again\". Which is repugnant in ways all its own.

Blankenfield is about as subtle as a pew full of whoopee cushions going off after Communion. And about as tasteful, too. This is just his drugged-out druggist character he played on the ill-fated \"Fridays\" show stretched out to feature length. And if you didn't like him there, why are you reading this review?

Any time it takes more than one or two writers to write a movie, that's a bad sign. Then when it goes for dunder-headed jokes that would get you thrown off every improv stage in the Western hemisphere and replaces gags with gross-out, things can only get worse.

A comic take on a Robert Louis Stevenson story? About as good an idea as making a sitcom out of Poe's \"Fall of the House of Usher\".

Aside from a few (VERY few) gags that give a slight grin, this whole film is an exercise in waste - wasted actors, wasted film, wasted opportunities.

No wonder they showed original author Stevenson turning in his grave. What more observant a review could they give themselves?

No stars. No, not even for Armstrong, who should have known better.

\"Hyde\" from this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes it is funny to watch films implode from your couch, but other times it is just horribly painful to both your eyes and your mind. House Party 4: Down to the Last Minute is one of those rare examples of when both your eyes and your mind are pleading with you to turn the film off. This final installment to the House Party series is by far the worst, not just sequel, but film released by Hollywood. It becomes very apparent early on in this \"feature\" that director Chris Stokes loved Ferris Bueller's Day Off with a passion. I say this because it becomes very clear that Stokes had no trouble lifting the originality of Bueller off John Hughes' hands and choosing to create a film completely void of humor. You would think that by \"stealing\" themes and images from a funnier film, your own film would at least be able to generate a giggle or two. With House Party 4, Stokes proved that he does not have what it takes to direct a sequel, much less a Hollywood film. From his confusing and choppy story, the inability to make sense of his characters, and recycled old\/tired clich\u00e9 moments, all Stokes is doing is hitting a bigger nail into the coffin that holds the House Party films. It reminds me of that student that forgets about his project due in an hour and quickly slops together super glue, macaroni, cat hair, chewing gum, and straws and presents it as \"Hannibal Crossing the Alps\". It just looks horrible and you feel embarrassed for the creator.

So, where did this film first take the plunge into the realm of comic stupidity? Honestly, I do not think that most places will allow me to speak that long, so instead I would like to hit upon some of the larger topics that hit me the hardest. To begin, I still cannot shake the Ferris Beuller rip-off. It was as if director Stokes was ashamed of having to direct another sequel to House Party and decided to bring in a completely random formula (from a funnier film) and see if he could cut and paste elements from the original series into that formula. That was a huge mistake. When a director tries to do this, what eventually happens is confusion within the audience. We think that we are going in one direction, but instead we head in another one. That is exactly what you can witness in House Party 4. In one instance we have John-John trying to have the \"biggest party of the decade\" while also trying to score a record deal (ok, kinda reminds me of the original House Party), but then we whisk away to this random island where Uncle Charles is afraid of flying, Grandma gets drunk, and some idiotic mind-dulling moments with a supposed killer. Again, we begin somewhat strong, and end chaotic. This is the confusion in which I speak. Director Stokes did not have the ability to keep his hand on either the pulse of humor or the ability to tell a sequential story. He would rather cut corners, keep the jokes cheap, and think that the audiences are idiots than attempt to revive a stone-dead series. One would think that when a director was handed that task of filming another House Party film he would walk into it thinking that he\/she would be the one to revive it or bring it back to life, instead Stokes just wanted to get paid.

I realize that I am slowly growing older as the days go quickly by, but I do believe I still keep my hand in the younger generation's culture. I listened to rap and R&B growing up, but the group \"Immature\" never made it to either my cassette deck or my CD player. Why? I don't think they ever quite had a following, but apparently to director Chris Stokes, it would be beneficial to cast them as leads in his new House Party film. Didn't anyone at any studio realize that this was going to be in the red rather quickly? Or how about the option to have Stokes himself play the comedic car repairman, nothing like a director with no sense of comic timing casting himself as the only source of possible humor. It was one of those few instances when I actually missed Robin Harris, and I never thought I would find myself saying that to any film. Outside of a go-nowhere band playing the lead role, I also thought that the remainder of the cast only continued to suck the life out of this film. Uncle Charles was annoying when he attempted humor. Kim Whitely was completely wasted for her scenes (both literally and figuratively) while \u0085 well \u0085 everyone else pretty much falls into that category.

Where did Chris Stokes spend most of the budget for this film? Not for special guest stars because while this film may have boasted some, there were definitely none present at the \"unforgettable\" House Party, nor the possible dream that perhaps Kid or Play would make one final appearance. House Party 4 followed no preset design, which ultimately ruined this feature from the foundation down. Can anyone explain to me why there was any need to use the \"escaped murderer who happened to be a licensed taxicab driver\" routine for humor? Stokes was reaching deep within the bottom of the barrel and only produced more muck instead of substance. For once I can admit to there being no redeeming value to this film. House Party 4 buried the series, and while I do hear that there may be more in the pipeline, I only hope Hollywood realizes that this series has died. Hollywood needs to let this series end, forget about the past and move forward in the future. I think a sequel to Who's the Man? would get them started in the right direction.

Grade: * out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me first start with the obvious: antisemitism has been a serious problem throughout history, present in many societies and causing the deaths of million of Jews. That said, the problem with this movie is that it views the United States - probably the most welcoming society ever to Jews outside of Israel - as a not very different place from Nazi Germany. Set in 1943, the movie is about a man (William H. Macy) who gets confused with a Jew after he starts wearing glasses!. A number of very nasty things happen to him after that (he loses his job and he is unable to find a new one, his neighbors shunned him, all ending up in a violent confrontation). From one of Arthur Miller's self pitying, patronizing novels, the sort that gave liberalism a bad name.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had the unlucky experience of stumbling upon a preview for this movie and thought it might be interesting. I am a fan of the two main actors, and I even find Meatloaf to be oddly appealing, but that couldn't compensate for the droning plot of this movie. This movie attempts to make social comments and be artfully intelligent. I am sure the audience gets the sociological message clearly, but has to suffer in the process. Personally, no matter how bad the movie is, I can't stop it in the middle. Something drives me to finish the worst of movies, but I often regret it. This is one of those...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Did the other reviewers watch the same movie I did? This was poorly written, poorly acted, and just overall boring. I made it well past the halfway point in the movie and then just gave up. I can't possibly imagine an ending that would have made the rest of the movie worthwhile. Don't waste your time with this dog. Seriously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Arthur Miller has always been known as one of America's great playwrights for works such as \"Death of a Salesman\" and \"The Crucible\". \"Focus\" is one of his lesser known plays brought to the silver screen. However, knowing what a great playwright Arthur Miller is, I doubt that his original play was very much like the movie. The movie comes across as empty and formulaic, with William H. Macy as a non-Jew mistaken for a Jew by anti-Semitic neighbors in WWII Brooklyn. Don't get me wrong: the acting is OK, and I presume that the people behind this movie were probably trying to make a point about racism, but the movie just doesn't work. Macy, Laura Dern and David Paymer just can't create an effective story with the material here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why oh why did they have to try and make a sequel to one of the greatest Christmas movies of all time. The movie is a train wreck on every level and should have never been made. Randy Quaid's portrayal of cousin Eddie is an over the top caricature of his previous outings as cousin Eddie. Also, the Eddie character is not interesting enough to carry an entire movie. Even \"eye candy\" Sung Hi Lee could not redeem this hunk of holiday crap. Please do not waste your time on this move, just watch the original again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just watched National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 2 on DVD, hoping to see something at least close to the original, great holiday comedy, 'Christmas Vacation'. I saw nothing of the kind. You can tell right from the start that this movie just wasn't going to measure up. It's too bad it has a title that links it to the original Christmas Vacation. It's really kind of sad. The film can't stand on it's own merits. I think too many people will view this film on the strength of the title and it does not come close to that level of comedy. Other than the title, there is very little connecting the movie to the original 'Christmas Vacation' and even less of a connection to Christmas at all. The comedy is very simplistic and the plot poor. Children might find some humor here but most adults would only get a chuckle here and there. This movie is a flop. Don't waste your time with it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a fan of a few of the Vacation films, but when a movie franchise goes from the big screen to the TV screen, you know it's out of steam. Made for TV National Lampoon films do not do well on TV. This movie is another reason.

I think a lot of us were excited when this was coming out, but we also had to face the reality...it's a TV movie. Randy Quaid is fine as Cousin Eddie, but is better in a supporting role than the lead. Dana Barron sets history as the first actor to reprise her role as one of the Griswold kids. She is just as pretty, but it doesn't help a thin script.

Why was this movie even made? It was probably because NBC recently picked up another few years of presenting X-mas Vacation. There is nothing wrong with the acting. It's all in the script. It's just not that funny. People need to think before they write stuff like this. It is one Christmas movie I do not recommend.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I sat through all 2 hours. I do not know what was worse, the awful plot, the lame characters or the hawaiian hottie that Eddie's 11 yearold kid and 80 year old grandpa made sexual advances toward. The money spent on this was just flushed down the throne. Matty Simmons should be ashamed. The original idea for this movie was \"A Swiss Family Griswold\" and it somehow turned into this mess. The only bright spot is that it's ratings were so bad we will never see this on TV again. AVOID AT ALL COSTS...RENT ERNEST SAVES XMAS or something else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved the original, I watch it every year. but the second is a piece of garbage and it never should have been made. The second could have worked if there was a different location. The son was not an original or didn't even act like one of Eddie's kids. Third was too smart for Eddie which downplayed his father role. None of the other kids where in it. It just could of been a lot better. I don't know why they even tried to make this movie. There was no continuncy from the first movie. I will pretend that this one doesn't even exist. It is sad that the actors didn't even see that they where made fools of. A really bad movie. I just think that i wasted an hour or more on a bad movie and i really love all of the national lampoon films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I knew this would be one of the worst movies I could have imagined...but in just 20 short minutes it actually exceeded my low expections by being possibly THE worst movie I have ever seen.

I have already wasted too much time typing about it...trust me, it sucks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a big fan of the \"Vacation\" franchise, and I love Randy Quaid as Cousin Eddie, and at least a couple of the behind-the-scenes names were involved in this project (most notably Matty Simmons, who produced or executive-produced all 4 of the theatrical releases, as well as \"Animal House\"). For those reasons I figured this made-for-TV spin off might be worth checking out, even without Chevy Chase.

For the record, I did not expect it to be very good; I just thought it might be a slightly amusing diversion. Therefore, my high level of disappointment goes to prove just how bad this utter turd of a movie really was. It was mind-numbingly, jaw-droppingly, heart-stoppingly, head-explodingly terrible. Yet, somehow, I could not stop watching it. It's a sickness I have; I can't seem to walk out on a film or give up on a TV show before it ends. Nothing has ever made me want two hours of my life back more than this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched about the first 30 - 40 minutes of this movie on television the other night and can agree that this is by far the worst of the series. Not any of it is funny, even Randy Quaid can't save this mess. Eric Idle wasn't funny in N.L. Euro. Vacation, and he's even worse here. The only funny scene is where they're at the airport and some guy dressed as Santa walks by the camera yelling \"Did anybody lose this?\" as he holds up a prosthetic leg...

1\/2 a star out of ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Absolutely the worst experience I have ever been through. I think my eyes started bleeding. I actually got sick the night after watching this. I don't even consider this a movie. Movies are supposed to be worthwhile and entertaining. This fails horribly. I could not make it through the entire film, so because the ending could be greatest phenomenon in motion picture history, this gets a 1 for that small chance. Otherwise It would be a flat 0.

I can't see how National Lampoon, or let alone any organization, would sponsor this atrocity. Renting this DVD is currently one of the worst mistakes of my life. Only watch this if you want to make ever other movie you will ever watch seem great.

Without question this is the worst movie I have ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe I bought this movie on DVD. I don't even remember it being shown on TV last year. Why in the world couldn't they have just done a real sequel to one of the best Christmas movies ever made? Damn and Randy Quaid looks like he's been on the same drugs as Jerry Lewis. I didn't know about this movie until I bought it tonight and thought I would check it out on IMDb and see how it was rated. Boy did I make a mistake. If your reading this review be warned stay away from it and just stick to the first Christmas Vacation. Well at least I didn't pay more then 10 bucks for it. Maybe I can trade it in and get half of that back at Tower Records. Then again maybe not. PS I still haven't watched it yet, my DVD player went on the fritz tonight watching another wonderful movie, The Chronicles of Riddick (Unrated Director's Cut) woo freaking hoo.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was shocked at how bad it was and unable to turn away from the disaster. This made 'Major League II' and 'Blues Brothers 2000' Oscar-worthy in comparison.

I have tried to remember watching anything as bad as this in my life and was unable to come up with anything even close.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"God bless Randy Quaid...his leachorous Cousin Eddie in Vacation and Christmas Vacation hilariously stole the show. He even made the awful Vegas Vacation at least worth a look.

I will say that he tries hard in this made for TV sequel, but that the script is so NON funny that the movie never really gets anywhere. Quaid and the rest of the returning Vacation vets (including the orginal Audrey, Dana Barron) are wasted here. Even European Vacation's Eric Idle cannot save the show in a brief cameo....

Pathetic and sad...actually painful to watch....Christmas Vacation 2 is the worst of the Vacation franchise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was awful. It centered too much around Eddie, Clark Griswald's brother-in-law. Eddie works much better when changing good quips such as in \"Christmas Vacation\" and \"Vacation\".

I really don't understand how a movie like this would be given the thumbs up. Now, don't get me wrong, I like Randy Quaid, but just felt this movie was totally wrong for him and for the character in general. This movie leaves much to be desired and really needed some bigger name actors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Note, I only saw approximately the last half of this movie, so feel free to take my review with whatever grain of salt you deem appropriate, that being said, seeing what I saw was more than enough to make me quite convinced that a one-star rating for this is enough.

In short, it's a dismal-plot slaughter of the wonderful precursor (NL Christmas Vacation) with Chevy Chase, only it doesn't have Chevy Chase in it, and it takes place in a generic tropical island, essentially with no connection to Christmas at all.

Ol' Chevy probably didn't want in because the plot is that devoid of actual fun, instead they got the screwy Cousin Eddie, who, again, was great in the original, but in this he is just over the top, and an extremely poor basis for any movie considering the plot and acting. The attempts at humor are generic to a degree where even contemporary television comedy trumps it, and considering that this is supposed to be comedy, I doubt I need to say more.

This is not to be seen for its qualities, for it has none, but for it's failings and again, how Hollywood is spilling it's life's blood of the past in the pursuit of a quick buck.

I think I'll watch the original before the upcoming Christmas season just to try to regain my childhood innocence, from a lost time when motion pictures were more than just high-budget, but mindless, garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was out-of-town, visiting an old friend. After dinner, talking, he expressed some reservations about his daughter's boy friend. She's 15, beautiful, smart, athletic, and the young man is also from an excellent family, nice, also athletic (if not as smart). I told him he might just be feeling the normal fatherly concerns; however, a few minutes later the young man arrived, with his DVD of this flick, which he had apparently been anxious for some time to share with the others.

These folks have a bona fide home theater set-up, with a screen something in excess of 4 feet, and the two young folks preceded to view it, while the young swain proceeded to extol its virtues almost frame-by-frame.

I saw enough in a few moments (and with some fascination in its awfulness) to endorse all of the most critical comments I've seen in scanning some here.

I told my friend I wouldn't go so far as to disqualify the young suitor solely on the basis of his liking this opus -- but it certainly seems to warrant his bearing close watch.

Some flicks are so-bad-they're-good: the classic \"Plan 9 from Outer Space;\" and, in my opinion, the wonderfully awful Bruce Jenner\/Village People work, \"Can't Stop the Music.\"

However, this one remains firmly simply in the awful category.

Second\/third\/fourth \"bananas\" -- even the best of these (e.g. Tim Conway, Don Knotts, everybody with Seinfeld) have great difficulty in carrying a later starring series (or, as here, film). And these were great supporting characters in their original situations.

The \"Eddie\" character, really at about the 5th- or 6th-banana level in the prior Griswald movies, and never added a whole lot to these, in my opinion. Randy Quaid is a capable actor who has delivered some good performances. His contribution to the prior \"Vacation\" pic's was average, at best. Both he and the other cast members, many of whom have done some good work in the past, accomplished nothing for their efforts here, except to derive a few years' house payments or some IRA contributions.

This whole presentation --- story, performances (from lead to support) couldn't be worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Who gave these people money to make a movie? There was nothing funny about it. The fact that the farting dog was the funniest thing about this piece of sickness says it all. First of all, it has nothing to do with Christmas, it just took the name and counted on all those people who liked the Chevy Chase original. They took Randy 'I have no talent, I m just a fat and sweaty pig' Quaid (the only wrong thing about part 1) and made a 'movie' about him...There are only morons in his family, but not the 'aren't they cute' kinda moronic, but the 'don t touch me' kinda moronic. Watching this pile of dirt helps you hope that everyone who takes part in it DIES! They didn't even bother to get the effects in order...when they re on the boat, the only thing that moves is the fake background...when pigface Quaid is in the water you can tell by the lighting that it's in a studio. This movie was sexist (uncle Nick), racist (uncle Nick) and should never have been made..never...throwing the money into a volcano would have had so much more use.

Well I hope I reached some of you...Nobody warned me and now I m scarred for life Merry F*cking Christmas","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It'll be a blue Christmas indeed if you subject you're family to this. I loved the original movie, and this one was not worthy of being its sequel. Actually, for all intents and purposes, it is not its sequel. Only one character from the original cast returns. Granted, that character happened to be the hilarious cousin Eddie, but he simply is not hilarious being the protagonist of a movie. His niche is that of the wacky relative who performs zany antics--alongside Chevy Chase. Chevy Chase was needed in this film for it to be a success, and he definitely was not there. As far as I am concerned, a movie is not a \"Vacation\" movie unless good ole' Clark Griswold is at the helm.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie last night, and let me say, it's the absolute worst thing I have ever seen. The entire film is a train wreck, and it's not the actors. It is the horrible script.

** Spoilers ** Alright, Eddie loses his job to a monkey. His nerdy son is disappointed. The bathroom goes crazy.

He gets a free vacation. He goes along with Uncle Nick and the original Audry. Their boats crashes. They stay on an island. They are stupid and don't even bother to look at the nearby hotel.

OK, so that's that. What makes this movie pathetic is the humor. It is so horrid, hillybillyish, and stupid, you can't even laugh. ANd it's not stupid funny humor either. I couldn't laugh the entire thing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Obviously with this film going straight to DVD I wasn't expecting a lot but this film is so unfunny it is unbelievable. The only part of the film that you actually may find remotely funny is before they even get to the island, where Eddie's son is blasted out of the bathroom by a jet of water and then that's it! Why do they bother at all? The first Christmas Vacation with Chevy Chase was brilliant and hilarious. This is not. They rely on jokes concerning a dog with flatulence, and a character called Uncle Nick who is about 80 and keeps trying to get his way with beautiful women. When they approach the island on the boat, the island in the background just looks so fake and Randy Quaid although funny in the previous film, just overacts and seems like he's trying too hard to be funny. You have been warned!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has got to be the worst piece of crap I have ever seen. Randy Quaid funny as a supporting actor in the original, but not as the leading. Too much Eddie. The original is a classic. Like the original, the supporting actor carried the show. Ed Asner was very funny. He is the Eddie of Christmas Vaction 2! How come Snots still looks the same after all those years and everyone else in the original looks 14 years older. After 15 minutes of watching this movie I don't believe I had even laughed yet. The island thing just didn't work. If it wasn't for the good looking South Pacific female guide on the island the movie would have been a total loss. I sat on this review for a week and yes, I still think the movie should never have been made. Lets hope there is not a THIRD!

Shawn Gearin","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To quote Clark Griswold (in the original Christmas Vacation): \"WORSE? How could things get any worse? Take a look around here, Ellen. We're at the threshold of hell.\" Little did Chevy Chase know that he was describing the \"sequel\" to one of his best films. Christmas Vacation II sets a new high (or maybe it should be LOW) in bad movies. My wife bought this DVD thinking it would actually be a sequel to the original, but we were severely disappointed. This film is LAME. It bears no resemblance to the original, is an absolute waste of film, and an embarrassment to the otherwise good actors who had the misfortune to be part of it. It must have set a record on IMDb for the most bad reviews. I really think we have a good case to win a class action lawsuit to recover the money we consumers wasted on this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK...this MAY contain Spoilers...but who really cares? Do not, if you value the seconds in your life, waste your time on this pile of garbage. There is not one redeeming quality in this movie...and I say that as a full fan of the Vacation Series of movies. I LOVED the Cousin Eddie character from the other Vacation movies...but he only works well as a supporting character. Do I blame Randy Quaid for the failure of this movie? Not at all. I think he's a great actor...but this film lacks any cohesion...the pacing is off...it's just plain unfunny. And the actor who plays the \"Third\"...Jake Thomas...was just awful, more than likely due to a real lack of direction. I don't know why...but his whole character creeped me out.

Some people say that this is a horrible movie because Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo aren't in it...that has nothing to do with it. The script, directing, acting...special effects...everything is a train wreck. With Orphans. And kittens. Oh...and the Train ran over some old people too.

Please, whatever you do...stay away from this filth! I call it filth because it dirties the name of the Vacation Franchise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot believe that the actors agreed to do this \"film\". I could not stand to even watch it for very long for fear of losing I.Q. points for each passing second. I guess that nobody at the network that aired this dribble watched it before putting it on. IMDB ratings only go as low 1 for awful, it's time to get some negative numbers in there for cases such as these.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**WARNING** MISERABLE MOVIE **WARNING** The day before Christmas eve, some nut case decided he'd entertain us by sending this movie as \"entertainement\" on TV. What in Gods name was he thinking?

This movie is filled with awful humor, despicable acting, lousy jokes and a disaster of a plot line. Randy Quaid plays the idiotic role as Cousin Eddie Johnson. Eddie is a brain dead person, who's incapable of even the simplest tasks. He was fired because he was dumb as a brick, but the company he worked for was sorry for it so they sent him and his family on a vacation. But being as stupid as he is, he managed to make the vacation into a disaster.

All-in-all it's the worst movie I've seen, and I have nightmares still over the miserable acting and the even more miserable jokes in this movie. It's so sad you ALMOST have to see it... But don't. The nightmares I have are far worse than any other nightmares you will ever have. Trust me... I hate this movie so bad because of it's acting, the humor, the \"jokes\" and the story. The only good thing was the nice scenery.

Well It's my opinion, and I surely hope everyone agrees with me...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddie's Island Adventure (2003) Randy Quaid, Miriam Flynn, Dana Barron, Jake Thomas, Sung Hi Lee, Eric Idle, Fred Willard, Ed Asner, D: Nick Marck. Embarrassing direct-to-video flop has oafish Cousin Eddie and family on an expenses-paid vacation to the South Pacific by his boss, hoping the dunce won't sue his company after being bitten by a smarter lab monkey! Idiotic spin off can't measure up to any of the Vacation films (even European Vacation!), with a question of whether or not the filmmakers thought the script was actually funny. Not even Quaid, Willard, or Asner can make it remotely watchable. 83 min., Not rated. *","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When i found out there was a Christmas Vacation 2, I couldn't wait to buy the DVD. I sent off my money and watched it as soon as it came through the letter box. I love all the national lampoons films with Chevy chase in it, and I bet he was glad he wasn't in this one!. I couldn't believe how bad this was, you would think it was impossible not to laugh at a national lampoons film, but believe me it is! . This film probably looked like a good idea on paper having cousin Eddie as the main character, he started to get on my nerves from early on in the film, and became totally unfunny by the middle of the film, and by the end of the film i had gone brain dead and couldn't remember what had happened! .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Makes the fourth theatrical release (the one National Lampoon took its name OFF of) look like a comedy classic. A complete mistake and a sad attempt to capitalize on a once-proud franchise. Painfully unfunny and unwatchable...even for a TV movie! The Cousin Eddie character has become progressively less amusing, from the original Vacation when it was fresh and unique, through Christmas Vacation when it was starting to wear a bit thin, to Vegas Vacation where it was actually annoying to see come on-screen (but, in fairness, there were a LOT of things that were annoying to see come on-screen in that movie!). But this attempt to move the character up to lead status is unfortunate to say the least. The Vacation movies themselves met an ugly death in Las Vegas, and this hope at reviving even the thinnest thread of the series for television was thoroughly misguided. Chevy Chase and company put together a great trilogy back when he was in his prime; now let's just pull the plug and let the title rest in peace. (One tiny note of interest: The original Audrey Griswold--Dana Barron, the first of four actresses to play the part, including Juliette Lewis--returns to the role 20 years later! One is left only to wonder...WHY?)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry Randy. I love your comedy but in this case you really laid a 'Golden Turkey' egg.

The plot was thinner than a single layer of my skin, the acting more wooden than a Giant Redwood and I think the direction was non existent.

There certainly appeared to be pathetic attempts at take-offs of other films, Jaws and European Vacation to name but two.

If memory serves me right Eric Idle played the same type of character in Nat Lamp European Vacation, but much better.

I am wondering if Chevy Chase and Beverley D'Angelo were approached to make this sequel. If so, they certainly knew what they were doing when they turned their parts down.

In my opinion no one can better Chevy and Beverley in their roles as the Griswolds and Randy Quaid complemented them admirably in the earlier movies.

Randy Quaid should have quit National Lampoon whilst he was ahead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason to see this film is Sung Hi Lee, the stunning model\/actress from Korea who plays \"Muka Laka Miki\" (give me a break) in this otherwise crappy movie.

She is given a fairly substantial part in this film and seems to handle it well, though none of the parts is really interesting or well written. Even for a National Lampoon's movie, it's really stupid. Stupid humor is one thing, but just stupid is another. I may have laughed once, and that was probably just me being polite.

Warning: Watching this movie may be bad for your health on two counts: 1) It, like, totally sucks. 2) Sung Hi Lee is so freaking gorgeous she just might blow your brains out of the back of your head upon first sight.

So don't say I didn't warn you...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am speechless. Matty Simmons has managed to do something I thought impossible. He has made \"The Harlem Globetrotters on Gilligan's Island\" look like \"Citizen Kane.\" Painful cannot even begin to describe this piece of... I don't know. Mind you, the premise sounded funny, but now that I've seen it, it's funny in the way that dropping an anvil on your scrotum is funny.

I won't bother to describe the premise, as the title says it all, if only to say I don't think there was literally one funny thing in this film, not one, not even the monkey bite. How could one of the funniest characters in the \"Vacation\" franchise, the sleazy white trash Eddie (Randy Quaid), be made so horrifically unfunny ? I never felt so much sympathy for an actor in my life. I equally pitied the other actors participating in this \"comedic\" atrocity, Miriam Flynn (Catherine, Eddie's long suffering, but sunny-dispositioned wife), Dana Barron (the original Audrey Griswold), Fred Willard, and the stunning Sung Hi Lee (perhaps the only reason to watch the film, if only with the sound off), save for that old Commie, Ed Asner (Uncle Nick), he had it coming. Alas, the audience didn't. I only say \"thank heavens\" that Chevy Chase, who has been in a slump for years, steered clear of this diarrhea splatter, it's the smartest career move he ever made.

I don't know if you folks are religious like I am, but I know I'll be praying to the Lord tonight to add 2 hours (if not 2 years) to my life to make up for the time I spent in front of the television that I'll never get back otherwise.

Hot Water Burn Baby says ZERO out of 10 Stars (If you take a few hits off the bong AND drink the water, maybe 1\/10th of a star out of 10)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm guessing that the folks talking up this drivel are cronies of the director or something. This is bad, and not in the Michael Jackson song kind of way. To compare the pacing of this movie to the progress of a snail would be to insult the snail. This movie limps along for what seems like an eternity, all to introduce us to some un-scary zombie kids with silly makeup and some sort of vendetta, or thirst for blood, or whatever. Believe me, you won't care. The thought alone that Mom would move her two daughters into this dilapidated and FILTHY home is absurd. And worse, I found myself simply not caring. Backstory about the zombie kids? Snore. Endangerment of Mom and\/or daughters? Don't care.

In short, WOW was this dull. Don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even with the low standards of a dedicated horror fan, I found this film to be beyond awful. It was a huge disappointment since it was featured as one of the eight Horrorfest films. I can only hope the other seven were better. I was actually embarrassed for the friends I was able to convince to see this, and these are the same friends I made watch the remake of The Wicker Man. It has every clich\u00e9 in the book. In fact, it went out of its way to include them. Let's start with the characters. Instead of one young damsel in distress, we get three: the single, hot mom with two daughters\u0096 a blossoming yet brainless teenager and a cute yet simultaneously creepy little girl that you just know is going to have 'special' skills including supernatural knowledge and the ability to communicate with the dead. The little girl is the same one that was in the remake of The Amityville Horror. She was a little annoying but not nearly as irritating Dakota Fanning.

Overall, these characters seemed like escapees from a LifeTime movie. I thought perhaps horror movies had moved on from scenes where the female characters go to bed in full makeup and run around in the dark announcing their presence to anyone with ears, but not this one. I also find it inconceivable that none of them could be bothered to secure the front door from arbitrarily opening day and night. To give you an idea about how uninvolved I was with these characters, I spent most of my time thinking about how cold it must have been on the set because everyone was in a coat even in their houses and how white their teeth were.

Despite all the formulaic plot machinations, the film does not build any suspense at all except to wonder when it will be over. There is more atmosphere at the local Giant in the middle of the most mundane of weekday afternoons. As for the dialogue, I could have sampled quotes from ten other films and cobbled together better, more believable discourse. The gore level, the eye candy for a horror fan, was minimal at best. Without their tiny weapons, the 'zombies' were not menacing at all. You could probably drop kick a couple of them across the room.

What really kills it is its banality. Horror films, more than any other genre, cannot survive uninspired mediocrity. Give me a horror movie that is comically inept or outrageously over the top with gore. I can even take the new ones with their cringe inducing torture. Every once in a while I'd appreciate a truly frightening one, anything but this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw Wicked Little Things as part of the \"8 Films To Die For\" Horrorfest, and this was the only film that disappointed me. To wit, a mom, her little girl and her teenage daughter settle down in an abandoned house in the Pennsylvania mountains. Every night, however, the vengeful spirits of children killed in a coal mine run about and slaughter anyone they find.

I guess the director was banking on his viewers being repulsed that children would be capable of pickaxe murders and eating human flesh (of which there are lavish close-ups, as a nice homage to George Romero) because the film just isn't scary otherwise. Simply put, there are far too many establishing shots of the evil kids jogging to their next murder site. If someone's gonna get it in the barn, there will be a shot of the kids ARRIVING at the barn (oh the suspense) and then moving in for the kill.

Come to think of it, why do the kids suddenly walk SO SLOWLY when they corner their prey? And not that I have any experience in this, but I think a shotgun blast will throw a child A LOT FARTHER than this film implies...? Nor does it help that the mom is one of the worst parents I've ever seen in any film. \"The lock on the front door is busted\"? You have an EIGHT-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER in the WOODS with BEARS and MOUNTAIN LIONS! FIX IT, you MORON!!! Plus, Mom and her oldest daughter look waaaay too close together in age- even for a teen pregnancy, and there's a pretty unbelievable death which involves sneaking up on somebody trying to push a car out of the mud with their butt.

I'm giving this a 3 because it tried. As a splatter film it's not bad. But for good scares, go elsewhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In 1913, in Carlton Mine, Addytown, Pennsylvania, the cruel owner of a mine uses poor children in the exploration and after an explosion, a group of children is buried alive. On the present days, Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) has just lost her husband after a long period of terminal disease when the family savings have been spent in the treatment. Without any money, she moves with her daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) to an old house in the mountains that belonged to her husband. Karen is advised by her neighbors to stay at home in the night, and Sarah hears that there are zombies in the area. When Emma becomes friend of Mary, he mother believes she is an imaginary friend. However, when Sarah's friends are attacked and eaten alive by zombie children and Emma vanishes, Karen and Sarah chase her nearby the mine.

\"Wicked Little Things\" is not a totally bad movie: the acting is good; the make-up is creepy; and the cinematography and the music score are excellent. However, the story, and consequently the screenplay, are very weak, indeed a bad collection of clich\u00e9s. The beginning is reasonable, with a widow moving to a house in a remote location because the family spent all their resources with the illness of the patriarch. But when she arrives, coincidently the little zombies attack people without any consequences, for example, families do not search the missing persons. Then the wicked Mr. Carlton comes to the place with the most disgusting attitudes, a typical clich\u00e9s that he will die in the end. There is no explanation why the children attacked innocent people and why they should stop after killing Mr. Carlton. When Sarah is running away with her mother and says that she is tired and cannot run anymore, it is one the most stupid lines that I have ever seen in a horror movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): \"Zombies\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you described any of the scenes; nightmares of children murdering you in your sleep, your infant daughter talking to ghosts, searching for your lost child in an abandoned mine at night, so petrified with fear that you can't move even though the blood from a murder victim is dripping onto you from the floor above \u0096 then I'd say you had a horror movie. But some how 'Wicked Little Things' just wasn't scary. I am a horror fan and I loved the location, the plot in principal and I liked the three leading ladies. I didn't want to see them come to harm, I wanted the 'bad guy' to get his just desserts, the rest of the cast are always simply cannon fodder so I was indifferent either way with them and it played out every clich\u00e9 in the book - even down to the torch battery running out in the pitch dark just as you start to here whispering voices closing in on you.

I would still recommend that you watch it, but unless you are new to horror movies or under 12 years, you will have seen it all before.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wicked Little Things has an excellent synopsis: empty house beside abandoned mine in woods with tragic past; family moves into house and strange things begin to happen; little creepy children begin to pop up here and there doing creepy-little-children-things. But that is where the cleverness and potential fun ends. This group of kids was sealed in the mine many decades earlier, and now appear roving the woods (poor make-up) with weapons looking for flesh to eat. Oh I get it, this is a ghost-zombie movie. Hmmm....while I can appreciate someone trying something new with this genre, this just didn't work. What was the children's motivation in seeking to devour flesh? Why did they need weapons? Did anyone else imagine the filmmakers all gathered around the daily footage giggling because they felt this was going to be a cool\/scary movie? I found that after thirty minutes I felt the familiar resignation that I had just wasted my time on another modern crap-fest. While the acting was good, and the setting\/cinematography of good quality as well, the script itself suffered from what seems to be a lack of knowledge about the supernatural horror genre altogether. A bunch of kids walking down the mall is scarier than this pack of poorly disguised rodents.

This movie is not scary, and while I can appreciate the story, perhaps have even enjoyed it if I had read it instead of watched it, I still have to say that Wicked Little Things is more accurately called Wicked Little Turd.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The concept of this movie is pretty compelling: zombie children climbing out of an abandoned mine to seek revenge for their deaths in the backwoods of Pennsylvania. Cool. The problem I had with the movie is the lack of creativity when dealing with the zombies. The makers could have really spiced this film up with some terror-like imagery a la \"The Ring\" such as stop action, reverse camera walking or stuff like that. When the zombie children are strolling through the woods they look like a bunch of 9 year-olds walking to a playground in West Philadelphia. Instead of pick axes and shovels they could have easily been carrying baseball bats and gloves. Why would I fear these little kids? Anyone could just run away in a straight line to safety. Also, who in their right mind would have stayed one night with their children in that creepy, run-down house? The moment I opened that front door and looked around I would have said, \"Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Son, go start the car. I'm going around back to pee on a bush and then we're out of here.\" Totally unbelievable movie. Don't waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, I'am a horror fan. But this \"Tobe Hooper\" production (come on, the man from the original Texas Chainsaw and Poltergeist !!) was below standards, even for a fan. The acting was not bad at all, some characters were unbelievable, but the leading ladies were OK. The story was something we've seen a hundred times already, without any surprising twist or whatever. Never exciting or intense, and do not count on any special effects besides blood splashing up. The scary zombie kids are white paled faces with dark eyes and that is it.. That might have worked in the early 70's but not now. Director J.S. Cardone didn't do a good job in keeping the suspense, half way thru there is a risk you will fall asleep. My vote is based primarily on the leading acting, but this could have easily have been called Children Of The Corn 8: From The Corn Fields to the Mines... Enough said..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All I could think while watching this movie was: \"Will it ever end?!\" It was unbearably boring to watch. I was wishing I could just turn it off, but I wanted to do this review justice so I fought the good fight and withstood the torture of watching this movie all the way through so that you, the good reader, need not bear that pain also.

This movie sounds like it has a great premise if you read the premise on paper. However, the actual movie does not deliver on this premise at all.

The opening scene features a mineshaft in the early 1900's, where they are forcing kids to carry dynamite into the tunnels that aren't big enough for the adults to fit into. This seems to be setting up the premise for an interesting movie. But after 4 minutes, it becomes clear that is not the case. The adults who committed these crimes are never punished; there is no consequences shown in the movie for their actions. The opening scene is way better than, and completely irrelevant to, the rest of the movie. The last time an opening scene misrepresented a movie so grievously was the opening scene of 28 Days Later which was the only good scene in *that* whole movie. Wicked Little Things\/Zombies (a movie so crappy they changed the title to try to disguise it's crappiness and sell it again) is exactly the same in this regard. The opening scene is the only watchable scene in the whole movie.

Instead, the movie flashes forward to present-day. A single mother and her two bratty, foul-mouthed kids. Right here is when it would have been wise to press the STOP button and never go near the movie again.

In the first hour, the zombie kids are barely even seen. They get maybe 3 minutes of screen-time, total. All they do is kill a pig, that's it. The rest of the hour is spent showing the dumb mother and her dumb kids buy things at the local store, wander around the forest, and have inane conversations with each other. The dumb teenage daughter goes and hangs out with some other idiot teenagers and smokes weed with them.

There would be no reason to care at all if the zombie kids dispatched anyone in this movie. Every single character is both dumb & annoying, with no redeeming qualities at all. Not to mention one-dimensional and clich\u00e9d.

This movie would have been *vastly improved* if the mother and her dumb kids were dispatched in the first 10 minutes by the zombie kids, as they were driving up to their new house, then the end credits rolled. That right there would instantly change the score from 1\/10, to 10\/10. Honestly! When the dumb mother takes her eyes off the road and almost crashes into a pedestrian on the road, her daughter scolds her: \"You almost killed us, mom!\" Of course, anyone with common sense knows that if the mom had hit the pedestrian, it would be the pedestrian who would be dead --- not the people safely encased *inside* the car. I guess this line was put into the movie to show firsthand that the utter stupidity of the main characters knows no bounds, and runs in the family.

Wicked Little Things\/Zombies runs for 1 hour and 34 minutes, but it definitely felt like 5 hours or more to me. Trying to not fall asleep was a tremendous challenge. It's not until over an hour has passed into the 1 hour and 34 minutes that the zombie children actually bother to kill any person. Then the scene shows the dumb teenagers drinking beer and making out in a car and saying lines like, \"If you ever wanna get in my pants again, you better start the car and get my ass out of here right now.\" Seriously, that's verbatim from the movie. The teenagers are so clich\u00e9d, one-dimensional, badly-acted, dumb & annoying that when the zombie kids finally get around to hacking 3 of them up 1 hour and 5 minutes into the movie, it feels like a cause for celebration. Of course the \"Princess\" dumb weed-smoking foul-mouthed beer-drinking loser daughter of the main mother character gets away scott-free. What a buzzkill that was! She was on the screen longer than the others and hence the most annoying of the 4 of them, and most deserving of a pickaxe to the head. All the more reason why she should have been dispatched within the first 10 minutes, as aforementioned. To still keep her around past 1 hour and 5 minutes though, is totally inexcusable.

The reason for this of course is that feature length movies need to be padded to at least 1 hour and 30 minutes. So by keeping her alive long-past when she should be, they have an extra 27 minutes to pad the movie with her and her mother running through the woods. By 1 hour and 22 minutes in, it's the *second* time in the movie where the annoying daughter is trapped in a vehicle where the engine won't start whilst the zombie kids are coming to get her.

The zombie kids are completely generic. Never say anything. No character development at all for any of them.

In the end, all 3 of the annoying, idiotic main characters live. Which in my opinion, is the filmmakers' way of giving a final flipping the bird gesture to the viewing audience. In my opinion, the filmmakers surely know that they have bamboozled anyone who has had the great misfortune to watch the whole movie. Why not rub their faces in it by not even giving them the satisfaction of seeing any of the 3 main characters who should have been dispatched within the first 10 minutes, die.

Avoid Wicked Little Things\/Zombies like the Bubonic Plague.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As someone already said the Living Dead Dolls were cute and if they came out as a new series of Wicked little things I would buy one, or two. Well basically this film was dark, not in the scary sense but in that I cant see kinda way. And it was boring. Three females in a house, the youngest told not to go into the woods under any circumstances (well that didn't sink in) and it would have been better if that advice had involved their death. And doesn't anyone do any cleaning or whitewashing or something, you would think a lot of coughing would ensue. A sexy young mum where you waste your time trying to figure her age (by my calculations 34 or 36.) And it looked like it had been longer than 20 years since someone had lived there so what was with the fathers young adult photos on much older album? I am so tired of clich\u00e9s that is just lazy writing, and here they come in thick and fast. Teens getting stoned and drunk in car and well you know where that leads....death and apparent deafness too as Tim seems oblivious to his friends scream. I mean I have pushed many a car where the instructing driver did not scream and I heard them. Clich\u00e9 weird man in the woods who no one believes. Plumber who has lived in them there parts for years and this is his first experience with said children, so that driving along he avoids pickaxe wielding youngster in dead of night... run him over you idiot! Clich\u00e9... roaming about in woods without a clue about where you are going, armed with knowledge that pick-axe wielding kids (yes them again) are out and about. Senseless scene the brutalising of pig... why do so many directors see no problem with animal mutilation and slaughter? I would have much rather seen the kiddies run up and bit people on the thighs than this. Zombies don't appear to have that much energy in other films.The villain well how ineffectual was he? His big part was in the shop.. tramping in and demanding to be served first. What a none eventful man he was. Why not kill him earlier, before the family got there and avoid the movie being made, or remake it differently. I give my marks to the house, the woods and the little Goth dollies I want one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the few reasons to make these pointlss films is to give some actors a chance to hopefully star in better films if they're acting is any good. The only good thing in this movie is the acting, the three female leads are better than most horror films like this. There's 2 scenes that may cause an unexpected jump.

Young small children are use to crawl through holes and lay dynamite to explode mines. When one does collapse causing a cave in all the children die, becoming zombies. The adults in the mine stay dead, no reasons are given as why the children become flesh eaters. When still alive they looked terrified before the cave in, innocent, so they must become enraged at any adult which exploited them int he mines (only reason that come to mind).

A mother and her 2 daughters move into a house near the mine, along with a land devoloper who wants to build a resort and another of those creepy people who seem to know exactly what's going on yet no one believes him.

Nothing new here, you're usual clich\u00e9s, predictable, a lot of negatives for this film, very few positives.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I generally love this type of movie. However, this time I found myself wanting to kick the screen. Since I can't do that, I will just complain about it. This was absolutely idiotic. The things that happen with the dead kids are very cool, but the alive people are absolute idiots. I am a grown man, pretty big, and I can defend myself well. However, I would not do half the stuff the little girl does in this movie. Also, the mother in this movie is reckless with her children, to the point of neglect. I wish I wasn't so angry about her and her actions because I would have otherwise enjoyed the flick. What a number she was, take my advise and fast forward through everything you see her do until the end. Also, is anyone else getting sick of watching movies that are filmed so dark. Anymore, one can hardly see what is being filmed. As an audience, we are impossibly involved with the actions on the screen. So then, why the hell can't we have night vision?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to like this movie. A film with zombie children getting out of a mine to kill people at night really seemed like a great idea for a horror film. Unfortunately, the film was in the bottom 3 of films played at horror fest.

A mother and her two daughters attempt to move on after her husband\/father had passed away from an illness that cost their family a lot of money. They have to adapt to their new environment. They end up struggling due to all the surroundings for different reasons.(Crazy Zombie kids go into this category) The film never gives any sentimental attachment for anyone that lives or dies, the film produces no scares or jump worthy moments, the film barely shows the children doing what they're supposed to do...Kill! With a bigger budget and a better cast this film could have hope. Until then, pass on it.

3.5\/10 actually.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"J.S. Cardone directed a little known 'Video Nasty' in 1982 called \"The Slayer\" and since then has gone on to have a hand in a handful of feature films; including the rubbish 2001 vampire movie The Forsaken. His latest feature film, Wicked Little Things, boasts a plot that sounds decent as well as a creepy looking poster that I seem to remember surfacing a couple of years ago in relation to a film that Tobe Hooper was meant to direct. Well I guess he felt that this one was too similar to his silly zombie fungus movie 'Mortuary' and so turned this one down. I don't blame him for it either. The plot focuses on a mother and her two daughters that move to an old house in the mountains that once belonged to her late husband. However, what they don't realise is that around a hundred years earlier; a group of children that were being used as miners were trapped down a mineshaft. Naturally, that's not the end of them and they managed to survive their ordeal and now prowl the area in search of revenge\u0085

The film is essentially a collection of clich\u00e9s; from the youngest kid with an \"imaginary friend\", the mother who dismisses it and all the usual zombie rubbish. J.S. Cardone attempts to get the horror fans back on side with shocks and gory scenes (mostly involving kids) but its not enough. The story doesn't play out very well at all either and really did remind me too much of the earlier Mortuary, and that's not a good thing (although Mortuary is actually a better film than this one). The acting is nothing to write home about either; Lori Heuring is decent looking, as is eldest daughter Scout Taylor-Compton; but neither manages to provide an interesting performance. Chloe Moretz is slightly better than the usual child actor. The plot is given hardly any credibility and indeed the screenplay can't even be bothered to explain the reasons why the kids attack the locals. It all boils down to a typical and rather dull ending and overall I have to say that if you know your horror movies, then you can feel free to skip this one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Child death and horror movies will always remain a sensitive & controversial combination and therefore it is my personal opinion that every movie that shows the courage to revolve on this topic should receive some extra attention from horror fans. Of course, like in the case of \"Wicked Little Things\", controversial themes don't always guarantee a good film. Despite the potentially interesting plot, the atmospheric setting and the involvement of video-nasty director J.S. Cardone (\"The Slayer\"), this is an uninspired and clich\u00e9-ridden film that couldn't offer a single fright or shock. After losing their husband and father, the remaining Tunny women (mother Karen and her daughters Sarah and Emma) move to a small and remote Pennsylvanian mountain town where they inherited an old, ramshackle mansion. Their new home is dangerously close to the old mine ruins where dozens of innocent children tragically lost their lives in 1913. Strange things start to happen, like young Emma befriending an (imaginary?) girl who used to live in their house, and the eerie locals seem to keep secrets from Karen and her daughters. Quickly turns out that the undead children still leave their mine-graves at night to seek vengeance on the descendants of the mine's owner Mr. Carlton, who was responsible for their deaths. \"Wicked Little Things\" is rather tame and extremely predictable. The script shamelessly serves one dreadful clich\u00e9 after the other, like car wheels stuck in the mud at crucial times, malfunctioning flashlights and horridly broken dolls. There's very little suspense, even less gore and the make-up effects are disappointingly weak. The zombified children don't look menacing at all. Actually, they all look like miniature versions of Marilyn Manson, with their black outfits, pale faces and dark eyes. The excitement-free finale is stupid and just as derivative as the rest of this pointless production. Lori Heuring is thoroughly unimpressive in her leading role as the mother, but Scout Taylor-Compton (currently a big star thanks to the \"Halloween\" remake) and young Chloe Moretz are adequate as the daughters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe that I let myself into this movie to accomplish a favor my friends ask me early this April 14, 2007. This movie certainly a pain in your ass in theater and sickly boring, I haven't even felt the gory impact of its \"daunting scenes\" which I deem to be complete failure to attract its audience. The worst even trampled me, cause my friend failed to come on time at the theater because she was busy assisting her boyfriend in looking for an appropriate lodge to stay in for one night. I wasn't really disappointed with that matter, but this movie is a matter indeed for me, poor plot, useless storyline, naively created and I don't know what to say anymore.

The title doesn't suggest anyway the creeps and horror it failed to overture us viewers, maybe the beating of the animals could get more the creeps if they show it in theaters the real situational play. Good luck to anyone who attempts to watch it anyway.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having spent all of her money caring for her terminally ill spouse, recently widowed Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) moves with her two daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) to her late husband's run-down family home in rural Pennsylvania, where local legends speak of zombies who roam the woods at night.

Just seeing the names of this film's writer and director in the opening credits was enough to send shivers up my spine: Boaz Davidson is the 'genius' responsible for penning the scripts for such STV titles as Octopus 1 & 2, Spiders and Crocodile, whilst J.S. Cardone gave us the godawful 'video nasty' The Slayer and dull vampire flick The Forsaken. With such dubious talent responsible, I didn't expect much from Wicked Little things.

And having just finished the film, I'm glad I kept my expectations low.

Although the movie looks good at times, with lovely use of the eerie woodland locale, and the cast give reasonable performances given the clich\u00e9d drivel that they are working with, the plot is so laboured, poorly written, and derivative that it's impossible to be enthusiastic about. Most importantly, perhaps, the film's killers, undead children who rise each night from the mine in which they died, aren't in the least bit scary, a smudge of makeup, black contacts and some crappy joke shop scars doing very little to add to the sense of menace. Scout Taylor-Compton and company do their best to look afraid of the tiny terrors, screaming convincingly with every confrontation, but their admirable attempts to instill a sense of fear in the audience is to little avail: the little blighters just ain't got what it takes to chill the blood.

There are a few lacklustre zombie chow scenes in a futile bid to win over gore-hounds, and the final kill, which sees the victim's blood drench both Compton and Heuring, is suitably tasteless, but on the whole, Wicked Little Things (AKA Zombies in the UK) is instantly forgettable trash\u0097just another clunker in the filmographies of Cardone and Davidson.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wicked Little Things (known in Australia as \"Zombies\") is a rare find \u0096 a film that promises one thing but delivers another. It is one of the few genre films to be made by Millennium Pictures, a European film studio known for making various B-grade action films & thrillers, some featuring action star Jean-Claude Van Damme.

Karen Tunny & her two daughters Sarah & Emma arrive in the Pennsylvanian town of Addytown in order to move into a large house that Karen's late husband owned after finding a miner's deed in his effects. Once arriving, they find that the house is very old & in need of repair. But the house's condition is the least of their problems, as they discover that the area is prone to disappearances & Karen is confronted by the area's owner & ordered to move out. Once night falls, the Tunnys find out the reason behind the vanishings: a group of zombie children, killed in a mine collapse in the area more than 85 years ago, come out to kill anything that goes in the woods. With the help of a grizzled neighbour, Karen attempts to end the curse before her & her children become the next victims.

I bought the DVD expecting a film with flesh-eating zombies, but was let down by one thing: the film is more akin to a ghost story than your usual zombie flick, with the dead children being the embodiment of a curse that haunts the woods, taking their revenge on anything that moves around at night (although the internal logic is somewhat flawed \u0096 the children can only be appeased by the sacrifice of animals & are repelled by blood wards on doors in the same manner that vampires are repelled by garlic & mirrors \u0096 aren't these kids supposed to be zombies?). The plot as such would not be a problem & would actually be entertaining, but the main problem is that the producers adapted a script with the intention of making a zombie film, only to fall flat on their faces with this effort.

As such, a film like this would be okay as a ghost story but, due to a poor script, becomes nothing more than an entirely routine effort. The film's greatest strength is the acting, with the cast giving better performances than the film deserves. Of particular note is Scout Taylor-Compton, who does her role quite well \u0096 it's a shame she ruins her genre cred with a very poor performance in the HALLOWEEN remake (or maybe it's just Rob Zombie's script).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This starts off in Pennsylvania in 1913. A bunch of kids are killed in a mine explosion purposely set off by the mine's owner. Cut to 2006. Recently widowed Karen (Lori Heuring), her teenage daughter Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and little girl Emma (Chloe Moretz) move to a remote house located near that mine. What they don't know is the ghosts of the little kids haunt the woods and kill anyone who's around after dark.

Slow and boring \"horror\" movie. The premise is obvious and has been done to death already. Also there are huge gaps in logic in the story. It's never made clear why these kids just kill anybody or why they EAT the bodies afterwards (Yes--it's shown). They're dead already--why do they need food? And why haven't they gotten the main villain in the story long before? He was around the area. Why pick this time to attack him? Also the characters aren't the least bit likable. Sarah comes across the worst. It has a few saving graces. The location is beautiful and eerie at the same time, some of the killings were VERY bloody and brutal and the kids themselves looked spooky silently walking through the woods at night. But, all in all, I was bored and fighting to stay awake. You can skip this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is very much like every other modern horror movie. It's predictable in the way it gets build up and progresses and just never succeeds in bringing anything original or shocking to the screen. That's really the biggest disappointment of the movie, that overall still had a promising main concept for a movie of its sort.

You can call this movie a big walking modern horror movie clich\u00e9. It has all of the elements in it that make modern horror movies often not so very great ones to watch. One of these aspects is a moaning and very naive little kid. Why do they keep putting this sort of stuff in movies? Same goes for the sort of drama aspects, that involves the family. It just doesn't work out for the movie and is far from interesting or effective. It often instead causes the movie to drag in parts and become an annoying one to watch.

So it has all of the clich\u00e9s present but it also doesn't succeed at bringing any of these clich\u00e9s well to the screen. As an horror movie this simply is a very poor one. It doesn't handle its horror or tension very well. For the fans of the genre there is very little to enjoy. The movie its story isn't too well connected and build up within the movie. Too often the movie sleeps in at parts and it doesn't ever allow its horror to fully kick in.

The movie is also often way too dark (no doubt as an attempt to hide its fairly low budget) and it shows very little gore as well, mostly due to the fact that you simply can not always see things so very well.

You can just tell by looking at this movie that director J.S. Cardone doesn't has much talent for the genre and doesn't know how to handle its present ingredients properly. He did some attempts in the past but all of his movies have failed so far. he just keeps trying unfortunately. Who knows, perhaps with the right people behind the camera's (like Tobe Hooper, who was initially attached to direct) this movie still could had been something decent.

It's a poorly cast movie, with mostly big unknowns in it. Biggest name of the movie is Ben Cross but his role is just way too small and in a way also not really relevant enough for the movie and its story. It didn't even seemed like he had much fun playing.

Just skip it.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director J.S. Cardone presents something a little scary and a little creepy, but nothing more. A widowed mother Karen Tunny(Lori Heuring)inherits a home in the Pennsylvania mountains; so she takes her two daughters and moves into the sprawling estate in what seems the middle of nowhere. But it is somewhere, somewhere ninety some odd years ago a tragic mining accident claimed the lives of numerous children who were forced to labor in the dark and dank. The area and especially the Tunny estate seems to be haunted by the spirits of the tiny little wicked souls. The legend is the screaming children come out in the moonlight to seek their revenge; and you better believe it. Also in the cast: Ben Cross, Scout Taylor-Compton, Chloe Moretz, Julie Rogers and Geoffrey Lewis.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... And boy is it soft

I saw this on cable channel Bravo one Saturday night and here in Britain we often have these dire \" Erotic \" soft core movies turning up late at night on Bravo . This one follows a WEIRD SCIENCE type plot of a couple of college geeks building a virtual reality headset that makes you have sexual fantasies .

When you`ve seen one of these movies you`ve seen them all with a bunch of bimbos looking like they`re advertising silicone implants . Come on I`ve actually seen breasts in real life ( I`m sure some other of us have too ) and they wobble around unlike here where they defy the laws of , if not physics than at least gravity . The sex scenes are these tedious affairs where a well buffed geezer rubs himself against his co-star without any dialogue or sound apart from some muzak and when they climax it looks like they`re both having a bad attack of constipation . The girls themselves are very pretty especially Brandy Davis and Nikki Fritz but they`re wasted in these type of soft core movies

And if it`s fantasy you`re after I recommend the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The main character of this sex-filled drivel, Mel (Ethan Hunt), notes on several occasions, \"She deserves better than this!\" The \"she\" he refers to is Ginger, played by beautiful Brandy Davis, who indeed DOES deserve better than this. Brandy deserves better than this film, its lame script, and perverted Mel. A guy who gets off at watching his dream girl have sex with another man, even in virtual world, seriously does not deserve her AT ALL. An A- for the simulated sex scenes, an F for the script.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With Hong Kong heart-throb Andy Lau and veteran star Ching Wan Lau, \"Aau Chin\" has everything going for it for the beginning part of the movie, unfortunately, the movie falls apart at the end.

Andy Lau plays a sophisticated thief who only has 4 weeks to live, but still has one thing unfinished... He pulls an elaborated scheme tricking the police into helping him... However, the police is hot on his tail.... Can he pull it off before being caught?

The build up of the movie is good. Bits of pieces of clues are left behind for the audiences to try to guess at the real intention. Unfortunately, the build up leads to a disappointed final showdown. It feels as if in the middle of the script, the writer has changed and that all the build-up becomes disconnected.

A 3\/10 ....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know if this exceptionally dull movie was intended as an unofficial sequel to 'The French Connection\", but it does have many of the same drawbacks: the script is so confusing that the viewer remains uninvolved and feels left out of the picture, and the direction is so cold, so lacking in energy, that even the great chase sequence can't liven things up. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My mom would not let me watch this film when I was in grade 2, because she said it was too violent. Well, years later, and the only reason I remember this film is because of my mom, I stayed up and watch it on PBS. Well, maybe the build up after all these year lead to the big disapointment of this film, but I found it lame. It did not age well, and this made the acting choppy, huge unbelievable holes in the script, but there is a few cool scenes like car chases, and a big gun fight. I will not stay up for this film again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I notice IMDB has not offered any plot info...that's because it's not possible to do that without sounding vile and disgusting...because that's what this movie is...VILE AND DISGUSTING !! I watched it because I am a humongous Fan of Chris Noth, whom I have met in person and he is a great guy...but if I ever meet him again, I will have no qualms about asking him whatever posessed him to star in something so awful. He plays a former child prodigy who is now a brilliant doctor, who spends his spare time running over small children with his car, with the intent of maiming and crippling them...this is not a \"spoiler\", because all this is made very clear from the begining...sickening enough?? Oh, it gets better...he is manipulated into doing this, by his incestuous sister, who threatens to with-hold sexual favors from him if their latest victim fails to die...even Clive Barker couldn't write anything so hideous. Please, if you want to see Chris Noth in something worthy of his talent, rent \"Teddy Roosevelt and The Roughriders\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Awful in a bad\/good way...this movie has officially become the worst \"made for TV movie\" in my book...except for the camp value it offers, I give it a 1 in quality and a 10 for the camp value. Suggestion: Watch with friends, champagne and plenty of popcorn...you'll want to throw some at the screen! Preferably friends who like Chris Noth from his 'Sex in the City days'...this movie is dreadfully funny. This is definitely the lowest point in the careers of all cast members...honestly, I don't know how they controlled the laughter as the lines were delivered! Daniel J. Travanti is absolutely pathetic. EVERYONE participated in the school of over acting; and poor Joan Van Ark, I believe she was the only one taking this theater of the absurd seriously...she is credited as a producer though. Her \"Mom\" jeans and bad plastic surgery are scene stealer's. This movie also crosses the oh so delicate line of social incorrectness when they introduce a mentally challenged character into the plot. This is an obscure movie showing on Lifetime listed as {With Harmful Intent}....has anyone else had the pleasure?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We have given this film one star for awful, however, it really depends on how you look at it. We are currently watching this on Channel 5 at 3.30am, and we haven't stopped laughing, so perhaps we could give it a 10, just for the entertainment value. Right from the outset, with the 'manic' thoughts of the stalker being relayed in comic fashion, we were laughing. Is it me or does that chick from Knott's Landing look like one of the characters from the Dark Crystal.

I'm not going to spoil it for you, however, you would have to be pretty stupid not to see it coming, i don't think its clever enough for double bluffs.

This has to be the worst\/best film we have ever seen, if we'd been playing the 'spot the clich\u00e9' drinking game, then we be wasted by now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"American Tourist on package tour in Asia suffering recent bereavement decides to break law by: 1 Ignoring curfew; 2 Joining revolutionary army; 3 Possessing and using illegal firearm...... etc etc What is meant to be a political and educational statement about the so called atrocities of a military dictatorship in Asia ends up as a \"How To\" travel guide for disillusioned Americans....especially those who wish to protest that the water in the hotel does not work.... Regrettably the authors of this silly yarn have no clue about Asia...nor it seems in writing sensible dialogue... example:...our human-rights heroine searching desperately for medicine in the furthest outreaches of the Asian jungle miles from anywhere comes across a peasant and asks: \"Excuse me-does this town have a pharmacy?\"...Well....those who know something about the Asian jungle will appreciate how ludicrous that scenario really is.... Mind you I was recently in the Thai jungle and an American asked me.... \"excuse me....do you know where is MacDonalds?\" This movie is meant to be a serious drama but ends up as a parody and rip-off of all those \"killing fields\" type of films designed to confirm tha Asian stereotype held by much of western \"civilization\" and re-inforced by Hollywood Fantasies such as this..... The basic message of this picture is: \"we Americans...coming from the worlds only true democracy have a divine right to go to all other nations...and put right their wrongs.....screw-up their environment....and teach them about freedom.....\" (see for example The Beach......at least Leo did it with a bit more style)....of course Vietnam is another story.... And.....the educated Asian may well ask why the Yankie Gungh-Ho attitude about Asia should come from a nation whose main contribution to humanity has been helping to spread Cancer... Aids.. Gun carrying kiddies and Jerry Springer......et al.. At the end of this picture the cynical viewer may well be cheering for the Burmese Military..... 3 out of 10.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This hokey movie left me groaning after just about any exchange of dialogue or plot complication. Patricia Arquette, though pleasing to look at, gives a below par performance from her usual mediocrity. My friends and I have coined the phrase \"Beyond Rangoon\" to mean anything really bad. A lowpoint for Boorman.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am very surprised to see the good ratings for this movie.

I watched the film 9 years ago and I still remember how angry I felt to sit in the movie theatre and to look at this mess. I am a big fan of John Boorman's work. I really like his movies. So I went to \"Beyond Rangoon\" with big expectations. But I felt like watching a dumb, cheap Chuck Norris jungle movie with all action scenes cut out. Even the soundtrack was very annoying.

I can't believe that John Boorman was the director because this movie was so badly done. I think the Burmese people deserve better films to illustrate their struggle.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was sheer boredom from beginning to end. Ok, so i salute Boorman for raising the worldwide recognition of events in Burma, but that is all he achieves. About 10 minutes into the film i thought \"oh no, here we go again\", and i could have told you exactly what was going to occur in the next 80 minutes or so. Patricia Arquette was out of her depth in such a role, and her acting was wooden and unconvincing. Mind you, being saddled with such an awfully conventional script, maybe boredom set in, and was such reflected on the screen. A lot of the film was just plain laughable. At one stage, Arquette's elderly companion is shot, and he is prostrate on the ground. In the next scene, he is sprinting through the forest, obviously attempting to break the world 100 meters record! - or maybe he's just trying to run away from Boorman!!. If you find it hard to sleep one night then play Beyond Rangoon on your VCR and you'll be snoring in no time. I very rarely critisize a film as heavily as this, but in this case it is completely justified.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll say it again... one of the worst films ever made and it was made by the director that made one of my most, favorite films - \"Excalibur\". I was floored to see it got a grade of over six. This movie sucks. It looked terrible. It looked like it was shot in 18 days and Boorman must've been sleeping when he directed this. Arquette didn't do anything. Just plain terrible, rotten, unbearable and probably the only blemish in Boorman's celebrated career.

1\/10!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This series takes a classic story and makes rubbish of it. Robin is somehow mystified by an elk-man in the forest and is embroiled in all sorts of druidism and outright satanic episodes. The story is more about him avoiding the evil sheriff than helping the poor. This is barely watchable. And to top all the ridiculousness they kill Robin at the end of series 2 and replace him with another actor. Some people may like this show as a fantasy show but it is NOT a Robin Hood show. If you want Robin fighting in king Richards name against Prince John and the sheriff and if you want Robin feeding the poor and oppressed, watch the classic series or the newest from the BBC.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, how to start? I saw The Italian Job for the first time some years ago and visiting a rental shop I couldn't quite remember why I had a bad feeling about it. Now I do.

After voting for the ratings for this film I saw the statistics. Apparently this film appeals most to under 18 girls. No wonder. They didn't pay enough to Charlize to flash and I guess some girls magazine has rated Mark Wahlbergs abs \"AWESOME\".

Other than that this film is completely predictable, the actors are mainly forever B-stars and even the good ones are being misused horribly, the film is filled with obvious product placement and imagine this: it even manages to repeat itself without doing a sequel! The first 15 minutes are the best part of the film and it's all downhill from there and once they figured this out they decided to use the finest hour again in the end repeating-to-detail their gold heist. All in all, lots of noise about nothing.

I think Charlize Theron is good and Ed Norton could be more as he's been before. Apart from Donald Sutherland's \"look, I'm here too\" appearing in the beginning I'd say this movie ought to have a \"pass if you're above 18\" all over it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A ridiculous, badly acted Mini Cooper infomercial. Includes cameos from Pepsi, Dell, etc.

Absolutely nothing worth rescuing here. Particularly bad are Donald Sutherland, the music score, scene transitions, etc. An embarrassing production.

Hey, THEY should pay YOU for watching this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a woeful Hollywood remake of a classic British film. Everything that made the original \"Italian Job\" entertaining has been bled out of this festering sore of a movie \"scripted\" by Donna and Wayne Powers and listlessly \"directed\" by F Gary Gray. I am amazed that Troy Kennedy Martin (the screenwriter of the original film) allowed his name to be used in the credits for this pig's ear. Martin has worked on some of the finest film and TV projects of the last 40-odd years. Even being vaguely associated with this stinker is NOT A GOOD THING.

The humour is forced, the drama is laboured, all the characters are cookie-cutter likable crims (with the exception of Charlize Theron's implausible, beautiful safe cracker\/rally driver)and the plot only matches the original on the following points:

(1) Three Minis (the modern BMW-made versions, but Minis nonetheless)

(2) Use of the names Croker and Bridger for 2 of the main characters

(3) Disrupting a city's traffic control system to provide a safe route through it.

(4) Er, that's it.

Otherwise, what you get is a bland and implausible American by-the-numbers heist movie in which a gang of jolly pirate chums eventually get the better of their evil associate. Believe me, it feels like an awful long time before they do. The cast do their best with what they're given but it seems that they all accepted it as a turd-polishing exercise after reading the script. None of the original film's quirky nature and distinctly British flavour has survived being fed into the Hollywood hamburger machine.

Do yourself a favour and watch the original 1969 movie instead of this sucking chest wound. It's a wonder that Noel Coward hasn't done an Aunt Nelly, jumped out of his grave and kicked the teeth of everyone involved in this tepid remake halfway down their throats.

Italian Job? More like Italian Jobbie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must admit, I was against this movie from the outset but I tried my hardest to be impartial, I really did, but the very idea of remaking a sophisticated, witty, entertaining, quirky British classic full of character has to be dubious from the outset.

People in my house were watching this so I swallowed my pride and told myself to be professional about films (I have studied them at Uni after all).

As expected for an American film of this sort, the movie began with a chase which wasn't bad. Indeed, many of the action sequences are credible and this alone lifts the mark.

Yet the characterisation was abysmal, the set-pieces could very easily have been spliced from any American schlock blockbuster you might have had the misfortune to watch and it lacked all character.

Seeming to take a skewed angle on the original film with a failed initial robbery, the US version does the predictable thing and introduces an emotional factor with the death of Donald Sutherland's character. This allows our US cousins plenty of opportunity for sycophantic, dewy-eyed vengeance-seeking against the 'evil-doers' which it milks to predictable excesses. This is never more so evident as in the scenes featuring Charlize Theron (oh pretty! oh so pretty! Look at her pretty, wounded Bambi eyes, everyone!) which were thoroughly nauseating. Her entrance scene, particularly, was like something out of Resident Evil or Tomb Raider which were both a) more entertaining and b) had better beginnings because they couldn't mess up a game like they could with British cinema which was already chock-full of spark, people you genuinely feel something for and moments of inspiration. But I digress, the whole inclusion of a pretty girl for the sake of it just seems like the most ham-fisted manoeuvre I've seen in some time and exposes cynical Hollywood blockbuster-lust for what it is.

If you like any of these actors, by the way, and you agree with any of the above comments, DO NOT GO TO SEE THIS FILM! If I had the opportunity of watching 'Fight Club' or 'American History X' after seeing Ed Norton in this, I would have declined. Likewise Jason Statham with 'Lock Stock' (and I suppose 'The Transporter' is okay if you like that sort of thing).

Sadly, all the set-pieces are designed in the most transparent possible way to get you thinking, 'Wow! He's smart!', 'Coo! He's cool!', 'Hey! What a tough guy!'. Then there's the 'funny PC guy' who has 'comic relief' splattered across his forehead but whose humour content can be anticipated two minutes in advance. To be honest, if you've seen one or two films like it, you might easily confuse the two as clones from the Jerry Bruckheimer stable. Not that Jerry is irredeemably awful, by the way, but he just uses the clich\u00e9s to excess as everyone knows (or should).

This is where I have to come clean. I didn't manage to make it to the end, so I couldn't even say whether the brilliant ending in the Michael Caine version made it but, I'm sorry, it's just one of those extremely rare films that, if I'd seen it at a cinema, I would have walked out and staged a small protest outside. It's not just that it is another identical by-the-numbers Ocean's 14 or something (Ocean's Eleven was fine but don't bother with the rest!) with all the glitz, glamour, fake sass and pantomime heroics of such a film but I couldn't recognise anything from the original at all.

So, if you are expecting 'THE Italian JOB' and not 'OCEAN'S 14' albeit badly written with a less established cast and characters, some disingenuous elements and cardboard cut-out script-writing then DO NOT WATCH! I don't mind people liking a bit of mindless fun but this is a criminal hatchet-job that does not deserve in any way to parade itself under the title of a classic. Seriously, show some pride! I felt thoroughly justified in my outraged and sickened reaction when I first heard that the film would be made. Avoid at all costs!

P.S. Some of the action sequences aren't bad at all so add an extra '1' to the mark if you like this sort of thing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was really disappointed by this movie. Great actors in it, and potentially a great plot, but it just seemed to limp along.

Charlize Theron was masterful in her role and beautiful, but it seemed like 90% of her on-screen work was in car chases done with Austin Minis. Product placement gone wrong, so very wrong.

The direction seemed off, too. Edward Norton is the bad guy, and it was so obvious right from the start. Every time the camera would pass over him, it would linger too long and Norton would grimace or something. C'mon, Hollywood, give us a little credit! It's okay to surprise us with a plot twist without having to telegraph it.

Sorry, but this movie was just below average. I have always been one to appreciate the work and talent that goes into a movie, but this one just didn't have it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Italian Job\" is a caper movie done by the numbers. Riding on the back of every caper cliche, it rises to no particular heights and will be a movie footnote by about the end of the month.

The biggest problem is that \"The Italian Job\" possesses no imagination at all. I've seen it all before and done better then. The acting is fine the cinematography is completely acceptable, but this film breaks absolutely no new ground.

Let's tick off the cliches:

- \"old-school\" criminal father figure and his protege

- another gang member jealous of protege

- a double-cross

- only bad guys use guns while good-guy criminals don't have to

- good criminals always outwit the bad guys

And that's about the first fifteen minutes. Everything is so predictable. Even the heist and car chase scenes, supposedly the highlight of the movie, seem pretty ordinary. This is especially true since they appeared in the trailers for the film so I already knew what to look for.

For me, a caper film works only if it has an element of realism - that maybe, just maybe, it could be pulled off without relying on a deux ex machina or \"just because\" moments. Parts of \"The Italian Job\" just throws that out the window, with computers doing things that computers can't do, the good guys not hitting anyone with their driving (especially going down the stairs) and not one single police car responding to street explosions, recklessly driven minis or even a low flying helicopter. Must be a heck of a city for these things not to rate a response.

The acting is passable, with the crew (Seth Green, Jason Stratham and Mos Def) being at least fun to watch. Mark Wahlberg is just too smarmy as the \"nice guy\" hero while Charlize Theron is about the only actor called on to display some kind of range. Donald Sutherland is a class act as always and shows up Wahlberg's deficiencies every moment they are together.

Overall this is a pretty uninteresting film. Given the IMDb ratings, it's the girls that really love this film, which I can understand to some extent, but there are such better caper films out there - even the vapidness of the recent \"Ocean's Eleven\" outshines the non-event that is \"The Italian Job\".

***SPOILER***

At the conclusion, take a moment to think about what is going to happen to Norton's character. Are we meant to be cheering the good guys for causing his demise, especially since it would appear to be long and painful? He didn't deserve that, simpering creep that he was.

***END SPOILER***","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The characters was as unoriginal it hurts. The little skinny dorky computer geek, the funny African-American with stupid clisch\u00e9 punchlines, cool white guy with a compassion for cars and the handsome leader who ends up with the pretty girl. The actors is at best mediocre. Ecsept from Norton who does a pretty good job as the bad guy.

The rest of the movie is also stupid and a total waste of time. Its all in all about a group of spoiled boys using the world as their playground where every safe in a big house is what keeps them with food on the table. I mean, why work for a living when you can rob people?

AND,.. Who the f**** messes with the traffic lights in a major European city?!? And in the middle of the FRIGGIN day!? Think of all the damages and not to say deaths among innocent civilians. What about all the ambulances and firetrucks?

I created NO compassion for the main characters, and weather Mr Wahlberg gets his bloody gold or not, i could not give less of a fart.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film did well at the box office, and the producers of this mess thought the stars had such good chemistry in this that they cast them in the much darker screwball farce, The Gazebo. Frankly, I am shocked to see all the positive comments on this ludicrously plotted unfunny comedy. Both lead characters have the maturity of seven-year-olds and are much less interesting to spend time with. A veteran supporting cast including Fred Clark, Harry Morgan, and Eva Gabor lend excellent support. And, the beautiful cinematography certainly makes the rich countryside of Spain seem lush. And, there are four or five truly funny scenes to go with two wise scenes and a whole bunch of recycled and unfunny clutter.

I cannot recommend It Started With A Kiss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I caught 2:37 at the AFI Fest in Los Angeles. It's a very well shot first film (though the DV format begins to show itself in outside scenes), and I'm sure it has good intentions of showing us the \"dark side\" of high school - in other words every side of high school. But the filmmaker doesn't have the talent to write or direct up to the premise's promise. There are several characters, but none of them are any more than what the plot requires them to be. There's no depth to these caricatures beyond the machinations of \"I am troubled teen X, I have Y problem.\" The perceived roles of men and women in this story are phenomenally troublesome.

Let's start with the men. You have the stoner kid who's gay, the jock who's also gay, the boy who rapes his sister, and Mr. Peepants. As the stereotype requires, all gay men must be sexually unfulfilled and violent toward women and themselves. Naturally (or unnaturally as the stereotype assumes), the two gay male characters beat up women, Peepants, and themselves. I'd be perfectly fine with these characterizations if the stereotypes were turned on their heads, or if the characters somehow transcended them. Yet neither took place, and that's all there is to these characters' stories.

Next, the ladies. One young woman wants to be a bulimic housewife, another is the pregnant rapee of the sister-raping brother, and there's the girl who kills herself (I'll get to that later). Again, I don't think there's a requirement of political correctness for filmmakers (I'd be out of a job were that the case), but I do think that it's only justified if there's more to that character or story. If that archetype were being used to reveal something about character other than \"I'm a teenager and life sucks,\" I'd be happy as a clam. But nothing new is revealed! Nothing is subverted, or changed, or sublimated.

Finally, the girl who kills herself. This is blunt and HIGHLY sloppy storytelling. We're supposed to sit through 5 minutes of a girl violently killing herself who we've seen for maybe 30 seconds through the whole film? We've followed all these other stories for an hour and a half, and now we're invited to torture ourselves for a character that isn't part of the story? It's cheap, exploitative, and sloppy. Despite the millions of crappy indie films that came before this, you have to EARN something like that. You can't simply purchase it on credit. So this suicide happens, we get wrap-ups from the characters that go similarly nowhere but down, and the film ends. What have I learned? I already knew high school sucked - been there, done that. I already knew people have stereotypical views of gay men and young women. I already knew that kids with disabilities are mocked.

What else is there, then? Smoke, mirrors, and some really nice views of leaves. Oh, and the nastiest deus ex machina I've seen in a while.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I couldn't relate to this film. I'm surprised that people are lauding it for being so 'realistic'. How many people at your school were victim to incest? How many closet homosexual jocks were there? How many quiet people that you never noticed committed suicide? Hmmm. OK you wouldn't know even if their were. But really these are explosive problems which many us never deal with. And yet there are so many teenagers with subtle problems which could have been explored. But hey, where's the 'entertainment' in that?

With regards to the girl who committed suicide - I found this to be exploitative. I actually think MANY people in High School at some stage feel invisible, ignored and unwanted. But what possesses someone to violently commit suicide on just another day of being ignored and unnoticed? The filmmaker decided this girl would suicide to make the film more provocative. And the graphic nature of the suicide to make it even more provocative. I didn't buy it as a real life scenario.

And the problems of the other students I didn't fully relate to. Bullying is explored but that's been done to death, we all know it goes on and it truly is a matter of resolve within that person. Closet homosexuality? Pfft, another clich\u00e9 gets rolled out. Thats the thing really, too many clich\u00e9s. I guessed the ending at the start. There was a predictable unpredictability if that makes sense. You've got all these characters with explosive problems, and one with apparently none. And I thought, what is the point of this character unless she's the unsuspecting suicide victim? And surely enough..

One thing I will say, and it is the saving grace of the film, is that it does NOT glamourise suicide. The suicide is very graphic and heart-breaking to watch. It is a powerful scene (regardless of how contrived it is)and one that dismisses suicide as the easy option. But the film is really not very imaginative and used stereotypes.

Not bad but certainly not groundbreaking OR worthy of a 17-minute standing ovation at Cannes???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly, Mr. Thalluri.... if you do a drama movie in a high-school setting following a bunch of teenagers through a school day and if you mess up the time-frame and jump back and forth... if you do that, you can't use the exact same visual story telling device of \"Elephant\" which is using a camera that is passing of from one character to the next and having scenes shown 3 times from different angles. You just can't do that because this is such a blunt rip off its hard to believe anyone gave this more than a 5 rating.

Where \"Elephant\" (which was released 3 years prior to this movie) uses school shootings (or to be exact the Columbine shooting) as the focal point for its script 2:37 uses teen suicide and seeing the reviews the shock value of that subject worked. Its the same slow story telling, a lot of dramatic piano music all leading to a finale you know from the beginning. At least the characters look like they tried hard to be somewhat different in that department. So you got a untypical gay guy who looks acts like a stoner\/skater, a hunky lover-boy who can't deal with his gay side, brother and sister from a rich family who both got their very own problems and here comes the nose dive.

You also get a spoiled bulimic chick and one of the most ridiculous characters ever... a guy with medical conditions who wets his pants because of \"2 urethra syndrome\" who actually never heard of the invention of diapers but rather pisses his pants in the classroom and then change into new clothes and does so EVERY DAY! WOW, as hard as this movie tries to be realistic this is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. He gets beaten up on the toilet and is obviously ashamed of it but doesn't wipe the blood of his nose when going through the whole school with wet pants and a bleeding nose. Thats new-age realism directly leading to \"the twist\" and final character who turns out to be the suicide victim...

After watching the \"very realistic\" life of teenagers (one day including, incest-rape, teen pregnancy, bulimia, parental pressure for grades and appearance and the gay subject mentioned before, kind of like your \"very realistic\" daily soap... trying hard to be) we watch a girl die we met once in the beginning of this movie and who has no reason but that the guy she had a crush on left the room when she was talking to him (in a thoughtful piano playing sequence BTW, seen that somewhere before??). And it gets even better... before slitting her wrist in a painful long scene of \"Yes\" and \"No\" she asks 2-urethra-guy if he is OK, constantly smiling and then she cuts her wrist with scissors in a school toilet.

Now you got a movie that is a total rip-off of Elephant, fails with some really sloppy story telling (the whole rape-incest thing was pretty unbelievable too by the way) and people call this a shocker.

What the heck is going on?? Is all it takes to take some pseudo-dramatic music, boring story telling and adding a shock subject on top and people think there is a major deep message here?? I think Elephant is way overrated already but that movie was the original while this here is an obvious rip-off failing on many more levels. I have never ever seen a more brazen stealing of a whole movie concept in my life... and believe me I watched a hundred of horror movies so I know how low you can go there. This is a total let down in all departments... its nor realistic, its stolen, its damn slow and by all means I wonder whats more useless... another romantic suicide (many give this point to the movie which makes me wonder if they only watch Romeo+Juliet all day long because there is dozens of movies which deal with the subject in a clear non-romantic and MORE REALISTIC way) or this ridiculous set up... Come on! I am still trying to work out if 2-urethra-guy or the suicide itself is more unrealistic and ridiculous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't understand what is hard hitting about this movie! I don't understand why high school kids should watch this! I don't understand why this should have made me think about anything in the slightest!

*Spoiler*

When the un-noticed girl is on her way to commit suicide, was I the only person cheering her on? The clich\u00e9'd classical music, long tracking shots, melancholy emotion of the film by that stage had me in reversal to what was intended. I would have only been happy if she walked into the room and the entire cast was in there with her holding scissors to slit their wrists up.

Why?

Cause I went to high school.... and frankly im sick to death of seeing movie after movie in Australia with teenagers in it being solely based on terrible clich\u00e9s. I've been waiting ages for a younger person to write a movie that im able to relate to and this stereotype driven piece of emo garbage is what I got instead. It was like a dark version of heartbreak high that needed a predictable ending.

Why are all teenagers in Aussie dramas depressed or have really weird problems that just aren't plausibly told?

On the plus side, this was funnier then 'Blurred'. And I needed a good laugh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is fascinating how this title manages to slip by the average viewer as something new and groundbreaking (quoting some of the comments). Murali K. Thalluri must have thought by himself: \"Oh, great! Elephant ... What a fantastic movie! I'll try hard to do exactly the same movie and see if anyone notices!\", sadly enough, he even failed with his outrageous idea. The movie turns out a complete failure. Considering that it tries hard to catch the brilliance of Gus Van Sants \"Elephant\", it makes it look even more ridiculous - a most embarrassing faux pas for a film director.

The movie starts off with the suicide of a student in the schools bathroom. This scene, already, shows the awkward acting skills of each one involved in this scene. You don't buy a single word they say. In carries on, interrupted by short interview-styled bits of the kids who \"live on their marry lives\" with each bit rather distressing in its plain stupidity on the basis of each worthless monologue. Thalluri means to introduce the characters this way, to give a kind of fast-as-junk-food insight look into their hearts ... and fails once again. Not five minutes later, Thalluri ultimately screams at the audience \"Yes, people! I stole this movie and for some curious reason, I am proud of it!\" by taking Gus Van Sants most unmistakable narrative style from \"Elephant\": He shot scenes twice to let the viewer follow each character involved in a scene on his particular way and role in a school situation. Hm, doesn't this seem awfully familiar? To me, this certain level of very forgiving tolerance had been infringed right there to a point at which I couldn't stand this dreadful movie any more. Shame on you, Murali K. Thalluri, I say! I am especially surprised that \"2:37\" has reached the official selections in Cannes as of 2006, whereas everyone must have certainly remembered \"Elephant\" (2003) at the very same Film Festival just a few years ago! So, how in the name of the lord did this most disgraceful rip-off end up being shown there? I find myself absolutely puzzled by this mistake.

Directors like Thalluri use the ignorance of audiences who aren't (and cannot completely be) aware of every independent film out there. As Elephant has little to do with mainstream cinema (although it is without a doubt a masterpiece), few people notice that the story as told in \"2:37\" had been told before! How that is possible at a Film Festival of such importance as attributed to Cannes, I cannot say. It is sad and shameful that such things are passed on and hardly anyone sees the true fraud in it.

2:37 is by all means solely commercial, worthless as an independent film and (on a certain level) rather a phoney parody of its obvious idol, \"Elephant\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sure some people will enjoy it, and find it powerful, or have some sort of personal connection with the characters and story, but from an unbiased stand point, it's not very well done. The film revolves around atypical angst-ridden teenagers, each one playing out a different stereotype making us believe this is what it's like to be a teenager. We get to see a bit of each teenager's lifestyle, but the entire project just came off as pretentious to me, whether it be the constant low angle shots of tree branches in the wind, or the black and white \"interviews\" with the students, there was nothing new or original showcased in this movie, and nothing I needed to see. Yes, it deals with some strong subject material, and the dramatic scenes are played and acted well, but the entire project seems unnecessary, especially when it seems almost an exact replica to Van Sant's \"Elephant\" (one dealing with suicide, the other with a school shooting). As I said, some people will probably enjoy this, and the director\/writer clearly had some sort of inspiration to make this movie based on the death of a close one, so it's nice the movie was made with some heart in it, but I feel it's incredibly ineffective, and when dealing with material that can be so easily clich\u00e9d to do something original with it. I would not recommend this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie made me think....of how I could write something about it without personally dissing the director and all the actors, who, as an Australian, I am proud of for actually getting out there and making a film.

But the movie itself? Let me tell you a story....

Found this DVD in my local rental shop yesterday and had vague recollections of the reviews at the time of cinema release here, so I thought I would give it a go.

For some reason, I decided to watch the 'special features' before I watched the actual movie, not something that I usually do. Turned the 'making of' off halfway through, as I'd had enough cringing at the 'aren't we so wonderful for putting together such a hard hitting film with such a raw script' attitude.

The movie? Ugh. Full of clich\u00e9s and pathetic character development. The actors? Well done guys, you are Aussies and I applaud you. And, just like a footy team is only as good as the coach that directs them, you unfortunately did NOT have a great script to work with.

I felt that the movie actually trivialised so many of the subjects that it seemed to want to cover. I have seen many reviews here that refer to it as nothing more than a soap. Agreed.

Finally (and forgive me if I don't phrase this correctly), I was extremely disappointed that there were no optimistic overtones at all. Yes, we all know that life is full of hard stuff, and yes we know that things such as incest DO occur, but I really find it hard to applaud a movie that has not one piece of joy in it. I believe that a director has a responsibility to put it in there SOMEWHERE. Otherwise, the movie is all about THEM and THEIR feelings, they have created it for themselves, not for an audience.

Which I think is the basis of why this movie isn't so great. The special features mention that the director wrote the screenplay in a 36 hour sitting, the day after he himself tried to end his own life. Well, it may have been cathartic for him to do this, however the movie reeks of self-indulgence when you know the story behind why it was written. \"I feel horrid, I'm going to write a movie about feeling horrid\". (Note: I have read the interview with Andrew Urban, and understand WHY Thalluri needed to write something to help him through his own issues, but I believe there is a line in film that cannot be crossed - the line of making a movie purely for your own emotional needs, and I feel that this is what has unintentionally happened here)

By his own admission, the director had no technical experience at all, and sadly, this makes the movie come off looking like nothing more than a year twelve media project.

As for any recommendations that this movie should be studied at school, or that all teenagers should watch it - not sure there either. Because there is a VERY dangerous line at the end. I too have been in a place where I have thought that someone who no longer has to 'face life' is 'lucky', but as an adult, I do worry that this line could be influential on a young viewer that was in a vulnerable frame of mind. Might be in there to promote discussion, but again, it reflects no possibility of redemption or joy in this story as a whole. In fact, it almost indicates that there is more sadness to come.

I haven't seen Elephant, but I just might go find it, given all the comparisons here.

Nothing personal here guys, I do hope you can make another movie someday, and we all have to start out somewhere, so forgive me if I've been too harsh. I am glad that you are proud of what you created, which in the end is what life is all about. It's not a movie I would recommend though.

Oh, I DID like the way the time-frames often collided, thought that was an interesting way to film.

But the whole \"Its the quiet ones you have to watch\" - we already know that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The time I wasted seeing this movie, I demand back! I felt sick afterward, but not because it touched me in any way. It's pretentious, trying to get the audience to feel bad for the people involved, but I couldn't care less. The characters are soulless and stupid. You don't get an explanation for some of the scenes and it doesn't leave any thoughts afterward to come up with your own explanation. All of the students in the movie has issues, but since you don't feel for them you don't believe their problems.

If I could write better in English I'd never stop. But I can't, so, I'll stop now.

Don't watch this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I truly hate and despise this film and the filmmakers behind it.

Sure, I'm all for making a hard hitting and honest film about youth and youth culture.1987's \"River's Edge\" is an excellent example of a well-made teen drama. However, what I take exception to is the infantile, grubby and sensationalist approach that the makers of \"2:37\" took.

A prime example is how it raises so many issues and yet fails in any significant way to comment or reach a resolution on even one of them.

My other major problem with this film, apart from its complete plagiarism of Gus Van Sant's \"Elephant\" (surprised Van Sant didn't sue) is its 'bull loose in a china shop' attitude to quite delicate issues such as incest and particularly suicide.

In short, avoid this film like the plague and anything that this filmmaker ever is involved with subsequently. I've heard that his motivation for making \"2:37\" may or may not be based on lies. Having seen the substandard result, this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. This is a glorified student film exercise that has no place whatsoever being in a cinema or on DVD. Pure and simple.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is so copy-cat, clich\u00e9-ridden, clumsy, and laboured, I find it astounding that anyone could not feel cheated by the experience of sitting through it.

Here is the range of idiotic clich\u00e9s, ridiculous psychologising, and simply unfeasible storytelling in this \"hard hitting\" representation of high school: The tough guy jock is really a homosexual. The A-student is unhappy because his father pushes him and somehow this causes him to commit incest. A teacher is mean to a student who wets his pants in class. A girl who is going out with the above-mentioned jock is really in love with him and \"just wants a family\".

Maybe the only saving grace is the student counsellor scenes which are vaguely interesting, but most of the devices in this film are so leaden that it beggars belief.

This film shows me no insight into teenagers and I will not be surprised when it bombs, especially with teenagers. The people who like this film seem to be parents worried about their teenagers, and boy are they barking up the wrong tree if they think this film will help with \"understanding\" teen issues. I mean, what is the moral of this film? \"Hey guys, let's all look out for each other and hug each other\" GIVE ME A BREAK. Anyone who thinks you can get through to a 14 year old with that kind of message needs to think back. In the 1980s we were watching Kentucky Fried Movie, Xtro, Porky's, Evil Dead, Terminator, etc. This film will fall on deaf ears.

2:37 is right up there with another Australian \"indepedent\" film, 'One Perfect Day,' which was as bad as this utter turkey of a film. Thank god no taxpayers money was spent on this boloney.

AVOID!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is nothing original,humane or insightful in this film. The acting is average, images are amateurish, the writing lacks subtlety and the scenes are very basic...something close to a soap.

In 2:37,a suicide is used to turn the film into a suspense drama. We watch, partly, because we want to know who dies. The various characters each have a problem, and the film shows how bad each problem is for them, but only as a way to get them each to a place where you think they might kill themselves. Despite the different points of view offered by the camera on the key events, there is NEVER another way of seeing the events themselves. So in 2:37, the arseholes are arseholes, the angels are angels. This is simple stuff.

Without this complexity, the film emerges as a voyeuristic tale of youth sex and violence. You hardly get to know the kids as much as the breasts, bodies and limps that the filmmaker passes off as characterisation.

In the end, if you know ANYTHING about film in the last 5 years, 2:37 is just an immature rip off of Elephant - not a meditation, not a progression. Yet while the filmmaker and distributor use the alleged suicide of a friend at every chance to give the film some legitimacy, they never talk about Gus Van Sant or Elephant. The positive posts on IMDb curiously avoid any mention of this, or simply don't value originality. If you do want something with heart and voice - avoid this piece of youth exploitation. I was surprised by the filmmakers age when I found out after seeing this film - I had assumed a 13 year old had made it. The Twenty Somethings I've always known are too busy trying to express something real in them to lift the work of an old man.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... Said the continuity announcer as TACTICAL ASSAULT was about to be broadcast . After seeing the first two minutes I started thinking Rutger might want to get a new agent . After seeing the next ten minutes I started thinking Rutger might want to retire thereby saving a potential audience from any more of his performances

Yup this is a truly terrible movie . I wasn't expecting much and why should I if the name Rutget Hauer appeared in the credits , but within seconds of the opening title credits that featured NATO warplanes with USSR markings bombing Bosnia I realised I was going to be force fed inedible turkey three months after Christmas .

The attention to detail is non existent . NATO planes carry USSR markings then were told Hauer's character spent six years in an Iraqi prison which would make the setting 1997 . What NATO were bombing the Serbs in 1997 ! I guess the producers didn't think the audience would have noticed this ridiculous inaccuracy but I know I did . The producers also probably hoped the audience wouldn't notice the lack of continuity such as dogfights with Iraqi jets that suddenly turned from Migs to F-4 Phantoms then back again but I did . Even stranger characters would take off in F-16s then when they arrive back at base there jet has changed into a Soviet built Mig

Oh and if you're expecting a dumb action movie you're only half right because it's dumb but most of the plot centres around a BASIC INSTINCT revenge plot . I'll give the producers some credit ( Maybe credit is too strong a word ) because after seeing plots featuring nannies from hell , policemen from hell , flat mates from hell we now have a fighter pilot from hell which means every single occupation of the 20th century has featured in a from hell type plot with perhaps TATICAL ASSUALT being the worst movie of the lot","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's as if the Stay-Puffed Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters had been reincarnated in Rutger Hauer's body and is taking revenge upon a rival's pregnant wife! If seeing an obese Hauer chase a very pregnant Isabel Glaser (imagine the spine-tingling thrills in that contest) sounds good to you, see this film! Seriously, if Hauer is what an Iraqi POW looks like after six years in prison, then hungry people everywhere should make a bee line to a jail in Baghdad. Overall \"Tactical Assault\" rates 2 stars instead of 1 because Mike Mitchell as Hawk is terrific. Mitchell burns up the screen as a NATO pilot until his plane is burned up itself (by an enemy missle), whereupon the film loses what little verve it had to begin with.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is astonishingly poor. It was on television when I tuned in during an action scene and was chuckling away at the cheesy macho dialogue, waiting for Leslie Nielsen to appear. It took me a couple of minutes to realise that it wasn't actually a comedy, it was meant to be taken seriously. What has to be remembered is that somebody actually sat down and wrote this movie, and worse still - other people funded it and gave it the green light.

Rutger Hauer obviously doesn't read movie scripts before he signs up, either that or he has some seriously bad debts to pay.

Strangely, this film is so poor, that you find yourself staring at it, wondering how it actually got funded, and how a TV channel must have paid money for the rights to air it. The dialogue between hero and baddie whilst trying to shoot each other out of the sky is particularly painful, with dialogue sounding like it was generated by a Texas Intruments \"Speak & Spell\".

The Hollywood money machine at it's worst. Funny though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My Caddy Limo was destroyed!!! Well, I had one just like it - Drove the hoi polloi and many of the Chosen Ones around Manhattan for a few years.

That was a whole lot more entertaining than this movie I can tell you. Lordy, what a bomb - as in RPG go boom. I also drove a lot more stars in my white Caddy than appeared in this dud of a flick.

Robert Patrick is a very serious actor and did a credible job with the nonsense he had to work with. Unfortunately, Rutger Hauer played his part like a red-nosed circus clown. If he couldn't take it serious why should his audience? The director should have kicked his butt off the set in the first hour of filming.

The dialog was written by 10 yr old's for 8 yrs old's. Surprised there wasn't a whole lot more cracking up on the sets. Oh well, I am a movie fanatic - ergo - you must take the bad to get to the good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, this movie shows us that Mark Griffiths and producers think we all are idiots. If not how should we understand this:

American pilots take off on Mig-29s. Suddenly all aircrafts turn to F-16s. Ha, a magic! After an action... Migs land. The magic again!

Oh, did I mention that F-16s had Israel markings?

Another magic: obviously unarmed L-39 trainers are bombing enemies.

And more magic: while all movie is situated in Europe, we can see a desert in almost any flying scene.

Maybe the director wasted all his magic on things above, because action scenes are incredibly chaotic and also explosions look awfully as if pilots bombarded with molotovs.

OK, OK, this is a movie. I should write about its story... wait. A story? Yes there is SOME story in this film. And its horrible as well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, you know... Rutger Hauer and Robert Patrick both are really good actors. But WTF with this movie? The story was lame and the script was just terrible. The poor actors didn't have material to work with!

The DVD cover invited you to a flight action flick. You would expect something like Top Gun... Huge disappointment! The flight action in this movie is so cheap that makes you puke. The aerial scenes are clearly taken from documentaries and some other footage sources, not made for this movie. And they didn't even care about the marks or the fighters models, taking for granted the audience will not notice it.

As I said the story was lame. With a little effort from the writer and director it could have been very interesting. In short, it seems a B-movie made in the 70's.

I feel very sorry for these actors who put their names here. They sure must be ashamed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(Warning: Some spoilers ahead.)

What an incredibly crappy movie. It makes Iron Eagle 2 seem good.

The story is as follows: Captain Holiday (Rutger Hauer) gets shot down by his friend Banning (Robert Patrick) to stop him from shooting down a iraqi airliner filled with innocent civilians. Six years later Holiday returns to take his revenge. Among other things he, sitting in a tank, chases Banning (now a colonel) and his pregnant wife over a field. He manages to fire shells and drive the tank at the same time. After getting the tank blown up by a bazooka, he miraculously survives and steals a fighter jet. With it he shoots down a number of allied fighters before attacking the NATO headquarters in an attempt to kill Banning's wife.

An extra bonus is that major Baxter (who Holiday hangs in her office) has put the rank insignia on her right shoulder on backwards. Elegant.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry to disagree with you, but I found the DKC series to be quite engaging. So much so that I invested in the SNES system and my own copies of the games. This is, mind you, almost ten years after the initial release of DKC 1. The graphics were ground-breaking for their time, the first vector graphics games for home systems. The music and characters are all memorable, and the games brought myself and my girlfriend dozens of hours of entertainment. True, the second game was better than the first, and the third was perhaps lacking the 'edge' of the second installment. But all three offered different play, and I enjoy them to this day. By the way, I'm old enough to remember when there were NO video games whatsoever (and TVs were black and white!).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*** Possable spoiler but probably not ***

The game is called donkey kong but donkey kong is not even in it

anymore! Diddy is gone aswell!

The 1st Donkey Kong Country was one of my two all time favorite

Super Nintendo games. (The other being Super Mario World)

The 2nd Donkey Kong at least had diddy kong and good levels,

although it felt more like a game based on pirates at times.

However this one is the worst of the lot! It does not have the feel of

the original or 2nd, The enemy's look stupid and the levels are

even worse. It does not look realistic anymore! I did not enjoy his game unlike the last two, the first had great

background music and the 2nd was not bad but the music in this

game is horrible!

It happens a lot these days that movies, shows and sometimes

video games that start out fantastic, end up with it being ruined by

a stupid sequel! I am sad to say I feel that donkey kong as a saga is not as good

now that it has Donkey Kong 3!

They should have left it at the original or MAYBE the 2nd one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is your typical junk comedy.

There are almost no laughs. No genuine moments. No memorable lines. No scenes where you think to yourself, \"that was clever\". Nothing. The plot is embarrassingly bad.

It's ugly to look at and boring as hell! There is no substance here. This movie has nothing. It doesn't matter if Farely was in this or not. A crap movie is a crap movie no matter who's involved.

Also, David Spade is a terribly unfunny comedian who plays the same lousy character in ever movie\/TV show that he's in.

This movie was dead on arrival. There is no life here. No fun. No intelligence. There are plenty of other \"dumb\" comedies more enjoyable that this one. This film is just pathetic.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most Lorne Michaels films seem to fail because they're essentially just extended versions of skits that barely managed to make people laugh in five-minute segments. \"Tommy Boy\" is a character right from \"SNL\" - a big fat lovable (in their opinion) goof who doesn't know anything.

David Spade gets the Thankless Overwhelmed Everyman role. He's paired with the Annoying Overweight Slob and they endure Miserable Misfortunes as they travel cross country to Save Daddy's Business.

The plot, for starters, is really faulty. The whole premise - daddy dies and rich stupid son has to save the family biz - can be traced back to just about any movie you want. Like any SNL style film it is reduced to a simple motivation - empty, shallow; just a reason to see a fat guy and a thin guy be \"funny\" together.

The movie's biggest \"influence\" is the 1987 comedy classic \"Planes, Trains & Automobiles.\" That movie is great because the plot isn't stale and recycled. It's basic, yeah - a guy traveling home for Thanksgiving gets stuck with a slob. But it's real, dammit. It makes all the difference. The characters are real, the situations are far more real. \"Tommy Boy\" is pure slapstick and its ridiculous situations undermine the characters - we feel nothing for them, and we don't care about what's happening on-screen. \"PTA\" walked the careful line between outrageous and utterly believable and relate-able - \"Tommy Boy\" is simply absurd, with jokes like a simple deer-in-the-headlights turning into a crash turning into a struggle with a dead deer that really isn't dead, then awakens and wrecks their car.

The whole wrecked car thing is stolen completely from \"PTA\" and it's eerie how much stuff in this film actually does resemble the Steve Martin\/John Candy movie.

Farley is simply way too obnoxious to find likable - I've never enjoyed watching him in any movies and this hasn't changed my mind. Spade's given very little to do, serving as the movie's most thankless character.

Dan Aykroyd is wasted as the Evil Baddie who plans to destroy Daddy's Business. The ending is a joke, and not in a \"har-har funny\" way. More like a \"oh god are they serious?!\" way.

Some people dig it, that's cool. But I just can't get into it, nor do I appreciate all the stuff it \"borrows\" from - not just counting \"PT&A\" - without any credit whatsoever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Physical Evidence is one of those films that you want to like but really should be a lot better than it actually is. Developed as a sequel to Jagged Edge for Glenn Close and Robert Loggia, it gives the impression that all involved only made it while they were waiting for something better to come along. The premise is perfectly serviceable, it's mostly technically efficient if horribly uninspired with even Henry Mancini's musacky score surprisingly pleasant, but you can't help feeling that things would have turned out better if one of the leads had turned out to be the killer (as is rumoured was originally the case). As the opening scene of his little-seen, personally disastrous Heat (1986) showed, Reynolds has all the makings of a great screen villain. As is, there are few surprises and a feeling of half-hearted filming by numbers as it builds up a head of intertia as it ambles disinterestedly towards a less than grand will-this-do? finale.

Reynolds is fine, sailing through on charisma in what is clearly a star vehicle. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Theresa Russell. An impressive and fearless actress in husband Nic Roeg's films which allow her to delve into the darker side of human nature, she's trapped in a part that requires star quality rather than depth, and she ain't got it in spades. She doesn't fluff her lines or bump into the other actors, but that's about all that can be said in favour of her astonishingly stilted and often amateurish performance that lets the film down badly. Aside from Ned Beatty's prosecutor the supporting cast add only a slightly surreal presence in a Boston where everyone seems to have a badly disguised Canadian accent and the streets bear a startling resemblance to Toronto and Montreal.

Likewise, director Michael Crichton, who in Westworld, Coma and The First Great Train Robbery showed that he knew how to lean an audience to the edge of their seats, seems to handle the action in a purely perfunctory fashion - indeed, in one brief chase the shots don't even match and seem thrown together almost arbitrarily. The climax itself has no flair and is completely bereft of threat or danger, and many scenes are played for far less than they are worth. It's no great surprise that, aside from uncredited reshoots on The 13th Warrior, Crichton hasn't directed since.

Its watchable enough in an 80s TV movie sort of way, even if it never lives up to the promise of its opening. Whether that's enough of a reason to see it is down to individual taste.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got a kick out of Reynolds saying to his attorney, \"look,I've done a lot of shi%ty thing in my life, but I never killed anyone.\" Obviously he forgot about his career which slid down hill after he started making stupid movies like 'Cannonball Run.' Physical Evidence was originally supposed to be a sequel to 'The Jagged Edge' that Glen Close sanely rejected. The verdict is in, avoid Physical Evidence.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This really is a film of two halves. The first detailing the lives and friendship of two boys (one a privileged Pashtun and the other a down-trodden Hazara) in late 70s Afghanistan before the invasion by the USSR works extremely well. The young actors turn in convincing performances and seeing Afghanistan as it once was throws the present situation there into stark relief.

The real problem comes when we move into the later phase of the story where we join the Pashtun as a man living in America. Ancient debts to his young friend lead him to return to his homeland and it is really at this point that things break down. The central adult character is clearly supposed to be sympathetic, but in fact comes across as wimpish and wallowing in self pity. It is hard to really care for him and one cannot help but feel that the really interesting story is the one we do not get to see - that of his boyhood friend.

Once he returns to Afghanistan the narrative becomes bogged down in a series of highly contrived coincidences. Most remarkably he manages to come across his childhood enemy after all these years almost immediately (even though he is not looking for him), despite the chaos that has since consumed the country. This enables him to confront past demons in a way that is simply too convenient to be credible. The resolution of the narrative is also run through with an awful, mawkish sentimentality which undermines any really serious points the film may be trying to make.

Although it is possible to start seeing characters and the abuses of their lives as symbols of a state which has been torn apart by world politics it is hard to really see this as a film which engages with any wider political discussion. Instead the narrative becomes reduced to one character's emotional journey of self discovery and healing. Unfortunately this character is so dull and wrapped up in himself that it is hard to really become engaged in his story, while opportunities to make a really interesting film about Afghanistan itself are wasted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Kite Runner began as one of those \"important\" films that most people fawn over because they are told that they should if they want to be among the elite and quickly descended into an idiotic film of absurdly outlandish proportions.

I've never read the book, and never felt the need because I honestly don't care. Sure I'm called uninformed for saying it but I truly have no interest whatsoever in just another \"pull at your heartstrings, copy off of all other story lines to get emotion from the readers\" novel, even if it is set in Afghanistan.

That said, I watched the movie. I heard good things about its beauty, and how touching it was and decided why not? As it turns out, there was a very good reason why not. Not only was the so called main character completely unsympathetic (I get it, he was young and this is a film about redemption but honestly he was horrible. I hated him and not in that good 'Anti-hero' way, he was just a dull, idiotic, self-absorbed character that I felt nothing towards) but the rest of the story was so completely absurd that I couldn't believe how everyone else was fawning over how beautiful it was, and how they cried and it moved them. I'm sorry, but I only feel moved by something that feels realistic, Sci-Fi has been known to move me, fantasy as well...but this? Please. This surpassed many other movies for pure absurdity! My biggest peeve, Hassan was Amir's brother...really? You sure you didn't just rip that off from a thousand other stories? Positive that that particular tidbit wasn't just added in to try to pull more tears out of your audiences (y'know the type of people who look for reasons to cry during a movie)? I was rolling my eyes when that \"twist\" was revealed knowing that it could only go downhill from there (not to mention flashing back to Star Wars \"Amir, Hassan is your brother\" \"NOOOoo, that's not true, that's IMPOSSIBLE!\") Oh, and it certainly did. Filled to the brim with clich\u00e9's and just plan dumb storytelling. Like \"good guy miraculously escapes bad guy against all odds with help from spunky kid who despite being viciously sodomized and having no clue who you are is willing to help out with a conveniently placed weapon that holds special meaning to you\". Ooh and don't forget the oh so idiotic \"finally getting vengeance on the kid who teased you when you were little who, surprise surprise, has turned into a psychopathic adult\" (trust me guys, I understand you like to live vicariously through movies but that'll never happen. You know that kid who teased you in high school...he's no terrorist, he's probably an accountant.)

Oh, and I must mention the CGI-tastic kites! I think those were on par with the \"Matrix\" movies and \"Transformers\" bravo you guys! BRAVO!

It seems this movie was just made for western audiences who need to a reason to care about the Middle East (hey an overly emotional friendship story will work!) This is one of the most shallow movies I've had the misfortune of seeing, it poses as deep well...but when you get right down to it, it's nothing special.

Unfortunately, the core of America's audience will do what they're told and follow the \"It's about controversial material so it must be good!\" way of thinking.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly I am not THAT impressed by it, it's not a bad movie, but it's not great one either. There's a story to tell, but it's told in a very incoherent way which kinds of makes it loose it's full meaning and ability to intrigue. This movie could of been made in another way with an outstanding result, the story is just so interesting yet somehow I'm not intrigued when watching it.

It definitely isn't an amateur movie, rather the opposite and some of the scenes are really emotional. The actors and actresses does quite a good job and so does the director but there's just something so unfinished by the whole movie that I cant quite put my finger on. Perhaps if you had gotten to know the characters abit more, all the 'messiness' of the movie could of been better clarified and put more 'action' throughout it cause as it was, it became abit slow from time to time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this episode with high hopes after seeing it on so many people's \"Favourite episodes\" list. I'm not boasting in any way, but from the start, I realised they were in some sort of toybox\/can, with the huge eye looking down on them, to the type of characters in there. Even though throughout the episode, the questions of \"Who are we?\", \"Where are we?\", \"What's outside?\" carry the suspense of the episode (which I unfortunately already figured out), I must say that different types of characters and the interaction between them did make the episode interesting enough. Although the twist of the story may have been harder to guess if ALL of them were (toy) soldiers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Five Characters in Search of an Exit\" has to be one of the most boring \"Zones\" ever made. It was on Sci-Fi this morning, and, as usual, I changed the channel. I put it in my Top Five list of the worst \"Zones\" ever produced. Dull and predictable, and not worth watching. Serling worked this theme to death (earthlings in the hands of aliens, who often were giants), and in this particular version, it just doesn't work. Anyone who hasn't seen it before, will quickly figure it out. This is another Serling philosophical mood piece, perhaps paralleling the plight of those in prisoner of war or concentration camps, where the imprisoned may lose interest in finding out where they are or fighting their captors. William Windom, as the soldier who is the last to \"drop in\" is the only one curious to make the effort, and it doesn't take long to figure the outcome.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.

Now I was very surprised when I saw reviews for this bland episode that described it as being \"among the best\" and gave it scores of 10. If this is the case, then why is it that everyone I know who has seen this episode hates it as much as I do? It's possible that me and my family and friends are all cranks but it's also possible this is yet another case of rabid fans rabidly inflating the rating on an average or below average episode.

The episode itself stars William Windom and others as various archetypes--a soldier, a dancer, etc. They are all stuck in a cylindrical room with no escape and only at the end do you realize the \"shocking truth\"--which isn't at all shocking and is in fact majorly lame. No, this is a badly written and unengaging episode. Yes, there were plenty of episodes of the series that deserved a 10, but few as undeserving as this one due to a shallow script and an unappealing resolution.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie previewed before something else I rented a while back...and it looked decent. I've seen some good stuff from Full Moon video, and thought it was worth a shot... Unfortunately, this was not good stuff.

The story is about a possessed bed. A couple moves into a new apartment, discovers the bed, and odd things start happening. Odd things like the woman discovers kinky sex. And the man discovers kinky sex. And the woman draws pictures of kinky sex. And the man photographs kinky sex. And they both start having dreams about dead people having kinky sex. You'd think a movie with so much kinky sex would be good, right?

Well.... No. The problem is that this is supposed to be a scary movie, or at least a thriller, and it just doesn't deliver. There is little tension, no suspense, and no fear. Aside from some troubling dreams and visions, there really isn't anything for this couple to be worried about. The whole movie is basically the two of them having these visions and playing around in bed. Sure, you get a monster fight at the end...and some bloodshed...but nothing spectacular... There's only one murder, and one good scare, and that's it.

And the kinky sex? Don't get your hopes up (or anything else for that matter). Their idea of kinky sex is woman on top, fully clothed, trying to strangle her mate with a necktie. Not exactly my idea of a good time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Karen and her boyfriend Jerry move into their new Los Angeles apartment.They discover an old brass bed that Karen takes a liking to,unfortunately it has a really sinister history involving kinky sex murders.\"Deathbed\" tries to be a creepy supernatural tale,but fails miserably.The action is slow,the acting is nothing special and there is no suspense whatsoever.Even the sex scenes are lame.The climax is pretty gory and violent,so fans of splatter should be pleased.However the first hour of \"Deathbed\" is deadly dull and offers some tired horror movie conventions and cheap scares.Definitely one to avoid.My rating: 4 out of 10 and that's being generous.Watch \"Re-Animator\" or \"Castle Freak\" instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rented this one by mistake thinking it was another film with the same title, and realizing that I had rented it some time before.

Quick plot line. A couple consisting of an artist and photographer rent a studio apartment in Los Angeles from Joe Estevez, still cursing the fact his brother Martin Sheen could actually ACT! They find a bed in a forgotten room, but the bed is haunted by a nasty looking serial killer from the 1930's and his last victim. Their ghosts inhabit the couple, first enhancing their sex life, but eventually becoming more menacing.

What ensues is cheap R-rated sex scenes, cheaper thrills and kind of a waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I mistakenly thought this was the 70's art film about the bed that eats people, which sounded interesting. It isn't. Interesting, I mean, let alone about a man-eating bed.

I assume Stuart Gordon put his name on this in the same spirit that Lloyd Kaufman puts \"Troma\" on just about anything that's been shot with a video camera, in the interest of building up a franchise library. Little more can be said about this opus other than the running time is less than 90 minutes. It is, of course, about a bed that is haunted by the spirit of a man, or something, that once killed a woman with a wig and long false eyelashes. Along the way we get **a five minute opening credit sequence (is the one for \"Lawrence Of Arabia\" even as long?) **a murderer with Marylin Manson contacts who kills using the same technique as the troll in \"Cat's Eye\" **demonstrations of a sexual practice Michael Hutchence may have employed **a preview of what Emilio Estevez will soon look and act like **soft core porn even Cinemax would pass on **manbutt and one topless scene **a wacky (or is it \"whack\"-ee?) ending involving unintentionally hilarious hammer hits and leftover strawberry pie (well, it looked that way to me) **and a rudimentary surprise ending apros pos of nothing much. It's like the screenwriter even fell asleep on the \"Deathbed\" before finishing the last draft.

It's not scary, it's not sexy, it's shot on hi-def video and doesn't look bad but doesn't look good either, the acting is just good enough to not be bad enough to be fun and so is everything else. No one would probably have even seen or heard of it unless it was on a disc with another movie, the modern day \"double feature.\" I wasn't paying attention for parts of it so I may have missed something. But for some reason I doubt it. Rating: PASS","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where do I begin, its one of the most frustrating movies I've seen because it makes a lot of sense in terms of the point but it comes off as seriously stupid. A movie about a ghost inhabited bed?? The first 2 minutes of the movie shows a black and white flashback of a weird looking fat dude going dominatrix on a Fabienne from Pulp Fiction lookalike contest winner and strangles her with his tie. This is supposed to set up how the bed factors into the story. Still though, if you wanted an opening to keep people interested or send them away early, having a strangulation is the way to do it. Fast forward to the present day, a married couple moves into an apartment with a friendly landlord and begins unpacking their things, so far everything's normal. Then one night while doing the hippity dippity on a single mattress, they realize they need a bed frame. This is where things get fishy, why didn't they bring or buy a g*d damn bed frame before they got there? We learn that the door leading to the attic where the first 2 minutes took place doesn't open but then once the couple realizes they need a bed frame, the door magically opens. They go up to the attic and discover the old bed frame and decide to bring it downstairs and their lovemaking days are saved...or so they thought. The rest of the movie centers around the both of them being haunted by the bedframe. The female is an artist so she starts drawing up the ghoulish images she dreams about and the male is a photographer so he starts having his models act as if they're bring tortured or tied up.(one of which has gray hair and appears over 50 years old, yuck) The female grows increasingly scared and she discovers the house she lives in was once a haven for serial killings and murders which bring about the end to the movie. They find the friendly landlord murdered (which makes no sense since ghosts need to take a human form to kill) and decide to get the hell out of dodge. While packing up, the husband moronically goes up into the attic where he is possessed by the crazy fat dude and the female bashes his skull in before the cops show up and take her to a mental ward where she kills some dude trying to hit on her.

Well if you've read this far you have to be thinking one thing.......WHY THE HELL DIDN'T THEY JUST THROW THE BEDFRAME OUT THE WINDOW???? Seriously, they never said anything about the actual house being haunted, just the bed....so why not get rid of the damn thing and move on? That's why the movie is so frustrating because it actually is a good plot and the actors follow suit accordingly but there are more holes in it than Sonny Corleone at a toll booth. The couple did try to leave town as upposed to every other movie that has the ol \"oh lets give this place a chance honey\" scheme going, so props to that. Still though, me and my buddy who watched the movie kept saying every 5 minutes....why didn't they just throw the bed out? Especially once they learned it was haunted would have been a good time to set it on fire or something.

All in all its a near-watchable movie with plenty of porno like bed scenes and a believable plot (to an extent) but the solution is so simple you're scratching your head by the end of the movie wondering how stupid can the married couple be? The highlight of the movie is when the husband tells the 50 year old model to spread her legs and his assistant tells him that he can't shoot her like that.

4 out of 10 (a low budget porno The Man Show would love)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Made it through the first half an hour and deserved a medal for getting that far. Lots of excuses for scantily clad women but no real plot to speak of emerged in that time. What sounded like a good idea for a movie was badly executed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot seemed to be interesting, but this film is a great dissapointment. Bad actors, a camera moving like in the hands of an amateur. If there was C-movies, this would be a perfect example. A plus for a nice DVD cover though and a great looking female actor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unless you're interested in seeing 2 hours worth of scenic mountain footage featuring hysterical characters, lots of histrionics and cheap 70s gore (not much of it either), I would advise to avoid this movie. It is long winded, overlong and has a rather annoying amateurish feel to it. Masterpiece? No, an average thriller, shot in an average fashion, in a gorgeous Italian landscape.

I'm a huge fan of slow paced 1970 movies, when there is a plot to delight and entertain you. In this case, it didn't work out for me. The plot is trite, interlaced with superficial and stereotypical characters, backed by hilarious angry mobs and your typical Italian widow dressed all in black, sobbing.

If you are not acquainted and familiar with the Italy country side, the movie might be worth seeing as the scenery itself is spectacular and rather breathtaking. This movie isn't however, nothing out of the ordinary, there are much better Italian horror flicks than this. Not much else than a yawn fest. 5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Try as I might, I just simply couldn't get into this one. Perhaps it was the washed out tones; perhaps it was the drawn-out approach--I'm not really sure, but though this was by no means a \"bad\" movie, I didn't really find it to be very much of an \"effective\" movie (words that I understand are so much more arbitrary than their common uses).

So, basically, the deal here is that a series of adolescent boys' deaths sets off an investigation and anxiety in a small provincial town, triggering a witch hunt. What do the boys' death have to do with the mysterious, sexy woman who has appeared in town? Is the crazy hermit woman involved? Is it voodoo? The story is a mixture of crime drama and horror as the various townspeople are all suspect and corpses keep appearing while bloody violence ensues.

Good enough, but to me, most of it fell a little flat. Oh, it had it's moments... the one boy walking in on a beautiful naked seductress was pretty good, and the scene where the fathers beat the hermit was a bitter commentary (even if the effects themselves failed, considering her skin seemed to peel off as if they were whipping her with red-hot irons).

My biggest issue was the ending. I've already put spoiler tags on this review, but BE WARNED, HERE'S THE BIG SPOILER: I don't believe it. I don't believe that a priest could convince himself to kill young boys for becoming sexually aware without some hint of that psychosis appearing earlier, with other boys, with a history, or some other personal affect. The movie didn't really earn its ending. END SPOILERS.

Nonetheless, Fulci is a big name and I'm more than certain there's an audience out there for this. I definitely need to check out more that he's done, because this may have been a poor introduction. Most Italian giallo is hit-or-miss anyway, so I'm waiting to see what else this guy can do before writing him off.

--PolarisDiB","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A frustrating documentary. Louis Kahn's son, who saw his father only minimally during his childhood because he was a member of just one of the three separate families his father had created, takes on the task of trying to learn more about his father through an exploration of his architecture and his life. It sounds like a great idea for a documentary, but it ends up flat and uninteresting.

Sadly, the basic problem is that Kahn's son, Nathaniel, is not just one of the film's protagonists --- he is also director, writer, producer, interviewer and narrator. Nathaniel seems both too inexperienced and possibly too close to the material to function well in any of these roles. Further, while he seems like a nice enough guy, he doesn't have much screen presence, so the fact that he is the only constant in the film becomes wearing.

Nathaniel also comes across as an unprepared and amateurish interviewer --- there are several points where an interviewee makes an interesting or provocative statement and the camera cuts to a shot of Nathaniel offering little more than a blank stare and a sort of timid \"uh-huh,\" as if he's a little panicked that he's going to have to come up with something to say in response. At times, I felt embarrassed watching people who might have had truly interesting things to say about Kahn (or at least better things to do with their time) seeming to realize that they were in the hands of an interviewer who was going to rely on them to direct the conversation.

Nathaniel's dual role as both documentarian and lost son seem to do more to hurt the film than help. One senses that some of the interviewees are a little reluctant to really open up about negative aspects of Kahn's personality and career, presumably because it's not clear from Nathaniel whether he's looking to dig into the truth or simply wants to hear nice stories about his Dad -- preferably ones that will confirm his hope that his Dad really did care more for Nathaniel and his mother than seems likely. His passive approach as an interviewer may stem directly from this conflict. The only person Nathaniel does push is his own mother, but those conversations tend to feel a little like bad teen drama (Aren't you ANGRY, Mom?\") and don't offer much in terms of helping us (or Nathaniel) understand Kahn or the loyalty he evoked from those around him.

What the film desperately lacks is shaping by an experienced and independent hand, not to exclude Nathaniel, but to balance his subjectivity and inexperience. An independent director could have stood away from the material, given more thought to what the interviewees could contribute and, one hopes, cut out those portions of the documentary process that just don't work, such as the weird segment with the guy who claims to have see Kahn die (which made it look as if Nathaniel was just being taken in by some loony) or the entire bit about hooking up with Kahn's first cousin, who had nothing to add about Kahn or Nathaniel. Too many times Nathaniel makes us watch him standing in or near a Kahn building buttonholing strangers to tell them that his father was the designer. (Ahhh\u0085 huh. Thaaat's nice, sir. Umm\u0085I gotta go now.) I understand why these things might be important to Nathaniel and that showing the documentary process is sometimes interesting, but this is one of those examples of when a documentary can be TOO personal.

As an aside, I thought the score written for the film was great! (But, one of the oddest moments in the entire thing for me was when, during the tour of the Kimball Art Museum, the voice-over quotes Kahn as making a comparison between architecture and Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. The music being played at the same time? Beethoven's NINTH Symphony. A mistake? A miscue? Who knows? It did make me laugh.)

Kahn was a great architect and it's clear that he was an unusual human being and had an intriguing life story. There's definitely a good documentary to be made about him. One is sympathetic to Nathaniel's search for the father he didn't know, but I'm not sure whether THAT is an interesting story. Neither works so well in this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some ugly weirdo who had three families, cheated on and neglected all of them, built ugly useless buildings all over which are now unappreciated and crumbling. His bastard half-Jew son runs around interviewing random Jewish senile people who we care nothing about and shows his dreadful narrating and writing skills while tragic piano music plays. This goes on for almost two boring hours and amounts to nothing.

All you shallow hippie people who watch these stupid documentaries, eating salads and yogurt, think all this crap is so important. It's not. Save the whales. No one cares.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love documentaries. The Andy Goldsworthy doc was great.I looked forward to this one - but was very disappointed. I knew of Kahn and was intrigued by the idea of his lonely death in a Penn Station men's room. There must be a story here, I mistakenly believed.The only story here is of sadly deluded women who had affairs with an ugly little famous married man. In the absence of anything like an explanation for this guy's horrible behavior, we're given endlessly repeated clips of Kahn walking around and painfully long - supposedly contemplative - shots of his soulless buildings.Actually, some of the buildings are interesting but the thrust of the film asks us to think about the guy himself. The overwrought soundtrack references an emotional tug that is entirely absent from the film. Kahn's apparent gifts do not excuse his behavior or martyr his mistresses. This film seems to want to give Kahn the great artiste's free pass and thus make the director and his mother sympathetic figures - I don't buy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although the figures are higher in proportion to other areas of society, I don't object to the extremely high salaries for many of today's entertainers and athletes.

A-Rod, LeBron or Brady all have deals either well with 8 figures, or the low-9 area. Ray Romano and Jerry Seinfeld could actually become billionaires from their shows, huge residuals and fees they currently demand. Even their cast members, and all of the \"Friends\" group reached near or over 7 figures per episode. Letterman's earnings for one show could solve most people's financial problems, and a week or two's take care of many for life.

But all of these are based upon sound supply\/demand principals, and the financial benefits they bring to their employers. And all perform their crafts ably.

But then comes along someone like Rachel Ray, who reaches a level of earnings far beyond any apparent level of talent or skill. I find her shrill, annoying, and with a forced \"perkiness\" that's as phony as the proverbial \"3-dollar bill.\"

A friend of mine is responsible for special meetings, events and convention plans for her firm and its affiliates. One of the major talent sources has hundreds of clients available from the $5-10K level, to a handful who get $200K and up per appearance. (This area includes Trump, Seinfeld, Lance Armstrong, Robin Williams, and, no kidding, Larry the Cable Guy.)

There are a greater number in the $100,001 - 200,000 range; list included the likes of Bill Cosby, Steve Martin and even cable guy Larry's benefactor, Jeff Foxworthy.

This category includes Rachael Ray. I suppose I have to admit there may be sufficient demand for her \"talent\" and offerings to justify her talk show and there may be some out there who'll pay more than $100K, + first class air, hotel suite, all expenses and limos door-to-door, for just a couple of hours of her whiny prattle at their organization's event.

I just can't figure how-in-the-hell this could be possible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here is a rundown of a typical Rachael Ray Show:

1. The awful theme song begins to play, and Rachael descends wearing her Snapcrotch outfit in this bizarre cargo elevator. 2. She begins running around screaming and\/or insulting the audience, then yells at them sit down. 3. An awkward monologue.

(The next are in any order) 4. A segment tooting Rachael's own horn (i.e. \"I Lost 500 Pounds with Rach's Recipes, \"Rachael Ray Saved my Life,\" \"Rachael's Fashion Tips.\") 5. A totally useless D.I.Y. tip (i.e. how to engrave words into casserole dishes, how to use your washing machine as a salad spinner, how to build a tube of lipstick with a light on it.) 6. The unleashing of horrible recipe on the unsuspecting audience (reaction shots of first bites are never shown). 7. A celebrity guest with an awkward interview, followed by some obviously scripted questions from the audience. 8. A person who gets help from one of Rachael's cronies (i.e. the I say yes to everything woman, the I own nothing but overalls lady, and the I can't find time to put on makeup housewife). What would they do without you Rachael. *gasp*

Reasons that this show should be avoided like the plague: 1. Fakeness: Rachael Ray claims that entire show is unscripted. Many people who have attended tapings of the show have claimed that the entire show is scripted. Many of these same people have also mentioned that there is even a very strict dress code for the show.

2. Her show jumps around too much: Where as Oprah, who is the highest rated talk show host of all time has a definite theme for her show, Rachael's jumps around like an ADHD soda child on crack. Her show averages perhaps 10, short, worthless segments a show. On second you will be getting fashion tips from Kojo, and the next Rachael will be making gross stuffed \"Spanish\" peppers with manchego cheese, and the next their will be a giant anaconda up on stage, and the next, well you get the picture.

3. Rachael is a poor host with bad ideas: Aside from her grating personality, Rachael's hosting ability is terrible, at best. Her questions for her celebrity guests are poor, and often times not even relevant to the interview, and her segments are unappealing and offer little educational, or humorous value.

In conclusion, you need not waste your time with this schlock. It will be canceled soon anyways.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"it seems like if you are going to post here it going to be a 10 star rating ,nobody ever seems to dislike anything ,well i am honest, some don't like that but here we go, rachel ray show is just plain awful.!!!!!!, this show reminds me of the snl character linda whatever if she had a cooking -whatever show.i must say i liked rachel on the food network on $35-$40 a day but i am sorry she does not have enough life experience to make her interesting day in and day out,give me ham on the street, anthony bourdain , interesting folks,but most of all i find her annoying, she actually told a member of the studio audience to \"shut up\" yes in a kidding way but shut up is shut up, and who cares about her pet stories, sorry rachel you been cancelled!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard to believe that oprah winfrey produced this piece of junk, the show couldn't even hold a candle to cooking shows of the past, including emeril lagasse, rachael ray is the most annoying talk show and cooking show host in TV history, not since ainsley harriott has had a terrible cooking show host I've watched, at least ainsley harriott has some good moments and some style, this one has no style at all, she's terrible as host, the kitchen looks atrocious, the writing is horrible, the teleplay is over the top and the opening credits are so bad, it makes me sick. Now I Enjoy cooking shows that had a cool sense of style, but this has absolutely none of that

This is one of the worst TV of the year.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I guess only a selected number of audience members really had any interest in watching how a male hustler in New York operates but I'd be willing to bet that even these brave souls were turned off by the irritating patchwork technique and deliberately muffled sound recording on display here; the fact that these inherent 'defects' were a direct result of the film's low-budget\/underground\/experimental nature is, I'd say, beside the point. Anyway, for those so inclined, the film features extensive male nudity and Joe Dallesandro, understandably, became an underground \u0096 and gay \u0096 icon!

The episodic structure showing the day-to-day routine of the hustler protagonist offers a couple of mildly interesting scenes: his meeting with (and eventually posing for) an eccentric elderly artist; the one where Dallesandro expresses his views on his unusual line of work and delineates his particular modus operandi to a couple of prospective 'colleagues' including perhaps the unlikeliest of hustlers \u0096 a bespectacled nerd! Perhaps mercifully, the film ran for only 89 minutes against the IMDb's claim that its complete length is 105 (but the latter could well be a mistake)!

I had watched a few other of Warhol's 'movies' and this one is decidedly not as satisfying as the most tolerable example I've run into yet, BAD (1977), and only slightly better than the likes of MY HUSTLER (1965) which were mostly a strain to sit through. The fact that this was only the first part of a trilogy did not augur well but, as the saying goes, you gotta to do what you gotta do and the other two 'chapters' had to follow in quick succession...

Despite my generally negative reaction to it, FLESH is nevertheless still valuable as a 1960s time capsule and as a prototype of the Underground scene of that era, both cinematically and in real life. For the record, an image of Dallesandro from this film adorns the sleeve of The Smiths' self-titled 1984 debut album and transsexual Candy Darling (who appears here rather unremarkably) was immortalized in \"Candy Says\", the opening track of The Velvet Underground's eponymous 1969 album. Although the latter band is my all-time favorite, and one of the reasons for this is that, through their sheerly unique and ground-breaking music, they described a lifestyle so utterly different from my own, this is truly a case where I'd much rather experience something aurally instead of visually!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Technically abominable (with audible \"pops\" between scenes)and awesomely amateurish, \"Flesh\" requires a lot of patience to sit through and will probably turn off most viewers; but the dialogue rings amazingly true and Joe Dallesandro, who exposes his body in almost every scene, also gives an utterly convincing performance. A curio, to be sure, but the more polished \"Trash\", made two years later, is a definite step forward. I suggest you watch that instead. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although there is very little plot and whatever exists is just all improvisational, still it was a good start from a new director with no previous financial back up and also a smart move from Andy Warhol to make his cimematic productions more marketable and viewer-friendly. In any case this story of a street hustler relies too much on showing Joe buck naked (almost all the time!). And the creative use of a flashy editing really wears off after the hundredth time and the cutting off the dialog thing gets really annoying half-way. This would have been a much more entertaining or even dramatic if they made a documentary of the daily of an actual male prostitute or hustler, instead of letting the actors make up some nonesensical plot and dialog of their own.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although not a big Coen brothers fan, I am an admirer of their dark humor films like 'Fargo' and 'Miller's Crossing.' I have been much less impressed by their other comic mode, goofy-camp (or is that Camp Goofy?) Unfortunately, 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' falls into the latter category and isn't even as good as 'The Big Lebowski' or 'The Hudsucker Proxy.'

'O Brother' is basically an episodic series of in-jokes without much point, and not all that much humor or cleverness either. As most reviewers have noted, the film's plot is very loosely \u0096 and, as far as I could tell, quite arbitrarily \u0096 based on The Odyssey. Its main character, Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney), is an 'adventurer' like his Homeric namesake and has as his 'real' goal the return home to prevent the marriage of his wife Penny to a suitor. Of course, we don't discover that this is what the Clooney\/Ulysses character really wants until long after we've stopped caring. And what does Homer have to do with \"Cool Hand Luke\" chain gangs, Ku Klux Klan meetings a la \"Indiana Jones\" cult gatherings, a disbarred lawyer's vocabulary, a talent for blue-grass country music singing, an association with Baby Face Nelson, a Clark Gable lookalike hairdo, and other random and sundry character traits and encounters? I leave that for others to discern.

The allusion to Preston Sturges' 'Sullivan's Travels' in 'O Brother's' title is equally pointless. Yes, viewers familiar with the Sturges minor screwball comedy classic might find it mildly rewarding to recognize the title of the socially conscious Depression movie Sullivan abandons Hollywood and comedy hoping to make. And they might even be mildly amused by a couple of shot\/scene riffs (e.g. hopping freight cars, and the chain gang shuffle into view a movie). But so what? The Coen brothers don't seem to have anything to add to the art-for-art's-sake versus moral high seriousness critical debate about the function of art. They obviously fall into the former school, but that doesn't seem to motivate the reference in the slightest. Is it an homage? If so, why make it? I like post-modern pop culture reference and textual play as much as the next person, but it's a lot nicer when it amounts to something at least tonally, if not thematically, consistent \u0096 and not just an arbitrary concoction.

This screenplay is simply a silly mess. The only consistent, and consistently pleasing, element is the folk\/country music soundtrack. It doesn't have much to do with Homer or Preston Sturges, but, considering the rest of the film, that's probably a good thing. On the other hand, I'd recommend using the price of admission on the soundtrack CD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Earnest effort which achieves some success to adapt the classic Odyssey story to a '30's nostalgia period piece. The adventurers this time are escaped convicts, wandering about the Depression afflicted South bungling their way into trouble.

The greatest strength of the film is the wonderful music soundtrack, effectively evoking not only the era that this is set in, but the spiritual references that run rampant in the film. Besides its value to the tone of the movie, the music is just plain fun to listen to.

What cripples the film is that the characters really aren't that likable. In a comedy, you need that element in order to have fun along with them in their misadventures. Instead, we have a bunch of selfish, arrogant, soulless, mean spirited nobodies who really have no positive points at all. They're not imposing enough to make you hate them either, so it's hard to relate to them at all. They're offered up as clowns, but like people who put clown makeup on and march in parades, they just aren't funny.

Like the story that inspired it, the movie takes these guys on an \"odyssey,\" encountering a variety of symbolic (some even mystical) characters. Everybody is stamped with offensive stereotypes, the operative word being \"stupid.\" People are mocked right and left, and consequently, no one is left being particularly interesting or appealing. The movie doesn't like its own characters, and it doesn't let you like them, either.

Riverside baptisms, beautiful sirens, stolen cars, fistfights, radio preachers, people being whipped with sticks; all are thrown at you in disjointed fashion. Some evoke a few laughs, others confuse or bore you. I did laugh when a nerdy guy beat the snot out of an especially obnoxious lead character. But there were a lot more pointlessly gratuitous scenes; an example: some '30's Dillinger-type guy strafes cows with a tommy-gun. Comedy? Symbolism? No; just mindless violence, which detracts from the intellectual nature of the original source material this story draws upon.

Other adaptations of the Odyssey are much better. Unless you're a George Clooney fan, rent something else. But buy the soundtrack CD; the music is great.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some people think of Sweden in a negative way: too neat, too clean, too serious, too organized and too Northern. A people tortured by their own religious fate and history, sometimes leading to depression and compulsive heavy-handedness. This need not be a problem for a filmmaker, as for example the late Bergman has shown us what can be cinematic possible under these conditions. Bergman used his identity as a starting point and did not explicitly comment on this identity as such.

Andersson however does the reverse: He comments only on this identity hereby dissecting his people to the bone: In his world Sweden is equivalent for hell on earth. But he does not take this any further and for me this is just not art but merely annotation. Despite the exceptional amount of time it took to make this filmmaker has serious limitations he clearly cannot step out of.

Compared to his previous movie S\u00e5nger fr\u00e5n andra v\u00e5ningen \/ Songs from the Second Floor, there is also not much progress to be observed. The intention was that this was more accessible, but the difference is minimal and the few scenes that try to please a larger audience aren't the best in the movie. The same absurdism and minimalism also still apply, there is the one-shot camera position and the (lack of) action in front of this shot. Yes, the stills are well done, some of the scenes actually work and the coloring and positioning is amazing. But does that make an interesting movie? Thinking in a negative way, this is cinema taken a step backwards.

Andersson's background as a maker of commercials shines through in the elaborate setup, but I find his movies about as empty as those commercials. There is a message about mankind, but it is trivial and without much depth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You the living? OK I think I am an intelligent, educated, liberal and really into films. I really like and have a great sense of humour. I was under the impression this was a bleakly painful comedy. They got paid for making this, petrol was used, electricity burnt, food was consumed, sets built........why? I blame the current state of the world on this film and all those people associated with it, I will even include us the viewing public. We are all to blame and deserve whatever coming. Its not funny, not much happens, everyone it seems is bored or boring. There are no conversations, communication is minimal. There is no plot as far as I am aware. I have in fact just lost 89 point something minutes of my life. I will never ever get that time back. The only message I have come away with is perhaps life is too short to sit around watching movies of people doing not much......and then you die!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i stopped this movie at 48 minutes and change... i don't know...maybe it's because i'm not Swedish...or french(the cannes commenter)...or any of those OTHER sleepy places from which the previous reviewers held forth... born and raised in NY. lived near san francisco for a quarter of a century. and now Holland. i love a good independent film as much as the next movie enthusiast... but this, in a word, isn't funny. see? now THAT's funny...that you're thinking that i made a mistake. i said, 'in a word' but then said, 'isn't funny'... nope. no mistake. if this is your type of humor, i'd say you haven't really had much of a life... consider your appreciation of this film a symptom... and PLEASE don't EVER write another review...i have a tendency to believe them when they're unanimous. even if there only were about 3 reviews before mine...i figured i might ACtually be able to save someone ELSE the boredom...the anticipation of laughter that never materializes... i DID smile once or twice, though... when i started the movie...and when i stopped it. that should be 10 lines.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you're a kid liking fairy tale \"real life\" adventures, see it. If you're a youth liking kids movies, why not see it? :) If you're a parent going to see a movie with your kids, you're WAY better of opting for the squirrel!

The start of this film was a bit funny, and set some good premises for the happenings to take place. But after the kind of funny introduction of characters, settings and potential conflicts, the story turned out kinda dull. When more or less the same things happen for the third and fourth time, the word \"predictable\" repeatedly comes to mind just like parts of a dented LP or those commercials you really hate. And the culmination of the plot... *oh sigh*... poor, poor, poor!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"May be I don't get it right. I mean the movie. It does not make me happy or whatever has to do . Maybe because of my mood. Anyhow this one is a simple family movie with kids for actors. Just admit that - all movies of that kind cannot pass the barrier of 4 out of 10 never mind who is playing in the movie(example Antonio Banderas was playing in that kind of movies... two or three of them cant remember the exact count). I got bored. I almost fall asleep just because the topic is so clich\u00e9 and the actor play was so predictable. But I am sure that my kid will love this movie when he grows up... Hey Im not a monster I found some hilarious or good moments in the movie. The owls in the movie were sooooo cute. The trick with the painted police car windows and the hits that the kid received in the head by a golf ball...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will give it this: it tried. It did try to make it good and even got Luke Wilson involved. Luke Wilson is good, but he can only do so much. He can't make up for the fact that the story was very flawed and the characters were underdeveloped.

The running \"gag\" with the bully was asinine. He was never funny and I got tired of the gag really fast. And the barefooted kid bit was kind of weak too. He hitchhiked to Florida? Yeah OK.

The movie felt like an average kiddie film at times with this underlining mantra: adults stupid, kids smart. And that bit gets tiresome.

But the only moments that were funny was the police cart Wilson drove around when he lost his squad car. I loved that little cart, especially when Wilson turned on the sirens. But, other than that, nothing else was worth my time. \"D-\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, I had the misfortune of watching this film when I was younger at a friends house as his mother was a teacher and she wanted to screen the movie and see if there were any inappropriate scenes that a parent might object to. Well other than the unfunny jokes I think this one was in the clear, well the unfunny jokes and the strange scene where the look a like Ernest hits on a girl. So yes, Ernest gets thrown in jail thanks to a look a like and proceeds to try to escape and there is other stuff to it like him becoming magnetized at one point, shooting electricity, and in a very painful to watch finale flying. There are a couple of jokes, but nothing to much to mention except for the gun carved from soap...I think that is the only scene me or my friend's mother laughed out loud at. This and camp are the only two Ernest movies I have ever seen and from what I have seen in them I am not going to track down the other films. Ernest was good in small doses, but a movie is just to much even when it is as short as this one. I figure though the films made money, mainly because all you need is Varney and a location and a theme and you have your movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And again, I find myself in the minority.

I didn't like this one. This is the ONLY Varney work I haven't embraced, including Knowhutimean. Slam Dunk Ernest rates the credit for being the worst of the line, but this is a clear competitor for that dubious title.

This work is too rough, and too base to be lovable. Lovability was one of Ernest's key components, and this element was completely lost herein. Unfortunately, most think this is the best of the line, but if you loved the essence of what made Ernest, Ernest, you will realize to what I refer about fifteen minutes into this work. It was too blatantly base to be fun.

It rates a 3.5\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Opulent sets and sumptuous costumes well photographed by Theodor Sparkuhl, and a good (not great) performance by Jannings as Henry cannot overcome poor writing and static camera-work. Henny Porten chews the scenery as Anne.

It's all very beautiful; but it's all surface and no depth. The melodramatic tale of a woman wronged made it a hit in America where the expressionistic \"The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari\" flopped in the same year (1920), proving that what is popular is not what endures. Lubitsch would be remembered for his lively comedies, not sterile spectacles like this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Spiderman was one of the first comic books to initiate a change in the genre: in spite of being a very well made superhero comic book this is the first series ever that added a real psychological depth to the main character, had complex moral issue, round characters and also highlighted social and political issues. in other words: Spiderman was the comic book's coming of age. This TV series lacks all of those components. It's just a straightforward good buy \/ bad guy TV series suffering from obvious budgetary rerstraints that make the action scene moderately exciting. Spiderman nylon webbing is about as convincing as the cardboard rocks in Star trek. Nicholas Hammond is way too old for the role at that point in time. I think he was well into his thirties wheras Spider,man was really teenager at the time. For some unfathomable reason the writers also changed names and deleted important characters from the comic book which again just resulted in the tension between characters basically disappearing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was excited at the concept of my favorite comic book hero being on television... and sorely disappointed at the end result.

The only \"amazing\" thing was the wall crawling (despite the visibility of the cable). I didn't think Nick Hammond was Peter Parker... and he was visibly of a different build than the guy who did the stunts in the spider suit. You could tell they were two different actors.

Granted, I can also spot in the modern Spider-Man movies when I am looking at Tobey Macguire and when I am looking at CGI. But that is from a trained eye and experience working with CGI. Still, the 70's version could have been better despite lack of Special FX.

The webs were hokey and looked like ropes that seemed to wrap around things rather than stick to them. And what was up with giving him a spider mobile to ride around in. Hello? He's the web slinger people.

Sorry... didn't mean to get so worked up, but our beloved wall crawler deserved better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are many so-called anti-war\/anti-govt. policy films around now which start off as a mea culpa and end with 'our poor boys are getting hell out there so let the world sympathise with them, it's not their fault' - kind of stuff. I was half afraid that this would be another in that style even if it treated another subject\/aspect of the same subject. I nearly didn't go and see it; for that matter, I almost did not write this review. What did we get here? An Egyptian gets taken off to a secret off-shore torture centre, on U.S. orders, but it is another Egyptian who has to do the torturing, not an American: 'see, we Americans have clean hands,' and the Egyptians are a bad lot anyway so let them harm their own. Oh, and the goody had to be an American with a conscience: indeed many Americans have them, but here the concept was misplaced. Yes, we all know it is called Extraordinary Rendition and it began in Clinton's time and it is now used for reasons well beyond control. Otherwise it was very hackneyed and nervous about really condemning the U.S. for being party to torture; as if the makers were afraid to go the whole way for fear of being slanged as unpatriotic or whatever (take a look at the message board! Anyone apologising gets a faceful of heavy verbal artillery). Torture is a terrible thing, whether one is guilty or not; in the 18th Century, FrederickII, King of Prussia, abolished it for convicted murderers - though I must say, a life sentence for a child molester is far less than what I want to see. All right, what about torture? This film did not really bring out its horror and hopelessness enough. When you are under torture,(now come the capitals for emphasis, I am not shouting) YOU WILL SAY ANYTHING, EVEN IF IT IS NOT TRUE, EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE THE THING YOU ARE ACCUSED OF, IN THE VAIN HOPE THAT IF YOU SAY AMEN TO WHATEVER THEY ARE PEDDLING, IT WILL STOP. IT DOES NOT, BUT YOU NEVER LEARN AND YOU KEEP ON SAYING THAT YOU DID WHATEVER IT IS THEY SAY YOU DID, THO' YOU DID'NT. Another thing the film did not bring out enough was that TORTURE IS EXCEEDINGLY, INDESCRIBABLY HUMILIATING, AND THAT FEELING STAYS WITH YOU YOUR WHOLE LIFE. It somehow changes people inside. How do I know all that? Don't ask.

Re-edit: two things: the Arabic that was used in the film was not the Egyptian dialect. It's sort of worse than setting a film in New Zealand with locals as the characters and everyone has American accents. Also, the dreadful little preacher who was inciting his ignorant audience to violence was telling them things unknown to that religion, which should have been brought out. Nor was it anywhere explained that any nincompoop can become a mullah\/imam; he doesn't need any special qualifications, and that is a hiatus which needs to be put right: many are acceptable because of their fundamentalist views and tne U.S.A.'s great ally, Saudi Arabia, finances so many of them. Many thanks for this space.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie is powerful as a political statement about extraordinary rendition, torture and the politics of the war on terror. Others have already commented on these and other aspects of the movie. My review may contain spoilers, so if you haven't seen the movie, you may not want to read beyond this point.

Several questions are raised by this movie. First of all, was the protagonist guilty or not? There is no satisfying explanation for why the NSA decided to have him picked up and rendered in the first place. Is there an innocent explanation for why he got phone calls from what the NSA thinks is a terrorist? If there is, the movie does not seem to give one and that made the whole movie quite unsatisfying to me. It is all well and good to make statements about whether torture is right or wrong, but first prove to me that they tortured the wrong person, then we will take it to the next step.

If the protagonist was guilty, then what was achieved by releasing him? Perhaps, we was well-trained to resist up to a certain point and then pretend to break down and give answers that can be proved wrong with a little research, thus tending to lead the torturers to believe that they had tortured an innocent man into confessing without actually being guilty. However, there is nothing in the movie that proves he is guilty either.

The various other loose ends out there are: 1. So, a rogue CIA agent has him released and flown back home. What prevents the NSA from picking him up again? A little publicity in the Washington Post? Please give me a break here... If a senator is not willing to put his neck on the line to intervene on his behalf, what does Corinne Whitman have to fear? 2. If the NSA has been tracking what phone numbers are being called by whom, why couldn't they listen in on some of the calls to figure out whether anything underhanded is being discussed? 3. The plot is even more stupid anyways. Any criminal with more than a dozen brain cells would transact his criminal business on an anonymous prepaid cell phone line, not on one that can be traced back to him and his house.

The whole movie revolves around tugging at the viewers' heart strings by showing graphic and gratuitous scenes of torture. But when you think about it with any more depth, there is nothing of substance in this movie, only plenty of unanswered questions and the feeling of \"what, that is it?!!!\" at the end of the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was very willing to give Rendition the benefit of the doubt when it came to all the negative press I had read concerning it. Even about three-quarters of the way through, I still thought it was jumbled and a bit incoherent, but otherwise a solid tale reaching its conclusion. And then the bottom fell out. Not wanting to necessarily ruin the film for anyone, but the conclusion flips everything you held to be fact about what and when things have been happening on its head\u0097for no particular reason whatsoever except to maybe tell the world, yeah I'm cool, and I know it. I love a good twist, I love a good ah-ha moment, but only when it is relevant to the story at hand. The complete misguidance on the part of the filmmakers serves no purpose on the overall tale, timelines didn't need to be parallel and they didn't need to be separated by a week. All the revelation did was destroy any merit I was about to give director Gavin Hood and screenwriter Kelley Sane, which may be a good thing, because looking back, it wasn't really as solid a movie as I initially was going to blindly give it credit for.

It is an admirable thing to try and get the term rendition out into the film-going public's consciousness, but it needed a story that delved deeper into the connotations and politics involved, rather than gloss over those issues for a tale of a woman in distress over her husband's disappearance and the angst-filled rebellion of a daughter against her \"interrogator\" father. I understand that the bottom-line film attendee needs a human quality to grasp onto and for that reason I don't fault it for going that route. My only qualm is that we don't get enough of what the title says we should be getting. Instead we are shown numerous plot lines, all confusingly brought to the forefront before being sent back into the nether regions of our consciousness, never to be returned to. So much is going on that you forget what you are supposed to be caring for, the wife? the interrogator? the CIA agent? the victim? the senator? the Middle Eastern daughter and her zealot boyfriend? At the end I really just gave up and let the film take me where it would, which ended up being someone totally different than what it first laid out.

Everything that occurs happens as the result of a bomb explosion. This bomb is at the center of every story thread and finally ends up being so innocuous that you can't believe how huge the waves it spread were. The old butterfly wings flapping quote is in full effect, because one boy's mission for revenge ends up destroying the lives of so many. Whether by death, destruction, physical and emotional abuse, or career suicide; no one really escapes unscathed. However, at the end of the day, only the story about the man who has been excised to Egypt for torture is really interesting. We are led to believe he is unequivocally innocent from the start, yet he is waterboarded, electrocuted, etc. in order to extract any information he might have. When those in power include a man with no compassion or reason to stop until something is spilled, (whether true or not), and an observer without the guts to partake or stop it, the situation lends itself some intrigue as to how it could possibly end. The three actors involved all are the best parts of the film and prove once more that the movie should have concerned itself with them for the entirety.

I don't want to belittle people like Reese Witherspoon, (the victim's wife), or her Senate employed ex, played by Peter Sarsgaard, because they actual do a good job with what they are given. Even Meryl Streep, her kooky accent, and Alan Arkin don't detract too much. However, it is the trio of Jake Gyllenhaal's CIA agent, Yigal Naor's interrogator, and Omar Metwally's victim that truly shine. Naor is brilliant as the Egyptian trying to stay sharp as a razor during working hours yet compassionate and worry-filled as a father attempting to locate his daughter. This man is brutal, but he is because that is what his occupation calls for and why he is relied upon to find answers. Metwally never gives a false second during the pain and suffering inflicted upon him. Whether he is lying or truly knows nothing about the terrorist who has been calling his cell phone, we totally buy into his plight and desperately wait to see how the situation turns out. As for Gyllenhaal, someone who seems to have one performance recycled throughout his career with varying degrees of success, he finds a part that suits him. The demons entering his soul throughout the ordeal he is forced to be a part of wear on his body and mind, causing both ambivalence and a need to intervene. The two feelings wrestle with each other until he makes a final decision, and his stoic, boyish demeanor suit that battle perfectly.

It is just too bad that the one plot line working never finds itself as the main focal point, despite being the namesake of the film. With all the clutter around the edges, we as an audience get bounced around too much, lulled into a sense of time and sequence, and then slapped in the face as it all unravels in more of a laugh on us then a, \"bet you didn't see that coming.\" I felt cheated and unfortunately that is the lasting effect I have taken from the movie. Had it been more straightforward I might have enjoyed myself more, but as is, one can still take some positives from the severely flawed whole.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I happened upon a rare copy of this early Almodovar film with high expectations - Almodovar is a prolific contemporary director, I enjoyed his 1988 film \"Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown\", and I had read one or two very positive reviews of the film. Well, I must have missed completely the humor that the reviewers saw in this film. I just found it incoherent, tasteless, and boring. Yes, there are plenty of innuendos, people in drag, and crude sexual situations, and yes, these elements may have shocked audiences in 1982 (which was almost certainly Almodovar's intention), but much of the shock value has probably eroded over the years, leaving a limp storyline. Beyond that, the whole movie seemed very chaotic, none of the characters were particularly sympathetic, and for a \"comedy\" - even a dark one - I just didn't find this film funny. I suppose it is possible there is a VERY select audience for a film like this, but I'm just not part of that audience, and not sure that I want to be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Czech movie goers may have enjoyed and rated this film highly because it was Czech, but I found it to be trite, tedious, moronic, boring, and insipid. Again, I suspect \"ramping\" in order to increase sales of this dog of a film. Amazon describes this film as being about a couple of fellows that refuse to grow up, but I will go one further--I think it is about two fellows that have entered a state of dementia and perform actions that make no sense to anyone. I have been told that one of the actors in the film committed suicide after the film, and I would believe it. When he saw his performance he probably realized what a gosh awful job he had done and realized that the only way to avoid terminal embarrassment was to make the \"big exit\", which I am sure was much more dramatic and a much better performance that he had done in \"Autumn Spring.\" Don't waste your time or money on this pathetic performance. It's nothing but a dog in a manger.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wanted to like this movie, but there is very little to like about it. It starts out with Jean Stapleton and a Randy Newman song in Iowa (Northwest Iowa, I guess), reminiscent of Norman Lear's Cold Turkey, which was one of the best movies ever made, according to people on IMDb. So far, so good. And the idea of the archangel Michael living at Pansy Milbank's motel on earth? Well, give it a chance, it's supposed to be a comedy. Okay, so far, so good. But Michael does things that an angel not fallen would never do, and that completely blows any credibility the movie might have had. The other characters in the movie don't have much appeal, either. Michael brings a dog back to life, and we're supposed to be in awe of that. The people make up corny country songs. In the end, Stapleton dances with Travolta. Big deal. If she was smart, she wouldn't even be in this movie. When it was over, I thought, \"Gee, what a stupid, tasteless, boring, corny, sacrilegious movie!\" It's not fit to be seen by children or anyone else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do you ever wonder what is the worst movie ever made? Stop wondering. I'm telling you, Michael is it!

It is not \"heartwarming,\" \"entertaining,\" or \"Travolta at his best.\" It just sucks. If I had kids, I would let them watch Deep Throat before Michael!

A sold-out John Travolta, a washed-up and balding William Hurt, and an about to die any time now Jean Stapleton highlight this turd of a film.

But wait...you'll get to hear Andie McDowell sing! Yeah. Hollywood really s**t all over us with this one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie makes you wish imdb would let you vote a zero. One of the two movies I've ever walked out of. It's very hard to think of a worse movie with such big name actors. Well...Armageddon almost takes it, but not quite.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was more of a love story than one about an angel who comes down here to earth, although both angles of that story are given a good share of the movie.

If I took this movie to heart, as someone who knows and believes the Bible, I would have canned it pretty quick, but I don't think the general atmosphere was either mean-spirited or blasphemous. It was just ludicrous or just plain stupid.

I mean, John Travolta as a grubby angel? Smoking? Scratching his groin? Quoting the Beatles? A \"warring angel\" who knows nothing about Heaven? An angel who flirts with all the women? Yes, it's all absurd and certainly Biblically- incorrect.

I could tolerate all that but I don't know how many people, whatever beliefs they hold, who could stand a boring film which this turned out to be during the second half of it. It begins to drag when the romance begins between William Hurt and Andie MacDowell. Some of the dialog during that romance is so stupid it's insulting to any discriminating viewer.

This is another Nora Ephron-directed film. Man, I can't believe how many incredibly stupid movies this woman has either written or directed. At least she's consistent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My website (theflickguy.org) lists \"Michael\" as one of the worst films of the modern era. The following is an excerpt:

\"Everyone slums some time in their lives, this was Travolta's turn. I still don't know what the point of this terrible film was. Nora Efron has proved to be a competent writer and director, so what the hell happened here? The Archangel Michael takes a new spin here and is portrayed as a ham-fisted, chain-smoking sugar addicted fornicating slob whose biggest contribution to humanity (after sending Lucifer to hell) was that he invented \"standing in line\". Yes, how funny and charming. I don't find this offensive, I find it stupid. In its defense, I can say that the ending was ever bit unsatisfying as the rest of this painful attempt at story telling.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For the most part, \"Michael\" is a disaster \u0096 ten minutes of charm and ninety's worth of missteps.

Travolta and MacDowell do their best, frequently rising above Nora Ephron's numbingly banal script. But the film moves like a snail. And even within its fantasy context, the characters behave implausibly on a regular basis. (Reporters who routinely let the story of a lifetime \u0096 an apparent angel living on Earth \u0096 out of their sight?)

Someone forgot to tell romantic comedy maestro Ephron that William Hurt, brilliant in so many other films, is no Tom Hanks. The movie's \"climax\" redefines the word contrived. Ephron may be shooting for Heaven here, but unfortunately \"Michael\" is a long, long ride through cinema heck.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An insult to both poker and cinema, this movie manages to make the most dynamic, brilliant, and fascinating figure in poker history into an utter bore. Still a fun film to make jokes about, from the lame gangster movie clich\u00e9s of the first half to the incomprehensible nonsense of that second hour. Hilariously, Stu Ungar wins all three of his World Series titles without playing a single hand on screen. His infamous dealer abuse? 1 scene. His coke habit? 1 scene. His incredible memory? 0 scenes. They couldn't even get any real poker players. What did they cover? A lot of high angle shots from inside a house in the suburbs. Oh, and a montage of Stu waking up every day and shopping for meat which doesn't come anywhere close to making sense. Why do I care so much about this little Sopranos summer camp trying to cash in on the poker craze? Because I think there's still a great film to be made about Stu Ungar waiting for someone willing to do it right.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, the movie was no terrible, but whomever created the screen play did not do a good job of even creating the essence of unger. This movie was slightly below average and did not tell the story correctly on one of the most interesting persons ever born. I suggest reading the book \"one of a Kind\" the real unger story. They left out huge parts of his life. They also at times did not understand the real caractor that he was. The actual facts of his life were at times out of order. And in the end they really did not portray the actual personality that he did have. So please don't watch the movie; read the book. By the way I'm not just some prick who feels you have to stay 100% to the real story, but they did not even come close!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, i just witnessed one of the greatest poker tragedies and I'm not talking about the premature death of the great stu ungar. This film I'm sorry to say was terrible. Absolutely terrible. A true tragedy in filmaking history. Well maybe I'm being a little harsh but unless you have some interest in the life of stu ungar then don't even consider coming near this one. And those that do have an interest in his life will find that most parts were trivialised and made out to be great novelty scenes. I watched it because of Stu UNgar but nearly wanted to end myself like he did while watching this movie 4 stars for effort but unpleasantly painful","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having just finished reading the book \"One of a Kind\" a week ago, I was thinking \"This would make a great movie, especially now, when people know a little about poker and poker players\". I was totally shocked to find it while browsing at the video store last night. I had no idea someone had actually turned this into a film. I grabbed it immediately and watched with much anticipation. What a major letdown!

All of the intriguing things about Stu Ungar were skimmed over quickly, and instead I was left with a biopic that could have been about anybody. Ungar may have been a burnt-out jerk, but he was also a brilliant thinker that could read people instinctively. That is what made him so fascinating. Why not focus on that?

And talk about watering down the real truth. This guy was excessive about absolutely everything: drugs, women, gambling, starvation, sleep-deprivation. He gambled on sporting events from dusk to dawn, he would go missing for days while hanging out in crack dens, his body was perpetually emaciated, and yet, if he ever needed money, he could always beat just about anyone at will playing cards. Now that's a story!

Too much time spent on his childhood and personal relationships (although his ties with \"Vincent\" and his daughter were hardly touched on) and hardly anything about his drugs use (which was exorbitant), his insane gambling and his incredible card-playing abilities.

Probably too late now, but I hope someone remakes this film properly. I had no problem with Imperioli. He is excellent. The script just left him with nothing interesting to say.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a shameful result of what happens when:

A) It is written, directed and produced by an idiot. and\/or B) It was rushed in production to satiate the poker\/Stu Ungar craze.

The story from beginning is uneven. Vidmer spends too much time on Ungar's childhood and not enough on some of the legendary tales -- such as counting cards, his blackjack escapades, the roll of money as id. He also leaves out mentions of other poker greats such as chip reese, brunson etc. The movie is a complete mess from beginning to end.

If you want a more complete and accurate account, read the book One of a Kind. If you thought the movie was good, read the book and change your mind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie attempted to make Stu Ungar's life interesting by being creative. What they forgot is that his life was plenty entertaining enough on it's own without having to make things up.

A short list of the inaccuracies:

1) Stuey was not sent straight to Las Vegas for a Gin Tournament to pay off old debts, he spent a good deal of time in Florida first, and only went to Las Vegas when he ran out of Gin games on the east coast.

2) Stuey never associated (or played Gin) with a casino executive (like the one played by Pat Morita in the movie.)

3) There was no magical turnaround in the buildup to the 1997 WSOP. In fact Stuey barely made it into the tournament as it was. He snorted Cocaine the week before even.

Either tell the story right, or don't tell it at all. 4 out of 10 stars for Michael Imperolli's credible performance (the only redeeming quality of this movie.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stu Ungar is considered by many to be the greatest poker \/ gin player of all time - an extraordinary self-destructive force of nature - tiny in stature, but a huge heart for the game.

What we have here is a kind of Hallmark film about the dangers of gambling. Sure, he wins, he loses, he blows it all on sex, drugs, and more gambling we get it, but where is the real play - where is what made him the greatest card player of all time.

Much too flat, and frankly boring in places, this gets a four because we get to learn something about Stu the man, but Stu the card player, nada.

Nicely shot and presented up to a point this is the perfect example of how not to make a film about cards: honestly, ESPN's coverage of the World Series is more watchable than this.

A waste of a great chance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How does this movie suck? As a fan of Michael Imperioli's work on The Sopranos I picked this up at Blockbuster based on his name and a story that sounded like it had promise. It still does, but this movie doesn't fulfill it.

Every turn of the story is entirely predictable; I kept looking for the Lifetime bug on the bottom right corner of the screen. It's all there: the noble woman coming out of hard times, the guy failing to live up to his potential despite her best efforts, the kid who gets stuck in the middle, etc., etc., etc. The mysterious stranger's identity is what really made me want to throw stuff at the TV -- I would have been more satisfied with little Stuey waking up and realizing it was all a dream.

The filmmakers may as well have had a \"The moral of the story is...\" bit before the credits, since as another reviewer pointed out this thing really does roll like an afterschool special. Don't gamble, don't drink, don't do drugs, stay with your wife, spend time with your kids...come on, how about a little nuance? How about some interesting bad guys? Writer\/director A.W. Vidmer should be singled out for special notice: not only is the dialogue leaden, the pacing (within dialogue and at either end of many scenes) makes this movie at least 45 minutes longer than it needs to be (and believe me, it feels like longer). The talents of Imperioli, Renee Faia and some of the supporting cast (Steve Schirripa, natch) are the only things that keep this from a \"1\" rating. All of their good work is nearly offset, though, by the atrocious job of portraying the boy Stuey. Not sure if it was a casting mistake (hey -- it's a mob movie, so let's cast someone from Blue's Clues who can't do anything but over-overact with a big fake grin...next let's cast the sullen, brooding kid in the Disney flick) or just awful directing but those scenes are really painful to watch.

I'd be interested in another filmmaker's take on this character and his story; it's a shame Imperioli has already been used up by this flick. Awful, awful, awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is possibly the worst film I have ever seen. What a weak waste of Michael Imperioli's obvious talent. Disgusting film from start to finish. All I can say is, this director is no 'auteur'. You never once get inside the game, the character's head, the amazing talent with numbers the real Stuey had. The coke scene is bad enough to throw your shoe at the set, it might have been a great scene had it been shot for movies and not the stage, with the camera half way across the house hovering over a mirror with drugs on it while the drama is going on far in the background. The scene where he wins the big championship is just laugh out loud ridiculous. This should be screened in Film-making 101 - What Not To Do In Making Pictures.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"20 people rated this a 10! That ballot box was stuffed better than a Christmas turkey! Speaking of turkey's, here's a traditional story hoping to piggy-back on the current poker craze - without success. Told entirely in linear flashback, and when I say \"told\" I mean TALKED TO DEATH, this film never let's a picture suffice when words can be used to exposit.

Stu Unger's childhood fascination with cards and his associations with hoodlums might sound like interesting movie material, but the director manages to suck the life out of them. At no point did I feel the least bit of sympathy for Unger, a genius at cards who threw it all away on other forms of gambling at which he was not so proficient. Of course, this leads, as we wade through THREE musical montages, to the inevitable downward spiral of drugs, loss of family, and finally his redemption (sort of). Big yawn!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie hoping that it would provide some good entertainment and some cool poker knowledge or stories. What I got was a documentary type look at an average guys life who happened to be really good at cards. Do I want to see the romance with his wife? NO Do I want to see about everything that went on in this guy's life except poker? NO. Well thats what you get with this film. The acting is good for such a low budget piece of crap. The film never tries to break the mold or do anything original. It simply sleep walks its way through the script. The ending is disappointing and never really looks deep into Ungar's mind. Instead it focuses on what was already obvious. He was a drugged out card player with an average life not unlike any other average joe in vegas. The movie focuses on the aspects of his life that were UN extraordinary rather than the Extraordinary. The poker scenes in the entire film add up to about 4 minutes of footage. Ungar's achievements of winning the WSOP 3 times seem life after thoughts. A 10 year old could do a better job directing this movie.. or maybe it was the script being a piece of crap from the beginning that doomed this joke of a movie.

If you want to see a film about gambling watch Rounders. It at least has style.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is probably the worst movie I've seen in a long time. Independent or not, solid writing is a must. Ditto for directing and acting. I know these actors can act (I've seen them in Sporanos and more...) but this movie is very bad, very bad. Maybe it's the script, maybe it's the director. Probably a little of both.....Probably a LOT of both! Technically OK, Just bad, bad, bad... I have a theory that the backers for this movie also own the Poker magazines, because I saw a very favorable review in one of the magazines. \" Hey' we made it, so it's gotta be good, right?\" Not so fast Bucky. I know it takes a lot of hard work and money to even get a movie made, much less sold and distributed, and for that I commend these folks. But the final product, leave a bad taste in my mouth.

P.S. I won a free rental and chose this movie from Blockbuster. Tomorrow I'm going to get my money back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What could've been a great film about the late poker pro (pre-poker craze) Stu \"The Kid\" Unger turned into a disappointment.

You can tell the filmmakers were working on a short-string budget. Everything look filmed on the cheap. Timelines seemed a bit off to me.

Casting Michael Imperoli from the Sopranos was also a bad casting choice. He looked too old to play the baby-faced Stu, he looked way too healthy for a coke addict (if you look at footage from the 1997 WSOP main event, the real Stu was so skinny and he practically had no nose from too much cocaine so he wore those sunglasses to hide them), and I kept expecting Adriana to pop up and yell \"Chris-tu-phur!!!\"

Also they skipped over the fact that he had a son from Angie's previous relationship that committed suicide in the late '80s.

Every time I saw Vincent Van Patten appear, I kept thinking he was going to announce \"Show tunes going off in Stu's head.\" like he does on the WPT.

If you're looking for real Stuey footage, check ESPN Classic because they rerun the 1997 WSOP Main Event every so often. Or try YouTube. Avoid this move like a bad beat.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What in the world! This piece of gambling cinema would have been suitable for the Lifetime Network. Michael Imperoli is a good actor but I think his portrayal as \"Stu\" fell short. The montages were unbearable and too many. The supporting cast, where are you? Whoever did the casting should be partially at fault. The cinematography was useless. A gambling story with an after school feel to it. Stories of this sort should be left for the Oliver Stone's of the world. It would still suck ass but at least it would be fun to watch. It was an attempt that lost it's wheels before the race ever begun. Mario Andretti in the 1982 Indy 500 came to mind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all..I've seen better acting and more realistic makeup in porno flicks. How bad was \"Chris Moltisante\" as Stewie Ungar? On The Sopranos, Chris is not taken too seriously and can be considered comic relief. And then throw in \"Bobby Baccala\" as one of his Vegas cronies. It's just too much to take in a dramatic movie. Neither actor can handle a serious role and is better suited as a second banana for Tony,Paulie, or Uncle Junior. And I want to know who did the makeup for this disaster? I want that person to be MY make-up person over the next 25 years so I'll never age a day either. So that's all I'll write on this movie since it's not worth wasting too much more of my time.

Yes I DO know that Michael Imperioli and Steve Schirippa are their REAL names.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe I'm alone here, but this is a crap show. I'm sorry but I was lured in when I found out about Lil' Bill O'Reilly (which I had no idea came from this show until months later, and has honestly since lost its appeal) but I gave the show a fair shot. Spike tries to hard to make himself into something he's not, which is to say, he tries to be human. Fox didn't even bother to hide the strings when they took him out of the box he came in. His sketches try to hard, he himself isn't funny, and the writers are struggling to write material for a no-talent host. There is too much good TV out there to waste your time with this show, and Fox.....Fox we had some good times, but you need to get your f$%*ing act together and come up with something original instead of trying to be just another \"Me-too\" network.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show is like watching someone who is in training to someday host a show. There are some good comedy ideas and tons of mediocre ones. It doesn't look like the writers know the difference between what's funny and what's just weird or gross.

It has its moments. When Spike hosed down a neighbor who had been letting her dog soil his lawn repeatedly, it hit it's peak. But the hilarious moments are too few, and there's too many experimental comedy bits that miss the mark.

The show's better than, say, watching a test pattern or the QVC network, but it needs some better writers.

Reading the glowingly positive IMDb comments on this show, I am convinced that most of them were written by show staffers and by relatives and personal friends of Spike.

It just isn't very good most of the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Did the writers pay people to come up here and write positive reviews? I mean, really, it's a bit hackneyed, and Spike isn't that funny. He seems more like the serious guy trying too hard to be funny. There are so many mediocre gigs in this show; like once, the opening sketch was \"Talk show, apply directly to the forehead,\" over and over. And another that featured Spike and another dude getting high, and it wasn't even funny. They didn't even do anything but sit around and laugh, over and over. Ha Ha! And another that featured Spike talking to a Korean guy who ate duck and told him that he had a pet duck. Ha ha! I mean, really, Spike just gets funny guests on his show, that's why people like this show","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I viewed the first two nights before coming to IMDb looking for some actor info. I saw the 9+ rating which surprised me since I was not that impressed by what I'd seen. (As reference, I happen to believe Lonesome Dove was the best TV western ever. I grew up next to the MGM back lots in Culver City in the 50s and have a certain sense of reverence about the Western genre.)

So I saw the glowing first review and decided to read \"more\". There I found several reviews with 1 or 2 stars that summed up my feelings well about the lack of character development, poor editing, feeling that it was shot on the Universal back lot (MGM's is long gone), and overall impression that it was not going to come close to changing my feelings about LD. My impression is that the overwhelming vote of those who chose to write was \"less than a 4.0\".

This got me to wondering about the process that yields a 9+ rating. If the people giving the 10s and 9s do not take the time to justify their vote, is the ballot box being stuffed by people with a monetary motivation? I have long used IMDb as one tool to screen movies and thought it the best available. Now I am not so sure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not sure this review contains spoilers, but I'm playing it safe by indicating there might be. Regardless, it's unlikely anyone will watch this film who isn't familiar with the book.

There's an old wisecrack about laboring mightily and bringing forth a mouse. \"Comanche Moon\" is such a mouse.

The novel focuses more on the Indians than the Americans. In adapting it for TV, McMurtry and Osanna rightly reasoned that the audience would be more interested in the whites than the reds. Unfortunately, there's little in the novel that we don't already know about Gus, Woodrow, and their friends. So the movie gives us mostly a portentous prehash of what will occur in \"Lonesome Dove\". The Indians -- who have their own story to tell -- are largely relegated to the background -- so much so that someone who hasn't read the novel will rightly wonder why it's titled \"Comanche Moon\".

The novel has no overall story line, or much of a \"point\". This could have been fixed in the movie, by more strongly drawing the contrast between the Indians losing their lands and way of life to the encroaching Americans, who bring \"civilzation\". This opportunity was missed.

Unlike \"Lonesome Dove\", \"Comanche Moon\" has few extended scenes that develop character or relationships -- at least among the Americans. The extended scenes with the Indians have been largely removed or shortened. And for a (net) four-hour film, it is remarkably episodic and choppy. One gets the feeling the script was originally longer, and cut to reduce the production costs.

The screenplay comprises mostly clich\u00e9d dialog, aphorisms, and platitudes. Coming from the author of \"The Last Picture Show\", it's a startlingly bad script. McMurtry and Osanna had the opportunity to fix problems with the story and characterizations, but did not.

Some of the best dialog from the novel is missing or altered, for no obvious reason. For example, Clara (Cassie) shows her intense hatred of Woodrow (Jack) by condemning Gus (Ennis) for always running off to be with his \"pard\". That tart little revelation of Clara's sexual jealously is gone. Then there's the scene where the ur-dense Woodrow warns Maggie not to let Jake Spoon \"compromise\" her. The exchange in the novel is shorter and harsher; the film tones it down, and doesn't portray Woodrow as quite the socially stupid, emotionally frozen stone he is. (When I read that scene in the novel, I wanted to punch Woodrow in the stomach -- or worse.) There are other changes, some of them understandable. Inish Scull's eyelids are not cut off; to do so would like have required expensive CGI. But Buffalo Hump has no hump! (Perhaps it was felt unreasonable to ask Wes Studi to schlep around such a huge prosthesis.) And Buffalo Hump's character is \"kindler and gentler\". He is nowhere nearly as grotesquely violent as he was in the novels.

The only good thing about this near-turkey is Steve Zahn's remarkable performance -- not so much as Gus McCrae, but as Robert Duvall playing Gus McCrae. It is uncanny. He perfectly duplicates Duvall's mannerisms and manner of speech, without ever appearing \"deliberate\" or self-conscious. As was Duvall, he is wholly \"within\" the character. And he actually shows us Gus becoming \"more Gus\" in the third part.

The best thing about \"Comanche Moon\" is that it won't spoil our affection for \"Lonesome Dove\", not just a great Western, but a great American film.

PS: For those who think Rachel Griffiths was over the top -- that's the way she was in the book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must have missed a part of this movie... I found myself asking who is this? And, when did that happen? It seemed to jump around but I kept watching for fear I was missing something and it would all be explained to me. I loved Lonesome Dove but this movie made no sense to me at all. I did love all the actors but what happened to the rest of the movie? It made me go \"what\"? at the beginning of each part..As far as the scenery - I thought it was fine..It made me feel though like I was leafing through a book and leaving pages out.. The ending had me a little confused too although I imagine the boy was waiting for his father and was meant to leave you wondering if his father would finally come home to his son and be a father since his mother was now gone..I would like to read the book just to see what I missed in the movie..I don't expect this one to win any awards.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Agustus and Call really did Nothing? Why are they Hero's they did nothing other then get to places after the bad guys where dead. What was the point of this show? I was very very Disappointed. I expected more action, more story, and to see the birth of Heros and Great Deeds. Instead I saw very little, it seemed like Agustus and Call where just side story's for the great Indian Chief.

I'm not even sure that the history is even very close. They did very little to show why the Texans and Comanche fought against each other.

The only good part about this movie was Zhan who played Gus very very well and is a great actor. A lot of good story that could have been gone to waste. It was sad and I wish that I had not watched it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will give it a second chance but was very disappointed in the first one. It wouldn't hold a candle to the other series. It has a lot of meaningless dialog that doesn't add to the storyline at all. I agree with the others that it doesn't seem to develop a story that is interesting. It is slow and plodding and I only know what the Comanches are planning to do. Maybe it will all tie together in the second installment but I am going to have to force myself to watch it and find out. I am of apache heritage from the Texas\/New Mexico area but I don't recognize much of what is happening. Maybe I am just ignorant of the facts but this isn't doing much to educate me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the photography is good, the costumes are good, but the editing is bad. The various scenes are cut, or stopped at the wrong times, and the conversations are s-l-o-w and tedious. This slowness continues the entire show. It is a very tedious show to watch. . . . I believe that more scenes SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED, but that would make it a longer show. It is very slow-moving. The writers should have made it JUST a 1-night show, and not prolong our agony night after night. There is nothing else on, otherwise I'd change the channel (the first night). I feel bad for the Indians of the time, and am angry at the white-men for what they did to the Indians, but thats our history.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just watched Lonesome Dove, Return To Lonesome Dove, Streets Of Laredo and Dead Man's Walk. All excellent. This sorry hunk of junk is cheaply done and poorly acted.

In the previous series, Captain Call and Gus McCrae come off as tough respectable cowboys. Despite the fact that Caption Call is played by a different actor every time each one quickly won me over. In Dead Man's Walk the boys are believable as the younger versions of the experienced Texas rangers. In Comanche Moon they are just a couple of chubby rednecks. I had to stop watching.

I suspect many of the glowing reviews for this show were written by the people who made this stinking pile. It's a sorry end to an otherwise great franchise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Please do not waste six hours of your life watching this as I did. The fact that I did is not a very good reflection on me. The only redeeming acting job in this clunker was by Wes Studi. How a 'prequel' with similar roots can not even be in the same universe as Lonesome Dove is beyond me!! It was a disjointed, rambling, incoherent story. Plot lines were not developed, action scenes were almost laughable and the big ending (disappointment) was a fitting ending to this mini-series. Val Kilmer who I have thought as a reputable actor played one of the strangest roles that I have ever seen him in. His final scene in the show had to have been a filler by the director. I have been reading these reviews for years and this show prompted me to sign up!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, so I forgot to watch and only caught the last episode, thinking it was the first or second. Honestly, I thought CM would have at least one more installment to resolve plot points. The Rangers are left stranded on the plains (\"We'll have to eat the horses\"), for one thing. Little Newt is bereft, for another. What a downer ending! But my biggest complaint, esp. if this was the finale, is that the episode had no suspense, no big climax, no dramatic confrontations. Even the last fight between Blue Duck and Buffalo Hump was badly staged. The whole episode had terrible pacing, which is what drives a Western. Steve Zahn was watchable, Karl Urban (a ringer for Johnny Knoxville) played Call like a man with a terminal case of lockjaw. All glowering looks and jingling spurs and jutting chin. And what's with the Rangers? They talked big, about cleaning up Texas, then milled around aimlessly in the middle of town, getting drunk. And how nice of Hal Holbrook to loan Val Kilmer his Mark Twain wig and stache! The set of Austin was like the fake Rock Ridge from Blazing Saddles, all facade. I admit I was drawn into the plot, but that's mainly cause there were many things I didn't quite get, thanks to coming in late in story. If I'd watched from the beginning, I might not have gotten to episode three. Now I have to go watch Silverado to cleanse my palette.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having grown up on westerns and considering the present dearth of westerns on TV and at the theater, I was really looking forward to Commanche moon.

After watching two nights, and not another, it appears to be have been shot on a tight budget. Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones level stars are conspicuously absent. There is Val Kilmer, but what the heck is going on with him? Four or five buildings on either side of the street plus the Scull mansion make up the entire town of Austin. The capitol is never seen, only the inside of the governor's office.

The dialog is often times hokey, meaningless rambling. The plot line disjointed. Altogether, completely forgettable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a poor caricature of \"Lonesome Dove\" - and Larry McMurtry.

I love your books, with \"Lonesome Dove\" among the top three. I have admired the way you view yourself, through your characters, with such unflinching honesty, balanced by never taking it all too seriously. I am, therefore, spoiled.

Why have you come to this?

\"Comanche Moon\" is not up to your standards. I see that you are credited with the screen-writing, but this is so unlike you, I prefer to think it is written by someone else.

The dialogue makes me claustrophobic, wishing someone would break out with a naturally stated sentence. The part about 'genius' was agonizing. McCrae was unrecognizable - chiefly because of the inane words coming out of his mouth.

Well, I miss Call, too.

The most important missing factors are Gus and Call and the men they are: their matter-of-fact courage; the underlying vein comprised of ethics and honesty; their lack of self delusion. Hard men leading hard lives with a certain undeniable grace.

Some blame has to attach to the labored direction here and throughout. All of the cast needed dialect AND dialogue coaching.

While I try to imagine Robert Duvall as McCrae, speaking this same dialogue, it comes off better - but not much. It tries to sound cowboy-of-few-words shy, sly-grin witty, but doesn't half succeed...

How can it be so different from \"Lonesome Dove\"? Can the writer have forgotten his characters? You have fooled some of the people, Mr. McMurtry - but not this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I, like many folks, believe the 1989 epic Lonesome Dove was one of the best westerns ever produced, maybe THE best. And, realizing that most sequels (in this case a prequel) are certain to disappoint, my expectations were low. Comanche Moon met that expectation with its marginal directing and acting, poor casting and frankly, a lousy script.

Lonesome Dove created western heroes of Captains McCrae and Call due to incredibly strong performances by Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones. Prior to living in Lonesome Dove, we believed they bravely fought to rid Texas of bandits and savage Indians during their rangering years.

If I had only seen Comanche Moon, I would think these two boneheads were a couple of incompetent, cowardly idiots. In Lonesome Dove, Call and McCrae supposedly chased Blue Duck all over Texas and never managed to capture or kill him. In Comanche Moon, a shot to Call's boot heel convinced him to settle down and raise cattle. There wasn't a decent fistfight or gun fight in the entire miniseries. The best punch was McCrea sucker punching Inez Scull, a funny scene but out of character for McCrae.

Where was McCrae's wit and charm? Clara's love for McCrae, a drunken, unshaven slob and philanderer was completely implausible. And Maggie's love for Call, a dispassionate and sullen loner, defies logic.

The cinematography was excellent, superior to the original. Credit goes not only to HD technology, but the cinematographer. The Comanche Moon miniseries was better than anything else on TV for three nights, but sadly that's not saying much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am seldom motivated to write a review unless inspired by the quality of the movie. In the case of Comanche Moon I was so uninspired I felt the need to warn others how bad this TV mini series is. Here are a few thoughts.

The Indians: They came across like they were in a Saturday Night Live Skit, making fun of how Indians talk. When McMurtry writes dialogue in his novels it reads so interesting; I am not sure how they ended up with what they got.

Gus McCrae: Looks like Festus from the old Gunsmoke Series. Acting is OK and the mannerisms from Robert Duvall's McCrae are right on, but the look is pure comedy cowboy.

Clara: Maybe you could use a little dirt or sweat on her next time. Ever been in Austin in the summer before Air conditioning? I promise you women did not look like that. Do you think they never saw any episodes of Dearwood?

Gov. Elisha Pease: Again whenever they are in the Governor's office it feels like a Saturday Night Live Skit, and the skit is bombing.

Woodrow Call: Call is the most reasonable character, of course He talks so little how can you screw up that? But hey, what about that hat?

Blue Duck: See above and include the fact that he isn't even a tiny bit scary. They should have gotten Javier Bardem to play the part.

The Rangers: Right out of \"O Brother, Where Art Thou\" I expected George Cloony to come riding up and them to break into a song.

Perhaps I am premature because the miniseries isn't completed but I doubt I will watch any more of it any way.

I would not expect anyone to be able to duplicate the enthralling feel of Lonesome Dove, but I watch this and it seems like they have no feel for the old west at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Was really looking forward to seeing a continuation of Lonesome Dove but this was total garbage. Cinematography was terrible. Shot way too tight. Was almost viewing the Grand Canyon through a stationary telescope. Editing was cut, cut, cut. Not even smooth. More like a bad student editor. Don't know if McMurtry did the screen play but the dialog was terrible. Really like Val Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holiday in Wyatt Earp but what in heck was he doing with this character in Comanche Moon??? I have no idea. Even looked like it was shot on a sound stage using the old Bonanza sets. How can the director of the original Lonesome Dove gone so wrong with this? Where was his head.............. Can't say much for the acting either. It's a shame to have messed up such a beautiful western that could have been but more like they rushed this one just to get it in the can. Have read other reviews and see that others felt the same way. Not even curious to watch the next few nights cause it would be just a waste of time like the first night was.

(2nd post)..................OK, since nothing else was on TV I must be honest and admit that I watched the last 2 nights of Comanche Moon. And I will be honest to tell you that I didn't make it to the end of either of the last 2 episodes because I fell asleep! I can only admit that I was watching the two main characters very closely and I could pick out some mannerisms that Steve Zahn did while portraying the character that Duval did such an excellent job with. So I must give Zahn credit for that. As for Karl Urban's portrayal....simple dead meat. Can only say again that I was very disappointed only because I cared so much for the original LD and like others .......have defended my feelings for a truly great western.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow...as a big fan of Larry McMurtry western tales and the Lonesome Dove series in particular, I was s-o-o-o looking forward to Comanche Moon. What a tremendous letdown. Maybe my expectations were set too high because of the all around excellence of Lonesome Dove...the story, the characters, the cinematography, the music...it all worked.

Comanche Moon by comparison comes across like a bad Saturday Night Live skit. The characters are completely colorless, the dialogue is babble and the plot meanders mindlessly all over the place. It seems like the actors are all reading from TelePrompTers. I couldn't relate to any of the characters, good guys, bad guys, not even the incidental characters. David Midthunder's performance stands out in particular. It looks like it was plucked out of an eighth grade middle school performance. I'm sorry, I'd like to find something positive to say about Comanche Moon, but I just can't do it. There's nothing there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lonesome Dove is my favorite western second only to The Searchers with John Wayne. I watch Lonesome Dove about every 6 months and never get tired of it. I have read all the LD books, although I cannot remember much of Comanche Moon. I too looked forward to this mini-series and decided to tape it on our DVR so we could fast forward through commercials. Unfortunately, I messed up and didn't record the first part, but decided to watch the other parts and try to pick up.

There is nobody that can ever compete with Robert Duvall or Tommy Lee Jones, and I was expecting to be disappointed and I was.

Although there were so many things that didn't ring true, the most apparent to me was when Nellie died the day before and Gus was out on the range, it switched over to Clara writing him a letter from Nebraska telling him how sorry she was to hear of her death. How in the world could she have known the next day way out in Nebraska? Additionally, it was supposed to be 7 years later after her leaving and her children looked to be about 6-7 years old, maybe a little younger, yet more time went on before they actually moved to Lonesome Dove, and in Lonesome Dove they had been there about 10 years or longer before leaving to Montana. When they stopped at Clara's in Nebraska, which probably took another 6 months on the trail, the girls looked to be about 10-13, since they were playing in the yard like little children. The math just does not add up.

I agree that the man who played Gus had a lot of his mannerisms and looked a little like Gus may have looked as a young man.

I am also a little confused about one thing. The captive white girl that they brought back - was she the one they captured when they raided Austin? They said she had been captured 25 years ago, but if she was the one captured in Austin, it was only 7 years later when this took place in the movie. Was she captured earlier? I remember seeing a captive girl after they raided the town and don't know if this is the same one. If someone can explain since I missed Part 1. If it had been 25 years, she would probably be over 40 years old when they found her since she looked to be grown lying on the ground. Also, the way they were ravaging her when they captured her, it is hard to believe she would have lived to go on to be married and having Indian children.

I have to admit though, nothing is worse than John Voight playing Call in the sequel to Lonesome Dove or the unbelievable marriage of Lorena to Pea Eye in the McMurty sequel to Lonesome Dove, which was never explained either. Also, the way he killed Newt off was I hear from spite for them doing the sequel with John Voight without his approval.

If anyone can clear up these discrepancies, I would appreciate.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched all three segments and am so disappointed in the story line. Zahn spends so much time mimicking Duvall he does nothing else in the show. And Tommy Lee Jones would never be so weak as a young man, unlikeable yes but weak never. We never see how or why they go to back to Lonesome Dove...which is a dirt hole in the original...why would they ever leave Austin where they are hero's...for doing nothing during the whole movie...I was rooting for Blue Duck by the end of the movie and he was totally miscast. There is no warning about how many segments there are...it just ends. This mini-series could have been \"somebody\"...tragic. It looked like it was directed by the Parrot and the Jag","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It would be a shame if Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duval ever see this movie as they will probably be associated with it in years to come. \"Oh yeah\", the public will say, \"'Comanche Moon', that's the mini series about the Texas Rangers and the Comanche Indians that starred Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duval. It was a real stinker and probably the worst movie they were ever in. I think it was a comedy but a not very funny comedy. I really don't understand why they agreed to be in it\". That would be such an injustice as the original \"Lonesome Dove\" was a true western classic and this turkey is a real bomb and Jones and Duval will be remembered for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Parrots? PARROTS? I have been around this old earth longer than most and have seen nearly all the westerns that have have produced. Old West history is my passion. Comanche Moon is one of the most poorly produced, directed and acted stories I have ever seen. There was very little historical accuracy but then, it is obvious you were operating on a shoestring budget which

played a distinct roll in this insult to intelligence. I am happy that I TIVO'd this show. It was bad enough having to sit and watch the movie plus put up with the inane commercials. Once again, there was not one actor that came anywhere near convincing. I kept hoping it would improve as the three days progressed. WRONG! I'm ashamed to say I wasted 4 1\/2 hours of what precious little time I have left.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Jaws rip off is the trashiest of the all the Italian 'genres', and director Joe D'Amato is second only to the great Jess Franco in the trash film production stakes. Put the two together and what do you get? A gigantic piece of trash, of course. Unfortunately it's not trash in the good sense of the word either, as Deep Blood delivers more in boredom than it does in hilarity. To the film's credit, it does actually attempt something bordering on a plot; but to take said credit away from the film - the plot is rubbish. It has something to do with a group of friends taking of an oath (of friendship) and then some Indian curse that manifests itself into a shark. Or at least I think that's what was going on. Anyway, the majority of the film is padded out with boring dialogue and 'drama', and the shark itself - which lets not forget, is the only thing we really want to see - finds itself in merely a cameo role. Or not even that since most the shark is actually stock footage! Despite being a trash genre, there are actually a lot of fun Jaws rip-offs; but with this one, Joe D'Amato makes it clear that he couldn't be bothered to even try, and the result is what must be the worst Italian shark movie of all time. Avoid this dross.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is crappy beyond any limits. It's incredible - a very bad ripoff from Jaws and other (better) shark movies. A really bad one - everything is really pathetic. The story is purest crap, actors are bad, effects very cheap, no creativity whatsoever. It looks like some really debilitated children took Jaws script and arranged it randomly, then its parents took their 8 mm camera and shot the movie with their neighbors. The music is really inappropriate, just some \"elevator\" music, bland and overly optimistic when nothing happens, then slightly less optimistic when shark is around or when children gets depressed (again listens to VERY LOUD elevator music). Carlo Maria (the author) should be so ashamed he should ask for his name to be erased from the titles!! The movie acts as perfect demonstration how crappy music will destroy ***ANY*** scene which is supposed to be thrilling. There is one major difference to Jaws though: In the beginning of Jaws there are comments about stupid people who try to kill shark with dynamite. Well, there is an attempt to kill a shark with dynamite. When this does not work, guys take an ***BIG LOAD*** of dynamite and spent like 1\/4 of movie by placing explosives in some sunken ship. This IS really original way to catch the fish I have to admit! They use so much dynamite like they would try to kill a battleship (I would guess Bismarck class of battleship) or to dig another Panama channel. This is just incredible. I'm glad they did not try to use napalm-flamethrower or tactical nuclear strike to eliminate this bad, bad approximately 2 m shark. Well, there is mystic disappearing native Indian (who looks like German pensioner) too in this mess. This is not a movie, this is a warning example how bad the movies may be! As a warning it is useful. But the public should be protected from this crap. Most of Italian movies is bad, but this... this is really exceptional in the worst sense of the word.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst italian movie ever, quite possibly the worst movie of all time! Joe D'Amato is of course no cinematic genius but many of his movies are interesting and watchable. Unfortunatly this is not one of them. Its cheesy and boring....waaaaay boring. If you want a movie to MST3k, get Troll 2, if you want a movie to put someone into a coma, get deep blood!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Zzzzzzzzzzzz. This one came directly from the \"Jaws\" cookie-cutter mold, with some other bizarre cliches thrown in for good measure. I was interested in seeing this after finding a still from it in a book about Italian horror films, and wow...I guess I got what I deserved!

Very slow-moving and talky, much of this killer shark movie takes place on land, which isn't really that surprising. It seems like the only method they had of showing a shark is through shots of a shark in an aquarium. The shark is never in the same frame as any of the actors, and that's too bad...most of the characters are so annoying that you actually wish they would get eaten.

The \"plot\" concerns a group of four kids who meet up with a mysterious Indian on the beach one day while roasting weenies. The Indian, for some reason, gives them an ancient artifact that will allow them to track an ancient evil that assumed the form of a monster shark to attack their tribe...supposedly because they were too good at fishing the ocean and the ocean god was worried they would take all the fish. Or something like that.

It's a good thing too, because wouldn't ya know it...years later, a monster shark appears and starts gobbling up people in the sleepy seaside community. When one of the four guys are eaten by the shark, the remaining three are determined to kill the thing...especially since (big shocker here) the authorities have killed a shark and they think the threat is over. Yawn.

The obligatory death scenes are unbelievably tedious, and you can see them coming a mile away (my favorite was the girl who has a fight with her boyfriend while they're sitting in a van, then jumps out and says \"I'm going for a swim,\" immediately to be gobbled up by the waiting shark). They had a lot of nerve calling this film \"Deep Blood\" since you hardly see any, just cloudy water. The actors handle their cliched roles like they're all thumbs, and there is even a hilarious subplot involving a greasy rocker-type bad boy who threatens our goody-goody heroes, then turns good in the end to help kill the shark.

It took me a really long time to find this film, it is rather obscure, so I don't think there's any danger of too many people wasting their time on this. However, if you should be lured into it...don't say you weren't warned!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like to think of myself as a bad movie connoisseur. I like to think that the films most people label as the worst of all time I can easily withstand.

But...there are exceptions. I can only recall three movies I have had the misfortune to see that I have repeatedly used the fast-forward button for large chunks of the story. Those movies are The Mighty Gorga, Night of the Seagulls, and this little crap, Deep Blood.

In the world of Jaws ripoffs, this falls off the scale. Deep Blood doesn't have the realistic storyline of the original Crocodile, nor the incredible effects of The Sea Serpent, nor the commentary of Tintorera. No, instead we are treated to a handful of teens from any random failed '80s public access sitcom battling bullies and the local sheriff.

Shark attacks are realized by quick cuts of documentary footage with actors thrashing about in the water, occasionally with a bit of what appears to be orange-ish paint thrown into the water. Not a minute of original shark footage exists in this celluloid waste dump.

Normally, I, or somebody like me, would read a dismal review like this one and say \"cool, I gotta find a copy of this!\" That's the same thought I had when I read another viewer's review on this very site. How wrong I was.

So...from one bad movie fan to another...let this collect dust on the shelf...grab Up From the Depths or The Great Alligator instead to satisfy your need for something evil lurking in the water.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's amazing that such a cliche-ridden yuppie angst film actually got made in the first place. The characters are so weak, and the acting so uninspired, that it's impossible to care about any of them-- especially Brooke Shields. The temptation to fast forward through the slow parts is almost irresistible. If you like this genre, you'd be better off renting \"Singles,\" or \"Bodies, Rest & Motion.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Brooke Shields -- in a departure from her \"Suddenly Susan\" duties -- plays a bitter divorcee who embroils three girlfriends in a \"girls only\" weekend in Palm Springs. The problem: Brooke is \"unattached\" and on the prowl, while her friends are all involved. Hence the title implications and emotional backlash their \"amoral\" weekend causes.

Despite a few laughs generated by Dan Cortese (\"Victoria's Closet\") and MTV \"relationship authorities\" Adam Corolla and Dr. Drew Pinsky, this is somber stuff for women only. D.B. Sweeney, Virginia Madsen and Jon Polito co-star.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was pleasantly surprised with this one. It's actually quite interesting and engaging. The cast is strong, even Dan Cortese. Brooke Shields has come into her own as an actress. Black and White must have really set her free, 'cause I have never seen her in this much command playing a conventional character. If marketed right, could be a medium-size hit.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved this movie 10 years ago when I was about 16 years old. My biggest mistake was to watch it again, 10 years later. It's not the worst \"I-wanna-be-a-pilot\" movies ever, but it has so many flaws in it that you can hardly overlook them.

Queen's \"One Vision\" (along with the rest of the soundtrack) makes this film better than the average patriotic nonsense you usually get to see ;)

[****------]","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wrote spoiler alert, but there's not really much that can be spoiled. It's like spoiling rotten meat. This movie is probably the worst I've ever seen. Not because of the actors or the special effects, but because of the sheer number of mistakes, both factual and physical. First of all, the MIGs aren't actually MIGs at all. They're Mirages, and they're French. And how the heck can Doug's dad withstand the maneuvers his son makes to fight off the \"MIGs\" without a g-suit? And why would Chappy try to board his plane without a g-suit? And how could Doug defeat the enemy pilot ace with such ease? Anyway, I did not like this movie. And the worst part is that it has 3 sequels, the latest one from as late as 1995. Now that's scary.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"as a retired USAF MSG (aircraft maint. spec), this has got to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen. the fact that a teenager could ever get on the flight-line, much less get into an f-16 is ludicrous. the military spends millions on each pilot to make them the best in the world and this movie makes the air force and all its members seem stupid at best. yes, i know it is only a movie but it conveys a message to the younger folks that we are all idiots, and believe me, we are not. the logistics involved in setting up any type of mission are highly involved, even in the eighties, military computers were too secure to hack by any teenager, and the other flaws in this movie make peter pan more believable. sorry, to me, this movie has no entertainment value at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard to believe that a movie this bad wasn't produced once, but four times! Most movies require a certain `suspension of reality' to enjoy, but this one takes it just too far. The basic scenario is an Air Force pilot who is shot down over a `Middle Eastern' country. The US government drags its feet in recovering him, leading the Pilot's son (Doug Masters) to attempt a rescue mission.

The problem I have with the movie is that it depicts the US Air Force as one colossal joke. In the movie you'll find that Doug and his friends on the air base manage to secure two F-16's, all the munitions, the fuel, the Intel for the mission, and so on. Security on this base seems to be a joke. Nobody seems to have a problem that a sixteen-year-old kid is fully qualified to pilot an F-16!

If that wasn't enough, you would think the producers would at least attempt to get the munitions right, since people like to see things `blow up'. Not so! Several times in the movie, Doug fires off AIM-9 Missiles on ground targets. AIM stands for `Air Intercept Missile', meaning a weapon used to strike targets in the AIR. He also fires off 15-20 missiles, where the maximum an F-16 can hold is 6 AIM-9's. The movie also lacks continuity. You'll see the aircraft configured with one set of munitions, and in the next scene, it has a totally different munitions package. Also, 20MM doesn't just completely destroy anything it touches! An F-16 will hold 500 rounds of 20MM, and it's mostly used for self-defense.

I could go on forever with plot holes, flaws, and outright wrong information from the movie, but I won't bore you. If you're in the mood to see a good Air Force movie, your choices are rather slim. Most military movies deal either with the Army, Navy or Marines. Until Hollywood can come up with an Air Force movie on the lines of `Saving Private Ryan' or `A Few Good Men', we'll be forced to watch movies like the `Iron Eagle' series.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is the proverbial 80s flick that shows the viewer that as long as he or she tries at something, they can be better than the pros. The main character, Doug, showed off his skills in flying a Cessna aircraft, which somehow equated to being fully capable of flying a jet aircraft and being able to kill people. We all would like to have a few million dollars to play with... maybe make a good investment, donate, buy a few things, but the directors of this movie decided to make Iron Eagle... not once... not twice... not even three times; yes, four times. The thing to look most forward to are the multitude 'hollywood endings' in this movie. Just when you think the movie is going to end after a cheesy end sequence, there's another cheesy end sequence. Then another. Definitely a movie one must watch to believe... and maybe own just to remind oneself of how awesome the 80s must have been.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have rarely laughed so hard at a movie. Notice that I laughed AT Iron Eagle, not WITH it, because this is probably the stupidest film I have ever seen (with the obvious exception of sci-fi monstrosity CyberTracker). You should also remember that this film is not a comedy!

Even overlooking the preposterous plot (the idea that a 16-year-old could walk into a US Air Force base, steal an F-16, fly to the Middle East and kill about a thousand people without anyone noticing is beyond belief), the film is full of ridiculous action scenes that make little or no sense. For example, at various points, Doug Masters uses a machine-gun on his plane to shoot a steel girder, a control tower, and a tent. All of these things explode in a massive fireball. Why? The enemy aircraft also explode in a strange way reminiscent of a paper aeroplane being blown up with a firework.

On the plus side, I did actually enjoy this film. Admittedly not in the way the makers probably wanted it to be enjoyed, but all the same I laughed at it and later bought the DVD. It's also improved by the awesome presence of David Suchet as the evil terrorist leader (maybe you'll recall him as mustachioed Belgian detective Poirot?) Overall, then, the film is a laugh and a light-hearted alternative to more serious fighter-plane movies like Top Gun. Even if it is just as subtly homo-erotic (check out the man-hug between Doug and Chappy. Something's going on between 'em!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't bother to check for logic. There is none. But on the other hand, there are MANY really great movies that totally lack logic, so why bother?

I both like and dislike this film. I like it because the action sequences in the air are really great, you get to see a lot of dogfighting. I also like the F-16, which is a very cool plane.

But there are just too many goofs to make me really enjoy it. I guess it's not fair to wish for SOME sort of continuity, as it is hard to make a really good fighter film - but I also think there should be some sense of reason.

And I have a question: do they fly from California to the Middle East in F-16s without air refueling? I'd like to see that happening.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I Liked this move when I was a kid, but now that I'm older I can see how absurd the plot really is. In case you didn't read the earlier reviews it's about a teenager and an Air Force Colonel who steal two fully loaded F-16s to rescue said teenager's dad.

It does have some nice aerial stunts, even if the dialog accompanying then is basically teckno babel.

Some unintentional humor in the edited for TV version. When the hero's dad is being held by Iran, err I mean an unnamed country, and his captors ask him for a confession (relating to why he's being held, don't worry about exactly why, or what they want him to confuse to.) he says \"Tell him he can take my confession and shove it down his throat.\". However his lips and, more importunely, his gesture make it clear what motion, and part of the anatomy, he was really thinking of.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A teen-age boy, who is not in the military and has not trained to be a jet pilot, takes off for a foreign country to rescue his dad. If this is not ridiculous enough, he talks a Colonel in the Air Force into helping him get his hands on a jet [wow!]. To make the picture even more absurd, the Colonel risks his career and life by giving the spunky lad some hands on aid. They not only don't make Colonels like this anymore, but they never did. This sappy, corny film should be tossed into the air and blown away by a MIG.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember watching this for the first time in the 80's as a teen. Man, I've read the reviews on this trash and I find myself astonished by the voting. This movie does not deserve four stars!!! This movie is NOT better than Topgun. Topgun has its own problems; don't get me wrong. This movie should be banned just for its own stupidity. So many stereotypes, so many loop holes, so MUCH poor dialog. I cannot think of one redeeming quality of this vomit. This is not action\/adventure. This is a bad joke on film. Kinda like watching Plan 9 with stock F-16 footage. This movie not only defies logic and common sense within the context of a military setting, it sends a disturbing message. The military is not going to save your dad from the imminent evil of the middle east b*****ds. So go out there and hijack a multi-million dollar weapon and blast him out of the sinister clutches of the backwards, Anti-American Arabs. Cuz you can't reason with those animals. This is a Bruckheimer flick without a budget. Bland direction, weak acting, lame music, idiotic plot, equals...Iron Eagle.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...But it definitely still only deserves 4\/10 stars and no more. A moronic dumb kid's father is a fighter pilot who gets shot down by some Arab country. They never name the country in the movie, its really ridiculous, they just vaguely refer to some Arab nation, this movie is really ignorant like that. But Lamar from Revenge of the Nerds is in here, he is friends with the main character Doug Masters. Well, Doug Masters, who lives on an Air Force base, his father is an air force pilot, yet he fails to get into the air force academy, conceives of a plot (with help from his retarded friends) to steal two jets and go rescue his father. Yea, exactly - this is One of the Greatest Films Ever Made!!! Louis Gossett Jr is fantastic in his role. You can tell he basically wanted to smack the hell out of Doug Masters the whole movie. Well anyway, you can probably guess how the plot ends, I can't believe they made 3 sequels to this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Without actually giving away my age, I saw this for the first time over 20 years ago when it first came out on video (maybe it was a beta tape??) and I was old enough to drink (barely) and perhaps I had had a few because I remember thinking how great this movie was! I have since seen it sober and have to admit it is a pretty bad film. As mentioned in other posts the plot is absolutely ridiculous and the poor acting just makes it worse. It's a poor attempt to fantasize that teenagers too, can be \"Mavericks\" (although I am surprised to find out it actually was to be released the same time (aprox) as \"Top Gun\", and not actually meant to be a poor imitation.) But for all it's worth - I do find myself watching it if it's on and I have the time. It's one of those movies you watch because it's just so ridiculous and tries so desperately to take itself seriously. Like that other \"great' film - \"Moment by Moment\" with John Travolta and Lily Tomlin....don't get me started on that one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

I still can't belive Louis Gossett Jr. agreed to appear in this film. Everything about this move feels artificial, forced, and contrived. The air sequences are flat. The enemy characters seem like puppets. This is just a poor excuse of a movie. At least Top Gun had air sequences that looked good (the external shots anyway). The songs by Queen are cool, though. Rent Midway instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, the very idea is ludicrous.

1. Kids don't own planes 2. Kids don't race planes with dirtbikes 3. It made the Air Force look like total idiots 4. The kids father would not jeopardize his entire career to allow his boy to joyride with him 5. Neither would a reserve colonel

The sequels, I am sure were worse than this tripe. The soundtrack is about the only redeeming quality of this waste of celluloid. I am sorry but I just don't understand why in the world anyone would write direct and produce such unbelevable junk. The Iranian Air Force is lucky to filtch a couple parts for an ageing F-14, and this kid wrangles not 1 but 2 fully loaded and fueled F-16s? Gimme a break.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jean-Hugh Anglade is excellent as the teenaged boy who wants to be a whore to please the man he loves, but the rest of this film is so bad--acting, writing, cinematography, and everything else--that Anglade's performance is wasted. Sad to see so fine an actor in such a garbage flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"According to the blurb on the back of the DVD case; Jonothan Ross 'laughed until a little bit of wee came out'. I suspect that that has more to do with his being full of it.

I never watched the series for one reason or another, so maybe I'm missing some essential cues. As to this movie; I watched the first 45 minutes or so. I laughed once, smiled once, then reached for the newspaper whilst waiting for something else entertaining to happen. Nothing did.

Evidently intended to be a surreal spoof upon life in the post-Python, gross-humour style, this one falls absolutely flat. There's been a host of comedy series on television in the last few years, not the least of which were 'Bottom', 'The Fast Show' 'The Vicar Of Dibley' and 'Father Ted', each one engaging a group of bizarre but hilarious characters and sketches. Any one of these could knock this crap into a cocked hat.

If the series was anything like this movie; I'm surprised they got the funding. Happily it was one of those \u00a32 Tesco bran-tub purchases and is now in the local charity shop.

The moral of the story is; don't believe the pundits, never pay top dollar.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was okay, but like most TV series it would of been better if it just made for television. The best and most loved characters only had five minute roles, whilst the three mediocre characters were all the way through the film.

Unlike most British movies that are based on television series, this film does kick off and it seems to be on to a winner, but the pace suddenly stops when the three mediocre characters are in the real world waiting to capture the three comedians.

The film then doesn't go anywhere when Hillary in a room with the captured Steve, Lipp masquerading as Steve, and Geoff somehow writing himself in to the Medieval times. Which made me think 'hang on? How come he doesn't need a key to enter in to that world unlike the Royston Vasey characters? The medieval scene was okay but Monty Python did it a lot better and of course funnier, with cameos from Peter Kay and Simon Pegg, both didn't say anything funny, Kay had a line and Pegg just sat up on wall looking bored.

What also grated me was that they seem to forget what happened in the previous episodes such as Hillary escaped to the Caribbean in the television in series 2, but in the film he's escaped from prison, and also Lipp is a paedophile vampire which wasn't mentioned at all in the movie, which was also quite disturbing when he's left alone looking after the children.

There were lots of plot holes and unexplained situations such as how did Geoff and the Dark One escape from the Medieval times back in to Royston Vasey? Like Series 3 it started of good but as the film progressed, it slowly went downhill and had a very weak predictable ending.

They would of been better off doing what Monty Python did and remade all their best and classic sketches from Series 1-3 and the Christmas special, and turned that in to a film which would of re-introduced the characters to a whole new audience, who can't be asked to watch the series or to tight to buy the DVDs.

Best advice is save your money and wait till it's on television..... Where it belongs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Had the League been unknowns pitching this script, the backers would simply have turned around and said \"no - you're not having the money - this is dreadful\". As a fan of the League of Gentlemen, this is their poorest outing to date. Not particularly funny, not particularly entertaining, there are few laugh out loud moments. They do exist, but they are few and far between. I felt the format was tired and really dragging. The film refers to the writers being bored of the characters and it shows. As for being a film. I felt the Xmas special had better production value; the FX are generally pretty poor and it is clearly obvious that they didn't film in the original Royston Vasey (they filmed this on the cheap in Ireland). The musical score is weak and the dialogue is terrible. Also, the accents of the characters were largely off from their TV equivalents. Tubs and Edward, much underused (again), just didn't sound like themselves. Disappointing really, because I was hoping for something far more entertaining. This really was the League's equivalent of the 1970s comedies where the cast go to Spain...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this film in the theater in Edinbourgh along with 3 other Americans and our friend from Manchester and we all thought this was a waste of time. We would have much rather spent an extra hour to watch vapid dialog of Star wars III that was playing down the hall than all of this.

Opening with one of the worst jokes I've ever seen committed to celluloid on the big screen, it did not take off with a bang. throughout the movie we got the feeling that the jokes were just trying too hard, the writers thought about the setup so much that you could see the joke coming 2 minutes beforehand, then when it came it was so lackluster that you couldn't even smile; I cite the giraffe cum-ming as a prime example.

The plot itself makes for some interesting thoughts in my mind, which entertained me much more than what was going on on the screen. I think a lot more could have been done with that angle (the two different worlds, the fish-out-of-water experience of the characters, the confusion and surprise as people try to comprehend and distinguish the characters and writers from each other.) But too much time is wasted with pushing this painful plot to the end with as much 'bizarre' and 'goof' as is humanly possible.

And to say the 16th century characters show any extra talent from the writers is an insult to intelligent writers and editors who possibly could have made this film a worthy 40 minute afterthought; but no, its a full length torture film of unfunniness.

As we were leaving the theater, which had VERY little laughing inside it, I overheard the young hip electro-clash British couple behind me saying \"That was rather good wasn't it. You never really knew what was coming next.\" And the girl responding \"yeah, quite surprising.\" and that was it. If this is what is meant to get out of British people from watching a comedy: no laughing for 90 minutes but a teeny bit of communication between two lovers at the end, then this film succeeded. But i have more belief in British life than that.

I've not not-laughed so hard at a comedy film since American Pie II.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a massive fan of the LoG. I thought the first two series provided some of the best comedy this country has ever seen and the third series, though different, was wonderfully dark and imaginative. The thought of seeing Tubbs, Edward and Briss on the big screen made July 3 something to wait for. Yet, somewhere, it all went horribly wrong. The writers had no story and no real ideas. The part set in old England showed the glimmers of genius that we know the League are capable of but these scenes did not fit well with the film. Geoff provided the best of too few, largely poor jokes and Lipp and Briss's performances were big let-downs. If you love the League, save yourself the time and money and watch episodes from the TV series again. And again. A massive disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't get me wrong, I love the TV series of League Of Gentlemen. It was funny, twisted and completely inspired. I was looking forward to the movie, the premise was interesting and I looked forward to see what they had done with the characters and where the bizarre storyline would take them.

It was a total disappointment, for starters the three weakest characters in the series were the leads and it only contained bit parts for the other characters (why not pick mickey & Pauline, papa Lazaro or tubs and Edward for the main parts!?). It was unfunny throughout, half baked gags and poor slapstick humour.

The real clincher was the plain ridiculous period drama \/ comedy (and i will use the word comedy loosely). It distracted from the main storyline and felt awkward, not to mention painfully unfunny. The direction of the movie is appalling, and often feels that the lines were delivered by the characters within one take. Very rushed.

Then - the three headed Plasticine-esquire monster. What the hell was all that about? plain ridiculous, it felt like the League of gentlemen tagged it on at the end.

All in all I found myself looking at my watch and sighing with disappointment throughout my experience of the film. What was once an amazing Television series has been tainted by a terribly unfunny film.

If i could give it 0 out of 10 i would. Do not waste your money seeing this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Am i right in thinking i went to see the same film as everyone else .. this film was terrible. I'm a fan of all 3 series of the league of gentelmen and have always respected the originality of the writers, even when the format changed in series 3. This film however was a blatant half effort, the plot was extremely poor having the characters going into the real world made this film see more like the last action hero. There was about 5 moments in the film that got a mild chuckle but the rest of the time i was wishing it would end. This would have been better as a 10 minute short on the DVD .. it was more of an explanation of what they planned to do, and looked like some of the writers disagreed on the fate of the characters and they made a joke of this by killing him off in the first 30 minutes.

If your a true fan of the league of gentlemens ability to stay fresh then you'll hate this film. If you only watch it cause there was nothing better on TV then u'll love it.

someone back me up !!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It became apparent in the first 25 mins of watching this that the writers really wanted to make a feature length film and they probably certainly enjoyed the whole process, but then seemed to forget the fact that it needed a decent plot! If the best they could do was have 3 of the dullest characters enter the real world and have 'all sorts of amusing capers' then they should have left well alone! I didn't laugh once, and that whole \"Adventures of Baron Munchausen\/Time Bandits\" thing going on in the middle was very, very poor! Convaluted, contrived and very loose. It just seemed like a whistle stop tour of anything they thought 'might' work just to drag it out to a feature.

Full of holes eg - the Royston Vasey characters needed the writers to carry on writing in order to save them, yet Jeff managed to write himself into the sub-story\/time-filling William and Mary and era. If he could do this then why didn't they just carry on writing Royston themselves - duh?? And Herr Lipp's audition? What was that for? I mean what was the point? He did it, and we heard nothing else whatsoever about it?

My main point is, that while I loved the series, this was an ill thought out, seemingly rushed project. Put it this way, the plot was so poor that if we didn't already know the characters (and as a fan I had a certain loyalty to carry on watching), and we relied solely on the the story itself, this would have fallen flat on its face! At best it would have gone straight to video, and at worst would never have been made in the first place! Or maybe that should be the other way round?? Truly dreadful....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you watched the series and love the league as I do then prepare to be disappointed. I went to the cinema with a group of die-hard league fans and we were all in agreement that this film wasn't as funny or dark as the three series before. In my personal opinion it was a money spinner. The writing was contrived and the plot confused - no not confusing just confused with what it was trying to do. It was self indulgence of the worst kind from writers who are far more talented than my pitiful criticisms. I hope the league at least can be honest enough with themselves and acknowledge this film as being inferior to the superb three series. I will not be buying it despite owning most of the league memorabilia.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a massive fan of the three TV series, I was very interested to learn that LoG were moving onto the big screen. In my more honest moments though, I had my doubts about the likely success of the concept, and whether the writers would be able to sustain the high level of wit, comedy and horror that infuse the original series.

Unfortunately my fears were not unfounded, and the film was a huge disappointment. I struggle to understand the other comments on this site. Obviously people are entitled to their opinions, but the guys I watched it with, all agree with me, and they are just as big fans as I am.

The acting lacked conviction, but they are so good that even when not at their best, they are still highly watchable. The main problem was the plot - and the script. There were a few laughs, but not enough, a few moments of disgust, but not enough. Worst of all was the feeling of emptiness after walking out of the cinema. So rarely have I felt so utterly uninspired by a film and so unmotivated to discuss it with others.

I write this comment as a warning to other League fans - get a wide range of opinion on this film before going to see it. If you love League, you might be able to convince yourself that they didn't totally mess up their move to cinema. If you can't convince yourself of this, then you will have tarnished in your mind the otherwise spotless genius that exemplifies the TV series.

LoG at the cinema? More like log. (or little brown fish).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This review took longer to write than I took to watch this film. It's just plain bad. The plot is terrible in comparison to the TV shows. It is flat, unfunny and boring.

It is clear that the LoG ran out of ideas long before this film was green lit. Viewers should read this as an example of not knowing when to stop.

Bad editing, bad music, bad acting. Zero dynamism, zilch chemistry.

A film that doesn't know what it is, made without any love to some mysterious end that leaves you depressed and feeling kind of angry that so much money was wasted.

The LoG obviously were made an offer they couldn't refuse, or perhaps their egos have simply got the better of them. It's a bleak marketing push that perhaps would have been better when the LoG were fresher and more inspired.

I however, did know when to stop, and did.

Please! Someone try to convince me of this film's finer points!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"very disappointing and incoherent - every now and then a germ of an idea would develop and be discarded in the next line - it had the feel of a film that had been cut and re-cut to try and make it work - I was bored and distracted all the way through, and I'm speaking as a huge fan of the series. Many of the jokes were unoriginal and tired, The medieval section went on far too long and the quality of acting was very poor - some on the tiny guest spots, like Simon Peg and Liam Cunningham did more in their alloted 30 secs than the main cast did in 90 Min's.

It's a shame, really.

The only really interesting thing was getting a look inside the little shed on Soho Square - which is something everyone who is ever in that part of London wonders about.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"please re-watch all 3 series and do not go see this movie, the trailer is completely misleading and the 3 weakest characters in the series stretch a badly thought out 25min TV episode into the most painful 2hrs of my life, truly an awful film. tubbs and edward are in it for a few mins, micky has 1 line, and her lipp just reels out the same tired old puns, also mr briss's accent just changes about 5 times in the film tons of badly acted extras, and really a few laughs that they seem to recycle for 2 hrs i honestly feel this series has been completely ruined by this god-awful piece of crap..........batman and robin all is forgiven","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just don't get these reviews! I can't help thinking they are written by the sort of L.O.G fan who would worship anything they ever do without questioning whether it is actually any good.

I'm a massive fan of the programme but thought this film was a pointless project. I could forgive the ridiculous plot if I had come out of the cinema having laughed more than twice. At one point, I thought it might just me before I realised hardly any laughs were minting from the rest of audience.

I wasn't expecting much of a plot (very few TV comedies stand up to being stretched over 90 minutes) but thought the odd bit of classic L.O.G dialogue or visual joke (like at the start of each programme) would carry a film. After 5 minutes of the 17th Century plot, I was begging for it to end (little did I know it would carry on for the rest of the film). It just wasn't funny.

I was just massively disappointed and can't see history being too kind to it, even if a few die-hard fans write enthusiastic reviews.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***May contain spoilers***

I had very high expectations for this film, based on the trailer. I knew a bit about the real Ed Gein, so I figured this was a medium-budget Hollywood version of the real events. Man was I wrong.

First, the writing apparently came from an eight-grader who barely knew anything about Ed's history and cranked out the script in about 20 minutes. The movie completely passes over the most interesting facets of Ed and his relationship with his mother (not to mention what the real police found in his house) and decides to focus primarily on the young deputy who looks like he just wandered onto the set. Likewise, all of the male characters seem to be ad-libbing their dialog throughout the entire movie. I'm not exaggerating.

Don't even get me started with the historical goofs in this movie. Seriously, who the hell directed this? This movie is supposed to take place around 1957, but the cops are carrying modern side-handled batons, some of the stuff in the hardware store look like they came from Lowes, and when the cop gets to a payphone he dials 9-1-1 (didn't exist back then). Also, Ed was a small guy, scary like Anthony Perkins' character in Psycho (who was supposedly based on real-life Ed), not this burly dude who ended up looking way too much like the bad guy in Men In Black.

Another thing that really bugged me was the appearance that the makers of this film shot the whole thing in an abandoned, 3 building set. Because of the \"clever\" camera angles, you never see any actual town, and the interior of the sets looked like old, long-abandoned shacks. Pop a cash register on a saw-horse and bam!--instant hardware store.

I'm usually pretty forgiving of low-budget horror films, but this one just begs for it. All you had to do was include most of the real events (even embellish them!), pay five good actors instead of 15 crappy ones, and for Pete's sake take 5 minutes and think about the time period once in a while. My advice: Google Ed Gein, you'll be far more entertained.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I stopped watching this film half way through. It was just terrible! Boring, contrived subplots. A complete lack of the pathos seen in Norman Bates, Buffalo Bill, or Steve Railsback's portrayal of Ed Gein. A movie doesn't have to be historically accurate, but the true story of Ed Gein is so much more interesting than this third-rate melodrama that was completely made up for no good reason! Ed Gein as portrayed by Kane Hodder is a cartoon sadist. The attempts to show the trauma inflicted on him by his mother are just weak exercises in recycled style. And this movie wanted to be stylish, but it even screwed that up. Fortunately, there is a better film of this story. 2001's Ed Gein told the story efficiently, and offered a few real chills as we watched a sick man not in control of himself. Steve Railsback, who played Ed Gein that time, was already famous for memorably portraying another famous serial killer: Charles Manson. His Ed had pathos. His film is the one to see. Avoid this mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was, without a doubt, the worse horror movie I have ever seen.... Forget the fact that the story had little to do with the facts of Ed Gein... Ed Gein's story is horrific & this movie ignored the facts and strayed way off course. Acting, on all levels, was pathetic. Story, again, for some unknown reason didn't go into the horrific facts. Could have been so scary if it would have stuck to the facts. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? TERRIBLE MOVIE! Steve Railsback version was much, much better. Don't waste a penny on this terribly made flick... And, why ignore the reality of the horrific events? That alone would make for a great story. Man, makes you wonder why this would ever be approved for release. Why spend so much money on a movie that will never make a penny (except for my wasted $5...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a waste of time to watch this movie. Poor picture quality, poor sound, poor acting and definitely not based on actual facts. The deputy's \"girlfriend\" did so much overacting, as did the sheriff, that it was more comedy than horror. The deputy tries to make an emergency phone call by dialing 911...PROBLEM...in 1957 that emergency number was not in existence. That is just one example of glaring inconsistencies.

The \"scary\" aspect was way underdone. Just did not come across as horrific.

I did think that the actor playing Gein did the most admirable acting job in the whole movie. I could well see mental disturbances in his character portrayal.

Sorry...this one just does NOT get it!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was really bad. First they didn't even follow the facts for it. Half of the movie was made up and it was more about the deputy whose mother was one of Ed Gein's victims. The acting was horrible, except for the guy playing Ed Gein, but its not hard to mess up playing a weird guy. though i think it was horrible i gave it a three because they started it off with actual crime photos. that was the best part of the movie. As soon as the introduction of the movie was finished the movie went downhill. The writer of this movie tried to spice it up, but it didn't need to be. The story of Ed Gein is interesting enough without falsifying information.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are many reasons I'm not a fan of fact based films, but more than any other is how the filmmakers give themselves creative license over the story. If they have such great imaginations then why not use that talent to make something original? Otherwise stick to the facts. This could have been an okay movie if only they had done just that. Ed Gein was an insanely frightening human being. It's been said if you were to take Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Leatherface, wrap them into one person, Ed Gein would still be sicker\/scarier. So why can't someone make a movie about him that can convey this? When will they figure out that reality is ultimately scarier than fiction?

I've read books and watched news programs about him and, now I'm not a screenwriter or anything, but I believe there's enough documentation on Gein that it shouldn't take a whole lot to write a story about all these atrocities he committed without creating murders that had never even been documented. I'm aware that he was only found guilty of 2 murders but with all the evidence found in his home and barn there should have been plenty of other ways to put this film together rather than using the deputy's relationship with his Mother, and girlfriend as filler, and far too much of it.

I guess what I'm wondering is this... why at the end of the movie did I know more about the supporting characters than I did about Ed Gein? Why didn't we get to know his Mother, Father and brother and the relationships between them... what made him the psychopath he was... what abuse he endured as a child that may have contributed to the man he became? Instead, the only thing we got of his childhood were flashes of him as a little boy... running.

In the end I give it 4\/10 stars. Thats 2 for the gore and 2 for Kane Hodder. Even though it was kind of bad casting in my opinion, considering Gein was a smallish man, and possibly effeminate and Hodder is anything but small and nowhere near what I would consider feminine. Maybe I was just excited because he was Jason Voorhees.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With a catchy title like the Butcher of Plainfield this Ed Gein variation and Kane Hodder playing him will no doubt fly off the shelves for a couple of weeks.Most viewers will be bored silly with this latest take on the life of Ed Gien.

The movie focuses on Ed's rampage and gives us a(few)glimpses into his Psycosis and dwelling in Plainfeild.Its these scenes that give the movie a much needed jolt.

What ruins this is the constant focus on other characters lives and focuses less on Eds.Big mistake here.

Kane Hodder is a strange choice to play Gein,but He does pull it off quite well,and deserves more acting credits than he gets these days.Prascilla Barnes and Micahel Barryman also show up.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have watched this movie quite bemused. I am not sure whether it was attempting to be a horror gore fest in a Rob Zombie type affair or an exploration of real events.

In either case it missed its mark. It's not particularly historically accurate with characters being chopped and changed for the sake of the story.

The performances were neither compelling nor bad.

For me, I would have preferred a more psychological approach and this film could easily have gone down this route without spoiling the overall effect.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield is set in the small American town of Plainfield in Wisconsin during 1957 where loner Ed Gein (Kane Hodder) lives by himself on a farm after the death if his mother & brother. The local police have had a spate of grave robberies to deal with & when local barmaid Sue Layton (Ceia Coley) suspicions grow that something nasty is going on. Ed is a violent sexually deviant man who kidnaps girls & murders them, will the police figure the truth out in time to save Erica (Adrienne Frantz) the Sheriff's (Timothy Oman) daughter...

Written, produced & directed by Michael Feifer this was an attempt to base a horror film around the true events surrounding notorious serial killer Ed Gein & turns out to be pretty crap. The real life Ed Gein was only ever convicted of two murders & died in 1984 but several films have been inspired by him including The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Deranged (1974) & Ed Gein (2000) with this fairly recent addition possibly being the worst Gein film ever. Even though Ed Gein was real next to nothing in this film is based on fact, Gein never had an accomplice, none of his victims were related to any of the investigating officers, there was no car crash victim, although Gein keeps his name other people have had name changes, the kidnapping & murder of the two women depicted here actually happened four years apart in reality but in this film it happens over the course of a couple of days & while here Gein is shown as a large hulking muscular man in reality he was a scrawny, thin, old & quite short. As a factual drama Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield is worthless & as pure entertainment it's no better with a deadly dull pace & feel to it, the character's are all boring & when he isn't killing someone Gein is shown working or just walking around & it's very dull. There's no suspense because we know who the killer is & it's just a tedious wait until he gets caught at the end. There is no real attempt to get into Gein's mind with the makers giving him no more motivation than him occasionally having hallucinations of his domineering mother.

There isn't much gore here, there's a scene with a woman hanging on a meat-hook, there's a really badly edited scene of Gein cutting a leg off, there's the usual jars of bodily organs & skulls lying around as well as a bit of blood but there's really not much here to get excited about. The film was obviously processed to bleach a lot of the colour out of the picture as it's not far off black and white at times, I personally think the lack of colour makes it even duller to sit through.

With a supposed budget of about $1,500,000 I can't really see where the money went in a very forgettable production. Although set in Wisconsin this was filmed in California. Kane Hodder is all wrong for the role of Ed Gein, just from a physical point of view Hodder doesn't look even remotely like Gein & he gives a pretty poor performance to as he just stares at the camera a lot making silly faces.

Ed Gein: The BUtcher of Plainfield is crap & it's as simple & straightforward as that. As either a factual drama or pure exploitation entertainment this is total tripe from start to finish with nothing to recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would hate to have anyone watch this \"inspired by a true story\" movie and draw any conclusions about the true event. Few things they did get right were overshadowed by the things that were just not true. Ed Gein never dragged anyone behind a car, never met up with anyone at the graveyard and killed them, no proof he returned body parts to the graveyard. The things he did were awful enough, why try to make it worse?

This movie ranks among my 10 worst wastes of eye strain. \"In the Light of the Moon\" is a much better film on the subject, it is more factual and the acting is superior in contrast to this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I did a review for this director's fictional recreation about BTK. I had also seen this movie and it was terrible. Please save your money and time. This movie was terrible and this director is untalented. I do not understand how he is funding these movies. They are horrible. I have decided to make sure that I check who the writer, director, and producer are, and if this director's name pops up I will not waste my money. There is nothing worse than renting a movie on a Friday night, making the popcorn, and then realizing you have been duped by creative art on the front of the movie box. Stay away. So I guess I should make up some stuff to fill in the lines? I have always checked IMDb for reviews before, but I think I will not anymore. This is ridiculous. I have been corrected in my reviews far too many times. Not enough lines? You may cancel my account. Your site is a pain.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story of Ed Gein is a disturbing and terrifying story. Ed was truly a messed up character and his legacy went on to inspire such 'greats' as The Tooth Fairy, Norman Bates, and Leatherface. How is it then that such a fascinating man has inspired such a boring melodramatic piece of drivel?? Ed Gein made belts out of nipples, bowls out of skulls, lamps out of skin, danced around under the moon in suits of human skin. None of this made it into the movie because they needed to give us a fictitious story of a ridiculously awful deputy and his rather homely, sex-starved girlfriend. This movie seemed to go out of its way to falsify history. What baffles me is that most movies stray from the path of truth to exaggerate history; this one seems to do it to minimize it. I just don't get it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Old Ed was active back in the late 1950's He was apprehended 16 November 1957. The PR-24 Police Baton was invented in 1974. Yet the cops in the movie are all carrying the PR 24. Back then it would have been a standard \"billy club\" not the side handled PR 24. Sheeze, if you are gonna make movies do your research and get it right. Also it makes no mention of Ed's usage of the bodies. He tanned most of the skins and made various articles including a lampshade, a belt and several masks. He also had a large selection of \"shrunken heads\" that several local children knew about as he often babysat for them. He was found incompetent and committed to the Central State Hospital for the criminally insane.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The title tells it all -- Ed Gein, the butcher of Plainfield.

It's not a zappy action-filled slasher movie made for teens high on energy drinks. That would fit it into a well-established genre, the kind that some people find entertaining, something along the lines of \"Halloween\" or \"The Texas Chain Saw Massacre\".

This is dark, slow, filled with chopped-up corpses, and quietly evil. There are few shock cuts, no monster's point-of-view shots, no loud electronic score. I don't know who it's aimed at -- ghouls, maybe.

Beneath the credits we already see still photos of skulls, carcasses hung up, skins draped across the backs of chairs, that sort of thing. And they're sufficiently revolting that I couldn't help thinking this movie had better be pretty good to make up for this Grand Guignol opening.

Alas, it's not. The acting is uniformly terrible, as in a high school play. The script does its best to sink below vulgarity. Ed Gein, who killed only two middle-aged women and maybe his brother, chases a screaming, bloody young woman through the Woodland of Weir, and she's wearing only a modern bra and bikini, rather than period underwear. Gein also decapitates a night watchman, which he never did in any historical sense.

The direction? You could do a better job. In the first few minutes, law officers discover an abandoned car with blood spattered all over the windshield. There is no body. The handsome young deputy sheriff turns to his boss and suggests they search for the victim, who may still be in the vicinity and living. The sheriff, lacking any motivation, shouts at him, \"Now you just FORGET that! I don't want you going off HALF COCKED on anything!\" It should be no more than a business-like exchange of views. Why does the director have the sheriff so angry? Characters of diverse sorts listen to radio programs or records that play old jazzy pop songs -- Louis Armstrong's \"Ain't Misbehaving,\" for instance. This is -- what -- rural WISCONSIN in the 1950s? And the characters insist on music that would appeal to customers of the Cotton Club in Harlem in the 30s, or New York intellectuals like Woody Allen. Nope. The radio would be playing Kitty Kallen's \"Wheel of Fortune\" or Theresa Brewer or, equally likely, Lefty Frizell. Not that the dysfunction between the music and the events adds anything to our understanding of what's going on beneath the images. Someone involved in the production just liked old jazzy pop songs, that's all.

Of course there's only so much you can do with a low budget, but it can be light years ahead of this butchery. See \"Ed Gein,\" with Steven Railsback for an example of a much more sophisticated way of dealing with this lunatic and his penchant for dead bodies, and on a budget that couldn't have exceeded this one by much.

These comments are all based on the first twenty minutes of the movie. That's about as far as I could get. If anyone finds this tale to be well-executed and fascinating in any way, he should try to find some insight into his tastes. It's beneath mine -- and I consider myself pretty warped.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I own a vacation lake home not far from Plainfield, WI. Ten minutes from the Gein property to be exact. I've seen his land, the cemetery where he is buried and where he did his digging, and I've shopped at the hardware store that was formerly owned by the Worden family. While visiting relatives in California, we decided to rent this movie. It was disgusting. The true story of Ed Gein is so disturbing and creepy, why the creators of this piece of trash decided to make up their own story is beyond me. The actor playing Ed is a very large man, Ed was a very small, meek, and shy man. That is part of what makes his story so frightening. He did not have a helper to dig up the graves and anyone who owns land in the area knows that it is mostly sand with a little dirt in it. You won't break much of a sweat digging a hole. They didn't have to hire an actor with the physique of a wrestler, just do your research. And if the writing wasn't bad enough - there are NO mountains in Wisconsin, and I'm pretty certain that 911 was not available in 1957.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My reasoning behind viewing this film (despite the fact that it was free), was more or less out of curiosity... slight, slight curiosity... I wasn't all that familiar with this straight-to-video \"biographical\" account of Mr. Gein and discovered during the opening credits that it featured horror icon Kane Hodder in the starring role. My emotions turned from not just curiosity, but now a glimmer of mild anticipation as to how his portrayal of Gein would turn out. Also in the credits (among some grim photos of Ed's crimes) was Michael Berryman and Priscilla Barns. \"Okay\", I thought to myself... \"This may be mildly amusing\". As the movie started and progressed (slowly), my microscopic confidence (or as I call it, \"micro-hope\") for this movie faded entirely and I was stuck with an overwhelming feeling of humiliation as I died a little inside from watching this dung heap. Hodder, who is widely known and respected for his past work as an unstoppable serial killer, inaccurately puts that into play here - turning Eddie Gein from a mild-mannered recluse, to a hulking, full-blown killing machine. He lurks by night, killing cemetery caretakers, his grave robbing buddy and teenage girls, leaving Plainfield in a panic as the local Sheriff's department seems to do nothing to adjust the dangerous situation in the least. The deputy and his mom have a warm little relationship that gave me a fuzzy feeling inside (or that could have just been the cyanide pill I ingested halfway through this turkey). I'm not sure what the point of this movie was and obviously the director knew nothing about the subject he was working with. There is already such an abundance of films pertaining to Gein's story that, unless the \"Ed Gein Snuff Footage\" is discovered, I don't want to see anymore of these on the shelves. If you want a more authentic film of this nature than check out 2001's \"Ed Gein (aka In the Light of the Moon)\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ever since he played a goon in Lone Wolf McQuade, actor\/stuntman Kane Hodder has been busy. His film, Hatchet, got all the publicity last year, but he still makes a couple of more films every year. He should have skipped this one.

Hodder seems to be the king of the slashers. he has played Jason Voorhees from 1988's Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988) to Jason X (2001). He is working on a new film that appears to be a Halloween remake. He is very much what I would call the serial killer type with his methodical, expressionless thirst for blood.

However, there wasn't much blood in this movie and very little action occurred on camera. It felt as if I was watching an episode of real law enforcement on A&E.

I won't put the blame entirely on Hodder's shoulders, as the rest of the actors didn't contribute much either.

Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes, The Devil's Rejects) just ran his mouth until Gein shut him up. Adrienne Frantz (\"The Bold and the Beautiful\") was cute. Veteran actress (\"Three's Company\") and Penthouse Pet, Priscilla Barnes did a credible job. I am sure there are other horror favorites, but they all just seemed to run through their roles.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When \"Deranged\" was made the film-makers saw fit to turn Ed Gein into Ezra Cobb even though the resultant film was actually quite close to the facts of the notorious case. I presume that enough was fictionalised that they thought they should change names and such.

\"Ed Gein - The Butcher Of Plainfield\" masquerades as a true story retelling of the Gein case, but actually bears very little resemblance to the history. As a biopic type film it is a travesty. If ever a film needed names changing it is this one, far more so than \"Deranged\". It is as close to the true crime story as \"Dirty Harry\" was to the true story of the Zodiac killings.

OK, so, that annoyance aside, how is it as a horror film? Well, as a horror film, well, as a film generally, it is quite appalling. One of the worst films I have sat through in months. Issues run thus: 1) Kane Hodder is quite astonishingly miscast as Ed Gein. Utterly unsuitable in the part, Hodder just lumbers through glowering menacingly. Very bad.

2) Kane Hodder is the best actor in the film! The rest of the cast are rather \"amateur dramatics\" and utterly unengaging. It is painful to witness some lines being delivered.

3) The occasional efforts of stylish film-making seem to come from \"The Big Book Of Moody Cinematography Clich\u00e9\". You've seen it all before, better executed. Aside from the efforts at style, the rest of the film-making is largely inept: cameras shake, framing is bad, there are overlong pointless shots holding back the pace...which leads me to...

4) It seems to go on forever. It is under 90 minutes in length, but sitting through it is an ordeal. You'd swear it ran two and a half hours.

5) Ed Gein almost seems secondary. Mostly the film is concerned with the family affairs of a newly promoted Deputy Sheriff. Said Deputy is played by an abysmal actor upon whose shoulders no film should rest.

Is anything good about it? Well, the gore FX are very good. Some convincing wounds are in display and the make-up is generally excellent. None of this, however, makes up for the massive failings of the film.

It doesn't even have any kitsch value, it's just bad; not enjoyably bad, not \"so bad it's good\", just genuinely bad. A film to avoid and despise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just saw this movie and it turns out to be pretty lame just as mentioned by other user reviews and the one thing that bothered me the most was the southern accent some of the characters had, it took place in Wisconsin, not the south. As mentioned from other reviews, Ed Geine wasn't a big dude, so why did the guy that plays Jason and Leatherface portray him?

I fast forwarded through most of it being that there are many slow parts.

Hopefully someone will do their homework on Ed Geine and the town and make a more accurate movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst movie I have ever seen and believe me I've sen a lot of bad movies. I love cheeesy horror but this was just terrible. There was not one scene in this film where I felt scared. All the actors must have been people that they found at a bus stop 20 minutes prior to shooting. I wish that Blockbutser would have given me my 99 cents back. The acting was terrible. The writing was incredibly bad. Someone had to screen this movie before it was released and had to know that it was terrible. I'd be embarrassed to have my name associated with this monstrosity. Don't rent this movie. If you do, don't return it so no other poor souls will ever make the mistake of renting it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All of the great horror movies of the 70's, 80's, and even the early 90's from Psycho, to Texas Chainsaw Masacre (The original not that warmed over WB crap), to Silence of the Lambs. The characters in these movies were based upon the crimes of Ed Gein. The writers and directors tapped into the true story for the inspiration for creating some of the greatest *fictional* movie killers of all time.

The old horror films were great because even though the crimes were loosely based upon the facts of the case of Ed Gein, they were truly fictional and far removed from the true story.

In the case of this movie, they've created a fictional horror film in which they tried to capitalize on the true story in order to sell a cheap, poorly acted, love story between two characters that nobody really cares about. In fact, in a *good* horror film these two characters would have been excellent victims.

End of Lecture...

In short, this film was like wearing clammy underwear on a cold afternoon sipping on a nice cup of chilled vomit.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got this movie for fifty cents at a going out of business sale. I want my fifty cents back. Bad acting, poor script writing, lousy direction, historically inaccurate, even the sound of the film is awful. It's not the subject matter that offends. I'm one of the many who find suspense films and true crime films very interesting. The subject matter could have been treated more seriously, with much more attention to detail and accuracy, and the lack of respect shown for the victims and their devastated friends and family is enough to puzzle anyone. Also, there is little to no attention paid to what could have caused someone to begin the bizarre behavior that Ed Gein was displaying in acting out these horrible crimes.

Save your time and sanity. Don't watch this awful film. If you bought it, you have my sympathy. It's not a total waste though...you can throw away the disc and make use of the plastic case!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have done some research on Ed Gien, and I have found a few interesting things. Like the fact that Ed Gien, was quiet and a loner, not some buff over bearing jerk as in this movie. I will say that I didn't finish this movie but I will. I will cringe through the fact that all of us, Wisconsinites, talk like we are from Kentucy. You know the funny, but oh so sad factor in this movie, is Wisconsin isn't as hot as they made it look.

This movie is not only an insult to Wisconsin people, being a Wisconsite myself, but it is a complete insult to a man that was proved to be an insane, lonely man. He killed two people and the movie couldn't even get that right. Ed didn't get that close and personal and scare people, he shot the two and only people, he killed. So, why do these movies lie and say \"BASED ON A TRUE STORY\"? This is not based on nothing but the lies the director came up with in his foul head.

A joke and nothing more!

OK, I would like to add on to this. I did finish this oh so sad movie, and I personal would like to laugh at the director. Do your homework when making a movie. I would like to inform you that there are no Mountains (for those who have never been in Wisconsin) and oh THERE IS NO DESERT! What the hell, there was more pine trees and snow in Ravenous and that was suppose to be shot in Californa.

OK, for those who know nothing about Ed Gein, I would like to give you, your history lesson. Ed Gein was thought to have killed his family, but it was never proved. He killed a bartender, she was shot at bar close when no one was around. He took the DEAD bartender back to his house. 10 years later he SHOT and killed the store clerk, he stoled the cash register and the store truck. He was caught because of this murder, he came in the day before when her son was there and asked about antifreeze. The day he killed her, he was in there buying the antifreeze, and the reciept that only had antif..... was the only evidence they had to start a world wide man hunt. He robbed graves, in fact in robbed 56 graves. He hate the people he dug up and he made furinture; lamp shades, couches, chairs, and other things.

He had a family that he had dinner with once and awhile and they threw all the meat he ever gave them out when he was caught, considering he was caught at their house. He was arrested and hid in the back of a cop car, in fear of what may happen to him. How do I know all of this? I read the book the judge that tried him wrote.

After this movie was over, after watching the whole horrific thing, not only am I offended by the directors horriable view on what Wisconsin women look like. I mean it was hard to tell who this guy had on the slab half the time, you know cause Wisconsin women are all BLONDES. Please! I am overly offended by the lack of homework this guy did and the poor job he did making this movie. I have no idea who this Kane guy is and I think he may be OK in something else, but he did a horrible job playing Ed Gein.

After all of this I am so sad I wasted the 3.99 on the movie.

Movie after finished was completely untrue, this movie is like me saying that the world is flat and George Washington wasn't our first president. Come on people, that is your history, and this is Wisconsin's history. To end this rant, how would all of you feel if I made a movie and George Washington looked like Brad Pitt (some of you may think that is fine, but it would be not true) and he lived and wasn't the president and whatever. You can't rewrite history.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"PLEASE people! DO NOT bother with this poorly directed joke. The direction was totally wrong from the outset. Where is the history of his mothers' emotional interference and the general madness in the original family? Why is ED portrayed as this large, overbearing imposing figure full of anger and hate? What IS this crap? The writer and director obviously did no research into the history and just wanted to cash in on the infamous Gein name. The fools who made this movie took so many liberties with the truth, it's ridiculous. If you want t see a brilliant Gein film. go back to the minor classic \"Deranged\" to see how Ed really was. There is humor in that film, and Ed is portrayed as more of the sad, lonely slight man he was, according-to HISTORY. Where is the background story here? There is just poorly set-up shocks (that are not shocking) that we've seen before, and more accomplished as well. Take the worst Texas Chainsaw massacre ripoff, and add this one to that list. Had to give it ONE out of ten because rating wouldn't accept ZERO. I want my money BACK. If anyone regards this film as 'stunning' is possibly getting a financial kickback to do so.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ed Gein, one of the most famous serial killers of all time, he was the inspiration for famous movie killers like Norman Bates, Leatherface, and Buffalo Bill. He is also one of the most sick and disturbing killers of all time, I watched a documentary on him, so I know his story pretty well. When I saw this, I was curious because I thought it was supposed to be like a documentary re-enactment, but I have to say that this was just a pathetic waste of time. First off, the facts are completely wrong, with a few minor exceptions, and secondly, this was just a stupid Hollywood story when these horrific murders really happened and they just made it into a cheap buck. Not to mention that if they were going to make it into a horror movie, this was poorly acted!

Ed Gein, he lives in a small town in Wisconsin called Plainfield, but he has a little secret that the whole town is being effected by, he digs up dead bodies, as well as brutally murdering people. Bobby, a deputy, is on the case to get Ed Gein, only, no one knows who the killer is at first, just finding crime scene after crime scene. But things get \"personal\" when Ed starts messing with the policemen's family and friends.

Of course this movie was just ridicules and completely insulting to the true story. I always thought that bad acting is a necessary tool to a horror flick, but for this story, it should have been a better acted film, not to mention, it should have been more of a documentary than a stupid clich\u00e9'd horror film. Please, stay away from this film, it's completely pathetic and untrue to the story of Ed Gein.

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Michael Feifer writes and directs this fictitious story based on the arrest of Edward Gein in Plainfield, Wisconsin. Gein was responsible for a rash of gruesome murders that sent a shock wave of terror through his rural hometown in the late 1950's. His evil mind and twisted world is suspected to be caused by his domineering zealous Lutheran mother. Ed was given the nickname \"The Butcher of Plainfield\". He would rob corpses from fresh graves of women who resembled his mother and he would have sex with them before 'dressing them like a deer' in his garage. Severed heads with bodies hanging upside down being his personal trademark. After his arrest there would be many articles made from human skin found in his home. In this movie, a young deputy Bobby Mason(Shawn Hoffman)makes the search for Gein(Kane Hodder)a personal one, when his storekeeper mother(Priscilla Barnes)goes missing. The acting is a whole lot better than the ridiculously liberal telling of the documented events concerning Gein. Also in the cast: Adrienne Frantz, Timothy Oman, John Burke, Michael Berryman and Amy Lyndon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story of Ed Gein is interesting, VERY interesting. This movie, however, interesting only in the fact that it was actually made. Kane Hodder's portrayal of Ed Gein is so far off, it's not even the slightest bit funny. Ed Gein did not behave psychotic in public, he was very calm and collected and always extremely polite to everybody and talked to anybody who would listen, this is one of the major things this movie failed to show the audience. But the biggest mistake of this movie, side from even one frame ever being shot, was that Ed never killed anyone without having been told to do so by his dead mother, whom he thought was speaking to him from beyond the grave. He killed only the people who his dead mother said he had to because it was God's will, and he was very remorseful about it, though that didn't stop him from experimenting with cannibalism and wearing people's flesh. I officially gave this movie a rating of \"1\" simply because \"0\" wasn't given to me as an option.

I highly advise all to stay clear of this movie. If you want to see a movie that accurately depicts Ed Gein and doesn't try to put in a sub-plot love story between a cop and a fictional woman who never existed, i HIGHLY advise you see the original movie, which unfortunately seems to not be on IMDb.com though i could be wrong, but i have yet to find it here. The original doesn't stray from the actual events and doesn't try to twist the story. I can understand telling the story from a different perspective, but this movie just tried to straight change the true story itself, something that i find as horrible as if someone made a movie based on 9\/11, but gave it a twist that Canada was behind it. Or a WWII movie saying Hitler was a good guy and helped fight the Nazi's.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a big fan of horror movies, and know a lot of info on serial killers. Obviously the director of this one refused to research the film he was creating, because half of the movie was fictional. More than that, the character of Ed Gein was portrayed in the wrong light. I did not rent the movie to worry about the Deputy and his girlfriend Erica. I rented it to watch Ed Gein and his legendary story. This movie was awful, the only reason I gave it a 2 out of 10 is because the gore wasn't too bad. Acting= horrible Actors= sub par Movie= waste of time.

A big upset all around, but i wont give up my search for a good horror movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just saw this at the Madison Horror Film Festival and was disappointed. A few shocking, funny moments (fisting the hollow Carla, a urinating harpy in the Dreamland) and two competing interesting premises (similar to New Nightmare with belief bringing a mythical character to life and also Lost Highway with a man living out a fantasy in his head) but had long stretches of no movement and incoherent plot development. Just because you use the framework of dreams or a mental fugue state doesn't make it Lynchian. You need the compelling visuals and creepy performances.

Positive things: Dr. Maitland had real comic timing and all the girls were very cute. Carla's Father, Chalmers, and Ingrid Pitt looked like they were having some fun. And Tom Savini at least looked like he had his lines memorized and we couldn't see if he was just reading cue cards.

I get the Hammer references, but it looks like the director realized the script was a snoozer and just added some shocks to try and get some laughs out of whatever footage he could put together. But they don't work because they're too few and far between and create an inconsistent tone. Condense this to 30 minutes of all the fun parts and you could have a surreal goofy short, but at feature length, skip it. It's not \"so bad it's good\" it's just \"so bad it's boring\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most likely \"Cleopatra 2525\" will be of little interest if you did not watch the series when it was broadcast; and I don't think that many people did. But if you are still somewhat intrigued it is a \"Buck Rogers in the 25th Century\" premise without space ships and with no budget for wardrobe or production design.

In this case the Buck Rogers part (Cleopatra) is played by Jennifer Sky. Which one might expect to be a good thing as Jennifer is very beautiful and quite talented; and has a nice comedic touch. But a quick glance at the promotional material will show that she is somewhat the worse for having a bad haircut and a Salvation Army Thrift Store wardrobe. If you remember how fetching Jennifer was during her time on \"Xena\" her dowdy Cleopatra look will be a huge disappointment. With a target audience of \"teenage boys looking to burn their eyeballs looking at \"hot fetish-attired girls\" it is not a good idea to skimp on the exploitation value of your heroine or her costume. And they wonder why some series don't attract much of an audience. Love it or hate it, \"Buck Rogers\" had hotter costumes and much better looking guest stars.

The other two exploitation elements are Cleopatra's two female associates; Hel (Gina Torres basically playing her stock \"Firefly\" character) and Sarge (Victoria Pratt-another \"Xena\" connection-an extremely wooden version of Natasha Henstridge). Torres does a good job playing off the Cleopatra character, providing most of the show's comic relief.

Torres sings the theme song, a somewhat lame parody of Rick Evans' \"In the Year 2525 (Exordium and Terminus)\" (1969). You remember the one that opens with the words \"In the year 2525, If man is still alive, If woman can survive, They may find...\"I suspect that they gave the series its title so that they could butcher this catchy little song although who knows, perhaps the title is a homage to \"Buck Rogers\" and they thought of using the song later.

So, the premise of the show is that the Earth's surface has been taken over by aliens called Bailies (not the WKRP one) and the humans have been driven underground. Our three heroines fight against the Bailies under the direction of a disembodied (presumably) female voice (appropriately referred to as \"Voice\"). Unlike Buck Rogers, Cleopatra is kind of a wimpy third stooge, still dazed and confused from her cryogenic sleep or maybe just disoriented from the creepy haircut. There are a lot of nice close-ups of Sky wide-eyed and bewildered. Like \"Buck Rogers\" the running gag is Cleopatra using a common 21st century expression and everyone finding it either totally profound or completely baffling.

Unlike \"Firefly\" the action is more of that hyper edited \"Xena\" garbage which is neither realistic nor particularly entertaining. One good gimmick is that the girls travel around \"Spiderman\" fashion, a sort of web slinging through tunnels and shafts in the labyrinth of their underground world.

Strangely (or maybe not considering the budget) these are only half hour episodes and except for one two-part show there is not enough time for any subtlety and nuance.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If good intentions were enough to produce a good film, I would have rated the turgid, ponderous, obvious \"Focus\" a bit higher than 4. Macy does his best, but as an earlier poster commented, Miller's little parable asks us to suspend disbelief too often. Perhaps the novel gives us a bit more background on Newman, so we can understand how someone who is obviously not without intelligence could be so dense in perceiving the attitudes of those around him. I agree with another reviewer that if one is unaware of how bigoted average citizens were in America during this time period, then this movie might be an eye-opener. I grew up in the fifties, and the \"good\" pastors of my Lutheran church found nothing wrong with having the church picnic at a commercial beach, whose sign prominently indicated that no Jews or blacks would be admitted. It is difficult for young people today to understand that this was the norm, and not just in the South. As late as 1964, when I graduated from a somewhat racially integrated (but sexually segregated) public high school in Baltimore, my black classmates could not attend the traditional \"father and son banquet,\" as it was held at a facility which did not admit blacks. Sadly, it was an establishment owned by a Jewish family. The subject matter of \"Focus\" is important, and we should never forget, despite the lingering signs of racism in modern America, how truly repulsive the attitudes of that previous generation were.(The \"greatest generation,\" indeed). So, perhaps this film is somewhat valuable in countering the recent wave of sentimental crap about the forties from the likes of Steven Spielberg and Tom Brokow. But in the end, as in \"Far From Heaven,\" the filmmakers' good intentions are undermined by having a protagonist so ridiculously oblivious to the social conventions of their time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had never heard of this film until it came to DVD. I was immediately intrigued by everything about it: the actors, the title, the cover, and especially the author. Arthur Miller, you can't go wrong with him, can you? Yep. I haven't read the novel, but I'm going to guess it was a lot better than the film. I had high hopes for this movie. I love Macy and Dern, and it looked interesting. Unfortunately, this film never really rises above cookie-cutter messages about racism and bigotry. If you've never seen any other films that deal with this subject, or if you never knew that America was founded on bigotry, then maybe this film will wow you. Others will probably find it predictable, stale, and overall bland.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The somewhat-belligerent brother of a suicide finds that he and his mother grieve in much the same way (by acting out) but that Dad is morose and blaming himself. Writer-director Dan Harris gives us a dysfunctional family torn at the seams, characters with question marks hanging over them, and then lays all the story-points out in the most obvious terms: Suicide! Secrets! Gay shame! Family sickness! Ultimately aiming to wrap things up with a tidy bow, Harris wants to make sure we don't miss a trick, initially giving us thoughtful material to ponder but then spelling everything out in an elementary, sentimental fashion. Sigourney Weaver's bemused performance as the family matriarch is dryly disengaged and she's a joy--that is, until Harris gives her a make-over (complete with sensible new hairstyle). It's the cinematic equivalent of a condescending pat on the head. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Viewers of independent films know that once or twice a year they are going to see stories about dysfunctional families and they have come to expect them and it's becoming more of a challenge to keep them fresh but here despite the good cast it just seems more of the same. Story is about the Travis family who is trying to recover from the suicide of Matt (Kip Pardue) who was a very promising high school swimmer. Ben (Jeff Daniels) is the father who withdraws from everyone and has never treated his other son Tim (Emile Hirsch) as well as Matt but he does communicate (of some sort) to his mother Sandy (Sigourney Weaver) who finds his stash of pot and starts to smoke it.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** Sandy also starts to flirt with much younger men like the check-out cashier at the grocery store but when she attempts to buy more marijuana she gets busted and hauled off to jail. She doesn't tell anyone what happened but she does discover bruises on Tim's body and also that Ben has taken a leave of absence from work. After all this happens Sandy falls ill and lands in the hospital where her life is in danger which forces Ben to realize that he may have to come to terms with losing another part of his family.

This film is written and directed by Dan Harris who has worked with Bryan Singer on \"X2\" and also the upcoming Superman film and while his script allows these characters to have genuine moments of expressing their pain and confusion the story (for me) just has too many things thrown in. The script touches on so many different areas that you need a scorecard to keep track of them all including drugs, sex, love, infidelity, abuse, neglect, experimentation with homosexuality, and a life threatening illness. If all those scenarios weren't enough for you Harris then tacks on a plot twist at the end that's supposed to sum up and explain most of everyone's feelings towards Tim. While I did roll my eyes at least 2 or 3 times with the way the script kept unrolling one thing after another I must admit that I didn't hate this film and I have to credit the actors for that. Everyone has at least one good scene somewhere in the film but I wish the story would have concentrated more on Weaver and her character than Hirsch. Weaver is exceptional and with a sharper script she could have had a role that maybe would have led to an Oscar nomination but instead we get endless scenes of Hirsch at parties or his shenanigans with the neighbor next door. Harris shows he can be a good writer\/director but with this effort he just throws so many different things at the audience that the material just becomes labored and contrived.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"===========BIG SPOILER================================== This is a terrible movie with no likable characters. So many clich\u00e9s and senseless scenes. It needs a good editor but then there might not be any movie left. Please save your two hours. The only decent and unpredictable scene in the movie was when the younger brother refuses to stop his brother from killing himself. The description read \"moments of dark comedy\". Perhaps I missed those when I blinked. The horrible characters start right with the funeral. The funeral goers are laughing and complaining about the food while at the funeral of a very young man who has committed suicide? Then the father makes digs at the only son left? Right at the funeral? How is it that the next door neighbor whose husband cheated on her with Sigourney Weaver's character is the bad guy for telling the husband? The father doesn't even know his son can play the piano though everyone else around him seems to know he is a great pianist. The movie tries to shove every dramatic clich\u00e9 possible into one movie: father over-driving athletic son to succeed, dysfunctional family losing a chosen son to suicide, the son left feeling lost and alone, drugs, marital affairs, child conceived via affair but raised as husband's son, incest, homosexual tendencies, bullies, possible terminal illness, etc, etc, etc. DO NOT WASTE YOUR 2 HOURS.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a character's movie. The plot wasn't that hot when it was there, but the characters were interesting and very well-acted. The story focuses on the Travis family in the wake of the eldest son's suicide. I say that loosely, because the story is mostly about the surviving son and the mother, because if the father WAS supposed to have the story focus on him too, they edited the movie pretty poorly. The acting on all parts was very good, particularly Emile Hirsch as the surviving, confused son. The characters were all very interesting and I didn't mind watching them until late in the film, when it just seemed to drag.

My big complaint, however, was the story. The son killing himself was supposed to be the center of the plot. However, it really wasn't. It was something that happened at the start of the story, but then everything went every which way. Then they'd mention that the son killed himself to remind you that that was the central thread. The other thing was that the big plot twists, of which there were plenty, were never really explained or built up to, but just thrown in there randomly and often from far left field. In fairness, the ending was very, very cool. But it was also clear where the inspiration for the story came from: about half of it (the half that wasn't padding) was pretty much lifted from the story in the Pearl Jam song Alive. Which reminds me...

There was a \"poem\" in the movie that was supposedly written by someone who killed themself. I could not have been the only one who recognized that said poem was lifted, word for word, from that very same song. I dunno, this was a movie I had hope for, and they really, really dropped the ball.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This wretched psychodrama uses every shabby device in the book to wheedle attention and sympathy from us for its characters, who, with one exception, are not worthy of any notice at all, let alone two precious hours of filmgoers' time.

As in Robert Redford's \"Ordinary People\" (a superb film that, in comparison, clearly shows up the vacuity of \"Heroes\"), a late teenage boy has died, leaving his family in the throes of bereavement. In this case, the death was a suicide, an event that nearly always poisons the emotional well of the survivors in a particularly corrosive way. We follow these people over the next 8 or 9 months.

The father (Jeff Daniels) becomes a withdrawn, virtually mute, usually drunken stiff who secretly takes leave from his job for months, sits instead on a park bench all day, and insists on setting a full plate of food at the deceased son's place for every meal. He treats everyone else in the family with unerring nastiness. He sees his doctor regularly but the issue of therapeutic intervention in his obviously dysfunctional state never comes up.

The mother (Sigourney Weaver) yells at the neighbor woman, among others, gets busted when she stupidly tries to buy \"marijuana\" (her term) at a head shop (what adult in reality would ever try such a dumb stunt?), and, near the end, swoons into coma with a lung condition that everyone in the theater assumes is cancer (she's a heavy smoker). Ms. Weaver has a few flip lines but generally behaves too unintelligently to merit much empathy.

It's not that there aren't people out there who behave in these silly ways when severely stressful circumstances arise. But why make a film of such drivel? What can anyone learn from this pair's conduct?

The deceased's older sister (Michelle Williams) is away at college and all too happy to distance herself from the family zoo. The younger brother (played by Emile Hirsch) is the only credible member of the family. His suffering is genuine, its causes multifold, and his conduct is coherent within the circumstances. But Hirsch's character is too soft spoken, too morose and beaten down, to carry the movie. The other bit players, subtexts and cutesy, unreal dialogue don't help.

The suicide theme is echoed in an almost nonchalant manner in the case of two other minor characters. So what is the writer-director, Dan Harris, trying to say about this subject? That it isn't a serious matter? Why Jeff Daniels agreed to play the sap of a father as written in this screenplay is something only his therapist might possibly be able to answer. Avoid this dog. Instead rent Redford's classic. My rating: 4\/10 (C-). (Seen on 2\/17\/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just finished watching this horribly depressing drama and realized that, in light of recent dramas such as these, the only ones who could be considered abnormal are those who are least aware that life is nothing more than tragic. I would suggest how nauseatingly defeatist and counter-productive this conclusion is, even if relationships and outlooks like those presented in this movie are grounded in fact to some degree. But, instead, I realized that these films have made the very determination of the great \"tragedy\" trivial when the same boring situations, the same suffocating dysfunctional families and friendships continue to play out just have they been over and over again in some sort of attempt to knock out previous distortions of family life (much of it existing in the 1950s and earlier with personality and character aberrations being made ever so subtle), supplanting it instead with the \"reality\" of how things actually are. That in fact, what we are watching is no longer the dysfunctional, but in fact, a normal existence and set of circumstances that has actually existed all along, but of which we may have been previously been unaware and thus, have ignored or at least denied.

Only problem is, that too many films have been trying to make this point. And by doing so in nearly identical form. When I had read the synopsis for the film, I immediately thought of 'Ice Storm.' While watching the depressing lifelessness of the Travis family, which seemed to endure repeated emotional berating, I immediately recalled 'American Beauty.' And, in some regards, the interactions between the parents and the middle child, Tim, I drew similarities from 'Igby Goes Down.' 'Imaginary Heroes' may be a novel experience, maybe a refreshing one deemed so for an honest portrayal of character that, as said before, is often not permitted to exist in the films of family (which is idiotic to think anyways, considering we were already seeing these kinds of relationships displayed in films like 'Ordinary People' as early as 1980 and which go back even further than that). But, to the well-versed viewer, these films may offer nothing new. They have in fact, become a rather tired testimony of too many filmmakers who may try to out-do the other with the amount of trauma and apathy they can pack into one family (and here, it extends to neighbors and friends). In fact, 'Imaginary Heroes,' the latest in this genre (I do think there have been enough films to accurately declare it a 'genre'), crams so many disasters and surprises into one family, that they would make prize finds for a daytime talk show host. It is the story of a family who is tested by the suicide of the eldest son, a talented and decorated swimmer who hated the sport with a passion. The youngest son knew this, the father was in a daze and blinded by the push for competitiveness in his all-star son. And it's not clear that the mother and sister had much of a relationship with the young man.

Granted, it is no less entertaining (to some extent, for those who find this material exhaustively depressing after a while), and the performances are quite good, especially by Sigourney Weaver and Jeff Daniels. But, I sure hope that filmmakers in the future wishing to add to the commentary of struggling familial relationships (which coincidentally or not always seem to be upper-middle class white suburban families) intend to offer something new by way of material and insight. I should see no distinction (and consequently, no purpose) otherwise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kinda funny how comments for this film went consistently downhill, now add mine. I think the script could have been saved by better acting, and the acting by a better script. Together, it was difficult to watch, and I don't flinch from such subject matter.

Sigourney was the best part (I thought the relationship between her and her surviving son was pretty much the only new thing this film offered to its genre) but even she lagged. Can't blame her, who knows what takes were left on the cutting room floor by the director and\/or editor. The whole movie had an \"okay, that's good enough, let's move on\" feel to it, when I KNOW there was more to be mined from the actors and the script, which did have some good lines and some interesting themes.

I don't think this counts as a spoiler, but a perfect example is the scene where Sigourney marches up to her son's supposed tormentor's house and has this look on her face and I thought \"that's the face of someone who is overacting what it's like to see someone living in a mobile home\" and sure enough, next shot, meant to shock us I'm sure, bully lives in a trailer as opposed to a nice house, like hers.

As many other posters have pointed out, there are SO MANY better movies with similarly airy scripts about similarly messed up families that hit the notes better -- \"Celebration\" probably being the ultimate example that I've seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stylized Hollywood Westerns, full of familiar conventions, seem to have eternal life and this is an avatar. Everything in it seems to have been scraped out of the back of a drawer from 1939, a larger budget applied, and this production its issue.

Gary Cooper has played this sort of role dozens of times -- the displaced Southerner, fast on the draw and firm with honor, though kinda easy going whenever possible. He plays Blayde Hollister who travels to Texas looking for the gang who destroyed his cotton plantation. He wears a buckskin-fringed shirt and packs two ivory-handled six shooters. He speaks with a countrified accent -- \"A feller could get hurt doin' this.\" (Cf., \"Sergeant York.\") The gang is led by sneering Raymond Massey, who buys and sells land, usually by underhanded means whenever possible. The gang includes Steve Cochran, who cannot play a Westerner though he's very good at scum bags in general. The requisite woman is Ruth Roman, daughter of the Mexican plantation owner, who looks and speaks about as Mexican as a Boston brown betty.

I don't think I'll bother too much with the plot. No doubt someone has gone into it in some detail and it's not worth much more mention. As in any 1939 Western, it's labyrinthine. Everyone except Cooper and his friends are underhanded and there are multiple double crosses and switched identities and hidden secrets.

Everything is retro. The plot, the dialog, the wardrobe, even the music. The score is by Warner's stalwart Max Steiner. He's the guy that scored \"King Kong.\" That was 1932. This movie was released in 1950.

Cooper's name, by the way -- \"Blayde Hollister\" -- prompted me to look through the records of the RACA -- the Real American Cowboy Associaton -- to see if that name cropped up in their archives, which date from the beginning of time to February 4th, 1911, when the last Real Cowboy passed away due to an unfortunate encounter with a deranged peccary. There has never been a Real Cowboy with the name Blayde. Hollister, yes, but not Blayde. As a matter of fact, there is no record of any Real Cowboy named Wade, Luke, Cole, or Matt either. The most popular names for genuine cowboys, in descending order of frequency, were Clarence, Mortimer, Noble, Nebukadnezzar, Plautus, Pinchbeck, and Hortense.

If this movie had been released in 1939, it would have been routine. In 1950, it is a calamitous monument in the history of human recycling.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the most ridiculous westerns that Hollywood ever made. Gary Cooper plays 'Reb Hollister', a former confederate officer wanted by the law. He meets up with a moron named Weatherby, played by Leif Erickson, who is a U.S. Marshal with no knowledge of firearms. Weatherby is on his way to Dallas to see his fiancee, Tonia Robles, played by Ruth Roman. Senor Robles, Tonia's father, has plenty of men, but they can't seem to be able to keep an eye on his cattle, which are regularly rustled by the Marlow brothers. Will Marlow, played by Raymond Massey, has financed the loan on the Robles estate, making things completely absurd. He even has the power to call for mortgage payments before they're due, simply because he feels like it.

Since Weatherby is a Boston boy who can't fight, since he only became a Marshal so he could visit his fiancee, Tonia, (Just another instance of more plot nonsense. Are we to assume that you only have to pass a written test to get this job? Wait a minute, this guy couldn't pass the written test either.) he switches identities with Reb Hollister, who of course is an expert gunman. Reb takes the liberty of greeting Weatherby's girl with a passionate kiss, while Weatherby looks on like an idiot. Gary Cooper, Hollywood's number one stud, is in fine form here as Reb. Before the movie's done, not only does he take Weatherby's job, he steals his fiancee also, and Ruth Roman as Tonia, falls for him so hard and so fast that she gives chump Leif Erickson the brush-off before the films little more than half over.

There isn't a shred of plot credibility in the whole film, so despite the good cast and lush photography, the film is a dud. And Cooper's character is a complete heel to boot. The film also stars Barbara Payton as Brant Marlow's girl, a beautiful and talented actress who squandered away her chances, unfortunately, by making too many headlines for the wrong reasons. I strongly suggest you pass this one up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the most pitiful excuse for a comedy show I've ever seen. I'm confounded that this guy was given his own show. It smells of complete and utter desperation on the part of comedy central, trying to fill the void left by the talented and incomparable Dave Chapelle. He's a tip from Ned's bag of comedy gold: Is a punchline not funny? Need to give it that extra push into hilarity? F***ING YELL IT AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS. Simple, no? And as an added bonus....finish half your jokes with...THEN YOU'RE RE-TAH-DED!! or DUH-DU-DUUUUHHHH! Oh man. So....funny. Beaner...hilarious. Wetback....does the laughter ever stop?

To illustrate my point in a more cerebral way, i'll cite an example. Mencia jokes about how \"retarded\" it is to rebuild new orleans, because it's so close to the water. Genius. The line of distinction between a great comedian and a hack has never been drawn so clearly. While a good comedian would find hidden humor in the tragedy, finding subtle ways of weaving a joke into something that we can all laugh at and take solace in, Ned goes for the obvious. Move the city. Great. Wait, is that funny? Ned doesn't have the intellectual capacity to find the deepest meaning of things. The hurricane didn't flood the city, ned. The levee project was underfunded and in serious need of federal dollars...and behold! They broke. I guess that's God's way of telling us we shouldn't be there. After all, he's got a seat in congress. What a fool.

Chapelle was a master of turning a tired racial comedic spin on its head. He was effortless at it, and at all points, we were laughing with him. While mencia talks about black people not being able to swim *yawn,* Chapelle took it 300 yards further with the black and blind white supremesist. You don't have to be scathing to be edgy. You have to be original.

Mencia and his legions of fans are like that closeted gay dude who laughs all too emphatically at gay jokes, thinking it somehow masks his own insecurities. Except of course, with Ned, he's laughing all too emphatically at the \"retards.\" Du-du-duuuuh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought \"puppets making crank phone calls\" was pretty low, but I don't believe that Carlos Mencia's show even qualifies as comedy. His main objective is to make the audience incredibly uncomfortable while using the word \"beaner\" as many times as he possible can. I have never felt compelled to write a review declaring the awfulness of anything on IMDb before, but I really do hope this show is never renewed or rerun.

Mencia is trying to be the next Dave Chapelle, and perhaps he was only hired by the network because they hoped he would fill those shoes. It is obvious right down to the rip of Chapelle's intro (blues guys vs. mariachi band). However, Mencia has absolutely *no* attitude, and does not delve into popular views of the hispanic culture enough to come up with a creative poke at it each time. Instead he sticks to a small number of hardly-shocking nicknames for his fellow latinos and makes \"jokes\" about immigration. Every once in a while, he'll take advantage of the slight darkness of his skin to make fun of someone else, like middle eastern cultures. These jokes mainly consist of reiterating every joke or stereotype made against the culture, and perhaps some incredibly old topics (such as 9\/11), in a watered down, stand-up style, while he laughs at himself to cover up the audience's style. I think he's too afraid of really offending anyone, so it just makes the viewer feel awkward. He also beats jokes to death. If you've ever seen \"Why the f*** is this news?\" you'll know what I'm talking about. It's funny at first, but he just rambles on and on and becomes Captain Obvious at some point.

It's a trainwreck that is purely painful to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't watched this show in months, but for a while I was forced to watch it every day because I had a roommate that liked it. So maybe it's undergone some vast improvement in all that time, although the commercials and the 4.2 rating on IMDb aren't a good sign.

It was clearly just a quick replacement for Chappelle's Show. Even Mencia says so. And while I wasn't even that big a fan of Chappelle's Show, his jokes were at least original and clever (and far edgier than Mencia has ever been). Mencia's jokes are completely unoriginal and stale. If you can't see that, I guess there's just no hope for you. But to be fair, here are some examples:

--Mencia blatantly rips off Chapelle's Lil Jon skit. Just takes it.

--\"South Park\" makes an episode about scientology. One week later, Mencia has a joke on his show about how offensive he is to scientologists. Bear in mind the joke isn't ABOUT scientologists, but about how much he's offended them on his show. When up to this point, he has never made a single scientology joke, ever.

--After Hurricane Katrina, two AP photos go around the Internet showing a black man \"looting\" groceries and a white woman \"finding\" them. WEEKS later, after millions of people have already seen this, Mencia presents it on his show as if he discovered it and it's being shown for the first time (the Daily Show would have been on something like that in a day). Pathetic.

Even more annoying than the joke-stealing is the way Carlos has promoted himself and his show, claiming he's breaking down some sort of PC barrier (whatever) and that if you aren't laughing, you must be a weak prude who can't handle any jokes about race. Yes, Carlos, it's not because you're not funny, it's because we're all too offended to laugh (if that was really true, then why was Chappelle's Show so popular?). He constantly berates his audience for \"not getting it\" if he doesn't get enough laughs, and often repeats and EXPLAINS his jokes, a technique most comedians stop using by age 14.

The worst part is that Mencia does not seem to be very intelligent. It's sort of tragic that there are dozens of funnier, more insightful comedians out there trying to make it while this guy is rolling in money. His show is supposedly the third highest rated on Comedy Central, which is baffling (again, it has a 4.2 rating on this site). Where the hell are they getting these numbers?? Comedy Central tries to bill itself as an \"edgy\" station, but as long as it tries to appeal to the dumbest audience possible, that will never be the case.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...so where's my friggin trophy? I seriously expected a banner and confetti to drop from my ceiling for watching a full 30 minutes of that crap. Comedy Central is truly dropping the ball lately, trying to fill the void left by Chappelle with multiple seasons of a retarded man impersonating retarded men. Dah duh nah!! If you pay attention to the show, you'll notice that when Mencia isn't stuttering over punchlines and laughing at his own skits, he only makes exaggerated observations which seem to lack any sense of humor. You ever notice how people in Buick's drive really slow? It's like Dah duh nah! Not even the midgets and half naked hot chicks manage to distract from Mencia's distinct lack of talent. Furthermore, Mencia isn't even a \"wetback\" as he constantly and adamantly proclaims he is, which makes him a fraud on top of it all.

If anything good could be said about Mencia, it's his effort. The man clearly has no talent, but like a wounded antelope in the mouth of a hungry alligator, god knows he's trying.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yup, that's right folks, this is undoubtedly the worst show in the history of television. If you want to watch a sad, lonely and unfunny hack comedian attempt to entertain the masses with a half hour of pale and tired social ramblings that your mildly retarded cousin commented on at the Thanksgiving dinner table then this might be the show for you. This is billed as edgy comedy my friends but to be honest this makes Tim Allen look like Richard Pryor. Avoid at all costs. Unless you're a masochist.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I absolutely love stand-up comedy. I love to hear the raw thoughts of the stand-up on stage, as they are appealing to an audience of their peers different life experiences they have had, or things they have thought up or seen that they just thought were so ****ing stupid that they had to share it with someone.

There used to be stand-ups who took on a persona that everyone could relate to (Rodney Dangerfield comes to mind) or were just so damn crazy that you couldn't help but laugh with them as they laughed at others (Richard Pryor). And then, there were the thought-provoking comics like George Carlin, who, despite pretending to be a loon, was the smartest guy in the room, who appealed to people to rethink things they saw when they walked around, and realize just how screwed up things were, and how easily they could change things.

Now, this might seem to not have anything to do with \"Mind Of Mencia,\" which, as I agree with most commentators here, is Comedy Central's horrid solution to the loss of \"Chappelle's Show,\" but it does. Carlos Mencia spends half of the show doing stand-up bits for his audience, sometimes on popular topics, most of the time on just racism and racial stereotypes. He tries to be all three of the above types of stand-ups. He makes a stage character, an every-day Mexican named Carlos who, despite stereotypes, is just your run-of-the-mill normal guy. He then proceeds to try to laugh at others, people he calls racist or just those that disagree with his opinion. And then, finally, he presents skits to the studio audience and the viewer, telling them that it will help them see his point of view.

Carlos Mencia always says he's showing a point of view that people don't see, yet what he is really doing is not only promoting racist stereotypes that already exist and have been joked about to death, but he stupidly encourages people to hear them and do the one thing that helps keep them around:laugh.

Promoting stereotypes is usually the lowest, yet easiest, way to get laughs in stand-up. The best comedians, which, I fear, Carlos Mencia feels he is in good company with, don't have to resort to them. They talk universally, and ask you to laugh AT absurdity, rather than with it, like Mencia encourages. As he creates more skits or \"real-life\" situations that call for racism or the bashing of others with the use of it, he tells us, rather than asks us, to laugh, and actually presents these absurdities as truth, rather than just extremes of it.

His show is an insult to the minds of those who watch it. Mencia doesn't give us comedy and ask us to digest it and take from it what we want (something that, as much as I hate to compare the two, was \"Chappelle's Show's\" finest quality) he tells us exactly how we should view it and react to it---which, according to him, is to make a stupid face and say \"Dee Dee Dee!\" This show is appropriately named. It is indeed a show about \"The Mind of Mencia.\" It's Mencia's mind, through and through, and, as such, is nothing more than dumb entertainment. The show is tailor-made to give life lessons to its core audience, 14-24 year olds, about how stereotypes are bad, but that racial bashing is alright to Carlos Mencia, and therefore should be alright to you!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What is it now-a-days that minority comedians feel its okay to slander their minority and expect to get away with it?

Carlos Mencia is no George Lopez. There IS a difference. When watching comedian Carlos Mencia, I think he hates his own people. And more than that, I think he was forced to pattern his show as the \"Hispanic\/Latino\/Spanish\" version of the Dave Chappelle show. What a horrible mistake. (Note to Mencia: Please do not do a \"Block Party\" movie. As much as I would like to see Santana, Tierra, El Chicano, Christina Agullaria, Jennifer Lopez, Shakira and the reunion of the cast of \"Xica da Silva\" on one stage, don't.)

Carlos Mencia likes to use the word \"beaners\" as much as Dave Chappelle liked using the \"n\" word. Neither is funny and neither is acceptable, even if it's from 'their own people'. Carols Mencia also likes to say, \"If you're offended, too bad\". It's not the offense, it's the defense because of what is being said and asked to be accepted.

Carols Mencia goes further - he disrespects everyone for what he assumes is comedy. It's not comedy, it's not funny. There is a finesse to being able to look at yourself and make others laugh out of comedy and not laugh out of enforcing stereotypes that other races believed in the beginning.

Mind of Mencia needs polishing because Carlos Mencia needs polishing. Find out what is funny and not what will set more prejudices in motion and then - do it. Until then, the show, Mind of Mencia is a pass.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Carlos Mencia just plain isn't funny! His show is painful to watch because of that. His sketches\/parodies are all very horrible, and this really just feels like a filler for the Chapelle Show, which while I'm not a big fan of that, it is much funnier than this trash. Carlos Mencia gives the stupid speeches and he all too often depends on finishing his monologues with a retarded voice and going \"der, der der.\" It's just not funny. He often, when talking to others, makes puns. They are horrible and painful. When people don't laugh, he blames them...why would anyone laugh, he's not funny. He has an immature sense of humor in everything he does on this show, it's amazing that anyone but 3 year olds watch this. One of my least favorite things he does, is water down every topic and make it seem like a joke! I hope that this racist idiot gets taken off the air as soon as possible because he's dumbing down a station that doesn't need to be dumbed down anymore.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a great example of what happened at Comedy Central after Dave Chapelle left. Here's the problem with Carlos Mencia. Firstly, his birth name is Ned Holness, and was known that until he was 18, when he switched his name to Ned Arnel Mencia. He was born in Honduras, though he acts like he's from Mexico. He grew up in the United States, as well.

I might be able to forgive all that crap, but...

He's been caught stealing other peoples material. Joe Rogan has been his most vocal critic in this way. The Stereotype Olympics was an idea he ripped off a couple of DJ's from Miami. He has stolen jokes from Bill Cosby. He stole George Lopez's material in his own HBO special (13 minutes of it).

He thinks what he's doing is so original, but Dave Chapelle and Lisa Lampanelli have been cracking on race for years before this idiot (amoung others).

This show will crash and burn. The word Beaner can't last that long before it gets old. He hasn't done anything new since the first episode.

\"Wanna hear a joke? A Beaner jumping a fence!! That's funny for 3 Seasons!\" Not.

Awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm surprised that the comparison hasn't been made yet between Mind of Mencia and the television program The Awful Truth, which ran a few years ago. Helmed by controversial director Michael Moore, the show would begin, in the exact same manor as this show, with Moore interacting with the audience, and introducing segments, namely short documentaries and skits, which had been put together in an attempt to provoke thoughts about current issues. The difference? Mencia rarely delves past the superficial and the reactionary. What he says and does is often pandering and rude, and insults the ability of his audience to make decisions for themselves. There's a difference between being \"edgy\", which I have no problem with, but Mencia tries too hard to accomplish this, and ends up coming off as arrogant, and with little backing. He does however, make points occasionally, but often in order to get to them, one has to sit through some pretty mind numbing attempted shock humor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...If you've been laughing too much for a long time, and need to take a break.

After reading about 25 unfavorable reviews of this show, I decided to turn it on and check it out for myself. Everything that each of those people have said about this show is absolutely true. Mind of Mencia is like a half hour version of Mad TV, but with somehow worse jokes.

One skit I had the displeasure of watching was \"The Second Annual Stereotype Olympics\". What's funny about black guy who has trouble swimming, or gay guy named \"Sparkles\" that wins a banana eating contest? Neither of these concepts is particularly novel, insightful, or amusing. Do we really need a joke about Star Wars every episode? That movie came out like 30 years ago. Mencia's solution to funny things up is toss in some stereotypes about Hispanics and throw a few \"beaners\" in there; and call it a day to go home to roll around in his pile of money. Pure comedic genius.

Then he blatantly ripped off Jeff Foxworthy on a second show I watched, with a \"Your gay if...\" bit. You could just imagine the roaring laughter he got when he snook in a Ryan-Seacrest-is-gay joke. It's not like either of those has already been done to death.

Unless you're a big fan of Jason Friedberg and Adam Seltzer movies, please stay away from this show. Especially when there are authentic comedians like Dave Chappelle out there who can joke about races and racism and still be insightful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Did you find the title funny? Oh, you didn't? Well that's because you're uptight. Learn to laugh because if you're not laughing, you're not living. So please, lower your standards regarding to what you believe is funny to that of a mere infant. Now do you find it funny? Still no?! OK, that's because you're full of yourself and get offended too easily. If you're not laughing, you're not living. And if you don't like me then send me hate mail so that I could write another review and state how much hate mail I get and try to twist this into making it seem as if I am a bad ass. Are you laughing at my hilarious title yet? Still no?!?! OK that's it! You are a racist! You HAVE to laugh or else you are a racist. Why else would you not laugh? Oh, It's not funny!?! No, this can't be why. I want it to be funny so therefor it is!! Laugh damn it!!!! Please!!! Deedeedee!! Durdurdur!! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK that's it. Where's my notepad and pen? And where's my Richard Pryor DVD's? I need to write some jokes for my show.

And...... scene. Thank you, thank you.

This is basically what you'll get from Mencia for about 23 minutes. Please, do yourself a favor and change the channel when this bum's show comes on. Even basic cable channels have things 100x better than this. I'm not even saying this because I hate him. I'm for real. This show is like watching grass grow. Not sure though, at least grass doesn't steal jokes. I'm honestly trying to save YOUR time. I even tried watching his show. I told myself \"maybe he isn't THAT bad.\". But no, he is. I completely zone out when I watched his show. I tried to collect myself during the commercial break and focus on the show but I couldn't. I zoned out again, I think I was thinking of something more interesting like re-making my bed, vacuuming or folding my socks. Before I knew it, the show was over. Yeah, it's that bad.

Here's my final thought - There's so many things you can do with 30 minutes besides watch this guy shout about nothing for half an hour. Don't watch a show that tries to shove racism in your face in vain. I can support shows that try to ease the tension of the race wars but this guy just provides more racism rather than stop it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To put it simply, Mind of Mencia is the worst, unfunniest show on Comedy Central, and quite possibly all of television... ever. I love Comedy Central and watch many shows and movies there all the time, but every time the intro for this show even starts after some good comedy, I can't find the remote fast enough.

Mencia tells used, worn out racial jokes in a bad attempt at being controversial, then will point out the ethnicity he just talked about in the audience as if to say 'they liked it, so all of your race likes it, and by extension me too'. Give me a break Mencia, I don't know if those people are plants or not, but just because you go to a black guy and high five him after one of your ridiculous jokes, doesn't mean he thinks you're funny, it just means you put him on the spot and what else is he going to do, smack you on TV? He gives the impression that his jokes are deep, meaningful, and thought provoking, which is apparent in his commercials, but when you actually watch the show almost 100% of what he says is common sense. He also claims that only smart people get some of his jokes, but you don't have to be any smarter than a monkey to understand what he just said when he says that, maybe you need to go finish 3rd grade Carlos. The guy goes on to say that he says what others are only thinking, but I think you'll find that if anyone was thinking what he says, they figured out all on their own that it was ridiculous, and that's why they never said it in the first place.

All in all, watch 1 episode and be done with it if you must, because after you've seen 1 episode, you've seen them all. Why Comedy Central keeps renewing this horrible show is well beyond me. If you're looking for good comedy, look elsewhere, because you will find very little of it here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thats right I can't watch Comedy Central anymore just because I can't bear to watch the repeated commercials for this show. I'll tell you the truth, this is a terrible show not because I'm offended by it, but because Carlos Mencia is one of the worst comedians I have ever seen. I rather watch Carrot Top do a George Bush impression than watch this no-skill hack. And to believe he calls himself the greatest. Even if he didn't steal the jokes, he is still bad at telling them, he's way off-timing and unoriginal. I remember in one joke he said \"Why do white people go camping? to pretend there poor for a week?\" Now what is that suppose to mean? That all white people are rich? Another one I didn't understand was when he did a skit of the Price is Right and he told some fat guy \"You should know how much a fridge cost, you're fat\" and the fat guy had the saddest look on his face. But what does that mean? That \"fat people\" are always looking for refrigerators? Those are just the two I seen in his commercials, God knows what his show is like..

This show falls in the likes of Epic Movie and Date Movie..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's been a whole lot made about Carlos Mencia's (Mr. Holness, excuse me) theft of other comics' material. Heck, even before Joe Rogan had a blowup with him on stage I knew that Carlos Mensteala was swiping material from Cosby and Kinison and a host of others.

To compound the crime of his theft, he retold these comic geniuses jokes BADLY.

And that is a crime he continues to perpetuate on this show. I'm sure the series writers have to share some of the blame - it's got to be hard to write jokes day in and day out... but that's why people get paid so darned much to do it! These series writers need to go back to their day jobs of flipping burgers or whatever it was they were doing before they decided to embark upon a career of intellectual theft.

Not to say that he steals all of his material. You can tell when he has devised a joke on his own when what you are watching transcends the merely awful and goes straight into the territory of horrifyingly bad.

Because he likes to call people b***h on his show, ten year olds call him a genius. They're gonna grow up one of these days, Carlos, and when they do, you're gonna dry up and blow away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The tagline for this show is, \"He's speaking his mind. We're hiring extra lawyers.\" If you look back in time, any classic raunchy comedian never prided himself in being controversial. Richard Pryor's tagline wasn't, \"I'm Crude, Racist and Daring.\" That's basically how Comedy Central is marketing this show - in your face, non-PC and \"honest\" - but how can a television show pride itself in being this way? Where's the humility and humbleness? And what suddenly has made Carlos Mencia this huge figure for Comedy Central? Let's start at the beginning - Dave Chappelle cancels his show (which became UNEXPECTEDLY popular and controversial) and Comedy Central is looking around for someone new to push. They hire this guy named Ned who claims to be a Mexican, even though he isn't. They splatter his face on a few TV ads and make it look like they're being \"daring\" by unleashing him upon the public.

I've seen a lot of hateful topics on the forums for this show, and I don't agree with \"Mencia's\" detractors. This is not an awful show. It had me crying in laughter a few times. When it's funny, it's very, very funny. Yes, it's juvenile - but so was Chappelle's.

The problem with Carlos is that he uses a lot of the same material over and over. And he's too obvious. The overt marketing put aside, \"Carlos\" has now said beaner so many times I have lost count. He's trying to make it the next famous line (like \"I'm Rick James, b****!\") but it's way too obvious.

In terms of repeating himself, Carlos uses many of the same jokes over and over. For example, on one episode he said he'd love it if all Mexicans disappeared from America overnight. He'd wake up and an American guy would be saying, \"Room ser'vuce!\" in a southern accent.

He used this exact same joke - verbatim - when he appeared as a guest on Adam Carolla's talk show. It was a great deal less funny the second time around, because he seemed more desperate.

Is \"Carlos\" funny? I think so. There are some outrageous moments on his show. But he focuses too much on TRYING to be controversial rather than just going with the flow and letting his comedy naturally progress. Repeating silly little catchphrases over and over again coupled with goofy faces and loud vocal screams does indeed get old quite fast...I just hope Carlos - or his writers - can give a new edge to this show, because right now it's starting to dwindle in repeat hell.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, I like to give the benefit of the doubt. I watched his show.

It isn't funny to me. All I remember was a lot of \"weird\" noises and yelling. I don't think I even cracked a smile. The only thing that somewhat resembled humour was his Anjelina Jolie\/Jennifer Aniston bit. I think you can get dumber by the minute watching it though.

Also, what's with the \"Ask Whitey?\" section? Is that a ripoff of \"Ask a Gay Dude?\/Black Man?\" from Chappelle's Show? Isn't it that obvious? But when Chappelle did it, he was exposing the ignorance of the subject. Like Borat. But what's up with picking random white people and yelling stuff at them? That's not funny, its just plain dumb.

And I'm pretty sure I heard certain \"jokes\" of his somewhere else... it seems abit like he's 'plagerising' bits & pieces, throwing in some \"loud\" yelling.

Anyway, it wasn't funny. Seriously. Don't even waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Besides the fact that this guy is a liar, he is also a total idiot, and a thief in the comedy community. Once when I attempted to watch this excuse for a television show, I believe i actually threw up in my mouth a little. I can't help but feel a little bit dumber every time is see one of his horrid commercials while I am enjoying great comedy central programs like Reno 911 and American body shop. It shows like this that make me worry about the continual existence of mankind. It's hard to believe that even Joe Rogan can make someone look like an moron. Please begin praying now that comedy central will realize their mistake and end this show as soon as possible. Haven't we suffered enough?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a huge comedy show fan. Racial humor is always a little risky but the greats like George Lopez, Dave Chapelle, Lisa Lampanelli etc. pull it off perfectly.

They don't go overboard, make the audience uncomfortable or *cough cough* STEAL JOKES! But I won't harp upon that.

Carlos makes racial humor totally unenjoyable. His jokes continually scream racial humor to the point were it's not funny or clever, but it's insulting. I'm not one to turn cold towards racial humor. But his execution of these jokes is sloppy that cause people to recoil at his comedy.

His humor is only surpassed by his stage presence in annoyance. I feel as though he's SCREAMING at me constantly! And he runs around the stage like a maniac. It only comes off as annoying!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Carlos Mencia is not funny. From his stand up specials to this train wreck of a TV series, Carlos Mencia is not funny. I have been trying to convince people for two years that he steals other comedians' jokes, and as far as his comedy material goes, he is a regular \"Johnny-come-lately\" with far less than sub-par results. Psycho astronaut jokes? Britney Spears breakdown jokes? I hope this is only a scheduling error, but come on Carlos and Comedy Central, those topics, and many others, have run the gamut of late night TV show hosts' opening monologues, Saturday Night Live, Mad TV and many, many others. Lampooning ethnic and racial stereotypes? Comedy stands no chance of evolving with Carlos Mencia around. Perhaps people, especially viewers and Comedy Central executives will get the point since this week's issue of \"New York\" magazine accurately labeled him: \"Carlos Mencia, unrepentant joke-filcher.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Occasionally I accidentally leave the television on after \"South Park\" and I end up catching some of the train wreck of middle school humor that is \"Mind of Mencia\". It's the only time I wish my room was cleaner because I'd be able to find the remote that much faster. The truth is Comedy Central was in need of a replacement \"Chappelle's Show\", and what they got was a show that appeals to idiots that either miss Dave so much they'll cling to any minority variety show, or are satisfied with the plain \"Mexicans love tacos\" jokes that Carlos Mencia shovels in every week. I am to understand, though, that there are some people out there that actually find Mencia *shudder* funny. I firmly stand by my words when I say I believe these people to exist only in myth. However, if you are indeed out there, I ask only that you never enter into my housing district, and read these major differences between Carlos and \"Chappelle's Show\":

1) Dave was funny. You may want to highlight this one.

2) \"Chappelle's Show\" was FIVE TIMES as edgy as Mencia could ever hope to be. Yet every time a promo for his little show airs, it's all about him, tooting his own horn about how he's nothing we've ever seen before. You've got that right, Carlos. And not in a good way. Chappelle didn't need to tell people he was edgy and funny. We all just kind of stuck around to watch the show to find out for ourselves.

3) Chappelle actually had race jokes that dove into some depth of the different cultures- things that some people didn't know about. Like his \"I know black people\" game segment. The grand prize was some hair cream that black people use. That's deeper than Mencia would ever dare to dive. So how dare he call himself edgy? If Mencia were writing that sketch the grand prize would have been fried chicken and kool-aid. And my accusations have some merit. I saw a promo for his show (which I have affectionately come to call 'My T.V. Monitor Taking A S--t For Thirty Minutes') a few days ago and it was some stereotype olympics sketch, which i admitted to myself was a pretty funny concept. Then I saw that the Mexican that won received a green card as a grand prize. That's it?! That's as close to the fire as you wanna get? Who COULDN'T think of that- back in 7th grade? For you fans of the show, if you're ever watching and you miss one of his punchlines- perhaps because you and your friends were discussing how \"Duh-De-Durr\" never gets old and is in no way the part of the joke where someone funny would have something clever to say- just remember that there are only five possible choices for punchlines anyway: green card, tacos, border jumpers, lawn mowers, and of course, duh-de-dur. Just remember-whichever it was, it was screamed. Enjoy!

4) Kind of relating to number two. Every time he says something that gets a laugh, he'll pause to tell people (while laughing at his own joke) that he thinks he \"went too far with that last one\". Then don't say it for God's sake. Or let the people decide by themselves. He and Comedy Central keep shoving this tripe down my throat that he's this tell-it-like-it-is show that is more controversial than \"The Da Vinci Code\". You're not. You never will be.

I've never been offended by the show's content. I would never give it that much credit. I'm offended that Carlos Mencia is given thirty minutes to scream unnecessarily. Yeah... I'm literally offended by that fact.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Carlos is perhaps not the most original comic, but the first series was amusing, his forthright comments and observations were fresh. I missed a couple of seasons, but after all of the allegations of stealing material I caught a couple of episodes of the Mind of Mencia at the end of July 07. A bit of a change I see! Carlos is much more into toilet humor and sex jokes than the race observations. In one episode he sort of implied he was in the same league as Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle. I think not. Perhaps Comedy Central will give him one more season, but episodes I saw sounded tired and samey with more words beeped out than the Osbournes. Carlos, go back to stand-up for a couple of years, get some fresh material and try again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've only seen most of the series since I leave the TV on as background noise in my dorm.

I've been a fan of Mencia but this show really doesn't do much for me. Occasionally he'll say or do something to pull a chuckle out, but he has this aura of smugness that completely ruins it.

I've always thought he was funny because of his raging angry-man routine that's not terribly prevalent in this TV series. Instead, he's just smug. I guess that just reflects how funny his comedy is: stale and uninteresting when he isn't in the proper mode of delivery. I've seen him get into it sometimes on his show, but for the most part, he just sits there smiling and looking smug, and it doesn't suit him well.

Just my opinion though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Carlos wants to make fun of affirmative action, racial stereotypes and related topics on his show which makes him a lot like Supreme Court Justice Thomas. He's there BECAUSE of his race and then denigrates it. He can supposedly make fun of Mexicans to no end because he is himself Mexican, and I would also contend he can get away with making fun of the mentally challenged because any lay person can tell he's not the sharpest tool....though he is definitely a tool of some sort.

He is a hack comedian who, even with a staff of writers, can't put together 3 minutes of genuinely funny material in a 30 minute show. I can't think of a single comedian who is regularly on TV that Carlos can hold a candle to except maybe Larry the Cable Guy (not too surprisingly, he also has a show on Comedy Central to cater to the exact same audience no doubt.

If you ever see the greats, Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, Jon Stewart etc. talk about comedy you really get a feeling for the amount of work and thought that goes into developing a funny interesting comedic voice. All that work was completely skipped by Mencia; his comedic voice is, in part, stolen from other better comics and in part hidden by his propensity for yelling his unfunny rehashed racist tripe. Mencia's show is beloved by some of the \"at least I don't suck that badly crowd\" who I firmly believe watch it to feel better from his rants about the dumbing down of society; unfortunately Carlos and his fans are part of the problem not the solution on that topic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It doesn't take balls to make-fun of retarded people. Having to listen to Mencia insist that he is brave to make \"retard\" jokes is intolerable. Also, it doesn't take balls to bite off of the chapelle show. The racial game-shows, the racial olympics, it seems like a lot of the skits are merely reworked Chapelle Show skits, that are just way less funny.

But the most irksome thing in the show is his insistence that he is just marching to the beat of his own drum, when he is actually marching to the beat of many over-worked, over-done drums that have been drummed many times.

I hate this show. I hate that it presents itself as a voice for Latin America.

And no Carlos, I am not trying to censore you. If people like it, then keep it on. But I personally think that it's a bad show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"while mind of mencia could be summed up as nothing more than a clone of chappelle's show, it is really worse than that. first of all, Carlos mencia is a jacka** that is as funny as he is original, which isn't saying much. the show contains lame spoofs of American television ads and political issues, and mencia's \"comedic\" insight on politics adds to the low quality of this show. on top of it all, mencia tosses in more lame ethnic jokes and stolen Jeff foxworthy lines than i can count on one hand. while every once in a while Carlos gets a cheap laugh, the rest of the time he spends insulting everyone in sight, which does include exploiting his own audience members. with the exception of south park, drawn together, and Friday night stand-up, this show marks the end of the chappelle's show glory days, which for those of you who haven't heard, was before he went to Africa.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show reminds me of an episode of \"The Simpsons,\" where Smithers had just been fired by Mr. Burns and was forced to live a miserable life being unemployed. All he did to while the way the hours was to drink and watch Comedy Central. The implication was that Comedy Central was a pathetic TV channel for miserable people with nothing else to occupy their time. \"Mind of Mencia\" is slightly better than most of Comedy Central's programming, but it still serves as an example of why this channel is low-quality filler for people with absolutely no lives.

Truth be told, Mencia is a fairly competent comedian who throws out trite, soft-ball ethnic jokes and cashes in on bland stereotypes of people based on their race, gender, or economic status, or a combination of two out of three of these characteristics. If you've heard one of these jokes by one of your friends at a bar or at work, believe me, you've heard what passes as comedy on \"Mind of Mencia.\" Carlos also tries to make fun of current events, but lacks creativity or originality. This is not to say that Carlos is a washout all the time. I found some of his skits amusing, such as his rap video portrayal as an oil sheik. If you find bland, run-of-the-mill comedy up your alley, you'll probably enjoy \"Mind of Mencia.\" For those people who are tired of repetitive, pedestrian comedians trotting out the same old time-worn jokes, stay away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry but this guy is not funny. I swear I've heard heard 4 year olds come up with better jokes then some of his. \"Dee dee dee\" for instance is possibly the worst catch phrase I've ever heard. It lacks any creativity at all, and to be making fun of mentally challenged people when you've reached level of having your own show is incredibly dim-witted on Mencia's part.

Though every one compares this fool to Chappelle, their is no contest. First off they had very very different shows. I think all in all Menica's show on average had only about 2 short 5 minute skits in between his 10 minute rants about god knows what. Chappelles show came off more as sketch comedy, with 2-4 skits that occupied all the show. All chappelle did was a short summarization of each skit before and after each one. This is where Mencia fails even more. What would make Mencia think having a show which consists of the same standup comedy that he talks about on his standup specials would be a beneficial idea? Does anybody really want to listen to a bit George Lopez pioneered years before Mencia, but just dragged beyond belief to the point where its dead? Snowflake's chance in Hell.

My point is even though most people hate this guy for his rascism, I just cant stand him for his imcompetence. Comedy Central was looking for a minority they could brand as \"controversial\" and then leave him to follow Chappelles path. The problem, is this guy made it very clear he doesn't want to be Chappelle. So instead he conducts his crappy show like a burning trainwreck right into the ground. Does anybody want to watch a weekly standup about the same stuff every thursday, I know sure as hell I don't.

I cant express my gratitude to Comedy Central though. This idiot's show is done. Personally after watching his standup, I don't know how he got his own show in the first place. There are so many more deserving comics like Jim Gafigan, Zach Galifinakis, etc... In fact anyone is better than this fool.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is worth seeing since it is a classic in the sense of being the very first full length film released in the process of three demention. It was not very good in its acting or story plot, but can be a great movie quiz question from an historical standpoint. It should be seen in the 3 D process with polarized lenses.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was a teenager when this first appeared in theaters, and I saw it in Japan. The film's plot wasn't my cup of tea as a high school sophomore, but I went to see it for the 3-D process. It had been ballyhooed in the press so that even service personnel overseas had heard of it, though it never screened at the Post theater.

The film started the trend of throwing objects at the audience, which was taken to absurd levels with later 3-D films.

I don't know whether this qualifies as a spoiler, but you've been warned if it is. In many films of the time, actors would often work in front of a \"rear projection screen,\" where backgrounds could be projected to make it appear that they were in a different environment, such as a jungle background when the actors were actually on a sound stage. This works well on regular films, but when seen in 3-D, they look like a flat scene behind the actors. There were several scenes in the film where rear projection was used, and it didn't work well in the theaters. If seen in 3-D, it will constitute another disappointment.

The film's only importance is historical, since it was the first of its kind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie when it was first released in Pittsburgh Pa. I had traveled from Youngstown Ohio, a distance of approx. 85 miles. I knew nothing of the plot nor the players. I had read no reviews nor had I talked to anyone who had seen it. Believe me I will never make that mistake again. It was being touted I believe as the first feature length movie filmed in the new 3D process. That was what enticed me to make a 170 mile round trip.

There was a waiting line two abreast that stretched (I kid you not) 2 or 2\u00bd blocks long and moving very slowly. I could hardy wait to be seated. If I had only known at that moment what I soon would know, I could have been \u00be of the way back to Youngstown by the time the feature started.

By the time the first 3D scene was shown, I was already nodding off. The novelty quickly wore thin and from then on it was pure agony.

Without going into excruciating detail, I can only offer the following advice. If you have ever seen the famous film PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, supposedly the worst movie ever filmed, it in my humble opinion stands head and shoulders above this garbage.

I don't know if this has ever been shown on tv, if it has I don't know why. If you ever get a chance to see it, do something else. Take a walk, cut the grass, wash the dog, have someone flog you with a rubber hose. ANYTHING. Your time will have been better spent.

This has been my first movie review. It might well be my last unless a worse movie comes along and I wouldn't make book that will happen.

Bill

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Brotherhood of Satan\" is a stupefying combination of conventional horror elements mixed with some imaginative characterization and direction (Bernard McEveety). It all starts out with father Charles Bateman (as Ben) driving out west with his pretty blondes: luscious Ahna Capri (as Nicky), and daughter Geri Reischl (as K.T.). Things get weirder and weirder for the trio, as they approach the town of Hillsboro, which is being gripped by a Satanic cult!

When the dullish travelers hit Hillsboro, the \"action\" switches to the film's more interesting assemblage of characters: townies L.Q. Jones (as Pete, the sheriff), Strother Martin (as Doc), Charles Robinson (as Jack, the priest), and Alvy Moore (as Tobey). Their interplay is sometimes fun. Soon enough, it all gets very silly, and predictable. Mr. Martin is the stand-out (as you might expect); he considers the possibility of a Satanic cult to be a \"cock-and-bull story\", but is (of course) their leader. The \"Come in, Children\" ending is puzzling; unless, perhaps, it was the film's original title.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those religious horror films which never explain why the forces of \"evil\" are 10,000 times stronger than those of \"good\". We've got here a Satanic cult which can: 1) \"beam away\" people (like in \"Star Trek\"), 2) kill through little children's dolls, 3) transfer a soul from one body into another, 4) hypnotize telepathically from a bigger distance, and 5) cause drastic car-crashes in which selected persons turn into spaghetti while others (kids, in this case) survive unscathed.

On the other hand, the forces of \"good\" can: 1) sit around helplessly, 2) stand around cluelessly, 3) panic, 4) laugh hysterically, 5) waste time by doing nothing, 6) read comics while people get slaughtered by the dozens, and 7) arrive too late to Satanic rituals.

In every religious horror movie I have to assume that that movie's world is inhabited by God and by Satan. I also have to assume that Satan can't be 1,000,000 times more powerful, unless the movie has a world order resembling that of Hell. In other words, where were the priests in this film who knew something? The best that this movie's priest could do is guess that there are some witches about - nothing else - from reading all those books in his study. At the first sight of violence this priest becomes catatonic, then laughs hysterically, only to finish in a major panic attack. So this is supposed to be God's contribution to fighting Satan? Ridiculous. Every good religious horror film has the powers of \"good\" equipped with some form of (more-or-less) supernatural power, or at least SOME concrete knowledge of how to fight \"evil\". In that sense this movie is quite idiotic. As is the casting of the droll Martin to play the high priest(!) of the cult. There is very little menace or awe in watching the quirky Martin lead a Satanic ritual. I mean, it didn't have to be Christopher Lee or Langhella, but couldn't they have found someone less funny-looking? Also, why does the couple go back to the town after their car is put out of the running? After their \"friendly\" encounter with the town's folk no sane person would have gone back; they should've just walked on. The man's explanation to his girlfriend (and the viewer) is that \"who knows what's in that direction\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of Satanic horror movies and, in fact, I seem to like them less and less every time I see a new one, and that isn't really surprising when I end up watching films like Brotherhood of Satan! Despite its low rating on IMDb, I was surprised to hear some good things about this film and my expectations went up. This turned out to be a big mistake as this is exactly the film that its rating suggests it is: namely, a very bad one! The plot is your basic bunch of Satanists causing trouble, and we focus on a small town where people have been murdered and kidnapped and it's not really clear why. Naturally, Satanists are behind it and this is bad news for a mother, father and daughter on a road trip who become trapped in the mysterious town. I had a feeling that this film might be along the same lines as the crappy Satanist flick 'The Devil's Rain', and while it's not quite as silly as Robert Fuest's later film, it's not much better either. The plot seems to be fairly down to Earth, but it's also rather boring and I can't say that I enjoyed myself at all during this movie. Brotherhood of Satan obviously has its fans, but I'm not one of them; this is a film that I see no reason to recommend...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a big fan of horror films and always manage to find something good about a picture, but this film just did not hold my interest or attention. This story revolves around a father and his daughter and a girlfriend, since his wife died a few years back. These people encounter a horrible situation in a town they stop off and visit and all the senior citizens in this town gang up against these people and almost kill them. This film reminded me of a film called \"Children of the Corn\" because it really involves children who are being presented to Satan and are his instruments of terror. There is plenty of chants, mambo jumble and a toy tank that completely destroys an entire family in their station wagon as well as dolls who kill a husband and wife.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This mess starts off with a real tank running over a car, intercut with images of a toy tank. This is followed by a family driving home from a birthday party without saying anything. The unexplained tank and the untalkative family take up, I swear, over 10 minutes of film. Finally, the family sees a car after it has been in a wreck and decides to report it to the proper authorities, only to find that the citizens of the town are all hiding in their houses, and the cops are hiding in the police station. Interesting? Almost. When the town folk come out due to the family's presence, we learn that both the writer and editor are conspiring to substitute suspense with incomprehensible storytelling techniques in the hopes that the audience's inability to tell what's going on will somehow bring unease upon the audience... and it works! ... but not in the way they thought it would. I was very uneasy with how bad this movie was, but not scared at all. The dialogue is composed of things that make little sense. Not in a fun David Lynch sort of way, but a sort of I-walked-in-during-the-middle-of-a-boring-conversation sort of way. Over the course of the next hour, we learn that the movie-makers try to bore us into being afraid by showing tediously mundane scenes combined with the above-mentioned \"what's going on?\" type scenes.

The plot involves something along the lines of gentle-looking old folks putting children into a trance through the power of Satan and then bringing them to a party to play with toys, and an even more sinister intention, and it's up to a group of white men (everybody's white in the movie) to grab their guns and save the day, and a tag-a-long eye candy woman who whines at the drop of a hat. They look for the kidnapped children by looking in random places and yelling the kids' names.

This is a great horror movie for any person who has never seen a horror movie because that person is frightened by the mere thought of Satanism, Paganism, Wicca, or even Catholicism due to a lifetime diet of brainwashing from the Trinity Broadcast Network. This represents Satanism as elderly folks in Halloween costumes with candles while mingling at a party, in front of an Ankh. Replete with a priest spouting completely made-up nonsense about Satanists, while calling them \"Witches.\" The message that anything that isn't Protestantism can be all thrown into the same category for easy condemnation.

About 30 minutes of footage is wasted to show mediocre elderly actors awkwardly babbling overwrought pseudo-Satanic gibberish corny enough to make a teen Goth blush, almost always in Olde English, and sometimes in Latin that may or may not be made up words.

Highlights include a guy laughing at the idea of little green men for a solid 3 minutes, a family staring out of the windows of their car without talking for 10 minutes while listening to elevator muzak. A priest studying Satanism for 4 minutes with ooh-so-scary drawings of demons to scare the Church Lady crowd. Random shots of dolls. Random shots of children. Paint instead of blood at every chance. Film School level dream sequences. Introduces unimportant characters who do nothing before they exit. Sometimes, they act as if the Nothing that they're doing is a big deal.

The directing is sloppy at best. An example of the directing includes a scene at the beginning where a man and woman are kissing and the man pulls away to look lovingly into her eyes and some dark red paint falls on her cheek. Looking up, they see that it's not blood, but droplets from a girl's snowcone. Snowcones are ice and colored \/ flavored water, and would not have produced droplets of the same texture as paint, not to mention the fact that her snowcone was a bright reddish-orange. Hackneyed writing, certainly, but made even worse by the bad directing. It then cuts to an alternate shot of the man, woman, and girl and shows that she's standing about four feet away from them, so the snowcone wouldn't have dripped on the woman even if she'd held her snowcone out over the woman's face. Way to go, editor! Of course, the acting is blah. The acting by the whole cast could be put on a scale and balanced perfectly between overacting and underacting.

The director's most offensive technique is to give the actors no motivation and then go out for lunch as the unblinking eye of the camera leers as the actors make fools of themselves.

And, FINALLY, after all that, we get to an ending that would've been great had it been handled by competent people and not Jerry Falwell.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is full of pseudo deep thoughtfulness and it's cloying in its writerly-ness, that includes a canned ham voice-over and some unbelievable dialogue. Dialogue that is tinny and tone deaf the way Spike sometimes (not always) is when writing \"certain\" characters. For those that like nonsense films like Pieces of April and One Hour Photo, this is another one for you.

That said, this comment is nothing against Ryan Gosling who has shown his awesome chops in The Believer. A film that proves that movies are a director's medium, and when a movie is rotten it's fair to say the fault lies there and not in the actors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie states through its protagonist that the world is essentially sadness and pain and those that ignore this have blinders on. One can argue whether this is true or not. But even if you accept this as true, the movie's ending either A) disputes this by saying there can be some good in tragic situations or B) forgets this and uses a cliched montage in order to leave the audience feeling uplifted.

That the movie metaphorically acquits its protagonist by presenting him as a sympathetic character despite any evidence for that sympathy shows contempt for the supporting characters who were the most compelling in the film.

So what you have in this film is a script that is not consistent in its theme and direction that does not bring the ending into sync with the rest of the film. There are excellent performances given by every member of the cast especially Spacey, Olin, Martin Donovan, and Ann Magnuson. It's a shame that they weren't supported by a better writer\/director.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not much actually happens in this movie. There are a few pivotal moments, and everything else is talking about a crucial moment that takes place before the movie began. The primary mechanism used in the story is the flashback. Flashbacks can be used very well, but they aren't here. There is zero indication when flashing back or forward, and there are only weeks separating the events, so context as a scene unfolds is the only way to know when something happens. Perhaps this was intended to add a sense of mystery in places, but it was largely annoying.

If you are interested in watching a 100 minute on-screen discussion of the why's of things and a lame questioning of good versus evil, enjoy. If watching close-ups of a mostly vacant stare on Ryan Gosling's face for much of the movie appeals to you, you're in luck. Sadly, I can find no reason to recommend this movie. Oh, and as another review indicated, Spacey really is only in a cameo role here, and plays with a disinterested detachment that you've probably already seen.

*** The rest contains spoilers though a few big points are held back ***

First, the killing of the so-called retarded boy happens before the movie opens, and we never learn what happened exactly. The implication is that he was killed to stop the deep sadness that was communicated through the boy's eyes. There aren't many other unanswered questions as the characters beyond the boy and the lead are very one-dimensional.

As for what is with the lead character... Another review suggested he is crazy. I agree he isn't 'right', but don't know that I'd call it crazy. It seems that the movie tried hard to convey that he was either autistic or retarded in some way, because he sure seemed slow and unable to grasp the obvious. Either that or they were going for a neglected youth with some detachment disorder and\/or who was heavily medicated. As always Ryan Gosling is good at conveying something to the audience, but it seems exactly what was deliberately left up in the air in this case. This movie provides no answers, just questions, but it was a sufficiently bad movie that I really didn't care.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For those of you who have never heard of the movie until now (of which, I presume there are many lucky people who haven't), I'll summarise it for you. Ryan Gosling plays the titular character of Leland, who also serves as the film's narrator (a la Kevin Spacey in American Beauty, but without the intelligent observations on life). Leland goes to jail for stabbing a retarded kid to death, and the movie attempts to figure out why he did it. He seems to be a nice boy (if not mentally absent), and is portrayed by Gosling with a complete lack of violence, anger, or agenda (and if you're waiting for him to reveal his sinister side later in the movie, don't waste your time-- it's not that kind of movie). Once in juvenile prison, Leland goes to classes taught by Pearl Madison, ably portrayed by Don Cheadle (who is incapable of anything but quality, even when in bad movies). Pearl attempts to unlock the mystery of Leland in an attempt to figure out how such a kid could do such a thing, and so he could write a book about it later (along with being a juvenile prison teacher, Pearl is also an aspiring author).

The relationship between Leland and Pearl is the driving narrative behind the film, as their talks unveil Leland's past to the audience. However, to call it the central focus would imply that this meandering film had one. It does not. The United States of Leland boasts an impressive cast, which seems to be to the detriment of the film. It seems as though writer\/director Matthew Ryan Hodge (don't worry that you haven't heard of him, he's never done anything) had to give EVERY character a personal story arc and personality flaw in order to get the actors to play them. Most of these traits and stories are clich\u00e9d, and most go underdeveloped and unresolved.

I'll try and break them down here: Martin Donovan and Ann Magnuson are the parents of the slain retarded boy (I love how the movie kept calling the kid \"retarded\", never \"mentally disabled\". That part made me laugh inside), they apparently have a cold relationship, because all suburban marriages in contemporary cinema must be cold. Their other two kids are Michelle Williams, who is apparently an aspiring actress about to attend college, and Jena Malone, who plays the same troubled teen-archetype she always plays, this time with a heroine addiction. Malone was also the girlfriend of Leland, which gives him his link to his victim. Williams' boyfriend, who was orphaned and came to live with the family, and is a baseball player looking to go to the same college as his girlfriend, is played by Chris Klein. He ends up doing more with his character than any of the other bit players, managing to steal the movie at times. Lena Olin is Leland's mother, who seems to be perpetually sad for some reason. Kevin Spacey (also the executive producer) is Leland's cold and absentee father, who is a famed novelist. Eventually, Sherilyn Fenn will show up to put a wrinkle in Leland's story-- if you even care at that point. Oh yeah, and there's a drug-dealing ex-boyfriend, a couple of fellow juvees, and a co-worker of Pearl's with whom he has an affair on his long distance girlfriend with (played by Kerry Washington).

Sorry if all that synopsis and character breakdown took so long. If it seemed meaningless and boring, then you've just experienced a bit of what I did during the 108 minutes I spent watching the movie. But the unruly supporting cast of over-wrought clich\u00e9s is the least of this film's crimes. The biggest one is that the whole exercise is entirely pointless. We aren't given a fascinating look into a troubled mind, we aren't given an effective explanation, we aren't given much of anything. Given that it sucked so much, I'm gonna go ahead and spoil the ending for you so that you never have to see it: Leland stabbed the retard because all Leland could see in the world was sadness, and wanted to spare Corky (or whatever the victim's name was) the sadness in his eyes. It's like the worst emo band in the world made an album, and titled it \"The World Is Sad, So I Killed A Retard\". Oh, and Leland dies in the end, in a sequence so reliant of unbelievable coincidences that it would have ruined the movie, if the movie didn't already suck. Of course he dies in the end, because that made the movie so deep.

I'm giving the movie 2 stars, because the actors themselves all did a pretty good job with the junk they were given. The scenes with Cheadle and Gosling together were even interesting on some levels. But, to paraphrase the film itself, you have to believe that movies are more than the sum of their parts, kiddo.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Every once in a while, an indie comes along that has an awesome cast and a story that sounds really interesting and can't-miss, but the movie sucks. Some recent films belonging to this unfortunate category are \"Levity\" and \"The Safety Of Objects\", and now here's \"The United States Of Leland\".

Said awesome cast includes Ryan Gosling, Kevin Spacey, Don Cheadle, Jena Malone, Lena Olin, Michelle Williams, Chris Klein, and Kerry Washington. Gosling plays Leland P. Fitzgerald, the teenage son of a famous author (Spacey) who commits a disturbing and unforgivable crime (murdering a retarded child), but doesn't remember it and doesn't seem to have any sort of motive.

Don Cheadle plays a teacher in juvenile hall who is trying to understand Leland (and also exploit him by writing a book about him), and Jena Malone is his ex-girlfriend. We see their deteriorating relationship (due to her heroin addiction) in flashback. Sounds like an awesome little drama, huh? I thought so, too.

The fact is that this movie is just badly, badly written. The dialogue and narration are painfully pretentious and laden with irritating platitudes about \"life\", the characters are all two-dimensional indie cliches, and while it does manage to make Leland sympathetic in some ways, it glosses over his crime.

For the most part, there's no problem with the acting. Gosling (who was Oscar-worthy in \"The Believer\") is a tremendously talented young actor, but the way they're written, none of these characters (least of all Leland) even feel like real people, so there's not much he can do but mumble his ridiculous lines and look sad.

Jena Malone is the most memorable. She has one of the most expressive faces I've ever seen. Even playing an underwritten character in a bad movie like this, she can break your heart with one look. When she's got good material to work with (as in \"Donnie Darko\" or \"The Dangerous Lives Of Altar Boys\"), she's really amazing.

But this is not good material. Maybe after a massive rewrite it could have been something worthwhile, but as it is, \"The United States Of Leland\" is ponderous, inert, and for a movie that seems in love with how \"deep\" it is, it's really shallow.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry but I cannot even partly agree with some comments on this awful piece of sh...

English is not my native language, because I'm a German citizen, so please do not blame me for inappropriate grammar structures or something *gg I cannot understand why this movie got such a high rating? 6.3??? Are you kidding me? This movie has completely no sense, not even a seem of good acting...

When I looked at the comments on The Da Vinci Code, which has - I think - nearly the same rating, I had to bang my head on the table , because I watched 00 Schneider directly after Sakrileg, and oh my god , there are worlds between them.

The majority of the posters in this board tears every hyped movie to pieces while rating this crime of movie making with a 6.3 and denominates Helge as a genius. Of course , he knows how to make money, but I think the main aspect of your opinions is the fact, that German isn't your native language and you just ignore - or rather don't notice the bunch of crap which is said in the sentences. OK , I must confess that some scenes ARE funny, but all in all , a 6.3 is just too much for my compatriot ;)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Insane really. Even if you haven't seen the original George Cukor movie with Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell, Paulette Goddard, Joan Fontaine and a cast of a thousand other stars you may dismiss this forced, politically correct, depressing comedy. Depressing for many different reasons. Meg Ryan for one. What has she done to herself? Her face can hardly move. That alone puts her miles away from Norma Shearer. Annette Bening should be suing the DP and Debra Messing, what the hell was she doing here? Actresses with no connection in the public's subconscious trying to pass for friends, totally unconvincingly. Eva Mendes in the Joan Crawford part is an outrageous piece of miscasting. What a terrible idea! Her character is like a trans-gender performer without any taste or subtlety. Bizarre to think that a woman adapted and directed this women.The only positive things I can mention are a short but very funny appearance by Bette Midler and Cloris Leachman as the housekeeper.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a Spanish tourist in Los Angeles and a fanatic movie lover I committed a terrible mistake. I went to see \"The Women\" The remake of one of my all time favorites. I've seen the original many many times, in fact I own it. My rushing to see the remake was based on Diane English, the woman responsible for \"Murphy Brown\" My though was: how bad can it be? She must know what she's doing. Well, I don't know what to say. I don't understand what happened. The Botoxed women is a rather depressing affair. Meg Ryan or whoever played Mary - she looked a bit like a grotesque version of Meg Ryan...another actress perhaps wearing a Meg Ryan mask - she doesn't bring to the character nothing of what Norma Shearer did in 1939. The new one is a tired, unconvincing prototype of what has become a farce within a farce. The \"friends\" Annette Bening, Debra Messing, Jada Pinket Smith are as disconnected as anything I've ever seen and if this wasn't enough: Eva Mendes as Crystal, the character created by Joan Crawford in one of her best and funniest performances. Eva Mendes's casting is really the poster sign for how wrong, how ill conceived this commercial attempt turned up. I didn't give it a 1 out respect for Candice Bergen and Cloris Leachman","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I believe an entire book can be written about the odyssey to remake the classic film on which this film is loosely based. When Hollywood first started talking about such enterprise, the reaction was always negative because there were just too many aspects that could have gone wrong, starting with the solid ensemble that made the original unforgettable, and that's exactly where things begin souring here, with the selection of actresses that otherwise can do remarkable work, but that are not suited to the parts, and sadly enough, have been directed with the heavy hand of a director that doesn't understand or appreciate the source material.

It seems as if there is no focus or direction, or as if the direction that has been taken is to obliterate anything that was good about the original film. This is called an updating, as in let's drain the story out of humor, snappy dialogue, and any interesting premise. Most of all, let's prove that women have come a long way, except that the problem is that we don't really get (at least by watching this film) where the women are truly going.

For starters, casting Meg Ryan in the central role proves almost fatal to the movie because somehow she seems to have locked herself into some sort of limbo where women don't really change appearances, even after 20 years of working in the movies. Her Mary which proved to be a difficult role in the 30's, somehow grew from her interaction with the other stereotypes, like Dorothy in \"The Wizard of Oz\" by learning, observing, and realizing that she had a choice in the matter. It might not have been a choice that women would celebrate nowadays, but it was fun ride, and part of the fun, was the catty, silly, sometimes slapstick routines that elevated that movie into the realm of the sublime. In here, we are down to earth with a thud. By changing the nature of Sylvia, the film has lost a lot of its spark, and it isn't in anyway Annette Bening's fault. I couldn't help but admiring how she tried to save this sinking ship and got a sinking feeling as she struggled with the horrible lines she was handled. Thankfully I entertained myself by looking at some of her terrific outfits and kept reminding myself how talented this lady really was. Her Sylvia is wise but flawed, and she could have been a great creation. Unfortunately Ms. English wasn't paying attention to her own work and loses control of the one character that could have turned the film into a fresh direction.

Yet that wasn't the biggest blasphemy of them all. In the original, we have Joan Crawford doing probably one of the best performances by a woman. Her Crystal is legendary, with conniving lines, incendiary moves, duplicitous maneuvers, and some very sexy poses. She was the link between the male and the female, and through her we knew what the whole catastrophe was about. She provided the tension between men and women. She was dangerous, sexy, the ultimate femme fatale. A woman of intelligence that we feared and admired, and most importantly, we wanted to destroy to save our heroine. Eva Mendes, as gorgeous as she is, is two dimensional in this outing because of weak writing, and once again, some bad casting.

There are more atrocities in the film, such as the addition of a terrible role for Mensing as the dedicated mother who lives for having babies, and the rather annoying lesbian turn by Pinkett. Then comes the biggest waste of talent in the movie, as Bette Middler, who is a little unrecognizable in her make up, shows the spark of what could have been. Her acidic delivery reminds us of the contemporary angle the film could have taken. Her words revive and put a big of much needed naughtiness in the film, and it is exciting to see that it could really fly, then she is gone. She is in the film all of six minutes, and she fades away in the middle of the muddle.

Here is a movie that raised our anticipation level and truly disappointed us, a film that could have joined the successful \"Sex in the City\" who made an amazing transition to the big screen because it respected its source material and didn't compromise. It gave us more, bigger and better adaptation. It truly updated what had made it successful before. \"The Women\" in its present reincarnation needs to go back and rework itself, much like \"The Hulk\" did it this year, find more suitable performers, a really good writer, and most of all, someone who truly treasures what good movies are about.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, I should say that I've seen the '39 version at least 100 times; know all the dialog, and have read the '36 play, which is different from the '39 and contains nuggets of gold of its own. This version is as flat as a Lifetime movie on adultery. There's a reason you haven't seen an expensive campaign of TV ads for it. According to Entertainment Weekly, Bening hated the catty tone of the original and how the women spent the whole time going to war on each other. GUESS WHAT??! That was Booth's intent. It was a slick, theatrical take on gossip, adultery, and back-biting among a set of well-heeled Manhattan socialites. The crowd that made this new version had no intention of honoring the original source material. They pick at it weirdly, putting in half a scene here and half a scene there that come from the first version. Bette Midler (who is in just a few scenes and acts the old Countess part in a broad, grinning style) doesn't have any context in this version. She mentions going after \"Buck,\" which is a key element in the original -- then he's never mentioned again. This movie is so dull that I'm not going to over-analyze it, but here are a few things that I found unbelievable: > Mary Haines bragging to her domestic staff: \"I can suck the nails out of a board!\" Right. Great writing. Norma Shearer could've done a line reading on that & gotten an Oscar nom, right? > A COMPASSIONATE Sylvia Fowler!!!??? Annette Bening got what she wanted, and the movie just sort of withers away. Claire Booth used Sylvia as the comic engine that swept through the play. As portrayed immortally by Rosalind Russell, she was an ignorant, spiteful woman who rattled off reams of petty, ridiculous, irresistible dialog that is still classic and quotable. She wasn't above biting Paulette Godard's ankle. The 2008 filmmakers decided that this character had to die. In killing her off, they killed the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To say I was disappointed is an understatement. An amateur film made by professionals. I was about to leave the theater in two or three occasions (something I've never done)I was stopped by Cloris Leachman really. She rings true, the only one I should say. This new women are less modern than the George Cukor women of the 30's. This ones are \"acting\" for us trying to be with it but their \"conflict\" is exactly the same as it has always been, in movies anyway. The fun of the original was based on a crisp, vitriolic and very funny script. A masterful direction and an unrepeatable cast. All the elements that are missing here. TV actresses mingling with models and Oscar nominees\/winners. There wasn't anything organic about it. The whole thing felt like a put on, improvised in the moment without a clear objective. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wish I had read everyone's review before going to see the movie... it was one of the most excruciating films that I've ever seen. I was ready to leave the theater 5 minutes into the movie; I should have followed my instinct. The movie offered nothing new or clever, it was boring and very clich\u00e9. I was surprised to find that it was directed by a woman! The characters did not represent any women that I know, they were boring, bitter and melodramatic. The movie was unrealistic and depressing and a waste of time and money. And the actors looked tired, poor make-up and hair styling. It was recently compared to the Sex and in the City movie; it was not even half as good. My suggestion, do not see this movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw it tonight and fell asleep in the movie.

That is something that I have not done since - I have never fallen asleep at the movies.

I LOVE the original and have seen it several times and recommend it to everyone. This may have been the problem but I do not think so, because there were a couple of bright spots that showed if done right they could have made this movie work.

Bette was under used and Anne was over used and miscast.

I do not know why English or anyone for that matter let this go out in that condition.

They billed this as a Sex in the City but better? Not a chance I liked Sex in the City a lot and was disappointed by this movie.

So do not waste your money on this movie - go see anything but this!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've never seen the original movie others have commented on, so my perspective is just about this movie without comparison.

I found the message of the movie to be,: if you only worry about yourself, all will be right with the world, everything will fall into place, your lovers will love you more, your friends will respect and like you more, your employers will want you more, pay you more and even your own children and parents will love you more.

I find this message to be reprehensible and totally false.

Kudos for the very funny birthing scene at the end; there isn't a mother out there who won't laugh during that scene.

Overall a very disappointing movie plot. I didn't find myself rooting for anyone in this movie. I thought they were all pathetic self absorbed individuals that I just didn't care what happened to them and that's not a movie people want to see.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was very disappointed by this movie. Ms English who says that she is a fan of the original movie seemed to have taken a great piece of artistic work, and transformed it into a flat-lined \"ho-hum\" you've come a long way baby production. I tried to like Meg Ryan's Mary Haines, but she was just boring. She didn't seem to feel anything about her husband's affair. There was no emotional struggle, no deep hurt. In the original 1939 movie Norma Shearer's Mary Haines felt betrayed, shocked, vulnerable, confused and angry. The 2008 production was more about some fake sisterhood theme, (Actually my wife's words)and didn't make you shed a tear or even chuckle. The only performances that were note worthy we're of Debra Messing, and Bette Midler. (I wanted more of Bette.) There was really no protagonist in this movie. The Sylvia Fowler character had too many sub themes to it. And Crystal Allen had no fire. The remake of the department store encounter with Annette Benning, and Miss Mendez was Luke warm. Also the pacing was slow as well. Obviously the 1939 version needed to be updated, but this one wasn't it. The reason that the original version worked so well was that the characters were dealing with \"man\" problems. A subject by the way which isn't out-dated. The magic of the original movie was that the movie was about both sexes, while you never saw the men.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film could have been a decent re-make, and gosh knows it tried (or Ms. English tried). Assembling talented actors together with a successful & experienced writer\/director should be a formula for a decent film. But Ms. English's experience - according to her IMDb bio - is exclusively limited to television work, and it is glaringly obvious throughout this film.

I am surprised that none of the reviews I have read mention what I found most unlikeable about this film, and what kept it from reaching even a portion of its potential: it looked and felt like it was made for television. To give some credit to Ms. English, many of the jokes that simply did NOT work on a movie screen would have been terrific on TV (and maybe a laugh track would have helped). So much of the camera usage and the lighting would have played out fine on TV but looked awkward or odd on a big screen. If the whole film had been chopped up into a mini-series or a sit-com, I think it could have worked. But this is cinema and sadly Ms. English's talents didn't translate. I cringed at so many different points in my embarrassment for the actors & the writers that I felt like I came out of the theater half shriveled! Meg Ryan is her usual perky, cute self (except for the awful plastic surgery she has had on her face), but where did she have a chance to use her talent?! She has made films where she doesn't recreate her stereo-typed role and done them well... but not here. Annette Bening seemed to simply go through the motions - such a great talent and yet such a poor performance! I enjoyed the other women characters but they were more caricature than substance, and it was sad to see. What worked in this film in the 1930s doesn't translate to the 2000s, and no one helped Ms. English get the changes & updates or subtleties right. If only she (as writer, director AND producer) had reached out for some assistance, I think it could have been good. But it was not.

It's so frustrating to go to a movie that has good stars and a good writer or director and come away feeling it was a waste of everyone's time & money! This New Yorker cartoon I saw yesterday is appropriate: A few movie execs are having a meeting & the caption reads: \"Let's remake a classic with worse everything!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is not a comedy. It is not even funny in the \"this movie is so bad it's funny\" department. Rather, it is just plain bad. Other reviewers mention the bad lighting, but beyond that is the abundance of bad plastic surgery.

Meanwhile, a lot of great acting talent was wasted on a poor screenplay and uninspired direction. The main characters are one-dimensional and boring. (It is hard to feel sympathy for any of them). It is also hard to see the four characters as close friends. It seems like just a bunch of women thrown together, pretending to be close.

I won't list all of the problems with this movie, as it doesn't merit that much of anyone's attention. (Nor is it worth the time it takes to watch it).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Imagine a film the complete opposite of Lawrence of Arabia, instead of having an all male cast, it has an all female cast. Instead of being set in the barren deserts of Arabia, it is set in the bulging metropolis of New York City. And instead of it being one of the greatest films ever made, it is one of the most pointless, boring and forgettable.

The film concerns Mary Haines (Meg Ryan) a perfect wife and mother, the envy of all others in her high society Manhatten social circle. She is painted as a women bearing the weight of the world on her shoulders, despite the fact she needs a live in nanny and housekeeper to cope with her one child. But I don't want to be too hard on her, Mary does all this whilst taking a liassez-faire attitude towards the fashion designing job her father has given her. This idyllic lifestyle cannot last forever though and things start to crash in a very real way.

Mary's husband is cheating on her and her father fires her for not working hard enough. She is quite naturally upset and breaks down a little.

Mary needs to bounce back though, for the sake of her impressionable young daughter and for herself. She does this through rehab, hair straightening and designing her own line of clothes; though amazingly for this kind of film, not a montage. Mary succeeds; her daughter loves her, her mother loves her, her friends love her and her husband decides he loves her now. She decides to take her cheating husband back after realising it was her fault he cheated, as she didn't dote on him enough.

The films one saving grace is that it doesn't go down the \"all men are evil\" route.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have never seen the original 1930s version of the film, but this remake is one of the worst I have seen from a major production studio in years. Seeing actors such as Meg Ryan and Annette Bening, once near A level talents, sleepwalk their way through poorly scripted roles is painful. There appeared to be no desire to be in front of the camera for anyone in this film.

Jada Pinkett Smith and Debra Messing play worthless roles that have no bearing on the plot and add no entertainment value. Jada Pinkett Smith's character is used as nothing more than a ploy to appear modern, having an African American lesbian character, but in actuality she is there to just look cool. There is no actual reason why Messing in this film other than to fill out the amount of women in the original I take.

The side characters played by Eva Mendes and Debi Mazar are stereotypical female characters, with Mendes portraying the vixen looking to steal the wealthy but bored and mildly neglected husband and Mazar covering the gossip roles.

The movie is boring, lacking charm, humor, or sympathy for any characters. It almost felt like the movie was a punishment for everyone involved, whether in front of or behind the camera.

There is one glimmering hope in the film, however little it is allowed to shine surrounded by the dim and dying stars around it is Cloris Leachman. Leachman is still an amazing talent that brings her remarkable charm and humor to the film, in the small role that she has.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Women (2008) by Diane English is sadly such a waste of talent. With Annette Benning, Candice Bergen, Bette Midler, Cloris Leachman whom I like and enjoy in everything I've seen them, and Meg Ryan, Jada Pinkett Smith, Debra Messing, and Eva Mendes who may not be my favorite actors but are nice to look at, how could the movie be boring, predictable, embarrassing, sloppy, and simply bad? It was made by Diane English who is known as the writer of the very successful TV show Murphy Brown, and it is her first movie for which she wrote a script. The movie has been a labor of love for English who had tried for many years to make it happen and I respect that. I even found the scenes with the supporting players, Bergen, Leechaman, Carry Fisher and Bette Middler in short but memorable cameos, funny, smart, and enjoyable but in general the movie is a second hand \"Sex and the City\" which was released few months ago. I did not find Sex and the City very good when I saw it but next to The Women, it was simply brilliant. At least, Sex and the City spared us the long and tasteless scene in the hospital's delivery room where one of the characters' was having a baby and her friends were there supporting her. Poor Debra Messing, what did she do to deserve that nightmare she was put through and we, the viewers together with her? The movies like \"The Women\" give the whole genre, chick flicks, a bad name. It is nothing wrong with the genre, but why is it so difficult to make a really good comedy about female friendships and hardships, about dealing with marriage, motherhood, and proving yourself professionally? These are all very compelling and important subjects any modern woman can relate to. Why making movies with the lines, dialogs, and situations so clich\u00e9d, predictable, not funny and insulting that they will be forgotten as soon as the movie is over?

After I saw the new movie, I checked out from my local library the original The Women and I truly enjoyed it. The story was told much better 70 years ago, and kept my interest all the way. The old movie had a real star power.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"George Cukor's The Women remains one of the glittering gems of 1939, Hollywood's most golden of golden years. The film crackled and sparked and it's absence of males was a subtle touch, hardly noticed because of all the fine entertainment.

Flash forward. We see Fifth Avenue in New York City, in front of Saks. Large crowds bustle along the Avenue...but something's off. The shot reveals only well dressed (attractive and young) women. Creepier than I Am Legend, the visual concept continues, inside the store and later at a large fashion show. What NYC fashion show doesn't have at least 5 gay men? The \"no men\" rule is rammed down our throats creating an alien world, off balance and distracting.

Enter Meg Ryan, first seen digging in her garden wearing a ridiculous get-up complete with her retro curls and flailing arms. I immediately sympathized with her husband and could understand why he looked elsewhere. Later in the film she morphs into an older Jennifer Aniston look and keeps her arms at her sides. This seems intentional as if to say \"Look! I can still be relevant!\" Ryan's character is loaded down with a coven of miss-matched friends (insert Sex and the City comparison here) who, if it were real life, would despise each other. Annette Bening plays the power bitch, who during the course of the film realizes her life's dream doesn't really make her happy. Jada Pinkett Smith is the power lesbian, all atitudinous with no use for any of the men who aren't there. Debra Messing is some sort of baby factory that eats a lot. Eva Mendes is an odd choice for the bad girl to say the least. She looks fake, acts fake and any humor she tries to demonstrate falls flat. Someone's comment on here that she looked trans-gender was spot on. Other various stars show up, to rearrange the furniture on this Titanic.

The only thing that would have saved this would have been the brilliant casting of Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie. They could have named their price, tucked their tongues firmly into their cheeks and pulled off something very clever and profitable. But no, Hollywood thinks of itself way too highly for that kind of exploitation. Instead we're given this thing that lumbers along awkwardly with no sparkle. Entire sections of dialog from the original are lifted and plopped down into a scene with awful results. At one point Ryan exclaims something along the lines of, \"This isn't a 1930's movie!\" No Meg, it's not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director\/screenwriter Diane English's 2008 update of George Cukor's 1939 MGM classic comedy unfortunately shows more mothballs than its predecessor. Based on Clare Booth Luce's shrewdly observant 1936 play on the relationships that evolve among a strictly female group of pampered Manhattan socialites, the story would seem ripe for a contemporary remake. Instead, because of English's thematic overreach, the production comes across as an extended therapy session with a paucity of wit. What's more, the diverse lifestyles of women today have been reduced to sitcom-level stereotypes in this movie, and the original play's central conceit of eliminating men from the storyline seems even more contrived given the openly pansexual evolution that has occurred among men as well as women since the 1930's. To add insult to injury, the recent big screen adaptation of HBO's \"Sex and the City\" did this sort of sorority-style dishing much better and with far sharper fangs.

The skeleton of the original play remains as the story centers on wealthy Mary Haines, who gave up her promising clothing design career to become the devoted wife of a Wall Street financial wizard. Like \"Sex and the City\", she is surrounded by three best friends - Sylvie Fowler, a successful, cutthroat magazine editor in the mold of Miranda Priestly in \"The Devil Wears Prada\" (yet another film this echoes); perennially pregnant Edie Cohen representing the stay-at-home wife; and Alex Fisher, a lesbian author who seems to represent every repressed group generally excluded from such an exclusive clique. Through a mouthy manicurist, they find out Mary's husband is having an affair with man-eater Crystal Allen, a perfume girl at Saks more than willing to break up a marriage as she struggles to become an actress. The rest of the plot doesn't matter much since it becomes a series of scenes focused on sisterly bonding and bickering, none of it very illuminating and without the satirical zing that buoyed the 1939 movie.

Looking strangely youthful at 47, Meg Ryan seems to play Mary in a manner that tries to resuscitate the goodwill she engendered in the 1990's with \"When Harry Met Sally\" and \"Sleepless in Seattle\". It's not that she isn't age-appropriate here, but her familiar sprightliness seems at odds with the character's passive nature. Annette Bening fares somewhat better in the scene-stealing Rosalind Russell role of Sylvie because she has proved to be adept at conveying hardness while masking vulnerability, but her character goes through such a trite transformation that it undermines the actress' performance severely. Poor Eva Mendes has to play Crystal as a shallow, transparent shopgirl versus the smart, hard-edged cookie Joan Crawford got to play. Debra Messing and Jada Pinkett Smith are scooted way to the sidelines as Edie and Alex, respectively. Much better are Candice Bergen as Mary's savvy, supportive mother and Cloris Leachman as the non-nonsense housekeeper.

Probably reflecting the lackluster box office response to the film's release, the 2008 DVD doesn't have a robust set of extras. There are two deleted scenes - one with Crystal and her friends having a girls' night-in as a contrast to Mary's elaborate garden party, and the other an extension of Bette Midler's cameo as a multi-married Hollywood agent counseling Mary during a late night at a yoga camp. Two featurettes round out the extras\" \"The Women: The Legacy\" about the history behind the film from the original 1936 play, and \"The Women Behind the Women\" which has the cast and crew speak endlessly about female self-empowerment and self-image. The irony is that this version of \"The Women\" directed and scripted by a woman takes such a patronizing look at women.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went along to this movie with some trepidation; the original is a masterpiece of both writing and acting and unfortunately my fears were realized. This is a humorless piece of work and I sat in the theater waiting for the wit and humor to begin- I'm still waiting, it seems. Updating the storyline to the present time just didn't work and the altering of characters an absolute travesty- why did they introduce Bette Midler's character when she disappeared just as quickly as she arrived; the related character in the 1939 original was an integral part of the plot. The women in the cinema laughed a few times but nothing touched me as being funny with the exception of a line from Meg Ryan talking to her mother about her situation and telling her that 'it's not like a 1930's movie'- I sorely wished I was viewing the 1930's version. It was all too touchy feely 'sisters stick together' and really needing some of the acerbic wit and clever dialog from the original play- I still watch the original movie and pick up a line that I have never caught before. There is no sense of closure to this new version, and whilst the 1939 movie is politically incorrect by todays standards, each thread was tied up and when the movie ended- it did so strongly. This remake should be labeled with a warning for any viewers- if you know the original, don't bother: I felt cheated by losing part of my life in a cinema watching this unmemorable piece of fluff. Bring on the Jungle Red!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Saw this movie last night. I don't usually comment good or bad, as I think movies are like books in that there is something for everyone and everyone is different, tastes vary, yadda yadda. This movie was bad. By the end I thought, oh my, this is testing my patience. How many women really look and live like this when they hit \"rock bottom\" and if I could just borrow some cash from mum and carry out to live my fashion designing dreams - gosh, life would be great! I was out for a nice chick-date flick with my girl (my darling hubby likes watching movies together and I knew this wouldn't be his thing), something light and easy on the senses, but this was one bad movie. We are intelligent and interesting movie watchers and this movie wasn't that. Annette Benning is a great actress, she held her own. Bad. Bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No! no - No - NO! My entire being is revolting against this dreadful remake of a classic movie. I knew we were heading for trouble from the moment Meg Ryan appeared on screen with her ridiculous hair and clothing - literally looking like a scarecrow in that garden she was digging. Meg Ryan playing Meg Ryan - how tiresome is that?! And it got worse ... so much worse. The horribly clich\u00e9 lines, the stock characters, the increasing sense I was watching a spin-off of \"The First Wives Club\" and the ultimate hackneyed schtick in the delivery room. How many times have I seen this movie? Only once, but it feel like a dozen times - nothing original or fresh about it. For shame!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Updating of the Clare Booth Luce play and the 1939 movie is a major disappointment. The cast of women is excellent, most of the individual scenes work but nothing hangs together. There is no connection from scene to scene almost as if the film was crafted in parts and then assembled in a vacuum. Granted the story of a woman dealing with her husband's infidelity and how she is helped and hindered by her friends is a less shocking one now in an age when divorce is so common, but at the same time its just as timely as ever, I just wish they could have managed to connect all of the pieces together because as it stands now you really don't feel pulled along by the plot. Wait for Cable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is, in simple terms, one of the worst films ever made. The story goes way beyond being tasteless and judging by the actors performance, they know it. There just in not one single redemming quality of this film. Patrick Swayze will have to overcome some major obstacles in his career, before people forget about this turkey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I fell for it. I saw the box for this at the video store, and mistook it for \"Girlfight\", which I'd heard was great. In my own defense, the titles are similar, and they re-did the cover art for the box so it looked almost identical. Anyway, to sum it up, they obviously re-did the whole cover packaging\/promo to capitalize on the buzz\/success of \"Girlfight\". I popped it in and got a bad feeling when they started showing trailers for low budget straight-to-video flicks, and even worse when a music video of the main song for the movie, which sounded like elevator music and featured corny slomo clips from the movie preceded the main feature. When I saw the first few minutes and Maria Conchita Alonso showed up, I knew I'd fallen for it. (don't get me wrong, she's a talented actress, but I knew she wasn't in \"Girlfight\", the movie I'd been under the false impression I was renting).

So, apart from me feeling sort of cheated and mad at myself for not looking closer, the movie was OK. The plot involves Belle, a young Latino woman who is the daughter of an ex-champion boxer. One of her close friends is a female boxer, who--and I could see all this coming sooo far ahead of time it was really a drag--gets seriously injured during a match with a mean champ named \"The Terminator\", who resembles a female version of a bigger, more pumped up Ike Turner. Of course, Belle decides that the only thing to do is to become a boxer herself and avenge her friend. She lives with her caring, supportive yet protective Dad (her mother died of cancer when she was younger), who just happens to be a cop. Her love interest, also caring and supportive yet protective, is also a cop who works with her dad. Hmmm, they both have jobs that put their lives in danger in the line of duty...wonder what's gonna happen? She starts training and meets a sleazy manager who of course, pretends to care about her but just wants to exploit her. The actor they hired looks like a very low-rent Cary Eweles and is so young he barely manages to have a mustache. His acting was also really, really bad. I'm not even going to go into the plot any further because anyone who has seen Rocky, or almost anyone, knows exactly where this movie is going and how it will end.

This was not a completely terrible movie. Most of the acting was OK, and the lead actress was very good. There were good, strong female Latino role models. The final fight scene did get me sort of interested, even though I knew everything that was going to happen long before it did. The actress that played \"The Terminator\" did a great job of being unlikeable enough that I really did want Belle to kick her a$$, and rooted for Belle-again, although there were absolutely no surprises. My favorite moment (maybe the only moment where I wasn't mad at myself for renting the movie by mistake) was when Belle slaps her sleazy manager after he's shown his true colors, yells at him, and then turns away only to suddenly fake a punch and watch him cringe back in fear, showing that she is really the one in charge.

The dialogue was really, really bad, my main complaint. One of their attempts to be witty was someone discussing boxing saying \"size doesn't matter\" and the female replying wryly, \"now where have I heard that before?\" Other lines that are supposed to have dramatic impact are \"The doctors told me I may never walk again!\" \"Come on, you know you can trust me!\" and \"Your mother would have been so proud of you\". I could go on and on. Nothing you haven't heard a million times before in bad soap operas or movies-of-the-week.

Maybe I'm being too mean-the filmmakers did make an effort, and I did sit through the whole thing voluntarily...but only because there was nothing else to watch while I worked out. You could do worse (especially if you are looking for a movie with strong female characters) but you could also do much, much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's about time for a female boxing flick, but this one ain't it. Though the acting isn't too bad, the predictable storyline and silly dialogue pretty much ruin this one from the get go. To top it off, the boxing scenes display zero tension. Come on! How hard is it to make a boxing match seem exciting??!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hired the DVD yesterday and first of all it started bad, it's 4:3 aspect ratio film, and it just keeps getting worse, the acting is so bad and the movie itself is way to predictable, I was like watching the movie and said to myself: this going to happen next and guess what happened? right...

if you want to see a good action boxing movie, don't watch this one you'll end disappointed on this low-budget movie like I did. go and see Ali its way better!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Woa, talk about awful. Do not waste your time. I wish I had seen the other use comments first.

I have to admit, I didn't watch the whole thing. It was just too horrible. The worst, sappiest dialogue... I could go on and on. But what really made it unwatchable was the direction. The poor actors. You can't even tell if they have any talent because they not only have pathetic lines to speak but the director gave them no action. If you check the director's filmography on this site you will see why this film didn't have a chance.

This would not even be good as a made for TV flick.

Ouch!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a complete waste of time. The soundtrack was bad, story was lame and predictable, and the acting was terrible. One of the worst 25 movies I have ever seen. After the first ten minutes, the rest of the film was completely obvious.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was terrible! My friend and I were so bored by it we fast forwarded through the last half of the movie just to see what happened. It's the typical sports thing, she either wins or she loses. The only remotely interesting thing was when the one guy refers to someone as a Veg-e-tab-le. That will be a line my friend and I bring up for years to come reminding us of this colossal cheesy cliche waste of time","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With all of its technical flash, the 1993 \"Stalingrad\" movie is very disappointing. Before watching it I had read non-fiction accounts of the Stalingrad campaign and had seen a lot of documentary footage and photographs of the actual battle and its participants. I don't think that any movie can really succeed in depicting the titanic struggle and suffering that actually occurred, but I still wanted to see what a relatively recent German movie production would be like. While there are a few good elements of this movie, overall it is a failure. To me the worst aspect is that it includes substantial anachronisms, and also some very contrived and clich\u00e9d elements, most glaringly in some encounters between a German officer and a Soviet woman.

Also there are some ideological elements in the movie which result in very distorted perceptions, including what amounts to a caricature of a German chaplain, some overblown class-warfare messages, and problematic depictions of \"good\" vs. \"bad\" Germans. Certainly the German Armed Forces of World War II included men who were able to maintain some decency throughout the war, and others who did very bad things, but the attempts in the movie to show this contrast are very simplistic and childish. I give \"Stalingrad\" credit in the sense that it doesn't completely portray German troops in the simple demonic quality which is the stereotype that many people now have, yet the movie includes stereotypes of its own, such as an almost too-good-to-be-true infantryman who has attitudes more akin to the 1990's than the 1940's, and two completely evil infantrymen and a rear-echelon officer.

Some recent movies such as \"Stalingrad\" and \"Saving Private Ryan\" are frequently praised for their \"authenticity\" in depicting graphic scenes of combat, yet these same movies are deeply flawed and distorted in their depictions of the attitudes, values and behaviors of 1940's soldiers and civilians. \"Stalingrad\" and \"S.P.R\" have major and minor characters who lack the unselfconscious stoicism that was common among regular people during the World War II period. Certainly soldiers throughout history have been notorious for their frequent grumbling and occasional cynicism, yet the self-absorbed, talky and touchy-feely characters in both of these movies are something else, and are much more prevalent in our world of today than they were in the 1940's. While many people these days like to denigrate war movies from the 40's and 50's which present more patriotic messages and aren't as graphic about combat, many of those earlier movies such as \"Battleground\" are much more accurate in their depictions of typical soldiers' attitudes, and they are often successful in showing the horrible effects of war in more indirect ways.

One well-done part of \"Stalingrad\" is a battle between German infantry and Soviet tanks, which does a reasonable job of capturing some of the horror and confusion in such combat.

\"Stalingrad\" does a poor job though of showing the common look of the frontline soldier. Part of this might be due to the difficulty in finding thin, haggard-looking extras in our pampered and well-fed America and western Europe of today. Also, too many of the German troops in the movie don't wear their uniforms and equipment properly, and don't display the professional bearing that was common in the German Wehrmacht even during the years of German defeat. If you want to get a good idea of how the actual German troops looked, I recommend the following documentaries which contain footage of the Stalingrad campaign: \"The World at War,\" \"War of the Century\" and \"Russia's War.\" Also the books \"Operation Barbarossa in Photographs\" by Paul Carell, \"Stalingrad\" by Geoffrey Jukes and \"Stalingrad\" by Paul Carell contain a great many helpful photos. Books written about the battle by Antony Beevor and William Craig are recommended also, and the latter one is especially good about the common soldiers and civilians on both sides.

Relatively recent movies which, in my opinion, are much better than \"Stalingrad\" and \"Saving Private Ryan\" in depicting attitudes and characters of persons during World War II, and the general feel, look, horror and grittiness of that war, are \"Der Untergang\" (\"The Downfall\") and \"Talvisota\" (\"The Winter War\"). While \"A Bridge Too Far\" and \"The Longest Day\" cover events on the Western Front rather than in the East, they are also excellent war movies, and stick very close to factual accounts. The latter two movies lack some of the grit that is more prevalent in more recent films, but they compensate for that lack with their other strengths, including truthfulness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The horror. The film about the Nazis - the Germans. The murderers of babies, young girls rapists ... For that they regret? What are they interested in doing thousands of miles away from Germany? You do not come to mind is? Fascists are now good Samaritans? Think, killed, tortured, 27 million people. No, of course, they do not want. They were forced to Hitler, he gave each of them, and forced to kill: every fourth inhabitant of Belarus peace, all Jews, Gypsies ... Killing the Slavs. The facts: At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, when taken prisoner by fascist (German), they were defiant and brazen. We kill you all, and so on. Since 1943, when they were taken captive, they suddenly became anti-fascists and peaceful peasants who were forced to Hitler, and personally. For such films should be put to prison for life for the glorification of fascism.

If you want to see what they did, yet went to Stalingrad, then watch the movie \"Come and see\" (1985).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One would think that with the incredible backdrop of WWII Stalingrad that the writers would come up with a script. Nope. There is NO story here! It's like porn, vignettes of violence interrupted by pathetic, rote, and meaningless dialogue.

A bunch of Germans march around shooting and getting shot. Slowly there are fewer Germans to march around, shoot, and get shot. Then there are no Germans to march around, shoot, and get shot.

Pretty bad.

Chilcoot","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do people rate this movie highly because it's a foreign war movie???

To me it's nothing more than a bad Hollywood war movie in German.

This movie is so bad on so many levels. To even mention it along with Platoon or Full Metal Jacket is absurd. The battle sequences are pathetic, the dialog and acting atrocious.

This so called group of \"storm troopers\" are regulars in the Wermacht. Not SS troops. There is so much wrong with this movie it's sad. Bad editing, bad acting. It's got it all.

The movie goes on and on and on as though the audience should be made to suffer as much as the soldiers did.

I read in a review that the this film had a $20 million budget.

For real? Where was it spent? In the fake train car sequences? In the pathetic \"special effects\"? Ugh.

As a WWII history buff, and WWII movie fan, I found this movie to be a serious disappointment.

For an excellent alternative war movie check out \"The Beast\". (Not a WWII movie, but still outstanding)

Don't bother with this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know, maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this kind of movie, but it was full of trite melodrama. It was too long and seemed at least mildly disjointed (granted, I didn't pay full attention...). For a more entertaining depiction of the battle of Stalingrad, see Enemy At The Gates. True, some pretentious folks will scoff because it's a Hollywood film, and doesn't show \"the gritty reality of war\" like this \"wonderful foreign film\" does, but it has better flow and is all around just more fun to watch. Besides, there are already enough contrivedly \"gritty\" war movies, and this one just seemed amateurly done. But hey, you might like it, so go right ahead; it just wasn't for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love Das Boot. I hoped for something along similar lines -- a realistic war movie, portraying soliders and civilians on both sides as real people, with both the joy and pain of combat.

Unfortunately, Stalingrad appears to have been written by a third grader and directed by a fifth-grade student. Major pieces of the movie simply appear missing, leaving it completely disjointed. The dialogue in translation is ridiculous, but appears no better in the native tongue; you only have to watch the actors' faces during the bad moments of dialogue to realize just how bad this movie is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The war in the East,as the Germans referred to the WW2 Soviet-Nazi conflict, was a war of annihilation on the part of the Germany. 90% of the German army were in the Soviet Union fighting. Their ultimate aim was to wipe out the so called \"sub human (Untermensch)\" Russian population and colonize the mainly empty country with German settlers after they had won.

Read \"Hitler's Willing Executioners.\"

Here we have the German army presented as innocent victims and not as Nazi mass murderers. When are modern German film makers going to be honest and face up to the past?

Better see the Russian film \"Come and See\" instead!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a sucky movie. This is without a doubt a low-class B movie. The German elite StormTroopers assault Russian bunkers en masse like an old WW1 battle. The acting is mediocre, the plot thin and threadlike. It's hard sometimes to follow where it's going. The action sequences are pretty worthless (when it shows any), except for the fact that they do use authentic equipment\/vehicles from WW2. This is in NO WAY on the same level as \"Saving Pvt. Ryan\" or \"Platoon\". Lots of worthless attempts at character development, which lead nowhere. Old theme good officer\/bad officer that's highly predictable. Even the action sequences look like a 12yr old kid set them up. I could have directed better. Too bad this is the same guy that did \"Das Boot (The Boat)\", because that was a dang good movie. He must have partied too much after that success because he sure lost his touch when it came to this film. I bought it on DVD, better to rent it instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't usually like TV movies, I reckon that if the thing was any good it would make it to Hollywood. This one though is better than average, pretty high production values, a few interesting story twists and some nice shots of NYC (along with Toronto) hold the interest.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As bad as they get. This film commits the fatal error of making the viewer not care what happens to characters. The two women in this flick are so stupid that you begin to root for the bad guys so this thing would end.

This film is one of the few that was so bad that I had to turn to another channel.

Put in highbrow language, this film lacks verisimilitude. People, not even people from Ohio, simply do not act like this. Well, maybe the writers do.

There is not enough beer in the world to make this film bearable.

F903","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A really wonderful cast and very talented technical crew wasted their valuable career time, and our equally valuable leisure time, by bothering to support this utterly predictable and plainly formulaic piece of commercial junk. The movie is based upon a really good and very topical idea but both the producers and the director simply applied the standard Hollywood 'disaster movie' formula and thereby ruined any potential value from the production.

An unusually high tide and very strong gale conditions combine to produce a record high storm surge that overwhelms London and floods most of the Thames Valley. The plot centers around a heroic scientist (Tom Courtenay) who alerts the authorities of the danger and ultimately saves the day, a glamorous female police chief who runs the entire show and an embattled Deputy Prime Minister (David Suchet) who tries to look important.

But it's all so unreal that one feels like an extended tea break after just 30 minutes. The young glamorous female Police Commissioner demands complete authority over the army during a declared State of Emergency and gets it (as if!). The experienced General is just pushed aside like a complete moron who has to lick her boots because of her obviously superior capacity. The trouble is that our female supremo, whilst now responsible for millions of lives, spends most of her time worrying over the fate of her two daughters who have taken a trip to South West London and haven't telephoned to say they were alright. So our mighty woman sets her staff to look for them and decides that the sole priority for all the army and the rescue services must be South West London and not any other quarter of the city. Of course the Minister, the Army and the entire entourage accept her prioritization without question. One can only assume they all had property there. When her children are eventually found after endless reports and efforts by her staff she is told by our male hero, 'Thank God they're safe, that's the main thing'. Never mind about the millions of others or all the other responsibilities she was supposed to control; as long as her own kids were safe everything was alright.

This film is just another excuse to push the same old female chauvinist sexist clap trap that women are the clever, mindful, caring and clearly able leaders whilst men are good for nothing except physical bravery, mindless strength and very specialist knowledge. And yet the one simple instruction that she could have given the populace; namely to go to the nearest tall building and calmly go up to the 4th floor or above and await instructions when the waters recede was never given by this female super hero - or indeed anyone else. The whole problem was so simple to solve and yet millions of people apparently didn't think of simply going upstairs! Pathetic rubbish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's something intriguing about disaster movies. The simple, primal premise can lead to several great stories. Granted, most disaster movies tend to explore familiar territory instead but I can usually live with that.

Unfortunately, Flood probably marks the low point in the history of this sub-genre. Robert Carlyle is undoubtedly the star of the movie, even though screen time is split between different locations and characters. He gives a barely decent performance. As well, Joanne Whalley is very uneven. Veteran actor Tom Courtenay (he played in Doctor Zhivago for heaven's sake) is particularly bad. I mean, his timing is completely off most of the time and his characterization is extremely poor. What an embarrassing performance for that man. The rest of the cast ranges from decent to really bad with one exception: Jessalyn Gilsig, whom I thought might be there as a plot device\/eye candy gives by far the most convincing performance. Doesn't mean much considering how bad everybody else is but still nice to see that she cared.

The script is really bad, confusing and clich\u00e9. Some of the worse lines I have heard in quite some time are delivered by the actors one after the other.You've seen this story a thousand times. It employs every dramatic hook and tear-jerkers you've seen in \"Outbreak\", \"Armageddon\", the Poseidon movies (original and remake) and many others.

The direction is awful. No sense of timing, nothing inspired. The shots are bland, dialog and action both fail to flow. Editing is bad but how do you edit such a mess? Without a doubt, this movie tried to rely way too much on (rather poor) CGI. The human factor, the drama and struggles of the characters are glossed over. Scenes where the characters must actually face the flood are rare and poorly done. The made-for-TV feel gives nausea. Some guy is supposed to go down a rope from an helicopter? No problem, let's show him inside a helicopter and make a really poor cut\/editing job and have the next frame with him safely on the ground, in the most obvious way possible.

The movie score is rather poor. All over the place, no timing.

The ending is probably the worse I have seen in quite some time. Very much like they ran out of ideas. Scrap that, you can't run out of something if you never had it in the first place. Must have ran out of budget.

This is a really amateur job. I give it a 2 for using London as a location, which is a nice change, for Gilsig being actually decent in a key support role and for the few CGI shots that were decent (those of the water closing in on London and the gates).

Do yourself a favor and check out Day After Tomorrow or just about any disaster movie before this one. This includes older classics like The Towering Inferno.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh but this is woeful. One good actor after another turns in lamentable dialogue in half hearted fashion under what must have been incredibly pedestrian direction to consider it acceptable. I like Robert Carlyle and Joanne Whalley is one of my favourite actresses, Tom Courtney can act well when pushed and David Suchet is a professional of the highest integrity but they all wallowed around like fish in a barrel of watery gin. I swear Courtney was inebriated, on painkillers or both.

Was there a good performance in the whole thing? Well yes, David Hood as the junior underground engineer whose mate got washed away looked like he was taking the thing seriously and credit to him for that, it can't be easy when \"all around are losing theirs\" so to speak, or maybe his scenes came under the direction of the assistant director ( if there was one) I just don't know what these people were doing in a film that was this poor ( other than paying the bills, obviously) I can't begin to say how disappointed I am in them. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES!

Any positives other than David Hood the third... yes The aerial shots of London largely submerged were very well done and the effects artists responsible deserved better than to have their fine work punctuated by such a shallow story,if you'll forgive the expression, as those few people that do see them will do so on a far smaller screen than would be to best advantage.

What's going on here? why are British film makers trying to imitate such characterless, spectacle driven, tabloid level genres as the disaster movie and then doing it even worse than the Americans. Gritty realism, character integrity, the capture of real emotion in a way that makes you feel it and care... The Family Way, Spring and Port Wine, Get Carter, The long Good Friday, Trainspotting....Don't get me wrong I like a bit of escapist hokum. The real \"Italian Job\" , The Adventures of Tom Jones; but oh that it should come to this, there was more realistic drama in Carry On Camping.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On the face of it this film looked like it might be really good - it isn't.

The cast is pretty good, but most of them seemed embarrassed by the whole thing. The real disaster in this film is not the flood, but the script. It attempts to include every clich\u00e9 in the book, all done incredibly poorly. The ending is very abrupt, but this is a blessing in disguise. Congragulations if you make it that far.

All three main male actors (Carlyle, Courtney and Suchet) would surely agree that this is the low point in their careers. I hope they got paid a lot of cash, because none of their reputations come out in tact.

The special effects are quite good, but the same thing was done to much better effect in The Day After Tomorrow.

In short, a pointless exercise. Don't waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The production values for this film make it fall short of Hollywood blockbuster status, and the script makes it fall short of cult status. What is left is a tired formulaic attempt at the disaster movie genre that will disappear with the ebb tide.

A decent cast, are either miss cast, or cannot be bothered.The beautiful Joanne Whalley is unable to bring any gravitas to the role of Police Commissioner Nash who wears the most irritating matching waist clincher above her skirt.

Jessalyn Gilseg plays the heavyweight part of Director of the Thames Barrier with all the conviction of a fairground candy floss. Her Canadian nationality and accent were presumably drafted in to appeal to a transatlantic audience. It, and she, fails.Her initial appearance in a tight fitting pink jogging suit as she arrives at work is risible.

The part of the \"Siren old git who was right\" is played by Tom Courtenay as though he is acting in his sleep, and the various plot twists that are designed to energise his son, played by Robert Carlyle, struggle to get any response from him.

Nigel Planer looks determined to commit ritual hari kari for his failings as Met Office Director, or for his acting, or both, and only David Suchet emerges with some credit for his role as Deputy PM.

There was enough in the story, and the cast and the effects to have produced a decent effort. Alas that did not happen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You would have thought, given how much this overblown pile of rubbish must have cost, that the budget could have stretched to a decent scriptwriter. Instead, they seemed to have opted for a bog standard Hollywood 'Paint by Numbers' disaster movie plot and dialog. The only clich\u00e9 they seem to have missed was the Cute Kid. But every other one is there. There's the sullen hero, flung together by fate with both his ex wife and estranged father. There's the doting Dad and the rebellious teenager.There's the 'Professor that everyone thought was wrong until it turned out he wasn't'(Played appallingly by the normally excellent Tom Courtney seemingly in the grip of some powerful drugs), plus the comic duo wandering about in the deserted underground railway.

I sat down to watch this full of anticipation. The cast is, as noted, amazing. Yet within minutes it became clear how bad this was going to be. Stuff this useless should come with a warning. Something along the lines of;

'This film may have been made in Britain but was aimed at the American market. It therefore contains tired clich\u00e9s, stock characters, stilted dialogue and a plot so lame brained and simplistic that even George W Bush could understand it.'

Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Flood' is a prime example of how throwing good actors and cgi at a film will do little to compensate for a rubbish script. The basic premise is fine: what if a freak storm threatened to send the sea straight over the Thames flood barriers and engulf London so fast that most of the inhabitants would probably never get out in time? It's basically the New York segment of 'The Day After Tomorrow', but that shouldn't make it any less of a film. However, the script just isn't there. It's merely functional, flat, and lacking in depth. Great British talents like Robert Carlysle and David Suchet to name but two do their level best with what they've got, but their characters are two-dimensional cyphers, like something out of an old Marvel comic. and it'd be frankly easier to turn back the tide. Not that every actor gets let off the hook - Tom Courtenay seemed capable of only one emotion throughout the film, but then he wasn't given much of a challenge.

I applaud any opportunity to see some non-Hollywood disaster flicks for a change, and I don't expect zillions of dollars spent on rendering ultra- realistic graphics. However there's no excuse for shonky writing - especially from a country that has produced some of the best science- fiction ever made on next to no budget at all. This is the kind of half- hearted B-grade fluff the Sci-Fi channel produces, and that's hardly a target to aim for. If like me you are such a fan of disaster films you're still tempted, do yourself a favour and watch it with some friends. Better still; don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This awful effort just goes to show what happens when you not only use computers to generate the effects, but also let them devise the plot and write the script. Someone somewhere has obviously come up with a new bit of software that asks a few questions then churns out four hours of loosely connected clich\u00e9s, lousy dialogue and a collection of stock characters that you end up wishing had all drowned in the first five minutes.

Tom Courtney took the prize for worst performance. Saying that he was wooden would be an insult to trees. It's hard to fault Robert Carlyle in almost anything he does, but the odds were stacked against even him in this one, especially since he was for some unaccountable reason required to adopt a gor' blimey London accent.

A complete washout.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Topical? Certainly. Entertainment? Probably - but only on removal of any shred of the viewer's common sense. Reality? Only in so much that it was made on this planet.

How thousands of people were supposed to have died as a result of a 5-metre wall of water in a city liberally littered with buildings in excess of 25 metres high is quite beyond me. Carlyle's line to the effect of \"How could anyone survive that?\" when the shot shows forests of buildings with several floors above the water is completely laughable. Further, if someone commits themselves to an area (under water) where one cylinder of air is not enough (i.e. they are going to die), why not use the simple expedient of taking more than one cylinder? Clearly, the writer thinks that people in stressful situations cannot count beyond one (one cylinder, one floor).

Rather than watching this tripe, you would be more informed and entertained by throwing the DVD away and reading the pricing information on the cellophane outer wrapper.

Pitiful, truly pitiful, and a terrible waste of the on-screen talent.

As for the sexist propaganda suggesting that only women can see through the problems to illuminate the solutions to be effected by the expendable men: yet more PC 'tosh'. Small wonder that First Blood, Delta Force, Navy Seals and other such movies of little or no merit will always have a following while this blatantly politically-motivated bilge is peddled.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really do not joke when i can honestly submit that this film is not suitable for Sunday night viewing on ITV4.

The underground scenes are just awful when London is supposedly under 30ft of water, Robert Carlyles character is drab. The Police commissioners outfit reminds me of something Kate Moss threw up and Nigel Planer looks very VERY old, in fact, I am worried that he may have had suffered a stroke whilst filming.

The father of Robert Carlyle who was 'right all along' has obviously been necking too many Ketamin and whilst he has a major part in this awkward journey, he deserved to be killed off way WAY before he was caught pretending to be Kate Winslett (Titanic) whilst dangling over the Thames Barrier.

I'm sorry Film lovers but avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Miscast, badly directed and atrociously written, this is watchable if you have an hour or two to kill or are suffering from insomnia, but only just. Robert Carlyle fully realises his potential as an actor of supreme mediocrity with only one expression to his repertoire (that of a chronically constipated football hooligan nursing a crippling inferiority complex), which he manages at times to alter slightly by flaring his nostrils and baring a row of skewed yellow teeth (this to indicate anger, tenderness, grief, surprise, horror, hilarity, compassion, etc.) In his role as \"the best marine engineer in the UK\" and son of a university professor he is about as convincing as my neighbour's cat. Tom Courtenay, equally miscast, slurring and mistiming every line, appears permanently soused to the eyeballs, and would seem no more able to tell a flood from a puddle of his own urine if he were standing in it. All in all, another silly attempt on the part of the British to imitate Hollywood pulp at its most rubbishy. The dialogue is a series of badly-delivered clich\u00e9s; the action is disjointed; the plot is pointless and amputated; and the characters, if you can call them that, do not even make it into the basic two-dimensional sphere of their American counterparts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't normally write reviews, but for this film I had to. I'm shocked at the acting talent in this move going to waste... the script was appalling... the editing awful... and the plot very thin. You spend the first half of the movie wondering who is talking to who and what on earth they are doing. The latter half of the movie slows down slightly, but has no depth or feeling. The only saving grace is the nice, but still limited cgi, and the location being London. I gave 3 stars for that, and the fact the actors still tried to do a good job with the drivel they were given. If you fancy losing a couple of hours of your life with mediocre popcorn disaster movie entertainment, by all means, this is the movie for you. But I would recommend doing something else with your time instead, like watching the real archive footage online! :) http:\/\/www.weatherpaparazzi.com\/flooding.asp","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually like these dumb\/no brain activity movies, but this was just too stupid. There were way too many clich\u00e9s and the plot didn't really make much sense. There were a lot of loose ends and the ending was extremely poor and abrupt. We didn't even get too see if the big master plan worked. We only got too see the main character sob over his dead farther, the professor (that died because of stupidity (see below)).

One scene annoyed me particularly. Why did the professor only have about 5 minutes of oxygen in his container when he went to manually override the dam? And if they only had oxygen containers containing 5 minutes worth of oxygen, why didn't he bring two or three of them? Then he would have survived\u0085 that was bloody stupid. The movie is pretty full of such stupid things. I can not recommend it at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well as the headline suggests this is not the particularly good movie i was hoping it would be. i thought it would be great with mr fully monty man himself but tragically not. From the beginning i literally lost interest immediately when 2 women are just making tea and then suddenly she points out there is random water coming from under the door, then bam a full on flood through the route of the house its hard to believe they didn't notice the rising water level outside or at least heard it. Sorry for this to sound like a rant but it really grinds my gears and has affected me. Most acting was poor and the story tried to copy nearly every clich\u00e9 to each disaster movie ever but just failed in that sense. CGI was poor i could do a better job using ms paint, directing poor too, and at the end i didn't care about 1 character at all!!! don't waste your time people no wonder it was released straight to DVD. Well thanks for reading xxx","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie follows in the tracks of The Riddle for an all star British cast in a downright awful movie! Poor cgi effects, poor editing, poor direction, a cast that i hope were well paid as this will be a nail in many a careers coffin.

Nigel Planer should've donned his Neil wig once more & gone out with a laugh at least!

It was like a particularly long & drawn out episode of \"Torchwood\" but without the camp fake Canadian doctor fella...it had the same overly dramatic music though, perpetually repeated, in a vain attempt to drum up some tension.

Oh the humanity!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The digital effects were done on the cheap and the action sequences lack suspense. This was essentially made for TV and it shows. David Suchet looks bored and Nigel Planer looks down right embarrassed! and as for Robert Carlyle's Dick Van Dyke London accent, no comment! If you want to pass away an hour or two when you've nothing on then it will do. If your going to buy the DVD wait a few weeks and pick it up in the bargain bin at Asda, cos thats where its heading! If the budget was bigger and Richard Doyle's book followed more closely, then it could have been something special, but as it stands its a bit poor. Watch the trailer instead! Or read the book and see what could have been.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll put it straight to you, this movie is dead boring. It's about a flood, that's it. Blah blah a little about family, blah blah blah politics, blah blah blah boring.

Blame it all on the weatherman, poor sod. The Deputy Prime Minister Campbell is a hard-ass that expects everyone to be clairvoyant, a most irritating character.

If you are from the United Kingdom, or anywhere that it may flood, then you might like this film. It's sort of like earthquake movies are most appreciated where earthquakes happen.

This is not really an action film, where the weather is the enemy and you must conquer, or outrun it literally, it is more like a time-bomb that must be disabled.

Looking at this movie, it is understandable why the UK thinks the world is overpopulated, it isn't, but for them it is.

Really, the movie is about as exciting as picking scabs and I can't recommend it. It's over 100 minutes, far far too long.

The problems with the film; I won't get into them beyond this because the film doesn't deserve such dissection. Hint to you Londoner's - buy more boats. If you bring children to this movie they'll either fall asleep or become uncontrolled bored screaming demons.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In addition to all the negative reviews: I was amazed to see that at the drop of a hat somewhere, somehow a CCTV-camera was summoned at a most unlikely location, to show the 'crisis'-team (''Look Maaaaa-aaam'') what was going on, notably near the Thames-barrier, where the professor is hit at full (wind)force against the head by a heavy object and subsequently lives to tell the story. Otherwise I was unable to shake off the image of some actors as portrayed in other films\/programs: I said to my wife: 'Hey, that's Neil, from the Young Ones' (Nigel Planer) and 'Did they summon Hercule Poirot for help?' (David Suchet). To add to the disgrace of this film (shown in two parts on ITV UK recently), ITV showed the telephone number of the Environment Agency after each episode for worried viewers, living in areas 'at risk of flooding'. How low can you as a broadcaster go to treat your audience like that? What must the Environment Agency have thought?? (''Oh no, it's Mrs Jones from Hull again. She says she was right all along, she saw it on ITV'').","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was just on two nights running on ITV1.. dear oh dear. Someone actually bought this on the strength of Robert Carlylse.. OK, I missed the start.. but what I did see was so bad I thought, no... I watched in embarrassment for the stars who were in it. Nothing was based on reality, I doubt things would progress as they did in this film. Everything was poor about this film. OK, cgi.. but no reality. The write up gave the impression of a cliff hanger end..sorry, I wasn't impressed. Yes, formulaic. Couldn't guess the end. From what I saw the military had the upper hand, people doing the heroic stuff were given next to no time to do their thing, it just wouldn't have happened that way? It was worse than leave your brain at the door. It was annoying.. as someone else said.. yeah, right.. of course that would have happened... not!! The credits mentioned Quebec and Canada.. so it was a co production, missed the third party concerned.. I'll have to check back on this site. I'm not usually this critical, but this annoyed me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was inferred by a previous poster that the military would not be subordinate to the police in a disaster as depicted in the film. In fact the military role would be to supply aid to the civil authorities when requested to do so. The civil authorities would retain primacy. In practise the Army would need 48 hours or so to mobilise themselves, there not being much Army presence in London, especially with current overseas commitments. Even then they would be dependent on calling in the TA.

As for COBRA, we were given the impression that it was a full governmental emergency department in its own right - even reference to a Met Police Cobra Division. In fact COBRA stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room \"A\". It's just the room where the PM or DPM meet their advisers to discuss the current emergency!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh dear, Oh dear! What were they thinking of? Terrible script, terrible acting. I don't even feel sorry for the actors... they took their cheques to the bank and smiled happily.

Since when did an air shaft from Charing Cross pop out at Bank? Why are vehicles crossing Tower Bridge going in towards the City when the surge hit? Why is Tower Bridge not crowded when the city is being evacuated? How does Carlyle dive into a raging torrent.... and survive? I could go on... and on.

There is no real sense of urgency in the command room. They might just as well be waiting for the England eleven to come back onto the pitch after the tea interval at Lords.

It says something when I await the adsbreaks to learn more about diarrahoea treatment with eager anticipation.

Totally abominable trash!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is possibly the worst film I have ever seen; I gave it one star simply because it is the lowest score possible. Whoever thought Flood would ever be a good film? The director and cast should be ashamed and then it dawned on me this could all be part of a shambolic scare tactic. Only propaganda could be this bad.

The redeeming feature of Flood is that it's ghastliness and shameless formulaic storyline make it funny. If only the characters had the same depth as created by the flood itself, yet they galumph from sound bite to sound bite without any emotional response whatsoever.

The sad thing about this film is that it could have been so much better, informative, imaginative and tense. Flood has the amateur streak to found in many recent British films where a more focused use of funds would have made for a better entertainment.

Where was Smithee?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was total rubbish. I was sitting watching this absolutely furious that this was funded. They most definitely spent all their budget on the special FX rather than the script writer and director AND some of the actors.

First the acting was bland and rubbish. The story was not relatable to the audience enough. Rather than being from the peoples perspective of the storm, the narrative was told more from government figures and the army, which really isn't a way to connect to them as most of us hate politicians anyway. The writer attempted to add a human element to the unrealistic characters by adding the little subplot about the father and son, which failed completely.

As for the directing...oh god, his techniques to try and create tension and unease are repetitive and over the top. The sped up camera movements and then the sudden flash bolt pauses on a characters face when something horrendous has happened was pathetic.

The only reason I watched it till the end was to see the special FX. Which is a bad thing as special FX shouldn't make the film it should only amplify the story and experience. There was no story.

I really wouldn't bother watching this, total trash and an embarrassment to the British film industry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was struck by the awful acting and script for this movie. All the characters seem rendered immobile by personal issues - rather like deer in headlights. They dither around whining and moaning about their emotions when decisive actions need to be taken. I found myself yelling at the TV screen trying to wake them up to their situation and DO SOMETHING! The plot line is implausible. Every time there is a key decision to be taken by a lead character, one of the other characters has to bring up all the problems with the obvious decision as though to further render the decision more difficult - it is a tried melodramatic ploy and just wants to make you groan. Clearly the import of the decision is obvious - you don't need to treat the audience as idiots. Overall - there is just too much emotional melodrama in the whole movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Avoid this movie. If you are expecting \"The Poseidon Adventure\" (1972), you may experience nothing more than a case of the 'bends'. This film offers nothing more than two extremely-long, and drawn-out, hours of complete boredom.

The cast members act as if they are angered by the irritation of a bathtub of water overflowing on a bed of an insignificant's petunias. The script is totally unrealistic, and the film does not even have the feel of a disaster movie. In fact, everything about this movie is bad, with the exception of Tom Courtenay. It is unfortunate that such a fine actor got swept away, by a flood of misrepresentation, to appear in such a washout. When this movie was being made, the Poseidon must have turned over, in its watery grave, in a sea of shame. And, Shelley Winters will rise again, from the dead (direct from the Poseidon), to haunt anyone who dares to see this pathetic movie. I rate this film a 1 out of 10, but it really deserves a zero. This movie will make you want to avoid, or completely turn against, water. And, it will leave a bad taste in your mouth. It may even make you want to see \"Jaws\" (1975), and befriend a great white.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After huge budget disaster films set in America like The Day After Tomorrow and Deep Impact, it was refreshing to see something on a smaller scale like Flood.

Using mainly unknown actors and actresses and actually focusing on England it was a welcome change of pace to seeing The Empire State Building being demolished.

However, this is not a strong film on any basis. Whilst being fairly shocking seeing all your favourite London landmarks being demolished by a very fake CGI storm surge, Flood doesn't really deliver on anything else.

The performances are bland, being saved from the pit of hell by David Suchet and his refreshingly calm performance as the Deputy Priminister. He is perhaps a little too calm for what is going on in the film, all that fake water gushing around London must have made him pretty annoyed.

It is understandable that the effects weren't going to be as good as TDAT and DI, but the CGI was at best, average.

Bland, disappointing and sometimes even tiresome. Watch it if you must, but watch something else straight afterwards.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really tried to give this film a chance but when I realized that most of the film was being told by a bunch of boring officials walking around and talking on phones, I knew it was over. A lot of this film also looked like stock footage. That's just lame.

The camera person kept like doing these quick short zooms for NO REASON! It bothered me so much but I was just wondering why in the heck did they think it was a good idea. It doesn't add anything to a static scene of two people talking. This isn't NYPD Blue or some cop show or something.

How could they have not realized that telling this type a story from conversations of people in conference rooms and what not, is BORING?!! Did they not watch this mess? Anyway, this was just a really boring movie and it does make it seem like whoever made it doesn't understand good storytelling in film.

Darn stock footage... that's just wrong.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry, but this movie is just way to shallow for me. In it, Perez is a taxi dancer with boyfriend Keitel trying to make it as an actress. First of all, what the hell is a taxi dancer? Even after sitting through this, I still don't know. Oh yeah, Perez also inspires DeLorenzo to follow her like a lovesick puppy. There's no reason behind the love, it just kind of happens. There are times when the characters and events really try to pull at your heartstrings, but it rarely works. The only character you really do feel anything for or with is Keitel's character, and that's only because he does such a good job with it. Any other actor and the character would have been just like the others.

The script is basically an uninspired rehashing about how hard it is to make it as an actor\/actress. It's been done and said before, the language and dialog sounds like it was written by a street pimp. The ending is...well, I don't want to spoil it. Let's just say it feels unsatisfying. I'd be more upset if the story was any good to begin with. The directing is average with nothing truly wonderful, but nothing that is really painful to watch either. To reiterate the acting, the only one that does anything worth watching is Keitel. Though I could have lived on without seeing him in tiger print bikini underwear.

Oh yeah, Eddie Bunker shows up. As random as that mention is, that's how random it is in the film. And Tarantino does his director buddy a favor by showing up for about 20 seconds.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I registered at IMDb solely for the purpose of warning others about this movie. Hwo does anyone ever get funding for projects like this? That's the mystery. Farewell to Harry might be the worst movie ever, except that I tried to erase the others that rival this blathering idiocy. Bad plot, not-credible logic runs throughout. I can't spoil this movie for you by revealing anything that would make your experience less enjoyable. There is nothing enjoyable about this movie. I have the CD and will send it to you for free, it is that bad. First come, only served. If I know you, this offer is void, because I wouldn't inflict this movie on anyone, not on purpose. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While the dog was cute, the film was not. It wasn't the premise, or the theme that was a problem. The premise had great possibilities for humor and pathos both. The theme is a worthy one. Helping other people is more important than amassing a fortune.

Sadly, the adorable dog, the unique premise, and the theme were undercut by poor acting, stilted dialogue, and amateurish filming.

Even my youngest child who will sit through almost anything gave up before we had gotten halfway through. How many times can that dog run up and down the same hallway? I can't spoil it for you, as I never saw the end. It just was not worth watching all the way to the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you ever plan on renting (hopefully not buying) this movie, think again. It was as if Gary Busey had a gun to his head and was forced to act or die. I only wonder if Busey was arrested for something and was sentenced to play in this movie because I just don't see the guy that acted so much better with Keanu Reeves in Point Break play in this disaster. It was a feel-good movie, but there are thousands of other feel-good movies that make you laugh without wanting you to get your money back.

The only reason I would ever tell someone to rent this movie is to watch this movie is to see Gary Busey jump up and down like a monkey. If you want a good funny movie, pass up Quigley and go rent Spongebob or something.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife rented this movie and then conveniently never got to see it. If I ever want to torture her I will make her watch this movie. I've watched many movies with my 4 year old and I can take almost anything. Barney is refreshing after a shot of Quigley.

The plot, dialog, cinematography, & acting were one step above (or equal to) a cheap porn film. I feel cheated out of $3.69 that we paid to rent it and then 90 minutes of my life I will never get back. I will say my 4 year old liked it, luckily it was a rental we had to return right away.

I just hope that the younger actor's careers are not ruined from being in this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a really bad waste of your time. I would probably rather go watch some documentary than this; it's really that bad.

The acting is really terrible, and you can tell that the producers had a low budget because of the terrible picture quality. It's by far on the low end of the scale; don't waste your money on it.

I have a really hard time believing the person who made this movie that it would fare well. I had to watch it with the kids when my mother rented it because she thought it would be good for the kids. Even the kids (3, 4, 6, and 8) all thought it was pretty boring.

I agree with the other commenter, Spongebob would be a lot better to watch than this.

Overall: Just don't watch it. Don't. Don't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie comes down like a square peg in a square hole. A poorly made peg. A peg so cheap it couldn't even be produced in a sweatshop assembly line in Chinatown, Mexico. In fact, when you try to press the peg into the hole for which it is obviously designed, it crumbles into sticky, disgusting pieces that smell like rotting fruit and won't wash off. Quigly is such a peg.

This movie is so mind-bendingly awful, it couldn't have even been created. A movie like this must have been the result of some accident of nature; some freakish entity that congealed in the corner of a dank office somewhere and festered and grew until it was too big and terrifying to look at. Only science would be interested in such a thing; anyone not bent on studying it would exhume it from this world.

What it comes down to is this: if you're the kind to enjoy first year violin recitals, racism, or Coke Zero, it might just be your birthday.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a waste of precious time! My 5-year-old daughter brought this home from my mother's house, and we watched it as a family. None of us liked it. This wretched little film, rife with glaring inconsistencies, overt Christian themes and horrible film quality, is not worth watching even on a dare. It felt a bit like a bad high-school drama class attempt at film making. How sad to see talented actors (Chris Atkins, Gary Busey, and company) flounder their way through this trite and insipid storyline. The only good thing I can say about this movie is that the dog is cute. The film can should have gone straight to the pound. Avoid this film - your time is better spent watching paint dry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had to watch this movie with my 5-year-old. He didn't laugh once during the entire movie...and he loves dogs and will laugh at nearly anything! This movie was horrible from all aspects: poor script (even accounting for a children's G-rated movie), poor production (the jittery camera shots made me feel nauseous for the first ten minutes), poor acting (perhaps they were \"directed\" to act cartoonish), and even poor sound quality (there are parts where the audio level seems fine, then you can't hear what the next actor is saying). I'm willing to put up with quite a lot when it comes to watching a child's movie, but this was worse than having a stick in my eye. I also didn't like being battered over the head with the god-heaven-belief thing. In all, it was the biggest waste of 90 minutes in my life...and I've done some serious time-wasting in my day!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie should go down in the annals of fiefdom as one of the worst of all time. I will stop short of saying it's the worst movie ever, only because I have yet to see every movie ever made. I cannot make such lofty claims until then. The story is stale, the acting is horrible, at best, the \"special\" effects are no more than a couple of lbs. of dry ice and a fan. Somebody must have been related to someone to get this movie made. Mr. Busey mailed this one in! The dog is well trained and cute, making it the only redeeming quality in this never-should-have-made-it movie. Two hours and $3 of my life I will never get back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All Grown up had a lot to live up to and there was much hype when this show was anounced. Now it's easy to explain why it didn't live up to expectations: Firstly, this show failed to create a realistic world of pre-teens in the way that Rugrats captured the world and the imagination of toddlers. Secondly, the show's character's are stereo-types (Angelica: white spoilt blond as opposed to Suzie: colored girl from modest family,...) or boring (Tommy, Chuckie) and annoying (Dil). Finally, there is not one ounce of innovation or an original plot-line. To sum up, All Grown Up is a waste of time and a bad idea for a sequel series to a show such as Rugrats. It's boring, lacks imagination and it seems that the producers don't even know how 10 to 13 year olds behave. To be accurate, shouldn't Angelica and Suzie be comparing bra sizes rather than fight over who's better at doing chores?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why did they change the cute, Rugrats television show we all know and love into a lame attempt to target teens? They don't have to do that. All ages watch the regular Rugrats. When I heard about this, I thought, \"Hey. They made a TV series about the movie. Except, they're really grown up as a teenager! This is going to be better.\" When I saw it, it was just as if I was watching As Told By Ginger, except they made it suck. Great job.

When in the Rugrats series has tommy been a director? Never. Basically all the episodes in this attempted series is about Tommy's love of directing. I don't like that. I rather watch plots that change every episode. Not the same thing over and over. Also, when did in the old series have each character have their own sides of the story? Never. This series did that. I didn't like that everyone separated. I don't want to see Angelica's side of the story. I hate her.

I do not recommend this show if you like As Told By Ginger and the Rugrats.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"ALL GROWN UP is basically a spin off and not much else of the original Nickalodeon RUGRATS cartoon that featured the babies Tommy Pickles, Chucky Finster, Lil and Phil DeVille, Angelica, Susie and (later) Kimi (Chuckies sister) and Dill (Tommy's brother). I grew up with RUGRATS and thought it was a great cartoon. It had excellent humor, nice stories and the show's creators, Klasky & Csupo, were obviously very original and creative with the concept of the adventures of babies. The new show ALL GROWN UP tries to recapture the magic of the original cartoon. I was disappointed when I saw it. I found the \"all-grown-up\" Chuckie just annoying and the whole \"pre-teen-acting-mature\/trying-to-be-popular\" that applied to (unfortunately) *all* of the characters dull and washed out. There still are some funny scenes and jokes in the new series and it was interesting how the artists would make the whole baby gang of RUGRATS look ten years from their age in the original show. Overall, this show is 'fair' and only watchable if a) you're a die-hard fan of the RUGRATS, b) have never seen the original show, c) you're a pre-teen that has nothing to do, or d) your so bored that your somehow forced to see this show. This show is not that good. It doesn't compare to the older RUGRATS episodes in quality, humor, and everything else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a typical \"perfect crime\" thriller. A perfect crime is executed and the investigating police officer, ignoring all the clues, immediately knows who guilty is. The audience has to wait around the whole movie for the guilty to be caught. The result is like every single episode of \"Columbo\" or \"murder she wrote\". The director himself refers to the hackney story by showing the police officer watching an episode of Matlock! This story barely fills up 90 minutes but the director insists on using all 120 minutes filling with every cliche in the book. Skip this one, you are not missing anything.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An updated version of a theme which has been done before. While that in and of itself is not bad, this movie doesn't reach the ring like the other \"inherent and pure\" evil ones do.

Predictable, ambitious attempt that falls short of the mark. Not worth sitting through for the tired contrived ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"People, please don't bother to watch this movie! This movie is bad! It's totally waste of time. I don't see any point here. It's a Stupid film with lousy plot and the acting is poor. I rather get myself beaten than watch this movie ever again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first saw this film it was not an impressive one. Now that I have seen it again with some friends on DVD ( they had not viewed it on the silver screen ), my opinion remains the same. The subject matter is puerile and the performances are weak.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Because it came from HBO and based on the IMDb rating, I watched the first season of this series, what a waste. The characters are occasionally interesting but mostly cartoon-like. The acting ranges from good to mediocre talent with a S T R O N G emphasis on the latter. Not only prisoners, also viewers should leave all hope at the cell door that this story is believable, it's such a load of dung that you will need unusually strong testicular fortitude to keep watching. The violence, as with most of the developments in the story, is titillating and whatever morality is supposedly served up, it's of the lite variety. If your idea of excellent television includes the the writing, acting and overall production quality seen in THE SOPRANOS, DEADWOOD or SIX FEET UNDER, avoid OZ. If you want to see a Disneyland for Illiterate Jerks, watch OZ. Stuff like this gives edgy a bad name.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not for the first time, I'm out of kilter with the majority view. Oz is a dreadful, pretentious, voyeuristic series. The makers have their cake and eat it. Oz, Em City, etc are used as ultra- crude signals that the apparent grittiness is complete fantasy. This allows viewers the feeblest of intellectual excuses to watch soap operatic nonsense spiced with everything that is bad about human beings.

When you watch an episode, please remember that while the foul-mouthed, violent, absurdly convoluted, unconvincing, sick, imaginary drama unfolds before your approving eyes, several hundred infants in poorer parts of the world have died from bad food or water.

Oz is exploitative drama at its worst. It appeals to the basest instincts but pretends to be serious and meaningful. It blows hot and cold and changes from fortissimo to pianissimo more often than a Mahler symphony.

Dialogue is unrelentingly ugly and utilitarian. The liberties taken with realities are stupid. Here's a nightclub owning dandy, arriving at Oz in his foppish finery, complete with a ridiculously cloudy contact lens in one eye, brandishing a stash of drugs that nobody detected. Here's a murderous wimp bleating about the heat death of the universe, begging to be killed, but of course being refused by the brute he approaches and doing a bit of improbable throat cutting himself.

The action races on at a pace fast enough for the voyeuristic, dim-witted viewer to be thinking always about what happens next rather than the rubbish that has just been shown. Don't worry, a betrayal, a murder, a sex scene will be along within a minute or two.

Finally, Oz is obviously pretentious. You don't have to feel embarrassed about being carried along by its flow. You can watch it and tell yourself that the producers, writers and actors are doing everything with a huge wink (or same word but for a change of vowel) to the audience.

Yes, you can be a nasty-minded viewer and excuse yourself on the grounds of the cleverness, post-modernistic, etc skills of the Oz production team. They appeal to the lowest common denominator while pretending to operate on a higher plane.

Truly, a despicable series. And every hour it shows, rewarding its makers and actors, and generating advertising revenue for the channels that show it to people who have nothing better to do than watch something so ugly and unnecessary, another few hundred children die whose lives could have been saved by the dollars spent by this horrible, successful, widely-praised series.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, season 1 is intolerably bad. The prison is ridiculously unrealistic, the characters are so two dimensional they're nearly transparent, and the direction is terrible. It runs like a bad video of a junior high school play, characters wandering past the camera and uttering highly timed and rehearsed lines, passing off as random prison talk. Soon the show gets better, but not by much. The return from the commercial break is always accompanied by some ridiculous monologue by wheelchair-bound Augustus Hill, who is played impressively by Harold Perrineau. The only time his character is consistently bad is during the bad performance art monologues, most of which take place in an inexplicable rotating glass cube and generally have nothing to do with what's taking place in the show.

Unfortunately, the bad ideas in Oz could fill an encyclopedia of several volumes. Consider the whole situation, first of all. Prisoners are able to hang out in plain sight getting drunk, doing drugs, and they not only have CD players (CDs?? They might as well pass out steak knives), but all incoming mail is thoroughly examined by PRISONERS. Christ, the place is like a men's club with guards. Guards that don't do much.

Near the end of season two, an older prisoner's grandson is diagnosed with leukemia, and all of the prisoners pitch in thick wads of $20 and $50 bills to help send him to Disneyworld to fulfill his dying wish. These have to be the richest prisoners in the world. Every single prisoner in Oz all of a sudden became caring, loving guys except Kenny Wangler, an irritating character but one of the only ones who is consistently convincing. Even Adibisi wanted to be nice. But that's okay, because there is no order or sense in the show, so even this is not much of a distraction.

Later, shockingly, there is a boxing scene in which one inmate is wearing an \"I Love Cops\" t- shirt. In prison!! Can you imagine?? I have a cousin who was in prison a few years ago. I sent him an old picture of us with some friends in high school, and in the picture, one of my friends was holding an \"I Love Cops\" bumper sticker, and one of \"the woods\" (guys who have been in prison for years and years) saw the picture but just grabbed it and ripped it to shreds. My cousin got lucky.

Kenny Wangler also constantly berates the guards and even more senior officers for not calling him Bricks. One of them even tried to bribe him to go to an English class. You may lose track of who is in charge, the prisoners or the guards. More than one investigator, for example, goes into the prison undercover and gets killed trying to stop the drug trade. Personally I would just stop letting prisoners inspect incoming mail rather than risk the lives of investigators.

Let's see, what else? Shillinger's son OD's in solitary and no one thinks to ask the guard how he got the drugs. He just...got them, I guess. And make sure to pay attention, otherwise you'll miss the reason why the prisoners have enough money to be able to afford ascellular dermal grafts when they get bad gums. I didn't know guests in maximum security prisons were afforded such luxurious treatment options. How about this, when Robson asks about Dr. Faraj's schedule so he can ask what race of gums he was given, Faraj is so terrified that he goes to the warden and quits his job on the spot. Do doctors and dentists not have the right to request not to see certain prisoners? After Poet and O'Reilly make the announcement to the entire prison, Robson asks to see Dr. Faraj, and is escorted to his office, brought in without knocking, and the guard promptly leaves without a word. They might as well give him a gun.

I shouldn't go on about stupid ideas in this show, but it's like a flood, I can't stop it. Who thought of the Chinese refugees who can't speak Chinese and who disappear en masse from sight unless they're needed? Who thought of the goofy religious wars and all the reverend prisoners? Who though of Robson's gum transplant? What's the deal with Busmalis and Agamemnon? Agamemnon because he clearly doesn't belong in prison and Busmalis because of the whole thing with his grandson. Macbeth, because it was nothing but a ridiculous means to an end, as it were.

But what are the worst ideas? Things that go nowhere, which are constant. An Irish man comes to the prison and builds a bomb. He threatens to blow up the entire prison, the bomb turns out to be a dud, and the episode ends with him being led away by the bomb squad after the entire prison is evacuated. Nothing is ever heard from him or about the whole situation again. It's like it never happened. In one episode, prisoners are given dogs to train. What the hell?? If that wasn't bad enough, during one training session, a guard fires his gun inside the prison walls as a training exercise. No one seems to mind.

I also like how anytime some kind of altercation breaks out, the culprits are pulled aside, they don't say anything, and the guards or warden or sister Pete or whoever always says, \"I hope you don't think I'm gonna let this go!!\" And then they walk away and let it go. The audience won't remember.

Maybe I'm spoiled by Prison Break, but Oz is just a goofy prison drama that might be better as a play. A short one. At least a low-budget movie. There is just not enough here to sustain a multi-season TV show. Then again, I watched six seasons of it on DVD. Sometimes I don't understand myself...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where do I begin with the Killing Mind before I mention the good bit? This movie is about a young psychological profiling FBI woman, or something, that for some reason goes to work for the LAPD for a wee while. There are some recognisable faces, like the \"I love you, man\" bloke from Wayne's World, playing a cop (nice beard-age too!) and two guys who always seem to play cops playing..... you guessed it, cops. One of them was one of the cops in Gross Point Blank following John Cusack about the place, and the other is the FBI guy with specs in Final Destination, who is also in the Fugitive as another cop. I know the FBI, US Marshalls, CIA, etc aren't cops, but they're all the same. They enforce the law to a certain degree, that makes them cops in my book. Feel free to disagree with the definition of a cop all you want, they're still seen as the ones who are trying to bring the bad guys down. Any, I digress. The woman is working alongside these cops who just seem to sit around in a library in the basement or something, and for some unknown reason decides to reopen a case that hasn't been looked at for yonks. She saw the dead body as a kid, so naturally decided that she can reopen the case cos she was personally attached to it! I also like how the person profiling other people's psychological state witnessed a murder scene as a child. Surely that's the kind of thing that can screw with someone's head?! She starts asking questions off some journalist who covered the story when it was open, even though he appears to be the same age as the woman, so he presumably was either writing for a newspaper when he was 10, or he wrote a few school reports on it, and she decided he'd be the best person to ask about it.

We then see that as well as reopening homicide cases from 25 years earlier, she tries her hand at petty theft as some really inconspicuous bloke sprints through a busy street wearing a balaclava. Way to blend, moron! Anyway, she and the cops she's with eating ice creams in the park give chase after him, and whilst crossing a bridge with a woman and child standing on it, the thief grabs the baby from the mother's arms and throws the baby in the river. This, if you haven't already guessed, is the best bit of the movie. I'm not sadistic, and don't have a hatred for babies or anything, but the scene just looks so stupid I promise you will wet your pants laughing at it if you should watch this movie. It gets better when the cop from Final Destination & the Fugitive jumps in to rescue the baby then declares to his friend \"It's a baby!\" How did he not know that before he jumped in, is beyond me.

Anyway, she chases after the thief but loses him. Later on she remembers that a random dog didn't bark at the thief, so assumed it must be his and decided to track down the thief through the dog. The dog had no markings or anything on it, so how she knew where to find the dog, and thus find the thief is another question I won't go into. it was shortly after this that I stopped watching. The story was moving really slowly, and after I had stopped laughing at the baby throwing bit, I had kind of lost interest and missed what was being said.

Saying that, I'll go ahead and assume that the killer was the journalist bloke because he seemed a bit shifty, and she was spending a lot of time with him, and anyone who watches Columbo knows that the person outside the police force who spends most time with the investigating officer is your bad guy. plus, other people's reviews say the killer was pretty obvious, so I'm sure it was him.

So all in all, a pants film, but worth watching just for that one glorious scene.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The topics presented are very interesting; suburban culture, suburban sprawl, public transportation, oil & gas depletion, energy dependence, alternative energy sources, etc.

The problem is that this is a pure and shameless propaganda piece. One viewpoint is presented, then hammered upon the viewer over and over. You see the same handful of 'experts' repeatedly making their case. The supposed 'narrator' starts off sounding like a news reporter, but by the end even he is preaching the film's dogma.

The dark side of the film is not so much the gloom and doom message about oil depletion, but the sense that the folks in the film are actually wishful for a post-oil society and all that it entails. They paint this picture of a utopian society where we all return to the self-contained local village model; walk to work, shop locally, grow our own food, and generally live an idyllic 19th century lifestyle. For them, the post-oil society would seem a grand vision of a better world. It would certainly spell the end of globalization, and better still, the end of Walmart. I will give them some credit for applying actual math in exposing the weaknesses of several over-touted alternative energy sources, including ethanol and hydrogen.

I gave it 3 stars because I appreciated the old footage and the premise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A modern scare film? Yep it is..

The hippies, peaceniks and environmentalists got together to deliver us a fear film.. I didn't recognize it when watching it only 2 years ago that it was a fear film but that's exactly what it is..

There's no difference between this film and films the nazi made about us in ww2 and the same films we made about them.. this is pure propaganda and speaks only to those.. that believe in aliens, 9\/11 conspiracy plots, faked moon landings, peak oil and major environmentalism What I can say is this film does push buttons, make you ask questions and ultimately just forget about it.. It's a scare film.. so if your scarred get in your houses, lock your doors and stock up for that nuclear winter we all know is coming when bush provokes the Chinese into nuclear war..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Doesn't anyone bother to check where this kind of sludge comes from before blathering on about its supposed revelations? Ask yourself a question: Is my skull an open bucket that I allow anyone to dump their propaganda into? Do yourself a favor and take a look at the bomb-shelter mentality of pathtofreedom.com before you waste your time with this screed.

These sorts of Mother Earth\/People's Republic of Berkeley urbanite fruitcakes that openly despise a way of life only because it doesn't match theirs must believe their case fails miserably on facts and objectivity. Else why resort to willful distortion and blatant one-sidedness? Pathetic.

Don't be a sap. Take two seconds and cast a skeptical eye before falling for yet more 'end of the world' hysteria from it-takes-a-village types with a political agenda that's probably even to the left of your own. Mi. Moore (rather his unthinking followers) have really opened the floodgates with this kind of one-sided political trash passed off as a *cough* documentary. But apparently they understand the sentiment of an ever-gullible public: \"If it's on a movie screen, it must be true.\"

God gave you a brain - act like you know what you're supposed to do with it...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved all the other Don Knotts movies, but I never heard much about \"How To Frame A Fig\" and now I know why: I can't think of anyone who would find it enjoyable. This movie seems to appeal to 9 or 10 year olds, but even most of them would give this a thumbs down. At best there are brief moments of mild amusement, mostly from Don Knotts playing the same nervous, underdog persona that made him famous.

After the movie finally finished I was curious if my teenager could pick up on this movie's fatal flaw. We were in complete agreement: the Prentiss Gates sidekick character was even dumber than the Don Knotts character.

Be happy that Mr. Limpet, Reluctant Astronaut, Shakiest Gun and Mr. Chicken movies are around to enjoy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first time I had heard of Guest House Paridiso was in the, er... \"washroom\" after having just seen Fight Club. In each urinal was deposited a small, round black circle. When the circle came into contact with moisture (to put it delicately), it caused a colour picture to form, with photographs of the two stars and the tag line \"You'll P*** Yourself Laughing\". When you'd finished washing your hands, the circle had dried and faded to black again, waiting to spring it's surprise on the next \"victim\".

Okay, maybe the punchline wasn't terribly sophisticated, but you have to admit it was innovative. In fact, I think I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it in my life before, and these days of over a century of cinema and marketing, that's a real feat. What a pity the film that went with it failed to live up to the promise.

I hate to pan Guest House Paridiso and I am indebted to Rik Mayall (Richard Twat) and Adrian Edmondson (Eddie Elizabeth Ndingombaba) for many years of laughter through their appealing television series, be it the invention of The Young Ones (1982-1984), the sitting room plays of Bottom (1991-1995), or even solo work, such as Rik in the New Statesman (1988-1993). In fact, this would have made an hilarious 45 minute tv special. Unfortunately, its an 89 minute film.

There's definitely some merit to be had, and I laughed continuously throughout the protracted finale, which spoofed the Exorcist and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and involved... well, you'll have to see that bit for yourself. Yet often the pace is leaden, and a sterile atmosphere is throughout. The two stars (Edmondson taking his usual backseat, this time due to the fact that he adequately directs) never really get into first gear, Mayall only sporadically showing the foul-mouthed mania that makes us love him on the small screen. Indeed, the writers' presumption that we are already familiar with the characters leads to them being underdelivered to the audience. The slight hints of depth seen in the series (Richie's effeminate, failed social-climbing for example) are not present here, and instead we are left with parodies of parodies.

The Fawlty Towers accusation does pass water, complete with drunken chef and unseen, called-for waiter \"Pasquele\", which uncannily rhymes with Manuel. Some of the ideas, such a hotel next to a nuclear reactor with a childrens' swing hanging over a cliff face, are very, very funny, but ultimately the frenetic pace is stolen, the two constantly looking for a studio audience that isn't there, and all the \"dead laugh\" areas patched up with incidental \"comedy\" music that would have been dated in a Carry On film two decades ago.

Paridiso's brand of puerile, sadistic, perverse humour IS funny, and I feel sure it will make you laugh ... just not as often as it should.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Possibly the worst film within the genre in existence. It was announced as a comedy, but is simply tragically pathetic. I don't think anyone could have achieved anything more terrible and irritating if they were specifically requested to. It is toilet humour at its very poorest, I would avoid even watching the trailer. I only went to see it because it was announced that if you like Monty Python, you are bound to love this. Whoever wrote that was either biased or seriously deranged. I am still bewildered how one can honestly believe such a statement. Rarely do I leave the cinema, really it takes a lot of effort for a film to have that effect on me: this one did it in just 30 minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had seen Rik Mayall in Blackadder and the New Statesman, so I thought I'd give this film a try.

At around 4 pm I bought it, at around 8pm I started to watch, at around 8.15pm I fast forwarded the remaining film to see if there was anything left watchable for a human being with a brain... but there wasn't. At around 8.45pm I threw the DVD into the dustbin. And that's where this \"film\" belongs.

What ever happened to British humour? The humour so fine and witty, intelligent and artful that you find in Yes, Minister, Blackadder, Vicar of Dibley, Fawlty Towers or The Fast Show? The black humour Britain is so famous for? I don't want to insult anybody, but I presume even stupid children wouldn't find this funny. They deserve more intelligent fun. And Rik Mayall, you can do better, so please, do!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a HUGE fan of the bottom series i was really looking forward to the release of this film.I was eagerly anticipating a laugh a minute roller-coaster ride......alas.

Where to start on this mess?i think its a good start to say that its hardly richie and eddie on our screens in the first place as none of the jokes and one liners they usually deliver so well are funny.I was still waiting for the first laugh after a good 20 minutes of viewing.Many aspects of the story were pathetic and it was as if the film was full of those bad moments they rehearsed and decided to leave out of the final cut.

The overall sets and atmosphere surrounding the film is dark and dingy which i suppose is good if they want to portray the 'terrible' guest house the 2 buffoons attempt to run,but to me its just puts an even higher dampener on a sorry state of filming that should never have been created.

The acting,at times,is pathetic.Fenella Fielding is wasted as the loony Mrs Foxfur and i've seen Simon Pegg have much better outings.

I'd recommend Guest House Paradiso to anybody who is blind drunk because they might appreciate the terrible puns much more.But to any bottom fan who hasn't seen this film and is expecting true richie and eddie action you have been warned","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The premise of Bottom crossed with Fawlty Towers sounds great! However, Ade Edmonson & Rik Mayall have managed to create a film that raises barely a titter. Ten years ago, Rik Mayall's mad stare and Ade's idiocy were funny, now they are just annoying.

The film had promise - though the most horrendous hotel in Britain is not a new idea - but failed to deliver. The saving graces were competent performances from Simon (Spaced, Big Train) Pegg and Helene Mathieu, and the film is only 90 minutes long. Sorry, guys, but you really have hit the Bottom","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have always been a fan of Bottom, grabbing as many videos as I could find of the series here in the states. The chemistry between Rik and Ade is always genius, and the combination of smart writing and utterly stupid humor seems to work without fail. I thus sat down to watch this movie with great eagerness... and was utterly disappointed by the end.

The first 3\/4 of the movie can best be described as uninspired and poorly directed (sorry, Ade!), but with some utterly brilliant moments. Unfortunately, these laugh-out-loud moments make you realize how less-than-brilliant the rest of the movie is. The slapstick starts off funny but eventually becomes a bit boring, with only the perverted sex jokes to keep things humorous.

The end of the movie (the 'green' scenes, for those of you who've seen it) was... perhaps the worst ending I've seen in the past decade. Honestly. It was one joke repeated about thirty times, followed by an abrupt ending that made no sense (which didn't bother me) and wasn't funny (which did).

To sum up, I was sorely disappointed by this movie. I shall cling to the few brilliant moments in it, to retain the fondest memories that I can... but I have to warn you, if you're about to overpay for your NTSC conversion tape from the local importer, don't. There are far better things to spend your money on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, this film was terrible. It is as simple as that. It is actually the first time that I walked out early, as far as I can remember. This turned out okay, though: I had a very nice chat with two most charming girls while we all waited for the rest to finally give up on that crap they called a \"movie\".

Where to start. Bad acting, bad jokes. Faecal humour, which I simply cannot stand. Sorry, but snot, pee and scat are *not* funny. You have seen the title picture? That scene actually drags on for about 5 minutes, with the two \"heroes\" hitting and mutilating each other, which is supposed to be humorous all by itself. It is not.

Apart from body fluids, violence and cross-dressing, I do not remember much about this. At least not much good. I was really, really disappointed by this piece of garbage. Or let us be honest here: given that I am actually a big fan of \"british\" (i.e., black) humour, I was angry.

So, want my advice? Three words: do not watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The unthinkable has happened. Having first witnessed it a few years ago, I have had a film that has been my benchmark for awfulness and that film was called \"McCinsey's Island\". A family adventure movie with Hulk Hogan and Grace Jones (I'm not making this up), it plunged to new depths of movie making and is still the only film I've seen that made me wonder what else the film's budget could have been spent on. Like new schools or cancer-treating drugs. However, for sheer and unadulterated levels of crap, any film will be having to lower their standards even lower if they wish to trump \"Guest House Paradiso\" to the distinction of being one of the very worst movies I've ever had to watch.

Based loosely around the puerile but amusing TV show \"Bottom\", this film introduces us to two of the biggest losers imaginable. Richard (Rik Mayall) is a hotel manager, as unfriendly as anyone you can imagine and so twistedly lecherous as to almost ooze slime from every action. His buddy Eddie (director Adrian Edmondson) is an alcoholic waste of human life and together, they try to run Britain's worst hotel situated upon a cliff-top next to a nuclear power station. Between them, they indulge in cartoony violence (with sound effects) at regular intervals, steal anything remotely valuable or interesting from the fools who stay there and stare longingly at any woman at all. The plot, such as it is, involves the arrival of fabled Italian screen goddess Gina Carbonara (Vincent Cassel) who is fleeing from her wedding and attempts to lay low at the Guest House Paradiso, much to the astonishment of Richie and Eddie. And... that's it.

I used to think that the Carry On films represented everything bad about the UK film industry and God knows, we've spent so much time and money trying to escape that god awful legacy. We've had films like \"Trainspotting\", \"28 Days Later\", \"Four Weddings And A Funeral\" and the brilliant \"Shaun Of The Dead\" (also starring Simon Pegg) but this... this drags those films screaming and kicking back to the days of Sid James and Barbara Windsor's top flying off with the aid of a bicycle whistle. \"Guest House Paradiso\" is so low in its ambition that it insults you the minute you watch it. I kept watching, waiting in anticipation for the jokes to start but they never came. Just an endless stream of trapped knob gags, unimaginative scenarios that defy explanation, slightly amusing violence with frying pans and fridge doors and almost nothing raising so much as a smirk. Come the first ad break (it was on TV, you see) and I was ready to switch off but my loyal duties to you, my readers, kept me going. \"I'm watching this so they don't have to\" became my mantra so you guys better remember how much you owe me for this because this was about as much fun as having sand kicking into my eyes and being force-fed dog food.

Trust me, I used to love the \"Bottom\" TV show. The combination of suitably grubby acting from Mayall and Edmondson with OTT juvenile humour worked... for half an hour every week. Certainly not for an hour and a half, as Edmondson and Mayall indulge themselves in their little private joke and bore and depress the rest of the audience. Honestly, this makes Mayall's \"Drop Dead Fred\" seem like \"The Godfather\" and should you happen to meet either of these two people (who are pretty much solely responsible for the chaos on screen pretending to be a movie), feel free to swiftly deliver a boot to their testicle region. They'd probably enjoy it. Pegg and Bill Nighy (both as guests at the hotel) are dragged down with this sinking ship but at least they survived. Mayall and Edmondson should not be so lucky. The movie equivalent of Chernobyl and should be avoided as such.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yep, this has got to be one of the lamest movies I've ever seen. It's utterly tasteless, has no style whatsoever, the story is so thin that you can watch television through it, and the whole film has so many holes you could drive an oil tanker through it.

Sure, I appreciate a good B-movie as much as most male white homo sapiens do. But this has got to be the worst I've seen. In fact it's so B that it lacks everything that makes a B-movie interesting.

The whole movie is based around such charming artefacts as the characters beating the crap out of each other, various bodily functions and the complete lack of sanity of anything on-screen.

It's not even funny. In fact it's quite the opposite. I found it even boring at times due to it's extreme predictability.

I find nothing good to say about this movie. It was a waste of time watching it, and I hope others don't do the same mistake. If you also pay for it you should get a serious brainscan done.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This should have been a short film, nothing more. The Length of 1,5 hours is much too long, because after 10 minutes you have seen almost every joke. It's getting more and more on your nerves untill you finally kick out your brain to endure that movie.

To do yourself a favor, don't mention to see that movie...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Apart from the fact that this film was made ( I suppose it seemed a good idea at the time considering BOTTOM was so popular ) the one thing that puzzled me about GUEST HOUSE PARADISO was what happened to the lighting ? There is absolutely no artificial lighting used in this film whatsoever , and I watched it on network TV so it wasn`t a case of watching a dodgy tape. In fact the film was shot so darkly it was impossible to see what the hell was going on . But if the dialogue was anything to go by that`s maybe not a bad thing","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a Christian, I found this movie to be completely embarrassing. The actors sucked, the writing sucked, the cinematography sucked, and the story was so typical. I couldn't say this is a great witnessing tool, because I'd be too embarrassed to show any of my unsaved friends. Hollywood has much better stuff, and that's because they invest the best into it. Christians put out sh*tty work and think it's OK because \"it's for the lord\". In the old testament, people spent huge amounts of money to bring offerings to God. David (or Saul.. I don't remember) spent what would be equal to about $50 Billion in todays money on building a temple for God. But these days, spending what would appear to be about $30,000 tops on making a movie to \"witness\" to people with is just pathetic. It's the person, not the product that affects someone. Don't waste your time trying to convert your friends with this waste of an hour and a half. If you want to make a positive impact with people, show them movies like The Matrix, American Beauty, Braveheart etc.. movies that have something to say and actually get it into you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(As a note, I'd like to say that I saw this movie at my annual church camp, where the entire youth group laughed at it. I bought it when I saw it on a shelf one year later, if only for the humor I derived from a bad attempt at making an evangelical movie.)

Lay it Down falls short of many movie fans' expectations on several different planes. Most of the problems lie within the impersonal acting. Regardless of the nice cars in the film, or the truth in Christ's sacrifice for you, as a movie AND witnessing tool, Lay it Down hardly delivers.

Most good opinions of the movies are supported by Christians agreeing with the message. While it's easy for a Christian to agree with the points delivered, the audience hardly ever witnesses life outside a clich\u00e9. The fighting scene between Ben and his brother is horribly dubbed. And there are at least three blatant typos in the subtitles.

I encourage anyone to watch the movie a second time with the director's commentary on. It really helps you understand just why the movie was written how it was. The director's views on secular society are practically opposite of what would cater to a movie-goer's needs: he shows a pedantic understanding of Nonchristians, as well as some points of religious conflict; most of the editing, he admits, was rushed, but \"satisfactory\"; he thought the over-used transitions and themes to be effective; and was completely happy with the acting.

He also inserted motifs that he was rather proud of: -All (read: most) of the names are significant. Ben Destin = \"Been Destined\", Gus Pelman = \"Gospel Man\", Nicky D = Nicodemus. -The car doing donuts is symbolic of the circling nothingness that is a life without Christ. -When Ben leaves on Pete's motorcycle, he crosses his crutches to form a \"cross\".

I'm not making any of those up. He throws around things like this in between saying while street racers and the like \"blow their brains out with guns\", and how \"God is in control when your born and when your die\". Yes, that was not a typo. He really says that.

I have (little) forgiveness reserved for this movie. The \"cool cars\" and \"good message\" don't do jack to make this movie good. However, the movie was made from a group of unprofessional individuals on a budget less than 1\/100th of \"The Fast and the Furious's\", and the time limit was unforgiving. With that in mind, I give it a score of 2\/10, instead of the 1\/10 I so dearly think it deserves.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Got this off of usenet, so I wasn't prepared for the heavy (and I do mean EXCEPTIONALLY heavy) religious theme. Not that I'm one of Satan's disciples or anything, but it was very heavy handed.

On top of that, the acting stunk. It might be because they had to get good little boys to play bad little boys, but it didn't work.

There was some pretty cool filmmaking involved, so any fan of directorial style might want to check it out, but be ready with the fast forward buttons.

There was some sloppiness to the editing. In particular, a black Mustang (probably a representation of Satan?) squares off against a white 240Z. Wheels spin, camera changes, and whattya know, that white 240Z is transmogrified into a white Civic.

I gave up early on, so I can't vouch for the moral impact of it. But I would like to point out that this sort of film is totally preaching to the choir. If the director\/writer\/producer was trying to bring religion to the unwashed streetracing masses, they went about it all wrong. I think I'd rather watch an adult diaper commercial than listen to a steely-gazed bible thumper rant about Jesus' dying for us. Yawn.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Truly awful nonsensical garbage. This movie does everything wrong except make the running time under an hour. The gore FX defy gravity & logic. There are no scares. The acting is abysmal, with everyone appearing to be reading their lines. There's a surprise ending that's just silly where we find out that things we saw happen didn't even happen. Boy do I hate cop out endings! They pad this thing out with long drawn-out shots of people doing nothing interesting(like putting on make-up or talking for what seems like forever). They have to pad out a movie that's under an hour long? Ridiculous. The story itself is pretty freakin' thin. I mean it's just a variation of the movie APRIL FOOL'S DAY, if I remember that movie correctly, and that film wasn't all that great either. The only good thing I can say is it seems to have been shot well. Too bad nothing happens that's very exciting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Granny, directed by Boris Pavlovsky (who?), sees eight friends experiencing a night of terror when a psycho-killer dressed in a old hag rubber mask and a nightdress interrupts their party.

They say you can't judge a book by its cover, but it appears that the same is not true of DVDs: I was in the mood for a REALLY bad horror film last night, and since the cover of Granny featured a shoddily photo-shopped image of the titular killer swinging an axe, terrible typography (they even use the system font Sand, a definite design no-no!), and credits featuring absolutely no-one I had heard of, I reckoned it would be pretty lousy.

It was!

When a film clocks in at just under an hour long, it really shouldn't waste too much time before getting to the action; Granny, however, spends the first 20 minutes or so with its unlikable group of friends indulging in pointless games and extremely banal conversation. Anyone who actually stays with the film long enough for the killing to begin (and I doubt most sane people would bother) will be treated to several dreadful death scenes featuring amateurish gore, loads of awful acting, and a surprise ending that comes as no surprise (if you've seen April Fool's Day, then you'll guess what the twist is way before it is revealed).

Granny is uninspired, unexciting, and almost unwatchable. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie at a party, we were very puzzled by the ending, it ended rather poor. even though the entire movie isn't too amazing, i was expecting something slightly better. This movie is pure trash, but i suggest you watch it if you find cheap horror films with a weak script quite funny. Personally I loved the advert, it was my overall highlight, the fighting scenes were basic, a shot of a knife, some shadows in a window, fake blood. I must say the Granny costume was quite scary, This film is a mixture of kill joy, camp blood and boggy creek 2,except this film has slightly better camera wok and colour treatment compared with camp blood.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is so awful it is funny, not quite to Troll 2 levels of hilarity, but funny nonetheless. The acting is awful, the music is atrocious and the story does not make a blind bit of sense. The story revolves around a man dressed in an awful granny costume killing a bunch of people at a party. The death scenes are so badly done they are hilarious. One girl is stabbed repeatedly in the chest, but does not scream, try or defend or self or run away. She also manages to remain standing despite being stabbed repeatedly. Another death scene involving a rope is also extremely hilarious. No thought seems to have been put into the plot. The Granny seems to magically move from one area to another(e.g. be hiding under leaves in a woodland just where the victim just happens to stand, appears in front of someone even though it had been behind them ten seconds earlier), people kiss at extremely inappropriate moments(would you stop and kiss someone if you were being chased by a homicidal maniac) and the double twist at the end is utterly ridiculous, it seems they just threw it on just to confuse people. I would advise people to watch this film if they love awful horror movies like Troll 2, The Dreaded or Blood Gnome, but do not watch it if you are expecting a scary horror movie, you will be disappointed","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK end of the story is - all the kills were a joke on the main character and no one is actually dead. Yes I know Cry Wolf did it and did it well, but this isn't \"Cry Wolf\", it's \"Scream Crap\"! Even though the \"characters\" don't apparently die, we SEE them get stabbed to death (and other ways they are killed) even though these \"kills\" do NOT take place as anyone can see them. Mr. Director, if you're gonna show people getting killed, someone needs to see it, if they're off camera and the character getting faked killed is alone it doesn't work - and until the end I liked a couple of scenes but your end ruined the whole thing.

The acting is horrid (especially the kid at the beginning who really thinks he tricked his friends into believing they were playing with his dead grandmothers brains) the script is less-than half baked (though if you're half baked you might like the movie) the only reason I gave this movie a 3 is because a) they actually made something b) they got it released and c) they shot on film Yes you read right, they wasted (at least) $5,000 on film stock for this crap. Sad, if they'd shot DV they'd had some cash for a better cast and another writer to go through the script and make it good.

I admire the fact that the director made something (as most don't) but HATWE the fact that he comes on IMDFB talking about how \"original\" the movie is.

Avoid the movie if it means buying it to see, if a friend has it, it might be a funny movie to borrow.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An object lesson in how to make a bad movie which masquerades as Horror. Without going in too close I would imagine this is the results of a bunch of film school students all adding bits to the story and then actually ACTING in it! Its like a film workshop of some kind and its a film badly in need of an editor-in which case it would have lasted 10 minutes! The director of this garbage probably had more money than sense. Consider the number of submitted scripts or even unreleased films which would have benefited from this. The so called Granny who was killing people in some pretty stupid ways looked like Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future-or maybe the musicians Johnny Winter\/Edgar Winter. It starts off with 20 minutes of crass boring nonsense spouted out by the students-something about paranoia. Giving this rubbish 1 is because it can't get any less. It has not one single redeeming feature-and when one of the girls thinks the body on the floor covered in blood is the guy fooling about she has to actually TASTE the red stuff before she knows its not tomato ketchup! Its an insult to the intelligence of an idiot","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love low budget movies. Including those that are intentionally or un-intentionally funny,excess fake gore,violence etc.

This,however is beyond stupid. Once you see the ending you'll say,what the hell was the point of all the killing scenes with no one around(except in a couple) to witness them.AND how did the ending actually come about(I won't give the WHOLE story away for those dumb enough to actually watch this) Granny is like a psychic Jason. First she's outside the window with a body and 15 seconds later she's in the living room knitting. The whole thing is a setup for a newcomer. They pull off graphic kill scenes,the knitting needles in the eyes,that only Chris Angel Mind Freak could pull off. And again,the very end was Pre-posterous. 56 min waste of time. I've seen one of the directors other films and it was almost as bad. Give me 20 grand and I could do better. This really deserves a big fat 0.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"NO WAY ! I hated Granny. First, she is way too tall -of course she is, it is Tom, whoever's brother, who's playing her- and I hate that thing she does when she brushes her fake silver hair back, but : there are funny parts in this movie. For instance, the fact that every single actor looks V.G. (very German), and also that they think that, even when left alone, they should pretend that that guy (Tom) is their actual \"granny\" or something. I specially liked -not- that moment where Charlotte leaves and starts walking to the nearest gas station to ask for some help. She suddenly finds herself in the middle of some woods (where were these before? nobody dares explaining) and turns, turns, turns a-r-oun-d like a ballerina, looking at the stars...and...ignoring the fact that GRANNY'S BEHIND HER, READY TO STRIKE !!! But, anyway, the music wasn't so bad, the haircuts were okay and the ending terribly provocative... Mmmmm... wish I had the German version.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh my god, this movie is incredible, it's the baddest movie ever and I know what I am talking about! I am a scary movies fan!

The story is totally silly, a group of adults decide to make a party and a silly guy with an awful mask comes and kills everybody... the dialogs are a kind of parody, worst, they're just talking about sex with a so bad accent. The end is (oh!!!!!!) discover by yourself! you will be really really surprised... (not possible! yes it is!) and surprise the movie is just 58minutes. (not possible (bis) yes it is!) Worst than House IV and Howling V.

To put it in a nutshell, forget it forever!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This one features an interesting way of handling a camera,

espercially for a DTV movie - the version I saw was full-screen

- but it falls short on the scenario department. First you get

around 20mn of talk, talk, talk in a would-be-hip, post-\"Trainspotting\" way, then it's slasher city. And then comes

the most dishonest cheat ending I've seen, much worse than

\"April Fool's Day\" - where at least it made sense. So, all in

all, it's the old song and dance : interesting director tries

hard, but deserves better movie. Funny : usually, it is the actors which are in desperate need of

something better\u0085 Skip it anyway, for your time","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This home movie is basically scandalously rubbish, but you have to give them 3\/10 for trying. The blood is rubbish, but the granny that kills them is quite funny, and I think the concept is good, and make-up is OK for a home movie. However thank god it was only 55 minutes long, and the twist at the end is quite literally Fight Club (as in almost as trash as the film). Just read this comment, don't watch the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Granny is definitely one of the worst horror movies ever made in the history of cinema.

The script was diabolical, so bad in fact that I was almost crying with laughter at some of the things they came out with. The acting was almost as bad, they would have been better off casting traffic cones to play the roles (they would have done a better job). The murders were laughable, the suspense was non existent, the camera work was ineffective and the \"major\" plot twist at the end was disgustingly inappropriate, it just gets worse and worse.

\"The Granny\" is possibly one of the most unthreatening \"villains\" caught on film, she looks like she is wearing a cheap mask from the supermarket (the nylon hair caused endless amounts of laughter) and a frilly nightgown. Would you be scared by that??? I certainly wasn't.

If you like watching bad movies (see Manos, Troll 2, Michael Bay films  ) then this is a must see. Those who don't like bad movies and don't enjoy laughing at shockingly bad dialogue, avoid like the plague.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie really sucked.....HARD! It was just stupid with a terrible ending. I love a really cheesy horror flick, but this was terrible! The \"trick\" ending totally contradicts everything you've seen in the movie, if you last til the end. Take my advice and steer clear of that dirty old hag The Granny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is truly execrable in all departments. Script, acting, plot, direction and editing are all uniformly awful. I give it 1 out of 10 simply because people turned up to make it. I would have given it 2 out of 10 if they had all stayed at home instead. Avoid at all costs!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A whole bunch of teenagers gather around to discuss their fears, but an uninvited guest has showed up and is killing everybody off.

Probably the worst horror film of the 90's, Camp Blood (1999) is the only film that could challenge it for that title, has some of the dumbest characters and situations to ever grace a television screen. The so called surprise ending is awful, as is the rest of this film. Mildly entertaining on a sooo bad it is good level. My rating: 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An annoying group of ex-students from 'Monte Alto International High School' decide to spend a night in the now abandoned institution where a 'mystery' killer called the watchman played by horror legend Paul Naschy murders them off one by one.\"School Killer\" features some references to such teen slasher staples like \"Scream\" or \"Friday the 13th\".The climatic twist ending looks like lilted from \"The Sixth Sense\".The uncertainty about whether the homicidal watchman is alive or dead provide some mild interest,but the characters are one-dimensional and the endless scenes of walking through dark school corridors really got on my nerves.The presence of charismatic Paul Naschy almost saves this clich\u00e9d slasher flick.There is also some decent gore on display including a splendidly bloody beheading.It's nice to see Manuela Velasco of \"Rec\" fame in a small role.4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was very disappointed with this series. It had lots of cool graphics and that's about it. The level of detail it went into was minimal, and I always got the feeling the audience was being patronized -- there was a lot of what seemed to me as \"This is extremely cool but we're not going to explain it in further detail because you won't get it anyway. Let's just show you some pretty pictures to entertain you.\" The host would drop interesting-sounding words such as \"sparticles\" and \"super-symmetry\" without any attempt at explaining what it was. We had to look it up on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I know quite a bit about superstrings (for a layman) and I found their explanations were convoluted and could have been so much better. They could have chosen MUCH better examples to explain concepts, but instead, the examples they used were confusing and further obscured the subject.

Additionally, I got so sick of the repetitiveness. They could easily have condensed the series into one episode if they had cut out all the repetition. They must have shown the clips of the Quantum Caf\u00e9 about 8 times. The host kept saying the same things over and over and over again. I can't remember how many times he said \"The universe is made out of tiny little vibrating strings.\" It's like they were trying to brainwash us into just accepting \"superstrings are the best thing since sliced bread.\"

Finally, the show ended off with an unpleasant sense of a \"competition\" between Fermilab and CERN, clearly biased towards Fermilab. This is supposed to be an educational program about quantum physics, not about whether the US is better than Europe or vice versa! I also felt that was part of the patronizing -- \"Audiences need to see some conflict to remain interested.\" Please. Give me a little more credit than that.

Overall, 2 thumbs down :-(","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm really disappointed by this piece of work. It is quiet shallow, keeps repeating itself, is mostly not exact and sometimes on the verge of being wrong. I think it's made for elementary school, especially because it keeps repeating itself over and over again while leaving large gaps. A young kid might actually enjoy it and learn from it, but a better way to make a kid appreciate theoretical physics are books like \"A short history of time\" or \"The Tao of Physics\". If you are familiar with the topic on a very basic level, you won't gain any new information or views from this series. Don't waste your time with it. Nice eye candy though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had a hard time staying awake for the two hour opening episode. It was dumbed down to such an extent, I doubt if I learned a single thing. The graphics were rudimentary. Any small idea was repeated ad nauseum. Contrast this to the Cosmos series hosted by Carl Sagan. That had a good musical theme. There was NO music coming from these infernal 10-dimensional Strings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Found an old VHS version of this film in my parents house so I thought I'd give it a go. Right from the start I wasn't expecting much from this film and I'm glad for that because overall the film was no good.

The acting overall was very poor, even for a Nicolas Cage movie. One scene with a radio controller stands out as being so pitiful that I found it hilarious that this scene wasn't cut. The first 30 minutes of the film had almost no developed plot and I didn't know what was going on.

The story itself had the possibility of being decent but either the director was just bad or was trying too hard to put his own unique touch on the style of the film. I managed to watch the whole thing but I won't likely ever see this film again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't seen all Cage's works by any means but his acting in this one was truly awful. The other characters run the gamut of ability but, having most of the emotional scenes, Cage's scenes are just embarrassing to watch. He's certainly come a long ways in 12 years.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like many western Pennsylvania history buffs, I had been really looking forward to this much-heralded PBS program that was produced by Pittsburgh's WQED. However, I must say now that I was somewhat disappointed. On the positive side, I believe that overall this film did a fair job of explaining the main issues and describing the events of the so-called French and Indian War. In particular, its presentation of the Indians' point of view was somewhat new and quite interesting, although it certainly was at time over-emphasized. Also on the positive side, the blend of narrative and action scenes was well done and came across somewhat better than many of these typical documentaries made up of \"experts\" interviews and picture stills (a la Ken Burns). On the negative side, many of the battles did have a somewhat \"staged\" look and many important aspects of the war were overlooked. Most of all I was very disappointed and frustrated by how little importance was given to Forbes's successful campaign of 1758 against Fort Duquesne as compared to the earlier failures of 1754 by Washington and 1755 by Braddock. In particular, I was somewhat incredulous that there was NO mention of Colonel Henry Bouquet, the Swiss mercenary in the British service who was most responsible for Forbes' success. Finally I could not believe the complete omission of the 1763 Battle of Bushy Run that started as a re-run of Braddock's defeat but ended up as the victory that decided the outcome of Pontiac's War thanks to the wiles of the same Colonel Bouquet who certainly must rank as one of the most successful British commanders of this war.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Presentation is VERY shabby. (to my notion) as documentaries often are. Michael Moore's \"documenatry\" - Farenheit 911 is FAR more convincing but has FAR too much media and political influence. Cant wait till Saturday when I get to see the docudrama \"The Game of their Lives\" . IFC goes right of center. I have started a collection of IFC movies from off the internet due to \"TGOTL\" *** out of ********** on \"Decade\". Wanna see good documentaries? Stick to the History Channel.. Or try docudrama. You cant go wrong with them my friend. Cant go wrong. The seventies were ten years of reruns. Or so the old times would have you to believe. Disco died and it is gone forever. When Elvis died o yes we all did grieve","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There was some good build up of suspense throughout. The cinematography was surprisingly good considering such minimal budget. We witness occasional spells of good acting, however, this is quickly deflated by some quite cheesy lines. Understandably there would not be much of an intellectual conversation to be had, sitting up on trees while a crocodile is stalking you. Silence would have been golden here. There could have been a bigger play on suspense than dimly uttering, \"I sat in the cupboard for fear of my brother...\" Something tells me there's a slight difference in getting a beating from your brother than being eaten by a mighty 15ft croc. You decide. Throughout the film I can't seem to find a connection or for that matter, sympathy with the characters, perhaps thats because they don't develop one throughout the film, character that is. There are some occasional good scares when the crocodile sneaks up on the characters, overshadowed again by some questionable scenes. In one instance we should be terrified by an ear floating in the water but later we sit beside a decapitated, limbless corpse and only worry about a broken finger. A definite roller coaster of a film when it comes to logic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, the movie was that boring and insipid. after a certain point, I was wanting the croc to eat these people just so we could get the movie over with.

The plot is that three Aussies take a fishing tour up a river in a little boat, where the fishing guide straps on a gun. He says he just does it for insurance purposes, all the crocs have been hunted out of this river. He is immediately eaten by a Croc. The trio then get chased up a tree, getting picked off by the reptile in their attempts to escape. They spend most of the movie arguing over the best way to escape.

Predictably, the one survivor finds the tour guide's gun and shoots the crocodile. Aww, they killed the movie's only likable character!

Where's Paul Hogan or Steve Irwin when you really need them?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Perhaps it's about time we declare 2007 to be \"The International Year of the Cinematic Crocodile\"! The ridiculous \"Primeval\" came first, about a croc named Gustave (!) ruling the swamps in Burundi. Then there was \"Lake Placid 2\", a low-profiled and made-for-TV sequel to a forgettable original. Thirdly, there's this incredibly derivative and soporific piece of Aussie horror and, finally, I have yet to see the promising \"Rogue\". The last one is likely to be the best, considering the involvement of the upcoming Aussie horror talent Greg McLean (\"Wolf Creek\"). \"Black Water\" certainly isn't a complete waste of time and film, but it's another pretty pointless survival flick that confuses real-life agony with horror. Pardon my bluntness, especially since I honestly feel sorry for the people who went through this ordeal, but depicting three characters sitting in a tree and whining for more than a full hour is not my idea of sheer suspense! Three young people travel through Northern Australia and decide to spend a day of fishing in the remote swamp areas. It doesn't take too long before a gigantic and ferocious crocodile capsizes their little boat and devours the guide. Grace, Lee and Adam barely manage to escape the reptile's hungry teeth by climbing up a tree. Even though he remains unseen most of the time, the croc patiently lies in waiting and makes it impossible for them to leave the swamp alive. Yes, it does sound an awful lot like the plot of \"Open Water\" indeed. Replace the numerous unseen sharks with one giant unseen crocodile and the open sea with an equally inescapable Aussie swamp, and there you have it. Oh well, \"Black Water\" at least features some rare moments of excitement and one impressively designed water monster. It has to be said, the croc looks fabulously groovy and you anxiously count down towards every next time he wildly emerges from the water. The three-headed cast does whatever they can to keep their characters interesting, but how do you achieve this by sitting in a tree the whole time? The based-on-true-events concept obviously causes a number of restrictions, like limited images of the fantastic filming locations, dialogs and amiable character drawings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of those movies where you take bets on who will die first and who will survive at the end. There was just something about the movie that made me zone out. I think because I keep looking back and thinking \"yep still in that tree...still looking at the water\". Poor character development. I felt nothing when they were in danger. I was voting for the croc. I found it hard to believe a croc would try to tip a boat in the first place and then when it jumps into the boat I find that really unlikely as well. The croc seems too supernatural at times ('all knowing all seeing'). Also when the croc attacks it's behavior seems very unrealistic. It's a killing machine and wouldn't be letting victims escape twice to three times in a row, especially when attacking in the water.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was Stan in the movie \"Dreams Come True\". Stan was the friend that worked at the factory with the main character and ended getting his arm smashed in the machinery and got carried out screaming (where was the ambulance?) The acting in this movie was for the most part pretty poor with mostly local actors from the Fox Valley, Wisconsin. I saw the movie on the big screen. It played 2 nights in 3 theaters and was something special to see yourself on the big screen. I may be bias, but overall, I enjoyed it. Also the soundtrack was the band Spooner, who later became Garbage. My brother, Steve Charlton was also in the movie. He played Swenson the man who comes to the door on crutches to talk with the police.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A trash classic! Basically what we have here is a story about a couple of American teenagers (one male, one female both beautiful people of course) who seem to be psychically linked, in that every time both of them fall asleep, they can inhabit each others dreams and express each others innermost desires... think Mills & Boon meets X-files and you'll be somewhere near the mark. Actually, its more like an unhappy hybrid between one of Ed Wood's famously bad B- movies and a particularly silly episode of Melrose Place, so tacky are the special-effects and so amateurish is the acting. The actors who inhabit (I wouldn't say act in) this flick say their lines like they're reading from cue cards and pout when they're supposed to be showing an emotion, and it comes as no great shock (or loss to the industry) that they have since faded into obscurity. The whole thing is just a laughably misguided mixture of styles that don't go together at all, and the end result is a intriguing curiosity that no doubt will be lapped up by purveyors of so-bad-they're-good films in years to come. I'll probably be the only person who ever comments on this film, but if you are reading and have seen it please get back, it gets kinda lonely round here...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is truly one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. Rod Steiger who stars as the ornery grandfather, Charlie, is in full overacting mode hoping that the more flashy he is, the better his performance (Cue buzzer sound). Rod Steiger is one of the last true film legends and to see him in this film (although End of Days is the 2nd worst film I've ever seen) is really heartbreaking. From the bad storyline to the nonexistent direction, it becomes abudantly clear that the only reason this film was made was that the producer's last name ended in DeLaurentis. The only good thing about this film is that it is so bad, it's truly hysterical. Look for the flashback scene where Rod where's a Jor-El wig from Superman and a big black porno mustache. One only hopes that his follow up film, I Believe in America, from Uber-producer Kevin Arbouet will redeem him and leave a good taste in everyone's mouths.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So boring you'll fall asleep after the 20 first minutes. Sorry Mr Boutonnat, I do admire your work (all these beautiful \"films\" you directed such as \"Tristana\", \"Sans logique\" etc...) but here, the plot is extremely... vain ! Except the magnificent photography, everything appears dumb and there's no envy to know what will happen at these \"medium\" actors. Moreover, the dialogs are minimalists. The famous question \"where are the children\" is repeated so often it looks like a farce. Believe me, it's a pure waste of time (concerning the plot), and 3 hours is a long long time. Certainly the real reason of this box-office total mess !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yet again, I appear to be the only person on planet Earth who is capable of criticizing Japanese films made before 1970. \"Fires on the Plain\" (1959) is another in the seemingly endless line of \"classics\" that get all sorts of praise for no apparently good reason. As much as I love to overgeneralize and psychoanalyze all of these moviegoers who have such horrible taste in film, it's still nearly impossible to rationalize why anyone would ever think that poorly made fluff like this should be proclaimed as some sort of \"masterpiece.\" What I find truly ironic is that fans of derivative \"classics\" like \"Fires on the Plain\" focus so much on \"inside the box\" movie-making (orthodox grading standards like scriptwriting, acting, camera-work, etc.) yet it always seems like the most highly revered \"classics\" are most deficient in these very standards. For example, one of the laziest copouts for a filmmaker involves forced verbal exposition where characters basically explain everything for the viewer even when the constructed scenario is totally artificial. Most surprisingly, the very first scene in \"Fires on the Plain\" uses this indolent tactic to the extreme.

After a funny head slap, the following useless dialogue assaults the viewer, \"Why can't you grasp the situation? We landed to the west under heavy fire to reinforce units at Tacloban. We lost two-thirds of our men. Our artillery was sunk in transit. We tried to reach Burauen airfield by crossing the central mountains but without artillery it was impossible. The enemy's counterattack forced a fanout across the valley. You know that.\" So why, exactly, is one character telling another character something he already knows? Oh yeah, that's right, the makers of this film are too lazy to think of more natural ways to communicate this information. You see, a quality film would actually show these events happening, or at worst it would involve dialogue involving one character who has no knowledge of those events. Heck, even an opening summary in paragraph form directed at the viewer would have been better than what transpired here.

Such instances of poor quality movie-making are littered throughout \"Fires on the Plain\" to the point where this film feels like it was written by imbeciles for imbeciles. For example, the lead character stumbles upon some skeletons wrapped in Japanese garb. Instead of doing the natural thing like \u0096 oh I don't know \u0096 giving a depressed mannerism, the character blurts out \"Japanese soldiers.\" Thanks buddy, but I could have figured that one out for myself.

Even worse, this movie is saturated with over-dramatic ploys. The most ridiculous scene involves a pair of boots. Picture this. A soldier walks along and finds a pair of worn out boots. One would think that such a find is utterly useless, but it turns out that the soldier's boots are in even worse condition, so he picks up the worn boots and leaves his SUPER worn boots behind. Fine, I get the point. The soldiers are in rough shape \u0096 a fact that is already clearly emphasized with their worn boots to begin with. The scene is ridiculous, but I was ready to let it go, until the SECOND soldier arrives! You see, he finds the previous soldier's SUPER worn boots and notices \u0096 get ready, cause here it comes \u0096 that his boots are SUPER DUPER worn boots! Lucky man, he picks up the SUPER worn boots and leaves his SUPER DUPER worn boots behind. But you see, that's not all \u0096 because the THIRD soldier then arrives! He finds the previous soldiers SUPER DUPER worn boots and inspects them, along with his own SUPER DUPER worn boots. Since both pairs suck, he tosses them both aside and smiles as he continues barefoot. At this point I was ready to throw my television through my living room window. The heavy handedness, overdramaticism, and paramount absurdity of this sequence is beyond bad film-making. It's SUPER DUPER bad film-making.

There are a number of similar, completely stupid moments to be had. Like the time when the lead character asks someone, \"Hey, are you dead?\" Like the guy is going to answer \"Yes\" if he actually kicked the bucket. I'll also be the first to condemn the subpar performance of the lead actor, who is the quintessential posterchild for artificial reaction. I laughed hard during that opening head slap where his head slingshot back in place with this stupid, goofy expression on his face.

The fact that this trivial fluff piece gets an IMDb average rating of 8.4 while a certifiable masterpiece like \"A Tale of Two Sisters\" (2003) only gets a 7.5 is the height of mass stupidity. And to think that some people actually delude themselves into thinking that \"AToTS\" doesn't make sense. Well, not every movie can have completely outrageous SUPER DUPER worn boots on its side.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... And it's a not very good documentary either American MOVIE seems to have confused some people into thinking this is a spoof documentary ( \" Mockumentary ) and even some newspaper TV listings described it as such . I'll not laugh out loud at that because it's easy to mistake this documentary as one big wind up ala THIS IS SPINAL TAP

What seems to have caused the confusion is that the documentary centres around budding film maker Mark Borchardt who is .... How can I put it ? Rather self deluded ? Yes but that's not necessarily a bad thing since if we had no dreams we'd all still be living in caves and the fact that Mark is obsessed with horror movies is not to be taken as a criticism since both Sam Raimi ( Yes that one ) and Peter Jackson ( yes that one ) both started out doing low budget horror comedies so again it's not a criticism . No it's just that Mark Borchardt ( yes that one ) is a parody of American trailer trash

Remember in THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY Ben Stiller gives a lift to a dodgy hitch hiker ( \" Come into my office because you're f***in' fired \" ) ? Well that's who Mark resembles along with most of Jerry Springer's guests so it's very easy to see why some people thought this wasn't a real documentary . It's also not a very good documentary since Mark and co give me the creeps . Did you know that someone thought Mark would grow up to be a serial killer ? Does anyone else think there's plenty of time left for this to happen ?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The concept of this movie is unique, however its execution is less than special. When i arrived at the cinema and realised that there were only about 15 people or so in the crowd, i thought i had made a mistake. However the true mistake was realised in shocking detail when the film has ended and i knew that i had wasted two hours of my life.

Without the cruel recordings of the old man, and the stupidly funny friend, this film would have rated 1 out of ten.

This film is special, special because it is probably the worst film ever to be generally released to the public.

There is also the issue of whether you could call it a film or just an advertisement for the probably crummy \"Northwestern\".

If you are thinking of watching this film for the plot, the humor, the filming, the locations, then don't. On the other hand if you like to experience both ends of the film production spectra then go, just take a book, or a small game or just some novelty item.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a dreadful, boring movie, even for a documentary. At times, it did provided insight to life and also had humorous moments, but overall it was not worth seeing. Every time I began to feel sympathetic towards Mark and began to hope he would be successful, I would become disappointed by his lack of responsibility and drug and alcohol abuse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry, folks, but all of you that say this is a great documentary... and that award it won at Sundance... well, you've all been duped. I've heard for a few years how I had to see this documentary and I finally watched it. Maybe in 1999, when it came out, and reality TV didn't have such a dominant presence in the industry, this movie would have seemed entertaining. But Mike and Mark are so obviously playing themselves, Mike and Mark. At times they are funny and some of the lines seem off the cuff, but mostly they do not ring true. They are the reality version of Jay and Silent Bob. Yes the people are real, they are not actors, but it's put on, it's exaggeration of themselves, and it's so obvious that it's hard to believe so many people think it's the real deal. I wasn't fooled so it was actually a tad boring. Mildly amusing, but not missing much if you miss it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love documentaries. They are among my favorite genres of film. Before seeing this film I hadn't seen one that I hadn't liked.

The premise for this film is a great one. The execution is well done. There were some times early on when I laughed and smiled. Yet as the film went on the more tedious and irritating it became. This could have been something special had the subject not been such an inarticulate, childish, inept putz. I appreciate his passion for film, but quit your whining. If you're short on funds, maybe you shouldn't have so many kids, or spend so much money on alcohol. Maybe you should have gone to film school, or at least graduated from high school. Maybe you should have lived life and gotten perspective and experiences that could add to your vision.

There are so many people out there with stories that are interesting, funny and poignant. To see this guy chosen over any of them is nothing less than crass. If you want to do a documentary on a film maker, why not do one on someone from China or Iran, a film maker with REAL problems?

Two final questions:

Who takes a little kid to see Apocalypse Now?

How many times did this guy say \"man\"?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually enjoy underground movies and antiheroes but this is a bad joke. I wonder how this can be called a movie. All these people are loosers and the filmmaker doesn't succeed in making them interesting at all. They are not funny, not tragic just plain stupid and boring.

May be I missed something but I won't watch it again to find out what. Anybody with a camcorder can do better than that...

I give it a 1 for the originality. All the rest is crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has been lauded to the point of the ridiculous. \"American Movie\" is a boring documentary about a boring person so ordinary you'll find equivalents on just about every corner in America. It takes a long, hard look at a guy who's failed at just about everything in the interest of making an independent movie..or two. Were his failures for other than his own selfish pursuits or were they in the name of real art, the movie might have had a chance. America has an abundance of better stories to be told. This one should be flushed and many critics have good reason to be ashamed. Two thumbs up indeed!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an Emperor's New Clothes situation. Someone needs to say \"That's not a funny and original, (etc., etc.) film; that is an inferior film. Don't waste your money on it.\" The film is trashy, and the people in it are embarrassingly inferior trailer trash. They are all-too-realistically only themselves. They have no lines, they don't act. The American Dream is not to create shoddy no-quality films or anything else shoddy and of no-quality; it is to achieve something of quality and, thereby, success. Only people who are desperate to praise any film not made in Hollywood (it can't have been made in Hollywood, can it?) would try to impute any kind of quality to this film. It's worse than \"Ed Woods,\" another film about a film-maker without standards. These films shouldn't have been made, and you shouldn't go see \"American Movie.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an Emperor's New Clothes situation. Someone needs to say \"That's not a funny and original, (etc., etc.) film; that is an inferior film. Don't waste your money on it.\" The film is trashy, and the people in it are embarrassingly inferior trailer trash. They are all-too-realistically only themselves. They have no lines, they don't act. The American Dream is not to create shoddy no-quality films or anything else shoddy and of no-quality; it is to achieve something of quality and, thereby, success. Only people who are desperate to praise any film not made in Hollywood (it can't have been made in Hollywood, can it?) would try to impute any kind of quality to this film. It's worse than \"Ed Woods,\" another film about a film-maker without standards. These films shouldn't have been made, and you shouldn't go see \"American Movie.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie sucked wind. I imagine that the other 300 people that gave this movie such high votes must be independent filmmakers. I can't imagine that anyone else could possibly find it funny or even slightly entertaining. I feel like 100 minutes of my life were just wasted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Should you wish to see the worst film ever made, look no further. Some wretched movies are watchable because they are unintentionally funny. Alas, American Movie has no wit at all, no unintentional humor, just obscenities thought by its director to be laughable.

For those who liked this film, I suggest you watch Kevin Smith's \"Clerks,\" similar in tone. In Clerks you will find creativity, wit, and enjoyment -- all on a shoestring budget. It should make you forget this hideous effort.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hey, remember when Hal Hartley was brilliant? What a time that was. I'd say the Book of Life was when things really started going downhill, but I will say that at least he went uphill from this one. A movie that looks like it was filmed on someone's cell phone wouldn't have to be a bad thing if it was distinguished by an interesting story and dialog, but alas, those are missing, along with Hartley's spare, quirky dialog. In their place is tedious exposition on themes of Christian end of times and a trite story of a modern Jesus in a quandary, packaged in a trying-to-be-hip modern world where everyone looks like someone out of a Hal Hartley movie. While it picks up a little in its second half, it's never enjoyable, or especially sensible. What the hell happened to you, Hartley?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this on the shelf and swooned with joy !! I danced up to the counter, slapped down my money and ran home! You know what?! I fell asleep less then half way thru! Tried again the next day...YAWN!! What the heck !?!! I could NOT watch it! I love all the other stuff he's done (I didn't see the one with the monster in it yet). What gives? Is it me? Or him? So sad. Boo hoo. P.S, I did like the camera work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was shot using a digital camera, and it shows. There were enough annoying digital tricks used to alienate the viewer, also with the help of a terrible score. As if that weren't enough, the acting was also terrible. Now in Hartley's movies the acting is always peculiar, but here it was just BAD, especially by Satan (Thomas Jay Ryan)and Harvey, who (thank god) doesn't get to say much. After all these external problems it is also very unfortunate that the story itself is not that good, either. The jokes are predictable and unbelievably straightforward, and the events just rumble on from one incident to the next. The so-called book of life with Armageddon inside isn't much more than an excuse to see actors struggle to say their lines. All in all this movie is a waste of time and money and effort. Thumbs down.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It opens - and for half an hour, runs - like an educational programme on the Old Testament, although not without humour. The movie finally begins to grow wings when the biblical cant gets dropped. In a scene of mixed success Martin Donovan (Jesus) decides to renege on kicking off the Apocalypse and the final quarter of an hour is a sort of humanist 'what's all the fuss about?' play-out, gilded with optimistic conjecture against a (retrospectively, miserably ironic) long shot of the WTC twin towers.

Apart from Donovan's authority, the acting is split. There's the thespian melodrama of the rest of the cast: this, though formally contrived for biblical presentation, is appropriate for the modern, paranoid comedy that Hartley's aiming at. But I was also pleasantly surprised at the contribution of PJ Harvey (credited thus, and in danger of existing within the film solely as the pop star entity she is, not least in a set piece scene in a record store and a perilously patchy soundtrack to which contributes). She remained cool - a sort of disingenuous lack of focus - in the manner of many pop icons who have taken to film (I'm thinking the Jagger of Performance here) but nonetheless maintained a convincing integration with both cast and project.

Ultimately affirmative, but this bittersweet essay is a bit too much like one and relies more on the perseverance than the imagination of its audience. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was pretentious, foppish and just down right not funny. The filming technique reminded me of MTV. I am a fan of Hartley. But what was he thinking of? So much more thought could have gone into this movie, considering the subject matter. This could have been a true theoretical battle over good and evil, but Hartley, it appears used the stand technique of psyching out the viewer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first saw \"Race Against Fear\" (don't you just love LMN movie titles?), I had to keep scratching my head. Was this meant to be serious? Why couldn't the main character even run like a normal person running, much less like a star runner? How did I know that the coach was evil only 1 minute into the film? All of these questions, and no answers. Then, I just let the inane script and the awful directing just carry me away...it was easier not to resist...then the film became funnier by the minute, and I now rank it among my top ten junk movies from LMN. Some have said here that Ariana Richards is really talented but that the material was flawed - I heartily disagree. Not only can she not convince me that she's an athlete, she's walks wide-eyed through the rest of the story, like she's just landed on earth. Maybe the coach broke out of prison and finished her off...at least I hope so.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife and I saw every episode in this series and loved it. However, the series was cut short without a final episode by the producers of the show. It ended with a typical end-the-season cliff hanger leaving it's fans feeling cheated. A waste of great writing and acting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard to decide what to say about this one. It isn't totally, one hundred percent bad. Although the movie-in-a-movie is unspeakably bad, meant to be campy, but missing by a mile. I'm pretty sure that this is intentional, however. Danny Aiello is perfectly adequate here, and more or less nails his pathetic character. Dyan Cannon was good in a small role. Clotilde Courau was impressive as the latest twenty-something girlfriend. And Linda Carlson had a brave topless scene that she pulled off very well.

So, it's not totally bad, but I don't believe that this one accomplishes its goals. All in all, it's probably worth passing on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A bad movie ABOUT a bad movie. Is that original, or what? If it is, then that's the only good thing about it. The lovely Ally Sheedy couldn't stop this bomb from destroying movie theaters and VCR's everywhere. It should also be noted, that she, and the other actors hired by Danny Aiello's character were billed as themselves, as well as the characters they played in his D-rated film. Calling it a B-rated film, is too much of a compliment, and would lead to delusions of grandeur.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a film that has garnered any interest or praise it has received simply on the merit of being a lesbian interest piece. The performances are mostly emotionless compared to better films in the GLBT interest genre. The entirety of the film's watchable value is garnered through modest suspense over whether and when the partners' family members will say something discouraging about their lesbian relationship. The best element of the film is likely the beautiful New England scenery, although much of the film is set inside. It is hard to envision how any viewer watching this film and not seeking affirmation of their GLBT lifestyle or wishing to see that of others affirmed, even through poorly realized drama, could appreciate Treading Water in any significant way. It is a terrible movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Have you ever tried a kind of food that your friend made, and then said to yourself, \"wow, that was not a good mix\"? Well, that is how I felt after watching this film.

Many viewers will be left highly uncomfortable with this weird mix of crime and very, very corny comedy. Its almost like watching Mr. Rogers play a ruthless gangster, very weird. Some things just don't mix and this film clearly proves that.

There are some very good performances here, as Dean Stockwell, Mercedes Ruhle, and Alec Baldwin are all excellent, but that doesn't make up for the lack of balance and symmetry in the film.

Jonathan Demme has done some excellent work in films such as Silence of the Lambs and Philadelphia, but seems to be out of his element with this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Overrated mob comedy. Director Demme makes the actors pause after some funny lines to let audience laugh, and not miss next line. Seems odd - this director did \"Silence of The Lambs\" - now there's the way to use pauses! Casting seems off. Mathew Modine too young for FBI agent and Pfeiffer's love interest! Dean Stockwell is doing a Jack Nicholson-thing with a squint, and he gets a nomination for it! Plus we have to accept Pfeiffer and Stockwell as Italians? Charles Napier as a hairdresser and Al Lewis as a mob lawyer are underused with only one line each - they should be the bumbling hoods. Song score by Chris Isaak is totally out of place - better for a flick like \"Pretty In Pink.\" Re-make this movie, it's worth it, but with proper casting and director and the satire will come through... even the often repeated \"Forgedaboutit.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before hitting international acclaim with The Silence of the Lambs, director Jonathan Demme cut his teeth making quirky comedies. This was one of them and like quite a few Oscar winning American comedies I could mention, it has a fine concept, is well paced, has great performances, a complicated romance. but it just simply isn't very funny. Pfeiffer is mob widow who moves to the city backwaters after her husband (Baldwin) is murdered. The crime boss who killed him (Stockwell) takes a fancy to Pfeiffer, his wife (Reuhl) is furious and to complicate matters Pfeiffer also falls for the cop who is trailing her. All of this should have been a laugh a minute. Pfeiffer, sporting a hefty wig is excellent as the widow, as is the hyperactive Ruehl and Modine is good too as the nice cop. But the script is simply devoid of one-liners, wit, humour or punch lines of the verbal or physical kind that this kind of film demands. The result is it raises smiles at best rather than guffaws. It oozes charm, but is tediously short on humour.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a very strange product from Hollywood. Apparently it didn't test well because actors who have footage in the credits have been edited completely out of the movie, which means a hasty cut job was done on it. It feels like it was wrestled out of the usually competent Demme's hands, and just thrown away. On the other and it is so totally lacking in substance that maybe nothing could save it. It has no real center, either narratively or time wise. Although it says the running time is 92 minutes, I seem to recall it ending abruptly, around the 80 minute mark. It's over before it even gets going. It's pretty much laugh free.

The merits of the \"Matthew Modine picture\" were as elusive then as the Luke Wilson picture is now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I seem to remember a lot of hype about this movie when it came out, but had avoided seeing it throughout the years. I wish I'd waited longer. Maybe this movie was funny in 1988, I don't know. I was younger then, but it didn't seem like the world was that different. Michelle Pfeiffer, lovely as she is, is never convincing. Mercedes Ruehl not only chews scenery, but stuffs it in her cheeks like a gerbil to save for later. Dean Stockwell is about as convincing as a mob boss as James Gandolfini would be as principal dancer for the Bolshoi. And Matthew Modine demonstrated the most pronounced case of delayed puberty I've ever seen. All in all, it's not bad enough to make you want to pluck out your eyes with a melon-baller, but it's not far off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie for the first time a few weeks ago, and It was quite possibly one of the most boring, unfunny films I ever had the misfortune of seeing. First of all Matthew Modine is a terrible actor, and ruined most of the movie, on top of that, the plot is just way too silly. The only reason a checked into this film was because of Alec Baldwin, and his character was eliminated pretty quickly. Unless you are a fan of Michelle Phiffer you should probably avoid this movie like the plague. Many people can't praise this film enough, but I just cannot figure out what people find so terrific about it. If its supposed to be the black humor that makes this film so terrific, then I guess anything can pass for comedy these days.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pluses: Mary Boland is delightfully on edge as always (I never tire of her upper-crust zaniness, especially in \"The Women\" and \"Pride and Prejudice\"). W.C. Fields's brief role is fun, though the famous pool table scene stretches its welcome a bit because it seems to go on for ten minutes. The madcap antics of the film, typical of the period, are great. Also, a nod to Alison Skipworth's wonderfully grounded hotel mistress; I would love to see more of her (she reminds me of Marie Dressler, another personality worthy of high praise).

Minuses: Gracie Allen. An irritating, unfunny presence whose annoyance went unmatched until the rise of Adam Sandler. That near-falsetto nasalness tinged with an accent of unknown origin gets old in her very first scene. This is the first of the Burns-Allen films I have seen and while I (as a big classic comedy buff) try to experience at least one film with every major comedy star, this is definitely one team I will not be calling upon again. Her timing and interpretation of the material is totally off. A maddeningly mediocre talent.

The bottom line: An OK comedy, but the gags are few and far between. And at only an hour long, you can expect that this is not an A grade Hollywood comedy. Recommended only for Boland and Fields fans who want to see all of their work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wasn't expecting much from this film, but was eager to try something which I initially thought would primarily be an early 80s teen horror. Although three teens are somewhat critical plot, it is by no means a teen horror film.

'The Power' is about a little Aztec idol that exchanges many hands as its possessor (who must be adult and thus, 'corrupted') becomes the vessel for unleashing all of the idol's evil, and often with deadly implications for not only the victims of the possessor, but of the possessor himself. After making several exchanges in vying over control of this thing, three teenagers wind up finding it and can't figure out what it is, except that since they found it, strange and dangerous things are afoot. They offer to explain the situation to a news reporter who doesn't buy into the spiritual bologna. Although, it is her producer who wants to investigate further, especially if it means he can get control of the idol (I presume the teens are even not yet corrupted enough to feel the dangerous desires encouraged by the idol). It is a story told a thousand times, particularly in 1950s and 60s horror and science fiction fare.

This one was at least, for me, able to sustain some interest. Though low budget, it was not done so obviously cheaply or loaded with bad acting as many of the low-budget, come-and-go horror fare of the earlier decades had (nowadays, they have the same cheesy qualities, but bigger budgets). We are spare enough of it to at least allow ourselves an opportunity to become at least a little bit absorbed with the eerie atmosphere and so forth, despite a story of clich\u00e9s. And, though not terribly gory, the special effects were done nicely.

Again, it is routine horror tale, especially with the ending (which by modern standards has become a device that is annoyingly overused), but one that is not so embarrassingly bad. It might be worth checking out, even if just for laughs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Power started off looking promising but soon became boring and tedious to watch. The plot is about an ancient Aztec doll that takes possession of those who own it. The idea is \"decent enough\" and this film would have been fairly entertaining had it been done better. However after the first ten minutes or so it soon becomes boring; we don't get any good death scenes and have to listen to loads of talking. At the end one of the possessed men meets his death by melting away in front of two girls, but it's not very interesting and definitely not gory.

I wouldn't recommend The Power to any horror or slasher fan as there's little to be gained from it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Low budget horror about an evil force. Hard to believe in this day and age, but way back when this stuff actually used to get theatrical release! These days this sort of thing would either go direct-to-video or straight to cable. Shouldn't be too hard to avoid this one; who's ever heard of it?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It seems that Dee Snyder ran out of ideas halfway through the script. The second half of the movie is basically just a rehash of the first, which makes the film very boring. To sum up: Cop's daughter is suckered into party via chatroom where she is sexually molested\/tortured by psychopath (played by Snider). Cop rescues her, psychopath is put in therapy\/jail. Psychopath is released four years later and the whole thing is played out AGAIN. Within all this are many unexplained plot elements: Why was \"Captain Howdy\" psycho in the first place? What's with the one-time personality detour to bible-thumper? How does he kidnap all the adults and manage to sew their mouths shut without a struggle? And perhaps the biggest unsolved mystery of all... how does a 6'2\" man with pink hair hide himself completely behind a 5'6\" average build woman? These are just some of the questions I had watching this film.

It seems that Snyder was trying to make some kind of commentary on a) the \"dangers\" of online chatrooms, b) the hypocrisy of Christian sexual mores, and c) the effect our twisted puritanical society has on us as individuals. If that is so, he failed. The movie is just too poorly done to entertain, never mind convey social messages. The torture scenes are stupid and boring, bordering on silly (especially when Snyder goes into one of his \"pain and death\" monologues), and everything else is just plain dumb. The \"call tracing\" scene is really lame... when are the cops gonna get caller ID and *69? The young partner of the main cop character is particularly awful... he shouldn't be working as an actor, basically. And the audio in the final showdown scene is really poor. I guess they couldn't afford two boom mikes?

The rest of the acting is not awful but it's not good either. The cop is pretty one note, and his detached quality is not quite believable. Dee Snyder is actually not too bad, but he snarls and sneers way too much. Robert Englund (who deserves way better) puts in a somewhat amusing performance of a hypocritical redneck. If you're a big Robert Englund fan the movie is probably worth seeing just for him. Everyone else is forgettable.

In conclusion, we've seen all these plot elements done before and done better, in films like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, HELLRAISER, and TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. I suggest you rent one of those instead of watching this turkey. 3\/10.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I first rented this movie on the infamous day of September 11, 2001. Since then I've seen it a number of times. My only complaint is that it's too short. \"Strangeland\" would've be a complete piece of horror art at two hours. As it stands, the running time is only an hour and a half.

Ex-Twisted Sister member Dee Snider wrote, produced and stars in this 1998 shockfest set in a small Colorado town. He plays Carleton Hendricks, a crazed sadist who has psychotic ideologies on human evolution and a love for near-death experiences. Hendricks is no pushover, he's a pumped up six-foot \"modern primitive\". Someone who has tattooed and pierced their body to the very extreme. When he makes his first full appearance in the film, it is a truly terrifying sight.

Hendricks' main hobby in life is to share his \"spiritual awakenings\" with his kidnapped victims. He visits Internet chatrooms under the name \"Capt. Howdy\" and then invites people over to his house. They believe they're going to a party. Instead, they find themselves in a house of pain and suffering. Hendricks sows their eyes and mouths shut and tortures them by sticking blades and hooks in numerous parts of their body. If it sounds sick, it's because it is.

One of Hendrick's victims is Genevieve, the teenaged daughter of detective Michael Gage. Gage not only manages to save her, but arrests Hendricks as well. Four years later, Hendricks is released from a mental institution completely rehabilitated to the disapproval of the community. A group of rednecks led by Freddy Krueger himself, actor Robert Englund, decide to kill him. They fail and Hendricks reverts back to his old self.

The rest of the film I'll leave to you, only to say the conclusion is satisfying and will leave you in shivers. With the exception of Snider, the acting isn't too good, but it's serviceable. The direction is okay, too. There are some humorous parts in \"Strangeland\" and they are very funny. I also loved the soundtrack, it's awesome and worth buying if you love rock. Overall, this is a movie worth watching. If you love low-budget horror films with a sense of humor, check it out. You'll probably like it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Put this movie out of it's misery and burn the negatives. What am I saying? The whole movie was negative. Fortunately, only a very few would find this movie the least bit appealing. This is what the vast American majority would call too much sex and violence. It will probably show up on some non-premium cable channel someday just for the shock value, but after editing out the nudity (most of the violence will stay) all that will be left is 45 minutes of really bad acting interspersed with 45 minutes of commercials. There are just too many starving actors in Hollywood.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unbelievable. Great cast, fair acting, interesting plot.

But this movie has such graphic cruelties that are not tense or giving thrills, just pure disturbing unruhe.

*SPOILER*

Everyone could see coming the freak returns to his habits. And that Robert Englund was acting (was he?) like an idiot; forbidding your daughter to sleep with a football player, but him trying to kill an idiot and liking kiddypr0n is alright?!

The policeman who's daughter was kidnapped - anyone felt he was a cop and not an actor? Not me. This movie drags on and on with an ending that we see in other horror movies: if the returns were alright a part 2 could be made. Bad, really bad stuff. Might give creeps some inspiration...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everybody I talked to said that this movie would be good and really weird so I figured that I would rent it. Half way through the movie I was thinking to myself what the heck was going on and what is the point to this movie. This movie from start to finish is so bad that even the sick parts of the movie didn't even bother me. I mean what are they going to come up with next Volcano 2 The return of the lava. I mean come on this movie is so stupid the characters are so poorly developed,and eve Robert Englund makes the movie worse I mean he might as well be transformed into Freddy Kruegur and Spook people. I was actually rooting for the bad guy to win that's how bad it was. I mean look the father is a cop he didn't seem to care real much about the fact that his daughter is going through one of the most moments in her life. I mean if my daughter was treated like that I would do everything in my power to keep the guy behind jail. Also it seems kind of obvious that Dee Snyders character would turn bad again. This is one of the worst films of all time right there with Volcano and 8mm. Do not waist your time you will not enjoy it....!

Grade If there were a no grade on this site I would pick that ,thats how bad this movie is!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you want to see a Horror Film which is Horrible and in very bad taste, this is definitely the film to view. This films starts out with two young teenagers getting wild ideas about going into a chat room and going out on blind dates, and quite possibly they will wind up like a little lamb to the slaughter house. Plenty of blood, gore, nudity, handcuffs and all kinds of blood draining hooks and things you will never dream a person is capable of performing on men and women. If you like piercing, well this kind of piercing deals with heavy heavy hooks and plenty of tattoo's; besides, lots of needles and thread to seal up things on the human body. I really hope that this film does not give some sick person in this world, the idea to act out these horrors in real LIFE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most worthless film of the decade. The responsible parties should never be allowed to film again. I have no words to describe the lack of entertainment this film provides. You couldn't PAY me to watch this film again. Quite honestly, I think I would be a better person had I not seen it. If I called it offensive, I would fall into a category of emotionally frail extremists. I would say this film goes so far as to damage the industry. There are films that I refuse to watch, now that I feel they might be this tasteless. I feel like an idiot that I didn't have the good sense to walk out during any one of MANY moments I was compelled to do so. Yes, I saw the end and am ashamed for it, as should anyone else, including the writer. I am in awe...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, where the hell should I begin? Give a brief summary of the story? No. either you've already heard it, or don't want to. Either way, it sucks. Much like the movie. I happen to be a semi-large horror movie aficionado, and I must say this is one of the dumbest and most clumsily-executed movies I've ever had the displeasure of viewing.

The script is horrendously stupid. The story starts too fast with absolutely no suspense or build-up in the slightest. All of those torture scenes would have been A LOT more effective if we gave even the tiniest bit of crap for the characters. Since the first scene in the film is when the teenage girls meet Capt. Howdy, how the hell are we supposed to sympathize with them? First off, they seem stupid for going to a party with a guy they don't even know, and second, we don't even know their damn names! Why the hell should I care if they live or die? Not to mention the fact that they actually have the guts to try and make us feel sympathetic towards Capt. Howdy after he's been \"reformed\"? PLEASE! I was cheering when he got his just deserts! He deserved them! Hell, he deserved worse! Also, we're forced to sit through a pointless misdirect sequence lifted directly from \"The Silence of the Lambs\" (and here it's done HORRIBLY! Of course he's gonna give them a false address! And even if he had given them the real one, don't you think he'd be waiting and not piercing some guy's Johnson upstairs? RETARDED!)

Then there's the dialogue. Everything Captain Howdy says is either laughable or just plain stupid. \"The dead are so dreadfully dead, when they're dead\"?? What the hell kind of crap is that?! Dee Snider at one point says \"knowledge is power\". Well, if that's true, this film has absolutely no power whatsoever.

Then, there's the plot holes. Yes, I know this is a horror film (well, wannabe horror film), but damn! You could drive a semi truck into these holes! First off, these have got to be the DUMBEST cops I have EVER SEEN! EVER!! I mean, DEAR GOD, these guys are morons! Call for backup, idiots! Second, how the hell did that humungous septum ring fall out of Captain Howdy's nose?! Evidentially this piercing expert guy says \"that's the biggest one I've ever seen\", but if it's so damn big, how the hell could it have fallen out so easily? Did Capt. Howdy just LEAVE it at the crime scene because he WANTED to get caught? They sure didn't make it seem like he did. Also, they would NEVER release Capt. Howdy, and I know that for a damn fact. He would be in jail for the rest of his life, and there's no getting around this. Much less let him return to his old house where he killed\/tortured everybody. IMPOSSIBLE AND IMPLAUSIBLE.

And now the acting. Dear God did these people suck. Linda Cardellini is the only thing good in this film. She's poised and amazing. Too bad she hardly gets a good chance to act in this piece of crap. Amy Smart shows up for about 10 minutes and then drops out of existence. Even the usually entertaining Robert Englund is underused and ineffective here. Dee Snider plays the crazy guy with no talent whatsoever. I never felt threatened, scared or intimidated. I'd rather have seen Dee Snider in Alexis Arquette's role in \"Bride of Chucky\". It would have been so much more fun to see this talent-less hack get it by that lovable psycho doll.

Dee Snider just plain sucks. He can't act (one of the least scary villains I have ever seen), he can't write (did he write this damn movie in his sleep?), and he's obviously dumber than freaking Jessica Simpson! This film is just a way for Dee Snider to show off all the weird crap he knows about self-mutilation and modern primitives and blah-blah-blah. Either it's been done before or it just didn't need to be done. I was bored throughout the whole damn thing.

The acting sucks, the music sucks, the script sucks, the pacing sucks, the special FX suck, the directing sucks... basically, this movie sucks. This film tries to be a serious and sophisticated thriller\/horror flick and it fails miserably. It doesn't manage to scare, shock, or disturb in any shape, way or form. This is probably one of the least effective and utterly unoriginal films I have ever seen in my entire life. A piece of cinematic garbage captured on celluloid.

\"Strangeland\" gets a 0 out of 10. Avoid at any and all costs. Not enjoyable in the slightest.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow...This movie really really sucks...'Nuff said.

The Story: A psychopathic internet predator stalks and lures young men and women into torturous traps...It goes like this, kidnaps people, they find him, he becomes a changed man and is released on the world yet again, reverts back to his old ways and starts the torture again....The story is stupid, it's implausible. The characters are stupid, they're implausible...Or at the very least way over the top. It's got some very violent imagery, and if you have a week stomach you might just want to stay away...But than again, even if you don't have a week stomach, you might want to stay away...It's that stupid.

The Cast: Dee Snider, Kevin Gage...If you're a die hard fan of Twisted Sister and Dee Snider, you might find this one interesting, since he's the writer and star of this film. His acting is laughably bad, and you can tell that he's the one that wrote the God-awful script. Kevin Gage...Well they say he's been in numerous other movies that I've seen, but I don't remember him from any of them...And you won't remember him from this...These two sadly, make the film...They don't make it good mind you...They just make it...

One to Five Scale: 1 It's bad...It's very very very bad...In fact it's so bad, that this movie should come with a clip loading pistol to play Russian Rullet with...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't recommend you watching this movie if you are easily offended. I'm not even easily offended and this movie made me frustrated. It's so disgusting. And it doesn't make sense. All the internet thing is so clich\u00e9, and the producer obviously didn't understand all the \"internet rules\". When you chat with someone you CAN track their IP address. Really? (see the sarcasm here). It was dumb. Pointless. And I didn't even watch the end. I could always say \"this doesn't make sense, this neither...\" This movie is pure crap at his best. Nice comment right?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes I wonder if today's horror movies rely on human torturing to make people scared. If so, then there's a sad future for horror movies. Dee Snyder tries to make you feel scared and terrified, this movie does exactly this but not in a good way. Now there are some moments in the film where that there is a chance that Snyder is saving this film from falling into a hole but let's be frank, this movie didn't fall into a hole, it was already in a hole and Synder makes no attempt whatsoever to bring itself out of it. When you finish watching this movie, you are left sick, depressed, dirty, and insane. I have a feeling that was the intention of this movie. What is lower than dirt?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are about ten minutes about half way through Strangeland when one suddenly sees the glimmer of an interesting idea. Themes of revenge and rehabilitation come into focus during Robert Englund's brief screen time. Sadly Strangeland then resumes its course as a thoroughly predictable and boring slasher film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This sounded like it was going to be like Silence of the Lambs or Zodiac or something, but it wasn't. It really was more like one of the Halloween movies without all the jump scenes. It was a little like Plan 9 From Outer Space in the sense that the main bad guy kept making inane speeches that made me want to go get a snack without pushing pause. The idea of a person who is so crazy that he would abduct people and torture them as a form of spiritual enlightenment is actually an interesting idea, but the execution was too made-for-TV feeling. I have to say it was better than I expected for a movie written and starring Dee Snider. A good first effort. Maybe he'll learn some lessons and his next effort will be less clumsy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was one of the most boring horror movies I have seen in a long time (and I have seen a lot). Personally I liked the piercing take on it all that was original but other than that it was pretty unwatchable. I could not stand Dee Snider as an actor nor as a singer. I seemed that he was trying with everything he said to make it a memorable quote, which they weren't. I can get movies for free and I still didn't think it was worth the time to get.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie on video the other night and found myself dozing off throughout this uninspired snoozefest. First of all, one of my biggest pet peeves is when movies like this are characterized as horror movies. It is a THRILLER! get it right!It has no monsters or anything supernatural. It is simply a movie about a twisted serial killer (Actually there is a very small body count so it is more of a serial torturer movie and it did a good job of torturing me.) The basic premise of a man luring teenagers to his house of horrors through online chat rooms could have made for a great movie but we only see him lure one pair of teen girls through the internet at the very beginning of the film. One of these girls turns out to be a local detective's daughter and he gets emotionally involved in the case. The film quickly changes from a potentially intelligent sado-masochistic thriller to a boring old cat and mouse game between the incredibly dull detective and the psychopathic Captain Howdy\/Carleton Hendricks played adequately by writer\/producer\/Twisted Sister frontman, Dee Snider. The occasional attempts at meaningful poetic one-liners about the positive effects of pain and the like from Snider are laughable. If he is attempting to get people to subscribe to these opinions through this film, he fails miserably and (unintentionally) makes light of them. The directing by John Pieplow (whose only previous directing effort was Jurassic Women, which I will let the title speak for itself) was uninspired and there was something wrong with the editing which resulted in the film being disjointed with a few scenes completely unrelated to the plot, unless the screenplay is at fault (which is quite possible.) This film a completely unsuccessful attempt at a thriller trying to pass of as a horror movie that's only achievement was making me squirm at the sight of a few graphic bodily piercings. If you see it at your video store don't waste your money but if you need something to laugh at one night and Strangeland is on cable, you might as well watch. 3 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What starts off fairly well (and quite disturbing) quickly sinks into an annoying mess.

Dee Snider (of Twisted Sister infamy) apparently penned the screenplay from his own idea, and while the idea of a cyber-stalking pierce freak has potential, they really blow it here on uneven pacing, bad dialogue, and one of the greatest non-endings you'll ever see. Despite some lifeless performances, the director manages a genuinely creepy first reel. This really looks like it's going to be a good low-budget effort.

No such luck. The plot goes all over the map, and Snider's character relentlessly spits out tiresome psychotic fortune cookie lines that are supposed to pass for meaningful dialogue. Worse, the supporting cast barely registers, and the only halfway believable dialogue comes from a young girl who helps a detective navigate the internet.

What a waste of a great idea. Oh, and there is a new twisted Sister song, if you care.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dee Snider is the villain in this movie and his bad acting and overacting kind of ruined it for me. The whole movie just seemed to take itself too seriously. It tries to achieve the dark atmosphere of \"Seven\" without the good acting. The movie highlights the urban industrial rock \/ tattoo \/ body art \"subculture\" and expects us to be impressed (scared?) by the size of a guy's nose ring. I'm not a expert on movies but the script and acting in this movie are just awful. Dee Snider looks the part of the villain but his acing is downright horrid. I recommend not wasting the time on this one unless nothing else is available.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Strangeland (1998) D: John Pieplow. Kevin Gage, Elizabeth Pena, Brett Harrelson, Robert Englund, Tucker Smallwood, Amy Smart, Dee Snider (Twisted Sister), Amal Rhoe. Disturbing scenes of torture `highlight' this dark, disgusting movie about a sadistic psychopath who lures teens into his torture chamber via the Internet. Snider (from ex-80s rock band Twisted Sister) plays the putrid psychopath, who is a grimy `twist' (no pun intended) on Hannibal Lecter. Pena is wasted as one of the victims' mothers. Harrelson (brother of Woody) delivers one of the worst cop performances I have ever seen in a movie, and Rhoe proves why this is her only screen credit with an equally pathetic performance. The heavy metal soundtrack is ultimately numbing, the torture scenes very graphic and gross, and the ending just sucks. RATING: 3 out of 10. Rated R for graphic violence and torture, strong language, and sexual situations.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Strangeland is a terrible horror\/technological thriller. Dee Snider plays Carleton Hendricks, a disgusting computer freak who prays on young girls through the chat rooms. His ridiculous philosophies on pain and suffering are both misguided and totally unfounded. There is no tie to reality with the ideas that are presented in this film, it is more like Dee Snider sat down and tried to think up the weirdest stuff possible to impress horror fans and maybe some of his old fans, but the end result is just awful.

Unfortunately for me, as a horror fan, the cover of this movie looks very good and it immediately caught my interest, which is the main reason that I was tricked into watching it. I assure you that this is not a quality horror movie. It is a disturbing yet boring attempt to suggest what might go on in the minds of people who treat themselves the way the Carleton Hendricks did in this film. The sad part is that NO one does this stuff to themselves. Marilyn freakin' Manson doesn't even go that far, and the fact that he had a song on the soundtrack makes it clear that the film wasn't meant to poke fun at his type of music (that would be a stab at Snider himself), it is more like Dee Snider was trying to raise himself from the career-dead and present himself as a sick-minded individual once more. Dee, it seems that the time has come to let it all die...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had watched this as a kid but, not being much of a Jerry Lewis fan, I had completely forgotten it (not that it's in any way memorable). The film revolves around impersonation (which seems to be in the curriculum of every comic star!) - in this case a German officer - and, while not as bad as Leonard Maltin claims (awarding it a BOMB rating), it's not exactly classic stuff either - certainly leagues behind Chaplin's THE GREAT DICTATOR (1940), even if comparably narcissistic! Ironically, the scenes prior to the appearance of the would-be wacky General offer more felicities than the rather forced humor at Nazi expense!

The film was really Lewis' last gasp during his heyday; in fact, this proved to be his last vehicle to be released for 10 years (it's painfully apparent here that his particular brand of foolishness wouldn't pass muster in the age of Mel Brooks and Woody Allen)!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just seen Which Way to the Front? on TCM (UK) it is a truly awful film. If I'd paid at the pictures I'd have walked out.

A terrible mess of a film. Byers (Lewis) and his mates prance around in cast off uniforms from an Italian sci-fi movie of 1960's. Were the CND\/Peace symbol badges on the uniforms meant to be Ironic? The sets were pure 1970, I'm sure a Hollywood TV back-lot could have provided a more realistic set.

The film is riddled with racism. The film takes the mickey out of veterans.

Not funny how Lewis every got to make another film is beyond me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not since \"8 Heads in a Duffel Bag\" and the \"How High\" previews

have I laughed so little at something that the film makers thought

would be hysterical.

Jerry Lewis is the richest man in the world. He is rejected as 4-F

by the army, and decides to use his money to raise his own army-

of about half a dozen. He then impersonates a Nazi commander in

Italy, and eventually tries to kill Hitler. That is the description of the

flimsy plot.

This film is as funny as a heart attack. This film makes \"Hogan's

Heroes\" look like Shakespeare. If the money men of \"The

Producers\" had really wanted to lose their cash, they should have

shown this film. I cannot stress how bad this thing is.

Lewis' direction consists of two different cameras shooting the

action from two different angles, then being edited together. This

sitcom type of direction works on television, but here it is an

obvious attempt to cheat the audience. He ends most of his

scenes with a still shot, as if giving the viewer a chance to double

over in stitches before going to the next tired set up. I spent most of

the movie doubled over in abdominal agony, accompanied with

severe flatulence, over this thing.

Lewis, the director and producer, sets the film in 1943, but makes

no attempt to use period costumes or sets. Everyone wears the

latest style and has the latest interior design...for 1970. The

supporting cast is lost as Lewis goes off on his patented tangents,

which last as long as major surgery and are just as painful to

watch. When Lewis becomes the Nazi commander, he spends the

last half of the film screaming at the top of his lungs in a

performance so odious as to stink up any good will you try to bring

in at the beginning.

The final embarassing shot has Lewis and his cronies trying to

put one over on the Japanese. They wear buck teeth, squint their

eyes, and talk in a \"funny\" accent. It may be one of the most

blatantly racist occurrences since the internment camps. I was

slack jawed at what Lewis did through this whole thing, but that put

me over the edge. Watch for Kaye Ballard's very tasteless scene

where she tries to attempt suicide over and over again.

\"Star Trek\"'s George Takei has two small scenes, then wisely

drops out of the picture. This has less laughs than Mel Brooks' last

three films combined. There is nothing sadder than watching a

formerly respected comedian screw up a project so horribly, you

actually feel ashamed for them. Jim Carrey learned that with \"The

Majestic,\" but Jerry Lewis still shows up on television once in a

while pulling the same unfunny schtick. I feel sorry for him.

\"Which Way to the Front?\" is cheap, unfunny, offensive, and stupid.

I feel bad for everyone involved, and anyone who must endure this.

I do not recommend it.

Though rated (G), this contains some physical violence, some gun

violence, and some adult situations. If your child shows interest in

seeing this, please consult professional help.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As Ben Elton once observed, nothing goes quicker out of style than comedy. Steve Martin's latest offering - 'The Pink Panther 2' - recently opened to bad reviews and dismal box-office grosses, while Mike Myers' 'The Love Guru' seems to have won few admirers.

In 1970, it was Jerry Lewis' turn to feel the pain of rejection ( ironically, his character in this film experiences a funny turn whenever anyone uses that word in his presence ) when 'Which Way To The Front?' effectively drove him off the big screen for almost a decade.

In this World War Two comedy, he plays 'Brendan Byers 111', the richest man in the world, who wants to join the army to do his patriotic duty ( and also because he is bored with being successful ) but is rejected as he is medically unfit. He then decides to start his own privately funded army, recruiting other 4-F's.

Decked out with ludicrous uniforms that look like those worn by 'International Rescue' in 'Thunderbirds', they go into training. Some good visual gags here. When they fire rocket launchers, they look pleased with themselves, until they learn they have just destroyed a Texaco oil station! Wishing to learn German, Brendan plays a long-playing record called 'Songs To Mein Kampf By'. When this army sits down to eat, instead of being in a draughty mess hall, they are in an opulent room decked out with a chandelier.

John Wood is very funny as 'Finkel', Byers' ever-so English butler. His best scene is when he blackmails a Mafia-type gangster into teaching Byers' brigade to kill.

The script was not by Jerry himself, but by Gerald Gardiner and Dee Caruso, author of a number of episodes of 'The Monkees'. 'Front' often has the look and feel of a television sitcom, indeed at times you almost expect to hear a laugh-track.

Where it goes badly wrong is in the last thirty minutes when Byers replaces a top Nazi commander and, after ordering the Germans to withdraw from the front, gets involved in the plot to kill Hitler ( and Tom Cruise is nowhere in sight! ). As the commander, Jerry delivers a performance of such mind-numbing ineptitude as to defy description. He gives Brian Blessed a run for his money in the 'loudest man alive' stakes. It comes as a relief when the end credits appear.

Perhaps the timing was just wrong - bringing out a war comedy when the Vietnam conflict was raging was not a good idea. Or the public simply had had enough of Jerry ( that beard probably did not help! ). What he needed here was a good producer, someone to take him in hand and say: \"That gag stinks. Throw it out!\". 'Don't Raise The Bridge, Lower The River' is a masterpiece by comparison with this picture.

As the '70's got underway, the new comedy icons would be Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, and Monty Python - fresher, more biting and in Allen's case, more human styles of comedy replaced Jerry's brand of slapstick. It would not be until 1982 that he would make anything like a successful comeback - as the conceited talk-show host 'Jerry Langford' in Martin Scorcese's brilliant 'The King Of Comedy'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jerry Lewis was marginally funny when he didn't write his own material and had a good director like Frank Tashlin. When he started writing and directing his own films what little talent he possessed was overshadowed by his egomania. Whenever his films would fail (and deservedly so) in the American market (they made money in France) Lewis always blamed everyone and everything but himself; for example, he blamed the failure of this film on the fact that it was, according to Lewis, released on a double-bill with the porno feature \"Deep Throat\". If anyone should have complained about that situation, it should have been the producers of \"Deep Throat.\" This is an absolutely idiotic \"comedy\" about the world's richest man (Lewis) who is rejected for military service during WW2 and decides to outfit a special \"squad\" to go to Germany and capture Hitler himself. Besides the many faults this film has (the script is mind-numbingly unfunny, Lewis' \"direction\" is nonexistent, the film has the look of a cheap home movie), Lewis apparently thought that surrounding himself with no-talent, over-the-hill Borscht Belt comics like Jan Murray and Sidney Miller was a good idea; he must have figured that they would be so bad, they would make him look good. He was half-right; they are embarrassingly bad, but he comes out even worse than they do. For a \"comedy\", Lewis' character is sullen, angry and pushy; the way he heaps abuse on his underlings makes you wonder why they would ever follow a bullying jerk like this on a dangerous mission like trying to capture Hitler. The fact that this movie took in any money at all is astounding. It is by far the worst Jerry Lewis movie I have ever seen--I've heard that \"Slapstick\" is even more pathetic, but I can't bring myself to see if that's true or not--and is to be avoided at all possible costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a standard action flick as we have seen them many times before. Not much action in this one though. Again it's about the guy protecting the president. He's macho - as usual, and at the same time soft and melancholic - as usual. Does he have the guts to take a bullet for the president?! And then there's the girl and the usual conservative flirting around. Stereotypical and predictable to the last toe-crumbling minute.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to one of the most pathetic, predictable and badly acted films I have ever seen. Clint Eastwood has never been worse, never have I seen somebody less convincing on screen. I was laughing at him the whole way through. Then there's this romance kinda thing between him and the gorgeous Rene Russo, which was even more pathetic than the one between Mr.Connery and Ms.Zeta-Jones in Entrapment.

One IMDb user posed the question: What's not to like about this film? I'm asking: What is to like about it? And the answer is: John Malkovich. He is an absolute genius and probably the best movie villain ever (He even saved Con Air you know). But that's it.

This movie is called In the line of fire, but 'Bodyguard 2: the rip-off' seems to be a more appropriate title. Watch only if you are a die hard John Malkovich fan. Otherwise, avoid at all cost. *1\/2(out of five)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Interesting and short television movie describes some of the machinations surrounding Jay Leno's replacing Carson as host of the Tonight Show. Film is currently very topical given the public drama surrounding Conan O'Brien and Jay Leno.

The film does a good job of sparking viewers' interest in the events and showing some of the concerns of the stakeholders, particularly of the NBC executives. The portrayal of Ovitz was particularly compelling and interesting, I thought.

Still, many of the characters were only very briefly limned or touched upon, and some of the acting seemed perfunctory. Nevertheless, an interesting story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Saw this movie at a Saturday matin\u00e9e with a friend. Theater was about 70% full.

Although there are quite a few funny lines, it is more of a drama\/suspense with humor sprinkled on top. Robin Williams gives a decent performance as does Laura Linney. Being a Daily Show fan, Lewis Black is pretty good in this. Christopher Walken gives a good performance also.

The movie starts out slow and remains that way for about the first thirty minutes, then the suspense part kicks in and starts keeping you a little on edge throughout the rest of the movie. Suspense in a supposed comedy movie? I know that I, as well as everybody else in the place, was struggling a bit with this. A character would crack a joke during suspense sequence and you would hear just one or two laughs in the theater.

In all fairness, after the movie was over there was smattering of applause. So, definitely, some people enjoyed this movie.

I gave this movie a four out of ten, because I believe the comedy aspect doesn't work very well in a suspense\/drama movie and the actors performances, while not bad, were just decent.

Again, this movie isn't what was advertised.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The premise of this movie, of a comedian talk show host running for president as an independent just to shake things up, is funny, entertaining, brilliant and even a bit inspiring. (thought about the west wing debate when Tom Dobbs leaves his podium, thought about Steven Colbert announcing his candidacy, good times) The first 15 - 20 minutes of this movie are therefore very very entertaining, the debate especially. When he eventually get's elected, it's a pity that is because of a computer glitch, you'd want him to win fair (although that is unrealistic).

But after that this movie goes completely downhill. I thought we'd get a great movie like 'Dave' (1993) in which we see how it would out if a comedian actually ran the country. Instead, the movie turns from comedy into a thriller, a romantic comedy and a drama and does none good. The computer glitch becomes the main storyline, which really sucks. Boy is this disappointing. I give it 3 stars just for the premise and because I actually managed to watch this movie from start to end without stopping it, which is usually a good thing with me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw a screening of this movie last night. I had high expectations going into it, but was definitely disappointed. Within 5 minutes of the opening, Williams is already campaigning for his presidency. And he becomes president in the first 40 minutes. So there goes all that aspect of the movie. The first half hour are hilarious. Don't get me wrong, the movie has its moments. But after the first half hour, it takes a turn for the worst. It becomes less of a comedy, and more of a thriller\/drama\/love story...which is pointless. the movie goes nowhere and stands still for a good 30 minutes. there are laughs interspersed here and there, but the consistently funny part is in the beginning and only the beginning. at one point, the biggest cheer i heard in the audience is when a person in the crowd yelled 'boooo' during a very confusingly emotional scene. Williams gives a great performance, right on par with his comedic style. Walken also delivers a strong supporting role as only he can. I think the one character that goes underrated is Lewis Black. Consistently vulgar and political, its funny to see him tone it down for a PG-13 rating. Overall, I would not pay to see the movie. Afterall, I saw it for free and even I was disappointed. The first half hour is solid, and its all downhill from there. Not really fitting into a category, the movie realizes half way through that it should not have been anything more than a one-hour comedy central special. 4.5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How is it possible to make such a bad movie with such actors? Were they forced into it? The plot has nothing to do with an idea of how things would turn out if a comedian ran for president. They don't even try to give an impression of that. Just when you thought you were watching a comment from famous liberals on DC politics (the first five minutes), the movie runs off the road and into B-film drama about 1) a computer voting error, 2) the regular evil corporate suits who wants to cover it up with the most unoriginal lines in history, and 3) a neurotic but extremely pretty female programmer who tries to tell the coming president about this. She's soon the victim of the evil X-files master-lords of the computer company, who - instead of killing her - drug her to make her seem untrustworthy. But, when she gets to DC, she doesn't tell him. In fact, the movie then changes from B-film drama, to idiotic B-film-love-drama. Up to now, we are so far off the original starting point of the movie, that most people turn it off. I almost did. If it just could've been INTELLIGENT love drama, but no! It's not! It's the kind of \"oops I'm so nervous I'm being stupid all the time, so please love me for it\"-kind of love drama. All with a slow, slow pace, that has nothing to do with either the political plot of the movie, the X-files plot of the movie, or the comedy plot of the movie. All plots fail on all levels, which every annoying bit of meaningless dialog reminds you of. The love part has to be the result of deciding during a drinking binge \"hey, there has to be a dynamic of love between the president candidate and the extremely pretty female programmer, yeah, that'll work! Stick it in there!\"

Meanwhile, Lewis Black is castrated and put into a role where he doesn't come up with one single Lewis Black line. The Lewis Black anger is replaced by a hope for it to surface sometime in the film, which it never does. And Christopher Walken is thrown into a hospital with heart trouble, to duplicate the dramatic effect of the heart attack of the President's closest aid in Westwing. Watching Christopher Walken being castrated like Lewis Black in roles that constantly struggles uphill to sound casual and Westwing-ish, but fail like Titanic every time, is like watching a great blue whale dying on a beach. Heartbreaking.

And then, enter the low point of the whole movie: It raises the mindbogglingly, enormously difficult ethical question: Should Robin Williams go on to be president, knowing that he got elected because of a computer glitch? The American Dream And All Good prevails as he turns down the presidency on live TV, like Lassie the dog would. With the usual Patriotic Glamor Of The Presidency and the we're-so-smart-that-we're-making-history-atmosphere that Westwing cultivated in sickening abundance for the next million years.

The director and screen writer, Barry Levinson, is now on my personal list of writers and directors I'm staying away from forever. This film must be seen as a symptom of a faulty production process, where people (inlcuding Barry Levinson) got to spend production money due to their personal relationships, and not their skills. This is a project made to satisfy poorly skilled people's wish for career success, and the formerly mentioned great actors were tricked into participating in it. That's the only explanation there can be.

PS: The voting error in the computers was due to the double letters in Dobbs, Kellogs and Mills. Of course it was, what else could it be when you write a script and can't tell a computer from a dish-washing machine.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am pretty surprised to see that this movie earned even lukewarm reviews, I found this movie downright awful. The plot flounders around trying to decide if it is a comedy or a thriller, then realizes it cannot achieve either. So it throws in the towel and continues with its absurd plot highlighted with a unintentional hilarious scene with Laura Linney, an injection, and spilled coffee that leaves the audience awkwardly squirming in their seats looking at one another like is this for real? Basically it is abysmal and really disappointing for Robin Williams fans, and it makes you think someone blackmailed Laura Linney into adding this piece of trash to her otherwise respectable resume. I wanted to leave after 10 minutes and wish I had, even seeing it for free I wanted someone to pay me for my wasted time. The computer glitch\/twist in this movie was embarrassingly stupid, and by the end you don't care who wins the election. I vote for straight to DVD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I liked the understated character that Laura Linney played in 'Love Actually', and she is very good in 'Man of the Year'.

But wow. Robin Williams doesn't give that much of a performance, with a couple of minor exceptions this was weak. Laura Linney may not have been miscast, but either the editing raped her character, or this was just a sad performance by director Barry Levinson.

And I think it was Barry Levinson that got old. So many weak performances, such uneven results have to be the fault of management.

Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum are great in supporting roles. Goldblum plays a sinister side with relish, and Walken's combination of entertainer's manager and commentator for the film is wonderful.

But the story is clich\u00e9, the presentation looks like it could have (should have) been a very good picture, and too many actions are half-hearted. The pacing, story, and direction all come up weak, compared to, say 'Head Office' (spoof of 'Secret of My Success').","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie, while it could be considered an alright attempt at comedy, is not what the previews made it out to be. the first half is comprised of typical robin Williams stand up material, though he really didn't do many voices; he was always great at the one liners and hitting the punchlines... somewhere during the election there is a problem with the computer program that is used in the election. here is where the net 3 comes in... a woman who helped with this program wants the truth to be told and the evil corporation wants to shut her up **spoilers** her boyfriend even helps them, though this isn't even fleshed out... this movie could have been one of political brilliance (perhaps with sorken at the reigns) but it falls short in a stew made by too many chefs","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this movie mostly because it looked so good in the trailers. Robin Williams and Barry Levinson should equal greatness. Instead it just continues Williams' bad streak of movies lately. What's wrong with the movie? More like what's right: the ensemble crew does a pretty good job around Robin, and like usual, Christopher Walken is fantastic. That being said, this movie just plain wasn't good. I really only recommend seeing it if you want to see what it would be like if Jon Stewart ran for president and won. Saying he won isn't a spoiler, since it was in the trailer. The concept and idea is really amusing, but that's all. Most of Robin's jokes are just recycled from old comedy bits of his, and there are very few laugh out loud moments, and most are just dumb. Like most comedies that turn out to suck, all of the funny bits are put into the trailer. Really no surprises there, but come on! Some of the movie reads like a Tom Clancy or Vince Flynn novel! People were expecting this to be Robin's return to greatness. Instead, it's more a Flubber.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i found this Robin Williams vehicle mildly amusing at best.i guess you would call it a political satire of sorts.it's about a political talk show host\/comedian who decides to run for president and unexpectedly wins.i found most of the humour dry myself,and Robin Williams is much more restrained and sedate than usual.i would say the movie is more of a drama than a comedy,with a bit of mystery and suspense.i think the dramatic parts worked better than the comedy parts,and the mystery and suspense aspect(though that's a small part of the movie)worked the best.still,i wouldn't rate this movie very high.for me,it was an OK waste of 2 hours,but nothing special.my best advice would be to catch it on TV\/cable or rent it cheap first,before making a decision on whether to purchase.my vote for Man of The Year is a 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was kinda looking forward to Man of the Year, a couple girls at my work said it was a pretty good movie, and my mom said that she liked it, so I waited for the rental, and watched it last night. I have to honestly say that this movie was a huge disappointment. I barely made through it, because to be honest the beginning was pretty good and very well paced, but then it got too dark and not into the movie I saw from the trailer. It looked like a good comedy, then it turned into a very dark drama, that wasn't even that interesting, considering how many of these types of stories we've had about government conspiracy.

Tom Dobbs is a very popular comedian with a top ranks show and has an act where many people would want him to get involved with politics, just because it seems like he has a good grip on what should be improved. So he does it, he runs for presidency, but many people doubt that he can win due to the fact that he's a comedian, but he does win! But Elenore Green who makes sure all the votes are accounted for tries to fix a computer glitch, but when the government tells her not to fix it, they try to get rid of her, and Tom soon realizes that this may not be the job he wanted.

The acting was fine, the direction was OK, it was just the story that didn't work in my opinion. Like I said, it just turned into a dramatic change of genres, because if you see the trailer, you'd think it was a comedy, and when you start watching it, that's what you get, but then it just turns into a very dark and somewhat scary drama. I wouldn't really recommend this movie, it was one of the biggest disappointments I have seen so far.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was aware of Man of the Year's critical pans and unremarkable gross, but was prepared to give the film the benefit of the doubt because I know good pictures can fall under the radar during the crowded release schedule of the Fall months.

What I found out was that the movie is surprisingly uninspired. Surprising is an understatement considering Barry Levinson's gift for political satire (demonstrated in Good Morning Vietnam and Wag the Dog) and Robin Williams' obvious comic gifts. Robin Williams, in fact, is mysteriously underused. On the \"Making Of\" featurette that comes with the DVD, Barry Levinson talked about how sometimes he let Robin Williams improvise off the script, like it was some naughty secret of his. Um\u0085are you really that much of a moron, Barry Levinson? Whenever you have Robin Williams in your film and want to use him for his comic abilities (basically, every movie he's been in other than Insomnia or One Hour Photo), don't cage him within a script. Let him ad-lib whatever he wants because he is the funnier than anything anyone else can write for him and his uncontained comic rants can instantly raise the bar on any mediocre movie like RV or Patch Adams. What I found even more baffling in his failure to make use of Robin Williams was that back in 1987, Levinson used this exact formula to perfection in Good Morning Vietnam, injecting Robin Williams' bursts of comic zaniness into a war picture to make a resounding political piece.

So the film isn't as much of a laugh-fest as it could be and feels awkwardly lost in its tone. If the film had potential to work as anything, it might have made one of those thrillers from the mid-'90s in the style of The Pelican Brief, The Fugitive, or one of those Jack Ryan films. Its plot centered around an employee at a Silicon Valley company uncovering a glitch in a system that reveals that the country elected the wrong president and the efforts of the CEOs to eliminate her before the secret gets out, so if you replaced Robin Williams with some Harrison-Ford-type actor, or perhaps even Harrison Ford himself, added a couple more explosions, and maybe that's where the movie was trying to go. I'll never really know and it's not worth it to try to find out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Combining serious drama with adequate comedy is touchy at the best of times. LOOKING FOR COMEDY IN THE Muslim WORLD pulled it off thanks to a topical subject and a fantastic script; not to mention Albert Brooks' excellent broodish character portrayal. But MAN OF THE YEAR can't come close by comparison. It has a messy message folded in with forced jokes and a twisted love story that is completely unbelievable.

The premise initially seemed very promising. Put a Jon Stewart-like comedy news guy up for President of the United States and see what happens. This independent runner is Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams, RV), a successful TV personality who is pressured into running by his audience. Along with him comes his manager Jack (Christopher Walken, CLICK), and his writer Eddie (Lewis Black). Seeming to have very little chance at a successful run, Tom Dobbs amazingly wins the election.

But did he? Eleanor Green (Laura Linney, THE EXORCIST OF EMILY ROSE) is a computer whiz at the company who designed the new software for electronic voting at polling stations. She finds a glitch in the system that is quickly swept under the rug by the company's owner and his dark attorney Alan (Jeff Goldblum, INDEPENDENCE DAY). Poised to lose billions of dollars if word of this gets out, the company's evil men decided to discredit and\/or kill Eleanor to make sure she never tells anyone. But Eleanor is able to get to President-elect Dobbs and finally spill the beans (this is where the unbelievable love story starts blossoming, too). Dobbs goes onto Saturday Night Live and explains everything to the world, thus removing himself as the newly elected President and ending the careers of those at the computer company ...oh, and saving Ms. Green's life.

Does any of this sound funny? The comedy is forcefully wedged into the story and is often awkward. Robin Williams blazes for a few moments during a debate but is quickly doused as the gravity of how he became President bears down on him.

The message of the film is interesting and debatable, too: that special interest owns presidential candidates. I'm sure there's substantial truth in this, and if you wanted to make a movie about it you could. If you wanted to make a comedy about you could. But Man of the Year isn't it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A few bratty kids unwittingly unleash an evil that has lain dormant for the past twenty years and have to reap the ill fortune that comes with that.The Campbell Brothers' film before this \"Midnight Skater\" was fun & their picture after \"the Red Skulls\" was all right. So why is \"Demon Summer\" so mind-numbingly bad? I really don't know, it IS better then their \"Splatter Rampage Wrestling\" but not be much as the basement level of acting is cringe-worthy and when a 'horror' film is as talky as this one is, that's not a good thing. The story's been done to death in many other better films, so why waste your time on this one?

My Grade: D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I could not watch more than 10 minutes of this movie. It has set the standard. I will never again give a movie a 1, unless it was as horrible as this one. I fully agree with the other comments about this film. But, since I'm Dutch, I watched it with Dutch translation. Apparently, they didn't have money for a proper translation, so they decided to babelfish it. With sometimes hilarious results.

Don't smoke, don't drink, don't do drugs, don't watch Demon Summer.

I was surprised that the actors (Wow, I can't believe I just said that.) didn't hold the script (Was there any?) in their hands while shooting. I think they also did a good job on... Well... Uhmm... No, they didn't do a good job at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I understand that the budget was low on this film, but come on this is really terrible film-making. The script is just plain awful and that was the free part. The effects aren't bad, but this film plays out like a conventional R-rated movie with lame scares and cut-away violence rather than a no holds barred unrated gore-fest that was intentionally made for video. Who were these guys kidding? Like this would have been released in theaters.

The acting is terrible. The editing, another free aspect of the film, is beyond amateur, and the plot, as I said before, leaves little to be desired. There's nothing original about the film. Gore fans, avoid this one. To the filmmakers: try for something original next time, or stop making movies all together. You're not good at it. People hate a trashy rehash, especially one of such low caliber. AVOID! It isn't even worth making fun of.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Did you ever think, like after watching a horror movie with a group of friends: \"Wow, this is so cool! We have got to make a splatter horror movie ourselves some day soon. I bet it isn't as difficult as it seems\"? Well, this must have been what went through the minds of the young Campbell brothers back in 2003, presumably right after watching Sam Raimi's \"The Evil Dead\" or a similar independent horror classic. This \"Demon Summer\", however, is so bad it's embarrassing! These young amateurish filmmakers obviously worship the horror genre and know their classics, but that nearly doesn't make them talented. I've seen quite a lot lousy B-movies in my years as a horror fanatic, but this honestly ranks as one of the biggest pieces of crap ever made. And it's quite sad to be this open-hearted, because the whole cast and crew clearly had good intentions. There's pretty much no script at all. A duo of thugs simply steals a mysterious book from a bum and, whilst reading some passages of it, one of them mutates into a hideous demon that starts killing off members of all the different teenager-groups: dorks, hot Catholic girls, stoners and troublemakers. That's about it, except of course for all the obligatory clich\u00e9s, like the hot girl falling for the biggest dork etc etc... The performances are really painful to listen to and none of these annoying teenagers use mimicry! They just stand there motionless until the script says it's their turn to interact. I hate that! Some of make-up effects are remotely decent but still not spectacular and the soundtrack contains some of the most awful punk-songs ever. This film should never have been released... I can very well imagine that it must have been fun to be a part of the production, but it's utterly imbecile and doesn't feature the slightest redeeming element. Not even a bit of amateur-nudity, damned!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rate movies on this site all the time, but I don't normally write comments. However, in this case, I felt compelled to WARN OTHERS! This movie is bad! It's probably one of only a dozen movies I have scored as '1 (awful).' I know people say this all the time, but this truly was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It's easily on the bottom ten, anyway.

When it comes to horror movies, I have very low standards. I'll overlook all sorts of shoddy film-making for a good scare. But this movie is embarrassingly bad. It looks someone bought a video camera at Sears and decided to make a movie with his buddies. (The fact that every single crew member's name appears in the cast list proves this theory, I think.) This movie has lower production standards than your average high school play. It's actually a little shocking to see a movie that looks this bad released on DVD. The special effects are somewhat effective at times, but are still amateurish at best. The best thing that can be said about the actors is that at least they remember no to look into the camera, most of the time. I can't say for certain if they struggling to remember their lines or making them up as they went along. Any and all attempts at humor are lame. This movie is such a colossal waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Aimless teens on summer break in a small Ohio town can't find any meaningful ways to fill their time. Some consider driving to Chicago; others are content to drink and bully their peers. In a random act of alcohol-fueled arrogance, the bullies rough up a homeless man and steal a strange book. The handwritten text turns out to contain archaic spells designed to summon demonic forces. A night or two later, one of them reads an incantation and is quickly possessed. He turns into a vicious killer and begins to quietly prey on his former peers.

\"Demon Summer\" is an amateur production with a microscopic budget. The production values are low, but the filmmakers were smart enough to not be ambitious. Little in the way of special props or shooting locations were needed. The acting is especially weak and there is virtually nothing original in the screenplay. On the positive side, the special makeup effects are surprisingly good by low budget film standards. Despite this, the gore is minimal. Makeup effects aside, there is little going for this film, even for die-hard gore-hounds. Not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very slow, dull, enigmatic film. MAybe the kind of film Jean-Luc Godard would have made had he been Italian. Certainly conveys how tedious, repetitious, joyless and empty a person's life can be, but I don't usually go to the cinema to find that out! The plot (such as it is) doesn't convince. Why a gorgeous hotel receptionist (an exception to the dullness of the film) would be the slightest bit interested in a moody, chain-smoking, silent loner who speaks in 'deep' aphorisms baffles me. Very difficult to feel any sympathy with the main character. One feels like shaking him by the throat and telling him to 'snap out of it!'. His brother is a much more human character. The ending is inconclusive and puzzling. Everyone in the cinema (when I saw the film) went out muttering about how they nearly fell asleep. Of course, it shouldn't have to be a Hollywood Bruce Willis-style 'shhot-em-up' and 'crash-bang' fiesta, but a little bit of energy and action would have made it a lot more thrilling. One of the best Italian films ever?! Pleease...An art-house, curiosity at best.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was so looking forward to seeing this film that I can't really understand how I got the impression I would enjoy it. I'm afraid it really is a yawn fest - every single patron in the cinema I attended yawned and fidgeted frequently during the whole film. This is a shame because it is a fantastic story - I'm inclined to think that it would make a better read. It is not helped by the principle character only showing his teeth once - and that was as a result of the camera angle. As the story unfolds it becomes easier to understand the main character's dilemmas. However, the suspense and drama that could have made this a really top rated film have been completely spoilt by the dull treatment. Dull as a half-baked documentary!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst pieces of cinema I have seen in some time. This is also my first review so you can tell I must hate this film at lot.

Don't get me wrong, I like my serious films. I don't like Hollywood too much, I tend to like French, Italian, offbeat US or anything that tries to communicate something sensible.

But this was awful. Why? 1. The plot (such as it was) was entirely unbelievable, even though the director seems to be hinging everything on a feeling of realism.

2. The main character has nothing to recommend him. Does he smoke for coolness or to show us his angst? For goodness sake this guy is meant to be an ex-dodgy mafia lawyer. Are we meant to care more because that he is also one of the meanest unfriendly people you could ever meet? And he smokes...so he must have deep personal issues. Pop psychology at it's best. In the final moments, I almost cheered as he gets buried in the cement. Best place for him. And I thought that was about the only good scene. Or maybe that was because it was so close the final credits.

3. The entirely tired and unbelievable interest in the main character from the beautiful girl. She was there simply because beautiful girls always have odd sexual relationships with old, old men with a deep and meaningful personality (as demonstrated by smoking). Happens all the time. In really bad films that is.

4. The pace was so leaden. I like slow, I like careful. But this was just deathly.

5-50 a bunch of other stuff that I really can't be bothered to write.

Awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh my god! The Beeb hit a new low with this gutless act of political correctness, A mixed race family living in Birmingham with a disabled kid thrown in for good measure. Whoever commissioned this tripe should be hunted down and thrown to the dogs. The usually funny Jasper Carrott is about as funny as piles in this show and don't get me started about the others. They have the timing and subtly of a Nuclear bomb. I only hope comedy will get better but with the likes of Little Britain and Catherine Tate about I severely doubt this. I think you'd be better off getting the box set for a decent comedy from yesteryear such as Fawlty Towers or Bottom if you want a laugh.

BAN THIS SQUEAKY CLEAN RUBBISH!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It says a lot about the United Kingdom when television programmes like this not only get made but also run for three series. Unfunny, politically correct to the point of sickening and poorly acted and written. Meera Syal has not been funny or accomplished in anything that she has been in, go on tell me I am wrong, and Jasper Carrott, funny guy as he is, is well past his eighties prime. This is such a bad comedy that it could have been made by ITV but even stinkers like The Upper Hand and the one with James Bolam as a car park attendant look like Fawlty Towers compared to this rubbish. I would love to sit down with the writer\/director of this show so that they can point out the humour in this programme. Admittedly the majority of the UK's population is made up of poorly educated chavs but this would not tickle their funny bones. That's if they could tear themselves away from Big Brother or from their mobile phones but that's another story. Complete and utter dirt!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh how I laughed....this has it all...an Asian\/White family, a disabled Asian boy...everything a healthy person needs to see in the eyes of the BBC.

What utter tribe: This was a total insult to my eyes that viewed this rubbish for one episode and ONE EPISODE ONLY.

When you think of some of the quality the BBC has put out over the years (Fawlty Towers for example) and then this comes rolling in...Its a disgusting disgrace.

Its all geared on political-correctness and is devoid of any humour whatsoever.

This is straight from the bowels of hell: but what would you expect from the ultra left-wing BPC...I mean BBC.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here's another of these modern-day ultra-sleaze comedies in which dysfunctional families are supposedly hilarious. Know wonder people once asked, \"What ever happened to Pauly Shore?\" Well, Shore didn't disappear, but his career took a nose-dive, that's for sure. Movies like this one, didn't help.

In \"Son-In-Law,\" Shore plays an incredibly-obnoxious character called \"Crawl,\" and yet he's the most likable of the family! His father is a profane idiot; his mother is totally incompetent, his young brother is a sex maniac and his college-age sister is a real snot.

Watching an hour and a half of totally-unlikeable people was tough to do. I certainly wouldn't watch this again, or recommend it to anyone but die-hard Shore fans. Adam Sandler took Pauley's shtick and went a lot further with it.

The following is an excerpt from the IMDb title page here under \"biography\" and it explains why I am not the only one who was disgusted with this movie.

\"........but his lunacy was dismissed as crude, dumb and, for the most part, unfunny. His film career quickly tanked. This downhill spiral was not helped by the failure of his failed Fox sitcom \"Pauly\" (1997) in 1997. Lambasted unmercifully by both critics and media alike, he was soon becoming a running joke and forced to lie low and ride out the storm....\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Frantic, somewhat mean spirited, infantile humor abounds in this city boy turned wannabe farmer tale. It is not outrageous enough to appeal to the Will Ferrell crowd, and not interesting enough to carry the feature length. The most I can praise \"Son In Law\" would be to say that for the most part it avoids toilet humor. The main problem is that all of the characters lack warmth, and Pauly Shore is so abrasive that he is a most unlikable hero. There are a few amusing bits involving farm animals, and that's about it. The story, what there is, is so simplistic and predictable, it makes \"Jury Duty\" seem like \"Gone with the Wind\". - MERK","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Perfect double bill for the horribly corny \"Beverly Hillbillies\" is this equally atrocious, lame brained 'comedy', \"Son in Law\". Country girl Rebecca goes to wild California to attend college, only to be assaulted by the lifestyle. 'Resident Adviser' \"Crawl\" helps her settle in, and soon the two are good friends. Bec decides to bring the wacky \"Crawl\" home for Thanksgiving, with obvious \"fish out of water\" results.

The only other comic angle Steve Rash (aptly named ) achieves here is a sexual one. This he bludgeons us with, but to no avail. Both comic aspects fail dismally, and you know the film is groping when \"Crawl\" hijacks the combine harvester and writes his name in the corn field.

Dramatically the movie falls short too, with several attempts at family and personal counselling from \"Crawl\" misfiring. Between them Pauly Shore and Carla Gugino manage to raise a couple of smiles, but little else, while the rest of the cast are mere fodder. The problem is it's nearly impossible to actually like \"Crawl\", and you'll find yourself spending the whole flick wondering why Rebecca would want to spend a moment with him. However, if you're a fan of unintelligent comedy, \"Son in Law\" is right on the mark.

Sunday, November 10, 1996 - T.V.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It amazes me that anyone would find Pauly Shore entertaining: he is basically one joke that gets stale *real* fast. He has his little \"California\" jerk vocabulary and a basic stock of lame jokes. Mainly, he is just obnoxious.

That said, I watched this movie because I was up sick and there was literally nothing else on but infomercials, otherwise I would have turned it off after 30 minutes. Anyway, the film could have been OK if Pauly could have just turned off his spiel and just played it as a comic actor instead of, well, Pauly.

Anyway, I'm sure Pauly fans will like it anyway - but if you are not a Pauly fan, stay away from this crock of manure.

I had to leave this comment after seeing that another user actually gave this film a 10\/10! (Maybe it was Pauly!!) Personally, I gave it a 3\/10 because they didn't have any mike-in-frame shots, didn't drop the camera, and the supporting cast was pretty good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On his recent maligned reality-show, Mr. Shore conceded his filmic oeuvre is best enjoyed stoned. No, he must have said \"best watched.\" While a healthy toke might see you through the end credits, there is little pleasure to be found, save some sporadic chuckling at the picture, not with it. Titular hyphenate absence is the least grievance. Other hyphenate, wholesome Tiffani-Amber Thiessen (I dare you to rub out that \"Saved by the Bell\" patina of purity) is miscast as a rural vamp; she's too round of face for treachery. Mr. Shore, himself occasionally displays the odd talent for mimicry (I thought I recognized a Jimmy Stewart in there), however it is never aptly used. The trite fish-out-of-water formula has yet to be rendered with less grace. Our hero, Crawl has precious little wit to account for expeditiously charming his agrarian antagonists. Ultimately, I had to announce it's been ascertained: THE WORST MOVIE EVER. P.S. As another fish, Adam Sandler fared better with \"Mr. Deeds.\" It may take a Shore to appreciate a Sandler.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is one of the worse movies of all time. I'm kind of upset this movie isn't on the bottom 100; it deserves a spot at least number 60 or 70 on that list. This isn't just a film I think is bad in a campy-fun sort of MST3K way; it's just bad. This is one of the few films that I really, really HATE. Freddy Got Fingered is in the same category of bad.

So the story in this one goes that the daughter (Gugino) goes to California to go to school and comes back with Crawl (Shore) and he tries to learn to be a farmer. Then the boyfriend tries to set Shore up so that the girl will leave Crawl and go back to him. It ends and what's left of the audience can leave.

The main purpose of this movie is for Pauly Shore to mug for the camera and try to be funny; but I'd say about 100% of the time he fails at that. Their horrible inaccurate and out of date view of farms and farming is offensive and there's nothing in this movie worth seeing. If you think of seeing it: don't. The one time I saw the movie it felt like I was watching it for 5 or 6 hours. If you've already seen it; you have my sympathy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are a Pauly Shore fan, you will laugh your butt off. If not, this is a silly mess wasting some very good talent. A cute coed(Carla Gugino)from South Dakota invites her California college dorm counselor(Shore) home to share Thanksgiving. Notable cast members: Lane Smith, Cindy Pickett, Mason Adams and the drop dead gorgeous Tiffani-Amber Thiessen. Watch where you step.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Good grief.. to think I've seen it all.. Danny Thomas looks SO out of place in this mishmash. He seems really uncomfortable. He can't sing worth a lick, and when he's paired up with Peggy Lee (PEGGY LEE???) she easily.. EASILY outsings him! Maybe the director saw this and made him do the reall really bad comedy routines that he sometimes does in the film. Peggy Lee is okay, but the whole thing is a shambles. Good for a laugh, maybe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes this movie is obviously trying to be a Conan the Barbarian, and what amazes me is that this is a sequel (the people demanded another one?). The first part of the flick is a flashback showing the original. From what I saw it doesn't look worth checking out (and apparently Ator always kills a huge puppet in his movies). Well now Ator lives at the ends of the earth with his mute sidekick Thong. A girl seeks his help as this evil dude has her father in his custody. Let me just say this bad guy is extremely patient as the old guy constantly insults the villian and just prattles on endlessly. The bad guy waits to the very end of the movie and finally smacks the old guy around leaving you to wonder \"What took him so long to snap?\". Meanwhile, Ator and his sidekick and the gal go through one adventure after another. They fight cavemen, invisible soldiers (don't ask), rent a thugs, and people who worship snakes. Ator also battles a giant snake puppet and hang-glides (again, don't ask). All the while you will be thinking that Conan would kick Ator's butt.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I mean, you just have to love the Italian film industry. Someone came up with a post-doomsday action movie (\"Road Warrior\") and the Italians were busy for years doing one rip-off after another. Then some other one came up with a successful barbarian movie (\"Conan\") and the Italians were busy... eh, see above.

Besides countless other variations of the theme (one of my favorites is Umberto Lenzi's \"The Barbarians\" starring the Paul twins) the Ator series was created. And this, the second one, is probably the worst (or best, depending on your point of view).

Ator is called back into action by his old teacher, who has discovered some kind of nuclear power that, of course, has to be protected so it won't get into wrong hands. The old man sends his daughter to Ator, and after a few complications Ator, his sidekick Tong and the girl set back to the castle, which meanwhile has fallen to some evildoer (of course, an old \"class mate\" of Ator). Somewhere along the way the heroic trio forgets about the plot and eradicates some giant snake-worshipping cult for the fun of it (not before some virgins are sacrificed). Just in time before the madman finally loses his temper and kills the wise teacher our heroes remember their duties, invent hanggliding and grenades and save the day.

Included: terrible acting by all participants (especially O'Keeffe), incredibly hilarious \"special effects\" (you just have to adore the snake fight scene, which must be sort of a hommage to \"Bride of the Monster\"), badly staged fight scenes, numerous continuity errors (Ator flies two different hanggliders during the climatic battle, watch for it, just an example) and an overall non-understanding of the concept of history (cavemen, \"civilized\" barbarians, castle-builders, all thrown in one film).

If you're, like me, devoted to bad movies, this is the one of the series to see, you'll probably end up ROTFL. For the records: the Malta-filmed third part is actually quite watchable.

Considering Joe D'Amato's other efforts this is probably his most entertaining movie, as he certainly has failed to deliver watchable horror or erotic movies. But I strongly have the opinion that this was completely by accident.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(spoilers) Horrifyingly enough, I have actually SEEN the film that this horrid film was a sequel to. It was called Ator the Fighting Eagle, and I saw it when I was just 8 years old. It made such an awful impression on me that i never forgot it. I've been an MST3K fan for a long time, so when Cavedwellers came out on tape I bought it. I was horrified to realize that it was a sequel to the wretched Ator movie that i'd seen so long ago! Ator's costume has, somehow, gotten ever skimpier than the last time i saw him. How can he wear that tiny little bikini? Doesn't he care that it shows off the fact that he has no...errr...package? And poor Thong...he gets no lines and no girl, and has to follow that frizzy haired girly doofus Ator around all the time. Has anyone else noticed that Miles O'Keefe walks like a woman? No wonder he's not interested in the pretty if somewhat lackluster Meela. The evil but prancy bad guy Zor is more to his taste, I'm sure. I loved Zor's cardboard spray painted swan helmet, and the way he spent all his time trying to touch some part of Ator. The fight scenes are so badly choreographed that its a wonder that the swords ever manage to connect. The dull old guy spends all of his time standing around looking depressed. Ator drinks from a cup given to him by a guy who hates him, and then looks surprised that they drugged him. He must be pretty smart though-he invented a hang glider in the space pf five minutes ,then flew it into a rift in the space\/time continuum so that he travelled briefly into 17th century Bulgaria. That was after he stabbed the giant snake puppet, of course, and saved the post coital Meela while she sat around doing absolutely nothing. The real hero of the movie was Thong, who saved Ator several times from his boundless stupiditiy, and killed the evil Zor in the bargain. Kudos to Thong, the only competent person in the whole film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"BOOOOOOOORRRRRINNGGGGGGGG and STOOOOOOOPIDDDDD. Kept falling asleep. If you want to see Miles O'Keefe loping around in a furry Speedo by all means rent this movie. If not please don't bother... Rife with anachronisms. Was this supposed to be set in the Ice Age, the Iron Age, the Steel Age or the Age of Reason? What was the reason for the black nylon wig on the guy dressed up as Genghis Khan? Was that really supposed to be Genghis Khan? If Ator had access to so much advanced technology and science why did we have wait another 1000 years for Leonardo? It's never clear where Ator comes from or if he's supposed to be some superior sort of being. You wonder if it was all explained in the first movie but after seeing this one you KNOW you'll never bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is about one of the worst movies I'd ever seen. It's not the worst though - Manos the Hands of Fate holds that honor.

This movie has a lot of problems. To begin, this whole movie is a cheap rip-off of the Conan movies. There's the babe in a skimpy dress wearing a hubcap, the quiet Asian warrior, the cookie cutter bad guy, the almost mindless soliders, and so on. There's lots of continuity errors in this film. Some of the dumbest errors I've ever seen are in this film.

Fortunately when I watched this film I seen the MST3K version. Joel and the 'bots make the film watchable, otherwise I probably would've turned it off five minutes into the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The credits come from the Sandy Frank stitching job that was made to turn this movie into Cave Dwellers for re-release. Now that that's cleared up...oh! Excruciating, eye-gouging pain. Blade Master leaps shamelessly on the sword & sorcery bandwagon started by the Conan flicks...except the bandwagon never left the garage anyway. As such, this Italian flick is a dud trying to rip-off a box office dud, with predictable results. However, this would give too little credit to the director and writers, who make no effort whatsoever to maintain a coherent plot, continuity, any semblance of era-accurate continuity. Miles O'Keefe is no leading man, now or forever (Tarzan The Ape Man proved that, if Ator didn't). Just an unlikeable picture and a chore to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was the second MST3K'd movie I ever saw, and still holds a place in my heart as one of the most hilariously awful film experiences you are ever going to have.

Miles O'Keeffe (sp?) is in this, using his chiseled physique to score another payment on the mortgage on his condominium. He's stiff, wooden, and unconvincing, but he still comes across as a cool, likable guy, and at least he's photogenic. That's the only decent I can find to say about the movie, so I thought I would get it out of the way right up front. The fact that he is in the movie adds another point to the score and saves it from being a \"1 out of 10\".

In no particular order, examples of how badly put together this film is:

1)OK, the Tanya Roberts clone (Mila) quests to 'the ends of the earth' to find Ator, which takes 3 minutes of screen time, including the time she spends stumbling around dying from a poisoned arrow in her shoulder (which I assume would have slowed her down quite a bit). So Ator heals her up, and takes his trusty aid Thong and sets out to go back to the her castle...and proceeds to take the next 50+ minutes of the movie recovering the ground that Mila traversed in 3 minutes. How does that work??? I know that the intrepid crew is being harassed by magical forces and enemies etc. on the way back, but still...!

2)Apparently the writer\/director felt the need to add 'depth' to the film by adding a running debate\/Socratic dialog\/game of 20 questions between Zor (the mean John Saxon wannabe) and the wise man Akronas (the Richard Harris wannabe). But Joe Damoto apparently got his philosophical training from Hallmark cards, T-Shirts and bumper stickers, and he doesn't understand tempo, pacing, or timing...and neither do the actors. (Crow's remark during one of these exchanges is the tag line for my entry). The scenes with these two drag on and on, bringing the movie to a screeching halt and killing any momentum or excitement generated by the sword-fighting and questing of the heroic trio.

3) Once Ator arrives at the castle (and is captured), things go even farther downhill. Zor decides to feed a bunch of women victims, along with Ator and Mila, to the Serpent God he keeps in his basement. This scene had some potential for excitement, so the director immediately kills this potential by instilling the scene with all the drama of people waiting in line at the DMV to pay their traffic fines. Ator proceeds to have a big battle with the Serpent that is barely more convincing than Bela Lugosi's battle with the rubber octopus puppet in \"Bride Of The Monster\".

4) The climactic scene, in which Ator invents the hang glider out of twigs and animal skins, is so patently silly that it completely blows the viewer out of the movie and makes you roll on the floor, laughing until your sides hurt.

5) Oh, yes, and the filmmakers decided to include stock footage of an atomic explosion at the end, with the moral that Ator decided to destroy the 'atomic nucleus' McGuffin that drives the movie because mankind was 'not ready'. (\"Zzzzip! MESSAGE COMING IN!!!\") Just like \"Bride Of the Monster\" again, come to think of it. All it needed was a bystander to observe, \"They tampered in God's domain.\"

6) For some reason, the version of the movie I saw features introductory and closing homo-erotic credit sequences that have absolutely NOTHING to do with anyone or anything else in the movie. I have no idea where this footage came from, but it is actually WORSE than the actual movie it bookends.

Watch this only if you are a big fan of Miles, or if you enjoy the way MST3K skewers material like this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are plenty of reviews that describe this movie as the worst ever made. For sure there are plenty of mistakes: lackluster acting, rather boring and cliched and at times paradoxical script, and the stock B-movie sound and \"special\" effects. As noted, there are plenty of glosses of plot, making _Cave Dwellers_ a tissue of fantasy film, especially in comparison with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, this movie is not the worst movie ever. Most, if not all, (including this review) of these reviews are written by fans of MSTK3. Therefore, many of these reviews are pretty much summaries of the MSTK3 episode of _Cave Dwellers_.

In the episode, Joel, Tom Servo, and Crow remark to the Mad Scientists that this is the worst movie ever sent to them. Of course, loyal fans have taken this quote and ran with it. I have found this movie endearing-not in a way that one finds _Forrest Gump_ endearing-but in the effort put into this movie by some the cast. Also, this movie is laughable without its MSTK3 treatment. That is because _Cave Dwellers_ does not take itself seriously, and it is not trying to import into its viewers some sort of righteous theme. For all of the monster puppets, medieval hang gliding, and continuity lapses-this movie does not advertise to be any more that what it is, a shallow depiction of a rather shallow genre.

Likewise, I can't bring myself to hate Miles O'Keeffe or Lisa Foster. Instead this hatred is for Coleman Francis, Tony Cardoza, Jennifer Lopez, Arch Hall, Jr., and so on.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I actually own this movie which is the MST3K version called \"Cave Dwellers\" which is really the only way anyone could really watch a movie like this. If it weren't for Joel, Crow, and Tom Servo constantly making wisecracks, it wouldn't be possible to sit through this piece of crap. You have a hero called Ator who looks a lot like Jeff Spigoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High and appears only slightly more intelligent, just without being stoned. He takes on cavemen (the cave dwellers?) invisible guys, a giant snake (with a bunch of anal retentive snakes that like to line up all the skulls to face the same way), invents a hang glider which suspiciously looks like a modern aluminum one with some cheap vines wrapped around it, and then does battle with the evil John Saxon-looking dude. Then he rides off on his horse across the tire tracks where someone's been four-wheeling.

Yes, I got most of that from MST3K, which as I said is the only way to watch this turkey of a movie. If it weren't for that, it would get zero stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another in the long line of Conan wannabes that tired to cash in on that movie's success, this Italian monstrosity is about as bad as they came. You know it's a bad sign when your heroes fight invisible enemies because the movie was made so cheaply there wasn't money for either adequate special effects or to hire real people. I won't even bother going into the plot as I defy anyone to follow it and make sense of the storyline. Maybe it's the television cut I watched, but I can't imagine any version being that much better. It all seems so random to me. Evil sorcerers, cavemen, giant snakes, medieval castles, grenades, and hang gliding \u0096 none of it fits together. It's as if director Joe D'Amato had an epileptic fit while making Cave Dwellers (or any of the other half-dozen names the movie goes by) and threw everything he could think of onto the screen regardless of how unrelated it was or how it fit into the film's already puzzling plot. The acting is sufficiently bad. Miles O'Keeffe could never act his way out of a wet paper bag and he proves that once again in this movie. The rest of the cast is equally atrocious. Then there's the . . . well, you get the idea. It's late, I'm tired, and I've already wasted more than enough time writing about this piece of garbage. Take my word for it \u0096 avoid Cave Dwellers (or whatever you want to call it) at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why was this movie made? Are producers so easily fooled by sadists that they'll give them money to create torture methods such as this so called \"film\"? I love a bad movie as much as the next masochist, but \"Cave Dwellers\" is pushing it. It's seriously physically painful to watch. The plot is something about a dude name Ator - a buffed-up numbnuts whom I will refer to as Private Snowball for the rest of this review - who has to fight invisible warriors and rescue a princess in order to beat the bad guy who needs to find a better hair stylist. I might have gotten the plot wrong since it's been a while since I watched this excrement, but really, do you care that much? Oh yeah, Private Snowball also has a mute Asian sidekick (who hasn't?). Who's not funny.

Anyway, Private Snowball fights invisible people, visits some caves, all in the name of a good king so personality-free he makes Al Gore look like Jim Carrey. Then Private Snowball builds a hang-glider (yes, I'm serious) and gets the girl. Yippie-kee-yay. It's cheap, unintentionally silly, and mind-numbingly dull. Why am I not surprised that the director ended up making porn?

Bottom line: AVOID. Ator will steal a part of your life and you will have no funny \"so-bad-they're-good\" catchphrases to take with you from the experience. Bad Ator! BAD! Aak! *gags*","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why it's none other than Ator played hilariously bad by Miles O'Keefe. Surprisingly I had the misfortune of sitting through this turkey before Mystery Science Theater 3000 tore it to pieces. I highly recommend checking out the MST3K version since it's hilarious and one of their best episodes ever.

The movie on it's own is basically the kind of typical B-movie crud that Italian film-makers were churning out in the early to mid 80's. This film was apparently made to cash in on the Conan craze, but it fails miserably on all counts.

Keep an eye out for the scenes where Ator fights a giant rubber snake and also manages to make a complete hang-glider during a cutaway.

\"Thong, fish is ready!\"

rating: the movie itself-1 The MST3K version: 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like almost everyone else, I became aware of this turkey on Mystery Science Theater 3000. It easily ranks as one of my favorite MST3K episodes of all time. I really couldn't imagine attempting to watch this film on it's own though.........it's really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really bad.

Miles O'Keeffe stars as Ator, a muscle-bound Fabio wannabe who lives during the time of cave men. We the viewer are asked to suspend our disbelief in that he knows alchemy and chemistry and can manage to build a complete hang-glider in about 5 minutes. Yeah, right! There's also a fairly attractive actress (can't remember her name) who wears a hub-cap as a chest shield. Oh, and I can't forget that wacky Asian side-kick Thong. He had the easiest role in the movie since he doesn't utter one word of dialogue throughout the entire movie. He had to figure out how to make his character interesting without talking.....and he failed miserably.

The film isn't watchable in any way and should be only viewed in it's proper MST3K format. If you watch that version, you'll laugh yourself silly!

\"I'm HUGE!!!!\"

Rating:1","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this one on the late, late, late, late show back when MST3K was just a twinkle in Joel Hodgson's eye. I had the privilege of seeing it without knowing exactly how bad it would be. I didn't know that a woman with an arrow in her chest could run \"to the ends of the earth\" in about an hour and a half (thank God her father gave such specific directions) and then take days to make it back to the castle with help. I didn't know that a sword wielding barbarian-type could run into the forest and create a hanglider and flash powder bombs in under 30 seconds. I had no idea how disjointed a movie could be.

It's a bad thing children, a very bad thing. If you enjoy bad movies, go for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even MST3K couldn't make this painful, long, and ultimately mind-bending drek funny or entertaining. While most bad movies in and of themselves are hilariously bad, this one is one of those few videos that uses the word bad in its literal sense.

The element that makes this so PAINFUL to watch is not the lack of story, but the fact that SOOOO much background is crammed into the first half-hour that it is utterly ridiculous and harder to follow than a highway while driving with no headlights.

The hero of the film, Ator, is no more than eye-candy for this literal energy-sucker of a film. Dressed in a loin-cloth and sporting \"pecs like melons,\" as Joel put it, he belongs more in a fitness magazine than here.

I would recommend this ONLY to die-hard, and I mean die-hard followers of cheese. If you have an enemy, recommend them this film. If you make it through this, I commend you. You should be able to make it through anything.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The sequel that no one asked for to the movie no one wanted. There are obviously too many flaws with this movie to name here, so I'll just concentrate on the acting. Miles O'Keefe would have been better suited to play the spritely Asian sidekick Thong, mainly because he would then have no dialogue. Lisa Foster delivers her lines displaying one emotion, dullness. Charles Borremel brings life to his part by pausing every five words. And finally the flamboyant, John Saxon-type guy......no comment is needed.

See \"Conan the Barbarian\" if you need to, but don't waste your time with this low-budget loser.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cave Dwellers, or The Blade Mater, or whatever it's called, is in one word: VILE! I saw this on MST and I laughed not only at the great running commentary, but at the inept film making that was demonstrated. Sunglasses, tire tracks and where did Ator get a hang glider? Then they lift a few shots from another movie, Where Eagles Dare as Tom Servo points out. To show just how cheap this movie really is, watch the scene where Ator and Thong have to battle invisible swordsmen. Or even better, look for the giant hose dressed up like a snake that Ator must wrestle! And what exactly do those scenes in the credits have to do with the movie?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has some of the worst production values and editing I've ever seen. There are several instances of actors pausing while trying to remember their lines, actors walking in front of actors who are talking, and one point where the film skips about seven frames. Not to mention the heroine getting shot in the chest, yet she starts limping! Oh, and what about the secret passageway that is well lit and right out in the open. Awful.

The plot is non-existant, something to do with a primitive nuclear bomb and going to the ends of the Earth and some kind of caveman war. Ator pulls out a hang-glider at one point in the film's dumbest moment. The dialogue is stupid, containing such gems as \"It is everything and nothing.\" and \"I can feel it, here.\"

The movie is a mess, a confusing, insipid mess. Ator is a bland hero, the sword fights are absurd, and the plot plods along slowly. All in all, this is a movie to avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Miles O'keefe stars as Ator, a loin-clothed hero who resembles a Chippendale's dancer. The Conan-wannabe must do battle with an evil guy in a Cher wig, and protect the Earth from the Geometric Nucleus, a sort of primitive atomic bomb. Watch closely for visible sunglasses and tire-tracks. Mystery Science Theater 3000 made fun of it under the title CAVE DWELLERS.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just read an extra long review on the front page of this movie on this site and he explained in full detail that this movie is only worth watching on the television show \"Mystery Science Theater 3000!!!!!\" And yes, I do find that advice really helpful! I mean, a movie that tries to be this good and this exciting just really is not what that movie wants to be!!!!! So yes, do watch this movie as seen on that show and instead of giving this movie a single star out of ten stars, you can give this a ten out of ten stars! Until then, my one star review is for the real, pure, untouched version of this movie only!!!!!! Got that now?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie's one redeemable quality (besides Ator's barely-there loincloth) is the hilarious acting on the part of the bad guy, Zor. This wonderfully overplayed villain has a certain...oh, Shakespearean presence that made this movie bearable (hence the 2). I just giggled every time he pirouetted, lifting an incredulous eyebrow to henchman or hero. A true example of someone not getting paid enough. (And that BEARD!)

Now really, what was with the 12-minute hang-glider scene? Really, really, really bad. I can't emphasize that point enough.

So, seriously, if you even deign to see this movie, watch the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version. With those dear silhouettes has many a horrendous movie been tolerated.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's simply no redeeming quality about this film. OK, some of the costumes are OK, but they're nothing you can't see in, say, the Conan flicks. And what's up with Ator's hair? I can't believe this is part of a series! I will say one thing about this film: it was deemed bad enough for a righteous lampooning by the early cast of MST3K and I suggest to anyone that's curious enough to see how bad this film is to watch that version of the film for moral support if nothing else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so bad it was funny! For awhile there I thought I was actually watching a parody of a bad movie (a la \"For Your Consideration\"). The \"cliffhanger\" scene at the end had me laughing until my insides hurt. The script was dreadful enough, but coupled with Sean Young's terrible acting -- especially while she explains the entire plot in great detail (complete with flashbacks) while dangling off a cliff -- makes it a truly classically bad movie worth watching! In fact the fakey shots in this scene reminded me of an Ed Wood movie. I still can't believe how this thing got made. First of all, how did such a bad script get the green light? How did star actors get attached? Were they at low points in their careers? Questions, questions.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It may be difficult to believe, but the basic plot of this abysmal flick has been lifted from Hitchcock's perennial classic, \"Vertigo\". To see Edward James Olmos in the part once played by James Stewart is heart-breaking; Sean Young is better, but still a poor substitute for Kim Novak.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This might not have been as horribly bad as it was if not for the absolutely awful acting job done by Raymond Wallace! This guy is so bad it wasn't even funny! His character was needed in the film, but why they chose this guy is beyond me.

If you're looking for some quality Chinese films.....might I suggest \"Raise the Red Lantern\"....\"The Story of Qui Ju\"....\"Red Sorghum\"......

Anything but this! I was surprised at how many people actually rated this highly! Really...the acting by this Wallace loser is so bad it overshadows the other good parts of this film. This was agreed upon by all 6 of us watching this movie last night!

Stay Clear of this piece of garbage........","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thanks to silly horror movies like \"Troll\" and the indescribably atrocious cult-favorite \"Troll 2\", it has become practically impossible to take movies with kobolds, gnomes and various other types of little green hobgoblins seriously these days. Only just recently I watched the 70's made-for-TV movie \"Don't Be Afraid of the Dark\", which is basically a quite terrifying and serious-toned film about domestic little goblin monsters, and yet I still couldn't help thinking back about the laugh-inducing potato headed critters dressed in garbage bags that were running amok in \"Troll 2\". Same thing happened to me now. As much as I tried going into \"Inhabited\" with a clear mindset, unconsciously I kept comparing the supposedly creepy and menacing garden fairies with the badly sculptured goblins of Nilbog! Still, even without all the prejudices, \"Inhabited\" is a remotely entertaining albeit unmemorable straight-to-video horror flick. It's a cheesy, soft and politically correct pastiche of family drama and Northern Europe mythology. The annoying and murderous little creatures in this movie aren't your plain average goblins; they are \"The Huldre\": wicked little Norwegian demons that live underground and attempt to chase happy families out of their houses through influencing the youngest children. This overcomes the Russell family as they move into their ramshackle dream house in a remote little town. The cherubic blond daughter of MILF-actress Megan Gallagher starts to behave strangely whenever she hangs out in the cute play house in the back of the garden. She claims her friends are fairies, and even though the sinister handyman also warns for strange occurrences in the past, Gina's parents simply think the girl has troubles adjusting to her new neighborhood. When she keeps rattling about fairies, they arrange an appointment with the acclaimed psychologist Dr. Werner whilst \"The Huldre\" are slowly coming out of their botanical shelter. Not much special to mention here. The pace is acceptable and the attempts to build up suspense are pretty cute. You understand this is a family-friendly horror movie, so no bloody murder sequences are graphically being shown here. Heck, even the cadaver of the family's pet cat is kept off-screen. This is the umpteenth nonsensical horror movie in which Malcolm McDowell pops up and he practically always depicts an unreliable, greedy and self-centered authority figure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*Spoilers herein*

Where do I begin with just how silly this movie was? 'Mole sized people, living under the garden attacking residents of a big house'!!! When I first sat down to watch this movie I was unaware that the protagonists where not poltergeists etc but 10 inch high goblins that looked mighty easy to kick hard and far. I carried on watching it because I like to see movies through to the end even awful ones. this movie was terrible. My girlfriend, who went to sleep inside the first ten minutes, apart from finding it a good aid to sleep thought it was hilarious that I had bothered to watch it all.

Tiny goblins even in large numbers (the thought is silly I know) are about as scary and menacing as flat cola. They only managed to trip one guy up 'fatally' and kill a cat before they were blown up, The End. I did mention it sucked right?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this film from e-bay as part of a lot of about twenty horror flicks, all about a dollar a piece. When watching this, my first impression was that it probably was from the late 80s. Later on I began thinking - the Linkin Park posters on the wall and everything else seemed to hint that I was dealing with a more recent film. Realizing that, the flick became an unbearable torment. The last 3 minutes were the longest in the movie history - the film just refused to end. Is there a genre such as \"horror for children\"? In that case this film is definitely it. If there are parents, perverse enough to want to introduce their offspring to horror, I suggest this would be perfect for kids of about 6-8. The only thing I really liked was Greg Cipes who was much too good an actor for that kind of nostalgic retro bottom part of a drive-in double-bill.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Greetings;

I never thought I would see the day when I would be so disgusted by A movie that it would be a burden to finish it... I was always a fan of horror movies, B'C and C's included. But in this case it's hard to describe how a movie could fail to qualify for any letters in that scale...

The movie is centered on a poorly developed back story, a mix of folklore with an after taste. And to top it up, the performance of the actors is questionable. Horror B movies usually fall in two categories... 1) A gem that was under looked, and under funded 2) So bad it's funny, laugh or your money back. Well this movie falls in between. I wasn't scare, didn't laugh... So I guess if you really need to see it you could but I recommend you don't...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A friend of mine, who is even more into 1970s cult films than myself, recommended this one to me and in fact gave me the copy of it that I watched. However, I was not as enthusiastic about the result as he \u0096 or, for that matter, Michael Elliott \u0096 was. The film is a hybrid of HOUSE OF WAX (1953) and THE Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974): indeed, I would venture to say that it served as the basis of the 2005 remake of the former much more than the 'original' did! So, we have a remote and derelict Wax Museum of incredibly lifelike dummies (guess why that is?) with its apparently harmless curator (a hammy Chuck Connors) being 'invaded' by the obligatory group of stranded teenagers (among them Tanya Roberts). He also has a mad brother \u0096 shades of PSYCHO (1960) incorporated for good measure, down to the self-same twist \u0096 who is supposed to be a mechanical genius (showcased in a 'poltergeist' which unaccountably accompanies the first murder). The film does benefit from a Pino Donaggio score but, being so derivative and not especially well made to boot, essentially ends up merely a redundant (and fairly muddled) genre effort.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie takes the plot behind the sci-fi flick \"Doppelganger\" (an astronaut from our Earth crashing on a 'counter-Earth' on the opposite side of the Sun, and the Cold War totalitarian vibes on that world) and tries to turn it into a pilot for a TV series. However, the whole thing sank without a trace, and TV is probably better off for it.

Everyone here is perfectly adequate in a 'made for TV' way. Cameron Mitchell turns in his usual solid performance. So does Glenn Corbett (who seems to be a kind of poor man's John Saxon) who plays the rugged individualist whose very existence poses a threat to the foundation of the 'World Order' on counter Earth.

But the low budget and low energy and inconsistent script and the lack of any real imagination in the set designs and cinematography keep this Sci-Fi adventure firmly tethered on the launch pad.

I'll give one example: in the original template for this pilot, (\"Doppleganger\"), the astronauts lose control of their landing vehicle in a thunderstorm, and crash their ship in a truly appalling sequence (it was obvious that their ship was never going to fly again). Then the two astronauts stagger helplessly from the smoking remains of their vehicle in the middle of howling rains and winds, only to be smacked down and overcome by faceless men yelling through loudspeakers.

In \"Stranded in Space\", the astronauts are sitting in their seats when buzzers sound, things start shaking, and the camera blurs into a blackout (and as a friend pointed out, it was pretty obvious that the actors were simply shaking themselves on their seats, the director wasn't even shaking the camera or the set). I've seen episodes of \"The Twilight Zone\" and \"The Outer Limits\" that took more effort to establish mood and setting than this made-for-TV mediocrity.

And that, in essence, is what's wrong with \"Stranded In Space\". No budget, no time, no imagination...just making the token gestures and hoping the sci-fi Fan Boys' imagination and enthusiasm will fill in the rest. Sorry, guys, it didn't work.

I'm sure that everyone here just finished their work on this one and walked away, and never thought of it again, except as a listing on their C.V. And that's what you, the viewer will do. You'll remember, if pressed, that you once watched a TV movie called \"Stranded In Space\", but it made no lasting impression on you, and you can't recall too much about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A malfunction in space sends astronaut Neil Stryker (Glenn Corbett) off course and headed to something of a parallel world, called Terra, circling the sun exactly opposite Earth. As a being from space would pose a threat to this world's order, Stryker is held until a determination can be made as to exactly what to do with him. Stryker, however, gets suspicious of his surroundings and escapes. With the help of a sympathetic nurse and a old scientist who opposes the government, Stryker will try to board a spaceship and head back to Earth.

Stranded in Space (or The Stranger if you prefer) is another of those 70s made-for-TV movies that was to be turned into a regular, weekly show. In this case, it's easy to see why it didn't make it. First off, there's nothing new about the show's set-up. It was undoubtedly designed to follow the same formula used by The Fugitive or The Incredible Hulk or Planet of the Apes. You know, a stranger constantly on the move going from one town to the next taking whatever odd job he can all the while being pursued by a government agency or newspaper reporter. It's a formula that's been done to death. The second strike against Stranded in Space is its lead, Glenn Corbett. Could this guy come across any less likable? I was rooting for him to get caught. Without sympathy for the main character, this kind of show would never work. Finally, this is supposed to be science fiction. Just because everyone is left-handed and someone has hung three fake looking moons on the horizon I'm supposed to jump to the conclusion that this is some distant planet? So it's a mere coincidence that they all speak English, dress just like people on Earth, and drive Plymouth Furies? Yeah, right.

The lone highlight for me was the inclusion of Cameron Mitchell in the cast. Sure, it's difficult to watch him in something this dreadful, but you know the old saying - any Cameron is better than no Cameron (yeah, I've never heard it either).

As with a lot of these 70s made-for-TV movies, I watched Stranded in Space courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I wouldn't call it a great episode by any stretch of the imagination, but there are a few good jokes along the way. So in the end, while I rate the movie a 2\/10, it gets a 3\/5 on my MST3K rating scale.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stranded in Space (1972) MST3K version - a very not good TV movie pilot, for a never to be made series, in which an astronaut finds himself trapped on Earth's evil twin. Having a planet of identical size and mass orbiting in the same plane as the earth, but on the opposite side of the sun, is a well worn SF chestnut - the idea is over 2,000 years old, having been invented by the Ancient Greeks. In this version the Counter World is run as an Orwellian 'perfect' society. Where, for totally inexplicable reasons, everyone speaks English and drives late model American cars. After escaping from his prisonlike hospital, the disruptive Earthian is chased around Not Southern California by TV and bad movie stalwart Cameron Mitchell who, like his minions, wears double breasted suits and black polo neck jumpers - a stylishly evil combination which I fully intend to adopt if ever I become a totalitarian overlord. Our hero escapes several times before ending up gazing at the alien world's three moons and wondering aloud if he will ever get home - thus setting up one of those Man Alone in a Hostile World Making a new Friend Each Week but Moving on at the End of Every Episode shows so beloved of the industry in the 70s and 80s ('The Fugitive', 'The Incredible Hulk', 'The Littlest Hobo' etc.) The curiously weirdest bit though was the title sequence. Somewhere between 'Stranded in Space' first airing (under the title 'The Stranger') in 1972 and the MST3K version in 1991 it somehow acquired some footage from the 1983 movie 'Prisoners of the Lost Universe'. So in 1991 the opening credits for 'Stranded in Space' run under a few shots of three people falling into a matter transmitter and vanishing. It's a sequence that has nothing to do - even thematically - with anything that is going to follow.

Just to add to the nerdy B movie confusion, one of the actors in this nailed on footage, Kay Lenz, later appeared in a 1994 movie called 'Trapped in Space'. Knowing this fact could never save your life but it might score you very big points and admiring looks from fellow trash movie enthusiasts - if you could ever work out a way of manoeuvring the conversation round to the point where you could casually slip it in without looking like a total idiot...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The storyline of \"The Stranger\" mirrors somewhat the 1969 film \"Journey to the Far Side of the Sun\" (made by Gerry & Sylvia Anderson of 'Thunderbirds' and 'Space: 1999' fame). A parallel-universe Earth is the premise of both films. But there is a difference. Where the world in \"The Stranger\" features a totalitarian regime out to squash the freedom of the citizenry, \"Journey to the Far Side of the Sun\" merely showed a true mirror world where handwriting, roads, houses, machinery of every kind, and of course internal organs were all in reverse (or mirrored) order. So, the similarity of parallel Earths is the only connection of both films.

Similarly, the TV series \"Land of the Giants\" came before both of those films, having run from 1968 to 1970. It featured a world that was nearly parallel to the Earth with the exception that the planet was populated by giants 12 times the size of the humans who crash-landed there. The idea of a totalitarian government out to capture and contain the 'little people' was similar to the premise of \"The Stranger\" more-so than the premise of \"JTTFSOTS\". Perhaps because of the similarly to \"LOTG\", a series to \"The Stranger\" was shelved. Had it turned into a TV series it would have been a sci-fi version of \"The Fugitive,\" with star Glenn Corbett being chased by the baddies from week to week, hiding out in different locations, etc. BTW, a stronger script could have helped this film along.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll start by confessing that I tend to really enjoy action movies (military or other). I'm a guy. But this dreck was awful. I saw it for free, showtime or hbo and still feel I paid too much. It was a prolonged episode of general hospital.

I gave it a 1, only because 0 or 0.1 was not possible. How or why 59 others would give it a rating of between 5 and 6 boggles my mind. Unless they are all family of the cast or crew.

It might be, this movie was so bad many bailed out.......and as such, were too uninvested to bother.

I'm sorry for repeating but the 10 line minimum seems silly, for what essentially boils down to a warning.........in hopes of saving others the 2 hr black hole, this movie represents. Trust me, stare at a blank wall, they'll be more action.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is so bad, I can not tear myself away. I keep asking myself, \"Why?\" \"Why?\" with every scene.

There is no continuity, but then again if you want to make a very overtly homosexual movie with a fetishistic attitude towards all things Big, Big boats, Big Boys, Big planes, then you don't have to worry about things like plot or character. I am baffled, and very concerned that the CAG looks so much like Richard Pryor. It seems wrong to put a Pryor look alike in such a terrible movie. But I can't tear myself away. This movie is the first movie I've ever reviewed. That is how phenomenally bad and bizarre it is. It motivated me to join this site. I have counted 50 main characters. Perhaps if I was stoned I could follow this, but as it is, I feel like I'm in some kind of never ending bad dream, where it is always 1988, and we were the greatest cocktry on earth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not only have I read the book and watched the movie, but I was stationed on the USS John F Kennedy when they filmed this. Needless to say, Film crews and actors can be trying to people trying to do their jobs. Now, about the movie. As a career Navy man, I was pretty upset on how they showed life on board an Aircraft Carrier. I could pick apart the inaccuracies throughout the movie (anyone that has lived on a carrier could), but that would take pages. One scene that stands out in particular was when they were in the CIC (Combat Information Center) and they were watching a RADAR contact move across the screen. Each time the contact moved, it beeped. Unfortunately, that equipment doesn't beep like that (I was a technician on that equipment). The book was based upon fact, the movie wasn't. The follow on TV series was just as bad and the Navy finally realized that support for this series would just make them look bad. If you're a Navy person, watch this to see how a movie about carrier life is seen from the eyes of Hollywood. If your not a Navy person, watch Midway or Top Gun, at least those movies are entertaining and based upon fact.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The horror of this made for TV film was that it didn't end with this one. It spawned a regular weekly series that was even worse than the pilot\/movie. Most films about various professions have some type of realism to them and of course are jazzed up to make it exciting. This had none of that. If the intent was to make in \"Camp\" then it succeeded. It resurfaced on cable a couple of years ago and failed again. Richard Jaeckels performance as the Master Chief who does it all was the only redeeming part of this film. Campier than the Batman series of the 60's.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hoped for this show to be somewhat realistic. It stroke me as just another mainstream show after I watched it. I didn't feel the characters at all, is this Americas glamorized idea of how terrorism operates? The main character doesn't act like a fundamentalist at all, and how he passes for a terrorist is beyond my comprehension. Neither of the other terrorists managed to appear genuine. One of the members, a blonde all-American white boy, would never be accepted by Muslim terrorists in real life. Another member, a french ex-skinhead, doesn't quite fit in an Islamic terror movement. On top of this the terrorists have sexual relations to white American housewives, which I find very strange. This is just another stupid misguiding American TV show. It is about just as realistic as Prison Break.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very dull show. Whats worse, its very racist. The white guys are dumb idiots and the only romance is between a black guy and a white woman. There is nothing interesting about this romance, it is not exciting, it is not fun, they don't even seem to care for each other at all, its more like the writers and directors wanted an interracial thing going on. Why this is so popular in media today? It is social programming and will lead to no good, there is always tension when too many people want the same thing. This show is not worth the 20 bucks for the season, its a waste of time and harmful to society. At least when they use TV shows to sell products they are more discreet, selling whatever agenda here is quite obvious, and without clear thinking some may feel wrong to oppose it, but some of us know better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yeah, there's a \"sleeper\" watching Sleeper Cell and it was me. After reading comparisons to \"24\" (like on the cover of the DVD), I expected a fast-paced action romp. But nope... this series just putts along. In my groggy half-awake state I would think, \"He's gonna... \" and, poof, it would happen... \"Guess that van is gonna roll off the... \" and there she goes.

And so on.

And why would Darwyn, in extra-deep cover, pursue a babe? Could it be, perhaps, to provide a little T&A? Hey, that works for me, hence four stars rather than three.

This show is no \"24\". I've watched \"24\". Sleeper Cell, you're no \"24\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought sleeper cell was interesting, and exciting to watch, up until the last episode, when nothing happens, its F****** BS, you Americans portray Muslims as terrorists, and the Americans as hero's, its the other way around, i hate it when every American TV show ends up predictable, i was hoping the bombs would go off in that stadium, but i knew it would'nt, it takes the joy out of watching it when you know that the good guys are going to save the day, yet again, Americans are the biggest terrorists, g bush the leader of them all, he is to blame for 9\/11, and I'm P***** off that you keep throwing these shows at us, which are all the f****** same! i've a good show about terrorism, its called \" The Whitehorse\" and bush himself the cell leader, its the same with 24, how ever 24 was good, sleeper cell is a mock and should never make a season 2, its F***** joke! and so are you American producers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've been looking forward to watching \"Wirey Spindell\" since having happened across Schaffer's \"Fall\". Unfortunately, I found \"WS\" to be a wandering, unengaging, boring bunch of claptrap pieced together with, what apparently is Schaeffer's signature, a mix of story, narration, and poetry. The film recounts the sexual and other experiences of a Manhattan man about to be married through self-narrated flashbacks. Like beads on a string, Schaffer apparently has strung together every little sexual life experience, while neglecting to tend to the beauty of the necklace. The result is a disjointed rambling story about a boy growing up which fails to engender empathy and leaves the viewer disconnected, unsatisfied, and with a bad after taste which taints the mechanical feel-good ending. A mediocre indie and a step backward for Schaeffer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seeing as how I am a big fan of both \"Fall\" and \"If Lucy Fell\", I came to \"Wirey Spindell\" with high expectations. I am not sure I could have been more disappointed. This had it all, weak dialogue, weak performances... you name it I was let down. Oh well, better luck next time Eric.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is supposed to be the story of the life of a man named Wirey Spindell from age 8 through to 36 told in narrative by the character at each age point in his life. So for example, when he's eight, it's the eight year old's voice that is doing the narration; when he's in junior high, it's that one doing the narration, etc. That's about the only interesting thing about this movie. It looks like each actor playing Wirey is a separate character. Not only do they not look alike, their life experiences don't seem to match up.

Avoid this movie like a bad cold.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually can tolerate twisted movies, but this one is really a sick obsessive self-absorbed movie!

Firstly, the writer\/director is totally a self-absorbed guy full of sick jokes that are not funny at all. Secondly, he is also a sick pervert who manipulates and poisons children's mind! I can't believe my ears when I heard the sick and perverted monologues spoken by the kids!

I really feel sorry for Zane Adlum and Devon Matthews. They are both very talented, but fell prey to Eric Schaeffer's dirty little-known movie!

And what the hell happened to Eric Mabius' good looking face? I mean, he met this girl that he's supposed to marry, but he wasn't in the wedding! In fact there is this bald guy in his place! Did time really fly that fast?

Anyway, don't waste your time to see this movie, unless you want to be poisoned and manipulated by one sick Eric Schaeffer!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alright, so not every Australian movie is all that good. Yes, maybe there have actually been very few with much merit. Take Away however is an absolute bomb, qualifying as one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I wanted to like it. I figured I'd give it a fair go. I've even met one of the screen writers Dave O'neil so I feel kind of a traitor giving this movie a bad review, but... The plot is fairly thin (I won't bother relating it... read the synopsis), which I can forgive: there are plenty of movies that can cover that up with a few decent jokes. Unfortunately, Take Away's jokes cover its plot up like a $2 prostitute's skirt. Probably the only laughs that came from the 6 other people in the cinema was at the poor acting and dialogue. Take Away goes down like a week old Dim sim ... You might understand that joke if you see the film but the joke's not worth it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Someone told me that Pink Flamingos was, in a word, \"insane\". Now I'm doubting whether this guy actually ever saw it, because that isn't the way I would summarize it in one word. Disgusting, absurd, um, more disgusting...would do it. Every time you think it can't get any more filthy, it does. One of my particular \"favorites\" was when Divine had her birthday party and when the cops came to bust it up, they were butchered and eaten by the guests. I admit that it's one of those movies where it's so grotesque you simply can't look away, but this is by no means a creative work of art. It's pure shock value.

On the upside, it makes the Jackass guys look like a bunch of pussies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"if i could rate it a zero i would , coming from someone who likes shock\/exploitation films of the time and Waters overall i must say this is useless.

It does nothing , serves nothing , an idiot with a camera and a urge to prove his cleverness by rebeling against social standards is all this comes off as.

Its entirely amateur , both in principle and execution , it doesn't have a point , its digusting for the sake of disgusting ,obscene with the wit of a neanderthal , its useless.

Someone said Waters was probably \"chuckling\" over all the bad press and disgust others gave with this film , but why? If i made a short film depicting a man in a bathroom taking a sh*t for ten minutes straight surely it would receive the same accomidations but why would i be proud or \"chuckle\" at that?

Would it be because i am so unintelligent that i have to resort to this so i can say \"HA! Take that censors and mainstream! Im so rebellious ill do whatever i want and film it!\" No.

Waters shouldn't be proud of this mess , fans of waters shouldn't watch it , its useless , that is , without any use.

Its doesn't even fit under the criteria of art for arts sake.

To like or defend this movie is to defend something that was designed purposely as being anti-culture to be pushed for the mainstream audience , in modern terms this film is the Hot Topic of films.

Useless and Obsolete. A Poser film that demands it be acknowledged as rebellion .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen most of John Waters' films. With the exception of several of his very early ones which are not available, I have actually seen just about all of them, so it's obvious I am a big fan and it's certain that I have a high tolerance for the gross and irreverent in his films. While way over the top and disgusting, I adored FEMALE TROUBLE and POLYESTER--two monumental tributes to bad taste and excess that are seriously funny films. So I am certainly NOT squeamish and can take most of what Waters has to offer. However, in PINK FLAMINGOS he has created a film so repellent, so unfunny and so offensive that I couldn't even stand it. In his other films he made before he became more mainstream, they were funny. Yet here, the humor just isn't there as it seems the intent is to shock the viewers and not entertain them in any way. I am glad that after making this film, Waters' sense of humor improved, as Divine consuming dog feces (as in this film) is shocking but not the least bit entertaining. My advice is to skip this film and just pretend it never happened and then watch his infinitely better films of the 70s and 80s.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I guess I was prepared after all the years of hearing about it. First heard about it from Siskel and Ebert. When they said Divine ate excrement, I had to look it up. Then a friend told me about it in 1991. She said also that her parents saw it when it first came out and that her mom almost dumped her dad over it! So by the time I caught Pink Flamingos on Sundance today, I was prepared. For the most part.

I still couldn't help but be surprised by the anal close-ups and the blowjob scene. That said, the only characters I sympathized with were Edie and the egg man. Her crying scene early in the film, though over something frivolous to normal people, actually makes me sad. Though she sure wasn't pretty, she had a cute voice. I was happy for her and the egg man, and they actually touched me.

On the other hand, the acting in this poverty-level production was not good. And as for the script, just how does John Waters come up with this stuff? Well, at least it's different.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I haven't given this film an awful rating is because I feel that it was such an awful film in every aspect that it deserves at the very least a 2\/10; for not trying.

The plot is the least of your worries as you are slapped in the face with over the top language and scenes like 'the singing arse-hole' in a poor attempt to shock and disgust. Seen as the main aim of this film is to shock and the main body of it didn't achieve this, the final scene disgustingly manages to erase the memory of this shockingly pointless film and fulfil its aim to be the most filthy film ever.

A really low budget film, awfully acted and the dialogue is shockingly bad.

I give it 0\/10 really !!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After seeing Forever Hollywood, it would be natural to want to see a John Waters film. At least, one get to say that they have joined the legions of cinema cognoscenti who have experienced the unique cinematic stylings of perhaps the best known non-mainstream director. It's worth the effort, and PF is a lot better than Eraserhead,and there is a certain campiness about his films which his followers find addicting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was playing on Lifetime Movie Network last month and I decided to check it out. I watched for the first 20 minutes and then shut it off b\/c I am sorry but plot holes that are integral to a movie's plot make the movie nothing but garbage.

The movie is about a woman who accidentally runs a child on a bicycle off the road, leaves to get help, returns only to find out that it's being called a hit and run and there's a hunt for the 'monster' that hurt (in the end killed) her.

This is a movie about a female in an affluent neighborhood who has 2 small grade school children and who is an active, sociable woman and yet in order for this movie to work, it needs to be believable that she does not own a CELL PHONE. Sorry, but that's complete BS especially when everyone else seems to have one - they used theirs to call 911 when they found the girl lying on the side of the road - when our lead female left the scene of the crime to go phone 911 at some payphone. When the lead female comes back, the ambulance is already at the girl's side and there is chatter about how horrible the person is who hit and left her.

Just DUMB. Sorry but I am not willing buy that this woman doesn't own a cell phone which is needed for the movie to work. Please don't insult my intelligence movie, thanks. Maybe if this took place in 1970 or 1960, I'd buy it but it's clearly a present day (1999 at the time) movie. ..but wait, if she had a cell phone, there would be no movie. Pfft.

The woman clearly knows about technology since she had computers in her house, ones the kids played games on so all the movie had to do was make her cell phone dead in the car, making her resort to another way to call the cops.. leaving out a cell phone altogether just created a ridiculous plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thomas Vinterbergs \"De St\u00f8rste Helte\" is yet another road movie without the most important element of a film: a good story. The characters are not very original and not particularly interesting. Especially Thomas Bo Larsen is a pain in the neck, playing the same role he has played in the past few years and which he repeated in \"Festen\" - it seems as if he thinks acting = being angry and screaming at other people! The film doesn't make much too sense and isn't very funny either - although it tries hard to be \"kooky\" and \"weird\". If you're going to make a road movie, why not add something original to the genre?!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The DEA agent's name, Anslinger, is a nice inside joke - this is the name of the former drug czar who almost single-handedly made marijuana illegal.

Despite this bit of book knowledge, the writers go on to have the farmers harvesting and selling fresh undried leaf, rather than cured buds.

Additionally, I always find it amusing that movie makers never seem to be able to find real marijuana plants for filming. You would think there would be a business that would make real looking fake ones for the movie business or maybe they could film a couple of scenes in Amsterdam or Switzerland. I suppose that's asking too much for the budget.

Probably the most interesting thing about the film is the attempt to cover the notion of exactly what is right and what is wrong in society and how the law treads that line and yet tries to do justice in spite of it.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(Spoilers) \"Cash Crop\" goes something like this. Down-on-their-luck farmers grow pot to make ends meet. DEA agent blows into town. Farmers hide the pot. DEA agent leaves town. End of story.

This flick features solid performances by some second tier actors, mediocre direction, and a so-so screenplay...but it ain't got no story. And since the story is the foundation of every drama, \"Cash Crop\" is an utter failure. Too boring to recommend.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I caught this on Cinemax very late at night...nothing else was on so I pretty much had no choice. Bottom line, terrible plot, slow, waste of good film and actors' time. To make it short, don't even bother with this one. It's too bad we can't give zeros as a rating; this one really is not worth even a consideration!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the dreary tale of the self absorbed affair between two unlikable people, one of whom is married to someone else. It ranks high on my list of most boring movies ever, and I'm a die hard romantic. My husband opted out after the first hour of its three, by which time little had transpired. The desert scenery is spectacular, with the endless sand and the sunshine on Katharine's golden hair. However, cinematography does not a brilliant film make, unless it's a National Geographic travelogue. The magnificent Saharan scenery in this ill conceived tale is like putting perfume on a pig.

The movie revolves around a badly burned, dying pilot named Count Laszlo de Almasy, who is left in the care of a Canadian army nurse, Hana, during World War II Italy. He appears to remember little of his life but through a book in his possession, his story is VERY SLOWLY revealed, with the help of a man from his past named Caravaggio, who mysteriously appears at his deathbed. Almasy was a Hungarian cartographer employed by the Royal Geographical Society to chart the Sahara Desert. He entered into an affair with the wife, Katherine, of a fellow explorer who proved to be a British spy. Meanwhile in the present, Laszlo's nurse has her own affair with a Sikh nicknamed Kip, who is involved in the dangerous work of disarming mines.

My quarrels with this movie are many, length and tedium for starters. I don't fault the acting in particular, it simply isn't a good story. Caravaggio seems unnecessary, his connection to Almasy sketchy. He provides a torture scene but appears to serve no essential purpose in the film.

The core problem is that the two parties of this affair, Almasy and Katharine, are woefully unsympathetic characters, shallow and dull. They simply aren't very nice, thus there is no one to cheer for. Almasy is cool, aloof, haughty, and eventually disgustingly possessive of another man's wife. Katharine is likewise detached and nasty, not to mention having a deplorable lack of guilt or feeling whatsoever for her imperfect but loving husband...apart from managing one minuscule tear at the corner of her eye when he dies.

This is a tale of LUST rather than love, with such pearls as 'I can still taste you'. Almasy ridiculously vocalizes to a colleague his erotic obsession with the indentation in his beloved's neck, surely more indicative of a focus on Katharine's body. The victim of this unrepentant adultery is the hapless husband, Geoffrey, who is treated as little more than an unpleasant nuisance. It's all quite sordid and disgusting, Katharine's charade of feeling faint so that these lovers can indulge in their much vaunted unbridled passion, all as Silent Night is being sung in the background. I'm not sure whether the intent was to contrast the carol's purity with their selfish lust, but I definitely was not impressed by the sacrilegious undertone. We have full frontal nudity with Katharine, but their sex scenes come across as cold, selfish, lustful, and sometimes downright hateful...not warm, loving, giving, nor even truly passionate. If either of these two feels any emotion for the other, it is a totally selfish one and definitely NOT love, as I define the word.

Almasy's return to the Cave of the Swimmers to retrieve the body of his beloved comes across as contrived rather than moving. Katharine must have expired only moments earlier as she shows excellent colour and barely appears dozing, not at all corpse like. Of course this is all for dramatic effect, as the romantics watching this tale (normally I'd be one of them) would not appreciate a decaying, putrid corpse. In order to retrieve his adulterous lover's body, he has betrayed his comrades & the Allies by giving his maps to the Nazis, the English being cast as the villains of the piece. Regardless of whether or not he's keeping his final promise to Katharine, his traitorous act is not something I admire much.

Kip seems a pleasant fellow and Hana generally likable, but their romance is not in the least engaging, merely a brief wartime fling with the parties indicating little trauma upon parting. Moving back and forth between the two settings (past Sahara Desert and present Italy) proved distracting and unpleasant but really, both stories were dull as dishwater. The only spark of interest in the whole picture was Kip's tense mine disarming scene.

Not being totally heartless, I did have some sympathy for the current Almasy's severely burned and dying state. However, perhaps my major complaint with this film is the euthanasia at the end when Hana obliges her patient by giving him a morphine overdose. We are supposed to feel that this is justified and morally acceptable because she obviously has affection for Almasy, cries while she is preparing the deadly syringe, and reads aloud from his allegedly passionate Herodotus book to console him as he's dying.

The amazing director David Lean's masterpieces should not be insulted by comparison with this pathetic, immoral tale. Yes, Lawrence of Arabia also has a desert, but in Lean films (Doctor Zhivago, Brief Encounter), those engaging in affairs are sympathetic characters exhibiting admirable restraint, guilt, and some regard for the betrayed spouse, as opposed to the total self absorption of this pair. In Ryan's Daughter, the cuckold husband displays touching loyalty and forgiveness.

This movie is a supposedly intellectual, enormously over rated bit of boring and disgusting drivel that unfortunately passes itself off as a great love story. Its Best Picture Oscar does not speak well for the Academy. For those who wonder why people are so hard on this movie, the answer is simple. It's awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am not surprised to find user comments for this film full of gushy nonsense, such as that this film \"[proves] that when it is predestined, love will find a way.\" I begin in this way, not to criticize a specific reviewer, but because this citation so typifies the hyperbolic, uncritical treacle that was poured out over this film, even before it hit the theaters. Even the best of films do not \"prove\" anything, nor are they intended to. The best films entertain and move the viewer, and \"The English Patient\" fails on both criteria.

I remember the studio's promotion of \"The English Patient\" very clearly: \"From the producers of 'Amadeus' and 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,'\" it grandly announced. An ignorant or careless listener might miss the crucial word, \"producers,\" in this disingenuous statement and mistakenly associate the director of \"The English Patient,\" so very inappropriately, with the truly great director, Milos Forman. Such a comparison is offensive to the memory of Mr. Forman.

While the novel by Michael Ondaatje upon which the film was based, is a good one, it is unfortunate that the film failed to capture any quality of the book in any way whatsoever. Aside from plot elements that seem only coincidentally similar, the film bears little resemblance to the novel.

Despite misgivings which began when I heard that shamelessly misleading promotion, I went to see this film in the theater. As it began to unfold, I realized that the rendering of the novel's peculiar magic had failed, that the actors knew their words but not their characters, and that their characters were flat, dull, and unengaging. The film was a complete travesty of Ondaatje's novel and a completely still-born cinematic artifact of the worst description.

Those who gush over this film are very apt to speak with adjectives like, \"sweeping,\" and \"grand,\" and \"hypnotic.\" Well, it is none of those. In fact, not even Ondaatje's fine novel could be described as \"sweeping\" or \"grand.\" It could be described as \"magical\" and \"hypnotic\" -- yet these are precisely the qualities that the film so utterly failed to deliver. It is almost as if Minghella had, as a reader, entirely missed what was valuable in the novel and could grind out on celluloid only a pale, skeletal version, a version that not only missed the spirit of the story, but that focused on the wrong characters. He produced a filmic transliteration that not only had no respect for story's metaphors but no apparent cognizance of them, as well.

Minghella took the central focus away from Hana and Kip and put it on the Patient and Katherine Clifton, thereby missing the narrative trail of the novel as well as the \"essence\" of it.

Ralph Fiennes and Kristen Scott Thomas put in unengaging, uninspiring, uninvolving, unemotional performances that were obviously intended to convey a great, driving, passionate love-affair to the viewer, but which in fact delivered only an inexplicable, perfunctory liaison between two flat, shallow, uninteresting adulterers. Both actors are physically and emotionally inadequate and unexciting, and neither performance provided the viewer with the great emotional response obviously intended by Minghella's grandiose and overblown presentation.

The \"grand, sweeping, David-Lean-like\" qualities to which the many undiscriminating reviewers of this goofy film love to refer simply is not there. The comparison to David Lean (\"Dr. Zhivago\") is positively insulting to yet another great director. Take, for example, the \"Patient's\" sandstorm scene, which is no doubt one wherein these \"grand, sweeping\" qualities are believed to have resided (or should have resided): the sandstorm is not grand -- it is not even convincing. The subsequent burying of the characters in the automobile and their emergence after the storm, which no doubt was supposed to affect the viewer dramatically and emotionally, completely lacked either drama or emotion --in fact, because it was so patently weak, it had an air of comedy about it where comedy was clearly out of place.

This film failed. It failed as a rendering of the novel, and it failed as a film. It seems to have been the \"anointed Oscar vehicle\" of the year (joining such over-trumpeted filmic slosh as \"Kramer vs. Kramer\" or \"Terms of Endearment\"). One can only thank God that even the hype-driven Acadamy

had the good sense to present the Best Actress award to Frances McDormand for her truly deserving performance in the truly excellent film, \"Fargo.\" There was not a single performance in the execrable \"English Patient\" that was not either embarrassingly horrid over-acting (Willem Dafoe) or truly forgettable, mediocre acting (Fiennes and Scott Thomas).

Why this non-entity of a film retains a coven of fanatical (and clearly tasteless) devotees will remain a mystery. Fortunately, the sands of time will bury this mediocrity of a film permanently, and it will not, thankfully, have the strength ever to dig itself out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, what was this story about again? I am afraid that I never read the book and frankly, this was one of the most confusing movies that I have ever tried to watch in a long time. I get a bit confused on the number of flashbacks between the nurse, the patient and the man with no thumbs. The film didn't even really explain what they were looking for in the desert until they found it; or even how in the world they all knew each other to come together.

After recently seeing the \"Pride and Prejudice\" movie with Colin Firth, I have been trying to do a study on his film career by watching other movies of his, and bluntly, other than \"What a Girl Wants\" I am not finding much where he played in that was any good. I am definitely not saying that HE wasn't good. He is really one of the best actors I have seen in the modern day film, but the content and quality of the films he plays in have a lot to be desired.

\"The English Patient\" is another perfect example of where the director, writer, and crew are just too close to their subject matter to see that the viewer is not getting the picture \u0096 literally. The entire movie seemed to be to showcase Ralph Fiennes as a dramatic actor with long periods of emoting that was a bore. Nothing is really explained and every one of the subjects from the beginning seems to need a psychoanalyst evaluation!

Kristin Scott Thomas' character seems to enjoy describing erotic stories standing in front of a totally male audience and titillating other men other than her husband; Colin Firth, who plays her husband, does not necessarily have all his marbles in place and is supposed to be a secret agent \u0096 I guess; and Ralph Fiennes walks around like a Roman Mr. Darcy (sorry, Colin!) who thinks he knows it all. The rest of the cast is cast (pun intended) to the four winds as the plot wanders on.

The subplot of the mental stability of the nurse (Juliette Binoche) and her motives and involvement with Naveen Andrews is another confusing element that leaves the viewer with an unsavory taste. But of course, the viewer is still reeling how in the world the first two characters (Thomas and Fiennes) ended up having sex the first time anyway. What was the attraction? There was no chemistry and no build-up. Just a slap, bam, thank you!

And isn't it romantic that Fiennes ended up a traitor helping the Germans by giving them maps to the desert? (sarcasm)

To describe this movie, I would have to simply say, \"How to impress your gynecologist with your mammograms and cheat on your sweet, adorable husband who loves you.\"

The final unbelievable section of this plot is to fathom how anyone would choose Ralph Fiennes over Colin Firth. Firth had very little opportunity to demonstrate any of his acting talents \u0096 in fact, when watching the movie, I thought it must have been one of his first. The scene where he had been waiting for his wife all night was perhaps the only two second clip that is worth seeing in the movie. At that, I have no interest in watching it again.

The best scene I liked was the plane crash where Firth is trying to take them all out. Too bad he missed! It would have saved an extra twenty minutes of even more fruitless film. Aerial desert scenes were pretty neat, though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is beyond me why two million Danish people each week sit down to watch this terrible show. The dialogue is terrible and not realistic. The characters are hollow and simplistic. There's a tough man, a tough woman and a sensitive man. The writers actually say that they have modeled the characters after Greek mythology! Give me a break! All the characters are of course brilliant policemen. When I have watched this show I have longed for \"District Hill Street\" and \"NYPD Blue\". These are brilliant shows, and \"Rejseholdet\" is a lousy copy. This program is a symptom of the disease Danish television is currently suffering from.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wings Hauser and son, Cole Hauser team up to make a film about Neo-nazi thugs targeting a gay man, and terrorising a city. Wings plays the hero, and his real-life son is the villain. Fairly low-budget film that has not many redeeming features, and for some reason, no one has seen it! Perhaps because it is quite a laughable and ridiculous film, and the studio realised this! Maybe Wings Hauser himself prevented the distribution of 'Skins', after seeing it himself! Maybe people just didn't want to comment on such a bad film! Oh well! I generally like Wings and Cole as actors, but this was a film that they both should have skipped. Wings directed, wrote and was the lead actor in 'Skins'! An extremely bad and stupid film! 1\/2 out of *****!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this film awhile ago and the only thing i can remember about the film is how absolutely horribly outstandingly bad it was its definitely in my top 5 worst films i have ever seen.And to think i had to persuade my mates to get this film out at the video shop,my reputation has been shot to bits because of this film will my mates ever trust me again?i doubt it,they always say don't judge something by its cover,they were right when i saw the cover to skins\/gang boys i thought wow this looks great as it had a load of skin heads on the front cover running riot with metal bars.Don't WATCH THIS FILM.i can't think of anything else to say the acting is bad the story is bad its just bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a big fan of The ABC Movies of the Week genre. I am only 27, meaning I wasn't even born until after the series ended, but I am trying to collect as many of them on DVD as possible. I have about a dozen or so. I had read such wonderful things about this film, both on here and elsewhere, that I was really excited to see it. I just received my DVD in the mail today and watched it anxiously. I'll admit that the first one or two phone calls did give me the creeps - that boy's voice would give anyone the creeps! But it began to ware off fast and the entire divorce subplot was stupid. I also figured out that Michael Douglas was the antagonist about a half an hour before the movie ended. As soon as that story was told about how Elizabeth Ashley's character had locked up his mother, I knew something was fishy. Plus, didn't anyone ever think to ask him why he happened to suddenly appear that night when the fire occurred in the barn? I'll admit that I thought he was coaching a boy at the school to make the phone calls. I didn't guess the mute boy part or the pre-recorded tapes (did they ever say whose voice that actually was? I doubt Douglas could ever get his voice that high?).

I am only giving this movie a four out of ten because I actually liked most of the acting in it. Ashley especially is great.

It's a shame, because this movie has such a great premise, but oh well, thats what happens sometimes when one gets his or her hopes up for a movie too much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After starting watching the re-runs of old Columbo movies, I thought they would all get about the same vote from me (6). But apparently I'm now starting to see differences in the movies. It happened in some of just previous episodes, that showed some pretty genius directing, and it shows in this one, but in the negative way.

The movie was so boring, that I sometimes found myself occupied peaking in the paper instead of watching (never happened during a Columbo movie before!), and sometimes it was so embarrassing that I had to look away. The directing seems too pretentious. The scenes with the \"oh-so-mature\" neighbour-girl are a misplace. And generally the lines and plot is weaker than the average episode. Then scene where they debated whether or not to sack the trumpeter (who falsely was accused for the murder) is pure horror, really stupid.

Some applause should be given to the \"prelude\" however. In this episode, a lot of focus is given on how the murderer tries to secure his alibi and hide the evidence etc. I really liked that. But alas, no focus on how Columbo reveals all this. And the \"proof\" that in the end leaves Columbo victorious is the silliest ever.

Rating: lies between 4 and 5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After a snowstorm, the roads are blocked and the highway patrolman Jason (Adam Beach) comes to the diner of his friend Fritz (Jurgen Prochnow) and advises his clients that they will only be able to follow their trips on the next day. Among the weird strangers, Jason meets his former sweetheart Nancy (Rose McGowan), who has just left her husband in Los Angeles. Along the night, without any communication with his base, Jason faces distressful and suspicious situations with the clients, and finds some corpses, indicating that among them there is a killer.

\"The Last Stop\" could be an average thriller, but the screenplay is simply awful. Most of the characters are despicable persons and the motives of the surprising serial killer are never disclosed, and the viewers have no further explanation why the killer decided to kill the guests. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): \"Encurralados\" (\"Trapped\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie while surfing through infomercials and late-night 80's sitcoms on tv one night at 2 in the morning. I must say, I didn't expect much, and I didn't get much. Although Rose McGowan is hot, her performance and the performance of the rest of the cast was not Oscar-worthy, to say the least. This movie has its ups and downs, and does have a nice couple of twists at the end, but in all honesty it was awful. Not even a typical slasher movie. No gore, no sex, no nudity, no real violence. Just bad acting. I'd give it a 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Put the film down and back slowly away. The acting rivals a highschool play, the plot is treadworn, and the production values are slightly higher than community theater. The goofs are so plentiful that it becomes a laugher. Rooms are switched around, the dead move, dogs are used for wolves, men shot point blank with .45 caliber pistols are able to walk and ride snowmobiles, blouses button and unbutton without human touch... this is a baaaaaaaaaddddddd movie. I nearly passed out when I saw the average rating. There is no accounting for taste. BTW, there is no nudity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this attempt at a \"thriller\" would have no substance at all! Some may state that this movie \"has it all?\" Autism, arson, robbery, lost love, a bag of money, cut throats, murder, blood, a snub nosed revolver, clenched teeth groaning, boobs (various definitions can be used), large flashlights, tribal people, a brother duo attempting to out-portray \"dumb and dumber,\" white wolves, fight scenes that resemble \"happy slapping,\" snow mobile(s), a large tracked vehicle, and a motel under renovation? All this, with an \"Enyanesque\" melody toward the end ...

Perhaps my rating is a bit harsh, but one viewing will certainly be enough for the sane cinemaphile with nothing else to do.

Yeowza!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bette Midler is the best thing about this movie. It is a POOR second to the original from 1962 with Natalie Wood as Gypsy. The songs were done much better in the original and the costumes were better. Bette's voice was great and she looked better in most of the costumes compared to Cynthia Gibb. Only someone who has not seen the original would think this a good movie.

There was not enough of a change between ugly duckling to beautiful girl. When Natalie Wood was Gypsy she only was seen as beautiful when she got into the dress with her gloves for the first time to perform in the burlesque show. When she has her hair down and then magically it is all done up beautifully and she looks so elegant, it is an important aspect to the movie because it is also the first time Gypsy sees herself as something special and that she might actually be a star, not just a poor substitute to her sister. And the scenes where she slowly becomes more famous were rushed through. It was an important part of the movie and they butchered it. It is critical to show her becoming more comfortable with her future as a stripper and the costumes are amazing in these scenes in the original. It was a huge let down to watch it unfold in this movie. I was completely disappointed and had it not been for Bette Midler I would have shut the movie off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Such a highly-anticipated remake of a cherished musical classic and such a bitter pill it was to have to take. Very, very hard to swallow...all of it. It didn't have an ounce of believability anywhere. And when you don't have a Rose, you don't have a show.

Bette Midler seemed born to play this part. Yet, all she was able to produce was a cute, funny, glitzy, trademark Bette Midler...weighed down with all the familiar Midlerisms. Roz Russell has nothing to worry about. She can rest in her grave knowing she is still the definitive Mama Rose (of film, anyway).

I thought Midler was really going to put it across this time...to throw herself into what is one of the greatest musical roles of all time...like she did in \"The Rose.\" But, no, she played it safe. She played herself. She made Rose a total dinner-theatre cartoon. Even her songs were uninspired. It was maddening to watch, knowing Midler has the talent to rise above her money-making schtick. She showed promise only once in this \"Gypsy\" and that was with \"Rose's Turn.\" But, by then it was too little, too late.

A sincere Cynthia Gibb as the titular heroine gave the film its only true spark and when the role of Gypsy outshines that of Rose, you know there's trouble in River City.

A huge, huge letdown.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film was disappointing. I saw it on Broadway with Bernadette Peters and she was outstanding. Maybe as she, herself graps on to the end of her musical career, her condtion of desperatation lands her in role that she flaunts, re-invents and triumps as her own. Bette's singing is always belted, always flat and lacking to show her ability as an actress. To be entertaining, this performance was dying for a stronger lead and a stronger cast, so that the others would be memorable in Bette's absence. Another criticism: she smiles directly into the camera every time she start singing! I know it is musical theater, but please leave some grace sociale-- Middler cannot perform like Liza or Streisand might in a retrospective tour - out of character and out of context.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me start by saying how much I love the TV series. The nature of class war was always going to be a subject worthy of poking fun at, but this TV series exploits it better than most. The chemistry between Yootha Joyce and Brian Murphy was always electrifying and the writers wrote almost entirely flawless episodes every time. In my opinion, it is the best British sitcom of the mid to late-1970s, surpassing the likes of RISING DAMP, ROBIN'S NEST, ARE YOU BEING SERVED? and so on. With the ON THE BUSES series having finished a few years earlier, GEORGE AND MILDRED became the next pride and joy of ITV (or ITV 1 as it's now known), enjoying a four-year run on the channel.

The movie however is absolutely terrible in almost every respect. The general essence of the TV series has almost entirely been stripped by the writers of this abysmal movie (who anyone will immediately notice are not the same ones who worked on the series). As one commenter has already pointed out, Mildred lacks the sharpness she had on the TV series and does not come across as anywhere near as overbearing.

The plot, instead of focusing on the class war with the Fourmiles that was the very foundation of the TV series, actually writes out the Fourmiles almost entirely after the first half-hour. The plot, if you can call it that, consists of George and Mildred going on holiday to some hotel and getting mixed up with gangsters. First rate talent in the form of Stratford Johns, Kenneth Cope, David Barry and Sue Bond are all wasted here. Most of these are well past their heyday and all of them look very embarrassed as if they very well know that the only thing worth hanging around for is a paycheck (which probably won't be much).

The jokes and gags in the movie (if you can call them that) rely heavily upon traditional British farce, including mistaken identities, embarrassing situations, poorly-timed slapstick, characters losing control of what is happening to them and general confusion. And it all fails miserably. As another commenter has pointed out, it seems as though the writers of this movie have never seen an episode of the TV series and instead crafted out a something resembling a CARRY ON romp. The scene where George is stripped down by Sue Bond's character is particularly out of context.

A mystery surrounding this movie is the BBFC certification provided - 15. Just why is it rated 15 when all there is to see is harmless, non-vulgar entertainment?

Not surprisingly the era of sitcom spin-of came to an end not long after this movie was released (shortly after the sad death of Yootha Joyce). And the company behind this movie, Hammer, well known for producing first rate horror movies back in the 1950s to mid 1970s, soon disappeared into total obscurity.

All in all, the movie is a near total washout. My advice - skip this and stick to the TV series. You won't be missing anything, I assure you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"George & Mildred - The Movie lacks the talents of its TV writer John Mortimer who brings the close quarter cut and thrust of George's class war with the Fourmiles alive.

The plot is cut from standard spin-off cloth - hit-man\/mistaken identity - and has as little tension as there are laughs. The producers should have taken a leaf from Rising Damp, (also 1980)which was also bought to the big screen after the TV series demise, and kept much of the story in familiar setting.

Yootha Joyce died in 1980 but she should not be remembered for this creaking piece of work encumbered as she was by her illness. Mildred lacks the sharpness of her TV incarnation; cutting asides and withering looks largely directed at Georges lack of libido. George's sputtering incredulity also gets lost in the more expansive sets. This is not to say that they were much to shout about. The budget for this movies looks pathetically small; a restaurant they go to is clearly a new semi-starched house with some Christmas lights adorning the front door.

For fans of 70's British comedy or those who just want to revisit an old TV companion from their youth this film can add nothing to the experience and they should just stick to the first four TV series out now on DVD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"George and Mildred is a truly unfunny film. This attempt to translate the successful TV series to the big screen was a dismal failure, as is so often the case.

The wit and clever one-liners from the TV shows have gone missing. The plot is a typical English farce of confused characters and mistaken identities, which is neither funny enough nor weird enough to provoke many decent laughs.

Die-hard George and Mildred fans might want to see this final episode of the pair's output (Mildred died of hepatitis before the film was released), but others should invest their time more wisely.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"G&M started a the odd couple downstairs in Man About the House and went on to amusing the nation in their own sitcom.

What was the typical small-scale personal charm of the couples chemistry on the small screen, G&M's transferral to the big screen was as appalling as genuis's Morcombe and Wise, and countless fine TV shows.

Unfunny. Unsatisfying and featuring an ill Yootha Joyce who died before the film was released.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"GEORGE AND MILDRED was a spin off from the mid 1970s sit-com MAN ABOUT THE HOUSE . Though I haven't seen the series since it was last broadcast I do remember it being fairly amusing with most of the comedy arising from the eponymous couple going to live beside the snobbish Fourmile family , a sort of LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR without the cynical racist gags .

Having seen this \" big screen version of the show \" I find myself asking what it's a big screen version of ? Certainly not of a popular mid 70s sit com of the same name . For some reason the movie jettisons all character interaction from the television by having George and Mildred leaving the street where they live behind and getting caught up in a plot involving some serious gangsters who want something George has inadvertently picked up and which leads to some cringe making situations and lines like:

\" Did he give it to you \"

\" No that's the first time a man has resisted my charms \"

\" I meant the envelope \"

You do get the impression that screenwriter Dick Sharples ( Who never wrote an episode for the original sit-com ) has never seen an episode of the source material and has got the show confused with the CARRY ON series of films . In many ways it resembles the same mistakes of the latter LOST IN SPACE movie in that it has absolutely nothing in common with the series that spawned it","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This adaption contains two parts:

1. The \"now\" time, when Gulliver is at home in England and soon is put into a mental asylum by the Evil Dr. Bates

2. The \"described\" time, in which Gulliver describes his travels.

The times are interspersed with a very choppy tempo, which makes willing suspense of disbelief far more difficult than it would have been if the movie simply would have discarded that part, and followed the book as written. In the book, there is no Dr. Bates, no asylum, and Mrs Gulliver gets very little mention. The travels - in plural - are depicted as one in the movie. There are several movies covering the topic of sane people dumped into asylum by some nasty person out there, look at them if you want that stuff. The \"now\" time part adds absolutely nothing to the story's value, is a complete invention by the movie adapters, and takes valuable time from the real story. All the time when this was going on I was longing for the next bit of real travel to be shown.

So much for the drawbacks. The parts which actually are part of the real story are well done, and the CGI is really well done for its time. Many small (and a few medium-sized) parts of the real travels are simply cut out, but that does not make the story halt. This is AFAIK the only version which depicts all four travels, and for that the movie should get special mention.

The two interspersed parts get approximately equal time. I rate the first part 0 out of 10, and the actual travel coverage as 8\/10. Averaging out, I give it a 4\/10. If only they would have cut the rubbish and focused 99% on the actual travels, since that cut would have freed up a lot of time much better spent on filling in the details cut from the travels.

Why some adapter think that he is gifted enough to improve upon Swift's work, I do not know. My best guess is that CGI was so costly back in 1996 so that the movie company felt a need to incorporate a lot of filler which did not need elaborate sets, GCI, etc. in order to keep total costs under some limit, while at the same time producing a mini-series which clocked in at some set number of minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cultural Vandalism Is the new Hallmark production of Gulliver's Travels an act of cultural vandalism? Not literally. After all, not a single copy of the book is burned. But if this is the only Gulliver people are exposed to\u0097and to many it will be\u0097those people will not get anything like what Jonathan Swift intended. Were Jonathan Swift alive, Hallmark could be sued for moral rights violations and they'd lose. That's a good way to think before starting a project using someone else's ideas.

Swift's masterpiece is an extraordinary vision of humanity. Through his hero, Gulliver, he travels to places that make him feel big, small, shat on and\u0085 human. The little people in Lilleput are small in every way. Petty and stupid, they fight, the big-enders and little- enders, interminable wars of annihilation over which end of their soft-boiled eggs are opened at the breakfast table. Sounds a bit like us.

I forget most of the rest: it's been years since I read it. The TV show reminded me of a few things and, on the bright side, it made me want to read it again.

This gift to mankind has been shat on, like Gulligan under the boughs beneath the vulgar yahoos, and Danson, Steenbergen and especially two great actors, Peter O'Toole and Edward Fox, ought to be thoroughly ashamed. Some \"Creative Person\" got the bright idea to put the focus on \"the star:\" Gulliver, played by Ted Danson, whose acting is just plain bad. He portrays Gulliver as insane. All his travels were made up. Weeeeel. Yeeeaaah! Of course Swift made up Gulliver! Naturally, the lands he visited were imaginary: that's called fiction. His purpose was to talk about humankind and our, often awful, relations with each other. The travels of his imaginary character to imaginary lands is his method. But these people treat imagination as a disease and anyone who has a moment that Hallmark couldn't turn into one of its anodyne cards is suspect.

I can sure see why Hallmark would produce this crap. It's so bad that O'Toole, always profound, seems as little as his Lilliputian character. He's in character, of course, while commenting on the character simultaneously, as many, if not all great actors do. Informing the character sheds light on it. Our light completes the character. It becomes three dimensional through this act of psychic triangulation. Most actors do this very subtly, like Hopkins in \"The Remains of the Day.\" Others, like Nicholson, in most things in the last twenty years, play the two parts pretty broadly apart. Nicholson actually plays on the relationship of his two points and with us too: with him it's all cat's cradle and he, chuckling away, holds all the strings. Great fun, as is O'Toole. But something here is lacking. He is shouting into a megaphone (as great as ever) and all one senses is a hollow shell standing under him.

That's because it is. Look up \"anodyne\" and there ought to be the word \"Hallmark\" as a synonym. Harmless, bland, inoffensive: Hallmark is the doll who can't pee because she has no genitals: it is the norm, the average, the person of no distinction. Hallmark's hallmark is to have no hallmark. I never suspected that such people despise those who have imagination quite so much. Suddenly, Pound's \"Disney against the meta-physicals\" stands out in bold type. Or Einstein's \"Men of genius always will be violently opposed by mediocre minds.\" Indeed, anyone, to this mediocre type, who has an answer to any question other than \"a)\" or \"b)\" is suspect. Who more distinctive then that a man who journeys to the darker places of the human soul and shines his little flashlight to illuminate what can be found there? Hence the act of vandalism. The Taliban destroyed the Buddhas in Afghanistan, the Palestinians the oldest synagogue in the world at Jericho, the barbarians the great statuary of the Classical age and these things are obviously vandalism. Hallmark endeavors to protect us from foreign foes by undermining our own culture; the one that feeds and sustains them. And us.

Please buy a copy of Gulliver's Travels wherever you live, and read it. Or order it online. I like to use ABE Books.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"By strange coincidence I've started to watch this move straight after Brice de Nice and the good thing was that not many movies could be worst than Brice de Nice, so I was really looking forward for something better which would make me forget this horrible flop.

Unfortunately OSS-117 again left me disappointed - I don't know, maybe it's just problem with translations, but since \"Diner de Cons\" I haven't seen ANY French comedy that I would call really good. Even when I look at the reviews on IMDb only people from France are giving the OSS-117 high notes...

For me this movie didn't really work - in some parts is as funny as real Bond movies, in others jokes were a little bit too predictable or too corny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot: Four people are caught in an elevator. One is a business man, the annoying kind who is aggressive and complains about everything and everyone and is a walking-talking sample of distilled stress and hostility. Then there's his colleague, a woman who is much more pleasant in her character. A teenage rebel who just broke into a coke machine and by his mere presence drives the businessman mad, and an older guy who just stole 100,000DM make up the rest of the cast...

The movie is all about how they cope with their problem, as time goes on and on without any success in reaching the outside world, as the lights go out, and as the cables begin to snap one after the other....

And yet, it isn't too exciting. The characters are stereotypes. The story is stupid and unlikely (how could so many things go so wrong in just one elevator?). You don't like the characters very much, you just hate one of them. And all the twists and turns in the plot are not contributing to the excitement, they are just stupid excuses for filling yet another few minutes with dialogue as the screenwriters keep running out of inspiration and ink on a full-length movie set in an elevator.

Let's just hope \"Phone Booth\" will be a better effort...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Edge Vs. Michaels-Boring in general (loved the sweet chin music into the chair) 4\/10 Taker Vs. Heidenreich-One of the worst matches I've seen, predictable as hell 1\/10 Tripe Threat WWE match-Why do I watch them, nobody ever wins a championship at the rumble, its not the main event. Liked it when Show drove JBL through the wall. 3\/10 World Heavyweight Championship-Pretty OK match, kind of more a beat-down by Tripe H than a match, but I was happy to see it after watching crap. 5\/10 Royal Rumble-Good Rumble,Liked the brand showdown,the Hassan thing, and the end. 7\/10 Overall still crap. Why does anyone watch the rumble???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, so it's a silly movie, but I think they knew that when they made it. And there are some neat little twists on the otherwise tired, overdone \"Godzilla\"-type genre. Borrowed a tape just because I knew someone in it, but I did loan it out to a couple pals, who also kinda liked it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Aliens let lose a giant monster named Zarkorr, then send down a hologram that looks your average stupid teenage girl to tell postman, Tommy Ward (Rhys Pugh, in the only movie you ever see him in) that has been chosen to fight. Also if he loses the plant goes doom, so he goes off to fight Zarkorr the Invader! This movie is bad, very bad. So bad it you need negative numbers just to gave it a rattan. Horridly written, bad directing, way below Power Rangers over-the-top wooden acting that you're just whiting for a horde of Lumberjacks to come out of no where and cut them down! And don't get me started on the theme song at the end. The people who made this stemming pall of S$@# should not be aloud near a camera or any thing to do with films. Zarkorr is a cool looking monster that should have been in a movie a million times better than this one. Do your self a favour and don't see this movie, it's 80 or so minute of life. The actors that are in this never worked again by way.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Zarkorr is one bad movie. This doesn't even rate in the so bad its good category. It's just bad. From the (lack of) set design to the acting to the special effects, everything about this movie stinks. For starters, the film looks like it was filmed in just empty rooms with a couple of props thrown in to make it look good. Then we get acting that is so bad that it makes a high school play look like it was an Oscar candidate. And to top it all off, there's the special effects that are so bad that they look like an amateur pulled them off in their garage. The towns that the monster is supposedly crushing look like my nephew's train set. So obviously fake that they scream out at the viewer. The only good thing about the movie is the monster suit. Its just too bad that they spent all their budget on that and left nothing for the rest of the film. And maybe a decent script would have helped too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an utterly forgettable picture. A friend of mine picked it up in a bargain bin at a local rental place for $.50. He should have demanded a refund. Or at least a discount.

The plot is something like this: A giant monster threatens the earth and aliens decide that the most average human being on the planet must be chosen to save the earth. Thus a tiny holographic space alien appears before a postal worker and tells him that he's \"it.\"

The devil is in the details when it's time to rate a movie, and on that count Zarkorr! The Invader fails miserably. The monster Zarkorr only has a few brief moments on the screen, totaling maybe 5 minutes tops (with a generous estimate). The cute alien hologram has even less screen time and might be the most interesting character to look at, and only because she's wearing a \"teeny bopper\" stereotype outfit, complete with a teasingly short pleated skirt. The climactic final battle with the monster is over before you can say \"Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.\" In the next moment you are left to ponder whether you've just experienced a train wreck or if someone just drained 3 pints of blood out of you.

Admittedly though, this movie did deliver one line that my friends and I to this day still repeat and laugh at and was about the only bright spot in this otherwise abysmal picture. As the cast of \"protagonists\" is being \"interrogated\" by the fuzz, one of them responds to the questions with the statement \"What are you, some kind of a question asker?\" It is delivered in such a preposterous manner that if you're sitting with a group of friends (who won't be your friends long if you actually talked your friend into watching this) you may actually experience a howl or two of incredulous laughter.

While this is no Manos or Eegah (It's not even bad enough to be classically bad) this movie will still bore you with its awful dialog, unimaginative characters, and nonexistent special effects and still deserves to inhabit the bottom 100.

1.5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie stinks. IMDb needs negative numbers in its rating system to properly evaluate this turkey. The acting is either wooden or over the top; the film was apparently NOT written by anyone in particular; and the monster scenes were mediocre at best. Even as a movie driven solely by the monster scenes, those shots were so disappointing that they could not inspire any sympathy for the rest of the movie. I want the 80 minutes of my life back that this movie stole.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, let me make it clear that I'm a big fan of bad sci-fi, especially when it involves gigantic, city-stomping monsters. But this one is so fantastically lame that I can't even like it for being bad. They apparently didn't shave enough money off the budget by skimping on the props (the only prop we have to indicate the size of the alien girl is an oversized novelty pencil, available at Spencer's Gifts for about fifteen bucks), they also decided not to outlay for concept or plot. The monster DOES look okay, in my opinion, but it doesn't have enough interaction with the backgrounds, i.e. not enough destruction to suit most fans of the genre. The general rule of giant monster movies is: If you don't have a lot of fake-looking buildings to smash, then you'd better have another fake-looking monster to wrestle with. This movie has neither. I can't make my final complaint about the movie without giving away the ending, but suffice to say the origin of the monster, and the method found to get rid of it, just don't hold water. Not even as well as most of these movies. Skip it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Explores the frontiers of extreme boredom. Life in a small Canadian town in winter as an experiment in extreme sensory deprivation. Absolutely nothing happens as viewed through the eyes of a blank, deadpan, totally uninteresting protagonist. Viewers of this film should be prepared to hallucinate in the style of \"Altered States\".

In a groundbreaking study, David Snowden found that he could predict Alzheimer's thirty years in advance by comparing the autobiographical essays of nuns as they entered the convent. Those who eventually suffered the disease wrote in simple direct prose. The essays were quiet and contemplative with little optimism or episodes of joy.

Now, why did I mention that? Perhaps , my mind begins to slowly unravel watching this interminable, autobiographical, contemplative film which shows, in simple direct style, the bleak and stoic life of a small community, living next to giant slag heaps of asbestos.

This film became popular at the height of the Quebec separatist movement because of its presentation of this community as permanently wounded victims. Tragically, its writer-director was soon diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in the early 1980s and apparently committed suicide.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had to watch this one for my Canadian cinema course and I was told that it was considered to be the \"best Canadian film.\" When I watched this I really did not agree, considering I've seen a lot better ones. I understand that there were Canadian themes and messages, but the fact that the characters and the plot were so disconnected with me (as a spectator) it made me not really care what the film was trying to tell me. The plot was too dry. The characters did not have many positive personality traits, but this is to emphasize the messages, not to tick off spectators. This film shows a little about the history of Quebec. Not a very interesting film; it definitely does not deserve to be put on such a high pedestal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I only rented this stinker because of its relatively high ratings. It totally sucked! I cannot imagine how anyone would think this a good movie - even an OK movie. None of the characters had ANY redeeming qualities of any kind. To varying degrees they were each selfish and mean-spirited - or abused and damaged personalities who hadn't a clue about the spirit of Christmas (when this takes place!) I know Canadians and like them - but I cannot think that even THEY would think this a good movie. I'd rather a sharp stick in the eye than watch this offensive movie again. A colossal waste of time and money. Do not believe the person who wrote the opinion that it was \"worth watching.\" This person probably would enjoy having a dentist drill their teeth without anesthesia, too. Don't mean to be unkind but for the life of me I cannot imagine what this person was thinking. Unless they had ulterior motives. Maybe s\/he was the director or the producer. If so, I'd like to ask them to give me back my money. If your money is important to you - save it instead of renting this piece of drek - or rent something (anything!) else. I'm running out of good reasons NOT TO rent this film. If I were Canadian I'd be ASHAMED that it's supposed to be a favorite Canadian flick. If so, I would say that those who think so are definitely in need of great quantities of powerful drugs. YECK!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1940's cartoon, banned nowadays probably because of the 'Black Beauty' gag, in which Daffy rides a black person as if it were a horse.

The whole story takes place in a bookstore, where the characters of the books come to life every evening. So we have, among others, the Ugly Duck (Daffy) and the wolf of Wallstreet. They wind up in a chase after the wolf tricked Daffy with a phony duck (hence the title).

And chase is all there is in this little cartoon, that doesn't have any real appeal nowadays. Only fun if you're a true fan of the Looney Tunes I guess...

4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, the episode I just watched had the older \"Gastineau Girl\" whining about why people keep mentioning her husband (Mr Gastineau, a famous American Football player apparently). She seems unwilling to accept that he's the only reason she isn't flipping burgers, she married someone famous and that's why she has cameras pointed at her.

When challenged by an interviewer to explain what she actually does, she gave a wonderfully circular reason for why people should pay attention to her: \"I work really hard on my reality TV show\". Then she said \"I'm not a celebrity... I'm a personality.\"

I'm not quite sure who this series is meant to appeal to, except people who've had all their intelligence removed. It's certainly no role model to anyone except gold-diggers as the two stars do nothing but spend money, and all it tells you about rich people is that they have no money problems.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For a while it seemed like this show was on 24\/7. Then apparently there was a second season or some other kind of continuation of this horrible show about the two most vapid and conceited people who have ever been filmed. All the other comments have captured the essence of these two selfish, haggish, airheads perfectly. Not much less can be said about them besides what everyone else has said.

I doubt these two ladies have souls, and more than likely they made some kind of Faustian Bargain in order to get their lizardly snouts on a television series. May the fates protect the human race from any more exposure to the Ghastly Girls!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remembered this awful movie I bought at Camelot music store in the summer of 1989 when I was visiting my Grandparents. It was a time when I had just discovered movies like Re-Animator, From Beyond, The Return of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead. I was ready for all the horror\/gore genre had to offer.... or so I thought! I was only about 12 years old at the time so I really don't remember it all that well. I remember a psycho running around with a corkscrew killing people, and a couple of cops (I think) who were riding in a car that wasn't actually moving, but being rocked side to side to look like it was... true cinemagic. I also remember it being the worst film I had ever seen up to that point and I promptly threw it in the garbage.

Something tonight made me think of that movie (I can't believe I actually remembered the name), so I jumped on imdb to see if it was listed. To my surprise... IT WAS! And a full other 5 people have seen it.... Amazing. Even though I remember hating the film at the time I sort of wish I had kept it hidden away somewhere because I'd love to check it out again for a laugh (it would probably make a good drinking game movie). Anyway, I'm glad I'm part of the elite few that's seen this little \"treasure\". I would love to pick it up somewhere for a couple of bucks.... but beware, this is not a recommendation... it is awful... it's just for nostalgia.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this movie at a garage sale when I was like 15. I hated it then, and watching it again, just for the hell of it, it's even worse now. You can hear the director and cameraman in the background yelling commands like \"Zoom, zoom, zoom!!!\". The are no special effects, just a raw piece of meat that is supposed to be a brain. This is utter crap, and i originally thought it was a one of a kind home movie or something that I bought. But this was distributed elsewhere and it's just really weird to know that other people have seen it. Whoops I need 10 lines....well....this can be an interesting thing to watch to see how no-budget movies were made before the invention of digital cameras. This sucks. Actually, yeah do watch this just to see if you can sit through the worst. If you can make it through this you can make it through anything.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've already commented on this film (under the name TheLegendaryWD). But I see there are others who have commented since. All I can say is: WHAT THE F**K!?\". I cannot believe that a whole 16 people have commented on this film or even seen this movie. Add to that the fact that a couple give it great reviews (probably the makers of the film who went to one of those places in a strip mall that provide internet service and wrote a good review - seeing as how there is no way they could or would pay for their own internet provider... just look at their movie). Although I still admit I got a soft spot for this movie. I thought that some of the other people writing about this one might have it confused with another... until I read the reviews... especially the person who identified the tag line on the front of the box: \"The Ultimate in Frontal Lobotomy\" (what the f**k is that supposed to mean anyway? \"frontal\" lobotomy?)... I totally forgot about that until I read it in the review. People, we are a select few... I say we meet once a year to view this film... wait, does anyone still have it? If anyone does have it please contact me... I'm dyin' to get drunk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worst film ever made, bar none. Give yourself a pat on the back if you can possibly sit through every excruciatingly painful minute of it. Except for the bit where the hard-luck loser turned deranged psychopath from forced medical experimentation pours his pea soup on the doctor's head and laughs like any good raving lunatic should...that's all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hard to believe that director Barbet Schroeder once did the majestic and very funny Maitresse (1976), and now only seems to do \"by the numbers\" Hollywood thrillers.

This is very lightweight John Grisham material, crossed with the plot of a TV movie. Bullock is Cass Mayweather, a feisty and independent crime investigator specialising in serial killers. Ben Chaplin is her reserved police partner Sam Kennedy, and together they make an uncomfortable duo. Not good, when two unbalanced college maladriots (Gosling and Pitt) decide to send them on a wild goose chase - by planting very clever and misleading forensic evidence at a crime scene.

Fair enough, but while Bullock and Chaplin fail to create any sparks, we also have to endure a several dull overly-melodramatic flashbacks illustrating an important event in Cass's history. Then of course there are the frequent shots of a cliff-side log cabin where there's absolutely no doubt the OTT ending will be set. Oooh... the atmosphere.

Watch any episode of CSI instead. It's to the point and far more exciting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having been pleasantly surprised by Sandra Bullock's performance in Miss Congeniality, I decided to give Murder By Numbers a shot. While decent in plucky, self-effacing roles, Ms. Bullock's performance in \"serious\" roles (see Hope Floats, Speed 2, 28 Days) leave much to be desired. Her character is at the same time omniscient, confused, and sexually maladjusted (the sub-plot of Sandra's past comes across as needless filler that does little to develop her already shallow character). The two teenage boys gave decent performances, although their forensics expertise and catch-me-if-can attitude is belied by stupid errors that scream \"We did it!\" Chris Penn as the all-too-obvious suspect is wasted here, as is Ben Chaplin's token partner\/love interest character.

***Spoilers Ahead*** Mediocre acting aside, the biggest flaws can be traced to a TV-of-the-week plot that never has you totally buying into the murder motives in the first place, and as mentioned, the stupid errors (vomiting up a rare food on the murder scene, an all too convenient and framing of the school janitor, the two boys hanging out together in public, a convenient love interest to cause friction, etc. etc) cause the view to go from being intrigues to being bored and disappointed by the murderers. The ending was strictly \"By the Numbers\" and was probably the most disappointing aspect of the movie. Using the now-cliched tactic of almost showing the climactic scene at the beginning of the film, and then filling the audience in how we arrived at that moment, the final scenes surprise no one and lacked any of the so-called intelligence the film purported to arrive at it's conclusion. A somewhat promising concept, but poorly executed and weak in nearly every way. * out of ****.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the \"cop side\" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.

The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic \" Rope\":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.

\"Murder by numbers \" does not take place in a single room,like \"the rope\" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in \"primal fear\" .

Well,you know ,\" Rope\" was so good ....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So, I'm wondering while watching this film, did the producers of this movie get to save money on Sandra Bullock's wardrobe by dragging out her \"before\" clothes from Miss Congeniality? Did Ms. Bullock also get to sleepwalk through the role by channeling the \"before\" Gracie Hart? As many reviewers have noted before, the film is very formulaic. Add to that the deja vu viewer experiences with the character of Cassie Maywether as a somewhat darker Gracie Hart with more back story and it rapidly become a snooze fest.

The two bad boy serial killers have been done before (and better) in other films. As has the \"good guy partner trying to protect his partner despite the evidence\" character been seen before. In fact none of the characters in the film ever get beyond two dimensions or try to be anything but trite stereotypes.

One last peeve - using the term serial killer is false advertising. Murdering one person - even if it's a premeditated murder - does not make you a serial killer. You may have the potential to become a serial killer but you are not a serial killer or even a spree killer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"well, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b\/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Murder By Numbers is one of those movies that you expect is made-for-TV but isn't. Considering the only actor of any note is Bullock (although Michael Pitt seems to be moving onto bigger and better things), it isn't a great surprise that this movie quickly fades away from memory to be replaced by more important things. Like... remembering to lock your front door when you go out. Or putting clothes back on when you come out of the shower.

Bullock plays Cassie Mayweather, a cop with personal issues (don't they all). Together with her new partner (a wet-looking Ben Chaplin), she is called to investigate the murder of a young woman. Nothing unusual there except that the perps are a couple of teenage students who think they've planned and executed the perfect murder. As the investigation continues, a battle of wills emerges between Cassie and the main suspect Richie Haywood (Ryan Gosling).

The crippling issue here is that the two leads are hopeless. Bullock, though she is very nice to look at, is about as believable in the role of a hardened cynical cop as Rodney Dangerfield (actually, he'd be better!). Chaplin, for his sins, is a complete non-entity and I feel sorry that he has to put this film on his CV in his attempt to break into Hollywood. At least Gosling and Pitt, as the conniving sneering suspects, acquit themselves adequately. As if dodgy leads weren't bad enough, a story that would send anybody to sleep and a highly predictable (but illogical) ending shoot this film in the head before it has a chance to run.

\"Murder By Numbers\" has absolutely nothing going for it, even a pointless nude scene by Bullock wouldn't redeem it. Well, just a little but still not enough to save it. Forgettable, predictable and redundant - this is one film that isn't going to move the cop genre forward. As Cassie probably says on her next case, there's nothing to see here people. Move along, keep moving...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Of all the films I have seen, this one, The Rage, has got to be one of the worst yet. The direction, LOGIC, continuity, changes in plot-script and dialog made me cry out in pain. \"How could ANYONE come up with something so crappy\"? Gary Busey is know for his \"B\" movies, but this is a sure \"W\" movie. (W=waste).

Take for example: about two dozen FBI & local law officers surround a trailer house with a jeep wagoneer. Inside the jeep is MA and is \"confused\" as to why all the cops are about. Within seconds a huge gun battle ensues, MA being killed straight off. The cops blast away at the jeep with gary and company blasting away at them. The cops fall like dominoes and the jeep with Gary drives around in circles and are not hit by one single bullet\/pellet. MA is killed and gary seems to not to have noticed-damn that guy is tough. Truly a miracle, not since the six-shooter held 300 bullets has there been such a miracle.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have been a huge Lynn Peterson fan ever since her breakthrough role in the 1988 blockbuster movie \"Far North\", and even though I loved her in her one other film \"Slow\" (2004) where she plays \"Francis\", this is by far and away her strongest role.

Lynn, as I'm sure you all know (or should), plays the critical role of \"Driver\".

Unfortunately, other than Lynn's amazing performance, I'm afraid this movie doesn't really have much going for it.

Oh wait - there was one other thing - the amazing creativity of the editing to remove profanity for TV viewers. Memorable lines like: \"You son-of-a-gun!\", \"You son-of-a-witch!\", \"Shoot!\", and \"Well, Forget You!\"

O.K. Bye.

P.S.: Does anyone know where I can get another Lynn Peterson poster?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A handful of nubile young college sorority sisters decide to go camping with a professor. A giant druid want to sacrifice them to prevent the apocalypse come the year 2000, they also have to contend with bikers, an Indian and a loch ness monster type thing. Worth watching for only 3 reasons, George 'Buck' Flower (a sadly unsung B-movie staple) is on hand as a hobo and the other 2 belong to the stunning Savannah (in one of only 3 non-porn roles she had). Both have very small roles. Too bad everything else in the movie is horrendously bad.

My Grade: D-

Retromedia DVD Extras: Original Trailer

Eye Candy: 4 pairs of breasts, 2 asses","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh my. Started out with such great potential - a bunch of cute sorority girls walking around practically naked, check. Then off to a bar where the 80's cheese gets turned up a notch, check. Off to a woodsy state park the next morning, check. A bunch of girls and their professor, rowdy bikers, a General store guy, and that dood from They Live acting as the local drunk - makes for a nice body count, check (and speaking of body count, notice the strong resemblance on the DVD cover to the foreign horror flick - Body Count! aka Camping del Terrore). A whacky Indian in the woods doing some sort of ritual, hmmm, OK I'll let it slide, check. And then, oh brother, all downhill from there. Terrible. The Lochness monster head in the pond had me cracking up though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so irredeemably bad, NOTHING about it makes it worth seeing. NO effects, no suspense and poor dialogue poorly delivered. Oh, and neither a CAMP or any FEAR does it contain. Do yourself a favor and go see the original Friday the 13th or (preferably) Sleepaway Camp, but what ever you do, DO NOT see this movie.

Even Michele Bauer's appearance at the very beginning can't save it. Usually, in these kinds of films you expect violence, suspense, and a little gore and some T&A. The violence was poorly executed, the \"suspense\" was laughable, there was NO gore, and the T&A is plentiful IN THE FIRST 5 MINUTES, then, NOTHING. At least one of these things, properly done would have at least made it watchable.

To say at least one nice thing about it, Buck Flower is great, he seems to be the only one who understands they are making schlock and rightly hams it up. If everyone else had fit that tone it would have been campy fun, no pun intended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie starts out the way every movie should start out, with a bunch of hot babes in a dorm walking around in their undies and\/or topless. A couple of them take showers. I'm liking it so far! Unfortunately, we then meet or main characters. They're just not particularly likable. Usually in these movies, the actresses aren't really acting, they give very \"natural\" performances, and they're quite sympathetic, fun, and likable. Not here. They don't have much of any personality and I didn't care for them much.

Some of the girls go on a camping trip for school. On the way they stop at a backwoods gas station and meet a biker gang. The biker gang should really have been left out of the movie - it was cheesy before, but now it's just plain stupid. The head biker looks like a middle aged guy dressed up as John Bon Jovi for Halloween. The girls go out to the woods and later the biker gang follows them.

I don't really know what the heck happens after that. There's a bunch of stuff about the world ending because it's the end of the millennium, then some of the bikers get killed by a mysterious Indian dude who keeps disappearing. Somebody gets eaten by a cheesy Lock Ness Monster thing as he's swimming across a lake. Some guy in silly makeup is apparently a Druid, and he needs to sacrifice some of the girls in order to forestall the end of the world. Or maybe cause the end of the world, I'm afraid I wasn't paying much attention. First he dresses the girls up in animal skin lingerie.

It could have been a really fun cheesy movie, but the biker gang kind of ruined the atmosphere and the plot was so scatterbrained that it didn't even live up to my grade Z schlock expectations. They really should have eliminated half the plot elements and just focused on one or two things. Instead it's all over the place. Overall, if you're looking for late '80 schlock, I imagine you could do worse. If you tried really hard. There's plenty of nudity at the beginning, but the characters are kind of crummy and the plot is too nonsensical to be even the least bit satisfying.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why you ask does this man claim to have the truth behind the existence of the almighty? Well its deductive logic my friends, you see I know God exists because Satan does, how else would my poor eyes have been soiled on such a horrendous film? Yes there is no doubt about it, on a cold Friday in the year 2006 Satan possessed me and forced me to watch this film. He what? You wonder; the devil makes little girls spit up vomit and climb ceilings, why would he waste his time in making you watch this film? My only conclusion to that query is that Satan believes watching Camp Fear is the worst form of mortal punishment, not gouging out your eyes or making you speak in tongues, instead making you sit mindlessly through one and half hours of the most awful film making ever. Can this film be as terrible as he says? Yes my friend watching this film is the equivalent of getting kicked in the sack about fifty million times, maybe more. But maybe I am being too harsh, this film does have a few moments in it, the beginning for example, starts in a sorority house with a lot of topless girls; now never being in a sorority I am unsure if girls really do this, but hey one can always pray. Now after the five minutes of boobs and butt cheeks has ended we are presented with a scene on campus at an all girls college; the girls themselves (about eight in all) are in an archaeological class, where they discuss virgin sacrifices and ancient mounds. Flash forward the professor of the class (who happens to be the only male at this girls college apparently) takes a handful of his nubile students, plus girlfriend, to a remote lake in the mountains, their quests, to find ancient Indian artifacts; yeah right professor, we know what angle your pitching. Now this is where the movie gets going, the group of five, four girls, one guy stops at a gas station to get some directions, but lo and behold a biker gang pulls up and harasses the girls, only to eventually leave them alone and go their separate ways. Moving on they get to a \"campsite\" consisting of four logs and some trees and then things start to go horribly wrong. First the prof. and his girlfriend go wandering away to have some alone time when one of the girls takes it upon herself to find them, only to be captured by some unknown force. Continuing on the other two girls begin searching for the missing girl when the bikers, plus one drunk guy, come looking for them, their plan, to rape the girls and do horrible things to them. The movie goes on with something about a druid needing four virgins for a sacrifice to save the world from some kind of water monster before the year two thousand; but their is a hitch to this plan Mr. Druid, one of the girls is devirginized right before us, so away goes that plan. Now since I said there would be spoilers I'll go ahead and ruin the end of the movie for you, the four girls get taken, drugged with some green goo and then are ready to be sacrificed, after one of them is killed the two remaining bikers and the prof. come to save them; they stand upon a ledge where the not lead biker says, \"I think I can make it down there!\" only to leap down and break his leg. The prof. runs at the guy and gets subdued only leaving the once rape-minded-now-heroic biker left to fend off the 6'3\" giant druid. First he makes a pathetic attempt with a stick then pulls a knife, the knife reflects some lazer beam within a gold snakes mouth and lights the druid on fire instantaneously. Afterwords they carry the wounded away via emergency stick stretchers and ponder if everything is really over, only to have the lake bubble showing the monster within it still lives. In a nutshell that is the film and this is my review, which unfortunately will go unread by most eyes since this is only the fifth posted review for a film that has been out for fifteen years. Thankfully Satan can only get to some of us and not all. The Judge would like to make one heartfelt apology to the poor girl at Circuit City I am going to let borrow this movie; \"I'm sorry Sheila, please don't hate me for letting you watch this.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this movie was made two years earlier it could have been a lot better. But unfortunately, it was made in the decade that had no idea about how a horror movie was supposed to look or act. When I first heard about this movie, people on IMDb were classifying it as the sequel to Cheerleader Camp. Oh how wrong they were. Yes, Betsy Russell was in it but Uma Thurman sure wasn't. I'd really like to find the person who started that whole sequel rumor. I'm sure a lot of us would though. I'm not gonna give anything away because frankly I don't remember how this movie even ends! I'm just gonna tell you to watch a real camp horror movie... The Burning starring Jason Alexander, Fisher Stevens, Holly Hunter & the geek from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. A word to the wise - Just because a horror movie has the word camp in the title, doesn't mean its gonna be worth watching. Oh, and another thing, ANY HORROR FLICK MADE IN THE EARLY TO MID 90's WAS EVER CONSIDERED EVEN REMOTELY GOOD!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought this would be a fun comedy with no sex or nudity in it. Well, there's no sexual content but as for being a \"fun comedy,\" I only remember laughing a total three times during \"The Green Butchers.\" The hilarity is centered around cannibalism and mental retardation, which is just sick humor, in a bad way.

I should have walked out of this film and I'm kicking myself because I didn't. In fact, I shouldn't have seen this movie in the first place. The only good that came out of this film was was the fact that Bjarne and his brother finally made amends and put their ugly past behind them. I advise any well-meaning individual to steer clear of this gross-out flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is so much bad to say about this movie and so little that's good!

The plot has enough holes to sink the Titanic, the characters are completely unbelievable, the monsters are so unrealistic, and I'm sick and tired of seeing movies that involve an ex-husband and ex-wife being thrown together in some bizarre emergency - it happens far too often in films and it's become another bad clich\u00e9.

I find it hard to believe that anybody would have invested $1 in making this garbage, never mind the $100 or so it must have cost.

You could make a better movie with more convincing special effects on your home computer! I didn't think movies could get this bad! Avoid it at all costs - do something that's more fun and enjoyable, such as having a tooth pulled, or an enema!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even by the standards of most B-movies, this movie is by far the worst I've ever seen. The graphics are so poor that a man in a monster suit looks more realistic. the ocean water effects are especially laughable, including the one scene where they board the mini-sub, and the \"water\" looks like its frozen in place. The problems with this film are so numerous that I'll just stop here with the details. needless to say, I kid you not when I say that even Uwe Toilet Boll himself could do a better job. Avoid this movie at all cost, there are other B grade movies out there that, despite being horrible, are at least a good way of passing the time by.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some giant scorpions are on a submarine and kill everybody. Two months later, some Marines and the scientists in charge of the scorpion project go to the sub to retrieve their cargo. After finding 200 dead bodies, the Marine commander tells the doctor \"I need to know if there's anything down here that could be a danger to my men\". Uh, gee...ya think? She refuses to tell him what is down there, citing \"need to know\". Yup, that pretty well sizes it up. One of the scientists is apparently some sort of idiot savant - real heavy on the idiot, light on the savant. He's given the task of fixing the lights. He finds the control panel for the lights, cuts a wire, and shrieks like a banshee. Then he does it again. Then he takes a hammer and smashes the control panel to pieces, which causes all the lights on the submarine to start working.

And so it goes. Apparently this was made in Sweden; I'm not sure if the Swedes have a really weird sense of humor or if they're just really awful movie makers. I'm inclined to think they're awful movie makers. If you guessed that there's a huge explosion at the end of this thing, well, sorry, but that's on a need-to-know basis, so I can't tell you.

If you've absolutely got to see a giant scorpion movie, let me suggest Tail Sting, which is a cheesy and fun movie about scorpions on a plane, or Bugs, which is a fairly descent B movie about scorpions in a tunnel. Look at this movie as an absolute last resort. Oh, it's watchable, it's hard to turn it off just because of the sheer lunacy of it, but that's about all it's got going for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a fan of low budget B-movies and campy horror flicks, but this was too much, even for me.

If you can get past the weak plot, the cheesy effects and the uninspired acting, then the horrible writing will kill you, or you'll wish it would. The dialog was most likely written by high school stoners, who thought that saying \"sir, yes sir\" over and over again, made these guys sound more military.

The characters were all the typical cardboard stereotypes: Gung-ho sarge, sorta gung-ho other guy with sensitive side, evil scientist with secret agenda (bald or course), bitchy brainy chick who would be hot if she tried too, dumb sexy chick with vital piece of information, idiot \"genius\" nerd, random other sorta military dudes who die soon enough, and spoiler character alert, crazy scientist who was in charge \"until something went horribly wrong\" Oh yeah, I almost forgot, there is a secret military (navy?) submarine, sitting on the ocean floor, 5 minutes from HQ (or so it seems), full of radioactive scorpions (ok?) and dead bodies. Your mission is vague and poorly defined.....

If you watch this, don't say you weren't warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At the very beginning, the look at a control panel that reads \"8 miles of the cost of California\", and no, I didn't misspell that, they really did not realize the put of the cost instead of off the coast. These people must have been morons.

It's good if you're into terrible movies, but the sheer fact they couldn't catch a simple spelling issue make me believe they really didn't put any effort into creating the movie whatsoever. The Navy uniforms are not correct at all in any manner whatsoever.

Wow, completely ridiculous, but good if you are looking for something insanely stupid to watch. How these folks made any money off this is beyond me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stinger starts '3 Months Ago' on the submarine the SS Newark where genetic experiments have gone awry & the crew member are brutally slaughtered by large killer scorpions... Jump to 'Camp Pendleton' a couple of months later where General Ashford (James Cagnard) brief's Lieutenant Williams (John Miranda) on his mission to board the Newark & assist genetic scientist Dr. Carly Ryan (Michelle Meadows), before anyone knows it a group of corporate scientists & marines are on-board the Newark & are shocked to discover he mutilated corpses of the crew apart from Dr. Mike Thompson (Casey Clark) who doesn't make much sense. It's not long before the scorpions attack, first to fall is Lt. Williams so Sergeant Sam Harmon (Christopher Persson) is promoted & takes the responsibility to get everyone to safety & end the menace of the giant scorpions forever...

This Sweedish America co-production was directed by Martin Munthe & he also handled the cinematography & I thought this was a strictly by-the-numbers uninspiring creature feature. It's early into the new year & Stinger is the first giant genetically mutated monster\/creature\/insect type film I've seen in 2007, hopefully things can only get better... The script by Mat Nastos is incredibly clich\u00e9d & gets all of it's ideas from other films most notably Aliens (1986), lets see there's the isolated location in this case being a submarine, there's the hastily assembled team of marines including one who chews on a cigar throughout the entire film, there's the scientists including a blonde Sweedish one to try & explain it all & the evil money grabbing corporate villain who puts the mighty dollar above human life & the final ingredient being the monster\/alien\/insect or whatever, in this case there's loads of large scorpions running around but they're not utilised in any sort of unique or imaginative way so they might as well have been killer grasshoppers. Yeah, it's all here, unfortunately Stinger isn't an Aliens if you get what I mean. It's a touch long at over 100 minutes & it's throughly predictable although it moves along at a reasonable pace & as a dumb creature feature you could do worse despite what many say on the IMDb...

Director Munthe doesn't distinguish himself, it's not scary, there's a lack of atmosphere & the action scenes are dull & unexciting. There's not many scorpion attacks & it's almost an hour before any significant action occurs, the special effects are at the bottom end of the scale but I have seen worse that's for sure. I mean that's not to say the effects in Stinger are good but I've seen worse. There isn't much blood or gore, there's some mutilated bodies, some decapitated heads & someone is ripped in half. The only clever & amusing moment in the entire film is when the naked Sweedish female scientist ask's her lover to turn her on by talking about all the money their going to make from the scorpions... However there was a moment which had me groaning & tearing my hair out in it's stupidity as a bloke tries to repair the submarine's circuitry & get the lights working by hitting the power supply\/computer boards with a hammer & it works as well...

Technically Stinger is average at best & there's the usual endless amount of dark corridors which gets monotonous. Stinger was shot in Stockholm in Sweeden if your interested. The acting was poor & there's nothing else to say.

Stinger isn't a great film & it isn't a great horror film either, I can't recommend it at all but I've seen worse. If you liked Stinger (unlikely) you might like the similarly themed 'giant scorpions on the loose' films Tail Sting (2001) or Scorpius Gigantus (2006) (just as unlikely).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I starred as Eugene Morris Jerome in my high school adaptation of the play and this film definitely doesn't live up to the script or the imagination of Neil Simon. I know this play backwards and forwards and I can honestly tell you that the acting was off, The production was cheesy. The changes in the play's script were poorly done. If you want to really enjoy this play you should see the actual play, not a Hollywood movie adaptation. The Eugene character lacked soul and was overly sarcastic in all he said. The other characters were off key as well. A general disappointment, messy, disloyal to the play, amateurishly executed!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My tolerance for shlocky direction was overwhelmed by some of the choices in this could-be-really-good time-waster.

When the \"romantic\" intervals were of a nature to take me out of the story and into \"How-and-why-did-the-movie-maker-do-\/that\/?\" mode, you got to figure something is missing in there; restraint and tastefulness, I think.

Brian Brown is a capable, empathetic actor - usually. I think he didn't like the project or the people, and it shows. I don't remember anything the other guy did. Can't even picture his face.

On the other hand, it doesn't have to be any good to be entertaining; some of the vignettes and twists are fun and even ingenious.

I watched this movie ($2.00 purchase at the vid rental place) against the advice of the screenwriter; I understand he was tempted to remove his name from the credits. Matter of pride, I bet.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Casper Van Dien... what can I say? I enjoy the guy! His movies bring a certain flair to them that is actually not brought on by the director or producer, but by him! Recycled plots... check. Rip-offs of better movies... check. Wooden acting... check. It's not that Van Dien is a bad actor (he has been effective in Hollywood gloss as Starship Troopers and Sleepy Hollow) he just really has not been offered a script worthy of his talents; and yes, he does have acting talent other than being eye-candy. This movie offers a slight hint of what Van Dien can offer but is bogged down by the production of it all. The script can be better developed (see Oliver Stone's U-Turn). The directing can be better utilized (see Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Til Dawn). The DP could've made the desert more exotic (see Russ Meyer's Faster Pussycat Faster Kill!). This script is weak because this is something we have seen before many other times so the double\/triple-crosses are expected. The direction is weak because it is not offering anything new and telegraphs many of the weak script moments. The cinematography at times paints a lovely autumn desert flavor to it, but at other times it doesn't take advantage of the scorching light and the beginning sequence is horrible in cornflower blue.

Now to the acting... Van Dien shows some grace and charisma to his Jake. He neither gets too methodical nor too campy in his role. A nice balance especially since the rest of the cast seems too distracted as to how they should be acting in this film (bad script or bad direction... you make your opinion). The only other person worth mentioning is Bryan Brown's villain as it provides the only real credit for acting in this film... aspiring actors forget trying to learn how to act in green screen, try learning how to act in a horrendous script and take notes on Bryan Brown in this film. He adds extra depth to his role and is a nice counter part to Van Dien's character. Jake always seem to either be one step ahead or control of any situation whether if it is out of his control. The femme fatale is weak (this is a desert noir after all) and is another nail in this film's coffin (you decide... script or direction). The Rosalita character should've been thrusted forward in the movie instead of being pushed into the back ground later on to make room for the real femme fatale. So watch the film for Van Dien and Brown; and for fun, try to skip a rock across the plot holes laced within the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot could have been made to work, had the movie been written better. The acting was some of the worst I have ever seen. I was very slow and made me want to leave\/turn off the movie several times. I watched the entire movie in the hopes that the ending would make it worthwhile but it didn't. this movie I think should be rated in the negative numbers. (In my humble opinion)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a crappy, miserably acted movie based on sublimated male fantasies. A shame that it was based in Texas, an otherwise excellent state. I would recommend this movie to no-one, and wish that it had never entered my consciousness as I am now so irritated that I wasted my brain cells even paying the slightest attention to it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is species already hatching into a beautiful model (Mathilda May). A smashing baby with an urge to kiss and kill!

The movie begins with a strong launch, and infected by a bore-virus throughout the middle to end.

The weakest spot is the presentation of the basic plot\/story. As you should have compared it, Natasha Henstridge's Species got the same plot, but adds up much interesting side plot and not mentioning good actions and strong clymatic ending.

This explain why Patrick Stewart joins the fleet of enterprise in Star Trek Next Generation; he wanted to find more models in glass cage, floating inside Halley-Comet.

A must see for a science fiction fans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even though this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, I would recommend this movie for anyone who likes good pyrotechnics. Its plot was terrible. Its horror wasn't really that good. Its sci-fi was even worse. But its pyrotechnics were excellent! (Mathilda May was extremely beautiful too.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Usually, any movie with Steve Railsback in the lead is a good movie. However, this movie does not conform to that opinion. Lifeforce is a below average movie that is extremely confusing in the beginning (reminds me of Star Trek: TMP), but is able to pick things up a bit towards the end when London becomes Zombie City. A horror\/sci-fi mess that is very hard to sit through, although the naked spacegirl\/vampire is very easy to look at. This movie deserves a rating of 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A poorly-paced sf\/horror venture that takes itself much too seriously, memorable only for (a) the beautiful Mathilda May wandering around naked through the chaos and (b) terrible miscasting. It has a few mildly gruesome effects and startling moments, and some unintentionally funny scenes, but is mostly a waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, I am a big fan of Alien and Alien II - in my opinion both of these movies created and defined the Si-Fi Horror Genre as we know it today. I noticed Lifeforce was often compared to the Aliens saga - after viewing this movie I would highly disagree. There are some okay special effects with the alien vampires, and the story line might have been acceptable. I just can't get past a naked woman space vampire throughout the whole movie, this is absolutely absurd (although she does look good). Add in a bunch of bad British acting and it's pretty much OVER. Most of the movie ends up taking place in London or somewhere in England, so after the first 20 minutes you lose the outerspace setting and any hope of some real Si-Fi Horror action and suspense.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was really excited about seeing \"Cold Mountain\". Alas, like most movies I'm really excited about seeing, it was a letdown! Were it not for that miraculous invention called a DVD, I think I would've put my head through the monitor, I was so bored!

I closely watched Kidman and Law when they meet because their characters are supposedly \"destined\" for each other. Yet Law's face showed anything but dumb-struck love, while Kidman seemed to be counting the seconds until she could run back to her trailer! Zellweger's character is pure Granny Clampett (as if we don't get it, cornball banjos mark her every entrance), and so over the top, it was all I could do not to laugh! Ironically, her performance serves to highlight just how stiff-as-a-board the leads are.

Ada nearly starves because she freed her slaves; we never learn why. More perplexing is why didn't any of them stay on as Ada and her father were unusually benevolent, and (as shown in one scene) it was a very dangerous time for Negroes (as they're politely called here). Why didn't the neighbors teach her how to milk a cow or grow a crop? Heck, why didn't she just sell the farm and go home? And for all of Ruby's practicality, when she dispatches Ada's \"evil\" rooster, that kind of puts the kibosh on them having any more chickens!

By the time her beloved finally returns, Ada doesn't need him or anyone else -- which is the big joke! Indeed, she may be physically intimate with Inman, but her real intimacy is with Ruby, who has turned Ada into an \u00dcber-Babe version of herself. Did anyone else notice how they walked down the hill holding hands, happy as two peas in a pod, as they left Inman behind?

I doubt that Minghella recognized this as he was too busy making an anti-Bush movie. Inman tells us he is \"like every fool sent out to fight with a flag and a lie\", and Ada's father says \"I imagine God is weary of being called down on both sides of an argument\". These \"observations\" are historically inaccurate and insulting. While slavery was the basis of the South's economy, the reasons for the War were more complex. It was incomprehensible for a soldier to think that the cause was \"a lie\" (in fact, most in the rank-and-file were indifferent to it). For filmmakers to stamp their views onto a period where such views were foreign to those who lived in that time is beyond obnoxious.

Structurally, the film is choppy and episodic. Law and Kidman are miscast, and have zero chemistry! The script is little more than half-baked dialog, and an egregious bunch of clich\u00e9s and banalities. \"Small moments like a bag of diamonds?\" Ugh!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so bad, I thought I was going to scream in the middle of it. It was all I could do to sit through it. The beginning of the movie where they are at war was promising. Only it smacked of \"Saving Private Ryan\" to me...or at least an attempt at it. Only we don't care for these people. There was no build up to the characters. The kid that dies I guess was suppose to make us cry...but for some reason it just irritated everyone. Then we have to listen to line after line of sappy dialog that tried desperately to mimic \"Wuthering Heights\", which of course was also quoted in the movie. Go figure. There was nothing original about the movie at all, it was like sitting through the most mundane parts of every war movie ever made, with a little bit of humor thrown in to keep you hoping that it was going to get better. Sadly it doesn't. 3 hours later, I leave the theater feeling cheated. Anthony Menghilla should be shot for trying to duplicate the English Patient, which for it's time was a good movie, but now I wonder....should I rent it and make sure I wasn't just caught up in the HYPE??? Maybe I was, but I definitely wasn't caught up in the hype of this film. I really went to the theater wanting to like this movie. I am a die hard Nicole Kidman fan. Save your money, rent it on DVD and laugh through it, as I did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***MILD SPOILERS*** Dear Inman, Kind words are hard to find for me to describe the movie I have just been subjected to that stars you. The problems are far and wide and painful for me to recount. . . yet I feel I must, if only to prevent others from suffering the same anguish as I did. This is NOT a film for anyone under 50, it's sloooowwwww, soooooo slowwww, and when the big reunion of Ada and Inman happens. . .the biggest and most important scene in the film, NOTHING happens, it is a epic letdown. Now, like the director should have done, I will keep my words short and end with this warning, your film is disjointed, boring, has no flow and Jude Law is tragically mis-cast, he showed more emotion as a robot in A.I. - be warned, the film should be retitled . . . Bored Mountain. Love, Ada","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Critics are falling over themselves within the Weinstein's Sphere of Influence to praise this ugly, misguided and repellent adaptation of the lyrical novel on which it's based. Minghella's ham-fisted direction of the egregiously gory and shrill overly-episodic odyssey is one of the many missteps of this \"civil-war love story\". Are they kidding? After Ms. Kidman and Mr. Law meet cute with zero screen chemistry in a small North Carolina town and steal a kiss before its off to war for Jude and his photo souvenir of the girl he left behind, it's a two hour test to the kidneys as to whether he will survive a myriad of near-death experiences to reunite with his soulmate. Who cares? Philip S. Hoffman's amateurish scene chewing in a disgusting and unfunny role pales to Renee Zelweger's appearance as a corn-fed dynamo who bursts miraculously upon the scene of Kidman's lonely farm to save the day. Rarely has a performance screamed of \"look at me, I'm acting\" smugness. Her sheer deafening nerve wakes up the longuers for a couple of minutes until the bluster wears painfully thin. Released by Miramax strategically for Oscar and Golden Globe (what a farce) consideration, the Weinsteins apparently own, along with Dick Clark, the critical community and won 8 Globe nominations for their overblown failure. The resultant crime is that awards have become meaningless and small, less powerful PR-driven films become obscure. Cold Mountain is a concept film and an empty, bitter waste of time. Cold indeed!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

This movie really has nothing going for it. With the Reverend played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman complaining about his constipation and other toilet humor in a 2.5 hour movie, you know that they made no cuts at all and left the crap in, literally. It's a waste of good talent, and a total embarrassment. Dreadful!

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jude law gives Keanu Reeves a run for his money as the most wooden actor around, Renee Z's character is straight out of the Beverly Hillbillies, and the two leads have about as much chemistry as Darth Vader and Queen Amedala. The \"bad guys\" are the worst kind of cliche, and there's not a subtle moment in the film. Incredible that some critics actually liked this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had to write a review for this film after I saw it last night and read some of the comments of people trying to classify the displeasure of this film go down to wfmitchell's post)). I don't fit any any of those classification. The other classification that needs to be on the list is 5) people didn't like this movie because it was not good. I found the film to be booring and forced. My wife picked it for us to see because she is a huge Kidman fan and she also likes Jude Law.

Speaking of Law, it took a long time and a huge amount of suspension of belief for me to believe his southern accent. I can't help but wonder if they didn't make his character less talkative on purpose so we would't have to hear that tortured accent so much.

As far as the movie, it took a long time for it to get interesting (about 1 or 1.5 hours), and then fell flat in it's ending. What was interesting, is that I did not know that this film was directed by Minghella. About 40 minutes into the movie, I asked my wife \"this isn't going to be another English Patient is it?\" It absolutely was.

As far as the battle scenes. I'm trying to think of a word to describe the opening battle scene, but I think the most descriptive word that accurately describes it is simply \"dumb\". It was forced, it was unbelievable, it was silly and it was dumb. (After the battle I looked at my wife and asked \"was that just dumb?\" to which she vigorously nodded her head).

The only bright point in the film was the performance of Zellweger. The role was a bit over acted like any decent comedy relief role, but it worked. From her speech pattern, her walk, her mannerisms and esp. her little quips (my favorite: \"If you want to get 3 feet up a bull's ass all you have to do is listen to sweethearts talk to each other\"), she was able to create an almost cartoon-like character who did her job extremely well.

I simply did not like this movie and I have to wonder about the kind of people who do say they like it (or the English Patient for that matter). I suspect you could categorize them in one category: 1) Soap opera fans","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found the first 90 minutes of this film to be very interesting, even though a few parts of it were ridiculous (i.e.. Philip Seymour Hoffman's character). The last 60 minutes were distasteful and I began to lose interest in the film. The last hour lasted forever, it seemed.

The movie is nicely acted and I can see why Rene Zellweger won an Academy Award since her character was so interesting. The movie also is beautifully filmed and the story is an emotional one. However, I found the message to be a bad one: not surprising these days in Hollywood. In this story, \"Inman\" (Jude Law) deserts the Confederate Army during the Civil War. His reason: his girlfriend misses him and wants him home. He's also getting disillusioned with war. (Can you imagine if every soldier who was in a similar boat deserted the army in the two world wars??!)

Yet, in this film of course, all of that is perfectly acceptable. Then again, what Liberal filmmaker has ever had a nice thing to say about the U.S. military?? To add to their left-wing slant, they portray a vigilante-like posse going after deserters as cold-blooded sick killers. Well, in the world of films, as we know: good is portrayed as bad and bad is good.....and only Liberals would portray deserters as heroes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Her embalmed look was totally inappropriate for the role. Her face remained too white, hair too coifed, clothes etc. too clean (and well-fitting, especially her father's old hat and coat in the scene where Inman comes home) for any sense of accuracy. It would be one thing if the production had allowed all the other actors to remain clean and perfect, too, but she was the only one who didn't get messy. There was never even a smudge on her powdered cheek. Are we to believe she was the only person in the Civil War with a bathtub and a mirror? She certainly looked like the only one who used them. Tweezers, too; I mean, what's with those eyebrows? She looked absolutely mean!

The love story was implausible. She only went over to the guy because someone told her that he had said he thought she was cute. So, she goes over to tease him, then flirts with him a couple more times, and suddenly this is a love on a par with Odysseus and Penelope? Please.

I should have known better than to expect anything better from the man who brought us \"The English Patient.\" My reaction to that one was the same as Elaine's on Seinfeld: \"It sucked.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, and Renne Zelwigger. They are all horrible. Especially the star, Jude Law.

It's directed by the same guy who did the english patient and its based on a best selling novel of a man risking all to get back to his lover but unlike the wonderful English pateint, this movie sucks. It is really bad.

Worst dialogue ever. \"But we've only know each other for a moment\" \"But they were a thousand moments, like diamonds in a bag\"

or

\"In some cultures you just have to say I marry you 3 times and you're married\" lovey-dovey-\"I marry you, I marry you, I marry you, I marry you...\"

I'm ashamed I sat through it all.

the whole movie was awful, horrible....Ughh no words, I'm sick.

1\/10 (the one is for the really loud bullet sounds, the sound crew did a good job)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The two leads, an Englishman and an Aussie filming an American Civil War story in Romania, have not the slightest spark between them, are utterly unbelievable as lovers, and wholly unsympathetic. There is no story, no characterization, virtually nothing to keep the eyelids separated during this interminable bore fest. Renee Zelwegger, also hopelessly miscast, practically chews the fence posts, but at least watching her embarrass herself provides some comic relief. Nicole Kidman is a decade too old for the role and has not the slightest idea what's going on. Jude Law's moron role could have been played equally as well by any of the Romanian extras. The only requirement is to wander about the forest looking stupid while watching a parade of guest stars steal the show. Not that it mattered, because all of the guest star roles were completely unnecessary as they did not advance the so-called plot by one iota. And as if all that wasn't enough, the auteur felt it necessary to throw in some spinning, whirling, kung fu jumping off horses. What was that about?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What gives Anthony Minghella the right to ruin two extraordinary works of fiction?? First, he destroyed The English Patient, which was bad enough, but now I discover he's butchered Cold Mountain - butchered!!!

I had such a strange reaction to The English Patient. My son and I went to see it the first weekend it was released, and I was so disappointed, but told my son I felt like I needed to read the book. I drove straight to Barnes and Noble, bought it, read it, and tried to figure out what in the world the critics were talking about when they said Minghella had trusted enough in the intelligence of the movie-going public to give them a great film. That is what he most surely did not do.

I do not ordinarily read a great deal of fiction, but Cold Mountain was so highly recommended by friends that I felt compelled to read it. I did not see Cold Mountain, the movie, when it played in theaters, and it was because of what Minghella had done to The English Patient. But like a fool, I rented it today, and I'm so upset, I had to vent my frustration and, most of all, my sadness, that someone could have taken this beautiful story and crafted it into something almost as beautiful on the screen, and now they never will.

READ THE BOOK AND LET THE MOVIE ROT ON THE SHELF. I will never be taken in by a Minghella project again. I think he may be one of the worst directors working today, and I'm tired of the praise Hollywood heaps upon his head. It must be that no one in Hollywood reads anymore. This movie bears no resemblance to the book, except for the names of the characters. Minghella's ego must know no bounds, and if he didn't like the book, then why didn't he write an original screenplay and leave the book alone. Even if I hadn't read the book, I would still consider this movie one of the worst I've seen from 2003; and I've seen almost everything that's been released for viewing in the USA.

Elaine, you aren't going to like this one either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another tiresome bore from Anthony Minghella, who seems to thrive on these big bloated super-productions that take over two and a half hours to do what any reasonable filmmaker would do in about ninety minutes.

The story centers on Inman (a somnambulent Jude Law), who goes off to the Civil War having just barely started a sort-of romance with Nicole Kidman, a Preacher's Daughter who has recently arrived in the prettily photographed backwater town. The story cuts back and forth between Inman's trials and tribulations at war (which is, guess what boys and girls? HELL!!) and Kidman's trials and tribulations back at home (which are, very predictably, incredibly boring). Renee Zellwegger appears on Kidman's farm to help Kidman get it back into shape after Kidman's saintly Daddy dies of Inconvenient Character Disease. Zellwegger acts all squinty and bossy in that Granny Clampett kind of way, dispensing enough Tough Love and Homespun Wisdom to turn the stomach of even the hardiest watcher of Touched By An Angel.

This film is, quite simply, excruciating. Avoid it like the big bloated Oscar-bait Bogus Pretentious Literary Adaptation nonsense that it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kidman and Law lack the chemistry to make this sloppily directed, poorly written romance\/melodrama work on any level other than grandiosity. Kidman pouts and

pines wistfully for her absent lover Law. She's just met him when he's whisked off to do battle for the South in the Civil War, and they've only exchanged about 5 sentences and one kiss, yet they're totally smitten. Law's main direction throughout seems to be `Look vacant and shell-shocked, but sensitive.' Rene Zellweger is about the only spark in this dreary script, but she plays it way too broad and over the top, like she was starring in `Annie Get Your Gun.' Yee-hah boy howdy! Something about her character felt more like it belonged in a Monty Python sketch - the one from `Holy Grail' where the peasants spend all their time wallowing in muck making mud pies for no reason. Kidman is a smart enough actress to stay out of her way whenever she can. Their scenes together are like a comic book hidden inside a Victorian Era novel.

Whenever the action bogs down into total tedium, which is frequently, all the writers do is shout `Cue the Simon Legree-type Villain!' and Teague (Ray Winstone) comes galloping out of nowhere to do his unspeakably dastardly acts, like kill and torture innocent God-fearing townspeople in the name of loyalty to a fast-fading

Confederacy. All other times, he's missing in action, which is preposterous even in this cornball script. There is a plethora of other talented actors who give credible performances in small roles. These are the characters Law meets as he does his Johnny Appleseed trek from the front lines, where he has deserted, to the hopefully loving embrace of Kidman back in Cold Mountain. Ultimately though, none of these characters matter. Law has no time for them or their lives. Each of these little mini-movies has the same tired theme: war is gol-durn heck, and turns otherwise decent Christian folk into rabid animals.

And the script is far too predictable, too heavy-handed. Moreover, the pacing of the story is dreadfully slow. You spend the entire movie waiting for Romeo and Juliet's inevitable reunion, with Kidman wringing her hands and sighing, Law overcoming incredible odds and dodging bullets. And when it finally comes you just don't care anymore. You'll be looking at your watch wondering how much more of this clap you have to endure.

I give it one star out of five for the battle scenes. There is a potent anti-war message here. The incredible lack of concern for the loss of life by the Generals on both sides of the conflict is powerful stuff. But it's only about 15 minutes of this 150-minute dog.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some movies are not for everyone. This accurately describes Igmar Bergaman's movie, Skammen (Shame). At only 18, I still have what I guess you could call a minor form of ADD and well, I watch movies to be entertained. Shame was a movie with a very interesting premise, of trying to convey the effect of war on the common people, it however fell short of accomplishing this for me. I don't know if it was the subtitles, black and white filming, length of the movie, or the fact that it took two hours out of my studying for a huge chemistry test, but I did not enjoy it. I understand it is considered a great movie and very important in the history of cinema, however, I think as my teacher pointed out, not everyone has liked or likes it. I guess I just wish it finished all of its many side plots. Maybe the translation lost something, but I felt there were infinite little off shoots that never met a conclusion. You would meet characters and never see them again, or really understand why they were included in the movie. My overall recommendation for this movie is that it's worth seeing, but only to form your own opinion on it. Whether or not you like or dislike it, it is necessary to respect the point that it is trying to convey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just recently viewed Shame which is directed by Ingmar Bergman. The film was interesting and very unique. I liked how it was in Swedish with English subtitles and that it was also in black and white. These features allowed me to better relate to the characters, the time period, and their stories. I didn't like how the movie was very slow in the beginning and how you didn't know what was really going on. At first, it was mainly a story of Eva and Jan's relationship. The movie also ended on a very depressing note because nothing good came out of all of the conflicts and changes throughout the movie. I probably would not go see Shame again, but it was a very cultured experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I felt that the movie Skammen, directed by Ingmar Bergman, was very dry. It shows the things people will do to survive during a war and the shame that comes out of these actions; however I feel that it was not complete or attention holding. He never fully got into the plot or deep into the character emotions or reasons behind their actions. The only thing that I found rather attention holding in the movie was the transformation of the two main characters, Jan and Eva. Many times during the movie was just the two main characters sitting around or doing their daily chores and not even having a conversation. I understand this was to show the reality of these people however I feel there are other ways to show reality and have it be entertaining. I think that Ingmar Bergman could have filmed this movie in a more riveting way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I liked most of this film. As other reviews mentioned it has a good cast, the plot is interesting enough. All in all it is fun to watch.

But the ending, I feel, is completely botched, it left me bewildered. Yes, you expect people crossing and double-crossing each other in this sort of movie, but quadruple-crossing? Well, if it's justified by the plot then why not?

But that's the bad part, there's completely no need for it. After a certain point it's all scheming with completely no meaning. (here comes the SPOILER). After the airport scene Enrico and his accomplices already HAVE the money. I couldn't understand the need for the rest of the scam. Is it all necessary just to rub Federico's nose in the fact that he's been fooled? I don't buy it.

So 6 out of 10 for 3\/4 of the film and 2 out of 10 for the ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was so offended by this film that I had to write SOMETHING about it, so please humour me.

Its only redeeming virtue, outside of some good acting, is that it doesn't go on past 107 minutes. Even that length is about 30 minutes too long.

Comparisons have been made here to the brilliantly dark 'The Grifters,' but I can't see it. They are two different films altogether. The closest 'Swindled' comes to an existing film is 'The Sting,' made in 1973. It borrows (sorry, STEALS) liberally from this splendid George Roy Hill 'entertainment,' which is exactly what is was. I enjoyed it because it didn't pretend to be anything else.

There are so many red herrings in 'Swindled' that I thought I was in a fish tank. It's very confusing, but that's only one of its many problems. The principal one is this: if you make a film where everyone lies to everyone else, where everyone is conning, we have no 'anchor' to ground us. The inevitable result is a mish-mash of very sloppy seconds from other caper flicks.

Just about everyone in this film is conniving and objectionable. Surely a basic Film 101 class would tell us that the audience has to 'care' for someone. We can't 'care' for anyone here: they're ALL swines. It might have worked as a rakish comedy, but it plays it straight from beginning to end.

IF YOU WANT TO SEE THIS FILM, READ NO FURTHER. BIG 'SPOILER' COMING. SORRY, BUT I HAVE TO DO IT.

There's so much fake blood and so many fake killings that it doesn't strain credulity -- it destroys it. The ending is absolutely ridiculous -- a 'murder' in a crowded airport that isn't really a 'murder' at all? And the 'murdered' guy, blood-soaked, simply stands up, brushes himself off, and walks away, fake blood dripping, with the booty? All while the police and hordes of people are looking on, and no one intercedes? The director must have a lot of cojones if he thinks we're supposed to buy into this. Noirish B-movies from the 1940s did better.

I'm a great fan of European flicks, but this confirms that schlock doesn't always come from Hollywood. As far as 'Swindled' is concerned, my judgment lies with a famous line from the oft-misspoken producer Samuel Goldwyn, who knew all about schlock: 'Include me out'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although the acting was excellent, I spent the whole movie waiting for the nasty boy who caused so much grief to so many of the characters, get his final nemesis, and instead everyone else suffered except him and he gets the job of the husband whose wife's death he causes by running away from his friends, wins the girl he gave an overdose to and tried to rape. Even his friend gives money to his father, but the butterfly effect completely fails to return to its cause.

This is a very dark film as each character that gets affected, suffers never ending depression. None of the normal avenues for relief seem to be effective and the only thing the authorities seem to do is give out quantities of stress pills.

If this is normal behaviour in Finland now, I'm never going to go back just in case I am affected by such an amoral butterfly and end up as destroyed as the characters in this film were.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's see. This movie is many things to different people. To Finns, as shown by the comments, it can be OK or dreadful or boring. To other folks, it can be something different. First off: if you do not speak Finnish (I do), you will understand half of what is going on, as subtitles are dreadful and even the title is translated incorrectly (\"Paha maa\" would probably be idiomatically translated as Badlands in UK English).

Why did I not like it? Because it is a Tarantino-style movie: it simply takes a very harsh reality and throws it back at you, as brutally as possible. I, however, am not American, and thus I am not particularly fond of this proceeding, because all it does is show that the director has really nothing new to say. Technical prowess (camera work is brilliant), script (not that unoriginal) do not rescue this movie from the bottom where it belongs. Should you wish to see a Finnish movie, then go for any of the Kaurism\u00e4ki brothers' movie, who match talent and directorial skill, with very good actresses and actors.

This director ought to review his intention and priorities: none was intelligible, and thus this film failed. By not watching it you won't miss much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this is what's best in the Finnish cinema at the moment, I'd say those big tax euros spent at supporting \"culture\" have gone to waste here in a horrible way. Paha maa is the worst kind of example of trying to make a Finnish \"European film\" for big audiences. I'm sure they wanted it to be all state-of-the-art, smart and touching at the same time. The result is crap.

To make it short: - The story is pretentious, na\u00efve and not credible. The same goes for the characters. I can imagine them brainstorming about making a film where \"everything would, like, turn to ***t and people would be hurt and feel, you know, really bad inside, because Finnish people are so notoriously depressed, too, and their self-esteem is so bad\", which brings us to the fact that...

- The film is loaded with clich\u00e9s, mostly about \"the Finnish mentality\". The way the it deals with people's problems and their causes could be straight out of a regular women's magazine or a cheap bull-psychology-self-help book. (\"We feel so bad inside!\") I'm sure they watched some Kaurism\u00e4ki, too, to find out what it is about his films that people like, misunderstood him completely, and came up with a boring, depressing story about people going through all kinds of s**t for no other artistic purpose than perhaps social pornography. It's a crying shame they threw in Tolstoy here. It's just a sign of trying to be smart. And of not being.

- I think the worst fault, however, is the complete lack of vision and depth. The film is highly unoriginal. It is also frustrating to watch endless sulking and suffering without any real revelation brought to it. I can go through this kind of mind**ck if the film is funny or ends up being an elaborate joke, or better yet, something sublime like in e.g. von Trier's Breaking the Waves. There was none these in Paha maa. Actually though, I did start laughing at some point because the turn of events was again just too predictable, over-the-top and incredible.

Who does this crap? And who likes it? I hope they're pretending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I recently waisted 8 \u0080 by going and see this movie in the cinema. It was a waste of time and the only feeling you get going out of the theater is a slightly nauseous of all the disgusting social pornography.

It could have been interesting if it had a quite absurd twist but it hadn't so it was just plain awful with maybe one or two scenes which could have been taken out and made to very nice short movies.

Another thing I thought about is the way the director uses all the Finish stereotypes as characters. It is quite extraordinary how you as a Finish director can make a movie with the worst stereotypes of your own nationality. It was sad to sit and and hear the audience sitting and laughing at things that they thought was typical Finish but in general just is making fun of people.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some Janapese modern horror movies are very good. Strong plot, scary moments, good acting, while others are just.... unfortunately, Uzumaki belongs to the latter camp.

I will rate the movie based on 3 elements: Plot, Scary Factor, and Acting.

1) Plot - true to the name the movie, the plot moves in circle and never really explains itself. OK, the town is captivated by the spiral curse, but why? And why do people act so foolishly? There is a fleeting attempt to explain about what is happening by the reporter.. unforutunately...

2) Scary Factor - if this was meant to be a horror flick, it has failed miserably. I can't really remember one good scary scene with plenty of build-up to it.

3) Acting - very monotonous. People walking around, saying meaningless phases. I can't really feel much empathy for our tragic heroes.

All in all, there are much better modern Japanese horror movies out there with coherent plot and strong characterization. Don't bother wasting your time on this wannabe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought it was weird and just gory, not scary. I have seen a couple of the Japanese horror films, Ringu and Juon, and loved them; but this movie was a disappointment. It never even explained anything about the curse. I just didn't see any horror... it wasn't scary to me at all. The whole time I was watching I was waiting for Kirie to discover the secret of the curse and why it was happening now. If this was some ancient curse, why didn't it happen before Shuichi's father? And it never told us what happened to her father. I kept waiting for someone to tell us the meaning or the reasoning behind this curse and then it just ended. I was very disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Uzumaki,\u00a0which translates into \"spirals\", arriving within this new wave of Asian Horror films following such hits like Ringu, Ju-On and The Eye (two of them with remakes.. and much more coming like Dark Water and Tale of Two Sisters), falls short of the spooky, supernatural thriller element so characteristic of the other movies, the only thing that remains is weirdness and not in a Tim Burton or David Lynch kind of way, but in a irrelevant and dull way.

Its start with a girl, some other kid with a crush on her, her best friend and his dad who's obsessed with Uzumakis! Everything that happens concerns Uzumakis, people die and you see Uzumakis. So okay, It'll go along with it, I'm kinda amuse by spirals myself, characters don't seem to go anywhere, but I'll play along. We find out the town is cursed by Uzumakis, people start screaming at Uzumakis and the point is Uzumakis are everywhere, the movie is a disaster, it doesn't know where to go, except to show you the power of Uzumakis!!!!!!!!! There are some cool concepts like when the mother cuts her fingers because she sees Uzumakis on her fingerprints but then there's another scene where she hears her husband (from beyond the grave!!) tell her that she also has Uzumakis in her ear, the way they handled that scene was just laughable, not even cheesy fun, there are also some (a little bit) of cool visuals, like the collection the father has of Uzumakis and the girl with the Uzumakis hair.. yep, Uzumakis hair, its out of context though, its seems like it was taken out of a Fruit Snack commercial where if you eat an Uzumakis fruits snack, its taste is so incredible your hair turns into Uzumakis, now if this wasn't bad enough, suddenly, out of nowhere there are Snail Men.. or ManSnails\u0085 whatever\u0085 and you know why? right? Because in their shells they have Uuuuzuuuumaaakiiiis\u0085. That only left time enough for a crappy anti-climatic ending and by that time I was sick of friggin' uzumakis.. uzumaki here uzumaki there, sure, look around you, how many Uzumakis can you find\u0085 If you want to see a movie about spirals go see PI (3.1416) now there you'll find some pretty cool uzumaki concepts in between the meaning of life and Dark City has also a little bit of a spiraling thing in there.

This movie could have worked as a music video, it has already garnered a cult following and thats why I was compelled to see it, but after doing so, I'm not sure why people think it's great. I was truly disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This feeble attempt at veering your typically bland Japanese horror movie more towards a creepy cult hit did not have the ammunition needed to keep the viewer involved throughout. Translated to vortex, Uzumaki is about just that- an irrational and overabundant tribute to the strange downward spiral into nothingness that has seemingly captivated a whole small town into dementia obsessed lunatics. While this certainly makes for a pleasurable b-movie on the surface, the traditionally tiresome acting, direction, and script will have all but Asian horror buffs shaking their heads in dismay. What could have roughly translated into Japanese equivalent of an early David Lynch piece, instead wares out it's spiraled gimmickry before it even has a chance to explain itself- which of course it does not. Aside from a few clever techniques employed, the movie rarely connects the dizzying thematics with the dull script, ultimately coming across as a cheap exploitation into the cult genre, substituting hollow imagery for genuine substance. When the movie had ended there was hardly anything that was gained from any of the interactions, save a tiny few scenes or images that rose above the one note film. I do applaud the makers for at least trying to take the genre into more supernatural, metaphysical realms and understand the rough losses lost-in-translation, but with zero substance to back any of it's freakishness up this will likely be relegated to obscure fanboy's bong-ridden basements.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, let me start off by saying this isn't a horrible movie by any means. It's just not good. I recall one poster saying the acting isn't campy it's just nuanced. No. I've seen nuanced Japanese and Asian acting. I'm sorry, you're wrong. This is camp.

The characters are totally unsympathetic, the deaths are totally random and utterly meaningless. The writing is bad. I'm fine with suspending disbelief, I'm fine with not having everything handed to me in terms of plot. But this movie has no plot. One reviewer stated \"This movie is set in a small town where people are going nuts over vortexes and spirals.\" That's not a blurb, that's the entire freaking film. Congratulations, I've just saved you nearly an hour and a half. There is nothing more to it. No character development, no plot development, no explanations, no resolution. And not even the \"Acceptable within the realm of J-Horror\" lack of resolution. Just nothing.

In addition, the musical score is done by someone who obviously wasn't actually watching the movie at the time because it's random enough to cause whiplash. Cognitive dissonance is one thing and done well it can be brilliant (see Dark Water), but here it just seems as if the score was designed to go with another movie all together.

The best example I can give is it's as if the Japanese remade Evil Dead without any of the clever bits or good acting. It just falls flat. It's J-horror without the horror.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie started out as a quite decent-looking film but it never really kicked off, instead it became predictable and even a bit silly. Some scenes were quite well made, the photography and the cuts used in combination with sounds and such made it a bit more interesting to watch, but since the story was quite slow it didn't manage to keep the interest alive. And more importantly, its not scary at all! It's supposed to be a horror movie but there wasn't a single scene that was close to frightening or even exciting..

To be frank, the actors weren't all that great either, no colorful characters you ll remember for the rest of your days..

Overall a watchable movie but it doesn't add anything and once you've finished watching it, it wont last long until its already forgotten.

The reason I watched it was because I had read some review giving it top scores, but I disagree and instead I would grade it 4 out of 10. If you still want some Japanese horror, I would suggest you watch Ju-On instead!

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Worst.film.ever Nothing more needs to be said. Aaron Carter is utterly repellent and the rest of the cast should fire their agents immediately. It really is a terrible terrible movie from beginning to end. I wish I could be more eloquent in describing the movies many (oh so many) flaws however I cant be bothered\/get too angry to form proper sentences.

In short I absolutely hated everything about this movie and not in \"so bad its good\" kinda way...

It was unadulterated drek.

Gavin","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only people i would recommend this film to are both blind and deaf, although i'm sure a sadomasochist would get a kick out of it. This film had nothing; no acting, terrible music, awful script- only the power to suck any happiness from your soul. You may be wondering by now why or even how i managed to sit through the full hour and a half of sheer inanity, and it is honestly a difficult concept for even myself. Firstly, i had to pace up and down as the film progressed as i found it extremely hard to get comfortable. Secondly, i only made it without gnawing off my own arm in order to have something to beat myself to death with by phoning friends for moral support when the plot became particularly slow. The problem was it became a matter of pride for me to finish it after the opening thirty minutes, and that was a fatal error on my behalf. I normally like films to leave you with something by the end, but all this did was take..... For the sake of your sanity do not watch this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What really stood out to me about this movie was how little the plot made sense. So many characters were randomly introduced, it was like how I imagine Tommy Wiseau's \"THE ROOM\" would be re-envisioned for the Disney Channel set. We had the wise elderly couple who kept on hanging out where \"Jane\" worked, telling the same story about how \"soda\" brought them together, or Jane's Mom\/Stepmom\/random crying woman who would all show up at random times.

Aaron Carter's acting is definitely the highlight of this film: I actually looked forward to every scene he appeared in. The editing is painfully bad, with scene cuts that make no sense. The \"Jane\" character is really irritating, mooning about and moping about \"J.D. McQueen.\" The scenes with the \"Music Awards\" are more depressing than anything else. And the ending of this movie is surreal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie with my friend for a good laugh. We actually got laughed at by the clerk at the video store because of our questionable movie tastes. Unfortunately, I don't remember the first half of the movie because all I did was stare at the giant metal braces Jane wore. and I didn't hear anything either due to the incomprehensible lisp. The other thing that was able to grasp my attention besides her metal mouth was her questionable fashion sense. This movie was made in 2005 but it seems like the wardrobe people jumped all the way back to 2000 for the clothes. If you remember the days when Aaron Carter was considered a \"popstar\" and you like high waisted jeans, ankle socks and knee length skirts, then this little trip down memory lane is perfect for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly, the only reason I picked up this movie from Blockbuster was because Aaron Carter was in it. Okay first thing's first. Do you notice how ugly Aaron Carter has become?? I mean, he used to be so cute but now..with that lanky body and blotchy skin - EW. I think he should stick with singing and the directors of the movie could've found a much better-looking guy who could lip-sync. No offense though. I thought this teen movie was majorly lame - and this is coming from me, being a teen myself. The 'mean girls' in there are oh-so predictable, the acting is so amateurish it makes you cringe at times (especially from Aaron) and overall I just didn't enjoy it. Although, I give out points for the storyline - that was alright, but not at all realistic. Anyway, stay away from this movie by all means you can unless you happen to have wads of cash on hand and have absolutely nothing better to do with 94 minutes of your time. It's not worth the $6.50!!

(P.S; this review of mine may not be applicable to younger kids under the age of 13!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was funny because the whole thing was so unrealistic, I mean, come on, like a pop star would just show up at a public high school and fall in love with the girl who happens to be obsessed with him? Come on, people!

Everyone but the lead girl were completely horrendous at acting. The dialog was cheesy, the premise was stupid, and the camera work was poorly done. I felt like I was watching a badly made home video.

I feel as if I've wasted almost 2 hours of my life that I will never get back.

I don't have anything else to say, except that I'd rather punch myself in the face multiple times, than watch this movie again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My summary refers to the fact that this film has 1479 votes--just 21 short of making it eligible to be on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 list--the 100 lowest rated films on the website. With a paltry score of only 1.8, this would place the film at approximately between #38 and 46 on the list--talk about a very dubious achievement!! My score of 3 isn't that bad--but it does bring the film that much closer to the dreaded list.

As for the film, it stars the once-cute Aaron Carter--yet another prepackaged and forgettable pop star of the 1990s. When he first broke onto the scene, he was a cute kid with some songs that appealed to pre-teens and tweeners on Radio Disney. His songs, look and image were all scrupulously groomed and created by marketing folks and did the trick--leading to some huge album sales. Unfortunately, by 2005, sales were in decline and Carter had hit his awkward stage of life--something ALL kids his age have to deal with eventually. To put it bluntly, he isn't cute any more in this film and is at a very tough stage of life. I assume now he's a gorgeous young man...but in \"Popstar\" he's no longer the heart-throb he once was. Here, he is just very normal...a death sentence for a kid in his position as a \"pop sensation\".

Interestingly, the film has some appearances by some other ex-teen heart-throbs from the last few decades--including a roles for David Cassidy and Leif Garrett--two guys who also know what it's like to disappear from the limelight. Cassidy managed to pick up the pieces and make a niche for himself, while Garrett is a great example of a pop star whose life after stardom has been a bit of a joke. Hopefully Carter will take after Cassidy in the future and so far, thankfully, he's managed to avoid the negative publicity and court appearances of many ex-pop idols. I was far from thrilled with the film but seriously wish him best in this department. It's not his fault he was plastered across the radio and television throughout the early to mid-1990s.

In this film, Carter doesn't exactly need to stretch himself--he plays a pop star. However, despite making millions and being adored by girls, he doesn't \"have it all\". He's quite dense--mostly because he has little interest in learning. The problem is so bad that his mother decides to no longer home school him--forcing him to go to public school. The problem, though, is that he is rather phobic about taking tests...and making the grade in school is difficult. So, he gets the idea of finding a smart girl to date--one who would naturally be obliged to help him out in school. He picks the cute but bookish Jane (Alana Austin) and pretends to really like her in a sad attempt to make this scheme work.

This plot, by the way, isn't bad and could work even though it seems a lot like an episode of a show like \"The Brady Bunch\" or a Nickelodeon sit-com. Sure, it's predictable and you KNOW that the formula will mean that she will eventually learn his plot and be hurt AND he will eventually realize that he actually does care for her AND by the end of the film, all will be forgiven and they'll be a real couple. But, given good acting and competent direction, this could be worth seeing for his teen fans, as predictable isn't always bad. And, as it turned out, this ISN'T exactly where the plot went...but it was awfully close.

There are a few good things I liked about the film. Seeing Tom Bosley and Stella Stevens playing Jane's grandparents was very nice--their role was quite sweet and it was good seeing them again. Also, 1970s made for TV movie star Andrew Stevens appeared in the film--it was nice to see him again--though part of me hated him, as he looks so great after all these years and I look ever bit of my 45 years! He did a fine job and it was nice seeing him in the same film as his mother (Stella).

As for Carter, with his many prior experiences on TV, he was, not surprisingly, pretty good. While his relationship with Jane didn't seem very believable, he and Ms. Austin gave it their best. The film wasn't great, but they did try and I think most of the problems with the film were in the writing--with a better and less formulaic plot, it could have worked much better. Plus the whole \"testophobia\" angle seemed pretty contrived...and rather insignificant. Who cares if a mega-millionaire star gets anxious taking tests in school?! Overall, not a rotten film as the current rating would imply, though there isn't much here to attract a wide audience. People who grew up loving Carter probably will enjoy the film. Older folks will probably care less as well as really young people who probably haven't heard of him. For them, there is no nostalgia value in the film.

My favorite part of the film...Leif Garrett giving Aaron advice. I felt like screaming \"don't listen!!\" but didn't!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Horrendous! I'm a teenager and I don't mind teen movies but this is horrible! Aaron Carter plays this popstar named JD McQueen and to keep his grades up or something, he works together with the 'nerd', Jane whateverherlastnameis. But the 'mean girls' are too predictable and such The clothing most of the girls wear in the movie isn't realistic. How would any of those girls get away with wearing no bra, tube tops and shirts that expose the belly? IN HIGH SCHOOL? At my school, we'd be sent home for something like that.

And one part of the movie where JD texts Jane, she says 'Sleep tight? He must think i'm an idiot! I didn't know texting was so stressful!' How is texting stressful? And how obsessed Jane is with JD and how he 'falls' in love with her is very stupid. The dialogue is cheesy and stupid, the acting's terrible. the music is somewhat enjoyable and the plot is little to none.

For tweeny-boppers who still love Aaron Carter, you'll enjoy it. If you're a casual watcher like me, this is NOT the movie for you","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a disaster-movie, in both meanings of the word. Every character, every role, every conversation, every twist, everything in this movie stinks big time. It's a shame to see Dennis Hopper's talent wasted in this dreadful movie. I can give you 100's of examples but see for yourself.

Or rather : don't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found myself getting increasingly angry as this movie progressed.

Basically, Dr. Crawford (Dennis Hopper) has predicted a meteor will hit the earth. The \"powers that be\" don't believe him so he sets about building a survival shelter inside a mountain for a small collection of people.

Jake Lowe (Peter Onorati) is a down on his luck reporter for a trashy tabloid who gets a tip from a friend he thought was dead that something is going on in the mountains. He sets out to investigate.

While trying to get into the secret survival shelter Jake spends a great deal of time shooting people to death or beating them to within an inch of their lives. He spends the rest of his time bitching at Dr. Crawford about who gave the doc the right to decide which people should get to survive the meteor.

I found myself wishing Jake would do the future a big favor and turn a gun on himself.

Don't waste your time on this turkey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not only did the effects and acting in this movie bite, but the story was terrible.

A scientist discovers that a comet fragment will hit the moon ... world leaders ignore him ... he builds a shelter ... then, everyone is upset that he is \"playing God\".

How lame! He built the thing, why is everyone \"entitled\" to access? Totally lame story, don't waste your time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like many others, I counted on the appearance of Dennis Hopper to make this not a complete waste of time. I was sadly mistaken. Everything negative said about this flic is more than true. What takes the cake however, is the horrible, horrible storyline for the main character.

Here's why: The planet might be destroyed, the ONLY way to recover from it, for the ENTIRE human race to be saved trough it, is to get as many smart, capable, nice, competent people into an underground hide-out. And Dennis Hopper is the lone seer\/scientist with vision who was prepared for the worst, and who has realized this. But what's the main motivation of Stevens (Sonny D'Angelo)?? He's angry because Dennis has decided who is to be saved or to be doomed! While it clearly explained to Stevens that Dennis' character has done everything to warn people of the danger but that he was laughed at. The Hopper-character was the boy with the finger in the dike, and now Stevens is blaming him for 'picking and choosing'??? And if that isn't enough, he wants to stop everybody from entering this hideout, because \"it isn't fair!?\" AND.... he's responsible for the death of the one guy who is humanity's saviour! OH MY GOD, how stupid can you get?

What's also maddening that IMDb forces one to write minimal ten lines about this piece of crap. I mean, TWO MILLION in budget, what could have been done with that? Think Clerks, Blair Witch, and lotsa other movies who have been made for under 100.000 dollars and were still better. AAAAARGH! I count myself lucky that I didn't pay one penny to see this crap, and to sit through the end of this utter, \u00faber-crap, is one the most heroic things I've done this year. It's no wonder that the writers of this pile of dung had jobs as camera operator and title designer before ...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Peter Crawford discovers a comet on a collision course with the moon. But when the government doesn't believe him (dumb fact #1). He builds a shelter in deep underground and is drawing lots to see who will go. Plus is willing to kill to save humanity (dumb fact #2). With millions of dollars of technology, how could a civilian see what NASA could not? Plus, the ends justifies the means moral of this story is just plain WRONG!!! This movie is improbable and totally unbelievable. What was running through these people minds, why the hell do crap piles like this get the green light? Some times I wonder who someone has to **** to get a movie made in this ****ing town.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is complete crap do not watch the main character is so f u c king concerned that the doc's bomb shelter is not big enough for everyone thus he claims the doc is playing god by saying who lives and who dies all during his 13itching, he kills people without thinking twice and beats people to near death also, the main character is an selfish little a$$ wipe as because of him, the doc who made the shelter died and his friend died. he also killed several no name cops the main character is just a f u c king dumb hillbilly s h i t head that's got no concept of the greater good also, this movie makes no f u c king sense. tell me why a comet would cause seismic activity? (if you say gravity, i will f u c king rape you cause the comet is smaller then the moon and you don't see the moon causing volcano eruptions and earthquakes and avalanches).

why does a comet cause atmospheric discharges (the red lightning, also why is it red?) in addition, if you don't know, the F U C KING MOONS BEEN HIT BY COMETS THOUSANDS OF TIMES!!! thats why there's f u c king craters everywhere on the moon. the size of an object needed to shatter the moon into the fragments as portrayed in the movie would require a comet around the size of the moon itself.

it takes huge amounts of KE to cause an satellite to explode like that.

a goof in this movie is that the nuclear explosion in space resulted in a disk shaped shock wave. this is incorrect as in space, the explosion should have produced an spherical shock wave. this inaccuracy is also apparent when the comet hits the moon.

also, someone tell me why the commander (the person who drives the big old broken plane) suddenly felt the need to die? i mean he's just like walking with them to the shelter, then he stops, he salutes the main character.

WTF?!?!!?!? the main character is also an ugly @$$hole, he's got a huge forehead and thinning hair. disgusting.

STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not only that the VHS and DVD cover(at least in Europe)show a scene that has nothing to do with the actual plot of the movie, the acting is so bad, that the movie is crying out for being made fun of. If you have nothing to do, you are with some good friends and you want to have some laughs about a movie, that is supposed to be serious, watch Tycus and Peter Onorati, a man who will teach you how to knock over bad guys with empty carton boxes! Shame on Dennis Hopper, following Travoltas example by starring in his very own \"battlefield earth\". For those who want to watch a good movie about the earth being destroyed by a terrible force, please do not choose Tycus, but do yourselves a favor and watch \"Armageddon\" for he 20th time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Tycus' is almost as bad as a science fiction film can go.

I can hardly find something good to say about this film. The premises are completely wrong. A comet is supposed to hit the Moon and cause catastrophic damage to Earth, but nobody believes the scientist who predicts this.A whole underground city plus a launching pad for nuclear armed rockets is build in the California mountains without anybody noticing. When the comet nears Earth the news make it to the TV and newspapers hardly a day before the event. And so on, and so on ...

Neither does any kind of emotion make it to the screen. Is the genius who discovers the comet and builds the underground city a savior of humanity or a beast? The director or Dennis Hooper who is playing the role did not seem to decide until the film was done, and actually it does not make any difference because acting and directing is so confusing that you end by wondering what does this film try to say. The special effects are so cheap that not only that they cannot be convincing in the era of computer effects, but they could not have been convincing even in the 50s, four decades before this film was made.

A total waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. My lifetime was drastically wasted by this pile of stink. I would rather chew off my arm than watch this film again. Painful story line, painful characters and a painful two hours.

The best way of describing this movie is a follows:- I would rather stick pins in my eyes and cut out my brain than watch another minute of this tripe.

Advice is to stay well clear and let your local dustman do you a favour of removing this rubbish.

Lin, you told me this was good!!!!

Goodaleebyeload.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, boy, it's another comet-hitting-the-earth film. Coming within a year or two of Deep Impact, Armageddon, Space Cowboys and various other stupid flicks with rap stars in them, you'd think people would be burned out on this concept. Apparently not, since I rented it, hoping it MIGHT not be awful: Dennis Hopper was in it, after all, and he's a good actor, right?

I forgot something important: along with Peter O'Toole, Robert De Niro and quite a few other esteemed actors, Hopper has a penchant for appearing in dreadful films. Not only that, but he seems to prepare for them by taking forget-how-to-act classes. His performance in Tychus is so awful that you expect Divine or Edith Massey to appear in some scenes.

I don't know what else to say about this rubbish, other than if you're into things crashing into the earth films, watch Deep Impact, and then Armageddon and Space Cowboys at a stretch. Forget the others altogether. This one really is bottom of the pile.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unimpressive and extremely low budget sci-fi without any charm and appeal. Even the scenes related with the fall of the asteroids are stolen from other movies with the same plot. It's just a bad rip-off of \"Asteroid\" (with Annabela Sciora) and \"Deep Impact\" (with Morgan Freeman). Mr. Hopper seems to be anxious to slip away from this pointless and dull sci-fi entry.

I give this a 2 (two). And don't say I'm not a good guy!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tycus is one of the worst films direct to video films that I see ever.

I am not amazing that this product does not appearing at the cinema.Bad Visual effects (The start is dreadful)Bad actors (I don\u00b4t understand Why appear in this film the great Dennis Hopper)and Bad screen Without sense.My alternative:Armaggedon or Twister. SENTENCE FOR TYCUS:Do not watch this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have read all of the reviews for this direct to video movie. I can agree that the movie is not \"Armageddon\" or \"Deep Impact\" quality. Nevertheless, if you are looking for a way to pass ninety minutes or so, then this is a movie that is bearable.

I started looking at the film early in the AM hours as I was doing some geek stuff. It was very nice, because I was able to switch back and forth between what I was doing and watching the movie, with out missing a beat. It is a predictable movie, and the acting is not up to par for some of the veteran actors (for instance, Dennis Hopper).

But I should point out that I paid only $2 (US) and as the old adage goes: You get what you pay for! If you are looking for some deep meaning movie that will have you have to watching it over and over again, then this is definitely the long video. On the other hand, if you looking for something to pass the time, then there is nothing wrong with Tycus (Which incidentally was called \"Comet: Final Impact\" in Mexico where I found this video).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's certainly a direct-to-video, but the story is not as bad as most of the other reviewers think. I quite like the fact the hero is doing the wrong thing most of the time.

The hero's reactions and the reactions of the rebels are just human. The Hopper character is actually playing god. That might be the right thing to do, but one may not like that anyway.

In the end, the god player is doomed to death, and the hero, who would have spent his own life, can live. Quite a morale. :-)

The most unrealistic thing I saw, is that earth is doing so well with no moon stabilizing its rotation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I actually enjoyed Tycus, if not for much more than mocking the production values. Dennis Hopper was just fine, although I wonder if he would have signed on the project had he seen the special effects they used. And furthermore, what was with the scene with the ninja?? That was just completely out of pace. Perhaps someone came up with the bright idea mid-shooting. Oh well, This movie is great if you're drunk and need a good laugh. Cheers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie (even calling it a movie is an overstatement) is ridiculously horrible. Normally a huge fan of Eric Roberts in \"B\" list movies, this tragedy of a flick makes me question his real B list clout! And Charlie, please go back to hoping for a Diagnosis Murder revival rather than this.....you can't blame the nameless eye candy (uhhum...beauty pageant members) for participating in this weak movie, but YOU are a former TV star man! Pull yourself together. Don't even get me started on Stuart Pankin. For the sake of all that is good Stuart, you should have seen this was not necessarily a real movie! Bryan Michael Stoller exemplifies absolute genius only in the fact that he was able to dupe anyone into investing in this picture (money or time).

Really, this was no parody or spoof movie although it tries on a 2nd grade level. Mostly, it is poor writing and acting and camera work and editing and....well poor everything. I watched it because I read an article in some mag about agent MJ's involvement and my interest was peaked due to the lawsuit in which he was involved. I now wonder if the only reason they show him from the shoulders up in the movie is because he, like at the trial, showed up wearing pajama bottoms and barely lucid (wait a second, is he ever really considered lucid?...I digress). And Agent MJ? Is that the best they could come up with for a name for his character? Sheez. What a startling piece of originality! Or, maybe that was supposed to be funny? Putting Marriott into the movie was a nice touch at first, but overdone and annoying after all is said and done.

Spare yourself the grief of watching......don't say I didn't warn you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do the following: Get a copy of this movie and a friend. Wager the friend $10 that they can't sit through this entire movie. They cannot divert their gaze or be distracted by anything. Now watch your friend. Win or lose, you get $10 of entertainment.

It angers me to no end when people see a movie and are quick to give it 1 out of 10, or sum up their thoughts with \"it sucked\". (And when asked \"Why?\", they respond, \"Just because.\" Arrgh.) That is why this movie exists. It's sole purpose is for me to say, \"There! THIS is a horrible movie! THAT is 1 out of 10!\".

This movie is absolutely appalling.

While the recent trend of movie parodies has forced them to become increasingly formulaic, this movie falls short in every single aspect. It's not funny. It's not entertaining. And for some of the parodies, it's completely inaccurate! Horrible acting. Unfunny dialogue. A witless story. Terrible \"special effects\". One INANE gag after another. And to make matters even worse, there isn't even gratuitous nudity to somehow make it even fleetingly worthwhile.

This movie leaps past idiotic, stumbles over stupid, and lands face first on moronic. Even I, who loves a good \"check your brain at the door\" movie, found myself physically agitated watching this. This movie isn't even \"Hard Ticket To Hawaii\" so-terrible-it's-good bad... IT'S JUST BAD.

NOTE: I actually challenged a friend to watch this as described above. Not only couldn't he make it all the way through, but he had a headache and needed a couple minutes afterward because he felt a little ill. True story.

I could not accentuate this rating any more... a resounding 1 out of 10!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, I would like to apologize for my rating of \"1\"... The only reason i give this film such a high rating is that I can't delve into negative integers. All \"This is a spoof\" musings aside, and while I certainly have tried to give it due consideration, have left me with a certain notion, namely; \"This is quite possibly the worst film ever made.\" On any level and in any plausible quantification of qualitative measurement... Seriously, I tried, I'm just as in to any indie born-for-cult-video-distribution film as the next buff, but seriously, this movie sucked rhino balls...

Honestly, if I had directed this \"film\" I would have seen it as a legitimate cause for suicide.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While traveling with a team of misses for the dispute of the Miss Galaxy, the airplane piloted by Maximus Powers (Eric Roberts) and Mike Saunders (Charlie Schlatter) crashes in an isolated, where lays Noah's Ark protected by the Jurassic Pork. While the group fight to survive, alien apes plot to use the ark to destroy the human race and dominate planet Earth.

I like parodies, but \"Miss Castaway\" is an offense to human brains. The awful story and the special effects are very, but really very bad. There are spoofs with \"Lost\", \"Castaway\", \"Jurassic Park\", \"Sixth Sense\", \"Titanic\", \"Planet of the Apes\", \"Raiders of the Lost Ark\", \"Congo\", \"MIB\", \"Perfect Storm\", \"Austin Powers\", \"Jaws\", \"Mission Impossible\", \"Close Encounters of the Third Kind\", \"Star Wars\" and \"Hulk\", but the problem is that most of them are very silly and not funny. In the end, the trailer is better than the film. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): \"Miss\u00e3o Quase Imposs\u00edvel\" (\"Mission Almost Impossible\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You should never ever even consider to watch this movie! It is absolutely awful! This isn't an overstatement!! It is so unbelievable and exaggerated, it gets boring. It is just a movie where they have taken stories and plots from several movies and put it together in one. They writer hasn't been able to pull it off in a good way.

If you'd like to see pretty girls in bikinis and no brain this might be the movie for you, but still, you should plug your ears and just watch. It's not worth listening:p There are so many great movies out there, and if I could choose one, this would be the last movie I would pick. But all in all, it's your choice!!!

Enjoy!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"holy sweet murder this is quite possibly the least funny movie i've ever seen. you can take my word for this as truth because it's playing on television right now. it's really one of the most pathetic productions i've ever seen. there is not a single redeemable aspect of this flick. it just lacks any humor whatsoever. the only good thing it possibly has going for it is that it's so unfunny that it's wholly unmemorable. in fact, i just sat through some ridiculous sub-plot and i can't really tell you what went on. the only reason i can even possibly remember having seen this movie is because it's so absolutely humorless it will stick in my mind forever based on that alone.

an absolutely must miss. if your friend wants to show it to you, shoot him and save yourself the boredom.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As an indie filmmaker, I try to at least make a decent film . This piece of ____ was beyond low budget. It was shot on video and not 24P mini-DV at least. The look and feel of this was just baaaad. I met the director a few years ago at ShowBiz Expo in LA and he was talking about that book, Film-making for dummies that he was putting together. I thought this little video was going to be something but I guess I was wrong. He could have brought the value up a little by shooting 16mm film instead of that awful video. The plot was stupid as well as the acting and all the fake green screen and sound and the whole nine yards. I had a choice tonight to rent any movie and made the wrong choice. Damn!!!!! I did buy JoyRide which was a hell of a movie. Maybe the director should read real motion picture books on film-making and not try to cut corners when trying to make a low budget flick. Maybe he should learn from the masters who made, Night of the living dead and The Evil Dead and Chain saw massacre. just to name a few of the all time low budget great hits. This is one video that should have stayed dead. I cannot call it a film because he did not use film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There was a time when Michael Jackson was revered as the King of Pop. Then came a time when he attracted negative publicity as much as lemonade attracts wasps. Finally, it is now the time that we feel truly sorry for this man.

This 'movie' is another reason to. I promised a rabid Michael Jackson fan to watch it with her. You know the type of fan -- someone who tells him- or herself to like everything the object of affection ever did. While watching this movie, which she had seen twice already, I realized how far this fandom goes. Probably far enough to rate this movie above a 1\/10, as some people miraculously did.

The movie attempts to be a parody of many other movies and series, most notably Cast Away, Lost and Jurassic Park. Unfortunately, it fails miserably at any level. The acting does not save the absolutely horrible story, the filming has the quality of a too-often played video tape, the special effects were better executed in Be Kind Rewind (for those who do not now this movie: with aluminum foil)... All this would be funny if the movie managed to be, well, funny. Unfortunately, it is not. It hurts to watch this.

And then there is Michael Jacksons appearance in this garbage. He appears on a projection screen to deliver an important message, and manages to come across as mobile as Jabba the Hutt and as serious as a 4-year old. Just when I thought \"who is the terrible person that lured this poor man into participating in this movie and yet again making a total fool of himself\", I (finally) reached the ending credits and discovered that the movie was actually partially shot at Jackson's Neverland ranch. In other words: He. Likes. It.

This movie, and Jackson's involvement in it, is truly disturbing. Do not watch it even for the \"haha, a movie in the IMDb Bottom 100\" effect. Or be warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a film that revolves around two mysteries (which I have now demystifed).

First, did the film makers understand the concept of 'parody' before using it to carpet bomb the audience throughout the film? Parody is when a reproduction attempts to mock, comment on, or pay homage through self-depreciating humour to, the original work. In other words, there should be reasons to parody such work, and they should definitely be clever. I didn't see any of those in the film. I did see some awful 10 seconds jokes that fell flat within 2 seconds of delivery. Bryan Stoller probably went to Eric Roberts and said \"hey, I was drunk last night, watching Survivors, and had this brain fart for a straight to DVD release. I want you on board without reading the script...because I plan to direct this film without one!\"

And herein lies the second mystery: Eric Robert's career. I use to think Eric Roberts had the career he had because he was unlucky. Now I realize it's because he is stupid (and therefore deserves the career that he had). After watching this movie, it is apparent that he would have been better off had he gone into mainstream adult films, which has higher budgets, more...intense...scenes and roles, better acting and direction, more elaborate and compelling plot lines, and a much wider audience than this B-movie reject (C-movie?).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Except for the appearance of talented Austin Powers impersonator Richard Halpern, this pic was your run of the mill movie spoof. Dated movie references will not help audiences that may come across this endeavor in future. Watch for \"Groovy\" Austin Powers in the hot tub. It's a hoot and a half.

Poor special effects are overcome by the appearance of numerous starlets in skimpy outfits, so at least that should keep one entertained (if that's what thrills you).

For my money, I would rent the DVD of classic spoofs such as \"Airplane\" or \"Lobster Man from Mars\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film, had it been done properly, has SO much potential. Parody films are always funny, and people tend to like them because they're light hearted, stupid and silly but fun. This film WAS funny in some parts, but it could have been a lot funnier. The acting itself was OK from all the actors, but...I wasn't satisfied. It seemed a tad empty, and my summary title says it all about the effects. Proper green screens weren't used for this movie...backgrounds were added in after which just looked terrible. No wonder this film went straight to DVD lol. It wasn't ALL a total loss, it is funny and will give you a good laugh (AT it, not WITH it most of the time).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"MacBeth, I've always thought, is the most accessible of Shakespeare's 'Great Period' plays. Compact, focused, with heaps of violence, it should have been the play most open to screen adaptations. I'm not aware of a really good rendering of the story, however - the best effort being Orson Welles's vigorous shoestring version. To the list of MacBotches we must add the Connery\/Baxendale effort.

(It seems it was not a 'film adaptation' at all, but a TV version that was given a theatrical release, post Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet and Branagh's Hamlet. That might explain some of its flaws, but doesn't excuse them.)

It starts well, with a feisty battle sequence with pleasingly grisly witches looking on. Poor old Gray Malkin and Paddock are cut from the opening scene, but they aren't alone for long. In quick order they are joined by the bloodied Sargent and his account of the battle, the treachery of the Thane of Cawdor, the luckless master o' the Tiger, even MacBeth's meeting with Duncan when he is invested as thane of Cawdor. All of these had virtues that plead like angels trumpet tongued against the dark damnation of their sending off, but sent off they are. These aren't the only cuts, either. This is MacBeth in a hurry.

From the opening battle we are pitched directly into MacBeth's encounter with the witches, which is well done. Brian Blessed, curiously, directed the witchy sequences, and he has great fun with the special effects as MacBeth and Banquo are told of their fates. Jason Connery as MacBeth is awkward, obviously unsure what to make of the verse. Graham MacTavish as Banquo, on the other hand, is capable, making his lines natural and easy. Within a few minutes of Connery's mumbling, the viewer is struck the urge to see the roles reversed and MacTavish in the title role. No wonder MacBeth felt he needed to kill him.

These first few minutes marks the high point of the film. From there we move to Helen Baxendale receiving word of her husband. She's as lost as Connery, and denied the beard that he gets to hide behind. Her \"Unsex me here\" invocation of evil is embarrassing, not unsettling. There are some reasonably clever touches - MacBeth's \"We will speak further\" is not a sign of his hesitancy in the face of his wife's wicked ambition, but his attempt to silence her prattling as he throws her onto the bed.

The acting of the leads is the biggest let down. Connery's method consists of staring glazedly about the screen while he mumbles his monologues via voice-over. Baxendale looks pinched and neurotic. An attempt to do something interesting with \"Is this a dagger\" - the fantastical dagger is a shadow cast by a cross on an altar - falls flat due to Connery's poor delivery and sloppy direction, which mars the production throughout. We accompany Lady MacBeth back into the murder chamber, where she gets to stab the reviving Duncan, but the effect is comic, not dramatic.

Big scenes are botched - the appearance of Banquo at the feast is made incomprehensible through attempts to mix subjective rendering of MacBeth's delusion with what those around him see, or don't see. The second meeting with the witches is even less coherent, and the prophetic visions are confusing. Timing seems to be an issue here - Banquo's banquet is the centrepoint of the play, but the film moves rapidly towards conclusion after it, giving it an unbalanced feel and no scope for the intricacies of the riddles MacBeth is caught in to be appreciated, or for his descent into madness to be convincing. Another crucial cut is the scene where Malcolm tests MacDuff, and MacDuff learns of the murder of his family. This robs his revenge of most of its emotional force - and the character of a lot of the screen time. He's a virtual stranger when he turns up to kill MacBeth.

A point for trying. MacTavish's Banquo earns another. The first few minutes garners another. But that's all. From then on it's sound and fury blah blah blah.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had high hopes for this production, being one of my favourite works.

Indeed, a lot of it is reasonable: Helen Baxendale is not a bad Lady Macbeth, but lacks the devilry which the original character is infused with. Many of the minor characters do well, and the Scottish settings are superb.

The big disappointment to me is Jason Connery in the title role: he seems to be reading his lines off a cue card with the wrong glasses - surely for the first time, as well. He can do so much better. Any production when compared to the sublime Ian McKellen (Macbeth 1979)who to my mind gave the gold standard performance, is going to struggle to be appreciated, but I actually fell asleep and had to rewind this one before I could get through it - hardly a great sign.

Honestly, one to Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have just watched this \"latest\" version of Macbeth and was pleasantly surprised with the solid acting and obvious effort that had to turn a low budget historical piece into a fully fledged watchable movie.

One note however, the music was very lame and added nothing to the intensity of the film and sounded like someone with a keyboard and a bunch of samplers as opposed to a full orchestral score. I think Paul Farrer needs to get his act together!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jason Connery is not an actor; he is the son of an actor. His Macbeth is the worst I have ever seen. Oh yes, he murders king Duncan, but he also kills William Shakespeare. His wife is even worse. Please, give me Polanski's version on DVD, so I can forget this monster. Jon Finch, Orson Welles, Laurence Olivier, there you have ACTORS!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are a Catalan nationalist anarcho-socialist with unnuanced reverence for the mythologies of the Spanish republic, this movie may be for you. Two brothers, real-life ones (one of them being Marc Recha himself), re-enact a fictional version of a real-life journey they had made through the spectacular Catalan countryside, and history is evoked (pans of bullet-holed walls, artillery booms on the soundtrack) but not shown. There is very little dialog, and most of it is incidental: the story is told in a third-person voice-over, the voice being that of an actress impersonating the real-life sister of the real-life brothers. The images have little to do with what story line there is, which isn't much. Many are stunning, brooding pans across stark semi-arid mountains and rivers (think Terrence Malick or Gus Van Sant -- there's not a little of both \"Gerry\" and \"Last Days\" here), interspersed with some stunning still images and motionless frames. These are best enjoyed within the film's superb natural sound environment and without the ultimately tedious narration or even the occasional background music (some quite good, some rather odd, but all gratuitous). The best of what this movie has to say is said in these sequences, with their occasional comment-less inclusion of power stations and dams.

The relationship between the brothers is left sketchy and generic; a major character is a man-biting catfish, never shown. The more the Catalano-nationalist anarcho-whateverist commitments of the director are suggested, the more the film's richer, unspoken message is subverted and the more irritatingly narcissistic the experience becomes. Though the director said at the NYFF screening that the film was conceived from the beginning with its third-person narrative, I'd like to see a version of it without the narrative or the music and with only the natural soundtrack and minimalist dialog -- the result might be more moving, and would in any case not be that much less baffling.

Meantime, this is most likely the only film you will see this year in which a guy strides into the frame with a cloth object (the bathing suit he had been wearing?) dangling from his penis. This is one of the few moments in the whole movie in which your interest is (sorry) pricked by something that's actually happening on screen (what is that? why's it hanging there?), but, as usual, no answers are provided. Very Warholian, very sixties, and a not a little tiresome.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most irritating thing about \"Dies d'agost\" (August Days) is not simply that NOTHING HAPPENS in this film but that director Marc Recha has the nerve to pretend that this film is some sort of homage to leftist Catalan journalist Ramon Barnils. Unless mentioning Barnils' name a few times constitutes an \"homage,\" this pretense is an utter fraud. You will learn virtually nothing about Barnils in this film nor about the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) nor about the special role of Catalunya in that war. You also will not learn about the collective punishment inflicted on the heroic Catalan people for years afterward by the victorious and vindictive Franco.

The footage of the Catalan countryside is very beautiful, of course, but \"Dies d'agost\" does not have an extensive and varied enough collection of such scenes to qualify as a travelogue. The large number of stills shown -- not very illuminating images of the forest floor, for example -- is the clearest indication of the paucity of ideas here. The aimless drift of brothers Marc and David during their camping trip does not produce compelling cinema. On the contrary, one's strongest impression is of a film made by and for spaced-out, middle-aged hippies. Don't waste your time. Read a good book about the Spanish Civil War instead. (I recommend Felix Morrow's scathingly anti-Stalinist \"Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain,\" which contains a gripping account of the 1937 Barcelona Uprising.)

Barry Freed","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Forced, cloying, formulaic. Do these adjectives make you want to run to rent his? Miriam Hopkins was brilliant in the original \"Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde.\" A few other early movies of hers, notably \"The Story of Temple Drake,\" are never shown but said to be excellent.

Here, she is cutesy, bossy, and thoroughly unappealing. Ray Milland as a Greeniwch Village bohemian not at all convincing.

The two child performers are creepy and also bear no relation to the Village as it was then.

Speaking as a native of Greenwich Village, I find the setting ersatz, generic, and phony. Not that I was around for a couple generations but my relatives were there in 1937. It isn't funny. It isn't remotely authentic. We don't care about the characters.

So many movies were made about the struggling masses vs the capitalists at this time, and done with elan. \"Easy Living\" comes to mind. It didn't take place in the Village. But it rings very true. This rings with a thudding knell.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pat O'Brien portrays Knute Rockne, the All-American Notre Dame football coach. No doubt, this film will be considerably more appealing to those interested in some aspect of \"Knute Rockne All-American Notre Dame Football\" - probably, it's most interesting to serious followers of football and\/or Notre Dame football. You will see some good documentary-style film footage.

Otherwise, it's difficult to recommend this as a FILM. It's not much more than an historical document. You'll \"know\" the end is near when Gale Page gets a chill - and, don't blink or you'll miss Ronald Reagan doing, of all things, \"Camille\"!

*** Knute Rockne - All-American (1940) Lloyd Bacon ~ Pat O'Brien, Gale Page, Ronald Reagan","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe this wowed them in the 50's, but this is one of those flicks that doesn't age well. It's got that preachy, earnest, downtrodden working man vibe of a 2nd rate Rod Serling live TV \"Playhouse\" broadcast. The \"plot\" is by the book, the Cassevetes character's troubled background seems tacked-on, and the love interest is unconvincing and half-hearted.

Sidney Portier gives an OK performance, but man he sure was an annoying, haughty snot. If I had to work with this guy in a warehouse I'd probably want to hit him with a grappling hook too. Jack Warden is good, because as usual, he plays Jack Warden.

Like 90% of the films rated on IMDb (whether they are classics, mediocre or crapola) somehow this one gets rated with 7-point-some-stars. It is in no way deserving of that. Save your time","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"a real hoot, unintentionally. sidney portier's character is so sweet and lovable you want to smack him. nothing about this movie rings true. and it's boring to boot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very resistible but ultimately harmless film version of the children's literary classic which incorporates an animated portion in the style of MARY POPPINS (1964) and BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS (1971). The human cast is very distinguished - James Mason, Billie Whitelaw, David Tomlinson, Joan Greenwood, Bernard Cribbins - but their roles range from the miscast (a 69 year-old Mason as a thieving chimney-sweep!) to the inconsequential (Greenwood as a befuddled aristocrat) to the bizarre (Whitelaw plays several 'exotic' characters - including a circus performer, an old hag, a maid and a fairy - for no apparent reason).

The animated segment of the film, handled by a group of East-European animators, is hardly inspired but mildly enjoyable in itself and, as usual, with this type of thing, there is an assortment of songs one has to put up with, one of which in particular is reprised far too often for its own good. The film was directed by noted character actor Jeffries who had previously directed (far more successfully) other children's films namely THE RAILWAY CHILDREN (1970) and THE AMAZING MR. BLUNDEN (1972; which I've yet to watch myself but which was released some time ago on R2 DVD by Anchor Bay UK).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was 12 when this film was released and adored it. The song's were inspiring and it made me feel good, watching it several time's at the cinema. I actually had the soundtrack album and played the song's over and over.

26 years later...I'm ashamed. Just sat and watched it with my 2 daughters who enjoyed it lot's but my cynical older grown up eyes hated it. It's very poorly directed in many places and considering it was Lionel Jeffries directing I really wanted to enjoy it. The character animation was so rough yet the backgrounds were quite good. I remember the critics at the time saying that it was a poor film and was horrified but now I agree.

It is an old film yes, compared to what can be achieved now, maybe that's why I thought it was good then. But that does not excuse it for it's poor acting, directing and sloppiness. The main child actor's voice seem's dubbed which is very distracting too. Can't quite see what they were trying achieve when it was being made, all that it become was a weak film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Classic author C.S. Lewis once wrote an essay stating that no children's story is worth the reading, viewing etcetera if it can only be enjoyed by children. I'd say this film is an easy one to hold up as a defence of his argument.

Around the age of five or six, I loved it, tracked it down only three or four years later and found it to be wet, poorly animated, dully and confusingly written, and with distressingly repetitive and awful songs (I'm looking t you, hi-cockalorum), showing a production aiming at joyful silliness and whimsy, but resulting with an ugly, twee, frustrating mess.

By all means, show this to your infant, but I would heartily recommend that you don't buy a copy or attempt to sit in on the viewing. If you want something set in the same era but with genuine charm and wit, go after 'Oliver Twist' or the BBC's brilliant adaptation of 'The Box of Delights'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is a dreadful adaption of Charles Kingsley's story. The animation is, to put it bluntly, awful. And the songs are a disgrace to film songs, epsecially the \"high cockororim\" song, which they keep repeating. I feel sorry for Jon Pertwee and David Jason, 2 of Britain's finest talents, providing the voice for the depressing animation sequence. Bernerd Cirbbins tries his best to perform in this awful production ,but fails.

Avoid this film at all costs, even if it is the last film on this planet!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loathe, despise, and hate this film with a passion that makes the red hot gates of hell look cold by comparison. it's nothing but a campy, frightening, and completly shoddy trip down memory lane to that oh-so-nasty time, the 70's, a decade im glad i wasnt a part of if this absolute trite is all that was on offer!

the animation is sickeningly dated, not least of all with it's tacky, missing frames, and characters with huge, bulbous heads, this film is an eye-sore. from the knowing, snide nod to the parents with the freakily gay sea horse, and it's camp hand motions and kenneth williams-esque voice, to the overtly, unsubtly druggy anthem, High Cockalorum, this film, im sad to say, is one that was forced upon me as a child and i have never fully recovered from the terror it caused me....

This ghastly display of complete terribleness should carry an R rated certificate, so disturbing it is in it's contents!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a painfully slow story about the last days of 1999 when a strange disease breaks out and... I stopped caring. This is suppose to be about two people who live over or under each other in an apartment complex. There's a leak and a plumber put a hole in the man's floor so you can see into the woman's below apartment. Also since there is a crisis going on much of the dialog is actually news reports...

Sounds promising?

Not really.

I became distracted and started doing other things which is deadly in a subtitled film. Basically I started not watching, which made events seem even more surreal when I did look up.

It may work for you, it didn't for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My Wife and Kids was billed as the 00s very own Cosby show- but unlike the latter, it was unfunny and unwatchable. In fact, it is so poorly written and some of the jokes revolve around Michael mickey taking Michael Jr's dumbness and the fact that he is such a loser- which got more and more tedious and annoying as the show went on.

What was supposed to have been a promising hit, eventually turned into a dumb, silly show later on where the ideas became so OTT and ridiculous. And as for the second Claire, i ended up disliking this character so much: she became a spoilt, childish and moaning teenage brat, in most of the later episodes.

MWAK was no Cosby show trend setter, rather it was just a poor black sitcom by general standards.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I never really started watching the show until it was canceled and started showing re-runs. I actually enjoyed it for the first to third season. Once I saw the fourth and fifth one I was beginning to get irate. The first problem was that they did that irrelevant, scenario of history repeating itself (Jr having a kid like his parents did). The second had to be the one where they had everyone paired up with someone (ex: Katie and franklin) . The third one was when they made Jr even more idiotic than before which was beginning to be tedious and vexing to the point where I wanted to go into the T.V. and beat the stupidity out of him until he's unconscious . The fourth one had to be that zealous dork that Clarie claimed as a boyfriend. The fifth one had to be Katie, she was beginning to be too good for herself and was treated her \"boyfriend\" Franklin like the pushover he was. The last but not least was Noah Gray-Cabey!! Franklin, Franklin was just scary. It was like watching a terrible combination of Urkle and TJ Henderson only more annoying!!! They seriously jumped the shark when came he to the show. There was little to no realism to his character and the way he laughed was a sign of obvious force showing that Noah can't act. Eveytime I saw that kid just made me want slap he silly. However, B.F.(before frank) this show was funny and very entertaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lets be realistic here. This is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. My Wife and Kids showed real promise in its first season and only went down hill after that. It is so bad that words do not describe. The acting and writing are so dreadful on a consistent basis I wonder if Damon Wayans was producing such an atrocious show on purpose. From top to bottom every performance is ridiculous. Damon Wayans completely phones it in and George Gore II is so horrible I cringe at every over-acted line. Can anyone really watch this show and find it to be entertaining let alone funny? Please I implore you. Do not watch this show. As soon as TV affiliates stop picking this up in syndication we can finally be rid of this absolute garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is probably the most irritating show I have ever seen in my entire life. It is indescribably the most annoying and idiotic show I have ever seen. Everything about it is just bad.

Synopsis: Different situation comes up each week for the parent to handle their kids.

I could not understand, what kind of idiot would produce this mess in the first place not to mention several season. The script is bad, very bad \u0096 it contains both cheesiness and unethical joke that you normally see in rated R or NC-17 movie. Especially for the young boy character where all he does is pleasuring himself, is that what one called family show humor? The casting is also horrible, cause all you see is a really really BAD Actors, period.

Final Word: This Show is a real torture!! This show provides an image of how irresponsible parent can be (using power wrongly rather than understanding). It is zillion times away from reality. Listen to Kenny G would be a god sends compare to this. Watching washing machine twirling around wouldn't hurt your eyes as much as this show.

Rating: 0\/10 (Grade: Z)

Note: The Show Is So Bad That Even Mother Of The Cast Pull Her Daughter Out Of The Show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I jumped for joy to learn this show ended. This show's characters were extremely irritating. None of them had one singing redeeming quality. Damon Wayans is probably the most standable one. Kisha Campbell is... Kisha Campbell. She's just as annoying as she was in Martin.

The kids are all very annoying as well. The oldest is an idiot, the oldest girl is a stuck up brat, and the youngest is frustrating to listen to.

I guess I did like the intelligent little boy. But that's about it.

It did the world a favor by ending.

Let's pray that a Wayan never stars in another show... EVER.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I give the show a six because of the fact that the show was in fact a platform for Damon Wayans as the Cosby Show was for Bill Cosby, it dealt with a lot of issues with humor and I felt that it in fact tailored to getting a laugh as opposed to letting the jokes come from the character.

Michael Kyle An interesting patriarch and a wisecracking person. He is PHENOMENAL in movies, but in the show he was there for the wisecrack and though I loved it, I felt that the laugh was more important than plausibility.

Jay Kyle I have loved her since House Party and have enjoyed her in School Daze and Martin, this was a great role for her and she made a great choice in picking this sitcom to co-star in. I also feel that Jay and Michael were more like equals in the show but Jay was more the woman who fed her crazy husbands the lines and went along with his way of unorthodox discipline because she may have felt that it worked

Jr Just plain stupid, his character should have been well developed and even though he does have his moments of greatness, we are returned to the stupidity as if he learned nothing, which drives me nuts!!!!!!!! Not to mention that most of the situations (in episodes I've seen) seems to center around him

Clair The attractive sister who dated a Christian, I found her boyfriend's character to be more interesting than she was (she'd be better off sticking to movies, the writers should have done more to show her intelligence but it's not stereotypical enough)

Kady Lovable and the youngest daughter. I think the writers established her character most on the show aside from the parents and Franklin

Franklin I LOVE this character and I think they derived it from Smart Guy (T.J. Mowry) which only lasted one season. They did a great job of casting for this little genius (the effort would have been made if Jr would have been the smart one but show the down sides also)

All in all, this sitcom is a wonderful thing and it's homage to the Cosby Show is well done, I love the show and wished it would have stayed on longer than that. I can't wait to see the series finale","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dull one-note characters with next to no development, unimpressive performances by people who sound like they're simply reading lines, and ludicrous special effects combine to make this a genuine stinker. The story begins with eminently bland commando Russo and his fellow soldiers attacking an Al-Qaeda training base. The scene tells us that Al-Qaeda has recently come to seek an ultimate weapon, and also serves to illustrate Russo's only character trait, a tendency to eschew teamwork. With the help of a collection of blank slates and walking stereotypes, including a Russian spy, Russo travels to Chechnyan territory to catch a mad scientist working for the terrorists. Along the way, they encounter vast hordes of flesh-eating bats that fly in broad daylight for some reason. From there, the movie becomes nothing more than a dragging morass of ridiculous action, including a scene in which a swarm of bats slices a soldier's arm off!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An elite American military team which of course happens to include two good looking women and a guy who can't quite grasp teamwork, lots of bats, some terrorists, and a Spetznaz team that acts like the gang that can't shoot straight -- all thrown together in a jumbled plot with mediocre acting. This one has nothing much going for it. The characters are not compelling. Even the setting, which has great possibilities, looks like something out of the middle of rural Pennsylvania, not an exotic Boreal forest in Eastern Europe.

The bats are certainly ferocious looking. They can even pick up a man and fly with him for a few feet (harpies?) or chop off an arm. You see Delta force surrounded by hundreds of bats with a guys shooting assault rifles and pistols at them and bat flopping to the ground. It would be like trying to shoot skeet with a rifle from a distance of 3 feet. Utterly clueless. The dialogue is rancidly unrealistic, with boy\/girl jokes and flirts in the middle of tense parts of the mission. One of the team is blown up by a mine and the first one on the scene just stares sadly at his body, stunned, not even bothering to take cover or secure the area. In fact AFTER the rest of the group shows up he talks about how the area is laid out like a minefield -- thanks for the heads up bub.

If you want a contrast in how a horror movie involving a small military group can be done well on a low budget check out Outpost. Harvest is not the movie you want to see. In fact I think I'm going to give it a two instead of a three if I can make it through the second half. Seems unlikely at this point.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have yet to watch the first entry in this series, however, fortunately, I was still able to follow the complex and intricate plot, with all its unexpected twists and turns, and I applaud them for the utter originality of the concepts herein. In case there is any confusion, let me leave no doubt as to the fact that everything I've just said is coated in pure, carefully nurtured sarcasm, the kind that flourishes and grows exponentially when exposed to crap like this flick. A clear sign that this is unimpressive is that it was directed by a visual effects creator, whose only other credit in that field is a Henry Rooker film that wasn't well received. The acting is average at best, and I defy anyone to not find... Scottish computer-woman(come on, seriously, what is with that last name?)'s Russian accent laughable and\/or irritating. There is an attempt or two at stylization in this, and they are reasonable. The action isn't terrible. Cinematography and editing are fine. The music is cool enough. Language is infrequent, if even that. Violence is fairly bloody. I recommend this solely to fans of B-movies, and I will say that you can do worse than this. 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, I can sit through almost any movie, and I tend to get a real kick out of Sci Fi Originals, but there was a major flaw in this movie that made me have to turn it off half an hour into it.

Having served in the US Army, there are certain expectations in a movie including the military. At least some semblance of attention to proper military rank, uniform, and terminology is necessary if you expect a viewer to actually enjoy the experience. \"Bats: Human Harvest\" had characters wearing rank that was facing the wrong direction on the lapel and, later in the movie, the time was listed as 11:00 hours, but it was full dark outside. Even if the script was perfectly done, and the dialogue spectacular, and the acting Oscar-worthy, if the people making the movie don't care enough about the movie to even bother to look up the proper way to display military time, why should anybody bother to attempt to watch it?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie over does it on the cgi i mean sci-fi really they over did it the original '' BATS'' is better it does not use cgi like the sequel. in this movie its the simple people running from mutated killer bats. and really bats in Afghanistan?! the plot involves u.s army soldiers finding a terrorist and being attack by bats and dying<_< but the reason i gave this movie 3 stars is because the way the camera zooms in on the soldiers. the acting is bad and this doesn't even look like a horror movie. in all this movie is a fairly good TV movie for sci-fi channel. but if like sci-fi's movies you'll like this movie because you just like channel 43 oh and if you fall asleep during the movie don't be surprised. oh sorry i think i give it 2 stars instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A child-like puppeteer, for a public access children's show, goes over the deep end when he discovers kids he entertains at a hospital were victims of horrible abuse. This movie has some of the worst indescribably monstrous parents you could ever come across. Not an exploitation film as much as an afterschool special on the dangers of child abuse. Seemingly harmless, Mr. Rabby takes matters into his own hands when it seems the police are neutered by lack of evidence to convict loathsome parents of their terrible abuse towards their children. The children are emotionless and zombie-like(..due to the amount of abuse inflicted upon them), the parents loud, inconceivably harsh, contemptible, and belligerent. The mothers, in particular, are so obscene, you'll root for their execution. They are essentially miserable people taking out their frustrations on the kids. Our detectives are a tired lot, frustrated with the whole judicial process, how police procedure is often unable to prosecute those who beat their kids into submission. While the crimes themselves are heinous, the film doesn't explicitly elaborate the grisly activity on screen. I'd say the reason to see this is for Tom Basham's performance as the unbalanced man-child who slips into psychosis. There's quite a weird dinner table sequence between Basham's Mr. Rabbey and his guardian shortly after he murdered the parents responsible for the death of their child, regarding how he lives in a fantasy and how what he had just done has left an indelible mark(..notice the changes in behavior, pretty impressive work, going from innocent to creepy). Peter Renaday is Lt. Hayes, the detective in charge of the homicides cases, expressing on his face the strain that is taking it's toll on him. There's an early performance by John Ashton as detective Matthews, always raising the ire of Hayes because of his inability to follow directions, not to mention how opinionated he is regarding the parents abusing their kids. Awkward laid-back bluesy score that seems improper for a film such as this. Controversial conclusion establishing that even kids can only tolerate so much. A bit too slow moving for my tastes, but there's an effective use, I felt, of Basham's eyes before he takes care of business, waiting patiently as he prepares to strike.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When this movie was made in 1980, I was a teenager in the football stands playing as part of the audience. This was done at Mooseheart, Illinois. The big letters spelling out \"MOOSEHEART\" at the top of the stands were covered up with a banner in the movie. The director would tell us to cheer loudly at certain points, as if a touchdown was being made. St. Charles juvenile correction center is a real place less than 30 miles from Mooseheart, although I think it may have closed down recently. During one scene, they show a black woman and a white man in the audience watching the game. Right below them, you can see my sister Noel's head (she was 11 at the time). In the VHS version, I can only see the top of her head, but when I saw it on TV in 1981 I could see her whole head and my sister Jacqui as well.

I thought the movie itself was OK for a made for TV movie. Since there's already a description of the movie here, I need not repeat it. It's worth seeing at least once.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know if this type of movie was as clich\u00e9 then as it seems to be now.

Considering how many \"Bad News Bears\" films had already been released by 1980, however, I think that this sort of movie was already a tired idea.

A former football player is partially paralyzed in Vietnam and is confined to a wheelchair. The Chicago Bears offer him a PR job but he wants to coach. At the same time, his underage nephew is picked up for armed robbery. We are told that he has already been arrested over a dozen times before and he must now serve some hard time...which turns out to be less than a year!

Of course, the kid is actually a good kid who only needs a tough male role model in his life. The same goes for all of the kids in the detention facility. Yes...even the one locked up for attempted murder! I'm sure you already know what happens so I'll try and keep the rest of this brief.

Our protagonist becomes the coach of the kids' football team. He overcomes the delinquents' cynicism and earns their respect. His team faces off against a local high school team (yeah right!) and they get their butts kicked. Now determined more than ever to prove himself a worthy coach, he demands a rematch. Will these underprivileged, scrappy kids with hearts of gold be able to improve enough to win the rematch? Awful execution of the football sequences ruins any possibility of excitement in this film. \"Coach Of The Year\" should get penalized for roughing my brain. 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like another reviewer, my wife bought this movie as part of a 20 movie family pack. I guess you could say that this was a decent made-for-TV movie for 1980, but it is super-predictable and the acting, except for Robert Conrad, is generally sub-par. The football scenes are nothing special and seem to mainly act as filler for the movie. The movie is very dated now, but a decent remake could probably make this into a good movie. However, is that really necessary? I mean, how many \"underdog sports team works together for the big game with the undefeated guys\" movies do we really need? This is probably a good movie for your younger kids if you find it in the bargain bin, but a sports movie buff will find it lacking.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I received this movie in a pack called \"50 all-star Movies\" for $18 (45 cents each). Many are good. This one was terrible. It was a hackneyed retread done 1000 times before and each time better. A crippled ex-jock is dared to coach a team made up of juvenile delinquents. They learn from him that they can make it if they play by the rules. I'm sure the kids and the locals were thrilled to be included in a \"real TV movie\", but I can't imagine what the folks that launched and produced this project figured they could bring to this already over beaten subject. I kept waiting to see that 'new twist' or 'new angle' but, honest, it doesn't come. Avoid this movie. Forget about the 45 cents, I want the 96 minutes of my life back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a truly moronic movie, all I can say is the writer must be very fond of magic mushrooms and LSD because this must be the result of one of his 'trips'.

You follow the whole movie thinking alright this is very weird but hey I'm sure at the end there will be a perfectly good explanation for all of this... Only to be disappointed to find erm no there's no explanation at all and the twist at the end makes it even more confusing. At the end of the movie you'll probably have the same facial expression as if you were standing in a Que paying for you groceries and the merchant told you, that'll be 11.95 please and proceeded to elbow you in the balls for no apparent reason. There are so many factors in this movie that go unexplained and I think it leaves it to the imagination of the viewer in an entirely bizarre way. Don't get me wrong I like weird movies, 'The Cell' could easily be described as weird and twisted but in my eyes it's a brilliant movie (despite casting J-Lo who I dislike to the maximum even that didn't manage to sway my opinion). This isn't one of those movies, and I think you should take in to consideration the characters of those who praise this movie. I can tell you they are probably the sort of people that would go to an art exhibition, see a splat of pigeon excrement on a white board and say \"Oooooh what a masterpiece, the artist has truly found a unique way to portray eternity\" when in actual fact all it is, is bird excrement on a board.

Keep that last bit in mind when watching this movie,

Thanks for reading!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie seems a little clunky around the edges, like not quite enough zaniness was thrown it when it should have been. But I mostly enjoyed it.

The storyline is more than a little bit preposterous, so no expectation of \"something real\" should be included in your viewing experience. Check your brain in at the door. It will not be needed and might be an impediment otherwise.

I quite enjoyed Clennon's performance as the real Dr. Baird. His role was spot on for giving Aykroyd's character a protagonist. What a putz the real Dr. Baird was.

And Matthau was quite good as the lead character's sidekick. Annoying at first, but ultimately lovable. Sort of. Kind of. Or at least something the use of a bar of soap and a lot of water would have been more than helpful.

Actually worth watching? If you're in the mood for a spoof on the psychiatric profession, sure, why not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was an 1970s-type irreverent comedy, poking fun at the psychiatric profession and at Beverly Hills. I didn't mind that but I did object to more that irreverence regarding marriage and religion: two topics which secular filmmakers (meaning about everyone in Hollywood and elsewhere) just can't stop trashing.

Walter Matthau plays a scuzzy character, \"Donald Becker,\" who walks around with a cleric's collar on, which offends me but when has Hollywood ever been worried about offending Christians?

Anyway, despite that nonsense the film has its entertaining moments and even some charm to it. Dan Aykroyd is good at paying a nut-case and Donna Dixon (\"Laura Rollins\") is a knockout. I am sorry she didn't have a bigger role.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I should have known better..the clues were all over IMDB.com. This flick was written and directed by the same guy who has no track record. The cast is a bunch of unknowns with the possible exception of Joe Estevez who seems to specialize in bad movies. Etc. Suffice it to say, I can't see any reason why anyone would want to see this awful, amateurish attempt at film making. Turn on any broadcast channel at 3am and you'll see better movies. Nuff said.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tommy Lee Jones was the best Woodroe and no one can play Woodroe F. Call better than he. Not only was he the first and best, he was the only person that could portray his grief and confusion. It was a bad let-down and I'm surprised I even made myself watch it. I can even begin how how pitiful they made Woodroe. I understand he would be old by that time, but everyone knows that he would NEVER let that pull him down. The first movie was the best and the only one that I'll ever watch. I hope to God that no more directors plan on continuing or remaking the wonderful classic without Tommy or Duval. Without them, the movies are pointless wastes of time and money for everyone, including the director. IF YOU PLAN ON MAKING ANOTHER LONESOME DOVE MOVIE OF ANY KIND, take mine and billions of others, don't waste time. Continuing the movies is just grinding the first one into the ground. Thanks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is probably my least favorite episode. I lived in Cape Girardeau for quite some time. I can tell you there is no ocean or shrimp boats, fresh crab or scallops anywhere near Missouri. Cape Girardeau is the only inland Cape, it's on the Mississippi River. It looked like the license plates were from Mississippi, which may explain why there was so much racial tension. Missouri and Mississippi are 2 completely different states that don't touch one another. There are many roads in and out of town and none of them are Route 6 or Route 666. This whole inaccuracy was very distracting. Also, Cassie did not seem like someone who would want to hang around Dean if she was well educated. I did not buy them as a couple and didn't enjoy the lengthy love scene. Jo was more Dean's style.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Andr\u00e9 Roussin was a specialist of what the French call \"Theatre de Boulevard\" : plays where you find the eternal triangle:man\/wife\/(male or female)lover .Many of his plays gave Elvire Popesco some of her best parts on stage....and the great actress was the main reason to watch them,for Roussin is not Sacha Guitry ,by a long shot.The French audience remembers \"Au Theatre Ce Soir' .

Still with me? Roussin's plays were not made to be filmed.And this one is pretty mediocre material ,even if the screenwriters call Lewis Carroll to their rescue .I like Stewart Granger and David Niven ,and Ava Gardner is eye candy .But this might be their worst film ,being crude, predictable -even the native's (Bola -Bola )intervention is ludicrous- a knockabout farce around a Menage \u00e0 Trois on a desert island where Granger would be some kind of Robinson,Niven ,his Friday and Gardner his girl Friday.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Linda Arvidson (as Jennie) and Harry Solter (as Frank) are enjoying a romantic tryst, when in walks her father Charles Inslee; furious, he chases Mr. Solter out of the house. Undaunted, he goes to her balcony and begs her to elope. Ms. Arvidson is agreeable, and goes to pack. Then, burglar George Gebhardt arrives to rob the place. Though he doesn't get much in the way of booty, thieving Gebhardt manages to use Arvidson's trunk to escape from the police\u0085

A Contrived Comedy. Note, during the balcony scene, Solter goes off-camera, so burglar Gebhardt can enter the house undetected. And, Arvidson travels very light, since there appears to be nothing in her heavy trunk; perhaps she just wanted to buff up beau Solter? Director D.W. Griffith, Robert Harron, and Florence Lawrence are illustrious extras.

** A Calamitous Elopement (8\/7\/08) D.W. Griffith ~ George Gebhardt, Linda Arvidson, Harry Solter","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where to start, where to start....hmmm...well how about some of the stiffest, most unnatural, unbelievable and camped-up performances one can imagine? How about stereotypical \"characters\", situations and locations? Or what about a manipulative, cloying, utterly wretched script? I can't think of one element in this movie that was original, worthy of watching or interesting.

Note to all you Josh Hartnett\/Chris Klein\/LeeLee Sobieski fans - enjoy their collective fifteen minutes, folks, because they're not going to be famous much longer...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Life is too short to waste on two hours of Hollywood nonsense like this, unless you're a clueless naiive 16 year old girl with no sense of reality and nothing better to do. Dull characters, poor acting (artificial emotion), weak story, slow pace, and most important to this films flawed existence-no one cares about the overly dramatic relationship.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"******************SPOILER********************SPOILER******************** This movie stunk. Just let me say now that I totally agree with what carissaphillips had to say about this. What was Sam thinking? She was with a guy who told her he loved her (3 times in total), was EXTREMELY HOT, and stuck with her though her trying times (Josh Hartnett). But, she decided to break up with him, no, cheat on him with a snobby,ugly, spoiled, rich-brat jerk loser who never said he loved her in the entire movie(oh wait, he wrote it on the wall, does that count?), and left her in her time of need because he was scared (Chris LOSER Klein). Who would you want to be with? The only reason I sat through the entire movie was because it had Josh Hartnett in it and hoping that maybe she would die at the end. I wanted Jasper to get another girlfriend who was actually worthy of him. The whole \"your mom\" thing was funny. I enjoyed it. I hate it when people around here say it but I think that Kelley deserved it. Jasper should have said it to Sam as well, she needed a good slap. How the romance started is a mystery to me. They never said anything to each other anyway so I don't understand how they got together. \"I was thinking about the cheese sandwich you gave me...did it have mustard or mayonnaise or.....\" Oh what a come on. The supposedly romantic lines were so stupid. Plus he's sosososososososo UGLY! I must admit, I did cry in this movie. For a long time, really hard. Not because she died, but because she broke Jasper's heart. He cried in this movie so many times...he tried to smile for her but he couldn't stop the tears. He cried when 1) He told her he loved her 2) She got sick 3) Chris Klein came back and he saw how happy she was w\/ him 4) she died. I cried when he cried because he loved her her entire life, and told her, and yet she was dumb enough to not care and love a guy who left her in her time of need, and who DID NOT CRY at the funeral. 1 1\/2 stars only because I LOVE JOSH HARTNETT! Oh by the way Chris Klein, YOUR MOM! -Wiley's sis","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This comes close to the worst movie I've ever seen. The writer starts you out in a way that you'll side with Jasper (Josh Hartnett). When he did absolutely nothing wrong, Sam (Leelee Sobiesky) leaves him for Kelley (Chris Klein), in a way that leaves you mad at Sam. You aren't let in on what she feels, so her feelings with Kelley aren't real to you, and their relationship is phony. It drags you in either direction, and it gets rather exhausting and annoying. The only good thing about this movie that I saw was the cast.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not sure why I disliked this film so much. Maybe I'm too old or too male or too something. Just who was the target audience here? If you're it and you liked it, then I'm happy for you. Personally, I found it a bit of a pill. The characters were uninteresting and unlikeable, the script was just plain embarrassing and some, though not all, of the acting was uninspired. Mawkish, tedious and occasionally nauseating -- Surely there's something better on.

On a related issue: Why is it that whenever I see Chris Klein in a film I get an urge to slap him silly? Does anyone else get that?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this on cable because I was a big Leelee fan. Big mistake. What a horrible film. You don't care one bit for any of the characters in the movie. Chris Klein plays a guy who is a complete jerk in the film, and steals away Josh Hartnett's longtime girlfriend. If the writer knew what they were doing, this film would have followed the proven formula, and made Hartnett an ass, and Leelee as the girlfriend trapped in a bad relationship, from which she's saved by Klein. But Hartnett is a really cool guy, who shows a lot of emotion and love for Leelee.

You then hate leelee, because she cheats on Hartnett with Klein, who is a jerk to everyone in the town that's trying to help him and really stuck up.

It's also really campy, and the characters do everything but run around the kitchen dancing and lip synching, and using hairbrushes and spoons and fake microphones (although they come very close).

What a horrible horrible movie. You don't even care what happens in the end because the director never lets you care about the characters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie the other day b\/c I love romance stories, but this has got to be the worst one I have ever seen in my life. I find it hard to believe that Sam would fall in love with Kelley after they've said hardly no more than 2 words to each other when she has a great long-time boyfriend who's devoted to her completely. I thought Kelley was a major jerk throughout the movie, and he never changed at all. The only good thing about the movie was Josh Hartnett. I thought he did a wonderful acting job, and I'm going to start watching more movies of his.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One can always tell if I'm enjoying a movie by the number of times I cross my legs, switch positions, make slight rustling noises, etc., etc. The lesser = the better. I moved so many times throughout this movie that I succeeded in knocking over my friends giant tub of popcorn and getting a huge thigh-strengthening workout.

Sobieski, a young actress who at some points in \"A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries\" gave some promise for her thespian talents, played poorly in a poorly-written part. Depressing fact number one. Number two: Chris Klein was in it. Depressing fact number three: Chris Klein had lines. Number four: Chris Klein played a valedictorian. Woah. Dummies from rich families unite! Even worse, he actually tries to act, but only succeeds in sounding like a mentally disabled overactor in an increasingly sappy independent version of a Cecille B. DeMille film. Go back to humping your American Pies.

This movie was terrible in almost every sense, save Josh Hartnett's mildly endearing performance as LeeLee's stiffed boyfriend Jasper. Luckily, he refrains from trying to have too many \"moments,\" unlike all the other characters. Of course, this is why he's much better than the rest and he actually shows some mettle here. If you like Josh or are thinking of casting a kid who knows a few things, he's your man.

Hartnett is a sharp actor, but the rest need no further lambasting.

2 out of 10 (for poor Hartnett in this terrible film)

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, if you set aside the fact that this movie features abysmal acting; and, if you set aside the fact that the story is muddled and wanders off in about five different directions without ever deciding which way it really wants to go; and, if you set aside the fact that I didn't find a single scene in this movie that was remotely interesting; well, if you set all that aside, this is still a REALLY terrible movie!

I take it that this is supposed to be a love story about rich guy\/poor girl. I never really understood for a moment how this romance between Kelley (Chris Klein) and Samantha (Leelee Sobieski) ever got started. The inexplicable romance is made worse by a complete lack of chemistry between Klein and Sobieski. The screenplay (by Michael Seitzman) is dull to the point of stupefying. How Seitzman managed to write the thing without falling asleep is a miracle; that he would think anyone would want to pay to see this is unbelievable.

Did I mention that this is a REALLY, REALLY terrible movie?

I'd give it a ZERO, but the IMDb doesn't provide for votes of ZERO. So I give it a one while holding my nose.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had been waiting eagerly to see this movie, but when I finally got the chance, I was very disappointed. I had to stop half-way (or was it quarter-way?) because of the poor script and directing. Not to mention the poor cast! Josh Hartnett is the only one who can act, and he's much more suitable to be the hero of the story.

Well, basically the story is just about a loose girl from the country who cheated on her long-time decent boyfriend only to have meaningless sex with a spoiled rich brat. This movie failed to draw my sympathy, not even when the writer intended to. I wonder where the moral values go?

The actors are so stiff that when I resume the movie (few weeks after it was interrupted due to its boring nature), they still failed to make me pay attention. The spoiled couple can only disgust me! What a movie!

I think all the people involved in this production need to sit down and review it together so that they won't make the same mistakes next time round. And next time they might consider Josh Hartnett as the protagonist...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ho hum. Rich good looking kid gets in trouble, poor girl falls in love with him, jealous ex-boyfriend causes tension.. yadda yadda. I actually laughed out loud in many parts of this movie because the next scene was so predictable and just plain stupid. As one scene moved on to the next, I often found myself wondering just how we got there, like I had skipped a few chapters in a book.

The script was pretty pitiful and didn't have me or my wife caring much about any of the characters, except the jilted boyfriend. Now, if the ex boyfriend had gotten an axe, and hacked apart the girl and rich kid, then.... then we would have a movie, and all the stupid dialog and leaps in plot could be acceptable. But, since this movie attempts to be touching and totally misses the boat (and ends up resorting to the romance equivalent of divine intervention to try and jerk a tear)... it just falls very very flat.

Avoid this movie. Clip your toenails instead, you will have more fun.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All I have to say is one word...SUCKS!!!!. The only reason I gave this a 2 is because Josh Hartnett was in it and he's cool. Should have beat that Klein guys ass...stupid dumb and brainless. By the end of this movie you can't stand Klein and you really don't care what happens to Leelee. Hartnett was the only good thing about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Interferencia starts as unemployed Martin Sanders (Andres Bagg) hears something strange on his phone, he hears a mysterious man talking to a prostitute named Diana & arranging to meet her. Soon after Martin reads a local paper & sees the front page story about a prostitute being murdered & thinks back to what he heard. Martin confides in his friends Laura (Virginia Lustig) & Aaron (Oliver Kolker) but they don't believe him. Then shortly after the same thing happens again, the phone call, the man, the prostitute & her death reported in the papers. Martin decides he has to find the killer & put a stop to his killing spree but who is it?

This Argentinian production that was apparently shot in just eight days (why so long?) on a budget of about $3,000 (why so much?) was written & directed by Sergio Esquenazi & I cannot believe some of the glowing comments Interferencia has on the IMDb. Out of 195 user ratings as I write this 113 of them rate this pile of crap 10 out of 10, I am sorry but there is no way anyone should be giving a film this bad a quite literally perfect score of 10 out of 10. If a score for a film on IMDb is fixed then this is it, I honestly don't believe that if you showed Interferencia to 195 average people that well over 100 of them would rate it as being absolutely perfect, no way on Earth. The user comments are also amazingly positive, all by IMDb users who have only wrote comments for one film, this. The one user (besides me) who has actually written more than one comment gave it a rock bottom 1 out of 10 which sounds just about right. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but I would stake my life on the fact most of those positive comments are from fake accounts set up purely to big this piece of crap up. Where do I start? How on Earth can I adequately describe how bad Interferencia is? The plot is a mess that basically lives or dies by it's terrible twists, while most twists turn a plot on it's head & alters the perspective of everything that has gone before in a clever & relevant way & are genuine surprises here in Interferencia the twists destroy the first half of the film & makes it utterly pointless in a 'it didn't actually happen' sort of way & the twist is so poorly handled that it leaves you asking more questions than it answers. What made Martin go mad? Why did he imagine the phone calls? Why did he imagine a killer? Why did he imagine the newspaper headlines? No explanation is given for Martin's behaviour during the first hour or so of the film, there's just this absurd revelation that it was all in his mind & that's it, that's all the exposition there is. Then there's a plot twist about Martin's missing wife & her lover before Martin for reasons unexplained starts to kill his friends for no apparent reason. I am sorry but Interferencia is so bad, it's so boring, it's so badly written & thought out that I honestly can't think of a positive thing to say about it. Sorry guy's but that's how I feel, quite simply Interferencia is one of the worst films I have ever seen & is a complete mess both conceptually & technically.

According to the IMDb Interferencia was hot in just eight days, to be honest it doesn't feel like that at all. Nope, it feels more like it was shot in five days! The whole film is an eyesore, Interferencia has probably the worst nighttime shooting I have ever seen. It's like no attempt was made to light the scenes, it's like the makers just went into a dark room or basement or whatever & just shoot the scene regardless of whether you could see anything. The scenes set outside in the daytime have this horrible unnatural blue green tint to them for no apparent reason which just looks daft & becomes increasingly irritating. This strange tint is not repeated on indoor scenes so they are also quite jarring & noticeable. There's no real horror or scares, in fact I would say Interferencia is more of a thriller than a horror. As far as gore goes there are two decapitated heads in a fridge, a knife is stuck in someones mouth & nothing else.

According to the IMDb this had a budget of about $3,000 which makes Interferencia one of the lowest budgeted films ever commercially released surely? Some people think just because a film is low budget all reasonable viewing standards should go out of the window & we should accept any old crap, wrong! To watch this on DVD you will still have to pay good money & I personally think we have the right to expect some sort of good product. If this can get released & praised like it's Oscar worthy then we can all release our holiday camcorder footage (including embarrassing karaoke footage & scenes of total blackness as we forgot to take off the lens cap) & win top prizes at the next Cannes film festival! The acting is awful although the female lead Virginia Lustig is actually rather sexy & helps ease the pain of the final twenty odd minutes as she features a fair bit.

Interferencia is an absolutely terrible film, seriously I beg you don't be fooled by all the fake positive comments, there is no way anyone not involved in this or have some sort of agenda is going to give it a 9 or 10 out of 10. An amateurish mess that is truly horrible to sit through. Sorry but that's the way I see it, sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind... you have been warned!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Did you ever watch a really bad movie and get mad about it? Even a movie you didn't have high expectations for? Well I just rented the movie \"Dead Line\". This is the US video title for \"Interferencia\". Now I have seen a lot of bad movies, and watched a lot of \"B\" titles, but this is in another league all its own. It was put out on \"The Asylum\" label, and anyone that rents a lot of direct to video horror films knows this label. When you rent one of there's you know what your getting. A lot of marginal acting low budget horror, but usually still pretty good. Not this one. The acting by the three leads was beyond bad. Even fast forwarding couldn't help. The tag line on the front of the box says\"..in the tradition of DePalma's Body Double. The nerve to compare this to that classic movie. The only true comment is \"The screams you will hear are real\". Yea you will be the one screaming if you rent this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If it wasn't for Colin Firth, the movie would be ready for the dust bin! So foreseable, so silly and so badly acted!! Only Colin Firth, as always, shines through this mess as single light on the end of the tunnel!!

The worst was Jennifer Rubin's acting, for sure! Maybe it was because of this script (did they actually have really written one or was it just made up \"on the way\"???).

To cut a tooo long story short:

It is a MUST SEE only for Colin Firth Fanatics (like me) since he is incredibly sexy and good acting (struggling hard against this \"mentally challenged\" script). These minutes of Colin-Screen-Time make up a lot of this movie.

Don't spend too much money on it, though. Try to see or get it as cheap as possible (an auction or something like that) and then do stick to the Colin Firth scenes.

The rest of the movie might be dangerous for anyones mental health.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you need a clue as to whether Playmaker is decent or not, look to its star, Colin Firth, who refers to it in an interview as \"absolute rubbish -- I sincerely hope no one ever sees it.\"

The script and plot are ludicrous, the female lead is unconvincing. The only thing worthwhile is Colin Firth, and he seems slightly embarrassed throughout.

For diehard Firth fans only -- the shower scene alone is worth the $3.99 you might have to shell out, should you find it in a video cutout bin like I did.

I'm happy for Mr. Firth that his days of taking projects like this one are over!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Plunkett and MaCleane are two highwaymen that rob from the rich in order to give to ... well, the rich; comparatively, they ARE the rich. But we know they're the good guys because the chap behind the forces of law and order, a Mr. Chance, is just so evil. He rapes women - or tries to. He beats up his underlings. He commits murder. He has bad breath. He doesn't shave properly. He has no fashion sense. He tortures puppy dogs. That last one is just an inference of mine: we don't actually SEE him torture puppy dogs. But I'm sure he does. Little of Chance's villainy has much to do with his pursuit of Plunkett and MaCleane. It's just something he does in his spare time, a kind of a hobby he takes up to make absolutely certain that we don't like him. He needn't have tried so hard. No-one in this film is likeable.

Let's take stock. Appealing characters? There aren't any: I believe we've covered that. Swashbuckling? Not a swash. Instead we have a kind of grimy heavy-breathing. Dash? Sparkle? Vigour? All gone the way of swashbuckling, I'm afraid. Realism? None of that, either. I think they were TRYING for realism, since everyone was so filthy, but the characters and action had all the plausibility of Errol Flynn - with no sense of exhilaration to back them up. Beauty? Nope. Fine camera work? For a TV crew, perhaps. Humour? You might giggle once or twice if you're in a benevolent mood. Then again, you might not. Dialogue? See `humour', above. Music? Don't even get me STARTED on the music. The music in `Ladyhawk' was, by comparison, uncannily apt; and at least the misguided aesthetic of that score was a consistent one.

Ugh. I apologise to `Ladyhawk' for even THINKING about it in this context.

To sum up: there's much positive badness here and NOTHING good - unless you count Liv Tyler, which I'm in two minds about doing.

I feel as though I've just written a review of the pox. `Not very good,' the review says. It would be much more interesting if I could somehow DEFEND the pox, to claim that critics of the pox have got it all wrong - but I don't know how I'd go about doing that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you have few expectations, then this will entertain for 90 minutes. My problem is that they've dumbed down this tale for the modern audience. Highwaymen are already sexy, exciting characters. They don;t need the techno soundtrack and snappy dialogue.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry this was a woeful excuse for a film.. a plot line so holey it resembled a block of swiss cheese and a butch of characters who seemed to me to be utterly devoid of inter-personal relations.. Well except of course for Carlyle and Lee-Miller who i could have sworn were meant to be in love.. Unlike the union of Tyler and Miller who were for the most part, like the rest of the film, utterly unconvincing.. although the end product was uncaptivating and amusing for all the wrong reasons, the production values were high and deserve some acknowledgement..but unfortunately the end result was rubbish..what was everyone involved thinking..? they definitely should have packed up early on this one..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was one of Christie's later stories. Throughout her long career, she was interested in the shifting narrative and the notion of conflicting agents. Both are essentially the same thing and boil down to questions of who it is that controls or creates the situation.

In detective fiction, the game is a matter of conflicting realities. The murderer intends to change reality to fool the detective, the writer intends to do the same to the reader. Both the reader and the detective are in similar battles to create what they see. That's why her stories often include a writer.

In her works, she explores every combination of tricks she can think of that deal with this. Along the way, we often have bodies that are not who they seem, and times, and intended victims and such. But the real magic of the books is this notion of control. In 'Bertram's' it was literally a building.

Here, it is a dead man. Well, sometimes that happens, but not like this. It is as if the writer were the famous Mr. Rafiel. This is particularly sweet to Marple readers who remember this same character from the 'Carribean Mystery,' which in a way was also framed by her nephew. In that story, Rafiel was the conveyor of the story to the authorities.

The producers of this series have an almost wacky commitment to using a different creative team on each one. Sometimes it produces bland work. The 'Bertram's' episode was rather brilliantly staged. This one is the most lavish of the lot, and has an active camera. But unlike the 'Bertram's' work, it has nothing to do with the story.

The camera moves and captures merely because it can. The 'Citizen Kane' quote at the beginning was a little too literal and blunt. This story is good, but the adapter took out some pretty critical stuff, and that irrelevant camera annoys.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a frustrating movie. A small Southern town is overflowing with possibilities for exploring the complexities of interpersonal relationships and dark underbellies hidden beneath placid surfaces, as anyone who has read anything by Carson McCullers already knows. This does none of that. Instead, the writers settled for cutesy twinkles, cheap warm fuzzies and banal melodrama. The thing looks like a made-for-TV movie, and was directed with no particular distinction, but it's hard to imagine what anyone could have done to make this material interesting.

The most frustrating aspect, though, is the fact that there are a lot of extremely competent and appealing actors in this cast, all trying gamely to make the best of things and do what they can with this--well, there's no other word for it--drivel. A tragic waste of talent, in particular that of the great Stockard Channing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A very carelessly written film. Poor character and idea development. The silly plot and weak acting by just about the ensemble cast didn't help. Seriously, watching this movie will NOT make you smile. It may make you retch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"God, did I hate this movie! I saw it at a sneak preview 13 years ago, and I STILL have bad flashbacks. It was, without a doubt, the WORST movie I ever paid to see. It was badly written, badly directed, and (surprisingly considering the cast) badly acted. I would rather be thrown off a rooftop onto razor sharp spikes, and then have my skin peeled off, than to sit through it again. Can you guess I didn't enjoy it?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched the version with pathetic American over-dubs, maybe this made it much worse, but from what I could make out the film was pretty bad anyway. It seemed low budget. The visuals reminded me of a second rate TV movie, random white dog substituted for Dogmatix, embarrassing 60's BBC costumes, etc. Mainly though, I feel like the characters in the movie did not behave anything like the characters in the comic, and as a result I never felt willing to even try to forgive the poor look of the film. It is always going to be hard to capture the feel of the comics in a film without using animation, and I didn't feel this attempt was worth it ultimately.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whereas the movie was beautifully shot and reasonably well acted, the script was dull. plodding and nothing we have not seen before. Not once in this film did I ever get the feeling that these people were really in danger. No noticeable climax and a very standard resolution. I believe these type of movies have been overdone and should be given a rest. After all, didn't EVERYONE on the planet see \"Schindler's List\"?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, this bizarre feature was written by John Sayles. Shot in Toronto, it's yet another '80s era feature about the dangers of the urban jungle, where the police fear to go and the homeless and the criminal classes are the only inhabitants. Into this mix comes the myth of Wild Thing, a feral young man raised by a bag lady after his parents were murdered by a dirty cop on the take (Maury Chaykin) and Chopper, the local crime lord (Robert Davi). Stir in the local do-gooders (priest Sean Hewitt and clueless social worker Kathleen Quinlan), and you have a recipe for some rather unexciting action sequences. Davi is the standout amongst the cast, and cinematographer Rene Verzier does a pretty good job. Otherwise this is a rather lumpen action pic that won't satisfy action fans and will leaves Sayles' admirers slack-jawed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe they do this kind of filth out of a serious theme. Totally unrealistic (they seemed to want it to be HIGHLY realistic but all the elements are based on clich\u00e9s), real propaganda stuff. After seeing this, an addict probably just want to continue his\/her career :-) I gave it 2.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not picky with movies, oh I've seen so much crap I could watch anything. Maybe that was the reason I watched this one to the end. Im big fan of RPG games too, but this movie, its a disgrace to any self-respecting RPGer there is. The security-camera footage of a game-play would make it feel more realistic than this movie does. The lines, the cuts, the audio, everything is wrong. In some scenes you can see that it was filmed in some photo when !!!!!(spoilers ahead)!!!!!people running around does not disturb people sitting near computers. I mean would you continue your work if you got ninjas around you? oh and the jokes about pirates, that's the worst one yet in movies!!!!!(spoilers end)!!!!! At least first one felt like a documentary, now it looks like someones home video experiment. You can find better movies at youtube. Top line: Don't waste your time and money on this one, its as bad as it comes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I guess the previous \"House\" movie was a hit, prompting Universal to wring a few more drops from the monster cash-cow. The creative team must've been in a recycling mood, starting with the opening theme lifted from 'Son of Frankenstein' and some of the stock footage dispersed through the film, like one unintentionally funny bit of business where footage of Glenn Strange as the monster is mixed with clips of Karloff from 1935's Bride, and compared to how robotic Strange moved, Karloff seems to move like a cheetah in comparison.

Previous film continuity is thrown by the wayside, concerning the miraculous death-cheating abilities of the Wolf Man and Dracula, but when Dr. Edelmann & Larry Talbot discover Frankenstein's monster with the skeleton representing Boris Karloff , Edward T. Lowe does at least acknowledge some of the past movie history, though Talbot curiously never mentions having met Karloff's Dr. Niemann.

Since this was to be the last of Universal's horror cycle, the supernatural elements of The Wolf Man and Drac get(unconvincingly) morphed into medical ailments. Drac is told he suffers from a blood disease, a very rare sickness that allows him to transform into a bat or evaporate if sunlight touches him. >:-] And Larry Talbot just has a little pressure on the brain. Of course all of this is painstakingly explained with a 'lot' of medical jargon being related in many scenes throughout. This proves to be the biggest hindrance, as somewhere along the way the filmmakers seem to forget about actual horror or entertainment in favor of giving the monsters conditions that seem as treatable as a flu.

As a huge fan of the old Universal horrors, it's rare that I feel so bored while watching one. The whole thing just feels like a movie that was made just because it could be, but if this mess hadn't been slapped together, the monsters might never have met Abbott and Costello, so I guess some good came of this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have not figured out what the chosen title has to do with the movie. This is another gathering of monsters just like the HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Not exactly a masterful plot, but Universal needed to capitalize again.

Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) is either very ambitious or over the top in the ego department. He is working on the cure to keep Larry Talbot from turning into the Wolf Man. Somehow Count Dracula happens to drop by to get a fix on his vampirism. And rounding out the good doctor's experiments is the restoring of the Frankenstein monster's energy. Along the way, the kind hearted doctor's blood is tainted with that of Dracula.

John Carradine plays Dracula again. This time he is more convincing. Lon Chaney Jr. as usual is the soulful Wolf Man. Glenn Strange is the Frankenstein monster, who has very little to do this outing. Also with mentionable roles are Lionel Atwill and Martha O'Driscoll.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've been a classic horror fan my entire life. Many nights stretched until the early hours of the morning watching the Universal films on \"Horror Incorporated\" and \"Creature Feature Night\". Sadly, I viewed this film in the early evening and yet it still almost put me to sleep.

I don't think I've ever seen a \"horror\" picture where everything was so matter of fact. Dr. Edelmann doesn't seem to believe in the supernatural, yet before long he's medically treating Dracula and watching Larry Talbot change into the Wolfman while hardly blinking an eye. He and Talbot discover the Frankenstein monster like it's an everyday occurrence. Edelmann is all fired up to bring the monster back to life, but after Talbot, Miliza and Nina protest he's like \"Aww, you're right. No big deal\". After realizing Dracula's treachery, he opens the Count's coffin to sunlight and POOF!, he's gone, just like that.

The only person who didn't appear to just be phoning in her lines was Jane Adams as Nina. Her reward is getting bounced off the hump in her back into a pit by the Frankenstein Monster at the end of the film...and no one even tries to rescue her! She, Dr. Edelmann and the Monster all perish, while Talbot and Miliza casually leave the castle.

Definitely the low point for Universal during it's classic horror years.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's proof that movie makers and their financiers treating their audience with contempt isn't a new phenomena as it was done as early as the 1940s and HOUSE OF Dracula is a great example . You'd think having a film with Dracula , the wolf man and Frankenstein's monster the producer would dictate to the screenwriter to have all three appear in a scene . They had a chance with HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN then when they had a second bite of the cherry they blew it again with HOUSE OF Dracula . To lose one chance is a misfortune , to lose two smacks of cynical money making

It's obvious the producers are beyond caring . Larry Talbot turns up again even though he was shown to die in the previous film which sums up the cynicism of the franchise . It also shows what a poor screenplay it is and we're mistreated to some awful plot turns like Talbot's condition being cured by a special type of plant which will soften his skull . I'm thinking screenwriter Edward T Lowe might have had his skull softened if this is the type of stuff he comes up with

Director Erie C Kenton can't improve on the script and throws in a few spanners of his own . For example Talbot is startled to see Dr Edelmann snatch a lift on a cart but nonchalantly watches Edelmann climb a wall and jump in to the ch\u00e2teau courtyard . One can't help thinking Talbot's reaction shots were mistakenly switched round at the editing stage

Lon Chaney Jnr is famous for his roles in horror movies but didn't have much of a career outside them . Perhaps that's down to the fact he's not a good actor and here he commits the worst type of acting - being very wooden . It's not entirely his fault though because all the characters spout rather awful dialogue and are all rather wooden due in part to Kenton's lackluster directing

HOUSE OF Dracula feels a million miles away from James Whale 1931 film and its sequel from 1935 and would have been a very sad note to end on . But ironically Universal decided to make one more movie to wrap up their franchise with a horror comedy starring Abbot and Costello","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this film when I was a kid, and I thought it was terrible then. Now that I'm older, I found it just as terrible. Universal could have done better than this. They merely decided to make the most money they could out of using all their monsters at once. To me, that was a cheap shot. These characters were capable of holding their own in their own movies, and the choice of actors was deplorable. Dracula needed to be Bela Lugosi, Frankenstein's, monster needed to be Karloff.

In my mind, it was the Disney squalid sequel sequence done decades ago, and it was not appreciated. Umiversal started out with something great and original, and then thought they could pander to the masses with the schlock which is extremely evident in this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay -- the title \"House of Frankenstein\", was a reference to a line from the original Frankenstein movie. When they follow it up with a movie entitled \"House of Dracula\", which makes no real sense, you know that it's just beginning to turn into a franchise.

Without explanation, Dracula is back, and he's calling himself Baron Latos. He infiltrates the home of a Doctor Edelmann, with the claim that he is seeking a cure for his vampirism. Edelmann has a hunchback nurse who assists him (what is it with hunchback assistants in these movies?), but what Dracula is really interested in is his other, more beautiful assistant. At this point, Larry \"Wolf Man\" Talbot returns (again, no explanation given) and just happens to be seeking the same doctor for a cure to his lycanthropy. And then he just happens to fall into a cave in which plants can be grown to help him, which also just so happens to contain the Frankenstein monster. Dear God, when will it end ... sure, the other Universal monster sequels were silly, but this is just ridiculous.

First the good stuff. There are some great settings, and the vampire bat effects are slightly better than usual. Some of the other effects are pretty neat too. John Carradine isn't bad as Dracula once you get used to him, but still nothing like as brilliant as Lugosi was. In my opinion, Onslow Stevens plays a much better vampire in this movie, although he has exactly the opposite problem to Carradine -- all of the creepiness and none of the class. None of the performances are that great, but it's more due to the atrocious script than anything else -- the female parts are particularly badly written. But stupid as it is, it remains reasonably entertaining for the most part. The best thing about it is it's short length.

Now the bad stuff ... it's not creepy, it's poorly written and it doesn't work. I was hoping the three monsters would begin some kind of a supernatural struggle for power, but it doesn't happen. The focus is almost entirely on Dracula, who isn't particularly well portrayed. On the other hand, this is the only movie in which Dracula infects another man, but it is done via a blood transfusion rather than a bite as Universal were always uncomfortable with the possible homosexual subtext. Larry Talbot is decent as always as the Wolf Man, but he plays a comparatively small part. Once again the part of Frankenstein's monster is reduced to the anti-climatic closing moments. For God's sake, Glenn Strange was fantastic as the creature! Why not give him more screen time? It's unfortunate that the series had to end on this note (not counting the classic comedy \"Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein\"). In the end it just fizzled in the sunlight and died, much like Dracula himself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although inevitably linked to the 70's decade, the concept of \"exploitation-cinema\" is actually nearly as old as cinema itself. Moreover, Universal Studios practically invented the term with their long running monster cycles Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man and The Mummy. Every original classic spawned a couple of sequels, at least, and after a while they even thought up the idea of making genuine monster stewing! \"House of Frankenstein\", released one year earlier and also directed by Erle C. Kenton, was quite a successful effort with interesting ideas and enthusiast performances, but \"House of Dracula\" is a little too loony for me to recommend it. The plot suffers too much from extremely irritating 'coincidental' situations, forced twists & dialogs and \u0096 most of all \u0096 a far too short running time to elaborate the monsters' personalities like they deserve. Onslow Stevens doesn't receive top billing but plays the most fundamental role as miracle a doctor who's challenged to cure Count Dracula (Carradine) from his incontrollable thirst for blood and fix Lawrence Talbot's illness of mutating into a hairy Wolf Man whenever the moon is full. During a nightly walk in some caves, they also pick up the remainders of Frankenstein's monster and the good doctor himself eventually undergoes a Jekyll\/Hyde metamorphosis due to a bad blood transfusion. The last invitation to the messy party is a female hunchback (though not of the Notre Dame). Something is very wrong when you're watching a movie that is literally stuffed with horror icons, yet the only character in the whole movie that is able to freak you out is an ordinary villager going by the name Siegfried. The actual monsters are dull and their once-fabulous backgrounds are fully drained. Count Dracula is a whining romanticist, Talbot is a pitiable and also whining old martyr and the Frankenstein creation \u0085 well, his share in the plot isn't even worth mentioning. There's a serious lack of atmospheric settings and nifty photography in this Universal film, especially compared to all their other efforts, and the abrupt climax is a disaster.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One True Thing may have seemed like a horror movie to the yuppies of the 80's, but it doesn't ring true today... unless you happen to be part of a pampered, upper-middle class family which is so insulated from the world that it has never tasted suffering.

Avoid this shallow flop.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I appear to be in the minority on this one, but I found One True Thing to be schmaltzy, contrived and generally unpleasant. Not that the acting was all that bad, but the characters seemed little more than archetypes (the bad father, oh, but wait, maybe he's not unredeemably bad; maybe there can be a resolution at the end . . .). Admittedly, the woman I was with loved the movie, so maybe you'll like it. But I didn't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unlike Terms of Endearment and Steel Magnolia's, I left the movie theater feeling VERY disappointed. I started to get into the characters and their complex mother\/daughter and father\/daughter relationships at the beginning. I even cried. But I had no sympathy for the characters with the ending. The final act did not seem in line with the mother's character at all. So, although the acting was pretty good, I thought the movie on a whole was disappointing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What really amazed me about this film was that it ringed so false. First of all, who in the late 80's (when the film takes place)lived like this family? A college professor wouldn't make enough money to support the lifestyle I saw on the film. Hence, he and his stay home wife would be plagued by financial woes, especially when she gets cancer. Second, Streep is my age, and most women, particularly in her class (educated, white, well off) experienced the feminist movement. Yet this woman seems oblivious to her anachronistic behavior. I actually felt that she was a very controlling woman who kept her husband an emotional child by taking care of his every need.

The fact that so many people were moved by the film is amazing. I have admired Carl Franklin's films in the past, and I actually like Meryl Streep, but gad, what a manipulative and lying film this is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Apart from the DA (James Eckhouse), and a brief appearing woman who is convincingly sympathetic to Ellen Gulden's (Renee Zellweger)plight, Ellen herself is the only convincing character--and likable character in the movie. She is the one, not her dying mother, who should be and is--the one true thing. it's not only in the role, in Zellweger's acting, but also in the plot itself.... Until, the plot turns against itself--and makes the mother the \"one true thing\" in the eyes of her weak willed, shallow husband who can do nothing right for his wife or daughter. The daughter perceives what the viewer perceives, but such intelligent perceptions must give way to the shallow sentiment of the husband who is blanked out on both the realities of his wife and daughter.

To boot, the one powerful scene in this whole movie, when Ellen confronts her father's cruelty, is given the lie at the end. Ellen is just another young strong woman who must be tamed into conformity by a crybaby father. A very flawed movie--so flawed as to be called a bore and not worth the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cronica de un desayuno combines the worst defects of mexican cinema, a rare feat nowadays.

It's pretentious: it wants us to believe that it is deep, only because some scene is out-of-focus, another is pseudo-surreal, yet another plays with the Eisenstein-Infante-Caifanes tradition of laughing-crying faces, the edition is fragmented, and it is all so solemn.

It has a weak script: the main story hardly develops, so it has other three smaller, needless stories, stuck into it. They are only good to make the film last longer.

Most of the acting is bad. A true feat, baring in mind that many of the best known mexican actors were cast.

There is an abuse of unnecesary foul language. To the point that the character of Paloma, who symbolizes the dreams of freedom of a child, uses it throughly.

It is homophobic. The character played by Eduardo Palomo is the sorriest, and most punished, representation of a transexual I have ever seen.

It is very boring. I ended up envying the people that left the theater before the end of the film.

Whatever it tries, it has been done better, in Mexico and elsewhere.

In other words: \"Para partirte la madre, nada como una mala pel\u00edcula\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen tons of trash, in every language, about every topic and of every trend of film-making. From every period, every director and any kind of budget available. That said I really have to declare:

This is one of the three worst movies I have EVER seen.

It's painfully bad. It's pompous. It's grim. It's incomprehensible. It's annoying. It's a really bad mess. It is a piece of you-know-what.

And, what's more important: it lacks a point. And even if it had one, the characters are so unreal and annoying that it's impossible to overlook the lack of cohesion of the whole thing.

It's just weird for the sake of being weird.

I actually felt sick watching this trash. The theater where I saw it (Lincoln Center in New York) was full when it started. By the end of it, half of the audience had walked out. There was a Q&A programmed at the end but nobody stayed. With the exception of about two sickos everybody else ran for the door, myself included.

Save 2 hours of your life. It's probably one of the worst ever done.

If there is a movie theater in Hell, this movie will be playing 24\/7, for eternity...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I live in Mexico City, so I have to suffer throug the trailers for every piece of trash that comes out from all these stupid Mexican filmmakers. You want to admire a Mexican guy for making great films? Take a look at something by Guillermo del Toro (specially The Devil's Backbone), or maybe Alfonso Cuar\u00f3n (though I really don't like his films, but I respect them).

Mexican filmmakers often produce some of the most terrible utter trash ever (Por la Libre, El Segundo Aire, American Visa), but this is one of the lowest points in Mexican films ever. If you respect your brain, please avoid this piece of **** at all costs. It would be more intelligent to watch some video of a wedding or to watch Britney's reality show. That's got more IQ than everyone in this 'film'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This might be for those who have been to summer camps, but it sure isn't an entertaining camp. I went to one before, but it didn't make me scream up and down for joy. Instead, it made my head hurt.

The first thing you notice is that Bill Murray actually had some hair in the 70s. Yeah, and he also didn't mind running some. But to get him to run a lot, you would need to give him a woman to chase after.

Its not that some of the stunts can't be funny. For example the running joke with one of the councilors who is always waking up somewhere else due to the movement of his bed. Instead, its that the jokes and stunts were poorly setup and executed. It just failed to be funny.

To somebody who loves comedy, this is a pain. Others are glued to it for life. I wish it was more like Leonard Part 6, but it doesn't come close. \"F\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stripes, an army training camp comedy starring Bill Murray and directed by Ivan Reitman, is a favourite of mine. Meatballs, a summer camp 'romp' starring Bill Murray and directed by Ivan Reitman, is a complete waste of time. It takes a considerable effort for four screenwriters to produce a movie (the word 'comedy' infers a work with mirth aforethought) as witless, anaemic and boring as this.

Murray evidently reached the same conclusion during filming, but his usually reliable powers of improvisation escape him and his flailing attempts to inject life into proceedings just add to the embarrassment - the \"It really doesn't matter\" chanting scene is excruciating. It doesn't help that the supporting cast is bereft of talent - the funniest thing about them is their hair, but then Meatballs was made in 1979. (\"And introducing Chris Makepeace as Rudy\" announce the opening credits. No, not THE Chris Makepeace?!).

Mercifully, Reitman rectified his mistake two years later for Stripes. Murray's shtick is so much funnier when he's larking around with the likes of John Candy, Warren Oates and John Larroquette. Ditch this and watch that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know, as you get older, you somehow think the movies you did not like when you were younger, might have been because of your youth and inexperience. Case in point, when I saw The Godfather at age 14, I thought it was boring. 20 years later, its an incredible movie to me. In other words, I grew up and began to appreciate great movies.

So I rented Dirty Dancing with my girlfriend last night on her request, as she loved it at age 14 and I hated it at the same age. But I hoped, because I was young and stupid at age 14, perhaps this would be a new experience for me. So I sat down with her to watch, hoping to be enlightened.

Well, the night after watching Dirty Dancing, I feel a violation. I feel like someone reached into my soul and robbed me of 2 hours of my life from watching this cheese fest.

First, Patrick Swayze plays a 20 year old, but he looks like he is 35. And the premise of the movie is him seducing some underage teenager, wooing her with his dance moves. Really Creepy.

Anyway, the movie is the clich\u00e9 plot where the \"wrong side of the tracks\" guy and the \"rich smart girl\" accidentally fall in love with each other. Of course, their romance is fueled by the fact the \"rich girl\" can't dance a lick, so the \"poor hero\" teaches her in a week to become an expert dancer for the big end of vacation show, or something like that.

But you guessed it: The disapproving father soon enters and forbids the two to see each other, and the movie progresses to secret meetings of dance lessons and love making. This all culminates into the final scene where the entire resort rallies around the two young lovers while the once antagonistic father accepts the 35 year old dancer as his teen daughter's new man.

Even my girlfriend whimpered at the end of the movie as she admitted it was not anything like she remembered. I didn't press her, but I did smirk a little, and put the Godfather part II in the DVD player.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is not a good film by an standards. It is very poorly written and the acting is just a little above par (some performances are well below par, but Swayze and Grey do a very good job with little to work with).

What was good:

The dance sequences were choreographed very well and, as stated above, Swayze and Grey were high points.

What was bad:

The script. The \"bad\" guys were simply too evil to be believable. The best villains are the ones who aren't so obviously evil. These guys (the owner's nephew, the waiter who impregnates the girl) do and say NOTHING that would leave me to believe they could be real people (perhaps there are guys like them, but I sure don't want to see a movie about it).

Another scene, the first where Grey and Swayze meet when the employees at the resort are \"dancing\". Swayze and Grey dance together and seem to enjoy themselves. The next time they meet, Swayze is hostile towards her. Why? What happened in between to make him dislike her so when they danced well together?

And some of those lines, I mean COME ON (I cringed at the end when Swayze muttered the line \"Nobody puts baby in the corner\". How did he EVER do that with a straight face.)

Another thing wrong, the setting of the 1960's. Everyone looked and dressed like the 1980's! Who was in charge of the costumes and hairstyles?

The music (original music for the film) was laughable (with the exception of \"I Had the Time of My Life\" which was a good song).

Not the worst film I've ever seen, but DEFINITELY the most over-rated","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just caught \"The Rain People\" on Turner Classic Movies late one night. The film was released in 1969. Shirley Knight stars as Natalie, a Long Island housewife who -- exact reasons unknown -- leaves her husband and embarks on a road trip, not knowing exactly where she is going. Natalie is also newly pregnant, which complicates things. Along the way, she picks up a brain-damaged ex-football player \"Jimmy\" (James Caan), who has been kicked out of his college and is hitchhiking. There are many twists and turns along the way between these two, as Natalie struggles to take care of Jimmy and she begins to realize he is mentally limited and cannot take care of himself. She is going through her own struggles, needless to say, and in no position to care for him. Natalie appears to be a woman on the edge of a nervous breakdown at times; she makes some odd phone calls to her husband, who begs her to come home. Natalie tries to dump Jimmy several times, only to have him re-enter her life through circumstances. A young Robert Duvall plays a strange and troubled cop who befriends Natalie. You get the sense all along that this film is going to end badly, and it does. This film is certainly uneven at times, and the script is somewhat lacking. Francis Ford Coppola directed this, and of course he would soon become immensely famous in the next few years for directing \"The Godfather.\" The actors are good ones, needless to say, as they all would have futures ahead of them in film. Shirley Knight is the least known of the three, although she is also underrated as an actor. James Caan is especially effective here and he seems to just inhabit this character. This film remains little more than a curiosity now, no doubt because it is an early movie of Coppola's, and I confess I had never heard of it. So God bless Turner Classic Movies for bringing it to a new audience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is really stupid and very boring most of the time. There are almost no \"ghoulies\" in it at all. There is nothing good about this movie on any level. Just more bad actors pathetically attempting to make a movie so they can get enough money to eat. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know why IMDb lists all the Ghoulies films as theatrical releases.. They were all straight to video films. Same with the Puppet Master series. Why hasn't anyone noticed this yet? Right, somehow you've stumbled across Ghoulies IV, probably raiding through an old abandoned video rental store from 1993. You looked in the discount section and found this...Look at the back and front covers. What do you expect, The Shawshank Redemption? There is no need to review this film so critically. It is the fourth GHOULIES film! I bought it on DVD for \u00806.50 because... it was \u00806.50.. I knew it wasn't Kubrick material. And I was right. An unremastered DVD with no extras, not even a trailer, boasts an uncared-for film.

It actually contains the star of the first Ghoulies film, Peter Liapis... who really didn't get many 'big' roles apart from those two films. And I don't see why... He's not too bad an actor and is pretty fun. But I guess if you're gonna take a lead role in the Ghoulies films, Scorsese and Tarantino will lose interest. Also present is his idiot sidekick Bobby Di Cocco, who despite having a very small resemblance to Al Pacino (very small), retains none of his acting ability... A complete idiot who's just awkward to watch. Then there's Stacie Randall - obviously a porn star, I don't need to look that up. She does look quite sexy, though her costume, her character and everything she does drags down the films credibility, which is no easy task for such a film.

Then there is the Ghoulies themselves! Who also manage to let us down. Ghoulies III made them start talking, mistake no. 1, but Ghoulies IV takes it a step further. Instead of being puppets, this time the Ghoulies are in fact KIDS in COSTUMES!!!! The filmmakers decided to run that extra mile to insult the films viewers. Also, there's only TWO of them, and they're not the main highlight of the film, as they don't appear in a lot of it. However, at times they are MILDLY amusing... And they're not evil this time either.

This really is hilariously bad stuff, it's amazing that I was actually able to enjoy it. I dunno why... Some of the black humour is actually funny, though the script is mostly effortless. Imagine Satan's only threat to you being that he will \"kill you, slowly...painfully...\".

But at least Full Moon had no involvement this time. Did they? Yeah, a very bad and cheaply made film with 0 production value, but not so bad as to be in the ranks of Puppet Master 1\/2, Lawnmower Man 2, Surviving Christmas or even Ghoulies III.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Busty beauty Stacie Randall plays PVC clad, bad-ass bitch Alexandra, the faithful acolyte of Faust, an evil entity trapped in hell. Determined to free her master, the malevolent minx breaks into a warehouse to steal a magical gem vital to her success; but whilst conducting a satanic ritual to summon Faust, the silly mare accidentally enters the pentagram she has drawn on the floor, which results in the loss of the gem and the release of two diminutive, troll-like creatures called Lite and Dark.

Now Alexandra must find a replacement gem, which isn't going to be easy: the only other stone that will do the trick is worn around the neck of her ex-lover, police detective Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis), who is investigating the warehouse robbery and who knows only too well what evil Alexandra is capable of. Meanwhile, wise-cracking inter-dimensional half-pints Lite and Dark get into all sorts of zany trouble as they try to find a way back home.

In the warped movie world of Jim Wynorski, all females are big-breasted babes with the fashion sense of a cheap hooker. Ghoulies IV is no exception: every woman in this film\u0097whether she be a police captain, a curator of antiquities, or a mental patient in an asylum\u0097is hot, hot, hot and wears not a lot, and it's this fact that makes this otherwise totally unwatchable piece of STV crap just about bearable.

But be warned, even though the presence of semi-naked, quality crumpet makes the going slightly easier, there is still plenty about this film to warrant it being labelled as an ordeal: the acting is wooden and the dialogue is painful; the black humour (as the DVD blurb describes it) is about as funny as a knee to the knackers, with the comedic banter of Lite and Dark being particularly cringe-worthy; and the special effects are bargain basement, consisting of rubbery creatures and visual effects that would have looked dated ten years earlier.

3\/10 solely for the high bimbo quotient.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some things just won't stay dead. They just have to keep coming back for more whether we like it or not. I guess some people like to beat a dead horse. The first 'Ghoulies' was a surprise hit and it's first sequel was an even better film. The third film took a more comical approach and by this point the little buggers were starting to overstay their welcome. I guess someone out there in Hollywood thought it was a bright idea to resurrect the franchise, but the outcome will likely disappoint fans of the previous entries.

Pros: The acting is actually pretty good for a movie like this. A silly, but fun score. Moves at an alright pace. Some cheese for those who love it. Some pretty good action-packed sequences. Has a bit more plot than the others and unlike II & III at least attempts to link itself with the original.

Cons: Not nearly as much fun as it's predecessors. Though it has more plot than before, it's a pretty ridiculous one. Poor effects. The original Ghoulies only appear in flashbacks and here they're replaced with two trolls who serve no purpose other than to be comic reliefs. Speaking of comedy, all attempts at humor are lame. Is a direct sequel to the first film, but there are so many loose ends. For example, I thought Jonathan was done with black magic after what happened in the original? Not that it was spectacular in the others, but this film's direction is especially bland.

Final thoughts: The first three 'Ghoulies' movies are a bad movie lovers' dream. This fourth, and so far final sequel (Let's hope), is a bit of a letdown. Sure there's some fun to be had, but it just isn't the same. The others are low budget too, but the people involved put a lot more into them. See if you're a completeist or you wanna see beautiful women in skimpy outfits. Otherwise just stick with the other three.

My rating: 2\/5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All movies that contain \"goofy sound effects\" should be shot. If there is one thing I HATE, it's gotta be the use of a \"whoop whoop whoo\" when somebody gets hit one the head. The only movies I have seen to do this is Ghoulies IV and Hobgoblins when they are in the bar, and Pixie is hitting the guy in the red suit with a beer bottle... or rather, fanning him with a beer bottle, because she never really hits him with it. Yes Ghoulies IV does suck. But I have to wonder, did they MEAN to not make the so called \"Ghoulies\" mouths move when they supposedly talked? Their faces are almost as static as the masks used in Trolls 2. Hell, I can make a better mask out of construction paper, some rubber cement and a handful of glitter. This sucked.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only good thing about this film is they managed to tie it with Part one! But other than that it was one of the worst films ever! The only time you see the Ghoulies is in a flashback (and the flashback is just clips from Part one)! A must NOT see! On a One to Ten, \"Ghoulies 4\" gets a One!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is quite a bad movie but oh well, this movie is at least not as lame as the third Ghoulies movie.

Yes, this is a bad movie in terms of its writing, directing, acting and basically everything in between. It has such a weak, simple and ridicules story, that besides has little to do with the previous Ghoulies movie entries. It tries to connect the movie with the first movie \"Ghoulies\", from 1985 but then on the other hand, if they really wanted to connect this movie with its predecessors, then were are the Ghoulies in this movie? Instead now we are having some small people, played by Tony Cox and Arturo Gil, dressed up as demons. Not that the Ghoulies from the previous movies were any classic characters but they were nevertheless the heart and soul of the movie and also provided the movies with a certain amount of fun. It's like having a Gremlins movie without the Gremlins.

The movie is not really interesting to watch because it lacks any tension, good humor, intriguing characters and basically everything else you can think off because it got put together by persons who obviously aren't the most talented ones within their business. Just like at director's Jim Wynorski resume, with movies such as \"The Witches of Breastwick\" and its sequel, \"Alabama Jones and the Busty Crusade\", \"House on Hooter Hill\", \"Scream Queen Hot Tub Party\", \"The Bare Wench Project\" and the sequels \"The Bare Wench Project 2: Scared Topless\" and \"The Bare Wench Project 3: Nymphs of Mystery Mountain\" and \"The Da Vinci Coed\" on it.

Yeah the movie is quite silly and campy but this is not really enough to boost this movie and gives it some more entertainment value. You know, it's the kind of cheap looking movie with some lame special effects, costumes, make-up and actors nobody has heard of ever since.

Still it isn't the worst movie out of the series because of the reason that \"Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go to College\" is by far a more worse movie, since that one had some horrible lame attempts at humor. This movie at least still does some attempts to be serious and professional one, even though the end result is far from perfect.

Bad movie making and perhaps only watchable for those who have seen the previous Ghoulies entries.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst movies EVER made. I can't believe how bad it was. I was shocked at the awfulness of the \"ghoulies\" masks. They are OBVIOUSLY Halloween masks! The mouths don't even move when they talk!!!!! Why did they feel the need to make the ghoulies comical and goofy? Whenever they do anything there seems to be this circus-like music and overused BONK and BOING noises when they hit people. The bondage dominatrix lady is one of the worst actresses I have ever seen. This movie is just bad. The plot is nonexistent. The mom from ONE TREE HILL is in this though and she has obviously had a nose job since this was made. Why did the main character from the first movie return to make this garbage? BAD BAD BAD movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ghoulies IV starts in a museum storage facility where PVC & leather clad blonde Alexandra (Stacie Randall) is looking for a ancient jewel, after offing various guards she summon the demon Faust who she worships & wants to have sex with, unfortunately she lost the jewel so he's not very happy & orders her to get the last remaining one... Which belongs to Jonathan Graves (returning from the original Ghoulies (1985) Peter Liapis) who is experienced in demonic possession & stuff like that after the events of the original Ghoulies. Alexandra sets about finding the jewel so she can bring Faust to Earth permanently from the 'other side' to, well I don't know actually. Erm, that's about it really...

Directed by Jim Wynorski whose very name name sends shivers down my spine when it's attached to a film I'm about to waste 90 minutes of my life on Goulies IV is as I expected complete, total & utter crap from start to finish & it's as simple & straight forward as that. The ,ahem, 'script' , cough, by Mark Sevi has virtually nothing in common with the other Ghoulies film except in it's title & that they managed to convince Liapis to reprise his role which also has the added bonus of big able to use footage from the original even though it has no relevance whatsoever. The story is almost none existent, the whole film is a real chore to watch, it's incredibly boring & moronic, it's slow, it's predictable, it's squeaky clean as far as blood or gore goes & it has two comic relief goblins whom I assume are supposed to fill the Ghoulies quota even though they look nothing like they did in the previous films & are in fact just embarrassing to watch, in fact I think they were practising to be ventriloquist's during most of the film as when they speak their mouth's don't move... You know I don't want to talk or think about Ghoulies IV anymore so please believe me when I say this is one huge piece of crap of Elephant sized proportions, don't waste either your time or money.

Dirctor Wynorski turns in a throughly rotten film on just about every level, the special effects are terrible as is the whole film. Apparently Ghoulies IV is meant to be some sort of horror comedy but it misses both targets by the proverbial mile & it is neither funny nor scary. The best thing about this film is actress Randall in her PVC & leather outfit running around trying to find the jewel & that's hardly worth sitting through this rubbish to see. There's a half decent runaway car scene with a few crashes but it looks like it was edited in from a completely different film & given Wynorski's track record I'm sure it was. Forget about any gore as there isn't any.

Technically Ghoulies IV sucks, it's obvious it had & low budget but that simply isn't an excuse for it to be this bad, is it? Liapis is back in the cast although he probably wishes he'd stayed away, PVC clad babe Randall is easily the best thing about this film which says a lot.

Ghoulies IV is crap, there's nothing else to say really. I honestly can't see anyone who enjoy films getting anything out of this, I just can't. I can't believe that I'm going to recommend the original Ghoulies over anything but it's going to happen now because even though that's crap as well it's a hell of a lot better than Ghoulies IV, one to avoid folks & you can thank me later. The things I sit through so you don't have to, honestly...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so horrible...I want to beat the hell out of who ever made this movie...I was a original fan of all the ghoulies movies...but when i seen this i just began to cry I could not handle it..There are not even ne ghoulies in it...like the original creative monsters...this is so friggen cheap...I meen come on a witch...thats bull crap no one wants to see the witch...they wanted to see what the movie is about...\"GHOULIES\" i meen jeesh am i right or what? Thats y we watched the other ones..now we have to actually put up with this horrible storyline...This makes me want to eat my own poop after Spaghetti Monday!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"They do... Each sequel is worst. You, who think that Ghoulies 2 or 3 need a 1, please, watch this sequel... You'll be wondering with the first three parts. Then you'll give a 10 to the first, 8 to the second and 5 or 6 to the other. That's because Ghoulies 4 really gets the big 1 (from me it does).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow! This movie is almost too bad for words. Obviously the writers wanted to somehow link this to the Ghoulies franchise, so they got Pete Liapis from the first one to reprise his role as Jonathan...only now, he's a cop and has no similar character traits as he did in the first one. The ghoulies in this one aren't the ghoulies from the last ones. The cheap looking puppets have been replaced with even cheaper looking costumed little people. Instead of being any main antagonist or being evil, they are more like the comic relief characters that appeared out of nowhere for no reason.

When watching this film for the first time, it felt like I'd seen it before. Why was this? Because everything in this was stolen from another movie. All the cheesy cop lines and action scenes were from Lethal Weapon. The ghoulies were pretty much like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, except they weren't amusing at all. Even scenes from the original Ghoulies film were sprinkled throughout this flick.

I think the target audience was supposed to be adults, but the mixture of black magic, cartoon slapstick, cop drama and bad acting doesn't work at all. I hope they don't make a Ghoulies V, because I don't want a movie studio to lose their money.

My rating: BOMB\/****. 78 mins. R for violence.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of teens have their car break down in the middle of nowhere. They seek shelter in a farmhouse. But three murderous convicts are there killing the owner of said farmhouse and his family. One of them accidentally brings zombies around by knocking over a scarecrow. Cue blood, gore, carnage, bad acting. Better than the first but only by default. I still wouldn't wish it on my arch-enemy, bob. In the end the filmmaker wants it to be a parable about how we us Americans are killing ourself and our forests (huh? OK, whatever buddy) Dude I'd rather chop down forests then have my braincells diminish and my Grey matter leak out of my ears. In other words become a simple-minded idiot Liberal.

My Grade: D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jerry Angell, owner of zombie-horror's finest mullet, returns for more undead action in the sequel to director Todd Sheets' atrocious home-made gore-fest Zombie Bloodbath. This time around, Jerry plays a sleazy low-life thug who, along with his equally despicable partner-in-crime, some escaped convicts, several teenagers, and a bunch of screaming girls, comes face-to-face with a horde of shambling, flesh-eating corpses.

Obviously having learnt zilch about improving his craft in the two years since Zombie Bloodbath, Sheets delivers another shoddy mess of a film that somehow manages to be even worse than the original\u0097a feat that I thought was almost impossible to achieve. The acting is uniformly lousy, the effects amateurish and cheap (most of the gore appears to be nothing more than a selection of offcuts, offal and blood from the local butcher's shop), the story incomprehensible (as far as I could fathom, the zombies rise from the dead because a scarecrow commands them to!!!), and the direction frustratingly laden with cheap looking video effects and completely meaningless cuts to black-and-white.

And as if that wasn't enough to convince you of this film's complete lack of redeeming features, the simply mind-bogglingly moronic ending should do the trick: the few remaining survivors stumble upon an abandoned truck that conveniently happens to have a stash of flesh-eating bacteria laying on its passenger seat\u0097just the thing for dissolving the undead (but, strangely enough, not at all detrimental to the living).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I say worse, I mean less entertaining. Todd Sheets seems to have learned some stupid camera tricks since the last Zombie Bloodbath, which makes the movie even less tolerable. In the last movie there were no special camera effects, where in this one, we are treated to shaky cam, and constant switching to black and white. Also, this is called Zombie Bloodbath, despite the fact that the zombies are barely in this one. The movie starts in 1945, where some satanists kill a violent burglar and put him up as a scarecrow. Back in modern time, some kids have a car problem and go to a house, the same house in which the satanist murder happened. Some mean people try to rape the kids (or something), and they bring the scarecrow burglar back to life, who comes back with some zombies and now talks like Darth Vader. Mr. Sheets amped up the language and lessened the violence. If you want to see what a bad movie is, check this out!

My rating: BOMB\/****. 96 mins. Not rated, contains violence and language.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In following Dylan Moran's star from the charming misanthrope bookstore owner in the surrealist sitcom Black Books, I could see his comic potential begging to be utilised in theater or larger cinematic avenues. This first big screen outing in a starring role (he had a cameo as Rufus the thief in Notting Hill) had oodles of promise, but like the strained Steve Coogan vehicle, The Parole Officer, has too many creases which should have been ironed out in preproduction.

The plot is so convoluted that I shan't bother repeating the finer details (the script has every character do that for us), and the laughs are sourced from show business in-jokes. Michael Caine is a pompous has-been running a production of Richard III - updated to Nazi occupation (one of the few genuine laughs, a satirical jab at Ian McKellen), in which everyone is forever doing the Hitler salute every time they take the stage. Convincing Dylan that acting should be a conceptual act unto itself, the two plot to steal money from some fairly harmless gangsters by way of their acting prowess. Confusion ensues (both on screen and in the audience), there's a romantic sub-plot between Dylan and the daughter of one of the gangsters blah blah blah and Dylan gets to dress in odd clothes and do funny accents. Michael Caine delivers some choice lines, and Dylan's comic timing is on the money, so why isn't it any good? It does have a certain charm that you would expect from Film 4, but it also has a precocious little girl acting as compass in a muddled and irrelevant plot - a no-no in screen writing 101. Exposition overshadows everything else. You just want to see Moran and Caine acting as comic foil to each other the way the were at the beginning, but when they're together toward the end, the the pairing has lost its charisma.

The Actors is an amusing, albeit underwhelming effort. Should it come on telly during a rainy Tuesday afternoon, then have at you. Otherwise you would be better off watching your old Black Books videos, or renting Withnail & I.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The real surprise of this effortlessly lightweight movie is how such a top notch cast got assembled for what is nothing more than a hammy uninspiring affair. Presumably it was a proverbial snowball rolling down a hill gathering pace and size and shape. One can imagine that by the time Miranda Richardson got contacted by her agent, the conversation went along the lines of: 'Do you want to shoot a movie in Dublin scripted by Neil Jordan? Michael Caine and Michael Gambon are already in!' This is a dull 'comedy' that sees Michael Caine and Dylan Moran try and pull off a well-planned hustle where Moran must imitate a London gangland boss (whose arrival is imminent) to collect a sizeable sum of cash from local kingpin Michael Gambon. The rest is simply a forgettable romp that is thankfully over quite quickly. Moran is mildly amusing in places but on this evidence is better suited to life on the small screen in hit comedies such as Black Books. Caine is unchallenged in his role and gives a steady performance without being overstretched. One can only imagine what made him sign up for this movie - it can't even have been a summer in Dublin given that many of the scenes look positively autumnal in the background. Gambon actually steals the show, and anyone who has caught some of his performances in the likes of Have I Got News For You will know that he is a wonderfully funny man. But overall the result is disappointing, and it seems a lifetime ago that Neil Jordan was making quality movies of the likes of Mona Lisa.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is hard to imagine two actors of such class and experience as Michael Caine and Michael Gambon getting involved in such an embarrassingly inept film. The responsibility for this ill-judged production has to be down to the writer, Neil Jordan and director, Conor McPherson. I doubt I've seen such a bad film with such good credits in a long time. The comedian, Dylan Moran, who made his mark as the irritable and incompetent bookshop owner in the TV sitcom, Blackbooks, turns in much the same routine here, except with such excess and lack of comedic control as to leave one squirming. It is easy to see how the story could have been made to work, for the situation is an interesting one and loaded with comic potential. A classical actor (Caine) tries to rip off the mob (Gambon and co) with the aide of a bumbling wannabe colleague (Moran), with predictable results. It could have and should have been good. Sadly, it was not to be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We saw this in a bargain basket at the local Asda: \u00a31.50 for the DVD. reading all the hype plastered all over the cover saying how \"hillarious\" it is, and it also had a really good, established cast, we thought this must a great film.

So we bought, took it home, shoved it in the DVD player, sat back and waited for the funnies to begin.......and waited.......and waited.....and waited a bit more.

Some 90 minutes later, although it felt more like 3 hours, the credits rolled, and that was the end of that.

What a letdown - even paying \u00a31.50 seemed a con. God knows what Caine, Richardson and Gambon were thinking when they said 'yes' to this tosh. And as for Moran: well much as I enjoyed Black Books, Shaun of the dead, and his comedy tours, I felt he was out of his depth in this film. He tried too hard playing for laughs, probably thinking that if retaining the characteristics from his Black Books character, would work here.

Sadly it back-fired. The gags fell flat after awhile, and then he became just an irritation. Which is a shame because I believe given the right part he could be a very good film\/character actor.

Anyway, to sum up: the actors in The Actors, failed to Act!!!

**\/*****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Michael Caine usually appears in either very good (\"Blame It On Rio\", \"Sleuth\", \"Without A Clue\", \"Gambit\", \"Dirty Rotten Scoundrels\") or truly bad comedies (\"Noises Off\", \"Death Becomes Her\", \"Harry & Walter Go To NY\"). This falls into the latter category.

TA is a comedy that succeeds in only two things: managing to waste a cast that includes Caine, Gambon and Richardson, all of which have comedic abilities, and succeeding in its mission not to make the viewer laugh. There isn't a single truly funny moment here. The main reason is the lousy script; there was so much futile effort put into writing a pointlessly convoluted story which is simply too bothersome to follow (considering it's only a comedy) that the writer(s) forgot to make the damn thing funny, which, as far as I can recall, is what the whole point of a comedy is supposed to be.

I've never seen this Moron before. Some people even say \"if you're a Moron fan you'll love this\" bla bla bla. A Moron fan? Does this non-descript person really have fans? A comedy as badly written as this requires a mega-talent to eke out a laugh or two out of it, someone like Steve Coogan and not your average Moron.

If you're going to make a comedy about actors then at least make them out to be the utter morons that they usually are. The characters of Caine and Moron are insufficiently dumb.

The single most annoying thing about this unfunny collection of scenes is the little girl. Only a truly horrible writer would think that to spice up a lousy script it's wise to include a super-intelligent wise-ass kid. Smart-a** kids aren't even funny to Bill Cosby fans any more. In \"Little Miss Sunshine\" we had a totally normal kid and she was very funny. This stupid ol' the-kid-is-smarter-than-the-adults shtick belongs to a century-old Marx brothers film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are thinking of going to see this film then my advice is - dont.

For me the film failed to make the grade at every level and was a reminder of how dire most British (& Irish)films are. Forgettable tripe is the best i can say. If it had been on telly l would have wandered off to do something more interesting five minutes after the start. I saw this film with a group of friends and having read the press previews went along prepared to not be critical and hopefully pass an amusing 90 minutes. But, oh dear.....

As a comedy it wasn't funny, as a thriller the stupid story was sloppy and lazy. As a love story totally unbelievable. Most of all as a piece of 'gloriously over the top whimsy' it lacked both style and charm. Gambon and Caine did what they needed to do to earn their money playing er..... Gambon and Caine. Is it just me, but other than playing east end gangsters and jack the lads, does Michael Caine leave you cold?

In fairness, some of my friends thought it was 'ok' but if you do go, my advice is have a few drinks (or puffs) beforehand and leave your critical faculties safely locked up at home.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mario Racocevic from Europe is the only user who has posted a comment so far and covers the major points to the film.Yet again another difficult film to purchase in the UK.I had to go through \"Midnight Video\" who have a Swedish branch.I went to the post office and bought by mail order this and a similar title at only SKR30 a title.

This film goes under many \"a.k.a's\" depending on when and where it is marketed.I had previously purchased \"The Bloodsucker leads the Dance\" (which you will find if you search on Imdb under \"people\" and input \"Krista Nell\").The actor who plays the Count on his private island in the latter film had his words dubbed from Italian into English by an actor with an unmistakably mournful and rather tired sounding voice.I smiled when I heard this same voice dubbing on the English soundtrack as the police inspector who is investigating the murder of the prostitute killed in the copse in the subject film.My choice of course was to see another outing by the delicious Krista Nell.

There are quite a few rather inconsequential sub plots in the movie involving blackmail\/extortion, sleazy affairs with girlfriends' mothers, a motor cycle chase resulting in a gangland hit, a gangrape by a \"client's\" motorcycle friends, sleazy photography, cross dressing by transvestites etc. which give a flavour to this film summarised in a word - SLEAZE, (but artistic sleaze).The aforementioned contributor liked this film but the lowly rating suggests other Imdb fans did not albeit without explaining their \"wheres and whyfores\".Personally I thought there were too many subplots and not enough put into the main story and the relationship of these subordinate characters to the central plot and the development of their screen characters.Also a professional film editor was sorely needed as some of the scenes appeared to last far too long, having made their point, so that the film appeared to drag in places; e.g. the scene of the dancing transvestite.Krista Nell appears in one fruity scene with a client but this too is but a vignette and I was left wanting more from her, the director and the screenplay.

I love the political incorrectness shown in older films (this is 30 years from its making) e.g. smoking in offices and the way some characters react to each other in the office!I would suggest 4\/10 as a more realistic rating and I have awarded it as such.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"INFERNO starts off with a fairly impressive for a TVM starscape effect . We`re also introduced to a scientist who`s called Heller . Don`t you get it ? Heller , Hell-er , Inferno . So I guess someone on the production had some intelligence . However it does become more and more obvious as the TVM progresses that intelligence has been discarded throughout the storyline in order to appeal to an American TVM audience

The story itself is overwhelmed by subplots featuring umpteen stock TVM characters like the tough liberal schoolteacher who`s trying to save a home boy from a life of crime , the doctor who`s lost his medical licence etc . In fact the story concentrates far more on these characters than the approaching disaster that all the potential tension and drama the scenario might have had soon goes up in a puff of smoke , and being a TVM we just know that there won`t be a downbeat ending

There is an onscreen problem I noticed and that is everytime there`s an explosion there`s a massive fireball which looks ridiculous not to mention physically impossible . Look at the scene where the national guard are in a fight with a gang . A soldier fires a grenade into a tower block and the whole building explodes in a fire ball . What a small greanade containing no more than a few ounces of high explosive can do that ! No it can`t . There`s also another scene of army engineers blowing up a dam with plastic explosive and the same fireball effect is seen . Can directors please note that high explosive is not the same as napalm

Having said that I did find INFERNO highly watchable for a TVM and at no time did I find myself wanting to turn it off . It did have some potential and let me repeat the special effects are fairly good considering the budget and it`s not as bad a TVM as some people are making out","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Absolutely horrible movie. Not a bad plot concept, but executed horribly. Clich\u00e9 storyline; bad script. So schlocky it doesn't even qualify for campy. This is the kind of movie that gives sci-fi a bad name.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to be one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune to see. The general idea of a coronal mass ejection hitting the planet earth with EM disruption is fair enough, but where did they get the idea that humans could survive a sustained 155\u00baF? The acting was so terrible I got the feeling that the casting agents simply grabbed a handful of people off of Santa Monica Boulevard and threw them in front of the camera. In all honesty I have seen less wooden acting from my ironing board. Sorry, but this film was poor, poor, poor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whoever wrote the screenplay for this movie obviously never consulted any books about Lucille Ball, especially her autobiography. I've never seen so many mistakes in a biopic, ranging from her early years in Celoron and Jamestown to her later years with Desi. I could write a whole list of factual errors, but it would go on for pages. In all, I believe that Lucille Ball is one of those inimitable people who simply cannot be portrayed by anyone other than themselves. If I were Lucie Arnaz and Desi, Jr., I would be irate at how many mistakes were made in this film. The filmmakers tried hard, but the movie seems awfully sloppy to me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first saw a glimpse of this movie, I quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of Lucille Ball. Rachel York's portrayal of Lucy is absolutely awful. Lucille Ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. To think about a legend like Lucille Ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. I cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better Lucy, the producers decided to get Rachel York. She might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of Lucille Ball is tough. It is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble Lucille Ball, but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. If you noticed York's portrayal of Lucy in episodes of I Love Lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin, nothing is similar in any way-her expression, voice, or movement.

To top it all off, Danny Pino playing Desi Arnaz is horrible. Pino does not qualify to play as Ricky. He's small and skinny, his accent is unreal, and once again, his acting is unbelievable. Although Fred and Ethel were not similar either, they were not as bad as the characters of Lucy and Ricky.

Overall, extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. If people want to understand the real life situation of Lucille Ball, I suggest watching A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi, read the book from Lucille Ball herself, or PBS' American Masters: Finding Lucy. If you want to see a docudrama, \"Before the Laughter\" would be a better choice. The casting of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in \"Before the Laughter\" is much better compared to this. At least, a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a usually a very generous voter on IMDb and don't bother commenting on movies I did not like, but this was just lame. I actually turned it off 15 minutes before finishing it, to watch \"This Is It\" (because my gf wanted to... I just chose the lesser of two evils).

If you want to watch this movie: picture this film as a collection of worse-than-average \"horror\"-stories, like \"scary short-stories\" that you find in an issue of \"Reader's Digest\" in the waiting room of your dentist's.

I did not expect anything particular terrifying or funny, I am not the \"I want to see blood!\"-type of person, but this \"movie\" is neither \"horror\" nor \"comedy\" nor entertaining in any other way.

It's probably more scary\/funny and entertaining to look at the movie-poster of \"You've Got Mail\" for 90 minutes while drinking chamomile tea.

Conclusion: a \"horror-comedy\" for people between 4 and 7.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The concept for this movie was quite good. But somehow the execution failed on many parts. There aren't many horror movies that I can think of that used dolls that looked so realistic. Especially when these dolls start blinking their eyes or moving hands. So much could have been done with this premise. There were a lot of scenes where there was room for tension and suspense. And I really was expecting creepy things to happen. But never did the movie managed to be scary. One of the main reasons is that the story is too minimal and predictable. I actually thought that they did this on purpose in order to surprise us with some wonderful twist. Sadly this doesn't happen. Well at least not in the way that I hoped for. The cast also failed to make it all believable. It would have been nice if more background was given on the characters. In the beginning when we get introduced to the main character. It seems that she and other characters are invited by some sort of artist. But it also is apparent that they don't have an idea themselves what they are invited for. Of course this is part of the mystery. But it does seem unlikely. If I got an invitation without having a clue what the deal is I simply would not go. Furthermore most characters aren't real likable with the end result that you never actually care for them. Another flaw is that the director deviates from the basic premise which is scary enough and brings up new elements that never get explained and aren't even relevant to the \"Doll Master mystery\". Overall this movie has been a big disappointment to me. If you want to see a good horror movie involving dolls go see \"Dead Silence\"!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worst ever Korean movie! The plot is ridiculously complex, unbelievable, and the film creates not a single shock. It builds up suspense well enough then leaves you agitated providing no shock or jumpy moment. Whenever there is a chilling moment you are not bothered by it as you're still trying to work out who is who and what is going on! It goes something like this: a modeling company recruit 4 people for a modeling career. but the owners are not what they seem, they have model dolls of everyone and a strange girl is seen walking about the place and the owners have no recognition of a girl. It turns out that everyone is there for a reason and thats as much as i could grasp. The ending is a muddle of killings and you don't know who's a doll who's real and who's dead! i don't recommend it to fans of Korean\/Asian horror films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Have to disagree with people saying that this is a lousy horror film with good acting and camera-work - I'd say it's an okay horror flick RUINED by shockingly abysmal acting and poor camera-work - watch 'Ju-on : The Grudge instead of wasting your time with this garbage. The principal idea behind the film is rather an original one, considering the abundance of killer-doll-based scare-fests which have been foist upon us over the years; unfortunately, the story is handled with all the subtlety of the latest Michael Bay actioner, with a cast of characters which are uniformly unlikable and played with precision-perfect dreadfulness by actors presumably sifted from daytime Korean soap operas. It isn't scary and only succeeds in dampening your expectations of the next Korean horror movie to come-a-calling. Oh well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Doll Master is an example of a lousy horror film, fallen somewhere in the space with it's two not so well established genres, a horror film and an emotional drama film. Seems like The Doll Master tries very hard to be a very scary horror film, but it fails. The noise of the dolls while moving is like taken from the croak of Kayako in Ju-On, and the crawls are like sadako esquire. The killing dolls will remember you a cute version of \"Chucky\". But compared to Child's Play, this film is more superb. But the story seems a nothing, the brilliant camera shots and the brilliance of acting was taken away cause of the plot.

Don' watch this if you are expecting great shocks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This relatively obscure Hong Kong \"minorpiece\" is the perfect desert island movie for video age peeping toms (at least its first half is). Every set-up, every scene, every sequence is an excuse to look up a girl's skirt, stare down at her breasts, gaze at her bottom and leer at her tight crotch. What it's establishing is the lead character's perverted proclivities, of course(!)

Genre stalwart Anthony Wong is a marginally perverted married man who is plagued by erotic daydreams and outrageous fantasies. All involve scantily clad, sexy Chinese ladies with nothing but sexual servitude on their minds.

The plot is thickened by a homicidal subplot, voodoo doll skewering and a little rape and pillage.

Some of the sex scenes are fairly hot and the gore is liberal, but the supernatural elements introduced into the second half feel half-baked and the plot developments are ludicrous.

Clearly, producer of garish garbage Wong Jing was in a terrible hurry to get this into and out of theaters.

The arty title sequence did not fool this jaded punter.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking forward to this movie as everyone was talking about it as being a good horror movie, and finally an European one. So, maybe my expectations were to high.

It begins with a good quiet horror\/shock sequence but it lets you down right away in the following scenes, where the plot begin being introduced, as the acting and the motivation\/life of the characters reveals itself no better than any 'made for TV' drama. It keeps that way right into the end.

About the horror part of the movie, it is certainly a good idea and a different one, but ALL the scenes are of the 'seen it before' kind.

Overall, my idea of this movie was that it had a good concept, which was inserted into a mediocre story, bad acting and less than tolerable plot holes.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Firstly, this movie works in the fact that it is disturbing. I really did not like seeing all these scenes where people get cut up alive, etc. The weirdly erotic introduction gives one a sense of necrophiliactic wonder. It is somewhat... distastefull to me personally. But the movie really works in that respect, and it is suppposed to be scary, so I give it credit for that. Yup, a few points there for those scalpels and....well, damned disturbing idea of getting disected alive.

But what this movie lacks is an interesting plot, characterization, or real surprises. The whole teen-flick horror genre usually goes in a very simple, predictable way. Lots of 'tense' moments, creepy guys who are insane, and the big question of all: is the boyfriend the murderer? This movie fits into the category of \"Scream\" and countless others which have spawned over the 90s. Well, I won't spoil it for you, but it's not exactly interesting who is the killer. We find out who it is half way through... and from there on, the movie drudges on, trying to fill in some time... rather boringly to say the least. I was looking at the clock a bit on this movie.

The lead actress is great, as usual, but the carboard acting box she is placed into makes one groan in pain... the college girl who is a detective who everyone thinks is insane, but she is the one who really knows whats going on. And the cops? Ahhh, they just laugh and eat donuts. Very predictable, flat, disturbing at times, and most of all, boring and dull... It's like an American film company took a flight to Germany to shoot a movie to make it foreign..... hmmm..... or did they?

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Medical student Paula Henning wins a place at an exclusive Heidelberg medical school. When the body of a young man she met on the train turns up on her dissection table, she begins to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding his death, and uncovers a gruesome conspiracy perpetrated by an Antihippocratic secret society operating within the school. Disturbing and gross, lots of scary parts. It even has a good script and ending. But it has a one poor part. What else could you see from this movie? It's a good mystery and horror movie. But, of course, if you like it, Go buy it. If you don't, there still is not reason to waste your money on this.

Rated R for Extreme Graphic Violence, Sexual Situations and Profanity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had such a good premise to start with. Suspense, slashers, a secret society, and you really couldn't figure out who the bad guys were until the last quarter of the movie.

But it contained so many dumb clich\u00e9s from the worst of the old American slasher\/horror movies. Now, I love slasher\/horror movies, but there are all the old clich\u00e9s that have long disappeared from American cinema. For example, the old \"I hear noises in the basement and I'm home all alone and the basement light doesn't work, so I'll go down to investigate\" clich\u00e9.

Three examples of these clich\u00e9s just really irked me to no end:

1) When Potente finds out that there may be a secret society at work at the medical school carving up live bodies, she proceeds to ask questions and tell EVERYONE -- very publicly. In essence, she is saying, \"I found you out. Come kill me because I am telling everyone your secret.\" And then she wonders why she finds blood smeared all over her bed and is brought her roommate's severed finger in a towel.

2) Even after one guy she met two weeks ago ends up on the dissection table and she finds out about this secret society disemboweling live people, she goes to the lab where all the dead bodies are stored 2-3 more times BY HERSELF AT NIGHT to investigate.

3) Her roommate gets killed. She gets chased by the killer, whom she knows, doesn't report him to the university or the police, then leaves the school to go home to visit her parents. Then she returns to school, apparently thinking that this guy who tried to kill her will let bygones be bygones and not try to kill her, even though she knows his secret. She was, of course, wrong.

For someone who was supposed to be so smart (she was studying to be a doctor in the best school in Germany), she acted like the clich\u00e9 bimbo in a horror movie.

These things just made a potentially good movie very frustrating, and made me wish the ending would come even sooner. Halfway through the movie, I stopped routing for her and wished that she would end up on the dissection table, too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is an endless supply of trashy horror movies. It seems that people never get tired of trying to scare and thrill. Alas, very seldom these attempts succeed. This, unfortunate movie has almost no redeeming value. The story is highly predictable, most of the actors very uninspired, or just plainly miscast, special effects of very low quality. It took a lot of effort not to switch off the DVD and go to bed. With such a limited number of foreign movies issued in the USA, why in the world would anybody want to import this drivel. To top it all, apparently there is an \"Anatomy 2 \", for those who have nothing better to do. I'd rather watch the paint dry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, I had reasonably high expectations for this. The controversial subject matter was a good concept. As a horror fan I admit I was fascinated and very excited about this.

It turns out they had a great idea, but it was terribly executed. Let's see. This movie seems to run in 3 modes: Happy, Sex and Dark. The problem is that the movie never decides what it wants to be. The \"Happy\" parts I believe were meant to contrast with the \"Dark\" parts, but it doesn't work. The soundtrack is one of the reasons.

The movie transitions between these 3 modes very badly, I can't even begin to say how much the directing and editing suck. There's sex in the most unappealing and unerotic way. I'm not complaining but even for Horror standards they were unnecessary and filler.

The characters are all unlikeable with the exception of Paula (Potente). Her friend from Munich is a slut and possibly one of the most annoying characters in movies I've come across recently.

There's a bit of plot which I won't go into detail... It's not stupid and in more talented hands would make a good movie. There's even a nice twist and a cool conspiracy going on. Don't try to understand everything because there are giant plot holes here.

It's all so shoddily done that you don't care for the victims, the perpetrators, anyone. And to think this could have been great. I can say ONE good thing about it which is, the movie shed some light on today's unethical medical procedures. With genetics and controversial sciences advancing, this could have been a great philosophical film that raises and discusses these questions. But you won't find that here, just a series of scenes loosely pasted together with people and things that you don't care about.

Skip this and go watch Flatliners instead, you're welcome.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1st watched 6\/24\/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Stefan Rujowitzky): OK thriller, but a little too predictable. This story is based in Germany, which is also where the movie is made. It is about a young medical student who gets a shot to go to a premiere school in Heidelberg and arrives seeing some strange things occurring. Someone she met on the train there and saved, shows up on the school's experimentation table and she's suspecting foul play right away. She does some investigation and the disappearance of her friend leads her to a secret society called AAA(and no it's not Alcoholics Anonymous) that has something to do with the anti-Hippocratic oath and is used to perform experimentations on live people that doctor's wouldn't normally be able to do. She finds out her grandfather(who was a dean at the school) was a big part of establishing it and it's pretty readily filled by members of the school. It's an interesting story but the problem with this movie is how quickly the audience is told what's going on and then it's kind of a horror movie with the heroine fighting off the bad boy of the group that's taking things to the next psychotic level. Although this movie was made in Europe, it plays to a young American audience with it's focus on gore, sex and the horror film premise(which is really it's big downfall) and explains why it probably made good money and spawned a sequel but doesn't necessarily make for a good movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anatomie isn't very unique in horror genre, in fact it isn't even scary at all. It reminds me of its American cousins, horror slashers. It's just a copy of any other horror slasher and as a German movie it's just too American with nothing to add to it.

Actually Anatomie is too predictable and boring, its plot is not intact and consistent. It's got stupid scenes to it which don't even fit into a horror movie genre. Amusing sex scenes with pop music and topless women in underwear. Why do they need to have it all in just one movie? They should have made a cheap German adult movie instead.

I can't recommend this movie to anyone because it's just too boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Finally got to see this movie last weekend. What a disappointment..it barely reaches \"made for TV\" level. Given the list of actors, I would have expected something substantially more sophisticated. The movie lacks a good story, well, actually any story for that matter. It has no credibility, instead lots of predictability. Save yourself the money and the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the worst non-English horror movie I've ever seen. The acting is wooden, the dialogues are simply stupid and the story is totally braindead. It's not even scary. 2 out of 10 from me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anatomie was a German made Movie and subtitled.It was also overlong and boring.If it was supposed to be a horror movie,it failed miserably for me.The actors went through their paces looking more like they wanted to be some where else.The film work was ok but more attention should have been applied to the awful banal script.I paid nothing to see the video and I still feel cheated.Go read a book and save your money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a pretty lousy picture.It offers nothing unique or original or even interesting.

A medical student discovers that a secret society at her university is engaged in macabre medical experiments.And of course she becomes involved in solving the weird deaths at the school.This movie started out promising with a few cool special effects in which a guy is partially dissected while alive and tries to get away after he wakes up but then even that fizzles and the rest of the special effects are pretty routine plastic models of the human body and that unreal looking blood that these second rate horror movies always seem to have.

And as if the routine plot and the lousy acting wasn't enough this movie had subtitles that many times didn't even match the dubbed English that you hear being spoken and then add that to the mouth movement not matching the dubbing ..well let's just say trying to coordinate all that in your head isn't worth it for this mediocre movie.

I was at least counting on some skin in this movie and except for a bit during the opening credits this movie didn't deliver on that either.

This is a boring routine run of the mill horror\/gore movie---short on horror and gore.Skip this movie unless \"Ernest goes to Camp\" is the only rental left.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had high expectations going into this film, but alas, I feel let down. I bought it for 5 bucks at a used VHS place, and the version I bought was the English dubbed version. The dubbing is awful, so beware. \"Lola\" just wasn't as good in this film as in \"Run Lola Run\", and the bad guy just kinda came out of nowhere. And \"Lola\" starts to catch on to what's going on the second she gets to the university. Seems unrealistic to me. I was also wondering if in the original version there were American songs in the soundtrack... they seemed extremely out of place. Too bad for this film, I really thought it was going to rock.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this basically for the sole reason that it was supposed to have Third Reich references in it. It turned out a pretty brainless and predictable slasher film that appeared to be made to appeal to feminists or something.

Let me tell you something, if you wait an entire movie to see the attractive female lead's breasts, the last thing you want is a \"tastefully\" done sex scene with annoying camera angles that don't show anything. Her busty friend didn't get hers out either, but we saw plenty of men's butts and pubic hair and guys with their shirts off. And at the end you have our heroine magically dodging the scalpel thrusts and swings of the villain (who turns out to be the hunk, funnily enough) and she easily out fights him (uh huh) while her male love interest is tied down and waiting to be rescued. The funniest part was when she picks up a chair and \"swings\" it at the guy and it breaks over him. Now it'd be about as much as she could manage to lift the chair let alone smash it against a person with enough force to break it! It looks ridiculous, she basically brushes it against him and it falls apart. If you are going to do this sort of \"role reversal\" rubbish (which has already been done to death) then you have to at least make it semi plausible.

There was one good bit though. The bad guy did get the better of her slutty friend, teaching her a lesson for being such a tramp and sleeping around. That's not exactly something feminists would like.

Pretty stupid really. Not that American slasher flicks are generally much better, but you have to wonder why they bothered. It brought nothing new to the genre at all.

5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On assignment in scenic Italy, beautiful lip-synching Lana Turner (as Fredda Barlo) meets older singer and prince Ezio Pinza (as Mr. Imperium). The two fall in love, while enjoying the pretty Italian countryside. Unhappily, Mr. Pinza is called away to his Kingly father's death bed, leaving Lana in the lurch. Twelve years later, Ms. Turner is a Los Angeles actress, about to make a motion picture about falling in love with a King. Turner is being romanced by co-star Barry Sullivan, who wants to marry her - then, King Pinza re-enters her life\u0085

\"Mr. Imperium\" provides a tired storyline for sex symbol Turner and debuting bass vocalist Pinza, who appeared for several decades with the New York Metropolitan Opera. Pinza likely earned his MGM feature film career after appearing in the hugely successful stage production of \"South Pacific\" (1949). The cast album, and Pinza's golden \"Some Enchanted Evening\" single, sold millions. Supporting casters Marjorie Main, Cedric Hardwicke, and Debbie Reynolds give the film a even greater sense of wasted resources.

*** Mr. Imperium (1951) Don Hartman ~ Lana Turner, Ezio Pinza, Barry Sullivan","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Simply miserable Lana Turner-Ezio Pinza vehicle. Pinza had a beautiful voice but he rarely uses it in a film that reminded me of \"The Student Prince\" with adults. Pinza is no leading man either. He looks like an elderly man ready to collect social security and go fishing.

The plot is extremely thin and the supporting cast of Barry Sullivan, Marjorie Maine and Debbie Reynolds are given so little to do. Sir Cedric Hardwicke comes in at the end to announce that our King Ezio had better return to his people. As far as I'm concerned, the faster the better. Is that Lana Turner really singing with Pinza? Not bad if it is her. The picture would also remind me in a way of the 1960 movie \"The Prince and the Showgirl\" with Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This brief review contains no spoilers since the movie spoils itself. It is wooden and pedantic. It has no saving grace whatsoever. If someone invites you to his house to watch \"Mr. Imperium\", don't go. Even the title of the movie is dreadful and portends what garbage lies within. The whole plot is so bad that it could drive Mother Theresa to despair!!! It wasn't a stroke that led to the early demise of poor Ezio, it was having to act in this clunker that did him in. It must have haunted him the rest of his days. Perhaps he was an enemy alien and wanted revenge upon the Americans for his confinement. He found a perfect vehicle for his wrath in this travesty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alan Rickman & Emma Thompson give good performances with southern\/New Orleans accents in this detective flick. It's worth seeing for their scenes- and Rickman's scene with Hal Holbrook. These three actors mannage to entertain us no matter what the movie, it seems. The plot for the movie shows potential, but one gets the impression in watching the film that it was not pulled off as well as it could have been. The fact that it is cluttered by a rather uninteresting subplot and mostly uninteresting kidnappers really muddles things. The movie is worth a view- if for nothing more than entertaining performances by Rickman, Thompson, and Holbrook.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's not easy to find Judas Kiss on VHS (it's not available on DVD), but I wanted to add this rather obscure movie to my Alan Rickman movie collection.

I can't understand how the talented Mr. Rickman gets into these mediocre films? Judas Kiss boasts several wonderful actors, an interesting plot and intriguing twists, but its strange visual wanderings and chopping editing ruined what might have been a great crime drama. Many scenes seem to be missing vital information to explain the character's actions: Why was our hero immediately suspicious of his bosses? Why did he mistrust the detective he replaced? There were times when I honestly couldn't tell if the director meant Judas Kiss to be a legitimate crime drama or a campy spoof. Why else would he toss in a topless\/alien\/lesbian porno scene in the first two minutes (that little surprise certainly made me scramble for the remote since my kids were playing nearby!)? Did he purposely instruct his two distinguished English actors (Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson) to use such awful New Orlean's accents? As an Alan Freak, I confess that I still thought Mr. Rickman was sexy: in a rumpled, weary, \"take-him-home-and-tuck-him-in\" sort of way.

Judas Kiss isn't a great movie, but it does have some intriguing moments, but I don't recommend it unless you're trying to immerse yourself in Alan Rickman.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film would like to be the kind of shocking, cerebral, and intense movie that many others in its genre have successfully been, but it's not. It is at best confusing and absurd. When the twists and turns finally revealed themselves, rather than saying \"Ahh, I get it!\" I muttered something along the lines of \"Okay...whatever.\" In my opinion, when a movie reveals a major plot twist it shouldn't have to employ a flashback sequence to prove that it did give some hints that would enable the viewer to discern the truth himself. But this movie does have a flashback; and here's the kicker: it flashes back on scenes that weren't even in the movie!

The characters were stereotypical, unsympathetic, and wholly ridiculous. I feel that the \"steamy\" love scenes between the romantic leads were the most untitillating and unsexy that I've ever scene in a movie that wasn't porn. It seems that the director was going for shocking and kinky with the love scenes, but they were really just plain silly.

And don't EVEN get me started on the crappy accents and second-rate sets. I guess the movie was set in New Orleans, but Aside from the afore mentioned accents and a couple bland city shots the movie could have been in Anytown, USA.

My recommendation: don't bother!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This series continues to frustrate and annoy. How are they going to drag this out for another year? Each episode offers up more and more questions, whilst providing the answers to very few. To quote another very popular website, I believe that this show has now jumped the shark!

Will, I keep watching it?

Probably,

Will they manage to keep the show on-air till it ends?

Probably not...

How did two qualified doctors fail to notice that Naomi was still alive? How did 30 plus people not notice a corpse wake up and walk off with a knife still in her back? How did someone have enough strength to create two trails and climb up a tree to ambush Kate?

We've now introduced a ghostbuster...

Same time next week? yep!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I felt last night's episode was slow and kinda of boring at times. I honestly don't think it has to do anything with the writing. Because I know the story was well staged and tried to keep things in place. I thought it wasn't that bad but overall, I didn't enjoy it. The most blame has to do with the director of that episode- Stephen Williams. I always hated Stephen Williams's directing. If Jack Bender continues with this episode from the season premiere, he would have kept it in a good pace and keep things float to keep things interesting. I'm glad Jack Bender is directing next week's episode and it'll be much better and I'm glad he got first Syaid episode to direct and I'm curious what he will pull off this time since Stephen Williams had directed too many Syaid episodes before.

I always keep thinking that Stephen Williams needs to be thrown off from the show. He doesn't even do anything interesting with the show.

Why does the opening have to be done with a target thing while being in the helicopter? IT was so BORING! Bad perspective of camera work too!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the first and as far as I can tell, the only completed production of \"Heart of Darkness\" ever released. Prior to starting on \"Citizen Kane,\" Orson Welles shot some test footage for a version of \"Heart of Darkness\" that was to be filmed entirely in what would now be called \"POV\", where we would see everything from the point of view of the main character Charlie Marlow; he would be seen only fleetingly in mirrors, windows, water, etc. The film was never made. The \"POV\" technique was used, not too successfully, in 1947 in \"The Lady in the Lake,\" with Robert Montgomery starring as Philip Marlowe. Presumably, the coincidence of the two \"Marlow(e)\" characters is just that. Of course, Francis Coppola's \"Apocalypse Now\" was based on \"Heart of Darkness.\"

The short novel \"Heart of Darkness\" by the Polish-born British writer Joseph Conrad, first serialized in a British literary magazine in 1899, features one of his favorite alter egos, ship captain Charlie Marlow, who also narrates the short story \"Youth\" and indirectly tells the story of \"Lord Jim.\" Marlow, temporarily out of work, decides to take a job captaining a river boat for a Belgian company involved in the brutal exploitation of the resources of King Leopold II's personal fiefdom, the cruelly misnamed Congo Free State. Marlow travels from London to Brussels, signs on with the company, and is told that his mission is to take a boat up the Congo River to a far inland station headed by one of the company's most productive agents in the colony, a German named Kurtz. Shipments of ivory, latex (for the production of rubber) and other products from Kurtz's station have ceased, and no word has come downriver from Kurtz for some time. There are rumors that he has \"gone native.\" Marlow is to investigate, take any necessary action, and make a report on his return. He takes passage down the West African coast to the mouth of the Congo, is delayed for weeks while he is forced to repair his boat at the company station on the coast, and finally sets out upriver to find Kurtz's station. The river, the heat, the vegetation, the wildlife, the insects, the people, all take their toll on his endurance, his imagination, and his mental resources. He finds Kurtz ill, half-mad, and close to death. The final encounter and the death of Kurtz are almost an anticlimax, especially since Conrad is so obscure about what actually happens that we are left to puzzle it out for ourselves. This is a novel where you close the book vaguely dissatisfied with the ending but nevertheless treasuring the story for its amazing atmospherics.

This \"Heart of Darkness\" was filmed with Guyana in Central America standing in for West Africa. It is best where the novel is at its greatest disadvantage: Actually showing us First World urbanites what a boat trip up a tropical river would look like. But the rest of the film was forgettable. Tim Roth does his best as Marlow, but so much about the plot, characterizations, and character relationships has been altered beyond recognition that you wonder why they bothered. If the aim was to make Conrad's story for the screen, why didn't they leave it alone? It's unreasonable to expect that no compromises will be made when a book is made into a movie, but so many changes were made that to me had no cinematic justification that you wonder whether we are simply dealing with incompetent screenwriters and cinematographers. Most disappointing of all was John Malkovich as Kurtz. He was completely miscast and simply flubs the role. Everything about him is wrong: His looks, his acting style, his voice, his accent, everything. A vastly better choice would have been someone like Bruno Ganz (unlike Malkovich, an actual German, like the character).

This is a very disappointing production and I would recommend it only after you've read the book if you want to depend on more than your imagination to get a visual picture of a boat trip up the Congo River circa 1900.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After seeing the film version of Heart Of Darkness, I feel as if I wasted 100 minutes of my life. Though the book was not my favorite, I was very disappointed to see how poorly Nicolas Roeg portrayed the story. Despite the fact that he left out many bits of important information, the cast just did not seem to fit their roles and the whole film seemed vastly emotionless. The book depicts vivid scenery and detail that are completely disregarded in the movie.

You'd think a director would be able to fit 76 pages of a book into a film of at least an hour and a half. The differences completely changed the story for me. For example, when the character of Kurtz's fianc\u00e9e is nonchalant to the fact that Kurtz has died, it completely modifies the ending the book had given. Not to mention the sets and scenery used in the film were not nearly as beautiful as they were described. It sincerely feels as if Roeg was filming another story with references from Heart Of Darkness embedded in it.

If you watch the movie without knowing the title or expecting it to be anything like Joseph Conrad's tale, you may find it good. Though I thought the camera work was poor and the cast unfitting, it is a captivating story all the same. However, if you are looking for a good movie version of the famous classic story, don't look for it in Roeg's film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Overall, the movie \"Heart of Darkness\" was pitiful compared to the book. Anyone who has ever read the book and had a sufficient understanding of it would be able to see the countless obvious flaws. There is an immeasurable difference between the two. It seems to me that the director was walking into a losing battle. I couldn't imagine that someone would take on the monstrous task of recreating \"Heart of Darkness.\" The immense detail and magic of the story would be impossible to justly interpret. Conrad's story had so many layers and so much depth that it would seem pointless to try to make a visual interpretation.

First, capturing the details of the story is unattainable. The colossal fine points created by Joseph Conrad cannot be rightfully recreated through film. Marlow's feelings and emotions cannot be equally construed in the movie. If you have taken on the enormous task of tackling Conrad's work then, you know as well as I that Conrad only wrote half the story. The additional half is a series of connections made by the reader. You, as the reader are required to be capable of inferring and connecting Joseph Conrad's ideas. As a result, several crucial details are absent in the movie.

Also, although the movie was an adequate length, the film seemed short. It seemed that Conrad was able to pack many more details into 75 pages than the movie could pack in an hour and a half. The speed of the movie kept the viewer from getting to know the characters. Marlow was much more of a stranger. The viewpoint of the book puts you into Marlow's shoes. However, in the movie, you're almost watching Marlow from a distance. I began to think that the director was trying to utilize the same \"read between the lines\" method as Conrad did. However, the connections were weak. I know that if I had not read the book then, I would, in no way, be able to begin to understand the depth of the situation and the characters.

Finally, Kurtz also seemed to be interpreted incorrectly. His role was short and the details weren't all included. It was impossible to comprehend the true Kurtz in the length of time he was shown. An important detail in the book was that Kurtz had become a god to the Africans. I didn't think that significant detail was defined. Also, in the book, Kurtz represented a soulless being. He had died inside long ago. I believe the director comprehended this detail. However, instead of recreating it, he just had Kurtz mope around and mumble everything. Moreover, it seemed like the director attempted to make Kurtz seem mysterious, however, instead, he seemed entirely unidentified.

Altogether, this movie reminded me of a teenager cramming to finish a science project, due the next day. It appeared to have been crafted effortlessly and in hardly any time. The characters were alienated, crucial details were left out, and, overall, the central plot was lost in translation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite the excellent cast and the potential of the story, this movie fails on many levels. I was convinced that the director was a beginner. The movie is very poorly edited, shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes, has very visible goofs and has no suspenseful atmosphere whatsoever. The question which repeatedly popped up in my mind while watching this was: \"so what?\". I couldn't care less about the protagonist and what happens to him. It's not that the story isn't compelling, it's simply the way it's told. The movie tells the story. PERIOD. It's like an actor who mumbles his lines, without knowing what he's saying. The movie simply tells the events that happen, without any soul. And the director's to blame. He doesn't know how to make something interesting or suspenseful or enjoyable. (And believe me, I'm NOT somebody who wants to see die hard 8 or 2 fast 2 crappy. On the contrary, i especially like slow-paced movies.) So i was convinced the director was a beginner. But to my amazement this man has years of experience and has worked as a cinematographer or camera assistant on a lot of marvelous productions. Guess he had a bad year back then.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie Heart of Darkness is an insult to the book by Joseph Conrad! To be quite honest the movie made me want to fall asleep. On the other hand, the book was definitely extraordinary. I feel that the movie left out several key elements and missed some of the main points from the book. In addition, the actors were boring and lacked originality and enthusiasm.

The book, while not an adventure story or easy to understand, is full of hidden meaning and interesting twists in the plot. The book, though very confusing and complex, is astonishing. When you do finally understand it, you feel as if you have actually learned something. The novella, or short story, had several key ideas like futility and craziness, which the movie left out. In addition, several key scenes were changed, which in return affected the entire plot. Many of the scenes seemed to be very \"choppy\", in the sense that they did not fit together. In summary, the movie seemed to be a bad interpretation of the book.

I would only recommend watching this movie if you cannot picture or understand the book, but otherwise I would skip this one. It was dreadful, and in complete disarray. If you have never read the book then, definitely do not watch the movie because you need the basic information from the book to understand the movie. The movie was a horrible spin-off of an outstanding and detailed book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To be honest, I've never been to the Congo or even Africa, and after watching the made for television movie Heart of Darkness, I do not think I'd want to. The movie completely shames the book to the highest level possible. Though the book was not the best I have read, after watching the movie, I seemed to appreciate the book a hundred times more. Nicolas Roeg, the director of the movie, did a horrible job portraying Joseph Conrad's novella into a movie. I give Roeg some credit for trying to attempt the impossible by making the book into a movie, but this may not have been the job for him. The movie was unsuccessful to express any part of the novella other than the basics of the plot. The set and scenery also lacked the beauty Conrad portrayed of Africa in the book. In the book Marlow had seen so many great wonders, but in the movie you did not get that same experience. No, I'm not blaming everything on the director; the acting in the film was just terrible. All of the actors were dull and uninteresting. Throughout the whole movie I felt as if the actors were not putting forth any emotions, as if they were reading from the script the entire time. Tim Roth, who plays Marlow, did not portray Marlow's sense of adventure for his journey into the Congo well. Marlow's journey to find Kurtz was supposed to venturesome, but I didn't experience that in the movie. I would not recommend watching this movie, especially if you have read the book already. It does not come close to doing justice for Joseph Conrad's novella. Conrad's words capture the reader and take them on the journey with Marlow, on his quest to find Mr. Kurtz, where as the film did not. A great novella, but a very poor film. Heart of Darkness, the movie, is based on the book written by Joseph Conrad also called Heart of Darkness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Taylor Deemer Mrs. Drake English 10 PIB B4 31 March 2010

A Shot in the Dark

It is difficult to make it through the movie Heart of Darkness because it is incredibly unexciting. The book that this movie is based off of has little action to begin with. So the thought of turning it into a movie seems like a totally off-handed idea anyways, basically guaranteeing a fail.

Most of the book is of the mental travel of a young seaman named Marlow on a job through the many darknesses of the Congo and people as a whole\u0085I feel like the screenwriter failed massively at capturing the essence of Marlow's travels. It totally missed the biggest issue of light versus dark. That is the major point in the book and when that doesn't translate to the movie, all that's left is 100 minutes of boredom and monotony.

This being the case, the question is posed, why would anyone make this into a movie? An even better question could then be asked, who would want to watch it? It is utterly a chore to watch. Had it not contributed to a grade in my English class, I would have never even considered watching the movie. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. Heart of Darkness is stripped of all its insight and meaning when it's taken from the pages of the book. The novella is torture to read until the last twenty pages or so, but the afterthought is that it is a pretty decent book. The movie is like a shot in the dark with no chance in the world of hitting its target.

How can a book that's all about the mental processes and realizations of darkness be portrayed in a physical, visual sense? I feel like it's impossible to accurately show thoughts. Also, I feel like the time difference between the book and the movie creates major points that don't seem to add up at all. The novella Heart of Darkness was published in 1902, while the movie version of Heart of Darkness is from 1993. The 91 years between the two may be a reason behind the seemingly different terrains. The novella seems to have much harsher conditions, and the movie does not portray the prehistoric feel of the Congo. The Congo, in the movie, just seems like another place, not the dark, inhuman place that the book paints this setting of. I feel like this removes another major element that really contributes to the novella.

With two of the biggest aspects of the storyline missing in the movie, the little bit of decency that is in the book Heart of Darkness is gone. When the controversy of light versus dark is the biggest theme, not including it in the movie makes it seem like the entire movie will be incredibly pointless\u0097and it is. It's dull, unexciting, and a major waste of time. There's no reason to watch it. The book is stripped of any significance it has. If it's necessary, for some reason, read the book. Avoid the movie at all costs.

Cast and Credits Marlow: Tim Roth Kurtz: John Malkovich The Russian:Morten Faldaas The Intended: Phoebe Nicholls

Directed by: Nicolas Roeg Written by Benedict Fitzgerald, based on the novella by Joseph Conrad Running Time: 100 minutes Rated PG 13 (some sexuality and language)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A made for television version of the Heart of Darkness seemed like a good way to add more insight to the book, well, that was the wrong assumption. The movie made it even worse. I was highly disappointed about almost everything in the movie. I hoped that the movie would possibly help put the pieces of the book together that I didn't comprehend, but it did no such thing. It still left me confused and hanging. It is one of those movies that makes one feel like it would be more fun to watch the grass grow instead of watching the movie. Not exactly anyone's cup of tea. It was an overall dreadful, boring, and slow movie.

To begin with, Nicolas Roeg must have been pretty desperate when he decided that he wanted to undertake the task of making the already boring book into a movie. It's a guaranteed loss. It's like going into a knife fight, but forgetting the knife on the kitchen counter. The knifeless person is going to lose; and in the case, the knifeless person was Roeg. All I've heard about the movie are bad things, and the movie deserves those bad things to be said about it. From watching the movie, I got the impression that the people who made the movie, just skimmed over the book to get the key points.

Furthermore, although the movie did follow the main story line of the book, it left out quite a few details, and it also changed the ending. I am not a fan of that. Roeg left out when Marlow and his crew came across the Russian sailor's camp, and at that camp they found the book. Also it didn't show when at the camp they came across the sign that says, \"Wood for you. Hurry up. Approach cautiously\" (Conrad 110). Also, at the end of the book Kurtz dies on the boat, not at the inner station.

On the contrary, Nicolas Roeg did one good thing while he was making his movie; he managed to hire some pretty decent actors to play in the movie. For instance, he acquired Tim Roth and John Malkovich, both of whom would later go on to have successful careers. In doing so, he added a little something to the horrible movie. Also, though I am ripping his book to shreds, I do have some respect for him, because it takes a lot of courage to try to take on The Heart of Darkness. It isn't exactly the easiest novel to portray into a film. Twus a valiant effort, though! In conclusion, if for whatever reason someone actually wants to watch this movie, I suggest the reading of Heart of Darkness first. This way, you'll get all of the scenes that were left out of the movie and you won't be completely lost when you watch it. But I really suggest you don't read the book and that you really don't watch the movie; both will be a complete waste of your time. Trust me. I was forced to do both by my English teacher, and now I wish that the book and the movie didn't exist. If either the book or the movie are pursued, good luck!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After reading the book, Heart of Darkness, the movie did not do it justice. The movie puts the book to shame and anyone who has not experienced the book would frown upon the story and plot because it was portrayed so poorly by the movie. In the film, the characters and set were just some of the let downs that occurred in the movie. The director left out so many important and interesting aspects of the book that made it one of the best literary works ever made.

Of course any book is better than the movie but these weren't even comparable. Joseph Conrad as a writer was brilliant in vocabulary and the cleverness of the written word. The movie doesn't even start to show any of this. Some of the very important and influential scenes from the book were completely left out, like how Kurtz was not in the boat when he died. Also when Marlow went to deliver the news to Kurtz's intended, she reacted differently in the movie, rather than the book. Another major difference was that Marlow saw the picture of the lady that was blindfolded at the end of the movie, not at the beginning, like the book. This was influential on how the audience perceived Marlow, and the movie totally messed that up.

The book was so fine tuned on what every location looked like, but the scenery in the movie was a let down. There was a bunch of cheesy fake backgrounds and to compliment, a bunch of bad actors to go along with it. There was one exception to the awful actors and that would be Isaach De Bankol\u00e9, who played Mfumu. His character was depicted the best. Though the movie wasn't that great, I still would recommend it ONLY if you have read and understood the book very well. That way, you can see what the differences are in the movie and book and contemplate them. If you have not read the book, I do not recommend the movie because it is a boring, lifeless mess. I loved the book, so you should definitely read it and enjoy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Heart of Darkness Movie Review Could a book that is well known for its eloquent wording and complicated concepts ever be made into a movie good enough to portray the deep meaning in the book? So far, that goal hasn't been achieved. The Heart of Darkness was attempted to be made into a movie in 1993, but it was a failure in comparison to the book.

It is hard enough to make any book into a movie. There always is the worry that it won't be as descriptive or have the same meaning. So why the novel, The Heart of Darkness, is made into a movie, I am clueless. There is so much description and hidden meaning throughout the entire book. When just reading the words plainly, I think that a person would think it is pretty boring and wouldn't get the symbolism. I think that is what happened in the movie; the movie just skimmed the story at the surface.

The movie didn't even follow the full storyline of the book, major changes were made that I thought made the movie worse. For example, the manager did not go along on the boat with Marlow and the rest of the crew, the spy did instead. I think that took out some major plots and took out the great deception of the manager in relation to Kurtz. Also, Kurtz wasn't even on the steamboat when he died, which especially made the entire journey even more futile, which just got annoying after a while. And when Marlow was telling Kurtz's fianc\u00e9e about his final moments and words, it was no where near as descriptive or important, the fianc\u00e9e didn't even get that upset.

As far as the acting went, none of the actors did a very good job except for the actor that played Mfumu. In my opinion, Kurtz was not very evil, and that was kind of an important thing in the book. Also, other characters such as Marlow, the manager, and the fianc\u00e9 didn't do the characters justice that they deserved from the book. Their acting wasn't very exciting or memorable at all. Over all, I don't think that this book should have even been attempted to be made into a movie. I think it is fine to use some of the themes in a different story line like in Apocalypse Now. But as for following the same exact story line of the book, it just does it shame.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you've ever heard the saying, \"the book is always better than the movie,\" Heart of Darkness is no exception to the rule. I believe that it was much easier for me to comprehend the details of the novel over the movie because I read the book aloud with my English class. We discussed each paragraph in great detail so I grasped the concept pretty quickly. I couldn't really understand the plot as well while watching the movie. This may be because there were no discussions held in class, but I suppose it is also because I couldn't paint my own pictures in my mind of the events of the novel. If you're the type of person who believes in that well-known saying, then leave watching the Heart of Darkness movie off your to-do list.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In a sense, this movie did not even compare to the novel. However, it was good to have a visual of what the Congo looked like and also the natives if you are not good at visualizing as you read. I would never recommend watching the movie rather than reading the book. I hardly suggest even watching this film, let alone any other films based on this literary work. This movie; and many others, did not fulfill this book. One important part that is missing from the movie is MArlow's sense of how government of lack of there in Africa was forming an early genocide. Also in the movie, MArlow and his companions didn't stop and get the note and wood. Likewise, Kurtz' African mistress knocks Marlow out towards the end of the story which has a major influence in the story but was not in the book. In the novel, Kurtz died on the ship, however he died in his hut in the movie. The fianc\u00e9's reaction to Marlow's interpretation of Kurtz' last words also differed. This movie is only effective if you wish to visualize more clearly the novel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you're looking for a movie that puts you to sleep, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you. The book wasn't what I expected to it to be, and the movie disappointed me even further. The cast list was pitiful, and the all around plot was pathetic and was not like the book, except for a few scenes. I understand that everyone has their own point of view as they read Heart of Darkness, and they create their own movie in their head, but they director cuts important scenes and adds pointless ones. If there was someone in the movie who was supposed to be of a certain culture, they should've used an actor that was of that culture. There are actors from every where, and I'm sure that they could've found better ones to fit the roles. Joseph Conrad was a respectable man and created a book that will entertain you if that's what you're looking for, but the movie was cheap and pointless, and someone who could make the movie as respectable as the book should've done it. If you want a movie that drags you into darkness, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie adaptation of Heart of Darkness is disappointing, both as a movie and as a representation of Joseph Conrad's classic story.

There are several small differences between the book and movie, but that's expected in any book to movie transition. Kurtz dies in a different location; the manager does not accompany Marlow on his voyage; Kurtz's mistress spends much more time with him than in the story. The real issue is the amount of footage that's put into the movie but has no basis in the actual story. For some reason, the director finds the need to \"spice up\" a few of the scenes, adding drama or actions that seldom make any sense and are always unimportant to the story. Some examples that come to mind are Kurtz's \"mistress\" beating Marlow over the head and knocking him out. Nothing happens while he's unconscious and Marlow didn't even provoke the attack. A couple hours pass and he wakes up: total waste of time. Kurtz has a pet monkey which, for some random reason, he kills on a whim. Also, when Marlow leaves Kurtz's station, he makes the \"noble\" decision to leave behind all the priceless ivory he had obtained, for no real reason at all. One other flaw is Kurtz's character. John Malkovich is a terrible choice to play the man who is described as tall and inspirational: a man with a commanding presence. He practically whispers all of his lines which, in a more capable actor's hands, could have been very thought provoking. I can't remove the image of John Malkovich playing a mentally disabled farmhand in Of Mice and Men when I'm watching him botch the role of Kurtz. Over all, I would rate the movie at 3 out of 10 stars. It's a good movie if you've read the book and want to see it in movie form, perhaps to help you visual the scenes, but as a source of entertainment, I would never recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The 1994 film production of Heart of Darkness was in no way capable of living up to the outstanding book. The film contained unnecessary scenes that confused the viewer rather than aiding them in understanding what was going on. The director was obviously not experienced, and if he is, then he didn't show it. On top of that, scenes from the book were left out or changed, scenes that were rather important. The movie left me feeling rather bored and was a complete waste of my time. The characters acted as though they had no idea what was going on, and the actors did not portray the emotions that Marlow and the rest revealed in the book. Overall, the movie was terrible and completely lacked the suspense that was otherwise necessary to make it even remotely interesting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness, had a vivid sense of description that made this book astonishing. When reading this book I had every scene totally drawn out in my head and I knew what every character looked like. This book had many pieces and when I finished reading this book it seemed as the puzzle had been completed. After I finished reading Heat of Darkness, I watched the movie, which was a mistake. The movie cut out so many substantial parts. For example, in the novel Marlow waited a very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility. In the movie that part was just left out. The movie added more parts that were useless and made no sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. What purpose did that scene have, other than to make the audience feel sorry for the monkey? It's as if the script writer didn't even read the whole book and just put the parts that he read in the movie. If I had not read the novel before I had watched the movie I would have been thoroughly confused. The book was amazing and it is truly a classic in American Literature, but the movie could have defiantly been nominated for the worst picture in the Razzie Awards.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Heart of Darkness Movie Review Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness is pretty dark, deep, and very profound. I would have to say reading the novel is way better than the movie. The character Mr. Kurtz, played by John Malcovik was totally the wrong actor to do the part. He fit the character in \"Of Mice and Men.\" The movie left out man key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story.

The movie is poorly edited. It shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes. In the novel it has a very suspenseful atmosphere, but in the movie it lacks that kind of feeling. In the book there is so much that was left to the imagination of the reader. For example when Marlow spent timeless hours and days waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. In the novel Marlow waited very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility in the novel. The movie added more parts that were useless and kind of didn't make sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. That kind of just ruined everything, didn't make any sense to me what so ever. So my suggestion to you is don't view the movie, just read the book. You will understand more and have a better interpretation of the story.

~Chris C.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie 'Heart of Darkness', based on the 1899 book by Joseph Conrad is one with little to no detail and has an almost schizophrenic like plot line. If you have read the book then you know that little to none of the important \"story making\" scenes were put into the movie. In the book there is so much that is left up to the imagination and I feel that that is one of the part that make the book what is it. An example would be when Marlow spent timeless hours and days, even months waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. Again if you have read the book then you would know that this scene in the book is one that almost describes the main, theme of futility, best. Finally I feel that the movie was too cut and dry. Not enough though was put in to the original text and how that made the story what it is today.

If you have not read the book, 'Heart of Darkness' (preferably, the Norton Critical Edition) then don't waist your time in renting or buying the movie. However if you have read the book then I think that you will appreciate the book a lot more if you decide to watch the movie

Eric 2007","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Roeg's take on Conrad's \"Heart of Darkness\" was not quite what I had expected. Although based on one of history's most studied and interesting texts, the film just became sort of dull. The story just never manages to grasp the viewer. It just comes across as indifferent in a way.

The traces of the text are easily spotted, but still this is not really Conrad's \"Heart of Darkness\". Benedict Fitzgerald's (who also wrote \"The Passion of the Christ\") script just uses Conrad as an inspiration, and thus becomes Fitzgerald's \"Heart of Darkness\". The film is just not worth it, unless you are particularly interested in Conrad or perhaps John Malkovich.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness is a dark, profound, and lasting novel that portrays the futility and irony taking place in Africa. If you are looking for a great book to read over the weekend this is not the book for you. Conrad holds nothing back when describing 19th century imperialism, but the novel is meaningless without giving it the reflection and consideration it deserves. If I read this novel looking for a great adventure story I would say that I wasted my time, but looking at in the perspective of explaining the futility of 19th century civilization, I would say this is one of the most significant novels I have ever read. Because of the fact that I read this novel in my English class, and we analyzed every page, I think I appreciated the book more than someone would who was just reading it for entertainment. I am not going to lie, this book was difficult and it challenges the reader to dig deep into this novel to find the true meaning. The movie on the other hand I found tiresome and boring. The movie, \"Heart of Darkness\" comes no where near giving the book justice. The movie left out many key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story. If you are having difficulty understanding and visualizing the novel then the movie might be a good recourse but I would not recommend seeing the movie as an alternative to the novel or even a different perspective.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After completing the lackluster novel, Heart of Darkness, I moved on to watch the movie, which was a complete and absolute disappointment. At the onset, I expected that the movie would help put together the jigsaw puzzle of a book. However, even though I had read the novel, the movie still made no sense at all, so I can't imagine how lost I would be if I had skipped the book altogether. It seemed as though the writers picked out their favorite parts and put them in the movie, and left out anything that may assist the viewers in comprehending the meaningless plot. This dreadful movie made no sense at all, and I would strongly recommend against watching it, as it will do nothing more than leave you completely baffled and bewildered.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Heart of Darkness, a short novel written by Joseph Conrad about greed, corruption, and traveling through Africa was, to say the least, a tedious read. The Narrator follows Marlow, a seaman who travels into the deep of Africa to rescue Kurtz, somewhat of a prodigy Ivory trader who supposedly went crazy, this conclusion arose when the Ivory stopped coming into the main port. The basis of the story is Conrad writing lavishly of the surroundings, he sets the scene wonderfully, but possibly a bit to extensively. The story seemed more like a water color painting, as apposed to the slow creeping mild action story that Conrad might have intended to pan out.

It sometimes happens that after you read a book, maybe watching the feature film might help correspond some thoughts with those in the book, or vise versa. Not so with Heart of Darkness, even with the supporting role of masterpiece actor John Malkovich the movie only confused me more, there seemed to be no real main characters in the film, no one stood out to the others, non of the extensive symbolism was explained. It was rather bland and drudging to say the least.

In all do respect to the Author, The Heart of Darkness is a true short novel masterpiece, it touches on some very severe subjects, the lies of Marlow, and the greed of Kurtz. It is not a book to be taken lightly, and will put you in a rather somber mood. A book like this I feel might be to heavy for a lot of people. I would however recommend this book to those who crave a sad pseudo action story without a textbook happy ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Heart of Darkness was terrible. The novel was difficult enough to understand, but when a production company decides to release a film loosely based on it, then that just messes everyone up. Not only did those in charge decide to change certain characters and completely eliminate others, but the acting was horrid and the overall impression I got from the movie was that it was a complete dud. I watched the film in hopes of understanding the novel a bit better, but it just threw me and my fellow classmates off completely. I think the movie was a waste of time, and I was disappointed to see Tim Roth in such a disappointing film, especially when he has awesome flicks like Pulp Fiction and Resivior Dogs under his belt. Same with the very cool John Malkovich.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Too bad, I really like Kristen Cloke and Gary Busey. But the director failed to put this together. There's a lot of action, a lot of promise, but it all comes off hokey. The director didn't do his job. Promising action comes off lame. So much seems contrived in a desperate attempt to save the film. This version of \"The Rage\" (DirecTV credits it as 1996) simply isn't worth the time to watch it. Another director would have done a better job.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Aside from the horrendous acting and the ridiculous and ludicrous plot, this movie wasn't too bad. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much movie not to suck. Do not waste your time on this film, even if you find yourself suffering from insomnia, as I did. Watch an infomercial instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As Americans, we have come to expect crapiness as \"par for the course\" when it comes to HORROR and unknown directors directing unknown actors acting for unknown writers. We truly expect this to suck & when they don't suck,it becomes an over night success.

This is NOT an over night success, nor is it an over the weekend or over the month success. This blows from start to finish and my only recommendation is this: GO INTO THIS KNOWING IT SUCKS, enjoy it for what it is, for what it isn't & if you have something better to do, keep this on the back WAY BACK burner. It's entertaining in the way watching the elderly cross a busy street during rush hour, but don't expect much-they almost never get hit by an actual car, its just a lot of hoopla.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The thing that's truly terrifying about this is that the filmmakers thought they were making something intelligent and sexy. Instead they made probably the stupidest horror picture of the year!

This movie starts with a bunch of art snob friends at a gallery. This trashy European weirdo walks up and starts talking pretentious fruitiness to the main character, sounding like he just walked out of an episode of Dark Shadows. He then offers her up some stick to smoke(yes, a freakin' stick), which she eagerly agrees! He picks off some red crap and puts it in a spoon for her to freebase! If this ever happens to you in real life, don't do it!

She's transported to some weird wannabe Jean Rollin netherworld that's supposed to be sexy but isn't, where there's this thing that looks like a rotted creature from the black lagoon!

Soon she turns all her artsy sleazeball friends onto her new form of supernatural crack. No matter how much these idiots freak out and turn blue they can't leave it the hell alone. At one point she even makes out with the rotten creature!

After the final battle and the stupid woman is vaporized or whatever, the so called hero is left alone to pack up his copy of Michael Moore's Dude Where's My Country and can't resist smoking that stick one more time to try to rescue his moron lady friend. What a dope.

Rates four stars for sheer unintentional humor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can you expect from a direct to DVD film? You know what you are getting yourself into when you rent this. The quality of the cinematography reminds me of reality TV shows.

Why are they shots always up so close to the actors!? And why are they always centered? There isn't anything to look at. (And the actors are that great looking, so that blows.)

The writing and dialogue is just plain awful. That intro scene, with the British Guy is hilarious. Just try and listen this words, they hardly make any sense, just goes around in circles. The lines in the rest of the movie sounds like they were pull out of romance and sci-fi novels, as if the writers had no idea what they were doing. The characters definitely sound like they have no idea what they're saying.

This is a terrible movie. I feel bad for the actors tied to this project. Embarrassing!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film is somewhat entertaining, but the greatest feature is Shalom Harlow's laughable performance. It has been 4 years since this movie was released and hopefully Harlow has gone through more training. Perhaps she should stick to the more worldly, somewhat corruptive characters that she has generated in other performances.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Out of the handful of alternative titles in English, \"The Sexorcist\" is definitely the most appropriate one, since this is basically just a shameless rip off of William Friedkin's classic horror film in which they replaced 13-year-old Linda Blair with the 19-year-old Stella Carnacina only so that she could gratuitously show her ravishing naked body. I'm not sure what exactly Satan tries to accomplish here, but he exclusively seems to possess the young girl to play sexual tricks on her! Poor Danila masturbates around the clock and tries to seduce priests and even her own father into having sex with her. The young girl is introduced as a smart and ambitious theology-student with an odd-looking boyfriend (driving a stupid yellow car) and loving, albeit adulterous parents. When she takes a peculiar crucifix home to renovate, the ancient relic comes to life and no less than Satan himself (played by Ivan Rassimov of \"Jungle Holocaust\" and \"Planet of the Vampires\") starts to torment her. The overlong masturbation sessions and some bizarre nightmare sequences cover about three quarters of the movie, and then finally director Mario Garriazzo begins with the actual exorcism. That final segment is even more embarrassing and amateurish! The priests don't really do anything apart from saying some vague prayers but, somehow, Danila seems cured all of a sudden. There isn't much gore, the dialogues are horrible and the producers seem to compensate every little flaw by adding more sleaze! This is one of the strangest Italian exploitation efforts of the seventies (why the hell are they referring to \"The Rocky Horror Picture Show\"?), but definitely not one of the best. If you fancy clones of \"The Exorcist\", I recommend \"Demon Witch Child\", \"Beyond the Door\" and \"The Antichrist\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just can't get it, freaks out on the planet are talking about this one as a must seen, they even dare to call it a (s)exploitation because the possessed girl is seducing priests and is masturbating all time. Don't let me laugh. I watched the movie, seducing is only at the end of the movie and don't call it seducing,it's just bad language that's she is talking. And the masturbationscene is a big laugh too, she tries to seduce her father while masturbating, let me be clear, with her clothes on you perverts out there. It isn't gory or bloody at all, everybody is vomiting on Beyond The Door, well, let me tell, that one is for me better than this flick. Only the last 5 minutes the possessed one is vomiting and having weird eyes. If I had know that this is so bad then I would never caught me a copy. If you really wan't to see a (s)exploiation about exorcism watch Angel Above, The Devil Below or other cheesy ones. a waist of time this is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"WOW! What a horrible, hideous waste of time this celluloid atrocity turned out to be. I remember seeing it years ago and thinking it was fun but now...it's just plain silly. Not to mention the fact that it is a blatant rip-off of \"The Exorcist\" to the point where it was re-released at one point under the title \"The Sex-orcist\". The only real difference is that the producers have the gall to further discredit themselves by slapping on the claim that the events in the film are REAL! Who in their right mind would actually believe such a bold faced lie? To make matters even worse, there was a video release in circulation with cover art that blatantly tried to cash in on the \"Rocky Horror Picture Show\" by throwing a pair of lips on the cover! How low could one possibly sink? Do not be fooled by the false claims, blatant lies or title rip-off because you will be SORELY disappointed if you do!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An art student in Rome is possessed...or something. She has dreams of being nailed to a cross and Satan himself raping her. He possesses her (I think) and turns her into a sex addict. That's about all I could take and I turned it off.

A pointless \"Exorcist\" rip off. I caught this on cable back in the 80s and was horrified...and not in a good way! This movie is supposed to be a horror film but turns into nothing more than a sex film disguised as a horror movie. There's tons of pointless female nudity and the actress playing the lead has to degrade herself more than once. We see her being raped by Satan (a hot-looking guy), masturbating, coming on to her own father...Gotta give her points for bravery. Add to that bad dubbing, editing (the rape scene looks like it was cut a bit), lousy acting and a story that makes next to no sense. The one disturbing sequence (her being nailed to the cross) ALMOST works but the lousy \"special\" effects ruin it. This is one of the few horror film that was so bad I stopped watching. Skip it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kinda boring, kinda gross, kinda unsettling, this wasn't horrible, but not too good. There's a good creepy bit when the statue comes to life, though, props to this scene. Not much happens, and the movie just feels sort of scummy. I was happy when it ended, and don't believe anything about this being a true story....very surprised this is averaging around 6.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Brilliant acting, excellent plot, wonderful special effects! This is what I would say about this movie if I had been watching it with a bag of diarreha on my head for the entire film. Instead, I endured a 2 hour crap-o-rama. Our \"brilliant\" story begins with some billionare who has nothing better to do than look in volcanoes in a vain attempt to find his lucky charms. Instead, he finds a 5'4\" man in a cheesy rubber dinosaur suit and some queer cave-folk.

In his infinite wisdom, (along with his infinitely large nose)he decides to go inside this volcano with a team of \"special\" people. To travel to this underground land, they go by plane? No. Boat? No. They use this giant soup can with a \"solid metal\" drill on the end that I swear I saw wobble. In summation, this movie was faker than....Oh that's right! This was the fakest movie I've seen! For those of you who haven't seen it and are thinking of sitting down on a Sunday afternoon with this wonderful movie; I warn you! If you watch this movie you should be prepared to cut of any shred of your manhood and give yourself a full frontal lobotomy.

ECCCHHH!! The rating system only allows for a minimum of 1\/10. I give this a -10\/10!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had nothing to do before going out one night so I didn't want to watch anything too heavy, I picked the perfect film. This must have been a gift to Barrymore from someone she slept with, the director Raja Gosnell has made nothing but silly crap and the writing on this one is just atrocious. In what high school can you register without a parent present and no proof of age or former schooling? They let kids all come to the prom with no shirts, in skin tight leotards, ass shorts and one girl was dressed as Eve wearing only fig leaves? She announces that she's 25 and her brother is 23 but there is no reprisal from the school, parents or lawsuits of any kind against the newspaper for fraud or spying? The newspaper boss wants to catch the teacher in an underage sex scandal but doesn't realize the teacher is coming on to a 25 year old so any case would be entrapment? They allow a camera in and record peoples private conversations with under age kids? I wonder if I hired my younger sister to go back to HS with a camera on her and filmed under age girls for my personnel use I would not get in some kind of trouble??? NAHHHH No problem. Didn't she have to take gym or go to the bathroom at some point? The secondary characters in this were like cardboard cutouts of what high school students are thought to be and everybody was a stereotype. Jessica Alba is just embarrassingly bad in this mugging for the camera at every chance. In what world do the parents not get suspicious when their uber-geeky daughter is miraculously asked out by the school stud to the prom? And they don't ask the guy inside to meet him like every other parent in history. If some guy in my school or any other school for that matter had conned my sister and thrown eggs at her in her prom dress he would have been in a body cast for the rest of his life. This movie is so contrived and predictable it's nauseating, and why at the end is everybody (the Alpo girls included) cheering for this chick when two days before they hated her????

DUMB, DUMB AND DUMB.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is a reason to call this a teen flick. Out of 100 possible points I would put it somewhere in the teens. It is predictable, the acting is horrible, especially the minor roles, and above all else it is super predictable. The ending is so hokey that I should have left early and maybe it would have passed. By the way, could you call the male lead a pervert? I bet if it really happened, someone in my school district would have said so. Finally, in the school I grew up in, even though the average class had over 1000 students, we could have picked out a chump like Josie as being a fraud and we would have singled her out of the crowd. My final word is save your time, when it comes on TV watch something better, like the stock quotes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...an incomprehensible script (when it shouldn't have been) dependent on a rather flaky voice-over.

The animation, however, show real talent.

Quite visually impressive.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is the early morning of our discontent, and some friends of mine and I have just gotten through watching \"The Wind.\" Truly a disaster film. Not in the sense of forces of nature wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting populace, but rather an awful movie wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting audience. To give you an indication of how frustrating it was to watch this particular bomb, I'll give you an example quoted during my first pained viewing. If given the choice of watching this movie for a second time and, say, boiling myself, I'm afraid to say the choice would not be an immediate one. But rather than simply ranting \"ad peliculam\" with lousy one-liners, I'm going to get specific as to why exactly my friends and I panned this particular film.

To start this off, I like low-budget horror flicks. I even like artsy, low-budget horror flicks. I liked \"Cold Hearts\", \"Midnight Mass,\" \"Jugular Wine,\" etc. Films that were ambitious and daring, even if they were lacking in production value, execution and even acting. Generally, an interesting premise, unusual camera technique or merely just a well done scene or two will save a movie that is running a little rough around the edges. With these provisos in mind, I would like to say conclusively that I hated \"The Wind.\"

The movie was probably most disappointing in the sense that it was incredibly frustrating to watch. From the actions of the main characters, to the flow (?) of the plot, to the big portents hinted at by the opening which ultimately aspired to dust (and did not even attach themselves logically to what transpired in the remainder of the film, and left the viewer, expecting something more, with a sense of much ado about nothing). The dialogue was spotty at best, woodenly delivered and completely unrealistic. By this I mean, no one in any of the situations that the characters were in would have reacted the way the characters did, or said the things that they said in the way that they said them. There was an obvious lack of vision and direction that would have corrected this problem.

Character interaction and development was abysmal. Claire, the \"lambent sex goddess,\" or so the aggravating, passive-aggressive lamesters in the movie thought, was so overt in her manipulations she may as well have pulled a gun on the characters. Nevertheless, she was the shining high point of the film. The other main characters (with the exception of Mick's Milfy Mom, who was not terrible) are so indistinct that they may as well have been portrayed by the same actor. Let's see if I missed anything: borderline personality, co-submissive goons with profound feelings of sexual confusion and inadequacy, spurred to fits of puerile rage through the artless orchestrations of a loose-lipped bimbette-suddenly-and-unmasterfully-turned-Caligari. No, I think that about covers it.

Lack of scope was also problematic. How did those involved with the making of this film expect the casual viewer to derive that this was the beginning of the end of the world from this amateurish, unbelievable, poorly-portrayed lust pentagon (well, what would you call it?) that occurred largely in the woods in the middle of nowhere? There were no witnesses to the \"atrocities\" presented. There were no witnesses anywhere in this film.

The believability problems stemming from this lack of attention to detail were rife even from the point where the plot begins to sicken. Case-in-point: If that guy Bob took that route through the woods to come home from the gym, and here's the key, ****every day****, there's a jolly good chance that someone else would have been around to see something at some point afterwards while the perpetrators argued vociferously about the crime scene. One would think that with the murder of a young man in the woods, said town would have been in an uproar, the characters would have been questioned, etc. But instead, there wasn't a witness in sight (other than Earl, the closet psychopath with no inner monologue). We suggest that there be no witnesses *for* this film, either.

As for the quasi-homosexual meanderings present, I don't have a problem with those either. It's not as if they came as a surprise, considering we had been shouting as to the closet case stati of most of the male characters since the second scene. Again, not problematic in and of itself, but thrown in for the wrong reasons. It was utterly unnecessary, thrown in for pure \"shock\" and\/or \"dangerous art\" value, and neither shocking nor dangerously artistic from any perspective. What we had instead was an awkward attempt to redeem a boring, clumsy movie with a boring, clumsy plot. The poorly hinted-at sexual tension, which was only hinted at heavy-handedly in anticipation of this flaccid snogging scene, only pushed this film further down the totem pole from \"mediocrity warranting criticism\" to \"film sucking so bad that it lacks the inherent grace to suck enough to properly mock and harangue.\"

So it is with most of the film, a lot of artistic fumbling, very little meat and a lot of aggravation. It's not that we don't get it. Oh, we got it, alright. We just don't want it. Look, the very fact that we were cheering the bludgeoning in the final scene as the *only* tableau that made sense on its face is an indication that something was terribly wrong with this film. Rather than moving briskly along as its name implies, this movie oozed languidly forward like the sweat trail working it's way down the side of your nose while your hands are full. Argh. That sensation pretty well sums up the gut-wrenching frustration realized while watching this train wreck. There is no breath of fresh air with regard to this movie, only the stale miasma of bad ideas poorly realized, putrefying before coming to fruition.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"pretty disappointing. i was expecting more of a horror\/thriller -- but this seemed to be more of an episode of dawson's creek but with out the acting. there were some very impressive shots, though -- almost worth seeing. maybe future efforts will improve.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was the most uninteresting horror flick I have seen to date. The premise is glaringly forgotten after about 1 minute. The acting is terrible. The scariest thing about this movie is when the two guys kiss, yuck! What were the film festival judges thinking when they gave this garbage a 'best film' notation? The only reasons I didn't turn this movie off were to see what NOT to do as a filmmaker, and if the paper-thin plot line could really keep going on as is was. I was not disappointed by this latter notion. There wasn't even a single bit of nudity or gore to keep the kiddies interested! Also, I thought it was tacky to use about 3 minutes of \"Resident Evil 2\" in the movie... Was that supposed to be filler? 'cause it was the goriest and most interesting part of the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Somewhere in USA, the young Clair manipulates her friends Mic, Billy and John, showing a letter that would be sent by Bob to her and the group cowardly beats Bob and Mic kills him with a piece of wood in the forest. Mic feels sorrow and decides to tell his mother what he did, but John and Billy threaten him, with tragic consequences.

I believe \"The Wind\" is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The awful screenplay is ridiculous, and it is almost impossible to write a summary, since there is no story or plot, only sequences of disconnected scenes. The amateurish direction and acting are amazingly poor and terrible. It is unbelievable how producers invest money in such garbage, distributors release this crap worldwide and viewers like me buy this DVD. I waited until the very last scene because I was curious to see how bad this film could be and I was impressed, since it is worse than I could imagine in my lowest expectations. In the end, I question why IMDb does not offer zero in the vote system, since the garbage really deserves this vote. My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): \"For\u00e7a Invis\u00edvel\" (\"Invisible Force\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, I wanted to see this because it had a few good reviews, but this movie was awful... Just plain awful. The characters were 1 dimensional and nothing the actors could do could ever breathe any life into them. The story was abysmal... The wind stopped becoming a plot device halfway through... It just completely becomes forgotten. The visuals while were cool were sooooo drawn out... 5 minutes of a guy crawling on the ground, 3 minutes of a girl putting on her makeup. I don't know what this guy is trying to pull off... it's like he had no plot no dialog and the movie needed to run just so long so lets not edit scenes at all... Foreign films are great for creating a story without using a lot of dialog, this movie makes me think that there is no way American cinema can ever do this. I want to give up watching movies altogether... Bad Bad Movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"alright this movie might have been good if there was a plot behind it. the title didn't even fit the it after the first ten minutes. the wind didn't have a whole lot to do with the rest of the movie. the acting was sub-par and the writing reminded me of something you would read in a children's book of scary stories.

as far as horror movies go this shouldn't even be classified as one. this was a disgrace to horror and thriller fans everywhere. I hate to be so harsh but I felt I want the time I spent watching this movie back. hopefully there will not be a follow up to this. this movie should be locked in a vault and never released to the public for viewing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Wind. Easily one of the worst films ever made. The only good that comes from this kind of pointless drivel, is the fact that seeing films like this get distribution makes indy horror filmmakers like me confident that my upcoming feature will make the cut too. I mean, if this represents the market for indy horror, I could make a fortune videotaping myself taking out the garbage for 83 minutes.

A complete list of what this film lacks would take way too long to write out. But, the highlites are: no story, terrible acting, awful cinematography, and virtually no editing. That last one bothered me the most. As an editor myself, this film drove me absolutely crazy because it had almost no editing at all. Every scene was shot in a master. They had absolutely no coverage at all. For anyone who doesn't know...\"coverage\" is shooting a scene from multiple angles to have cutting options when editing to make for a desirable viewing experience. Yeah, this movie had none of that. I'm talking about even the simplest of scenes. Example: an ordinary conversation scene between two people sitting at a table would typically start out with a master establishing who's in the scene and where they are. Then, as the conversation goes on, you would cut back and forth to over-the-shoulder shots as the conversation continues. You may even throw in a cutaway shot or two of something on the table, or in someone's hand. Anything. This is \"Film 101\" stuff guys. It seems as though these people had no idea this is how films work. Every shot was a camera lock-down. No movement, no cutting, no nothing. If I was teaching a course in filmmaking, this would be the visual aid for my \"What not to do\" lesson.

In closing, don't waste your time folks. The only amazing this about this film is that it ever scored distribution at all.



","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this dvd in the store and figured, why not support some indy film and watch a cool horror flick. Please save your time and money and pass this one by. The acting, the script, practically everything with this film is sub par. There really isn't much of a story, and there is no character development. I found myself not caring what happened to the people in the movie as long as something happened. Everyone is supposed to be college age, but they all look like they are in their mid thirties, except for the woman who plays a mother who looks like she is pushing 40. In fact the worst part of the film is that every single scene is shown in a master shot. There is no editing, no cut ins or close ups. Do yourself a favor and skip it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The beginning voice over sounds like 'The Wind' could be quite an intriguing movie, but as the story unfolded I knew it was downhill from there. The major things about this movie that blew were the terribly bad acting jobs all the main characters did, (except for a few scenes involving the inner turmoil of Mic), there was a total lack of character development and absolutely no point to the plot - What were the writers thinking?

Michael Mongillo won 2 'horror\/sci fi' awards for 'The Wind'. HUH? What was so scary about this movie? NOTHING! Except for the resident evil 2 video shots, the rest was more of a 'made for t.v thriller' - it wouldn't even have to be edited. If you want a far better movie about 'murder among friends' rent \"Shallow Grave\" instead.

'The Wind' *\/*****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Screenwriter Steve Tesich's sophomore effort (following upon the wildly overpraised BREAKING AWAY) is a compendium of clich\u00e9s, coincidence, and dour melodrama. Perhaps he lived some of this; if so, I'm sorry to say he was inexplicably unable to dramatize any of it convincingly.

In fairness, he's not helped much here by Arthur Penn, a talented director who's done remarkable work in the past (BONNIE AND CLYDE, LITTLE BIG MAN), but fails to inject any energy or verisimilitude into Tesich's narrative.

The cast struggles as best they can but are saddled with weak motivation and dialogue. Sympathies should be reserved particularly for Craig Wasson, whose morose performance presages the impending quick fade of his leading man career, as well as the embarrassingly untethered Jodi Thelen, miscast as the film's extremely unlikely 'femme fatale.'

It all seems longer than it is, and any points made are heavy-handed and obvious. See Arthur Penn's earlier take on the subject of the 60's, the droll and elegiac ALICE'S RESTAURANT; it's everything this one isn't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Have I seen a worse movie? No I can't say that I have. This was pathetic. If the director is still alive: 1. He shouldn't be. 2. He should be ashamed. 3. God, how I would like to take out my 2 completely wasted hours of time on his a$$.

To give you guys a few pointers of the \"film\":

1. (I'm a male) and I would rather give myself a papercut on the opening of my urethra before viewing this again (seriously).

2. It does have a few known names in it (Casper Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio). They don't help, and their careers in cinema after this \"film\" are officially over by the way.

3. The dialog is the worst I've ever heard. \"I want to ejaculate on your bozonkas.\"? What kind of writer did they have on this film? Was he still using hooked-on-phonics and just got his letters mixed up to make these horrible sentences?, or was he trying to get the Director killed by the few people who saw this?

4. Watch this \"film\" backwards. Because I PROMISE you that you do not want to watch it forwards.

5. This \"film\" would make Helen Keller get up and walk out of the theater.

6. The set of the movie looks like an adult sized McDonald's playplace. I was just waiting for this so called \"Dracula\" to fall in the ball pit at some time in the movie.

7. Also, I like that in the year 3000 they still have headsets with wires that go to their mouth. No bluetooth, no wireless headsets, no chips placed in the brain, but they use headsets borrowed from a telemarketing agency that went out of business in 1983(Nice job Set director on this one. Real professional. I hope you're currently unemployed and reading this.)

8. I don't know who was in charge of special effects, but I could have done better in my backyard with my VHS camcorder that doesn't have a battery.

9. I was a devout Catholic before this \"film\". But since viewing it, I know there is not a God, because if there was, he wouldn't have let this film be produced. I am now an atheist.

10. I'll be honest I can't talk about the ending. Last time I tried to explain it I fell into a coma.

Folks however bored you get, however curious(or brave) you are, however many laughs you THINK you will get out of this movie, please DO NOT WATCH THIS. It has literally ruined my life. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!

Comment to the director: I hate you. You have ruined my life. After viewing this I feel empty inside. My wife and kids have left me and hate me because I couldn't speak or hardly move after seeing this. I lost my job, my dignity, and above all my pride. I will never forgive you in this life or the next(which is not looking good from my newfound beliefs) .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Considering that they wanted to do a vampire movie in space, I thought, \"Well, it'll probably be pretty cheesy, but at least interesting enough to see a different take on the whole genre.\" Whoops. I don't care what kind of movies you like; even if you're the biggest vampire, horror, thriller, or suspense fan in the world, or adversely, if you've never seen a horror movie before and would expect that your first would be impressive in any way whatsoever...you're wrong. I don't think I've ever seen a \"made for TV movie\" or after-school special this bad. I've never seen a TV pilot show this bad. I've never seen footage of animals sleeping or shitting that's as bad as this. This is, by far, the single biggest waste of hours you could otherwise spend contemplating the importance of dish towels and their effect on your life. I would far rather be trapped in a bathroom for weeks with nothing to consume but my own urine and excrement than watch even a single clip of this movie again. Watching this made me wish for the fates that the characters fell to instead of dealing with knowing that I paid money to watch it. It was, however, like a train wreck: so bad you just couldn't help but watch, hoping something good might happen. It didn't. Please, for the love of God, if you or your friends - even if using illicit substances while doing so - even consider watching this movie, choose instead to have a contest to see who can shoot a snot-rocket farther. It will bring you far greater enjoyment and entertainment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Space is a vacuum, right? Therefore, space sucks. Vampires also suck. A really bad vampire movie set in space would have twice the sucking power, right?

It started with what could have been a fun premise. Retelling Bram Stoker's Dracula story in the future. There's a salvage crew that's sent out to investigate a cargo ship that's lost in space called the Demeter. Fans of the original novel will unwittingly assume that this is to be a straightforward retelling of Dracula set in the future... unfortunately, short of sharing character names, this one takes the lowbrow route and goes into the B-movie galaxy twenty minutes later when Coolio becomes a vampire. Trust me when I tell you he's the best actor in the movie, and that's not saying much.

Casper Van Dien should be peddling his wares on daytime television. Erika Eleniak should have quit after she left Baywatch and poor Udo Kier is having trouble reading from the cue cards. The guy who plays Dracula in this one is more ridiculous than Frank Langella was in the 1970's version. If you can manage to sit through the whole movie, you will be rewarded with the worst ending imaginable. The ending makes one wonder if the actors and the crew realized what a piece of garbage they were making and walked off the set.

Take heed, vampire fans. This one sucks twice as hard.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm at a loss for words. This movie is beyond description. I don't believe there is a language on Earth that has a word that can describe how horrible this movie is. If you do attempt to watch it, be sure to stick around for the \"suprise ending\". I only made it about three quarters of the way through this piece of crap before I couldn't take it anymore. Fortunately(or unfortunately) a couple of my buddies stayed till the end. When they woke up from their coma and after a couple of weeks of therapy they were able to fill me in on what I had missed. This movie has no story, no plot, horrible writing, and even worse acting. If you enjoy watching train wrecks or auto accidents then this film is for you. I think my IQ dropped about 30 points from watching this (insert expletive here).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My goodness. And here I thought that there were no directors worse than Uwe Boll.

Imagine the number of decisions necessary to produce a motion picture. Conceptual approval. Scriptwriting. Dialogue editing. Casting. Set and prop design. Location selection. Acting. Timing. Cinematography. Lighting. Music. Sound and video editing. Direction.

Now imagine that every single one of those decisions was made wrong.

Result: Dracula 3000.

For a film supposedly set in the 2900s, this movie looks surprisingly like a cheap gangsta flick of the 1970's. The set is ridiculous for the period. The dialogue is atrocious. The timing of each scene is ludicrous. The acting is beyond abysmal. Everything stinks.

Let's just take props, for example. If you have a movie set on a space freighter built in 2900, how likely is it that it will have the exposed piping and hydraulic doors of a 1960's era oil tanker? What, technology hasn't changed in 900 years? The 'Professor' uses a standard tandy keyboard and Radio-Shack flipswitches to \"reprogram\" the computer. What, they haven't figured out voice control yet? Of course, the Prof is tethered to a wheelchair. With wheels. Even though, you know, they've got intergalactic hyperdrive...but apparently not even a motorized wheelchair, much less a floating one, or bionic legs or something. And apparently this freighter was carrying an intergalactic consignment of rosewood caskets. How convenient. Then there are the weapons -- the crew carry standard late 20th-century firearms. In a ship. In the vacuum of space, where one bullethole would kill them all. Nice planning there, prop department.

Oh, why go on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a huge horror movie fan, one of the most difficult things to be considering the lack of abundance of good movies in the genre, and having seen hundreds of them in my lifetime, I have to say that Dracula 3000 is by far the most uninspired, lame and poorly done piece of trash I have had the misfortune to see. STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE! It's so bad it's not even laughable. The special effects (did I say \"special\"?) were probably achieved spending a couple of grand, the acting is terrible and the script should have ended up in the trash bin after the first read by the studio that decided to take on this miserable project. The whole movie was literally filmed in a warehouse. Also, for you guys out there who like nudity in your movies, don't be fooled by the R rating. If you're thinking you get a chance to see Erika Eleniak even half-naked, you're wrong. She is fully clothed throughout the entire movie. And the cover art is completely misleading! There is no scene in any part of the movie that even marginally resembles the awesome cover art they put on the box to draw unsuspecting horror fans.

Too bad the rating is only 1 to 10. I would give this movie a -10. Be warned. Don't waste your money or your time on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dracula 3000 is the epitome of painfully cheesy cinema. From the get-go, I assumed I was in for something pretty nasty. With a cast line up that featured Casper Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio, and Tiny Lister, what could be expected? Well, let's just say that expectations were crushed...

If I really start up, I feel like this review will go on for ages, so we're gonna keep this simple. The vampire isn't even named Dracula. The space crew is carrying coffins from the Carpathian sector of the Transylvania system. In his big scene, Coolio speaks of the most horrible things ever spoken of in film history. In the year 3000, everyone wears bad clothes by today's standards, they don't have anything more advanced than a modern wheelchair, and they decorate with neon lights that appear stolen from a roller rink.

To top it all off... the ending. Sweet merciful God. It doesn't deserve to be ruined. It has to be sen to be believed.

I've rated this movie a \"1\" and I wish I could give it a zero... yet I feel compelled to make you watch it. What madness is this?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This might quite possibly be the worst movie I have ever seen. I knew it was a B-movie before watching it (it was actually the reason for watching it), but I'd never thought it could be this bad. The title promises Dracula in space and does deliver, however, the story makes no real use of the fact that Casper van Dien's character is a descendant of Van Helsing. And watch out for the ending of the movie, it comes at you fast. I've never seen an ending scream out \"And now we're over budget!\" in a clearer fashion. Their resolution of the movie was rather comic though, the story had so obviously painted itself into a corner. If you feel you have to see it, watch it with a friend who shares your love of B-movies. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have made it to the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A space ship cruising through the galaxy encounters a mysterious cargo ship apparently adrift in space. The crew investigates, hoping to lay claim to its cargo and acquire the ship. However, once aboard the ominous vessel, their own ship mysteriously disengages, leaving them to fend for themselves and battle none other then Count Dracula or Orloff as this creature calls himself.

Not a bad start. I mean it follows any number of typical sci-fi\/horror plots. The genres have been around enough that even the most original story will inevitably invoke comparison to some other film. But, when you start with a fairly typical horror convention, the legend of Dracula and vampires in general, and combine it with a fairly typical sci-fi convention, a crew happening upon something and becoming marooned to battle whatever they're forced to confront, the filmmakers better have some clever up their sleeve to imprint their own mark on the familiar genre staples.

Director Darrell Roodt, who also wrote Dracula 3000 with Ivan Milborrow, is primarily responsible for this utter failure. So, no, Roodt and Milborrow have nothing up their sleeves but their arms.

This film begins ominously enough, with a very poorly delivered voice over by Caspar Van Dien, essentially providing enough exposition to explain who the crew on his ship are. I should also point out that Van Dien's character is named Van Helsing. And, oh so very cleverly, this Orloff character is from planet Transylvania in the Carpathian System. No kidding. I mean, come on guys, we get it. And, again, don't be goofy and use such names unless you got something special in store.

So, after Van Helsing's introduction of the crew, we have, essentially, a film about this crew trapped in a space ship with a vampire lurking about.

I'm a very forgiving viewer when it comes to low budget films. Occasionally, they can be brilliant, see Raimi's first two Evil Dead films. Dracula 3000 had a decent budget, enough for some decent special effects and for the salaries of 3rd stringers like, Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio, etc. However, unlike, the EVIL DEAD flicks, there is no talent behind the camera. In front of the camera, the talent is marginal, but I'm going to give the actors some benefit of the doubt. It really seems like they don't know what to do. The best actor of the bunch, Alexandra Kamp-Groenveld, gets killed off quickly and the ever-enjoyable Udo Kier is reduced to being an exposition vehicle for the viewer as the deceased captain we hear and see via a video journal. Grant Swandby is also okay as the Professor, but it's hard to take seriously a scientist in the year 3000 who wears glasses and rides a wheel chair. And, yes, it's a WHEEL chair as in there is nothing futuristic about it. As for the rest of the actors, well\u0085\u0085.I'm sure Coolio really tried to be scary after getting turned into a vampire, but, well, I don't think irritating qualifies as scary in most people's book. Tiny Lister and Erika Eleniak don't really provide much either. Lister is never really more then the IL' big brawny black stereotype. Eleniak actually appears unhappy throughout the film and never tries very hard. Eleniak is a pretty girl, even in her mid thirties, but looks a little worn out and uninterested for the movie's duration.

This brings us to Count Dracula\/Orloff played by Langley Kirkwood. To be honest, I can't recall who exactly the vampire is supposed to be. He introduces himself as Orloff but at some point he acknowledges himself as Count Dracula as well. Go figure. In any case, you will be absolutely astounded by just how lame this vampire is. Have you ever scene those cheesy horror show hosts local networks would have on their creature feature time slots? Yes, it's that bad. Langley Kirkwood, the actor playing Orlock, must have found it almost impossible to concentrate in such a ridiculous outfit. I'm sure he's still getting hassled by his friends.

There isn't much to the plot. The vampire is the last of it's kind and wants to go to Earth, for some reason, and also, there is some lip service about wanting to defeat Caspar Van Dien's character, Van Helsing. Most of the crew get turned into vampires, including Van Helsing, and the crew use conventional machine guns and pistols to try and defeat them before they figure out the old stake in the heart routine. Yeah, that's right, bullets, and yes, the year 3000. Keeping in that baffling vein, one of the main areas the crew hole themselves up in while battling the vampires, or vampire, since there is really never more then one threatening them, is filled with old Soviet posters and insignia and such. What the? There are also references to God\/religion being antiquated systems. But these references only confused me. Did the Soviet Union make a comeback? Is there some point Roodt and Milborrow want to make with this? It never really goes anywhere, seems dumb and the posters, etc. just look cheap.

On the positive side, the film is competently shot and edited. The cinematography is nothing spectacular, but it's clearly done by professionals and, I had no problem with the special effects. The ships look like ships in outer space. Although, as I write this, I recall how god awful the corpse of the captain looks when the crew discover him. What were they thinking? Why didn't someone say something? See how difficult it is to say something positive about this film without falling back on the negatives? I guess, ultimately, that's the thing. Whatever positives you try and grant this sci-fi\/horror debacle, you become overwhelmed by it's lack of quality.

Poor Udo Kier.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Greetings from Lithuania.

This is the first question that comes to head after watching this \"movie\".

You know, I saw a lot of bad movies in my life, but after watching this one, i only had two questions: 1) Is this was just a parody (spoof)

2) How could people create such a thing!?

If You never saw this \"film\", than you REALLY don't know what is a REALLY bad \"film\". I mean BAD. The script - Are you kidding my? Acting is so horrible that i thing \"the actors\" where just having fun in this movie. I know, this is \"B\" movie, but come on?? Is this have to be a reason to be such a garbage??

Oh! And what an ending!!! A must miss ending! Just when you thing that this is the worst thing you have ever saw, wait until the ending - because THAT kind of ending You have NEVER saw before (and I hope You will never see).

Awoid this \"movie\" at any cost, and don't say i didn't warn you...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dracula 3000 or Van Helsing \"Dracula's Revenge\" (Cheap cash in on another lame Vampire flick) as I saw it is a master class in how not to make a movie. A rag tag collection of misfit salvager's board a previously lost cargo ship \"The Demeter\" in the (cough) Carpathian System (which later is upgraded to the Carpathian Galaxy) and awake a relentless evil (in this case the script). The film is a bizarre bastardization of Event Horizon and whatever the lamest Vampire film of all time is.

****Spoliers Follow**** After a plethora of production company logos and a credit sequence that most of the budget must have been blown on, we open with a cheesy exposition type speech from Casper (silly name) who plays Captain Abraham Van Helsing (sillier name) and in lieu of actual character development, goes on to describe the twisted, unintelligible oddities that make up his crew. Van Helsing himself sports a spray on stubble and wears a body warmer throughout in a sort of retro 80's tribute to Han Solo (I guess). Now and again the Captain of the Demeter pops up in some sort of mad video diary to tell us nothing of consequence in a pronounced German accent (subtitles sadly not included). Crewmember Mina boards the derelict ship (alone???) armed only with a gun shaped torch and thick east-European accent while conversing with Van Helsing on his ships bridge (which is basically a single glittery wall). Mina wearing a gas mask with rubber hoses glued to the front, encounters what can only be described as a skateboarder in a black cloak who continually glides by the camera. Why this happens as the Vampire is not yet made flesh is never explained. This leads on to a shaky camera chasing Mina down the hallways until she runs into Humvee. It's possible Will Smith could have been drafted in to write Humvee's lines as most of them consist of Humvee reminding us he is black every ten seconds and saying the word \"ass\" enough for a Guinness book of records entry while delivering all this in a \"from DA hood\" accent (this is the year 3000, does \"DA hood\" even exist?) One of the main problems with this film is that it insanely tries to pretend its set in the year 3000. Unfortunately anyone with healthy eyes won't buy this, as the Demeter looks suspiciously like a soviet style ocean going tanker. Possibly the film crew thought it would be okay to leave hammer and sickle symbols everywhere and a sexy poster of Lenin next to a bunch of lockers and explain it away as some sort of futuristic communist comeback special. The crew's clothes look as if they were raided from a Oxfam collection box (sealed since 1993) and they are armed to the teeth with latest in 20th century automatic weapons (with added year 3000 zing when fired) which of course are absolutely no use against vampires. Healthcare is a thing of the past (in the future) as the simpering Professor not only has glasses but is in a wheelchair??? My god what happened to all that genetic engineering stuff.

The professor is an interesting character as he is a direct rip off from Alien Resurrection who had their own rag tag misfit crew with a guy in a wheelchair (who oddly wasn't killed). Fans didn't take to Prof as he appears scared in a lot of scenes If I were entombed in a non-wheelchair access soviet ship pursued by bad acting vampires, and everyone left me because I was such a whining wimp, I'd be scared too.

During the UN-dramatic Mina chase scene the prof informs us (with feeling) \"this is disconcerting\". The rest of his lines are also disconcerting \"bugger\", and \"We're all going to die\" X 100, follows.

Erika Eleniak appears as the Vice Captain (what happened to 1st officers?) in what I thought would be the tired, standard issue, hard nosed, no nonsense, \"don't eye me up unless I tell you too\", beat up 10 stuntman at one time super-babe, but this is a Z-flick so she basically wears a tight low cut top and even tighter leather trousers. Coolio's performance boosts the ham factor by 90% and is camper than a row of tents but luckily for us he dies soon enough. Although he seems to keep his heart on the right hand side of his body.

After a lot of running up and down the same corridor, using clunky soviet style controls, and sitting in soviet style locker rooms the crew find themselves stranded as their own ship buggers off to find a more interesting crew (probably). Why Dracula is even mentioned is unknown as the main bad guy is called Orlock which is Space Transylvanian for \"crimes against fashion\" as he dandies about in a big puffy, frilly shirt and even bigger starched collar making Hammer Horror Vampires look slick by comparison. Orlock stops to explain his entire back story (off camera) to Erica Eleniak, but fails to kill her in another rip-off twist from Alien Resurrection. His back story is such a load of mince it's not worth repeating. As the budget can't afford fight coordinators, special effects, original music, script (not written by a chimpanzee) and even proper end titles (the first cast list I saw, were same characters but completely different and Italian names) the film begins to destroy whatever sanity you began with. The crew luckily are able to fight back with the help of a ships computer that contains obscure, millennium old references on how to kill fictional creatures and some handy 20th century pool cues they find in the ship recreation room (up yours \"holodeck\"). The ending is awful and a little suspect, either they ran out of money or the ex-soviets demanded their ship back. I walked into this film knowing it was bad but oblivious as to how bad it really was.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Imagine the worst thing that could ever possibly be conceived by human intellect. Now imagine something infinitely darker - I mean, worse, than that. Then multiply that by the quantity of the suckiness possessed by the Star Wars Holiday Special. This movie is by far worse than that.

\"Dracula 3000: Infinite Darkness\", starring such illustrious and reputable actors such as Coolio and Langley Kirkwood (as the film's \"horrifying antagonist\", Count ORLOCK) is equatable to eating one's own feces exclusively for one's entire life, condensed into approximately one hour and twenty minutes. To be frank, there is no way to approach a review of this cinematic tragedy - riddled with Communist propaganda, promotion of drug use, futuristic anachronisms, and quite possibly the worst special effects since the (original) \"War of the Worlds\".

The hammer and the sickle of the Soviet Union can be seen proudly displayed throughout the dingy sets they dare call a spaceship. Lenin can be observed on several posters throughout the \"film\". And of course, religion has been abolished for two centuries by then. So they don't know who this \"God\" is, even though they have no reservations about using His name in vain. But of course, in the Socialist Republic of space (presided over by interstellar President Baker), death-stick like drugs are legalized and quite common. Yet handicap mobility seems even worse off than it is today (they don't even have a wheelchair ramp).

Racial tension still festers throughout the galaxy in quite a familiar\/predictable fashion. We receive great commentary on ethnic division through lines such as \"is Dracula a brotha?\", \"us brothas gotta stick together\", and \"once you go black, you don't go back.\" Speaking of the token black characters, one is played by Coolio. Playing a stereotypical stoner, Coolio becomes possibly the most annoying and ridiculous vampire ever. Oh wait, SECOND most ridiculous vampire ever. That prized title goes to our friend COUNT ORLOCK, from PLANET TRANSYLVANIA, in the CARPATHIAN SYSTEM. These two make quite a pair, between Coolio's attempts to cripple a paraplegic, strange attempts at making high-pitched animal noises, a hairstyle 1004 years old, and GIGANTIC stretches of completely worthless dialogue; and Count Orlock's twenty dollar generic Halloween-style vampire costume, exploding coffins, or confusingly inane back story.

One wonders if they did not simply give Coolio the opportunity to get \"as high as a kite in space without gravity\", let him interact with the other \"actors\", and just went from there.

Count Orlock's motivations are also somewhat in question. Does he want \"infinite darkness\", as the film's subtitle would have you believe? Does he want to eat the crew? Or does he want *Coolio* to \"kill them all\"? Or does he desire to give handicapped people a chance in such an inhospitably future? It doesn't really matter, because none of this film's plot makes sense anyways.

The highlight of this movie has to be it's ending. More for the fact that it means the movie is over than by any merit of the abrupt trainwreck of a climax they phone in before the credits. Instead of facing Count Orlock off in some sort of duel (the closest we get is a shot of Orlock flailing around at breakneck speeds in front of our protagonist, who dies shortly afterwards), our heroes beat him by cutting off his arm in an ordinary door. Orlock then proceeds to collapse, screeching in pain at a totally mundane yet understandably painful injury. This is by far the most fun you'll get from this movie. Watching a vampire's contorted face as he cries in pain will have you on the edge of your seat - with laughter. Almost worth the four bucks for that alone. Of course, right after that we're treated with one of the film's worst one-liners, the mandatory allusion to sex, and perhaps the most ABRUPT EXCUSE FOR AN ENDING *EVER*. They're driving into the sun, and their ship literally just blows up before they even come remotely close to impact. I think they just outdid the Wachowski bros. for the worst finale ever.

I can only sleep at night because we know that a sequel is impossible. Secure in this fact, we can safely say that this is the WORST MOVIE EVER CREATED, and one which will never be exceeded in low quality, lower budget, and lower-est acting talent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh dear Gods, this is awful. Stay away, just stay away. If you think you've seen bad movies, think again. Never before has my brain hurt as much as it did after I watched this movie. The acting, if it is allowed to be called that, is enough to cause internal bleedings inside your head. The story is so thin it is just barely there... no wait, scratch that. There is not a complete story there, but once in a while, there is a few thin lines that stick up from all the amount of horribleness, and believe me, those few lines should have been shot. The best way to enjoy this movie is to drop napalm on it, and watch the cozy fire from a distance.

Some may call me sarcastic in this review, but I am only trying to spare some of you of a serious headache. However, should you be, what I like to call, a visual masochist (like myself), please, go right ahead and watch this monstrosity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...and that's a goddamn shame! Please make the sun rise and have it incinerate all copies of Dracula 3000. This must be the WORST vampire-flick of the new millennium so far (I haven't seen REIGN IN DARKNESS yet, but they don't get much worse than this). Don't be fooled be the movie's cool H.R. Gigeresque cover. This is so bad, it's almost hilarious. I can't describe all the emotions this movie conjured. I laughed my ass off, I yelled at the screen, I sat there numb, nodding my head in disbelief,... This film has 'cheap & cheese' written all over it. The best thing of this movie are the opening-credits and the opening-shots which feature more or less okay CGI of two space-ships. But when Casper Van Dien's voice-over comes on, you start smelling something fishy. And, indeed, it all goes downhill rapidly after that.

The crew of a salvage-spaceship finds an abandoned vessel, the Demeter, which seems to be heading for earth. They enter it, thus sealing their fate. This movie is, above all things, a shameless low-budget ALIEN-rip-off, mixed with vampires. Right down to the plot-twist were Erika Eleniak's character, Aurora, reveals she's a robot. Coolio goes badly over-the-top as the dope-smoking, bloodsucking 187 (pffff, code from the hood as a name?!?!). Casper Van Dien's character's named Capt. Van Helsing (hahaha!) and he looks like...,er well, Casper Van Dien. Udo Kier as Capt. Varna, former commander of the Demeter, is only shown on a monitor-screen and he really does seem to have trouble reading his lines from an auto-cue (poor Udo, what where you doing in this flick?). And then we have Langley Kirkwood as count Orlock, one of the most pathetic and laughable Dracula's ever to (dis)grace the silver screen. Just look at his outfit. Instead of some cool-looking futuristic black suit or something, he's wearing a cheap old-school Halloween-suit with fringes. You thought Richard Roxburgh was unconvincing as Dracula in VAN HELSING? Then wait until you see Langley's performance!

The set-designers went overboard on this one. The interior of the Demeter looks like a cross between an oil-tanker and an old steel-factory, which they decorated with awful lights and colors like green, pink, blue and yellow. The prop-master must have forgotten that this movie takes place in the year 3000, because the characters use guns which look like today's .45 magnums and \"Prof\" uses a non-motorized, non-floating wheelchair. It has to be pushed around in order to move.

Aside from one dried-up corpse, a few impalements and one dismemberment there's absolutely no gore. And the vampire-fangs and contact-lenses look fake as hell. Add to that also the most lame, stupid and abrupt ending ever: Humvee and Aurora are the only survivors. Instead of having one final (bloody) showdown with count Orlock, they lock themselves in the control-room. Then Aurora explains that before her program was upgraded and joining narcotics, she used to be a \"Protheus 3.2 PB\", in other words: a pleasure-bot. So she says \"Well then, what are you waiting for\". Humvee answers \"Ain't gotta tell me twice. Come on, girl\", picks her up and... \"BOOOOOOM!!!\" the ship explodes and credits roll. No sex-scene, no Erika flashin' her boobies, no bloody climax,... Just one more shot of Udo Kier reading a line on the monitor and it's over.

So, this movie is a must-see for every bad-movie-lover, but I must warn them: It gets really painful at times. And everyone claiming that VAN HELSING, UNDERWORLD or even QUEEN OF THE DAMNED is the worst vampire-movie of the new millennium clearly is insane, or just hasn't seen Dracula 3000 yet.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My original comment on this particular title was deleted, by a IMDb user or the staff, only because I just happen to dislike this film to the point I had to sincerely write what I felt after seeing this poor excuse for a film. where's my freedom of word?

Obviously this movie was made by students, 'cos so lame and amateurish it felt. Of course even they have to start from somewhere? The script was incoherent mess and so was the acting. With low budget and b- class actors, what can you expect? There's some CGI in places, so poor, it looks like done with an old PC. Some may say, this is sort of an \"Alien\" clone, only this time it's Dracula (in a vintage costume) who's sucking the other cast dry, one by one. The sets are unconvincing, cheap and small (boiler rooms), although the story takes place in a large space craft.

It would be fun to know what the stars (Erika Eleniak, Casper Van Dien, Coolio and Udo Kier) thought about the film after it was released... Coolio must be the worst rapper turned actor ever!

It was a total waste of my time and money, don't know why I even bothered to rent this flick. Honestly, I just hate this film. With Uwe Boll's House Of The Dead, Dracula 3000 shares the questionable honor of being the worst movie ever. (Well, I've seen even worse than these two)

Avoid! Any other film will do better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hmmm! is it worst film ever? well sort of, for some of the cast its a shame to see them in such a film but hey if it pays the bills why not, as for the film well. OK cg effects not to bad for such a cheap film ,music is just about OK again for a cheap film, end credits are OK lol

BAD to many to list but, cast, acting, sets, script, ending..what the hell ,Drac..........worst Drac EVER!, many more but can not be bothered to put them all down.

Idea was OK but needed ten times the budget and more thought and much better lighting and style and change all bad points, i do say however to see this film so you to can say\"What the FU%$ was that all about\"as the credits run.Also its kind of a must see just to see how bad it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well it is about 1,000 years in the future and we have finally breached traveling the vast distance between galaxies!! But sadly we still use guns that shoot bullets, black men are still calling each other brothers, and getting high, stoned, fighting etc.. Common stereotypical urban black men are still getting the short end of the stick! Babes in tight black rubber pants that look like they're from Baywatch share close quarters with the captian and crew. Crippled people still require wheelchairs to move, no fancy cures, implants, or robotic legs. Dracula still looks and acts gay. Need I go on... In short this move was shot on a typical sci-fi set low budget props, actors, and no real special effects to speak of. The beginning, the middle, and the ending was pathetic. I have to go off and shoot myself now there is nothing left to live for.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, there's a lot of venom directed at this movie, and a lot of it is deserved, but it's not the WORST movie of all time. (That's probably \"Zoolander\".)

Anyway, if you're high on something, really drunk, or just in the mood for a \"B-minus- minus\" movie that you can make fun of, this may be your cup of tea.

Yes, as others said, the first part of the movie makes you think you're watching an updating of the Bram Stoker novel. Two of the main characters are named Van Helsing and Mina, the ship is the Demeter, and they're in the Carpathian galaxy. You later find that Van Helsing is a descendant of the original, and he just happens to be on a ship in the 30th century with Dracula. Suuuuuuuuuuure.

Oh yeah, and to add to the originality, this \"spooky ghost ship\" movie has another character named Ash. Sound familiar?

There's paper-thin character development and anachronisms like the aforementioned manual wheelchair, and Coolio and Tom Lister talking 20th century black slang. But what really makes the movie ridiculous is the ending. If THAT's what happens to the characters, then the previous two hours have been a waste.

Like I said, it you want a dumb movie to play \"Mystery Science Theater\" with, and your mind is in approximately the same mode required for viewing the \"Great Vegetable Rebellion\" episode of LOST IN SPACE, then you may find this diverting. Otherwise, put a stake in it, it's done.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hey if people thought ed wood was a bad director then they totally have not seen this movie. I mean there were gaping plot holes and under utilized cast. Shoddy special effects. I mean I cant believe that this movie came out from a Hollywood studio. A high school drama club could probably come out with a better product. I mean they had Erika Eleniak who is gorgeous Casper van dien and under rated actor. Their agents should be shot to ask them to sign on to this dribble don't they read scripts. I still cant believe that tiny lister was a survivor in the movie i was banging my head the whole time at why him and not a descendant of van helsing be the last man standing. I am a fan of vampire movies and this is by far the worst they should stake it so that it never sees the light of day.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was by far the worst movie I have ever seen! Me and my husband own over 600 DVDs, most of which are Sci-Fi and Horror B-Movies that aren't top quality, but still entertaining. Dracula 300 had absolutely no redeeming qualities at all! The writing was horrific, and the acting was even worse. It took us a 3 tries to get through the entire movie, because we could only tolerate it in 30 minute intervals. We thought surely it must get better...we were wrong. I would rather watch a corpse being embalmed than to have to sit through that again!!! When it ended me and my husband just looked at each other like \"Uh..is that it?\" The ending seemed like there was supposed to be more, but they ran over their apparent $500.00 budget and were like \"Oh, crap...we are broke..end it now...quick..roll credits!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I won't reiterate what so many others have said about this film; I'll try to add a few new points. The Coolio-as-vampire bit is a nod to fans who are familiar with his turn on the Blondie song \"No Exit\" in which he assumes the role of a rapping vampire (it actually works as a musical concept and is in fact a great song). Casper Van Dien is no worse than Brad Pitt and is actually more handsome. And really what does anyone go to a Brad Pitt movie for other than eye candy? Same here, although this is poorly filmed (check out \"Starship Troopers\" instead). And of course Udo Kier, after having played Dracula in the Morrissey\/Warhol film, has little more than a cameo. Enjoy it if you can.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is quite rare that a movie comes along that is so useless, that I with IMDb allowed the use of negative scores. In fact, I reflect back upon this movie and I truly cannot think of a movie that had so little going for it. Acting: Your Kidding right. Direction: No. A plot: No. This movie has nothing going for it if you take it as a serious movie, this is often the case with movies of this genre, but most movies of this nature can be watch as if they are a comedy and you can laugh at how pathetic the characters and situations are and almost get your times worth. This movie is so empty, that it cannot even suit that purpose. I have to give this a -1\/10, three points lower then any other movie I have ever rated. I truly feel that the staff involved in this movie should pay me for the 83 minutes I spent watching it. I do not really have the words to describe how bad this is. No one should ever watch this for any reason again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Please don't waste your money on this sorry excuse for a motion picture. The only way I could see someone watching this is if they are a die-hard fan of Erika Elaniak, but you would be better off surfing the internet than to watch this piece of crap. I would rather watch paint dry than go through watching this.

They lure you in with Casper and Erika and lead you to believe it is a sci-fi Dracula movie, but it quickly works out to be a farce about Van Helsing's great-great (you get the point) grandson, here ironically for one last show-down between himself and Dracula.

The movie also tries to make a political statement, I believe, when it appears that none of the characters in the future know who God is, that they have not been taught about him and don't understand when they see a cross. Could have done a lot more with this idea. It's a shame it turned out the way it did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK with Coolio in it I should have known better! But Noooooooo.

Within 3 mins you've encountered 5 bites from other movies & and TV shows...

8 mins Casper Van Dien should have learnt by now!

10 mins you're feeling sorry for Tom 'Tiny' Lister Jr. that he has been reduced to doing movies like this.

15 mins Erika Eleniak Shows up looking like Zena.

20 mins you're ready to shoot you're self...

How these movies receive funding is beyond me! And yes I watched the whole thing. The Ending is priceless!!! Just stay away!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is my first comment on a movie in here. I have to say that of all the bad films I ever seen, including Braindead for an example, this is really WORSE! I promise. Don't even look at it. It is boring, bad acting, bad script and plot, bad effects the whole movie is one big piece of crap! If I could I would give 0 stars out of 10, but since the lowest is 1 which is awful, I need to vote that. But I would say the movie is worse than awful.

Don't pain yourself by seeing this movie and hoping it will get better because I can tell you already now, it wont! I hoped that there might would come one single scene which would be worth watching. There didn't came any good scene at all.

What an excellent piece of crap.

And Coolio as a vampire? LOL! LMAO! YARGH!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was on SciFi this past weekend, and I had to check it out. After all... it was science fiction, with vampires and Erika Eleniak. What could go wrong with this B-movie?

A lot.

To start with: It can't even be classified as a \"B-movie,\" because that would put it in the same league as Roger Corman... and this movie doesn't even meet his expectations. The most money they spent was on the contact lenses for the vampires.

Secondly: The casting was horrible. Yes, casting Udo Kier as the captain of the Demeter was a smart move... but the director clearly couldn't even get Kier to memorize his lines. Casting Eleniak, in a vampire movie, is also a smart move because it means a bunch of horny guys are going to buy\/rent\/record this flick to watch her get seduced by a vampire. But, the director, writer and producer screwed that one, too. Granted, they got some money out of the poor, unfortuate souls who enjoy watching vampire movies with hot women in them... but no one is going to remember this movie in another two or three years.

Thirdly: Little things that just emphasize the laziness in this movie. For example, Van Helsing calls a cross a \"crucifix,\" and, when Mina is staked in the coffin, the viewer can clearly see the fact that her \"chest\" is nothing more than pillows.

Oh, and one other thing: Why did they go for the George Hamiltion-type Dracula instead of something that would look decently scary? Does George Hamilton have an overwhelming hold on our future? Why didn't everyone who saw Dracula just laugh at him for his get-up?

A waste of time. Even with a TiVo remote in your hand.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I normally like Casper in his movies, a real credit to STARSHIP TROOPERS. But the box cover on this video SSOOOOO mi-sleds the renters. At my local video, people rent it expecting a (PERHAPS) Borg like vampire, and instead they get a bad re-make of Lon Chaney. It had great potential, and fell very flat. Ireally think I could have written a better story line and screen play. Why is it in EVERY science fiction movie, they (the cast) constantly refers to a solar system as a galaxy? Didn't any of these screenwriters or authors stay awake in science class? It is a pet pevee of mine, but a solar system is a single star with planets, a galaxy is a WHOLE bunch of solar systems. It is like referring to a can of coke as a gross of six packs. Makes it sound even dumber.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My guess is that the producers of this low-budget space\/horror film wanted a serious movie but the director had his heart set on a parody. So...this is what we get. Set in an abandoned spaceship 1000 years in the future and peopled with characters and props right out of the 90's. The set is some industrial complex, maybe an oil tanker, whatever. They use is AS IS so the controls consist racks of old TV equipment. One location is obviously the employees lunchroom and sports an old TV and VCR as well as a water cooler with plastic demijohn. Tiny Lister and Coolio get the best lines, arguing throughout the story. The dialog is packed with terms that are pretty dated even now (\"A-OK, Daddy-O\") but then maybe the 30th century is very retro? When the captain declares the ships cargo is a load of coffins from \"The Transylvania Station\" you know this is all a put-on. Its a bit of Alien, part JasonX, shameless rip-off of all the best sci-fi and horror titles. At one point Casper VanDien even tells his pilot to \"make it so\" with a straight face. This film would have been better if they had just let everyone run with the satire but they keep attempting to make the story serious....maybe the backers were on the set that day. Anyway, not a bad boredom killer if you aren't too picky. FX are as good as the sets are bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Chuck Jones's 'Odor-able Kitty' is the cartoon that introduced Pepe Le Pew to the world\u0085 sort of. There are a few key differences between the Pepe we know and love (or hate, in the case of some people) and the character in this cartoon. For one, the disguised cat who Pepe amorously pursues in 'Odor-able Kitty' is distinctly male. Also, Pepe is exposed as a fraud whose real name is Henry at the cartoon's climax, his French accent dropping away when his wife and family turn up. Pepe is not even the lead character here, the focus favouring the put-upon cat who disguises himself as a skunk to scare off his enemies. For the most part, the storyline largely follows the usual format of a Pepe Le Pew cartoon but Pepe's aggressive courtship is lacking the usual wisecracks and straight to camera addresses that make him such a great character. He is also not nearly as handsome as he would become and rather awkwardly animated. In fact, 'Odor-able Kitty' is a fairly ugly and clumsy looking cartoon all round. Its main source of appeal comes from its concept which was original at this stage before it became the template for every Pepe Le Pew cartoon that followed. This subsequent development has robbed 'Odor-able Kitty' of any impact whatsoever and to modern viewers it just looks like a rather dull Pepe Le Pew short with a weird surprise ending. As a child, I hated Pepe Le Pew. As an adult, able to appreciate his more sophisticated, verbal and risqu\u00e9 humour, I love the character and most of his cartoons. 'Odor-able Kitty' makes me feel like a child again!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After nearly getting killed by a big dog, a stray cat thinks to herself, \"Why can't I be a skunk? Then everyone would leave me alone.\" She looks around the junkyard and gets an idea: white paint, black paint and some Limburger cheese and some garlic......hmmmm. The next thing you know, we have the forerunner to \"Pepe Le Pew,\" although in this cartoon, she's still a cat, she's a she, and just a skunk in disguise.

The cat also is enjoying and taking full advantage of her new status as a smelly skunk. He's a happy, content guy now.....until a real skunk (with the Charles Boyer imitation voice) shows up!

I did appreciate the cat putting on a Bugs Bunny outfit. However, overall I never cared for these French-takeoff characters, finding the stereotypical dialog overdone and not really funny, so I only rate this as \"fair.\" I do this a point, however, for the moral at the end of the story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just saw this stinky old boiler on TV. Best watched with a very large flagon of Dr Jurd's Jungle Juice at hand, this exploitorific cheese-fest is hilariously bad. On the (very slim) plus side, Raquel was in her physical prime, she looks good, and you get to see a fair bit of her, since she plays a go-go dancer; she had great legs, that's for sure. There's also some minor interest for screen buffs in the footage of Los Angeles ca. '69, and in spotting actors in minor parts who went on to better things. Veteran thesp Ron Rifkin ('Brothers and Sisters') delivers a toe-curling early performances as \"Sailor\" the \"faggot junkie\" barman who rats Raquel out to the bad guy. You might also recognise the gun-toting security guard in the hit-and-run scene -- it's a very early appearance by Gordon Jump, who gave such a lovely performance in 'Soap' as Piece of Chelief Tinkler.

The 'plot' of 'Flareup', such as it is, follows the travails of an exotic dancer (Welch) on the run from her murderous ex-husband (Luke Askew). This turkey is classic production-line Hollywood sludge -- a paint-by-numbers script, pedestrian direction, hokey shots, edits and effects, ultra-cheesy stock music, plywood sets, and performances to match.

The cast is as uniformly dreadful as the screenplay. Although Raquel is capable of fair performances in the right vehicle, this wheezy old clunker is SO bad that she doesn't really stand a chance, and neither does the audience. One of my favourite moments occurs when Raquel awakes up in the hospital, sees the Vegas cop who's pursuing her murderous ex, and asks \"How did you get here?\" -- to which he of course replies \"In a plane.\" Oh the humanity ... And you won't be able to take your eyes off the doctor (Michael Rougas) who has what might well be one of the very worst walk-ons in the long sad history of bad cameos. I don't think I've ever seen anyone stand in one spot so badly before.

Raquel's love interest Joe (James Stacy) ambles through the film with a fixed look that's somewhere between bemused and embarrassed -- and no wonder. This bomb puts the cast through just about every made-for-TV clich\u00e9 in the book, from Raquel's spectacularly dreadful turn in the dreadful nightmare montage, to the pure schlock of the 'romantic' horse ride along Leo Carillo Beach.

**Spoiler Warning** -- just about the only interesting thing in the whole film is the denouement, in which Raquel finally gets her own back, and hilariously enacts the title, by setting the baddie on fire. Whoever the stunt guy was really earned his money on this one -- he goes up like Yorba Linda in a heatwave. Yet even this fairly spectacular scene is compromised by the fact that one of the crew moves into shot near the end.

There are so many crappy things about 'Flareup' that it's oddly compelling; I found yourself wondering if this could be one of the worst films I've ever seen made. The answer seemed to be a resounding 'Yes' ... until I saw the film that followed it, Roger Corman's mega-trashy 'caged heat' classic 'The Big Doll House', which takes Awful to a whole new level. I can heartily recommend these two shlockers as a double-bill. You'll laugh yourself silly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's okay ... a few years later Chayefsky's classic \"Network\" will be his true cinematic BIG home run ..., but for now, this dark comedy isn't the classic it aspires to be. It's mostly awful, although it has some good scenes: the first murder victim being found, the E.R. clerk responsible for billing patients making a surprise discovery, Drummond's delusional confessional, and the very last scene where Scott's character regains his professional integrity and self-respect. It also has some ludicrous scenes: Scott's character's whiny monologue during his early visit to the hospital psychiatrist, Scott's character's raping Rigg's character, Dysart's horrible mugging in his brief scenes, and the O.R. doctor pouncing on the operating table to resuscitate the wrong patient because \"I already have one malpractice lawsuit\".

Chayefsky also tries TOO HARD throwing every conceivable hurdle at this one hospital (i.e.- the murders, the administrative mistakes, the poor people protesting outside, etc). It might have worked better as a look at the industry as a whole. Acting-wise: Scott is passable, Rigg seems miscast, Hughes is inspired, and Dysart mugs through out his brief performance. The rest of the cast is TOO one-dimensional.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cowardly and cynical, `The Hospital' represents the nadir of Paddy Chayefsky's special brand of celebration of the status quo disguised as satire.

Thanks to ham-handed director Arthur Hiller, this ludicrous script gets the visually ugly, poorly paced presentation it deserves.

Only a great performance by George C. Scott, in the sort of mean-spirited role he was born to play, keeps `The Hospital' from being a complete disaster.

Ironically, though, Scott's performance does viewers a disservice. His magnetism keeps them watching when they might more profitably turn off the VCR and clean out the closets, stare at the clouds, or watch re-runs of `Baywatch.'

Certainly, anyone who emotionally invests in the set-up _ modern medicine apparently gone amok _ will feel cheated by the dismal payoff, where Chayefsky reveals that The System Works Just Fine, So Quit Your Carping.

While the first half of this film provides some entertaining black comedy, it all turns out to be a red herring. Before that becomes clear, though, Chayefsky gives some good lines to Scott as his middle-aged, middle-class, white male stand-in.

Bitter, alcoholic, impotent, Scott's Dr. Herbert Bock has alienated those who know him best, and he has the bile to keep alienating them. In Chayefsky's worldview, all that of course makes Bock a magnet for a hippie chick half his age.

Playing a collection of adjectives, the long-haired, long-legged, braless and almost bust-less Diana Rigg struggles in the part of `the girl.' The British Rigg is miscast as a southwestern free spirit, but any other actress would struggle as well. Like the rest of a good cast gone to waste, Rigg can't overcome a script that isn't interested in any character except Bock, or any philosophy beyond banality.

For fans of George C. Scott, this is another star turn and worth watching. For fans of black comedy, turn it off after the first 45 minutes. For anyone else, don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to ask myself, do movies like this get their support by people associated with the movie itself coming here and critiquing it? How can something so awful score this high? My parents went to see a lot of the more adult themed movies when we were kids, anything with an R in it until we were old enough. I only remember two films that had them saying yech! when they got home. This one, and \"Catch-22\".

The movie is comprised of bumbling physicians and staff in a filthy hospital, rambling narratives, and a pack of inner city people (who look like rejects from a 1970s Norman Lear sitcom) staging a protest. The worst part is the \"murder mystery\", a crazy old guy doing \"God's work\" by killing doctors and others. When he confesses, Scott and his girlfriend show little emotion. They only care about him getting out of there where he will \"be safe and happy\". A doctor that drops dead of a heart attack is faked as the man so he can get away. Oh, my, what a fun movie.

This movie didn't \"make me think\", chuckle, or have any other feeling other than \"It must get better\", but it never does. People wonder why it was a failure, no wonder here. I wonder how IMDb has enough members that think this movie is good. YECH.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm amazed that \"The Hospital\" has been so well-received by the critics and the public. I found it dreary, visually ugly and generally meaningless. After the first virtually unwatchable 40 minutes, the film does improve (relatively), but it remains WAY too far-fetched (not to mention unfunny) to be successful as a satire, and has too little substance to succeed as a drama. The film's uncertain tone is its biggest fault, overshadowing even Scott's terrific (as usual) performance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is worse than \"heaven's gate\" or \"plan 9 from outer space\". Don't know why it got even one Oscar, it should have gotten a million raspberries, just like the audiences that either walked out or didn't show up in the first place. The Hospital was a first-rate financial failure, but I'm certain the elite classes of left-wing, gutter-mouthed intellectuals railed that the American public was far- too plebeian to appreciate biting social-commentary when they saw it, and on and on. George C Scott, in one of most-artless and embarrassing roles, along with aging sex-symbol Diana Rigg spend most of the movie trying to cuss in an increasingly-blas\u00e9 manner as they push along a silly plot. Poor old George is impotent and is just crushed by the event, but after lots of dirty language between him and Rigg, he rapes her multiple times on lovely night in a filthy, crumbling NYC hospital that looks so disgusting that I wouldn't want a dying pet rat treated in it. There's also some sacrilegious junk-dialog tossed about hither and yon, laced with plenty of cussing as well. It ends by portraying the faulty notion that unusual stress without physical exertion always brings on cardiac arrest. Never want to see another minute of this awful movie again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The premise of this movie is ugghhhh. The guy is married and yet everyone on this site seems to think, \"Yeah, this is funny, cute, and a good movie.\" What the Hell?!?! What is funny about immature girls fornicating with a married man with a new baby? What is cute about the fact that he is cheating on his wife? What have been wrong with them finding some teenage boys to have sex with before starting college? Noooo, that is not good enough, the guy has to be married, off-limits, off-the-market, that's the one we gotta have. Dumb-ass GIRLS! Then one of the girls decides that she \"loves\" the guy. No, she just \"loves\" the way he makes her feel. Two of the girls are having fun with it, they think it is funny and no one seems to have any moral problems with what they are doing. It just shameless, but yeah this is all good with everyone one this website. The dark-haired girl even has the audacity to have her dad pick her up from the guys house, under the ruse of baby sitting. This is a morally disgusting movie and where is the wife? Poor woman working and paying the bills while he screws the baby sitter.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie tries to be artistic but comes across as puerile as a film school student's first attempt. Next it tries to be erotic but comes across as clumsy as a virgin's first attempt. Lastly it tries to be cruel & gripping, but aside from Kinski's performance--which is powerful but conspicuously misplaced amidst the amateur melodrama--it's about as gripping as your hand around a wet noodle (which is an appropriate metaphor considering how un-erotic this film is). It features a blowjob scene which is even lamer than Chlo\u00eb Sevigny's career-burying performance in The Brown Bunny. Run away now while you have the chance. Go find yourself a Victoria's Secret lingerie catalogue instead--it's more artistic AND more erotic than this tripe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst films I have seen in a while.

The problem is that it doesn't know whether it wants to be an intelligent political film, 'artistic' or an exercise is eroticism. As a result it fails on all accounts.

The acting is atrocious, the narration off putting and the supposed symbolism pointless.

Klaus Kinski is probably the best thing about this film but that isn't a good thing. Sure he has an intense and 'unique' look but ultimately he can't actually act. Just look at how he reacts when his mistress leaves....

Really don't watch this film, some say it needs repeat viewings I say one is too many.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this film on DVD despite the \"stale\" review and that was idiotic... That review was completely accurate and I have never seen any worse \"erotic\" film in my long life! Even if it partly was lovely filmed and had interesting surroundings, plus a nice cover... But my own Extreme Erotica (c) films are over 100 times more erotic (just in the soft delicious aspect) with probably less than 100 times of this films budget! The story have no logical connection with the first film or the famous book... Or any new (exciting) element of slave training, except some very strange and sad developments... Then did the main male character - Klaus Kinski - not look a bit like the second Master of \"O\" he try to play... And not even lovely Arielle Dombasle, did look delicious in any scene!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is sometimes called 'The Story of O-Pt.2',which tries to pass itself off as a sequel (of sorts)to the French erotic S&M thriller 'The Story Of O'. Although I've never seen the original version, I did, however get to see this sorry mixed bag of sexual & social politics. I guess the 'O' angle comes from the occasional S&M overtones (which were never as explicit (and unpleasant to watch) as the ones in 'Mistress'. Klaus Kinski is the only recognizable face in this French\/Japanese production (but speaks his lines in English--at least in the version I saw). The unnecessary use of surrealism only manages to make this some what boring example in pseudo porn even more pretentious (what are they trying to prove with depicting a piano floating in water?). It's obvious that after the whole \"porno chic\" trend in cinema petered out (ouch-sorry,bad pun!)about 1975, producers had to scrape the bottom of the barrel trying to please the mavens of adult cinema,not to mention Foreign\/Art Cinema,so film goers had to contend with dreck like 'The Last Woman',and others like it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really like Kinski he is a great actor. I've seen this movie because I've heard that there are autobiographic aspects in this movie.

The film is full of symbols like a piano sinking in a river or strange shadow-pictures at the walls. Then the narrator always says abstract sentences like: \"A kid sells fortune, but her box is empty now.\" This is really disturbing and wasn't really necessary, because everyone understands what this movie is all about. The movie shows how Kinski's character treated woman, and how he kept them under control. If there are really some aspects of Kinski's life in this story - then he really was an swine. So there is no need to watch this movie, unless if you want to see Kinski naked or if you like sick trash movies to laugh about.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When The Spirits Within was released, all you heard from Final Fantasy fans was how awful the movie was because it didn't seem like Final Fantasy. This is a different story, for better or worse. The familiar settings, characters, music, story, and over the top action scenes should thrill fans of the original game. The problem is that it just isn't a good movie in its own right.

The direction during the fight scenes is often sloppy, switching camera angles ridiculously fast in an attempt to make the action seem more frenetic, but only serving to make the scenes look jumbled and confusing.

The CG itself is exceptional, but I can't say it's the best I've ever seen since Spirits Within had much more detail on the characters, although I must admit that Advent Children's characters moved much more naturally.

The plot is virtually a black hole. It's a giant deus ex machina designed solely to bring Sephiroth back for one last fight. Old characters reappear, but serve no real purpose other than to please fans. Character development is nonexistent and the film does nothing at all to resolve any of the plot threads left hanging after the game's end. But it's packed with neat-looking fight scenes with magic, summons, and limit breaks, which is probably what fans wanted anyway.

In the end, Advent Children is a very flashy, but totally brainless action flick that serves more as a side story for Final Fantasy VII than a real sequel.

By the way, don't think you're hurting my feelings by voting Not Useful. It just makes me feel superior knowing that fanboys\/fangirls resent my objectivity so greatly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First i will say that i am going to be as subjective as I can.

There will be some potential spoilers ahead so beware.

I hardly ever review movies, but this one in particular i felt i had to review. This movie Final Fantasy 7 Advent Children, based off the ultra popular rpg (Final Fantasy VII) for the ps1 has been in the works for quite some time. After the years of hype and the dozens of trailers (none of which i ever saw, i had only seen stills) this movie got the legions of fans really excited about seeing their favorite characters on the big screen. I myself had played and completed the game a few times like any good fan, and being such a movie freak i was pretty excited myself. So i had thought to myself, \"WHAT COULD GO WRONG?\".

Well, the movie started out OK in the first 20 minutes, but then things get out of hand as the movie progressed. Without a doubt, this is the best looking CGI animation around, but that won't help a weak plot, undeveloped characters,and over indulgent action scenes.

Here is the story basically. These three silver haired nancy boys in leather who have nothing to do with the game, are supposedly clones of Sephiroth (he's the villain of the game who had supposedly murdered all his supposed clones)are trying to kidnap all the children for some reason that was not really explained all that well, probably to make an army (of kids?) They also center some of the story on some kid named Denzel, i don't know who this kid is, or what his point is, he just seems depressed all the time. So the sephiroth clones also are involved in some kind of scheme involving some disease called geostigma, that only affects the children, this disease seems to cause boredom and small amounts of skin discoloration.

So now Cloud must save the day from these guys. Apparently Cloud and his fellow team mates have learned the ability of flight, i felt a little insulted that these characters where flying around a city fighting a dragon and landing on there feet all the time. Maybe if the movie wasn't so over the top, then the view relax into it and then they can be amazed by something incredible. The real problem of this movie is logic. Now i know what you are gonna say, \"But it's called Final FANTASY! it should have those ideas in it!\" well that is a foolish way to think, the game based itself in some kind of reality and the movie should follow through in that CONTEXT. Context and logic in this movie is inconsistent, i could explain it all, but if i did, i would end up writing the screenplay.

Also some scenes in this movie were extremely contrived and trite. like when all of the characters from the game show up just in the nick of time for their obligatory screen time so as not to upset the fans. They show up, do there bit and pretty much have no point in the story.

If this is too long here is the simpler review-

the pros- the first 20 minutes top-notch cgi animation decent action scenes visually stunning

the cons- illogical over indulgent action\/ unbalanced action (leaves the viewer jaded at the climax) weak plot super human characters=no suspense the j-rock soundtrack\/score (what happened to the orchestra?) Horrible ending

BIG TIME SPOILER-

Now the ending of this movie really disappointed me. they could have had gone the really cool and sweet ending where cloud dies and meets up with aeris in the after life but after the great battle at the end cloud gets shot in the back, the kinda wound where the bullet blast out through the chest. then cloud has his 100th flashback in the movie and then wakes up in a pool of lifestream. (now i remember the lifestream in the game, but it did not have resurrecting properties, if it did, they could have brought aeris back to life, thus making a completely different story) so cloud is brought back to life and everyone has a party and dives into the pool and we have a ultra cheezy hallmark\/ lifetime type moment.

not that the movie doesn't have it's moments. its is worth seeing for its visuals. but thats all.

other than that it's not really a good movie. it is strictly for blinded fans of the game. not for people who care about plot and character and story telling.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was giddy with girlish-glee when I found out about this movie shortly after seeing Spirits Within.

After years of anticipation, they gave November 2005 release date. Well, November came. And went. Followed by December. Oh, look, today's January 31, 2006. No US release as of yet.

Oh well, I'm so glad I had a friend with a bootlegged subtitled copy. ;D

Well, the cg was great. Not as good as expected, but near perfect. I cringed, however, at the unnatural movements made by the children throughout the movie. I had thought that we were passed this by now. Also, I didn't really care for the anime look given to their faces. I was under the impression that they were shooting for a realistic look to the film, and yet most of the characters have larger-than-norm eyes, especially the girl characters. They had personality, though, I'll give them that.

Even though I'm not a big fan of anime, I do have to say I was impressed with the wild fight scenes. They were animated beautifully and had me hanging onto the edge of my seat.

For about the first two.

And there-in lies Advent Children's biggest flaw. It's mostly just a bunch of hyper-stylized fight scenes.

A FF7 sequel of epic proportions had been promised for years. Instead, they gave us a pretty piece of cg with barely a plot to excuse it's just-under-two-hours running time.

Where Final Fantasy is famous for its intricate stories, this movie falls short. You don't really get to know the characters. The only way you'd have any understanding of most of what occurred in the film would have been if you had played the game. We barely got to see them before they were battling it out with whatever current threat.

What hurts the fans even more is the awful cameos that the majority of FF7 characters were given. They were nothing more than Cloud's \"I'll call if I need you, but I probably won't\" back up singers. And, to add to the hurt, they had each character individually throw Cloud higher and higher. This little part here was so cheesy I almost turned it off. I would have been much more impressed if he had just simply jumped up all on his own, ricocheting off of walls to get himself up higher.

It hurt even more when they reduced the Turks to less-than-just comic relief. That was fine for the game, but this is cinema. People do not act like cartoon characters in a harsh battle. They took away their dignity :\/

And, spoiler (yeah right, most of you probably already know, anyhow). Who remembers Darth Maul being hyped up in SW: Episode 1? Yeah, now, picture that, but with Sephiroth. That's right. He had maybe 5 minutes of screen time. Maybe that. End Spoiler :P

If this movie was made for the fans, then way to go Square. If this is any indication of the direction you're taking the FF series, I doubt you're going to be seeing much of my money. I played your games for the wonderful story and the excellent characters.

You had a chance to make something epic. Something truly beautiful, a masterpiece that flies in the face of all of the Disney CG films.

Instead you gave us a pretty piece of flesh with hardly anything underneath to hold it together. Way to go.

And I'm sure if the rest of the fans paused for a moment and tried to just pay attention to everything but the CG they'd know what I'm talking about. Well, I was gonna rate this a 5\/10, but after thinking about it while righting this, I'm giving it a 3\/10 because they could have done better. They have done better. And this is just sad.

If they're gonna remake anything FFVII, they need to do this one first.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Final Fantasy: Advent Children is and will remain a classic example of style over substance gone wrong. Instead of drawing upon the memorable characters and captivating mythology of the original game, Square Enix has churned out a frivolous montage of incomprehensible battle scenes. Yes, I said \"incomprehensible.\" Did you know that Tifa knows blindingly fast Kung Fu techniques that magically cause the camera angle to shift every second? That Cloud can effortlessly suspend himself in midair for a full minute while wildly swinging away with his 2-ton sword? The English dub is mediocre. While not egregiously bad, it is far from well-produced. The quality is comparable to that of an average anime dub.

Here is what I'd like to say to the die-hard FFVII fans who can't stop gushing over this movie: Advent Children is the best fan service you could have hoped for from Square Enix, but even a trashy CG flick like Galerians: Rion had a better story. You'll be embarrassed by this movie and its lack of thought in due time. The days of its novelty are numbered.

Movies like Advent Children make me question whether Square Enix recognizes the potential of its franchises. After all (and no offense), it's a Japanese company. Japanese developers can deliver fun games, but most of their offerings are disappointingly shallow. They are utter psychos, however, when it comes to production quality. Advent Children features some of the most breathtaking renders in CG history, but that doesn't save it from its convoluted plot and cardboard characters.

Any fan who followed this film knows Sephiroth comes back. Bending the story to accommodate his resurrection was a big mistake.

NOTE: The one point I give this \"film\" is in honor of the 10,000 enslaved Japanese animators who gave their lives to render each bleached blond hair on Cloud's effeminate Caucasian head.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretty visuals and a lot of fights make not a good movie. And that is precisely what happened here.

First off, let me admit, I am yet to play FFVII (I intend to order it soon). However, I did do research to familiarise myself with the characters and the story. However, not everyone has the luxury of time to research things like this, and Advent Children demands that knowledge of FFVII is required.

In spite of incredible visuals, I can't say there is too much thats new. We've seen it in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and apart from some better movement, I can't say they've done lots of super-daring stuff with this.

The fight scenes - well, they are a bit of fun. Still, how could we ever doubt the result of any of them. This one was boringly classic - there were three fights with the bad guys, following the standard procedure (the hero, Cloud, gets smashed, then he almost gets there and gets smashed, and then finally wins). The reason I say it was boringly classic was that it is used a great deal, but in this case is poorly executed. I'll touch on that later.

The English dub seemed fine to me, though I didn't watch it in Japanese, so I shan't judge the Japanese dub, but only the English one. I'll say this - I've heard plenty of better ones, even in my limited repertoire.

And now, the plot. Ummm... what plot? Let me be frank, this movie is nought but a fan service, a chance to see the FFVII characters on the big screen with lovely eye candy. As I said earlier, the fights seem to just happen for no reason. The opening fight is never explained, Kadaj seems to have neither ambition to destroy the world himself nor any real motivation to do anything nasty. Cloud sits around moping for the entire film, and pretty much everyone else gets an obligatory cameo.

Really, FFVII was an ensemble piece. Advent Children is anything but. If they'd managed to give everyone some significant story role (Star Trek: First Contact proved it was possible, I might add), then this could have been a lot better. Naturally, that would have changed the plot too, which, lets be honest, is almost set to be better than the one we got.

Characters were also generally either unused or virtually forgotten. The members of Avalanche (thats the group Cloud worked with in FFVII, for those who don't know) get 2 scenes (3 in the case of Vincent Valentine, and some get even less). Hell, the bad guys get more lines than these guys, and that is pretty bad.

The music... well, I don't care if Nobuo Uematsu is God Himself, he botched this film big time. Advent One Winged Angel was the only decent piece. Otherwise, he couldn't decide whether to be epic (and orchestral) or fun (with electric guitar). When he switched from one to the other, you felt it as though he'd taken a sledgehammer to your head.

And that last point on whether this movie was epic or fun... it tried to be both, and failed miserably. Honestly, you can't please everyone and do everything. The movie also tried to be deep (you can go epic and deep, or fun and deep, but all three is too much), but failed here too. The last scene, which is reminiscent of a baptismal ceremony, was thrown in there for what looks like the sake of it. You don't need to be a Christian to just shake your head and cry there. That scene just didn't belong in the film (and nor did Aerith's frequent appearances - she's dead Jim!).

Given just how fantastic I've heard Final Fantasy VII to be, this movie is nothing short of a gigantic disappointment. Because of the beautiful visuals, I give it a 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I give this movie a 4 cause I'm a die hard fan of the video game series. the graphics and animation are excellent and its nice to see the whole gang in CG form Sephiroth's still cool

now the reasons it only got a 4 well the characters feel like planks of wood with some of the worst voice acting I've ever seen(I've watched epic movie)

the movie just seems cloud orientated so much so that it make even the fans embarrassed with cloud this and cloud that. clouds mentioned so much that it make you not want to see him in this movie

the villains have the award for the worst villains ever (i was more scared by the wicked witch of the west)

all the other characters in this movie are simply put in the movie for a nod to the fans and doesn't take it further then that

wtf's with the chilly chally???

summary: waited 9 years for this movie and this is what i get a large pointless and boring cut scene i beg the head of square cenix to shoot the man responsible for this burn every copy of the movie and any one involved in it and create a new movie from the ashes's (it would be nice to make the movie in live action and based on the original game)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So after the initial disappointment of the first Final Fantasy movie, which seemed to bare next to no resemblance to the Final Fantasy series, Final Fantasy: Advent Children has released itself to a warm reception and, now, a dedicated fanbase. And the reason for the films success is understandable as it has lush graphics, fast moving fight sequences and some cool as hell characters. However, if you haven't played FF7 then it is likely that you will not enjoy this film as it's storyline carries on from the game without previous explanation and your likely to get lost from the plot even if you have played the game. Secondly, there is no character development, without previous knowledge from the game your opinions on the characters are limited to 'cool' and 'not cool'. Of course, for FF7 fans the film is almost guaranteed to entertain, at least for nostalgic reasons, and it's cool seeing all the characters you grew to love from the game rendered in some pretty amazing computer animation. One last complaint, the film, at least in my opinion, attempted to cram too much into less than two hours and therefore the last half hour or so seems horribly rushed. If you played and enjoyed FF7 than it is a worthwhile watch, though nothing too special. If you have not played FF7 then it is best that you play it first before watching this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show lasted for most of the 1980s, and had its moments, but plots were usually dishwater thin and often painfully unfunny.

Terry Scott and June Whitfield were wasted in this sitcom, they both deserved better, but it does provide some fond memories and I have found myself smiling at some repeated scenes. June Whitfield's talent for comedy is allowed to shine through on occasion (when she is not being a foil to Terry) and she really is clever.

The 1980s is the last decade where you will find this kind of middle class, middle aged comedy, and many people remember it fondly, but I prefer to remember the decade for alternative comedy and the biting satire of Spitting Image.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This cosy middle class sitcom became the subject of much hatred by the new breed of talented comedians in the 1980s, such as Ben Elton. Did it deserve such malice? Well Terry and June was never clever, it was never a well-written tale with different threads which intersect at the conclusion. It was the show your mother and father and probably grandparents watched. They chuckled rather than laughed, but they were never likely to be offended by the show, so the fact that it never challenged them was immaterial.

One Foot In The Grave suffered initially because it appeared at first sight to be just another Terry and June.

A few days after the death of Terry Scott an episode was broadcast on terrestrial TV, and that has been its final outing. There have been few repeats of the show on any TV channel.

Thankfully TV comedy has advanced since Terry and June. It's hard to find kind words for it - Terry Scott did make the best of weak scripts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A pretty transparent attempt to wring cash out of the thriving British club scene, Sorted is a film that shows promise in certain departments, but does very little else. A perfunctory thriller plot (which is there merely to string the club sequences together), variable acting and a pretty ludicrous script, all stop Sorted from being the showcase that director Jovy obviously intended.

However, although Jovy is sometimes over indulgent (especially when using the often ill-fitting dance music) he does show potential, and the lack of an anti drugs message is enormously refreshing. Overall however, the film is a wasted opportunity, and the prospects for a great clubbing movie remain out there somewhere. Watchable nevertheless.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A rather disappointing film. The club scenes were ok, but over done. The plot was thin and boring. It's only redeeming features were some of the characters. The Chemist and The DJ were pretty fun characters. Tim Curry's character was just bizarre and stupid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There were so many reasons why this movie could have been great. I'll give you three.

1. Sienna Guillory. She is extremely hot in this movie and was the reason I chose to watch it in the first place.

2. Tim Curry. Amazing bad guy and I always get excited seeing him in movies (even Home Alone 2).

3. Jason Donovan. For all you Aussies and Poms out there, this is a rare treat. Former Neighbours star 80's heart-throb dressed in drag selling drugs.

However none of these things nor the fact that the movie is about the drug\/rave culture managed to make this movie even remotely interesting. The script was dull, the performances ordinary and despite the scenes with J.D and any scene with Sienna I found everything about this movie pretty passe.

3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After Kenneth Opel's rousing story of the invigorated me back into the pleasure of reading during grade school, I had high hopes for this series. The story of an underdog bat voyaging across country to reunite with his colony captivated my imagination and resonated deeply with my burgeoning imagination.Upon hearing of this series, I began browsing Bardel Animation's site and liked what I saw. The character design looked impressive and the fast-paced plot seemed to have been stretched respectably across a thirteen episode arc. Much was my disappointment, then, when I decided to watch a rerun early one morn.

The opening episode shows our hero, Shade Silverwing, pursuing a tiger moth in the deep hours of the night. Chirruping an echolocatory song, we see a nifty if crude CGI effect illuminate the moth, and the chase takes on a frenetic turn as the tiny insect creates numerous illusory copies of itself do deceive its pursuer. As a lover of biology, I had a decent understanding of the principles in place (tiger moths can sense the sounds their predators use for echolocation and spin a sonic cover for themselves) but without such exposition I would have surely been lost. A minor quibble, I thought. Surely they director will fill us in momentarily. I waited in vain.

Once our protagonist roosts down with some of his fellows, we are treated to some of the dullest dialog I've ever seen on television. Chinook, Shade's childhood rival, begin taunting the diminutive hero with the stupidest lines I've ever seen on a show. I can understand the writers not producing Shakespeare, but one would think they'd have had some social contact in their lives - surely enough to make communication seem natural. Oh, how wrong I was.

The voice acting, while not horrendous, hardly was a shining example of human achievement. \"Oh Shade, you're broken the law!\" Shade's mother sighs emptily. \"You must come with me, young one.\" croaks Frieda, the wizened elder of the Silverwing Colony. The actors try, but it hardly matters at this point, as the story becomes less and less compelling with each pass minute.

While each episode deals with a problem of the week, as is typical of with most television series, overarching story arcs pervade the saga, for better and worse. While the main point of the story is Shade's reunion with his family, later episodes tack on other story arcs, involving cannibalistic bats from the Southern jungles and a brewing war between birds and beasts. The writers try to do too much at once, fighting to compress as many promising ideas as possible in the hopes that it will grab audience interest enough to keep the bloody show going on. Unfortunately, these attempts are futile to all but the eight to ten year olds at whom this show is aimed.

While it's nice to see Canadian media be perpetuated, it would be all the sweeter if the enjoyability of the series wasn't limited to the immediate family of the animators or frothing fans of Kenneth Oppel's books. There are worse things out there your children could be watching than Silverwing, but far better programs are out there, too. Pass on the mediocrity and read the books instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having already seen the original \"Jack Frost\", I never thought that \"Jack Frost 2\" would be as absurd as it is. Boy was I wrong! Then again, A-PIX movies have a way of showing unbelievably bad material, even worse than you might expect. I believe this is the first A-PIX sequel, and it may be an indication of what to expect in the future: more A-PIX sequels.

It's hard to watch this without laughing, especially during the later parts of the movie in which Jack Frost's offspring (which are essentially snowballs with eyes, arms, a mouth and sharp teeth) start killing people with the typical comedic dialogue and silly voices to go with it. They are shown both as puppets (with a stick underneath to move them) and as computer animation, which I have to say looks very cheesy. The computer animation surprised me, as the first \"Jack Frost\" had no such effects.

I'd strongly recommend that you see the original \"Jack Frost\" before seeing this one (both of which it would be preferable to watch with a group of friends) to get the full amusement out of it, and because it would make more sense (\"sense\" being a relative term).

Now only if there was \"Uncle Sam 2\"...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ill-conceived sequel(..the absurd idea of having the killer snowman on the rampage at an island resort where there is no snow or cold weather)brings back the spirit of the psychopath, returning thanks to a scientific experiment providing foreign elements which reintroduce life to his molecules(..it's the best I could do to explain this preposterous concept).

I could go into depth about how he winds up at the island in order to slay numerous tourists, but I simply find no reason to bother because it'd all be so exhausting. Anyway, the filmmakers think it wise to kill off the pretty girls not ten minutes after their arrival(..I mean seriously, why worry with even introducing them to us if we can't enjoy our eye candy no longer that this?!).

The \"snow anvil\" murder scene takes the cake. Ice icicles protrude from the beach's sand so that a victim can fall on them. Oh, and another girl is stabbed with a pair of weenie tongs.

Look I get what's coming to me when I sit down to watch a killer snowman movie..such a ridiculous supernatural slasher will either tickle your funnybone(\"Oh, it's such a wonderfully cheesy horror movie!\")or have you pondering why the hell you're wasting time with such nonsense. Jack Frost has the power to freeze water(..then how were they able to melt him in the first film?)and causes the island resort to snow. One sequence has Jack freezing pool water, encasing a swimming model under the sheet, result being her drowning with nowhere to escape.Oh, there's also a recreation of the \"tongue stuck to the icy pole\" bit from The Christmas Story(\"Cowatonga dude!\").

I gotta hand it to the cast, though..they're real troopers for trying to make this wretched material entertaining. Christopher Allport(..perhaps unwisely)returns as Sam, to face his old nemesis, as does Eileen Seeley, as his wife. The attempts at tongue-in-cheek humor(..for me, at least) fell flat, but the cast soldiers onward trying to make the most of a very difficult situation, with spirited performances they do their best to rise above the pitiful premise and woeful dialogue.

A development occurs which increases the danger towards those still around to face off with Jack, his genetically altered water molecules, thanks to the introduced foreign elements, allow him to withstand coolant\/anti-freeze, and, even worse, he now can reproduce..through indigestion, Jack hacks up what appear to be snowballs which hatch to reveal little snowballs with black eyes, mouth and sharp teeth! The killer snowman costume and little snowball puppets introduced later in the film might produce belly-laughs if you are in the mood for such shenanigans, but I personally found this junk rather hokey(..that's the purpose behind it, I suppose, cheap guffaws from those willing to embrace this)and unbearable.The snowball offspring is an obvious homage to Gremlins where we get a bar scene where the little bastards are celebrating in number over terrorizing victims at the resort. The weapon against them..bananas! It's explained that when Jack went to kill Sam in the first film, both fell in a truck bed full of anti-freeze(..an icicle emerging from Jack's belly was penetrating Sam's chest when he pushed them out a window into the truck bed, and I guess in their being \"being linked\" by the icicle, Jack inherited Sam's banana allergy, or so this is what we are led to believe!)and in doing so both \"merged\" in a sense.

Phew, such a film as this defies simple explanation. It's a film with effects and plot so terrible, one might find the presentation enjoyable because of it's many failings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, in this movie you are treated to multiple little snowmen on the attack in apparently a very warm climate so yes this movie is definitely not to be taken seriously. It is in fact a much worse movie than the original as at least with that one the whole production looked like it cost more than a couple of bucks and a video camera to make. It has its funny moments, but really playing off the cheapness of your movie and making that be your intended laughs is kind of weak film making if you ask me. You can not come up with a good story, your effects are going to really be bad, hey let us just make the movie look as bad as possible with horrible one liners and we have our movie. The first one at least had a somewhat credible story as the snowman in that one attacked during the winter and not what amounts to a resort. It also had better effects too, this one is just a step or two ahead of \"Hobgoblins\" as far as the monsters are concerned and you really want to be more than a step a two above a bunch of hand puppets. Still, it makes up for all of this with a super ending that depicts a great sea vessel being taken out by the mighty frost. Actually, I am just kidding, but really it was the funniest part of the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie sucks. did anyone notice that the entire movie was shot in like 2 rooms. there are NEVER any outside shots and if there are its obviously film taken from somewhere else. this movie blows hard, painful to sit through too. stay far away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"-may contain spoilers-

Clearly, who ever made this film must have had a lot of connections. I just can't see it any other way. What really surprises me is no one used the name Allen Smithee, and more surprising, everyone involved didn't use this name.

Anyhow, where to begin. The bad dialogue, the crummy costumes, the sorry looking film stock, the unintentional comedy, the over-the-top characters, and more inconsistencies than George W. Bush's college career. I don't know what was funnier, the guy losing his arm because of a snowball, or the slow motion scene where all the baby Jack Frosts' were getting killed. Also, one of the great lines of all time was uttered in this film. \"How do we know it's him?\" Like there's another mutant snowman who can talk and kill people with snowballs! A great camp film, but a very bad film overall.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Frost 2 was a horrible, terrible, sadly pathetic excuse for a sequal to a great movie. The original, was a low budget comedy horror film about a murdered who was turned into a snowman after an accident with some toxic waste. And the snowman went around murdering people, and avoiding blow dryers like the plague. This, however, was a far cry from the quality of the original. It seems like this even had a lower-budget because for some reason, after an hour into this film, I still hadn't seen the snowman. Some revenge he's getting if he's always in the form of Ice cubes with a cheesy voice-over and a little shake of the cooler he rests in to give animation to the character. Disappointing to no belief, even for a fan of bad cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alright, we start in the office of a shrink, and apparently not a very good one. The main hero from the first Jack Frost is in the shrinks office blurting out random rhymes about Jack Frost. Gee, alright my brother is yelling ''Turn it off!''. Anyway, back to the crappy movie.

The shrink has his speaker phone on and is letting his secretary and her friends listen in on this heroic insane sheriff. I suppose he is supposed to be the hero from the first movie, but he looks nothing like him!. Yadda yadda yadda, they laugh at the poor sheriff, yadda yadda. Now some people are digging up the anti-frozed snowman, yadda yadda, now we're in a lab with some type of doctor people.. I don't quite see how this has to do anything, but their poking the anti-freeze\/Evil killer mutant snowman with needles, heating it, shocking it, adding strange and bizarre chemicals to it, the whole nine yards. Nothing. Alright, they give up and leave it in a fish tank. One of the doctors leaves his coffee on the top of the tank. The janitor walks in, cleans stuff, bumps the fishtank and the coffee spills the tank which makes Jack alive.

Behold the power of mocha! Now somehow he is in..uh.. i believe the Bahamas... but it looked more like Hawaii.. But it couldn't be Hawaii! Unless they spent all of their budget on the dang air plane tickets. Bah.. I wont spoil the rest of this rotten movie, so you'll have to rent it and watch it your self... Er... i wouldn't suggest doing so though.... Sheesh..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In all, it took me three attempts to get through this movie. Although not total trash, I've found a number of things to be more useful to dedicate my time to, such as taking off my fingernails with sandpaper.

The actors involved have to feel about the same as people who star in herpes medication commercials do; people won't really pay to see either, the notoriety you earn won't be the best for you personally, but at least the commercials get air time.

The first one was bad, but this gave the word bad a whole new definition, but it does have one good feature: if your kids bug you about letting them watch R-rated movies before you want them to, tie them down and pop this little gem in. Watch the whining stop and the tears begin. ;)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you like bad movies (and you must to watch this one) here's a good one. Not quite as funny as the first, but much lower quality. A must-see for fans of Jack Frost as well as anyone up for a good laugh at the writing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Please, If you're thinking about renting this movie, don't. If you're thinking of watching a couple of downloaded clips, don't. If I had my way, nobody would even have to read this summary.

The acting, despite being one fo the high points of the movie was still pathetic. The director was probaly a sadist. The witty one liners were something you'd expect from a room of highly paid anti-social 7 year olds that eat paint-chips for breakfast.

The problem with this movie, is that it tries to be a movie like \"Evil Dead 2\"(do not under any circumstances associate these 2 movies) in that it's so bad it's funny. But it also tries to be funny at the same time, and fails so overwhelmingly to do so, that your sense of humor is left too crippled to do anything but set off your gag reflex in an attmept to save itself.

I could go on for much much more, detailing just how awful it really was, but I think it would strip me of my will to live just to continue to think about it. If you need me, I'll be off trying to boil myself so that I might feel clean again...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Horrible movie. This movie beat out revenge of the living zombies for the WORST movie I have ever suffered through. What the !@$% were the morons who made this film thinking. Was it supposed to be scary. Because man let me tall you it wasn't. It was so dumb it wasn't funny. We all know that tropical islands are the natural hunting grounds for killer snowmen. And those stupid baby snowballs. Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid. Fake snow and lousy actors. OH and frost looks nothing like he does on the box. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. REnt it and destroy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why did I have to go out and buy (yes buy!) JACK FROST 2: REVENGE OF THE MUTANT KILLER SNOWMAN??? Maybe it was a burst of temporary mental derangement? But I'm guessing it's because I kind of enjoyed the first JACK FROST. It was a silly but funny horror-comedy which had some okay effects by Screaming Mad George. That and the fact that on the back-cover of the sequel there was this nice picture of this guy impaled by this giant icicle (coming out of his mouth with a lot of blood and all). So I thought: if it's as idiotic as the first and has some nice splatter\/gore in it, it should be fun, right? Well, I was so dead wrong!

Let me first say that the movie deserves some credit for having an immensely insane and retarded plot. I mean, a mutant killer snowman on a tropical island that spawns mutant killer baby snowballs which can only be killed or harmed by bananas??? As much as I love the premise, I really hated the movie. First of all: while the first JACK FROST looked like an actual movie (seemingly being shot on real film and all), this sequel has the look and feel of a third-rate soap-opera. It has this way too slick shot-on-video look. The lighting is just plain awful (bright white spots for the day look, and stupid colors like blue and green at night). The acting... well don't even go there. The dialogues range from stiff to extremely senile (that Jamaican man was just moronic, saying \"man\" after every sentence). And when it comes to the voice of the killer snowman, all I could think of was a seventh-rate Chucky from CHILD'S PLAY spewing dumb and supposedly witty one-liners before he kills someone.

The best joke was were one guy asks \"Why are you talking to your watch?\". And the best scene was undoubtedly the one with that beautiful Asian chick popping up out of nowhere and taking a swim in the pool totally naked (thank god for that!). Oh, yeah, and that little scene over the end-credits with those two Japanese dudes on a miniature ship being badly dubbed had me laughing too. But the worst thing about this movie was: Where was the gore and splatter action everyone is talking about? There were plenty of occasions to show some decent gory killings. A lot of people were killed off in original ways here, but all off-screen. Like I've read in many other comments, there were indeed nice set-ups to a head explosion, a crushed body, eyes being poked out, tongue ripped out,... but on the crucial moments the editor cuts away to some blood splatters on the floor or nothing at all. That frontal shot of that British guy being impaled (from the back-cover of the DVD) wasn't even in the movie. I only saw that particular killing filmed from the back (meaning I didn't see sh!t!). I was waiting throughout the whole movie for that to happen, and then I get to see nothing?!?! What a let-down! Could it be that I saw a cut version of the movie? That would be a shame, 'cause only a decent amount of splatter-fun could have saved this movie if you ask me. Seeing a lot of killer snowballs reduced to bloody pulp just didn't cut it for me. Speaking of those snowballs: they were done very poorly. They made MUNCHIES look like state-of-the-art 'animatronics'. But I guess that was the whole point of it. At some point, the special effects crew even turned to some laughably bad CGI. Boy, you really have to see it to believe it. Best is to not see it, actually, 'cause this flick is just too bad (okay, I did laugh with it, for it kept getting worse and worse). Just stick with the first JACK FROST (1996) and you'll be okay (just bare in mind that it's a pretty silly horror-comedy but fun in it's own right).

It's funny, but writer\/director Michael Cooney somehow must have realized that he was a pretty bad director after JACK FROST 2, and then focused on writing. Turns out he then wrote two pretty good thriller screenplays for THE I INSIDE (starring Ryan Phillippe) and IDENTITY (starring John Cusack). So the man seems to have some talent after all.

Now it would be far too easy to give JACK FROST 2 the lowest rating possible. So I say one point for that naked Asian babe doing the skinny dipping and one point for those completely retarded snowball babies. Way to go Mr. Cooney!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst film I have ever seen, bar none. From the flimsy-looking, poorly lit sets, to the laughable acting, to the infantile plot and shoddy, drawn-out action sequences, this film is so bad, its hilarious. For about ten minutes. After which you will be reaching for the remote or the power socket to end this film non-experience. Although it was obviously made with the entire production and acting staff's collective tongue rammed in cheek (please God), I found Jack Frost 2 so dreadful as to be unwatchable for more than a quarter of an hour. If you have not had enough of it after this time, you must be indulging in drug abuse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Frost 2 is out of the question, I'm actually surprised people are allowed to make these sort of movies.

As Sam and his wife take to the Tropicana for a relaxing Christmas, Jack returns to kill off the fun and take on a revenge with inbreeding...

Don't take a swip at this film at all, most people say its a laugh with your mates, but frankily its a waste of time. If the people who made this film can get a job by doing what they do, they can at least take the time and effort to write up a better story, especially the cheesy character names.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Frost 2. THE worst \"horror film\" I have ever seen. Why? 1)The premise is WELL beyond ridiculous 2) The damn thing doesn't even have legs to move on! 3) It escapes AFTER being completely submerged in Anti-Freeze (first film) 4) Get this...It travels all the way across an ocean of SALT WATER to a TROPICAL island to get revenge on the sheriff that did him in the first film. 5) \"Killer Snowballs\". I have yet to be drunk enough to see \"Ginger Dead Man\" so as of the writing of this, Jack Frost 2 hold the distinction of being THE stupidest \"horror\" film ever. Even Surpassing the inaneness of it's predecessor (if you can believe that!).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember when I first heard about Jack Frost. I was in Video Ezy at Miranda with my family on a monthly video hiring tradition. It was at this time that I worked up the courage to venture over towards the horror section of the store. Browsing the various titles, I finally came across Jack Frost. The cover was enough to convince me that the film was beyond my viewing pleasures. Years later the film disappeared, only to be replaced with the inevitable yet unnecessary sequel. I once again ventured to the horror section and picked up the case only to come to one conclusion: the film would be scary\u0085 but not intentionally.

Jack Frost 2: Revenge Of The Killer Mutant Snowman (quite a title) follows off where it's predecessor left it. Sheriff Sam is seeking counseling after his ordeals and Jack is now in the form of anti-freeze. To escape his past, Sam and his wife head to an island hotel where he is in the company of a wide variety of slasher film stereotypes including busty female models, thick headed sports jocks and Caribbean staff. However, Jack is released from his liquid grave and is back to his icy methods. He heads over to the island and proceeds to kill anyone that would prove to have an awesome death. Only Sam can stop him.

Let me just say that this is a straight-to-video film so it's bound to be bad. But this is terrible even in the eyes of other over the top films. The camera work is poor, using a camera that would make a soap opera look majestic. Half the actors look like they've come out of a porn shoot and the other half look like they've come out of a retirement home, but in actual fact they've actually come out of an asylum. There is an extensive use of special effects used in the film which tends to alternate between bland puppetry and CGI that can be bettered by an infant, and the death scenes are mostly off screen showing us little of what has happened to the hapless, yet deserving, victims. But the film is most memorable for it's killer one liners such as \"There's something that needs a little Christmas stuffing\" and \"I know pronounce you officially f***ing dead!\" Ultimately the whole purpose behind a film like this is to make a popcorn flick for those Friday nights of boredom and even it fails at that. To make a sequel to a film that was a poor slasher with a concept that a child would find unbelievable must've taken some nerves of steel\u0085 or a total frontal lobotomy. To director Michael Cooney\u0085 thanks for wasting my time. To everyone else\u0085 avoid like arsenic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hello it is I Derrick Cannon and I welcome you to the first ever Cannonite review show. My movie for this week was debatable, what route what movie, what excellent four star epic would I choose, guess what I decided to pull a one eighty and go the other route, I've decided to review a movie so atrocious that it totally killed what could have been a very unique concept. The movie I will review today is Jack Frost Two revenge of the mutant killer snowman. The Stars in this movie include Christopher Allport as Sam Tiller, Eileen Seeley as Anne Tiller, Marsha Clark as Marla David Allen Brooks as Agent Manners, Sean Patrick Murphy as Captain Fun, Ray Cooney as the Colonel and Scott MacDonald as the killer snowman himself Jack Frost.

It's hard to believe that this movie was in the same series that gave us the incredibly funny Jack Frost(loved the carrot scene),but it's even harder to believe that this is the exact same cast. The movie was ruined for me as soon as they arrived on the island and Captain Fun was introduced. What was the point of his character and how did he fit into a horror movie?The only possible reason I could see was that they wanted to give us a character that was total killer snowman fodder. Sam Tiler seemed more paranoid then he did in the original, his babbling about anti freeze was one of the most pathetic display I had seen in a movie. His wife however was one of the few bright spots. She played her role as the main woman to a hilt. She was a voice of reason in film of pure idiocy. The scene where she figures out how to kill the snowmen was one of the most anticipated parts of the movie. Ray MacDonald once again did a great job as Jack Frost despite what he was given. If it wasn't for such weak characters he could have been immortalized like Chucky,Freddy and Jason. Laugh if you must but when it comes down to it Jack Frost had spunk, he had humor, and most importantly he had an undoubtable vicious streak.

This movie could have been so much more, it could have been a continuation of a great franchise, instead any plans to make a Jack Frost three have been canceled.

This movie gets a two out of ten for me, and it's lucky that it even gets a one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Frost returns with an army of Styrofoam balls that can only be foiled by being shot with super-soakers loaded with margaritas. How's that for a plot? The film hinges on such a ridiculous premise that it barely raises an eyebrow when characters are killed with BBQ tongs and are impaled by carrots. You might even say the whole movie is skating on thin ice (ba-boom-tish).

Admittedly, there are some fantastic one-liners including a remark about the Murderous Coconut Shark.

Fair enough times are hard, but that does not excuse the willingness of the actors to take part in such utter tripe.

For those fans hoping to see Jack Frost, be prepared to accept him as merely a phallic carrot creeping up the beach with corny voice-over commentary.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Talk about rubbish! I can't think of one good thing in this movie. The screenplay was poor, the acting was terrible and the effects, well there were no effects. I can't believe the writer of this movie did Identity, everything in this movie made me sick to start to finish.

The front cover of the video box shows a showman with shark like teeth and scary eyes. I looks like a scary villain, but like the old saying \"never judge a book by it's cover\", the whole villain looked like a cardboard cut out. One part in the film a girl gets killed by a salad tongs, terrible. The setting was bad enough, like they could of set the whole thing in Lapland but no, a tropical island instead.

I took this movie as a spoof, which I think they wanted it to be but the only thing that made me laugh in a bad way was the tacky effects. You can argue that I haven't watched the first one, but seeing this I would be safe if I wouldn't attempted it.

The biggest joke in this movie is the effects, the snowballs looked like they were home made, and that carrot was a complete embarrassment. If I would of guess the budget of this movie would of probably be between 8 to 9 pounds fifty. The producer in a last minute panic must of grabbed the actors for the street gave them the script told them they have 6 minutes to practise these lines and shoot on a island.

Lastly the acting in the film was painful, it was like the actors forgot their ordinary lines and made them up the way through.

In conclusion I give this film: 0 stars out of 5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had noticed this movie had been on Cinemax a lot lately, so this morning, I decided to watch it. I had just finished the Infiltrator, which is a great movie, and I thought this looked good as well. From the description the cable had, atleast. This film was awful. It's slow, the pacing is horrible, it feels as tho it lasts 4 hours. There's no real plot to speak of...agh! How can anyone say anything good about this movie. Rickman is good...but he always is...the other two characters work well, but there's no real story to support any of it. After 2 hours, and you sitting there wondering what on earth is going on, where on earth is the plot- it ends with a surprise that frankly just made me sick. Don't bother with this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a classic B type movie that you'd rather not waste your time and see. It started well and i thought it will grow up as a good thriller, but i was mistaking. All movie long you get the feeling that soon something interesting will take place and it will suddenly turn into a tensed thriller, but that doesn't happen. It runs slowly and peacefully til the end, with nothing interesting in it. Just the ending was unexpected and original, but that's it. Vote: 2.5 out of 10. Oh, one more thing. Why is this movie rated R anyway???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is easy for a movie that tries to be suspenseful to wind up being merely uninteresting. It happens quite often. Not only is Dark Harbor uninteresting, but it is very poorly done. Scene after scene is tacked on to an otherwise overdone premise. A troubled couple picks up a troubled stranger only to find more trouble.

Some movies build tension by building the story. Dark Harbor keeps adding on to its story but never building upon it. I was hoping that like other movies, the suspense would finally explode. It never does. Also, the characters have no continuity from scene to scene. They may act one way in one scene, but then act a completely different way in another scene. At first, you think that they are merely out of character, but by the end you realize that they are not really characters at all. They are just props for the final twist. The final ten minutes try to be shocking. Instead, it's rather lame and uninteresting. The only thing that was shocking to me was that the movie finally ended. At less than ninety minutes the movie still feels way too long.

This isn't one of those low-budget gems. It's more like a counterfeit watch that breaks as soon as you take it home.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is really bad, the characters were bland, the story was boring, and there is no sex scene. Furthermore, it lacks drama, the conflict is minimal causing it to be extremely slow paced. Nothing happens in this film, you would expect a sex scene, but they just have a kiss. The plot revolves around three characters, a man, his wife, and a stranger that they pick up from the high way. The couple invite the stranger to stay with them, because he is homeless. At this point you would expect the stranger to have sex with the wife right? No they just kiss and thats it. Also, this film contains no action, no comedy, no drama, and not even suspense. Makes you think that maybe the studio did not even read this script!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie had an interesting surprise. Somewhat psychologically gripping. And the makers could have ended it tastefully without making it just another of a rash of movies put out by Hollywood promoting homosexuality and\/or other sexual deviances. This could have ended with a \"pay-off\", but there were other motives behind the pen. What torques me off is that the mud slung in your face AFTER you've seen the whole movie. Like the disappointing \"The Talented Mr. Ripley\". Yeah sure, I'm just another puritan. This gay content tarnished the whole film. I wouldn't positively judge a movie for artistic or entertainment value if its sole purpose was to promote an ulterior political motivation, more so for this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"WARNING!! This review may contain spoilers. The back of the box is misleading. It says all this crap about kids telling ghost stories, which they do, but then it implies that they will all be killed by some killer in the woods. This doesn't happen. The stories they tell are a little interesting, specifically the one with the dog and all that licking, but most are rather boring, monsters in the woods, some mute girl, and the main one, the whole movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, so the movie went straight to video. If I had paid to see this, I would've been disappointed. But, at 2 am in the morning, alone at night, it's a pretty good fright! (hey, that rhymes!)

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Overall I'd call this a disappointing performance. It attempts the old \"Horror Anthology\" approach, but fails miserably. The acting was bad, and so were the stories. Any skin shown in the movie was obviously random, just to attract the R-rating for sex. Typical, I guess, but bad nonetheless. Take your $5 and rent a REAL movie instead!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the worst and most stupid show I have ever seen on TV. It is almost physically painful to watch an adult (well in his twenties) doing nothing but torture and mock his parents, who always seem to have no clue what so ever about the stunts they are forced to endure by their dimwitted son and his equally stupid friends. Of course I know his parents are in on it, but I really hate how they always act like they are caught completely by surprise. It seems fake through and through. And I really hate the intro of the show, in which a voice over asks \"Bam Margera, what WILL he think of next?!?!\" (I think that's how it is, anyway), and Bam himself answers: \"Whatever the f^*k I want!\" - WOW! Bam is really a hell raiser - living at home with mum and dad! -of course the word \"f^*k\" is replaced with a tasteful beep, but we get the message. Bam is the real deal rebel - at least in his own eyes. Of course Bam and his posse of numb sculls aim at an audience of teenage boys, and of course it's a MTV show, but please, raise the bar a little. It's painfully predictable and stupid, and therefore nothing but boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anyone remember the first CKY, CKY2K etc..? Back when it was about making crazy cool stuff, rather than watching Bam Margera act like a douchebag, spoiled 5 year old, super\/rock-star wannabe.

The show used to be awesome, however, Bam's fame and wealth has led him to believe, that we now enjoy him acting childish and idiotic, more than actual cool stuff, that used to be in ex. CKY2K.

The acts are so repetitive, there's like nothing new, except annoying stupidity and rehearsed comments... The only things we see is Bam Margera, so busy showing us how much he doesn't care, how much money he got or whatsoever.

I really got nothing much left to say except, give us back CKY2K, cause Bam suck..

I enjoy watching Steve-o, Knoxville etc. a thousand times more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bam Margera of the Jackass fame is back with his own reality show, and not only is it not as funny as Jackass, but it's also amazingly stupider! This has to be one of the dumbest shows ever conceived. Sure there are worse reality shows but none are as mean spirited or as dumb.

Bam Margera has made it big, and his parents decided to piggy bank off of his fame. Bam and his parents, his uncle, his crew of idiotic friends all live together, and while Bam and his buddies are off breaking things and getting into mischief, generally his parents are at home being stupid. When Bam's parents aren't at home being lazy, they're being tortured by Bam, especially his father. To add to the humor, we are treated to his fat uncle Don Vitto who is constantly out of it, and never paying attention.

This show really is like a toned down version of Jackass...toned down in that there aren't stunts, instead Bam and his buddies just go break stuff, and do lame stunts, and meanwhile loud music plays to make it all the more awesome. This is not funny in the least. I can't imagine a dumber show than this because there is not an ounce of intelligence found here.

If you are a big fan of Bam Margera, and want to see one of the many follow up\/cash-in sequels to the Jackass series.

My rating: * out of ****. 30 mins. TV14","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"VIVA LA BAM This \"Jackass\" spin off focuses on the (obviously scripted) adventures of Bam Margera and his pals (Johnny Knoxville, Brandon Dicamillo, etc). This show, while it has its fair share of gross-out comedy and crazy stunts, focuses mainly on Bam's torturing of his parents.

I'm sorry to say this, Bam, but... you're in no way as cool as you think you are. This ego tripped show is not only painfully unfunny (and yes, I liked Jackass), but also narcissistic beyond belief. The overly stylized intro ends with Bam coolly explaining that he's going to do \"whatever the f***\" he wants to. How about you do something that is actually funny? I liked \"Jackass\" for what it was worth. The camera-work was horrible - any idiot could have made a better show with a camcorder in their parents' garage - but at least the show moved at a steady pace and never felt boring between the crazy, dangerous or simply disgusting stunts the pals performed.

Not so with \"Viva la Bam\". We follow our hero around as he plays pranks on his friends and tortures his relatives, but never does it feel like anything else than really lame and scripted comedy. The stunts and pranks are mildly entertaining, but presented in such a tedious and dull fashion that they can barely make you smile.

\"Viva la Bam\" is a poor spin-off of that does little good but feed Margera's already too big ego. I don't recommend this lame and unimaginative show to anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have not watched every jackass episode. It was mildly entertaining if nothing else was going. But after watching Jackass #2 i was fond of Bam and Dunn. They had a nice attitude in the movie jackass so i figured i'd tune in on viva la Bam. Boy was i mistaken. Seriously, you could pair a bunch of 2'graders, provide them with the same budget and i bet they could knock off something more creative on the screen. I mean, C'Mon MTV!! At 23 where most people are tuned in you give us this rubbish.

Everything seems so forced. You don't know the characters because there's no attitude at all. You can't appreciate Bam or Dunn, or anyone for that matter. If there would just be a tiny tiny doze of thought. Anything we won't forget as soon as next shot goes on.

They finally manage to create a good shot and you like whats going on. You sit there, just waiting for their reaction, and then some jerk closes the scenes with two lame sentences and bang. Was that the close for that shot or what, please?. If i had been there i would freak out and laugh. Do some insane stuff and have my adrenaline pumping but these guys... Just scripted stupid reactions.

Yes they get a few chuckles of the audience by cheap gross jokes, or gigantic jokes which in my opinion are such a waste of cash.

Many many normal humans which was not taken under the Jackass wing could in a heartbeat write a far funnier script. Or impress with visual camera work. Even spontaneous wannabe cool guys without a script would pull of a better job. MTV could in a whim bring more soothing material on the screen. You just need to fire the writer of this stupid show.

Some scenes actually require a bit of courage and therefore 2 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Reading the other user comments, the review by A666333 has articulated most of what I was feeling throughout this film- predictable storyline, clich\u00e9 versions of lesbians\/heterosexuals (i.e. straight woman becomes a lesbian while concluding that her husband is abusive and aggressive).

Also, the score was severely disappointing. It was bland, soft, sentimental elevator music- another common clich\u00e9 in movies about lesbians. The movie would have had a few interesting dramatic moments if they had not been destroyed by the music.

A few scenes concerning sex and eroticism also struck me as attempts to titillate and raise shock value, including parts of the final performance scene. The conventional \"hot and steamy\" moments were as boring as the overly sentimental score. For example during the pool scene, the women are kissing, and then the camera pans along the abandoned wine glass, the flowing water, the sound of their heavy breathing over the soft crashing of waves.

The only elements I liked were the costuming and arobatics. They are well-choreographed, and the development of attraction between the two characters felt very natural during the training scenes. I genuinely smiled during those, and during the last scene with the police officer. But they were not enough to balance out the negatives or make me enjoy this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My Take: Even splendid underwater photography can salvage a familiar script and paper-thin characters.

For those who haven't already got enough of the FREE WILLY pictures, FLIPPER might serve up a decent rental. Others are (heavily) suggested to stay away. Although FLIPPER is harmless affair, it hardly showcases anything for the adult audience (unless it's your first time to see a dolphin).

A remake of a 1960's TV show and film, FLIPPER may have sound like a good idea back then: A dolphin charms the life of boy and a girl, they help ave the environment by first getting rid of toxic wastes thrown in on the sparkling waters of the Florida Keys, and at the same time, battle a shark and a salty sea baddie who happens to be the one responsible for the toxic dumping and also happens to hate dolphins. But even for the 90's, especially if an eerily similar film like FREE WILLY was a recent hit, FLIPPER is just another harmless yet occasionally empty summer splash movie for the kids. Although the animals (this, in case, is the main dolphin, a clumsy pelican and a realistic-looking hammerhead shark, typecast as the villain) and the pristine underwater cinematography steal the show, there's nothing much in FLIPPER to steal from anyway.

The story is completely predictable, something than nowadays even a 6-year old may find evident. The (Human) cast, led by a pre-LORD OF THE RINGS Elijah Wood and an out-of-work Paul Hogan, have rarely anything to do but stand around and look pretty. Their acting skills, whatever they may be to this movie, is rarely revealed on screen, unless you consider the \"acting\" talents of cheerful Bottlenose Dolphin. I guess not trying to recommend FLIPPER as mindless family entertainment won't be fair, but anyone over the age of 10 (No, make that 8), are better off renting or buying something else. Besides, the film is about 95 minutes tops. That might just give you enough time to something elsewhere without worrying about your kids. That alone might be worth the rental.

Rating: ** out of 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this when it came out in theaters back in 1996. I remember I was already familiar with Elijah Wood's work (that's right, he made stuff before \"Lord of the Rings\"!) and the merchandising tie-ins to the film were pretty abundant (\"Flipper\" water guns were even circulating).

Adults were reminded of the old movies and TV show and for nostalgia's sake took their kids to see it, who were excited because it was a movie about a dolphin and a stupid boy.

Unfortunately it wasn't what anyone expected and flopped severely. You know a movie's in trouble when a boy swims away from a Hammerhead shark in the middle of the ocean, and a pack of dolphins scare the shark away, and the kid -- instead of getting out of the water into a boat -- floats in the water for five minutes thanking his dolphin for saving him ... apparently he hasn't taken into mind that the shark is still out there, perhaps even below him.

Another problem is Paul Hogan. He looks old, crusty and tired of recycling his Croc Dundee shtick. By now, no one even remembered \"Crocodile Dundee\" much less Hogan, and I half expected him to suddenly start pretending he didn't know what a hair dryer was for the sake of fish-out-of-water\/social-satire laughs.

All in all this is a really poor \"family\" movie that is amateurish and almost hard to watch at times. I hated it when I saw it in theaters back in '96 and I hate it more now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's probably a cultural thing---somehow, the natives of this country have been conditioned to find this stuff funny. I have experienced this phenomenon first-hand, during an open-air cinema event, where this film was shown before the feature. Most of the indigenous audience laughed, and no, this wasn't in a sanitarium or a clinic for retarded children, this was in a well-to-do area, and the audience consisted mostly of educated adults.

So it must be possible, somehow, to find this amusing, but honest to goodness, I have no idea what it takes---maybe it's in the air or the water, prolonged exposure to which causes this condition. Something must cause it, obviously, the only thing I can say is that I am quite sure what doesn't cause it: the movie itself.

There are no jokes in it. It's brain dead, stupid, nonsensical, unfunny, lame. It's, in short, a waste of time. Any Tom and Jerry is funnier, heck even funerals are funnier.

Just in case you have been fortunate enough not ever to have seen any of the Stooges' performances: It's three guys behaving, running, even talking like retarded infants, causing all kinds of unfunny mayhem, with no plot, no real purpose, and no real conclusion. It's like ugly Teletubbies without the cute costumes.

Sitting in a crowd watching this garbage in this country can be quite exasperating, because you feel like you are at a party with a bunch of potheads and you are the only one who hasn't smoked anything.

So unless you are prepared to intoxicate yourself to make this bearable, or come equipped with whatever it is that makes people think watching three ugly old men behave like morons is funny, my advice on this is: Stay way. Far away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sadly a great opportunity to utilise a superb cast to bring King Lear up to date. However, instead, we got a contrived family drama that appeared to dip into Lear when the writer had run out of ideas, the cast worked hard but it just didn't gel. Recently Stephen Harrigan showed how to adapt and update the classics with his screenplay for the magnificent TV movie \"King of Texas\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has more on its plate than a sumo wrestler and the result for the viewer is indigestion. There are some good performances, but the subplots are extraneous and largely unresolved.

In addition, I found all the characters unlikeable, and if you can't identify with at least one character, there isn't much to get excited about. All in all, this is a classic example of trying to do too much with too little.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story is derived from \"King Lear\"; the setting is a farm in Iowa. Here's a test for this kind of thing: if you find yourself asking, \"Why did so-and-so do such-and-such,\" and the answer is, \"because that's what happened in 'King Lear',\" you know that the film has failed. Well, that IS what happens here. The father figure in this story isn't living his own life, he's mimicking a fictional one. But there's more wrong with the film than this.

Jocelyn Moorhouse is ambitious - far more ambitious than I think she realises. She's trying to take the King Lear story and completely change the setting. This is a task in itself. The likeliest result is that the transplanted story will die, and nobody will quite be able to work out why (although there are enough successful transplants, like \"West Side Story\", to make it worth trying). But she's ALSO attempting a revisionist retelling. In the version of \"King Lear\" she wishes to create, Reagan and Goneril command our sympathy, and Cordelia is a villain. This is a task in itself, too.

Succeeding at either task is hard; succeeding at both at once is impossible. In fact, succeeding at one while so much as attempting the other, is impossible. If we are to look on the very same events from a different moral perspective then the events must BE the very same events - which means there can be no tampering with setting. If the story is to be transplanted, alive, into a different setting, its moral heart must keep beating the whole while - which means there can be no tampering with ethical perspective. Moorhouse was bound to fail in not just one but in both of her endeavours. And so she did. ...Naturally, it's possible to attempt both tasks, fail at both tasks, yet by some fluke hit upon a work of art that's good for independent reasons. I mention this because I haven't read Jane Smiley's novel, which, for all I know, IS good for independent reasons. But the film isn't. If there was nothing else wrong with it, there would still be no getting around the fact that it's just so thoroughly, excruciatingly DULL. The very fields of corn are even more boring than they would be in real life - which needn't be the case, since off the top of my head I can think of four films (\"The Wizard of Oz\", \"North by Northwest\", \"The Straight Story\", \"Kikujiro\") in which the cornfields aren't boring at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**** Possible Spoiler ****

If you were making a serious movie involving a powerful, but aging father with three apparently ungrateful daughters, featuring actors of the highest caliber, with great cinematography and a beautiful Midwestern setting, now where would you go with it? Why, you'd fashion a modern tragedy after \"King Lear\" of course.

That's what I was expecting. That certainly wasn't what I got. What I got was 105 minutes of feminist tripe--one long harangue about man's inhumanity to woman. Why, there wasn't a decent male in the entire story.

You see early on where this film might be headed, but you can't believe anyone would waste all these fine actors and craftsmen on that trite scenario--you just want them to get on with the King Lear theme. But it never happens; and there's the real tragedy if you ask me.

Aside from the panorama of glorious rural heartland, about the only thing worth watching in this film was that wonderful chameleon, British actor Colin Firth, practicing his Midwestern accent. Now there was a treat.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dear Mr. Seitzman, Or Whomever I May Hold Responsible For Mr. Seitzman Not Meeting His Rightful Fate Of Being Eaten Alive by Rabid Wolverines;

I do not know you, and so cannot comment on your character; for all I know, you give to charities and help little old ladies cross the street. Still, I must insist, for the common good, that you never write another screenplay as long as you live. Put down the pen, step away from the laptop!

If you refuse to heed the pleading of wounded brains, I have watched a movie or two in my life, and I believe you will find my counsel helpful:

1. Do not include love scenes in which overwrought teenage boys name the body parts of their girlfriends after US states. If you must pen such a scene, please do not name the breasts \"New York\" and \"New Jersey\"; it causes unnecessary speculation as to which cities occupy the nipples. Also, it is almost incomprehensibly stupid and annoying.

2. Do not rely solely on John Hughes movies in order to reinforce class distinctions.

3. Do not bludgeon the audience over the head with exhausted clich\u00e9s. Yes, yes, Kelley and Sam stand out in the rain, and it cleanses them of their cares. We get it. Yes, the roses continue to bloom in Kelley's dead mother's greenhouse, even though every other plant has begun to rot. It Is A Symbol Of Their Love. It is also very painful when applied via blunt-force trauma to the backs of our heads. For the love of God, Mr. Seitzman, we get it. We all get it, all across the land. Amish people, the hard of hearing, unborn babies - we all get it.

4. Do not require the actors to perform mime sequences. Ever. No, never.

5. Did I mention that you should ease up on the trite symbolism? Because the audience can draw the parallel between the rebuilding of the restaurant and the building of the relationship between Kelley and Sam without any help. Truly. We get it.

6. Go through your script, and cull out the following lines, and any lines resembling them: \"I don't know what we are anymore.\" \"I don't want to lose you.\" \"He's just like the rest of them!\" (And its corollary, \"Daddy, you don't even know him!\")

7. Yes, yes, she's in heaven, running around in a field. We get it.

8. And in other news, we get it.

I have seen dozens of terrible movies in my life; I never expected to suffer for your art, and I would have just left the theater, but an elephant with the words \"DOOMED LOVE\" painted on its side fell from the sky and pinned me to my seat.

In closing, your writing bites, you owe me ten dollars, and I hate you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"..that separate good, memorable movies from movies like this. Its not entertaining, touching, funny, interesting and at times feels a little sub-human. The principals act like they are other-worldly, in the worse way, when they are supposed to be relating to each other and the audience.

Starts out conventionally enough. Rich kid gets new car for graduation but the dean says he can't have the car until after the ceremony. Goes joy-riding nonetheless, and stops in the diner on the wrong side of the tracks for a quick argument with the local yokels. Wise-asses the waitress\/girlfriend of the head yokel. Shockingly, they play chicken until they accidentally burn down the diner they left three minutes earlier (aren't all diners five feet from the gas station?).

They told they have to Pay The Price in court, so the only reason to get this 'fish out of water' to stay in town is to come up with the scenario that both boys have to assist in the rebuilding of the diner. Worse than that, the rich kid in staying with the family of the un-rich kid..in the room above the attic. That 'room above the attic' has rescued many a person in need of a bed..

Rich kid inexplicably is treated well by the girlfriend, who never mentions to him that he nearly killed her. This does not bode well, of course, with her boyfriend, and is never fully explained. You don't know why Sam (Leelee Sobieski) falls for Kelley (Chris Klein), or why Jasper (Josh Hartnett) allows it.

Chris Klein is tolerable, Leelee completely intolerable, and Josh does not register much of an impression. The character with the most life is the judge that sentences Kelley and Jasper to help re-build the diner. She gets off at least one funny remark, which is more than anyone else does. Everyone is so morose and humorless that you will feel a little sill if you even think of smiling while the movie is on.

The ending is one way to end the piece, not the most original, but at least it was over. I don't enjoy trashing a movie that some little girl somewhere in the world might really love, but since I am not one, I have to. The nicest thing I can say about this movie is that its not mean-spirited, and although it fails to compel, its innocence and home-spun, corny dialogue comes from a nice place. 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie to see the direction one of the most promising young talents in movies was going. Unfortunately, with this movie, Leelee Sobieski has chosen a path not only well worn, but completely free of any meaningful destination. This movie used every hackneyed trick in the book to leave the screen, tap you on the shoulder and politely ask if it can have your heartstrings so that it may give them a good tug. Romance can be done well, and when it is, the viewer is left feeling the love portrayed on screen. During the emotional climax of this movie, I laughed. Heartily. To save you the time and money, I would suggest, instead of seeing this movie, you have a meal of Karo syrup and Velveeta. It's about the same.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To be fair, it has been several years since I watched the bile committed to celluloid known as \"Here on Earth,\" so forgive me if my memory of the film is a little sketchy. I'll stick with the main points which plague the soul of the unfortunate viewer.

Scene One: Chris Klein, after having been thrown out of prep school (because he looks like a seventeen year old--yes, very believable), gives what I assume is his valedictorian speech...to a field. Let me repeat that for you--a field. I think we're supposed to be moved by the combination of shame and eloquence he is failing to express. Klein has the delivery and facial expressions of a cardboard cutout. He is a decent looking piece of cardboard, but little more.

Scene Two: After some joyriding and teenage pyromaniac hijinks, Chris Klein and Josh Hartnett do some damage to the local diner, of which he is forced to rebuild. Of course. Because who better to help with construction than some random moron who crashed into it\/ burned it in the first place. Better yet, let's have said random moron move in on Josh Hartnett's girl, Miss Sobeski, the girl he fancies for...her equally wooden line delivery?

Scene Three: Chris Klein's character is making out with Leelee Sobeski's character and decides to name her various body parts after the states on the eastern seaboard. My soul weeps. Really, how can this scenario turn out well? Surely you must alienate several million people if you imply their home is equivalent to Miss Sobeski's more...erm...feminine areas. Secondly, naming her breasts after New York and New Jersey prompts some confusion as to whether Miss Sobeski is actually freakishly disproportionate.

Scene Four: Leelee is running. She falls down. This gives her...knee cancer. \"We always knew it could come back,\" her father(?) says. Right. Knee cancer. From tripping. Perhaps I missed something. As I said, it's been a few years. Surely I missed something. Didn't I? For the love of God, please tell me the girl did not contract KNEE cancer from falling down.

That scream you just heard was my soul dying.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A fine young cast is wasted in this empty, mawkish, manipulative film that tries to be a combination of both a cute comedy and an insightful drama. The plot moves so slowly that the 90 minutes seems endless as characters do nothing but mope and emote. The dialogue is filled with stilted cliches and fortune-cookie attempts at pseudo-philosophy.

Apparently aiming at being a moving and profound look at life and love, the film ends up being merely pretentious. The only real weight is the burden that the talented cast is forced to carry as best they can. But, never fear -- they are held up by the puppet strings of the contrived plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*** This comment may contain spoilers *** Warning: this does contain spoilers I have seen some pretty lame films in my day. And that only stands to reason seeing as I see about 80 films a year. I would have to say that out of those 80 films I see at the theater, maybe 5 are really really good, 15 or 20 are not that great, 40 or 50 are okay and then maybe 5 or 10 are absolutely terrible. Here On Earth falls into a category unto itself. This is one of the most predictable, vehement, despicable films I have ever seen. It is loaded with unlikable characters, maudlin situations about after-school-special kinds of topics and enough fluff in here to make THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS look like American BEAUTY. And I am not being unfair. This is an awful film.

This is the story of a rich guy, a poor girl, a poor guy and a small town that makes fresh cookies every day for all of it's town folk. Are you getting warm and fuzzy yet? Let me continue. One day, the rich snot comes waltzing into town with his new graduation present that his dad has bought for him and he insults the pretty girl at the diner, almost gets in a fight with her long time boyfriend and then races him and destroys the little diner that she works at. So he is sentenced to a summer in the small town where he and the boyfriend have to fix the diner together. What this does is gives us plenty of opportunity to see Chris Klein with no shirt on so we can understand why the girl at the diner would fall for him. He has abs!!! Oh and he is rich!!! And.... he is the biggest jerk with no respect for anyone. He is James Dean, he is a rebel that doesn't give a damn!! He is rude to everyone in town, he doesn't want to associate with anyone that is trying to be nice to him and he acts like a spoiled rich brat. But Leelee Sobieski still falls for him. There is no reason given as to why she does, she just does. Oh, pardon me, that's right I forgot to mention that he likes the same poet that she does. Well if that doesn't get you wet then I don't know what will.

Here On Earth also has some of the most predictable moments I've ever been privy to in film. There was one point when I left the theater to get some popcorn and read the graffiti on the wall of the bathroom and I told my fianc\u00e9e exactly what was going to happen in the next ten minutes. Upon my return she just laughed and said I was right, even when I said that there was going to be a dancing scene. And furthermore, the disease that she suddenly contracts is cancer. This is the most beautiful cancer patient I have ever seen. Have you ever watched a cancer patient die slowly? They lose weight, they lose their hair, their gums begin to rot. It is not a pretty picture. Sobieski glows after she contracts cancer, like she is pregnant. What an insult to people that have watched love ones die slowly from this disease. And how do you contract knee cancer from falling down in the field?

Now I realize I have seen way too many movies and this causes my cynicism to run rampant at times, but this is ridiculous. There wasn't one thing to like about this film or the Chris Klein character. He is a jerk, he is obnoxious and he never once tries to make peace with anyone around him. Here On Earth is not only a bad film, it is an irresponsible one. This received a 4.2 on the IMDb voting chart, and that is way too high. This is an embarrassment to screen writing and whoever gave the green light to this being made should not only lose their job, but he or she should have to promise never to step foot near a script again.

0 out of 10, and that is being generous. This film should be shown at film schools as how not to write and direct a film.

If you are bored and really need something to do and your choices are cleaning a farm full of cow manure or watching this film, choose cleaning the cow manure. It'll smell better and you'll feel like you've done something good with your two hours.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why did they have to waste money on this crap?!

WARNING! CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!

The plot: down-to-earth-good-kind-girl meets a rich-snob-ignorant guy. Her boyfriend gets jealous and with the guy, they burn down a resturant? (Over an UGLY girl?) Guy has to stay in town to build a new resturant, perfect for the love story to begin. But, hark!!! The girl is dying!!! Isn't that a surprise boys and girls? But she teaches him love life, and enjoy it. He's sad she is dying. She dies. He is sad. But has now learned to love life.

What's the moral of the story? When, dying, teach another person to love life.

LIKE EVERY OTHER LOVE MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!

AAAAAH! This movie was the crapiest thing I have ever seen!!!! Did the director want to try to make this plot original?! AAAH! And the friggin' girl would not die!!! It took her a half hour?! I felt no pity for the charactors, and the love story died the first hour of the movie.

1\/10

DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE, UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE BORED OR GET A HEAD ACHE!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** HERE ON EARTH \/ (2000) 1\/2* (out of four)

Mark Piznarski's \"Here on Earth\" holds the record for a movie containing the most recycled material in 96 minutes. Literally every contrivance, clich\u00e9, and familiar plot element are somewhere in here; there is simply nothing unique, original, or fresh about it. God, what an agonizing motion picture to sit through; I wish I saw the film during its theatrical release last year so it could have earned on my year's worst list. This is the kind of movie where the story makes itself instantly obvious, and goes downhill from the opening credits, and worst of all, takes itself seriously. \"Here on Earth\" is clearly one of the most horrible, painful movies to come down the pike in some time.

\"Here on Earth\" is a teen heartthrob film, so it must contain some of Hollywood's most prized young men who are attractive and inexperienced enough to accept a role in a movie as bad as this. Chris Klein and Josh Hartnett fit that vary description, and take the lead roles by storm. Klein plays Kelley, an arrogant and insolent student with a wealthy father (clich\u00e9 number one). He is to graduate as the valedictorian and attend Ivy league college following in the footsteps of his father (Stuart Wilson). This sets up the \"I don't want your life,\" clich\u00e9 in which the father tries to control his son's life, while the son resists rebelliously. Throw in Kelley's deceased mother who committed suicide a while back. When his father brings home another woman, he brutally questions his intentions (the \"no one can replace mom\" clich\u00e9 counts as number two).

Josh Hartnett plays Jasper, a character on the opposite side of society to Kelley. His family owns a local diner. Enter his long-time love interest, Samantha Cavanaugh (Leelee Sobieski) a waitress at the diner who covers for her sister (who has no purpose whatsoever rather than controlling the following scene) when Jasper and Kelley act like childish morons by racing their cars and (oh no) crashing into the diner, causing it to erupt into flames. (Conflicts between the rich and poor will count as clich\u00e9 number three.)

The bungled car chase sets both Kelley and Jasper up for a contrived and plausible conflict. They get in trouble with the law, but because this movie feels the need to exist, the local judge orders them an alternative to serving time: they must work together to help rebuild the diner.

The two boys work hard during the summer growing strong and getting a nice tan. Samantha's eye catches Kelley, and romantic sparks fly. Jasper is jealous, but wants what is best for his true love (clich\u00e9 number four). Her parents (Annette O'Toole and Bruce Greenwood) disapprove of her little romantic triangle (clich\u00e9 number five), but she continues two timing Jasper without a second thought. Her father also happens to be the local sheriff, how surprising (lets count that melodramatic nugget clich\u00e9 number six).

The contrived romantic feelings between Kelley and Samantha count as clich\u00e9 number seven. But Samantha's relationship with Jasper is never defined, so how can there any romantic tension? If the film is going to induce involvement in Samantha's choice between the two young men, then we need to see both characters from both sides. The movie depicts Jasper as a distraction to her \"rightful love,\" Kelley. It's clear Jasper truly loves her, but it is also clear she does not love him back. This absolutely slaughters the romantic tension early in the story.

Leelee Sobieski does no harm here; however, her charm and kind performance do not fit a two-timing character like Samantha. John Hartnett is also right for the role of Jasper, but the movie gives him nothing to do except bicker with Kelley. Chris Klein gets to make a hunk name for himself here; he spends much of the movie shirtless, sweaty and overworked. Unfortunately he does not show off his acting ability, maybe because he has very little. The supporting cast is much more talented. Bruce Greenwood supplies the best performance in the film, but does not have near enough screen time to save anything but a few brief moments. I also enjoyed the performance by Stuart Wilson, who perfectly fits the role of a rich, controlling father of high social status.

Then we lean about Samantha's knee problem exactly one hour and ten minutes into the movie (another spoiler ahead). What is this, she has a serious incurable illness (yet another contrivance into the picture, approximately number eight). Her terminal disease brings the two competing young men together as friends, well, at least I think that is what the movie intended to show, that the loss of one loved by two nemeses can bring both together (clich\u00e9 number nine).

Klein rehearses his valedictorian speech to demonstrate his character is more than a shallow stereotype, but we have seen this so many times before I would prefer a rich character rather than a deeply sentimental who hides actual feelings (clich\u00e9 number, um, was it ten)?. The conflicts between Kelley and Jasper are desperate and inane; a \"your mom\" comment triggers a fist fight while they rebuild the establishment. There is a retread from \"Armageddon,\" as Samantha and Kelley sprawl out in an open field, horny as hell, as he slowly moves his fingers around her body, naming areas after US cities (why not call that number eleven). The movie uses alcohol as a means to increase the romantic tension: an intoxicated Kelley makes a fool of himself after getting in a fight with Samantha's date, Jasper, but the following day he recites desires only to dance (clich\u00e9 number, oh no, I am losing count).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a sad waste of two such promising actors. Chris Klein's character was unlikable from the start and never made an improvement. What did she see in him?? He was rarely kind, never thankful for what he does have...and a coward. Pass this one by on the shelves. You'll be glad you did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rich vs. poor. Big city vs. small town. White collar vs. blue collar. These things are not original themes in movies. So when one chooses to involve these themes, the situational story-line had better be very original, or very good. This one was neither. I never believed in the romance of the two young lovers in this movie. Neither convincing nor compelling, it just fell flat. Don't bother, even with a video rental.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This excruciatingly boring and unfunny movie made me think that Chaplin was the real Hitler, as only someone as evil as him could torture people with this tripe. I saw this movie remastered, which only made the suffering inflicted by this atrocity more severe. This movie is nothing but a pathetic, repetitive movie, which instead of inducing two hours of laughter, it induced two hours of suicidal urges. After the first 10 minutes of this, I began wishing that gas would start seeping from the speakers of the theatre.

If I could give it a zero out of ten I would happily do so. Avoid at all costs!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, this movie was horrible. As a Bills fan I was really looking forward to it, but this was bad. They should have left it on the shelf it was on for 4 years. I can't believe a guy like Jon Voight would sign on for something like this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't normally write reviews, but this \"film\" was special. I couldn't turn it off. I don't believe I've ever seen a worse movie, but there I sat, watching. It was like a horrible car wreck with blood flowing all over the highway. It was disgusting, but I couldn't turn away. Where do I start? The movie seems to think it's a sports thriller, but it's so utterly ridiculous, it can only be a comedy, but it's not funny, not even in a dumb\/silly way. It's like watching your cousins try to act out a skit on family get-togethers. It's painful to watch, but at least it's only for a minute or two. Second String went on for over an hour.

Whoever was involved with making this movie should not work again. The writing, directing, acting, and everything was just terrible. The problem is I can't describe how bad it was; you just had to see it. And I'm sure this will NEVER be shown again, so unless you saw it, you're out of luck. I mean it was almost worth seeing just for the fact that it gave me some appreciation for every other \"bad\" film I've seen over my lifetime. And for every film I see in the future that I can't stand, I will think to myself, well, at least it wasn't bad as the Second String.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why do I hate this? Let me list the ways:

I have nothing against Mary Pickford but a 32 year old woman playing a 12 year old is just stupid.

There's a fight scene in which kids are throwing bricks at each other and it's considered funny---and it goes on for 15 minutes

Strange how none of the kids are even remotely hurt

The title cards contain plenty of racial and ethnic slurs

For a \"family\" film the fights were WAY too violent (loved it when Pickford was punching it out with a little boy!) and the humor was just stupid

Seriously, 40 minutes in I gave up and turned it off. The slurs, racism and little kids throwing bricks at each other got to me. Also there was no plot that I could see. The only thing worth seeing in this film was William Haines who was a top leading man in the silent era.

Just painful. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Elderbush Gilch was a big disappointment for me. I'd heared how great it was, how important it was. It just didn't strike me. It had a dim-witted story line, plus some moronic and sadistic Native American characters that are thurroughly offensive by today's standards. While most of D.W. Griffith's films have depth and intelegence, this one feels more like a formula-baised programme picture.

I loved seeing Lillian Gish and Mae Marsh in pre-Birth of a Nation roles, plus some of the staging of the battle scenes were pretty good. Acording to future Griffith cameraman Karl Brown, audiences were standing on their seats and cheering once the cavalry comes riding in at the end. I felt nothing. And beleave me, I lve watching Griffith's early work at Biograph. This film just isn't what it used to be.

The best thing about this film it that, for all of it's flaws, it has many of Griffith's touches to it. He handles his principal actors pretty well, plus the scene where the indians are encircling the cabin it reminiscent to the climax of Birth of a Nation, a far superior film that would send shock waves across America a little over a year later.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When voting I was going to give a 2 but when seeing that 1 meant awful it hit the nail on the head.The portrayal of native americans as blood thirsty savages is deeply disturbing to me.This is the third film I've seen of D.w. griffiths where races of men are stereotyped in ugly ways.The man isn't able to tell his side of the story so I'm going to try and keep away from attacking Mr. griffith personally.In my opinion the three films probably influenced the thinking of millions of people and their children's children.Films like this probably made for many of the resentments that are still with us..Some may say the camera work was great,the action a first for it's time.The positives are far outweighed by the negatives,it's like someone taking $10 from you and giving a dime back to make up for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While the writing was terrible, the acting was atrocious, the only thing that saved this \"turd\" was the breast count, but that wasn't enough to make me watch this again. All said and done I'm actually dumber from watching this movie. This was a new low for Troma. Lloyd Kaufman starting the movie wearing a garbage bag and making fart noises should have made me realize what I was getting into. This was by far one of the worst ever put out by the Troma team. The best place to show this movie would be to invalids, sense they can't get up to change the channel. To conclude this is not a swift recommendation to watch this movie just for the breasts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I understand that this was Llyod Kaufman's attempt to save a movie that was the pits. The whole movie is voiced over since the audio reel was junk. The voice overs were SO bad and terrible quality. As much as I love Troma, they tend to be a little heavy on the voice over work. The acting was terrible. One thing I did enjoy from this movie was the quick cameo of Trey Parker doing the aristocrats joke with a goofy wig on. There are a lot of big director dudes in this movie like James Gunn and Eli Roth (friends of Lloyd Kaufman). Again I think this was Llyods attempt of saving a crappy movie and trying not to lose 1000s of dollars. I won't go on and on but this movie was a mess. Check out other Troma titles.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Tales from the Crapper\" is gory, disgusting, tasteless, offensive, lowbrow and scatological. But that's OK, I was prepared for all that from my previous Troma experiences. What I WASN'T prepared for is that it's also witless, unfunny and boring. Very little of the genuine anarchic spirit of films like \"Class of Nuke'em High\" has remained intact; in its place, we get ENDLESS fart jokes (to the point where you start wondering if Lloyd Kaufman is going senile, thinking that adults find loud farting so darn hilarious!) and a cynical, shameless exploitation of the viewer, who is essentially investing time and money to see a \"film\" that even Kaufman himself seems to know should never have been released in the first place. Oh yes, there is plenty of female nudity on display, but let's face it: the average porn film probably offers a better storyline, higher production values, funnier humor, and above all more RESPECT for its intended viewer than this atrocity.

P.S: Kelly Powers AKA Suzi Lorraine (the blonde lesbian student in the \"How to make your own movie\" segment) is one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Troma founder, Lloyd Kaufman is The Crapkeeper in this anthology film made up of two films that were such celluloid feces that Llyod tried to salvage them by combining the two into one anthology film and throwing in copious amounts of nudity whenever possible. Does it work? nope, it's still crap that I'd have to scrape off my boots if I stepped in it.Will anyone like this mess? Sure, Young teen aged mongoloids with the combined IQs of a Vienna sausage have to laugh at something, I guess. For those who have brains that are even semi-functioning steer clear though and watch something less insulting to your intelligence, even \"Dude, Where's my car\" would do.

My Grade: F","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With Matthias Hues on the cover and only $3.00, i had to buy it. I enjoyed some moments, like Hawks annoyance with the pleasure droids, but i only really watched to see Matthias Hues' scenes. I particularly enjoyed the showdown at the end. It was a cross between Clint Eastwood's \"The Good, The Bad and The Ugly\" and \"For a Few Dollars More\" (a 3 man quick-draw showdown, with a musical pocket watch used as the countdown timer). Apart from that, there's really nothing more I can add. The actors gave good performances, (all except the \"Assassin Droid\" whose performance was nothing outside of comical) but the movie really lacked depth and purpose; simply not enough to fill up 1hour and a half of standard movie time, so we're stuck with the main characters aimlessly wondering around from place to place for an hour or so, until the ball gets rolling. For example, the main character returns to the same strip club about 4 times, taking up two-fifths of the movie.

The scenery really lacked depth and creativity, probably due to the films budget. I don't think we ever did get to see this \"perfect city\" of New Angeles that was always talked about, in fact, when the main characters finally reached New Angeles, its set in a factory or warehouse full of pipes and walkways; hardly the kind of \"kingdom\" the owner\/creator of an entire city would dwell in. The \"super-high security\" of New Angeles was also always talked about, but only a total of 15, maybe 20, security guards were counted, even when the alarm went off; not even close to Matthias' approximation of \"at least a hundred men out there\".

If you are a fan of any of the actors\/actresses in this film, then you may want to watch it, simply to \"add it to the list\". However, if you value 1 and a half hour of your time, or $3.00 of your money, you may want to give this one a miss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My first thoughts on this film were of using science fiction as a bad way to show naked women, althought not a brilliant story line it had quite a good ending","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cyber zone, as this DVD was sold in Oz, is about the worst B-Grade junk I have seen. Apart from a restrained deadpan act from Singer, indicating he knew how bad the movie was going to be, the other actors sway about genuine attempts at line delivery (Swanson and Quarry) or absurd imitations of classic movies scenes. Mathius Hues makes the most ham-fisted portrayal of dying since Jim Carrey's Mask. All of this with no real thread to suggest an attempt at a spoof by genre, period or any common vein is plain annoying. Don't even try to join the dots with the plot. It is Blade Runner, thinly disguised with no content, actors or scenery due to a very limited budget. \"You gets what you pay for\" is never more apparent. There is repeatedly annoying re-use of limited sets, with no attention to set dressing and a spew of special effects that would have hit the cutting room floor for Dr Who in 1976. The Helicopter explosion is worth a rewind to demonstrate my point. Of course there are masochists that will lap up this tripe but if you are watching this movie for a bet, make sure you get more than your pay rate. At $2 this DVD will make a cheap and interesting beer coaster.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was given this film by my uncle who had got it free with a DVD magazine. Its easy to see why he was so keen to get rid of it. Now I understand that this is a B movie and that it doesn't have the same size budget as bigger films but surely they could have spent their money in a better way than making this garbage. There are some fairly good performances, namely Jack, Beth and Hawks, but others are ridiculously bad (assasin droid for example). This film also contains the worst fight scene I have ever seen. The amount of nudity in the film did make it seem more like a porn film than a Sci-Fi movie at times.

In conclusion - Awful film","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the early 1990's \"Step-by-Step\" came as a tedious combination of the ultra-cheesy \"Full House\" and the long-defunct loopy classic hit \"The Brady Bunch\". The differences between \"Step-by-Step\" and the two aforementioned shows was of course better writing, excellent comedic timing from almost all of it's actors, and a great deal funnier situations that weren't quite as sugar-coated as it's extremely popular predecessors. Admittedly though, even with the big boosts in the show's basic dynamics and all it still wasn't exactly spectacular, nor was it really even that memorable in the long line of corny family programming! It was just a much better time-passer, you might say, in comparison to the cutesy migraine-inducing \"Full House\", which coincidentally, ran neck-and-neck with \"Step-by-Step\" during that time period in terms of overall popularity. The show, now in syndication obviously, is certainly suitable family-fare but be sure to not expect much beyond that when watching it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Back in the cold and creepy early 90's,a show called \"Family Matters\" aired and became an instant classic.The trick was to buy a manual in standard family situations and their solutions and insert some attempts to sarcastic remarks in it and you had yourself a lovely little stealing-is-wrong,parents-are-right-show. So that worked out fine, so Bickley-Warren had a new ambitious plan: making the exact same show again.

Here's the difference though: \"Family Matters\" had Urkel. \"Step By Step\" has the guy from those \"Kickboxer\"-sequels nobody saw. He says things like \"dudette\" and \"the Dane-meister\", and somehow the audience is still not supposed to hate him. I mean seriously, \"dudette\"? How can you even get that across your lips?

The rest of the people were mostly white versions of the whole Winslow-bunch, combined with some more one-or-zero-dimensional characters, like the dumb guy (JT. Well, Eddie), the smart girl (Laura), and a pretty girl who spends her days looking pretty(in theory).The character development was just awful in this show. Grover and The Cookie Monster have more depth than the Lambert family. Everybody just milked their stereotypes for what they were worth. They weren't worth much.

Powered by a massive laugh-and-cheer tape stolen from something funny,this show aired for a whopping 7 years,which was humiliating for the competition.Although,you'll have to note that this is the time where family sitcoms were pretty much all big hits,everybody just ignored their crappyness because well,it was the 90s,one more crappy show didn't hurt.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, my summary just about tells it all.

If you haven't watched this, try it. But not for pleasure. For studies of one of the worst examples of trying to be politically correct, family-oriented and \"cool\" at the same time.

The men always think they know everything, are stupid, and finally loose to the magnificent women. Etc.. This is especially offensive, when all the characters are just as terrible and stereotypic. I mean, ok, \"Cody\" was funny one time or another, but unlike other \"stupid characters(tm)\" like Woody in Cheers or Joey in Friends, he doesn't get good lines. His stupidity is cast in a \"duude\" way, which gets quite annoying after a while.

The family morale is awful. Everything for the family. Mother and father are supreme dictators, who inbetween severe punishing and old-fashioned parenting, constantly say they \"love\" their kids, and then of course, in the end, the kids love them back *barf*.

And: There's always a \"tender spot\" like that squeezed into the \"action\", where american(c)(tm) morale lessons are forced upon the viewers, about sex (in a mature, you can't have sex before you're 18 (!!), kind of way), or drugs. Even church-habits are thoroughly described here. The whole concept is directly sickening, all made in a half-hearted way to make money. If there are people like Karen and Frank out there, please lock them up and desintegrate the key.

So, with themes ranging as far as revolting religious propaganda, I think it's fair to conclude as I did in my subject...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot see how anyone can say that this was a real good entertaining movie. With a few well known actors I found it hard to believe that this was only made in 2005. It's crap! The acting is tantamount to amateur dramatics, poor amateur dramatics. Unless you want to laugh loudly at an amazing 100 minutes of pure corn, don't bother to download it or rent it, worst that I have seen in years. It's from the bygone days of acting, where cowboys are shooting 8 bullets from the six-shooters. The more well known the actor, the worse they were, Drury was just sad. I was extremely disappointed with Lee Majors, has he actually stooped to this sort of garbage? It was bad enough when he played the six million dollar man.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not sure what the point of making this film was. It looked as if it was made by some historical society to be shown in your local 'Pistol Pete' museum. At first it appears that it could be the beginning of a Mad TV or SNL sketch. But then the joke is on you when there is no punchline and you realize that someone was taking this seriously. The story wasn't bad but the inclusion of the SASS members seemed to be a ploy (that worked) to get me to see the film. I swear, the trailer listed every character in the film down to \"dead cowboy #5\". The reason Westerns are so fun is the atmosphere and the characters it brings. I just had the feeling I was watching Civil War rean-actors dressed up as cowboys. Not even worth the digital video it was recorded on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love a good Western movie, but this was more like watching a play on stage or an act at the local street carnival show. I could only stand 38 minutes of it in hopes that it would improve, but it only got worse and I had to end it. Each actor(s) stated the lines as if reading directly from the script or cue cards. There was too much predictability to the lines and actions not as if a natural occurrence or conversation. The wig on Rachel Kimsey was obvious. The actresses playing Native American sisters, could have played non-native parts and should have. Wardrobe for the Native Americans could have been better and a little more authentic looking. If I decide to watch it with any friends in the future, I will do so, not with the expectations of watching a good Western, but with the expectations of watching an amateur comedy film production.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's no use trying to describe in detail the convoluted, overly melodramatic plot involving Civil War bitterness, a crooked town boss, and other complications. It's all bad.

Stella Stevens, Andrew Prine, Bo Svenson, William Smith, Tim Thomerson and Lee Majors are all good actors that may not be big stars (or big stars anymore) but always made fun movies.

Here, they're all wasted on a picture that looks like it was shot in a wild west tourist trap, with costumes borrowed from the local high school theater department. In fact, most of the acting appears to be on the high school level too, which might not be so bad if it weren't so pretentious.

The name of Ed Wood is invoked way too lightly these days. I think in this case the comparison is warranted. However, I suspect that old Ed would have made a more entertaining western than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am not sure who is having more fun, the people that wrote the reviews or the director of the movie. I could not go any longer reading this comments or watching this movie, I had to say something.

I can see a low budget western film that is done with passion and interest on the detail, but using a garage with art deco lettering, pastel colors, actors that seem to be falling sleep because the script is so boring and the boom getting on the way of the camera every two scenes, that is definitely not my definition of \"one of the best western movies produced in the new Millennium\".

Please if any of you guys had friends in the movie just say it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The seasoned actors in this do know how to act and have proved that before but the Director, who also wrote and produced this travesty, is incompetent on so many levels. O.K. it's low budget but I know films students with lower budgets and lesser known actors who can do much, much better. For example, since there were people involved who should know better some of the gun rigs were totally out of place and never existed in those days. The stunt work was clumsy - the story stale and hokey. If some one gives you a copy of this use it for a coaster. By the way, I love westerns and have known many stunt men and even went to high school with one of the actors so I was looking for it to be good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I simply cannot believe the folks that made and performed in this movie really took it seriously. The skits on SNL look more real. Everything was laughably fake. The goofy gunfights, the ridiculous fist fights, the dialogue, the sappy background music, and even Bo's blind eye. Had it been billed as a comedy, it still would have made more sense but still would be bad. I can see this as \"entertainment\" only if you get a room full of stoned college kids watching it like it were Rocky Horror Picture Show. Imagine some of the stuff you saw on Blazing Saddles, like Mongo knocking the horse down or the old lady gettinf stomach-punched. Now imagine the producer wants you to take those scenes seriously and you get the gists of this disaster.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not sure if this is just a lousy movie or if it was intended to be a mockery of a \"B\" Western. Story line was so-so but the filming, editing and acting were just plain bad. Plus the music in the background was irritating to no end, too loud and just non-stop. Many times you could not make out the dialog over the background music. I'm in SASS (Single Action Shooting Society) and do some Old West shooting with them, and a lot of the actors are members of this group, so that's why I bought it. If you have no interest in this group of people, or that sport, you certainly most likely wouldn't even have this little bit of interest to help out with the film. The acting of even the veteran actors (particularly Stella Stevens) left a lot to be desired also.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has got to be the worst case of over acting since the silent era. Not just one or two actors but virtually the entire cast. Lee Majors and Bo Svenson were fine but the rest of them look like their first time acting.

So the budget was not tremendous. Much of the costumes and set were believable but there were many things that jump out at the viewer to let us know that they couldn't double check or get all of the props to match the period.

I can't think of one aspect of the film that I liked or didn't shake my head. Your time will be better spent burning lint collected from your bellybutton.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hell to Pay was a disappointment. It did not have anywhere near the substance of a B Western movie, and should in no way be compared to a fantastic movie like Silverado. The dialog was dull, the plot was torpid, the soundtrack was overbearingly unnecessary, and the acting was awful. Even the professionals could've taken some lessons from the Sunset Carson School of Acting. The only positive thing about this movie is that it showcased some of the top Cowboy shooters in the nation, but you can see them in a better light in any SASS video. The packaging of this feature makes it very enticing, and the preview is decent, but it's all over after that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know you've got a bad film when you hear that the soundtrack is performed completely on a single cheap programmable synthesizer, without any melody or sense of rhythm.

It's hard to see how anyone could take this film seriously, even while giving it a bad review. This film is way beneath 'bad'.

The continuity of this film is outrageously butchered. In one fight scene, we the hero (wearing bluejeans and undershirt) turn a corner with two revolvers in his hand; he doubles back, only now he has two semi-automatics in his hands; he turns another corner and now he has an automatic rifle in his hands; he chases down a hallway and comes out (suddenly dressed in standard army fatigue jacket)with a shotgun; after which he exits the building with yet another automatic rifle. Or here's one for the books - a bus slams into a car at high speed; the car goes flying, thrown by a gigantic explosion - cut to the bus which is completely unscathed from the same explosion? The narrative continuity suffers from an equally numbing sense of unreality; the bad guys really want to kill the hero - obviously - but every time they knock him out or otherwise get him in a vulnerable position, they suddenly decide they want him \"to live to see this!\" Huh? One of the funnier moments of the film is when the hero is released from isolation because his lawyer has come to see him; then the bad guy decides he's not going to let the two meet after all; and this despite the fact that the the villain, the hero and his lawyer all know what's going on anyway, so the hero writes a note to the lawyer and next we see the note being passed to the lawyer by another prisoner, even though we never see the hero give it to him. (This lawyer, BTW, has complete access to the Offices of the ATF in California, including its confidential computer files.) Huh? Well, but it's a mindless action movie - so how're the action scenes? Not bad, surprisingly; unfortunately they happen to be stoled from about a dozen Hong Kong films made five or ten years previously. The opening scene, a shoot-out in a junker garage, actually has shots the composition of which are stolen directly from \"Hard Boiled\" - so clearly so that it's a wonder John Woo didn't sue for plagiarism.

Other Hong Kong films stolen from include \"Prison on Fire\", \"Island on Fire\", \"Burning Paradise\", \"Police Story\" I, II, and III (aka \"Supercop\"). I thought I recognized a couple Sammo Hung clips here as well. In other words, the actions scenes are exciting only to the extent that they are successful duplications of action scenes from other films.

There's nothing one can do with this film unless one shoots smack and just needs a lot of visual stimuli that needn't be make any sense.

Very funny film, for all the wrong reasons.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I do not know which one was first released earlier in 1970 . Cannon for Cordoba is an \"Europen Western\" It was made in Spain. This means this is fairly inferior to Sergio Leone's so-called #Western Spaghetti and to the Real American Masterpieces of John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, Howard Hugues,John Sturges and Anthony Mann, in my order of merit. This order is not to be interpreted as all John Ford Westerns are better than all by Sam Peckipahn's. I think IMDb's 100 Sort them out all pretty well.

The worse about this firm is the Casting. George Peppard is fit for a sergeant's role, Raff Valone for a \"Maffia Capo\" and Giovanna Ralli to a \"puttana\" in \"Piazza Vennezia\" in the sixty's in Rome.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After slightly over 50 years of avid film watching, I've come up with some simple rules for making good movies.

1.\tIntroduce your main characters early, certainly within the first half hour 2.\tKeep your characters to a minimum. If adapting a novel, combine characteristics and actions of minor characters

into one person 3.\tMake sure your characters actions have credibility; if necessary, create additional scenes to establish motivation 4.\tKeep the action clear. Violence does not have to be explicit, but it must not be confusing, either 5.\tGet the best music money can buy. Frequently it matters more than acting, photography, etc. 6.\tUsually if a movie isn't very good within the first 10 minutes, it's not going to get any better

`Cannon for Cordoba' is a textbook example of what happens when these simple rules are not followed. Elmer Bernstein's score is rinkydink, one of the worst I've ever heard in a modestly budgeted movie. This is altogether surprising considering Bernstein's credentials (`Man With the Golden Arm,' `The Magnificent Seven,' `The Great Escape,' `Sons of Katie Elder'). Paul Wendkos' direction is lackluster and confusing. Performances vary from very good (Don Gordon, Peter Duel) to terrible (Raf Vallone, Giovanna Ralli, Gabriele Tinti) with the usually reliable George Peppard falling somewhere in the middle. This should not be surprising, considering the mediocre direction and amateurish script, which breaks rules 1, 2 and 3.

Don't waste your time. I give `Cannon for Cordoba' a `3'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"His significant charisma and commanding presence are about all that keep this afloat, but Fred Williamson has done far better urban action films including many of his later, vid-released fare. The big studios' Williamson films of the early-to-mid 70's rarely had the punch of their mid-level counterparts, and this is a prime example. Clumsy action, little violence, and the PG rating is nowhere near questionable. Worth a look for Hammer completists in any case.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"BLACK EYE (2 outta 5 stars) Unimaginatively-filmed '70s action movie looks like it was made for TV... only the occasional cuss word and a subplot about lesbianism tip you off that the movie was actually made to be shown in theatres. Fred Williamson plays a tough guy ex-cop who becomes a tough guy private eye. He stumbles upon a couple of murders and attempted murders linked to a mysterious cane. There are some fistfights, a Bullit-inspired car chase, a fairly original elevator scene and even time for Williamson to confront the rich, lesbian lover of his girlfriend (Teresa Graves). There is also a scene with Williamson bullying a poor old man by tearing up some priceless old autographed photos in his memorabilia shop. Yeah, way to go, tough guy... maybe you can find a cripple to beat up later? Obviously meant to cash in on the success of \"Shaft\" (this and about six thousand other movies), this movie doesn't have enough edge or enough originality to make much of an impression.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ahem.. I think I'll be the only one who's saying this but yes, I was a lil bored during the film. Not to say that this is a bad movie, in fact it's a very good attempt at portraying the innermost emotions - dilemma, sorrow, love.., esp it's the director's debut (read from somewhere, is it true?). I felt that something's not quite right, maybe it's just me, I'm not drawn to the characters enough to immerse me in their world. This is a simple story, about ordinary people, ordinary lives. Through simple and short dialogs, the director tries to relate a simple guy's life, and how copes with the news of his illness by laughing it away every time. Oh ya his laughter was kinda cute at first but gradually it gets to me, such a deep hearty roar for a gentle man! I must say, I didn't feel the impact that most readers felt, in fact I was more drawn to the trivial scenarios like spitting of watermelon seeds with his sis that clearly shows that they're comfortable with each other, the granny who came back for another shot - this is kinda melancholic, the thoughtful gesture of writing down the procedures for his dad - hmm but this is predictable.. Don't misunderstood that I'm an action-lover, independent films are my cup of tea! Perhaps I just have a really high expectation after watching many deep films that have stronger imagery. Some Asian films worth the watch:

Tony Takitani (depicts loneliness) Wayward Cloud (only 1 dialog) My Sassy Girl (I like it!) 4.30 (loneliness as well) 15 (gangsters lives in local setting) Before sunrise and Before sunset (I just have to mention these even though they are not Asian films. Fans will understand!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I were to rate this movie based solely on the acting\/script\/production, etc., I would give it one star. All these elements are awful. I can partially forgive this, in light of the film's $250 budget. The movie does contain many entertaining scenes, mostly those of the unintentionally funny variety. Some of these include: a 14-year-old kid stealing and driving a bus, teenage hooligans (one of whom is sporting a Joy Division t-shirt) getting scared away from harassing the film's protagonists by a woman brandishing an obviously fake firearm, and an encounter with a plastic bull's skull in the Arizona desert.

I would have given it 5 stars just for the entertainment value were it not for the presence of that horribly annoying, morally pontificating old granny. I had to dock one star just because of her. Who the *bleep* makes a wedding cake with black frosting, anyhow?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot get over how awful this movie was. My eyes want to jump out of my head and my ears are gushing blood from the horrible awful one song soundtrack. There are four kids and dog and they run away from a hospital then get away with stealing two cars and a bus. No one gives them any punishment or anything to correct them. The acting is just so awful it sounds like an instruction video for social studies class. I cannot think of one thing that I like about this movie. Nothing. Even the kid that loses his dog made me want to vomit. He gets his dog back without the lady even seeing the dog run out the door. Maybe the dog was trying to escape out of this movie. Then there is some horse manure in the whole mix. It was torture watching this movie. Then at the end the oldest boy says something like staying together isn't a crime and they all hug him and love him. Stealing gas is a crime. Stealing two cars and a bus is a crime and he should have went to juvenile hall or something. Avoid this movie at all costs and especially if you want to keep your family together.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Italians movie-makers love to rip off American movies. All of our movies, and as often as possible.

I'm not stating that as a slur against Italy as a whole, but I would like to further observe that the Italian film industry does itself great harm by allowing travesties like this to go overseas to be seen by the world at large. That's all I'm saying.

And no more grave injury do the Italian people subject themselves to than by not sticking a harsh penalty upon those who made the world watch \"Shark rosso nell'oceano\" - which is, admittedly, a ripoff of the far-superior \"Jaws\" (as if you didn't know).

Let's dive into the plot (Get it? Haw-haw...): this huge monstrous swimming thing that looks like a cross between an octopus, a shark and Steven Tyler attacks many innocent Americans (ie: Italians) off the coast of Florida (ie: Italy) and the intrepid, beer-swilling Peter (Sopkiw) sails out with his anorexic, beer-swilling girlfriend and other beer-swilling people whose main purposes are to be eaten by the creature, killed by mysterious forces who want the creature left alone or just stand around and be otherwise useless (and swill beer)...or be the doctor in this film who defibrilates dying patients repeatedly (20, maybe 30 times in a row) without waiting for his paddles to recharge (must be one heck of a good battery there, doc).

Then there's the monster...brother, if you thought the \"Jaws\" shark was fake, look herein and have your mind changed IMMEDIATELY.

This is a movie that was directed as an afterthought (by a Bava!), edited with an onion chopper, acted by ambulatory (beer-swilling) pieces of driftwood and written by (PRESUMABLY beer-swilling) people who should never ever ever ever be let near a typewriter, movie studio or major city in the world ever again. If this is how the people who made this film think real people act in such a situation, they've obviously made one too many of them zombie movies. Or swilled too much beer.

Need I say this movie is bad? It is: bad like green cottage cheese; bad like a Hawaiian shirt at a formal wedding; bad like the \"Bad Theatre\" skits Dan Aykroyd used to host on \"Saturday Night Live\"; bad like Calista Flockhart Weight Gain Tablets - get it? Good.

Mike and the SOL gang slap this beer-drunk beauty upside the head repeatedly and reveal this \"horror\" film as what it is: horrible. Though, with a certain European charm: it's charming, when watched by a European - preferably a beer-swilling one.

No stars for the waterlogged, dead fish known as \"Shark rosso nell'oceano\"; six stars for the MST3K version. ...and now, anyone for a beer?

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not sure what the director and editor were thinking when they were editing this poor excuse for a film, but whatever they thought of didn't help this movie, it only hurt it, and it hurt this film badly. The acting, for once, isn't the problem, it's the horrible editing, scenes will end for no apparent reason, while in the middle of an action sequence or people will be cut off in mid sentence. I'm not sure what the story was, but it didn't really matter, since what I did see was fairly uninteresting. Just bad all around, a huge \"Jaws\" rip-off and not a good one at that. The MST version was funny though. 7 for that, none for the film itself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes it's hard to judge how bad a film made in Italy or Spain really is, because they all seem to use the same stable of 9-10 ESL trained voice actors to supply the English voices for release in the US. And things are always lost in translation anyway -dialog, character shtick and plot elements written for the expectations of European audiences may not go too well with our American ideas of what is funny, hip, or dramatic. I imagine that the team responsible for making the translation for the sound track of this movie to English had about 3 days to do it from start to finish, and they probably each earned the equivalent of an installment payment on their used Fiat to do it. In other words, pure hackwork, tossed off in one or two takes and never reviewed or redone by someone with a real ear for the American language.

Watching \"Devil Fish\", I can imagine that if you were an Italian watching this presented in your native language, you might find it a mildly amusing little piece of fluff. You'd laugh at the 'in jokes' and the amusing drunk, you'd gasp at the monster and the villainy of the bad guys, and you'd ogle at the attractive pair of Peter and not-quite-Daryll Hannah as they couple on the beach for no apparent reason in the middle of a search for clues about a man-eating monster who has already killed one of their friends.

But since the jarring voice acting and tin-eared dialog keep yanking we Americans out of the film experience, we can't help but notice that the editors had serious Attention Deficit Disorder, that no one on screen can really act so much as project an Attitude, that the stated reason for the creation of the monster makes absolutely no sense, that the action sequences have all the impact of a cereal bowl full of cooked oatmeal and that the director, screenwriters and producers really hate women.

Don't even THINK about buying or renting this movie - watch only on cable TV on Saturday afternoon with one of several beers in your fist, or with the help and protection of Mike and the Bots on MST3K.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"boring, horrible piece of Italian euro-trash about a scientist who seems to spend most of his time guzzling beer(this is what makes him American, right? Our scientists spend most of their academic life soused out of their minds, sure. That's where all the really great theories come from), who's studying something(dolphin calls, fish migration patterns, who knows). He hears a weird sound through his headphones, proving that his radio is picking up a station in Jamaica. At the same time, a Jack Skellington girl with one of the worst, most bleached manes of bad 80's hair that it has ever been my pleasure to witness is trying to calm down the dolphins in the Seaquarium she works at, as they're apparently upset about the amount of fish she's been doling out lately. The beginning of the film was a really badly colored storyline about two annoying, very Italian people who's boat is attacked by something unseen under the water. The whiny woman is never seen again(best part of the story), and the guys' corpse is found with no legs. The dim, alcoholic scientist(who has an inexplicable, English- American- Italian accent) and the stick girl with the hay hair begin to theorize that there's some kind of giant monster lurking under the seas off the coast of Italy...err..Florida.

They enlist the help of an electrician to set up an underwater mike, so that the monster can sing karaoke. This guy has a beautiful girlfriend, who's only drawback is that she pronounces Peter \"Pey-tah\", but for some reason he's sexually drawn to the anatomical skeleton with the frizzly hair, a situation that leaves one blinking.

The dubbing is awful, the editor a spaz, and the storyline generally a yawn. There's a bit about how this weird scientific corporation genetically engineered this monster giant shark-squid-barracuda thing for some reason that makes no sense, and a really unpleasant greasy haired guy goes around killing women, again for no apparent reason. A stupid sheriff and his bulked up deputy are along for the ride, along with a female scientist(who we know is smart because she wears huge glasses). At one time the woman scientist takes on the huge, terrible monster(yeah, right, Ed Wood's giant octopus was more believable) with only a small handaxe, and she wins the contest. Hooray for skinny little women, who obviously make the best monster hunters!

The solution to the problem of the giant thing is to blow up half of the Everglades, leaving a dead zone for several miles in every direction. To Hell with ecology and the environment, right? We have to kill this giant monster! At the end, the electrician and his broomstick love ride off into the sunset on her Vespa, which is o.k. since she's gotten over her colleagues' death and he's not very upset that his girlfriend got whacked by the crazy guy with the greasy hair. Hooray for true love! Wait a minute, isn't there something fishy about all this...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

The ripples in the wake of the first \"Jaws\" movie were still prominent in the 1980s as well as beyond. Movie monsters went from being radioactive monstrosities to unknown and voracious beasts lurking in the unexplored corners of human experience (ie: the ocean, deep space, genetics). Although \"Jaws\" was a milestone in this particular realm of film horror, few films have been able to match the visceral impact of the original. \"Shark rosso nell'oceano\" (aka Devil Fish or Red Ocean), is a dutiful follower of the original \"Jaws\" formula. After several hapless boats and seagoers are brutally murdered by some ocean creature, there is an initial drive to discover the beast, then a failure to study it without horrible results, and a final push to destroy it. Although the filmmakers attempted to inject some fresh life into the equation by adding elements of technology and corporate conspiracy, the result is nothing short of disastrous. This movie sinks under its own weight of ghastly editing, brittle acting, and cheap scares.

The most sickly compelling feature of \"Devil Fish\" is its cookie-cutter editing. From the onset of the film when 3 different scenes are mashed together, the viewer gets a sense that the film lacks any technical credibility. It appears as if the editors cut the scenes around a set musical score instead of cutting the film and then making necessary changes to the music. Furthermore, every cut is an intercut and it would appear as if the editors had never heard of the terms \"fade\", \"wipe\", or \"dissolve\". The impact of scenes can never settle in because they are immediately cut short after a final line and a new scene begins. Silly camera tricks abound such as when two of the principle characters share a private moment on the beach and a sort of time-lapse image of their act is composited over their bodies.

The music is equally bland. The creature theme is a hopeless duplicate of the \"Jaws\" theme with slight variation. Although I like to keep my reviews devoid of MST3K influence, Mike most aptly described the somber score as \"soft core porn music\". Failing to produce tension in a film that relies so heavily on it is a death blow to \"Devil Fish\". The acting is stale, the relationships baffling, and the whole conspiracy is laughable. The question remains that if genetics had advanced to such a level to create a huge chimera of a sea monster to protect oceanic interests, why couldn't a more practical use be administered to better mankind? One of the few positive aspects of this film is the idea of the monster, even though its film presence is less than stellar.

Overall, this movie is bad enough to dip below mediocre. If \"Jaws\" had never been made, then the film could be described as average because its subject matter would be new and exciting even if it was executed ineffectively. Sadly, as a carbon copy of Spielberg's original thriller it sits most comfortably on a garbage heap of cheese.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Never before has such a large cast of ugly people gathered together to make an equally ugly film.

Something huge and horrifying is loose in the waters off the Florida coast, something that leaves half chewed up bodies behind in its wake. Unshaven beer dependent Bob thinks he has caught the Thing's \"evil voice\" on tape. Bob's assistant, the amazingly unattractive and painfully skinny Stella, decides to enlist the help of slimy ladies man Peter, an electrician whose equipment may be able to help them locate the mysterious creature. But anyone who sticks their nose too far into the mystery winds up dead, killed by a baboon faced hit-man with a bad perm. What is the terrible secret behind the Sea Killer?

Ugly scientists have torrid affairs, inept cops and doctors puzzle over the increasing numbers of corpses, Stella and Peter make out on the beach and characters we don't care about are killed off or munched up. The Sea Killer, a weird combination of an octopus, a shark and a pair of large dentures, never really seems as threatening as it should. The conspiracy behind the monster's creation makes no sense whatsoever. None of the characters are particularly likable, and the ones who might be are killed off immediately. This is a poorly shot, badly dubbed, plot less mess. The whole thing is so scuzzy and smelly it made me long for a hot bath. I've had sushi plates scarier than this film. Avoid it, unless it's the MST3K version.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A \"40 foot long\" giant mutant squid with five tentacles, razor fangs and the ability to reproduce it's own cells terrorizes a small Florida town. Various marine biologists, doctors and cops plot to kill it. Meanwhile, a human monster named Miller offs people who discover the \"Devilfish\" is a manmade creation used for the greedy benefit of some evil doctors! Miller attacks a female researcher, strangles her, drowns her in the bathtub, tosses in a hairdryer, then rips the panties off her dead body!

Lots of false alarms are set when our heroes Peter, Stella, Janet and Bob set out on a high tech (high tech for 1984, anyway) \"Seaquarium\" boat to catch the creature, who is frequently seen in close up or hilariously obvious speeded-up film to seem more menacing. And only fire can destroy it, which leads to a flamethrower-armed posse vs. aquatic beast finale.

This JAWS cash-in is pretty tame (other than a legless corpse and a decapitation) but watchable and benefits from an excellent Antony Barrymore score and a decent (again, for 1984) monster design. Luigi Cozzi and Sergio Martino wrote the original story.

Score: 4 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This stupid, anti-environment wannabe \"Jaws\" is sad, pathetic, boring, poorly dubbed, and stupid. There is nothing redeeming about it.

Plot follows some shark\/octopus creature-thingy that appears off the coast of Florida and kills some people (including a boring, stupid couple with a whiny wife and a silent husband who stabs himself with a fork for some reason). His ascent to the surface is always represented by a vague sideshot of something bumpy over and over. It makes no sense, it's horribly boring, and it's conspiracy plot sucks.

There are moments of camp that cannot be ignored: the same shot of the boat of the couple of the opening sequence THREE TIMES; the doctor slamming a dying patient's chest twenty times with a difibulator without stopping, even though he's clearly dead; the porno-esque soundtrack; the shot of the couple making love on the beach, with three different thems (\"That us is getting ahead of us!\") doing this; the ancient computer that sounds like Kermit the Frog; a beer-guzzling scientist screaming \"I know!\" a la Dr. Smith; the list goes on and on.

Oh, and everyone drinks at least thirty bears in the course of the movie (much noticed by Mike and the 'Bots) . . .

The MST3K version is their best episode, but it's certainly better than the movie itself. \"This is how I like to go fishing, guys . . . with a flashlight and a flamethrower . . .\" - Crow

One star for \"Devil Fish\"; seven for the MST3K version

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"movie I have ever seen. Actually I find it one of the more entertaining episodes of MST 3000 I have seen. Not that it was good, but for anyone who has seen Manos: the Hands of Fate knows this one wasn't two bad. The monster in the movie looked terrible, everyone wore upsetting swim suits, and the plot was laughable. I still don't have a clue as to why they made the monster, they never really gave a good reason. The lead female had to be the scrawniest gal I have ever seen. They would have done better if they cast the gal that was killed at the beginning as the lead. On the plus side the dolphins acting was great!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wish I had something more positive to say about Devil Fish, but I honestly can't seem to come up with much. I can't even come up with many of those \"so bad, it's good\" kind of moments. Devil Fish is just plain old bad. The plot is completely derivative (Jaws, anyone?), the acting is wooden, the characters are uninteresting, the special effects are beyond bad, and the score is annoying. Add to that the seemingly inept direction of Lamberto Bava and you've got one stinker of a movie. I think, however, that the film's biggest sin is its lack of a budget. It doesn't appear that Bava had much to work with. By 1984, the Italian film industry was in full decline \u0096 especially as far as genre films go. The funding available to Bava was most probably very meager. Film's like Devil Fish that rely on special effects just never had a chance to be good. It's not the only Italian film to suffer this fate. There are a number of Italian movies made in the mid-80s whose ideas and concepts far exceeded what anyone could realistically have expected given their budgetary limitations.

However, having said all that and noting the film's many weaknesses, I can't bring myself to rate Devil Fish lower than a 3\/10. I've even considered rating it higher but can't because I realize how bad a movie it is. Why don't I rate it lower? Well that's hard to explain. Despite the many problems found in the movie, there's something about Devil Fish that I inexplicably enjoy. It could be as simple as my love for low-budget, cheesy, Italian movies. Maybe my taste in movies is horribly skewed, but I enjoy what I enjoy.

The Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment of Devil Fish is actually very enjoyable. I rate Devil Fish a 4\/5 on my MST3K rating scale. The guys do a fine job of poking fun at the movie's many flaws. One very astute observation comes very early in the commentary when Tom Servo notes, \"Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should\" \u0096 highlighting yet another of the many weaknesses to be found in Devil Fish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This cheapo exploitation flick is some genuinely insipid stuff, courtesy of spaghetti land director Lamberto Bava, who wisely left his name off this junk.

The basic crux of this outing concerns the discovery of some brutally mutilated individuals being washed-up on shore in the Caribbean. Authorities initially believe them to be victims of shark attacks, but as the investigation unravels, turns out to be something much more sinister.

All of this ultimately amounts to very little however, we have here - poor dubbing complimented by similarly weak script, which often consists of nonsensical jabbering, and is really of little consequence for the most part. Acting can only be described as sub-par, which is par for the course in this instance. Truly lax direction doesn't help things either.

Special effect mainly is for numerous close-ups of various gory bodies missing limbs, and so forth. Of course, there is the obligatory creature which periodically emerges at feeding time, which looks something like a big monster octopus thing, where its animation only consists of its pointed teeth ascending and descending in rhythmic articulation. Overall, the end result is none too convincing, sure, but admittedly is almost entertaining in a cheesy kind of fashion.

It seems what the film makers were going for was a sort of low-rent hybrid of Jaws and Piranha, but the final product is just a bloody shambles, much like the corpses incessantly shown throughout this picture. I find it difficult to think of any redeeming attributes to warrant viewing this, so moreover, strictly for incurable monster movie addicts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to like this film as I have admiration for Italian rip-off cinema (especially Jaws rip-offs!), but the simple fact of the matter is that Monster Shark isn't very good. All the signs of this being a great piece of trash are there; we've got one of the kings of trashy cult cinema, Lamberto Bava, in the director's chair - one of the best ridiculous cult actors, Michael Sopkiw, taking the lead role, and a central creature stupid enough to give even the best that this sort of film has to offer a run for it's money, yet somehow the film still manages to be rather stale. The fact that the 'monster shark' doesn't feature too often is probably a good thing given the creature design, but there's never enough elsewhere to pull the film through without it. The plot focuses on a resort off the south coast of Florida (or rather, somewhere in Italy) where several local people have turned up in the water with arms and legs missing. It's not long before the local authorities decide that this creature has never been seen before, and it's up to a motley crew of various sea experts to catch it alive!

The main problem with this film is that it always feels very pointless, and since there is little in the way of characters or plot development, even the least demanding of viewers are likely to start getting bored before long. This sort of film is hardly famous for being brilliant, although the fun element of films such as 'The Last Shark' and 'Killer Fish' is unfortunately absent for most of the running time. The thing I love about lead actor Michael Sopkiw is that he always seems like he's taking himself seriously no matter what film he's in (although he only ever made four). This is certainly the case here, although Bava never really allows him to completely dive in, and often he feels as much like a spare wheel as the rest of the film. Much of the runtime is spent watching the various characters sup American lager, and it's not very fascinating; although Bava does manage to come good by the end with an entertaining flurry of action as the central monster finally gets to wreak havoc upon its would-be captors. Overall, there really isn't much to recommend this film for. As mentioned, I really like this sort of stuff and even I found myself bored on numerous occasions. For hardcore Italian horror fans only!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A man (Goffredo Unger) is found floating in the sea among the wreckage of his destroyed boat, just off the Florida Coast. A helicopter winches him up only to reveal both of his legs are missing below the knees. Dr. Stella Dickens (Valentine Monnier) and her partner Dr. Bob Hogan (Lawrence Morgant) are marine biologists of some sort and are conducting research in the sea regarding Dolphins. While out at sea Hogan hears a strange high-pitched noise. Intrigued he and Stella hire Peter (Micheal Sopkiw) and his assistant Sandra (Iris Peynado) to create a device to locate and track the source, or something like that anyway as it isn't made particularly clear. Meanwhile a scientist named Florinda (Cinzia De Ponti as Cinthia Stewart) who works at a rival organisation called the 'West Ocean International' is brutally murdered when she threatens to expose someone within the organisation. More people are attacked and Sheriff Gordon (Gianni Garko as John Garko) is on the case. Peter, Stella, Hogan and Sandra all set out to sea. Soon enough they find evidence that something monstrous and very unfriendly may be lurking beneath the surface. Together with rival scientist Professor Donald West (William Berger), Sheriff Gordon and the United States army they set out to destroy the monster, but there are other sinister forces at work as someone doesn't want the genetically engineered creature to be exposed at any cost! Directed by Lamberto Bava as John Old Jr. this is a far cry from the classic Italian horror and splatter films of the 70's and early 80's. The script by Gianfranco Clerici, Herve Piccini and Dardando Sacchetti is drearily slow and will put most people to sleep well before the 90 odd minute run time has elapsed. The monster is barely used, large portions of this film are made up of footage of boats and helicopters. Large chunks of the first half concentrate on the not so mysterious 'who's behind it' part of the story. There isn't really any gore to speak of, a guy with both his legs bitten off and someone with one arm is about it. The special effects on the monster itself are generally poor and it is shown in very quick flashes, disappointing. The cast of virtual nobody's don't help make this any easier to sit through. There really isn't much to recommend this film so I won't. Don't bother, you can do a lot better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yikes.

I've seen quite a few bad movies in my days, a lot of them in the company of Mike, Tom, Crow and the others from MST3k. So was the case with this one as well and even though I found the movie in itself quite funny, it wouldn't have been nearly as fun without the MST3k commentary.

The movie is a prime example of really bad movies coming out of Europe during the eighties. Horrible music, horrible acting, horrible plot (what little there is), horrible dialogue and really, really, REALLY, horrible editing. Cripes.

This might be called a turkey if it weren't for the fact that it's not unique in any way whatsoever. It's pretty much the same kind of film that almost every italian hack of a director cranked out.

So, try and get the MST3k version. It's a pretty fun episode with Mike and gang in quite good form.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What could possibly go wrong with a movie that includes a bunch of Italians pretending to be Flordians, and some vague-lava-octopus-crustacean-thingy as the hell-induced hellspawn-devil-fish?!?!

Everything is what goes wrong I tell you!

This is a very good MST3K episode because the heckling in right on the ball, which without fault, is easy to do considering this movie is a piece of junk with a lousy and boring plot.

9\/10 for MSTied version. 1\/10 for un-MSTied version.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The lousiest of all lousy Jaws rip-offs was regretfully made by one of my all-time favorite directors; Lamberto Bava (here under his John Old Jr. pseudonym). You know how it goes in these cheap European imitations, right? They only want their monstrous animal to be be bigger, sicker and more threatening, but this more than often results in the opposite effect. Bava's creature is a humongous sea-devil and it's more than just a shark! We're seemly dealing with a prehistoric monster here, with the jaws and appetite of a Great White, but it also has tentacles like an octopus! It's up to a couple of dolphin-loving oceanologists to discover how this monster was able to survive all these thousands of years and why exactly he only started his killing spree now. The script of \"Monster Shark\" makes few to no sense and most of the action takes place on the mainland. The shark itself is an unintentionally laughable creation and it was a wise decision of Lamberto Bava to only show it vaguely and in quick flashes. The acting performances are above average and the underwater photography is surprisingly clear and well-handled. The twists in the plot are predictable and you'll probably have the most fun spotting detailed facts about the characters. For example: count all the cans of beer Dr. Hogan drinks throughout the whole movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's really not a whole lot to say about this. It's just really, really bad. The acting is bad, the script is bad, and the editing is probably one of the worst jobs ever. It's so sloppy and choppy that it serves only to confuse the audience. There's no real to plot to speak of, mostly it's a really fake looking monster fish attacking Europeans trying to pass themselves off as Americans. Pass on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A perennial fixture in the IMDb Bottom 100, upon viewing this it's not hard to see exactly why for it proves to fail utterly miserably in just about every bloody department going!

Take the editing for a start; to call this choppy would be overly complimentary! Indeed, had the makers of this got drunk one night and sliced and diced the film reels with some scissors and children's glue, then the resulting mess could hardly have been any worse than what we actually have here. Added to this, the inane story drags on mercilessly for what seems like a torturous infinity before we finally reach the decidedly lacklustre climax.

Aside from the ever game Michael Sopkiw, poor performances from most of the rest of the cast don't exactly help matters any either and the actual beastie that is causing all the troubles is somewhat less than convincing to put it mildly. Yay verily, all in all this is a complete pile of crap if ever I've seen one.

Deary, deary me....and to think that Lamberto Bava directed this to....tut, tut indeed.

Note: This was released in the UK under the alternative title of Devouring Waves, although bereft of most of its gore scenes, which ironically are just about the only reason that this may have been worth watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a pure disaster, the story is stupid and the editing is the worst I have seen, it confuses you incredibly. The fish is badly made and some of its underwater shots are repeated a thousand times in the film. A truly, truly bad film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Muscular 'scientists', unpleasantly thin females in swimsuits, lots of beer drinking.. Yet it's too long to be a beer commercial. Oh, okay, there's some plot about a big shark-like monster that's killing people and stuff. But it's nothing you haven't seen before.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has the worst editing I've ever seen. This is yet another film to avoid at all costs unless you view it via MST3K. On their website, they wonder why the Coast Guard cooperated with this film. I mean, they let them use a helicopter!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a perfect example of why many people say the 90's sucked when it comes to horror-movies. A boring voodoo-on-campus tale of terror starring the once so promising Corey Feldman (STAND BY ME, THE LOST BOYS, etc). There might be just enough stuff happening to keep you from falling asleep and it doesn't look too cheap, but this still is horror aimed at an audience that were in their very early teens during the 90's. I might have been part of that audience, but still I got as good as nothing out of it when watching it now. And nowadays, teens are used to a lot more and better already, and I can't imagine any of them knowing or caring about who Corey Feldman was. Or, \"is\", actually, as the dude's still making films. But the only thing still linking him to his days of glory, is the LOST BOYS 2: THE TRIBE sequel that got made recently. And I imagine even that one isn't going to encourage anyone to seek out VOODOO. Just another movie that got lost in 90's horror for obvious reasons.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a perfect example of the 90's mainstream horror crap.Nothing is scary here and the film is almost bloodless.Yes,there is some violence,but everything is politically correct like in a TV movie.This is not a completely bad picture,I can safely say that I found it quite enjoyable.However a lack of the originality really hurts \"Voodoo\".All in all if you are a part of the mainstream audience and pseudo-horror movies like \"Scream\" are your favourite then you'll love \"Voodoo\",but if you want something very gruesome avoid this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Joe was first released in the US in the summer of 1970. Despite respectable notices, reasonable box office and an Oscar nom, it vanished shortly afterwards and remained forgotten about throughout the 1980's, before being enthusiastically reappraised, somewhat unjustly, in the US in the late 90's. Thanks to this lengthy unavailability, its reputation has gone on to see it placed (inexplicably) alongside the likes of Michael Winner's original Death Wish. Although revenge is a theme, a film about vigilantism this most definitely is not.

The plot isn't worth synopsizing. Its a flabby, hammy and bizarrely stagey ramble about an accidental murder and the unlikely relationship that blossoms out of it. That relationship and the largely class-based quirks of its two leads are exaggerated into ridiculous caricature; these two, and their situation, bear absolutely no relation to reality.

Almost everything about the film is cantankerous and begrudgingly antiquated, which makes the whole thing completely fascinating. Hippies are depicted as snide and exclusive misanthropes, hard drugs either make you sleep or dance around maniacally with lipstick on your face, and most young women are prepared to have sex with strangers in exchange for marijuana at the drop of a fly. Its very much a film of the 60's rather than the 70's, so why some industry luminaries have begun to include it in retrospective conversations about the beginnings of the Hollywood New Wave is a complete mystery. Martin Scorcese of all people even got involved, though probably only to give a nod to the dank, lavatorial hues of the grim urban cinematography, which almost certainly influenced Taxi Driver four years later. But Joe seems very much like a furious tirade against the likes of Easy Rider and Bonnie And Clyde, rather than a continuation of that same insurgent cinematic ethos.

It isn't a film of any real artistic significance - despite Joe's incontinent fury at everything in his world, it remains a story about absolutely nothing - but its value as a cultural museum piece is unprecedented. Shot on and around the streets of New York City during the darkest hours of the Vietnam war, and at a time when America (and, significantly, its cinema) was being revolutionized to the horror of the old guard, the film ends up, in its own completely oblivious and accidental way, saying more about that period of history than numerous infinitely superior movies that directly endeavored to capture it.

But as a film? Despite a really surprising and effective shock ending, this is basically a Michael Winner film, but not as well made. How does that tickle your fancy? ** Incidentally, if you are, like me, a fan of spotting arbitrary background lookalikes, then check out Harold Steptoe at 1:22:11 in the hippy art gallery.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think this movie can be called the movie of misdirected rage.

The characters of Joe and Bob were relics of the WWII generation who didn't quite understand their kids opposing the war, taking drugs and listening to rock and roll. But I think their real rage was at the fact that America was beginning her long decline from the heights the war left her at.

\"Joe\" himself is a low-rent Archie Bunker, ranting at all the things that have made him angry, living his life of quiet desperation, until he teams up with Compton, a guy who wants to avenge himself on the hippies who ruined his daughter.

Honestly, most of the movie looks silly, the characters are worse than one dimensional, they're laughable. Peter Boyle was capable of better stuff.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Will Spanner (David Byrnes, the fifth actor to play the role in the series) stumbles onto another bizarre case, this time involving vampires rather than the usual witches, warlocks & demons (he's at the hospital to check on his friend's son who got hurt in a hit and run when they wheel a girl who's been attacked by a vamp in). He brings in Detectve Lutz to help out with the case which revolves around a clandestine vampire organization trying to get a business merger to go through to let them legally own all the blood banks in the world or some such nonsense.

The plot of this movie pretty much takes a backseat to the nudity & simulated sex scenes. (As is to be expected from this series, i guess). So complaining about the lack of good acting, or compelling plot-line, or even convincing characters, I suspect, would fall on deaf ears. If you're watching this film, you don't care about such 'frivolities' and just want some 'action'. Sadly on that front the film fails as well. All the woman are attractive enough but the way the scenes are filmed are just atrocious. Making this more or less an exercise in futility in every conceivable way.

Eye Candy: Both Kimberly Blair & April Breneman show everything; Ashlie Rhey shows full- frontal; Aline Kassman & Mai-Lis Holmes only shows their breasts

My Grade: D","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just after watching the first one and it is very dumb. I happened to watch an episode of Bones first and then the Eleventh Hour. The 11th Hour should be embarrassed.

It is so weak. Stewart introduces himself as a Government Scientist. No mention of what kind of scientist just general sciency stuff. In a program about cloning they bring a caretaker, who was paid to dispose unsuccessful embryos, to a church and made him kneel before the statue of Jesus on the cross and ask forgiveness... and as well tell them where the bad guy is so as they can move the plot on. Now thats science at work :(

There is a dumb, not good dumb, bit where Picard rages at a TV that advertises skin scream that makes you look younger, shouting \"It's a lie\", as his randy female assistant gets groped by the local hot bobbie next door.

The end of the first episode is like a bad cartoon where the bad old lady, named after Pinnochios daddy in order to move the clunky plot along, waves at Picard from the street as she gets in a taxi. Picard is one floor up and he looks out a window wistfully going... she got away. He could like try to run down.. or maybe ring the cops... or maybe get the number of the taxi and ring it in or maybe had anything other than... I am waving and getting into a taxi now and there is nothing you can do about it until next week ending... mahhahahahah.

Pity it's so stupid. At one point a grieving father is convinced by Picard that even if a replica clone son was born it would never be his son as his son had a soul. Yes that's right folks. The general scientist argues against cloning on the basis that every soul is unique and sure why else would you want to clone.

Although the general scientist Picard finds cloning a bit gooey he's all up for stem cell research and goes as far as to say that calamity will befall humanity if it isn't allowed. He has a pretty strident rant about how important it is. Of course he doesn't mention a single example. That kind of sums up the show. Buzz words and tawdriness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I was British, I would be embarrassed by this portrayal of incompetence. A protection agent of the Special Branch unable to defend herself against a sick, unarmed and untrained assailant? The Home Office sends a single \"Science Adviser\" to investigate a possible Level Four biohazard, and that \"Advisor\" doesn't have the sense to wear even a mask and gloves? Totally unprotected London police officers working side by side with technicians in full biohazard suits? The \"Advisor\" and his bodyguard bearding the lair of a sociopathic doctor experimenting on human subjects without any backup? Puh-leeze! One wonders whether the producers could not afford to hire any technical advisers or if, for some arcane reason, they consciously decided to portray the principals as hopelessly incompetent. Even my wife, who has no background in either medicine or law enforcement, was rolling her eyes in disbelief. After the first episode, I was discouraged; now that I have seen two episodes, I give up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How on earth can you have such fantastic actors in such a miserable creation? This is one of the most stylized pieces of rubbish I have seen in a long time. Not only is it poorly written, it is a product of shoddy direction and editing. The cinematography is so horribly manipulative and unoriginal and the montage jumbled beyond belief. The actual ideas behind the plots (cloning, toxic waste, climate change) are all fine to begin with but where the production\/direction team takes them is a big cesspool of filth, the likes of which are seen in one episode. And this is a Scientific series? I am a physician and all I can say is that the science in this film is utter crap, almost embarrassing to watch. I really felt bad for the actors involved since they were all extraordinary.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Can I just start by saying I'm a fan of bad movies. And this is a really bad movie. It states on the front 100 passengers, 3000 snakes, but I think it's more accurate to say 12 passengers and about 20 snakes.

The snakes don't do anything particularly interesting, the whole movie in fact just blunders on with little happening. Although there is occasionally a great gore shot of pulsating arms and green goo puke (bad movies have to have green goo don't they?).

But then the ending comes along and will quite literally smack you off you seat in hysteria. and for that, this movie gets a boost up to a 2* rating.

There are certain movies about in the world that you will want to show to your friends, just so you can watch there reaction when a certain event happens in them.

For example The arrival of 'Big Man' in R Kelly's 'trapped in the closet' 'The LINE' in 'Shark Attack 3' (you'll know it when you hear it) The arrival of the mama shark in 'Shark Attack 3' Almost every scene of 'troll 2' The ending of 'Dracula 3000' (just for utter disbelief and confusion) and the end of this movie proudly sits in this category. It's worth sitting through just for that. So get drunk, stoned, whatever your poison is and watch this movie with some mates.

Quite simply, if you like bad movies, get this, but don't get it confused with 'Snakes on a plane' ... there's no relation.

And don't pay more than a fiver for it either ....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So I was energized during my Snakes on a Plane weekend, after the movie we craved some more. Why not Snakes on A Train? How bad could it possibly be, its snakes probably killing people on trains. The snakes were supposed to be rattlers. First off me and my buddies thought the snakes were harmless garden snakes and pet snakes with the same cheesy rattling sound clip. We actually sat through the entire thing completely ready to turn it off (we're too lazy to walk over and hit eject). Next thing we knew we don't know what the heck was going on but something amazingly funny happens at the end. It's one of those endings that you'll rewind a few times just to squeeze the laughs out, because you suffered for so long.

Last 10 min a \"8\", rest of the movie a 2.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie starts in Mexico where a girl has been cursed, she spits on snakes thru green jello and her friend tries all these crazy spells to lift the curse. He does nothing but chant horrible language that does nothing, so they decide to cross the border get on the train to make their way to L.A. to see his uncle to lift the curse. Comic hilarity ensues. This movie has the same snakes over and over! It has garden snakes and pythons that will never bite. They all make the sound of rattlesnakes which makes no sense. The whole movie has some funny lines, some weak effects, but most important a great ending that leaves you like WHAM BAM WHAT THE HECK JUST HAPPENED!!!!! The whole movie is about a 1, but the ending is a 10, so by my crazy math it gets a 3 overall. When blockbuster has nothing else you want, grab this for mindless entertainment!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seriously i thought it was a spoof when i saw it at the rental store but i realized it was just crap, i can't even believe i didn't shut it off, like we all know those snakes weren't rattlers they were pythons and Gardner's, the acting was lame and oms i still cant believe the ending loll if your gonna watch it just watch it for the end it was seriously priceless way better then 6th sense, i don't even know if the makers of the movie actually thought this title would fly, the only time it is really going to fly is when i throw it in the garbage......just watch it for a laugh it was hilarious in the stupidest way, Don't BUY JUST RENT.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For their credit, this is one of their more competent pieces of trash, and that's because there's considerably good gore, and an interesting take on ripping off \"Snakes on a Plane.\" But, if there's any more of example of the inconsistency behind Asylum's newest rip-off it's the two characters at the beginning whom are illegal immigrants and can't understand nor speak English to a Texas man sneaking them across the border, yet when they get on a train and meet a friend, they begin understanding and speaking perfect English.

Aside from being a pretty bad depiction of a Hollywood formula, \"Snakes on a Train\" is utterly boring. At least, with \"Snakes on a Plane\" we were given the chance to watch actors wax comedic and attempt to be remotely interesting. The Mallachi Brothers installment features some of the most boring characters I've ever seen, from an electrical engineer (gee, I wonder how he comes in handy later on), to some stoner surfers, right down to our two main characters attempting to fight off the snake curse that lurks in the husband's wife.

\"Snakes\" is never entertaining, and even when it's very gory, it's still never as good as it has the chance to be, because \"Snakes\" could have been a funny short film, and instead just takes itself much too seriously, and never camps it up at any moment. Instead of taking their small budget and making original films that can set a precedent, they instead force their small budget to work against them in these knock offs. While the Mallachi brothers seem to be trying, the train just looks incredibly artificial.

It seems almost like a stage play with these inconsistent and awfully bland set pieces that try desperately to look like actual train cars, while every so often it shakes, the background of the windows are blurred, and the sound effects go off every now and then to let us know they're actually on a train; not to mention that in such a large extended train there only seems to be about ten passengers on it. And beyond the train fight, and a drawn out sex scene, we're forced to be subjected to a plot that makes zero sense. And not even the directors can work around the fact that the \"lethal\" snakes that go on this train look far from venomous or dangerous.

The rest of the film staggers onto only about a minute of snake carnage and a bad subplot of an ex drug agent trying to molest a passenger. All of this dull exposition ends with a really ridiculous climax in which a poorly computer generated snake (I saw better animation on the Super Nintendo) completely swallows the train whole, and is then dispensed in a method that should have been exercised from the very beginning. Asylum scores again.

Asylum scores yet again with a hackneyed, lazy, horribly directed, and boring rip-off of another better film. \"Snakes on a Train\" takes itself way too seriously, and that's why it's never entertaining or memorable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Truly, truly awful. I don't even know where to begin. This is a perfect example of a movie that doesn't know what to do with itself. I'm not sure I could even assign a category myself, except that I'm quite sure it's a slap in the face of everyone, every where. Even the unborn.

At times, I thought I was watching a parody, or some kind of farce. At times, just a bad B movie. But I kept holding out for the porno, which, I fear, is almost(but not entirely), non existent.

Some one advised skipping to the ending. I would definitely second that emotion. The last five minutes are intense, and certainly contain some of the best film making\/cgi you will ever see, ever.

Ed Wood would be proud.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would probably want to give this movie a zero if not for the climax, which involves not really Snakes on a Train, but rather Train IN a Snake. The premise was cooked up far more than likely over the course of a night of beers after hearing about Snakes on a Plane in production (this, in fact, was released to coincide with that film's release). The joke is probably not lost on those who will seek this out; I don't think there would be a soul out there who would consider this anything as a serious action-thriller effort (unless on an ironic level beyond the capacity for rational thought). It's about a Mayan curse placed on a woman who's damned by her family for leaving with another man, and is soon seen sickened and coughing up green slime laced with, of course, snakes. She and her beau go on a train headed for Los Angeles, and very soon after the more-than-clich\u00e9 characters are privy to snakes overtaking the train- with the originator woman becoming a snake herself.

If it would be worth listing more about the movie I would, but there isn't enough time during the day. All that can be said for the quality factor is that it's almost on-existent; there are student short films with larger budgets. Maybe that was a wise calculation on the filmmakers' end, that there would be so many copies sold, just for the joke factor alone, that they would re-coup their budget in the first weekend. Because by looking at the sets (the trains themselves change randomly in the middle of a scene!), the actors (if you can call them that, with only one other actor- the one with the very thin hair who hits on the one woman throughout the movie- who benefited from the flick being produced), the FX (also next to non-existent, making the effects in Snakes on a Plane seem like Star Wars), and the actual CGI snakes themselves, with the final huge behemoth snake something to behold in sci-fi movie channel terms.

This all means, basically, that it is a laugh riot every step of the way (especially, as cruel as it sounds, when a little girl becomes involved in a snake's \"attention\"), with the very disregard for good taste working well in its favor. This being said, it is also 100% disposable, like a B-movie sour-flavor lollipop.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh. Good. Grief.

I saw this movie title in the TV schedules and thought \"I must watch this movie, ripping off Snakes On A Plane, it will be terrible but hopefully laughable too. Sounds fantastically bad\". Well, I was half right.

This movie is eye-meltingly bad and, sadly, not even unintentionally hilarious. It's just bad. Even worse, it takes almost an hour to get to anything resembling action. For the first half of the movie we have to endure some mumbled foreign language (Mexican or Spanish, apologies for my ignorance) and terrible acting as some woman vomits up live snakes for reasons we only find out later on. Then we have to endure even more terrible acting, and we find out that those mumbling in the foreign language could speak English anyway, as the snakes finally get loose on the train and things move from the sedate to the ridiculous.

Low-budget does not always mean \"bad\" but, in this case, it does. What we have here is a movie given no thought, a terrible script, a bad cast and not even the sense to capitalise on it's very few strengths. I give two marks for a few decent special effects and a whacky ending but that still feels a bit too generous. Avoid if you can.

See this if you like: Stagknight, The Wicker Man remake, terrible CGI.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are spoilers but trust me, I'm doing you a favor.

My friends and I like to watch crappy movies every so often. Inspired by Mystery Science Theater and our knack for on the spot jokes; We set out to find movies worth watching that are in fact...not worth watching. However trouble comes into paradise when these movies can only be found if you buy them. And I am a firm believer in not giving one cent to such a group of talentless scumbags. So, as another reviewer has said, films like this are a reason why downloading movies for free should be legalized. I prefer the idea of; instead of straight to VIDEO you have straight to INTERNET. That way the ass-bags who made this travesty won't ever turn a profit. Which unfortunately you know they do. They hire a bunch of actors who can't act, special effects from a high school classroom, rubber snakes you can get at the dollar store, constant vomiting of green jell-o, and the two main characters who seem to switch between being border jumping Mexicans who only speak Spanish, to Arabs to being 100% fluent in English, random nudity, a guy being shot like 10 times including one to the side of the head and living and the most retarded ending in the history of film, book, cave drawings and hustler magazine. The fact that I actually predicted that the jell-o puking snake girl would actually TRANSFORM into a snake about half way through terrifies me...

Anyways, the movie is great to make fun of, but you have to make sure there's at least 4 of you and you're all spitting out jokes in rapid fire, because if there's even 1 second of watching this movie where you're not laughing your ass off, you will feel physically ill. I kid you not. My friends and I were eating chicken wings and now I can't even look at such a thing anymore without being reminded of this piece of Sh!t.

This film is one above Alien Vs. Hunter which is by far the second worst movie ever made. And I've seen lots of bad movies. Incidentally, it's the same production company as this film and that bald guy is in both as well. just thought you might like to know that little fun fact. -100 out 0f 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Snakes on a Train starts as Mexican couple Brujo (A.J. Castro) & Alma (Julia Ruiz) cross the boarder into the US, they then illegally board a seventeen hour train to Los Angeles. However Alma's family didn't approve of her & Brujo's relationship & placed an ancient black magic curse on her that turns all her insides into snakes, ain't life a b*tch? As the snakes pour out of Alma's mouth & slither away to other parts of the train they begin to infect the other passengers with the same unusual ailment...

Edited & directed by the Mallachi Brothers (although the IMDb claims it's just one guy using a pseudonym, Peter Mervis) one has to say that I thought Snakes on a Train was crap, it's as simple as that really. It seems the entire film was set-up & made to cash in on the Samuel L. Jackson cult flick Snakes on a Plane (2006) by every horror fans least favourite production company the Asylum who specialise in ripping-off big budget Hollywood flicks & that style of money & film-making is no more evident than here with Snakes on a Train, making a film just because the title rhymes with a more successful film is not a good starting point. The script by Eric Forsberg is rubbish, for a start Snakes on a Plane was great fun whereas Snakes on a Train is a lot more serious & when you actually break it down & look at it this should have been much more light hearted. In fact it probably would have worked better as an Scary Movie (2000) type spoof. You know something, I am struggling to find one positive thing to say about Snakes on a Train it's that bad. For a start the character's are rubbish & it's impossible to emote with anyone, the story is downright awful & makes no sense (if people spew all those small snakes up where did the huge ones come from? Why did Alma turn into the giant snake at the end? Why did Bujo kill the train driver? How was he going to stop the train once it reached Los Angeles? Where did that typhoon come from at the end?), it takes itself far too seriously, the first seventy odd minutes is so boring & uneventful I am surprised I stayed awake & it's just a very, very poor film on just about every level.

Director Mervis only has a few train carriage car sets which all look pretty much alike so the film becomes very repetitive & dull to watch. There's barely any blood or gore, there are some snakes borrowing under a few peoples skin, someone gets shot & that's about it. The special effects are rubbish too, the giant CGI snake at the end is truly awful & the least said about it the better. It's not scary, there's zero atmosphere & it's a bit of a bore from start to finish. The real live snakes are a problem too, they are just so docile & nonthreatening. If you look at any scene featuring a real snake & an actor the snakes never make any move towards them or act aggressively & in fact always appear to want to slither away in the opposite direction.

Shot in California technically the film is obviously low budget & it show's, basically it looks cheap because it is. The acting isn't great not that the actor's are given any sort of material to work with.

Snakes on a Train is rubbish, I am sorry but that's how I feel & I don't quite know how else to describe it. I really can't see what anyone would get out of watching Snakes on a Train, it really is that bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Upon renting this, I wasn't expecting to be blown away. In fact, I knew it was going to be horrible. It was just seeing how horrible it really was. That's what comes with low budget horror.

\"Snakes On A Train\", not to be confused with the serpentine summer blockbuster \"Snakes On A Plane\" with Samuel L. Jackson, is about a woman who is put under a Mayan curse that causes snakes to hatch inside her and devour her from within. Her only hope of surviving lies in a shaman that lives across the border, so she and her companion stowaway onto a train bound for Los Angelas. Throw in a few passengers and hilarity ensues.

Come to think of it, though, the story isn't half bad. Isn't half good, either.

The acting in this film rivals that of a Sci-Fi Original, if not worse. Trust me, it's horrible. The snakes were another problem. They were supposed to be rattlers, I guess, but most of what you get instead are mostly harmless garden snakes that don't attack anything and there's this rattling sound effect that gets really annoying.

The gore effects on the other hand, while not on the Tom Savini level, were actually pretty good.

And another thing, the ending alone makes up for the rest of the movie. I'm not going to talk about it here, so you'll have to rent this and see for yourself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Snakes on a Train is a movie I rented due to the pure amusement of the thoughts I had, about the movie. Snakes on a Plane was an enjoyable Action film, so obviously the film makers wanted to cash in on the success, with this low budget effort. At 85 minutes, Snakes on a Train is almost unbearable to witness. I had to keep pausing the film to do something to entertain myself, due to the lack of happenings in the film. Throughout the duration of the film, it's never fully explained why this girl has this curse, or why she keeps coughing up this green\/purplish goo constantly. Not only that, there is endless boring dialog of the two main characters, Brujo and Alma discussing how to get rid of the curse. I can appreciate low budget film-making. I'm truly not picky on movies, i'm open to any genre or budget, but Snakes On A Train is truly one of the worst Horror films I have ever seen. Were the writers on Acid or something at the end of this film?. Why did the woman suddenly turn into a giant snake? and most importantly how on earth was it able to devour the train?.

Bottom line. Snakes on a Train is a movie that needs to be avoided at all costs. Don't be intrigued like I was by the title, this is a movie that's seriously bad. Let's put these snakes to rest

0\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Looking back on the year 2006,one of the things i will remember most is the \"Snakeamania\" on the internet for a film called Snakes on a plane.But unknown to me there was a straight- to- DVD rip-off film called Snakes on a train!After seeing this i feel its at best a below-par B-Movie.

The plot:

A husband and wife get on a train to go to Los Angles,to get help form the husbands uncle who is a shaman.This is because the wife's family do not approve of her marring him,so they have put a curse on her that snakes will \"become her\".Thought with a sixteen hour drive to Los Angles and a group of passengers the include an ex-Narc cop and some drug traffickers.Will they get there in time before the snakes take her over?

View on the film: First the effects:I have to say that while some scenes with the smaller snakes look good in a gory-way,the main effect shots you have to wait eighty minutes to see!Are sadly that bad that they completely kill any good memories of the film(The film makes 198os Video Games look like T2 next to this!.)One of the things i noticed is that there is no screenplay credit on the film! and the directors make the film so anti-climatic it ruins the whole film. Final view on the film:

A below-par B-Movie,with an unbelievably bad ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Overall, this is a pretty bad film. But for $5 at PathMark, it wasn't a total waste.

The whole scenario has to do with a guy who is with this lady infected with snakes, supposedly from a magic curse. The actors\/actresses aren't names that are big (even though some look like from TV shows), so I won't do my usual Troy McClure thing.

For awhile, the film holds your interest as the couple hop a train and travel to L.A. to see a shaman to undo the curse. There's a bit of other plots going on too; like two ladies smuggling drugs.

But the last 20 minutes turn out to be a total let down. As violent and gory as the whole film is, the grand finale is just totally computer animated.

I saw the unrated version which had tons of language, gore, blood, violence, everything! The bonus features were OK.

Overall Grade: D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"very straight - not happy with the movie.

The main center of the movie is the story where the lady is the mother of all the snacks and all the things.

If they can more explain that how this is happening and all the stuff then it was quite a fun and more rating for this movie.

The end was very short and sudden, till now actor of the movie was to save her then at last he told sorry !! now we are late. OH !! crap.

what was the story , and how this all this thing happen, I think they can put all these stuffs. So the end user like us will be satisfied that yes we are happy with the movie.

any way , but nice idea and nice try so I will say 4 or max 4.5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Snakes on a Train (2006, Dir. The Mallachi Brothers) A Zombie curse is placed upon a woman, which causes her to have living snakes inside her. Brujo, who is looking after her, attempts to take her to Los Angeles on the train. After several confrontations on the train, Brujo's collection of snakes manage to separate themselves from their owner and go on the hunt. Whilst all this is happening, normal, everyday passengers are relaxing, what is unknown to them is that something deadly is heading their way, and that their is no were out.

After watching the wonderfully fun 'Snakes on a Plane', i had to check this out. I knew it was going to be a rip-off and that the film will look cheap, but what i found was worst to watch. The whole curse plot was silly and should never have been included. The special effects aren't terrible but are not the best looking. I did not have a clue about the ending. It was silly to watch and pathetic. The acting was absolutely terrible, and looked bad. They just could not act to save their lives. If you want a great laugh, watch this, otherwise you should really avoid this.

\"We have a runaway train. I repeat. We have a runaway train.\" - Conductor (Stephen A.F. Day)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not to be mistaken as the highly touted Samuel L. Jackson vehicle SNAKES ON A PLANE; SNAKES ON A TRAIN is low budget, features no actors(to speak of), but some pretty decent visual effects. An attractive young woman(Julia \"Rayanne\" Ruiz)does not want to marry someonelse's choice for her husband; so she is put under a powerful Mayan curse that has snakes hatching inside her body, slowly devouring from the inside out. Her only hope for survival is a shaman who lives across the border in Texas. Time is running out for her; and she is put on a train from El Paso to Los Angeles. Before long the snakes are leaving her pain wrecked body and rapidly growing in size. The passengers aboard the train are now trapped and soon to be snacks for the snakes. The finale sequence is no doubt the best of this 91 minute flick. Also receiving acting credit are: Alby Castro, Al Galvez and Giovanni Bejarno.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe that anyone would green light this let alone voluntarily star in it. I will never be able to get that 90 mins of my life back.

This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. Some films are so bad they're good. This has gone so far round again that's somehow it's so bad it's terrible. I was not exactly expecting much, it being a low budget, bandwagon jumping, rehash of a B Movie, but it still came in way under my expectation levels. Even TV movies have higher production values.

There were (very) poor special effects, shocking dialogue, terrible acting and a completely unexplained plot. Who cursed her and why, why did the 6 inch snakes turn into 15 foot snakes, has anyone ever heard of highly venomous garter snakes or pythons? 100 passengers? 3,000 snakes? So many promises, none delivered.

Some comments would have you believe that this film is worth watching for the last five minutes. It's not even worth a rental. Stay in and watch a low budget TV movie, you'll enjoy it a lot more.

Why was this made? Oh yes, to shamelessly cash in on the internet phenomenon that is SOAP. Shame on you Mallachi Brothers, shame on you","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"SHUT THE FRONT DOOR\" That's what I said when I was told that Blockbuster got a new movie in called Snakes on a Train. Okay, maybe that's not exactly what I said, but you get the point. I didn't need to know who was in the movie, or anything else. All I knew was that I am renting this movie.

I probably should have asked what it was about though. In retrospect, I don't know if I would have really wanted to watch a movie about a Mayan curse that causes a woman to give internal birth to snakes and have them spit out of her mouth. Nor would I want to see a movie that features a guy who looks strangely enough like a pedophilic version of Leif Garrett.

Anyways, while the curse might be interesting on some levels (well, maybe not), there was still promise of these annoying characters getting eaten or at the very least, killed by snakes. So I was willing to sit through the first hour of very little happening other than a Texas Ranger forcing a girl into a nice little titty grope so she can keep her cocaine, or the Hispanic shaman that likes to occasionally stab people. But then, all hell broke loose, and the girl started to spit out more and more snakes.

*SPOILER ALERT* So everything's going well at the end, and I'm willing to overlook the fact that some of these snakes all of the sudden turned out to be 25 feet long. After all, people are getting eaten, so it's all good. But then all of the sudden, and I'm not going to tell you how because that would ruin the best part, one of the snakes is about 300 feet long. Then it proceeds to squeeze and devour the train, with all the graphic artistry of Serpentaur from the old GI Joe cartoons. Unfortunately, I could not make a Nemesis Enforcer connection with this movie. Anyways, so you would think that a snake that big, who ate a train, would be pretty unstoppable. Well not if you know your Mayan voodoo rocks and have the ability to summon tornadoes from heaven. Yeah, that's all I'll say about that.

In short, this movie is bad. Really bad to the point where you might be numb after watching this, or your brain might hurt. I didn't give this a one, because no matter how stupid it was, it still wasn't as bad as Date Movie. So if you like camp or badly constructed B horror movies, this is the one for you. If you think this will actually be cool like its bigger, more infamous brethren, just walk away from the box if you see it. And I'll leave you with a quote from the movie that should basically sum it all up.

\"Snakes can't get on a train!\" Because that's just silly. Not like they make stops or anything....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This train-wreck begins with Brujo and Alma crossing the Mexican border. Alma is suffering from some horrid curse that causes her to vomit garden snakes and Nickelodeon Gac every few minutes as well as clench her teeth and mutter nonsense. So Apparently Alma has this uncle in Los Angeles who knows of a cure for her. They hop aboard a train to get there and luckily a friend of theirs pays their way. Alma and Brujo stay in the luggage cart the whole movie since they can't afford upper class seats. Meanwhile in the higher class we see a bunch of nobodies on their way to LA for whatever reasons. A balding guy on a business trip, two girls, one of whom is carrying $5 grand and a wad of cocaine, three stoners, and some Mexicans. The Mexicans rough it up with Brujo and try to take his \"weed\" which apparently is a sedative for Alma's snakes slithering inside her. They realize that the snakes don't attack, they Enter Your Body Through Your Veins! Very twisted and B-Movie. Brujo saves the guy by ripping out his heart (Temple Of Doom style) and procuring the snake. For some reason he cannot have the snakes harmed or it'll hurt Alma. While this is going on a narcotics expert tries to bust one of the girls and gets a little action (topless) in exchange for not telling about her shipment of drugs. A mystery guy shows up and has a gunfight with him. As a grand finale Alma turns into a vampire, bites her man and then becomes a giant pathetic excuse for a CG snake the size of the train, eats the train and is blasted into a nuclear bomb hurricane whirlwind and disappears. Everyone then heads to LA on foot.

The credits actually say at the end \"Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental, and very weird. We suggest moving and\/or taking a plane\". Odd since a line in the movie from the bald guy is \"Yeah, I HATE planes!\" The credits go on to say \"No snakes were hurt during the production of this screenplay. Only a small child but it's cool.\" There actually were a LOT of real snakes used in the movie, and all of them very tame. There is actually no scene of CG snakes attacking anyone unless you count the large one, but then it just eats the train and the other fake snake is just the head and it looks like a muppet. The snakes don't really attack anything, they're just...there. One crawls out of toilet paper actually!

the movie isn't funny, isn't scary (as there's no real snake attack), and is just a 'quickie cash-in' which is when a low-budget movie company hears about a big budget Hollywood release, then they rush to put out a similar film, or even a parodic version, for release just prior to, or simultaneously with, the big name flick. The effect of this being that many people will either confuse one for the other, and go see the quickie rather than the 'biggie' or, they will want to see both, for whatever reason... like myself. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Last week on Friday, I went to see \"Snakes on a Plane\" with my friends. It was amazing compared to this horrible film (however, many of the scenes were ridiculously hilarious). Basically, some woman has a Mayan curse where she pukes up harmless harmless garter snakes that, instead of attacking, crawl inside of they're victims. The girl with the bag of coke is pretty hot. On the title screen it says \"100 Passengers... 3,000 Venemous Vipers!\" Scary, I know. There weren't even 100 passengers on the train. Only a couple of stoners and some other washed out losers. It's worth the five bucks to see the woman turn into a huge CG snake and devour the whole train then get sucked into a huge vortex though. It's just sad that someone would go to such lengths to make a crap film, only to make a few bucks because of the \"Snakes on a Plane\" craze.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I picked this DVD up for 3.99 at rogers video in order to get enough points to get a better movie for free. I never actually was planning on watching this but it started poking at my curiosity and i finally decided to pop in it the DVD player. The effects in this movie are horrible and cheap. Some of the dialog in this movie sounds like it was written by a swear happy 12 year old boy. The acting is really cheesy in some parts, and the \"action\" scenes are completely laughable. You'll burst out laughing at some parts which was a positive for me because it kept me mildly entertained. The plot is some girl has a curse on her which causes her to vomit snakes so some shaman has to get her to Los Angeles, there are also two girls trying to smuggle drugs there and a few other people that are unimportant to the plot, not that there really is a plot at all.Don't expect anything from this movie and don't listen to the cover, there are not 100 passengers and 3,000 vipers, there are 10 passengers and 20 random snakes.

As for the DVD, there is a trailer which is almost as laughable as the film, a blooper reel which is just one shot over and over of one actor trying to say train, and the deleted scenes are really pointless, if they weren't good enough to stay in this movie they must be pretty bad. There is also a really bad making of featurette which doesn't really show much at all except that the people involved with this movie were kind of idiots. I can't recommend it unless you want a really bad movie that you can laugh at with friends. I give it 2 kitty cats out of 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is bad, yes, but had the producers used a REAL KANGAROO, it would have killed the actor it was boxing with. I am an Australian and I have seen two seven foot tall male 'Roos fighting each other, it is not a pretty sight as the object is for one or the other to kill it's opponent,(this is there way of securing the herd of females) and there are incidents where someone has boxed a kangaroo, and been injured or killed, so when you see a kangaroo on TV or Film it is likely to be a female, or Animated, as it is a good idea not to injure actors (they might be annoyed at losing the ability to breath). There is a strange idea that Australian animals are cute and cuddly, that is false, many are dangerous (10 of the 12 most deadliest snakes live here)and most are just plain ugly (Koalas are as soft as steal wool). So if you come to Australia BE CAREFULL!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just Desserts was, I must say, one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting was terrible and even the plot line was laughable. I gave it a 3 out of 10 instead of a 1 because I enjoy laughing at excruciatingly corny movies. My expectations weren't high to begin with, but it turned out to be cornier than I expected. I thought it might not be all that bad when it started, but as soon as the name of the competition--The Golden Whisk--came up i began changing my mind. It all went downhill from there. The only thing I did like about this movie, other than snickering at it's absurd plot and dialogue, was watching them cook. However, being a movie about pastry chefs, there were minimal scenes in which they actually baked anything. I would recommend watching the cooking channel instead of this movie. You get to see more food being prepared, and you dodge the pathetic one-liners. However, if you enjoy corny love stories, which is sometimes fun, go ahead and watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This Spaghetti Western uses three American lead actors which takes away a little of the typical spaghetti aura. The plot is about an amnesty that the governor of New Mexico gives to all willing criminals to provide them a chance to start a new life. Usually this kind of opportunity is limited to past events but in this film it seems more like a licence to kill because even new crimes (like e.g. threatening the governor) are forgiven. The story is an endless chain of killings where nearly every character has only the purpose to deliver more carcasses. Only the few leads have stamina. Clay McCord is haunted by nightmares related to a childhood event where unsurprisingly he killed a lot of people. In the middle of the everlasting mayhem this kind of reflections lack credibility. Compared with similar films like e.g. BANDIDOS none of the characters in this film was likable for me.

Apart of the weak content which targets certain customers this film is well shot, sets are somewhat detailed and the acting is average.

4 \/ 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie over 20 years ago and had rather fond memories of it. Catching again on Cinemax this month, I realized how little discernment I had about films back then. This is an utterly ordinary spaghetti western, with absolutely nothing noteworthy about it. Script, direction, acting, photography are all a big blah. Stick with the Sergio Leone westerns!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't see this movie when it originally came out, but there has been a couple songs sharing the title and the term still gets used from time to time and I figured there must be something to the flick, so I dug it up and gave a view. Now I would like the approximate hour and forty five minutes of my life back(it seemed much longer). There was nothing particularly bad about the movie, the acting was good, no large plot holes, of course there wasn't much plot to have holes in. There just wasn't a lot to the movie. There was some chemistry between the two but nothing compelling about their relationship; Nothing interesting about their story. Near the end when he attempts to chase down the train to catch his fleeing romance, neither my wife nor I wanted him to catch her. Honestly we figured they were better off with out each other and if they did get back together we really didn't care. So what's that say about this love story when even a 25 year old sappy romantic like my wife had no emotional investment in the relationship. I should have left this one in the \"missed\" category.

Logan Lamech www.eloquentbooks.com\/LingeringPoets.html","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watchable but pretty terrible. How shocking that this was the great Gregory La Cava's last directing credit! Even in his better known roles, I don't care for Gene Kelly. He seems to me to be smug, hostile, and self-involved. Here, paired with a minor actress like Marie Wilson, he seems to show those characteristics in spades.

Marie Wilson, playing an heiress who falls for a military man, is exceptionally hard and unsympathetic. The actors seem to be working hard to get past the hard, disagreeable core of the picture and they do OK.

The know-it-all butler is apparently meant to be funny but he seems like an extended riff on the prissy bits for which Franklin Pangborn was famous (and in which, despite their stereotyping, he was generally funny -- unlike this guy.) Phyllis Thaxter is as always very appealing in a rather underdeveloped secondary plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Greek locale for parts of the movie were very beautiful and the photography get all my votes and that's about the extent of my raves for this movie. I found that all the characters were narcissistic archetypes found so often in the American culture and were shallow and uninteresting. Susan Sarandon and Gena Rowlands are easy to look at but I found their characters very narcissistic and unlikeable for many other reasons. When Gena Rowlands sings at a party it made me wonder how this woman could think of herself as a competent star of the stage. I was tempted to hit the MUTE button until she finished singing. Molly Ringwald was herself and Raul Julia's character was so lecherous he was downright creepy. The movie was much too long for my liking and I could not sit through it again even at the point of a gun.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Paul Mazursky misfires on this film. The writing, direction, casting, and acting (with the exception of Victorio Gassman) are all off the mark. I remember the reviews from 20+ years ago being mediocre, but I thought it still might be worthwhile to view. With notables such as Susan Sarandon, Raul Julia (who overacts in most of his scenes) and John Cassavetes, I understandably expected much more. The music picked for the film is jarring, the cuts between New York and Greece confusing, and the overall pace all leave much to be desired. Why Paul Mazursky felt the need to update this story, or add his touch to it is puzzling - this retelling of Prospero and his daughter takes very little of import from the play, and adds not much more. The play is not one of Shakespeare's best anyway, and to gut it even further seems not to be a good decision. Unfortunately, there is nothing to recommend in this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tempest is based on the classic Shakespearean work of the same name, but bears little resemblance to its source material.

It masquerades as being as cerebral as its namesake, but instead is a jumbled, convoluted, and hackneyed exercise in tedium. The original probed the premise that people have an evil side, which would be destructive if unchecked. Here you just get an uninteresting mid life crisis (yawn) goof ball who is having everything go wrong in his personal and professional life. He becomes endowed with a supernatural power that he uses to try to control his environment; in other words: to get his own way.

Every few minutes, after something else in his pathetic life goes wrong, he finds a secluded place and starts babbling \"Show me the magic!\" while waving his hands around and making a \"serious concentration\" expression. From the way these scenes are shot, it looks like he's trying to turn bugs into other kinds of bugs. Turning a spider into a cockroach, maybe, but by this time, you really don't care.

The story has him bolt from his life with his daughter to a Greek island somewhere, then have a awkward relationship with some girl he meets, one of the dullest romances ever committed to film. The story just bogs down and moves at a slower and slower pace. You are never given any reason to like or dislike anyone.

I'll give this a 2 because of the beautiful Greek location shots and the semi-optimistic conclusion (although it isn't clear if the tempest power brought this ending about or not). The spirit of Shakespeare's work has been captured much better in other movies; one notable example is \"Forbidden Planet,\" which gave credence to how the power gets out of control.

As for this \"Tempest\", its only magic is to cure insomnia.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this 2.5 hour diluted snore-fest appears to be one of the poorest excuses for an adaptation, ever. clearly possessing a budget allowing for breathtaking location shooting in greece, the monies might have been better spent working out a cohesive script with character development and motivations clearly outlined; especially since bill has gone through the trouble of doing this already. the portrayals lacked passion & direction, leaving the viewer debating whether they should bother to care about the demise of the protagonists at all. which brings out another point-the main character of the original work, prospero, is not so named in this rendition despite the fact that most other characters' names are used. enchantment and magic are also markedly absent from this particular piece. in fact, all aspects that made the stage version of 'the tempest' full of wonder and intrigue have been sucked completely from this convoluted version about a self-absorbed, pompous arse who can't figure out how to care about anything beyond the blur of his wealth and power. over all, a lackluster effort at best and a brutally poor imitation of the intended inspiration.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before launching into whether this film is worth your time or not, I should inform you I've never seen another adaptation of Carmen, so if you're looking for a review on how it ranks amongst others, this might not be of much use to you.

The only time I've come across Carmen was on the car stereo when driving through Spain on a family holiday when I was a teenager. I didn't pay much attention to it because I didn't like opera at the time and I didn't know any better. The story has been around for 150 years or so. Do I feel I've missed out after seeing this movie? Yes, mainly due to the plot, but also because if all the actresses who played Carmen looked like Paz Vega, I would have all the adaptations happily sitting in my DVD collection.

Directed by Vicente Aranda (who also co-rewrote the story with Joaquim Jord\u00e0), the story is told through the eyes of the original author Prosper M\u00e9rim\u00e9e, a French writer making his way through 19th century Spain. He comes across Jos\u00e9 (Leonardo Sbaraglia), a delinquent soldier and one of many men who fall in love with Carmen (Paz Vega), a sultry, sexy, bedazzling gypsy woman, who has the mouth of the devil, the temper of a 'toro' and who recklessly leads men to their doom. The moment she meets Jos\u00e9, she is attracted by his stand-offish behaviour. But she hooks him, reels him in and lets him go, many-a-time. Until one day, Jos\u00e9 is wanted for murder. Carmen persuades him to join her band of gypsy smugglers. They seem to be settling, she's fallen in love with him, but she meets the charming Escamillo, the bullfighter. Can Jos\u00e9 hold his jealousy in check, or does it destroy him?

It's a beautiful,seductive story, something that resembles, almost, a Shakespearian or Ovid plot, with the portrayals of immense passion and emotion that can make or break us and transform us to do things out of character. It's poetic, fiery, and above all, slutty. I was left hanging on, I didn't know which way it was going to turn. I always hoped that Jos\u00e9 might change Carmen's dirty little ways. I won't tell you if he succeeded or not.

The above synopsis is what I took away from the film, but I was not impressed by the film itself. It was only after I watched it that I dug a little deeper into the story and I realised how much of a missed opportunity Aranda had made of retelling M\u00e9rim\u00e9e's classic. It was a shallow, slutty period-drama blunder, that saw Paz Vega spend a lot of the time partially or completely naked (not that I'm complaining about this in particular!).

First of all, the acting was poor. I was not impressed by Sbaraglia as Jos\u00e9. I'm still unsure whether he was a weak actor or Jos\u00e9 was supposed to be a weak character, I've not read the book. He's supposed to be a man who with burning desire for Carmen, but he spends much of the time looking confused, jealous and a bit dim. Paz Vega was slightly better as Carmen. I was convinced by her hardened, wicked character, although I have seen more convincing performances by her in other films, such as Zapping and Lucia y El Sexo. She seems too pretty to play a gypsy woman (not that I've come across many Andalusian gypsy women), so in a way, the role didn't really fit her. The other actors in the film weren't great either. They seemed to do everything half-heartedly. The story is passionate, emotive \u0096 they looked half-arsed, as if they couldn't wait to get out the tight 19th century costumes they were wearing.

However, the costumes, I was impressed with - one of the redeeming factors of the film. I like Spanish culture, I liked the soldiers' uniforms, the top-hats and the women's Flamenco dresses. They fitted the time well. That's all I can really say about that. Sorry, back to the criticism.

The script, as stated above, was co-rewritten by Vicente Aranda and Joaquim Jord\u00e0, and done so badly, so much that it would leave M\u00e9rim\u00e9e turning in his grave. It was boring. It didn't make best use of Jos\u00e9's intense passion for Carmen (or maybe that was just the acting). There were cheesy lines piled upon one and other, Satan and devil connotations everywhere, amongst the millions of swear words. I know the Spanish are partial for the odd swear word, but the film was littered with puta, 'whore', in literally every line Maybe it was realistic in 19th century poverty-stricken Seville, but the story itself didn't need it.

The editing and camera work was dull and ordinary. There was only one bit I actually liked, and that was when the camera follows a fly close-up in mid-air, which lands on Carmen's face. That was good. But the rest? Boring.

To conclude, it is sad to see such a great story go to waste with unconvincing acting and directing. If you're a literature teacher, by all means let your class watch this adaptation to get an idea of the story. However, only the male half of the class will be paying any interest to the film, thanks to Paz Vega. Otherwise, stick to the opera version (even though I hate musicals). I give this film 4, just for the fact I love the storyline! And Paz Vega!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Carmen is a prostitute that lives seducing and stealing soldiers of the Spanish army; she is, without any doubt, the best femme fatale at the moment. When a man resist her charming attentions, she decides to do everything to destroy him. At the end, he falls in her web and he will be forced to make all the things he ever hated only for being with Carmen. Despite Paz Vega is very beautiful, she doesn't seem a gypsy (as Carmen is) and neither her acting nor Sbaraglia's are good. The story results very boring, and, in most moments, it is very absurd, while intending to appear truthful. in the same way are the scenarios and the Special Effects, despite not being but they are not but acceptable, and too much artificial for a historic film as it is. To sum up, boring and bad, with a very absurd development, there are much betters thing to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I saw this in the cinema, I remember wincing at the bad acting about a minute or two into the first scene, then immediately telling myself \"no, this has to get better\". It didn't. The performances are pretty uniformly teak 'n pine and no, there is NO sexual chemistry in this film whatsoever, just the awkward posturings of a reasonably comely, discreetly talentless actress who seems born to grace the cover of \"Intervi\u00fa\" and not much else besides. If the scriptwriter thought that making M\u00e9rim\u00e9e a character was a stunningly original creative ploy he perhaps ought to get out more. And Aranda, if he'd given the matter a bit more thought, would have realised that the story of Carmen is just CRYING OUT for a thoughtful, iconoclastic, parodic deconstruction, not this leave-your-brains-at-the-turnstile affair of ersatz passion and comic-book dialogue. This is contemporary Spanish cinema at its worst.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has been promoting in everywhere in Spain with a huge publicity campaign, after watching it, you realise that someone has stolen your money. Paz Vega is horrible as Carmen, she\u00b4s not natural at all and she looks like she\u00b4s making a fashion magazine cover in all the shots (\"the best\" is when she as an andalusian woman ...\u00a1can speak basque and fluently\u00a1, Leonardo Sbaraglia is much better than her as Jose, but the story is very slow, the plot don\u00b4t work, and the screenplay is really very very bad...I think Penelope Cruz (the film was written for her)would have been a much more credible and sexy Carmen.

What a waste of time and money","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like the other guy said It sux , you can count the words that have been said in that entire movie on one of your hands, Too nudity , she got naked like 7 or 8 times in a 1 and a half , well past the nudity you'll find a porno behind that film , He f**ked her all movie long, bad acting, bad story,bad language, Carmen was swearing all movie long , so you get out of that movie, pornografic scenes and dirty language, A lot of gaps in the movie, a big silence every now and then The only good thing in that movie is the beautiful places were it has been shot, otherwise it's an hour and a half of your life that you'll gonna waste so if u gonna watch that movie Good luck It really Sux","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dull acting, weak script...worst spanish movie in years...I was

attracted by the (naked) beauty of Paz Vega, but as an actress

she's useless, you almost can't understand what she's saying...

About the story there's not much coherent to say...we heard of it

before, but as this is a \"modern Carmen\" we find a few changes: -The french soldier is now a basque soldier. -Merimee himself is a character in the story. -Carmen is a dangerous \"bandolera\" in love with a famous

\"matador\" and she can speak fluent basque...

Can anyone understand this mess?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another pretentious film from Vicente Aranda. If \"Juana la loca\" shinned of the same, at least its quality was superior (mainly thanks to the great performance of Pilar L\u00f3pez de Ayala), but \"Carmen\" is boring and full of topics (ardent brunette with a dagger in the stocking, poor man dragged to madness due to passion, Sierra Nevada gangs, \"toreros\",...)

Obviously Paz Vega is a pretty woman, but about its talent there're more doubts, and Sbaraglia role is so stupid that results almost incredible. The script is weak and and Aranda's presumptuous character influences the entire film. With these ingredients the result could not be good.

Not the worst film I've seen, but a complete failure, in my opinion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another bad spanish picture. This is very baaaad. I only save the photography and the music of Jos\u00e9 Nieto. The rest of the film is the worst I've seen in years. Paz Vega is horrible. Don't see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot for a movie such of this is a giveaway. How can you go wrong with a gay plot line and all the colors and music of India - a story like this writes itself. I'll watch most anything, but this was unwatchable. The sad thing is, the white folks are the most colorful in the film. Vanessa was a riot with a mouth like a sailor, and Jack was great eye candy, but everyone else was so boring. Saeed Jeffrey, who was exceptional in My Beautiful Landrette, did what he could but the story was so boring. The saving grace was really the background music, which made it OK to laugh at the film, instead of with the film, or not at all. There are many other better gay movies, ethnic movies, just plain movies. I give a lot of low budget movies a pass, but this shouldn't have been made, or should have been made by someone else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For those expecting the cover art and story outline to indicate another entertaining Bollywood Indian production, beware: no musical dance numbers or songs of production value exist to brighten the mood in this rather tired story of arranged marriages in the British Indian culture - with a few variations thrown in. As written by Roopesh Parekh the script jumps around topics worthy of discussion only to cover them up with routine avoidance tactics. Harmage Singh Kalirai directs like a traffic cop, trying to hold together the disparate subplots to the point of Keystone Cop tactics.

Jimi (Chris Bisson) is a medical school student who is gay and has a lover Jack (Peter Ash) and they live with Jack's obese, alcoholic, loose morals aunt Vanessa (Sally Bankes) and Sally's chubby daughter Hannah (Katy Clayton). Jimi's family is visited by the Patel family from Delhi who bring their beautiful daughter Simran (Jinder Mahal) to England to find a husband. Jimi's parents (Saeed Jaffrey and Jamila Massey) and his grandmother (Zohra Sehgal) decide Simran is the girl for Jimi to marry and arrange an engagement and wedding in the custom of Indian ways - without consulting Jimi. Jimi discovers the plot and is too spineless not to go along with it, a decision which enrages Jack and infuriates Vanessa. Hannah tells a 'little lie' to Simran (that she is Jimi's daughter) and the wedding is off. When Jimi's parents visit Jimi's house they discover the drunken Vanessa, are repulsed by her, but eventually decide that for Jimi's happiness they will go along with the fact that Vanessa has given them a 'granddaughter' and decide to use the marriage preparations as a wedding for Jimi and Vanessa. Jimi convinces the very reluctant Vanessa to go along with the idea and before long Vanessa is dressed in a sari, prepared for a wedding, and Jimi, terrified at what he is doing just to please his parents, includes Jack as his best man. At the wedding the truth comes out and to Jimi's surprise his family adapts to Jimi's true self and the day is saved by simply being truthful.

The cast copes with this silly bit of nonsense rather well and there are some good performances: Chris Bisson and Peter Ash are attractive men and play their roles well, albeit without any indication at all of a loving relationship (the director seems terrified of showing the least suggestion of intimacy between the two men); Sally Bankes provides most of the laughs as Vanessa; the rest of the cast repeat the stereotype roles they've played countless times in Indian movies. This is not a bad film - it has its moments - but it is just too superficial and tired to make us care about any of the characters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As the film reviewer for a local gay magazine I automatically get sent any dreck if it happens to have a homo in it. Chicken Tikka Masala is churning on in the background as I write this. I gave it my undivided attention for 53 minutes before I found myself involuntarily shouting - like a Tourrette's sufferer -\"This is the sh**test film I have ever seen\". We're just coming to the emotional climax where the son is giving some coming out speech to his father at his wedding. Father seems to be taking it quite well. An attempted honour killing at this point would at least have livened the film up a bit. And made it funnier.

I didn't particularly like Beautiful Thing, for example, but could at least see why other people did. It was made with some professionalism and I seem to remember it had at least a couple of good lines. The lack of wit in this film is quite astounding - even the most mediocre sitcom will tend to have recognisable jokes. The nearest this movie got to being funny (at least in its first 53 mins) was the subtitled comment delivered to the fat unattractive female lead \"Look at her with her legs wide open - she's like the Mersey Tunnel.\" Completely witless and I didn't crack a smile but I could imagine someone with a low IQ (who perhaps works in a chip shop) enjoying it.

I'd imagine it's some Lottery-funded atrocity. If not I can at least console myself with the fact that the backers will lose a substantial amount of money as even a low-budget British film will still set someone back a couple of million. Seriously, if I met the most handsome bloke in the world and, on going back to his place to make sweet love, I found a copy of this in his DVD collection (\"Man, I love this film\") I'd probably kick him in the nuts and leave forthwith. And this from someone who's gone about six months without any of the aforementioned sweet love.

Oh Lord I hate this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am at a loss to find the words to express how bad I thought this film was. The initial precept was promising, but in all respects afterwards it was totally awful. Let's run through the main points. Plot - good initial idea but truly terrible development. There were many points when I thought \"no, nobody would do something that stupid\". The ending was amazingly anticlimactic. Characterisation - all of the characters were either completely bland or grotesque caricatures. I keep trying to think of one that wasn't - possibly the mother, but that's it. Music - intrusive, inappropriate and generally terrible. Direction - totally amateurish. Cinematography - doubt they've heard of it. Camera angles \/ stability \/ zoom levels often really bad. I am totally bemused at how this film has scored so highly. It's the worst movie I've seen at the cinema for years, if not ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't even know where to begin...

It's is not worth typing a review so I will just quote what another user posted because I agree thoroughly, but I give it 1 \/ 10 instead of 2 \/ 10 \"I am at a loss to find the words to express how bad I thought this film was. The initial precept was promising, but in all respects afterwards it was totally awful. Let's run through the main points. Plot - good initial idea but truly terrible development. There were many points when I thought \"no, nobody would do something that stupid\". The ending was amazingly anticlimactic. Characterisation - all of the characters were either completely bland or grotesque caricatures. I keep trying to think of one that wasn't - possibly the mother, but that's it. Music - intrusive, inappropriate and generally terrible. Direction - totally amateurish. Cinematography - doubt they've heard of it. Camera angles \/ stability \/ zoom levels often really bad. I am totally bemused at how this film has scored so highly. It's the worst movie I've seen at the cinema for years, if not ever.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was an extra on this film but wish i wasn't because its rubbish. the worst thing about this film is the music but the acting, script, editing, directing and story are terrible as well. the main reason its bad is because the budget is so low and the only way to make good film on a low budget is to have a good script. the script which should have been ripped up before the film was made isn't funny, i didn't laugh once. what did make me laugh is how makers probably think the most important thing was getting the film made, who cares if its total rubbish. the film needed about million pound more budget and a better writer. the only reason i didn't give the film one out of ten is because i felt sorry for the guy who is gonna lose a few hundred grand making this, if you do go and see it just make sure your drunk at the time. ha ha","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Saw this on French TV today and was most disappointed ! The film starts off reasonably well but nothing is elucidated and at the end we are no farther forward than in the beginning. As to seeing the husband for the murder of his wife, this is just not plausible. You need tangible proof to convict someone and a minimum of evidence. In this case there is none at all so it just is not plausible. Remember the old adage \"innocent until proved guilty\". The fact that a woman has disappeared without trace is no proof that her husband killed her. So I really don't know what kind of point this film was trying to make. The outcome is totally illogical and incomprehensible, no incriminating evidence is revealed to the spectator. So quite frankly, viewing it is a complete waste of time. After all, a film must be entertaining .... this is completely untrue in the case of this one and I suggest it be irrevocably consigned to the dustbin where it belongs !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are those who gripe that this is NOT the opera, but then they don't quibble with the film of CABARET that was not the original show either. All films of musicals\/operas are and have to be \"adaptations\" or they don't work. CABARET took more liberties with the original show than did the film of PORGY AND BESS and yet it kept its original integrity, reworking the material, and is judged an artistic success. The same holds true for PORGY AND BESS- it reworked the opera into a dialogue\/song libretto because audiences at the time loved musicals but stayed away from the few echt filmed operas. It would have been economical suicide for Preminger to produce a film of the opera - it would have lost a fortune for the Goldwyn Studios.

That said, this is a fine adaptation. The acting is excellent, the Oscar winning scoring of Andre Previn is magnificent, as is the choral singing, and the individual vocal achievements are incredible. Robert McFerrin (dad of popular musician Bobby McFerrin) dubbed Porgy and Adele Addison dubbed Bess. While Sammy Davis Jr. sang his own songs in the film, his recording contract would not permit his voice to be heard on the soundtrack album, so Cab Calloway recorded his numbers (spectacularly) for that release. Brock Peters' bass\/baritone is extraordinary and Pearl Bailey is her own unique self. Diahann Carroll, although a singer of fine note, has the small role of Clara which required a high soprano, so old reliable Marni Nixon dubbed her singing.

The Gershwin Estate hates the film and refuses to grant the musical rights, although the dramatic rights are in the public domain. This sort of hate feud held up the video release of CAROUSEL for almost fifteen years (although in that case it was the dramatic rights that were in litigation) and is currently preventing both PORGY AND BESS and ANNIE GET YOUR GUN from being released on video.

Of all the stage productions given film versions, it is these latter two which are the sole holdouts to video. Only a campaign of letters to the Gershwin Estate in NY might loosen up the reserve.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this DVD as part of a set of 50 \"historic classics.\" It's hardly a classic, and as the plot was updated to the time of its release, is not historic either. The actual title on the DVD is \"Indecent,\" and additionally subtitled \"The Private Life of Becky Sharp.\" Myrna Loy is not very convincing, although in her defense she is saddled with an awful script and trite dialogue. As with many early talkies, and especially ones made by smaller studios, there is little skill demonstrated by the cast and crew. Loy does wear a few gowns that are quite stylish, but her costumes and make-up in the later scenes are overdone. The one saving grace is a tolerable performance by Billy Bevan, who plays one of her many suitors","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A girl is looking for her soul mate-- this movie was very strange-- lots of sequences that look like an hallucinations. Tommy Lee Jones is the only stable one in the picture. It was hard to figure out what the director was trying to say-- Most of the time the main character is dressed in weird clothes and makeup. A weird combination of reality and madness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is of interest to the fans of the famous rock group \"The Band\" in that singer\/ keyboardist Richard Manuel appears in several scenes. It looks to me like the movie might have been shot some years before 75, judging by Richard's looks. Interestingly, Jones would later act with The Band's Levon in a considerably better film \"Coal Miner's Daughter.\" Anyway, you really need a special reason to outlast this tough to watch Art film. Alas, the famously sensitive Manuel would commit suicide. I've never heard how he ended up in a movie. Four of the five members of the Band would appear in another bad film \"Man Outside.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a disaster from beginning to end. 75 percent of the movie is made from scenes taken from HERCULES & THE HAUNTED WORLD and HERCULES & THE CAPTIVE WOMEN badly edited together with original scenes that do not add up to anything but a complete rip-off. I'm a big fan of those two movies and seeing scenes taken from them, re-edited and re-dubbed with nonsensical dialogue made my head spin. These kind of cheap producers tactics to make more money by duping unsuspecting audiences basically killed the Sword & Sandal genre back in the 1960s.

There is one memorable scene in the new footage and it's the one when Hercules fights with the bad Hercules. The fight is albeit cool and Giovanni Cianfriglia, who plays Antaius, definitely stands out. He makes a memorable nemesis to Herc. But the rest is borderline embarrassing that was probably shot in a day.

Avoid at all cost!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is just crap, I cant put it differently. Since the very beginning one knows is going to be crap.

The story, dialogue, acting, special effects, make-up, pretty much EVERYTHING sucks. I like vampire movies and I know they will never be Oscar winning movies but this one is not even worth seeing, I can't believe how somebody produced this thing.

It's not even about vampires, it's more about a dream\/reality experience. The development of the movie is incoherent, the motivation of the characters is... Doesn't exist, everything seems like a big joke. Maybe that's what they tried to do, but I sincerely doubt it. I wish I knew what they tried to pull but it just backfired, it's definitely one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life (and I've seen many bad movies, but nothing compared to this) Please, make yourselves a favor and do NOT watch this.

P.S. It's also full of clich\u00e9s! P.S. 2 Bad Script, Bad directing, Bad cinematography. P.S. 3 I bothered commenting on this as a favor to everyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is probably one of 3 worst movies made in history. I rented this by chance, without reading reviews, and wow, do I regret it. Really has no plot, doesn't really follow the vampire genre. Just plain god awful. Watching this movie will taint your enthusiasm for vampire movies. I felt like the writer\/director\/producer went on this drug binge and had hallucinations and tried to recreate it on film. Whole time I wanted the movie to end.. but the ending was even more whacked.

If this review can save just one person from watching this crap, I felt my time spent on registration and writing this review was well worth it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once again, I fell for it, in my roots I crave a fun and gory horror film, even a vampire one. Even if it's stupid, as long as I get my fun gore in the mix, I'm a happy camper, it doesn't take much. So I saw the cover of \"Bled\" over at Hollywood Video and was kind of curious what it was about, it looked kind of interesting, so I decided to rent it. Why? Why do I always fall for it? Not only did this movie not fulfill the satisfaction I needed for my gore and senseless violence and nudity, but I was bored out of mind. This movie has the kahoonies to say it's a vampire movie and it's really not! I'm so close to going back to the store and begging for money back because this is one of the rare times I actually turned the movie off.

An artist meets a vampire, I think, dunno, I'm still trying to figure out what the heck he was but his name was Reinfield, so I'm assuming maybe he's a cockroach eating guy who likes to freak people out? I think, I dunno. Anyways, he thinks the artist has a certain flare for darkness, so he gives her a drug to go into an alternate fantasy where a vampire exists and needs blood to become alive? I think, I dunno. So her friends get excited and decide they wanna try the drug too, I think, I dunno. So after they decide to try the drug, things get weird, the fantasies are real, I think, I dunno, and the vampire is now enjoying the will big breasted girls in scandly clad clothing. I think, I dunno. But a couple of the girls really end up being vampires? I think, I dunno.

Sorry for all the \"I dunno's\", this is possibly one of the worst reviews I'm going to write, but that's because this movie was just awful, boring, and confusing. I love just seeing these wanna be actors who you can tell are waiters looking for that \"big break\". Not too smart that they fell in the clich\u00e9 of the horror genre, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, in this case, they really should have read the script. Because the movie, the look, the feel, the acting, everything about this movie was just bad, I really recommend that you just pass the movie if you see it at your video store. This possibly could have been an interesting movie with it's concept of a different dimension, but why did they pick this director to display his \"creativity\" if he even has any? This was a bad movie, just stay away.

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bled is a very apt title for this As you watch it you will feel your life being bled from you . The clich\u00e9 in horrors is about people doing exactly what they shouldn't ( going down into the basement or going up into the attic) Then the trouble ensues Take heed then DON'T watch this film .Show the brains that victims in horror movies never do Stay clear Do not enter .And if you need anymore incentive This film? is as bad as the worst Uwe Boll film I mean ,The house of the dead bad. I have often thought about entering a review of a film on I.M.D.B. and ,after watching some based on the comments herein ,I discovered I guess everyone's entiled to his\/her opinion. Please trust me on mine","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie today... worst movie EVER. It was a total waste of time and a horrible story. The acting was horrible, especially by the actress of \"Sai\". She was so bad it was ridiculous. I can't tell if it was her bad acting or because the character was just that stupid in the first place. I can't even get my mind wrapped around just how awful and pointless this whole movie was. I'm surprised someone even thought it was a good idea to FILM this movie and bother to release it.

If you're looking for a good Vampire\/Horror flick.. this is not the movie for you. Move right along! It's a waste of time and money. Heck, I wouldn't even DOWNLOAD this movie if someone PAID me.

This movie is so bad it doesn't even deserve a \"1\". I wish I could give it a \"0\"!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"simply i just watched this movie just because of Sarah & am also giving these 4 stars just because of her,on the other side This movie was easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Theacting was horrible. The script was uninspired. This was a movie that kept contradicting itself. The film was sloppy and unoriginal. its not like I was expecting a good film. Just something to give me a jump or two. This did not even do that.

he worst thing is that, the more I think about the overall plot, the less sense it actually makes and the more holes we keep finding. A real shame really, as I'm fairly sure that there was a good idea lurking in there somewhere...

I'm perhaps being a bit harsh giving the film a 4\/10 but given the actors involved and again SARA obvious writing talent, this film really should have delivered far more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What on earth? Like watching an episode of Neighbours after drinking two bottles of cough medicine- nightmarish and making no sense at all. I was waiting for the clever part where everything fits into place and saves the film. Maybe it was there and i just missed it, or was lost on me.

My strongest suspicion is that it is a thinly veiled attempt to market a new drug thats about to hit the streets. I wouldn't say \"don't watch it\" but I will say its pretty poor on every level- like am dram in high def. Whack. Unless you drink two bottles of cough syrup. Then it's just dandy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bled starts as young female artist Sai (Sarah Ferooqui) meets a mysterious yet charming man named Renfield (Jonathan Oldham) & they end up back at her studio apartment where he gives her the bark of some sort of tree which is used as a hallucinogenic drug when melted down. Sai quickly becomes hooked as she is whisked into an alternate fantasy reality which involve Vampiric creatures. Sai's photographer friend Royce (Chris Ivan Cevic) becomes concerned about her as she drifts further from reality as she becomes addicted to the drug, can Royce her kick the drug or will it end up ruining her life & why did the mysterious Renfield get her addicted to the stuff in the first place & do the elaborate fantasy dream like trips have any significance?

Co-produced & directed by Christopher Hutson this anaemic arty Vampire flick is pretty much 95 minutes of tedium & is throughly deserving of all the bad comments. The script was written by the interestingly named Sxv'leithan Essex (how the hell do you even pronounce that anyway?) who is also credited as production designer & his unusual name is actually more interesting than anything that ever happens in Bled, I would guess that the makers set out to make a very serious fantasy based horror film with a strong moral message about the dangers of drugs, drug addiction & date rape drug at it's core. The majority of the film is spent on the drug issue with Sai's initial introduction to the drug, how great the first time was & how she becomes hopelessly addicted which eventually destroys her, her life & her friends lives. It's never explained where she keeps getting this drug from as Renfield only gives her a little bit during their initial meeting but hey, who cares? The first twenty odd minutes of Bled are really boring & dull, the following hour or so aren't much better before a mess of a final ten minutes which involve a Vampiric monster & Renfield making a reappearance. The moral elements are patronising, the fantasy elements seem like an afterthought & the horror is none existent. There's also the dialogue which is awful, every sentence tries to be profound, have loads of hidden depth & just tries to have so much meaning that it becomes tiresome to listen to.

The concept of the film is terrible & so is the execution as there's absolutely no gore or violence to speak of & the entire thing is set inside an apartment that doesn't appear to have any lights. The fantasy setting looks a little better but it's sparsely seen & underused. There are no scares here, no atmosphere & to make matters even worse the makers have decided to used muted very faded colours which I just hate & find annoying, what's wrong with a nice colourful image? It seems to me to be a fad with current filmmakers who seem to think that it automatically makes a film cool or adds atmosphere which it most certainly doesn't, more often than not it just makes your film look dull & drab as evidenced here with Bled.

This probably had a low budget & was shot in Los Angeles & it has reasonable production values but it's all so dull. The acting didn't impress me, I didn't care for or about anyone which is never a good sign.

Bled is a terrible Vampire film that goes for psychological horror as well as physical with all sorts of parallels to real life dug addiction & what it can do to little or no effect because the whole thing is so dull. There might be an audience for a film such as this but considering the other comments not that big a one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretentious horror film that looks like a soap opera gone goth about a drug that send you to a fantasy world where strange creatures lurk. The film has some good imagery but its odd mix of whats real and whats not doesn't go anywhere. Worse are the vague pronouncements in voice over from one of the characters. It seems to herald a more serious, more meaningful film, but I don't think they even got into the serious or meaningful territory to begin with so trying to over sell the meaning comes off silly. There isn't a great deal to say, people talk, take drugs have visions...they talks some more. Its not bad so much as pointless and dull. The dull is the sin here and the reason you'll want to avoid this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"worst. movie. ever made. EVER. I have no words to say about it.. other then it truly had no point, no plot, no... anything. sheer crap!!! I don't know how everyone in the movie didn't shoot them shelves after watching it.... .... .... ... .. I love vampire flicks and mysteries, and alternate abstract outside the box films, and.... this was non of those. I mean what the crap!!! I cant even tell you what the film was about cuz I still don't know, and I just wasted an hour and ahalf of my life watching it... bottom line.. I think the maker of this film just wants everyone to do drugs. thats the only thing I got from this film. please don't watch this... I mean for a \" sultry sensual vampire flick\" there wasn't even the to be expected nudity you'd get from a vamp flick. anyway back to my point.... this movie blows. go set yourself on fire instead.... .. ..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"simply i just watched this movie just because of Sarah & am also giving these 4 stars just because of her,on the other side This movie was easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Theacting was horrible. The script was uninspired. This was a movie that kept contradicting itself. The film was sloppy and unoriginal. its not like I was expecting a good film. Just something to give me a jump or two. This did not even do that.

he worst thing is that, the more I think about the overall plot, the less sense it actually makes and the more holes we keep finding. A real shame really, as I'm fairly sure that there was a good idea lurking in there somewhere...

I'm perhaps being a bit harsh giving the film a 4\/10 but given the actors involved and again SARA obvious writing talent, this film really should have delivered far more.

This movie is just crap, I cant put it differently. Since the very beginning one knows is going to be crap.

The story, dialogue, acting, special effects, make-up, pretty much EVERYTHING sucks. I like vampire movies and I know they will never be Oscar winning movies but this one is not even worth seeing, I can't believe how somebody produced this thing.

It's not even about vampires, it's more about a dream\/reality experience. The development of the movie is incoherent, the motivation of the characters is... Doesn't exist, everything seems like a big joke. Maybe that's what they tried to do, but I sincerely doubt it. I wish I knew what they tried to pull but it just backfired, it's definitely one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life (and I've seen many bad movies, but nothing compared to this) Please, make yourselves a favor and do NOT watch this.

P.S. It's also full of clich\u00e9s! P.S. 2 Bad Script, Bad directing, Bad cinematography. P.S. 3 I bothered commenting on this as a favor to everyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dubbed beyond comprehension, the HBO version of Lumumba is a disastrous rendering of what looks like what was once a decent film. Some scenes simply don't make sense in English and the actors bring zero energy to their voice reading. Add in the self-censorship involving CIA operative Frank Carlucci, and you have a film stripped of both its drama and its power. Here's hoping the subtitled version gets to American television screens at some point.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So I rented this movie hoping to learn about the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the beginnings of its independence from Belgian rule. I was excited to become familiar with the figures involved in its history, mainly Lumumba and Mobutu. I wanted to see how the new Congolese government attempted to bring together the various groups opposing colonial rule, the political motives behind each one, the reasons behind Belgium's decision to give the DRC its independence, and also how the United States and the former USSR were involved. Sadly, all of my questions went largely unanswered. My belief is that this movie was made by people who, through a passing familiarity with the story of the DRC's fight for freedom, saw a story filled with drama and emotion, and decided to exploit it. They then proceeded to try and stuff all the dramatic points into a storyline, briefly filled them out with dialogue, went to the set and shot it. I could be wrong, but if so it's all the sadder, because then the makers must have simply become too tied up in getting everything in, and ended up glossing over all details in an effort to create an encompassing history. Whatever the reason, the fact is that the movie could be a timeline of sentence-long statements and facts printed on the screen. The film goes through each major occurrence, and tells the viewer point-blank the main idea of what's going on, completely smoothing over the actual details in favor of getting across the big things. For instance, there is the scene when Lumumba is captured by the increasingly rebellious army controlled by Mobutu. In the situation the soldiers have three possible viewpoints: one that sympathizes with Lumumba, one that vilifies Lumumba, and one that stands in the middle, sympathizing and yet obeying orders. Correspondingly, there are three soldiers that speak in the scene, uttering lines that unadornedly show their points of view. Then, to avoid dealing with the actual tensions that these opposing viewpoints bring up, the scriptwriters simply inserted some random shooting, more army guys show up and they just end up beating everyone up. This is the extent of the reflectiveness of the movie. Most of the time, each character simply states their basic motives, the other characters respond with theirs, and that's that. There's little telling through actions; even the things they say are direct the point of painfulness. It's hard to believe that the people represented actually acted like that. Also, in the trend of this directness, things like political tension between factions is reduced to simple acknowledgement of the fact-- we never learn what these factions are, what they're fighting for, their power, basically anything except that they exist. The characters likewise are one-dimensional and flat; unfortunately I don't know whether Lumumba was actually a freedom fighter passionately devoted to ideals of Congolese unity, but after an hour or so of the movie I certainly didn't trust it to tell me so. The DRC, like many developing countries, has a complicated and important history, especially in the period leading up to and after independence. But the telling of these histories will not be useful unless there is recognition of the intricacy of the situations. Lumumba fails to give proper attention to these details, and ends up telling the viewer little except the most general of outlines.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is the last straw in a list of films I have seen this week that have pushed me over the edge and forced me to join IMDb and spread some warning to the public. It was absolutely horrible. The film was drawn out and painfully boring. The sound, effects, and even picture quality seemed like they came from Willow (1988) or maybe even Conan the Barbarian (1982). The battle of Bannockburn was absolutely absurd. This \"largest filmed reconstruction of medieval battle ever staged in the British Isles\" made me snicker. There wasn't even a coherent formation at all, just a few guys with spears and horses running right through them. The scenes of Douglas, especially in the last battle, were simply horrible, as was most of the acting in the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The murder of the Red Comyn in Grayfriars Abbey was a long way from one of the most horrendous things ever done in the Scottish War of Independence and fights (and killing) in churches wasn't unusual at all. Not that much later Robert Bruces wife, daughter, two of his sisters were captured during a fight in a church in which people were killed. And comparing it to the massacre of Berwick in which the English slaughtered at least 8000 non-combatants (some, yes, in churches) is ridiculous.

That said this is not a well-made movie. It is slightly antidote to the absolutely RIDICULOUS sniveling representation of Robert Bruce in Braveheart. Whatever Bruce was, it wasn't a wuss.

Too bad that they didn't do a better job of this because someone should make a really GOOD movie of a war that is so amazing that it sounds like something someone made up going from complete defeat at the Battle of Methven to a secret return from hiding to a long guerrilla war to Bannockburn. This isn't it though. Poorly made and to a large extent poorly written and acted. Too bad!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When my Mum went down to the video store to rent a film for the night my sister and I learned a lesson, to always company my Mum to the video store! In fact the only reason why she chose it was because Colin Firth was in it and she *cough* thinks he's a good actor!

It starts off with some beautiful veiws of Africa and then goes DOWN AND DOWN AND DOWN, AND DOWN. After this film I was very surprised that Colin Firth got as far as he did since this pointless film could destroy any actors career.

The story is about a divorced women who's son is trying to matchmake her to a man called Matthew Fields who he met whilst impressing his friends because of his large house.

Nimi the divorce does not like Matthew at all and is going out with the local vicar who does not like her son John.... and the same with him!

I am sorry if you disagree with me and i hope i haven't offended you but to all the people who haven't seen this film, I leave you with one word of warning, DON'T WATCH THIS FILM!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know, I really have a problem with movie lists. I was reading Maxim magazine a while ago and they had a list of the 50 Greatest B-Movies of all time, and knowing me, I of course have to go through and watch them all and write reviews of all of them. This is why you see reviews of movies like Gator Bait and Barb Wire and Coffy on my list. So I noticed H.O.T.S. at the video store the other day and recognized it from Maxim's list of the 50 greatest B-movies, and I decided to rent it and check it out. My only consolation is that I rented it because I recognized it from a list of B-movies, so I already knew it was going to suck.

Given the type of movie that it is, I can't say that H.O.T.S. is a total failure, since it is nothing more than a late 70s T&A film, and it never pretends to by anything else. The only place where it strays widely from its objective is in a ragged subplot involving a couple of ex-cons who have stashed a lot of stolen money in the house that the self-named H.O.T.S. move in to, because this subplot has absolutely no place in the movie. Despite the fact that the rest of the movie is as well, this subplot is completely superfluous and unnecessary.

The story is based on a couple of rival sororities at the beloved F.U., which exists as one of those Universities that contains a grand total of one sorority until the rejects form their own in order to get back at the snobs in the other one. This new sorority, Help Out The Seals (H.O.T.S.), is a sorority supposedly based on helping seals (the seal subplot is another one that doesn't really belong in the movie, and little attention is paid to the meaning of that name beyond having a seal running around here and there throughout the movie).

This is going to sound weird, but there was actually one scene that I was pretty impressed with in this movie. One SHOT that I was impressed with, I should say. About midway through the movie, one of the girls in Pi, the rival sorority, is pouring alcohol into the punch, and she pours some for herself in a glass and drinks it. Oddly enough, what she does as she drinks that alcohol reminds me of something that Charlie Chaplin would do, which really brightened up the movie. Obviously, nothing in this movie comes close to anything that Chaplin ever did, but that shot alone raised my score for the movie from a 2 to a 4.

As a whole, however, the movie is exactly what you would expect it to be, a lot of people running around looking for excuses to take off their clothes (I liked how the remove-one-piece-of-clothing-for-every-score in the football game at the end was one of the GIRLS' ideas. Riiiiiiiiight\u0085), and not much thought is put into much of anything else. There is, for example, a scene early in the film when a couple of the Pi girls pour hot sauce into the refreshments at a H.O.T.S. party, accidentally getting caught in an incriminating photograph (the girl taking the picture didn't realize that she photographed them at the time), although the photograph never comes up for any reason later in the film.

I've seen movies like this before, it's kind of like Gator Bait but without the violence and the rednecks and Coffy wasn't far off. Even Barb Wire is much the same, just with a bigger budget and more silicon. Thankfully, Maxim's 50 B-movie list contains only a few more comedies, because while these cheesy teen T&A films are entertaining every once in a while as bad movies with the occasional semi-nude scene, after watching H.O.T.S. I think I've decided that I like the bad horror movies better than the bad comedies. I'd rather watch a lot of terrible actors pretend to be scared than pretend to be funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The glorious Edward gets to move up in the world when his supervisor tells him that he can drop those filthy Swedish drama movies and head up stairs to the splatter and gore department. Excited along with his big anticipations for the new type of movies he soon will be going to edit, he asks all sorts of questions, about the wage, his workspace and lunch brake. Well, not really. Edward is maybe quite the opposite. Calm, stuttering guy, on top of that, he got glasses. With the exception when he's insane. I guess that created a much creepier atmosphere.

Evil Ed is with all reason a Swedish movie, but somehow a magical force came across the good actors and turned their lovely Swedish accents into stereotypical American voices. I guess that's some of the expertise an actor needs these days. The acting is very\u0085.wooden, as in they are inflexible, not bendable (well hey, what did you actually expect?). On top of that the movie has a jamming techno theme song, sounds like its E-Type. In any case, this only makes the movie experience worse. Since I'm fairly harsh against this movie so far, there will usually be a breaking point where I tone the level of happiness up. But there's really not much to say. The blueprints look good, but somehow 'Hanz' spelt coffee over it and partially destroyed it. That's how I look at this movie. If the movie ended where Edward is taken to a mental institute and they refurnished the parts from where he goes insane and kills people, the result would have been much better, but that's just my radical view. I would also like to see more footage from the lose limbs movies.

There are also illogical things to discover in this piece of movie. Let's to say that the actors really are American, living in America, why would they then work on a Swedish movie, like Edward did? And also, that delivery man, why is it that he never uses the doorbell which is located directly beside him? Instead he goes away with tapping softly at the door. Good old Edward really got some good ears to hear all that while he is editing.

Anyway, this movie had its moments, it's just a shame there were not that many. But that doesn't mean I would not recommend it. It's a rather cheap movie, go ahead and buy. It's almost like I see a pattern for the price and the movie. On the other side; if you like watching dubbed movies getting crappier by the second this might be IT. My verdict would then be a rock solid 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Calling this film a decent or enjoyable horror tribute is far too optimistic. Heck, you can't even refer to it as a nice spoof of the genre because it's way below average ( it's funny, but not \"haha-funny, you know). But still I'd say to give it a look. If only for the huge amount of trivia elements in it. By the way, all those people who're complaining about this movie here in their comments have only themselves to blame. When you see the DVD-cover of this film, you should already know that it's not going to be on the same level as \"The Piano\" for example, so don't come complaining afterwards...

Evil Ed could've been something but the totally screwed it up. I suppose the main idea behind this film is criticism towards the growing 'cutting-committee' in horror nowadays. It shows an editor named Edward who's slowly (well,not too slowly) going nuts by seeing all the violence and gore in the movies produced by his company produced. The big boss is named Sam Campbell...Funny, isn't it ? Personally I also expected a character named Bruce Raimi, but to my surprise there wasn't. Anyway, this guy became rich by making movies called \"Loose Limbs\". They feature ( and I'm not kidding you! ) scenes in which a girl is getting raped by a BEAVER (?) and then gets shot in the head by a bazooka !!! Now, who says horror isn't original anymore ?

With all the gore and the 'loose limbs', it's hard to believe it but it really gets boring very quick. After a decent first 25 minutes, Evil Ed turns into complete boredom and never recovers from that. The only think left to do then ( besides pushing the eject-button, of course ) is look for the obvious amount of references to other, much better horror films. I saw scenes obviously stolen from The Evil Dead, Silence of the Lambs, Braindead and several others.And there's a huge amount of classic horror posters on the walls to admire as well.

Evil Ed finds it origin in Sweden. I'm convinced there's a lot up talent there, far North ( take the Danish \"Nattevagten\" as an example )...but none of them talents joined the cast or crew of Evil Ed. Only to see if you're in a dumb mood and you don't want to use your brain at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This Swedish splatter movie tries to parody\/imitate American horror films such as \"The Evil Dead\", \"Gremlins\" and others. Writer\/director\/actor\/cinematographer Anders Jacobsson and writer\/producer\/actor\/makeup effects supervisor G\u00f6ran Lundstr\u00f6m (did I miss something?) were obviously inspired by Sam Raimi. But the camera work is a bad copy of what can be seen in \"The Evil Dead\" and elsewhere. Some other users have written that they enjoyed the humor of this film but I didn't.

The film rather disturbed than entertained me. It tries to combine suspense and comedy and the final product just left me with a feeling of oppressiveness although it wasn't scary or shocking at all. The combination of different genre elements made this film very strange. I was never sure if it was meant to be scary or funny.

The story is quite inventive except for the showdown at the hospital but I didn't like the way it was staged for the reasons mentioned above. The gore & make up effects are considerably good and at least the \"Loose Limbs\" sequences were quite entertaining because in these scenes the film-makers didn't try to mix scares and jokes.

All in all a strange film that you will either hate or love. Rest in pieces, Evil Ed.

My rating: 3\/10 (made me stick to American productions)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once in a while i like a good horror movie, so i thought this would be a splatter and gore movie. but it was a boring boring movie, maybe because i have seen a cut version, because there where only two things that where a little splatter, one time where some ones cuts someone arm of and where some one shots an arm of, but that where the only things. Wismaster for example had more cool senes then evil ed, its more a boring ed than a evil ed. and some actors where lousy to.o","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A swedish splatter movie? Has the world gone insane?

Probably not, but it's still not a common sight in these days with swedish gore-flicks, the b-movie business in Sweden seems to have troubles these days, long gone are the golden days of \"Rymdinvasion i lappland\". And this movie seems to have some troubles on its own: it's just too much talk in it, it still manages to be somewhat amusing mainly for the good FX, which are great for a b-movie. The script and most of the acting is still pretty bad though, but that actually don't matter that much, it's supposed to be a gore flick and nothing more, that's where it goes a bit wrong for some reason. There's is simply not enough blood to fill the void.

Every person who know about Gert Fylking will have a good laugh over his role as a sgt. though. I nearly laughed my ass off. It's really that hilariously bad.

Besides the good parts I've listed there's really nothing else to recommend here unless you're starved for swedish B-movies.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This flick is TERRIBLE! It sets out to disgust and make you laugh, but it fails horribly. The director obviously has no sense of slap stick gore comedy, and the actors are like nothing I've ever seen - lacking both acting talent and flair of comedy. Even their attempt at the English languish is really sad, and actually the down right peculiar Swedish accent, in which the incoherent dialog is spoken, is probably the most comical and enjoyable thing about this film. Even the gore i awful and unconvincing. If you crave gore comedy, I'd suggest you turn to classic fare such as the evil dead series or even brain dead if you must. We all enjoy a bloody good laugh, but this is ridiculous!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Actually I feel like having my review be that one word. My friend, whose opinions I almost always trust about movies, especially horror movies, warned me NOT to rent this no matter how tempted or bored or desperate to see a new horror movie I was, because it was a complete waste of time. Unfortunately I haven't talked to him in a while, and I was in a hurry to pick a movie, and thought, 'what the heck, how bad could it be?' WHY don't I learn? What was I thinking? Did I think it would magically turn into a better movie while sitting there on the shelf for years waiting to be rented?

The 'plot' concerns a guy who edits films for some company. His boss is a jerk. The guy who had the job before him went insane and blew himself up in the pre-credits sequence, so for some reason the boss picks nerdy 'Ed' for the special project of editing \"Loose Limbs\" splatter movies. He never says what Ed is supposed to edit, but I guess that doesn't matter. Ed is upset by some of the clips, working on them up at this house all by himself that the boss has decided to relocate him to for no apparent reason. He asks his boss if he can stop or do another project, but his boss doesn't care. He starts to slowly go insane, supposedly from watching the clips, and wants to carry out the gory murders in real life. Or has he been this way all along? Please note that I am making this plot sound much more deep, interesting, and coherent than it actually is.

We don't care about the characters at all, or have any sympathy for them, or even hate the bad guys. The plot is really, really boring and predictable. The splatter isn't even that gruesome or creative-this is NOT worth renting just to see the gore, because what there is isn't interesting or original.

All the 'tributes' to Sam Raimi just come off like really bad ripoffs, and no-one in the movie is anywhere near good looking enough as Bruce Campbell, so you can't distract yourself with that. I think an \"Evil Dead II-Dead by Dawn\" poster is only prominently displayed in one scene in the hopes that Sam Raimi will be flattered and not consider any sort of legal action. A trained chimp could have written a better screenplay. Every time I hear lines like \"Are we having fun...yet?\" (which even Bride of Re-Animator couldn't pull off without making me wince) I start feeling like picking up some sort of deadly weapon myself. Characters just appear out of nowhere with no explanation, wandering in only to get killed. This might be OK if the movie was even remotely amusing or entertaining, but it was all I could do to keep from fast-forwarding through most of it. Fortunately I chose to pay some bills and balance my checkbook at the same time the movie was playing. Trust me, it did not require my full attention-I still felt like 90+ minutes of my life were wasted just by having this on in the background.

Don't watch it, no matter HOW tempted you are-you'll hate yourself for wasting your money. Horror fans will be completely disgusted by how incompetent it is. Even those who haven't seen too many splatter movies should stay away, as there are so many movies out there you could rent that are much more well worth your while. If you want something brainless, low-budget and fun, rent something else. Complete waste of time with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Be smarter than I was at the time and don't be fooled by the \"Warning-Not For the Faint of Heart\" on the box. You have been warned!

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not as bad as some people say...This is a unofficial Bond movie and a remake of \"Thunderball\", written by Kevin McClory (co- producer in \"Thunderball\"). Well, the cast is very very interesting, Maria Brandauer is a great Bond- villain, Kim Basinger and Barbara Carrera are just like the \"original\" Bond- girls, plus Rowan Atkinson and a truly great Edward Fox, who looks really refreshing in the \"M\" role. In fact, the whole movie is refreshing and gives some new impulses. Sean Connery does it once more confident and charming, except that he looks a little bit too old. But alright, he is the original Bond and it was great to see him once more in this role. The locations are also typical- Bahamas, France, etc. The only thing that really fails is the music score, the song \"Never say never again\" is O.K., but the theme song is just missing. All in one, a nice try to make a difference from the comic and silly Roger Moore movies like \"Moonraker\". Only if there was another story, \"Thunderball\" was a excellent movie and really did not needed a remake","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Though some would prefer to comment on the value of Bond movies in the connection of learning frequency, and while most of the jargon that tends to limit Bond to a meager 007 following has been exploited beyond all reasonable contention, there are several redeeming plausibilities that extend the credibility of Sean Connery in this doubling role that had seen its counterpart adaptation in part of a previous performance by Jessica Tandy in Driving Miss Daisy. While Connery had been less visible in the latter, his woman-seeker qualities had maybe not cast a frown on the face of embittered spectators as it would in this latest rendition which, to most involved, approached the 007 theme with kind resentment, albeit while the general flavor had been altered. Great for those who interest others while faking to be who you're not!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sad in every aspect, this poor excuse for a career boost for Connery was neither that nor the hit Warners wanted it to be. Overlong by 20 minutes and filled with embarrassing moments for everyone involved, this film and \"Robocop 2\" are proof that Irvin Kershner did not have any real control over \"The Empire Strikes Back.\" Connery hadn't been in a hit since he bowed out from Bond in 1971, but this didn't bring him back at all. \"Octopussy\" was released several months before this film, and easily outgrossed it. Imagine that - a Roger Moore Bond not only better than a simultaneous Connery release, but outgrossing it (and compared to \"Never...,\" \"Octopussy\" is on par with \"2001.\"

The worst Bond theme song, even worse than \"The Man with the Golden Gun,\" pointless scenes that drag on pointlessly (with the worst example being that ridiculous video game sequence - MY GOD - WHO CARES?!), and the most atrocious collection of non-talent as far as the fabled \"Bond Girls\" go. Does anybody SERIOUSLY think Kim Basinger is attractive in this movie? There were girls in my high school who could never get dates who looked better than she does in this. And Barbara Carrera - just plain stupid - but the way Kershner has directed her to prance around all the time didn't help her out any. She is the seedling that would become the very impressive \"Onatop,\" which was about the best feature of \"GoldenEye,\" but that doesn't mean anything as you laboriously struggle through this film.

Casting Leiter as a black agent was an excellent idea, but the buddy-loke interaction Connery and he are supposed to have is awfully bad. Two actors never appeared so clumsily linked together - witness the scene where, to escape local authorities, they strip to their boxers and pretend to be out exercising - I can not imagine another scene in any movie that tried so hard so fruitlessly to get a laugh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is more than just an adaptation of Bond: it's a plain rip off! With mediocre character sketches that Ian Fleming would not have approved of, this film goes down as the worst 007 movie. An older (even haggard) Connery tries to relive his past 12 years later. The result is a humourless, tacky version of the classic hero. Give me Roger Moore any day!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Connery climbs aboard the Moore buffoon train in this stinker of a movie. Tossing away everything that made Bond successful in the first place, this movie further degrades the Bond character throwing him into the category of Inspector Gadget. Get Smart this ain't. There is no style here, only second rate actors performing on cheap sets. It's a shame that Connery couldn't lend an element of class here but it doesn't come across. Everything here reeks of mediocrity, including Connery's bad toupee. Perhaps if I was snowed in and given the choice between watching \"Never Say Never Again\" and \"Howard The Duck\" I would choose the former. If you want the real James Bond, pick up any Ian Flemming novel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thunderball and Never are two of the biggest box office misses and Never is a surprise farce from Empire Strikes Back hero Irvin Kershner. Klaus Maria Brandauer seems to steal the show, when, in the midst of the unfolding plot, Bond's mission turns more to Hollywood romp (Sometime around when Basinger comes in). How about Klaus Kinski? I still think that the casting of Largo makes or, as is evident in both films, breaks the story. Worst of all is the attempt to pass off the aging and very hairy Connery off as the sex symbol he indeed was in the '60s. The '80s was a barren time for Bond flicks mostly, though For Your Eyes Only is a great title. At times, when I happen to need to waste some time over the holidays by watching this film in the often string of Bond re-run festivals, I think the best attribute of the film is its score, and I'm not into soft '80s 'jazz'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It only took one viewing of this dog, for me to say \"Never again!\" It's so profoundly unmemorable that I had to read other people's reactions to it before I could remember anything beyond (1) it was awful, (2) Connery should have quit while he was ahead, and (3) the film included a total gross-out bit involving faking a retinal scan through the most gruesome (not to mention horribly inefficient) means possible.

Actually, I've never understood why anybody would prefer even the best of Connery's Bond films over even the worst Moore or Dalton outings. Or Lazenby, Brosnan, or even David Niven, for that matter. I personally found Octopussy and Moonraker, among other \"canonical\" Bond films, to be far more entertaining than this, and probably for the very same reasons why others deprecate the Moore Bond films, namely their wry humor, and their willingness to surrender to the preposterousness of the whole basic Bond milieu.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought a tape of this film based on the recommendation of other IMDb users and have to say that I was very disappointed. I'm a college professor and showed this movie to my class; they unanimously voted that it's a terrible film. I guess that if you like the old Dark Shadows series, then maybe you'll like this. (I liked Dark Shadows when I was a kid in the '70s, but now I think it's just awful). The first half hour or so at least has the virtue of some fidelity to Wilde's novel. After that, the story veers wildly off course, at least as compared with the 1945 MGM version (which won two Oscars). Nigel Davenport as Lord Henry is really about the only thing watchable in the whole production. A lot of the other acting is bad, the music is melodramatic, and look of the film is terrible. Actually, it's not a film at all--it was obviously shot on video and has that characteristically claustrophobic BBC look about it. The opening scenes are particularly poorly lit, the women's costumes are terrible (the men look all right), and a lot of the characters--including Dorian--seem to have 1970s rather than Victorian hairstyles. The movie does well to include a lot of Wilde's dialog, but the voice-over narration in the voice of Dorian contains a lot of rubbish that directly contradicts Wilde's character. I'm a big Oscar Wilde fan, and I fear that he must have rolled over violently in his grave when this monstrosity was made. Its only improvement over the 1945 version is that the homosexual subtext is definitely more apparent, without being heavy-handed. I haven't seen either of the more recent versions, but if one is interested in seeing the story well told, I would have to recommend the 1945 MGM black-and-white over this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was supremely disappointed with this one. Having just read the wonderful Oscar Wilde story, I had hoped for at least a little of the magic to translate onto the screen. Well, there was none. This version played like a condensed, dumbed down Reader's Digest movie. Not only did it feel rushed, it was cheapened and needlessly re written. Major characters and plot points were either changed or completely removed. I appreciate the difficulties in trying to bring a novel to the screen, especially on what may very well have been a limited (TV) budget, but there is no excuse for mangling a great story in this way. I thoroughly recommend reading Wilde's tale of the depravity that exists under even the most beautiful exteriors. But I cannot advise anyone to rent this travesty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"By-the-numbers, Oscar-hungry biopic about the late, great singer Ray Charles. There is one -- exactly one -- great scene in *Ray*. It occurs during a flashback to Charles' youth, after the boy become completely blind. Running into the sharecropper house which he shares with his mother, he trips over a chair and sprawls on the floor. He cries out for his mother; she, in keeping with her philosophy that a person should \"stand on their own two feet\", observes silently and pensively from the kitchen, waiting to see if the boy can fall back on his own resources. The boy proves to be up to the challenge, using his ears and memory to locate a kettle on a stove, a nearby fire-pit, the grass blowing in the wind outside of a window, the scuttling of a cricket across the plank-board floor.

The movie pauses, here; it expands; it breathes -- even if for only 40 seconds. The scene is a much-needed respite from Taylor Hackford's otherwise noisy film. By \"noisy\" I'm not referring to the music, which is, of course, excellent. I AM referring to the sound effects (big BOOMS! preceding yet another flashback) and the inane dialog (\"I'm speaking to you as a FRIEND, Ray,\" etc.). On the visual side, Hackford is equally and pointlessly flashy: sepia-colored filters over the camera lenses during the flashbacks; whirling-dervish 360s from the camera-crane, etc. etc. All the modern amenities. What a horrible cinematic style is displayed in *Ray*! -- a style all-too-common in wanna-be \"important\" movies from the past decade or so (Scorsese's *Aviator* is stylistically very similar to this movie). These gimmicks are employed to obfuscate the clich\u00e9-ridden screenplay. Some of us won't be fooled.

Some of us also are not quite prepared to accept Jamie Foxx's performance as anything more than superb mimicry. Granted, Foxx eerily resembles Ray Charles: he walks like Charles, talks like Charles, and even twitches like Charles. Foxx's imitation of the singer during live performance is technically perfect. I'm not begrudging Mr. Foxx his Oscar; he deserved it. (It was a pretty weak field this year, anyway.) But one wonders if Foxx really UNDERSTANDS Charles. The actor does achieve one great moment when he insists on trying out the smack that his band-mates are shooting up: he registers, if only for a brief moment, a disgust at the unfairness of being blind and a life of darkness. The movie seems to want to dramatize the struggle within Charles between the bright salvation of music and the oblivion of heroin, with his blindness as the battleground between those two compulsions. But the damn movie just won't take the time: it bounces along from triumph to triumph, never really pausing for any insight into the man. One has to STRETCH to find the dramatic tension; one must supply the drama FOR the movie. One must, in other words, imagine a better movie than this one.

In its rush toward a glorious conclusion, *Ray* introduces, then dodges, several excellent ideas for a movie: his early days on the \"Chitlin Circuit\"; his bold musical innovations for the Atlantic label; the problem of his addiction to heroin; the inevitable artistic compromises attendant upon overwhelming success; the man's importance to the Civil Rights struggle (touched on in the movie for, oh, about 3 minutes of screen-time), and much more. The filmmakers are too lazy to focus on any one of these elements. Two-and-a-half hours of watching a man overcome one adversity after another may make us feel good, but such a movie is not necessarily a grand work of art. This sort of approach certainly provides no deeper insight into the film's subject -- and shouldn't insight be the real goal of a movie like this? If I had wanted a laundry-list of Ray Charles' accomplishments, I'd have simply Googled him.

3 stars out of 10 -- the extra 2 stars strictly for the music.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the first recorded effort to put sound with a movie, and a the oldest that, obviously, is still in existence. This historic piece of film is the opening segment in the \"More Treasures Of The Natural Archives\" DVD.

It's only a 15-second clip of a man playing a violin in front of a huge recording cylinder. Next to him are two men dancing. Near the end, another man walks on the stage. William Dickson, the director of this experiment, is the violin player. This \"movie\" had several titles over the years but the sound experiment was not really a success. It took over 30 years from this point to the synchronize sight and sound to the point where something could be issued to the public for entertainment. However, this was a start, no matter how primitive it came off.

For more of the technical information and history of this film process, see the other review here by \"Boba Fett1138.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director\/screenwriter Allan Burns seems to have patched two different scripts together before coming up with this minor outing: a comedy about infidelity and a melodrama about loss and sabotage. It results in a wincingly unfunny film. Christine Lahti plays a crass, cynical TV news reporter who makes friends with aerobics instructor Mary Tyler Moore and is soon having dinner with Moore and her family--only to discover Mary's husband (Ted Danson) is Lahti's secret affair! Burns has a strange, stop-and-start rhythm to his dialogue which is neither realistic nor effective (just increasingly annoying, because nothing important ever seems to get said). Rail-thin Moore, looking alarmingly frail in her leotard, has a radiant smile but doesn't convince as Danson's wife, and Danson gets stuck with a paltry, thankless role (he's just there to be a cad). The movie attempts to cover all the bases in a classic case of overreaching (woman's role in the workplace, the TV news-biz, the cheating family man, the working wife and mother who wants more, a woman's need for female friendships, et al), but nothing substantial comes out of these ideas since Burns only half-heartedly examines the issues. As a writer, he is surprisingly free of punchlines, but is devoid of a purpose as well, and the heavy plotting just gets all fouled up. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is what used to be called a \"women's picture\" and later a \"chick's flick\" when times and movies got more juvenile. The plot is just soap opera for women and will only appeal to those types. The only appeal for most guys is if they wanna see a too rail-thin Mary Tyler Moore in leotards. (If you're of a certain age, like me, that might still be enough to give it a look.) Otherwise MTM gives another of her typical by-the-numbers performances that she's been giving since the early 70s when she took it to heart that she was America's Sweetheart. Christine Lathi gives another of those abrasive and unpleasant performances that seem a real part of her as a person and probably only appeal to those of that type. (Sorry, but it seems true.) Ted Danson is too young as MTM's husband and usually gives off a slightly creepy appeal unless he has an acting partner who can soften it. And it doesn't happen here. Allan Burns wrote & directed and probably got it all through because he worked with Mary before, wrote it as a project for her, and she had the juice at this point to get it made. There seems no other purpose to it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Boring, utterly predictable soap opera. Mary Tyler Moore is married to Ted Danson who's having an affair with Christine Lahti. Moore is friends with Lahti and doesn't know about the cheating. Danson dies in an accident and Lahti is pregnant with his baby. YAWN!

I'm ashamed to admit I paid money to see this in a theatre in 1986. I liked all three stars but even their considerable talents couldn't pull this off. I CONSTANTLY knew what was going to happen. Like another poster said--this plays like a PG-rated Lifetime movie.

It does have Lahti swearing nonstop at one point and even Moore lets loose once! Also there's a pointless shots of topless women playing football (!!!). Other than that it's TV friendly. The only good thing about this was Timothy Gibbs playing Moore and Danson's teenage son. Very handsome and quite a good actor. That aside there's nothing to recommend this. You've seen it before...and done better. It's obviously been forgotten. Skip it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This four-hour miniseries production is about two hours longer than necessary, primarily because the filmmakers seemed not to have a clear idea how to adapt a novel to the screen. They seemed not to know what should be kept in and what might safely be left out. The film opens with Sir Walter reading from the Peerage book that is his primary solace in his troubles. This introduces the family - all of whom we get to know intimately over the next four hours anyway - but serves little other purpose. Similarly, the scenes where the Musgroves lament \"poor Richard\" serve no purpose but to drag the story down. Some of Austen's actual dialogue is allocated to different characters and some of her narrative is recycled as dialogue that falls awkwardly from the tongues of the characters. There is some fill-in dialogue, too, and this is uniformly dreadful. The scene where Charles Hayter is boring Henrietta with his concerns about getting Dr. Shirley's curacy was only barely interesting as narrative in the book; as a scene in this production, it is stultifying The scene on the Cobb, when Louisa falls and is \"taken up lifeless!\", is entirely without urgency, and I wondered whether Wentworth's line \"Is there nobody to help me?\" might have been directed at the writers, as well as the other actors.

This production often looks and feels like a play that has been filmed, rather than an actual film, and this is most evident in the acting, which is the opposite of subtle: booming delivery of lines, exaggerated gestures, and actors who have no idea what to do with their hands, feet, or faces when they are not speaking their lines. Charles Musgrove stands in his parlour, feet shoulder width apart, and appears to project to the balcony (if there were one) when speaking to the other people in the room with him. Louisa Musgrove's face, when not actively simpering or giggling, seems to be in confused repose. Louisa is a giddy, giggly, ditzy creature, and I did not for a moment believe that Wentworth would be interested in her.

The costumes are a mixed bunch, but mostly awful, and Anne Elliot's green tartan gown is quite possibly the most hideous alleged period costume ever devised. We are given the dates at the beginning of the show - it is the late 1790's or perhaps very early 1800s - and yet many of the costumes seem to be of Victorian design, and thus about 60 years too early! The hair is just so wrong that I won't even mention it here. Except to say that I won't mention it. :-)

This production does do some things right, however. Mrs. Smith is given her proper importance, and her history with Mr. Elliot, his dissipation and his intrigues, are fully addressed. I was also pleased to see the fleshed out \"reconciliation\" scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end, which are precious reward for the reader but were glossed over in the 1995 production.

If you love the book Persuasion, and even vaguely like the 1995 movie, don't waste a moment (or a penny) on this production; you will find it sorely wanting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, if you discount the production value, the ugly outfits, and the big hair, this adaptation is still far inferior to the 90's version. First Ann Firbank (playing Anne Elliot), is literally ten years too old to play this role and her acting leaves much to be desired. Amanda Root (playing the same role in the 90's version) can express more in her big, brown eyes than Firbank can with her entire face in a four hour production. Anne is turned into a peevish, whining, boring character (and what was with the scene during the `long walk' where she stops to spout off poetry?). Henrietta and Louisa looked so much alike that the only time I could tell them apart was when they stood next to each other (Henrietta was taller). And Louisa! Never was there a more obnoxious character! It was ridiculous to think that Wentworth was supposed to be interested in her. She is supposed to be high spirited and pretty and charming, not stupid and silly with her ridiculous laugh that's like nails on a chalkboard. When she starts to chant, `to Lyme, to Lyme, to Lyme,' I started yelling, `shut up, shut up, shut up!' The best part of the movie was when Louisa falls those three feet at the cobb because I knew I wouldn't have to see her anymore in the movie. Speaking of the fall at the cobb scene; it was the mose poorly acted, badly directed and edited scene of the entire film. How does a person fall three feet down, land on her feet, and still be knocked unconscious?

On the plus size, the character of Elizabeth was much closer to the book than in the 90's version. They also put in many more scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end.

I'll admit, I have bought this movie, even though I knew how sub par it was, but I'm a huge Austen fan, so I'll buy any movie adapted from one of her novels. Watch this move if you're morbidly curious, or to appreciate the 90's version even more.

The bottom line is, this version may follow the letter of the novel, but the 90's version follows the spirit.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, Anne is way way too old. Wentworth looks younger than she and he should not. Louisa is much too young and too cheerful Oh sister Mary is way too pretty. She is supposed to be average, not pretty. When this actress complains the way Mary should all I think is that she is too pretty to be a complainer. Lady Russell is too Old. This is crazy. If you read the novel, she is Anne's older more mature friend, maybe as old as Annes mother would be which would be around 18-20 years older than Anne- so around 50 NOT 70! Its crazy, doesn't fit. How come Anne is so darn happy in the beginning? She smiles when she says \"oh the worst is over, I've seen him now the worst has passed\" yeah right. OK if anyone has seen the 1995 Roger Michell version than you cant compare these two. That one is right on. This one is way off. Read the novel and you'll know what I mean.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh yes, I have to agree with the others who describe this as appalling. The acting in this four hour feature is uniformly bad, so bad to the point that I find it impossible to believe any of the actors in this production could possibly earn a living as an actor. I still wonder who did the casting. Each delivers their lines without appearing to have any kind of engagement or emotional investment with any other character. None appear to have a true relationship, family or otherwise, with another. The direction is also appalling and any action scene is laughable and unconvincing. Were the film editors asleep?

The costumes appear authentic to the Regency period but the fabrics look 20th century and colors (especially the blue colors!) are jarring and I don't believe were available in early 19th century fabric except perhaps in silk.

Also the hair: the men have obvious 1970s haircuts, and the women have \"big hair\"---especially the woman playing Anne Elliot.

All the female characters, young and old, are quite lovely but this doesn't make up for the lack of acting abilities. The actress playing \"Anne\" looks as though she is in her forties while Anne Elliot is supposed to be 27 years old. I mean, where was the makeup and lighting crew if we were to find the woman playing Anne believable? She spends much of her time gazing pensively with her eyes at the level of the horizon whether indoors or out. I wonder still what that was suppose to convey. Regret perhaps? Yes, this production is regrettable!

The actress playing Louisa was truly appalling. She screams, squeals, giggles, and leaps around like an ill mannered twelve-year-old (my apologies to anyone twelve years of age reading this) that I found myself eagerly awaiting the moment when she knocks herself out. How this behavior is suppose to attract an adult male is beyond me. Most would back off when she first opened her mouth to giggle and shriek.

The actor playing Captain Wentworth portrays someone so bland and colorless one wonders why any woman could pine over him for eight years.

The rejoining of the pair at the end is not convincingly done or explained. How did they get together again? Not because Louisa was in a coma; that is certain. No, there has to be more than that and it is not explained in the film.

I rate this production two stars: one because it is Austens' work, and the other because some of the outdoor scenes were lovely. The only reason I could watch the entire production is that I was off sick with the flu and I got it from the library.

If you enjoyed the book see the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I would recommend this film even if you have't read the book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, my. Poor Jane must have done the old rolling-over-in-the-grave thing. Even allowing for poor production values for the time (1971) and the format (some kind of mini-series), this is baaaaaad. Whatever else you do with Austen, the dialog should sparkle (even in this, perhaps her most serious work), and melodrama should be strictly out of bounds. Alas, not the case with this production. By the time you get to Anne's \"Frederick, Frederick, Frederick,\" you'll either be laughing or crying. Unless you're just out to visually \"collect\" all extant films of Austen's work, you can skip this one. If you do watch it, however, there are small consolations: The actresses playing Anne's sisters each do a wonderful job with their roles.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Usually when BBC releases a TV series one is used to a certain satisfaction guarantee. Usually the TV series is splendid, even if the story is boring, you can trust the acting will make the it worth while. When I came across, Persuasion, here at the local library, I was looking forward to an enjoyable evening, cause I read the story.

I'm glad I read the story first, otherwise I would not think highly of it. Further was I relieved to learn that the production date of this TV series was from 1971, since I thought, until that moment, that BBC had lost it. It is really bad, and should be used in acting schools as a horror movie.

The only positive thought I have about this series that the people in this film are not likely to appear or be involved in any BBC or other product this century other than the young Musgroves sisters, who apparently were taking their fist steps in acting, and doing remarkably well under the direction otherwise given.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The comparisons between the 1995 version and this are inevitable. Sadly, this version falls far short.

The casting is uninspired and the acting wooden. One gets the impression the director did not read the book,so did not understand the characters.

Sir Walter Elliot is portrayed as pompous but his inadvertent silliness which Redgrave brilliantly captured (in the 1995 version) is nowhere to be found.

The Musgrove sisters are so unlikable, one doesn't understand why Wentworth or anybody else would give them a second glance.

The relationship between Wentworth and Anne is devoid of feeling.

In the 1995 version, Hinds and Root managed to convey the depth of emotion the two of them felt towards each other with their body language and facial expressions. In this one, it is hard to understand Anne spent years mired in regret unless one has read the book.

This production does not capture the emotional complexity of the main characters' relationship.

In the scene where Wentworth walks in on Anne and Mary having breakfast, it seems to the viewer, as Mary thinks, they are only slight acquaintances.

In the 1995 version, when Wentworth walks in (the first time he sees her in years), the tension is thick. Resentment is coming off Wentworth in waves, while Anne is almost overcome.

In this version, while Wentworth is courting Lousia, it is as if he is truly invested, the undercurrents are missing. In the 1995 version, the viewer sees Wentworth's anger at Anne. He is flaunting his courtship in front of Anne, as if to say, \"see what you gave up, I don't need or want you anymore\".

Yet he still cares if she suffers, as the scene where he asks his sister and the Admiral to take Anne back to house illustrates. In the 1995 version the viewer feels Anne's shock that he would care if she was tired, we also feel Wentworth's discomfort that he does still care. In this version he just walks on with Lousia as if nothing happened.

The pivotal scene where Anne is conversing with Harville about who loves longest, man or woman, is totally botched. The actors are just reciting lines with no emotional investment.

When Anne reads the letter from Wentworth, it is as if she is reading a grocery list.

Contrast this to the 1995 version, where the viewer feels Anne's joy at her second chance. We are there with her as she reads the letter. The director had both actors reading the letter and you hear both their voices. Wentworth is full of frustration, passion and hope, while Anne's is at first incredulous then evolves in to joy.

This production has more scenes after the revelation, probably because it was needed to explain to the viewer what just happened. The 1995 version didn't need to explain, we knew and rejoiced for the characters The only thing this production has in it's favor is it kept the Mrs. Smith sub plot intact, while the 1995 version did not.

The 1995 version however did include part of Austen's original ending. The scene where Wentworth is commissioned by the Admiral to find out if Anne and Mr. Elliot will want to move back to her house (which he & Mrs. Croft are renting) after they marry.

This is a production to avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is not a good movie at all. I cannot believe that after fifty years, this movie gets the National Award when there have been such gems from Marathi cinema that have been so systematically ignored. This is a very overrated movie that got very, very lucky. It was given the National Award, harvested the popular opinion and now is going to represent India before the international audience. Anyone with even a marginal understanding of good, quality cinema will know very well that this will not even be nominated at the Oscars.

I cannot understand where to start. There are just so many things that are wrong and lacking in this movie that it amazing it even got considered for the National Award. That this movie is awarded as the best movie to come out this year goes to show the biased judgment of people who hold the reins of Indian cinema and the diminutive understanding of the people who blindly appreciate this movie.

The topic chosen is great. It is important that such movies be made \u0096 but only by people who are able to handle them. Sandeep Sawant does not measure up to the task \u0096 not even close. His direction is jumpy, confused. There is no clear thought process. He tries, but is not able to explore the depth of the characters, especially the grandfather. He is not able to show the initial horror, anxiety and then hopeless detachment and yet the insurmountable courage of the grandfather. He wastes our time in the hospital when we should have been shown the time pair spend together. He is trying to cram in everything without any priorities. He does not understand his subject properly and that really counts against him.

However, the cast does not help Sawant either. Worst job \u0096 Amruta Shubash. She is a terrible actor and a terrible choice for this or any sensible acting job. How did she get 'Tee Phulrani'? Extremely lucky and\/or extremely influential and\/or extremely pitiful casting. Having said that, she goes out of her way to do an even terrible job in this movie. Her act of the MSW should have gone to the more responsible actor \u0096 Sonali Kulkarni. Amruta Subhash did not understand it. MSW's work under constant emotional stress and yet it is important for them to project a calm, strong exterior, as this is reassuring to the patients. Amruta Subhash's Asawari seems even more scared and in need of support than the people she is working for.

Second worst \u0096 Arun Nalawade. I have never seen a more wooden face in Marathi film industry (it is abound and everywhere in today's Hindi cinema though). He is the producer and so he chose himself; no second thought, no consideration. Any good actor would have jumped to play this role even if he had to pay the producer's to do it, but Arun Nalawade would not let anyone else do it. Over ambitious and obtuse, he contributes to bring down the movie more than everyone else combined. His acting lacks research and even the basic acting skills. My choice for this role would be Vikram Gokhale.

The music is uninspired. The movie is technically lacking. It could well have been an FTII project job.

On the up side; brilliant performance by Ashwin Chitale. It is amazing that such a young boy could give such a respectable performance. He put many of today's actors to shame. Unintentionally maybe, but he brought his own innocence to his character and that made it a memorable performance. Also, Sandeep Kulkarni really gave a very believable performance. Really put in all his efforts and it shows. The script too is well written.

'Shoestring budget' cannot be a valid argument to praise this movie. Lack of funds dogs all of the Marathi movies. Cricket and Hindi movies sponge all the money and the rest are left to fight for the scraps. It is a sorry state of affairs but yet not reason enough to praise any immature movie that comes out. 'Doghi' was brilliant movie and it too was made on a shoestring budget. 'Doghi' also lacked technically but it was well researched and well made. It was abound in details and supported by wonderful performances by everyone and that made it rich cinema. Why did it not receive the accolades it so very deserved? \u0096 only proves my point of biased judgment.

Lack of research and not of funds, is what makes 'Shwaas' such a bad movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Shwaas may have a good story, but the director is utterly devoid of talent. He does not know when to stop. When the story calls for people to act confused, there are ten minute scenes of people miming the act of confusion. When the story calls for a little background history, there are ten minute scenes of Konkan's greenery. When the story calls for a kid throwing tantrums... you get the idea.

Not to mention the extreme closeups so that you can count people's nose hair. There are movies that should be seen on a big screen, this movie should be seen on a 13\" TV. Also Amruta Subhash who plays Asavari is the worst actress I've seen in quite a long time. A normal human being would need to practise overacting for years to achieve what she does so effortlessly.

I give it 4\/10 solely because the subject matter is different, and the story is not bad. The fact that a movie like Shwaas gets to be India's entry to the Oscars tells volumes not about the state of Indian cinema but the state of Indian judging committees. A movie is not good just because its subject matter is arty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you really loved GWTW, you will find quite disappointing the story. Those who may think this is just about a romantic story and the south, will be probably satisfied with this decent TV production (altought I consider an important miscast the choice for Scarlett). But, let me say that considering the novel, nothing good could came out of this.

I've read GWTW more than 20 times and I can really appreciate the adaptation Mrs. Mitchell did for the film. It took me some time to understand how good the ending was: Scarlett knew for sure she was going to recover Rhett, since she always got what she wanted. But there was no kiss in the end.

Then Alexandra Ripley came to \"fix\" this by showing us exactly how perfect and mighty Scarlett could be, and of course, describing in detail how exactly she gets Rhett back even when she had an important affair with someone else (nothing could have been further from Mrs. Mitchell mind, I am sure).

The story between these points is in my opinion just a long and boring ride made up to tie ends, showing off costumes and scenarios just to give us an obvious and totally unnecessary ending.

If Margaret Mitchell could came to live again, she would die one more time at the very moment she'd find out what Scarlett became after GWTW.

Sure it's not fair to compare this to the original but this is not GWTW fault. Isn't it? Is it any good if I don't compare it to the original? Maybe. Sorry to say I don't really care.

I would expect little more compromise to continue someone else's (suberb) work, otherwise don't even try.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As everyone knows, nobody can play Scarlett O'Hara like Vivien Leigh, and nobody can play Rhett Butler like Clark Gable. All others pale in comparison, and Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whalley are no exceptions. One thing that I really couldn't get past was that Joanne has BROWN eyes. The green eyes were the most enhancing feature of Scarlett's good looks, and in this sequel she has been stripped of those.

The movie, as well as the book, had several lulls in it. The new characters weren't all that memorable, and I found myself forgetting who was who. I felt as though her going to Ireland did absolutely nothing whatsoever. It could be that I'm only 11, but I saw no change in her attitude until the last say, 10 minutes when Rhett told her she had grown up. If Rhett hadn't told her that, I would have never guessed that there was any change in her attitude. She really loved Cat, her baby. She likes this child best because she had it with Rhett, her only loved husband. Still, if you've read Gone With The Wind, you would see that children make no difference in Scarlett's world.

Quite frankly, it seemed to me like there was way too much going on without Rhett. All anybody cares about is whether or not Rhett and Scarlett get back together, and Scarlett took way too long to get to that. It is virtually nothing compared to Gone With The Wind, but then again what isn't? If you have read the novel, you will like that better than the movie.

I would watch it, just because it is the sequel to Gone With The Wind, regardless of whether or not it's worthwhile. It may not satisfy you entirely, but it will get you some of the way there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've read the book 'Scarlett' and was expecting a good movie the first time I saw it. I'm afraid to say that I was disappointed. The movie did not follow the book and made many changes that I did not like.

One of the changes that I did not like the way that Lord Fenton was portrayed. It made no sense to make him out to be a bad man. The way that things ended between Lord Fenton and Scarlett was a lot different and their whole relationship was too intimate.

There was also a lot less confrontation between Scarlett and Rhett in the movie than was originally written in the book. The movie sent the two in two completely opposite ways and they did not seem to cross paths often enough to make it seem like there still could be love between the two. A fine movie, but I believe that it certainly could've been better than it was, had it more true to Alexandra Rippley's book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the \"Scarlett\" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an \"arrangement\" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's \"roots that go deep,\" and is eventually named \"The O'Hara,\" the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clich\u00e9d \"night-on-white-horse\" - type of a rescue. The \"Scarlett\" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fianc\u00e9 and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.

I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...But not this one! I always wanted to know \"what happened\" next. We will never know for sure what happened because GWTW was Margaret's baby. I am a lifelong fan of Gone With the Wind and I could not have been more repulsed by the movie. I did compare \"Scarlett\" to the original GWTW because any film worth following GWTW needed to be on the same quality level as the first. Rhett was cast beautifully, although NO ONE will ever compare to Mr. Gable. I am also a strict Vivien Leigh fan!! She WAS Scarlett. She fit the bill. Not another actress in this lifetime or another will ever fit the same shoes but with \"Scarlett\" the job could have been done better. Not enough thought went into finding the proper Scarlett, that was evident.

Overall, something to look to but if you want to know the what happened to Scarlett and Rhett, I suggest writing it yourself or finding fan fiction. This movie is not worth the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am insulted and angry over the idea that a sequel to 'Gone with the Wind' should EVER have been undertaken. Having expressed that, I have no problem with the quality of the acting or the actors in this film. The performers are talented people whose talents were wasted on this piece of garbage. The hype surrounding this book and film just happens to be an exercise in futility. I think it will go down as one of the misguided films of Hollywood. I don't believe that the beloved characters created by Margaret Mitchell should have been soiled by the ideas and interpretations of another writer. The film and the book should be on the list of worst ideas conceived in the world of publishing and film-making. The sad thing is that people actually made money off of this tripe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.

Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clich\u00e9s. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.

The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of \"The Man You Love to Hate\" and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.

But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.

Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Margaret Mitchell spins in her grave every time somebody watches this mess! Fine costuming and sets can't even begin to overwhelm lackluster performances by Joanne Whalley (as the title character) and the ever-bland Timothy Dalton (as Rhett). Even worse than the acting--and perhaps partially explaining it--is the script, which is astoundingly cliched and predictable. Add to that hellishly bad script a score that'll have you cringing, and you've got a disaster I wouldn't wish on any viewer. SCARLETT is just amazingly lousy, and I can't imagine how it ever got made, much less made it to video.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was NOTHING like the book. I think the writer of the screenplay must have wanted the job of writing the sequel to Gone with the Wind and been turned down. This was his or her way of getting their ideas in anyway. The only similarity between this movie and the story it was portraying was the names of the principle characters and the location of the main action. None of the events that are shown in the movie happened that way in the book. For a Gone with the Wind fan (of both the book and the movie) this was deeply disappointing. If you loved the book Scarlett, don't watch this movie hoping to see it played out on the screen. They only share the title in common.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

Summary: Not worth the film

As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the \"Scarlett\" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an \"arrangement\" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's \"roots that go deep,\" and is eventually named \"The O'Hara,\" the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clich\u00e9d \"night-on-white-horse\" - type of a rescue. The \"Scarlett\" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fianc\u00e9 and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.

I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A VERY un-Tom and Jerry short. Jerry narrates this tale that revolves around Tom the cat falling in love and losing her to his rival, Butch. Tom is best friends with Jerry here which irked me a bit. The cartoon is also presented in Cinemascope. Overall I found this Tom and Jerry cartoon sad and depressing. The should have just put \"Puss gets the boot\" on the DVD instead and I would've been happy. This experimental animated short can be found on disc 2 of Warner Brother's 2-DVD Spotlight Collection set. It's the last one on the set and I'm hoping that Warner Brothers chooses to release a second Volume soon.

My Grade: C-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will just start with some quotes from other reviewers that describes it the best.

\"This is easily one of the most overrated films of the year and probably the worst film Tarantino has ever done.\" \"The ONLY good thing in this movie was the performance of Mr. Waltz\".

\"So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened\" Now for more details go and read \"Hated it\" reviews.

One thing I hate about a movie is when it treats audience as bunch of dumb people. (Spoiler ahead). Now I know Tarantino's style is based on fantasy and fictitious plots, but come on, Adolf Hitler and 200 top Nazis Officers will be in attendance of a movie premier in occupied France and you have only two guards in the whole theater and the surroundings? Where also an American-African walks around freely with steel pipes locking doors and setting fire. These 2 guards are then executed in seconds opening the door for our 2 \"heroes\" to slay Hitler at point blank with around 100 rounds... very dumb. At least, challenge our intelligence and create a smarter plot to kill one of the most feared tyrants of all time (Go watch Valkyrie). Besides, Mike Myers impersonation of a British general is more realistic and authentic than the guy doing Hitler, just picture that.

What ruined it further, is that the only smart and powerful character, which nailed everyone in the movie, with his psychological and mind bending interrogations, ends up to be effortlessly tricked by the most mindless character in the movie.

After watching the movie, I was sympathizing with Nazis, who were portrayed to have more bravery and humanity than our Basterds!!! Imagine that.

My recommendations, if you have insomnia, 2hrs 33 min to waste or you want to give your mind a break, go watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This usually all sounds a lot better in my head (so forgive me for rambling) I'm hardly Tarantino's biggest fan (and will *try* not to stoop to calling him a 'hack'....which is quite hard) I don't like to mock or critique a movie before seeing it. So with cautious hesitation, i walked to the cinema today to watch 'Inglorious Basterds'

Now, to call it a 'rip-off of a rip-off' would be unfair here. Tarantino is happy enough to take the title from Enzo Castellari's (less than spectacular) Dirty Dozen clone, but not it's plot points (that, he takes from all other genre of movies) 'Inglorious' opens with a Nazi officer and his lengthy interrogation against a farmer who is hiding Jews in his basement. This is such an anti-climax, in that, it's dialogue is stale, and outcome signposted a mile off. Of course, one of the hidden Jews makes her escape (but more of her later) We (the obviously, easily pleased) audience are treated to the introduction of Lt. Aldo Raine (ha-ha, that name almost sounds like B-movie king ALDO RAY....ha-ha Quentin...keep those 'tributes' coming) and this character is played by none other than Brad (DALLAS) Pitt (sorry, DALLAS was about the only good thing he's ever starred in) and with jaw-jutting, Mr Jolie treats us to a hound-dogged, southern drawled, smirking Nazi-killer. Meanwhile Mr Tarantino forgets that actual grown-ups may be in attendance, so assumes that the teenyboppers won't have heard of the 'Dirty Dozen'?

Raines 'platoon' consists of (John Cassavettes looking) blood-thirsty Jewish soldiers, all looking to get the big payback on Adolf Hitler. Tarantino in all his superior knowledge, pays special attention to two of these men, by casting his long time best buddy (and fellow homage-sycophant) Eli Roth (as the baseball bat wielding 'Bear Jew') The other man is called Hugo Stiglitz (and i'll wager more than half the QT fan-boys had never heard this name before this movie) Keep up the good work Tarantino, you've managed about 6 or 7 'hommages' so far (in the first 15 minutes) keep adding them, and it may detract from the plot (or lack of?)

Anyhow, cutting a long (and extremely boring and protracted) story short, both Raine and his men (the 'Inglorious Basterds') and the sole survivor from chapter one, both have separate plots to kill Hitler at the showing of a Nazi-propaganda movie, in a french cinema (owned by the fore-mentioned survivor, now grown up)

More boring (and pointless) conversations follow two and fro, as Pitt mugs away at an audience past caring. And any genuine suspense, leading to the assassination of the most deadly tyrant of all time, is thrown-away by the directors insistence of placing a 1980's David Bowie song in a WWII movie.

My problems (and there are many) with this movie, is the re-occurring problem i have with most Tarantino product.....he rarely knows when to either start or stop. I don't need 'homage' after 'homage' to get the *joke* (whatever it may be) I knew of Inglorious Bastards, Enzo Castellari, Aldo Ray, Hugo Stiglitz (and the ultimate crime of the entire movie) Ennio Morricone's haunting score from REVOLVER. I go to the cinema to see the stars.....if the best you can do is the dire Barad Pitt, i'll assume You (Mr Tarantino) are the main draw here? I don't want the audience directing the movie. I pay to see YOUR vision, your ideas, your creativity....NOT how you can patchwork (time and time again) endless scenes from endless movies. It's high time the fan-boys (on IMDb) employed some 'tough love' on your 'idol' (god knows, if you don't....the studios should?)

The tired old argument with Tarantino worshippers is \"well, if you can do better...do so\" Let me tell you, if i was a 46 year old director, with the (unfortunate) pull QT has.....i'd want to offer YOU a lot more than a warmed up muddled re-hash of better WWII movies than this tripe. The directors he attempts to emulate, made movies so bad by accident, or due to budgetary constraints. It's a cop out, time and time again, to hear his fans campaign his lack of imagination as 'art'. I'm sure he's capable of better (but after giving him the benefit of the doubt, once more....and not to mention 2 and a half hours of my life.....) maybe he isn't?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seriously disappointing performance by Brad Pitt and Q T, the plot is very superficial and lame, and, unless indirectly intended, this film actually glorify the Nazis and portrays them as men of honor, and show that the Jewish people are deceiving, cant keep promises and bloody vicious. ((THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SPOILER)) Hitler together with the most notorious Nazis are attending a stupid plot less movie about the killing of 300 Italian soldiers in a small cinema theater in Paris is unbelievably ridiculous. the Nazis laughing and hooraying each killing in the movie as if watching a basketball game STUPID, the deal at the end is lame. whats really appalling is that the movie earned great reviews and is ranked here in the 40s amongst the greatest 250 films. will not be surprised if it harvested many awards, including Oscars, as well. the movie is simply a kissing ass to the Jewish people, but hey reconsider, its not even doing a great job doing that. it truly dwarfed the whole Nazi - Jews conflict and a pure insult to all who fought and suffered from the tyranny of the Nazis.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing. It isn't Inglorious, its disgusting.

I absolutely hated Inglorious Basterds. The entire point of a film is to entertain - if u call bashing people's heads and removing their scalps entertaining!!!! - and if there is one unforgivable sin a movie can commit, it is extreme boredom or disgust.

The movie is just a collection of endless and excruciatingly boring and disgusting scenes of people talking at tables in various languages. There is even one scene where 3 people talk for nearly 45 minutes at the same table, before, thankfully they are all shot. I wished they would have been killed off after 5 minutes. Even Woody Allen knows when to shut the F**K up.

This table talk style is a Tarantino hallmark, but in other films, I actually cared about what they were saying and the people who were talking. Here, I couldn't care less. All of Quentin's films display an enormous confidence, particularly Jackie Brown. But here there is a pervasive feeling in every scene, Tarantino had no idea where he was going with the film.

Is it violent? Sure there's torture and scalping galore, but you'd have to remind me. Thankfully, the film was so thin, I didn't even remember I had seen it earlier in the day when until I saw a review headline on MSNBC.

He's out of gimmicks and apparently dying to write a novel. But do us a favor QT and spare us the movie.

I walked out of this movie halfway through and I would never recommend anyone seeing it no matter what a die-hard quarantino fan he or she is.

I give it 0 \/ 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I deliberately did not read any reviews of this movie on IMDb before I watched it because I really wanted to see it and make up my own mind. I have been a big fan of QT in the past, I think we can all agree he has made some great movies, but lately he seems to have been overcome by his own mystique and disappeared up his own fundament. This \"movie\" proves that. It consists of few scenes of the Basterds at work. It consists instead mostly of long, tedious, boring stretches of conversation between people that, after a while, you realise you just do not give a stuff about. It's longwinded and lacks any of the great sparkling dialogue that QT has been responsible for in the past. The entire movie is anticlimactic. There is no tension - what is going to happen in every scene is telegraphed so clearly in advance that by the time it happens you just don't care. Honestly folks, don't believe the hype. This is a very boring movie and you will be missing nothing if you don't see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am sorry folks, but I have to say I really cannot understand the overwhelming feelings everybody gets by seeing this movie...

When I saw it I looked at my watch to know how much more time I had to spend with this Kindergarten nonsense.

So why this verdict?

First of all: The movie tells a story that doesn't deliver any excitement! It is not even the amusingly distorted reality of a Quentin Tarantino we used to know. This story could have come out of every little kid's head. It doesn't have anything intelligent in it, neither anything inventive and it goes on for hours... the story has appropriate content for about 30 min. The rest is just awfully enhanced scenes that are supposed to leave a somewhat cool image. Doesn't work. Even the previously seen cutbacks that Tarantino often uses just confuse and are not in any way cool.

Second: Some guys go to Germany and kill Nazis. Ah really? Do they? The only Nazis they killed were a handful of guys, one of them being man enough to rather die than betray his companions. Is this the ugly face Tarantino wanted to give the Nazis? A brave soldier that is more valiant than any of the \"Basterds\"? Certainly not --> fail And what happens to the terrible Nazi-killing Basterds? Well they all get killed by Nazis except two who are taken hostages --> wow, what terrible revengeful monsters they are...

Third: Any characters? Yes one! The only role and the only gleam of hope for the entire movie is Chritoph Waltz who is building a truly deep and very detailed character here. Great acting! Brad Pitt really sucks and is completely out-acted by Waltz. Never seen a such a weak performance by Pitt... And the rest? Well, some Germans you've never seen before and will never see after. When the movie started and I saw the group of the seven Basterds I hoped to see something like the \"Magnificent Seven\": A group of extraordinary guys, each one with a distinct character, making their way to their destiny fearless and knowing... I was then very disappointed, when I saw the \"inglourious Basterds\". No details at all, no characters, no real men, just some random guys you won't remember who were not given any chance to differentiate themselves... But in fact you don't even need to differentiate, cause the \"Inglourious Basterds\" except Pitt hardly play any role in this movie...

So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will never go to another Tarantino movie again. The entire film was worthless. My wife and I both regret that we didn't get up and walk out at the first indication of what the film was really going to be about (which is still hard to determine since it was such a ridiculous storyline...blood, guts, and violence seemed to be the only real theme), but we kept hoping there'd be something redeeming just around the corner. Unfortunately, there wasn't because there wasn't anything that made sense! We, along with a lot of the other people in the audience walked out of the theater muttering \"that was disgusting\", \"what a waste of time\", \"I should've walked out\", \"where was the comedy\", \"that was pathetic\", etc. It actually made us, the audience, voice our disgust and the feeling that we had just been thoroughly ripped off. The only thing of merit in the film was the costuming and the acting ability of almost everyone in the film....there just wasn't a plot\/script worthy of their talents. I rate this a 1 because there isn't a 0. I can't quite understand how anyone could rate this higher than a 0!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Chapter One: Once Upon a Time\u0085 At A Table (1941)

In which a German Nazi and a French Dairy Farmer talk at a table for 20 minutes; first in French, then in English.

Chapter Two: Three Years Of Inglorious Basterds In Sixteen Minutes... Without Tables (Mostly)

In which an American Lieutenant talks to his newly formed 8 man Jewish- American commando unit. There are no tables present. Cut to Adolf Hitler, three years later. He is angry at his men's inability to deal with the Basterds. Hitler does have a table. We return to the Basterds in a flashback. Again, distinct lack of table-based content.

Chapter Three: German Night in Paris... At A Table... Talking

In which a Jewish woman who escaped from under the table in Chapter One has somehow managed to become the proprietress of a cinema. The Jewish woman talks to an Actor at a table in a bar. Later, the Jewish woman, the Actor, Joseph Goebbels and a Translator talk at a table in a Restaurant. The Actor and Goebbels talk in German. The Translator translates the German into French. The Jewish woman replies in French. The Translator translates the French into German. Goebbels decides to hold a film premiere at the Jewish woman's cinema. The Actor and Goebbels leave. The Nazi (who talked with the Dairy Farmer at a table for twenty minutes back in Chapter One) arrives. He talks with the Jewish woman at the table. He leaves. The Jewish woman breaks down; overcome with emotion at having spent so long talking at a table.

Chapter Four: Operation Table Talking

In which Austin Powers sends a British Officer to join the Basterds and an Actress on a mission to talk in German at a table in a Tavern. After 21 minutes of talking at a table they all shoot each other. The actress survives but spends the next 5 minutes lying on a table talking.

Chapter Five: Revenge of the Giant Table

In which, The Basterds decide to continue the operation by talking in Italian and suicide bombing the cinema. The Nazi takes the Actress into a small room where they sit next to a table. A hoe that he found under the table in the Tavern fits her so he kills her. Then he takes two of the Basterds to a big room, where they sit and talk at a table. Meanwhile, the cinema burns down, Hitler is riddled with bullets and the two Basterds blow themselves up for no good reason at all.

The End","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

What is the purpose of this movie? A bunch of Americans enters Nazi-occupied France and starts slaughtering Germans. You see them scalping their enemies and beating them to death with baseball bats. While making jokes, of course.

Some will say that this movie is a parody of a certain genre. For a parody, it is neither witty nor funny. The contents is zero. It is exceptionally brutal and disgusting. Underneath lies a subtle political message, because it is again \"the good guys\" killing \"bad Nazis\". The whole plot is unthinkable if you turn it around. Could you imagine a storyline where Nazis (while making jokes) kill everybody in the Warsaw ghetto with flamethrowers? Probably not, but this movie is exactly about that, with the exception that is satisfies the weird moral expectations of a certain audience: slaughtering people is so cool when done by the right people.

This movie only works because of the hidden Nazi-ideology underneath. It does not regard the enemy as people. And if the latter is supposed to be an element of the fun, I am happy to say that this kind of fun will always remain a mystery to me.

Another mystery is how such violence can fascinate the American crowd while a bit of nudity will freak them out. But if a naked body is pornography, this movie with all its brutality is pure pornography at its very worst.

Inglorious Basterds is a pointless, boring and tasteless waste of time and money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was debating between this movie and 2012 but chose Inglourious Basterds due to it's amazingly high IMDb rating. I must say now, what a disappointment. I expected a certain amount of gratuitous violence, but I also expected a lot of witty dialog. I got a huge dosage of the former, but not nearly enough of the latter. I felt shortchanged. The ratio between violence to plot is very important and I think this movie gets it totally wrong. And the plot? It's that believable or really all that entertaining either. Save your time and money. I can't believe what this rating says for the gory and violent tastes of the modern masses.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hooray for Title Misspellings! After reading reviews and contemplating, my girlfriend and I confirmed that this movie is an utter piece of trash. This movie lost her as one of those Rare Tarantino fans.I wish it were made on nitrate film, and all the copies piled neatly underneath a chain-smoking Tarantino fanboy. The literally needless violence, the plot holes, Tarantino's table-itis sans drama, and absent character development made this a thoroughly painful, glorified montage.

What acting was there? And how much of that was just because I was too busy reading the subtitles? I watch my share of fansubbed anime, and kudos for the attempt at authenticity, but it was overdone for an English-language movie. With the glaring historical inadequacies, the constant reading killed what acting there was.

Why pay money for a narrator who will have absolutely no tie to any of the characters, plot, themes, setting, or anything involved in the movie? When the movie needs that sort of off hand explanation, it's foreshadowing the utter filth that follows.

Historical Research - while it was sprinkled with interesting factiods, used the proper costumes and props for the soldiers, this movie stretched the truth beyond belief even for historical fiction. Kudos on Mata Hari reference, though using it as foreshadowing was a bit much. Mata Hari was executed by a firing squad, not choked in an isolated room. This ruined any sense that the reference may have had.

Other reviews mention more than half a dozen homages to other artists in the first 15 minutes. Considering the audience, all these and other references were completely lost on many who would bother to see this movie, and all who would enjoy it.

I'm confused by his choices of when to start a scene, end it, and what needs to be included. In a movie promoted as an action film, why did it take nearly 20 minutes to set up any sort of testosterone?

What I believe to be the message was trite. The idea of rats and how we act on a primal nature against them, and \"who is the rat?\" were at best clich\u00e9d, but at worst not realized. Mention of American camps for the Japanese and German Americans would have added legitimacy to this question to the moral high ground. Literally every character in the film that gets a speaking role was caught up in their own legend. Is that the world in which Tarantino lives?

I'm glad I didn't pay to see this one. I regret that I bothered to view it at all, even with well-meaning hosts. There was a rich base of ideas to develop, but none were realized.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Every movie Quentin Tarantino has made has become progressively worse. I'd like to believe that most people would agree with that statement, but seeing as \"Inglourious(sic) Basterds(sic)\" has an 8.5\/10 from over 100,000 ratings, it doesn't seem like the general movie-going public has any sense. Even his best work, Reservoir Dogs, wasn't a 'masterpiece.' The trouble is that claiming that you like Tarantino's work has become trendy. As soon as that happens, you get boatloads of people ready and willing to hop on another bandwagon. They will ignore laughably terrible acting, and utterly self-indulgent writing just so they can be part of the exclusive club called \"everyone.\" This movie is so terrible, that I swear it must be some sort of twisted joke by Tarantino to see how much torture his fans will tolerate and still praise him. Like another reviewer has already said: \"Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing.\" I couldn't agree more. This movie is nothing more than self-indulgent and in-joke riddled writing paired with acting ability taken right out of a high school play. But, thanks to the general movie going public, I'm sure it will still go down as one of the best movies ever made. Bravo, Tarantino. You've pulled-off one of the best practical jokes of all time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first half of this movie was quite good. It was interesting and suspenseful. The second half was pretty bad. The comic book revenge story came full circle and we see lots of comic Nazi characters and some badly acted \"good guys\" blowing them away. There's a lot of violence in this movie. I'm not squeamish about violence but I think it should at least have some purpose in a movie. There was little purpose to the violence here except to create a genre film where we see lots of people getting mowed down with rifles. We're somehow supposed to be amused by this.

I watched Reservoir Dogs recently. There was a movie where violence was employed effectively. It was realistic within the world the movie created. There were never any over-the-top sound effect. It was a crime movie which played it straight. Inglorious Basterds should have played it straight but didn't. I was rolling my eyes at how the violence was exaggerated with sound effects and extra bullets to the head and face.

None of the back-story of any of the Basterds is really explained either, they're simply Nazi hunters. We don't really get to like any of them either because they're too busy cutting scalps off and shooting people in the face. It's all about \"revenge\" and very little else.

There was 2 1\/2 hours to work with here but few of the Basterds were really examined in depth. This seems like it was simply a revenge flick pure and simple. We saw that in Tarantino's last flick, \"Death Proof\" which I didn't care for either. It suffered the same problems. The characters were almost interchangeable.

The first half again, was pretty good. I wanted to see the exploits of the Inglorious Basterds across Europe. I was presented with a much lamer movie about the resistance movement plotting revenge against some comic book Nazis when they all go to one movie premiere in France.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad bad bad....

This is another stupid movie. still don't know what is the language of this movie? is itEnglish or french or German!?!! you have to be speaking all 3 languages ( at least ); preffered Italian too to understand it. poor quality translation with very hard to read font. showing a very stupid way of ending this movie!! in the mid of the movie you will lose interest in this movie and start to think why am i watching this?! brad pitt is proving that his acting talent is going down.

Maybe this is the movie number 1000000 that talks about Nazis. is there any other subjects that Hollywood can produce?! I think this movie is another American propaganda to show super heros American. I expect next Hollywood movie is American hero will save Jesus!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is not worth a descend review, it just made me decide that I am not going to go see the next Tarantino film. And I used to love Tarantino's films.

Not artsy, not entertaining, not witty, not funny, nothing, just dull and stupid. If this movie would have been Tarantinos first, it would have also been his last.

Tarantino has to get a grip on himself, otherwise his next movie is going to be 3 hours of meaningless, boring and uncool dialog. It seems like he has fallen in love with his dialog - and his love is blind.

After you finish your popcorn's there's no reason to sit in a theater anymore.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Countless Historical & cultural mistakes 0\/10

(1) A Jewish guy named OMAR!!! Hahahaha (2) Brilliant detective was taking out by the least intelligent guy in the movie! (3) Jewish suicide bombers!! That was funny. (4) Hitler and his top guns went to watch a movie downtown Paris!!! With two guards at the door. !! shoot me. (5) Brad Pitt overacted and it was painful to watch him. (6) Mr. QT is re-writing history, \"Hitler was killed in a theatre\u0085 really!\" the funny thing about this is that people \"and I mean stupid people\" will actually believe this plot.

And finally can any one tell me, how this movie made it to the top 250 movies of all time!!! Shame shame shame, still wondering how can anyone like this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Quentin in my opinion has written and directed only really one good movie and that was the multiple award winning Pulp Fiction. However, most of films, especially of recent, have been real REAL turkeys. People still rate him and his stuff today and i really can't see why. There are many other directors and writers nowadays producing far better entertainment in all aspects of their movies. From this point on, i shall not believe the hype that is a Tarantino movie.

Inglorious was too long and worse still you felt it. The humor was, well, minimal and not that humorous. The violence was nothing new (minus the end scene). The dialog was sometimes very VERY drawn out.

For some they'll love this movie; and for others they'll hate it.

... and i thought the subject matter of Nazis was finally put to bed with the awesome 2004 German movie Der Untergang.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Little Quentin seems to have mastered the art of having the cake and eating it.

As usual, the pure sadistic display can be explained as a clever thought-provoking way of sending violence back into the audience's face.

Sure, Mr Tarantino. Violence is Baaad. Sadism is Baaad. It is well worth wading in it to make that point. How very brilliant.

The juvenile part of the audience may well not be clever enough to follow all the smart references to higher levels of consciousness though, but I'm confident they'll see the light one day.

Thanks for making this little world of ours a little better. You deserve a medal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Inglourious Basterds IS Tarantino's worst film he has ever made. It's full of his usual ingredient's i.e. snappy dialogue, brutal and sudden violence, but it all feel's deja-vu. The directing is typical Tarantino and nothing seem's new at all. It's almost as if he's copied exactly from his only masterpiece, Pulp Fiction.

There is nothing new or exciting about Inglourious Basterds to be honest, it's just a war drama that isn't funny, nor brilliant as Pulp Fiction was. Basterds supposedly is Tarantino's tribute to Leone's Spaghetti western's but seem's mis-jointed and out of place especially with the continuing use of big sub-titles and throw's the audience of balance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see the movie because my boyfriend was raving about how much he wanted to see it, and how his friends had already been and loved it. So I came in with a neutral attitude, not really expecting the worst. Unfortunately, that is what I got. I could write a 15 page paper on why this is easily THE WORST movie I have ever seen. But for your benefit I will point out the pros and the endless supply of cons. To begin, the acting was very good, especially Christopher Waltz and Melanie Laurent. There were also a few lines that deserved a laugh, and a couple suspenseful scenes. Sadly, good acting, a little humor and suspense is where the good points end. The whole beginning story could have been great. A Jewish girl's family is butchered, she goes into hiding, later encounters the man responsible for her pain and then hatches a great plan for revenge. Sounds very good. But the movie wouldn't be quite as \"satisfying\" for the Americans and Jews craving Nazi blood. I have no problem with WWII movies or killing Nazis; I saw Defiance and like it very much. However, it's the way and attitude with which our would-be heroes kill. I'll give you a prime example of the kind of hypocrisy this movie oozes. Our hoodlum gang ambushes a German unit and kills\/scalps all of them except a sergeant and two other soldiers (no problem so far). They ask the sergeant to divulge information on another German unit. When he \"respectfully refuses\" to betray the lives of his fellow soldiers they bash his head in a with a baseball bat, cheering, and swearing as if they were at a football game. They took that Nazi's head off yaaayy! Now let's look at the hypocrisy in that scene. Here's a hypothetical situation: a group of American soldiers are ambushed and taken captive by the enemy. The same scenario follows and the American commanding officer would rather die than betray his fellow soldier. The enemy bashes his head in with much celebration. This would infuriate an audience if this scene were in a movie. That American soldier was a hero for placing his men above himself, and those barbarians brutally murdered him! Well\u0085what about the Nazi sergeant? Well he's a Nazi and deserves to die the cruelest death possible, right? Coincidentally, the Nazi's felt the same towards the Jews. See the hypocrisy? By celebrating the butcher of the Nazis we are placing ourselves on the same sadistic level.

Major hypocrisy #2: The Nazis make a propaganda movie about a German sniper who kills nearly 300 American soldiers. Near the end of the movie, the film is revealed. Hitler and his cohorts giggle with delight as they watch an American soldier get shot out of a window and fall into a fountain. The Nazis cheer as soldier after soldier falls to the snipers skill. This is supposed to enrage the American viewers of this scene. Those evil Nazis are laughing over the deaths of our brave men! Well the irony is, isn't that what we were doing (or supposed to be doing) the entire time we're watching Inglorious Basterds? Laughing over the pain of others simply because they were \"the bad guys.\" How would we feel if Native Americans somehow made a hit film in which they reek bloody vengeance on the American settlers? Or what if blacks made a movie glorifying the Nat Turner Rebellion? OK enough about the hypocritical flaws.

I'll summarize other reasons for the 1 star rating. 1) There were view admirable characters throughout the movie. Brad Pitt even tortures a woman by sticking his finger in her gunshot wound because he suspects she betrayed him. He's the good guy? 2) Scenes dragged on way longer than they needed to. 3) Brad Pitt's southern, supposedly Tennessee accent is HORRIBLE and thoroughly annoying throughout the entire move. I'll quit now since I'm at 700 words.

Unfortunately it seems that the general population doesn't think anymore, they just want blood. And that is why this movie received such a high ranking. I recommend this movie for the ignorant or if you are Jewish and simply wanting to see a nice \"fantasy justice.\" Personally, when I finally got out of the movie theater I felt like I had been scalped (or wish that I had so I wouldn't have suffered over 2 hours of mental rape).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is \"realism\"? If Rivette was seeking to give us a ground-level study of a woman in a certain place and time and how she was able to influence (and was influenced by) the world around her, he has failed miserably. Most prominently because we never get a clue as to why thousands of men would have followed her into battle. There is certainly not enough exposition of the cultural\/historical context to define the country's need for such a savior and, god knows, there is nothing particularly charismatic about Joan as she is presented here. Unless Bonnaire's wooden posturing and flat line readings are supposed to indicate transcendent faith and determination. The use of landscape is particularly uninspired - we never lose the feeling we are watching twentieth century actors wandering in a supposedly medieval landscape. And as for the battle scenes (which, in contrast to some commentors claims, do take up a good 15% of screentime)- they look like look like some some History Club from your local high school recreating a medieval siege, although the kids would no doubt put more passion into it. I will give Rivette credit, however, for picturing a side of Joan left out by other movies: that of a petulant, naive, and narcissistic adolescent (played by a woman all too clearly at least twice the age of the character she is supposed to portray) obviously unable to understand her place within the movement she is helping to create or the world existing outside her own passions. Joan's outrage at her own soldiers swearing and astonishment at the enemy for their lack of respect and obedience to her are jarringly spontaneous and believable notes (you suddenly realize such moments must naturally have occurred)in an otherwise uninvolving historical \"representation\". Unfortunately they also serve to point out precisely what is not addressed on screen -what made Joan SPECIAL? I must say I also continued to be puzzled and frustrated by certain foreign film lovers who equate tedium and lack of dramatic involvement with \"artistry\" and \"seriousness\". Does this film really increase our understanding or involvement with the subject? Or with anything for that matter? 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For one thing, he produced this movie. It has the feel of later movies with international casts that are dubbed. The opening credits tell us it was filmed in Vienna.

Bey was a delight in the Universal adventure movies of the 1940s. He was also superb in a movie I saw maybe ten years ago but have never heard of since: \"The Amazing Mr. X.\" Maybe it was Dr. X. I remember it as a thrilling and frightening movie.

This one is pretty wooden, unfortunately. The plot isn't easy to follow. When I got the hang of it, I was disappointed anyway.

Francis Lederer looks great as a concert pianist. He was a very handsome leading man ten or 15 years earlier. He never really caught on as a major star, though he should have.

This isn't terrible but it's pretty heavy going.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the second addition to Frank Baum's personally produced trilogy of Oz films. It's essentially the same childishness as in the other two pictures, although I consider it preferable to the others because it's shorter. As in the other films, there are performers in animal costumes, an adult woman pretends to be a boy, and the characters and plot jump all over the place while the camera-work is static. This time, at the centre is a magic cloak that grants wishes, and the boy played by a woman is made a king.

Most of the special effects are witnessed at the beginning. Fairies are represented by multiple-exposure photography. And, there's a man in the moon that looks just like those made by Georges M\u00e9li\u00e8s years before, most famously in 'Le Voyage dans la lune' (1902). M\u00e9li\u00e8s' imaginative fantasies and creative trick effects made him the leading pioneer of early cinema, and the films he made around the turn of the century were far better and even technically more advanced than this trifling Oz series.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At least it is with this episode. Here we have a time traveler, the Professor from Gilligan's Island, no less, going back in time to 1865. What does one do--why try to save Lincoln of course! No really interesting variations are rung on this old theme. As another reviewer has stated, this episode is particularly drab and unstylish, with little to suggest that \"the Professor\" really is back in the 1860s. Budget limitations are readily apparent, and the direction is stolid. John Wilkes Booth adds a spark but it remains a very flat production. We too often feel we are on stage sets, waiting for something clever to happen. There is a minor twist at the end, but I emphasize minor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If regarded as an independent feature I can't say it's too bad at all but from where I'm standing this sequel and the original \"Lady and the Tramp\" don't agree with each other! They are two completely different movies with different style, different voice personalities, different narratives and about the only thing that they share with each other is the visuals (e.g. the town-house of Jim Dear, Darling, Lady and Tramp) and none of those have changed.

If you're seeking any kind of continuity years after the release of the original for those memorable songs like \"Bella Notte\" and \"The Siamesse Cats Song\" this sequel won't give you any at all! Just about every song has a little pop to it and those good old characters like Jock and Trusty, Jim Dear and Darling and Aunt Sarah and her cats may well be seen but they're seeming to be somehow replaced by new characters, not to mention Peg not appearing at all, whose voices are quite annoying. Even Lady and Tramp don't appear often enough and as for Scamp?! He is so spoilt! And treats his father Tramp with utter disrespect, then runs away with no remorse even after hearing how much he's being missed at home! And they called his shameless getaway an adventure! I'd say Scott Wolf truly brought out the abusive bad boy in Scamp wiping out the typical cute Disney animal. Even the old characters just drive you mad in this; Trusty sounds like Goofy sick in bed, Jock (Jeff-stupid-Bennett) - and his VOICE - sound neither Scottish nor worth hearing! Zap him off as far as possible to free our poor ears from his voice and as for the dumb, feather-brained, EXASPERATING JUNKYARD DOGS!!!!!! Somebody put them down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

\"Lady and the Tramp 2\" isn't completely bad if you're not already having a tough day but I expect a lot more charm from a sequel to a true classic - Scamp is chavvy, so is his girlfriend Angel and there is a feeble storyline. Still, I think you should try it at least once because, as I say, there are much worse movies around.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie, knowing that it would be bad (i have only seen one good Disney sequel and that was toy story 2), but it went far lower than my expectations. I am a die hard disney fan and i just don't believe in sequels with disney movies. For somebody who didn't grow up with the classics (either watching them when they came out, or renting them since you were born) it's a cute story. I just feel that the plot was dragged out a little too much, and was to predictable. The one thing that annoyed me the most was the voices of the girl children of lady and tramp. They were too high pitched. Although most reviews say that it isn't that bad, i think that if you are a true disney fan, you shouldn't waste your time with this one.

Hopefully Disney won't be making any more sequels to any of the other classics any time soon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My Take: Typically routine and lazy straight to video attempt from Disney.

Disney must have fallen in love with the family movie tradition that is the family dog. Many movies have devoted themselves with stories that solely center themselves with man's best friend. Disney themselves have made a handful. They also made a handful of those that are literally dogs. Add this one to that bunch.

I haven't seen the original for a very long time, so probably I'm not the right person to judge if this straight-to-video sequel fares any better. Anyone above the age of seven aren't the right people to see it either. Perhaps only the youngest of the young will want to see LADY AND THE TRAMP II: SCAMP'S ADVENTURE, and even they would grow up and say it wasn't the best kind of family entertainment they have ever seen. I guess to be fair, I can say is that it warrants a rental, but that ain't much to say.

This sequel pretty much picks up the parts left behind after the original oft-called classic. Lady and Tramp now have a litter of cute Crocker Spaniel pups... and one mischievous mongrel named Scamp who is a chip off the old block. Instead of the confines of home, Scamp wishes to run off with the other junkyard dogs of town, unknown of his dad's own past as one of those mongrels of the streets. To capture the charms of the original, this one throws in the same poor dog\/rich dog love story, in vice-versa. Scamp falls for a one of the junkyard dogs named Angel (and who wouldn't with a name like that and a voice that sounds like Alyssa Milano?). Que replay of the famous spaghetti scene! Other than the \"cute\" factor, there is nothing in store for any audience in this lazy straight-to-video effort. Stick with the original.

Rating: ** out of 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A few of my fellow writers have covered this movie's plot elements so I will stick to some of the cuff remarks...

1. This is entertaining - but not for the reasons you'd think. It's cheesy but somehow still watchable.

2. Tamra, Daniel's love interest has to be about thirty. The Christian girl that Dan ignores is way cuter.

3. Muriel stole his shirt from Mr. Spock. Also, if my guardian angel looks like Muriel I'm going to have to apply for a transfer.

4. Okay... so apparently... Dan is responsible for his parents' divorce! What kind of horrible guilt trip is that?! Muriel says that it was Dan's prayers that kept his parents together. I just thought that was absolutely ridiculous. Listen, I can pray for my parents as much as I want but the only way they'll stay together is if they decide they're going to do it.

5. I'll echo the atheist's comments on how this movie portrays non-Christians. Apparently they're all slovenly bullies.

6. For something positive - David White is a decent actor. He gives the movie a little bit of credibility, even if he is the only one. He pretty much holds this film together on his own.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All those who criticize The Sopranos for its stereotypical portrayals of Italians haven't seen anything until they've gotten a good look at this cornball gangster film which focuses on a family so irritating, you almost want them to be rubbed out.

The parents in this clan aren't so bad, but their two little boys--one a total brat, one cloyingly cutesy-poo--are insufferable, while their older good-for-nothing son and Pollyanna daughter ably compete for audience contempt. But the granddaddy of them all is, well, Granddaddy. As played by Chic Sale (in full \"Dag-nabbit!\" mode) he serves as the films moral compass, throwing in lots of diatribes about \"dang, dirty foreigners\" for good measure. If these are the good guys, it's no wonder the actors of that era who played baddies became the big stars.

Not that there are any stellar performances to be found among the criminal actors, but they at least acquit themselves better than the grating Leeds family. The incompetent police officers aren't even given enough screen time to bring things down any further. Only Walter Huston, as the district attorney, elevates the clich\u00e9-riddled material in his futile attempts to breathe some levelheadedness into these dolts.

The film deserves credit for being an early entry in what would prove to be a very popular silencing-the-witness formula, and it doesn't flinch in its depiction of the hard-bitten underworld lifestyle, but there are quite simply better--and less xenophobic--examples in the genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Aside from a few good moments of fairly raw violence, this painful film is most notable for making 68 minutes seem like two hours.

It starts with an interminably long intro where the Leeds family is introduced, including two insufferable tykes and their adult brother and sister, completely clich\u00e9d Pa and Ma, and incredibly annoying Grandpa (played by Charles \"Chic\" Sales). While sitting down to dinner the family is disturbed by the sounds of gunfire, and rushes to the window in time to see two men gunned down by mobsters in the street. The mobsters flee through the family's house, leaving them as witnesses to the crime.

The rest of the movie consists of Walter Huston as the crusading DA occasionally interrupting long anti-crime speeches to make half hearted attempts at trying to protect the family from the mob. It all winds up in a predictable manner.

Good points about the movie include a couple of decent shootouts and a truly nasty beating, Nat Pendleton as one of the mobsters, and the gorgeous Sue Blane in a small role as the Leeds daughter.

If you want to watch Huston play his early trademark crusading lawman, try 1932's \"Beast of the City.\" Avoid this one if at all possible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Warner Brothers social responsibility at its most ham-handed, with sermonizing every five minutes or so about how we're Americans, we don't run from trouble, we face up to our responsibilities. It also suggests that if you're willing to perjure yourself to protect your family from clearly deadly gangsters, you're un-American. Walter Huston, looking bored, is the frustrated DA, and the \"average American family\" includes such familiar faces as Sally Blane (looking a lot like her sister, Loretta Young) and Dickie Moore, as an allegedly adorable moppet. Both are regularly crowded out of the frame by Chic Sale, only 47 then but playing an octogenarian Civil War veteran, ponderously jumping and \"amusingly\" nipping at Prohibition hooch and moralizing about how we're Americans, dag nabbit. His St. Vitus Dance old-coot performance is tiresome schtick; it's like Walter Brennan based his entire career on it. William Wellman directs efficiently and quickly, much like his earlier \"Public Enemy,\" but he and the screenwriter neglect to show what happens to this family after the happy fadeout -- i.e., they'd probably be rubbed out by the Mob.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What annoys me with so called 'science' programs such as these is that it is presented as if it were a FACT that dinosaurs live 'millions' of years ago. Firstly, nobody can even conduct a scientific experiment to prove that the earth is millions\/billions of years old. It's a shallow theory based on inaccurate radiometric dating methods with huge assumptions thrown into the evolutionary pot.

Secondly, nobody can prove that evolution ever happened. All Darwin's missing links are still MISSING ! If you look at all the fossils anywhere in or on the earth, they are complete animals of a certain kind eg: a dog or a cat. Nobody has ever found the skeleton of a dog turning into a cat or in the example presented in this series, a dinosaur turning into a bird.

This is utter hogwash. There's more proof that Santa Claus exists than any animal changing into another kind of animal.

All the ideas presented in this series is an attempt to eliminate the idea that the universe and the everything in it, was created.

This series is NOT SCIENCE. It is a religious world view that hides under the banner of science. Science is something we can observe and repeat. What you are seeing here is SCIENCE FICTION.

If you want to watch a science fiction program that has the decency to admit that it's a science fiction program, then rather watch Star Trek or Star Wars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Based on a Edgar Rice Burroughs novel, AT THE EARTH'S CORE provides little more than means to escape and give your brain a rest. A Victorian scientist Dr. Abner Perry(Peter Cushing)invents a giant burrowing machine, which he and his American partner(Doug McClure)use to corkscrew their way deep into the earth to explore what mysteries it may hold. They soon discover a lost world of subhuman creatures having conflict with prehistoric monsters.

Cushing comes across as an absent minded professor to the point of being annoying. Instead of being a bold adventurer, he comes across effeminate. On the other hand McClure overacted enough to make himself also laughable. Caroline Munro plays the pretty Princess Dia that refuses to leave her world near the center of the earth. Also in the cast are: Godfrey James, Cy Grant and Michael Crane.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Compared to director Kevin Connor's later ARABIAN ADVENTURE, this is a masterpiece. However, that's not saying much. In fact, AT THE EARTH'S CORE is a silly fantasy adventure in which Peter Cushing - who appears to be on something strong - and some other actor (whom I don't know) use a giant digging machine called the \"Iron Mole\" dig their way down to the Earth's core - only to find that the inside of the Earth is pink and populated by ape-like creatures who have enslaved the humans. There's also a giant bird that controls the apes by means of telepathy, and we get to see it blink its eyes in closeup throughout the film. Most importantly, Cushing and what's-his-name also encounter the lovely Caroline Munro in the subterranean caves. And here's what I've really got against this little flick: why oh why is it that whenever Munro's in a movie, she only gets approx. 5 minutes of screen time? In THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, MANIAC, DRACULA AD 1972, GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD - always she's in the background! How can Kevin Connor possibly think that we'd rather listen to Peter Cushing's fake accent and look at some ridiculous ape-man whose voice sounds like a scratched cd than gaze at the beautiful Munro? I don't get it. Please, somebody direct a movie where this English brunette is on-screen all the time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A brilliant professor and his sidekick journey to the center of the earth in a huge machine which screws its way to the core. There, naturally, they find all kinds of things that are intent on killing and eating them. Plus, of course, a love interest for the young sidekick. Ho hum, does the plot never take a different tack?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mildly entertaining and self consciously cheezy -- but what else could it possibly be? Cushing in one of his poorest roles, and he often sounds dubbed. McClure is just too Cheezy to be believed, but who can blame him in the wasteland of this movie whose plot about ancient dinosaur birds ruling humans has 19th Century throwback \"period charm,\" but not enough and unfortunately the script carries the racist connotations of the literary genre into films. Nice effort from the actors, but a poorly conceived production.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There I am sitting at home in the morning, suddenly my brother flips on what appears to be the stupidest looking movie i have ever seen. Considering it was the 70's and special effects weren't to sharpe, this movie just about equaled the definition of crap. The stupid monsters, the stupid story line, and the stupid setting made this the worst movie I have ever seen. So bad in fact I didnt even finish it, I made it up to a certain point then proceeded to see how long I could go without putting a rope around my neck and hanging myself. (im just kidding haha) AWFUL MOVIE","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Doug McClure has starred in a few of these British produced genre adventures and this one has got to be the worst of the lot . I know THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT has its critics but please at least that movie featured location filming and relatively good production values . That's the problem with this movie - The production values go way beyond \" So bad they're good \" affectionate territory and become \" so bad I think I'll go and see what's on the other channels \"

One case in point is the first scene featuring the intrepid Cushing and McClure encountering a monster . It's painfully obvious the monster is an average sized man dressed up as a rubber monster being made to look over twenty foot tall via overblown back projection . It becomes even more painfully obvious that our heroes are trying to escape the monster by running on the spot . Have I mentioned that this is one of the more convincing set pieces ? No really this looks like it was filmed in somebody's living room with the spare change left over from that year's DOCTOR WHO budget . Even former DOCTOR WHO Peter Cushing is bland and what should have been an amusing line \" You can't mesmerise me - I'm British \" is delivered in a very flat way ( A very similar line is spoken by Cushing in HORROR EXPRESS ) in a script devoid of characterisation , plotting and memorable dialogue . It's not just the fact that the dialogue is unmemorable it's also infrequent and rare since the monsters don't speak . Wouldn't it have been better having the chief bad guys humanoids like in WARLORDS OF ATLANTIS so that they could explain the plot . Does anyone here know what the plot actually is ?

A very tedious British movie that even the twin talents of Caroline Munro can not save . The whole mood of the movie is summed up by the final sequence featuring two keystone cops","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"At the Earth's Core\" was on television yesterday. I was at my computer working and happened to glance over and see what must have been some of the worst action sequences ever made. I was instantly enthralled by the film's shoddy production values, appalling acting (by all included -- even Peter Cushing) and horrific, unintentionally hilarious action sequences and puppet-monsters.

The film is about a Victorian scientist who takes a stereotypical Buff American Hero on a ground-boring trip in the Welsh countryside. Little do they know that a great evil lurks at the center of the earth's core....

Forget the fact that the title doesn't make sense. (If they were really at the earth's core, they'd be about 2700 kg\/m3 underground and burning alive in a sea of iron or whatever it is down there.) Forget that the puppets used in the production rival \"The Beast Master\" for being the fakest-looking of all-time. No, the real genius of \"At the Earth's Core\" is its naive stupidity -- a gung-ho action spectacle without real action and without real spectacle. It is in essence just a gung-ho movie and a stupid one at that. People who enjoy MST3K-style stuff will love this -- it's appallingly bad, and indeed so bad it is almost enjoyable in a strange way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why is impossible to write in french ? Very Kitch! This journey in the center of the earth is despicable technical possibilities nevertheless current in 1976. These big \"Casimir\" of monsters is completely ridiculous! The film deserve however a \"remake\", as was \"KING KONG\" (the last one), with a little more supplied scenario. The professor has resemblances with the Professor Calculus and is rather funny. David (the character) is enough inconsistent but cross(spend) to the people from below a good message \" you unite and will overcome you! \" Altogether we would say a film made in the 40s. Now that I said everything (or almost) the evil of which i thought of it, we can say that if we have the brain get tired or anything has to see of the other one, then the thing(matter) is even rather entertaining. Hugh! Such is my opinion! (translating French to English with \"Reverso\" : sorry for possible mistakes !)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Of all the E.R.Burroughs screen adaptations that Doug McClure starred in the 70s, this is the stagiest of all. It's so stagy, you can taste the dust of the sets and feel the heath of the lamps above. The thing looks like a very, very big budget school play, or indeed, a very very low budget action movie, which it actually is. It's been said on many occasions that this was the last of the genre entries, and I do hope it was. The genre didn't die peacefully, but in horrible agony, amidst a lot of smoke, fake blood and lousy sound effects. Peter Cushing must have felt a boy again, as a nutty professor whose shirt stays white as snow after the gentlemen has dragged himself through the slimy crap-holes of the Underworld. What a sport he was, to accept a part in this mishmash and carry it so bravely.

Shot entirely on a sound stage and accompanied by then trendy, now unbearable synthesizer soundtrack, the main anti-attraction of this film are the cardboard monsters. Yes, there are always monsters like that in a Burroughs adaptation, but they rarely manage to be so completely ridiculous, helpless or void of any credibility. On a few occasions, during the elevated action-combat scenes where Mr McClure heroically attacks the creatures, you can almost hear the empty, hollow sound as his head bangs against the side of a triplodactocryptosaurus. Fortunately, the animals explode and go up in flames the minute they trip and fell over. Indeed, there is a great deal of unmotivated exploding as the film (and the genre) draws towards the finale. And lovely Miss Munroe loses her underworldly accent.

The triple bill, currently on the market, features this film plus two others - The Land That Time Forgot and The War Lords Of Atlantis. The first two are quite strong entries, especially the first one, with a lot of money invested and occasionally even fascinating script turns. Don't expect any of these qualities from this film. Get drunk with pals and laugh shamelessly at what you see. After all, the makers didn't have any shame either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is something about Doug McLure's appearance in a movie that is a warranty of wretchedness. His DG initials are like a special cinema-certification, that comes somewhere before 'U'.

Cushing, on the other hand, seemed to suffer\u00a0from both a dilatory agent and poor judgement of his own. He did excellent work in the Hammer movies as Dr Van Helsing. I'v seen him do a very passable Sherlock Holmes in 'Hound Of The Baskervilles'. And his magnum opus was probably Grand Moff Tarkin in the first 'Star Wars'. The only man but the emperor who could tell Darth Vadar to 'stop bickering' and get away with it. But - crikey! - he's done some turkeys. There was that lamentable 'Daleks' movie for one. And here's another.

There's a machine that's been hijacked from Tracy Island. It's a cylinder with a screw at the front and traction devices at the sides. I'm surprised Jerry Anderson didn't sue for plagiarism. Maybe he was bought-off. Yet if the movie is any guide, they can't have paid him much.

It's 1976 and we're still playing about in latex romper-suits.

That's about it really. Some movies have an entertainment value in the 'so bad it's good' category. This one doesn't even manage that. It wouldn't even entertain kids. 'Crash Corrigan's' stuff from the 1930's has got more going for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is just about one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Maybe not a worst movie ever contender, but if you haven't seen that many bad ones, this could easily make your Top Ten Worst List. When you consider what was achieved in 1933 with the original \"King Kong\", you've got to ask yourself why anyone would stoop so low as to produce this debacle. Then, taking it one step further and realizing that the quantum leap to \"Star Wars\" the following year achieved a new level in sci-fi entertainment, this offering will make you laugh and cry at the same time.

Now let me ask you, what would possess the Professor (Peter Cushing) to bring along an umbrella as a prime piece of subterranean research equipment for the ride to the earth's core? OK, so it was useful in fending off the parrot\/tyrannosaur (parrotosaurus?) in the early going, but come on. Somehow I don't think this is what Edgar Rice Burrough's had in mind when he wrote his tales of Pellucidar. He probably didn't have Caroline Munro in mind either as Princess Dia, probably the only redeeming factor to this whole escapade.

At least there was one bit of pseudo-scientific explanation that I got a kick out of; I'm always looking for one in films like this. That would have to be how the sky at the earth's core was really the underside of the earth's crust, explaining that ethereal pinkish glow. But try as it might, the story just couldn't hook me in a way to find anything at all interesting about Hoojah the Sly One or Jubal the Ugly One, much less those goofy half man, half pterodactyl creatures. To paraphrase the good professor - \"You cannot mesmerize me, I'm paying attention!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's amazing to think that this movie came out only one year before Star Wars but seems a million years behind it in sophistication and special effects. Actually, the art direction and set design (nice Victorian space ship) aren't bad; it's the monster costumes that are the most laughable, resembling the \"guy in a rubber suit\" monsters from the LOST IN SPACE TV show. The evil cave-man makeup reminded me of some of the aliens from ancient TWILIGHT ZONE reruns.

The script is stilted, and outside of Peter Cushing's comic relief the acting is pretty miserable too. This movie is only recommended if you really enjoy bad kitschy SF. And the music...yikes! A horrible 70s experiment with synthesizers that doesn't fit the time period of the film and which sounds like someone rambling with a Minimoog and a 2-track tape machine.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yeah it may not be for adults, and some adults may find it stupid, but if you don't think about it it's really not that bad.

The story has Alvin and his gang, going across the world, in search of jewels for a bad person, and the misadventures that they come in contact with.

So the animation is good, and the story is cute, and the songs are forgettable but it's a good movie.

I give it a 6 out of 10 or *** out of 4 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Meltdown opens on a scene of scientists preparing to conduct an important test on a missile system developed to deflect asteroids should they be on a collision course with earth. Nathan (Vincent Gale) mentions some misgivings to his, but the test appears to be an unqualified success. Then the asteroid breaks apart, and the largest piece is pushed into a direct collision path with earth. Fortunately, the huge rock skips off of earth's outer atmosphere and ricochets into space. Unfortunately, the glancing blow is just enough to alter earth's orbit, and the planet begins to spiral closer to the sun.

While all of this is going on above their heads, Los Angeles cops Tom (Casper Van Dien) and Mick (Greg Anderson) are on a stake-out. They're supposed to collect evidence against a suspected drug dealer, but the deal they're watching quickly devolves into a shooting match. Afterward, Tom takes a few minutes to be interviewed by a local television reporter who also happens to be his girlfriend, Carly (Stefanie von Pfetten).

At a nearby hospital where Mick is treated for a minor injury, Tom has a brief chat with his ex-girlfriend Bonnie (Venus Terzo), who is a nurse. He tells her he's concerned about the fact that their 17 year-old daughter Kimberly (Amanda Crew) is dating a man named CJ (Ryan McDonell). Once Tom explains to Bonnie that he's discovered CJ has a criminal record, she's a little worried herself.

It's not long, however, before everybody has something else to worry about. The temperature is rapidly rising all around the world. Carly is one of the first non-scientists to learn what's really happening. Nathan, who is her brother, calls her to say he may have a way that they can survive. Carly calls Tom; he, of course, promptly contacts Bonnie.

In relatively short order, the motley group is on the road. Before they can reach their ultimate goal, however, they've got to make their way through bands of looters, deal with a catastrophic water shortage, and manage to travel in temperatures that are high enough to kill.

Casper Van Dien is a good looking guy, and I actually enjoyed him in Starship Troopers. That may be because he's good in action scenes. It might also be because he didn't talk much in that movie. In Meltdown, he's unfortunately given just enough lines in situations that are just dramatic enough to showcase his entirely average acting abilities. Amanda Crew is also okay, and Ryan McDonell isn't bad, either. Vincent Gale and Stefanie von Pfetten are also both reasonably good, but Venus Terzo is sadly on a par with Van Dien.

What really makes or breaks a movie, though, is the story and the script. While the story here is okay and actually has some real potential, the script is just awful. The science part of the science fiction is non-existent starting with the asteroid pushing the earth out of orbit and escalating with the notion that the \"gravitational balance of the solar system\" might \"pull the earth back\" into its usual orbit \"over time.\" When the temperature in LA hits 120 degrees, cars start blowing up.

You know what's even worse than the bad science? The bad continuity. Okay, really hot. Why are people in the movie not only wearing long sleeved shirts, but jackets, too? Why are people mugging each other for bottled water instead of turning on the taps at home? Why are the streets completely empty, but the freeways completely full? And why are the freeways full of unexploded? It's almost superfluous to note that the sets, costumes, and production values were good, especially when that only forces me to say that the edits were not.

So basically, you take a pretty good story idea and combine it with mostly mediocre acting, a terrible script, low-end special effects, utterly irrational plot twists, and poor edits, and what do you have? A movie that's even less than the sum of its inconsiderable parts. I'm sorry to say that I can't recommend Meltdown: Days of Destruction to anyone.

POLITICAL NOTES: There is mention here that Congress finally loosened the purse strings enough to fund the tests that start the movie rolling. While the tests here were wholly irresponsible (targeting an asteroid with a nuke and not knowing the composition of the big rock is, in fact, well beyond irresponsible and approaching the insane), the fact is that such scenarios are a very real danger to the planet. Unfortunately, we've tracked nowhere near all of the near earth asteroids that could be worrisome in some orbit some day; and our ability to spot something on a collision course with us is limited at best.

Once we do discover we're going to be hit, we quite literally have no system in place to deal with it. There are no nuclear-tipped space missiles we can launch; the space shuttle is completely incapable of going beyond earth orbit, and if it were, we couldn't launch enough of them or launch them quickly enough for it to matter. I'm not big on the government doing anything beyond its constitutional mandates, but I certainly think protecting the planet from destruction coming at us from outer space could be construed as defending the country, don't you? FAMILY SUITABILITY: Meltdown: Days of Destruction is rated R for \"some violence.\" I frankly didn't find the violence here anything beyond a fairly typical T-rated video game. If your teens are keen on seeing Meltdown and you can't talk them out of it, the R-rating shouldn't dissuade you from letting them see it. It's not, however, a good idea to leave the younger kids in the room with their elder siblings. While the shootings aren't too graphic in the main, some of the dead bodies are.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is total dumbness incarnate. Yet, i've seen this movie several times already and plan to watch several more times because, despite its sheer dumbness, it's very entertaining. And it has one of my favorite hokey-movie actors, Casper van Dien, who is here in his full hokey-movie glory. Here, Casper van Dien is fully Casper van Dien, and ya gotta love him for it. If he hadn't been in this movie, it would have been totally unwatchable dreck, or at least far dreckier than it already is.

The (cough cough) \"science\" used here makes absolutely no sense at all. No one else in the world noticed that big asteroid approaching the Earth besides that small group? Not even with thousands and thousands and thousands of professional and amateur astronomers constantly searching the skies for just such a thing? An asteroid that big would have made itself completely obvious to anyone who has a pair of eyes even vaguely capable of sight. And a chunk of the asteroid bounced off the atmosphere and no one even noticed it? A rock that big hitting the atmosphere would have caused enormous shockwaves that would have in turned caused an enormous amount of damage to the planet's surface. Surely, someone would have noticed such a thing. Bwahahaha! The \"science\" used in this movie is so completely ridiculous, that, somehow it works for making this movie as entertaining as it is.

One thing i noticed is that despite the uber heat, all the characters weren't dripping with sweat and their clothes completely soaked with it. At the most, the characters looked like they had been lightly spritzed on occasion by someone off-camera with a water bottle to give a \"sweat sheen\". Authenticity was *not* a goal that this movie assiduously and constantly strived for. Which, in a weird and hilarious sort of way, gives this movie its entertainment charm.

Is this movie actually worth watching? Definitely! Assuming, of course, you have absolutely *no* expectations of anything that even remotely approaches reality. And, it's your desire to wallow and luxuriate in total hokeyness at the moment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"MELTDOWN is pretty interesting SCI-FI. No major budget, very few special effects; but decent acting and a storyline of global doom is enough to sustain viewing. An asteroid grazes the atmosphere and thrust the Earth into an orbit closer to the sun. Global warming rapidly becomes unbearable. A determined LAPD cop(Casper Van Dien)goes all out to save the world from certain annihilation as the rising temps are devastating. The pressure is on to save mankind from this solar catastrophe; as well as protect his daughter, nurse ex-wife and TV reporter girlfriend. The cast includes: Stefanie Von Pfetten, Venus Terzo, Amanda Crew and Vincent Gale.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Poor Casper Van Dien, his career has slid a long way from Tarzan and Starship Troopers.

In Meltdown he's a policeman who just happens to be dating TV reporter Stefanie Von Pfeten and her brother is a scientist who's trying to deal with a speeding comment headed for Earth. But in the runaway comet business, even a near miss causes some real problems as the Earth's orbit goes out of kilter.

From the survival of the Earth we go to the survival of Van Dien and his immediate family. His daughter's gangbanger boyfriend, Ryan McDonell actually proves to be of some use especially when he suspects a guy he knows as a crooked cop might mean the Van Dien group a lot of harm.

My only question here is, why didn't they have Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton and the rest of that crew to deal with the nasty comet?

Pass this one up folks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would rather have someone cut out my eyeballs with a razor blade than have to watch this movie again. I watched it from start to end thinking it couldn't get any worse....BUT IT DID. The writers and producers should be slapped for putting this kind of crap on television. The actors are ALL terrible. Get out of Hollywood you fools and go work at McDonalds sweeping the floors and emptying the trash. Anyone that thinks this movie is even remotely decent should be hung. They are an embarrassment to humanity. To think we have soldiers putting their lives on the line for anyone that produces this kind of inane garbage. Makes me embarrassed to say I'm an American.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a modest attempt at a film, though it appeared more like a TV pilot extended.

Some may find this unfair, but it looks like someone saw \"The Brothers\" and \"Save the Last Dance\", and thought \"Hey, I could do that too.\" Well, not quite.

While I personally found the movie predictable, somewhat poorly acted, and contrived (watch for the cookies), Carl Payne shows that he can carry off a lead role, and should be back on television. The leading lady (can't remember her name, sorry) was plausible too, but you keep thinking of Julia Stiles (she was the one in \"Save the Last Dance\", right?) because this one was really stuck in \"white girl\" mode.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a huge Randolph Scott fan, so I was surprised and disappointed to find he is barely in this film! The movie really belongs to Robert Ryan, who is the hero in the jam, and the one embroiled in the love triangle. Good grief, Gabby Hayes gets more screen time than Mr. Scott in this movie!! For many viewers, that is not a problem, but I am from the Walter Brennan school of sidekicks, not Gabby Hayes...although I will say that his lines were a bit more humorous than annoying in this film than in many of his films with Randolph Scott and John Wayne.

Personally, I found the movie very slow going, with a convoluted plot that was muddied even more by the unnecessary romance subplot. By convoluted, I don't mean impossible to understand or figure out, I just mean too messy for its own good.

The direction is uninspired, and the two main bad guys have the most unsatisfying come-uppance at the end. The whole movie comes across as fake, unrealistic, and poorly filmed.

Just so you don't think I can't find anything good here...

On the plus side, Anne Jeffreys is very sexy in her all-too-brief parts of this film. Not sure if it is actually her singing, or someone else, but whoever it was had a very pretty voice. Ms. Jeffreys also had a couple of nice acting moments. The script needed either a lot more of her, or to remove her character altogether. As it was, her nice few moments weren't enough to help the film.

Lastly, there is Mr. Scott. He looks fantastic in this film and is the no-nonsense lawman out to set things right. Some folks complain that his characters prior to 1950 were too goody-goody perfect, but that's never bothered me at all. I'll take him goody-goody pre-1950, or gritty and violent post-1950...either way, Randolph Scott was a real Western hero.

It saddens me to have to say it, but I would have to recommend passing this film by, unless you are a die-hard fan...there are so many better Scott films out there that this one won't be missed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is such a piece of unbelievable crap. First let me talk about the pros: Sandra Bullock in a black bathing suit.

Now the rest of the story which is all pretty much bad. We have said computer programmer Angela Bennett (who's online profile is ANGEL - HOW WITTY!!! I bet the directors cheered over that one for an hour) who basically checks other Company's software for errors\/glitches etc. So we start with her ordering pizza on the Internet and then putting on a fireplace on her monitor (EXTREME computer skills shown thus far). This is after she finds some virus on a macintosh program which crashes the whole system after hitting the escape key. This is apparently a HUGE problem yet the virus created to do such could be done in about 1 minute with a simple batch file.

Any event, we move on. She gets this call from some other bloke (that works at the same company) and this fool says to go click this symbol which apparently opens up some secret Internet gateway to a bunch of unprotected 'top secret' data woohoo! Angela saves this crap on a disc and now the people that created this loophole are out to get her. This of course is only after she hooks up with one of the bad guys only BEFORE he tries to kill her BEFORE she jumps in the ocean off his boat, BEFORE she winds up in a random hospital.

Problem #1: You can't create a loophole on the Internet to gain access to a bunch of top secret FBI data. Where the hell did this come from? Since when can a group of hackers control the basic flow of the Internet (even in 95)? Problem #2: Angela would need proper identification before a hospital or clinic would release her. She could not just pack her things and go.

Then these 'hackers' or whatever change Angela's ID so she can't get help from anyone and conveniently enough all her ID is gone. So she returns home and a cat and mouse chase goes on and on and on.

Apparently all police and FBI people are stupid and don't believe her. So then she has to utilize a bunch of tactics to enter into the building where she works (where the person who is now filling in for her is) and get back to her old computer. She starts talking to some other random bloke and finds out who is behind everything through some BS IP address that the director knows the audience is too stupid enough to believe.

Then she runs to some center to mail all this information to the FBI. She apparently HAS to use a mainframe to email stuff to the FBI. But then the same fool that tried to kill her BEFORE throwing her in the water catches her and easily hacks into the FBI again (wtf?). But remember that cool virus? Well somehow she luckily gets that and even though the virus only worked on software, it now works on the entire system too. It brings down the whole mainframe which has all the fake information because the mainframe was just sitting in the middle of some convention... WHAT THE HELL IS THIS CRAP! Anyway, the now uber virus works and Angela (the real one now) runs away and later kills the evil dude with a fire extinguisher. He of course has a gun, runs up to her so he's like 2 feet away and then decides to aim. CLASSIC Hollywood.

All in all this movie is so full of BS and crap. Anyone who doesn't know a lot about computers will be wildly fooled into thinking this crap is possible but not one thing is accurate concerning computers or the net. And I honestly doubt I'd see a multiplatform virus for Mac and a mainframe computer (*cough LMAO*).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Made and released at the time when the internet was just becoming huge, this is a storyline Hitchcock would have loved.

Sadly, Hitchcock wasn't around to make it, and we're left with an occasionally suspenseful but mostly silly thriller, that is held (barely) together by Bullock's intelligence.

It was released in 1995 but is already dated, and the amount of mistakes and inaccuaracies regarding computers must be seen to be believed, and you don't even have to be a dot.com person to spot them!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay... she's on the boat with this guy, realizes he's out to kill her, knocks him out, and then finds the reason he's out to off her is this disk that got her coworker killed. So what would any rational person do? Maybe conk him over the head again to make sure he's really out?? Tie him up?? Look, Sandra honey, you've got the chance to escape while the guy is out for only so long. Until you know how long it will take you take you to escape, make sure he's not able to come after you. I HATE these stupid female victim roles. The rest of the movie was just a series of twists and turns that were completely convoluted and too unbelievable to remain interesting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILER ALERT!!!!

I don't go into 'high tech' movies expecting them to be 100% accurate on all things computer related. But somehow, even the average 'I have a computer' user is supposed to believe that:

1) A computer professional with a top secret, special data

2) is going to keep the primary copy of said data on a 1.44 floppy

3) and make absolutely NO BACKUP of this special secret data

Even high school students back up their homework for goodness sake.

Also this is the worst represntation of a computer nerd ever. Even though she is super cute we are supposed to believe that she has no friends, neighbors, extended family, or coworkers who can identify her. Even the unabomber had a family that could turn him in.

END SPOILER

These aren't just minor mistakes that had no bearing on the movie - These are the major plot points that fueled the storyline. The characterization was awful, the plot wholly unbeleivable, and if you haven't seen this, don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is basically just a dumb chase story, nearly identical to zillions of other chase stories in terms of acting, suspense, plot, dialogue, characterization (or lack thereof), and pacing.

The one area in which 'The Net' diverges from traditional chase movies is in its subject material: Computers. Unfortunately, the scriptwriters clearly didn't understand the differences between a pocket calculator and a Cray!

Computer-newbies shouldn't watch this movie, because it will make them paranoid about computers. No matter what Hollywood tries to tell us, it's just not that easy to erase someone's identity by hacking. There's still too much paper documentation in the world, and there was even more of it in 1995.

Computer-pros shouldn't watch this movie, either. I mean, a magical virus that can melt your entire PC when you press \"Escape\"? Please. And the whole virus, including the cool multimedia effects of your screen dissolving (what's THAT all about?) can fit on a single 1.44mb diskette? Yeah ... whatever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rating: *1\/2 out of ****

\"The Net\" is one of those films that won't remain in your mind till the next one hour. Well... Just if you keep thinking how bad it is. It's a mediocre, miserable, hollow, laughable and predictable piece of garbage. One of those adjectives I've just used above is the reason which made me add 1\/2 a star to the one I would have given. So is it a case of 'so bad it is good'? No. It's a case of 'so bad it is laughable'.

Bullock in a (surprise!) very bad performance plays Angela Bennett, a computer expert who is at home all the time. She works at home, doesn't have any friends and her neighbors don't know her. Suddenly, she sees herself involved in dangerous situations, after her colleague dies and the same thing almost happens to her. Her identity, bank accounts, etc, etc, etc, are all deleted, and she is now Ruth Marx. The conspiracy involves even the government and... Wait! Haven't we seen this before? Yes, thousands of times. \"The Net\" tries to be modern, to be the portrait of the '90s, showing the computer as a villain. Big deal! It is a film about nothing, just a pretext to show ridiculous action scenes. Take the scene of the boat accident. I just laughed when the camera started to get slow...

What makes everything even worse here is Sandra Bullock. How awful she is! Has she already made a decent film? \"A Time to Kill\", okay. But she is still a bad actress, repeating her robotic face moves in each of her pictures.

The vantages and disadvantages of the computer were already shown in \"2001: A Space Odyssey\", the best, most intelligent and most complex film ever made. It's not needed to compare \"The Net\" with it, is it...?

The only reason to see \"The Net\" is to laugh, as I've said, and to see what it tried to be. The results, well, are a shame.

DELETE this film from your mind!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Computing . Can there be anything more boring ? Sitting in front of a computer all day typing away at some keys all day every day , tap tap tapping . That's much of the problem with this movie , the heroine sits in front of a computer VDU tapping the keys and no matter how many looks of agitation she gives , or how much suspenseful notes the composer strikes or how many extreme close ups the director uses there's not much excitement down to the fact that there's few things less exciting than watching somebody on a computer

There's a few other problems too much of them factual errors regarding how computers work . Is it possible to hack into a computer that is both turned off and not connected to the internet ? I guess that when THE NET was made 10 years ago very few people would understand how computers worked so the screenwriters would have been able to BS at length but since we now live in a global village where nearly every household in the western world has their own computer the audience are certainly very clued up on the factual errors of this movie . And of course there's too many instances where someone acts stupid or out of character at crucial times in order to progress the plot which makes THE NET a very mediocre movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We can conclude that there are 10 types of people in this world.

Those who understand binary and those who do not. Those who understand binary put this movie to its grave along with hackers, while those who do enjoy this movie for the sake that none of this crap could happen. Ever.

For a movie to attempt to be a modern movie with fiction applied to it. It has failed. Horribly. Only a 11yr old and below can enjoy and only 30yr and up could be scared to have their identity taken. It losses out on the main market for a resale value(i watch it now it is more boring than when it was first released).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"[ as a new resolution for this year 2005, i decide to write a comment for each movie I saw in theater (10%) or in DVD (90%).

I must admit that DVD have revolutionized this habit. For instance, i can hear the true voice of the cast, which is an essential trait of the personality. In my country, non french movies are dubbed and we end up with aberrations: french voice is terrible, very far away of its original tone ! the same voice for different people or a same people with different voices !!!!

And well, if everybody found my comments unuseful, well, in 2006, I will stop my reviews... Ah,AH.... So, enjoy them now !!!! ]

My summary means that the story, locations, cast is not very enjoyable...

Only....

Sandra bullock is there.. She is a talented actress, able to get the viewer to catch on the movie....

It reminds of a feminine \"the fugitive\".... So if you look for a moment of escaping your life, watching this movie makes it worse because Sandra's life is a mess....

She got nothing left to hold on to, only her poor mother (Who is Alzheimer ill: again the touch for depression)....

In fact, she has a sad life in the beginning of the movie, has a sadder life throughout it, to finally get back to it at the end.... what a happy ending !!!!

maybe the writers wanted to make a point about a nerd's life....

very far away from the best computer movie of all time: *WARGAMES*","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When, oh when, will Hollyweird write a decent movie based around computers? I cannot believe people actually consider this movie to be a credible story.

No computer operating system could ever survive wit that sort of annoying scrolling interface. It may look good on a movie screen but if you actually tried using it for any length of time you would go nuts.

As for \"tracing\" people the way she did it simply cannot be done that way. Network security alone would prevent that from happening. The key stroke logging was laughable to say the least.

Regarding the software that was supposedly being installed, no system administrator would allow such a critical piece of software to be installed on a production system until it has been tested, retested and tested again on a sandbagged system.

But probably the worst possible part of the movie was the \"virus\". There is no way that a virus that works on one operating system will work on any other system. And as for a virus that could take out a mainframe is a couple of seconds, that just beggars belief. There is no way that an open remote connection would have the required superuser access that would allow deletion of system files.

I could go on but I can't be bothered.

A porno has a better thought out plot that this pile of garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Net is a movie I never saw upon release, I remember giving it a pass upon the mediocre reviews and since then perhaps been noticing a snippet here and there when it's been on TV. Seeing it now, fourteen years after it's original release, I'm a little flabbergasted as to how time flies. Being in my mid 20's, it made my childhood feel ancient. I felt as if I should probably do some exercise before my body starts stacking up fat in all the wrong places. Cut down on fat and sugar. Too much coffee and cigarettes.

Anyway, that was the best part of this movie experience for me. I'd say the first 30 minutes of this movie really kept me occupied with retro heaven. Look at those big cans they call computers. Look, they chat in chat rooms! I remember those tank tops! They look.... stupid. And hey, it even stars Sandra Bullock. First billed! Would you look at that.

As a movie, The Net is just an unimaginative, plain and totally routine Hitchockian cat-and-mouse thriller. Nothing archaic about that, they made them then as much as they make them now. Bullock plays a reclusive computer nerd who's job it is to fix software for people who don't get \"that whole computer thingy\". As it happens, she stumbles upon some delicate information and after her vacation trip ends up with her nearly getting killed by a sexy lay who turns out to be a killer (played by Jeremy Northam, and she should have been suspicious by the fact that they are in an American movie and the guy both smokes and has a British accent!) she gets her \"identity wiped out\". Her house is empty, for sale, and upon checking it out, it turns out that she now has got a new identity. A convicted prostitute and impostor, no less.

Now you might say that this is improbable. How could they possibly do that to her? Even in 1995, it's impossible! That's true, but back in '95 a lot of people didn't even know what the Internet was. I can see how it's a plot hole you could have accepted back then. What's far more disastrous though is the inconsistencies that have nothing to do with technology. The movie obviously owes a lot to Hitchcock movies (it's one of those thrillers that feature a merry-go-round by night) but Hitchcock always made sure that his movies were plausible. The characters didn't act like confused maniacs when trying to prove their innocence, and the plot didn't conveniently lay down for a structure where one obstacle inevitable leads to the other. The characters also tried a little before giving into the whole rouge chase. Has Bullock's character really no friends what so ever? Couldn't any old high school teacher confirm her identity? Or like... her nearest pizza guy? Oh right, she orders pizza from the Internet. Never mind. You figure the movie out pretty quickly. There seems to be hope in an ex boyfriend. You really think so? You should always count on at least ONE surprise. The Net offers none.

The Internet poses a lot of danger, this movie seems to predict. But, had the movie been made today, imagine the troubles the villains would have to go through to ensure the identity wipe. Not only do they have to do all those boring literal things, she would still have her Facebook membership, with at least like 100 friends or so, and picture tags, not to mention she might be on YouTube or Linked-In, and what about her video blog with like 150 daily hits, or the webcams in her house and recorded video of her in other people's cell phones, webcams, web downloads... her IMDb membership?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now i have seen two movies by the director Chen Kaige, a very good one (Farewell my concubine), and this bad one, The Assassin. Both movies depict crucial events in chinese history, FMC in the 20th century and TA the first unification of the whole chinese nation in the 3rd century bc. FMC succeds with memorable characters, gorgeous cinematography, convincing sets, good acting and an interesting story. The Assassin fails on nearly every level (okay, the sets are great, the cinematography is good, and the few battle scenes are quite exciting). But...the pathos. Call me a cynic, but too much is too much. If you felt that Saving Private Ryan was too pathetic, be aware, this here will make you sick. The dialogue is lifeless, many lines seem like political statements, subtle or entertaining is this pic not. The film is overpowered by its own pompousness. I am really surprised that The Assassin gets such high votes here on imdb. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lots of flames, thousands of extras in battle scenes, lots of beautiful sets. I don't think the plot supported such a vast expenditure. The story could have been told far more effectively and have been more valid, psychologically if there weren't so much macho bombast in the production. Chinese movies tend to be this way, in my experience. and I think this detracts from the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I read all of the other comments which made this movie out to be an excellent movie. I saw nothing of the excellence that was stated. I thought it was long and boring. I tried twice to watch it. The first time I fell asleep and the second time I made it to within six minutes of the end and gave up. I suppose that it was mainly my fault going in with great expectation, but I don't think that this would have completely ruined the movie for me. The movie was just bland. It had nothing that was spectacular or unique to it. The plot was not half bad, the action sequences were non-existent, the dialogue forced and the movie just went on forever. I would not recommend seeing this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Los Angeles physician Tom Reed (Vincent Ventresca) survives a tragic auto accident but ends up going to prison in the high desert of California. When his time is up he lands in a small, wind-swept town named Purgatory Flats. His first stop is a bar, where he quickly slams a beer and gets hired as a bartender. So much for ex-cons having a tough time finding work. This is the first in a long line of absurdities that make up the plot of writer\/director Harris Done's silly attempt at modern, desert-set, film noir.

His first night on the job Tom meets a sexy femme fatal named Sunny (Alexandra Holden), who hangs out with a family of bad boys: the Mecklins, consisting of Uncle Dean (Gregg Henry) and his two nephews, the drug addicted Owen (Kevin Alejandro), who is Sunny's husband, and AWOL soldier Randy (\"90210\"s Brian Austin Greer). After his shift is finished there's a shooting, and Dr. Tom just happens to be nearby. He agrees to treat one of the wounded and, most importantly, not tell the cops. I'm not sure that's a good move for a guy fresh out of the pen, but this script (co-written by Diane Fine) has very little to do with logic.

Tom makes a series of poor decisions that get him further and further entangled with the criminally inclined Mecklin Boys, including stealing medical supplies and hopping into the sack with Sunny. Everybody in the theater is screaming, \"Don't do it! Walk away\", but Tom does it anyway.

In a classic film noir like \"Body Heat\" or \"Double Indemnity\" we root for and empathize with William Hurt and Fred McMurray as they get sucked into the web of bright, sexy, devious femme fatals like Kathleen Turner and Barbara Stanwyck. It's not their fault. We'd probably be tempted by all that money or that particular dame, too. But Dr. Tom's weakness seems to stem from stupidity more than circumstances. Sunny is sexy but not a very compelling character, and there's no money to tempt him. You're left wondering if he attended the same medical school as Dr. Nick Riveria from \"The Simpsons\".

The silly script would have you believe that a redneck's rural home has almost everything you need to treat a gunshot to the stomach, and that one so wounded could easily hop to attention and effectively participate in a fist fight. It gives us an implausible car chase with one of those \"The Club\" things clamped to the steering wheel. Oh, that oil tanker that just exploded - no one noticed that.

I wonder how such a ridiculous script ever got green-lighted? Perhaps Brian Austin Greer has more juice than I gave him credit for. It's obvious that he took the relatively small role of Randy - a hot-headed murder - to show producers that he had more acting range than he displayed on \"90210\".

It's also sort of sad to see Nicholas Turturro playing a stereotypical Hispanic drug dealer. He deserves better than this.

If you have an IQ over 50, \"Purgatory Flats\" will have you shaking your head in disbelief. I'll give it 3 stars for the unintentional laughs and the scenes with the sexy Miss Holden running around in her red panties.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It starts off pretty well, with the accident and the decision not to return to LA. But everything falls into place too quickly. There is a decent plot twist towards the end, but so many scenes that don't make sense. Randy (played by Brian Austin Green) comes home angry and ready to confront people and he takes the time to put on the club, when he parks his car in front of his house in the middle of nowhere? I don't want to spoil it, for anyone who does decide to see it, but the last 45 minutes are ridiculous. Even the acting, which wasn't bad early on, turns bad towards the end. Don't bother unless you want to see how bad it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Movie is okay. Meaning that I don't regret watching it! I found the acting purely and the most of the dialog stupid (\"oh no, this was my grandmothers bible!\"). It's sort of bad remake of U-turn. A man arrives to a desert town out in nowhere, meets the wrong people and falls in love with the wrong woman. And off cause get's involved in something, he thought he could leave behind him. The movie is quite predictable and there is really nothing new in it. When it's finish, you didn't really care. Most of the characters are stereotypes, specially Brian Austin Green!! All in all just another movie from the states, but okay entertaining on boring Wednesday night. IMDb vote: 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"it's the best film that takes the first place at the sickest and an useful films ever made in this poor country. really u people even don't know what the word cinema means and u cast votes for movies, i'm really curious to know how many movies of P.P.P. or L.Bunuel have u seen. The score of this \"faield experiment\" it reflects a lot of u're way of understanding things and to recognize a good\/quality movie when u see it. We the Romanian people have only ONE movie and until this day the status hasn't change & that movie is \"Padurea Spanzuratilor\". But I don't lose my time thinking how many of you have seen it. That is a movie that respects all the required quality's's of an MOVIE. From the script to the frames and even to the quality\/clarity of the picture even are past over him 41 years. I recommend to the voters to search for better movies and then vote. KuDos will See u later .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, so this film is well acted. It has good direction but the simple fact is that it undermines what all gay and lesbian people have been fighting for all these years. The straight man \"deciding to be gay\" and the gay man \"Deciding to be straight\" I did enjoy it up until the last 20 minutes, after that i got really offended. As what usually happens in these films the straight actors play the main parts and the out gay actors play the secondary straight roles. The leads are played by handsome men but don't let that distract you from the fact that this is a a film that leaves you feeling unfulfilled. All the romance and relationships you hope would happen do not. Unless you are a priest that is in which case god bless straight woman who cure our homos.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie starts at A and never quite reaches B. Its title promises far more than the film delivers. It's superficial and filled with the usual cliches of a story in which a guy questions his sexuality. The people are agreeable, even the obligatory flamboyant type. The lead (Kevin McKidd) overacts insofar as there's a reason for him to act at all. Simon Callow, playing a horny straight, is always worth watching, and he's by far the only reason to stay with the movie. However, the rubbish about his men's group \"meditations\" or whatever they are grows extremely tiresome in short order. They seem to have been thrown into the movie's mild mix in a misguided effort to vary the setting and non-stop inaction. The same comment applies to a really odd and unconvincing camping trip. Don't worry about pausing the tape so you can get a snack. Let the thing run; you won't miss anything. Hugo Weaving's character is superfluous. He appears in a sequence with one of the lesser leads and doesn't even meet the rest at all. The outcome of that sequence isn't explained, and Hugo's real estate dealings have nothing to do with the story. The movie is a total disappointment at the end, because there is no resolution. The thing simply fades out and we're sent to the closing credits. This is an interlude with no structure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found it hard to care about these characters, who were either annoying or insipid, all living their fabulously hilariously urban lives.

The dialogue was excruiciating at times, and at other times the narrative seemed hard to follow - was it me or were entire scenes deleted?

It felt like a poor sitcom somehow turned into a film. The stereotypes and jokes about \"men's groups\" would perhaps have been funny in the early 90s. As it is, this is where much of the humour of the film comes from - and boy, does it get old fast.

Apart from the attractive Irish man - this film was a dud. And not even in a \"so bad it's good way\". The last 20 minutes were particularly painful. Perhaps if you've never met any gay people or never thought about homosexuality before, then this film might have something meaningful to say. Otherwise - darlings, you'd still be better off renting The Boys in The Band or Beautiful Thing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Go Fish\" garnered Rose Troche rightly or wrongly the reputation of a film maker with much promise.

Its then hard to understand how she could turn out a movie made up of stereotypes that one associates with inferior sitcoms. The entire film rings hollow. I cringed the whole way through.

Its supposed to be a look into nineties human sexuality. Well not much more here to be learned than from \"In and Out\". By now most of us actually do know, that there are men who are sexually attracted to women and there men who are sexually attracted to men and there are even men sexually attracted to both sexes.

Seldom has this revelation been portrayed on the screen with so little wit and style.

Pathetic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The daytime TV of films. Seldom have I felt so little attachment to characters. Seldom have I been made to cringe by such dire dialogue. Nauseous London thirty-somethings mincing round lurid BBC sets spouting platitudinous mulch. Avoid this film as if it were your grandmother's clunge.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this video on a throw-out table at the video store expecting a good cast in what was touted as an award-winning Brit sex comedy. I guess I should have read the finer print. I rarely write a panning review, but here goes.

These actors in gay roles really play games with your memories of a lot of far more worthy films. This comedy was a very cruel joke at the expense of the actors, the theatre-going public and of all the nice films that have contributed to their reputations.

I repeat: is the joke about trashing the actors' other highly respectable on-screen personae with this scurrilously trashy flick? Can the reference to the Austen classics 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' be anything else? How much of a political statement was it to produce this melodrama using these stars? Are we meant to simply take it as a lay-down misere that all actors are gay and thus letting their on-screen roleplay affect our lifestyles is accepting their private homosexual dealings in our faces, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I say NO to this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is supposed to be Charlie's masterpiece, but I will contend that it is actually one of his weaker films. First of all, it's not funny. Not one thing in this movie made me laugh. Okay, there's a quick jump into a box that was a giggle, but that was one of desperation. The Tramp's first - and only - talkie where he speaks (he sings in an earlier film), but his flat dialogue shows us exactly why he was such a joy to watch in \"Modern Times\" and \"Gold Rush\" - two films that are at least ten times better than this film. There's literally only one good scene in this film, the one where Hitler plays with the globe like a beach ball. That's it.

Okay, so it gets a lot of praise for being the first film to wage war, even long before we entered the war. Nope. Not true. Simply not true, so that praise can be turned down a bit. The Three Stooges did it on January 19, 1940 with \"You Natzy Spy\" - ten months earlier than the October release of Chaplin's film - and that movie was actually funny! If you want to watch Chaplin's greatest film, watch this only for reference. And then pop in \"Modern Times\", \"Gold Rush\", \"City Lights\", \"Limelight\", \"The Kid\", or even \"Tillie's Punctured Romance\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe this was *An Important Movie* and that's why people rank it so highly, but honestly it isn't very good. In hindsight it's easy to see that Chaplin (probably all of Hollywood) was incredibly naive about the magnitude of what was really going on in the ghettos, so you can't fault him TOO much for the disconnect that affects a modern viewer, but the disconnect remains.

More disappointingly, the movie is just clunky; it's as if Chaplin had no idea that movies had progressed in sophistication since the silent era. The set pieces, those involving both the Jewish Barber and the Dictator, don't flow into each other; they just sit there like discrete lumps of storyline that progress in fits and starts, moving SOMEWHERE but never arriving at resolution. Some are funny, some less so.

What charm the movie has is strictly in the person of Chaplin himself. His parodies of Hitler's speeches were the best part of the whole thing, and there's no denying that he had a physical grace that was delightful to watch. But virtually everything he surrounded himself with was ANNOYING. Hannah was TOO DAMN American. The Storm Troopers were TOO DAMN American.

Oooh! Oooh! One more thing! I don't know what purpose was served by having Garbage be the source of evil behind the throne. It almost seems like the film is saying that, if it weren't for malign influences like Garbage, Hynckle wouldn't have been that bad a guy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*MILD SPOILERS*

In this would-be satire, Chaplin set his sights on the evils of German fascism, playing the twin roles of Tomanian dictator Adenoid Hynkel and one of his subjects, an inadvertent World War I hero and Jewish barber. Through events inspired by both Adolf Hitler and the Marx Brothers, Hynkel negotiates contracts and declares war on neighbouring Osterlich whilst finding time for numerous, oddly flat set-pieces. The dictator's much-celebrated waltz with an inflatable globe is actually entirely heavyhanded, underwhelming and unfunny.

Chaplin should certainly be commended for looking to lampoon Hitler and for speaking out strongly on celluloid - his much-maligned final speech is actually the bold, memorable highlight of the piece - but the film simply isn't sharp or funny enough to merit the praise frequently heaped upon it, nor to demand repeated viewings. The best gags are away from Hynkel's tiresome posturing and involve The Barber attempting to avoid a large spinning bomb (a sequence which steals from the gun tussle in The Gold Rush) and later, with a pot on his head, accidentally walking the plank off the roof of his shop.

Compared to the director's silent classics, The Great Dictator is slow, wildly inconsistent and altogether somewhat unsatisfactory, whilst the barren spells between laughs are often long and difficult to endure. There is no doubt that Chaplin was a genius, but even geniuses make disappointing pictures and The Great Dictator certainly ranks as such.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Chaplin was great a silent comedian, but many silent era stars fell when the public heard their voices in the first talkies. In my opinion, Chaplin's voice simply did not fit his silent characters that made him rich and famous. His career never recovered when sound came to film. Contrary to most of the reviews I have read, Chaplin's lifestyle and politics did not help his popularity with the average viewer who expected to be entertained by Chaplin the comedian, and not spend their entertainment dollar watching Chaplin's political commentary.

Despite Chaplin's awards and knighthood, I would take exception to his \"contributions\" to humanity. The Great Dictator was made at the same time Stalin's brutal dictatorship was having it's show trials, and both Dictators signed the agreement that lead to invasion of Poland by both Dictators. WWII started in an attempt to save Poland. The Nazi's were defeated in 6 years, but Poland disappeared as a sovereign country. This happened during the time this film was made and the investigations of Hollywood by the Federal government. Had Chaplin included Joe Stalin in this satire,in addition to including the Italian dictator, perhaps he would have had less criticism about his politics by the politicians. The Soviet's mistreatment of Jews and dissidents exceeded the Nazi's in time and numbers.

Judged simply as a film, many of the gags were too topical to be understood by younger viewers, who wouldn't know who Goebbels, Goring or Mussolini were. A classic piece of art must stand the test of time. Classic Greek Tragedy, the Mona Lisa and Beethoven's 9th are still enjoyed centuries after their creation because they are timeless. Films which rely on topical political commentary or currently popular social views usually do not outlast the generation in which they are made. But those that address issues that are common to all generations will probably live forever and receive a high rating from me.

Chaplin, as the writer, director and lead actor must take the blame for what I judge as a dated and tiresome film.

Chaplin's apologists have excused his decision to leave the country that made him rich and famous. If Chaplin found the US so offensive, why didn't he return to his native land. Great Britian fought the Nazi'with blood and money. What did Switzerland contribute in the fight against the European dictators? Switzerland is like a country club that picks and chooses its members based on race and class, and cares little about people who can't join the club.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Adenoid Hynkel, a lowly soldier in World War One, rises in subsequent years to become the ruthless dictator of Toumania. He creates an aggressive, antisemitic war machine and cultivates a little toothbrush moustache. Sound like anyone you know?

From the safety of Hollywood, Chaplin uses this soapbox to exhort Europe to take up arms and defy Hitler and Mussolini. Given that the United States in 1940 had more than a year of neutrality ahead of it, and no strong desire to embroil itself in Europe's civil strife (remember, it was Hitler who declared war on the USA, not the other way round) it is surprising that Chaplin was allowed to distribute this immoderate polemic.

The story involves on the one hand the the vulgar and repellant Hynkel and the reign of terror over which he ineptly presides, and life in the jewish ghetto where every single person is friendly, humane, brave, etc., etc, Chaplin is Hynkel, and he also plays The Jewish Barber, the little hero of the ghetto (The Tramp in all but name). Needless to say, Chaplin writes, directs, stars, composes the music and does the catering.

In 1940 the full truth was not yet known about the Third Reich, and Chaplin can be forgiven for having something less than perfect historical foresight, but even by the standards of the day he gets Hitler badly wrong. A comedian and a sentimentalist, Chaplin tries to ridicule Hitler by making Hynkel silly and hapless. All this does is to humanise him. When Hynkel the not-very-warlike soldier fools around with the big gun and the upside-down aeroplane, he becomes endearing rather than despicable. As dictator, he inspects his subordinates' technical innovations which don't work (the parachute hat, the bulletproof uniform etc.) and these passages are meant to make us think that the real-life Nazis are incompetent and can be swept aside. In fact, Hynkel's regime is made cute and likeable by its bumbling bodgery.

In truth, Chaplin's day had already passed when he made this ill-considered polemic. At heart, he was still a dinosaur of the silent screen (check out the humour, with gags like staggering up and down the street semi-conscious, or the pantomime of the coins in the puddings). The hero Schultz is meant to represent a yardstick of European decency against which Hynkel can be judged, but Schultz looks more like a character from operetta than a Nazi. Is it in any way believable that a Schultz figure (if such had existed) would say to the Fuehrer's face, \"your cause is doomed to failure because it's built upon the stupid, ruthless persecution of innocent people\"? And how does Schultz come to be in the cellars of the jewish ghetto? If he is the object of an exhaustive manhunt, why does he persist in wearing his Ruritanian uniform? Chaplin did not yet know the full horrors of Auschwitz-Birkenau or Treblinka, but the Nazi concentration camp which he offers us is hopelessly out of kilter with the grim spirit of the age. As usual, Chaplin thinks in terms of 'silent' comedy set-pieces, loosely pegged onto the narrative clothes line. There is the knockabout scrapping with the stormtroopers, shaving a man to the accompaniment of Brahms, and the globe ballet (watch for the segment filmed in reverse).

Paulette Goddard is the unremittingly perfect Hannah. Just as the people of the ghetto are impossibly nice, and the jewish haven in Osterlich is ridiculously idyllic, so Hannah is quite literally too good to be true. Brave, defiant, resourceful, hardworking and (of course) beautiful, she is the canary of judaism in the ghetto cage. \"Gee, ain't I cute?\" she asks, after the Barber gives her a make-over. Too cute by far, is the answer. She doesn't come close to ringing true, because Chaplin has made her a caricature. The 'wouldn't it be wonderful?' speech which Chaplin puts into her mouth is typical of the author - too wordy, too emotionally cloying.

Jack Oakie is great as Napaloni, the fascist dictator of Bacteria. He brings a whiff of much-needed comic brio to the proceedings, but the film's underlying weakness remains. If Napaloni is silly and ineffective, how can we fear him? And anyway, the stuttering stop-start of the back-projected train is a fine Chaplinesque example of a gag that is persisted with far beyond its comic worth.

And where did the Jewish Barber acquire that immaculate Hynkel uniform?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show is not in my opinion, good,Then again I have not enjoyed any cartoon from Disney Channel. Except for \"The Proud Family\" because that so is about a normal female teen This show is very similar to the way I feel about Lilo and Stich the Series. It was a mistake turning the movie into a cartoon because the movie was excellent, the cartoon is terrible. Disney Channel was doing just fine before adding all these stupid cartoons such as Dave The Barbarian, Brandy and Mr. Whiskers, Lilo and Stich the Series, American Dragon Jake long,and where it all started: Kim Possible. The shows would have been better had they come to PlayHouse Disney! As for this particular show Kuzko will never get out of school just as Dave The Barbarian's Parents will never return home, and as Brandy And Mr. Whiskers will never get out of the jungle.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First when does this storyline take place? It has to take place after the first movie because Kuzco knows Pacha and Chicha has her third child but it can't take place after the second movie because doesn't Kronk get a girlfriend or wife or something? You never see her in the show.

Also, why is Kuzco going to school? The whole plot of the show is that Kuzco is going to school so that he can be emperor. But wasn't he emperor before this? And who's emperor while he learning to be emperor? Shouldn't that be Yzma? Or was Yzma fired in this time line already? And if that true why is waiting for him to fail to become empresses? Plus, you know in the first movie he said he was trained from birth to be an emperor by private tutors. So he should kinda know what he's doing.

Kronk. Why is Kronk a student? He's around 25 they stated that in the first movie. He's an adult going to high school. Does everyone think he's a moron? I really like Kronk but I think because of his age and because everyone know that he is working for Yzma he should have been a teacher. Being a Home Ec teacher would be right up his alley.

Malina, is very unlikable. She suppose to be Kuzco's love interest\/moral compass. But a lot of time, she comes off bossy and know it all. She commonly says thinks I like \"I should be proud because I am pretty and smart\".

She has ESP when it comes to Kuzco and knows whenever he's in trouble, when he's cheating, or even when he sings the Hot Hot Hottie song in his head even though she does cheer leading, school newspaper and keeps straight A+ in all of her classes.

She seems more interested in using her prettiness to get Kuzco to do the right thing and do well in school then dating him. In fact, she seems more motherly to Kuzco then a love interest.

Yzma. As I bought up before Yzma is trying to get Kuzco to fail so she become empresses. Not sure how that's suppose to work with being fired and all. Yzma seems to be reliving the first movie in every episode. In almost every show that she appears in she turns Kuzco into an animal in hopes of having him fail a class. (There are only 3 times that I can think of that that didn't happen.) The jokes about Yzma being old aren't as clever in the show as they were the movie. And classic jokes about Yzma are used to death in the show (like the \"Pull the level, Krunk!\", roller-coaster, and the lab).

Also, some other points that don't make sense in this series. The fact that whenever Kuzco is assigned something everyone acts like this assignment will make him pass or fail the class but he seems to pass every assignment given to him. So why does one assignment matter so much?

Seriously, who is ruling the kingdom while this is going on? Do they have a consul or a steward? You never see anyone ruling the kingdom unless Kuzco has weaseled his powers back or Yzma is empresses.

Why is Kuzco going to a normal peasant school? Shouldn't he learning about how to lead a country, what to do in case of war or something that will be useful to him in the future? I could see taking some normal classes on like farming (so he would know how to prepare the country for a famine or something like that) but knot tying? How is that helpful?

Now I know that someone is going to say \"But it not suppose to make sense; it's suppose to be funny.\" Then they should have more funny things in there. All the funny things about the show have been done already in the movie. Also, if they notice some of these huge plot holes why don't they poke fun at them like in the movie? (For example, when Yzma and Kronk get to the secret lab before Kuzco and Pacha and Yzma and Kronk can't explain how they got their first.)

There are some good points, it is nice to see some of the characters from the first movie in the series like Bucky and monkey with the bug. Pacha and his family are still very good characters with a good down earth feel. I feel that this series would be amusing for younger children.

In conclusion, the series is not as good as the movie that it based on but it may good for younger children.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It pains me to see an awesome movie turn into some lame, repetitive and lazy series. It is filled with plot holes and the plot is confusing, in a BAD way. Whoever the prick writers were that decided to turn such a great movie into this garbage should have done some research, instead of filling it with one-liners and hollow new characters, and the classic jokes from the first movie OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Sure they get a little creative, but its like seeing the same episode with a small twist. Pretty much like listening to Creed, or Nickleback. Kuzco has to prevent himself from failing, Yzma has a complicated plan, but decides to go the easy way to save time and just use a potion, someone questions the monkey and the bug, Bucky appears in the background, Kuzco flirts with Malina, she disses him without sounding like a bitch, Yzma disguises herself as \"Principal Amzy\" and she calls Kronk, and he forgets that she is Yzma. I admit, this show does have it's moments. Another problem is the fact that Yzma looks younger and Pacha looks....weird. Also, no one can replace David Spade and John Goodman! Their the ones who made Kuzco and Pacha Kuzco and Pacha! Sorry, but i give this show two thumbs down.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Awful, awful, awful...

I loved the original film. It was funny, charming, and had heart... this piece of junk has NONE of those things.

Reused jokes from the original film, stupid plots, bad animation, different voices (with the exception of Kronk and Yzma) that sound NOTHING like the ones in the original (especially Pacha... *shudder*).

The characters are off model, the animation is flat and boring, it's just a bad job all around.

And why is Kuzco a jerk again? I thought he had reformed... but since when are these TV spin offs loyal to the original *rolls eyes*.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing redeemable about this... at all.

Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK from the point of view of an American, who i assume do not know much about rugby this would be an amazing film for them.First of all its got heart, good morals the typical good coach trying to change the bad boy. HOWEVER to us where I come from rugby is the number one sport, it is a way of life it is a game played only by the bravest and the victorious are hailed like heroes as though Americans do for their baseball\/basketball stars. Am not really sure if it was the cheap budget or the maybe the director or actors knew very little about rugby and being a rugby fan my whole life i can see than some of the actors didn't even knew rugby existed before acting in this movie. In summing up to me this movie was terrible. If you watch it and thought it was great please make time to go online and maybe Google \"All Blacks\" this is new Zealand's national team and the ones who made the haka famous. Believe me they will make the Highlands boys look like school girls.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is horrendous. The acting is cheesy and laughable. If you know anything at all about Rugby the match action is boring. In fact any episode of Power Rangers contains more realism than this movie. The 'action' consists of no more than one pass and a shot of guy landing over the try line or being tackled without the ball and hectic hand held shots of who knows what. It's impossible to tell. There is nothing of the excitement, skill and construction of try scoring that real Rugby contains. As for the haka, this is a bunch of yanks trying to imitate a tradition they know nothing about, much like the white rasta character that should have been left out of the film. Next time there's a Rugby movie made we can only hope that people who know Rugby make it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off just let me say that I live in South Africa where rugby is our biggest sport by far, and our national side, the Springboks, have won the Rugby World Cup twice, so it's quite a big deal over here. I've played all my life and I'm shocked at the poor attention to detail in this movie! At first I thought it had the potential to be a great movie considering the cast of Neal McDonough, Nick Ferris, Gary Cole and Sean Astin for goodness sake, but it turned out to be a mockery of the sport. They basically mashed it together with your normal everyday American Football movie.

My first problem is that this movie supposedly captures the values of rugby, but the discipline or should I say the total lack thereof during the games are contradictory to this. In the final it looks more like an NFL game with Penning being tackled of the ball numerous times, in front of the referee...that would've immediately led to a couple of red cards, because foul play like that would never go unpunished in by a referee, of that I can assure you! You'd also not be able to find a coach in world rugby who would have so little control over his team. Any coach would take a dump on a players head if he intentionally stiff arms an opposing player or double teams him like they did in the final...red card and certain suspension, full stop.

Secondly, it's absurd that a coach would take a brand new player, who has played wing all of his life I gather, move him to hooker which is a highly specialized position and say that it's for the good of the TEAM?! What?! Hooker is a highly specialized position in the front row where you have to be able to scrum extremely well and preferably be able to throw the ball in at line-out time, which Penning NEVER does for some or other reason. By moving a wing to hooker without any extensive long term training it would firstly lead to your team's demise at scrum time & secondly the poor kid would probably break his neck! How is that good for the team I ask you? Finally, the overall high emotional pitch of the movie is way too much, because even though rugby is a great sport, and it builds great friendships & team spirit, it rarely gets that out of hand & corny. I've seen true-life football drama's with less emotion than this movie & it turned out great, but in this one Sean's (Penning) acting skills is dragged way too far and the movie attempts too force an emotional response out of the audience, which ends up being boring and hard to watch at times.

Hollywood have made some great sports movies over the years, but next time they venture into a sport which has just recently picked up in the states, they should try and do their homework & maybe get some experts into the fray.

DO IT RIGHT OR DON'T DO IT AT ALL!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie, like so many others (Remember the Titans, Miracle), follows the basic sports-movie formula: There's a guy, he's a jerk. Jerk does bad. Jerk must play by someone else's rules. Someone else's rules change Jerk, Jerk becomes good. Insert tragedy (Death, drugs, riots, etc.). Tragedy effects Jerk, makes him totally change. Jerk must now play championship game. Lots of close-ups on the sweating players and the balls. Jerk wins. Quote from coach or news or something that explains title. Credits. Weren't you touched? These movies can now be used to sort out the morons of society. Anyone who pays to see this in theatres must be slapped.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Coach Preachy or Straight Sappy. It's bad writing combined w\/even worse acting. You can choose to drink the Gatorade of this after school special, but I didn't, not even on it's 20th Toby Robbins\/Islander philosophy, motivational moment. It's too much posturing to be entertaining and not substantive enough to be informative. I have respect for the coach and the program this movie is inspired by, but the move itself is awful. As someone who has played rugby for nearly 20 years in the States I had hoped for a better rugby movie (even one that has something loosely to do with rugby). And I can tell you that the Haka performed by a bunch of Haoles and Islanders is not intimidating (much like when it's performed today by the All Blacks, seriously boys, everyone has seen it,it's time to put it away). If you want real intimidation, line up across from a bunch of South Africans (the real eye gouging convicts of rugby). This is a fake and badly done movie about being a genuine and good person.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is probably the worst movie I have watched in a very long time. The acting is so wooden a door could have done a better job. The plot is laughable and shallow and the actual \"rugby\" shown is a far cry from reality. I still don't get the \"haka\" as portrayed in this poor excuse for entertainment. I am not a Kiwi but I do know that the Haka can only be performed by someone of Maori origin and not by an all-American white boy.

I am assuming that this was made for the American audience so the shallowness and \"Disney end'\" is excusable but there was hardly any attempt to point out the basic rules of the game apart from the prison side where the main character suddenly takes charge of an American Football game and gets everyone playing rugby instead. The only thing good about this film were the end credits. It would be less painful to spend ninety minutes inserting toothpicks into your eyeballs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm from Australia and have watched with respect the extraordinary culture surrounding rugby union in New Zealand. I can totally appreciate the comments made by Kiwis in relation to this movie. It was a total insult to a race of people and their beloved sport.

Whoever was involved in the making of this atrocious movie should be made to formally apologize to anyone who had the misfortune of watching it. Note: people do NOT kneel down and cry while slowly reciting the Hakka. What a pitiful scene this was.

Are we supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for this idiot who nearly killed his girlfriend, who refused to listen to any advice from anyone with half a brain, then apparently saw the light? What a thoroughly dislikable character (with the visits to children's hospitals doing nothing to redeem his despicable personality).

And why are people even making a movie about Americans playing rugby? They barely even feature in the sport on the world stage, not so much as to even warrant an attempt at making a movie about it (yes, Rugby's a 'world' sport, unlike gridiron and baseball)?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Awful film. Terrible acting, cheesy, totally unrealistic, embarrassing to anyone who has played the game. For a start that guy is not a hooker, he would be snapped in two. As for ''I score, that's my job'' well no it's not. For the the uneducated American audience it might come across as a good film. For me, well, that's a few hours of my life I'll never get back. I read through the reviews and came across one where the guy sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Then I read -

''And while American rugby may never reach the level of talent that New Zealand or South Africa has, third in the world is also nothing to hang your head about''

All I can say is, LMFAO!

Keep playing your American football and baseball, leave the real sports to the big boys.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If the directors\/producers\/publicists wish to promote a film as \"based on actual events\" and make a film that is meant to inspire and have meaning then, for a start, to maintain any sort of creditability and integrity, you would want to keep a film as honest as you possibly can.

A team wearing \"all black\" jumpers and doing the haka in America is just plain dumb. Any half intelligent person would know that the \"All Blacks\" are the National Rugby Union team of New Zealand and their jumpers are all black and the Haka is performed by them as a part of a traditional Maori dance.

Having such stupidity in a movie, without explanation, merely reduces the credibility of the movie to zero and negates the message and inspiration that the movie is trying to achieve.

The question is \"Why\"? Why would you do such a stupid thing and for what possible gain?

I can only conclude that the writers or director or producers have seen it on TV before a international Rugby union match and thought \"wow, that would be great in our movie, no one will know that it never happened, they're all too dumb to know about NZ nd the all blacks, this will be great.\"

How would an Americian audience react to a movie made in NZ about Americain grid iron, with a team wearing an American Indian costumes and war paint, doing a native American Indian war dance, running round in circles shouting \"oh woo woo woo, oh woo woo woo\" react? They'd laugh their heads off!

The people that made this movie and the industry that spawned it really should have their heads read. For some reason the industry thinks that they can \"fool all the people all the time\".

It's just dumb!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where to begin? This film is very entertaining if you are new to the wonderful game of rugby, however, if you live outside the US and do follow the game, it is laughable. Various rugby traditions such as the \"Haka\" which is preformed by the New Zealand \"All Blacks\" and only by the All Blacks. The leader of the Haka is usually the member of the team with the best Maori pedigree. This is one of the most important conventions of the modern game and has been misused and represented by the writer. The film itself is quite well directed however it is the poor script and over-all execution that lets it down, heavily. Taking into account is is based on a real story, it does posses a great deal of clich\u00e9s in the storyline. I would strongly suggest that any American interested in rugby watch this film then watch what rugby actually is on Youtube because the rugby portrayed in this film has been distorted and skewed so far from what it really is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you`re not old enough to remember Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan here`s the rundown : They`re a couple of film producers and finaciers from Israel who set up the Cannon film company in the early 1980s . The only Israeli to get a worse press than these two was Menachim Begin . Begin probably deserved the bad press but Globus and Golan were a god send to film makers because no matter how bad your script was they`d happily fund your movie and would normally employ directors who couldn`t direct and actors who couldn`t act . In fact you often got the impression that people would just walk up to Yoram and Menahem ask them for some money and they`d oblige without seeing the film maker`s resume . If only producers nowadays were so trusting.

THE YOUNG WARRIORS isn`t a Cannon film but Globus and Golan did finance it and it has their signature all over it . It`s badly directed , badly acted , badly edited but it`s the script that jumps out and attacks you with its awfulness . It starts with a bunch of high school jocks getting involved in all sorts of zany pranks , in fact the first 20 minutes of the movie plays out like a sex comedy and it`s something of a shock when THE YOUNG WARRIORS turns into a vigilante movie . But it`s not just any type of vigilante movie like EXTERMINATOR 2 or DEATH WISH 3 ( Notice a connection ? They`re both sequels and they`re both vigilante movies made by Cannon films ) , no siree this is a laughably bad vigilante movie about pretty boy high school jocks and their poodle going on a mission to wipe out scumbags . This film is proof that Globus and Golan were giving money to people regardless of their film making abilities and you have to worry about people who seem to spend their entire reserves on making movies set entirely around vigilantes","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are good-bad movies and bad-bad-movies and enjoyably bad movies...this isn't one of them. This is a movie that doesn't realize just how bad it is.

I saw this at a screening on November 14, 2006 at the New Beverly Theater in Los Angeles as part of the \"Grindhouse Cinema\" this theater puts on every month. Hopefully presenters Eric Caiden & co. will think twice before letting writer\/director Lawrenece Foldes anywhere near them again. What a con man. The guy got up to speak before the film -- you would think he was Orson Welles talking about \"Touch of Evil\" or some other lost classic. Hardly. Nice of him to take up 20 minutes of the audiences' time with his incoherent rambling.

\"Young Warriors\" has been described as a cross between \"Animal House\" and \"Death Wish\" but if you are expecting something along the lines of imitations like \"Revenge of the Nerds\" or \"The Exterminator\" you will be in for one sad disappointment. The script makes zero sense. The direction is so poor the actors looked embarrassed and what can you say when the best thing about the movie is watching a car blow up?

Poor Richard \"shaft\" Roundtree. In this movie he plays another character with the first name of \"John\" but that's about the only similarity his character here has to the aforementioned classic. I hope this film allowed him to pay the rent for another month. Other actors who look like they wished they could be anywhere else included Ernest Borgnine and Linda Day George.

This is a complete waste of time. Even the audience did not seem that into it (except for the one spazz-boy sitting in the back who yelled \"whoa\" every five minutes and his girlfriend who giggled with the fervor of a lobotomized talking Barbie every time he opened his mouth).

For real films about vigilantes, I would suggest the following:

Death Wish I, II, III, Exterminator I, Vigilante Force, Ms. 45, Rolling Thunder, the No-Mercy Man (the latter two being a pair of films presented at this theater a couple of years ago -- probably the same budget as \"Young Warriors\" but both were a million times better!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A party-hardy frat boy's sister is brutally murdered by a street gang, sending the young man into a sudden psychotic rampage. He and his buddies massacre half the city to bring his sister back to life.

SAVAGE STREETS was released a year after this film, and was more entertaining. Linnea Quigley, who has a costarring role in this film as the sexy (and briefly nude) girlfriend of one of the guys, also starred in SAVAGE STREETS.

This film is subpar, though it delivers enough escapist entertainment and gratuitous nudity to please its intended audience (me).

MPAA: Rated R for strong violence, nudity, language, and some sexuality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It begins with a couple of disgusting sex-comedy gags, but soon it reveals its true colors: it wants to be a \"Death Wish\" clone. I say \"wants to\" because the script gets so increasingly laughable by the minute that it ends up looking like an absurdist \"Death Wish\" spoof! From a love scene in a room inexplicably filled with candles, to \"heroes\" who dress up as commandoes and wave their machine guns because they don't want to attract attention to themselves(!), to bad guys who drive around the city in a black van long after it has been recognized as their vehicle, this film has too many ludicrous points to fit in a list. The other major problem is that you can't tell most of the characters apart; of course, you know who Borgnine and Roundtree and even James Van Patten are, but all the other roles could have been played by different actors in various scenes, and you wouldn't know the difference. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So I give it one star for true quality, but I'd give it an eight and a half for sheer enjoyability. An incredibly strange hybrid of sex comedy and vigilante thriller, \"Young Warriors\" is just the sort of bad movie you usually hope to find when poking around the video fringe, yet so rarely do. It starts off with about half an hour of wacky hi-jinx, sex jokes, and juvenile shenanigans (including an olive in the martini joke that has to be seen not to be believed). Then the main character's younger sister gets gang raped by a bunch of swarthy bikers (an objectionable scene that keeps me from giving this a 10 for entertainment value - rape is not entertainment!), and the main character gets the rest of his sex crazed frat brothers to help him in a quest to clean up the city, find the responsible bikers, and kill anybody slightly criminal they run into along the way.

It's hilarious, non-stop fun, apart from the very unpleasant rape scene, and is essential viewing to any serious bad movie fan. Trust me - I've put my time in on these things, and this is one of the best. Highlights include a wonderful visit to the library, a great flickering slo-mo shootout in a sleazy bar (with a shot of a guy blowing his own foot off that's pretty impressive), a couple of decent slumming actors (Richard Roundtree, Ernest Borgnine), a couple of semi-famous recognizable faces (Lynda Day George, scream queen Linnea Quigley), and a couple of relatives of famous people (Chuck Norris' brother Mike, Van Patten clan member James). It even has one of those great \"What have we become?\" type morality lesson endings, although the turning point comes when the vigilante fratboys gun down a couple of kids robbing a store with a toy gun. I've always wondered why that was the catalyst that got the hero thinking; after all, whether they were kids and not hardened criminals, and whether they had a real gun or not, they were in fact still robbing a store, so as far as I can tell, it was just another job well done for our vigilante frat boys, right? Wonderful stuff. Highly recommended, just don't blame me when you enjoy it despite yourself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only thing good about this movie is the artwork on the promotion poster by H. R. Geiger. Anti-nuke protesters who all looked like punk rockers of the late 1970s, and somehow became non-violent, (except for their leader, \"Splatter\") occupy the cities. Fraternity boys descend on the punkers to do some violence on them and turn them into victims. Bad acting and bad plot then descends on the real victim, you, the viewer. I gave this a \"2\" because a few sexual scenes at least give it MST3K potential.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sure I saw FUTURE KILL for the same reason as most people: the awesome poster by HR Giger. And like everyone else, I was disappointed to find that the movie could not live up to the poster (Giger said that director Moore actually begged him to do it). When I first saw this, at the age of 14, I thought it was the worst movie ever made. I'd still think that if I hadn't seen certain movies on MST3K since then.

The plot has a bunch of annoying college boys driving into the \"mutant city\" to kidnap a gang-leader for their fraternity. That's when they meet Splatter (Ed Neal), a mutant\/cyborg\/psycho who kills the gang leader and blames it on the frats as an excuse to hunt them down and seize power. The rest of the movie consists mostly of chases. A hand-full of frats try to battle their way out of mutant city (which I think is supposed to be LA, even though it was made in Texas). There's some pseudo-political stuff about the frat boys' society being pro-nuclear weapons and the mutant-society being anti-nuke. There's talk of how Splatter became a freak due to radiation. Most people develop cancer from radiation, but splatter just shoots spikes and slaughters girls. Yeah, that makes tons of sense. At one point, our heroes rescue a mutant girl from two pro-nuke police, and she shows them \"how the other half lives.\" The other half, it turns out, are all punk kids who dance around to a bad 80s pop-band. So our little epic is both dumb and dated. That's really all there is to it. Frat boys running around in messed up buildings while guys who look like bikers try to kill them... Oh, and it's the future.

I don't think you'll have any doubt about why Ron W. Moore never made another movie. This thing is a real stinker. If you like Giger, buy his books (they have the poster without the horrors of the movie), or just watch ALIEN again. FUTURE KILL is a waste of time that nobody needs.

If this description makes the picture sound good, there's another crappy movie that does the same thing, only bigger and better: AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK. It's crap, but it blows FUTURE KILL off the screen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't really know what to expect from \"Future-Kill\", but I certainly hoped it would be a little better than what I got. I knew the rating was bad and the reviews were unfavorable, but the Subversive DVD-cover illustration looks beyond cool and I can't resist that. For a very long (too long, in fact) time, this film raised the impression of being an unofficial sequel to Porky's with lame, vulgar and offensive fraternity pranks. Five mega-dorks, one of them resembling an exact young clone of Jim Carrey, desperately want to become members of a frat house but their ultimate initiation might just be a tad bit far-fetched and dangerous. They are dropped in the city center with provocative marks painted on their faces, simultaneously with the outbreak of a violent gang war. It doesn't take too long before they are confronted with Splatter, a seemingly half-man and half-machine warrior, who leads a gang of which I never really figured out who or what they were. Were they a government experiment? Cyborgs? Terminator imitations from a distant future? Does anyone care? \"Future-Kill\" is a bizarre amateur flick with a scenario that leaps from one subject onto the other without any form of logical connection or narrative. The plot borrows vital elements from great cinematic cult classics like \"The Warriors\", \"Escape from New York\" and \"The Terminator\", but the end result is one gigantic Sci-Fi monstrosity. The costumes and special effects are quite pitiable and there's a truckload of cheap and gratuitous nudity. The acting is terrible, but I'm willing to blame the retarded dialogs instead of the cast members. One to avoid at all costs, in spite of really cool DVD-cover art. Resist it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you tried to make a bad film, you could not make one worst that this one. I can't imagine anyone paying good money to see trash like this in a theater. The thing that really gets you is being mesmerized in looking at the entire thing just for the amazement of seeing how lousy it could get. The redeeming facet of this film was seeing the words \"The End\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"During my struggle to stay awake during this borefest, I fought through my near-dosing off to discover some silly plot regarding fraternity schmucks, quite incredibly obnoxiously annoying, running into trouble with a psychotic , radioactively damaged half-human\/half cyborg named Splatter who sends his soldiers after them for the murder of their prestigious, politically vocal leader(..for whom Splatter killed himself, setting them up to take the blame so he could become the leader). These face-painted freaks form a group who express their feelings anarchically, though non-violently, living on dilapidated streets abandoned by the \"civilized world\" voicing their concerns regarding nuclear disarmament. Anyways, most of the film has these five frat goons running throughout darkened streets with graffiti walls, as Splatter and his punks pursue them. Thankfully for these guys, they find a punk chic to assist them on their journey out of this rather ugly terrain with which they're unfamiliarized. This territory the frat guys are immersed is a veritable labyrinth of streets and alleys with the idea of an exit out most difficult particularly when crazies and Splatter's bunch occupy nearly every turn.

Yeah, I was duped like others thanks to the HR Giger poster which is most excellent. If only he had been the designer of this dreck..this is not the case and we, the viewer, are left a film modeled after, of all movies it seems, Walter Hill's THE WARRIORS, except this film doesn't have the style or grit that film has. The film has a plethora of unfunny bits and lame confrontations between the frats and the punks with hand to hand combats often laughable. The setting is rather interesting, and there are some atmospheric uses of neon light, but it's not the environment that's the problem..it's the plot and characters within the environment that grow tiresome. The saddlebags under my eyes weighed heavier every minute this movie continued. Yes, Texas CHAINSAW stars Edwin Neal(..quite a funny voice-man, who has an entertaining interview on the DVD I rented for this flaming turd of a film)and Marilyn Burns have \"key\" roles as opposing members of their faction against the government resulting in the final conclusion within a building complex at the end. Neal's character Splatter uses these metal spikes which emerge from his metal arm to kill his victims.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Simply put, the only saving grace this movie has is settings, costumes and an OK punk concert. How H.R.Giger must feel about his cyborg picture on the cover of this movie, I wouldn't like to know. Right away, all I could do was make sardonic comments about the films protagonists, I was hoping that the \"freaks\" in this movie would execute them in gory fashion. I sense SPOILERS a comin'! I was wondering if this film in the spirit of the first 20 min. was intended to be as humorously half-baked as the rest of it? Examining all the obvious political outcries (Police trying to rape a \"freak\", the discussion of superficialities between the \"freak\" and the frat boy and the punk concert w\/ the female vocalist) and the use of slow-motion in the fighting sequences (which screams \"martial-arts coordinator\") I just don't know. The character named \"Steve\" irked me since he tries to pick fights w\/ people off the street (he shoulda been mugged and raped) and looks bad when he broke that guy's neck towards the end (want me to show you how to do it?) I must say this though, if they would've developed other characters better than they did \"Splatter\", this might have gone somewhere. If there was a 0 to give this movie, it would've got it, but alas it's a 1.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is worse than Cat People, which I saw during the same week. It has all the 80's style. MTV punk rockers, the real ones who are anti social, not todays PC commercial type, frat boys, and a bad guy called Splater. I really like Splater, and the film does that blue lighting 80's feel, but the rest of it looks like low budget Canadian schlop. I have seen so much of this while living in this great country, and realize these type of movies were made because of Tax breaks. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has the distinction of being the worst movie I have ever seen, and the only film I have ever given a 1 out of 10 on imdb as of yet. I was fooled into renting it because of the cool H.R. Giger cover art on the box. This cover art is the only thing the least bit good about this steaming pile of...

It was about frat boys fighting \"freaks\" in a strange but not the least bit interesting post apocalyptic world where the cities are in ruins\/chaos, but apparently the suburbs are still a safe and wonderful place for young men to haze other men into braindead frat organizations. The most uninspiring performances by boring characters, not so special effects, dreary, un-original scenery and just generally extremely poor quality in all production aspects make this lemon the all time loser on my list.

FINAL RATING: 1\/10 I wish I could give it a zero.

Noob Aalox","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very curious that Nichols and Hanks would team up for this, obviously they believe it. Strange because it should carry the title \"Charlie Wilson's War the Lie.

How could the time frame leave out the real history that while ridding Afganistan of the Russians the CIA was providing support for the Taliban, and today's World of Terrorism. In 1990, Bin Laden went home to Saudi Arabia as a hero of jihad, who along with his Arab legion, \"had brought down the mighty superpower\" of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

To avoid any connection to Osama Bin Laden is to say again, Hollywood cares little for Historical Truth. Charlie Wilson, a patriot, hardly, more like a congressman gone amok.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Russians never dropped children's toys filled with explosives over Afghanistan, that never happened!!! Who did invention of that?? Hollywood portrays Russian army as horrible, dreadful troops of evil! That is disgusting!! United States President Jimmy Carter had accepted the view that \"Soviet aggression\" could not be viewed as an isolated event of limited geographical importance but had to be contested as a potential threat to the Persian Gulf region. The uncertain scope of the final objective of Moscow in its sudden southward plunge made the American stake in an independent Pakistan all the more important. A great deal of damage was done to the civilian children population by land mines.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILER - This film gives away plot points and discusses the ending. I hated this film - mostly for political reasons, but also for moral and aesthetic reasons. Politically, this film glorified war and military technology - blowing things up real good. We are led to cheer as the music swells and the Afghans use our weapons to blow the Ruskies to bits. And no U.S. soldiers put their lives on the line - so it's a fun war. Aesthetically, there isn't a touch of real human emotion in the film, just smug, privileged people being sarcastic, feeling superior, and doing whatever they want regardless of the consequences. And speaking of consequences, the film only makes a few small hits at what the arming of the Afghans actually led to. I had read an earlier draft of this script, and it ended on 9\/11 - with Charlie Wilson realizing that things had gone horribly wrong. But that wouldn't leave the audience feeling good. This is a feel good movie about killing Ruskies. And it made me sick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When the American movie industry tries to critically look at their own government they make damn sure it looks good even when it's bad.

The film does 1 thing right it demonstrates perfectly what is wrong with the American politics. The motto seems to be to f**k with whoever it takes to get things done!!! Mix an American Congressmen, a CIA agent, a Jew and an Arab... just to f**k the Ruskies. Thanks to US for giving us Osama Bin Laden.

The disappointment of the film comes in the face of muddling up the issues: using imagery of Afghan children with no arms and the stories of soviet atrocities and then making a blatant attempt to suggest a link between those and the reasoning behind the American help. Every sensible person knows why the $1,000,000,000 was raised... not the dying Afghani children that's for sure.

As usual the serious issues are covered into facade of bullshit dialogue. \"Here is to you, you M***r F*****s\" Hoffmam chants at the end, all that's missing is the American flag in the background and the stupid military solutes. The films can not help but leave the aftertaste of the feeling of American pride and glee on how we (the Americans) have saved the world... once again. Not even the last 5 minutes of the film can save it, where an attempt is being made to stop praising yourself and wake up to the fact that its just another American F**k up.

The acting and editing was good though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The filmmakers neglected to connect the dots--that is, the sequence of events and choices that led from Charlie Wilson and the anti-Soviet mujaheddin to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and eventually to 9\/11. The filmmakers of course neglect to tell us the back-story--why were the Soviets in Afghanistan?--but that omission pales in comparison to their failure to reveal that support for Islamicist extremists in Afghanistan in the name of rabid anti-communism ultimately strengthened the hand of anti-western forces and was a big contributing factor to the mess that we find ourselves in today (9\/11, terrorist networks, a prolonged ground war in Afghanistan, etc.). Because these consequences are not spelled out, the movie leaves the viewer feeling sympathetic to Mr. Wilson (hey, check out his latest projects on the Internet) instead of seeing him as an individual whose actions were contrary to the best interests of his country and the West as a whole.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sure that the folks who made this movie think they're doing something wonderfully politically correct, because they manage to criticize U.S. wars in Afghanistan and particularly Iraq by suggesting that the U.S. does war well, but doesn't clean up afterward, thus sowing the seeds for future trouble. Furthermore, they do this without making Islamists the enemy AND without making Republicans the enemy, since it's the Republicans that are in office and are doing this supposedly great thing, bringing down the USSR by covertly supplying a war in Afghanistan.

But seriously now . . . do we really want a movie that repeatedly says \"let's go kill some Russians!\" like that's the greatest thing a red-blooded American can do? And are we supposed to find this congressman adorable because he surrounds himself with women with big hair and revealing clothes? Even his supposedly smart assistant, who is always dressed professionally, keeps looking at Charlie like he's just the most wonderful, handsomest, greatest guy around. As if she's Nancy Reagan to his Ronnie. Julia Roberts does a bang-up job in her role, but basically women are really demeaned in this movie, and it was really annoying.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The 3 stars are for Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Nothing else and no one else in this movie deserves even a wee smidgen of a star. Well, OK, Amy Adams deserves a wee smidgen, but the smidgenometer doesn't seem to be working, so I'll stick with 3. Tom Hanks...nothing. Julia Roberts...nothing. Mike Nichols...do you see a trend yet? Aaron Sorkin...OMG, not a chance.

I could rant on for several paragraphs about the way Charlie Wilson's War glosses over history, morality, legitimacy and so on, but I don't think any such rant could outweigh the gushing of Aaron Sorkin fans. The rest of you, beware.Spend your movie money elsewhere.

Still, if you're looking for a pithy comment, here's mine. You can put hot fudge sauce on a pile of garbage, but it changes nothing. Garbage is garbage and so is Charlie Wilson's War.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Your time and brains will be much better spent reading or listening to Charlie Wilson's War. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, plays the most enjoyable character in the movie, Gust, the Greek, and he plays him as a eunuch. Gust, in the book, is hard core and completely free to speak his mind. In the movie, he's not even shown as being equally important to Charlie. And poor Charlie is never shown donating blood (which he did every time he visited the camps in Pakistan). In short, the movie is too bland, and the history is too old for our modern time. We don't really care about the end of the cold war and the defeat of the Soviet Union (which happened in spite of Reagan, not as a result of) by a well financed group of people who were extremely willing to fight. Not quite the lesson we need to be hearing and seeing considering how well the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going. (As I read the book, I kept getting that deja vu feeling, except it was present day).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Love and Human Remains\" is one of those obviously scripted, obviously acted, obviously staged flicks which is so obvious that the escape velocity from its contrivances and fabrication is beyond me. Not worth explaining, this amateurish flick tries to cram every clever line, every misanthropic overtone, every peculiar sexual predilection into one film with an absence of concern for making the pieces fit. In short, sensationalistic crap without the sensation...which pretty much just leaves crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Love and human remains directed by Denys Arcand is an abysmally pathetic film as it is completely different from the kind of films he has been making all through his career.Making a different film is not an objectionable matter,what is troublesome is the fact that if a film from a master is complete out of tune then it is a really bad event. The film begins on a good note as there is some suspense created. However as the film progresses what is shown is just a futile attempt at creating something meaningful as Arcand shows us half a dozen oddball,whimsical characters whose lives are intertwined with each other.Homosexuality and Lesbianism are not of any consequences here. What is even more bothersome is the feeling of guilt related to the characters who are rather in a fix regarding their feelings towards each other and sexuality.Such a film would be of interest to some who wants to see a different Denys Arcand film.All in all,there would surely not be many takers for this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The premise is interesting and the cast does the best it can, but the script and the directorial effort are so poor that it is not surprising that this film was buried--which is fitting given the screenplay. As I watched this, I could not decide which was worse, the screenplay, or the directing. The actors are over the top, the art direction looks like a Disney movie, the music is contrived, and the sentiment so sweet that it gives viewers cavities. It's a bad attempt to imitate \"FOur Weddings And A funeral\". If one wants to watch comedy that is as flat as a pancake and how poor direction can turn a story into cavity sweetness, this is a good one to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oddball black-comedy romance featuring a great cast and a less than stellar script. Brenda Blethyn (\"Lovely & Amazing\") is the title character 'Betty', a woman trapped in a loveless marriage with a man who is obviously having an affair with his beautiful, blonde secretary. Guess who's playing this minor role, yup! Naomi Watts (\"Mulholland Drive\") must of sandwiched this project in before her superstar status was insured with the blockbuster thriller \"The Ring.\"

On the male side of the cast list there's the woefully miscast Alfred Molina (\"Frida\") an old-fashioned undertaker who suddenly decides to reveal his desires for 'Betty' which have lain dormant for decades. Perhaps Miramax is hoping Molina's turn in the upcoming \"Spider-Man 2\" might generate some interest in this little trinket which belongs on the DVD rental shelf.

But the award for wildest thankless performance goes to Christopher Walken (\"Catch Me if You Can\") who goes completely over the top as 'modern' undertaker with his Vegas-style funerals in a small provincial town. His character must have parachuted into the village because there's little reason for him to exist in this script.

That said, if you'd like to see some top-notch actors engage in some low-brow humor then this one's for you, and if this isn't your cup-of-tea then try renting \"Harold and Maude,\" the ultimate funeral movie that's still funny to this day.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A good idea let down by heavy-handed production.

Quite a bit of the dialogue was unintelligible because of the level of music\/background sound, and this didn't help this reviewer. Nor did the Welsh accents, pretty impenetrable at times. Towards the end I lost the will to live trying to follow the dialogue.

This movie didn't know whether to be a farce or a black comedy - and they require different approaches. Some of the incidents were laid on so thick that they only merited a groan, some were so unbelievable even for this sort of plot that they made the story just not worth following.

The acting was in the main good - although the American just came over as a clone of the \"Back to the future\" mad scientist. The little boy was very good.

I did watch it all the way through but God knows why: I can't remember laughing once.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How better to describe it than scuzzy criminals on TV? And I don't mean in the show COPS; here, they're actually being presented as protagonists.

I don't see any remedial value in this show unless you have a perverse penchant for human tragedies. Whitney Houston is a tragic example of the fallen star; a star which Bobby Brown helped pull from the sky. Bobby Brown is nothing but a low-life criminal. Why watch him? Why does Whitney stand by him no matter how despicable he is? This couple should be locked up and it's a loathsome shame they are making money and achieving a modicum of fame from watching the septic tank which is their lives and the human waste which is their character.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Though not a complete waste of time, 'Eighteen' really wasn't all sweet as it pretended to be. Nor are the ages of the actors they're portraying \u0096 18, my butt. McKellen could have actually shown up in the film telling us he was 30 and ask us to believe it. Even Michael J. Fox was more believable as a teen in 'Back to the Future' Parts II and III (okay, maybe not; they're probably equal believability.) If you can get past the obvious age flaw, you'll have either the complete void of acting or simply overacting (Paul Anthony's so called anguish, Clarence Sponagle's Lifetime moments, and even though I do favor Brendan Fletcher, it's best to just watch him, and more, in 'Freddy Vs. Jason,') incomprehensible scenes (a faster than Britney Spears marriage, incest to prove a point and a man who needs help to urinate, but still has one hand free \u0096 I'm guessing this was the writer's fantasy,) an entire movie of despicable characters (Anthony might be playing someone that's 18, but acts like he's 12 and some odd \"john\" thrown in so Anthony's character Pip can save the day \u0096 was there really a sex scene in front of a baby?) and practically every character questioning their own sexuality by strange actions\/scenes. On the positive side, I did enjoy Ian McKellen's voice-over, seeing a (rarely well portrayed) straight\/gay friendship, puppy love (from someone who collects stuffed puppies, that is,) good score, some decent dialogue (love the separation of gays and pedophilia \u0096 wish more people would realize that) and acting from the female leads (as well as Cumming.) I can't really recommend it as it's really trying to be too many things \u0096 gay tolerance, gay hustling, homelessness, WWII epic, priesthood, first love, flawed judges, etc, etc, etc \u0096 on a shoestring budget.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On paper this movie has some chops: a street kid overcoming past trauma, rebuilding his life and succeeding when the world would have written him off. Great stuff, everyone loves a happy ending.

In the theater though, there were some omissions that left the movie dead inside. The dialog was hollow and uninteresting, the characters were almost cartoonish in their lack of dimension and complexity, and why did everyone need to be gay? I have nothing against homosexual themes or characters in a movie but when it's used in this fashion not only is is offensive to homosexuals, it trivializes the lifestyle and cheapens the movie. If the story works without this cheap trick it should have been cut.

Every character seemed to come out of the same cookie cutter form: Each had one major flaw and one minor flaw, every character is good hearted were they succeed or not, and everyone one of them had or is in an abusive relationship with someone.

The most annoying fact of the movie is that they never let you get over that the name \"pip\" comes from great expectations. They give it to you once and that should be enough. The story shares enough with the Dickens classic to make this fact obvious.

The most interesting part of the film is the story of the grandfather and the cassette he leaves for Pip and how Pip, the main character, learns how to grow up from the lessons learned from the tape. In the end, with lessons learned, Pip confronts his dark past and movies forward with his life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Four Guys (Jacks) go into the restaurant business with a fifth Guy and lose all common sense. They allow themselves to be abused worse than textile workers at the turn of the century without simply leaving the situation. This is truly one of the worst films I have ever seen. I just hope I can resell this item to someone who might like it.

It is true that it holds your attention if you can let the illogical plot developments not bother you too much. It is very silly throughout however especially once a stranger enters the restaurant. Who is he? Guess.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you see the title \"2069 A Sex Odyssey\" in the video store, BEWARE!! The cover has Tori Wells and three other \"80's\" porn stars, and has a copyright of 1986. If you're like me (and I hope you're not) you'll think \"80's porn? Tori Wells? Alright!\" Trickery!! It was made in 1974 and has dubbed German stars! There's nothing inherently wrong with 70's German porn, but it's not my cup of tea, and it's nothing like what the cover leads you to believe you're getting. Once I got past my rage about the blatantly misleading jacket, I watched it anyway. It's a bad, bad movie. Sorry, I guess I didn't really get past the rage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The New Twenty\" is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Yes, some may argue that formulaic small budget films that strive for less may seem worse, but I would argue that a pseudo-intellectual anti-formulaic \"indie\" film that pretends to be more is worse.

\"The New Twenty\" was written and directed by Chris Mason Johnson, and I will never get back the 91 minutes of my life that I wasted on his film.

THE SCREENPLAY & CHARACTERS

From beginning to end, the screenplay failed to provide an anti-hero or hero with a moral core that the audience would want to see succeed or fail.

In story telling, the three dramatic conflicts are man vs. man, man vs. the world, and man vs. himself.

The screenplay focuses on a group of college friends in New York, and is preoccupied with the dynamic of man vs. himself, where each of the film's characters are so self-absorbed in a stupor of depression and self-destructive behavior that the movie atrophies before the audiences very eyes.

Each of the main characters indulge in unexplained bad behavior (heroin addiction with no history as to why the character is an addict; a fianc\u00e9e who has sex with her fianc\u00e9e's boss\/investor, even though the character is written too smart to have sex with such a sleazy character; a man who begins as a decent guy, but is attracted to a foul-mouthed investor, and converts for some unknown reason into a similar foul-mouthed business jackass; a closeted chubby gay cyber geek, who does nothing, but find dates online; and a gay Asian man who dates an HIV positive older man, but has no scenes establishing why the relationship works and why love develops).

Crucial scenes establishing the cause of the character's addiction, the suffering and self- loathing of the fianc\u00e9e that might explain why she would sleep with a sleaze bag; the back story that would explain why a decent guy would be attracted to a \"Gordon Gecko\" type character and become a jackass; a story line for the chubby cyber geek; and more scenes of interaction between the Asian man and HIV positive boyfriend are all missing.

Without proper establishing details, all of the characters' actions seem forced and contrived.

DIRECTION, CINEMATOGRAPHY & SCORE

I found Mr. Johnson's direction to be without a clear point of view, leaving the actors emotionally incoherent.

The cinematography can be described as mundane at best. Mr. Johnson selected small spaces to shoot and failed to catch the grandeur of New York City. This failure created a claustrophobic film, that viewed like the filming of a stage play, and not a film.

The score was embarrassingly absent from most of the film. I assume that Mr. Johnson is to blame, since he could have asked for full score to enhance understanding in each shot.

CONCLUSION

\"The New Twenty\" is an annoying and unmitigated failure in film-making.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What we're given in this trying-to-be trendy film is a \"frat-pack\" of college friends, now approaching age 30 (which we all know, of course, their generation thinks of as the \"new 20\"). Consisting of four guys and a gal, we have thrust at us the following types: seemingly \"unemployeds\" and frequent drug users, along with one individual who is job successful and one who is trying-to-be. They are all, in their own way, drifting while trying to find both a future and emotional happiness. With one, possibly two exceptions, these are people this reviewer would definitely never care to come close to modeling myself after. There is disappointment after disappointment after disappointment in almost all their lives. Except in the instance of one individual (who appears on the way to finding it), none appears headed toward emotional satisfaction in his\/her life. And so, about the only sincere moment in this film is when a knock at the door brings to the person answering it an unexpected and heartfelt \"I love you.\"

With only the exceptions mentioned, these people are the kind hardly deserving or worthy of several hundred thousands of dollars being thrown away in presenting their stories.

PS--Writer\/director, Johnson, definitely appears to have a problem with showing gay sexual scenes----with no such problems in presenting more prolonged and revealing heterosexual ones. Why might that be?

****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Talk about marketing. The poster\/home video cover of 'The New Twenty' broadcasts a half-naked male in a \"Wolfe Video.\" For those familiar with the gay-themed movies \u0096 this broadcasts a \"must-see.\" (I loved reading one reviewer (from another site) stating they had been \"tricked\" into seeing a \"Sodomite\" movie. Are you serious? The tagline itself as the word \"gay.\" The Lord gives you eyes, yet you cannot see\u0085) That being said, despite the number of gay characters, stereotyped, no less (see: the lonely gay, the AIDS victim gay and the closeted gay) it's more about long-term friendship and characters that grow apart. In fact, if anything, there's more (here's one for Christians to complain about) heterosexual couples having sex outside of, gasp!, marriage. Not to mention backstabbing, drinking to excess and drug usage. I see this more of a made for TV-Logo or Showtime movie than big screen effort. Sure, I loved the cinematography, some of the actors could act and I always love seeing a big-group-of-friends that actually act like they've known each other for a million years. But we've see this all before. Nothing really \"new\" here. Barely an original idea \u0096 hence bringing back the same 'ole \"I have AIDS, let's deal with that\" for a good portion of the movie and boy, our friend has a serious drug problem, but let's not deal with that until it's almost too late. That's so (US) 'Queer as Folk' and 'Broken Hearts Club,' respectfully. The film deals with a group of college buddies, now grown (in size not minds) who have to eventually grow up and each trying their best while failing. Strangely, as in most of these independent movies, the most interesting, to me at least, was the heavier-set one, Ben. He stole each scene, but, again, there wasn't much to take.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Synopsis Correction: The ending does not show Ben cruising online for guys. He is looking up Arabic Language courses at The Presido Military Acadamy in San Francisco. Perhaps to Join the War in Iraq as a translator, (FYI- many of the dishonorable discharges from \"D'ont ask D'ont tell have been Translators (they are now it major short supply) Ben Also spoke Russian. This movie is a good time capsule of life in Manhatten but quite a bit of non reality here. Mostly a good laugh at Lame social skills and the sad portrayal of \"Grown up\" twenty somethings not developing beyond the college party mode. Also a brief study of the always changing scene in Manhatten.(somehow it Always stays close to the edge of the same B.S.)

Watch together the films \"Englishman in New York\"\" and the \"The New Twenty\" Both good for Nostalgia. I think the movie \"twenty\" shows how far the blur between gay and straight as evolved.

These two films are GAY Time Travel For Sure!!!!ENJOY","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ugh. Unfortunately this is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. None of the characters are remotely likable, which makes this film difficult to watch. They're all miserable thirty year olds who don't take responsibility for their crummy lives. I was only able to make it through a half hour of the film, so there's a chance things got better afterward, but I doubt it. I can't imagine five people as self-absorbed as they are would manage to remain friends with each other for ten years.

Three sex scenes in the first half hour were also disappointing, as they had no relevance to the plot, and were clearly a gratuitous (failed) attempt to bring some life to this otherwise dull film.

Save your time and money, and skip this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"imagine if you took the Christ myth, mixed it with a healthy dose of porn, against a backdrop of bad sci-fi blackxploitation(brotha from another planet like) throw in a dash of after school special, and lots of really bad kung fu fighting. oh and some decent break dancing. with an awesome casio keyboard soundtrack.

and some how they make this even worse than you could imagine. there are at least 4 rape scenes, at least one great car explosion, a buff black guy running around in his undies with an Uzi.

add alcohol and this is the perfect movie.

i mean lots and lots and lots of alcohol","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film almost gave me a nervous breakdown. When I was recovering from appendicitis a few years ago, I had just started teaching in secondary (high) school. The whole teaching business was all a bit nervewracking for a beginner, but to mentally prepare myself for going back into the classroom I decided to watch some rather awful films. The Flintstones was one of the films that I chose, and then I put \"King Of The Streets\" (the UK title of 'Alien Warrior') on. Just before it finished I found myself almost in tears at the sheer waste of it all...my life, the film stock, the \u00a32 I had paid for it a couple of weeks ago in the Blockbuster ex rental section, the time it must have taken to print the sleeve art, the effort of the editors and musicians involved in the soundtrack (as negligable as their efforts were)...the list goes on.

I love bad films. Let me make this perfectly clear - I LOVE watching crappy films from Blockbusters. Me and my mate Dan used to sit and watch many, many cheapjack horrors and laugh at them. But this was a different type of crappy film. I don't think that anything has come close to this, not even Tobe Hooper's \"Death Trap\" (which is probably my second worst film in the world). The whole making a car from abandoned parts section nearly killed me; the repetition of music at any available opportunity, regardless of on-screen events; the whole.... AAAGGGHHHHHHH!!!!! I can't even carry on with this 'critical' dissection, as my gag reflex has started. The futility of that film, even now, three years after I watched it for the first and last time, still renders me speechless (but I am still able to type). The whole \"making a car from odd parts\" section had me contemplating horrible things.

I implore you, if you are interested in watching this film, just gaze at the cover of the video and imagine the worst possible version of the story synopsis on the back. I can almost guarantee that it won't be even half as bad as this film actually is. Don't, under any circumstances, contemplate actually watching it for any reason whatsoever. Not if you are a Christian and you want to see a Christ allegory; not if you are a bad movie afictionado and you want to experience the true nadir of trash; not even if you want your life to seem longer (and believe me, every second that this film runs seems like at least a minute). Make no mistake about it, this film is unholy. It is the antichrist in video form. As Bo Cattlett in Get Shorty said: \"I've seen better film on teeth\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hargh... this film is so bad it's almost good. Trash at its best. Jesus' bro vs. pimps...come on. I'd say that you'd actually have to see this, it's so bad... my sides hurt when I laughed. I can't understand why this isn't in the worst 100.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think it's the first time that I go inside a theater and go out so disappointed. There were two reasons why I went to see \"Ast\u00e9rix et les Vikings\": first as a film buff, and second as a big Ast\u00e9rix fan.

In the end, the film doesn't satisfy any request. It's simply a big animated mess and it proves that the Ast\u00e9rix franchise is going from bad to worse.

In fact, it has been this way since the death of first scenarist Ren\u00e9 Goscinny in 1977. His faithful collaborator, illustrator Albert Uderzo took his place, but the following books were clearly lacking of the quality that was present during the Goscinny years.

\"Ast\u00e9rix et les Vikings\" is based on the book \"Ast\u00e9rix et les Normands\", which was published during the Goscinny reign. The basic story is the same: Goudurix, Abraracourcix' nephew' arrives to the village and Ast\u00e9rix et Ob\u00e9lix must turn him into a real man, while the Vikings come to Gaul in order to discover what fear is, because it seems that fear gives wings.

The similarities end here. What follows in the book is a non-stop series of laughs, gags and hilarious dialog with the result that the Vikings do discover fear and they flee Gaul. The movie is silly, unfunny, fast-paced, corny... Well, just name a default and it has good chances of being applied...

The difference between the book and the movie could be more acceptable if the movie was good. But the new ideas simply crashes it in a bottomless pit. Even older Ast\u00e9rix movies such as \"Ast\u00e9rix le Gaulois\", which almost transferred the lines one by one without changing them are easily better.

Animation has the quality of other 21st century movies, but it has its faults and any film beginner could find the mistakes. The greatest example is the continuity mistake, where the day follows the night after a fraction of second, in the same sequence.

Imagine. They took animation studios from numerous countries and they still can't get adequate film-making.

The changes of the original story are simply unbearable. And they still could be even if there was no original story. Goudurix, in the movie, has a pet pigeon named SMS and who act as his cell phone (!). Grossebaf, the Viking chief, has a rebellious teen daughter named Abba (!) and she constantly defies her father's authority. There's also a stupid Viking wizard, his cartoonish dumb and muscular son, the faithful bride of Grossebaf who is obsessed with decoration (her name is Vikea!) and... well I can't stand that much longer.

We're far from the original gags from the original book. The biggest problem is the difficulty of transferring the images to the big screen, mainly because the greatest laughs in the books come from the verbal jokes and visual gags which do not have the same appeal on a theatre screen. I remember that the greatest moments in the book were Ob\u00e9lix laughing at the invaders' names (which all finish in 'af') and Goudurix tries to scare them in ridiculous ways.

And if everything wasn't enough, somebody in the publicity staff decided to write on the movie poster that there's an already existing C\u00e9line Dion song which would be featured in the final credits. If it was a new song, I could have understood. But using an old song is only another proof that the movie is so badly made that they're ready to do anything in order to attract film-goers.

The only good point for this movie is that it is so stupid and the end is so bad that we just can't walk out of the theater without being left cold. In a summer release, it just can't hurt...

The only other acceptable point of the movie is how Goudurix becomes courageous. His psychological transformation in the book is too spontaneous and not credible, while it's better pictured in the movie and the motivation point is more believable.

So if you haven't seen the movie yet, don't waste your money on it. Grab the book instead.

Oh Ren\u00e9, why did you leave us?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a perfect example that a movie can not be successful with a high budget alone. It's obvious that there was a lot of time and effort dedicated into this: the animation is fluid, detailed and superb- the soundtrack isn't too memorable except for the ending song by Celine Dion (at least I think it was her). The musical score is powerful full orchestra material. Kudos to the animators and music composers! 9\/10. However, the story and characters fall flat. It feels very 'been there, done that', predictable and plain uninteresting. The characters have distinct personalities but nothing too likable. They annoyed me to no end. I tried really hard to like this, but I didn't care about the story- it was clich\u00e9 action-adventure plot. There were 'jokes' that weren't funny. It was vomit inducing predictable from start to end. The dialogue was clich\u00e9 and awful- especially the last line \"It's not ... that gives you wings, it's love!\" Whatever it was, I remember cringing. I was wishing it would hurry up and finish. I wasn't the only one either- the people I went with thought it was boring. Please watch the Asterix and Obelix Cleopatra film if you're going to watch any. This was a waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This Asterix is very similar to modern Disney cartoons. Soulless, technically good and the usual in-jokes for adults. Maybe it's because this is the first cartoon I watched after Laputa: Castle in the Sky, but it was quite disappointing.

The plot is contrived and forgettable but it involves Asterix and Obelix going to the Viking's territory to rescue a spoilt teenager who then learns humility and finds love as well. Oh and initially they don't get on but after facing adversity they all share a deep bond of friendship... yadda yadda.

The best bit is to watch out for the little jokes. The Vikings get all the best ones. Such as Vikea (the Viking's chief's wife) giving a list of furniture and skulls to bring back from the next raid. Or the Vikings not knowing the meaning of mercy (literally). Oh, and Olaf the dumbest Viking is actually hilarious (as much for the voice acting as the dialogue).

For example, aboard the Viking ship: (After a speech by Abba, the captain's daughter) Olaf: Who is this new guy? Captain: That's my daughter, cod-brain! Olaf: Your... daughter's... a man?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's not awful but what a waste... Lousy gags, bad music, poor drawings and animation...

Regarding the impressive number of animators and intervallists on this picture (from, hum... a hundred different studios throughout the world? Come on, how can you expect something coherent when doing an animated movie this way!) I wonder if one guy on the credits = one drawing! The lines are rough, the 3d work inadequate (I'm not against it, but not in this film) But the backgrounds are corrects. The storyline is rather dumb, far from the precise cleverness of the BD, and obviously aimed at an international audience. To distribute a movie all over the world doesn't mean to take everyone in the world for a simple-minded guy... A cultural object is far more interesting when challenging, even when it is a foreign movie (being french in this case it's even worse!).

Some new stuff is doing well (the Olaf character, sometimes, like with the stone explanation, but it's not great) but the modern references are exasperating (music, SMS -not even a verbal joke, just a stupid bird named short message service: does anyone know imagination?). But, hey, it's a M6 \/ TPS production with some Celine Dion in it... pathetic.

Asterix is underemployed and Obelix talks too much. Goudurix could be great (like in the book) but he is too clearly a \"cool guy\" having a love affair (with an uninteresting made up female character). In fact, only the vikings (wizard excepted) are funny. Too much action, not enough laughs. The best part of the movie are the end credits. Not the music, but the few stills it contains. BD style. Well, definitely, Asterix is not made to move!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've always said that there's nothing to beat the original form: the comics. I've been proved right again. This, like all of the other movie takes on the Asterix series, failed to impress. The makers of this movie don't get it that what makes all the other such comic-turned-movies (x-men, superman et al.) ventures successful is that they all deviate from the original comic versions and adapt it to make it more watchable. Agreed, this movie did deviate, in the sense that this movie was a cross of two Asterix books, viz. Asterix and the Great Crossing & Asterix and the Normans. Also, uncharacteristic of the Asterix series (save Asterix and the Secret Weapon) , a love interest for one of the main characters was introduced. All this ended up doing was create a childishly immature storyline. The funny parts were very few and far between. All in all, a total waste of time and money watching this, let alone at theaters, even at home.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Danny De Vito shows us here he is definitely, indeed infinitely, a better on screen performer than off. He plays the part of Owen, a miserable would-be writer with a cranky old mother (delightfully played by Anne Ramsey) he would like to see dead. Billy Crystal is Larry, a very frustrated writing teacher who has an estranged wife he feels the same way about. So Owen, after viewing Hitchcock's \"Strangers on a Train\", suggests they swap murders.

As director though, De Vito's control is inconsistent as he wastes this clever idea, while his film lurches from the very humorous to the very bland. He and Crystal are okay in the lead roles, but the show belongs to Anne Ramsey as the cantankerous Mrs. Lift.

Saturday, June 20, 1992 - Video","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a comedy version of \"Strangers on a Train\". It works pretty well. I am a harsh grader, so the 3 rating reflects mostly on the characters and plot. The performances are extremely good, all of them. Of course, the two stars, DeVito and Crystal, shine most. Each performer acts well enough to play off of. The comedy works in a level just short of slapstick. DeVito characters work best when depraved. His character, portrayed as a writing hack, would probably be more real if he was published and lauded as much as most hacks are. His character would, in real life, have a great agent and multiple solicitations. The characters are one dimensional, which is okay in comedy. But Crystals's character is not written very well. His desire to kill the \"moma\" all of a sudden makes no sense at all. It looks like a pitiful attempt at humor. The pitiful attempts are not too often, and the movie flows fairly well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Leonard Rossiter and Frances de la Tour carry this film, not without a struggle, as the script was obviously hurriedly cobbled together out of old episodes. When it came out, this must have been a real disappointment as it's also done on a bus ticket budget. Attempts to move it out of the house - which is jarringly unrecognisable, a bad job all round there - with a picnic, fantasy sequences, rugby and a boxing match in the local gym simply don't work. Most of these are just character-light setups for a solitary not-particularly good gag. That said, the interplay of Rossiter and de la Tour (and anybody else with him) is mostly hilarious; they even manage to make a soda syphon gag work, but you can see the struggle with recycling a literally uninspired script that changes plot half way through. Don Warrington has very little to do except 'be black', and due to the random script hacks Christopher Strauli changes character at least twice. And in the end, as he often did in the TV series (though you might not remember - read the scripts), Eric Chappell lets you down with a 'time's up' ending. Were they that cynical, or just too desperate to be in the film business? Rossiter and de la Tour are always funny but as a film, it's a terrible postscript to a fondly remembered TV series. RIP.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film derives from a Long Running ITV sitcom by the same name.The Sitcom lasted for half a decade roughly and brought to our screens Rigsby,Phillip,Alan,Mrs Jones & Vienna.

Then in 1980 The film version hit the Cinemas.Now when it did,sadly Richard Beckinsale had passed away & was replaced by Only when i laugh actor Chris Strauli.

I myself felt this gave the film a different feel.I would have preferred if it wasn't shot as Richard was a key character.Thats like having the porridge film without Godber or Mackay!

The Film did have some classics moments definitely but it felt a bit De-Ja-Vu! Many parts were seen before in the TV Series. Now if you saw the movie first rather than the Series you would get a different feeling about it then the series fan!

Saying that Leonard is definitely on top form and makes the movie,just like in the TV series.The Film has recently had a new lease of life on DVD and is usually on Terrestrial over a quiet weekend.It is a cracking good film,but for Rigsby fans you may feel that youv'e seen it similarly before.

Saying that though its worth a buying\/watching

7.8\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film version of 'Rising Damp' came out two years after the television series ended. Like many fans I duly went along to the cinema when it opened. I came away bitterly disappointed. Eric Chappell could not have spent very much time writing the script; most of it is rehashed ideas from old episodes. At the time of the film's release, the 'Rising Damp' series was still being repeated regularly on I.T.V. so the public was being asked to pay to see something they'd seen already. At least the 'On The Buses' movies boasted original screenplays.

Secondly, Richard Beckinsale had died the year before, so they eliminated the character of 'Alan' as a mark of respect, substituting art student 'John', played by Christopher Strauli of 'Only When I Laugh' fame. It simply wasn't the same.

As another poster has pointed out, Rigsby's boarding house looked nothing like the one used in the series, being bigger and altogether cleaner.

Director Joe McGrath was one of the directors who worked on the original 'Casino Royale', a film steeped in surreal humour. 'Rising Damp' also has its share of 'Walter Mitty' style fantasy sequences, such as the 'Saturday Night Fever' parody. Personally, I found them horribly out of place. A case of 'over-egging the pudding'.

On the plus side, Leonard Rossiter is as magnificent as ever as the seedy 'Rigsby', as are Frances De La Tour as 'Ruth' and Don Warrington as 'Philip. Its just a shame the film isn't worthy of their talents.

When Rossiter died in 1984, it was shown by I.T.V. as a tribute, with its final scene - showing Rigsby laying prostrate at the foot of the stairs - removed in the interests of good taste.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Doesn't this seem somewhat familiar? Oh wait, that's right.. 90% of the jokes in this movie have already been done in the TV series. What's the point in repeating yourself, you may ask? Is it for the benefit of the Americans who haven't seen the programme? Did the scriptwriters run out of inspiration? Or maybe everyone on set suffered a sudden attack of amnesia, and forgot they'd covered this ground already? Either way, for someone who has sat through the first three series, this was just really boring. I had to turn it off during the 'tablets that turn your water green' part.. yes it is very funny, but give us something original for goodness sake! Actually, if the best new stuff you can come up with is Leonard Rossiter's take on Saturday Night Fever, you can forget it.

The guy they got to replace the late Richard Beckinsale is a lookalike alright, but not half the actor. Personally I would exorcised the role, as a mark of respect to him. Or better yet, not bothered making the film at all, and just let the hilarity of the TV series speak for itself. But no, they couldn't do that.. not as long as there was money to be made. Sad, really. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"no way out 2007 was a really bad and if it is the road to wrestlemania they choose the wrong road.

Chris Benoit & the hardy boys def MVP & Minn: in my view this was the best match of the night some good wrestling here but not much. 7\/10

cruisweight championship open(which chavo Guerrero won): awful, no high flying at all, really quick and boring. 3\/10

little bastard & Finlay def little bogeyman & the bogeyman: this was more comedy than wrestling, some laughs. 5\/10

Kane def king booker: a decent effort by these two but they could do better. 6\/10

wwe tag team championship Paul London & Brian Kendrick def deuce & domino:another boring match,no high flying by the champs. 4\/10

ecw world title Mr Kennedy def bobby lashley (disquilification): in my mind the worst match of the night. truly awful.i thought ecw was no rules,i was wrong 2\/10

john cena & Shawn Michaels def Batista & the undertaker: an okay match but could have been a hell of a lot better. 6\/10

overall this was bulls*it id give it a 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A good ol' boy film is almost required to have moonshine, car chases, a storyline that has a vague resemblance to \"plot\" and at least one very pretty country gal, barefoot with short shorts and a low top. The pretty gal is here (dressed in designer jeans)-- but the redneck prerequisites stop there. Jimmy Dean is a natural as a sausage spokesman but as a tough guy former sheriff, he comes up way short. Big John is big, but he isn't convincing with the \"bad\" part of his moniker. Bug-eyed Jack Elam is a hoot as always and Bo Hopkins has been playing this same part for decades; Ned Beatty also does his part in a small role... but there is no STORY. It smells more like an episode of In The Heat Of The Night than a feature film. Cornball cornpone with easily predictable sentiment. Perhaps the most glaring problem with this movie is Charlie Daniels singing the theme. You know the one; it was made famous by... Jimmy Dean.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"TNT Jackson\" isn't completely unwatchable. But either the version I saw on DVD was edited with a weed-whacker, or the screenplay itself is the lowest level of grind-house\/blaxploitation sausage. Or maybe both.

Jeanne Bell is supposed to have been a Playmate at one point in her career,and the movie makes the most of the connection by displaying her breasts at least two times more than was really necessary (including a hilarious topless fight scene that I am pretty sure was meant to be funny). I will admit, they are quite nice. Still, she's sort of average looking and doesn't have the charisma of a Foxy Brown, of even a Cleopatra Jones. She does have her moments as an actress in the film, though, but it would have been nice if the director had pushed her a little harder or the screenplay had given her a chance to do more than emote \"attitude\" and kick people.

Speaking of kicking people, the fight scenes (the other putative reason to watch a film like this) are pretty poorly done.There's no real choreography to speak of here, just people posing and sticking feet and fists in the general direction of their opponents. One minor exception is a nice moment with an opponent equipped with butterfly folding knives; another is a sequence near the very end where an obvious stunt double for Bell (and maybe for Stan Shaw) leap around and do some decent sweeps and groundwork for a minute or two before Bell\/\"Jackson\" punches her enemy's liver out, Shaw collapses and the screenplay just stops. (Again, I will admit that this is very much in the tradition of Shaw Brother quickies since time immemorial).

There are a couple of supporting actors who are actually better than the film deserves (I'm thinking of \"Joe\" and the fellow playing the drug lord's right hand man). There's a halfway decent funk laden soundtrack that complements the action on the screen and add a star to the rating by itself. There's a semi-dodgy sex scene that manages to be effective almost in spite of itself.

This one is strictly for hardcore fans of blaxploitation. I saw it out of sheer curiosity, and I'm not sorry I took the time. But I can't imagine wanting to take the time to see it again unless I decide to write a dissertation on the pop culture intersections of \"Kung Fu Theater\" and \"Foxy Brown\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A young woman nicknamed \"T.N.T.\" for being virtual dynamite in a fight and a knockout in terms of looks to boot, goes to the most lawless part of Hong Kong in search of her missing brother Stag Jackson. When she learns he has been murdered, she decides she will bring the killer to justice in a fashion only she can.

Sounds good, doesn't it. Well, there's really nothing wrong with the basic premise as a starting base for a martial arts\/blaxploitation action thriller, which is what this aims to be. The leads actually prove pretty good too with Jeanne Bell fitting nicely into the role of \"T.N.T.\" and Stan Shaw doing well as the ambitious, power-hungry Charlie. Where this fails miserably is in terms of the fighting action it offers up. The fight scenes are totally and completely unconvincing and\/or sometimes so completely over the top it reaches the point of ridiculousness which doesn't at all help when the basic focus of your movie is a Kung Fu action heroine. Also the poor lighting, actors sporting accents making them hard to understand, the confusing camera-work and the sometimes poor sound doesn't help this obvious low budget effort out either any. This does deliver in one area which may delight some fans, it does offer up plenty of the T in \"T & A\", in fact practically every fight scene in the film is proceeded by some type of nude scene and Jeanne Bell actually does have one extended fight scene in which she is completely topless.

In the end, this fails to be something you want to revisit because the fight scenes are so pathetically, laughingly bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now any Blaxploiation fan will recognise the ingredients: big Afros, topless babes, surreally bad fashions and some 'jive' talk. In this case add in a lead who can't act, a plot that makes little sense, editing by someone with no hands who has been blindfolded and the most god-awful fight scenes and you have 'TNT Jackson'. Not quite bad enough to be good, but not good enough to be bad, this is a wonderful mess from start to finish. I especially loved the endless continuity errors and the lead's white stunt double.

This is so '70s bad Far Eastern martial arts meets black power that it hurts, but boy it hurts so good! I am ashamed to admit that I almost enjoyed it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This extremely bargain-basement Blaxploitation\/Kung-Fu hybrid was in my country released by a questionable DVD label that usually speaking just occupies with the transfer of pure crap onto disc, so that wasn't exactly a favorable herald. Several other titles were released in the same series, like \"The Black Six\", \"The Black Gestapo\" and \"The Black Godfather\" and judging by all their low ratings and negative reviews none of these belong to the elite of the 70's Blaxploitation hype, neither. \"TNT Jackson\" is a pretty lousy film, completely lacking a significant plot but featuring far too many laughable fighting scenes and horrible acting to compensate. Apparently Roger Corman \u0096 never too embarrassed to make some easy money \u0096 assigned two of his most loyal acolytes to rapidly invent a simplistic story that would appeal to fans of both oriental Kung-Fu movies and contemporary trendy Blaxploitation flicks. The result Cirio H. Santiago and Dick Miller came up with was \"TNT Jackson\"; the tale of an arse-whooping black babe traveling to Hong Kong in search of her missing brother. She quickly discovers he was killed by a criminal network of drug-smugglers and swears to avenge him. Mrs. Jackson smoothly infiltrates into the underground and encounters macho pimps, helpful undercover agents, loads of vicious Kung-Fu fighters. Only one thing's for sure; they all want a piece of TNT's ravishing body in one way or another. I sincerely doubt movie concepts get any more elementary than this, but \u0096 unfortunately - all the other aspects suck too. The battle scenes are overlong and moreover pathetically staged. Jeannie Bell and the other poor suckers try really hard to stare menacingly and assume a tough position, but eventually all they ever do is kick in the air and stupidly leap across rooms. The cinematography is horrid, the soundtrack is vastly disappointing (whatever happened to soul music?), the few dialogs are poorly written and the acting performances are inferior. Speaking of which, Jeannie Bell is undeniably a beautiful woman, but still she can't hold a candle to Tamara Dobson or Pam Grier. There's only one really good and memorable scene in \"TNT Jackson\", namely the famous hotel room battle where Bell, entirely naked except for panties, repeatedly switches the light on and off whilst kicking the hell out of some goons. Amusing scene ... I just haven't figured out yet whether it's thanks to the light switch ingenuity or Bell's perfectly shaped breasts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot believe how this atrocity managed to capture the hearts and minds of a cross-section of the 'bright young things' of its era, but I'm certain I wish it hadn't. In my opinion it is an inaccurate, poorly acted, weakly scripted, pretentiously directed piece of gumpf. The brief outings to an imagined reality bludgeon any humour to death. The situations are unsubtle exaggerations which make the the already flimsy characters even more unbelievable and detestable. The romance is dull, the end is unsatisfying and ruins the only sensible drugs message in the film and the simple plot ('Withnail and I,' 'Fear and Loathing') is tested to extremes with the uninteresting motion of the film. In short this film as a blatant visual assault with no hint of skill or initiative. I condemn it to the ash heap of history and pray it stays there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"utterly useless... having been there, done that with the subject matter i have to say this captures the clubbing atmosphere in absolutely no respect. It may have done so had the characters not just been mouthpieces for incredibly dire, unrealistic drivel. So many cringe-worthy scenes that would put The Office to shame (not a compliment to this film). It also may have helped to have some semblance of a story, a point, a message, a commentary, anything. Seriously, Kevin & Perry Go Large had more to say on the subject than this film (term used very loosely in this case). There should be minus numbers reserved for films like this. -10 (extra turd)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Best Movie of the 90's\" \"The Welsh Trainspotting\"....Aye, right! I went into this movie with pretty high expectations, and it was all downhill from there.

This movie was supposed to be this archetypal movie on the drug culture of the early 90's, and was going to allow us all to see inside this scene, and shatter the media's preconceptions following the moral panic which followed the death of Leah Betts in 1995. Unfortunately it has fallen a long way short.

Where Trainspotting was able to treat you like an adult on the subject, and potential problems that surround drugs, this just provided us with some schmaltzy tale of the wonder of drugs, and how it can like, you know, like totally open your mind. Cue some guff about Bill Hicks, and Howard Marks ad nausea. It is painfully bad at times. I mean, the scene at the end between Lulu and her Auntie actually made me laugh out loud.

Now maybe I am just a cynic, but the way Jip leads us through this tale is like listening to THAT Acid frazzled guy you once met at a house party, who talks to you about how \"the man\" is holding us back, and how Acid has released him from the strains of modern society. You just wanna shake some sense into him, and ask him to leave the premises.

The script was a real problem for me, because where Trainspotting had Irvine Welsh's excellent book to cite from, this is written and directed by Justin Kerrigan. The words \"Jack of all trades, master of none\" come to mind. You can see where his inspiration comes from, particularly in the style of narration from main character Jip (which sets the main character in a social situation where he speaks directly to the camera, and outlines what is going through his mind as the scenario plays out) The problem with this is that some of the speeches to camera are just painful to watch. Mainly this comes down to a lack of empathy for Jip, but they are so desperate to sound philosophical that they just end up sounding like your average A-Level drama project. The direction is fine, and the intentions are good, but it is so lacking in any integrity that you start to wonder what the hype is about.

Saying that though, it is not all bad. There are moments which are genuinely very amusing, and entertaining. Moff is the highlight of the movie for me. For an independent movie it also managed to attract a high numbers of quality British actors\/actresses, which maybe outlines why there was such a buzz about the movie.

Best movie of the 90's? Not by a long shot, but if you're looking for a solid Sunday night movie, then this might just be your bag. Inevitably though, the movie is flawed by the hype that surrounds it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I wouldn't have had any expectations of this film, it might have received a 5 or 6. As it stands, I give it a 3. The acting is poor, the factual accuracy of the drugs it discusses is lacking, and I feel no empathy whatsoever for the characters.

I watched 'Adam & Paul' immediately before watching this film, and I both laughed and cried on several occasions. This film did not strike even a similar chord. The directors of 'Human Traffic' may have some off-hand experience of ecstasy, but there is no demonstration of actual drug-related semantic knowledge here. In fact, I find it rather offensive and contraproductive to the strife of making current drug laws less politically oriented.

Watch 'Requiem for a Dream' if what you're looking for is an amazing, touching film about drugs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Human Traffic is purely a `been there, done that' experience \u0096 only this time it's quite limp.

Major themes explored are paranoia, male impotence and jealousy \u0096 but only mildly and poorly.

A lot of the movie seems to want to imitate Trainspotting (drug \/ `clubbing' culture) \u0096 but it fails to include the low times \/ come-downs that Trainspotting deals with (eg: issues with death \/ dependence, etc). It even tries to come up with a similar monologue to Ewan McGreggor's classic `Choose Life' speech \u0096 but `The Milky Bars are on me! Yeah!' \u0096 what the fudge is that all about?!

The characters try to analyse their lifestyle but when their lifestyle is so shallow \u0096 their analysis becomes boring and repetitious.

The soundtrack (for a movie that is trying to be cool) is pathetic. It includes the likes of Fat Boy Slim and CJ Bolland \u0096 come on people \u0096 good dance music IS be better than this!

The characters become grating and annoying (especially half way through the movie) and the lack of care-for-the-characters soon dawns.

There are a couple of funny scenes \u0096 but they are few and far between. The mother catching the son in the bedroom was quite amusing.

But PLEASE \u0096 I'm sick to death of the Star Wars analogy scenes. I thought it was much more sharper in a couple of Kevin Smith's movies (ie: Clerks and Chasing Amy). According to the characters \u0096 Yoda is a drug fiend hence that's why he is short and bald \u0096 huh?!

My score \u0096 4 out of 10 \u0096 do yourself a favour and see Trainspotting or Go instead!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Saboteur was one of the few Hitchcocks I had yet to discover and I was less than half-overwhelmed. The French title \"La Cinqui\u00e8me colonne\" (i.e. The Fifth Column, a very evocative phrase for underground spying and sabotage organizations) set my expectations quite high as did the images of the finale on top of the Statue of Liberty.

Basically Saboteur is as much light-hearted as were The 39 steps (note this is another evocative phrase, even McGuffin as a title) but it lacks most of the humor (so the characters are rather down to earth) and it's definitely not as fast paced. As a chase movie across the USA from LA to NY Saboteur drags its feet from sequence to sequence. The sequence at the villain's lovely ranch? Lovely ranch, lovely villain but pretty tame on the whole, it doesn't really add up to nothing. The meeting with the blind man, the mixing with Circus people, the Soda City sequence, the NY ball sequence? They fall flat, bringing in more characters with very little added suspense value.

One big problem I can point out is the relationship between the leads Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane which is not building up as with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in The 39 steps. Hence the whole narrative structure is floating, depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages. In The 39 steps it was clearly scripted as 1\/escaping from the police (so you know the hero can't just go to the police) then 2\/running for his life and after the villains to prove his innocence.

If you want a better Hitchcock from the 40s wartime propaganda I would advise you to chose Foreign Correspondant over Saboteur. They are both chase movies with a catchy finale, well really a gripping one and not just sightseeing in Foreign Correspondant as well as beautifully efficient scenes (the umbrella crowd, the tulip fields, the strange mills...).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rarely will anyone deny that Hitchcock remains one of the most creative, inventive and prolific directors of all time, because he is arguably all of these things. It takes true genius to scare generations of film goers out of taking showers and wearing neck ties. Saboteur, however, is not creative or prolific at all. Rather, Hitchcock set out with the soul intention of creating a film to muster \"American Pride,\" a certain call-to-arms, support-our-troops title which was a popular theme of the time. With that in mind, Hitchcock severely underplayed other important aspects of the film, including but not limited to a logical plot, characterization, believable dialog, and a fluent, running storyline.

Typically Hitchcock does great with espionage films, only a few years earlier achieving cinematic greatness with The Foreign Corespondant and The 39 Steps, but seemingly lost his stride in creating Saboteur and merely recycled the same once-thrilling story lines both his previous excursions readily provided. Without going into any great depth here is a list of a few of this films major problems:

1. Despite having his face plastered on every newspaper across America, the only person who recognizes Kane is blind.

2. At the dinner party, Kane and Patricia don't want to run for the door because the bad guys might grab them and tell the party they were \"gate crashers.\" Logically, what prevents the spies from grabbing them and saying this at any point during the evening? Besides, does anyone need to be reminded Kane is a wanted terrorist?

3. Since when can a fan belt cut through handcuffs?

4. Nobody recognizes him...his face is on EVERY NEWSPAPER!!!

5. The spies catch up with Kane in the ghost town and assume he's the man Freeman sent to work with them...shouldn't't he have some sort of credentials? I know spies don't run around with name tags and photo IDs but a secret handshake maybe?

6. Cop picks up Kane escaping from Freeman's house, still seems no one recognizes this guy.

7. How exactly does the FBI come to believe Kane with no evidence? They don't even show Kane talking to the FBI, the scene simply fades in and we are forced to assume everything is now kosher.

8. When the cops search the Carnival Caravan how do they know Kane is now with a woman? The blind man believed Kane's story thus logically would not have reported his daughter missing, kidnapped, or even more importantly running with Kane. Why does this movie not employ logic?

This is a running list. The movie is not exciting, the plot makes no sense, and the world is full of people who willingly take wanted terrorists into their homes and cars everyday because its no big thing. Hitchcock fails miserably on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I post this comment, IMDb currently rates Alfred Hitchcock's subpar Saboteur a 7.3\/10. Personally, I rated it less than half that. Honestly, I can't tell how a movie this bad could've come from what is probably the most consistently good director I know of. I've seen about 10 other Hitch movies from the 30's-60's. Vertigo is thus far my hands down favorite while Saboteur is easily the worst. It's hard to believe that 7 years earlier Hitch used the very same formula in The 39 Steps far more competently. My recommendation would be to see that instead and avoid this like the plague. It's the only Hitchcock movie that I turned off before before the end and have no desire to go back and see the rest. If you must watch it, then rent or borrow. Don't make the mistake I did and buy the DVD on good faith earned through Notorious, Rebecca, Vertigo, Rear Window, etc. Even a master screws up sometimes, I guess.

EDIT: Maybe I was a bit harder on this film than I should've been. It's certainly nowhere near Ed Wood or Manos or anything like that, but there's three reasons I feel I must rate it so low:

1) The name \"Hitchcock\" brings with it certain expectations of quality. This film delivers on a few of them, but they're way overshadowed by the darn near non-sensical plotting.

2) I want to compensate a bit for all the 8+ ratings this film is getting. Hitchcock is like the John Coltrane of directors. True fans will find reasons to consider anything by him a work of art, but the high rating on IMDb gives more casual movie enthusiasts like myself the impression that this movie is far better than it actually is.

3) I spent $18 on this. Maybe if it'd cost me $5 or even $10 I'd probably be a bit less bitter. ;)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hitchcock is a great director. Ironically I mostly find his films a total waste of time to watch. I admire Hitchcok on a purely visual and technical level.

First the positives. Hitchcock invented the notion of the probing camera. The curious eye that is able to withhold or search for information. It isn't exactly a new visual grammar but it was revolutionary then.

Secondly, Hitchcock pretty much perfected the thriller and chase movie. He has an economical style and is always thinking of the audience. He gives them regular thrills, regular jolts of humour and regular shocks. In short, he anticipates the audience's base needs and plays them like a fiddle.

Unfortunately, the base needs of a human being are mostly stupid. Food, sex, the thrill of danger and a little comedy. Hithcock caters for all these needs on screen, with the exception of food, which, judging from his size, he catered to off screen.

It's this pandering to the audience that sabotages most of his films. A second downside is that most of Hitchcock's camera work and visual grammar are now common place. What keeps his films watchable are the simple economy of his tales, the intelligence of his camera work, and his skill at crafting tense action set pieces.

So on to \"Saboteur\". This is a light-hearted romp in the vein of \"The 39 Steps\". It jumps from sequence to sequence, until it concludes at the typical Hitchcock final act set piece.

On an emotional level, the relationship between the leads is not up to par with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in \"The 39 steps\". Hence the whole story lacks a certain energy. The plot simply rumbles on like a machine, desperately depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end, since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages.

There are the usual Hitchcock logic flaws. For example, a guy with handcuffs frees himself using a car fan belt etc. (Why doesn't he just drive away in the car? Surely handcuffs aren't that restrictive? He's able to swim in them, after all!)

If you want a better Hitchcock wartime propaganda flick from the 40's, I would advise you watch \"Foreign Correspondant\". They are both silly chase movies with a catchy finale, but \"Foreign Correspondant\" makes great use of umbrellas and tulips, something Spielberg rips off nicely in \"Minority Report\".

7.5\/10 - Some good set pieces. Beyond that, however, there's nothing much to sink your teeth into.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was one of a handful that actually caused me pain. It might be enjoyed by anybody who thinks that it would be funny to see his\/her mother in a crowded discotheque full of people half her age \"inventing\" some totally ridiculous dance in a completely misguided effort to be \"hip\" (in the parlance of that age). To see Ingrid Bergman stoop to such a pitiful performance on the disco dance floor was hard to watch. I was embarrassed.

To make matters worse, the music in the disco was not realistic at all - it is the bogus idea of some Hollywood director about what pop music was like at the time. That is always a total embarrassment in most films of that era - the ersatz music is canned and bears only a painful, passing resemblance to the music that was actually popular in the 60's.

Mathau is hopelessly miscast as some kind of ladies' man; he just looks lecherously grotesque. Hawn's wide-eyed innocence is just too silly. The handsome neighbor in her apartment is portrayed way too earnestly and seriously. He seems like a Brady kid who got lost in this farce. Painful, pitiful mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Subspecies is set in Romania where two American college students Michele (Laura Mae Tate) & Lillian (Michelle McBride) arrive to study local folklore with the aid of local friend Mara (Irina Movila). There they rent rooms in a hotel & become curious about the mysterious ruins of a nearby castle, it turns out that a powerful & evil Vampire named Radu (Anders Hove) lives there who has stolen the Bloodstone from his father King Vladislav (Angus Scrimm). Radu takes a fancy to the three girls & starts drinking the blood of Mara & Lillian, meanwhile Michele falls for a guy named Stefan (Michael Watson) who just so happens to be Radu's brother. Michele & Stefan decide to team up & rid the world of the evil Radu...

Directed by Ted Nicolaou this film seems to be quite highly regarded amongst genre fans & while it's not terrible I certainly wouldn't call it very good & I could't really see anything much to get excited about. Subspecies is a rather slow going film, not that much actually happens & while it does try to stay close to certain classic Vampire lore there's all this nonsense about a Bloodstone & some little monsters that grow from the tips of Radu's severed fingers for some reason. Subspecies could have been a half decent film if not for the fact that it's dull, I really can't remember that much about it, good or bad. The character's are alright but some f the dialogue is silly & there's a scene which bugged me near the start when the girls are at the castle ruins & one says they have to go because it's getting dark yet it's still clearly the middle of the day & very bright. There's also a scene where one of the American girls finds a coffin that hotel's attic & doesn't really seem that bothered by it, I am not being funny but is some bloke whose house I was staying at had a coffin in his attic I would be very, very worried if you know what I mean. I don't think I would ever want to watch it again, there's no real threat, the plot is weak that mixes classic Vampire themes with silly subplots & I was distinctly unmoved by it all. Not the worst film ever but hardly the best either.

The film looks alright with nice locations & some local scenery although you feel the look is down to the budget rather than the makers attempt a authenticity. There's not much gore apart from a decapitation & some broken off finger tips. For no apparent reason the makers throw in some average looking stop-motion animated monsters that really don't do anything or have much significance to the story.

Filmed on the cheap by Charles Band's Full Moon Entertainment production company in Bucharest in Romania, the production values are alright & better than many later day Band productions. The acting isn't great with many of the cast putting in below par performances while genre regular Angus Scrimm has a small cameo at the start. There's a little bit of style here on occasion with a few scene reminding heavily of the original Nosferatu (1922) in particular the bit showing Radu's shadow coming down the stair with his long claw like fingernails standing out.

Subspecies is a film that many seem to like for reasons I don't quite see, I thought it was throughly average at best & overall rather dull. Followed by Bloodstone: Subspecies II (1993), Bloodlust: Subspecies III (1994), Subspecies 4: Bloodstorm (1998) & the spin0off film Vampire Journals (1997).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, let me make it clear. This movie is a real piece of garbage, but although it is a real piece of garbage, it is an better piece of garbage than it could have been. It could have sucked big-time, but it doesn't...

What this movie didn't have, was for example scary moments, good acting and a good script. It wasn't very entertaining either. But the movie had cool music, fancy locations and hot girls. It also works great as a Dracula spoof. (hope it was meant that way, although I really don't think so)

The story focuses on three girls in Transylvania, awaking an ancient vampire, which then terrorizes and kills the girls, one by one. Sounds familiar? Yes, so it does!

After reading through this, you may think that I should have given it a better vote. The reason I don't, is because I almost felt asleep at some points...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"regardless of what anyone says, its a b-movie, and the effects are poorly done.. if you're a vampire fanatic, I suppose it would be OK, not 10 out of 10, you others here cant sincerely mean that?. we are to view this as a movie, not read it as a book, so the effects and characters are important, as well as the story. The story are good, but it doesn't carry the film, no wonder it has a low rating over all. I write this because I chose to see this movie when I saw some good reviews here on IMDb, but got severely disappointed. don't get me wrong, I thought the blade movies was awesome, and loved the underworld movies, but this characters aren't close. the make up on the vampires is poorly done, and the effects are worse. this sucks. I might not have gotten so disappointed if I had not read reviews here that told me how great it was. the reviewers must have had something to do with the production company or something, seriously, if you think this is awesome, you don't care about acting or make up. this is better as a book. 3 out of 10 for an OK story..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

A few years ago I bought a movie called The Cellar. I had heard that it was supposed to be a great movie, but it turned out that it was a flop and a B-Movie.

The story is good, but there are no good effects in the movie. (Maybe they didn't have enough money for that on the budget???).

If you choose to watch this movie be sure to watch it three times. The first, only and last time!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Cellar\" is an intolerably dull and overly child-friendly 80's cheese parade, directed by Kevin Tenney (creator of the much better films \"Witchboard\" and \"Night of the Demons\") and starring the incredibly untalented Patrick Kilpatrick, supposedly depicting a guy with feelings. The pacing is really slow, the plot feels far too familiar, the monster-effects are all but petrifying and the film opens and ends with tedious narrative ranting that somehow feels unrelated to the actual subject matter of the film. The voice-over keeps on nagging about wind and creatures riding on wind, but what the hell, there's no wind in the plot? Like so many 80's horror movies, \"The Cellar\" handles about cursed Indian landscapes and all-too-real mythical monsters hidden in basements and quagmires. Mance Cashen and his family move into a house build on what once was the home of Native Americans, but then white people came and turned the land into oil fields. Half of the script is wasted on explaining the origin of the monster, but I can easily summarize it for you: an ancient Indian witchdoctor summoned the creature (which looks like an over-sized paper-m\u00e2ch\u00e9 rat) to annihilate the white people overflowing his land but he buried it again because, and I quote, the SOB kills Indians as well. Mance's hugely irritating son accidentally awakens the beast and naturally can't convince his parents about the big hungry rat in the cellar. The allegedly emotional family situation (daddy constantly wants his son to love him) is very pathetic and redundant and the film badly needed more bloodshed; kids' movie or not. The youthful hero (Chris Miller) is quite annoying, but we've definitely seen worse kid actors in the 80's. \"The Cellar\" is very much not recommended, unless of course you're a fan of cheesy and typically 80's monster designs. The big dodgy rat-thing is a real hoot to see.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you can get past the slow start and bad acting it's worth watching. The story line was pretty decent. The father had a wicked temper because he was unemployed and he hardly got to see his kid except in the summer because his ex-wife had custody of him. The father was very angry and frustrated the majority of the time. The monster in the story wasn't too scary. The movie breaks consistency of the monster being so incredibly strong. The one scene that the moviemakers do this in is one of the times when the kid is down in the cellar and the monster goes to attack him. When the monster goes to attack the kid his arm gets caught in a steel trap attached to a chain. The monster is about a foot away from the kid's face. Every other time throughout the movie the monster is strong enough to break through or tear down anything. Yet the steel trap and chain holds him back from getting the kid! More than likely the moviemakers did this for shock factor because no one wants to see one of the main characters die. Moviemakers just wanted to scare us into thinking it may be a possibility that the kid could die. Instead of breaking consistency, the moviemakers should have replaced the kid with someone who they could dispose of!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mediocre at best. Slow, but probably more entertaining to the younger viewers. A young boy(Chris Miller) is haunted by an Indian spirit and horrid monster in the cellar of his father's new home. Also in the cast are Patrick Kilpatrick, Suzanne Savoy and Ford Rainey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this film on Telly the other night and little did I know what a cringe-fest it would be...I knew it would be stupid but not this bad! This film exemplifies everything that is awful in Australian comedy. Apart from the most tedious, uninspired scenarios and characters I have ever come across (aside from those dubious French produced American tax break comedies!), most of the situations were boring, unbelievable, stereotypical and SO not funny just...terrible!

One such scenario that really annoyed me was the nerds on the bus scene. From a screen writing perspective the writers used the most uninteresting - not to mention unbelievable - scenario to get these three stranded without their luggage...They are on the holiday of their lives and they're going to risk it all (including a $300 deposit, luggage and room) to exert their rights to dance on a bus? I mean, they're about half an hour away from their destination! At least they could have had the bus driver kick them off but, no they leave willingly cos 'they can't take it anymore!'and wreck their holiday...Anyway, I can't believe the writers didn't workshop this appalling scenario out. I think a ten year old could come up with 5 set-ups more clever, funny and believable.

I can go on with many others - the really unimaginative stereotypical psychopath, the whole relationship with the angry jilted girlfriend and tag along virgin, the 'Wow Man! Out there goth girl' inhaling stuff on the train - EVERYTHING was just woeful! I cannot think of one redeeming feature of the this film except that maybe the third wheel nerd was kind of cute. Spoilt his career by appearing in this trash though!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Schoolies is a pointless exercise... Go to Gold Coast, get drunk and have sex. Worthwhile ambitions maybe but not highly intellectual. The plot is a simple as a few sentences assigned to each character and nobody is helped by the cliches doled out here.

Something that would help is the casting. Everybody looks too old. These characters are supposedly innocents embarking out on their own in faltering steps to adulthood yet they all look way too old to be believable in the role.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To me this film is just a very very lame teen party movie with all the normal clich\u00e9s and boring stereotyped characters (Nerds, Jocks, Popular girls, Sleezy guys, etc) but with an underlying anti drug\/drinking theme.

If you ever have the unfortunate chance of seeing this film, keep an eye out for all the references to responsibility and keeping it real (dunno how else to word it) I guess the only thing that'd make this film cool, would be if they TV playing it was on fire. That, or DVD it was on exploded...

1 out of 10000 - Watch Animal House instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like most, I rented this after I heard the universal praise. And despite COUNTLESS bizarre, unexplainable moments along the way, I was very interested and entertained through 100 minutes of the film. Then the two women went to the \"performance\" late at night. The rest of movie (which is another 40 minutes by the way) is even WEIRDER than the first part AND completely contradict and dump on what I had already seen. Then the movie abruptly ends.

Baffled, I wandered over to my computer to see if I could buy a clue as to what just happened. Nothing made sense, and I'm a pretty clever guy. None of these other user comments made sense, even when they say \"SPOILERS.\" I still have no idea what they're saying. Someone's dream? Not real? Then what's the point of a 2 hour 30 minute movie if it's \"not real?\" Or is it real? I'm forced to make a choice. Either:

[a] The movie is a work of genius on a MENSA level and I'm simply too stupid to understand it.

[b] The movie is weird for weird's sake and just doesn't make sense. Everyone who loves it is trying to save face and pretend like they \"get\" it.

I choose [b]. Screw you guys, I'm going home...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are a pretentious person, it would sound like a good idea to brag about your intellectuality saying that you really like this movie.

Otherwise, don't bother and better watch something good.

This is the stereotypical movie for snobs. The plot line would be very silly if you could see it from beginning to end. It is just presented in a messed up way as an attempt to make it hard to understand and make the movie look intellectual.

Mullholland Drive is not enjoyable to watch. You would very rarely understand anything the first time you see it. And if you do, you would most likely be disappointed because it is not a big deal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It\u00b4s a joke, right?! Lynch could not get produced this as a TV show. He was out of money, so what to do? Well, he received somehow some Dollars and \"completed\" the pilot and created this mess by just mixing everything together... How can anybody see a failed pilot for TV as an cinematic masterpiece?!

And now everybody is guessing about the deeper meaning!? Well, wake up, there is none! Like in that other TV series by Lynch, what was the name again? Same procedure there. Build up a mystery and then come up with nothing. I guess Lynch will repeat this concept until people will realise, the emperor has no clothes.

In Germany there is a comedian called Harpe Kerkerling. He dressed up as an opera singer and \"performed\" some new \"art songs\". Singing complete nonsense like this:

\"The wolf. The lamb. On the meadow. Hurrz!\"

It\u00b4s a classic now.

Anyway, afterwards he discussed it with the audience. And they were talking seriously about the deeper meaning of the wolf \/ lamb relationship.

You people giving this movie a rating of 8.0 in imdb.com, you people could be one of them.

So let\u00b4s say it all together: \"Hurrz!\"

0\/10 Macaulay J. Connor","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I get the feeling a lot of people liked this movie (not all people, but a lot of them) because they don't want to admit they don't understand it. People of middling intelligence, if you will, who pretend to be ever so avant garde and trendy who think Lynch is a genius.

Lynch, to me, is like Tarantino. They're both great, but neither one is the messiah as so many fanboys want to believe. No director can change the world, so chill out. And both make sucky flicks sometimes, it just happens. Everyone has a bad day. And clearly, since this movie was actually designed as a pilot first and then hack-jobbed into a feature film, it wasn't made with all the passion and forethought one should put into a movie. Face it, much of the movie is gibbering unintelligibility which cannot be understood. We can all make up meanings, Lynch may have his own view, but none of that matters. It was strewn about the screen incoherently. Admittedly, the first portion had the semblance of an intentionally convoluted passingly interesting story, but then it falters.

The cowboy, the mysterious organization of men with their phonecalls, the lawyers... come on. I can almost picture David Lynch yelling cut, forcing the crew to gather around him and explaining to them all \"Look how crazy and weird I am! Isn't it great?? It's so weird and crazy!\" Weird and crazy works if it's a by-product of your style. However, it's pretentious and tired when you go out of your way to do nothing but that. It's like all those half assed Pulp Fiction throw backs that came out after Pulp Fiction. It's just not cool.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some directors take 2 and a half hours to tell a story, David Lynch takes 2 and a half hours to piece together scenes with \"clues\" and his trademark oddity, but there's never a story. No plot. No progression of the characters (unless you find revealed delusion a \"progression\"). It amazes me how anyone can call Lynch's garbage \"art\", but if beauty rests in the eye of the beholder, so be it. Lynch's movie and TV work in the 1980's came off as \"avant garde\" and \"alternative\", fine. 20 years later, work like \"Mulholland Drive\" comes off as a 2.5 hour David Lynch masturbation piece. It's embarrasing. I've finally seen the movie that takes my top spot as the worst ever. At least the people churning out \"Godzilla\" and \"Rodan\" weren't passing them off as \"art\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How does David Lynch do it? Unlike the legions of thick-black-framed-glasses-wearing types and pretentious movie critics who praise his name, I just don't see how this guy keeps getting paid to make such tripe. How can Lynch sloppily cobble together leftover footage from a failed TV pilot into a nonsensical, poorly-acted mess & have critics rave about it & actually include it on Year's Best lists?

I'm baffled. If you're looking for a good film noir, rent \"Bound\" instead. If you're looking for a good \"puzzle\" movie try \"Memento.\" But beware of this over-hyped stinker unless your idea of a fun night is throwing away 2 1\/2 hours of your life & $3.50 of your hard-earned cash.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"seriously, if i wanted to make a movie that makes zero sense, never will, and features lesbian scenes as its only high-point, i could have.

david lynch is the worst, as is this movie. anyone could have made a better movie in which at least some answers were given and the story wasn't so slow and long-winded. the story means nothing without something at the end besides the credits. what a waste of time. i will never get those 147 minutes of my life back and hope that others can learn from my mistake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How much longer are we to persist with this flawed belief that once a director produces great, ground-breaking work, all future work \"can't be all that bad, after all, he made such-and-such\".

Mulholland Drive is a case in point, and is in fact unmitigated rubbish. The performances are excellent, particularly from Watts and Theroux, but a good film they do not necessarily make. What Lynch has clearly forgotten is that just making a film unnecessarily wierd only works when it takes the audience by surprise. When the audience is expecting the film to not make sense, then the film has to have some substance to keep the audience interested. Lynch succeeds in the first half of the film, with the murder-mystery set up with lots of twists and red herrings, and then ... plop! The story decends into a quagmire of bizarre halucinations and pointless segues. Methinks Lynch realised how muddled the film was becoming, and threw in the lesbian and mastobatory scenes to the audience awake, and to stop the male viewers from standing up and leaving.

Watching the film at the preview, I was surrounded by Lynchophiles who had no more idea of what was going on than I did, but left the theatre commenting on the \"layers and layers\" of Lynch's film-making. Excuse me but these people are the same nitwits who stand in art galleries staring at canvasses that have been painted white commenting on the \"courage of the artist at painting such a brave work\".

Films like these are made because (a) Lynch is trading on his previous work; and (b) because people convince themselves that unintelligeable film is art, and therefore, must be good. I queried a number of the Lynchophiles about what they ACTUALLY liked in the film and only response I recieved that wasn't a broad \"layers\" type of answer was that they liked it when the \"chicks got their kit off\".

Nuff said.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"ok we have a film that some are calling one of the best movies ever..but i'm sitting here thinking hell the f!, the storys sux{ which there is no story], the diolouge is quite plain, artisticly nothing great!, and the acting is nothing real out standing, so if you want to pretend to be arty say you like it, but if you have a real view say you don't like it or if you did explain why!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is an inherent problem with commenting or reviewing a film such as this. I remember feeling the same way after disliking Dogma. If you do not like a film that is odd and controversial like Mulholland Dr., you are seen as \"not getting it.\" Of course for those who have already seen this film you know that the entire point is not getting it anyway.

I have heard from several different sources that the unique and likable aspect of this film is a dream-like quality it has. In other words, the plot isn't structured like other films. With the case of Mulholland Dr., it seems more like an unfocused collage made by a third grade boy who procrastinated until the last second to do his art project. It doesn't make sense, it isn't supposed to, but I know it was to be a TV series at first. It appears Lynch had a stack of unused film and decided to mash it in with a bunch of new stuff. You will notice that toward the end the nudity, sex and foul language increase. All things he would not have filmed for television.

For a better film not told in a traditional, linear fashion, rent The Thin Red Line from 1998. That was a great film, this is not.

Rating: 2 out of ten","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thrive on cinema....but there is a limit. A NAME isn't enough to make A MOVIE!. The beginning of the movie puts us in a mood to expect the unseen yet. But we remain hungry ( or angry..) till the end . Things are getting so confused that I admit that I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE END or was there an end to this nonesense. The opportunity to make an outstanding movie was there but the target was totally missed. Next...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh boy ! It was just a dream ! What a great idea ! Mr Lynch is very lucky most people try to tell classical stories. This way he can play with his little plantings and his even more little payoffs. Check out Polanski's \"The lodger\" for far more intelligent mix of fantasy and reality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A colleague from work told me to watch this movie, since he considered this movie to be one of the best movies ever. So I did watch it. First I have to admit that I dislike mainstream movies and prefer to watch movies with a real meaning.

And this is the point, why I dislike this movie. It doesn't have any meaning. It's just a combination of funny, stupid, boring, entertaining, absurd and thrilling pieces.

At first I thought that this movie could be a real mystery thriller (as the German packaging read), but the movie was too mysterious for me.

David Lynch may be able to make a combination of the most different images, but the composition tastes to me as awfull as a combination of milk with beer. Both for themselves are pretty good, but together?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had stifled high hopes for this David Lynch, whom I really like, film, but the very poor acting by everybody but Naomi Watts was the first clue that this was a wasted effort. Some Twin Peaks characters are recycled into this film, but it wasn't eerie, it wasn't interesting (except for the topless Watts scenes) and the quirks were poorly executed.

I will probably give Lynch one more chance, but the hype around this film just doesn't pan out, especially for those of us fans who saw Eraserhead when it first came out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you don't like bad acting, poor editing, ridiculous dialog and unbelievable characters you will hate this movie. If you like all of the above, that is to say if you are a Lynch fan, then you will love Mulholland Drive. This is quite possibly the worst film to be rated above an 7.0 on IMDB.

Outside of Naomi Watts work, you will be hard pressed to find any competent acting in Mulholland Dr. The other female lead went to the \"hide your face with your hands when you don't have the chops\" school of acting. Given the script they had to work with it's a wonder all of the actors weren't holding their heads in their hands.

Characters wander in and out of the film that do nothing to advance the storyline. You have a hitman, a mysterious cowboy, an adulterous wife and her cliche'd poolman lover, a mafioso type figure sitting in a darkened room who speaks through an external voice box and a host of others too numerous and tedious to mention. Suffice it to say that they manage to do little more than fill up screen time.

This isn't so bad however in that it distracts the viewer from the fact that the movie has no discernable plot. You will wait and wait for for all of the loose threads to come together and in the end you will be abysmally disappointed. The hardest thing for a writer to do is to bring everything together in a believable fashion at the end of a movie in a way that leaves everyone feeling fulfilled. The easiest thing for a writer to do is to create a lot of odd characters and put them in scenes that are not connected to the movie as a whole and then to take what few coherent threads there are and jumble them up at the end for the sake of surprise. Guess which way Lynch goes. SURPRISE!!

You know you have a bad script when you have to resort to dream sequences to make any sense out of it. After all, a dream sequence covers all sins. Dreams don't have to make sense. Anything can happen in a dream.

The editing is similarly disjointed. Let's just say good editing does not call attention to itself. Much of the way this film is edited seems to be done for the sole purpose of calling attention to the editing. \"Look at me... You can see my editing... Aren't I a genius?\" Uh, well... NO! This movie has all of the earmarks of the worst and most self-indulgent French films.

So why is this movie so popular? My theory is that it is just another sign of the decay of our culture. Melodies are hard to compose so let's listen to rap. Plots are hard to follow so let's dispense with them. Pictures are difficult to paint so let's pee in a cup and stick a crucifix in it. These are the symptoms of our times and Mulholland Drive is just another part of the affliction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought the video for \u00a313 at HMV (we pay more in Britain) as a friend had told me it was highly rated and the reviews on this site were generally impressive.

I have to say that the opening credits were a let down...the dancing\/music not very powerful.

The car ride and unexpected crash just as the lady passenger was going to be harmed was a nice touch,..something unexpected...though the way she walked away from the car with hair perfectly groomed and still carrying a handbag looked corny for most Directors ..but for Lynch was something else.

Her dazed walking around after such a shock was enhanced by a regular low noise similar to fingers scraping along a blackboard; I thought another Lynch master touch perhaps portraying the demons gnawing into her shocked and traumatised self conscious. After a while this noise became somewhat annoying and on further investigation I discovered the new video cassette squeaked.

I dont know whether this squeak took away a lot of my enjoyment but this movie became a waste of time.(and money)

The two female characters had some presence and the lesbian scenes were fair enough, though predictable. There were no male characters of any merit and apart from a few vaguely good scenes (the hoover switching on )there were far too many dreadful scenes that were plain weak and ridiculous. Eg, the coffee being spat into the napkin by the menacing loon and the silly monster face at the back of the diner. Oh and what about the paint in the wifes jewels..boring and naff.

This whole film gives you the feel of the failed genius..you know when you listen to the worst Dylan track ever and think my God that was embarrassing....was that really Bob?

The whole feel is that of a failed TV movie , badly put together with a few (not many) extra bits to give it a 15 rating.

I whizzed it on during the last 30 minutes .

Do I give it another chance and watch again. If I want to be puzzled and work hard at understanding a film I will watch Frank Woods Guide to Consolidated Accounting.

Lynch did one classic ..Blue Velvet and Straight Story was nice.

This, like Wild at Heart, was a let down ; his weirdness is now predictable and stale. Anybody want to buy a 2nd hand video?

Make way for some younger original talent, David.

Four out of Ten (and no more). Sorry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most of the comments on this movie are positive so I thought I would try and redress the balance. I came out of this movie wondering what was going on. I now know and still consider it to be a poor movie. I intially discounted a dream sequence as that seemed too obvious. I was glad that I had a free ticket to the movie or I would have asked for my money back. Movie reviewers and critics love this movie, which only confirms to me that most of them would rather sound intelligent than review how an audience may enjoy a film. The 8+ rating this movie has is so misleading. In 20 years time this film will not compare to true greats such as The Godfather. The film does have fine performances from both the leads but that isn't enough to save the film. (nor are the lesbian scenes!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In need of work, straight man Bud Abbott (as Jack) and comic partner Lou Costello (as Dinkel) get the latter a job babysitting self-described \"problem child\" David Stollery (as Donald). Young Stollery winds up reading Mr. Costello's favorite novel (see if you can guess the title), which puts Costello to sleep, dreaming he and Mr. Abbott are reliving the story of \"Jack and the Beanstalk\" (you guessed it).

The sepia-tone switches to color for the bulk of the production. Apparently, this was an attempt at something different for the duo, a colorful children's fantasy. It fails, but this is where you get to see Abbott & Costello in color, silent film superstar William Farnum (as the King) make his last performance a bit part, boxer Max Baer's brother Buddy, and Stollery before Disney's \"Spin and Marty\".

** Jack and the Beanstalk (4\/4\/52) Jean Yarbrough ~ Lou Costello, Bud Abbott, Buddy Baer, William Farnum","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this last night for the first time in 40 years. It's bad. Really bad. But it has enough hilariously awful moments, that it's worth watching. First of all, was it deliberate to make the boy being babysat completely effeminate? He even says to Costello a la Mae West \"you fascinate me!\" as Costello does a double take. God only knows what would have have happened if the babysitter had been a hunk. THIS kid would have seduced him in a heartbeat! Then there's the principal male dancer. He is totally inept. Roar with laughter as he leaps and prances with no talent whatsoever over the giant's grave during He Never Looked Better in His Life. The two romantic leads are zeros, wastes. Abbott gets to sing one line and that was dubbed in by another singer. Geez, I guess he couldn't even carry a tune! Costello does manage to be charming in his I Fear Nothing number, and I guess very small children might like it, but there's not much to recommend it. But oh that seductive effeminate boy! THAT aspect alone blew me away! Plus the fact the family accepted anyone off the street with no references to babysit a child! Today, little femmy boy would be taken away from them!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not really much of an Abbott & Costello fan (although I do enjoy \"Who's On First\") and, to be honest, there wasn't much in this movie that would inspire me to watch any more of their work. It wasn't really bad. It had some mildly amusing scenes, and actually a very convincing giant played by Buddy Baer, but somehow, given the fame of the duo and the esteem in which they're generally held, I have to say I was expecting more. As the story goes, the pair stumble into a babysitting job, and during the reading of Jack & The Beanstalk as a bedtime story (with the kid reading it to Costello), Costello's Jack falls asleep and dreams himself into the story. There's a \"Wizard Of Oz\" kind of feel to the story, in that the characters in the dream are all the equivalents of real-life acquaintances of Jack, and the movie opens in black & white and shifts to colour during the dream sequence. The fight scenes between Jack and the giant and the dance scene between Jack and Polly (Dorothy Ford) are among the amusing parts of the movie. Polly, of course, also leads to one of the questions of the movie - what happened to her? Jack and gang apparently left her behind in the giant's castle! I know - it was just a dream, so who cares. Still - I wondered. There were also a couple of cute song and dance routines. My 4 year old giggled a bit during this, so she was able to appreciate some of the humour. I found it to be an acceptable timewaster, but certainly not anything that would convince you of Abbott and Costello as comic geniuses. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Absolutely inane film starring Abbott and Costello. Even our young children would become increasingly annoyed with this complete mess of a film.

Abbott as Dinklepuss. What a look he had on his face. Sure, he had to be part of this dreadful film.

Did anyone notice that Costello's mother in the film sounded and looked like Fay Bainter? Luckily, for Ms. Bainter, that she wasn't in the film.

There is really no excitement hear for children. The jokes, if any, are quite stale. Some of the singing is nicely done but the lyrics are ridiculous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For some reason my father-in-law gave me a copy of this tape. I think because my great uncle, Buddy Baer, was the giant in this movie and my father-in-law thought I'd like to see it. I had, years before as a child, and didn't like it then, either.

My son, then two, watched it and was hooked. Every waking moment in front of the TV, this horrid video played. I went to work with the inane songs stuck in my head. The two \"leads\" were worse than a junior high stage review. The dancers looked like rejects from an Ed Wood horror flick and Abbot and Costello phoned their parts in. Thankfully, I was able to distract my son long enough to lose this videotape. Frankly, I think it was the tape from \"The Ring\".

To correct another reviewer, Buddy Baer is the UNCLE of Jethro (Max Baer, Jr) not his father. 0 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll start blasting the movie first. Remove Abbott and Costello from the cast and you've got a badly colored movie, stiff cardboard from the casting department, badly dubbed sound (especially during the singing!) and annoying dialog (ex. listen to the line \"Mr. Dinklepuss\" ad infinitum). Obviously some studio hack thought that they could cash in on Disney's CLASSIC presentation of \"Mickey and the Beanstalk\", but maybe audiences were either more gullible back then (improbable) or stuck in a double feature (more probable). Even children should feel insulted at having this movie shown to them. A total waste of celluloid. Now, about the acting of Abbott and Costello. Bud Abbott always played the straight man, and by all accounts was the nicer person off the set. On radio, his character was usually the smooth fast talker, and was especially funny when his speed caused him to flub his lines and smooth over the mistakes. In the movies, he still plays the straight man, but is more of a con artist. Not that he's bad at it, but that character has been played to perfection by Groucho Marx. The real travesty of the duo on film is Lou Costello. Again, on radio he was funny. He played a character that was a little slower than Abbott, but not too much slower! He was also glib with the lines, and got me laughing when he would ad-lib at Abbott's mistakes. On film, I don't know if it was his decision or not, but in the movies his character becomes a shoddy impersonation of Stan Laurel, which in turn was even more shoddily done by Jerry Lewis. Why the change? he was funny on radio when he was a smarta--, but here he becomes a child-like character that looks like he's mugging for the cameras in every shot. this characterization is shown in every movie they do, and only brings a stain to the reputation they had on radio. What is left to their film career is a poor (very, VERY poor) copy of Laurel and Hardy. The movies would have been much funnier if they had played their radio characters instead of retreads of stock casting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although I am sure the idea looked good on paper, and it appealed to me when I first heard of it, this movie often lumbers along and falls flat, and when I watch it, I just want it to end. The bookend beginning and ending of the film about Lou having to babysit a troublemaker is contrived at best, although I found the tall cop part to be humorous. However, I found little to laugh at with the bottom of the barrel script that was thrown together for these two great comedians. I thought that it was a mistake to put them in a musical, and it reeks of \"Wizard of Oz\" rip-off (with the songs and black and white to color format). I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone but die-hard A&C fanatics. Anyone else will be disappointed, and they have many better films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This little cheapy is notable only because it is the worst film Abbott and Costello ever made. It is dreadful in every way: crummy music, horrid choreography (check out the awkward lead male dancer), cheesy special effects and sets, wooden actors (the leads are barely at the high school level in their profession and were unheard of later), and a script without a single laugh. Better times were ahead for the comedy duo. Abbott and Costello Meet Captain Kidd is much preferable, as is the television series, which at times was inspired. But skip this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ\"! If IMDb would allow one-word reviews, that's what mine would be. This film was originally intended only for kids and it would seem to be very tough going for adults or older kids to watch the film. The singing, the story, everything is dull and washed out--just like this public domain print. Like other comedy team films with roots in traditional kids stories (such as the awful SNOW WHITE AND THE THREE STOOGES and the overrated BABES IN TOYLAND), this movie has limited appeal and just doesn't age well. Now that I think about it, I seriously doubt that many kids nowadays would even find this film enjoyable! So my advice is DON'T watch this film. If you MUST watch an Abbott and Costello film, almost any other one of their films (except for A&C GO TO MARS) would be an improvement.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I\u00b4m only joking. This was potentially the worst film I have ever had the misfortune to sit through. How anybody in the 1950\u00b4s could have raised a laugh at this innane rubbish is beyond my comprehension. I jest not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1 hour and 40 minutes of talking--boring talking, and more talking and then some. It is hard for me to grasp how an actress like Anne Parillaud, who shone superbly in Femme Fatale, would sign up for such a piece of crap! Unbelievable. If you need a nightcap, this movie might help, although I would prefer some nice classical music. unfortunately, i just found out that i have to write 10 lines for my comment to appear--that's almost as unbelievable! so, short and succinct one or two sentence commentaries expressing one's core take on a movie is not enough. geez, people. i made my point and don't to waste your time with more, unnecessary words--as this movie does. Wolfgang","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't recommend watching this movie. It's a movie in which a movie is being filmed, with no attraction between actress and actor being played. The sex scene at the end of the movie which is to explain the reluctance of the actress (being played in the movie) to cooperate with the actor (being played in the movie)in it is a blunt repetition of the same scene in the Breillat movie Fat Girl. Everything there was played with more delicacy, if you can attach delicacy to a sex act like that. A typical French expression for the the thing happening in Sex is comedy is Oh la la! In Breillat's film Brief Crossing there also is sensitivity. In Sex is comedy I don't see real sensitivity and also a clear plot for the movie is not being developed so that there is a rather loose story with the disillusion of the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As one who loves films that appeal to intellectual sorties as well as those that simply tell stories, this film should have been appealing. But as written and directed by Catherine Breillat who seems to be playing out her own conundrums in film-making experiences, this tedious and talky film fails to arouse interest.

The main character Jeanne (Anne Parillaud) is the screen form of Breillat, a director frustrated in her attempts to film a convincing sex scene with two difficult actors (Gr\u00e9goire Colin is The Actor and Roxane Mesquida is The Actress). The one 'comic' bit is Jeanne's imposing the use of a dildo strapped onto the Actor in order for her to drive the sex scene to fruition, but even this sight gag wears thin quickly and we are left with a film within a film that feels more like a 'Deleted Scenes' featurette on a DVD than a solid French comedy with class. Grady Harp, August 05","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first users comments are very detailed for a very vague movie. Not saying that I disagree, but this summary can be written in a few sentences. To get straight to the point, this is pretty much like watching the making of a really bad amateur porno flick. There are a few funny points in the movie, but with the kind of things that happen in todays youth everyday its actually kind of lame. The main actor in the movie is a pompous jackass and both guy and girl in the film are way too modest to be in a film like this. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE. The only reason why I gave it a 4 and not a 1 is that they used at least a somewhat attractive girl in the movie and towards the end you got to see almost full frontal nudity from the girl, thats it, thats the only thing thats worth watching it for. the end","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd really have to rate \"Sex is Comedy\" as one of the worst pieces of dreck I have ever seen. The film inadvertedly showcases those which are the worst aspects of the French, or at least how they are stereotyped, narcissism, snobbery, and pseudo-intellectualism. I myself am French-Canadian and feel slightly ashamed that the creators of this film are from the same culture as me, that should give you an idea as to how bad this movie really was! One doesn't so much watch this film as undergo torture to it, there was a total lack of humour, and it seemed to me as if the entire film was a documentary interviewing people who were neither famous, nor talented, as if to celebrate something that has never happened to begin with. Instead, why not watch Auberge Espagnole, Happenstance, or Je t'aime... a la folie, three fantastic modern French films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To preface my remarks on the film, I know the topic is horrendous and words can't adequately express the compassion any decent person would have for people dealing with the post-horrors of an atomic bomb dropped near them.

However, this film doesn't really deal with in a horrific way except for the first 10 minutes. Some of the images there are horrifying, and should be as a reminder what devastation nuclear weapons can produce. Seeing burned people walking around aimlessly or man combing his hair and clumps of hair coming out, etc., is not a pretty sight.

But after the first dozen minutes, this Japanese film concerns people dealing with the aftermath of Hiroshima in the mid-to-late '40s. I actually found the story developing quickly into a boring soap opera.

Almost all the story occurs five years after the bomb and deals mainly with one family's problems at that point. This is why it became more of a melodrama than some shocking story of nuclear disaster. It's simply a story about how these people got on with their lives from about 1950 on, whether one of the women was permanently damaged and if so, should she marry?

This could have been a real impact film but it didn't go in that direction","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember when \"The Love Machine\" was first released to theaters. I was a mere 13 years old, too young to see the much-ballyhooed motion picture release, but not too old to take my Mom's paperback copy of the Jacqueline Susann novel to school and pore over the 'naughty bits' with my schoolmates.

Though I'm not sure what my problem was at such an early age, but I was very much into the book. I bought and wore an \"ankh\" ring just like on the paperback cover, and I remember the ads for the perfume, \"Xanadu\" that was cross-promoted and featured clumsily in the film. Despite such an interest I didn't actually see the film until several years later. I should have left things as they were.

\"The Love Machine\" is hands down the worst of the many bad films adapted from Susann's novels...which of course makes it the most fun to watch. Its faults are many: from its hopscotching script that jumps choppily from one incident to another with nary a connecting thread; its dated, horny (brass instruments, I mean) music score of ersatz Bacharach; the flat, first-take performances; the boring sexuality -I've never seen bathrobes featured so prominently in a movie before. It's like a fetish! Whenever sex, nudity or something sleazy is called for, out pops somebody in a blue robe! Very odd, that; and most certainly, the circus train of awful 70's fashions that are on endless display. Poor Dyan Cannon's performance (which is no great shakes anyway, but heads over the rest of the cast) is consistently undermined by the jaw-dropping get ups she's called upon to wear. However, the film's chief liability is the stoic, stone-like John Philip Law as (appropriately enough) Robin Stone, the object of every girl's (and one over\u0096the-top flaming male photographer's) affection.

Law is just awful and performs as if he were pulled off the street, handed the pages of the script in hurry and told to give a cold reading on the spot. Just lifeless! Not only that, but he appears in desperate need of a blood transfusion or something. He looks wan and sickly throughout and is several pounds smaller than most of his female costars. Robin Stone should be a hunk, not a hankie.

For anyone finding the film hard going (it's rather slow by today's standards) I beg you to stick around for the climactic \"fight scene.\" Here Ms. Cannon (balancing 23 pounds of teased hair) finally abandons her heretofore starchy acting style and lets loose with that infectiously raucous laugh of hers, setting in motion a truly memorable free for all that should have become a cinema clip highlight by now. Trying to rival \"Valley of the Dolls\"'s infamous wig-down-the-toilet scene, \"The Love Machine\" finally does something right.

Jacqueline Susann's unique brand of trash is sorely missed. Perhaps someone out there owns the rights to Rona Barrett's \"The Lovomaniacs\" and will revive the genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Movie based on Jacqueline Susann's best-selling novel. It's about Robin Stone (John Phillip Law) a ruthless TV anchorman who claws his way to the top. It details his love life concentrating on Amanda (Jodi Wexler) and Judith (Dyan Cannon). It also shows his total inability to commit to anyone and instead sleeps with any woman he can get.

The novel is no work of art (it's not even good literature) but it's a quick, silly, trashy read. But this movie makes it seem like \"Gone With the Wind\"! This is a textbook example of how NOT to do a movie adaptation. First they condense the novel terribly. In the book Stone's inability to commit is dealt with and it's revealed why. Here it's brought up...and ignored. Also there's a truly revolting scene in which a woman is brutally beaten. It's in the book--but there IS a reason totally left out of the movie. And the book dealt with three women--not two. Don't even get me started on the homophobia.

Adaptation aside the acting is pretty terrible. Law is just horrendous as Stone--VERY wooden and boring--you seriously wonder why all these women are after him. To be fair to Law--another actor was cast but had a very bad accident before shooting began and Law stepped in at the last minute. Wexler is terrible as Amanda; Maureen Arthur is truly astoundingly bad as Ethel Evans; Shecky Greene is unbearable as Christie Lane. Only three performances stand out: David Hemmings (having a GREAT time) camps it up as a gay photographer; Cannon is actually very good and Robert Ryan is just great. Also Dionne Warwick sings the catchy opening song (\"He's Moving On\").

It IS bad but I watched the whole thing and it is (in a silly sort of way) a lot of fun. I'm giving it a 3.

Also Jacqueline Susann has a cameo as a newscaster.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even though this film was nothing special as such, I am drawn to comment on at least one factor that ruled in its favour - that of the lead female performer in the film, Dyan Cannon. In spite of the film's ridiculous storyline and what she goes through here, hers was the best acting job in the film, making the unbelievable seem more plausible. Her raucous scene with the gay photographer David Hemmings has to be seen to be believed. Good work, Dyan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jacqueline Susann wrote several novels all involving sex and melodrama and a few of them actually were made into films including this effort and they all have the distinction of being some of the worst films ever made. Story here is about Robin Stone (John Phillip Law) and his rise to the top of television by being ruthless and calculating to everyone around him. He's a playboy of the worst sort using and then throwing away every woman he beds including the wife of the IBC network president.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** Greg Austin (Robert Ryan) is in charge of the television network IBC and when his younger wife Judith takes one look at Robin she wastes no time getting into bed with him. Greg falls ill and has to take some time off and this is where Robin steps in and starts trying to run the network but during all this a model named Amanda (Jodi Wexler) who is in love with him kills herself. When Greg returns to his job he tries to get rid of Robin by using the morals clause in his contract when rumors start flying about his relationship with Jerry Nelson (David Hemmings) who's a gay fashion photographer.

This was directed by Jack Haley Jr. who went on to be a very successful producer in both television and movies but this was only his second film as a director and the material he was forced to deal with seems way over his head! The script comes from Susann's novel and that would probably be why this resembles a cross between \"Alfie\" and \"The Valley of the Dolls\" and I think the reason why her books never could translate well onto film is because the filmmakers made the terrible mistake of taking her stories seriously instead of tongue in cheek. With that, the laughs that come from this are unintentional especially during that totally ridiculous fight towards the end of the film which starts when Cannon refuses to give back the slave bracelet to the gay characters! Hemmings was a very good actor but his role here is completely over the top and it has him wearing one of the worst beards in history and using the term \"chic\" in every other sentence. Law was not the original choice for the lead but another actor that was cast had a serious accident and Law stepped in and delivers one of the more wooden performances this side of Miles O'Keeffe. The film's script suffers in two different areas in that it's both completely silly and horribly dull and it will test a viewers patience if they choose to watch this. One has to wonder what would be the outcome if a director decided to film one of Susann's novels and not take it seriously because the attempt here is ponderous and ridiculous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cute idea to have Dionne Warwick do the song vocals for this movie-adaptation of Jacqueline Susann's bestselling book (a la \"Valley Of The Dolls\")...although it's really too bad this sudser doesn't have Patty Duke's Neely O'Hara to spike the story. \"The Love Machine\" is unrelievedly dull. Even the final brawl (with an Academy Award as a fight prop!) can't save it. Dyan Cannon seems embalmed in her heavy pancake make-up and cumbersome fall (although her tiny, suntanned figure is a beauty to behold), John Phillip Law is a block of wood in the lead, David Hemmings embarrassing in gay-mode as a flamboyant photographer. And where is Robin Stone walking to at the end? Is he trekking out to the waterfront to pick up some sailors? After Cannon has deflated his masculinity, it would be a safe bet. In that case, \"Love Machine--The Final Episode\" might've been a more interesting flick. Certainly better than this yawn-inducing snooze-opera. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Contains spoilers.

The British director J. Lee Thompson made some excellent films, notably 'Ice Cold in Alex' and 'Cape Fear', but 'Country Dance' is one of his more curious offerings. The story is set among the upper classes of rural Scotland, and details the strange triangular relationship between Sir Charles Ferguson, an eccentric aristocratic landowner, his sister Hilary, and Hilary's estranged husband Douglas, who is hoping for a reconciliation with her. We learn that during his career as an Army officer, Charles was regarded as having 'low moral fibre'. This appears to have been an accurate diagnosis of his condition; throughout the film he displays an attitude of gloomy disillusionment with the world, and his main sources of emotional support seem to be Hilary and his whisky bottle. The film ends with his committal to an upper-class lunatic asylum.

Peter O'Toole was, when he was at his best as in 'Lawrence of Arabia', one of Britain's leading actors, but the quality of his work was very uneven, and 'Country Dance' is not one of his better films. He overacts frantically, making Charles into a caricature of the useless inbred aristocrat, as though he were auditioning for a part in the Monty Python 'Upper-Class Twit of the Year' sketch. Susannah York as Hilary and Michael Craig as Douglas are rather better, but there is no really outstanding acting performance in the film. There is also little in the way of coherent plot, beyond the tale of Charles's inexorable downward slide.

The main problem with the film, however, is neither the acting nor the plot, but rather that of the Theme That Dare Not Speak Its Name. There are half-hearted hints of an incestuous relationship between Charles and Hilary, or at least of an incestuous attraction towards her on his part, and that his dislike of Douglas is motivated by sexual jealousy. Unfortunately, even in the swinging sixties and early seventies (the date of the film is variously given as either 1969 or 1970) there was a limit to what the British Board of Film Censors was willing to allow, and a film with an explicitly incestuous theme was definitely off-limits. (The American title for the film was 'Brotherly Love', but this was not used in Britain; was it too suggestive for the liking of the BBFC?) These hints are therefore never developed and we never get to see what motivates Charles or what has caused his moral collapse, resulting in a hollow film with a hole at its centre. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a rather odd viewing experience. The movie is obviously based on a play. Now I'm sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn't feel terribly interesting enough to watch. The movie is way too 'stagey' and they didn't even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. Instead what is presented now is an almost literally re-filming of a stage-play, with over-the-top characters and staged dialog. Because of all this the storyline really doesn't work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore- and obsolete viewing experience.

It takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy you're watching. At first you think its a drama you're watching, with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you'll notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy, that leans really more toward the comedy genre, rather than the drama genre.

The characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over-the-top one that at times really become unwatchable. Sure, the actors are great; Peter O'Toole and Susannah York, amongst others but they don't really uplift the movie to a level of 'watchable enough'.

The story feels totally disorientated. Basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother\/sister characters played by Peter O'Toole and Susannah York. But what exactly is the story even about? The movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. Like I said before; I'm sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn't fitting and simply doesn't work out.

The editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences.

More was to expect from director J. Lee Thompson, who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed, stage-play translated to screen, project.

Really not worth your time.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought maybe a film which boasted a cast including Peter O'Toole, Susannah York, Michael Craig & Harry Andrews might be worth watching. Alas, I was wrong. Utter pretentious nonsense from beginning to end with both O'Toole and York overacting wildly. I watched it twice and still have no idea what is was about. I've a feeling O'Toole plays the Laird of a Scottish castle who has a drink problem and likes reliving childhood games with his sister (York). He is also barking mad. But apart from that, your guess is as good as mine.

The film has no redeeming feature whatsoever. I can only assume the cast and director were blackmailed into making this dreary, unimaginative, stagy piffle. Clearly a waste of the time of a talented cast and director. Risible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like the previous commentator on this film, I too found myself in tears at times during this movie. Sometimes one wonders how a film of such awe-inspiring awfulness comes into existence. From the first moment when our protagonist wakes up in his New York apartment from a dream of subway trains intercut with galloping horses (what Irish emigrant hasn't had that one), its clear we are in trouble. And it doesn't get much better.

Whisked back to 1950s Ireland, we enter a world where everybody speaks without intonation, and exclusively on the topic of the Irish Civil War. Schoolchildren go to school to learn about the Civil War. The drinkers in the pub divide themselves according to their Civil War allegiances. Remembrances are carried out for those who died in the Civil War. The town is divided between those who believe we should remember and those who want to forget...the Civil War. Every glance and conversation is dripping with meaning that traces back to the Civil War.

The blurb on the videocover of Broken Harvest suggests that the film is a parable of the troubles in modern Ireland. The only parallel which strikes me is that in present day Dublin conversation is indeed dominated by one topic: house prices. If its intention is to offer some sort of insight into Ireland's obsession with its past, it fails miserably. It is striking how few Irish films have dealt with the Irish civil war and its legacies. However it will take a film of a great deal more subtlety and intelligence than this one to tell us anything about the lasting effects of such a traumatic event on the nation's psyche.

For those American viewers who have suggested the film evokes the atmosphere of 1950s Ireland: it doesn't. 1950s Ireland was a horrible, poverty stricken pit of sexual repression and misery from which young people fled in their droves. However there was more than one topic of conversation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I could not stand the woman who played the mother. I wanted her to shut up. She had a bizarre manner of speaking and the lines she was given to read didn't make it any better. I had no idea why the men of the town were so taken with her to cause all these problems except that in a town populated by men she seemed to be the only woman over ten and under sixty. Even after a terrible tragedy her voice was devoid of human emotion, she seemed to have no ability to grasp the events of her life. She delivered her lines with the same emotion whether she was saying \"i love you\", \"i hate you\", \"the bank is foreclosing\", \"my dress is on fire\". Was this actually filmed in Ireland? The sun blazed throughout the movie and the characters seemed surprised by a rain shower during the harvest. I lived in Ireland during the summer of 2002, the wettest summer in a century. Most everything was still harvested. If the farmers in Ireland could only harvest during long dry stretches then the country would have starved hundreds of years ago. It seems as if there wasn't a lot of money to make the movie. The black and white flashbacks looked as if they were filmed with the security cameras one can get at Sam's Club.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If it had not been for Christopher Guest's hilarious role, I would have stopped watching this movie after 20 minutes. The jokes were flat, the movie choppy and slow paced, certain characters were obnoxious and painful to watch, but Guest's character kept me laughing so I stuck with it.

I do feel there are much better choices out there!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must say I was disappointed with this film. Although it is well acted and directed, the underlying story simply plods along too slowly.

Granted, in another mood I would have liked it better. I did chuckle a lot, but rarely laughed out loud; and there was actually a sense of suspense to discover who won. But in contrast to another movie that my wife picked up the same day (one neither of us had heard of before) this one paled in comparison.

If you see lots of movies, then by all means see this -- it's distinctly better than your average fare. But if you (like me) have limited time and want to watch only the best and most entertaining, save this for later.

[Rate: 7\/10]","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all \"Mexican werewolf in Texas\" is not a werewolf movie. This title is bullcrap. The story is actually about a Chupacabra that kills all the local villagers in the little town of Furlough in Texas. I suppose the distributors renamed the original title so that it would make some extra bucks or something. And I guess it actually works because that's the reason why I bought this piece of crap, it sounded so stupid. Anyway the movie isn't any good. Actually it's bloody awful. But I didn't expect anything else when I bought it. It's a low budget horror movie with a Chupacabra monster. If you enjoy low budget horror with bad dialog, actors and some gore then you should check into this movie. But I must warn you, this movie is really baaaaaaad.

This movie has some of the worst acting I have ever seen. The actors try to hard and t it gets completely ridiculous. They almost never say a line in a normal way. They always have this completely wrong tone about just everything they say. It's so stupid it almost looks like a freakin parody. It's like they shot each scene only one single time and were happy about it. The worst of them all is the blond girl which is supposed to play a bimbo. She's the worst of them all. I have never seen an actor as bad as her (And I've seen Pteradactyl). Even when her boyfriend dies she can't stop being a bimbo about it. I hate her.

Some of the shots in this movie were actually quite good. The ones that where shot in the daytime are all pretty decent for a low budget project. But most of the movie is shot in the night when the Chupacabra strikes and the lighting is way too dark. The gore scenes are few and short, but really grizzly and violent. The effects are pretty hilarious really, but that's the way I like it. The Chupacabra looks pretty messed up, and it's easy to see that it's a guy in suit.

Overall this movie should only be watched by extreme fans of low budget flicks and it's very important to not watch this alone because you will probably be bored to death. I recommend watching this flick with your friends and some beer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the dusty little town of Furlough in Texas, an animal is slaughtering the cattle and the locals. When the teenager Tommy (Michael Carreo) is killed, their friends Anna Furlough (Erika Fay), her Mexican-American boyfriend Miguel Gonzalez (Gabriel Gutierrez), Jill Gillespie (Sara Erikson) and Rosie (Martine Hughes) finds that a Mexican werewolf Chupacabra is the killer and they plot a plan to kill the beast.

\"Mexican Werewolf in Texas\" is an amateurish crap and among the worse movies I have ever seen, if not the worst. Nothing works in this movie: the screenplay is laughable, with some of the most terrible lines I have ever heard. The direction does not exist and the camera follows the \"style\" of \"The Blair Witch Project\". The amateurish acting seems to be a prank of high-school students or a high school play. The \"special effects\" are gruesome and extremely poor and the \"werewolf\" is the cheapest I have ever seen. Ed Wood movies are cult, but this \"Mexican Werewolf in Texas\" is pure garbage. In the end, Jill says that no man can resist her teats (actually the most beautiful thing in this flick). But I believe the correct quote should be \"no man (or woman) can resist to watch this movie to the end\". I was driven by my curiosity to see how bad a movie can be and I lost 88 minutes of my life, but I believe most of the viewers will stop seeing with less than 20 minutes running time. My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): \"Um Lobisomen Mexicano no Texas\" (\"A Mexican Werewolf in Texas\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, Mexican Werewolf in Texas' title is misleading as many others have pointed out. It is actually about El Chupacabra, which is a similar creature to a werewolf, but by no means the same.

The production and editing just plain suck. When it was over, I probably wouldn't be able to give a very accurate description of what exactly the Chupacabra looked like, for whenever it was in a scene(despite one or two exceptions) the camera turned all shaky and you could only see the monster's face clearly. The special effects were laughably bad, but that has to be expected from a low budget horror movie.

Along with the terrible production comes the bad actors. Now a couple give fairly plausible performances(Erika Fay and Martine Hughes), but then there were the bad actors(everybody else), who seemed to have no emotions whatsoever when people died. Then there's the absolutely terrible actor(Sara Erikson), who gives one of the 2 worst performances I've ever seen in a movie. I mean my god, she was indescribably bad.

The plot was very simple. Basically, a Chupacabra is in a small Texan town killing off local residents and a group of teens look to stop it. However, even with the plot being this simple, a few plot holes managed to leak through.

Anyways, horrible movie. However, if you are looking for a movie to make fun of and laugh at with your friends one night, this would be a pretty good one. My friends and I had a good time watching this. Probably the 2nd worst movie I've ever seen, 1\/10. Awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mexican Werewolf in Texas is set in the small border town of Furlough where Anna (Erika Fay) lives, her best friend is Rosie (Martine Hughes) & she has a Mexican boyfriend named Miguel (Gabriel Gutierrez) who are determined to track a beast down that has been terrorising the town, killing livestock & several residents including some of their friends. Local Mexican legends speak of the Chupacabra, an evil creature from myth & legend. Erm, I'm struggling now because not that much else actually happens...

Written & directed by Scott Maginnis I won't beat about the bush here & simply say that Mexican Werewolf in Texas is awful, period. The script only ever mentions the word Werewolf once & the rest of the time it's referred to a Chupacabra, in fact I suspect this wasn't really conceived as a Werewolf flick at all. The 'Werewolf' creature looks mostly hairless & more like some vicious dog, there is no reference to anybody changing during the full moon & it actually attacks during the day on a couple of occasions, there is no transformation scene & at the end when it is killed it doesn't change back into anyone either. To be honest apart from the title there's nothing here to indicate a Werewolf film at all & even then the title is just a rip-off of the highly popular An American Werewolf in London (1981). This is the type of home made crap that I personally think is killing the horror genre, how long has it been since there was a true low budget horror classic like Dawn of the Dead (1978), The Evil Dead (1981), Halloween (1978) or Friday the 13th (1980) which were all made on shoe string budgets, maybe The Blair Witch Project (1999) but that's it in recent years & crap like Mexican Werewolf in Texas has absolutely no chance of ever being considered a classic. The character's are awful & things just happen around them, the dialogue is rubbish, the pacing is terrible, the story sucks & virtually sent me to sleep & as a whole this film is just crap, I'm sorry but I don't know how else to describe it.

Director Maginnis does nothing to make this watchable, there's the annoying hand held camera type cinematography which could easily give someone a headache & quick 'blink & you'll miss something' editing which just annoys & irritates in equal measure. It's not scary, there's no nudity, there's no tension or atmosphere & the special effects are awful. The monster really does look poor & it's no wonder Maginnis keeps it in the shadows or cuts his scenes so quickly you never get a good look at it. There's virtually no colour to the picture either, it's either almost pitch black or over saturated desert sand oranges which makes the thing an eye sore as well. The gore consists of some fake guts (blink & you'll miss them!), a few bloody wounds & a severed arm, big deal.

With a supposed budget of about $300,000 I admit the budget was low but I simply refuse to accept that for making such a rubbish film, there are plenty of low budget horror flicks that make their meagre budgets go far. The whole thing has the look of a home movie, it has no style & is throughly bland & dull to look at. The acting sucks too although you probably already knew that.

Mexican Werewolf in Texas will probably con a few people into renting\/buying\/watching it because they might mistakenly think it's a sequel to John Landis' classic which it most certainly isn't & it isn't even a proper Werewolf flick either. Don't be fooled this is awful & I'm fed up of having to waste time\/money on home made amateur crap like this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented The Matrix Revisited with a friend of mine. We both loved The Matrix and we both love filmmaking so we wanted to see what was going on behind the scenes of The Matrix. It turns out that The Matrix Revisited tells you hardly anything about the art of filmmaking or even how The Matrix was made. It is basically a huge commercial for The Matrix, a movie that the target audience of The Matrix Revisited has already seen!

If you really want to know about the process and the troubles and the stress and the detail that went into making of The Matrix, look no further than the bonus features on the original DVD of The Matrix. There are things they show in those documentaries that I had not even realized had to be done or was done. The Matrix was such a difficult and challenging film to make that it deserves more credit than a \"documentary\" that's about as informative and interesting as an MTV special.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a terrible movie! It represents perfectly the state of degenerateness of French society, where the most elementary respect for wholesome values and traditions has completely disappeared. The plot is nonsensical, the movie is not funny at all and the characters are completely shallow and uninteresting. To say the least, the direction and the cinematography are very poor and uninspired. Catherine Deneuve is as bad an actress as she always was, even when she was directed by Bunuel in Belle De Jour. The rest of the usually good cast (Vincent Lindon, Line Renaud, Jean Yanne) seem completely lost in an ocean of vulgarity, platitudes and restlessness. I cannot help to draw a parallel with the wonderful James Ivory's \"Le Divorce\", with its thoughtful depiction of French and American mores, its superlative cinematography and stellar cast put to good use. Having watched \"Le Divorce\" you can feel a kind of empathy with the French, regardless of their foibles. \"Belle-Maman\" leaves you with only a nauseated contempt for its morally bankrupt and clueless protagonists.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"May be spoilers so do not read if you do not want to Just like watching the TV news , everything is already happened, a great tsunami looms over a city bay and CUT , no more to see, Tokay suffers a large earthquake , did anyone see more than the 5 seconds I saw? If you want to make a love story , make a love story but if you want to use a disaster movie title , do please be kind enough to show me THE DISASTER , pd after watching this movie watch JISHIN RETTO or any GODZILLA film to satisfy the part that was willing to see people screaming and buildings collapsing that did not get a chance to do in this movie. Don t take me wrong I love disaster movies and I love the original Nihon chimbotsu and Jishin retto, I even like the latest Poseidon , not to much of a story there but a very good and graphic disaster sequence , New Nihon chimbotsu looses the point as many times as pearl harbour or the day after tomorrow but at least this two movies do show good disaster sequences, and also enough with the expensive FX that did not show anything , give me fake buildings if you like as long as you do destroy them properly , I know I must sound like a sadistic freak, however I did go to see Love actually when I felt like going to see a romantic film , grrrrrrr even kimpachi sensei makes me cry and this movie didn:t . there is also a TV series called napping chimbotsu made in 1975, I have on DVD and it is much better","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has some nice special effects, tearing apart the Japanese archipelago to a degree that would humble Godzilla. The two leads also put in above-par performances. Apart from that, it is all a bit ropey in this understated disaster flick. The incongruities in the pacing are bizarre. At one point we have Hokkaido sinking into the sea and pyroclastic snow falling on the rest of Japan, while Osaka is buried under an immense tsunami. Yet elsewhere in the country, people are still strolling around sightseeing and licking ice-cream when another tsunami rolls in... Kusanagi also manages to travel great distances without any hindrance, or even a crease in his cream shirt. Other people turn up with burns, ripped clothes and mud-streaks on their faces.

The Japaneseness of the film is both touching and repugnant. Kusanagi's sacrifice in his final evening with Shibasaki is a touch of chivalry seldom seen in this genre these days. However, the ill-fated PMs musings on the Japanese psyche and the seduction of death, and the fact that Japan is abandoned by everyone and has no friends in the last instance, hint at a darker paranoia that infects Japanese concerns regarding their status in the world.

Sadly, the final sequence is a rip-off of Armaggedon, edited with a cookie-cutter.

Finally, my own particular bug-bear - the heavy handed product placement for cigarettes. This time around, it is mad(-or-is-he?) scientist Toyokawa who gets to be the poster boy for Japan Tobacco. At one point, he manages to light up 5000 meters below the ocean surface, in a miniature sub the size of a phone box. Gimme a break.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This disaster flick is a remake of a 1973 movie of the same title, based on a novel by Sakyo Komatsu. Japan is located right alongside the Pacific Ring of Fire (active volcanoes) and also along the edges of plate tectonics, whose shifting will cause earthquakes and tsunamis (a Japanese term in itself for tidal wave). Naturally, this makes a natural premise for a disaster picture, what with Hollywood having a field day with films like Armageddon, Deep Impact, and more recently, The Day After Tomorrow, which tackles how global warming becomes the catalyst for natural disasters gone bonkers around the world.

But I'll have to say this: The Sinking of Japan makes all the films mentioned earlier, look like classics. This disaster movie IS a disaster, and a massive one at that. Having to look at my watch every 10-15 minutes is a signal that the movie doesn't engage, and feels than it had over-clocked its runtime.

The special effects are gorgeous to look at. From satellite styled outer space pictures, to the vivid recreation of every conceivable natural disaster that can strike the land of the rising sun, the effects are the star of the show. However, having spectacular computer generated graphics does not in itself make a movie palatable, as too much of a good thing just plain bores.

If you had seen the trailer where you're enticed by the effects and specific scenes of chaos and mayhem, then yes, in fact those scenes are just that. There are no details, and everything is seen from afar, in a God-like mode. Things happen just like that on screen, with nary an attempt to try and delve deeper to look at issues up close. It's akin to Godzilla knocking over buildings, and it's as if there are no humans or loss of lives through that single act. Morbid as it might sound, show us the victims! A populous nation like Japan doesn't just suffer disaster after disaster with an extremely low fatality count, not when the filmmakers unleash mayhem in such an epic scale.

Trying to weave a romance into the movie, it stood out like a sore thumb. There are many characters in the movie, but each one of them lacking real characteristics, or humanity, and look like wandering zombies, without expression, without emotion, and definitely very stiff and unconvincing. Heroes become stuck in generic control rooms issuing statements, instructions and form policies, and react to incidents like it was a computer game, all settled with a push of a button. These are characters that you don't give a hoot about.

If I may just use The Day After Tomorrow as a comparison, while there are terrific effects, there is at least an attempt to provide a microscopic view of the entire disaster from different individual's point of views. And infused within are plenty of action sequences, big ones like the disasters themselves, and small ones with the focus on the triumph of the human spirit, that makes it relatively compelling.

Unfortunately for The Sinking of Japan, this movie should preferably be one to sink and tank, and hopefully undergo a short and quick death at the local box office to make way for better stuff.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Due to rather dubious plate tectonics, Japan starts to slip under the sea. Initial predictions say it'll take about 40 years before the country is submerged, but a rogue scientist adds in some even more dubious science and determines it will actually take less than 1 year! The government think he's a crackpot, but evidence soon starts bearing his theory out.

This big budget disaster movie follows the formula set by any number of Hollywood films of the late 90's (I assume, having seen none of them), with the scale of disaster and tragedy bringing out the nobility of the human (well, Japanese) spirit in acts of heroism and sacrifice, and proving the power of love or something like that. i.e. it's as naive in its psychology as it's geology... we all know that half the populace would be out raping and looting the minute they thought the police had their back turned, and the other half would just panic and be useless.

The film does have some very nice special effects, but is not as slick or expensive looking as an equivalent Hollywood production would be. It is at least as nationalistic, humourless and lacking in self-awareness as that Hollywood film would be though, and probably has even worse acting. It does have the hot evil chick from Battle Royale as one of the leads... but she's not even slightly evil, and is therefore much less hot.

The film is much too long at 132 minutes, and gets worse and worse as it progresses towards a conclusion that had me in danger of puking. I certainly didn't care in the slightest whether Japan sank or not by the half way point, and well before the end I was trying to think of ways to expedite the process should I ever find myself in that situation for real.

But, it does have nice special effects, and Kou Shibasaki is still pretty hot, so I magnanimously give it... 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have just finished watching this movie, and for me.... it takes ages to finish because it is so boring.....and the storyline is extremely bad.

now... where should i start....O.... the movie is called \"sinking of japan\" ....yeah yeah... it does show that japan is actually sinking but the action part is very bad. Compare to the movie \"the day after tomorrow\" i would have rate it at least 8\/10.

The \"sinking of Japan\" does not show much about the disaster that actually happening right in front of our eyes. there isn't much excitement at all...boring... all i can say...

one more point... i would recommend this movie to have a better title... maybe something like \"the romance of sinking of japan\" because this movie does have lots of talkings (waste of time... talk nonsense) & the love story is extremely boring & have been dragging too long...honestly.. i almost get frustrated.

Overall... this movie does not show enough details of the disasters e.g. many people running like hell to avoid death..love story part was extremely not touching enough for me.

but hey... there is one thing we should appreciate about this movie though.... & its has got good songs!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, this is the worst movie I've ever seen. That may make you want to see it, but it is not bad in a good way. It's boring, implausible, poorly shot, ridiculously scripted, and lacking in cool disaster effects.

Worse, it is intensely patriotic without a trace of irony or fun, wallowing in a sense of Japanese uniqueness and victimhood. Everyone abandons the Japanese in their hour of need. Particularly the Koreans. The most noble characters choose seppaku -- going down with their ship as their beloved island sinks. \"Only Japanese would think this way,\" says the prime minister.

If this movie in any way reflects the Japanese opinion of their place in world opinion, the first thing they should do to rectify the problem is stop making movies like this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was different from most of Jimmy Cangey's films of the 1930s in that it was NOT done by Warner Brothers\/First National, but was a loan-out to a smaller studio. Because it was a \"poverty row\" studio, the production values are lower than you might be used to seeing with Cagney films. Plus, the plot is certainly one of the strangest I have seen. Instead of him being a gangster, he was a good guy in this one--fighting for the law. This isn't all that unusual because Cagney frequently played lawmen--such as an OSS leader (the forefather of the CIA) of FBI agent. BUT, to make him an investigator for the Bureau of Weights and Measures was indeed odd--especially since, at times, he acted pretty much the same way he did in the movie G-MEN!

All in all, a time passer and that's about it.

Finally, the videotape I saw this on from Memory Lane Video was perhaps one of the poorest I have ever encountered. The sound was terrible and scratchy and the print looked very white and had lots of torn film and gaps.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On a flight back from London, I watched She's the Man; apparently Air Canada has a crap movie policy. Perhaps that's not the best way to start a review of this movie. Amanda Bynes plays a girl who loves soccer so much that she pretends to be her twin brother to get on a team at a boarding school across town. Even if you check your mind at the door (on a 6 hour flight you have to), the story is implausible and ridiculous. There are some moments of humor, mostly from comedian David Cross as the principle, but the intricate love polygon doesn't really inspire emotion, although is is cleverly mixed (with the caveat of mindless plausibility). The ending is just as ridiculously mindless as the rest. I guess if I was a 12-year-old girl, I might have really enjoyed this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anyone who will pay to see Troma movies knows, and appreciates, what they are going to get. Having said that, I didn't think it was possible to make a movie this bad, and still be compelling. I found myself watching just to see how much worse it could get before the end. First off, it's an Indonesian action movie with an American main character who looks and acts like the bastard son of \"Taxi\"'s Christopher Lloyd and Rambo. He puts posters of himself dressed up like Sly's \"Cobra\" all over the place and even has a custom built firing range (with action-posed cutouts of his greatest enemies)in Jakarta although he's in the CIA and has just arrived days earlier. There is a lot of action involving gun-play(no muzzle-flashes on those M-16s, only sound effects), motorcycles(that bust through walls), karate(where no one makes physical contact) and even some sex(where all the actors are ugly). The main plot of an epic like this should at least be reasonably plausible, but not here. It involves the world's most dangerous drug cartel going all out to find a \"drug detector device\". Why would they need it? That is never revealed, why not kill drug-sniffing dogs? Makes no sense, but, it is taken seriously. The actors are to be commended because they really seemed to think this movie would make them all famous and tried hard to \"act\". Best line? \"Now dance to your grave you dirty whore!\" Best scene? Rambo jumps onto flying helicopter, pulls machine gun out of baddie's hand, let's go, falls, shoots helicopter as he's falling, helicopter blows up, cut to mannequin thrown in water. F**king genius! If you can't appreciate trash, don't watch it. If you can, it's awesome. One last thing, did I mention it was directed by the three Punjabi brothers?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Abysmal Indonesian action film from legendary Arizal triumphantly sculpts a template for future Cinemax pap like 'China O'Brien' and 'Do or Die' with Erik Estrada while simultaneously burying poor rising action star Pat O'Brien with a hackneyed backyard script and three cans of hair-styling gel to perm his impressive 1984 mullet. This guy's physical prowess resembles a more femme Mark Gregory and his next credit would be second fiddle to Chris Mitchum as \"Tom Selick.\" Powerful. At least the action is mindless and non-stop with some daring Asian stuntmen risking their lives for what is essentially a poorly constructed movie by teens and\/or meth addicts with no concept of reality. One poor extra gets gorno-ly shredded by an electric hedge clipper and many more are killed by getting hit in the head by odd objects such as a motorcycle wheel or cardboard box. Classic rape scenes are tasteless and priceless and quotable dialog such as, \"I would rather trust a rattlesnake!\" are delivered with such exuberance and fervor from the third-rate polizioteschi voice actors. Random highlight: some crazy dude eating live lizards. Movie also holds the record for most cars driven through walls. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon starts in Switzerland as the world's foremost detective Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) outwits the Nazi's & manages to smuggle a brilliant scientist named Dr. Franz Tobel (William Post Jr.) out of the country & to the relative safety of London. But is London as safe as Holmes thinks? Dr. Tobel has engineered a revolutionary new bomb sight that will change aerial bombardment forever & he has agreed to give it to the British government, but those Nazi's want it just as badly & Holmes arch enemy Professor Moriarty (Lionel Atwill) plans on stealing the secret of the bomb sight & selling it to the Nazi's. Add the bumbling Inspector Lestrade (Denis Hoey) of Scotland Yard, Dr. Tobel's love interest Charlotte Eberli (Kaaren Verne), assassins, mysterious scientists & a puzzling coded message & Holmes has his work cut out to keep Dr. Tobel alive so he can deliver his bomb sight...

Directed by Roy William Neill Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon was the fourth in a series of fourteen Holmes films made between 1939 & 1946 to feature Rathbone & Bruce as Holmes & Watson. The script by Edward T. Lowe Jr., Scott Darling & Edmund L. Hartmann is based on the short 'The Dancing Men' by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle & isn't the tradition Holmes murder mystery as it's more of a wartime adventure story. To neglect what Holmes is all about, the solving of complex crimes & mysteries is a big mistake as far as I'm concerned & the involvement of the Nazi's & the war as a backdrop to the story feels out of place, awkward & just didn't sit too well with me. The dialogue isn't great, Professor Moriarty feels almost like an afterthought as if they couldn't come up with a villain for it & as a whole it's far less engaging than other's in the series. However, at least it's short.

Director Neill does his usual efficient job but you have to cut it a little slack & bear in mind that it was made over 60 years ago. It has no real style or imagination & lacks both atmosphere & intrigue as well.

Technically the film is OK if unspectacular, the black and white cinematography is fine although I understand that a computer colourised version is also available. The acting is alright, Bruce & Hoey do their usual comic relief turns & Rathbone's hairstyle in this looks ridiculous & I'm glad he changed it for later instalments.

Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon was a disappointment when compared to some of the other excellent entries in the series, there is very little by which I can recommend it & everything that made the other's so good seems to be missing here. Leave this one till last & watch some of the better ones first, for die hard fans only.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think the problem with some reactions to this film is that - with few exceptions - they don't focus on the main disconnect, hence the main split in the audience.

On the one side, there are those who are taken by the visual design, pretty costumes, and variety of elements going into the film. Some children's movie fans love the colour and animation, and all the un-scary 'magical' effects, shapeshifting animals, and so on. Some culture vultures like the complicated references, the layerings of different folklore elements, and the fact that they can watch Zhang Ziyi singing and quasi-miming, in two different languages, in what really was intended to be a children's comedy.

On the other side, there are those who say that a children's movie should still have a point, that a blend of folktales is not a tale at all, and that it's easier to believe in magic when enough thought and care has gone into the technical aspects to make it seem real.

In other words, the ideas could be lovely; but when you put them onstage they have to deliver. Here, they don't.

A good folktale - from any country - has a clear story, a point, and characters who interact strongly with each other. This lacks them all. A few over-sophisticated gestures to opera, Western and Japanese, are no replacement for a solid theme.

As a fantasy fan, I must say that I've sat through some turkeys and loved a few, but this one really tries to do too many things - cheaply. Putting in Zhang Ziyi to try to add a little glitter smacks of exotic flower syndrome. The other problem isn't that there's no plot; there's half a plot, which means that you keep getting pulled in, then dropped again as another none-too-sharply-executed dance number kicks off.

The characters all seem to know that they're starring in a movie. Unless you really like watching other peoples' amateur video, this ain't good. I'd like to test this on real children; I think they'd drop it for Uproar in Heaven after about 20 minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie starts off promisingly enough, but it gets a little to convoluted and caught up in its stylistic charm. The set designs, costumes, and music were wonderful- as close to perfect as one can get. But the more I got into the movie, the more I felt like all this effort was for the director's entertainment, not the audience. Although, I loved looking at it, except for a few brief musical scenes, I can't say I enjoyed it. The director shows enormous imagination, but if he had fun with this film, he failed to share that with the audience, or at least with me. I didn't get a sense of whimsy and I didn't get sucked into this universe.

A big cause of this was (surprisingly) Zhang Ziyi. You can tell she's trying very hard, but she seems to have been so miscast that she comes off almost amateurish. She's a capable actress but she has her limitations. I've noticed in her acting, that she has yet to truly react to her fellow co-stars, a flaw that creates a void of chemistry. The language barrier in this film seems to have only exacerbate matters. She and Odagiri act as if they're on separate planets. She's also not a very good singer which made me cringe every time she sang, but thankfully there weren't too many scenes of that. Odagiri was OK but doesn't make much of an impression.

I didn't even care for the characters separately. There really is a sore lack of characterization. The only reason to care about them seems to be that they're good-looking royalty. Without the compelling love story at the center of the film though, it's hard to care what happens. The film also takes detours into minor scenes that added nothing to the story and was actually distracting. I had to rewind because after going into a subplot I couldn't remember what the heck they we're doing in the main storyline. There were also scenes where it was hard to tell what the action occurring was because it was so stylized.

Mostly I'm just disappointed because I really like the concept behind this and there are a lot of things I do like. The music and dance choreography are really great.The supporting performances are uniformly excellent, fantastic in both the acting aspect and the singing. It's just too bad the lead actors were so bland.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Weird with unnecessary singing and backdrops. Randomly much of the action will occur on stage giving the feeling of an opera performance. None of that explains why this is such a bad film.

It's the impression that either not enough rehearsal took place or that no experienced choreographer was available. The acting is flat. Even the sparkling Ziyi Zhang looks like she's just waiting for her next movement or line. You may notice the trivia on this site stating that she spent half a month in Japan learning to sign and dance. Read that again as 2 weeks and things begin to make sense. Even worse are the little kids who seem to be looking at their parents at the back of the studio rather than at the camera.

The cheap and cheerful sfx are just cheap and cheap. The editing is staccato chops peppered with slices of just nothing that adds to anything except annoyance. Just imagine all the silly dance scenes from the recent Zatoichi - particularly the closing routine - performed by your local high school drama club with one famous actress who speaks in another language (but you get her in simply because she's so good normally despite being unsuitable), recorded on a cheap camera and then edited into three times its length in no artful order.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just saw Princess Raccoon at the Asian Film Festival in New York. The gentleman who introduced the film congratulated the audience on their fine taste. \"You could be at Herbie: Fully Loaded,\" he said with a smug smile, \"but instead you're here to watch Seijun Suzuki's Princess Raccoon.\" The audience applauded and cheered. Well let me tell you, I would have rather watched Herbie: Fully Loaded twice in a row. Princess Raccoon, an allegedly whimsical musical based on Japanese folklore, easily qualifies for one of the ten worst films that I have ever seen. It is so wretched that its wretchedness actually makes me dislike other Seijun Suzuki films, which is quite a feat.

There is such a vast expanse of things wrong with Princess Raccoon that I hardly know where to start. Perhaps its worst faults are being both aggressively unintelligible and mind bogglingly monotonous. If the reels got mixed up or if half of them got lost in shipping the audience would not know the difference. If you don't believe me I dare you to steal a print and have someone run the reels in random order. If you can tell me which one goes where I will give you every penny I have.

The first third of the film features a mishmash of scenes, songs (including a cringe inducing rap number), and images that don't seem to be related in any way at all. Horribly integrated computer animation is thrown into the bargain, adding yet another brick to the immense, and rapidly growing, wall of incomprehensibility. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the writer wrote down any Japanese folklore that came to mind of on a bunch of note cards, stacked them up, shuffled them, dealt the cards out on a table, and then wrote the script according to their order.

About thirty-five minutes into the film some semblance of a plot arrives on the scene. Something about a shape-shifting raccoon princess (in human form) and a regular human falling in love. I hoped that this was be a portent of the film being something other than a series of perplexing scenes, but no such luck. The film continues in the same absolutely baffling manner. I wish I had gotten out then, but I was trapped in the middle of a narrow row. In retrospect it would have been worth the awkward scene.

I'm exhausted just thinking about the last couple of reels. I spent every moment hoping and praying that it would be over. Every big dolly move, swell in music, or scene that looked remotely like it was concluding things renewed my hopes that the credits were about to roll. For agonizing minute after agonizing minute it went on. And on and on and on. Finally, after dozens of false alarms, it cut to what I was sure must be an abstract pattern over which credits were about to appear. Then, in defiance of all reason, it cut to another scene. How could I forget? The completely unrelated subplot concerning a ninja being captured, urinated on, and boiled in a soup hadn't been wrapped up yet.

I'm never going to get those 111 minutes back, but you can spare yourself the pain. Unless you want to taint your memory or future enjoyment of great Seijun Suzuki films like Youth of the Beast and Tokyo Drifter do not see Princess Raccoon. I would have rather spent my time vomiting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was so disappointed in this movie. I am very familiar with the case, having read not only Mark Fuhrman's book but also the far superior \"A Wealth of Evil: The True Story of the Murder of Martha Moxley in America's Richest Community\" by Timothy Dumas. Anyone who watches MURDER IN GREENWICH should be aware they're watching The Mark Fuhrman story, not the Martha Moxley story. This film is nothing more than an ego-trip for Fuhrman. Just watch his character strut around as if he is the second coming (yes, even being ogled by women). The actors playing the kids look way too old for their roles and the flashbacks to the 1970s are totally unconvincing. If there is any hero to this story, it's Martha's family, her mother Dorothy and brother John. They kept this case alive for two decades before Fuhrman walked into it in order to make a name for himself. They, and Martha, deserve to have the true story told.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie is trash because, out of many reasons, it is based on Mark Furman's book, which is also trash. let me must say that Mark Furhman is a racist pig that is just looking for another way to get himself into the spotlight - and others that right this type of trash belong in jail. for the movie itself, being based on the book, was horrible as well. the only reason that this murder case became such a big book and movie was because the guy is related, thru his aunts marriage, to the Kennedy family and it is ridiculous that people still believe that this family somehow has the ability to make and cover up murders - they are just a family and middle America needs to get over the obsession. this poor guy, and his family, have been hounded by the police for years, they couldn't get tommy so they went after Micheal. its amazing that he went to jail with all the evidence that supports that he Didn't do it, besides the facts that the statute of limitations, among other things, should have kept this trial from being brought back after TWENTY years for the love of god, don't watch this garbage","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe it! Were they crazy in filming a movie about Connecticut in southern California? For god's sake, there's Palm Tree's everywhere. In one of the opening scenes a guy says \"Welcome to Connecticut\" and throws down a newspaper, the newspaper says something like \"Greenwich Herald\". Greenwich Connecticut doesn't have a \"Herald\" it has a \"Times\" as in \"Stamford Advocate AND THE GREENWICH TIMES.\" (Refering to the Stamford, Connecticut Newspaper). Maybe the film makers should have done a little research, I mean my god, at least get the name of the newspaper right, or film in locations that look at least remotely like Connecticut.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man, are you serious? Did you read the book or watch this movie? Well, if you did, let me warn you, it is bogus. Mark Furhman has been seeking a job since losing his job with the LAPD. You remember him, don't you? He was the guy that lied on the stand and gave the OJ Simpson defense a foothold they were looking for. Well, he has written three books since then. I have read all three of them. No, I am not a fan, they were given to me. HOWEVER, I will tell you one similarity in all three, they grossly distort the importance of Mark Furhman. He shamelessly exaggerates his stature in all three. In \"Murder in Spokane\", he pretends that he had something to do with catching the killer, when he had nothing to do with it. In all books he takes great delight in running down local law enforcement efforts. Kind of like his efforts were run down in the OJ trial. In this movie, there are plenty of slow motion shots of ladies looking at Furhman and lusting after him. Many other shots have him at the center of attention, when in reality, I am sure the only thing people were thinking at the time was \"hey, isn't that the racist that caused OJ to get off?\" This was an interesting real life story, but not a good movie over it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While everyone does a decent job in this film, I agree with the other comment: it's too loose and scattered, too much like a script-less experiment with really talented actors. As such, it isn't enough to hold your attention. Having said that, there are a few really funny moments, one involving Dylan McDermott and a flaming shot glass that I think anyone who's been that drunk would find as funny as I did; the other is a split-second with an inflatable dinosaur. Crispin Glover does his usual nutty twitch-fest guy and does it fine, Harry Dean Stanton does his usual nutty patriarch (Repo Man, anyone?) etc. Good cast, not enough to keep it going. Just a few gems, seconds long.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A root canal without anesthesia is more amusing. This movie is disturbing and pointless. There is absolutely nothing believable about any of these characters or the plot line. What in God's name were these people thinking when they agreed to star in this movie? The acting in this movie is so incredibly bad - even from actors who are usually pretty damn good. \"The In-Laws\" is a funny movie. \"The Birdcage\" is a hilarious movie. \"The Big Lebowski\" is a humorous movie. This movie is just dumb. I cannot even begin to fathom the kind of sick mind it takes to write the \"novel\" that this movie is based on. I honestly cannot think of even one nice thing to say about this movie. It just doesn't make any sense. People please - I beg of you - do not see this movie. You will regret it for the rest of your life. This movie is not the worst ever made, but it is definitely right up there on the top of the list.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I used to work at the company that originally put out this film, Vestron Pictures. Vestron had the same problem that a lot of small independent film companies had, they didn't have a lot of money to put into the production values of their films. Not that money alone will buy you a good film. Look at Kevin Costner's Waterworld, for instance.

Sometimes, if you have a talented person in-house doing the acquisitions or development, you can create your own new talent. But at Vestron, there wasn't such a person and they always skimped in some crucial area. In this case, it was on the director and the writer. Which makes it pretty hard to have a decent movie, even with the great ensemble cast this film has.

I think the basic premise of this movie was \"Let's put a bunch of quirky characters in a room and see if anything interesting happens.\" It's an intriguing idea, but not worth your time watching.

Most Vestron films ended up having a very distinctive look and feel to them. My wife and I developed the ability to spot this quality even in non-Vestron films. Many times, we were even able to spot that quality from watching only the trailer or TV ad. We'd sit there, watching the trailer or ad, and afterwards, we'd turn to each, and almost in sync, we'd say, \"Now that's a Vestron movie!\" This is a Vestron movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had read online reviews praising this obscure outing as a combination of gory horror, quirky black comedy and borderline art-house; the film has elements of all three, to be sure, but they are at the service of such a supremely silly premise (the title immediately gives the game away) \u0096 and amateurish production to boot \u0096 that its long-term neglect due to a lack of proper distribution \u0096 basically until Cult Epics picked it up for DVD release a full 30 years after its inception! \u0096 was no great loss to cinema or even the genre(s). The bed was apparently created for the purpose of accommodating a demon's dalliance with a woman; anyway, a dying man who had made use of the four-poster and even painted it ends up trapped in the wall behind the canvas(!) and provides intermittent commentary to the 'action'. Several people (from teenagers-on-a-fling to gangsters-in-hiding) supply fodder to the perennially-hungry bed; latest on the menu are a trio of girls \u0096 one of whom, however, recalls its mistress of long ago and, consequently, the bed seemingly fears her! Seeing various objects \u0096 from cigars to pieces of fried chicken \u0096 and people getting swallowed up (the belly of the bed is depicted as a vat of honey-colored liquid) makes the film mildly amusing at times (especially when a young man's hands are reduced to their skeletal formation, which he seems to take rather too easily in his stride!), but also awfully repetitious\u0085so that, at even a brief 77 minutes, the whole pointless exercise feels strained and downright desperate.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I attended college in the early 70s, it was a simpler time. Except for a brief occurrence in 1994, I've been totally free of the influence of illegal substances ever since and I've never regretted it...until now. DB:TBTE has got to be, hands-down, the best movie to watch when stoned. The odd, dreamlike state it creates is very strange when you're not smoking anything, but I'm sure that it would seem completely normal after a big doobie. (Not that I'm recommending this, you understand.) The soothing narration, provided, as it usually is in quality cinema, by a TB victim trapped in a painting, would be ideal to help the stoned viewer to follow along as things get complicated. Plus, everything in the film is pretty organic...from old-fashioned natural breasts to the bucket of fried chicken.

Now, there's also no question that the young man with the (ahem) \"hand problem\" is absolutely sailing away in the film. At one point, you just KNOW that he's going to say, \"Hey! When I move my hand, it leaves trails!!\" Trust me...you'll know when you get to that point.

The only other thing we have to address is this: How good can a film be when at least half the budget was spent on moving a huge bed frame around for interior and exterior shots?

Definitely a must-see for horror aficionados, but suitable for the general audiences under the right conditions (if you know what I mean, and I think that you do). It only earns four stars because I can't actually say that it took any talent to make.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was really stupid and I thought that it wasn't so bad and I could tolerate a movie about a bed eating people. Then the part near the end where the guy has skeleton hands ended up being the cherry on top of a bad movie. I could see the screws in the plastic skeleton hands for goodness sakes. The brother was still alive and moving when his hands were bare bones. The funny thing was that he could still move his hands that was just not right. Without muscles, you really can't move your hands but he did. The brother should have bled to death even before he was moving his hands. The movie wasn't great but it was okay until the hand scene. I was laughing so hard that I don't really remember how it ended. It had something to do with foam or something.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's difficult to criticize a movie with the title like 'Deathbed: The Bed that Eats' and involves a ghost narrator who's trapped behind a 2-way painting he drew and a bed that snores and \u0096 if I'm not mistaken, masturbates. (Now, that's getting back at its human companions!) Furthermore, it foams up (in orange, for whatever reason) to absorb edibles lying on its surface, including apples, wine, fried chicken and, of course, people. Again it's suffice to say, that don't expect too much when you see what I guess is stomach acid \u0096 the final remains of anything that orange suds takes \u0096 dissolving only certain things. It'll drink the wine, but the bottle's okay and it'll eat away at the chicken bone, but the bucket's just fine. Heck, the bed even replaces the unused containers. Hilariously, at one point it downs Pepto-Bismol. I had to laugh at that one. I don't think they really wanted you to take any of this seriously. It's low budget, and it's extremely easy to see where they cut costs and saved oodles amounts of money. I thought, in a world where there can be a killer 'Lift' and a 'Blood Beach,' this 'Deathbed' might be amusing to watch. For reasons that might involve cost, 90% of the film is voice-over, no one screams or shows extremely low signs of fright\/confusion on why a bed would attack (I can think of one \u0096 and I never was one of those kids that jumped on the bed) and you'll have to suspend your disbelief beyond belief. (A victim loses all flesh on his hands, barely saying \"ow.\") Only one scene, that went on too long, was minutely tense \u0096 a woman attempts to crawl away only to be dragged back, using a sheet. Where are the MST3k guys?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I first heard of this film when Patton Oswalt talked about it on his \"Werewolves and Lollipops\" CD. He said it was a lost classic that is completely ridiculous. Being a lover of terrible cinema, I knew I was in for a treat.

This film is, hands down, one of the weirdest I've ever seen. Certainly one of the weirdest shlock films. Basically, a demon took human form years ago for a woman, the woman died or something, the demon cried blood, the blood fell on the bed, the bed is now possessed and it now eats. Along with fruit, flowers and chicken, it also has a taste for people. The people can range between horny teens, mayors, gangsters, servants or professional orgy throwers. There's also a sick guy who the bed ate but put his soul behind a picture in the room.

Most movies let you figure out the plot through exciting action. Death Bed takes another path: it basically tells you through narration exactly what's happening while slow, dull murder scenes take place. Also, I must say everyone who's eaten by the bed are surprisingly quiet. I would think if a bed is eating you through the ways of a 5th grade science fair experiment, it would sting a little. I guess nerve endings weren't invented until 1981 or so.

The story is wacky, the direction is slow and pretty awful, the sets are sparse, the acting it fairly painful and the brother is one of the unintentionally ugliest actors I've ever seen. Probably would make a great party film if alcohol and smart-asses are involved. Certainly one you shouldn't miss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, this is one strange film! Fans of Ed Wood Jr. will appreciate the \"inventive\" techniques director George Barry utilizes, like stock footage and cheesy voice overs. He can make a crack in the wall into a plot device! There is more humor than horror here, but I found it an uneven blend. You will be laughing and crying, and probably wondering why you got your hands on this. Barry explains in the introduction that filming began on this movie in 1972, and was completed in 1977, at a cost of $10,000. That's 59 months and $9,900 too much! If you like your cheese on the campy side, with vintage '70s \"gore\", you might find this an irresistible and freaky snack.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I, like most other people, saw this movie after hearing of it from Patton Oswalt. Oddly enough, it was easier to find than I thought it would be. Though, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I found it used.

The plot is summed upped masterfully within the title. It's a bed that eats. Nothing more, nothing less. There is an effort to throw in a story line but not a very good one.

A demon's blood ended up on a bed and, as a result, it becomes possessed. It devours anything that happens upon it by absorbing and then dissolving it in what appears to be orange Fanta. There is an artist who fell victim to the bed, but was sick and ends up behind a painting in the room it inhabits. The narrative is told entirely through him.

This movie fails horribly at everything, even at being bad. Still, it's not without its own brand of charm.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Luchino Visconti, the artist with the sword. Courage should be the first word associated with his entire opus. Film. Theater. Music. Revolutions, artistic, cultural, personal. A legacy with powerful consequences and endless ramifications. He introduced the neorealism through the work of an American novelist James Cain in \"Ossesione\" He gave Anna Magnani the most extraordinarily beautiful close ups of her career. He gave us Alain Delon and Maria Callas. But the last word about his life and work rests on the talents of a certain Adam Low and the voice of Helmut Berger. What a terrible fate.

For those interested, there is a 61 minute documentary by director Carlo Lizzani (a man who really knew Visconti) titled LUCHINO VISCONTI A PORTRAIT. It is out on DVD distributed by Image Entertainment","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Luchino Visconti was and is one of the most influential cultural figures of his generation, but Adam Low (the director of this thing) allows the stronger voice to be Helmut Berger's! How can it be? What a missed opportunity! We come out of this ordeal knowing less of what made the Master great and more about the things one shouldn't care at all. The beautiful images belong to Visconti's world, the embarrassing interviews to the likes of Berger and Zeffirelli to Adam Low's tiny little world. A must to avoid!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How dare you? Adam Low, without apparent shame, puts his name to this fake tribute. It's not even a serious study or analysis or commentary of the great Visconti's work. Yes it's long and portentous, yes we do have some wonderful clips from the films that, most people interested on the subject, have already seen. But what resounds the longest leaving the most lasting impression is the gossip. The last and loudest voice comes from a third rate German actor, ranting and raving. The appropriately named Mr.Low directed this, hoping, I imagine, to get better ratings than his previous, more to the point, but deadly boring documentary on Kurosawa. Well I have news for you Mr Low and your cohorts. You missed a great opportunity and I for one, won't give you another.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having seen Carlo Lizzani's documentary on Luchino Visconti, I was bound to higher expectations before watching this film made three years later by Adam Low. But the viewer like me did get dissatisfied... I faced a need for critical opinion, which I generally don't like giving due to the fact there are no documentaries that will satisfy every viewer. There are also no documentaries that will examine a theme totally. But when I read the reviews already written on this title, I also felt a bit confused. People sometimes don't know what to criticize. Therefore, to be clear, I'll divide this film into two major parts that differ considerably: the former one about Visconti before his director's career and latter one about Visconti the director.

The aristocratic background, all the hobbies, the wealth that young Luchino experienced and enjoyed are clearly presented. His effort in horse racing is mentioned as well as his relation with his mother so much disturbed after his parents' divorce. We also get a very accurate idea of where Luchino was brought up as a real count of Milano: in riches galore, with nannies, cooks with access to everything, in TRUE ARISTOCRACY. For instance, his father's splendid villa at Grazzano and other marvelous villas prove that. There is also an emphasis on Visconti's crucial visit in Paris in the 1930s where he met eminent people (\"left wingers\") who later had impact on his style and message in art. That clearly explains the idea of a communist with the aristocratic upbringing (a contrast at first sight).

However, the part about his director's career, which started with OSSESSIONE during WWII and ended with INNOCENTE just before the director's death in 1976, is poorly executed. His movies are not discussed well. Why? Because there are very few people who really have something to say. Franco Zeffirelli, the director, remembers the works on LA TERRA TREMA and that is all right. There are also some interviews with Franco Rosi. But later, such movies like IL GATTOPARDO, LA CADUTA DEI REI, LA MORTE A VENEZIA or LUDWIG are mostly discussed by Helmut Berger. Although I liked the actor in the role of Ludwig, I did not like the interviews of his. Moreover, some thoughts he reveals are not accurate to entail in such a documentary... There is no mention of significant works of Visconti like CONVERSATION PIECE, there are no interviews with eminent cast Burt Lancaster. A mention about Silvana Mangano and Romy Schneider should also be made. There is one footage interview with Maria Callas that appears to be interesting but that is only a short bit. Franco Zeffirelli, though I appreciate him as a director, makes fun of it all rather than says something really precious. For instance, he mentions the event how Visconti separated from him after years of service. Therefore, I say: simplified and unsatisfactory.

What I find a strong point here are footage interviews with Visconti himself. As a result, we may get his own opinion about his works. For instance, I very much appreciate the words he says about death regarding it as a normal chapter of life and as natural as birth itself. He also discusses his health problems after the stroke while filming LUDWIG.

I believe it is better to see LUCHINO VISCONTI (1999) by Carlo Lizzani than this doc. Although it is shorter and condensed as a whole, you will get a better idea of the director. Visconti would be furious about that and the fury of his usually turned people's emotions and viewpoints into stone... 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Based on a Ray Bradbury story; a professional photographer(Brian Kerwin)returns to his modest home near a tiny desert town, where most of the citizens wishes he stayed away. A lonely boy(Jonathan Carrasco) latches onto him for the attention; and the two witness the landing of an alien craft in the rocky region of the desert. The aliens turn themselves into the images of townspeople. Kerwin must convince evacuation of the town and falls in love with the young boy's mother(Elizabeth Pena). Acting is pretty shallow; the story line is no worse than some others; this movie leaves you feeling that you got shorted on a decent ending. Supporting cast includes: Howard Morris, Dean Norris and Mickey Jones.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a pretty pointless remake. Starting with the opening title shots of the original was a real mistake as it reminds the viewer of what a great little period piece chiller that was. The new version that follows is an exercise in redundancy.

Brian Kerwin plays a 'city boy' photographer who returns to a semi-abandoned desert town populated by a scattering of underdeveloped clich\u00e9d stock characters: the lollipop sucking Daby-Doll Lolita, the 'ornery old coot prospector, the crippled vet and his Asian wife, etc...

Kerwin's character witnesses the crashing of 'something' into a hillside and shortly after strange things start to happen as pieces of weird blue rock are scattered around. The temperature starts to rise, all the water in the area vanishes, people start to act weirdly, things explode. Kerwin's character gets in and out of his car more often than is humanly possible in one movie. The film develops no sense of place, no character development, no humour, no tension. Everything that made the Jack Arnold's original a creepy little Cold-war paranoia classic has been abandoned. It just runs through its minimal hoops and then just ends.

The special effects aren't very special - the interior of the ship looks like bits of cling film wrapped round some ropes which were then dangled in front of the camera to frame some of the most uninspired and clumsy wire-work ever put onto the screen. The script is repetitive - everyone says everything at least twice, Kerwin gets to say \"let's get out of here\" at least three times during the movie, twice in one scene. Loads of things are left unexplained at the end - why do the aliens need all the heat and water for example? - not that anyone watching would care; if the film makers didn't care why should we?

The acting is adequate - better than the script, which at times, has an under-rehearsed improvisational quality, deserves. Though often the actors look like they just want to get the thing over with as quickly as possible - a notable example of this is when Elizabeth Pe\u00f1a registers the briefest, token moment of \"frustrated despair hands to face gesture\" before following sulking son Stevie outside to watch him do \"angry sulky teenager smashing something off a table\" gesture.

Continuity errors include the (GB) sticker on the back of Kerwin's jeep appearing and disappearing, a double action of the gas in the exploding car, a towns-person being in two places simultaneously - once in the Alien Stevie's POV shot then immediately afterwards in a reaction shot, Elizabeth Pe\u00f1a appearing to shut a car door twice... you can tell I was gripped can't you? The movie commits that greatest of errors. It's boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alien body-snatchers in the desert. Little blue rocks that look like they are made from cheap plastic. The overall storyline isn't bad if you like that kind of thing but the acting is so far beyond poor that it amazes me that some of them actually entertained my in The X Files! And the special effects? Hello?! Where did they get their FX crew from, Secondary School? I mean, come on; there was so much more they could have done! It was amateur and extremely basic. I didn't particularly enjoy it (and my Dad fell asleep during it!) And of course our hero falls in love with the leading lady! Its so typical and highly predictable. Bleugh!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"They've shown i twice in a very short time now here in Sweden and I am so very tired of it. The bad acting isn't enough... The story itself is so boring and the effects hardly exists. I love the original from 1953 so I recommend you to go and rent that one instead. Because this one is such a bore.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot believe I sat through this utter waste of time. I was just too fascinated by how unspeakably bad it was that I couldn't move. It reminded me of the feeling when you can't take your eyes away from a horrible car crash or the rotting carcass of a cow. You can't help but look, but you feel sick and nauseated afterward.

Let me elaborate: \"Plan 9 from outer space\", for instance, is not a bad movie. Not even \"Star Wars: Holiday Special\" is a bad movie. They both are awful to watch, for sure, but they both have SOME qualities and at least they leave you the strength to reach for the \"off\"-button.

This \"remake\" (in name only) of the sci-fi classic left me weeping on my couch, desperately trying to come to terms with why such scripts get filmed, why anyone would soil the memory of the original classic, and whether or not I could resume my normal life without my suddenly acquired longing for the quiet and peace of death.

Although death, I realized, would offer no rest from the horrid memories of this pile of crap, as the poor souls in hell are probably forced to watch it over and over again for eternity...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this film is so unbelievably awful! everything about it was rubbish. you cant say anything good about this film, the acting, script, directing, effects are all just as bad as each other. even ed wood could have done a better job than this. i seriously recommended staying away from this movie unless you want to waste about 100mins of your life or however long the film was. i forget. this is the first time i wrote a comment about a film on IMDb, but this film was just on TV and i had to let the world of movie lovers know that this film sucked balls!!!!!!!!!!!! so if you have any decency left in you. go and rent a much better bad movie like critters 3","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The opening was a steal from \"Eight-legged Freaks\", a film that is everything this one isn't. Stilted and pedestrian are the words that apply - along with others that can't be repeated..! Drifter type returns to his home(?)town, meets up with old friends etc.... the usual annoying kid, single mother,local loudmouth and so on..Bad special effects, alien ship, atmospheric disturbances, (hey, didn't the Director see \"Close Encounters\"?). Good acting? Good story? Good camera angles? Good cutting? Not here! Do not rent, unless you are sharing the cost and have a lot of beer handy. Do not watch on TV, go and drink a lot of beer instead - you'll enjoy it more!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen several of these body snatcher type movies, but none was nearly as bad as this one.

No thrill, no FX, bad acting, bad photography, bad sound, bad everything.

Blue Jello eats'em all!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, I refuse to even consider this piece of work a Music video... I consider it a short film that uses excerpts of the song \"Thriller\" in its soundtrack. To me a music video must be no longer than the song itself, and the song must play the entire length of the video. Calling this a music video is like calling The Great Gatsby a poem. On top of this... let's face it... \"thriller\" is a boring 14 minutes, including the extremely dated werewolf transformation, the mindless Vincent Price poem (just because VP recites it doesn't mean it's not lame), and the least threatening zombies I have ever seen. Sure, this was certainly a cultural phenomenon, but don't forget, this also happened at the same time the A-Team was the #1 show on TV, so lets not give the culture too much credit on that one... One last point on this film's impact on the media on music videos... what exactly did this add to the equation that \"Billie Jean\" and \"Beat It\" didn't already add? From what I can tell, it only added the practice of stopping the song for some dialog, or a superfluous dance scene... so you could say that all this video really did was give Puffy the inspiration to make more annoying music videos... Not quite my definition of great","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of a few movies filmed at Coronado High School in Scottsdale, AZ in the late 80's as well as Just One of the Guys, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and Just Perfect (which was a segmented movie played during the Mickey Mouse Club.) Movie is definitely for kids as the previous comments have it pretty right on.

Coronado has gone through an overhaul in the past couple of years and many of the buildings seen in this film are now gone. The field where they are playing catch is adjacent to the football field, one of the few areas still there. The internal scenes near the lockers I believe were in the old 200 building.

Unless it is playing late at night on the Disney channel it may be a very hard to find flick. How they ever made sequels to this is beyond me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow. I felt like I needed to shower off after watching this one, but maybe there were other reasons that I will leave to your imagination. I felt used and abused after wacking, I mean watching this film. Hairy chests, thick mustaches, and well, hairy everything describes this porn\/horror movie, but hey, it was 1981, you can't call it \"porn\" in the 70s and 80s without the hair.

As a horror flick, this bites. But as a piece of exploitation\/porn from Italy's rich cinematic history- it definitely has a place in my library. The copy I have is in Italian with English subtitles. I wish it had the really poorly dubbed English, I think it would have added to the sleaziness factor that already existed. The only white guy who gets laid in the movie is \"Mark Shannon\"- he is the moustache wearing, hairy chested piece of machismo who really does try and give a performance every time he \"steps up to bat\". This was at the end of an era where porn producers were actually trying to make something artistic. Nothing like panning the camera from a tropical backdrop to a hairy man having \"doggie-style\" sex with a woman. I can't help but laugh.

This is one of those movies that I pray my future wife and kids never find.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Joe D'Amato might have made some other notable movies in his very long and very prolific career- prolific, of course, by turns of making VERY cheap Z-grade movies in Italy's big exploitation boom of the late 70s early 70s- but Porno Holocaust isn't one of them, or at least shouldn't be. Granted, I should not expect much from a movie with such a title, but I thought considering the back of the box's description that it might have some fun horror scenes with the \"horny, mutant, cannibal zombie\". Turns out the zombie doesn't appear until more than halfway into the movie, and at every turn we get instead a tawdry sex scene as hardcore as one can imagine. Which is fine. But it's not very enjoyable, except in the most \"what the f*** is this BS\" kind of way. There's laughable dialog involving lobsters costing more from mail-order Japan than in Paris, hot, slim women play biologists and zoologists who have particular sexual hang-ups (letting the door be unlocked to be raped, and a bi-polar kind of enjoyment out of getting gang-banged).

It all leads up to the island, where the \"main attraction\" is a guy who early on just spends an absolutely pathetic (forget ludicrous) amount of time just staring at the newcomers to the radioactive wasteland of the shot-on-Caribbean island, and once revealed has a face like one of the guards in Jabba's palace and has a sweet potato for a main genital. But much dumber than anything before it is the \"relationship\" that develops between the monster and a dark-skinned lady who has an inordinate amount of time to escape, but just sits there, blank-faced, as the monster brings gifts and for what must be a racially-motivated exploitation move on the part of the filmmakers the monster ONLY rapes and kills the white women, and not her. And it ends, of course, with a \"happy\" ending. I use quotes, of course, out of a kind of shock that this could have any kind of legitimate ending at all.

Bottom line, this is NOT what you might expect, as possibly being a bloody horror movie with plenty of tacky but cool looking Italian monster-zombies devouring human flesh. If anything what violence is in the film is done on a shoe-string; a log hit to the face is immediately cut to the bloody aftermath, which is like the aftermath of a tomato hitting someone. So really, the last part of the title is meant more for market sake. Yet even as a porno movie it has little to go on except as a reason for the cast and crew to get a paid vacation to the Caribbean (as an interview with George Eastman suggests, this was just one of a few quickies made while on the island). Its got penny-bought schlocky camera-work and similar actors, filled with genitalia about 3\/4 of the whole time and with wretched lip-syncing and music like Nino Rota forced at gun-point to make something snappy in a bordello, and it's STILL a piece of celluloid dung all the same; all of this could be an immense guilty pleasure, but it isn't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a serious horror fan, I get that certain marketing ploys are used to sell movies, especially the really bad ones. So I wouldn't call it naivet\u00e9 that I assumed this was softcore horror ripping off Cannibal \/ Zombi \/ Jungle Holocaust. Unfortunately, I was completely wrong as this is very hardcore. I should have realized that when I saw the odd \"No actual or identifiable minor was used\" warning. Notice the identifiable part as though he is daring us to catch him? A group of scientists, half of whom are pretty women in bikinis, are led by a sea captain with a penchant for 69ing on the beach, in search for a mutated native killing villagers. Due to a nuclear bomb detonated on a supposedly evacuated island, the radiation turned this last man into a rapist\/ killer.

Writer\/ actor George Eastman is the only one trying here and succeeds in keeping his clothes on. The sex scenes are whacked out. Women walk around nude exuding a strange overconfidence and one even asks for rape when her husband turns her down. Well, two chicks slapping each other naturally turns into a lesbo scene because women are horndogs. I saw the chick toss another chicks salad and finger herself.

If there is anything you should know about this film, it is that. Because the rest of this insane movie is just the same. Oh, who am I kidding? There is a ton more to tell here. Like the white \"Duchess\" that pays for 2 black guys to tag team her in a parlor. Or the \"Duchess\" taking off her top to use as a bandage when the captain cuts himself. When he refuses her advances, she starts crying. So being the good gentleman he is, he reluctantly lets her pleasure him in front of the other crew members. I was honestly waiting for the pizza guy to show up and the \"Duchess\" to ask if there is any other way to pay him.

And all of this happens before they depart for the island to conduct their research. Wait, I thought this was a zombie flick? But the zombie doesn't enter until the 73min mark, but by that time everyone else has been \"entered\" plenty. I found myself hitting fast forward a few scenes\u0085or several. This is my first splatter porn flick and I don't think it does that subgenre any justice. I guess it is the woman in me talking when I say that I would like more plot and less sweaty, slobbering, hairy sex. Funny thing is this could have worked as a decent horror film as the idea of atomic bombing mutating a bitter man and killing his family, was a good one. Even Eastman's character shakes his head and walks away from a couple copulating. It makes me wonder if it was the character or the writer himself that was disgusted.

I don't feel like going into the sound or film quality because you should have already guessed it was bad. This production was shot back to back with 3 other movies including Erotic Nights of the Living Dead, which sports most of the same cast. Eastman has said this was done because everyone wanted a vacation and a paycheck. Nevermind, I feel like talking about the sound suddenly. The sound was weird during the sex scenes because while the cast is speaking Italian, it seems as though they recorded English voiceovers and played that over their dialogue. So while 2 people are boning, I can clearly hear someone in the background say, \"No! Yes! Wonderful! Wait!\" There was a slightly amusing Italian score that couldn't save this movie. The SFX were minimal at best and consisted of some blood in only a few scenes. And I would like to point out that there were no violent rape scenes as the bright warning label said on the DVD cover (ahem, another marketing ploy), so no fear there. Only fear the bad movie.

Presented in Widescreen 1.85:1 aspect ratio. I watched the Region 1 Not Rated version running at 113min released in 2005 by Exploitation Digital. There is apparently a XXX version by Alfa Digital, which is the same running time, so I doubt anything is different. Prices vary, but you shouldn't pay more than $25.00 for a copy. Or as I would recommend, pay nothing and pretend it doesn't exist.

Favorite Quote: Shipmate, \"Civilians are bad luck. Women are bad luck. They're scientists too? They must really be monsters.\" DVD Extras: Original trailer with hardcore shots & kills to make it look more interesting than it is, Trailers for SS Hell Camp, Emmanuelle, & ENOTLD, and a very informative interview with Eastman.

Bottom Line: Lame porno, but even weaker as a horror film. Either get real porn or watch real horror.

Rating: 3\/10 by Molly Celaschi www.HorrorYearbook.com","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's strange, while the film features full X-rated sex scenes and violent murders, it never feels as shocking as it ought to.

A group of scientists go to an island in the Caribbean to investigate a radioactive incident. Upon their arrival, a mutated islander goes about the happy business of murdering the men and having his way with the women. Doesn't it always seem to work out that way.

Among the sored acts we find a some lesbian encounters, a three-way with male prostitutes, assorted heterosexual couplings and the rape of an already dead body. Even though it's all fully explicit, it fails to ever shock or stir as it is meant to. As soon as the sex goes fully pornographic it just loses it's edge; the suspension of disbelief is broken and we realize we are just watching people having sex.

There is some blood and gore with the murders, but given that this is a D'amato flick it's really tame. For a much more rounded experience watch the similar 'Erotic Nights of the Living Dead'.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"D'Amato's hardcore\/horror hybrid doesn't really live up to its extraordinary title and intriguing premise, wherein various vapid contemporary types are attacked by a monster on an Atoll previously used for nuclear experiments, but for the most part the film is so slow, the action so dreary and the cast so clearly repulsed to be having to have sex with each other that the film becomes a chore to watch.

This is a pity, because the film sets up a promising idea. A group of scientists are taken to the Atoll by a naval officer in a small vessel. The scientists \u0096 three women and two men \u0096 are an intriguing cross section of sexual types, suffering to various degrees from nymphomania, co-dependency and frigidity; there's even an intriguing foray into the world of female sex tourism, where one of the women stops off at a brothel to get serviced by two hunky Caribbean studs for hire. The creature himself \u0096 a mangled native Islander with a horribly scarred face and an unfeasibly long pizzle \u0096 bears some affinities with the old Creature from the Black Lagoon and is the kind of nuclear nightmare that has hovered over postmodern man since the cold war commenced, despite those of us in the West having retreated into hedonism and relativistic science.

Porno Holocaust certainly is a film which shows the post-sexual revolution Westerners coming across their mirror image in a nuclear monster, yet the torpidity with which it unfolds really lets down the fierceness of the idea. There is a promising interplay of action shots with POV shots, which suggest that the monster (who looks\/stalks on as horror monsters from their POV position tend to do) is akin to the voyeur in the audience getting off on the sex between the \"beautiful people.\" The sight of the monster forcing a gorgeous young woman to suck his over-sized member certainly throws the target audience's ugly fantasies in their face. But D'Amato has developed similar ideas better in other films, and Porno Holocaust is a potentially fierce idea let down by the execution (even D'Amato's usual cinematographic skills let him down with much dreary camera-work).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, since it's called Porno Holocaust and directed by Joe D'Amato, I went into this film expecting sleaze...and while I somewhat got it, Porno Holocaust was a massive disappointment as it's just so damned BORING. The title suggests that the film will feature porn, and that's not wrong - Porno Holocaust is pretty much just porn, and most of it is just the same stuff over and over again, I was fast forwarding before the end. The first sex scene is between two women and it got my hopes up, but after that it just degenerates into normal porn, and the rest of the film (for the first hour!) is made up of talking, and you can imagine how much fun that is to sit through! The plot focuses on a deserted island where, believe it or not, something strange is going on. Naturally, it's not long before a group of people - made up of a few men and some scientists, who all happen to be sexy women, land on the island. They have sex a few times and some strange things happen, then over an hour later they're attacked by a mutant zombie creature with an eye for the ladies...

This must have seemed like a good idea for an original porno - a zombie who likes to get it on, but unsurprisingly it doesn't work well at all. The film clocks in at just ten minutes short of the two hour mark, and that is far too long for a film like this. I have no idea why Porno Holocaust is as long as it is; if they'd just snipped one minute out of every sex scene, the film would have been under ninety minutes, and that would have made it much more tolerable! The zombie takes what seems like an eternity to appear (it's quite a long time before there's a sex break long enough for them to actually travel to the island in the first place), and when it does finally appear, it's a huge disappointment! I realise that this is low budget B-movie trash, but D'Amato surely could have tried a bit harder and come up with something better than this! I'm not even going to bother mentioning the acting, atmosphere etc, there's no point. Porno Holocaust is basically just your average dull porn flick with a slight sprinkling of horror, and I can't recommend it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Six stars for Paul Newman's portrayal of General Groves, negative four for the inclusion of a highly fictionalized event where the truth is well documented. Michael Merriman did not really exist. His character--or at least his fate--is based loosely on that of Louis Slotin, a Canadian physicist who did not come to Los Alamos until after the war. He conducted his lethal \"tail of the dragon\" experiment in May 1946. This is a critical point. The effects of hard radiation on the human body were not known until they were observed in the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. Had anyone died of radiation poisoning at Los Alamos before the Trinity test, it's very possible that the scientists would have abruptly stopped their work, and history would have been changed. Whether for the better or the worse we can only speculate. Someone should ask the producers and the director whether they added Merriman's character for dramatic effect or to deliver an anti-nuclear message. For a more even-handed and accurate treatment of events at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project, see the TV movie, \"Day One,\" or better yet, read the Peter Wyden book on which it is based.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The United States built the atomic bomb in order to show their superior military power and to end the Second World War. The movie Fat Man and Little Boy is a portrayal of the efforts of American physicists to invent the technology necessary to create the bomb, and the tension that existed between the scientists and the military over the potential uses of the bomb, and even the acceptability of its creation. The scientists thought that the bomb should be created as a deterrent, a mechanism that would halt the war by wasting as little life as possible. Fist, they saw themselves as in a race with German scientists, who were attempting to build nuclear weapons themselves. When the Germans were defeated, many scientists hoped to stop work on the bomb project, as they knew that the Japanese did not have the technology necessary to build a nuclear weapon, and therefore did not pose a threat of massive loss of life. Those who favored the continuation of the Manhattan Project hoped that the bomb would be used as a demonstration, inviting the Japanese head of state to view its deployment upon some tiny deserted island. This massive display of force, they felt, would be enough to win the war-no killing would be needed. The US military, under the direction of General Leslie Groves, hoped all along to used the bomb as a actual weapon to be deployed against the enemy, first against the Germans and then against the Japanese. Because of the persistence of Japanese soldiers on the small Japanese islands, the US decided to drop the bomb on populous cities in order to end the war, first Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. The display of that vast amount of force also served notice to the rest of the world that the US was the dominant military power, a message aimed especially at Russia, whose growing military power and economic weight in Eurasia threatened our preeminent world position. Fat Man and Little Boy was a movie that had good intentions in mind, but muddled them rather badly by the choice of actors, script, and cinematography. One of the main points of the movie was the struggle between the military view of science for killing, and the scientific view of science for knowledge. The keystone of this conflict is the continued disagreements between General Groves and Dr. Oppenheimer. Mr. Newman does his job in the part of the General, craggy, massively angry, and radiating his dependence upon the success of the project. Dwight Schultz, on the other hand, never puts up much resistance at all to the General's demands, always looking rather weak, deflated, and phlegmatic in his audiences. John Cusack presents a stunningly unsympathetic character in as flat a role as I have ever seen-it looks like he is just reading his lines. Laura Dern seems to be suffering from the same malady. None of the characters are helped by the script, which is almost childishly ridiculous in the way it attempts to explain scientific concepts unscientifically, offers the most unrealistic stock relationship between Mr. Cusack and Ms. Dern imaginable, doesn't even give us the cheap thrill of watching the army drop nuclear bombs on Japan, and relies heavily on voice-over-a technique that is evil anytime, even when explaining a characters true innermost thoughts, or for the narration of something that cannot be possibly show on the film medium, but is used here to read some absolutely trite selections out of Cusack's diary. The cinematographer offers us several shots of the ominous shadow of the two bombs, which might be striking if it didn't look like they were cardboard cutouts instead of bombs, the fake atomic fire really does look fake-and why use it when the stock footage on hand is so genuinely stunning and realistic--, and the pervasive brown tone doesn't seem to be thematically appropriate. Besides that, it's not a bad movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've read just about every major book about the Manhattan Project. Most people know what it was, but few people understand the depth and breadth of the project. Its scope was immeasurably massive -- rivaled in US history perhaps only by the space program of the 1960's.

There were -- literally -- MILLIONS of people involved from all walks of life at numerous sites (most clandestine) around the country, each involved in a specific and different aspect of the project that they couldn't talk about to the person sitting in the cubicle next to them, much less their family. The logistics are overwhelming, particularly given the considerations of wartime communication, security and transportation in the 1940's.

As an example -- my colleague's father was a carpenter who worked for one of the companies that had a contract with the federal government for the Manhattan Project. His job was to supervise a crew of about 30 other carpenters, who were responsible for manufacturing forms for the pouring of concrete for the massive research installations at Hanford, Washington. That's \"all\" he did, six days a week for nearly two years. These carpenters needed food, housing, sanitary facilities, hospitals and materials just as much as did Oppenheimer and his crowd at the top of the pyramid. Just think about it! That being said, it's simply impossible to do the subject justice in a 2-hour movie. In defense of Joffe, however, I would say that they had an impossible task, particularly since he chose to have a diverse screenplay with multiple plots, multiple angles, and multiple characters. What, exactly, was he thinking, and how could he be so arrogant to think that this would work? That's Hollywood, I guess.

FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY has so many flaws that it would take a book to list them all. Horrible casting. Dreadful (and politically-motivated) writing. Bad science. The portrayals of Groves and Oppie are particularly inaccurate and downright galling. Notwithstanding the screenplay's all-too-obvious agenda, it is STILL incredibly bland and sloppy.

These flaws have been listed elsewhere on IMDb, but I was particularly struck by the fact that the scientists had so much time on their hands -- softball, horseback riding, parties, semi-formal dinners, ballet, etc., not to mention romance, and of course circulating political petitions. According to FM&LB, if these great brains had gotten off their duffs and actually spent some time in the lab instead of seducing Laura Dern, we might have won the war before D-Day.

One final gripe -- FM&LB mentions that \"Fat Man\" and \"Little Boy\" were the code names of the two atomic bombs, but it doesn't mention that these names were a semi-good-natured jab at Groves (\"Fat Man\", for heavy stature) and Oppenheimer (\"Little Boy,\" for his slight stature). Another reason Paul Newman should not have been in this movie...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It' s easier to watch this film if one views it as a scenario created by Star Fleet Lieutenant Reginald Barclay during his holodeck addiction. (Barclay is a recurring Star Trek character played by Dwight Schultz.)

Dwight Schultz is miscast as Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer's character is poorly written, so we never see the depth and breadth of his knowledge. Instead, we see a shallow, two dimensional figure from a soap opera. Paul Newman is also miscast as General Leslie Groves, but this movie's problems go beyond having the wrong actors in the wrong roles.

The factual errors and great liberties taken (with the chronology of events) in order to advance screenwriter Bruce Robinson's political agenda make this movie embarrassing to watch. That's probably why this movie has found a home on the so-called History Channel.

\"Fat Man and Little Boy\" combine bad science, bad history, bad screenwriting and mediocre acting to produce a movie that should not be viewed by impressionable high school or college students who know nothing about the Manhattan Project.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this years ago on television when I was sick (I don't know, I tend to be more complacent with my TV viewing when I'm sick; too much effort to use the remote control, I guess).

From what I can recall, every aspect of the movie--casting, acting, writing, directing, etc.--was ill-advised at best. I could have forgiven the historical inaccuracies if this film had created a sense of what it was like to work on Trinity; but it didn't. There were attempts to humanize the scientists, but they were insufficient and never transcended caricature.

I didn't know very much about the people involved in the Manhattan Project at the time, but the portrayals in the movie were so cartoonish that I became interested in learning about the real personalities. And I did. So I guess this horrible film has done a very small amount of good, after all.

This is not an in-depth review, but FMLB neither deserves nor requires one. You might enjoy it if you're a fan of bad movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are lots of other comments here about how poor this film is. What I wanted to point out is how this film took the largest science project in history and made it look small. The Manhattan project was an incredible achievement and it was huge. Virtually all silver in the country went into making wire for electromagnetic separators. If there was every a choice between two alternative ways of doing things they just did both. The first sustained nuclear reactor was fired up under the stands of the University of Chicago football stadium with graduate students wielding axes as a scram mechanism. It's a fascinating story involving hundreds of locations and thousands of people that this film seems to reduce to a small group of eccentrics in New Mexico.

The other thing I really disliked was the huge moral debate over if we should continue the project after Germany surrenders. Okay, we have thousands of (mostly) men who worked for years to make a really big boom. Does anyone think they didn't want to see it work? There was some controversy at the time about if we should use the device, but it was not that serious, clearly not the huge debate this film makes it out to be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a definitive 5. I finally caught it on HBO the other night. I remember when it came out in theatres telling a friend that it would never be a hit because Americans didn't want movies about history, especially movies that were more about ideas than action. I don't know if that was the reason FMLB didn't do well, but now, having finally seen it, I can add a few observations of my own.

First, while Dwight Schultz has been fine in Star Trek and The A-Team, as the lead in this movie he is off-putting. I kept expecting him to shout out Jon Lovitz-like, \"I am ACT-ING!\" He phrasing and tone of voice sounded like he was trying very had to be an ACT-OR, on a stage where he had to emphasize strangely various words and phrases.

Second, I enjoyed the sly positioning of Paul Newman's character as a manipulator who, at every turn, strives to herd these cats (the scientists) along to get to his goal.

Third, there was some discussion of the moral implications of creating the A bomb, and whether the US should use it. Probably not enough of this, or as in depth as warranted.

Finally, there seemed to be an awful lot of twists thrown in for dramatic effect. I don't know how much of the events in this movie are true to life, but things like having the test bomb slip in its chains or having a lab accident caused by a spilled coffee cup (and a scientist killed as a result) were stretching the bounds of believability. Maybe that stuff, or events that were similar, really happened, but it sure felt like various scenes were added solely for dramatic effect, which undermined the whole tone and purpose of the movie.

FMLB was OK. I need to read more about the actual events to know if it was over the top or just mostly accurate.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I did a screen test and read the script for this turkey in 1988. It was awful then and even worse now - I spotted it on VHS at the local HollowWood Video and said, \"oh, what the hey, for auld ang sine\". Yech.

They had to shoot most of it in Mexico after they ran out of money, a couple of the \"stars\" pitched bitches because they ran out of some kind of exotic fruit drink crap. The movie's plot is OK, I suppose, but I happen to know that the writer intended for it to have a spy catcher thread running throughout.

Dr O ended up being a cartoon character. He must still be whirling in his grave over in the Kremlin Wall.

Technical errors were all over the movie, not only with the infant atomic technology but with the uniforms, insignia, and military jargon. They were too cheap to hire a professional military adviser, of course. Even Mr. Newman's august and expert presence couldn't have saved this bird from being stuffed for Thanksgiving.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is no real story the film seems more like a fly on the wall drama-documentary than a proper film so this piece may in itself be a spoiler. Teen drama about 3 young Singaporean kids (very similar to UK chavs) who play truant from school, run with gangs, get into fights, insult people on the street, get tattoos, hang about doing nothing, etc. etc, They generally imagine themselves to be hard and every so often shout challenging rap chants into the camera. Filmed in MTV style, fast cuts, crazy camera angles, tight close ups and animation interludes. The dialogue might have been crisper in the original languages of Mandarin and Hokkien than in the subtitles and I have no doubt that some of the contemporary Singapore references will slip over Western heads as well as the cultural and political context unless of course you are familiar with Singapore. This kind of teen film may be a first for Singapore but it has been done before and done better in other Western countries, La Haine (1995) for example.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was expecting a documentary covering the 1950 to 1965 era of Sci-Fi and received a big ol' commercial laced with leftist political innuendo by James Cameron and movie mogul baby boomer's pushing the own works. 'Watch the Skies' has in the past referred to the 'Giant Bug' and 'Space Exploration' movies from the 1950's including such favorites as \"Earth vs. the Flying Saucers, \"Thing from Another World\" and \"Forbidden Planet\" as well as \"Them\", \"Deadly Mantis\" and \"Tarantula\". There are lower budget examples that rarely get mentioned like \"Space Monster\", \"12 to the Moon\" and \"Cosmic Man\".

This would have been a much better documentary had the few remaining actors, directors, stunt men and collectors plus the non-Hollywood 'boomer's from the era been interviewed. I only wish there was a \"0\" rating available since a \"1\" is much to generous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Purported documentary that tries to examine sci-fi films of the 1950s and how they affected (and REflected) America. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Ridley Scott and James Cameron are interviewed and Mark Hamill narrates.

Pretty terrible. The \"insights\" that are given are nothing new--for instance--the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war affected a whole generation of children. Well-duh! They try to cover all of the different sub genres of sci-fi films of the 1950s--the big bug movies, invaders from space movies etc etc. That's good but they choose the most obvious films and they've been over analyzed to death already. It was cool seeing clips from \"Rocketship X-M\", \"Destination Moon\", \"Forbidden Planet\", \"The Thing\" and \"The Day the Earth Stood Still\" but everything the directors said was so incredibly obvious to any viewer that it's insulting. Even though it's under an hour I was thoroughly bored 30 minutes in. This gets a 2 for some of the clips but nothing else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"* Some spoilers *

This movie is sometimes subtitled \"Life Everlasting.\" That's often taken as reference to the final scene, but more accurately describes how dead and buried this once-estimable series is after this sloppy and illogical send-off.

There's a \"hey kids, let's put on a show air\" about this telemovie, which can be endearing in spots. Some fans will feel like insiders as they enjoy picking out all the various cameo appearances. Co-writer, co-producer Tom Fontana and his pals pack the goings-on with friends and favorites from other shows, as well as real Baltimore personages.

That's on top of the returns of virtually all the members of the television's show varied casts, your old favorites as well as later non-favorites.

There was always a tug-of-war pitting quality-conscious executive producer Barry Levinson, Fontana, James Yoshimura and the rest of the creative team against budget-conscious NBC execs, who simply wanted a another moronic police procedural like \"Nash Bridges,\" which regularly beat \"Homicide\" in the ratings. The pressure told as the show bounced between riveting realism that transcended its form, and sleazy sensationalism that demeaned it.

Unfortunately for this movie, Fontana, co-writers Yoshimura and Eric Overmeyer and director Jean de Segonzac simply threw in the towel. They took the most ludicrous story are from the series, topped it with an unlikely and artistically unfruitful new plot line, and laid the burden of carrying the whole mess on one of the weaker cast members.

Briefly, some time has passed since the last episode of the show. The former heart of Baltimore's homicide unit, Yaphet Kotto as Lt. Al Giardello, is now a Kurt Schmoke-like candidate for mayor, and Schmoke himself makes a cameo appearance. But this promising start immediately and improbably takes a tragic turn.

The spotlight shifts to Giancarlo Esposito as Giardello's son Mike. A handsome man who has done good work elsewhere, Esposito was one of the pretty faces brought in late to supposedly enliven the TV series. But the question for viewers always was: is Mike that uncomfortable as Gee's son, or is Esposito that uncomfortable in the role?

To be fair, Esposito doesn't get a chance to play out the main story without interruption. That's because the writers choose this moment to revive another storyline that spat on the intelligence of the show's loyal voters.

An apparent snuff streaming video was promoted, and then seemed to actually take place, on the Internet. After some red herrings, the detectives arrested a repellent suspect. But Zaljko Ivanek's harassed and overworked Deputy States Attorney forgot to file motions in time, and the suspect was released, only to be murdered later.

Let's summarize: he forgot to file the paperwork because it wasn't the most sensational case of his career, because the mayor, the attorney general, the governor, the entire Maryland Legislature, the U.S. Attorney General, NBC, Court TV, the BBC, AP, Reuters, People, The Sun, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the LA Times, Time Magazine, The Times of London, The Economist, The Johannesburg Mail and Guardian, L'Osservatore Romano, Le Figaro, Paris Match, L'Equipe and Computer World weren't calling every 10 minutes to ask about the status of the case.

Nevertheless, the old gang of detectives and associates flocks back to Baltimore to help out. There's quite an array of talent on display. Unfortunately, with the limited amount of dialogue to hand out, some of them are merely on display.

Two of the strongest actors, Clark Johnson and Melissa Leo, are criminally underused, while time wasted on Jon Seda and Michael Michelle could be better spent on commercials. The writers do seem to satirize this, presenting Jason Priestley as the latest big-deal detective. On the other hand, they give easy-come, easy-go Michelle Forbes a very affecting scene.

There's some other sly casting, with actual Lt. Gary D'Addario, the center of the book that gave rise to the show, playing another detective. Guests drop in from other shows, like Whitney Allen doing her deadpan and clueless \"Miss Sally\" from the children's show beloved by the inmates on Fontana's \"Oz.\" Dina Napoli of WBAL TV turns up as herself.

Even when entertaining, though, these guests can be distracting. Ed Begley Jr. actually advances the story in his brief appearance, playing Dr. Victor Ehrlich from Fontana's \"St. Elsewhere.\" He's still a vivid character, and fits in a hospital setting. Then you remember, didn't St. Elegius turn out to be an autistic boy's fantasy?

The most useful cameo reflects corporate synergy. This movie was made when Court TV bought re-run rights to the series. That network contributed legal waif Helen Lucaitis, who had interviewed the Homicide team and later appeared on \"Oz.\" The TV correspondent does an efficient job summarizing the news, that is, plot points for latecomers.

Although she's so thin that she disappears when she turns sideways, Lucaitis also adeptly handles a bit of physical comedy with Esposito. He shows more juice in his scenes with Lucaitis than with any of his usual colleagues. Perhaps those two should have done a spin-off.

As the movie winds down, the cream of the cast rises to the top. Although they are saddled with a loser script, Andre Braugher and Kyle Secor overcome it. Their performances remind viewers what made Homicide, for considerable stretches, the best show on the air and one of the best television productions ever.

It's fun to watch top pros do their stuff; it's just a shame this movie doesn't give them more of a chance. Die-hard fans may want to see this movie anyway, but you can live without it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie on videotape with my younger brother a long time ago, despite the fact I was a young boy who's hearing impaired. I didn't have the closed captioning decoder at the time (it was 1986, the year of The Transformers: The Movie), but I could follow the plot and understand what's going on. It wasn't my fault I saw the animated movie intended for girls. My father rented the video to show to my other younger sister.

A decade later and I rented the video (for 50 cents) to watch again with the closed captioning turned on. My memories of this movie was utterly destroyed by none other than a WRETCHED SCRIPT. I have seen plenty of poorly written movies (like COOL AS ICE and JASON GOES TO HELL: THE FINAL FRIDAY), but I have never seen (or heard) the dialogues this bad, only inundating with enough inanity to make your head spin from laughing in hysterics and screaming from the pain of enduring the torture of sitting through this movie. Despite good plot and intriguing story concepts, the script has to be ONE OF THE WORST EVER WRITTEN FOR THE SCREEN, BAR NONE! The incompetent Howard R. Cohen should never be working as a screenwriter, professional or otherwise. I can not believe they would even allow the terrible script to produce a movie like this in the first place. Did the Japanese producers read the script, in broken English or translated before they know what they were into? Even crap like G.I. Joe The Movie and My Little Pony The Movie have redeeming values compared to this abomination.

If you're a big fan of 80s animation, or just taking a nostalgia trip, BEWARE OF RAINBOW BRITE AND THE STAR STEALER! It does not matter whether you were elated or traumatized by the sloppily animated movie with an atrociously written script, or you have not seen the movie, STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE. The movie should be viewed with the precaution to learn how NOT to write a bad script!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here we go another pop star breaking in to the grand TV land and from my observations from her pop careers directors saying yeah your great gwen you could be a real star maybe some day you'll be in the A list movies, they would do anything to expand the show, there just not a pretty face but have an acting ability as well almost overnight. gwen has some how found the Ability to act by watching actors like James dean or Clint eastward, please give the real people in the world that have to sit behind that box and have to suffer pop stars effort's in trying to act. Please gwen stick to your pretty pop videos with your jap posse and don't insult the British with your efforts as an actress. anyway i'm going back to my working class job and think to myself god, i could do that. but yeah remember i'll be working till i'm 65 if i live that long and yeah you put your feet up girl with your royalties every three months, pah marry into money right xxx","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show had a promising start as sort of the opposite of 'Oceans 11' but has developed into a shallow display of T & A. Actually, according to my little brother thats the only good part of the show.

The first season was by far the best, it was new and interesting things just went downhill after that. The only redeeming point of this show is JamesCaan, The other actors are lack-luster. The characters lack depth and they seem to be incredibly selfish nd generally un-likable people.

To quote a friend \"Las Vegas is like Baywaych in a Casino\" In my opinion thats way to generous, Baywatch was way better, and much more realistic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow...not in a good way.

I can't believe people dig this trash. Most of the shows on television are pretty bad, and this has been a running trend for a while now - they just keep getting worse, but Las Vegas definitely takes it home. What a terrible show...

The actors are a bunch of has-been C+ losers that never went anywhere (except James Caan...who knows what he was thinking when he signed on to this pos) so its not their fault that this show sucks. They just can't help it. Blame the producers and the writers. I can't believe they shot this and were actually proud enough of their work to air it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When Las Vegas came out one review described this show as, quote \"A harmless bit of fluff\". Needless to say that after seeing a dozen or so episodes I think this description is right on the money. An assortment of pretty boys and strutting model types play out an assortment of paper thin stories while all the time trying to pretend they are serious business people. One dimensional characters, in a one dimensional setting, pursuing one dimensional stories. That pretty much sums up Vegas. I still watch from time to time to see if the show is trying to evolve and take itself a little serious but alas to no avail. So far.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen every episode, and the characters have all remained the same self absorbed whinny little brats thought out, there's no character development in 5 years (getting pregnant is not development if your still the same daddies girl, only now Delinda whines to Danny because dad isn't around) Sam never changes or grows, which makes her boring, repetitive and just so annoying its sickening after season 3, Danny is a typical soft character that gets ordered about by everyone in his life, (he has no principals morals of his own) especially Mary and Delinda. The old boring clich\u00e9 will they wont they on and off relationship does get boring very fast indeed.

James Cann can act and his character is OK to watch, only he is just another hack writers wet dream, an ex CIA man that has huge contacts and training etc so he can stop any thief or cheater known to man, even though the cameras cant do half the stuff they make out its fun for a while, however in 5 years the writers act very dumb, why? Because they have all this expensive and advanced technology, but no simple walkie talkie (communicating is fast and easy) you never see security walking the floor, only when there's a situation, and suddenly everyone is just there.

The plots very quickly move from the cheating and robbing the casino in one way or another, to awful typical American boy girl relation ships, the same done to death material seen all over the world, they have sex, but I hate you, I've always loved you, I think I do but I love her\/him instead, but what if, maybe one day blah blah blah.

I'd recommend ''Hotel Babylon'' to people who like Las Vegas, it has so much more going for it simply because the characters are interesting engaging and not forced down our throat for 6 months of the year.

I'm glad to be British \u0096 I'd rather see the same actors in 5 different shows rather than 5 years consistently getting worst in the same one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Really, REALLY... What pleases audience (american one!) in this so called show is totally beyond me. What can we learn from these series:

1. Each casino there is spending about 2-3 billion bucks every year to rent a satellite and enormous quantity of hi tech high resolution cameras for their security team. Let FBI bites the dust of them.

2. Every security employee must have voluptuous breasts, of course natural ones. The tits must be shown all the time otherwise they will lose their job.

3. If the employee happens to be a male, he needs to get breasts implanted, then go to step 2.

4. Only in Hollywood one can blatantly rip off other show's ideas then implement them as their own and call all this crap \"original\" and \"art\".

5. Every security with tits bigger than 39D is considered immortal and cannot die.

I really would like to have the opportunity to vote with minus values. -10\/10 for this one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1) If you want to make a movie that deals with social realism it's quite important that the audience identify with the characters that are being portrayed. 2) The audience can't identify with characters that are highly stereotyped or with situations that are to obvious. 3) If you got a bad actor then you can't build any character. Anyway, even if you got nice actors their job will result ridiculous if you force them to speak with a fictitious Andalusian accent.

Jes\u00fas Ponce ignores those 3 points and also makes some cheap jokes that are completely out of place. His script is so predictable: a woman comes out of prison, she meets his old junkie boyfriend, life's tough, etc. Whatever, the fact that the story is everything but original wouldn't be that bad if only Ponce weren't a complete incompetent writing and filming.

I wonder how long will they keep giving money from our taxes to make movies such as this one.

*My rate: 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a comedy\/romance movie directed by Andy Tennant, starring Will Smith, Eva Mendes and Kevin James.

It is about a professional dating doctor -Will Smith - known as 'Hitch' who helps men to land dates with the women they are interested in. He is currently helping a shapely, clumsy Albert who is obsessed with a very powerful, famous and rich woman called Allegra. At the same time, Hitch has become interested in a gossip columnist, Sara, - Eva Mendes - who has been assigned to write about Allegra. When the best girlfriend of Sara has a love disillusion with a man that Sara thinks that is a client of Hitch, she plots a revenge against Hitch and the misunderstanding leads the two couples to a conflictive situation This film is not one that men should see as it has a lot of male-bashing and both subtle and blatant male-hating. There are also double standards that you would have to be blind not to spot. Hitch and Sara are both very guarded around the opposite sex, Hitch still likes women despite his burns from them in the past and is teaching men to make them happy. But of course Sara, is a sexist bigot who makes frequent sexist comments along the lines of \"men want to have sex with anything that walks.\" Shes self-obsessed and knows she looks like a goddess and knows there are no 'real men' out there. What annoyed me most of all was the 'bad' guy who wanted a quick fumble with Sara's best friend who is the classic example of a defenceless 'victim' and even after being turned down physically by Hitch, receives as blow to the pills from Sara, after which she says \"Now I'm satisfied.\" Add to that the \"women are still oppressed\" vibes you get from Allegra not being allowed to spend her own money after asking permission from a table of men. In spite of all the rubbish assumptions and generalisations - Women can always tell when you ain't being straight with them? - this movie does have the correct point that in America, love simply doesn't exist. There are some funny parts in this film, such as Albert and his dancing habits but this film overall, only beats the dreadful film Honey by a marginal amount.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nothing about this movie stands out as either being great or terrible.

In the end, that is what kills it. The blandness is just not good. I can't say I expected better from Will Smith, but I definitely did from Kevin James of \"The King of Queens\"-- but, hey, I'm getting used to saying that a lot lately. This film attempts to make its mark as a witty romantic comedy, but it never hits the bull's-eye. In fact, it never hits *anywhere* within the target. The allergy scene is disturbing; the fact that Kevin James can't dance is something that wouldn't exactly catch anybody off-guard, and is therefore (in a movie like this) not funny. This movie constantly tries to win your heart, but always with the wrong ploy at the wrong time. Some parts are okay (but I'm searching my brain for examples), but I really think this movie should be avoided.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What is wrong with American movies these days? Hollyweird keeps making movies that have men acting like women and women acting like men. The idiotic male director and writer of this movie need to have their heads examined. The main problems with this film are its overt extreme feminist portrayals of the sexes.

In the scenes of the bar, Eva Mendez and her friend are swigging from the beer bottles like you may find sailors on an oil tanker doing so at a bar in Iceland. Mendez continually kisses every girl she sees after that. She also dresses provocatively in every scene, yet curses like a guy. She gets very emotional when she fights with Will Smith for a while, while trying to 'defend' all women from bad guys everywhere.

The men are no better in this movie. What we see is a bunch of idiots trying to do anything they can to win a date. The males in this movie are concerned with getting either sexual favours or unable to speak clearly when face to face with a woman. Men in real life do not behave this way.

What we see in this movie is a product of culture gone awry. Everything is flip-flopped. Guys act like girls, girls act like guys. All this is done while keeping the extreme predilections of the sexes very much a part of the story. Men are shown as soft and stupid but only interested in sex most of the time, while women are shown as macho and overbearing but only as a veneer for their emotional insecurities.

This movie would be good if it wasn't presented obnoxiously to the audience. The content is not the culprit. It is the manner in which the content is presented.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No, *Hitch* is decidedly NOT a romantic-comedy about bilious (and bibulous) former-Leftist-pundit-turned-reactionary-pundit Christopher Hitchens, though it sure would've made for a funnier movie. A dumpy little Englishman, teeth stained black from cigarettes and Guinness, barking out advice -- and acerbic political commentary -- to lovelorn men: \"Look into her EYES when you speak to her, you nutter! And remember: calling someone a 'neo-conservative' makes you a de facto anti-Semite! Can't you get anything straight, you liberal pantywaist?\"

Oh well. Instead, we get Will Smith, whose continuing success remains a mystery to me, at least. I am apparently alone in this regard. Smith is the most powerful man in Hollywood as of this writing: Americans just can't help throwing their money at him. I, on the other hand, find his smugness insufferable, unmitigated by a scene here (spoiled by the trailer) where he suffers a drastic allergic reaction to seafood. We know Smith will bounce back to his bland, over-muscled good looks, because there's a fat sit-com actor (Kevin James) on hand making a fool of himself. We're supposed to laugh hysterically whenever the slob starts dancing like a jackass (cue \"Everybody Dance Now!\" by CC Music Factory), but why would a straight-arrow accountant behave in such a way? I've worked with several straight-arrow accountants for years, and I can tell you that if, in Norman Mailer's memorable phrase, \"tough guys don't dance\", neither do straight-arrow accountants. Am I taking all this too seriously? Or -- and here's a daring thought -- perhaps the writers couldn't conceive a logically-drawn character to save their lives?

Speaking of the writers, they come up with a lousy idea for Smith's love interest: a writer for a tabloid (Eva Mendes). Since when do tabloid creeps deserve love? What universe am I in, anyway? -- everyone here at IMDb is actually gushing over this tripe. Either you all need to raise the bar, in terms of entertainment value for your buck, or I'm just a skunk at the garden party. (Me, and about 150 million other long-suffering boyfriends and husbands.) In any case, if I may imitate Smith's Hitch and offer my male readers some smooth advice: when you're dragged to see *Hitch*, say to your Better Half, \"Hey, that was pretty good\" after the movie is over. Don't be overenthusiastic; don't rave about it -- she'll know you're lying to her. Praise it in a lightly surprised way, as if the movie was better than you expected and wasn't the agonizing time-waster that it actually was. But what am I saying, eh, fellas? -- we dudes know all the moves.

1 star out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot believe I actually sat through the whole of this movie! It was absolutely awful, and totally cringe-worthy, and yet I sat through it thinking it had to get better. It didn't, and I have wasted 2 hours of my life. Will Smith is much better in action movies - I loved him in I, Robot, Enemy of the State and Independence Day - and I don't think he can really be expected to carry off an entire movie as the romantic lead in the way that Cary Grant could. Then again, the script was unbearably awful, and the dialogue was so cheesy.

I disliked everyone except for Albert's character, and even that I found was done with a heavy hand. If you want to watch a modern feel-good romantic comedy, watch something like How To Lose A Guy In Ten Days, or When Harry Met Sally. The 40 Year Old Virgin left me with a smile on my face. I even preferred Music and Lyrics above this - and yes, I know it's cheesy, but at least it didn't take itself seriously, and was sweet. I also disliked the main female lead - and wasn't convinced of the chemistry between her and Will Smith's character.

In all, I think there were two scenes that I liked (and definitely not the ending, which was nauseating and unconvincing!) - Hitch calling Sarah when she hadn't given him her number was quite sweet, and - no, sorry, that's the only thing I liked about the entire film. Don't waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, it is standard Hollywood schmaltz that you can see coming a mile off. It's enjoyable in parts but just oh so predictable. I must confess I did not really enjoy it, but I am pretty tough to please and a lot of my friends loved it.

It is quite sweet, and the actors give good performances. It's a nice backdrop and the eye candy is pretty good. But the irritatingly predictable, unoriginal and really quite dull storyline holds the film back. Personally, I can think of better ways to spend a couple of hours of my life.

The chick flick genre gets some bad press but there are some genuinely good chick flicks out there; this isn't one of them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For what it's worth, this is a fairly decent Road Runner cartoon, if a little short (just under 6 minutes). The gags are adequate at best, the animation is competent, and the new restored DVD master looks nice. However, that's where the qualities end. Allow me to provide a little backstory: in 1958, thanks to a labour dispute, WB got hold of a bunch of canned music that would be used in 6 of the year's cartoons.

There is only one phrase to describe this short's music, and that is \"it has the 4Kids sound\". I use that phrase to describe music which has absolutely no correspondence to the on screen action, and feels like it was recorded by an orchestra consisting of members of a Sonic Youth cover band. The music in this short feels hopelessly tacked on and incredibly obnoxious, especially considering there are scenes in this short (namely the piano trap) that would have worked best with little or no music.

I didn't think a WB cartoon would be ruined by awful music (even Lava's scores aren't this obnoxious), but considering the cartoon isn't that notable anyway, it becomes almost painful to watch with the music. It's kind of like how late 80's episodes of Doctor Who could be bad anyway, and yet be made unwatchable thanks to Keff McCulloch's unbelievably awful music (which sounded like he hit the demo button on all 5 of his Casio keyboards at the same time).

I am going to have people call me crazy for this, but I'd easily watch one of Larriva's RR cartoons over this. At least the canned music was usually in sync with the action on those.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"According to the article at http:\/\/blog.ifeng.com\/article\/2737487.html, one of the actors in the film, Carina Lau, was forced to appear in this movie for free. She was the victim of an infamous kidnapping shortly before this movie was made, and later photos of her in distress were published in a magazine, which has since been forced to shut down and its publisher sent to jail. The actress denies she was assaulted but there was a movie leaked on net that allegedly showed her being gang-raped. (The Hong Kong press, out of respect for her, has mostly refused to report on the incident, but google will turn up a few articles about it.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"2 deathly unfunny girls stays a their deathly unfunny Uncle Benny's beach house. Uncle Beeny doesn't like party. But guess what? the deathly unfunny girls have a, yup you guessed it, a deathly unfunny beach party. If you didn't catch the not so subliminal message that I'm trying to convey. First off, you're a moron. I would rather watch a nude jello tag team watching match between Bea Aurther and Cameryn Manhiem VS. Rosie O'Donnell and Jessica Tandy. This movie, and I lose the term loosely is just THAT bad.

My Grade: F

Eye Candy: Kristin Novak and Charity Rahmer go topless, Iva Singer shows breasts and buns","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is awful. If you're considering to see this movie... two words DO NOT. It's tasteless, the storyline is really lame, and the jokes are even worse. The acting is really pathetic. I can't believe that this movie was made. Rather watch American Pie, Going Greek or Road Trip if you're in the mood for a teen comedy. It's about two girls who head for Malibu on their Spring Break. As usual they didn't do much planning and called (i think her names Michelle)'s uncle to crash at his Malibu mansion. Uncle Bennie strictly forbids them of having any kind of party, and as you would of guessed, they go ahead and do it. Please, I urge you, do not see this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far and away the stupidest thing I have ever seen on celluloid. I mean, we started watching it assuming it was a \"skinemax T&A flick\", but aside from a couple boobs, that was it. I mean, I get the point of making stupid movies in order to show some sex scenes, as they are the sole reason for a movie of that kind to be made. This movie, however, has no sex scenes, and really has no point at all. There is no linear time, the scenes travel around like a fart in the wind, people show up for no reason, then leave, and it is never explained, the plot is never advanced, and nothing happens. I have never been as flabbergasted at how bad a movie was until I saw this. Has the director even been to a film school? Has he ever seen a movie? I don't know, but from the looks of it, he seems to have made some moron proud with this piece of crap, as he is still working. I literally walked away from this movie dumber, but I still recommend watching it, as it should be shown in every film school of the country as an example in what not to do when making a film. Move over PLan 9 from Outer Space, you have a new contender for worst movie ever made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had lots of potential, beautiful women, cute guys, a beach, beer, a hot tub, a mansion on the beach, a swimming pool, a sexy maid who hates her job, and really nice cars. However, the movie had one thing that doomed it to failure... a full length script and a bunch of sexy women who want to give acting a try because they think it would be a cool idea.

Let's put it this way...

If you find yourself at a party and you have a choice between watching this movie or a childs potty training video from the 70s, choose the potty training video.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"too predictable for spoilers, but i'll not be cagey below, so don't read it if you care.

a few dull scriptwriters together for half an afternoon, and even then they run out of ideas. so let's start with a criminal sought by all France...doesn't matter what he has done, we'll think of that later (they don't). some seconds of suspense, but not too much, and nothing unexpected, because that requires Art. half an hour needed to finish off the film; i get it: have them rob a jeweller's, and take a lot of time avoiding alarms etc.; everybody robs jewellers in films just ike this, it's bound to work (it doesn't). no humour, no character (ok, yves montand does get to ham it a weeny bit) and have everyone speak in a quiet deadpan voice that is supposed to make one think of noir, but merely makes the actors sound depressed. if they are silent, it'll make them seem grimmer - but also save us writing their lines. we'd better add something for the stay at home women who are going to watch this stuff, so let's have something to make them empathise with hubby (we forgot to put any women in the film). got it: a son on (gasp) marijuana - oh, and have him attempt suicide for no particular reason (shame? his dad's a mafia boss for crying out loud, but the audience will feel his fatherly care, and if not, sod them). oh, the crooked cop was a classmate of the guy who gets him in the end; wrenching, eh? let's have them all die at the end, or we'll never finish this stuff. is it in the can? right, that's over with then, thank god. who'll we get for director?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Black and Kyle Gass play fantasy versions of themselves in this comic showcase for their side-band Tenacious D, an art-rock outfit with satirical, barbed lyrics. An ex-runaway obsessed with heavy metal and a beachfront-living, pot-smoking slacker who pretends he's a rock god meet and form a band (the birthmarks on both their butt-cheeks form the group's moniker). Opening with a funny prologue which apes a Twisted Sister video from the '80s, \"The Pick of Destiny\" is a fairly well-produced movie aimed at older kids; it occasionally resembles nothing more than a middle-aged variation of \"Wayne's World\", with jokey-stoner interludes and a climactic bout with Beelzebub himself, yet Black and Gass have an enormously comfortable rapport (they also acted as producers, co-wrote the script and all the music). The target audience will obviously go for it, though inspiration is a bit low, particularly in the second-half (just about the time our heroes impulsively outrun the cops in a student-driver car). The music sequences are far more successful than the attempts at movie satire and, for the first thirty minutes or so, Jack Black's manic enthusiasm is infectious. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Once again, we have a movie that packs about 20 minutes of entertainment -- much of it involving the band's occasionally funny lyrics -- into a 90-minute package.\" For anyone old enough to remember, this is along lines of the first \"Bill and Ted\" WITHOUT the story line. If that doesn't say enough as to how brainless this movie is, think about Jack Black singing for about 20 minutes of the movie and that being its selling point. If you actually like listening to Tenacious D because of their musical prowess, then knock yourself out and buy the soundtrack. Don't waste your time with this though. If your a stoner looking for a good bad movie filled with laughs, you're still barking up the wrong tree. No matter the potency of your buds, you'll still be left wishing you'd popped in Grandma's Boy again instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"JB\" (Jack Black) runs away from home after being spanked by his father (Meat Loaf). Years later, he finally makes it to Hollywood and comes across the greatest guitar player he has ever heard, \"KG\" (Kyle Glass).

After a little squabble, the two decide join forces and perform at an Open Mic Night at what appears to be a less than popular bar. To their shock, they don't do that good.

Back at their less than spectacular apartment, the two are trying to figure out what the legends of rock have that they don't while looking at some old magazines. It's only then that they realize that the guitarists on the covers have the same guitar pick.

While trying to look for a similar pick, an employee of the music shop (Ben Stiller, who is also the film's Executive Producer) tells him the ancient story of the \"Pick of Destiny\", of which they seek. This employee, who has long gray hair and thick glasses, also tells them that the pick, which was made from Satan's tooth, is in a history of rock museum.

Now the two pot-smoking losers with delusions of grandeur goes on a music-filled adventure to steal the pick.

Let me say this up front, if you are not a fan of Tenacious D, which gave us the comedy actor Jack Black, then you should skip this one. I am not a fan of these two, and only watched it because it was suggested by Flixter.com.

The jokes, for the most part, produce silence more than anything. I laughed at maybe three of the jokes, and chuckled at a few others. Tenacious D is only for a certain audience, of which I am not.

This movie lags in numerous places, and this is where the worst jokes appear. And let me say that, when Black and Glass are not working off one another, they are completely lost on screen.

All the songs in this movie is by and performed by Tenacious D. Many of the songs perfectly advance the storyline by describing their adventures at the time in the film. However, I felt that the songs sounded too similar to be told apart.

Another problem with this film is that the language will turn off a lot of people. There are a lot of four-letter words in this film. There are also some drug references. I would not recommend this for children.

Part of Tenacious D's schtick is that Black is in your face, and Glass stays in his shadows for the most part. This is how they are in this movie, and it doesn't really work. Now, this may have been part of the act, but I felt that Glass just didn't want to be there. In one scene, he performs his (background) lyrics at a party and he just can't work alone.

Tenacious D are supposedly rock fans in real life, and have maybe two rock legends in the movie, I lost count because I was so bored with this film. Personally, I would have liked to have seen more rock legends and icons in the film. However, we don't get that.

What we do get is a movie filled with completely lame jokes, lots of foul language, a lackluster script. You also get horrible acting, and an unoriginal story. However, you get some pretty good songs that pretty much sound the same.

The story could have been promising, but many of the scenes appeared to have been added into the film at the last second. This is somewhat similar to The Blues Brothers movie many years ago, but the Blues Brothers had a much bigger following -- and two songs on the Billboard music charts. Tenacious D only has a small following, with a few HBO specials under their belt. And, unlike The Blues Brothers, the comedy is not well thought out at all.

If you are a hard core fan of Tenacious D, then I suggest you check it out. However, like most of the movie audience when this film was released to theaters, I would say avoid this one. Save your money on this one, folks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is about as pretentious a movie as a shallow director like Joel Schumacher could make, I suppose. A group of medical students take it turns to die for several minutes; upon revival they discover that their sins have manifested themselves somehow or other. As some of the characters are visited by dead people and some just seem to be haunted by their guilty consciences it's not quite clear exactly what the connection is, but the visions do all seem to look like sixth form art films. Why the students treat their experiment as some kind of grand journey that'll make them famous is a bit of a mystery, as the results are completely unproveable and, as the movie mentions several times, have been documented plenty of times before. Still, it's nice to see Schumacher practising for his Batman trainwrecks with a bit of the old neon paint and coloured lightbulbs. And William Baldwin is a plank.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A bunch of medical student yuppies get together in their spare time to hook each other to the electrical cables and die. Then they stand around counting the time before brain death, and then start CPR and heart-massage and bring each other back to life. The fact that Julia Roberts was in this movie should say it all. FLATLINERS is like group GHOST. Everyone wants to see their dead relatives and visit their old dead buddies, so what better way to do it than have a bunch of Medical Students kill you for five minutes and then bring you back to life. The rest of the movie has the predictable relationship issues, plus the predictable \"GEE MAYBE IF WE KEEP KILLING EACH OTHER, ONE OF THESE DAYS ONE OF US WILL STAY DEAD?\" D'OH!!! This movie should have been called BRAIN DEAD. The fact that the characters were depicted as being Medical Students made me wonder if they had gone to a foreign Correspondence School to get their degrees. The only thing that kept this film from being a total laugh was that they did not just stick their fingers into electrical outlets in order to \"die.\" This film would have been a great THREE STOOGES comedy movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't much mind the factors that others here have objected to - acting, lighting and so forth. For the most part, these things were executed well enough to carry the film and put its points across. It's just a horror film, after all.

What bugged me were the points themselves. Because this is a deeply moralistic film, and its morality is deeply tacky. In fact it's actually fundamentalist Christian morality, and this is a fundamentalist Christian film. Look at the 'sins':

* Sutherland's character picked on a kid at school when he was a pre-teen, leading to his accidental death.

* Baldwin's character used masculine wiles, persuasion and good looks to shag quite a few women, some of whom he videotaped. Ooh, the swine! How unlucky for him that women are such passive, gormless creatures that they had no complicity in the matter.

* Roberts' character's dad came back from Vietnam a junkie, so ashamed to be caught shooting up that he kills himself. Yes, what a terrible sin! Why couldn't he have just become an alcoholic like all the others?

* and Bacon's character picked on another schoolkid. How awful! The fact that he was a child himself apparently counts for nought. Children, it seems, are divinely judged by adult criteria.

Well, maybe lots of people support this level of moral absolutism. It certainly seems to have gone unremarked in this movie's comments. Does everyone just buy this stuff? At least human laws treat children differently from adults, recognising that their ethical sense is partially-formed. This film has no such qualms, and I find that pretty objectionable. Ditto the notion that women are helpless, fluffy creatures before young men's evil lusts. Or that a Vietnam vet driven to drug addiction is so shameful that suicide is a valid option. Pathetic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What I came away with after watching this movie was a guilty conscience. The film itself has a rather intriguing plot line and premise to it, but unfortunately it is a movie that you cannot watch with out being bombarded with pornography. If you plan on viewing this and have a moral problem with the degradation of the marital act for the viewing pleasure of an audience then you are making a big mistake. This is not the type of movie with the token sex scene that you can skip on your DVD player. Near the beginning of the film Baldwin's character is video taping his sexual exploits without the knowledge of his partner. This tape and others like it continue to pop up throughout the movie at unpredictable times. It appears that the film is attempting to make a statement about the dignity of women. Ironically in doing so they made multiple women into prostitutes. I only gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because had they handled Baldwin's promiscuity better it would have been an interesting film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only thing more full of holes than this movie's premise is its script. Flatliners is the ideal showcase for Joel Schumacher's glorious, flamboyant, brazen lack of talent. The plot is totally illogical but super fake-ponderous and everything is art-directed within an inch of its life in the most clich\u00e9d, overheated way. I love how the med school autopsy room is a cavernous vaulted marble mausoleum low-lit in red with huge Rembrandt paintings hanging from the walls. I love how Keifer Sutherland drives a canvas-backed army jeep. No one in Joel Schumacher's movies lives in an un-eccentric manner. It's always an alternate universe where everyone is young and painfully hip, but hip strictly and obsessively according to an out-of-touch middle-aged billionaire man-child's idea of hip. And holy crap! The part where Baldwin brother #16 dies and comes back to life and then is haunted by all the women he's slept with who intone \"I'll call you\" and \"I just need some space\" is the funniest friggin' thing in the whole universe!!!! What kind of a world do we live in where Joel Schumacher gets to keep having people throw money at him? \"Flatliners\" made me want to review the man's entire oeuvre solely for the kind of high-quality yuks contained therein.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Greetings All,

Isn't it amazing the power that films have on you after the 1st viewing ?

I was so delighted by the first viewing of this film, I couldn't stop talking about \"Flatliners\" to all my friends for weeks - mind you I was a very impressionable 18 year old back then and my taste in films have become a little more conservative since then.

Then somehow I forgot about this film until I saw the DVD in my local department store and remembering how great it was I thought \"Right ! I'll pluck you off the shelf when they bring out the Special Edition\".

Last week, I was overjoyed when my best friend invited me over to watch Flatliners on DVD. The expectation was that I would love this film even more on 2nd viewing.. How wrong I was !

Verdict: after 11 years my view on this film had changed from a very scary 1st class movie to total junk which overplays on the religious and supernatural side of things ratherly superficially.

I have never been a big fan of Julia Roberts' acting (excepting for Erin Brockeridge in which she deserved her Oscar) I think the problem with this film definitely lies with the director and a so so mediocre script. I left this film feeling it had no real substance or potential, and just a couple of scarey cheap thrills which weren't very well done at all. Not even the score by James-Newtown Howard, who I rather like as a film composer, could captivate and thrill me.

In 1990 I would have given this film 9.5 \/ 10; but in 2001 I'd be lucky to give it 2 \/ 10 at best.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From 1936-1939, Peter Lorre made a string of highly successful Mr. Moto films. While technically B-films, they were much better made than typical films of the genre. However, Lorre tired of making these highly repetitive films and told friends he wanted out of the series. When it was canceled in 1939, Lorre was thrilled but his plans of getting more complicated and satisfying roles did not materialize when he moved to Columbia Pictures. ISLAND OF DOOMED MEN is one of these films and it's pretty obvious the studio isn't putting much effort into the movie, as I think the plot was written by penguins. Talented penguins, perhaps...but still the movie made little sense at all.

It begins with a guy agreeing to be an undercover agent for the government. He is to infiltrate an island in the US where something strange is amiss. Now they easily could have just got a search warrant to do this. But, given that penguins were writing the film, the agent takes the rap for a murder he didn't commit and spends a year in prison for this. He apparently hopes that he'll be paroled to this island, as many parolees are sent there when they finish the term.

There are some more serious problems with this idea. First, they only have him serve a year before getting paroled--but he was convicted of MURDER and he refused to divulge who he really was. They would never parole anyone in a case like this. Second, what if he wasn't paroled to the island? He would have spent an entire year in jail for nothing! Third, why not just have scuba divers or paratroopers or cops in boats come to the island?! Talk about a contrived plot!

Once on the island, the agent discovers that evil Peter Lorre has set up his own private prison and staffed it with guys on parole as slave labor. What about the men having to report to their parole officers? This was never explained, but Lorre was using them to mine for diamonds and they were treated abominably. Now, another question I had was that if Lorre was discovering huge diamonds there, he was a very wealthy man. So, why not just PAY people to mine for the diamonds?! Why set up your own version of Devil's Island and savagely beat and kill the men?!

Eventually, Lorre gets what's his and the island's slaves are released. Unfortunately, by then, I really didn't care. Overall, watchable but rather dumb. Lorre's career only took a turn for the better when he moved the following year to Warner Brothers. With films like ISLAND OF DOOMED MEN, I could see why his stay at Columbia was short.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thursday June 9, 6:45pm Broadway Performance Hall & Saturday June 11, 1:45pm Broadway Performance Hall

Bless the independent filmmaker. Without them we'd see nothing but Spielberg the Farrelly brothers and films based on old sitcoms. They are the risk takers. They reap the rewards of success and suffer the failures. Max and Grace is most definitely a failure. Credit is deserved by Michael Parness for getting out there and making his first feature which he claims drove him to bankruptcy. He might be better off sticking to the stage if this film is any indication of what to expect in the future. Even though everyone warned me I went to see Max and Grace anyway, hoping I might discover something they did not. It starts off well enough, a party for Max in his parent's house shot in warm subdued light, the camera floating into interesting angles. As soon as we see Max has hung himself, an obvious rip-off of Harold and Maude, the whole thing goes right in the tank. How could he do this unnoticed in the middle of a birthday party? For that matter how could two mentally ill and committed psychiatric patients decide to get married and do it with the blessings of all parties concerned? In the Q&A after the film David Krumholtz suggested the entire story was the surrealist dream of his character Max. This story is so badly written the comment sounded more like an excuse. The film doesn't look as though it was made on a shoestring, all the more reason to be so disappointed with the results. What's intended as funny isn't but instead is offensively bad. The continuity is sloppy the lighting is dreadful and the effects look cheap and forced. BPH seats under three hundred and was surprisingly full but I saw at least thirty or forty walkouts within the first half-hour. At one point Grace, played by Natasha Lyonne, laments her inability to die. I found myself thinking the same thing since I never walk out before the credits. If Krumholtz really thinks this is \"one of the best scripts\" he has ever read it sounds like he needs to catch up on his reading. A terrible waste of talent and resources, this is the worst independent I've seen since Bubba-Ho-tep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched about an hour of this movie (against my will) and couldn't finish it. I'd rate it as a 0. The writing was bad, the plot predictable and one that's been done far too many times. The most annoying part of this movie was the acting done by Melody Thomas Scott. This part did not call for someone appearing snobbish, but she managed in every single scene I saw to look like a (sour) snob or someone who was about to spout something extremely sarcastic or cruel.

The two romances which seemed to develop into something serious almost upon the couples meeting was a bit too much.

I should know better than to watch made for TV movies. If there is absolutely nothing on the telly and this is the only choice, read a book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I think about TV movies, I always think of this film, I have watched it a few times on Sky Movies, it was terrible.

Its been a long time, since I have seen this film, was just browsing, and came across it on here :-S.

A microbiologist (Linda Flemming), goes on holiday, with her son (William Flemming), at this holiday resort kinda place, they meet up with Paul Johnson (taxi driver \/ owns a bar?), and Kathy Johnson.

Its like a weird romantic thing, William starts to fall for Kathy, and Paul falls for Linda.

Some guy passes out in a street, he has some mark on his arm, Joseph (Joseph was a deep sea diver, who on some dive, saw a light, or something, and converted to religion), says he will take care of this person, there is a gap in my memory, then there is a wide out break of the virus, I think Linda offers her help, to come up with a cure, Kathy gets infected (William notices a mark on Kathy's arm), with the virus, also does Joseph.

Paul says some lines to Joseph, then Joseph stumbles away, the next time you see Joseph, he is cured some how, that information is used to cure the infected, then there is a beach party, the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think i would rather have my piles clipped with a pair of rusty clippers than bear another 5 minutes of this movie. In fact i cannot even be bothered to go in to detail! Not sure how they managed to get the needles into the wooden actors to cure them! Better off for all concerned if they had just nuked the island after finding out about the virus, that way it would have lasted as long as the commercial break, and we could have moved on with our lives. Plus one more thing was this rubbish commissioned by the god channel? As all they seemed to do was praise the bleeding lord most of the time. Avoid like the plague! In fact i would prefer it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I ticked the \"contains spoiler\" box, in case I say anything that is a spoiler and don't realise I've said it until I re-read it after I've posted. So it's just in case.

Anyhow, back to reviewing this film.

I saw this film on skymovies earlier on this afternoon, and by the description Sky gives you (these people must be on acid) it sounded pretty good, but then when I actually got about 30 minutes into it, I was appalled. This film, in my opinion, has the worst scriptwriting and actors\/actresses - ever. The young girl who falls in love with the boy from L.A after about 3 hours, is a really stupid, lame character, who has an annoying, whiney voice, and boff hair. -.-. Then there's her lover, who's an idiot, and is also very whiney. Actually, maybe they suit each other. Then there's the boy's mum, who's with him on holiday, and surprise, surprise - she's a doctor, and - oh my god, wait, there's even more unsuspected surprises! A virus suddenly breaks out on the island and she knows all about viruses! =O. SHOCK HORROR! Yeah, right. Lol. Then there's this insane religious lad, who keeps going on about \"'erbs\" or something, and how the Lord knows all. Everyone on the island seems to love him, yet he's actually a stubborn, arrogant, steroid-pumped (you really need to watch this film just for the scene where he comes out of the sea after a swim, his head is like tiny, and his body is MASSIVE. it's hilarious) buffoon who's had way too much to drink.

Anyhow, after all these weirdo characters, including a stoned-looking taxi driver, the religious lad finally gives in to the doctor, and she takes a blood sample, and they get straight to work on finding the cure from that, because for some reason he's dramatically been saved, all down to \"'erbs and God\". AND OH MY GOD. YES, THERE'S ANOTHER Surprise!! YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHAT!! Just in the nick of time, with 11 minutes to go before everybody on the island drops dead in-fact, including her son and his girl, she finds the cure, and injects everybody, and it's all resolved!!! What a pathetic film. I mean, I knew it sounded an obvious ending from when I first started watching it, but I actually though it'd be good and have some sub-plot twists somewhere, but no-no, it was just boring and dry.

Don't watch this film. You'll end up like me - stunned for 3 hours and then demanding the hour and a half you spent of your life watching it back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before I saw this masterpiece I never would have guessed that a devastating and hideously contagious virus could be defeated by the use of Lutheran prayers... and \"erbs\". Ralf Moeller's performance is gargantuan; the realism incandescent. I was so inspired I'm flying straight to Zambibwia tomorrow to crack out the pesto and get my hands together for third world prosperity. God bless this film.

Seriously, I'm going to have to watch Troll 2 and Anus Magillicutty just to believe that it is possible to concoct more hamfistedly clich\u00e9d dialogue. It's so tortured that taking a cheesegrater to your knuckles might well be preferable to sitting through it. The only subtlety it manages to achieve is in its thinly disguised racism, as the poor islanders turn to ineffectual dumb-ass collective prayer which achieves nothing until the \u00fcbermenschlich, linen-shrouded Teutonic hero Moeller, with his direct line to Yahweh, can provide a blood sample which the horn-blowing yankee scientists can get to work on and save the hapless natives. This movie sucks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unbelievable. I never saw something like that. Everything is bad; really bad. From photography (lots of scenes without focus!) to the acting (the young female is terrible). And what can we say about those helicopters made in Paint Brush...? Really amazing B, I mean, Z film.

The plot are bad, clich\u00e9 and bad wrote. Basics conveniences to the screenplay seems to work. I can't even think a young student of cinema making this movie. Nothing justify it.

I recommend that you don't even think to see this movie. Sleep or play solitary are best choices. ;)

xxx","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Standard \"Disease outbreak in remote area; expert who happens to be vacationing in the area takes charge\" movie. There are only a few deviations from the norm. One is that the kids involved are pretty reasonable from the outset. Usually they are monsters who repeatedly gum up the works until they redeem themselves in the end. Another is that the local medicine man\/witch doctor who is normally an impediment early on is never completely discounted or redeemed in the end. Perhaps since this seems to have been made for the faith oriented PAX channel, they didn't want to seem too judgmental about the faithful. Finally, there were no evil local politicians\/leisure industry bigwigs trying to cover the whole thing up. The lack of these stereotypes was refreshing -- if we have the PAX channel to thank for that I may have to sample a few more of their offerings. Aside from that, however, this was pretty standard stuff. You've seen it all before.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cartoon-like special effects, horrible acting and dialogue, and dry plot! This movie has it all! My friend and I went to blockbuster to find a horrible movie that we could make fun of, but this was just too much. The movie begins with a women and her son vacationing on a made-up island in the Bahama region. The women, who just happens to be a doctor\/virologist is in the area when a man collapses. He has a strange wound on his arm, and she immediately knows that it is a contagious virus. The story goes on to show startlingly fast romance between the two teenage leads (this is justified by the girl saying \"I know it's fast, but it just feels nice.\" ????) Anyway the entire island gets infected with this virus and the CDC is brought in. We are told that within three months, if the virus is not treated and contained that it will spread to the united states and kill millions of people. This information does not stop the CDC from leaving the island to save themselves. Thankfully the cure to this horrible virus is found just in time, and the entire island is saved. To celebrate the death of there loved ones, the island people have a smashing party where everyone is dancing, having fun, and forgetting about the horrible epidemic that just occurred.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Genre: Cartoon short with no dialogue, African girl and lion.

Main characters: Inki, the lion and the minah bird.

What happens: A lion wants to eat an African girl called Inki. There is also a rather confusing Minah bird. Is he on Inki's, or the lion's side..?

Message: Erm\u0085

My thoughts: I agree with Lee Eisenberg, this is rather mean on poor African people!! :-( I like how the main character, Inki (who is an African girl) is quite a nice main character, but they still portray her rudely and make a younger audience not like her very much just because she's HUNTING!! GRRR CHARLES M. JONES!! I don't like the lion very much and I think the minah bird is ALL RIGHT (I suppose). Personally I prefer Charles M. Jones's Looney Tunes cartoons in the future.

If you want to watch this anyway, then I recommend the website YouTube. Just type in \"Inki\" on the space in the main page and you're there.

I wish Charles M. Jones had been nicer to Inki in this short. So there.

Recommended to: People who are interested in old cartoons and\/or people who are just messing around on You Tube.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Silly Disney film about a college student who accidentally discovers a potion that makes things invisible. Not a bad idea and some of the special effects are pretty good. Still, the script is VERY bad...all the jokes flop and the acting is lousy. Everybody's trying to be funny and they're not. A real boring, stupid Disney film. But it was fun seeing Kurt Russell so young.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Miserable film. Not even to be compared in one breath with \"To Kill a Mockingbird,\" or \"In the Heat of the Night.\"

Yes, there is racial prejudice but the film is at most ridiculous.

Come now. Would you really have Elizabeth Patterson, of all people, guarding a jail so as to avoid a lynching? Patterson, in her day, played everyone's mother and was the landlady in \"I Love Lucy\" before Fred and Ethel Mertz bought the building.

Imagine exhuming the body so that it will not come out that the black man's gun killed a white man?

Claude Jarman Jr., who was so fabulous in 1946's \"The Yearling\" appears in this mess. He still had those sad eyes. My eyes would be sad too if I appeared in this awful film.

To me, this was nothing more than a Faulkner flop all the way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Virtual Sexuality proves that Britain can produce romantic comedies as vapid as those from America. The only differences are an ending that ties up the loose bits differently than an American film would and a cameo by Ram John Holder, which is always welcome. That's enough to make this a watcher on a cold winter's night.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A British teen movies which centres around a girl (Justine) accidentally creating her dream man (Jake) in by the use of a virtual reality machine, there is only one problem (well\u0085.not just one\u0085) she gets trapped inside his body with a geek as the only person who knows the truth and the only person she can trust. It sounds a lot worse than it is, I found it more watchable for the reason that Laura Fraser was starring in it more than the film content, indeed she looks stunning throughout especially when she dresses in a red lycra dress in order to impress Jake, WOW!!, If only I had a virtual reality machine\u0085\u0085\u0085","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Justine cannot find the perfect mate to make her first time the perfect one. With geek friend in tow, she enters a virtual machine to improve her appearance. When she sees the opportunity to create her perfect man, an explosion occurs and the results are left to your imagination. Problem is, how many obvious sex jokes are left anymore? How predictable can these kind of movies get? A few funny moments here and there, but nothing too outrageous or different from jokes in other movies or even normal life. If you liked WEIRD SCIENCE or jokes about the 'fish out of water' combined with 'gender identity crisis', then by all means these 90 min, you could enjoy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Laura Fraser creates her ideal man on a virtual reality machine and he's suddenly brought to life, of course. Oh what jolly japes don't ensue in a Britcom flop so Day-Glo bright yet so dismal it manages to make the execrable 1980s American teen flick Weird Science look almost decent. The sex-obsessed script is by The Sun film critic Nick Fisher, a former teeny-mag 'agony uncle' who's obviously never watched an episode of Smack The Pony in his life; shame, because then he might at least have been in with a shout of writing female characters that were recognisably members of the human race. This knicker-twisting lot have all too clearly emerged from the virtual brain of someone who imagines they're amusing. Suddenly, the thought of new-wave Iranian cinema is somehow attractive.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh dear. this was quite possibly the worst film i have seen in years. I mean what more can be done with the old \"woman inside mans body\" storyline? it was full of cliches, eg the nerd coming into his own sequence, the \"lad\" getting whats coming to him etc. im not calling these spoilers because any one could guess what happens!! the only thing it had going for it was Laura Fraser, who gave an average performance. and as for the \"dream\" boy, that was the wettest piece of acting ever. even the bad guys were instantly forgettable.

terrible movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard to tell who this film is aimed at; the characterisation and style smacks of a \"Children's ITV\" series crossed with an Aussie soap, yet the subject matter, nudity, and language aims it at an older audience.

The first half-hour has the heroine Justine philosophising about losing her virginity, and is excruciatingly embarrassing to anyone over 18. A complete rip-off of \"Ferris Bueller\", from the talking-at-the-camera bit down to the on-screen graphics.

Her nerdy friend Chas brings her to a computer fair where an explosion during the use of a virtual reality machines turns her into a man. Or actually, creates a male alter-ego of her, called Jake. Don't look at me like that; I'm just relating it the way it was shown.

After this the film is mildly amusing for a while; amongst all the drama-school mugging, only Rupert Penry-Jones brings a real comic touch to his woman-trapped-in-a-man's-body role of Jake. There's some funny scenes with Jake dealing with his new body, and new feelings; nothing you haven't seen before, but then in this film you'll clutch at anything that's entertaining.

Unfortunately Justine and Jake meet up, and hilarious antics ensue (I wish), involving the owners of the virtuality machine who want to kidnap Jake in order to have sex with him, or examine him, or something. Anyway, it's just an excuse to fill an extra half hour with some explosions and car chases; for such a cheap looking movie, the explosions come often and loud, suggesting the money was spent in all the wrong places.

In the end, the heroine realises she can't fall in love with herself, deletes her alter ego, and ends up in a one-night stand with the nerd to lose her virginity (this presumably is what is meant to pass for a happy ending in the 90s). But only after he removes his glasses and puts some hair gel and a leather jacket on; god forbid she actually have sex with someone who _looks_ like a nerd. Of course, this is a bit subversive - in these days of PC movies which tell you to love and be yourself, and that everyone is special in their own way, it's refreshingly reactionary to have a film which screams \"CONFORM!\" at you, and treats virgins and nerds with the contempt they deserve.

The characterisation is simple dire; the nerd is very nerdy (room full of computers, thick glasses, social retardism, virginity, no leather jacket), there's a slut, she's very slutty (blonde, tight dresses, orange tan, vampy accompanying music), there's a jock, he's very... well, you get the picture. You can get away with this kind of characterisation in a broad comedy, but \"Virtual Sexuality\" isn't very funny. It's only mildly amusing in parts, and excruciating in others. It takes a lot for a woman as cute as Justine (played by Laura Fraser) to annoy me, but she manages it.

Don't be fooled by the title; there's absolutely nothing erotic about the film, and it doesn't deal with the topics of how the new communications technologies are changing the way we view and acquire relationships (unless you actually think there _is_ a chance your PlayStation might blow up and change your sex).

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie plays out like an English version of an ABC after school special, with nudity. It makes you wonder who the target audience was supposed to be. It's not as though the writers were too preoccupied with selling a plausible plot either. While it does possess a certain watchability, Virtual Sexuality is fluffier than dandelion meringue. It's a good movie to watch if you're snowed in, the cable's out, and it's the only tape you've got.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't normally write reviews, in fact, I never write reviews. This film was so atrocious it actually inspired me to start. Virtual Sexuality attempts to be a light hearted and cheeky teenage comedy regarding the usual trappings; virginity, boys etc. except the main character apparently turns into her perfect boy that she has created using the help of a machine at a technology fair.

Sound interesting? Well, it isn't. The acting is the most half-hearted and appalling I have ever seen. The unfortunate thing is they appear to be genuinely supportive of script and movie, which probably explains why I have never seen them in any memorable production since. I have not bothered to learn the actors names, nor their characters. The lading lady does not enrapture or charm you and, thus, you do not care for her whatsoever. The leading lady's male friend raises no sympathy even when the script is vociferously screaming for you to pity him. The only rise he will get out of you is one of extreme anger and sudden violence. The only half decent actor was the blonde leading man, who, despite his miserably weak role, really gave it all he could, which wasn't much in the light of such a horrendous piece of work. I will not even talk about the acting abomination that are the 'bad guys' of the plot. But then again, what plot?

I watched this film unfold incredulously, as I had absolutely no idea how anyone would have the foolish audacity to write such a script, nevermind produce, act in, and direct it. I can only wonder. The only reason my companion and I continued to watch such a mangled example of film was the disbelieving laughter it managed to arise out of us as cohesion, logic, class and even impotent storyline were disregarded within half an hour into the film. I have completely no idea why anyone wanted to violate the movie industry by releasing this to the public. This is a joke of a film and is best left to gather dust in warehouses for the rest of eternity. 1\/2 out of 10. If that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think this was a HORRIBLE mistake on Disney's part. First off, Kuzco does NOT need to pass \"emperor school\" to become emperor! That's never happened before. Secondly, the new voices don't sound like the originals at all. Very poor redo. And while I adored the movie The Emperor's New Groove, the New School is just stupid. Like all the jokes are the same, and many are from the movie. The plot gets redundant, always Yzma (is that how you spell it?) trying to become empress, Kuzco stopping her, etc. Or Kuzco learning to become a better person. I think Kuzco gets annoying with his constant complaints and questions. He is a spoiled brat and it bothers me. I do not think this is worth five minutes of your time, much less a half hour.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot believe this show was okay-ed. First off J.P. Manoux does a horrible job filling in for David Spade and Pacha's voice is too deep compared to John Goodman's. The theme song is so annoying and the plots of the episodes are so stupid!!! The only good thing about this show is that Eartha Kitt and Patrick Warburton remain as the voices of Yzma and Kronk. This show is a waste of money and a waste of your time. Half of the episodes are copied of the movie. In my opinion The Emperor's New Groove was one of the best children's movies in years, but they complety ruined by making Kronk's New Groove and this show. You should watch such shows as Spongebob, Fairly Oddparents, Danny Phantom, or Kim Possible but not this show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All this show is, is the same plot. Kuszko (spelling?) is in danger of failing school, he needs to pass to become emperor. He needs to learn something, which he thinks is stupid, he then uses it\/ learns more about it and realizes it's not so stupid. Eezma, posing as the principal, tries to transform Kuszko into some animal to stop him. Every episode.

Jokes from the movie are copied (Eezma's incredibly complicated plans, Kuszko breaking the 4th wall constantly, squirrels.) They should try hiring some writers.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm new to Argento's work, and if this and Suspiria are any indication, then Argento is much more a filmmaker of experience than story. In his films, characters are placed in grueling and mesmerizing horror contexts that literally saturate the logic of the world around them. The camera literally flows gracefully through sets as the characters run, stumble, and choke their way to an eventual horrifying conclusion. It worked, REALLY well, in Suspiria. For some reason it didn't work here.

The problem I see with this movie is that even though the protagonist \"gets help\" by way of contacting the police and asking for help from her friends, it still feels as if she refuses to \"get help\" in terms of actually trying to find a solution to her problem. The entrapment in this film is that she's trapped in the killer's little game, one that she could easily get out of by... not setting herself up so easily? In a weird way it seems like the character wants the torture the killer gives her, which in a way is the point and could have worked except that the whole psychology of it is thrown about mostly due to whatever Argento feels like doing.

As a loving homage to \"The Phantom of the Opera\", it's certainly an interesting and unique take. For all his worth, Argento delights in operatic movements as well, which well highlights the action. It just doesn't make much sense, especially as it delves further into a completely useless ending (yes, I know it's a reference to Harris' novel \"Red Dragon\". No, it didn't work). Why the character should go from one horrifying experience of entrapment to a willing one with the director is beyond me. It felt almost self-serving on Argento's part.

Overall, a fun experience, and between this and Suspiria I'm more than willing to follow up on more Argento productions. But this is not a movie I'd want to return to or remember.

--PolarisDiB","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Obviously it seems many people really enjoyed this movie, and that's wonderful. It is certainly a very well-intentioned film, and I appreciate that in an era of heartless or emotionally damaging films. Unfortunately, the film has a lot of problems and it was not something I enjoyed watching.

The primary problem is the writing. It is just not very funny. When something tries to be snappy or witty and fails, that is far worse than when it hasn't attempted wit at all. This film is to a great degree a series of \"snappy\"-but-gentle come-backs between adult family members, none of which seem imaginative or apt. There is also a few central premises in the film that seem like too much of a stretch of coincidence or character motivation to be believable or really work. Some of the back story seemed more intriguing, and did serve to decorate the story around the edges fairly well, but it couldn't make up for the moment-to-moment flatness that pervaded almost all of the movie.

The directing\/editing doesn't support the film well, either, although I don't know to explain how exactly. Somehow things always seemed to me rather fake, and that the actors were forcing there way through unnatural material for the most part. They tried, and I don't fault any one person here. There were also too many small and charmless roles in it outside the immediate family.

Not a good rental in my opinion, though, again, apparently a number of people found it very charming (I am 38; I suspect that perhaps people over 60 might enjoy this film more?).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was, unfortunately, terrible.

Clich\u00e9d, hackneyed, stilted dialogue and acting make it almost unwatchable.

The feel-good finale is laughably lame.

There is a reason Judge Reinhold's career has vanished.

If you don't live in New York, and aren't Jewish, several of the jokes will be inscrutable.

I, too, found the need to have the unacknowledged lesbian daughter go straight at the end quite insulting.

I simply cannot fathom how this film was so popular at film fests.

It is, without a doubt, one of the worst films I have seen in quite some time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Scott's collection of 80's icons cannot save this teen disaster. But then I suppose that's why it was only a TV movie and not a major motion picture. William A. Schwartz (writer) comes up with something closer to \"Stewardess School\", except this movie is more boring. This movie isn't really stupid, just boring and completely plotless. The only reason to see this might be to see Tina Yothers in an actual role after Family Ties. After this movie and equally dumb \"Class Cruise\", I guess Mr. Scott wised up and went back to directing sit-coms, which was his best move yet. 4 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After Loomis gives a quick recap of Micheal Myers we flashback to 1989 where Jamie is kidnapped by the Man in Black before the burning police station explodes. Micheal returns to Haddonfeild once again to find Jamie and his baby. In this version the Loomis character gets more scenes and seems much more pro-active than he is in the final cut. The Score is much better, more in line with parts 4 and 5, none of the electric guitar BS. And the ending makes a tad more sense. For these reasons coupled with the fact that this cut has more characterization and suspense, and cuts back on the gore factor (Halloween, unlike say the \"Friday the 13th\" Franschise, was never about blatant gore) is why I prefer this bootleg Producer's cut. Not to say that the cut magically turns a turd into gold, it just polishes the turd a little bit and makes it more comprehensible. The whole cult plot is still very stupid, as is Micheal fathering a kid

My Producer's Cut Grade: C-

My Theatrical Cut Grade: D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay wait let me get this street, there are actually some morons on this site who reckon this is one of the better if not the best Halloween sequel. I even read someone saying it was just as good as the original. Pah what nonsense don't believe them I've watched every Halloween and clearly unlike some people knows what makes at the very least a good horror movie and this shower of S is one of the Worst horror movies i have ever seen in my life. Frankly if i was John Carpenter i would sue the person who wrote this either that or go around to his or her place with a hunting rifle. Seriously Halloween sequels in general are nearly all rubbish, two was crap, three was stupid, four is alright, five is well five, H20 alright, Resurrection painful. Yet, in many ways i find this to be the worst of a very bad bunch of sequels. Why? Well let me just embark on some kind of rant not so much a review but a mindless rant on why Halloween 6 the Cure of Michael Myers is one of the most abysmal movies i have seen in a very long time. OK where should i start, ah yes the plot oh boy the plot. Basically the plot is a heaped together mess containing cults, signs of Thor and some other crap. It's just stupid it really is, the film tries to be flashy and intelligent yet, its heaped together in such a horribly made way. Why does Michael Myers got to have a reason for killing people? Simple enough explanation Micahel likes to kill his relatives that would suffice, but no we have to have a man in black and mysterious cults and signs of Thor and utter crap. God its so bad it made me want to cry it really did, the writers have tried to add to the character of Myers but have actually managed to do the entire opposite. Apart from wearing a mask and a boiler suit < which is a completely different colour by the way, Myers just isn't the same guy from the original or even two, heck maybe even four. Thats another thing why has Myers become a Jason Voorhes parody? I thought it was meant to be the other way round, yet Myers is so similar to Jason, all he does is endlessly kill people in gory ways. In the original he teased his victims took his time and as a result the whole thing was far more suspenseful. In this he just walks around hacking people to death. I mean in the space of Half an Hour we had equalled the amount of kills in the original it was just ridiculous. Oh and Myers in this seems to have a really big head, i mean its huge and hes put on loads of weight. What else is crap, oh yeah the return of Tommy Jarvis thats pretty bad, in fact all the characters in this film are crap bar Dr Loomis of course. I can't stand the little kid, i wish he had got it he's really irritating. Our Heroin is boring and not interesting. And her whole family are a terrible bunch of actors. The mother is rubbish, the brother is bad and the Father i mean was this his first part or something? He was like a cartoon villain for gods sake he was actually more evil than Myers < By the way his death is one of the most abysmal i've ever seen i think even Friday the 13th wouldn't come up with something so entirely laughable. What else is rubbish oh yeah Tommy Jarvis, don't know the name of the guy but he really can't act, he tries his best to be serious and all that but i just wanted to laugh at him. I wish he had died in fact if everyone had died it would have been quite good really. There is Dr Loomis a horribly aged and dieing Donald Pleasence by all account. Despite him being on his last legs Pleasance is still the stand out in the brief amount of time he features. Its such a pity that such a corner stone of this franchise had to say farewell in garbage like this. What else is rubbish, oh yeah the bit where the radio DJ gets it. Firstly how the hell did Michael manage to get in that van when five minutes ago he was in his house? Secondly it was just a pointless kill which may boost the body count but is just another peace of nonsense which adds to the drivel that is this film. Its in fact that death which said it all for me in that it was pointless a lot like this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Taste is a subjective thing. Two people can watch the same movie with one of them loving it and the other one hating it. As it concerns 'Halloween:the Curse of Michael Myers' I fall into the latter category.

I'm of the opinion that John Carpenter, in 1978, made one of that decade's finest fright films, which despite its flaws, still holds up well into the 21st century. It reused many of the old horror film devices but utilized them in original and effective ways. It had no pretensions that it was anything other than a movie about an escaped mental patient stalking babysitters on Halloween night. And yet there were 'ideas' in the film but they were subtly introduced and not hammered into your skull. It juxtaposed the myths of the macabre festival with the reality of what was taking place in the story and it did this with a wonderful ambiguity.

The 'filmmakers' of this 'film' probably wouldn't even understand that previous paragraph. That's why we're saddled us with this miserable and inept piece of disposable celluloid. Direction, script, acting are of the lowest strata imaginable. This is the type of film that is so mind numbingly dull and nausea inducing as to make you want to crawl back into the womb and die. It is also truly, truly sad to see veteran British actor Donald Pleasence wasting his acting abilities with this saliva puddle of a movie. He seems drained of all his energy and resigned to the fact that this may be his last film. Maybe that's what killed him.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All ambiguity about Michael Myers has withered away thanks to this series' chronic habit of arseholing about with its continuity and pulling relatives out of nowhere. This entry introduces the potty angle that he's not just a psycho killer but is actually controlled by runes, which appear as a star constellation every Halloween, and a cult is using him to... erm, well, this film is far from coherent and I lost track of the plot after a while. The movie hemorrhages credibility so profusely it doesn't have a drop left by the end. Why does Michael put one victim's clothes in a washing machine? Why does an otherwise empty corridor have a deadly spike sticking out of the wall? Does getting electrocuted really make your head explode? And so on. It's left to Donald Pleasence, in his penultimate film role, to produce some wonderful little moments from the pile of dreadful dialogue he's given.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man, the '90's really were an horrible decade for movies. The movies are lacking in a good style and also the storytelling is often lacking.

This 6th entry into the long running Halloween-series is certainly a bad one. You just never really get into the story because it isn't a very well constructed and build-up movie.

It's simply a poorly done film, that also suffers from its imagine-less writing and non-compelling characters that are in it. Dr. Loomis seems to be in it just for the sake of being in it. It's a real shame that this had to be Donald Pleasence last film-role. It's nice and also sort of suiting that his last role is in an Halloween movie but he definitely deserved to be in a better one.

There is never a sense of real danger in the movie and the character of Michael Myers just never comes across as threatening or scary. Perhaps it's because he's featured too prominently throughout the movie, from pretty early on already. He does his usual stuff again but without too much class or originality. Also the attempts to uncover Myer's past don't really work out, for the main reason that it just doesn't get explained very well. It's obvious that the script went through various re-writes before- and also very possibly during filming. Several scenes even got re-shot or added after the first cut turned out to be far from pleasing.

The movie more often looks and feels like a made for TV one. This is also due to the lack of some real good gore. As an horror movie it really is lacking in basically everything to make this a good or even original one to watch.

So far the worst out of the series!

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Scanning through the comments, there doesn't appear to be a lot of love for this movie, and it's not very hard to see why, it's rubbish.

Now, I will start by saying that the finished product was hurt, in any number of ways, by the death of Donald Pleasance (Dr Loomis) in post production. This required a re-jigging of the film's conclusion with Loomis buying the farm and took away what was supposed to be a double twist at the end with Micheal swapping places with mysterious \"Man in black\" and I do not mean Johnny Cash.

Now to the story. The fifth movie ended rather unsatisfactorily with Micheal Myers escaping from jail with the mysterious man in black. It turns out (aggh) that this man knows the origin of Micheal's evil and is also a colleague of Dr Loomis named Dr Wynn. They also kidnapped Jamie Lloyd (played by Danielle Harris in parts 4 and 5 but here played by JC Brandy). Jamie, pregnant, escapes from Dr Wynn's lair and so Micheal follows her and kills her. But she'd had the kid so now he needs to track the baby down so he can kill his great nephew.

We hear some ludicrous explanation to Micheal's evil involving Gaelic curses down bloodlines and mysterious symbols. A radio show is broadcast from Micheal's home town for some reason, which gives Micheal some more hapless victims.

In the end the movie, just like this review is vague, confusing and directionless with a very anticlimactic ending.

Some sex scenes and nudity. Poor plot, passable effects, with some good run of the mill slasher kills, but severely lacking in motivation. For what was supposed to explain everything, this only stirred up some new questions, made parts 4 and 5 pointless and was a poor way for a great actor in Pleasance to end his life and career.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is a lot wrong with this movie. It can be said that doing a sequel to \"Halloween\" was a bad idea in the first place, and we should feel lucky that the previous entries, even at their lowest, were still watchable. But even still, \"Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers\" -- even today -- is so bad, it's shocking. Poor movie-making at it's worst, indeed. There is so much blame to go around. But where to begin? Whose shoulders does this blame rest on?

Was it director Joe Chapelle's style-over-substance directing? Well, at the very least, the sixth installment is fresh on the visual front. And as far the visual effects go, you get to see Michael kill in some pretty gruesome ways, even if it doesn't quite fit in with the overall tone of the series.

So, could Daniel Ferrands' troubled script be the culprit? Well, to be fair, he did the best he could. By the time you reach the sixth entry in any series, you're running out of places to go. Finding a rhyme to Michael's reason isn't a bad concept so much as it's an uninteresting one, especially the way it's handled here. And it really doesn't help that the movie was hacked to pieces and sewn back together so many times that the story got completely lost towards the end.

Perhaps Dimension\/Miramax could have botched the whole thing. Afterall, this was the first studio film in the \"Halloween\" series and we all know what happens when too many cooks get in the kitchen. Heck, look at the unbelievable lows they dragged \"Hellraiser\" to? I guess everyone is to blame, because aside from the actors and the visual effects guys, it seems nobody put in the effort to deliver a decent flick.

The bottom line, though, is that no matter how you cut it, slice it, dice it or electrocute it until it's head explodes, \"Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers\" was never a good film. Marking an all-time low for the series that nearly killed off any credibility for Michael Myers, \"Curse\" is just that: cursed. The thorn angle was never interesting, nor was it probably expanded upon. The needless gore is so out of place and replaces the tension that is the trademark of the \"Halloween\" name. Towards the end, the movie stops making sense, stops trying to push a plot and simply tries to find a way to kill the characters and end the film before anything else is lost. It's sad that Donald Pleasence's final performance is immortalized in this film, even if the man did the best he could under the worst possible conditions. And for the most part, there's other strong cast-members in this film. Paul Rudd plays the weird, anti-social adult Tommy Doyle rather naturally while Marianne Hagan does a fair job at portraying the sympathetic female lead. On the other side of the coin, the re-casting of Jamie Lloyd was a shame, and thank God Devin Gardner doesn't do movies anymore. As the child in the film being pursued by the \"Man in Black,\" Danny is the anti-Jamie in that he is annoying, whiny and absolutely unbelievable in his role. It's sad when you can't even feel sympathy for a child in a horror film. But I guess that's \"Halloween 6\" in a nutshell. Essentially, this is the anti-\"Halloween\", made by a director who didn't know what he was doing and a studio that had their own agenda. Hell, even the music is bad. Many will try to paint this as the edgy-\"Halloween\" because of it's sci-fi twist, but really, it's just stupid. Save for some good visuals and decent characters, \"The Curse Of Michael Myers\" is just about as bad as it gets. And this is coming from a fan!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Curse of Michael Myers\" is a very frustrating piece to deal with for a fan of the Halloween series. After a very disappointing letdown in Halloween 5, the series reached a near ebb in plot lines, with a silly devolution into witchcraft and a teenage cult dedicated to the worship of Michael Myers. \"Curse of Michael Myers\" ups the ante in blood and gore, but really represents a decay in the series' integrity. It's too bad to, as this is the last movie for Donald Pleasance as the character of Dr. Loomis. Pleasance has some good screen moments (precious ones if your a fan of the series) as the now very aged and as he says \"very retired doctor\". Sadly he died before the movie was completed, and it is very apparent at the conclusion of the film that the stories original climatic scene was never realized. Right from the beginning credits, Halloween 6 has more of the feel of a made-for-TV movie then that of the block-buster horror flick that it started out as in 1978. Any loyal Halloween alumni should have demanded more from this film,... Dr. Loomis and Donald Pleasance deserved more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If Halloween 5 was a cruel joke to the fans of the series, than Halloween 6 is a like a vicious insult. The storyline has gone to the dogs everyone. Michael is used as a helpless pawn in this film and he isn't at all scary. He reminds me of an over-weight alcoholic man than the boogeyman that struck fear in our hearts back in the original. There are almost no redeemable qualities about this feature and i'm so glad H20 came out because it would be an insult to fans to have this be fresh on our minds.

Halloween 6 had about 2 aspects that I liked. Having an adult Tommy Doyle in the film was a nice touch and it linked it to the original. Donald Pleasance is here(in his last performance...what a bad film to end an otherwise nice career on). When he's on screen he makes you remember the good old days when Halloween was actually scary.

That's about it my friends. The stalk sequences are unoriginal. One of them being a blatant rip-off of the Laurie\/Michael chase in the original. The other characters are terribly under-written and just aren't likable. The music, on of Halloween's highlights even when the film is bad, is tortured in this film. we get a silly rock version of the stalk\/chase theme. What were they thinking when they made this film.

*SPOILER*

Their biggest mistake was killin off the character of Jamie(Now played by another actress who isn't worth mentioning)We watched this character escape death in two films. We rooted for her and when she is killed in this film you cant help but feel sorry for her and realize that the filmmakers don't care when good characters are established in a film.

*END SPOILER*

The less said about thi embarrassment the better. I wish it didn't exist. I suggest skipping this film, and even 5, and just going straight to H20 because if you watch this you may not want to see another Halloween film again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"[possible spoilers]

The sixth \"Halloween\" film is an utterly depressing affair, but unfortunately not in the manner envisioned by the filmmakers. By now, everyone knows the story of how it was butchered and released in such a sloppy, incoherent form. The second half, in particular, makes little to no sense, as plot elements are introduced and dropped, seemingly at random. The very ending left me scratching my head. What the hell happened? Is Dr. Loomis dead or what? This is what you get when you put a shameless hack in charge of a motion picture. It's not a pretty sight.

On a related note, this is the most graphically violent entry in the series. I have no problem with gore if it's in the right place, but this movie takes it to absurd levels. The infamous exploding head must be a new low for the series. Michael himself even seems to be enjoying the act of murdering another human being, inconsistent with his efficient, methodical approach in the John Carpenter original.

I'm not quite sure who was responsible; director Joe Chappelle or the producers, probably a combination of both. I'd be perfectly happy to grant a pardon to all concerned if only they'd release the legendary \"Producers' Cut,\" a more complete version of the film that is a vast improvement from every account. From what I understand, it's like a different movie altogether. I offer to pay full price to purchase the DVD if Miramax comes to its senses and releases it.

There are a handful of good elements, however. The idea of Michael being controlled by the Druids is intriguing. Paul Rudd is solid as Tommy Doyle, whose appearance is a neat tie-in with the original. The slick visuals help make the proceedings a bit more watchable. But these meager offerings are overshadowed by the overload of drivel we have to put up with.

Finally, \"The Curse of Michael Myers\" is noted for being Donald Pleasance's last film. Many of his scenes were excluded from the final cut, and when he does appear, he seems frail and unhappy. The movie is dedicated to his memory, a blatant (if unintentional insult) if there was ever one. The fact that a talented performer should end his career like this is too depressing to even think about.

*1\/2 (out of ****)

Released by Dimension Films","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is very bad. In fact, the only reason why I've given it a 2 rather than a 1 is because it made me laugh. Without giving anything away, a man's head actually explodes in this film. It was so pathetic, I laughed. I don't believe the scene was meant to be funny but it's nonsense. Complete nonsense. The original Halloween is such a good film, it's a shame they had to go and make such a stinker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am not quite sure what to say\/think about this movie. It is definitely not the worst in the series (there's still \"Halloween 3\"). The style is just very different and it focuses on other elements than its predecessor did. It tries to explain why Michael Myers freaks out on Halloween and starts butchering around. Well, all that stuff about Michael Myers being cursed and the evil cult was a rather nice effort, but I didn't buy it. None of the other installments in the series tried to come up with any fancy explanations.

The movie contains lots of gore. Actually it's plain carnage. If you haven't seen the other Halloween films you will probably like this one for its blood content. But for a real Halloween freak this sequel might be just too different to be seen as a good one. Suspense was turned into terror and carnage (exploding heads..., you get the point).

The ending (theatrical cut) is simply awful. Michael gets stabbed with a needle, then beaten up with a pipe, then stabbed again, this time with more needles, then beaten up a little more until there's slime running out of his head (where did this green stuff come from anyway?). Basically it's nothing more than trash worth 5 million $.

There was one good thing though: Michael's mask!

Dedicated to Donald Pleasance, quite a disgrace.

My rating: 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most of this film was okay, for a sequel of a sequel of a sequel...

I was impressed by the amount of suspense there was; I HAD actually expecting that to be chucked out the window in favor of gore, gore, gore. It wasn't, but there's some pretty ridiculous deaths.

The thing that I disliked, however, was all of the plot complications. Those could have been okay, if the scriptwriters had taken the time to explain all of them through. But what was the purpose of the secret society in the mental institution, specifically? Why were they protected from Michael's damage until a certain point? What exactly were they going to do with the baby? How did Jaime Lloyd get pregnant, for that matter? Why lock her up for 20 years for her to get pregnant, too? Why did Michael kill all his co-conspirators in the end? Why were there fetuses in the lab? The actors seemed to have \"figured it all out\" once they saw the fetuses.. But it was never explained to the audience.

If you're just going to watch this film to see people get snuffed, then this'll be okay for you.. However, if you can't stand a plot being thrown at you which remains unresolved by the time the credits roll, you should go watch something else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Avoid this one! It is a terrible movie. So what if it is very exciting? All it is is just pointless murders. And the whole thing with Thorn and Michael's curse, that was the absolute worst thing they could possibly do to the series! Why couldn't they leave Michael's story a mystery? He's supposed to be the Boogeyman, not part of some stupid cult!! Ugh! Thank God for Halloween H20, which wiped out Halloween 3-6! They all sucked! But anyway, if you see this movie, please expect no more than pointless murders and gore.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Normally I wouldn't go to the trouble of commenting on a horror movie sequel, because it's usually assumed that they're BAD, and if you watch them with a healthy disrespect, they can be very fun and enjoyable to taunt\/laugh at. However, this chapter of the ongoing Halloween saga came close to gumbing up everything the original stood for. In the very first movie, Dr. Loomis said (very pointedly I might add), that Michael Myers was evil, and this tries to explain why (doing a bad job of it I might add). In my opinion, he was much scarier when he was just a blood hungry freak. The whole goth\/cult thing was unnecessary and a desperate attempt to throw a new curve into the Halloween equation. The result was a boring, predictable movie that was not scary and not bad enough to be funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"By far this is the worst Halloween movie ever made. The acting is bad, except for Paul Rudd, and Donald Pleasence. The girl who played Kara (forgot her name) was ok, but overall this movie was basically a big letdown. Nothing moved the story forward, it lacked substance, and the scares that made Halloween and H20 so good. All and all, skip this movie, it's not worth the price of rental.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, just what the HELL is all this supposed to mean??? Halloween 6 (let's just call it that, OK?) is, without a doubt, the most CONFUSING film in the series (and from what I've heard, seeing the original \"producers cut\" doesn't sound like it makes things any less bewildering than the \"official\" release). What a mess.

This isn't a really bad film, as some have said. It has its scary scenes and some rather intense moments - it just DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE! Don't tell me that Michael was \"engineered\" from the beginning to be evil and kill and destroy, and blah blah blah. It was bad enough when they turned Michael into Jamie Lee Curtis' brother (just so they had an excuse to keep her in the second film) - this is too much.

It would seem this is another case of the creators of the film trying to be \"too smart\" by coming up with a new premise that will shock and impress us all. Bad move, guys. We're not looking for an explanation of why Michael kills, so please don't try and feed us this crap. Show me Michael looking menacing and killing a bunch of people. Show me Dr. Loomis trying to track him down and, as always, coming up just short. Don't waste (what turned out to be) the last performance of Donald Pleasance by telling me (in the most confusing way possible) that Michael was \"created\" by some cult from hell and that his \"seed\" will be passed on to another and... oh, brother.

Halloween 6 has its moments, don't get me wrong, and we all know there have been FAR worse sequels than this (Hellraiser, anyone?) so get what you can out of it (the scene toward the end of the film with Michael charging down a deep red corridor is particularly effective) and try to ignore the screwball plot. Hopefully one day we can all see the \"producer's cut\" and maybe get the chance to make (a bit) more sense out of all of this. Till then, this will have to do...

-FTM","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Michael Myers, the deranged, not-so-young-anymore psycho, who seems to get beefier with every appearance, is resurrected by his druid brothers to wreck more menace upon his family members, and any one else who gets in the way. Gaps in logic seem to be ignored in favor of a healthy body count. Michael, who originally preferred strangulations and kitchen knives, learns to swing an axe and use whatever means necessary to off his victims, and the result is an awful, patchwork, dollar store film virtually unhelped by a few genuinely creepy sequences. Donald Pleasance, who died shortly after production, seems to have been injected into this story simply so *somebody* could be billed as the star. You won't want to cover your eyes during this one, but you will shake your head at the downward slide of John Carpenter's classic creation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The stranger Jack (Matthew Lillard) arrives in the studio of the crook collector of antiques Max (Vincent D'Onofrio) and tells his ambitious companion and specialist in poisons Jamie (Valeria Golino) that he is Jack's brother. Jamie does not buy his story, dominates Jack and ties him up to a chair. When Max arrives, Jack proposes US$ 100,000.00 for each one to protect him in a negotiation of the antiques \"Spanish Judges\" with a wealthy and dangerous collector. Max invites his stupid acquaintance Piece (Mark Boone Junior), who comes with his retarded girlfriend that believes she is from Mars, to compose the backup team. However, Jack double-crosses the collector and then he intrigues Jack, Jamie and Piece.

The low budget \"Spanish Judges\" is a movie with a reasonable screenplay with an awful conclusion that wastes a good cast. Valeria Golino is astonishingly beautiful but together with the good actor Vincent D'Onofrio, they are not able to save the stupid story. Further, the scenes that are supposed to be funny unfortunately do not work, and actually they are silly and not funny. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): \"Tudo Por Dinheiro\" (\"All For Money\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"James Cagney plays Richard Gargan (nicknamed \"Patsy\"!), a former gangster now overseeing the surly lads as the new superintendent of a state-run reform school. Tepid genre entry wherein Cagney's the whole show; he dominates the picture, but only because there's not much else of interest going on. Jimmy gives just what's expected from his hard-boiled persona, which can be satisfying if you're in for a quick fix. The direction (by Archie Mayo, though Michael Curtiz was said to have helped) is straightforward without being particularly gripping, although the narrative slips in the second-half, grinding the film down to a messy conclusion (with even Cagney's Patsy getting lost in the shuffle). Remade in 1938 as \"Crime School\" and again in 1939 as \"Hell's Kitchen\". ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A friend gave me this movie because she liked it. I decided I would finally watch it. It was sooooooo long. I kept waiting for the suspense to happen but it never did. I kept waiting for something to happen after the opening scenes, and it never did. I stopped the movie and came back later. I actually forced myself to watch the rest of it hoping it would get better. It got worse. I kept asking myself, who are these people? Do they have feelings? are they just robots? I'm glad I didn't pay to see it or pay to rent it. The end would have been better if Dutch died from the gunshot wound. At least we would have gotten some emotion from the audience. Or maybe not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Did you ever see the film \"Marathon Man\"? The part with the dentist? I would rather have that happen to me than to sit through \"Random Hearts\" again. It wasn't simply uninteresting, or uneventful-- It was horribly, painfully, and agonizingly BORING. At one point, I momentarily lost conciousness. To the average layman, I may have appeared to be sleeping, but the other movie patrons knowingly realized I actually BLACKED OUT from the bordom. I thought I was going to die. When the film finally ended (I think it was twelve hours long, but I'm not sure), I let out an exhasperated \"Thank You Jesus, It's Over!!\", to which all other movie goers cheered. If I had to listen to Harrison Ford drone on one more second in that monotoned whine, I would have been forced to search for something sharp to jam in my eye to divert my attention. This is 136 minutes of my life I will never get back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unusually cold and silly drama from director Sydney Pollack. Soapy plot revolves around adulterous couple perishing in a plane wreck, leaving their spouses to find eachother and connect on their own intimate level. Romance-novel writing gets sluggish treatment, although I thought the performances by leads Harrison Ford and Kristen Scott-Thomas were fine. Slick production holds interest, even though the plot keeps covering the same ground, and never builds any emotional momentum. As a result, the climax in the airport is a big 'So What?'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nothing could be more appealing than the idea of a good love story featuring Kristin Scott Thomas and Harrison Ford. The cool, refined English beauty and the warm-blooded American male -- what could possibly be more lovely? Well, this is not that movie. Right away they ruin it by casting Kristin Scott Thomas as an American Congresswoman. That's like casting Hugh Grant as Babe Ruth. Or Colin Firth as Al Capone. Kristin Scott Thomas is exactly the sort of woman you don't picture shaking hands with greasy ex-junkies in filthy slums, or squeezing into smelly crowds and kissing babies. She would have been far better cast as the English born widow of an aristocratic Senator, the kind who belongs to the hunt club and goes to flower shows but has no idea how the other half lives.

Then there's Harrison Ford as a regular guy cop. Certainly he's tough enough for the role. But the idea that he's going to romance this stunning high society beauty is a bit hard to swallow. Why couldn't he have been, say, a tough but wealthy reform politician with blue-collar roots who inherits Kristin's late husband's Senate seat? The two of them are initially quite cool to each other, but for duty's sake Kristin is cordial to him, and he in return starts showing her some of the rawer side of life -- things her husband sheltered her from. Her political awakening coincides with the jolting passion of a newer, more blue collar, lover -- one who appreciates her polish and refinement far more than her aristocratic husband. Now that's a love story! Instead of that, though, you get a blank, meaningless \"thriller\" where the action drags and nothing happens. Well, there is one ghetto style \"drive by\" scene where Harrison almost gets killed, but it's so abrupt and unexplained it's really more like welcome comic relief.

The sky is always gray in this movie, and our refined, lovely Kristin always looks a little chilled. When she's supposed to be dreaming of passion, she looks more like she's dreaming of a wool blanket and a cup of tea! She also looks a bit sleepy most of the time, like she'd really rather be napping in the bed than screwing Harrison Ford.

All things considered, I'd say you can't blame her.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It wasn't until I saw Sidney Pollack in the picture that I ever connected him to this film. This is his worst possible movie. Absolute dreck. The dialog is wooden and unbelievable, the plot is unbelievable.

Kristen Scott Thomas is wasted in this movie. There is nothing about her character that makes you even want to believe in this story.

Harrison Ford is like on Valium. There is no life in his eyes.

I blame Sidney Pollack for the failure of this movie. The script is awful, and he is too smart to not see that. So it smacks of some kind of payoff, whether of a studio obligation or something else, but this is just BLOODY ROTTEN!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So much great chemistry between Kristen Scott-Thomas and Harrison Ford, but every time the story about their relationship began to gather momentum the script cut away and dealt with some irrelevant sub-plot that did nothing to advance the story. Indeed, the subplots had nothing to do with the story at all. They were like commercial breaks in which you watched a trailer for another movie.

The writers (or someone who controlled the writers) obviously didn't trust themselves to write compellingly about relationships and the interior lives of their characters. They seemed to be uncomfortable unless they threw in some gun battles and bar fights. Or perhaps they didn't trust the audience to pay attention to a story about a man and a woman trying to understand their relationship under difficult circumstances. After all, we all know how boring \"Casablanca\" was.

Perhaps if the relationship between Kay and Dutch had been developed more and had been allowed to play out, the writers would have know how to end the story. This film is a disappointment for not doing more with its wonderful actors, who gave good performances but could have done more with a better script.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why is it that such \"romantic\" movies that never actually go anywhere, always start (and probably end) with crappy jazz? It's not clever and it makes it look like a bloody tv-movie. This film was sappy, slow paced, boring, unoriginal, wooden and did I say boring?

Harrison Ford was probably trying to be mysterious and crude, but he was just a crawling, mumbling cop that seemed to walk into the congress-woman's home like everything was fine, when he behaved like a pervert - staring at Thomas with a pervy glare, hardly ever bothering to speak.

And why the hell do they always get British actors to put on crappy accents - they're casted because they're famous, and everybody knows they're british precisely because they're famous!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Motivations of the characters was completely unbelievable. Many times throughout the movie you find yourself thinking that the characters' actions were totally illogical, making it impossible to identify with the characters. Possibly, the writing \/ direction were completely out of sync making the movie painful to sit through. I wanted my money back from the video store...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a Harrison Ford fan I am probably being kind. It was predictable, sappy...my husband made a lot of gagging sounds while we were watching it. What a disappointing movie. Our local newspaper (San Jose Mercury News) actually gave this 4 stars out of 4 stars!!! Hard to believe that the reviewer saw the same movie we did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I clerk in a video store, so I try to see the movies we're about to put out each week. I don't have a problem with this; in fact, I sort of feel it's a privilege. Not so with this film . . . After an hour and a half of our hero whining and growling his way through scene after scene, I was truly wondering if they planned to get to the point. I felt like I should be getting paid for watching this at home, in my free time. And if I'd known there was another hour to be endured, I might have given up right then. I didn't care about the characters, the filming was unremarkable, and Ford made kissing look like a chore. Even the score was incongruous and jarring. What a waste.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really like Harrison Ford so I eagerly rented this movie only to be disappointed minute after minute. Mr. Ford seemed to be walking through very warm water looking for a place to urinate. His co-star was very good and had the better lines. The story intrigued me but the mistake - BIG MISTAKE - as everyone is identified via driver's license or passport before they board any american commercial aircraft left numerous plot questions in my mind.

I could have cared less about these people. In fact, the sub-plot of the Internal Affairs investigation was more interesting than the two lovers killed while flying first class to Miami.

I am disappointed in the director, Sydney Pollack who gave us the classic Tootsie and other films. This one is a waste of time and energy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two things -- too long and totally lacked credibility. This movie didn't make any sense and was excrutiating to sit through. I am usually pretty patient, but man... It just doesn't keep your attention at all! I think I am being nice here even! You keep thinking it's almost over only to find out it's still got another half hour! Good actors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Harrison Ford plays Sergeant Dutch Van Den Broeck of the District of Columbia Police Department. He tries to get the bad guys, but doesn't do a very good job. When we meet up with him he's trying to catch a corrupt undercover officer. Kristin Scott Thomas plays a New Hampshire Senator, Kay Chandler, trying to get reelected. She's running against a candidate who has plenty of money. The last thing she needs is the death of her husband. She's a politician- she can't be bogged down by feelings.

This story moves slowly and painfully. I was looking at my watch every five minutes wondering when it would be over! The story gets lost in details the director, Sydney Pollack, didn't need to put in. We don't want to know about Dutch's police investigations. They throw in some insight to politicians and the \u0091spin control' they do for campaigns. After seeing the movie I'm still wondering why they got involved romantically. Doesn't anybody mourn anymore? Don't you need more than two weeks to even consider going \u0091horizontal' with someone else?

It was good to see actress, comedian, Chicago native and Second City Alumni Bonnie Hunt. Her role isn't necessarily comic relief, but she was the only one I wanted to see more of. Do yourself a favor, wait for it on video if you want to see it at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To quote one critic's review of the movie, \"it started off slow and stopped.\" The plot was believeable enough (although some of the characters' actions seemed very, very RANDOM), the script was fairly well written (in that the dialogue did not seem forced), but everything went way too slowly. There were too many pauses between lines, and the way the lines were delivered was not all that great. This movie had potential, but blew it like a teenager turning to drugs. My advice? Wait for it to come on TV before you see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was tough watching Harrison Ford obsessing over nothing. Kristin Scott-Thomas should have slapped this guy and told him to take a hike.

Save your money. Don't even bother with a rental fee, unless you need a good nap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see Random Hearts with 3 friends, and at first, I thought maybe it was just me who wasn't enjoying the movie. After all, I didn't like As Good As it Gets and that movie won all sorts of awards. Well, it wasn't just me...none of my friends liked it either. It was unbelievable slow, much like getting teeth pulled. The only action that is in the movie is what is in previews. We didn't walk out of the theatre because we all assumed something more would happen. We weren't as smart as the 7 or 8 people who did walk out. I have never walked out on a movie in my life, but I definitely should have. This is all tough for me to write, considering I am relatively easy to please when it comes to movies. It takes a lot for me to think a movie is awesome, but not much for me to just like it. This movie didn't even come close in the like category. Not only was the movie about 2 hours too long, but it was like two separate trite stories in one, but they weren't smoothly sewn together. Plus, the \"soundtrack\" if you could even call it that was so annoying. Like Seinfeld has the same riff that is played over and over again (difference being that i like Seinfeld)..this movie had this jazz riff that it kept playing, which sounded highly inappropriate at times, especially when people were dealing with the deaths of the plane crash. Hard to explain what I mean, but trust me it was awful. I cannot say enough to make people not waste their money. After I left the theatre, I honestly wanted to write to the movie company and demand my $7 back..sheeesh, I could have gone bowling or something for that money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Back in the dark days of 1990, the hoped-for Heir to the Spielberg Throne (after the failure of supposed whiz-kid Phil Joanou) was mistakenly believed to be pretentious Spielberg wannabe David Mickey Evans. Evans managed to fleece the studios for over a million dollars, suckering baby-boomer executives into believing his screenplay -- a combination of nostalgic, 1960s references and a disturbing drama about child abuse -- somehow equaled good storytelling, and a decent film.

As Rod Stewart once sang, \"look how wrong you can be.\"

But the novice's artsy-fartsy, \"E.T.\"-inspired script convinced enough people he was the next Chosen One -- the New Spielberg -- and so a deal was struck to not only buy the script for more money than 99 percent of the world's population will ever see in their lifetime, but for Evans to direct the film as well -- even though he'd had never directed anything in his life.

Hey, how hard can it be to be another film-making genius, after all?

Two weeks into the shoot, Columbia found out. His dailies were called \"totally unusable\" by the studio -- or at least those level-headed enough to not to have fallen under the E.N.C. (Emperor's New Clothes) spell. All his footage was scrapped and recycled into guitar pics.

So what's a studio to do after sinking 10 or 20 million dollars into something they still believed represented the Resurrection of Steven Spielberg? Hire Spielberg himself to save the day? Columbia probably tried that.

Enter old pro Richard Donner. Hey, he may not be a cinematic genius, but he gets the job done. \"Superman\" wasn't too bad, after all -- and the first \"Lethal Weapon\" was pretty good.

So Donner steps in and grabs the directorial reins. Fortunately he manages to convince Columbia that the worst of the film's insipid fantasy sequences -- which would have played out like a ten year-old's acid trip -- have to go. Unfortunately, he leaves in the Crying Buffalo (ooh, how poetic) and the ridiculous, pseudo-Spielberg fantasy ending, complete with Clueless Mom perfectly content for the rest of her life to get postcards from her missing son as he circles the globe in his red wagon. Right.

But Donner did manage to get a decent performance out of Elijah Wood. And Lorraine Bracco as the Idiot Mom wasn't bad either. Maybe Donner should be reevaluated. Maybe he's not such a phony Hollywood hack as everyone has always believed.

The only reason I'm giving this over-baked misfire a 2 rating is that someone was smart enough to cast the great John Heard (but in the wrong part, of course). The kids do okay... though Tom Hanks' horrible, overly-explanatory narration nearly destroys every scene it intrudes upon.

One might think that after the David Mickey Evanses and Phil Joanous and Troy Duffys of the world, the studios might finally wise up. One might hope that these hype-driven film-making debacles might prevent the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome from ever rearing its ugly head again.

Doubtful!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even though this was a well-told story, I found it too unpleasant. The main subject is child abuse, which is never fun to see - a sordid topic. Add to that a lot of profanity by the drunker-abuser husband and a GD by a little kid, no less - and this movie turned me off as far as ever seeing it again.

Also portrayed in here were punks picking on the two little boys, another unpleasant viewing experience. The realism of the story takes a swan dive when one of the boys flies away on a home-made airplane! Give me a break!

The only positive, enjoyable part of this movie is seeing the nice, loving and touching relationship between the two young brothers, played by Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazello. The latter became a familiar face in the next couple of years with big roles in Jurassic Park, Shadlowlands and The River Wild. Wood, of course, didn't hit it big until a decade later but, he made it very big In The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Those two kids, and narration by an unbilled Tom Hanks, are the only facets of this film I liked.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was one of the most mixed up films I have ever seen. Everything in the movie seemed to be attached to justify some other element that had been glued on. There is even a talking buffalo that wants his wet nose rubbed to make the magic happen. Even the brutal father seems to be stuck in just to give the kids an excuse to fly away in a wagon. It was laughable, but in an uncomfortable way because of the serious subjects that seemed to be used just to set up the plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was horrible. If it had never been made the world would be a better place. Come on, a flying wagon? What were they thinking? This was a sub-par movie with a horrible hook, and I would like a written apology from the studio that produced this, along with some cookies to help repay me for the time I wasted on this crap fest that I can never get back. If you payed to see this movie, I am truly sorry because I watched it on TV on a Sunday afternoon when I had nothing better to do and it pretty much ruined my whole week. A flying freaking WAGON?!?! And that's supposed to make up for having a horrible mother who cares more about her own screwed up needs than her children? No wonder they don't have enough sense to tell someone he is beating them, their mother teaches them nothing but that what she wants comes before everything else. Absolutely horrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If it wasn't for the very attractive Jennifer Jostyn in the lead role, I would have turned \"Milo\" off after the first 30 minutes. However, as easy on the eyes as she is, she's not enough to save this film, not by a long shot.

Milo starts off with a group of young girls accompanying an \"assumed young boy\" in a yellow slicker to a house in the woods where he shows them embryos in jars. Apparently, the deal was that if he showed them the jars, ol' Milo gets to conduct a gynecologist exam on each in return. One of the group volunteers to be Milo's \"first patient\" and he leads her behind closed doors. Moments later blood flows from under the door and we are whisked into present day. Enter the lovely Jostyn who plays one of the girls all grown up in present day. A substitute teacher with shallow confidence whose closest friend appears to be a goldfish, she receives an invitation to return home for a friend's wedding. Yep! You guessed it. Return to Miloville. Milo, who allegedly drowned years ago, seems to be having a dilemma staying dead and begins terrorizing and murdering the girls he failed to \"examine\" all those years ago.

Milo, the character, reminded me of one of the mutants from Cronenberg's \"The Brood.\" He could have been scary, but just how scary can a villain be who wears a yellow raincoat? The plot confuses even itself and the conclusion left me wanting my 90 minutes back. I'm sending Milo, an inept slasher film, to stand in the corner!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Milo\" is yet another answer to a question nobody ever asked.Do we really need more slashers?I for one think we already have more than enough.I guess the professional tall guys overcharged so in this one we deal with a murderous kid that's also a zombie or a ghost when he feels like it.A long time ago,he drowned but that didn't bother him and he still kills people(\"Friday the 13th\",what's that?).One day,his survivors have a big reunion and as a surprise twist,Milo comes to pay them a visit.Through some really bad shots that show everything except the murders the cast is thinned out till only the final girl is left to find out Milo's dull,I mean dark secret.She and her friends have been dying to know.Once discovered,Milo goes on yet another murderous rampage(isn't it his bedtime yet?) and the girl,well she screams a lot.The acting is not even bottom of the barrel,the barrel refuses to be associated with it.Milo can be one creepy bastard from time to time I give him that,but some movies just can't be saved without a great script or gratuitous nudity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This \"horror\" movie lacks any horror or even mild suspense. Even the gore is not good. The plot would have some promise if it was done by someone who cared about what they're writing\/filming, but the people who made this movie obviously did not. Basically, the film proceeds in a series of fits and starts thusly:

Main character insists she's not crazy.

\"Milo\" lurks about in his yellow raincoat or rides in front of a car on his bike.

Main character insists she's not crazy and rambles on about her passion as a schoolteacher.

Someone gets killed in an unsatisfying manner.

Main character insists she's not crazy and musters up a few fake sobs.

Are we seeing a pattern here? If you don't, you may enjoy this film. Otherwise, watch something else. The budget is low, low, low AND IT SHOWS (unlike say, THE EVIL DEAD, which makes you forget about its crap budget), and the acting is bad, bad, bad (with the possible exception of the janitor). In general the movie is boring, boring, boring. I can't think of a single scene that's actually done well. In fact, I disliked the movie so much I actually turned it off ten minutes before the end, something I very rarely do... heck, I watched the non-MSTied MANOS, THE CLONES, and WILD WILD WEST all the way through.

3\/10. Spare yourself and watch PHANTASM again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In a quiet town a couple of girls witness the murder of one of their friends to a strange young boy named Milo, who lives on the other side of town. After the murder, his body is found in a river and his pronounced dead. So sixteen years later a weddings draws the girls back to their childhood town and Claire a school teacher becomes obsessed that Milo hasn't died as she has recurring visions of him and her friends are dying one by one and no one believes her when she claims Milo is apart of it. So now, she sets off to find out the horrifying truth.

When I came across this film, I was pretty sceptical about it, especially when it had \"From the creators of Anaconda\" on the front cover, but reading the odd little plot outline on the back of the video case, it sounded alright and rather refreshing for a change. Well, guess what? I thought it was a good idea at the time, but it was a totally different story when it came to watching the film. It just seemed to try to hard to be smart and very psychological based, but that latter element didn't come off that well for me and it was basically a prolonged and mostly unconvincing thriller. Hey, I'll admit it had its moments, but hardly enough to make it neither effectively chilling, or memorable. But, a bravo to the filmmakers, at least the story isn't a rehash of those slasher imitators that followed \"Scream\" and shock horror, there's no self-referential humour evident\u0085 actually there isn't even a HINT of humour. Although, maybe it was too serious? Especially, since the plot is rather absurd, but that's not its main problem. What a disjointed plot we get, I didn't know about to much that was going on, as it seems to skim a lot stuff in favour for some supposedly shocking and disturbing sequences. No! More like irrelevant scenes and yawn inducing clich\u00e9s that we see from time to time. Also you can see some influences from some \"good\" 70's horror films, one being \"Don't Look Now\". This when our main character keeps on seeing the figure of her past in a slicker. The other would have to be one of my favourites \"Alice, Sweet Alice\" with the person causing the trouble wearing a yellow slicker and committing grisly deaths. Interesting idea but it comes across quite shallow and too many faults pop up. I liked it more when the scenes dealt with the character's childhood, as the performances and circumstances had something creepy about it, but when it leans into their adulthood its tired and uneventful for most part and the performances weren't awful, but incredibly mundane and hardly involving is a good way of putting it. Most of the dialogue had me groaning in disbelief at how contrived and awkward it was. You'll be yelling \"no duh!\" at the screen, because you just can't believe what you're hearing. The police detective gets the brunt of it!

Quality wise - the film isn't bad, actually it's better then your usual straight to video I would say. Very slick stuff. With some inventive and prominent camera angles and a faint score that works reasonably well. Another factor that stood out and was a key to building on the moody atmosphere was the creeping sound effects and that bicycle bell does leave a ringing sensation in your ears. The setting of a quiet elementary school was well done and rest of the action takes place in a house. But, just don't be expecting any real suspense or surprises as the execution of these are non-existent. The deaths aren't pleasant and they're mildly bloody and it's more the aftermath to what happens to these bodies, which tries to disturb you. The villain in this piece, the mean-spirited child Milo Jeeder was mildly unnerving, well that voice and yellow slicker does make an imprint to begin with, but it does seem to lose its effect when we come to the films conclusion. The cheesy tag lines on the video compare him to (move over) Jason, (watch out) Freddy and (this isn't child's play) Chucky, but you got to be kidding me! Right? He's labelled \"The New face of evil\", yeah sure. All he needs is to be taught some manners and problem solved. Overall, the film just left me with a sour taste, as I've could've gone without seeing it. I probably wished I did.

Just don't expect too much in this blur of a film. Or, even better just skip it, as you won't be missing out on much, really.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Typical story of an evil kid going after people. I suspect that Antonio Fargas (Huggy Bear on \"Starsky and Hutch\") and Vincent Schiavelli didn't want to stress this junk on their resumes (actually, Schiavelli left this life with a mostly good resume). Sometimes I wish that the killers in these movies would just go after the idiots who decide that we need a new one of these movies every other month (note: that comment is not to be taken seriously; I just think that slashers have lost their touch).

Anyway, this is one movie that you'll do best to avoid. It's ninety minutes to two hours that I'll never get back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so weak that it couldn't even come up with good cliches to rip off. I love horror movies and will see practically anything, but if I had it to do over again I would have skipped this one entirely. You may think that I'm exaggerating, but I challenge anyone to find anything even remotely satisfying or interesting about this piece of garbage. Not scary, not funny, not curious, not worth it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stay away from this movie at all costs. I was suckered into watching this movie in a bet to see which one of us knew the t \"worst movie of all time\". Needless to say this one won hands down. It is long and drawn out, and has no purpose or plot from what I can gather. A movie about a killer kid raised from a fetus that was grown outside the womb just has no place inside your vcr. If you are extremely bored and have no life watch this movie. But if you rather keep your sanity, stay AWAY.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was crap. The script is so full of holes; I can't see how the producers agreed to finance it.

We are never given an explanation of ANYTHING. The acting is horrible. The plot sucks. This movie was obviously written for those 8 and under.

I have to say this: why are the high school classes only 2 minutes long? Teacher walks in, finds a frog in the desk, or drawing on the chalkboard, and 30 seconds later, the bell rings, class is over. The kids haven't even opened their books. Can we have at least a little continuity?

Oh, the dialogue. Milo Jeter is the re-incarnated, aborted fetus, zombie thing. Do we really need the line, \"This is Dr. Jeter's office. Dr. Jeter, Milo's father.\" Thanks for the tip; I could never put that together myself. It never gets any better.

Why does Milo talk the way he does, even in the beginning? Was Milo ever `real'. Or was he never real, just always what he currently is? And if it was always that way, why the unexplained `accident' Milo had?

Besides \"What is Milo?\", what are all the unresolved items for? We see all these contraptions in his father's medical office, and are never given an explanation of what they are for, or what they have to do with the story. What are the injections for? What about the aquarium contraption? They obviously aren't needed. (See the movie, it'll make sense). And what does this medication do to anyone? Apparently nothing, since it has no effect on the lead actress.

This movie is a very, very bad rip off of all the other slasher movies. It's a really awful Friday the 13th\/Halloween slopped together by a 10-year old writer. It's not cheesy enough to laugh at, it's just an incredibly frustrating bore.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was by far the worst movie I've ever had to endure. I couldn't believe that they tried to pass it off as a serious movie, it was so bad I couldn't even laugh at it's pathetic attempt to entertain me. If you want cheesy horror that you can laugh at, rent Dr. Giggles instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has got to be the worst horror movie I have EVER seen.

I hated it so much I wanted to come here and complain about how bad it was. Normally bad movies are no big deal, but something about this one if you hated it.. you really hate it.

If anyone liked this you probably enjoyed Baby Geniuses, I thought I could never find a movie that was worse then that one.. I guess not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie scared the hell out of me for no good reason. the eerie music was well written but other than that, its a complete waste of time, and it REALLY disturbed me.... I'm not really sure why either.... if you just want to see a bad 'B' horror movie, i guess you could give it a shot, but only as a last resort","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie sucked sooo bad, I couldn't even watch the ending. Milo's voice was too low and I couldn't understand what he said as well as some of Kendra's lines. Also, where did he get all these wedding dresses from; it was very impractical. The movie failed to elaborate on Milo's drowning and how it made people ridicule Dr. Jeter and his practice. Overall, I was disappointed that I was unable to give this movie a rating of zero because by grading this movie as a one, I felt I was giving it undeserved praise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I happened to catch this supposed \"horror\" flick late one Friday night, I wish I'd gone to bed! Tell me.. Is a 3 ft tall raincoat-clad twerp on a gurly bike supposed to convey some sort of fear? Not here, yet Mi-low is still able to beat the crap out of the janitor (Antonio Fargas) who is three times his size(?) uh-huh. And the ending is so pitiful... it just leaves you hanging with nothing to go on what-so-ever! I found myself asking, \"Is that it???\"

Acting is about as good as it'll get in a low budget film. The aforementioned Fargas delivers a decent performance; but it is my conclusion that Jennifer Jostyn maybe one of the worse actresses to ever strut into Tinsel Town! Sure, cute face, but bad acting.

Rating: 1","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is easily one of the worst films I've seen in many years. I started viewing the film not expecting much and that is exactly what it delivered....not much! In fact, it ended up delivering even less than I expected. My first reaction when I saw the opening portions of the film was that I would probably end up rating it a \"4\". I thought that it seemed to have reasonably good photography and a haunting atmosphere.

As the film progressed however, the rating kept going down and down in my mind mainly due to pedestrian acting and a plot that went from being just plain silly and tasteless at the beginning to being both silly and repugnant near the end. By the time the movie was over, I was willing to rate it no more than a \"1\".

Don't waste your time or money on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Four young grade-school girls witness the murder of one of their classmates during what they thought was just an innocent game. The killer is a strange young boy named Milo Jeeder. Sixteen years later, the four survivors of the event re-unite under happier circumstances in the same town where it happened. They believe that Milo drowned in a river shortly after the murder, but soon learn that the demonic killer Milo has also returned, still a young boy, unchanged even after almost two decades.

The cover for this movie makes it look really cool (yet I still expected a bad movie to come out of it). When I pop in the DVD into my player, the menu comes up and makes the film still look cool. Sadly, this movie isn't all that it got my excited about. The movie is your average attempt at a slasher film and when I say average, I mean just like all those other small-budget slasher movies that have never been welcomed with open arms into most members of the horror community (I'm talking about you, the horror fan). In other words, you could walk up to any horror fan and the majority of responses would be \"this sucks\".

What mistakes did the movie make? First of all, the DVD cover art makes Milo look really dark but they blow it all by showing his face in the movie in many different scenes. He had the potential of being a very freaky character. Secondly, the back of the cover art tells Freddy, Jason, Chucky etc to pack their bags and move on out because Milo is so much better... why in the hell would you want to say something like that when it comes to a no-name, low-budget slasher film that has obviously failed? I mean, it just raises your expectations of the movie, making it harder to impress itself upon you. In a last ditch effort to attract attention, it says (in very big letters) \"From the creator of Anaconda\". Just shows you how low they're going to get as much attention as possible for the movie.

The gore in the movie sucks, the director gives you some hideous angles when Milo attacks someone. The music isn't all that bad and I never once fell asleep during the movie (congratulations). I'm still trying to figure out what Milo actually is. My best bet would be that he is a zombie, if anyone else knows, tell me. Rest assured, I won't be losing any sleep over thinking about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Milo is a complete rip off of the 1992 slasher flick Mikey, if you actually check it up both films have the same tagline!But if you want to watch an incredibly funny film with absolutely no plot whatsoever......well then this is the film for you.The acting is terrible and the flashback scenes are overwhelmingly confusing. The story behind this atrocity is simple Milo Jeeder is a kid with serious family problems,his father is an abortion doctor who keeps unborn feoutus's in a jar (NICE!) and was desperate for a child of his own, he figured out a way to bring one of these aborted children to life and he named him............. MILO!!!!!

Aside from all the Bad Acting,Terrible directing,annoying sound of Milo's voice and the ear piercing sound of the bell on his bike ,if you take away all that badness its still a bad but funny attempt at a film.

I'll give it a bank busting 1 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a very good show. I enjoyed the construction of real time and flashback, seeing the old Diggers meeting again and recalling the terrors of their captivity in Changi POW Camp. The main problem with the way the show was written is that the scenes of life in Changi are more like a holiday camp than what the place must have been like. I am old enough to remember film footage of the men being liberated from Changi and other Japanese POW camps. No actor could lose enough weight to have a resemblance of the state of those men. They made the Jews of Belsen look like sumo wrestlers. I have met several veterans from Changi over the years. Many would never ride in a Japanese car, let alone own one. The physical and mental torture those men endured was too horrific for them to even talk about. What percentage survived? John Doyle might be OK writing comedy for \"Roy and HG\" (I hate that too) but this is a serious sugar coating of history that should never have been tolerated. I'm happy for satirists to write \"The Life of Brian\" and make fun of the Crucifixion because it is obviously comedy, even if some consider it to be in bad taste. \"Changi\" is written as a portrayal of a real event and, as such, might be regarded by younger people as a true record. Great performances by a fine cast cannot redeem this lightweight screenplay.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Changi\" is an Australian comedy\/drama set in the World War 2 Japanese prisoner of war camp of that name. The story cuts between past events, and the present day, when the aged veterans plan a reunion. This is a much publicised and controversial miniseries, here in Australia. The budget ran over ($6.5 million Aust. dollars); historians and veterans criticised it's authenticity; and critics pilloried the uneasy mix of comedy and drama (shades of \"Pearl Harbor\"). Series writer John Doyle (half of the successful Roy & H.G. comedy team), has tried to defend himself with comments about \"the characters are composites of actual people\"; \"the troops used comedy to cope with the situation\"; \"it's only based on actual events\"; \"one of our actors was actually there\" etc. I don't have a problem with any of these points. Many superb fictional and factual dramas have come out of the Japanese P.O.W. camp experience: \"King Rat\", \"Tenko\", \"Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence\", \"Bridge on the River Kwai\", \"Paradise Road\", \"Empire of the Sun\", \"Blood Oath\", and \"A Town Like Alice\". Black comedy has often been used successfully in P.O.W dramas: \"Life is Beautiful\", \"The Great Escape\", \"Seven Beauties\", \"Stalag 17\", \"The Colditz Story\", and even \"Hogan's Heroes\". So why is \"Changi\" a monumental failure? - the acting in \"Changi\" is uniformly excellent, the music and cinematography is good - it is the writing and direction that have let it down. Every scene seemed to give me waves of deja vu. When Anthony Hayes is made to stand in the blazing sun, I thought \"Didn't I see Alec Guinness do this in \"Bridge on the River Kwai\"?\". The sudden flashes into surreal song & dance brought back Dennis Potter's \"Singing Detective\", but without the finesse. This borrowing happened so often, it smacked of lazy writing by cut and paste, rather than homage. The constant intercutting between the past and present stories left me unable to concentrate on either. Flash forward and flash back can be a useful tool - here it left me distanced from characters, where intensity was called for. The \"Ausiness\" is overdone - every conversation seemed to include \"stone the bloody crows\" & such, that I was saying \"I get the point, I know they're Aussies\". Cultural stereotyping extended to the British and Japanese too -sadistic young Japanese officer; uptight British officer; wiser Japanese commandant; fun-loving, rascally Aussies etc. I thought I was watching \"Hogan's Heroes on the River Kwai\". After 3 episodes I'm tuning out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was forced to watch 'Changi' last year in year 10 Australian History. Looking around the class room, both classes, all 40 students were nearly asleep, all 40 heads on the table whispering to the person next to them. I refuse to believe that because I am only 16, that my opinion doesn't count, having studied world war two, I not only felt embarrassed and ashamed watching this Australian piece of trash television. I was out of my mind at the appalling effort this mini series applied in the usage of film elements. The acting was poor, the screenplay was very inaccurate and the score was dreadful. Please, do not watch this film, it is bias and very racists (to the Japans).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lazy movie made by a lazy director. The characters are grotesque. Despite the tragic of this war, there is no emotion at all in the movie. Symbolism is artificial and inefficient (and old Bosnian woman giving a photo of her son to Arbour will \"concretize\" her willingness, will awake the super-mother sleeping inside her, a corpse eaten by worms to show the horror of genocide... too much is sometimes worst than not enough).

This movie is only an advertisement, an empty elegy to a woman who is not a hero. She worked for United Nations. Remember UN failed to protect civilians at Srebrenica. Who are the true heroes of this war? A Canadian judge leading post-mortem trial for atrocities that happened mostly because her organization failed to prevent them? Where is the criticism in this movie?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thank God I was not operating any heavy machinery, it could have been an even worst disaster. Shots were slow & very repetitive. Different scenes, same shots, medium shot, medium shot, medium shot, snooze. Story line was rather empty. William Hurt was the worst. Where did he get that stupid accent from? Random shots of scenery just to include them really didn't add much. There were more shots of Arbour traveling in her car than anything else. The direction really didn't take us into any of the scenes & it also didn't make me feel for any of the characters. I would have rated it a zero if IMDb had the option. Great sedative if you can't sleep. There went 2 hours of my life I will never get back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched the first few episodes a short while back and felt I couldn't take it anymore. The horrible looking fight scenes are the worst I've ever scene in my life. About one-third of each episode is dedicated to Flash Gordon and his \"mighty\" fight moves. I know fight choreography from that era isn't exactly up to par with today's standards, but this is ridiculous. They don't even try to make it look realistic. Flash Gordon, who hardly resembles a fighter, uses his drunken slow moves and bare fist to knock out four or five guys with knives, guns, and other weapons. Give me a break! There's also a scene where he does some similar act while in the water. Basically every episode has scenes similar to that. As for the rest of the episode, there's not much else I remember. I basically viewed it out of curiosity on what science fiction looked like 70 years ago.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Retro Puppet Master starts in Kolewige during 1944 where puppet master Andre Toulon (Guy Rolfe) & his living puppets plan to escape Germany, hold up in an Inn puppet master Toulon reminisces about his early life & the point at which he learned the secret of giving life to dead objects way back in 1902 in Paris when his younger self (Greg Sestero) ran the Theate Magique. He describes the fateful night when he met a 3000 year old Egyptian sorcerer named Afzel (Jack Donner) & the eventual love of hi life the young & beautiful Ilsa (Brigitta Dau). He tells the story of how Afzel passed the gift of life to himself & gave life to his own wooden puppets that were part of the Theatre Magique show. However the gift of life was also a curse as the ancient God Sutek whom the secret was stolen from in the first place by Afzel wants it back & everyone who has learnt it dead...

As of late I have been on a bit of a Puppet Master bender as being a big fan of the first three I decided to watch the rest of the franchise & as such I have seen Puppet Master 4 (1993), Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter (1994), Curse of the Puppet Master (1998) & now Retro Puppet Master in the space of a couple of weeks & boy was it tough to get through them all, especially this one as it's the worse of the series so far. Retro Puppet Master feels like a cross between Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) with it's period setting & Puppet Master 4 & Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter with Sutek trying to kill everyone associated with his stolen life giving secret. There's not much continuity here either, again there's none of the green serum featured in the earlier films & despite Andre Toulon committing suicide in 1939 at the start of the original Puppetmaster (1989) he is seen alive & well during 1944 in this. The majority of the story is told as a flashback & concentrates on Andre Toulon himself rather than the puppets, the film focuses on his relationship with Ilsa & him learning the secret of life & it's all rather dull & tedious stuff to be honest. Even at only 80 odd minutes Retro Puppet Master feels long & padded with no real pace & the no central concept as the plot never really settles down & generally hops around a lot. Then of course there's the baffling decision to totally redesign the puppets which I found incredible, I mean why would the makers take the one basic thing that made the Puppet Master films so memorable & completely do away with it? The puppets are seen briefly at the start & the end but otherwise we get these rubbishy looking wooden caricatures that are nowhere near as cool as their modern re-workings. It's never even explained why these puppets were used rather than the ones all Puppet Master fans have come to love although one suspects that Full Moon was hoping to make yet another sequel which dealt with that very question.

If a poor story & a complete lack of our favourite puppets wasn't bad enough Full Moon decided to go with a PG-13 rating for this making Retro Puppet Master the only Puppet Master film not rated 'R' in the US (obviously other countries have their own film ratings systems) & therefore there's not a single drop of blood in the entire film, the puppets don't kill anyone, there's no swearing & no nudity either. This is tamer than tame kids stuff all the way. Besides the puppets themselves being rubbish the special effect are the wost of the series too, there's no stop motion animation at all in this one, no CGI computer effects (surely in 1999 CGI was cheap enough?) & all the effects are of the stiff rod puppet type effects. I mean whenever you see a puppet 'walk' the camera is always positioned above it's wait so it's legs don't have to be shown & there's obviously some production assistant just pushing the thing along, that's as complex & state of the art as the special effects get.

The one positive thing that Retro Puppet Master does have going for it is that it looks rather nice, the period production design, costumes & props are actually quite impressive & it's a fairly handsome film to watch at times. Apparently filmed in Bucharest in Romania which doubles up quite nicely for turn of the last century Paris. The acting here is awful & maybe the worst of the series.

Retro Puppet Master is more or less the final Puppet Master film as the next one Puppet Master: The Legacy (2004) basically edits together footage from the previous seven films & it's a pretty crappy way to round the series off which started so well with three excellent & distinctive little killer puppet flicks. Don't bother with this, just watch one of the first three again & just remember the good times... The killer puppets would return in the terrible spin-off flick Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys (2004).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now this is a movie I really dislike. It's one of the most boring Horror movies from the 90's mainly because it starts slow and centers in a boring atmosphere. The settings are not even attractive for the eye and do not serve for the movie's purpose.

The puppets look really cheesy , not in a good way like in the Puppet Master 80's flicks. What did they do to our favorite toys?!

The story is lame, not interesting and NEVER really explains the sinister origins of the puppets. There aren't death scenes like in previous movies and the f\/x are terrible.

I felt asleep the first time I watched it, so I can recommend it for insomniacs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the literal sense....

Reminds you of those \"cops-and-robber\" or cowboys-indians\" role-playing games you played with your 8 year old friends.

Tedious and un-inspired, the storyline was obviously written to make bad acting and dialogue seem as part of the plot, but all it does is showcase it. I cant believe John Badham let his name be associated with this piece of crap. This could have been done better by a high school film buff who had been given the camera lighting, filmstock and editing

Destined to be a time-filler on Sci-fi channel, when they've overused everything else from their library, and barely better than the paid programming shill downstream.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have never seen a movie so bad. It's not even entertaining enough to be a drinking game.

It's SO bad, I don't even want to talk about it... and that's the whole point of this, isn't it? PLEASE. Don't bother to see this movie. 'Nuf said.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Retro Puppet Master is complete and utter CRAP.In particular,the puppets look stupid,and crappy.The acting was unforgivable and the story was rancid.This movie goes back into the the past,where the dolls where first created,thats not Puppet Master.Retro Puppet Master is rated PG-13,the first Puppet Master to be rated PG-13.The movie contains no horror,or suspense.The fact that this movie was a Puppet Master film boggles the mind,because this installment doesnt have the buckets of blood,good acting,or any entertaiment like the previous movies did.Dont see this movie,dont rent it,and dont even watch it f its on TV,because this film is stale,not violent,and completely crappy.2 out of 10.As a Puppet Master fan,I am disappointed...seriously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very disappointing 7th chapter of this slowly dying series. Very evident that the budget was extremely low. This movie was made for one reason and one reason alone. To sell Puppet Master Toys! Fans, such as myself of the series have decided, from what I have read and heard that the only one in the series worse than this is Curse of the Puppetmaster. In turn, turning us away from the series.

Opting to make this a PG-13 film, for whatever reason, did not work in the films favor. The plot seemed almost to be there, but was easily lost in the steady stream of nonsense.

The only film in the series worth watching, also directed by Decoteau is part 3 - Toulon's Revenge.

Granted, I do favor the scenery in the film.

Yuck!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHEN DOES THE HURTING STOP? That's what I said somewhere between the beginning and that other part of the movie that really sucked. This film nearly sapped all the life out of me and I have sat through some really bad movies. Coming from a true Puppet Master fan, I would expect to hear myself say this, but it's true. The plot is inane, the special effects awful, the sound track the most benawl, infernal tootling I have ever heard. Oh! I almost forgot about the acting, it was so bad that I forgot it was there at all, nuff said. The only redeeming factor in the film is the puppets themselves they truly are the stars and could out-act all but Guy Rolfe himself(he is the puppetmaster)and although you can see their wires and strings, they carry me throughout the painful start to finish of Retro-Puppet Master. In closing, PM7 is recomended for true fanatics who happen to be masochists.

Roach

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Latest attempt to revive the series actually based on a pretty good idea but without the required gore fx\/violence for this type of thriller - and thus... BORING!! Good special fx, sets, costumes, etc. but the film comes of just plain silly and a near-waste of time... hopefully the next installment will correct this problem.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know, I'm sure the boys were sitting around the office one day and said, \"HOW CAN WE MAKE MORE MONEY?\" They had made every possible variant of toy they could make with their current characters. So they decide, let's steal the star wars idea, A PREQUEL, and we can make up all new characters, and sell them as toys. Incidently something they did in puppet master 3, but who cares? Anyway they pick a point in time before the first movie when Toulon is still alive, he and the puppets are sitting around, and a wooden head roll on the floor and the puppets want to know if that is a dead family member or something, it doesn't matter. So the tale of the puppet master ancestry begins. It's long, it's boring, no body cares.

The funniest part is, they tell the origin of these new characters in the movie, but give no clues of their fate. SO GUESS WHAT, once the revenue from the new toys pays off, they can fundsa new (and 4th straight rotten) sequel, called \"PUPPET MASTER 8 THE SEQUEL TO THE PREQUEL OF THE FATE OF THE DEAD RETRO PUPPETS!\" hold your breath!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This seventh (yes you read right - the seventh) Puppet Master movie shows how the demented group of dolls came to be; by a french puppeteer who uses them to get revenge on a group of ancient mummies who are after him once they learn that he holds the secret to life. It was taught to him by a sorcerer, also on the run, before he died. He used this power to bring normal puppets to life. This sequel is basically nonsense, sprinkled upon even more nonsense like most of the Puppet Master sequels. Due to the PG13 rating, we don't even get any entertaining puppet murders. Come to think of it, there are NO damn puppet murders. If there was one franchise that needed to be cut off it would be this one. No more....god, please no more...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film may have been the first Puppet Master but this sure bored me to death when I saw this stupid movie,I wanted a refund. This was a bad series to the Puppet Master and I'm sure that I am not the only one that thinks this was terrible. To some it was great but, to others it was a ticket to snores-ville and boy are they right. The puppets didn't even do anything nor did they kill people. It should't be seen by people so I'm warning you not to see it. You will be disappointed even to the fans who love Puppet Master, it was a waste of their time and it didn't make so much money.Nobody even got kill but one or two,very pointless.

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This son of a son of a sequel was terrible to say the least. You would think that production would be better 10 years after the original was released, however Retro Puppet Master was not directed by or written by the original writers and contained poor story, lack of any emmontional connection to any characters, and dragged out slowly scene to scene. No build up of strong plot, very weak climax, you will find yourself slowly getting antsy throughout the movie, if you can sit through the whole reel. I never could understand why a horror movie continues making sequels after the release of their \"final chapter.\" I hardly suggest watching this flick, but if you must I wouldn't recommend making anyone else sit through it with you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a kid, I never understood WHY anyone would watch this very crappy show. It was pretty stupid and I always wanted Spridle and Jim-Jim to get in some sort of fatal accident (they were THAT annoying).

Now, almost 40 years later, I have a new attitude about the cartoon. While I still think it was complete crap, this is only in regard to the American version of the show. That's because I was reading a book about anime and found out that the shows we watched growing up were completely different from those originally shown in Japan. You see, the idiots in charge of syndicating the series thought it was too violent so they cut this out of the episodes. That's bad enough, but what else they did is beyond belief--they actually chopped the episodes apart and spliced them together to create shows that were NOTHING like the originals! For example, one episode might be made up of parts of episodes 3, 6, 18 and 27! As a result, I really don't know if the original show really was bad--it might have been brilliant. But who can tell considering all we have to watch is this Americanized mess!?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It had its moments, but overall when I watched this cartoon as a child I was bored out of my mind. The only thing that kept me watching was the fact that it was a cartoon, probably my first exposure to anime. It is also one of my least favorite anime's, I remember others one involving a giant ship in space that made no sense, but was more enjoyable because they were in space. I also remember one with these people dressed like birds that was a bit strange, but more entertaining. I do not really like car racing though at all, did not then and still do not so that is probably one of the reasons I did not care for this show even though today I am an avid anime fan. The characters were a bit goofy too, and then there was the horrible scenes where virtually no action was taking place that was probably used to cut down on animation costs and to pad the show. The gadgets in the cars were cool though and provided some entertainment for me back then. Overall, I find this show to be rather unwatchable compared to newer animes and some from the same era, but this is just a personal opinion I am sure many other reviewers love the show which is cool.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow. After seeing this film, you will know why America's youth continues to lack intelligence and any traits to contribute to the wellbeing of society, except for making themselves more inept to function.

Jackass Number Two stars some of the most repremandable people imaginable, who at there core lack any sort of talent or brains to make anything of themselves (especially Bam Margera and Steve-O), and there only option for fame was to make a living entertaining those as stupid as them by harming there being. A guy drinking horse semen? Just flat disgusting. A man putting a fish hook through his cheek and acting as \"bait\" for sharks? This isn't humor, it's evidence for institutionalizing him.

Overall, I walked out of the theater with no hope for mankind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When Family Guy first premiered, I was not in a discriminating mood. With the 1990s containing a wealth of clever, surreal cartoons, why should I be? Nickelodeon produced Doug; Ren and Stimpy and Rockos Modern Life among other fine cartoons(Yes, this includes Spongebob).All had quirky, dreamlike animation and surprisingly sophisticated stories and dialog. The Simpsons became an outright phenomenon, perhaps not as brilliant as its biggest defenders claim it to be, but a very fine investment of your time and certainly dismisses the false axiom that all TV is junk. South Park started out as a crude but hilarious attack on everything with unique and intelligent satire underneath. It evolved to become a Monty Python- esquire show with outrageous concepts and brutally swift and sharp societal critiques(Such as their defense of the noble underpants gnomes) and eventually settled to be entirely self referential and \"meta\" like the Simpsons did, and has unfortunately jumped the shark. Family Guy is superficially like The Simpsons and South Park. It pushes buttons and is a favorite among college students and bestiality enthusiasts. However, what it has in loquacity it lacks in true wit.

The show is famous for its use of gimmicks, especially for flashbacks. Many are references to bad TV sitcoms or commercials. Some are funny(Especially from the first two seasons), most are not. Are references inherently funny? I'm not sure, but they are mostly what the show stands on considering that its characters are painfully uninteresting. Where Homer and Bart have charm, and Cartman has an artillery of self awareness and pure outrageousness to back up his awful behavior, Peter Griffin has no excuse. He's just a loud, obnoxious pig. Anything funny coming from his character is only because the writers forget how to be unfunny that day. Lois is also very shallow and dull; Meg is a prop, only to be abused; Chris is borderline retarded and only occasionally funny, and the two main stars of the show(Stewie and Brian) are so inconsistent in their characterizations that it all really kind of pointless.

Other gimmicks I can't stand are when a character points to something obviously and lingers on it for an uncomfortably long time. This happens a lot lately, and I can't bear it any longer. Not just the oft mentioned chicken that likes to beat Peter up, I'm talking about the painful moments where they talk about pop culture and prod it as if they are alien spectators. That's not wit or even ironic humor, it's totally boring and lifeless.

Not that the show can't be funny, in fact some of the earlier episodes had me rolling. Highlights include the pilot episode, where Peter loses touch with reality after losing his precious television; when Peters religious zealot father shows up and wreaks havoc; When Peter becomes a narc at Megs school, and the \"pancake\" episode. I suspect these are the episodes that accidentally incorporated actual human traits in its characters, or merely were times the writers had actual comedic inspiration.

One last thing, the show is not offensive. It's only offensive to those who wouldn't watch the show in the first place, so it's almost like a circle jerk to the choir of hipsters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This could have been great. The voice-overs are exactly right and fit the characters to a T. One small problem though; the look of the characters, mostly the supporting or guest characters look exactly the same. The same bored look on every face only with minor changes such as hairlines or weight size. It looks kind of odd to see a really big guest star's voice coming out of a lifeless form like the characters here. If I am not mistaken Kathy Griffin did a voice-over for this show and it looked too odd to be funny.

There is a few other problems, one being the family plot. The Simpsons did it much better where you could actually buy most of the situations the characters got themselves into. Here we get too much annoying diversions, like someone having a weird fantasy and then we are supposed to find that funny but for some reason the delivery is a bit off. As you can probably tell it is hard for me to put a finger on exactly what is wrong with this show because it basically nothing more than a clone of the Simpsons or even more \"Married with Children\".

If I should point a finger on what is totally wrong with this it probably is it's repetitiveness. Peter Griffin is not really a bright character but neither are any of the others. Lois should have been named Lois Lame because she is sort of one-dimensional. Seth Green as the kind of retarded son is the best thing about this show and that is the most stereotypical part on the show.

So what more can I say. There isn't exactly anything wrong with this show but in the long run you have to admit that it takes a lot of work to do what the Simpsons has done for almost two decades.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must admit I did enjoy the earlier episodes, but probably because I was younger and stupid at the time. I was sorta excited about the return of family guy until I saw the \"new\" crap they were putting out. No surprise, it was exactly like the old crap. All the lame jokes were there including the flash backs, except this time they added a joke about a old creepy pedophile who seems to be in EVERY SINGLE EPISODE. this is just one of the annoying gags family guy lives off of, and for some reason people keep watching. its no longer funny, its just annoying. let it die.

maybe family guy was funny at a point in time, and the cheap laughs and gags were original and fresh, but now its just not funny anymore. if you actually do find family guy funny than you must be retarded or borderline retarded.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everything about this show is terrible. Its premise even sets itself up to get cheap laughs with bad writing. A \"disfunctional family\"-theme has already been used too many times, most notably by the Simpsons, which is an excellent show with great writing and many laughs. Meanwhile, Family Guy has about five minutes of story in each episode, with tons of celebrity jokes and random flashbacks thrown in. Now, if this was original or funny, sure, I'd think it was clever. But no, it's not funny at all. In fact, the only reason the episodes are like this is because it is the easiest way to effortlessly crank out episode after episode of this junk. Much of this show is unoriginal, and what is original is just lame. It is also amazingly crude and irreverent, which again can be fine if it's still intelligent. Animation isn't everything either, but from an artistic point of view, this show fails also, proving yet again that Family Guy strives for as many cheap jokes and easy shortcuts as possible. People enjoy this show, and I don't really care, because people can enjoy anything they want, no matter how much it aims for the lowest common denominator. But no, I don't recommend this, especially for anyone who wants to someday study film or become a writer. This is cheap entertainment that aims low and has found success in this. The fact that this is so successful says bad things about America.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ya know what? Family Guy started out as something fresh, funny and more original. The random humor USED to be funny. I actually used to think it was the best animated sitcom next to The Simpsons. After watching the new episodes that aired for the past few weeks; I grew fed up with the show relying too much on random humor to be funny. South Park was right about FG dead on when they brought up the Manatees and the idea balls.

And watching the show itself, I don't understand why my parents like it so much; there's nothing great about it. The \"Intellegent\" humor is funny and would've been funnier if the show didn't rely on randomness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is the most overrated show on television. i believe people continue to watch it because they feel they should, because it has become somewhat of a \"cool\" show to watch and talk to your friends about the next day at work or school. rarely does it actually elicit anything more than a chuckle and never provokes any sense of irony or thought from the audience. every joke is interchangeable with \"punchlines\" that seem to be drawn out of a hat. the complete lack of originality combined with the even somehow lamer spin off it has spawned (see: American Dad) makes me question the intelliegence of an audience that continues to keep this horrid show on TV. i award family guy no points and may god have mercy on its soul...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Words cannot describe how asinine, juvenile,and repetitive this steaming pile of a series is. It relies on 3 things: 1. Constant 80s pop culture references 2. the tired \"stretch out a joke to the point of awkwardness\" bit, and 3. at least 3 or 4 pointless flashbacks per episode. The only reason I can see for this crap fest being as popular as it is for the constant pop culture references which I suppose elicit an \"OMG LOL THAT'S FROM SUPERFRIENDS!! THAT IS SO TOTALLY IRONIC, AND I AM SO EDGY AND SMART FOR GETTING IT!!\" response from the viewer. The writing is beyond lazy, and panders to its viewers, mostly in their 20s and 30s. Plus there's the character design, which seems to consist of the same three characters with the same bored expressions drawn over and over again, but with different skin colors and maybe a different hairline occasionally. Insulting crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Family Guy is easily one of the worst shows I've ever forced myself to watch (Not at THE bottom, though - I've seen The Jersey Shore). A popular hit with high school and college kids who mistake immaturity for edginess, this show is unoriginal and stale.

As this has been dubbed a comedy show, let's take a look at its \"humor.\" 1. Random flashbacks\/cuts to celebrities or movies or politics or anything that can be cut to for a knee-jerk laugh. It got old after the 5 or so repetitions per episode. Simple solution: Every time you hear \"This is worse than\/like the time...\", plug your ears.

2. Inappropriateness for its own sake. This show is notorious for inserting inappropriate gags that have little to do with the overall plot. Solution: Watch South Park. They did it right.

The bottom line is that Family Guy is not worth your time, and doesn't hold a candle to The Simpsons.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't seen a lot of episodes of \"Family Guy\" and it's a pretty safe bet that I won't be seeing too many in the future. Some people say to compare this show to \"The Simpsons\" is unfair. I absolutely think this show wouldn't exist if \"The Simpsons\" hadn't come first and I absolutely think it wants so very much to be \"The Simpsons\". I don't understand what's so funny about this show. In the episodes that I've watched, I've understood where they've WANTED me to laugh, I understand that someone thinks a joke was just told but the joke isn't funny. I find the whole show to be lazy: the title, the \"jokes\", there is a complete lack of inspiration throughout.

The best shows on television (cartoon or not) are created like this: a script is written, it goes through several rewrites, stuff that doesn't work is taken out, inspiration is sparked, good stuff is added, there are more rewrites and then it is filmed.

I picture a \"Family Guy\" episode to be created like this: a script is written and it's filmed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's literally the Three Stooges all over again, without the charm. This show's nothing more than the worst slapstick. I'm surprised they actually have writers. The so-called jokes are completely haphazard, and 'controversial' for no other point than trying very (very) hard to be controversial. And people think this is 'edgy'?? Get a clue: this show takes absolutely no thought, time, effort, money, or creativity\/originality to produce. Any references present are geared toward anyone between the ages of 6 and 16 who would occasionally browse People magazine. But I suppose this is only what all the kiddies want, like and need today.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is such a shame that so many people \"love\" Family Guy, because it is easily one of the worst shows on TV, there are many points to address here.

The Flashbacks: Now, in Season 1 and 2, which I think was exceptional, the flashbacks were quite frequent, and actually somewhat tied into what the plot was about and was even funny. Now season 4 and on, the flashback s are even more occurring, and has NOTHING to do with the plot, aren't funny, and really long, boring, and meaningless. Family Guy thinks that long drag scene which go nowhere are funny, when really it is poor writing.

Stewie: Wow, a baby that sounds British. How funny can that be? It's not. His character is so unstable it's unbelievable. Remember in the early season's when Stewie was all about world domination and killing Lois. Well now he just has scene's that are awkwardly gay with Brian. From wanting world domination to being gay = bad writing.

References: How do they manage to keep making poor references to 80's TV shows or events? Well they just re-use the same old garbage. You know, in 20 years, hopefully Family Guy will be canceled by then, if they are still doing jokes about shows from the 80's, it will be even more irrelevant than it was before. Because will have forgotten. This still keeps me wondering why they can't just writ good episodes with quality jokes.

Voice Acting: My God, the voices in this show is so poor. Seth McFarlene should just focus on his crappy episode writing and stop doing voices. All the extras in the already bad Family Guy episodes all sound the same. The Simpsons get 6 or 7 people to do ALL the voices. A few of them are voicing about 15-20 characters...all sounding very different. But why can't Family Guy do that? Oh right, it's a crappy show.

The Stuttering: Usually done by peter, Stewie, Brian and any extras, whenever they talk or are offended by something, they have to stutter out their sentence's just to try get a cheap laugh. I can't believe that Family Guy can't even speak normally to get people to laugh at their \"jokes\".

Offensiveness: OK, short and simple, Family Guy tries to break the barrier and be cutting edge, but really they fall flat every time. Go watch South park...

Terrible Plots: The plots and story lines are just utter trash. The Simpsons have started their 20th seasons are STILL have better plots than Family Guy. About a total of 8 or 9 minutes is flashbacks and drag scenes which have no relevance.

Popularity Lots of little kids have Stewie shirts and think hes so funny, when really they don't even get the terribly written sex jokes. They just say, \"oh, ha ha, stewie!\" when they don't even get it. Family Guy has gotten canceled twice, and brought back by DVD sales, how sad is that. They got canceled the first time I think after the 2nd or 3rd season, and I honestly believe, that shoulda been it. those episodes back then were superb, they shoulda left on a high note.

Drag Scenes and Falling There are scenes that go on way too long. One that just aired this last Sunday, Peter went to an executive bathroom, in which about 2 minutes was spent imitating the intro to Jurassic park, and the plot of that episode is stolen from a Seinfeld episode as well. Also a scene when Chris is working at a store and hes talking with the employee for about 5 minutes about a movie, which also features the stuttering. THE CHICKEN FIGHTS ARE SO STUPID, 3 of them, each one longer then the last. useless, unfunny writing, thinking that people enjoy long scenes of rerun fighting, between a CHICKEN, yeah a chicken. now, every time someone falls down, and by the way, NO FAMILY GUY FAN CAN DENY THIS, that every time they fall down, its under a split second, and they ALWAYS land with their arm over their back to make them look funny i guess, its been used at least 30 times.

Herman Oh jeez, everyone thinks the old pedophile is so funny when its just a really bad running gag. they've even gone to lengths of giving him singing scenes (which are very poor) and basing ENTIRE episodes around him, they've done the same thing with other characters, like the doctor, who I know has had an episode based around him.

The Simpsons Well, not much explanation needed here. There is so much evidence of Family guy stealing Simpson's jokes. How family guy is just a poor mans Simpsons.

so Im sure I've forgotten some key points somewhere, but Im sure this is enough to prove that family guy is really a terrible horribly written TV show that everyone seems to love, when really they should go watch Simpson's, Seinfeld, and Frasier.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Have you ever seen one of those shows that became so popular that it could eventually get away with any crummy nonsense and repetitive halfhearted gimmicks that it's creators can get away with? If you haven't, then you've never seen Family Guy.

Fans of the show seem to think of it as witty, edgy, and poignant. It's none of these, it is however dull, repetitive, insulting, and uninspired.

The \"humor\" of the show comes from two sources.

1) Irrelevant idiocy. The show often has flashbacks to things that have nothing to do with the plot and are mostly just absurd and pointless. And then there's the random movie references in which the shows characters reenact a scene from a popular movie without effectively parodying it . . . or parodying it at all(which ISN'T FUNNY!!!!!).

2) the same crap that's in every episode the show. The one guy is a sexual deviant with STD's, AHA HA! Isn't that funny?! Hey, ya know what's even funnier? Making the same joke about him anywhere between one and fifteen times in a single episode. And don't just tell it numerous times in a single episode, make sure you drag it out so that an entire scene is devoted just to telling the one joke. Now also imagine that this same routine is used over and over again for practically every character in the whole series.

The offbeat \"un-PC\" humor isn't as \"un-PC\" as they would have you believe, mostly they just say whatever morons think about the latest newspaper headlines, politicians, and random celebrities.

The series had it's moments, but now I think it's time just take the show off the air and be done with it.

You know what IS funny? I still like this more than Nausicaa of the valley of the wind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Family guy. When the show first aired, it was fresh, original, and actually quite funny. Now, I have stopped watching it. It has become one of the worst shows on television, combining unfunny jokes, repetitive, drawn out jokes, and the hope that each joke can become funny with the inclusion of the word \"bitch.\" Seth Macfarlane clearly has issues with himself, and he is obviously pandering to the 13 year old boys audience.

I just don't understand how something that started out so funny, so different from everything else, can devolve into this horrible mess of a \"comedy\" show. I seriously have heard better one liners from a pud comic.

It truly is sad to see great shows fail, and watch drivel like this continue on. Either Seth Macfarlane has stopped trying, or he believes that this show is hilarious the way it is.

Either way, God help us.

I hate this show, and will dance an irish jig when its finally cancelled.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The screen-play is very bad, but there are some action sequences that i really liked. I think the image is good, better than other romanian movies. I liked also how the actors did their jobs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The New hope of Romanian cinema\"...if this is the new hope, then i wouldn't really like to see the saving hero of such a prolific cinema(Romanian cinema, that is). Now seriously, where should I start? 1. The crappy scenario: are you kidding me, this is not even believable not to mention it's high degree of stupidity 2. the Direction: what direction? This movie should have had psychological tension, at least that, since they have decided to make it look as trashy as possible. Oky, I admit, Radu Muntean is no Polanski, Hitchcock, Fincher or Lynch(the list could go on), but at least the minimum of effort would have been appreciated. 3. The language: Oky, I don't understand why (almost)every single Romanian director believes that if you make the movie as miserable and obscene as possible, then you have art. I don't mind explicit language or bad image quality as long as the final result makes it worthwhile. In this case, it doesn't. There is nothing to comment upon, since everything this movie wants to say was already told thousand times, the characters are far too thinly portrayed to become memorable, the \"shocking events\" that occur are also poorly illustrated and become unimportant. This film relies only on the self-induced emotions, on the \"we must\" hype. Someone was found murdered so \"WE MUST\" feel sad, frightened or panicked, someone went through this and that so \"WE MUST\" feel in a certain way. That's baloney. Because a movie is a piece of fiction, nothing is for real here. So the only true emotions are those that you discover when you wander deep into it's world(the movie's, that is)

*\/* * * * *","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm usually quite tolerant of movies, and very easily entertained, however this movie was dreadfully disappointing.

I watched this movie after seeing on the cover that William Zabka was in it (The Karate Kid bad boy) and during this movie I could see that this would be the only reason.

This film is a tremendous waste of the actors talent. The music, and sound is dreadfully tacky - I couldn't believe this of a movie made in the 90's!

I wouldn't really recommend this movie unless you're interested in one of the actors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I couldn't believe how bad this film was, and trust me, I was not expecting a masterpiece from a made-for-cable film. I taped it just because I liked Jane Seymour. I've seen her enough to know that she is certainly an accomplished actress, so I just don't know what happened here. The characters were shallow, the dialog stilted, the acting bad, and yes that includes Seymour. It was nice seeing her play against type, but not in something this bad. I noticed that she carried a credit for executive producer, so she cannot escape blame for the sheer badness of this film. And oh, yeah, they had Barry Bostwick playing the male lead. 'Nuff said.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is so blatantly a made-for-TV ripoff of Black Widow (1987) - even the insect titles are so similar.

If you want a better \"marrying for money\" movie, check out Black Widow, starring Debra Winger & Theresa Russell.

These movie is cheesiness at its best..! I just had to watch it entirely to see how it ended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got to watch this one without commercial interruption, and let me tell you, even for a TV movie it was pretty predictable. The actors did a workmanlike job with what they had, and the cast was pretty accomplished -- Barry Bostwick, Jane Seymour, Frances Fisher, etc. However, the script was not only predictable (except for the last scene), but the dialogue was treacly and sounded as if it was lifted from a third-rate romance novel. Jane Seymour's psychotic monologues were laughable. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that anyone that creepy would arouse no suspicions whatsoever. As bad as Theresa Russell was in \"Black Widow\" -- and she sure stunk it up -- she at least had the sense to play her pseudo-characters somewhat straight. Seymour is a much better actress but didn't overcome the material here.

Lastly, the musical score is incredibly cheesy. It's almost a satire of its genre, like a Kenny G meltdown. A movie with such a lackluster and derivative script really should have gone for something edgier.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Debra Winger's 1987 \"Black Widow\" is MUCH better.

This is like a lame version, and Jane Seymour usually does better.

Chad Allen is pretty poor in this too. Just playing his usual role as a boring rebellious child.

Maybe the both of them being from Dr. Quinn was supposed to make us get excited.

If it's on, go grab a copy of \"Black Widow\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film last night and came online specifically to see if others thought it was as awful as I did.

Granted, obviously some people see a lot in this film that I didn't, so if you're one of those people, fine - good luck to you. But I'm a patient person. I've enjoyed extremely long films before. But this was an exercise in torture for me.

I honestly felt that this was one of those films with little to say, and that it was more about style than substance - however, the style, too, made me feel like tearing my hair out. Pretty much anything interesting that happens during the course of the film happens OFF-SCREEN. It's like a deliberate attempt to make a film entirely from outtakes - the bits that would usually be reserved for the deleted scenes section of a DVD, if they were shown to the public at all.

You don't even get to find out, in the end, ANYTHING about the main character, Francois. I had no sympathy for any of the characters in this film, except perhaps the violinist & his goat, and the old man who believes that octopuses live to 300 because they're really smart. Seriously, I was excited when it cut to a shot of Francois holding a gun to his head. I felt so ripped off when even his inevitable suicide turned out to be gut-wrenchingly boring.

Oh, and where was the editor? Off smoking opium, too? I swear, I almost screamed every time I was subjected to an extended shot of absolutely nothing happening, except perhaps someone pacing backwards and forwards, and then FINALLY there would be a very abrupt cut to the next scene, and it would be A YEAR LATER, and WE'D MISSED EVERYTHING INTERESTING THAT HAPPENED IN THE MEANTIME, and everyone was STILL wearing the SAME BLOODY CLOTHES....!?!?!???

So, in conclusion, if you liked it - great. But this review is intended as an antidote to the fawning \"you'll love this film if you love cinema\" dross I've seen posted here and elsewhere. (See? I hated the film and I STILL included a sly winking reference to its content!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well , of course everybody is entitled to have an opinion about a thing ...everything. The presentation was interesting : black and white movie , the year 1968 , students manifestations , general strike , youth , ideals, love.....etc. Sorry but I did not sense LOVE , ROMANCE . A lover who is all right that his girlfriend sleeps with no matter who ? That is love ? But not only that , the movie is very long and for no reason , I had to stop watching the movie several time because I simply lost interest. I waited for something to happen but .......NOTHING. The only thing I was impressed during the movie : Gypsy fiddler playing in the streets , yes that was nice. I do not think that art should be complicated , encrypted , hidden in secret meanings , confusing .Big disappointment and waste of time !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is clearly a French film. It is about young group of idealist\/revolutionary\/anarchistic people. It moves very slowly. Long takes. LOng closeups. A minute or more devoted to an attempt to light a pipe full of hash\/opium. A long take on how a group overturns a car and burns it. It is a black and white film. The subtitles were white, so about a third of the time they were unreadable. (Why do they do this?) I walked out after about an hour and three quarters when it became clear that this picture was going nowhere, slow. I was not the first to walk out. It was the first time I walked out of a picture in my long lifetime. (Well, maybe the second.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this at the Toronto Inter. Film Festival in Sept. 2005. The description seemed intriguing--how wrong I was! This could easily be the worst movie I have ever seen--in 50 years! I see the director is my age (b. 1948) and lived with Nico of the Velvet Underground, which leads us to Andy Warhol, which coincidently is the one I thought of while watching this--Warhol's 24+ hour movies of nothing much happening. This is not art, this is boredom.

Specifically: black & white. OK, maybe...but what is the purpose here? Surely they had color in 1968! And there is no contrast with the present. And yes, the subtitles were in white, naturally. I don't think I missed much, but that made about 20% of them illegible.

Next, it's pure chronological order, but with seemingly random events thrown in. What's the purpose of the conversation with the old man at the dinner table? It adds nothing to the movie. There were many similar scenes--almost like someone took a camcorder and filmed random people and spliced them together to make a movie.

Plot? None. The \"riot\" consists of some figures in the distance occasionally heaving a rock off screen. Mostly it's an excruciating length of time watching people (in the distance!) stand around. The repetitive opium smoking is just as boring. When the main character got a cute girlfriend, I perked up, but no, she was boring too! This is perhaps the only French film I've seen where no one takes off their clothes. Probably they were too bored to bother.

Romance? None. The girl seems totally indifferent to everything--maybe her sculpture holds some interest, but if it does, we're not shown that. We are completely indifferent to the fate of the characters because they are all unappealing. Maybe that's the point of all this?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I caught this film late at night on HBO. Talk about wooden acting, unbelievable plot, et al. Very little going in its favor. Skip it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Patriot\" staring Steven Segal is a late 90's thriller\/action movie that is not really a thriller and not really an action movie; rather it is Steven Segal playing Steven Segal by another name, but this time he is a Native American country doctor who kicks butt every now an again. Baring the obvious plot line holes, the movie itself is absolutely amazing in terms of the blatant disregard for character devolvement.

From a marketing standpoint, I was left asking myself, \"who in the world were they aiming at?\" The bio-thriller plot-line is way off the mark for the middle America crowd and Segal as silk cowboy would never sell to anyone even if you deep fried him and put him between a kripsy-cream donut. The whole movie is just way out there, even for Segal fans, because it simply does not deliver on any level.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Patriot (nothing to do with the Mel Gibson film of the same name) came out Steven Seagal was still doing that 'saving the environment' thing in his movies. Which is fine. But it doesn't make for good action.

When the plot(?) of this film finally kicked in I saw the twist(?) coming a mile off. Seagal's anti-warfare, care-for-mother-nature stance is not very subtle. For a film that was originally going to debut in the cinemas it is shot very much like a TV movie despite some wonderful shots of the country by Dean Semler, the photographer of Dances with Wolves.

Steven Seagal does like 1 fight scene in the entire film and it's totally boring. As an action film it fails, as a drama it stinks, as an environmental message it's obvious. Avoid like Ebola crossed with plague.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Steven Seagal's intent is to be commended, and his acting in this film is equal to that in many of his others, if you ignore the fact that he is supposedly portraying a brilliant scientist. The problem I had was with two items of the plot, which stretched my suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point.

First, how is it that a carefully engineered variation on a nasty germ, whose antidote must be just as carefully researched and engineered by a big lab, is cured by drinking tea from a flower growing high in the mountains? and that Grandpa's family seem to be about the only people who know anything about this?

Second, and this one really takes the cake: Having gathered up enough of the cure to fix a whole town, wouldn't you expect the army to land the helicopter and start rushing bags of flowers to all the homes in this small town? No, they instead decide to sprinkle the flowers all over the town and force the sick people to go out and gather them up all over again. Just plain silly, unless under Native belief the power in the drug somehow depends on one's having gone out and gathered the flowers oneself.

Add in the cardboard nature of the villains and the unsuitability of the title, and you might think my vote on this movie is actually high.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a known fact, Mr. Seagal cannot smile, he can act, he can kick butt, there are faint smiles, no real smiles no laughing out loud and no real point of watching this confusing movie. We see an over weight Mr. Seagal as Dr. Wesley Maclaren, who is in desperate need of a haircut and his real daughter Ayako made an appearance as his office assistant. Story: Okay so Wesley lives in another darn outback with his sweet daughter Holly. They sit and enjoy their red flower tea and omelettes and on the other end of town some over weight militia leader decides to make the whole town sick by spreading a virus that travels by air and kills in a matter of 2 days thinking he can survive as he had an antidote. Problem, there is no antidote and the one that exists only holds back the virus for a while. The CIA are contacted and even they can't help and only one person isn't ill, Wesley's daughter Holly. So she gets hunted thinking the cure is in her blood. Wesley manages to grab his daughter and take her to her grandfather, who is a native indian. Together with his sister in law Ann they go to a base where there is a hidden lab to find a cure but even the soldiers there are dying slowly and so will others if they don't find a cure in time. And to shorten the moment, neither Ann or Wesley are infected by the virus...hmm. One weak fight scene. Terrible movie and all the men in it are in desperate need of a stair master.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You get a good portion of Steven Seagal environmental anxieties, and some breathless mountain views along with cow-boy scenes (or alternatively use parts of any remains of the HORSE WHISPERER). You then add a large piece of OUTBREAK virus or similar (attention it must be more lethal and at least Biohazard Level 4) wrapped around a fat Militia group leader. You add one teaspoon of martial arts, and a zip of explosions and gunfire for the taste. Add the classic red Indian herbs for the extra taste. Serve immediately.

What is the name of the film you get ?: The Patriot. Perhaps the worst film of Steven Seagal. I am sure that Seagal tried to say something in this film except the usual I-am-a-cook (but-also-an-ex-seal) but his recipe was confusing and the taste was awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"[POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT]

It's unlikely that Seagal will ever again scale the heights of lousitude he did with *On Deadly Ground* (mainly because no one's ever going to let him direct again), but he sure tries, don't he?

This one's a typically brainless and badly-written little fantasy about how Indian folk remedies are much more effective than Western medicine. Seagal seems to actually believe this nonsense, although he never explains why life expectancy in the Americas and Europe is so much higher than it was in 1492.

Kinda like he never explains how his supposed \"water-fueled engines\" work in *On Deadly Ground*.

Even the \"action\" in this one sucks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Forget the fact that most people expect an action movie form Seagal. This movie simply had no substance. Very long, drawn out, and boring. Scenes were much longer than they had to be - the camera would often focus on something for long periods of time when absolutely nothing was happening. Cure for insomnia. Worst Seagal movie by far (I do like some of his other movies). 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seagal was way off the mark with this film. I'm a fan of his and come to expect cool fight scenes and sharp one liners but this film had none of this, instead it had injections and cheesy music. Even if you're a fan of his i strongly recommend you keep away from this film and watch under siege or even on deadly ground instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Since I am not a big Steven Seagal fan, I thought this was a pretty good movie. It is apparent that his fans are very displeased with this drama that lacks an over abundance of martial arts and brute force.

Gailard Sartain plays a self claimed patriot leader of a militia in a standoff with the ATF for weapons violations. He surrenders with the intentions of releasing a deadly virus. Seagal is a former CIA agent turned country doctor that pressures himself to find the antidote for the lethal bug that has incapacitated a small town. His Grandpa's Native American herbal remedy figures into the salvation.

Notable appearances by L.Q. Jones, Camilla Belle and Silas Weir Mitchell. My personal favorite in this movie is Whitney Yellow Robe. She is stunning and appears to have what it takes to take on a more challenging role.

Despite the far fetched ending, this was a decent movie that could have used a lot more action.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is without a doubt the worst action film I have ever seen. I am sorry, but it is just pathetic. In fact, the best part of the movie (this movie is supposed to be a serious one) is when a chicken speeds across the road, on foot, at about 100 miles per hour. This pathetic editing mistake makes the film absolutely hilarious for approximately 2 seconds, then it is back to \"non stop, on the edge of your seat, as you try to find a comfortable position to sleep in, action!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Steven Seagal has made a really dull, bad and boring movie. Steven Seagal plays a doctor!!!!!!???! This movie has got a few action-scenes but they are poorly directed and have nothing to do with the rest of the movie. A group of American Nazis spread a lethal virus, which is able to wipe out the state of Montana. Wesley(Seagal`s character)tries desperately to find a cure, and that is the story of The Patriot. The Patriot is an extremely boring film, because nothing happens. It is filled with boring dialogue, and illogical gaps between events, and stupid actors. Steven Seagal has totally scre#\u00a4d up in this movie, and I would not recommend this guff to my worst enemy. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Apart from some quite stunning scenery, this Steven Seagal vehicle is devoid of reasons to spend any time watching it. For a Seagal movie it has very little (almost no) action but he does put in some reasonable (for him) acting in contrived character development scenes. Not recommended. To anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, I haven't seen a movie this bad since \"Fire Down Below\". Wait, that's a Seagal movie too. Like \"On Deadly Ground\" and \"Fire Down Below\", Seagal centers the movie around his environmental awareness message and how the military, FBI, and CIA are incompetent idiots. Problem is that both reality and a sensible plot are secondary to whatever gobbleygook social commentary Seagal is trying to get across.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most stupid of Seagal's movies I've ever seen. The final scene is just crescendo of stupidity. My recommendation - if you really like Steeve Seagal's movies, NEVER , NEVER rent or buy this one - do not repeat my mistake and keep a good impression of him, which I've lost","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dr Steven Segal saves the world from a deadly virus outbreak. This movie strikes me as foolish earnestness that has morphed into an unintended camp classic (the best kind). Memorable lines include \"Knowledge is like a deer. Chase it, and it will run away from you\" and \"Drink this. It will make you feel better.\" It is so sublimely bad -- they couldn't have made it any worse if they tried.

Segal tries to convince you that he is 1. sensitive -- by saving a stricken pony; 2. a good father -- by a saccharine cooking scene for his daughter; 3. a man of science -- by looking at a fake spectrum; 4. in tune with nature -- by using homeopathic remedies; 5. politically correct and multicultural -- by having Indian friends; 6. an iconoclast -- by opening a rural practice after a former life in a national research lab; and 7. an action hero -- by being really fat but yet can still fight. ROTFL.

It's good to see on as a late-night Saturday flick, with friends, preferably (but not necessarily!) inebriated.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I discovered \"The Patriot\" in a DVD-store and thought it could be a real action thriller. No, it\u00b4s instead a low budget movie with a ridiculous story. It\u00b4s no doubt a cable-movie and not one for the theatre. Fortunately after 90 minutes the movie stops otherwise the audience should have taken an anti-virus against sleep. One thing came over: it was the nice country the film has been shot. You can really feel the American air but that\u00b4s all. I hope for Steven Seagal that he finally succeeds in a big hit. It is not a must see because I and my wife voted average 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know about the rest of the viewers of this movie but personally I'm dead sick and tired of Steven Seagal films. When Above the Law came out, it was a great action film. Wahoo. Now in the Patriot, Steven Seagal plays Steven Seagal from Above the Law. I get tired of seeing no character changes. It's the same character, time after time, after time. He needs change. This movie was probably one of the worst action films I have ever seen. Calling it an action movie is giving it almost too much credit because there's too few action scenes and they're spread far apart throughout the film. I guess they wanted to go for some drama but it was a meaningless try as the film portrays nothing but the regular squinty-eyed-Steven-Seagal we've seen thousands of times over. Get a new look and lose the pony tail is all I have to say, I definitely do not recommend viewing this film in any form, go out to eat, heck, rent Barney goes to Vegas but do not under any circumstances rent this movie under the precept that Seagal will make a great performance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, some other people have commented that this isn't an action flick, so I don't need to rehash that (even though I just did). This isn't exactly a let down, in fact, it's nice on occasion to see an actor try something different. But, unfortunately, this isn't one of those occasions.

Now, the story: non-existent. This film lacks in storyline almost as much as 'Showgirls' did. Sure, they throw in a couple environmentalist, no, not even environmentalist, something else, tidbits here and there to please Seagal (being that that's what he's into). This doesn't make a story, not even close. Now, the ending... Even those amongst us who actually liked this film... the ending, you have to admit it was a bit much, or a lot stupid.

Now, from what I understand this was a direct-to-video film (at least in the states), but this is even too good for this one. This piece of garbage should have been cable only, on TBS or Starz (late night).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Steven Seagal played in many action movies. Most of them were bad but not bad as The Patriot. This one is a Z-series action low-budget movie. After Operation Delta Force, Act of War, The Substitute 2, Plato's Run, The Base, Drive, Sabotage, etc comes The Patriot. Now Steven Seagal is sure to be considered as a bad actor like Mark Dacascos, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Treat Williams, Jack Scalia, Gary Busey, Chuck Norris, Michael Madsen and many others. The scenario was full of holes and the characters were not realistic (maybe because of the very bad actors) and the 4.25 bucks you spend by renting The Patriot are called Lost Money!!! I give it 0and a half( for laughs) out of 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seems Sensei Seagal is getting more and more moralising and less \"action packed\". To date this has to be his worse movie... no action, a poor story line, an impossible plot and to make things worse, one of the CHEEZIEST endings I have ever seen.

Seagal films are like seeing a Dirty-Harry, you do not go see it for the great social causes or impeccable acting... you want a good action flick.

On a scale of 1 to 10, this one gets a 1...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember when this came out it was the first kung fu film ever seen around our way and we were all excited about seeing it for sure .Although the action was mediocre at best it gave us our first taste of kung fu and our first taste of bad dubbing as well as bad film making or more precisely the way Chinese people were making films at the time . They were admittedly inferior wlthout question but there was entertainment value here and that caught on for sure . The kung fu craze had begun and Bruce Lee and ''The Chinese Connection'' would soon follow either that or ''The Chinese Boxer'' with Jimmy Wang Yu . In any case this film was chosen to lead the way .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is indeed the film that popularized kung fu in the 1970s. However, if it ever had any kind of excitement or even halfway interesting plot, it doesn't seem to have aged very well.

Long story short: extremely drawn out, slow-moving, confusing plot with run-of-the-mill choreography, typically annoying and exaggerated whiplash sounds with every punch and kick, and constant \"plot twists\" that never come to an end. By the time the film reaches its emotional climax, I had long had all the wind knocked out of me to actually care.

Watch it for its historical value as a milestone of Chinese kung fu cinema -- just leave your expectations at the door, or you'll be bitterly disappointed.

For hardcore fans only.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really liked this quirky movie. The characters are not the bland beautiful people that show up in so many movies and on TV. It has a realistic edge, with a captivating story line. The main title sequence alone makes this movie fun to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After hoo-hooing American Indians scalp number one son, frontiersman Bruce Bennett (as Daniel Boone) seems, at first, like he wants to get even; but, he really wants to make friends with the natives. When sad-eyed Indian chief Lon Chaney Jr. (as Blackfish) also loses number one son, it gets more difficult to clear up misunderstandings. Apparently, this was Republic Pictures' attempt to do for their \"Daniel Boone, Trail Blazer\" what Disney Studio's had successfully done with \"Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier\" (1955).

The \"Dan'l Boone\" song, whistled and sung by a group of children in a wagon, did not follow Fess Parker's \"Davy Crockett\" up the Hit Parade. Singer Faron Young (as Faron Callaway) doesn't perform the title song (perhaps wisely); he does sing \"Long Green Valley\", and makes a good impression as a blond boyfriend for Boone's daughter. But, Spanish actor Freddy Fernandez is the film's most valuable player. In a cute scene, Mr. Fernandez reminds Mr. Young the name of the character (\"Susannah\") he is supposed to be in love with.

**** Daniel Boone, Trail Blazer (10\/5\/56) Ismael Rodr\u00edguez ~ Bruce Bennett, Lon Chaney Jr., Faron Young, Freddy Fernandez","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Big D.B. tries to keep peace between the settlers and their red brothers.

Boone (an aging Bruce Bennett) has to try and prove to the local Indian chief (Lon Chaney, Jr., appearing to be drunk, as usual) that his son was killed by the tribe's leading jerk who has also been dealing in rifle-trafficking when nobody's looking. Faron Young sings, though he holds his rifle like it's a mop.

OK western-adventure directed by two guys, neither of whom has many credits on his resume, but this flick ain't too bad and it has a nice short running time of 76 minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Reports of this film's brilliance appear to have been greatly exaggerated, and unless the other reviewers were watching a different movie, I fail to see how anyone can find this film anything other than dull, unscary, uncreepy, overlong, and at times, unbearably irritating. I'm not some schlocky horror fanatic. I love j-horrors and euro-horrors over American horrors any day, but I feel the need to warn any potential viewers about this film before they invest two hours of their life in it.

It could have been so great. A reporter is investigating a series of bizarre deaths and occurrences, which seem ostensibly unlinked, but a series of unnerving tropes appears to connect them - dead pigeons, thudding noises, the presence of strangely tied knots... Our reporter goes from person to person, interviewing them, filming them and then passing on. Three important characters are among this jumble of people, a young, shy psychic girl, an immensely irritating, insane psychic man, and a crazy old woman and her boy, whose importance is not revealed until later on.

The problem is that the film is not even remotely interesting, which makes its two hour running time unforgivable. It's also not even remotely scary or creepy. Supposedly scary scenes, like shots of ghoulish faces are done incredibly poorly, shown twice, or worse, we are told when they are about to happen. Other techniques, such as telling us that a family just interviewed \"died five days later\" simply don't make me care, let alone mildly creeped.

The film does pick up a bit towards the end, as our reporter, cameraman, psychic and cursed woman go to a village in order to 'remove' the curse which is linking all these deaths. However, by that time, I was in a state of catatonic boredom, and couldn't care less, so all the fairly creepy camera-work and shocks were wasted on me. The \"final tape\" is quite good, but once again, I'd given up caring and just wanted this film to end.

Boring and dull, not scary and not creepy, I would advise you keep away from Noroi. It has promising moments, but this is a film that was poorly made and not worth your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't seen any other films by Antonioni and the people that saw this one with me agreed that it shares themes and imagery with the rest of his works. Maybe if I had seen other stuff by him I would have enjoyed this one, knowing what to expect.

I saw it as an almost complete failure for so many reasons. First of all, the film introduces interesting, deep issues about social relationships, feelings, the nature of reality versus fiction, but this is very often done in the clumsiest of ways making the characters speak as if they were delivering speeches, rambling on and on, juxtaposing declarations rather than having dialogues. The scriptwriters seem to be so worried that we will not get the point that they prefer to tell instead of showing.

Secondly, the movie has no rhythm, especially in its first half. It is not only that it is slow. Some slow films have been made with an excellent sense of pace and rhythm (El Sur by Victor Erice Or Scorsese's The Age of Innocence are examples I like), but for that to be successful it is necessary that we find the characters so engaging or the story so moving that we can adapt to it. This does not happen in Beyond the Clouds, where the first episode seems to drag endlessly, and the relationship between John Malkovich's \"reality\" and the love stories \"fiction\" is at times fluid, others abrupt, others confusing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If rich people are different from us because they have more money, then film makers are different from us because they think the world cares about their every thought.

This self-indulgent piece of tripe seems to have been made just because the director felt it was time to make another movie, and someone would finance it. Not every trivial idea or reflection is worthy of a movie (unless you are a college film student trying to complete a course). When you don't have anything to say, sometimes it is best to remain quiet.

The visuals are not breath-taking. They are quite ordinary. The dialog is inane and unbelievable. They speak words no one would every sequence together in situations that are beyond imagination. Germaine Greer's zipless f**k is finally brought to the screen. Even if you believe in love at first sight, no one falls into bed as easily as these characters. They screw before they talk. Even more unbelievable is an aging, balding director finding instant sex with the most beautiful chick in town, though gravity is already getting to Miss Marceau at a youthful age.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a shame. This could have been good. The main problems are the script and the star. The film cannot decide whether to be a slapstick comedy (of a very uninspired and routine kind) or whether to be a insightful satire on the old East Germany and its mores. Its attempts at the latter flop totally, however. The film does not hold together well and the ending is very artificial and unbelievable. Any stereotypes one might have about German comedy are sadly reinforced.

The characters are stereotypes one and all, and the leading character, played by Kim Frank, is colourless in the extreme. He just cannot carry the film and appears to have been chosen largely for his baby face. It may not be all the actor's fault (he is a pop singer), as the script does not give him much to work on.

One plus -- the recreation of the East German 'style' and period is good.

The worst thing is that the film feels somehow dishonest and demeaning. The film seems to have been churned out by people who were not necessarily giving it their best and just wanted to make a quick buck from a few cheap laughs. (If they were giving it their best, it is a sad case indeed!) I watched it at the cinema with an East German audience and I felt sorry for them. The GDR regime was awful in almost all respects, but those who lived through it deserve better than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't expect too much from this movie, but I was still disappointed. It's supposed to be a comedy, but there are only four or five scenes where I actually laughed, and I think that's rather poor. There is no real plot either, I always had the feeling that most of the scenes could have been put anywhere in the movie because there's no connection between them. But the worst thing was the \"acting\" of Kim Franke. He has ONE facial expression during the whole movie, as if he was supposed to play some retarded guy, but I believe that's not the case. All in all I rate it four out of ten, I've seen worse movies than this, but I wouldn't spend money on this one again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As was mentioned before in other comments, the major problem of NVA is that it cannot decide what it wants to be, slapstick of the cheapest kind or an honest parody of the East German Army. There are a couple of moments which are quite moving, for example when one of the recruits returns from the army prison in Schwedt with a completely broken personality. But in the end, Leander Hau\u00dfmann goes for the infantile humour. No wonder the film flopped at the German box office as it's historically untruthful to the real situation in those training camps and led by an actor who is unfortunately incapable of giving a nuanced performance.

However, there is the camera work of Frank Griebe who - as always - does a wonderful job. If it wasn't for his beautiful images I would have rated the film far worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you have been to the east of Europe (or even in their armed forces), you might find this movie interesting. I don't know why calls this a comedy (sure, there are a few funny moments), but it is not a good movie if one of the orderly officers talks for 15 min about the achievements of socialism on a Christmas dinner, and the officers in general act like funny oafs, the soldiers are running of the base to meet their girls at night, and surprise, surprise, one of the girls is the daughter of the commander. The east German army was known for its abusive and humiliating service of its conscripted men, and the comedy was basically not filmed on the facilities or with the equipment to make a good movie of the east German army and their time now gone by. Despite this, some of the actors and actresses tried to act well, but it came out only in the roles they're known for from East German TV and some small films. I would not recommend this movie to anybody, it was basically boring and very cheap made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've expected a comedy about the NVA, but this is a parody. It shows the national army of Eastern Germany in a light that is not appropriate, and definitely not true.

One can make a comedy about everything, as long as the underlying facts are not changed. Even a comedy about the German KZ is possible, as Roberto Benigni with \"LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL\" has shown.

The movie NVA would be an \"OK\" comedy, because the jokes in it are overall OK. Nothing special - not hilarious, but enough to live with it.

The point is, that the movie makes a farce and a parody about the NVA. A death machine that was ready to attack WESTERN EUROPE along with it's friend the RED ARMY. An institution that used everything to get the utmost from it's soldiers. An army that marched into the CSPR in 1968, and was ready to march also in POLAND to destroy the SOLIDARNOSC. You can't make a movie without showing the tiniest bit of evil, or would you make a parody about a KZ,Guantanamo or 9\/11??? Showing Osama bin Laden as a funny screwed guy? 90 minutes about a funny Osama in a Afghan Taliban camp, where he makes jokes and is training his soldiers would be comparable to what this movie is doing about the NVA!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A young man, who never knew his birth parents, receives an old farm in an isolated section of West Virginia upon the death of his natural father. He visits his property with a cross-section of potential victims including the comic relief black guy and a trendy lesbian couple. (Hmm, will there be skinny dipping? Take a guess.) Unfortunately, the party comes to an end when the spirits of drifters killed by his evil great-grandfather and used as scarecrows come back for revenge. This film starts out well. An artful montage of depression-era photographs and phony newspapers set against a speech by FDR - this, I believe, is his first appearance in a killer scarecrow movie- establishes the mood. I developed some hopes for the film, which were partially realized. The story was serviceable enough. The setting was sufficiently bucolic. The photography was mostly in focus. The acting, while no great shakes, was slightly above par for horror movies in this budget range. The film might've actually worked within the narrow demands of the genre if the scarecrows were scary. But they weren't They looked cheap. They weren't frightening at all. The better the monster, the better the movie. These scarecrows wouldn't scare Dorothy, let alone Toto.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rent this only movie if you're in the mood for laughs (for sheer stupidity) , as this movie wouldn't scare a bunch of kindergartners at a Halloween party! The trouble is, there is too much gore for kiddies, so definitely don't put this in your VCR for the toddlers. It starts off with a little bit of promise, giving you the impression that the box cover artist may have actually started watching this film before designing the cover, but then descends quickly into epic stupidity. The \"killer scarecrows\" are clumsy oafs that are about as scary as the one in the Wizard of Oz, but not quite as smart. If they'd only had a brain...? I got this movie for $1.20 at a local discount\/close-out store and even so, I feel somewhat ripped off. I think with all the other comments posted here, if you actually pay to see this, you can only blame yourself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was in Blockbuster and I saw a film called \"Dark Harvest\". The cover art looked great, the plot wasn't that bad, and the tagline (You reap what you sow) made the movie look pretty good. But I was dumb that day, because I did something I should have never done. I rented a \"Straight To Video Independent Horror Film\" Walking out with my much better rentals, I went home, popped Dark Harvest in the DVD player and it began. I figured I would watch the trailer after the film was done (BAD IDEA) but went ahead and watched it anyway. NOW to the review.*POSSIBLE SPOILERS* First off, the acting by the \"kids\" sucks, and the scene when the 2 (main characters) are talking, the lighting sucks, and the buildings even look fake! Now they go to this house, where Sean Connel's (I think he's the main character, I don't care) relatives lived there. All of a sudden one by one, they all start getting killed by...(gasp) A KILLER SCARECROW!!!! AHHH!!!!! The scarecrow is obviously the definition of low budget, and the scenes where the scarecrow is computerized looks so fake it's hilarious. It makes dinosaur noises and everything! And then at the end...they shoot the scarecrow with a gun (that is red for god's sake and looks like it was purchased at a local family dollar) and it pauses for a while and then.....(gasp) BLOWS UP!!!!!!

Save yourself some time, I'm telling you this movie sucks. if you need to pass an hour and a half, look at the wall, because looking at the wall is A+ fun compared to this disaster. It is quite funny though.

Overall Grade: F If there was anything lower **F-** Than I would give it that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is possibly the worst of the worst. I am a huge fan of the horror movie industry and I can believe this movie was allowed to be made. The acting was juvenile and the story completely idiotic. The camera work was also juvenile. One scene that comes to mind is outside a store. It is nighttime and you can see the moon, yet the characters all have shadows that cast on the wall. There was no street light to be seen. One character gets gutted at one point, yet manages to resurface later after removing herself from a post. Come on!!! It felt like I was watching a middle school play. I kept expecting the characters to wave to their family members off camera and mouth \"hi mom\". I can only give it two positive comments...it ended and it was good for a laugh. Please do not rent this movie!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Few videos in recent history have been as amateurishly produced as this one -- at least none that have been released by such a reputable distributor. Every frame of this film is a plaguerism of better films of the past. The word 'cliche' is given new meaning by a talentless writer\/director who should reserve his imagination for lesser masturbatory efforts that don't victimize film viewers. Assisting in the amateur night 'horror' effort is a number of less than capable technicians who contribute poor cinematography and laughable make-up and special effects. Unfortunately, the one or two of the amateur actors in the film who display a hint of talent that will go unnoticed due to the reputation that this atrocity will produce.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think there's a reason this film never came close to hitting theaters. It was probably my neighbors down the street who filmed this movie with their mother's video camera. The acting is very amateur. This movie is definitely not something you would want to watch unless you were extremely bored. The actors even seem to double as directors and crew members, with no \"professionalism\" whatsoever. Should the director(s) and\/or actors choose to continue with their endeavor of making movies, I would definitely advise them to brush up on their skills and perhaps take a few (ok, many) classes on film-making and acting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dark Harvest is about a group of friends that go to a farm(it belongs to one of the friends relatives or something) for a getaway. But there are killer scarecrows lurking there(there was something about a curse in there too but I forgot what that was about).

The acting in this movie is awful, I don't know what the director was thinking when he was casting actors and actresses. The script is the same story as the acting \"awful\"(this statement coming up is very obvious but..) if there was better acting and a better script this could have turned out \"okay\".

The directing stunk too, I see no potential in this guy's future. After all these negatives this movie still maintains a \"fun\" factor that bumps it up to a two. The last plus is they don't use CGI! My overall thoughts on this film are it's bad, real bad, but so bad it's \"fun\" so it gets a 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"pardon my spelling. This is probably the funniest horror movie that ever existed. Think evil dead * 1000. The acting is horrible, you can see the makeup line on a certain lady's face. there is a lesbian scene, which makes no sense at-all. And the ending, haha ohhhh the ending... be prepared to have your stomach hurting from laughter. Now if you watch this film for more then 5 minutes and are still expecting something, take a look at your self, and ask what the hell is wrong with you. This is a very bad movie, meant to laugh at and enjoy for its pure silliness.

Don't forget to watch all the outtakes after the movie, you can see just how low budget the whole thing really was. All in all this movie is a rare gem in demonstrating the pure and udder lack of talent\/care\/ability\/money\/ and anything else you would ever need to make a successful film. But its definitely worth watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now, I am going to do this without putting spoilers if I can. My cousin and I were renting movies the other weekend, and we stumbled across this, with the big freaking' scarecrow on the cover. It looked cool, so we rented it alongside Kungfu Hustle.

Wow... Just... Wow.

To start off, the movie was horrible. Now, the box art, opening scenes, and music was decent-to-well done, but the movie itself is horrendous. The acting is sub-par (Sean, the lead, shows hardly any emotion and\/or effort in his character), the scarecrows look nothing like the one on the cover (False advertising, perhaps?), and the camera shots and angles were that of a bad wrestling event.

And trust me, I'm a wrestling fan. I KNOW bad camera angles. And honestly, this is right up there with Gigli and Pootie Tang. It's done so bad that it AMUSES me. It makes me laugh. So, somehow, this movie takes its place as a good comedy to me.

But, to be fair, it does serve as a what to do and what not to do in movies, especially of the slasher genre. I recommend that people DO watch this, just to get a good grasp of what to avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS. This movie was the worst movie ever. I couldn't even watch it all it was so bad. This film is actually worse than scarecrow slayer which is saying a whole lot. This was worse than terror toons which at least terror toons was funny at times. Not even the gore in the film was good. The shootings were fake and the acting was worse. Please do yourself a favor and skip this one. If you see it at the rental store then run the other way. There is nothing good about this film at all. If you want to see a good scarecrow movie then watch Night of the scarecrow or pumpkin head. If you want to see an OK new cheesy movie then watch Scarecrow. I rate this movie a 0.2 out of 10. That's how horrible this film really is. THE WORST MOVIE EVER.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"DO not take this film seriously, rent it with some folks who want to play Mystery Science 3000, and you will probably laugh your butts off. The evil guys are so not scary, it's funny, it's like some dude from 7th grade with a sickle in a scarecrow get up. The acting is hilarious. I love the occasional self torture with a poor horror film and this really had me giggling. I recommend it on that basis. Of course recreational drugs will enhance the experience. Oh, there is a naked group swimming scene, that will allow for some star dust on the 5 star system. The token black male gets injured badly, but continues his joking as well as using the injured body part quite readily throughout. Enjoy this complete and utter disgrace to films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, I'm sorry to the cast and crew for this review, but this movie is by far the worst I've seen yet...First off, the acting was okay. It could of been better (especially in some parts), but it was \"okay\". Then, there was the cheapest video camera (which they used). The violence was pretty good. If it were paced faster, it would be awesome, but they didn't (*sigh*)...Scares. The scares were well written (in the script), but not well done. For instance...(SPOILER HERE!) In the loft, a girl is half way in it and the other half is in the dark, bottom area of the barn house, then she gets it. The monster yanks her down and then you hear someones guts getting ripped out. The scares could have been better if the music wasn't ripped from a cheap horror sounds CD. The blood effects were pretty good, but the blood was like that of \"Kill Bill\". K.B. pulled it off, because it was meant to resemble old kung-fu movies, but when the crew can't tell the difference between red and pink....it's sad. The ripped up bodies in the movie were good, but the scarecrow costumes were something you would see for 25 bucks at a halloween store. Don't let the cover fool you, the costumes suck! My overall grade is a 3\/10. If you are interested in independent movies, are easily satisfied, or just have 3 bucks burning a hole in your pocket, go to Blockbuster and see the horror of failure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad script? Check. Awful effects? Check. Horrible actors? Check. Lame direction? Check.

After seeing the DVD box at blockbuster video and being a fan of the horror genre, I placed my $4.28 on the line and rented this \"film.\" My girlfriend was out of town and I was bored so on a late Tuesday night I decided this would be a perfect time for me to watch, what appeared to be (based on the box cover art) a horror movie. What I got instead was the worst film ever made. Up until that point I had always declared \"Slumber Party Massacre 3\" the worst film ever made.

If you are the type that wants to see a movie because you heard how bad it is, this is for you. If you don't want to lose $4.00 and 80 irreplaceable minutes of your life, steer clear of this garbage.

An added note: I noticed a few of the \"actors\" come on here and post comments on the bulletin board. How can you brag about being in this film? You were all horrible. I mean really bad. If there was an American Idol for actors, you all would be laughed at in the first few episodes.

Peace.

Sutter Cain","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie starts off as we see a footage of a huge drought back in the 30's in America. Then a short story is shown about a creepy - looking farmer Elija who made a deal with Satan , to get good harvest. Elija hired young men to work in his garden , killed them , and used as scarecrows. He also fed the ground with their blood. Some time after 2 cops come to visit him. One of them gets shot by Elija , another one kills the farmer himself... After that , the present day is shown , and some guy named Sean is told that he has an old farm left as inheritance. He decides to go there with some friends to see what's up. Little did Sean know that the next night is the \"Payback Night\".....

As for me this movie had a good story for a horror flick , but low budget and poor special effects just ruined it. \"Dark Harvest\" is a perfect example of lazy film making. For example we see a scarecrow (a usual guy wearing a funny , cheap mask) chasing a girl. When he raises his hand we get to see a normal human skin below his glove, instead of some rotting flesh. The gore is not very impressive as well. There are some nasty killings by our \"lovely\" scarecrows but everything is very cheap and unrealistic. Surprisingly the acting is somewhat OK in this flick , or i better say its believable. Some nude scenes are presented as well for the fans (even a lesbian scene) ,but those scenes don't save it.

Verdict : Good music, good story, solid acting. But awful effects , cheap gore and plot holes slow this movie down. Not really recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first opening scene that lasted around five minutes showed the potential of becoming an instant classic, with moderit to good acting, good film, a story that keep the volume up, and an in the corner the of screen a spooky \"did you see that!\"(the scarecrow moves).

After the quick set up of history that would come into the present, it was like someone else had written and directed the rest of the \"film\". The next scene is a basic outline of how the film goes downhill like a runaway truck. It looks like the rest was shot in video, with crappy \"porn style actors\", the set design was a lawyers office with practically nothing on the bookshelves or anything in the office at all.

I remember only watching crap horror films for a chance of seeing some naked \"teenage\" girls, back then there weren't Victoria's Secret mags everywhere, and not watching for things that make great horror films of today like acting, terror, suspense, intregue, and so on.

It took nearly fifty minutes for the first person to die. When it did, me and and my friends were so shocked by the WORST costume of a \"monster\" EVER, we through our popcorn at the TV screen booing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"According to the budget information given on this web site Dark Harvest had an estimated budget of $130,000. Where this money was spent I'm not exactly sure. Let me see....costumes...no...location and sets...hmmm, think not....special f\/x...NOT...acting lessons...ah, no. Dark Harvest tells the epic tale of a young man who inherits a family farm in the hills of West Virginia. His girlfriend talks him into taking their friends up there to check the place out. Once there our intrepid hero learns that his great grandfather used a unique method for getting his crops to grow and now it's revenge time. Killer scarecrows out for revenge!!! Ewww scary. Well no, not really. We all know there have been some terrific movies made with very little money but this is not one of them. This film contains pretty much some of the worst acting and dialog I've ever seen. Terrible clich\u00e9s with terrible delivery. All in all do not be fooled by the half way decent cover and avoid at all costs. I'd like to give the film makers at least a D- for trying but I'm afraid they didn't even do a good job with that. GRADE: F","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's begin by acknowledging that there are arguably three types of horror films: good, bad, and utterly embarrassing reels that make the entire genre suffer in every way. Dark Harvest promises big with its Artisan DVD cover, but rest assured that is where the show stops. Following a grueling opening montage, we soon discover that the film consists of a very poorly written script, extremely under qualified (even for a beginners film) acting, disastrous lighting and even worse special effects. Seriously, could no one afford anything more than a mask for the villain, or did they just think it was good enough for Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers , so it's good enough for us? Well, it did not work at all to create a scary villain. At any rate, this is one of the movies that make you check your watch, sigh and curse your own gullibility. The timing in every scene is painful, and the entire production has a middle school feeling to it (come to think of it, I have seen better middle school stage productions, right down to the special effects). I'm trying to think of some way to end this review on a positive note, so let me suggest that all copies of this train wreck be donated as drink coasters, Frisbees, wind chimes.......I'd say \"go see your yourself\", but that would just be cruel.

Check out the rest of this production company's reviews and you'll find the same for every one of their movies. They claim to honor the contract between film and audience (i.e. please the fans) but all they have done is chuckle and dumped a load on our heads for the cash (of which I am sure they saw very little for this).

Sorry people, the high ratings and favorable reviews are obviously posted by those either directly or indirectly connected to this travesty.

1 star out of 10 because it is the lowest possible rating. Giving it even one makes me angry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some teen agers go to an old deserted farm house left to one of them by their dead grandfather, unaware that there had been several murders there decades earlier because their grandfather had made a pact with the devil for a good harvest- couldn't the guy have thought of something better to sell his soul for? The man's grandson and his friends are set up to be the next sacrifice, for reasons which are never explained. The stereotypical teenage son and his girlfriend, the black guy with a white girlfriend, and the two lesbians have to do battle with three killer scarecrows- but, don't be tricked like I was, this isn't nearly as fun as it sounds. It's mostly just a lot of chit chat about ball kicking, dope smoking, and the lead actor complaining about never knowing his parents. The camera work is atrocious and shaky, maybe done on a hand held camcorder in some scenes, which maybe a good thing since the scarecrows look like they just came from some kid's birthday party, and apparently they could only hire two people to play the three scarecrows! Some of the best movies I've seen have been these low budget, independent horror movies, but this one is just pathetic. The cast and crew seems to have just been made up of a bunch of people who knew each other, had never acted before and had no intention of acting again, and had a few thousand dollars (I can't believe this movie cost $130.000 to make) and a weekend of free time on their hands- even the lesbian skinny dipping scene is lame.

I think it's amusing also, that as of this writing, there is a sequel to this film which no one has even bothered adding to IMDb.

* out of ****, and I only rate it that highly only because of the skinny dipping scene, no matter how lame it may be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I woke up and it was a beautiful day; the sun was shining, the birds were singing and i fancied getting a movie, something new, a horror movie perhaps? Like many other reviewers i came across what can only be described as a piece of poopy in a gold wrapper. The front cover is great, and the comment on the back is mesmerising - 'it will scare the crop out of you'...oh how i chuckle looking back at such naivety and ignorance.

One of the many things scarier than this movie is the acting skills of these 'actors'. I think, no, i did actually cheer when they got slashed up by these 'scarecrows', who were wearing some classic fancy dress costumes. I used to drive quite quickly past cornfields as i found them to be pretty scary at night, but having seen this movie, i nearly wet myself (through laughing so much) just at the sight.

I have seen scarier omelette's quite honestly, not mine though, i'm a dab-hand at cooking omelette's, and if anyone associates this movie with my omelette's, let's just say that i would create a situation in which they would be forced to watch this movie 3 times in a row.

If anyone has any good corn (crop not pop) movies they can recommend, feel free to inform me. It's a great comedy if nothing else, OK it is nothing else. Enjoy, but a little advice - before pressing the play button on your DVD player, throw it out of the window.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an irredeemably stupid, boring, unimaginative, lazily put together piece of garbage. When watching a direct to video slasher pick, it is only fair to expect the film to be trashy on some level, but this goes beyond trashy. It is just horrible on every level, with a clich\u00e9 ridden script that manages to be both incredibly stupid and incredibly boring at the same time, a cast of no name over actors, and some of the worst special effects I have ever seen. Even fans of slasher movies won't be able to find anything here that would make this film a worthwhile use of an hour and a half.

The plot focuses on your usual group of young people who decide to spend the weekend at a remote farm in West Virginia that one member of the group has recently inherited. Unfortunately for the teenagers, the inherited land was once owned by a farmer who made sacrifices in order to help his crops grow, or something stupid along those lines, and now some evil scarecrows are out to kill everybody. I don't know anything about writer director Paul Moore, but I am assuming he is over ten years old, and therefore he ought to be able to come up with something more original than killer scarecrows. Honestly.

The special effects bringing the scarecrows to life are laughably poor. They often look like hardly more than Haloween costumes on sticks. Special effects such as these would have been considered rather rather poor twenty years ago, but by todays standards, they are nothing short of embarrassing.

This is a total waste of time for all viewers, whether or not they are into horror movies. If you must watch a slasher film, rent any one of the \"Friday the 13th\" or \"Halloween\" movies. Most of them aren't very good, but are certainly superior to crap like this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Straight to video and with good reason. Its like the neighborhood kids putting on a play in the backyard, but worse. A young man,(Don Digiulio) inherits a farm in West Virginia that has been dormant for generations. He decides to take a few friends to check the property out. This farmland used to produce good corn crops, even during the Great Depression. The secret being that the owner was murdering folks and watering the fields with their blood. Then hang their bodies out as scarecrows. The special effects are pretty lame and the the horrible dialog is full of unfunny one-liners and the banter so ridiculous the sound may better be turned off. Cheap gore and a sham of a horror flick. Along with Digiulio in the cast: Jeanie Cheek, B.W. York, Booty Chewning and Jessica Dunphy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those films that you watch with a group of people. You will have the best time. It's really, really bad, like Showgirls bad but without the quality of Showgirls.

You've got the best mix of bad actors, bad director and bad script here. Everything that can possible be wrong that can make for an entertaining evening, you have here. The first being the tag line is \"a bunch of teenagers...\" These people are as much \"teenagers\" as my grandmother.

The director has zero sense of suspense or tension. The 30 year old \"teenagers\" are standing around and the \"monster\" comes out and attacks and this pretty much happens throughout the movie when the monsters are revealed. There is no suspense building up to this or surprise or anything. It's more like when you were kids pretending to be chased by monsters and just kind of made up stuff as you went. And when I use the word \"monsters\" I exaggerate. More like a couple guys in Halloween masks bought at the .99 cent store.

There is no doubt this script was spun off in a couple days, no rewrites and I can only imagine how bad and poorly formatted it looked on the page because it was clearly written by an amateur with no clue. It's another example of one of the bad things about this day and age: anyone can make a movie.

But of course the best bad thing about this film is the acting. It's as bad as you can get. There isn't one person in this who has the slightest skill at acting and the lead is the absolute worst. He delivers every line in this monotone manner without any expression and you have to wonder how someone this bad could possible get a part in any movie, no matter who he knows. When he had to \"cry\" when his girlfriend was killed, it was one of the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a movie. Watching these people reciting some of the awful dialog is very very funny. But when the black guy said \"tell her...tell her...I love her...\" before his death scene, there was a huge laugh among our group. Funny, funny stuff.

My only hope is this movie gets bad enough ratings to take its place where it belongs: in the IMDb lowest rating 100 movies. We can do it, folks!

PS. Is it any surprise that the one \"great\" comment this movie got in here was from someone in Virginia (who has one comment, only on this movie and nothing else). And guess where the movie was made? Virginia. I've said it before and I'll say it again: people who work on the movie should NOT be allowed to comment on it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I knew full well when I rented this DVD that it could very well be one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. But to say that it was one of the worst movies I've ever viewed would be putting it lightly. I'm wondering if there isn't some legal action that can be taken against the individuals that allowed this film to produced. I mean, the financing had to come from somewhere, someone had to put up money for this to be produced!!??

I'd pinpoint several production values that led to the failure of this film, but this film violated every production standard in the universe. I couldn't make it thru the entire movie, as I started getting dizzy the from horrendous filming techniques. I also can't tell you how many scenes I just ended zoning off during because of the inexplicably horrific dialog.

I feel like I've been permanently scarred for life. If you viewed this movie before getting this warning, you should think about starting a support group with me for the poor people who did view this monstrosity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another stupid \"movie\". The quality of image is correct. Sound too. Music is middle. The guy try make music like in Halloween.

For one rare time, producer\/director choose no-anorexic girls. It is cause this \"movie\" take one week to do and cost $10,000. Does it mean when producer have money they choose all anorexic girls? Good question.

But girls in this \"movie\" are physically correct. But they are not good actress. Neither guys too. But maybe it's just cause the \"story\" of this \"movie\" have no value.

I'm sure we give $10,000 to some teen who like movie, and they can create a better movie.

Don't lose your time to watch this \"thing\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dark Harvest is a very low budget production made by a bunch of rank amateurs which manages to come off as a kind of semi-professional movie. Unfortunately the poor effects, wooden acting and unoriginal story makes this a very mediocre horror slasher at best. By no means is Dark Harvest the worst horror movie i've ever seen, it just isn't anything special and has nothing in it to warrant a second watch or hope for a sequel. You know a director has doubts about their own horror film when a) there is some pointless nudity and b) the movie's so short they add some rather boring outtakes at the end credits that nobody really cares about because the movie wasn't that good! A slightly better movie which i can't help feeling was the inspiration for Dark Harvest is the eighties movie 'Scarecrows' which is an OK movie but still pretty average.

Dark Harvest isn't as bad as some of the other comments say it is but don't think that you will be entertained much either. One thing i also have to comment on is the character of Angela who has a really terrible English accent! What was the point in that?! To maybe give it a certain touch of class? Yeah right! English people do NOT say \"WAAHTAAH\" when they mean to say \"water\" and i don't care what part of England they are from! If you can't find a genuine English actress or a non-English actress who can put on a brilliant English accent (not many of them about) then DON'T BOTHER! Sheesh! Final score: 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off I am in my mid 40's. Been watchin horror films since I was a kid so I have seen A lot of variety. IMO,this is not as bad as the multitudes that gave this a 1 or 2.

Yes,it is a low budget horror flick. The dialog is soso and acting tolerable,sometimes. The basis of this film plotwise is actually pretty good. For those of you old enough to remember or lucky enough to have seen them on DVD. This is very much like a 1970's movie of the week. Just add in blood and minor gore,minor T & A and swearing, without big names. That is it to a T. I would rather watch this than Jason vs Godzilla or whatever other continuois crap is out there. Tho not as good, EVIL DEAD was a LOW budget film. At least give these guys credit for trying. With acouple MIL budget this could have been a pretty good flick. My score a watchable 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Any time a movie feature a dwarf or a midget in a prominent role, the odds are 10-to-1 that the director threw him in because he didn't know what else to do to keep the movie interesting. In this case, the featured little guy isn't all that bad - he manages to keep his dignity for most of his scenes (except the part where he drags the leading man down the stairs of the dungeon), but the movie itself uses him like a doggie chew toy.

The problem here is a common one with low budget exploitation movies - there's a germ of a decent idea in here, but the director and the screenwriter don't know how to develop it. A good director would take the various story elements - brain transplants, mad doctors with secret labs and a dungeon, car chases, fist fights, dim-witted monstrous Frankenstein style assistant, mind control, betrayal and conspiracy, etc...and make an exciting, involving film full of cheap thrills and fun.

Instead, what we get here is a bunch of people stumbling around and arguing in the doctor's lab, then a cheesy operation where the patient bleeds tempura paint, followed by some of the same people stumbling around and arguing in the doctor's lab some more, followed by another subgroup of the initial group driving around and having an accident, followed by a dungeon escape scene that is mostly about a woman putting her shoes back on, followed by a rooftop chase (the actual high point of the movie), followed by a confusing series of events where everyone in the movie apparently escapes from everyone else, followed by a lovely stroll in the countryside where everyone either chases, bumps into, attacks or escapes from everyone else AGAIN, followed by, well, not much else.

Somewhere in here is a scary peroxide blonde dressed in white, a well meaning heroic type who is sort of blandly good looking, a three foot lab assistant, a big lunk with a mass of melted rubber pasted to one side of his face, a kid who wonders into the middle of the movie to provide more of the \"frankenstein factor\", a brunette who sort of falls in love with the hero for no apparent reason, and the mad doctor himself,who must be the luckiest man in the history of evil super-villains, because nothing goes according to his plan, but things work out for him anyway... and all because he remembered to stick an electrode into the transplanted brain at one point in the operation.

This was by no means the worst movie I've seen, or even the worst exploitation movie I've seen, or even the worst badly made exploitation movie I've seen, but it just lies there, oozing cheapness and inattention to detail at every point, and there is no real reason for even bad movie enthusiasts to watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not sure I've ever seen a film as bad as this. Awful acting, All over the place plot, terrible special effects. There are some 'so bad its good' moments in here but not really enough to maintain interest. The woman who plays Tracey looks hideous. There are some fairly worrying scenes with a dwarf which leave you feeling ever so slightly violated. On the plus side the operation scenes are fairly amusing for the special effects as is the car chase where one car is \"trying to force us off the road\" without actually making contact. Guess the budget didn't stretch to trashing cars. Oh and what looks like a Postcard of the Taj Mahal is shown every time they cut to the fictional foreign country.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the Muslim country of Khalid (fictional), its benevolent leader\/dictator,Reed Hadley as Amir, is dying of cancer. Amir dies and a desperate plot unfolds. His body is wrapped in aluminum foil and taken in a clandestine operation (the population does not know of his death) consisting of his doctor (Nigserian) and Mohammed, out of the country to perform a risky brain transplant. The surgery is being performed by the disgraced Dr. Kent Taylor, who believes there is no chance of failure and has two assistants. One of them is about 3 feet high (Master Blaster did indeed run Barter Town) and the other is a mutilated & traumatized 7 foot giant named Gor. What could possibly go wrong??

Did I forget to mention Amir's deathbed American, blonde-Barbie wife, Tracy or that Dr. Kent has a dungeon with female slave test subjects & delusions of grandeur? How about a brain transplant that didn't take? There is a lot of double-dealing throughout this and people are killed, but I'm not going to lie to you anymore : MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The ends justify the means. If you can accept that then you will not have to waste 80 minutes. I hope that is warning enough. Don't say I didn't warn you. If you must watch, then don't watch alone and have plenty of medicine standing by.

-Celluloid Rehab","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a cheap-o movie made by Al Adamson--a man who was perhaps the worst film maker ever--even possibly worse than Ed Wood, Jr.. Adamson specialized in extremely low budget horror and skin films during the 60s, 70s and 80s and with such titles as FIVE BLOODY GRAVES, HELL'S BLOODY DEVILS, SATAN'S SADISTS and LASH OF LUST it's obvious he wasn't making Shakespeare!! His movies all had rotten production values, sensations, gore and amateur acting.

Here in BRAIN OF BLOOD, several stock Adamson actors (such as his wife, Regina Carrol, Zandor Vorkov and Angelo Rossitto are along for the ride and had appeared in Adamson's previous film, Dracula VERSUS FRANKENSTEIN. This is fortunate because the prior movie was so terrible and so poorly executed on every level that BRAIN OF BLOOD can't help but look good! Sure, the makeup is laughable, the plot dumb (it involves the ubiquitous brain transplant scheme) and acting is level Z, but it's STILL better than their last film!

About the only positive things about this film are that aging supporting actor, midget Angelo Rossitto actually had a better than usual part--with more dialog and a more important role in the plot--and there is actually some sense of danger and tension at times. As for Ms. Carrol, she STILL looks like a stripper and the rest of the cast limp through this silly flick. However, it's bad enough that it makes for good watching by bad movie fans--you've just gotta see makeup on the guy with acid burns as well as the ray gun that appears to be made out of an old tail light!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one cheap looking movie! A stripper keeps getting attacked and raped by zombies and no one believes her. She goes to the police who also rape her. She finally finds a kid who was also attacked by the zombies and they trace the zombies back to 'The Zombie Master'. The fact that Stephanie Beaton stars as the stripper is the only reason to watch this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I gotta go with my boy Allen (who also reviewed this film)...ZOMBIE GANGBANGERS (as my copy is entitled - guess they left out the \"NINJA\" part after realizing there isn't a single \"ninja\" nor reference to ninjas anywhere in the whole f!cking film...) is a total wasted of time. Honestly one of the most boring, retarded \"films\" I've ever had the displeasure of viewing.

A hooker is repeatedly (un-graphically) raped by two zombies, and then by a cop (again, un-graphically) when the cop doesn't believe her story. She meets a guy who was beaten up by said zombies and the two try to find a way to seek vengeance on the undead culprits...

First off - there is NO \"gangbanging\" (or really other \"banging\" at all) to be had in ZOMBIE NINJA GANGBANGERS. I was hoping to at least get some sort of horror\/porn hybrid a la PORN OF THE DEAD, or RE-PENETRATOR, or perhaps PERVERTED STORIES - but no - there was absolutely NO sex in this film. At least a bit o' the ol' in-out might have redeemed this boring garbage to some degree, but without it, we get a bunch of poorly shot scenes of complete boredom with zero payoff. I'm all for \"trash\" films and most other schlock, gore, porn, and exploit material, but this one honestly sucks in every conceivable way. Save your time, pass this one up...1\/10 (and the one is only for a few brief shots of some sub-par titties...)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What I liked best about this flick was the chance to see Joan Woodbury, who awe-struck me as one of the several beauties in the Charles Boyer classic \"Algiers\", in a leading role. She does well as Rita, an orphan who rises to make good as a lady crime boss. Her ascent to the top reminds me of Joan Crawford's characters, e.g. Mildred Pierce, who realize their ambitions by fierce determination and willpower. If you're looking for a film noir classic, better look elsewhere. At several points, it's difficult to know where this story is going. I first got the impression that it was going to encompass Rita's plot for revenge against the father and son who tricked her into taking the rap for a drunk driving death perpetrated by the playboy son. But payback time ended up being only a minor point, and a springboard to the somewhat confusing second part of the film, where Rita becomes increasingly involved in city corruption. Anyway, it's only 72 minutes, so a second viewing should clear up any haziness. My copy is from a Platinum box set called \"Mobster Movies\". The picture quality is good, but the soundtrack sucks, constantly skipping fragments of dialog. There are eight films in the $5.50 box, making each movie a fair 69 cents. Look for Anne Archer's father, John Archer, as Rita's childhood friend Bob. Alan Ladd doesn't get much screen time. It's definitely Joan Woodbury's picture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This obviously was a pretty low budget production, but the cast was pretty decent, the basic premise had promise, and something more could have been done with it, but the script wasn't that great- the plot is incoherent and seems almost random at times and the dialog is stilted and terrible.

Basically, a girl's father gets whacked by fellow gangsters, and later she becomes a robber, and wants to avenge his death, and then it goes into a mob protection racket involving corrupt politicians.

Alan Ladd gets top billing but he really plays a very minor role.

I have to say I found it mildly entertaining in its archaic B-grade hokiness but it really is shoddy and pathetic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My question is what was the worst element of this movie? Was it the acting? directing? script?. Maybe it was the waste of Alan Ladd and Jack LaRue. LaRue and, especially, Ladd are capable of bringing extreme sinisterness to a role. In this movie, it was hard to tell who the bad guy was. Granted, Ladd was playing an undercover good guy, but even in his good guy roles, he could be very chilling. So, the net result was a potentially good movie bereft of any feeling of conflict.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a young lass, beautiful Joan Woodbury (as Rita Adams) was orphaned, after her \"stool pigeon\" father was shot to death. As a young woman, Ms. Woodbury finds herself struggling to keep a job, as her murdered father's ex-convict status makes Woodbury a bad business risk. Woodbury rooms with understanding songstress Linda Ware (as Donna Andrews), who advises Woodbury to get in touch with old orphanage friends John Archer (as Bob Elliott) and Jack La Rue (as Mickey Roman). But, none of her friends can help when Woodbury is the victim of a scam, which lands her in prison. Upon release, Woodbury decides to give the male mobsters a run for their money\u0085

Re-titled \"Gangs, Inc.\", this is an obviously weak, cheap mobster melodrama. Still, it's a lot of fun to watch Woodbury work wonders with inferior material. She plays the innocent growing more sophisticated \"Rita\" quite convincingly; and, she tosses in a great bit as a blonde hooker. Woodbury must be added to the list of unfortunately underutilized Hollywood actresses of the past. \"Paper Bullets\" also features an early Alan Ladd (as Jimmy Kelly aka Bill Dugan). Ms. Ware, who sang the hit \"An Apple for the Teacher\" with Bing Crosby, sings a couple of fair '40s numbers nicely. But, mainly, it's Woodbury's show.

**** Paper Bullets (1941) Phil Rosen ~ Joan Woodbury, Linda Ware, Alan Ladd","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I couldn't make heads or tails out of this terrible film noir.

The plot was confusing, the acting was alright, but the picture quality was awful! Though I bought this at a \"Gansters Double Pack\" (8 movies on two discs) at WalMart for $5.50 and when you put the DVD in, it apologizes for the awful picture quality that some of the movies may have.

The plot was flip flopping everywhere I couldn't understand it and had no idea what was going on...then \"The End\" popped up and the movie was over.

What a waste of my time!

I say don't waste your money or time on this! Or if you too bought that Gansters Double Pack then just skip over this one...

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie really sucks.

Just try to stay awake for 5 minutes while watching this baloney about a nice girl (Joan Woodbury) who gets involved with the 'underworld' because she needs money (and because she's too lazy to take a job from friends after they offer it to her). Alan Ladd was supposed to be the star of this thing, but he's nowhere to be found for the first freaking half hour and when he does show up, he stands around like a constipated mannequin. A real dud with enough talky scenes and unlikeable (as well as stupid) characters to make you wish somebody would shoot anybody, like really fast.

Bring a pillow.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film begins with a little girl (Rita) seeing her father killed. He apparently was a criminal who squealed on his fellow crooks. Later, and this part makes little sense, the girl has grown to adulthood and STILL her father's past haunts her! A bit later, Rita meets a good-for-nothing and dates him. During one of their dates, he's a bit intoxicated AND driving like a total fool. The cops give chase and he speeds away--killing a pedestrian in the meantime. Here comes the Really stupid part. He convinces her to confess to the crime, as he assures her his lawyers can get her off scot-free. Why, oh why, would she agree to this?! Yet she does and spends the next couple years in prison!! And, soon after her conviction, this boyfriend disappears--showing that he's a total heel. What a chump!!! Later, after her release, her friend (Jack La Rue) informs her about the truth about the boyfriend. Then, he explains, the boyfriend's family is loaded and she should shake them down for lots of cash for all the trouble he put her to by taking the rap. Frankly, this does make sense--as they certainly owe it to her--especially since they knew she'd go to prison and had every intention of using her and then casting her aside.

Now the idea of bleeding money from the rich chumps is a good plot idea. However, there is no way this would have occurred in the first place because it's hard to believe anyone could be so stupid as to take the rap for a hit-and-run! In an interesting twist, the dumb lady decides on a life of crime--donning a wig and picking up a rich guy--taking him into the desert and robbing him at gunpoint! Wow...how she's changed! Apparently she loves the idea of stealing from \"phonies\"--i.e., rich hypocrites. However, and this made no sense, she soon stopped doing this and began shaking down the father of the old boyfriend--why she bothered to do some petty robberies in the meantime made little sense. And, what also was a bit hard to believe was that instead of wanting money from the old jerk, she was interested in getting him to put his influence behind a mob-controlled man for mayor. Odd...very, very odd.

In the meantime, another plot develops involving a young Alan Ladd. He's an undercover agent who has infiltrated the mob. He was chosen because he just happens to be a dead ringer for a real crook--what a clich\u00e9! But what makes no sense is that this real crook isn't in jail and is out committing crimes while the fake one is infiltrating the mob in another town.

Eventually, evidence that Ladd is able to uncover is enough to issue warrants to the mob kingpins--including Rita. This is a case of very bad timing, as in the interim, she's made a decision to become a decent and legitimate woman, as she's met a really nice guy who she wants to marry! Wow,...what are the odds?! Overall, this is a goofy and rather dumb movie that suffers from \"kitchen sink syndrome\"--in other words, there is way too many plot elements and weird twists to make the movie the least bit believable. Plus, since the movie is only a little over an hour long, it all seems very forced and contrived. It's a relatively bad B-movie from crap-studio PRC of note only for the performance of Alan Ladd just before he gained great fame the following year at Paramount.

By the way, this DVD was released by Alpha Video---a company which sometimes releases some wonderfully obscure titles (mostly public domain) but which NEVER cleans up the prints or adds closed captions. In other words, the DVD production values are strictly 3rd-rate...at best.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Fellow noir devotees, be not deceived, this is a stinker...poorly filmed, poorly acted and there is nothing...nothing here for the film buff looking for yet another solid B-movie from the goldmine of the 40's & 50's era of classics. I gave it a try based on the relatively high rating on IMDb. There's no accounting for taste, but I found nothing in this movie to recommend to other IMDb members. This is a classic example of having watched a movie and feeling like you have been cheated out of x number of minutes that it took the movie to get to its thankful demise. To have Alan Ladd on the cover of the DVD\/tape is nearly fraud, he is on camera less than two minutes and has almost no dialogue! This isn't This Gun For HIre folks...it is a classic in the lousy sense of the studios cranking out fodder on no budget...We all search for the great ones... save your time on Gangs, Inc.\/Paper Bullets...it is lousy!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Someone should teach the people who made this movie that there is a difference between \"presenting multiple twists\" and \"screwing the audience over\". They even use hypnosis as a tool to cover up the plot holes; whenever they can't find their way into or out of a scene, they just say \"she is regressing to her past now\" or \"she's snapping out of it now\", and they think that explains everything. This movie is a dishonest cheat and in the last 20 minutes becomes a full-blown fiasco. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this film is an accurate display of J. Smits acting skills, I think he made a big mistake leaving television. Hasn't he watched any films \"starring\" David Caruso, especially \"Cold Around the Heart\"? Along the lines of acting ability, what about Mary-Louise, she has done much, much better. Yes, it is a terrible script, ineptly edited, and totally lacking in continuity, but skilled actors can and have overcome similar obstacles. A very big disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A good cast... A good idea but turns out it is flawed as hypnosis is not allowed as evidence in courts. So many good actors and they are all acting so badly! So why did they all get attracted to this mess... And yes it has its good points such as lighting etc... But ultimately I wondered two things.... How could so much talent lead to such a bizarre mess? What is that accent that Nigel Hawthorne is putting on? He is\/was a great actor and so what is that accent all about? It is impossible to identify? What was he trying to do? Maybe it is his subtle indication as if to say to us: 'I've got involved with a turkey so here's a crap accent to go with it!'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have read a lot of books in my short lifetime but this is by far the WORST!!! I just got done reading this worthless piece of trash and when I finished it I threw it across the room! I hated it and let me state the reasons! 1.The soldier dies. Why would the author make the soldier die?! Why couldn't she have kept him alive like a good love story author would do?! I deeply applaud Patty for trying to claw that FBI agent's eyes out.

2.Ruth get's fired. Ruth (the black housekeeper) get's fired and for no apparent reason too! She tried to comfort Patty and then Patty's SOB dad fires her for no good reason! Ruth and Anton and Patty were the only bright spots in the book. Oh and the grandparents too! 3. The perm. Yes. The perm. Now you people might think why would the perm upset you? Well here's why. Patty's mom asks the girl if she wants her hair done. Patty says no but the mom calls Mrs. Reeves (the horrible hairdresser) and tells her to give Patty a perm. Why on God's green earth would she do that?! Why would a mother ask her daughter if she wants a perm only to have her get a perm anyway! The mom always pretends that Patty has a say when she dosen't have a say at all!!! She should be given the \"Worst Mother of the Year Award\" for the stuff she dose to Patty. Thank God Ruth cut her perm off! 4. Discrimination, Racisem, and Prejudious. I hate the discrimination in this book. They use the word *beep* too much. Yes.I know that in those days blacks were free but had basically no rights but come on! Why teach todays children that word! It just teaches them how to discriminate people. Not only were blacks discriminated but the Chinese too. In the book people refer to Mr.Lee (a Chinese man) as \"The *beep* That is really despicable and last but not least... Jews and Nazies. I hate the town for spitting on a little girl. What was so wrong for her liking Anton. SHE IS A 12 YEAR OLD GIRL!!! It was just a crush. Like a 12 year old can really love a 22 year old. Come on! This isn't \"Lolita\". And \"Lolita\" is a good book not a piece of filth! I'm surprised that this movie isn't considered \"dirty\" like \"Lolita\" is.

5. Patty going to a reformatory. Patty should not have gone to that reformatory. Refirmitories are for thieves and murders, not innocent 12 year olds! The teacher or whatever she was called Patty an ungrateful, spoiled brat. Ungrateful spoiled brat my butt! Patty was not a spoiled brat because her father and mother never gave a rip about her! Patty should of got community service or something. She did nothing wrong. She just helped a friend.

6. Favortisem. The parents played favoritism with their children. Patty, their firstborn daughter is clearly the least favored while Sharon, the five year old brat is their favorite daughter. The dad says that he wanted to take Sharon to Hollywood but clearly forgets his other daughter.

7. The dad. I hated him! He was so mean Patty might as well had Hitler himself as her father. Her dad beats her for no apparent reason and the way he talks to her in the end will make you so mad you'll be caught thinking \"Patty would get better treatment in a concentration camp\".

Well there you have it folks. 7 reasons I hate this book. Instead of reading this book read \"The Diaries of Anne Frank\" or anything else because I warn you, it is very depressing and it will leave you really mad! The only reason it gets 4 stars is because of Anton, Patty, Ruth, and the grandparents!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was forced to read this sappy \"love story\" between a German 24 year old POW and a 12 year old Jew. That has \"political correctness\" written all over it. Its kind of like the movie \"SPIRIT\" in which a horse wants to be free but those \"evil\" Americans wont let it because they need it. Well i have good news the Americans are \"evil\" in The German soldier and his summer book. Why!!! Horses where given to us by god and if the Americans needed a horse the can darn well use it. In the same sense the German had been trying to kill Americans, but this book\/movie makes it seem OK! The casting is absolutely awful!!!!!!!!!!!! The girl is Hispanic the mother is white the dad it probubly from mostly white descent and the little sister is \"shirley templish.\" The acting is pretty bad too, the serious parts become comedy! Concluson-Bad movie, bad book, but both have different endings, don't read or see either one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Times I look back to high school and it amazes me that I never went lower than Marvin did in this BAD film.

Poor Marv is the main character who's bad luck just gets worse and worse. Despite his intelligence, he manages to get bullied, exploited, supports his lousy deadbeat Dad, and plenty more goof-ups including a daring heist which let's say doesn't go fully to plan. Of course, the viewer feels no empathy with anyone in this film, so all this disastrous gloom bounces off like harmless zeta rays. Recommended for those days you're feeling down, pop this film in and you'll smile and say, \"I'm so glad I'm not Marv!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"drab morality tale about a high school kid who's pretty much the now-stereotypical nerd. He's smart, but has no friends, no social skills, and a lazy loser of a father who borrows money from HIM. A pretty girl hits on him(he should've known she wanted something-he's supposed to be smart, right?). She manipulates the poor desperate fool into writing her term paper on Shakespeare, which the teacher immediately knows she couldn't have written. He loses the girl(not that he ever really had her) the confidence of his teacher, and his college scholarship, all in one fell blow.

Marv is so silly and desperate for love that he decides to rob some heroin dealers who are running the stuff through the warehouse he works at. Then maybe the trashy little slut will be impressed and want to marry him. Sad, really sad. Marv is such a pathetic dope(and pretty brainless, for a supposedly smart guy. I mean, trying to rob drug dealers? Has this kid got a screw loose?) that you stop feeling sorry for him and get the dreadful urge to kick him in the butt, instead.

The girl, of course, tells her boyfriend about the robbery Marv boasted of to her, and talks him and his cronies into stealing the money from Marv and company. They try to do so, and in the process manage to shoot several people. The cops show up at the same time, and the idiot Marv is dragged away, a total disgrace forever. I know this thing was geared towards making teens behave themselves by showing them the consequences of bad behavior, but all it really illustrated was the consequences of stupid behavior. Which is the premature end of your film career, of course. Goodbye, Marv, we never really knew ya. And thank goodness for that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This could have been so much better than it turned out. Tom Pittman gives a good performance and some of the older actors do well with what they have to work with, but it just doesn't work.

First, the actors are much too old to play high school students, especially Howard Veit (Vince). He looks about thirty. Second, it's hard to sympathize with poor Marv, especially since Betty is not all that hot, to start with.

*******Spoilers****** The ending is so strange. It looks like the director intended for Pittman's character to get shot, but there are no gunshots...he's just knocked to the cement, where he lays there until the ambulance drivers pick him up and place him on a stretcher (face down!). What were his injuries? A skinned knee? Goofy! Vince has just shot his girlfriend dead without any remorse whatsoever, yet he simply shoves Marv to the ground and rushes off, despite the fact that he makes no secret of the fact that he hates the kid. And to make matters even sillier, Marv begs the police to tell his father he's sorry. (Duh! Hey Marv. You just got knocked around. I think you will have plenty of opportunities to tell your father you're sorry...in person). And this writer didn't get an Oscar nomination? Skip it, unless you get to watch it on MST.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw the MST3K version of this film and it is a bad movie - but its not nearly as bad as its low IMDB rating (currently 1.8 out of 10). At least the movie has a few production values and it apparently had a competent editor (unlike the movies that truly are awful). The primary problem with this movie is that it had no appealing characters whatsoever. The main character, Marv, is so pathetically morose, that he practically asks for all the bad stuff that happens to him. And he isn't very smart either, or he would have figured out to stay away from the conniving girl Betty. And even more pathetic than Marv is his father, who is nothing but a drunken loser. The highlight of the film is the heist sequence at the end but even that is so weakly executed, any excitement it might have added to the film is completely missing. At least this movie made for a very funny MST3K episode, as Mike and the 'Bots do a great job making fun of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie reminded me a lot of a song by the Dead Kennedys called \"Straight A's.\" However, unlike this film, the hero of the DK's song turns to suicide. You'll wish this bozo had resorted to killing himself instead of doing the crime he did. The whole thing was convoluted and in the beginning, you sympathize with the hero of the film, then he quickly betrays your sympathies. The long sequences of just showing the hero's face while he delivers a monologue drag the film down quite a bit. Avoid this if possible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Make no mistake about, High School Bigshot is a bad movie.

High School Bigshot is about a geek who makes a plan to become rich and get the girl. However, he goes about it all wrong, and of course by the end of the movie ends up dead along with a few other people, thankfully including the girl.

The moral of the story is all women care about is wealth. Also for us men, I guess we're just supposed to accept we either \"have it\" or \"we don't have it\"!

I could easily see how this movie could be rated a 1, however it is above that of the very worst of movies. The acting's not totally horrible, and production values aren't ultra-terrible. Over all it's a bad movie and not worth viewing for many reasons. If you insist of course at torturing yourself, watch the MST version.

2\/10 (maybe a 1.5\/10)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you like The Three Stooges you'll undoubtedly like this 17 minute short. There were certainly some amusing moments in it, but like all the Stooges' work, this revolves around their particular style of slapstick comedy, and I have to confess that somehow the Stooges just never really did it for me. Their slapstick always seemed angry rather than funny, and even though it was obviously fake, their antics always seemed more likely to cause hurt rather than to cause laughter. In this short, the slapstick revolves around the attempts to find Shemp (who is a Professor of Music in this) a wife, because he's just inherited half a million dollars on condition that he marry within 48 hours of the will being read. One of his students is interested, but once word of the inheritance gets out , there's suddenly a long line-up of potential brides, and a pretty good cat fight emerges between them. Fans of the Stooges will enjoy. For me, it has all the elements that drive me nuts about them. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Shemp finds out that he stands to inherit a million dollars IF he is married within 24 hours. Considering how hideous he looks and his personality, it isn't surprising that he can't get a taker--that is until an article appears in the paper explaining his predicament--at which point five crazed women appear from no where to claim their new hubby (plus the money, of course).

While I don't hate the Three Stooges and like to watch their shorts on occasion, they never, even on their best day, came close to the brilliant comedy of Buster Keaton. That's why I disliked this film, as it was a ripoff of the plot from Keaton's masterpiece, SEVEN CHANCES. With the Stooges it wasn't uncommon for Columbia Pictures to steal old comedy plots or just recycle older Stooge shorts. So, from the outset, this film is a pale imitation of an original. It's also obvious that this film lacks the charm and subtlety of the original and the gags generally seem very forced (paricularly the phone booth scene). The cousin Basil bit, however, was pretty cute and funny--though far from subtle! However, the worst aspect of the film was the not particularly funny conclusion. In the Keaton version, hundreds of women appeared to marry him and the action became very fast and furious--here, it all stayed in one small room and lacked comedic punch--ending in a fizzle.

Overall, a dull retread. Also, before marking this review \"not helpful\", be sure to FIRST see SEVEN CHANCES to see what I am talking about--then you decide.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've read a lot of reviews on the IMDb (well, all five of the ones that have been written at the time that I'm writing this) and I'm surprised at the amount of praise heaped upon The Brideless Groom, which is undoubtedly one of the lesser comedies performed by the Stooges. I prefer the older ones where it was Larry, Curly and Moe, although Shemp gets credit for most of the funny scenes in Sing a Song of Six Pants, another Stooges short which is only moderately amusing but far superior to Brideless Groom. Indeed, there is a single slightly amusing scene in the film, the \"don't-hit-a-lady\" scene, which is barely amusing at all and is 15 minutes into the film. Not very promising in a 17-minute comedy.

Shemp is a voice trainer whose uncle has passed away and left him an inheritance of $500,000, provided he get married within 48 hours, which is short enough notice as it is, but by the time Shemp learns about it he has only 7 hours left. This is a premise that had been done and redone before, but was not, I don't think, a massive clich\u00e9 at the time this film was made, as it is now. There are a series of gags throughout the film, none of which are even close to the level of comedy for which the Three Stooges are so widely known. It seems that the Stooges have run into the same troubles that plagued so many of Shirley Temple's films \u0096 there is too little reliance on content and too much reliance just on the fact that they're there.

The standard characteristics of the Stooges are here, Moe is the mean one, whose meanness is certainly not used sparingly in this film, and the slapstick sound effects (although with more exceptions than usual) are fairly amusing, but are plugged into their standard slots in this film. The line \"Hold hands, you lovebirds\" is immortal. The rest of the film is not.

There is much talk among the other people who have reviewed this movie for this site about this being one of the best of the Stooges shorts, that you won't find one weak moment, about how this is their best since the early 30s shorts. It's just not true. I can certainly understand a level of automatic respect for milestone classics and for the giants of early comedy, which the Three Stooges certainly are, but that respect is damaged when poorer films are praised more than they should be. The Brideless Groom deserves some respect because it is a Stooges film, but for exactly the same reason, it should have been better. The Three Stooges were just better than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is everything but the true story of Phoolan Devi. Director Shekhar Kapoor's claims are countered by the fact that he made the entire movie without even once meeting Phoolan Devi, on whose life this movie is supposed to be based! The excuse being that meeting the woman would have interfered with director's conception of the story! The film wastes the opportunity of sensitizing the society of the plight of low-caste women in the Indian society and ends up as a stereotype portraying Phoolan Devi as an angry woman whose sole motivation is revenge. No wonder, this Shekhar Kapoor's film was successful in the west as it catered to their non-bollywood tastes!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As powerful as the true story of Phoolan is, this book this film is based on came out before she herself was released from Prison and had the chance to tell it.

It is allegedly based on her diaries but she is illiterate. How does that work?

That said, some areas of he film are accurate and the acting isn't bad, with some sensitivity being shown.

Really though this story needs to be old in a TV series. Far to much happens to cram into a couple of hours.

Read her autobiography. Highly recommended. It is a fantastic story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before I had seen this film, I had heard some negative comments about it. However, when watching it I found myself thinking \"ok, it's a little slow-paced but this is quite interesting\". As it built toward the end, it created a complex moral dilemma, leading to a shocking yet, within the context of the film, entirely believable decision with extremely powerful dramatic consequences. If this had been followed through, it would have been a tremendously powerful ending and would have given me a very favourable impression of the film.

However, due to an ending which not only cops out emotionally, tacking on an unnecessary happy-ish ending without real emotional credibility but also within the context of the film makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for you clearly see one of the character take an action which should end her life but inexplicably doesn't. Incidentally, please tell me if I did miss something here and there is a reason why she survives as I just couldn't how logically she could have and this wrecked the whole film for me.

This said, all three leads put in powerful performances although Kevin McKidd's characters' transformation by the end goes a little further than is fully convincing and it does create a very powerful ethical triangle.

This film is recommended if you ready yourself to walk out when the mother and the sister are lying on the bed. But do not watch further than this unless you have only a pinch, but several mountains, of salt.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"`AfterLife' is about a somewhat arrogant, reasonably wealthy man who discovers that his mother is dying, and finds himself looking after his sister, who has Down's Syndrome. He can't be bothered with her, and basically just wants to get her off his hands; he has better things to do. At one point he finds that he has to take her, by car (she doesn't like flying) across the country.

If that all sounds familiar to you, it is probably because you have seen `Rainman,' a film far superior to its imitator, `AfterLife.' That it copies the basic premise (heck, it nicks a few characters and even scenes too) is not the fundamental problem with the film. The fundamental problem is that I did not care about these characters.

The brother, Kenny (Kevin McKidd), is a bit of a womaniser. He has a girlfriend who comes and goes in the story, and who learns to like the Down's Syndrome sister (again, this is taken from `Rainman'). He is a journalist, trying to get an interview with a doctor who is facing a scandal. When he ends up looking after Roberta, the sister, he doesn't have much time for her, and sometimes leaves her alone for a little too long. When she wanders off, he becomes even angrier towards her. Am I spoiling anything by saying that he becomes a nicer, loving person by the end of the film?

Roberta is not determined to be 'normal'; she is 'normal,' and wishes people would stop treating her differently. She is played by Paula Sage, an actress who does have Down's Syndrome, and her performance is easily the best thing about the film; why did the screenwriter not explore her character more? Well, probably because that would mean the characters would get in the way of the story. When we surely already know the story anyway, didn't the filmmakers see the problem they were creating?

For a film about a dying mother and her handicapped daughter (the father is absent; I think he is dead, but I'm not sure), it is surprising how little impact the film has on the emotions of the viewer. The scenes are performed in such a standard, dull way, with such standard, predictable dialogue, that I found myself rolling my eyes.

I have nothing against sentimentality in films, but it only really works if you care about the characters. Here the characters are so uninteresting and two-dimensional that I didn't really think there was much to care about. `Rain Man' has an emotional climax, but that moved me, because I cared about the characters.

Talking of climaxes, this film has a stinker. There is sequence at the end of the film that starts off as an unbelievable situation and ends up in even worse territory; an unforgivably cruel trick is played on the audience. The sequence is designed to move the audience, but ends up being horribly manipulative and offending the intelligence of the viewer. Audiences aren't stupid, and they know when the film is cheating. What a cheap shot.

There is not one scene in this film that has the impact it should. There are a few sequences that are funny, yes, but when the characters talk to each other, I can practically see the screenplay in front of me, moving predictably and uninterestingly, never hitting anything that touches the mind or the heart. There are those phoney arguments that are reserved especially for the movies, where the other character knows exactly what the reply is. Why don't supposedly 'realistic' films not realise that, in real life, anger can be irrational, and sometimes people can't express their emotions, and they might say things that don't make sense, or not be able to say anything at all? All of the actors in this film deserve better material. This film is not based on fact, but I think a documentary on a family with a Down's Syndrome member would be much more interesting. That way, we might have had truth and emotion. For some reason the characters in this film think that an emotion only involves saying something loudly and making a suitable facial expression.

** (out of 5)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love basketball and this seemed like an intriguing movie. However, in the first ten minutes of the movie I knew that it was going to be lousy. It was poorly acted and much too slow. On top of that it was very, very racist, sexist, antisemitic and homophobic. Sometimes putting in racial, ethnic and other types of slurs has a point, illustrating the bigotry that exists. In this movie there was no point to the horrible bigotry and no one learned from what was being said. Part of the problem is that it was an adaption of a play and a remake of a 1982 movie that dealt with a basketball team from the 1950's. Having this movie take place earlier in time would have made a little bit more sense. It didn't translate well to modern times and the writing was horrible. I don't know how the play was originally written but I can't believe that any movie as bad and as hateful as this one has made it to television and video in 1999. It was disgusting. Don't waste your precious time on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"-SPOILERS------------ I am a fan of 60's-70's french cinema but not necessarily of the more modern,so to be honest i watched this because of Bellucci.She is very young here,extremely beautiful and on top of this supposedly this movie is where they met with Cassel,so it gives it some extra importance.

The movie begins with a very nice style reminiscent of DePalma.Then suddenly we are thrown to flashback,and the back and forth goes on which gets tiring.I don't mind one flash back,but do it and get it over with man!!!Anyway,the movie is still interesting to me until a point when the first and definite hole in the plot,that allows for the rest of the story,never lets me enjoy the rest.I can allow for little holes here and there,but not to base an entire plot on hot air.This is the story of a man who is literally searching for an old flame.This is the main plot.I will go along,when the story at some point will convince me that there are really mysterious things going on,but in this story there's nothing really mysterious.Bellucci-Cassel are a couple ,then Bellucci urgently has to leave for some job in Italy(not the farthest place on earth from Paris)and she leaves him a message,which for reasons later explained he doesn't get.OK,so what?Don't these people have phones?Supposedly she was away for 2months(not a century exactly) and wouldn't she call her boyfriend in Paris to see how he's doing? Of course not.Instead,even after she gets back she forgets all about him.And thats fine,but later in the movie she tells her friend that it was her greatest love and was ready to commit for the first time in her life.Yet she failed to give him a call for 2months and then never tried to get back with him.And what about Cassel's character?He was supposedly unable to locate her in Italy,really hard to find someone in Italy,its probably like Siberia,especially an actress who is probably listed even in the arts papers.And after 2months when she would be back,really hard to find her and ask for an explanation. One thinks she wanted to avoid him,but no,we find out they simply couldn't meet.So hard to meet in Paris. OK,i don't need to go further,because this is the incident where the entire movie is based. What is even worse,Bellucci is not really the star of this movie but this other girl Bohringer is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I admit to a secret admiration of the original Love Thy Neighbour TV shows - mostly because they exhibit the kind of exuberant brashness and bad taste synonymous with so many programmes of their era - but I'd be lying through my teeth (very uncomfortable position) if I pretended that this big-screen spin-off is anything other than an abomination. The opening scenes of wanton vandalism are not only pointless but baffling as well - it's never explained why the film opens with a tracking shot of people trashing each other's houses - and nothing improves from there. By the time the film unearths the oldest joke in the book - the horrible dragon of a mother-in-law turns up unexpectedly to stay - is followed by the crashingly obvious revelation that she's developing a soft spot for the black neighbour's father, moving her bigoted son to ever greater depths of self-righteous, ignorant rage, most discerning viewers will have switched off. Take that as a warning, unless you're keen on cheapskate spin-offs with terrible acting, static direction and the overall comic flair of a burning orphanage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On the heels of the well received and beloved coming of age film classic ,concerning the lives of teenagers as they headed into adulthood, George Lucas' American Graffiti, we have Cooley High. An adaptation of sorts by one Eric Monte, co creator of the popular 1970's CBS sitcom Good Times.

Cooley High was, and is, viewed as a black version of American Graffiti.Instead of central California ,as in American Graffiti, we have the black slum of Chicago's Cabrini Green as the backdrop for the story here. Instead of America in 1962 Cooley High is situated in 1964.The movie stars Welcome Back Kotter's ,Lawrence Hilton Jacobs and Glynn Turman as the movie main protagonists and its' main characters. It has Garrett Morris playing the principal who tries to keep Jacobs' and Turman's characters,named Coceise and Preach, out of trouble a great deal of the time.

You know, I would like to say that Cooley High is a worthy comparison piece to American Graffiti or that it is a great film on its' own but I can't. The problem lies with the fact that the producers of the film couldn't or wouldn't hide the sad underside of black life in America.Having the film in the Cabrini Green part of Chicago doesn't help things.

Neither does the crass gross attempts at humor here. When Coceise is looking for a letter of intent from a college he finds his little brother has thrown down a toilet. When the gang visits the Chicago Zoo, one of the gang named Pooter, has manure thrown on him by an ape. When the Turman's character,Preach, is being chased by two hoodlums in the school hangout(A dirty and depressing place to eat food in much less meet people at), he opens the door of the girls' bathroom while a girl is relieving herself as he escapes through the window of the same bathroom! The high school, the homes of the characters, the bathrooms, just about everywhere in the film displays the unfortunate look of urban decay and poverty.

If that wasn't enough there was the rough display of humor in the film. The use of violence and profanity in the film. Cooley High may be an coming of age film ,but it is a hard and rough coming of age film with little or none of the wit and liking of the use of nostalgia that made people like and appreciate American Graffiti so much.

Motown Records had a hand in making the film. The company's music was part of the film's soundtrack. But even here you get a sense of same old same old as one has heard these songs before a million times over. Not that they weren't great songs within themselves but black music,of that time period was more than just Motown.Especially in Chicago. The song nearing the end of the movie, by the Spinners' G.C. Cameron, was not all that impressive. There have been better Motown ballads that have been done, by better Motown artists than Cameron without question.

The last part of the film showing where the characters went to pay homage to the film Cooley High aimed to be ,American Graffiti. It shows that Preach,an intelligent but underachieving student went to Hollywood and became a successful television writer. Eric Monte may have patterned himself as Turman's character. The last shot of film show's Preach running away from Coceise's funeral ,held on a dark rainy afternoon, and all the bleakness that Cooley High came to represent. Eric Monte ,through Preach and that final scene, had one little lesson for all of us when watching Cooley High and for the love of the past. Don't look back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was pretty inevitable. This movie borrows from \"The Core\" and from the film it borrowed from, \"Armageddon\", and the films it borrowed from and so on. Except this time there's Luke Perry too. This films version of the familiar save-the-world plot involves super-earthquakes beginning in the Pacific Northwest and extending too the whole ring of fire. Its soon determined that everybody on Earth just might be doomed. So the military and some scientists build one of those high-tech drilling machines to go inside the Earth and fix things (it just wouldn't be as much fun if they didn't have to go somewhere like space or inside the planet). There's even a line the tries to make the journey into the Earth sound more impressive than the journey into space (like the one in \"Armageddon\"). It's a Sci-Fi Network movie, so the script is paint by numbers disaster movie. There is in-fighting between scientists and military guys, there are rock-melting lasers, people die and sacrifice themselves for the good of all, and above all, there are (weak CGI) special effects. Not original and not all that entertaining. This is a movie to watch when you have nothing to do, particularly if you've got beer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a pretty tolerable guy, when it comes to movies, even B movies. I routinely watch some B movies for fun, and they can range from surprisingly good, to just downright awful. I usually set my expectations really low before watching these types of movies, and even after doing that, Descent was just downright awful. I really didn't mind that they were ripping off the Core to some extent, but they did absolutely nothing interesting with the material. Some scientists are worried about the earth's seismic activity, and must travel into the depths of the earth in order to stabilize the mantel. So what we get is a monotonously long set-up in which two dueling scientists played by Luke Perry and Rick Roberts have to work together on a top secret mission, named Project DEEP. The man in charge, General Fielding played by Michael Dorn, is secretly withholding vital information from Assistant Marsha Crawford, played by Mimi Kuzyk. Rounding out the cast is Natalie Brown who plays Jen, a mission specialist who created the \"Mole\" a drill which is used plunge into the depths of the Earth.

Other than some pretty good special effects, and set designs, nothing about Descent is worthwhile. The movie starts out fairly entertaining, but it gets bogged down quickly in a tiresome story about uncontrollable seismic activity, which has been done to death in other movies such as the Core. Descent also has a poor script, with useless, forgettable dialog between the characters. To make matters worse, there is literally no action, no real threat or danger. The attempts at comic relief are painfully unfunny. The plot has gaping holes and some of the subplots are left untied at the end leaving a bad taste in your mouth.

In closing this movie was just a cheap way for everyone involved to get a paycheck. There was no thought behind this movie, no innovation, it's just there. Other than some nice looking special effects, and set designs, this movie fails on every other level. The story is from the garbage can of Hollywood, and the characters are uninteresting to boot. Descent will simply descend you into boredom, and frustration. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just watched Descent. Gawds what an awful movie. Right off the bat they depict a lava geyser and a note says that it is miles below the the surface of Washington State. Folks, there are no geysers deep in the Earth like that. They thought it looked neat and in typical Hollywood style they threw it in. And then there is that well that spewed lava. He dropped a stone and I heard a splash. Steam would have erupted out of that well before a blast of lava could, if ever.

And the acting was pretty bad as well. Micheal Dorn has sunk to a new low in jobs.

What a dog of a movie. I bet the vote goes no higher than a 3.5

It didn't look like SciFi Channel spent too much other than to have pretty boy Perry as an attempt to draw.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Usual awful movie... I'll not bother you about the synopsis, just put together The Core, Armageddon, an evil-planner Military Officer and one or two Solve-All Nukes and you'll have the movie, if I can call it that way.

Seriously, nukes in this kind of movies are more useful than Swiss Army Knives:

the Big One is approaching? Nuke some places and it's over... A tornado wants to destroy \"Insert important city name here\"? Nuke \"Insert another important city here\"... A volcano is erupting? Nuke it! A nuke is near to go off? Nuke it! Coffee is cold? Nuke it! You didn't like Transformers? Nuke yourself, but I can't assure this will fix things...

In the end, how many more movies like this can be made before they start copying one another? I doubt there are still many things to blow up with a nuke...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie's script is indistinguishable from others, most notably The Core, another bad movie. It's pretty clear why Luke Perry doesn't get much work, but to see the beloved Lt. Commander Worf (Michael Dorn) resigned to something like this is just sad.

I really can't think of one plot twist that isn't seen coming a mile away. That's not an exaggeration.

Special effects are very poor, even by TV standards. The lava flow at the beginning of the movie signaling the coming global disaster, starts things off at a very amateurish level. And it gets no better from that point on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a great movie ONLY if you need something to sit and laugh at the stupidity of it. As a geologist this movie gets most of the important facts wrong and uses actors that are too young to even be considered in the top of their fields. It is interesting how it shows spurting lava in massive caverns below the Earth's surface. It also is funny how seismically active areas are shown to have massive destruction from a 6.5 magnitude earthquake. They seem to forget the building standards in these areas would be higher needing a bigger quake to do this much damage. Also it is funny how much they make the coast line of Washington State and also Oregon to look as though they are nice beaches of Southern California. The Jelly donut analogy is very entertaining even if the way it is used is wrong. The director does a good job of adding more comic relief with the 2 \"supossed\" PhD's.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so awful i don't even know where to begin...The only positive thing i can say about it is that Luke Perry gave a good performance. The entire movie was all over the place, there was no explanation as to the cause(only theories)of the eruptions, or rationals for their solutions or why it would work. It was ridiculous! All the characters and relationship between them was so cheesy, you just wanna laugh!! There was just no background to any of them. The \"love\" relationship seemed to have been added on to the script, it was so awkward. There's an army man; big black general with a permanent cigar in his mouth, with the \"AaarrrGH!i'm the Man!\" attitude, such a pathetic bad guy. The two sidekicks, who are supposed to be geniuses are acting like two 16 year old frat boys. And then to create some action they decide to drop a rock on somebody's shoulder and for the rest of the movie he's coughing as if he was dying of a pneumonia or something...and then plays hero (cheesiest scene of all!!) to help the plan which is to do who knows what... its never a good sign when you find yourself laughing out loud in the middle of THE dramatic scene...in a nutshell; don't waste your time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a Very Very VERY bad movie !

The plot is weak the acting is bad and the science is worse.

The special effects are unconvincing. The dramatic scenes are a joke. Every step of the way you can see coming a mile away. The end is disappointing and there is no suspense. The best aspect of the film is the soundtrack.

The only reason not to give this a lower vote is because it is a TV movie and i believe the budget was low to start of with.

I do believe that the young female fans of Luke Parry will still see this movie however he has done better work. Again this is Terrible. Very very very terrible. If you have a choice, look at something else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The script seems to have been wholesale (ahem ahem, cough cough) \"borrowed\" from a certain other movie involving using a self-propelled manned drilling machine. Scene by scene, the two movies were almost identical. Just enough of the serial numbers filed off in this one to prevent a copyright infringement lawsuit.

But other than that, I have to say I found this somewhat entertaining as I enjoy deep-underground-in-the-earth genre of movies. It's a little bit on the stupid side as far as the science goes, but if one is willing to squint one's eyes real hard and pretend one didn't notice that scientific gaffe here and there and all over, this movie is almost bearable. Far better than \"Supernova\" which was another flick that Luke Perry had a leading role in that was so dumb, dumb, dumb that nothing could save it. A note to movie makers: employ someone who knows something about the subject the movie deals with. It would be a very small part of the movie budget, but it would have a big effect overall in helping prevent your audience from guffawing at you for doing dumb science.

Production values: almost passable. I've seen far worse in my time.

A new thought for disaster movies: instead of them always having a happy ending where the world gets saved yet once again, how about some where things are a tad bit more realistic, where sometimes even the very best efforts still end up in failure. Particularly when the problem that needs to be resolved was caused in the first place by sheer stupidity. Stupidity-caused disaster movies with glowing, heartwarming endings sort of backhandedly justify stupidity by stating, \"No matter how awful a problem is caused by braindead stupidity, it can be fixed.\" Which is definitely not the case. A self-caused disaster movie with an unhappy ending would serve better as cautionary tale of \"Don't be so damn stupid in the first place.\" Should you watch this movie? If you're bored and you've seen everything else in the scifi section at your local video rental store, sure, why not. But do avoid \"Supernova\" as I can assure you that you're not THAT bored. That definitely was not one of Luke Perry's better movies. This one is better. That's not saying much, but it is better.

One dead hoof up for being a deep-underground genre movie. One dead hoof down for naughtily ripping off from the screenplay of another certain movie of the same genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terry Cunningham directs this Sci-Fi Network original. All is not well in Washington state and Oregon; volcanic eruptions and earthquakes threaten to drop most of the Pacific Rim in the ocean. Trying to keep the world from plunging in ecological havoc, a crack team of scientists led by Dr. Jake Rollins(Luke Perry)take a massive earth drilling vehicle called \"The Mole\" to chew its way to the Earth's fiery core to avert impending doom. Technical dialog doesn't really help or speed this movie along. The acting is lame, but then Perry has always been laid back. You can only blame him for taking part. Others in the cast: Michael Dorn, Adam Frost and Michael Teigen","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Core\" meets \"Crack in the World\" (1965 made for TV). The acting is stock, the suspense predictable. Once you subtract all of the plot ripped off from \"The Core\" - basically the manned drilling machine - you end up with the plot of \"Crack in the World\". \"Crack\" was a truly excellent movie starring Dana Andrews. His team of scientists, working in South Africa, drilled down to the crust and \"punched through\" with a nuclear device in order to provide a steady source of geothermic energy. One of his subordinates, also a brilliant scientist disagrees. He believes that the blast will not drill a simple hole, but will instead form cracks in the crust. (Possible spoiler) He is right. In order to stop the resultant crack from destroying the earth they must place another nuclear device in the path of the crack.

Although I have placed a spoiler warning, i don't know if I really spoiled anything for either movie. And since \"Crack in the World is only available in very rare VHS format if at all my decision not to reveal whether or not the counter-blast works is probably academic.

All in all, I rate \"Descent' just below average.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For sci-fans this will be better than anything likely to be running on TV at any given time; that's about the best you can say of it. Good points; repartee and sense of humour is less dull than usual in such movies, the plot is coherent and doesn't use any magical mystical revelations. Bad points; the writers try to do good science but it falls down in direction and production (eg, a rock drilling mole using superheated rock drilling equipment breaks surface underwater with nary a bubble or boiling cauldron to be seen), the characters are clich\u00e9's and the plot unfolding is pretty stock standard. OK for a too-tired-to-do-anything-else type evening; but don't expect any major edification or even talking points really.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got subjected to this pile one Wednesday afternoon when my mother-in-law was watching it. I can't get over someone basically doing a remake of a crappy high budget Hollywood flop (\"the CORE\" with washed up actors like Luke Perry). If the HIGH budget one flopped, what makes people think doing the SAME movie 2 years later with NO budget would go anywhere? I was laughing through most of the movie because of how insanely similar it was (in fact I am shocked it's not held up in Legal rather than airing on TV), and how it was basically the script of the CORE just redone badly, which if you have seen \"the Core\", you know why doing it worse is funny, since the CORE was ALREADY so bad it was funny.

If you enjoy getting a laugh out of REALLY bad movies, this one will be right up your alley. The only thing I can say, is that I wish Luke Perry was able to have a career, because he isn't a horrible actor.. he just lands horrible roles. Crappy made for TV movies that will only run on daytime television is pretty much one step closer to the end for him, if it wasn't for 90210 he would have a career.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You'd have more excitement cutting off your testicles than watching this, clearly a trick to get you to rent \"Descent\" instead of \"The Descent\", which is a much better movie.

This is a total rip off of \"The Core\" and much, much worse as regards special effects, I could do better with a box of cornflakes and a roll of tinfoil, I mean come on!....that \"Mole\" thing, bore more resemblance to a vibrating dildo than a subterranean vehicle .

Don't watch it - if you do you'll find the room your in has a funny smell for days after and you'll have this nagging feeling in the back of your head that you should go kill yourself or something.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a bit difficult to believe that this came from the same director that gave us HELLRAISER. Where's the style, the foreboding, and the charm? I mean, HELLRAISER is not a great horror film, but at least it had something. NIGHTBREED is like a large ball of bad ideas poorly executed. From the opening there is a problem with subtlety: the monsters are shown in the first shot! The opening dream sequence shows too much for too long. Our hero doesn't display professional acting skills (but no one expected that from this bastard genre). There are killings that one wishes were more interesting. Then we have David Cronenberg. The man was never really meant to be an actor. He fills the role of the creepy psychiatrist adequately, but what he should have done was step behind the camera and save this disaster. Then we come to Midian, a creepy fake graveyard with an over-creepy fake gate. This thing is not a huge improvement over the cemetery in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. It gets worse when we meet the creatures in it. There is nothing really wrong with the character design and make-up effects here (well... except for the guy with no scalp, the guy with a pointy chin and forehead, and the fat guy with dark circles around his eyes), the problem is the way they act and the terrible dialogue that is given them. Barker's photography of the subterranean city is tired and this part of the story could have been made much better. Some might call what follows SPOILERS. After our hero dies and becomes \"nightbreed\" we wait around to see what he'll turn into (there's talk of things that fly and werewolves), but when the time comes for him to change they appearantly thought their hero too pretty to give a decent creature design. With the turn in Cronenberg's \"character\" the story just gets less interesting until the battle of freaks vs. norms (which is just bad). Barker's mythology failed him here. There is no genius and little originality behind any of NIGHTBREED. The picture could have used a larger budget, a serious script, and character design that doesn't leave you saying \"oh...oh, how lame.\" What a waste. Not scary, not cool, not even very dark, just weak.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's times like these I truly wish I was a more avid reader of Clive Barker's literary repertoire, since very few things feel worse than not being able to fully comprehend a movie of this stunningly 'visual' caliber. Based on the novella \"Cabal\", the story of \"Nightbreed\" involves a behemothic amount of lavish and bizarre creatures and settings in an underground society of demonic ghouls. A normal guy becomes linked to the strange world, called Midian, through his dreams and his psychiatrist coerces him into believing he is responsible for a series of gruesome murders of families in recent months... Thinking this to be true, he retreats to Midian - located under a rural cemetery - where he is reluctantly accepted. The shrink, however, is right on Homeboy's heals with a diabolical scheme to whip out the community of Nightbreeds...

Wanting so much to love this movie, I was very let down in the long run. I have regretfully not read the story so Barker's fantasy world and the purpose of it and all these monsters was horribly confusing and the premise was painfully uneven. I understand how the final cut was diced to hell and even Barker show's moderate dislike for the overall product, but I just didn't \"get\" it. Even if it is crucial to read the story, I feel like it should at least be translated to film in a way that it is still comprehensible for those unfamiliar with the literature. If \"Cabal\" is as convoluted as this film than Barker really milked a dead concept. Couldn't help but feel a bit bored after a while, especially when things started getting increasingly ridiculous (somewhere around the jail scene I realized just how bored I was) - like a police department fearlessly going to war with Midian like it happens every week! No one seems to think the idea of immortal monsters is a tad... strange. I DID like the visual effects and all that crazy sh*t that went on in Midian, especially that porcupine lady and that big headed SOB... Definitely an epic flick when you consider the massive quantity of effects and convincingly morbid decor. David Cronenberg fills his position well as the loony shrink with his cool zipper-head potato sack mask, but we ALL wish he had done some behind-the-camera work to help save this heap...

So, if you have a boner for Clive Barker material and fully grasp what exactly Midian is, why they show the creatures during the opening title sequence (terrible idea!), and why these creatures reside there and how some punk kid shares a telekinetic link to it, you should probably check out \"Nightbreed\". I'll look for \"Cabal\" one of these days and hopefully gain some perspective... Or maybe I'll just forget this travesty completely... Until then, this is a poorly constructed and fairly tedious mess of a movie... Watch \"Hellraiser\" instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Vindicator\" is a weird little Canadian B-Movie. At first glance it would appear to be just another cheap (extremely cheap!) \"Terminator\" knockoff, but strangely enough it also shares some qualities with the original \"RoboCop,\" which hadn't even been released yet when \"Vindicator\" appeared (1986). Coincidence? Who knows? Anyway, the story is thus: scientist Carl Lehman seems to be a pretty nice guy who works for a super duper secret government high-tech research lab, reporting to a sleazy boss named Whyte, whom he butts heads with about project funding early in the movie. Carl's got a loving wife at home and a baby on the way, which makes it all the more tragic when he is suddenly killed in a \"lab accident.\" But wait! Carl's not really dead after all! Whyte has extracted Carl's brain and inserted it into his pet project, some sort of experimental bio-mechanical space suit. When Carl wakes up inside his new body, he understandably goes a little nuts, trashes the lab, and escapes. This is a problem because Whyte (for reasons known only to himself) has programmed the mechanical suit with a \"Rage Reaction\" program, which will cause Carl to kill anybody who touches him for any reason. In hindsight, that little addition to Carl's psyche was probably not the best idea.

So Robo-Carl wanders aimlessly through the movie for a while, killing a couple of random muggers and other assorted background characters, till he returns to his home and contacts his wife (this scene is supposed to be heartbreakingly touching, I guess, but turns out comical because Carl's robot voice is so heavily synthesized that you can barely understand a word he says). He of course tells her to leave the city and never come back because she's in danger, but she wants to stay and help him, yadda yadda yadda. Eventually Whyte hires a gang of commando thugs led by \"Hunter,\" an apparent ninja assassin played by Pam Grier (!)to hunt down and destroy his runaway creation, using Carl's wife as bait, and predictable (but laughably cheap looking) mayhem ensues.

I'm a B-Movie kind of guy but \"The Vindicator\" was so half-assed that it turned into high comedy pretty quickly. I'm assuming that a good hunk of the budget went into Stan Winston's robo-Carl suit design, because that actually looks pretty cool, but the rest of the movie suffers from a cheap, made-for-TV kind of look. The script could've used a LOT more work, but then maybe the filmmakers had gotten wind of \"RoboCop\" going into production and rushed to get \"Vindicator\" out so they couldn't be accused of ripping them off. Either way, judging by the other comments here on IMDb, I'm not the only one who's noticed the parallels between \"Vindicator\" and \"RoboCop,\" and obviously \"Robo\" is the superior film, so there's no need to waste your time sitting through this piece of nonsense unless you want to see a film that can best be described, at best, as a rough draft of \"RoboCop\" if it were made by an 8th grader.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Vindicator opens with the memorable scene of a monkey in a cage attacking a ripping apart a small toy robot as part of a scientific experiment. This random act violence sold it for me and I'm happy to say the rest of Vindicator provided a veritable feast of cheese.

The Vindicator is about a scientist (David McIlwraith) who is nearly killed an explosion in his lab whose tattered remains are put inside an experimental body suit\/armour. For some unfathomable reason he is fitted with a Rage Response Activator, a device wired into his brain that will turn him homicidal if he comes into physical contact with any other person. They give some daft explanation about how it is a necessary defensive mechanism but I cannot see the logic in installing such a device unless you wanted a rampaging cyborg killing machine. It is especially ridiculous when it is indicated the suit Carl is wearing is actually an experimental space suit. What possible need would there be for an astronaut to turn into the incredible hulk whilst on a mission? He predictably breaks out of the lab and proceeds to battle the dodgy scientists who put him in the suit, along with the ninja assassin Hunter played by Pam Grier (No, really).

The Vindicator itself looks pretty damn goofy. It is basically a dude in a mangled golden foil suit. He also has a perpetually bewildered look in his eyes, that doesn't inspire fear or even compassion. I guess you can't blame him for that, most people watching the movie will have that same look on their faces.

The acting is of the really bad, stilted, 'I'm not sure what the character's emotions or thoughts are that this point so I'll take a punt and spurt out my dialogue in a random tone of voice whilst trying not look at the camera' school of acting. The actor playing the funky black scientist even struggles with this last part.

It is after this initial accidental death that the Vindicator goes after the scientists. Strangely enough the whole Rage Response Activator 'touch me and I'll kill you' thing doesn't play as big a role as you might expect with Carl going after his former colleges in a reasonably detached manner. There was one scene where he rather brutally kills some street punks who push him around. I know that it is de rigueur for street gangs to randomly assault the lead characters in eighties movies but surely one of them must have realised it might be a bad idea to attack the hulking cyborg guy even if he does look like C3PO's retarded cousin. As it is they don't even seem that surprised to see a mangled golden cyborg walking down the street as though it was an every day occurrence for them. The only other time this rage response activator comes up in the movie is when old Carl can't give his wife a hug. When Hunter tries to turn this against him by throwing her into him so he'll be forced to kill her he casually remarks he has reprogrammed himself (Off-screen naturally) so this doesn't happen. They could have left out the whole Rage Response Activator thing and just gone with a straight revenge story and it wouldn't have made a huge difference to the movie.

There is an amusing sequence in the sewers as Grier and her cronies track down the Vindicator. Due to his armoured hide they are all armed with weapons which fire 'vapourised acid.' For some bizarre reason when these weapons fire it is represented on screen by cartoonish red lines that streak toward their targets ala Ghostbusters. The Vindicator fights back by ripping a gas pipe out of the wall and incinerating all of Grier's goons in an enormous streak of flame that comes out. The resulting fireball is so huge and powerful that it comes out of the sewers out of a man hole and blows up the van a couple of the scientists are. Strangely enough Grier escapes by throwing herself down into the inch deep water despite the fact she was closest to the Vindicator. This is one of several fake fiery explosions throughout the movie, including the death of funky black scientist when the vindicator sends his van of a cliff. (This is after they capture The Vindicator by trapping him in a giant lump of gello- no, seriously).

There is also one unsettling and long and out of place sequence in which Carl's treacherous overweight friend, who looks like a poor man's Ned Beatty, reveals his infatuation with Carl's wife and tries to rape her. It goes on for about 5-10 minutes and is full of disturbing shots of the guy slobbering over the wife's face, gyrating on top of her and trying to pull her dress off. It is icky to say the least and seems really out of whack with most of the rest of the movie which is kind of cartoonish and larger than life in its violence.

The movies finale involves the Vindicator battling a whole bunch of other dudes in battle suits. For whatever reason all these other dudes are less kick-arse than Carl, some of them being dispatched by the wife simply by having a protruding tube in their side ripped out. Luckily for Carl the suit he is wearing lacks this crucial design flaw. The only really memorable part toward the end is the death of Grier. Doing something I've never seen a baddie do in a movie before, in the middle of her confrontation with the Vindicator she decides she really doesn't stand a chance against him and in a rather of matter of fact manner blows her own brains out with his pistol.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Am I the only one to notice that the \"realism\" of the 19th century ship is erroneous. Actually it's a 15th century, right around 1620 if memory serves me, because the \"realistic\" ship in the movie is the Mayflower, now as far as I know the Mayflower NEVER went to Australia or even attempted a voyage to Australia. I don't know who handled R&D for this film, but using the Mayflower and hoping that no one will notice is a poor job indeed.

They even printed it on the cover art and the DVD. I wonder how may other people noticed this little blunder? Not to mention that the movie itself was just plain awful, I would have expected better from Sam Neill.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This could have been a good TV-movie, but the flashbacks do not make it easier to understand the movie. As they give the viewer informations on the way (will the movie proceeds) i found myself wondering why she never said or mentioned that in the beginning. Then the whole trail would probably not have been necessary.

When the movie ends you understand why she shot, and of course she is not guilty. Too bad that the producer\/director used the flashbacks this way, but on the other had the movie would not have been worth while at all.

Nice movie for a rainy day, big bag of chips to kill the evening.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am disgusted and appalled by the positive reviews this movie is receiving. Not only is it hokey, manipulative, and melodramatic. It's also shamelessly offensive. The character of Radio `Gooding Jr.' is paraded around as a cute little stuff animal, like a puppy that's so cute you just want to take him home.' This mentality is shameless; Radio is never treated as a human being, but as a manipulative device to draw sympathies from its audience. Even more atrocious are the film's numerous moments, in which Radio gets hit in the head\/trips\/falls over\/etc. These moments of slapstick comedy had the audience howling with laughter merely purely because, `it's funny because Radio is retarded' This is shameless, Now I do not feel that the word `retarded' is an appropriate word at all to describe the mentally disabled, but this seems to be the stance the film is taking, `Radio is retarded, but that's okay, because he's cute and we like him.' Gooding's portrayal seems better suited for a John Water's film than an inspiring family drama. To add insult to injury the film is incompetent on every level, Debra Winger is uninspired in the role as the `stereotypical housewives' that the very reminder of her heinous monologues insights laughter in all who see the film. The Score by John Horner is pure sap always overlaying its tear some score over the tired cinematography. Ed Harris is decent in a role he could have slept through, but manages to retain much of the audience's attention throughout the film. In conclusion, if you consider yourself a decent human being, ignore this travesty of a film, read the book, but otherwise skip this dire film on an interesting character from American history.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No offense to anyone who saw this and liked it, but I hated it! It dragged on and on and there was not a very good plot, also, too simple and the acting was so so...

I would give this snorefest a 2 at the most","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I appear to be in the minority, but I thought \"Radio\" was pretty awful. It seemed to contain almost every cliche in these types of \"heartwarming\" movies.

The motivation for the characters falling in love with Radio was never really explained. We were just supposed to accept that everyone was fond of Radio except for a couple of bad apples.

You could see almost all of th big moments in the story from 100 yards away. When the movie wanted you to go \"Awww\" or pull out your tissue, I was rolling my eyes and wished I was watching \"Rudy\" instead.

There were some good performances by the cast. Too bad they weren't given a better movie in wish to appear.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"radio is possibly one of the best films i have ever seen while at the same time one of the worst. It made me laugh in places where you were supposed to cry, and made me cringe at moments you were supposed to laugh. it lacked any kind of character development which is usually crucial to a sentimental flick that this is. some questions, why did ed Harris character take radio under his wing, this was not properly explained, and I'm sure their relationship(which is the main aspect of the film) is the most pointless if ever seen.

who keeps on giving Cuba Gooding junior work, he is a crap actor and should be taunted heavily until he takes up another line of work.

as true stories go, this is not that interesting. p.s the reason i said it is one of the best films i have ever seen, is because, despite it being complete pap, i still enjoyed it. laughing at the script, and most monologues which are truly the work of either am idiot or someone very clever trying to show how easy it is to release a crappy film about a retard who becomes everyones favourite joke. the fact of the matter is, Cuba's character is comedy fodder for the people who watch the football matches.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As Joe Bob Briggs would say, this movie relies a lot on the actresses' talents rather than their talent. This early 1990's show-the-babes-in-bikinis-fest has very little to redeem it, other than showing beautiful women nearly naked. Joe Estevez, Martin Sheen's little brother, proves once again that his movie career will be nowhere near what his brother's career is.

Avoid this one unless you like watching beautiful women in skimpy clothing. It's about the only thing that redeems it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am easily pleased. I like bad films. I like films featuring attractive young women in small amounts of clothing.

This film gives all the above a bad name. Yes, you know going in that what you're getting is not high art, or anything like. But, even for the type of movie it is, Beach Babes From Beyond isn't very good.

Some people have given it 10. I can only assume that these are people who have had the organs which enable rational thought to take place surgically removed.

It isn't very good. It simply isn't very good.

3 out of 10 solely on the grounds of a) novelty value for the famous relatives and Burt Ward and b) some of the girls are cute.

Oh, by the way, did I tell you that it isn't very good?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tacky, but mildly entertaining early 90's soft core comedy features Xena (Sarah Bellemo), Luna (Tamara Landry), and Sola (Nicole Posey), as three outer-space teenagers. Xena's parents have gone on vacation for a couple of days. Following some persistent persuasion from her friends, Xena agrees to take her father's spaceship for a ride. The end result? They wind up running out of gas in space, and crash-land on planet Beta 45, AKA earth. Meanwhile, teenagers Dave (Michael Todd Davis) and Jerry (Ken Steadman) have come to California to stay the summer with Dave's Uncle Bud (Joe Estevez ) a beach bum who lives right on the beach. The three of them wind up meeting our three space girls who have walked away from the crash without a scratch. Uncle Bud is about to be thrown out from his soon-to-be-condemned beach pad thanks to Sally (Linnea Quigley), who lives right up the hill and used to be in a relationship with Bud. She's also a bikini magnate, and is trying to win a bikini design contest to the tune of, $30,000....exactly what Bud would need to fix up his property, so the girls decide to try to win the prize for him. And that's about it, folks.\u00a0Knowing that their paper thin plot was barely enough to sustain a feature length movie, the filmmakers subject us to scene after scene of endless beach parties featuring tons of extras gyrating their half naked bodies in the scorching sun. Oh, and lets not forget the sex. There's quite a deal of it. Before I go any further, I need to put this movie in context. It was released in 1993, long before the advent of such soft core labels such as Surrender Cinema and Seduction Cinema. Compared to these newer, edgier, more explicit movies, the soft core movies of the 90's sure seem somewhat mild. When Beach Babes From Beyond first came out in 1993 from the Full Moon offshoot Torchlight Entertainment, it was heralded as the debut release of a label that specialized in \"mature audiences\" type films.\u00a0Needless to say, the times have changed. This particular film genre has gone from a few steamy, but brief sex scenes and fleeting glimpses of female full frontal nudity to extended sex scenes that occasionally threaten to venture into the realm of hardcore. Looking at Beach Babes From Beyond again after viewing it upon its 93' release, it's safe to say that if this same film were to be made today, there would be a hell of a lot more emphasis on the sex scenes and less time spent on plot and dialog. As for the sex scenes themselves, they tend to run hot-and-cold.\u00a0Our three space girls waste no time in getting comfortable with the boys that evening. So each couple gets a soft core scene, complete with annoying slow motion camera work and too dark lighting. They're really not that horrible, and are surprisingly graphic in a few spots, especially the scene between Xena and Jerry that takes place in the back of a trailer. But the one sex scene that REALLY leaves a lasting impression, and causes you to be surprised in its overall intensity, occurs quite early on in the film. Sally is attending a topless photo shot with three of her models posing by a pool. All of the actresses in this scene are beautiful gorgeous, but Nikki Fritz stands out from all the two due to her enormous presence. Remember that this point in her career she had yet to achieve the type of enormous popularity that soon would follow. Her posing nude by a pool leads to an unforgettable fantasy sequence where she shows her soapy body in a tub and then again when walking away from her bath. Walking toward the bed towards a nearly nude pumped up guy in the waiting, we get a full length complete nude scene with her almost heart shaped rear end and perfectly shaped back. It's good that Nikki's back is so muscular as it is about to get a pretty good workout. Nikki spends the next few minutes completely nude with a hunky guy in a variety of positions in a scene that is filmed completely differently than the three other lovemaking scenes. No dark lighting or annoying slow motion here...just two actors in one enormous bed sans sheets and covers who seem at time to be barely acting at all. Nikki's ecstatic body language just goes to prove that few other actresses seem to enjoy filming sex scenes as much as she does. It's really the only time where Beach Babes From Beyond truly delivers the goods. But even without this spectacular scene, I am mildly recommending this film just for the fact alone that it's fairly watchable and never dull no thanks to an incredibly energetic and attractive cast, many of whom would show up in various direct to video features in the remainder of the decade.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, it was an awful movie, but there was a song near the beginning of the movie, I think, called \"I got a Woody\" or something to that effect. I would love to find a sound track of that if there is one available. I saw this song on MST 3K, and as awful as it was, it had it's moments, and that song was one of them.

If you like babes in bikinis, this is the movie for you, but if you don't, then don't bother. It was great material for MST 3K, I have to admit though. I would really love to know where to get a copy of the soundtrack though. Not just that song, but a couple more were really funny, and are classics as far as I'm concerned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do you get it? Like the car. These are the jokes, folks. Softcore Beach Blanket Bingo with aliens answers many of life's important question. What do the relatives of celebrities do for some cash? How does a hot tan alien wash herself? How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Well, maybe not that one. Linnea Quigley, member of the Softcore hall of fame, provides some comic relief. Nikki Fritz, also a member, show her talents. Sarah Bellomo is not as bad as you might expect from a porn star. This is not erotic, except the shower scene, and not funny enough to make up for the rotten plot. The sequel has a couple of pleasant scenes as well with Miss Bellomo.

P.S. The title is a good example of alliteration.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to be one of the, if not the worst movies I have ever seen. After watching this piece of sh*t I felt as though I should write to Madonna and demand compensation for my time, but now I feel that I should write Madonna and demand a great 80s album (considering she can't record a good album to save her life anymore) in return for this disaster.

On to the movie itself, which can be summed up like this:

It consists Madonna jumping around acting like a spoiled teenager who lost her way. She is trying to impress this absolute douche of an actor who plays \"the lawyer' in the movie. But, the best was the ending. I was staring with my jaw on the ground into the television as the credits rolled by thinking to my self, \"That's it? That's the ending? What a piece of sh*t!\". If Madonna wasn't a pop icon at the time of this film, this movie would have single handedly destroyed her career. And the funniest thing of the whole situation was that I just watched the damn movie to see where they placed the song \"Who's That Girl\". Well, guess where they placed it?...................................at the end!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the epitome of bad 80's film-making, unless you are a pre-pubescent girl. Riding on a big name like madonna, a story line that physically assaults one's intelligence and humour that is most suited for a nursery school. If there was ever any doubt i think this turd of a movie clearly displays Madonna's absolute lack of acting talent and made me feel highly embarrassed on her behalf. The only thing i can't believe is that they ever let the director near another movie again. Madonna spends most of the movie prancing around like an infantile rag doll, and talking like a baby. It is painfully obvious that the only reason this movie was ever made was due to the fact that Madonna was a big name in pop music at the time. DO NOT BE DUPED INTO SEEING THIS AWFUL ATTEMPT TO CASH IN ON POP STARDOM. Stay away at all costs!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**********POSSIBLE SPOILER********** Madonna plays an ex-con that needs to recover some valuable information that might clear her from the murder that she was put in prison for four years ago. Griffin Dunne is a tax attorney who's marrying his boss' daughter. Together, the two of them are supposed to come together in a world where chaos keeps you from getting on the bus...

When you get down to it, this is a stupid movie. Without trying to give away the plot ****POSSIBLE SPOILER****, the bad guys in the movie are trying to protect their boss by retrieving the information that would incriminate them for the murder that Madonna was sent up for. What kind of bad guys don't commit murder by trying to hide the original murder?!?!?!

Then there's the cops who are trailing Madonna who follow the bad guys in a limo, where they have the brides-maids all tied up! And let's not forget those same brides-maids who fought from the front gate to the front door, still all tied together! And I hate to say this, but that patagonious feline sure looks like a cougar! There might be only four of them in the New York City area, so they might be endangered there, but I know there's plenty of them in the Rocky Mountains (see \"Charlie the Lonesome Cougar\" if you really want to see a large \"cat\" in the movie). And let's look at the old man who falls asleep on his feet... NAW!

The plot is there, but that's all there is to this movie. I was barely out of my teens when this movie originally came out and I was some-what of a fan of Madonna, but that was the only reason I liked the movie, but since then, she's fell out of popularity with me, and I've faced the fact that she is just a terrible actress (good thing she's got that singing career to fall back on). It rated maybe a \"5\" back then, but it's fallen to \"barely making a 2\" over the years.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"for people who have absolutely no idea of what a comedy is. That not only includes the people who liked this movie, but the people who made it. What could they possibly have been thinking? Madonna playing Judy Holliday? Please, she can't even play MADONNA (if there actually IS a Madonna). I hope Griffin Dunne was paid well. He deserved every penny he got, because if this didn't kill his career, nothing will. I'm sure that the few people who actually paid to see this movie left it feeling like their pockets had been picked. Madonna is apparently past the point of feeling embarrassed by her virtually complete lack of talent as an actress, but you can't help feeling embarrassed for her anyway. She has no connection with the rest of the cast; it appears like she showed up on the set and said, \"OK, I'm here, I'm gonna embarrass myself by doing the absolute worst Judy Holliday impression anyone's ever seen, now stay the hell out of my way\" and then proceeded to do exactly that. I know the phrase \"rotten Madonna movie\" is redundant, but it certainly fits this. It's painful to watch a totally inept and talentless \"actress\" make a complete fool of herself, but it apparently doesn't bother her, as she does it again and again.

The only remotely funny thing about this \"comedy\" is that she actually managed to find people who gave her the money to make it. Now THAT'S funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was actually planning to see this movie when I noticed it in my TV guide but after about 5 minutes decided time is definitely more precious than \"Who's That Girl\" could ever be worth. Describing how bad Madonna's acting looks like is impossible and the end result is one of the most annoying characters ever captured on film. This crap is an insult to movies and intellect. I almost never! rate a movie I don't see from start to finish, but in this case the former is impossible. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An ear-splitting movie, a quasi-old-fashioned screwball romp designed to showcase singing star Madonna's comedic attributes. She does indeed go far out on the proverbial limb here playing a beyond-vivacious parolee attempting to prove she was framed for murder (a body was found in the trunk of her car after she ran a red light...big laughs). After an energetic animated credits sequence--which is much more fun than the rest of the picture--we have nothing to look at but Madonna's black mascara and red lips set off by her platinum hair and pale complexion. What else is there? Griffin Dunne seems defeated playing Maddy's keeper, while the poor-choice supporting cast struggles to get laughs with lousy dialogue. It's an unfortunate set-back to the talents of director James Foley, who unwisely allows his star to run rampant in the spirit of the nutty slapstick films from the 1930s (but even Katharine Hepburn in \"Bringing Up Baby\" had a human side). Wretched. * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The laughs are few and far between in this dull movie, and I can't help but wonder about how this mess ever got made in the first place. About the only good thing in this movie is the talent of Griffin Dunne, but his best efforts were easily overshadowed by Madonna's obnoxious performance. I was able to sit through this without getting TOO bored, but that's probably the nicest thing I can say about this time-waster.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first time I watched this movie I was ten years old. I thought it was bad then, and at that age I had no cinematic taste whatsoever. I watched this movie on Cinemax about 3 days ago and was reminded why I hated the movie in the first place. Madonna's character, Nikki, is annoying and obnoxious. There's no way that the main character would ever fall in love with her. The jokes were corny and the dialogue was worse than a t.v. soap opera!! I'm glad that I didn't see this movie at the theatre, or rent it. I feel bad for my parents who had to endure watching it with me! Madonna is not necessarily a bad actress, but in this role she is portrayed as a complete idiot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like Errol Flynn; I like biographies and I like action movies. This featured all three of these....but I didn't like this film. It just went on too long although the last 20 minutes was excellent, especially in the photography with some great low- angle shots. However, I seemed like it took six hour to get to that point, and I really can't say why I feel this way.

The action is interesting, Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland are fine. In fact, it was refreshing to see de Havilland actually be supportive of Flynn instead of her normal role as antagonist to him. Yet something is lacking in this movie.

The film has been roundly criticized for its historical inaccuracy but I don't hear that same criticism for a lot of other films which have done the same. In fact, its RARE when a film is historically accurate. For some reason, this revisionist history offended most critics. If the film had made General Custer a lot worse than he really was, they would have probably liked it. Well, too bad. In their twisted way, critics prefer villains to heroes.

I really wish I could have enjoyed this more but I'll take a lot of other Flynn adventures over this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although this movie is inaccurate overall, there are some items that may be true. Certainly, he was a wild character in his youth, having played practical jokes on his fellow cadets at West Point, almost expelled several times, graduating last in his class (of 34), and often reckless in his leadership during the Civil War.

But history may have made him a scape goat of the Indian Wars. Certainly, he did his share of cruel things, but how much was he under orders? Also, there is evidence that he testified before Congress (at great risk to his commission and command) that he argued about the fairness of breaking treaties with the Indians and that if he was an Indian he would also fight rather than live on a reservation!

As a character said in the play 1776 when asked what will be said about the British about losing the Revolutionary War, the character states \"history will do what it always does...it will lie.\" Who knows how bad a man Custer was. Certainly he wasn't the sympathetic character as portrayed by Errol Flynn and later by Ronald Reagan. But I also doubt he was completely evil as he is later portrayed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a cartoon, the Spytroops Movie was pretty bad. It is only 44 minutes long, yet several battles occur culminating with the destruction of the COBRA headquarters. One downer was the very beginning of the movie. An animated battle that was better than the rest of the movie turns out to have been some kind of battle simulation. That right there was a major turn-off and made the rest of the movie lack credibility. Then there was the issue of Shipwreck tied up along with his parrot, and tossed into some room where nobody had checked for several days. Whatever happened to surveillance cameras?

The COBRA base only had a handful of characters, and the rest were BAT robots. Aside from a lot of corridors the COBRA base did not seem to have any weapons, tanks, trucks, or any other equipment. Then there was the silly notion that 100 complex androids could be created overnight. The plot was silly even if this was intended for small children. Spongebob, Powerpuff Girls, and even Barney The Dinosaur give more attention to their plots.

The characters were not bad, except that I could never understand anything Destro was saying, and the Cobra Commander was silly and not much of a villain. In fact, except for Storm Shadow and Xartan, the rest of the COBRA characters were comical and hardly impressive. The GI Joe characters were pretty good. Scarlett, Agent Faces, Road Block and Snake Eyes were my favorites here. Shipwreck and Beach Head were the worst. Shipwreck is written as a goof-ball and Beach Head sounded like some 1990s surfer dude. I guess the writer, Larry Hama was trying to make a character that appealed to teenagers, but he was a decade off the mark. Just listening to Beach Head's Spicoli surfer-talk (Fast Times at Ridgemont High) I was wondering if the new GI Joes were going to smoke a dube before the big mission.

The CGI was pretty good, except that Cobra Commander had a jerking spastic walk, and the vehicles did not look very realistic at all. The flying tank and the explosions were not very impressive. Old style animation would have been much better than this. Since Hasbro reportedly likes to do things cheap, they got what they paid for. I had trouble watching the whole thing, it was just boring and lacked any soul or GI Joe spirit. Even the old GI Joe commercials would have been better. In fact, the DVD included extras such as four or five current commercials for GI Joe Spy Troops, and those commercials were much more entertaining than the movie. The commercials had more kid-oriented fun and spirit. The commercials were lively, while the movie was dull.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a fan of the old series I must say that this is at best a parody of a much beloved series. First the old series would at least attempt to follow some military structure. I know in this P.C. world it is not the thing to do but hey don't turn it into the care bears. In the old series Beachead was a hardspoken soldier, now he is a teenage mutant turtle. Another thing is the flying tank, ok it flies out of the cobra base and bounces off the copter and they are both ok???? Lets face it if the next one is not better this could spell the end of G.I.joe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So far I disliked every single Jean Rollin movie I've seen, and that always bothered me because he's an acclaimed Euro-trash monument and extremely popular amongst many regular reviewers on this lovely website; people whose opinions I always value and usually concur with. Apparently everybody always appears to pinpoint some sort of gloomy and stylistic filming trademarks in his work that are completely lost on me. Rollin's movies are unimaginably boring, they all feature the same basic concept (lesbian vampires in various settings), the dialogs are incredibly absurd, the marvelous Gothic setting are always underused and the production values are cheaper than the price of a bus ticket. I had actually given up on Rollin's repertoire already (especially after enduring \"The Iron Rose\"), until I found out about \"Night of the Hunted\". Allegedly, this movie doesn't feature any lame lesbian vampires and stands as a bona fide horror movie with gruesome killings and macabre plot twists. And the verdict is \u0085 yes and no! On one hand, this is undeniably the most compelling and inventive Rollin film I had the pleasure of seeing thus far (and also the only one that I watching without dozing off\u0085). On the other hand, it still remains a moronic movie with a nonsensical plot and emotionless sex sequences to compensate for the dullness. Jean Rollin heavily attempts to generate an atmosphere of secrecy and suspense, mostly through a lack of information and vaguely introduced characters, but barely manages to hide the fact he actually hasn't got a story to tell at all. The unearthly beautiful lead actress Brigitte Lahaie and the beautifully ominous musical guidance are the only elements that keep you hooked on the screen. During a nightly drive back home to Paris, a young man abruptly has to stop for a confused and scarcely dressed girl who comes running from the woods. Her name is Elisabeth but furthermore she can't remember anything about herself and from what or whom she was running away. Her case of amnesia is so bad she even continuously forgets who picked her up. The next day, she's kidnapped again by an old guy and taken to a sinister apartment complex where multiple people in the same bizarre mental state are held captive. Elisabeth knows nothing, but she does sense she needs to escape from here. Obviously I won't reveal the denouement, but I can assure you it is quite dumb, illogical and far-fetched. Apparently Rollin realized this as well, because the explanation is kept very brief and quick. There's a large number of overly weird and senseless sequences, the sex footage is dire and filmed without passion, the nasty make-up effects look cheap and randomly thrown without actual purpose. As said, the score is mesmerizing and Brigitte Lahaie's perfect body is addictive to glaze at.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Amnesiac women who remove their clothes at the drop of a hat (or a blouse?) are about the only stand-out points in a film that is otherwise slow and aimless. Although the basic premise of the story offers a wealth of possibilities, they are never developed to any satisfying degree, and exposition is almost non-existent. A large proportion of the film is mere wanderings through the corridors of a multi-storied clinic\/hospital. The overall effect is bleak and sterile, a la THX-1138.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see \"Quitting\" with high hopes, because the director's \"Shower\" had impressed me so. Despite a few lapses into mawkishness, \"Shower\" ranks high on my list of all-time favorite movies for its penetrating insight into family relationships and its generally superb acting and direction. And I've seen it at least three times now.

But \"Quitting\" fell flat, in my estimation. It seemed a pointless exercise and I was quickly so tired of the main character's insufferable personality that I was longing for the movie to end. I admit to falling asleep six or seven times, but it was only for a few seconds at a time, so I think it's still OK to write this comment.

I did admire the parents and sister. The device of using all real characters in the film is a nice one I've never seen used before.

Disappointment aside, I will still make an effort to see any film bearing Yang Zhang's name, simply on the basis of the beautiful \"Shower.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I actually trawled through the entire set of reviews, searching for the ones which gave this film less than 5 stars. They were few and far between. Which is utterly baffling! Yes, I know it's a Disney film and it isn't directed by Christopher Nolan, but good Lord. This is straight-to-the-bargain-bucket nonsense. They should've had done with it and animated the bloody thing.

And what's even worse is the fact that IMDb won't let me simply finish my rant there, because my review needs to be longer!

The \"Awesome\" in-game camera shots are LITERALLY taken from Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf on the Playstation, the story plods like a sulking school boy, the multi-stranded character and plot development cripples an already weak setup, and the grand finale is plain boring.

Aside from that, it really was the greatest film I've ever seen in my entire life.

Good, authentic-looking costumes, sets and sports equipment. There, I said it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A female ex-cop who was drummed out of the force for recklessness (and who could probably beat Chuck Norris in a fight) hires herself out as a private bodyguard; her first client is a worthless playboy type. It takes half the movie for her to get kicked off the force in the first place. Lots of great fight choreography but the plot is strictly by the numbers, and the acting is as wooden as the dialogue. Give this one a miss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those wonderful martial-arts movies that begin with two posses of tough gang members facing off in a park; and when the deal goes wrong and the battle starts, it turns out they all know karate and kung fu! The ever-wooden Cynthia Rothrock plays (as usual) a cynical, deadpan, good cop, this time in Los Angeles. She and her police partners are trying to break up a counterfeiting ring, and when that plot line is exhausted, the story just switches over to something else, and Cynthia becomes the personal bodyguard of a wealthy, great-looking tycoon. Within the film's obviously rock-bottom budget, there's some helicopter action, some speedboat action, some car chases, a brawl where Cynthia beats up everyone in a country-western bar, some swimming-pool scenes with bimbos in thong bikinis, and a surprisingly good horseback chase. About a dozen and a half cops get gunned down. A lot of plot twists happen that just don't make any sense; don't worry about them. (And counterfeiting currency is a federal crime, so where the hell is the FBI? I guess they were too busy.) The fight choreography was done by Cynthia Rothrock's frequent co-star Richard Taylor, whose classy and witty presence in front of the camera would frankly have made this a better movie. He also tended to make Cynthia a better actress when they appeared together, and frankly she could use it; she seems tired and bored, and does her best acting in GUARDIAN ANGEL when she is playing opposite a pet dog to whom she delivers bitter drunken monologues. The dog almost out-acts her! She also wears some of the most god-awful clothing any leading lady has ever worn in any movie: loose, baggy-leg jeans with pale acid-washed areas over each buttock were the most shocking. The other actors are all over the map. You can picture many of the minor characters being cast this way: \"Hey, me and some other guys I know are going to be in a movie. You wanna be in it too? No, dude, I'm serious!\" Then there are the slumming professionals: the most fun is Lydie Denier, the stunning French model and veteran of \"Red Shoe Diaries,\" \"Baywatch,\" \"Melrose Place,\" and of playing many, many other variations on the sexy French bombshell; here she plays a psychopathic killer as if she were in BAISEZ-MOI or an \"Alias\" episode and not some direct-to-cable trash like this. There's also the tall, dark and handsome Daniel McVicar, now a regular on \"The Bold and the Beautiful,\" John O'Leary, who has played a dignified old man in dozens of movies and sitcom episodes and does it again here, and Aharon Ipale, the veteran Arab character actor perhaps best known as \"Pharaoh Seti\" from THE MUMMY and THE MUMMY RETURNS. For these professionals, GUARDIAN ANGEL must be the most laughable entry on their resumes. I gave this movie a better rating than it probably deserves because my daughters, who are enthusiastic martial-arts students, both like to see a woman kicking ass and having the big action scenes for a change. They're still a bit too young to care what a low-quality picture this really was, and just enjoyed cheering Cynthia on as she did her swivel-legged, high-kicking, stick-fighting thing. If you like this kind of flick, you could probably enjoy it on that level.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watching this movie and then listening to the commentary, it's clear that Michael Radford doesn't understand this play. The first clue that he fails to fully grasp the work is that he takes pains to set the film in seventeenth-century Venice. Which sounds truly odd, yes, that misunderstanding the film would mean trying to make it as accurate to its location as possible. But anyone who's studied Shakespeare knows that, while he set most of his plays in exotic locals, the culture and values are always contemporary England. This doesn't hurt the film, but it displays a lack of necessary knowledge.

Where Radford kills the film is in making it so dead serious. He manages to suck every joke out of the script, leaving the whole production flat. Every ounce of passion is beaten out of the characters. Even Shylock's 'Do we not bleed' speech is a mild, awkward ranting from a choleric who seems to only be saying and doing what he does because he's supposed to. The lovers are solemn and far too restrained (Joseph Fiennes delivers some of the most romantic lines in the cinema this year in a barely audible whisper), Gratiano (who has to promise to behave at one point) is more sober and collected than Bassiano (who makes him promise to behave), Jessica is reluctant to leave her father and spends her life with Lorenzo pouting.

In the commentary for the bland and watered-down court scene, the director voices his shock that an audience laughed at Portia's 'A pound of flesh, no more, no less' sentence; ultimately concluding that it had to tension release laughter. 'The Merchant of Venice' is a comedy and Radford scoffs at the idea that the most absurd and hysterical portions of the story are anything but the most daringly provocative drama.

The film has no intelligible focus, yet cuts out some of the most entertaining scenes. The characters are forced into high drama veils, so they come out sounding like Ibsen characters reading Victorian poetry. And the comedic ending, where all of the good guys go to bed happy, is drowned in a dignified despair that feels like they're finding stiff- upper-lip peace with impending death, rather than reconciling with lovers. Even Lancelot and Antonio exit the film holding their hats like aristocratic mourners.

The film is poorly done because the creative powers that be don't understand the script. It is stern where it should hysterical. It is reserved where it should be passionate. It is Michael Radford where it should be William Shakespeare.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film as a sneak preview before the Venice opening at the Telluride Film Festival. Your reaction to it will largely depend on your attitude about respecting the text of Shakespeare. On the plus side: Pacino gives a very good performance indeed as Shylock; Lynn Collins is a fine Portia; and the film has a sumptuous look.

The negatives are predictable. \"The Merchant of Venice\" is arguably the most difficult of all of Shakespeare's plays to stage today, largely because we look at it through the distorting lens of 20th century history. The romantic plot with Bassanio and Portia presents no problem. The character of Shylock does, because we lack the original frame of reference of the Elizabethan audience. Shylock is simultaneously a human character with human qualities and motivations, and an abstraction of the pitiless quality of the Old Law. When he says \"Hath not a Jew eyes?\" he is a character; when he proclaims \"I will have my bond!\" he is an abstraction. The long passage on music and cosmic harmony in the final scene (here moved and cut to ribbons) is the key to the play, in that it re-establishes universal harmony after the disruptive and evil (the Shylock of the trial scene) forces are ejected. It is possible to make psychological sense of the character of Shylock by showing his gradually going mad and turning into a monomaniac by the time the trial scene rolls around--the key is that at a point he must cease being sympathetic.

Pacino's performance almost does it, but not quite. The film can't quite make up its mind--on the one hand, there is the right movement in the character of Shylock, and on the other there is a great deal of extraneous footage of Jews being abused and Venetian whores with rouged nipples (no doubt to show the decadence of Antonio et al). Shakespeare was not writing an Ibsen-like social drama; he was writing a comedy following the classic pattern of disruption of social order and the restoration of social order, symbolized by marriage, with a theme of love versus law at the center of the Shylock plot.

In this sense, the film is a travesty--Radford's surgery on the play and direction almost force us away from what the play really means. (Taking the beginning of the final scene, cutting most of it, and moving it before the trial scene is the most extreme example.) There are some other significant difficulties. Jeremy Irons, a fine actor, plays Antonio as if he were overdosed on sedatives. Joseph Fiennes is pretty but shallow as Bassanio. Most of the actors, with the exceptions of Collins, Pacino, and the actor playing the Duke in the trial scene, mumble their dialogue.

Final verdict? A pretty film with a few decent performances. It's not Shakespeare, it's poor interpretation. Not really worth your time or money--although Lynn Collins as Portia almost redeems it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a Shakespeare lover since childhood. I am also a Jew. Merchant of Venice is anti-semitic through and through no matter how hard scholars and literature lovers try to re-interpret it.

In the play, Shylock is portrayed as demonic and cold-hearted and has no forgiveness, no warmth, no love except for money and cruel revenge, whereas the Christians are kind, moral people. His motives in the play revolve around money (he plots revenge from the start based on damage caused to his business as well as blind racial hate), not noble ideals or hurt racial pride as this movie wants you to believe. And this characterization is given to him by Shakespeare himself, not by the other characters. As final proof, the happy ending is where the Jew loses his money and is forced to convert to Christianity.

I acknowledge this and move on. It is part of history and I enjoy Shakepeare despite this fact. Therefore I expect a movie based on this play to play it straight. I would much rather see the work adapted for its rich language and storytelling without any whitewashing.

But many of the the bard's artful subtleties and playful characters are lost in this movie. For example, in the last scene where the men discover Portia's undercover work as a man who also took away their rings, instead of the playful game of words and misunderstandings as the truth reveals itself, it becomes a mean-spirited game where two bitchy women play cruelly with their soon-to-be husbands.

So instead, we are only left with lovely detailed sets, fragments of the rich language with poor reinterpretation, poor casting, one intense courtroom scene, and a controversy.

The truth is, I think it would be much easier to identify the anti-semitism in the story and move on if it were left as is. Despite all the whitewashing the makers of this movie pulled out of their hats, there is plenty of hatred left, only now people can make excuses and pretend the portrayal of Jews isn't so bad anymore.

And finally, another problem is with most of the actors being miscast. Pacino is way out of his league and is very uncomfortable with the language, not to mention the horribly fake accent. Fiennes as Bassanio is charmless and awkward with the language. Irons is dependable as always but doesn't do much with his role. Portia is somewhat OK but unlikeable, and covered in bad makeup, just like the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Last week I watched a Royal Shakespeare Company production of Macbeth. It was 25 years old, filmed w\/no props except swords, no furniture except chairs. It was RIVETING. The acting was super - all the actors trained Brits. Contrast that performance to this...yawn yawn yawn. Al Pacino, as Shylock, was tragic, heavy, and couldn't quite lose the New Yorker accent, despite the long....pauses....between.....lines.... The whole thing was soporific, even the \"comic\" scenes were barely even worth a smile, let a lone a belly laugh. This is supposed to be funny. They tried to make it tragic. It was neither, just boring. I give it four points for costumes, scenery, and Jeremy Irons, who is good at playing a dull, depressed, deep-voiced guy (can he be anything else???)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to admit that although I'm a fan of Shakespeare, I was never really familiar with this play. And what I really can't say is whether this is a poor adaptation, or whether the play is just a bad choice for film. There are some nice pieces of business in it, but the execution is very clunky and the plot is obvious. The theme of the play is on the nature of debt, using the financial idea of debt and justice as a metaphor for emotional questions. That becomes clear when the issue of the rings becomes more important than the business with Shylock, which unfortunately descends into garden variety anti-Semitisim despite the Bard's best attempts to salvage him with a couple nice monologues.

Outside of Jeremy Irons' dignified turn, I didn't think there was a decent performance in the bunch. Pacino's Yiddish consists of a slight whine added to the end of every pronouncement, and some of the better Shylock scenes are reduced to variations on the standard \"Pacino gets angry\" scene that his fans know and love. But Lynn Collins is outright embarrassing, to the point where I would have thought they would have screen-tested her right out of the picture early on. When she goes incognito as a man, it's hard not to laugh at all the things we're not supposed to laugh at. With Joseph Fiennes standing there trying to look sincere and complicated, it's hard not to make devastating comparisons to Gwyneth Paltrow's performance in \"Shakespeare in Love.\" The big problem however that over-rides everything in this film is just a lack of emotional focus. It's really hard to tell whether this film is trying to be a somewhat serious comedy or a strangely silly drama. Surely a good summer stock performance would wring more laughs from the material than this somber production. The actors seem embarrassed to be attempting humor, and unsure of where to place dramatic and comedic emphasis. All of this is basically the fault of the director, Michael Radford, who seems to think that the material is a great deal heavier than it appears to me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have long tried to understand why people like Shakespeare so much and every few years I give him another go. I was hoping that this play\/film (my 6th different Shakespeare play) would unlock the lucky casket and marry me to the riches of this literary Demigod. Bah, I clearly chose the wrong key.

Once the phrase \"pound of flesh\" had been uttered 10 minutes into the film, the main parts of the plot were transparent, which grinds along with a languid script and lifeless acting. At every step, the plot is laid bare two scenes in advance. The concept that a dying aristocrat would persuade his daughter to choose her future husband by means of a lottery is incredulous. It is no surprise who wins the matrimonial jackpot because Bassanio's a main protagonist in the play.... and he's the third man to try .... and there are three caskets to choose from ... and his friend risks his life to pay the dowry. The only genuine surprise that I had watching this film is that it did not end immediately after the resolution of the court case. However as soon as the ring treachery began it was immediately apparent what would transpire.

OK so I know that millions of you love Shakespeare not for the surprise in the well known stories but for the depth and passion of the characters. But I felt nothing for the characters. Rather than gripped with suspense and admiration during the court scene I sat there impassionately hoping that it would be over, soon, please.

One day, I might just find a Shakespeare play that does something other than bore me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The discussion has been held a thousand times. Is the \"Merchant of Venice\" antisemitic? (I think it is.) Isn't it unfair to always point out this little bit of antisemitism in an otherwise great piece of art? (I think it isn't.) Does this play stain Shakespeare's reputation as the world's greatest playwright? (I think it does.) Does it play a role if he didn't do it on a particular racist purpose? (I think it doesn't.) Michael Radford knew all this and this is why he added to his movie a prologue about the pitiful situation of the Jews in Renaissance Venice.

In vain; for the play remains what it has always been and the new make-up only gives a first (but futile) hope that someone has dared to set something right that remains a permanent outrage, not because its degree of antisemitism would be particularly shocking but because the play comes under the name of William Shakespeare.

Why spend so much time in portraying the hatred of a man -- Shylock? Why employ a great and serious actor like Al Pacino, if in the end everything is getting ruined in this outrageous (but hey, I'm-not-responsible-Shakespeare-wrote-it) court room scene. And now I'd like to be very precise, just like Shylock himself.

He's demanding his right, according to the contract which the -- not very responsible -- Christian Antonio, who always used to look down on him, signed in full awareness of the consequences. Sure, what Shylock demands is cruel and useless, but that's not the point. What we see (or should see) is a man who has been humiliated for all his life, to the point where all what remains on him is his hatred. I think, it is certainly a bit inappropriate to lecture such a man on things like compassion.

But what the play\/the movie (they are one and the same now) does at this point is... become a soap opera! The cruel madman with his knife, the horrified (but rather short-minded) audience, the poor \"victim\" tied to his chair. True, Antonio accepts his fate but why can't he just say one word, \"sorry\"? I think we need not lose many words on the ridiculous verdict of the young Dottore from Padua; it's a truly \"popular verdict\" not much different from what would be seen 400 years later in the show trials of the Nazis. From one minute to the next this Jew is robbed of everything he owned, sentenced to being baptized Christian, and kicked out.

Isn't that outrageous??? Obviously not. The story moves on to the romantic intricacies of the rings and its happy end.

What one can learn in Libeskind's Jewish Museum in Berlin and similar places all over the world is that antisemitism often goes unnoticed by the mass because what's so devastating for a minority or some individuals is embedded in the alleged greater good for the majority. It should be exactly the task of everyone of us to develop a sensitivity to detect and unmask such tendencies.

I don't accept the excuse that this film was made to create empathy with the badly treated Shylock (it just doesn't work out). I don't think that anybody can be forced to be merciful.

I don't recommend this movie; in particular not for an Oscar.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is truly amazing,over the years I have acquired a taste for Japanese Monster movies and am well aware that early examples of this genre can be poor. However this one reaches a new low, as it follows the adventures of Johnny Sokko(?), a young boy who controls a Giant Robot, and his fight against the evil Gargoyle Gang, who seem to have an endless supply of horrid giant monsters at their disposal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"at first i thought it was bad because i had great expectations for this movie, but after giving some thought it IS that bad. i was almost caught up in hk's promotion of bad stars in bad movies. hk's new generation of actors and actresses not to mention bad script writers are bringing the industry down. at the moment im still trying to figure out how it gross so high. normally you cant lose in a movie with donnie yen and ekin (forget jackie, he's past his peak). but then i shouldve figure it out when twins was on the cover. it is cheesy, campy, very corny, i try to laugh from some of the jokes, but not only is the effect very minimal but the jokes are very recycled and not funny. im sorry i bought the movie. the only reason why some people think it is so good is because they are brainwashed into the hype that the twins are cute, and everybody likes them, and that everything they make is good and funny. and that if you like twins, then you are up to date...

sigh... i miss the good hk movie days when jet li and stephen chow movies dominated the box office...

movies from mainland china are much better than this, and they are shot for lower budgets.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Twins Effect\" is the worst movie I've seen! Not only is the support weak, but the characters as well. I'm sorry to say to you Edison fans, but Kazaf is by far the weakest Vampire I've seen in my life. I'm sorry Edison; your role in this movie was disappointing. Edison does not fight whatsoever in this movie and I'm sure if they didn't have Kazaf in the movie, the plot wouldn't be much different. The main plot in the movie is not explained nearly enough and the entire movie focused too much on Helen and Kazaf's growing relationship. I mean, who the hell was Kazaf and why did they need his blood? Yeah, he's the prince right? So what!

Certain scenes in this movie were just plain stupid. Yeah, the action was great but the entire outline of it was stupid. In one scene towards the end, Duke Dekotes says that Kazaf is the strongest of his brothers... yeah it would seem so now that he's full grown. Why would you wait until he's grown up to attack? Another scene was with Jackie Chan, one of my personal favorites. In the scene, Jackie asked Helen who were the creatures that persistently followed them. How can you be so naive as to not know that they are vampires? People are dying around them with bite marks on their necks; surely the NEWS would be on it faster than you can say \"Vampire.\"

The characters were yet another mistake in the movie. Helen, played by Charlene Choi, is the girlfriend of Kazaf. What kind of girl would not be scared of Vampires, especially if it is your brother's job to kill them? I can bet you that you would not find such a brave girl as Helen if you searched your whole life. Helen is annoying, bitchy, and is a total drama queen in the movie. She tries too hard to be different and in the end fails miserably. One of the weirdest and most disturbing characters I've seen in any movie. Why would you bite someone's neck especially if you're not a vampire? It's very odd that her reaction to Kazaf's confession doesn't turn him off. Kazaf, played by Edison Chen, is another stupid character in the story. How degrading for a young actor as himself to play in a movie with such a poorly constructed role. He does not stand up for himself throughout the movie and does not fight. Although I'm a fan of Edison, I wouldn't want a man who lies on the ground the whole time. Gypsy and Reeve are my favorite characters in the movie. Their love is pure and sweet. Gypsy is gorgeous and does not try too hard like Helen. Reeve, played by Ekin Cheng, is wise and seems to be the only person that makes sense in the movie. A plot failure was the death of Reeve. The movie had absolutely no substance yet it doomed itself by removing one of the only likable characters. Another character was Duke Dekotes. The story didn't focus much on him and therefore made his desire to obtain Kazaf's \"rock\" seem irrelevant.

It's very sad because towards the end of the movie, I was forcing myself to watch because I so desperately wanted to see Kazaf fight. The end was so abrupt because the whole time I was expecting so great to happen. Kazaf, who's the supposed Vampire Prince, does nothing for the movie and I'm sure if he were taken out, the movie wouldn't be much different. I highly recommend you to NOT waste your time on this movie as I have. I was greatly disappointed. If you're in search of a great movie, why not watch \"Lord of the Rings\" or \"Pirates of the Caribbean?\" Likeable characters with a well-written plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie in Blockbuster and thought it might be a good Sunday evening movie when there is nothing else to do. So I bought it used, 3 DVDs for $25. Although it was cheap, my money would have been better spent on a nail to drive through my foot.

The film started out nicely. Kinda Dark and mysterious. I was always enthralled with vampire and samurai movies as a kid. I thought the combo would be really cool. The first fight scene was pretty cool. I was excited for the rest of the movie. Then the movie took a serious nose dive.

I understand that this was a big hit in the east. I guess because of the twins. I don't see it though. This movie, aside from the first 10 minutes, was absolutely horrible. So many movies in this genre have the potential to be great, and blow it terribly. This is just another casualty.

Jacki Chan's role in this film doesn't make any sense at all. Whyyyyyyyy? Complete silliness. He probably made a few bucks off it though.

The only cool thing in this movie are the swords they use. Nice idea.

I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stay the hell away from this one... No, really I'm serious - I know you might think this is a fun, campy, cheesy Hong Kong action style B movie. I did, but trust me, it's not. In fact, the only thing accurate about that description would be the words Hong Kong, and then only used in a strictly geographical sense.

Yes, Donnie Yen has co-directed it. Jackie Chan has a cameo. The guy Ekin Cheng, from Storm Riders plays the lead. It got vampires. It should be good - or at least fun, charming and action packed. Once again - it's not.

I could digress on why this movie sucks - I could dissect it, hack it to tiny, shivering pieces. But where to start? There's so much to hate...

To make it easier, and to give this hate-fest some credability, let me say that I'm usually a big fan of Hog Kong cinema. The heavier drama stuff as well as the more lighthearted action and\/or comedy.The really good movies as well as the really cheesy ones. I can sit through hours of bad subtitling, jokes lame enough to make first graders roll their eyes. I can handle lovers as chaste and celibate as a convention of nuns, that and pretty much anything else the average film goer would bang their metaphorical toes against on their way between action sequences. Also, Hong Kong or any other origin - I love it when a movie goes from just being bad to bad enough to be good.

But this - Arrgh! It's just horrible, STUPID, unwatchable garbage. So far from being funny or charming it's actually painful. So derived of action it makes a Bergman movie look like the Texas chainsaw massacre.

Why?! Why waste such an opportunity?! This could have been so much fun!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm rather surprised that anybody found this film touching or moving.

The basic premise of the film sounded to me like an excellent, if provocative, idea for a movie about a rare sort of relationship, but one (if I can judge by the real-life examples I've known) is extremely deep and loving.

However, the film is cheaply scripted--poorly scripted--and although it has a number of very pretty-looking shots, I didn't find it to be anything special.

Probably the biggest problem is that it is far too short and poorly-composed to give its audience time enough to invest, emotionally, in the characters: we don't really care about any of them, and so their stresses and obstacles don't really touch us.

I think a REMAKE--from the screenplay up--with some character development by some really good writers--could improve it greatly. It is instructive to compare this film with Brokeback Mountain, which the screen-writers took to far loftier levels than did the author of the screenplay--screen-writers who were clearly conscious of how to write a classical tragedy, and carried out their task with care, planning, and superb craftsmanship! However, people only seem to remake those films that don't need it! You're not really missing anything if you skip this one: I found it very disappointing indeed, and it is only saved from getting a 1-star from me by virtue of the daring and gumption it took to make a film on this sensitive subject.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"* Terrible * * Below Par * * * Not Bad * * * * Good * * * * * Brilliant

WARNING *MINOR SPOILERS*

Homosexuality these day's is hardly the taboo subject it was over forty years ago.However it must be said that perhaps more so in America than say, over here in the U.K. it can still be a touchy subject.Just look at the whole debacle of gay's in the millitary some years ago in the US.It's with 'In and Out' that writer Paul Rudnick taps in to the small town mentality of middle America and the way the press in the US (As well as in the UK) make such a big deal in outing a celebrity.You need only look at when Will Young and Stephen Gately of Boyzone came out of the closet.

The movie centres on Howard Brackett(Kevin Kline), a High school English teacher in his home town.The local people are preparing themselves for Oscar night as one of the nominees Cameron Drake(Matt Dillon) came from their town and was a former pupil of Howards. Cameron, who plays a gay soldier in a vietnam epic wins the award only to out Howard as being gay during his acceptance speech.This could not come at a worse time for Howard who is just day's away from marrying his fiance and fellow school teacher Emily(Joan Cusack).As you would expect the media reaction is cataclysmic and turn's Howards life upside down.Not only does he try to convince his family and friends that he is not gay but evade sleazy news reporter, Peter Malloy(Tom Selleck).

Although this was billed as a screwball comedy it's clear that Rudnick and director Frank Oz are also attempting to be satirical.You only have to look at the early scenes at the Oscars cerimonee and the way the people of Bracketts home town as well as the teaching board of the school react to his outing.

Sadly the film doesn't live up to the promise we see early on in the movie.This is a pretty flat attempt to make social commentary out of a wacky comedy.A good cast is sadly wasted on a script that never really delivers the nessecary amount of laughs and is no where near as insightful as it thinks it.

Kline gives us the same kind of endearing performance that he gave us in his earlier comedy 'Dave', making Howard an instantly likeable character. Cusack too is good value as Howard's weight obsessed fiance while Tom Selleck play's very well against type as a gay news reporter.Bob Newhart is a joy also, as the principal of the high school where Howard works.It's great to see him on the big screen for a change.It's a shame that it had to be this.

The performances as good as they are can do little to rescue the movie from being a rather dull affair.While a couple of scenes do offer some amusement.Namely the inspired scene where Howard attempts to make himself seem more manly by listening to a self help tape.There is little to enjoy, and when things can't seem to get any worse Rudnick resorts to a sickening finale that lurches in to over the top sentiment. I also couldn't help but feel that my intelligence was being insulted.Malloy appears to be too sleazy a character to become the man who put's his ethics before getting a good story while Cammeron finally come to the rescue in the film's climax seems at first to be too self involved a character to care a jot about what happens to his former teacher.After all it's he who caused all the trouble in the first place.

'In and Out' isn't exactly dire.But when you consider the likes of Klines better work like 'A Fish called Wanda' you can't help but feel that here is a great talent being sadly wasted.

Robs Rating:* *","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this film to be extremely homophobic... the main character doesn't know he's gay until he realizes that he likes Barbra Streisand and has a limp wrist!!! I was so offended that after the screening at the Toronto Film Festival, I went up and spoke to the screen writer to complain about this film. This is the sort of film that GLAAD needs to work to have banned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie's basic premise is that everyone in the world can know that a person is gay except for that person. And that a man who likes show tunes, has good taste, and is neat in appearance MUST be a homosexual. Yes, the movie is funny in parts, but the basic premise is to homophobic and insulting that the entire movie crumbles into something that is quite painful to sit through. The performances, particularly Joan Cusak and Kevin Kline are very good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, where to start describing this celluloid debacle? You already know the big fat NADA passing as a plot, so let's jut point out that this is so PC it's offensive. Hard to believe that Frank Oz, the same guy that gave us laugh riots like Little Shop of Horrors and Bowfinger, made this unfunny mess.

So, this guy doesn't know he's gay till this actor points it out. OK, sure. If anyone ever says I'm gay, I'll know the truth, even if I currently like girls more than George Luca$ likes a dollar.

And how to know the true nature of my sexuality? Well, if I like classic litterature, dancing and Barbra Streisand, I'm gay. If I dress like a blind man in a hurry (with half my shirt hanging out), I'm straight. Oh, sure.

And here's the big clich\u00e9 of clich\u00e9s: no matter how you look, there's always a very attractive Hollywood actor who'll adore every bit of grease under your skin, or a top model who'll love your zero IQ, your butt-ugly face and your pointing-out ears. If all those gay common places weren't enough to get me angry, this did. In real world looks matter, folks, and I know for sure.

I see it coming: now you'll say \"Relax! It's a comedy! Don't take it so seriously!\". If being a comedy gives anything \"carte blanche\" to suck out loud, I think the world has a serious problem. Wouldn't be much better (and funnier) to make a movie to denegate those old tiresome clich\u00e9s, instead of magnifying them over and over again?

So, one of the absolutely worst movies I've ever seen. 1 out of 10. If giving this rating has something to do with my sexual tendence, please let me know. I'm interested.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In & Out made me want to vomit. I have never seen such a shameless film! It seriously wanted to say that being gay is something wonderful and joyous, but has no idea how to say it. To me this was not a comedy, unless cruel,sick jokes are something to laugh at when a victim falls for it.

From what I saw, this film had four (4) major flaws starting with (A) Matt Dillion's character as he announces to the world that is former teacher, Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is gay. Never mind how unbelievable it is that Matt Dillion character won an Oscar for what looked like a serious role on the edge of a crack-up. But why would he say such a thing? After all, this was never an issue with Howard's students, his friends, family, nor his finace. Nobody. So why would he say something like it when it wasn't true? More to the point, why doesn't the movie supply us with an answer as to why he said it? The reason is because there is NO answer, and for the convenience of the plot none is provided. The second (B) flaw is with the fact the film seems to have forgotten what homosexuality is--the attraction and sexual relation to members of the same sex. In this movie, being gay is based on liking Barbara Streisand musicals and being passionate about literature. It's all based on stereotypes!

Both of these flaws are met up again at that must-be-seen-to-be-believed graduation ceremony. Matt Dillion finds out about the commotion going on in that small town and the film looks poised to let us know what made him say such a thing. When he arrives to the ceremony, he says nothing, and I wondered why in the world he then came there at all. He didn't solve anything. Then when all of the audience stood to announce they were gay, I was so moved I wanted to throw up! Those folks were standing up in defense of Howard being gay by mocking all of those stereotypes. What the film forgot is that it was using those stereotypes to show why Howard was gay. They filmmakers just shot themselves in the foot! But wait there's more!

During the ceremony,(C) Howard appeared to be on trial to lose is job as a teacher, because people believed that he would influence his students to be gay. What the film was trying to say is that homosexuals NEVER recruit, and that he wouldn't influence his students. But did we not see Tom Selleck's character endlessly pressure Howard over and over again, even to the point of kissing him unexpectedly, to come out of the closet when, in my mind, there was no closet to come out of? From that, the film clearly show that homosexual are capable of recruiting. The film, again, then shoots itself in the foot.

And (D) when Howard came out of the closet, did anyone not notice how the screenplay shut him up for the rest of the film? I counted only three lines he had afterwards: \"Yup!\" to his parents, \"Hi there!\" to a student, and \"Are you ready?\" to Tom Selleck before the last vomitous scene. I might be low by one, but the point is he is not allowed to tell us what made him decide he was gay. I wanted to know what was in his head, because I never for once believed he was gay.

As bonuses, the movie also includes several truly offensive scenes. One in which Howard is asking a priest in confession for advice about what to do for a friend (him), who is engaged and has not yet had sex with his fiance. \"Does that make him gay?\" he asks. The priest responsed \"Oh yes, he's definitely gay\". Uh-huh. Or what about the scene when all the old ladies are gathered around telling Howard's mother that she doesn't need to be sad about her son's deep, dark secret because, well...everyone has them. Then one the ladies confessed that she's never seen \"The Bridges of Madison County\". Funny? No! Becuase the film shows that it is insensitive and has no idea how devestating it can be to family to have one of its members announced that he\/she is gay. I know. I have several friends that are gay, and none of their families took it well at all. That was a poor way to diffuse the whole situation.

The last straw for me was the last scene that gave they appearence that Tom and Kevin were getting married. The camera panned down very slowly to the front of the church when... It wasn't what you thought! I had been thoroughly disgusted by that point, and I never could forgive that sick joke. I have nothing against films about being gay or homosexuality. \"Philadelphia\" and \"Longtime Companion\" were very honest and true in what they had to say. \"In & Out\" is just screaming for political correctness, but has no idea of the corruption at its core. what I gathered from the film is that if you are 99% straight and 1% gay, meaning if you have the slightless doubt, YOU ARE DEFINITELY GAY. It's like gayness is becoming a dominant trait in genetics. In reality if everyone told you over and over that you were worthless and stupid, you would eventually believe it too, wouldn't you? This is what happened to Howard Brackett about being gay. I left the theater sad and angry. Angry the whole weekend, in fact. This was a seriously sick and cruel film, the WORST of 1997.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe I expected too much of this film, but at the very least a comedy should be funny, and this one has very few amusing moments. It manages to be insulting to homosexuals, heterosexuals, women, the obese, and probably several other groups as well. The scene at graduation where _everyone_ claims to be gay is one of the most distasteful I have ever seen.

Tom Selleck and Matt Dillon are ridiculously miscast and Kevin Kline seems bemused most of the time.

Other reviewers compare the film to \"Will and Grace\", but at least \"Will and Grace\" _is_ funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I suppose that in 1997 Hollywood wasn't quite at the point of openly celebrating homosexuality, so one might want to give some credit to those who put this movie together for having shown a little bit of courage. One simply wishes that credit could be given them for having put together a really good movie, and in my opinion \"In & Out\" doesn't qualify on that count. It's the story of Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) - a small town high school English teacher who on the eve of his wedding is outed by a former student who happens to win an Oscar and who then has to go through what can only be described as a period of self-discovery as he comes to terms with being homosexual. To me, that was the first problem with this movie. Howard didn't really have to turn out to be gay. The movie would have been funnier (and perhaps even more thought provoking) had Brackett remained defiantly straight in spite of the stereotypically gay aspects to his life and the town's belief after the Oscar speech that he was gay. (In fact, I thought that identifying him as gay given the presence of those stereotypes might actually have been rather insulting to the gay community, as well as to straight men who like poetry and believe in dressing neatly!)

Kline was decent enough in the role, and largely carried the film. Aside from him, most of the other cast members (although fine actors) were people not really noted for their success on the big screen. Folks like Tom Selleck and Wilford Brimley and Bob Newhart are good actors but not big movie stars. I actually thought that the funniest (if very small) role in the movie was that of the super model Sonya, played by an actress named Shalom Harlow (Speaking of stereotypes, I loved her oh-so stereotypical model line \"I promised to do that photo shoot this afternoon. I have to shower and vomit!\") In the end, what really turned me off about this movie was the ridiculous ending, starting with the graduation ceremony (and, to be honest, even if someone decided that the graduation was really necessary, the movie should have ended there, rather than proceeding on with the totally unnecessary nuptials at the end.)

Basically, I got a few chuckles out of this but nothing more. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i believe that this movie was a terrible waste of my time, and i would know after watching it 5 times in class. this movie does not show what absolutely perfectly happened during these times. no one can truly say that these things happened to the letter. if anything the only good part would be the actors, even tho that they were really really crap.they were reading the script without expression. quite boring. i would rather watch play school. so i would definitely like to never ever see this movie again in my whole life. it is a complete waste of time unless you want your time to be wasted and if you would like to see an unrealistic view of what happened back in 1981.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I generally like Iranian movies, and after having seen \"10\" by Kiarostami the night before, I was expecting a great movie. I was very disappointed. This is by far, the worst Iranian film, and one of the most boring Asian movies I have ever seen. If you have never seen a Kiarostami movie before, watch \"Ten\" instead. If you want some good Iranian movies, you may also try \"Sib\", aka \"The Apple\". This movie is divided in 5 parts, and only the fourth, featuring some funny ducks, is worth watching. If this is the first Iranian movie you see, you probably won't want to see any more. I don't blame you, but you will miss some great movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Coming from Kiarostami, this art-house visual and sound exposition is a surprise. For a director known for his narratives and keen observation of humans, especially children, this excursion into minimalist cinematography begs for questions: Why did he do it? Was it to keep him busy during a vacation at the shore?

\"Five, 5 Long Takes\" consists of, you guessed it, five long takes. They are (the title names are my own and the times approximate):

\"Driftwood and waves\". The camera stands nearly still looking at a small piece of driftwood as it gets moved around by small waves splashing on a beach. Ten minutes.

\"Watching people on the boardwalk\". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon and a boardwalk. People walk across the camera frame, their faces too far and blurry to make them interesting. Eleven minutes.

\"Six dogs at the water's edge\". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon with a sandy stretch of beach nearby. Far away at the water's edge, six dogs not doing much, just relaxing. Sixteen minutes.

\"Ducks in line, gaggle of ducks\". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon near the water's edge. Dozen and dozen of ducks stream in single file from left to right. I assume that Kiarostami released them gradually. The last two ducks stop dead on their track and suddenly a gaggle of ducks rolls quietly from right to left. I assume Kiarostami collected the ducks and re-released all at the same time. It is not the first time that he deals with the contrast between organized and disorganized behavior. Eight minutes.

\"Frog symphony, oops, I mean cacophony, for a stormy night\". The camera stands over a pond at night. It's pitch black except for what appears to be the reflection of the moon on the undulating water. It is a stormy night and clouds race to cover the moon. The screen goes dark. What remains for us is the cacophony of frogs, howling dogs and, eventually, morning roosters. Hit me on the head if this was done in a single take. I saw this segment as a sound composition put together in the editing room and accompanied by a simple visualization. Twenty seven minutes!

Except for the mildly amusing ducks, this exercise in minimalism left me cold. A nonessential film for Kiarostami admirers.

I thought I would rate \"Five\" a five, but four is what it deserves.

The film is dedicated to Yasujiru Ozu.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Can this \"film\" be considered as a film? Imagine the situation: somebody puts a handy cam over a tripod and in front of a sea promenade and film people walking or jogging along it. Then, he places the camera in a beach, buys some ducks in a pet shop, open their cages and let them run in front of the camera. Later, he just films the water surface and the sound of birds and insects in an absolute darkness. Is it an experiment or just an insult to the audience intelligence? What would it happen if any unknown director did a film like that? Would we mark his job with 10? I always disappoint directors who believe that can do everything they want once they became famous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Billed as a romantic comedy set against the early years of WWII it fails to deliver. The problem is that while beautifully photographed it has no consistent story line or narrative. Starting as a murder mystery it offers no hope to its actors as it meanders through recent history. Depardieu is wasted in a trivial role he obviously is not comfortable with playing. Adjani cannot carry the picture. The hero is not; obviously an imitation of a Hitchcock \"wrongly accused\" role it lacks balance. Neither heroic, comic nor suspenseful.

This could have been a good film. I am reminded of \"The Lady Vanishes\" which did combine suspense, romance and comedy in a serious film dealing with fascism.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've just been at the cinema in down town Prague watching this film.

Not due to the poster I found very Holywood old-fashioned heroic

style. Not due to the high level starring which remind me that most

of those high starring French films are usually pathetic. But just

because there are not so many films in my French mother tongue in a

city like Prague. And because I love Adjani, Depardieu and Rappenau's

Cyrano. Then I decided to write up this small comment because I think

I really don't agree with the comment main stream on this film on imdb.

I was not disappointed. The film just look like the poster. The

characters are just as stupid as they look like. For a while I

thought Adjani would be like a caricature -- just a funny character

you can laugh at. No she is not! For example when she decides to tell

Depardieu she is the one who murdered the fat one she killed at the

beginning of the film then come the violins in a big fat pathetic

music which should make you cry and realize Adajani's character is a

deeper person as she looks like. Maybe this was humor at the 10th

level but I am sorry my sense of humor is not that high! If I want to

see some funny French film on the WWII I watch once again La Grande

Vadrouille! It is definitively more fun! I have also read on imdb

that Lemoine is making a great performance in this film. I have to

say I have never seen a so bad acting! (Well I have never seen any Ed

Wood's film). Nevertheless the film is good filmed with a lot of good

(very costly) scenes like the one with the Pantheon in the morning

when the German army arrives at Paris or when the refugees settle down

on a bridge in Bordeaux. I think Rappeneau is a good filmmaker but

that he does better with a good script. It was easy with Cyrano. He

had not to write the dialogs!

I give 1\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The 33 percent of the nations nitwits that still support W. Bush would do well to see this movie, which shows the aftermath of the French revolution and the terror of 1794 as strikingly similar to the post 9\/11 socio-political landscape. Maybe then they could stop worrying about saving face and take the a**-whupping they deserve. It's really a shame that when a politician ruins the country, those who voted for him can't be denied the right to ever vote again. They've clearly shown they have no sense of character.

What really stands out in this movie is the ambiguity of a character as hopelessly doctrinaire as Robespierre; a haunted empty man who simplistic reductive ideology can't help him elucidate the boundaries between safety and totalitarianism. Execution and murder. Self-defense and patriotism. His legalistic litmus tests aggravate the hopeless situation he's helped create. Sound like any belligerent, overprivileged, retarded Yale cheerleaders you know of?

Wojciech Pszoniak blows the slovenly Deparidieu off the screen. As sympathetic as Robespierres plight is, it's comforting to know that shortly after the film ends he'll have his jaw shot off and be sent to the guillotine.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most remarkable thing about \"Talk Radio\" is how bad it is. The callers' voices all have a phony, reading-from-a-script ring to them. An evening with an annoying loudmouth at a Dallas radio station is told with the portentousness of a Sartrean glimpse into Hell. Stone tries for an existential revelation and gets unintended comedy instead. Whenever a caller makes a \"profound\" (empty) point about something, Stone shoves the camera at one of his character's face as they are stricken with some traumatic realization that is never revealed to the audience. Bogosian overacts throughout in one of the most irritating performances ever smeared onto celluloid. Underrated classic? Give me a break.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A very disappointing film from Oliver Stone which, unlike his recent epic \"J.F.K.\", fails to stimulate any sort of real emotion. \"Talk Radio\" is about talk-back host 'Barry Champlain', a very loud, opinionated man who manages to upset a lot of people and yet still draw an audience, most of whom mind you just want to ring up and abuse him. His boss in the movie (Alec Baldwin) sums up his character very well by saying he's just a shoe salesman with a big mouth. And as Barry (Eric Bogosian) gets death threat upon death threat, the final outcome is almost inevitable.

This is the sort of movie that usually has something very powerful to say. However, \"Talk Radio\" fails to make a serious comment and remains a frustrating, pointless film.

Thursday, September 17, 1992 - Video","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie would receive a much higher vote from me in general and I will talk about why, but first and foremost it receives four stars and should stay at four stars because of the directors ridiculously tasteless portrayal of rape and sexual assault. Not far into the movie Oyama sexually assaults a woman he rescued earlier, and while she briefly becomes somewhat miffed by his actions this attitude only lasts about five minutes before loving adoration sets in and carries her character through the rest of the film. I know many will argue that it's not that important in a kung fu beat-em-up, and as a fan of the genera I can't say that it's all that unusual, but that doesn't stop it from being completely tasteless every time I see it.

What I will say in this movie's defence however is that it's somewhat refreshing to see a martial arts, or even action movie of any sort, that offers no actual hero for the viewer to get behind. Oyama is portrayed as a rapist and murderer; a societal outcast whose only student becomes completely mentally unbalanced before being gunned down by the police. The final shots of the movie leave one with the feeling that Oyama himself is poised for a major breakdown and no longer seems to care for the woman he earlier assaulted into loving him and has since followed him with puppy-dog like devotion.

Whether this was truly the intended message of the movie or not, one can't help but feel a little hopeful that Oyama might be on the brink of suicide by the time the movie is over. This is a rare emotional treatment from the martial arts genre and its interesting to see a film that leaves you with a sense that its violence is not to be celebrated. If only Karate Bullfighter had treated the subject of sexual violence better, either by creating more emotional depth and recognition between the two characters involved, or by leaving it out all together, this would have been a much more interesting film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm thinking of some things for this movie: First, really is a very bad movie. This is really \"Superbad\". The film looked very promising in the trailers but fell flat... Maybe the original idea was good, but between a bad script and bad acting the movie became boring and empty. My advise is don't waste 2 hours of your precious time. You have been warned. This is the first movie I rated 1 star at IMDb.com... Second, none of the characters are likable. You really don't care what happened to them... Third, the villain is very easy to identify. The grandson kills his father, sodomizes the friend's son, get the maid pregnant, smothers his grandfather... Like JT says, \"If you like evil with no retribution, this is your movie\". Nothing more to say...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Me and my friend read the summery and watched the trailer and were very interested and excited to go rent this movie. BAD IDEA. We thought a movie with actors that influential would have been a sure hit, but our expectations fell extremely short. First of all, the trailer and summery are misleading to the point of lies. The movie started out slow for the first 1 1\/2 hours(reminder, its about two hours long) and when it finally started to gain momentum, It sucked. Plus, the plots were very hard to follow. It confused us because it kept skipping from one story to another in random order. The characters where not very realistic when it came to reality. Sure the mum and son could be actual people in reality, but everyone else seemed to be one extreme or the other. If your a person who likes sick, twisted, unusual movies, then go for it. But we advise not wasting two hours of you life you cant get back. Unfortunitly, no one told us that...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While this isn't an all time classic comedy it is a pretty good little movie to watch if you catch it on a rainy Saturday morning with not a lot else going on right then.

Harold Lloyd plays Ezekiel Cobb, an American coming home after growing up in China where his dad was a missionary.He has come home from China to find an American wife and plans to return to China to continue his father's work.Cobb unwittingly is recruited to run for mayor of his corrupt home town when the existing political machine that controls the town realizes that he would make a perfect patsy to run against the current mayor who also is the head of the town's underworld.They figure the bumbling ,stumbling Cobb has no chance to win and therefore the current mayor continues to run the town and run his schemes which makes them all rich.

Lloyd isn't doing the physical comedy here like he did in his silent films.He does a convincing portrayal of Cobb with a reserved understated dignity.The acting was good from all involved and the story and script were also quite good.

Being made in 1934 the film does have some rather racist language when talking about the Chinese and it also has a typical black character from that era but these stereotypes aren't nearly as mean as I've seen from other films from that time.

Although not close to being Lloyd's best film ,this movie does entertain and Lloyd is very good as Cobb.You won't be blown away by this film but it may be enough to peak your interest in Lloyd and make you want to see more of his work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If one were to return to the dawn of the talking picture, one would prophesy a bright future for Harold Lloyd. Unlike his competitors, he was comedic actor trained on the legitimate stage not a performed raised in the purgatory of the music hall or vaudeville circuit. He had a good voice which matched his image. Moreover, from 1924 on, his \"silent\" films had incorporated sequences based on sound gags lost on the audience (e.g., the bell sequence at the Fall Frolic from THE FRESHMAN and the monkey sequence in THE KID BROTHER). Yet Lloyd's sound features consistently failed at the box office once the novelty of WELCOME DANGER had ebbed. Lloyd blamed his fall on many external sources, but never realized that the Glass character's enemy was not sound but the Great Depression. Pre-Depression audiences, giddy with optimism, may have rooted for this ambitious go-getter in whom they saw their surrogate; Depression audiences despised him as the person likely to foreclose on their mortgage and throw them in the gutter. Compounding this problem of character choice is Lloyd's perception as an insincere glad hander. Sincerity, of course, is a subjective appraisal, but it is undeniable that Lloyd, despite his own tragic upbringing, could never play a convincing down-and-outer. Perhaps this is because he feared returning to that state permanently. THE CAT'S-PAW fails for these reasons, but it alone suffers from the revelation of Lloyd's pro-fascist agenda. Many film scholars believe that Lloyd was prompted to make this film because he saw the presidency of FDR as a dictatorship bent on soaking the rich and soft on crime. We should remember that he was not alone in this feeling. DeMille had directed THIS DAY AND AGE, a pro-police state drama, the previous year. We should also remember that America was founded by hotheaded tax protesters and continues to be motivated by those who want something without paying for it. TCP suffered because it treated fascism lightly in a \"comedy\" and because its release was particularly ill-timed given the events in Germany in that year. The Production Code of 1934 would ultimately curtail the glorification of vigilante justice and reaffirm the rule of constitutional law, cumbersome as it might be. The ideal of the benevolent despot, the good-intentioned all-powerful leader who brings about a utopia once freed of the checks and balances on this omnipotence, dates to classical antiquity. For this reason, totalitarian regimes fear laughter even though it acts as a safety valve. Ironically, the mere existence of TCP, a film which demonizes the democratic experience of the country of its origin, shows that FDR's America was secure enough to accept criticism. One sees no parallel criticism in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, or Mussolini's Italy. But can one laugh at the gallows humor of pending fascism? Lloyd's unnuanced film is skewed to the right and might have been written by Dr Goebbels himself if he'd had a sense of humor, of course. It posits an alternative history in which a chosen one restores order and lost honor BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, and does so with good nature and fun. Impending fascism approached by the left is, of course, Chaplin's THE GREAT DICTATOR. This latter film has the benefit of being set in another country and based on a thinly veiled actual persona and events. THE GREAT DICTATOR produces few laughs today because it under-estimated the extent of human evil, but it succeeds despite its artless and inappropriate speechifying, because it has the distinct advantage of being vindicated by history. Lloyd, however, should be credited for two things: first, he neither made any further pro-fascist films nor produced any subsequently hypocritically pro-allied films during the War: second, he never sold TCP to television. The post-1945 world had seen the face of fascism and it wasn't amusing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This lame Harold Lloyd sound film has nary a laugh in it, and makes one wonder if this Lloyd is even the same one that made all of those delightful and hilarious silents.

Lloyd's boyish likability becomes fey and limp when we can hear him talk, and a sluggish, restrained pace replaces the zany antics of his silents. Lloyd plays a young son of a missionary who grows up in China and then finds himself transplanted to contemporary New York City without a clue as to how life outside his Chinese village works. He finds himself an unlikely victor in a mayoral election and quickly draws the ire of all the government organizations because he refuses to look the other way in the face of rampant corruption. When he's framed in an attempt to bring him down, he decides to play just as dirty as everyone else, and stages a fake execution of every crook in NYC as a scare tactic. This darkly satiric ending feels out of place next to everything else in the movie, but it's the only part of the film that comes remotely to life. Everything else is a dull bore.

I don't like having to admit that a Harold Lloyd movie fails, because I like him so much, but I don't have a choice with this one.

Grade: D","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Possible Spoiler alert, though there's not much to spoil about this film. I saw Project A part II not having seen the first movie. I don't think I missed much. Project A Part Two is not only the worst Jackie Chan film I've seen to date (yes worse than `Fantasy Mission Force'), this film is one of the most unwatchable films the world has ever seen. It's right up there with `Plan 9 From Outer Space' on the sleep inducing scale. The plot is twisted up and knotted like a 50 foot ball of yarn the cat's been playing with and finally left for dead. The `humor' if you could call it that, seems to have been written by an annoying High School freshman, who despite how many people tell him he's not funny, is determined to get his lame humor out no matter how painful a movie is made. And this movie is painfully bad. The plot involves Jackie Chan as a Navy officer recruited by the police force to round up `all known criminals'. He rounds them up in the first half hour of the movie, and I prayed for a quick ending which I didn't get. Why the movie bothers to progress from this point I haven't a clue. The movie drags on and on and on with no purpose, no plot, and attempts at humor that fail so miserably, they make Carrot Top look like a comedic genius. The Kung Fu in this movie is lame, and forgettable. There's better Kung Fu in that movie about the 3 Ninja kids. Project A part II is neither an action movie nor a kung fu movie, it is however a complete waste of the talents of Jackie Chan and Maggie Cheung who have made films worlds superior to this. As Jackie Chan repeatedly escapes certain death, I enter `Blair Witch' mode asking (and wishing) `Is he going to die NOW, so the movie can end? `. An Example of how ludicrous this movie is: Jackie Chan is handcuffed to another man. A gang of pirates (that look nothing like pirates) throw axes at Jackie. Does Jackie grab one of the wayward axes and break the chain on the handcuffs? No! You see that would spoil the `hilarious' gag of him being handcuffed to another person. If you have a friend who laughs at everything, I encourage you to watch this movie with him or her, and watch as even they won't get a chuckle out of this film. If you're an insomniac this movie is sure to put you to sleep. Do not operate heavy machinery while watching Plan A part II. Possible side effects include headache, retinal strain, and death by boredom. 0\/9 Stars","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Remember those old kung fu movies we used to watch on Friday and Saturday late nights when our babysitters THOUGHT we were in charge? Well, this movie plays exactly like one of those movies. Patsy Kensit's biggest claim to fame was the love interest to Mel Gibson's character in \"Lethal Weapon 2,\" and this performance was one of the reasons why she's never made it big: she's a terrible actress.

In \"Lethal Weapon 2,\" I thought she was cute. Cute enough to check out some of the other movies she'd been in, including \"Loves Music, Loves to Dance\" another big let down, which I, obviously, was not impressed with, either. But, as attractive as she is to my eyes, my soul screamed at me to turn it off because she played another cheap, predictable role, and done it very badly.

In this movie, Kensit stars as a comedienne (and not a good one, either) who's working the clubs of France (couldn't cut it in her own homeland, so she's making THEIR ears bleed), who's down on her luck, but, even worse, the French government wants to throw her out because of an expired visa (or maybe they just caught her act). But she gets married to this Casanova (Freiss), who is just as down on his luck, and the predictability begins...terribly! Is there any way to give this movie a NEGATIVE rating? 1 out of 10 stars is over rating it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd have little to add to bowlofsoul23's bull's-eye comment here. But as the first Brazilian (born, raised and living in Rio de Janeiro, in a neighborhood just a few miles away from the favela of Vig\u00e1rio Geral, depicted in the film) to comment on U.S.-financed \"Favela Rising\" here on IMDb, I get mixed feelings: on the one hand, it's good that the dire situation of Brazilian favelas are getting more attention from filmmakers and the media, both from Brazil and abroad, since local governments seem to have given up a long time ago. One the other hand, it's incredibly frustrating that \"Favela Rising\" turns out to be such a missed opportunity for enlightening Non-Brazilian audiences on the issue, because first-time directors Jeff Zimbalist and Matt Mochary (who are from the U.S. and, understandably, neophytes on the matter) turn the biography of AfroReggae group leader Anderson S\u00e1 into a glamorous canonization in this superficial, one-sided, under-researched and misleading documentary. Good intentions, muddled results. \"Favela Rising\" looks like a TV-ad, is shallow as a prime-time TV interview, and biased as a promotional video.

\"Favela Rising\" feels uncomfortably phony for a Brazilian viewer, and not only because of its hype visual treatment of a bleak reality, and its misplaced feel-good happy- ending. \"City of God\" is an obvious reference here, with COG actors Leandro Firmino and Jonathan Haagensen cameoing for no apparent reason other than \"hype\". \"Favela Rising\" is, allegedly, a documentary about the AfroReggae group and its leader Anderson S\u00e1, but beware: when you see the scenes shot in favelas overlooking the beautiful Rio shore line, you might as well be warned that Vig\u00e1rio Geral (the home of AfroReggae and Anderson) is located in an area of Rio far away from ANY beach. Strange choice of location, to say the least.

\"Favela Rising\" is probably confusing for non-Brazilians, who won't know many of the interviewees (and the film won't tell them either) and will have to wait for the closing credits to find out that many of the songs on the soundtrack are NOT by the AfroReggae Band (though you'll get suspicious when you start to hear Pink Martini, of all people!). They won't know either that important issues were simply left unmentioned: why does the film push the notion that AfroReggae is a one-man project? Why not acknowledge the many partners who supply it with substantial financial and logistic support, like Rio's City Council, private Brazilian corporations, multinational recording companies and international NGOs, without which AfroReggae might not even subsist? Why not state clearly that Vig\u00e1rio Geral is still plagued by violent drug wars, and that its dwellers still live in constant fear of attacks by traffickers and cops? Why not state clearly that many of the archive footage clips showing police violence and corruption did NOT take place in Vig\u00e1rio Geral? HOW and WHY did the kid Richard Murilo finally join AfroReggae? WHY on freaking earth wasn't he interviewed once again at the end of the film?

As for Anderson himself, the film leaves a lot of loose ends for the viewer: what's the story about Anderson having \"two\" mothers? Is the baby he holds in his arms his son? Why is he inspired by Shiva? Is he a Buddhist? Why does a Candombl\u00e9 woman appear on the beach when the films mentions Anderson's \"miraculous\" recovery from the accident? Is he a Candombl\u00e9 follower? Why not let him explain the contradiction of starting a group that fights drugs and simultaneously praises Bob Marley? If AfroReggae is also a pride-building movement for black people from favelas, why are the girls in the AfroReggae band limited to booty-bouncing routines? No, you won't get any answers to these questions either.

Instead, the filmmakers are interested in turning Anderson S\u00e1 into a composite mix of pop-star, Malcolm X, Gandhi and Christ (check out that last image of the statue of Christ the Redeemer atop Corcovado hill, immediately after showing Anderson \"miraculously\" walking after his surgery). And that's the WORST thing the filmmakers could do to Anderson and his cause: turn him into a special CHOSEN one (by the time they show his surgery scar, you're ready to believe it's a mark from God).

Because what's remarkable about Anderson -- who's the most ordinary guy you could ever meet -- is that he helped change his environment NOT by being \"special\" but by copying and adapting winning projects (like the Olodum movement in Bahia, among others) to his own community, with strong support by friends, artists, intellectuals, politicians, businessmen and the media. If you're not fluent in Portuguese you probably won't notice that Anderson isn't particularly bright or articulate (unlike his sharply witty partner Jos\u00e9 Junior), as much as he isn't particularly talented as a singer, lyricist or musician. Yet his \"ordinariness\" might have been the film's true \"inspirational\" core: to show that ANYONE with idealism, perseverance and steady support can in fact contribute significantly to his or her community, no need to be Jesus incarnate. Because what really matters is the movement -- AfroReggae -- not the guy, see? Haven't we had enough of personality cult?

By the end of \"Favela Rising\", you probably won't know much more about Rio's favelas than you did when you walked in -- you'll just have SEEN what some of them look like.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Documentary content: Amazing man, amazing movement he started, amazing stories- most of them yet to be really told.

Celluloid treatment: Nike Ad. Sorry, ain't got nothing else to say about this but that you can say all you want about the dire circumstances in the favelas, but... if you attempt to support that claim with flashy and romanticized images and camera-work of that life, the humbleness necessary to show this life as an outsider filmmaker goes out the window. And with that goes the legitimacy of the narrative. Besides that, the time-space continuum in the film is all off, and I'm not necessarily against that in films as a tool, but here it serves only to confuse the viewer into wondering what was said when; thus leading me to the question: is this a documentary or a docudrama?

cococravescinema.blogspot.com","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's Get Tough is one of those movies that people probably regret years later that they made. Full of awful racist Jap talk and jokes, this East End Kids story details how the kids want to join the military to defeat the Japs. Since they're too young, they decide to clean the town out of those dastardly Japs. They find one, throw fruit at it (without anyone doing anything to stop them) and he pulls a short sword out to menace them! The cops say to stop annoying him! He's only Chinese! He's on our side! When the kids go back to apologize, the Chinese man's dead! It's all part of this huge Jap and German Spy ring! The kids see to it that this is stopped At All Costs! I'm sure all of this was fine when it was made (1942) but viewed now, you realize of course, that this is clearly a product of it's time. Full of stereotypes, German and Japanese. Funny how the East End Kids have a black kid in the group, and he's not spared either. Gee whiz.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Propaganda pro-American war effort film that came out in 1942 has the East Side Kids getting tough against any Japanese they spot in their own neighborhood when they learn they're too young to enlist. Ultimately they learn they were mistaken in their mistrust of some individuals but also happen to stumble across a spy ring they then set out to bust. The film is harmless enough in its fashion although some may well take offense given how innocent Asians really did get singled out during the Second World War. Overall though, it's a pretty generic effort and both Leo Gorcey and Huntz Hall would have better moments, the best of which tend to come here when they ad-lib.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Following the World War II Japanese attack on U.S. forces at Pearl Harbor, \"The Eastside Kids\": Leo Gorcey (as Muggs), Bobby Jordan (as Danny Connors), Huntz Hall (as Glimpy), David Gorcey (as Peewee), Ernest Morrison (as Scruno), and Bobby Stone (as Skinny) want to serve their country. But, both the U.S. Army and Navy reject them as too young. Still wanting to \"knock off about a million Japs\", the \"boys\" attack an Asian clerk, who turns out to be Chinese. The unfortunate incident does, however, lead the gang to help uncover some really nasty Japanese and German people.

If \"too young\" is defined as \"under twenty-one\", only Mr. Jordan and Mr. Stone would be rejected for military service. But, it's possible recruiters were turned off by the office manners displayed by Mr. Gorcey and Mr. Hall. \"Let's Get Tough!\" was made during what the script accurately describes as \"open season on Japs\" - for this and other reasons, it hasn't aged well. It's a wasted effort, but the regulars performs ably, with Tom Brown moving the storyline along, as Jordan's spy brother.

*** Let's Get Tough! (5\/29\/42) Wallace Fox ~ Leo Gorcey, Bobby Jordan, Tom Brown","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And I may be being generous. The overwhelming majority of the movie consists of looped footage...the shambling monster, two women exercising, the shambling monster again, a bunch of people in the pool, the shambling monster again, none the worse for wear despite having been injured...you get the picture. I restrained myself from yelling \"GET ON WITH IT ALREADY\" on several occasions.

And it doesn't help that the footage they used was poorly produced. The sound is disconcertingly out of sync with the image. And in the one scene where they tried to get \"artistic\" with the lighting and camera techniques, the lighting guy, holding the flashlight that provides the scene's only illumination, is clearly visible in the shot.

My hope is that the production was the victim of some horrible disaster in which the original audio track and most of the footage was destroyed, but they decided to release it anyways, cobbled together from the editing room floor, in memory of the heroic crew members who gave their lives trying to save the *real* film - the one with the plot and the interesting dialog. Sadly, there's no evidence of this, and I'm forced to conclude that, in the immortal words of Joel and the Bots, they just didn't care.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is horrific. No really, this is ,bar none, the absolute worst...worst...I hesitate to even call it a @&$%in' _movie_. It is a ninety minute visual root canal. The plot is practically non-existent: a mad scientist who looks like the frontman from 'The Cars' impregnates a woman in his secret lab, a lawn chair in what I think may be a garage, via an injection of Palmolive. Within hours she births a full grown monster who then goes on a rampage. Thats the whole movie. The death scenes: these are poorly set up, take _forever_, and the acting...how can you mess up _screaming_?? The victims stand there while the growling, wheezing, congested freak advances on them and proceeds to limply strangle them for about three days. The sets are cheesy, the lighting for most of the movie consists of a single maglite (yes, a big honkin' flashlight), the sound quality is poor, theres only about 40 words of dialogue for the entire movie and the acting is generously described as wooden. Footage is shamelessly recycled to pad out the movie. And the special effects would make any BBC sci-fi production shake their head and proclaim \"They didn't even try\". The 'monster' is some nameless in a $3 halloween rubber mask with a few bandages slapped on. In its encounter with the lone cop of the movie the cop fires flashless, smokeless, invisible bullets that apparently travel so slow the monster can dodge them at five paces. Don't see this movie. No really, thats not a dare. Don't see this movie. The director should be shot. The writer should be chained to a giant rock where his liver will be devoured every morning by Ed Wood. Enough rentals and there could be a sequel, don't let it happen!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A montage prologue, quite obviously manufactured by the blessed maniacs who actually chose to distribute this thing, tries to convince us that the comic impact of this staggeringly incompetent bit of nothing is entirely deliberate. Don't you believe it: this is to Lloyd Kaufman as Andy Warhol is to Herschel Gordon Lewis. It is so thoroughgoing in its project of torturing its hypothetical audience that it seems like some kind of misanthropic negationist art installation, only it can't be because it is so completely bereft of self-consciousness. As obnoxious and ugly as \"Things\" or \"Frozen Scream\", this manages to up the ante by recycling itself with a maddeningly bald insistence that has to be seen to be believed. A Hitchcock-style shot-by-shot analysis of, say, the attack on the cardio girls might yield twenty edits and perhaps three minutes of footage - only the sequence is ten minutes long! You WANT to believe that this started life as a slightly more bearable short subject, except if you took away the repetition what's left would be far less fascinating: eg. when the 'fiend' does enter the room, he only inspires extended, highly apathetic, utterly blank stares from his imminent (offscreen) victims. Repeat this scenario about four times, in marginally varied settings; bridge these with perhaps thirty lines of dialogue total; offer up actors even more hateful and lethargic than those in the above mentioned classics; and grace us with a monster comprising gauze, ketchup and one yellow Spock ear, and you've got a movie too mind-boggling to refuse, a working definition of bad. I'm proud to own it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the worst movie ever made. I have no doubt. I have seen such crap as Manos, Space Mutiny, and whatnot, and I can honestly tell you that they do not hold a candle to Science Crazed.

Science Crazed has no discirnable plot. Something about a guy making a woman pregnant via turkey baster, and the child born *hours* later is fully grown, and ready to kill. Of course, being a newborn, it takes him about an hour to kill people. The director loops footage constantly, and takes about fifteen minutes to set up an awkward death. There is about a page of dialogue for the whole movie, however the dialogue arrives about a minute after it is spoken.

Sample Scene: The monster is walking down a hall. We know this because there is about ten minutes of looped footage of his feet. In between loops, we are treated to two women working out. Repeat ad nauseum for about 20 minutes. When the monster does show up, no one moves, and everyone looks like deer in headlights as the monster takes another 10 minutes to get to them to kill them. By the level of the acting, you would guess that the people are already dead.

I know my description doesn't seem too bad, but trust me, I can not fully describe the pain that is Science Crazed.

Stay away, and boycott all video stores that carry it. :)

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know, after the first few Chuck Norris movies, I got so I could tell that a movie was produced by Golan-Globus even if I tuned in in the middle, without ever looking at the credits or the title. What's more I could tell it was Golan-Globus within a minute of screen time. Something about the story structure, the goofy relationships between the characters, the mannered dialog, the wooden acting (spiked with the occasional outright terrible performance), the scene tempos and rhythms that made Albert Pyun look like John McTiernan, the paper-thin plots and not-ready-for-prime-time fight choreography...Golan-Globus has been incredibly consistent over the years in style, subject matter and point-of-view.

What can you say, it must work for them, since they've produced literally dozens of movies. You go to one of their productions, and you know exactly what you're getting. And it ain't brain food, folks.

\"Ninja 3\" is another piece of hackwork in a long line of products from the G-G sausage factory, and offers the typical limited pleasures to the movie-goers' palate. You've got a Bad Ninja, slicing up cops and criminals and anyone else who gets in their way. You've got a Good Ninja, pledged to stop him. You've got a Westerner thrown into the mix so we Americans can identify with him (or her in this case) and be reassured that \"We can still beat those pesky Orientals at their own game.\" You've got a Love Interest (who is usually also the worst actor\/ress in the film) fencing with the Hero. You've got your endless string of assaults, assassinations and lingering shots of men gurgling in agony while an arrow or throwing star sticks unconvincingly out of their eye, neck, or chest. You've got your Beefy White Guy\/Bodyguards in Suits calling a Ninja a 'Son of A B*tch' and throwing a roundhouse punch, only to get his *ss handed to him. You've got a Final Confrontation between the Good Guy and The Bad Guy which goes on for 20 minutes and just sort of stops like a RoadRunner cartoon instead of reaching a climax or a resolution.

Ninja 3 is a little different, in that the plot revolves around a scrappy female athletic type getting possessed by the Bad Ninja, so she ends up killing a lot of the cops and criminals and Beefy White Bodyguards in Suits while under his spell. But all the other elements are there, as formal in their way as a Kabuki play or a Noh drama.

I actually thought Lucinda Dickey was pretty likable in this film. She's nicely muscled and curvy, has great cheekbones and some athletic 'ooomph' to her movements, and you can actually suspend belief enough to accept that her character could do some of the feats she pulls off in the movie. She can almost, but not quite, carry this thing. One extra start for her participation and good energy.

Naturally, Sho Kusugi is in here, and he pretty much dominates the last 10-15 minutes of the movie. And just to show you how 3rd-rate and uninspired G-G movies are, the director and editor inter-cut the last climactic fight between Kosugi and the Bad Ninja scene with numerous reaction shots of Dickey and her boyfriend watching the life and death battle with an expression of mild bemusement. I'm serious...for all the emotion and reaction they show to the proceedings, they could be looking at a sea turtle in an aquarium at Marineland. I can only imagine how Dickey must have felt when she saw the finished product - she probably wanted to run the editor through with a katana for real because those reaction shots make her look like a complete idiot.

An enjoyable waste of time...but it definitely IS a waste of time. Maybe if you are a Sho Kusugi fan, or even a Linda Dickey fan you'd find it worth your while.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember catching this movie on one of the Showtime channels. What stood out for me is that this movie takes place entirely in Phoenix, Arizona. I'm from there so I spot the locales easily.

Regardless, a ninja kills a scientist, because they wear yellow sweaters and golf, who is pursued by the police. It takes about half the police force to take him down and when they do eventually kill him, there are no discernible bullet wounds. His spirit lives on however when a woman finds her and touches his katana.

From then on, she periodically gets possessed and kills the police officers who killed the original ninja. Then another ninja from Japan comes to kill the evil ninja. This might be a plot device from the previous two films, or perhaps a plot hole. All I know is that this movie is very campy, bad and entertaining. This is something to watch with a tub of popcorn, and several friends and give it the MST3K treatment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You can only describe this with one word and that would be WOW!!! Wow, I really did not think piece of crap like this could ever be released. If you watch a movie titled ninja then you expect to see at least some cool martial artists, right? However, none of these guys know any martial arts whatsoever and it seems like they went to china and picked the first people they saw on the street and trained them for a day in martial arts, that's the level of their martial arts skills! The actors are way overacting, the special effects are ridiculous and there is not any plot that makes any sense. This is the worst martial arts movie I've ever seen and I have seen plenty!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...and boy is the collision deafening. A female telephone lineman is taken over by the spirit of a recently-deceased ninja, strips down to her undies, pours tomato juice on her body so her boyfriend can lick it off, performs a seductive dance, then goes off to kill the policemen who killed the ninja she's possessed by. Only to be hunted down by a one-eyed ninja master. Just like in real life, eh? Enlivened only by Sho Kosugi's martial arts choreography (and his declining to put his obnoxious kids in this one), you really have to see this to believe it. It's the ultimate mix of totally at-odds genres.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Following the movie that represents the pinnacle of the 1980's Ninja genre namely, 'The Revenge Of The Ninja' salivating fans were 'treated' to this bizarre offering that mixes Ninja shenanigans with spiritual possession....the end result being not dissimilar in nature to that somewhat horrifying experience when one spies a nugget of human poop floating menacingly towards oneself in a public swimming pool.

Take for instance the supposed 'action packed' introduction which is set of all places on a golf course(!) Here we witness an evil green clad ninja slaying a group of golfers for apparently no discernible reason whatsoever (although I must admit that the shallow elitist attitude adopted by many participants of this particular sport does irk me somewhat though...hmmmm perhaps THAT'S why he murdered them?.....yep I can relate to that after all). Actually later in the movie we are told that one of the golfers was a top scientist but this story line is never elaborated upon nor alluded to ever again!!!

Anyway back to the intro, the police proceed to surround the golf course and basically shoot the absolute hell out of the assassin....and they have to keep on shooting him because he just won't stay down!!! Yes literally hundreds of rounds are pumped into him and STILL he gets up to slay evermore of the law enforcement numbers.

Finally (after what seems like an eternity) our miscreant detonates a smoke bomb and disappears.....or so it seems, for in actual fact he is merely hiding beneath the soil and upon our decidedly gormless officers leaving the scene to search for his body, he crawls out from hiding and staggers away.

We next see the lovely Lucinda Dickey, a truly beautiful actress and in superbly fit physical condition, here playing a telephone repair worker. From her high vantage point she happens to spot the dying (AT LAST!!!!!) ninja. However, upon closer investigation the man, supposedly on his last legs suddenly leaps upon her and grapples her to the ground. After a bit of a struggle our feisty heroine manages to break free luckily but doesn't count on the ninja possessing hypnotic powers and she inevitably succumbs to them. It is at this point that the dying ninja actually projects his soul into our heroine! His intention is to use her corporeal form to slay those officers who killed him (the few he didn't actually manage to wipe out initially!)

From this point on, throughout the film, whenever our heroine spots one of the aforementioned officers she is subjected to some overwhelmingly awful cinematic scenes of flashing lights, smoke effects and the sword that the ninja bequeathed unto her levitating towards her in a most wobbly manner!

To make matters more complex, a particularly irritating police officer (who sports enough back and shoulder hair to put an average yak to shame!) persists in trying to win her affections (in a most bloody annoying manner!!!)......well of course it doesn't take the gift of preconception to work out that in a rather feeble 'shock' (less) twist towards the end of the film, HE is revealed to be one of the officers she must slay!

But wait there's some hope yet!

Step forward the one and only Sho Kosugi!

Yes, THE ninja himself and looking here as cool as ever! Golf club news obviously travels fast and upon learning of the said events that transpired there, he flies all the way from Japan to sort the situation out (suspecting the worst!) In a brief sub story (that amounts to all of a few seconds!) Sho's interest in this particular ninja is demonstrated to be personal after the said villain is shown to have murdered Sho's father\/teacher(?) and blinded one of Sho's eyes (thus necessitating Sho to wear a really decorative looking sword guard eye patch!)

After stealing his dead nemesis's body from the morgue and then tracking down our heroine who provides an unwitting abode for the evil soul, matters climax at an oriental temple (seemingly in the middle of nowhere) where our man Sho manages to reunite the two disjointed aspects.

Now reanimated from the dead, the evil ninja and Sho battle it out in traditional ninja style with swords with the winner being........well yes you can probably guess.

Really this movie has only two things going for it, namely the always excellent Kosugi (who looks absolutely fantastic in the role as always) and the lovely Miss Dickey. What a shame that the material they found themselves in here is such a rancid pile of ordure.

Oh well, to be fair, I've seen a lot worse than this in my time although I certainly still can't recommend this other than to those desperate to complete their Sho Kosugi\/Ninja movie collections.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie a few years ago, and man I never want to golf again. I mean ninjas apparently have no respect for the game of golf or the way it has evolved. And I'm not talking about \"victimless\" stuff like forging a scorecard. No no- Based on what I've seen here, they shamelessly massacre policemen and golfers alike on hallowed country club grounds. Judge Smailes would be spinning in his grave. And do they repent for said sins? No no, based on what I have seen here, the typical response by a slain ninja is to take over the body of a buxom female telephone repairwoman and seek revenge. I find this morally reprehensible, and needless to say, after viewing this nonsense, I not only stopped golfing and talking on the telephone, but also decided to stop feeding the homeless.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, this movie is bad. Think \"Flashdance\" with ninjas. The worst part is when a sword is supposed to be floating in midair, but you can see the strings. Or maybe the worst part is the gigantic eye patch (that looks like a coaster) that the good ninja wears. Actually, there are so many bad parts, I can't make up my mind which is the worst. I can't believe anyone actually put up the money to have this thing made. The only redeeming value is that it is good to laugh at.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Ninja III\" is not quite as bad as \"Enter The Ninja\", the first part of this \"trilogy\", but it's still a very bad movie. It will hardly please the fans of martial-arts movies, because there isn't enough action, but even the action scenes themselves are often spoiled by laughable excesses and needless violence. As if the film wasn't already weak enough, the filmmakers turn parts of it into an idiotic \"The Exorcist\" rip-off. The only redeeming value is the winning presence of the actress who plays the \"dominated\" heroine; she is a beautiful and athletic woman, which the director doesn't forget to exploit in various sleazy ways - she just happens to be an aerobics teacher. I don't mind a little soft-core exploitation, but it must not pretend to be something else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I never saw the other two \"Ninja\" movies and for all I know there are known, but for some reason I watched this one. This one starts out rather fast as this one ninja goes on a super killing spree. He is almost unstoppable as it takes quite a number of bullets to take him down. He is not out for the count though as he ends up possessing a woman and he then continues his killing ways by using her as his tool. Another ninja enters the fray and apparently the only way you kill a ninja is with another ninja so he volunteers. This leads up to a big battle at the end as the dead ninja goes back into his body and they have it out in an all out war. Sounds better than it actually turned out being, but at least it was not boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm also a SF buff, among other genres, and I especially like those films from 60's and 70's with their \"ideas over effects\" premise that produced so many intelligent and likable stories put on screen. In a nutshell I completely agree with scott-886's review of this movie. I heard of this film, and being what I previously mentioned, a 60's and 70's SF buff, with a penchant for SF stories with touch of the \"Twilight Zone\", I expected a lot, and my expectations were heightened with reviews ranking the effects of this movie \"second best\" to Kubrick's \"2001 Space Odyssey\". What a fraud. \"Journey to the far side of the sun\", was ordinary, convoluted, half baked, silly looking film, with laughable amateur special effects (and remember I love films from that era and despise CGI), and it can be fully compared more to 60's SF disasters such as \"Marooned\", which \"Journey\" very much reminded me of. The idea behind it all is not that bad, but building the plot on a story of a twin planet to Earth, on which the same world is inverted, asked for a master like Kubrick to direct. Needles to say Robert Parish is nothing like that, so he delivered boring and silly movie, that looked and felt like a matin\u00e9e TV series of those days. Not worth wasting your time on, even if you are an absolute fan of the genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being the sci-fi fan that I am, I was always curious about this film. So I was excited to see Journey to the Far Side of the Sun finally get released on an affordable DVD (the previous print had been fetching $100 on eBay - I'm sure those people wish they had their money back - but more about that in a second).

Anyway, the premise of this film (just like Twilight Zone's \"The Parallel\") is that there is an undiscovered planet resembling Earth on the \"other side of the sun\". This planet is of course exactly like ours except that it's inverted. This basically means their letters are reversed and people drive on the wrong side of the road.

Sound intriguing? Well that's basically all there is to this film. The first hour or so is dedicated to the preparations for the journey to this other planet. It's just tedious scenes of switches being pressed, banal dialog, etc. There's no point to it whatsoever. Gerry Anderson managed to find the most boring British actors in the history of cinema to play most of the roles. I mean they are so dull I'm surprised the crew was able to stay awake to finish the film.

Anyway, once the crew FINALLY lands on the planet (after an interminable sequence of the astronauts sitting and literally sleeping in the cockpit), Roy Thinnes notices the copy is all backwards on a bottle of cologne and hops back on another ship to tell people about what he has discovered. Oops he never gets to do it as he crash lands and dies. The end! Oh wait, there's a bonus scene of one of the space executives hurling himself into a mirror in his wheelchair at the end. I guess he wanted out of this film too.

I'm really surprised a film like this could get made even back in the 60s. Rent if you must. DO NOT BUY.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a very dull film with poorly developed characters, subplots that go nowhere, and barely tolerable acting. It comes across as a poorly conceived rip-off of \"2001.\"

The only thing making it worthwhile are the sets and costumes and visual effects. But even that wasn't enough to keep me from nodding off. I would like to get the soundtrack, especially the music during the space flight sequence, for nights when I have trouble falling asleep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a really really bad movie. However It's good to laugh at the horrible ideas and \"special\" effects. The plot centers around an EU space agency that discovers a 10th planet that orbits directly opposite the Earth. They send a maned mission (they have been to Mars and have yet to discover this planet? Is anybody stupid enough to fall for this?) to the planet and can you believe it, it's the mirror image of the planet they came from. Most everything is predictable from that point. Honestly from the title of the movie you can guess just about everything. The only surprising thing here is a maned space program run by Eurpoeans :) There really can be no excuse for the plot concept or execution. So it's good for a laugh or maybe if you are in an altered state of consciousness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is honestly one of the greatest movies of all time...if you suffer from insomnia. It is a fool-proof way to guarantee hours of sleep at a time. As the movie slowly progresses, the audience slips into a state of unconsciousness and gradually loses sight of any sort of plot that the movie might actually contain. This effect is surely created due to the lack of sweet action\/sweet babes.

Also, Mr. Eisenstein was obviously unable to master the art of montage. A prime example of this is the scene on the Odessa steps. For no apparent reason, an event that in real life would have taken a matter of seconds is transformed into a seven minute nightmare for any sane viewer. This editing flaw tarnishes any sort of realism in the entire film. Honestly, i've seen more realistic editing watching cartoons.

Some individuals who have commented on this title have hailed Battleship Potemkin as: \"One of the greatest movies of all time\" and, \"Truly a masterpiece\". Well i'm writing this comment to persuade readers to avoid watching this film at all costs. My best guess is that my fellow Potemkin critics simply wrote the wrong words in their summaries. Surely what they meant to say was: \"One of the greatest snooze-fests of all time\" and, \"Truly an epic fail\".

In conclusion, don't waste your time. If you are interested in watching a movie of far superior quality, go to www.youtube.com and watch a Halo 3 montage. If i played the movie \"Battleship Potemkin\" in a game of slayer on guardian, i would shoot it in the face with my sniper rifle and then teabag its dead body. PEACE!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Additionally titled BURNING MAN and FLASH FIRE for its various releases, this Australian made film, shot in New South Wales is problematic for its producers from its outset due to several personality conflicts and extended shooting time that prematurely uses up its allocated budget, and although the storyline is at times nicely detailed, below standard post-production finishing and overmuch cutting jettisons the affair. Tom Skerritt plays as Howard Anderson, an American entrepreneur with a \"passion for building\" who is in process of erecting a tourist hotel in the Blue Mountains region, all the while unaware that his business partner, Julian Fane (Guy Doleman) has insured the incomplete structure for ten million dollars, far more than its actual worth, and plans its destruction as corollary to normal summer brush fires in order to collect a handsome sum through fraud. In line with this illicit scheme, Fane arranges for an arsonist to perform the incendiary deed, a young man who also happens to be the boyfriend of Anderson's daughter, and due to the future resort's being in the midst of a critical fire hazard sector (one of the many unexplained elements of the screenplay) Julian has every expectation that his dastardly design will come about without serious hindrance. As the local insurance firm victimized by the crime is majority owned by Fane, the policy's naturally skeptical underwriters, Lloyd's of London, deploy senior investigator George Engels (James Mason) to probe into the nature of the felony, made more sinister because of the death, possibly a homicide, of an insurance investigator (Wendy Hughes) who, in following clues was apparently coming close to the cause of the arson. The setting for the film is the week before Christmas, capstone of summer in the Antipodes, a dramatic background, but the links within the story are not smoothly compounded, resulting in the presentation of events that are rather difficult for a viewer to follow, a problem heightened by erratic editing, the mentioned heavy cutting, and poor sound and picture quality. Skerritt's semi-comatose and droning style is fatally invalidated by this dim sound processing but Mason is very effective, as ever, and enjoys the best dialogue with Hughes impressive as the too early written-out investigator; Doleman wins acting laurels with his performance as the malevolent Julian Fane.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've been on a bad run of films. This is a clinker about an arson plot and a psychopath. Tom Skerrit, whom I really enjoy, was pretty young here. He is a builder with a passion, but he has a partner whose profit motive includes over-insuring and burning. Into the mix comes an agent, who is drowned, his daughter, and her nut-case boyfriend. James Mason plays the insurance investigator. Any idiot, given a little warning, would know something was rotten in the nation of Australia. Still, they bumble their way. The most interesting thing to me was that the huge hotel that was going to be built, never got beyond being a bunch of sticks. Low budget, I guess. The plot could have been interesting. Maybe they should have hired a film editor (the did?). Half the time you don't know where the characters are, but I guarantee a five million dollar payoff would have probably made a close watch on the structure mandatory. It doesn't work. Although there is lots of neat fire.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***SPOILER ALERT*** Disjointed and confusing arson drama that has to do with a sinister plan to burn down a major vacation resort before New Years Day. Being insured for ten million dollars the man behind Valley View Estates in the Blue Mountains in Australia Julian Fane, Guy Doleman,is determined to bring his own project down in flames in order to collect. This has to happen by January 1, two weeks hence, before the insurance policy on the project runs out.

With his mind totally on his work builder and architect Howard Anderson, Tom Skerritt, has no idea that his boss, Julian Fane, is planning to burn down the resort he's building and possibly set him up as the fall guy. Anderson gets a bit suspicious when insurance investigator Sophie McCann,Wendy Hughes, informs him on some very fishy goings on between Fane and the insurance company Proud Alliance. It turns out that Proud Allience is actually owned, or 60% of it, by Fane himself! This explains whey Fane is having all these arson fires happen in order to collect the ten million dollars of insurance which is at least twice as much as the entire Valley View Estates is worth!

We later have Sophie McCann murdered, in a faked swimming accident, to keep her from finding out whats happening with the suspicious fries around and in Valley View Estates. It's when Lloyd's of London, who's underwriting Proud Alliance, insurance investigator George Engles, James Mason, shows up that Fane takes a powder leaving his ace arsonist on his own and out of control to blow Fane's entire plan.

Meanwhile Anderson has gotten wise to both Fane and Engles who unlike Fane wants the Valley View Estates to go under for reasons which are never made quite clear, just watch the last few seconds of the film to realize that, by it's writer and director. The arsonist is exposed as he's about to do in his girlfriend with Anderson coming to her rescue. We then have this wild chase scene with the arsonist getting lost in the Valley View construction site only to have it set on fire, with the help of Howard Anderson, where he ends up burning to a crisps by the time the fire department came to hose him down.

The sudden and unexplained ending never made clear to just what happened to the Big Cheese in this whole scheme of things the sinister and evil minded Julian Fane. It's as if Fane got away Scot-free and only his unstable and deranged henchman, the arsonist, who was only the instrument of Fane's crimes ended up as the only person who payed from them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This flick is worse than awful! It took a good story plot and turned it into schizophrenic cinema. The photography is EXTREMELY amateurish . . . looks like a 5th graders home movie project filmed with malfunctioning 8mm kiddie cameras . . . the editing appears to have been done by somebody having psychotic flashbacks (while on drugs and booze), with scenes cut short, followed by other, unrelated scenes, then chopped segments of scenes pasted in . . . totally unnecessary and gratuitous nudity . . . missing scenes . . . daytime scenes inexplicably turning into night-time scenes, then suddenly back to daytime . . . obviously no continuity. Tom Skerritt, Wendy Hughes and James Mason's good acting skills are wasted, as are the talents of the \"key\" supporting cast - (forget the villain and the Anderson women - very amateurish acting). This movie is a good candidate for a remake, even with Skerritt and Hughes . . . just have it professionally done this time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yet again not quite bad enough to make it enjoyable. In fact this one is just boring. It's reasonably well made, even though the script is bad, the effects are OK and the acting average. (Apart from James Mason who is always great, but in this one underused)

I suppose it is hard to write anything about this film because it didn't evoke any reaction in me what so ever.

Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A man is builing a hotel with a partner. He finds out the hotel is over-insured. Things just get worse. This film has a huge mumber of scenes. They must have been put together in someones' sleep. It jumps around from place to place. It does not stay focused on anything for very long. The ending starts on christmas morning with a hotel fire. It then cuts to a night scene of that fire and then cuts back to day time. The DVD sound track is horrible. It takes a fair plot and turns into the worst film I have scene in a long time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Elfriede Jelinek, not quite a household name yet, is a winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Her novel spawned a film that won second prize at Cannes and top prizes for the male and female leads. Am I a dinosaur in matters of aesthetic appreciation or has art become so debased that anything goes?

'Gobble, gobble' is the favoured orthographic representation in Britain of the bubbling noise made by a turkey. In the film world a turkey is a monumental flop as measured by box office receipts or critical reception. 'Gobble, gobble' and The Piano Teacher are perfect partners.

The embarrassing awfulness of this widely praised film cannot be overstated. It begins very badly, as if made to annoy the viewer. Credits interrupt inconsequential scenes for more than 11 minutes. We are introduced to Professor Erika Kohut, apparently the alter ego of the accoladed authoress, a stony professor of piano. She lives with her husky and domineering mum. Dad is an institutionalised madman who dies unseen during what passes for the action.

Reviewing The Piano Teacher is difficult, beyond registering its unpleasantness. What we see in the film (and might read in the book, for all I know) is a tawdry, exploitative, nonsensical tale of an emotional pendulum that swings hither and thither without moving on.

Erika, whose name is minimally used, is initially shown as a person with intense musical sensitivity but otherwise totally repressed. Not quite, because there's a handbags at two paces scene with her gravelly-voiced maman early on that ends with profuse apologies. If a reviewer has to (yawn) extract a leitmotif (why not use a pretentious word when a simpler one would do), Elrika's violently alternating moods would be it.

A young hunk, Walter, studying to become a 'low voltage' engineer, whatever that is, and playing ice hockey in his few leisure moments, is also a talented pianist. He encounters Elrika at an old-fashioned recital in a luxury apartment in what may or may not be Paris. In the glib fashion of so much art, he immediately falls in love and starts to 'cherchez la femme'.

Repressed Erika has a liking for hardcore pornography, shown briefly but graphically for a few seconds while she sniffs a tissue taken from the waste basket in the private booth where she watches.

Walter performs a brilliant audition and is grudgingly accepted as a private student by Erika, whose teaching style is characterised by remoteness, hostility, discouragement and humiliation.

He soon declares his love and before long pursues Erika into the Ladies where they engage in mild hanky panky and incomplete oral sex. Erika retains control over her lovesick swain. She promises to send him a letter of instruction for further pleasurable exchanges.

In the meantime, chillingly jealous because of Walter's kindness to a nervous student who is literally having the shits before a rehearsal for some future concert, Erika fills the student's coat pocket with broken glass, causing severe lacerations to those delicate piano-playing hands.

The next big scene (by-passing the genital self-mutilation, etc) has Walter turning up at the apartment Erika shares with her mother. Erika want to be humiliated, bound, slapped, etc. Sensible Walter is, for the moment, repulsed and marches off into the night.

At this point there's still nearly an hour to go. The viewer can only fear the worst. Erika tracks down Walter to the skating rink where he does his ice hockey practice. They retire to a back room. Lusty Wally is unable to resist the hands tugging at his trousers. His 'baby gravy' is soon expelled with other stomach contents. Ho hum.

Repulsed but hooked, perhaps desirous of revenge for the insult so recently barfed on the floor, Walter returns to Erika's apartment. Can you guess what happens now? It's not very deep or difficult. Yes, he becomes a brute while Erika becomes a victim. One moment he's locking maman in her room and slapping Erika, the next he's kicking her in the face, having sex with her and renewing his declarations of love.

Am I being unfair in this summary? Watch the film if you want, but I'd advise you not to.

Anyone can see eternity in a grain of sand if they're in the right mood. I could expatiate at the challenging depiction of human relationships conveyed by this film if I wanted. But I 'prefer not to', because this is a cheap and nasty film that appeals to base instincts and says nothing.

I'm supposed to say that parentally repressed Erika longs for love, ineffectively seeks it in pornography, inappropriately rejects it when it literally appears, pink and throbbing, under her nose, belatedly realises that she doesn't like being hurt, blah, blah, blah.

The world has, for reasons not explained, stunted her. She apparently makes a monster out of someone who appeared superficially loving - but surely we all know that any man is potentially a violent rapist, because that's his essential nature however much he tries to tell himself and the world otherwise.

At the end, if you have the patience to be there, there's a small twist. Before going to the final scene, where she's due to perform as a substitute for the underwear-soiling student with the lacerated hands, Erika packs a knife in her handbag. For Walter?

Yes, you're ahead of me. She stabs herself in a none life-threatening area and leaves. Roll credits.

If this earned the second prize at Cannes, just how bad were the rest of the entries?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie purports to be a character study of perversion. Some reviewers have been gulled into assuming that because perversion is depicted, the film is psychologically deep; actually, considering the salacious material, it is surprisingly tedious and shallow, with no motivational substance. Why is the main character the way she is? You won't find out from the script. For a better treatment of the same theme (and a more entertaining movie), try Bunuel's Belle de Jour.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Isabelle Huppert is a wonderful actor. The director of \"La Pianiste\" understands this, providing the viewer with long takes of Huppert's face, and these are a pleasure to see. Huppert is not an animated actor--she registers emotion with the smallest lift of an eyebrow or flicker of a smile.

Other than the enjoyment of watching an experienced actor excel in her profession, there is nothing in this movie that makes me want to recommend it. (Well, if you enjoy self-mutilation, sado-masochism, and bizarre behavior, \"La Pianiste\" might work for you. Other than these attributes, I could not find any redeeming value in it.)

Buried in all this strange material there is a kernel of truth. People who compete at the very highest level--musically, athletically, whatever--begin as strange people, and are shaped into stranger people by the competitive environment.

Not worth a trip to a movie theater to relearn this life lesson.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I do not fail to recognize Haneke's above-average film-making skills. For example, I appreciate his lingering on unremarkable-natural-day-lighted settings as a powerful way to force a strong sense of realism. However, regarding the content of this film, I am very sad to see that in the 21st century there is still an urge to pathologize domination-submission relations or feelings (and\/or BDSM practices). The problem that the main character has with her mother is unbelievably topical as is the alienation and uncomprehension felt by Walter (I don't mean the frustration of a lover which is not loved back in the same way, which is understandable; I mean that he looks upon her as if she were crazy, or as if he was a monk, come on!). I mean D\/s is not something new in the world and I think it is rather silly to treat the subject as if it were something \"freakish\" or pathological; it isn't. In general, films dealing with this subject are really lagging behind the times.

So, for me, I feel that this film ends up being quite a programmatical film, worried with very outdated psicoanalitical theories (isn't it nearly embarrassing?), and that does not really relate with real-life lives and experiences of those engaged in D\/s relationships (personal experience, forums, irc chatrooms even recent scholar studies will show this).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, the artyfartyrati of Cannes may have liked this film but not me I am afraid. If you like the type of film where shots linger for so long that you wonder whether the actor has fallen asleep or the cameraman gone for lunch then it may be for you. A large part of it is like this with short sojourns into the realm of unpleasantness. I did not find it shocking nor disturbing as some other reviewers have - simply a little distasteful and pointless. The only reason I did not give this one star is that the acting is commendable ans the film is fairly well shot. The plot, however, has little to recommend. A large part of the film just shows a grumpy woman teaching or listening to piano, which might appeal to some people. But lest you think this is harmless enough be prepared for some snatches of pornography and sexual violence just to wake you up with a bad taste in your mouth. Not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although I can see the potentially redeeming qualities in this film by way of it's intrigue, I most certainly thought that the painfully long nature in the way the scene structure played out was too much to ask of most viewers. Enormous holes in the screenplay such as the never explained \"your father died today\" comment by the mother made it even harder to try to make sense of these characters.

This won first place at Cannes in 2001 which is a shock considering. Perhaps the French had been starved for film noir that year and were desperate for something as sadistic as this film. I understood the long scenes as a device to keep the viewer as uncomfortable as possible but when matched with the inability to relate to the main character it went too far for me and kept me at arms distance from the story altogether.

This is a film for only the most dedicated fan of film noir and one who expects no gratification from having watched a film once it's over. I LOVED movies such as \"Trainspotting\" or \"Requiem for a Dream\" - which were far more disturbing but at least gave the viewer something in the way of editing and pacing. To watch this teachers slow and painful silence scene after scene just became so redundant that I found it tedious - and I really wanted to like this film at every turn.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented the video of \"The Piano Teacher\" knowing nothing about it other than what was written on the video box. I did this with some trepidation because films that win awards at Cannes are usually very good or very bad. Unfortunately, this one falls in the latter category. About one quarter of the way into it I found myself saying out loud, \"This movie is boring.\" About half way through I was saying to myself, \"Where have I seen this before?\" At the three quarters mark I had figured it out.

In spite of its literary origins, this film is essentially a remake of Robert Altman's much earlier (1969), and better, \"That Cold Day in the Park.\" Although the details obviously differ and Altman's work was more plot-driven and less of a character study, the two films are thematically identical. There is nothing \"new\" to be seen in this production. Every aspect of it has been done before: a character spiralling out of control with increasingly self-destructive behavior (Abel Ferrara's \"Bad Lieutenant\" 1992); a perverse and doomed 'love' culminating in an operatic (near) death scene (David Cronenberg's \"M. Butterfly\" 1993); uncommonly brutal sex scenes (David Lynch's \"Blue Velvet\" 1986); and so on. Hence, I am bemused by the fact that so many found the film to be \"shocking,\" \"shattering,\" etc. This highly derivative film seems to have been made for the sole purpose of making viewers feel uncomfortable, and clearly succeeded with some. However, I largely attribute such a reaction to a lack of film-viewing experience. See enough movies and you really will, eventually, have seen it all. And while it is true that I saw the expurgated 'R-rated' version, I doubt that the additional scenes would change my overall opinion of \"The Piano Teacher.\"

Technically, the film is not without merit. There is some very good camera work and the lighting is excellent. Isabelle Huppert's creditable performance also helps save it from being a waste of time. This is the first of Haneke's films that I've seen, and if I were to see more I expect I would have the same opinion of him that I have of Ferrara: an interesting director but not nearly the genius others make him out to be. Rating: 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I read the reviews of this movie, and they were generally pretty good so I thought I should see it. I'm a big Francophile and art film lover, but I believe this is yet another case in which the critics make something \"arty\" or \"intellectual\" into something it is not. I will be blunt: it contains scenes of sexual perverseness that I never, ever wanted to actually see. Obviously, the piano teacher has some major psychological issues, but I really did not want to see them displayed so graphically. The film is, in essence, disgusting. I mean, when I saw Requiem for a Dream, I was repulsed by the last sort of scene with Jennifer Connelly, but that was not anywhere near the sort of disgust and repulsion I felt during this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The basic plot of 'Marigold' boasts of a romantic comedy wherein the film industry is kept as a backdrop. An American actress Marigold, played by Ali Carter gets stuck in India. Worse that, she is out of money. She then decides to play a small role in a Bollywood musical, so that she can earn enough money to get back to her nation. Here she gets to meet Indian choreographer Prem, played by Salman Khan. Basically, the movie fails at the script level. Just by calling a film a Hollywood venture doesn't guarantee quality cinema. Marigold stands out as the best example. The art direction is weak and outdated. Musically, Marigold turns out to be a dud. Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy's is far from being acknowledged as a decent hear. Actingwise, Salman delivers of his most amateurish performances till date. Ali Larter is good and has immense screen presence. Performance wise too, she is good.

One can also find good reviews regarding this movie at http:\/\/www.comingsoon.net\/films.php?id=36310","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To me Bollywood movies are not generally up to much, though they are still quite desired and Bollywood is a big file maker as they have their own fans.

The only motive that made me watch the movie was to see to what extent an American actress could change or affect the logic that Indian movie were based on. Not only did not it change the movie story also this blending caused some ridiculous series of events.

I mean it is quite common to see heaps of illogical things through Indian movies as they have their own world in their movies. But once you see such incidents happen to an American it makes you laugh. For God's sake can you believe a famous American actress is stuck in desperate situation and feel impotent. Can you imagine an American actress falls in loves with a dance instructor whose fianc\u00e9e already fell in love with American's boy friend and they met each other at the same time. There were lot of similar things to mention. the less said the better.

Perhaps I was wrong as I expected too much from Indian Movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really like Salman Kahn so I was really disappointed when I seen this movie. It didn't have much of a plot and what they did have was not that appealing. Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed but was worth the price of this DVD. The music was not bad it was quite nice. Usually Indian movies are at least two to three hours long but this was a very short movie for an Indian film. The American actress that played in the movie is from the television hit series Heroes, Ali Larter. Her acting had a lot to be desired. However she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore. All the movie had not a lot to be desired and I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie. Thank you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To put in simple words or rather a word, would be best suited by PATHETIC !!!!!! The movie starts with attracting a little interest by the plot, but, BUT as few minutes by audience is getting restless for restrooms and getting snacks, or to get a breathe of fresh air outside the closed dark hall....

It seems like watching a movie from 1960's where colors were dull, directed by a debutant, and acted by high school students ! Movie revolves about a American high headed actress trying make a comeback into films by acting in one of the not-so-great Indian movie. Her acting is real Sad complimented by the worse dialogue delivery.

OverAll: i would not recommend anyone to watch this movie Still want to watch: Then try watching it at home, when some TV channel airs it, believe me it would be fun as this movie would not get a Single advertisement and no sponsors.

And better carry a aspirin, u might need it if you cant find a remote control to change channel ! p.s. I have no clue, if the other reviewers even watched the movie ? i did and wasted my $10 on the ticket !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"wow...I just watched this movie...American people have this stereotypical view towards Hindi films such as, ALL Indian films have dances, songs and a love story....Its pathetic how far away from the truth that is. This film simply exposes the stereotypical western view of Hindi films. Horrible acting, horrible direction, horrible cinematography. And all this by a Hollywood director. Most Indian films today are much more content driven, realistic, touching and meaningful than this piece of crap. Indian cinema (not just Hindi) also cover a variety of different subjects. Just like most other Hollywood films these days, this shows a very stereotypical view of of another country, where truth is thrown out the window. This is a highly NOT recommended movie. Instead watch good Hindi films like black Friday, eklavya, omkara, khakee, awarapan, gangster, don, zakhm, dor, sholay, mother India, lagaan...Those films are what real Indian cinema are all about.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie was really bad. it has that quality that a lot of indie movies have: moments of humor filled with long spaces that are completely boring. Any die-hard BAM magera fan will prolly like this movie, but then again thats probably the only person who would see it. someone gave me this movie to watch knowing i am a fan of Jackass and was a fan of viva la bam, before the scripted nature of that show wore thin. To explain why this movie doesn't work i should just say the premise itself is played out

a guy who is with a girl who is horrible to him. And pretty much the whole movie you've got this Ryan Dunn guy whining and Bam magera skipping around like a merry mischief maker. Dicamillo's performance is strange at best. It's a humorous little nonspecific Canadian french accent that pretty much is the extent of his performance (basically funny for 5 minutes and then its like 'ok you're pretending to be foreign enough already\")

Maybe it would work if they were going for parody but all they succeed in doing is making a movie with an IQ of zero. I love toilet humor as much as the next guy, but this isn't even lowbrow its just stupid. Its like the only humor to be gotten from this movie is completely inside and the audience, even those savvy to Magera and company, are left out of the joke.

Next time magera is handed a sack full of money let's hope he doesn't blow it on some lousy pet project","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I did not think Haggard was the funniest movie of all time I like CKY and Viva La Bam a lot more. I think a lot of it was just really stupid and had no plot for being a movie. I highly recommend not paying a lot of money for this movie but anyone who likes viva la bam, CKY, or Jack Ass should see it. I loved many parts of the movie and then there were parts that should have been cut out. I think that Jonny Knoxville should have played in the movie because he is a much better actor then most of the people from Haggard and probably could have made this movie allot more funnier. I think Ryan Dunn was probably the best actor and it should have had bam skating more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I kind of like Bam Margera, so I was curious.

But watching a home production with somebody elses friends and family, with a decent camera and a sound guy, just isn't good film-making.

Writing, direction, acting and editing is abysmal at best. But I sat through half of it. And why?

This film gives perfect examples of what not to do, it is a film student's dream of what to avoid at every stage of the process. Cram it into film school curiculums all over the joint!

So thanx Bam! Now I know Jackass is for real - cause you ain't looking to win an Oscar, dude:)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like CKY and Viva La Bam, so I couldn't resist this when I saw it for \u00a31.99 in Gamestation. It is Bam Magera's debut scripted film, penned by himself and Brandon Dicimaillo, and stars the entire CKY crew (Ryan Dunn, Raab Himself, Rake Yohn, Jenn Rivell, Don Vito etc etc). Brandon also is in charge of the artistic direction - which is one of the film's greatest merits - its quite CKYish in its colour style - but also shows progression.

Basically it follows (very loosely) Ryan Dunn's break up with girlfriend Glauren (played by Jenn). Vilo (played by Bam, named after Vilo Valo by any chance?) and Falcone (Bran) play his best mates who reek havoc by doing various stunts.

Its a bit like the CKY films but with a linear storyline (which is very basic indeed) and poor acting. Its strange, the usually super charsmatic gang seem to have the life sucked out of them when they know what their meant to say next.

The acting and script is pretty appalling for the most part, but the second half of the film is much better than the first (90 mins is a stretch for the flick though), and there are a number of redeeming factors, such as Tony Hawk's cameo, Dicimaillo's sub plots such as 'The Futurstic Invention Awards' and 'The Diamond Bike', the soundtrack is also very strong (its not ALL cKy and HIM - in fact Bomfunk MC's steal the film in terms of its use of music). In the second half of the film the sense of fun is much more real - especially since Don Vito has a fairly prominent role in the latter part - and he seems to steal every scene he is in.

The film will appeal to those who like the CKY antics, but only because of the core material and not the filler or story line bullshit. Oh, and will someone tell Bam that skating montages, especially in films, is sooo 1998.

However, the best part of the package on the DVD is not the film - but the 40 mins 'Making Of' doc.

The last 20 minutes of the documentary deal with Raab Himself's alcholism and the crew's real feelings towards each other amazing candidly (as usual Bam comes across as a bit of a dick, especially towards Raab's drink problem and Ryan Dunn comes across as a really nice down to earth guy). The last ten mins of the documentary deal with a friend (who is an infrequent CKY member) trying to kick heroin whilst staying at the Magera household with the crew - and a caring unitary side of gang (espcially Ape and Ryan) really comes across - a startling gem in an otherwise dull DVD.

For \u00a31.99 I'm very satisified - although I hope Bam stays to the improvised and short skits from now on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've just watched Fingersmith, and I'm stunned to see the 8\/10 average rating for the show.

Not only was the plot was difficult to follow, but it seems character development was randomly applied.

The actors were adequate, but in the process of attempting to create twists and turns, their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional. Once this happens, the story really falls flat and becomes tedious.

And just in case anyone didn't see the predictable lesbian undertones from miles way, this is hammered home in the most banal terms at the end of the film.

The end scene is disappointing and phoned in, and anyone who sat back and went \"Ohhh, so they were carpet munchers all along!\", must have been out for the evening.

Two stars for the tonsil hockey in the earlier scene which was at least a bit raunchy, none for the rest of it...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I couldn't stand to watch very much of this crap. This is your standard junk that certain annoying women love- old English era drama with lots of costumes and clich\u00e9 characters that seem to be plucked from either directly from oliver twist or some other dickens novel. This uses the usual clich\u00e9s from the Victorian era. Certain idiotic people really think that the whole emotional torture of that culture being so bloody repressed is somehow fascinating and romantic. This is sap, pure and utter junk and boring as watching grass grow. As such it is perfect for women who crave some sort of English countryside snoozer romantic drama in a Victorian setting but for this man this movie is nothing but torture and cruel and unusual punishment to watch a bunch of drab boring scenes with unoriginal characters speaking in that wretched forced and fake English accent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"and parading around a 14-year-old girl in a thong swimsuit is one of them. To fans of this movie, I'd like to ask: would you allow your daughter to walk around a resort dressed like that? And would your 14-year-old be able to handle the reaction she'd get from men? If yes, I'd like to know why, on both counts. A suit like that is a clear invitation to men; it's hypocritical to suggest that's not.

And on another point, what teenage girl would ever claim her father was her lover, without the excuse of severe mental problems? That's almost as disgusting as the swimsuit.

Simply put, some things are just not funny or appropriate, and they never will be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have really enjoyed several movies by G\u00e9rard Depardieu and expected I'd like this movie a lot more than I did. The biggest reason was that I just didn't find the movie very interesting or funny--so, it didn't hold my interest. Also, although he does NOT sleep with his headstrong daughter, the idea that she is lying by telling everyone that he is her much older lover is just plain icky! Yes, I know there is no incest and I know that nobody around them knows he really is her father, but I found that any kid passing her dad off as her sexual paramour is too yucky and prevents the movie from truly being funny. In addition, I really didn't like this little brat very much. Apart from her lies, she seemed very sassy and self-involved. I would have preferred if somehow she'd gotten her \"come-uppance\" and somehow been punished, as I just didn't like her.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"About one step above an Olsen's twins film, there's a nary a surprise in store here except for how repulsive the bloated, hunchbacked Depardieu looks walking around the beach without a shirt on. This guy was supposed to be some sort of heartthrob? Quasimodo hubba hubba? Well, whatever.

Katherine Heigl's a great actress, whose career over the last several years has displayed a lot of her potential as both a comedic and dramatic actress, but this movie definitely didn't do anything to offer her a break-out role. Her vapid character lacks any trace of personality or self-esteem, spending her entire vacation crushing on a cute boy that she thinks is the greatest guy in then world (basically because he's a cute boy), yet she can't be honest with him for two seconds. Ladies, let me tell you something; if a guy's really into you, he's not going to stomp off in a huff because you tried to pass your dad off as your boyfriend. He may be a little confused about why you'd do something so silly, contrived, and um...incestuous, but in the end it's just going to be something you'll laugh together about.

The plot and dialogue hits every clche' right on cue. No originality and no wit...but it's rilly, rilly SWEET and Ben's rilly, rilly cute so viewers who think Titanic is the greatest movie ever made will of course say this movie is great because they won't notice that it doesn't have a brain in its head. One star.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this movie hoping that it would be another great killer toy movie. I am a big fan of the Child's Play series and was hoping to see the same here. Boy, was I wrong. Most of the movie was not the least bit scary, plus the only time we really see Pinocchio \"alive\" is the final few scenes of the film. The little girl in the film, her acting is so bad it's almost laughable. Plus, the ending never showed what happened to the puppet or what made them put the little girl in a asylum or wherever she was at the end of the film. So, in my opinion this movie is the worst of the \"killer toy\" genre. If you want a good killer toy series, stick with the Child's Play franchise. Pinocchio's Revenge is a waste of money and time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first heard about this movie, I eagerly went out to rent it, believing (mistakenly) that it was one of those so-bad-it's-fun movies and that I was in for a treat. I was wrong.

For starters, the pace is agonizingly, mind-numbingly slow. The pace doesn't even begin to pick up until the last 15-20 minutes of the movie! The plot was boring, and the ending was nonsensical and confusing. For those looking for a cheesy horror movie with cheap thrills, look elsewhere. This movie provides the cheesiness in spades, but is sorely lacking in \"thrills,\" cheap or otherwise.

Try \"Child's Play,\" instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This seemed really similar to the CHILD'S PLAY movies except so much worse. A lawyer tries to save a criminal, who was convicted of killing his son, from execution. She fails. The lawyer's daughter then finds a puppet that the killer had buried with his son and is immediately attached to it. Then after several people are seriously injured they find the little girl secretly talking to the doll saying that she didn't hurt anyone. Throughout this movie I found myself asking myself ' why am I watching this cheeze?' over and over. The end sucked so bad that I went and watched the Disney cartoon version right after and slept with the light on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Child\u00b4s Play made a new genre of horror,THE KILLER DOLLS,Some of this films has not got too much money for make it but I think that the only film that make shadow to Chucky is this.Ok it\u00b4s a tipical product direct to video or direct to tv but Pinocchio is not real and the killer is the little girl.The imagination of children are too big and this film play with it.The roles are good and Candance Mckenzie is great.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pinocchio's revenge is not a good movie. Nor is it terrible.

The acting was wooden at least on Pinocchio's part.The puppet had all of 2 expressions.As did most of the actors,except strangely enough...the secondary characters...most of them were enjoyable over the top.

The special effects in this are pretty \"B\" and as I said earlier the puppet really blew.

The 2 best scenes in the movie are the knife through the hand...looked pretty good,i think they spent about a 1\/3 of the budget on that...and the shower scene...WOW...I think they must have spent the other 2\/3rds of the budget on talking the actress who did that scene to do it.Outstanding.

Seriously this is a slightly below average \"b\" horror puppet movie...rent Chucky if you have a urge to see puppets kill.

The story had a few interesting idea's, enough to keep me watching it to the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was really disappointed after viewing Pinocchio's Revenge the other night. I had a good inclination that it was going to be a bad one, but I didn't think that it'd be as bad as it turned out. A wooden puppet of a murdered boy falls into the hands of an attorney's eight-year-old daughter. From there, it is a murderous path for anyone who gets in the way between the puppet and the little girl. We've seen movies like this before, i.e. the Child's Play series, which is by the way, far better. However, it was good to see actors like James W. Quinn and Todd Allen. Both of which have worked under Kevin Tenney before. In any event, I encourage viewers to check out \"Night Of The Demons\" and the original \"Witchboard.\" These are titles that tend to bring out the best in Kevin S. Tenney.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have never seen a B movie like this one... on the part that the nanny Sofia is being killed... a hand of a woman appears on the tape handling the stick... how bad is that??? LOL, I seriously laughed and wanted to stop seeing the movie, but I kept watching it to see if this movie could get worse...LOL...it is bad for itself... poor Pinocchio.. the only nice bit is the first time you see some special effects of Pinocchio's face moving... apart from that the whole movie is awful... it's not really worth your time if you don't really have much to spare! But if you have nothing to do... go on... treat yourself with some \"Z\" movie cos B-movie is still too good for this one...LOL","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"....You get this stupid excuse of a Child's Play rip-off! Man, what were they thinking? First they mess with a Rumpelstiltskin horror movie then they make crap like this. Fariy Tale haters! Well to be honest, I've seen this as a kid, and it scared me a bit a lot, simply because I was under aged with the assumption that Pinocchio wouldn't do that, wah wah wah. But I've grown and come to think of this as Child's Play rip, a fairy tale bashing nonsense, and a lame Tales From The Crypt episode, or trying to be one at least, with a lame ending that was stupid, and it had many plot holes, and I still can't understand how it came to life. Was it the work of an evil Geppetto? Then what, after a few evil deeds, he becomes a real boy who becomes America's Most Wanted? Personally, I think the concept of an evil Geppetto sounds better, he builds an army of wooden killers, and starts a crime wave, funny. But this is awful, awful, awful, awful, AWFUL! AWFUL! Stinky like a shoe, and awful! IT SUCKED IT SUCKED! If you want killer puppets, settle for the killer doll, specifically Child's Play, instead, no strings attached. Or if you want a fairy tale figure turned upside down, watch Leprechaun, or if you want Pinocchio, watch the animated Disnet version or live version with Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Martin Landau instead. >>>>> -10\/10(negative 10)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is just plain dumb. Don't bother watching it; believe me, you're better off.

Long and short of the plot: a defense attorney represents a man who murdered his son and other children. In defending him, she comes across a wooden doll of Pinnochio. She takes the doll home. Pinnochio is possessed and begins to start killing people.

This movie moves very slowly only to have such a weak ending. The plot is very bad and the Dennis Michael Tenney's musical score is pitiful. The story, written by Kevin S. Tenney, is just pointless and evokes NO horror or fear. This is a far cry from his work on Night of the Demons and Witchboard, which are decent outings but nothing to write home about. His directing is OK, but with such a bad story no one could have made this movie any good.

In conclusion: 2 out of 10, perhaps the blandest, most boring movie I've seen all year.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before watching this film (at a screening attended by the director herself) we were informed this had won the short film prize at the Galway Film Fleadh. Surely this result will give filmmakers hope, anyone can do better than this!

How anyone cannot notice the flagrant rip-off of Donnie Darko in this I'll never know. The film is pure drivel, the acting cardboard, the dialogue ridiculous & the ending just flat! The only crumb of comfort we enjoyed after seeing this rubbish was to loudly comment on how dreadful it was, in front of the director! Yes that was mean, but liberating!

At least Irish film-making can't sink any lower!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I sincerely wonder why this film was ever made. A Bulgarian-Italian co-production set in a version of Berlin where all Germans speak English with a German accent and all Turks speak English with some Turkish words in between, is hardly credible. The English vocabulary is basically limited to \"fuck you, bastard\" and the acting is worse than anyone can imagine. Apart from this, racial tensions in Germany can be an interesting subject but in the Germany I know there are no gangs shooting each other in the middle of the street in clear daylight. And if all that is not enough, there is also a serial killer going around who kills Turkish children and paints them white. In order to create some tension, we see the serial killer and hear him hum Schubert's lullaby but we won't see his face.

I don't even believe they actually shot it in Germany. There are some street shots that are quite obviously in Berlin, but the actors are not seen in those shot. It's probably Bulgaria with some German signs added here and there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is probable one of the worst movies i have ever seen.

The only reason i gave it 2 stars out of 10 is the appearance of the gorgeous Lydie Denier in some of the scenes.Despite her 42 years she is an amazing woman in every aspect,her nude scene in the bathroom with Armand Assante is as hot as hell.

Anyway about the movie,well nothing really interesting to say,a Neonazi and a Turkish gang fight over Berlin in scenes that include people open firing on the street in daylight and inside a club where 30-40 people fire at each other with machine guns in a place no bigger than my house and amazingly after some hours of firing just three die and ten are injured LOL.

While the gangs fight over Berlin terittories a serial killer is killing young children and then dumps them painted white on various places around town.

Armand Assante appears as the Turkish detective who although now working for the police was an ex leader for the Turkish gang and now is up to solve the serial killer crimes.

The movie is obviously a very bad rip off of the classic M movie.The killing of the children,the involvement of the underworld,the character of the serial killer and the ending scene with the \"trial\" of the serial killer are more than influenced from this classic movie.

The acting is terrible,the script just stupid,the production of the lowest standards possible and in general this was a great waste of time and money.

Don't even bother renting this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First I have to say that I really love Udo Kier and have always had respect for Armand Assante but nothing could save this train wreck of a movie. Udo does not even appear till much later in the movie and the acting from Everyone is just terrible. The script is all over the place, the dialog is wooden, the \"action\" is laughable and the plot could be summed up on a dirty cocktail napkin. I really wanted to find something redeeming in this movie but found myself holding my hands over my eyes, shaking my head and repeating over and over to myself, \"Oh Udo.....why???....Why?????..\". If you are a fan of Udo or Armand, please don't watch this movie. It will only make you sad for them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, it wasn't a complete waste. Armand was as usual very good in the movie,,,the whole turks vs German thing was kind of strange because I remember seeing Bulgaria at the beginning of the movie...dint' bother to go back and check...the central theme is about the serial killings with the whole gang warfare loosely woven in. Never saw a movie where the characters looked Italian, supposed to be Turk, taking English(American accent and euphemisms) with German words. The climax was the most intriguing part and there are parts of it that still did not make sense to me. In any case, if you have nothing else better to do, you can watch this movie..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terrible. Absolutely terrible. Long, confusing and unrewarding. After about three hours of this painful mess the ending truly is the final nail in the coffin. Not even the magnificent, sexy, beautiful goddess Francesca Annis can save this poor adaptation of Agatha Christie's work. The plot drags and drags and time goes by slowly and suddenly you realize that you don't even have any idea of what's going on anymore. By the end even with the usual explanation by the villain there's still a lot that's left unexplained and then\u0085 it's over. A complete waste of time and without a doubt one of the worst adaptation's to bear the name of Agatha Christie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot was really weak and confused. This is a true Oprah flick. (In Oprah's world, all men are evil and all women are victims.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Worse than mediocre thriller about an abused wife who goes on the lam after she is linked circumstantially to the death of her husband and sister. Determined to prove that her husband is alive she follows leads across the state, her peril increasing at each stop. Chasing after her are the traditional 'good-cop' and 'bad-cop' pair of partners. One is convinced of her innocence the other more interested in closing the case and getting home. This pair is often able to corner their suspect but never quite to capture her. All the main players meet up in a remote town in the desert and the truth begins to unfold with deadly consequences for some.

Wow! This was a bad movie. The lead acted as if she was tranquilized, The cops couldn't find a suspect if he or she is in the police station (this happens twice) and everyone else is as one-dimensional as can be. Avoid this one at all costs.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bridget Fonda is the sexually satisfied wife of handsome Hart Bochner. One afternoon she comes home, calls him \"honey\", and quietly fixes him a drink, only to find that he's sulking. Minutes go by while she compliantly puts up with his frowning silence. Suddenly, he bursts into a rage, accusing her of infidelity in the complete absence of any reason to do so, calls her the C word, slams her head against a cabinet, slaps her around, and winds up flinging her off the second-floor balcony, breaking her hand and a couple of ribs.

She wakes up in the hospital where, it is revealed, she is deaf, although we notice that she reads lips perfectly. That avoids all the awkwardness associated with an ASL interpreter or having her squawk words in a simulacrum of language.

All right. Let me just lay out the basic plot elements. This beautiful and devoted handicapped woman is beaten by her husband, misunderstood by her elderly mother, betrayed by her sister, has her bank account emptied by unknown hands, almost raped by a fat man who accosts her in a bar, is thought to have murdered her now missing husband, and is pursued by two cops (Kiefer Sutherland and Steven Weber), one of whom is interested only in justice while the other seems to dislike all women and is embarrassed by their presence. The end finds her standing alone at a deserted bus stop with a hand full of cash -- alone, tearful, but brave.

Now, a pop quiz. There is only one multiple-choice question. \"This story was written by: (a) a man or (b) a woman.\" Not to sound sexist. One could as easily pose a scenario about a decorated military hero and trained warrior who is captured by his enemies, betrayed by his organization, beaten and tortured, escapes to exact revenge, and winds up with the woman he loves, whom he thought he'd lost long ago.

The direction is functional and conventional. When Fonda regains consciousness in a hospital bed, we see from her point of view the faces of the anxious doctors and nurses looking down at her -- that is, at the camera -- an echo of every scene in myriad second-rate movies in which the gurney is being hurriedly wheeled down the corridor and people wearing starched white coats and festooned with stethoscopes hover over the camera.

Hart Bochner has played a number of evil people in an interesting way -- some of the characters are stupid (\"Die Hard\") and some are rather more than plain rude (\"And The Sea Will Tell\"). His virile handsomeness has a kind of evil tint to it. It would be too easy to cast him as a hero. Nice, intentionally bland performance by Steven Weber as the dumb cop -- maybe the best in the film.

Bridget Fonda is interesting too. Her acting range is limited but it's on full display here. What makes her an object of interest is her almost stereotypical beauty. She's like a high school prom queen. Very feminine. Of course she can't help it if she slithers around or moves her hands so gracefully. Neither can she do anything about her nose. For most of its length it's perfectly normal and attractive but at its very tip there is a bump outward that follows the natural flare of her nostrils. The tip of that nose is full of intrigue.

As for the movie -- Pfui.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Low-rent version of Ashley Judd's Double Jeopardy. Sutherland is too professional to be bad, but what was Brigit Fonda thinking?!? The Penelope Ann Miller curse continues (Think about it--when has she EVER been in a good movie other than Other People's Money? And I'm not saying she's bad, but all of her movies fail in some way).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a very brief episode that appeared in one of the \"Night Gallery\" show back in 1971. The episode starred Sue Lyon (of Lolita movie fame) and Joseph Campanella who play a baby sitter and a vampire, respectively. The vampire hires a baby sitter to watch his child (which appears to be some kind of werewolf or monster) while he goes out at night for blood. The baby sitter is totally oblivious to the vampire's appearance when she first sees him and only starts to put two and two together when she notices that he has no reflection in the mirror, has an odd collection of books in the library on the occult, and hears strange noises while the vampire goes to talk to the child. She realizes that the man who hired her may not be what she thought he was originally. She bolts out the door, the vampire comes out looking puzzled and the episode is over. I don't know what purpose it was to make such an abbreviated episode that lasted just 5 minutes. They should just have expanded the earlier episode by those same 5 minutes and skipped this one. A total wasted effort.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At first I thought that this one was supposed to be somewhat of a comedy\/horror when I had seen the body in the bathtub with the lady just standing there screaming over and over again but as the film proceeded on, it got more and more flat. The plot was silly with a man upset that the prices of real estate have gone up so now he dicides to call up some radio psyciatrist and babble out his fury because he has nothing better to do. Then the law gets involved and tries desperatly to make us feel that they really care who the caller is and go out of their way to track this guy down. One suspect after another are accused. This movie is terrible and the slow moving love scenes of Adrian B. and her husband are boring and made me just fast forward the movie. Avoid it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Best thing I can say about this porno-horror film is: boobies boobies boobies !

Beyond that, this film is made by some Hindu\/Indian guy with some background in porn films or such .

Plot: Talk-Show host and girlfriend are stalked by a psychopath who is angry over the plight of the homeless and takes it out on, you guessed it, beautiful real-estate agent ladies ! (films like these are why the slasher films of the 80's got a rep for misogyny)

This film is not really a Slasher, but has the same sort of implausibilities and stereotypes: the dumb-ass cops, the villain is an old white male, and the women are busty babes .

If you like porno-horror, this is your movie, otherwise stay away . (Adrienne fans will get to see her sagging breasts for a second or two)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(Some Spoilers) Dull as dishwater slasher flick that has this deranged homeless man Harry, Darwyn Swalve, out murdering real-estate agent all over the city of L.A because of the high prices that they charge for their proprieties. Looking like an extra from a Clint Eastwood \"Spaghetti Western\" Harry who's been living in abandoned houses eating dog food get's very upset where his quite lifestyle as a squatter is interrupted. This happens when a number of real-estate agents invaded his space in an attempt to sell the houses, that he's staying at to their potential clients.

Joseph Bottome stars in this bottom-of-the-barrel horror movie as radio talk-show host Dr. David Kelly the handsome and popular host psychologist of the KDRX survival line. DR. Kelly is being sued by the family of one of his callers,Tracy, who ended up blowing her brains out while on the air with the doc who couldn't do anything to help her survive her ordeal of taking to him.

The real-estate killer gets to talk with Dr. Kelly on the air about his adventures and the police try to get the doc to get his phone number and address, by keeping him on the line, but he refuses to in order not to hurt his rating by having potential callers not call in in fear of being monitored by the LADP.

Kelly also is having a hot and heavy affair with a real-estate manager and agent the busty Lisa Grant, Adrienne Barbeau, who's office of sellers are Harry's main victims in he movie. Harry also gets to murder Lisa's main competition in the housing business the chubby and outrageous Barney Resnick, Barry Hope, who threatened to put Lisa out of business by any means possible even if he has to kill her.

Getting Berney alone and with his pants down Harry slices his head off while he's being entertained by one of his clients, a hooker, whom he leaves dead and hanging together with the headless Barney. The movie ends with the deranged Harry taking Lisa hostage and having Dr. Kelly try to come to her rescue only to have Det. Shapiro (Robert Miano), looking like e hasn't slept in a week, pop out of nowhere and blow Harry's brains out. Harry quickly come back to life minus the gay matter between his ears and gets himself killed for the second time in the movie by being thrown from a balcony and landing on the ground as a dozen members of the LAPD, M16 cocked and ready, come on the scene.

Nothing in the movie \"Opean House\" worked with the tension laughable to almost non-existent. Even the hot sex scenes between Dr. Kelly and Lisa didn't save the movie since there were far too few,only two, of them and and sexy Adrienne Barbeau was a bit too underexposed, with not enough light and too much clothes on, in all of them.

Harry the killer in the movie was also a bit to comical to be taken seriously in trying to make a point, to Dr. Kelly on the phone and in person, about the high rents and real-estate prices in the country and how people like himself find it almost impossible to find a decent place to live in. You can sympathize with Harry's concern about the high cost of living but be very critical of him in how he crazily went on in correcting it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lisa Grant (Adrienne Barbeau) is a real estate agent who finds herself in jeopardy of getting killed by a deranged maniac who kills people in her profession who he feels make house prices too high. As motives go, this is pretty damn retarded. Lisa's boyfriend happens to be a talk show host whom the killer keeps calling on-air. At first I was positive this was supposed to be a comedy or satire of some kind, but as the endless minutes drone on and on, I realized that it wasn't and the film was just grossly incompetent in every way, shape, and form. I'm just surprised that something this horrid wasn't directed by Jeff Lieberman (yea, email me some hate mail again, Jeff you hack) Anyway, back to the film, poor, poor Barbeau, you can pinpoint EXACTLY when her film career went down in flames and it all started here.

My Grade: F

Where I saw it: The Movie Channel","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was the slowest and most boring so called horror that I have ever seen. I would include a comment on the plot but there was none. I do not recommend this movie unless you are prepared for the biggest waste of money and time of your life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now, let me see if I have this correct, a lunatic serial killer is going around murdering estate agents....okay...what's wrong with that scenario, I can live with that.

What next, a slasher with tax inspectors butchered? Traffic wardens sliced to death? Are we supposed to feel any sympathy for empty headed and shallow, money obsessed property people? Er...no.

Sadly, joking aside, it's just not a very well made film with poor acting and crude effects, the climatic scene is particularly silly. You can almost see the director shouting, 'action' to the stuntman as he falls through the glass of the window.

As another reviewer quite rightly said, after starring in 'The Fog,' this was the nadir of Adrienne Barbeau's career. Therefore I was happy to see that she had rekindled it by becoming the voice of Catwoman in the Batman animated series, while watching the extras on the live action Catwoman film. NB: not quite the awful film it's made out to be, by the way.

This however is a bad film, think a poor episode of 'Kojak' or 'Streets of San Francisco,' and you will get an idea of what is on offer here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... Brian? what the hell were you *on* when you signed to do this?

I saw this recently at a festival, and it was greeted by howling laughter throughout. By the time the credits rolled, tears were streaming down the faces of many of the audience.

The plot is a clunky melding of 'E.R.' and 'The X-Files'; as cynically aimed at the TV audience as is possible to get without being sued. The sequences involving the abductions are hilarious- both Yuzna's staging of the 'floating from the bed' and 'Screaming Mad George's pathetic plastic aliens drew gales of disbelieving, derisive laughter.

Limp, camp and stupid. My only hope is that it was an aberration- As awful as 'Return of the Living Dead 3' was good.

Steev","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rented the video with a lot of expectations, but it was a disappointment. The story didn't make sense, the plot was very weak and the special effects.. well, I think even I can do better with my home computer. Sorry. Missed a change here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A young doctor and his wife are suddenly expecting a child. Both are disturbed about a two hour memory lapse on the night of conception. Interesting twist on an hackneyed story. Very good F\/X and interesting editing. Jillian McWhirter is outstanding in a cast that features Arnold Vosloo, Wilford Brimley and Brad Dourif. Brimley brings normalcy to the outlandish. Kudos to director Brian Yuzna.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love Brian Yuzna's other work, even cruder stuff like 'Necronomicon', but 'Progeny' was too much even for me. My chief complaint is that it's needlessly exploitative of Jillian McWhirter's nudity, I'm no prude but these nude scenes just drag on and on and on... only to culminate (virtually every time) in a tawdry *wink, nudge* insinuation of sexual violence. The scene where she attempts a coat hanger abortion after several minutes of naked screaming is a prime example. Arnold Vosloo's 'performance' is utterly turgid, but even Jeffrey Coombs couldn't save this festering heap of a film. The aliens are boring, the uniformly dull lighting saps your interest, and the plot is absolutely predictable. The only highlights for me were an all-too-brief glimpse of the aliens' true form (very nice model) and the scene where Vosloo finds his wife in the closet was OK too. But you've been warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was not a good film. Poorly scripted and acted - the concept was not new, the effects poor and not a showcase for Arnold Vosloo who really is a half decent actor. I watched this under some protest and only remembered having seen it before towards the very end - it's that forgettable. The acting seemed to consist of a number of glares & looks devoid of any sincerity. I kept expecting this to actually get going and before long I was just hoping it would finish. As for the medical bits - well I wasn't expecting a true version of ER events but this was just comical - I am a Dr so know what I am taking about - and the operative bits were just plain silly.

Do not waste your valuable time - unless you have absolutely nothing else to do - go out, ring up a long lost friend, watch paint dry, sort out your sock draw, do some household task. AVOID at your peril.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a big fan of Brian Yuzna and the majority of the movies he's been involved in, I guessed I'd enjoy Progeny. I didn't, although in ways it has it's moments. However, if you're expecting something of the calibre of Society or Beyond ReAnimator, you could be in for a shock. In a way this is similar to Society, being a tale of a seemingly ordinary world with a horrific supernatural underbelly...but that's where it ends.

I'm not covering for Yuzna when I say that the fault doesn't really lie with him, as bad direction is bad direction, but the direction is sound. What trips the movie up is both script and acting. Stuart Gordon (ReAnimator, Dagon) has written an intelligent script, but one that doesn't really work with Yuzna's style of direction, leaving him paused on actors delivering lengthy dialogue when really he wants to throw that camera around and get down with his bad self. This matter makes the movie awkward enough as it is, but there's worse.

If the movie had been made with great actors, the movie would have probably held it's own. Unfortunately this is very far from the case. The acting is wooden, shockingly so even for a low-budget B feature. The inexplicably successful and renowned Arnold Vosloo wrecks every damn line with near pinpoint precision, handing in one of the worst performances I've seen in a long while. The man manages to turn every line of well considered dialogue into the kind of ham-line you'll be throwing drunkenly at mates next time you're in the pub. 'Hey Bob! GOOD GOD, AM I GOING MAD! WHAT'S...COME OVER ME! NOOOO!' In fact I may try that one myself next weekend. The last minute addition of genre veteran (and personal favourite) Brad Dourif, instead of enriching the film like it should, almost seems to hand Dourif the movie in a last ditch effort to stop Vosloo from hamming, but quite frankly Dourif looks deeply uncomfortable (possibly waiting for the next assault of bad acting) next to Vosloo, and even an eccentric turn from him fails to resuscitate the film.

If the acting was better, this movie would have been okay. Hell, it might have been pretty enjoyable, but the lack of character makes the movie a soulless affair, and makes the horror element seem tacked on and tasteless instead of an organic part of the film. I found the alien torture\/rape scenes a little difficult to stomach already, but the fact that the characters were so lacking made them seem gratuitous as well as unpleasant, leaving a nasty taste in the mouth.

So, if you really like Sci-fi and don't have a problem with bad acting, pedestrian pacing and a really garish, nasty rape scene, Progeny will probably be your cup of tea. But since I do, I'm probably never going to watch it again. Once was enough. On the plus side, this is the only Sci-Fi movie Yuzna ever bothered to make, so he obviously wasn't really that pleased with it himself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all this is one of the worst soft-core straight to cable \"erotic thriller\" I've ever seen in my life. Of course, like all erotic thrillers are want to do, it's about a brothel madam and is set in a brothel. This, of course, makes the softcore simulated sex that pops up every other 10 minutes seem \"in context.\" Whatever.

Forget for one moment that this was never meant to win any awards. The actors are terrible and their line reading made me cringe. The woman who plays the female cop is so bad it's beyond description. She must be a really REALLY good friend of the guys who put up the movie for this terrible adventure, if you know what I mean.

The production values are only slightly higher than porn. Other than that? I suppose if you're really drunk and you need something to laugh at, this would be a perfect film. And if that's the case, I recommend fast forwarding to all the scenes with the female cop. What's that accent, Brooklyn? Hilarious!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This espionage melodrama has a nice, almost promising cast, and should have been very atmospheric; there is a will, or an intention of atmosphere\u0097and also a want, or a lack of it.

Sheen plays a dissident who now activates as an agent, he is a loner, loved by women but haughty; Mrs. Fossey is his mistress. Neill plays the gallant, generous, chivalrous Soviet agent.

Sheen and Neill are both essentially annoying; Finlay does a cameo, and so do other known actors. Mrs. Fossey is hot; but then again, she always is.

I will be your true friend and break it to you\u0097the flick is low on suspense and on excitement, it's trite and quite boring; the good thing is that you get to see Mrs. Fossey naked. Other than that, lukewarm derivative espionage exploitation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After receiving a DVD of this with a Sunday newspaper, I hoped that it was not the usual duff films that are given away because no one would ever buy them. I was wrong. Sheens acting is on par with that of a ten year old in a school pantomime production and the same goes for the majority of the cast. Neill is satisfactory, but plays a Russian and isn't helped by his hybrid Northern Irish\/New Zealand accent, and nor are the rest of the KGB characters, all of whom sound like they're in a Cambridge Footlights reunion. In fact, the only people with genuine accents are extras who supply an odd word here and there, helpfully letting us know at least where the hell everything is going on in what is otherwise a complete mash. The \"espionage\" factor is unimpressive for the most part and primarily consists of Sheen faffing about in various ridiculous disguises whilst trying to blend into the background, quickly becoming not only boring but laughable. The plot has potential but is completely murdered by the rest of the confusing production elements. This could have been so much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is bundled along with \"Gli fumavano le Colt... lo chiamavano Camposanto\" and both films leave a lot to be desired in the way of their DVD prints. First, both films are very dark--occasionally making it hard to see exactly what's happening. Second, neither film has subtitles and you are forced to watch a dubbed film--though \"Il Prezzo del Potere\" does seem to have a better dub. Personally, I always prefer subtitles but for the non-purists out there this isn't a problem. These DVD problems, however, are not the fault of the original film makers--just the indifferent package being marketed four decades later.

As for the film, it's about the assassination of President Garfield. This is a MAJOR problem, as Van Johnson looks about as much like Garfield as Judy Garland. In no way whatsoever does he look like Garfield. He's missing the beard, has the wrong hair color and style and is just not even close in any way (trust me on this, I am an American History teacher and we are paid to know these sort of things!). The real life Garfield was a Civil War general and looked like the guys on the Smith Brothers cough drop boxes. Plus, using some other actor to provide the voice for Johnson in the dubbing is just surreal. Never before or since has Van Johnson sounded quite so macho!! He was a fine actor...but certainly not a convincing general or macho president.

In addition to the stupid casting, President Garfield's death was in no way like this film. It's obvious that the film makers are actually cashing in on the crazy speculation about conspiracies concerning the death of JFK, not Garfield. Garfield was shot in Washington, DC (not Dallas) by a lone gunman with severe mental problems--not a group of men with rifles. However, according to most experts, what actually killed Garfield (over two months later) were incompetent doctors--who probed and probed and probed to retrieve a bullet (to no avail) and never bothered cleaning their hands or implements in the process. In other words, like George Washington (who was basically killed by repeated bloodletting when suffering with pneumonia) he died due to malpractice. In the movie they got nothing right whatsoever...other than indeed President Garfield was shot.

Because the film bears almost no similarity to real history, it's like a history lesson as taught from someone from another planet or someone with a severe brain injury. Why not also include ninjas, fighting robots and the Greek gods while you're at it?!?! Aside from some decent acting and production values, because the script is utter cow crap, I don't recommend anyone watch it. It's just a complete and utter mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ya know, I have no idea how everybody else's teenage life was, but this does not reflect the folks I knew and hung around with let alone, myself. And just in case if you're wondering..NO..we weren't pristine\/clean cut\/Pat Boone type teens. (If there was ever such a thing!!!!)

Look, I'm NOT saying being a teenager is easy. The better, well actually the BEST teen movie of this time is \"Fast Times at Ridgemont High\". Now those kids I knew and were as realistic as it got back then (and maybe now).

This was crap. This was a low rent version of Fast Times and even then it didn't do much for me. It had a few moments, but not enough for me to recommend this, or even claim \"this is how it was for teens back in 1982\". I couldn't relate. The lead girl (girls) did nothing for me and please if they really wanted to keep their virginity, they would have, in which case, this film would not have been made. Pure crap and a bad staple to be left behind as a time-capsule cinema for teens\/young adults in the early '80's.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i wrote an essay in 1981, the year i graduated high school called the \"last American virgin.\" i also had a friend named nancy who was the prostitute in this film. apparently her daughter got a hold of my essay one night when she slept over my house. a year later i wake up one morning and see the advertisement for this film. i was 18 years old & based the essay on experiences in my life. the film is a bit different from my essay but definitely taken from it. i did not have any proof of this matter except my English teacher mr.Versace who gave me an A on my essay.i let it go & never did anything about it.i figured what comes around goes around.i still would not take any action against anyone involved in this film. i just needed to get it off my chest, as i really never told anyone about it, except my closest friend & they agreed to keep it a secret.the same year it came out i saw nancy in a market, she actually had the nerve to ask me if i had any good stories or scripts for her to look at. i guess thats what Hollywood is all about, getting stories from wherever you can.it was interesting seeing parts of my life on the big screen though.

ghost writer!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well the film starts good, but after half an hour it becomes boring and stupid, when all the plot is about Karen's( that was the name of the girl right?) pregnancy.

The end of the movie it's really corny and the characters really dumb.

I don't know who is more stupid, if the girl because she came back with her old boyfriend or the boy for the way he was used for her.

Anyway my conclusion is this: definitely not the best eighties comedy, just another movie like many others with nothing special, they could do it better but they ruined it, if only the plot had take another way but they keep that pregnancy stuff and they definitely ruined, so final conclusion: i don't like.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This thing takes the horny teenager genre, very poorly respected to begin with, and completely flushes it down the toilet. The only people I would even consider recommending it to are teenage girls, for a \"revealing\" scene in a boys' locker room. And in the end I wouldn't make such a recommendation. To do so would be to contribute to the delinquency of a juvenile. An absolute piece of garbage with utterly no redeeming qualities.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having seen just about every movie on record that a child of the eighties could have seen, this ranks at the very, very, very bottom of the heap of bad movies I have ever seen. It's depressing and just plain, painful to watch. Nuff said.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sex,Drugs,Rock & Roll is without a doubt the worst product of Western Civilization. The monologues are both uninteresting and pointless In the rare monologue that captures the audience's attention it is quickly lost through overly long repetition and unnecessary additions (The Hells Angels at McDonalds comes to mind) I guess Bogosian's one man show needed some filler material to give a length that he thought justified the price of admission.

I would rather sleep with my aunt and be hung upside down and drained of my blood than see Sex,Drugs,Rock & Roll again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can imagine why he'd want to die, after starring in this rubbish. The man is incredible, but even Sidney Poitier couldn't save this tiresome morality play about racism in the old West. He and Joanna Going are both fantastic in this film: too bad the screenplay, co-stars, directing, and score couldn't match those two.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a big fan of sleaze and horror movies, when you put them together that's my sweet spot: horrible sleaze. You're not going to get it in this film, though.

There is certainly sleaze, in the form of girls being kidnapped and tortured, tied naked to various things. The sleaze isn't very sleazy, though. It didn't register very high on my sleaze meter, mainly because none of the girls were in the least attractive, nor did they attempt to act as if they were even threatened. They seemed to be thinking more about what was for lunch, or maybe when they could score some crack.

Forget the effects, they were lame in the extreme. The lameness was contributed to by the bad acting; effects are harder to believe when even the actors and actresses aren't buying into them.

Cinematography was pretty bad, they could have hired a couple cameramen from a porn movie and done better. In fact, that might have raised the sleaze factor enough to make it enjoyable. As it is, there are a lot of dark shots where you can't see very clearly, and what you can see isn't looking too good.

The horror factor is nil. Null. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. I've seen kids movies that were more frightening. There's no camp here, either. It's just a movie that attempts to be shockingly sleazy, but doesn't even come close.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was absolute trash. The director and stars(?)should be banished from making movies forever. The paper-thin plot concerns a sleazy director played by the sleazy director (now thats acting) advertising on the internet for women to star in a snuff movie.

There's no horror at all, the girls look strung-out and bored, the direction is pointless, the music is misplaced (heavy metal in a library scene?), and the lighting is awful. The director should have cashed in a couple more shopping carts full of aluminum cans and gotten a script, sober actors, and a few light bulbs. As it is, this is one disgusting, nasty, worthless mess of a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Could easily have been better. In fact maybe so much so that if the filmmaker hadn't tried even as hard as he did, it might have actually been better.

On a good note. The lighting was reasonably okay. But pretty much everything else was lacking. Wobbly camera work. (Yeah, yeah, I know, that's supposed to be the style now.) Poorly recorded audio. And editing that looked like someone watched too many Ulli Lommel movies (which are some of the worst edited movies.) To sum it up, the movie seemed to be a rationalization for the director\/writer\/main-character to get some young women naked, put them in fake bondage, and grope them, while saying \"menacing\" things.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kill the scream queen may sound like a good slasher flick but it is terribly boring and very dumb.

Kill the scream queen is about a crazy filmmaker who auditions girls to be in his snuff film. He rapes and tortures them. This is trash that is not amusing, suspenseful or entertaining.The killer has no motive,okay maybe hes just sick...and very dull. Maybe they could of gave a victim a story of their own. Anything could be an improvement. It needed a lot more.

They could of put just a little more into it. I love horror\/slasher films but this is ridiculously bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While I was watching this movie I never thought I'd be defending it. It's honest enough from the begininning about not having much of a plot. There's no real characters to latch onto except the killer. Some of the acting can be better, but most of it is capable.

I know, a three out of ten isn't stellar, but there are reviews saying it was shot poorly and completely useless, etc. I think it set out to do what it's supposed to fairly well. The lighting is minimal at times, more natural than most audiences are used to, but it's supposed top look like a camcorder snuff film. In fact, at times the quality is probably still too high to be true to that, but nobody would make it through tne minutes of camera work that's truly that bad.

It's not particularly scary, but it is disturbing at times. There are one or two characters who don't come across as believable at all and the soundtrack does get tiring at times, but overall it was put together cleaner than a lot of camcorder movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"who reads these comments may think we may have in hand a great movie. I am Portuguese and I'm ashamed that this film became a blockbuster in Portugal. It can't really call this cinema. The direction and \"mise-en-scene\" is basic (even Ron Howard does better!); the script is bad and pretentious (a really bad Tarantino); the cast is covered in TV stars, models and reality show stars that don't no nothing about acting. When you put in a movie this ingredients of course that the fans of this kind of TV shows will all go see. i am also surprised that people who make comments here in IMDb say that this movie is a masterpiece. I thought that this site was only for people who truly like cinema and understand a little bit of it. All the movies made to be blockbusters in Portgal always use the same ingredients and are always awful. if you think this movie is reasonable, please don't say your love movies and cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Any movie should have an idea; Simple or more complex, it needs one... The problem with Fragata,..it's once more, that when he decides to make a movie, he so anxious to do \"whatsoever\" that he forgets this main detail, and as result we have the characters doing whatever without any justification, behaving without justified reasons...they are simple puppets going along the movie on the flavour of the wind. It's boring and sad to see them appearing and vanishing like cards being discarded in a game. Fragata always seem to have talent in advertising is own work...and that leads you to see what he did...but in the end there's always a big disappointment. It's not enough having a movie full of the \"hot Portuguese's pink magazine stars\"...especially when half of them can't act...they only pretend to be funny. Here my only good point goes to the actor Helder Mendes...one of the few non stars': He makes the effort to establish some credibility, and in such a messy movie without any direction (of any kind) I give him the credit for trying hard. But this movie its worth to check out as a manual of \"how to not do a movie\"...and if Fragata's previous works where bad...this one it's a \"masterpiece\" in achieving the title of AWFUL. In few words,..Just check it out! It will make you good,...and if you homemade your family movies,...and always feel bad with your work...so just spend 30 minutes looking to this so \"called\" professional work...your home made stuff will look like Powerful Hollywood Flicks compare to Sorte Nula.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm big into acting, writing, and directing, but not famous yet. My friends and I frequently rent bad movies, just for fun and a good laugh, but when we went to the local Family Video and found a movie called Biker Zombies From Detroit, we knew it was gonna be the worst movie of all time and it was! Biker Zombies From Detroit has no script! They can say they do have one, but they're liars! There was a 4 minute scene of just two guys riffing about women and sexuality, and you could tell it was improvised. And if they're going to improv, it should be at least decent, but it wasn't, and you could tell by the two actors screwing up lines and saying stuff that didn't even make sense.

To give you an idea of how terrible and retarded this movie is, here's the beginning: a girl flicks a guy off, he punches her in the face and beats her up, then rapes her. Then we see zombies who attack and they both turn into zombies.

This is the beginning of the movie! Not to mention the lead zombie voice over that carries through the whole movie, trying to be sinister and thought provoking, but sounding like Marylin Manson having a conniption fit.

Worst movie ever. Bottom line, folks. But watch it if you like movies with no script, no plot, bad acting, bad editing, bad music, and over 100 F words used in the movie.

If this can hit video stores, my future films are gonna win Oscars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Recognizing the picture of the diner on the cover of the DVD made me realize that this was a local movie. The word Detroit in the title furthered my suspecions and I did some looking up of things and yes, a local movie it was.

So I picked it up. Someone I knew actually knew some of the producers\/director (dont remember which) and said the producers\/directors got people to PAY to be in this movie.

Brilliant! What a great idea. The movie makers get some capital to do the movie with, thanks to their cast and crew. Then the investors (cast, crew, others) get some of the profits, I'm imagining.

Profits!

Um anyways. This film totally underwhelmed me. The special effects were special as in special children who ride the small buses to school. The acting was very amusing, not intentionally however. There's a great line where a guy says \"well? this bone aint gonna smoke itself!\" as a pickup line. Unfortunately that is the only fun part of the whole film. The story? Well, I sort of followed it about 3\/5 of the way in, then everything stopped making sense and as we were sitting there watching it, it suddenly ended. I mean as in,..no resolution of anything..like they ran out of time. \"Sorry folks, out of time, goodnight!\"

We sat there baffled and booing, and threw in another film. Then about 20 minutes later a neighbor of mine showed up..with one of the guys from the movie! We threw it back in and he (the actor) gave us a running commentary, which was awesome because he totally ripped on the movie!

What more could you ask for??

The most absurd scene for me was a motorbike chase scene were it was so dark that it could have literally been a guy running past with a flashlight and not a motorbike at all. That and the jaw droppingly in your face sudden ending is enough to make you howl. In pain! The zombies looked less like zombies than my coworkers do. And I dont work at the morgue either.

So, I recommend seeing this if you can get someone from the movie to come over and give you a running commentary as to all the things that went on behind the scenes and make sure this person hates the movie because that just adds to the fun.

Otherwise, give this one a pass. Rent something like Feeders if you want a jaw droppingly bad in a funny way movie...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OUCH, No real need to say anything else. This movie actually had me contemplating suicide. As a huge fan of the wonderful genre that is zombie movies I found this to quite possibly be the worst attempt I have ever been privy too. The film never actually seemed to go ANYWHERE! What was the point to it all, I am left feeling hopeless and lost. Hell this was so bad i cant even justify bashing it anymore. I'm just gonna go hang myself in the closet. OK now I tried to submit my comment but the server will only accept comments that are ten lines or more. So here it goes... Bad, horrible, no where near enough gore. NO TITS!!!!!!How can you have a Zombie movie without tits. As a matter of fact the female lead had one hell of a rack and the only reason I watched the film to completion was in order to maybe by chance get a glimpse. NOPE! Of course there was one line that does deserve mentioning, a line I am looking forward to using myself someday (when i just feel the need to get my face smacked) \"This hog isn't going to smoke itself\" This movie is bad, so bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this pile of sewer waste hoping for a few good laughs. With a title like `Zombie Bikers from Detroit' and with Dead Alive productions stamped on the front cover, you would think that this could be a funny\/gruesome film, but no. This is the worst movie I have ever seen (and yes, I have seen all of the Police Academy movies). The story (this is a joke within itself) and the dialogue are atrocious. The make up of the so-called zombies looks like they used one of those two dollar `Make yourself look like a Zombie' kits that you buy at K-Mart.

I would rather watch Beverly Hills 90210 while listening to the Backstreet Boys and be whipped by a 400lb novelty birthday card model than to sit through another single minute of this pathetic excuse for a DVD. Honestly, I could make a better movie with $3, some popsicle sticks and a slinky. I feel as if 90 minutes of my life were stripped away from me and taken to the land of Suckdom. I know that tagging on the Dead Alive production doesn't guarantee a great flick, but you do expect to get your moneys worth.

The only thing that made me happy (save, returning the horrid mass of elephant feces) was that it wasn't titled `Biker Zombies from Pittsburgh'. I feel for Detroit folks that wasted their hard-earned money on this one. Unless you have been lobotomized \u0085. Do not buy, rent if you must \u0085 But \u0085. You will regret it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Evil never looked so bad. They meant it.

When a buddy of mine picked this DVD up at a half-priced book store, I didn't know what to expect. I mean, based on the title, I knew it would be worth a laugh, but I didn't realize how laughable it would really be.

The first time through, I missed some of the dialogue (if you could call it that) because we were all too busy poking fun at the plot of the movie. It seemed like it was written in filmed in less than a week, and they hadn't the budget to go back and fix some of the minor flaws. Wait, did I say \"minor\"? I meant the exact opposite. For instance, the main character is credited as 'Ken', but several times throughout the film he is referred to as 'John'.

If the plot holes aren't enough fun for you, take a look at the acting. Nobody seems overly concerned about the zombie raids in their state, including the mother of the main character, who is missing for days while she sits in front of a fireplace reading a book.

The constraints that the budget puts on the movie are equally as hilarious. Maybe they didn't have a permit to film wherever they were, because during the BIG MOTORCYCLE CHASE SCENE, the characters are obeying all traffic regulations. The zombies, who had just killed twenty or so people, actually stop at a stop sign coming out of a parking lot. I don't even do that, but then again, I'm not a biker zombie. The ending of the movie looks like they just ran out of money. It ends so suddenly that it leaves you wanting more... On second thought, it ends just soon enough.

So if you're looking for a good time with your friends, seek out this movie. It's a great unintentional comedy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a Michigander, I got the Michigan jokes. Very funny - make fun of Pontiac, Ann Arbor, all those lame suburbs of Detroit. Yes, yes, I've heard these jokes a million times. I'll give them credit for accurately depicting the lameness of Grosse Pointe. It couldn't get more White. Did you hear those lovely Michigan nasal accents? Where the girls talk so fast you can't understand one word that comes out of their mouth (nose)...? As much as I love Michigan, I hated this movie.

I have never met one person from Grosse Pointe that I liked. Listen to that awful live band and that annoying and horrid background music! What is that? One of your Gross Pointe homeboy's band? Probably. Wow, what a great \"Detroit scene\" you guys have over there. Funny how people from Grosse Pointe always say they're from Detroit. They're so White and rich, they wish they had something to complain about.

Anyway, this movie blows. All the way from the lame jokes about girls in thongs to the terrible character development. Oh wait a minute, you mean the entire basis for a character is that he says the f-word a lot? What a deep personality. Great job, Grosse Pointers! And I love all the sexist lingo, like how the narrator calls the first girl who gets killed that we never even hear speak a \"naive b*tch\". That's really lovely.

And those homemade masks with the Marilyn Manson contact lenses are really great. And I love how it made perfect sense as to why the bikers came by and killed people. And how their narrating master had such a obvious role in the movie... ?? The main boyfriend dude was so boring I fell asleep looking at him. The three idiot guys (or was it two or four? how can I tell, they all look and act the same!) were so desperately trying to make me laugh, but Beavis and Butthead already got out my butt humor laughs back in 1994. And what's with the gay jokes? No wonder this movie sucked - everyone involved must have some minor problems with their masculinity, eh boys?

The only saving grace to this film was the main girl. Despite what the other people on here have said, she actually was a good actress. Teenage girls talk the way she talked. They really act the way she acted. Her acting was very natural and believable. I really thought she was a Grosse Pointe convenience store employee. .. maybe she is! And yeah she had big boobs, most the women here do. Michigan is the fattest state in the union, you know. In all aspects.

So, those of you who think this is a representation of Detroit, it's not. It's the suburbs of Detroit. They are very White and full of aimless teen angst. Limp Bizkut, ICP (yes, ICP is from one of our suburbs) and $75 baggy khaki pants all the way! Lame rich kids who are mad because they have lots of money and nothing to complain about. And they make bad movies, too.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some people may remember Ms. Russell from films such as \"Black Widow\", which had some appeal and critical acclaim. Boy, she must have really needed a rent check when she signed on to do this dog.

Yes, there will be those who like the gratuitous violence and nudity. But one must sit back and wonder, in retrospect, what possessed anyone to spend money and time to make this in the first place. I just saw this movie on one of the \"HBO's\", and I can't believe they picked it up.

In 1996 Ms. Russel didn't have the physical attractiveness she did earlier in her career. But, come on! Having her play Ma Barker??? Her \"sons\" all look like they could be her brothers. It's also creepy in that you think there are going to be incestuous relationships occurring (thank goodness there aren't, hope that doesn't count as a spoiler). With Eric Roberts and Alyssa Milano added into the cast, this one is B-movie 'straight to video' all the way.

The scenes between Purvis and Ma Barker, either in person or on the phone, are a primer in terrible, terrible acting. Oh, wait, I forgot terrible, terrible writing as well. Chalk this one up to experience. A bad experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, pretty amazing that something this bad could actually be made. I am giving this movie a 2 because it is so bad it has a certain \"car wreck\" kind of appeal. Its so bad its comical and that does have a certain entertainment value. Plus there is a bit of gratuitous nudity and that is always appreciated.

So where do I begin. The acting is beyond awful, its like you are watching a high school play being filmed. Theresa Russell must have done something really bad to have been forced to make this movie and her acting reflects how happy she is to be in the middle of this mess.

The rest of the cast is simply silly with the casting of Dan Cortese as an FBI agent the cherry on the top of this piece of crap. His acting actually had me laughing at loud.

As for the screenplay and the directing C. Courtney Joyner and Mark L. Lester should simply be taken out back and shot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Is this movie as bad as some claim? In my opinion, yes it is. I wasn't going to comment, noting that quite a few comments have already been made, ranging from 'awful' to -not nearly so bad...'. However, I can't resist.

What do you make of a movie that has, on the DVD cover. the phrase \"the real story of \"Ma BArker and her boys...\", and the standard \"any similarity to actual persons...\" disclaimer in the credits? I'm not naive, but in this case, it's a pretty relevant observation regarding this movie.

Several comments knock the performances. They are pretty awful, Roberts, Russell, Milano and Stallone have something like 315 movies and TV shows listed between them. They can act, or at least perform.

However...the dialog is not to my taste, and quite unintentionally funny at times. The story arcs didn't seem to be anything but the barest minimum required to string specific scenes of violence and melodrama together.

Direction and screen writing has to be faulted: Amyrillis giggles after seeing Ma Barker's violent temper and finishes with \"Take The Girl!\"?????. What ever you think of Alyssa's acting abilities...some screenwriter wrote that line or reaction, and\/or some director shot it, and said, 'OK, that's good enough, no need to retake that, that's credible...' One footnote: I did pick up my copy for $1.99 or $2.99 in a grocery story discount bin; the running time is shown as 91 mins, and I note that the running time is listed on IMDb as 95 mins. I don't know what 4 minutes I'm missing, but I acknowledge that if those 4 minutes were of the right sort of person in the right sort of situation, my rating might soar to 3 or 4 out of 10. As I saw it, 1 \/ 10 is what I must vote.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's too kind to call this a \"fictionalized\" account of the Barker gang. They got the names right, but that's about it.

Russell is still hot, I'll grant you that, but this is not the real Ma Barker, who basically took care of the boys by cooking and assisting when they moved around the country, not by planning or participating in the crimes. I think it would have been far more interesting to present the real story of a middle-aged woman caught up in the criminal activities of her children and their cronies.

I also have to agree with those reviewers who found the shoot-out scenes to be totally unbelievable. The Barker\/Karpis victims were a combination of the innocent and of the law-enforcement agents who pursued them, but they definitely did not mow down half-a-dozen FBI agents every time they were cornered. (On the other hand, as several recent books have related, the FBI of that era emphasized the idea of agents coming only from legal or accounting backgrounds to the extent that many agents had very little law enforcement or firearms experience. They were not the well-trained agents that we picture today.)

But the worst sin of all is that the movie is basically a bore. Nobody changes, nobody grows. We know the end of the road is ahead, we just don't know which shoot-out it will be.

Only for die-hard Russell fans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"By the time this movie came out in 1996, director Mark Lester had been making tight, sharp little B action pictures for more than 20 years. He was responsible for the great \"Truck Stop Women\" from the '70s and several other little gems; unfortunately, he's also responsible for this dud. It's a shame to see the talented--and still smoking hot--Theresa Russell wasted yet again, but she's still the best actor in this picture. Eric Roberts shows up for a while, does his Eric Roberts thing, then goes away, a not altogether unwelcome occurrence in a picture with Eric Roberts in it. Frank Stallone actually isn't bad, which should give you an idea of how truly pathetic this picture is. As has been mentioned by other reviewers, the action scenes--which is the reason a picture like this gets made in the first place--are almost completely illogical and unrealistic, in addition to being somewhat inept. Other than some \"vintage\" clothes and a few old cars, there's no feel whatever for the 1930s, the era in which this film is set. A by-the-numbers script with irritating lapses in logic and little historical accuracy--this isn't a documentary, of course, but the filmmakers could have at least TRIED for a little authenticity--and performances that range from grade B to grade school relegate this cheap little quickie to the 4:00 a.m. Sunday slot on HBO, which is just where I saw it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film contain far too much meaningless violence. Too much shooting and blood. The acting seems very unrealistic and is generally poor. The only reason to see this film is if you like very old cars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is about a party put together by the high school \"scary girl.\" Per the illogic of these sorts of films, she gets permission to hold the party at a house which used to be a crematorium, a dubious place long shut down and locked up. Apparently the history of this piece of property is one of those town secrets best left unspoken of among proper folk though the legend does get whispered about among the young.

Why was this crematorium really shut down? What actually happened there in the past?

I like these kill-kill-kill films of a supernatural nature as long as there is something in them not copied from a hundred other films. The highlights of this film are a petty theft \"7-11\" robbery by distracting the clerk with a vivid view, the changing clothes scene by the \"good girl\" witnessed by her jerk younger brother, the eventual demise of the ugly neighbor who hates the holiday, the spooky mirror scene and the concept of running water being a barrier against the supernatural; the best part of this film is when the possessed party sponsor dances to BAUHAUS in front of the fireplace; that scene rocks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's difficult to decide whether this movie suffers from crap dialogue or if it's just made to appear so by crap actors. In any case it suffers from storywriting which is mediocre at best.

Although made in the late '80's, the first part of the movie plays like a 60's teenage screwball comedy (barring the absence of any actual humour), especially the part of the 'good girl', which is as annoying a Doris Day figure as you could hope\/fear for, including the slightly whiny opposition to anything 'fun' her friends want to do. The net effect is, after a while you start to hope she'll bite it so you don't have to listen to her voice anymore.

Some profanity and gratuitous nudity, plus some really 80's style clothing is your only clue that this movie was made in the 80's. Oh, and some pretty passable music, too.

Storywise, it's pretty formulaic stuff. A bunch of horny (apart, obviously , from 'miss nice girl') teenagers decide to celebrate Halloween night by throwing a party in a haunted house. Partying and fornication ensues, along with an ill-advised 'seance' which kicks off the demonic possession spree which is the subject of the movie. After this, the only suspenseful part will be trying to guess in which order the characters will expire. You're sure not to care whether or not they will. The actors are so bad that becoming demons\/zombies\/dinner actually improves their performance somewhat, and the ridiculously clich\u00e9 dialogue is so annoying that you squirm in your seat.

Gorewise, this flick ain't nuthin' special, unless you think cheesy is kind of 'special'. For example, the demon head which occasionally appears is so screamingly fake that you wonder if it's a 5-year old trick-or-treating.

This is not to say there's nothing enjoyable in the flick. Some of the music isn't half bad, and the first of our insipid Scooby gang to get possessed performs a marvelous and really sexy dance routine at one point, before she turns nasty.

Also, and I don't know why, towards the very end of the flick, I actually managed to get somewhat involved. The suspense lacking in most of the movie made a late appearance, and I started to squirm out of unease instead of annoyance. Which is what a horror movie is supposed to do.

Concequently, I cannot bring myself to give this movie a rock-bottom rating, since by some inexplicable miracle (I don't rule out being possessed by demons) I was actually a little creeped.

Don't pay money to see it, though. It's hardly worth your time, yet alone hard cash. Watch it on YouTube while it's there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first saw this I thought bits of it were fairly scary. But the horror is a little undermined by the fact that the dozy teenagers are so irritating that you don't really care what happens to them. There are some genuinely good moments such as Angela's speech about demons, and the briefly-seen demon itself is effective. But this really doesn't stand up to repeated viewing or close analysis. It's all pretty tacky and cheap-looking and often downright silly, pornography and unfunny wisecracks all too often replacing horror. The music is excellent, however, and the epilogue is certainly amusing, but this film doesnt have much to recommend it, just comes across as another Jason-type stalk-and-slash fare.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dear friends, I've never seen such a trash movie as NIGHT OF THE DEMONS (1988). It seems that the director Kevin Tenney had the intention to copy classics like THE EVIL DEAD by Sam Raimi (1978) or George A. Romero's RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD from the same year. The cinematography was lousy, the movie was very dark, so I had to turn the brightness control to the maximum. Indeed, horror pictures have to be dark, but not the way like NIGHT OF THE DEMONS. The entire movie was ridiculous, no suspense, worse actors except Alvin Alexis in the role of Rodger, and horrible make-up effects. An average vote of 5 stars for that movie? I can't believe this. Perhaps the users were pleased about the tits, asses and pussies of the actresses, they were indeed worth 5 stars. Regards, Hans-Dieter","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And you know why? Because they thought (or at least made horror fans think) that a bunch of obnoxious, foul-mouthed, screaming teenagers, some stupid demons (Where do they come from? What is their purpose? Who knows?) and a dark mansion are all you need to make a horror movie. Needless to say, they were wrong. You also need a script, some logic, some rules, and some invention. This flick DOES have one scene that lives up to its reputation (the lipstick scene, of course), and a couple of funny moments (the kid brother's description of his mother's cookies, Linnea Quigley's \"don't look at me\" scene). It also has more profanity than any movie I've watched since I last saw \"Reservoir Dogs\". Literally every fourth or fifth word is a \"f***\" or a \"b****\". Then again, when a movie begins with FOUR false scares in its first 5 minutes, you know not to expect anything resembling good filmmaking. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen! 90 Minutes of excruciating film-making. All the ingredients to make this movie a true work of CRAP. Bad acting, bad directing, bad storytelling, bad makeup, bad dialogue, bad effects, and bad reasoning behind certain actions taken by the characters. It also threw in a terrible naked shot of a dumb blond, and a breast shot of a stupid Asian girl, and both attempts were just scary, since these girls are ugly. Some good horror movies came out of the 80s, but this could never be considered one of them. Kevin Tenney also committed one of the greatest sins in storytelling: he introduced characters at the end of the movie (an Old Man and Old Woman). I would vote for it below a 1 out of 10 but the voting system doesn't work that way apparently. Right from the title sequence I knew it would suck and I would return my DVD but Best Buy doesn't refund DVDs, or consumable products as they call it, or so my receipt says. I have \"The Dunwich Horror\" and that was truly god-awful, but I still feel that \"Night of the Demons\" (an obvious Evil Dead RIP-OFF) was far worse than \"Dunwich Horror.\" This is just like \"The Howling,\" how in the hell could sequels get milked out of this anorexic cow??? Save your money and get the \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre\" (just don't get any of its sequels though) or \"The Evil Dead\" or \"Dawn of the Dead.\" \"Night of the Demons\" is a very, very, very bad investment. Every second of it was just maddening, excruciating pain for the audience, because the whole movie all-around was horrible! Do yourself a favor, DON'T SEE IT! You'll be saving some brain cells.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the many silent comedies Stan Laurel featured in before he teamed with Oliver Hardy, 'Mud and Sand' is a ho-hum hokum. The story is badly disjointed - though this could be because of the modern-day edit - and the humor itself is not at all inventive.

Potential plotlines are started and ignored; for instance, Stan's promise to make Fillet de Sole pay for what she's done to him never comes to fruition. Stan's character doesn't seem very centered, either, but this is a common criticism of his work before he developed 'Stanley' of Laurel & Hardy fame, so it might be that I was just expecting to see this shortcoming.

I strongly believe that all the silent films should be preserved and viewed, and I'm glad this one is still available. It's just not a great film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before Stan Laurel became the smaller half of the all-time greatest comedy team, he laboured under contract to Broncho Billy Anderson in a series of cheapies, many of which were parodies of major Hollywood features. Most of Laurel's 'parody' films are only mildly funny, and even less funny for modern audiences who haven't seen the original movie which Laurel is parodying. Fortunately, 'Mud and Sand' lampoons a movie which is still well known: 'Blood and Sand', starring Rudolph Valentino. 'Blood and Sand' was released only nine weeks before this parody, giving you some idea of how quickly Broncho Billy's movies were ground out, edited and distributed.

Various sources (including IMDb) state that Stan Laurel's character in this film is named Rhubarb Vaselino, with a final 'o'. I've screened a print of 'Mud and Sand' with the original titles (in Hobo type font), so I report that Laurel's role is actually cried Rhubarb Vaseline, with an 'e'. But I agree that 'Vaselino' is funnier. Laurel copies the elaborate sideburns which Valentino wore in 'Blood and Sand' (he should've made them longer!), and there's a parody of Valentino's dressing scene from that movie, which made female movie-goers swoon in 1922. A se\u00f1orita named Carmen in the original film is parodied here as Caramel (a girl I'd like to sink my teeth into).

This movie (like the original) apparently takes place in Spain, yet there's a Prohibition gag. Laurel uses a distinctive hat-tipping gesture here which could have become a trademark for him (like Hardy's distinctive necktie twiddle), but I've never spotted it in any other Laurel film. There's some amusing dialogue: Rhubarb Vaseline tells the other matadors to 'Save a bull for me.' When Vaseline becomes a successful toreador, a lackey tells him 'The bull is without, sir' ... which is funny, but I was disappointed that Laurel didn't reply 'Without WHAT?'.

There's one funny moment here which almost certainly wasn't planned, when Vaseline shows up for the bullfighter auditions. Laurel swaggers into the bullring, and -- before you can say 'corrida querida' -- he tosses a bull over the fence, where it lands with a thump near the other auditioners. The bull is obviously a fake, but the gag is funny anyway ... and, aye, there's a title card with a joke about 'throwing the bull'. The serendipitous moment occurs when Laurel repeats the gag, and Vaseline slings a second bull over the fence. This one lands on its butt, and balances upright for just an instant before toppling. VERY funny! If somebody planned that gag in this quickie comedy, I salute the unknown gagsmith ... and the tech man who rigged the bull to land in that position. More likely it happened by luck, and the director and editor were smart enough to keep it in.

During the silent era, whenever Hollywood made a big-budget feature film which was set anyplace where the people don't speak English, it was a common cinematic device to show a piece of text or an inscription in the local lingo, then dissolve to a shot of the same text in English. I was surprised that this low-budget comedy spent the money to copy that device here: we see a notice-board outside the corrida with a message in Spanish, then it dissolves to the same text in English. Unfortunately, the photography in this cheapo movie is so dark that the effect is wasted.

The actresses in this movie are attractive ... including Broncho Billy's wife Leona Anderson and Stan Laurel's common-law wife Mae Dahlberg; the latter briefly does a pretty dance. (Mae had danced in Stan's vaudeville act.) I was surprised to spot Charlie Chaplin's half-brother Wheeler Dryden in a brief role, since Chaplin had nothing to do with this movie. In 'Mud and Sand', Laurel gives a funny performance that's quite unlike his later familiar Stanley character ... but this film is much less funny than his brilliant work with Oliver Hardy. My rating: just 3 out of 10. TRIVIA NOTE: Twenty-three years later, in Stan Laurel's very last American film -- 'The Bullfighters' (1945) -- he again played a Spanish bullfighter (with his Spanish voice post-dubbed). Coincidentally, that film used stock footage from 'Blood and Sand': not Valentino's movie, but the Tyrone Power remake. 'Mud and Sand' is funnier than 'The Bullfighters', but not much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm starting to wonder if all these PG-13 horror movies are just glorified screen tests for young and emerging talent. Get a first-time screenwriter, an inexperienced director, a few TV actors looking for their bigscreen break and see what they can do. 'When a Stranger Calls' is a little better than most such recent offerings, but is still completely by-the-book; riddled with plot holes and genre clich\u00e9s.

The story is unbelievably simplistic. The slim 87 minute running time is heavily padded with inconsequential friends and a pointless cheating boyfriend. The killer is devoid of even the token motivation of Jason or Michael or even the original movie's killer, and as a result is never particularly frightening. The police behave in such an unbelievably ineffectual and lazy manner as to verge on professional misconduct. Simon West brings the same attractive banality to proceedings that he managed with Lara Croft, but his style of directing is decidedly generic, possessing no indicators of real talent or vision. The performances are routine, dark hallways replace genuine horror, and the scares are of the tired cat-in-the-closet variety.

The cinematography and production design, however, are above average for this kind of film. The house is beautifully designed, all dark wood and glassy reflections, and there are a few moments that are of visual interest.

Though lacking an ounce of dramatic originality, it acts as a reasonably satisfying 'dark house' thriller, and maintains interest longer than most of its ilk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once in a great while I will watch a movie that completely surprises me. One that comes out of nowhere to be a bit of rousing entertainment. One that is pure fun from beginning to end. Well folks, When A Stranger Calls is NOT that movie. It is an unbelievable stupid and far fetched remake of the much better 1979 horror camp classic. Our lead heroine Jill is forced to babysit after going over her cell phone minutes and is harassed by telephone calls from a mysterious caller. Every clich\u00e9 in the world is used here from the stupid cat-jumping-out-of-a-hidden-spot to the car that won't start to the killer can be anywhere at anytime. This movie is bad...not even bad in a \"so bad it's good way\" more in a \"so bad it's boring way.\" Skip this godawful film and save your movie for something else. You'll thank me later, trust me on this. Grade: D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This starts out interestingly, as there's a carnival right next to someone's house with an oil rig right there too and some kind of store-front church across the street with a neon \"Jesus Saves\" sign, all right in one tiny area....Now that's pretty dazzling, if improbable...and then we go right into the movie which takes improbable to new levels. Of course this is a lame remake of the 1979 thriller starring Carol Kane as the babysitter Jill Johnson....now Jill is some chick that ran her cell phone minutes up so high her evil parents are punishing her by making her work it off, probably something that the audience this movie targets can identify with. Jill is taken to this huge and fancy house on a lake in the middle of nowhere (of course) by her dad to babysit for the Mandrakis family. The children are already nestled all snug in their beds when Jill arrives, and the housekeeper is still there, huh, she couldn't babysit? Of course, despite the remote location one of Jill's friends pops by, one whom with which she apparently has issues as in \"boyfriend stealing\" or something. Anyway, of course the alarm in the house goes off for no reason and then calls from someone start coming in, calls from someone that wants to kill her. Of course Jill calls the cops and since there hasn't been any actual threat on her life they blow her off, but tell her to call back if there's anything else they can do for her. Check out the scene with Jill calling her friends at the high school bonfire\/pep rally or whatever it's supposed to be, it looks like some kind of \"Burning Man\" festival, ??!!?? There's all kind of contrived scares in this including the cool cat Chester who of course pops up here and there, one of the tiredest \"horror movie\" clich\u00e9s there is. I will admit that I dozed off at some point during this, and did I miss anything? Hard to tell, or care, really. This is one of those films that makes me wonder how bad the remakes of \"Amityville Horror\", \"House of Wax\" or \"The Fog\" could have been. Anyway, from reading online reviews, it seems like the folks that were the most scared by this were 12 year old girls, and I can only assume that from statements like \"it made me pee-pee my pants\". Well, one can only hope that this will put an end to Hollywood remakes of films that weren't exactly stellar to begin with, but don't bet on it. 2 out of 10 and I'm being overly generous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is bad. Really bad. So bad it made me want to shoot myself in the forehead. I hated this movie. First off, the plot went absolutely nowhere and anything shocking about this movie was seen in the 30 second teaser trailer. Secondly, Anyone who saw the original in 1979 knows that it was a bad movie too and completely unworthy of a remake. By far the best part of the movie is the house it takes place in. Which is not saying much for the actual movie. There were parts in the movie when the music gets very suspenseful and you're positive someone is around the corner and it turns out to be the maid or the cat, but when someone actually is around the corner it is impossible to be even startled because you've been expecting it all movie. So save yourself the money, save yourself the time, save yourself the headache and just watch the trailer. There is absolutely no point in seeing this movie, not in the theater, not on DVD, not on TV, never.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What should have been a routine babysitting gig at a secluded lake house turns into a night of terror, as high school student Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) receives threatening phone calls from a sadistic stalker, while trying to stay one step ahead of him.

The first 20 minutes of the original film were pretty good but it was all downhill from there. The remake takes those first 20 minutes and stretches them into an 80 minute feature film. That's a good idea because its eliminating everything that made the original bad. However, if they wanted this film to work more effectively then they should have hired a better lead actress, better director, writer etc. There's no suspense, everything can be figured out long before it happens and it's a very dull film since not much happens. At least there isn't much to sit through since its less than 90 minutes.

If this premise were to work, then the lead actress has to give a realistic performance. Camilla Belle gives one of the worst performances I have ever seen and throughout the whole movie, she seemed to be reading her lines. You get a lead role in a Hollywood film that will be viewed by millions of people and you give no effort at all! Why did they hire this girl? Sure, she's pretty but she can't act at all yet I suppose this won't matter to the target audience who will most likely eat this film up. The rest of the cast is bland and forgettable especially the woman who plays the maid, Rosa. Even the stranger was lame and his lines on the phone were not effective at all.

This movie reminds me of last years disappointing horror film Boogeyman. That movie was a bunch of cheap scares and false alarms and When a Stranger Calls is pretty much the same. Jill enters a room because she hears a noise but its just a false alarm like a cat or the maid. This type of scene happens over and over again until finally after about 50 minutes, the stranger appears. He has to be one of the lamest killers ever. He carried no weapons and didn't seem to pose much of a threat. The ending is bad but it matches the rest of the film so it doesn't really matter. The film is directed by Simon West and he is really bad at building up suspense. He was using every clich\u00e9 he could think of and the results weren't very good. The house was amazing and I'll give the film credit for that. It was an isolated house so it was pretty creepy but that's about the only good thing this film has to offer. In the end, if you're not a teenage girl then you should skip the movie. Rating 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That's pretty much all I can say about this flat and uninspired remake of the 1979 Carol Kane vehicle. Camilla Belle isn't much of an actress, and she brings no energy and vitality to the role of Jill Johnson, the babysitter harassed by an anonymous phone caller.

But if you're looking for some great home architecture and interior design ideas, this movie provides more inspiration than anything you'll see on TLC or HGTV. Jill spends nearly 90 minutes wandering through the house of the rich doctor and wife for whom she's providing her sitting services, searching for the origins of strange sounds and things that keep going \"bump\" in the night. As she lurks around corners and peers down hallways, we get to see a beautiful master bathroom with his and hers sinks that look like Roman tubs, a huge kitchen with incredible back lit glass shelving, and the piece de resistance, a self-contained aviary and coy pond that feature a self-watering system.

Because the movie isn't compelling enough to draw us into Jill's fear, we're distracted by the grandeur of the house, which isn't something you should be doing when you're watching a thriller. Even as Jill is pursued by the faceless maniac, we cringe because she's breaking valuables and messing up the coy pond, not because she's about to get murdered.

The movie plods along as predictably as most teen slasher movies, and the ending is anything but original. By the time it was over, I just wanted to find out where the heck that house was and if it was real. Never mind Jill and the kids she was babysitting.

2 stars - both for the house.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had potential to be a good little high school thriller. Instead, we got a bore fest about a whiny, spoiled brat babysitting. The problem was there were too many unnecessary things. A fight with the boyfriend, random friends coming over to be killed. It was obvious they were just killing time. The main character was bland and uninteresting. Camilla Bell had no emotion during this movie. She was just there. Another problem was the fact that the killer was not a threat. The children survive, so it's obvious they are going to let Jill survive. The only reason this got a four was because the last ten minutes (when the killer FINALLY comes out) is actually exciting.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While babysitting at an isolated Colorado house, a teen girl is terrorized by an elusive murderer on the telephone.

Remake of the 1979 semi-classic horror film basically takes the opening 20 minutes of the original film and stretches it out to fit an 87 minute time span! So it's pretty needless to say that the plot of this remake is pretty thin. There's little in the way of originality or interest in this movie. There's a lot of Camilla Belle wondering around a dark house wondering who's calling her and encountering all kinds of false scares. It all gets repetitious and routine after the first 30 minutes and never manages to muster up much in the way of suspense or chills. It certainly never reaches the intensity of the original film, especially since it wimps-out and changes one important plot point from the original. I guess we have the PG-13 rating to thank for that.

On the plus side there's an impressive set design and some dark atmosphere, unfortunately there's not much going on around it to save this remake from being sub-par. Belle's performance is pretty mediocre too.

It's just another unimpressive remake.

* 1\/2 out of ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is so overly clich\u00e9d you'll want to switch it off after the first 45 minutes. The beginning is very interesting, with a fair going on and someone gets killed. This movie would have been better, set on this setting.

So, Jill Johnson is a depressed sprinter with boyfriend issues. I don't see the point of adding her breakup with her boyfriend occurs in any of the events in the story.

Since Jill has come home late, her father sends her to babysit for the Mandrakis's in their glamorous home in a deserted lake. The kids are sleeping and the maid is cleaning, another empty house to the side for their son who's at college. OK.

After about half an hour of her stalking around the house by herself, she gets a couple of hang ups. Ooh, scary ones. TO which her friend comes to the rescue, to come up with a couple of high school lines about 'love' and whatever. Friend leaves and goes to her car. TO which then, she drops her keys. Uhhh...then the music! DumDumDum..! She fumbles to pick them up, and gets into her car. Which of course, doesn't start. How clich\u00e9'd is that..? So..She disappears =D Jill, alone again. UH. (Most of this movie is with her by herself, so there's not much dialog) So more hangups, she calls the police. Who say they cant help her, but call back if she has any more problems.

So then she suspects that her boyfriend is calling, or her boyfriends friends are calling. They have been but only once. Like thats supposed to be scary much? Oh, and did I mention? Her friend just now comes on caller ID and some creepy man voice comes on. She gets all freaked out and shyt.

Yeah, so skip that. She see's the light in the house of the Mandrakis's son go on. So she runs through the woods with music as her companion and goes in. Bleheh.

AH ITS SO BORING I CANT CONTINUE!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Simon West's remake of the 1979 horror classic is a pathetic attempt to bring old school thrills to a contemporary audience. Starring talented teen Camilla Belle, When a Stanger Calls fails to even elicit a shocked, or even surprised face. Poor attempts at scaring the audience range from blurred coats that look like people to building the tense music up for a cat running out of the shadows. The plot follows Jill Johnson (Belle), a teenage girl that has to pay off a bill to her father via babysitting. She is invited to work for the night at a house by the river, and thinks it a perfectly easy way to make cash. But little does she know, a stranger lurks in the house, and constantly harasses Johnson via the phone. A pathetic excuse for a film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When a Stranger Calls belongs to the group of this year's remakes, with movies like Poseidon just over the horizon. Director Simon West (Con Air) helms this updated version, with plenty of relative unknown casts, which signals either the death rate is high (it isn't), or that established stars are steering clear from a potential turkey.

Clocking in at a relatively short 87 minutes, it's primarily made up of two acts. The first, which takes a full one hour, is the setup. Our heroine, Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle), chalked up 800 minutes of talk time on her mobile phone (do the math), and as a lesson in responsibility, her parents had confiscated her mobile and grounded her. To pay off her debt, she works part time as a babysitter, and looking after the wealthy Mandrakis' kids, is her first stint.

The huge Mandrakis mansion gets a full tour treatment, as it is where all the action will take place. Plenty of rooms (makes for good hiding), an indoor pool sized aquarium-pond (to get wet in, for the wet T-shirt treatment), and check this out - motion detector lights, which you just know will contribute to the scares with the manipulation of lights and shadows. Naturally, prank calls, red herrings are aplenty, which chalks up this act's runtime, but most of them fall flat in the suspense department.

There's a minor trend emerging, with actors being the unseen, providing and acting through their voice instead. Recent attempts include Edward Norton in Kingdom of Heaven, and Hugo Weaving's V for Vendetta. Here, Lance Henriksen does the honours for the anonymous, nameless psychotic killer, but it just falls flat. Why? The script doesn't give him much dialogue. Most of the phone calls made were of the silent (mind-masturbatory) nature, which I felt was a waste - they could have also casted some unknown instead, and the job will still get done.

The second act, where the main action takes place, is too little too late. And the bogeyman, well, is purely a bogeyman. Those expecting blood and gore will be disappointed, as basically it's a one -woman show to hold your attention in the first hour (eye candies always succeed), and this act will have her resolve everything in double quick time, ala Rachel McAdams in Red Eye. Don't expect any form of character development, nor subplots that will engage.

The ending tried to be too smart for its own good, and came across as a cheap way to end the movie. There's not much of goodness to highlight from this movie - no scares, no thrills, no enigmatic villain, and plenty of security flaws, especially with that door alarm - the only thing it's good for, is to provide a number for 4D.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The original WASC isn't by any means a must see movie in the genre. In fact, if it weren't for it's chilling first 25 minutes there wouldn't be any logical reason for watching it. The remake takes those 25 minutes and turns them into a mediocre 85 minute teen Horror flick.

Now, I don't have anything against PG-13 Horror movies but the tendency surrounding them is getting lame. When you see the PG-13 rating you expect a movie filled with false scares, teen t.v. or music stars, and a plot that has been used for several times. Don't even ask for gore or violence.

I know that it's not correct to compare both the original WASC and the remake, but I think that it's necessary to do it because the whole idea of the new one is based on the beginning of the original. The tension that is felt through the first movie is not present by any means in the remake. Not even with the amazing settings or great use of lightning. No tension, suspense, thrills...nothing. The movie goes too slow before it gets a little \"interesting\", and that's when the stranger appears. The chasing sequence is probably the best part of the movie because at least there's a feeling of \"what will happen next?\". But that's it. The situations that set up for the climax are predictable, boring, and lack of suspense. The original has merits for having suspense in the most important scenes, and also, for a chilling climax for the most important scene of the movie.

Now, I understand that this is a PG-13 Horror movie but, if you pay respect to the original. Why change it's most important situation? The children are not supposed to survive! After the ending I felt like this movie was pointless. So the baby sitter was playing cat and mouse with a wacko...that's it?. Then, the sequence at the hospital was plain stupid. And worst of all, it means that a sequel may be on the way.

Camila Belle is the best thing about the movie. She delivers a cute, believable performance. She needs to pick better projects although this role will gain for her thousands of teenager fans.

Please, don't watch this movie. Some people say that in order to support the Horror genre we are supposed to support any movie that comes out. I don't necessary agree. If we ignore movies like WASC then the producers of Horror movies will understand that we won't accept CRAP. We want good Horror movies, not lame flicks filled with false scares.

Watch the original \"When A Stranger Calls\" instead because it's first 25 minutes are WAY BETTER than the whole (pointless) remake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unlike most reviewers here, I hated this movie, simply because the writer\/director's bloated ego was in the way of an otherwise potentially interesting topic. Too many film fans equate 'EXTREME self-indulgence' to 'film GENIUS!', but I don't buy into that cult of personality. A film should be about its subject, not its director (unless it's a Woody Allen film, of course). *SPOILER* (which is just as well, save your time...) There is nothing brilliant about of showing you the foot-long porn-star's you-know-what in the last frame- that's actually called a tacky maneuver that SCREAMS film-school hackism.

The poseur flick has achieved 'great film' status based on its indulgence and pandering to the audience \u0096 which, first and foremost, is the writer\/director. But the rest of the audience should look down on the surly, brutal nature of the porn biz, too. The flick had an aloof angle to the porn industry, looking down on each and every player it could bash. No matter, just love your writer\/director. Love those four-minute steadicam segments, which are supposed to show the energy of the moment, but somehow had all the verve of an off switch. Love the story- no matter how dull it is- about the gee-whiz rise and sordid fall of a porn star. But look down on it, too, of course. While the subject has the potential to be fascinating \u0096 innocence, money, degradation, beauty- your worshipful writer\/director somehow managed to make it all look, again, DULL. Partly because of its run time. Here is something your auteur hero DIDN'T try: Giving the characters dimension. Or soul. Anything AT ALL to give a hoot about, aside from Genius That Paul Is, of course. But I'm not buying. I don't buy into indulgent hacks with astounding hype.

Another overlong auteurist hack piece, with fifty times more hype than quality. I know some of you agree. The rest will see likely see this indulgent flick again. Not my problem.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry this movie was a bad made for TV movie. Are the rest of you on drugs when you watched it? I thought the hair,make-up and characters were poor 2 dimensional types. The story is doubtful,especially since all of the main characters are dead,or nearly dead. I think it's not well acted either...what was up with that hair on the main guy in the Turtles? It looked glued on badly, and the sideburns looked like they were going to fall off at any moment. It didn't feel like anything new was revealed in the story of the band and how the members met other bands,and people. I laughed all the way through it,Frank Zappa looked stupid,so did Mama Cass, and so did the Beatles. They were made out to look stupid and ridiculous. Also the other band people like Jim Morrison,Donovan also took a big hit at looking stupid too. Kind of terrible,if this is how you remember these people. It's a poor history lesson on music,it's fictional the way it was made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film really misses the mark on most fronts. The accents are laughably weak, the acting amateurish and the comedy weak at best.

They've got a great idea, it could have been particularly enjoyable but for the reasons mentioned above.

The writer seems to think by putting the word f*ck into every sentence it'll make it funnier and the main character just seems to try a little too hard. He's no Brick top thats for sure.

Next time at least get a cast that can keep the accent for the whole film.

It's a crime to compare this to films like The Business, Lock Stock and Snatch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've sat through less painful operations than the time I spent watching this film.

If you give it a try thinking it's going to be something in the vein of a Guy Ritchie flick.....Think again! The production, dialogue, acting, script , film work and plot were about the worst I've ever seen in a film. My fave part in all honesty was the closing credits. In all the history of cinema has there never been a better excuse for turning off the TV and going out and doing something better with your life.

Have root canal work done rather than wasting your time and money on this!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film moves along quite well but the acting, direction and editing leave a lot to be desired. The characters are mostly lifted from other films and the Vinnie Jones lookalike is straight out of Gone in 50 Seconds. The comedy gangster movie is a genre that should have lots of contrast, the stupid dealers in Lock Stock and the shoot out that leaves everyone dead. You should never really know whether to laugh or just sit there in shock. This movie had the right elements but it is too easy to sit there like a person knitting and tut at the small details that should have been fixed somewhere along the line and once belief has been unsuspended one just become increasingly critical. A pity cos it was a brave attempt and although Clint Eastwood is famous for saying that'll be OK for a scene, he puts the work in before he shoots and he is Clint Eastwood. Here a bit more imagination with the camera and and a bit more coaching and rehearsal for the delivery of the lines would have made a big difference.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Words almost fail me to describe how terrible this Irish vanity project (funded by Canadian taxpayers - both federal and Albertan) really is.

There's a sudden appearance by a nice looking Canadian woman (Kathy Ranheim) who in real life was a star athlete in Alberta, for no other reason to ensure Canadian content. Credits also indicate that certain Calgary pubs were of assistance.

Everything here is poorly filmed and at least third-hand (chunks of poorly digested Trainspotting, Lock Stock, Snatch and Reservoir Dogs are the most obvious steals). Avoid like the plague unless you fancy one of those campy \"so bad it's almost funny\" nights in front of your telly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"DIRTY WAR

Aspect ratio: 1.78:1

Sound format: Stereo

Emergency services struggle to cope when Islamic terrorists detonate a so-called 'dirty bomb' in the middle of London.

Daniel Percival's frightening movie uses all available evidence to dramatize the possible effects of a radioactive explosion in the heart of the UK capital, using the kind of documentary-style realism which has distinguished this particular subgenre since the 1960's. In essence, the film reveals a catalogue of flaws in the British government's current strategy for dealing with such terrorist outrages, and Percival's carefully-honed script (co-written by Lizzie Mickery) vents its spleen against mealy-mouthed politicians who would rather maintain the economic status quo than tackle this issue head-on. The film covers all necessary bases, and makes the salient point that this kind of terrorism is practised by a tiny handful of fanatics who have tarnished the Islamic faith with their reckless disregard for human life, though viewers won't be reassured by the subsequent scenes of devastation and horror. Not merely a drama, the film acts as a warning against complacency. Either that, or its just another post-9\/11 scaremongering tactic. YOU be the judge...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Highly suggest not to watch this film 'TV' if not mentally mature enough , the film create quite realistic simulation with the steps how they prevent from terrorism if such touch wood incident happened , London suppose a Lovely and chill ful City , while these kind of wars still going on , just wasting the time and money for study and Living, every time passing around P Square, the feeling really obvious, uncomfortable actually , I don't want to vote , the scored means nothing , just 4 'fill in the blank'

Only Safty and Positive thinking cities encourage better Economy and investors to keep investing Time,Energies and Money","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anyone remember the docudrama THREADS ? It's a drama documentary which shocked Britain in September 1984 . Whilst not exactly wholly entertained by Mick Jackson's nuclear holocaust horror film I could respect it . Unfortunately I can't respect this docudrama broadcast 20 years later which deals with terrorists letting off a radioactive dirty bomb in the centre of London

The problem I have with it is that director Daniel Percival production values are far too good when in fact this would have benefited from rather cheap production values . The cinematography is superb but in this type of speculative drama do we need superb and well lit Oscar standard cinematography ? What we certainly don't need is a musical score as the survivors of the blast slowly stagger out of the smoke . Neither do we need vaguely well known cast members . Did anyone else sit there asking themselves \" Hey what was he in ? I know that face \" several times ? I know I did and it's very distracting .

Perhaps the biggest production flaw with DIRTY WAR is that someone decided to make it a docudrama with too much stylistic emphasis on the drama . In THREADS the action cuts away from the action in Sheffield umpteen times and becomes an edition of HORIZON on the effects of nuclear war before cutting back to the fictional protagonists again and THREADS is very effective because of this . Here the information presented suffocates the drama which drowns in expositional and totally unconvincing dialogue . The characters in the teleplay aren't really characters they're just cyphers there to inform the audience what happens when radioactive material is exploded . It would have been better for the action to cut to captions to convey this type of information ala THREADS . The worse thing is that director Daniel Percival used the same technique as seen in THREADS a couple of years ago with his docudrama about smallpox . He should have used the same style with DIRTY WAR

I should also lay my cards on the table and state that while I don't consider most Muslims are terrorists I am getting slightly fed up of TV productions like THE HAMBURG CELL , THE GRID and DIRTY WAR having to point out this fact to me by whalloping me over the head with it which is somewhat typical of patronising PC attitudes in TV companies nowadays

I managed to miss the studio debate that Bob mentions here but I have also heard it discussed elsewhere and I can't help thinking it makes better viewing than DIRTY WAR itself with its heated arguments between differing factions of the political spectrum . If DIRTY WAR is remembered twenty years from now ( Highly unlikely I know ) it may well be remembered for the discussion it caused more than anything","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have watched this movie over and over since it first came out. I was fifteen and even then, I knew it was cheesy. It had such great potential and I constantly rewrite the script in my head. The Capoeira ruined what could have been a good drama. I loved the fact that it was shot on location. Too bad that the characters were underdeveloped. It's like they wrote a first draft of a script then made the movie right away. At fifteen I could have written a better script!Some scenes and dialog seemed to come out of nowhere and you were left with a lot of unanswered questions. And was it just me, or did it seem like Lobo was sexually attracted to his cousin? \"Elena's grown into some kind of woman!\" And the way he was always touching her. Would have an interesting plot twist, Elena working for her drug dealing cousin who is also a perv. Too bad they missed the mark on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Begotten is, no doubt, someone's attempt at originality, but, what we have here is art in its most morbid, grotesque form, so, for that, Begotten has my respect, but, to be realistic, it makes no difference what this abomination is about, but for the record...

In the ultimate in incoherent horror, we begin in an unknown time, in an unknown place. Right off the bat, we are plunged into the psychotic nightmare that is Begotten, a god is, seemingly depressed, mutilating himself with a razor, I mean, really trying like hell to end it all, it takes a while (why wouldn't it?) After this ultra-morbid introduction, something is happening, something is rising from the corpse, say hello to Mother Earth. What does she do? Well, she gives birth to a thing. The thing would have probably preferred to stay in the womb, but that's life. The psychotic nightmare realm of Begotten welcomes the thing the only way it knows how. The thing, along with Mother Earth is mutilated by unknown, hooded, assailants, with evil intentions being the only clarity available. From this point on, things drag as they've never dragged before. Interesting, grim images, with a totally decent soundtrack, is the high points of the remainder. Not to give the impression that I don't recommend this evilness, because I do, but only once, and only for people with an appreciation for the dark side.

From my description, it may appear that I don't \"get\" Begotten. Trust me, I get it, and yes, Begotten is art if I've ever seen it. Everything in this film, regardless of how unrelated it may seem, is significant. That, perhaps, is the only thing that makes Begotten art. With that said, most of us require some form of entertainment value, and this is coming from someone who enjoyed The Chooper. Probably the most intriguing first five minutes, I've seen in a film, but let's be realistic, the next 7 hours and 55 minutes would put one in a coma, that is, unless it's just meant for some kind of psychedelic purposes, in that case, never mind. But, how would one rate such a uniquely boring masterpiece? Depending on how much your attention span can take, It should be either 1 or 10, any other number just wouldn't make a statement. It hurts to do this, but as far as entertainment value goes, Begotten just ain't it. 1\/1","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Directed by E. Elias Merhige \"Begotten\" is an experiment with a few interesting ideas that don't quite succeed in what they were trying to do. The film is a 76 minute ultra slow, questionably effective, irritating experience that tries to present an intriguing philosophy about the creation of the Earth and human nature.

It opens with god presented as a chair-bound psychopathic man who tears open his stomach using a knife. From the guts, blood and human waste Mother Nature emerges. She proceeds to impregnate herself with the dead god's semen. Later she gives birth to the Son of the Earth. A retard who is constantly abused a group of cannibalistic people whom I believe to be the representation of mankind.

\"Begotten\" takes a twisted and disturbing look on the origin of life. Demonstrating the self-destructive nature, violence, lust and greed that have become a trademark for mankind. The problem in the movie come from two points. One is that the film is just too slow in it's exhibition. What we get is a good thirty minutes spent on showing how the Son of the Earth is constantly shaking naked on the ground while at the same time being molested and tortured by mankind. Such tasteless prolonging gets boring pretty fast and lacks the punch in delivering a blow to the viewer's senses.

Another point is \"Beggoten's\" visual appearance and sound. The grainy, inverted, black and white low frame cinematography enchants the disturbing factor of the plot, but such novelties often work in only short periods of time. Then gradually begin to lose their effect as the audience becomes accustomed to the look. The audio suffers from the same problems. It's constant repetitive and similar sounds become annoying so fast I had an urge to turn off the volume. \"Begotten\" loses it's charm shortly after it begins. It tries to be original and creative but it fails to expand on the ideas hinted by the vague plot instead it repeats the same scene again and again.

The conclusion is that \"Begotten\" is stuck in one moment. Even though plot-wise it tries to move forward, the visuals and audio remain the same throughout. Showing the same action in a slightly different way with just slightly a different sound. A gimmick cannot alone make a movie. It also needs pace and variety, something Merhige seems to have forgotten.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Good lord.

I'm going to say right off the bat, I only watched 20 minutes of this movie. As I am a hardcore Eraserhead fan, the \"what, you can't watch a wierd black and white movie with little-to-no dialogue?\" defense does not apply. I simply can't watch TERRIBLE weird black and white movies with little-to-no dialogue.

This movie is what happens when you give an angsty goth-child with no talent and nothing to say a camera and budget, and let him\/her put as much meaninglessly offensive imagery on screen as possible. It was clear from the start that this film should have been 5 minutes long (assuming it should exist at all). Shots that should last a few seconds drag on for minutes, because the director has \"I-Just-Love-The-Sound-Of-My-Own-Voice\" syndrome, and refuses to cut to another shot until the entire piece of footage has been viewed. From the moment the girl in the mask started masturbating the corpse of \"God\" (the opening scene of the film! joy!), I knew it was only a matter of time until I turned off the tape. After at least 10 minutes of a different corpse being pulled around, twitching, on a rope, by a gang of cloaked mystery-men, I knew it was time to give up. Rarely do I give up on a movie. I sat through the entirety of Blair Witch 2: Book Of Shadows, albeit not happily. This did not deserve the 20 minutes I gave it.

If you're an Eraserhead fan, do NOT let simple-minded comparisons to said film con you into renting this piece of amateur trash. Allow me to refer you to Tetsuo: The Iron Man, for a watchable and enjoyable piece of incoherent black and white weirdness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wasted is just that, a waste of time. MTV is churning out made for TV movies at quite a clip nowadays. A friend of mine recommended this and i rented it, needless to say i will not be pursuing anymore recomendations from her anytime soon. This movie shows the rollercoaster of drug use. The problem is, you really don't care about any of the characters due to lack of believabilty and their own self discipline. This movie is in a word, annoying to watch, from the terrible camera angles to the quality of dialogue and pacing. The 'digital' format tries for realism, but comes up distracting. If you want a true scope on drug use watch Requiem for a Dream.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There were two things I hated about WASTED : The directing and the script . I know I`m opening myself up to ridicule but Stephen T Kay`s direction is too much like a .... like a .... well like a MTV pop video . It`s shot ( I think ) on digital video against an intrusive soundtrack , often out of focus and often with rapid cross cutting . If you`re not a teenager you`ll find many segments of WASTED unwatchable due to the stylistic approach . As bad as the directing was it was the script that yanked my chain . The story is told through Samantha , a poor little rich girl who spends much of the film talking through voice over ( Strange how the voice over never seems idiosyncratic enough to have come from the same character ) telling us of the pressure of her exams , the pressure of home life , her social solitude and it`s all this that led her to take drugs . It`s for similar reasons like parental break up that her two male friends ( I thought she was supposed to be lonely ? ) to start taking drugs . Oh poor little Sammi in her nice house and her problems how my heart bled for you and your chums - NOT . What WASTED doesn`t mention is that no matter what someone is addicted to , be it drink , drugs , nicotine or chocolate that person has to work at becoming an addict , they`re not a victim of external forces , they`re commiting an act of free will . Both TRAFFIC and TRAINSPOTTING made this point very well , people become addicts because they want to . To portray them as victims in any way is wrong patronising and very possibly dangerous

By the way , if MTV are anti drugs will they stop playing videos from stars who freely admit taking drugs ?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"4 realz son my game iz mad tite yo I cant wait 2 get on dis show and roll up in da club n do it real 905 style wit mad models n bottles, son!

No, I'm just kidding. This is a sad show, created by, and for the enjoyment of, sad men. Men who are so neutered by modern existence that they channel their frustration into the clubs, where they eke out fleeting self-validation preying on chicks in hopes of getting their little wieners touched to try and dull the sting of loneliness and make them feel, even if just for one night, as though their seat on the Board of the Sausage Party of Toronto is a little less permanent.

I read some comments on here saying that this show represents Canadian TV's finally stepping up to stand on a par with American TV or somethingorother. Well, that's not aiming short at all. It's like, Yes! Pat yourself on the back, Canada -- you've finally cracked the elusive formula for such groundbreaking American content as \"Studs\", \"Change of Heart\", \"Elimidate\" and \"The Fifth Wheel\". See, the real brainchild here is tacking \"...meets Candid Camera\" onto the pitch. Genius. And there's nothing that straddles that thin line between fratboy camaraderie and latent homosexuality like a group of grown men taping each other on hidden camera, admiring each other's \"game\" up in the club. The man-love on display here is so palpable they should really consider rechristening it \"Keys to the Steam Bath\".

On a side note, how interesting that the folks who gave this show such glowing reviews seem to have registered an IMDb account for the express purpose of doing so (I guess I'm guilty of employing the same means to do the opposite here.) My personal favorite is the one enthusiastic reviewer that claims to hail from the \"United States\" who gushes that \"Now it's clear that the talent in Canada has the ability to produce American quality television.\"

Smooth.

But why even bother manufacturing online buzz? You can't really get cancelled, after all -- you're on the Comedy Network in Canada, baby! The viewing public will go on ignoring your show for years to come. In all likelihood you'll be just fine, coasting comfortably along that proverbial plain of mediocrity with the majority of the Comedy Network's original programming.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"GAME.... Huh... game. I'm not even sure the bloody hosts of that particular reality-game know what the term 'GAME' means, let alone the bloody PLAYERS in the game!

An aspiring PUA would look at that and think... Hmmmmm... What the flying FORK was that useless excuse for a demonstration of seducing women? I've seen my neighbours DOG seduce women with more panache than that! And it is one UGLY bloody dog! And its main approach tactic is to frenetically hump legs!

I challenge the frustrated chump hosts of that show to a SHOW-down; a demonstration of their SO-called pickup ability... Can they deliver? If one is to view that piece of un-reality-drivel, then you would realise, No, these grandstanding, mentally-masturbating, suck-me-darling-boyfriend, wanna be hosts of Queer Eye or something similar (not that there's anything wrong with that...), are unable to un-shrinkwrap their penises long enough to provide a demo of a REAL pickup.

As you lovely North-Americans say: \"...'Nuff Said!...\"

A message from Down Under... with Love....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is just what we need, a show about the people nobody likes in high school or in university. Man or Woman. People objectifying others and congratulating themselves for doing so is exactly the opposite of intelligent thinking. And this show is just disgusting for doing exactly that.

So four men sit in chairs and watch two other guys try and pick up women to have sex with them. And in the end one of the two wins, great...just f-n great. I'm also supposed to accept these four douche bags as being \"judges\" of people's \"Game\". The term \"game\" has got to be the most moronic thing to come out of modern English since the term \"Bling Bling\", added to the fact that these men are called the \"experts\" just makes me want to throw up whats left of my respect for modern culture. These are not god damn role models, they are the result of MTV culture coming to bite us in the ass. If you enjoy the bullshit spilling out the sides of this monstrosity then you probably think Paris Hilton and Britany Spears have talent. Its not true and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking so.

And for all those people who will say that I would like this better if I got laid, or that I'm just jealous. Go screw yourself, because its obvious that a REAL girl certainly won't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is possibly the worst thing I've ever seen on television. First, I'm pretty sure it takes itself entirely seriously, and I tend to be pretty good at recognizing satire. Second, it displays Aristotelian levels of chauvinism; in one of the ads for it, one of the \"playas\" describes women in terms of \"quality\". Third, every contestant I've seen on it (six, I think) was a dim-witted meathead of the variety likely to possess a Facebook with \"BONING U\" or \"WOMEN\" entered under \"Here For\". To paraphrase Roger Ebert, this doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel, nor deserve mention in the same sentence as barrels. The closest thing to a redeeming feature I've experienced with regards to Key to the VIP was having a female friend reassure me that the male cast were indeed the opposite of attractive, in both physical and mental terms.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Though it pains me to some degree that I'm bothering to christen the comments board for this new series - mainly because I'd hate to give the false impression that there's actually any semblance of public interest in it - I feel compelled to throw in my chips on this one.

To put it simply, never before have I felt so persuaded to root for a TV show's swift and merciless cancellation based solely on the merit of its promo ads. And, in case you're wondering, I'm a dude.

Listen, Comedy Network: though your existing original programming is already, shall we politely say, of a 'questionable' quality (I'm looking at you, \"Girls Will Be Girls\") you have truly outdone yourselves on this one. Whoever green-lit this thing could not be further out of touch with what's cool right now.

Best of luck.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"yeah..that's what the station disclaimer states after the commercials for this show \"some scenes may be disturbing to some viewers\" .

It is beyond disturbing. The validation of this whole display of ego framing and chauvinism is in the fact it is on the COMEDY channel. Yes..a comedy true and true. A JOKE. To see these 'playas' go through their rigid charade really spells out what is wrong with society. Especially the meat market bar scene. Both sides, the male and female, are equally as weak and desperate to be mingling among this superficial atmosphere. The club is obviously one of those Cigarette corporation sponsored plastic coke scenes. These people do have a choice, and that is what makes it even more of a joke.

These slick ricks try too hard. They glisten with their own groove grease. That's OK. It's a lesson on video tape for the new generation of how NOT to focus on a potential heart interest. Hopefully that facade will crumble along with the Bush\/Harper administrations. Problem is, who's lined up after these characters fade? The bastard children of the one night stands?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's too bad these guys, the so-called judges, are such jerks, even the nominally \"sensitive\" ones. It's the self-congratulatory tone that really makes me sick though; these guys don't have any perspective on their behaviour. I think the real problem, though, is the quality of the contestants. Not a single smooth or truly charming one in the lot. They pick the most pathetic girls out of the crowd because they're the only ones these guys have a chance with. Let's see some real players trying for a truly unattainable girl, and maybe you have a show. Otherwise, you have a revolting half-hour of self-love. And real sexual tension takes two.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1) Men over the age of 25 that refer to themselves, without irony, as having \"game\", or being either a \"player\" or a \"baller\". Gentlemen, from here on in it's a swift descent into starring in your own real-life version of \"A Night at the Roxbury\".

2) Saying \"The V.I.P.\" The term \"V.I.P.\" in and of itself isn't bad, but when preceded by \"The\" it instantly becomes part of the Douchebag Dictionary. This goes double for white people.

3) People that make TV shows based on stuff that they don't know isn't cool and then go on IMDb posing as \"fans\", (...right...) moreover, one of whom is from the \"United States\" (hey, me too!) to bitterly insult members of their potential audience for inevitably thinking their show sucks. Minus 1 additional demerit point if they employ any variation on the oh-snap-nice-one-bro justification that \"If you don't like the show you obviously can't get laid.\"

4) Canadian Hip-Hop\/R&B sensation Massari...a random addition to the list at first glance, but at the end of the day Massari gets the gas face for the simple reason that his particular brand of low-rent American-aping uncool and general Aqua Velva douchebaggery dovetails with the overall sensibility of \"Keys to the V.I.P.\"

5) Last but not least, \"Keys to the V.I.P.\"...for all the above reasons and more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After having seen this show a few times; I am thoroughly offended as a female that there are so many stupid, women out there that fall for this bullshit. Im a little more mature than some of the \"players\" in this show, but am still appalled that the whole dating game has been boiled down to a gameshow: where goofy dudes can score points on their lame ass attempts to pick up chicks. If young guys are watching this and using it as a learning manual: Don't!!!. Save yourself the effort and hire a prostitute if all you are after is a piece of ass. Maybe there are girls out there with the same mind set;but some how I don't think so.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this show just sucks. i don't think i even need to say it or why because judging by the number of comments already i am just repeating everything. keys to the vip is like turning on your TV and having it throw poo at you. that is exactly what it is like i am not even exaggerating even a little bit. these guys are so stupid, not funny and not smooth with the ladies that it's not even funny-casue-its-stupid. i sat through four episodes and i want my two hours back. where do they find the contestants because they are obviously deficient mentally. if i was the man who came up with this idea for a show and put it on TV i would do the world a favour and jump off the tallest building i could find. how does garbage like this get on TV? especially the comedy network shouldn't a show on something called the comedy network at least be a comedy show or maybe be funny so often?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show is pathetic. I can't even begin to imagine how anyone with an IQ greater than that of a can of split pea soup that's past its expiration date can willingly sit through this garbage for an entire half hour. It is one of those rare shows that is so mind-numbingly awful in every respect you can honestly say you are less intelligent simply from watching it. I conducted a study and found that the average person loses 10 IQ points for every fifteen seconds they watch this show. That is second only to another Comedy Network abortion, Popcultured (19,863,221 IQ points per second lost) and pretty much a tie with Girls Will Be Girls. Keys to the VIP owes each and every one of us an apology. Whenever I watch this travesty of a show, I feel sad for society. How is it allowed to continue?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Keys to the VIP is just another one of the horrible T.V. shows that you can and will see on this station. The show is terrible with guys claiming to be real players competing against each other (there are two of them competing in each episode) in stupid games where they try to get girls at a bar to talk to them, get girls numbers, and so on. The judges are four other guys who also claim to be expert pick up artists but they also seem like just huge d-bags just like the contestants. The show is not funny at all and not even interesting, it is just boring watching these guys desperately try to convince us what awesome players they are (talking even more about the four judges than I am about the contestants). Nothing funny has even happened in the shows I have watched and the shows are obviously rigged. Do you really think they have invited all these people to the club, got them to sign releases, and get them on tape while these guys carry out the same stupid games with them? It's not reality at all it is just stupid, it probably even tapes in the day time. Somebody else on here wrote how they knew somebody on the show and it was all fake well yeah that is obvious, it's a fake show and even with actors it's still not funny. One of the worst shows I have ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A professional production with quality actors that simply never touched the heart or the funny bone no matter how hard it tried. The quality cast, stark setting and excellent cinemetography made you hope for Fargo or High Plains Drifter but sorry, the soup had no seasoning...or meat for that matter. A 3 (of 10) for effort.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most of the films I really like are art-house fare and seldom appear on the box-office top-ten lists. That said, I found \"Northfork\" utterly incomprehensible. I have no idea what it was even about. Writing in the New York Times about a different film, Stephen Holden once observed that some people seem to think they can throw just anything up on the screen and have it work as a fairy tale. I thought of that review several times while watching \"Northfork\".

On a scale of one to ten, I gave it a two.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is nothing I hate more in a movie than pretentiousness, and this is one of the most pretentious films ever made. It's self-consciousness is obvious in every frame: \"see what a profound, sophisticated film we are making,\" the director and screenwriters seem to be saying to us, and to themselves they say, \"lets's see how we can bore and confuse the audience even more.\" I would rather watch the worst film by Ed Wood or Edgar G. Ulmer than something like this. At least they were giving us honest trash, and at least their films, in their own atrocious way, were entertaining. This film is about as entertaining as a root canal without anesthesia, and thus is tantamount to torture.

Have these screenwriters ever heard the word 'story?' It doesn't appear so. They have a concept, they are able to create an atmosphere, and they were able to assemble an excellent cast and elicit good performances from them. And for what? To bore us for an hour and 45 minutes? Nothing really happens in this film. The only exciting part, and this lasts only about two minutes, occurs when one of the soon-to-be-evicted homeowners starts shooting at the state employees who come to tell him he has to leave. But nothing comes of it. Too bad he didn't keep shooting until he hit the screenwriters. The only redeeming features of this film are the acting and some beautifully photographed scenery toward the end. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the best looking films of the past few years. The fact that it was done on a virtual shoestring ($1.8 million or so they say on the DVD:they infer that they ended up with even less financing) makes it all the more impressive. Not simply the photography, but the design and particularly the locations (Eastern Montana) which are at once authentically American and otherworldly.

Too bad there isn't a coherent movie to go with it. An extremely promising setup of the last 48 hours of clearing out a rural town in 1955 before it will be flooded for a dam is washed away with pretentious mumbo jumbo alluding to angels and a dying child. And what is presented as the \"real world\" is hopelessly arch. Note to the Polish Brothers:the Coen Brothers are funny-you are not.

No doubt many cineastes will find \"Northfork\"'s abundant symbolism and inscrutability as marks of some sort of profundity, the sort that sophisticated types wrestle the night away with in coffeehouses while the braindead masses watch \"Charlie's Angels\" or something. (Sigh) If you insist....

In the meantime, recommended only as a case study for filmmakers for its' impeccable technical credits and photographic beauty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this movie had a point I never discovered it. A very depressing movie which supposedly is about the final evacuation of the residents living in a dam site area on the Northfork River in Montana. The problem is that there is no actual Northfork River in Montana. There are several north forks but they are branches of other rivers which divided into north and south forks.

\tThe opening scene of the movie is a coffin bobbing to the surface of the lake but the scene is never tied into the story and the viewer is left to speculate as to its meaning. But much is left to the viewer's speculation in the movie. Another example is when a team of dam employees responsible for the evacuation of the residents arrives at the dam headquarters, another group of people are departing. Some remark which is almost inaudible is made about these people which makes no sense whatsoever and there is no followup in the movie to explain it.

\tThe movie is butchered into several stories and the film keeps switching back and forth between stories which is quite disconcerting. And the stories are weird. In one of them the occupants of one property refuse to be evacuated because they are living in a home that is built like Noah's Ark.

\tAnother senseless story centers around a sick orphan who is dying and somehow he is sharing his presence with a house full of ghosts and in an orphanage with a priest at the same time. If anyone can figure out what the ghost story was about the author must have explained it to them.

\tThe scenery was stark and the sun never shines. There are snowy mountains in the far distance. I guess the purpose was to set the mood. The time period is set by the fact that the evacuaters all drove Ford sedans of the 1946-48 era although the events are supposed to have occurred in 1955. The acting was mediocre. When I saw the billing for this movie it said that Darryl Hannah was in the picture. If she was, I didn't recognize her but I surmise that she was the ghost lady.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I tried to be patient and open-minded but found myself in a coma-like state. I wish I would have brought my duck and goose feather pillow...I apologize to all of the great actors in this movie. Maybe it takes a degree from MIT to understand the importance of this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The frustrating thing about a movie like this, with a true potential for greatness, is that it almost enjoys being heavy-handed. We speak of allegory, of metaphor...but the truth is, there's no getting around the fact that there is absolutely no plot or real character.

At a certain point, we most know who the people are...even if we never understand where they are going. The sheer pretentiousness wore me down every time I tried to grasp a truth in this film.

Call it beautiful, great and awesome...I just call it \"cheating.\" All style and no substance. Sure, it's a matter of taste...but I would never take a confusing modernist pastiche of symbols and splashes over the spiritual clarity of Jean Cocteau or Renoir. But if it works for you, I'm all for it. Art is a personal thing, I guess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"What symbolism!\" exclaimed a woman as we exited the theater after viewing the Polish brother's paean to Ingmar Bergman. Some symbolism is there all right. But not much. \"Northfork\" adds up to some fine acting weakened by dreary cinematography that fails to make any coherent statement and a muddled story that irritates rather than enthralls.

Northfork is a town facing extinction after a new hydroelectric dam goes into operation. It's the early to middle 1950s and a squad of identically dressed state agents, all looking as if they had just answered a casting call for \"The Untouchables,\" have the job of relocating recalcitrant dwellers who fail to appreciate both their immediate peril as well as the proffered bounty for moving. An exciting anti-development movie is always a possibility but let's get real: rural electrification is one of the greatest advances in bringing decent living conditions and a boosted economy in American history. Dams can be built without forced relocation? Not in this country.

But this film is less about the plight of homeowners than it is a fantastical creation of a dying young boy's escapist imagination. Nick Nolte is the priest who tends to the lad and much of what he says might have been interesting if the sound was clear enough to hear.

Alternating between the black-suited evacuation agents (working for \"lakefront\" land when the dam creates that valuable acreage) and a phantasmagorical collection of weirdos, the film develops neither theme coherently or even interestingly.

The cinematography is poor. A washed out, subdued and depressive color permeates the whole film to little dramatic purpose. There is no reason for this vast terrain to be depicted so bleakly. Indeed, a contrast between largely untouched natural beauty and the massive and grim solidity of the evolving dam and power plants would have been very effective.

4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretentious storytelling such as this always uses the same technique: 1) Throw opaque, unstructured threads around to perplex the audience. 2) Deal only in `big' topics such as life, death and God. 3) Make it appear profound with scenes of life, death, sky, etc. 4) Depend on an intellectually weak audience to give you the benefit of the doubt. 5) And finally, laugh all the way to critical acclaim.

This movie is pretentious faux-intellectualism at its boldest. Not only do these filmmakers not answer any questions, they're afraid to pose the questions to begin with. The film is held together by wisps. Directions are raised and dropped awkwardly. Pop cultural references are jolting and arbitrary. There is so little to point at, that any critical stabs will miss.

Critics who found an intellectual base to this movie are afraid to admit the truth: they have no idea what this movie is about. Good news: neither do the filmmakers. Satisfying attempts at answers to profound questions about human existence demand wit, intellect, poetry, and genius. Sadly, this movie demonstrates none of these traits.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Northfork' is what is wrong with indie films. For all of their hard-edged commentary and attacking big subjects studios won't, this is the sacrifice we make. For nearly two hours I was subjected to the torture and pain of a film that starts by wandering like a blind man in a new place and ends without covering any new ground and thankfully dies.

There are parallel stories that detail a dying town and a dying boy. Two men dressed in black (one of them James Woods) must coerce the remaining inhabitants of Northfork to leave before a dam opens up and floods the town. The other story has a boy returned to the priest (Nick Nolte) that gave him to the parents. He is dying and is visited, I guess, by angels. Among them Anthony Edwards with bizarre spectacles and Daryl Hannah in a bizarre costume reminding me of the pirate shirt from Seinfeld.

Though this is the \"plot,\" it is not what the film is about. The film is about nothing. It does nothing, says nothing, goes nowhere, and has nothing interesting to show. Perhaps by design, more likely an after-effect of the pretentious, surreal, David Lynch wannabe - we're an important artsy film can't you see - style of direction. The entire movie is filtered through a gray, bleak backdrop that, I suppose, fits a film about death. Instead, it simply makes the film that much harder to watch.

If you want to see a film about men in black, see either 'Men in Black' films, neither too impressive but compared to 'Northfork' they are lifted to 'Citizen Kane' status. If you want to see a film about a boy dying watch 'Lorenzo's Oil.' If you want to see a film that has the destruction of a town through water watch 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' If you want to watch a film better than 'Northfork,' there are hundreds. If you want to watch a film that is worse, there are only a handful. 0* out of ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the most boring, pretentious, and stupid film I have seen in a long time. I saw it at the Academy in Beverly Hills, and there were quite a few people in the lobby who had left the screening and were seeking refuge there. All were solemnly shaking their heads and looking as though they had been to a funeral. What a waste of time and money. Even worse are the critics who gave this pretentious blimp good reviews. What's with them? Are they just afraid they won't be considered \"hip\"? Were they bribed? This film is staggeringly bad. Don't take a date to it expecting to have an in-depth chat at the Cheesecake factory afterwards. If going to see this film was your idea, she'll browbeat you and hold it over you the rest of your life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Usually I'm the one criticizing the twenty-something Neanderthals for not being able to appreciate a film unless it has plastic t*ts, gunfights and car chases. However, in this case the film might actually have been improved with a few of those additions. At least I wouldn't have gotten bored after an hour and changed channels.

I don't mind surreal, and I certainly don't mind having to pay attention to find subtlety or hidden meaning, but there should be some point to the whole thing. I didn't get the feeling that even the writer or director really had a broad vision of anything but were, instead, just so self-absorbed in their own pretentious visions that they became deliberately scattered. Or perhaps they just got confused themselves. Either way, I don't care. It bored the crap out of me for just over an hour with no saving grace.

Although a whole pack of other viewers have filled up this site with excited ravings about the alleged symbolism and masterful cinematography, I must respectfully disagree. Perhaps I didn't mince through enough film classes to appreciate some inspired techniques not visible to mere mortals ...

Or perhaps this movie was just crap.

I give it a \"1\" and file it next to \"Ishtar.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First the easy part: this movie is pretentious crapola!

It put me in mind of \"Magnolia\". And then I thought \"Wow-- somebody made a movie even dumber and more irritating than \"Magnolia\".

I know nothing about the Polish brothers, but this film seems to have been made by someone who learned a lot in film school but knows nothing about storytelling. The trite plot elements and sledgehammer symbolism are bad enough, but the dialogue is just pathetic.

Detailed comments would just be a laundry list of failure. The parts that are supposed to be funny or satirical are not; the \"elegaic\" parts are nice coffee table pictures with mediocre music; the \"emotional\" parts are simplistic.

The worst thing is that the movie shows no love at all for the characters, except for a little cornball dignity in the priest.

I still can't believe the respect some people have given this picture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a good time to say how good I think of this site: it gives me the opportunity to feedback all the frustration I lived for two hours, awaiting for something to happens, for something to be said, to be shown, to be insinuated subtly, for a symbol, an idea, whatever. No, just long, endless violins, alternated by a tired piano. Tired voices, tired actors and bored characters and situations. Boring is the long death of the mind, and this movie is, from that point of view, a public enemy. How many thousands of live hours will be still stolen to another thousands of innocent spectators. I don't claim for my money back, just for my time and the time of persons I invited to watch this thing... oh God !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was fairly lost throughout most of this film, and I am the one who usually understands the works of such enigmatic cinema greats as David Lynch (Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me) and Darren Aronofsky (Pi). Not to say that Northfork doesn't make sense on some level, it just doesn't combine to form a wholly coherent film. As time passes from watching the film, its themes and intentions become clearer, but during my initial viewing, I was really confounded, and I find that this is the major fault of the film...its lack of direction. The plot centers on the town of Northfork, Montana in the year 1955. The town has been emptied and will soon be flooded to make way for the creation of a hydro-electric dam. The major problem is that not all of its inhabitants are willing to be evacuated and relocated. A group of men are hired to coerce the remaining residents out of the town before it will be drowned, and for the most part they succeed amidst some fairly odd situations and townspeople. Simultaneously, the film tells the story of Irwin, a very sick young boy (or is he a fallen angel?) whose adopted parents gave him back, due to his illness, to the Northfork orphanage that they adopted him from. Father Harlan (Nick Nolte) cares for the dying Irwin, but Irwin imagines (or does he?!) that a group of angels (including Daryl Hannah and Anthony Edwards) have arrived in the desolate and empty town looking for a fallen angel. Irwin has scars on his back and on his head, and he tries to convince the angels that his scars are where the humans amputated his wings and halo. Oh yeah, and during all of this there is a strangely surreal walking animal on stilts that roams throughout the backdrop of the landscape. There are a lot of other small events that happen in the film, but none of them end up amounting to much more than momentary intrigue. One can appreciate the artistic quality of the film (it's obvious that the filmmakers cared deeply about this film) and its rich cinematography, but the film still tries too hard to be different and then gives up and whimpers to an end without making much of a statement. Like I wrote earlier, it becomes clearer, long after viewing, what has possibly taken place in the film. Irwin is dying, and so is Northfork, and in coping with his own loss and death, Irwin has most likely created characters, from ideas he gets from the objects that surround him at the orphanage, to console him as he is abandoned and his life nears its end. But then again, maybe he really is an angel, and he has found his kind and can now return home. I must emphasize that there are some truly beautiful moments in the film, heartbreaking, vivid and full of loneliness and sadness. Unfortunately, the film as a whole just ends up feeling disconnected and somehow incomplete.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I should live this film, but I don't. It won international awards, it is foreign (I usually like such films) it is slow moving (again something I like) and it has no gratuitous sex or violence. the problem is that it is boring. We have two friends from the same village in Turkey one \"successful\" the other not. the unsuccessful one comes to Istanbul to stay with the successful in an attempt to get a good job at sea. Both live lives that are unfulfilling, pointless and petty.

Well, it isn't the first time this kind of film has been made. I didn't see anything new being added to this tired theme. There are long takes that are just someone standing and looking at the sea or sitting in a coffee shop or watching TV. I do understand that this kind of thing is there to show the emptiness of their loves, While it does do that I got the idea in the first 15 min. I don't need to be beaten over the head with it for the rest of the two hours.

The symbolism is also a bit heavy handed. the plate of live minnow type fish with one off the plate and flopping around in its death throws. Symbols are best when they are not obvious but are there, in the background, creating a mood just slightly below the viewer's awareness.

The film is so apathetic, that it doesn't even rate a score of 1, so I gave it a 2. To rate a 1 takes a talent at being bad. This film didn't have that much energy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't think of anything, I repeat, ANYTHING positive about this \"Movie\"! The whole 1 hour 45 minute movie could be shrunken into a short 5-minute movie! In most scenes, there is absolutely nothing going on and it seems just the camera was left on recording on purpose only to increase the time of the movie! All you see is someone in the background walking around or watching TV with no specific subject or even talk what so ever! I just feel I've wasted 105 minutes of my, my family's and my friends' weekend for nothing! If a movie is poorly made or the scenario isn't great that's whole another story, at least it leaves you something to discuss about but about DISTANT, I just have to call it a \"Movie\" because it was motion pictures recorded by a camera.

If you haven't seen it, imagine a 105-min long movie based on two-three lines of story! What will you end up with? 5% of content and 95% of fillers! That's exactly how \"Distant\" was at least for us! Actors did a great job acting roles that had nothing special in them, they barely talked or showed any special emotions! I picked up this movie in the comedy section of a store relying on what I read on the back of its cover. I'm still wondering what was funny in it other than our face after watching the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is about a depressed and emotionally constricted man has a distant relative move in with him in his apartment in Istanbul. As time passes, their relationship becomes more and more strained until finally he begins yelling at his house guest--who is out of work and doesn't appear all that eager to find work. That's most of the movie in fact. The problem is that although emotionally constricted and depressed people are VERY withdrawn and non-communicative, they don't make for a very satisfying movie. That's because most of the time he (and his roomie) just stare into space and say nothing. I think all these flat moments could have been shortened to make a 30 minute movie--I certainly wouldn't have minded.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There seem to be many fans of this movie here, but I found it boring, slow, meandering, and pointless. And I watch and enjoy plenty of art-house and independent films, so I wasn't expecting an action movie. I didn't sympathize with either character. The guy from the countryside was a bad guest and didn't seem to be trying very hard to find a job, and his relative in Istanbul was humorless and closed off emotionally.

In an interview on the DVD, the director says that the movie is about a common situation in Turkey - the person leaving in the countryside because there are no jobs and coming to Istanbul and staying with relatives while trying to find work. That in itself is interesting, but the movie wasn't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't get me wrong: I enjoy art-house movies, low-budget flicks, character studies, and foreign movies. Unfortunately, I couldn't enjoy this one -- glacial pacing, complete lack of plot, and characters that you can't dislike enough to hate, but you can't tolerate enough to like.

For me, Distant was like watching the cutting-room floor footage of a reality show -- all of the scenes which were deemed too uninteresting which would normally not make the final cut, were the only scenes included. A camera in my apartment with two of my friends ambling around for hours does not an interesting movie make.

Distant certainly makes the watcher feel that way -- long stretches of no dialogue (nearly 10 minutes before the first word is spoken from the credits) can be made to work (2001 comes to mind), but for me, something else compelling needs to happen to draw me in.

If you're the kind of watcher who can sit through a movie and be content with movie analysis, perhaps it will work for you. However, if you're somebody who chooses to watch movies to relax, expand your mind, or be entertained, you should probably look elsewhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad, ambient sound. Lots of shuffling. Loooong pointless scenes. Eg: guy sees interesting woman in lobby. Manages to stay there and watch her under the guise of waiting for the building supervisor to get a package. Says nothing. Stares creepily. More shuffling and other irritating ambient noise. Wait. Wait. Wait. Guy says nothing. Woman looks frightened or at least slightly disturbed about it and rightly so. Manager comes back with package. Guy goes up to the apartment with the package.

Another example: the guy and his host sit around watching bad TV. More ambient noise and shuffling. Wait wait wait wait. Guy wanders off to bed. If you can stand to sit through any more of this movie, you get to watch them watch TV again later.

If you want a story, any dialogue, entertainment, or a well crafted film, look elsewhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen comments from Turkish people (which I'm not) saying this movie is fantastic and accurately portrays Turkish life. All I have to say is... Turkey must be one of the most boring and depressing places in the world, because in my opinion, that is exactly what this movie was to me. If I were Turkish, I think it would have had a greater impact. But if you're not from Turkey, I would advise you not to waste two hours of your life on this.

\"Distant\" seems to lag on forever. Many scenes are painstakingly long with little or no purpose. I don't understand the director's objectives in even including many of the scenes. It is pointed out that the director used his own car, apartment, and friends in making the movie...Well guess what? It shows. It looks low budget. The acting is poor. If it's a cultural thing then so be it. I just don't understand the purpose of basing a movie on this story. It's unbelievably boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Silly and violent thriller that is a rip - off of 'Deliverance' but without any charm and intelligence. The plot is ridiculous and the cast seems to be tired and anxious to be free of this obnoxious entry. This movie is a solid example of a bad plot and a very, very bad idea all the way. It's a shame to see good actors like Thomerson and James make a living in a mess like this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No idea how this is rated as high as it is (5.8 at the time of writing) but this movie was absolutely horrible. The acting wasn't entirely bad but it really had no point whatsoever and the overall quality was poor. Its obviously a B movie (or a C if such a thing exists) and it looks like it was made over a weekend at a friends house or something. Im all for low budget movies and I generally watch any I come across but this one is really really bad. I mean like \"The Fanglys\" bad. I don't know what else to say but trust in this as I have indeed sat thru this horrible horrible movie and I can save you the effort... Don't bother. Seriously... Just don't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a little slow-moving for a horror movie, but the quality is better than you might expect for a director's only effort on IMDb. The camera work and lighting were both surprisingly good, and the acting \u0096 although variable \u0096 is better than is often found in Indie genre flicks.

As the lead, Robert Field is rather stiff, which is especially unfortunate given that his character, Claude, is the film's narrator as well as the centre of its action. However, it was the entry of Christopher (Brandon deSpain) that I considered the turning point of this film \u0096 and not in a good way. A twist is introduced in a clumsy fashion, and slow-moving becomes drawn out and overly wordy.

On the up side, Pete Barker is consistently entertaining as Father William. He's the easy stand-out in what is a fairly ordinary offering. While the first half hour caught my interest, I ended up feeling quite disappointed in the way things played out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes you just have to have patients when watching indie horror. If you can just toe-tap your way through the slow-paced early scenes, sometimes a real gem will present itself... This (unfortunately) was not the case with \"Satan's Whip\".

Written and directed by Jason Maran, \"Satan's Whip\" attempts to drag us along on a boring snore-fest of a film, with no real pay off at the end. I'm guessing that the black & white (and blue) cinematography must have been for a reason, however it is never explained why the majority of the blood is blue, and I found this increasingly annoying as the film went on. The story in itself is not that bad, and actually had some originality and decent content but the acting is simply pathetic. This, combined with the slow-pacing and lack of any real (red) gore made \"Satan's Whip\" one to forget quite quickly. I will give it a \"4\" rating for some witty dialog that made me chuckle, but alas that could not save this boring waste of my time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just saw this movie yesterday night and I almost cried. No, it wasn't because it got me utterly petrified, no. It was absolutely HORRENDOUS! Sometimes, you see movies that make you wonder what will become of the human race in the near future - this movie is one of those. It's as though the writer, actors, director, et al, just came together and copied and pasted scenes of their favorite horror flicks, zipped it all together and said \"hey, here's Satan's whip!!!\" After seeing this movie, I could not help but be tormented by the sight of people whom call themselves \"actors\"; waltzing around like they're some kind of talented artistic interpreters... do not be fooled they suck! Don't bother wasting your time or money!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was without a doubt the WORST movie I have ever see, yet once I started, it was just like the really bad car wreck on the side of the road - you can't help yourself, you just have to look. My EYES !!! The acting was awful, the production was awful, the filming was awful, awful, awful, awful. I was glad the priest got chopped, would have loved to have done it myself because of his POOR acting. I mean suck-ful acting to the tenth power. I would have cheered if Chris had just axed the lot of them before turning it on himself. And what was WITH that freaking wig from hell on his head?! I sincerely hope no one got paid, I mean if getting paid were to be considered here, they should be paid to never attempt another film project again, everyone that was involved, never, never again. That was just a huge piece of garbage that I am embarrassed to say I just had to keep watching until the very end. Don't watch it, it's about an hour and a half of your life you will never get back, and then you'll have to spend time registering on this website so you can write a comment like I am doing now, which you must do as a catharsis in order to survive the aftershocks of having viewed this film (and I use the term \"film\" loosely here).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The people at ABC forgot to do their biographical research... so many scenes were just plain wrong! The actor playing JPII was very rigid, there was no personality there. It is very very obvious that this movie was on the bottom of the programming totem poll, the move is so low budget. The script is terrible. Conversations like: \"You must follow the rules\" \"No, the people are starving.\" Lame. Plus, the movie was jumping like crazy from event to event in order to fit it into the two hours. Terrible! A better use of your time would be to watch a PBS documentary on JPII. Also, CBS put out a miniseries on JPII that is better than ABC by far. JPII was a wonderful man, and it bothers me to think that my grandkids might get a hold of this ABC movie and think that THAT is what he was really like!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw that this movie was coming out and could not wait to see it. I have to say I was very disappointed with it. This would have been better as a mini-series. The whole show seemed very rushed. They did not explain things very clearly. At the end they showed John Paul II, alive and well and the next scene he was dead. Never any explanation as to what happened. (We all know what happened in real life) I think ABC dropped the ball big time on something that could have been great. In all I think this movie was a blur. It seemed like a drunken monkey jumping around from one point in John Paul's life to another point never explaining how or why things happened. Such as when his older brother leaves, it was never explained that his brother was a doctor and that is why he left home. Also when his father dies, all we see is his father lying on the floor and that was that. I was very disappointed with the over all movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not finding the right words is everybody's problem in this vaudeville-type urban comedy. They don't know what to say, and they don't know how to say it, which is why they embark on the potentially humiliating enterprise of pre-arranged speed dating. Unfortunately, they all come across as cardboard characters rather than real people. The story follows a conventional three-act structure: getting to know the sizable cast in their sorry single lives, the actual dating circuit, and a final stretch of romantic fallout, showcasing some of the new-found couples' follies. Because it's all so predictable, I'd say that as a narrative, \"Shoppen\" is a failure. As a comedy, most of the time it's too goofy to be really funny. Thumbs up to Kathrin von Steinburg. She stands out from the soap opera crowd as the aloof, independently wealthy Miriam. Great makeup on her too (Verena Wei\u00dfert): Heavy eye shadow meets skin-tone lip gloss, creating a brooding and bohemian, yet girlish effect. Thumbs up also to Stefan Zinner as the Bavarian love machine and Tanja Schleiff as the hot nutritionist. They bypass the communication challenge by way of the timeless body language of copulation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This feels like a feature-lenght treatment of a comedy-routine that could have also been told in a ten-minute short. Also, technical credits are sup-par. The film really feels like a film school diploma project.

The cast is a mix of seasoned stage pros and talented newcomers but the problems is the superficial scrip. Their lines feel constructed, exactly like cued TV show material.

The director fails to take his protagonists seriously, therefore we are not touched by their problems and conflicts.

The film has been cleverly marketed and offers a unique selling point, but in the end the film disappoints on all levels.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I have to admit that this movie brought some occasional laughs to my face. OK, but that does not make it a good movie. Most of the characters are terrible stereotypes and truly unconvincing. Not all of them give great acting performances, but some really try, but fail because their characters are badly written. The perfect example is Julia Koschitz: She changes her eating habits from one talk to the other, on one talk she does not drink alcohol on the next she is allergic to champagne, she feels too beautiful for most people (in fact she is) but still ends up with the \"perfect\" fit concerning the looks, and refuses to give some more \"realistic\" guys a chance, and so on... The end is very cheesy, although I like one of the final scenes, when everybody finally stops talking and the director gives us a chance to catch our breath again. Shoppen is basically a movie that offers some cheap laughters (mostly because it is about sex and relationships, I assume) and maybe some short entertainment. Still, the whole picture is one big stereotype and nothing is really special about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even though I tried to avoid German films recently, positive reviews lured me into renting this one. There I stand fooled again by German media which has been hyping domestic flicks over and over again. To me it is no wonder no one abroad wants to see this crap. The idea to make this film is no idea at all (I guess some fool read a women's magazine article about speed-dating). In short: The characters (which are none), dialogue and content are so stunningly trivial, trite and clich\u00e9-ridden, I continued watching because I could hardly believe what I saw. BTW to call the flat theses mechanically delivered by the figures (certainly from the aforementioned magazines) dialogue, would be simply incorrect. Acting is so over-the-top, I can't remember worse than that on screen in a long time. You have to guess the director had\/has no clue at all. Amazingly distributors and producers around the country are still wondering why German films (with rare exceptions) generate no interest world-wide. Why? Because it's waste of time and money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1 thing. this movie sucks BIG TIME..i was into singaporean comedy when Chiken Rice war came along. But, this time, even Gurmit Singh (well-done) acting cant pull this one of. A total failure of following HK's Shaolin Soccer. Next time: do ur own thing!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, so I'm Singaporean and I would like to say that it's time to stop stereotyping Singaporeans and making such films. Some of the actors\/actresses actually have talent, but sadly it wasn't shown much in this film. I was fidgeting in my seat when I watched this, being quite young at that time, my parents dragged me along to see it. Honestly I could say that I was going to fall asleep. And there was this arrogant westernized boy whom just got on my nerves. Overall a boring film, and a general waste of the actors' talent. I have seen better Singaporean movies than this. Chicken Rice War was good. However, I cannot believe that this one would be considered a better Singaporean film. Sorry, I wouldn't recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To soccer fans every where -- stay away from this movie. It was so baaaaddd! Lame acting, lame script, lame soccer and no directing! I rented this movie during my stint in Asia and was appalled that this was considered one of the better Singaporean films. It was just nonsensical and thoroughly boring. There are thousands of rich, exciting stories in Asia. Why write a bad story about over the top and stereotypical Singaporeans?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why is it that Instant Noodles aren't instant, this was the perplexing problem I placed in the lap of the one legged angry Sherpa; he angrily retorted that noodles weren't his bag, equally I replied \"What bag?\" He looked further perplexed.

Some of you will be wondering, why has the Sherpa only one lower appendage.

The Sherpa, who we shall call Sherpa 5, for data protection reasons, injured his toe. \"How!?!\" I hear you ask, I will proceed, as we have learnt from the review of Donkey Punch (2002) Irene via sly nudges and dirty winks etc tried in vain to teach the slight peculiarities of checkers to all the angry Sherpas. Sherpa 5 who is known only for his violent tirades against democratic principals during the post revolutionary years of the now United States of America and it's consequential affect on the mind sets of it's population in the post modern empire that now exists, through the invasions of countries smaller than it, got carried away in a river of violence due to his lack of comprehension of checkers. According to an eye witness , he sprung around like a feckless banjo string at Mardi gras wielding a stick with nail through it, after the struggle that ensued 5 llamas were each found to be missing their left testicles, 3 Sherpas were discovered spooning beneath a gooseberry bush and Sherpa 5 had the nail stuck in his big toe.

A Sherpas lifestyle is as modest as a nuns, with only rudimentary health care facilities at 15000 ft above sea level. Consequentially when the first aid hut was opened only an IOU for a tin of spam, and some crotchless knickers were found. Sherpa 5 hopped around like a dark on a noose in agony, until Irene burst forth like a cock from a hen house and suggested soaked his ailment in llama spit. Sherpa 5 agreed to the procedure , to sedate him, a bottle of 100 yr old Glenfiditch was produced, some say it was left by an angry Scotsman, who is thought to be an ancestor of the angry Sherpas. One under the influence, the toe was bathed until ridged, dressed with Irenes slightly soiled diaphragm and some blue tack. Some of you may feel that this procedure wouldn't do the Sherpa any good and you would be fully vindicated for holding that view. Only four days later gangrene set it and a week later the leg was removed through the use of even tighter elastic bands","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hollywood has made a lot of strange movies over the years, but none stranger than this. WHY this movie got made I will never know, nor how Paramount could have thought it would sell any tickets in 1947. It is the strangest mix of genres I have seen in a long time, a movie that truly does not know whether it is trying to be a serious war drama or a Viennese operetta comedy.

It tells the story of a British spy trying to get a poison gas formula out of Germany in the days just before WW II began. Ray Milland, a fine actor, is stuck playing the part like an escapee from Monty Python, all very exaggerated English prep-school dialogue. In Germany he meets a gypsy, Marlene Dietrich, who helps him to travel under cover as, of course, another gypsy. She plays her part like the typical Viennese operetta gypsy caricature, as do the other \"gypsies\" in the movie. But there are also Nazis, who are not funny at all. And then Milland finds he is starting to think like a gypsy, and that is not treated as a joke. Sometimes the music is for a light comedy, sometimes for a drama. Every time the Nazis show up, the film score plays Wagner, which is funny by itself.

This movie could have been a comedy, or it could have taken the plight of the gypsies seriously and done a serious job of showing how the Nazis treated them. Both are hinted at in this movie, but neither pursued. What we are left with is a truly strange mish-mash of genres that must have embarrassed everyone (except the director) involved.

Bizarre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Silly comedy casts an embarrassed-seeming Ray Milland as a British officer in World War II Europe escaping German confines and taking up with a man-hungry gypsy woman, played by Marlene Dietrich. Slowly-paced, overlong, and miscast: the leads are far too old for this type of juvenile fodder, although Marlene shines in her solo moments. It took three scriptwriters to adapt Yolanda Foldes' book for the screen, but this material must have already seemed dated by 1947--it smacks of something Ernst Lubitsch might have turned out in 1939. The scenario is musty, and the stars have absolutely no chemistry together. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"42\/100. Often referred as \"Tarzan with clothes on\", but it's not at all in the same league as his far superior Tarzan series. Basically, The Jungle Jim series became a Tarzan replacement for Johnny Weismuller, after he started getting too out of shape for a loincloth. In Jungle Jim, he is fully clothed. It can't compare to the Tarzan series in any way, not in acting, screenplays or quality of production. It's pretty hokey stuff. This one is the first the best in the series, and that isn't saying much. Too much stock footage is used, and it is so obvious. The score is overdone, and the plot is lame and the production is so poor it makes it hard to watch at times.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seems like some of the previous reviewers has seen another movie than what i saw earlier tonight... Actually, this movie is the reason why i registered at IMDb. Sure Bobbie Phillips can \"fight\" and for that i give this movie a 2, but the rest of this movie is just pure crap... The acting is bad, the plot is bad, the camera angles are bad, and the effects are bad. Sure the actors are in physical good shape, but they cannot act! Sometimes i enjoy watching bad movies for the laugh, but this movie had no charm and after i saw this movie i was filled with regrets for seeing it. Sure, if you would like to see mediocre fighting without anything else then this movie is for you. If not then stay away from this film! PS: Sorry for any spelling mistakes... i am just tired as a cause of this movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just have to say that this was the third worst movie I have ever seen right after the attack of the murder tomato's 3 and starship troopers 2. It wasn't just dialogs or the paper walls or even the guns shots which just automagically disappeared with no holes in the walls. It was the horrible acting. No wonder that I have never seen these actors before they all probably slept with the director(s). I think i'am being nice to this movie now but that is only because i'am to tired from screaming at the movie (just saw it). My advice is to buy as many DVD's of this movie as you possibly can and burn it so no one ever can see this horrible waste of time, money and film ever again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There were very few good moments in this film. Only a couple of characters were fleshed out and not that well. There were plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. The pace creep-ed along like an old man. There were many moments that the film never came back to like Coco stripping. What happened to her? How about Garci's sister? Is she better now? What about Leroy? We learned absolutely nothing about him. What about the electronic piano guy? How about the rich girl that got an abortion? What happened to her? That was an interesting subplot.

Overall this is not a good movie and I recommend another musical that was in this film. LET'S DO THE TIME WARP AGAIN!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No matter what you've heard, \"Fame\" is not a good movie. It's not worth the investment of over two hours to watch stereotypically troubled teens dancing, singing, learning, and staring at girls in the dressing rooms.

Every clich\u00e9 finds a cozy little home in this movie. There's a gay teenager looking for acceptance. That would have been great if it had been treated as anything more than a secondary plot point. There's a ghetto kid who has too much attitude-- what, was I surprised? And guess what? They all want to become big stars, finding fame and fortune, and they'd all be willing to crawl over their own mothers' smoking corpses to get it.

Oddly enough, this film is remembered for its music. But in actuality, the only moderately good song is \"Hot Lunch Jam,\" which is still too cheesy to be of any real quality. The two most popular songs are nothing, either. \"Fame\" is meaningless fluff drowned out by the sheer spectacle of a massive dancing-in-the-streets scene. And \"I Sing the Body Electric\" (what in Bubba's name does that even mean?!?!?!?!?) is just an incomprehensible joke.

Bad acting, tasteless dialog, and hack direction (it is, after all, from the director of \"Evita\") are only marginally helped by Michael Seresin's appropriately ordinary camera work. But cinematography alone cannot carry a movie, especially one as uninspiring and pointless as this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Fame did something odd. It was not only a musical that was created originally for the screen (most are based off of Broadway musicals), but it spawned a TV series and a Broadway musical. Let me correct that sentence. Fame is not a musical. Musicals have song numbers in order to advance the plot or to show characters' feelings. The singing in this music is not used to do either; in fact, there's no use for it at all. People just randomly sing to fit in with the plot. And that's not the type of musical I know.

The so-called plot of Fame has an onslaught of characters (who are all introduced at once-last time I saw that in a movie [Gosford Park] it had disastrous results) who audition for, and get into, New York High School for the Performing Arts. All of them are in for different reasons-i.e. acting, singing, etc. Quote-unquote drama unfolds as these middle-aged people pretending to be teenagers go through their four years.

My largest complaint is that the high school is supposed to be selective. After all, it's a free college, and they can't let everyone in. So how is it that some people who are really bad get into the college? Obviously so that drama could ensue between all of these different people. And why is the person top billed not even in the movie until near the end, for no reason at all, except to make us feel uncomfortable? There's many unsettling situations that these untalented people get into, yet you can't feel bad for them because you don't know who they are! These relationships occur between people whose names you don't know. And these characters realize things about themselves throughout the course of the movie, yet you don't realize that, because you don't know what they were like in the first place.

As for the singing, it pops in randomly (and is supposed to be humorous?) and does nothing. When the title song is sung, it's played in the middle of a street and before you can say Ferris Bueller everyone's in the middle of the street dancing wildly and off-beat to it. The song itself is fine, but the whole scene, like the whole movie, is unnecessary. Fame is an unpleasant movie, to say the least. I would say more, but most of the movie has thankfully gone out of my head. Just don't see it. You'll be doing yourself a favor.

My rating: 2\/10

Rated R for language.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife and I both remembered this film being a lot better than it is. When we rented it last weekend, we wondered if we were watching the same movie we had seen 22 years or so ago. We both agreed that we were probably remembering the TV series, which, in its one-hour segments, was compelled to actually wrap up plot lines. This movie leaves many loose threads, as has been mentioned by others here... basically every main character's story line is left unresolved.

Gotta like the title song, though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was on TV last night. I painfully forced my way through it, and barely made it through. First of all, except for Leroy, Hilary, and possibly Coco, NONE of the other students we are supposed to care about have any discernible talent. It's like HSPA had no standards, just sign on the dotted line and you're in.

The story lines were grating and obvious. Doris was just impossibly awful. The gay guy was such a thrown away clich\u00e9 (funny how that school had only one gay guy, right...) I liked the Leroy character, but calling your teacher an obscenity and then vandalizing the school should have sent Leroy packing. Lisa looks like she'd rather be anywhere else, and since she wasn't any talent, I wonder why they kept her.

I would have rated this one star (awful), but the music wasn't that bad, and I did like the premise. It just would have worked much better if the students had been attractive and actually had some talent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was produced by Producers Releasing Corp. (PRC), among the so-called \"Poverty Row\" film studios of the 1930s and 40s. So you can imagine how little money was spent making it.

The music is forgettable. Cast member Gerra Young does exhibit an operatic-quality voice, but is sort of a discount Deanna Durbin. The IMDb database doesn't show any other film appearances for her, so let's hope she was able to move on to some kind of position in Grand Opera.

The opening credits for the print recently broadcast by Turner Classic Movies indicates this film has been preserved by the National Film Museum. This immediately begs the question\u0097WHY?

Are their resources so plentiful that they can afford to preserve junk? Some low-budget or B musicals of that era have redeeming features which make them worthwhile. This film has none.

In my opinion, skip this movie. It REALLY wastes an hour of your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen Shallow Grave years ago, and *that* was one of those movies I kept in memory for a very long time. It was intense from beginning to end and with plenty of sudden twists. But all of these made sense.

I can't tell the same about Dead Bodies. Above the title is a subtitle that claims it to be \"even better than Shallow Grave\". This is a big lie.

Dead Bodies looses strength and gets far less convincing during the movie.

Two supporting characters for example, turn out to be a whole lot less innocent than they first appeared to be. That could work as a surprise, but it didn't surprise me. I could see it coming minutes before, and *that* is a big difference with Shallow Grave.

Another thing I have to mention is that characters in this movie often respond not very realistic. They behave like that more often when the movie gets to it's end.

I would have found it far more interesting if some of the characters would have stayed completely innocent, not knowing what is going on. It would have been better for the contrast with for example Tommy and his friend who have to carry a *huge* secret with them.

But no, for some stupid reason the makers of this movie decided that all characters should show their darkest sides. It does not work in a movie like this.

The end felt much like an open end. It left me with an unsatisfied feeling. I expected a whole lot more of it.

At first I would have given this movie six stars because it is not entirely a bad movie. I liked watching it. Most of the time.

But occasionally I saw some really poor acting and unrealistic scenes and because of the disappointing open end, I stick to four stars this time. And because it turned out to be a mistake that I have spend my time and money to it. Unlike Shallow Grave, I will probably forget Dead Bodies very soon. It is just not such a special movie.

The makers could have done a far better job with this movie. It is a shame that they did not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This belabored and sloppy spy melodrama featuring two buffoonish (one idealistic, one drug addled) California kids dealing secrets to the KGB never seems to get enough steam up to sustain any tension and suspense before it dies a very slow death over two hours later. John Schlesinger's finished product gives the impression that he was asleep in his director's chair most of the time as the film lags and the actors sleep walk, save for the highly annoying over the top performance of Sean Penn.

Childhood altar boys and friends Chris (Tim Hutton) and Daulton (Penn) devise a plan to sell secrets to the KGB when Chris lands a job that allows him access to top secret government materials. Disillusioned by what he sees as US meddling in foreign affairs the idealistic Chris and the drug hungry Daulton make contact with the Russians and begin to funnel them classified materials. When Chris decides he wants out things begin to unravel at a lackadaisical pace.

The eighties were not kind to distinguished director John Schlesinger. In the 60s and 70s he had a series of critically acclaimed films in both England and America but then came Honky Tonk Freeway in 1981 and it marked the beginning of the end. The Falcon and the Snowman more or less put a lid on it. Lacking the suspense of Marathon Man and the quality performances (Hoffman Voight, Christie, Jackson, Finch, Olivier) he had coaxed from leads in the past Falcon goes in circles most of the way.

Sean Penn chews scenery from start to finish in such an obnoxious fashion you find yourself encouraging his torturers to do more to him. Tim Hutton is governed by his limited acting chops and most of his scenes show a need for more rehearsal time. Lori Singer as Hutton's girlfriend plays it mute most of the way with Schlesinger content to film her vapid expressions. When she does emote you understand why. Only David Suchet as the KGB handler with a piercing eyed introspective presence and restraint acquits himself well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Based on the true story of two young Americans who sold national secrets to the Soviet Union in the height of the Cold War, \"Falcon And The Snowman\" wants to be both suspenseful and philosophical, and winds up falling short in both departments. It's less le Carr\u00e9 than who cares.

Timothy Hutton stars as Christopher Boyce, a former seminarian who, disgusted by Watergate and the middle-class values around him, is probably the wrong guy to be hired by a company running spy satellites for the CIA. Sean Penn plays his drug-dealing pal, Daulton Lee, who makes himself Boyce's courier, delivering secret files to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. An offbeat synth-jazz score, lack of sympathy or emotional attachment for anyone, and lots of scenes of guys getting angry in rooms all combine to deaden what could have a decent moral-dilemma thriller.

It's really Penn's movie despite the second billing; his character gets to talk turkey with the Russians while Hutton plays with his pet falcon. Hutton looks like they woke him up five minutes before they called \"action\". With Penn, it's a crapshoot whether you get a brilliant performance or an over-the-top one. Here, it's a bit of both, but more the latter, especially in the second half when Lee switches from coke to heroin. He screeches. He snorts. He crashes Russian embassy parties. He gets pummeled with telephone books. He spits at himself in a mirror, a big goober he must have been saving for a paparazzi. \"I don't know who my friends are anymore!\" he cries out. It's exhausting to just watch him.

Penn seems to have modeled Lee somewhat on Dustin Hoffman's Ratso Rizzo from \"Midnight Cowboy\", complete with overly nasal line readings and constant eye shifting. John Schlesinger directed this film as well as \"Midnight Cowboy\", but he seems to have had another Hoffman film in mind, \"The Graduate\", throwing up scene after scene of Boyce and Lee poolside, trying to decide how to live their lives in their gilded cage. Too bad no one suggested plastics.

From the opening shots, news footage of American decline juxtaposed with Boyce and his bird, \"Falcon\" makes clear it is a message movie, though the message itself is far from clear, probably because the characters never come into focus. Is Boyce supposed to be an idealist? Or is he just a mercenary? Hutton and Schlesinger don't seem to know, which makes it harder for us. Meanwhile, opportunities to establish some suspense, like Boyce stealing documents from the top secret \"Black Vault\" where he works or Lee playing games with the Russians, are interrupted by jump cuts to scenes of the pair with their families and friends. It's the normalcy of the story that Schlesinger finds interesting, but it's the least interesting aspect for us.

Good stuff: It's interesting to see a film that works the 1970s vibe so early as this one, referencing Maria Muldaur and Tang. Dorian Harewood, memorable in \"Full Metal Jacket\", has a nice turn as Boyce's paranoid colleague Gene, who shows Boyce how to make margaritas with a shredder but has some serious 'Nam issues beneath his partying exterior. Macon McCalman is also fine in a totally different way as the no-nonsense boss who gives Boyce his high-security job. David Suchet as the Russian embassy official who deals with Lee makes for a fascinating blend of menace and amiability.

But \"Falcon And The Snowman\" stands or falls on the the question of the two title characters, and neither the actors nor Schlesinger are able to mine much in the way of answers. Worse, after more than two hours in their alternately feral and catatonic company, you don't really want answers. You just want those credits to roll.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film begins with Ingrid Bergman and her two freaky servants arriving in New Orleans from Paris. Apparently years earlier, her mother was involved in a scandal and Ingrid returned in an effort to irritate kin who would have sooner forgotten she or her mother existed. That's because she reasons if they are shocked enough, they'll pay her off to get rid of her. Then, with this money, she will leave New Orleans and seek out a millionaire somewhere else, as she poses as a Countess. Along the way, Gary Cooper shows up and looks totally out of place as a love interest.

It's amazing that this film wasn't the reason that Ingrid Bergman's film career plummeted--her performance and character were THAT bad! Instead of the classy and demure female she usually played in films, she is probably one of the most annoying characters in film. Her fake Contessa was shallow, demanding, unpredictable and stupefyingly dumb. How she was able to vamp ANY man seemed a mystery, as she seemed less vampish than just plain nuts!! I am not exaggerating to say that she behaved, at times, like someone with a combination of a severe mental illness and a personality disorder, and all these together make me think \"who in the world would fall in love with this mess?!\". Frankly, I couldn't stand watching her histrionics and narcissistic behavior and she looked more like a guest on \"The Jerry Springer Show\" than a leading lady! Confusing, awful and overacted are words that come to mind when I think about her role.

The rest of the cast is, frankly, overwhelmed by Bergman's ranting and hysterics. While Gary Cooper is generally an excellent leading man, he is dominated by her and just looks lost. And, oddly, they cast two total weirdos as her entourage--Flora Robson and Jerry Austin. Ms. Robson is best known for her portrayals of Queen Elizabeth I, but here, for some odd reason, they coated her in makeup and the end result looked much like the love child of a cigar store Indian and Aunt Jemima! Her face was very wooden, she sported odd eyebrows and she dressed like a slave. As for Mr. Austin, he was a dwarf and while this shouldn't be held against him, his role was written like he was a court jester--a very, very thankless role for someone who is \"vertically challenged\"! Overall, the rotten acting, writing and limp direction make this one of the big stinkers of the age--nearly as pointless and dull as such famous turkeys as PARNELL and SWING YOUR LADY.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is way too long. I lost interest about one hour into the story. Saratoga Trunk tells the story of Ingrid Bergman, who is an the child of a prominent New Orleans man and his mistress. After her mother dies in Paris, Bergman comes back to New Orleans to scandalize her father's \"legitimate\" family and to blackmail them. She meets Gary Cooper, who is likewise seeking revenge against the railroad tycoons who cheated his father out of his land in Texas. She draws him into her schemes, and the movie climaxes at a Saratoga resort. Long and boring, but worth watching if you are a Bergman or Cooper fan. The midget Cupidon provides the only bright spot in this meandering story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anna Christie (Greta Garbo) returns to see her father Chris (George F Marion) after 15 years. He is the skipper of a boat and she stays to travel with him. During this time, she meets Matt (Charles Bickford) and they fall in love. Matt and Chris don't see eye to eye and Anna has a secret to confess.....................

What a boring story......it starts badly with George F Marion and Marie Dressler playing drunks in a bar. The scene goes on forever and they are both terrible. Its also hard to understand them. In fact, its difficult to understand the whole cast. I missed whole sections of dialogue between Bickford, Marion and Garbo because it is incomprehensible! Garbo is obviously something special as you are drawn to her every time that she is on screen and her presence gives this film the 4 stars that I have given to it. But nothing really happens - its a boring story with atrocious accents. You'll do well to stay awake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mild spoiler in the second paragraph.

Anna Christie was Garbo's lackluster 1st talkie. She and Dressler look like the only people who know what they're doing in this movie. The old guy who plays Garbo's dad (George F. Marion) in the film is soooo ah-noying!! All he does is stumble around drunkenly in a totally fake way and yell about \"dat old dah-veel sea\". He blames Garbo's \"past\", his whole life, and Everything on the sea! He comes across as stupid x 10. Charles Bickford is Matt, the rough 'n' tumble sailor Garbo falls in love with, and he's fine in his role, but nothing really outstanding.

The best part is when Garbo unleashes her \"terrible secret\" on Bickford and her dad. Finally, Marion stops talking about the evil of the sea and beats his head and fists on the table in perfect time with Bickford. Then soon he goes on a tirade about the sea.

I had to practically force myself to finish Anna Christie. It's too melodramatic in many parts and creaky. There are many good early talkies but this is not one of them. If you haven't seen Garbo before try something else before Anna Christie, like CAMILLE or GRAND HOTEL.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most famous thing about this movie is that this was the first time Garbo talked in a motion picture. Aside from that 'milestone' (if you want to call it that) this is a movie that doesn't go beyond creaky melodrama, with Garbo trying her best not to fall asleep.

The plot involves Greta Garbo returning to her Father after 15 years abroad. Her father, who is a captain on a barge, is happy to see her, even though she's acting a bit cagey. She soon falls in love with a grizzled seaman, who also notices that something, a barrier if you will, is holding her back.

Anyways, the two fellows don't particularly like each other and soon come to blows over Garbo, when she diffuses the situation by revealing her Big Secret which is no surprise to us, if you've read the video box (damn you MGM!!) Garbo is nothing but arms in this movie, she acts and acts flailing her arms about, and gets grating quickly. The two male leads are alright. Probably the best performance comes from the classic silent actress Marie Dressler, who plays the drunken captain's even drunker girlfriend. What a performance! It's too bad the tagline couldn't have read, \"Dressler Talks!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This could have been a very good film, a very interesting look at ancient tradition and oral history, but it should have been a short subject. As it is , it moves at a snail's pace; sure that's part of the life being portrayed, but this was unbearable. I fell asleep watching them make soup and that was a highlight.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The opening scene makes you feel like you're watching a high school play. But I've seen high school plays with better acting! Every line was delivered so obviously that I felt like I was watching actors work instead of seeing characters. I found the character development to be poor and the acting very forced! I found that 25 minutes into the movie, I really didn't care what happened anymore because the plot was overly obvious and I was bored. I kept hanging in there, waiting for the film to redeem itself, but it never happened. Sister Theresa was overly sweet, even for a nun, yet appeared impulsive and slightly manipulative. All in all, I was mighty disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We were waiting in line to see The Good Girl, an excellent movie starring Jennifer Aniston, when some lady came up with this cheapo mock twenty dollar bill advertising MANNA FROM HEAVEN. \"Come see this movie!\" she said. \"You'll love it!\"

She then introduced us to the director of the film. Now, this should have been our first clue. I mean, in how many cinematic situations do you have the director of the film standing out in the lobby begging people to see it? \"Is this a Christian film?\" I asked, not really caring one way or the other. I love Jesus. No shame in that. \"No!\" she said defensively. What a load of crap.

This movie is BAD. So bad. And it's not only because of the obvious Christian agenda, but because of the terrible dialogue, acting that alternates between wooden and overexaggerated, and the obvious lack of an editor. The film is way too long. Had it been an hour and a half, then maybe (just maybe) I wouldn't have had to visit the suicide prevention center after seeing the movie.

Actually, I lie. See, after an hour of this garbage we snuck into SWIMFAN. At least with SWIMFAN we know it's garbage before going in to see the movie. We know to brace ourselves. And SWIMFAN has hot half-naked people. The only thing half-naked in this film is the desperation of the stars involved whose obvious lack of script offers is anything but hidden. And the actress who plaid the nun? It's called a personality. Get one.

The people shamelessly begging for ticket sales in the lobby told me that if I liked MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING, then I would *love* (their emphasis, not mine) MANNA FROM HEAVEN. Right. More like, \"If you like GLITTER, you'll love MANNA FROM HEAVEN.\" And Mariah could actually outperform any of the clowns from this flick. If that's not an insult, then I don't know what is.

I've railed enough. Go see indie films, but don't see the bad ones. This is definitely one of the bad ones. MANNA FROM HEAVEN is in need of some divine intervention.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1st watched 2\/18\/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Leon Leonard): Fair adventure movie based on a novel by the author of Moby Dick fame, Herman Melville. This movie is about the captain of a ship who had stolen the eyes(that were extremely rare black pearls) from a native tribe's God sculpture and hidden them somewhere that only he knew about before leaving the Island of Tivi. He got very sick and was on a secret voyage to go back to the island to retrieve the pearls for himself while others(like his daughter) thought that he was going back to be treated by the local medicine man. Others didn't know the reason for the voyage. A stowaway actually knew the real reason for the trip -- to return the eyes to their God. The silly part is that the pearls were hidden very close to the statue and all this time the natives ran their tribe without their God having eyes(causing them all kinds of problems). Along the way, we are treated(for some reason) to a short underwater nature show with an electric eel fighting a local octopus(I guess only Herman Melville knows what this was all about). Once they get to the island, the Captain dies but passes the whereabouts of the pearls to his daughter but she also gets the sickness curse as well. One of the bad guys finds out where the God is housed and convinces the daughter to go there and steal back the pearls but at this point the good guys find out what's going on and a fight ensues. I won't tell you the results of the fight or the ending, I'll leave that up to you to find out if you want. As I said earlier, the movie was OK, but some very silly things that I've already mentioned lessened it's impact. I wonder if that new \"Pirates of the Caribbean\" got some of it's plot from this one ---hmm\u0085 black pearls, a curse( I wonder\u0085) Well, it doesn't matter, those elements didn't make for a very good movie in this case or the other. It seems they would learn they're lesson, but with the money rolling in on that newer movie I'm sure they won't. Oh well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, Man, talk about the effect of advertising. Apparently, all that you have to do to enjoy box office succes is title your movie after a revered 19th century novel. Horrendous acting, directing, and cinematography in this sham of an effort.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie starts off with Reeve (Ekin) and his assistant fighting same vampires. This scene is probably the best out of the entire movie. The rest of the movie unfortunately is cheesy, highly unrealistic and a Buffy the Vampire Slayer ripoff. The ending also sucks big time.

Some moments such as the scene where Gypsy and Helen (played by popular Chinese duo band Twins: Charlene & Gillian) fight over a stuffed teddy bear are particularly cringeworthy. The storyline is also lame, surely they could have come up with something more scary than a book called \"Day for Night\".

Some good parts though. Jackie Chan and Anthony Wong make the movie bearable with their comical roles. However, the good bits just end there. Charlene & Gillian (from Twins) have never been able to act well and annoy you to pieces and \"the friendly but wussy vampire\" role was unfortunately given to Edison Chen who is a talentless pretty boy.

Rating: 4\/10 --","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie reminds me of Harry Potter - not the style but the marketing strategy. There may be part 2 , part three...until one day the product life cycle finishs, of course on the condition that the part one has a commercial success. so many things seems to be hidden and thus the story looks quite incomplete. the action design is boring. set design is ok but not fine. perhaps Edison Chen would be a big star one day. He really looks charming even on big screen. The most impressive is still Anthony Wong. 4\/10

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now really can u call that a movie. I knew some of the movies that Japanese people do are good for nothing but this bad? I mean com'om i fell a sleep three times at this movie. No horror at all, some tiny percent (0.2-0.5) comedy. Action let's just admit that it has some but the scenes are poorly filmed, the actors are pathetic. None of the actors did a good job in it's own role. The were not convincing. The script is also awful. I mean this movie may be great, REALLY, but for the 60's(in not 100% sure.) I recommend NOT to see it, unless you want to get so bored as i did. I can't quite figure hot this movie got it's rating. It's OVER, OVER, OVER RATED!!!. This is a PERSONAL opinion of course. I don want to offend anyone but who could like this crap? So i hope this helps someone NOT to loose some time \"enjoying\" this movie. Nevertheless it's your choice!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"TWINS EFFECT is a poor film in so many respects. The only good element is that it doesn't take itself seriously. Other than that, this is not really a movie, but rather a merchandising tool for the film's two stars, popular pop idols in their native Hong Kong.

The film itself is poorly constructed and acted. The direction offers up some silly martial arts, which is odd since the action director (and supposedly co-director) is Donnie Yen. Like many Hong Kong films geared for the teen audience, the major fanbase of \"actors\" like the Twins (the two girls who stars in this film) and Ekin Cheng, there is so much bad music to prod the audience into believing certain scenes are funny, clever, etc.

The final conclusion: It's all for naught. Even as a fan of Hong Kong movies, this is a poor film. Not funny enough, not serious enough, and just generally too bubble gum fake for its own good.

3 out of 10.

(Go to http:\/\/www.nixflix.com for a more in-depth review of this movie and other foreign films)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To identify this movie as a vampire movie would be technically correct. Simply because it will suck the life right out of you.

Vampire Effect is an insult to movie-buffs everywhere. The plot is almost non-existent. The make-up is just plain awful. And the acting is just not there.

I have to wonder if Jackie Chan owed someone a huge favor to be convinced to appear in this film.

My wife picked up the movie at the rental store because it had a picture of Jackie Chan on the front (as though he was playing the lead) and thought that a good JC flick would be fun to watch. This movie was interesting to watch in the same way that you can't help staring at the car wreck when you drive by. You realize very quickly the movie isn't going to get any better but, you keep watching wonder just how bad it will get.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Quite possibly one of the greatest wastes of celluloid of the past 100 years. Not only does it suffer from a painfully (and enormously predictable) disjointed script, but it's clearly a carbon-copy of Alien II. Within five minutes I had correctly predicted who would die and who wouldn't (and in which order). The special effects are laughable; there is a scene where one crew member is mauled (unconvincingly) by two Krites that look like a pair of teddy-bears, and the sparse humor is misplaced and dire. There are better things to do with a VCR remote than use it to watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anybody who thinks this film is great, desperately needs their head seen to. It strikes me that this film was made as a joke. It has no good points whatsoever. The props cost about $10 and the entire set looks like it could fall down at any time. Why do films like this get made in the first place? This also had two of the most annoying characters I have ever come across in the young boy on the spaceship and the redneck from the twentieth century. This film is almost as bad as \"Cool as Ice\" starring the incredibly talented Vanilla \"misunderstood\" Ice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i'm watching this horrid film as we speak. it is possibly one of the worst movies ever aired in my house. i'm sitting here with 3 friends and they agree. its not scary. its not funny. its not dramatic. it contains nothing appealing whatsoever. we are 49 minutes in the movie. we've only seen 2 critters. only one person has died. this movie is one big letdown. nothing about this horrible, horrible movie has made me want to watch the rest. i'm getting a movie hang over. i hope that everyone who had anything to do with making this movie dies. i don't just mean the actors. i mean the director, producers, the presidents from the studio that financed this movie. it is in full, the worst movie ever. it should make the IMDb worst 100 movies of all time. at number 1.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw a great clip of this film, which I'll talk about later, and then the cast list, and thought I might as well give it a go. Basically, a down-on-his-luck bartender, Randy (Matt Dillon), his cocky cousin Carl Harding (Paul Reiser) and murder investigation Detective Dehling (John Goodman) all have something in common, they have seen the girl of their dreams (whether married or not), and they would do anything to please and be with her, even die. All three met\/saw her \"one night at McCool's\", the bar that Randy worked at, they have no knowledge of each other, but all three cannot stop thinking of Femme Fetale Jewel Valentine (The Lord of the Rings' Liv Tyler). All three are telling their stories to someone they hope will listen to their pretty intense and revealing stories, Randy talks to hit-man Mr. Burmeister (Michael Douglas, who co-produced the film), Carl to psychologist\/psychiatrist Dr. Green (Reba McEntire) and Dehling to priest Father Jimmy (Richard Jenkins). They confess all details of what they have been willing to do, their sexual contact with her, and eventually they are all brought together in one place, all intent on being with her, and all involved with the final shootout that leaves one dead, one running away (and eventually dying) and one stunned, and the unexpected guy she chooses (but at the same time obvious, cos it's sex-obsessed Douglas). Also starring Andrew Dice Clay as Utah\/Elmo and Sandy Martin as Bingo Vendor Woman. If I had to pick a favourite moment, it would definitely be what was mentioned at number 11 along with Cool Hand Luke on The 100 Greatest Sexy Moments, where Tyler copycats the woman washing the car with suds all over herself, and in front of Goodman, very sexy! Apart from that, not the most memorable film. Okay!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow. I watched One Night at McCool's yesterday, and all I can say is, \"Wow.\"

Here I go. MAJOR SPOILERS.

Would you like a summary of the plot, just to see how stupid and pointless this movie is? I would never tell anybody to watch it, unless I was out to inflict pain upon them. Anyway, here's a glimpse (or a huge chunk) of the plot.

Randy works for a bar, McCool's. He meets up with this woman named Jewel who convinces him to, surprisingly, have sex with him. Her ex-boyfriend ends up trying to rob them and gets killed. Randy and his cousin and the detective at the scene of the crime all fall for Jewel. She, being the mascot of stupidity, uses every one of these guys to get what she wants, involving a DVD player. Randy hires a hit man to kill her, and eventually the detective is killed by the ex-boyfriend's psycho brother and the hit man and Jewel take off.

Seriously. That's it. I left hardly anything out, except for a few more sex scenes and a nearly-pornographic scene of Liv Tyler as Jewel using a hose to flaunt her sexuality.

What was the point of this movie? To be honest, I think it was so that the producers and directors could show off their male urges. Which I think is absolutely uncalled for and just plain stupid. When I watch a movie, I want a plot. I want characters. I don't care about sexy woman flaunting anything they might have. Something should happen in a movie, for goodness' sake. This is as bad as Fight Club.

It gets even worse. John Goodman is the detective devoted to the higher being. I myself wondered why Goodman would play in something so outrageously pitiful as this, but then I remembered that he was in O Brother, Where Art Thou? as well. His reputation just went down a notch.

Liv Tyler was an amazing actress in the Lord of the Rings series. In this movie she is nothing more than an unintelligent slut who wants nothing but her way. Her reputation has gone down seven or eight notches, to me.

I am amazed, simply AMAZED that people would work so hard to make something so stupid. The music is absolutely crappy (having \"YMCA\" play while John Goodman's character is being killed doesn't really fit), the characters are totally unlikeable, the plot is one of the most stupid ever conceived by man, and to top it off, it doesn't even fit into any genre. The closest it gets to is pornographic comedy. If it was even supposed to be funny. Which it wasn't.

I think I'm done ranting now. But let me just assure you that nobody in their right mind would ever, ever want to see this movie. Unless they lust for Liv Tyler as much as the characters do, that is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was really the worst movie I've ever seen. Anyone who has seen it will know what I'm talking about. I saw it on Starz, so thank goodness I didn't waste my money. Please everyone, don't waste your time. I'm really suprised this wasn't straight to video.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The intertwined points-of-view can come up as a good idea in some movies. Here it is a total mess.

But the total mess begin with the story: a video-clip bummy wants to shoot a light comedy with a pernicious noir-like female character. She is gorgeous and no men could resist to dive and crawl and suck her toes. She is all the more materialist, looking as if butter wouldn't melt in her mouth.

The movie does melt away in its own pretentiousness: being smart\/funny\/good-looking. Phalocretinism at his best. White trash only, please.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Probably one of the worst movies ever made, I'm still trying to figure if it was meant to be fun, but for sure I had no fun at all. Maybe the movie lost something during the english-italian translation, dunno, for sure I miss the guts to watch it again in original version.

My rate for it 2\/10, and I feel like I'm being pretty generous (let's say 1 point is for Liv cause she's a nice babe, and the other point is for those decent actors that got trapped into a worthless, useless and pathetic movie)

Take Care

Alex","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't usually watch Hollywood dribble, but I was dragged along with some friends to see this one, which turned out to be amusing in places but totally devoid of any originality. Don't worry, you won't have to think - Tarantino-like storyline leaves enough over-obvious hints for us to correctly predict where this one's going about fifteen minutes before every \"twist\" - I sat there worrying that the film was building up fairly nicely for a Hollywood flick but that it would have nowhere to go at the climax. And boy were my fears realised - YMCA couldn't save this one, but Liv Tyler almost did. I suppose being male and in my twenties helped, but she delivered a really good performance - obviously she didn't have to do much except look absolutely stunningly over-the-top sexy, but what she did she did well! McCOOL'S is certainly not going to go down as one of Hollywood's great successes (or should I say \"shouldn't\" because the mainstream American film industry is not going anywhere at present, and hasn't for a decade at least, save the odd hit like AMERICAN BEAUTY, TITANIC and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, and even those had major flaws), but if you're a teen male, do yourself a favour and see Liv - she is one hot chick. Rating: 5\/10. See also: anything by Quentin Tarantino, any American teen film over the last decade, anything with sex as its main selling point.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I give this piece of Hollywood trash 1 out 10! Seriously! I mean, I like comedy as much as the next guy. I also can take just plain stupid comedy and actually sit back and laugh with it. But this film had nothing to laugh at OR with.

I like nearly all of the actors in this film. So I thought I'd overlook what many people told me about it (my fault for not listening). I was just mortified at how stupid this script was! Just ridiculous and not even in a funny way. The only funny scenes were in the previews that everyone saw in the theater when seeing other movies or on TV. I was very disappointed and I really would like to know why these otherwise relatively good actors would read this script and then still sign up to be in it! Bad decision on their parts...

*********************MAJOR SPOILER************************

Okay - here's my biggest question on this film.......If the characters are looking back on this story of Jewel (Liv Tyler) after the fact....then how can Paul Reiser have gone to a therapist remembering the past!?!?!?!? He dies in the last scene by being crushed by the dumpster!!!! Can anyone answer me that?!?!?!?!? Major goof on the part of the film makers.....Nobody noticed this?!?!?!?!?!?!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One Night at McCool's wants you to think it is a hip and clever black comedy. It pushes its \"quirky\" characters and \"outrageous\" situations at the viewer like a crack dealer making overtime. The premise is about a gold digging woman, named Jewel who dates men to get them to steal and sometimes murder, so she can have all the worldly possesions she so desperately desires. You know, this wouldn't be a bad strategy, if she chased after rich guys. This film really wants one to believe that a foxy con artist would waste time dating bartenders and Andrew \"Dice\" Clay. Please. That major flaw in Jewel's scheme is really the only entertainment to found found in this stinker (and that's unintentional). Watching it, it is not hard to believe there could have been a good movie inside it somewhere. One Night at McCool's just could not decide what direction it wanted to take, so just sat in the middle of the road like a dead armadillo. It tries to be sexy but no clothes are removed on camera, and the few scenes of body head are dreadfully pedestrian. There is one recurring scene where a hitman is asking the protaganist (played by Matt Dillon) about how the sex is with Jewel. It seems like Matt doesn't know, neither do the viewers. Why was he dating her anyway? One Night at Mccool's also wants to be funny. Sorry, bizarre coincidences and misunderstandings didn't even work on Three's Company. What's worse is that this movie really seemed like it was going for a dark atmosphere to accompany its comedy. Kind of like a sophomoric Coen brothers film but its shallow script could not play subtlety, nor could its lackluster dirction sledgehammer in any shocks. What the audience is left with is a film that seems to busy trying to please everybody and just losing any appeal along the way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Horrendous \"comedy\" in which a beautiful, crazy woman (Liv Tyler) \"comedically\" destroys the lives of three men (Matt Dillon, Paul Reiser and John Goodman). Dillon hires a hit man (Michael Douglas) to kill her. What is happening to comedy? The year 2001 has produced some of the worst comedies ever (Saving Silverman, Sugar and Spice, Freddy Got Fingered, Tomcats, etc etc). This is one of the worst. There's not one, repeat, not ONE funny moment in it. The jokes are either stupid, unfunny, smutty or real sick. Also there's a strong hatred of women in this garbage--the only main female character (Tyler) is constantly used as a sex object. Also extreme, bloody violence is thrown in at the end. The only bearable moments come from Reba McEntire as a psychiatrist and Andrew Dice Clay in two roles--both psychos. Dillon, Goodman and Reiser have hit an all-time career low with this--the only way to go is up. And poor Tyler! She quit doing intelligent, gutsy independent films for THIS? And DOUGLAS???? What was he on when he agreed to this? An utter piece of crap--to be avoided AT ALL COSTS!!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm afraid I only stayed to watch the first hour of this movie as it really seemed to me to be mindless TV-trash and a waste of talent. Liv Tyler plays a sumptuous beauty, but her acting skills are not yet sufficiently developed to give the part any real kick. As she slowly seduces a bartender into a life of crime it is difficult to feel any real concern over any of the characters. Even John Goodman delivers his weakly comic lines with an absence of panache, as if the witless humour needs to be recited slowly in case anyone misses the joke. The ending is supposed to be good, but the starter and main course left me with no appetite to find out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those star-filled over-the-top comedies that could a) be hysterical, or b) wish that you had gone to the dentist to have all your teeth pulled instead. Unfortunately, One Night at McCool's is a classic \"b.\"

Goldie Hawn recently commented about \"Town and Country\" that it's a big problem in Hollywood that they start with hiring the actors and putting together a deal before a script is completed. You have to figure that not only did they go into this picture without a complete script, they also mangled it daily. Maybe we need to send cards and letters to the heads of all the studio that say, \"It's the script, stupid.\"

This is also one of those movies where you find yourself feeling sorry for the actors most of the way through. They're working their asses off trying to make all this seem hysterical, but they know most of it is going to be accompanied not by belly laughs but by the sounds of the crickets you can hear inside the silent theatre.

Is it an unmitigated disaster? Not entirely. There are some smiles along the way, mostly due to the efforts of the actors. I probably would have gone out of the theatre thinking, \"Eh. It was okay.\" So why the undeniably hostile tone in my review? The ending. If, as it's been noted, the rest of the movie is just all a setup for the ending, then it misses spectacularly. I really wish I could speak specifically about it, but I hate people who give too much away (even in warning). Suffice it to say that as soon as you see John Goodman behind a bent-over Paul Reiser (nothing given away here. It's in the trailer), get the hell out of the theatre and go out thinking, \"Eh. It was okay.\" The rest of the movie is tacked-on and creatively bankrupt. And you'll be appalled that there will actually be people laughing at this mess.

If you loved \"There's Something About Mary\" or \"Meet The Parents\" (both GREAT movies), then don't bother to see this movie. Go have those teeth taken care of instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those star-filled over-the-top comedies that could a) be hysterical, or b) wish that you had gone to the dentist to have all your teeth pulled instead. Unfortunately, One Night at McCool's is a classic \"b.\"

Goldie Hawn recently commented about \"Town and Country\" that it's a big problem in Hollywood that they start with hiring the actors and putting together a deal before a script is completed. You have to figure that not only did they go into this picture without a complete script, they also mangled it daily. Maybe we need to send cards and letters to the heads of all the studio that say, \"It's the script, stupid.\"

This is also one of those movies where you find yourself feeling sorry for the actors most of the way through. They're working their asses off trying to make all this seem hysterical, but they know most of it is going to be accompanied not by belly laughs but by the sounds of the crickets you can hear inside the silent theatre.

Is it an unmitigated disaster? Not entirely. There are some smiles along the way, mostly due to the efforts of the actors. I probably would have gone out of the theatre thinking, \"Eh. It was okay.\" So why the undeniably hostile tone in my review? The ending. If, as it's been noted, the rest of the movie is just all a setup for the ending, then it misses spectacularly. I really wish I could speak specifically about it, but I hate people who give too much away (even in warning). Suffice it to say that as soon as you see John Goodman behind a bent-over Paul Reiser (nothing given away here. It's in the trailer), get the hell out of the theatre and go out thinking, \"Eh. It was okay.\" The rest of the movie is tacked-on and creatively bankrupt. And you'll be appalled that there will actually be people laughing at this mess.

If you loved \"There's Something About Mary\" or \"Meet The Parents\" (both GREAT movies), then don't bother to see this movie. Go have those teeth taken care of instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'It's supposed to have got good reviews' says the g\/f. If so, I can't find them. She goes off to sleep and I endure. Michael Douglas as a good ol' boy - now there's a new one. Matt Dillon all screwed up. John Goodman losing his cool. Paul Reiser running around in BDSM leather. Oh it's a riot all right.

The hitch is you're probably going to lose interest pretty soon on. Liv Tyler plays the femme fatale and critics complain she might not have the register for her part. But it's immaterial: this movie is not about character development. In fact I'd go so far as to say there's no character at all. What you're supposed to appreciate here is the plot.

No one is 'bad' in this movie. Some people wonder why all these 'stars' - Reba's even in here for goodness sake - sign up for such a junky project. Odds are they thought it would be fun. Maybe they did have fun. Who knows? Hey - maybe they got paid good too.

But you have to fork over money one way or another to see this turkey. And that's probably not a good idea.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before I took a job as a reviewer, I never went to films like this, and thus remained blissfully unaware that at the soul of the Hollywood film lies a deeply woman-hating spirit that thrives on putting its knocking little knees on the silver screen for all to either empathize with or revile. Or is this just a particularly bad year? An ugly trend?

Here we have yet another seemingly sweet, innocent, beautiful woman turned lethal weapon. The kind that cautions us that beneath every pair of batting eyes and nesting instincts lies a wild-eyed beast guaranteed to make everyone's life within 50 miles a living hell.

This month's specimen is Jewel Valentine's (Liv Tyler), whose simple dreams include having her own little house, a backyard fountain, and a mondo home entertainment system. Unfortunately, Randy (Matt Dillon, in his first film in 3 years), the dim-bulb bartender she picks up at McCool's one night intending to rob, is less materially oriented. The kind of guy who drinks beer out of a toilet plunger, he prefers to hunker down in his dead mother's house with few creature comforts save his snowglobe collection.

In that same low-rent bar, the Devil in the Red Dress also bumps into Randy's cousin, Carl (the highly amusing Paul Reiser), a lawyer with an ego the size of St. Louis. When things go south within hours, enter the widowed detective with a heart of gold (John Goodman). The result? Three men sustain big, bad crushes on the leopard-clad progeny of Steven Tyler and Bebe Buell-crushes that make them do things that common sense would normally contraindicate. Like get involved in the first place.

Multiple points of view and flashbacks patch together the front-page news about how easy it is to fall victim to one's libido, especially if you're male. As each of these men relates his perspective to a confidant, his desire to possess The Jewel colors the `truth' of the situation. About 70 minutes later, things come together in a reasonably amusing way. But it's amusement from the same source that tells you that the stuff on the popcorn actually tastes like butter.

MCCOOL'S is the first film by Norwegian commercial and music-video director Harald Zwart, and his pedigree is clear during some of the fantasy segments, including one about a car wash, soap and a hose that you can probably extrapolate. It's also the debut project from the production company owned by Michael Douglas, who's found his niche as a toupeed sleezeball in a bingo parlor.

Dillon and Tyler are unlikely to win any gold statues for this one, though given the one-dimensionality of their overdone film noir-type characters, you can't really fault them. Several minor roles drag out unexpected guests--Reba McEntire plays Carl's psychiatrist, and Andrew Dice Clay doubles as both the hoodlum Utah and his even-scarier brother. (Finally, an outlet for all that aggression.)

This film unwittingly speaks volumes about the dynamics between men and women--or men and their mommies. But ultimately you'd probably find more lasting psychological truths in a Bugs Bunny episode. I will say that it's better, funnier, more sophisticated than other recent gems like TOMCATS, but should we really have to choose what to see based on what ranks lowest on the misogynism scale?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this film because I enjoy watching things with Lauren Graham in them. Well, she was the highlight. Everyone else seemed complete separated from the picture. You kept looking around you at those watching the film with you going, what? However she provided some clarity, as she was the only normal character in the picture, which actually isn't saying much for the film. Personally it was too far fetched for me. However, I am glad I rented despite the fact I would never want to own it. I still feel that Lauren Graham proved to be a strong actress and even thought she was not the main character, she seemed to steal the movie. My husband and I were happier and cared more about her character ending up with Josh's character than we were about the two main characters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was SO stupid~!!! I could not bare to watch the rest of this movie..... To think that the spoiled bitch suggested to see other people, then walks right into another relationship 5 minutes after the agreement was made.... I really felt sorry for the guy, but then again, for a guy like that to even consider letting his fianc\u00e9 see other people, to go along with her grand idea, well, I'm sorry but, he deserved what he got~! And she was definitely not the best fish in the sea either, he can do way, way, way better.... She had no tits.... to hips.... no nothing~! And you had to have known that she wanted this right from the start... 5 years~??? How on earth did they last that long~???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am shocked and amazed to find reviews short of miserable for this horrible film. I rented this \"movie\" or feces, whatever you wish to call it, with several friends and after thirty minutes we had to stop watching. Just listening to the dialog left a horrible taste of sour milk in my mouth. This film was about as intelligent as an ass pimple.I hope I never see that bra-less, raggedy Anne look alike (Julianne Nicholson) again.It was like watching the most putrid pilot for a sitcom that will never make it to television, but instead of being a quick but painful 30 minutes( all I could bare)this was an excruciating 90 minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like Wes Studi & especially Adam Beach, but whoa is this movie a load of pretentiousness. Ponderously slow. Overly cryptic to the point of obfuscation, not because the plot warrants it but because there is almost no plot. Even less in the way of characterization. This is almost like one of those creaky old Charlie Chan mysteries (the cheaper Monogram studio versions) with lots of red herrings & oddball characters (like the old ex-senator with the checkered past who is now a recluse) & loads of people getting killed over objets d'art that you wouldn't look twice at in the mall. Great scenery, though. Pretty hair on the redhead, too, although I never did figure out what she was doing in this at all. Neither could my wife. Sheesh, at least the old B-movies had the decency to be short.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is NO Esperanto in this movie

I watched this movie specifically because IMDb lists Esperanto as one of the languages used. But IMDb is mistaken about the languages used in this film. There is absolutely no Esperanto at all. It's almost all English with a couple of words of Navajo. Do not watch this film if you're looking for Esperanto movies. Other options instead are \"Idiot's Delight\" (with Clark Gable) which has a bit of Esperanto, \"Incubus\" is all Esperanto (although completely mispronounced), and there are some Esperanto street signs in Charlie Chaplin's \"The Great Dictator.\" There was supposed to be some spoken Esperanto in \"Gattaca\" as well, but I never heard any.

Aside from that, the other reviewer is right. This movie is a complete mess.

Spend your time elsewhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The action was episodic and there was no narrative thread to tie the episodes together and move the story forward. The plot plods along. With few exceptions (e.g., Graham Greene) the acting was uninspired, and pedestrian at best. The actors seemed to have something on their minds, other than the scene they were in. It is boring to observe a man driving a car through the semi- desert country of this movie's setting, whether he drives poorly or well. Such scenes are typical of the level of tension in the video. So there was nothing about this video to engage or draw the observer in, to make him or her care about the characters and the out comes. I am doubly disappointed because I rented this movie based on the reputations of the executive producer (Redford) and the writer of the novel on which it was based (Hillerman). I note that the jewel box reports that funding is provided by PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as Carlton International. I would hope that this video was as disappointing to them as it was to me and my wife, to the point that they will not fund any more disasters coming from the same source.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seriously Reality Charity TV These producers must think that the masses are full of non-thinkers.

These shows are called reality, which means they are suppose to resemble something real, with truth or facts.

I suppose the characters are really acting in all the pathetic-ness.

At one point I wonder if these type of shows decrease or increase the collective unconsciousness.

We live in a world that already contains individuals that are not authentic.

Is it necessary to promote an inauthentic way of being?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"for me,this is not a good TV show,animated or otherwise.it is however,annoying to the nth degree.there are a few reasons for this,in no particular order.first,the intro of one of the most pointless,and annoying characters ever,Batmite.this character serves no purpose for the show,whatsoever.maybe it is intended as comic relief,but it doesn't work out that way.next up,the Joker.i thought it was really ridiculous to have his character let loose with that ridiculous laugh after almost every sentence.talk about repetitive.this gets old really fast..also don't think the had the right actor to voice the character.it just doesn't sound at all like the joker should sound.lastly,they made Robin look like a complete dork.other than these problems,the show isn't that bad.but these are big enough problems to drastically lower the likability factor.for me,\"The new adventures Of Batman\" is a 3\/10,at best.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is cringingly bad. You can tell that all the actors are embarrassed to be associated with such a truly terrible movie. There are obvious budget constraints but with a little thought and attention to detail the movie could have been so much better. For example: check out the scene where Mickey first goes to the mortuary and is talking to his friend the pathologist whilst the murdered taxi driver is lying on the slab. You can actually see the corpse breathing! What, couldn't they afford to hire a half-decent extra that could hold his breath for a 2 minute scene?!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hardware Wars rips off EVERYTHING in Star Wars. But if you are planning on doing any parody, you need to do it just a bit better than this. Not that there is anything wrong, per se, with Hardware Wars, but if you spoof, do it well, or not at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In efforts to make a somewhat comedic yet serious movie about the art of growing marijuana, Stephen Gyllenhaal (director) fell a few bong rips short of a good movie. While the cast is nothing short of amazing, this movie is extremely hard to sit through. The acting of Billy Bob Thornton, Ryan Phillipe, Jon Bon Jovi, Hank Azaria, and Kelly Lynch couldn't even save this movie from failure. It would be wiser to flush three single dollar bills down the toilet then to check this movie out at the local video store.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think Homegrown is a bit of a misnomer for this movie - more like \"Plantation Grown\" - but it doesn't have quite the same ring to it. My guide described it a comedy, but the pathetic travails of these hapless buffoons is not my idea of a belly laugh. More in the genre of the farcical thriller\/drama. The characters developed well enough - an all-star cast made it oh-so promising, just a shame the plot was patently absurd. Ted Danson provided a fine cameo as did Jamie Lee Curtis in her walk-on part. Jon Bon Jovi has this amazing ability to measure THC content in the front seat of his car! I guess if you imbibe a few beforehand you should be able to sit through this one - not for the gun shy paranoid types though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually don't consider turning a movie off unless it's REALLY bad. Homegrown is a movie I wish I hadn't even turned on. The plot is interesting but the acting and writing are too low key. I didn't care about the characters. Any movie that has drug use and gratuitous nudity as its highlights is not worthy of praise. The characters spent their time getting high and believe me, that's the only way to sit through this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Though Stephen Gyllenhaal is a good TV director with a few good full-length to his credit, \"Homegrown\" is just a mess in its script and direction. Despite performances from Billy Bob Thorton, John Lithgow, Kelly Lynch, Jon Bon Jovi, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Ted Danson, a cast this good couldn't save the film.

Gyllenhaalics will know that Jake and Maggie are in the film but you don't see Jake very well and Maggie's only in it for 30 seconds as babysitter tipping off Lithgow's character about a bust. It's not even a lowbrow pot comedy as the film was intended to be. It just wasn't funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So many films are now in a Genre described as \"Comedy\/Thriller\", as was this one. A fine cast, interesting premise, but what an unpleasant film to watch. Into Hemp films? Then either \"Saving Grace\" or \"Lock, Stock...\" are far more enjoyable films. Rating: Just 2 out of 10 Roach Clips","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"horrible! All i can say is that is movie was horrible. I came to watch this movie half expecting some good acting. All i got was a horrible movie. This movie deserved to stay on the cutting room floor. I do not recommend this movie to anybody. I have seen better porformances by the actors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's Valentines Day and we decided to stay in, have a nice dinner, and watch this movie on TCM instead of going out. We're in our 40's - 50's, love romance, and are both \"softies\" but this movie just bombed for us (it's hard to imagine that it was nominated for Oscars, etc. but I guess that was then). The cinematography was beautiful but for the most part the movie as a whole is terribly dated. Jennifer Jones' character made so many references to her being Eurasion that we started counting and after a while we were giggling every time she said it. Add to that the \"theme song\" played incessantly throughout the film and we couldn't wait for it to be over so we could watch the evening news.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This love story between an American journalist and an Eurasian lady doctor does not contain much conflict, since she is largely Westernized (having studied in London), nor any fireworks, since she behaves rather restrained. What little interest the story manages to raise is knocked down further by their wooden dialogs. They are supposed to be two cosmopolitan intellectuals, but talk as if the words are put in their mouths by a Hollywood hack who is not much of one himself. The movie also suffers from an amazing lack of realism - a completely deserted beach in crowded little Hongkong, overrun by a million Chinese refugees? And a presumably accomplished American journalist in his 40s who doesn't know what a hysterectomy is? Hollywood ideas. Finally \"the song\". After hearing it an estimated twenty times throughout the movie, starting right with the credits, it tends to loose some of its emotional impact, sorry to say.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film looks great, and that's about where my praise ends. \"Love Is a Many Splendored Thing\" came out in the very schizophrenic year of 1955, when candy-coloured nonsense like this co-existed with trail-blazing artistic fair like \"Kiss Me Deadly.\" As a trend toward smaller, socially conscious films like \"On the Waterfront\" and \"Marty\" established itself in the mid-50's, other directors felt the need to stick with the unchallenging, pandering melodrama that classifies so many other films from that decade, and \"Love\" is one of the latter.

This is the kind of 50's movie where the Technicolor is used to its garish utmost and the lighting is invariably high-key; even scenes taking place in a dark room or at night are brighter than the average sunny day. I never want to hear the theme song again, as it's played frequently enough over the course of the film to last anyone a lifetime, and I certainly don't want to hear it sung by the shrill, ear-piercing choir that belts it out over the end titles. Jennifer Jones and William Holden are passable, but really anybody could have played these parts. Jones' role is horribly written--her character is incredibly inconsistent, and it seems as if whenever her character is required to make a decision about something, the screenwriters flipped a coin to decide what that decision would be.

People will undoubtedly tell me I'm taking this film too seriously, that I'm unromantic, etc. But I loved \"All That Heaven Allows,\" released the same year and just as cornball in its own way, except that Douglas Sirk is able to turn melodrama into an art form, whereas Henry King (director of \"Love\") is not.

I'm usually able to enjoy bad melodrama, but in this case I was just bored.

Grade: D+","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Frankly I met real Han Su Ying before and seeing her portrayed by an American actress which has no resemblance of anything Chinese makes my head spin while I am watching this movie Why can't Hollywood get Nancy Kwan instead .... at least its more true to the story...cos for goodness sake...Dr Han Su Ying is Chinese I know cos I have meet her in person

and looking at the whole cast....so few Asian faces in a movie about a Asian love story makes me wonder too

I think the acting is good but without real Asian faces in a Asian love story makes the plot so corny and a whole load of Baloney

its just like another movie I know of ' THE CONQUEROR' imagine my eyes pop out when I see John Wayne as Genghis Khan!!!!!

and to make matter worst ....how on earth can a man born an bred in MONGOLIAN STEPPES come up with a Alabama southern accent??? !! and a cheap imitation of anything Asian

Good Grief

I am not surprise that one day I will see Dr Martin Luther King Jr being played by One of the boys from the black and white minstrel show

Would love to see that

and laugh the whole roof off !!!

Cheers","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seeing this movie in previews I thought it would be witty and in good spirits. Unfortunately it was a standard case of \"the funny bits were in the preview\", not to say it was all bad. But \"the good bits were in the preview\".

If you are looking for an adolescent movie that will put you to sleep then Watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a film with a lot of potential, well done and acted, with a rather week and inconsistent script. A young woman with two children moves to her mother's cramped apartment, because the husbands flat on top of the workshop where he cuts up stolen cars is aggravating their son's asthma.Husband ends up in jail when an ex pat's stolen car is traced to his shop, ex pat ends up being kind,generous and naive shmoe(and rather cardboard and we learn next to nothing of him ), but ends up with the girl, who \"trades up\" despite being sexually satisfied only by her husband. I expect this film to be successful in Czech, where it will be welcome due to its obvious premise - \"Them ex-pats may have money, they may even get our women, but they're old, soft and our women want to be satisfied,we may be poor, but ... . Now if only could Evzen keep Marcela satisfied so she would not need to play with herself, or if he already had an existing family in Italy ... but that would complicate things.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Spheeris used this documentary to push a stereotype of punks. This documentary is biased and guided, not objective. The cutting techniques that jump from interview to interview may be used to take the spoken word of interviewees out of context. When you watch the film, the sticking idea that comes from the interviews of the punks is that they are pretty dumb. Band members and other punks seem to be of low intelligence and unable to explain their motives or give detailed or coherent answers or even answers at all. I highly doubt that if some of those who were interviewed knew what Spheeris was creating or saw the final product would allow themselves to be included in the project. This film puts punks in a bad light by making them seem unintelligent and simple-minded. Spheeris' film should not be taken as a representation of the L.A. punk scene. If you want to see a good punk documentary watch \"Another State of Mind\" featuring Youth Brigade and Social Distortion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, you hippies are probably wondering what I have against an \"education\" and \"informative\" show like \"Barney\"? Well, I have a lot of hate against it for these reasons:

1. It teaches that having a personality and individualism is immoral. No one on the show has a personality. Everyone dresses alike, talks alike, acts alike and dances alike. Even in the episode called \"Being an Individual\", kids try to tell Barney about what they like and EVERYONE on the planet should do what I like. Do you wanna teach your kid that being an individual is wrong?

2. \"A Stranger is a Friend,You Haven't Met\" Episode. While seemingly harmless, the show's producers soonfound that it could also be extremely dangerous for young children. In fact, several young Barney-lovers from across the U.S. fell victim to pedophiles, who were using the show's friendly message to lure children away from their parents. The episode has since been pulled, but the damage had been done. So called \"Innocent\" mistakes in programming, like this one, clearly show why parents need to watch television WITH their children.

3. IF your not happy all the time, you are a bad person. No one seems to show any other emotion but happiness, no matter which situation they are in. If the child's parents get mad or sad for some reason, the child may think of Mommy or Daddy differently. Not a good message at all.

4. Magic solves everything! Seems like every problem is solved by magic. At least in shows like \"Fraggle Rock\", it teaches us that magic CAN backfire at it is best to solve problems on your own. Does Barney teach this? NO, of course not. There HAS to be magic in there. And the problem is, a lot of two year olds cannot tell fantasy from reality, and might think their parents, siblings or relatives can use magic to solve everything, yet become confused when they CANNOT use magic and think they are weird. Another boner pulled again.

5. Barney makes no distinction between stealing and sharing. He has even specifically said that \"stealing is okay if the person you steal from doesn't mind\". Kids can learn that if you really want something, stealing is a perfectly acceptable way to get it. This is not something that preschoolers need authority figures to tell them.

6. \"If I just have the right thing, I can solve all my problems.\" Whenever the kids have a problem, Barney gives them whatever they need to solve it. The message being sent here is \"Don't try to think to solve this! It's too much work, and the solution probably wouldn't work anyway. Just use this.\" Because of this, children could stop thinking through things (Barney said it was too much work) and become dependent on the \"right\" object. (The right shoes, the right food, the right computer, the right exercise machine...) This is obviously a good message for the Barney marketers, but it's not good for preschoolers.

7. The message that cheating is okay. In another episode the children are involved in a contest to carry a peanut on a spoon without dropping it. One child puts peanut butter on his spoon, and easily wins. The child is then rewarded for his creative thinking, when the child in fact bent the rules, and changed the game so that he could win. This teaches that cheating is good, you win and people think that you are creative, when in real life you will often be disqualified, or worse, and severely disliked by other competitors who played by the rules.

8. Do the kids in this show eat anything else besides cakes, cookies and candy? That teaches that it is okay to eat tons of junk food and avoid healthy food, despite Barney's so called \"Health Food\" song. Other than that, EVERYONE in the show eats junk food. No wonder there are so many obese kids in America and Europe.

And finally....

Most other kids' television shows teach creative problem solving well, without having to resort to \"magic\". Barney could also have done that but instead decided to use the method that was A) best for the marketers and B) took the least time and money for scripts. It's a blatant sellout that shows just how little the Lyons Group actually cares about children.

That is my rant for you all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Barney teaches kids nothing!!! Here are some 3 reasons why you shouldn't let you kids watch this show: 1. Barney teaches kids that we should think EXACTLY like each other to get along.

2. Barney teaches kids that you shouldn't be sad, and if you feel sad, EAT LOTS OF ICE CREAM!!! 3. If you make people pity you they will give you what you want when you want it.

Barney is just a Fat doll who told kids strangers are your friends. He should NOT be trusted. And he is high every day!!!, he constantly GIGGLES!!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!!!!!!! Your kids will thank you when there older","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't get it. I just don't get it. \"Barney and Friends\" has been lambasted by millions through the years, and I will admit, I was one of those lambasters. Any child who watches this show doesn't realize that what they're watching is just a piece of trash. Barney is very annoying, and very selfish. Add Baby Bop, and it gets even worse. Add B.J., then you have a very creepy television nightmare. Then, you get the children. They're old enough to know what Barney is trying to teach them! What are they doing there in the first place? It would be funny if Barney and his friends appeared on the Jerry Springer show. That would certainly be one of the wildest moments in television history! Even more significant is that this show marked the beginning of the end of public television as we knew it, as we have seen less and less of the more informational and interesting public television programs that aired in the 1970s and the 1980s. What a BIG difference a selfish son of a gun makes. When this show leaves PBS, a big sigh of relief will be felt among millions of people, but a huge dent will have been made in the annals of television history. A message to Barney himself: You may not realize it, but YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED.

In a nutshell, there are other choices. Better choices.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"I hate you, you hate me, Barney stole your SUV with a great big bunch and a kick from me to you wont you say you hate me too?\" \"jingle bells batman smells grandma had a gun shot Barney and made him pee and now there is no more barney the moron\" Now why the heck would come up with a idiotic show like barney ???????? So what I'm saying is Barney is a retard from the underground world? And the kids on this show are like 12 years old. If i were them i wouldn't believe this stupid idiot called barney.Now producers why do you believe this crap that barney says? They are always happy. That is stupid.they should be sad sometimes. am i right? bottom line barney is so stupid who watches that ugly creature.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Barney and friends...the Dora the explorer of the 1990s.

OK, i'll admit it. as a kid, barney was my ultimate hero. i had my barney plush toy and i used to watch the same barney episodes over and over on videotape. maybe cause it was so sugar coated and mind-numbing.

However, by the time i turned 7, i started to hate barney. everyone at school would Dis barney, and i went along with it (mainly because it was funny) and it's what little boys do. but a few years later, I discovered something else about barney that i will never forget.

a person known on the IMDb as Angel_meiru did an Essay for school, explaining the dangers of watching barney, and he or she posted it in the message boards. a lot of those dangers made sense.

Barney is a dinosaur who can magically come to life during a day at school. he is supposedly educational, or so Sheryl Leach (Barney's Creator) says, but really, all i can remember him teaching me, is that magic can solve anything, which is not true.

to end off this comment, I'd like to tell you a little story. There was once a young boy who watched a particular episode of barney. one day, he was alone, when a stranger lured him into his car and drove away with him. i don't know the outcome (but it's safe to assume the child died) but why was he abducted in the first place? because he watched the Barney and friends episode titled \"A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet.\"

0\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, when I was little (and I mean like 2 or 3, not 6 and 7) Barney was one of my favorite shows. I then grew out of it and threw all my old Barney tapes away. So one day as I'm flipping through channels, I see that Barney now takes place in a caboose, and I thought \"Um huh is this the right show?\" Once I realized it was, I freaked. Why did they change the show's setting from a school to a CABOOSE? Ever since then, the show has been absolutely terrible, and the only reason I'm giving it a 2 is a) because I'm nice, b) because of Riff, and c) because in the old times the show was tolerable. Now I just hate it. HATE IT.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Barney is just awful. As many of the other reviews on this show say. I'm not one to disagree with them (I won't). Because I hate this show just as much as they do. They use kids that look like they're in sixth grade, cheesy plots, horrid dialog and really crappy special effects. Not to mention that big purple dinosaur himself. He makes every other kid show look like award winners (Sesame Street has won awards, that I know about).

Please, just watch Sesame Street, Thomas the Tank Engine or even the Teletubbies. Avoid both, this and its movie (which I also reviewed). They are both extremely crappy and are inappropriate to anyone (even little babies).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That someone could have conceived this nonsense and then got it produced is incredible. That it actually aired on television and advertisers actually PAID TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH IT is mind boggling. This stomach-wrenching excuse for kid's programming is almost too vile to comment on. I've burned -- yes burned -- any Barney tapes that people have given my son. To find this awful programming in my library was an unpleasant surprise. And where, tell me where, do they get those smarmy kid actors? Have their parents no sense? Those kids will be on drugs before they're teenagers. Geez. The final insult is that I have to add this extra line to the review to get it on IMDb.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Barney and Friends is probably the worst kids show that I have ever seen. It teaches kids nothing, the songs are corny, it is not educational and the characters are just plain agitating. I am not one to disagree with those who hate the show. Honestly, I have seen more negative than positive reviews for this show. 75% of the reviews are negative and there are some really mature people. This show contains no educational value or age-appropriate educational material whatsoever. More reasons why I dislike this show is because of the crappy plots, cheesy dialogue, horrid special effects and the abysmal story lines. Besides, it says that you should eat junk food if you are sad and that strangers are your friends. Saying that is a \"model of what preschool television should be\",as expressed by Yale researchers Dorothy and Jerome Singer, is a load of crap. They don't know what they're talking about. I would never recommend Barney to anyone. Te reason why some kids keep crying for or get addicted to junk is because of this show poisoning the minds of children everywhere. For people(parents\/children) who seek real preschool mater, switch over to Nick Jr. and watch \"Super Why!\" instead. It's far more better than this turd and Five TV once had the nerve to put it on \"milkshake\" but thankfully took it off. I highly advise everyone to keep far away from this show as possible. Parents, I highly advise you to keep your kids as far away from this show as possible. They'll thank you later.

BOTTOM LINE: Don't Bother Wasting Your Valuable Time With This Stupid Show. It's Utter Garbage. -10000000000000\/10. Grade: Z. Avoid Like The Plague!

Thanks for reading.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I AM NOT LYNNE BATES MY NAMES IS RITICHIE BUT LYNNE IS MY MUM I'M JUST USING HER ACCOUNT! Barney and Friends, (Or Barney, as it is called here in England) is the corniest show ever. I never really liked it, It had been about for 3 or 4 years when I was born, so It was nothing new. My friend, however, loved this dildo of a show. I was about 6, and I was at his house once, and he had a Barney VHS tape playing on the TV. I turned the power off, and he burst into tears. GROW UP ITS A TALKING DINOSAUR FOR CHRISTS SAKE! Anyway, I happened to catch the Barney movie on TV later that year, and I loved it. I got the VHS of it a few months later, and I wore the tape out I loved it so much! I gave that tape away a few years ago now, but I loved it at the time. But the show! My god the show was bad! Several kids fell victims to paedophiles because of this butt plug of so called entertainment! Never again, never again! Its not just me who hates Barney, either! 85% of all the comments on this show are bad, and and just look at the amount of You Tube Poops and videos that take the mess out of Barney are on You Tube! And don't get me started on Blow Job BJ! Why the hell would the producers dare give a character such a sexual name! Yet another subliminal message in a kid's show! And that Baby Bop is the worst thing since Osama Bin Laden! All in all, I give Barney and Friends MINUS 1000 OUT OF 10!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Barney is that idiot dinosaur who (unfortunaltely) didn't go extinct with the other dinosaurs many eons ago. Instead he sings stupid songs and has stupid morals about life that are 100% worthless and\/or extremely dangerous: that is \"STRANGERS ARE YOUR FRIENDS YOU HAVEN'T MET YET!\". The reason why I say he's evil? Well, on YouTube, there's a video of a Barney song about toy balls. When it's played backwards, it comes out as \"WE'LL ALL COME HANG YOU! LET'S STAB THE KNOCKERS!\". Don't believe me? See it for yourself! I also read on another review that they are now reading out PC folklore and fairy tales. Now that is just stupid with a capital S! I mean, really! Anyways, I don't recommend letting your kids watch this filth as it contains stupid morals like strangers are your friends (as said before), there is never a reason to be sad and if you are sad eat junk food, being an individual is taboo, magic can solve all of your problems and heaps of other ridiculous crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a child of the 1980s, I grew up with numerous educational as well as diversionary programs (or both), and continue to learn so much from them now that I admire the wisdom of those who worked on them. After learning that Sesame Street, to name the best example, was not solely responsible for the fact that I could read at an adult level before I could walk, it only increased the level of disgust I feel not only towards the Lyons corporation and its product, but those who defend them, too. As if I had faith in those we assign to protect us or our children to begin with, the fact that Barney & Friends still pollutes our airwaves after more than a decade later is a discredit not only to the FCC, American commerce, and its makers, it is a discredit to all of humanity. In a world where I can be harassed without recourse by the police, welfare services, and child protection agencies simply for being born different to those in power, yet broadcasters are allowed to pump this drivel into my home uncontested, you have to ask what is wrong with people.

You see, in a world where we are expected to behave like adults and account for ourselves, what we say to our sons and daughters is of importance because it will often have consequences long after we are gone. Not only are our attempts to make our children more normal, more alike, more think-alike, potentially devastating, what we end up teaching them to be normal has a big part to play, too. So the question becomes one of what Barney is teaching our children to be normal. Apart from lessons such as that we are not good if we do not have good feelings, or that someone will change the rules to make us happy when we come up short, other shocking things we are shown on the Barney show include Barney molesting children. The issue of child abduction and child molestation is a big one in our society, and has been ever since we started trying to pretend it was not, but that would qualify as one of the most inappropriate ways in which to present the topic.

So far I have only mentioned the inappropriate and emotionally damaging lessons Barney himself presents. Adding to the problem is the children shown on the show. I use the word children loosely here, as the range of ages shown goes as low as three years and as high as fourteen. Yet no difference in emotional response is shown at either extreme. Fourteen year olds react to Barney and his proposed situations in the exact same way as five year olds. Experts in childhood and adolescent autism especially consider this an incredibly foul thing to expose children to. Adults on the autistic spectrum who faced increasing problems as their needs were not only not met but flat-out ignored have a tendency to watch this and feel an urge to do the kinds of things with Barney that would make fourteen year olds cry. As irreverent and sick as shows targeted toward the elder-child market such as You Can't Do That On Television were, they stamp all over Barney by demonstrating that not only do different ages respond to the same thing in different ways, so too do different people.

So in response to mdmireles1295, I have to say that I hope like hell they do not have children. For every time I see a parent showing their child this drivel, it gives me an overwhelming urge to report them to the police for child abuse. And I speak as a man whose entire upbringing was dominated by abuse. They might sing about manners, loving, caring, or sharing, but the examples they show are not only so lopsided as to be the opposite of educational, they are so devoid of realism as to become dangerous, as The Light Triton has already pointed out. The kind of lessons children learn from Barney are that people do not vary, feelings must be suppressed at all costs, and rules are entirely arbitrary. When compared to the lessons that variation is what makes the world go around and even the most bitter feelings have a purpose that television taught me as a boy, it still boggles the mind that the authorities have yet to step in and yank this trash off the air. If a parent did to their child what Barney does around the world, they would face criminal charges.

Hence, I gave Barney my favourite two out of ten score that I give to all rubbish with absolutely no redeeming value. In a world of adults that know how to properly respond to their children, it has no place.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't watch this show that much when I was little. And I think I only watched 1 episode which was about Railroads I believe because I liked trains and still do. Even then I thought it was a baby show. I mostly watched Arthur. The songs are pretty weird too. And I don't think it's that educational either. They just sing some dumb Nursery Rhymes. This is a dumb show, any adults who like it are crazy! If you want some good kids shows, watch something like Arthur, Mister Rogers Neighborhood or even better Pee-wee's Playhouse. I thought Sesame Street was boring when I was little but even that is better than Barney. Trust me, this show is pretty dumb, there are other Kids Shows that are better than this one. I can see many of the reviews here that a lot of people don't like this show. Now there are some mature people. I hope they take this show off air soon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I was a younger(oh about 2)I watched Barney for the first time, and liked it. BUT, back then I didn't exactly have a brain, either. And now I look back and see what a horrible show \"Barney\" really is: First of all, EVERYTHING on that show is creepy. Barney, the main character, is a horrendous 9-foot tall talking, purple dinosaur that teaches 13-year-olds about \"imagination....\"(*shudders*) B.J.(I know what your thinking about his name.)Is a smaller yet creepier yellow dinosaur that is put in to be \"supposudly\" cool. But in fact, he is the exact opposite. After watching a few episodes with B.J. dumbly trudging in with his slightly turned back cap, and making a few no-so-funny jokes, I wanted to scream. Baby Bop-oh-oh-god!(*vomits*)oh-oh-OH-anyway Baby Bop is the worst idea of a character EVER. She is a green triceratops(it's a dinosaur) that carries a yellow blanket. Her remarks of \"hee-hee-hee\" and Barney's praises cries of 'super-deeee-doooper\", make it hard to sit through each episode, as the Seventh graders learn about shapes and manners.

And that, my friend, is what makes this show truly horrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was a little to old for this show I was 6 when it first came out. First off when I was a young child there were a few children's shows that were on sesame street which I did watch and learned from, but other than that there wasn't much else. My Cousins were all born a few years after me 7 years was the first one more came latter. Barney was a very big part of what they watched. When I first saw this show I told my grandmother how it doesn't teach anything just uses magic to fix everything. I was 9 at the time, how many 9 years old have any idea what is really going on with a TV show. More and more that I saw or heard what the teachings of Barney were the more and more I told people how bad the show was. The funny thing is my parents who had a young child in the mid to late 80's which was me by the way. They agreed and said the same thing as I did. The sad thing about this is my cousins who are older now 13 and such still agree with what they saw. Its not cheating its creative, its not right to think differently than what someone tells you to. Its o.k to steal if the person wont find out or mind that it is gone. Lets be honest with ourselves, Barney is out to make money not teach children anything. The more flashy the program the more inclined children will be to watching it. Children are stupid not because they are not educated they just do not know any better, second Barney put on a show and parents bought it. I never believed that TV could affect people the way Barney does. If you have a young child read to them watch a show that teaches them numbers, do not let them get involved in this show. Barney is like smoking once is to much, smoke a few and your hooked let your kid watch this show they are hooked and one day their kids will watch the same crap and buy the same crap you bought","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, I agree with all the Barney haters on this site. I think Barney and his friends are all ugly looking and obnoxious and the show is very lop sided and unrealistic.

But the thing that ticked me off the most is how Barney presented Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals on his show when talking about same sex parents and relatives. That wouldn't be so much of a problem if the creators of this show didn't use so many derogatory stereotypes of homosexuals. I mean, not all gay men wear mascara and love the colors purple and pink, and not all lesbians are ugly and manly looking with a bosom that sags to their abdomen. As a bisexual female, I just think this is terrible for a children's show. If this were South Park, I wouldn't mind it, because South Park is for people who can distinguish fantasy from reality. A lot of people who watch Barney are little kids or handicapped people who can't usually distinguish fantasy from reality.

And now that I think about it, Barney sort of comes off as an ugly gay stereotype himself. Let's see, he doesn't have a girlfriend, he's pinkish colored and wears clothes with sequins (yes, it's true) on it. If you claim to be for the rights of gay and bisexual individuals, then stop making a mockery out of them in front of people who don't know any better. If Barney went black-face and ate fried chicken and watermelon at the same time, the show would be pulled off the air before you know it.

I give this show a negative one out of five. Don't show your kids such hateful crap. There are children's shows out there that are so less insulting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What should have been a dramatic tale of life on the river Murray turns out to be a silly, soppy romance about an English refugee (Sigrid Thornton with Aussie accent) who falls for the larrikin first mate (John Waters) of a paddle-steamer.

The first half of this four and a half hour mini-series shows some promise, but it soon falls flat as it becomes predictable and thin. Some real verve and spark was needed in the plot to give the movie some life. Gus Mercurio's early exit didn't help as his character seemed to me to be the only interesting one.

Perhaps the longer T.V. version has more depth, because this video translation certainly lacked it.

Sunday, June 27, 1993 - Video","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie from a local library without having any prior knowledge of the book it is based on or the movie itself, purely based on the chance that it's one of those rare, overlooked gems that one can discover from time to time and really enjoy.

Unfortunately this is not one of those movies. I am not sure if this is a movie driven by sentimentality or worse, deliberate agenda, but certain elements of it made it impossible to immerse. It is supposed to portray a struggling immigrant worker community which tries to cope with the difficult realities of their life. That is a fine premise and it could have made for a gripping story, but the execution just made me alternate between getting annoyed and amused at the ridiculousness of it.

Here we have a community of simple farm workers who migrated to the US in search of employment and who get used and abused repeatedly by evil white men. And when I say evil - I mean EVIL. All white people in this movie are sinful, racist, sadistic, abusive devils whose sole purpose in life is sexual depravity intertwined with exploiting the poor immigrants. It would be a sad story if it wasn't so unintentionally grotesque and therefore hilarious.

The portrayal of the immigrants is also a poster-worthy example of exaggeration except that it goes in the opposite direction. The immigrants are saintly, clean and could serve as ointment for boo-boos and ouies the world over. I couldn't help but laugh when I saw these \"field workers\" presumably digging in the ditches all day with their notoriously clean clothes and chiseled hair cuts from a top notch hair salon. A little restraint and a more unbiased hand at the helm could have made this a much better movie evoking some intended emotion rather than sarcastic snickers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Looking for something shocking? Okay fine... the imagery is that. That's about it. This film attempts to make deep connections with the audience through various symbolism and just ends up being annoying. I am not quite sure if the director's purpose was to truly portray some sort of deep message to his audience, or if he just sought to shock the hell out of them with gore, sex and violence. I am thinking that it was probably the first...but in the failed attempt..it simply ended up to be a piece of artsy garbage with lots of blood, some obnoxious characters, and an over reliance on religious symbolism. If you're looking for some independent film to critique for its attempted use of metaphor...have at it. If you are looking for a gore flick that will make you queasy and uncomfortable... here you go... If you are looking for a film that will irritate you to no end because you realize that in the end, the message was stupid...the movie was stupid... and you will never get those minutes of your life back..this is surely the film for you!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"you know, i always fancy disturbing or strange movies, especially when they get shown at the fantasy film festival in hamburg, germany. but subconscious cruelty was probably the worst film i saw this year. will this comment contain any spoilers?

no, because i just did not understand this movie. but well, what can you expect from a flick that was introduced to a festival crowd \"we (the guys from the festival) know that not all of you will watch this one until the very end\"...

i like splatter movies and i also like movies with a strong graphical language. but this? there are a lot of bloody scenes in this one, but why? what is the director trying to tell us? is he saying that we lost all morality and all religious feelings? or is he saying that incest will always end in a disaster? who knows - i do not.

if you want to watch a movie that keeps you thinking for quite some time - watch it. but don\u00b4t expect to think \"wow, i got the message\" - i did not get it...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has to be one of the most boring films ever made. The only thing I liked is using Argento-esquire lighting in most of the scenes. The music is awful and the pace is so slow that you can watch it at 2x the speed and even then it would be slow. The story doesn't exist. It doesn't even have any shocking scenes.

It is classified (on this site at least) as a horror, but it's not. It's a sort of an art film exploring the dark side of the human nature. If you are into that kind of thing and can stand the slow pace, then watch it, but I'd rather recommend you something Japanese (e.g. Ichi the Killer) I think that the only reason this film was never in theaters is a fear of audience committing collective suicide caused by the huge amount of boredom generated by this movie. These 80 minutes of it's length would've been better spent watching the paint dry.

I gave it 1\/10 simply because there is no 0 in the pull down menu","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I\u00b4ve seen this at the Fantasy Filmfest in Cologne and left the cinema halfway through this \"movie\" (with a bunch of other people), so maybe I\u00b4m not the right one to comment on it, but I think the fact of leaving \"S.C.\" is reason enough to do so. \"S.C.\" is a different film. People who need a coherent narration, characters or a plotline won\u00b4t find anything in this one. It\u00b4s supposed to be an experimental film, relying on the power of images. But these images have no power. They are so forced in their intention of simply grossing people out, that they have nothing else to say. The gibberish of the off-narrator is simply boring, the visuals are cheap. OK, the effects are good, but if that\u00b4s the only thing, why care? Husseins film wants to be shocking and thought-provoking - instead it is boring and annoying in its non-creativity. Note: Not every movie without a story is art and there is absolutely no creativity in breaking taboos anymore - especially not if everything is executed as bad as in \"S.C.\". I\u00b4d suggest director Hussein should either visit a psychiatrist or a filmschool, before he mistakes crap for art again. Note: I never want to see a baby getting slashed during birth again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Critics are a strange kind of people. Some of them are common people like you and me. Some of them are not. When a critic say Subconscius Cruelty is beautiful I wonder where they did grow up? What's beautiful with filming a field, some clouds or a tree with an old camera if you can't do it with style and capture the mood of the environments. Karim Hussain for sure can't. I've seen kids do better footage than Karim manage to do in Subconscius Cruelty. But that's not the worst part. The worst part is the whole recording, I refuse to call this a film, is just a bad excuse to picture nudity and extreme torture, rapes of both sexes, masturbation, sperm, pissing, cannibalism, child-murder and much much more. I love gore\/splatter and I love horror. This ain't neither of those. This is utter crap and if my comments make just one single person skip Subconscius Cruelty it's been worth it. Always remember that your life won't last forever, don't waste two hours of precious time on Subconscius Cruelty. You've been warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For the people who have compared this TRASH to the brilliance of David Lynch etc... please listen to your carer when they say... DONT USE OTHER PEOPLE'S PC WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION!

This is complete and UTTER POO! There is NO art here. This is some person trying to make a name for himself with a cluster of gross out ideas which he was not clever enough to enforce into ONE main idea so instead he went for the easy option.

Any one with half a brain could sit at home and conjure up some controversial images to shock viewers, but it takes a person with true imagination to be able to make it into a movie people WANT to watch.

I am a LOVER of shock cinema. I have seen OR OWN pretty much all you can get... And I can strongly advise to anyone who LOVES the world of movies to steer WELL CLEAR of this garbage.

This one is ONLY for people who like to over analyze what they are watching, OR for the 17 year old first time drinkers who dont know any better.

0\/10!

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, I would like to admit that Chokher Bali was not my cup of tea. This movie was evidently not targeted toward the masses. It's the type that critics would enjoy watching. The hype and publicity were quite misleading.

I was expecting something very dramatic like Devdas. Understanding that the story and time-period demand it, I found the movie extremely slow-paced.

I'm a die-hard Aishwarya fan, and I regret to say that I thought she was miscast. The role of Chokher Bali required an actress who can portray herself as subversive, not innocent and naive. Everyone else gave a good performance. Tagore's depiction of the human condition does come across the celluloid to give the movie an interesting theme.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bardem is great. Actresses are great. But Amenabar did not have to do it like this. It is OK that he defends his position on the euthanasia, an extremely delicate issue. But doing it like this makes him lose his point: the movie is a false, offensive to the intelligence, full of tricks and even sometimes extremely boring. Some scenes are advertising material, more than a movie. Women are incredibly attracted to this mind-sick man who wants to make someone to kill him, not understanding the implications of that. He seems not to care about no one and thank them for their caring, love and attention. I think that Amenabar might have make people think about this issue in a different way but the way he chose to do it I believe is not correct. He could have make his point more powerful exposing the other side of the coin without mocking it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Great. Another foreign film that thinks it's Fellini. On top of that, we have to have more propaganda about murdering disabled people.

I see no reason why we have to be inundated with these thinly disguised euthanasia commercials.

I found nothing redeeming about this film. What can be redeeming about a man without the courage to carry on, in spite of some adversity. It does not take courage to commit suicide. That is the action of a coward. Sharing this \"wish\" with his woman simply inflicts her with the same illness he has. If this had been a film about a man's courage to go on, in spite of his problems, similar to the Jill Kinmont story, that would have made it a great film.

If you're interested in seeing true courage, check out the movies about Jill Kinmont, the former skier who was disabled after a bad ski accident.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's something rotten about this film, and basically the way it turns a sinister and twisted character into a hero by exploiting our sympathy with his admittedly horrible situation. Sampedro, like many who have lost hope, chooses suicide. The fact that he has been contemplating it for more than 26 years probably makes his condition worse, but the belief that we should do whatever anyone asks, even if it means ending a life is in my opinion profoundly wrong. What a contrast to the uplifting example of the scientist Stephen Hawkings, who suffered a far worse condition for far longer! Yet with the morals upside down, the film revels in hero worship, and the people who disagree with are painted in simplistic idiotic terms. There's little room for subtly especially in the encounter with the priest(deliberately manipulating the real life encounter which was with a much younger priest). In that way I suppose the film is on a par with Riefenstahls Triumph of the Will. The insidious idea is that everyone should have to right to take their life, when they feel they cannot live it anymore. It makes no difference whether you are physically or psychologically damaged, there are people evidently who believe you have the right to choose. The same people are likely to make a case for abortion. Its all part of the current trend to get the suffering or sufferers out of sight, brush it under the carpet, mammy will say its. OK, and we all feel very happy with ourselves. So we go down the slippery path of believing that some lives, just ain't worth living, and then we'll decide that as some people can't really decide for themselves then we'll bring in the state to decide for them. Enter Adolf Hitler straight from that other Oscar contender \"der Untergang\". Hitler of course believes that he carrying out exactly what Nature does in disposing of the weak. Under his regime, there were forced abortions among the \"weaker\" strains\", the mentally handicapped were quietly put away and the Jews were \"humanely\" liquidated by using gas. He would have applauded this film, and why not for it is in line with his philosophy...\"some lives are just not worth living\". I differ from Ramon Sampedro, Hitler and all the people involved with making this film. Human life is sacred, it is not a right, it is a gift and an obligation. Nobody chooses to be born. Then who can choose death. Its not about religion, its about protecting the weak and helpless, something this film does a lot to undermine!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This might have been an excellent flick. However, as many other people think so do I. It is poorly done due to the languages transfer. If the entire movie must be read then it kind of takes away from the movie and becomes something else. It does have an excellent rating as far as I am concerned and I couldn't wait to rent it. But, once I did it was a real let down. Out here in Boardman, Ohio I could not find an English version to anything similar. This movie was also compared to Dark Hours and this we will not get to watch in Boardman, Ohio. It is not available. So I guess we will never know how good the movie actually was.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dakota Incident has to be one of the strangest westerns I've ever seen. Not good, but definitely strange.

A driver-less stagecoach rides into the town of Christian Flats with all passengers killed. It's scheduled to go on, but very few for obvious reasons want to risk the Cheyennes on the warpath out there. But Linda Darnell, Regis Toomey, John Lund, Whit Bissell, and Ward Bond each have their reasons for going on. And Dale Robertson who killed John Doucette in a gunfight after Doucette and Skip Homeier shot and left him for dead in the desert, is so anxious to go he's willing to drive the team.

Of course the Cheyennes attack the intrepid group of passengers if forced into a dry wash for cover. Who will live and who will die is the remainder of the film.

Dakota Incident came at the very end of Republic Pictures before Herbert J. Yates pulled the plug on his little studio. Westerns were their specialty, but normally of the kind Roy Rogers made. This would not have been a Rogers product.

In fact it's beyond belief. The characters aren't ground in any kind of reality. Whit Bissell is taking back ore samples from his claim, but Robertson discovers it's iron pyrites, fool's gold. Toomey is a guitar playing cynic who goes mad from thirst. Darnell is after a cheating manager of her's, but really doesn't know what to do when she finds him. Lund is looking to bring in Robertson who committed a crime he took the rap for, but has to bring him in alive. For that he'd require help, but doesn't have any.

But the worst is Ward Bond who's a United States Senator on his own peace mission to the Cheyennes. In real life Bond was a most right wing individual and I'm not sure this wasn't some kind of a caricature of what he would perceive as a liberal. He's really quite the fatuous fool, but I think that might have attracted him to the role.

I tried to get into Dakota Incident, but couldn't. And the ending was a bizarre fantasy to say the least.

Give it three stars for the cast involved.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Scenarist Frederick Fox's sometimes memorable dialogue and a study cast of old-pros cannot save this lukewarm western about whites pinned down in the desert by a band of bloodthirsty Cheyenne Indians. Other than his occasionally catchy dialogue, you won't find any surprises in Fox's screenplay about this run-in between whites and Indians. The characters in \"Dakota Incident\" generate only minor interest, certainly not enough to make them stand-out as much as some of Fox's choice dialogue. Unfortunately, good dialogue is Fox's only contribution because this conventional little sagebrusher withers with a lackluster ending that contradicts its previous 80 minutes. The ending is as contrived as they come and lacks credibility. Most of the characters are sympathetic, but some just plain lack common sense.

Dale Robertson is appropriately tough and leathery as outlaw John Banner, one of three bank robbers who has to shoot it out with his low-down, no-account partners. Veteran western character actor John Doucette (Rick Largo) fares the best of the badmen, while Skip Homeier, wasted in an inconsequential role as Banner's brother Frank Banner, later dies from an Indian arrow. Doucette tries to gun down Banner at the outset of in the action, but our left-handed gun-toting hero fakes his own death, tracks down Largo down later and slaps leather with him in a town called Christian Flats. Naturally, Largo bites the dust this time, but Banner makes an interesting discovery. One of the passengers on a stagecoach from Christian Flats to Laramie turns out to be none other than the bank teller from whom he stole the money. Not only is John Carter (John Lund) on a quest himself to find Banner, but also he wants to clear his own good name with the bank that has issued wanted posters for his arrest. Evidently, the authorities have mistaken and enlarged Carter's role in the robbery. Carter is prepared to take Banner to Laramie and turn him over to the law, but Banner has other ideas about Laramie. Banner's ideas change when he crosses paths with Amy Clarke (former Twentieth Century Fox beauty Linda Darnell) who wears a bright red dress and still packs quite a bosom. As everybody else here has mentioned in their reviews, Republic Studio's Truecolor brings out the RED in everything, from Darnell's fetching outfit to the blood spilled on the ground. The problem with director Lewis Foster's handling of this run-of-the-mill oater is that everything bogs down after the stagecoach loses a wheel and our heroes hole up in a dry wash to defend themselves against the Cheyenne. The good guys and the Cheyenne eventually run out of ammunition, but \"Dakota Incident\" never runs out of clich\u00e9s. Ward Bond has several interesting moments as a politically correct politician who defends the way of the redskin. By the time that this 88 minute dust-raiser concludes, you'll feel like you've been trapped in a gulch and menaced by marauding Cheyenne yourself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen.

We are supposed to like and be rooting for an arrogant, know-it-all, trashy bank robber, played by Dale Robertson, and a coy tease played by the extra-ordinarily beautiful Linda Darnell in a fire engine red dress. She must have been sewed into that bodice!

A Senator in the film thinks Native Americans and whites should try to come to an understanding, the bigots, however, win the day. I could barely sit through the endless dialog of bigotry that issued from the other characters mouths.

Except for Wounded Knee and Dances with Wolves there are few films that give a positive portrayal of American Indians, and very few old westerns do. This one is exceptionally bad in that regard.

The romance between Robertson and Darnell set my teeth on edge, as he came swaggering in, forcing a kiss on her, while she plays the old hard to get game.

There are scenes that are unintentionally humorous, such as the characters obviously not really riding in or on a stagecoach in several shots.

A puzzlingly humorous incident in the storyline is Linda Darnell's character going to great lengths to purchase tickets for the stagecoach, only to then demand a horse to ride, minutes later, for no apparent reason.

Another humorous scene is when the stagecoach comes to a screeching halt at the sight of a cowboy hat lying beside the road, and not only that, but then ALL the passengers pile out for a look-see.

1 star.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I want very much to believe that the above quote (specifically, the English subtitle translation), which was actually written, not spoken, in a rejection letter a publisher sends to the protagonist, was meant to be self-referential in a tongue-in-cheek manner. But if so, director Leos Carax apparently neglected to inform the actors of the true nature of the film. They are all so dreadfully earnest in their portrayals that I have to conclude Carax actually takes himself seriously here, or else has so much disdain for everyone, especially the viewing audience, that he can't be bothered letting anyone in on the joke.

Some auteurs are able to get away with making oblique, bizarre films because they do so with \u00e9lan and unique personal style (e.g., David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky). Others use a subtler approach while still weaving surreal elements into the fabric of the story (e.g., Krzysztof Kieslowski, and David Cronenberg's later, less bizarre works). In Pola X, Carax throws a disjointed mess at the viewer and then dares him to find fault with it. Well, here it is: the pacing is erratic and choppy, in particular continuity is often dispensed with; superfluous characters abound (e.g., the Gypsy mother and child); most of the performances are overwrought; the lighting is often poor, particularly in the oft-discussed sex scene; unconnected scenes are thrust into the film for no discernible reason; and the list goes on.

Not to be completely negative, it should be noted that there were some uplifting exceptions. I liked the musical score, even the cacophonous industrial-techno music being played in the sprawling, abandoned complex to which the main characters retreat in the second half of the film (perhaps a reference to Andy Warhol's 'Factory' of the '60s?). Much of the photography of the countryside was beautiful, an obvious attempt at contrast with the grimy city settings. And, even well into middle-age, Cathering Deneuve shows that she still has 'it'. Her performance was also the only one among the major characters that didn't sink into bathos.

There was an earlier time when I would regard such films as \"Pola X\" more charitably. Experimentation is admirable, even when the experiment doesn't work. But Carax tries nothing new here; the film is a pastiche of elements borrowed from countless earlier films, and after several decades of movie-viewing and literally thousands of films later, I simply no longer have the patience for this kind of unoriginal, poorly crafted tripe. At this early moment in the 21st century, one is left asking: With the exception of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, are there *any* directors in France who know how to make a watchable movie anymore? Rating: 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wish Depardieu had been able to finish his book and see it become a dazzling success. At least he'd have wound up with something.

The film struck me as pointless, rambling, and very stylish, like some other recent French films. Not to knock it. Most recent American films are pointless and rambling and have no style whatever. We should be grateful, I suppose, for photography that evokes a European city in the midst of a wind-blown Continental winter, and for elliptical conversations that challenge our ability to understand what's up.

But there can be too much of a good thing. Golubeva is found stumbling around near the sea in the middle of the freezing night, carrying on in a bad accent about dreams and such. (There are a few sequences of dreams that include things like swimming in a river of blood. You'll love it if you're Vlad the Impaler.) Lots of people die. Catherine Deneuve dies in a suicide by motorcycle. I don't know why. Golubeva's young girl dies too, and I don't know why she dies either. She gets slapped in the face, falls to the pavement, and dies.

There is supposedly an explicit sex scene too. I'll have to take their word for it because, although it is stylishly photographed, it is stylishly photographed in almost complete darkness. Don't worry about the kiddies being shocked. They'll probably be asleep by this time anyway.

Depardieu isn't a bad actor. As we see him deteriorate from a carefully groomed handsome young man -- well, handsome except that his nose can't seem to get out of his way -- to a limping, murderous, hairy physical wreck, we feel sorry for the guy. Golubeva has a wan pretty face, with enormous half-lidded eyes and wide cheeks, like a doll. Her next movie should be a remake of Lewton's \"I Walked With a Zombie.\" Then there is this mysterious guy who leads a band. I guess it's a band. As far as I could make out, the band is made up of about a dozen drummers and a dozen musicians playing electric guitars. Every viewer will find the resultant sound interesting but uncultivated listeners fond of \"easy listening\" might not enjoy it. If you don't like the music, there's a payoff involved because the sinister composer and leader gets whacked over the head with Depardieu's walking stick.

I must say, I found it barely worth sitting through. (And it's a longie, too.) At times it was like waiting in your car at a railroad crossing while a long long freight train rumbles slowly by, sometimes stopping entirely. I wish it had had a few jokes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so unreal. French movies like these are just waste of time. Why watch this movie? Even, I did not know..why. What? The well known sex scene of half-siblings? Although the sex scene is so real and explicit, but the story it is based upon is so unreal. What is the use of it, then? Can you find easily in life, half sibling doing such things?

Did I learn something from this movie? Yeah: some people are just so fond of wasting time making such movies, such stories, such non-sense. But for those who like nihilism, nothingness in life, or simply a life without hope, then there you are.. you've got to see this movie.

Only one worth adoring, though: CATHERINE DENEUVE. She's such a strikingly beautiful woman.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(Spoilers)

Oh sure it's based on Moby Dick. Totally obsessed and it destroy's him. It's a total folly. The movie starts off rather well, but by the end of the film, everyone else is destroyed and the main star's mind is a blank.

The supposed half sister is never convincing. Some very poor lighting effects. Music is interesting. But little else. It took me over a month to finally finish the darn thing. I suppose if you like Being John Malkovich, you might like this. But where as BJM was a great movie that I just didn't want to watch again, Pola X is a movie I just hate to high hell. The only possible excitement in the film is the gratuatious incest sexual scene towards the end of the film. (Hopefully yer not thinking of Catherine either.)

This movie is severely boring, depressing, and poorly directed. Not highly recommended. If if you like french movies. (go watch Crimson Rivers instead)

4\/10

Quality: 5\/10 Entertainment: 1\/10 Replayable: 0\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I won't lie, I rented this film because it was an \"arty\" film with some possible explicit sex. I got that scene and Catherine Deneuve's (briefly shown) breasts, but the rest of the film is just the usual long pretentious European art films with lines like \"Did I have a mother or father, I don't know\" (paraphrased). Usually delivered in long soliloquies.

If you are curious about the transition of \"art\" to porn, might be an interesting look, with use of the fast forward button (I was still too slow!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I enjoyed Carax's \"Les Amants du Pont Neuf\" and was therefore expecting this film to be of a similar standard. Well, the first 10 minutes were OK, but then it disintegrates into a rather pretentious journey of a young man looking for the essence of life. A sad disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's difficult to express how bad this movie is. Even in the 1950s when intellectual searching for the meaning of life was fashionable and beatnik rejection of physical comforts, clean clothes, haircuts, etc. was a common reaction to the smug middle-class mores of both the USA and western Europe, this movie would have been a stinker. The plot is a mishmash of several dei ex machina (if that's the correct Latin grammar); the acting consists of deadpan stares broken by occasional hysterics (by the male lead as well as the females); the gratuitous view of Catherine Deneuve's (or somebody's) breasts are worthy of a Budweiser commercial; the repeated cacaphonous orchestra rehearsal in the abandoned building is I'm sure heavy with meaning in the director's mind but to me is just one more stupid symbol thrown into this meaningless movie -- I'm ranting because my time has been wasted watching this scam excuse for an art flic. The scenery is beautiful and the sex scene is hot -- but underneath his clothes, this king has no substance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretentious claptrap, updating Herman Melville (!), about a young man's vaguely incestuous relationship with his aristocratic mother getting transferred to his long-lost sister who has been raised by gypsies. Or something like that \u0096 not that anyone really cares to unravel its multi-layered plot decked out with pornographic sex scenes, pseudo-symbolic imagery (the siblings swimming in a river of blood) and other bizarre touches (a gypsy child repeatedly insults passers-by in the street until she is anonymously beaten to death, the deafening music of a rock group utilized in the demolition of old buildings). Considering the source material and the presence of Catherine Deneuve (who at least gets to bathe in the nude), I was expecting a lot more from this one; apparently, there's an even longer TV version of POLA X out there\u0085","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm accustomed to being patient with films because I've generally found it usually pays off. But a few works take tedium to new levels and enter the realm of provocation....\"Last Year at Marienbad\" comes to mind. Well, \"Pola X\" ain't no \"Last Year at Marienbad\". I can count on one hand the number of films I've walked out on over the years. \"Pola X\" achieved membership in that august group. In my defense, I believe I made a valiant effort to stand my ground - hoping things would turn around. However, I finally threw in the towel just shy of the 90 minute mark - quite respectable under the circumstances. \"Pola X\" does not come anywhere near living up to the promise of Carax's earlier work. After a 10 year hiatus, that must have been bitter for him indeed. Melville is still spinning in his grave!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie contains a very short scene of Deneuve in a bathtub. She looks absolutely stunning for a lady age 56, but this is the only saving grace of the movie. Otherwise, it has a mindless, unmotivated script and the lead actress has none of Deneuve's appeal. The director apparently watched too many Peter Greenaway films and Pola X comes across as a student's imitation of the Greenaway style, without any of his inspiration.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"French Cinema sucks! Down with all these psychiotric visions with their my-God-am-I-cultivated distinguished attitudes! Pestilence to conceited symbolic film-language and impervious chiffres! I'll no longer have a mind for that! L\u00e9os Carax, did you ever think about, that a dialogue in a film could be natural and vivid??? Maybe I'm too common to understand you? Or had it been your task to confirm all the clich\u00e9s of a Frenchman the world can have? Guillaume the to-be-guilliotined comes to his home-palace, Mme. Deneuve, not in the picture, plays the flute: \"Here am I, darling!\" In this moment, I knew, that she's in the bathtub, and we`ll see her lying in there soon. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not prudish, and the incestous sex scene was the climax of the film. But this is, in Berlin, we say \"etepetete\", what means something like \"\u00eatre-peut-\u00eatre\", a snobistic, self-satisfied, and, the worst, seen that often in French movies I can tell! Other example: She, beautiful and willing, is looking at herself in a mirror, combing her hair, and her wild-bearded, dirty young guru rushs into the room, breathless shouting: \"There's no escape, there's no escape!\" Forty years after existencialistic Sartres and consorts- what's new, what's exciting about? My God, there's that woman and she loves and admires you, what would be more natural to be happy with your life? And when you're not, please explain much better, why!! Born French means you have to live a life in extravaganza, no escape, is that the point?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, I don't see how the movie is on any \"best\" list or how it won any awards. Compared to La Pianiste, which is also on a \"best\" list, La Pianiste is gold. This movie lacked so many things, on so many different levels, but I can't quite explain why I disliked it so much. The lead actor was annoying, I felt as though I never knew what was going on, and I was BORED!! Even though this was supposed to be some worthwhile life change that Pierre was starting, I wanted it to end.... as soon as possible. Why did it have to be his sister and cousin? Ugh. And why did Thibault get mean? He just bipolarly turned mean. And also, was it me or did I miss the whole purpose of what that guy in black was all about? Who were all those people playing music in the big basement of the big warehouse? Why did they have all that weird equipment and the guns and all those extra rooms for people to live in? I mean this in all seriousness, but does incest happen a lot in French culture? European culture? I took 5 years of learning about the culture and I never heard anything about that!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You would probably get something like this. I'm translating movies for a living and this is the first movie in my 5-year working experience that I found offensive to my intelligence. Of course, there are stupid Hollywood movies about drunken teenagers on a spring break, but those movies don't even claim to be serious works of art. But when someone strives for greatness and poetry, but delivers a muddled (and often ridiculous) story, a bunch of disparate scenes, pretentious dialogue... Then you get the worst kind of a movie that some other reviewer very accurately defined as \"pretentious crap\". To those who find this movie intelligent or even masterful, I can only say - it's your intelligence and your imagination you obviously used to try and make some sense of this pitiful attempt (it's in our human nature to try and make sense of things) .

One more thing: I can tolerate political incorrectness very well, I'm all for artistic freedom and suspension of disbelief, but the Slavic female character was just too much. I wish someone told the director that it's kind of ridiculous (even in an unrealistic art movie) to portray a Slavic woman as a half-articulate dishevelled creature connected to the forces of nature, probably due to the fact that she had spent her entire childhood looking at the stars and milking cows on a three-legged stool.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A ridiculous movie, a terrible editing job, worst screenplay, ridiculous acting, a story that is completely ununderstandable...

If God was going to decide if movies should continue to be done, judging by this one, the entire world movie industry would now be dead...

A wonderful movie to show that cinema should not be done by people who \"think\" they can make movies.

I am still wondering who are those two gipsy girls who show up in the movie for over half an hour, and are never introduced to us...

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had to read I Know Why The Caged Birds Sing in my English class and we watched the movie after finishing it. After watching the movie, I regret seeing. It completely took away any of the impact the book had. The scenes made no sense in their sequences, the acting was horrible, and it seemed as though the screen writer never actually picked up the book but opted for the cliff notes instead. I was outraged at how the movie ended. Almost half of the book was cut out and certain aspects were extremely important to Maya's growth as a person. If you have read ...Caged Birds, this movie will ruin the experience of the book so I warn you not to see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story overall, though quite graphic, is actually decent and reasonably interesting to readers. However, the movie was absolutely dreadful. The story was good, but the acting was terrible. I was crying the whole time because i knew i could never get my spent time back. Don't see this movie. If you do, bring a pistol with a bullet in it, and a few bullets if you're going with friends. I feel sorry for everybody who had anything to do with this film. I also feel sorry for everybody who had to watch the film. Avoid this film at all costs, and if your mother forces you to watch, kill her. Hahahahaha! See! I'm a psycho now!!!! IKWTCBS turned me into a psycho!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this movie for about 2,5 dollars at a local flea market. I thought that with the cast present in this movie (Ice-T, Rob Lowe & Mario Van Peebles are all OK), it would be pretty good. Boy, was I wrong. This movie annoyed the hell out of me. Almost every scene drags on too long. The scene where Rob Lowe is watching this girl singing and dancing in a bar lasts forever! It was one of the worst scenes I have ever witnessed in a movie. The rest is no picknick either. My guess is when they finished the movie, they only had 30 minutes of film, so they made everything last 3x longer.

Conclusion: The current 1,9 rating here on imdb is right on the money. This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Go watch some paint dry for 1,5 hour instead of watching this!

If you want to see some better movies made by this director, watch 'Mean Guns'(with Christopher Lambert & Ice-T) or 'Postmortem' (with Charlie Sheen) instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is the worst movie ive ever seen. And i have seen lots of movies. Me and my friends rented this one a wendsday evening. Man we had lots of fun. This movie is the worst most boring crap ive ever seen. But it makes you laugh! U will lay on the floor rolling around tryin to get some air. You wonder why? Just rent it and check for the keyboard playing girl at that sleazy russian bar. My mother would make a 1000 times better movie about her feedin the cats.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly, I didn't really have high expectations for this movie, but at the same time I was hopeful. Having it be directing by Albert Pyun - one of the more well known b-movie auteur's - didn't exactly raise my hopes. I mean how many Albert Pyun flicks rank that highly? Yeah, exactly ... but still the movie advertised a decent cast. Rob Lowe, Burt Reynolds (pre-reborn stardom), Ice-T and Mario Van Peebles.

It all amounts to squat however as the movie is so boring and moves so slowly that the energy just seemed to drain right out of me the longer it went on. It runs over 90 minutes, but it's telling a story that could have been told in 30 minutes flat. I don't know what Pyun was going for here. I mean the movie drips artsy-like style, but it's a blur at times and maybe I'm an idiot for expecting more from Pyun this time around. Here he seemed to actually have a budget and a potentially great cast for the material, but it's all wasted. Crazy Six isn't much of an action film, it's not much of anything really.

I guess what's the saddest here is the fact that I found the end credits the most entertaining part of the movie. The music score is actually half-decent with some smooth female vocals too, but the rest is a complete waste and the less said the better. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Crazy director....Yeah, you need to be crazy to make a near movie. Rob Lowe was bad in his character, Ice-t is always bad and Burt Reynolds had nothing to do in the movie. Crazy six is an unknown movie, with some known actors...this is pretty weird. A bad movie with some good actors in it. It looks like the bad movie did an influence to their performance...It did! Crazy people.....I give it *and a half out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do not rent this movie. I ended up buying the \"previously viewed\" tape of this for $4.00. That was close to the price of a rental, so thought, I might as well buy it. I'm tossing it out after I finish this review. The movie which stars Lowe, is a music video with few lines of dialogue, slow moving shots and poorly done editing. I thought I'd be seeing a mindless action flick, which is what I wanted to see, I didn't even get that. This movie is an exercise in slow moving shots, no script, close-ups, terrible edited, and a poorly developed plot. I can't believe that is actually ends with a scene in which they think the audience cares about the characters. By the end of the movie, we still don't even really know who they are. Believe the hype, stay away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yeah, that's right. If I were to ask my friends this question: \"What's the worst movie you have ever seen?\" They might reply something like \"Armageddon\" (can you drill the hole?!?), \"Shriek\", \"Plan Nine From Outer Space\", \"The Medallion\", \"Scooby Doo\" etc... No - Don't get offended by this by thinking you have seen something that might be in the same department of naturally produced human fertilizer that this movie is in. If the worst movie you can think of is, let's say so bad it really pisses you off; then you know nothing my friend.

Crazy Six... I remember the day me and a buddy of mine went to the local video store to rent a movie. Both of us had already been through most of the movies in there, and on the \"new movies\"-shelf we see it staring at us. \"Wow, there's some good actors here man. Says something about mafia, lets just get it and get out of here\". This was without doubt the worst movie mistake in my movie loving life. It was also the worst mistake for everybody else: movie lover or not.

Watching this movie is as fun as watching a glass of ice cold water (or ice-tea....) until it reaches room temperature. Watching this movie will make you dream an eternal dream of death, if death is just blackout light and nothing, and then you realize you are just staring at your TV-monitor. Not staring. You are actually paying as much attention that is humanly possible. This is no joke.

This movie is the perfection of making a bad movie. It's not the kind of bad you can watch, point and laugh of, its the kind of movie that is so bad you actually have no chance of ever get out of your memory. Unless perhaps you use electric shock therapy to clear out the brain. .... ... (Hey! That might be something similar to how I remember me and my buddy felt after watching it....)

Best regards from me to you Albert Pyun.

-Joergen","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm actually too drained to write this review -- bad movies always do that to me -- but I feel obligated, as if it's my civic duty, to warn anyone who might be considering purchasing or viewing this god-awful mess-of-a-picture. Please, please, just take my word: this is one you'll want to stay away from. It's so boring and dull, so insipid and uninspired, such a poor excuse to assemble any familiar talent. Burt Reynolds? Wasted (despite his best efforts). Ice-T is barely in the film, and when he does appear on screen his performance is so restrained and muted that it becomes crystal clear that the director, perhaps intimidated by Ice's intense stare, didn't know what to do with him. Rob Lowe, as the title character, has never displayed so little on-screen charisma. Mario Van Peebles should be ashamed of himself; his performance is, in the saddest sense possible, a joke. Surely, Satan himself signed Mario's check for this film. The plot is as weak, half-baked and annoying as all the music involved (the utterly boring club song seems to continue on, literally, for the first third of the movie). The film's look will prompt one to seriously wonder if the Director of Photography was also forced, like one of the film's forgettable female characters, to smoke crack from a pipe duct-taped to his mouth. And if you're looking, at least, for stylized, shoot-'em-up-type violence you'll get none here. This film, I assure you, I promise you, has Absolutely no redeeming qualities! Please, I implore you, Avoid this Flick! Don't put it in and get suckered into believing that its pace will pick up, it'll get better, and evolve into a decent denouement. It won't. It don't. It can't! It sucks! Now, you have been warned, and I can now go to bed (It's 3am - please forgive any resulting errors this admonition might contain) -- knowing my conscience is clear, because I've done my civic duty for my fellow man!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the worst movie i have ever seen i didn't even watch it all i just fast forwarded it to Burt's bits and then the end!!! he is the only reason to watch this!! i have to admit to owning a copy as i am a HUGE Burt fan (stop laughing) and needed it for my collection i wouldn't care when this movie came out i had a nightmare renting ti as my local store only had 2 copies and fans of all the various stars always beat me there, imagine my disappointment when i sat down and watched this movie!! THERE ARE JUST NO REDEEMING QUALITIES ABOUT THIS MOVIE!!! Absolutely NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO LIKE ABOUT THIS MOVIE!!! this movie became a running joke between myself and a mate Burt's worst!! Rob Lowe's worst WORST HOUR AND A HALF OF MY LIFE","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Crazy Six is torture, it must be Albert Pyun\u00b4s worst film. Even Blast and Ticker are better! I can\u00b4t believe how boring this film is! How this even got greenlighted? I saw this movie about 3 years ago and the only thing I remember is how bad it was. This isn\u00b4t good bad movie, it is simply bad, bad, bad, bad, bad movie.

1 out of 10 (\u00bd out of *****)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie a time ago, because some of my friends wanted to rent it, and I got voted down.. I tried as best I could to get the story, because some moviemag had said that this would be a movie that would be for Rob Lowe, that Pulp Fiction had been for John Travolta... Well.. we can all see that he not only failed, but he fell aaall the way down. This is actually the worst film I've ever seen, and I've seen a great deal of bad movies.. it's just not even worth seeing for free on tv.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do not watch this movie, or.. If you are really mad at anyone, you can give this as a birthdaypresent. This is the worst movies I have ever seen. Do NOT watch this. If you do, remember: That would be a self-destructive action. It is a shame that this is not voted lower.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's been said that some directors make small budget pictures look like blockbusters. Albert Pyun makes small budget pictures look like high school A\/V project films. This film was pretty much lacking in all departments. Practically every scene drags on excessively, the \"experimental\" lighting and camera work is terrible, Rob Lowe apparently equated being scruffy with acting, and the poor drab Euro-pop numbers stop the movie to a dead halt. On the plus side, Burt Reynolds does a pretty good job with what he's given (which isn't much), Mario Van Peebles is surprisingly decent and Ice-T puts in another of a long recent string of B-movie gangsters. Not Pyun's worst work (Urban Menace), but certainly not his best (Mean Guns).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What is the story what is it on the screen. At first I must say, do not touch this movie, it is for your own best (it sucks). And really what is the story, in the beginning it seems okay but after ten minutes it all gets worse. And that is not all, you can hardly see what it is on the screen it is too dark all the time.

Do not touch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a monument to inept filmmaking on a colossal scale. I'm a huge Burt Reynolds fan, but even he was horrible in this film. The only redeeming quality of this film was the chick that smoked all the time. She was kind of attractive to look at. Otherwise, what a waste of time and energy...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do yourself a favor and stay away from this film. Minus 50 billion out of 10. If you want hard boiled action don`t rent it! If you want a good independent film look elsewhere!

I never thought i`d see Burt Reynolds in such a crappy movie. It has the thinnest plot-line ever. Van Damm flicks should win an Academy compared to this one.

Rob Lowe once again prove why he is not the hottest actor in the world. Even Hasselhoff would have made a better drug addict than him. I do not want to bore you with more facts about this crappy movie, except to say that you are better off renting anything by Hulk Hogan or Dolph Lundgreen. This should prove my point, if you get my drift.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am not afraid of bad movies. I like bad movies. I enjoy mocking them in the company of my friends. We're all quite good at it, in fact. That being said, let me tell you how much I hated this movie.

To begin with, it was incomprehensible. Rob Lowe attacks some people, they capture him but he escapes in this big ol' shoot out. There's this singer whom we think died, only she didn't, unless maybe there are several of them who all act and look the same. Cue Burt Reynolds to come in and question the singer. He looks like he's just wandered into this movie off of the Walker, Texas Ranger set and is darn confused. Then Rob Lowe dies, only he doesn't... And the worst thing is, there's not enough dialogue or action that doesn't involve killing people or attempting to to even make fun of this movie!! And don't even get me started on the random chihuahua. Then there was the fact that it was supposed to be about the old power structure in Eastern-Europe falling apart. We didn't know where we were, all the accents were apparently \"Eastern-European\" and what were Burt Reynolds and Rob Lowe doing there in the first place?

I desperately wanted to tell the people at Blockbuster what I thought of this movie, and to get my money back, but since I'd gotten it as a special (only $.99) I decided against it. What I want to know, however, is HOW THE DIRECTOR GOT THE GREENLIGHT to make this darn movie, and what the 'stars' were thinking when they signed on???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't waste your time and money on it. It's not quite as bad as \"Adrenalin\", by the same director but that's not saying much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"directed by albert pyun in his inimitably awful but strangely hypnotic style, \"crazy six\" is yet another jewel in the crown for this decade's upscale hugo haas (jess franco?). \"Stylish\" overdirection, incoherent plotting, time-outs in the middle of action sequences for eurodisco torch -song performances, all these seem to be signifying traits for our man Pyun. Most interesting is how he always gets top-notch b-movie casts, compared to Wynorski or some of the other video directors. Ice-T, Rob Lowe, Mario Van Peebles, & the very strange Burt Reynolds ain't a bad cast, though they often look a bit confused. Check out \"Postmortem\", \"Mean Guns\", & \"Omega Doom\" for more top-notch Pyun mayhem!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was suckered in by the big names. Rob Lowe, Mario Van Peebles, Burt Reynolds, and the fact that it was an independent film. Unbelievably slow beginning: 35 minutes, two dreary songs and a botched rip off. I didn't care about the characters, and the plot never tempted me to even pretend it could be realistic. I can't believe this is what makes it to the screen. I loved watching this film because it felt so good when it was over.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film should have been much better than it was. Christopher Eccleston is an excellent actor but even he couldn't rescue this tale of a young woman searching for the truth over her sister's death. Spoiler warning : In effect the truth is that the older sister ( played by Diaz) is just a spoilt, selfish and shallow girl who took too many drugs. Not much of a twist and not that interesting either. The film is also overladen with far too many flashbacks and voice overs and lacks dramatic pacing. All in all this is definitely worth missing - not to be recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a shame. What a terrible shame. The table was set, the candles were lit, the guests had arrived... and then...

... well nothing really. Just pretentious drivel. It could have been great, OK maybe not great, but it could have been very good. All the elements were there but at the end of the day the bottle was empty: NO LIGHTNING! How that happened is a mystery with everything at the director's disposal...

... the story was quite brave although it certainly needed considerable work with possibly several finishing rewrites to fix the story and tighten up the characters a lot (the only thing that was consistently and constantly and unnecessarily tight was the cinematography, but i'll get to that). But the direction was lousy, the acting was just that: _a-C-T-i-n-G_ with a heavy side of cheese and lots of ham, and then the cinematography...

...well that was something to behold! But only if you are in film school's \"Cinematography 101 how to never ever use a professional movie camera under any circumstances\". Obviously the student had fallen asleep through part of the lecture's introduction and only heard \"... use a professional movie camera...\" then blissfully back to la la land as the sentence finished off.

What can i say; amateurish and pretentious to the last! I can only see this film meant to appeal as a Chick Flick because it's supposed to be sad, but then falls flat and just ends up being 'sad' (as an excuse for a movie)... so that even those 'Chicks' wouldn't be fooled by this schlockenspiel!

PS. I felt bad for Miss Diaz. She's a lot better at her craft than what this film allowed her to be, even though she was totally TOTALLY miscast. Actually i feel sorry for everyone in this movie except the director and (you guessed it) the cinematographer! I say '1st against the wall for them when the revolution comes!' OK, not really, after all \"it was only a movie\" but perhaps a good \"tar and feather and running out of town\" might be more satisfying or at the very least a lot more entertaining!!!

TTFN :-(","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"what a waste of time! i expected better from cameron diaz! i guess it wasn't really her fault for being in a terrible film. the film does not capture the beauty of europe.....and wasn't successful in leading the audience into suspense or wonder. weak attempt at storytelling and narrating -- dialogue is dull and wasn't able to convey what i sometimes think simplicity is beauty. no love, energy, electricity on screen. too bad!!!!!!!!1","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wanted to love this film so badly...I really did. But it was a horrible disappointment.

I read Jennifer Egan's novel in 1996 and was enthralled by the story. In fact it remains one of my favorite books of all time. Mind you, the book had much more depth than this movie, in plot and emotional resonance. It MADE you care about the characters. It painted a complete picture of Phoebe, unlike the utterly poor characterization of the young girl in the film.

Though beautiful and showing *some* promise in her burgeoning career, Jordana Brewster was as flat and hollow in this performance as was the script. And Christopher Eccleston (Wolf) was just an awful choice for the role of Wolf, both physically and logistically. What an awkward looking couple. Wolf should have been more of a dark brooding character, and more physically alluring, like he was in the book. What's more, the chemistry between the two actors was painfully forced.

Cameron Diaz, however, deserves utmost praise for her performance. She took an impossibly mediocre script and gave her character life, a real spirit. She is simply gorgeous and her careful mannerisms make her very believable as a hippie. It's too bad her talent was squandered on this forgettable film.

In the book-to-movie category, this is a dreadful translation, almost as bad as Message in a Bottle with Kevin Costner. But don't get me started on that one...

I am not usually so harsh in my critiques but I was so disappointed here, because I really cared about the story and wanted to see it told right. It did not deliver...

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie attempts many things but never really accomplishes anything, the plot time travels, meanders and weaves along without really satisfying. It left a hollow , \"is that all\" feeling at the end. Unless its free to air and there is nothing else on, forget about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The films' producers are hoping that Cameron Diaz' name will help sell this picture. Unfortunately, nothing can save what has already been captured on the screen. Despite some beautifully shot European locations and some solid production design elements, the film fails mostly due to its awkward, unbelievable romance between Brewster and Eccleston. An unplesasant filmgoing experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Yes, I know I'm not the target audience. Target audience is females, either college age or middle aged or any aged I guess. I'm none of these so the makers don't mind if I don't like it. But that won't excuse the fact that the dialogue and the plot are horrible. The main character, Phoebe, goes on a journey to Europe to find out what happened to her sister, Faith, who committed suicide. Phoebe is an inane character that i hope no one identifies with. Faith is also a character with very little believability. Wolf is the only person who seems to be somewhat reasonable. As I said the dialogue is boring and uninteresting. The plot does completely stupid things at times. The absolute worst is that Phoebe and Faith's father is an artist but his paintings are completely dreadful. There is nothing new, interesting or refreshing in this movie. If your a guy, you will pray for the ending. If your a chick you might be able to sit through it but you will be unimpressed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film right in the middle while going through a breakup. It was about 3 in the morning and I was battling insomnia with a quick snack. It wasn't too bad at the time, but every time I have tried to watch it since, I can't get into it like I did that night.

At the time I thought it was cute and I loved the variety of characters, though they totally could have done better than Goran V, in my opinion. But the one thing that kept me watching was Heather's character and her sad \"commitment\" to her husband who didn't want her anymore, which made me feel sorry for her and root for her at the same time. (Considering I was in a similar situation at the time, perhaps that's why I liked her so much.) Not a bad film, but you pretty much have to be somewhere near the character romantically in order to appreciate it, and let's hope you never are.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A ditzy girl (yes, ditzy is about as complex as her character gets) won't take no for an answer and does quirky things to get her husband back. It's too far-fetched to be believable with such flimsy characters going through the motions. But not far-fetched enough to be fascinating in the way that say, Being John Malkovich, was. So it ends up boring.

sv","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film because Calexico did the score. A real disappointment. Annoying, trendy scenes, with urban hipsters and their cliche hip lifestyles. Cheesy stereotypical Mexican border culture (mystic grandfather with the rattlesnake and potions, granddaughter in her mariachi-style restaurant getup). A few laughs, but hipper-than-thou, and sorely lacking in vision and basic filmmaking talent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Committed\", as in Heather Graham being COMMITTED to saving her husband\/marriage, and then being COMMITTED to a psychiatric ward in failure to do so: what a clever, clever use of words.

One of those meaningless wanna-be philosophical films in which narration is a series of oh-so wise observations that verge on poetry (90s chique club-poetry, better known as \"chit-chique poetry\"). Oh, it's so je-ne-sais-quoi... Written\/directed (or \"auteured\") by a woman (Lisa Krueger, whoever the hell you are), this is a pointless, lethargically directed road-movie full of New Age spiritualistic nonsense and characters that are meant to be interesting but are merely seen-before or just plain dull. The Latinos in this movie, as part of the poor urban minority, are typically glorified in all their mysticism-obsessed primitivism as a \"spiritually superior\" people, which is the \"highlight\" of this film's political correctness.

The whole affair is lifeless, and ceases to be so only when occasional good cast members appear (Kay Place, Baker, Wilson). On the other hand we have Casey Affleck, who is one of the very best examples of why nepotism is on par with first-degree murder as a crime. I have rarely seen a more apathetic \"actor\"; a skinny, ugly moron who goes through his lines in a sleepy manner, almost as if he were uttering them in a half-awake quasi-dream, plus that weak voice, one of the weakest male voices I've heard in my life. (He must have gone to the Tobey Maguire Lethargy School Of Acting.) To cast this idiot in ANYTHING speaks volumes about ANY movie, i.e. about ANY director or producer. Hence, Lisa Krueger is a talentless waste of space. We've also got that moron who had the lead role in the MST3K-spoofed \"Werewolf\"; I think his name is Goran Vishnjic, but I'm not sure. Check out his ridiculous accent and the dumb speech.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From what I remember seeing of this film, it was not good. I always say that if a film is good and can keep you attention throughout the hardest of moments (example: a Tylenol Cold & Sinus war) than it is a film that has done its job. The fact that I was asleep for most of this film only proves the fact that it could not keep my attention, and ergo, it did not complete its job. Why did I fall victim to the Tylenol Cold & Sinus, when I had a film in my arsenal?

To begin, Committed did not make any sense. The acting was poor and the overall story left more doors opened that just couldn't be closed. I am thinking of the moment when I swear I saw Affleck and Graham (brother and sister in this film) kissing. That didn't make any sense. Then there was a scene with Affleck and his roommates indicating that he was sleeping with one of them, almost breaking up a perfect lesbian couple. I suppose this was to show that most are not as committed to a relationship as Graham is, but for me it just was nothing more than filler. I have this suspicious feeling that the director of this film was sleeping with Affleck. His acting in this film was atrocious. I mean, I have never seen him do any \"good\" acting, but this was by far the worst. Oh, I just had another moment during the battle come through my mind and I confirmed it with IMDb.com ... what was John Stewart doing in this film? That was yet again another moment when my eyes were opened just for a moment in one of those battles that seemed to last forever.

And frankly, it's Heather Graham - we could care less about her after a while. She's just not interesting - she's just bland, boring and basically stops acting after a while. While they desperately start throwing wacky characters into the mix to revive the movie, it just doesn't work and instead of just calling it a day - they start throwing more characters into the mix so now it's just weird, tedious, boring and really, really long. Luke Wilson's slow drawl acting style slows an already crawling movie to dead halt - why exactly were these two married? Committed is a truly terrible film--the kind of \"hip comedy\" that leaves you staggering out depressed and bored.

Grade: * out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Committed stars (Heather Graham) along with (Casey Affleck) and (Luke Wilson). Its the story of Joline who is determined to find her ex-husband who is in the process of a mid-life crisis.

Committed was not at all what I expected it was lacking in comedy which was ultimately the genre. It was beyond stupid and un-realistic, Casey Affleck delivered a reasonable performance, Graham's recent roles have been lack-luster and this is not an improvement.

Graham's most recent role was Blessed which I also found misleading and didn't appeal to me at all.

Pros Affleck

Cons Predictable, Unrealistic, Poor Acting and not a comedy movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Horrible waste of talent. Not even worth watching when there is absolutely nothing else to do. My hope against hope is that the actors at least got paid well. Anyway, if you're a fan of Heather's or Luke's, you'll be really disappointed by this big budget student film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"More of a character study then a movie, COMMITTED is yet just another relationship romp with the trimmings specifically made for a young, target audience. The direction seems very basic, with obvious dramatic irony and a classic case of the lost loser versus the clueless committed. COMMITTED is watchable at times and there is a small feeling of originality from Lisa Krueger.

COMMITTED is completely aimless for the first twenty minutes. We get to know Joline but the movie picks up when her husband disappears. Joline sets off to find him.

Some parts are strange. Other times the movie drags. The second half is more humorous as we see Joline's spiritual antics take a turn for the more intense. The annoying guitar music is awful, but perhaps a necessary evil as COMMITTED offers very little anyway. An average movie hampered by some completely pointless moments, COMMITTED 's only asset is Heather Graham and Patricia Velazquez.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Usually, I start my reviews with an explanation of how and why I watched the film I'm reviewing. With this, I simply cannot explain. I needed to be awake early for work the next day so the last thing I wanted to do was watch a film that I didn't know anything about. But something kept me glued to my comfy futon as I watched this Heather Graham vehicle. Oh, that's right. Boredom.

Graham plays Joline, a bohemian nut-case who seems more obsessed with her marriage vows than the guy she married (played by Luke Wilson). When her hubby decides to set off in search of better things (work, women and scripts, presumably), Joline begins a fanatical quest to find her husband and free him from his \"spiritual wheelchair\". It sounds like I'm making this up but sadly, I'm not. In reality, this is little more than an acting exercise for Graham as she gamely gives this Phoebe-from-Friends role a work-out. Oh and Goran \"ER\" Visnjic is in there as well, for some reason.

The TV schedules had this down as a comedy but I failed to find a single laugh anywhere. It struck me that this was a personal journey for Lisa Krueger (the director and writer), in the same mould as \"Girl, Interrupted\" but even that had more laughs than this. Graham's character is simply too self-centred for the audience to care about and I felt sorry for the hen-pecked husband as he bravely fought for his freedom from his clearly mental wife. Very little of this film made sense as characters simply appeared in the story as though they were standing around, waiting for Graham to turn up like the extras in \"The Truman Show\". In fact, the only positive note I can produce from my scribblings was \"Heather Graham - nice baps\". And that wasn't because I was too tired to enjoy the film.

In truth, it's very difficult to think of anybody to recommend this film to. Graham purists (a VERY small number of overall movie-goers, I think you'll agree) will have to be committed to watch this dross and possibly hippy students who collect American Indian dream-catchers will take something from this. I was amazed that the average rating (at time of writing) was 5.0 - that would make this film as good as \"Die Another Day\" and \"Gothika\" in my book and that simply ain't right. \"Committed\" is a quirky oddball mess of a movie that neither entertains or enlightens. It's complicated, pointless and simply too boring for my tastes and probably yours too. Don't even think about watching this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What an uninteresting hodge-podge. It could have been something more but no imagination seems to have gone into the script or the direction. A man is framed for murder by his wife and her lover. The conspirators do a pretty thorough job of making him look guilty. But the man (Richard Thomas), whose psychiatric records reveal him as \"stable\" and \"unimaginative\", manages to escape from jail, beat it to the conspirator's beach house, and secretly record a conversation between them in which they reveal their guilt. Then he accidentally drops the tape recorder with all the evidence on it into the sea water but manages to retrieve it. He shows a heck of a lot of creativity and improvisational skill for an unimaginative guy, if you ask me.

The tape is now damaged goods but it's enough to break down the wife's lover and he sobs out his confession. Bad people are punished. Good people are saved.

The location shooting is impressive. The beach house is nothing more than a wooden exterior thrown up on the grounds of Fort Fisher Battlefield on the Cape Fear peninsula. The house was torn down immediately after the production wrapped.

It's a pretty place. Unfortunately it's a little hard to see because someone seems to have shot every scene through a pair of pantyhose stretched over the camera lens. It's all very fuzzy. And for all the natural splendor of the location the viewer never gets a real sense of place, of what the sand feels like, of the texture of the gray bark on the stunted evergreens.

The acting is okay but the performers have nothing much to work with. The best performance, as is often the case, is given by Dick Olsen as a sleazy but not unsympathetic defense lawyer. Virginia Madsen radiates infidelity with every beat of her eyelashes. Ted McGinley is within his range as an immoral weakling.

The musical score neatly blends the ominous with the mysterious and is effective. If you want to hear the original, from which this was ripped off, rent Hitchcock's \"Vertigo\" and listen to Bernard Hermann's suspenseful theme.

I can't think of any particular reason to catch this one except utter boredom.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Years ago, I caught a fairly well made TV movie entitled \"Linda\". It was made in 1973, and starred Stella Stevens in the femme fatale title roll. Imagine my surprise when, over ten years later, I once again saw the same story unfold on late night TV. However, it was this 1993 version, starring Virginia Madsen. Don't get me wrong, I can handle remakes, even obscure ones. But this badly written and poorly filmed retread made me feel sorry for both Madsen and co-star Richard Thomas. Unlike the original, the dialogue here is cliched, making me wonder, \"Why did they bother to re-write it?\" Second, the camera work is very heavy-handed, and the the film stock is poor. At times I felt reminded of the student film competition at the beginning of Christopher Guest's \"The Big Picture\". Finally, the cast looks either bored (Madsen) or suffering (Thomas). In fact, the only one who seems like he's really enjoying the work is Ted McGinley. Of course, with his perfectly coifed hair and capped teeth, he's really stretching himself from his previous work on \"The Love Boat\". Bottom line, to borrow a critique from Opus the Penguin in Bloom County:

\"This movie does for film what Jonestown did for Kool-Aid.\"

Thomkat","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This TVM seems to have polarised opinions amongst the commentators on this page so perhaps I can settle everything by saying this is a very stupid not very well made television movie . How bad is it ? It's a teleplay that can't even decide what its name is because while everyone in America calls it LINDA it's known in Britain as LUST FOR MURDER and it's usually a bad sign when a movie has to change its name . And can I also point out that it's not a tongue in cheek spoof as somebody else claimed

I will be honest and say the plot is rather sound . Linda and Paul Cowley meet another couple called the Jeffries who they get on very well with . They get on so well that they go on holiday together ( Make up your own mind if there's some wife swapping going on ) and Paul sees his wife kill the Jeffries . After that the plot takes a shock twist

Writing the above paragraph I have suddenly realised the large amount of potential the story had and I won't say anything to put you off the premise . It's just that when the story continues after the events I've described things become more and more unlikely and bizarre . Not only that but the production values are fairly unimpressive with the actor playing Paul Cowley doing a very wooden voice over that irritates while most of the scenes - Exterior and interior - look like they've been filmed on a foggy day","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some films are so badly made they are watchable purely for the cringe factor. Disciples made me cringe so much it was uncomfortable. I watched it all disbelieving what I was watching, wasn't anyone aware how bad this was whilst they were filming? Mix the most hammed performances from the most wooden actors, an abysmal script were every comment from all of the 'actors' sounded like it came from the same character and the most hurried editing that tried (and failed bigtime) to give the film a forced pace. All these combined into a film that will rob you of a few hours of your life and give nothing in return. Avoid at EVERY cost.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terrible. There's no way to get around it. A script at the level of one from some Mexican soap opera, a choice and use of the places of shooting that make the movie labyrinthine and at the same time, repetitive and monotonous, with disastrous performances of almost the entire cast. The references to Tarantino's work, so poorly made, are more an insult than anything else. I suspect that was not for the shameless and plot-unrelated exploitation of Matadinho's generous curves , nobody would take the effort to go watch this film to any theater.

These are the kind of films that make me have no desire to watch Portuguese cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My daughter liked it but I was aghast, that a character in this movie smokes. As if it isn't awful enough to see \"product placement\" actors like Bruce Willis who smoke in their movies - at least children movies should be more considerate! I wonder: was that intentional? Did big tobacco \"sponsor\" the film? What does it take to ban smoking from films? At least films intended for children and adolescents. My daughter liked it but I was aghast, that a character in this movie smokes. As if it isn't awful enough to see \"product placement\" actors like Bruce Willis who smoke in their movies - at least children movies should be more considerate! I wonder: was that intentional? Did big tobacco \"sponsor\" the film? What does it take to ban smoking from films? At least films intended for children and adolescents.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought this movie was too absurd for me to finish watching it. The premise was too silly and predictable. I didn't make it far into the movie.

Let me see. She is obviously older than the cabbie (unless she is a lot younger than she looks). He is black and she is white. She makes more money than him (he is only a cabbie). That's 3 of society's most statistically failed unions all rolled up in one and we are supposed to pretend they have a chance in hell. She would be better off marrying the guy she doesn't love.

I only watched it partially because I love MJW as an actor. His acting was superb. Hers, meh! It was OK but the premise is too silly. Didn't see the end. Couldn't make it there so I don't know if it ended differently from the way I predicted the ending would be. I can't imagine any black woman liking this movie. There is something sickening about watching a black man catering to a white woman like that. And an old one at that. PLEASE! Not in the real world!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was basically set up for failure by the studio. One, Anne Rice (author of the book) offered to write the screen play but was refused by the studio. Two, they tried to stuff 2 in depth novels in to a 2hour movie.

I maintain the only way for these two books -Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned- to work in a live action form would be through a mini-series. First off the the Vampire Lestat alone takes place from the 1700's to the 1980's and has a plethora of character vital to the plot understanding of the main character, Lestat. The entire book Vampire Lestat sets up the events of the second part Queen of the Damned. Without that full understanding the premise of a movie is destroyed.

Lestat was not cruel and vicious to all, he was not wanting to go along with Akasha's plans, Marius did not make Lestat, Lestat did not love Jesse or make her, Lestat could not go remain unscathed by the light, Marius was not after David nor the other way around, every character was completely represented wrong, BASICALLY same names different story.

If they wanted to make a vampire movie, fine. Even if you wanted to be inspired by these novels, fine. But don't piggie back into the theaters off the success of Rice's great novels and characters just to destroy what her loyal readers have come to love.

If you haven't read the books you won't understand the film really, if you have read the books you will be insulted. That being said, I am such a huge fan I had to see the movie knowing full well this was going to be the case and still went for it. Catch 22, must see it, will hate it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I should have known when I heard Anne Rice left the project that the movie would disappoint me. I couldn't have predicted that years after it's release just thinking about the movie still makes me angry. The novels are amazing, and while I understand much gets lost in the translation to screen, this movie was a great big middle finger to her original work. I hope one day someone tries again, the right way, starting with The Vampire Lestat. They change the roles and looks of major and minor characters alike for no good reason. They destroy Lestat's history. The acting of the Queen is exaggerated to the point of comedy, but I just can't bring myself to laugh. The charm and allure of the novels just isn't there. The movie is a bad excuse to cram as many musicians and \"dark\" imagery as possible into one movie, hoping the teeny Goths of America would lap it up. Part of the appeal of the first movie, of Louis' story, is that he is caught between his humanity and his curse. Lestat is supposed to take over and display the magic and excitement of the vampire world. Thank goodness I read the books first, or I'd have never touched them after this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why did they unleash this movie upon us? It seems as though they set out to make this movie a total slap in theface to Anne Rice and every self respecting Vampire Chronicles fan. It ignores the ground work laid down by Interview with the Vampire,mutilates the plot of the novel and has Stuart Townsend stumbling around drunk.

Stuart is NOT our Lestat! Our brat prince, our adventurous rebel with the damndest sense of humor. Stuart IS a second rate, boring rip off of Dracula in black leather. He DID NOT read the books or know the character...is he illiterate? Tom Cruise is dyslexic and still he made a point to read the books and know and love Lestat.

Don't kid yourselves, it is not a \"Stand Alone\" vampire flick it's trash plain and simple.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm usually not inclined to write reviews about films I don't think deserve a mention. But, in the quest to grow as a writer and film critic, I feel it is important to express my thoughts when I DON'T like a film. \"Queen of the Damned\" is one of those films.

Anne Rice's popular horror stories of Lestat, a bisexual Vampire, first took to the screen in 1994 in the successful \"An Interview With A Vampire\". Starring two of Hollywood's biggest heavyweights in Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, the film's stylish aesthetic and gothic mise en scene captured the audience. While it may have been a case of style way over substance, there was something about it that worked, despite its chessiness (I have never been that enamoured with the Vampire genre in general).

Since that time Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise have gone on to much bigger things. It's likely both would have roared with laughter when asked to appear in a sequel. They would have been laughing even harder when they saw the final outcome. \"Queen of the Damned\" typifies the type of cr*p Hollywood is content to put out at a low cost with the hope of earning a quick buck thanks to an average soundtrack and big marketing campaign aimed at 13 to 17 year olds.

Needless to say this film is terrible from the start. Lestat, now played by Brit Stuart Townsend of \"Shooting Fish\" fame, awakens from his dark grave to the sound of... you guessed it, Nu-Metal. He freaks out some confused punkish musicians and joins their band, under the proviso that he only appear at night, what with the sun burning his skin and all during the day...

Jesse (Marguerite Moreau), a student studying the paranormal (Vampire Studies 101 perhaps?), tries to find out if Lestat really is who he says he is. Along the way she falls for him (something to do with her odd past), but has a little competition in Queen Akasha (Aaliyah), a Vampire demon queen who is returning from the underworld to acquire Lestat as her chosen King.

The film is shamefully self-indulgant, yet its campy tone leaves some room for its depreciating humour. Anybody who sees this film for anything but a good laugh needs to see more films in general! Watching Townsend is enjoyable. He knows the role is utterly over the top and does his best to walk the tightrope between utter hamming and serious acting. The late Aaliyah is, unfortunately, terrible in the title role. She has minimal screentime, and what she does have she does not use to the fullest. The poor makeup and special effects do not help; at times she sounds like she's talking through a voicebox.

It is rumoured that this film was heading straight to video until Aaliyah's untimely death last year. With the possibility for people to see her final film, Warner Bros put this out to a general release. Otherwise this would have been one of those movies you see on the shelf at video shops but avoid because you can tell it is going to be simply terrible.

No doubt films like this will continue to be made. Look at the spate of teen rom-com rip offs around or the spoofing of that genre itself with films like \"Not Another Teen Movie\". If there is a market to exploit Hollywood will do so.

The biggest issue I have with this film is not the film itself. Hollywood is about making money, so if there is a market for this film then they will pursue it. That's business. But what concerns me the most is that people will actively go out to the cinema and pay money to watch it! I guess that's the biggest argument in the world of cinema: is film art first and entertainment second, or is it the other way around? The only people who can decide that is the audience. If you like and are intrigued by good films, stay clear of this turkey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember all the hype around this movie when Aaliyah was killed. Being a fan of Ms. Rice's novels, my first thought was \"how can they do Queen Of The Damned without doing Vampire Lestat first?\"

Having finally seen the movie, now I can see how they did it. If you have read these books, imagine taking out the gory parts from Vampire Lestat, cramming Marcus and Marius into one character, and removing everything to do with Lestat's beginning (the wolf hunt, his violin playing, the Theatre Of The Vampires, and also Louis, Claudia, and Gabrielle), then in the last 15 minutes cramming in Queen Of The Damned.

What we loose is a very important piece of Lestat's character. His inner agony of having to kill to live, the fact that he carefully tries to select killers as his victims, and his love-hate relationship with Louis, Armand, Gabrielle, and all the other vampires.

Also important to the story is that we loose the \"Story Of The Twins\", which is the Genesis of Ms. Rice's vampires. And while I am sure the cannibalism was to intense for showing on the screen, they could have done something closer, and showed us more of ancient Egypt.

Even worse, we have this love interest thrown in between Jessie and Lestat. The Vampire Chronicles is basically an American Yoni story. For those that do not know, Yoni is another form of Hentai (Japanese Porn Comics). But in Yoni, it is about gay male relationships, told by a female. While I am sure many men object to the \"gayness\" of the characters, in this movie they went to the far extreme the opposite way. For instead of Lestat persueing killers, he goes after young female groupies.

And the other flaws in logic and storyline are vast. At the beginning Lestat emerges from a century long sleep, then later on asks Marius how he made it through the 1950's in red velvet. Marius has no idea who Elvis is, and says he slept through that period. Makes you wonder how Lestat knows about 50's fashion and music, since he slept through the same time period himself. And nothing is ever even mentioned about Louis, Claudia, or Gabrielle. I think that is a huge shame. Is like seeing \"Snow White and the 3 Dwarfs\".

Overall, the movie I thought was really bad. About the only good thing about it was the soundtrack. Most of the acting was poor, the accents drove me up the wall, and all of the really in-depth parts of the book were removed, leaving us only with a hollow shell, kind of like Enkil after he was sucked dry.

If you want to see a good modern vampire movie, get Lost Boys, the original Interview With A Vampire, or even some old episodes of Dark Shadows. Let this one Rest In Piece, with a stake through the heart, cloves of garlic around the neck, and a vial of Holy Water in the mouth.

In ending, remember that before Aaliyah was killed, this was intended to go straight to video, no theatrical release was planned. It is obvious now why this was. It is only sad that somebody as talented as she will be remembered for this dog of a movie, instead of something where she really might have shined.

I rate this a 2 on a scale of 1-10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"''Queen of the Damned '' is one of the worst adaptations of a book to a movie that I already saw. The only thing that I like in this movie is the soundtrack, anything else besides that.( Since I am a fan of Korn, Marilyn Manson, Chester Bennington of Linkin Park and Wayne Static of Static-X)

There are so many mistakes and so many bad choices that I don't even know how to start. So many stories were cut, like the twin's legend (one of my favorite)Armand and Daniel's relationship and even Louis is not present, to mention a few.(The plot was dead) First, they should have made a movie of ''The Vampire Lestat'', because it is the second book after ''The interview with the vampire'',and not ''Queen of Damned''. They tried to squeeze in a single movie so many informations, that you finish not getting almost anything unless you read the vampire chronicles.

So many meaningful characters doesn't seem to have a real importance in this movie. It is Pandora's case, for example.

The actors that they choose to play all the characters doesn't match with many of Anne Rice's descriptions, specially Marius, that is suppose to be a beautiful,tall,imposing blond guy with blue eyes, like Lestat. (Stuart Towsend is also far from being like Lestat) I didn't understand why they changed Lestat's maker to be Marius instead of Magnus as well.

''Interview with the vampire'' was an awesome movie, I loved the actors and Tom Cruise as Lestat was PERFECT and far superior then Stuart Townsend.(I am sad that Tom Cruise declined the chance of playing Lestat again) Only Antonio Bandeiras as Armand didn't match with Armand's looks, but anyway, far superior from this crap movie called '' The Queen of Damned''.

Anne Rice was so picky about Interview that I didn't get how she just sold the rights for this terrible production.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is definitely the worst vampire flicks of all times. I started to watch this right after Interview With the vampire and I was thoroughly disappointed. Not only did this movie's script have craters as big as the grand canyon, the movie seemed to jump from one scene to another leaving the viewers thoroughly puzzled. The vampire Lestat played by Stuart Townsend was terrible-having a good body does not make you an actor! The end of the queen was too easy and sudden, insulting the viewers intelligence. I'll give this one star because Aaliyah actually tried her best in this movie and the soundtrack is pretty good. Other than that I would advice Anne Rice to take an ax and start hacking those who destroyed her brilliant story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even if I had not read Anne Rice's \"Queen of the Damned\" from the \"Vampire Chronicles,\" I probably would still have thought this movie was just awful.

It was tasteless, plot-less, it made absolutely no sense at all. I sat for a while pondering the plot disassociated from the book, and the longer I thought of it, the worse it was. To associate it in any way with the prior Chronicles film is ridiculous as it is ridiculously inconsistent with that movie, let alone the book. The bare few ideas taken from Rice's genius in \"The Vampire Chronicles\" were butchered and ridiculed.

It is an absolute insult to Anne Rice fans everywhere and such a pathetic excuse for a legacy in being Aaliyah's last film. Truly, it's an insult to Aaliyah fans as well.

Possibly the only compliment can be paid to the sound effects as well as some of the graphics. Good as they may be, it is still not at all enough to make me regret the time spent watching this movie. As a matter of fact, I signed up for this membership for the sole reason of communicating to people bothering to look at this film (7 years after the release, as it may be) to not waste their time or expect much beyond disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now don't get me wrong, I love seeing half naked chicks wiggling around. It's part of the fun of a Moroccan restaurant: ogling the belly dancers. But it doesn't make much of a plot.

My first major problem is the music. I have the feeling that when Ann Rice wrote \"The Vampire Lestat\", the Cure was more the style of the music he would have liked (though I could be wrong). I know relating to current \"goth\" music might have seemed like a good idea, but they did a horrific job incorporating it. Lestat was an actor with presumably a pretty good singing voice. That they chose Jonathan Davis to be his stage voice is heartbreaking.

Second, and someone else said it, mashing two very intricate books into one crappy movie is a bad idea. \"Lestat\" could have been a movie in it's own right, and a damn good one if done right. I honestly don't think \"Queen of the Damned\" lends itself to a movie very well. Though I would love to see a movie that incorporates a creation story, there's too much, how to word this, \"inaction\" in the book for it to be a very interesting movie. And the retelling they did soiled it pretty badly. Now mind you, it's been a long time since I've read it, I always thought \"Lestat\", \"Tale of the Body Thief\" and \"Memnoch the Devil\" were much more action packed and would have made better movies.

I know a lot of people (hey, myself included) who like a lot of cheesy vampire crap that thought this was absolutely the worst of the genre to be a major motion picture. I tend to agree with them there. Aaliyah had a nice body though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst movies, I've ever seen. Not only, that it is a comedy, which isn't funny, but it's also very badly made with an over the top direction full of unnecessary split screens and other effects.

The two \"heroes\" with their fantasy language are just annoying and it confused me quite a lot, that they touched each others genitals all the time. But the worst of all that nonsense is the cheap attempt to give that movie some appeal, by referring to German history and to show sensitive aspects of the \"heroes\", which finds its climax in showing how Erkan and Stefan cure a mentally ill woman with their \"joyful\" lifestyle (!). But I hadn't expect anything better by director Michael \"Bully\" Herbig, who also made two not funny TV-shows, a not funny western movie and a nearly not funny SF-comedy movie. But Erkan and Stefan had been- just a little- better in some of their stand-up programs. For me the only good thing about the movie is Alexandra Neldel, who is very beautiful to me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have never before voted 1 for a movie on the IMDB, but for this one I am sorry the scale doesn't go down to -10.

All I can say abou this movie is that I saw it in a Sneak Preview, and it was my worst movie experience ever. I don't mind the stupid jokes. I can live with the silly story. But when I see those dumbly grinning \"main characters\" with their pseudo-foreign speech (only Germans will understand what I talk about), I felt I kind of loathing I never thought I was capable of. (If they had left them out, the thing may actually have been acceptable...).

There's not much more to be said about this one. You may laugh once or twice, because it's so ridiculous, but that doesn't make it any better. It is definitely not funny.

If you live outside of Germany, be happy and rejoice that this awful work will most likely never make it to your cinemas.

If you do live in Germany, avoid this movie at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's nice that these three young directors have produced films with good productions values and decent acting. There's some good work here.

Unfortunately they suffer from what afflicts much of modern gay cinema; recycled plots, too familiar devices (i have seen the \"pool\" setting way too many times in gay male films) and hackneyed scripts. Most egregious of all is \"Dorothy\" whose preposterous premise is that a cute young guy will have trouble getting laid in NYC due to a shortage of identifiable availabe gay guys in his vicinity.

In terms of cinema these shorts play like tacky little gay afterschool specials. Not a lot of imagination in their writing or execution; basically they follow a point-and-shoot, shot\/reaction shot\/master shot convention which becomes painfully dull after five or so minutes. There's hope for queer cinema in the works of Todd Haynes, Sadie Benning and the late, great Marlon Riggs...but not here. These films are incredibly middlebrow, singularly whitebread and their values basically pander to a gay bourgeois sensibility. Which is probably why they play so well at gay film festivals.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Specks of white and various shapes, a beautiful nude, random images. That is what this little experimental short film is.

It's kind of interesting to think how in the early days of film such images could be transferred onto film, but despite my love of a lot of surreal images and films, and a fascination with the bizarre, this film just didn't do it for me.

I'm not sorry I watched it, but if there is any underlying meaning in it, I don't get it. Visually, it is not that outstanding, in my humble opinion. As an example of dadaism, I suppose it would fit in quite well, since it seems to reject any semblance of logic or reason, though I would have preferred that it do it in a more visually interesting way.

But to each his own.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK. Well, I guess it was worth my time sitting through this *once* but I won't be watching it again. There are several things about this film that irritated me.

First, man...I really hated the characters. I had the same problem with Sid and Nancy. I have a hard time rationalizing spending a fair chunk of time following characters who I really don't care about, and can't relate to. It's not that the actors or the writing were technically bad; it was that the characters were written in such a way that I just had contempt for them, and as the movie went on, I almost wanted to see the sky fall on them. And this leads me to the second problem, and a question which I think is at the heart of this movie: Was the intent to simply document this generation and these types of bohemians who were (I guess) wandering around Europe in the 60s? Was the intent to criticize and lambaste them? Or was this film some kind of a warning? My final assessment of the film (that is to say, in determining if there was anything salvageable here at all) hinges on this question.

Regardless, these characters are really unlikeable, and as a consequence, it's hard to really give a crap about the plot or what happens to them. If this was some sort of statement on this generation, then the film becomes a little more tolerable. It is clear that Schroeder is not some kind of geriatric establishment square, so the way he proceeds here carries more weight than, say, the countless stupid AIP films set in or concerning the 60s counterculture.

At bare minimum, this film has two things going for it - first, the soundtrack (obviously). I like how Cymbaline is used here and others have mentioned it too, as it takes the forefront in the movie. I am guessing that if you are a Pink Floyd fan and want to see it for that reason, nothing you read here is likely to stop you from watching it anyway (it wouldn't stop me either). The curiosity of hearing Pink Floyd in a movie may be enough to just barely get you through this.

Secondly, there is some nice scenery. Ibiza looks like a nice place to visit. Maybe I'm just sick of looking at Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago in films, but European films which take the time to actually show us Europe (the beautiful or the ugly - mostly beautiful here) are always welcome.

But I really see no particular genius here. No revolutionary camera work, not even a moral, tone, message, sensibility, or plot that has anything new to say. Perhaps what was revolutionary about this was merely that it came from a guy like Schroeder - a film critical of a mindset that at least in part made his movies marketable. To that extent it is an honest film; there's no glorification of the abject excesses of the 60s here, which is perhaps something you might expect. In fact, the portrayal of the characters in this film closely mirrors the (somewhat distorted, in my opinion) modern cultural memory of that generation.

Oh yeah, bunch of (yawn) nudity and sex here; nothing new if you watch these kinds of movies from this time period. I guess it was considered novel or provocative or something at the time. I don't find it offensive or titillating (I doubt you will either); rather it just extends the running time of an already tedious film. In its own way, this particular use of sexuality in movies of the time (especially European ones) has become a bit of a clich\u00e9. But I guess in hindsight you can't blame them; they were just in that decade able to \"get away with it\" and I suppose (I'm guessing here) the very presence of this kind of graphic sexuality was a political or social statement in and of itself (That being that sexuality was a part of life that this generation wasn't going to be all weird about like their parents were).

Should you watch it? If you're a Pink Floyd fan, sure...I guess it's worth a watch. In any case, The Valley is a better film. I went into this movie expecting largely what I got. If you don't normally watch these kinds of arty, avant garde films and don't know what to expect, this is bound to be annoying as hell. This is a normal, healthy reaction :)

If you're not a Pink Floyd fan, I'm not sure why you'd spend your time here. I noticed one fellow who left a comment did enjoy this movie quite a lot, so maybe I'm just missing something. I don't need guys running in slow motion from fireballs, special effects, explosions, or anything like that to enjoy a movie. But I do need some kind of handle - I need to find something to like about a movie, and generally I need to sympathize with some aspect of the characters' plight (barring that some novel film-making will work; camera-work and so forth). Here, there's just nothing to hold on to except for Pink Floyd's magnificence. Which is *just enough* to make this tolerable. At bare minimum, if you're a Pink Floyd fan to begin with, you'll like the bit with Cymbaline, I promise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason anyone remembers this steaming load of fecal matter is because it was scored by Pink Floyd. (Or as they were known then, \"The Pink Floyd\".) Stefan, a really annoying Eurotrash hitchhiker, hooks up with American model Estelle and they proceed to get high and naked throughout the whole movie...

And the point of this is, what exactly? That drugs are bad? Or only heroin (horse) is? The problem becomes that you don't give a crap about the characters, and for that matter, even Pink Floyd wasn't up to their best work. When Steffan overdoses at the end, you are almost glad to be rid of him because he was so annoying.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Great music, but ain't these people PATHETIC?!? A true period piece of The Trippy Sixties, and it left me depressed. The director paints the wrong side of the jetset life and it stings as a hornets nest. If the culture of the time led people to do these things, it appears to me that it was all a journey of no discovery, only despair. I tried, really tried, to like this film, but these people aren't anywhere on my page. Yes, it would be nice to see the world, go away for awhile, but I always plan to come BACK. Drugs aren't the cause of these characters' downfalls, it's their lousy attitudes \u0096 these guys passionately drink their cup of poison. They cheapen their lives, and in the end, cheapen the journey that is life. Has romance ever been so dark?

Cheers: Interesting scenery. Wonderful soundtrack by Pink Floyd.

Caveats: Dated. Drugs. Depressing. Thoroughly unlikable characters; they aren't flower children.

Only for the curious, since most packages swoon The Pink Floyd connection. ( Rare Floyd tracks many will have never heard before, as FM ain't what it was. )

Rating: Two Stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like many other people, I've heard about \"more\" and I wanted to watch it due to the music that was composed by Pink Floyd. I must say that I was truly disappointed, not because of the music but the movie in itself. it's a boring insipid movie that lacks rhythm. Where does this disappointment come from? According to me, from different things. First of all, the movie's subject, the drug links up badly with the idle sunny atmosphere of the movie. This one should have taken place in the sordid areas of Paris and should have gave birth to a dark and helpless climate,for example. Moreover, it's supposed to tell a descent into hell but this descent is softened and barely sketched out. Barbet Schroeder doesn't insist enough on the dramatic side of the story. You could have wished a little more of madness, cutting. On another hand, Schroeder doesn't succeed in gaining the audience's emotion and adherence in front of the two main characters' distress. You watch carelessly their trials with drug. Whereas the two main actors, they're perfectly inexpressive and hardly evolve during the movie, especially Mimsy Farmer. At the end, you only retain the beauty of the mediterraneans landscapes bathed in sunlight. The film created a huge sensation when it was released in 1969. Nowadays, it

seems dated. The hippy culture is nothing less than a faraway memory.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"More\" is yet another addition into the countless pile of 60's druggie, trippy junk. Avoid at all cost. Terrible acting, equally moribund script. The only thing to enjoy is Pink Floyd's wonderful soundtrack, which is too good for stereotypical waste like this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, so she doesn't have caller ID. When you are being stalked, you GET IT! And no cell phone? When you are being stalked, you GET ONE if you are one of the few full time working parents that is the head of the household that doesn't own one already. This mom gets a big ZERO in the parenting department. So her mom is in the hospital and she decides a shopping trip will help her out. Just a stupid movie. Glad I have Tivo and a FF button on the remote.And what is with the 10 line minimum, I just don't have that much to say about such a bad movie. I guess I can ask why she keeps opening packages that she has no clue who they are from. The son really didn't add much to the movie either. The cops were a big ol zero too. Now get to the nearest Verizon and get the darn cell phone. @@","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Warning: This may contain SPOILERS!!

First of all I watch a lot Lifetime movies and realize they are just that....Lifetime movies. Some are great (really), some are good and some are bad. Unfortunately this movie falls into the latter category. It actually started out with some potential....single, divorced hard working mom (who gets out of work at 2:00 AM) cuts a guy off while driving home from work and let's just say he doesn't take it too well. The stalking begins immediately with phone call hang ups and escalates to her home being broken into and completely trashed. So she goes to her mother's for the night and the next morning her mother's car blows up. This seems to be just a pain in the butt for our heroine who deals with it by going underwear and jewelry shopping!!! So the police put her and her son in a local motel for safe keeping and what does Mom do? She goes off to work leaving the kid all alone at night in a strange motel room and tells him to order a PIZZA!!! I couldn't believe it! Then it really gets stupid! And the ending just made me angry because it was so ridiculous and typical. Too bad because it seemed to have possibilities.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad news for anyone wanting to film a full-length parody of a Lifetime Network movie- the makers of A Deadly Encounter have already done it, albeit unintentionally. All of the Lifetime tropes are there- a divorced mother in peril from a deranged stalker, an unreliable ex-husband (who, of course, cheated on her while they were married), and a police department that patronizingly dismisses her complaints, forcing her to Stand Up For Herself. Especially jaw-dropping is the scene where the heroine, after enduring a break-in and the attempted murder of her mother by her seemingly ubiquitous stalker, decides to relieve the stress by going shopping! Having seen first hand the harassment of a co-worker by some creep she met at church, I know stalking is not a joke, but it certainly is in this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have no idea who these others are but this movie is plain awful. They have to prop up Joe Pesci when he is a minor character. Bait and switch movie just like the studios did with Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey, etc. The DVD I watched states \"this obscure gem revolves around JOe Pesci's MOB character who is a hothead that start a war\" etc. etc. Joe plays the part of Joe, he does not even carry a gun, plays a whimpy character and gets SPOILER - (whacked). So much for the movie revolving around Pesci. The only halfway memorable scene was a bad attempt at comedy when they passed gas while waiting for a score. If you watch this movie after reading this, I warned you. Please stop and do not lose 87 minutes of your life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Above all, you must not take this movie seriously. It takes itself seriously, unfortunately, but that can't be helped. This anime ninja flic has to be the crowning achievement in spoiling what could have been an endearing, if unoriginal, story with bad plot twists, ridiculous time-killing cutscenes, and one outrageous guest appearance which will either make you laugh or groan (or both, like me).

While I'm typically a fan of ninja\/samurai anime (Ninja Scroll and Rurouni Kenshin to name a few), this one has to be the exception. For the record, from a technical point of view of its time, this movie was very well animated and constructed. It is just the plot that stunk. The authors of this movie clearly decided (for what rational reason I don't know) that they could somehow make up for the lack of a script if the character halfway around the world in search of a treasure that (he learns) his father fought and died for. In the process, he saves a black slave named Sam, meets a French girl who is living in an Apache village, makes friends with a ninja clan whose members then try to kill him, meets more family members then he knew he had in the weirdest places and circumstances (and whom all subsequently die at some point in the movie).

Even so far, these ludicrous plot twists could be excused, but then come the two \"guest appearances\". #1: After having a ridicuously cliche showdown with two cowboys, Jiro meets a man who introduces himself as \"Mark Twain\". At this point, you're probably saying \"What the ****?!!\" This \"meeting\" serves one purpose: it entirely discredits a movie which tries to add to itself an educated historical background. I found it disappointing that the authors went to all this trouble to research the 1860s US and didn't manage to realize that \"Mark Twain's\" real name was Samuel Clemens. #2: When Jiro finally finds the treasure, it turns out that it used to belong to Captain Kidd. I can hear the groans of disgust now.

Finally, there are the running scenes. These scenes show various characters running, with the landscape moving statically behind them, for several minutes, and there are a lot of them. It is these scenes which make this movie, 2hrs 12 min, to seem to last a week and a half.

If you and your friends are looking for a bad subtitled movie that just asks to be made fun of, this is it. Feel free to poke fun at every possible aspect of it, and have fun. Just don't take it seriously. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can be said about a movie that makes two hours seem like three weeks? The hero starts out in ninjaville, Japan, goes through an identity crisis (saving a shinobi), makes a voyage to America (saving a slave named Sam) engages in a little wild west action (saving a French\/japanese native american named Julie), goes hunting pirate's gold, and then heads back to Japan to fight a war. The film obviously has no clue where it's going at any point in time; I think the director modeled each scene after the last movie he'd watched. If you're going to watch this film, I suggest renting the subtitled so you and your peers can openly discuss how dumb the movie is without speaking over the movie, potentially missing another dumb plot twist.

Movies the director was watching during the making of this movie - An American Tail, Fievel Goes West, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Goonies, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Kung Fu, Vampire Hunter D, The Ten Commandments.

Notes of Interests - Most fear inspiring line of all time. About 90 minutes (or 19 days) into the movie, the lead character has just bested an American villain, and just as one heads to the vcr to end the pain the hero proclaims \"Let's go back to Japan\", and the agony continues for another week.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have been living in Istanbul for 24 years and I (a 39 years of experience would suggest) do know what Istanbul has gone through all those years.

Faith Akin is still quite young (born in 1973) and falling in the great mistake of being ORIENTALIST when looking at Turkey (just as his other movie Gegen Die Wand did) This movie SERIOUSLY LACK contemporary urban Turkish life AND MISLEADS the audience when giving out (quite false) clues as to the geographical and cultural spreading of Istanbul.

Anyone who could speak Turkish could easily attest that many underground bands & groups depicted in the movie (Siyasiyabend for one ) are SO MISERABLE and their members cannot even speak a proper language that they cannot be taken as 'representatives' of the contemporary Turkish music. Much less a piece of crap which many Turkish listeners even do not know about at all.

We Turks have long been accustomed to 'superficious' westerners who look at Turkey with some Orientalist point of view: trying to fit the actual Turkish image into their mind molds.. What is new in this movie is the fact that now a Turkish originated director (Faith Akin) is making the same mistake: Looking at Turkey with some false western glasses and scrambling to depict it as if he understands better. All of a vain effort.

Just ask any Turkish friend of yours: What sort of a musical documentary is this without mentioning the names : Zeki Muren, Baris Manco, Ajda Pekkan, Teoman, Muslum Gurses, Ibrahim Tatlises, Ferdi Ozbegen?.. and many others who have SHAPED so far the real MUSIC we are listening today?

Faith Akin has a long long lesson to learn before babbling away and confusing other people's minds with false images about the contemporary Turkish Music.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are shows and films I've seen and subsequently read reviews of on IMDb.com that I've disagreed with, and been happy to accept that there has just been a difference of opinion.

Reading positive reviews of this filth merely puts me in mind of a sinister conspiracy involving TV network employees being ordered to browse the internet, posting unconvincingly positive reviews for programmes they themselves are responsible for.

How else would one explain a review opining that this show is \"sure to become a phenomenon\" a full year after it's become clear its going to be nothing of the sort?

I won't waste words describing this mess, but suffice to say if you enjoy, wives who emasculate their husbands, husbands who emasculate their sons, children who are disrespectful jackasses towards their parents and absolutely no other threads of behaviour or subtext to legitimise characters that are basically just unfunny one-liner spewing automatons, then watch this show.

I, on the other hand, have some Seinfeld DVDs to get through.

Futurama - Cancelled. TItus - Cancelled. Arrested Development - Cancelled. The War At Home - Renewed.

No justice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched the first episode of \"The War at Home\" because I thought it was worth replacing \"Arrested Development\", boy, was I disappointed. It should be clear to everyone that this show was blatantly ripped-off of \"Grounded for Life\", \"Titus\", and \"Married...with Children\" since they are all similar in plot and overall mood. The so called \"punch lines\" are all repetitious and formulaic, even more, those \"punch lines\" aren't even funny at all, to me, they're more along the lines as being crass and crude. The main character Dave Gold acts like a white trash thug, who thinks he's being funny and cool, which he's not. (Even Hillary (Dave's daughter) said so in the episode \"Gaza Strip\").

In the episode \"Dream Crusher\", Hillary wanted to be a singer {but was actually pretty bad}, Dave and Vicky then gladly decided to crush her dreams by telling her she sucked. After that, she then wanted to be a child psychologist and planned on going to Harvard, after telling Dave and Vicky so and left the room, the two of them began mindlessly mocking her. Also, in the first episode Dave said of Hillary's {black} boyfriend \"Does she actually think we're gonna let her go out with this guy? I'd rather drink my own urine\", that line has to the dumbest line in the history of television. And Dave is constantly making fun of Larry (his son) when he breaks the fourth wall because he thinks he's gay and is a geek. Also, let's not forget that he also made fun of Larry's (fat) girlfriend. Dave is the father he's supposed to stand up for his son no matter what. \"The War at Home\" is without a doubt the worst TV show for family. That clearly explains why the show should be canceled since it spreads a racism and homophobic agenda. It's like the show wants to be funny for always putting in that stupid laugh track every time someone says something, but the lines are all somewhat forced, idiotic and pathetically juvenile.

Another reason why the show's horrible is the acting, Mike Rappaport and Kyle Sullivan are terrible, terrible actors. Rappaport has to always move his hands around when he's in front of the camera, he not only does this on this show but he also did that during his time with \"Boston Public\". Sullivan talks and acts like some kind of robot every time he acts (he also did this in \"Malcolm in the Middle\"}.

So to wrap this whole thing up, you all got your reasons of what's wrong with this show 1.It's unoriginal 2.The acting sucks 3.It's not even funny 4.All the jokes are the same 5.Has lousy script 6.The characters are pitiful and unlikable 7.The dad's a rip-off of Archie Bunker

FOX needs to take this trash off the air, because anything's better than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What Fox's fascination with dysfunctional families, made up of mean, obnoxious, spoiled kids, and parents who are determined to be cool, as opposed to being a parent?? I'm sorry, I don't get it. The one episode that I was barely able to stomach watching involved one of the kids demanding a Bar Mitzvah, with the intention of getting thousands of dollars in gift money. Of course, the idiot mother decides that her precious little junior has to have the biggest and bes-test party of all, and has no problem dropping 20 grand on the big event. The ditzy, brain dead, boy crazy teenage daughter bounces back and forth between wanting to be Jewish and then Catholic, when she see's the \"cute\" religious tutors.

The one borderline \"heartwarming\" moment in the entire episode, was when the putz of a father, who has been convinced the entire time that the Bar Mitzvah is solely a money making scheme, see's the son studying his Hebrew lessons, and is momentarily duped into thinking that perhaps, his conniving offspring is being sincere about the right of passage into manhood. This warm, fuzzy feeling is immediately ripped out of his chest when he informs junior that since he has not yet had a bris, a certain \"procedure\" needs to be performed. The Bar Mitzvah is called off, and the mother is out several thousands of dollars when the kid refuses to comply.

This show is garbage, and I am saddened that I shall never get back the 23 minutes of my life I wasted watching this piece of crap, because nothing else was on TV ...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm one of those gluttons for punishment when it comes to sitcoms these days-I still will check them out every once in a while.My observation is that most of them aren't very funny even the ones on major networks that are getting high ratings ,I just don't get who is finding them gut busting funny. While a few have made me crack a smile ,none of them made me laugh out loud,I usually change the channel after a few minutes. Now on the FOX network they churn out new shows like changing your underwear,for some reason they think they can make a good sitcom,wrong dead wrong. They have beat this dead horse so much it is to the point of hiring just anyone they can find to write a crappy pilot with bad dialog and just churn them out.Let's take a brief look at the latest piece of junk that Fox has churned out called \"The War At Home\"

I watched about 5 minutes of it and that was generous. In this particular episode,the daughter is mouthing off to her parents doing the I'm an adult now rant.The dad gets fed up tells her \"OK fine,go ahead and do whatever you want,If you screw up it's your problem\" to which she replies\"Well I guess your mad but hey at least I didn't get AIDS\"(cue the laugh track,no way that can be a live audience unless they have been paid to applaud such garbage)-I found the crack about not having AIDS to be in such bad taste. Well hey at least I don't have to watch any more of this crap. Take a hint FOX, stop wasting your time with sitcoms.OK well you have the Simpsons but it is now getting really old and tired as well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A stupid show in the vein of the rest of them with terrible music and a laugh track that must be from I Love Lucy. I got rid of TV because of shows like this, but picked up the 1st season at big lots for $3.00. Should bought the Van Damme movie instead.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, who believed that a small group of people are working against real families and keep coming up with this drivel\/propaganda in order to undermine family values I would point to this show, Married With Children, Family Guy etc. but I'm not so I won't.

BTW I'm not Christian, love the Simpsons and Peep show. I watched two episodes and thought that if shows like this are popular, who are they popular with? Then I remembered all those fotos of the people of Walmart that have been circulating around the web and thought ah ha!. It is no wonder our culture is a joke around the world when this is prime time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"WHAT WAS HE THINKING?!?!?! How sad an actor as tremendously talented as Michael Rapaport- who stole our hearts in \"Mighty Aphrodite\" and fascinated us in \"Ill Town\"- has sunk to this pathetic level. The writing on this sitcom is the crust left on the bottom of the barrel after it has been scraped. Shame on all involved. There is a trend: major movie actors that are no longer hot merchandise are turning to TV- often with disastrous results (reference the stinkaroos on CBS and NBC; however, ABC has a hit with \"Boston Legal\"- hip writing and great nostalgic use of Bill Shatner). To waste Michael Rapaport in this \"All In The Family\" rip-off is an insult to viewers and mostly Michael himself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I grew up watching sitcoms such as Seinfeld, Roseanne, Simpsons, etc. etc. in other words mainstream television. Over the years many sitcoms have come on the air and of those a very small percentage are genuinally smart and funny. The War at Home is a prime example of the majority of modern American comedy.

I give the show a 3 out of 10 because it is what it aims to be, a comedy, but it doesn't seem to go out of its way to be a good comedy. A good comedy should have you swept off your feet with its big jokes, you shouldn't be able to see them coming and in TWAH I see just about every joke coming. The characters are probably the most simplistic and horrible stereotypes I have seen yet on screen, and the acting isn't very good save for the father who portrays a stereotypical beer drinking sport loving American idiot perfectly.

Poor acting, unbelievable characters, and jokes that don't catch you off guard detract from this show to a point of where it is unwatchable. If you don't have cable and would like to see a comedy worth watching, try Boston Legal. It is more worth your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show drives me crazy. It goes against everything a family should be, even if it is intended to be a comedy. The show is suppose to follow Dave and Vicky Gold (Michael Rapaport and Anita Barone) as they raise their three teenage children: Hilary, Larry, and Mike. A good premises for a comedy yes but it does not mean it will be a good show.

I don't think I've ever heard cruder talk from parents to children and vice versa. The only talk that seems to be in the show is control of children by the parents and sex. I know that sexual intercourse is usually a subject talked about by teenagers often but it is brought up in nearly every episode with no point to it. The one episode I was just watching involved the parents giving their daughter, Hilary a car, not once do you think they are related in anyway by the way they talk to each other and how the parents talk about how Hilary is like \"their slave.\"

The show fails on the comedy level the most. I haven't laughed at this show once in the numerous times I have attempted to watch it, and I'm a person who gave such films as Animal House and Dumb and Dumber very high marks. Michael Rapaport is a very good actor and why he choose to ruin his career by making this piece of filth show is beyond me.

Parents, make sure your children never and I mean never watch this. Teenagers, you'll probably get a laugh out of this just for the blatant sexual references but nothing comes out of it and afterwards you feel rather empty.

1 1\/2\/ 5 Stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How can stuff like this still be made? Didn't Seinfeld, Arrested Development, The Office etc etc kill this old-fashioned unfunny crap off? Apparently not...

I'm actually quite a fan of Michael Rappaport and have enjoyed his various cameos and supporting roles (Copland , Friends) but in this he sucks but anyone would struggle with this script.

My wife enjoys it. But she's Brazilian. And if you've ever seen a typical Brazilian sit-com you would understand why she would think this so funny.

Just to demonstrate how predictable the show is and to prove a point with her I guessed what the next 3 or 4 plot developments\/lines would be while watching it for a while and was correct almost word for word! I felt very smug. This annoyed my wife as she hates it when I do that (can understand why but I felt good so screw-it!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You've seen the same tired, worn out clich\u00e9d sit-com stories, characters, stories 1000's of times before\u0085only this excels at sucking more than others. First and foremost there isn't a single character in this show that's even remotely likable...in particular Michael Rapaport's. Dave Gold is by far one of the biggest asses ever to grace a television screen ever...repugnant comes to mind. If in real life a father was this unlikable, cruel and just generally unfit to parent...fratricide would be your only option. To call the remaining characters stereotypes, would be too complementary. If these characters ended up on life-support the line to pull the plug would be light years long. How this show finished one complete season, much less 2 is a mystery. FOX cancels \"Arrested Development\" and keeps this on the air??? You tell me the terrorists aren't winning.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How is it in this day and era, people are still dumb enough to think that other dumb stuff is smart? Maybe dumb people like watching stuff that makes them feel smart. Such as 'The War At Home'. 'Cuss it's even dumber than the dumb people who watch it. There are no jokes, only half-jokes and slight gags that barely even warrant a tiny internal smile. The acting is your typical, unsubtle, idiotic, standard sitcom flailing-limbs type acting. And why oh why did this crap replace arrested development? Well you gotta hand it to Fox. They know that they need to have stupid shows to attract all the stupid viewers. You see, the reason Arrested Development wasn't massively popular was because it was so smart. It was so smart that it made dumb people feel bad about being so dumb. And of course, if a dumb person encounters a smart person, the dumb person will hate the smart person. Most of the time anyway. Either that, or try and mooch off of the smart person. If you like this show, and are one of the dumb people, I truly cannot fathom what it must be like not to have open eyes and open minds. I cannot fathom what it must be like to be mindless, laughing drones, influenced by every little thing. Basically, people who laugh with a laugh track are parrots. Trained, obedient, mindless parrots. Maybe I shouldn't insult parrots by comparing them to you. You know who you are. (If I seem like a bastar* in this review, it's because I'm so annoyed at AD being canceled.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I finally managed to sit through a whole episode of this show. I was very, very tired. Clearly. Previously I would always have to turn it off because I thought it was that bad. Watching a full episode convinces me that it really is that bad. I couldn't even tell you what happened but I distinctively remember not laughing. For people who think this is the new All in the Family or Married with Children...have you ever actually WATCHED those shows? They are well written and well acted and most importantly, funny! This show is NOT funny. You might think so if this is the first sitcom you have ever watched. I cannot see who else would. I echo all previous sentiments about Arrested Development, etc... It's probably my own fault for getting frustrated with television and not watching it, thereby allowing the stupid people to dictate what actually stays on the air.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would label this show as horrendous if it weren't for the fact that it's on the same network as Arrested Development. Because it is on FOX and getting renewed while AD got cancelled.

It is absolutely beyond words how atrocious this show actually is. But let me try and describe it. Take an extremely low rate Archie Bunker and have him spout out humor that would have been out of date if it were on Married with Children. Then take great plot lines from AD (son has an ugly, boring girlfriend) and dumb them down so the idiots who watch sitcoms can understand them.

If you watch this, I will have completely lost respect for you, as should your family. However, if you are a fan, you should love FOX's new comedy 'Til Death. Looks like real funny, cutting-edge stuff. I mean, married couples not getting along ... brilliant.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show is just another bad comedy which will probably be cancelled after two seasons. It's not just that the jokes are sexist\/racist\/homophobic, they're also not funny and clich\u00e9d. In the first episode the Father said something along the lines of ' I wish women didn't go out and get jobs and have the same rights as men blah blah blah' That really helps attitudes huh? Then he was making fun of his son saying he was weird. What parent says their kid is weird? So overall this show is boring, unoriginal, offencive, clich\u00e9d and most of all NOT FUNNY. Yeah American Dad's offencive. But it does also make you laugh and is obviously taking the micky. Thats the difference.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The actors & actresses on this series are OK, but the scripts have been absolutely horrible. This family is so dysfunctional that they are not even funny. In fact, the scripts illustrate very often how not to be a parent. The scripts are so bad, they make Homer Simpson look like a better father than this one.

Anyone who is becoming a parent, if you want to see what not to do with your kids, this show is the perfect guide. I think the garbage this show feeds us, is beyond words.

Michael Rapaport has seen much better material in his career (including his role in HITCH). They need a strong lead in & better, much better scripts than what I have seen to this point.

If you think this is generational, my teenager even turned off one show of this because they thought it was horrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is easily the worst, most offensive piece of crap on TV. I'd love to completely ignore it but Fox has stuck it into their Sunday lineup, forcing me to find something else to watch between American Dad and Family Guy. The dink-head male star guy is just about the least evolved, pathetic excuse for a human I have ever seen on TV. Nothing on the show is remotely funny and pretty much everything on it has been done already and much better by other shows.

It's obvious that their strategy is to ram it deep and hard into the Sunday schedule and hope someone starts liking it... but I have to break it to ya, Fox, thats the wrong hole. The scam not worked on me - I simply look elsewhere - but come on, you freaking boneheads, this show freaking SUCKS, and it sucks even worse when compared to the rest of the Fox Sunday lineup.

THEY CANCELLED ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS STEAMING PILE?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cringed when I heard the first canned laugh track in the first few seconds of the show but yet I gave it a chance. You KNOW when someone offers a line which is only slightly amusing and you hear an obviously fake laugh track explode in uproarious laughter that it's a show aimed at morons who need to be told \"yes, it's funny, go ahead and laugh\".

Ugh. I couldn't stand this show as it revealed itself. I can't speak for everyone - after all some people actually like that IDIOTIC show \"Stacked\" (which makes me wish to vomit). I can imagine those who like \"Stacked\" might actually like this drivel, too. Some people still get a kick out of the old \"pull my finger\" gag. To me, this show is just about as witty - and just about as original.

The themes were old and tired. The jokes were lame and hackneyed. The characters were ones we've seen everywhere before - and the worst of any you might imagine.

So... if you like things like burping words and neighbors who say \"pull my finger\"... you might actually like this show. Otherwise... pass it by. It's stupid - and not in a clever or original way. This one is about as old and tired as any show has ever been at its premiere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you haven't seen \"The War at Home\", let me tell you what you've been missing. It's a show about ethnic diversity and sexuality that could have only been edgy and funny in the 60's. Where America has grown in it's acceptance of race, sexual preference, religion, etc... this show seems to argue with that progress. It's a backward step in America's evolution.

For example, one of the ongoing jokes of the show is that the WHITE daughter is dating a BLACK kid from school. This is obviously hilarious seeing as how you can't see that type of relationship at any mall in America. I've lived in both small towns and big cities, so don't give me some type of red state, blue state excuse. Not only is this the joke, but the father, who is supposedly not racist, finds this disturbing and asks his daughter repeatedly to break up with her boyfriend, which opposes his \"he may sound like a racist, but he's just dumb\" character.

If this isn't enough, a second running joke is that one of the sons, and soon to be metro-sexual, is ambiguous in his sexual orientation. The audience learns over and over that he isn't gay, but the father isn't convinced, so he constantly avoids his son, afraid perhaps that his son will hit on him, as all gay men are nymphomaniac wild men, who can't control their will. The father always comes to some acceptance of his son, once per show, but usually goes on avoiding him in the following episode.

The only way this show can cure itself in my eyes is if the continuous exposure to these \"unnatural occurrences in life\", open up the father's eyes a little, but that may be too much to ask - and besides, with jokes like these, I'm sure we'll have hilarity in episodes to come like - Episode 13, \"Father Votes Against Women Voters\", and Episode 14, \"My Muslim Neighbor is a Terrorist\".

Please drop this show, FOX. We're living in a different world from the one your execs grew up in.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Robert Montgomery-Myrna Loy farce about Loy (Irene) and her fianc\u00e9, played by Reginald Owen, stranded in Labrador when their plane crashes. (That's really what should have happened to this highly predictable film.) Montgomery lives there while he is waiting for his fianc\u00e9.

Surprise! Montgomery and Loy are soon attracted to each other. The scene with the bear is so contrived. We knew it was a tamed bear all along.

Complications ensue when Clara shows up. Loy wants Montgomery to tell Clara that they should part ways, when he refuses, she wants to leave at once.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how this will end. Out with all that snow, it's just too cold for anyone!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a piece of celluloid CRAP. You can tell when you are watching a \"wanna be\" mafia film....and this is it. This made NO SENSE at all, didnt start at the beginning of his life, charactors were all over the place...and the TERM \"GODFATHER\" didnt even EXIST until PUZO wrote the book!.....THEN, the real mafia, borrowed the PHRASE and made it their own AFTER the movie.....THIS piece of claptrap would have one thinking that the phrase (representing the mafia don) was used back in the 20's...when these people were only called \"DON\"....outside of the original Godfather movie, if you want to see another decent mob flick, check out Puzo's The Last Don (part 1) part 2 sucked.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The hero John Keem is going after some drug dealers who kidnaps girls for some reason. On his journey he uses karate and kung fu moves and I don't believe he got hit a single time during the movie. This is Crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The acting was bad, and the plot, well i don't think there was one.

Some fat blonde chap who is always dressed in a dinner suit, kidnaps a sort from a nightclub, i think he then kills a copper. pointless fights then happen Kidnapped girl is put in cage on a boat, why? Tough uncompromising martial arts trained cop turns up, speaks bad english and does stuff that does not make sense. Its utter tripe. But he does have a nice car. christ on a bike, this film was a waste of 90 minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1 Bolo Yeung is in the movie ten minutes altogether including when he's serving iced drinks to his boss. 2 a lot of street thugs looking like junkyard keepers get instantly overpowered by the Asian superhero who talks like an illegal alien just out of the back of a manure truck. 3 (thug) let this to me -shirt off, gay model like muscles- heee-haaw! hee-heeew! hap hap! - he's dead on the floor with his neck, elbow, chin or balls broken - 4 cheap semi-sex scenes where the white broad come out of nowhere digs the Asian superhero. 5 Norton (former C action movies star ) does nothing but pose as an eccentric trendy weapon smuggler who traffics white slutty girls hand picked at a night club where they willingly follow some idiot posing as a millionaire snapping at them ( you reap what you sow ) 6 yes, the local police captain is involved and yes, the first butchered cop is the former patrol teammate of the super-hero ( yaawn! ). 7 Action scenes are fake, like A) hee-haw! Chinese tries some spinning kick B) skinny leg of Chinese to the throat of negro thug C) finishing death move to his head too much like Walker Texas ranger fake action 8 end titles finally

utter rubbish. Those people are good enough only to be stand ins or body doubles in other C movies and be credited AT MOST collectively as \"stunt crew provided by the county prison \".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While I agree that this was the most horrendous movie ever made, I am proud to say I own a copy simply because myself and a bunch of my friends were extras (mostly in the dance club scenes, but a few others as well. This movie had potential with Bolo and the director of Enter the Dragon signed on, but as someone who was on set most every day I can tell you that Robert Clouse was an old and confused individual, at least during the making of this movie. It was a wonder he could find his way to the set everyday. I would also like to think that this might have been a better movie if a lot of it had not been destroyed in a fire at Morning Calm studios. I can't say that it would have been for sure, but it would be nice to think so. I was actually surprised that it was ever released, and that someone like Bolo would attach his name to it without a fight. Oh well. Also look at the extras for pro wrestler Scott Levy, AKA Raven. He was a wrestler in Portland at the time...nice guy, very smart.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this on sale - NEW - at my local store for $6 and said \"hey! an action film with that guy from Bloodsport and Enter the Dragon, directed by the guy who did Enter the Dragon - and it's cheap!\" So I bought it. Oops! This is possibly the worst film I've ever seen, and I've seen some doozies.

You know how movies which are intentionally campy, like Evil Dead II and Dead-Alive, are AWESOME? You know how movies that are supposed to be serious but turned out so awful that you have to laugh out loud, and watch them again, like Lionheart (an old Van Damme film) or John Carpenter's Vampires, are pretty cool? This film, Ironheart, manages to be NEITHER of those. I don't know what the filmmakers were thinking, but it looks as if this movie was made with no time to shoot, no budget for anything, and no script to speak of. (While I'm on the script note, I should point out that Bolo Yeung has NO LINES in this movie - the only reason he gets first billing on the box is the fact that he's the only actor in the film that you'll ever recognize (unless you're a Jackie Chan fan, in which case you'll recognize the bad guy - and you'll want to call him Giancarlo!).)

What's also sad is that this film is from '92. By that time, T2: Judgment day had come out, so you know that the era of 80s campiness was over... but not quite. After this, you'll think 80s Chuck Norris films, high-school comedies, and Jason\/Freddy sequels were works of sheer genius.

Things to know:

1) Nobody in this film can act for beans. The closest you get is Richard Norton looking appropriately rich and cocky, and Bolo Yeung looking appropriately mean ... and cocky. Everything else is dreadful.

2) The martial arts scenes are forgettable - just many instances of white guys with lots of muscles taking off their shirts, yelling, running at Britton Lee, getting kicked by Britton Lee, getting punched by Britton Lee, then falling down. Even the final showdown against Bolo is disappointingly short, and about as creative as the design of my running socks (and equally stinky).

3) The rest of the action is pathetic, too: the guns look like they came from the toy department at K-Mart, and indeed they fire with the sound of a capgun. When someone gets shot, they bounce around a little bit, then lie still with splotches of brownish-red liquid on their clothes. Britton Lee apparently gets shot in the side, but you don't see it at all, then later that day you see the wound ... I've had paper cuts that were worse than that!

4) Of course then the girl dresses the wound, then they kiss, then next thing you know they're lying in bed talking after sex. Huh? What? Believable development of the love interest, as well as any kind of character development at all, are overlooked completely in this film. Remember how Bruce Lee's characters didn't need to have sex with anybody to be cool?

5) The car chase is by far the worst I've ever seen. It looks like the director was sitting on the curb with a hand-held camera as the two cars weaved down the road doing, oh I don't know, about 30 miles an hour? Don't try this at home, kids, these people are professionals! Hah!

6) Really bad writing. Here's a scene for you: Lee is being followed, so the girl follows the followers to \"warn\" Lee, but her car is too slow. So by the time she catches up, Lee and the bad guys are out of their cars and there's a gunfight in progress. Lee has killed two bad guys, but the third is shooting at Lee when the girl almost runs Lee over, so the bad guy runs away. (Huh?) Then the girl's car stalls and she can't start it. She tells Lee she's involved now and she's coming with him. He points out to her that they can't leave her car there because the bad guys will trace it to her. She somehow convinces him that he should decide how to deal with this problem - so he shoots the gas tank and blows up her car. (And remember, later that same night they have sex.) Huh?!?

7) If you look closely, in more than half of the nightclub shots, the dancers are very much out of sync with the music. The dancers are also all way too co-ordinated with each other (apparently in the '80s all people at dance clubs took dancing lessons). There is a girl in the DJ booth with a microphone, but she never does anything except dance. The bouncers tell people who are fighting to \"take it outside\" - without moving their lips. In one scene, the only bouncers Lee and Stevo pass by are just inside the entrance, but with their backs to it! Also, apparently, if you're a major character in the film, you can go straight to the head of the line.

8) Lee notices the first time he is being followed, but he doesn't notice the second time - even though it's the same guy in the same car. The girl, however, notices. Bad guys get followed twice, but they never notice.

9) Lee is worried the bad guys will trace the girl's car back to her, even though they have already seen him show up where she works twice. The girl proceeds to leave her child at work, in the care of a friend, while she is off having sex with Lee. DO NOT learn parenting from this film!

Can't think of more gripes right now ... you get the idea ... Ironheart is so bad, it ain't even funny, it's SAD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Me and a couple of friends went to rent some movies one day, we picked one each and one of us picked Ironheart. Lets just say that from now on, we never let him pick a movie. This movie sucks","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My brother plays \"Moose\" in this film. Although most of his scenes were left on the cutting room floor. The funniest line is the movie is \"nothing wong with stat.\" So anyway, this is filmed in Portland, OR, where we grew up. The dance club is\/was called \"Up Front FX\". What I loved about this movie is that the main character (who is not named on the box because Bolo brings more clout) is supposed to be a police detective...a great opportunity to drive around in a red convertible Porsche. I need to get a copy of this, preferably the director's cut, so I can see all the scenes my brother is in. The only scene he is in is the beginning when they are in the dance club. He got the spot because he was dating this cheerleader from a semi-pro football team called The Oregon Thunderbolts. It is interesting because his name comes up as the first entry in IMDb. Fame has him, fortune, not so much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This really is the worst movie I have ever seen. For a while, I made a habit of watching lousy movies, including \"Battlefield Earth\", \"Delta Force Commando\" and \"Starship\". All of these movies are cinematic gems compared to Ironheart.

There isn't much point in summarizing this piece of junk; I think it's more beneficial to summarize my reaction to the movie, which is as follows: I become furiously angry and I want to rip the tape out of the VCR and burn it after (roughly) 80 minutes of play.

I rate this movie a 0, but IMDb does not let one rate a movie less than 1. I give it a 0 knowing full well that I am saying any movie that has any score above 0 is infinitely (undefinably) many times better than this one - That's really how bad it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has one of the worst lead characters ever. I say this because he is made out to be the hero when, in my opinion, everything he does in the whole movie screws up people's lives and causes problems. He can do nothing right, yet the movie makes him seem like the cool dude everyone should be looking up to. He has temper tantrums at all the wrong times, he has all the wrong stances on things that end up making people mad at him and getting people killed, he is too nosy, too pushy, too macho, too assuming, makes all the wrong decisions and has no common sense.

It's about a private detective hired by a successful painter to find the woman and son that he walked out on years ago. The detective finds the woman and what he thinks to be her son. However, all kinds of things happen to make this story full of crime, drama and twists. It's made for TV, what do you expect?

Anyhow, the movie is fairly entertaining. Johnny Depp is very young in this one and has an awful 80's haircut. He chews gum and tosses a soccer ball around for about 5 minutes and that is all we get to see of him.

For some reason, the out of print VHS version of this sells for $40 in online auctions. It must be for Johnny Depp collectors only. It couldn't be because of the plot. It couldn't be.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe, like most others who have seen this film long after it's premiere on television, I wanted to see many of my favorite actors in old and obscure form, which is exactly what 'Slow Burn' is. Except, aside from the nostalgic value, the movie itself is not very good.

Eric Roberts plays former reporter Jacob Ash, hired by a Gerald McMurty (Raymond J. Barry), a rich artist, to investigate the whereabouts of his estranged son, Brian, who had been living with his mother, Laine (Beverly D'Angelo) for the past few years. In a Phillip Marlowe-esquire fashion Jacob Ash narrates what would become more than just an investigation into the whereabouts of Brian. But, once Jacob tracks down Laine, his discoveries break open wide a whole lot of trouble. Perhaps because events in the film move too slowly, there is never much suspense to this little thriller, not even by the end with the finale routine of revealing the culprits and their motives.

However, as said before, this movie is probably one that will draw attention for it's then-relatively unknown cast of actors, which include both a very young Eric Roberts as well as the adorable Johnny Depp, who plays Laine's stepson, Donnie. That may be reason enough to give it a try...if you can find it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Every time I watch this movie blood comes gushing out of my eyes. Yes, you read that correctly: I've watched this wretched, foul thing more than once.

Caddyshack 2 went wrong for so many reasons: Harold Ramis dialing in a script and abandoning the direction duties, Rodney Dangerfield (wisely) walking away from the project because they wouldn't allow him to tinker with the script, Bill Murray showing excellent judgement and not being part of it, and a puppet being pushed forward as the feature player of a cast who deserved much better.

I can't help but think of Dyan Cannon in this and wonder why she's perpetually laughing and smiling. The only conclusion I can draw is that she is indeed the face of pure evil. Stay with me a moment. She must have been watching as the film came together and revelled in the untold agony that it would inflict on countless soon to be extremely sorry movie goers who would have this film inflicted on them. She may also have been extremely drunk. That's what I need to be right now to wash the foul taste of this complete and utter failure out of my mind. If I'm lucky it'll be washed out forever.

I have seen this film several times. I blame several of them on childhood and being a very dull and dim-witted boy who apparently had no aesthetic sensibility. Perhaps puppets are just funnier when you're a kid. No, the Muppet show is funnier now ... guess I was just dull. Caddyshack 2 is that rare kind of film that is so extraordinarily disappointing on so many levels that you convince yourself after the end credits that it couldn't have been as bad as all that. It WAS. It IS. It will only get worse with time.

My reasons for going back to this film, mercifully, are becoming fewer. Randy Quaid is limited in his role as Jackie Mason's lawyer. His opening scene isn't bad and brought out my only chuckle. We see him a few more times but it becomes as tired as the rest of the movie and descends with unfortunate rapidity from incidentally amusing to vapid wasteland. Randy Quaid acquits himself well, and this film owes him big time because if there was reason to watch this film as anything other than a torture tactic, he was it.

Maybe that's the trick of the movie. It has enough potentially endearing qualities that people watch it, are horrified at what they've done to themselves but later because the pickings were so slim can remember only what did actually amuse them. Years later they unwittingly watch it again and the cycle repeats.

Jackie Mason takes a lot of the blame for this film but in fairness, I'm not sure he deserves it. He's really trying out there but it is impossible to not to notice that he spends the entire movie doing a Rodney Dangerfield impersonation. That's who the movie was written for but I'm not sure even he could have saved it. Ultimately this fails miserably through terrible direction, bad editing (shall we count continuity errors?) and a rehashing of the same story with none of the wry humour or heart that made the first film endearing.

Dragged kicking and screaming up to a three out of ten instead of two by Randy Quaid's bulldog determination. It isn't even bad enough to laugh at. I've definitely seen worse, but trust your memory -- this one is a dog. If you've never seen it you've made excellent life choices and I salute your excellent judgement.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw \"Caddyshack II\" when I was ten and I mostly laughed because of the horse scene. I should have realized that the movie was as empty as...I can't come up with a good comparison. It's stupid and not even really funny. The cast members from the original who chose not to star in this made probably the best choices that they ever made in rejecting this; why, oh why, did Chevy Chase return?! And how on earth did Jackie Mason, Robert Stack, Dyan Cannon and Dan Aykroyd get involved in this swill?! I bet that every person who had his\/her name even remotely attached to this junk (e.g., the caterer) is ashamed beyond redemption. So, all in all, it's beyond dreadful, terrible, and everything such. Avoid it like you would the Ebola virus.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Caddyshack II is NOTHING compared to the original Caddyshack. But, there are legitimate reasons for it. (1) Rodney Dangerfield was supposed to be the ace of this film BUT he didn't like the script, wanted to change it, his request was denied, so he didn't do the film. (2) It was low budget, Bill Murray had grown to superstar status. Ted Knight passed away in 1986, and Chevy Chase the \"so called ace\" of the first movie (although it was Rodney all the way)couldn't't be on more than 5 minutes, because it would cost too much to pay him. BUT you had Dan Aykroyd, Robert Stack, Randy Quaid and Jackie Mason, all serviceable substitutes, who none had their best performances.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first viewed this movie, I didn't know the title of it. I realized it had Chevy Chase in it with the same name he had in Caddyshack so I had an idea this was Caddyshack 2. At the end of the movie when I did find out it was Caddyshack 2 I was disappointed. They could have done better. Dan Akroyd I thought was bad. The whole story was bad. Call this movie by another title, but don't call it Caddyshack 2. You give that great movie a bad name. Jackie Mason's daughter when I first saw her looked like his wife. How old is this girl? Geez. How about making this movie a little believable. I thought Chevy Chase was good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Caddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up. Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield. Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original. Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original (Henry Wilcoxon for example) except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid. Every line he says reminds me of the originals humor, especially the scene at his office (I don't go in for law suits or motions. I find out where you live and come to your house and beat down your door with a f***ing baseball bat, make a bonfire with the chippindale,maybe roast that golden retriever (arff arff arff) then eat it. And then I'm comin' upstairs junior, and I'm grabbing you by your brooks brothers pjs, and cramming your brand new BMW up your tight a**! Do we have an understanding?). Offsetting his small role however, is Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray. His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid. Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so God-awful that it was literally a chore to watch. I wanted to eject it from my vcr and throw it across the room, but kept thinking (foolishly) that it would eventually get funny and then everything would be all right. \"You lose, we win, yay!\" This movie should be required viewing for anyone who even once entertained the thought that Jackie Mason was funny. After that, beat them ove the head with this movie until the tape cracks. And if you're even considering renting this turd (or worse yet, have!) I have one thing to ask of you: didn't you even look at the cover? I mean, with crap like this you can tell with just a glance how bad it is! \"Oy vey!\" This movie sucked.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why was this movie ever made?They have tarnished the original Caddyshack with this crap.I was only able to watch half of it and i didn't laugh once.At least i didn't pay to see it because it was on t.v. but i won't get back that hour of my life that i spent watching this dreadful mess.There wasn't one original star from the first except for Chevy Chase and he probably regrets doing this film.Jackie Mason was supposed to be the outrageous,funny buffoon like Rodney Dangerfield was in the first but Jackie Mason wasn't funny at all.Jackie Mason is no Rodney Dangerfield.If you want laugh,watch the first Caddyshack.If you like terrible movie's,then this you're movie.This movie stinks like a barnyard in july.Avoid at all cost.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why is this one no good when the first one rocked? Try the fact that they attempted to replace Rodney Dangerfield with Jackie Mason! Please! That's like replacing the Beatles with Wierd Al. Randy Quaid is the only one that saves this movie from a zero.

However, don't let this stop you from watching the first movie which was outstanding.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"caddyshack II does NO justice for the caddysack. thin plot, thin actors(exception of randy quaid). the ONLY thing that is decent with this movie is the soundtrack..maybe. this movie should have been destroyed when the script was written.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

It sucked.

I returned the video after watching half of it. Not funny,

just a cheap and desperate attempt to cash in on a very very funny original. junk, forget it, don't waste your time etc etc","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watch this movie .....only to truly appreciate how good the original is. I'm not real hard to please, but this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

It hurt me deeply, because I like Chevy Chase, Jackie Mason, and Dyan Cannon. The writing was just terrible! I thought Chevy would have at least ad libbed some better stuff than he did. There was hardly anything to laugh at in this movie. I went into it wanting to enjoy it. I wanted to laugh but nearly cried.

In the beginning credits it read Special Appearance by Chevy Chase. This worried me from the start. Chevy is actually in more than I thought he would be. It's more than a \"special appearance\". Too bad the appearance wasn't special. Mason's character would have been a good secondary character but got old as a main. I would rather have seen more (much more)of Dyan Cannon. At least her character was fun, if not well written. I also missed the gratuatis teen sex scene. Mr. Gopher went from being cute and innocent to a pesky rodent that deserved to be blown up. Jonathan Silverman is the only character that interested me and we didn't see enough of him.

I take it back. Try..to watch half of this movie, then...remember the Alamo, the Maine, and CaddyShack I.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After watching Caddyshack 1 I'd heard there was a sequel and decided to look it up. The movie seemed pretty bad and I told myself to stay away but stupid me gave in and actually bought the damn thing! All the reviews and everything bad you've heard about Caddyshack II are true. The movie is simply worn of ideas and the lamest plot and jokes I've ever heard, the gopher, the acting the whole movie really is bad (Randy Quaid was funny though).

Just stay away from this movie as much as you can is all I can really say. I deeply regret watching and buying the DVD but not sure which was the worser decision. Just stay away as much as possible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Caddyshack II is one of those pictures which makes you ask 'Why?' As in; 'Why was it funded?': 'Why was it made?' and 'Why was it released into the public domain?'.

To say the least it's a bad film. It serves little purpose but to underline how superior its prequel was by setting an almost identical set of characters against each other in a similar storyline as a 'New money' land developer attempts to buy out the establishment's golf course sanctuary.

Right off the bat making the follow-up a whole 8 years after the original is somewhat bizarre. I mean if your going to cash in on highly successful picture such as the first one then you have a window of a few years to do so. But leaving it 8 years means that the formula is hardly fresh enough to simply do a follow up, or poor imitation as this is, so your sort of obliged to reward fans of the original by giving them at least reference to if not indeed actual contributions by the actors who made the first one so memorable. But there's little if any of this.

Instead we get cheap imitations. Okay the passing of Ted Knight in the interim years would have made it impossible to bring back the memorable Judge Smails but Robert Stack's inclusion as 'Chandler Young' (a fellow WASP elitist akin to the Smails character) is unimaginative and seriously lacking in the sort of anarchic frustration that made Knight's turn so watchable. Jackie Mason's 'Jack Hartounian' is a feeble attempt at recreating the non stop wisecracks delivered by the Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield) character of the first. While Dangerfield's role was endlessly quotable Mason's is completely forgettable.

Bill Murray's laughably ridiculous groundskeeper 'Carl Spackler' and his war of attrition with the pesky local gofer is substituted for his Ghostbuster's co-star Dan Ackroyd's role as the militant 'Capt. Tom Everett' who's high pitched voice just splits your sides with frustration as opposed to the intended laughter.

Randy Quaid , brilliant as Cousin Ed in the National Lampoon's Vacation series, is quite the opposite here playing Hartounian's unstable lawyer. The looks of disbelief shown by the actor's looking on at Quaid's character's intended to be hilarious acts of inappropriate violence echo that of the audience. Your not laughing. Your just asking 'What the hell is he doing?'

Chevy Chase shows up, all be it occasionally and wisely rather fleetingly considering the disaster that's perpetrating itself around him,as club pro 'Tye Webb' in the films only direct reference to the original not withstanding the golf course itself that is. With his deeply tanned skin and loud Hawaiian shirts Chase looks like he's just got back from a lengthy summer vacation and needs a paycheck. He distances himself from the events in the actual picture enough that he takes little of the blame and leaves with some, all be it little, credibility still intact.

Jessica Lundy as Mason's daughter 'Kate' takes over from the 'Danny Noonan' role of the original as teenager struggling against class divides. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? At least in the first Danny (an Irish Catholic from a blue collar family) and his laughable attempts to make inroads into the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant dominated world of the golf club mover and shakers was played out to some memorable set pieces such as being dismissed by the resident Lutheran Bishop as well as being mocked by the offspring of the local yacht club. Lundy's embarrassment of her father's inability to fit-in is hinted at being because of his Jewish roots. That aside it may also have to do with him being a classless moron but such intricacy's are swept aside though I stopped caring long before they were resolved. At the end of the day Noonan was trying to get ahead in life. Miss Hartounian's biggest problem is getting the hob nobbers at the local golf club to like her multi-millionaire father so that she can get a date with the club's prodigal white kid. Or so I gathered.

Anyway in summation its poorly written, badly scripted with lame set pieces and wastes a lot of talent. Indeed kudos if you were able to sit through it to it's conclusion. It really is a penance. There is that question mark though of why did so many of the original actors not return as opposed to being replaced by performers who on paper at least looked their equals. Maybe they just weren't asked. Or perhaps I suspect they actually read the script. Stick to the original!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have vague memories of this movie being funny.

Having seen it again either I have changed or I was thinking about a another film altogether.

It seems as if we are supposed to be sympathetic to Jackie Mason's character however nothing in the movie actually engenders that emotion. Its notable that he is really the only person accorded tender dialogue with loved ones. No-one else's character is allowed to rise to the status of even vaguely human.

I don't even like golf but as the film went on I found myself really rooting for Robart Stack and the club guys, really hoping they would repel Mason and Chevy Chase.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When a hardworking entrepreneur is rejected from a prestigious country club, he starts a battle between the members and eventually buys it from Ty Webb(Chevy Chase) and turns it into a theme park\/golf course in which everyone can join.

This is by no means a good movie, but it is still slightly amusing at times. Almost all of the comedy is cheap slapstick and bad jokes except for Chevy Chase. Chevy Chase plays one of his greatest roles as Ty Webb for a second time and plays it great. He is not only the funniest character in the movie, he is the only funny character in the movie. Even Dan Akroyd fails to bring humor to this film which aspires to be a great sequel to a classic comedy but falls to rubble with others shown on Comedy Central. The movie might have been better if Ty Webb(Chase) had a larger role but instead he was reduced to a minor character and the star became Jackie Mason(Who??) They should have brought back all of the cast and made a sequel the right way! This is a perfect example of what not to do when making a sequel to an already great movie. Overall, Caddyshack II is humorous but a large mistake.

I do not recommend this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie sucks. It's horrible. If anyone liked it, those people should get there heads examined. Jackie Mason's character sounds like a retard. That guy who tries to kill the gopher is a loser and he sucked. Even though Chevy Chase was in this movie, he wasn't funny. This movie had crude and unfunny jokes and did not have Rodney Dangerfield, Ted Knight, and Bill Murray. Even though Jackie Mason's character had the personality of Rodney Dangerfield's character, Mason's character sucks. Rodney Dangerfield was funny! He should have returned! I don't care about Ted Knight, but Bill Murray should have returned, also. The original Caddyshack was Murray's career performance. If he was funny in the first, he could have been funny in the second.

Final comment: I recommend this movie to... NO ONE!!!!!!!! THIS MOVIE SUCKED!!!! IT HAS SUCKED, IT SUCKS NOW, AND IT WILL ALWAYS SUCK!!!!!!!

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is quite possibly the worst sequel ever made. The script is unfunny and the acting stinks. The exact opposite of the original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Have you heard the theory of cloning redundancy, where a copy is poorer than the original? Caddyshack 2 is a perfect example of that. They try to duplicate everything from the first movie. Now, in a few cases this work. Robert Stack is actually a little better than Ted Knight, when they play essentially the same character. I actually like Randy Quaid, who is no more or less offensive than Bill Murray in the original. But Jackie Mason is no Rodney Dangerfield, and worse of all, C2 demonstrated once and for all that Dan Ackroyd is one of the worst comedy actors of all time. There is very little that I like him in, and C2 nailed the coffin shut on his \"comedic\" career as far as I'm concerned. He seems to feel the same, sticking more to tuffy like Driving Miss Daisy and hosting Psi-Factor. Other than that, it's mostly, \"been there, done that\" for Caddyshack 2. Watch the original twice rather than each version once, and you'll get more for your rental money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film should never have been made! It stinks, it's awful, it's no good, it's bad, it's terrible. Starting to see a pattern here? Jackie Mason is certainly no Rodney Dangerfield. Gone were Ted Knight and Bill Murray, who, along with Dangerfield, were essential to the first film. It seems that the three of them (the stars) all knew a stinker of a script when they saw one. The one who didn't have the good sense to bow out of this was Chevy Chase, who stuck around but was extraneous to both films in my opinion. This film is quite simply NOT FUNNY. Nor does it have any other endearing qualities. This thing relies heavily on anti-Semitism to work and it works to it's detriment. I hated this thing. A waste of everybody's time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually give sequels the benefit of the doubt and go easy on them. But this\u0085is very poor. The exact same as what happened in the first film happens here again. The exact same. Only they wanted younger kids to be able see it (this accounts for the repeated presence of Bugs Bunny but why they threw in one 'f*ck' is beyond me).

They didn't even bother to change Jackie Mason's character from Dangerfield's. Let me explain, in CADDYSHACK Rodney Dangerfield played a boorish Real Estate owner who enrages the uptight members of Bushwood country club. In this movie Jackie Mason plays a boorish Real Estate owner who enrages the uptight members of Bushwood country club. A big effort they made to change the content of the script huh? No, I don't think so. A very unfunny Dan Aykroyd shamefully copies Bill Murray's character. He even goes after the gopher (now more like a Gremlin) in much the same fashion as Murray did.

There is not a laugh to be had. A sample of the 'comedy' in this film: Jackie Mason is getting ready for a hot date with Dyan Cannon. He is in the bathroom is his robe. He moves to the door to get dressed in his bedroom when\u0085the door handle breaks off. Wow!?! That's the best they can do. Eight years to think of a completely new sequel and that's all we get!?! I could have pulled a better script out of my ass.

See it only if you're a die-hard fan of the original. It's the only way you'll find any kind of laughs in it. Everyone else steer clear.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie beats everything out there. Well, depends on what you are looking for... it could be a 10 or a 1 on the scale. This movie is in a complete league of its own.. I don't think any movie could possibly come close to it. I am not sure what the director intended to make it as.. a thriller or a comedy. If he did think he was making a thriller, then he has by a stroke of luck, created one of the best bollywood comedies of all time. You have to see it to believe it.. a matrix + terminator + a host of other movies rolled into one, along with a storyline dating back to 1980's Hindi movies, with a icchadhari naag (a mythical snake which can turn into a human).

Its an ideal movie if you are sitting with a bunch of friends with alcohol on the side, planning to laugh at the movie! I am not sure whether to give it a 1 or a 10.. On the basis of flipping a coin, I have decided to give it a 1!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie made me laugh so much. It was a bloody joke to tell you the truth. So unbelievable and the worst plot ever. The acting as well was bad. I don't how come so many popular Bollywood actors and actresses took on to do this movie. The script must have been somewhat of a joke. The visual effects in this movie was excrutiatingly painful to watch. I believe that a kindergarten kid could have done a better job of the visual effect and a monkey could have done a better job of coming up with a plot.

The plot has numerous attempts at copying major Hollywood movies like The Terminator but it fails miserably. I laughed my head off seeing this movie. A total disaster in Indian cinema history!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, I would give this a 1, but I'm gonna give it a two because I laughed while watching this film...First of all, I can make a much better movie than this one...in a week...The special effects made this film look like a joke. One shouldn't make such films with horrible special effects because then people won't take it seriously. The acting and direction was also horrible. The screenplay had many plot holes and the whole film wasn't believable at all. This has to be the worst Indian film ever. The songs were also bad. The acting was bad and artificial. Need I say more. Don't watch this movie unless you are curious to see how bad it is. That's why I watched it. I am going into film and I wanted to see how bad a bad film can get. Trust me, I watched one of the worst films in history if not THE worst film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An insane assault on viewers senses. This is a mish-mash of assorted Hindi and English movies - poorly done. The name carries over from a 70s' multi star cast, which the 2002 version also boasts of. The story is taken from the 70s' Sunil Dutt\/Reena Roy starrer - \"Nagin\" and visual effects taken (a horrible attempt) from The Matrix, Terminator 2 and Mission Impossible II.

Set in a college environment (Sunil Shetty, Akshaye Kumar, Manisha - college kids!!!???!!), Manisha Koirala is the victim, who mistakes a fatal assault on her by two students as a collective effort on the part of our heros. As it turns out Manisha is a Cobra (Nag) snake reborn as a girl in this life and her mate from the previous life, now a super powerful-all-and-any-shape-assuming (Ichadhari Nag) - Munish Kohli, is out looking for her in this life. Manisha appeals to him to avenge her violation and murder.

So begins the mad killing spree, where the avenging lover starts singling each male of the group, with increasing powers and tricks with successive attempts. The effects are extremely cheap, with computer generated skeletons, morphing bodies and motorcycle stunts completing the farce.

Carry over from Nagin includes Raj Babbar playing a catholic priest who provides temporary relief to our boys with a more \"Religiously correct\" multi-religion locket (the original Nagin only had an \"Om\") . Sunny Deol plays Manisha's love interest in her current life and the ultimate saviour against the all powerful Munish Kohli.

Music and songs are below average.

Avoid if you don't fancy cheap thrills.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"hi, This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The day when I watched this movie, I was having high fever. But still I watched the movie with lots of patience. And after watching the movie, I felt like repenting. Because, I wasted 3 hrs for this stupid movie. I could have taken rest rather then watching this movie. And I was really surprised that how come actors like Sunny Deol, Akshay Kumar Aftab etc acted in this movie.

I don't understand if directors don't find a good story to make a film then why do they remain as directors? Why can't they sit at home and spent their time at home?

I request to all directors that it will be good for them if they request audiences, either by mail or by media, newspapers, radios etc... to send them a nice story if they don't find any good story for to make a film . I request again to all directors please don't make such films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you have seen this movie, then you will know that it is one of the worst Bollywood movies ever made. Bollywood is known to copy Hollywood movies. Who would of known that they will copy Terminator 2. The difference between both Film industries are Hollywood spends millions and Bollywood spends 100 thousands (Average). Thats the problem with this film, if you want to make a T2 style movie, then do it properly. The director added a bogus fantasy storyline about a reincarnated snake who finds his long lost girl (in the previous birth) dead by 2 guys, but the blame goes to 10 people. She suddenly reincarnates into a ghost and together they want to kill the 10 people they blame for her death. Not to mention, the Reincarnated snake guy or villain has some kind of super powers. He can transform into anything, he can fly, disappear, fire power, wind power, you name it, he has it. He even gets bazookered and survives the T1000 style. You are probably wondering how he survives. its best not to ask, and its best not to waste time and money on this movie. Its Best just to forget this film even came out. I think its a shame to use a big starcast for this outrageous movie with a nonsense storyline.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am ashamed to admit in public that I even held the cover of this movie once! This is an absolute reason why one should research on the movie before seeing it! The 'makers' of this movie have called us all fools and gullible losers with too much time on our hands.

Based on the mythical Indian shape-shifting powerful cobras and rebirth, the story takes us for a painful ride. College going 40+ actors (now really?) are the target of their former friend Manisha Koirala (who was in her former life a cobra, but is now a ghost!) and her pathetic, eternal, powerful boyfriend cobra\/killing machine boyfriend Munish Kohli (who thankfully hasn't been seen since). Now do you need to know more?

I vote for studying for the upcoming test in school rather than this movie! Give it a pass if you are sane. If not... then you'll probably enjoy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Friday the 13th meets the Matrix. As with all of these stupid horror movies, everyone knows who has been killed and who will be killed next, but do nothing to prevent anything, all with the added CGI action effects from the Matrix. Hasn't the world seen enough Matrix reproductions?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh If any day u wanna see a supernatural thriller turning out to be a comedy watch this movie

This film was a shocker as it had so many actors in it but what they do and how they fit in?

The handling of the college scenes is like a school play where each person comes talk and then the next person comes infront

Okay reasons to laugh at the film: 1) Akshay, Suneil, Aditya Panscholi, Sharad Kapoor, Arshad Warsi as college students 2)Akshay carries a gun in college 3) some pathetic stunts and SFX

there are several more flaws like why doesn't the snake save his lover from being raped and comes in so late? also why he doesn't kill all of them together there only?

But afterall they have to make a 2 hrs + film so hence you have a tortorius movie

The movie is painful to watch The film was directed by Rajkumar Kohli who was an expert making such films in the past and had a successful record of films like JAANI DUSHMAN(1979) and NAGIN Rajkumar Kohli wants to help his son's non existent career Right from VIRODHI(1992),Aulad Ke Dushman (1993) and QAHAR(1996) all flops he tried hard to promote his son and he also casts big stars so that his son gets noticed, sadly nothing could help his son's career

The film has several comical scenes like the death scenes, how the actors after being bashed by the snake are so fit to fight him again and the climax

Direction by Rajkumar Kohli is bad Music is bad

That brings us to the cast Akshay Kumar - ordinary stuff, he has nothing much to do rather then stunts Suneil Shetty- awful Sonu Nigam- the worst debutante award goes to him, he gives cartoon acting a new meaning Aftab- terrible Arshad Warsi- nothing to do Sharad Kapoor- bad Aditya Panscholi- irritates Sunny Deol- is comical in the scene when he comes to save Sonu LOL Manisha Koirala- ordinary Rambha- Akshay's pair Kiran Kumar, Raza Murad are as usual Raj Babbar- hilarious for wrong reasons the girls are awful Which brings us to Munish Kohli This guy has a huge physique, he is even more stronger and taller then Akshay Kumar Sadly he comes across as poor man's Akshay His voice is awful, his expressions are painful The only thing he has to do in the movie is wear glasses and make an evil face Rajat Bedi is awful","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No words can describe how awful this film is. Its like the director literally took a s*** in a roll of film and sent it out to the viewing public.

The acting in this movie is horrendous, The plot is so dumb, and the deaths of each character is laughably bad. Some stupid scenes include Akshay Kumar pulling a gun out of nowhere to kill a hologram (yes a hologram), Akshay Kumar carrying a bazooka around the town, Rajat Bedi getting beaten up by a poorly animated skeleton, Rajat Bedi and Siddharth double penetrating Monisha Korella (How did they think this was straight?). Also i'd like to point out that the animations are absolutely terrible. The scene that supports this statement is when Kapal has the motorbike and somehow gains the glasses. The shopping job looks like it was done in microsoft paint.

The best parts in this movie are with Sunny Deol. This man is so strong that he makes even god feel scared. In one scene, he literally breaks open a jail door by kicking it. Chuck Norris' round-house has nothing on that! He is even so powerful, that he can fly from London to India in a matter of 10 minutes! Overall, this movie is perhaps the most poorly made movie in the universe. If you were to watch it, watch it for the hilarity that ensues throughout (BTW this movie is supposed to be serious)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So many bad reviewers, it made me wonder, what people are thinking while watching a simple flick made by a quite bad director??? Did you all expected a super-hit flawless movie?? No way, you already can see, Raj Kumar Kohli loves multi-starrer movies... All of his earlier works where multi-starrers, but no one was flawless. Take the first Jaani Dushman for instance, so many flaws, but still good fun. Anyways sticking to the movie, the movie Jaani Dushman is a Hindi fantasy film about a snake, who can take any form (Armaan (Munish) Kohli) which takes revenge for the suicide of its lover (Manisha Koirala) on the people who caused it. Its quite good, with a great star-cast. But i think it could have been much much better. For instance, take the script, can't say its flawless. For example Take the ages:

Do 40-48 yrs old still study in university??

There are many many more, i won't list more, but there are dozen more. A solid 5.5 is good for this one.

**.75","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Based on the excellent novel, Watchers by Dean Koontz, is this extremely awful motion picture that probably shouldn't be viewed by anyone. Not since \"The Running Man\" have I seen a book butchered so far beyond recognition. The difference, however, is that \"The Running Man\" film was still enjoyable as an amusing action film laden down a million catch phrases. This film\u0085 Nope, nothing remotely amusing. In fact, if you love the book, as I do, you'll hate this bastardization even more.

**WARNING**CONTAINS SPOILERS** Rightio, I'm basically going to tell you the story here, almost in it's entirety. Why? Because you, dear reader, do not also need to suffer through this abomination\u0097it's okay for me, because I enjoy watching crap. Because I like complaining about sh*tty things. Now, on to the nasty: This film revolves around a boy and his mother running away from the government and a mutant-monkey-creature-soldier which escaped from a destroyed Government genetics lab with a super-smart golden retriever which the \"hero\" calls \"Furface.\" Groan\u0085 Trust me, in the novel, this story rocked. I'll get to that later. Anyway, the hero is none other that dreamy boy-child Corey Haim. Oh, I'm not kidding. Our hero runs around, crackly voice and all, trying to convince his Mom to help save this dog from the \"evil government\" which birthed him and made him genetically ultra-smart. The monkey-creature, retardedly referred to as an \"Oxcom\" (God help us) is also a genetic-stew of a creature built to be the ultimate fighter on battlefields of the future. Michael Ironside (Total Recall, Starship Troopers\u0097always plays a badass) is also in this film, and no, I couldn't figure out how anyone convinced him this would be a good idea. He plays a government agent with the NSO hunting the dog and creature. Oh yeah, here's some spoilerama: He's also a creation from the government, and the same lab, and lo and behold spends most of the movie being a prick and killing people\u0097and all that killing is supposed to be done by the monkey-soldier. Instead of a rockin' kick-ass, creepy horror film, we have a rectal hemorrhage of a teenybopper horror flick. The dog's intelligence is discovered all-too-conveniently, and believed easier than we believe we can see clouds by looking outside. Breakdown!!

Change from Book to Film:

--Lead character (Travis) turned from man to boy-child.

--Man's love interest in book (Nora), is now his mother\u0097and all her depth and character growth is completely gone.

--Lem Johnson, black man, is now white Mr. Ironside. This matters as the character's strength was built on his heritage in the book.

--Relationship between two authority figures completely ignored, Lem now kills the guy who was originally his best friend.

--One principle character in the book is now totally absent, the \"immortal\" that hunted the heroes--maybe this is supposed to be Ironside, but then why is he someone else?

--Dog never receives deserving name of \"Einstein\" in the movie.

--No part of the book took place in a High School\u0097at least nothing that had strong bearing on the plot.

--Takes place over a matter of days, rather months like the book\u0097unrealistic pacing.

--Corey Haim's girlfriend in the movie appeared in no more than two chapters in the book--and they never met in the book.

--Character of Lem Johnson is no longer cool-headed; instead, he's a total asshole that bullies his way through people.

--Hero Travis was part of Delta Force (military segment specializing in hunting terrorists), instead, his Dad, who is never seen in the film, was part of that group.

--Perceived intelligence in the monster now totally absent.

--Subplots involving Soviets and The Mob completely gutted out of the story.

--These are just the most obnoxious changes, and the one's I could remember off hand (and a day later).

The Good:

--Eventually, after 90-odd minutes of pain and mental anguish, the movie ended.

Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help It:

--Michael Ironside\u0097usually, I like him.

--The dog is still fairly likable.

--Wacky \"totally 80's\" title screen.

The Bad:

--Okay, the writing for one is extremely awful.

--The direction is so half-assed that anyone watching the film will feel superior to everyone involved in it.

--The acting is crappy and weak, especially from Corey Haim.

--Loose, weak, watered down story.

--The monster looks just pathetic, that is, when we are actually allowed to see the bloody thing. Its head is gigantically over-sized, the yellow eyes that were so much a part of the thing in the book are seen for no more than two seconds. Instead of a lean, powerful, fast, intelligent killing machine, we have some jackass in a puke-ugly monkey suit forced upon us.

--Absolutely no character development.

--Even the violence and gore are done poorly, for f*ck sakes, this is supposed to be a HORROR film!! Usually violence is at least done well!

The Ugly:

--The idea that Dean Koontz whored out his brilliant novel to become this filthy f*cking piece of sh*t brings me dangerously close to vomiting all over myself and anyone near me. There are movies worse than this (headache-inducing as that idea may seem), but so far, only \"Alien vs Predator,\" at least to me, is a bigger travesty and more painful disappointment.

Memorable Scene: Watching the end credits start.

Acting: 3\/10 Story: 4\/10 (the novel was really good, this is just terrible) Atmosphere: 5\/10 Cinematography: 4\/10 Character Development: 1\/10 Special Effects\/Make-up: 4\/10 Nudity\/Sexuality: 0\/10 Violence\/Gore: 4\/10 Music: 5\/10 Direction: 3\/10

Cheesiness: 7\/10 Crappiness: 9\/10

Overall: 3\/10

I would recommend that no one watch this movie ever, except for a few extreme die-hard horror fans\u0097and only if you haven't read the novel. Instead, I would recommend that anyone interested in this avoid it entirely and buy\/check\/borrow the book.

www.ResidentHazard.com","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Every time I think about this film I feel physically ill. To read such a great book and later discover there's a film of it was a great feeling. Years later and imagine my joy at switching on the sci-fi channel and finding it starts in just 5mins!!! Up go the titles and then uggg. If just a couple of things had changed OK. Everything is changed. Numerous characters are removed entirely new rubbish ones are added. The main hero is shrunk and de-aged by about 30 years, and hilariously his girlfriend\/wife is now his mother! Even the dog is reduced to sub-lassie capabilities. This is truly appalling cinema at its absolute worst. I would quite happily remove my own toenails with pliers rather than sit through another horrific viewing, and I urge anyone thinking of watching this - please don't. If you own a copy burn it now, right now and think how much better your life would have been had this celluloid insult never occurred.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is hard to believe that anyone could take such a great book and and make such a terrible movie.

Imagine King Kong being recast as an organ grinder's monkey and Fay Wray's part being played by a young boy. How about Elton John as Rambo!!!!.This movie is even worse than the TV remake of The Night of the Hunter.

By using the title Watchers and Dean Koontz's name the makers of this movie should be sued for fraud by readers of the book who expected a reasonably accurate adaptation of the book.

Read the book, I have never talked to anyone who didn't like it. Another good book is The Winner by David Baldachi.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a film based on the Novel written by the modern literary god that is Koontz? I refuse to believe that studio bought the rights to this movie for anything using the Genius' Koontz name. Ever since my sight became poor enough to require Large Print, I have been unable to read this book as I had at least twice a year since first reading it. I missed the book greatly and was unable to find it in Large Print.

I was hoping by renting this movie I would at least get my vicarious Watcher's pleasures, but this movie was a travesty. Because of subtle plot points, it is my belief none of Mr. Koontz's, or most decent authors for that matter books can be crammed into 1-2 hours of film.

It will be the wise network, cable or other wise, who buys the rights to this novel and makes a multiple part television movie, i.e. mini series, of this book the RIGHT way!

one a star out of five - would that I could go lower ...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I still find it hard to believe that a fine - if overlong - novel by Dean Koontz was transformed into this utter excrement.

This movie is so bad it's disgusting. Boos to all who participated. Shame on you!

P.S. The fact that sequels have appeared just goes to show how little taste and discretion remains in Silver Screen Land.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dean Koontz's book \"Watchers\" is one of the finest books I have read. Sadly, the movie is a sad caricature of the book. The disillusioned middle-aged hero and the lonely spinster with whom he finds a meaning to his life are converted in the movie into a couple of silly teenagers, the stoic security agent and the conscientious sheriff are combined into a farcical villain - you get the picture? The moviemakers have taken a moving tale of love, horror and adventure and converted it into a Z-Grade horror flick aimed - very poorly - at the teen market.

Buy the book and enjoy many hours of reading - it will be far, far more rewarding than watching the movie.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Corey Haim is never going to be known as one of the great actors of his time, but at least in movies like \"Licensed To Drive\", he was more in his element... lowbrow humor.

Dean Koontz's book \"Watchers\" was one of his earlier works, and still probably his finest to date. Sadly, this magnificent tale of a brilliant dog, a deranged mutant and a genetic experiment gone wrong is butchered horribly. The acting is so lifeless, you might think you're watching a zombie movie. Only the dog gives a respectable performance, and if you want to see a decent movie about a dog, you'd be better of watching \"The Incredible Journey\", \"Cujo\" or even \"C.H.O.M.P.S.\"...okay, maybe not \"C.H.O.M.P.S.\"

If you've read the book, avoid this movie at all costs. If you haven't read the book, read it and avoid this movie. You'll thank me later.

A somewhat better translation of a Dean Koontz book is the capable thriller, \"Phantoms\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Corey Haim plays a kid who teams up with a dog to take out a giant troll and OSA hit-man (Michael Ironside) with a 30\/30 and homemade bombs (Which plays plausible considering Haim) Oh and he also protects his mother and girlfriend as well in this watchable yet disappointing adaption of a decent story. Corey Haim is terrible, of course but the movie's sheer momentum as well as Ironside's imposing presence make this at least a modestly effective film. Still the plot is ridiculous and it would've been nicer if we could've seen a monster or at least more gore. At least it's something different. Also it's fairly likely that this film will be the last teen movie for awhile to show a teenager making pipe bombs.

Matt Bronson 2\/5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I couldn't agree more. The book is one of Dean Koontz's best novels and this film is a total travesty. I watched about half of it then threw the tape in the bin in disgust! I have NO idea what the idiotic director was thinking making this piece of crap but I would rather poke my eyes out with a sharp stick than watch this useless movie again! Everything about this film is just wrong. First the main character is changed from an ex marine to a high school KID. WHY??? Second the love of his life in the book becomes his mother in the movie! hem I bet Freud would have something to say about that! LOL. The dog is cute enough and the best thing in the movie and completely outcast everyone else! Also a main character who helps them in the book betrays them in the movie. There really is nothing good to say about the film except that at least it's relatively short at an hour and a half or so. If anyone hasn't seen the film yet do yourselves a favour! READ THE BOOK! It is so much better than this worthless waste of time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"okay, my question; who's the idiot that wrote this movie, giving it the same name as Dean Koontz's awesome book? its terrible, nothing like the book...you got the dog, and the watcher, but there the similarities end...might be good, if you haven't read the book, though...but it disappointed me, really.

they should make a new one, and let koontz write it... now that would be a good movie... I'll say it again, this movie disgusted me...absolutely disgusted me. it was terrible, it was absolutely nothing like the book. I would never again watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hated the book. A guy meets a smart dog, gets a virgin girlfriend, and all the while they're being chased by a hit-man and a ape beast thing (both of whom want the dog). Dean Koontz really can't write (I read the book at my sister's recommendation, I should have known better). When I saw this, (mostly out of a morbid curiosity) I actually found myself criticizing it because of the fact that it was untrue to the book, even though this is a book that its impossible to make a good movie of. I figured at least if they're going to make a film adaptation of the worst book I've ever read the filmmakers might as well be accurate. They turned the guy and his virgin love interest into a boy and his mother, for some reason that bothered me most of all (even though I seriously doubt keeping it a guy and his chick wouldn't have made it any better). Quite simply; bad book, bad movie, don't see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is beyond stupid.

Two high school graduates travel to Nantucket for the summer and find situations there that are absolutely revolting.

Demi Moore co-stars in this one. As the film was in 1986, was Ashton Kutcher just a babe in the woods at that time?

Moore's grandfather has died and his home is on the verge of being sold to ruthless people with a father and son who bring a new meaning to the term mean.

Bobcat Goldthwait, with that obnoxious voice is in the film, as well as two brothers, who make dumb and dumber look more and more intelligent.

The writing is absolutely ridiculous. Highlights of the stupidity are where one person says to the other: \"Did you ever notice that when people die, they go alphabetically in the papers?\"

I rest my case.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Savage Steve Holland wrote and directed his second film, One Crazy Summer, with John Cusack and Curtis Armstrong again in a supporting role. Cusack and Bobcat Goldthwait are recent graduates headed to Cape Cod in order to stay at Goldthwait's grandmother's for the summer. Along the way, they bump into Demi Moore being pursued by John Matuszak and a motorcycle gang. Soon the three are united in trying to save a house from being turned into another lobster restaurant by a conniving, spoiled family that considers \"work\" a dirty word. The film contains several funny vignettes like the millionaire dollar radio contest gags and the Godzilla skit.

Like Holland's first film, Better Off Dead, John Cusack adds immeasurably to the film. Otherwise, this is a dud of a film filled with contrived situations and idiotic characters (as opposed to quirky). Moore even sings a few bars in a nightclub with some horrible synthesizers. Goldthwait's gags wear thin after awhile, and Armstrong never was an actor of any caliber to appear in anything except grade Z stuff. The tow truck twins are extremely annoying and obnoxious instead of the endearing underdogs they're obviously meant to be. This is more of a hit or miss, kitchen sink comedy which could have used a better script and direction. *1\/2 of 4 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite this being one of John Cusack and Demi Moore's early films, it is one even hardcore fans can miss, unless they absolutely have to complete the collection. I have rare moments, where I can handle Better Off Dead, but this movie is ultimately worse. I am just not a Savage Steve Holland fan, and he did both movies. So if you don't like the cheesy, random comedy and amateur animation, steer clear of this one. FYI even for the Demi Moore fans: she can't sing and the 80s synthesizers did not save her. There are too many predictable twists and too-easy jokes. I suppose if you want mindless entertainment or something you can leave on in the background and ignore while you do something productive, then go for it. Otherwise, don't watch this movie. If John Cusack (or Demi Moore) couldn't save it, you know it's got to be bad. They are the only reason I didn't give this movie a 1.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"what happened to Mathew Modine's career??? i can still recall when he was considered an A list actor...

was it cutthroat island the final nail in the coffin of a once promising career??? wow, this guy must really hate Renny Harlin's guts...

This movie wants badly to be a comedy but fails to deliver any laughs, the characters are caricatures, and badly drawn ones at that ... but still what pains me the most is seeing Mr. Modine taking up on this kind of roles, next to actors so far away from his caliber, i mean at the time when he was making movies like BIRDIE he could never in his worst nightmares have imagined that in the future he would be acting in movies with a hick humping a cow that just had her anus stapled shut, and maybe whats even worst;next to Elizabeth Berkley!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie might be o.k. if not for all the language in it. I think that the storyline itself isn't bad, but I would be too embarrassed to let my wife or kids see the movie. I know that kids will learn all the swear words along the way eventually, that's true, but parents should not assist them in the process by letting them see and hear the stuff in the guise of entertainment.

I used to quite like Robert Loggia; he has a distinctive gritty quality with that rough voice of his, but in the last few years all I have seen him do are roles with a lot of language in them. If we had an award for over-use of the F word, he would have to be a contender. Unfortunately, I think he's now lost me as a fan. When I see his name on movies in future, I will be thinking twice about picking up that title.

Look, I'm no prude. I use language sometimes too, in extreme circumstances, but when we're watching a movie it is for the sake of E N T E R T A I N M E N T, something which we hope will bring us some joy and escapism. I do not want to be reminded of what's happening out on the streets in any big city these days, and it's a hassle to have to wonder whether or not a movie is alright for my family to watch.

I like Matt Modine too, but it's a pity that he has associated himself with a picture which has let his image down like this. He probably did an o.k. job in the movie, but I turned off about 1\/4 of the way through after having had my ears assaulted once too often by others in the cast. Why can't these actors just say no when these scripts ask them to carry on with this gutter language? Once enough actors, (especially the big names), kick up a fuss about it, the writers will stop putting it in the movies!

I'm sorry, but I cannot recommend this picture. It's a pity too, because I think it would probably have been alright, if it had been made well enough for decent families to watch! Thank God I only wasted $2.00 on it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I'm a huge fan and follower of Elizabeth Berkley. I bought this on DVD off of eBay for my boyfriends birthday. We sat down to watch it and it was so boring. I don't remember laughing once. It's only on for about an hour and half and it seemed to take forever to end. Elizabeth is great in this though. Maybe it's just because I'm a big Elizabeth Berkley fan though. If she wasn't in it I wouldn't have watched it but every time she came on my face lit up. Unfortunately even Elizabeth couldn't save this film. Just the overall story and awful comedy makes this a film you'd rather miss than waste an hour and a half of your life. It's a very forgetful film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A great gangster flick, with brilliant performances by well-known actors with great action scenes? Well, not this one.

It's rather amazing to see such a wide cast of well-known actors, that have many good movies in their filmographies in such a movie, without doubt this may be one of the worst they could possibly appear in.

First of all, the plot is as you'd expect it from your average gangster biography, nothing new, nothing fancy in it. The way it is told makes the movie look a LOT longer than it is (when i thought the two hours should be almost over, i was quite surprised that only 45 minutes had passed).

The action scenes look a lot like those from 80ies TV series - the A-Team, for example. It's just that in the 80ies (esp. with the A-Team) those scenes were far more sophisticated than those in \"El Padrino\". It's especially fun to see the guys point their guns in the air and still hit something (not to talk about people that take cover behind car doors which later look like they've been shot through).

The acting fits quite nicely to the action. Either you get the same reaction to everything that happens (Dolph Lundgren style), or it's so overacted that you may think it's a parody (but unfortunately it's not).

My advise is to stay away from this movie, any other gangster movie is better than this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A friend of mine decided to rent this thing, lucky it wasn't my money.. Pretty much wasted my time though. A story that could have been interesting is completely wasted by incredibly bad acting and horrible editing\/directing. Maybe it could become a classic because of all the weird over-acting :)(Gary Busey's character for example) All the over-acted characters were actually the only thing that made this movie a little interesting as they grabbed your attention (for all the wrong reasons obviously) where the movie in itself failed miserably. In short: A waste of time and money

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some weeks ago, at a movie theater, I saw a movie poster of El Padrino (2004) with the tag \"The Latin Godfather\". How lame have we become, I thought, Latin just because he is a Mexican? Let me remind you that ANYTHING Latin comes from or is related to Latium, Italy, So the original guy in the Godfather movie is more Latin than the Mexican Godfather and this is why: We are called Latin-American people because we speak Spanish, a language based in the Latin language that originated in Rome now Italy. So to place a tag in a movie poster like \"The Latin Godfather\", is not just ignorant, of course if we are trying to related this movie to the original Godfather, but a desperate and uncreative attempt to get some credit by copying the title of a movie classic. Now about the movie, I just hate overacting so from 1 to 10 I guess is 3 the most.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a sucker for mob\/gangland movies, so I rented this movie. This movie is a complete train wreck. With all the big name actors in this film, I can not believe how bad it was. It was so bad, that I began laughing hysterically towards the end of the film. The actor better known as Zues or the big dude from the Ice Cube movie \"Friday\" does an incredible overacting job throughout the film. First thing I told Blockbuster when I returned the film was to remove this garbage from their shelves. Do not rent this movie, unless you want to waste two hours of your life. If they come out with a sequel, I wonder if it will be twice as bad as the first. I will be more cautious when renting so called 'mob\/gangland' movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What is the deal with all these ethnic crime groups copying Italian mafia related movies ? We all know the Godfather as in Don Vito Corleone, now we have this Mexican one which is just a strait out Copy. I cant see why other ethnic groups have to Mimic and imitate Italian mobsters, but it sure makes them look silly. They sure seem to be wanabee Italians. I would much prefer to see Mexicans perform there own ideas and like to see there own culture, and the way they do it, instead of copying ideas from The Godfather trilogy. Apart from that the movie was disappointing, seeing mexicans acting and trying to be Italians is not my thing. After watching this, I'm now going to Watch the \"Real\" Godfather so this movie can be erased from my memory.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's amazing that this no talent actor Chapa got all these well known stars to appear in this dismal, pathetic, cheesy and overlong film about a low life gangster who looks white but is half Mexican, much of the acting is bad and many of the well known stars in this trashy movie are given a script that seems made up by a 16 year old, i'm sure this movie is the career low point for actors such as Dunaway, Wagner, Keach, Tilly and Busey who i'm sure are very embarrassed that they ever appeared in this turkey of a film. I doubt many people have ever heard of Chapa and after this terrible movie i'm sure he will disappear into oblivion where he belongs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A little while ago, I stumbled upon this DVD while browsing Netflix, and with such an impressive cast, decided to give it a go.

Never before have I seen a movie try to be a new version of an existing great movie (Scarface) and failing so spectacularly.

The main issue seems to be a complete misunderstanding of what the story should be. In Scarface, Tony Montana was the self-proclaimed \"bad guy.\" His spectacular rise and eventual downfall wasn't sad, it was a great (and the only logical ending) to someone who lived such a life.

Damian Chapa, as director, writer, and lead actor, sees Kilo as some sort of hero, or at least a complicated guy. However he doesn't want to do the grunt work of creating a realistic, sympathetic character. He was raised by a white mother, except for the six months of his childhood where his father, a gangster himself, showed him his life. For reasons never fully explained or even really mentioned, he decides he wants to be a drug dealer, and actually drives to the bad part of town, approaches two dealers and says, \"Hey, I'd like to buy some drugs.\" He drops his father's name, and in apparently no time they are not only rich, the two guys who are supplying him are acting subserviently to him for reasons, again, never explained.

Chapa wants you to feel bad when his character is sentenced to prison when a police informant lies about him. However, since he's dealt large quantities of drugs before, why should one feel sympathy for him going to jail for it this time? The most obvious case of Chapa wanting to be the good guy is in his prison execution of a White Supremacist\/rapist played by Gary Busey. In Scarface, Tony Montana kills someone in prison because he pretty much has to in order to elevate himself, it's done, he moves on. But in this case they ham-handedly have to make Busey not only a rapist\/pedophile but also a White supremacist. A little overkill, don't you think? I won't go into detail in this regard too much more, but their desperate message of \"PLEASE LIKE ME! I'M A COMPLICATED GANGSTER!\" fails on every level. Try as they might, I didn't feel bad, conflicted, or sympathetic when his buddies are killed (following a shootout), his wife is also killed (shortly after she called him out on being a lousy father, and during an attempted escape when he decided it'd be OK to ride right next to a car filled with gunmen while his wife is in the car), and his eventual demise.

Suffice it to say his acting can be fairly summed up as lousy, his only achievement bringing the term \"wooden\" to starry new heights. Busey should be credited for actually putting effort into his ridiculous role. Tiny Lister did well. Stacy Keach is playing his warden from Prison Break role. Robert Wagner is coasting for a paycheck. Faye Dunaway, while a touch dramatic, still turns in a performance better than this movie deserved. Brad Dourif is in the film for about two minutes and does what he can. And to give the film credit, it does one-up Scarface in one way - Jennifer Tilly now holds the title of \"Most Ridiculous Attempt at a Hispanic Accent.\" (Sorry Robert Loggia.) In short, this movie had an interesting premise, but a poor story arc, unsympathetic characters, and hit-or-miss performances. I'd advise Mr. Chapa to ease up on the forced sympathy next time - really, we don't need to like your character, we just need to be interested. Better luck next time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"El Padrino :The Latin Godfather - while this seems to be a straight to DVD\/video type movie- my fullframe copy obviously looked cropped- so maybe this flick had a limited theatrical run.And the title character appears to more of a Gringo than moi( I am half Honduran). Pretty typical rise and fall of a drugdealer movie with the A-list of B-list actors- Robert Wagner(drug lawyer),Kathleen Quinlan(crusading judge),Tiny Lister(mob enforcer),Gary Busey(child rapist),Brad Dourif(white power jailbird),Stacey Keach(bereaved Governor),Joann Pacula(bereaved Milf), Faye Dunaway(crusading lawyer) and Galo Make Canote as an uncredited party guest.This movie is pretty lame- I only watched it to kill time before the Skins game- the only thing that saved it was Jennifer Tilly as a crazed Latina drug dealing assassin - she was over the top and sexy-skanky that it was fun to watch her scenes.Not worth renting or seeking out. D+","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nothing I dislike more than a kung-fu movie that plays for laughs. It is the main reason I can't stand Jackie Chan (or his lookalikes). He was not always a clown, I must add. \"My Young Auntie\" is slapstick martial arts of the worst kind. It is a perfect example of how the subgenre was brought down to the mud by endless silly antics and childish behavior. Unless you are 5-year-old, I really don't understand how anyone could find this kind of film funny. But humor is indeed a very subjective thing. Personally, I think this type of approach did permanent damage to the beloved subgenre. I did think leading lady Kara Hui was very good here. But I had such a hard time sitting through this one that I could not enjoy her fine performance. If you don't mind all the silliness, you might enjoy it. I know I didn't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The clever marketeer is he is, Jess Franco naturally also cashed in on the huge temporarily success of psychedelic spy movies like Mario Bava's ultimately sensational \"Danger: Diabolik!\". Franco is the ideal man to shoot a similar film, as he could freely insert as much sleaze, kitschy scenery and absurdly grotesque plot twists as he wanted to. And he partially understood this very well, as \"The Girl from Rio\" revolves on a man-hating organization, led by a funky dressed lesbo, that plots to turn all men into obedient slaves! Unfortunately (for them, at least), the diabolical plans conflict with the daily business of a feared crime syndicate boss, played by George Sanders. All the right ingredients are well-presented, yet this is a surprisingly weak and unsatisfying adventure movie. The plot is rich on imagination, but seemingly only on paper, as the action is quite tame. The film is also very colorful...but not too bright and especially shocking was the total lack of vicious sex. There's a bit of nudity, sure, but too few according to normal Franco standards. All the characters are sick in the head, so the least I expected (or hoped for) were more perverted undertones or frenzied themes. Franco obviously had a bigger budget as usual to work with, and I must say he spends that money well on more convincing set pieces and talented cast members. Particularly the veteran actor George Sanders (\"Village of the Damned\", \"Psychomania\") is one of the best players ever to appear in a Franco production. Too bad even he can't save \"The Girl from Rio\" from being a huge letdown. A legendary Euro-smut filmmaker like Jess Franco could and should have done more with this concept. Shame, shame, shame...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are certain scenes in this film (like the hero's first meeting with super-villainess Shirley Eaton) where it seems to be on the edge of breaking sexual taboos and doing its premise (females want to rule the world by making men slaves) justice, but it never dares to. The result is a film with no sexuality and some tame violence. Despite the choppy plot, the film is not overly bad until its climax, where its amateurishness runs rampant (terrible editing, overuse of stock footage). Worth seeing only as a curio. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Take the secret agent \/ James Bond craze of the sixties, mix in some concepts from Sax Rohmer's female Fu Manchu femme fatale and stir in some absurdest twisted revisionism by director Franco - you have the man-hating lesbian Sumuru, or \"The 7 Secrets of...\" - better known as \"The Girl From Rio\" in the USA, recalling \"That Man From Rio,\" which has nothing to do with this. Yes, this does take place in Brazil, we must give it that. Sumuru, or Sumitra as she's also referred to, is like an evil version of \"Modesty Blaise,\" played here by actress Eaton with that familiar coy smile which most of us first became acquainted with in \"Goldfinger.\" There are numerous close-up shots of her staring off camera, slowly opening her mouth, probably while watching something unpleasant (however, she is doubled in her key lesbian scene). She controls an entire army of female warriors, colorfully costumed, and rules a city called Femina or something (just outside Rio de Janeiro?). These concepts, which previously appeared in \"The Million Eyes of Sumuru,\" sound terrific, but, despite some intriguing set design & visuals, it follows the same campy atmosphere of, for example, the very dated \"Some Girls Do,\" which came out around the same time and which also featured a female army. At first glance, the sight of all these armed females, usually lined up in a row, catches one's interest, but, after 15 minutes or so, you realize there's nothing else there beyond just setting up the visual.

The plot follows what seems like a secret agent, a male, arriving in Brazil with 10 million dollars. He catches the attention of the local crime lord (Sanders, hamming it up as an elderly Bond-type villain), who sends dark-suited thugs in bowler hats to accost him. This sets everything up for a 3-way conflict between the agent, the crime lord and the mysterious Sumuru (the crime lord wants Sumuru's secrets). Sumuru also keeps various prisoners in glass cages - maybe that's one of the secrets. This sounds exciting but there are problems which go beyond just a slow pace; there are many shots which could have used a lot of tightening: one shot of an arriving airplane, for example, stays on the craft as it settles to a near stop, as if this had never been captured on film before. There's a similar approach to a typical sunset, as if there's something unusual about it. The fight scenes are very substandard, as if the filmmakers had to use the first takes. To add some production value, there's a scene of the real Rio carnival about midway through. I'm guessing there were various budget problems, especially evident in the climactic battle, where fake sound effects and smoke cover up a lot of bogus action, such as the lack of even real-looking guns - it calls to mind those times when kids use plastic guns and pretend bullets are being fired, falling over unconvincingly. There are touches of sadism, such as torturing a character to get answers, and female nudity, an early depiction of such after some restrictions were lifted. But, mostly, you'll be rolling your eyes. Hero:3 Villains:5 Femme Fatales:5 Henchmen:4 Fights:3 Stunts\/Chases:3 Gadgets:4 Auto:4 Locations:6 Pace:3 overall:4","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now this is a real turkey by the overrated director Franco, who gave us such classics as \"Las Vampiras\/Vampyros Lesbos\". Yes, I think that bad films can be great fun. I adore the hilarious howlers of Doris Wishman, Dwain Esper and Ed Wood jr., but this one proved to be too much for me. It is the first film I rated 1. Where should I start? The screenplay is idiotic to the utmost. The dialogue is unbelievably bad. The directing seems to be nonexistent. The best music cue (used repeatedly in this film) was taken directly from the movie \"Der Hexer\" (1964). And it's BORING! Poor Shirley Eaton and George Sanders! In one shot Sanders reads a Popeye comic while his henchman torture a girl (this aspect is probably the intellectual highlight of this movie). The only thing that baffled me was that Franco promptly showed female nudity whenever I thought the movie would gain from it - this is real directing skill! Still, I'm afraid that a movie in which actors pretend to shoot with machine guns by shaking them is not really worthwhile.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"During my childhood time I have seen the first three \"Critters\" movies and enjoyed 'em.They were fun and entertaining horror comedies perfect for adventurous horror loving kids.I have never seen \"Critters 4\",so I finally decided to check it out.My verdict:forgettable and pretty bad flick with strikingly low body count.The script by Joseph Lyle and David J. Schow is both predictable & clich\u00e9d,the plot rips off \"Alien\" and \"Star Wars\" and the sets look bland and murky.The tone of the film appears to be deadly serious throughout making it slow and dull.\"Critters 4\" was apparently so low budget that the filmmakers couldn't afford any optical effects;the ones taken from \"Android\" look seriously dated.4 out of 10.One to avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sending the Critters to space does seem like an entertaining idea, but was there really any need for a third film much less this fourth one? A film with Brad Dourif can't be all bad, can it? Well, maybe in this case. This cheap sci-fi effort stars returning lovable klutz Charlie(the reliable Don Keith Opper) who is about to eradicate the last two remaining eggs of the Critters' species when Ugh(Terrence Mann)tells him that he's about to break some sort of Trans-galactic Endangered species law. So at Ugh's request, Charlie places the two eggs in special holders inside a space pod. Unfortunately for Charlie, the damn thing takes off for space and he's trapped inside. The smoke under his feet places him into hibernation stasis and he awakes 53 years later inside a decrepit

space station as Captain Rick, with fat cigar, rude alcoholic malevolence, and greedy to the core is blasting open the space pod trying to see what possible novelties are inside for possible sale or trade. Rick, unbeknown-est to him, lets out the two critters who feast on his flesh. You see Rick and his crew found the space pod drifting and had intense dollar signs flashing in their eyes so they dock it. Ugh reports to them(now in a fine, prominent position as Counselor)that money can be made if they dock at a space station under the Terracor organization. Once the crew dock, they find that this station is in ruin with many corridors in bad condition, but what's worse is the station computer Angela. Angela is a real thorn in the side to the crew because she has been left unrepaired without proper maintenance for some time. It takes some little tricks to get doors to open and close not to mention the elevators and computers. Brad Dourif is Al Bert, pretty much the impresario of computer functions(..and is pretty much the real leader of the group for he is the most level-headed and intelligent). He seems to be a father-figure to Ethan(Paul Witthorne)who just wants to make it to earth to find his father..this story though doesn't necessarily reach it's zenith. Bernie(Eric DaRe)is primarily in the film to be a druggie victim for the critters to munch on. In the film, Charlie, after one critter enters Rick's mouth and eats away at his throat{yuk}, becomes the crew's guide in understanding what they are fighting against. The film has some elements I found rather confusing{or for a better word, ridiculous)..the two critters grow in size quickly, are somehow able to coordinate a ship for Earth, not to mention grow themselves to massive size in this laboratory in the space station. The crew are able to tap into a log from a Dr. McCormick{Anne Ramsay, whose badge is found in a coat thrown to the side for which Ethan discovers her access card}which shows signs that Terracor was looking into creating a species to exterminate worlds and people. Knowing this bothers Al Bert who wishes to leave Angela and her bleeding station for greener pastures. Things don't work out that way because well-meaning Charlie(thanks in part to Al Bert's \"ancient\" Colt .45)kills a critter which had got on board, but in firing several bullets hits major guidance systems in the ship. So many repairs on in order, but they halt them when Ugh and his storm troopers dock at Angela and prove they are not what Charlie thought they'd be. Ugh is a changed man and Charlie realizes that he is completely evil and his mission is to preserve the Crites for purposes of a cruel nature(representation of corrupt corporate governmental types?). This betrayal is what changes Charlie..he has perhaps grown up a bit(a wee bit)and now understands that some people just change for the worse. Charlie and Ugh will come to a face-off over those critters..will the crew be able to escape a space station which has set auto-destruct? This film really doesn't exploit the critters as much as the other three films. I believe we can clearly see this as the true end to the franchise. The first film was a hoot..a really entertaining romp. But, by the time this sequel cam around, the critters just wore out their welcome. The cast, however, do give the film a boost. The critters do get to feed a bit, but their plans of global domination is under-developed. Their role in the film isn't established to the greatest heights. I said to myself,you have this enormous space station with unfortunates trapped on board.. could you not take this idea and run with it? Sadly, they don't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't seen this movie in years, the last time i did i was really drunk after 5 pints of tenant's at my local Witherspoon's but even then i though it was quite awful. this movie is pretty terrible compared to the other critters movies, the first two were quite good, 3 was quite crap but miles better than this. The story takes place 53 years after critter's 3, were Charlie the bounty hunter from the previous movies is found floating in a pod in outer space by a crew of some kind of space miner,em,people and taken on board. Once on board the last critter eggs left in the galaxy which Charlie has brought with him from Earth crack open and we then have critters on board the space ship, cue an obvious 'Alien' rip off and a lot of terrible FX and you pretty much have this movie in a nutshell. only good thing is when we are re-introduced to UG(or so we are lead to believe) who is now a villain and wants to preserve the critters instead of destroying them","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Critters 4 starts, & I quote 'Somewhere in Kansas 1992' & a replay of the last few minutes of Critters 3 (1991) as the recurring character of Charlie McFadden (Don Keith Opper) is about to shoot the last two remaining Critter eggs in the universe which, we are informed, would mean the extinction of the entire Critter race which is against some sort of intergalactic zoological law or something like that. Charlie's bounty hunter friend Ug (Terrence Mann) is now known as Counsellor Tetra & is a top ranking official at the intergalactic council & orders Charlie not to shoot the eggs but instead put them into a pod that will land nearby very soon, the pod does indeed land nearby very quickly & Charlie does indeed put the eggs into it but he is also caught in the pod which I presume cryogenic-ally freezes him as it's never really explained. Critters 4 then informs us that we are 'Somewhere in Saturn Quadrant 2045' where a salvage ship comes across the pod drifting in space (the credits have barely finished & Critters 4 is already stealing entire ideas & scenes from Aliens (1986)). Rick (Anders Hove) decides to claim the unidentified, to them anyway, pod & try & make a bit of cash out of it. With the help of his crew, Ethan (Paul Whitthorne), Fran (Angela Bassett), Al Bert (Brad Dourif) & Bernie (Eric DeRe) the pod is successfully recovered. They get in touch with the intergalactic council & Counsellor Tetra say to go to an abandoned space-station where a trade will be made for the pod & it's contents, Tetra also specifically tells Rick not to open the pod. So in true horror film tradition Rick opens the pod, thaws Charlie out & the Critter eggs which hatch, kill Rick & escape into the space-station...

Co-produced & directed by Rupert Harvey I thought Critters 4 was a pretty useless film & rounds the Critter series of films off with a whimper rather than a bang. The script by Joseph Lyle & David J. Schow is both predictable & clich\u00e9d, the space-station with an unstable reactor that will blow up in a few hours, the protagonists only means of escape being neutralised early on so they are stuck, the race against time to save themselves, the constant bickering & arguing amongst the crew, people splitting up & the loser who turns into a hero & saves the day, yawn. A lot of plot devices seem to come straight from Aliens & it rips off Star Wars (1979) with a tacky waste compactor scene. The characters are no better & you probably won't give a damn about any of them. While the other Critter films could be described as comedy horrors part 4 cannot, it appears to be deadly serious throughout. Critters 4 is also incredibly slow, uneventful & dull. It's over 30 minutes before the Critter eggs hatch & after this brief sequence it's nearly the hour mark before their seen again, why make a Critter film & barely feature them? It can't be because of the expensive special effects as they look like glove puppets anyway, oh & how can a mere hours old Critter operate an entire space-station & set a course for Earth? How do they even know what Earth is? Why did Capatin Rick want to open the pod anyway? What is all that stuff about with the female scientist & a rubber alien thing that is mentioned only once? Why do the intergalactic council want the Critters so badly? Why only send four men? Why is this perfectly good looking space-station totally deserted again? Critters 4 looks cheap throughout with bland, dark unimaginative sets & it even steals footage from Android (1983) for it's ships & space scenes, Critters 4 was apparently so low budget that the filmmakers couldn't afford any optical effects & the ones it takes from Android look seriously dated. For the most part only two Critters are used although some-more start to hatch but it's pretty late in the day when this happens, for most of the film they are barely seen & the effects for them are the worst of the entire series. Forget about any blood or gore as the Critters only kill two people during the 90 plus minute running time which just wasn't enough to maintain my waining interest. The acting is pretty poor as well with Angela Bassett's over-the-top melodramatic reaction to seeing a few Critter eggs particularly cringe worthy. To look at Critters 4 it is as cheap & unspectacular a production as you could hope to (not) see. The ending of Critters 4 has the universe finally being saved form the Critter menace, lets hope it also saves us & our local video-stores from the menace of a part 5...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a disgrace to the name of all of the lovable and laughable Critters' saga. Why do the writers feel the need to make the movie unbearable to watch by all quality standards. The Critters are cute and adorable as ever but deadly behavior has been transformed into that of a killer baby. They aren't as terrifying, gruesome, some what spine -chilling and funny as they were portrayed in the movies before. I used to love their porcupine shots but now it is hidden as if it was thought to be repetitive and boring. And what is with the killing and not eating. I thought this movie would have been cool but everything was so wrong. Why did Ug have to be evil and killed by that which is known as Charlie. This movie sickens me. Disgrace! Disgrace! DISGRAAAAAAACE!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(SMALL SPOILERS) I just bought the DVD of this movie yesterday. I saw it with my friends and I couldn't believe what had happened.

In the first 3 movies, the critters at least had a sense of humor (especially the 3rd movie), but not only did the critters barely ever make an appearance, they weren't funny! They never made me laugh. I must admit that the story did start off nicely. After an hour had gone by I remembered that the Critters movies were always very short. So I thought to myself, \"Where the $^%#$ are the critters?!?!\" They were barely in this movie! If that didn't make me mad enough, the boy named Ethan was sitting on his bed after Charlie had \"murdered the ship\" and he knew that the critters were still on board! In the first movie the Brown family was scared out of their minds. But here, Ethan didn't even care! It was as if the critters weren't even a threat!

Now what I'm about to say next may ruin the ending, but I'm going to say it anyways. In the first movie, at the end, they had to face the giant critter for a final battle. In the second one, there was the great ball of critter. In the third movie, the critter with his fave burned did a spindash (from Sonic the Hedgehog) and was going to attack the little kid. But at the end of the fourth one (which is what made me the angriest) the bald critter charges toward Ethan, and Ethan kills it as if it were nothing.

Now something that I really don't understand was what happened to Ug. He was one of my favorite characters in the first two. Then after 50 years, he's evil. That was very disappointing. Not only that, but wasn't he a faceless bounty hunter? Why was he still \"Johnny Steele?\" Plus he seemed to have a different personality. He seemed much smarter and not as monotone like in the first two.

Being someone who actually enjoyed the first two critters movies, and loved the third one, I give Critters 4 a 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"trying hard to fit into the scary space comedy genre, this film falls down in two of these. It does indeed take place in space - but it is neither funny or scary. The plot is dismal and the one joke, concerning the computer's intellect, is overplayed to death. Saying that Paul Whitthorne as Ethan, Angela Bassett as Fran and Brad Dourif as Al Bert make the best of their ham script. The homo-esque relationship between Ethan and Al Bert is hinted at but never explored whilst the attempt at sexual tension betwen fran and rick is so crude as to be laughable. All in all this is a turkey that is best suited to late night tv, preferably whilst do the ironing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Didn't the writer for this movie see the other three? I loved the original, I thought 2 was the best, I tolerated 3 (it was OK, nothing special). But I HATED this one. Who dare they kill off UG? This was certainly not the Ug who had been almost like a brother to Charlie in number 2. Remember his speech? Charlie said, \"You wouldn't just leave me on Earth, would you\". Ug replied, \"Charlie, Bounty Hunter\", saying that he was now one of them now. How dare the writers ignore this special bond between them and turn him into a baddie who get's killed by Charlie (in a particularly awkward scene) just because they realized the movie was getting boring. In fact for the first 20 minutes, we get a new cast and have to wait this long until we again find out what happened to Charlie, who was the hero we've been waiting to see. I kept waiting saying, \"Come on, when's Charlie going to appear?\" Angela Basset must be doing her best to deny she was ever in this Turkey. Moving it to the future eliminates the possibility of ever seeing a sequel with the original cast or in our time. I think the writers decided, that their movie was going to be the last and they could do whatever they wanted. This movie is totally out of line with the first two. And it didn't even seem like it was written by the same people who made 3. 3 at least had humor and could easily be seen by younger Children. 4 is just ugly and mean-spirited (Eric DaRe) is particularly cruel and unnecessary. I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated it. I hated the fact that anyone could like it and I hated the fact that it ruined what was one of my favorite camp classics. I give this a one start simply because IMDb.com won't let me give it a zero.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After 30 minutes..mostly fast forwarding, deleted it off my recorder. The first Critters movie was self-consciously fun, The \"conversation\" between the critters just before Granny blows them away off the porch, for example. This film just limps along, waiting for someone to shoot it and put it out of your misery.

I can't imagine anyone who worked on this turkey being proud of it.

One was fun, four just was awful. Don't bother even if the alternative is watching reruns of a TBS \"700 Club\" fund-raiser, you'll at least get some good laughs there (and the \"alien\" makeup is more believable..grin).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a big fan of the first Critters movie. The second episode is good,but it's not as good as the first Critters. The third episode is a little bit boring,but lovely. And WHAT IS THIS?? What a crap! It's stupid and really,really boring. It's the worst of the series. I can't watch it again,because I felt asleep at the first watch. And Ug's evil side...eeewww...that's one of the most horribble moments of the movie. In the first 50 minutes,we can't see the little,furry monsters,that's the reason why the audience fell asleep at the beginning of the movie.

It could have been much better.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(Caution: several spoilers)

Someday, somewhere, there's going to be a post-apocalyptic movie made that doesn't stink. Unfortunately, THE POSTMAN is not that movie, though I have to give it credit for trying.

Kevin Costner plays somebody credited only as \"the Postman.\" He's not actually a postman, just a wanderer with a mule in the wasteland of a western America devastated by some unspecified catastrophe. He trades with isolated villages by performing Shakespeare. Suddenly a pack of bandits called the Holnists, the self-declared warlords of the West, descend upon a village that Costner's visiting, and their evil leader Gen. Bethlehem (Will Patton) drafts Costner. After much misery and numerous efforts to break Costner's spirit, he escapes, thus ending a lengthy section of the movie that could have been told better in a three-minute flashback.

We now finally get to the major premise: the escaped Costner finds an abandoned mail truck and delivers the letters to the nearest town, hoping to get some food under pretense of being a postman. A number of the village people led by young Ford (Larenz Tate) want to get in on this postman act, which does not sit well with Bethlehem and his bandits, and Costner finds himself the unwitting and unwilling leader of a band of postmen at war with the Holnists.

The idea of The Postmen versus The Bad Guys is not as ridiculous as it sounds. The Holnists depend for their livelihood on the fact that the villages they prey on are isolated from one another; the Holnists can destroy any one village, but could not stand against all their victims united. To unite, the villages must communicate with one another, and a working mail system would thus be a big step toward putting the Holnists out of business. So it really makes a lot of sense that Bethlehem would get medieval on our heroic mail carriers. Unfortunately, Bethlehem's eventual defeat is not the result of the villages uniting against him, but instead your old standby cliche, the one-on-one brawl between him and Costner. Nor is there even any real attempt by the communities to use the mail to work together to solve their problems; all the mail seems to be the standard \"Hi, Aunt Debbie\" stuff played for maximum sentimental value.

THE POSTMAN is one of the most predictable movies, shot for shot, that I have ever seen. Now, I don't purposely try to ruin movies for myself by straining to figure out what's going to happen next. But here we're talking about the kind of predictability that requires no effort; I just knew what was going to happen next whether or not I wanted to know. After a lion is prominently showcased eating people, a Holnist bandit seeking the escaped Costner ventures into the bushes after a noise, and we are then \"shocked\" when the lion eats him. A bunch of unoffending villagers are rounded up and shot by a firing squad, and one of the villagers sings out some Famous Last Words right before being shot, to my immense lack of surprise. A covered statue is unveiled to show exactly what everyone knew was going to be there: Costner bending to pick up a letter from a cutesy kid we saw earlier in the movie. A man tells Bethlehem that no sir, you can't just take my wife; Bethlehem runs the unsuspecting sod through, though he is the only person in the theater who is unsuspecting.

But it is rank, cloying sentimentality that really undoes THE POSTMAN. Olivia Williams, playing Costner's lover Abby, is worst served. She pours her heart into the material and gives her very best effort to make it sound natural and sincere. She tries so hard, it's heart-breaking. But nobody could ever have made the lines \"I have a gift for you, Postman . . . You give out hope like it's candy in your pocket\" sound like anything but the syrupy pap that they are. Another example is the scene where a mounted Costner thunders past a little boy, ignoring his proffered letter, only to turn around, stare at him for what seems like five minutes, and then thunder back to pick up the letter. Why didn't Costner just pick it up the first time? No real reason; it's just an artifice that tries and fails to give us a feeling of elation by dashing the kid's hopes and then restoring them.

Schmaltz and predictability unite at the end as the statue of the Postman is revealed. I sat thinking, \"Please don't tell me they're going to show the statue and then cut back to the scene with the cutesy kid. Surely that is too saccharine, too obvious for even this movie.\" Then, alas, the music swelled and we did indeed cut back to the dreaded little boy smiling as his letter to his maiden aunt is whisked away, and I held my head in my hands and thought, \"Somebody shoot me.\" It felt like having thirty pounds of apple pie rammed down my throat.

Gen. Bethlehem is a more humanized villain than normal. Your standard-issue post-apocalyptic villain is the meanest, toughest S.O.B. in the valley. Bethlehem is shown to be a little nothing of a man inside, who tries to make himself feel important by beating up on others. Although some menace is thereby sacrificed, Bethlehem is credible in a way most villains aren't. Unfortunately, Will Patton overacts. And although we are told early on that Bethlehem utterly destroyed his last challenger in five seconds of hand-to-hand combat, Bethlehem's actual fighting skills shown at the end of the movie are absolutely ludicrous.

The acting is otherwise pretty good. Costner has done better, but his Razzie was an overreaction. As mentioned, Olivia Williams is very impressive. Larenz Tate as Ford does a sincere and credible job. James Newton Howard's score is competent, though short of the epic standards the movie was going for. But it's not enough to save this film.

Rating: *1\/2 out of ****.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having watched the first scene, I realized the acting was so bad that it couldn't possibly pick up later. Superficial and artificial, with frequent attempts to look professional through references to technology the way a five year-old tries to make it sound as if he knows what he's talking about.

The second-to-second storyline is completely unrealistic and just about every single decision the screenwriter did, was the kind you expect from a below-average grade school student. The overall storyline was as unoriginal and predictable as a pack of sausages. The few attempts to make the dialogs sound intelligent, was limited to neurotic, apologetic behavior. A ten year-old might like it. But it would take a five year-old to accept the lack of realism; How does advanced cell function allow someone to bypass a code lock by touching it as if with a magic wand, pick out one out of 100s of voices through a ventilation system (thereby ripping off Superman), and repair a home computer by just sensing whats wrong instead of looking for faults? Actually, that scene is a neat example: The fault was that one of the cooling pipes (aluminum ribbons) on the CPU was broken, the way it would look if a exhaust pipe on a V8 engine is ripped off by an explosion. This is something that can't happen, and if it did, it wouldn't prevent the computer from working. There is no electrical current passing through this ribbon, but when he (without doing it himself, his arms worked by autopilot because the cells in his body was super efficient) put a push-pin into the rip, a desktop with icons appeared on the screen immediately without booting.

And so it goes all the way. Like when he escaped an interrogation room in the NSA headquarters by lighting a lighter below a fire sensor, resulting in open doors throughout the building. Naturally, NSA didn't predict this sharp witted approach to escaping, nor did they put any guards outside his room (or anywhere else) to guard a living, walking breakthrough in military nanotechnology. So he walked out and got a cab. Examples like this one are not only numerous, there is in fact just about no single scene that makes sense.

Also, the so-called great effects were terrible. He threw a basketball back to a kid in the park, and the kid was thrown back horizontally 20 feet into a tree. No acceleration or deceleration, but constant speed and height, like a motorized trolley. I'm sure if I paused and looked for the cables that kept the posture of this kid the way only cables can, they probably didn't know how to or bother to erase them completely. If someone is thrown that far into a tree, they would at least say ouch (or rather be hospitalized with broken bones), but the kid was just just confused and amazed.

Moronic. That's the word for every creative decision made throughout the entire production. I'm going to put the director's name on my own personal blacklist, someone as poorly skilled as him cannot improve. I feel like demanding compensation for having wasted 45 minutes of my life for watching it, and the time it took to write this. Although it felt therapeutic, it was traumatic to realize how little it takes to get a pilot approved. The only excuse a slightly intelligent person could have to watch this voluntarily, would be imprisonment or lobotomy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Making a film for under 1 Million might be a triumph for a line producer or an accountant but doesn't do anything for the audience. The balance sheet might have been pretty but the viewing experience was poor.

What will be a triumph for Irish Cinema is when people realise that production values and the script can't be sacrificed.

I don't understand why people expend the energy it takes to put a film together when the production quality is worse than a low grade TV show.

The deficiencies of the plot have been mentioned in another review on this site and I totally agree with what was written. What I would add is that the film skimmed the surface of several genres without ever settling in one of them. The film would have benefited from either going the direction of a straight out comedy or social\/political commentary.

My overall impression was that the film was rushed, thematically under developed and visually not up to standard. On a positive note the performances and music were very good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a poor film. It certainly belongs in the how not to make a feature film category. Story, direction, acting and style are all flat as a pancake. Story consists of five \u0096 yes five \u0096 football matches spread out over the film's duration, each one more boringly filmed than the last, as a dysfunctional amateur football team go from strength to strength. That's it, that's the plot. It's hard to know who this film is aimed at. It's too banal for football fans and there's nothing in it for teens nor grown-ups. There's nothing in it for women either, there isn't even a single female character. It's dreariness wears you down as the team play game after game after game after game after game. The story, such as it is, dialogue and mannerisms seem lifted from a bygone Ireland, with all the actors spouting cod theatrical Dublin accents. It doesn't have to be seen to be believed. Avoid at all costs. Can someone give me back my 90 minutes. High point the credits at the end, low point too numerous to mention. Brendan Gleeson is in this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I managed to see this at what I think was the second screening in the world, a few days after its opening at the Dublin International Film Festival. While I was attending another film two nights later at the same theater, I saw Brendan Gleeson, Paul Mercier and the rest of the cast & crew at another promotional screening of Studs.

I have to say that I was bitterly disappointed with the film, I was by no means expecting a masterpiece, but what was presented to me, I believe lacked all the crucial elements of the genre it had set itself into. Before I continue, two things, I accept that some filmmakers like to subvert generic expectations, here this is simply not the case. Secondly, I know that it was based on a play (which I haven't read but have been informed that it isn't a shimmering piece of literature), but this does not excuse the massive narrative problems that permeate the film.

My main problem with the film is the script, forget that it was based on a play, as a sports comedy it simply doesn't work, the down and out team are trying to win a football cup, few of the games are shown (when they are, it is very short) and we are not given any satisfaction due to any of their sporting achievements. Having read so far, you might assume that it is not a strict sports film but a psychological study of the relation between a \"charlatan\" of a manager and his hopeless team. It certainly does not achieve this, I'm not even sure if it was aiming to. Any attempt to shed light on the history of any of the characters is hackneyed and peripheral. Overall, I found the script lacking in many respects.

I do think the performances and the music were good and technically, the film was well made. But aside from those points, which should be expected from any Irish film at this stage, I left the theater feeling very disappointed.

My judgment may seem harsh but I do think there is some hope for a strong national Irish cinema in the near future and this simply does not back that argument. As Studs has become a recommended Dublin Cineworld film (I was part of the audience at that screening), most people would seem to be disagreeing with me, so that means you should probably make your own judgment of the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was amongst the worst films I have ever encountered. The cinematography was dull, with long tedious shots (like a camera on a tripod filming a stage play) interspersed with \"dramatic\" angles that made little sense to the content on screen. The editing was terrible, scenes matched together with the delicacy of a butcher. The plot hinged on the viewer being familiar with the historical night in which Mary Shelley wrote frankenstien. The acting was forced, with the type of character development that left you with an intense interest in seeing each of them die horribly (the sooner the better).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm glad I never watched this show when it came out.

I just wondered why it lasted 4 years. It reminds me of the terrible 80's with fake people, fake clothes, and fake music. How did I ever survive growing up in this era?

The acting in the majority of episodes I have watched are forced. This makes for very boring shows. The plot lines are not very interesting as the old Twilight Zone shows. The old show inspired the imagination and made one look forward to the next show.

Stick with the old Twilight Zone shows and spare yourself the pain of watching garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two stars

Amanda Plummer looking like a young version of her father, Christopher Plummer in drag, stars in this film along with Robert Forster--who really should have put a little shoe black on top of that bald spot.

I've never seen Amanda Plummer in a good film. She always plays these slightly wacky characters in films that don't quite add up, and she does so yet again in this one.

Firstly, we have two young women, sisters, who don't resemble in the slightest, who allow themselves to be picked up, separately, by questionable men along the roadways.

Amanda's character, Sandra, does at least have a good reason for allowing Dr. Jake (Robert Forster)to pick her up in the first place. She has been run off the road, seemingly by a maniac, and her car is pretty much destroyed.

Warning - Spoilers ahead!

However, as we go along, we realize Dr. Jake is not playing with a full deck any more than Amanda is. He makes every decision based on the flip of a coin.

When Dr. Jake and Amanda arrive at a motel, who do we see but the maniac's car, and what does Amanda do but get inside his station wagon and start snooping around. What her motive was for doing this is never clear considering the man is apparently dangerous and might try to kill her. One would think the last thing she would do is place herself in such a precarious situation.

Not only does she snoop around, but she finds some money and takes it.

Shortly after this we have several other things that don't add up.

Dr. Jake, with Amanda as his passenger, runs out of gas, and the two of them abandon his car and begin walking. One would think crossing a desert, he would have checked his gas gauge--this seems a very unlikely thing for him to allow to happen. Then later, he is seen driving the same car. When or how did he get the car back?

Dr. Jake tells Amanda he knows she has taken the money. Now how would he know that? He didn't see her do it as far as I know, and she didn't tell him she did it.

Then later we have a character named Santini (David Thewlis), the man who was driving the station wagon, give the two of them a lift and I'll be darned if he doesn't know Amanda took the money as well. How would he know that?

It loses credibility at an alarming rate the further we go.

When Alice, Amanda's sister (Fairuza Balk)gets in the clutches of the killer and decides her fate on the toss of a coin - one would think she would be very, very careful that the coin she swaps for a trick coin would definitely be the trick coin - but apparently it isn't.

It's jarring things like this, that destroy any credibility this movie may have had.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Coen Brothers-wannabe from writer-director Paul Chart relies far too much on ideas lifted from other (better) movies, yet does manage to create a creepy atmosphere that keeps one watching. Robert Forster cuts loose as never before playing a psychopathic psychiatrist (ha ha) who goes on a killing spree in the desert. The film is unusual, but in its attempt to keep one step ahead of the audience, it becomes alienating and off-putting (with a role for Amanda Plummer that is downright humiliating). An admittedly bravura finale, many quirky bits of business--and Forster looking great in the nude--make this a curiosity item, nothing more. Veteran movie-director Irvin Kershner produced, and maybe should directed as well (could Paul Chart be a pseudonym?). *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I enjoy watching Robert Forster. That was the main reason that I rented this movie. I also wanted to see a story take place out in the middle of nowhere where the characters could work off of each other really well with no distractions.

Unfortunitaly I found the movie to be dull. I couldn't get interested in the characters. I couldn't get interested in the story which seemed to meander nowhere.

After watching this movie for an hour I turned it off. I will rate the movie 4 out of 10. This falls well below the mandatory 7 rating that makes a movie worthwhile to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK look this show is the worst show on nick@ night. I love so many shows on nick@night and I love them. When this show came on to nick@night I was so annoyed. It's such a boring show and it is corny. Out of all the times I've watched I found one episode slightly funny. This show has some of the most unfunny and stupid jokes ever. This show sums up to terrible. Give props to Fresh Prince of Bel-air and George Lopez. This show is boring and not the least bit clever. This show should have been canceled much earlier. I don't think it deserves to be played on nick@night alongside some great classic shows. This show is lacking cleverness, good jokes, and style.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this show disturbs me. it takes up slots on nick at nite that could be reserved for the fresh prince or George Lopez. even full house and Roseanne. they're all better than home improvement. first off, the mother Jill annoys me SO much. she is an oversensitive whiny baby and i really despise her. brad is a fat toad, and he is annoying too. and the youngest brother, i don't even know his name! i don't notice him at all! that's probably not the actor's fault though, it's probably the writers'. Tim is just a stupid ass. although Jill is DEFINITELY my least favorite, i don't like any of them. the only reason i gave this stupid show three stars is one star goes to randy. as the middle child, he is still a pesky little brother, but an older brother, and i like his fun character. the other star goes to Al. as the chubby friend, his character is likable. other than randy and Al, this show sucks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"honestly I don't know why this show lasted as long as it did. ah well, humor is subjective eh? but yeah, this show is incredibly unfunny if you ask me. Tim Allen is annoying. Jill is annoying. the boys are annoying. Al is annoying. the neighbor is annoying. it's just more annoying then funny. the plots are all the same, Tim makes Jill mad and has to make things right again. and the latter seasons? less said about them the better, who the hell things cancer would be good for a damn sitcom? yeah, great idea jerks. so yeah, home improvement isn't a very good sitcom. I'd recommend you go watch News Radio or Seinfeld. if i had to give this show a rating I'd give it a 1\/10 seeing as it never made me laugh once. ever. so yeah, it's still better then The Nanny though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tim Taylor is an abusive acholoic drug addict. He's a coward and a child and has absolutely no redeeming qualities as an actor or a person. The only film with him in it that is enjoyable is \"Galaxy Quest\" and that just because his character - a boozed out washed up actor from a former hit TV show - was so close to real life for him. The rest of the cast is equally bad. I HATE the mother and the actress that played her Patricia Richardson, she sucks! Ever clich\u00e9 is there, the stupid woman who is fat and likes opera and only cares about her children, while in real life she's proclaims family values and gets divorced after having twins. And the child actors were about as interesting as a root canal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on \"scrubs\" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show \"scrubs\" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love how everyone treats this show like it was the next great American sitcom. I watched five episodes of this abomination, and the only person that came close to an actual teacher was the old guy that sort of loved and hated his job. The rest of them were just pretty people trying to read the lines written by people who never actually went inside of a real classroom. I loved how every episode consisted of the two idiots (one who got laid and the other who didn't) getting into some form of zany trouble that indirectly involved their students. The British girl who thought she found an likable quality in the main idiot, but in the end was somehow shocked that he turned out to be a jackass. The hot chick that was there for the particular purpose of being hot, and the principal and her lackey that served to somehow move the almost non-existent plot forward. I loved how almost all the teachers on this show were very young, but I ask you to think back to your high school days and remember the teachers that you had . . . did they look like that? Or did you go to the high school that had middle-aged people teaching in it? That is the high school that everyone else went to. The show lacked any form of research into what goes on in schools. In public schools, principals do not have the power to higher and fire teachers, the school board does, but in every episode that I watched the principal made threats to fire her teachers. Think back to your history class . . . . . or think of any history class, did you ever see an incredibly hot British chick teach an American History class? No. Did you ever see a teacher's lounge that is so huge that you could actually play basketball in? No.

Teachers could have been a great show had it actually of based itself in some form of reality. What makes teaching funny is the stories that you get from interaction with students, and the teachers find it funny because they deal with the students day in and day out. The overemphasis on their lives outside of teaching just made it another four camera sitcom that had unrealistic people in an unrealistic environment saying unrealistic lines, and I'm sorry, I just didn't buy it. The show could have modeled itself after other currently successful sitcoms and used a single-camera format, and it should have centered more around the teacher's relationships with their students and not with each other.

It gets a star for trying and a star for the hot chick (she was really hot).

In the end, it was a failed sitcom that will go down in history as a hacks attempt to understand a profession. I only hope that if they make another sitcom based on teaching that they learn from their mistakes so that a monstrosity such as this never touches the television screen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You get an hour and a half of braindead i have to save the world action all the way, one liners and a woman somewhere in the equation. This time he plays a guy who help people in the witness protection program. to quote the cover of the movie. He erases their past to save their future. Woppi, this have to be cool :) I bet younger people will like it though but it is a little over the top for my taste. And the one liners are really something else, and i don't mean that in a good way. After killing a crocodile he manage to say. \"you're luggage\" If you are in the right mood you may enjoy the movie. And as far as braindead action go, this is not very bad. But almost before the movie starts you know exactly what is going to happen. But if you like these kind of movies, you will probably enjoy this one. I rate this movie 4","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!

With the exception of THE TERMINATOR and TOTAL RECALL I don`t think Arnie`s action\/adventure movies are up to much . They`re better than his comedies for sure but that`s hardly saying much . The problem I have with his all action blockbusters is that they`re overblown and lacking in any sort of morality

Morality ? I mentioned in my review of TERMINATOR 2 the scene where good guy Terminator blows the kneecaps off the SWAT team . Are we to think that because the hero maims people doing their job instead of killing them we will admire him in someway ? This is the problem with ERASER , when James Cann`s character is revealed as a traitor within the US Marshal department Arnie`s character John Kruger goes on the run with a witness he`s protecting but in several later sequences Kruger kills a fairly large amount of marshals working with the villain . Are we take it they were all traitors too ? Surely many of them were honest men who were trying to stop Kruger because the bad guy told them Kruger was the traitor ? It`s a rather uneasy thought that Kruger killed several people who were trying to genuinely up hold the law

Despite costing one hundred million dollars the special effects aren`t all that impressive . Look at the scene where Kruger lets go of the jet wing and scrambles to put on a parachute . It`s obvious as the action intercuts that it`s a stuntman who`s doing the free fall sequence while Arnie is in a studio in front of a blue screen . ERASER is also a film that has unnecessary CGI featuring killer alligators , not only unnecessary CGI but unconvincing CGI too . There`s also a few plot holes like in the opening scene involving a couple of witness protection people that the mob has caught up with . Kruger opens a car trunk and pulls out a couple of bodies and starts a fire thereby throwing the mob of the scent . Kruger is next seen rearranging the dental records via computer of the couple he`s saved . It would be logical to do this but would ALL the couples dental records be kept on computer ? Most importantly of all are we to believe the US Marshal department keep a freezer full of bodies for such events ?

So they`re you go , a typical Arnie thriller long on unlikely set pieces and short on intelligence and it`s interesting to note that ERASER didn`t make much of a profit at the box office as the production costs almost outweighed a potential audience figure . After ERASER Arnie didn`t do much more business at the box office save for TERMINATOR 3 : RISE OF THE MACHINES which was an event movie and it`ll be interesting to see if he`ll be remembered as a politician rather than a movie star","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why do they keep making trash like this? because it makes money that's why. Eraser is not so much a film but a string of action set pieces strung together. It's well filmed but predictable and it's all been done before, only better. This is basically a Nineties version of 'Commando'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I did not enjoy the film Eraser whatsoever. It's awful acting, boring storyline and average special effects made this an annoying arnie film, as it had a mountain of potential. With other action films of the time Eraser fell very short!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ten years ago I really wanted to see this movie on the cinema. But I missed it, and then forgot about it. Oh boy, am I glad this movie didn't get to ruin my teenage eyes back then.

I saw it yesterday, and seriously, this must be among the 10 worst movies ever made. And I'm talking about movies which has had too much attention, such as those wonderful trailers on TV, and too much money spent on actors and the making of the movie.

The script sucks and the acting sucks even worse, do I need to say more?

Please, Hollywood, NO MORE ARNOLD!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So I got this from the rental store where I work before it was released (release is 8\/21), just watched it today, and now I'm speechless. They could have had a decent movie here, but they screwed it up in some painfully obvious ways.

First of all, the parts with John Krasinski were funny, and are the only reason I gave it above a 3, but they are broken up by bad acting and terrible \"serious\" reflections on life between the main character (Andrew Keegan) and his girlfriend (the annoying Lacy Chabert). It would have been much, much better as a straight comedy ala Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

I wanted to like it, because I think Krasinski is funny and want to see him do well. The story wasn't bad either, just not very original. But the directing (and a lot of the acting) was terrible. I swear they had trouble keeping peoples faces in the shot and just went with it anyway.

Their carelessness is showcased when the gun expert corrects another character and says that a \"Dirty Harry\" gun is not a .357 magnum but a .45 (it was, as everyone knows, a .44 magnum).

So see this if you 1- really like John Krasinski 2- like to watch low-budget (and poorly-directed) movies or 3- Have too much time on your hands (this is me!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this movie to be okay.

On paper, this movie has everything a person may want! Romance, comedy, drama. A bank robbery, a unique cast, great music and storytelling!

In reality, this movie ended up being mostly garbage, and I'll tell you why.

a) This is my biggest problem: The editing. This movie has by far the worst editing I've ever seen short of local-car-dealership commercials. The editing could've been done better by a deaf Parkinson's patient tapping away at iMovie with a a dead cat. There are scenes where two characters are talking to each other and you can see their lips moving and the audio\/video isn't in sync because its clearly dubbed. Why was it dubbed? I don't know! Its English dubbing English! The voices were done in a studio elsewhere in certain scenes! Could they not find a boom-Mic?! They're not expensive; Jesus, even I own one! And i don't make films!

b) Andrew Keegan's performance lacked. It really didn't seem like he wanted to be a part of this project, and his acting was the equivalent of a skit performed by D.A.R.E. for schoolchildren. At least John Krasinksi showed some enthusiasm.

Yes, John Krasinski is the only reason I rented this flick, and its the only real reason worth watching. He's did a good, witty performance and he was the most three-dimensional character. Dean Edwards' character was quite thin, as was whats-her-face.

Final Word? If you're a fan of John Krasinski, this is worth your time. If not, don't even bother. The editing","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to say, Krasinski is the only reason I even watched this film. He is good. However, everything else about this film is so far below average that it's not worth the time and effort spent viewing this film.

This film has loads of technical\/aesthetic issues: namely, shot selections, framing, camera movements within monologue sequences, extremely bad editing (probably due to the total lack of fluidity in and between shots), and overall terrible acting (except for Krasinski).

It was far too theatrical (in acting and presentation) to develop any sort of suspenseful moment in this film...which is surprising, because it's all about a bank robbery, which should be at least somewhat exciting.

How does a film this bad get made, and then released, AND THEN distributed?

Kind of reminds me of a C- film student's thesis project, probably not even that good though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This (very) low-budget film is fun if you're a John Krasinski fan, but is otherwise disappointing. At least it was short, so I didn't feel like I had wasted too much of my time. John's scenes are funny enough, but the attempted 'deep' scenes with Lacey Chabert are pretty nauseating. It starts off seeming like it could be a funny movie, but some of the characters are just so outlandish while the others are far too serious that it just falls flat. Don't get me started on the ending. It was totally implausible and didn't even fit with the rest of the movie. I will say that I wasn't bored, though, which is why I rated it above a three. Fans of John Krasinski will enjoy seeing him with a bandanna and stockings around his head, and eating Cheez-Its. Oh, and make sure to check out John's deleted scenes, they're better than some that were actually included in the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Other than John Krasinski, this movie was absolutely terrible. The Lacey Chabert and Andrew Keegan love story was as clich\u00e9d as possible, full of unbelievably bad lines about how her parents wouldn't ever let them be together and super-hammy longing looks. None of the \"emotion\" had any depth or reality whatsoever. The two accented-characters (Dean Edwards as Rupert and whoever it was playing the gun expert)....once they saw how bad the accents were, couldn't they have decided to just drop them and rewrite a couple of lines to avoid giving the audience headaches? Apparently not. I don't even know where to start with the editing, particularly the sound editing. If you hate obvious over-dubbing as much as I do, don't watch this. That being said, Krasinski was great. Off the bat I'll admit that I'm a huge Office fan and that's why I rented this. But he's quite entertaining as the \"off-the-wall friend with crazy ideas\". He's got a clich\u00e9d role, but he still manages to make it as entertaining as possible. The ending was awful. Just flat out terrible. The idea of the robbery gone awry had potential, but Keegan floundering around after being shot, all the way to his studio to fall ontop of a painting of Chabert (which looks nothing like her) is the most cringe-worthy scene.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This World War II film, set in Borneo, tries so hard to work on so many levels, it is a shame it fails on all of them.

Nick Nolte is an escaping American who witnesses the executions of his comrades by the Japanese. He wanders deep into the jungles of Borneo, lost. Cue Nigel Havers, who finds Nolte's adopted tribe. Nolte, now looking like Robert Plant, has become his tribe's new king. He defeated a staunch warrior in a bloody battle, and had a telling tattoo on his chest (a dragon). Now before you go out and get a painful tattoo and a one-way ticket to Borneo, things are not going well in Nolteland. Havers wants the tribe's help in fighting the Japanese, who are invading the island. He teaches the natives how to use machine guns, and a whole lot o shooting begins. As the tribe becomes more successful, they run up against a new squadron of Japanese who are not like the others. This squad cannibalizes the villages they conquer in order to keep their strength up (talk about your sushi), and they move through the jungles even quicker than the tribe. Since we know the outcome of the war, we know eventually the tribe triumphs, but with heavy casualties. Here come the spoilers: Havers is injured and returned to \"civilization.\" He gives the location of the kingdom and Nolte is captured. Havers then goes through the trouble of releasing Nolte, and the end credits roll.

Milius' direction is certainly adequate, but the screenplay here is rather vague in its motivations. It presents story ideas, then abandons them in order to get to the next story idea. Nolte is awful as the soldier turned king, desperately trying to channel the spirit of Marlon Brando's Colonel Kurtz. He talks about freedom, and the beauty of the jungle, and the richness of his people, and you will not believe for one second the words he utters. He is often unintentionally funny, especially his initial bug out in the jungle, and he spends the rest of the film sounding like a hippie. Nigel Havers spends the movie looking at Nolte like he was Raquel Welch. The vague homosexual undercurrent between the two goes beyond friendship, not quite to sex, and settles into an unspoken relationship that must have had the natives talking.

Havers often stands around and has an internal conflict, repulsed at the tribe's headhunting, but basking in Nolte's attention. His fellow straight laced British servicemen go native faster than the Bounty landing party in Tahiti, but all I saw concerning Borneo is that it is very humid and has lots of green.

The climactic betrayal, where Havers gives away Nolte's location, is completely devoid of any reason. There is not one thought given as to why Havers does this, except to keep the film going. I was angry, when by chance, Havers and Nolte end up on the same ship going to the Philippines, the ship happens to run aground, and Havers runs to the hold to free the freshly shorn Nolte. No goodbye kiss, but Havers says farewell to the king, explaining the title.

If you were fighting a war, and an enemy squadron was eating your allies, would that not freak you out? This elite Japanese squad is not shown enough, although their eating habits are so horrific I would become a conscientious objector right away. The same type of ghostly enemy was handled much better in \"The 13th Warrior.\"

Other types of interesting ideas are dropped. What about the fact that then modern technology brings about the deaths of so many backward people? Why did King Nolte let the Brits use his subjects without too much hesitation? Why can't Hollywood find a decent actor to play General Douglas MacArthur?

In the end, \"Farewell to the King\" is a letdown, not anchored by a strong lead, and trying to be too many things without thinking and exploring its options. I cannot recommend this one.

This film is rated (PG13) for strong physical violence, strong gun violence, some gore, some profanity, some sexual references, and adult situations.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story of Farewell to the King is intriguing. An American \"deserter\" (I had the impression he and his 3 comrades were only trying to escape capture in the Philippines as their desperate escape by raft to Borneo is not your classic desertion). But no sooner do they come ashore when they are discovered by the Japanese. Nolte's character (a sergeant) has only moments earlier walked down the beach alone and was not noticed. And incredibly, no one noticed his footprints in the sand which would have led the Japanese right to him. But anyway, Nolte is taken in by a tribe of headhunters and becomes their king after defeating another tribesman. So he's out of the war. Then the British commandos show up and want the tribe to assist them in fighting the Japanese.

Unfortunately, Nolte's incessant hamming ruins an interesting story. Instead of acting like a former soldier thrust back into the war, now with a tribe of warriors under his command, Nolte acts like he was raised by the tribe. He speaks as if English is almost a foreign language, rarely using contractions. He makes sweeping gestures when he talks, and acts like he is one with nature, as if he was raised in the jungle.

There is plenty of action and many interesting scenes with the British interacting with Nolte and the tribe. But Nolte's character is never believable. It always looks like he's overacting. He needed to be a little more of an American soldier and a lot less of a tribesman. As it is, he comes across, not as a regal king, but as a lunatic who has forgotten who he really is. But that is not the intent of the film, as the script has him being admired and trusted by the British commandos. There is never any suggestion that the British thought his behavior was strange. He is simply viewed by the British as the defacto leader of the tribe. Thus, it always seems that Nolte's character isn't fitting in with what's supposed to be happening in the film.

Another actor might have done a great job with the role, delivered his lines believably, and made it an outstanding movie. But Nolte ruins the film by hamming up every scene and appearing to not understand what his character is supposed to be.

What a waste.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just caught \"Farewell to the King\" on cable, and maybe it's just because I'm a girl, but I thought this was on the craptastic side. The script and direction are pretentious (once I found out John Milius was responsible, it all became clear). The supporting actors actually weren't bad - James Fox was outstanding. The biggest disappointment was Nick Nolte, who I usually enjoy. Once he goes native, he starts speaking a very stiff, stilted English, and half the time, he seems kind of distracted, as if he'd just smoked some of the bounty of Borneo's rain forest. And then the end -- what the ??? Learoyd just happens to be on the same boat as The Botanist (by the way, had the Botanist dumped the girlfriend, or what?)??? The boat just happens to run aground conveniently close to an island ripe takeover by a crazy Anglo ex-headhunting Army deserter??","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A very hyped-up, slick, edgy reinterpretation.

They've fallen into the \"because it's modern, it has to be hyped-up, slick, etc.\" trap.

\"Romeo and Juliet\" carried this idea off much more successfully, but I really think it's time we move beyond the two extremes here (period piece vs. edgy film).

Just because this is a \"modern\" retelling, doesn't mean the movie has to look like a magazine ad, or have anything to do with drugs or guns.

If the trappings were as subtle as the honeyed words, Macbeth would be a far more powerful film. As it is, read your Shakespeare. Read it out loud. Ask your Oxford dictionary some questions. Skip the film. Or don't, but you've been warned.

Sorry for the super-long review. IMDb made me do it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An interesting concept turned into carnage...

My first seeing feature from Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper), When i first took interest in it, it seemed at the time an interesting concept...

Shakespere + Aussie Film + Gothic setting + Melbourne Gangland

A very odd mixed that turned into a disastrous piece of Aussie cinema that gives my country a bad name...

Pros: -Interesting concept

Cons: -Waste of a good cast -Stuffed and stupid plot -Crooked camera angles -Not much variety of locations -Crap use of Shakespearian diologue

Overall: Australia's worst attempt of a Shakespere film, Stick to Baz Lurhman...or Romper Stomper (WARNING: That film is dangerous)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story of Macbeth was one of the most successful Shakespeare ever wrote. This may be due to some features that place it close to the slasher genre, murder, murder, kill, kill, gallons of blood, a tense sexual relation between the main characters etc. More than this, the original play is very appealing taking into consideration the length (it's only half the size of Hamlet) and the focus on Macbeth for whom we are constrained to care in spite of his bloody nature. The play would seem ideal to base a movie on. Not so lengthy it gives the directors the possibility to explore it's many levels, a good actor can play the role of his lifetime, the film has deep meaning in any historical period. Unfortunately this has not been the case with Macbeth. Polanski's version comes quite close but it insists too much on the medieval period. Welles' film is too personal, with an interesting twist towards totalitarianism, the 1990 or so TV version is too shallow. This 2006 movie is no exception. It is very far from a Shakespeare film, but it is interesting to see how the director understood the story and where he places it in contemporary life. No knights in shiny armor but gangsters in shiny cars. A lot of drugs and trippy music replace the dread of night in the original play. The idea of Macbeth is so simple that to take and implant it in modern day life doesn't need Shakespeare at all. The worst part in the film are the lines. Most of the poignant scenes of the play, such as the dagger scene are trimmed so much they seem pointless. Replacing the knocks in the door with doorbells and horses with cars seems funny. If they wanted to make a movie about power and its temptation they could have done it easily without Shakespeare. This Macbeth seems to be a looser with a brain injury not a valiant warrior, brave and ambitious that wants power so much he is prepared to to kill and who gets caught up in a net of fears and despair. The movie doesn't make clear what drives Lady Macbeth to madness, it doesn't give a reason why some of the characters should fear Macbeth and his \"terror\" (since there is no hereditary ascension to the throne, what with no throne and all) and it places Macbeth in an awkward position, since the leadership of a gang is as far from kingship as this whole movie is far from any Shakespeare. In conclusion, we have two superimposed ideas that never quite meet making this a film that's ultimately pointless.... Stand not upon the order of your going but go!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Macbeth is one of the most frequently told stories in cinema and has been translated many times in numerous theater and celluloid settings. Originally written by William Shakespeare in the early 1600's, Macbeth tells the story of betrayal among royalty and one man's quest for power. Director Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper) tries his hand at updating Macbeth by setting it in the contemporary Melbourne underworld. A film where the characters substitute swords for guns (ala Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet) and royal vassals for gangsters, Macbeth is a gritty, violent, but critically flawed film.

Macbeth (Sam Worthington)works for King Duncan (Gary Sweet). After being elevated to the Thane of Glamis by The King (as was prophesied to Macbeth by three witches), Macbeth starts setting his eyes on the throne. One night the King comes to stay at Macbeth's house and Lady Macbeth (Victoria Hill) talks him into killing The King to assume power. Macbeth kills his master and then assumes his crown. But success has it's downside, as Macbeth soon finds out, when he has to go to hideous lengths to protect his murderous secret.

OK, first things first. The film's major fault is Sam Worthington. His portrayal of Macbeth is in a word... boring. I honestly didn't care about Macbeth while watching the film. I had more sympathy for Victoria Hill's Lady Macbeth because she bothered to act at least. Worthington sits sullen and wood faced throughout the entire film. I felt like he was doing his best impression of Johnny Deep's George Jung character from Blow... but without the charisma. I have never seen Worthington in a film before so I'm not sure if it was his or the Director's fault, but either way the glue that should have tied everything together into one cohesive unit is weak.

The dialog is good, but when matched up to the Geoffrey Wright's Australian Gangster Motif seems a bit out of place. Frentically paced action sequences mixed with long Shaksperian musings creates pacing conflict within the film. I understand that this is Macbeth and that the director wanted to use the original dialog intact. But hard, fast action scenes following a three minute soliloquy tends to get annoying if not a bit pretentious.

The camera-work is highly stylized, and for the most part, it works well. One thing that I found annoying was how the camera would slowly jostle back and forth, almost constantly. I don't mind shots like that it's just overdone. It's passes beyond the realm of being cool and stylish and instead becomes irritating. Other than that, the art direction and cinematography is fairly well-done.

For all of the good qualities Macbeth possesses; stylish direction, Shakespearian dialog, a strong soundtrack, supernatural nude witches(the weird sisters), and good helpings of brutal, bloody violence. All of these strengths are forgotten when one considers Sam Worthington's uninspired portrayal of Macbeth. The role of Macbeth was essential for tying everything together and in this respect Geoffrey Wright and Sam Worthington failed miserably, making Macbeth a forgettable foray into Shakespeare.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Play Macbeth was written by William Shakespeare between the years of 1604 and 1606. Ever since then, many other versions of the play have been produced, including remakes completed in 1948, 1971, and 2006. Akira Kurosawa even directed a Japanese version of Macbeth in 1957 entitled, \"Kumonosu j\u00f4.\" The play starts out with King Duncan hearing about the success of two of his generals, Macbeth and Banquo, in a recent battle with the Irish and the Norwegians. After a quick promotion from Duncan, Macbeth instantly gets an uncanny feeling for lust, greed, and power and does everything in his power to gain access to the crown: even if it includes murder.

Geoffrey Wright tried creating his own version of the famous play in 2006 by setting it in the modern Melbourne underworld. Just imagine a lowly Macbeth slaying hundreds of soldiers with an AK-47 and rapping his own rendition of, \"Low\" at the same time. Just kidding about the latter, but one thing he does do is utter the traditional Shakespeare. And he keeps it going throughout the whole movie. That's right! Shakespeare meets ghetto. It's all you could ever hope for! Not\u0085 The newest Macbeth is rough and violent enough to match up with any other modern day action film, but it lacks decent acting, the right lingo, and a good technique of camera work.

The modernized movie starts out with Macbeth (Sam Worthington) who works as a hit man\/drug dealer for Duncan (Gary Sweet), a drug lord from Melbourne, Australia. After being promoted to the Thane of Glamis by Duncan (as the three witches had predicted), aspiration starts to take over Macbeth as he sets his eyes on the throne. After promoting Macbeth, Duncan invites himself over to Macbeth's house for a night of drugs and alcohol. Before the festivities begin, Lady Macbeth (Victoria Hall) talks Macbeth into killing Duncan to take power over the throne. After the bodyguards are drunk and everyone's asleep, Macbeth sneaks into Duncan's room and stabs him to death. After his murder, Macbeth takes all of Duncan's belongings including hid title and crown. Just as soon as he thinks he's got what he wanted, he finds out that it will take more than bribery and running away to solve his problems.

One major flaw of the movie was the acting. A once seemingly flamboyant and empowered Macbeth suddenly turns into a sissy. And he looks like a sad puppy dog throughout the entire film. I don't really know if this was Worthington's or Wright's fault, but either way, one of the two should have realized Macbeth was a king, not a knot on a log that took everything his wife had to say literally. Like I said earlier, Macbeth should have been rude, arrogant, and spiteful. But when his character changes over to a drug lord, he changes personalities as well I suppose. On the other hand, Lady Macbeth really knew how to nip it in the bud when it came to recognizing and personifying her character. She didn't seem quite as spiteful as she was in the play or the 1971 version, but she reminds Macbeth that compared to murder, anything else he could possibly do, wouldn't quite match up.

Another thing I found distasteful was all the nudity. This fluke HAD to be Wright's fault. The witches didn't do a bit of acting, unless you call parading around in your birthday suit acting. At one point in the film, I started to wonder if I was watching Macbeth or Unique Positions Vol. 2.

Don't get me wrong when I say I find the Shakespearean dialogue out of place. It's spoken flawlessly, but when it's spoken by an Australian gangster, it's just really weird. When Macbeth starts to kill people off, he first lets them know by talking to them in Ye Olde English. Macbeth contains plenty of action, blood, gore, and nudity to last anyone a lifetime. You forget all the positive facts though when you start to think to yourself, \"Okay, what in the heck did he just say in that last sentence?\" At some points in the movie, I don't even think the actors themselves knew what they were saying. The new age-ness of the movie could have easily been pulled off it weren't for the, \"Thou's\" and the, \"Thee's\".

The camera work was just simply fair for me. One thing I could not stand was the constant pacing back and forth between characters. The camera technique used gave off that Blair Witch sort of vibe and made me throw up a little in my mouth. Matt Reeves tried to attempt the same concept of camera work in, Clover field but it just doesn't work. It makes me want to get out of my chair and look around for the little barf bags they have conveniently planted on every seat in the airplanes.

Looking back on it all, the gangsta' Macbeth holds one positive: plenty of action. Other than that, the movie contains nothing more than uninspired acting, correct English usage, and stomach-turning camera work. The soundtrack holds one or two of the same songs, but each song is edited or remixed differently for every scene. There is never a variation of interesting or captivating media used. From now on out, directors should leave the dangerous drug underworld to Al Pacino and Robert Deniro. Future renditions of Macbeth should be created just as Shakespeare intended the play to be 400 years ago. I would recommend using medieval clothing, Ye Olde English, swords and shields and a soundtrack prepared by Enya. But either way, the modern Macbeth makes you yearn for some good 'ole folk music, a camp fire, and a bustier.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie illustrates like no other the state of the Australian film industry and everything that's holding it back.

Awesome talent, outstanding performances (particularly by Victoria Hill), but a let down in practically every other way.

An \"adaptation\" of sorts, it brought nothing new to Macbeth (no, setting it in present-day Australia is not enough), and essentially, completely failed to justify its existence, apart from (let's face it, completely unnecessarily) paying homage to the original work. If there's one body of work that has been done (and done and done and done), it's Shakespeare's. So any adaptation, if it's not to be a self-indulgent and pointless exercise, needs to at least bring some new interpretation to the work.

And that's what this Macbeth fails to do. As it was done, this film has no contemporary relevance whatsoever. It's the same piece that we have seen countless (too many!) times before. Except with guns and in different outfits.

Apart from the fundamental blunder (no other way to put it) of keeping the original Shakespearian dialogue, one of the more cringeful moments of the movie is the prolonged and incredibly boring slow motion shoot out towards the end, during which I completely tuned out, even though I was looking at the screen. I never thought I had a short attention span, but there you go.

I suppose the movie succeeds on its own, very limited terms. But as Australia continues to produce world-class acting talent, its movie-makers need to stop being proud of succeeding on limited terms, and actually set high enough standards to show that they respect for the kind of acting talent they work with.

A shame. An absolute shame.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Recap: Not entirely familiar with the Shakespeare story of Macbeth, but my wild guess is that this is pretty close to the original, only set in present time. It tells the story of Macbeth, a member of a crime syndicate in Melbourne (?). He is a valued hit-man and in the favor of leader Duncan. But he and his lady has higher ambitions than that, and plan the murder of Duncan, and any competition of the throne. This is a story of betrayal and cold, brutal death.

Comments: Very interesting idea, I must say. To use the story but change the setting to present time, but still keep the original (?) dialog. It sets a huge contrast between the classical poetic work and the violence. Promised to be extremely violent, it is a promise that it keeps, but not in the notion I imagined. It is very bloody indeed, but the violence is slow. Not just figuratively speaking that it is calculated, which it is too, but also literally. A lot of action is actually slowed down to slow motion and that is what brings the movie to its knees.

What could have been a unique strength, the contrast between the superfluous and poetic dialog and the extreme violence, now turns into something else entirely. Now both slow the move down painfully much, so much that it actually becomes dull and boring at times.

Also I can't figure out the context the three witches act within. Set to present time and reality I figure that such magical witchcraft had no place in the movie. Apparently it does, but to me it seems completely out of place. Not a subplot but a complete sub-story with it's own rules, completely different than the rest of the movie. Seems completely out of place. Surely it must have been possible to convert that part too to something modern. Drug-induced hallucinations perhaps (which I suspect that the director hints at but then he has left way too much witchcraft in it to be believable)? Now they only bring stretches of the movie that is clearly beside the story and I just waited for the real movie to begin again.

A clear disappointment, but maybe something for Shakespearean-buffs?

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you want a horrible interpretation of \"MacBeth\", then this is your answer. Filled with archaic Shakespearic English language in a 21st century Australian setting, this film lives to disappoint and leave you scratching your head. But that isn't all.

Not only is there sophomoric action sequences but there are plenty of scenes where the female body is displayed. The witches, played by actresses that resemble school girls more than witches, put on a soft porn display with MacBeth in a unremarkable display of affection. Welcome to stupidity and depravity - all at the same time.

Its a wonder why this project was green-lighted. So much for modern cheesy movies. \"D-\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Geoffrey Wright, the director of \"Romper Stomper\", transplants Shakespeare's \"Macbeth\" in the contemporary, criminal underworld of Melbourne, Australia. The result is a semi-awful piece of cinema. Sam Worthington is Macbeth, and walks around looking very self-conscious and bored. Victoria Hill, who wrote the script with Wright, is Lady Macbeth, and she's neither awful nor good. Lachy Hulme, who plays McDuff, is the only actor in the cast who exudes any kind of authority. The rest, including Gary Sweet, are wasted and misdirected. Shot on HD by the late Will Gibson, the movie's visuals lack character. Everything is too clean and too deliberately lit. Wright's direction is uninspired in the extreme and the action sequences are confusing and inept. Marketed erroneously as \"the most violent Australia movie ever\", the film is violent at times and reasonably bloody, but it fails to deliver a single impactful moment. Slow moving and terribly pretentious, this umpteenth silver screen version of the classic play is the personification of wrong-headed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Aussie Shakespeare for 18-24 set.with blood ,blood and more blood.and good dose of nudity. this will not be for every one on may levels, to violent for some too cheap for most. done on low budget they try and do there best but it only works sporadically.and this macbeth just seem to be lacking ,its just not compelling. although there is some good acting on the part of most you don't get into there heads especially mecbeths. the best performance came from gary sweet and the strangest mick molly. if your into Shakespeare then see it,but if you like your cheese mature you will love it.it not a bad film but it not that good either. sam peckenpah would of loved it, that is if it was filmed as a western. i was expecting a lot from this, as i loved romper stomper. but this is was a vacant effort.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Love sublime says the title. Another blurb during the promotions of the film talked about inner vs external beauty. Well in this case the beauty - you decide inner or external - is provided by scantily clad (or is that scantily dressed\/ undressed) Zeenat Aman who the director Raj Kapoor called \"a volcano of talent\" while the film was being made. One can't accuse him of sarcasm of course - after all he was promoting his own film.

The paper thin plot is about a woman with a disfigured face who has a - er - well proportioned body , a great voice (thanks to Lata Mangeshkar) with whom the hero Shashi Kapoor falls in love. He doesn't want her face only her voice. The acting is desperate and even the 4 is because of the music with Lata Mangeshkar giving some good numbers. The rest is of course bunkum. Avoid - save your money. Inner beauty vs Outer beauty. !!! You need not be an Einstein to figure out which one the director was concentrating on","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is not worth the time it takes to put it in the VCR or DVD player! Michael Dudikoff and Lisa Howard are two bounty hunters in love, yet they are total opposites. She is ambitious and organized, while he is laid back and totally scatter brained.

In this movie, bad guys are chasing Jersey Bellini (Dudikoff's character). This opens the door to bad Godfather impressions, ludicrous fight scenes, and Tony Curtis playing the most effeminate looking mob boss I have ever seen! The ending has to be the most...unbelievable scene I have seen in a movie in quite some time. I would believe the Terminator, even the Matrix, has a better chance of possibly being true than this ending! This movie just reeks of cheapness. The script had to have hit someone as being totally ridiculous. Yet, the green light was given for this piece of dung to be made and let loose on on unsuspecting public. I watched this movie with several other people who all agreed that we had been cheated. No one in the group could say anything good about the film except that it was over.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I only bought this DVD because it was dirt cheap and it seemed interesting in its own special way (\"special\" meaning \"retarded\"). The movie turned out to be quite uninteresting - boring camera work, nothing really driving the story, and of course the acting is horrible. It wasn't even \"bad\" in a campy way - it was just plain bad. There are actually a handful of great lines of dialogue but for the most part its awkward and weak. All I could think about while watching this was that this could actually be a good movie if the script was given a major overhaul (if it were written by someone who actually understood drug culture) and if some decent actors were cast. I wouldn't recommend \"Weekend With the Babysitter\" unless if you plan on a career in film and want to learn what not to do in a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've just seen this film in a lovely air-conditioned cinema here in Bangkok. And since the temperature outside is hovering somewhere around 37C with very high humidity, my 100Bt was not wasted.

Failing that, I haven't seen such a piece of extremely well-made junk in a long time. This is the kind of film that provides a test of taste, as it were. Anyone who claims to like or love it goes immediately onto the same list of tasteless phonies who still go around talking about the superiority of British television. At least the gormless old broad in the wheelchair was good for a few guffaws.

Pseudo-profundity and fat lips, while characteristic of much French cinema, really do not a good movie make. I'd rather watch Independence Day 10 times in a row than sit through this stinker one more time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After watching the first movie in BCI's new Aztec Mummy Collection, it's difficult to believe how excited I was about the set and how upset I was when the release date was pushed back. I've watched a lot of Mexican horror in recent months. Some great \u0096 The Curse of the Crying Woman. Some entertaining despite obvious flaws \u0096 Night of the Bloody Apes. And some Cheesy \u0096 Pick any Santo movie. One thing that all these movies have in common is that none can be called \"dull\". Well, that's not the case with The Aztec Mummy. It's been awhile since I last watched something so sleep inducing. I wasn't hoping for or expecting a great movie, but at least entertain me! The Aztec Mummy takes every situation that could be interesting and sucks the life out of it through repeated scenes of people doing nothing and then extending those scenes for what fells like an eternity. I guess that's what happens when you make an 80 minute movie with only 30 minutes of material. Padding extraordinaire! For example, for anyone who has seen the movie, what purpose does The Bat have other than to bring a masked wrestler type to the screen and to extend the runtime by 15 or so pointless minutes?

I can only hope that the other two movies in The Collection are more entertaining than this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of three Aztec Mummies film is the only one that to the best of my knowledge was never completely dubbed into English. The film was chopped up and used in pieces by people like Jerry Warren in other films (he combined it with another Mexican horror comedy with Lon Chaney to make Face of the Screaming Werewolf. And it showed up in Attack of the Mayan Mummy and elsewhere.) The longest of the three films, a good chunk of this film makes up the two later films which use this as a basis of flash backs. The plot of this film has a scientist conducting a past life regression experiment which causes his subject to travel back and discover hidden chambers in an Aztec pyramid. The group, as well as a sinister figure known as the Bat, hope to use the information to discover hidden treasure. Instead they discover a living mummy who has other plans. Long and long winded this film has way too little action to sustain its 80 minute running time (worse the mummy doesn't even show up until an hour has passed). Probably the least of the three films, its easy to see why this film was cut apart, it's the only way to fashion a non-sleep inducing film. Watching the film late last night I found myself fighting to stay awake. It was a tough haul and I found that I ended up scanning to the point where the mummy showed up. Given the choice I'd take a pass and watch the second two films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a science fiction fan from my early childhood (long time since) I always hated implausible plots. It's a pity that most authors of science fiction stories for children do not show this kind of respect for their audience. I always suspected them of thinking: \"children are to dumb to realise, so we don't have to strive\". The writer of \"Science Fiction (2002)\" is no exception. The story is about a boy who is instigated by his new friends to spy after his parents, because they think that the parents are aliens. As intriguing the idea sounded to me, as much was I bored by its realisation. It seemed to me that the filmmakers had exactly this one idea and tried to stretch it over the ninety minutes by dunking it into a dark, stylish and painstakingly slow atmosphere. The only thing that kept me in my seat was the question \"how do they manage to get out of this implausible rubbish\"? And then - bang - they did not even try. So if you are looking for good entertainment for both children and parents, go and watch \"Klatret\u00f8sen (2002)\" instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off just to say i didn't get the edition I thought I would - I chose the Italian version over the R2, but what actually arrived was a UK release from 1998 - claiming to be a special edition - i never knew there WAS a UK DVD release - but the promised biogs were not actually on the disc - just a couple of duff trailers. Anyway - as to the film itself - just as I was recovering from \"Night TRain Murders\" my second genital mutilation thriller turns up in the same month - this time in (an Italian) UK nubile schoolgirls are being offed and Teacher Fabio Testi - (unhappily) married but nailing one of his students - becomes the main suspect. Joachim Fuchsberger is the detective on the case. Sorry to say I was less than entranced. It was watchable but more than equally miss able,and aside from the aforementioned gruesome nature of the crime, the \"surprise\" killing of Cristina Galbo which was actually \"spoilt\" by the DVD cover telling me about it - Grrrrrr!!!! and a surprise twist that cast the \"victims\" in a new light - i thought this was very routine. Itwont put me off the two \"sequels\" though. with Karin (Hannibal Brooks)Baal and Camille (I Spit on your grave\") Keaton.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Solange is not a great Italian thriller. Get ready for the spoiler - the main suspect, the professor, didn't do it. But is it really a spoiler? No, because you know that he couldn't have been the murderer from the very beginning; he and a student witnessed the first murder. So, there is absolutely no suspense as to whether or not the professor is the killer. There is a long, tedious build up to the final explanation of the mystery. The solution is interesting, but it comes out of nowhere. The rest of the movie (and it's not a short movie) is just not exciting enough to hold your interest. Even in the tradition of \"wrong man accused\" it fails, because the police never seriously accuse the professor, and the killer is never after him. Dull, dull, dull.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love watching a good gory giallo. Unfortunately, SOLANGE is definitely not one of them. It's long. Very long. The story is tacky and makes very little sense even if it's very obvious. The script spends so much time on the killings and the girls but it spends almost no time at all on the killer. This leaves a big hole in the story: we might get to see a bunch of young women showering together but we get zero characterization of why the killer decided to murder those girls. Yes, what happened to Solange is terrible but we still pretty much left in the dark over when, why did the [boring] killer decided that it was worth going through the effort of offing those oh so naughty girls. It's all so contrived that I couldn't get into it one bit.

As for the look of the film, again, boring. Nothing memorable about it. The actors? Boring. The script? Laughably boring. The whole \"torrid\" love affair between the teacher, the blond and the student was really embarrassing. What planet are they living on? The music? Boring. Skip it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me preface by stating that I have lived in Louisville, Kentucky all of my life. I grew up about \u00bd mile from Waverly. In the wintertime we would pull our sleds down Maryman road and cross Dixie Highway to go sleigh riding on Waverly Hill. Many times during the winter of 76-77 we would climb into the Tunnel to warm ourselves. The place was still being run as a \"Geriatric Center\" at the time. We would go all the way through the tunnel up the hill to bang on what we thought was the \"Door to the Morgue\". I have to be honest. The only sensation we felt was that we were getting away with something we should not be doing. I would have to say we went up that tunnel over 50 times that winter. Nothing stranger than teen-aged boys acting stupid ever happened. I love the fact that it is getting attention after all these years. One evening when I was young we looked out our front porch and it appeared that the entire hill was on fire. There was an older hospital on the hill that burned down. It burned for hours while the entire neighborhood sat outside and watched. The thing that gets lost about Waverly is that many people survived TB there. Let's face it\u0085The doctors back then did everything they thought was correct to save people. It took a lot of guts for people to work there knowing how contagious TB was. Too much is focused on those who suffered. I also have traveled into the building several times in the early 70's. We would go and visit shut-ins in the Nursing Home through a church youth group. By the way, the doors there were not prison like steel doors with chains and padlocks as portrayed in the film. They were wooden and open\u0085sometimes too open. It did smell of urine and feces and you saw the occasional open gown associated with patients with dementia. It was true that it was closed by the state in the early 80's. A lot of that may have to do with the age of the building or the right guy wasn't paid off. This is after all Kentucky. The part of the documentary that turned me off the most was the piling of bodies into a cart. If I am not mistaken it appears to have been Holocaust footage. That was added for dramatic effect. It left me with a sour taste in my mouth for the filmmaker. I am a skeptic when it comes to \"Ghosts\". I do believe that many around here truly think the place to be haunted. Waverly for me however symbolized a fun place for adventure for a boy with a sled.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am very into Waverly Hills and first watched Death Tunnel The Movie.Couldn't have been much worse. Then I heard that the documentary was coming out and got excited thinking that since it was a documentary it would be more serious and not have the horrible special effects.Wrong the same guys did the documentary and ruined it with effects instead of producing it raw the way a documentary should be.Waverly Hills doesn't need help with goofy effects its fine just the way it is. Tours are $20.00 per person and $100.00 for 8 hour overnight investigation per person minimal group of 10 for overnight investigation.Tours must be set up ahead of time. Awesome place for the Ghost Hunter!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this AFTER seeing \"Death Tunnel\" (this being, without question, the worst movie I've ever seen in my life) so you can understand I went in rolling my eyes a little at seeing the directors and producers of that cinematic gem being in charge of this one. First of all, I thought the director and producer were the same guy. They both are Kid Rock meets Dawg the Bounty Hunter. I watched the TAPS investigation, and I am not a skeptic- I think TAPS is the closest one will ever get to a scientific method in the field. That was cool and believable- I do believe they are haunted.

But this, like the reviewer above mentioned, like taking a tour. Okay a tour, fine, but the \"investigators\" and \"group leaders\" seemed to make a pretty penny and have a financial investment into whether its haunted or not, so when THEY have fantabulous stories, I have to take it with a heaping teaspoon of salt.

As someone else mentioned, I could make out whatever they wanted me to see in the picture about 50% of the time. The rest of the time, I couldn't make out anything. Also without any context to the photos- time of day, type of camera, moisture in the room, dust particles (which 75% are what the orbs are), weather and a ga-gillion other factors, I cant accept them. I also cant help thinking that some might be doctored.

Why would that band keep the numbers from the door? Vandalism? Also during the TAPS investigation, they tried to dig up the death certificates of those nurses- and they only found one which was ruled \"accidental\" (people didn't want to officially proclaim suicide). Yet when one of the guides was mentioning this, he said \"yep, and its marked suicide.\" It really felt like the guides to the haunted houses here in October.

I DID however like the interviews with the patients and staff from the old hospital(s), that really gave it a lot of perspective and a personal touch. I'm also glad that they mentioned that the staff had the best of intentions, and weren't some ghoulish-wardens. They weren't the best methods, but its all they had. They were desperate to stop the disease.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first film I saw from these people was \"Children of the Grave\" and when I heard that this one was coming on I thought it would be good to watch mostly because Waverly is a real place that is rumored to be haunted. This documentary\/film was AWFUL! There was too much fake commentary from the producers, directors, camera men...they needed to keep their faces out of this film. Waverly has been rumored to be haunted for a long time yet if anyone in doubt about it watches this film they will no doubt start to believe that every story about the place is as fake as this documentary. The paranormal proof was horrible and almost non-existent. I have heard better EVPs from high school students with tape recorders in a bathroom! They tried too hard to make things scary and the end result was that nothing was scary. Not the stories, not the blurry too dark to see anything videos, not the pictures, not the tape recordings! Children of the Grave was bad as well but at least it had some substance and a little bit of a creep factor. The only reason I am giving this a 3 is because the history portion of the show was very good and informative. Learning about how the hospital came about, the daily life there,and how it ended was the only thing worth while in this 2hr piece of crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Basically, this was obviously designed to be promotional material for the movie produced by the same horrible director, which happens to be even worse than this documentary and absolutely the worst movie I've ever seen, so avoid it at all costs.

As for this documentary, it's entertaining; entertaining and blatantly misleading! Most of the \"historical\" looking footage is most likely just that, historical footage from completely unrelated events that were sadly cut and pasted into this documentary to make it more dramatic than it would have ever been otherwise. There's no doubt that Waverly is a pretty interesting place with plenty of it's own fascinating history, but manufacturing a documentary to market the locale and the related production is, for lack of better words, appallingly useless.

And yes, I've lived in Kentucky my whole life, and I have visited the location numerous times. Waverly Hills deserves respect; and there's nothing respectful about this lame documentary.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How is this a documentary? Much more like a walking ghost tour one might take in any given Southern city. Quotes were generously dropped throughout without the first effort at identifying the source. George Orwell was the most identified quoter.

Documents were referred to without ever being produced in any form. Flat out fraudulent shots depicting period film stock were spliced aside historical film reels with no separation from reality and self-promotion. Film reels which were entirely unrealistic and improbable for the time at hand were dropped in, as if trying to ape Blair Witch, hoping to drum up a spook house on what would otherwise simply be dead real estate.

Is this not in some way a great disrespect to actual victims of TB, a dance on their collective graves for the sake of commercialism? The line between actual footage and manufactured self-service is so thin; the drippings of doubt so insignificantly played down; the scientific boundaries so blatantly ignored... how could this possibly be listed in my TiVo as documentary?

It's a vacation promo, and at that it fully succeeds.

Hell, I'd visit the joint if I could locate it on Google Earth. Not scary said a previous poster. Not too serious either, says I. Fascinating story. Flimsy film-making.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was like someone was trying to make a scary video game and a documentary at the same time. The historical aspect was great. Everything else was horrible, the plugs for the directors other movie that seemed to happen every other minute, the video of the actual ghost hunting was edited like a scary movie rather than an investigation, they had haunted house music and sound effects that would distract you from what was happening. THanks for wasted 2 hours of my time! When there was evidence, it would fly by! Most of it was just people talking about the place.The episode of the Ghosthunters show that went there absolutely destroys how this show was. I am so upset with sci fi channel for playing this, I haven't watched it since it aired.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is just a long advertisement for the movie \"The Death Tunnel\". Although it is an interesting history of the Waverly Hills Sanatorium, the whole ghost theory is up to your interpretation. More \"Ghost Orbs\" which you can duplicate with dust in front of a flash camera, and the \"Ectoplasmic Mist\" is just someone's cigarette smoke lit up with the camera flash. I couldn't see any \"Shadow People\" until they drew an outline around the blurry distortion of the image. No scientific explanations were suggested for the phenomena, only paranormal. Perhaps these are only events one would have to see to believe, so be sure to make plans to visit the Sanatorium on your next vacation in Louisville, Kentucky.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The incomparable Paul Naschy, horror film icon of Spain, lends his talents to this entertaining if not scattershot film. What begins as an action flick ends up a horror story. All I can say is just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Paul Naschy plays a cold-hearted hit-man hired by some shady Japanese diamond hunters (one of which is his flame who is carrying his child) to swipe a cache of diamonds from a Belgian businessman. When the deed is done, the allure of the diamonds is too tempting for Paul to dismiss so he kills his Japanese cohorts. His girlfriend, whose brother Paul killed, vows revenge and chases Paul through the forest, shooting him up and leaving him for dead. However, Paul is found by an egghead with two horny daughters and brought to his estate to recuperate.

At the estate, the two daughters, Silvia Aguilar and Azucena Hernandez, fight for Paul in his weakened state, with the busty Silvia Aguilar determined not to lose out to the sweet and prim Azucena. But things get hairy for Mr. Naschy who begins to see the ghost of the daughter's long dead mother on the estate grounds. Couple this with the Japanese lass looking to finish the job of killing Paul and he gets pulled from two sides.

STORY: $$ (The story goes a number of ways and doesn't fully satisfy. The script builds up a fight for Paul between the daughters but Silvia, whose character seems assertive and volatile, simply lets Azucena win in the Paul Naschy sweepstakes without putting up a fight. Personally, I would have preferred the ghostly apparition story to the revenge seeking of the Japanese woman)

VIOLENCE: $$$ (You get gunplay, a blown-up babe and pigs eating some poor schmuck alive. Gore hounds will not be letdown with this Naschy flick).

ACTING: $$$ (Paul Naschy, as always, is fun to watch but he does spend a bit too much time in bed recovering from his wounds. Starring with him again are the luscious Silvia Aguilar and the beautiful Azucena Hernandez, who teamed with Mr. Naschy in the little gem \"The Craving.\" Both girls do a fine job).

NUDITY: $$$ (You get very brief glimpses of both Aguilar and Hernandez but they are strategically placed, keeping the naught bits covered. Full nudity is supplied by the two lesser appealing actresses: the Japanese woman chasing Paul and the African maid that works for Silvia and Azucena).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've read through a lot of the comments here about how this movie sticks to the book.. I don't think any of them have actually read it. Edgar Rice wrote about a dangerous African Jungle and Apes were killers and hunters. We know differently now and this movie portrays Apes in a more modern view. I've never seen a Tarzan movie that even comes close to Edgar's vision. Maybe one day Hollywood with trust talented and respected authors to tell the story. So, if you've never read the book and enjoy a good story about feelings and a fluffy bunny view of wild animals, maybe a good cry, see the movie. I hope John Carter of Mars get's more respect than Tarzan has. We miss ya, Edgar!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is my opinion of this movie, expressed in its dialogs.

To be more serious, i can't say this movie is a bad moment but i didn't enjoy it either.

First, I was simply indifferent & couldn't get my mind into the apes world. Even though the make-up are very realistic, the constant screaming was irritating. May the film have changed apes for cats and it's a cult movie for me in relation to my fondness of the latter.

The second part is more interesting, with the talent and freshness of then newcomers (Macdowell & Lambert), but i felt alienated: all the story is located in a big British mansion: no matter how luxurious is it, it was like a prison for me.

At last, it could be a good adaptation of the Burroughs' story of Tarzan ? I don't know, having never read the book (or seen the Disney): .

In conclusion, i don't have any good moments to remember, so one viewing would be enough for me.

I should have guessed my boredom after the endless freeze called \"Overture\" at the beginning... What's the meaning? Only the director knows it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am very interested in animal children and I have read many Edger Rice Burroughs novels -- but this awful movie couldn't keep me interested, nor could I stomach all the absurd, unrealistic scenes. I only managed to sit through the Africa part and John's first few days in Scotland. Let's talk about 'unrealistic' and 'downright silly'! The actors in ape suits looked like extra large chimps, rather than great apes (there is a difference). They did not move with the grace that a wild animal would. (For comparison, see some of the better Planet of the Apes movies where they trained their actors to move in simian fashion). The apes eat large haunches of meat -- not a common ape practice as far as I know. I am a sucker for animal stories but the script did not make me care about the apes. The great white hunters of the expedition that finds John Clayton are charicaturish entirely. The parents of Clayton were shipwrecked on an ocean beach, but somehow it is a very long trip down the river to get to the coast -- give me a break! Let's talk about 'slow'. Even the folks who think this is an excellent movie admit that it is not an action movie. Far from it. It tries to be a character study -- unfortunately the downright silly part predominates! I did not read Burroughs' Tarzan books, but many of his other series -- they were packed with meaningful action and heroic purpose! This film just isn't there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A female friend invited me to see this in the theaters.

After half an hour we walked out, and went into the next multiplex (yeah, we broke the rules) in time to catch the beginning of Against All Odds.

I remember too many apes dancing around saying, \"oog, oog.\" Very little about the characters or introduction to the story captured either one of us or was even memorable. It just dragged to the point of being painfully boring (and believe me, any excuse was good enough to spend time with this particular friend).

The production values were excellent, good photography and lighting, but this was a major studio release, and we came to see a movie, not an art gallery. It seemed like Ralph Richardson and Andie McDowell were going to be wasted in such a poorly written film.

Perhaps if you make into the second hour, there is something worth seeing. I do not have so much patience with my time. 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here's why this movie fell very short of its potential(I don't read much, so I don't care WHAT the novel was like). 1. I think Brendan Frasier copied his Encino man from Lambert's Tarzan. It was stiff, and while his Tarzan call was a little more realistic, he had no humanity. 2. They screwed with the story. Maybe that's how the book goes, but for as long as I can remember the first utterances of Tarzan were \"Me tarzan, you Jane\". Jane is the first human tarzan encounters. I did like the natives a bit more than the shoepolished midget pigmys in Weismuller's version, but those bows and arrows were a bit cheesy. 3. Tarzan is primarily a love story. I'm sorry, but the love interest enters over an hour into the picture. That qualifies her for a supporting role at best. Supporting roles and leads don't fall for each other, not enough screen time, sorry. Not only was Andie McDowell's vioce over pathetic(most likely because her strong southern accent couldn't be masked) the chemistry scale between Tarzan and Jane was a whopping 0. I never believed they loved each other, which made the Belgian dudes closing voice over, quite frankly, silly. When Tarzan sees Jane for the first time in the jungle, he feels an urge, if you will, a feeling he's never felt before. Jane brings out the humanity in him, and he brings out the untamed side of her. Its this chemistry that compells the story of Tarzan. Not that Lord Greystoke's dying wish is to keep his land whole and that johnny boy is going to do it for him. Even a good face lift couldn't help this movie. It needs massive internal reconstruction. Oh, and could we possibly shoot more in the jungle, or at least use camera angles that don't show off the sound stage like qualities of the place. Final judgement, 4 out of 10. Sorry Tin-man, and by the way, if you want to see real acting, drop Lambert and check out Leonardo Dicaprio.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This DVD is barely 30 minutes long, and has dull interviews that reveal that the average Slipknotian has an IQ of around 30. But these aspects are the least problematic here.

The real trouble is that Slipknot is one of the least talented metal bands to ever sell over 100,000 units of their crap. (The only reason I say \"one of the\" instead of \"the\" is because System Of A Down are even worse.) Much like Ed Gein's girlfriends, this band's music is pieced together from age-old metal clich\u00e9s, which are to be found in both their image and their ultra-dull music. In fact, their image is kind of fun; their videos are like snippets from cheesy horror films hence they fulfill at least some purpose as entertainment.

Their music, however, consists of nothing of quality - whatsoever: just a bunch of gimmicky, heard-them-a-million-times-before played-solely-at-the-guitar-neck riffs that are in no way related to each other and yet are randomly grouped together to form \"songs\" that have no cohesion, no highlights, no nothing. But if the riffs are truly bad, then the vocals are even worse: Slipknot's singer has a stereotypical hence uninteresting \"evil\" growl - the kind 90% of all metal bands today have - but that is nothing compared to when this deluded hick starts trying to sing! Still, what could one expect? Rule no.39 of the \"Nu Metal\" handbook says quite clearly: \"You will alternately growl and sing. Ignore the fact that the two styles don't mix well, because most of your fans are so tone-deaf they will love you even if you **** into the microphone.\" Slipknot are at their absolute worst when their \"singer\" starts belching out \"melodies\".

But back to their image. It's stolen, copied, ripped off, nicked, borrowed, taken without asking from none other than Mr.Bungle. You've never heard of them? Of course you haven't. You only listen to nu-metal, and Mr.Bungle is quite far from that, and beyond any categorization anyway. They too wore masks - grotesque, horror ones, similar to those of Slipknot, I might add - in the late 80s and early 90s. This band, whose frontman is Mike Patton from Faith No More, never hit it big because their music wasn't directed toward the average music fans (to put it mildly).

So, basically Slipknot aren't even original in the image department. They have nothing at all new to offer hence will be forgotten in several years: once the masks become boring to the legions of their zit-faced fans, which is when Slipknot will be forced to compete in the music market solely with their generic music.

Speaking of Mike Patton, it's interesting that a number of nu-metal bands often site his singing as a major influence. Predictably - and thankfully - Patton is not flattered by this and has denied being in any way proud to have been an influence for one of the worst metal sub-genres ever...

Having said that, enjoy this short DVD and the cheap thrills it might provide to the untrained ear and bored eye... And then polish those Slipknot posters, because in a few years no-one will be taking care of them, the poor dears.

Having seen Corey in the documentary \"Get Thrashed\", I finally understand why he wears a mask: he is a blue-eyed baby-faced ginger, looking like Dave Mustaine's younger brother! Not exactly scary.

For more of my music-world rants, go to: http:\/\/rateyourmusic.com\/collection\/Fedor8\/1

Please punish me hard, very HARD, by clicking \"no\" below. That'll teach me...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some of the greatest and most loved horror movies have a wicked sense of humour, but when a film comes along that isn't as original as the \"classics\" but just goes at it for laughs then a bunch of po-faced, wanna-be critics completely slag it off. This film made me laugh aloud several times, this is testament to the way this film was approached and it shows. The two main leads look natural and believable together and this really helps this film. You root for them the whole way and laugh along with them, everyone has friends like both of these guys. Another highlight for me was the monster truck, it's awesome, intimidating and really well shot. Taking inspiration (completely stealing) from loads of films, the most obvious being Duel, Jeepers Creepers and probably in reference to the Jack Black alike co-star Orange County. But really you can pick any road trip gone wrong movie and find a reference here. But so what, it's not trying to win any Oscars just give the viewer a good dose of frights and laughs and on that score it's a 10! Obviously It's not getting a 10, I give real sensible reviews and scores unlike 99% of the people on IMDb. There is no-way this movie can get a zero like so many lazy idiots give to too many films and as fun as it was it ain't getting a 10 either. It's just a good fun movie for anyone with a sense of humour and a liking for scares. You really can't get anymore simple than that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Fans of horror comedy will like this one. Others might get quickly annoyed and shut it off. It's sort of a buddy film, with over-the-top violence and gore, deliberately stereotyped characters, and a lot of craziness.

It looks to have been made on a budget of about $100, by a bunch of fraternity guys after a big beer keg party. There's a lead who's a frustrated nerd, and his loudmouth prank-pulling friend who mocks him about 30 times per second. There's a cool monster truck chasing them for hundreds of miles, which is the highlight of the film. Whenever this thing and its gnarly-mask wearing driver appear, it's a great scene. There's a mysterious girl who randomly appears in their back seat, and plenty of giant guys in overalls hanging out in red neck bars. The nerd's friend never shuts his yap, and gets them in one mess after another. Their arguing got on my nerves, but other aspects of the film make up for it.

Sight gags poking fun at several \"psycho tormenting and trying to croak somebody\" films are everywhere. Take your pick which one is riffed the most: Hills Have Eyes, Saw, and Jeepers Creepers were some that I recognized.

It's enjoyable insanity, if you're in the right frame of mind. Sensory-dulling brewskies with your friends can make viewing this more fun; it's a good bet that's the condition of the movie makers when they put this thing together.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I completely disagree with the previous reviewer: this movie has amusing moments but hardly a laugh riot. (unless you really think sipping from a septic tank and heads exploding in a vice are a laugh riot) In fact, the only reasons I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 are because a.) two of the actors are decent b.)the soundtrack is above average with some tuneful pop songs thrown in for contrast and c.)the monster truck is pretty terrifying.

Other than that, this is a movie with some intermittent, creepy or interesting ideas which are overwhelmed by unrelenting crassness, crudity and vileness. The former best friend character is one of the most annoying I've ever seen and the small grace that the hitchhiker character had disappears in yet another contrived twist ending that makes little to no sense at all.

A waste of the lead actor who shows some nervous charm and the aforementioned actress portraying the hitchhiking character...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would like to know who conned the producers of this movie to pay for its production - That persion is a genius of sorts. This movie somehow held my attention for about two thirds of it until I realized that it was going nowhere fast. I think the music managed to make it seem like something was going on, but nothing really was. It was not scary. The dialog was poorly written. The first 90 minutes should have been covered in about 15 minutes. This would have been a moderately acceptable Twilight Zone or Outer Limits episode.

At this point I'm just mad that I wasted all that time. That's a couple hours that I will never get back.

I hope these comments save someone from wasting their evening. Take a nap or hit the gym instead. Or if you want to be scared, turn on a cable news channel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Last night, I am sitting in my TV room, beer in hand, bowl of pretzels on the TV tray & I decide to put the movie \"Monster Man\" into my trusty VCR. Expecting a fun-filled, gory, crash & bash cheesefest of a movie. What do I get instead? One of THE most silly, stupid, unfrightening & predictable films I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. And what's even worse, all during the(& I use this next phrase loosely) \"sex scene\" the girl keeps all her clothes on! I'll make this summary short & sweet: mix \"Dude Where's My Car\" (about a good 1\/2 of the film) with a very watered down \"Hitcher\", add a redneck version of the antagonist from \"I Madman\" as the primary villain & finally some incoherent black magic mumbo jumbo & you'll kind of get a clue how rotten this movie is. It's also utterly predictable throughout. The only notable factor to this buddy movie disguised as a \"horror film\" is that some of the moments between the 2 guys (even though the \"hero\" is one MAJOR annoying geek & the other is a Jack Black clone) are kind of funny (just mediocre funny i.e..like most of SNL skits). Other than that, \"Monster Man\" is a monster mess! 3\/10 (This one I'll be handing out at Halloween time-just hope after the person views it I don't get my house egged or worse)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Heard some good remarks about this film as being very gory and frightning, but it's neither. Obviously the screenwriter wanted to do a scary horror film but at the same time inject some teenage comedy for the young target audience. Scares and comedy seldomly result in good films, the same goes for MONSTER MAN.

Not really funny, nor scary or overly enjoyable on ANY other level.

Aproaching 39 years of age I've seen my share of horror movies. I have seen good ones and terrible ones, but the crop of films released these days are so frighteningly mediocre it bores me to watch 'em. The acceptance these days for bad films like this is what really annoys me. Let's face it, they produced a lot of crap in the 70's, 80's and 90's but they were regarded as such then as well. Today they're regarded as \"good entertainment\". - Bollocks!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, where do I begin? After suffering through this wretched $1.00 rental (thanks a LOT, Family Video) I just had to make a few comments. I did not bother to write down the names of the 3 actors in the film, but hopefully you will know who I am talking about.

A monster truck terrorizes the countryside and chases two college-aged buddies to their doom. They encounter a hot girl wearing slutty clothes. I mean, this just sounds fantastic in theory. I was laughing hysterically at the DVD box while I walked it up to the girl behind the counter at the video store.

Acting: the hot girl, played by Aimee Whatever, is visibly laughing through many scenes where she is supposed to be scared. The other two major actors in the film, the fat prankster and the vanilla straight-guy are both terrible. The fat guy thinks he's Jack Black. He's not. The other actor, our hero, over-emotes and misses all his cues and comes across as some generic character you might see in a made-for-Nickelodeon movie about skateboarding in the early 90's. Look: I don't expect great performances in movies like these, but at least the actors can make an effort to not be annoying. You can be an incompetent actor but still be agreeable (i.e. John Wayne). At least that Aimee gal is attractive.

Script: Holy ****, who thought this dialogue was funny? I wouldn't have the nerve to play this out in front of my grade school drama class, much less pitch it as a film script. Unfathomably bad. More on this later.

Production: OK, this is the one place where the film definitely succeeds. Production quality is amazingly high. The look of the film is very good. Apparently the only talented person who worked on the movie was the director of photography.

OK, here are my biggest gripes: 1) The guy driving the car never drives faster than 25 miles an hour.

2) The guy driving the car is well out into the country before he realizes there is a fat man in a mask in his back seat. He is supposedly meticulous about recording gas mileage and keeping his antique car in good condition but he does not notice a 300lb Jack Black impersonator in the back? Come on.

4) Characters never change their clothes. There are two hotel scenes. Presumably, showers are available to our characters yet over the 3 days this movie takes place, none of the characters bothers to change their clothes.

5) Comedy. Lighthearted, slapstick comedy does not mix with horror. Period. You can't have our characters running away from a monster truck one second and the next second have them verbally jousting one another with some dopey light\/comedy music playing. This kind of pacing virtually ruins any tension in the movie. Movies like Evil Dead 2 which mix comedy and horror understand that tension can be loosened yet never completely eliminated with humor. Monster Man doesn't get it.

I'm irritated that what could have been a VERY funny horror movie was ruined by a director who thought he was a lot more clever than he really was. Oh well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now don't get me wrong I love bad movies... no I adore bad movies, Troll 2.... ouch painful, Manos The Hands of Fate... just watch Torgo go, Guru the Mad Monk.. is that traffic noise in the medieval background? OK so that's clear, but this is one of those films that was quite obviously trying to be something better, but didn't make it. Why not? Well it would be easy to blame the plot, but heh we've seen worse, there weren't too many holes and heh I know there's not a lot of originality in it but then that needn't kill a film. The effects aren't bad (if you completely ignore the last scene), the monster is OK, the truck quite menacing so where did it go wrong? Well I'd love to blame it on the 'Chris Moyles' look-a-like Harley... so I will! Comedy and horror are difficult to mix well, bad comedy and horror even worse and there's the problem. I loathed this guy from the moment he stuck his head up (literally), the continual bating of the overly meek Adam becomes annoying, so annoying that you lose belief that the mildest of people wouldn't react by pushing him out of the moving car door... and I thought it was the monster bits that the director was meant to have trouble convincing us of. Why are bad movies fun? Well you have great fun poking holes in them, laughing at the script, all the howlers etc. This film doesn't make the coveted category of 'Worst Movies' because its just bad due to being annoying nuff said. Don't bother, go watch anything else and you'll be a better person for it... I promise! (Fade to chants of Torgo Torgo Torgo)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What an absolute joke of a movie. The case for this film would have you believe it is Duel meets Jeepers Creepers meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Three good films in their own right and you would think, using their blueprint, MM couldn't go far wrong. Well that's what I thought, and I was very, very mistaken!

We follow two college students as they travel miles across the desert to reach a wedding. They pick up a girl (no she doesn't get her clothes off), then they get chased by a Leatherface rip-off in a Monster Truck, whom they aptly name F**kface (AKA Monster Man).

The Monster Truck I will admit is a very cool vehicle, but the less than suspenseful chase scenes ruin it's potential.

So MM decides he's got a bit of a grudge against these guys and chases them for a bit, they loose him for a while and stop at a bar full of amputees, then they go to a motel where lead character Adam sleeps with hitch-hiker Sarah (though they both wear underwear!). Then they are caught by MM, taken to his home where they escape death and try to kill MM, but fail, hence the set-up for the sequel. Apart from a minor 'twist', that's it.

If you can get past the first 2 minutes \u0096 where Adam's friend Harley pops up from hiding in the back of Adam's car to try to scare him, with no explanation as to how Harley even got there, how long ago or how Adam even failed to realise \u0096 without thinking you hate it already, then you may just enjoy this film.

Monster Man has very poor cinematography and direction which is immediately off-putting. This is the kind of movie that you'll be able to pick up as one of those films in a box set of 20 horror movies that you've never heard of.

What is so irritating is Blockbuster stock so many of these poor quality films that are shot on digital by some amateur film students, and that's exactly what MM is (though IMDb states this particular director was born in 1961).

The acting throughout this film is atrocious. The script, which the writer obviously considered to be funny, is irritating and childish. You get the impression only one draft was written before they started shooting. In fact, the script is do dire a lot of the film seems improvised, full of those boring, un-entertaining conversations that are only funny or important to the actual people involved. Imagine you filmed yourself and your buddies having a conversation, sure, points are funny \u0096 TO YOU, but mostly it's trash. That's what the script for MM is like.

Don't watch it for the gore either \u0096 it's fairly minimal and there are much better gory films out there (Bad Taste, Evil Dead et al\u0085)

Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, even with their cheesiness and plot holes, are far superior to this film. Compare the intro of Jeepers Creepers to the intro of Monster Man and you'll see what I mean.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, so when a friend of mine told me he was supposed to direct MM2 and MM3, I thought, heck, I got to check out Monster Man and see what its like, maybe I can get a part in it, but when I popped it into my DVD player and and tried to choke down the first 45 minutes of nothing but bad, bad I mean horribly annoying bad comedy from that fat ass thinking he's funny, not to mention how looooong the director spent on the pointless desert road trip, I cam to the conclusion that these guys didn't have a clue of what they were doing and missed the boat by a long shot. The story had potential to be somewhat different than the usual BS you see on the Blockbuster\/Hollywood Video shelf put out by Lions gate these days, but they surely messed this one up. Why put so much time and effort in shooting annoying bad acting and bad jokes, why not shorten the road trip and put more of the plot in the movie. Myabe the writing was so bad that they had to cut out a lot of the movie or maybe the director didn't shoot enough of the horror and gore, that they had to find filler to make the usual 84 minutes???? All in all, and I'm being easy here, maybe because a friend of mine is the bald redneck in the bar scene that gets his skull crushed when chasing the three leads out into the street, I will give it at least 1 star for trying, and the gore\/kill scenes weren't that bad, again, they tried. Too bad, Lions Gate could have created a cool franchise from this idea, but failed. I don't recommend paying to rent it, maybe you can find a cut down version where the movie starts from the hitch hiker scene. CRAP!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This \"space snippet\" was kind of dumb. I guess it was supposed to be a shocker unexpected ending, but IMHO it was just a huge letdown. Joseph Campanella and the rest of the earthbound actors do a great job in this one; their performances are not done justice with such a silly ending though. How this ending could ever have made it through any kind of review by the producers is beyond me. The other comment on here is not correct, the tongue in cheek vignettes only came in during the second season, this thing was supposed to be taken seriously! The producers and writers could have been a little more creative with the ending to do the rest of the episode justice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although I could sum this pathetic episode of Night gallery in two words, those two words being \"horse manure,\" I am obligated to write a minimum of ten lines. This is a very sophomoric episode, not worthy of the standards of Rod Serling, but rather an inept attempt at some sort of ironic black comedy. The premise of giant rodents inhabiting the moon, a lifeless orb to be sure, is totally ridiculous, as is the construction of a giant mousetrap. I suppose we are to also assume that the moon is made of green cheese and that is how these absurd creatures survive. I can only assume that this episode was presented as a filler to supplant the other two episodes first aired on that date. All in all, a waste of film, actors and air time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This episode had potential. The basic premise of a woman living next door to an empty apartment (but a phone that constantly rings) is somewhat interesting. And when she explores the noise, there is genuine tension and fear. But stupid script writing ruins any promise the episode had.

First of all, the woman readily admits to seeing things that would send most of us running in the other direction (e.g. \"It's funny that the door slammed shut even though there is no wind;\" \"This door has serious damage to it that wasn't here a minute ago;\" \"The door opened by itself, without me touching it;\" etc.). Given these supernatural phenomena, plus the fact that a woman committed suicide in the room, wouldn't she take some precaution before entering it? Maybe she could investigate in the day time. Or maybe she could investigate the apartment with somebody else. Or maybe she could TURN ON THE LIGHTS!!! Also, while in the haunted apartment, she decides to make numerous phone calls to the operator and gets into an argument over who has the power to disconnect the phone, and then they begin discussing the details of the suicide. JUST UNPLUG THE PHONE! The phone company doesn't need to be involved. Walk up to the phone and unplug it. Case closed.

Finally, showing the phone scamper across the floor like it's alive was just comical. If the director wanted the woman to get strangled by the phone card, he could've done it in a way that didn't look cartoony. Brave Little Toaster anyone?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The poet Carne disappears (didn\u00b4t he disappeared with Pr\u00e9vert?) and is followed by the judge Carne. The director wants to give his own vision of a youth that he doesn\u00b4t understand and he doesn\u00b4t want to. It\u00b4s a long way from the wonderful \"Les enfants du paradis\"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having already seen the original \"Jack Frost\", I never thought that \"Jack Frost 2\" would be as absurd as it is. Boy was I wrong! Then again, A-PIX movies have a way of showing unbelievably bad material, even worse than you might expect. I believe this is the first A-PIX sequel, and it may be an indication of what to expect in the future: more A-PIX sequels.

It's hard to watch this without laughing, especially during the later parts of the movie in which Jack Frost's offspring (which are essentially snowballs with eyes, arms, a mouth and sharp teeth) start killing people with the typical comedic dialogue and silly voices to go with it. They are shown both as puppets (with a stick underneath to move them) and as computer animation, which I have to say looks very cheesy. The computer animation surprised me, as the first \"Jack Frost\" had no such effects.

I'd strongly recommend that you see the original \"Jack Frost\" before seeing this one (both of which it would be preferable to watch with a group of friends) to get the full amusement out of it, and because it would make more sense (\"sense\" being a relative term).

Now only if there was \"Uncle Sam 2\"...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ill-conceived sequel(..the absurd idea of having the killer snowman on the rampage at an island resort where there is no snow or cold weather)brings back the spirit of the psychopath, returning thanks to a scientific experiment providing foreign elements which reintroduce life to his molecules(..it's the best I could do to explain this preposterous concept).

I could go into depth about how he winds up at the island in order to slay numerous tourists, but I simply find no reason to bother because it'd all be so exhausting. Anyway, the filmmakers think it wise to kill off the pretty girls not ten minutes after their arrival(..I mean seriously, why worry with even introducing them to us if we can't enjoy our eye candy no longer that this?!).

The \"snow anvil\" murder scene takes the cake. Ice icicles protrude from the beach's sand so that a victim can fall on them. Oh, and another girl is stabbed with a pair of weenie tongs.

Look I get what's coming to me when I sit down to watch a killer snowman movie..such a ridiculous supernatural slasher will either tickle your funnybone(\"Oh, it's such a wonderfully cheesy horror movie!\")or have you pondering why the hell you're wasting time with such nonsense. Jack Frost has the power to freeze water(..then how were they able to melt him in the first film?)and causes the island resort to snow. One sequence has Jack freezing pool water, encasing a swimming model under the sheet, result being her drowning with nowhere to escape.Oh, there's also a recreation of the \"tongue stuck to the icy pole\" bit from The Christmas Story(\"Cowatonga dude!\").

I gotta hand it to the cast, though..they're real troopers for trying to make this wretched material entertaining. Christopher Allport(..perhaps unwisely)returns as Sam, to face his old nemesis, as does Eileen Seeley, as his wife. The attempts at tongue-in-cheek humor(..for me, at least) fell flat, but the cast soldiers onward trying to make the most of a very difficult situation, with spirited performances they do their best to rise above the pitiful premise and woeful dialogue.

A development occurs which increases the danger towards those still around to face off with Jack, his genetically altered water molecules, thanks to the introduced foreign elements, allow him to withstand coolant\/anti-freeze, and, even worse, he now can reproduce..through indigestion, Jack hacks up what appear to be snowballs which hatch to reveal little snowballs with black eyes, mouth and sharp teeth! The killer snowman costume and little snowball puppets introduced later in the film might produce belly-laughs if you are in the mood for such shenanigans, but I personally found this junk rather hokey(..that's the purpose behind it, I suppose, cheap guffaws from those willing to embrace this)and unbearable.The snowball offspring is an obvious homage to Gremlins where we get a bar scene where the little bastards are celebrating in number over terrorizing victims at the resort. The weapon against them..bananas! It's explained that when Jack went to kill Sam in the first film, both fell in a truck bed full of anti-freeze(..an icicle emerging from Jack's belly was penetrating Sam's chest when he pushed them out a window into the truck bed, and I guess in their being \"being linked\" by the icicle, Jack inherited Sam's banana allergy, or so this is what we are led to believe!)and in doing so both \"merged\" in a sense.

Phew, such a film as this defies simple explanation. It's a film with effects and plot so terrible, one might find the presentation enjoyable because of it's many failings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, in this movie you are treated to multiple little snowmen on the attack in apparently a very warm climate so yes this movie is definitely not to be taken seriously. It is in fact a much worse movie than the original as at least with that one the whole production looked like it cost more than a couple of bucks and a video camera to make. It has its funny moments, but really playing off the cheapness of your movie and making that be your intended laughs is kind of weak film making if you ask me. You can not come up with a good story, your effects are going to really be bad, hey let us just make the movie look as bad as possible with horrible one liners and we have our movie. The first one at least had a somewhat credible story as the snowman in that one attacked during the winter and not what amounts to a resort. It also had better effects too, this one is just a step or two ahead of \"Hobgoblins\" as far as the monsters are concerned and you really want to be more than a step a two above a bunch of hand puppets. Still, it makes up for all of this with a super ending that depicts a great sea vessel being taken out by the mighty frost. Actually, I am just kidding, but really it was the funniest part of the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie sucks. did anyone notice that the entire movie was shot in like 2 rooms. there are NEVER any outside shots and if there are its obviously film taken from somewhere else. this movie blows hard, painful to sit through too. stay far away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"-may contain spoilers-

Clearly, who ever made this film must have had a lot of connections. I just can't see it any other way. What really surprises me is no one used the name Allen Smithee, and more surprising, everyone involved didn't use this name.

Anyhow, where to begin. The bad dialogue, the crummy costumes, the sorry looking film stock, the unintentional comedy, the over-the-top characters, and more inconsistencies than George W. Bush's college career. I don't know what was funnier, the guy losing his arm because of a snowball, or the slow motion scene where all the baby Jack Frosts' were getting killed. Also, one of the great lines of all time was uttered in this film. \"How do we know it's him?\" Like there's another mutant snowman who can talk and kill people with snowballs! A great camp film, but a very bad film overall.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Frost 2 was a horrible, terrible, sadly pathetic excuse for a sequal to a great movie. The original, was a low budget comedy horror film about a murdered who was turned into a snowman after an accident with some toxic waste. And the snowman went around murdering people, and avoiding blow dryers like the plague. This, however, was a far cry from the quality of the original. It seems like this even had a lower-budget because for some reason, after an hour into this film, I still hadn't seen the snowman. Some revenge he's getting if he's always in the form of Ice cubes with a cheesy voice-over and a little shake of the cooler he rests in to give animation to the character. Disappointing to no belief, even for a fan of bad cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alright, we start in the office of a shrink, and apparently not a very good one. The main hero from the first Jack Frost is in the shrinks office blurting out random rhymes about Jack Frost. Gee, alright my brother is yelling ''Turn it off!''. Anyway, back to the crappy movie.

The shrink has his speaker phone on and is letting his secretary and her friends listen in on this heroic insane sheriff. I suppose he is supposed to be the hero from the first movie, but he looks nothing like him!. Yadda yadda yadda, they laugh at the poor sheriff, yadda yadda. Now some people are digging up the anti-frozed snowman, yadda yadda, now we're in a lab with some type of doctor people.. I don't quite see how this has to do anything, but their poking the anti-freeze\/Evil killer mutant snowman with needles, heating it, shocking it, adding strange and bizarre chemicals to it, the whole nine yards. Nothing. Alright, they give up and leave it in a fish tank. One of the doctors leaves his coffee on the top of the tank. The janitor walks in, cleans stuff, bumps the fishtank and the coffee spills the tank which makes Jack alive.

Behold the power of mocha! Now somehow he is in..uh.. i believe the Bahamas... but it looked more like Hawaii.. But it couldn't be Hawaii! Unless they spent all of their budget on the dang air plane tickets. Bah.. I wont spoil the rest of this rotten movie, so you'll have to rent it and watch it your self... Er... i wouldn't suggest doing so though.... Sheesh..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In all, it took me three attempts to get through this movie. Although not total trash, I've found a number of things to be more useful to dedicate my time to, such as taking off my fingernails with sandpaper.

The actors involved have to feel about the same as people who star in herpes medication commercials do; people won't really pay to see either, the notoriety you earn won't be the best for you personally, but at least the commercials get air time.

The first one was bad, but this gave the word bad a whole new definition, but it does have one good feature: if your kids bug you about letting them watch R-rated movies before you want them to, tie them down and pop this little gem in. Watch the whining stop and the tears begin. ;)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you like bad movies (and you must to watch this one) here's a good one. Not quite as funny as the first, but much lower quality. A must-see for fans of Jack Frost as well as anyone up for a good laugh at the writing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Please, If you're thinking about renting this movie, don't. If you're thinking of watching a couple of downloaded clips, don't. If I had my way, nobody would even have to read this summary.

The acting, despite being one fo the high points of the movie was still pathetic. The director was probaly a sadist. The witty one liners were something you'd expect from a room of highly paid anti-social 7 year olds that eat paint-chips for breakfast.

The problem with this movie, is that it tries to be a movie like \"Evil Dead 2\"(do not under any circumstances associate these 2 movies) in that it's so bad it's funny. But it also tries to be funny at the same time, and fails so overwhelmingly to do so, that your sense of humor is left too crippled to do anything but set off your gag reflex in an attmept to save itself.

I could go on for much much more, detailing just how awful it really was, but I think it would strip me of my will to live just to continue to think about it. If you need me, I'll be off trying to boil myself so that I might feel clean again...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Horrible movie. This movie beat out revenge of the living zombies for the WORST movie I have ever suffered through. What the !@$% were the morons who made this film thinking. Was it supposed to be scary. Because man let me tall you it wasn't. It was so dumb it wasn't funny. We all know that tropical islands are the natural hunting grounds for killer snowmen. And those stupid baby snowballs. Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid. Fake snow and lousy actors. OH and frost looks nothing like he does on the box. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. REnt it and destroy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why did I have to go out and buy (yes buy!) JACK FROST 2: REVENGE OF THE MUTANT KILLER SNOWMAN??? Maybe it was a burst of temporary mental derangement? But I'm guessing it's because I kind of enjoyed the first JACK FROST. It was a silly but funny horror-comedy which had some okay effects by Screaming Mad George. That and the fact that on the back-cover of the sequel there was this nice picture of this guy impaled by this giant icicle (coming out of his mouth with a lot of blood and all). So I thought: if it's as idiotic as the first and has some nice splatter\/gore in it, it should be fun, right? Well, I was so dead wrong!

Let me first say that the movie deserves some credit for having an immensely insane and retarded plot. I mean, a mutant killer snowman on a tropical island that spawns mutant killer baby snowballs which can only be killed or harmed by bananas??? As much as I love the premise, I really hated the movie. First of all: while the first JACK FROST looked like an actual movie (seemingly being shot on real film and all), this sequel has the look and feel of a third-rate soap-opera. It has this way too slick shot-on-video look. The lighting is just plain awful (bright white spots for the day look, and stupid colors like blue and green at night). The acting... well don't even go there. The dialogues range from stiff to extremely senile (that Jamaican man was just moronic, saying \"man\" after every sentence). And when it comes to the voice of the killer snowman, all I could think of was a seventh-rate Chucky from CHILD'S PLAY spewing dumb and supposedly witty one-liners before he kills someone.

The best joke was were one guy asks \"Why are you talking to your watch?\". And the best scene was undoubtedly the one with that beautiful Asian chick popping up out of nowhere and taking a swim in the pool totally naked (thank god for that!). Oh, yeah, and that little scene over the end-credits with those two Japanese dudes on a miniature ship being badly dubbed had me laughing too. But the worst thing about this movie was: Where was the gore and splatter action everyone is talking about? There were plenty of occasions to show some decent gory killings. A lot of people were killed off in original ways here, but all off-screen. Like I've read in many other comments, there were indeed nice set-ups to a head explosion, a crushed body, eyes being poked out, tongue ripped out,... but on the crucial moments the editor cuts away to some blood splatters on the floor or nothing at all. That frontal shot of that British guy being impaled (from the back-cover of the DVD) wasn't even in the movie. I only saw that particular killing filmed from the back (meaning I didn't see sh!t!). I was waiting throughout the whole movie for that to happen, and then I get to see nothing?!?! What a let-down! Could it be that I saw a cut version of the movie? That would be a shame, 'cause only a decent amount of splatter-fun could have saved this movie if you ask me. Seeing a lot of killer snowballs reduced to bloody pulp just didn't cut it for me. Speaking of those snowballs: they were done very poorly. They made MUNCHIES look like state-of-the-art 'animatronics'. But I guess that was the whole point of it. At some point, the special effects crew even turned to some laughably bad CGI. Boy, you really have to see it to believe it. Best is to not see it, actually, 'cause this flick is just too bad (okay, I did laugh with it, for it kept getting worse and worse). Just stick with the first JACK FROST (1996) and you'll be okay (just bare in mind that it's a pretty silly horror-comedy but fun in it's own right).

It's funny, but writer\/director Michael Cooney somehow must have realized that he was a pretty bad director after JACK FROST 2, and then focused on writing. Turns out he then wrote two pretty good thriller screenplays for THE I INSIDE (starring Ryan Phillippe) and IDENTITY (starring John Cusack). So the man seems to have some talent after all.

Now it would be far too easy to give JACK FROST 2 the lowest rating possible. So I say one point for that naked Asian babe doing the skinny dipping and one point for those completely retarded snowball babies. Way to go Mr. Cooney!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst film I have ever seen, bar none. From the flimsy-looking, poorly lit sets, to the laughable acting, to the infantile plot and shoddy, drawn-out action sequences, this film is so bad, its hilarious. For about ten minutes. After which you will be reaching for the remote or the power socket to end this film non-experience. Although it was obviously made with the entire production and acting staff's collective tongue rammed in cheek (please God), I found Jack Frost 2 so dreadful as to be unwatchable for more than a quarter of an hour. If you have not had enough of it after this time, you must be indulging in drug abuse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Frost 2 is out of the question, I'm actually surprised people are allowed to make these sort of movies.

As Sam and his wife take to the Tropicana for a relaxing Christmas, Jack returns to kill off the fun and take on a revenge with inbreeding...

Don't take a swip at this film at all, most people say its a laugh with your mates, but frankily its a waste of time. If the people who made this film can get a job by doing what they do, they can at least take the time and effort to write up a better story, especially the cheesy character names.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Frost 2. THE worst \"horror film\" I have ever seen. Why? 1)The premise is WELL beyond ridiculous 2) The damn thing doesn't even have legs to move on! 3) It escapes AFTER being completely submerged in Anti-Freeze (first film) 4) Get this...It travels all the way across an ocean of SALT WATER to a TROPICAL island to get revenge on the sheriff that did him in the first film. 5) \"Killer Snowballs\". I have yet to be drunk enough to see \"Ginger Dead Man\" so as of the writing of this, Jack Frost 2 hold the distinction of being THE stupidest \"horror\" film ever. Even Surpassing the inaneness of it's predecessor (if you can believe that!).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember when I first heard about Jack Frost. I was in Video Ezy at Miranda with my family on a monthly video hiring tradition. It was at this time that I worked up the courage to venture over towards the horror section of the store. Browsing the various titles, I finally came across Jack Frost. The cover was enough to convince me that the film was beyond my viewing pleasures. Years later the film disappeared, only to be replaced with the inevitable yet unnecessary sequel. I once again ventured to the horror section and picked up the case only to come to one conclusion: the film would be scary\u0085 but not intentionally.

Jack Frost 2: Revenge Of The Killer Mutant Snowman (quite a title) follows off where it's predecessor left it. Sheriff Sam is seeking counseling after his ordeals and Jack is now in the form of anti-freeze. To escape his past, Sam and his wife head to an island hotel where he is in the company of a wide variety of slasher film stereotypes including busty female models, thick headed sports jocks and Caribbean staff. However, Jack is released from his liquid grave and is back to his icy methods. He heads over to the island and proceeds to kill anyone that would prove to have an awesome death. Only Sam can stop him.

Let me just say that this is a straight-to-video film so it's bound to be bad. But this is terrible even in the eyes of other over the top films. The camera work is poor, using a camera that would make a soap opera look majestic. Half the actors look like they've come out of a porn shoot and the other half look like they've come out of a retirement home, but in actual fact they've actually come out of an asylum. There is an extensive use of special effects used in the film which tends to alternate between bland puppetry and CGI that can be bettered by an infant, and the death scenes are mostly off screen showing us little of what has happened to the hapless, yet deserving, victims. But the film is most memorable for it's killer one liners such as \"There's something that needs a little Christmas stuffing\" and \"I know pronounce you officially f***ing dead!\" Ultimately the whole purpose behind a film like this is to make a popcorn flick for those Friday nights of boredom and even it fails at that. To make a sequel to a film that was a poor slasher with a concept that a child would find unbelievable must've taken some nerves of steel\u0085 or a total frontal lobotomy. To director Michael Cooney\u0085 thanks for wasting my time. To everyone else\u0085 avoid like arsenic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hello it is I Derrick Cannon and I welcome you to the first ever Cannonite review show. My movie for this week was debatable, what route what movie, what excellent four star epic would I choose, guess what I decided to pull a one eighty and go the other route, I've decided to review a movie so atrocious that it totally killed what could have been a very unique concept. The movie I will review today is Jack Frost Two revenge of the mutant killer snowman. The Stars in this movie include Christopher Allport as Sam Tiller, Eileen Seeley as Anne Tiller, Marsha Clark as Marla David Allen Brooks as Agent Manners, Sean Patrick Murphy as Captain Fun, Ray Cooney as the Colonel and Scott MacDonald as the killer snowman himself Jack Frost.

It's hard to believe that this movie was in the same series that gave us the incredibly funny Jack Frost(loved the carrot scene),but it's even harder to believe that this is the exact same cast. The movie was ruined for me as soon as they arrived on the island and Captain Fun was introduced. What was the point of his character and how did he fit into a horror movie?The only possible reason I could see was that they wanted to give us a character that was total killer snowman fodder. Sam Tiler seemed more paranoid then he did in the original, his babbling about anti freeze was one of the most pathetic display I had seen in a movie. His wife however was one of the few bright spots. She played her role as the main woman to a hilt. She was a voice of reason in film of pure idiocy. The scene where she figures out how to kill the snowmen was one of the most anticipated parts of the movie. Ray MacDonald once again did a great job as Jack Frost despite what he was given. If it wasn't for such weak characters he could have been immortalized like Chucky,Freddy and Jason. Laugh if you must but when it comes down to it Jack Frost had spunk, he had humor, and most importantly he had an undoubtable vicious streak.

This movie could have been so much more, it could have been a continuation of a great franchise, instead any plans to make a Jack Frost three have been canceled.

This movie gets a two out of ten for me, and it's lucky that it even gets a one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Frost returns with an army of Styrofoam balls that can only be foiled by being shot with super-soakers loaded with margaritas. How's that for a plot? The film hinges on such a ridiculous premise that it barely raises an eyebrow when characters are killed with BBQ tongs and are impaled by carrots. You might even say the whole movie is skating on thin ice (ba-boom-tish).

Admittedly, there are some fantastic one-liners including a remark about the Murderous Coconut Shark.

Fair enough times are hard, but that does not excuse the willingness of the actors to take part in such utter tripe.

For those fans hoping to see Jack Frost, be prepared to accept him as merely a phallic carrot creeping up the beach with corny voice-over commentary.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Talk about rubbish! I can't think of one good thing in this movie. The screenplay was poor, the acting was terrible and the effects, well there were no effects. I can't believe the writer of this movie did Identity, everything in this movie made me sick to start to finish.

The front cover of the video box shows a showman with shark like teeth and scary eyes. I looks like a scary villain, but like the old saying \"never judge a book by it's cover\", the whole villain looked like a cardboard cut out. One part in the film a girl gets killed by a salad tongs, terrible. The setting was bad enough, like they could of set the whole thing in Lapland but no, a tropical island instead.

I took this movie as a spoof, which I think they wanted it to be but the only thing that made me laugh in a bad way was the tacky effects. You can argue that I haven't watched the first one, but seeing this I would be safe if I wouldn't attempted it.

The biggest joke in this movie is the effects, the snowballs looked like they were home made, and that carrot was a complete embarrassment. If I would of guess the budget of this movie would of probably be between 8 to 9 pounds fifty. The producer in a last minute panic must of grabbed the actors for the street gave them the script told them they have 6 minutes to practise these lines and shoot on a island.

Lastly the acting in the film was painful, it was like the actors forgot their ordinary lines and made them up the way through.

In conclusion I give this film: 0 stars out of 5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Below average blaxpoitation action \/ melodrama in which the lovely Ms. Grier plays a private eye who comes to the aid of her father (Rudy Challenger) and his partner (Austin Stoker of the original \"Assault on Precinct 13\") whose loan business is being threatened.

I'll be frank - I agree with the few other user comments for this movie. \"Sheba, Baby\" has a less than satisfying script, direction that isn't particularly distinguished, action scenes that are moderately entertaining at best, and one of Ms. Grier's more nondescript supporting casts (although there's an important supporting role for D'Urville Martin, also a familiar name in blaxpoitation). I get the feeling that this routine movie may have been put together quickly merely to cash in on her then enormous popularity.

It sure was cool seeing Stoker again, although Ms. Grier doesn't have as good a role - or dialog - as she has had in other films, although she is doing what she does best, and that's playing a sassy, sexy sister on a mission of vengeance.

Non-stop soul \/ funk soundtrack is enjoyable, at the very least.

Mostly recommended to those who wish to see everything in the Pam Grier film repertoire.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sheba Shayne (Pam Grier) receives a telegram informing her that her father may be in trouble. Sheba, a private investigator and former cop, goes to her father's aid. But someone will stop at nothing to run her father out of business. An attempt to show their muscle goes awry and Sheba's father is gunned down in cold blood. These guys have messed with the wrong woman.

If I had to describe Sheba Baby, the best I can come up with is Pam Grier Lite with some really bad acting. For a Pam Grier film, Sheba Baby is incredibly tame. It's nowhere near as violent as some of her earlier films. Gone are the over-the-top images of Pam placing a small revolver or razor blades in her afro. Pilot (D'Urville Martin) and his crew can't hold a candle to some of the real villains Pam faced in her previous movies. It's strictly by-the-numbers and almost has a made-for-TV feel. As for the bad acting, the baddies that Pam faces off with are as unnatural sounding in their delivery as I've seen. As a result, characters like Pilot don't come across as threatening as they should or need to for the movie to work.

That's not to say there aren't moments or elements in Sheba Baby that I didn't enjoy (Pam in a wetsuit and Pam brandishing a spear gun), it's just that when compared with Pam's other films like Coffy, Foxy Brown, and even Friday Foster that the movie fails.

One final observation - maybe I'm just more sensitive to these things post-9\/11, but I don't remember a time, even in the security lax 70s, when you could take a suitcase full of guns on an airplane. When Sheba flies to her father's aid, she's got an arsenal packed in her luggage!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When Pam Grier made COFFY in 1973, it was an exciting though flawed film. The plot was gritty and satisfying--even if the acting was often amateurish. It was so successful that American International Pictures decided to rehash the formula the following year with FOXY BROWN--not a bad film but certainly almost like \"COFFY II\". Now, only a year later, the studio had apparently given up on creating anything new for Ms. Grier, as SHEBA, BABY was essentially the same plot from COFFY and FOXY BROWN yet again. Because the idea was so recycled and because the acting and acting are so tired and low-energy, it's really scraping the bottom of the Blaxploitation barrel.

Exactly like these other films, SHEBA, BABY begins with some local Black mobsters pressuring and eventually killing someone Pam Grier loves. In the past, it had been drug dealers and pimps, now it was mobsters trying to run all the loan companies and pawn shops out of town so they can corner the market. And, like the other films, Pam is a one-woman hit squad--dispensing justice and a good butt whoopin'. And, like the other films, there is a \"cat fight\" between Pam and a White lady right in front of \"Mr. Big\". And, like the other films, Mr. Big is a White guy pulling all the strings. And, like the other films, she is captured by Mr. Big. And, like the other films, he DOESN'T immediately kill her but gives her ample opportunity to escape (here, leaving a knife conveniently lying around). And, like the other films, she eventually gets free and kills his jive-@$$.

While this formula did seem interesting in 1973, by this film it was frankly a predictable bore. Even if you hadn't seen the other films, it still was bad because the action was so slow--the punching and kicking seemed so slow and staged. The same could be said for the gun play. In one scene, four guys with machine guns, an AR-15 and shotguns attack. Pam responds by opening fire with a .357 revolver and killing 3 of the 4 and getting the other to surrender!!! Even if she's a good shot, she was rather slow and the guys just seemed to wait until she killed them!!! Plus, even a world champion shooter or Rambo couldn't have succeeded with such one-sided odds--after all, these guys had very impressive weapons and they were already pointed at her when she \"cleverly\" whipped out her pistol and easily dispatched these professional hit men!!

In addition to slow and lame action scenes compared to any other Blaxpoitation film, the movie has many logical gaps that show the writing was terrible but the studio just didn't care. In one case, her boyfriend, \"Williams\", knew about the yacht and Nu-tronic at the end of the film but Pam never told him--how did he know about this? In another, the cops approach a boat filled with hoods and the hood immediately open fire. However, the cops had no evidence anything was happening and the crooks began firing with little provocation. And, the crooks had .30 caliber machine guns and other amazingly powerful weapons but in many cases were killed by cops wielding snub-nosed .38s!

The bottom line is that this is a great example of \"Been there\/done that....a WHOLE LOT BETTER\". I love Blaxploitation films, but this one is just too dopey and slow to merit watching except by very devoted fans of the genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really tried, but this movie just didn't work for me. The action scenes were dull, the acting was surprisingly poor, and some of these characters were TOO stereotypical to even be funny. Pam Grier tries, but when you have nothing to work with, even her considerable talent cannot prevent a disaster. Even by the standards of this weak genre, this film is pretty bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen Foxy Brown, Coffy, Friday Foster, Bucktown, and Black Mama\/White Mama...of these this is Pam Grier's worst movie. Poor acting, bad script, boring action scenes...there's just nothing there. Avoid this and rent Friday Foster, Coffy or Foxy Brown instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Threadbare horror outing has an innocent teen (Meg Tilly, appealing as always) attempting to get in good with the popular clique at school (despite the fact they seem to hate her outright) and letting herself be subjected to their sorority-like initiation: spending the night in a creepy mausoleum. Despite the complete absence of originality, this low-budget thriller manages to come up with some decent special effects and has several good performances (particularly by Robin Evans, oozing campy viciousness as the leader of the girls). The script isn't razor sharp, but it has enough quirks to make the proceedings somewhat bearable. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had never even heard of ONE DARK NIGHT until someone mentioned it on a horror message board here recently, and reading into it, I gained interest due to Meg Tilly's involvement and recognizing that it was an early gig for Friday THE 13TH VI:JASON LIVES director Tom McLoughlin . Unfortunately, sad to say, it's nothing special. The premise has a familiarity to it:a college girl must survive the night in an old mausoleum until morning in order to join a sorority. That girl is a young Meg Tilly, as Julie, who wishes to prove to her loving, caring boyfriend, Steve(David Mason Daniels)that she can make his cruel, conniving ex-girlfriend, Carol's(Robin Evans)sorority regardless of the tactics she pulls in order to see her fail. Along with Carol's gang is Kitty(Leslie Speights), always with a toothbrush in her mouth, and Leslie(Elizabeth Daily)who doesn't really wish to cause Julie such trouble. While Leslie insists on leaving Julie alone as she remains in the mausoleum, Carol and Kitty plan to torment the poor girl. Meanwhile Steve searches for her while Julie, Carol and Kitty encounter an evil they couldn't possibly imagine..the corpse of a recently diseased \"psychic vampire\", whose telekinesis was of a dangerously powerful degree, will seek to drain them of their very lifeforce. The only one who can help these girls is the dead man's daughter, Olivia(Melissa Newman)who is equipped with the same psychic power he has.

I think what many will find exciting is the unusual evil that threatens the girls in the mausoleum, it's certainly different than what you normally see in the slashers that were out at this time. Like Adam West's character(..he was the cynical husband of Olivia who found the idea of her father's power ridiculous), I had a really hard time adjusting to the tacky plot, and I personally never found anything within the film to get excited about. The mausoleum to me never really was that spooky(..it doesn't really achieve the same kind of eerie quality PHANTASM captured) and the corpses which are used to attack the girls are laughably unconvincing(..there is one great scene where a corpse's face melts away). I have a soft spot for low budget films from this period of time, but I just never really could find a reason to get involved when you have this unsatisfying undead corpse shooting electric bolts from it's eyes causing other bodies to break free from their crypts to obey their master. It's just too silly to take seriously. Carol is your typical blond bitch wishing to punish a nice girl who is dating a former flame. Steve is your typical, squeaky clean all-American boyfriend, handsome and tender, who becomes the hero seeking to save his girl from whatever sinister forces are at play. To make up for the small budget director McLoughlin tries every trick in the book to thrill the audience, using a series of ooga-booga effects such as corpses which pursue young girls, chairs which shake and tremble, doors that slam shut, and objects levitating by themselves. The film obviously has it's fans, and I am glad I had a chance to see it, but I was a bit disappointed that ONE DARK NIGHT wasn't the horror sleeper I hoped for. Adam West has a very small role as the concerned husband hoping his wife will snap out of her depressed state regarding a father who had nothing to do with her. Melissa Newman is the troubled Olivia, recognizing that she must stop her father once and for all or else he'd continue to prey on the living. Donald Hotton is Dockstader, an associate of Olivia's father's who informs her of what he was. I wasn't particularly blown away by Tilly's performance here(..she was basically scared most of the time), but she'd get a chance to prove herself to a greater degree from this point onward. This will undoubtedly be of some value to those who watched it back at that time, for nostalgia purposes it might seduce fans of movies from this era.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When you look at the cover and read stuff about it an entirely different type of movie comes to mind than what you get here. Then again maybe I read the summary for the other movie called \"Mausolem\" instead as there were two movies of this title released about the same time with both featuring plots that had key elements in common. However, reading stuff about that movie here I know I saw this one and not that one and that movie is even less what one would imagine a movie with that title would be about. I will be honest, I expect more of a zombie type picture and you get that in this movie to some degree. However, there is more stuff involving the occult and strange powers as the opening scene of the people being taken away by the coroner at the beginning of the film will attest to. The movie also has the old theme of kids going somewhere they do not belong to have some crazy party, in this case it is in fact a mausoleum. The other movie I do not think really has that key feature playing that prominent role in the movie and I see the score for this one is higher too, still it was just not the movie I was expecting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I received a copy of this film from a friend for my 21st birthday, which he had obviously picked up for 99p from a bargain video bin.

Never have I been so frustrated when watching a film - it was tedious, Adam West was wasted (literally) and, in retrospect, I cannot recall a single thing about it. My lack of enjoyment grew to such an extent that the second the credits rolled we smashed up the cassette and hung the tape around the living room. Just for good measure, we set fire to the cover.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this on a cheap DVD release with the title \"The Entity Force\". Since I enjoy cheesy 80's horror films I thought I was in for a real treat. Sadly the film is mostly boring and you're constantly waiting for something to happen. It does eventually get somewhat interesting, but this is in the last quarter of the film. It's a case of too little too late. When the action does happen it's not that great, what we get are dead corpses 'floating' along the ground and chasing after the girls in the mausoleum. It's not the absolute worst I've seen, but you can do a lot better. I would only recommend this to die-hard collectors of cheesy 80's horror.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some guy named Karl Rhamarevich learns how to live on even after death through telekinesis. He's interred in a mausoleum. That same night Julie (Meg Tilly) has to spend the night there to get into a group called \"The Sisters\". And Karl's \"power\" is in full bloom.

Silly movie. I saw it in a theatre when I was 21 and was generally bored. The PG rating should have tipped me off--this is a horror movie for kids. One REAL stupid scene at the end has a corpse breaking THROUGH concrete to hit a young guy! For starters corpses are put in HEAD first making it impossible for the corpse to use his arms and there's no way anybody is going to break through concrete. When you're noticing silly mistakes like that, the movie is not doing its job.

It has two good scenes--two of \"The Sisters\" are \"attacked\" by floating corpses crowding them in. At one point one of the sisters punches a corpse in the stomach--her hand goes IN the body and she can't pull it out! That scene has stayed with me every since. And there's a cute little bit involving a corpse and a toothbrush at the end (which had my audience laughing). But the rest of the movie is a dim, dull memory. For kids only--adults will be bored. I give it a 3.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must, in light of the encomia of praise for this flick from viewers, assume once again the role of the turd in the punchbowl, as Lowell Weicker used to say, I am scratching my head at the sheer number of laudatory comments. \"The African Queen\" this ain't. The period flavor is wonderful, yes. The acting is fine, but no actor no matter how great can bring life to the seemingly endless stream of perfectly tedious and insignificant party and dinner table conversation here, and I care not how much of it is taken from Joyce's text. Imagine spending an hour and a half as a fly on the wall at a Christmas dinner of a not particularly interesting group of people (it's not clear to me that it's a family, as one person suggested), having to listen to their mundane table talk, and you have the essential experience of this movie. Absolutely nothing happens. And nothing important is said, but it is said at interminable length. As I said, the popularity of this movie is a mystery to me. Speaking of mysteries, watch a good one rather than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I want very much to believe that the above quote (specifically, the English subtitle translation), which was actually written, not spoken, in a rejection letter a publisher sends to the protagonist, was meant to be self-referential in a tongue-in-cheek manner. But if so, director Leos Carax apparently neglected to inform the actors of the true nature of the film. They are all so dreadfully earnest in their portrayals that I have to conclude Carax actually takes himself seriously here, or else has so much disdain for everyone, especially the viewing audience, that he can't be bothered letting anyone in on the joke.

Some auteurs are able to get away with making oblique, bizarre films because they do so with \u00e9lan and unique personal style (e.g., David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky). Others use a subtler approach while still weaving surreal elements into the fabric of the story (e.g., Krzysztof Kieslowski, and David Cronenberg's later, less bizarre works). In Pola X, Carax throws a disjointed mess at the viewer and then dares him to find fault with it. Well, here it is: the pacing is erratic and choppy, in particular continuity is often dispensed with; superfluous characters abound (e.g., the Gypsy mother and child); most of the performances are overwrought; the lighting is often poor, particularly in the oft-discussed sex scene; unconnected scenes are thrust into the film for no discernible reason; and the list goes on.

Not to be completely negative, it should be noted that there were some uplifting exceptions. I liked the musical score, even the cacophonous industrial-techno music being played in the sprawling, abandoned complex to which the main characters retreat in the second half of the film (perhaps a reference to Andy Warhol's 'Factory' of the '60s?). Much of the photography of the countryside was beautiful, an obvious attempt at contrast with the grimy city settings. And, even well into middle-age, Cathering Deneuve shows that she still has 'it'. Her performance was also the only one among the major characters that didn't sink into bathos.

There was an earlier time when I would regard such films as \"Pola X\" more charitably. Experimentation is admirable, even when the experiment doesn't work. But Carax tries nothing new here; the film is a pastiche of elements borrowed from countless earlier films, and after several decades of movie-viewing and literally thousands of films later, I simply no longer have the patience for this kind of unoriginal, poorly crafted tripe. At this early moment in the 21st century, one is left asking: With the exception of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, are there *any* directors in France who know how to make a watchable movie anymore? Rating: 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wish Depardieu had been able to finish his book and see it become a dazzling success. At least he'd have wound up with something.

The film struck me as pointless, rambling, and very stylish, like some other recent French films. Not to knock it. Most recent American films are pointless and rambling and have no style whatever. We should be grateful, I suppose, for photography that evokes a European city in the midst of a wind-blown Continental winter, and for elliptical conversations that challenge our ability to understand what's up.

But there can be too much of a good thing. Golubeva is found stumbling around near the sea in the middle of the freezing night, carrying on in a bad accent about dreams and such. (There are a few sequences of dreams that include things like swimming in a river of blood. You'll love it if you're Vlad the Impaler.) Lots of people die. Catherine Deneuve dies in a suicide by motorcycle. I don't know why. Golubeva's young girl dies too, and I don't know why she dies either. She gets slapped in the face, falls to the pavement, and dies.

There is supposedly an explicit sex scene too. I'll have to take their word for it because, although it is stylishly photographed, it is stylishly photographed in almost complete darkness. Don't worry about the kiddies being shocked. They'll probably be asleep by this time anyway.

Depardieu isn't a bad actor. As we see him deteriorate from a carefully groomed handsome young man -- well, handsome except that his nose can't seem to get out of his way -- to a limping, murderous, hairy physical wreck, we feel sorry for the guy. Golubeva has a wan pretty face, with enormous half-lidded eyes and wide cheeks, like a doll. Her next movie should be a remake of Lewton's \"I Walked With a Zombie.\" Then there is this mysterious guy who leads a band. I guess it's a band. As far as I could make out, the band is made up of about a dozen drummers and a dozen musicians playing electric guitars. Every viewer will find the resultant sound interesting but uncultivated listeners fond of \"easy listening\" might not enjoy it. If you don't like the music, there's a payoff involved because the sinister composer and leader gets whacked over the head with Depardieu's walking stick.

I must say, I found it barely worth sitting through. (And it's a longie, too.) At times it was like waiting in your car at a railroad crossing while a long long freight train rumbles slowly by, sometimes stopping entirely. I wish it had had a few jokes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so unreal. French movies like these are just waste of time. Why watch this movie? Even, I did not know..why. What? The well known sex scene of half-siblings? Although the sex scene is so real and explicit, but the story it is based upon is so unreal. What is the use of it, then? Can you find easily in life, half sibling doing such things?

Did I learn something from this movie? Yeah: some people are just so fond of wasting time making such movies, such stories, such non-sense. But for those who like nihilism, nothingness in life, or simply a life without hope, then there you are.. you've got to see this movie.

Only one worth adoring, though: CATHERINE DENEUVE. She's such a strikingly beautiful woman.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(Spoilers)

Oh sure it's based on Moby Dick. Totally obsessed and it destroy's him. It's a total folly. The movie starts off rather well, but by the end of the film, everyone else is destroyed and the main star's mind is a blank.

The supposed half sister is never convincing. Some very poor lighting effects. Music is interesting. But little else. It took me over a month to finally finish the darn thing. I suppose if you like Being John Malkovich, you might like this. But where as BJM was a great movie that I just didn't want to watch again, Pola X is a movie I just hate to high hell. The only possible excitement in the film is the gratuatious incest sexual scene towards the end of the film. (Hopefully yer not thinking of Catherine either.)

This movie is severely boring, depressing, and poorly directed. Not highly recommended. If if you like french movies. (go watch Crimson Rivers instead)

4\/10

Quality: 5\/10 Entertainment: 1\/10 Replayable: 0\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I won't lie, I rented this film because it was an \"arty\" film with some possible explicit sex. I got that scene and Catherine Deneuve's (briefly shown) breasts, but the rest of the film is just the usual long pretentious European art films with lines like \"Did I have a mother or father, I don't know\" (paraphrased). Usually delivered in long soliloquies.

If you are curious about the transition of \"art\" to porn, might be an interesting look, with use of the fast forward button (I was still too slow!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I enjoyed Carax's \"Les Amants du Pont Neuf\" and was therefore expecting this film to be of a similar standard. Well, the first 10 minutes were OK, but then it disintegrates into a rather pretentious journey of a young man looking for the essence of life. A sad disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's difficult to express how bad this movie is. Even in the 1950s when intellectual searching for the meaning of life was fashionable and beatnik rejection of physical comforts, clean clothes, haircuts, etc. was a common reaction to the smug middle-class mores of both the USA and western Europe, this movie would have been a stinker. The plot is a mishmash of several dei ex machina (if that's the correct Latin grammar); the acting consists of deadpan stares broken by occasional hysterics (by the male lead as well as the females); the gratuitous view of Catherine Deneuve's (or somebody's) breasts are worthy of a Budweiser commercial; the repeated cacaphonous orchestra rehearsal in the abandoned building is I'm sure heavy with meaning in the director's mind but to me is just one more stupid symbol thrown into this meaningless movie -- I'm ranting because my time has been wasted watching this scam excuse for an art flic. The scenery is beautiful and the sex scene is hot -- but underneath his clothes, this king has no substance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretentious claptrap, updating Herman Melville (!), about a young man's vaguely incestuous relationship with his aristocratic mother getting transferred to his long-lost sister who has been raised by gypsies. Or something like that \u0096 not that anyone really cares to unravel its multi-layered plot decked out with pornographic sex scenes, pseudo-symbolic imagery (the siblings swimming in a river of blood) and other bizarre touches (a gypsy child repeatedly insults passers-by in the street until she is anonymously beaten to death, the deafening music of a rock group utilized in the demolition of old buildings). Considering the source material and the presence of Catherine Deneuve (who at least gets to bathe in the nude), I was expecting a lot more from this one; apparently, there's an even longer TV version of POLA X out there\u0085","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm accustomed to being patient with films because I've generally found it usually pays off. But a few works take tedium to new levels and enter the realm of provocation....\"Last Year at Marienbad\" comes to mind. Well, \"Pola X\" ain't no \"Last Year at Marienbad\". I can count on one hand the number of films I've walked out on over the years. \"Pola X\" achieved membership in that august group. In my defense, I believe I made a valiant effort to stand my ground - hoping things would turn around. However, I finally threw in the towel just shy of the 90 minute mark - quite respectable under the circumstances. \"Pola X\" does not come anywhere near living up to the promise of Carax's earlier work. After a 10 year hiatus, that must have been bitter for him indeed. Melville is still spinning in his grave!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie contains a very short scene of Deneuve in a bathtub. She looks absolutely stunning for a lady age 56, but this is the only saving grace of the movie. Otherwise, it has a mindless, unmotivated script and the lead actress has none of Deneuve's appeal. The director apparently watched too many Peter Greenaway films and Pola X comes across as a student's imitation of the Greenaway style, without any of his inspiration.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"French Cinema sucks! Down with all these psychiotric visions with their my-God-am-I-cultivated distinguished attitudes! Pestilence to conceited symbolic film-language and impervious chiffres! I'll no longer have a mind for that! L\u00e9os Carax, did you ever think about, that a dialogue in a film could be natural and vivid??? Maybe I'm too common to understand you? Or had it been your task to confirm all the clich\u00e9s of a Frenchman the world can have? Guillaume the to-be-guilliotined comes to his home-palace, Mme. Deneuve, not in the picture, plays the flute: \"Here am I, darling!\" In this moment, I knew, that she's in the bathtub, and we`ll see her lying in there soon. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not prudish, and the incestous sex scene was the climax of the film. But this is, in Berlin, we say \"etepetete\", what means something like \"\u00eatre-peut-\u00eatre\", a snobistic, self-satisfied, and, the worst, seen that often in French movies I can tell! Other example: She, beautiful and willing, is looking at herself in a mirror, combing her hair, and her wild-bearded, dirty young guru rushs into the room, breathless shouting: \"There's no escape, there's no escape!\" Forty years after existencialistic Sartres and consorts- what's new, what's exciting about? My God, there's that woman and she loves and admires you, what would be more natural to be happy with your life? And when you're not, please explain much better, why!! Born French means you have to live a life in extravaganza, no escape, is that the point?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, I don't see how the movie is on any \"best\" list or how it won any awards. Compared to La Pianiste, which is also on a \"best\" list, La Pianiste is gold. This movie lacked so many things, on so many different levels, but I can't quite explain why I disliked it so much. The lead actor was annoying, I felt as though I never knew what was going on, and I was BORED!! Even though this was supposed to be some worthwhile life change that Pierre was starting, I wanted it to end.... as soon as possible. Why did it have to be his sister and cousin? Ugh. And why did Thibault get mean? He just bipolarly turned mean. And also, was it me or did I miss the whole purpose of what that guy in black was all about? Who were all those people playing music in the big basement of the big warehouse? Why did they have all that weird equipment and the guns and all those extra rooms for people to live in? I mean this in all seriousness, but does incest happen a lot in French culture? European culture? I took 5 years of learning about the culture and I never heard anything about that!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You would probably get something like this. I'm translating movies for a living and this is the first movie in my 5-year working experience that I found offensive to my intelligence. Of course, there are stupid Hollywood movies about drunken teenagers on a spring break, but those movies don't even claim to be serious works of art. But when someone strives for greatness and poetry, but delivers a muddled (and often ridiculous) story, a bunch of disparate scenes, pretentious dialogue... Then you get the worst kind of a movie that some other reviewer very accurately defined as \"pretentious crap\". To those who find this movie intelligent or even masterful, I can only say - it's your intelligence and your imagination you obviously used to try and make some sense of this pitiful attempt (it's in our human nature to try and make sense of things) .

One more thing: I can tolerate political incorrectness very well, I'm all for artistic freedom and suspension of disbelief, but the Slavic female character was just too much. I wish someone told the director that it's kind of ridiculous (even in an unrealistic art movie) to portray a Slavic woman as a half-articulate dishevelled creature connected to the forces of nature, probably due to the fact that she had spent her entire childhood looking at the stars and milking cows on a three-legged stool.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A ridiculous movie, a terrible editing job, worst screenplay, ridiculous acting, a story that is completely ununderstandable...

If God was going to decide if movies should continue to be done, judging by this one, the entire world movie industry would now be dead...

A wonderful movie to show that cinema should not be done by people who \"think\" they can make movies.

I am still wondering who are those two gipsy girls who show up in the movie for over half an hour, and are never introduced to us...

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My boss at the time and showed it to us at a Halloween party at our office. He is the Chris Huntley that co-wrote and acted in it. He knows it's bad, we know it's bad and we all agree that the monster looks WAY too much like a vagina to be coincidence. Maybe it was from a gynocological experiment gone wrong.

It was a VERY low budget and the actors were all friends so what you have here is a case of \"hey gang, lets' put on a show\".

Nobody got hurt and it was a first attempt. Nothing wrong with that. It gave us all a good laugh and it's a great film to watch with friends and make fun of. :-)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This extremely low-budget monster flick centers around a group of mine surveyors exploring an abandoned gold mine in order to see if its worth reopening. They get trapped after a cave in and find they are at the mercy of a strange, slimy creature which seems bent on knocking them off one at a time. The word that most came to mind as I watched this movie was 'desperate'. The script and acting is terrible, the stop-motion monster effects were unintentionally funny, and since the bulk of the movie takes place underground lighting the sets convincingly looked like a logistical nightmare. All that being said however for some reason I felt this movie failed not from lack of effort, but maybe from either a lack of budget, experience and\/or lack of creative inspiration. The whole thing came off like it was either a college project or a first film made by amateurs, I have a certain amount of affection for films like that even when they completely miss the mark. I guess what I'm saying is I give it an B for effort and a D- for actual results, not insultingly bad as some low-budget monster movies I've seen but still not worth seeing unless you have a LOT of free time on your hands. I'm voting it a 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of 7 gold prospectors head into a mine that was recently opened back up after an earthquake. Of course, they don't pay attention to local legend that something is down there and killing people. This low budget ($25,000) horror flick has a slight cult following and I'm not exactly sure why (unless it is because it is so obscure). I'll admit the last half hour is pretty entertaining, but the hour getting there is pure torture. Lots of walking and talking and our titular strangeness doesn't appear until 45 minutes in. Even in the extras co-writer Chris Huntley admits it commits the unforgivable sin of being boring. I would forgive them if they were strict amateurs, but this group graduated from USC so I would hope they know an exploitation film should be exploitive. Anyway, like I said, the last half hour is cool as three survivors battle the stop motion monster and there is a cool John Carpenter-like score. I wanted to see more of the monster, but it is literally on screen for 45 seconds.

Even if the movie isn't the best, Code Red DVD has given this great attention. You have interviews and an audio commentary by director Melanie Anne Phillips, producer\/actor Mark Sawicki and co-writer Huntley. The tales about how the film was made are pretty fascinating and inspiring (like a cave set being built in a backyard). Even more interesting are Sawicki and Huntley's USC student shorts, which are actually all better than the feature production. Huntley was a pretty talented artist and it is a shame he didn't go on to anything else. Sawicki has worked steadily in Hollywood as a visual effects and camera guy. The film's VHS is kind of legendary for how dark it was and I'm sure this is much better. However, you still get scenes where the only image are five helmet lights bouncing around in the blackness. Safe to say, the original MY BLOODY VALENTINE is still \"horror film set in a mine\" champ.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some movies are just \u0085 unlucky. These are the films that obviously thrived on a lot of goodwill and a handful of potentially great ideas, but simply didn't have the budgetary means and\/or professional cast and crew members at their disposal to make it happen. \"The Strangeness\" definitely belongs in this category. You really want to like it, but even the most tolerant and undemanding 80's horror fanatics will have to admit the film barely reaches the level of mediocrity due to its atmosphere of cheapness, clumsy stop-motion effects and impenetrably dark cinematography. \"The Strangeness\" has a fairly original plot and setting (okay, it's similar to \"The Boogens\" but I sincerely doubt that director David Michael Hillman intentionally ripped off a fellow insignificant 80's B-movie) and the players deliver enthusiast performances even though they're all miscast. An assembly of amateur speleologists go on an expedition to explore the infamous Gold Spike mine. Many years ago, several miners mysteriously died there and the place has abandoned ever since, but there's supposed to be too much gold hidden there to remain closed forever. Shortly after they descended into the mine, the group members one by one encounter the slimy ruler of the Gold Spike mine; a Lovecraftian monster with tentacles and an incredibly cheesy way of moving forward. Throughout most of its running time, \"The Strangeness\" is a boring and incompetent mess that is difficult to follow due to the complete lack of lighting. The characters are uninteresting and the mine remains a mystery because the only lighting effects come from the helmets of the speleologists. There's very little action or horror to experience in the first hour, but director Hillman cleverly grasps the viewers' attention by showing bits and pieces of the monster at regular intervals. As soon as you catch the first glimpse of the monster's tentacle, you're doomed to keep watching till the very end. The creature is realized with stop-motion effects, which I usually adore and worship, but here in this case they look extremely weak and pitiable. The person responsible for the special effects should have paid more attention to the work of Ray Harryhousen. The death sequences largely occur off-screen and there's very little suspense throughout the whole movie. A horror flick with a setting like this should benefice from claustrophobic atmosphere and unidentifiable sound effects, but \"The Strangeness\" lacks all this. The biggest trump of the film is unquestionably the beautiful appearance of blond actress Terri Berland. She resembles a speleologist as much as I resemble Mother Theresa, but she surely looks good in her tight white top and beige pants.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I want to say I liked this film, I really do, but when it boils down to it it was just far too boring. It starts off looking promising, and even once they get inside the mines the creepy atmosphere and mood is great. The problem is the monster, or lack of it. As people have said it's a stop-motion monster, but that's not the problem (stop-motion can look great if done properly). The problem is that we don't see enough of it and we don't get to see any deaths. This is meant to be a horror film so a lack of monster and a lack of deaths equals boredom. There were some scenes I liked, such as when one girl is using her camera in the dark and the monster is coming towards her. There are also a few other creepy scenes but they are far too few to hold your interest and definitely not worth watching the film for. It's a shame, because I can see that had it been handled correctly it would've been an effectively creepy horror flick. The saddest thing is that films like this will never be made again, because film makers over-polish their films these days and rely on crappy CGI effects.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The whole movie was done half-assed. It could have been a much better movie but, that would have required a re-write and different actors. Compared to \"Traffic\" this was a wreck. I am just glad I didn't have to pay for it.

Spoiler:

What was the point of having crooked cops getting arrested? To share the guilt of drug dealers and make them feel better? Pu-leaze! The parents were scum, driven by greed, and didn't even consider the harm they were doing; as pointed out by Ice-T.

2 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I caught the North American premiere of this at the Chicago International Film Festival. I was beyond disappointed. From the mood in the audience, I wasn't the only one.

The film takes a long time to get to the conflict, and then refuses to resolve it, opting instead to tell us the story is \"To Be Continued\". Is it a spoiler to reveal that a movie has no ending? I consider it more of a warning. This is, at best, only half a movie- and not the good half.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know what has happened to director Abel Ferrara. Ever since the \"Body Snatchers\" remake he seems to have lost it. \"King of New York\" and \"The Bad Lieutenant\" remain two of the best films of the '90s: searing indictments of a decade gone wrong. With films like \"'R Xmas\" (whatever that means) and \"New Rose Hotel\" he seems determined to disgust and bore his former supporters. This film has NO LIFE in it. While he gets excellent performances out of his actors in all of his projects the result of this mishmash of ideas just doesn't jell. Whatever the point is -- that the new breed of drug dealer is more or less the same as any other upper middle class New Yawkuh -- gets lost in the mind numbing script and boring direction.

I saw this opening night at the 4-Plex in downtown L.A. In the lobby, while buying tickets, I was surprised and delighted to see it filled with a large, racially mixed group of men and women in their twenties and thirties. Then they started into the theater but it was the theater that was featuring \"8 Mile\" not \"'R Xmas\"! The theater showing \"'R Xmas\" (keep in mind, this was opening night!) had a total of 4 people watching it, myself, my wife and two others!

Way to go, Abel!

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'R Xmas is one of the only films I've seen where I can almost say that simply nothing happens.I felt as though I watched a drug dealing middle- class couple,with child,walk around,eat,smoke,converse(excuse me,swear)through most of the film.And I don't believe I'm missing the point.I think this film was well directed,well acted(although the husband's performance was rather wooden),and the constant feeling of impending doom around every corner certainly kept the viewer involved.But when the dust clears,your left with zero(just a boat-load of fade outs).I didn't want car chases,gun violence,beatings,etc.In fact,I'm sick of violence.But my goodness,let's at least get a bit deeper into all these characters(let's get to know each of these corrupt officers a little better-not just show glancing shots of them as street thugs).Why was the dialogue so juvenile? Everyone spoke as if they were in junior high.I believe even this side of our human race can say something other than fu_ _,sh_ _,etc.The pacing and the storyline of 'R Xmas I found quite interesting,but the execution was plain and simple-empty.4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The whole movie seemed to suffer from poor editing - every scene seemed to take forever to unfold and when they did, I felt like I had waited a long time for very little to happen. I guess I missed the whole point of the movie - either that or there wasn't one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Good actors, good director, well acted, well directed but...Where's the movie? Did they have an script or just improvised it all? At least it is a short-length movie (only 80 minutes, including credits). Nothing seems to happen in this film, nothing at all. A couple of small time drug dealers caught in small time troubles, but you'll never get a clue of what's happening, nor even what are they talking about in some sequences of the movie. Tons of \"f***'s\" and \"motherf*****'s\", but nothing else...

For the people who love Abel Ferrara's films such as The Funeral, 'R Xmas is going to be a big disappointment, as it's been for me. What was he thinking about? Did he really think that this was a good movie? And if he didn't, then why did he made it?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"R Xmas\" peers into the lives of a middle class married-with-kid family of narco-distributors during the Christmas holiday season. There's no story here - just a disjointed collection of events. Ferrara seems to get off on the juxtaposition of the holidays and home life with narcotics peddling in NYC, jumping back and forth between each. The players appear to be improv'ing and adlibing now and then making for an unconvincing watch. Overall a poor effort not worth the time. (D)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In New York, in a morning close to Christmas, an upper class father and mother go in their BMW to a private school to see the play of their daughter. Then they go shopping and later they return to their fancy apartment in Manhattan. In the night, they move to a simple apartment in a dangerous neighborhood, where they prepare drugs for distribution. On the Christmas Eve, while buying the Christmas gift for their daughter, the father is kidnapped, and his wife desperately tries to raise a high amount of money to pay the requested ransom. \"R Xmas\" is a deceptive movie of Abel Ferrara. The lead characters do not have names, are anonymous, and maybe his intention is to tell that in the breast of a neighbor family in your building may have drug dealers; or that drug dealers may also have families and may be loving persons; or that there are many dirty cops, probably worse than the criminals; or is it a simple apology to crime? Whatever! However, this humanization of criminals is a horrible message, and I really did not like this movie. In Brazil, for example, many drug dealers and criminals help their communities, due to the absence of the State in poor areas and slums, but this procedure does not make them model citizen. In this movie, we see a loving upper class family in the day, providing drugs as means of living, but the destruction of the members of other families is not shown in the story, and it is impossible to feel sympathy for any characters. In the end, I wished all of them dead. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): \"Gangues do Gueto\" (\"Gangs of the Ghetto\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really enjoyed \"Candid camera\" with Dom DeLuise and I was surprised to see that after the years Suzanne Somers have becomed the co-star of the show. But that was the only positive side of the show - the whole studio, the intro, the hosts - all that give the new meaning to the word \"pompous\".

Well, that would be OK if the materials weren't so cr*ppy - I mean come on, the best you can do is show few men that have problem with getting ketchup out of the bottle, Suzanne Somers walking with Halloween basket in July, ice cream place that sells only vanilla...? I've seen few episodes and each time it was horrible. They were posing like it's the greatest show ever and then fill the time with scenes so dull that I really felt embarrassed to watch. Even the people in them looked bored and that just can't be good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I recently rented this film on DVD and thought it would be an interesting choice seeing as I am both from the north of England (Bradford), and also interested in film-making. However, it soon became apparent that this film seemed to lack a decent level of development script-wise. The characters were weak and often stereotyped and the story lacked substance. The subject matter could be an interesting basis for a film. However, the delivery of this appeared naive and unfocused.

The ending felt as though it was casting judgement on the characters - punishing and rewarding where the filmmakers felt necessary. This felt a little awkward and silly, and seemed at odds with the 'realism' used in the style of shooting. For me, the film dealt with the characters and subject matter in a rather heavy handed and clumsy manner. It felt as though the writer had already decided how he wanted to end the story and set about crow-barring everything else in to fit it.

Another point that I feel strongly about is the watered-down Ken Loach feel the film had. I get quite upset that UK film financiers can't see that there is more to British films than 'gritty realism'. It has become almost a safe option. Film is an infinitely wonderful playground for imaginative ideas and it is not being exploited by UK feature film producers. There is a lot of talent here in the UK. It's unfortunate that most of these individuals end up either making music videos and commercials 100% of the time or they go to America.

Love + Hate would have worked better if it had been cut down to 30 or 60 minutes and appeared as a one-off TV drama.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That's what I kept asking myself during the many fights, screaming matches, swearing and general mayhem that permeate the 84 minutes. The comparisons also stand up when you think of the one-dimensional characters, who have so little depth that it is virtually impossible to care what happens to them. They are just badly written cyphers for the director to hang his multicultural beliefs on, a topic that has been done much better in other dramas both on TV and the cinema.

I must confess, I'm not really one for spotting bad performances during a film, but it must be said that Nichola Burley (as the heroine's slutty best friend) and Wasim Zakir (as the nasty, bullying brother) were absolutely terrible. I don't know what acting school they graduated from, but if I was them I'd apply for a full refund post haste. Only Samina Awan in the lead role manages to impress in a cast of so-called British talent that we'll probably never hear from again. At least, that's the hope. Next time, hire a different scout.

Another intriguing thought is the hideously fashionable soundtrack featuring the likes of Snow Patrol, Ian Brown and Keane. Now, I'm a bit of a music fan and I'm familiar with most of these artists output, but I didn't recognise any of the tracks during this movie (apart from the omnipresent \"Run\"). B-sides, anyone? We get many, many musical montages which telegraph how we're suppose to feel. These are accompanied by such startlingly original images as couples kissing by a swollen lake and canoodling in doorways. This is a problem, as none of the songs convey the mood efficiently, and we realise the director lacks the ability to carry the emotional journey to the audience through storytelling and dialogue alone.

The ending is presumably meant to be just desserts, as everybody gets their comeuppance and there is at least one big shock in store.. But I remained resolutely unmoved because the script had given me no-one to root for. It's not enough to tackle a hot-button issue, you have to actually give us a plot that hasn't already been done to death and individuals who are more than window dressing. As it stands, this film is a noble failure, with only the promising lead actress and a few mildly diverting punch-ups to save it from the bin. 4\/10. Must try harder..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I find it difficult to comprehend what makes viewer's feel this is a powerful movie. I would guess that the main intention of this film would be a character study and the effects of racism in a British community. It is therefore all the more disappointing that all the characters are two dimensional and the acting is at the level of a college performing arts course. I'm always sceptical of \"improvisation\", another word for being too lazy to write a decent script. I was embarrassed by the performances and sat in an audience who laughed when they surely were supposed to be moved by the story. Racism is a serious issue but I think a subtle approach in cinema works far better than laying it on with trowel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Upon writing this review I have difficulty trying to think of what to write about. Nothing much happens in this film. The storyline is a South Asian woman who falls for an English Londoner. The problem is he and his friends have had a racist streak. At the same time her friend at work is unknowingly to her having sexual relations with her brother, and it just escalates from there. The problem is that this movie is very predictable. As soon as all this stuff has happened it's all pretty much standard. It drags slightly even though it's only about 90 minutes long. This is more of a Chick Flick than anything else. So if you're male I do not recommend this film to you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to agree that the movie is not the best I've ever seen, but I would like to make mention that the actors portraying Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey were the actual Dorsey brothers. As actors, they were wonderful musicians. The movie, based on their famous split, would have been better had professional actors played the parts. Many movies made during this time frame took advantage of the popularity of Big Bands. Most often, the movies were not that good because musicians are not actors by trade. Most of the movie-going audience didn't go to see Tommy or Jimmy Dorsey playing themselves; they went for the plot and the music. I've never been much of a Dorsey fan, but the music is good even today.

I have to comment on a previous post regarding the actors who played Mom and Pop Dorsey and that their accents would be considered extreme by a Dublin audience. Arthur Shields and Sara Allgood were actually Irish actors, both born in Dublin. You might remember Mr. Shields as the Reverend Mr. Playfair in The Quiet Man and Ms. Allgood as Mrs. Monahan in Cheaper By The Dozen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why spend a moment slogging through this awkward and self-conscious movie? Every now and then, after an hour of tedious plot and amateur acting, we start getting bits and pieces of the big band swing that made Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey, separately and together, the great musicians they were. Occasionally -- in a jam session with Art Tatum, with Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra doing \"Marie\" and, a standout, Jimmy Dorsey and his orchestra fronting Bob Eberle and Helen O'Connell singing \"Green Eyes\" -- we get a complete song.

Unfortunately, the movie is in the public domain and the DVD transfer is just as bad as the acting. My copy has only four chapter stops. That means you can get arthritis in your fast- forward finger trying to speed through to where the good stuff is. The swamp you're moving through is Hollywood's version of the life and battles of the two Dorseys. Tommy, superb on trombone, and Jimmy, superb on saxophone, usually couldn't stand each other. In 1935 they finally split, with Tommy starting his own orchestra. Each had greater success alone than they had achieved together. They reconciled when their father died in the Forties, which is where the movie ends. They later managed to tolerate each other in the orchestra led by Tommy as the big band era faded out in the Fifties. Tommy died in 1956 at age 51, vomiting in his sleep after booze, pills and a big meal. Jimmy died of cancer at 53 in 1957. Jimmy was hugely talented and, from all accounts, a reasonably easy-going guy. Tommy was hugely talented and, from all accounts, often an overbearing jerk. But good music makes up for a lot of faults, and the Big Band sounds the two created helped define the swing era.

They play themselves in the movie, and we see them develop from tussling tykes (with child actors) to grown men battling and yammering at each other. The movie is lumbered with not just their two parents, played by those Hollywood Irish clich\u00e9s, Sara Allgood and Arthur Shields, who just want their boys to get along with each other, but also with a major sub- story involving a romance between Janet Blair, as a childhood friend of the Dorseys who becomes a vocalist with them and serves as a nearly full-time mediator and enabler, and William Lundigan, as a piano player. Blair is not bad at all. However, if you want to see why she never became the star she quite probably should have become, just look at the films, like this one, that her studio put her in. No wonder she left Hollywood. Lundigan simply takes up space.

How bad is this movie, other than when we can actually hear the Dorseys play? Well, here's a song written especially for the movie and given to Blair to warble. It's called \"To Me.\"

To me...you're the rose of a rosary...the rise of a rising sea...the glow of a star...

The rose of a rosary? The movie doesn't get any better than this, and it can't get worse. Still, if you like the Dorseys and if the price is right...well, in hindsight I'd still not buy it. The highlight, for me, is Eberle and O'Connell singing \"Green Eyes.\" You can watch them on You Tube for free. You'll also find there quite a bit of each of the Dorseys. I wish I'd known.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For me this movie is essentially like a feature length pilot episode for a TV series. It reminds me particularly of the British remake of the TV series Wallander, starring Kenneth Brannagh. People interviewed by the police are hardy, and often as bitter as the weather, the lead investigator has huge family problems, investigations invariably lead to cruelties of the distant past, and the plotting is labyrinthine with strange occurrences and subplots making sense only at the end. Both have excellent cinematography.

The plotting of Jar City is extraordinarily reminiscent of a standard UK or US crime series. Effectively you could take the plots of any of the episodes of Touch of Frost and transplant them on top of the bleak locale in this movie and have an effective sequel.

Really the script couldn't be more obviously from the cookie cutter. You get even the most familiar of motifs, such as the police going to the local prison to interview a manipulative and dangerous psychopath, who inevitably explodes at the end of the interview.

I'm absolutely convinced that this is scones and jam for many folk, but I feel it needs pointing out to people like myself who do not go to the cinema to watch television. What I felt a keen lack of was message. The movie takes as its theme the genetic studies in Iceland. Icelanders in genetic terms have remained largely isolated from the outside world, presenting a great opportunity for scientists to study their genetics. Lots of information concerning the heredity of the population has been kept, and many genetic diseases unique to Iceland can be traced effectively in a population that has refrained from interbreeding, and is remarkably genetically homogeneous (it's like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle of the London underground map, instead of a jigsaw puzzle of a field of daisies). A company called deCODE genetics attempted to set up a database carrying all the genetic and hereditary information for the entire population of Iceland. Due to privacy concerns this project was terminated, and at the end of last year deCODE genetics went bankrupt in Iceland. The episode is a rich topic for debate.

But in this movie genetics and medical science are not there for education's sake, they're there for weird atmosphere.

It's a grisly movie if you are interested in that, and there's often a morbid focus on food to accompany events, like a coroner who eats lunch in between incisions. The most queasy for me was when the lead inspector devours a sheep's head. Unfortunately for me this occasionally became farcical. The movie attempts the rather delicate task of mixing the grisly with the sentimental, and ended up providing unintentional humour towards the end. This is the equivalent, in cinematic terms, of attempting to prepare fugu, if you're not well-qualified, deft of hand and sharp of eye, you poison the client. This rather novice director should have lowered the tariff on his performance.

I walked out of this movie feeling rather bad about myself and about life in general.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Would a different translation have made it chillier or scarier? Are the subtitles too compact to convey the nuances of the original language? Does it even matter? You may have heard that great actors can make reading a phone book exciting. Well, this is an opportunity to judge for yourself.

If this isn't about homosexuality, murder, dismemberment, psychopaths, insanity, deviant psychology, then it is about acting - acting helped along with lots of dialog, So, enjoy the acting or muse about how titillating the dialog actually is.

For English speakers, \"Twelve Angry Men\" might be a better choice. There's a bit more interaction, and you can judge if the acting is consistent with the dialog. You don't have to wonder if you're missing something.

I would recommend Andy Warhol's \"Empire\" to those who like this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Surprisingly Kieslowski's this movie is disappointing to me because of the sometimes weird and sometimes clich\u00e9 script that also seems a work of a poor observation sometimes. There is an isolated young boy. He lives with one of his relatives, but he is lonely and every night watches a woman who lives across their building. It seems! that he wants her. He is one of the youths who are not good at communication with the opposite sex. However, he likes that woman, when the woman comes to his house with a man, Tomek gets pain. Then, we understand that Kieslowski tells us a story about an isolated young boy who needs a female to flirt or who falls in love with a mature woman. He does not do something else, because may be he knows that it is his salvation. One day, he stops that woman, suddenly, he seems a shy boy, but proves that he is not, so he explains her almost everything. She lectures and refuses him. Everything is so realistic like the other Kieslowski films, no problem. The problems start when Tomek visits her, the story of a lonely young boy who falls in love with a mature woman (but an unrequited love) turns into the story of a lonely young boy falls in love with a mature woman, at the beginnings the woman refuses, but after a short time, she starts to change her mind. This U-Turn makes the movie clich\u00e9 firstly. The personality of Tomek is weird? or a result of a poor observation? I disappointed with this character, this is my opinion and I will try to tell why. When he goes to her house, Magda treats him very friendly. She asks what do you want from me? To kiss me? to make love with me? to go out with me? At this point, I remember the people who say she is a femme fatale. See? Returning to the scene, Tomek rejects all the proposals. Why? Because he is shy? I don't think so, but his communication is blunt, OK. After the leg scene at home, some events make the movie misses its aim. I think that the aim of the movie is (should have been according to the story) to show us there are some people who suffer from lack of endearment and to save from this situation is not easy owing to lack of communication and being aloof especially for men. I mean that at this point, what does the movie say? It is blurred and disappointing. It is seen that he is not hunger for love or a female or sex. Then, what? And the suicide attempt scene support this weakness. So that he touches her legs, he wants to kill himself! By the way, as I mentioned before, some say Magda is a femme fatale. Totally not. She endeavors in order to make Tomek happy. Does she avoid having contact with him? No. Does she insult him? No. Does she amuse him? No. And Does she deceive him? No. She has some troubles with her (ex) lover, so she is not O.K. However, she does not take revenge for it from Tomek. She is not an angel, but not a femme fatale also.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an excruciatingly boring, slow-moving movie. We can feel some sympathy for the socially- and sexually-inexperienced and awkward Tomek, but the motivations of Magda are pretty hard to see, and the ending, at least for me, was inscrutable.

Maybe it's about how we all need love, but I'd get more out of a good Busby Berkeley.

I'm told that comments have to be at least ten lines, so I'll add that in the background are some interesting shots of the relationship between Polish citizens and government employees and institutions. I wonder if it's meant to portray this before or after the fall of the communist government.

Finally, watch for the clever way the men from the gas company investigate whether or not there is a gas leak in Magda's stove.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A depressed creepy teenager does many bad things to a socially active older lady who does not like to use shades or drapes in her windows. He steels assorted things from her, peeps at her, does prank calls, and plays assorted unpleasant tricks on her. Oddly, he keeps none of this a secret from her. At first, she does not seem to care one way or the other that he is bothering her. Then later she seems to begin to respect him for his cruel fevered activities.

There are some illogical items to note. One is that the guy peeps into the night through a pane of glass from the more brightly lit side. In real life such a thing would not happen. The more brightly lit side of a pane of glass acts as a mirror. He would be able to see exactly nothing. Also, everyone out in the night would be able to look inside at him sitting in his well lit room.

One other illogical item is that the creepy teen takes a job as a milkman, and his one and only customer each morning seems to be the lady he is picking on. Easy work, if you can get it.

I saw A SHORT FILM ABOUT LOVE at a public showing. By the end, there was not a single open eye in the house. A SHORT FILM ABOUT LOVE is the foreign language movie for those who do not like reading subtitles. Not only are there very few words spoken in the film, but much of the movie is silent. A certain rest in peace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Conclusion: very, but very, very boring, yet I watched till the end, hoping for some upside-down effect, but the end was worse, because it was nothing. The old black&white game didn't helped at all, it usually helps psychological movies, but this was not the case. The script, the plot, etc were linear, had no substance, nothing in-going. When you deal with psychological, you deal with analysis, therefore with details, that unity-diversity formula....there was no essence, no detail. Just a story, there are many stories to tell, but something makes them unique and hard to forgive with the tools and creativity of movie-makers...well, this is not the one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie tries to say something profound; I'm just not sure what it was. Too much is left unresolved in the end for me to figure out the main point. A couple scenes really have me wondering what was left on the cutting room floor. I don't think the wall was very well developed I never got what was actually going on there. When the mother finally unveils it I just couldn't make any connection to the boy's silence. What was the point of the boy not talking? Was he just delusional or did he acquire some sort of power. What was the scene with the burnt girl all about? Another power the boy has or what? I don't understand how that developed any character or moved the plot. I got the bully bit but what happened to the dog? Did the dog come back or did mom get rid of Fido for good somehow?

There were several additional plot elements that were more clutter than use. Like the radio talk show in the background discussing the Iraq War. I think that was supposed to create some sort of comparison to the grief and insecurity the mother and Addison were experiencing but for me it was distracting and strained. I didn't buy the link very much. I also found the teacher getting on Addison about not saying \"here\" for roll call a bit much. The mom seeing the doctor was pointless, how did it serve the plot? Was that to show how desperate the mother was getting, or was it something about the medicine that I didn't get? Was that the dad coming back in the last scene, or just some guy? So did writing on the wall work? What happened to the Dog?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is about a grieving wife who lost her husband through suicide. She is tormented by her son who refused to speak after that.

Child grief is rarely explored on film, so it is refreshing to see a film like Addison's Wall. However, due to the very nature of the film, there is no tension or drama. Apart from a few key emotional moments, everything in the film is very plain. The abrupt ending that does not solve any mysteries certainly do not help the film to be more watchable. Addison's Wall could have been much better, such as exploration of the contents of the wall, a more intensive care program to help Addison to go through his trauma. Instead, the film feels very unfinished and non engaging.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie on the strength of the single positive review and I can only imagine that guy is a shill.

The acting of the female lead is actually quite good, but the entire film is just so excruciatingly boring I could hardly bear to sit through it. This is the very definition of dullness.

So far, this film is rated as 8 out of 10 on 7 votes. That must mean the director, director's girlfriend, producer, actress and drinking buddies have given their own film a 10.

For the rest of you, who simply want to be entertained or enjoy a good story, avoid this.

This man on the street shall give it a 2 out of 10.

FDA note: while this movie can be used as an aide to obtaining a good nights sleep, no medicinal value is implied or offered.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was the most god awful movie I have had to sit through. 30 minutes into the film and I couldn't take any more. Seriously, do not bother with this one unless you are a sentimental nut job or one of those pseudo-arty types that like this kind of tripe so that they may feel more cultured. Boring, although the acting is fine; the kid is just plain irritating. Some scenes are a little strange with very weird close-ups. I don't know why they did the whole movie in black and white, but whatever effect they were hoping to have failed miserably. There was just nothing to watch, and although its a sad tale, supposedly, its just so stupid that its hard to feel any sympathy for the characters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A nicely evoked 1930s setting provides much interest for a viewer in the early 21st century; unfortunately, \"London Belongs to Me\" has little else to recommend it besides lashings of quaint English charm. All of the problems rest with the deeply unfocused story. The main plot concerns the actions of young lad Richard Attenborough, the problems he gets into and how the community in which he lives bands together to save him from society's laws. Or something. The main issue here is that Attenborough's character brings everything upon himself and, quite frankly, is guilty of almost every accusation brought against him, so it's baffling why the film (and all the characters) have so much sympathy for him. He's treated as a victim of circumstance when he really, really isn't; and what's more he isn't shown to have very much remorse for his actions, only caring about getting away with things he didn't mean to do. Alastair Sim gets a lot of screen time in a subplot that has absolutely nothing to do with the main plot line and you wonder what he's doing there (though Sim is, as always, superb). You know there's a problem with the structure when the main plot impacts constantly against the subplot but not vice-versa. And, following a sedate pace and a careful build up, the plot completely falls apart in the last 20 minutes with a deeply unsatisfying and unexplained conclusion which doesn't even show us if Attenborough's character has developed at all from the previous proceedings. The film doesn't end, it just stops.

The acting, direction and the general feel of the film can all be commended but unfortunately the story and structure of the piece jars constantly. A last point of trivia: Alec Guinness based his performance in the vastly superior film \"The Ladykillers\" on Alastair Sim's performance in this film, right down to both the characters having almost identical first scenes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie based on the good reviews here, and I won't make that mistake again.

The first couple minutes shows that a group of people have been brought together by some tragedy, but you don't see what it is. Flashback 12-hours and we get to see the boring lives of each of these people, which in the end are totally meaningless to what is about to happen. When the ending is finally reveled, you realize that you just wasted an hour of your life waiting for a big payoff that doesn't happen and means nothing to what you have been watching. The only connection these people have is that they have all had a \"bad day\"--but even that continuity gets lost in the boredom.

If this was supposed to be a \"Crash\" clone, it's a complete failure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Ealing Comedies constitute their own specific sub-genre in the history of film. They were wry, droll reflections on British life in the late Forties and early Fifties. They are always amusing but I feel it is misleading to characterise them as comedies. They are breezy and good-humoured, rather than laugh-out-loud funny. However, the best of them are laced with understated satire and shot through with an occasional dark streak (epecially Kind Hearts and Coronets and The Ladykillers).

I have an affection for all of them, but The Lavender Hill Mob is probably the one I have most difficulty with. Compared to the others, it seems somewhat perfunctory. To me, it is an outline sketch for a movie, but one that needed to spend a lot more time in development before it was ready to go before the cameras.

Everything about it is a bit undercooked. For example, nobody is given any real context or background. Henry is simply a dutiful drudge, whose secret dreams and hidden ambitions go unrecognised, while Albert is a frustrated artist forced to prostitute his talent by making gift shop trash for a living. This establishes a motive for their crime, but nothing that subsequently happens is a consequence either of their characters or their plan.

Other characters are introduced but play no real part in the story. The elderly resident in Henry's guest house could (with her love of detective stories) have been made an unwitting thorn in his side, but is merely used as background 'colour'. Similarly, the various policemen who pop in and out of the action are simply there to keep the plot ticking along.

As a result, the movie is driven entirely by its contrived plot devices, which I find both frustrating and faintly irritating. The not-very-ingenious robbery is accomplished with minimal problems, despite Albert being prevented from carrying out his part in the plan (by Sidney Tafler's Clayton). The gold is then smuggled to France without mishap. Everything would have gone smoothly if it wasn't for a minor hitch, lamely based on the French pronunciation of the letter 'R', which results in six of the gold Eiffel Towers being accidentally sold to some English schoolgirls.

This leads to a series of frantic chases as Henry and Albert seek to retrieve them. These scenes are well executed, but at each point the conspirators are frustrated in their pursuit of the schoolgirls by a series of wholly factitious accidents. It is as if God is deliberately intervening to give them a hard time. This kind of plotting always has me grinding my teeth.

When they finally track the last Eiffel Tower to a Police Academy exhibition and snatch it from under the nose of John Gregson's Police Inspector (why is he there, anyway?) all shreds of plot logic are abandoned. The final car chases are then simply filling up screen time until we are returned to the framing device with which the picture began.

The movie doesn't even bother to tell us the fate of Albert (Stanley Holloway), Lackery (Sid James) and Shorty (Alfie Bass).

This genial little caper has the professionalism of the Ealing team behind it, so it is far from being a bad movie. I suspect most viewers will find it considerably more enjoyable than I do (and why shouldn't they?), but I cannot help thinking there was a much better movie waiting to be made, if only more time and effort had been expended on fleshing out both the characters and the story.

By the standards established by Ealing, Lavender Hill Mob is a missed opportunity.

PS: One curious footnote is that Audrey Hepburn gets a credit for her single line early on, but Archie Duncan remains anonymous despite his much more substantial contribution. I guess she just had a better agent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The acting in this film was of the old school: corny and stiff. Irene Dunne is luminous, and comes off the best even though she has some very unnatural lines to say. Still, her ability to convey emotion comes through.

Old movie buffs will find at least some redeeming qualities in this film through observation of cinematic technique of the 1930s. Otherwise, it is not really that worthwhile.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the most boring movies I've ever had to sit through, it's completely formulaic. Just a cookie cutout of a movie, you could predict about every scene in the movie just from knowing the genre, as this movie adds nothing new. The dialogue is never funny, interesting, or intelligent. The acting is weak and the soundtrack is annoying - basically everything looks to have been done by an amatuer filmmaker. Nothing fresh, memorable, or entertaining in this movie, combined with the fact that it is LONG gives it an easy thumbs down. Sorry, fans.

Overall Grade: F","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had high hopes for this one after reading earlier reviews but it was so slow and the plot so basic that well I wondered if I had read the wrong reviews.

Please, a boy meets girl next door at 11 and both aspire to love and being basketball legends. Grow apart, but watch each others progress. Guess what! Both get scholarships to same university and become lovers again until his father is caught out playing around with a younger woman. Our young hero unable to cope has lapse in court concentration but some how decides to go pro and drop studies, and guess what is picked up by Lakers. Dumps the heroine because she was not there for him during this emotional period. So for 5 years they go their own way. She returns from Spain having lost the zest for the game and our hero is getting married in two weeks. Mom tells her that she should fight for her love so she professes her on-going love and challenges him to a basketball shootout. He wins he marries she wins he loves her. Well he won but decides to dump other girl for our girl. The End has her playing basketball and he has baby duties. Sorry 2 is my high score. My partner she scored 0 for a soapy story for those who read Mills and Boon","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A plot that is dumb beyond belief. However, that said, it must be admitted the lead actors go at their roles as though it were Shakespeare. And that is as it should be. It isn't their fault the writer seems to be in a coma.

Hats off to what is really a very cunning performance by Joanna Kerns. She proves that just because it isn't on the page doesn't mean a role can't be seized and dug into. And she does so with gusto. Good for her.

Ditto to Christine Elise who is called upon to be little more than confused and weepy, but goes way beyond what is asked of her by the script.

And to Grant Show as well. A graduate of daytime and prime time soaps (Ryan's Hope, Melrose Place). He is always versatile and underrated. His primary drawback seems to be his impossible-to-ignore good looks. He is a sturdy, well grounded actor capable of much more than he is generally given the opportunity to do.

The rest of the cast is basically window dressing.

The direction is adequate and the script, as I alluded to, is fairly idiotic.

Watch this one to enjoy three good actors in the leads taking delight in performing some much needed scenery chewing. It's fun.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not even original in the plot. Ho hum. There were a couple of angles that could have been quite interesting, but the film follows the path of 90% of Hollywood movies. I don't really \"get\" Samuel Jackson's acting most of the time in his other films, but he was rather good in this film. He rarely yelled and went much further in his character rather than reverting to an \"in your face anger.\" I liked Eva Mendes - as usual - and even though she is great eye candy, she proves herself to be much more than that as an actress. Luis Guzman was actually really good also, except that I disliked the change of his character towards Samuel Jackson at the end of the film. How can one's character center around a dislike for a former cop and then turn into lollipop land within a split second? Is there no original thought left in Hollywood?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It starts really interesting - the story develops around the main character, who runs a \"cleaning business\", specialized in cleaning up crime scenes. As a former cop, he runs into some strange situation, when one job does suddenly \"offically vanish\". Furthermore, he discovers some relation to an investigation into police corruption. His \"Columbo Feeling\" is justified, the deeper he gets into the background of the story. The good actors (Jackson, Ed Harris, Eva Mendes) play in an suspenseful story with some twists --- but only up to the last 25 minutes. (up to here 7 of 10 stars). SPOILER:::: Suddenly the movie looses its touch and in the end there is a completely unnecessary shoot-out, involving the 14-year old daughter, a betrayal of friendship and a not justified righteousness out of the character development... why not having Cutler giving up his investigation for the sake of the friendship? or having the daughter discovering some facts? or ... many possible much better story finishes are imaginable... a truly wasted ending!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Request you to not watch this movie... It starts with a promise and as it goes on you crave for the movie to end... Predictable,not entertaining at all,wasted movie... Save your time and watch better thrillers.... The synopsis sounds good and that is why I watched the movie... But it was way too predictable with nothing to give you a start... No great suspense.. no great direction... nothing phenomenal with the acting... shy away from this... low rating... Nothing to write about this movie so I am filling up the remaining lines of text so you can imagine how much a time waster this movie is...really irritated at how good a premise that was and how bad a screenplay was written out of it...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I normally don't try and second guess a crime thriller, but Cleaner was just entirely too predictable. Samuel L. Jackson playing the character Tom Cutler, along with his profession created an interesting twist in the beginning of the film, however, that was about it. Without even thinking I knew where the plot would be taken and within 30 minutes I had already figured out who the killer was. Rather then trusting myself and having seen several films that make a turnabout, I watched to its completion. What a disappointment, I was right from the beginning.

The casting of characters was a good, as well as the acting from Jackson and Harris...except for Eva Mendes. From the starting gate she didn't play a believable character in correlation to the script and this ruined the entire plot too soon. Maybe this was a directing mishap or just weakness in the story itself. Her role as Ann Norcut should have shown more emotion and distress for the situation that was building around her. This would've made the build-up a bit more compelling and the ending more dramatic. Nevertheless, Cleaner is watchable, not memorable. I've seen episodes of CSI that were more thrilling then this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tom Cutler (Jackson) is a retired policeman who now works as a crime scene Cleaner-upper. In his latest job, he cleans a new crime scene and destroys evidence and isn't aware the crime hasn't been officially reported. Uh oh, this can't be good.

You hear about Cleaners all the time, but usually when a mob or gangland hit is involved when bodies etc need to be removed and the area cleaned up. This one is different in that Tom Cutler works with the Police to clean up after the police have done their investigation of a crime scene. Hey, someone has to do it. You know the Police won't. The movie makes that quite clear and it is up to the family to get the area cleaned up.

This is almost a good thriller, but a side plot involving Tom's daughter (Palmer) makes this story somewhat awkward. I guess they had to fill in some time. Oh, they brought this side plot around to connect with the another side plot, but it was still a reach and awkward. See?

This was almost a good thriller because there was a noticeable lack of tension, suspense and the pace was somewhat draggy. The music didn't help either as I noticed the music was more appropriate for watching people take a long journey. You know, journey music. Get it? HA!

The acting by all was excellent in this almost a good thriller.

Violence: Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: No, Language: No","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Matthew Aldrich. This is a name worthy of remembrance. This is the individual that took fingers to keyboard and came up with one of the worst scripts of all time. Clich\u00e9. Predictable. An insult to the public's intelligence.

Is he the sole beneficiary of blame? Of course not. Renny Harlin took this abysmal excuse for a script and made it into a movie. Sam Jackson and Ed Harris actually read it (or not) and chose to star in it. Culpability abounds.

This is the Denise Richards of film scripts. There aren't enough Razzies in the universe to give proper recognition to how truly horrible this writing really is.

In all fairness, Samuel Jackson's profession is incredibly novel and the manner in which it's presented is highly creative, but, at the end of the day, it's all just trimmings. Pretty trimmings.

Package it any way you want- garbage writing is still garbage writing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember flipping through channels on HBO and saw this. This, my friends, is one of the worst TV movies I've ever seen. There is no excitement in this film.

The story starts out with Drew Summers(Candice Cameron Bure) driving to a small town while in a trance. She stays with a couple who coincidentally, had a daughter named Laura Fairgate who looked exactly like her and is played by the same actress. Even the townsfolk agree that they looked alike. Thing is, Laura was killed over a year ago. Her boyfriend went missing around the same time she was murdered, making it look like he had killed her.

While settling in this town for a while, Drew starts to have visions and nightmares. These visions and nightmares might prove that the boyfriend of Laura isn't the killer after all. Throughout the film, you find out that Ray Ordwell Sr.(Denis Arndt) is the one that raped her frequently over a period of time and killed her.

The movie is too long and very boring. The film just drags on and on and on and on. Amazingly, I saw another TV movie after this called (Cloned) 1997 which was good but I'll review that one later.

I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Avoid this TV movie. It is not worth your time. This is the worst TV movie of 1997!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While Watching this movie you notice right away the cheesy elements of a standard TV movie... though through out the picture the plot changes (if you are bold enough to say this movie has a plot) are by the book and unoriginal... and with every one the movie KEPT GETTING WORSE!

Candace Cameron Bure, famous for her role as DJ Tanner on the hit TV show Full House, is not very convincing as a Possessed twenty something.. trying to avenge the Possesers Death. I believe she is fine actress.... just not in the thriller range.

The Filming was trashy, and like I said the plot stale... though watching it I knew I was in for automatic cheese, I had NO idea how much worse this film could get...

I highly do not recommend this movie... unless cheep Filmaking and poor writing is what you looking for","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nightscream is a TV Movie so it's bound to be pretty dire especially as it's a supposed horror film. This young girl is haunted by dreams as she arrives in a small town where there was a murder of a woman one year before. She is amazed when everyone in the town thinks she looks exactly like the murdered girl. The townsfolk are amazed when she keeps entering dream like trances where she reveals accurate details about the murder and murderer because the police got it all wrong apparently. Thinking that they are in danger of being found out, the murderers (there are two of them) start to hatch a plan to get rid of her before she gets to the real truth. By this time you will have probably fallen asleep and why do the makers of the film have the 'mist-making' machine on full throttle in the dream sequences.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is horrible even for a TV movie. I can't believe it took three people to write this movie. I am not familiar with the novel on which this film was based, but it has got to be better than this. I'd rather watch a \"Full House\" marathon than this stupid movie. I gave it 2 out of 10 stars only because it was made better by commercials.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Think you've seen the worst movie in the world? Think again. The person who designed the cover of this box should be accused of false advertising. The cover makes it look like a good, scary horror suspense thriller. But, no. What we have instead is NIGHTSCREAM. A movie that makes a \"sweeeoooowww!!\" noise every time a credit flashes across the screen. The biggest name in the entire film is probably Casper Van Dien who hardly has a part.

I voted a one for this one only because I couldn't vote any lower. If I could vote something like negative five-thousand, trust me, I would have. So, for now, I'm going to give NIGHTSCREAM 1\/2* out of 5 just because it ended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I truly was disappointed by this film which I had high hopes for. It seems to have been rushed out to take advantage of the success of screwball comedies at the time (including MGM's own \"Libeled Lady\", which featured two of the same stars) and the success of William Powell and Myrna Loy. Three years into their pairing, they were still attractive to watch and filled with fire in their scenes together, but a weak screenplay and rushed premise destroys any chance of it being a great followup to the previous year's \"Libeled Lady\" and the two \"Thin Man\" movies they had done prior to this. \"Double Wedding\" tells the story of a clothing store manufacturer, Myrna Loy, who is intent on dominating the life of her sister (Florence Rice), future brother-in-law (John Beal), and her own servants (which include Sidney Toler and Mary Gordon). When the independent spirited William Powell comes into her life, having distracted Rice and Beal from Loy's constant control, Loy meets her match. Sounds good so far, right? Yeah, an interesting premise falls short, sad to say, because Loy's character is so one dimensional it is hard to even like her let alone see Powell fall in love with her, which we know will soon happen. It's another attempt to put a career minded woman in her place by changing her views on her what kind of life she has been leading, something Hollywood did often during its golden age. When Loy says she doesn't have time to both run her business and have a man in her life, its a groaner.

Fortunately, other than Powell, there is free-spirited Jessie Ralph on board. A salty wealthy older woman who helped Loy start her business, she has an acquaintance with Powell and can see immediately through Loy's cool claims that she loathes him. Rice and Beal are a boring couple, and the whole premise of Powell getting between them is senseless. Then, an ex-wife of Powell's shows up, which really isn't necessary at that late point in the story, and the final wedding scene (where a crowd of people try to get into Powell's tiny trailer) is a weak attempt to bring some farce. (It is funny though, that Powell keeps getting hit by items meant by Loy to hit Edgar Kennedy with; Those chuckles are most welcome, since there are so few others.) Powell and Loy would do better in two later screwball comedies, \"I Love You Again\" and \"Love Crazy\", which are sophisticated, witty, and fun. This film attempts to be all three, but ends up a sophisticated bore.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A 'Wes Craven presents' movie from 1995, directed by Joe Clayton and starring Lance Henriksen. A group of scientists save a dying man they find by their desert stranded government outpost by injecting him with their experimental virus, of course, one of their colleagues goes overboard and the virus transforms the man into a near unstoppable monster with them trapped inside. Lance Henriksen plays the morally offended researcher who leaves the project before all this, but returns after receiving a call for help to save the man (pre-unstoppable death machine mutation).

Deciding to combine two trips in one he brings his family along with him (they're going on vacation afterwards) and proceeds to give them entry to the top secret government facility, thus putting them right in the middle of the chaos within. In case you can't tell, this one relies on the viewer to work with it a little and put aside some petty (see: major and blatant) details.

Overall though: Watch-able with mild bits of enjoyment. Note: The Outpost is commonly known under the title 'Mind Ripper'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I saw this movie was because it had Giovanni Ribisi and it was supposed to be \"Horror\". Don't be fooled, this movie has to be the worst \"horror\" film I have seen. It's about these people who go to a secret location which has a \"Monster\" in it. The monster is a man with a deformed face running around in blue sweat pants who has a craving for brains. Some people die, some people don't. In the end they throw the monster off of a plane and then fly away happily. BUT OH NO! THE MONSTER IS STILL ALIVE AFTER FALLING OUT OF A PLANE! Go spend 2 hours some other way like watching paint dry on a wall, trust me, it's more entertaining than this crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really loved the Millenium series, starred by Lance Henriksen, which is why I bought the film. Obviously at some level it was a mistake. Mutant\/monster films are usually very bad and this film is no exception.

The basic idea itself is not totally judged to fail (well nevertheless this film would never have been a success, even with a good director & actors), but the way it turns out this is just a B-class movie. The scenes that are supposed to be scary seem more funny to me and the critter is not credible at all.

However, watching this film with group of friends in restless mood makes this film shine as it is so unintentionally hilarious.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILER!!!! Mind Ripper hmmmm.... I had just watched the nightmare on elm street movies and had just found out about Giovanni Ribisi. I thought Giovanni Ribisi hadnt done any horrors so I checked into it. I saw \"the outpost\" (mind ripper) I checked on my Tivo for it. There was an air date on Sci Fi. So I was set. I got my pop corn ready came in and set on the couch and what the hell is this? A freakin bold guy in blue sweat pants running around yelling! Nothing is scary about this movie at all! If anything its funny! Funny how low the budget is, funny how predictable it is, funny how bad the acting is and funny how much money it DIDNT make. Ok giovanni ribisi is a good actor but this movie is dumb. It is so stupid. They killed him at the end and then they go on this plane and the \"monster\" is on it. They shoot him in the head with a shotgun and it falls a long way to the ground. And

-GASP- The killer ending, Its Still Alive! WOOHHH! Scary! woooohhhh! Sucky fat sack of crap waste of 2 hours.

Bottom Line: You have somewhere to go and you need to kill some time. Mind ripper isnt the suggestion. I'd rather sit out naked in the snow than watch this movie a second time.

OVERALL GRADE: F- - - - - - - - - - (ENTERNAL)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why a film maker with a track record like Wes Craven would want to lend his name to a tedious collection of cliches like this is anyone's guess. And if he did stump up any money for it - all of \u00a350 judging by the looks - he should have been banging on the director's door for a refund the minute the film was released. There are many \"Alien\" rip-offs and this is one of the worst. Even the reliable Lance Henriksen, saddled with a character dumb enough to allow his kids to wander around a dangerous government lab, can't save it. As a cure for insomnia, this rates a 10+. As a piece of quality film making - forget it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is Wes Craven at his worst! this is the very worst horror, if you can call it horror, you will ever watch, esp from one of the masters of horror Wes Craven, Poor Direction, Poor Acting, Poor Set, Poor Atmosphere makes this the biggest pile of rubbish ever! the bad guy is totally unconvincing, you couldn't even feel sorry for the guy! the gore, and horror involved in the film is laughable, it's just plain rubbish! the only good points i can think of is, It stars Natasha Gregson Wagner, Giovanni Ribisi, and Lance Henriksen, but not even that cast, could stop this from spiralling out of control, and into one of the worst horrors ever. If you still ain't watch it yet, don't bother, you'll only hate it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A scientific experiment designed to create a superhuman being has gone wrong.The creators become trapped in a remote desert outpost,pursued relentlessly and mercilessly by their own creation.James Stockton,the scientist whose research was used despite his protests to create the monster,is called the outpost to help undo the horror that now lurks somewhere within the dark halls.James,together with his son and daughter,soon find themselves trapped inside with the others,trying desperately to survive.And with the outpost sealed from within,there is no way out...\"The Outpost\"\/\"Mind Ripper\" is highly unoriginal.The sets are pretty claustrophobic and there's a bit of gore.However as a horror it fails miserably on almost all levels.There's zero suspense,the script is weak and filled with big holes and the ending is extremely predictable.So-called master Wes Craven produced this one-I wonder if he is happy with this trash.Joe Gayton directs without any style.The acting is horrible,only Lance Henriksen can act at all.OK,I'm a big horror fan and was bitterly disappointed.Avoid it like the plague-it's just the same old boring crap again!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sigh\u0085the stupid government once again attempted to create an inexhaustible and indestructible soldier, and of course the experiments went terribly wrong, burdening us with a half man-half mutant who pukes an awful lot and squeaks like a little girl whenever he's upset. Lance Henriksen stars as the honest scientist who immediately quit the experiment upon hearing it was a military project, but he returns (bringing the whole family with him) when he finds out his beloved guinea pig has gone on a killing spree. \"Mind Ripper\" certainly is a watchable horror movie, but it's very unoriginal and features pretty much every lame clich\u00e9 you can think off (including the estranged father\/rebellious teenage son sub plot...yawn). The characters are like wooden puppets, the dumbest things are being said and done and there's a completely pointless dream-sequence...coming from the monster!!! There's a handful of interesting gory scenes to enjoy and some of the isolated desert-locations are effectively eerie. Lance Henriksen is adequate as always, even though this is yet another inferior production he stars, and Giovanni Ribisi surely deserved a better motion picture to make his debut in. For some reason, this anonymous 90's thriller is also known as \"The Hills Have Eyes part 3\". Is it because it handles about members of the same family being terrorized in the desert? Is it because Wes Craven was once again involved, as a producer this time? Or maybe it's because the monster gets bald near the end like the freaky Michael Berryman in the 1977 original? Who knows...Who cares? Wes Craven probably financed this project because his son co-wrote the script and it's always moving to discover that your offspring is equally untalented as you are. Not recommended!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film at Temple University. I cannot imaging that anyone will ever see this film in a theater (projected on film). The acting is similar to Saved By The Bell (The TV Show). The plot is simple and unimaginative. The sound recordist likes the sound of wind and the DP needs a light meter. Vampires, Vampires, Vampires.

Don't waste your money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, let's see... a handsome young stranger is new in town, and walks around on the local boardwalk. He meets a pretty girl, meets up with the obnoxious leader of the local hip young vampires club, is dared by them to follow them into this cave, gets into a conflict over the pretty girl, an epic fight ensues...

No, it's not Lost Boys, although you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference, since I think even some of the carnival music is the same. (Do you have to pay royalties for sampling a movie?) Even the ending of this stinkbomb is ripped off from Lost Boys. The make-up is below par, even for a low-budget thriller, the characters are one-dimensional, and just exactly how many \"Oh, I had this horrible experience\" scenes of teen angst does one movie need? The humor is flat and stupid, and everything else is sadly predictable. Yawn.

The only scary thing about this turkey is the promise (threat) of a sequel, an idea that hopefully every distributor in the country will drive a stake through.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hi Y'all,

I bought this on DVD from England. You see, I have one of those multi-region players. I thought it would be fun to get a cool movie to show to my friends. Well, surprise to Amy-Jo Johnson, she's barely in the movie. Although she is on the cover. It's really difficult to imagine how a film this bad got made in the first place. Perhaps someone has a trust fund.

Oh... It's about Vampires who live at the beach","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know who financed it, or why, but this \"want to be\" vampire flick is really awful. It tries to be hip, and appeal to the young MTV-generation audience, but it is just downright laughable. The acting is horrible, and the directing is horrendous. I heard the budget was $600,000. I want to know where all the money went?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Nuts in May\" may be one of the worst films i have ever seen. If Ed Wood was still alive this would be the type of movie he would be doing.To say this movie is bad would be the understatement of the century. But how bad is it really? Well, here are two levels of bad i go by; \"it's so bad it's good\" or \"it's so bad it's GOD AWFUL\". This film falls into the latter section. What little unintentional humor it has does not make up for the slow, hard to understand, boring majority of the film.

SUMMARY: SPOILERS**

Two middle-aged Anglos take a trip to the countryside for some R&R and camping, there they met Ray soon-to-be Jim (I'll explain later), who's tent is next to our main couple. Throughout most of the movie the two leads go sight seeing on the beach, at a rock quarry and other exciting locations. In between these adventures they talk endlessly about the environment, vegetarianism,fossil collecting, the duty of a proper citizen and proper diet, all thing i want to see in a comedy. They bore anyone who will listen to them. The dialogue is not only bad, but the pacing in some scenes is so slow i sometimes felt like dosing off. Scenes would go on forever and just when it begins to build up and something is about to happen the scene ends. Half way through the movie i thought to myself, \"Nothing is going to happen in this thing, it is truly a movie about nothing\".

The characters are annoying and constantly repeat things. At one part i felt the director was playing a cruel joke on his audience. The scene i am referring to is the \"Sing Along\" scene. In it our two boresome Brits play some of there music for us, actually it was the same 4 four lines over and over and over and over. The idea was to get Ray to sing along with them, but Ray knew, as well as us, that they are the worst songwriters known to man. This scene was beyond tedious, by the fifth time the song was played i started to question the existance of a merciful God.

Words can not describe the awfulness of this film. The first thing that strikes you is the indecipherable British accents that most of the cast has. Remember the thick Scottish accents in Trainspotting? Times that by 10.

Towards the end our tree hugging, incoherent, couple get into a fight with some of Ray's friends that have complete disrespect for the rules of camping. Our hero becomes so incensed that a climatic battle ensues between our hero and the head hellraiser. To settle their dispute the two men engage in a stick fight. That's right a stick fight! Now this is where the unintensional humor starts. I laughed so hard at the ineptitude of it all that i thought, \"This may make up for the other 80 minutes.\" After this histerical battle our hero runs behind some bushes to cry his eyes out and the other man calls Ray over by calling him Jim for some unknown reason.

A stick fight, a crying nature loving 40 year old and a character name change 3\/4 into the movie, Ed Wood would be proud.

Though, i was again forced to endure the last 10 minutes which to sum up ends with a long take of a pig. Why? who the hell knows. At one moment we see a pig grazing and the next the credits start to role over the screen. One of the worst endings to a one of the worst films of all time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**SPOILERS** The killer in the movie doesn't wait a second as we see him sneaking into a girls shower and hacking her to death taking her severed and bloodied arm as he makes his getaway. We then get this official looking prologue, as if were watching a true story, stating that a number of gruesome murders were committed in the late fall of 1985 in a small mid-western collage.

Grandfatherly looking, and hearing impaired, Sheriff Ron Delboys is baffled by this murder and later when the murders of local collage students, all women, continues his run for state senator is in jeopardy with him bumbling the investigation at every turn. There's at least two times when Delboys says that they'll never be another murder as long as he's on the case and within minutes another murder happens.

Finding a golden amulet at the scene of each murder the sheriff's daughter, the collage librarian, Tina finds this reference book about Withcraft indicating that the amulet is a symbol of a witches cult that originated in the early 1700 just after the Salem Witch Trials. This cult was out to avenge the 19 accused witches hung by the local townspeople back in 1692 and they went out at night killing men and women of authority and taking off with a body part. When the body parts would form a complete person they would be burned in an occult midnight bonfire ritual.

You never get a handle to what's exactly happening in the movie \"Blood Cult\" not just because it's totally disjointed story but it's ever more outrageous and grad-school level acing especially by Charles Ellis playing the butterfingered sheriff Ron Delboys. Getting himself into more trouble then even the on the loose killer could have gotten him into. The bumbling Sheriff Delboys ends up with his head busted coffee spiked as well as almost burned alive, after being dismembered. The only reason he wasn't is because he seemed to have dreamt it all up while under the influence of some strong and unnamed drug.

There's a weird dream sequence in the movie suggesting that a number of highly respected members of the community are members of the Witches Cult that's responsible for the sorority murders. The movie doesn't bother to explain at all if the dream, that the drugged Sheriff Delboys had, was a dream or actually a real experience on his part by dropping the whole thing as if it were cut out of the movie!

Getting out of the hospital and staking out the collage sorority house, while munching down a bag full of McDonald cheeseburgers, Sheriff Delboys finally comes face to face with the killer. Shefiff Delboys find out to his shock and amazement that not only does he know who he, or she, is but he's also willing to let the killer escape!

The very first straight to video motion picture and it shows. Not only would no one it their right mind be crazy enough to pay admission, at least with the video you can tape over it Thank God, to see this disaster but no movie-house owner would dare play it on their screen without the danger of the outraged patrons, in a justifiable show of righteous indignation, tear the place apart!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me see...I've seen every film Lou Ferrigno has made. I've seen Batman & Robin...twice. I've memorized the dances in Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo...I've watched unfinished Blade Runner rip-off student films...yet this film is the most painful thing I've ever seen.

This was the first movie for the \"straight to video market.\" So you can thank Blood Cult for all of those mysterious Michael Dudikoff films at your local Blockbuster. You should know that this isn't even high quality video. This is consumer grade. This is you father's video camera he never uses. This is what you have to look at for 90 minutes.

I won't bore you with plot details since I'm getting sleepy just thinking about it, but I will tell you that watching this movie is a form of torture. I only watch this movie when I am angry at myself. So I recommend this film if you are suicidal, or if you are up for a mighty challenge.

If you happen to rent this film (God have mercy) you will know what you are in for from the first 10 minutes. This is when you are hit by the usual horror film intro. You know the drill. There's a lot of suspense and build up before some girl dies. Yes, you've seen it before, but not like this. This is the most boring intro I've ever seen. I honestly believe that you could get a camera off ebay for ten dollars, grab the bum that most smells like gin and candy, and tell him to film your mom cooking dinner and it would be more interesting than this intro. It bored me to tears. I cried like a baby.

Another one of the things that makes this film so unbelievably painful is its actors. Yes, I've seen bad acting. TRUST ME. I've seen 4th grade productions of Oliver Twist with more realistic dialog. The lead actor makes me ill. The \"supporting\" actress is a train-wreck of a human.

I will not even comment on the boyfriend. True horror.

So, rent this movie if you can find it. You'll never be more depressed that you spent 3 dollars on anything else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can I say? This was hands-down the worst movie I have ever seen in my life (and believe me, some of my favorite movies are admittedly horrible). The acting was amateurish, the sets were boring, and the camerawork was shoddy and sophomoric. This whole movie seemed like a college final project. I had to keep convincing myself that it was done by a teenager to make it seem somewhat good. The most disturbing factor of the \"film\" is that it's not even film at all-- it 's shot on video. That was extremely distracting. On top of all that, the dialogue is simply disastrous and the plot line is so basic it makes my eyes water. Not to mention they steal from at least four other horror movies in the first 20 minutes or so. If there were such a thing as zero stars, this movie would get it.

The only thing scary about this movie is how bad it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hitting the ground running, the film begins with THREE murders in a row. No plot, no characters, no motivation; the second murder happens off screen, and that victim's severed head is actually used to quite efficiently bludgeon the third victim to death! This is a high point. But the Lewises are obviously smart enough to lead with strength; soon they're covering up botched dialogue scenes with detective voice-over and shooting endless snappy repartee in ugly wide shot. By now this Betacam production's horror atmosphere is rapidly giving way to an insurance infomercial vibe, with the monumental (and rather endearing) plainness of the leads skewing things further in that direction. Shlub cop investigates, meat cleaver guy slaughters, repeat, climaxing early with a memorable severed-finger-in-the-salad gag. Only, how the hell did the fingers get in the salad? And wasn't the Blood Cult's purpose to collect the appendages they severed? When the GORE stops making sense, you know you're in trouble. And without spoiling the big, nonsensical twist ending, just take my word for it: the fascinating incompetence of the first scenes gives way to a deep cathode-tube-smashing impulse. The basic reaction is to try to put it behind you and get on with your life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so mild! I tried not to expect anything greater from this film, but still it was a big disappointment. The basic idea of the story is interesting and potential. This could have been so much better. The characters are really simple, no depth at all. It's a shame that previously talented performers Tiina Lymi and Petteri Summanen didn't make the already poor characters any better. The director just don't get the watcher emotionally involved at all with this piece of cr*p.

And the the chase sequence at the end of the movie. That's hideous!!!

Why there had to be so stupid and old solution for that situation?

It's too much used element with even more terrible way of filming it. OH NO!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"usually a movie that starts bad stays bad in a monotonically descending pattern. This bad movie started to seem to get better before going into a steep dive. The acting, save for the male antagonist, was awful. The plot was essentially a set up for the final main scene, which is probably good as performance art, but it was wasted in this movie. Not sure why this movie was made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Cleo's Second Husband\" is an amateurish attempt at psychodrama with more to fault than to praise. The plot is hacked, the story monotonous, the acting poor, the execution second rate, etc. Not worth the time unless maybe your a relative of one of the actors. PU! (D)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I recently watched this movie because I'm a big Kinski Fan. But, oh my god. Don't get me wrong. I love this guy. But in this movie his whole acting is just simply a refusal to work! But fortunately he isn't the only one to blame. First of all the complete storyline is totally weak dealing with a gunmen looking for a murderer while Kinski is stuck up in jail for a crime he did not commit. That's all. All the dialogs and characters are so bad it's making you scream. But maybe that's the fun of it all. If you know the Kinski-Biography it's obvious that Kinski didn't care about those movies at all. Especially all his Italo-Western roles. He just took the money and that was It. again, this whole movie is totally weird. Only for hardcore-Fans of the genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hungary can't make any good movies. Fact. This is a great example of that.

First of all the term \"plot\" does not exist in this movie. It's seriously weak. Even tho a lot of people would argue with me on that. Sure, it's about a taboo, but that's about it. There are endless possibilities, which could have been really great, if used, but they nearly skipped everything. I think the whole movie is just an excuse to show pictures, which are the only decent things in this whole pile of awfulness.

The acting is just plain shitty. There aren't many lines, so you would think that the actors have great facial expressions or mimicking abilities, but no. In fact, 86% of the time, they suck. And that's when they don't say anything. If they say even a single word, you'll start tilting your head, saying: \"That's damn unrealistic\". But than again, this is partly the fault of the writing. There's also no emotion in most of the dialogs.

The editing is sometimes OK, but most of the time illogical and just worsens the whole picture. It could have given an emotional push, yet it seems the editing in here is all about putting cuts after each other.

Someone please explain it to me, why critics say this movie is a masterpiece. Calling this an \"Art\" isn't gonna make it better. Sorry Mundruczo, but you failed. Live with it. Even tho you probably won't care about my or any other guys opinion scarifying your \"child\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a very bad example of uninspired storytelling, which tries to hide behind an \"artfilm\" facade, trying to shock the audience with unmotivated violence (against women) to cover up for it's lack of psychological depth of the characters & internal conflicts. Everything in this movie is pretentious, from the thank you's to Bela tarr at the beginning, to the photography, the acting, music, the story & editing. When suddenly, without reason, you are forced to watch close ups of \"charismatic\" looking hungarian country people in their boats, while the soundtrack is trying to persuade you that this is supposed to be a dramatic moment, although they are only on the way to the funeral of the local alcoholic, thats one thing. Putting completely unmotivated rape scenes as a shocker is a different thing, for which i absolutely have no comprehension. This movie is trying really hard to enter a certain genre of artistic (east European drama kind of) films but lacks the subtlety, observational skills and \"soul\" that other directors have.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No way this overly simplistic script, with basically one character, should be interpreted as feature entertainment. In reality it has about enough material for an eighteen minute short, and even that would seriously tax your attention span. Zero characters beyond Noble Willingham are developed. The never ending closeups of lips and telephones are sleep inducing, and the script is so underdeveloped that a chimpanzee could have written it. In fact this whole sad thing shouldn't have even been put on film. A tape recording would have been more than sufficient to put you to sleep. Definitely not recommended. - MERK","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I recently watched this film on The Sundance Channel and it kept me interested from the start. However, it seems to take forever getting itself where it wants to go and in the end, I felt somewhat cheated. In a nutshell, Noble Willingham (of Walker, Texas Ranger fame) plays a boat salesman who starts getting harassed by telephone from a man claiming to be his son. According to the mysterious caller, Willingham has a dark, dirty little secret that affects the son and he (the son) is enjoying reminding him of it. I won't spoil anything for anyone but for me three things kept me from liking this movie a great deal. One, the movie has more foul language than Goodfellas, Scarface, Casino, and Glengarry Glen Ross combined. 99% of it is spewed from Willingham himself. It didn't take long to wear me out with constant four-letter words. Two, I simply could not believe that anyone would answer the telephone that many times, especially when one knows that a crank caller is on the other end of the line. No matter where Willingham is in the movie whether it be at work, home, a diner, etc., the phone rings and he always answers it spewing venom at the \"son\", and then hanging up ONLY TO ANSWER IT AGAIN WHEN THE CALLER CALLS BACK IN ABOUT TEN SECONDS! How many of us would do that? Now I realize that we probably do not have a movie if he doesn't keep answering, but I just could not suspend disbelief on that particular matter. Three, and this is the most minor of the criticisms, why is the director so opposed to showing us the \"Corndog Man\" (a.k.a. the caller\/son)? Most of the time he's just a redneck sounding voice on the other end of the phone. I could have lived with that one if other things had fallen into place, but since they didn't it's just one more to tack on. I do give the movie credit for being a somewhat original idea and for holding my attention with suspense from the beginning but that's about it. Do see it, if only one time. However, if you're like me, you'll be saying \"Triple K Marine!\" in your sleep for a night or two after you finish watching it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must begin by saying that this is one of the most annoying films I have seen in my entire life! Annoying factor number one: Never seeing the \"son's\" face (for the entire movie). And the infinitely more annoying factor: That incessantly ringing phone..nothing but listening to the phone ring over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...you get my point. The old man was being harassed but the VIEWER was too! At first the film was interesting to me but it deteriorated VERY quickly. The film may possibly have been good as a short but was definitely not enough to maintain anything approaching feature film length. I guess what I am trying to say is that the message about racism (which finally put in an appearance during the last two scenes of the movie) is secondary to this old mans being harassed. Who cares to sit and watch what is really nothing more than an old man spouting obscenities at someone prank calling him?? If you've never seen a movie that just gets under your skin and drives you CRAZY...check this one out!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dumb, meaningless movie should appeal to Southern Rednecks, teenagers with IQ's bordering on retarded and the average Bush supporter. Noble Willingham plays the lead in this simpleminded script for what it is and uses a generous dose of MFers, eff this and eff that and SOBs. The ending which I anticipated to \"Save\" this hollow story was the biggest letdown, leaving me hanging and wondering, \"Why\"?

It's a story of cat & mouse or more like Bully vs. victim.

Don't waste your time unless you like hearing the phone ringing every 2 minutes and constant cursing and screaming throughout this 123 minute piece of dumpster droppings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was horrid and at the end made me wonder why someone went to the trouble to make it. Now it was not all bad, I have studied film and this film was put together very nicely and had very good cinematic everything with interesting angles to very nice lighting and excellent camera work. I wish I could have seen it back in school because it would have made a good film to write a paper on. BUT........ Since I have graduated and lost most of my film pretentiousness I have realized that a film should be entertaining above all, this movie was long and boring and I'm not sure when it finally got to the point that it was worth my time.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is bad.

This movie is REALLY bad.

This movie is might as well be half a minute long and shown 200 times in a row, because you'd get the same effect.

The phone rings. Man A answers the phone and gets annoyed by Man B. Man A curses off Man B, and then hangs up the phone. Repeat.

This is the entire movie.

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. TRUST ME.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I get the impression that I was watching a different movie to the majority of other people I know who have seen this film. It's not really that I found the film offensive or anything - just that the script was unbelievably amateurish for a film that had obviously had a bit of money thrown at it. I really respected Paul Haggis' work on the Million Dollar Baby script and was bitterly disappointed to see how bad this script was. It was clear to me that it was desperate to be the 'racism' version of Traffic, but I don't think Traffic was really a film worth ripping off in the first place.

The worst feature of thisfilm is the way it shamelessly spoon-feeds its audience. Does Haggisreally think we are so dumb as to require a shot of the blanks? Do wereally need to see the phone book sitting on Farhad's dashboard, withthe address circled in black texta? Can we not be left to make someleaps in logic for ourselves?

I also had a major problem with the dialogue which was so 'on the nose'. I have heard one critic say that the quality of dialogue is deceptively high, because even though people may not speak this way, they certainly do think this way. That is irrelevant. It is the job of a script like this to utilise dialogue in a way that helps add to the characterisations and believability of the (in this case highly implausible) situations that are set up. These characters all speak using the same voice and all they ever talk about is racism.

Surely the purpose of a film like this should be to promote the fact that race should not really be an issue in these situations, but by making it the sole focus of every scene, doesn't it become innately racist itself? Characters walk around spouting their philosophies and conveniently memorised statistics on race relations as though they're regurgitating extracts from the research essay they've just written. It's utterly unconvincing and obvious.

A film should reveal its meaning gradually, not slap us in the face with it in the opening scenes and then never let up. I can see that Haggis' intentions with this film were honorable, but dare I suggest that by directing his own script he has not been able to identify and, therefore, overcome its flaws. I really hope that writer\/directors will be really careful in future when approaching this 'mosaic' style of narrative. It has been done well a number of times, but getting the balance between the personal and the political right is very difficult. And Robert Altman will not be outdone in that department.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this \"movie\" partly because of the sheer number of good reviews at Netflix, and from it I leaned a valuable lesson. Not a lesson about ethnic diversity however...the lesson I learned is \"Don't trust reviews\".

Yes, racism sucks and people are complicated, but the people who actually need to see this movie are going to be the ones who are the least drawn to it and least affected by it if they DO see it. The only reason that I can think of for the number of good reviews is that it's being reviewed by people who aren't used to thinking, or who've seen their first thought-provoking movie and somehow think that Haggis invented the concept. In fact, he basically made this film, which should be called \"Racism For Dummies\", as emotionally wrenching as possible, seemingly to give people who don't spend a lot of time thinking the impression that they've discovered some fundamental truth that's never been covered in a film before. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanence it's not... An after-school special for the unthinking masses, cut into bite-sized overwrought ham-fisted pieces to make it easier to swallow without too much introspection.

It's as if they portrayed everyone as being the worst possible extreme, simply to make us happy that we're such good people because we don't identify with the characters. Let's face it people. NOBODY identifies with these characters because they're all cardboard cutouts and stereotypes (or predictably reverse-stereotypes). It's well acted (even if the dialog is atrocious) and cleverly executed, so much that you don't think to ask \"where's the beef?\" until you can tell the film is winding down. The flaming car scene was well executed, like much of the movie, but went nowhere in the end.

The messages are very heavy-handed, and from the \"behind the scenes\" blurb, the producers were clearly watching a different movie, because there is very little to laugh about in this movie, even during the intended funny parts. I have to stress that this is NOT entertainment, more like a high school diversity lesson...call it the \"Blood on the Highway\" of racism. They could even show this in high schools if it weren't for the \"side-nude\" shot of Jennifer Esposito.

In this film, everyone's a jerk and everyone learns a lesson (except for Michael Pena who gets the best role, but the most predictable storyline).

This is a bad film, with bad writing, and good actors....an ugly cartoon crafted by Paul Haggis for people who can't handle anything but the bold strokes in storytelling....a picture painted with crayons.

Crash is a depressing little nothing, that provokes emotion, but teaches you nothing if you already know racism and prejudice are bad things.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film's tagline is \"You think you know who you are. You have no idea.\" I reject both the suggested idea that I have no idea who I am and the inferred suggestion that this film tells me who people truly are. If people in real life are really like this, then man, we're screwed.

A bilious film that I walked into late and left prematurely. A film which is so wrapped up in its goal of becoming The Race Film of All Time that it loses sight of the very tools a film must use.

The rules of Hollywood are such: if you show something in the first half, it must be used in the second half. Thus the gun that the daughter worries about her father buying will somehow find its way into the story in the second half. The rules of Hollywood are to make dialog 'real' - a concept which changes with every decade. Is this 'real dialog' somehow less ludicrous than the 'real dialog' of Kevin Smith ten years ago? The rules of Hollywood state that we set the scene, and as action rises, the camera moves in closer to the faces - in this film primarily so we can see the supposed shame, humiliation and transcendental realism of the characters. The strings increase, the frame-rate slows down, and our heart is meant to break.

This film is as crassly manipulative as it is vapid. I have my own prejudices against L.A., which I freely admit, so to combat this prejudice I will not say that this is a natural situation stemming from the location, but rather probably from the author and director. The writer, Paul Haggis, already showed a taste for polemics over humanity in his Million Dollar Baby, which at least had a director who understood how to make the vision of the film bring out the best of a script's ideas. Now that Paul Haggis has his own hands on the camera it becomes obvious that not only does he not know how to write true, natural human drama, he does not know how to photograph or direct it as well. Paul Haggis comes from the land of TV, let us not forget: the land of diminished expectations.

Everything is as obvious as a TV-movie, simply presented for simple minds - Haggis drills into us, over and over again, that while on the surface people may seem to be awful, they have secret pains hidden. This is a nice idea, but so hamfistedly presented that the whole juxtaposition of bad\/good has an amateurish feel. Structurally the film is broken up, in the tradition of Magnolia and other earlier films. The editing is as typical and conventionally \"cinematic\" as could be - if there is a dramatic movement, such as a door opening or a car driving past between the subject and camera, the editors use that extreme movement to give the cut that occurs there a more kinetic quality. The problem is that other than the drive to keep things moving, there is very little intelligence and thought behind the cuts - everything is kept by the books. Not only are the puppets of this hideous racial punch and judy show ineptly handled, but even the curtains are lowered and raised with incompetence.

The film tries desperately to present reality, but there's just no talent whatsoever. Some of the actors are good, some of the actors are bad, and all of the performance get muddied together, brought down by the low, low aesthetics of the film. We have cinematography which is technically clear: we can see the scene, we have a clear understanding of what is happening. However, not only is the cinematography unremarkable, but it is thoughtless camera-work and framing which believes that it actually is inspired. The result is little stylistic flourishes which one recognizes but do not actually add anything to the drama or pathos. For example - and this is a spoiler - as a father holds his dying child (the father might be shot too, I didn't stick around to find out) the camera sees his face and gives us the famous Vertigo track\/zoom. The Vertigo shot!!! It was at this point that the film became hysterical and I just had to leave. I had to leave because it was so bad. I left because I was in the middle of a crowded theater, and I wanted to express to the audience that I was sick of emptyheaded Hollywood 'art' which is full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing (in the Bard's own words). I hate to waste such good Shakespearian references on something this remarkably bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I agree with what so many others have said about the shallow and offensive nature of this film's examination of racism. It is baffling to me that so many people seem to have been fooled by its pretentiousness. I want to comment on the Matt Dillon character as an example of what's most infuriating about this movie. Here we have a man who -- contrasted with the film's underlying message that \"we're all a LITTLE racist\" -- effectively rapes a woman in public, cruelly humiliating her husband and deliberately goading him to make a move that, as he well knows, will lead to his arrest or even death. He does all this after pulling the couple over without any legal cause but because, as we come to understand, they are black and wealthy and he is a hurt little boy who is now the police and can therefore do as he pleases. This behavior is not a LITTLE racist. This behavior is evil. It is disturbing to me that this extreme of racism is held up next to another character's behavior -- spouting her paranoid stereotypes about gang violence -- to illustrate that everybody's a LITTLE racist. Later, we're spoon-fed some tripe about Dillon's poor old dad and how black folks drove him into the poor house. Is this supposed to explain, or worse, excuse this behavior? And is Dillon's character meant to redeem himself by committing the utterly unmotivated and unbelievable, laughably coincidental act of saving the woman he sexually assaulted the very night before? Please. The fact that so many people seem to feel some kind of self-congratulatory admiration for this film makes me feel sad about the shallowness of our understanding of racism, and our apparent lack of commitment to condemning and ending it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*** SPOILERS***

One of the worst films I've seen since last years \"The Village.\" An insult to anyone of any intelligence at all. Poorly written and astonishingly contrived. Nobody, especially in Los Angeles talks the way these characters do. No subtly at all. If the point of this film is to say that \"we all have a little bit of bigotry in us\" he does a horrible job of stating the obvious. Not only was his point clearly base, but every character in this film was AMAZINGLY STUPID. The car jacking scene almost made me walk out, along with the rescue and oh lets not forget the WHITE off DUTY Rookie COP picking up a hitchhiking black thug and... I could go on and on. Awful, just awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can not believe the positive reaction to this movie. I had great expectations for it and was disappointed. First of all, they used every cheesy racism clich\u00e9 in the book. It was so predictable. For instance, from the second the young Latino guy showed up you just knew that he would be a really nice guy because he looked like a gangbanger. Matt Dillon's character has been played a million times, a cop who had been hardened over the years and would see the light to some degree by the end of the movie. The predictability hardly ended with those characters. A phenomenal cast was wasted on a weak script. The morals of the story were PC to the max. There were a few clever twists but not nearly enough. The dialouge was embarrassing at times. It wasn't all bad.I just can't believe this movies high score so far. It was somewhat entertaining, just a little insulting to ones intelligence. I admire what this movie was trying to achieve but it fell well short.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wrote this as a two part review. Part two has spoilers.

Part 1:

No, this isn't that one about the sex with car accidents. This is the one about racism in L.A. You know, the one where everybody is a racist, and race is the topic on everybody's mind at all times. Race.

Its like the movie has a form of turrets syndrome where race is the constant theme. Race. Racist. Racism. Race Relations. Relay race.

Paul Haggis made a movie which took the structure of Magnolia, which was used to show the disconnect of people who are tangentially connected, and then screwed it into a 1'53\" mental vomit about racism in America. RACE. In the 24 hour period we have 7 stories running parallel all connected and about race. The first hour, people say ridiculous stuff and do absurd things in an effort to be real about racism in America.

For example, the story with Ludicrous and Larenz Tate provides the comic relief. Too bad, the first half of their story is lifted straight from The Bonnie Situation in Pulp Fiction. RACISM. Their section is the Quentin Tarantino section where, instead of being cool and talking about foot massages and religion, the characters talk about race and racism. CONSTANTLY.

The other good thing about it is the Mexican story when the Mexican guy is talking to his daughter. He gives her his invisible impenetrable cloak to protect her from bullets. Decent writing, but that's only because the writers have had daughters and know what they would say in his place.

The rest of the stories are extremely ludicrous. The Hindi does not act in any semblance of realism. The scene where he's trying to get the lock fixed and the Mexican tells him he needs a new door is abbreviated and stupid. Why would anybody act like that? Is it realistic? NOOO. It reminds me more of the convenience store clerk from The Doom Generation. \"Six Dollar Sixty Six Cents girly.\" If i ever watch the second half of the movie, I hope his head is shot off and his bodiless head starts coughing up relish.

I haven't mentioned race in over a paragraph. RACE. RACISM. RACE FOR THE SUN. Better. Then, there is the black guy who wants to be white, Matt Dillon who has a chip on his shoulder against blacks, Ryan Phillippe who looks beautiful and does nothing, and various other bad actors acting badly with bad dialog. When Matt Dillon molests the black producers wife, could I help it if I was cracking up? When Philippe is second guessing his writing up of his partner for racism, can I help but crack up? The movie is so funny when it is being racist. Racist. RACIST I tell you.

Now, mind you, this movie was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Editing, besides a nod to Matt Dillon who actually did attempt to do a decent job. Who was paid off for that one, I have no clue.

Don't see it unless you feel like being preached at about the racism in society through a bad and unrealistic script from 2 white men over fifty who have no semblance of reality or interaction with real society in any way shape or form.

D-

Part 2:

The second half of Crash takes any and all story lines in the first half...and spews them back out in a sort of redemptive, conclusionary, the world is a big coincidence kind of way. And it is in fact one of the worst ways to do it.

Take 1999's Magnolia. People weren't conveniently tied together over and over again. They were just connected in a strange way that happens more often than you think. You know somebody who knows somebody who did something that you knew somebody else was also involved in. Crash takes this wrapping into a serious extreme.

The stories are lined up so everybody meets again. Are there only 5 on the LAPD force? Aren't these people working weird shifts? Dillon and Philippe were a late shift then an early one the next day? And, why did Tate have to be the murdered hitchhiker? Wouldn't it have had more emotional tension, as well as realism, if it had been somebody we had not been following all day long? Like Phillippe just picks up a random hitchhiker and then freaks out. Everybody'd be freaking out.

Eventually, in the second half, the touching invisible cloak scene is used to get the Hindi to shoot the daughter. It ticked me off and made me feel dirty. Not that the Hindi shot the daughter, but that they created a beautiful touching scene and then had it be the direct cause of people tearing up. It really ticked me off. At the writers, not the scene.

The whole movie is fake and totally uncalled for. The coincidences are far too many and they require an extreme suspension of disbelief. Unlike Magnolia which was connected mildly, this had connections upon connections upon connections which were just so over-the-top. The only good part in the second half was when Sandra Bullock falls down the stairs. She doesn't die though. She should have. I cheered when she fell.

The worst part about the movie is it pulls a Magnolia. Not just in structure, but it has a montage over the song In the Deep where you see everybody being depressed. Magnolia took this and had post-modern commentary on it by having all of the characters singing along to Aimee Mann's Wise Up. Unfortunately, Magnolia came out in 1999, while Crash came out in 2005. Its hard to make commentary on a movie which won't be made for another 6 years, but it happened. Somehow.

Utter waste of my time.

First half: D-; Second half: lowest grade ever; Overall: F---","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i am amazed anyone likes this film. i never walk out of movies, but my friend had to physically stop me from leaving the theater during this insulting disaster. the white characters are saints and the Asian characters are practically nonexistent and worthless to the story. they exist only as objects, surprise. characters of other races fare much better. the twists and turns were laughable and predictable. but if you're reading this, you know that already. Paul Haggis is a hack. Hollywood can't even do multicultural movies right. do yourself a favor and watch a much more honest take on race relations, Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a disappointment. The story line is so simple - \"the good guys sometimes do bad things and the bad guys sometimes do good things\" - dressed up into a racial setting to make it seem clever, sophisticated and meaningful. It isn't. It lacks any subtlety.

Everything that happens is telegraphed and then gone over again in case you missed the explanation.

For a film like this to convince and move the audience it has to be represent the ambiguity of the characters and their motivation and actions; not simply present it as a series of 180 degree changes in each character's actions.

Half way through I really wanted to waste no more time on it, but I thought I would stick with it in case it improved; big mistake I should have stopped then - it simply got worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE GOOD: The acting were great especially Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton. Terrence Howard should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor instead of Matt Dillon.

THE BAD: I'm a visible minority (non-white) and I have experienced some form of racism in my life. BUT despite my life experiences and the movie's subject matter, I would definitely NOT say that this movie is the best of the year, in fact, it's FAR from it. I have problems with this movie both from a moviegoer's perspective and from a visible minority's perspective. Some of my problems with this movie are:

(1) Poor character development (or none at all). Just because we saw extremes in a character, for example, Matt Dillon being a racist cop and being a good caregiver to his ailing father, that does not mean in any way that the character is well-developed. Yes, I admit that in a big cast ensemble like in this movie, it is quite difficult for every character to be well-developed, BUT that does not mean that at none of the characters should be like that.

(2) The dialogue seems really contrived to the point that I'm really surprised this movie won for Best Original Screenplay. They should show this movie in a screenplay writing class NOT because it's good but to show students and future screenplay writers what NOT to do. I just felt like I've been hit by the head over and over again how bad racism is. I get it.

(3) The plot seems so coincidental, it is laughable. What are the chances of a black car robber running over an Asian guy who also happens to be a human trafficker while entering his van, and that same black car robber ended up carjacking that Asian guy's van several hours later after he brought him the hospital, only to find out that the several Asians being trafficked inside the van just to show you that the black car robber has a good side after all? Or, what about that scene where a prejudiced upper-class white woman who fell down the stairs and all her prejudice and hatred vanished into thin air? If it was THAT simple, why don't we throw every racist in America down the stairs so they will have a change of heart?

(4) I think my biggest misgivings about this movie is the unrealistic view of racism. As someone who has experienced racism in my life, the realistic view of racism is that it is hidden rather than in your face. I've been refused to enter a supermarket because I'm not white. Did the store owner said because I was not white? No, he said the store was closing even though there were a lot of people shopping inside. Did he yell racial slurs? No. Racism in America is more hidden. Some cab drivers probably won't stop to pick you up because you're non-white but that does not mean that they will try to run you over or get out and say racial slurs. If a Chinese woman rear-ended me, I won't be saying \"blake! blake! Learn some English bitch!\". On the other hand, if I was a Chinese woman and I accidentally rear-ended a Mexican woman, I won't say \"Mexicans are bad drivers\" in front of her face. That's not how things work. Instead, I would give out my insurance info, say sorry, and go home and tell my fellow Chinese friends and family that Mexicans are poor drivers and make fun of them behind their backs. That is the real racism. It's hidden and not in your face.

Anyway, Crash is not original unlike what some people may say. The interlocking and interweaving story lines, plots, and characters have been done before. \"Magnolia\" is a movie that does this much better than Crash did and yet, it was never nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. It had a stellar cast -- Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, Phillip Seymour Hoffman (who won best Actor recently), Tom Cruise, etc. It really boggles my mind how Crash was even nominated for Best Picture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terrible writing, highly contrived, from a \"do-gooder\" who knows absolutely nothing about race relations in L.A., or the USA in the present day. The gushing positive reviews are a mystery to me - but could only be provided by folks who think that someone's \"good\" intentions should be applauded regardless of how shallow, simpleminded and just totally unrealistic the results are. If you want to see a film which deals realistically with modern day L.A. race issues - the movie you need to see (and probably already saw) is Pulp Fiction. There's more honesty and realism regarding race in any two minutes of that film than there are in the full 4 hours (oh I'm sorry, it just felt like 4 hours) of this stinker.

If anyone ever needs proof that the path to hell is paved with good intentions - then this is the movie for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Crash is overwrought, over-thought and over-baked. A great example of how to make a pompous and self-important film with a message. Haggis tries too hard to make his point and overreaches in just about every category of the film. It feels very much in love with its own sense of social relevance and has all the subtlety of a jackhammer to the skull. Sure, race relations affect everyone and there's a great deal of ambiguity to the issue, but the universe of 'Crash' operates to suggest that we are all victims to our own perceptions on race. It's a tiresome thread that repeats itself ad nauseum and wears out its welcome within the first 30 minutes. I found the outcomes of the characters unsurprising and forced and the film took forever to sputter out and die. The fact that this film is in the top 50 movies on IMDb is a testament to the public's willingness to get suckered by Hollywood malarkey.

Indeed, if you want the real \"Crash,\" go check out the one by David Cronenberg: dark, twisted and original. This film plays as preachy, tiresome, and masochistic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was offensively PC, predictable and clich\u00e9d. I couldn't imagine a movie that better exemplifies the myopic, narcissistic preachiness of today's Hollywood. If you haven't seen this don't bother watching it. If you have, show some courage and tell people how awful it really is. My wife, a minority in her own right, was offended by the inherent and unendingly racist message of the film. This movie has nothing to do with the real world and has little, if anything at all, to add to any discussion about racism in this country. Instead, it's the kind of cheap, sensationalist crap that is promoted as deep and challenging thought. What kind of a bubble do you have to live in to think that this is at all impressive?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Bland' is probably the word I'd use to try and start describing this film. I only watched it because it had a good rating on here and i was SO let down.

Basically the film is about racism in a post 9\/11 America and the director went at it with a sledge hammer! There was no subtlety in the film at all and it felt as though they were trying to achieve a kind of Magnolia feel to the film - which is never a good idea as that film was three hours of tedium and confusion only for it to start raining frogs at the end...

All in all a HUGE disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Through its 2-hour running length, Crash charts the emotional anguish of its 10-odd ensemble of characters when faced with the sometimes blatant and sometimes latent forms of racism underlying in American society. That and the emotional anguish of one of its audiences sitting near the front and desperately trying to make sense of what movies have become these days.

The era we live in has become so complicated. Not only do we reject modernism, even the not very enthusiastic flag-waving of post-modernism ideas is always being shot down by what, post-post-modernism that aims to destroy all these ideas, all in no part thanks to the great destructivist ideas of those great 'thinkers'. But I digress. This has nothing much to do with the what the movie is about, but rather what the movie is.

Sure, it seems hard to earn a living in a Hollywood that has to cater to a market that is so post-post-post everything that cynicism has become more than just a motto in life. It has become part of everything we do and part of everything we think of whether we like it or not. And so a new studio product is born! Indie films, which once were energetic and idealistic in its defiant experimentalism now seem to be as equally adamant as Hollywood films to sell to indie film markets. An indie film must sell at Sundance before becoming 'acclaimed'. And so nothing is simple anymore. Even what constitutes a good film becomes so murky. Whereas in the past filmmakers just wanted to entertain people and tell a good story--and in these seemingly simplistic attempts the greatest of films are borne--filmmakers nowadays have to make films that are good first and foremost; films have to make people think, have to be meaningful, has to be provocative, raise questions, yadda yadda yadda. What it all boils down to, is a subversion of the Hollywood movie system, but this subversion seems strangely similar to the formulaic similarity of Hollywood films, the countless ways of differing to essentially be the same product.

And I haven't even begun on the film yet. Maybe I've become too picky on films I see these days. Maybe it's because of my primary need to be entertained, rather than, say, be probed when seeing a movie. But hell, this movie is one big load of crap. And I'm repulsed by this movie not just because it follows the How to Make a Good Movie Good 101 guidebook to the T--characters spout eloquent lines and are sooo witty like they're gifted with the speech of God; it raises issues about racism and life confronting racism in America; it has 'touching' moments where everyone discovers more about themselves and more about other people; not to mention the fact that once you hear the ambient\/new age soundtrack of women singing in high registers in foreign languages, you know you're in for all of the above traits.

And something about the aforementioned point--about it raising questions about immediately-compelling issues like racism--pisses me off big time. Like all post-post-post-post-post everything movies, it doesn't contend with just having a message about this issue. Because oh, our audiences are much to intelligent for that these days in this post-post-post-post world. Our audiences want us to make them think, doesn't want us to put things so simplistically, (and then they will go into existentialist crap and say) that's because life itself isn't simplistic. Ha ha ha. What other common drill do we here then the audience need to think about issues rather than have them fed to them. Okay, okay, and okay. So the film makes it a point to pound the audiences with these non-messages and since they're not exactly a message, it's so decidedly subtle and subtle means good right? So we're being hit again and again with this well-written subtlety with the eloquence of rhetorical prose. And as if the irony is not steep enough, we have Ludicrous' character, the only character who seems to not take all these racism discussion bullshit seriously, being 'converted' into one of those irritatingly meaningful characters where he learns something in the end, giving meaningful looks and pauses where audiences are supposed to 'learn something about themselves too'. Um, yeah. How I wanted to see an incredibly racist film right after this man.

To cut the long bullshit short, I guess I wouldn't have taken issue with the film if it wasn't so bloated in its self-importance. The angst that forms the entire movie felt more like white-boy whining than actual Spike Lee-ish anger. It's so Tim Robbins and Sean Penn, the type that wants to wave flags about humanitarianism when the only thing they don't realize is the flag they're waving is their hole-ridden underwear. Plus it's become so trendy in the post-post-post-post world to be completely subtle about it. Nothing is simple any longer. In its best efforts to actually be good, provocative, and ultimately human, it's become neither, imho, just another indie crap from an indie director that wants to make a name out of himself as a credible indie-filmmaker. Now at least Hollywood is more simple and sincere in its manipulativeness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i had gone to the movies expecting to see a great film based on all the word of mouth and terrific reviews. the minute the opening sequence started i knew i was in trouble. the music and credits were trying so hard to evoke emotion i wanted to puke. all i got from this film was clich\u00e9d characters, contrived dialog and an unemotional script. director\/writer Paul haggis' has managed to get great reviews with his manipulative, self righteous writing, but it doesn't fool me. some performance were good. don Cheadle is always good. i think Terrance Howard is slightly over rated but he was decent. ludicrous was way too on the nose. he should stick to rapping. Brendan Fraser was fine. Jennifer Esposito left no impression what so ever. i find nothing interesting about her. Sandra bullock is always the same in every movie, she's just okay. Matt Dillon was very good and i enjoyed watching him work. Ryan Philippe was good as well. but as far as the script and the lousy directing- this is actually one of those movies that is so annoyingly bad i actually took the time to write about it. i would not recommend this film to anyone, what a waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, it was very good...but Best Picture? Please, not even close. Munich was better, Capote was much better, Good Night and Good Luck was much better...Brokeback Mountain - well, that should have won! The Academy voters seem to act like the current day Democrats - please just a little of everyone, but don't dare take any concrete positions. That's why we have a complete moron in office in the US.

This has been the WORST AA presentation ... and forget 1987 ... since way before that. Hollywood is so afraid of it's bottom line, that it can't be set \"straight\". Many voters apparently didn't even see Brokeback Mountain. Get real and get with it.

This was the most pathetic year since I have been watching in the mid- 60's and I was only two.

Wake up, whoever you are. Hollywood IS mainstream, and that's what happened to the Box Office in 2005. King Kong, the last Star Wars film, another Batman film, a re-make or whatever of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, and much more to come in 2006.

At least there were original best pictures, i.e. Munich, but heard that one before, Capote - great; Katherine Keener should have won, even though now we know Reese can sing like a Cash\/Carter, etc., Syriana was a much better picture than Crash. That film has been done, since the early 1960's and we have to make that the best film? What a horrible Oscar night and a horrible year to end with in 2005 and another boring year in 2006. At least the BAFTA for best picture went to Brokeback, and what about the horrible song that won? Pathetic. I think we only have about 20 years left as America or the USA, before someone comes in and changes up things a bit. Maybe it will be China since they own so much of this country ... or India, because they have all the high-tech jobs and are the largest democratic country in the entire world.

America has become the land of the fat, the pathetic, and the stupid. Trash can be found in more places than Florida, West Virgina, South Dakota, and in the mid-West.

Drive-through a local McDonald's or Burger King for goodness sake. Order all you want until you get a heart attack. Put yourself out of your misery.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is bad. Just bad. In absolute terms, bad.

The dialog jumps off the screen and slugs you in the face with its thoroughly artificial banter, and then defecates on your ability to detect even trace amounts of subtlety.

Racism is bad. Racism in Los Angeles can be especially bad. I live in the city of Angels, I can attest to that. What is so terrible about the bigotry in Los Angeles is its insidious nature. It creeps at you with a knowing glance, or a swallowed word. Until just at the edge of a full on fist-fight, It almost never comes right out and says, \"why did he have to be black!\"

I can see quite clearly that the car-jackers are black, the detective's partner is hispanic, the DA is white. As long as there is film rolling through the projector, I can let the visuals, music and words take me to that conclusion without just telling me the conclusion. Characters emote, and we read between the lines to make the connections and conclusions.

That is a partnership and trust between filmmaker and audience. That trust is raped by this movie.

A good film pulls you in directions as an audience, and it steers you with cues to drive to a point. This movie beats you down with its point and insults you and your intelligence along the way. My unanswered question is, why did we as a society say collectively, \"thank you?\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Given this film's incredible reviews I was expecting something truly exceptional. It certainly starts well with witty and sharp dialogue, and a fine cast in place. A series of Robert Altman-style interwoven stories reel the viewer in with some compelling scenes. I found it gripping entertainment right through to the second half of the film when sadly, it collapses like a pack of cards. A series of ludicrous coincidences and right-on messages stack up until I'm left deeply disappointed and wondering what all the fuss is about. Paul Haggis has tackled the subject of race in LA, and that alone seems to have elevated this movie to a new level of interest. Given that most of the Academy voters live in LA and have experienced racism to some extent, this film is sure to have an impact on them. That means the Oscar for Best Picture will go to the race movie or the gay movie. Let's hope it is the latter, because Brokeback Mountain is a bona fide masterpiece that deserves recognition.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Crash is supposed to be a film about racism in Los Angeles. But in fact, it's just a bunch of coincidences between several characters that connect each other during one day in one of the biggest cities of the world. Who the hell is going to believe that? There are unrealistic situations, one after the other. On the other hand, this film pretends to show racism between Asians, Iranians, Latinos, Blacks, and Whites. But the big error relies on a pre-establish racism coming from the writer. Mainly because the White characters in this movie are usually portrait as people with a better social-economical status than the rest of the other races. Iranians are poor, just like the Asians. And Latinos, as always, are portrait as Housekeepers, police officers, or with a very low profile job like a locksmith. Jesus!!! Don't you guys think it's about time to change these stereotypes? Same with blacks, portrait as gang members, with the exception of a Black TV Director, who was the only fresh character for me. This movie sucks so hard, that makes me so disappointed about the kind of cinema coming out from Hollywood these days. Always with stereotype characters. No realism whatsoever. Nothing to identify with. It's simply a big waste because this could have been a great opportunity to show Latinos, Koreans, Iranians, and blacks, from a different perspective.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember viewing this movie when I was a kid. I recall it terrified me immensely and it stayed with me all these years. I spent a couple of years trying to find it online...didn't remember the title, only the storyline. After searching and searching, I came across a VHS that was being sold on E-Bay. I was excited and when it finally arrived, I jammed it into the VCR and couldn't help but feel a bit nostalgic. Needless to say, I was slightly disappointed. This wasn't the movie I remember watching as a kid. It was boring at times and I found Beryl Reid's incessant whinning extremely annoying. Both performances by Reid and Flora Robson were good overall but the movie wasn't scary. I think any movie is worth viewing to form you're own opinion but sometimes, well......","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The `plot' of this film contains a few holes you could drive a massive truck through, but I reckon that isn't always top priority in horror. Two elderly sisters in rural England keep their brother in the cellar since more than 30 years. Now, he escaped and started a killing spree, focusing on militaries that are homed nearby. `We only did we thought was best for him' they keep on repeating and \u0096 strangely \u0096 all the army officers love these women and don't doubt their sincerity, even though 5 of their men died. I don't know whether to find the revelation near the end suspenseful \u0085 or tedious! In a way, this film reminded me about `Arsenic and Old Lace'. In that black-comedy classic, two half-insane siblings mother their goofy younger brother as well, yet they do the killing there. The old ladies in `The Beast in the Cellar' are by no means less crazy, though. The `horror' in this early 70's film is very amateurish and cheap, but there are a few neat attempts to build up the tension. Too many `old-ladies' talk about the good ol' days, though and that rarely is something you seek in a horror film with such an appealing title. Flora Robson, who may be recognized by classic film buffs, plays one of the sisters. She gave image to the Queen of England is the legendary Errol Flynn swashbuckler film, the Sea Hawk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One thing I have noticed about British horror movies from the 1970s is that they don`t hold up to repeated viewing THEATRE OF BLOOD is a case in point as are all those Amicus anthology movies . Add THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR to the list

Much of the drama of this movie revolves around the build up of a plot revelation at the end . Once you know what the revelation is this becomes a rather flat film . It does open with a fairly good hook but after that we`re treated to long boring sequences of two old ladies making small talk . Correct me if I`m wrong but how many people watch a horror movie expecting a couple of old ladies making small talk ? The only sort of interest to be found in THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR is the anti-smoking stance . Some people have mentioned that this is an anti-war or anti-military film but watch carefully and you`ll see that everytime a squaddie lights up for a fly puff he gets killed . Rather strange considering attitudes to smoking weren`t nearly so hysterical as they are nowadays","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The bad news: the Canadian version of Beast In The Cellar released by Maple Pictures that I saw was of poor quality. Dark and washed out, it appeared to be dubbed haphazardly from a VHS tape. It even skips at one point due to some missing frames.

The good news: this movie is so bad that the poor quality of the DVD detracted little from my viewing enjoyment. This horror movie fails to build tension and lacks scares. It is a horrorless horror film. While most frightening films have limited dialog, Beast In The Cellar is a gabfest, so much so that a character will repeat something we have just heard said by two other characters. Presumably, all the chit chat acts as filler for a very low budget, unimaginative movie. Unfortunately, the dialog isn't campy enough to make it worth a watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has the language, the style and the attitude down ... plus greats rides from Occy (a world champ) and the great Jerry Lopez. John Philbin as Turtle has the surf pidgin down, and the surfing scenes are still the best ever. A true classic that can be seen many times. Nia Peeples is a babe, and Laird Hamilton shows the early stuff that has made him the world's number one extreme surfer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was lucky enough to grow up surfing in San Diego (not the biggest waves in the world but it was a hell of childhood, I'll tell you that) and I have seen A LOT of so-called surfer flicks in my life. After watching NORTH SHORE for the first time just now, all I can say is THANK GOD I never saw this as a kid. If I had seen this and mistakenly thought that this was a realistic portrayal of the surf scene, I would sold my board and totally gotten into, I don't know, accounting or something.

Seriously, this movie has a as much in common with real surfing as TOP GUN has was real military life. The acting is terrible, the music is worse, the cinematography is iffy at best and OH MY GOD what was Laird Hanilton thinking?! WOW!!! DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE!!! IT SUCKS!!! If you want a REAL surf flick, see RIDING GIANTS. Hell, watch SURF'S UP instead of this. Seriously. Sucks. Sucks bad. Sucks REAL bad. Brah. ;)

PS: Had to change my summery from \"WTF?!\" to wtf because, apparently, we are supposed to whisper on this site. NO YELLING!!! (shhhhhh!) ;D","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worse surfing movies I've ever seen. This movie is so bad I don't know where to begin-- Okay, let's start with the premise - some dude from the mainland who barely knows how to surf travels to Hawaii and enters a big wave contest which he more or less expects to win. A good analogy for those who don't surf would be a that of a grossly overweight chain smoker slapping on a pairs of running shoes and entering the LA Marathon with expectations of winning. No way! And, the contest is held on The North Shore which conjures up images of 15+ foot waves, but contest day the waves are maybe 6 foot. The acting? What acting? If you must see this woof see it on TV, don't waste your money renting it. If you want to see a pretty good surfing movie - granted it is flawed, but that's another story - rent Big Wednesday.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is one big stereotype. The acting (except Philbin & Harrison) is awful and the horrid script only make things worse. I must agree with another review that the \"local\" characters sound ridiculous as a matter of fact so do the \"caucasian\" characters. 3 stars out of 10 for 1)Philbin 2)Harrison 3)surf scenes. (1\/2* out of ****) Watch \"Aloha Summer\" (**) and\/or \"Beyond Paradise\"(***) for Hawaii done right, especially BP which I found to be entertaining and brilliant.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am astonished at the major comments here for this OK surf film. It really stems from the \"California Dreamin\" school of barnyard to beach antics and isn't really plausible. The idea that the lead kid learn to ride a board SO well in a concrete wave pool that he beats the real surfers at their game in the real ocean, is just plain silly. In Australia where most urban teens do surf, this film was laughed at audiences took it all with a grain of sea salt. Made in the 80s but with its heart in the 60s, it is fun to watch and looks and sounds good, but it is not a in a classic class at all. Even the actors didn't outlast this. We're seriously in LIQUID BRIDGE or RIDE THE WILD SURF or BEACH BLANKET BINGO land here. Oz stars like Occy and BIG Wednesday hero Gerry Lopez are drafted in to add head nodding recognition to our farm boy's wave prowess, but it only made the crowd in the cinema guffaw. It is for 10 years olds who do not question much. It's not even IN GODS HANDS and that was silly too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is highly improbable. Read the other reviews to see why.

I would say that most of the characters were plastic, but they didn't even afford themselves that little luxury; they just act like cardboard cutouts. Of course, they had to get real surfers for the surfing contest roles, so that's a crap shoot whether they can act. At least Occy didn't give a crap and just went with it. But \"Lance\"??? Fuhgeddaboutit.

The one character who rang true was portrayed by Gerry Lopez who didn't really act, he was himself pretty much. He's quite accustomed to stomping people. :-) The only reason I gave this movie a 2 instead of a 1 was because I was laying out a newsletter on my laptop when it came on some cable channel late one night. That saved me from having to pay full attention to this silly little time waster. No way I would go out of my way to watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a fan of bad movies, I was thrilled to find a 3 pack of cr@ppy horror at Best Buy today. The set was cheap and included a terrible film called \"the Dark\" that I actually remember seeing in the theater.

The remaining 2 were equally as bad. \"Creatures from the Abyss\" being probably the worst of the bunch. Since they were all bad that isn't saying much. But its stupidity, bad acting, terrible effects and retarded storyline actually made this one a lot of fun to watch. I was rolling on the floor with each new plot development. The discovery of the abandon ship, the missing crew, the realization that there was something terribly wrong!!! It was great!!! Of course, everyone's favorite scene seems to be the sex scene. OMG!! I almost lost it!!! Between that an the \"monster cam\", I have to say I enjoyed this film a lot.

I am a fan of bad movies so I enjoyed it but in all fairness, I did have to give the movie a 1. IT WAS AWFUL... But if rubbish is your bag, at least rent this one... (YES the BAD pun was intentional)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Boasting some pretty good Rick Baker-esque special effects and Deran Serafian in a small role, this pretty lame Italian movie deserves some recognition. Cerchi gets some credit for still making gore flicks while most of the other Italian directors (Ruggero Deodato, Sergio Martino, Lamberto Bava, and Enzo G. Castellari) have moved on to lower-key TV movies. As for plankton, it's half Piranha - half The Thing, with people turninging into monsters, raping women, and causing general mayhem. The ultra-grimy, sleazy, and over-sexed feel of the film makes it hard to enjoy. Only available in Italian language work-prints floating around.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Plankton, or Creatures from the Abyss as I'm positive it's more commonly known as & filmed under as the title Creatures from the Abyss appears over a moving image & in the same font type as the rest of the credits, starts with five 20 something kids, Mike (Clay Rogers) his girlfriend Margaret (Sharon Twomey), sisters Julie (Ann Wolf) & Dorothy (Loren DePalm) & an annoying idiot named Bobby (Michael Bon) whom decide to all fit into a small rubber boat & head out to sea, don't ask why as I don't know. Oh & the complete idiot Bobby left the petrol behind & never thought to tell anyone so it comes as no great surprise that they end up stranded out at sea without any petrol for the motor & to make matters worse they become trapped in a thunder storm & discover a dead body floating in the water. Shortly after their luck seems to change when they come across a yacht & potential safety, in a flash everyone boards the yacht & begin to explore. First of all they find a scientific lab with various fish specimens & computer equipment, then down below they find fully furnished & luxurious cabins. They find a chemist (Deran Sarafian) who appears mad & can't talk. They eat fish from the fridge which makes Dorothy puke up green vomit, beetles & slugs. They learn that these fish are living fossil's 1000's of years old & have been contaminated by toxic waste dumped in the sea & that they fly, mutate, bite & are generally unpleasant to be around. I really can't be bothered to go on with this plot outline so I won't, here's what I think...

This Italian production was produced & directed by Massimiliano Cerchi under the pseudonym Al Passeri (I'd hide under a different name if I made a film this bad too) & I think Plankton is quite simply one of the worst films ever, there are so many things wrong with this film it's difficult to know where to start. First the script by Richard Baumann is total crap, it makes no sense whatsoever & is so slow & dull it was torture for me to sit through. Why would five people just simply set sail for the middle of the ocean on a rubber dinghy barely big enough to fit them all in? What were they planning on doing exactly? Why do we often get point-of-view shots from these fish creatures but they seem to be totally invisible to the characters as they are never shown on screen even though they are right next to a character, & how do these fish get around the boat as there is no water for them to swim in? People's actions & reactions to things are all wrong, they constantly split up, they make bizarre decisions that simply don't make any sense in the situation they find themselves in & some of the dialogue is as awful as anything I've heard. I could go on all day about all the plot holes & ridiculous goings on but I'll run out of space if I do. The fish creatures themselves look awful, a mixture of rubbish rubber puppets & some really bad stop motion animation at the end, the scenes where they interact with the human cast also look terrible with some bad super imposition. I have heard a lot of comments saying that Plankton is gory, don't make me laugh! Forget it there is virtually no blood or gore in Plankton whatsoever, there are a couple of slimy scenes when Bobby transforms into a fish monster while having sex with Julie but it's pretty brief & he doesn't kill her, he just sort of drips slime on her, grows a couple of tentacles & a fish head comes out of his mouth. Later on Julie's vagina starts to drip some dark slime but that's it, we never get to actually see what happens to her or what the slime is. Dorothy has a fish creature come out of her back, off screen, & control her but again we never get to see what happens to her while Margaret commits suicide, a very brief shot of a plastic harpoon stuck to her forehead. Easily the grossest scene is when Dorothy pukes up that green stuff with what looks like beetles & slugs in it. That's it, only one person actually dies on screen & for the most part Plankton is quite tame & as exciting as watching paint dry & I nearly fell asleep it's so boring. I can't see how anybody can like this total crap, I just can't. The acting is awful, the dubbing is awful, the characters are awful & I hated all of them. Tecnically Plankton is predictably crap as well, with an estimated budget of only $250,000 all I can say is where did the money go? The sets are monotonous & dull with one lab & a few cabins, the special effect's are bottom of the barrel stuff including the most fake looking exploding boat ever, the cinematography is bland, the music sucks there is zero atmosphere or tension & as a whole Plankton, like it's name sake, is as low in the food chain as it could possibly be. I hate Plankton, it's awful in every single aspect of it's overlong 86 minute duration. Do yourself a favour & avoid this one at all costs unless your either a masochist or insomniac.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This documentary attempts comedy, but never quite gets there for me. Camp? Ehn, maybe. The more apt word that everyone will agree on -- and have a hard time avoiding in any review -- is kitsch. It dripped kitsch. It was as if the film makers had worried their viewers would take the movie too seriously, and so they bent over backwards to insert kitsch and proclaim, \"We're joking around here! See???\"

In short, I felt it was trying too hard. For example, the sock puppets that introduced each scene were (to me) annoying when I'm sure they were meant to be amusing -- or at least (ahem) kitsch-ey.

Do not, however, avoid this movie based on my complaints. Just be ready to revel in kitsch rather than having it thrust at you unprepared. If you're interested in lighthearted fare, you could do far, far worse. At the very least, the facts surrounding the rise and fall of the Bakers make this interesting and worth a view. At best, gaggles of like minded kitsch lovers will hoot and holler over choice bits throughout the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just attended a preview screening of this film. A masterpiece of documentary film-making it was not. Totally absorbed with its subject, the film becomes incapable of leveling any sort of critical commentary with regard to Ms. Faye. Cloying and sappy, the only redeeming quality of the film was its use of puppets in an attempt (albeit a failed one) to structure some kind of narrative. But the creepiest experience occurred as the closing credits rolled. The audience rose and applauded. Like moths to flame, Americans in the 21st Century are still drawn to freakshows. The narrative of the misunderstood monster is getting rather tired.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a disaster! Normally, when one critiques a historical movie, it's always fun to point out the inaccuracies that slip in, usually added by the writers to create more \"dramatic\" situations. However, \"Imperium: Nerone\" is a whole 'nuther kind of animal. In this movie you strain to find ANYTHING at all that is confirmed by the historical record amidst the farrago of nonsense and fiction presented as the life of Rome's bad-boy artist-emperor.

And it's a pity, because Nero is one of the most fascinating of all the Roman emperors. His life was filled with enough tumultuous events and interesting people to make a really good movie. The producers of this mess chose another route, which leads only to head-scratching on the part of any informed viewer.

Just a few examples:

1. Nero is depicted as an 6-8 year old boy when Caligula has his father killed for treason, exiles his mother Agrippina, and sends the boy to be raised by slaves in the countryside. \"Ten years later,\" the story resumes just before the assassination of Caligula. Facts: Nero was born about six months after Caligula began his four year reign, and was only three when he was assassinated; Nero's father died of natural causes; Agrippina was briefly exiled for bad behavior, not treason; and Nero was not raised among slaves, but had the typical upbringing of a young member of the imperial family.

2. Okay, according to the writers, Nero is now about 16 when his great uncle Claudius becomes emperor (in fact he was about to turn 4); Agrippina engineers the downfall of the empress Messalina and marries Claudius, who adopts Nero. Then he goes off to conquer Britain, and is poisoned by Agrippina soon after his victorious return. Nero is declared emperor, although he's still perhaps only 18 or 19 years old. Fact: Claudius conquered Britain in 43 A.D., two years after beginning his reign. He lived until 54 A.D. Nero should have been 31 years old by then by any normal chronology, but in fact succeeded to the throne at age 16.

History tells us that there then followed the \"Five Good Years,\" where Nero ruled wisely and well under the tutelage of the philosopher Seneca and the Praetorian commander Burrus. This is shown -- sort of -- except that portraying the Roman Senate as opposing Nero's good measures is false. Senatorial opposition to Nero only commenced when he started to show signs of insanity and began killing Senators for real or imagined treason.

3. Nero's mother Agrippina is the controlling sort, who murdered her uncle-husband to make her son emperor. After a while, Nero tires of her meddling and decides to kill her. In the movie, he sends his henchman Tigellinus to stab her to death. All true enough, but the reality was so much better! Agrippina was a survivor, and didn't go easily. Nero tried three times to poison her, but as an old poisoner herself she was savvy to all that, and he failed. Then he tried to crush her to death by collapsing the ceiling of her bedchamber, but that also failed. Next, he sent her on a voyage on a ship that was deliberately constructed to fall apart and sink; as it went down, she jumped into the sea and swam to shore. Finally, he had her stabbed to death. Now showing all THAT would have definitely improved this movie!

Other errors abound: Nero's lover Acte was not a childhood slave-friend, she never repudiated him, and there is no evidence that she became a Christian. Nero did not commit suicide by slitting his wrists while sitting beside a lake. Etc. etc. etc.

The sources for Nero's life are primarily the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, both of whom were of the senatorial class hostile to him and his memory. But the evidence indicates that he remained very popular with the common people, unlike one of the final scenes where he is pelted by the mob with vegetables as he leaves the city to commit suicide.

WHY did the writers and producers take an inherently interesting story with plenty of good stuff for any movie, and make THIS piece of crap? Oh, and did I mention how cheesy the sets and costumes were? Lol.

One star, because there's no way to rate it lower.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Perhaps, we are too much attached to great spectacles when we hear of antiquity brought to screen. Perhaps, we expect too much from these films. However, if we, as viewers, are offered far too little, what happens then?

That is what I thought after seeing IMPERIUM - NERONE by Paul Marcus, a part of the production series on the Roman Empire. AUGUSTUS by Roger Young, the first IMPERIUM movie, included at least Peter O'Toole but what does this movie include?

Hardly anything accurate. The historical errors are so serious that the movie changes facts and constitutes rather a distorted image of the Roman Empire than the true history. Throughout the movie, we see Nero young: young man during the allegedly long reign of Caligula, young man during the reign of Claudius and finally during his own (historically 14 year long) reign. And...he dies the same. According to the movie, Nero, born during the reign of Tiberius, lives for more than 40 years but looks to be in his late twenties when he dies... Continuity combined with made up history is the biggest problem of the movie, which makes it hardly logical, not to say reliable. Nero loses his father, is raised by slaves. At that time, his mother, Agrippina, is exiled by Caligula. Later, however, she suddenly marries emperor Claudius who already has big children with freshly married to him Messalina. At these moments of the movie, we see Acte (Rike Schmid), Nero's mistress. All right, it is historically \"accurate\"; yet, no source proves that she played such a decisive role in the rise of Christianity in Rome. In the film, she is not only a devoted Christian but even a witness of St Paul's miracle (he brings a young girl Marzia back to life). Besides, there was, historically, nothing like Nero seen on the court of Caligula since Nero was born in Caligula's 4 year long reign (A.D. 37-41). I understand that movies may change something but such an error makes the script absolutely unreliable! And many, many other shortcomings concerning content that are hard to enumerate but after 30 minutes of watching this film, I doubted whether I was watching a historical movie or a total fantasy.

As for its artistic features which supply us with entertainment, they are equally lame as the history here is. The performances are artificial, the cast simply have beautiful faces but weak acting abilities. Perhaps, I am too much attached to Peter Ustinov or Charles Laughton in the lead, but Hans Matheson does not fit as Nero at all. He could have some of the good moments as an actor but never as the infamous Roman emperor. Is he an artist who burns Rome for a song? Is he a cynic who disguises the love to his relatives? Is he a cruel ruler who sacrifices the lives of thousands of innocent people for the sake of \"alleged justice\"? None of these. He is just a young man who does not know how to rule and, in the long run, begins to release the fire burning within himself... John Simm is out of place in this film as Caligula and absolutely inferior to other portrayals of the character. Elisa Tovati is only sexy as Poppaea; yet she could have been much much better. The costumes are inaccurate and the sets do not amaze. Low budget results in low effects and, consequently, low entertainment.

But what made me most angry in this movie and, as a result, I give it 1\/10 are some moments that are absolutely unacceptable:

- the death of Poppaea and St Paul's talk with Nero at her dead body,

- Claudius' mention of the current conquest of Britannia on the feast and soon his death (he conquered Britannia while Messalina was his wife much before his death),

- Tigellinus killing Agrippina (Laura Morante), Nero's mother,

- Nero's arguments in the speech to the senators,

- finally, Nero's death - a calm day at the lake and an indifferent suicide that leads to a moral said by Acte \"Let us forgive him\"

All in all, this film is a waste of time and is absolutely unneeded as yet another production concerning the Roman Empire. It's better to make one good film in 30 years than ten minor little ones in 5 years. 1\/10 - should not have been made at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Nero\" as the title of the movie is in Germany is a another attempt to show one of the most interesting Roman emperors, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, better known as Nero. Although this attempt at least tried to show a more historic accurate Nero than the amusing but completely fictitious Nero Peter Ustinov played in \"Quo Vadis!\" it still is a major failure. And to those IMDb-commentators who still believe that Sueton and Tacitus propaganda is true, please read a book about Nero that was published less than 20 years ago. Nero did NOT burn Rome, this is proved! He did not murder Britannicus. He did not torture, kill and maim for pleasure, he was the first emperor who BANNED the gladiator fights. The movie still shows a lot of mistakes, errors and is by the way made in a really cheap style, especially the sets were cheap and unconvincing, the palace looking like some villa, the city itself looked like..well like a cheap set. The acting was between good and sub-par, the music nearly insignificant and the movie soon deteriorated after Nero became emperor to a rushed, bad edited mess without any clear narrative structure. So there still is the potential for an epic biography of Nero that shows the true Nero, who was one of the best emperors who ruled Rome, despite the lies of Sueton et al.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For a good take on the Roman Empire watch the excellent BBC produced miniseries \"I, Claudius\". This just sucked. The acting was pathetic and you could almost see the actors looking at the camera. Hans Matheson was irritating. Cheese factor was so high that it promotes constipation with repeated viewings. Even Caligula was tame. I think this film was silently supported by \"religious\" groups who shall remain nameless ;). The overt tones of Christian favoritism and persecution were blatant if that gives any hint. Stay away what ever you do - the running time is so long that I was able to read Harry Potter's first book faster than the time it took to view this tripe.

Italy has done better - don't let Hans cute face fool you. He is not a great actor...he is a great bore.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Imperium Nero\" is the second movie of the series of six productions named \"Imperium\". I have already unfavorably commented the first one: \"Imperium Augustus\". This second TV movie produced and broadcast last weekend by the Italian state owned network has the same defects. In addition contains a considerable number of historical errors. Some examples: Nero is a child and Agrippina calls him: \"Nero, Nero\". At that time is name was Claudius. He was named Nero after his adoption. Nero did not meet Acte when he was young as in the movie but after his marriage with Octavia and his nomination to Emperor. When becoming Emperor his sons where not adults: Britannicus is one month old and Octavia one year old. And many many more. If you are fond of ancient roman history you can find yourselves other examples. \"Imperium\" series will continue with four more movies : \"Titus\", \"Marcus Aurelius\",\"Costantinus\" and\"The Fall of the Roman Empire\". Finally!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry if I disappoint anyone about what I am about to say to this made for TV movie. But, I paid money for the movie and turned out this movie is disaster. The directing is really awfully bad. But, after I looked up its information here, I realized there might be reasons for the low quality of directing and producing. Maybe they don't have budget, but anyway, Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility had little money too but it turned out a hit. The director in this movie did really bad job in telling the story and the movie couldn't even keep up a rational continuity in itself. It keeps pulling me outta scenes. Maybe someone need to work hard on story line\/ board. The dubbed sound is also awfully bad. My god.... Normally, I would appreciate every movie because behind it lie ideas and imaginations of an individual. but, this time I am just mad , \"I really wanna hit something HARD.\" ...Just don't do the job if someone can't fulfill it to its best. Bad arts (its' not even art, what is it? )really hurt people.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot comprehend how this picture was allowed to be made. It is mostly, if not completely, inaccurate so much so that the main character does not even resemble how history has him look physically. This movie made me go on the internet and go through my books to make sure I remember Nero's personality correctly. For God's sake, I have a book that lists Nero as one of the most evil person's of the world and the movie made me feel bad for him. I must say Aggrapina's character seemed close to my understanding of her, both physically and psychologically. Although, the actors all did a good job, the movie was terrible and I'm sure I will not watch any others made by this sorry team.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Leatherheads' tries so hard. Tries to be light hearted. Tries to be a comedy. Tries to be a love affair. Let's see, it tries to be a 'His Girl Friday' by way of 'The Sting' by way of 'It Happened One Night' by way of a dozen sports movies. Alas, trying isn't doing and the movie is as soggy as the last game's field.

A fan of movies would watch the big fight scene in the speakeasy between the Duluth Bulldogs and some soldiers and realize that the fights that John Ford staged with such style and verve and humor in movies like 'The Quiet Man' or 'Donovan's Reef', or 'The Searchers' may have seemed easy to do but obviously aren't. I would bet George Clooney thought channeling John Ford would be easy as well. How hard could it be: masculinity run amok, punches, bottles broken over heads, an imperturbable piano player...just put it up there on the screen with some happening music. Sorry. It takes a master to make fight scenes flow.

Movies aren't wished into existence. Humor is hard. Romance is hard. Slapstick a lost art.

I once read that you never wanted to sit too close to a ballet performance. Something about not wanting to prick the fantastic bubble of the performance by hearing the thuds of the dancers' feet or the grunts of the lifts. This movie is like that...all strain and good intentions, handsome actors, nice sets, but it thuds through its paces rather than gallops like the original Galloping Ghost, Red Grange, who the movie is loosely based on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A lot of the negative reviews here concentrate on the historical accuracy of this film. OK, it had about as much to do with the actual NFL as your average war movie has to do with an actual war, or a Western has to do with the true \"old west\". So, I think we should give them an artistic license pass on that one.

The problem here is, the director (Clooney) apparently thinks that making a screwball comedy means a) do stupid things, b) mug for the camera, and c) take stupid scenes full of mugging and stretch them out way too long. Screwball comedies need a fast pace, not necessarily frenetic, but moving briskly along at all times. Here, things drag, and drag, and drag. After you watch this movie, it will make you appreciate how brilliant Mack Sennett was when he pretty much pioneered the genre with his Keystone Cops. After 90 years, you would think that directors would have studied the old masters and learned a thing or two, maybe even improved on things a bit. But no, it's as if someone had watched an automobile pioneer build a Duesenberg, and nearly a century later, paid homage and \"improved\" on the concept by cobbling together a child's wagon with square wheels.

I've enjoyed several of Clooney's movies, I consider him a gifted actor. But very few actors can competently direct themselves; Clint Eastwood notably took a while to get the hang of it. Clooney is clearly at the bottom of a very steep slope. The movie becomes more watchable during the very few times he is out of the frame, but when he's in the picture, he makes himself the centre of attention. In the fight scenes, his mugging is so obnoxious you wish somebody would thump him for real.

If you are making a screwball comedy and want some romance thrown in, you need to develop some chemistry between the male and female leads. Clooney and Zellweger have all the chemistry of pair of dumpsters sitting in a parking lot. No spark, no sizzle, not even a post-mortem twitch. Zellweger, who has also turned out some pretty good movies, must have traded her botox injections for oak tannin, giving a stunningly wooden performance. She might just have pulled off the \"tough broad in a man's world\" act if just once, while trying to out-testosterone the guys, she had looked into the camera with a little half-smile and twinkle in her eye. But no, she kept her jockstrap cinched up tight to the very end.

Of course, the biggest sin here is that the movie simply isn't funny. Doing stupid things is not the same as slapstick. Doing stupid things very inventively, like the Stooges, or very athletically, like Buster Keaton, can be hilarious. But otherwise it's boring and, well, stupid. I think I got one good laugh out of the entire movie.

Avoid this one. I saw it for free on cable, and still wanted my money back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought this movie was going to be good. It absolutely wasn't, despite the Oscar-winning lead actors. I may have laughed once, and I never heard anybody else in the theater laughing. Renee Zellweger's pancake make-up was very unbecoming. Everybody seems to be trying so hard in this movie, running around in imitation of slapstick but not pulling it off. I think perhaps the movie must've sounded good in development, but something got lost in translation. Were the roaring 20's really like this? I think not. Everything seems a tad artificial. Randy Newman's score was annoying. The film is in sepia tones, just like every other movie that takes place in the 20's or 30's. There's just not that much originality here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How many times must I write the words boring and not funny on this page until I get to ten lines. George is about original an actor as Alfalfa from the little Rascals. Although that is probably a slight to Alfalfa. How many times do I have sneak into these overpaid actors crappy films before I will learn that there is but one law in the movie industry. Take the money and make a movie - even if it is crap. They spend millions making this movie but can't take a few moments to watch the end result. And Renee GoAwayZigger should stop taking the illegal drugs she is on and seek medical help for the facial problems she is sporting. At least I hope its drugs as she is quite unattractive whilst talking out the side of her mouth. This movie was neither funny nor dramatic and these hacks should just stop making crap like this. George and Renee, you should be ashamed of yourselves and stop being stop stinking greedy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Check out the two octogenarians who review Leatherheads. These guys are old-school Hollywood and a hit on YouTube. They always give an insightful and fun review. They have movie comparisons that are really interesting and they have a banter back and forth that is endlessly entertaining. They know movies, collectively they have been in the biz for practically a century. Lorenzo is a well-known screenwriter and Marcia is a famous producer. All of their insight on movies always leaves you with something to think about. See what they think about Clooney's latest...

http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=2-W7evBEArs","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Leatherheads is an apt title, however a leather strap would be more useful to self-flagellate oneself after purchasing a ticket to watch this noxious attempt at entertainment. Clooney's attempt at self deprecating humor comes across with a quiet thud as his demeanor implies that he is anything but. Perhaps with another actor playing the Clooney role, the movie might be marginally palatable. Sorry George, I doubt there will be any Oscar nods this time. George Clooney is definitely a fish out of water when it comes to comedy (unless you are referencing to his politics). Anyway, only the most ardent of Clooney fans will enjoy watching Leatherheads, everyone else will long for the days of the silent picture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK where do I start? I saw a screening a couple weeks ago and I was shocked how bad this movie is. Sure if you just LOVE Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres (bad acting) and you think they are the best TV shows on air then you will definitely love this movie. Me, personally, I really like George's work and he is very talented, but comedy is not his forte. Some people are natural in comedy and I am sure he is great & funny to work with personally but comedy he can not pull it off on the big screen. It was a cute movie but would I pay $12.00 to see it? H&LL no !!!! Now that I have seen it I would not recommend it to anyone to spend their money. George, buddy, I love you but please don't do any more comedies? This script is lacking a lot, great concept but just didn't do it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is defiantly a DVD rental movie. I'm a big fan of the cast members but the storyline never really grabbed me. Don't expect \"Oh brother where art thou\" in any way shape or form. Funniest part in my opinion is when the war hero explains what happens over in the Argon. Seems like they were trying to copy some of Clooney's funny facial expressions from \"Oh brother where art thou\" but you could kind of tell they were trying for that. John Krasinski was the bright spot and was solid throughout. Renee Zellweger plays the part of a zealous reporter willing to do whatever for the story. Overall it's a movie worth watching at home.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me preface this by going on record, I am a huge George Clooney fan, and I love John Krasinski in 'The Office'. Well, I was and I did.

This was the world's worst hang nail and it took 113 minutes to rip it off. The stupefying boredom was interrupted only by my frequent efforts to read my watch and estimate when it would be over.

Every funny scene was in the previews. All three of them. There was no real story, no character development, and the script was just plain bad. I've had a colonoscopy that was more enjoyable.

The title should have been SuperDuper Bad. This movie is a lock for a Razzie. It should get a whole slough of Razzies. I want my money back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I also made the mistake of thinking that I was going to see the 2003 Swimming Upstream with Geoffry Rush. This was worse then a lot of student films that I have seen. The script was forced, the acting was subpar and the editing annoying. It was so slow that I just managed to force myself into staying. But I always give a movie a chance, so I suffered until the very end. Apparently there was a memo out about this movie, because my friend and I were the only ones in the theater. Why didn't somebody send me this memo?!?! That is why I'm posting, as a warning to others thinking of shelling out good money to see this. I just hope that you actually got to this page, and didn't get trapped like I did by looking at the wrong \"Swimming Upstream.\" P.S. Sorry to the cast and crew if you are reading this. I know that you worked hard to make this. I know what goes into making a movie... keep trying!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"CRAP! I accidentally watched this film-thinking that it was the Swimming Upstream that was released in 2003. I seriously regret wasting an hour of my life sitting through it. Shame on whoever gave this junk an award. I thoroughly loathed this film-in fact I didn't see it through to the end. After an hour I could no longer stand it. I am disgusted that people are amused by such a lousy script-which tries and fails to rip off a dozen other human interest stories and such BA-AD acting. PAINFUL. I rate it 1 star out of 10. An amateur could make a much, much greater movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The depiction of Ichabod Crane's character was so terrifically unlikable, my wife and I were hoping that the horseman (or some other character) would not only cut off Crane's head, but do it slowly and painfully.

I mean, this Brent Carver guy played it over the top---like he was on Broadway. And he was such a relentless jackass that we had no sympathy for him whatsoever.

I could go on with specific critiques of how this movie failed, but I prefer to not devote the energy.

Just skip it and go for the Johnny Depp version. Either that, or rent the Haunted Pumpkin of Sleepy Hollow (animated). It is quite good--entertaining for kids and adults.

Better yet, read Washington Irving's original story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Its incredible to me that the best rendition of this amazing story remains a cartoon made by Walt Disney in the 1940s, but its true. Here another clumsy attempt sputters confuses and alienates would be viewers with admirable effectiveness while successfully antagonizing those of us who have actually read the story. Irving's original work is short by any measure and making a feature length film is bound to be a challenge. One can either completely rewrite the story a la Tim Burton which is a discussion for another time, or pad the bust-line of the old girl with unintended detail. The latter is what is attempted here, and if I may say, pitifully so. Unimaginative and thoroughly modern new facets to character personalities such as religious zealotry in Crane or wanderlust in good old Bram Bones ruin the story's intent and betray a severe lack of talent by the filmmakers. By the time the tale's famous climax approached, I had completely lost interest. Its the kind of film where you expect to see a stagehand smoking in the background.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's difficult to find anything worth of praise with this movie. It's not the worst picture ever made, but that's not saying a whole lot. The plot is quite incoherent and unbelievable; it seems that the producers wanted to make a space movie, but decided to make it underwater to cash in at the success of The Abyss. In some scenes it seems as if the story indeed was set to outer space initially; the sub has a landing gear, the technicians are worried of a rip in a rubber diving suit at the depths of several kilometers, where the pressure would crush the diver and the suit like an empty beer can.

The movie starts out okay, with planning of a recovery of a lost naval sub. After that the movie takes a plunge along with the Siren 2.

Effects are so-so. The navigational screens are all done on Commodore 64 (remember, this is 1990, not 1983), the sub is controlled like no other sub ever; instead of control consoles, the officers have keyboards with which they enter long number sequences to control various functions of the ship. The interior of the ship isn't too convincing either.

The final scenes leap from awkward to absurd. Welcome to the fifties, you can check your suspension of disbelief at the door.

I fail to see enjoyment factor here. The movie is neither good nor hilariously bad MST3k-style (until you get to the final scene), it's like eating a slightly bad apple.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An awful B movie at best with video quality similar to Dead Alive. I challenge anyone who is a \"Aliens (James Cameron 1986)\" Movie fan to count how many times either lines or almost entire sequences were ripped off from the first two Alien movies to make this classic piece of garbage.

Cast members such as R. Lee Ermey and Ray Wise were the only two actors with any talent and the lead \"Jack Scalia\" was really absolutely horrible. I think they cast him for his massive cleft chin. I was also annoyed with the stereotyping of the only black male on the set John Toles-Bey who must look at this movie and just wonder. Look him up sometime as he has done a lot of interesting movies.

But on this movie: The script as I said earlier was a rip-off of Aliens tweaked and turned into a submarine \"thriller\". It included such lines as \"I got a bad feeling about this\" and \"Kill me\" as one crew member is infected by one of the mutants and his belly starts doing the \"alien hop\" just before it pops out of his stomach. There is also a rip-off of the classic \"get some!\" via Bill Paxton. We also have a bunch of navy grunts running through caves with creepy crawlies popping out of walls. Even the explosions of the mutated creatures is very similar to the popping of aliens as they charge marines in the movie \"Aliens\". And the kicker is that some of the mutants spit acid (as opposed to having acid for blood). There are many more major examples. So if you want to see this script done well watch the first two classics Alien and Aliens (With Sigourney Weaver). You'll have a more enjoyable time.

The plot could have been interesting and done better if not for confusing sequences in the start of the movie and generally poor editing. Camera shots were pretty dull and honestly it wasn't very hard to stop watching it and walk around the room to get a snack or check email. Many of the interactions between characters made little or no sense and went nowhere more often than not. The whole command structure between crew and Capt. was poorly done. I'm not even sure if there are Captains in the military that have full control over nuclear subs. In general this just shows that there was little research done for background information to make the movie seem at least a little respectable and there are many other similar examples (like dive depth etc..).

If you like horrible movies or are a big fan of Alien and Aliens and want something to just laugh and shake your head at then this movie may be for you. As for me this one is going back on the shelf...permanently.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"ZERO stars out of ****

Endless Descent has absolutely no redeeming values, whether it's the ridiculously bad acting, the laughably awful special effects, the incompetent direction, the stupid script, or the gratingly annoying musical score. It's the kind of pitiful production that makes me wonder how a movie like this could even have the slightest consideration for being greenlighted by a studio in the first place.

I don't think I'm going to delve into the plot other than to say it's about a bunch of people who are trapped under the water and have to kill a lot of fake-looking creatures.

Let me go more into detail as to what is so awful about this flick. First of all, the acting is simply horrendous. Jack Scalia is ten times worse than Sylvester Stallone, a feat that is hard enough to accomplish as it is. The supporting performances aren't really any better. And what is with actor Luis Lorenzo, the guy who plays the cook, Francisco. He has a high-pitched voice and an accent that sounds appropriate for a comedy, not a sci-fi horror film.

The special effects are even worse. The creatures range from weird-looking eels to giant starfish and \"mostquitoes.\" The effects look like something you would see in a muppet movie, and I don't believe I need to delve further in this issue.

Director J.P. Simon has slight cult status because of all the terrible films he's made. I'm sure some will enjoy Endless Descent in an Ed Wood type of way, but I don't even think it's that good. Everything he does is shoddy, especially the camerawork. The man cannot direct a movie, that's all there is to it.

This was the last of four films that took place underwater, and it sure does make Leviathan and Deep Star Six (Both bad films in their own right) start to look masterful in comparison. Either way, just stick with The Abyss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Its a sin how these things are made, but then again we wouldn't get to see the best \"Dummy scene\" ever filmed. Ahhh the beauty of low budget Bigfoot flicks, you lean to see the beauty the more you watch them, thats if your brain doesn't melt first. As I said before, this has the best dummy scene ever! Words cant express it, you have to see it for yourself. Wonderful lines such as \"Smells like decain flesh\", \"Thems human...\"(You will know this one when you see it) The creature makes a Blah, Blah! sound and the scene where the baby gets shot will make you cry(with laughter) you will be rewinding it. Has a car chase, snowmobile chase, a Bigfoot folk song as well as a Disco song. It dosn't end there, while watching the credits a friend noticed \"Wardrobe provided by K-Mart\". You ask, how could you even get as far as the credits and then watch them? I could only explain this as a sort of shock to the brain, you are so mentally exhausted you cant move and also I guess you have to know who was behind the mess. All that being said, this is a must see especially if you want to punish yourself mentally. Its a keeper!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bill Rebane's \"The Capture of Bigfoot\" is one of the most awful horror movies ever made.A greedy sawmill owner Harvey Olsen(Richard Kennedy)decides that he wants Bigfoot captured at all costs.However local game ranger Dave Garrett(Stafford Morgan)learns that the Bigfoot used to live in peace upset by a geological expedition,and sets out to protect the creature.There is nothing even remotely interesting in this piece of crap.The film is extremely dull and filled with horrible songs and cheap special effects.No gore,no suspense-just gigantic boredom.Avoid this horrible junk like the plague.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Capture Of Bigfoot is one of the silliest and worst movies of all time. I love Sasquatch and Bigfoot movies but this one is just a sheer waste of one's time.Terrible, terrible, terrible!I watched this movie last night, and it was all I could do to finish watching.I understood that this weird crazy man wanted to capture Bigfoot,but that was the only thing that made sense in this movie.It did have some amusing parts though.There was this very cheesy and corny disco club with very bad disco dancing that seemed to go on for far too long in the movie.I think the director was trying to fill time.The worst thing was the way the Bigfoot looked.The obvious man in a suit looked like a pink faux fur Bigfoot.It was laughable.If you want to see a very bad Bigfoot movie, then I suggest that you purchase this movie.Personally, I wasted my time and my money on this one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is, in all likelihood, the worst film ever made. It is certainly the worst that I've ever seen, and I have seen A LOT of bad movies.

In this, nothing at all interesting happens throughout the movie. One could, literally, start the movie, take a short nap, and then wake up secure in the knowledge that nothing interesting has happened while you are sleeping. And I have seen this movie three times, staying awake throughout. I feel I should be congratulated.

The movie goes as one might expect, according to a formula, with no variation. Hunters capture baby bigfoot, get killed by parent, and the nearby town goes into a bigfoot killing frenzy. This is surprisingly boring for a Troma release.

So please do yourself a favor, and skip this movie. If you have to see it you will understand why.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is the very worst that I have ever seen. You might think that you have seen some bad movies in your time, but if you haven't seen this one you don't know how terrible a movie can be. But wait, there's worse news! The studio will soon rerelease this masterpiece (I'm being ironic) for all to see! The only things worse than the plot of this movie are the effects, the acting, the direction, and the production. Bill Rebane, the poor man's Ed Wood (not that there is a rich man's Ed Wood) (I like Ed Wood's movies, though) manages to keep things moving at a snail's pace throughout this film. It opens with the capture of a baby bigfoot (a Littlefoot? --sorry, couldn't help it) by a pair of unlikable hunters, who are killed by the parent. This causes the entire town where the hunters lived to go on a Bigfoot hunting jihad. This is pretty much it for the plot. Nothing even remotely interesting happens, and we the viewers are never able to care about any of the characters. If one is interested in the films of Rebane I would recommend almost any other over this. However, as I said, it will soon be rereleased by Troma in order to bore a new generation of filmgoers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If it weren't for the editing out of curse words and a superimposed blur when one character give another the finger, it would be easy to mistake this low-budget snoozer for a Sci-Fi channel pilot. The plot about the government's attempts to destroy a group of telekinetics it originally trained as military weapons ends ambiguously enough with the hero, himself gifted, in pursuit of a telekinetic survivor bent on revenge. Alas, the movie is talky, boring, predictable and even devoid of interesting special effects. Top-billed Louis Gossett, Jr. has a minor role as the evil government bureaucrat who originated the program and now wants to eliminate all traces. He walks through the part and it is hard to understand why he bothered. Other members of the cast do a decent job with a script that demands little.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The films of the Science Fiction Channel ( Sci-Fi Channel ) have become boringly predictable. The seem low on budget, originality, and plot.

In this creation the government is out to get a bunch of telekinetics and recruits a poor soul by devious means to help. There is plenty of over worked recycled twists on evil government organization theme. black coats, shadows, short meaningless lines make these one dimensional cartoons.

Daniel Dae Kim stands out as a good actor in a small role. He brings a bit of the style of his \"Angel\" character to the role. It is hard to miss the link that his \"Crusade\" character was a telepath and this is a film on telekinetics. Was this a Sci-Fi casting move to try and draw fans from the other show? Who knows. Thankfully he is a decent actor and a pleasure to watch.

The movie is definitely low budget. It reflects The Sci-Fi Channels current model of Canadian location, few well known characters, few effects, and woefully terrible plot and character development. One would think they believe science fiction fans will view anything labeled \"scifi.\"

If you want a good telekinesis movie, check out \"the Fury\" ( 1978).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know a lot of people like this show and i apologise to people who think this show is awesome but it is the worst show ever created. Sure i'm sure I would be a big fan of this show if Jeremy Clarkson wasn't on it. I mean I think that testing out cars and doing things like seeing whether a car can beat a aeroplane is awesome! But Jeremy Clarkson is just pathetic. Here are the reasons I hate this man: . He thinks it's cool to trick speed cameras that measure your average speed by taking measuring your distance and time by driving 200mph down the road and then resting for two hours. . He clearly thinks that he is better than Richard Hammond and James May. . He's got my best friend saying pathetic things. . He screams at kids just for taking a picture of him. I'm sorry top gear but Jeremy Clarkson is a freak.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Haaaarrrryyy!\"

The amplified, dispassionate female voice could have been Leona Helmseley in heat but, no, it belongs to Allison Hayes as Nancy Archer, the 50-Foot Woman of the title. In the most infamous role of her film career, Allison's performance literally rips off the roof. In fact, make that a couple of roofs.

Jaw-droppingly tacky, \"Aot50FW\" is the tale of Nancy, a neurotic, boozy heiress and her loveless Lothario husband, Harry (William Hudson, who also co-starred opposite The Amazing Colossal Man). Nancy has a close encounter of the third kind, in the desert, with a bald giant from outer space who wears a mini-skirt and gladiator sandals, and who has a thing for Nancy's jewelry. What he does to her once he's carried her off is probably best left a mystery, but soon Nancy starts to grow.

Treading into the center of town on tranquilizers, tightly wrapped in nothing but the bed sheets, the buxom giantess heads toward the low-rent saloon where Harry is having a few laughs with a floozy named Honey (Yvette Vickers). The confrontation turns ugly.

The Poverty Row f\/x make the alien giant and Nancy appear to be transparent due to incompetently transposed images. You'll understand why director Nathan Juran changed his name to Nathan Hertz on the credits. Juran was no stranger to directing giant creatures, human and non, having also directed \"The Deadly Mantis,\" \"The 7th Voyage of Sinbad,\" \"Jack, the Giant Killer\" plus several episodes of TV's \"World of Giants\" and \"Land of the Giants.\"

A lot of laughs for all the wrong reasons.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a fair movie, good for one-off viewing. The plot itself is fairly well worked for a picture of this kind which is a pleasent surprise as is the acting, which although a little hammy, is better than normal for these types of flick.

The 'special effects' are hilarious - a translucent giant and a blatantly polystyrene\/papier mache hand wobbling unconvincingly on a bit of wire.

Definitely to watch once for kitsch entertainment value.

5\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the kind of movie that BEGS to be shown on TV at 3 or 4 in the morning, if at all.

No doubt the film-makers responsible for \"Attack of the 50 Foot Woman\" thought they were making a pertinent statement about women and philandering and the dangers of the demon rum, all wrapped up in a sci-fi allegory.

Or maybe it was a tax write-off.

Either way, \"Attack\" proves best for the viewer under the following circumstances: a) extreme intoxication, b) seen on a double-bill with any of those Jacqueline Suzanne movies (maybe \"Once is Not Enough\"?) or c) just a night when you feel insecure and the world around you is a little too perfect. Pop in \"Attack\" and you'll feel great, guaranteed!

It's good for a laugh at the expense of the hokey script, the rubbery special FX and that four-eyed sheriff. And I think the last line should be engraved in a monument somewhere in Washington D.C. - it's just that memorable.

Four stars for \"Attack of the 50 Foot Woman\"; buy a copy, mail it to Gloria Steinem - she'll love you for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie because it had a giant person and was labeled as a monster movie. I do not understand why it is called a monster movie. The movie is a drama. I was expecting a lot of destruction, but what did I get? Most of the movie was relationship problems and people thinking that a woman was a loony because she saw a spaceship crash with a giant inside for an unexplained reason. The action started a few minutes toward the end. Since the woman was killed, isn't that murder? Couldn't they have done anything else besides murder her? If you watch this because you expect it to have action because it is labeled as a monster movie, don't watch it. It is not a monster movie. It is a drama.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I\u2019d been interested in watching this ever since it was cited as the Worst Film Ever on an entry devoted to 1950s sci-fi cinema in a British periodical from the early 1980s entitled \u201cThe Movie\u201d (incidentally, the Leonard Maltin Film Guide also awarded this the unenviable BOMB rating). When it came out on DVD last year, I became interested in purchasing the \u201cCult Camp Classics\u201d Box Set in which it was included (along with QUEEN OF OUTER SPACE [1958] and THE GIANT BEHEMOTH [1959]); however, since recently acquiring QUEEN on DVD-R, I had put paid to the idea.

Happily, I\u2019ve just stumbled upon the film on DivX \u2013 however, the print wasn\u2019t culled from the Warners DVD (which is said to boast a surprisingly pleasant-looking transfer) but rather a muddy TV print\u2026though not so much that the detail is lost (in other words, it was like watching the film in sepia as opposed to black-and-white!). Anyway, to get to the matter at hand: I have to admit that, in a way, I was disappointed the film didn\u2019t prove to be the laugh-fest I had anticipated all this time (Maltin calls it \u201chilariously awful\u201d); actually, I found it quite engaging \u2013 and thankfully brief at a little over an hour in length. Some undeniably amusing bits remain though \u2013 such as when the old nurse starts screaming her head off at the sight of the 50-foot woman, and when the Sheriff\u2019s deputy almost runs over his chief and the leading lady\u2019s butler in his enthusiasm to be of assistance in such an unusual case. Neither did the special effects hit me as being \u201camong the funniest\u201d (Maltin again) on film \u2013 though they\u2019re certainly embarrassingly bad!

O.K., so the idea that an alien (in giant-sized human form, clad in cave-man rags, and radioactive to boot!) coming to Earth in a big ball-shaped(!) spaceship and apparently after the heroine\u2019s prized necklace is utter nonsense \u2013 and his quasi-transparent appearance does it no favors at all\u2026but, really, it\u2019s the human story that holds our attention (relatively speaking). The character of the philandering husband isn\u2019t very interesting, but his two women are: wealthy but nagging alcoholic wife Allison Hayes and ambitious, vixenish girlfriend Yvette Vickers. Also involved in the narrative are Hayes\u2019 faithful servant (already mentioned), a couple of cops (one of them, as noted elsewhere, being amiably goofy) and as many doctors (one of whom is named Dr. Cushing[!] and another a specialist who\u2019s called in when Hayes starts growing in size after being exposed to radiation).

Of course, the film could be seen as the reversed female version of THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN (1957) \u2013 though it wouldn\u2019t be fair to compare the two further, as the Jack Arnold\/Richard Matheson classic is far more psychological\/intellectual in approach; actually, Hayes doesn\u2019t seem to be that bothered with her \u2018condition\u2019 and, in fact, takes advantage of it in order to teach her husband a lesson! However, her rampage \u2013 exaggerated in movie posters of the era \u2013 is rather quaint (especially when considering that it only occurs in the last ten minutes or so); when not shown the damage caused by her enormous but highly unconvincing hand (especially when lifting the puppet that\u2019s supposed to be her husband!), she\u2019s mostly seen walking in long shot and almost from behind (with her size even inconsistent in proportion to the buildings she passes by)!! Still, Hayes\u2019 demise via electrocution (when she bumps into an electrical cable) is competently done.

Finally, I followed this with its 1993 TV remake with Daryl Hannah as the titular creature \u2013 which I rented specifically for this purpose.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A woman as rich as she is insecure has a history of alcoholism and nervous breakdowns, helped no doubt by a smooth-talking gigolo husband who openly cheats on her. Naturally nobody believes her when she claims to have been accosted by a giant man who stepped out of a giant satellite. Much to the delight of her husband, this could be the incident which finally puts her away for good.

From the very opening scenes, with it's ludicrous news broadcast and ridiculous satellite encounter, you'll probably be convinced that the only redeeming value of this movie is that it is so bad that it is funny. Although not too far off the mark, this is most definitely not true.

Unlike most movies of this genre, this is not really a sci-fi or a horror film, but actually a serious drama which intelligently incorporates a sci-fi scenario into the plot. It's not a good or even mediocre drama, but it will exceed your expectations if you weren't expecting any legitimate drama at all. The acting is surprisingly good for such a low budget effort and, most importantly, it is well edited and excellently paced. It is never boring and manages to generate more than a little interest in seeing what will come next. Nevertheless, this is still a movie strictly for those who can't pass up the chance to see a 1950s film with a title like \"Attack of the 50 Foot Woman\"!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like 50s sci-fi movies a lot. I like the really good ones (such as The Day the Earth Stood Still, When Worlds Collide, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and many others) and sometimes the really bad ones because they can be really funny and great to watch with friends (such as Plan 9 From Outer Space). However, when a sci-fi movie is bad but not bad enough to be fun, it really should be avoided. This movie is just such a film. The posters make it appear as some sort of sexy she-beast is attacking mankind, whereas the real plot is a lot less interesting. A woman is married to a womanizer. She is contaminated and begins to grow to a HUGE size and decides to track down this worm and kick his tail and that's about it. Also, many of the special effects really stink--especially the gigantic papier mache hand that comes into the room to grab the wicked hubby.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot in this movie is very thin, and there is not much acting. Val Kilmer--I don't know why he agreed to do this movie--plays a minor role as a gang leader. In short, the movie is tedious to watch.

One guy, who sort of resembles an archeology\/religion professor, is exploring a subterranean area of Moscow, that has some history connected to railway construction and the Bolshevik revolution. A church tragedy in that history makes the exploration \"spiritual\" and spirits of a malevolent intent haunt the underground ruins. A friend of the professor decides to find his friend in the underground and hires a couple of Russian guides. The entire movie is based on this plot and contains much repeated footage of the underground, and some camera effects; much like those seen in \"Day Watch\", \"Night Watch\", etc.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In Moscow, the priest Owen (Vincent Gallo) hires a team to guide him in the underworld to find his friend Sergei (Rade Serbedzija) that is missing while researching the legend about the existence of demons and an entrance to hell beneath the city.

I bought this DVD based on the name of Val Kilmer and the interesting pictures on the cover. I am totally disappointed since this film is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I do not understand how Val Kilmer accepted to participate in this production. There are two shameful reviews in IMDb promoting this movie and they are typically fake, written by users with only one review in this site. There are two possible ways to see this boring and awful film: my wife and I napped many times because of the monotony of this pointless story, and we used the rewind button of the DVD to repeat each lost scene. However, the correct way should have been the use of the fast forward or the stop button, to end this crap faster. My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): \"Cidade Sombria\" (\"Dark City\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After watching this film I decided that it was so awful that I must join IMDb and write a review to warn other people of the pit falls of renting\/buying this film. To be fair to the film there is only one good section to this film and that is the end credits cause then you know that this crap is well and truly over. I watched it to the end in the hope that I may get a little bit of pleasure out of the film. Just tunnels more tunnels and an old man talking to himself (If you watch this film too many time so will you). As for Val if he keeps selecting films like this he may as well kiss goodbye to his acting career. There is no point in even writing about what is in the film as that has already been done. Keep your money and sanity and keep well clear.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sit in your basement with the light out for an hour and a half. That's about the same as watching this subterranean search for the Devil's door. An American researcher Owen(Vincent Gallo)travels to Moscow and gathers a rescue team to search for his friend Sergei(Rade Serbedzia), an archaeologist who has disappeared in the catacombs beneath Russia's capital city. They will be shocked to discover subterranean dwellers thriving in the dank and dark complex system of caves and tunnels. The searchers will come upon the gatekeeper of Hell, Andrey(Val Kilmer), and will strike a deal to continue their venture; only to succeed in being scared almost witless when realizing they are among walking dead. Also in the cast: Joaquin de Almedia, Oksana Akinshina, Sage Stallone, Joss Ackland and Julio Perillan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are good movies, and there are bad movies, and then there's Moscow Zero, a film so utterly bad it makes spending a month in solitary with an insurance salesman an attractive entertainment alternative.

With an incomprehensible plot about the gates of Hell opening within a labyrinth of tunnels under Moscow, the film is a mess of repetitive and nonsensical shots of a little girl running through tunnels, red lights floating about, and strange wall shadows, none of which serves to mount any fear or tension, but instead elicits the reaction of \"here they go again with the girl (or lights)\" from the viewer.

Directed by Mar\u00eda Lid\u00f3n, who for reasons I can only conclude as shame, was billed as Luna, the movie stars Vince Gallo as Owen, an American priest who travels to Moscow in search of Sergei (Rade Serbedzija), a friend and colleague who has gone missing in the tunnels. He enlists the help of a series of locals who, with the exception of Oksana Akinshina, are all portrayed by Spanish actors trying with limited success to inflect Russian accents.

Along the way they cross paths with members of some sort of underground leather-coated religious mafia headed by a portly Val Kilmer, whose career seems to be in such free fall that he's resorted to appearing in dreck like this, and henchman Sage Stallone (Sly's son), who seems to have been cast merely so the Stallone name can be included in the film's marquee.

Apart from watching the troupe try to navigate their way through the tunnels with the aid of a comically drawn map, and repetitive shots of them being followed or eluded by a pale faced young girl, not much else goes on throughout. Dialogue routinely switches between English and Russian, with actors frequently taking turns in each language, and entire conversations are uttered half in one and half in the other with the only apparent reason being they felt like it, adding a frustrating dimension for the viewer, over and above trying to figure out the crazily cobbled together story.

About the only thing Moscow Zero gets right, however, is its title, which could only have rendered a more accurate description of this movie if the word Moscow had been omitted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This may not be the worst movie ever made, but it is absolutely the most boring. Wonder why it is shot mostly in the dark, and mostly with Vincent Gallo walking away from the camera, or looking down? Because he doesn't want to show his face for actually agreeing to being in this movie. I liked his early stuff, but the pretentiousness of the \"Brown Bunny\" and then being cast in this drivel knocked him down a peg in my book. And Val Kilmer? I actually want to send him a sympathy card. The \"doors\" to this??? Actually the casting was the only reason I watched this movie, and Val doesn't even show up until the movie is more than halfway over. Simply a sad movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i never made any comment here on IMDb, but as i saw this movie, i cant be quiet. i just set up my account here only because this horrible movie. in two words, this movie is PURE CRAP. the movie has no sense at all! Nothing makes sense in this movie. Watching this movie was pain all the way. I don't understand why Val Kilmer agreed to do this movie. He plays a minor role as a gang leader, says few words, and he is there like 5 minutes total.

I bought this DVD based only because of Val Kilmer name on the box and the interesting pictures on the cover.

As was stated in other review, Moscow Zero stole my money and I want it back!!! The title of the movie itself brought the clue about the rating everyone should give it: ZERO","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I suffered the watching of this movie at Sitges Festival last month. If there would be a possibility of \"unfilm\" a movie to avoid its existence, this should be the first in the list. Mar\u00eda Lid\u00f3n isn't a director, she is just a dumb woman that pretends that holding a camera with the hand and shout \"action\" makes her a professional film maker. What a mistake! The movie itself is pointless and a total waste of good actors that could be doing something better in another project. Val Kilmer does nothing but place his face in front of the camera. His character don't have specific weight in the movie. The same thing can tell about Joss Ackland, Vincent Gallo or Joaquim De Almeida. It's a shame the way Rade Serbedzija's character has been written. WARNING SPOILERS

He spends most of the time alone in the tunnels talking with himself in the way (now I'm doing this, now I'm low of bats, I'll search in my bag, now I'm turning left, now I'm turning right...) only to bring the audience a clear idea about his actions. It's simply nonsense and proves the lack of talent of the director. END OF SPOILERS

The usual joke about this piece of garbage among the audience was that the title of the movie itself brought the clue about the rating everyone should give it: ZERO","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This line is a good summary of this movie. If you have read it, and watched 20 minutes of the movie, you will know exactly how the rest of the movie is going to behave. Some researcher named Surgei (pronounced SirGay) are searching for hell in the underworld of Moscow. However he seems to have disappeared, and his friend Oven follows with a team to search after him. Could they have find a more boring plot? Some bad actors looking after an old man in the underground. The acting is very bad, the romance really feels pointless and untrue, often there is no good reason for the way the characters are acting, nothing is scary and most of all: there's not happening anything interesting in the whole, entire movie. They just walk, asking some gang leaders and other guys about the way, walk some more, complain some, finds the old man, and then they run, and finally finds the way out of the underground.

The only thing that provides me from giving this movie the lowest of all ratings is the atmosphere. If you just want to see a movie for that, this may be a good choice. It's dark, and it's mystical and murky. However, the rest of the movie is really dull. You just sit there all the time, waiting for the movie to begin or something to happening. It's actually happening some things, but they are not very well performed. For example, i didn't really notice when one of the characters disappeared, and I swear I wasn't sleeping or something. And I don't understand what's dangerous with these children... They just run around in the underground together, scratching it walls with sticks (I suppose it is meant to be scary in some way).

Just watch this movie if you are in immediate need of some murky atmospheres.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The gate to Hell has opened up under Moscow. A priest, played by Vincent Gallo, goes to the city to find a friend who has gone missing in the tunnels under the city in an attempt to find the gateway. Wandering around underground he and his colleagues have to deal with the tunnels inhabitants both human and demonic. Good idea with a good cast of second tier actors goes nowhere much like the tunnels that are its setting. I've watched this twice now and I still have no idea why this is suppose to be scary when not a heck of a lot happens other then people talk about the evil and we see shadow forms. Nothing is clear and honestly I didn't see the point of it all other than provide a pay check for those involved (Second billed Val Kilmer is in a couple of fleeting scenes that don't amount to much other than to allow him to be billed as in the film.) The idea is really good, the performances are fine, the script goes nowhere. Take the advice of several of the characters in the film and don't cross the river to see this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The gates of Hell opened up and spit out this film, then closed again.

Watching this movie makes me appreciate other movies I have seen, like all other movies. Nothing makes sense in this movie.

It would really take too long to mention all the plot problems. In fact, except as a warning, it really isn't worth wasting some of the nearly infinite space available on the internet writing about this film.

From now on, I will check IMDb before watching any film.

Hot darn, IMDb is forcing me to write more about this film. I guess I should warn you about Edison Force while I am at it. But if you had to chose between the two, pick Edison Force.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Moscow Zero stole my money and I want it back! This is a horror movie, not thriller, not suspense, a horror movie. Yes, this movie is a horror. Horrifyingly bad. After many years of lurking here at IMDb, I am actually moved to set up an account just so I (like at least one other reviewer here) can warn people DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! IT WILL STEAL YOUR SOUL, or at least your desire to live in a world that makes movies this bad, or at least an hour and a half of your life if you are not wise enough to hit the fast forward button.

Seriously, I'd love to hear the director's voice over on an \"enhanced\" DVD (there's another horrifying thought) to see what the hell they were thinking. The producers had to assume there were enough suckers out there to fall for the Val Kilmer name to make this film at least break even in international distribution.

I actually had the misfortune to pick this to watch on movies on demand, which provided no subtitles to the Russian dialog. Not that it mattered much. Straining to hear the Russian, translate it in your head (if you can) only to find out how dull it is just adds insult to injury.

I will give this movie a \"1\" because I cannot give it a lower rating, and because it did achieve one remarkable thing. It somehow made an almost entirely subterranean movie NOT feel claustrophobic. Now that's a dubious achievement.

HERE'S YOUR SPOILER: And the ending, holy mother (no pun intended) it's like they ran out of money and just decided to stop filming. The \"climax\" of the film literally happens seconds before the end and is solved by the simplest escape I have ever seen on film. Exercise your simple escape mechanism too if you find yourself watching this - the off button.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was hooked in by the premise that the show was about demons. From hell. And a doorway to hell. What I didn't realize was that I would be watching some guys run around tunnels chased by small children who may \/ may not have been demons for the entire movie. Sure there was some dialogue in between, and great underground scenery but the lack of a plot, developed characters, any twists or development in the story at all was sorely lacking. Oh, and out of interest, there were no special effects. The entire budget was spent on actors salaries, sets and lots of time running around with a camera underground.

The ending was one of the typical lackluster boring endings that makes you say \"I endured this film of boredom for that!?\" If you want to see demons and a doorway to hell, I promise you that you would be better off served watching the trailers to the game Hellgate : London which while shorter than this movie at 5 minutes, pack more dialogue, character development, action, plot and satisfying conclusions than this.

The second star is for effort, but overall a low score for failing to make a movie that stands out, and for promising in the tagline much more than what was delivered.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If they had a Zero out of 10 I would of entered it. Everyone involved in this film should be ashamed of themselves taking money from the public. I don't know how films like this get released Video or Pay Channel. I am disappointed in Vincent Gallo. Val Kilmer was in it for about 8 minutes, so I can't get that mad at him. Only the person who listed him to be the star in it. It is like Marlon Brando in Superman.There is no plot except Gallo searching and finding his friend in the catacombs. Why they were searching for the gates of hell only the director knows. They should of kept this film in Moscow and burned it for fire to keep all the homeless extras warm for the night. There is nothing more to say about this film that all the other reviewers have written. I wish I could forget this movie it hurts my brain.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While in Madrid I was able to see a screener copy of this film. Wow! Gallo is amazing in it. Very unusual performance he gives. Aside from Gallo's genius, the film however is a dull a film I have ever seen in my life and at times is so poorly done it borders on laughable. I am also a Val Kilmer fan so he was part of the reason I made such a grand effort to view the film. The problem is Val is really only in one scene. Having his name in the cast as the lead is an insult to my intelligence and to the rest of the cast. I have only seen Stranded of the directors other films. Both films are far far below average but both contain very interesting Vincent Gallo performances. If you are as much as a Gallo fan as I then see this film regardless of how bad it is. If you do not like Gallo then there is ZERO left to love.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't remember the worst film I have watched.Total waste of actors and audience time.If you prefer sitting by your TV and think when will be this film over,then this is the right film for you.Maybe this film is recorded to make people believe that Moscow has some mystique past. But I must say I have not expect anything else from Rade Serbedzija,but I have expected more from Vincent Gallo.The film lacks a plot, character,development,denouement.Entire movie is about underground tunnels and how they are mystique.I must be fair there is some camera effect but even that is too poor.Over and over are the same pictures.Total waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow.. where do I begin. I rented this movie because it sounded like something I would be interested in watching. With a name like Val Kilmer starring in this film, I thought how bad could it be? This has got to be the worst film I have ever seen with such a big name attached to it. I was wondering why it slipped through the cracks and I never remember hearing anything about it when it first came out. It starts out pretty good, and is somewhat reminiscent of the intro sequence in the bourne identity, but after the initial 30 minutes or so it goes from bad to worse and then it ventures into WTF land. If you haven't seen this, do yourself a favor and don't rent\/buy it unless you are a masochist or on a quest to see every Val Kilmer film out there. There are many more titles out there that are more deserving your time. This film (if you can call it that) is a bona fide waste of time. I want my 82 minutes back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is total dreck. I love Val Kilmer and was very surprised earlier this year by \"Felon\" (a good movie!). The entire DVD box is misleading. Val Kilmer while being billed as one of the main people in this film, is in the movie for about 2 minutes. Even the summary on the back of the DVD is not entirely true. This could have been a good movie but the direction was horrible and the plot was about as thin as a sheet of paper. Usually when a movie is this horrendous you can sit back and laugh at it. This film though is so bad and boring I actually fell asleep to it (which I never do during a movie). AVOID AT ALL COSTS!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It seems that there is great potential for the story line of this film to be something worth watching. The acting was flat and the story lacked depth. There was too much reliance on camera work, which had some high points. I have to agree with the other negative comments. I only wish I had read them before buying the DVD. The film may be worth watching for free and you are bored to tears before hand. There could have been a lot more plot development with why there are homeless in Moscow (i.e. post-Soviet 'capitalism', rampant drug usage (i.e. increased heroin trafficking from Afghanistan); more development of why the resurgence of Russian Orthodoxy after the fall of the U.S.S.R.; the archaeologists themselves; or even more into the struggle against nihilism.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Val Kilmer is almost nowhere in this film -lucky for him! He plays maybe 30 seconds of screen time and his role is completely irrelevant. After seeing the film I couldn't tell you what \"role\" he plays in the film!!?? OK... they suck you in the first hour by immersing you in dark underground tunnels. Spooky movies filmed in dark underground tunnels easily suck most people in to last the first 30 minutes to an hour. Then you will begin wondering, \"why am I watching this?\" I remember thinking how easy it must be for a director\/writer to use dark underground labyrinths to make a film. Simply film people wandering around in dark tunnels and you have instant \"suspense\". But that is where this movie goes no further! We all wonder what goes bump in the night, but there is nothing out there in the dark in this film but more darkness. The story is even worse. Apparently there is an underlying story to the film that I learned of \"after\" watching the film. But the film uses such poor dialouge that it never came across clearly during the screening. I still don't understand what the writer\/director meant to say. Some children trapped underground by a misled sister in Russia? Why? Are they in our time -the same time as the characters? Are they ghosts?

This was an absolutely Horrible film that drew me to write my first IMDb review to warn others to avoid it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the worst film i have ever seen it has next to no plot and the plot it does have is very scattered. The story line is lacking in both content, suspense and subtitles, as what would appear to be story line is in Russian. The set appears to be only one room with various lighting effects and at the moment you think something good is about to happen you are let down by the total lack of acting, drama, suspense, horror, gore, story line and mythology. The directing style has been done to death(The fisheye camera). It would seem that the only action in this film is within the last 10 - 15 minutes and the action is made worse by the actors inability to portray the suspense correctly. The only interesting thing about this movie was my dog barking at the surround sound.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you enjoy sitting in the dark, both literally and figuratively, for ninety minutes then this is the movie for you.

A waste of actors, resources and audience time. Ultimately a waste of space. Don't be tempted by the resume. There is nothing of any further substance beyond it. The film lacks all of the basics that you might expect from the genre; plot, character, development, denouement. The cast may perhaps take heart from the knowledge that in this instance their efforts will be entirely forgettable and, given time, their careers may perhaps improve.

Absolute tripe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Take a few dark and stormy nights, fog coming in from the coast, obsession and doubt, two brothers who have a mysterious connection based on hatred, a suspicious disappearance, a shoe in the night silently grinding out a glowing cigarette butt, and, finally, a tremulous heroine who finds herself threatened as much by her own doubts as by one -- but which one? -- of the men around her. Sounds like we might have a good 80 minute noir. Instead, under the direction of Vincente Minnelli and with two A-list leads, Katharine Hepburn and Robert Taylor, Undercurrent becomes a nearly two-hour matin\u00e9e melodrama, a long slog of threatening angst amidst the perfectly groomed, coifed and dressed cast. When you glance at your watch half-way through a movie and with a sinking heart see that you have another hour to go, both you and the movie probably have problems.

Minnelli, in one of his earliest non-musical movies, doesn't lay on the rococo hothouse approach as heavily as he later was known to do. Still, what is basically a simple story of greed, murder and obsession is turned into an endless Katharine Hepburn vehicle. Hepburn shows us in carefully lit close-ups how to demonstrate fear, love, anxiety, giddiness, happiness, doubt, suspicion and terror. Robert Taylor is more or less along for the ride.

Hepburn starts the movie as the tomboyish Ann Hamilton, an energetic young woman in slacks who helps her father with his inventions. Their housekeeper is determined to get her married. When Dr. Hamilton decides to sell an important formula to Alan Garroway (Robert Taylor), it's love at first sight. Garroway is the smooth, handsome, dynamic inventor of the Garroway Distance Controller, which was vital in the war, and which has turned him into a hard-charging millionaire manufacturer. He's a captain of industry, as one of his many Washington friends says. Ann Hamilton, now Ann Garroway, may still be a bit of the tomboy, but her husband shows her how to dress and how to be a successful social hostess for all those Congressmen and judges her husband knows. She learns fast and eagerly. They both are obviously and blissfully in love.

But wait. The canker is about to gnaw. Ann realizes she knows nothing about her husband's family. None of his employees or friends seem inclined to talk about them to her. When she learns bit by bit that Alan's mother died in the old family home in Middleburg while seated at the piano, or that he has a brother, Michael, who has disappeared, Alan becomes very quiet...and sometimes goes into a rage. He always apologizes. But wait once more. Did his mother really play the piano? Didn't she really die in bed? Wasn't Michael caught taking money from the family firm and Alan sent him away? All this plays out against the exquisite hotel suites, the manicured country home in Middleburg with the horse stable and the tasteful ranch house by the sea. Everyone in the movie except employees are dressed to the nines. There are exclusive cocktail parties and intimate dinners for twenty. Even in a black- and-white movie, Minnelli can't help but give us dining tables filled with crystal and china, tasteful and elegant furniture and lots of gowns.

By the end of the movie, when all is finally known, when Ann on horseback is chased along a high, extremely well-designed mountain trail by the bad guy on another horse, when she is threatened with death by boulder and her pursuer finally meets death by horse, it's a relief. Even Robert Mitchum, who plays Michael, is unable to bring much tension to the movie. What might have been in lesser hands a taut little B-movie, instead with the A list is just an overwrought melodrama, too big for its bones.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The casting (and direction) in Undercurrent is more insipid than inspired in this noir clunker that fails from the outset to get off the ground. Robert Taylor's wooden style poses a roadblock almost immediately for the highly affected Kate Hepburn and it's bad chemistry from the outset.

Naive and innocent Ann Hamilton (Hepburn) falls for handsome airplane manufacturer Alan Garroway (Taylor) and rushes to the altar with him. She soon finds out there is a lot she does not know about him. As Alan becomes more remote she delves further into the murky past and Ann soon finds herself living a nightmare instead of the American dream.

Undercurrent resembles a few Hitchcock plots but Vincent Minnelli rapidly establishes he is no master of suspense. Hepburn is no shrinking violet and she is a hard sell for a character more suited to the reticent styles of Teresa Wright or Joan Fontaine. Minnelli never really succeeds in getting Kate to defer in desperate fashion to Taylor's limited abilities as an actor. Her attempts come across as silent Gish while Taylor's wide descent into madness takes on restrained Bela Lugosi. Robert Mitchum completes the miscasting as the sensitive brother. Talk about piling on.

Cinematographer Karl Freund provides some highly stylized noir interiors but Minnelli and cast utilize the atmospherics meekly and the tension remains tepid. With Minnelli far from his forte (musicals) and Hepburn's victim role fitting her like a bad suit Undercurrent drowns all involved.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Undercurrent\" features a top-notch cast of wonderful actors who might've been assembled for the perfect drawing-room comedy. Alas, they are pretty much wasted on a 'woman's view' potboiler--and a paper-thin one at that. Katharine Hepburn is indeed radiant as a tomboy\/old maid who finally marries, but her husband is deeply disturbed and harboring dark family secrets. Director Vincente Minnelli has absolutely no idea how to mount this outlandish plot, concocted by Edward Chodorov from a story by Thelma Strabel, and the friendly, first-rate cast (including Robert Taylor, Robert Mitchum and Edmund Gwenn) is left treading in murky waters. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Misguided, miscast, murky, interminable lunacy given the high-gloss MGM A-budget treatment. Kate Hepburn plays a bride who comes to suspect her rich, handsome husband (Robert Taylor)is not the dreamboat she married but a psychotic killer. MGM's attempt at a Hitchcockian thriller is doomed from the start by a turgid, muddled, ludicrous script, and the idiotic casting of Hepburn as a jeopardized woman fearing for her life (who could ever imagine Hepburn afraid of anything?) Louis B. Mayer forgot to tell Vincent Minnelli he was directing a thriller, not a musical. Taylor is embarrassing. Only Robert Mitchum, also cast-against-type as a good guy, retains his dignity in a quiet, low-keyed performance. Karl Freund's ravishing cinematography creates images of eerie beauty--and was wasted on the wrong film. End result: Metro's \"Parnell\" of the 1940s.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

In Japan and elsewhere in Europe new technology is enabling filmmakers to bypass the closed shop of the Hollywood mainstream and avoid Ed Wood like visible low budget production values to produce compelling films. What a shame that in the UK we can find examples such as 'Avatar' (name of many a video game) where brain dead attempts are made to imitate so many films - and console games beloved of girlfriendless teens - that themselves are cheap photocopies of clich\u00e9s abound like testosterone fuelled kangaroos. Check out a bit of the synopsis:

\"Set in futuristic London, 2024, it tells the story of a Team of Virtual Reality Virus Exterminators faced against the ultimate Internet virus.\"

Go back and read that quote again - avoid guffawing - and try to find a single original idea in it. This should have seemed a tired, sad concept in 1993, never mind 2003. Ah, but there is more - the 'ultimate virus' has already caused planes to crash, infected the air traffic control centre, etc. It has been developed by a 'child genius' and manifests itself as a scantily clad, athletic, mammary jiggling discount Lara Croft imitator who does a great line in snarling and cod martial arts moves straight out of the playground - the living product of adolescent fantasy. Oh, and she is accompanied by 'Predator' like sound effects to emphasise her remarkable powers.

The whole thing has a 'futuristic' vision of stunning originality - the Lloyds building filtered with AfterEffects to look somewhat green. The budget does really show - which in this day and age should not. On the whole, a pointless mess of cheese, ham and clich\u00e9 that Roger Corman would have left on the cutting room floor in his most shameless, desperate moments. Shame that such an alleged labour of love delivered nine minutes of wasted celluloid.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dark Reality is a Saw like movie that is slightly decrepit. While the plot and story are good, there is a little too much unnecessary nudity. While I feel the film was technically well done, the acting was spotty, it was just a little too dark for my mood while I was watching it. IT basically says that there are a lot of missing people out there that will never be found and are perhaps being tortured by sick whackos. I feel that some information on the captors and their reasons for being so sick would have helped some. It came of as a snuff film, just made for the violent content. If you like to see women beaten, tortured, and killed then this is for you. If you're looking for something a little liter and more expressive and reasoned, skip this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"8 days no script that's what the DVD tells you is how the movie was made. It's shot in blurry video that's occasionally used to good effect, but it's really partially naked women sitting around in a room for most of the running time. It is very well acted and this helps a lot. But the killer only shows up once in a long time and the girls\/women sit and mope they don't try to escape or do anything too interesting, so the whole thing grinds to a stand still after about 20 minutes. Would have been a good short maybe even powerful. Even for eight days they do very little. Why? Because they had no script. How many movies have been made without scripts. Not too many. I wonder why that is? How many great movies have been made from bad scripts. Not too many. Why is that? Working against this major problem, the direction tries and does some interesting things but with what is essentially nothing. Topless girls shot in dark grainy colorless video sitting around will keep some going for a while but not for the short but too long feature length. Actors again deserve praise, if only there was a script.

Also the video quality, or lack thereof, is really low end, they try to use it to advantage and at times some shots look they are from Miami Vice, the recent movie that is. But that's not intended to compliment Miami Vice or this failed venture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to start out by saying that the actresses and actor did a fine job for what they worked with. The problem in Dark Reality is you had a poor director who tried so hard to be innovative and evocative he ended up trashing up the film. From start to finish you can tell the film reel quality itself is low, but the poor lightning and shaky camera only hurt it further by obscuring what is going on. The sound is muffled and often times not understandable. I'm sure Huston (the director) would argue this was to induce a state of panic in the audience, but he had more than ample material in which to do it. Having to result to camera and lighting the way he did was a sign of over the top syndrome.

The story is good. A basic sadistic female kidnapper story that avoids clich\u00e9 by keeping the girl's in a state of despair the whole time for good reason. Billy Bob from Silence of the Lambs treated his victims better than Netwon. The biggest problem with the story is that dead people constantly harass the lead character in her mind, and by the second time they showed up I was fast forwarding as this was attempting to destroy the only decent part of the film.

In the end, the way the director pieced it together showing random blurry things and constant barely viewable scenes (not because of horror, because of the lighting, angles, and camera) ultimately destroyed this film. Huston was obviously trying too hard and if anything it resembled a bad film school project. If you want to see a decent story then it's all right, but be warned the film quality is enough for most to turn it off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The not the best movie in the world???? That was an understatement. I personally didn't like this movie at all. Not because of the story line, not because of the graphic violence, and the nudity. The nudity didn't really need to be in it, it did nothing for the story, except maybe the girls were going through a rough time, and being naked probably messed them up even more. But one of the things in the movie that I hated.. was that it was sooooo dark. You couldn't really make out what was going on. I think if it wasn't as dark, and you could see where they were, then it might not have been so bad. All you know that its a basement somewhere. You see no house, no road, the killer in it, all you could see was half his face for about 5 seconds. I wanna see some stuff in a movie. It gets boring after 20 mins of pretty much darkness and all you see occasionally is a flashlight or a wall. Then you will hear the girl sobbing. There was nothing that really stuck out to me that was good about the movie, maybe the suspense in the first 10 mins of the film... but not the suspense of how the movie is going to end, but the suspense of.. will I get to see anything in this movie but a few naked bodies and various flashing lights. But honestly people, this was a Saw meets Blair Witch Project wannabe. Both top notch movies, and both with the correct lighting to figure out what was going on. Forget this movie if you can see.. if your a blind person.. you might wanna rent it to hear the screams if your into that sort of thing. But then again if you are blind, your probably not reading this either.. so anyway... BAD MOVIE!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie looked like it was shot with a video phone, it had very little plot and unnecessary nudity. The movie never really came together or made much sense and for a movie like this, of course, there were some unnecessary boob shots. The director was obviously trying to make the movie subjective and different, but it just never gave enough information on what was even really going on, even in the end i was left with a mixture of anger and confusion. Confusion from the lack of plot, and anger because i wanted my two dollars back from blockbuster and an 1.5 hours of my life back. They should have a payment program for people who accidentally rent this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My girlfriend and I are really into cheesy horror flicks. Especially ones with lots of unnecessary nudity. When we saw the box cover for this movie at blockbuster we thought it would be a perfect movie for the night. We began watching it, already not expecting it to be GREAT, but thought it would at least catch our interest. 20 minutes into the movie we realized that the pace would not eventually pick up and that it was an incredibly boring movie. We tried to get into it, but the plot made very little sense even after reading the back of the DVD box over and over again. The film was shot very dark and it was pretty annoying to try to figure out what was going on in each shot. Each violent scenes were very hard to make out, and you never get to actually watch the violence you're expecting. This is definitely a film without motive that was shot poorly and very drawn out. Each scene was about 20 minute of the same thing and I felt I got the point after the first 5. Skip this film and re-watch another Freddy or Jason flick and you'll be way more content.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know if I was a low budget film maker I would probably be checking this page to find out what people are saying about it. So I really hope the creators of the movie actually read this! I think you should find a way to repay me for the hour and a half of life I just wasted watching this garbage. Please STOP making movies about something you probably fantasize about. Just stop making movies all together...you are one of the reasons it is so hard for indie filmmakers to make it big. Do the world a favor and get a job a McDonalds or something so you can do something productive with your life! I feel like calling blockbuster to complain that they actually carried this film in their store.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe I saw a cleaned up version, but other than a few flashes of breasts, I'm not sure what over the top nudity these other commenters are referring to.

All in all not as bad as I was expecting by the previous comments, although the end leaves you wondering ... WTF? It was dark, but not so much that you couldn't make out the scenes, and I think it just added to the creepiness and the terror of the situation.

Film quality could have been better, but the acting was pretty decent.

All in all a decently creepy (and yes, brutal) movie with a disappointing ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This \"movie\" will give me nightmares, I will wake up drenched in sweat, screaming \"I didn't make this film please don't blame me!\" I honestly think it would have been more entertaining to watch a fat guy eating lard in his moms basement for a hour or two, than to watch this crap. I understand money was tight but goddamn what the hell were they thinking there was no thought, plot or effort put into this. This movie needs a warning \"Please for the love of god don't fund the drama department a the local JC.\" On an other note these are the least likable characters I have ever seen, and I have seen movies with Hitler in them. So lastly take my advice the next time you even think about renting this just pop a few hundred Adivl and let the sleep come.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Overambitious and shoddy; and at times too darkly lit. DARK REALITY'S scenario is not even close to being original. Dark and dank basement. Kidnapped prisoners. Fearful survival. Carey(Alisha Seton)tells her family and friends she will be backpacking across Europe. She doesn't make it out of town. She is grabbed from a rainy sidewalk, drugged, and awakes chained in a dungeon. She eventually realizes she is not alone and upon meeting a few of her fellow captives there is different thoughts on survival. Her cell mates start dying off one by one. Can she garner enough strength and courage to see daylight again? Others in the cast: Laila Dagher, Rachel Oliva, Eva Derreck, Arthur Bullock and Jen Parker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From reading the back of the box my first thought was that this is probably a knock off of Saw 2. I couldn't be further from the truth. It seemed to me like they gave somebody with downsyndrom a camera phone and $10.00 and told them to make a movie. The plot didn't exist and neither did the acting. It was almost as if I was watching a silent film about grass growing. It didn't surprise me at all to find out later that the entire film was \"improvised\". By the end of this \"film\" I had lost the will to live and I may have gotten AIDS just from viewing this piece of cinematic crap. It was about 70 minutes that I could have spent doing something that was less painful. Like jumping off of a building.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The guy mentioned to sue for the 1.5 hours wasted of his life, i cant disagree on that one. The movie started as some kind of class project cam thing, and ended up in a dark room. whenever the girls where fully nude there magically appeared light all over, I know i dint write the script or having anything to say about it. But this one is like a bad remake copy of saw with a bad ending. To think of a man who actually wrote this story, sick. This is really a shocking movie cant say ist horror cause its not. Its mere the brutality and the violence that made me sick. It really is frustrating to watch a movie without ending, its like bang, in your face. the movie is done now you can go home.

cons -cam -lighting (althrue i think is was supposed to) -overdone -sickening

cons -real in your face -acting was good in my opinion -it sucks you in

Overall The movie is NOT my taste of movie the witer wanted us to know that these things happen, and the man wrote his own little fantasy. If you ever saw the movies saw ? they all had a moment of comfort in it something to hold on to. This one ? does not. Maybe its just me, that im too soft but this movie made me tremble, and the story is real short, sick man kills girls slowly. But the actors sucked you in this movie every blow every scream you could almost feel it.

And to be honest, i was to quick to judge about this one, its a terrible movie ? no its not. its an overdone example of reality, this is a real as it could get. But don't watch this movie if you expect great mystery or a real plot, or even some kind of story. man gets girls in a dark room and kills em one by one, thats really it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has the feel of a college project over it, who wants to do a blair witch project meets saw theme. But it isn't successful. The cinematography is poor, and the acting even more so. The characters, in my opinion doesn't come off as being credible at all. The editing of the film isn't really working as intended either. There are a lot of poor effects, which I believe are put in there to try and add a horrid effect. But to me it just gives me a feeling of indifference.

I would stay away from this movie, unless you are a dedicated movie freak, who likes to watch \"different\" and indie \"horror\" movies. However, I believe this movie is not worth watching, for the average person. You will get no pleasure out of the poor effects, and the handycam feel, which this movie bestows on it's viewers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had looked forward to viewing this movie, it seemed anyone who had seen it loved it. I was completely disappointed. The acting was so overdone. The script seemed like the writer had gathered 25 different scripts from various movies and randomly chose dialogue and pieced them together to form one plagarized script.

Spoilers: Was any cliche omitted in this movie? There was a mobstyle hit, homosexuality, prostitution, a serial killer, a fire, numerous godfather wannabees, the main character in love with the prostitute, cross dressing, torture by the police, Hannibal Lechter style mutilations, I could go on and on.

Line's like (the godfather wannabe to the prostitute)

-\"Ben senin arik calismani istemiyorum\" (I don't want u to work anymore)

-\"Ben calismasam kirayi kim odeyecek?\" (Who would pay the rent if I didn't work)

Unrealistic scenes: We never saw a single policeman during the serial killer scenes, yet when the main character disappeared his father was taken in by the police and tortured for weeks.

The only way I can make sense out of this whole movie, is if the version I had scene was severely edited from the original. I definitely do not recommend it, and would greatly enjoy discussing it further with anyone who would care to do so.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"MGM tried pairing up and coming young men with the Divine One to give them exposure and try them out as leading men. Gable and Garbo had chemistry in SUSAN LENOX but it was a lousy film. Here in INSPIRATION there is no chemistry whatsoever between Garbo and Robert Montgomery and the script is poor as well. What were they thinking? The modern, fast-talking, wise-crack-snapping Montgomery and the long-suffering Garbo? It is a tale like CAMILLE. Young student falls for woman of the world and is repelled by learning of her past, rejects her, takes her back, rejects her.... you get the picture. Garbo is completely believable as a top Parisian artist's model and completely at home, although bored, with her life at the top of society amidst her artistic friends and their loose morals. Suddenly she is fascinated by this innocent. She finally gives up her life for him and sinks into poverty, only to be rescued by him and set up in a house of her own. Ironically, he intends to marry and keep her on the side - so much for his pure moral ethic of earlier.

The scenes are incredibly dull and boring and nothing much happens. Only Marjorie Rambeau as Lulu is able to inject life into the proceedings with such lines as \"Unfortunately weak women have strong appetites\" and \"Odette, Where is thy sting?\"

Only for Garbo fans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The sound in this movie is a nightmare. That is the best I can say for this movie. Any chance of a good story is lost once this films starts. The premise of the film sounds good. A playboy who comes to terms with the people around him. The plot is predictable and very dull. The wet T-Shirt contest may be the worst scene I've ever watched and is almost worth watching in a Mystery Science type of deal. The sound is at times hard to hear and the main actor seems to not know how to speak clearly. His accent makes him very hard to understand. The only bright sport is the acting of Penelope Ann Miller. Her role is underdeveloped but she plays it well. In short, do not waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite the solid performance of Penelope Ann Miller, this movie was an awkward mess. The lead character's American accent was ridiculous and he never seemed comfortable as a result. There was no chemistry between the two actors and I'm still not sure what Ann-Margaret was doing there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Subject matter: Worthwhile Acting: Fair (some of it) Plot: Ridiculous

Details: Sound goes from screechingly high to nearly inaudible; music is not altogether awful (but mostly is); dialog and characterization are laughable; the main character's process of discovery is blindingly obvious to everyone but himself (and the writer, apparently); animal scenes are just plain stupid (singing \"Moon River\" in an off-key, forgotten-lyrics, silly duet to a \"herd\" of wild boars for hours, as one example). Finally, the \"wet t-shirt\" contest is so over-the-top silly that it has to be seen to be disbelieved. (Hint: The 'girl' who wins is not a ... well, I'm not giving that away.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A feminist tract in which if you the viewer believe that: i) wild animals are seldom tamed by singing but instead attack, kill and eat (the line that grizzlies never attack unless provoked was a hoot - unless \"provoked\" means that it sees flesh); ii) homosexuality is both immoral per se -- and its acceptance almost always associated throughout history with signs of a society's dissolution and decay iii) few women are bisexual (in this one, virtually every woman is presented as having no preference for men or women) iv) divorce is far worse than infidelity v) land is there for human beings to use, develop and enjoy vi) it is as incumbent upon a mother of an adult son to keep in touch as it is upon the son vii) a mother raising her son alone is an unfortunate and real tragedy for the child viii) the idolization of a parent for worthwhile ideals is a good and healthy thing ix) adults continue to bear a responsibility for their sexual behavior, no matter their age, and the duty to engage in this most intimate and giving of acts only within the most intimate and openly sacrificial of relationships: marriage -- believe me, you are NOT going to like this film! Essentially it's a Howard Stern sort of fellow who is brought down by a Jane Fonda sort of woman (think The Electric Horseman). It's ugly stuff because the values, the ideals, of the screenplay are all so harmful.

I share the other objections about the odd things in the writing: a) why would this man lose every girlfriend he has -- because he refuses to reveal that his mother's death and funeral caused him to be unable to keep dates with them? It's a mystery why he just keeps saying \"it was personal\" when faced with angry and disappointed women. HUH?

b) there's an enormous inconsistency (i.e., the screenwriter wants to have it both ways) by telling us that the protagonist's mother loved the father with everything she had - and then later we're told that there was only one great love in her life - her lesbian girlfriend.

c) the underlying legal assumptions are nonsense. We're never told that the executor has any right to live at the property - merely that she shall determine the timing of the sole heir's title and right to occupy the property. Yet somehow the film makes it appear that the executor is the rightful occupant - which is crazy. (Try to think of any executor of any will who uses the decedent's property before the will's bequests are fulfilled - it doesn't happen).

d) the assumption throughout this film is that women are equally drawn to men and women - it's just absurd. Thus, we're told: i) that Penelope Ann Miller's character is dating other men near the end of the film - after having been with the decedent for five years - and before that in a fulfilling relationship with the protagonist, ii) that the protagonist's housekeeper after being devoted throughout her adult life to her kind husband - is now dating another woman iii) that one girlfriend upset with the protagonist would now therefore \"like to try a woman\".

iv) that a male transsexual is eager to date the protagonist v) that Mary Kay Place's character naturally looked at other women in college (\"and they looked back\" she says with an idiotic triumphal flip of the head).

This is all just ridiculous.

I agree with others about the sound of the DVD (I had to keep it at maximum volume and repeatedly rewind to understand names, phrases).

This is a film by someone who really despises traditional heroics by any man, hates the notion that a man is needed to raise a child, loathes the idea that there is any necessary connection between marriage and sex. The film is out to preach - and that kind of propaganda of false messages doesn't sit well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just do a little research on the making of this film. Something so simple as a Google search. It was funded by the US Army and promoted just in time for the elections. It is a great idea, but I'd much rather see a DOCUMENTARY, not something edited by the Bush Administration and told its reality. The timing of the movie's release, its tone, and the fact that MS&L promoted it, raised questions about the intent of the movie. \"According to MS&L Managing Director Joe Gleason, he and his colleagues also deliver key targeted messages about the war in Iraq to specific constituencies,\" wrote Eartha Melzer. \"Was the left-leaning art house crowd one of those constituencies? Is the government hiring documentary filmmakers to propagandize the U.S. population? Nobody involved with the film is willing to say who initially put up the money for the film or how they ended up represented by the Army's PR firm.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well there's a few things about this movie. Everyone should see it. You see the nation of Iraq like you've never seen it covered by the media, and shot from a perspective that is hardly considered by most Americans, where the movie has its main audience. However all that glorious stuff in mind lets take a look at a few other facts of the movie. There were 150 cameras handed out to the Iraqi people most all of which view the war and subjugation of the occupying forces as a growing pain for the bettering of their nation. And in comparison to Saddam it is simply a feeble scratching at the skin. Also, Netflix as its main distributor advertised it before the fun election we just had by sending out a mass e-mail to its entire roster to see the film. Many of the, what should be labeled as opinions played out as facts listed off by the interviewed Iraqis are wrong. If one is to review the Red Cross' records of Abu Ghraib tortures it wasn't Saddam's henchmen who were being tortured it was a fine mix of a 80-90% innocent civilians and 10-20% rightfully detained people. Never was it disclosed that any of that 10-20% were Saddam's Henchmen or curfew violators. In addition the Arab world really has never listed 'Democracy' as one of their opponents, more correctly it is the USA's 6 Billion Dollars a year to Isreal, our military bases in Saudi Arabia and our interest in Oil. I agree that the media is a complete distortion, but this film shows that same distortion. I'm afraid that the Iraqi people that this film represents have been edited to speak with a Yankee voice. Yes its true that Saddam is a puke, and that his removal many see for the best. Its true that some Iraqis actually get paid a good wage. Just as its true that no Iraqi people have control of their most prized oil and US corporations do. Nor does it mention that 20,000 civilians have died due exclusively to US artillery. Still 15% of the country which once had running water and electiricity now does not. Nor does it mention that from 1993-2003 UN sanctions purposed and authored by the USA Government killed over 200,000 Iraqi civilians. Nor does it mention that Democracy in when people decide the government, not a massive war machine that sends the message, 'Be killed or Obey'. I am afraid that the cutting room floor must have quite a bit of Iraqis that aren't so happy with the Occupation. Just as the vast majority of the world was not for the war. In fact the America, Britian, Spain and the rest of them are not carriers of Democracy, they turned their back to it when they saw how full their pockets could be. Hurray, Saddam is out of power, but I'm afraid that no Iraqi is yet in power. Corporations are in power, the media is in power. Read, do your own research, and don't let them blindfold you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking forward to watching this movie, and it does contain very interesting perspectives from Iraqis all over the country, not just in major areas.

However, as the film went on, and as it seemed to become increasingly more one-sided, I started wondering who had edited the film. To get several hundreds of hours down to just 80 minutes, obviously decisions had to be made.

I would have really enjoyed a film that showed how everyday Iraqis felt on all sides of the issues, but with the newspaper headlines in contrast to what people were saying, and with everyone in the movie having the same opinion at the end, I thought it was obvious that the editing was done with a pre-conceived bias.

It could have been such a great film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have tried to like this show, I really have, but I can't find a reason why anyone would like it. The story lines are weak, the acting is weak and unbelievable. Every cast member seems to have been picked up off the street at random. And it seems to me that the whole show is just a vehicle for Jamie Lynn Spears to be able to move on to movies. Every episode shows Zoey as the girl that every girl wants to be her best friend and that every boy wants to date. She's always perfect and no one is like that in real life. How can people relate to a character that is just a Barbie doll? Jamie Lynn's acting is fair but she is not a strong enough actress to have the lead role in a series. All the show's fans are just young girls who don't know any better. I'm sorry if you think my comments are too harsh but if you can find a meaningful and deep moment in this series that isn't quickly directed to a beach party - please accept my opinions and find something worthwhile to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the absolutely worst show in the history of Nickelodeon. First of all, no boarding school has a Sushi Bar, Flat screen TVs, and gives every student a laptop. This makes the show so unrealistic, and boring. The plots are pointless, and incredibly boring. The actors are so bad, it makes me want to take my own life. I really hate the fact that in the show, Zoey is the most popular girl in school, and the prettiest, and smartest, and gets the best grades without doing any work. She never has any real problems, and every guy wants to date her. She is so perfect. There isn't anyone like that. Also, I hate that everyone would do anything for her, and everyone picks her for every team, or club. It is so annoying. Quinn is so obnoxious. Her experiments are pathetic, pointless, and fake. Chase is such a wimp. He says he loves Zoey, but if he told her, it would ruin their friendship. How pathetic. Michael tries to be funny, but he never accomplishes anything. Nichole is so perky, and screams a lot. She is never seen doing any work, or studying, but she is a straight A student. Lola thinks she is an actress, but she sucks (Excuse my language). Need I say more? I think no. For your own good, stay away from this show at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first watched Zoey101 with my sister we thought it was a piece of garbage. No one is that rich and lives at a dorm off the pacific coast. In the show, Zoey is a mega popular rich girl that everyone always go to her for advice. Zoey is always the one with the good idea and everyone agrees with her no matter how stupid her idea is. She is always perfect at everything including her perfect figure. And she is such a dietetic freak she talks about carbs like she knows what they are. When she sees that her friends are eating chocolate she confiscates it. And another thing that ticks me off is that she is always chewing a piece of spearmint every time you look at her. And everyone wants something do with her, for example in one episode that Logan guy bid $4,000 to have her and her friends cheer for everything he does in his pathetic life. And her friend Nicole is an overly perky freak that screams a lot.And Lola dresses like a hoochie Houdini lady. 80s called they want there bushy hair back.Might as well shave off the hair chase. This show sends a bad message to kids everywhere to make them think that if they don't have the latest I-Pods and designer clothes they will hate themselves.

This show is a big thumbs down.

We hate you Jamie Lynn,

Best wishes Ryan, and Kara L","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Right, where do I start? I cannot even imagine to comprehend this preteen pathetic excuse of a show. Picture this: a boarding school, where kids whose parents are rolling in money simply chuck them in there so as to jet around the world themselves. It could not get any more diabolic than this.

If you taught these kids, shall not even upgrade them to the term teenagers, because they hardly even act like sane homosapiens, were self-centered, think again. About 23 minutes choked full of their so-called problems, boy troubles, and the like.

The heroine of the show, of course, Mademoiselle Zoey, played by Britney's Polly Pocket Little Miss I'm All That sister, Jamie Lynn Spears, has obviously much to learn about acting. However, I will give her some face, because her superficial, one dimensional character, does not allow much room for depth. She plays Pacific Coast Academy's sun, moon and stars, crusader fighting for the plight of all women, equality of all genders.

Perfect in everyway, always with her two loyal sidekicks, Nicole, the daffy bimbo, who obviously has too much of Daddy's cash, and tough chick, Dana, who proves a hard nut to crack. Both left the show in seasons 2 and 1 respectively, not that I blame that. But horror of horrors, in comes Lola, who deems herself the greatest actress since Natalie Wood, with green feathers in her hair and fake tan. She is even more rude than Zoey herself, if that is even possible, and even more dumber than Nicole, and hell, we know that cannot be possible.

This show, like all the sorry excuses for television programmes Nickelodeon has been spewing out since 2000s, is a prime victim of stereotyping. Get girl next door and dense to her best friend's feelings for her Zoey, a great albeit inarticulate at times best boy friend, Chase, a cool, arrogant ladies man, Logan, a boy and clothes crazy girl, who is not very bright, Nicole, the one whom everyone thinks is weird just because she is extremely smart, the nerd, Quinn, the over-dramatic, annoying yet super thin, Malibu picture perfect model, Lola, and the tough yet soft inside woman, Dana. Now, where have I heard these characters before? I am sorry, but what is so wrong with having a personality? Just because Quinn is passionate about Science, and actually cares about her future and doing well in the academic aspect, in which the rest should be concerned about as well, she is \"weird\" and a \"nerd\"? Lola at the beginning of the series, proved to be a potential great character with her sassy ways and different outlook in life, Zoey just had to go, get out your pitchforks, burn her at the stake, she's going back to Weird Town and all that jazz. So much for womens rights. Unfortunately, Lola just became nothing more of another OC clone, in all its anorexic glory. Probably so as to not outshine her Mistress.

But hey, the 2000 generation of MySpace whores seem to love it with the Chase\/Zoey typical fairytale romance, the tension between adamant, \"hot\" Logan and \"kick-ass\" Zoey or Dana, whichever to your liking, and the pretty people. Please, this show exists to remind us that people do not like realism, they prefer a pretentious, shallow and vapid lifestyle. Sorry to break it to you darlings, that will not happen, unless you have a major trust fund and parents to cushion you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show makes me(and many others) hate their lives. Let's face it, Zoey is perfect; she's bland pretty, gets good grades, everyone goes to her for advice, she's popular, she goes to an amazing school with amazing rooms. Reasons why I gave this show a 3: 1. The acting is horrible.Sometimes I just want to hurt the people who put these untalented actresses(especially victoria justice) on television. 2. The characters are unbelievable and mismatched. You have your typical popular girl. A peppy, shallow, stupid ,stereotypical, girl who is portrayed by a horrible actress. Then you have a typical jock guy who is somewhat normal and actually nice.Then the stereotyped smart girl who is a freak and obviously does not fit in with the perfect popular friends of hers. Then a stuck up rich pretty boy that would be happier gazing into a mirror all day. Then the wanna be actress who is played by another stinky actress. And last a normal nerd person guy. 3. The plot is boring, and lame. 4. I hate how spoiled these characters are. Can't they just be normal! 5. Everything ends up perfect for them, and we all are reminded of how much our lives stink.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Shopping, sunny skies, beaches, boarding school for rich teenagers and perfectly happy endings. Welcome to the life of Zoey Brooks and her friends. Zoey Brooks is portrayed by Jamie Lynn Spears, the self proclaimed actress who got her claim to fame by being the younger sister of the international pop star Britney Spears. With her lovely blond wig in the first season and an attempt at hiding her monotonous country accent, it's confirmed that Nickelodeon has indeed gone to the dogs with nepotism. When Kristin Herrera, the actress who portrayed Dana Cruz in the first season, left the show, all hope vanquished as she was the only decent actress. The female casting is a complete disgrace but the male casting has potential for a teenage media. If they continue to pursue Jamie Lynn Spears as the picture of perfection, very many people will have to lower their standards. With hope, they will soon find that you can't make a career out of nothing. Jamie Lynn Spears is useless for acting, singing and anything else she attempts for that downward spiral she calls a career. There is no wondering why she is a self-proclaimed actress. Critics would most definitely proclaim her as something other than that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen this programme a few times and the more a see of it, the less I like it. Jamie Lynn Spears was approached to do this because of the fact that she is Britney's sister and I'm sorry to say that that in the show is obvious. They've created the character Zoey to be everything people want to believe Jamie Lynn is, clever, original, smart, pretty, popular etc. The characters around her are only there to make her look better, by being smarter then them, more popular than them, more wanted by boys then them. There is nothing original about this and it's poured with money, so every kid there has the coolest of fashions and stuff. I also have to say, for a 13 year old girl (or however old she is, can't be much older) she wears very mature clothing, those short skirts are too short, it makes young people want to wear them, and all that make-up, this adds to the rising problems of why young girls get into so much trouble. The only thing I will say is that the opening credits are sung by Jamie Lynn and, given her age, isn't bad at all, much better than her sister anyway when it comes to vocal ability. Sorry, it's too mature and yet too dumbed down. It's poorly acted with predictable story lines and there is far too much stereotyping going on too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For any fan of Nickelodeon who used to watch the network in the 80s and 90s, there was always something good on. You had entertaining acts like You Can't Do That on Television. You had weird but good shows like Pete & Pete. You even had cartoons that taught morals like Doug. But just like Disney, Nickelodeon has fallen down the tubes, limiting their demographic to shallow preteens and giving us poor excuses to come up with new, innovative shows. As I tried watching Zoey 101, I just shook my head in disgust.

The setting couldn't of been more fake than this one. Each character attends a boarding school called Pacific Coast Academy, boasting everything that a spoiled child wants. A sushi bar, laptops everywhere, flat screen TVs in every room, cool dorms to hang out, etc. The kids in this show are rarely seen in class and there doesn't seem to be any real teachers. It looks more like a place that you would spend on a nice summer vacation rather than to work and study while preparing for college.

The characters were also a factor that turned me off. Every episode consists of boy problems, situations that they caused themselves, and troubles that should be solved. Each character is a stereotype. Zoey (Jamie Lynn) seems perfect in anything she does, and each of her friends ask her for help when they feel they are in grave danger. Only leading her to have no other side. I've been through school and I can tell you, nobody is like that. Chase is dumb. Logan plays the arrogant tough guy. Quinn plays a nerd who is highly unrealistic in what she does. Michael is an idiot. Lola is a clone of Nicole. Dana is just well, a tough person. Why not use some originality? Something that is unique for these characters, and different from other personalities? Is being stereotypical the best the creators of this show can come up with? Instead, these actors are dull personalities with the sense in that there is a lack of creativity involving their roles. There is nothing here to be amazed or surprised at.

Not only that, but the show is clearly for the intent of aiming for kids of adolescence, facing a stage in that they must evolve from being a child to being an adult. Through that period they must learn to study on their own, make their own decisions, and do what's right for them. Zoey 101 contains nothing of those values. In this case, we are supposed to believe that looking good and having a stereotypical personality is all you need to succeed. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. People can't expect things to be handed to them like the actors in this show are and just let those things sit there. If I expect things in Zoey 101 to happen in real life, then I would be living in a fantasy world locked away in a dream house. Nothing in this show relates to those who face health and money issues. Neither does it relate to kids wanting to learn something meaningful.

So in conclusion, Zoey 101 is a show made by Nickelodeon that only falls flat on it's face. It displays a horrible message for kids and I highly think the show itself is simply inappropriate for them. Sure, it doesn't have morbid violence, but it teaches everything to make a kid act and look stupid. A horrible show, and should be forgotten with the rest of the garbage Nickelodeon has been making in recent years.

1 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only time I ever actually laugh while watching this show is when I'm making fun of it. Jamie Lynn Spears only got the acting job because of her big sister, and I don't think anyone could argue with me on that. There is no expression in her face EVER (even when she smiles) - just watch the show and you'll see what I mean. Now let's talk about the show. Zoey 101 is one of the most unrealistic shows I've ever seen! As a lot of people have already said, Zoey Brooks is absolutely perfect: everyone loves her, she's a straight A student, and all the boys think that she's \"hot.\" PCA is a boarding school full of rich kids that gives all their students flat-screen TVs and laptop computers, serving kids sushi from the sushi bar. In one of the newest episodes, Zoey is completely clueless and thinks that Chase is not in love with her, and acts as if she doesn't even want Chase to love her. Then, when she barges into Chase's dorm room to prove her friends wrong, she finds Chase kissing this girl named Rebecca. Zoey, of course, freaks out, probably because she likes the attention from Chase. Anyway, only watch this show if you have nothing else to do and the only thing on television is Zoey 101. You can at least have fun laughing at how unrealistic it is!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This television show is stereotypical and far-fetched in many of its aspects.

First of all, the setting. All of the characters attend PCA, this unbelievable boarding school with painted, stylish dorms. The campus seems to have no reasonable rules - for instance, the boys are often seen in the girls' dormitories, and vice versa. But this may be simply because the dorm adviser, a silly character that basically bores the viewer instead of amusing them, as I assume her purpose is supposed to be, sits around and does nothing. I have friends in boarding schools, and they laugh at many aspects of the school in this show.

Next, the characters. I was so disappointed to discover that Nickelodeon wasn't creative at all with the personalities in this show. They all represent on characteristic which is exaggerated to the extreme: Zoey is supposedly perfect in everything she does (looks, grades, sports, guys, judgment, creativity, etc), Michael is the jock, Logan is the arrogant jerk who basically does nothing aside from aggravate all the characters as well as us poor viewers, Nicole is the preppy idiot who knows nothing but somehow maintains straight-A's, Dana was the tough girl, Quinn is the unrealistic 'smart kid,' whom they consistently make fun of, Chase is the guy who is afraid of confessing his 'true feelings' which really aggravates me as the show continues, and that new girl- Lola or something- is just another clone of Nicole.

The main two characters that aggravate me the most are Zoey and Quinn. First of all, I just do not understand Zoey's character. She was obviously created to be the 'perfect' character as I said above, but she seems to be the most flawed out of all of them- in most of the episodes she creates a problem, then has to fix it. What's frustrating is that we are supposed to love her and think she is amazing when they haven't even created a very realistic character to begin with.

Quinn, on the other hand, bothers me because she is exaggerated to the point at which her character is absolutely insulting. The impression I get from Nick concerning her character is that 'geeks' and 'nerds' are people to laugh at, to criticize, to mock. In the spring break episode they did a year ago, they introduced two more 'nerds' who the characters had to make 'cool.' I found this highly offensive and stereotypical. What kind of message is Nick sending to these kids? Is it: Don't do well in school, don't get good grades, don't study hard- you'll end up being a geek and we will mock your profession in future television series! Because that is definitely the message I get from these poorly constructed characters, and it is an awful message through and through.

All I can do is hope that Nick one day realizes that by putting down the intelligent folks in our world, they are not doing anyone any good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen about five or six episodes of this stupid show, and most of them I was forced to watch. And I did NOT like the episodes I saw. What happened to Dan Schneider? After giving us such awesome shows like Drake and Josh, why did he decide to create a stupid show like this? My problem is not just with Dan, it is also with the guys who nominated this show for an Emmy, were they drunk that day, or what's the problem? Drake and Josh didn't get nominated for an Emmy, but it's way better than Zoey 101. The makers of this show should be ashamed for the existence of this show, let's just hope the pregnancy of you know who will affect the show, or better yet it'll cause it to get canceled.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Imagine this: a high school. Except it's boarding school, and the kids don't have parents around. Oh, and it's in Malibu. And the kids are all thin, white, and gorgeous, with the exceptional token minority or fat kid to play the \"weird\" outcast. And there aren't any reasonable rules, like how they have co-habitation, nuclear weapons in their dorms, coffee stands, a sushi bar, and a complimentary laptop per student.

Here's the story: A girl, Zoey Brooks, attends PCA, a formerly all-boys school. Absolutely perfect in every possible way, she is smart, pretty, thin, athletic, creative, and everything a perfectionist wants to be. Almost all the boys in school want her, and every girl wants to be her friend. She's the one everyone comes to for advice, the one who saves the day with a simplistic plan, and is just wonderful. Too bad none of this makes her likable.

Are we supposed to believe that if we don't even come close to Zoey's perfection, we're bad people? In the show, nothing's her fault, and if anyone contradicts her, they're portrayed as the bad guy(Logan). He may be a jerk, but at least he has some kind of brain that thinks for himself instead of simply agreeing with the princess every time.

Her loyal group of blind followers are: Chase, the average dumb ass that has a secret crush on her, Michael, the token black guy (and the only decent actor on the set), Lola, a wannabe actress and anorexic, snobby airhead, Quinn, the smart but clueless girl when it comes to teen stuff, and Logan, the rich jerk who has a soft side. Yeah, this show basically spews out stereotypes.

What ticks me off, though, is that they all try to pretend they're normal kids. They complain that Logan gets too much money while they have to work themselves, even though they already go to a too-good-to-be-true boarding school and have relatively nice things that many teenagers can't afford. They drink coffee and eat sushi on a regular basis, hardly have homework, and suntan almost every day. Wow, they have it hard! Any other problems? I'm too good-looking, rich, and stress-free! I guess Zoey 101 (what's the 101 for, anyway?) is Nick's attempt at trying to portray teens realistically. Except they caught a glimpse of reality, didn't like it, and decided to give the kids lives like the asses on The Hills.

But hey, at least the set's pretty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, I want to clear a common misconception: It is not unrealistic that the school Zoey goes to gives students laptops. At my school, those in grade 7 and higher must have Apple Macbooks (this is payed for in the entrance fee). Moving on. This show is very annoying. It has boring, predictable plots and bad acting. Often in the show it brings \"girl power\" to a new high, with girls beating guys in everything they try. But that is not the worst. The worst is that girls are nevertheless all portrayed as being focused on their personal appearances, and screaming whenever they are happy. Except for the one smart girl, who is portrayed as a freak who is obsessed with ugly boys and science. However, this show is very addictive. I do not know why, but it is. Although, the most recent season has been SO terrible, bringing the stereotypes, boring plots, and bad acting to extremes I never thought were reachable, so I am no longer addicted, thankfully.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I first watched this show hoping for a few laughs, good acting, and good plot. Sadly, I got none of those things.

First off, this show is completely unrealistic. How can someone go to a boarding school that's super hip, awesome location, and barely any rules? Plus a sushi bar. A SUSHI BAR. No school has a sushi bar. And what's up with the huge, ultra cool, ultra hip dorm rooms? This doesn't happen in boarding schools! Everyone in this show seems to be perfect. Zoey, looks perfect, has the perfect friends, never has to do homework, and is super popular. Sounds more like a villain to me! I hate how they use so many cliques in this show, Example: Dana the skater chick. She is completely ignorant and wears \"edgy\" clothes. The jokes are old sooooo old too! I wouldn't watch this show if I were you, it's one of the most horrible shows I have ever watched and I hope it gets canceled soon! Rating: 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Blond main character, always believes in everyone and when you stick together you can do ANYTHING! Shy guy best friend with curly hair (rip off of Gordo) wants to be a movie director has a secret crush on zoey. Spanish best friend (rip off of Miranda) Weird smart girl Quinn (rip off of Lary Tudgemen)and the popular stock up prep Logan (rip off of kate)And Zoey's little brother Max, annoying (rip off of Matt)

Zoey is the semi popular girl, with 2 best friends. The only thing it's missing is the funny little sacastic cartoon Lizzie Mcguire has, and Hillary Duff was a lot cuter. Jamie Lynn Spears looks more like a tooth pick in a tube top.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Zeoy101?? Really, this has to be one of the most stupidest attempts to get people in my age group's attention. It's about some preppy girl named Zeoy and her friends that attends boarding school. BORING!!! All she ever does is whine and complain and acts like a spoiled idiot. I remember this show came out in 2005, I was 13 going on 14, and even then I thought it was pointless. The only episode I EVER liked was when the boys hid a camera in the girls dorm. THAT'S IT. Anyway, I just don't understand why Nickel-Oh my bad-Nick feels the need to syndicate this sorry poor excuse for \"entertainment\". serious this decade is becoming a joke every year and it gets worst and worst. What's with this generation??

Anyway, R.I.P. Nickelodeon 1979-1998?\/2005?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show sucks. it was put on fridays on roller-coaster, and whilst it undoubtedly destroyed the running theme of Friday programming i shall judge it rationally... still i think it sucks. It really is super lame. Zoey and her stupid friends are weak characters and the pot sucks and is really lame.

The lame continuuity and pot sucks and i reckon the dialogue and joes are weak. The weak humour and lame sucky characters suck, and the whole show is frankly a disappointment not worth watching. It sucks and is really, really lame. It really has to be one of the lamest shows on TV, really not worth watching. I mean how lame weak and sucky can a show get before it gets axed?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I actually belong to the demographic Zoey 101 specifically is trying to target, so I can see that as much as it tries to be relatable to people my age, the premise is simply too ludicrous for an average person to relate to. The show revolves around the wealthiest boarding school in existence, and the lovely, incredibly tan, attractive gang of one-sided characters who inhabit it. As is the tradition amongst kids networks, the cast is an array of skinny white kids, with the token black guy, of course.

The story lines all revolve around Zoey and her gang of friends stumbling upon or creating some sort of minor dilemma, such as not wanting to attend gym class, resulting in Zoey devising a scheme to save the day for all her friends. There is generally a B-line revolving around either a one- sided guest character, or placing supporting characters in completely unrealistic situations, such as having a hive of wasps in a dorm room and no one noticing. These plots often play off stereotypes, such as any character who pulls good grades in math must by default completely lack social skills. The majority of episodes have the continuous and overused will-they won't-they Chase-Zoey dynamic.

The characters, unfortunately, are all incredibly one-sided; there is Zoey, the perfect girl with a solution to literally everything,Chase, the constantly lovesick still but rather endearing Best Friend, Michael, the token black guy (kudos to Christopher Massey for managing some genuinely funny one-liners), Lola, the theater chick (meaning she dies her hair and 75% of her dialogue is about her dreams of stardom, despite the fact that she never does anything in the actual theater), Logan, the womanizing narcissist, Dustin, the spazzy little brother, and Quinn, the science geek. The few words I spent on each of these characters sum up each character entirely.

Zoey 101 does manage to be entertaining at times, but the serious flaws in the system of values it promotes are a major turnoff. Zoey, who is set up as the obvious role model and quasi-feminist crusader and who is on the surface portrayed as flawless, still manages major character flaws. For example, when Lola was first introduced, she was believed to be a goth girl. Zoey tried to use this as an excuse to kick her out of their shared dorm room for being \"freaky\".

As for the acting, it is quite clear that Jamie Lynn Spears landed this role because of her name, not because of talent. Although she has definitely improved as time goes by, it is clear she is not a born actress, which greatly affects the quality of the show, as most of the plot lines revolve around her character. The supporting cast is surprisingly good, especially considering the material they have to work with. They deliver quite a few good one-liners for comic relief, if the plot hasn't yet ventured into obscurity.

All in all, Zoey 101 is a flawed view at high school life, and anyone past their Limited Too years shouldn't expect much from it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay people, I have to agree with almost everyone else's reviews here. The characters. Are. Stupid. They're ALL stereotypical, and yet have nice clothes and are always skinny.

Don't even get me started on Jamie Lynn's role as ZOEY. Zoey is a pretty, popular, tan, blonde young teen who everyone just LOVES! She has a \"rebellious\", great, personality that everyone agrees with no matter how dumb or extreme it is. Most annoying of all: her voice is so darn bubbly and obnoxious. \"OMG!\"

Take for example the first episode. The moment she steps onto the huge PCA campus, everyone seems to love her. The boys want to ask her out, the girls want to be her friend, etc. Thinking she's all that, the episode plays out with Zoey always being the center of attention; she is the so-called best player of the unofficial girls basketball team, confident, and has everyone pity her when she weakly gets hit in the face. Oh boo-hoo.

My favorite character by far is this whole series is a girl that appears much later into the show, Lauren or something, who is the ONLY person ever introduced in the show to hate Zoey.

And Zoey doesn't even seem to be very loyal to her friends sometimes. In one episodes she even calls her friend a freak without EVER apologizing and doesn't show the least bit regret in doing so.

Zoey is ALWAYS the best:

-Desiging professional T-shirts and backpacks (which become a big hit)

-coming up with VERY elaborate schemes BY HERSELF to teach a single person a lesson.

-Flawless grades

-Taking the blame for stuff that wasn't even related to her just so everyone else could be happy.

-Coming up with a commercial that was so good it was put on TV. The list goes on and on...

Ugh. She has no acting talent. She's always the perfect person. She acts snotty and rebellious and preppy and...UGH! Can't stand her.

Not only that, but everyone in the show always has great clothes. EVEN THE NERD! Her wardrobe is better than mine, and mine is pretty freaking decent.

No one cares if everyone at PCA loves you, Zoey, and would do anything for you, even if it meant giving their right arm.

BUT regardless of these cardboard characters, the plots are creative. Not everyday things. They're interesting and amusing. The humor is usually good-natured and fun, but the characters are so paper flat that it's hard to enjoy it.

This show would be really good if Dan Schnieder put a bit more time thinking of the type of characters he wanted, because they are so typical, so boring that's it's lame and stupid.

Point: No one's the least bit overweight, everyone has stylish clothes, Zoey is the definition of Mary-sue, the story lines are well-thought out, and the humor is laughable. But again, I want to emphasize that the characters taint the show. Watch the show if you must, but don't say I didn't warn you if your eyes start to bleed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I strongly dislike this show. I mean, like, basically everyone at that school is perfect, and rich, and I doubt a boarding school would look as cool as that. And why do they suddenly allow girls into the school? Isn't that just a little weird? anyways, Jamie Lynn spears CANNOT act. She always has the same facial expression, which really annoys me. She is basically emotionless, and all the guys seem to like her.

and shouldn't chase tell her he likes her? its not that hard! really! None of this show is real life, and she isn't \"a girl like me\" because majority of the regular girls do NOT go to boarding school, do not have designer clothes, and do NOT live by the beach.

fake fake fake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was another one of those shows that I watched to root out the positive elements, and because I've been a Nick fan for years. Some of those would be the stage sets, B-plots, guest stars, and a few of the main actors that were good. I dabbled in the show through high school as I quickly grew to despise Jamie Spears, along with the other chicks in the show that can't act. The only characters I seemed to like were Dustin, Quinn, Stacey, Michael & Logan. Quinn is a perfect outcast that eventually started to fit in; Stacey is a complete oddball; Dustin gets put through a bunch of strange, random situations; and Michael is kind of the comic relief right-hand man of Logan. There's a remarkable difference between the execution & acting quality of the B-plots that involve them, and the A-plots that showcased a bunch of screeching girls and an iconic \"Miss Perfect,\" repeating bad lines and obsessing over guys. This show would have been great if the main plots contained the quality of the side plots, but the main plots just don't deliver anything. When it recently came back in reruns, and I tried to watch it again, I was more calloused towards the girls' abysmal acting and had to change the channel. However, I will give the previously listed characters credit because they did make the show more or less worth my time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a children's TV series about a Mary-Sue who is at the same time, mean and bitchy. I couldn't bring my self to sit through 3 episodes of Zoey101. Not to mention that Jamie Lynn Spears can't act to save her life! What message does this show bring to kids? If you're not perfect like Zoey, you're unworthy *rollseyes*.

It's absurd how Zoey's character is exactly the type of person who would be despised in real life yet she manages to become so popular. Then there is Chase who is basically a lovesick puppy who worships the ground Zoey walks on. Then there is the fact that all the other characters seem to have been dumbed down in order to stop them from outshining Zoey. I'm sorry but the characterization in this show = extremely unrealistic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Zoey 101 is such a stupid show. I don't know if that's because the snooty Jamie Lynn Spears is the prissy star of it or what, but I just know that the show sucks. It's about a girl and her brother who go to a boarding school. The jokes in this show are extremely dull and unfunny, and I hate every single character except Chase and Lola. Heck, the jokes on this show are so unfunny that they make Jack Black look like Monty Python.This show is without a doubt one of the worst shows on Nickelodeon, it's right down there with Avatar and Danny Phantom in the pit of shame, and if this show was a person with any honor, it would hang itself in shame.

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Zoey 101 is basically about a girl named Zoey who transfers into an all boys boarding school during the first year that they integrate girls into it. That raw plot line is, I'll admit, a pretty good idea. Although this show was meant for children, a five year old could probably point out its fatal flaws. First, Zoey is a clich\u00e9 character, her being super popular, super attractive, super smart, and there;s nothing wrong with her; no girl is like that. It feels like the show was put the spotlight on Jamie Lynn Spears and increase her fame. Dana, who appeared at the beginning of the first season, is just plain mean. However, in my opinion, she was probably the most realistic character of them all, which is sad seeing that Dana is never nice. Nicole is too peppy and acts like a complete airhead, but mysteriously gets straight A's. Lola seems to be able to fool anything with her Emmy-deserving acting skills. Quinn is supposed to be super smart, and although she is able to create the most unrealistic things, she is also made out to be weird, and she never gets any guys although she is both beautiful and smart, while Zoey, Lola, and Nicole get guys and they're all beauty and no personality. Chase and Michael are very similar, and I even sometimes get them confused. Logan is unrealistically rich, and hands out millions like they're dollars. Nobody's that rich. I've also noticed that every character on the show is mean to that Stacy girl, who does nothing but act nice to them. That's not funny! That's mean and it just influences young girls to act mean to totally nice people. Finally, the school itself adds the frosting to the unreal cake by providing the students with 5-star amenities such as a scenic location, sushi bar, hot lounge equipped with free soda machines, pool&jacuzzi, movie theater, and the allowance for boys and girls to freely go into the other sex's dorm rooms. At most boarding schools, if a boy were to go into a girl's dorm or vice versa they would be expelled.

In conclusion, Zoey 101 was poorly written and should have spent a few more years in the drafting process.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not going to lie and say I don't watch the show--I do. BUT it has a lot, and a lot of flaws. 1) The Boarding School is perfect. The drama is at a minimum. Everyone is so nice to each other, you know. Lets give that a reality check. Its IMPOSSIBLE that ANY school is perfect like PCA. Free laptops for everyone. Big dorm rooms. Mini fridges. If there was a school like that in real life, almost nobody there would be a virgin for one. Two, everyone there is so rich, and its weird how nobody has anything stolen yet. 2) Characters really unrealistic. First things first, who in they're right minds talk like they do. They talk like a perfect teenager would. Secondly, Logan Reese(Matthew Underwood) is an extremely rich boy \"hot\" teenage boy. My question is, why isn't almost ever girl in that school all over him? He's rich and \"hot\" now a days all those girls would be after him, even if he was a jerk. Also, Chase is the most stupidest person ever. He is this shy teenager who claims to not be in love with Zoey, and over-reacts to everything that involves Zoey. She must be BLIND not to see him in love with her.

Come on Nick. I know you can do better than THAT. Please..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Snake Island is one of those films that, whilst one sits and watches its amazing level of stupidity, makes one wish the film camera had never been invented. The real reason why Plan 9 From Outer Space will hold onto its honoured title of Worst Film Of All Time for a while to come is not so much because of how bad it is. It is because of the fact that it is the most entertaining bad film you will ever see. Snake Island is the other kind of bad. Snake Island is just so bad that it is excruciating. A stupid premise combines with a script that was written by monkeys tapping one-key typewriters onto transparencies that were then overlapped in order to resemble dialogue to make the most obvious problems here. Filmed entirely on location in South Africa, the environments in which the film takes place are about the only element that can truthfully be considered well-realised. Many shots involving snakes consist of close-ups so surreal in appearance that one begins to wonder whether said snakes are CGI, puppets, or real snakes that have been fed really hard drugs.

William Katt stars, if you can call it that, as an author traveling to an island resort on what appears to be a river ferry. Coming along with him is an assortment of very generic, poorly-defined characters. It is all a matter of random screen writing as to who survives to the end, but Katt certainly appears to be contemplating firing his agent. The rest of the cast seem to be from the Home And Away acting school, where any contemplation of an unpleasant plot point is accompanied by open-mouthed gaping and darting one's eyes about in every direction. The foley effects are often worse, with one memorable scene where a double-barreled shotgun sounds like the rather flat sound effects that used to accompany gunshots in such games as BioForge. Meanwhile, snakes continually explode or jump about at random. It would have been more accurate to call the film Snake Holocaust.

Of course, no Z-grade horror or sci-fi film is complete these days without gratuitous scenes of nubile women in a state of undress. As every woman in the cast, almost, gets their clothes off, the film starts to become less Snake Island and more Snake Island Orgy. But like all the worst piles, all there really is in this case is a lot of setup with no real payoff. The sex scenes never eventuate, and the deaths of characters are so flat, so uninteresting, that the entire film becomes pointless. Unless you consider watching William Katt running through a muggy forest wearing ill-fitting cricket gear and smashing snakes in all directions with a cricket bat a payoff. For the record, I don't. I used to think that Anaconda was the worst film ever made about predatory snakes. I was so very, very wrong. At least Anaconda had a snake one could be afraid of if they suspended disbelief for quite some time. Some of the snakes shown killing the human cast are no bigger than the shoelaces from some pairs of combat boots I have worn.

So we so far have the checklist for bad horror films running along nicely. The unrecognisable, lame cast are accounted for, as are poor audio and visual effects. The dialogue is so wretched, so ill-timed, that I have seen better writing and delivery during some of the school plays I have acted in many moons ago. Unfortunately, where Snake Island falters in this respect is the area fatal to all bad films. In essence, it forgets to be so bad that it is funny. It is so bad that it stops being good after the opening credits and becomes painful the second that the cast start to speak. Compared to William Katt's performance in Snake Island, Jon Voight's performance in Anaconda was as Oscar-worthy as Russell Crowe's in Gladiator. Not that Voight or Katt are necessarily bad actors, but with material like this, you're hard-pressed to say a single word naturally. Listening to some of the lines here was like being the victim of a violent crime. One's mind tends to blank out the experience, primary as a self-defense mechanism.

Because of the aforementioned failure to be entertainingly bad, I gave Snake Island a two out of ten. My special score for films that are so bad they cannot possibly be good, but not bad enough to entertain. It is all just so boring or pointless that one might as well be watching the test pattern. The proper way to spell \"crap\" is S-N-A-K-E-I-S-L-A-N-D.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually like movies about animals or reptiles turning against the mean old humans who threaten their environment, but I have to say Snake Island was a major letdown.

The premise is interesting, a group of people, including a writer numbly played by William Katt, goes to an island called, duh, you guessed it \"Snake Island\", and quess what the island lives up to it's name. That is one thing I will give this movie, there are snakes, LOTS and LOTS of snakes of all sizes and kinds. So that part of the movie in fairness lives up to its name, but the writing, acting and directing is SOOOOOOOO lame it is almost painful to sit through.

The characters are so unlikeable I was begging for the snakes to finish these horrible people off to put us all out of our misery. There are a couple of scenes that are so surreal and ridiculous they have be seen to be believed---snakes gyrating to really horrible disco music while 2 women dance seminude together and a scene with a snake holding some inane dialogue with one of the actors, it's beyond absurd. I think the writer was trying to be funny but this just came off like some weird LSD trip...

I remember William Katt years ago back when he starred in \"Carrie\", what a hunk he was..not that he was ever a major star, but to be reduced to this garbage, I feel for him.

Avoid this movie like the plague unless you are really into movies that feature lots and lots of snakes and really horrible humans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't waste your time. One of those cool-looking boxes that you pick up at Blockbuster on a hunch, but not even worth that. You will NOT say, \"It's so bad, it's good.\" Just, \"It's bad.\" The Greatest American Hero is a writer who rents a cabin on African island, called Snake Island. Some other tourists are on the boat that drops him off, but they are not staying on the island. They just stop there to let off the writer. Then the boat is stranded there, and --in true Hollywood originality-- the one and only radio on the island is busted. So they start walking around and see a bunch of snakes. Like hundreds of them, which really became annoying and you knew the plot would go nowhere. It's not like there ever was ONE main snake. Like a giant mutated snake or an extra poisonous king of all snakes. Instead, there are just a bunch of ham-and-egger snakes of all kinds of breeds. Their only goal, then, was to escape the island...as opposed to having to conquer the enemy. Because there were so many snakes, you knew they couldn't possibly try to kill them all, and they didn't try. I've seen a similar movie where a town was haunted by snakes and they lead all the snakes into a cave then blew it up. At least then you get the feeling that the good guys killed the bad guys and it was a normal ending. In Snake Island (by the way, every single character was shocked to see snakes on the Island...duhhhhh, it's NAMED Snake Island for a reason), there was no plan other than trying to get gas for the stupid boat. Oh, they never do get gas by the way. They \"just happen\" to find another boat on the island already gassed up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really don't think it's necessary that I write a review on a movie with a title as derisory as \"Snake Island\", but even in the abstract confines of its own genre, this hit a new low, so my anger must be known. The only reason why I even bothered to watch this unbelievably bad movie is because I knew it was going to be bad, it was really late at night, I could not sleep, and in the past, really bad movies would drain the energy out of me and make me long for slumber. It became very quickly very early on that this movie was going to be awful, but it condescended below even those expectations.

The movie was directed and written by Wayne Crawford, who also stars in the movie as a tourist guide on the African river, who ends up having to strand his team on a remote island called Snake Island until another boat comes down to pick them up. They hang out, get drunk, and then become subject to the onslaught of poisonous snakes who are on a mission to purge their island of human beings.

If your jaw dropped at the last sentence of my second paragraph, don't bother to reread it, you got it right the first time. Frankly, I prefer my creature features when the creature(s) just attack the nonsensically dumb humans out of hunger, not because they have some kind of a mission. These aren't mutant snakes. They're not giants like what you see in \"Anaconda.\" They're just ordinary, everyday African snakes like mambas and vipers\u0085only they have the brains to form armies, take up causes, work together to trap people, understand our language, and even dance! Did your draw drop again? Well, it's going to drop further. Amount midway through this awful B-movie, about the part where I'd already given up, the human characters start drinking around a campfire and then all of a sudden, they break down into some kind of an orgy. And while they dance nude and such, the snakes hunting them all of a sudden stop and start jamming along to it. The combination of this scene and the scene where we discover that snakes, some the most roguish creatures on the planet, have formed an alliance against human beings for some oddball reason, proved just too much for my poor brain. And just when I though the filmmakers couldn't take it to an even lower level, the snakes started to sing.

The people in the movie? Well, let's just say that never before have I rooted for the creatures to kill everybody off so quickly. I just could not stand it any longer.

I really don't think I need to keep going on; you get the picture. If there is anything that makes \"Snake Island\" any different from its other rivals, it's that it does dare to try to be even dumber and that's not a complimentary achievement. Why\u0097just why\u0097I continue to subject myself to these really bad movies, I guess I'll never really know. But \"Snake Island\" hits a brand new low. It's a cheap, trashy excuse for a motion picture that makes \"Anaconda,\" a brainless snake movie, look as brilliant and sophisticated and thrilling as Steven Spielberg's \"Jaws.\" You have been warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now we know where they got the idea of Snakes on a Plane. To put it bluntly, do not pay to see this movie. If you really want to waste 90 minutes of your life, then either catch it on cable, or get it as a free pick from NetFlix or Blockbuster. Do not pay to rent this. If you do pay to rent this, then you are one stupid individual. The acting was awful, the plot was awful, everything was awful except for the snakes. Whether they were real or CGI generated, they did look pretty good. But that being said, still this movie has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Even the nude dancing scene was pretty bad that I actually fast forwarded through that. Don't sat I did not warn you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A wide variety of snakes stage an uprising on tourists \"invading\" their island due their captain's boat damage. The few remaining survivors who aren't caught vulnerable by the snakes will attempt an escape mission, their goal to flee to available boats which can get them safely off the island.

Presented straight-faced with injected doses of visual humor featuring lots of snake gags, Wayne Crawford's SNAKE ISLAND features plenty of different breeds of the slithery predators, in striking position, ready to attack their prey. Star William Katt, as an author researching snakes for a forthcoming novel, has fun in his role along with writer \/ director \/ co-star Wayne Crawford(..as the tourist boat captain) as put-upon heroes who stare down a most serious crisis. Kate Connor is Crawford's attractive love interest, a lawyer on vacation. The other cast members serve as either tourists or crew, mostly fodder for the snakes.

As in many other movies of this type, director Crawford features live snakes with computer generated ones, and the violence is really tame. Crawford even incorporates the point-of-view technique with the camera as the eyes of the snake as it faces the potential victim(..with the actor looking directly into the camera). Never to be taken seriously, the tongue-in-cheek approach was probably the best way to shoot SNAKE ISLAND because the premise is just too ridiculous to accept on it's own.

The effects and suspense scenes rarely work because Crawford is often unable to successfully stage the sequences where humans face off with the snakes. The snake attacks themselves also never happen on screen(..one or two tops), or are so limply presented they leave little impression. That's a no-no for a genre such as this. Fans of Katt will probably want to check it out because he does provide some facial comedy that establishes the overall tone of certain scenes where he must defend himself against the snakes. The CGI scenes where we see a large number of snakes in a general area aren't very effective which remove the realism Crawford might've attempted to establish. There are plenty of better horror films featuring snakes as the aggressors than SNAKE ISLAND. Surprising moments of nudity, relegated to a scene where the tourists and crew unwind after a long day with the bubbly, not knowing what danger lie ahead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will not vote this movie as an awful one, mainly because i kind of like it, i was one of those summer days that i was so lame to do anything and decided do rent a movie in the stupid section of the videostore. Besides that i didn't slept in the nigh before and the movie got me awake...Let's just start the autopsy, OK, the movie haves a strange plot, first is isolation, there is an expedition, they get isolated in an island because there is no gas on the boat, something like that, there is not a single convincing performance on the actors part(so far), the main problem starts after the isolation idea, the POV of a snake, then another, ...then another, then snakes that change, then false spooks, a lot of them, and when we believe the movie is going on a good way for a b flick keeping the suspense it fails, because after ten or eleven spooks we don't get carried away, the one scene that unmistifies all is the scene when we witness a drunk lesbian show watched by snakes that seem to dance, after this it's becoming not a horror\\adventure but a comedy driven movie, the adventure part is discarded also.

For me the problem in a movie is the third act, it is the one section that just drives the movie for a already guessed conclusion, or if it succeeds we don't noticed it, like a ninja smoke in our eyes, well....Snake island haves a bad conclusion, it all comes to a \u00abby the book\u00bb ending, with a confront, persecution and escape sequence, it was predictable in the moment i rented the dam copy. The other real problem is concept, concept is very important, it is the reason you believe in dinosaurs coming to life or a corpse full of stitches that just wants to live, the main concept about snakes that want revenge after decades on torture by the human civilization, well...hmmm, just doesen't glues on the wall. One thing you will enjoy (if you watch it with an opened mind) is the more b-z sequences, naked lesbian girls, some amateur camera angles, the braindead homage with the grass cutter, the black dude doesen't die first, and thats all... if you want to see snakes, black dudes and comedy and you prefer bigger budgets go and see \u00absnakes on a plane\u00bb.

Hasta moviegoers","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of tourists are stranded on Snake Island after an unfortunate accident with their boat. They are forced to spend the night and as you probably suspected, it isn't called Snake Island because it's just soooooo much fun to say - it has a history of people disappearing one by one because of the large snake population, which is just what happens with these poor dumb souls. This is a very boring and typical movie with tons of off screen snake attacks and lousy performances from NOBODY actors. The only somewhat entertaining scene was an absolutely unnecessary and forced strip scene which ain't anything couldn't see in a PG13 rated movie, folks. If you are into snake movies than check out SSSSSSS, but don't torture yourself with this crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"George Sluizer of THE VANISHING fame ( He made both the haunting European original and the Hollywood remake ) directed CRIMETIME . He shouldn't really be blamed for this confused , poor movie because all the problems lie in Brendan Somers script . It's ill focused and lazily written . For instance the killer hangs around a nightclub waiting to pick up a victim , any victim and starts talking to a teenage girl . Cut to the next scene where she tells the villain \" I've told you everything about myself , tell me about your life ? \" Unfortunately the girl has told the baddie her life story off screen and is a terrible example of the screenwriter not being able to bring a character to life through dialogue . I know for a fact how bloody difficult this is but for a screenplay that is produced the writer should have tried harder

It's difficult to explain the message of the film . At some points it feels like it's trying to be a British NATURAL BORN KILLERS satarising the media's voyeurism with crime ( Perhaps it even influenced the infamous video game MANHUNT ) but the script isn't witty enough to carry this off . When you've got a sex scene that doesn't progress the plot or characters or hint of subtext you know you've got a badly written screenplay and CRIMETIME is a badly written screenplay","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The basic idea for this movie was good, but there was no real character development and the pacing was slow. Maybe because I saw it in a sloppily edited, pan&scanned video version ? (It went straight to video in France.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thinking that it could only get better was the worst assumption I ever made....

Drivvle does not describe this movie appropriately enough!

Not only is the plot thin, but I get more emotional acting from my pet fish!

It was a shame to see Pete Postlethwaite, whom I respect as an actor trying to do the best with the little he had to work with...

I think that a cardboard cut out of Stephen Baldwin would have done a better job , and in fact have been more animate.

Avoid at all costs! This could really be hazardous to your health!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Emperor's New Groove was a great twist for Disney. It wasn't a musical! It had clean, fresh jokes and no political twists. It was just a darn funny movie.

Kronk's New Groove, on the other hand, is tired and weak. My 3-year-old still loves Emperor's New Groove, but fell asleep during Kronk's. There really isn't any really conflict (that, in the first movie, lead to all of the wacky adventures). Because of the lack of conflict, it almost seems like the animators threw out the writers and just made the storyline up as they went along.

I kept waiting for something to happen that would make the movie fun . . . and still am.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...but of course I was wrong.

Now, I never expected to like the first movie. I'm not sure what's up with Disney's marketing group, but it seems that every trailer they make for an animated film ends up turning me off as too childish, or silly, or stupid, and yet the movies themselves are usually anything but. And no movie looked worse to me in the trailers than The Emperor's New Groove, which is why I was quite surprised to actually find myself quite enjoying that film when I finally broke down and saw it. I entered with zero expectations and came out pleasantly entertained.

Despite Disney's track record with direct-to-video sequels, I had nonetheless hoped for a better experience with Kronk here... but in the end I was nothing but disappointed (and unfortunately not exactly surprised that I felt that way). There's almost no humor targeted towards adults. The original songs are uninspired and sickly cute. The animation, while not bad, still doesn't come close to Emperor (which was no Lion King to start with).

The main plot, as such, is astoundingly \"minor\" and is comprised mainly of a sequence of mini-plot flashbacks - in fact the while thing felt more like a sequence of pilot episodes for a Saturday morning cartoon series than a well conceived single entity.

David Spade gets about four lines throughout the entire movie and there isn't exactly a lot of John Goodman either, so overall we're just left with far too much of Patrick Warburton's Kronk - who was entertaining as a secondary character in the first movie but is completely inappropriate as the main lead here.

Although kids might find it somewhat fun, the only thing Kronk's New Groove managed to do for me is make me want to go back and watch the far superior original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The EMPEROR'S NEW GROOVE cast returns for Disney Pictures follow up, but this time the spotlight is on Kronk(voiced by Patrick Warburton), who is no longer Yzma's(Eartha Kitt)henchman. Kronk has started a new life and is very happy with his role as chef of his own restaurant. Things go merrily along until Kronk gets word that his Papi(John Mahoney)is coming for a visit. Kronk is worried, because he knows that his life won't impress his Papi. One thing that he has always wanted and never received is a \"thumbs up\" from his dad. A flurry of blunders and a gigantic cheese explosion in the restaurant leaves our likable hero very deep in trouble and anxiety. To save the day, a little help from his friends.

Other voices: Tracey Ullman, David Spade, John Goodman, Wendie Malick, April Winchell and Gatlin Green.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This might sound weird, but I only got to see the first movie (The Emperor's New Groove, yaddayadda) a week ago and only because of one episode of the TV show. I simply adore Kuzco's character, but Kronk isn't that bad either. Anyway, eventually I decided to watch the second film, just so I would've seen it. Hoped it would be as good as the first one, but... I'm sorry to tell this, but the more the humour got American, the more I yawned. I agreed with Kuzco when he started crying seeing all the cheesy footage.

Still, younger kids and probably veterans too will love this movie to bits (if they like the old school moralising Disney that is), but I just had expectations that were an eensy teensy little bit hell of a lot higher than they should've been. Kronk is a lovely character, being good hearted and dumb all at once, but it were Pacha and Kuzco in drag that woke me up at the end of the movie. (I'll ignore Rudy... for as far that's possible).

Anyway, great movie, just not my style and as they say, you always have to be true to your groove.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really liked the movie 'The Emporer's New Groove', but watching this was like coming home and seeing your wife having \"relations\" with a llama. Seriously, this movie was bad. It's like Club Dread after Super Troopers. I am supposed to write 10 lines, but I don't even know what else to say. I laughed a couple of times, but only because I was drinking. A movie like that should at least be funny when your drunk. It was not. Maybe llamas are just funny and regular cartoon people aren't. Either way, just stick with The Emporer's New Groove if you want a funny, cartoon, llama-themed movie. Line 10 is this line right here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another direct to video movie from Disney, that is essentially perfect for the kids. The problem with Kronk's New Groove I find is that everything that made the first movie a fun great ride is replaced with a more sad and sombre film. In this movie, Kronk learns a great deal of lessons at many others' expenses. It takes away much time that could be spent at creating a more enjoyable film.

Kronk's New Groove deals with two stories: Yzma returns for payback and one Ms. Birdwell hopes to defeat Kronk's camp counseling championship. This all leads up to Kronk confronting his father and his disapproval over his son's direction in life.

From Lord of the Rings to Michael Jackson's Thriller, Kronk's New Groove recycles every bit of time that it allows to entertain its viewers. If you loved the original, or are looking forward to the upcoming TV series about Kuzco, I recommend Kronk to his loyal fans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What we have here the standard Disney direct to DVD sequel, where I would expect cots are cut in all areas resulting in an okay animated movie that falls well short of the original. That is not to say that this is a terrible movie it is just that it is a very mediocre movie full of the preachy messages intended to show children the virtues of friendship and being nice to one another and unless done subtly (which it is not here) can quickly become grating for adults. The film has a very thin plot line with Kronk trying to win the approval of his father, and ending up finding the true meaning of wealth and success. This has it's comedy moments but is really nor enough to carry a full length film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst waste of time I've ever experienced. not even close to the first one. The story line difficult to follow - plot was weak - at best. The whole thing looked like three stories trying some way to tie them together and make a movie. It had a few good lines here and there - and the attempt at the message was admirable, but they went from Houston through New York to get to Dallas. It was really hard to tell over what period of time the present time took up. The movie was just over an hour and it felt like we had sat there watching the movie all afternoon. Mayve points for being honest - but a son should not have to do all that Kronk felt he had to do. Do your self a favor - Watch Kuzco again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This coming from an adult who happened to come across the first one expecting a movie aimed towards children and was surprised at the adult humor that was in Emperors New Groove. The character i liked most of all was Kronk, so i was thrilled when i heard of the sequel (sp) featuring non other than \"Kronk\".

I just watched Kronk's New groove, it took me two days because i had to shut it off, i was so bored halfway through it. I finally watched the rest of it the next day and unfortunately the 2nd half was every bit as lame as the first.

Being a Disney film, i was expecting to have some musical scenes, however this one was filled with them and they were not amusing. The great thing i found about Emperors New Groove was that it could be appreciated by a wide audience, from toddlers to adults. Kronks New Groove in all honesty did nothing for me nor my girlfriend and we both loved the first. It is really aimed towards young children, the comedy is pretty childish, the musical scenes are not very well done and the plot itself is extremely corny.

Save yourself some money and rent this movie if possible because its definitely not worthy of a second viewing. I was extremely disappointed and shocked at how thrown together this film was. They actually managed to make a character(Kronk)not funny in this film, that is amazing in itself.

Obviously every ones opinion differs but i am very easily amused, i usually enjoy sequels (sp) even when others discredit them, mostly because i loved the first so much i needed more of the characters and no matter how bad the plot was i would enjoy the film. I cannot say the same for this one, i never would have thought i would be turning it off half way through due to pure boredom.

Buy at Own Risk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ewww! A Disney sequel that is rubbish! Who would have thought it? Actually, quite a lot judging by the comments here, and they aren't wrong. I actually looked forward to seeing this awful film based on my liking of the original. And therein lies Disney's whole \"cash-in\" mentality. Shovel out any old junk on the back of a success and people will go for it. Don't think they are that cynical? Ask yourself this, then....How many Disney films have sequels? And then....How many of those sequels spawn a follow-up? A significantly lower number.

Kronk's New Groove is just another example of this. The plot is laughably simplistic and drawn out. Even more annoying was the increased number of \"out of place\" items and scenes - an old folks home for example and, God forbid an Aztec version of the Boy Scouts! Worse yet, Kronk's opposing Chippamunk leader has a completely bewildering over-the-top English accent for no reason whatsoever. An accent that was, after a very short while, intensely grating on the nerves.

There are a couple of good things. The animation is very nice and the voice talent do well with the sub-standard dialogue they are given - especially Warburton in the lead role. But other than this there really is nothing to recommend it. Sure, little kids may like it, but there is little to amuse mum and dad whilst they sit through this tortuous maiming of the original concept.

Avoid this monstrosity with the same zeal you'd use in avoiding a pack of ravening man-eating lions.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When i heard they were making this i was quited happy considering the first film was pretty good, if a little on the short side.

But then i remembered some of the Disney sequel disasters i have previously watched (im looking at you Little mermaid 2).

Anyway i watched it and unfortunately i was very disappointed. The best thing about it is the animation is superb. It really has that special polish that the \"proper\" Disney films have.

Apart from that.. the rest is disappointing. The storyline is seriously all over the place. One moment its about something, then completely changes to another storyline and then changes to another completely different storyline. It reminded me of how the Family Guy movie was like 3 separate episodes, turned into a film.

I laughed perhaps once at the most. Kronk was very funny in the original film but in this he just isn't funny at all.

Stay away from this film, unless someone lends it to you for free.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't understand the humor in this film. I also found it offensive on how Koreans were depicted in that film, despite how it is actually just a caricature of Koreans in those areas. First, the actors are Japanese, and they make the most rude expressions of Koreans in that film. It disgusts me on how these people are expressed. I felt anger just watching that one scene, and how they were so badly made out in the film. The humor lasts just for one laugh, and then you don't understand why it's even funny. It's crude humor with the most disgusting representation of society there. I found it to be an offensive film overall... Maybe it was just because I never lived in the \"hood\" or saw any \"hood\" movies, but I don't intend to either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The is one of the worst spoofs I have ever seen. For one main reason: IT ISN'T FUNNY! I laughed a handful of times. The acting is bad, the script is worse. And why those guys had baby pacfiers in their hair I will never know. And you can tell this didn't have much of a budget to work with and it openly hurts the film. They had a good idea going in some parts but it never really came to past. And what was the point about the lead being older than his Dad? 3 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now I know that a lot of black humor pokes fun at typical black things like for example gold teeth. But that doesn't mean that they always are funny. Don't be a menace is an example of this. The urban movie certainly lends itself for satire. The problem is that Wayans and consorts not only try satirize the typical 'ghetto' culture, they also belittle valid statements that are made in urban movies such as Boyz 'n' the Hood or Menace II Society. Personally I think that the makers of this movie should get their heads away from the bowel movements of their white masters. Besides this, the movie in itself is terrible. It's absolutely not funny. The jokes are racist. Instead of satirizing the urban movie genre, the moviemakers show their views of the 'ignorant' urban (ghetto) blacks. Now there are some other jokes in this movie, but I believe this to be the main fare.

In conclusion this movie is crap and the makers should use their talents to make a constructive comedy\/satire movie. They have examples in Men With Black Hats (which was made before this movie) and Friday.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Menace\" is not funny. It tries hard - too hard. but rarely brings a smile. There is no acting, just mugging. One of the main characters wears a stupid grimace on his face the entire movie. No doubt as the less talented Wayans brothers starred, wrote and produced the film they were entirely blind to their lack of talent.

Menace consists of a series of unfunny, one joke skits. The punchline can be seen a mile off, but you have to wait until it all unfolds. No zippy one-liners or snappy dialogue here. Just one scene after another building up to the joke. The jokes themselves are juvenile. Loc Dog (the one with the perma-grimace) talks to a beautiful woman - but then she has ... bad breath and then she picks her nose and then, wait for it (remember you must always w-a-i-t) she farts! How funny is that? Ten-year old boys may find it funny as they won't have heard the jokes as many times before. Alternatively, if you like watching movies completely drunk or stoned then you will be able to follow along and may even find it amusing. The challenge will be getting drunk enough to reduce your mental state to the level of the movie without passing out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(mild spoilers)

This movie was filthy and stupid. It could have done well without the constant humping and nude sex. It was also very profane. I think that they had a good story developing, but they messed up the whole thing by overdoing it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ok, I will make this review short and to the point for those people whose mental capacity is perfect for watching this movie. Everybody knows of Motion Picture Association of America's ratings: G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17. For the purposes of this movie, I think the MPA should create a new rating standard: IQ-20.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Going by the good words of my friends, I hired this movie, hoping that it would at least equal the laughs of the similar movie, \"House Party\", but I was very disappointed, and very bored.

Falling asleep while watching a movie is never a good sign. I don't know whether this didn't appeal to me because I don't live in \"da hood\", or if I'm not black, but it's probably one of the two.

It tries to spoof a few movies, only coming up with a couple of laughs, but in the long run it fails miserably. Miss it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i have rated this movie a 1\/10 and have done this in good nature. this movie is not as it seems and i don;t get the point of it. take the first joke for instance. Their's that sign at the beginning to start. well that was OK but then they start having some guy talking about the hood and then he dies then theirs the other guys who talks then he dies after the other guy says people don;t get to their birthday with out dieing. and he gets a cake now. then he dies.

The jokes are just stupid they are;t that smart and i would have thought they would have been better from some one like the directors of scary movie:

Shawn Wayans (written by) & Marlon Wayans (written by) & Phil Beauman (written by)

but it sucked and i hop next time they want to make another comedy they make some good jokes not lame ones.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know, it's a movie. But when it comes to portray real life (in any matter) it should be as faithful as possible. I'm sorry, but \"El Misterio Gal\u00edndez\" isn't as accurate as it seems. Nor is the Dominican Republic depicted as it really is. In fact, it shocked me to see that the filming location for Santo Domingo was actually Cuba. And incredibly enough, movies with Cuban themes (Havana, The lost City, Bitter Sugar, The Godfather part II) were actually filmed in Santo Domingo! So what happened here? Why did they shoot the movie in Cuba instead of the D.R.? The Spanish dialogs with the Cuban accent are horrible! Those are not Dominicans! On the historic level, Gal\u00edndez would have never been hanged. He might as well been shot, decapitated or died from the inhumane torture he'd been receiving. Then, thrown his body in the Caribbean sea. But Trujillo would have never ordered death by strangulation. His sick mind wouldn't have allowed it.

Acting isn't delivered as expected. Harvey Keitel looks like he's just expecting a paycheck. I prefer the leading actress in \"Deep Blue Sea\". The rest of the cast would have been excellent in some Cuban movie, and the same goes for the selected shooting location.

I suggest \"La fiesta del chivo\" (The feast of the goat), from bestselling author Mario Vargas Llosa, directed by his cousin Luis Llosa. It's a bit more realistic with Dominican history. The Trujillo character is very well portrayed, and the Galindez incident is treated very briefly in this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"FC De Kampioenen's only reason for existence is it's local popularity. It has caused this sitcom to run for over 15 years (and still counting).

It deals about an amateur soccer team with the emphasis \"amateur\". Every storyline deals with the same subject: some misunderstanding that takes ridiculous (and predictable) proportions, to get resolved in the end.

The show's been running for over 15 years now, and the production probably decided not to change a winning team. Which means that the show has had minor changes over the course of years (besides a couple of actors getting replaced (they nearly all left by themselves rather than being thrown of the show)). The humor hasn't changed a bit over the years and it was already outdated when it first aired in the first place.

I guess you have to be Flemish to get this, and over 60 years old, to enjoy such an old fashioned TV show as this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We've seen a story like this before: a wife in marital troubles (played by Nastassja Kinski) engages in sex with a stranger (William Baldwin) and then wants to go back to her life with husband and girl. When she returns home she finds out that her husband has finally found a job. Everything seems bright. However, Kinski finds out that her husband's new boss is actually the stranger who still shows interest over her and seems to do anything to get what he wants. What to do? Say nothing?

I didn't really like the movie. While it wasn't just bad, it clearly lacked \"that something\". Maybe it should've focused more on what's going inside Kinski's head. Nothing to say about the actors themselves (I guess Baldwin was a good choice for the role of the obsessed boss) but the characters seemed somewhat stereotypical, acting the way you would see characters acting in your everyday TV films. Finally, the ending totally ruined what could have been an interesting plot.

In my opinion the movie tried to look cool, it had a bit of shaky camerawork here and there, some stills, fast cuts and glamour, but in the end I think it fits Spelling productions much better. Same goes for the music. Otherwise it didn't look that bad.

Some might like this but it definitely wasn't my cup of tea. To be fair, I don't usually watch much this type of thrillers. This one felt too long even if it was just an hour and a half long, I think it could've worked better as an hour long episode in some TV series. There was absolutely no need for some of the scenes, especially the shower scene.

My advice: Try before you buy!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Brief marital infidelity comes back to haunt loving wife Grace Needham (portrayed by the always sexy Nastassja Kinski).

She had left town, and her depressing husband, to embark on a trip to sunny Miami, where she was pursued and ultimately seduced by Julian Grant, a handsomely evil and manipulative business executive, who is portrayed very well by William Baldwin (why do all of the Baldwin brothers play evil people so damn well?)

The seducing of Grace took place as the two drank champagne on a deserted beach they reached privately by sailboat. Grace admitted she drank too much for her own good and revealed the many problems in her marriage. Julian gained her confidence by claiming he would never allow those types of problems to occur, if he had a relationship with Grace. Julian's manipulation continued as he described a \"lost at sea\" fantasy involving the now uninhibited Grace, who sat near, listening to his every word and becoming more and more engaged with his romantic dream.

His manipulation paid off as a few subtle nudges led to Grace's soft kisses, paused momentarily by her pulling back as if suddenly thinking to herself `What am I doing? I'm a wife. I'm a mother. I have a real life. Real responsibilities. Sure, the two of us have talked about being together, lost at sea, but that is just a fantasy. Look at what we're doing here. The consequences are real. We're really alone on a secluded beach. Am I going to let this fantasy really happen?'

She succumbs to the dream, as her kisses became more passionate. The once guarded Grace, who used to respond to men's propositions by saying \"I'm married\" enjoyed watching as Julian unbuttoned her shirt, leading to more kisses, body caresses and her climbing onto Julian's lap! She smiles, kisses, moans, laughs and frequently looks up at the sun throughout what unfortunately was a brief love-making scene in which everybody seemed to have most of their clothes on.

While I thoroughly enjoyed the look of illicit passion on Grace's face as the once devoted wife was being thoroughly satisfied by having sex with a man that clearly enjoys manipulating others, I will say that on the whole, the scene was undeserving of the movie's \"R\" rating.

Julian returned home to find her husband rejuvenated from his securing of a high paying job, and she is excited about being able to return to a normal life where she can once again be a loving wife and caring mother.

But the evil Julian Grant reenters the picture and is not willing to give up so easily on Grace. Grace has a plan to rid her life of Julian, but will it work?

Obviously, I don't want to ruin the remaining story line for you. However, I will say that I always enjoy movies involving sexual pretense by a wife (especially when she exhibits uninhibited attraction and behavior that is normally reserved for her husband) but in actuality, is seeking revenge against the antagonist. This movie would have been much, much better if the movie had included more of that in the story line. My feelings are if the movie brings it up, then the movie should finish it. And this movie definitely brought it up. Unfortunately, certain constraints in the story line prevented this from being significantly pursued. There are many other movies available that succeed with that very point, and I'll include their titles in the \"recommendations\" portion of this section. I'm also open to receiving emailed suggestions of other movies that contain a good story line involving sexual pretense on the part of a seemingly devoted wife.

Overall, Nastassja Kinski and William Baldwin are both very good. The movie is not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Egads.

I used to think Keannu Reeves was the worst actor in Hollywood. I not so sure anymore, Willy gives Keannu some stiff competition with his \"I'm made of plaster\" performance in this movie.

Combine that with the fact that there is almost no plot, and not a single likable character, and it's pretty hard to recommend this turkey.

Natasha tries her best, but even Julia Roberts couldn't save this flick from obscurity.

Avoid it unless it's really late and there's nothing else on. -Oh heck, in that case just read a book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Awful! Awful! Awful! Drab, unimaginative, predictable - and with all the usual suspects. Exactly the sort of film the Irish Film industry shouldn't be making. And with the added bonus of a treacle-coated ending. A sickening example of how talent & originality is by-passed in favour of an almost aggressive mediocrity. Yes - the children are sweet. Yes - it almost looks like it's done professionally. But this is film making by numbers, a direct smash and grab on what the director obviously thinks is 'success' - a film which patronises and despises the audience. It's quite amazing that Working Title would pour \u00a33m into this rubbish. But then, they paid for Love Actually. Don't waste your money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A blind person could have shot this movie better...seriously! The director is clearly a novice. He must be Dennis Hopper's coke dealer or something to convince him to be in this movie. I felt so embarrassed for Dennis.

To John, the director...PLEASE retire from directing. Your contribution is not needed nor wanted. The medium of film is stronger without you. You are terrible at directing. Stick to bagging groceries or something.

This movie should've bypassed \"straight to video\" and gone \"striaght to the trashcan.\" I'm a dumber person for having seen this movie. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE IF YOU RESPECT YOURSELF AND RESPECT THE ARTFORM OF FILM!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought Choke had potential, but I thought it could have been a much better film. It had some interesting twists and turns, but some of them seemed kind of pointless. When showing background on the two main characters, some of that really seemed to go awry. Most of it was sort of useless and didn't help the movie at all. This was also not Dennis Hopper's finest hour. However, the main saving grace of this movie for me was Michael Madsen. His performance was excellent. In this movie, he almost makes Mr. Blonde look like a nice guy. All in all, it was watchable. Still, I was left thinking some things could have been done differently. These things would have made the movie much better, in my opinion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hopper has never been worse as if he felt as this movie is worthy of only a grade B performance and he delivers a rather good one. Outside of Madsen and Hopper the acting is horrid; you've seen better at your local high school. The sound and at times the editing and camera shots are low end of B-movies. The scene with the peeping tom is of movies greatest gratuitous nudity scenes I've ever seen (it doesn't even come close to fitting in the movie). The script was probably a great 10-page outline, but when it comes out to a full-length movie there are more holes in it then the dead bodies Madsen left behind. I do have to say Hopper dressed in a nice suit driving the Hummer had me laughing out loud, but I don't think that was the intent. Yes there is a little style, and Hopper can always draw my interest. However the interesting plot concept never pays off and you are left wondering why you wasted your time watching this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worst movie i've ever seen. I still don't understand what Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen intend to do in. Maybe they had bills to pay... The best and cult part happens during a flashback which brings us during WWII when a Nazi officer hide his Jewish wife. That's the beginning of a typical serial killer life! It seems to be directed during the beginning of the 80's but then appears a New Beattle... Amazing! This movie was directed in 2001... I'm quite sure that it took less than two weeks to do that movie. I heard that Dennis Hopper's wife asked for divorce after she saw that picture and Michael Madsen's mother had a heart attack when the actor admitted to be the man under the yellow baseball hat. Pathetic!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I admit it now. This is one of the lamest films ever made. But, in Mr Sjogrens defense, the \"Not really\"-scene wasn't all bad!

And you gotta love the effort of going all the way to Sweden just to find a sweet Swedish 15 year old blonde, have her speak Swedish posing as the Jewish mother of Henry (dennis hopper).

What makes this scene so perfect is that Henrys father answers the blonde Swedish-speaking(Jewish?) girl in German...

The best actor\/actress of all in the film must be the nun who takes care of Henrys mother, this is a woman who has had no experience whatsoever of acting, but still puts in the most convincing performance of all!

All and all, this flick is nostalgia for me personally, it is after all what gave me a posting on IMDb:s database. :D

\/\/Feelin like a movie-star*","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think it's two years ago since I have seen the movie and till this day it's the worst film I have ever seen. The only thing I thought after seeing this movie was that it was made for some tax reason. So after all this time I finally spilled my gut ;) And now IMDb says I have to fill 10 lines with comments:

\"Sorry, you must provide at least 10 lines in your comment. Please return to the edit window (or use the BACK option if this isn't a new window).\"

Please there is nothing to say anymore...

Sorry for some bad English.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just can't imagine any possible reasons why Madsen and Hopper wanted to be in this movie after reading the script. They got blackmailed maybe? Or are they that badly out of money? The main problem with the movie is that it's boring. The conversations between Madsen's and Hopper's character are pointless, just like the bored chatting between two buddies while drinking beer on a saturday night. You never feel for any of the characters (although Madsen's psycho killer is very likeable, comparing to the other characters). Hopper always was a good actor, and Madsen does a fine job as the serial killer, otherwise the acting is almost laughable. There are about three scenes in the whole movie where something is actually happening, each of them last about three minutes. Although the \"talking and thinking about murder and the nature of murderers\" scenes would have been interesting, if they were scenes in a book. The whole concept would've been interesting for a novel, but a movie just can't bare with a story with that much inner thinking and so little action.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was very disappointing, and except for a few moments, wasn't fly at all. More than anything, it was just flippin' stupid. The music was frickin' bad and the plot played out like a BYU bowl game \u0096 very predictable (avoiding embarrassment by scoring, a late game flurry of touchdowns, a rally that falls short and leads to a loss). In essence, the half-childish \/ half-naive Will (the movie's fetcher) and his religiously confused brother Danny (we'll just call him a democrat), treat Kirby (the movie's \"Sweet Spirit\"), the 3rd member of their hapless Mormon \"boy band,\" like crap until the man and father figure of the film (the stage manager, Jill) has a talk with Will and straightens him out. Believably, Will's personality changes 180 degrees and he's instantly the mature and self-aware leader of the band. This would be a cute, perhaps funny, 10 minute roadshow gig, but the fact that the movie is 93 minutes long really sucks the life out of you if you watch it to the end. My advise \u0096 take the money you'd normally spend to rent this show and either burn it in your fireplace or flush it down the toilet \u0096 more entertainment with much less time commitment. If you want to watch a better movie of the same genre, get Saints and Soldiers \u0096 not a comedy but an infinitely better show (actually, Kirby has more funny stuff in Saints than he does in SOP).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I attended the premier last night. The movie started out with a bang (perhaps due to pre-premier excitement). The audience laughed for about 15 minutes, then most of us spent the rest of the time fighting off sleep. This movie can not be compared to _Spinal Tap_ or any of Guest's work, unless you want to say _Sons of Provo_ is a wanna-be gone awfully wrong. It just fell flat, it died, it was painful. The story went nowhere, the jokes were bland, even if you were a Mormon and could get all of the inside jokes, it felt like a waste of time. There were two redeeming qualities: Kirby's acting was spot on! And the songs were very clever (for an LDS audience only). So, my recommendations... Avoid the movie. And if you are Mormon, buy the music CD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was invited to an early screening of the movie about four months before it was released. I had to watch the film and later fill out a packet on my thoughts. It was THE hardest thing to sit through on earth. The show just crawls by, and you quickly begin wishing you were dead. The thing is, there are two types of Mormon films. The good ones with actual good stories, and the crappy ones that just plain stink. Saints and Soldiers, now there is a good movie. But, with these wannabe-comedies, the writers and the actors just try too hard. Basically, they try to be funny when they are not. No wonder why there is such a small target audience for these films; they're filled with 'inside jokes' that aren't funny to begin with, and they just try to poke fun at average things. It's the story that makes the movie, and the stories for these movies are just weak. I bet you can guess what my packet looked like when I was told to fill it out after the movie. ;)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alice Dodgson,a New York doctor gets her license suspended when she treats one of her patients with an unapproved drug,resulting in the patient's death.Without a job,Alice is forced to go to Jamaica,where she tends to the brother of a wealthy white landowner.The brother thinks he's a zombie and is deeply involved in the local people's voodoo practices and rituals.\"Ritual\" is a mediocre horror flick.The action is pretty dull,the plot twists are silly and there is no suspense.There is a bit of gore as someone is killing off white people with a machete,but not too much.The cinematography is decent,however the acting is truly woeful.Definitely one to avoid.4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can barely find the words to describe how much this piece of trash offended me. Why is it that American filmmakers always go out of there way to portray Jamaicans as a bunch of backwards ass bush babies and worse yet, cast people to play Jamaicans who sound utterly ridiculous when they try to imitate the accent? We are not all extremely dark, we do not all walk around carrying machetes whether for work OR PROTECTION, we do not walk around naked in our homes and we do not practice VOODOO!! We are doctors, lawyers, architects, Businessmen and women, musicians, actors AND FILMMAKERS. I am sick and tired of watching all of these portrayals of Jamaicans as a bunch of dreadlock wearing Rastafarians who do nothing but sit around all day smoking weed on a beach or shooting guns in the air (When we're not living in our tree houses). YES, we wear clothes. YES, we have electricity. No, weed is not legal on the island AND CHANCES ARE WE SPEAK BETTER English THAN YOU! The worst part is, this isn't just me being angry and bitter, these are actual answers to questions that most Jamaicans who have traveled overseas have been asked at some point. Read a book before you assume what's it's like in another country and worse yet, decide to make a movie about it.

WELCOME TO JAMAICA! The land where all we do is murder white people and beat our bongos drums...Tales from the Crypt has officially sickened me, along with the entire crew of people who worked on this garbage, especially the writer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This turned out all right and looks interesting. However, as it goes on the attempts at creating emotions between the characters is so inept that it really turns the horror off and is an insult to serious viewers. The story this is based on \"I walked with a zombie\" is probably much better although unfortunately I haven\u00b4t seen it yet. \"Ritual\" looks so exciting and could have been a great movie about zombies and voodoo but in reality it has turned out very poorly which is a shame. It\u00b4s hard to say what is wrong with it. I guess there are just too many inept scenes and it is hard to believe, for example, in the lovestory between Alice (who is called Alice Dodgson like the girl who supposedly inspired Lewis Carrol to call his heroine Alice) and the younger brother. Absolutely nothing has been built up between them and then in the end they get married. Anyway, this looks great, and it was worth a look - but the movie is just so poorly performed. 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tim Curry was the reason I wanted to see this film, and while of course his appearance is always entertaining, he's basically wasted in it. The rest of the cast doesn't fare too well either, in this remake of an early zombie movie that has extremely graphic effects that are totally unnecessary. To quote a popular axiom, sometimes less is more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was the one of the first, of the 70s women-in-prison film genre. This movie was incredibly violent, with lots of sadistic torture being inflicted on the inmates. The film takes place in the Phillipines, which looks like a horribly ugly country. No doubt, the producers used this factor to their advantage, to emphasize the gruesome situation that the prisoners were in.

Blaxploitation movie queen Pam Grier, has the starring role in this movie. She plays Blossom, a renegade who gets thrown in the vile women's prison, on trumped-up charges. Her boyfriend, played by Sid Haig, tries to rescue Blossom. He and Blossom are part of a political guerrilla faction, and Blossom's incarceration was orchestrated by the corrupt, Phillipino government.

Pam Grier and Sid Haig, stand-out amongst the otherwise lackluster cast. The film itself, put way too much emphasis on violence perpetrated against the prisoners. Their captors just used them solely as objects of their sadism. This got boring real fast. This movie could've used more interesting plot-lines, and subtlety. This is not one of Roger Corman's better pictures. The many women-in-prison films that followed this one, were much better all around. I'd recommend The Big Bird Cage, only to Pam Grier fans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was the typical women prison movie. I thought the women were very sexy and the outfits were great. All the camera did was focus on the women and the women were always in provocative poses for the camera and they were always scantily dressed(which I loved). This is your basic prison\/breakout movie of the 70's. All I can say about this film is that it's extremely cheesy, but the women are gorgeous and their butts are great!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some of the reviewers of this film were extremely \"generous\" with praise. I personally was disappointed, because due to those reviews, I was optimistic as the opening credits began to roll.

The all-too familiar story line goes like this: Deformed boy and his father live out in Louisiana swamp. Local boys ridicule and torment him. Local boys start Gruesome's, oh sorry, I mean Victor Crowley's cabin on fire with him in it. Dad attempts to rescue his son, formerly known as Eddie Munster meets the Elephant Man, but accidentally puts a hatchet through the kid's head instead. Victor becomes a murderous ghost who hunts down unfortunates who enter his domain. Oooo... scary.

One thing I appreciated about Hatchet was that it never took itself seriously and some of the gags even made me laugh. The thing is, I've grown tired of the Hollywood-polished, B-horror slap-sticks. I like to laugh and I enjoy a good scare, but this film didn't deliver a solid dose of either. As for Crowley being the next Michael, Jason, or Freddy... Pumpkinhead has a better chance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Any horror film that casts Robert Englund (Freddie Kruger!) then kills him in the opening 5 minutes before the opening credits have even run should be instantly viewed with nothing but suspicion.

Tony Todd (Candyman!) as a swamp tour guide (his James Earl Jones voice impression is hysterical by the way, I don't know or care if he was trying to be funny but I was laughing at it). Sadly his role was all of 5 minutes long as well. More reasons for suspicion and quite rightly so.

Mercedes McNab (AKA Harmony from Buffy & Angel, I had to look her up to see what I remembered her from but she gets semi-naked!), Marcus the token black guy (Not Another Teen Movie) is filling a comedy role that really isn't required in a horror movie unless it's intended as a spoof.

Joel Murray (Bill Murray's brother & Pete from Dharma & Greg) plays Shapiro, the guy shooting the gonzo video with the 2 cute girls. As they take a \"Spooky Swap Ghost Tour\" the 2 lead male characters meet up with some other folks and get run aground on rocks and have to leave the boat. So their now all isolated in the swamp at night in the rain.

Once the real story of Victor Crowley has been told (his make-up looked like Sloth from The Goonies) we have established he is dead (well you aren't coming back from being hit in the skull by an Axe!) Once the old guy is attacked, despite pulling her gun and having a very clear shot it takes Marybeth more than 30 seconds to actually start firing at a guy who is hacking an old man apart with a hatchet. Is she stupid? Thats 29 second too long! In terms of plot there really isn't one (I don't class undead psycho as a plot, sorry) and the pacing is really bad as well. You have a killing, some running away, some light relief then some slow dialogue before beginning the cycle again.

After an extremely long scene investigating a wobbly bush with a raccoon in it Victor appears again (with some sort of power tool) and kills the dark haired porno girl, he also manages to slice the tour guide in half with a Shovel? Once Misty is left on her own to keep lookout for Ben I felt it was pretty obvious she was going to be the next to die (I was right but you don't get to see it).

Film makers? Rain will NOT extinguish burning gasoline, OK? Idiots! Obviously after the 2 near misses in the cemetery Marcus was next to die and Ben was hurt in the foot with the spike but they managed to find a boat after impaling Victor on the spike.

She's pulled into the water by something unseen, he's trying to save her then she's suddenly pulled into the boat by Victor and is screaming and the movie abruptly ends.

Yeah, just like that. No clue if Ben was dead (he seemed to be missing an arm) and no clue if Marybeth was going to survive and what happened with Victor.

It's an awful ending and no doubt my verbal attack at the film makers got the last review deleted. So much for free speech, eh?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I read the recent comments and couldn't wait to see the movie. however, after sitting through 80 minutes of predictable \"suprises\" that didn't even make me jump and unrealistic villain, i was left hugely disappointed. I thought cartoons were the only movies that were still only 80 minutes long. I thought this might be because of the edits to make it 'R' rated, but the original only contained ten more minutes of \"Kill Bill\" type blood. When blood sprays out like hoses, reality loses appeal. Add in the killer who's supposed to be a \"ghost\" but can rip someones head off from the jaw (ala King Kong with the T-Rex), lives through everything and has an ending similar to that of the sopranos finale and you quite possibly have the most over-hyped movie in the last year. After watching the movie i felt like i had seen countless movies with the same plot and method and also felt largely unsatisfied. I dunno what everyone else saw in it, but if you want a good horror movie this weekend, see Halloween, it's definitely worth the $10. When it comes to Hatchet, let's hope the next one IS based on the Book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst films I've seen for years. The storyline has potential that is never realized. The actors are a poor choice, but considering the screen writing, their talent isn't wasted. I really wanted everyone dead as quickly as possible so I could get out and watch something else. Unfortunately, I did stay to the end and had a laugh at the murmurs of people moaning about how crappy this is. There wasn't booing, after all, this is England, just gentle moans about how crap that was. Then, I look on IMDb and see 288 people have given it 10 out of 10. I really just cannot see how those people are able to give that score. They must be a PR company working with the distributor. There's a hilarious set problem towards the end of the film, when in the graveyard and the hick attacks, look out for the dodgy scenery that rocks when touched (supposed to be a brick wall) - the blood effects are waaaay OTT - the film feels like everyone is making a spoof horror except the Director.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's important to check your expectations when you see HATCHET. The *buzz that has been generated on this site far surpasses the real impact of the movie. What may help someone about to see the movie is to realize that it is --not supposed to be scary--. It is pure camp and an attempt at fun. It is not --funny--, just campy. Don't expect something like SHAUN OF THE DEAD; nor something like Friday THE 13TH (Part II through infinity).

HATCHET does possess passable actors. The cinematography is straight Ed Wood. Creature effects and make-up are silly - probably on purpose. Gore and blood is something between Romero and DEAD ALIVE. HATCHET is a movie of betweenness. It's between SHAUN OF THE DEAD and LESLIE VERNON. It's between campy and comedy (there's a difference). It's between ultra violent and violent comic book.

Instead of \"capturing the essence of American Horror,\" or whatever other silly jargon that has been used to describe the movie, it tries to capture something between seminal --American-- Horror like Friday THE 13TH and new Horror like SHAUN. It thankfully stays away from Torture Horror.

In the end HATCHET is between a bad movie and a decent movie.

*I think it is happening more and more that people involved in movies are flocking to sites like IMDb to rate and comment on the movies that they are involved with. At very least there is campaigning going on for people associated with the associates to leave positive feedback and ratings. There is no other reason for this movie to have stared out in the high 7s with 600 votes and quickly fall after wide release. This movie is on just better than the HorrorFest releases and should not be so bloated.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me just give you guys some advice, if your going to watch this movie just to see a bunch of unlikable characters get slaughtered in a dozen different ways then you are going to love this movie because everyone dies a horrible death, beyond the gore however there is not much else.

where should i start: -the characters do not appeal to the audience as there are no back stories for any of them, there for i didn't feel connected to any of them, in fact i didn't like any of them, and i was so sick of them that by the end of the movie i was rooting for the disfigured creep to kill them all.(which he did by the way)

-bad acting; i mean i didn't get it, take the Asian tour guide for example, first he spoke perfect English then after their little tour boat thing sunk he somehow got an accent out of the blue, then later on went to speaking normal English.

-one of the worst endings for a horror:(if you can call it that)after the monster\/human mutant thing kills almost everyone, he is killed by the last two remaining idiots, or so they thought! the monster\/human thing is finally killed when the beauty and the geek stick a pole through its heart\/nick(it was hard to tell)and presumably it died right in front of them(within arms reach) but later on it comes back and kills them(wtf) i mean why didn't it just kill them when he was right next to them. Arghhhh! i mean it was just way too retarded,it was like the writer didn't know where he wanted the story to go.(or he was a few minutes short of 80 min so he added some more retarded twists to the movie so people can get 80min worth of crap instead of 75min.

what i didn't get was why didn't they just kill the damned thing while it was unconscious, instead they just walked away from it like idiots and left it so it could come back and kill them. the only reason i gave it a 4 was because of the gore which was actually the only thing that i watched this movie to the end for, that and to watch them all get killed.(no, i'm serious)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"is it just me or have all \"horror\" movies become nothing more than titties, slapstick, and an over the top villain who cannot be killed. this movie had no point. whatever happened to the days of a person being able to escape from the killer as in hostel. and at least make the killer a little more realistic. victor crowley was the worst killer i have ever seen. he reminded me of a demon spawn between quasimodo and leatherface. it was over the top that while victor was lying there on fire no one thought to finish the job. and the ending was the biggest disappointment of all reminiscent of the soprano's finale. i had to agree with the fella behind me when he blurted... WHAT THE F***! if i could give the movie a negative score i would have taken care of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Saying this movie is worse than asphyxiating on your own diarrhea is a generous understatement. The only thing more pathetic than this reprehensible piece of garbage of a movie is the shmuck getting paid by the producers to register a bunch of accounts to post fake appraise.

If watching a poorly-acted, suspenseless, snoozer of a movie about Sloth from the Goonies kill people in a fashion that completely ignores every law of physics (pulling on an unrestrained person's legs, causing them to be ripped from the torso) is your idea of a good movie, then knock yourself out.

No carbon-based lifeform with a functioning occipital lobe would consider in a million eons that this movie is scary or entertaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A terrible movie that is amateurish on almost every level - a boring and derivative screenplay filled with stereotyped characters played by embarrassed actors for a director lacking the most rudimentary understanding of his craft. The whole thing stinks. It plays like a slasher movie from the early eighties, down to the crappy score and ketchup SFX, but without the childhood nostalgia that is required to look fondly on such dross. One of the worst horror films I've ever seen - definitely the worst that received a mainstream theatrical release. I've never walked out of a film in my life - had I been unlucky enough to see 'Hatchet' at the theater, it would have been a first. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"am a hardcore horror\/thriller fan...when i was searchin for good horror flick to scare me on my weekend night..grabbed HATCHET..with impressing BLOOD STAINED HATCHET movie poster added to average ratings in IMDb..but i was wrong after watchin this crap...no characterisation..sick dialogues,with sexy babes bared boobs. i got the feel of watchin porno certainly..and the substory which so called main theme or suspense of the story SUCKS big time....and here comes the CLOWN wearin funny mask to scare..THINK users rated this movie went nuts ..it deserves 1 out of 10 i give 2 for bare boobs babes n soundtrack it has...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like \"The Blair Witch Project\" before it, \"Hatchet\" has garnered its own fair share of publicity from the bottom-on-up (as an avid reader of Fangoria Magazine, the full-page ads are hard to miss); even after its middling theatrical run, the film is bound to subsist solely on the hype surrounding it, and will probably turn into a cult item at some point. With a MySpace URL and a mighty (if puzzlingly subjective) promise of preserving so-called \"old school American horror,\" \"Hatchet\" will draw a lot of curiosity seekers with its DVD release (where that claim is emblazoned on the disc itself). Perhaps it was the large-print blurb from Ain't It Cool News on the ads that caused me to approach the film with some trepidation (it seems that Harry Knowles and his minions will approve of any film for VIP passes and free food), but \"Hatchet\" makes me question what writer-director Adam Green's idea of \"old school American horror\" really is: based on the evidence here, it means the insipid, late-'80s rip-offs of \"Friday the 13th\" and \"Deliverance.\" The characters are obnoxious stereotypes (black Chris Tucker type, Survivalist Chick, Topless Bimbos, Requisite Old Couple, Asian Tour Guide) whose interactions are marred by painful, trying-to-be-hip dialogues and mostly obvious stabs at humor (not quite as bad as \"Cabin Fever,\" but still); the script has too much padding (the \"rustling bush\" scene, for example), and \"Hatchet\" winds up as typical as any postmodern slasher of the last decade, with its only distinguishing trait an expertly-calculated hype machine. I'll give it some faint praise for the gore--if you can wade through the padding in between kills, the red vino is definitely a thing of wonder, and the only real reason to watch this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Harry Knowles has a quote right on the front cover of the DVD stating\"The Next Icon of Horror\" Really?!?!?!? I have heard a lot of hype surrounding this one but wasn't totally convinced. However I am a die hard horror fan and will give just about any horror movie a chance. No matter the budget or the rating cause ya never know where your gonna find the next gem. Not here.Not Hatchet. Hatchet is poorly conceived,poorly acted and un funny. Just because you have the actors who played Freddy Jason and Candyman and a Buffy chic topless with tons of gore does not make you an expert on horror.Sorry. I don't even want to describe the plot because it is so idiotic. Honestly my money is on Rob Zombie. There is a man who knows old school horror. Forget this trash.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I first heard of this movie at the \"Flashback Weekend\" in Chicago 2007 for the \"Nightmare on Elm Street\". Robert Englund was really talking the movie up and he was great in his part of \"Hatchet\". The same can be said for Tony Todd. Knowing this is a low budget first time director \/ writer it delivers every bit as much as the big budget and also cameo laden \"Holloween\" (2007) remake\/re-imagining.

Technically it falls short in a couple of places. The alligator attack seen was shoot too dark. When it happened the dark head of the alligator against the swamp clamping on to the black pants became almost invisible. The mood music in the swamp scenes was too loud in volume and canned, like a bad sitcom. And just like \"Holloween\" (2007) someone is smart enough to have a gun, but of course shooting the killer is only a pause button for the killer. The ending, well, as soon as I saw where it was going I knew what was going to happen, not very original.

The highlights of the movie are the characters and their interactions. Unlike \"Holloween\" (2007) we got to meet the people and care what happened to them. Ben (Joel Moore, who is also the lead of \"Spiral\")the sulking lead and Marcus (\"Not Another Teen Movie\")as the best friend and funny man to root for during the movie. Shapiro (Joel Murry \"Dharma & Greg\"), Jenna (Joleigh Fioreavanti) and Misty (Mercedes McNab of \"Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Series\", \"Angel: The Series\" and \"The Addams Family\" movies) give a convoluted reason for topless women. Mr. and Mrs. Permatteo played by television regulars (Richard Riehle \"Grounded for Life\", Patrika Darbo \"Step by Step\")as the older couple that you know don't stand a chance, even the tour guide Shawn (Parry Shen) is a fleshed out character. I hope to see more from all involved in this film, but I think it will play better on home video than in the theater, sorry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't understand what the big hype was about this film. All the horror sites were saying that this movie had all the essentials of an 'old American slasher' flick that it would satisfy your needs. -- Even though this was similar to an old American slasher flick, my needs were still not satisfied.

My big problem with this movie is that we are now in the 2000's, not the 1980's. 1980's horror is the past and should stay in the past. Horror movies have changed so much that older movies now look cheesy and unrealistic. Even though they are fun to watch, they don't offer the same realistic blood thirsty gore that the recent films offer.

Hatchet is cheesy, unrealistic, and down-right awful. If we wanted to watch an old American slasher flick, i can just go back to the Friday the 13th series, Nightmare on Elm street series, or the Halloween series. I must admit, the movie is better than some of the horror movies being released but it is among the worst. The jokes are not funny and the actors are horrible.

I would personally stay away from this movie and never look back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is one of the worse examples of hype. People who read IMDb comments might be tempted to view this total waste of time, as I was, by false tag-lines like \" A throwback to 80's horror\" and what-not. This movie sucks, from the acting to the directing to the story. Horrible, all across the board. And I really like GOOD horror films, I am not at all a snob. This sucked. For reference, I loved The Grudge 1 and 2, Black Sheep, Planet Terror, Texas Chaisaw Massacre The Beginning, The Others, The Ring, Jason X, Slither, Planet Terror, and really hated The Ring 2, Texas Chainsaw Massacre(re-make)Wolf Creek, The Hills Have Eyes(re-make)Hostel 1 and 2, and this movie. Gore doesn't trump fun or originality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"another eli roth in the making. self promoting, bad script writing excuse for a horror director. victor is as far from the new horror icon as mary poppins (reference to the Disney score). what is going on here? you have marilyn manson opening and closing this piece of crap and chitty chitty bang bang all through it. can this even be called horror? horrible, yes, but horror is a stretch. David lynch should sue them for stealing the elephant man prosthetics. please stop these fan boy want to be directors now. the video directors already have enough competition breaking into the film industry. getting online and talking about how great your movie is does not make it true. stop the insanity. i work in the industry and yes these films are fun to work on, but rarely ever entertaining to actually watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A washed up reporter called Bart Crosbie (Pat O' Brien) blackmails gang boss Heinz Webber (George Colouris) for the money to pay for his son to have a life saving operation. In return he agrees to turn himself in for the murder of his editor, whom the gang killed in order to prevent an incriminating story being printed about them.

Typical poverty-row b-pic of the time directed for far more than it's worth by Terence Fisher, who within months of making this would become one of the leading British horror film directors at the Hammer studio. The script is far-fetched and teen idol Tommy Steele (guitar in hand) was drafted in to sing a poor rock and roll number called \"The Rebel\" at a coffee bar that acts as a legitimate front for the gang's activities.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stodgy drama starring Pat O'Brien as a washed-up reporter who turns up at his ex-boss's house to ask for money to fund his son's operation, only to find him dead on the floor. Since O'Brien knows the identity of the culprit, he offers to take the rap in return for the money he needs. A decent premise is wasted on a film that pretends it has surprises, twists and turns, even though it really doesn't. Performances are rotten across the board, the movie dresses itself up as a hard-boiled American noir but the mix of dodgy accents doesn't work, and the story is hardly gripping. And it contains possibly the least attractive screen kiss of all time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being stuck in bed with the flu and feeling too rough to get up to find the remote, I actually watched this abomination from start to finish (how many people can say that? And for any who can - what's your excuse?). My God, has there ever, EVER been such a total mess released by a major studio? There is not one second of genuine tension in a supposed \"thriller\"; the script is inept and ludicrous; the sets look like they were leftovers from a low-budget TV movie; and the cast ... WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!!! Sally Field gives what is without doubt the worst and most embarrassing performance of any Academy Award winner in history. Her irritating nasal whine and stupidly perky behaviour in what is meant to be a life-threatening situation are truly asinine. It's a wonder she didn't use all her future earnings to buy up and destroy every print of this turkey. Michael Caine, who now pontificates endlessly on the art of screen acting - even running master classes for would-be thespians - should be taken out and shot (preferably by one of Telly Savalas' henchmen). Angela Cartwright, an actress I usually like (and whose name isn't even in the opening credits, poor soul), is ten years too old for her role, and her horrible matronly yellow prom dress must haunt her nightmares to this day. Slumming it are Karl Malden and Shirley Knight - hopefully they collected a big pay packet to assuage their involvement. The whole film is a series of bad scenes, but one that especially sticks in my mind is the explosion which results in the \"ceiling\" (if an upside-down ship's deck can be termed as such) collapsing and a load of empty cardboard boxes falling through! Ooh, how scary! Really, really, terrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...but other than that, there's almost no redeeming social value to this sequel to the original Poseidon Adventure. Where the heck are all the people from the original, including the rescue crew? Michael Caine undergoes his most humiliating performance to date (although he later trumps himself with Jaws 4 down the road). Slim Pickens is just embarrassing as a stereotyped Texas, and generally you just have to wonder, \"Why did they bother?\" Irwin Allen's last stab at cashing in on the disaster craze, I guess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I accidentally caught this in the middle flipping channels. I immediately recognized almost everyone in the cast, \"groovy\" haircuts aside, and wondered what kind of film could attract such a cast of both past and future stars? Having not seen the original, I guessed it might be the Poseidon Adventure, since it was obviously on a ship in distress. Was I wrong! I cannot for the life of me imagine why any of these great (or promising) actors and actresses would allow their name to be associated with such trash. There is no story, the performances all looked forced, the characters a parody of the usual disaster movie roles that are suddenly brought together by an event, and start pontificating about the real meaning of life at the level of bumper sticker philosophy.

It is only worthwhile to see the unusually awful performances by such greats as Sally Field, Michael Caine, et al. They must have needed the money badly. Can we blame the director?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe here in Sydney we are all poop side down and as a result we get to lap up floaters like this s-eek!-uel in classy theaters. Released here in 1980 this hilarious all-tar drama was greeted with howls of delight at the session I attended. In fact the audience were so into the ludicrous antics on screen it played like a Rocky Horror session. Within 5 minutes we all knew it was a real disaster: the tug boat scene where you can see the buckets of water tossed in from off-set. after that it was every patron for himself and the cinema rang with advice, cheering for bad acting and oo-waah reactions. The gunfight in the hold among the crates is especially idiotic and allows drunken viewers with friends in altered states also watching to contribute appropriately. I call these films with Michael Caine his holiday house films as I always reckon he agrees to do them because he has seen a house he likes and doesn't want to spend his savings. Like Jaws 3 or 4 or whatever it was called.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sequels, well there are many reasons to make 'em but what went through Irwin Allen's mind to come up with such a boring idea is beyond all logical matters. There are so many open answers to this movie that it is ridiculous...like The Poseidon which is a monstruous ship with passengers on is drifting on the sea and just Michael Caine with his miniboat and an evil Telly Savalas discover the boat...well, at the beginning the French marine are circling above the wreck with their helicopter but as a sinking cruiseship is a daily thing, they just fly away... What am I trying to say??? Hmmm, Michael Caine goes on board with sally Field and he might pick up everything he sees (diamonds)if there wasn't a Telly Savalas who is looking for weapons on the ship...my God, why in fact am I wasting my words on here? It's ridiculous and knowing that both Field and Caine were involved makes you think what went through their minds when reading scripts....certainly not diamonds....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wretched. Talk about botched. BEYOND THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE is bad in every respect. Salvagers Michael Caine and Karl Malden decide to tow the wreck of the eponymous ocean liner with a really creaky tug boat. They're challenged by ruthless Telly Savalas and his gang of machine-gun toting goons. This part sequel, part remake has Caine, Malden and ANOTHER group of Poseidon survivors making a similarly dangerous trek out of the sinking ship. Among this group are Shirley Jones, Slim Pickens, Peter Boyle, Shirley Knight and Slim Pickens. Jack Warden plays a blind man. Surely, you'll wish you were blind after seeing this mess. Sally Field is particularly annoying as a stowaway on board Caine's tug.

Disaster master Irwin Allen not only produced this one, he decided to direct it as well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Awkward disaster mishmash has a team of scavengers coming across the overturned S.S. Poseidon, hoping to loot it before it goes under for good. Irwin Allen's sequel to his 1972 blockbuster \"The Poseidon Adventure\" arrived in theaters SEVEN YEARS LATER! Never mind that nobody cared anymore, why give us such a shoddy production, filled with dim characters and miscast actors, only to trash the memory of your biggest hit? One might end up feeling really sorry for Michael Caine, Sally Field, Peter Boyle, Jack Warden, Karl Malden and Shirley Jones were it not for their lost-at-sea expressions (good for a few stray laughs). There's a moment when saintly Jones is tempted into taking some treasures just for herself and she timidly starts stuffing her pockets that is an unintended hoot. The film was a career bungler for all concerned, most especially Allen, who never quite recovered from this. * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is in a dead tie with the original for worst film ever made. I think this one may be slightly worse, if anything. SPOILER ALERT!!! Here are these survivors on a ship that's been capsized for a long time. Improbable? No - IMPOSSIBLE. The whole premise is so laughable as to not be funny. There are some pretty big names in the film, and even they couldn't save this sorry thing. I find it truly a waste of good celluloid. After seeing this, I also unfortunately decided that it had been a waste of my time. Don't bother with this one. Or the original for that matter! I gave it a 2, mainly because they throw votes of 1 out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"4 Oscar winners, Karl Malden, Sally Field, Shirley Jones, Michael Caine. Great character actors Telly Savalas and Peter Boyle. 1 hour 54 minutes of sheer tedium, melodrama and horrible acting, a mess of a script, and a sinking feeling of GOOD LORD, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

Irwin Allen was just trying to cash in on the popularity of the original classic disaster film with a grade D minus script, the actors were obviously just in it for the paycheck as well,... the horror, the horror!

How insane are the characters that Caine, Savalas, Malden and Field are playing? Go into a potentially deadly sinking ship that's 1. on fire 2. Hot from steam 3. Slippery from water and oil, 4. boilers that are exploding every 5 minutes, etc., all for the love of money? Greed? 5. They have very little equipment, not even a pair of gloves or work boots in sight, much less a grappling hook, rope, etc.

Stupidity!

What were they thinking?

Peter Boyle overacts so much that I just wanted to smack him! Stop it! And what's the deal with the bad toupee? Also, there is no way you can believe his character was a WW2 veteran.

Caine, Field and Malden find all that gold and money and they are happy--whoopee! We're rich! (We may not live to spend it, but hey...)

And yee haw, it's the great character actor Slim Pickens!

Survivors galore! Jack Warden and Shirley Knight, too!

The final dramatic sub plot about that scary plutonium never really went anywhere, it's like they forgot, sort of? Lots of holes in the script.

This film has an illness that the strongest pill couldn't cure. I'm surprised Alan J. Smithee's name wasn't on the script, I'd be embarrassed to have penned this one!

Oh the insanity, Oh The humanity! Oy Vey!

The Horror, The Horror!

It's like a bad two hour TV movie.

At least the sets were made from recycled material from the first movie.

The script needed to be on the compost heap...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...a good script or director couldn't fix.

The original 'Poseidon Adventure' was a story of human courage triumphing against terrific odds and personal tragedy. The survivors were led by a charismatic figure of great spiritual strength who would take anything God threw at him.

The follow-up tries to recreate the mix but fails through a formulaic script and pedestrian direction. Irwin Allen may have been a great producer of disaster flicks, and done a fine job directing the action scenes in 'Towering Inferno', but he just can't bring any human depth to his characters. If the characters aren't credible any danger they face also falls flat.

The script also tries to copy the original too obviously. So we have Peter Boyle doing the Ernest Borgnine thing by being tough and obnoxious (but he has a tender heart); Karl Malden is the Red Buttons moderating influence (and is terminally ill for good measure); Slim Pickens does the comic relief for Shelley Winters, and so on.

To make the story more contemporary we have a rogue arms dealer ready to flog weapons-grade plutonium to the highest bidder. A really nasty piece of work who ruthlessly abandons wounded men (the actors playing his henchmen were presumably paid as extras because they don't seem to have any lines) and has a woman shot in the back - what a cad! Thank goodness the French rescue services made the hole in the Poseidon's hull twice as large as in 1972 (and on the other side of the propeller shaft) so he could he get his goods out. And while we're on the subject, how did they get the crates *to* the... oh, forget it.

I actually paid good money to see this when it was released. Given the film's current reputation this may seem odd, but it actually got quite mixed reviews at the time. Some said it was junk, some said it was as exciting as the original. Never mind, nobody can be right all the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was totally disgusted with this unnecessary sequel to \"The Poseidon Adventure\" a movie which I have given a great comment about.

This film is unbelievable from the word GO! I agree, why were no other rescues boats around and helicopters? The one that rescued the original survivors had just flown over the boat that Michael Caine & Sally Field are on. THAT WAS THE ONLY RESCUE CREW? Hard to believe.

The acting is generally poor and the show looks cheap. I really hated the waste of talent from some good actors.

Don't watch this film unless you must catch Sally & Michael as lovers.

gord","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this 3 nights ago here in Cork, Ireland. It was the world premiere of it, in the tiny cinema in the Triskel Arts Centre as part of the Cork Film Festival.

I found \"Strange Fruit\" to be an excellent movie. It is a bit rough around the edges, but for a low-budget movie that is to be expected! In general the acting (particularly from the main lead Kent Faulcon) is wonderful, the cinematography and direction excellent, and the script hugely entertaining and thought-provoking, with some nice set-ups and witty dialogue.

The ending was a bit sudden, with no conclusion given to characters and events once the finale came to its gripping end ... but perhaps that's what the filmmakers were going for? It certainly did make the movie more unsettling. I did like the fact that the main character never came to terms with his mother on screen: it leaves you wondering whether or not he ever will, as in real-life sometimes these things are never settled. This was a good choice, to leave it unresolved rather than sentimentally wrapping it up!

Taut and suspenseful throughout, \"Strange Fruit\" is a hugely ambitious debut and I have high hopes for what the writer\/director Kyle Schickner will unleash next. He - and his colleagues - are a talent worth watching.

I hope \"Strange Fruit\" gets a wider release soon, as more people deserve to see this movie, an above-average thriller with some original and insightful twists on homophobia and racism in America's Deep South.

Highly Recommended: 7\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I too had waited a long time to see this film. As far as I know it has never been released in Australia so in the end I found a copy on the net and ordered it through there. Weeks after my order confirmation it finally arrived and I was extremely excited to finally be sitting in front of my TV ready to watch a film that sounded so interesting and controversial and filmed in an area of the world where so many good movies are. What a disappointment. Within the first few minutes I realised I'd ordered a B Grader but was still full of expectation. I convinced my son (18) to watch it with me as I love sharing when I find a movie of value with good underlying statements and\/or story lines. About half way through he got up and said he couldn't stand watching it any longer, it was so predictable and amateurish. I agreed but watched to the end. The acting was atrocious even for B Grade standards. The stereotyping also predictable and I feel for the good folks of Lake Arthur, Louisianna who must've cringed after seeing the film depicting them in such a way. No doubt some racial prejudices still exist in many parts of the world not just the States but really, in this day and age I doubt they'd get away with all the ridiculous alibi's presented in this. I had to double check the date the film was made as their attempts at gimmicky filming of the more gruesome scenes was something I'd expect from a high school student's first attempt at making a film 'indy' like. I'd like to see this film put into the hands of experienced scriptwriters and film makers, its an old tale but one that could still pack a punch if dealt with professionally. So disappointed after such a long wait and with such high expectations. The soundtrack was probably the only thing I enjoyed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a movie with an excellent concept for a story but that got sidetracked but a large number of clich\u00e9d sub-plots, hackneyed and unrealistic portrayed characterizations and performances, and some frankly implausible (and highly coincidental and, not to mention, convenient as plot points to move the story to its inexorable finish).

The lack of anything that marked the lead as actually gay, other than some coincidental references to Crow Bar or that he's gay, was troubling. It wouldn't have hurt to actually show him do something, even if it was just meet a friend for drinks.

It's worth checking out and has it's merits. There isn't much, even now a few years after the movie was released, in the way of movies that feature both a lead that is gay, or a significant gay plot line, and that is also about African-Americans. For that, it's worth checking out. I wouldn't look too hard for it and I wouldn't waste my time looking for it to own. This is a rental, and not a premium rental at that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Horrible writing, directing and acting! The writer\/director has portrayed Southerners, especially Southern law enforcement as ignorant, backwoods, homophobic and racist (a very popular, yet ignorant, stereotype, that the film industry loves to perpetuate). The acting (or overacting) and the writing came across as amateurish and low budget. The plot line is the same old stale Hollywood story of the mean 'ol racist and homophobic rednecks who are ultimately defeated by the enlightened people from \"Newwww Yoke Ceety\".

I was raised in the small Louisiana town where this movie was filmed and looked forward to seeing the film but was immediately disappointed during the first few minutes of the movie. The start of the film depicts a gay bar located in the \"swamps\" of Louisiana. How ridiculous a concept! There are a lot of gays and gay bars in south Louisiana but no gay bars in the \"swamps\" or small towns of Louisiana. We then are introduced to the sheriff who uses the phrases \"homuh-sex'l\" in the worst southern drawl and overdone performance ever. Then there is the scene where the local police are watching porno on duty in the police station. I could go on and on about the horrible cheesy acting or the stale stereotypes or ridiculous scenes.

This director and his crew were welcomed into this small friendly town and shown true southern hospitality. The townspeople of Lake Arthur, and the state of Louisiana were only to be insulted and degraded in the final editing. The good people of Lake Arthur were excited and enamored with \"Hollywood\" being in town not knowing that in the end, they would be portrayed as ignorant, racist and homophobic country bumpkins in a low budget amateur movie that went straight to DVD. My advice: skip this one or watch it on late night Cinemax if it ever makes their rotation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think I've finally seen the Worst Movie Ever Made, and it hurts me to say that. As a big fan of indie cinema, gay or otherwise, I had high hopes. Several minutes into the film, however, the sheriff appeared and has my vote for the worst actor of this or any other century. His performance, and the dialog he was forced to perform, caused me the unusual step of stopping the DVD in its track. Hours later when I screwed up enough courage to press the play button again, it was no better.

Aside from the sheriff and his cartoon-racist deputies, the film has an attractive cast for whom I felt genuine sympathy since they had such a miserable script. The idea behind the film is fine - using lynching of gay men in the \"New South\" the same way it was used on black men in the Old South, leaving \"strange fruit\" hanging from the trees.

With an accomplished writer and director, we might have had a movie. Instead we get fake detective work, platitudes about homosexuality, and a clich\u00e9 with a the one good white man trying to save the day.

I have no doubt that racism still flourishes. The FBI is currently investigating a white school bus driver in the back woods of Louisana who forced the black kids to get to the back of the bus. But this town is a cartoon, and it is hard to believe anything you see or hear.

There a few subplots in a weak attempt to try to make the main character more three-dimensional, but for the most part, they also fail miserably.

For the truly masochistic, the DVD contains some deleted scenes that will leave you running for cover.

The is probably the first movie that makes me believe that writer\/directors should have to pass a test and get licensed before they can make a film. Although I would look forward to seeing several of the cast members in better films, I would be hard-pressed to witness anything else from this director.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This opens with the company credits informing us it`s by World International Network . I knew I`d seen this company credit before but couldn`t remember where , but knew it was at the start of a really bad movie I`d seen so I seriously thought about changing channels , only thing was I`d seen every film on the other channels which is one of the problems of being an IMDB reviewer . What the hell I thought it won`t really matter if WANTED is good or bad because I`ll still be able to review it for this site.

As I expected WANTED wasn`t all that good . It`s a plot I`d seen so many times ( Too many times ) before involving a fugitive on the run , a bit like THE INCREDIBLE HULK TV series without the shirt ripping . Jimmy crosses the mob in an entirely contrived way and goes on the run and in an entirely contrived manner finds himself working at a catholic reform school . Have you noticed an oft used description in the last sentence ? \" Entirely contrived \" is the answer . Let me repeat for the hard of thinking that this is an entirely contrived film where everything relies on coincidence . Another problem I had was the reform school run by the church - it`s far too compassionate and kind , I`m led to believe these type of establishments make Alcatraz look like a country club , I`m saying this is a fact but when the head priest looks like the spitting image of Donald Rumsfeld you do feel there`s a large amount of sugar coating going on .

To be honest despite the ridiculous plot twists etc WANTED isn`t really a bad thriller though it`s a terribly good one either . I never really had the urge to switch it off no matter how contrived it became which is an under hand compliment to the movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie about a man on the run for killing a mobster is the kind of film you can watch entirely on fast forward, once you know who's who, and not lose a thing. It has an attractive cast but the plot is a virtual writer's guide to cinema cliche, and boy does the dialogue clunk!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretty terrible, but not entirely unwatchable. Another review mentioned \"predictable\" - and that's almost an understatement. You can make a game out of guessing what the next line will be. Every character is either stereotype or archetypical. The good guy in a bad situation, the struggle between older and younger priest on acceptance and discipline, the repressed, sexually\/emotionally deprived woman returning to the small town after failing in the big city, engaged to the hotheaded, feeble minded beau from youth, the unredeemable bad guys, two \"lost boys\" looking for a sense of family - they're all here, and none of them with even the remotest spin of something new. From the first few minutes you can figure out exactly what will happen by film's end. The story isn't entirely lame, but direction, acting (even from a cast with some talent) everything is thrown together without skill. As to the storyline, we've all seen it before in a movie called \"Sister Act.\" This is also one of those films where inattention to small details show up in an even more glaring light. (As example: the nurse and our hero drive into town but park several blocks away from their destinations (post office and hardware store) - yet both walk across empty parking lots for no apparent reason. Or the passage of morning to night during a scene that seemingly should occur in no more than half an hour. The movie is filled with that kind of stuff and then tags on an improbable denouement.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most impressive thing about 'Anemic Cinema' is its title: an anagram which is very nearly also a palindrome. Unfortunately, it only works in American English, since in Britain 'anaemic' is spelt differently.

I've always found the dilettante Man Ray and his artistic efforts to be deeply pretentious, and I've never understood why his work attracts so much attention. Apart from his Rayographs (which he invented by accident, and which are merely direct-contact photo prints), his one real contribution to culture seems to be that he was the first photographer to depict female nudity in a manner that was accepted as art rather than as porn. But surely this had to happen eventually, and there's no real reason why Ray deserves the credit. The critical reaction to Man Ray reminds me of the story about the Emperor's New Clothes.

Back in the early 1960s, the second season of 'The Twilight Zone' opened each episode with a shot of revolving concentric circles in black and white. There's an image in 'Anemic Cinema' which is so similar, I wonder if 'Twilight Zone' borrowed it from this film. The main difference is that the revolving image here is a black and white spiral. Indeed, if ever there was any movie that deserves to be described as a spiral, this one is it. Throughout 'Anemic Cinema', we're treated(?) to shots of a revolving disc containing words (in French) moving in a spiral. The effect is vertiginous, and the texts -- about incest and Eskimos -- are nearly Dada in their meaninglessness. I did laugh at one clever sexual pun.

The emperor is naked, folks, and this movie just barely rates 2 points out of 10. Au suivant!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So this guy goes into a psychiatrist's office for his first appointment. After the paperwork is done, the psychiatrist says \"I'm going to show you ink blots. Tell me what you see in them.\" \"Well, says the patient,\" looking at the first one, \"I see a man and a woman having sex.\" On seeing the second one, he says \"I see two women having sex.\" On seeing the third, he says \"I see two men having sex.\" On seeing the next one, he says \"I see two men and two women having sex.\" The psychiatrist puts down the the inkblots. \"So,\" he says, \"We'll start by discussing your monomania.\" \"MY monomania?\" says the guy. \"And you with all these dirty pictures!\" That's how this movie strikes me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If Corky St. Claire in WAITING FOR GUFFMAN had directed the citizens of Blaine in a horror movie with comic undertones the result would have been very much like THE MILPITAS MONSTER.

To be generous, this was the longest hour and twenty minute movie I've ever seen. To call the pace glacial is to be kind.

Almost nobody associated with this project ever made another movie with the exception of Ben Burtt, who did the really admirable (considering the budget) special effects. He went on to do sound for movies like MUNICH and several other big budget projects. The narration is by veteran voice-over actor Paul Frees, who probably donated his efforts.

When you're watching the opening titles and see the Milpitas Unified School District listed as one of the producers you know you're going on a long, strange trip.

Pollution at the down dump in Milpitas, California, becomes so toxic that it creates a monster. Remember that this is 1975 and ecology was a hot topic. Just a few years previously moviegoers had been treated to GODZILLA VS. THE SMOG MONSTER.

So far so good. The monster is a winged creature at least fifty feet tall and has the capacity to tear the town apart. Instead it steals garbage cans.

Central to the premise is the idea that this monster can prowl a small city and leave eight foot long footprints behind but not be noticed by anyone. There's a nicely conceived scene where it walks through the middle of a carnival at night but somehow nobody notices.

The only person who sees the monster until the final scenes is George, the town drunk. All through the movie I hoped, hoped, hoped that George would be torn to shreds on camera but this didn't happen. Drat. In fact, nobody gets killed. George supposedly sacrifices himself to save Priscilla (he's tied to a helicopter to lure the creature- George smells worse than garbage and the monster is attracted to the scent).

The nominal leads are a group of high school students. There's pretty Priscilla and her nondescript boyfriend and some \"bad\" boys who (surprise, surprise) whip themselves into shape to help defeat the monster in the final scenes.

The monster is involved in four main set pieces. He attacks a Browning-Ferris garbage truck and leaves it beside an elevated highway, but nobody notices. He walks through the carnival, again unnoticed. He tears up a building (nice miniature work) and nobody sees him but George. Then he attacks the high school during a dance and grabs Priscilla and carries her off just like a certain very tall ape has done several times, most recently this past winter.

There are plot ideas that come out of nowhere and are dropped. Local citizens picket at City Hall because they want their garbage cans back. An elaborate secret weapon for tracking monsters is flown in by private jet, examined, and forgotten.

So why did I watch the whole thing? Because these people were having so darned much fun. I had the idea that the firemen were firemen, the businessmen were being filmed in their own offices, Priscilla may well live in that suburban tract house, and scenes of people in their yards may well have been in their own yards.

They may not be great actors, but they are real people. Nobody is stunningly good looking. In fact, I'd estimate that four out of five of the adults on screen wear glasses. Since this is the mid seventies we see some really bad clothes and some of the men have awesomely bad facial hair. One dignitary being interviewed before a meeting at Ciry Hall has such a loud tie and sportcoat that you think he's on his way to play Marcellus in THE MUSIC MAN.

And that got the movie two extra stars. Zero for the story. Two points for the sometimes decent special effects. And two points for the fact that people in the community actually got together and did this. They can actually say they've performed in a movie; despite lots of stage experience and working behind the scenes in live television I can't say that, and I'm happy for them.

Remember those great old movies with Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland? At some point somebody would say, \"Let's put on a show! Aunt Edna has all those old clothes in the attic, and we can use Uncle Ned's barn!\" Then they'd do 'neighborhood shows' with sets and costumes that would cost well into seven figures if duplicated today.

That's the spirit that the good people of Milpitas had for this project, and bless them for that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm giving it a three instead of the lower number it deserves because of its history. A full-length movie made by high school students! It shows, too, but that's part of the charm and appeal. Get ahold of some of the stuff George Lucas did at UCLA; this is better. Maybe due to being a group effort.

A monster made of toxic waste and too much garbage--these kids were way ahead of their time!--starts ravaging the town of Milpitas during a high school dance. The monster destroys randomly, leaving garbage and smelly footprints.

The movie has local TV and radio people, the Milpitas mayor, the Samuel Ayer High School principal, and a whole bunch of the high school students and their parents, not to mention the mayor's daughter as the ing\u00e9nue.

Dumb? Yeah! Fun? Yeah! Great screen writing? C'mon, they're untrained high schoolies! Copy that comment for the acting, cinematography, directing, et cetera.

Milpitas is right next to San Jose in the heart of Silicon Valley; maybe one of the graphics geniuses there will update the video somehow. Now THERE's a challenge.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a VERY bad movie. However, I read that it was made by a high-school teacher so maybe I should give it at least a TINY bit of praise for it's ambitious (yet awful) special effects. Here is the plot: a monster emerges from a pile of trash and pollution in the town of Milpitas, California and embarks on a destructive rampage. I'm about to spoil the \"big surprise\" about what the monster looks like, so please read the rest of this at your own risk. You have been warned! The monster looks sort of like a giant, two-legged fly wearing a gas mask. In some scenes, the monster is an actor wearing a costume. In other scenes, the monster is created by stop-motion animation. The acting is terrible. The dialogue is terrible. The special effects are terrible. The plot is predictable. Stay away!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is real easy to toast, roast, flay, and otherwise burn this film for all of its abundant flaws. It was made by high school students and faculty and a whole community; it shows! Sure, I could examine the script which is just ridiculous. A monster created from the garbage of a growing Californian city starts eating garbage and taking garbage cans all over the city. Soon this huge beast with wings no less begins to destroy buildings and even plays the \"beauty and the beast\" act with a young high school girl. Fortunately for her there is a gang of guys, her former boyfriend nicknamed \"The Penguin,\" and the town drunk out to help her. The direction is awful, the production values just dreadful, the acting non-existent, and the pace sluggish. The movie is hard to sit through - period. However, that being said, it is also a miracle of a film when you consider that this thing was crafted by an entire community. You can see all the collective effort from the actors, the actual mayor and actual firemen and policemen, to the area location shots used. I also was really amazed at all the local businesses credited at the film's end with helping to finance or contribute in some way to the film. When you look at the film from that perspective, it is indeed quite an achievement. I didn't know anything about it before I sat down and watched it. Now that I have found out something about it, I am impressed. But make no mistake - I have no...NO...desire to sit through it again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the result of the town of Milpitas California making a home movie and subjecting the rest of the world to it. Legendary in some circles as the biggest cinematic turkey this movie is rightly thought of as a bad movie. Part comedy, part giant monster horror movie this movie is full of non actors not acting. the plot has something to do with a giant monster being created from the garbage and pollution in the area and going on a rampage. The monster, which we don't see until the final 20 minutes, is rather cool looking but isn't cool enough to warrant watching the preceding hour of boredom. Frankly even hardened bad movie lovers are going to have a tough time getting through to the end. This is a stinker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've heard that this move was put together by a bunch of high-school students. As a high-school art or theatre project it's not too bad. Unless you lived near milpitas in the seventies or knew someone involved in the making of the movie, this is pretty awful. Most of the actors are clearly not actors, but locals who volunteered. Bob Wilkins (the original host of Creature Features on KTVU in Oakland appears, but only for about a minute). Some of the monster effects are done with stop motion animation and some with a man in a monster suit and each works okay on it's own, but there is no continuity between the two. Watching without dialog, you'd assume that the movie had 2 monsters. I guess the most unsupportable aspect is that even the main characters, who I assume are the kids behind the movie, cannot even pretend to act. These kids must have been involved in theater in some way to want to do this project, but they display zero believable emotion in front of the camera.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the past 5 years I have rented some bad movies...completely on purpose. See I aspire to be a movie reviewer, and as we all know there are horrible movies released every year. Anyway, about 3 months ago I rented this one. I watched it all the way through...and cried profusely. This is one of those movies that is so freakin bad it makes you want to puke. It actually put a sick feeling in my stomach. I've seen lots of bad movies (Mystery Science Theater 3000 anyone?) but this one takes the cake. The plot was hard to follow, the lighting horrible and the sounds almost inaudible. If there was a negative rating on the scale here this movie would be at -11 for me. This may seem odd, but I highly recommend it. It's something you have to see for yourself...but don't say I didn't warn you. I don't think this review could get any more precise so I'm done now.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The parallels between this film and \"Captain Walrus\" (an independant film shown at the Team Projection Film Festival in 1994) are so blindingly obvious that any praise for \"Sally Marshall Is Not An Alien\" must be viewed with the knowledge that it is riding on the success of another work.

In Captain Walrus, two young boys (Geoff and Roger, played by Dean Turner and Brett Allen respectively) examine the bizarre behaviour of their new neighbour Britney (played by Louise Farley). As the two boys watch through their telescope, they observe the repeated visits of a man in uniform who they call Captain Walrus (played by Peter Sargent). However, the emphasis in Captain Walrus is on the pointless and somewhat power-hungry actions of the neighbour Britney, and less on the friendship between the two boys.

A critical success at the film festival, the plot of Captain Walrus has obviously been appropriated and rehashed in order to give the Australian Film Community another notch on the belt with regards to children's product. Although Sally Marshall is not an Alien is a fine film, and a credit to its producers, its inauthenticity leaves something to be deserved.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Reading the other two comments, I had to wonder if I had seen the same movie!

Perhaps life is drastically different in Australia, but, wow - call it sci-fi or fantasy, but people just don't act like this.

I couldn't pass up this review without commenting on it myself.. it gets better after the first half hour, but I doubt most could make it that far..

Yikes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Veber is not renown for his outstanding directorial skills. In fact nobody cares as long as they got the laughs, quite a few here to be honest, scattered in the whole process, thanks to Depardieu's half-wit characterization and the dialogue Veber puts in his mouth.

But this is not enough to make a great comedy since there's no movie outside of the usual Veber premise: a tough guy is doomed to team up with a very naive character. In L'Emmerdeur, La Ch\u00e8vre or Les Comp\u00e8res there was a real story going on over the fire vs. water proceedings. Le Diner de cons, although it was a play, managed to create a real suspense about the next catastrophe Pinon would cause. In Tais-toi the backstory about the vengeance is both redundant and too weak to arouse our interest. Plus the heavies are lame both on screen and in the script.

Now what's wrong? Veber wraps this up creating no action, no rhythm. Instead he uses systematically and overuses ellipses (maybe he met William Goldman in Hollywood) and the 'music' really stresses that lack of nerve and a backbone in the story.

So you'll have to be content with Depardieu's performance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I attended a screening of this film. Travolta came to do a Q & A after the film ended. It was a small screening room in Tribeca. Out of courtesy to him I did not walk out which I wanted to do. This is film-making at its worst. To start the script was poorly written. The writer writes in one voice. The dialogue was stilted and clich\u00e9d. How this writer\/director got Scarlet Johansen, John Travolta and Lions Gate Entertainment to back her on this is the only brilliant thing she accomplished in this fiasco.

I do in fact recommend this film to all aspiring screenwriters, directors and filmmakers. Because when you are told that you are wasting your time and it will be impossible for you to reach your goals. Hey...just look at this crap and say to yourself...if they can make this then anythings poosible.

PS- Travolta did a great Q&A though...he was at ease, spoke freely and was a down to earth nice guy. The director\/writer stood on the sidelines. When John tried to engage her in the conversation she stood back like a piece of wood and never joined in. I looked at her and I thought...how was this person able to successfully \"pitch\" to agents, studio execs, top talent ...when she can't open her mouth at a screening of her own film. The conclusion from a few of us in attendance was that she must have strong family connections in the business.

After you watch this you should follow it with Guy Ritchie's zero star masterpiece \"Swept Away\" with the most unintentionally funny and worst performance by wife Madonna. She's so bad and looks so bad in this film I figure this was her his way of getting back at her for all the abuse he takes from her at home.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a waste. John Travolta and Scarlett Johansen deserved better than this. To start at the beginning, JT was horribly miscast in the lead here. The role called for someone who could convince as a broken-down anti-hero, someone who could look haunted and defeated. Billy Bob Thornton would have fit the bill, or even Al Pacino, but JT is just too alive, and looks to be having too much fun. Also, surely someone who has been through the mill to the extent JT's character had would have suffered some physical effects? The character presented to the audience looked as if he could start as tight end for the Oakland Raiders. Scarlett faired little better role-wise. Where was the pain and conflict of what should surely have been troubling development? And as for the \"plot\" ... well, none of it makes sense. The characters leap from one frame of mind to another seemingly without cause - and certainly without explanation. The pace of the film also leaves something to be desired, namely, pace. This is a very slow film, not that I have anything against slow films, as long as they are heading somewhere. The pace only picks up towards the very end, when it shifts from a slow dirge to a frantic race to pack in as many tired clich\u00e9s as possible. In this it succeeds - the only thing missing being something involving a small dog. 3 out of 10 for this one purely for Gabriel Macht's performance - he was the only member of the cast who was a) well cast and b) able to convince in his role. All in all, a terrible disappointment and a real waste of a couple of hours.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is an incredibly self-indulgent character piece that assumes that the mere impression of a story is as good as an actual story. It was utterly painful to watch and had I not been suckered in to buy the DVD because of John Travolta and the positive buzz, I would not have finished watching it.

This film lacks anything resembling an interesting premise and seems to rely on weighty (and frankly, heavy-handed) characterization. There is one altercation scene between Purslane and Bobby Long in which a TV is destroyed that, when played out, is incredibly flaccid and ill-timed.

I found myself caring less and less about the characters as I watched it. It was probably very fun, film-school-wise, to make it. But it is just awfully boring to watch. A indulgent and pretentious film school project you should not waste money on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This overheated southern Gothic \"mellerdramer\" has a few decent moments --but is too often spoiled by a novice director piling clich\u00e9 upon clich\u00e9, and a star who apparently decided to take it upon himself to turn the picture into his personal showcase, rather than allowing writer\/director Gabel to update Inge or Williams as a sort of contemporary \"Midnight Cowboy\" meets \"Lolita\" tearjerker.

Close your eyes, listen to the exaggerated southern accents, and try to decide if you're witnessing a feature film, or an acting class -- full of eager amateurs.

Johansson is for once tolerable (i.e. less pouty than usual) -- though by no means good, Macht is decent, though a little too pretty-boy cute to be believed, and Travolta chews the scenery as never before (with the help of a decent editor and some directorial restraint, his performance might have been really touching; as it is, he -- and almost everyone else -- is too unlikable to ever move us past the point of boredom or revulsion). Kara Unger is perhaps best of all; had her role been developed beyond a few lines, she might have even found herself with a Best Supporting Actress nomination.

Pic is almost saved by Leonard Cohen-style growling theme song, decent production design and locations, and continual reference to literary works (which has earned the otherwise standard screenplay reviews such as \"poetic.\") Also helpful are a few old pros in the cast like Sonny Shroyer, and perhaps most importantly, Soderbergh cameraman Elliot Davis -- whose fine work will no doubt be credited to the first-time director, who, ten or twenty years from now, may actually learn how to direct.

But probably not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The director does not know what to do with a camera... too many options and she always always always picks the wrong one... she let travolta take charge... and he controls the movie from the beginning to the end... the characters are not developed... maybe because we need to watch them singing... no pace at all, sometimes too fast sometimes too slow... miscasted: travolta OK... johansson, she is too grown up to be a 18... even if she is really 20...

the happy ending? well it looks like that there must be one, so the story is sad but not too sad... travolta doesn't know how to play a guitar but the director doesn't look she cares too much that he is totally out of synch...

the idea is the only thing that is great... but how she developed it? well, it is simply full of stereotypes and lines heard too many times...

too bad, another missed chance...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On the cusp of being insufferable. Somehow I stayed just slightly interested, but was it because I truly wanted to know what the \"secret\" was (which, I should say, is pretty damned obvious) or because I hoped Scarlett Johansson would put on a more sexy outfit? This movie is poor and what's more it's a disgrace to all the lonely, alcoholic Southern literature professors out there. Travolta wants his Oscar so bad he is willing to cry drunkenly in the bathroom after urinating blood. Sorry, pal. . .you were more believable is \"Staying Alive.\" Not everyone can pull a Peter Fonda in \"Ulee's Gold.\" If you want the against-type brave anti- hero Oscar you have to, um, actually act. . .not just pout on screen. Stop this director before he\/she (name is vague on gender) directs again!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is a phrase by the experimental filmmaker Nathaniel Dorsky, who says some films are structured like a camera mounted on the head of a dog who goes down an alley, sniffing everything along the way.

That's how this movie is. The structure is \"Kurosawa started out as a baby, then he became a kid, then a young man, then a movie director, then he started making 'masterpieces', then he grew old, The End.\" The word 'masterpiece' is used a lot in this film to describe Kurosawa's output, without explaining *what* makes his films so good\/great. Just because the off-screen narrator reading a script says that a film is a masterpiece, are we supposed to kiss his rear-end and accept that a certain movie is one of the great works of art of the 20th century? And one more point. The voice of Paul Scofield is used as the voice of Kurosawa, when excerpts from the director's memoirs are being read off screen. He brings pear-shaped Shakespearean tones to the text...but why him?? If you were making a documentary about Billie Holiday, would you use Dame Judi Densch as her voice????","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rocketship X-M should be viewed by any serious movie buff for the following reasons:

1) It is one the first -- and the few -- movies not to have a happy ending. Doubtless the effect was more profound in post-World War II America than it would be today, but nonetheless the sad ending adds to the film's message.

2) It is also one of the first movies to deal with space travel in a serious fashion, using space as a valid setting for drama. The lack of scientific background notwithstanding, the movie stands on its own as dramatic fare. It's not so much a space drama as it is a drama set in space.

3) The anti-nuclear war message is delivered in a serious manner that is not lost in sfx involving large grasshoppers, men, or animal. The effect of Martian society from nuclear devastation is starkly and frankly presented. The fact that the survivors from the expedition crash land and as such are unable to preach the lesson learned on Mars adds another element of sadness to the tragic ending.

Sterno says take a ride on Rocketship X-M.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I first saw this when it came out in the theater. Though only 13 at the time, I was an avid reader of \"hard science\" science fiction stories. The technical gaffes of the film are burned into my memory.

Some of the following may have significant spoilers.

Even as a youngster, I knew the premise is silly. The rocket takes off for a lunar mission, in a cosmos where there is always a gravitational effect on the crew (though loose objects float as in zero gravity) and because of that, the \"cabin\" (the area with the controls, whatever they called it) was gyrostabalized to maintain the \"correct\" orientation (so that when they landed, why didn't they land standing on their heads?) and where, at least in near-earth space, the rocket engines had to be running continually -- with propellant combusting away without an oxidizer. When the engines quit, the rocket stopped _dead_ in space, and couldn't start going until a PhD chemist determined it needed at a little oxidizer. This time, the rocket recalled it had momentum, and the next thing our heroes know they're near Mars (even a 13-year-old nerd knew such a minimum-energy trip would take over 200 days).

They land, find the air was breathable (though at the time scientific data revealed that the pressure, even if the atmosphere were pure oxygen, would be too low to do any good). They decide to camp outside the ship, and even build a campfire. They come armed, even though they were supposedly going to the Moon, where firearms wouldn't be needed.

They get a sight of a collapsed civilization, encounter stray martians who look just like people, develop an anti nuclear war philosophy, and those who survive try to get back to the home planet, and die in the attempt by crashing on the Earth! To do that would require such a long orbital period, they'd have died of starvation long before approaching their destination.

The film it preceded, Destination Moon, used real science most effectively (even though their \"rescue\" with the Oxygen Tank forgot about the moment arm from the tank's center of gravity to the output nozzle). This film showed woeful ignorance of even the most basic science. Only the most technologically illiterate should think of it as a science fiction film: it's on a par with the old Flash Gordon serials where their rocketships took off from their bellies and climbed in spirals, and whose engines were always on.

The story on this one I considered banal, and I can recommend this only as a film to be shown to students for them to pick out technical gaffes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like this movie and have watched my copy twice since acquiring it a few weeks ago. But you have to view it in the right context.

I haven't checked on the dates, but I bet this movie came out after and certainly around the same time as the Collier and Walt Disney popularisations of the vision of spaceflight being promoted by W.Von Braun. This is reflected in the attempt to seem factually correct and scientific. However, whilst certain ideas are put across ( step boosters, for example ) roughly correctly, other things are hilariously wrong.

For example, we are told that a rocket ascends to an altitude and then turns ninety degrees to enter space...like reaching the top of a flight of stairs and turning onto the landing! Then we are told that by turning in the direction of the Earths rotation the total velocity of the ship is increased accordingly.

This is an hilarious misunderstanding of what really happens. Most space launch centres are located as near the equator as possible where the Earth and anything on its surface is rotating at roughly a thousand miles per hour, including any rocket departing to space, in an Eastward direction ( the same as the rotation of the planet ). Of course, if the ship turned to travel westwards once in space, its speed in relation to the surface of the Earth would be greater, but it would add nothing to the actual velocity of the vehicle. Decsribed in this movie as \"air speed\"!

Similarly, we are told that the travellers only feel free-fall, or \"weightlessness\" when they reach some thousands of miles from the Earth, outside of the planets gravitational field. Again, comically incorrect. Most crewed spacecraft travel no higher than a couple of hundred miles up, but as long as they ( and, their contents, including crew ) are travelling at an adequate velocity that their momentum in an outward direction balances the pull of gravity inwards, they will orbit in free-fall. Of course, travel far enough from Earth and even a slow object will coast outside the Earths gravity well, but in order to leave Earth orbit, outwards ( towards the Moon for example ) requires the attainment of \"escape velocity\", around twenty one thousand miles per hour. So the vehicle will have already attained \"orbital velocity\" ( and \"weightlessness\" ) by definition.

But the movie has vastly more hilarious stuff than this. Someone decided it would be more fun if they missed the moon due to a technical problem, fell asleep for a few days and then woke up to find they had accidentally gone to Mars! The captain then ruminates to the effect that this must have been divine intervention! At which point, any pretence to being scientific is torn into little pieces like confetti and thrown upon the wind amid the merry dance of an increasingly barmy plot.

The strength of a film like this in fact is in illustrating \"how far we've come\". Not least in attitudes to women. The patronising drivel heaped upon the female crew-member is both hilarious and also shocking.To think that such attitudes were so recently \"normal\".

As I said at the start, I find this film very entertaining, as a late night, lights out romp through the romance of travel in outer space, from the perspective of the days before it had actually happened. An antidote to the cold routine of spaceflight as it has now become in the Twenty First Century.

I won't reveal the ending. It is both brave and shocking for a movie of this vintage and character.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, this was a real stinker. This early sci-fi flick has nothing going for it than pure camp. There's so much scientific mambo-jumbo in the dialog it's laughable. The female character played by Osa Massen is just a plot device for the male characters to serve sexist remarks during the entire length of the film. Watch this one with your girlfriend I guarantee it will make her blood boil.The only good thing is the musical score which expertly build the moods of the film. The special-effects are rather crude but not bad considering the vintage of the movie. With some good B-stars in the lead roles,the acting isn't too bad. But the lines they are given must have given them quite a challenge. The challenge of not laughing their heads off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Minor spoilers

First I must say how rare and charming it is to find a movie with such basic messages in it: nuclear war will inevitably destroy all of civilization, and women are for making babies. It is absolutely incredible how well formulated the plot is to hit in these two points, as with a golden hammer. Essentially, everything about this movie annoyed me. The casual sexism, the character whose sole trait was coming from Texas, the mysterious choice of dying Mars orange, and of course the flawed science of it all. Then the martian woman screaming as if she had just noticed that she was blind? What was that? However, I will give it credit. The fifties did spit out some sillier things. But not much...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought \"Rocketship X-M\" on DVD in a two-pack with \"Destination Moon.\" Now I see why the distributors did that: no one who had ever seen this movie would buy it on its own.

I cannot fathom what school system turned out the reviewer who claimed that RXM is \"great in its predictions of how space travel would take place...\" Launch straight up, and then do a 90-degree right turn and circle faster and faster until you reach escape velocity... I don't think I recall that from the Apollo program. Never mind that the astronauts should be weightless once they shut off the engines, gravity changes directions every time they pass through the hatch to the engine room. Going to the moon, but \"missed\" it? No problem, it's just a hop-skip-and-a-jump (with a helping hand from divine providence) and you'll be at Mars! And OK, if you want to put life on Mars, given the state of planetary knowledge in 1950, it was a forgivable convention for the sake of the storytelling, but can you make them look at least a LITTLE alien? These Martians looked like extras from the cast of \"10,000 B.C.\" I can accept some scientific mistakes, but this wouldn't pass muster with an above-average second-grader.

And that's aside from the screaming plot holes: 12 minutes before launch (as you're reminded of constantly by the nagging P.A. voice saying \"X minus so many minutes\") the astronauts are giving a press conference! I guess the time crunch is why Dr. Eckstrom didn't change out of his coat and tie before launching into space. And how handy that, even though they were planning to go to the moon and had pressure suits for that, they brought hiking gear (and rifles!) just in case they ended up at Mars. They're lucky they landed anywhere, since apparently the method they had developed for landing was to have Dr.E look out the window and tell the \"pilot\" (Lloyd Bridges) to tweak down the throttles every now and then. Note to the designers of the XM-2: how about giving the pilot a window seat?

Ditto the previous comments on the casual sexism that had eye-candy Dr. Lisa (Osa Massen) doom them all by repeatedly screwing up her fuel calculations, but hey that was the early '50s. She was there to fill her sweater, not a useful function.

\"Rocketship X-M\" is notable for being one of the first of the first films to say \"ohmigod we're all going to blow ourselves up with these here A-bombs\", but one can note that about it without wasting 77 minutes watching such dreck. By the way, that message might have had a bit more impact had there been some money in the budget for actual sets of the Martian city ruins, rather than just matte paintings.

I can appreciate \"good\" bad sci-fi, for the unique way the \"future\" used to look, and for the inherent (if condescending) humor you can find when when we look back on the naivety of audiences 60 years ago, but this film must have been insulting even then. \"Rocketship X-M\" isn't even suitable for an MST3K-style lampooning. Sometimes, bad is just... bad.

Anybody want to buy a DVD? Used only once, I swear.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although it can be VERY tedious at times, this movie is really not all that bad. The acting is fairly well done, if stereotypical, and the production values are pretty high considering some of the Sci-Fi movies that were to come later in the decade.

My biggest problem with this film are some of the very outdated characterizations in it. There's the guy from Texas, the \"professional\" scientist, and worst of all the woman scientist who finally realizes her womanhood. For a film seeking to make a statement about mankind, it loses some of it's impact by reducing its characters through sexist stereotypes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To call \"Rocketship X-M\" a science fiction classic is due more to its release date (1950), its savvy ability to capitalize on the publicity for \"Destination Moon\", and the appearance of actors who would later star in television as Sea Hunt's Mike Nelson, Rockford's dad and Wyatt Earp.

The movie itself is bad enough to be good fodder for MST3K and is best viewed with commentary from Joel and the robots. This is the type of movie best suited to added riffing from the MST3K characters; something preachy, slow-paced, poorly scripted, and full of painfully bad acting. While unintentionally funny stuff like \"Plan 9 From Outer Space\" don't lend themselves to satirical commentary (because the movie constantly upstages the hosts), really bad and dull movies like \"Rocketship X-M\" are ideal. So add some stars to the rating if you are watching the MST3K version.

The basic story has the crew taking an unplanned right turn at the moon and ending up on Mars. What they find on that planet are the remnants of a human-like civilization devastated by an atomic war. Only one Martian is shown in close-up, a normal looking woman who is blind or at least has no pupils in her eyes. The men look like the \"goons\" in the old Popeye cartoons, they scamper agilely around the cliffs and throw boulders at the crew with amazing accuracy-especially if they are supposed to be blind. Of course none of this is ever explained as doing so would require some sign of logical analysis from the writers of the screenplay.

The scenes on Mars are presented in something called \"Sepia Color\" to distinguish them from the rest of the B&W movie. If this has you thinking \"Wizard of Oz\" you will be disappointed because it is just black and white stuff with a slight brown tint added to the print in post-production.

In keeping with the moronic sexism of the movie, the icy female scientist screws up her fuel calculations-both coming and going. Her failure to measure up to the men causes her feminine side to surface and she and Mike Nelson coo sweetly to each other as they face their doom (insert sound of gagging here).

The real stars of the movie are the reporters at the command center. So much so that MST3K was inspired to specially salute these unheralded heroes. The intrepid squad of \"newsies\" are featured for the first 10 minutes of the movie, then take stations about 12 inches behind the technicians and monitoring equipment in the command center. Later they are called upon to ask the moronic questions needed by the mission director to expound on the movie's already too obvious message.

The DVD has an extremely low audio level, is not captioned, and is accompanied by a trailer. Although you will be thankful that it is only 77 minutes, it is still about 60 minutes too long as any 30 minute episode of \"The Twilight Zone\" has several times more content than this entire movie.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I completely understand the historical significance of Rocketship X-M, but that doesn't make it a good movie. To begin with, the plot (or what there is of it) is dull and lifeless. Five astronauts blast off for the moon \u0096 they get knocked off course and end up on Mars (huh?) \u0096 cavemen-looking Martians throw rocks at them \u0096 they return to Earth and meet a fiery death \u0096 The End. Believe it or not, but this pithy plot description makes it sound much more interesting than it really is. To make matters worse, John Emery's character, Dr. Karl Eckstrom, feels it necessary to give long drawn out speeches on everything from the nature of man to the dangers of nuclear weapons. It's just a thrill-a-minute (sarcasm intended).

Looking back at Rocketship X-M almost 60 years later, I would call the portrayal of women funny if it weren't all so sad and misguided. There are a number of examples I could cite, but there's one exchange of dialogue just after take-off between the male chauvinist pilot Floyd (played by the irritating, plastic-haired Lloyd Bridges) and Dr. Lisa Van Horn (the only female crewmember and the constant object of Floyd's often creepy attention) that illustrates the film's attitudes toward women quite nicely:

\u0095 Floyd: \"I've been wondering, how did a girl like you get mixed up in a thing like this in the first place.\"

\u0095 Dr. Van Horn: \"I suppose you think that women should only cook and sew and bear children.\"

\u0095 Floyd: \"Isn't that enough?\"

I think Floyd should have stayed behind with the cavemen!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm seeing a pattern here. If you see a movie on Mystery Science Theater 3000, chances are if you go to IMDb.com there will be hordes of lovers of the film, yet it was picked to be on that TV show because it was sooo bad. I'm sorry but I read a lot about Rocketship X-M as being some landmark sci fi film that stressed realism. Well if that is the case I could write for several paragraphs about how even with 1950's knowledge this movie is utterly flawed. Gravity might be the first obvious observation, or as MST3K did as a skit \"selective gravity\", also what about when they are plunging to their death and they are just standing there looking out of the window, um would'nt the ship being upside down effect that scene? I would like to think that they started with good intentions and that it ran over budget or something but I think this movie was just plain cheese as in the from under type. Just compare this to \"When Worlds Collide\" which was released in 1951 to see the true place where this movie ranks, there's no comparison. The movie gets a 2 or maybe 3 on its own, its not even funny to watch on its own. It gets about a 5 or 6 as a MST3K episode as there is no action or much to make fun of, just bad, bad, bad, oh did I mention, it's bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You have to hand it to writer-director John Hughes. With enormous success behind him in the misfit-teenager\/high school vein, he managed to branch out into other areas of comedy, finding in the bargain a great ally in comedian-actor John Candy. Here, goof-off adult Candy becomes a better person after agreeing to babysit his brother's wiseacre kids; it's a surefire formula designed to please both cynical teens as well as their parents, and it isn't any wonder the film was a winner with theater audiences. Still, Hughes relies almost completely on Candy's charm to put the scenario over, and one may eventually grow tired of the repetitious gags with the star front and center. The kids are sitcom-smart, the other adults shapeless blobs, and Amy Madigan is too intense, too hyped-up playing Uncle Buck's girlfriend. Later became a TV series, which is befitting since the material was already television-perfected. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Of the four main players in here - John Candy, Jean Kelly, Amy Madigan and Macauley Caulkin - the only one I've never heard about (at that time) was the one that annoyed the heck out of me and ruined the film. Well, she must have done a decent job of acting to make me want to throw her and the VHS into the garbage pail. I am referring to Kelly in the role of teenage brat, \"Tia Russell.\" Ironically, six years later she played a stunning and extremely likable role in the person of \"Rowena Morgan\" in \"Mr. Holland's Opus.\"

Candy, as usual, is fun to watch as \"Buck Russell,\" or the title character, \"Uncle Buck.\" Few actors were better at playing a lovable, hapless slob than Candy. I enjoyed his character in here, but I cannot watch that spoiled teen girl more than once. Also, in the first few minutes of the film, the little boy \"Miles\" (Cauklin) says the word \"G-damn.\" How bad is that, having a six-year-old kid saying the Lord's name in vain on film? These Hollywood people are such sickos. No wonder many of their child actors turn out to be mentally screwed up, Caulkin being a case in point.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Big fat slob 'Uncle Buck', played by John (eats-a-lot-of) Candy, visits the sane members of his family for a week in order to baby-sit two cute kids (Gaby Hoffman and MacCauley Culkin) and a pretty but snobby teenager (Jean Louisa Kelly). The shenanigans begin when Buck makes breakfast and then tries to sleep in a bed two sizes too small for his blimp of a body.

Mostly dull, but peppered with two or three funny scenes including Buck trying to get a word in edge-wise on the telephone with his angry girlfriend (Amy Madigan) and his meeting with a very disgusting clown.

Candy looks like he weighs 600 pounds.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Full disclosure: I was born in 1967. At first the premise tickled me -- after all, if you were a teenager growing up in the age of Reagan, a trip down memory lane was worth a laugh or three. Pop Rocks, Atari and Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots? Loved 'em, not *despite* the fact they were goofy, but *because* they were goofy and silly and fun. But when VH1 decided to make the series \"I Love Last Tuesday\", I knew enough was enough. Goes Hal Sparks have nothing better to do than read from a teleprompter how idiotic Slinkys are? (Wait, let me check... hmmm, no. No, it appears he doesn't.) Snarky, snotty uber-hip posturing has its place, but enough already!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's face it, this is a pretty bad film.However if you go in ready to make fun of it you can survive the experience.Okay, you'll scream in agony a lot.African jungle fun in a dopey kind of way.

Tom Conway (who spends most of the film wearing a funky chapeau) is using the local witch doctor and mad science to create a \"perfect\" being.It looks like a varmint that has been on a six week drunk and is in a sack dress.Ugly is being kind.But it won't kill for him because he's using a good girl as his subject.He needs a bad bad girl.

Marla English and Lance Fuller are two petty crooks in search of African gold.Acting lessons for Ms English should have been at the top of the search list.She's a bad girl and lets everybody know it in a performance worthy of a junior high school play.Mike \"Touch\" Connors is the white guide English & Fuller con into leading the expedition.

English & Conway finally meet and it is a match made in hell.She is the perfect subject to become his voodoo creature because she'll do anything (stress anything) to get what she wants.You will do anything to stop the agony of this movie at this point.

What made this movie interesting for me was Conway wearing that funky tribal hat\/headdress\/floral piece!Still trying to figure out what kind of dead animal it was.Guess he thought if he pulled it down low enough over his eyes nobody would recognize him.

Truly bad cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This 1950's howler is so bad it's unintentionally funny. Tom Conway portrays Dr. Gerard, a scientist who is turning natives into a monster using voodoo. His poor wife, played by Mary Ellen Kay, is being held captive by her wacko hubby who has no time for her but threatens to kill her if she leaves him. Along comes Marla English as a greedy murderess who has already killed a man to find treasure in the jungle. Her idiot boyfriend, portrayed by Lance Fuller, is along on the safari. They hire \"Touch\" Connors, (later renamed Mike Connors, of Mannix fame) as a guide. English is a terrible actress, but hey, no one else in the cast were turning in academy award winning performances either. \"Touch\" (I'm sorry, I can't even type the name without cracking up, I mean, what the...) gave the only half way decent performance of the bunch and that's saying a lot. The monster is only seen briefly, and the ending is predictable to say the least. I would say this movie falls into the \"it's so bad, it's almost good\" category of movies. It's good on a rainy night when nothing else is on the tube.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's not kid ourselves, this atrocity is not Plan Nine or Cat Women. It is bad, period! The performances vary from drama school theatrics (Marla English) to a 'couldn't care less' walk through (Tom Conway). The photography (even in a good print) is so murky it is occasionally hard to see what is happening. The real problem, however, is the aimless, pointless, nearly plot less story and the leaden, paceless direction. At a brisk 77 minutes it still feels endless.

The screenplay is especially inept. There are two story lines that only intersect at the very end of the picture. Tom Conway is trying to create a super race, using voodoo and modern science (although there is little science in evidence) which he can control telepathically. He is keeping his wife prisoner (for no discernible reason). Meanwhile a couple of petty crooks and a white hunter type guide are trying to find the village in which he is working, in the expectation of gold and jewels. When they finally arrive, Tom Conway decides that one of them, the woman, is the perfect subject for his experiments. She is turned into a monster, kills Conway (natch!) and then reverts to normal. She sees a gold statue half drowned in a boiling pool, tries to retrieve it and falls in the water and apparently drowns. The white hunter rescues the wife. In the final shot we see the supposedly drowned woman emerge as the monster again; threatening a sequel (now that really is a scary thought!).

The AIP producer, Samuel Z Arkoff, in a lecture included on the DVD, prides himself on spotting the teenage niche market and satisfying it with ingenious low budget movies. However, it is difficult to see how anyone could think this rancid concoction would satisfy any sort of audience. What appeal do they think it could possibly have? The monster appears so rarely that it could hardly be called a horror film. The jungle action is tepid and tedious. There are no teenagers in it and no characters that teenagers could be expected to identify with.

The producers exposed 77 minutes of film, but they didn't make a movie. This is a con trick and Arkoff should be ashamed of his association with it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Martha Plimpton has done some prestigious movies, working with River Phoenix and Harrison Ford, but she was never able to expand her limited, tomboyish appeal into the same class as, say, Molly Ringwald. This film, which was barely released, is just an extension of her late '80s\/early '90s attempts to find a screen-persona which was identifiable to moviegoers, and it represents another failure. Plimpton plays a troubled young woman who finds out on her 21st birthday that she was adopted and--worse than that--was actually abandoned as an infant on her parents' doorstep! She sets out to find her biological mother and father, but the viewer has no clue why she'd even want to (would simple curiosity give her this much determination?). Unattractive material given sitcom handling; it starts off on the wrong foot and never recovers. Plimpton gives a sour, surly performance, but Hector Elizondo and Mary Kay Place are fine as her adoptive parents. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"According to most people I know that saw this film and to the reviews I've read this was supposed to be a hugely entertaining thriller that oh so needs to be seen by more people. I didn't expect this film to blow me away but I certainly didn't expect to find this movie mediocre at best, which is what it is.

I'm no stranger to French films being both French and having studied them as a student so i'm aware of the clich\u00e9s and corny plot twists that can go unnoticed by English\/American audiences. There are some great French films that should have been given widespread international release but this isn't one of them.

To begin with the plot is both far fetched, over complicated and too smart assed to be entertaining so you really feel every minute of its 2hr and 5min run time and by the time everything is finally revealed you are beyond caring. The main character himself is lacking any real charisma or even acting talent to keep your attention fixed mainly on him and his journey anytime close to the crap ending so by the time you've even considered swallowing the main plot twists it's begun to dawn on you that you've wasted your time! I actually remember switching off before the credits actually began to roll after the film's climactic reunion - that was the point in which I was sure I had almost completely wasted my time by the way.

The film is not at all the worst thing i've seen but it seems completely overrated. For instance I read somewhere that it beats all the Bourne Identity films in terms of suspense or even that it has 'wall-to-wall tension'. I can safely say some people are hyping up this frankly dull movie.

4\/10 is a generously considerate rating for this film I feel, and since I have seen some complete and utter stinkers, I'll therefore save the 1s, 2s and 3s for them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, if you want to make a good film, don't cram all your exposition into the last 10 minutes. The viewer is expected to be bewildered for nearly two hours, only to have Margo's father explain everything to Alex very late in the film. To make matters worse, the scriptwriter decided it wasn't enough to have the basic mystery solved, but adds in a completely unnecessary murder that we knew nothing about (involving Alex's father!).

There's some serious motivation issues with characters also. Margo's father's choices don't seem to make sense once the film is over. Why didn't he just kill Philippe's father and be done with it? Instead, a complicated plot to obscure the truth is concocted, but one which ensures that everyone will be in physical jeopardy for years (including the completely innocent photographer, who gets murdered by Philippe's father's thugs). Although Alex is a doctor (whom one would think is relatively bright), he chooses to flee the police, during which he not only endangers his own life, but those whom he involves in a nasty pile-up on the freeway. Why was Margo's friend so keen on keeping her promise to Margo, once all the crap hits the fan for Alex? And are we to think that Margo's father would rather kill himself rather than go to prison? What about his wife? Did he consider her wishes? Those are some of the main problems.

Then there are some nasty details, like: why was her father there the night of her faked death? How did he get a hold of the junkie's body on such short notice and get it back quickly in order to bury it with the other two? Alex's friend Bruno seems over-eager to be part of the mayhem, in which he and his friends have to kill for Alex, notwithstanding the perceived debt he owes Alex for saving his son's life. What good would the photos of Margo do? They don't implicate Philippe at all. And why would Margo have the safety deposit box key handy that night for her would-be abductors to take? Did I miss some other things? Probably. Minor irritations of mine include the fact that although Alex is a doctor, he smokes like a fiend. Which makes his marathon run away from the police even that more impressive. Also, when he is riding in the convertible with his lawyer, neither of them is wearing a seat belt. How bright could they be?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry, but I usually love French thrillers - e.g. Chabrol - but this was a glossy shambolic mess. The fact that it was based on a Harlan Cohen book is telling, because rather than being a French film (strong on psychology and character), it's more like a John Grisham-esquire roller-coaster ride by numbers with ludicrous plot twists, flashbacks that update previous flashbacks, a predictable villain (as soon as his name is mentioned you think 'hmm, he'll be the bad guy!') and sets of mysterious stereotyped characters who seem to inhabit different movies. By the end I was laughing hysterically at the unevenness of the film's tone (the scenes where the lead character is being helped by two streetwise shady characters are unintentionally hilarious), the utterly baffling plot, the absurd coincidences and strokes of good fortune (e.g. guessing the password for an email account) AND yawning uncontrollably (thought I must have misread the 1hr 50min running time as it seemed to drag on for 3 hours 50 minutes).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I walked out of the cinema having suffered this film after 30 mins. I left two friends pinned in by a great fat bloke to endure the remainder.

As soon as the opening sequence of the film unrolled, I sensed something was wrong and it wasn't long before I to stop myself from hiding under my seat cringing in embarrassment. I'm not one for walking out of films however bad as they usually have some redeeming feature, but this one suffered from a catalogue of bad directing, bad acting (bar 'Bruno' character & the impeccable Jean Rochefort -according to my friends),awful editing (in terms of theme and meaning), terrible soundtrack and image correlation that seemed to make an art out placing the wrong peace of music over the image and scene at the wrong time . The worst crime was its overall insipidness and unbelievability (a result of the aforementioned atrocities). Why was it so awful? I do not want to waste more of my time explaining. I'd say go and see it for yourself but I don't want to fill the coffers of this project any more than necessary. Oh, the screening did possess one redeeming feature: My friend cambering over the rows of seats in silhouette with his umbrella hooked over his arm as he tried to steady himself -more pathos, tension & entertainment in those few moments than in the 125 mins of this sadly dire effort.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"it's unfortunate that many of the other detractors of this film seem influenced by prior biases. (i.e. anger at the gay characters, thinking french thrillers are bad, etc.) i will admit that i'm unfamiliar with the novel, but as a film, after about 45 minutes, i was rolling my eyes. hopefully i can explain in writing my complaints eloquently enough before i get sick of spending anymore time on this film over the 2 hours of its running length.(2 hours that felt like 3) don't get me wrong, i can sit through hour and a half silent films, 3 hour epics, i don't have a short attention span, nor am i so jaded by the mtv generation that i cant appreciate a subtle and slowly building film. here goes, my grocery list of complaints. first off, the ending. yes, it had a scooby-doo-esquire, character explains everything at the end. now i actually think for this movie, this was necessary.. the film had so many plot-twists, emotional revelations, new facts surfacing and being discovered.. one reviewer said it well: \"..yes, it is a very logical story, but without the very essential back story (their childhood stories, the relationship amongst the 3 parents, the relationship amongst the two lovebirds and the son of the Big Man), it just doesn't feel right. I felt cheated \" i won't throw in too many spoilers here, i could name specific revelations that i thought were unnecessary, but according to the reviews on here, there's a lot of people who seem to really love this, so i don't want to give anything away. i personally, can't stand soap operas. the complexity, and twists and turns, for me, snuffed out ANY impact the final revelations could possibly deliver. By the end, i seriously didn't care! there weren't any gaping plot holes necessarily; this seems like it could make a great book, in WRITING it is perfectly logical, but if i'm supposed to believe this is REALITY, something doesn't sit right with the pieces that have been haphazardly inserted. too often i felt crucial characters we were never able to get to know were thrown in to further complicate the plot, increase the emotion, and develop the mystery. the acting i had no complaints about, the directing, eh, not bad, but the plot, and especially its development, SEVERELY lacking. sorry to those that felt this was a perfect thriller, but i couldn't get into it. i gave this a 3 simply because i don't want to seem completely unfair, and it did have moments of slight intrigue and excitement.

*MAJOR SPOILER* and i have to mention it.. but when the father is making his revelation to alexandre and JUST when you think the plot couldn't fit in another twist.. \"your father didn't die in a hunting accident\".. I ALMOST DIED.. when was the father at all developed or even really mentioned much in the back story?!! are you serious!! like the already complex plot involving characters from all the families and their relationship to one another wasn't enough!!? does the protagonist NEED another emotional whallop more than he has already been fed?! sorry i had to throw in such a spoiler, but that just bothered me as much as i've ever been bothered in ANY film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's potential in there with \"Tell No-one\". A curious and intriguing plot, and a French take on a very American story. But for me, the opportunities were not exercised here.

Although I liked aspects of this film, there were three prominent failings which pulled it right down to four out of ten.

Firstly, it's a silly, clich\u00e9d murder mystery. A particularly contrived Murder She Wrote or Bergerac. Being French doesn't eliminate this problem - it's just silly and in French at the same time. It's full of implausible coincidences.

Secondly, the transition from the US to France seems to have failed chronically. This French doctor hanging out on \"the streets\" of a French city with his new \"homies\" and their blingin' SUVs... and then there's the car chases...

But thirdly and mostly, it's just too darn long. To me, a film needs a good reason to be significantly over 90 minutes, and over two hours takes some serious justification. This once didn't have it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The fact that this movie is bargain basement quality is a real shame, but back in the 1940s, that was about the only type of film made for theaters catering to Black audiences due to segregation. So, while MGM, Warner and all the other big studios were making extremely polished films, tiny studios with shoestring budgets were left to muddle by with what they had. And from seeing this movie, it's obvious that a lot of energy went into making the film, even if it is a pretty lousy film aesthetically speaking. Some of the actors weren't particularly good (especially the French guy), the sets were minimal and the plot totally silly BUT the film also had some good music--of varying styles from Classical to Jazz to Rhythm and Blues. This is thanks to many talented but pretty much unrecognized Black performers.

Now as for the plot, it was totally stupid and silly but still watchable in a kitschy way. I loved seeing Tim Moore (\"Kingfish\" from the AMOS 'N ANDY TV show) in drag, as he made the absolute ugliest woman in cinema history (this includes the Bride of Frankenstein and many others)--this is probably due to the fact that when NOT in drag, he was a pretty ugly but funny guy. If the man pretending to be a woman actually looked remotely like a woman, I doubt this movie would have worked as well. Seeing this ugly and rubber-faced man with a cheesy wig STILL being ardently sought after by three suitors was pretty funny.

This isn't a great film but from a historical point of view, it's fascinating and excellent viewing for young adults to know what America was like for Blacks in this era. A very interesting and funny time capsule.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film had a couple of funny parts,but for the most part, made me want to go ahead and change DVD'S and watch \"Malibu's\" instead,which I had in my own collection. At least I would know there was something funny coming up and give me something to look forward to.

I was disappointed in this very low budget film. And I do not judge a movie by it's budget.It just lacked originality and was too predictable. I would not rent or even watch this film again, and I am usually a repeat offender of film. The actors were forgettable. The story was half thought out, and it left me with an insatiable urge to get my laugh on.I ended up watching Jamie Kennedy's White Boy Gone Gangsta to have the comedy itch scratched.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Much praise has been lavished upon Farscape, but I don't think it's that good. It certainly has a distinctive look, but it lacks just about everything else: story, purpose, direction, excitement; you name it. I'm a big sci-fi fan, and I make it a point to watch all the sci-fi shows I can. I've almost finished the four seasons of Farscape, and at this point I'm not very satisfied. The show does have a few good things - most notably Claudia Black (who's sadly missing from the first few episodes of season four) -, but they are very few and very far between. As a whole the show is marred by a lot of very silly stuff (such as Fantasy elements rather than SF ditto), and many many episodes, esp. in season four, are unspeakably messy and very poorly structured. And one just feels that it isn't going anywhere. It's mostly just non-directional adventures with thin, long-running plot lines which develop painstakingly slowly. Well, sometimes it's a little bit tighter, but it only lasts for a very few episodes at a time.

Effects-wise, there are a few impressive things here and there (esp. out in space, occasionally), but the show seems stuck in the same style of effects, which frankly gets old fast. Outlandish and unconvincing puppet aliens mar the show a great deal, and I've come to prefer (by far) the episodes where regular human-looking characters are the focus.

I think the Peacekeepers are by far the most stylish and intriguing and interesting figures on the show; they succeed in being a convincingly alien culture, despite their all-human appearance. There are a few really cool episodes with them, esp. in the first season (IIRC), where Crichton masquerades as a Peacekeeper captain, and invades and eventually destroys one of their secret bases. Such episodes can reach a rating of 8 out of 10, but I cannot award the show as a whole more than a \"4\" rating.

Aside from the Peacekeepers (which themselves are somewhat too single-mindedly totalitarian and militaristic to be really nuanced), the show simply doesn't offer anything important or significant that you need to know or want to see. OTOH, it does contain a few good ideas and is not a total loss.

This is just my opinion, of course, but as a seasoned sci-fi fan, I think it counts for something, and may be of help to others. There aren't a lot of good sci-fi shows out there; but Star Trek (any series) and especially the new Battlestar Galactica are definitely better than Farscape. But if you're a huge fan of mediocre sci-fi shows, you may well like Farscape, too.

My rating: 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I honestly fail to understand why people love this show so much. A friend of mine watches this and since I like sci-fi, I tried to watch along since the plot of the show sounded promising, but in truth it really is a very boring show. The only thing that will keep you awake during this show are the video game-like CGI-effects and the complete overuse of muppets. Note that I call it muppets because they actually really look like muppets, not like the aliens they should be.

Speaking of which; the muppets and make-up effects are horribly overused in this show. You have this guy who could be best described as a alien\/dwarf-hybrid, you have a pale girl who looks like a cheesy vamp-girl, you've got a floating potty-mouth frog-alien... It just feels very unnecessary and furthermore even to the point that you feel distracted from the whole storyline about a lost astronaut.

Every episode is also too much of a stand-alone. The creators of this show directed this in such a way that every episode almost feels like a whole other show. At least up until the point that you see the main-characters\/muppets again, that is. The whole plot about the main-character getting back to earth is way to much pushed to the background at points. The acting is also quite bad.

Conclusion: if you want good sci-fi, just look somewhere else. This isn't even real sci-fi to begin with in my opinion, since the show is more aimed at fantasy-elements with all the puppetry and weird dreams going on. And if you just want to see muppets then I suggest you watch the Muppet Show and feel glad that this abomination of a show has come to a end.

By the way; doesn't anyone have dejavu's with the concept of a living spaceship? Ohyeah thats right; Doctor Who started that concept almost about 30 years ago! This show is like a collection of 'sci-fi' leftovers. Scripts and events that were abandoned for a good reason, only to be picked up by this horrible show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love John's work as a singer, but the movie was dull and 'no worth the time' to view.

I thought he did an 'ok' job at acting his part. When he says, \"your having an affair with the ol' man\", to his co-star, I kinda chuckled at his facial movements... or lack thereof.

I would suggest the movie if you like John's music but not as a Saturday night video.

If you love his music, then the video has a little music from him in it, but not much.

So so.. at best","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Celebrity singers have always had a tough time breaking into the movies (the cinema is littered with failed attempts), and one can go on and on speculating why John Mellencamp never made it big as an actor. Instead of taking small parts in heartfelt projects, Mellencamp dives right in playing the lead in \"Falling From Grace\", which he also directed, and the results are as awkward and unbecoming as that title. Story of a famous singer returning to his hometown in the sticks, opening up old family wounds, boasts a screenplay by Larry McMurtry, but the meandering film goes nowhere slowly. The supporting cast is decent, including Kay Lenz (whom it's always nice to see), Mariel Hemingway and Claude Akins (who share the one really strong scene in the picture). As for John's acting, he doesn't look particularly comfortable, despite apparent efforts to make him look at home; he seems to be ducking the camera most of the time, and he never connects with the audience in an immediate way. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, I think the casting and acting were excellent. The problem is the story. There is basically no story here worth telling and thus basically no movie here. Larry McMurtry has done Lonesome Dove and I can't fault the original, though it probably didn't need sequels. He did Hud with Paul Newman, which is one of my favorite movies. Mellencamp is supposed to be a country singer, but the only song I hear him sing is an old Buck Owens song. The movie makes a big deal out of chicken farming. Mellencamp's character has a good wife, and it's utterly stupid of him to stray from her. The incident with riding in the sliding cage is utterly stupid. Maybe people do that for fun in some parts of the country, but I never heard of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Feeling Minnesota, directed by Steven Baigelmann, and starring Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio: The strained relationship between two brothers, Sam (D'Onofrio) and Jjaks (Reeves), is pushed to breaking point when Jjaks arrives at Sam's wedding and makes off with the bride, Freddie (Diaz), a former stripper, marrying Sam to repay a gambling debt owed to night-club owner Red (Lindo). Baigelman's writing and directing debut is a frustrating mess, full of hateful characters and lacking coherence. Putting Keanu and Diaz in the same movie should at least provide some eye candy, but Baigelman even cops out on that score, grudging his actors up with little positive effect. Very poor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Feeling Minnesota is not really a road movie, but that's still the best categorization I can generate. A road movie does not primarily depend on a great story line, and since the plot of this movie is truly pathetic, it does fulfil that description. To be interesting, such a movie must rely entirely on moving and intriguing characters, and on the chemistry between them. Unfortunately the staff of Feeling Minnesota fails utterly in producing this excitement.

The initializing presentation of the characters is unsatisfying and confusing; I can, for example, not figure out whether Jjaks (Keanu Reeves) did grow up in the house of his mother and brother or not. It is said, by his mother (Tuesday Weld), that he must live with his father, but nothing in the film suggests that it ever happens. The same goes for the rest of the characters - I never get to know them. They appear irrational, and no real explanation is given to why they do so.

The bottom line is that I leave the movie without any feelings for the characters, except dullness and perhaps a tiny kick of attraction for the cute Cameron Diaz.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first time I saw this film it was with this cute girl I was attracted to. we had a lot of fun laughing at it and generally making fun. So my impression was that it was terrible but watchable for cheeseyness value. Then, as part of our anniversary, we watched it together again on video. As it turns out, the movie is just terrible and unwatchable. It's amazing how cute girls can change the way the world looks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It hasn't even been two years since I first saw this film, and yet, I can barely remember a thing about this movie. Needless to say, I found it to be VERY forgettable. Of what I do remember, nothing stands out as particularly good. A talented cast is wasted in what I suppose was meant to be a dark comedy, but if that is the case, it fails miserably. At best, this film is mildly interesting. At worst, the seemingly omnipresent overcast skies are more interesting than the storyline. If you like watching films where it always seems damp and cool, then I guess you may find something to like in this picture. Just try to ignore what else is going on, because it is barely watchable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"J.J. Jameson (from Spiderman 2) Quote ... Crap, Crap, ...

Mega-Crap It pretends to be an homage (un\/intentional) to the Coen Brothers ... done poorly.

There is no real mystery to the plot.

Diaz's performance is totally uninspired.

The quirky characters don't really work.

There are a lot of \"duh\" moments.

I love black comedy, but this film isn't funny.

In my view, it wasn't worth the electricity.

There are many films in this genre which are much more entertaining.

I hope you find this review helpful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Feeling Minnesota is one of the worst films I have ever seen, it is also one of the most disgusting films ever made. It has to do with a woman who is forced to marry a disgusting mob man. At the wedding she meets his brother Jjaks. They have sex in the house after they eat the cake than decide to run away together. The other brother of course comes after him guns blazing and he kills his wife. Jjaks wakes up to find her corpse in the bathtub and buries her. He than seems to become friends with Jjaks and they try to get money together because someone is blackmailing them because he saw them and the body. This loops about and several characters dies or come back to life, but it never comes together with anything that could be called a good plot. The performances are horrible by pretty much everybody. Cameron Diaz, Keanu Reeves, and Dan Akroyed. The direction, dialogue, and visual effects are just horrible. A disgusting and horrible movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"During a lifetime of seeing and enjoying thousands of films, Feeling Minnesota is absolutely the worst (**major film with A-list stars) that I have ever seen. Bar none. This movie totally fails on every level. It's poorly photographed and edited. There's uninspired acting, the kind where the actors appear bored out of their minds. Just collecting paychecks, perhaps? And worst of all, the sludgy script appears to have been written under the influence of some unpleasant substance found only in sewers. I can't even begin to comprehend how the writer\/director could ever have found anyone to finance this project, let alone attract any of the stars that it did. I truly wish I could get back the time that I wasted watching this piece of garbage. If possible, I would have given this film a grade of zero. Better yet, a negative number.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a waste of talent. A very poor, semi-coherent, script cripples this film. Rather unimaginative direction, too. Some VERY faint echoes of _Fargo_ here, but it just doesn't come off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was without a doubt the worst movie I have ever sat through. And that's saying alot, because I've seen my share of horrible movies.

But I have never seen a movie in which every single character portrayed was an unintelligent loser. Seriously, there was not one respectable character in the entire script. How fitting that the plot was equally lame, lacking any intelligence whatsoever.

I can't believe that Keanu Reeves and Cameron Diaz would even consent to participating in such stupidity. And while I haven't seen all of their other movies, I've always enjoyed their performances until now. It's not that the acting was bad, just the entire story line was moronic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, if I was in the rental store and someone asked me if the movie was worth the three bucks for the rental, I'd have to say no. The plot was implausible. I've come to the conclusion that Keanu Reeves can not act. He can, at times, be painful to watch (though my wife thinks he's cute). Dan Aykroyd (who is usually great) was even a little disappointing as the crooked cop. On the plus side, the plot (because it is far-fetched) is unpredictable. Cameron Diaz was good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A waste of time, talent and shelf space, this is a truly abysmal film. What are big leaguers like Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz and Dan Aykroyd wasting their time being in such rubbish?. Petty criminal Reeves turns up to his brothers (Vincent D'Onofrio) wedding and ends up leaving with the bride. A comedy?, thriller?, romance? I honestly do not know! Reeves is wooden in the lead and casting Dan Aykroyd as a cop is so dreadful it has to be seen to be believed!. Only bright spot from a dark dark tunnel is Diaz and even she isn't that good. Rent out something else. everyone involved with this mess should hold there heads in utter shame and prey that it gets lost in oblivion in the years to come.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I want the 99 minutes of my life back that was wasted on this pathetic excuse for a movie. The acting was horrific! I used to be a fan of Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio. I will never look at them the same again. Keanu Reeves and Dan Aykroyd were not a surprise. Everyone knows they never could act. Thankfully, only Dan attempted an accent. His accent was a disaster as expected. I think he was either confused about the location of the film or had never actually spoken to anyone from Minnesota. I hope this review helps anyone who is undecided about what to do with their precious time. The only reason I was able to sit through the whole movie was because I was stuck somewhere without anything better to watch or read.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't remember too much about this movie except that there was a distinctly gratuitous destruction of luminaires (lamps). Almost every fight scene included the unnecessary and wanton destruction of useful light fixtures, even if outfitted with cheesy, '70's-style, cylindrical shades to keep with the time setting of the story. On one occasion, raucous lamp destruction takes place in a domestic fight scene between the brothers in both the living and dining rooms of their mother's house, with fixtures in both rooms being taken out. Yet, the most malicious destruction occurs moments later in a bookie's office and includes, but is not limited to, the toppling of a fixture with a ceramic horse-head base, which is consequently disintegrated, and the severe denting of a cylindrical shade as a guy falls back into it during another fisticuffs fight. Later, that lamp is toppled as well when the guy is shot, incurring further damage to the plastic-coated shade.

While this movie encourages a particularly wasteful attitude toward lamps, one should keep in mind that lamps, regardless of their cheap construction or gauche, top-heavy appearance, are still valuable for the illumination that they provide. However, if you ever feel the need to vicariously smash a lamp, I would highly recommend this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"WARNING! SPOILER! This movie is absolute crap. It is not entertainment. I haven't the words to describe the disgust that I felt at the end.

This is a badly made movie about the scum of society. During the whole movie I kept waiting for it to get better. It didn't. Instead, it just kept getting worse and worse.

When I see a movie that is as bad as this one I always try to find at least one good thing to say about it. In this case it proved impossible. I have not one good thing to say about it. How bad did it get? Well, here's an example: Towards the end Dan Akroyd smothers and kills Vincent D'Onofrio while Reeves and Diaz watch! This is not entertainment!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How to qualify this film, simply HORRIBLE. It is badly done with poor dialogues, Reeves played as bad as ever and Cameron Diaz competed with him. Do not waste your time watching such a film although a big waste of money has already occurred to make the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although I do not recommend this film, neither do I recommend reading this review without first seeing the movie. Though I have not given away the ending, or most of the plot twists, this movie would be best viewed without any prior information. It's hard to pinpoint the chief problem with the film Donnie Darko, as there are many to deal with. Richard Kelly, in his first feature film, seems to have collected enough scenes of adolescent rage, late-night stoner diatribes, self-righteous justifications and inoffensive, banal philosophy to inspire twenty teen-angst dramas; then mashed them into a single two hour package with a sci-fi twist. The result is deeply distressing-- for all the wrong reasons. The film attempts to lead the audience down convoluted paths without any sense of symbolism or meaning, to make them sympathize with one-dimensional characters, and above all hopes that they will ignore the underdeveloped plot, full of unreconciled loose ends, by hiding it under a veneer of CGI effects and neo-surrealism. The main character, Donnie Darko, is a young man, committed to therapy, misunderstood by his friends, and rendered hostile and disaffected by his suburban life. We are meant to feel that he is more intelligent than his schoolmates, although sometimes that is a difficult assumption to make. For example, when one of his friends comes up with an absurd theory about the Smurfs, and Donnie counters with a theory of his own, his friend complains about Donnie acting \"all smart.\" Donnie's speech, however, is no smarter than that of his friend-- just angrier. The only clear evidence of his intelligence is his principal's description of his standardized test scores as `intimidating;' but given the director's slant against simple categorization of human elements (as shown in the FEAR-LOVE sequence), this is a poor substitute for character development. Donnie takes prescribed drugs to combat mental problems, which are not addressed directly in this film. In fact, the entire issue of the drugs is understated, and one of the first chances the director has to redeem the film is lost. The ambiguity of Donnie's strange destiny, the possibility that all of this may be a product of his imagination, is pushed into the background, making the film 100 percent science fiction. This would not be a bad thing in itself, except that the \"science\" behind the \"fiction\" is very shaky. The explanations of time travel are weak, at best sounding like detached, uninformed rambling. We get the idea that the film's writer once read a book about time travel or a few chapters, and can't quite remember how it worked, but was sure that it was really interesting and wanted to work it into the film. The scientific portion, as a result, depends more heavily on expensive computer animations than actual development of the theories involved (at one point, a teacher discussing time travel states that if he continues to speak on the subject, he'd be fired. Apparently no further explanation is needed). Donnie's dealings with a visitor from the future lead him to commit several vicious actions. The justification for these actions is a tricky business. He damages his school, but it's okay, because his school doesn't treat him like a person. His punishment of a creepy self-esteem advocate (somewhat similar to Tom Cruise's character in Magnolia) results in the man's public humiliation. But should the audience believe that Donnie is some sort of avenging angel, striking out against ignorance and debauchery? He himself seems ignorant of the effects of these actions until after the fact. Aside from these flaws, the film is riddled with flat, uninteresting generalizations of humanity. The story is set in 1988, just before the Bush\/Dukakis election, and the director touches on this point during the film. The focus, however, extends exactly this far: Donnie's gruff, blue collar father is voting for Bush, while his free-spirited, rebellious daughter plans to vote for Dukakis. There is nothing even remotely resembling a political statement here; simply a statement of the obvious. The former are not necessary to make a good film, but the latter should be left out. Likewise, Donnie's heartfelt speech about not being able to lump all human emotions into the bland categories of \"fear and \"love;\" this doesn't ask the audience to make any great leaps of understanding. Everybody knows that there are more that two human emotions, and particular emphasis on this fact is worthless. Mr. Kelly gives homage to several symbols of 80's pop culture in his film: E.T., Stephen King, the Smurfs, Back to the Future. At it's heart, this film feels like the director's homage to himself, a collection of his own experiences, interests, personal heroes and adversaries, affirmations and disenchantments, roughly stitched together by untrained hands. Entire songs are played in music video format to the characters actions, seemingly because the director likes the songs. Characters who have little to no bearing on the plot (including the archetypal bully, fat girl, and right-wing idiot teacher) are given unnecessary focus, because the director really wanted to pack them in somehow. The awkward mess that is Donnie Darko leaves us wondering if Mr. Kelly has enough ideas left in his head to make another film, or if he has wasted all his creativity in one pointless, cluttered, meandering effort.

My rating: 1\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Meek and mild Edward G. Robinson (as Wilbert Winkle) decides to quit his bank job and do what he wants, open a \"fix-it\" repair shop behind his house. Mr. Robinson is married, but childless; he has befriended local orphanage resident Ted Donaldson (as Barry). Young Donaldson is an eager workshop assistant, and sees Robinson as a father figure. Robinson's nagging wife Ruth Warwick (as Amy) is unhappy with Robinson's job choice, and conspires to return matters to her idea of normalcy. Their lives are further disrupted when Robinson is drafted.

The war also disrupts what might have been an interesting story, as Robinson's character struggles against a domineering, unsympathetic wife. Possibly, filmmakers are showing how war can save marriages and positively redirect lives. Robinson and Donaldson are a likable team. Robert Mitchum has an inauspicious bit part. The ending \"trick\" played by Ms. Warwick and Donaldson is predictably staged.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this film becomes a holiday tradition I am going to have to hide for Christmas for the rest of my life. How do you even think of comparing this with 'A Wonderful Life'! It was absolutely awful! The boy singing made my toes curl. And what on earth was the deal with his hair?? Emmy worthy performance?! Please. Granted, Lucci did OK but an Emmy????? I think this film is a waste of money. The fact that they stuck so close to the original story pretending to give it a modern and retro touch made it even worse. It lacked enthusiasm and persistence on all accounts. Lighting, wardrobe, make-up, it seemed everybody wanted to go home. Just a big NO from me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was truly horrible. Bad acting, bad writing, bad effects, bad scripting, bad camera shots, bad filming, bad characters, bad music, bad editing, bad casting, bad storyline, bad ... well, you get the idea. It was just, just ... what's the word? Oh yeah ... BAD!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film has weird annoying characters, strange unexplainable slapstick, and an insurmountable amount of dialogue about smoking. The movie has a contrived plot of a bitchy, empty-headed woman's (Jeanne Tripplehorn) search for love. Although who would ever like Jeanne's character, personality, or reading of the dialogue, I really cannot say. Except that she likes to smoke.

Sarah Jessica Parker gives an interesting character performance (who likes to smoke). Dylan McDermott does his best to look pretty and soulful (as he smokes). And, hey, what is Jennifer Aniston doing there? Oh, she's not really in it enough for anyone to care about her. (But she likes to smoke).

This is a waste of anyone's time. I don't even know how I was able to sit through as much of the movie as I did. I can't even believe I spent the time to write this, except to warn others of its banality. Anyone need a cigarette?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the beginning, 'Til There Was You was on the right track, setting up for the big finish where it would all come together. But the thing is, it didn 't. I found the ending extremely disappointing, but maybe in someway it was the right ending; a little more realistic you could say. Judge for yourself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Til There was You is one of the worst films we've ever seen. It fails in every respect. Jeanne Tripplehorn was better (as an actress...) in Waterworld. In comparison, this film is Dungworld. When a character stumbles once, or even twice, in the course of a film, one can understand it. But Jeanne's character falls, trips, stumbles so often that she might have a bit of Jerry Lewis in her. In her defence, each (prat?) fall was probably blocked, choreographed, and rehearsed. And rehearsed. Although this is bad enough for a film, the actors (Dylan McDermott and Jeanne Tripplehorn) seem to spend most of the plot going \"out for a smoke\" or trying to find a place to smoke. If the film was a diatribe on having no place to smoke- Ok - BUT, it isn't.

However long this film runs, it is too long by 10 minutes past the running time.

Oh, Jeanne Tripplehorn, ALMOST acts in a public forum meeting. You ALMOST see her break life into the character. Oh, it's ALMOST as convincing as her scene yelling at Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct--hmm, on second thought, not really.

This is a film to avoid at all costs unless you need a cigarette and are trapped in nicotine addicts anonymous or forced to watch outtakes of HOOPER (Burt Reynolds). And even then, toss a coin or go to sleep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On this site I've often lambasted the Americans for not knowing how to write comedy, BUT, while they've never produced anything of the quality of 'Fawlty Towers', 'Blackadder' or 'The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin', they have also never (to my knowledge) made anything as bad as this: the nadir of British comedy.

On my Richter scale of comic awfulness, it rates only behind the truly execrable 'Are You Being Served' as the worst comedy show in the English language, with bad acting, annoying characters and humour that I'd grown out of before I left primary school. Unfortunately, it was part of a large crop of shows back then, along with 'Dad's Army', 'It ain't Half Hot Mum' and 'Allo, Allo' that relied on ridiculous situations and familiar catch-phrases to keep audiences \"amused\".

Michael Crawford proved later on that he's a talented performer, but personally, I'd rather be sentenced to a month of watching 'Rhoda' than endure a single episode of this drivel, which makes me ashamed to be British.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love Juan Piquer-Sim\u00f3n! He's my absolute favorite bad-movie director and, throughout his whole career, he incompetently tried to cash in on simply every successful contemporary trend in the horror and fantasy genres. After the big hit that was \"Superman\", J.P made his own and hilarious \"Supersonic Man\", he picked in on the violent slasher-movie madness with the insane \"Pieces\" and he really over-trumped himself with \"The Return of E.T.\", the unofficial and downright laughable sequel to Spielberg's SF-blockbuster. \"The Rift\" is obviously inspired by the series of profitable underwater monster movies like \"The Abyss\" and \"Deepstar Six\". From start to finish, you can amuse yourself by spotting all the stolen ideas and shameless rip-offs of these (and other) classics. When a completely new and fancy type of submarine vanishes near the deep Dannekin rift, a second mission with U-boat designer Wick Hayes on board is sent out to investigate what really happened to Siren One. In the dark depths of the ocean, the rescue mission discovers an underwater cavern where the government secretly experiments with mutant sea-creatures. The monsters are quite aggressive but there's also the danger of a government enemy among the crew members... \"The Rift\" is a forgettable film, but it nevertheless has some ingenious \u0096 though very dodgy \u0096 monster models. Fans of blood and gore won't complain, neither, as the beastly attacks are quite gruesome and merciless. The acting is very wooden although many of the cast names can definitely do better. It's advisable that you simply enjoy the clich\u00e9s and gory effects in the \"The Rift\" because, if you start contemplating about the screenplay, you'll find that it makes absolutely no sense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you like poor SE, (some) bad acting and a total lack of credibility, this is a movie for you. So a really cheap looking movie, but I liked it anyway. Why? Because I like those kind of movies. I can't help but smile when I see these kind of movies....... What were the producers, actors, director and SE people thinking when they made this film? Don't expect an \"Abyss\" or \"Alien\", just a (very) low-budget horror\/adventure movie.

There is one nice \"splatter\"moment when a guy's head is shot off, but for the most, the horror is pretty tame. The final monster is pretty cool too.

It's only 73 minutes long, so you can t go wrong there. Maybe you can pick it up at your local videostore or watch it on TV. I'm sure you will have a good time watching it.

But don't say you weren't warned.............","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How many English 101 student's versions of 1984 must America endure? \"Gosh, this is a great book, but kind of a downer. I know, I'll write one just like it where everything works out okay. I'll also replace Orwell's old, used up political insights from the thirties with my own insightful, informed opinions form the 1970s. Think, think, political insight... Evil Politicians, I'm a genius! And there will be clones that they make of themselves for some diabolical reason... I'll work on that. It'll work.\" No it won't, Bob Sullivan, writer of this story. This really is all you're fault. You could have stopped them early and said, \"Guys, with our budget and acting abilities, I was thinking more\u0085 romantic comedy, or we could move away form taking ourselves so seriously and make a campy spoof this tired, familiar genre of movies.\" Did you do that though bob? No you didn't, and you've had 28 years to think about it.

I don't mean to be so spiteful. I'm sorry I yelled at you Bob. You've obviously had to live with this mistake a lot longer then I have. Some blame really should go to Ron Smith, who helped you adapt the screenplay. He could have stopped you at any time. You were young and naive, and he took advantage of you. Now he wrights the plots for video games and you, bob, well who knows what you do. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh Bob, but that's the way it is. You were sold upriver by the Hollywood hotshots. As if Ron wasn't enough, Michael bay also saw your movie, and without even asking for rights or anything, added some explosions to your concept and turned it into \"The Island.\" That I think is the most disgusting part of all, that with a little eye candy, your script could of easily been good enough for a major Hollywood production, which I'd of hated just as much as this movie and not felt sorry for you at all.

I'm sorry things worked this way for you bob. Ron and Michael walked all over you, leaving you a withered shell of a man, who's height of movie writing greatness will be a joke on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Don't focus on that though Bob, because Karma works in mysterious ways, and one day, they'll pay for what they did to poor little Bob Sullivan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For those of you who have a few kind words for this film, I suspect you didn't see it when it was released as \"Parts: The Clonus Horror.\"

It was a dreadfully boring movie. It missed the mark in at least three ways. It wasn't good enough to be scary; it wasn't bad enough to be funny (although MST3K took care of that); and, even in 1979, the plot was unoriginal.

Earlier contenders are \"The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler\" (1971). It's the same idea (clones as spare parts). The movie is entertaining, and it had a fine cast. Another is \"Sleeper\" (1973). Yes, the Woody Allen movie. Remember the flattened nose? And \"Clones\" (1973). The last two plots aren't as similar to Clonus as the first one, but they predate Clonus.

They are also several fiction books from decades earlier that deal with the idea, although often, the word \"clone\" isn't used.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A man is pulled off a London Street and taken to some foreign country where he is tortured as a terror suspect. Dull, banal film bored the hell out of me. More an idea then a film. I was half way into this 77 minute film when I realized I had no idea who anyone on screen was. It was as if they took every other similar film and pulled out all of the ideas and put them in one place with out the real notion of character. Certainly its well acted with passion but there is no emotional center, there is just an everyman of sorts which the filmmakers feel is enough. Its not. And while the story presented id in theory important as a warning the film is too dull to convince anyone of it, especially if one has seen the other, better films of a similar ilk (rendition with Reese Witherspoon for example)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Beloved tale of hero \"Benji\" (\"Higgins\" the dog) who is many different things to many different people. In his busy day \"Benji\" grabs breakfast at the house of two young children, has a chat with an officer of the law, chases an old lady's cat and reminds an aging caf\u00e9 owner to start on the day's special. Helper to some, amusement to others, he is companion to all.

Trouble arises when his young friends are kidnapped and taken to the abandoned mansion that he calls home. From here on we know only \"Benji\" can save the day.

Plot is routine from writer\/producer\/director Joe Camp, and he does tend to over do the slow motion effects. Audiences though will find it hard to resist the lovable little pooch, and kids of all ages are sure to adore him. Cast were never going to be anything but background to \"Benji\".

Not what you'd call inspired, but fun family fare. Academy Award nominee for \"Benji's\" theme, \"I Feel Love\".

Saturday, July 13, 1996 - Video","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know the movie could have been a lot better when the animal - in this case, a little dog - is the best actor on the screen! The acting in this film is so bad, so amateurish, by dog got embarrassed watching this. He (\"Rusty,\" our Golden Retreiver) could have done a better job than the people in here.

By now this is almost a trite story: kid finds animal, pet is not liked nor wanted by one of the parents but the \"pet\" winds up saving one the kids and is now a hero and an official member of the family. Sound familiar?

I remember this movie being a big hit, but never got around to seeing it until the mid '90s on VHS. I was shocked how bad it was. Why so much fuss over a film? Was it because there was so much sleaze in the early '70s that a nice family film stood out in the crowd? Possibly. There wasn't a whole lot of wholesome entertainment in the decade of the '70s plus a lot of people are suckers for cute little animal stories. Who could resist this cute little dog? Not me. But the movie I can resist: it's a Grade B storyline with horrible acting.

Recommended only for small-dog animal lovers and I mean \"lovers\" because even the average pet owner will fall asleep trying to watch this film in this day-and-age.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are like me and observed the original \"Benji\" phenomenon from afar, finally seeing the movie for the first time 30+ years later, you may be shocked to discover how truly awful it is, and more mystified than ever about its popularity back in 1974.

My judgment is not entirely objective as I tend to have a favorable bias toward children's films and for that reason cut them considerable slack. On the other hand I have always hated this particular dog, a feature on the last couple seasons of \"Petticoat Junction\". Never a great show, the dog-less early episodes were at least a nice showcase of beautiful actresses and the introduction of the dog cut into their screen time.

Benji is an 86-minute mega-dose of the dog, following him on several daily circuits through the town of McKinney, Texas. If this sounds boring you would be advised to give \"Benji\" a wide birth and to never let your remote control fall into the hands of a \"Benji\" fan (if there are still any out there).

Unlike \"My Dog Skip\", \"Monkey Business\" or \"Because of Winn-Dixie\" the human actors in the cast are extremely weak. \"Big Valley's\" Peter Breck plays the standard stern father and just seems to embarrassed at the idea of appearing in something this lame.

If one of your children (of any age) appears to be finding \"Benji\" entertaining you should consider cutting back on their medication.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The dog can act...unfortunately nobody else in the cast of this sordid faux children's film can. A stray yet very clever dog insinuates himself into the lives of two motherless children, much to the chagrin of their bitter and cold-hearted father. In what can only be described as Dickensian, the evil widower forbids his children --- who may or may not be mentally challenged --- from playing with Benji. Neither the children nor Benji obeys. Soon the children are kidnapped and Benji has to help the police find them. It's only then that the old man realizes that Benji is good, not bad.

Tom Lester, whose only previous acting experience appears to have been playing the dim-witted Eb on GREEN ACRES plays one of the kidnappers. So does the regrettably over-utilized Deborah Walley. Walley's previous screen triumphs include BEACH BLANKET BINGO and the woeful IT'S A BIKINI WORLD. She also played both Gidget and Tammy in the past and here attempts to obliterate her good-girl reputation by playing it bad!

STAY away from BENJI...he's a dog and this movie is a dog!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This adorable dog (called various names during the film) is seemingly loved by the whole town...but he's alone. He is friends with two children (Cindy and Paul played astonishingly bad) but their father won't let them have a dog. Then Benji meets Tiffany--ANOTHER adorable dog. They (instantly) fall in love and it leads to a hysterical montage of the two of them frolicking in the grass, drinking from a fountain...in slow motion no less! Also Benji lives in the cleanest abandoned house I've ever seen. Then the two kids are kidnapped by the most inept, unfunniest kidnappers I've ever seen and--wouldn't you know it--they hide the brats in the exact house Benji lives in!

WOW was this bad! A huge hit (for some reason) in 1974 which led to many sequels (which I will NOT see). The film is just terribly acted with \"humor\" so unfunny and badly done that you just stare at the TV in amazement. The film also has a song that is played NONSTOP during the movie--so much that you want to scream. It was inexplicably nominated for Best Song at the Oscars--it didn't win. Yeah--the dogs are adorable and much better than the human actors--but I need more than cute dogs to keep me interested.

You might think I'm being a little hard on a kids film but I saw it with my 5 year old nephew. Within 20 minutes he was bored silly and basically stopped watching. I kept watching in hope that it would get better--it didn't. Really lousy--but VERY patient kids or dog lovers might like it.

Note to parents: It's G rated but a dog is viciously kicked a few times. You don't see it--you just hear it and the dog survives but this might bother real young kids.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The word honor should be erased from the vocabularies of all nations. It aggravates male dumbness and is responsible for the death of millions of innocent people. Anybody who does not agree should not care to continue reading this comment.

As can be expected with these screenwriters, Yakuza is an engaging crime thriller with quite a lot of respect for the ethnical background against which it is acted out. Friends of gore and violence will not be disappointed either, but especially towards the end violence becomes somewhat pointless, redundant and downright silly. Contrary to other reviewers I found Robert Mitchum's performance not very good. This is an actor who definitely did not improve with age. He looks like a tired janitor (it does not go too well with the part), and his air of detachment which made him such an impressive screen presence in earlier years comes through as either confusion or lack of interest. Ken Takakura and Richard Jordan are very good as man of honor and young, intelligent, feeling thug respectively.

The best way to stand this movie is seeing it as a tragic comedy. Things are set in motion by the Mitchum character's asking the Takakura character a favor based on wrong assumptions. The error quickly becomes evident, but the sense of honor demands they must not back off. So they start sneaking around, shooting in all directions, wielding swords and wrecking their friend's arty apartment (although the guy pleads with them \u0084stop it, please\" all through the corresponding fight). Bodies start piling up and the story ends with Mitchum's character making his point: If YOU give HIM YOUR little finger, I will give YOU MINE. Well, it's the least he can do, can't he? So he pulls out a knife, takes a resigned breath and starts sawing off said extremity (outside the frame, luckily). It was a moment which probably should have been solemn. It just made me laugh.

The use of locations is very good in this movie. I particularly liked the scenes filmed in and around the International Conference Hall on Lake Takaragaike, an interesting futuristic building by architect Sachio Otani (the Kyoto protocol was signed there). To me the presentation of architecture seems better here than in Sydney Pollack's more recent documentary Sketches of Frank O. Gehry which is about architecture and nothing else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was probably intended as an \"arty\" crime thriller, but it fails on both counts - there are few thrills and not enough substance. The plodding pacing makes it hard to sit through, and the occasional action scenes are too sloppily edited and confusingly staged to offer much compensation. At least the level of acting is high. (**)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of teenagers discover a bootleg video game, but once they start playing it, they each start dying just like they do in the video game. As they become addicted to the game, they need to find a way to beat the game's central villain, The Blood Countess, before she kills them all.

The premise does sound a little stupid and familiar but this film could have still been mildly entertaining. However, this \"horror\" movie is not scary at all. It's actually more of a comedy than anything else. The film takes itself way too seriously and the movie is not a lot of fun to watch. Sure, there is the occasional laugh but for the most part, the film is very dull. PG-13 horror films can still be good like The Ring or Cry Wolf. The Ring and Stay Alive aren't really the same type of horror film though. Stay Alive is more of a slasher movie and since its rated PG-13, the death scenes are very tame. It should have been the movie's main sell and since it had an interesting concept the deaths could have been really good. Unfortunately, the studio wanted a bigger audience and the film had to be altered.

The acting is a complete joke and most of the cast give awful performances. Jon Foster is not a very good leading man. He lacks charisma to really engage the audience or for the audience to care about him. His character isn't unlikable just very bland. Samaire Armstrong actually gives an okay performance though a little too bland to truly stick out. Frankie Muniz probably gives the best performance in Stay Alive. That's an honor on the level of being the best player on the Houston Texans. Sophia Bush is absolutely terrible as October. Her performance feels so rushed and so fake. The most annoying character in the movie is Phineas played by Jimmi Simpson. His character is so unlikable you will be rooting for him to die.

In fact, most of the characters are pretty unlikable so that makes it even harder to become interested in the film. It's just hard to feel sorry for some of these annoying kids and it's a lot more fun to watch if you want the characters to actually survive. The only real good thing about the movie is the atmosphere. It's a little old but it still kind of works. The film is also really short so it's not too much of a pain to sit through. I wouldn't really blame the cast though because they were working with an inexperience director and writer. The direction is not very good and the screenplay isn't much better. Stay Alive is actually not the worst horror film of 2006. That honor would go to When a Stranger Calls. Stay Alive is still a missed opportunity though. In the end, this cheesy and lame horror film is better left on the shelf. Rating 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't laughed so much in a theater in years. The only problem is that it was not the intent of the movie to make my throat raw from laughter.

This movie is absolutely overflowing with bad CGI, absolutely terrible duologue, absolutely terrible *acting*, and enough geek references to make the whole thing come off as nothing but complete cheese.

As a gamer and a geek-type girl myself, I did recognize all of the obvious game references in this movie as well as the geek STUFF that was just thrown into the background as eye candy (the Steamboy poster, the t-shirts from thinkgeek.com and j-list.com), and that didn't redeem the movie at all.

The only thing that might have been good at ALL were the ghost children type characters that were purposefully badly done in CGI to make it look like they were from a game, and who were OBVIOUSLY stolen from Japanese horror movies.

To be honest, it was hilariously bad, and something I'd expect from a midnight showing of a made-for-TV b grade Sci-Fi channel movie. Don't expect more than that and you'll have a great time. Just don't get a soda or you'll spit it everywhere when you get great lines like: \"Why did you bring that game into our lives?! WHY?!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Aside from Frankie Muniz chattering too fast to understand (Malcolm in the Middle flashbacks?) this film still cannot conjure up a scare. The idea with the \"Countess\" and the history surrounding her placed into the story was fun but the plot, and many side plots, just don't tie together. Plot synopsis: murdering ghost lures victims through video game. Toss in some blood spatters and a special effects and you've got yourself another bombed out would be horror flick. The ghost cronies resemble the ghost in \"The Ring Two\" far too much. The acting and constant and dramatic change in everyone's emotions is unbelievable. Save your money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad, bad movie. When I saw the synopsis I was expecting something like Ring only with video game instead of tape. Nothing of the sorts happened. I'll admit idea is interesting and could be turned into a good movie but this is not it.

First of all choosing real life person, countess Bathory, is stupid move that adds absolutely nothing to the story. Anybody even vaguely familiar with her story would begin to wonder why and how did this Hungarian noblewoman end up in this movie. Choosing a generic vengeful spirit would be much, much better.

Then there is whole you-die-in-real-life-as-you-die-in-the-game concept. As I said before interesting, Ring-like story. But instead of developing it into good story line it sort of just flows along with no explanation given why did this game became such as it is, why it was created and so on. Waste of good idea.

And finally this movie doesn't even have gory of funny parts that can if not save at least make crappy horror movies watchable. Death scenes are too quick and acting is too wooden to be funny.

Avoid if possible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In The Ring, it was a videotape; a website was the problem in Feardotcom; the danger in Pulse came from computers; and Phone and One Missed Call featured\u0097you guessed it\u0097deadly phones. In Stay Alive, the piece of technology that causes all manner of problems is an online game: those who play it wind up dead soon afterwards. How clever!

Directed by William Brent Bell (who?), and featuring an unimpressive cast of twenty-somethings that you might have seen before, but probably can't remember where or what the hell their names are, this is an extremely derivative piece of film-making aimed squarely at the PG-13 horror set; seasoned scary film watchers will no doubt find Stay Alive extremely tedious, highly predictable and not in the least bit frightening.

The poorly developed plot follows a group of gamers with extremely daft names (October, Loomis, Phineus, Hutch, and Swink!?!) who attempt to unravel the mystery behind the deadly game before they too become victims. Eventually, they discover that it is the evil spirit of the legendary Countess Elizabeth Bathory who is killing anyone who dares to play, and that their only hope of survival is to continue with the game to the end.

With a story as dumb as this, viewers should expect a film with loose ends aplenty, not one iota of logic (who made the game, how, and why is never explained), very little in the way of scares or gore, and a dumb closing scene to leave the door open for\u0097God forbid\u0097a sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of young adults open a plain of escape for the spirit of Elizabeth Bathory when they recite her poem from a video game supposedly representing a s\u00e9ance. The only one who dies in the game is Miller(Adam Goldberg)who also is found dead the same way he perished in said video game. While the others' characters didn't die in the video game, their reciting her poem has instead unleashed the video game into reality with walking CGI characters stalking and killing each of them, one by one. They must follow certain methods using a mirror and nails to defeat Bathory and save their skin.

If this premise sound stupid, that's because it is. The characters are ho-hum rejects from bad WB television shows, this time allowed to spout profanity. This flick follows the slasher rules, but doesn't show much violence or gore. It stays PG-13 safe with most of the death taking place off-screen. There's a scene where the true hero and heroine are running from video game characters pursuing them. Yes, it's that bad. Nothing at all to recommend. Good-looking cast including Sophia Bush as the appropriately named October.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After the mysterious death of an old friend,a group of teenagers find themselves in the possession of Stay Alive,a horror survival video game based on the gruesome story of Erzebet Bathory known as The Blood Countess.The group begins to play the grisly game and soon they are murdered one by one in the same method as the character they played in the game.As the line between the game world and the reality disappears,our heroes must find a way to defeat vicious Blood Countess. \"Stay Alive\" is an incredibly poor teen slasher flick without any iota of suspense.Writer-director William Brent Bell doesn't have the damn clue how to make a watchable horror movie.The jump scares are irritating,the blood\/gore level is almost non-existent and the story doesn't make sense.The dialogue is utterly bad and the acting of all involved is embarrassing.\"Stay Alive\" is easily one of the worst mainstream horror flicks of 2006.Stay away from this stinking turd.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Talk about false advertising! I wasted an hour and twenty five minutes watching this piece of crap and there was not one leisure suit, not one platform shoe, no pointy-finger dancing, and not a single disco ball. I watched it on a Saturday night, and ended up with an awful fever, but it had nothing to do with the music.

Seriously, with or without John Travolta, this movie sucked.

From the opening scene, you will be asking yourself the question, \"Where did that rope come from, and will it please hang me, too?\" From its unabashed bias against the driving abilities of the Pennsylvania Dutch, to the shameless promotion of the apparently everlasting capacities of Alienware laptop batteries, to the cheap horror effects lifted directly from Japanese cinema, this is the worst film to hit theaters since The Grudge.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was not very excited to see this movie in the first place but a group of us decided to go see it on opening night. I felt like getting up and walking out and attempting to get my money back 20 minutes into this film. I felt that the movie was very boring, uninteresting, and not true in many aspects including \"gaming\". I tried my best not to fall asleep during the movie as i watched one of the worst horror films i have ever seen. The scary movie series was scarier than this movie. The sad attempt to pull in a Gothic girl, an overworked business man, and 15 year old geek, and some random guy into a video game that kills you is a bad plot to begin with. Then they try to throw in a very horrible love scene where the main character kisses another girl after saving her 10 minutes after his girlfriend was murdered. The theater was packed when the movie started by then end a little over half of the people had left before it was over. If you feel the need to waste only 1 hour and 16 minutes of your time seeing this movie ... prepare to feel cheated.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Plot: A group of young people with ridiculous names (Hutch, Swink, Phineaus, and October)are brought together by the death of their equally ridiculously named friend Loomis. After the funeral, they decide to divide up their late friend's belongings. Among them is a video game called Stay Alive. The group decides there's no better way to show their grief than to all partake in a little virtual bloodshed. But the more they play, the more they realize the connection between the game and the death of poor ol' Loomis.

The Production: This film is just another entry into the latest Hollywood craze of low-budget PG-13 horror aimed at cashing in on the junior high school crowd. The direction is sloppy to say the least with quick, music video style cuts that make the action difficult to follow. The dialog is so bad that it actually kills brain cells. The plot itself is so full of holes that we never even learn where the game came from or why those who play it die.

The idea behind this film, although not entirely original, had some promise. But the poor execution on both sides of the camera make this one big dud.

If you've ever got a craving for a \"killing someone in a video game makes them dead in real life\" horror film take my advice and skip Stay Alive for the superior Brainscan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I tried. God knows I tried to like this Swiss Cheese of a movie, but the story was too full of holes, some big enough to drive a horse drawn carriage through. The acting overall was even and the characters endearing enough that you regretted they died off like recently sprayed roaches, scattering off to die their own gruesome deaths. Overall, however, it was not really very scary. Afterall we have seen spooky quickly moving figures in the background since \"The Brood\" why back when \/ and it was scary then just briefly. This film just never resolved the basic plot points and thats the writer's job. Naturally you would expect the director to pick up on the fact that the story did not make sense. Like who's was the secret room behind the wardrobe, why did the blood hungry ghost not die when she received the nails as prescribed by the book they read earlier? Why did the computer say \"game over\" for Frankie's character even though he lived? The list goes on and on. I don't really feel comfortable recommending this film as its makes you feel like you wasted your time and there was not enough payoff in truly scary moments.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was not very good in my opinion. While not a complete waste of an hour and a half (luckily I didn't have to pay $ for it), it just wasn't very scary. There were parts where I jumped and a few minimally violent\/gory scenes, but overall only someone easily frightened would consider this movie scary.

The overall writing and acting were very weak. The characters never evolved or grew as people. Even at the end, the lead guy, whatever his name was, didn't man up and had to be rescued from the fire at the last minute. The plot also had inconsistencies. The police officer who was killed was NOT murdered in the same way he died in the game. The girl October mentioned that in order to kill the evil demon lady you had to read something from the correct text. Funny how they never bothered to do that and still managed to escape. The Malcolm-in-the-Middle kid died in the game but didn't die \"in real life.\" Also, making the game play by itself was very weak writing. It would have been okay for the brother's death, just to get them playing again. But you are supposed to play a video game and stay alive and 3 people die before you play again...why do you even need the game? If you like movies like the Ring and thing its scary and fun, watch this movie. If you know someone like that you can watch it with at laugh at, do it. If you like \"horror\" movies that make you laugh out loud and you have the opportunity to watch this movie for free, do it. Otherwise, stay far far away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stay Alive has a very similar story to some Asian horror films which include technology on the story.Some of this Asian horror films are One Missed Call,Ringu and Pulse.So,the idea of Stay Alive is very clich\u00e9d and obvious but the filmmakers behind it did not know how to put something new or interesting to the clich\u00e9s in Stay Alive.This film is totally crap.But a very big crap.All the elements of Stay Alive belong to the worst class of ''horror'' films:shallow characters,nothing of suspense,stupid ''horror'' which makes laugh and light violence.It's easy to note that the ''director'' is incapable to create something original or disturbing.I do not wanna loose more time writing about this pathetic film.I just give you an advice:do not see this film.I really hated it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I could tell this would be a bad one from the trailer, but the lure of the DVD box got me to rent it anyway. Boy was I right..

Also for some reason the DVD version is VERY fuzzy and unclear at times (in terms of video quality). It appears as if they shot the whole movie with a 20 year old camcorder, it looks so bad. I really did not like the plot, and after watching the movie I was very let down. I will NOT tell any spoilers, but let it be said that the end was so bad that I laughed, it has been done so many times before.

The whole story seems like something that came out of a middle schooler's English paper. If I had to peg one movie as the worst horror movie I've ever seen, this one may just be it. I can't believe they actually released this film. It really isn't worth the rent, or a penny of anyone's money unless you want a good laugh at the movie's expense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A mediocre at best horror flick that deals with dumb, not so horny teens who discover an evil video game (GASP) is killing those who die in the game (DOUBLE GASP). This movie is the sustained mystery of the Mystery Gang in \"Scooby Doo\". I was waiting for them to pull off a mask of one of the villains. I could deal with this for 40 minutes even as a movie on sci-fi but going all the way to the theaters, come on people. The effects were very mediocre, this whole scenario is something of crummy two-but director Uwe Boll, since this would be his cast. As always the great thing about video game systems is the glorious power button. I'd suggest using that mid-viewing. *1\/2","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stay Alive, Stay Alive, Stay Alive, I am called the attention it was the trailer and not the cartel.

The topic of the movie centred on a video I play that was created by a countess to kill the people and to live eternally is acceptable.

First that quite, bad movie of horror, the blood sees more or less sparked(spread gossip), these scenes is bled they are the more bad.

But actually(indeed) that bad is this movie, very, very, bad, but bad in all the aspects.

I do not recommend this movie to anybody, trailer well, movie bad.

I do not deal since(as,like) they spend(consume) money and time doing these senseless movies and too bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly, I was a big fan on 'Stay Alive' trailer when it got released even some months before. I kept on telling my friend how this movie has a great story plot - and perhaps a good one. Anyway - this movie is somewhat below my expectations.

The plot has a great potential, but how the story unfolds, along with the acting , directing and bad CGI - this film is a disaster. The ghost doesn't make any sense, and including the killings - its all just too hurried, creating a sense of 'unrealistic' in the audience's mind.

This film could be scary for some audiences - but fear in a sense of shock (Due to the sound effect, etc) rather than enduring fear due to certain valid factors in the movie.

You should re-consider watching this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stay Alive is a bland horror movie about a video game that kills people the same way they die inside the game. The friends that play this game soon figure this out, and then realise they must defeat the Blood Countess from the video game or accept their fates. We've had video tapes in The Ring, a deadly website in FearDotCom. Now it's onto video games. Stay Alive does some things well; the character development is quite a bit deeper than it usually would be in a horror movie. We really see into some of the characters feelings and past and get to know them all quite well, so the audience may gain some emotions for them. The film is also very suspenseful. Tense, unnerving moments are frequently played through the film, accompanied by unsettling, creepy music. There are plenty of jumps and jolts for the viewer. This can be ideal once or twice, but these false scares that Hollywood seems to enjoy overplaying in horror films nowadays, wears thin in Stay Alive. The camera will tend to provide sharp angles or quick flashes in order to give viewers a very quick glimpse of a demon or witch, and try to scare them with this sudden burst on the screen. Why? The gore is obviously very weak because of the film's certificate. The script to Stay Alive is very cheesy and quite laughable, and the characters tend to play it too melodramatically and confusingly. Also, clich\u00e9s come in from every direction, for instance people wandering around on their own in search of a strange noise or if they have spotted a figure in the dark, they will go and investigate it. However the computer graphics used for the video game segments are rather impressive and look colourful and sharp, working well with the other parts of the film. But overall, there is just not enough to hold out on with this film. Stretching at just over a hundred minutes, it won't be a battle to Stay Alive, but rather, Stay Awake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seriously, if you want to see a clich\u00e9 horror movie you have to see this one I guess. It contains all the \" scary parts where nothing happens \", \" the nerd type who actually isn't killed\", \" boy and girl coming together and surviving\", \"facing an old child-fear\" etc... I can go on. I wanted to see this movie cause i tought the mix of a video game and a movie would work out. Guess i was wrong. Which makes the movie more bearable? It is only 1hour17min so if you are bored it might be a good idea although i rather stay bored. Why absolutely not see it? Frankie Munitz aka Malcolm is just irritating as the nerd-type. I could smack the guy and it is so sad he didn't die earlier and in the end he even comes back. See something else!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Good idea....shame about the actual movie. Would of liked it to be a bit more scary, and explain more about the characters and who exactly the evil woman was? If she was torturing those kids why were they helping her kill and not helping others kill her?? Its a bit of a come down from Malcolm in the Middle!

I think it would of benefited from being slightly longer and going into more detail with the characters, although after about an hour I was wondering when it would end!!

Would of been better too if the actual characters that killed them were not computerise in reality, it sort of made them crap looking. And what happened to the Frankie Munitz character? He fell into a bed of wild roses so should of been safe, however the computer game showed him as game over, ie dead. Next thing he appears with that irritating blonde lass to rescue the guy afraid of fire who, I noticed, had no qualms about flipping the lighter when demon lady was after him!!

Too many inconsistencies in this movie to really enjoy it, however, might make you think twice about playing that new computer game!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Daniel Auteuil's Bruno in Petites Couperes is a middle-aged model of his Pierre in Christian Vincent's La Separation of 10 years ago. In both films, youthful confidence in left-wing ideology and love (mutual metaphors) crumbles into paranoia - manifesting itself as trapped aggression in Pierre and desperately comic womanizing in the more recent Bruno.

Unfortunately for Auteuil fans, the actor has become reliant on a uniform world-weariness (not unlike compatriot Johnny Hallyday in Leconte's recent l'Homme du Train). Acting it ain't, and becomes rather frustrating as the film progresses. Pascal Bonitzer doesn't help as the writer\/director of the project. His sequencing of episodes overlaid with connecting symbolism fail to mask the film's lack of rhythm. I was particularly furious that the imposingly dramatic\/romantic backdrops of Grenoble were made virtually redundant by a cameraman who was obviously shivering in the cold.

Krisitn Scott Thomas almost rescues the show with her female counterpart to Bruno, Beatrice. She dramatizes the dizzying contradictions intended as Bruno in a character of increasing complexity to the point of becoming surreal. Bonitzer cannot sustain this though, and the flagging plot demands Beatrice to even out into another bourgeois mannequin. In doing so Bonitzer shows then denies Scott Thomas the Oscar cabinet.

All the characters' submersion into the bourgeoisie may be a viable and indeed tragic outcome, but in this case it's a cop-out of a cadence (unlike the brutal, painful denouement of La Separation). A serious disappointment, 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I happened to see this film on a flight from Paris to Boston and it reminded me of the food on the plane: generic, tasteless and obscure. The French cinema seems to have lost its footing these days and this is a good example of how a motley script can waste brilliant actors. While some may find the 'playfulness' of the script to be in line with the dictates of Euro post modernism, the whole project seems more like a post-mortem on the death of Euro-cinema's golden years and truly fabulous talents --- one is vaguely reminded here of Bunuel but without the charm or wit.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The obsession of 'signifie' and 'signifiant' is not enough to make a good film. Pascal Bonitzer should have remained in our memory as a brilliant film theorist back in the '60\u00b4s. It was not necessary to take the camera. The result is quite frustrating. It\u00b4s a pity for his excellent leading actors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The distribution was good, the subject could have been interessant and comic. whereas, he described the wandering of an old non credible communist looking for loving sensations. Instead of this, the atmosphere is nor lively nor heavy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot in Petites Coupures certainly left this viewer dumbfounded.

***spoiler***

In the space of 48hrs or so, Auteuil's character has an affair with a teenager, loses his wife's affections, attempts to seduce Scott Thomas, is rejected by her goes on to grope yet another female character in the back of a car and then is finally shot for his trouble.

***end of spoiler***

wha ???

The only saving grace in this flick is Kristin Scott Thomas. Similar to Charlotte Rampling, she seems a *natural* to star in French cinema. My hope is that one day Fran\u00e7ois Ozon may cast her in a part where she can show her true talent.

There are some fine French films such as the remarkable Le Colonel Chabert begging for a DVD release, yet this is the tripe that gets chosen.

Avoid this one.

zzzz..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was not that good at all. Here is the first clue and that it is not gonna be a strong movie, Harrison Ford's name not only appears first but it is also bigger than the title. The music was nominated for an Oscar, What the heck was that? That music was probably the most annoying thing in the movie. The acting was sub par at best, except the Amish boy he did a decent job for being so young. Then you have the story which was weak and a little over the place, and it won for adapted! The music was horrid, I know I already said something but it was really bad. The premises was real good and it should be remade. Well that's all I really have on that.

Your Average Movie Guy,

-Trever","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Harrison Ford playing a playing a cop in a crime thriller. The perfect ingredients it SEEMS for top entertainment with Harrison back to his Indy and Han Solo best, protecting a witness from ruthless and merciless murderers. How easy it is to be fooled. If the film concentrated on the main, supposed, themes of crime and suspense instead of putting up barns and shoving ice creams in peoples faces it possibly could have been more worthwhile. Unbelieveably predictable with the best method of despatching of a foe is with corn.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A cheap and cheerless heist movie with poor characterisation, lots of underbite style stoic emoting (think Chow Yun Fat in A Better Tomorrow) and some cheesy clich\u00e9s thrown into an abandoned factory ready for a few poorly executed flying judo rolls a la John Woo. Even the squibs look awful. At no point in the proceedings does it look remotely like America. Three wonky old cars do not a country make.The Mustang even has a wobbly right front wheel. The plot, such as it is, is so derivative and predictable that the ending is like a mercy killing. It couldn't come soon enough. Even the jewellery from the robbery looks like the cheapest junk costume jewellery available. The awful dialogue and hopeless overacting by everyone who gets shot top off a real waste of space and time. Worth watching if you want to know how not to make a clich\u00e9-ridden low budget movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes Pigeon and Coburn are great, and it's interesting to watch them, although Coburn seems rather restrained and dull here. It's enjoyable to view Seattle, Victoria and Salt Lake City of 1970's, and the period cars and clothing. That's all the good in this boring film. The dialog is incredibly bad, as is most of the acting. Ray and Sandy's motivations seem forced and unlikely. I've seen this \"training to be a pickpocket\" routine several times before. There's a long build up, leading to nothing. Better to catch an episode of \"Streets of San Francisco\", or one of the many great crime\/caper movies. To name a few, there are Bedtime Story, remade as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Lavender Hill Mob, The Grifters, Paper Moon, The Sting, and best of all, House of Games.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't care what anyone says, this movie was crap. The only thing it had going for it was camera work which was very well done. As for the dialogue I have heard so many people talk about...it sucked too. Yes it was honest and true to life, but so what, I can hear anyone talk like that on the street, or in a fast food joint. What made the dialogue good in movies like Pulp Fiction, and Gosford Park was the fact that it is WRITTEN dialogue, that takes time to think through. Another thing was that the director should not have put himself in the picture. I believe that the male character could have been a lot stronger, but instead it seemed weak. In fact the movie seemed to revolve around the male character, and then he completely disappears in the last twenty minutes. The girl in the film I found completely repulsive, not in appearance, but in her needy needy ways. Saying she is in love with a guy, and actually getting jealous of him the next day, what a crock of crap. Final thing: the sound was terrible, and I hope it was only something that plagued my theater instead of actually being on the final cut of the film. There was a constant buzzing sound during several scenes and it was actually taking away from the talking going on. The one good thing again was Blood's job as the DP, but the actress that played the main guy's ex girlfriend did a very good job as well. These two things couldn't save an ultimately terrible movie, which I refuse to call a film.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I preface by stating I am a big fan of JJL and NOT one of Patrick. Therefore I watched this to see her performance and of course, it was excellent. I do not feel the director was adequate for the film as several very bad choices were made re: shot angles, blocking, etc. If the director was trying to give it a \"realistic\" feel, they failed and lost some good performances because of it. Nearly always felt that the camera was way too static, too far from intense facial reactions -- and so many times when the action depended on the intimacy of lead characters, the dialog was slow and plodding. This easily could have been resolved by cutaways or changes of camera angle. But the impression I got was that the budget was too small and only one camera was used! I also got the impression that perhaps scenes were shot multiple times and the energy coming from the actors was... used up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The performances rate better than the rating I've given this work, simply because I will not support a movie which shows any child or mentally challenged person how to obtain, cook, and inject narcotics into their bodies.

This is a disgusting film, which serves no purpose in the world, but to glamorize and attempt to legitimize the narcotic lifestyle. It bears convincing performances, which add to my disgust. What were these people THINKING?! I could not enjoy a movie such as this. It's enough to make someone who has never done drugs, think about it, and those who have and have redeemed themselves, consider reversion. I'm surprised it doesn't make every clean junkie who sees it, fall off the wagon.

There's nothing good about this \"movie,\" which stands more as a How To Get Strung Out docu-drama. This is the epitome of what's wrong with Hollywood.

Utterly disgusting.

It rates a 1.3\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is poorly written, hard-to-follow, and features bad performances and dialog from leads Jason Patric and Jennifer Jason Leigh. The premise, believable but weak (undercover narcotics agent succumbs to the drug underworld) deserved better than this Lili Fini Zanuck flop. The competent supporting cast (Sam Elliott, William Sadler, others) was not enough to save this film.

In addition, this movie also contains the absolute worst \"love\" scene in cinema.

Moreover, the soundtrack is vastly overrated; specifically the revolting, sappy-without-substance \"Tears in Heaven\" by the otherwise legendary Eric Clapton.

\"Rush\" is wholly unenjoyable from beginning to end.

2 of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's nothing particularly unique or interesting about this run of the mill low budget sci-fi flick. Regardless of its pedigreed origin (the film is loosely based on a novel by Leo Tolstoy), the plot and overall themes of this film are in no way remarkable or original, the science is weak at best, and unfortunately, the film fails to even involve compelling action sequences.

The plot begins with a manned space flight to Mars, and though the main plot doesn't really get rolling until the ship lands, most of the most interesting scenes occur en route. Unfortunately, as soon as our interplanetary travelers touch-down, their previously interesting interpersonal relationships, speculations about cosmology and the meaning of life, and everything interesting about the film all give way to an only remotely coherent plot concerning Martian revolutionaries, environmental problems and not very convincing webs of deceit.

There is nothing very remarkable about the production quality of the film either. It's passable. And most of the acting is, though slow, OK. Cameron Mitchell is actually pretty good and plays a likable character. I guess the best quality of this film, from my perspective, is its fashion sense. The martians have very nice outfits! If this film had a point, it might have been much more interesting. Oh well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is said that there are some people out there who actually ADMIRE Monogram's movies. Well -- and why not? Monogram Studios lived on a kind of Cost Plus basis; cost, plus enough to pay the rent and buy a pizza and a bottle of robust muscatel every once in a while. Sure, they're cheap. But let's face it: they're coarse, fast, Philistine, vulgar, but exhilarating. They have no pretensions at all. They're designed to divert the audience for an hour or so at the bottom of a double bill. So what if John Wayne gallops through the Wild West along a road lined with telephone poles? This isn't art, it's entertainment.

Take this movie, \"Flight to Mars.\" At the beginning, when we're first meeting the characters, a man might introduce his female companion abruptly, avoiding any tedious subtlety: \"Professor, this is my fianc\u00e9e and assistant, who is a rocket scientist and a beautiful woman. She loves me but is growing impatient with me because I'm always wrapped up in my scientific work. Perhaps you could steal her from me, marry her, give her the babies and the picket-fenced home she yearns for. If necessary I will die on this journey to see her dreams realized. Also, she likes it a little rough.\" It saves a lot of writing and shooting time, doesn't it? That's what people mean when they say a narrative is \"fast\". (This one was shot in five days.) Why should we have to hint about these things? I mean, what the hell is this, a cheap sci fi movie or Henry James? Actually this is a particularly well-funded example of a Monogram movie. It's in color, for one thing. \"Cinecolor\" to be exact. (You can tell it's not any other \"color\" you'd recognize.) And look at the cast. The female lead is dismissible, as is usual with Monogram, but the male leads are definitely up there on the B List. Cameron Mitchell as the reporter, yet to hit his stride as a male lead, which, come to think of it, he never really did. And Arthur Franz as the pipe-smoking head scientist, the pride of Perth Amboy, New Jersey. And -- for science fiction fans -- how about THIS pair of aces: both Morris Ankrum AND John Litel! There's not really much point in describing the plot in detail. The five crew members crash land on Mars where they find an underground civilization inhabited by organisms whose evolution was isomorphic with ours, right down to their having five digits and willowy babes in short skirts. And they picked up English from listening to our broadcasts. American broadcasts, that is, judging from their speech. They're led by a sinister cabal who try to hijack the space ship, build many imitations of it, and colonize earth. They do not succeed.

The special effects aren't very special. The men walk around a couple of spare sets, wearing black costumes with stylized lightning bolts emblazoned on their chests and scarlet capes billowing behind them. Their names consist exclusively of English phonemes -- Alzar, Terris, Ikron. The lissome Martian who falls for Arthur Franz is named Alita, with an Indo-European diminutive appendage, and she already knows what kissing is.

Overall, I found it as snappy as it was intended to be, but dull too. The story is that of any Buck Rogers 1930s serial. Once the earthlings and the Martians meet and it's established that they have a common language, and that the Martians have a sinister agenda, that's it. In two hours, even an indifferent screenwriter could turn this into a story of Nazi spies in World War II. The plot is done by the numbers, the dialog has no sparkle, the acting is pedestrian.

However, dedicated aficionados of Monogram productions should enjoy it. After all, Jean-Luc Goddard, the contrarian French egghead, dedicated \"A Bout de Souffl\u00e9\" to Monogram, so they can't have been all that bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Early 1950s Sci-Fi directed by Lesley Selander. Special effects of course are very primitive, but pretty good in comparison to what else was out there then. Drive-in Movie double feature fare; still interesting enough to watch. Two leading men, Arthur Franz the brilliant young scientist Dr. Jim Barker and straight talking and earthy newspaper reporter Steve Abbot(Cameron Mitchell)are joined on a manned flight to Mars by Carol Stafford(Virgina Huston)another scientist and two other space experts(Richard Gaines and John Litel). Upon landing on the Red Planet, the space travelers encounter inhabitants that appear friendly and mentally advanced. In actuality, the Martians are led by Ikron(Morris Ankrum), who has the idea of conquering Earth to vitalize their civilization. There is a beautiful Martian(Maruerite Chapman)that Dr. Barker intends to take back on the return trip. She is the movie's redeemable element.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Obviously influenced by the success of Pal's \"Destination Moon\" and Lippert's \"Rocketship X-M\" this one just doesn't make the cut. Limited special effects, a thin story line result in a production that even the half-decent cast can't save. Just no believability here. No one seems surprised to encounter Martians, much like earthlings, etc. etc. Pass on it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cheaply-made, poorly acted, and unimaginatively directed, Flight to Mars still is entertaining despite what its has going against it. A flight to Mars is planned with five people(three older gentleman, Cameron Mitchell as a newspaperman, and one female scientist\/obvious love interest)\"manning' the ship. The spaceship gets there and finds that very human-like Martians live there and have technological advances that would make Earth blush. But all is not rosy in the subterranean cities of the Martians(here shown as some caves and a few rooms). The Martians are a dying planet and one faction wants the Earthlings to fix the ship only to take it away at the last moment and then mobilize for an attack on Earth and another faction wants to talk peace and see if they cannot persuade Earth to give them living space. The special effects here are pretty lame even for 50's sci-fi standards complete with slow-moving rocket ship, pastel\/neon alien garb where the women wear shorts that would make many blush(except the men of course), and little less offered. Cameron Mitchell is the journalist and is affable if nothing else. Marguerite Chapman is beautiful in very short shorts but adds little acting range. The rest of the cast is filled with some older sci-fi veterans like Arthur Franz and Morris Ankrum doing serviceable jobs. This isn't a premiere sci-fi film from the Golden Age by any standard, but it is very watchable and zips by at fast pace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Square pigs as a way of efficiently utilizing cargo space is the one and only clever moment in \"Space Truckers\". Believe it or not, Dennis Hopper has done worse, see \"The American Way\", but this movie is way up there on the \"cream of the crap\" scale. I think the best way to describe the viewing experience is that \"Space Truckers\" will please no one. Too cartoon-like too be taken seriously, an almost total lack of humor, and poor character development, virtually assures disappointment. The beer and popcorn crowd might tolerate one viewing, but all others have been warned to avoid \"Space Truckers\" for all of the above reasons. - MERK","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must admit that this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I thought Dennis Hopper had a little more taste than to appear in this kind of yeeeecchh. If this is supposed to be funny then I gotta look around for a new sense of humor. If you're thinking of buying this movie you'd better think again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dennis Hopper must've been really hungry to do this movie. Atrocious special effects, very poor writing, cheesy dialogue, stupid-looking killer bio-robots. Never mind the blatent disregard for science. The awkward scene with the 2 young leads taking their clothes off. The best part of this movie was the pull-start cyber-penis on the wacked-out cyborg pirate captain. 2 out of 10 stars because I'm in a generous mood.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh dear! ohdear!ohdear!ohdear!

I love science fiction but this... er... 'movie' just puts space flicks to shame. Every sci fi film I've seen over the last YEAR has been disappointing to some degree, and I'm now seriously reconsidering what genre of movies I actually like in future!! (Maybe I'll watch romance flicks from now on!)

SPOILERS ALERT! (And thats not saying much!)

This flick is so insipidly dumb it rivals Battlefield Earth and Baby Geniuses in sheer badness. The special effects are obviously fake, the Big Mac Truck looked stoopid with its roller coaster seat restraints, the killer robots looked like a more idiotic version of the Power Rangers, a huge fat guy is sucked out of a port hole window butt first and... Space Truck School??? WTF?

Mr Hopper can do better than this. What really stunk were the two good-looking young things who accompany him and run around in nothing but their underpants (??) for an entire two thirds of the flick! The obligatory 'sex scene' (snicker!) between our young heroes was so poorly performed I nearly choked on my tonsils laughing at the TV screen.

The only character worth mentioning is the pirate ship captain\/cyborg\/mad scientist. He oozed the word grotesque and was predictably sleazy, but I believe he could've been much more menacing. He does and says things which are quite funny (all the best scenes involve him!) so for the captain I give this movie an extra point.

But this flick is so bad it'll make you want to hurl abuse at the TV or maybe throw your TV out the window! It may even kill off a few brain cells and put you into a catatonic state.

CONCLUSION? I like the way the captain struggles to walk around on his peg leg when its obviously a fake peg leg!! I would've given it 0 out of 10, but since he cracks me up with his stoopid antics... this flick gets 1\/10!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd never heard of this film before I caught it on the telly last night. I do hope it was never given a cinema release as this would be an insult to the silver screen and movie-goers alike.

Was it supposed to be serious, was it supposed to be funny? Why the outrageously basic plot? Does anyone actually care?...

Awful film.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay,

I realize that there are some doubting Thomas's out there...I was one of them...but then I saw this masterpiece of celluloid.

All I can say is that the scene in which George Wendt gets sucked out of the spaceship BY HIS A** left me trembling. I sometimes sit bolt upright in my bed, screaming like an old man on a proctologist's table thinking about it. If the director is reading this... I would pay to be an extra in the sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You've got to be kidding. This movie sucked for the sci-fi fans. I would only recommend watching this only if you think Armageddon was good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At one point in this waste of celluloid, Charles Dance as some sort of meant-to-be-funny, cyborg bad guy says \"If I had an anus, I'd soil myself.\"

Quite.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is only one word that describes this film: BAD!! I have no idea why this movie was even made, or how they got Dennis Hopper to star in this film. Stuart Gordon is a better director than this and Hopper is a much better actor. The film is plain stupid. I did like the \"square pigs\" idea and there was an interesting love scene involving a cyborg, other than that, avoid this film at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"K, one day my father picked up a movie with a 'neat' cover. Got home with my mom and we were like yay lets watch this new movie we never saw before! .. Ok so it started ... interesting start, cool robots and disgusting gore (eek) on a strange planet (actually it was Pluto wasn't it?)... Blablabla I could tell the whole story but I rather not point, WTF NEVER EVER pick up a movie with a lame ass name, and seriously don't EVER I mean EVER judge a book by its cover (err tape..) it looked like an interesting movie HOWEVER it was a slap to the face for sci-fi movies, its DISGUSTING. I mean it was so bad I just started laughing (I swear it tryed to be serious) I CANT DESCRIBE THE STUPIDITY! It killed more then a million brain cells of mine I can't even write a descent critique. ITS THAT BAD! Argh and I wana prepare you for something \"strange' *COUGH COUGH* mechanical p3n1$ *COUGH COUGH* Sorry just had to say it, its so funny, think of it as a commedy or a parody of sorts for sci-fi movies. Its classic batman laughs but in a new packaging. What the hell was this director thinking?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you're one of those people who doesn't really like Sci-fi because of their sometimes far-fetched ideas and surreal world perspectives, you better stay away as far as you can from Stuart Gordon's Space Truckers! It truly is an absurd space adventure, stuffed with eccentric characters, colorful kitsch and ludicrous plot-twists. In all honesty\u0085I probably never would have cared for this film, if it wasn't for Gordon's name on the credits. This guy comes pretty close to being a genius in the horror genre, with undeniable milestones like \u0091From Beyond' and \u0091Re-Animator' on his r\u00e9sum\u00e9. Apparently, Stuart Gordon likes his humor as twisted as possible! He already went completely over the comedy-top once (with Re-Animator) but, with the slight difference that the bizarre humor was effective there. Something that isn't really the case for Space Truckers\u0085most of the gags lead nowhere and the entirely exaggerated atmosphere only works in small doses. In the end, all that remains is an occasionally amusing but completely unnecessary mess. Dennis Hopper and Charles Dance (or at least a semi Charles Dance) are always a joy to look at and the still stunning Barbara Crampton has a small role near the end of the film. Crampton was Stuart Gordon's regular heroine in previous horror films. The story of Space Truckers is as silly as they come. Dennis Hopper plays the self-made loner who's fed up with his job. Who wouldn't be when you're transporting pigs across the galaxy for a company named Interpork? He sees his change to flee while bringing his muse to earth. They float into Space-pirates and find out their cargo is meant to wipe out half the universe! Stuart Gordon wisely returned to making horror again after this little escapade. Since Space Truckers, he already made the sublime `King of the Ants' and the absolutely brilliant `Dagon'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"About five years ago, my friend and I went to the video rental store to get something to watch. My friend saw Space Truckers on the shelf, and so we got it. Once we got home and started watching it, we realized what an absolute piece of crap it was! A beer can floating in space? A guy taking a dump in a toilet? A guy with a mechanical dick who tries to arouse a women by saying, \"Whizz, whizz!\"? WTF!!! The dumbest, stupidest, most retarded, horribly throne together piece of trash my eyes have ever been exposed to. My friend and I still refer to it as THE worst movie we have ever seen. Only one other movie has come close to its crappiness (and that would be the stupid Jackie Chan flick, \"The Medalion\"). If you eyes ever see this piece of junk on the shelf at your video store, proceed to do the following: 1. Take it off the shelf and throw it to the ground. 2. Stomp on it for at least 30 seconds. 3. Proceed to set it on fire in a contained facility (bathroom stall). 4. Lastly, take it to your local hazardous waste management facility immediately so that it may be properly dealt with.

STAY AWAY FROM \"SPACE TRUCKERS\"!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How do stories this bad get made. That's not a question. It is a statement.

Here are my problems with the film.

1) Much of the story development was predictable and boring. My emotions ran pretty much in a flat line throughout. There wasn't really much to draw the viewer into the film.

2) The characters were decidedly uncharismatic. One was a loon, another was confusing, and the third was pretty damned boring. There was absolutely zero reason to be drawn to these people. Even though I knew it wouldn't happen, I kept hoping that they would run into someone else, someone more interesting.

3) The physical environment was uncomfortable for me. A trailer??? In the desert??? The desert is a place that most people would prefer not to visit. How is it that these three people end up in the desert???

4) And in the same desert. Did the writer really expect me to believe that the last three people on Earth would manage to find each other within the span of a few weeks out in that desert?

5) Was it really necessary for Ms. Ryan to be in two scenes that required a swimsuit? Hey, she looks great, but it was pretty gratuitous.

Okay, so if I thought it was so bad, why did I give it a 3? I am trying to be as objective as possible. Even though I found Alan annoying, I have to say that David Arnott did a very credible job of portraying a neurotic nerd (the character reminded me of a few of Albert Brooks more annoying roles). Jeri Ryan tried to do something with Sarah, but it just wasn't written very well. Okay, so she was supposed to be a confused, dysfunctional woman. But why? What did it add to the story? Her mood swings left me feeling like I was being jerked (hard!) one way and then another and then another.

I don't often walk out on films, but this one had me contemplating it several times. Stiff, predictable, boring. Proceed at your own risk.

My 2 cents.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie in part because of some positive comments here on IMDb. After wishing I had those 90 minutes of my life back, I feel it's my duty to get on here myself and say...Please don't bother watching this movie.

I can't argue with the actors efforts - they did what they could given the material, but that material is dreadful. The pace was deadly - slow, meandering, and you saw everything coming about an hour away, and then it took forever to happen. The dialogue was boring, pointless, not funny at all. The characters were all completely unsympathetic. And the cinematography was, in my opinion, very low quality - the clich\u00e9 of \"character uses home video machine!\" was used to very bad effect.

Yes, Jeri Ryan is a cool person. Don't let that sucker you into wasting your time on this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hypothetical situations abound, one-time director Harry Ralston gives us the ultimate post-apocalyptic glimpse with the world dead, left in the streets, in the stores, and throughout the landscape, sans in the middle of a forgotten desert. One lone survivor, attempting to rekindle his sanity, takes food from the city to his bungalow in this desert. All alone, he hopes for more, but with nobody around, he is left with white underwear, and a passion for a local Indian tribe \u0096 until the discovery of a camera which opens up new doors and breaks the barriers of human co-existence. Alan, a man of the book, is left on Earth after an unknown disaster. Thinking he is alone, he begins living life his way \u0096 until, Jeri Ryan, appears (like she would in any dream) out of the woods, disheveled, and unhappy to find the final man alive to be ... well ... like Alan. Anyway, they try to co-exist, fail, get drunk, and before creating the ultimate dystopia, they run into Redneck Raphael (played by newcomer \u0096 Dan Montgomery Jr). Bonds are torn, confusion sets in, a couple becomes a third wheel, and the battle between physically inept nerd vs. brainless jock. Even with nobody left on the planet, it becomes a truth that even the darkest of human nature will arise.

Using a variable film technique, Ralston gives us a mediocre story based loosely on another film entitled \"The Quiet Earth\" (which I will be viewing next) oddly which he never gives any credit towards. With a borrowed story, I guess he does a decent job of reinterpreting it. His punch seems to be lacking at the beginning while Ralston tries to find his stride, borrowing yet again from other film director's techniques to attempt to find his own. He opens the film interestingly enough, but fails to answer any direct answers. Sure, the final days have arrived, but could there be a concise answer as to \"how\" or better yet \"why\" these select few survived. A spookier beginning would have led us stronger into a comical film. The juxtaposition would have been like \"Shawn of the Dead\", but instead left us feeling like we were watching a \"made-for-TV\" program. Listening to the audio commentary, I have respect for Ralston because he worked diligently to get this film made, and his passion nearly sells the film, but you could tell from his interaction with the cast that he wasn't as happy with his overall final product. There were mistakes, ones that he pointed out and others that he was ashamed to point out. While this does make for decent independent film-making, it sometimes feels cheap, and in Ralston's case, it was the latter.

I must admit, David Arnott's portrayal of Alan hooked me. He played that wimpy, school nerd, adult role very well. He was funny to both watch and listen to, and thus he became sympathetic to the viewer. He was a key player in keeping the film together, alas, I cannot say the same for the rest. This was Dan Montgomery's first film, and it was obvious \u0096 I mean \u0096 really really obvious. There were scenes in which I thought the cue card was about to come out and read the lines for him, perhaps even giving us a more realistic performance, but alas, it wasn't the case. Then there was Jeri Ryan. She pulled into her character near the end of the film, which to me, was the culmination of the entire piece of art. She goes from estranged unknown to bitter cranky insane girlfriend by the end. Confused? Again, she fell into her character by the end, giving us just a glimpse of what she could have probably done as her acting matured. Even as the commentary progressed, all that she contributed was a laugh, giggle, or \"ohhh, look at that color\" moment. While her beauty may sell tickets, one may want to consider knowledge to be just as beautiful. This was her first film, so can I be too harsh?

Overall, this film felt like it was missing something. I though the idea was strong \u0096 the premise that even with only a peppering of people remaining on the Earth the evil of human nature still exists. Jealousy cannot be killed by bacteria or bombs (maybe because it is consumed by zinc?) and we as a race will always want what we cannot have. Ralston is not a surprising director, his techniques are flawed and pre-used, but he does know how to make a low-budget comedy. I think our idea of \"funny\" is different, so that is why I couldn't find myself laughing at many of the bits he found \"hysterical\". His actors provided the level of acting needed for this film, which was lower than average. His film was loose, meaning that there were elements never quite explained or tackled (i.e. anything with wings survived?!?), which overall harmed the intensity of the film. This was a comedy, but it could have been much darker and much much funnier. For those thinking that Roger Avery was a huge element to this film, as we learn from their commentary, all he was there for was money \u0096 the was in essence, the bank for \"The Last Man\". Don't get your hopes up for any classic Avery moments.

Don't expect more from Ralston \u0096 and that is how I will end it.

Grade: ** out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After wasting 2 hours of my life watching this movie on late night television, I went back and reread some of the IMDb material, to remind myself of why I watched it in the first place. In hindsight, the only thing that I can think of is that the genre generally appeals to me. But this movie was a total waste of effort. It fails on every level, and to see that it's described on IMDb as a comedy really leaves me at a loss. I don't recall more than a couple of chuckles. There are more laughs in any episode of Law and Order than in The Last Man. Seriously.

Too much of the characters' interaction just didn't seem to me to have any foundation, and was therefore very unlikely\/unbelievable.

If it hadn't been for the almost-gratuitous bikini shots, well, what can I say? Avoid this movie like the plague. Or tape it and just fast forward to the bikini shots. Do not spend even $1 to rent it though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I rented the movie was to see Jeri Ryan in it! OMG that was the most boring, pointless movie I've ever seen!!! HOW LAME!!! I mean really, give me a break! After Voyager, I'd hope she'd be offered better roles!!

If I were one of the last people on earth, I would NOT still be living in a travel trailer in the dessert!! This is just such a bad movie!! The thing about the indian tribe and how he compared it every 10 seconds really, really got old. Poor Jeri, better luck next time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, umm this was a very, how to say it, different type of movie. It calls itself a comedy...but it wasnt really laught out loud funny at all. It was insane. If you are willing to accept that 3 people survive a calamity of a global scale, why not 4? or 5?.....and why did it suddenly end without anything happening??? They could have made this much better by simply having another element in the plot such as a dumpy female for the ugly dude or something.......zinc, riduculous....ahh

i dunno..watch it...it wasnt that bad.....sorta funny at times....i guess...

schneider","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't be fooled by the other reviewers. Although this film contains an impressive array of talent, the material they present leaves a great deal to be desired. Nat King Cole's 3 numbers are pretty lame and not even close to his later efforts, though he does impress with his piano playing. 'Moms' Mabley is not a bit funny, though I remember her as a very entertaining talk show guest from my youth. Actually, the best performances are from a couple of fat guys who impress with a lively tap dance and a Four Tops takeoff, and the jazz band itself, especially in the number featuring the bass player. The print itself is pretty poor quality, and the wonderful Butterfly McQueen is totally wasted in the wraparound plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I started watching this, I instantly noticed that I couldn't understand what anyone was saying. I turned up the volume. With background noises now booming out, I could hear the voices. Just what are the actors saying? Is the movie not dubbed? Are they speaking Spanish? After some confusion, I realize that it was English. At least, I think so... The Amazing Jess Franco has placed the microphones too far away from the actors. As a result, we cannot completely hear what they are saying. He's done this before. But maybe this is Mr. Franco's intention? By not knowing what people are saying, we are thrown into some mystery about what is going on, and are left with more visual clues... Maybe it's just me, but I would have liked to know what was going on! How about a few hints? The basic premise (I refuse to call it a \"plot\") concerns a young American exotic dancer named Paula (played by Amber Newman) who has a boyfriend who gets her invited to a small island owned by some sleazy rich people. It is somewhere off the coast of Spain. For this visit, a large cash payment is promised to Paula, which the boyfriend gets. He then escapes from the island, only to return later. Why? Pay close attention to the scene where the boyfriend opens Paula's US passport. Though his hand tried to cover it up, you can see the actress' REAL name, Amber Newman, printed below the photo on the bottom of the passport!! Anyway, back to the \"story\": There are some other sleazy, rich, beautiful characters visiting the island, all with ambiguous motives. We witness sadistic games (are they real or fake?) and unappealing dining scenes. But the food must be good, as a phony French chef prepared it! There is a young woman servant who runs around naked and never speaks. Is she really mute? And do we care? Of course all the women are mostly naked throughout this film... Oh well, we can at least be thankful that the (50+ and overweight) men remain clothed! In addition to the abysmal sound quality, what I have always marveled at about Jess Franco is his amazing ability to film beautiful naked women in such a way that leaves the viewer completely turned off. This film is no exception \u0096 I needed fresh air after watching it!

In conclusion: I am happy to report that regardless of what Mr. Franco can dream up, I am still attracted to women.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know Jesse Franco is responsible for a wide variety of films, and I mainly go for his horror films, as lousy as they are at times. I guess it was morbid curiousity that drew me to this, and I wasn't even curious enough to finish it. Maybe it got better towards the end but unless you're into lesbian sex scenes (of which there's plenty) then you may want to take a pass. So what exactly can you say about a movie that features a woman that pees in a bowl on the kitchen counter (while standing up)? Just never you mind what that's used for later, you probably don't want to know. If this sounds intriguing to you, then that's your problem but then again you might just like this movie. I myself, am no prude, I've seen plenty of disgusting movies in my day but at least they were done well, and this isn't. Sometimes too much is just too much. Bleah.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I consider myself a fan of Jess Franco and his trash movies, but nearly every time I see one of them, I just see missed opportunities and plots that don't play out well. This film is, unfortunately, no different. The film certainly had a lot of potential, as Franco has fused the intriguing theme of the classic film 'The Most Dangerous Game' with his usual brand of trashy sleaze, but the plot here gets lost too often, and it takes an eternity for Franco to get round to the main point of the movie. With this being a later Franco film, you might be forgiven for thinking that the director would have got better, but actually I've found that the opposite is true; as this and the terrible 'Killer Barbys' are two of his very worst films. The plot focuses on a stripper and her sleazy boyfriend. The pair is invited to a private island by a rich woman and her lover. However, they soon find that they haven't been invited there for social reasons as they are 'released' on the island so that the wealthy woman and her friends can hunt them down for sport!

What attracted me to this film was the front cover and the fact that it was directed by the king of sleaze flicks. You'd think, then, that I'd be pleased that the movie features a plethora of sex scenes and general sleaze; but I'm not. The reason for this is mostly that the sex and sleaze in the film is really boring and most of the time served only in giving me the condition known as 'itchy fast forward finger'. However, my inclination to see everything through to the end ensured that I had to lump it. There was a time when I didn't think girl-on-girl could possibly be boring, but I have since been proved wrong. The only positive I can pluck out the movie really is that the soundtrack is quite catchy, and despite it being silly foreign pop music; actually blends quite well with the sex scenes. I did enjoy the last ten minutes; as that's when the plot finally got going, but it was a case of too little too late and unfortunately, this is a severely lacklustre film. On the whole, I only recommend this film to those who feel they must see all 180+ Franco movies...everyone else should watch Vampyros Lesbos, Faceless or She Killed in Ecstasy instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The opening scene of the beach at Fircombe while amusing in itself, unfortunately provides a suitable metaphor for the film - insipid and washed out. It is actually not as corny as most of the others in the Carry On series, but maybe because of that doesn't really deliver much fun. It's a fair bet that the title will appeal to fans of the Benny Hill show but those looking for attractive females in bikinis and miniskirts, while they will see some in this, will probably enjoy some of the other titles in the series, such as \"Carry On Abroad\" or \"Carry On Up the Jungle\" more. The emergence of early 1970s feminism is used as a plot device which seems rather self-defeating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is definitely one of the weaker of the series of Carry On films. It lacks the usual fun and sparkle and even the cast seem embarrassed by the poor dialogue. By the time this came out, the series was in terminal decline and boy does it show! If you're coming fresh to this series, avoid this one till near the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will admit I didn't pay full attention to everything going on in this film, but to be honest, I don't think it would have mattered. Basically local councillor Sidney Fiddler (Sid James) persuades the incompetent Mayor Frederick Bumble (Kenneth Connor) of Firecombe to hold a beauty contest, to improve the town's image. They face opposition from women's liberationist Augusta Prodworthy (June Whitfield) trying to sabotage the contest, but they do have publicity agent Peter Potter (Bernard Bresslaw) and Palace Hotel owner Connie Philpotts (Joan Sims). Soon enough the young, beautiful wannabe models show up, including Hope Springs (Barbara Windsor), Paula Perkins (Valerie Leon), Dawn Brakes (Goldfinger's Margaret Nolan), Debra (Sally Geeson) and Ida Downs (EastEnders' Wendy Richard). When the girls have cat fights, it does draw away regular residents, but after quite a while of some plodding not that funny innuendos and William (Jack Douglas) having over-active twitches, it does finally reach the competition, and it's just afterwards I couldn't be bothered. Also starring Patsy Rowlands as Mildred Bumble, Peter Butterworth as Admiral, Joan Hickson as Mrs. Dukes, David Lodge as Police inspector, Angela Grant as Miss Bangor, Arnold Ridley as Councillor Pratt, Robin Askwith as Larry, Patricia Franklin as Rosemary, Jimmy Logan as Cecil Gaybody and Dad's Army's Bill Pertwee as Fire brigade chief, Charles Hawtrey had obviously quit the Carry Ons, but where's Kenneth Williams? I suppose seeing Babs and young, beautiful looking Pauline Fowler in bikinis, but for comedy value, this fails miserably, and the overuse of the swanny whistle just gets on your nerves. Pretty poor!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen this movie twice, once a few years ago in college, and again this past weekend. Although I absolutely despised it the first time, I decided to give it another chance. Terrence Malick is clearly a well-respected director, and it seems that the IMDb viewers, at least, think very highly of the film. But, unfortunately, it seems my tastes haven't changed at all.

Where to start? For one thing, Linda Manz's narration is horrific. Her voice is so irritating with that horrendous New York accent (please don't try and convince me that Chicagoans talk that way - they don't). She herself admitted to just sitting down and talking about random things, which does not make her a talented actress. She's not even acting! I came on IMDb expecting to see her ripped apart, since her performance is just so utterly laughable, but people actually seemed to like it! She's simply unappealing in every way - I kept hoping Malick would just kill her off.

The other actors were fine, but certainly nothing special. Adams was probably the strongest in the cast, but she also had the only decent part. Except the old guy - he was pretty good.

Speaking of acting, how could Shepard's character be so ridiculously stupid?? He bought the \"brother and sister\" act because...uh, why would he buy that? Bill and Abby took every single opportunity to be touchy-feely, as though they didn't realize that their lives depended on acting in a very platonic way. It was just completely unbelievable. And finally, after a considerable amount of time, the Farmer suddenly realizes that, \"Oh my god, they're together!\" Then he goes after Bill with a gun, but instead seems to trip into Bill's hand and ends up with a mortal stab wound.

Speaking of which, the fate of the characters was similarly stupid (and, dare I say, lazy). Of course Bill has to die - could it be more boring than getting shot in a pond by a pack of cops? Abby goes on with her happy life, getting on a train and feeling really content about the way things worked out. And the irksome narrator randomly finds her deadbeat friend and they wander off into the sunset. But it's okay, because Malick never gave me any reason to care about the characters anyway.

As for the plot, this film drags along endlessly with no real plot twists or development. I can't believe it's only 94 minutes long - I could have sworn I was sitting in my seat for a solid 3 hours. The sudden locust disaster was like throwing the Bible in my face; I'm totally fine with metaphors and allusions, but this was completely over the top. Clearly the message was, \"Don't marry for money or bad things will happen to you.\" Very original.

I understand that \"Days of Heaven,\" like all of Terrence Malick's films, is meant to be a piece of art. And I will certainly agree that the cinematography is simply stunning, and the magic hour shots add a unique aura to the film. But I need more than nice pictures to enjoy a film, and this one just didn't do it for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now don't get me wrong, i love a good film and after watching The Thin Red Line (and loving it) I was eager to track down Terrence Malicks two earlier films, and, having just watched Days of Heaven, my enthusiasm to see Badlands has virtually disappeared.

I have noted much rave about the beautiful photography, but i saw this film on a terribly old vhs tape which made it look pretty awful. All i can say is i hope the photography was superb, because it would have been one of the only things of interest in this film. Not since the Replacement Killers have i fallen asleep during a film. This film felt so long (and it wasn't!), the editing was choppy and disjointed, the storyline non-existent, the voice over was an incoherent ramble, the characters weakly developed, and the whole thing was uninvolving. I know that Malick was uncertain of how to do the film. He consequently shot a heck of a lot of footage then spent around two years editing in an attempt to piece it all together. This is very apparent on screen. Everything looks chopped up, every time a scene seemed to gain some momentum (or some character development) it would obtrusively cut to boring scenes of people doing boring things. It was as if someone had tried to cut together a story out of stock footage of people farming. The few good points are the music and the chase scene near the end, but those things are no where near enough to maintain interest. I would normally let a bad film pass by without being too vocal but when it is so highly over-rated something must be said.

Maybe a farmer would like it...?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!

I had to see why all the critics fawn over this movie. I have seen it and still don't get it. The Plot is thin, very thin. After the movie was over, I still did not know the female lead characters name and one of the two male characters did not even have a name in the credits, he is credited as \"the farmer\". I did not care about the characters, so I did not care about the movie.

The scenery and cinematography were brilliant, but so is the stuff on National Geographic or The Discovery Channel.

I can not recommend this movie to anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lovely music. Beautiful photography, some of scenes are breathtaking and affecting. But the dramatic tension is lost in a film that is so poorly edited it is hard to know what exactly is going on. At times, the dialogue is incomprehensible. Then there is Richard Gere. He's supposed to be a factory worker who gets into trouble and gets work on a farm. We see dozens of farmhands sweaty and dirty in the hot sun. Then we see Gere, looking like he just wandered away from a Calvin Klein ad. Sam Shepard, another glamour guy, is supposed to be terminally ill. But he looks great. Nice try, but it just doesn't work. Brook Adams try hard but she gets lost in the scenery.The real star is the girl.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before I begin, a \"little\" correction: IMDb states that Richard Gere is 180 cm tall. Wrong! I passed by him 10 years ago, and he can't be an ant's a** bigger than 165. I'm 183, and he looked like a child next to me.

Should have been called \"Wheatlands\"; an appropriate title to complement Malick's previous (and much better) movie \"Badlands\". This movie shows that not all directors have as their prime objective to entertain. In fact, some of them have as their main objective to show wheat in all its splendour.

The movie is depressing and relatively uninvolving, with the obligatory tragic ending. Nothing more than an average and predictable love triangle drama, with the male two-thirds of the triangle not surviving the movie. Praised for its visual quality; while it does have that realistic 70s feel to it, there are limits to how spellbinding wheat fields can be. You can shoot them with 1500 mm cameras, for all I care, but they are still wheat fields.

Gere, who at first seems miscast as some kind of lower-class factory-worker-turned-Wheatfield-worker, is quite solid, while Brooke Adams appears distant and cool for most of the movie, making one wonder just how much she loved either of the two hunks. But for those looking for a movie that displays all the glorious colours of a field of wheat, look no further: you've found your dream!

If you're interested in reading my \"biographies\" of Richard Gere and other Hollywood intellectual heavyweights, contact me by e-mail.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Days of Heaven is one of the most painfully boring and pointless films I have ever seen. In no way, shape, or form would I recommend it to anyone...unless you're trying to put your kids to sleep or, God forbid, give someone an aneurysm. If I could go back in time and do one thing, I would set fire to the reels before they were sent to theaters. Why? Days of Heaven's plot is simple, but extremely vague. Long sequences devoid of dialogue compose much of the film. The characters are too shallow and ridiculously stupid to relate with. The climax of the story does not touch you: by this time your brain has worked so hard to figure out the plot and the array of hidden metaphors that your ability to think is gone. The only things working are your eyes, and unfortunately, your ears, who must listen to the sound of Linda, the little girl in the story, who talks like a man. I am now dumber for seeing this movie. Don't let it happen to you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was shocked to read all these wonderful comments about this movie because I hated it. I stuck it out to the end, but it was painful-- especially having to listen to that voice of the child. As Socact-1 remarked, even though the girl claimed to be from Chicago, she didn't have a Chicago accent-- It sounded more like she was trying to imitate a NY accent--but failed at that as well. I was so confused that I was waiting for the punchline. Of all the wonderful actors who could have played that child, why did they select this one? And why force her to talk like that? It wasn't even just the accent, it was the script, the monologue created for her. The reason I even selected this movie was that the plot idea appealed to me-- this era in history, the type of characters that are poor and uneducated, the setting --and the love triangle. As far as I'm concerned it could have and should have been much better. I was just soooo relieved to read that at least one other person felt the same way that I did about this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.

A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.

So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.

Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.

There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, you have:

Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!

Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.

Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)

David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.

and finally:

Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: \"I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world.\" Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.

Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.

So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of \"Brideshead Revisited,\" right?

Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)

First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - \"hey, it's just the sunlight!\"

Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is \"dewy-eyed.\"

Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.

Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)

And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is \"Mrs.\" She's either \"Miss\" or \"Lady.\"

When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.

To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.

OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a \"meanwhile,\") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be \"whisked away\" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)

Great drama.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After three hours in the Cinema hall,the strongest impression garnered was that their is something amiss. What was clear was that the Directors forgot to direct, the actors to act and most importantly the script writer to write. Evervbody shouted without reason and made one cringe. The script moved on and on with lots of avoidable twists and turns ending in now, too familiar Priyadarshan theory of Converging actors at a single point. This theory worked well in Hera-Pheri and Hungama but somehow managed to irritate this time, so did the habit of every actor's incapacity to answer asked of them directly. Simplest questions such as \" what is your name would be repeated N times\".

Finally what was amiss was that the director forgot that his audience have something called intelligence.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this with high expectations. Come on, it is Akshay Kumar, Govinda, and Paresh Rawal, who are all amazing at their comedy, I was really hoping for a laugh riot. Sadly, that is not what I got at all...

Unfortunately, nothing in this movie really made me laugh out loud. There were times when I chuckled at one or two things, but nothing really made me laugh. In short, it was badly attempted comedy, and in a way, a bit of a Hera Pheri wannabe.

Out of the three main guys, I think Paresh Rawal's role was the most powerful. It wasn't the biggest role, but it certainly stood out more than Govinda or Akshay. Their performances were okay I guess. Nothing special, just mediocre. Though Govinda stole the limelight from Akshay in more than a few scenes. Lara Dutta and Tanushree Dutta also make appearances in this film, and both of them were pretty bad. Lara's role did not move me, or make me laugh, and Tanushree Dutta's character just got on my nerves! The music seems to be the only good thing about Bhagam Bhag. My favourite song is \"Tere Bin\", followed by \"Afreen\", which I really liked. \"Signal\" and the title song \"Bhagam Bhag\" are also worth a listen.

You either will like it or you won't. And judging by the poor comedy and lack of direction, I don't think you will.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was all in awe of the film looking at the promos and went to watch it FDFS The film was horrible to say the least

The first scene is good and till they go to London things are funny but slowly the pace slackens and they is nothing funny about it

The Manoj Joshi subplot is funny at places but is unwanted and adds to the boredom

The drugs part is funny especially the monologue of Govinda

The film goes on and on aimlessly just like a small kid has written it

The interval brings a twist in the story but by then i lost hope

The second half starts okay but the way things are handled makes a mockery The entire Arbaaz- Jackie angle is half baked Also how come people don't identify them?

The climax is quite funny though stupid

Priyadarshan is not at all in his elements, from this film he started doing craps and his films got bad and bad Music is good, SIGNAL, TERE BIN stand out and AFREEN too Camera-work is good

Akshay Kumar has white in his stubble and looks old but he acts well though this role he has done many times yet thanks to his natural comedy acting things look bearable Govinda looks out of shape, bad and his act except monologue is boring too surprising from Govinda seems too much pressure on him to comeback and Priyan fails to utilize him Paresh is okay in parts but overall just repeat act Manoj Joshi is funny at places Sharat Saxena is okay Shakti Kapoor is great Jackie Shroff looks overweight and acts in his sleep Arbaaz Khan is bad Lara Dutta shrieks to glory but fails to act","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you're a sane person and you have seen films before then you cannot tolerate this piece of idiocity for more than 20 minutes. And if you do stay there longer then it won't be because you'd expect akshay or paresh (not govinda please!) but because you value your money too much and you want at least a short nap on the plush seating in the multiplex in return of the money they robbed you off! Its hard to believe that the director who gave us a cult film like HeraPheri can fall to such levels.. alright he's repetitive but now he's coming out of all third rate storied and expects us to laugh because he's brought in Paresh Rawal and Akshay Kumar...!No sir this ain't going to work now.. especially with this stupid script of yours!Even comedy films can have meaningful scripts (Lage Raho Munnabhai anyone?).

Govinda doesn't have much to do so can't comment..Akshay Kumar was boring, Paresh Rawal cracked some of the worst joke possible.Lara Dutta had real scope for acting in this one but she fails miserably...the only high point of the film (possibly) is Tanushree's acting!But she's there only for the first 10 minutes.

I don't think this film is worth any more space... (probably not even this much!). So final warning- don't watch it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rs.30\/- is all I paid as rent for the DVD of the movie and believe me it is not worth it.

Bollywood directors think that showing fools is funny? well it is not. Please grow up.

Here goes a dialog from the movie -'AGAR TUM LADKEE KO IJJAT DOGE TO LADKEE TUMHE APNI IJJAT DEGI'.

Plot is useless, criminals and police alike running after fools. That is it. BHAGAM BHAG.

Well it lived the title, I had to run away from it. :) I switched over to Star Movies and watched Home Alone 2 instead, and had a good laugh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bhagam Bhag was a waste of money and time big time! I wonder y Govinda did this movie? Govinda...dude...m your big fan, u have to make right decisions now in choosing movie? i wonder he had any role in that movie.Govinda's role could be given to Johnny Lever. Akshay Kumar steals the show here! Akshay...dud u rock! u have created space in everybody's heart all over the world! Lara Dutta, Tansuhree ....u guys deserve better. Paresh Rawal is good at his witty! overall there were few scene where i laughed...otherwise i was just wondering \"y the hell did Priyadarshan made such a stupid movie?\" Anyways, lets wait and watch upcoming movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a Hindi movie. Hindi=Horrible. reasons: cheap dialogues, cheap special effects, cheap directing + stretching a 2 hr max movie into 3 hrs.

%^^^^^^spoiler...little bit%%%%%%%%

Specifically for this movie: 1. dialogues are not funny. they are cheesy, and cheap. Though akshay tried his best acting for which i admire him, comedy was not funny at all! I laughed only 3 times during this movie. 2. first half of the movie was useless to the story of the 2nd half. the 2nd half was the actual story\/movie. the first half was time pass\/build up. 3. The characters are not developed properly at all. paresh rawal is smart in the first half, an idiot in the 2nd half\/rest of the movie. we don't really develop any feelings or caring for akshay, and govinda. their characters are stupid nothing more. they do not seem to struggle in their difficulties. Jokes are funny, but they are not funny in a very serious scene. the characters of the gang and the drug smugglers are cheesy and have been used in last 20 movies. there is nothing new about those characters. Again, they are shown to be stupid for being funny. however, stupid=funny when stupid is the norm throughout the whole movie. the only character that made sense was that of lara dutta with a real story. 4. special effects were crap. at the end, ppl r fallin off the ladder of a fire truck. you notice that they are not actually on ladder in air. secondly, ppl start to fly off when the ladder starts to move around. ppl can't fly off a ladder when its moving...they fall directly to the ground due to something called gravity. 5. the whole movie was dubbed. all the dialogues were recorded after the movie. The actors' lips hardly synced to the dialogues.

There are probably many other reasons why this movie was crap, but i can't remember them. look at this masterpiece of crappy Indian movies by non-intelligent, even stupid, director yourself and you will agree with my review. ppl who like Hindi movies, please increase your expectations for decent quality in Hindi movies.

Let me say that not all Hindi movies are bad. I like some. i did not like this one.

1.5\/10 (1.5 for the effort by akshay and lara)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't mind sequels; sometimes they're better than the original. However, many times the originals are best left alone....especially when you can't duplicate the cast. One of the big reasons \"The Magnificent Seven\" was such a hit was the very popular cast.

This is hardly the \"magnificent seven,\" when only Yul Brynner returns as one of the members of that famous group in \"The Magnificent Seven.\" With six of the seven guys absent and replaced by much lesser-known actors, this loses its appeal in a hurry. In other words, except for Brynner, these guys have no charisma! This is a like a championship sports team fielding all substitutes except one.

Brynner is good, once again: fun to watch, fun to hear with that distinctive deep voice of his, but the story, not just the rest of the crew, is lame. This movie should never have been made. In the original, we cared about the \"seven;\" in here, we couldn't care less.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not sure this film could ever match the first one, even if it starred the original seven (notwithstanding the fact that four were killed). It just doesn't have the spark and chemistry. All the actors seem tired and look as if they are just going through the motions to get their paychecks.

It's interesting how Yul Brynner is \"magnificent\" in the original film but stiff and unconvincing in this sequel. Yet when he stars in Westworld and Futureworld in the 1970s his character (in the same matching black pants, shirt and hat) evokes the same mystery and presence of the 1960 film's Chris Adams.

There's nothing in this 1966 flick to make it worth watching, even on cable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Return of the Seven\" has a few good action scenes, and Elmer Bernstein's score is as rousing as ever. Nevertheless, it's a boring film, because it simply fails to involve us emotionally. Mcqueen's absence makes a really bad impression, and the fact that his character here is played by a different (little-known) actor is odd - in a bad way. The characters are not developed, so we don't connect with them - and we hardly care when some of them die. This sequel is a passable but poor imitation of the original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had potential. The script was not bad, and it presented an interesting dark atmosphere with themes of suicide, patricide, regrets, and--as Chris says--\"10 years of going nowhere\". It's a sharp contrast to the original MAG7 which was bright, humorous, and even the bad guy was lovable.

It's a very interesting change of tone, and if they had developed the characters more, maybe I would've liked it.

But instead they waste far too much time on gratuitous (and ridiculous) battle scenes, poorly edited together. At one point you see a horse fall, and 5 seconds later you see the same scene again. But not many people would notice that, since there are already 2 dozen horse trips (I'm not exaggerating), and by then we've already dozed off.

Which leads me to the title of my review. This film was extensively cut due to animal cruelty, so chances are (if you decide to watch it) you'll get the watered down, kiddie version. There's a bullfight where the matador stabs the bull, and suddenly as the crowd erupts cheering, there's no bull, just the matador in an empty arena. Like wow, maybe the bull was a Jedi, I dunno. More likely, the scene was cut.

Later there's a cockfight scene where, in the original version, one of the birds gets horribly mauled before a crowd of cheering Mexicans. This was cut. But we still see enough to get pretty annoyed.

But by far the worst scenes are the horse throws. One after the other, you see horses' legs get yanked, sending thousands of pounds of horse onto its head. In one scene, a horse gets thrown, and then while it's squirming on the ground in paralytic convulsions, an explosive goes off right under its neck.

This film was made in 1966 when Hollywood was just starting to regulate animal brutality on film. This is probably one of the last flicks where you can see it happen. So if that sort of stuff it floats yer boat, check it out & you'll get a mild thrill. But if not, you'll either be irritated or flat out bored.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The original title always struck me as a rather overblown definition for a bunch of gun-toting saddle-tramps. Still; their screen presence was at least underscored by a top-quality group of actors to support Yul Brynner. Most were movie stars in their own right.

However; this first sequel was a pale imitation, with a group now composed of largely B and C list players, who were more mediocre than magnificent. It was a similar set-up. Brynner's 'Chris' had to recruit yet another team of gun-toting saddle-tramps to sort out the Mexican peasants' problems again. Another tyrant was giving them grief.

With the originality and freshness of the first movie now spent, this remake had little else to offer. The budget was evidently very limited. This was reflected not only in the cast, but also in the below-par script, which borrowed much from the earlier classic. It was also more than half an hour shorter than John Sturges' original. Yet we still had a reprise of the agonising and moralising that made even the first a little turgid at times. However, here there was no decent acting, action or location work to balance things up. Filmiing was less expansive. It failed to convey the broad sweep of landscapes that were a great part of the original.

Generally; it just lacked imagination. The first movie had been a smash-hit, and this pedestrian sequel was evidently put together as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to cynically cash-in on former success. And it shows. There's very much a 'made for TV' feel about it.

Not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"B. Kennedy tried to make a sequel by exaggerating and amplifying\u0097a gargantuan leftist western (not as leftist as the G. Kennedy sequel, that came after this one).

This is the ugliest film of the two sequels\u0097very ugly looking. It is slapdash. B. Kennedy made it amplifying\u0097but without having the genius for that. Hundreds of peons, hundreds of Mexican _compadres, hundreds of women, a desert, barren landscapes, a storm\u0097the largest scale.

Everything in this clumsy sequel, likable only in a weird way, is phony.

The movie itself is very ugly looking. Brynner, who made the best part in the first film, doesn't look good at all in this one.

Rey plays a priest; he will be a political leader, Quintero, in the next sequel of the franchise.

It is true that when you have that many characters you may not need a very interesting storyline; sometimes. E.g., Brynner meets McQueen; then they pick other 'compadres'; or, B. Spencer meets Coburn; etc.. It's fun to see where and how they'll meet the rest of the crew, etc.. But you need at least these several characters. Unfortunately, Burt Kennedy's installment is not very good at that.

Return of the Seven (1966) begins with a bullfighting. Vin and Chris meet there; they decide to rescue the third survivor of the original Magnificents\u0097Chico, who belongs to a huge group of 300 peons abducted by the Mexican bandits. We find out the name of Chico's appealing wife\u0097it's Petra. Chris must constitute again a small army\u0097and here we have a Dirty Dozen treat\u0097Chris chooses his men from the convicts. Another member of the commando is a womanizer, who will take good care of the wives left without husbands. The sexual humor is especially displeasing and distasteful in this film. It strives to seem smart and spicy; it is simply boorish and dumb and gross.

The choosing of the members of the small army was one of the greatest joys in the McQueen film. Unfortunately, in the first sequel there is the most unmemorable of the three crews assembled under the Magnificent Seven's name.

Robert Fuller makes a lousy \"Vin\";Oates is the smiley womanizer.

In this mock\u0097gargantuan attempt, a Mexican revolutionary leader has a gargantuan plan\u0097he kidnaps 300 peons and uses them to build a village and a church in the memory of his lost sons. (Useless to say that this insane Mexican revolutionist doesn't equal Wallach's part in the first film.) B. Kennedy bets exclusively on camp and over\u0097the\u0097top stuff: ugly landscapes, a thunderstorm, gargantuan lightning ,a desert. A huge battle between the emancipated peons and the revolutionary vaqueros. Of course Return of the Seven (1966) completely abandoned the good sense of the McQueen film.

What is particularly shocking is that this sequel came quite quickly after the original film\u0097yet, everything changed meantime in the way of making westerns.

Both the sequels look weird.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I could have done with the seven gunslingers just staying away. This sequel should never have been done, the first did it all and better. The plot was a turkey, the acting was turkey, the direction, production, camera work... all turkey. Whoever put out this junk should be tarred and feathered. May they not return again!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The great Yul Brynner, who won an 'Oscar', and who has starred blockbusters such as 'The Ten Commandments' among lots of others, ended his remarkable career with cheap backlot movies such as this one, 'Sartana', and such. Regretable, indeed. One should take pity on seeing him making his very best to make this idiotic thing stand. Gone were the days when he was surrounded by Steve McQueen, James Coburn, Charles Bronson, Eli Wallach, in 'The Magnificent Seven', and walked around under the famous Elmer Bernstein soundtrack. It's difficult to make a living out of being an actor, sometimes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"You know - I've been in some towns where the girls weren't all that pretty. In fact I've been in some towns where they're downright ugly. But it's the first time I've been in a town where there are no girls at all\" I am sure the fans of great classic remember this phrase that belongs to Vin... one of the TRULY magnificent seven (from the first movie)...

Now I'd want to re-phrase him here. You know - I've seen some movies where the plot isn't all that good. In fact I've seen some movies where the plot is terrible, but that's first time in my life that I saw the film where there isn't any plot at all.

OK. Maybe my above statement is little bit over the top, but honestly... how one can call the plot a crap that is going on in this movie. The bad guy (oh, don't ask me to give you his name, because I don't remember and his not even somehow close to Calvera who's name and character is unforgettable...) is trying to build the church in the name of his late sons, that were killed in some battle, and this bad guy is kidnapping poor villagers to force them to build the church...

first of all how big must be church to have to force hundreds of villagers to build it... is it some Egyptian pyramid or something? but OK, let's stop here about the plot and absolutely forgettable character of a bad guy and let's say few words about The Seven itself...

Yul brynner's good old Chris, always calm, always silent, talking less but talking wise is gone (unfortunately). Oh no... he's as calm as he was... but now, he's calmness are so fake that you just don't buy it. (imagine, he meets a good old friend Chico, who he must rescue after so many years and there is just a few \"hi, Hello\" and not even handshake (as far as I remember))... honestly, it looks more like meeting of two strangers in some internet chat, rather then meeting of Chris and Chico. That makes \"new Chris\" more look like robocop or terminator rather then our beloved wise quickgun...

I won't stop here talking about other characters. There simply aren't ANY... (imagine if strong actor like Yul Brynner is so much fake forgettable, then what will be other characters look like)...

There still are some attempts to give us a background story for each one of them... for example one is women favorite guy, second is a man with dark past who's wife was raped and killed by indians and he since then is killing everyone and everything that is moving... but non of these characters are making any sense or non of them can take your heart.

I remember I was a little child and when O'reilly (Charles Bronson's character) died in the first movie I was crying. Here, I just didn't care about each one of them... even if whole of them with all the crew of the film would die, it seems I wouldn't care more...

So, please, go and SEE THIS MOVIE... I recommend it, because you won't have the other chance to see something worse then it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The seven collaborations between director Joseph \"von\" Sternberg and star Marlene Dietrich were so distinct in look and tone, and so different from anything else going on at the time, they almost seem to constitute a sub-genre of their own. Like any genre, they have their outright masterpieces, as well as their absolute turkeys. Time to send Blonde Venus back to the farm.

After the seedily seductive hits The Blue Angel, Morocco and Shanghai Express, in which Miss Dietrich established her screen image as cabaret-singer-cum-prostitute, someone at Paramount decided it was time for Marlene to play a mother. There is nothing wrong with that in itself; as an actress she was up to the part. It's just that nothing else about the format has changed. It's like The Blue Angel plus a kid. Fair enough, the story of a woman who drags her child along on her sleazy escapades is a sound premise for a tragic drama, but that's not the way this is played. Dietrich's journey is played as some kind of adventure, using her wits and accomplices to stay ahead of the law. This is not some cheeky example of pre-code libertarianism \u0096 it is just bizarrely distasteful.

Although we may be able to accept Marlene is a doting mommy, there is absolutely no way we can buy Sternberg as a director of warmth and poignancy. In spite of this being one of the handful of pictures for which he also took a writing credit, Sternberg simply fails to get the story-arc. The film's emotional payoff is supposed to be the eventual reunion of the family, but even at the beginning this is not established as something worth getting back to. As usual Sternberg's interiors are dressed and shot to look like either brothels or insane asylums. The Faradays' home is actually quite a creepy, dingy environment, and it's a wonder little Johnny wasn't wetting the bed and asking to sleep with the light on.

But as anyone familiar with them will know, the point of a Dietrich\/Sternberg picture is to make Dietrich look fabulous, and in this respect at least Blonde Venus is a success. Marlene is introduced emerging from a forest pool in a bright, shimmering close-up, and even when she is reduced to rags the camera still loves her. The same cannot be said for the rest of the cast, whom Sternberg tended to view as mobile pieces of scenery. The normally likable Herbert Marshall is here reduced to a moody grouch lurking in the shadows. Even the suave and lively Cary Grant becomes just a boring, background blob, and does not seem nearly interesting enough for Dietrich to run off with.

The only standout moments in Blonde Venus are Marlene's song and dance routines, especially the renowned Hot Voodoo number where she parodies her own surreal stage persona by emerging from a gorilla outfit. But even these feel like they have been cut-and-pasted from a different film. Sternberg's fans may hail it as another masterpiece, as they are wont to do, but for the average punter it is a massive disappointment. Audiences of the time did not lap it up as they had her earlier hits, and this heralded the beginning of the end for Marlene's heyday. A year later there would be a new queen at Paramount \u0096 Mae West.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well...there were some great, creamy-smooth facial shots of Marlene, along with her \"shocking\", gender-bender outfit (plus her not-to-be-missed \"transmogrification\" from ape into human being); but, overall, the generally unconvincing plot and dated acting -- not to mention the less than engaging tunes coming from Miss Dietrich's \"baritone\" voice --did little to ensure Blonde Venus a permanent place in my mind's Pantheon of Memorable Films. Cary Grant -- still in the throes of cinematic infancy -- seemed as though he was forever looking to \"find himself\", while Herbert Marshall was probably never anything BUT Herbert Marshall from the day he was born, until the day he died. Naturally, from an historical point of view, Blonde Venus was fun to watch, so long as one was able to put aside...\"great expectations\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The fifth collaboration between Marlene Dietrich and director Josef von Sternberg, BLONDE VENUS is a film that looks great while it's playing but fails to engages the viewer. The plodding storyline of Dietrich being torn between two men, becoming a mammoth cabaret star, and fighting for the custody of her child is jumbled and often feels like bits of three separate films half-baked together. Dietrich is unwisely cast in a rather passive, reactive role for much of the film and her character remains aloof from viewers, while Herbert Marshal is unconvincing as her ill-tempered husband, and Cary Grant is largely wasted as a suave suitor who dashes in and out of the picture. The film does contain some intriguing set pieces (the \"Hot Voodoo\" number is the high point) that are impressively surrealistic for this era in Hollywood, although it proves to no avail in such a dull, incoherent film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was such a terrible film, almost a comedy sketch of a noir film.The budget was low compared to a blockbuster, but still higher than most.But its where they've decided to cut costs that is totally weird.Some actors are at least competent, while others look like they just been dragged off the street.One of them being the lead actor, hes so very bad that i cringed when ever he said anything (he talks through the ENTIRE movie).Then there's the weird costume choices.At the start of the movie all characters are wearing 1930's clothes.They drive a classic car, but the background is a modern day windfarm thats blatantly state of the art.And the costumes and some settings continue to follow this 30's film noir theme.Then BAM in drives a brand new escalade with 24 inch rims....WTF.Same thing again when a guy has a night scope on his rifle, you get a shot down its sight.Hes aiming at a guy with an mp5 and tactical gear on.In a even stranger contrast the locations are brilliant, and seem to have cost more than the rest of the entire film.The camera shots\/angles a very good, and show these locations brilliantly in the scenes.The director has a keen eye for a good looking single shot, but no idea how to do much else.

People who should be shot for this film\u25bc

The writer The director The casting agent The costume designer

People who should be tortured to death for their monotone, monotonous nails on chalk board voice.\u25bc

Anton Pardoe- the lead actor, writer, producer If you ever seen the movie Hostel, i wish that would happen to this guy, but he doesn't escape.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the first time I feel the need to comment on IMDb, to write some sort of a review and, as it so often happens, it's not because of a really excellent film, but a truly appalling one.

Take the narrating style the youngest might relate to the Max Payne video game series, a cast of virtually unkonwns (which is not a bad thing in itself), poor dialogs, some dark scenes but not many enough, and make a film out of it. Don't worry about the bad acting, the length (way too long), the lack of immersion (the lead character has to be one of the lest interesting I've seen in a long time - couldn't care less if he died) or the often ridiculous solutions they find to certain problems the lead character finds himself in.

I wouldn't have written anything if it hadn't been for another review here, giving it 10 stars. I gave it four, but maybe three is closer to what I feel about it. Not only do I not wish to see it again, but the mere thought of it takes me dangerously close to wanting to kill myself. Oh, and a so called noir film is nothing without a good soundtrack - not the case here. The ending song sounds like it was more suitable to a western movie.

It's not romance, it's not action, it's not noir, it's not good. That would be my review if it weren't for the minimum of 10 lines.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Film Noire is a genre that requires a certain level of tact, cleverness, intellect, and imagery. This movie has none of that, though they really tried hard with the imagery.

It's the kind of movie that your cousin Marky the dump truck driver, who's always talking about how he's going to make it big in the movies someday, would make.

The dialogue is wooden and lifeless. The visuals, while obviously expensive to make, are the work of a director who has tried to be clever and failed miserably due to a severe lack in cerebral ability. The acting ranged from sub-par to just plain bad. The story might have been salvaged by a real writer and director, but I suspect that such people would not have touched it with a barge pole.

About 1\/4 of the way through, I noticed striking similarities with the scene in Sim0ne where Viktor, desperate to be rid of his actress, makes the world's worst movie. I figured I'd check IMDb to see if a similar effect has occurred in this movie, and to my surprise it has. I'd almost be tempted to give a 2 out of 10 just because it's exposed the pretentious groupies, but I won't. It's that bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Imagine Diane from Cheers, the self centered over intellectualizing character, now imagine she was trying to make a film moire movie. This would be it. If you just looked at some of the shots without any sound you would think Hmmm.. this could be a good film.

Now if you turn on the sound and listen for anytime at all you quickly realize that the person that made the film knows nothing about films beyond what they read in a book. I was continually thinking is this thing a foreign film, it was that bad.

If you don't remember Cheers, then think of Mr. Beans Holiday... remember the DeFoe character that made the horrible movie... well imagine that horrible movie without Mr. Bean saving it. That is what this movie is. I'm not saying anything about what the movie is other than it is an attempt to make a dark moody film about a hit-man going back home.... at least that's about all I could get out of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen many movies over the years and I am a big fan of comedies.

But this so-called comedy almost reduced me to tears. It is without a doubt the WORST movie I have ever witnessed, the worst.

I remember hearing about this movie from a friend, and decided to view it. If I could I could turn back time, I would. I will regret for as long as I live, the time I wasted watching this rubbish.

The storyline is so insane; it just makes no-sense at all and leaves you confused. There is a Scottish mob and a German headhunter who are after Pestario 'Pest' Vargas (John Leguizamo), the Scottish mob after $50,000 dollars and the Germans after his head.

In trying to escape The Pest, takes the form of many disguises. But in doing this we witness some of the most annoying, worst, mind numbing acting, dialogue and sounds in cinema history. This movie annoyed me so much; by the end I was full of aggression. I was so angry that I had wasted so much time watching a movie that would surely drive depressed people to almost certain suicide. I mean how can there be hope when a movie like this can be given permission to be made?

I know people have their own opinions, but the most shocking thing about The Pest is that people actually like it. Why? What is funny about a man that is annoying from the very first second to the last? A man who cannot act? Who has an annoying voice and confusing face?

I sat through it thinking the movie would get better, surely it would. It did not. Usually, you want the good guy to survive, but I wanted the Germans or the Scottish mob to find and kill The Pest, anything to put me out of my misery. There is nothing funny, interesting or normal that happens in this movie, its just plain annoying and confusing. The jokes are dead even before they are told. I feel sorry for the cameramen who have no say in how the movie is made, but actually have to film this drivel. I wouldn't be surprised if they are receiving counselling.

If you want to remain sane and part of society, my advice is to never watch this movie. I'd rather lock myself in my room for 5 weeks and go without food and water than watch this movie again!

I don't think I'll ever hate anything more than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Only watched this to see Joe Morton in an early role and honestly wished I hadn't bothered, he can and has since, done much better than this crap. Cannot understand why anyone finds this kind of stupidity funny but each to his own; it is an absolute mess and not funny in the least. No wait, ONE line only was funny, where Mr Kent (Joe) and his family are having dinner with this nut job as he's been invited for dinner (Lord alone knows why). Pest to Mr Kent: You know what it's like dog, you've been there Mrs Kent: Not lately, Joe's expression was funny but that's it one line does not make a great comedy and this tat is so far away from being funny it should be consigned to the nearest trash cart, it's only good enough for that. Joe Morton - glad to see you don't appear in rubbish like this anymore; you are far superior and a great great actor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...un-funny and un-entertaining, possibly the worst movie I have ever had the misfortune to watch. Think 'Ernest goes to..' humour done even worse. Myself and my girlfriend sat through it just to see if it could be as consistently dire as it seems in the opening sequence... Yes it is. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is a famous short story about a man who becomes the prey of a safari hunter who has lost interest in hunting anything except humans. Its quite good, and its been done and redone in film and TV many many times. Some are notable, but this urbanized version, that injects the tired old racism themes, just flat out stinks. Leguizamo's slapstick is almost as weak as the unfunny script. Chaplin, this guy isn't. There must be people who find a dwarf who cant stop dancing funny, I mean I suppose it is funny in a pathetic freakish way, but its just not enough to carry a movie. You have the usual Nazi holdover or neo-Nazi whatever the heck we are supposed to think, type villain, who's son of course is gay, German accents...get the picture?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe that there are people out there who voted 10 for this garbage! Have any of you gained access to a computer in the madhouse where you are undoubtably kept, or is there a special colony where especially crass people are secretly imprisoned that I don't know about?

If I was to say what I really thought of this film, none of it would get published.

To begin with its 'star' is a no talent idiot who acts like a bad impersonator of Jim Carrey who has hoovered enough angel dust up his nose to resurface the Sahara desert. His name will be a total guarantee that I will not watch a future film with him in it - even if he plays a rock hidden by a crowd.

As for the 'plot'. One more crime that we can chalk up to the Nazis is that they were so awful that they can be considered fair game as 'baddies' in tripe like this; mere criminals and murderers would have the audience on their side in a trice.

To the people who made this movie - Give up making films and if not then confine yourself to making advertisements, where your efforts will at least have the virtue of being fleeting in duration.

Finally, a criticism of IMDB - Why don't you have the facility to vote 'Zero' for a film? Or perhaps not. To express my contempt for this tripe I would then have to vote double zero, or something.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A friend of mine who has a mysterious knack for finding and - horrors! - liking bad movies recommended I watch 'The Pest.' At the time unaware of just how truly pathetic his taste in movies was, I decided to give it a try.

Bad mistake.

The story, although clearly ripped straight out of any sixth grade English textbook as far as the \"manhunter\" theme goes, would be amusing under the right conditions - good actors, writer, director, wardrobe, and so on and so on to almost no end. Clearly these factors are absent.

'The Pest' is supposed to be funny, I think. I say \"think\" because I let crack nothing more than a slight smile throughout the whole film. Not a guffaw, not a laugh, not a chuckle, not even a grin. A smile, at best. And that happened so rarely while watching this film I even remember how often I did smile - maybe 3 or 4 times at best.

So do yourself an immense favor. Never watch this movie. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ok, I'm normally pretty open minded about movies. I can normally see a good side to a film which has been totally pandered by others. This is an exception.

I won't waste to much energy telling you what happens, but think along the lines of Bill and Ted meets the worst Police Academy movie out of all of them and you won't be far off.

The thing that really got me about this film was the stupid purile racism that was evident throughout. The general theme of latino\/black guys = cool, white guys = lame is slightly amusing for the first couple of jokes but when the same joke has been reiterated for the 500th time (not an exageration by the way) it gets both tiresome and offensive.

I spent months waiting for the laws of Karma to get back at John Leguizamo for this film. I had almost given up hope when the 'My VH1 Awards' were screened live in the UK. What followed was Mr Leguizamo performing the rare feat of a comedian bombing on stage. You'd have to be a complete sadist to laugh at him. Ahem. Ha! Ha! Ha!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a turd! I like John Leguizamo but man this is bad. I thought spawn was the worst movie he had been in, but I was wrong. I like all types of comedy from stuff like Ace Ventura 2 to american werewolf in London. This is a piece of trash.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am almost tempted to demand my money back from the video store. This movie plumbs the depths of inanity and is almost completely unwatchable. I NEVER bail out of a film early but this was painful to view. A thorough waste of celluloid. My vote 1\/10 (it would have been zero).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The sole reason for someone wanting to see this film would be because of John Leguizamo. I remember the previews, and it looked to be another second rate comedy. But the fact that Mr. Leguizamo starred, tried to redeem it. His name, how known it was at the time or not, tried to sell it.

I was pretty disappointed with the performance of Leguizamo. His days on \"House of Buggin'\" (an \"In Living Colour\" clone), were his tip-top. There is a fine line between wackiness and idiocy, and we'll just say that Leguizamo crossed it tenfold. He looked like he was trying to be too outrageous and crazy for the camera. As a matter of fact, I'll say that he tried too hard. Madcap humor spilled over into stupidity, and the film was spoiled. I can't say I blamed him, if you were given this opportunity, you'd try as hard if you could, right? Your eagerness cost you dearly though Mr. Leguizamo...

The Pest follows in the tradition of any comedy film, and plays the \"race card\", and more. No group is left out from being poked fun at. Blacks, Latinos, whites, Jews, Koreans, Germans, homosexuals, and the blind are among those singled out. Again here, things get too overboard, and too much tries to get spoofed in too little time. The resolution of the film takes all of five minutes to clear up and move back to normality.

When you have a film, and you're going to bypass plot and reality for comedy's sake, just make sure it's funny, or all you have is 90 minutes of senseless film. Which would sum up Leguizamo's \"Pest\" quite nicely...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Obviously, this one doesn't aim for the brain : the so-called \"humour\" is based on farting and every clich\u00e9 about any ethnic genre you can imagine, gays included of course, as long as they are not WASP. And a latino cowrote this ? Besides, John Leguizamo does have talent and charisma, but in such a self-indulgent movie it is a definite waste. What the point in trying to out-Jim Carrey Jim Carrey himself ? \"The Pest\" of the title could then be this movie, almost as funny as Bergman's finest. Prepare to be annoyed, not amused","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is pathetic in every way possible. Bad acting, horrible script (was there one?), terrible editing, lousy cinematography, cheap humor. Just plain horrible.

I had seen 'The Wishmaster' a couple weeks before this movie and I thought it was a dead-ringer for worst movie of the year. Then, I saw 'The Pest' and suddenly 'The Wishmaster' didn't seem so bad at all.

Bad Bad Bad. Excruciatingly bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was unfortunate enough to see this movie at a friends' house. What an utter waste of time. What an utter and complete piece of crap this movie is! Absolutely nothing is funny in it, from the shower scene to the insulting and degrading portrayal of Germans. There is no plot, the acting made me gag and at the end, I personally wanted to beat John Leguizamo with a stick. I thought John Woo movies were bad.....this movie is officially the worst movie that I have ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just to save you the $3, or whatever it costs to rent movies at your local video store, and the anguishing hour-and-however-long-this-movie-is here's a simple plan. Go over to a friend's house, talk them into renting The Pest for you, watch the first 30 seconds or so and then make up some excuse to leave. The opening sequence is really funny, definitely worth watching. Unfortunately, the other 99% of the movie is horrible. Without the shower scene at the beginning this is one of the worst movies of all time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"John Leguizamo must have been insane if he thinks this was a funny movie. I laughed more times watching Remains of the Day. Pathetic plot, unbearable acting. Horrible music -- Michael Sambello IS a \"Maniac.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a terrible movie, don't waste your money on it. Don't even watch it for free. That's all I have to say.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was the worst movie I have ever seen. I have to admit I didn't watch it from beginning to end as cleaning the toilet was more entertaining.

The 'star' was the most unpleasant character I've ever seen, neither funny nor attractive, in fact, creepy and obnoxious are far too complimentary.

It is painful to watch, there is no acting, especially not from the star who behaves as a doped up mentally deficient take off on one of those loud mouthed black actors.

As horrible as it is to watch one of those can't shut up black actors, watching a Puerto Rican one is even worse.

The name of the movie is descriptive, he is the pest. This movie is a must miss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Obviously, the comments above that fawn over the movie were made by someone who's on the crew. I don't recall ever seeing a movie that's more insulting to the talented actors or the audience watching. In my 30 years of watching movies, this is the only one I have ever walked out of. Bad humor, bad jokes, bad gags, bad editing, bad plot, etc.

Note to producer: It's never funny to hunt humans based on race. Great that you tried to be politically correct by incorporating all races, but you're still hunting humans based on race, and that's sickening.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I actually joined this site simply to write in about this movie. I was sitting in my living room and this movie came on one of the local channels. I made it about an hour through before I simply had enough. Curious to see what the general movie-opinionated public thought of this movie, I looked it up on this site. I was absolutely shocked to see that there were an overwhelming amount of people that thought it was great. I needed to have my say, and here it is: This movie is absolute garbage. It was a chore to sit through. The \"jokes\" were uninspired rehashes from other, better shows and movies, and Leguizamo's manic portrayal of this obnoxious character should only appeal to age ten and below. That actually may be a stretch even for that age. I'm all for slapstick ridiculousness, but there isn't even the faintest hint of wit or cleverness. I have an idea, lets take bad uninspired obvious jokes and play them at twice the speed. Now that's funny. Ha. Ha.

Movies that you should see that take silly humor and add comic timing and originality: The Marx Brothers' A Night at the Opera, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut,...and the list goes on. Don't lose an hour and a half of your life on unmemorable crap.

By the way, I can only assume that the reason that David Bar Katz (the other writer) did VERY little in film after this movie is because he was instantly blacklisted. I'm actually impressed that Leguizamo was able to recover after this mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At times when I watch this movie i start to think that the people who made this movie were on drugs.What's wrong with this film I'll tell you Bad Plot,Bad Jokes.Bad Acting and flat-out characters everything just bad.

The movie is about Pest Vargas a two-bit scam hustler who is given the chance at $50,000 to survive for 24 hours by a German hunter who kills people for a living.so now Pest must think of ways to out think this hunter before he gets killed.

I know what your thinking \"What The Hell is this?\" a another wannabe Ace Ventura trying to get money really this plot is just dull and confusing at times it changes the story plot and you get lost during the film.

As for the funny scenes this film I had a straight face oh yeah I did smile a couple times but nothing laugh-out loud.besides the jokes are corny and seen before it's like watching Ace Ventura meets Dumb and Dumber but bad.

As for character development it's dry and flat.You don't learn much about the main character Pest all you know is he's a annoying scam hustler but that's it he doesn't change his image or be a little smart just corny.as for The German hunter all you is that he's crazy and wants to go back to Germany.really you start to wonder why is this guy living on an island if has money to go to Germany.The hunter's son Himmel fares better but not much.He's really a coward and is snake-obsessed for reasons by the end He stands Up to his father and sides with Pest.

As for the acting no only were there any memorable perforamces but just over the top.For example John Legizomo is so over the top with performance and dosen't fit in his role he's out of place as for Jeffery Jones who plays the hunter same thing but gives a stereotypical performance as well.as for the rest either just no used enough or just over the top.

overall bad comedy that you'll find for $2.00 at K-Mart.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd like to start by saying I would not go see this movie again if they were giving out popcorn made of solid gold and the ticket granted me eternal life. This movie was terrible. I can't give this it a truly honest rating because there are no negative stars. The acting is absolutely terrible. This movie is a travesty, based on the classic, \"The Most Dangerous Game\". If you really want to torture yourself for 90 minutes rent something like Gigli. At least J-Lo provides some better scenery, Ben should pacify the ladies viewing it. I'm not upset about the $7 I paid to see the move, I'd just like the 90 minutes of my life back.

\"Can you give me my time back!?!\" Samuel L. Jackson, Changing Lanes","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like most everyone who views this movie, I did it for the stars Michael Madsen and Dennis Hopper. The two are extremely underrated and sadly, because of that, have to headline a lot of crap. In this film, Hopper plays a guy who accidentally kills a blackmailer and is offered help from the mysterious Madsen.

The film actually isn't as terrible as it could have been. I've seen both in much worse, both independently and working together (LAPD, horrible film). The direction was pretty poor and the script needed a few re-writes, but both give the best performance possible with the material offered. Also the ending is pretty strong, so you can tell the story had potential. But when a glowing review of a film is, \"It could have been much worse\", it doesn't say much for the film itself.

All in all, this is one that can easily be skipped if neither of these actors draw you in. But if you're a fan of either or both, give it a watch. They both give strong performances that outshine the obvious flaws of the film. Trust me, there are much worse options out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'A comedy of biblical proportions!' Those masters of hyperbole, the movie-tag-line-writers, at it again; the sequel to 2003's Bruce Almighty, raises barely a chuckle. The only thing which raises my interest in this movie above total indifference is its dogmatic Christian undertones. Sorry, make that overtones.

Steve Carrel, ignoring Jim Carrey's good sense to decline a role reprisal, plays Evan Baxter, the smug news anchor from Bruce Almighty, who has just been elected to congress. With a new life in Virginia and the stress of moving into a house the size of the Acropolis, the pressure of all the change takes its toll on his family. His wife (Lauren Graham), evidently airlifted in from Stepford, and three sons (Jimmy Bennett, Graham Phillips and Johnny Simmons), who do a stilted job of looking sad to a piano accompaniment, pray for the family to become closer, and almost out of guilt, so does Evan.

In what must be the greatest shock of all time, God (Morgan Freeman) actually shows up, but does the whole pesky 'working in mysterious ways' thing all over the place by telling Evan to build a Noah-esquire ark in preparation for a great flood instead of just giving him a pool table or and X-box or something. And in true mischievous deity style, he also forces Evan to grow a beard, long hair and wear worn and tatty robes. Now, back in the day I'm sure razors were hard to come by so the beard was somewhat of an inevitability for Noah, but I'm almost certain it had nothing to do with spirituality. Same with the robes; a massive construction job is surely made all the more difficult by such impractical clothing. Couldn't God have conjured up a pair of steel toed boots and a hard hat for the poor guy? Apparently not.

To paraphrase Bill Hicks, I find the idea that God is messing with us somewhat unsettling, and so does Evan who fights him every step of the way. And who wouldn't? God essentially gets him fired, drives away his loved ones, makes him a laughing stock and at one point actually threatens him. Of course God turns out to be right, and the rational, hard working family man who was getting on fine by himself is forced to eat a large slice of bittersweet humble pie. It's almost as if to be left alone by God, Evan had to tolerate and humour him. What kind of message is that?

Evan Almighty does have a highly commendable environmental slant, with the underlying theme being that the Federal Government is blind to the damage being done to the world around us. It is also the first film ever to offset its carbon emissions and this should surely be considered a landmark achievement by a Hollywood studio. Were it not for the trite, condescending banner of American Christianity flying high above it, Evan Almighty could have been an inoffensive family movie, with a praiseworthy environmental record. But with its confused religious dogma and relentless 'blind faith' message, it ranks as one of the most repugnant movies of all time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hated this film. Simply put, this film is so bad that I almost want to disregard ever watching it and never again mentioning it. But on the other hand, I can't resist a good bashing. And if there's one thing that Evan Almighty does for the audience it is that it brings out the best criticism.

The film (a sequel to the much funnier Bruce Almighty) starts out by reintroducing the audience to Evan Baxter, a mere supporting at best character in the original film. That's right. This film shows no Jim Carrey or Jennifer Anisten. Not even a small cameo appearance. You know your film is bad when the guy that agreed to do Ace Venture: When Nature Calls won't even have a short walk-on role. But somehow they manage to keep Morgan Freeman as God. While sitting in the near empty theater bored out of my mind at the lack of comedy I couldn't help but wonder how much money it took to secure Freeman for this film. Then it hit me an hour ago. It's just a throwaway role that takes up all of 20 minutes in the 100 minute film. God just pops up in between scenes to tell Evan to build the ark. Sure I know Morgan Freeman won't look at this film in a year and think it's as good as his roles in The Shawshank Redemption and Million Dollar Baby but it's easy money.

Where was I? Oh yes, the plot. Sometimes it's so hard to keep focused on the plot when you realize that you gave more thought thinking about the plot than the writer of the screenplay did. Anyway Evan (Steve Carell) has apparently left his job as a news anchorman for a job as a congressman. Yeah... with no transition in between. He never turns to his wife and says \"I think I want to be a congressman.\" It just happens within the first five minutes and you are forced to deal with the big transition. Well as a congressman he is to partner for a bill proposed by John Goodman's character when suddenly God appears to tell Evan to build an ark. No \"Hey, how you doing? How's the weather?\" bit. Just \"I want you to build an ark.\" Evidence of bad writing: Evan determines that God is giving him clues to build an ark after noticing a fan hold up a sign saying Genesis 6:14 when he's walking past his son whose watching a televised baseball game.

That's basically the plot of Evan Almighty. There are some random supporting cast members that do their best at creating comedy but they don't do very well because they aren't given hardly any screen time. It's just your basic run of the mill family building an ark film. Oh and also there's that obligatory scene where a father has to cancel his hiking plans with his kids and wife because he becomes busy with work. They walk off disappointed but they understand, as do all the other times in film this has happened. Just once would I love to see the youngest kid turn to his father and kick him in the chins and tell him \"You're a real bastard for canceling your plans with us. I'm going to turn emo now.\" There's also that drama that you'd expect from the father with his family when they realize (the wife, actually... the three kids have no problem helping dad build an ark) that he's gone crazy and he claims God wants him to build a big boat. But don't worry. His family decides to stick with him. Oops, I just spoiled the drama.

Another problem with this film is that there is hardly any good comedy going on. I know the decision was made to rate have this be a PG film to get a bigger crowd reaction but I don't think I'm in the minority when I think that family humor is more than just guys getting kicked in the nuts and animals crapping. Maybe I'm wrong and that's what quality family humor has been reduced to. And if it is, please bring me more adult comedies so I won't have to sit through anymore of this crap (pun not intended).

The ending is extra cheesy. All of a sudden the film takes a dramatic CGI filled turn that makes me shudder to think how it is a terrible waste of CGI. I bet it was expensive too. Finally after all that waiting we are told why God wanted Evan to build an ark. And boy oh boy I hated the reason why. I'll spare the details but it was like watching or reading a murder mystery and having the killer turn out to be the person who walked behind the main character for one second and had no lines.

Oh and then there's a nice touch at the very end. The song \"Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)\" plays over the credits and we are then subjected to the \"dancing\" of the cast. I don't get it. They spend 100 minutes unsuccessfully making a comedy and then they wrap it up with a thriller. I swear I haven't been that scared watching Steve Carell dance since ... well never. There you have it folks. Evan Almighty is the scariest film of all time.

All in all I thought it was a wasted experience. I'm baffled at all the talented actors (Carell, Freeman and Goodman) appearing in this bore-fest alongside Lauren Graham, the woman from Gilmore Girls that has yet to prove to me that she can act her way out of a paper bag. But most of all I'm surprised at my will power to actually sit through the whole film without walking out.

Rating: * out of ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a flick doomed from its conception. The very idea of it was lame - take a minor character from a mediocre PG-13 film, and make a complete non-sequel while changing its tone to a PG-rated family movie. I wasn't the least bit interested. Then came the trailer. Not only did it only confirm that the film would be unfunny and generic, but it also managed to give away the ENTIRE movie; and I'm not exaggerating - every moment, every plot point, every joke is told in the trailer. It's like a 3-minute Cliff's Notes version of the flick. So obviously I wasn't gonna pay to see it, but once it hit DVD, I thought sure, I'll watch it for free. Maybe Steve Carell can save it.

Nope.

I'm still baffled as to why he signed on for this. He must have owed someone a favor. The jokes were all so flat and obvious, and the director obviously asked him to go for very broad comedy style like the original Bruce Almighty's Jim Carrey. But it's just not funny. The studio obviously tried to cash in on the success of 40-Year-Old Virgin, complete with several of Carell's past co-stars, a reference to the flick on a theater marquee, and another musical closing credits sequence. But even the talented Carrell can't save this. His co-stars don't fare much better, with people like Morgan Freeman, Jonah Hill, and Ed Helms just wasted. Wanda Sykes isn't wasted, she's just a waste in anything she does, and her horrible one-liners and reactions just make you wish people would stop giving her work.

The story itself is just predictable and lazy. It pounds you over the head with obvious foreshadowing, like Evan's disregard for the environment (drives a gas-guzzling Humvee, opts to use wood from endangered trees for his house, hates animals,...), and by the end it's just over-the-top preachy on both faith and the environment.

Why the movie was made at all is puzzling enough, but I really don't understand how it reportedly became the most expensive comedy ever. The only real effects work is the presence of all the animals, and the integration of those into the scenes is some of the worst and most obvious blue\/green-screen work I've ever seen. Maybe the rental of the live animals on set cost a fortune. Who knows. But whatever it was that cost them so much, it didn't translate to quality, that's for sure. But hey, it wasn't the worst film of the year by far. There's still plenty of worse duds like Norbit and Death Proof.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The biggest problem with this film is that it's nothing like Bruce Allmighty. The first film played upon every daydreamer's fantasy of being able to control ones surroundings as one sees fit. Evan's experience though is entirely different. He has none of the control that Jim Carrey fools around with and instead the story centers around the power of belief. Now this would have been fine, since the first film was preaching the same message. The problem is that the sequel does it's preaching at the expense of the comic relief. And to add insult to injury it also throws in politics into the plot. You get the distinct feeling that there is a clear message with this film, and it's main objective is not to make you laugh. To sum things up this movie is failed mixture of Eddie Murhphy's \"The Distinguished Gentleman\" and Charlton Heston's \"The Ten Commandments\". I'm not sure if Steve Carrell is at fault here, you get a sense that it's his character that limits his abilities as a comedian, the former news anchor Evan Baxter is not supposed to be funny, he's basically an antagonist made into a protagonist which in this case only adds to the confusion of what this movies message is supposed to be about.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I very much enjoyed Bruce Almighty but the minute i found out that there was going to be a sequel WITHOUT Jim Carey, i knew it was bad. Although Steve Carell was hysterical in the first film ( the babbling scene is one of my favorites) , and, in my opinion , deserves an Emmy for his role in The Office , he is pretty weak in this dull comedy. I'm curious how much work the script writers put, because we could just as well do without the story . But even if we discard the huge plot holes (why did elephants and lions come to aid Evan when the flood only concerned that particular area of Washington) the film is simply ...not funny. I did not laugh once and as far as i remember, a comedy is supposed to make you laugh . Or giggle at least. Not this one.

There is small hope however. Evan Almighty has \"family\" written all over it and maybe a family viewing might be enjoyable,(kids might be entertained by the variety of animals and the silly jokes) , but ,for me, Evan Almighty simply doesn't cut it.

I give it a 4\/10 and hope that Carell will be more careful when choosing his roles in the feature.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a failure as a comedy and a film in general. It was a very slow paced movie that seemed to be trying to convey a message, but the message was a clich\u00e9, hopeless mess to begin with. This movie falls on shameless environmental point, even making a self-righteous point of destroying an SUV and promoting Animal Planet.

In sitting through this, I couldn't help but notice that Steve Carell got no more than a single truly funny line. The only thing that could hypothetically mark this as a comedy is the pitiful attempt to give comic relief lines to Wanda Sykes. Her character gets frequent, cringe-worthy lines where they absolutely do not fit.

Far from the brilliance of Bruce Almighty, Evan Almighty blows its whole record-breaking budget on special effect plot devices that turn out to barely advance the plot. The movie spends the first half building up to the construction of Evan's ark, but by the end, we learn that the ark was completely meaningless, and the whole plot was a just a vessel for the stupid gags and even stupider messages. The movie concludes when we learn that the whole ark, flood, and animal gathering was just a weak political statement by none other than God. Yes, God was trying to influence politics.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I watched this film expecting to be rolling in the aisles ... how wrong I was. The film was moderately amusing, at best, and irritating at worst (the slapstick comedy styling of building an ark with archaic tools, laugh ... no I didn't). I'm very disappointed given Steve Carrel was the lead. I've watch the Office US religiously, cracks me up immensely, I thought 40 year old virgin was good ... but Evan 'elp us- why on earth did he accept this script. And, as for Morgan Freeman- he's old enough to know better.

So, the idea seemed reasonable, the actors I had every faith in- but the execution was nothing to write home about and the ending, well it seemed as if they had run out of money, or ideas. This for me was one of the most contrived endings I could have imagined. They took a biblical story and dumbed it down to a cautionary tale on localized environmental issues, not even global issues, but a local bill - yawn!

In summary, reasonable start, got gradually worse and, for me, it was all washed out by the time the credit's rolled.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although I'm not too much of a religious person, I still had relatively high hopes for this movie, as it does have the amazing Steve Carrell, and its prequel, Bruce Almighty, was actually a creative and clever Christian-themed comedy. However, Evan Almighty comes nowhere near this originality and freshness that the original has, and can't decide whether it's a comedy or a sentimental movie about faith and family values. If it had chosen one clear path of which of these themes to focus on, it could have lived up to its potential, but instead the result of mixing the two is a film that has a very flat and dry sense of humor, cheesy dialogue and motifs that attempt to give the movie profundity, but instead practically insults the intelligence of the audience, and also a very confused and clouded presentation of the movie's opaque message. It was very obvious that Evan Almighty was very poorly written, there are numerous plot holes and elements in the movie that make absolutely no sense. For example, although a large variety of exotic animals from all over the planet swarm to Evan as he builds the ark for their salvation from the flood, is their inclusion really necessary when the only \"flood\" that happens in the movie is downtown Washington D.C. and a suburban neighborhood, meaning they are at no risk of being wiped out? The filmmakers it seems lacked the originality to modernize the Bible story whatsoever, and instead just had it take place in a present time without changing anything to the plot, leaving many elements that just don't add up such as this and make it obvious of the idiotic motifs and writing within the movie. Overall, this work is tragic in that the acting talent of Steve Carrell and Wanda Sykes isn't exhibited because of the bland characters they portray, and that it was so poorly written that it skews and clouts many of the film's attempted themes, and makes a mockery of the first film. Finally, Evan Almighty also is an insult to the brilliant actors in it and any halfway-intelligent moviegoer, in that it fails both of them miserably.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If like me, you enjoyed the first film \"Bruce Almighty\", my advice to you is not to get your hopes up too high; in fact disregard any hope you possess for this movie if you are above the age of 12 and have any film-sense at all.

Without giving too much away, the story sees Evan (Bruce's nemesis co-anchor from the first film) move home with his family to the Virginian suburbs to \"Change the World\" with a new political path. What follows is a rather far-fetched and quite 'silly' storyline, which is obviously set out to target young children as the main target audience. Unlike it's predecessor, Evan Almighty is a family orientated film with the ambiguous genre of 'comedy' tagged upon it's misleading position of 'sequel' to which some would regard a modern-day comedy classic that can be enjoyed by a slightly more mature, upscale audience.

Generally speaking, Evan Almighty comprises itself of terrible cinematic values. The acting; omit Steve Carell and Morgan Freeman, was rigid and many of the characters were seemingly thrown in to use up the unnecessarily large budget issued for the production. Additionally, the cast includes acting legend John Goodman who makes an appearance as a heel and is seen just a few times in the movie's entirety; I didn't quite buy the character though and thought the storyline from which he was involved in lacked depth even for a family comedy. Every other character in the movie (especially the wife and kids!) deserve a mention for their acting so cheesy it could fill a king-size Kiev. Be warned though; it is the typical Americanized cheddarfest associated with many mainstream family-orientated films, so I'd advise you defend yourself with the nearest grater in sight.

It may seem the movie is worthless thus-far, however, it does have -some- promising aspects. The CGI was outstanding and it was clear that a lot of time went into modelling the Ark and producing water effects and animation of the computer generated animals towards the end. The particles, renders and textures used were aesthetically stellar. Although part of me couldn't help, but think these were undeserving to a movie with such poor ideals and were, in my opinion, 'too good' for this piece of cinema and carried the movie throughout.

Overall I view this film as a disaster in terms of continuing what was a franchise with huge potential, but unfortunately it fell short to a bad conclusion in the Almighty series and approaching the end of the film I had set my expectations high for an epic and somehow meaningful finale to make up for the mediocre content I had so far witnessed. This wasn't the case and I was deeply disappointed and confused come the closing credits. As I sat discontent I couldn't help, but think the movie wasn't anywhere near as 'Mighty' as I hoped for. In many ways the film reminded me of a watered down \"Night at the Museum\" as it showed similar styling and characteristics, but unfortunately was leagues below even that.

I give this movie 3 out of 10, as it is watchable, but it's definitely one to be avoided! If you HAVE to see this film, be prepared for disappointment as 'mildly entertained' is the best you could hope to obtain in watching the said production.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only redeeming feature of this movie is Steve Carell. Like John Wayne, I've never seen Steve Carell stretch too far as an actor, but it doesn't matter. He always plays his one role perfectly.

As Marty Feldman once said, comedy must have internal consistency. You can have 4 men on stage sitting in garbage cans, and that's fine, but if you bring a fifth man on stage who isn't in a garbage can, you must then explain to the audience why he is not also in a garbage can.

Why doesn't Evan accept his role as a messenger of God? Why, when he does accept it, is he so profoundly embarrassed by it? Why isn't anyone more impressed with the way that animals follow Evan around (they are explained away by the unthinking doubters as \"trained animals\" possibly from a circus). There's a terrible flood at the end, and most everyone we see hops on the ark and is saved, but surely thousands of people would have been killed by the flood; there is no post-disaster emotional atmosphere at the end. Instead, most of congress has finally seen the light and is about to prosecute the lone incorrigibly bad congressman for \"profiteering\".

I gotta admit: I also liked the fish in the aquarium reacting to the presence of Evan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This certainly isn't a comedy - I don't know what it was marketed that way. As a serious movie, it lacks any sort of substance. Unless you're fresh out of Sunday school or needing your Noah fix, you'll find yourself bored to tears.

The supporting cast took away from what little of the movie was left. Lauren Graham plays an empty housewife with no real depth. His children don't really add anything to the movie. They seem to be around solely to brood about their absent father at the beginning. Jonah Hill plays a creepy internet addict that doesn't come off as humorous.

I found the original to be a decent movie. Disappointed that this one didn't really go anywhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only way I can feel good about having handed over these precious minutes of my life is everyday telling someone how awful it was. And even if I say it once a day, every day for the rest of my life I will not fully get my point across. Just dumb.

There's a difference in movies like this and movies like Elephant or Fat Guy Goes Nutzoid, two of my other least favorite movies. The latter two were terrible, yes, but that was that. Evan Almighty takes a strong cast and attempts to kill them all. Wanda Sykes, Jonah Hill, John Goodman and Steve Carrell...WHY GOD WHY!? All these people have much better talent, now every time I see any of them I will think of this terrible movie.

The only reason I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 was when I saw the movie, there was a mentally challenged elderly woman who thought the barrage of bird poop and getting-hurt-by-tools-while-building jokes were so funny that she didn't stop laughing the entire time, nearly stroking out at several times.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh Mr. Carell! How far you've fallen! After a glowing moment in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, Steve Carell's choice of films is beginning to contrast starkly with what has come since. Although THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN was entertaining, it was dwarfed by his \"Sunshine\" character. Hoping to find something that'd get me to spew popcorn from my nose, I decided to rent EVAN ALMIGHTY and see what possible guffaws might await me here. Not much...

Given the trite and clich\u00e9d script, the entire film felt forced and unemotional. Poking a bit of fun at flagging family values and the current U.S. administration's take on the environment, Evan Almighty also tries to put a profound biblical moment into humorous terms but fails miserably.

Nearly every person on Earth knows the story of Noah and The Ark. God's wrath was sent down with 30 days and nights of rain which flooded the entire planet while Noah, his family, and two of each of His creatures on Earth rode out the wetness in relative comfort via the gopher wood ark. It was a huge moment in human history (if you believe the biblical text).

So why would God appear to one man and ask him to build an ark that would only carry the world's animals for a few minutes after a dam break? The simple answer is that He never would. Too much emphasis was given to U.S. government policy and not enough on world events, making Evan Almighty a terribly myopic and Ameri-centric film. Although designed as a comedy, it really never reaches anything approaching belly laughs. Maybe a few grunts and a smile, but little else.

John Goodman (CARS) pulls in another forced performance as the despicable Congressman Chuck Long who's only goals are to create development opportunities on protected national land holdings. Even the strong presence of Morgan Freeman (10 ITEMS OF LESS) as God can't help mop up this soaking wet disaster-of-a-film.

The only funny moments are between Carell and the animals, especially as Evan learns what animal magnetism is REALLY like. Birds literally flock to him. Sheep herd around him. Lions take pride in being near him (please forgive the puns).

The special effects were fun to watch but were brief (with good reason). The \"flood\" was interesting in that the Ark was obviously guided by His hand and shoved in just the right direction.

But other than that you're in for little more than an insult to common sense and intellect.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The creative team behind Evan Almighty really should have been able to make a better film. Starring one of America's favourite funnymen and helmed by Ace Ventura Pet Detective director Tom Shadyac one expects a higher laugh count than the picture provides. Hell even Steve Oedekerk who wrote and directed last years atrocious Barnyard, and attains a writing credit here has done better work. The fact of the matter is that Evan Almighty isn't the worst picture of the Summer season but it might well be the most disappointing. The title and creative team behind the picture suggest this is a sequel of sorts to 2003's Bruce Almighty. That picture had Jim Carrey in the lead, and whilst both Steve Carell and Carrey are both funny guys it's the latter who's better suited to this sort of material. I've heard that Carrey was offered this sequel before anyone else, but the actor declined staing he saw no other places for his character to venture. Thus Shadyac moved over to Carell, who ever since an amusing bit part in the 2003 original has been gunning for stardom. After sleeper hits The 40 Year Old Virgin and Little Miss Sunshine the man has become big business, and so it's him rather than rubber faced Jim who leads this production into theatres. The story see's Evan Baxter (Steve Carell) having been elected as a Congressman and thus he and his troop move house and state so Evan can find success with his job. His wife (Lauren Graham) and three kids have doubts but overall show a supportive side towards Evan, who himself looks at the future with optimistic eyes. However things start to go belly up fairly fast, God (Morgan Freeman) appears to Evan stating a flood is coming and that the politician must build an Ark. Initially ignoring the encounter, Evan is quickly granted some robes a beard that refuses to stay shaved and animals are beginning to appear two by two. Evan then begins to put the boat into construction but the neighbourhood aren't happy and neither is a fellow Politician (John Goodman). Anyone expecting the wacky laughs of some of Tom Shadyac's other films will probably be left completely cold by this movie. Ace Ventura, Liar Liar and hell even Bruce Almighty where largely very funny pictures, but all of those ;projects have one thing in commen and thats Jim Carrey's presence. Shadyac hasn't made a worthwhile film without Carrey at the helm, he's worked with Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy and now Steve Carell, but still only Carrey seems to meld successfully with Shadyac. Carell after the disappointing Box-Office and critical mauling won't be desperate to work with the director again, and with Carrey now doing more serious projects Shadyac had better find a new comic muse fast. Carell himself is fairly dull here, whoever felt that his bit part in the first movie (Despite being quite amusing) deserved a full length feature should be taken out back and shot. I expect after Bruce Almighty's Box-Office draw it was Universal studios themselves, but you know when a quality comedian can't do anything with a character then the scren persona is a dud, and thats exactly the case with Evan Almighty. Lauren Graham isn't any great shakes as Evan's wife nor do any of the children strike the right note. Freeman lets it all hang loose as God in another amusing and chilled performance but he appears to sporadically to carry the piece. Indeed the most consistent source of laughter is Evan's Secretary (Wanda Sykes) and creep co-worker (Jonah Hill), both made me laugh twice as much as any other character in the project. Oedekerk's writing has been worse (Barnyard) but also better (Ace Ventura When Nature Calls) than his work on this production. His script does have genuinely funny moments but it's also full of cloying family moments and the humour is never weird or indeed offensive enough. The film takes tame and easy swipes at religion when it ought to rip the concept to shreds, indeed the opening church sequence in The Simpsons Movie shakes religion harder than Evan Almighty's whole 95 minute run. With a bit more daring and heart this could have been a far better picture. I don't doubt that the core family audience will be mildly entertained by this film, but if they'll be satisfied is a completely different question. There's a line between being watchable and being worthwhile, a line that Evan Almighty is always on the wrong side off. Maybe when you're feeling bored and the films on cable you can afford to watch, but I can think of plenty better ways to spend my time and indeed more importantly my money than tuning into this mediocre comedy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Evan Almighty continues the mainstream Bruce Almighty franchise, this time with newsman turned freshman Congressman from Buffalo, Evan Baxter (Steve Carell), at it's center. A wholly innocuous (and not even really self-doubting) man, God (Morgan Freeman) decides to enforce some sort of quest upon Baxter, in order to illustrate the importance of... reciprocal kindness, so that Baxter can \"change the world\" (aka, pay it forward).

Think of Evan Almighty as a wholesome derivative of 'Distinguished Gentlemen.' Baxter is not a con, but his colleague, Congressman Long (John Goodman) wants his unquestioned support on a bill that essentially, is harmful to the environment. And well-meaning Baxter, knowing the importance of networking and visibility, is willing to support him.

In addition, with the new job comes more responsibility, and Baxter is in a sense, vilified, for not spending enough time with his family.

So God, decides to give Evan Baxter some guidance by forcing him to become the modern day Noah. His orders: build an ark. Except, while it may be mildly humorous to see Baxter's transformation to the \"weirdo with a beard-o,\" there doesn't seem to be much point to this whole thing which becomes abundantly clearer when the climax of the film fizzles. (SPOILERS: if none of the population is killed by the \"flood\", then what was the point of summoning the animals... or at least the ones that obviously weren't from suburban Virginia? or, more importantly, if all Baxter had to realize was that Long's projects faltered in their quality, then why did he have to build an ark?).

So, although a comedy like this needn't be a hysterical laugh-riot, it was certainly one made far less enjoyable as it was crammed with far too many homilies (and not all from Morgan Freeman) and action that seemed intended for a film of more epic events.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Was this supposed to be funny? This is one of those films that just doesn't work. The first one, Bruce Almighty with Jim Carey, had some very funny moments. This one had none.

Steve Carrell, who was brilliant in Bruce Almighty, fails to deliver here. His performance is very ordinary and he can't carry it off like Carey did.

The one good thing about this is I only paid $1.95 to rent it. It's a movie for children...very young children who have only seen about 4 films or so in their short lives.

It's interesting to note that where Jim Carey stars in a film and they make a sequel without him that it's usually a huge turkey. Anyone remember Son of Mask? (IMDB Worst 100 films of all time) Avoid this one movie lovers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"EVAN ALMIGHTY (2007) ** Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman, Lauren Graham, Johnny Simmons, Graham Phillips, Jimmy Bennett, John Goodman, Wanda Sykes, John Michael Higgins, Jonah Hill, Molly Shannon, Ed Helms, (Cameo: Jon Stewart as himself) Strained 'sequel' to \"BRUCE ALMIGHTY\" with Carell's jerk anchorman Evan Baxter leaving TV to begin his stint as a freshman Congressional rep has his hands full when God (Freeman reprising his holy role; Jim Carrey wisely avoided the 'calling') demands he build an ark like Noah and the hilarity ensues (or should have). The Godforsaken sitcom-y script by Steve Oedekerk, Joel Cohen & Alec Sokolow is absolutely lame and only Carell's amiable persona transcends his vain Evan into something resembling a human being. The end result is a lot of bird poop gags and overall bloat (reportedly costing $175 M for the CGI F\/X). Sykes steals the show as Evan's sarcastic assistant. Sacrilegiously unfunny. (Dir: Tom Shadyac)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is definitely up there with the worst films I've ever seen, probably in my top 5 of worst films. I laughed once and that was when:

EVAN: \"im building something\" Evan's Secretary: \"i hope its a barber shop\"

That was literally the only time i laughed in this 'comedy', awful compared to Bruce almighty which as a big Jim carrey fan...wasn't even that great!

This movie lacked the humour of having God's powers and was more about family bonding. Id class it solely as a family movie, definitely not a family comedy.

Seeing a bird poo on someone's shirt is not hilarious, neither is a beard that grows back instant!

I didn't even think the special effects were great, the animals looked really stuck on, it was like watching a film which hadn't been 'glued' together properly

2\/10 film - avoid!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I want to say that I went to this movie with my expectations way too high. I thought it was going to be funny because it's the sequel to Bruce Almighty which was really funny and it stars Steve Carell who is an excellent comedic actor but boy, did it sucked.

The movie is advertised as a sequel but it really has nothing to do with the original since the only people reprising their roles are Morgan Freeman and Steve Carell but Steve's character is completely different, he is no longer the jerk he was in the first one here he is a nice guy. The story is different and the actors are different and it's not funny.

All the actors involved(Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman, Wanda Sykes, John Goodman, Ed Helms and even Jon Stewart in a very crappy cameo) have talent but none of them seems to use it and it looks that there in the movie just for the money.

Now the plot is obviously shaped after Noah's story but there are so many wrong things with it, I don't know where to start. I guess the big problem is that in the everyone around Evan thinks that he is crazy despite all the things that are happening to him, he grows a huge white beard in two days, he gets help from animals from all around the world, he builds a giant arc in a few weeks, in real life people wouldn't be mocking these guy after that, they would be saying he is the new Noah.

Also the special effects are good but what the hell is the greatest movie flood ever filmed doing in Evan Almighty? Did they really had to waste such good special effects as filler for this crappy movie.

Jim Carrey seems to be a smart guy since he has stayed away of three of the worst sequels ever made, Son of the Mask, Dumb and Dumbered and now Evan Almighty.

This was a giant disappointment and Tom Shyadac should be ashamed of himself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you're not a fan of the 80s, and you need to be a particularly strong fan, or of one of the two leads, there's nothing about this film to recommend.

The story, as others have said, is dull, almost an afterthought to the basic notion of the characters and the idea of making a slightly manic comedy. I watched it to about an hour, hoping it would turn a corner, a twist would occur or it would somehow kick into gear but no... It's not unwatchable, it's just dull. It goes by. It goes by with bits of running around madly, lingering shots of feet at strange angles, bits of shouting madly but I didn't get a real feel of energy or manic fun, it just came across as forced. Needless to say also, there was nothing to laugh at particularly. A bit of mild amusement here or there but nothing more.

Don't be fooled by the mention of feminism by the way, all it means in this case is that almost all the principal cast is female. If anything, it's actually cloying... Two female leads, fine, excellent, the drug dealer is female, okay, their landlord is a landlady, alright, their friends are female, okay, the only other person we particularly see who lives in the same building, oh, female... I wasn't on the lookout for that but after a while it felt like a conscious decision had been made to have the film cast that way and it felt, again, a bit forced and cloying.

On the plus-side, if you are a fan of 80s fashions and culture, there is plenty to see and if you're a fan of Helen Slater, she's fun and enjoyable to watch. There's also some screen-time for Carol Kane, which is great, but not enough...

Overall: 3\/10. If you're a huge fan of the 80s, Helen Slater and Carol Kane, you could maybe stretch it to a 5 because of them, although there's still the fact it's a comedy which isn't funny, which hinders it substantially. If you're not a fan of those things, you might as well make it 0 because there's nothing much else to enjoy here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I gave this film a 2 mostly because it does actually have an ok cast but the film itself is just so (insert unusually rude word beginning with the sixth letter of the alphabet)-ing pointless that I felt bad that at the time I voted for it its lowest vote was a three.

Very predictable plot....two nare-do-well musicians have no money and plenty of money problems. However when a friend leaves a bag full of money (that belongs to drug dealers) in their care they of course spend it and then the \"fun\" begins.

Not an original idea in this whole film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was embarrassing in its clich\u00e9s, poor acting and generally low production values. It starts out badly with the long haired 3 star general calling the hero, Masters, \"major\" when he is obviously wearing the silver oak leaves of lieutenant colonel. But what was most distressing was the crew of soldiers on Neptune Atoll. How out of touch with any kind of reality can you get? They were all experts on flying a 747 and the scenes of the soldiers digging the ditch were beyond comical.

WARNING: THIS FILM IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR INTELLECTUAL HEALTH! WATCH AT YOUR OWN PERIL!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I should have gone without seeing the movie after reading the review here. I saw the whole movie by fast forwarding and ended in 25 minutes. though its a low budget movie it could have been made better.

The movie starts more like a thriller and in few minutes it tells you that you should switch off immediately. And why was the movie named \"crash landing\" when it was landed so well in such a bad climate.

Without any acting, all the characters where just moving or doing like kids.

And should not forget to comment on the joker - the main hijacker who would have been more suitable if this movie was a full time comedy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so bad it's worth seeing. This movie will have viewers lapsing in and out of a coma within the first 10 minutes. It all started when a bunch of writers came up with the idea of a jetliner being hijacked and a passenger who can fly a small plane has to land the beast. However, they know it's been done before many times so to make it different, let's do it very badly! Major Masters has his name pirated from 80's movie \"To Live and Die in L.A.\" from character played by Willem Dafoe. That saved 10 minutes in writing and production time. The plane is supposed to be a Boieng 747. That plane has a unique silhouette, even in the dark with its characteristic forward hump on the top. Just ask the late Ronald Reagan who lamented this point when them Ruskies shot down KAL 007 in the eighties. Yet when the plane takes off it's clearly not a 747 looks more like a 767. This well researched film also forgets to include the engineer's seat in the cockpit and replaces it with two comfy rumble seats. No need for a flight engineer on this complex plane! Heroine is played by perpetually pouting Gloria Lynn Berg. After tying up the hijacker, despite several bus-loads of people on this jumbo jet, nobody bothers to watch this guy who almost killed all of them. He's just forced to amuse himself.

The crippled plane, leaking fuel from all the hijacking shenanigans won't make it back to Hawaii so Masters will try to land at an Air Force base located on an island. Only the runway's 300 feet too short! Four army guys with little Bobcats (the kind you rent to take all day moving a load of horse manure to the back of your barn), are gonna clear a 200 foot wide and 300 foot long swath through the jungle in 20 minutes! No need for a bulldozer here! Where can you find guys like this? These guys could make a highway between Los Angeles and Las Vegas in 3 hours equipped only with tablespoons, a compass and a duck!

After that hellish obstacle is fixed, Masters will try to land the plane as heroine pouts away. Hijacker giggles to himself and unsupervised gets free to make more trouble. He is finally subdued in a most retarded manner that I can't tell you. But, can YOU say Moby Dick?

There are so many retarded scenes in this movie. The wounded captain is parked prone on the bar on the plane while Masters, who supposedly can barely fly, puts the plane into 60 degree banks and 20,000 feet per minute drops. The pilot should be french kissing the ceiling during these challenging stunts, but doesn't budge an inch.

I think that if they had picked different actors to play the parts, this moving could have been way better. If we need a pouting heroine in the movie, why not pick better known actress Bernadette Peters who seems to be perpetually pouting as well? Besides, she can sing and the busty well aging Peters could feature some gratuitous cleavage shots. Now with the singing angle this could be a Hijacking, Let's Land the Plane Movie MUSICAL! Cast Luciano Pavarotti as the Pilot. They can sing a duet in the cockpit prior to the hijacking and there's no way that tubby tenor would fly up to the ceiling as Masters works his magic on that big bird. In keeping with the musical theme, Masters could then be played by Andrei Bocelli, that Peters Can sing with as he lands the plane. Not only is he totally blind but only knows a couple of words of English. Now that's a plot! Think of the edge of your seat conversation between Masters (Bocelli) and the Air Traffic Controller:

ATC: \"Sir, please throttle back to 180, flaps set to 25 degrees. maintain 230 heading\"

Bocelli: \"What?\"

ATC: \"Sir, arm spoilers now, confirm brake pressure at 250 psi. Maintain descent at 500 fpm\"

Bocelli: \"What?\"

The hijacker could have been played by the late great Rodney Dangerfield who can spew a plethora of his one liners as he sits tied up and unguarded: \"I get no respect. My wife is into group sex. Yeah, she screwed me in front of the judge and jury!\" Get the idea?

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES The movie has your standard crying and moaning passengers that are never developed. Woody Allen could have been at the back offering one of his neurotic monologues: \"She said I was great in bed. I told her I practice myself a lot...\" Now THIS is a movie!

Also, according to similar movie \"Executive Decision\" where lazy eyed Steven Segal is mercifully killed at the start giving that movie a chance, 747's have massive attics up top. The plane was introduced in 1969 so who knows what has accumulated in almost 40 years up there? My uncle has old clothes, a sled, magazines and all sorts of stuff in his. WOuldn't it have been cool if Masters opened the trap door and saw a teary eyed Chevy Chase in a woman's housecoat watching old Super 8 movies of his childhood? Just a recommendation.

So give it a chance, and as u lapse in and out of consciousness imagine how great this movie could have been if I had my hand in it...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Aghhhhhh! What a disappointment. A perfectly good hunk like Antonio Sabato Jr and nothing but embarrassing drivel coming out of his mouth. I cringed at 95% of the Dialog! It would have been better to have made the character a mute! How Antonio Sabato and Michael Pare could speak those lines without losing control of some bodily function is beyond me! If Michale Pare's character prefaced or ended just one more sentence with the word 'Men' I think I would have thrown the iron through the TV set (I love to multitask - especially to get through bad movies). Must have been a lean year for both of them to sign up for this movie. Washing cars for a living would probably look pretty good to them by now. And the bad guy......if he was so bad why didn't he just shoot all those rich College kids instead of promising toilet breaks. Even the title was a misnomer. A 'Crash Landing' means the plane actually crashes and doesn't just land without even a token fire or anyone being injured. Instead of landing safely the plane should have crashed and burned just like the script.

THIS MOVIE IS A STINKER !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hilarious!! I would have sworn Ed Wood wrote this. Terrible. I loved every frame. Bad movie aficionado's, this is your trophy! I will watch it again. Words cannot explain how entertaining this movie is. Pare's career must have dipped low, but I really think he's heading in the Leslie Nielson direction. He was perfect for this. Terrible, just terrible!! You'll love it!! Get some friends, lots of beer, and you'll have the time of your life. It's an MST3000 party, waiting to happen. Enjoy!! It is worth the rental!! You like the \"Colombo type\" cop and the comic relief coroner. The bad guy will have you on the floor laughing. He's also in another Pare movie, Komodo vs Cobra, and he's just as good there. I don't know what the budget was but they'll get it back because this film is destined to be the best unintended comedy of the year.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The idea that anyone could of concocted such a trite, clich\u00e9, yet indeliberately comical movie is shocking. The final 20 minutes of this film are comical glory; with six men digging enough trench in 10 minutes to light the runway with gasoline for a 747, while a supposed 'major' perfectly lands the 747 in a 110mph crosswind - leading one to question the misnomer of calling this movie CRASH LANDING...

Some of the dialogue was equivalent to rubbing sandpaper in my ears, while the only aspect that saved this movie for a 1 was the plethora of attractive women filling the screen a large portion of the time. Not exactly a consolidation for this pathetic excuse of a movie, but my mute button finally received a workout.

View at your own risk! 2 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe that someone actually paid to have this film made. Stupid, unrealistic, and stereotypical. Right from the take off of the massive 747 the pilot pulled the throttles back to increase speed. then you have 5 armed persons with semi to fully automatic weapons firing without so much as one bullet breaching the walls of the pressurized cabin at 38,000 feet. Then once below in the belly of the plane a stray bullet hits a FUEL line and we see the fuel leaking from the side of the plane. The acting was just horrid and forced. There just didn't seem to be any direction. I have seen some pretty horrid B movies in my lifetime but with the names that were in this film I was extremely disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My suggestion..... This movie was really intended to be a \"comedy\",wasn't it?!!!! If not, the producers, directors, actors & \"hair stylists\" should really choose another career! Now, the guidelines of my submission requires a minimum of \"10 lines\". How in the world can I add any more to this? Hmm...Let me see. Oh yes, the beginning of the movie was quite hilarious with the \"crash landing\" scene. Too bad that the plane didn't hit the tanker truck & a bunch of \"martians\" would have scrambled out from the wreckage (obviously hiding) and decided to take over the \"world\" planet and make a better movie. Now, that would have been a great beginning!

T","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You have to see this. I could not stop laughing about the stupidities I saw in this movie even late after the event. There is maybe a million of individual mistakes and stupidities in this movie. The acting is bad. The story is so predictable and flat. The effects are like 50 years old. The supposed thriller is nowhere. You will not enjoy the movie, but you will laugh at it and enjoy laughing at it a long time after it. We had a great time AFTER the movie. Truly. Me and my friend spent entire 40mins long bus trip home chatting about this movie like we have seen next Oscar winner. Sadly we were talking about all those bad things we had just seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen three other movies that are worse than this one, \"Plan 9 from Outerspace\", \"Side Hackers\" and the dreaded \"Blair Witch Project\" There are so many technical errors in this movie that regardless of a decent plot the movie just isn't believable.

Let's start with an AMTRAK train with no skirts or handrails between cars. The killer walks up behind his victim as she moves from car to car and just pushes her off the train.

In one scene a killer sneaks into a woman's apartment. He wants to sneak up on the woman to kill her, so what does he do? He turns up her stereo! If I heard my stereo suddenly get louder I'd be concerned. He kills the women by throwing an electric hair curler into the tub. I was amazed to see that an electric hair curler with a five foot cord could be tossed ten feet and remain plugged in. Plus the apartment looked modern enough to have ground fault outlets in the bathroom and the victim was still electrocuted.

The Boeing 747 is one of the most well known commercial airliners on the planet so this part really amazed me. First the cockpit was not even close to a real 747 and second it wasn't on the top deck of the plane. I watched in utter amazement as the pilot and co-pilot (Where was the flight engineer?) walked right past the spiral staircase and headed forward toward's the nose of the airplane.

I was also amazed that bullets wouldn't penetrate an aluminum serving cart (good thing for our hero), or bathroom doors, but would penetrate the ceiling causing a fuel leak that exited through a small hole in the fuselage. Huh? Watching three guys lengthen a runway by 100 yards in less than a week was pretty amazing as well.

I didn't check, was this a movie of the week or something? It was terrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe this movie was actually intended to be satire like 'Airplane' but it failed at that as miserably as it failed at being a 'thriller'. I don't understand why they couldn't have paid an actual pilot a couple hundred bucks for a little technical advice. Hell, I would have done it for free! This magical aircraft managed to morph from a 757 to a 767 to a 747 in an hour and the power levers worked backward. And the dialog sounds like it came out the back end of a kid's game of 'telephone' where everyone spoke different languages. I actually rewound the TIVO and watched some of it a second time to see if it was really as bad as I thought at first. It was.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would have given this film a one star vote had it not been for the laughs I got out of it. Some of the dialogs were just plain so lame that they make you laugh!! How could some one have actually talked like this. Not to mention the fact that the bodyguard Majors (Antonio Sabato Jr.) flew a 747 like a pro and Michael Pare's team of whiners were able to dig a trench filled with gasoline and blow up a huge boulder in the nick of time. Did anyone notice the lame tribute to \"Fantasy Island\" with the guy saying \"Boss, the plane!!\" to Michael Pare just as the 747 comes in sight.

The only saving grace were the cute girls and even cuter female hijackers. Not to mention that the main hijacker deserved to die the lame death that he did for being such a joker!! Imagine escaping from being tied up just to shot by a \"crossbow\". Hello.

The poor pilot probably died in the plane while everyone was eating steak and having rum!! Just for laughs, they should make a sequel to show us how they all spend the night in the midst of a Category 3 hurricane on Neptune Atoll. Did I hear Michael Pare calling it the \"best honeymoon resort in the Pacific.\" Now that would make an interesting movie!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plane is a 747 Jumbo. The cockpit is located on the upper deck on a 747. In the movie the pilots do not climb the stairs in the 1st Class cabin to reach the cockpit. They walk to the front of the 1st Class cabin and through doors into the cockpit. What a gaff !!! The front of the first class cabin has a cloakroom for jackets and a TV screen. Beyond that is the radar dome. Before takeoff a 747 is shown to commence the taxi to the runway. On take-off the plane is shown to have only two engines. Areal 747 has four engines. Who was in charge of continuity on this movie ? During the early part of the flight the front of the plane suddenly includes toilets - another farcical gaff !!! After that the front of the plane becomes the rear and vice-versa. At this point I stopped watching. Absolute rubbish!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a massive fan of DM, it goes without saying that I have seen this film numerous times. However, I watch it purely for the concert footage...the rest of the film is, um, pretty dreadful, sad to say.

Famed rock music film director DA Pennebaker followed Mode around on their late 80s Music For The Masses tour, which promoted the superb album of the same name. The title 101 derives mostly from the fact that the concert material included is from the 101st and final concert of the tour at the Pasadena Bowl, but is also a reference to the movie being a 'beginners course' on the band and how it ticks ie Depeche Mode 101. Amidst footage of the quartet playing live and exploring America is a second story thread covering a group of DM fans who've won a competition to meet the band, go on the tour in their own coach bus and attend the finale gig.

Now, as I said above, the concert footage is great. Mode are here on top of their form as stadium rock gods, which was a somewhat unusual achievement for an electrorock band back in the late 80s. Though the film catches the band before they recorded their 1990 masterpiece \"Violator\", there are still countless excellent tracks seen and heard here eg Behind The Wheel, the majestic Never Let Me Down Again, Everything Counts, Just Can't Get Enough from the Vince Clarke years, Shake The Disease and many more.

When Mode are onstage, they are brilliant. When they are not, they're, well, very boring. Nothing even vaguely of interest happens to the lads as they check out the US in the dying days of the Reagan administration. As an example, the probable \"highlight\" of the material is a visit to a country music store to buy cassettes. Not exactly thrilling stuff. I know all bands don't have to be wild and reckless idiots, but these guys make the Mormon Tabernacle Choir look like Rammstein.

The only real excitement comes from various clips centring on the band's lead singer Dave Gahan. Gahan comes across in 101 as being mildly psychotic, talking about a violent power inside himself he can't control, recalling a bizarre rage attack involving a taxi driver and so on. There's one point in the film where he throws a prima donna tantrum at some poor guy backstage - truly embarrassing. The man clearly had issues back then, which thankfully have been resolved. Songwriter Martin Gore and keyboardist Andy Fletcher are presented as very articulate, clearly massively talented, but also utterly colourless men; while the somewhat enigmatic fourth member Alan Wilder is the only one of the quartet who pulls off the rock star persona with any sort of aplomb.

And as for the 'fan tour' thread, well it's unwatchable dross. Let's not kid ourselves. Maybe it's just because it's all so *very* late 80s, but the gaggle of young devotees do little for me but raise a feeling of irritation. They are, to a person, singularly shallow and vapid people, whose antics are banal when they aren't hide-your-face cringeworthy. Let me reiterate....*nothing* happens in the footage that isn't onstage that is of any interest. Nothing. Endless scenes of kids spraying their hair, arguing pointlessly, changing their clothes, getting lost in cities on the way to gigs and finding their partners in bed with another competition winner makes me wonder just one thing - if Cure fans were this mind bendingly dull back in '88\/89. The love the youngsters have for the band is something I can definitely relate to, and is at times infectiously joyous, but if what we see was the most interesting stuff out of what was filmed of them, then I'd hate to see the outtakes.

But the music is all that matters, and in this regard 101 excels. The Pasadena concert, one of their all time best gigs, makes the film worth seeing. The recent DVD edition of the movie comes with a bonus disc containing what remains of the unedited concert footage (a good 80% of the performance), and thus makes the DVD an absolute must for fans. The audio commentary by the band (minus Wilder, who left Mode in the mid-90s) on the first disc is also, oddly, far more interesting than the film itself.

As a document of the boys from Basildon during their amphitheatre idol period, Depeche Mode 101 is invaluable. But if you're looking for excitement, you're better off getting the accompanying double live album (now available in Super Audio CD format).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"[WARNING: Some spoilers included, though it is a documentary.]

I bought this documentary because I like the work of the directors D.A. Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus, which includes MOON OVER Broadway, STARTUP.COM and THE WAR ROOM., all terrific documentaries I would highly recommend. Watching this ultimately boring and uninsightful account from Depeche Mode's 1988 tour, I realized they had nothing to work with when they went to edit this film together. The band members were certainly less than forthcoming on-camera; hence, undoubtedly, the contest to add fans on a one-week bus trip was added to liven things up a bit. Really, now, I mean, c'mon. Who thought a concert film of a synth-pop band with three keyboardists and a singer would be a good idea? Granted, I like Depeche Mode's music, and Martin Gore writes good melodies, but seeing them in concert never seemed like it would be interesting, and this movie is proof positive. Unless you are a HUGE fan of Depeche Mode, stay away from this documentary....it's a complete waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is without a doubt the WORST sequel I have ever seen, & I've seen plenty of them to make that conclusion. The plot is simply ridiculous. I can catch a ball & run around a field, too. Why can't I play in the Superbowl? Yes I know this movie was intended for children, but there are just some plots that even children can realize are totally dumb & unrealistic. The first Air Bud movie was pretty good, but this one was a total crash. Disney is loosing it. If I controlled who won the Razzie Awards, I would give this one a couple. Have a nice day! =)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver\" is a very bad rehearse in making a sequel in the course of a single year. The first film was cute, cuddly and charming. The idea of a dog playing on a basketball team is quite far fetched, but he defiantly pulled off enough stunts to save the concept. Even the human story had some explanation to it. Josh's father was killed in a plane crash, so he is sad. And the audience becomes emotionally involved as well.

Now for the poorly made sequel. It is terrible. This is the worst kind of bad sequel, the kind that changes the good ideas and turns them into bad ones. The kind that changes the main plot piece in one way, this time, the K-9 plays football instead of basketball. No madder how much time is spent in mind over matter, benefit of a doubt, walk into with an open mind of an attitude you have with a film like this, there is no positive thinking when it comes to down right bad film making.

The sequel stars Kevin Zegers as Josh, who is in eight grade. He lives with his mother and little sister in a Seattle suburb. In the first film the human story involved him losing his father in a plane accident, which the audience can relate to, most people know what it feels like to lose a close loved one.

In this movie, the emotional plot is a bit more complicated. Josh's mother is dating once again. He and Buddy, his dog who can play basketball, don't like this at all. Why? If I were in his shoes I would love to have an extra parent in my life, especially one this nice. The man's name is Patrick Sullivan, and Josh's mother, Jackie, met him became he is a local veterinarian for Buddy.

The animal story is too simple. Josh is influenced by his best friend to try out for the school football team, the Timber Wolves. The team itself looks like something from America's Funniest Home Videos, the can even catch a ball without tripping or plummeting into each other. So when Bud shows up one day, he proves he can play as a receiver for them, and is no doubt the team's best player.

Buddy's extremely cute in his football costume. Oh, he is enough to melt the heart. The dog is the best in this movie as well. Too bad there wasn't enough stunts done by him to draw attention away from the fact that no one ever asks any questions about a dog playing off a school football team.

There is a very bad sub-plot about Russian circus workers that like stealing amazing animals, of course they try to catch Buddy. But their dim minds are ruled over by the animals and end up doing what looks like a \"Home Alone\" scenario to them.

\"Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver\" is much more goofy than the first too. The Russian kidnappers add a bunch of lamebrain slapstick that, I have to admit made me laugh, at the stupidity of it all. There are way too many sequences that detail a screwball nature and too few scenes that depict the true reason why people will see this movie-to see a dog play football.

The performances were also quite the embarrassment. I liked Gregory Harrison and Robert Costanzo's presentations, but the overall acting grade would be equivalent to a D+. Kevin Zegers and Cynthia Stevenson were absolutely pathetic.

There were a few hilarious moments near the end by a couple of football announcers, but that isn't even worth mentioning. Will children enjoy this movie? Perhaps, but even they will grow weary when the heart felt discussions become too long and deep. They will most certainly complain that the dog didn't get enough screen time in, and loath over the fast changing script, and protest against the boring performances, and argue that this movie is trash in comparison the origami al \"Air Bud,\" as I did.

I suppose that they will think the dog is adorable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is amazing what you can see if you wake at 2 am and turn on the telly. I didn't know they showed films like this. I immediately thought of Roger Corman, who reused locations for movies or used other films locations for his own movies.

The makes of this film could just move the camera angles and add some time and they would have an XXX film.

There was no story, just minimum dialog that led to stripping and sex. I bet there wasn't 100 words in the whole film, but there sure was a lot of very large busts and hot lesbian action. There was male\/female action too, but it was only about 25% of the movie.

Another interesting thing came to mind in watching this film that may interest those who are buying hi def DVDs. Sony refused to license Betamax to adult film makers and adult films came out on VHS. You can guess what happened to beta max as the adult film industry makes millions of videos. Sony has again refused to license Blu-ray to the adult film industry and they have just signed a deal with Toshiba. You can guess which high def system will disappear.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's nothing wrong with softcore but this one is pretty clinical - lots of nudity but it's all fake (of course, it's always fake - it's a movie but you know what I mean). There's no sexuality or erotica, it's all random nudity and poor acting of \"lust\" and sex with each other.

Part of it is of course, your personal preference. These women clearly have some body issues with their piercings, tattoos and silicon - not to mention that overly plastique & leathery look so if that's your thing - great, you get to see all that here.

I don't think anyone's expectations are very high when looking at a movie title such as this but for many people, it would be pretty much like looking at cyborg fembots ... they almost seem real but it's really more creepy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whenever I see a video like this, I have to ask myself how it was financed. HBO or Showtime or whatever must pay for the production company to go through the motions -- to hire someone who may or may not actually speak English to get high and hammer out something approaching a plot, to pay strippers with terrifying boob jobs to bounce up and down on grossly waxed dudes' torsos, to find people to design and light sets, to purchase the rights to cheesy techno music, etc. But I have to imagine this has to be a vanity project for whoever's serving as executive producer... He had to have nailed all of those girls, right? And bro's not wrong about the \"Spanish looking\" girl, but to call the cops \"stunning\" is awfully generous. In fact, I'd go so far as to call them something much closer to \"hideous,\" or \"fugly.\" Watching these women writhe around -- sometimes *clearly* high on pain killers -- was so far from erotic that my testicles actually ascended inside of my body. Gross.

Why waste time with this when there's so much freely available hardcore porn on the internet? I wonder whether the popularization of internet video will slowly kill the softcore video industry... One can only hope, right?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Tender Hook, or, Who Killed The Australian Film Industry? Case No. 278. This sorry excuse for a period drama takes a cast and idea with potential \u0096 Rose Byrne, Pia Miranda, Hugo Weaving, in a Jazz-era gangster drama \u0096 and turns it into a sloppily paced and executed soporific. McHeath (Weaving) is a boxing promoter and gangster and functioning illiterate; for no apparent reason he's given to singing Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen songs before bouts. How post-modern. How stupid. Anyway. There's a boxer, Art (Matthew Le Nevez), who becomes McHeath's latest prot\u00e9g\u00e9, over his unfortunately Aboriginal stablemate Alby (Luke Carroll).

McHeath's flapper moll Iris (Byrne) makes the goo-goo eyes at him. Sexual tension squelches under the surface. Miranda plays Daisy, a friend of Iris's (these flower girls stick together) who keeps turning up in scenes unannounced. They practice dancing together and talk about \"hooking up\" with guys. In the 1920s. I stopped counting anachronisms after that. There's a subplot involving Japanese beer and a backstory of Broome pearl fishermen. I don't know what it was all about. For some reason that is not exactly (at all) explained, Byrne puts cocaine in Art's lemonade. McHeath thinks he's a drunk and sacks him. Byrne plots and schemes to help him out again. She's a big one for the plotting and scheming. Most of which causes trouble. McHeath's two gunsels, portly Ronnie (John Batchelor) and Russian Donnie (Tyler Coppin), debate bumping off McHeath when he realises their part in one of Iris's schemes, but Ronnie wimps out when he sees McHeath crying. A lot of practically incoherent scenes get in the road of the film finally ending.

Director Jonathan Ogilvie spends a lot of time working with cinematographer Geoffrey Simpson creating some pretty images, but utterly fails to generate a sense of style, which might have compensated for and decorated the wispy, pathetically underpowered script; unfortunately Ogilvie's sense of film grammar, the lack of structuring of the scenes and exposition, is stunningly incompetent. In an early scene, Daisy suddenly appears in the car with the protagonists. How she got there, and indeed who she is, seems to have slipped Ogilvie's mind. There are many more examples of this sloppiness. Where he chases poetic sparseness, he achieves only wan irritation. He gains awkward performances from actors who are normally reliable, badly miscasting Weaving and leaning on Byrne's ability to project a kind of haunted doll-like humanity whilst saddling her with an incomprehensible character.

It might not matter so much if the story had more substantial characters and stronger plotting preferably not stolen from a dozen old noir films and festooned with witlessly sprinkled pop-culture quotes. But it doesn't. It's boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the only act of commonsense they have ever made, the NSW Film & Television Office refused to fund this film. The Producers kicked up a big stink & in a blaze of publicity took their production to Victoria. Apart from the lost work for technicians, NSW were lucky not to have been involved...

The film fails on just about every level. The post modernism fails, the casting fails (what is Rose Byrne's character all about ? which 1 dimensional snarling nasty did Hugo Weaving channel ? what the hell is Pia Miranda's character doing?) and the story is a clich\u00e9d mess of contradictions. In fact, the story runs like a dragged out prelude rather than a complete plot line.

It might have had a chance if the \"pop culture meets depression\" style was better thought out and executed. If the casting was quirkier, if the style was less serious ... if just about everything was different.

Apart from the usual excellence in costume, design & cinematography (like most Australian films), the film is just a total miscue.

At a reported budget in excess of $7m, \"The Tender Hook\" is a symptom of the malaise of the Australian film industry - the wrong people and the wrong projects are getting funded. Compare this mess with \"Noise\" (under $2m), or \"Cedar Boys\" (under $1m) and you get the idea. The tough, interesting films are struggling for funding and the flabby, overblown projects with name casts are getting the bucks.

The funding bodies who invested in this deserve to go the same way as Hugo Weaving's character at the end of the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My friends and I have just finished seeing a preview of this new Australian film. Everyone who was in the cinema agreed, what was the point of this film? There was no good story to follow, the characters were undeveloped, and the plot seemed unmotivated. I find it bizarre that this film, that probably cost in the high millions, got funded and made. It serves no purpose to the drama community, its adds nothing to the palette of Australian cinema. It really was a waste of time creating this droll unemotional piece of work and more time really should be spent work-shopping scripts and creating good stories, not creating a mess like this. Hugo Weaving and Rose Byrne were OK but severely hampered by a bad script. Pia Miranda's character was unnecessary and abstract from the plot, and her lines were average at best. A true waste of talent. The saving grace was Geoffrey Simpson ACS' cinematography, which like most Aussie films, was superb.

Come on guys, think about it next time please.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie is about a day in the life of a woman who is going insane. To show that she is mentally ill, she overacts a lot and the narrator tells us she's \"going mad\". Along the way, she goes out with a fat guy who looks like he could be Orson Welles' brother and he later takes a header off a building in one of the only interesting moments in the movie.

This is a strange little film that is very cheaply made--and it sure shows. The film was shot without sound (probably using 8mm or some other cheap type of film) and had some sound effects and an overbearing narration added later. In fact, the narration was the most obtrusive and unintentionally hilarious I have ever heard and it is said in such a silly and over-the-top manner you'd just have to hear it to believe it. As a result of these cost-cutting actions, it's not surprising that the film is bad, though the idea of trying to make this sort of film was pretty original. Plus, it's VERY hard to make it through the entire film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Skip all the subjective \"this is a great film\" reviews and read the IMDB trailer or the back the KINO videobox (which includes both versions of this flick) which I'll paraphrase: \"To the tune of sci-fi score by George Antheil, the camera goes on a sleepwalk through B-Movie hell, all photographed by Will Thompson (who did 'Plan 9 from outer space' & 'Maniac').\" You don't know whether to laugh AT the film or WITH it. So if you like self-produced B or C-grade noir-wannabe actors and effects with pretensions of surrealism, this could be for you! Otherwise, get a copy of \"Screamplay\", a modern low-budget expressionist masterpiece.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In spite of its high-minded ambitions, Zurlini's film must be seen as a failure. It's one thing to create a world which draws the viewer into feeling the tedium and angst experienced by the protagonist (which I think is what Zurlini was attempting). It's another thing entirely to make a film that is itself tedious and meaninglessly episodic. Despite beautiful cinematography at a haunting location - and a wonderful score - the film never lures the audience in. Too much is unintentionally funny (the phony sound of dripping water in Drago's quarters, for example, or the silent-movie mugging by some of the actors) or simply confusing (Why exactly does Drago want to leave the fort the first time?) for the film to succeed as a coherent work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first saw this I thought it was a joke. All I could think was \"You get the 8MM camera, I'll get my little brother's monster toys, we'll make a movie!\" Why would anyone in a modern time like 2001 make a sci-fi movie like this, it looks like it was made in the early 80's. With actors that are as wooden as a cigar store indian, a script that was written by the director's 4-year-old son, a camera that was stolen from a burning pawn shop, poverty-row special effects, and to top it off, a director that thought making this crap would make them famous. The end result wasn't spectacular, complete with scrappy dialogue and continuity. From Venus must have been fun to make and I'm sure everyone involved had a blast with their silly little movie.

A 2 out of 10 for a valiant, hopeless effort.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has got to be one of the weakest plots in a movie I have ever seen.

However, that is not all that this movie is lacking. This movie has the worst acting, writing, directing, special effects, you name it--it's the worst ever.

I highly advise you to spend your time on worthwhile movies and not waste your time on this garbage.

I do agree with an earlier post that the \"women\" were definitely men dressed up in drag, and that did give me a laugh, I keep trying to figure out if they were being obvious about it or if they were actually trying to be sexy women.

Anyway, there is not much else in this movie that is worth watching!

To sum it up: horrible acting, horrible script, horrible idea for a movie. An hour and a half of my life I want back RIGHT NOW!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was just so utterly horrible that I couldn't get through the entire thing without turning it off, it was just that bad! When I was watching it I kept thinking it looked like some really cheap film made back in the 60's or something with those terrible looking special effects, but then I realized that this was just made in 2001.

The dialog and the acting were really very horrible and the plot was almost non-existent. I didn't think anyone would go back to making films that look so cheap and old, I'm not sure if they did that on purpose or if they really didn't have any budget for this movie at all. It really looks like it was shot on someone's camcorder at a local person's house or something. Maybe they thought they were being retro or something but it just comes off looking really cheesy.

I really don't know how anyone could ever actually enjoy watching this.

0 out of 5 *'s.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you want to see how to ruin a film, study this one very closely. In fact, it is so bad that people should buy it for that reason alone. Especially note how most of the scenes look as if they were knocked up in about 5 minutes. Realism escapes this movie on every level. The overall impression is that someone was given a below average script, wannabe actors, an average director and absolutely no budget whatsoever. With a formula like that, it just had to be doomed.

I rented this once, and I swear I got stupider watching it. If you are a humanitarian, buy this horrible, horrible movie, and burn it-UNWATCHED- as a favor to the world. It has no discernible plot, bad acting, and then tosses in something about evil ugly women just to really cap the whole thing off. I would suggest watching paint dry before this stupid waste of a tape! Seriously. The paint would be better. I wish I could give this negative 10 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To have to actually own up to making such a horrible movie! Actually, I'm more embarrassed that I sat through the whole thing. It looks like an old 80's sci-fi movie complete with super-fake looking \"special effects\", queer imagery, and very cheesy dialogue. Maybe that's the way they wanted it to look, maybe they think it's cool to do movies in 80's fashion like it will come back in style. Who knows...

If you think the promised eye-candy will save the film, you're in for a disappointment--the so-called \"babes\" are manish and downright ugly. They can't act at all, I don't understand why they couldn't at least get good looking chicks if they want babes with no talent! But I guess when you're making a film this stupid, you don't get very good choices, hot chicks aren't just lining up to do this kind of pitiful crap!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was SO stupid I couldn't believe what I was seeing as I was watching it, it was like a huge train wreck -- I couldn't look away because it was just SO horribly awful! I can honestly say I've never seen anything this bad in my whole entire life. It was so cheesy and the acting was just so deplorable that I just kept thinking \"this just has to be some kind of a joke, right? Nobody would actually make a movie this crappy on purpose, right?\" I really hope this is all just a bad joke and these people don't actually expect people to watch this with a straight face, and I really hope the people who were in this movie were doing terrible acting on purpose and don't actually believe that they are good actors?! The drag queens are pretty funny to watch, though, and so are the cheesy special effects straight out of a bad 80's sci-fi movie.

Only watch this if you've already seen every other movie in existence first and there is nothing left to watch at all! I would give this a \"0\" if it were possible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Words cannot express how poor this film is.

There is no plot, the acting is appalling, basically the whole film is a joke.

With a running time of 97 minutes, it's about 96 minutes too long.

It might have been OK as a short sketch on a comedy show, but the premise is way too flimsy to work for that amount of time without boredom kicking in.

Avoid this one, go rent a good movie instead!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's tempting to view this film as a daring avant-garde experiment. I like to think that the director was trying to see if it was possible to take all the conventions of comedy film and produce something that was completely, utterly, entirely unfunny.

The answer, to judge by \"From Venus\", is a resounding 'Yes'. This may not be the worst film I've ever seen, but my brain seems to have repressed all memory of the others. This horrible flick hovers just on the borderline: bad enough that the thought still causes pain, but not quite so bad that my internal censors have obliterated it from my consciousness.

It's difficult for me to imagine what the director and the cast thought they were doing when they made this, or why they went ahead and released it once they'd made it. I doubt anyone involved with it earned very much, but surely between them they could have got together enough money to buy up all the prints and have them burned.

This is a movie that has nothing whatsoever to recommend it. It's not even enjoyably bad. It's just a non-movie in which nothing interesting happens. I gave serious thought to taking it back and demanding my money back, which is not something I've ever done before.

Don't even think about renting (much less buying!) this horrible non-movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is just the same old crap that is spewed from amateur idiots who have no clue how to make a movie--gee maybe that's why it is a straight-to-video wanna-be movie!

I guess it is my fault for actually spending money to see it (one of the worst decisions I have ever made). What a waste. I usually like B movies, some of them are actually quite good--but this is just too ridiculous and stupid to even be funny.

The losers that made this junk deserve to be put out of business for wasting everyone's time and money making a movie that obviously doesn't even deserve to be on film! These so-called movie makers have absolutely NO talent!

Stupid plot, horrible acting (especially the drag queens--what sicko would actually find that sexy?!), lame writing (if there even was a script--seems like the kinda bull**** someone just made up on the spot)

What is stunning about this movie is its utter lack of anything well-done at all.

How much attention to detail would it take to insure that every frame of a film would be so far below any reasonable standards? I don't think it would be possible to make such a bad movie intentionally, and it is inconceivable that sheer bad luck could produce such consistently awful results.

Anyway, avoid this stink bomb at all costs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As you can tell from the other comments, this movie is just about the WORST film ever made. Let me see how many different words I can use to describe it: Boring, Unbearable, Laughable, Lousy, Stupid, Horrible.....

I could go on with such descriptions but you probably get the point.

I would have given this a 0, if possible--bad acting, bad directing, bad production, bad plot.

This was made in 2001 and it looks more like 1965. Very low budget, boring plot, horrible acting, really bad special effects, etc...

I rarely ever see a Sci-Fi film I absolutely think is this bad. I mean this is pure garbage. It has nothing going for it either. As far as a \"B-movie\" this is the very bottom of the lot.

I think I would be more entertained by staring at a blank piece of paper for 90 minutes. Junk like this gives good low-budget \"B\" movies a bad name. This makes Ed Wood movies look good.

The thing about watching direct-to-video movies is, just when you think you've seen the worst, you see something even worse!

DJ Perry is a horrible actor and has no individual characteristics that make him stand out.

Avoid this waste at all costs! Oh the humanity!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is without a doubt the STUPIDEST movie of all time.

I don't know who I'm angrier at--the idiots who made this or my video store for actually carrying this piece of crap!!

I can't even begin to name all of the things wrong with this horrible wanna-be movie.

All of the dialogue sounds like it was made up on the spot, and the acting is the worst I have ever seen in any movie-EVER!!

There is nothing about the script that would appeal to any decent person, in fact I don't think they even had a script, they just made up everything as they went along--and you can tell.

The \"women\" (i.e. men dressed up in drag trying to look like women) in the costumes looked so ridiculous, I guess they were trying to be sexy but--NOT SO MUCH!! Especially that old woman-disgusting.

There is nothing scary about this movie, the only thing scary is that somebody else might actually rent it and have to watch it.

No brain required for watching this, you must be a total loser to want to see this movie.

Don't forget-- I WARNED YOU!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I let a friend talk me into viewing this movie, and all I can say is--I want to kill that friend.

That is an hour and a half of my life I will never get back and I will forever regret it.

If you've also had the bad luck of seeing this movie you will agree with me that this is absolutely the worst movie ever made, EVER!

If you've never seen this movie and are thinking of seeing it-- let me save you a waste of time and warn you: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE, IT SUCKS!!!!

Everything in this movie fails, the attempt at comedy and sexiness--it just comes off as stupid, trashy and disgusting. Try having women in the movie who are actually attractive and sexy and not fat, ugly and gross to look at!!

The acting is laughable as is the writing. Obviously, this was made by total amateurs, I can't believe these people were allowed to make such a stupid movie, isn't there a law against that? There should be.

There are a whole slew of good \"b\" movies if you are into that sort of thing, but do not waste you time on this crappy wanna-be movie.

PEACE","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had the terrible misfortune of having to view this \"b-movie\" in it's entirety.

All I have to say is--- save your time and money!!! This has got to be the worst b-movie of all time, it shouldn't even be called a b-movie, more like an f-movie! Because it fails in all aspects that make a good movie: the story is not interesting at all, all of the actors are paper-thin and not at all believable, it has bad direction and the action sequences are so fake it's almost funny.......almost.

The movie is just packed full of crappy one-liners that no respectable person could find amusing in the least little bit.

This movie is supposed to be geared towards men, but all the women in it are SO utterly unattractive, especially that old wrinkled thing that comes in towards the end. They try to appear sexy in those weird, horrible costumes and they fail miserably!!!

Even some of the most ridiculous b-movies will still give you some laughs, but this is just too painful to watch!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a very disappointing movie. I would definitely call this the worst movie of all time.

The acting and writing were poor. And the jokes were not funny.

I don't see why on earth this piece of crap was even made. I'm not a picky person and I can enjoy stupid things but this is just way too stupid and just plain awful.

Avoid this wretched piece of garbage at all costs!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No movie I've ever seen before has even come close to being as boring and stupid as this hunk of junk. And I have always been a big B-movie fan. After viewing this total piece of crap, though I can honestly say that this doesn't even come close to being a B-movie.

No one in this movie could act if their life depended on it. The script is so stupid I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk like this in my life. The writer should go spend a few years studying real-life people to see just how they act and talk, even then they would not be able to make a watchable movie because it is so obvious that no one involved in this movie has any talent driving them at all.

I could make a better movie with a digital camera and some monster toys. Also, forget about any sexy scenes, the women in the leather outfits are so grotesque, you would sooner puke than get turned on!

Avoid this pointless drivel unless you want to be bored out of your mind!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watching this movie really surprised me. I have never found myself to stop watching a movie in its entirety because 3 dollars to rent a movie is a good amount of money and darn it, I should at least watch the whole thing and get my moneys worth. I made it through about 30 minutes of this absolutely crappy movie when I thought to myself, I am now a little more dumber after watching this movie. I can't believe that the director and actors in this movie actually had that low of respect for themselves to allow this to be released!

There's nothing I can say that hasn't been said by the other reviewers, but even in the worst of films there are usually one or two decent performances...not in this piece of pathetic garbage. I've seen better acting in high school plays. Every, and I mean every 'actor' is bad beyond belief, and what's truly amazing is the uniformity of the badness...gosh, it must have been the director. Where did they get these people?

This is possibly one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. Although entertaining in places due to its laughable script and even weaker acting, and I use that term very loosely, it is unfortunate that this film was not consigned to B movie hell for all eternity. What could have been a good idea has been ruined by an ultra low budget, poor sound and effects and actors who probably earned their wings in children's television, and poor children's television at that.

Please, STAY AWAY from this movie. Not even worth a minute of your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can tell by the other comments that NOBODY could ever actually enjoy this trifling piece of crap, that's the same way I felt.

The whole time I was watching it I was horrified that anyone could make a movie this stupid! What is the world coming to? I guess it is my fault for sitting through the entire movie (ugh!) but it was like a bad car wreck, I couldn't look away.

If you are a kid under 8 years of age, you might like this movie. Otherwise, stay away from it at all costs. It's the stupidest movie I've ever seen.

Everything's stupid--the story, script, and especially the acting, everything! While watching the movie you'll either turn the TV off and think \"how can a movie be so sadly stupid\", or keep on watching from curiosity, to see if things can get more stupid than this (they can't).

These movie makers (if you can call them that) need to seriously go back to their day jobs, not one of them has an ounce of talent, and I highly doubt you can make a living churning out such horrible useless garbage that no one in their right minds would ever want to see!

Just drawn out B.S. Don't waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was so poor I had to turn it off in the end. I have never watched such a pathetic film. I love B movies and was looking forward to more of the same but was sadly disappointed.

This has the worst acting\/plot\/direction\/writing, etc...... of anything I have ever seen in my life!

My advice to anyone thinking or watching\/buying\/renting, don't go there!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh my god, it just doesn't get any worse than this!!! I always love silly little sci-fi B-movies that are so stupid they are funny and I thought that this would be one of those, but this was just so stupid I found it absolutely deplorable that it was allowed to be released. What were these people thinking? They are obviously not real filmmakers and I really hope that they have gone back to their day jobs after realizing that this is the best they could do! The acting and the not-so special effects were nowhere near the standard of even the lowest budget B-movies. And what is with the men dressed up as women, could they not find any women that wanted to appear in this crappy thing. No, probably not.

I would give this a \"0\" if possible, it does not even deserve a \"1\" for awful. Do not waste your time (and especially not your money) on this horrible loser of a non-film!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is such a crappy movie I have no idea how it got on the shelves, they must have paid the movie store to make them put it there, seriously! The story makes absolutely no sense unless you are on some seriously heavy drugs, you would definitely have to be on something in order to watch this total piece of garbage, so much so that you would not care what was on the TV because you're almost in a coma. The writing sounds like it was done by a 5-year-old and the acting is worse than grade school plays. The hideous special effects they were trying to do look so stupid, what did they spend a whole $5 to make the entire movie, it looks like it! Oh my, that scene with the old woman who has an 80's hairdo and the ugly girls in the rubber suits, me and my friends laughed so hard. Did someone actually think it was a good idea to make this into a movie? I find that hard to believe!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This whole movie is just so terrible it is a complete mess. The story is just so stupid I can't believe somebody actually sat down and wrote about this and thought it would make a good movie! The acting is quite possibly the very worst out of any b-movie ever made. I've seen a lot of sci-fi type b-movies before and some of them are actually pretty good, some of them however-like From Venus-should never have been made.

Some movie makers think that just because they put something together and somehow got it on the shelves of a movie store, that they have accomplished something-that it is good and should be watched by people. This is not always true, and it is definitely not true of From Venus. This film loses on all accounts: horrible acting, stupid plot, very weak special effects, ugliest costumes ever, non-realistic dialogue, bad direction, etc. You can just tell this film only took about $20 to make, and I may be giving it too much credit there! I urge you to stay away from this train wreck of a film for your own good!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That's what me and my friends kept asking each other throughout this entire flick. We couldn't believe how stupid it was! I think somebody shot this on their camcorder at home and snuck it into the movie store and put it on the shelf as a joke to see if anybody would ever pick it up. Well, I guess the joke is on us.

I guess I should have come to this website first and read all of the reviews it has gotten, every single one says this movie is HORRIBLE, STUPID, and on and on. And boy are they right! Although it did provide some pretty good laughs (me and my friends were pretty drunk) because it is so stupid. We just can't believe somebody was dumb enough to make such a crappy movie! I swear this had to be made in the 70's before they had good technology for movies and stuff because every scene looks really crappy, but when I looked on here it said it was made in 2001? What? It sure doesn't look like a movie that would be made today, but I guess that's what you get when you use a camcorder and shoot home movies using strobe lights and really fake looking lasers, and use real life people from your home town instead of actors or even aspiring actors. BTW-some of those chicks (or were they drag queens, we couldn't tell!) were so fugly, even my drunk horny college buddies wouldn't touch them with a 50-foot pole.

So there's absolutely no appeal to this movie at all, bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad special effects, bad, bad, bad. Don't waste your time or money on this one, you'll be completely disappointed!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't understand how this garbage got on the shelves of the movie store, it's not even a real movie! It was unbelievable, me and a group of friends decided to watch this one night and it was just the stupidest thing any of us had ever seen, I couldn't believe it! We watched the first 15 minutes in utter awe that somebody actually thought of this and then made it into a movie. Are they on crack? My guess is yes, in huge doses. I highly doubt that anyone could ever like this trash. Is this supposed to be sci-fi or comedy or what? I don't thing the idiots who made this even care, they just decided to make a movie about nothing and see how many suckers they could trick into watching it. Well, we put something on film so let's take it to the movie store and see if they actually put it on the shelf--no, no, no. This is not movie-making. The acting is like watching wooden puppets moving around and reading from a book, that's how bad it is. I feel like going to the movie store and complaining and getting my money back, nobody should have to endure this crap. So I am here to warn you--DO NOT RENT THIS MOVIE, it is the dumbest thing you have never seen!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this DVD because I'm a big science fiction fan, but this thing (I won't call it a film, because it was obviously shot very quickly on video) seemed like they made it up as they went along. I'm still not sure what it was about. There's these guys dressed up in some weird S&M outfits, and I guess they're from another planet, anyway, not much makes sense in this low, low, low, budget film. If it was their first film, I'd cut them some slack, but I think it's like their 5th film and it's really REALLY bad.

Very bad acting not one good actor is this movie. This director must have been out of his mind to even work on a horrible film like this. Don't waste your time or money on this DVD please people don't. It is not even worth the .99 cents I paid to rent the DVD. In fact I'm going to tell them the DVD was messed up to get my money back. I don't believe in giving anything at all a bad review but I must here. My advice to anyone involved in this sinking ship--please find another profession to get into. How could you make a rotten movie like this? I would give this negative stars if possible, it's that terrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have always had this morbid curiosity when it comes to notoriously bad and unpopular movies. I also have always enjoyed so-bad-it's-good flicks, you're looking at someone who actually liked recent cheese filled kid flicks like Catwoman and Thunderbirds (2004).

So I watched this, and it turned out that all the critics are right about this one. It's a MAJOR flop, but unlike a lot of flops, it isn't even enjoyable on any level, not even just to make fun of. It's just one boring cringe-fest after another all the way through.

I had been warned. I didn't listen. I am a fool.

Don't be a fool, don't waste time and money on this pile of trash.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The original story had all the ingredients to make a thoroughly gripping Film. But failed miserably in this version as even Cherie Lunghi was a pale imitation of what she was to become - so much so that I suspected that she must turn out to be an accomplice right to the end. Sherlock Holmes was turned into a warrior quite unlike anything every suggested by Sir Arthur Conn Doyle ? In fact it was Doctor Watson who showed what little common sense that was going. The boot blacked midget from the Andoman islands looked as though he could not fight his way out of a paper bag and what the villain was doing taking tea in Baker Street for a denouement was beyond anything that the old Scotland Yard could ever have dreamed up. So consign this TV Film to their Black Museum please.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What was this, a Zucker brothers movie? I don't mind a little humor in my Holmes (I'm a big fan of Billy Wilder's \"The Private Life of SH\"), but this version of \"The Sign of Four\" feels like a Grand-Guignol-esque episode of \"Murder, She Wrote\" (right from the opening credits, that are of the worst possible kind: a montage of scenes from the movie) as directed by Mel Brooks. Ian Richardson is a fine actor, and certainly looks the part (he's a dead ringer to those drawings from The Strand!), but his interpretation of the character is all wrong and overly humorous, from the silly smile he frequently sports (I thought the drug Holmes was into was cocaine, not weed) to his expressions of comical stiffness in the carnival sequences. Not to mention that when he disguises himself as an old man, he is so over the top that despite the fine makeup we instantly recognize him. David Healy is an unmemorable but, given the circumstances, acceptable Watson, and is not too much of a buffoon... at least not more than the rest of characters. Cherie Lunghi (Excalibur) plays Mary Morstan in an exaggerated ingenue fashion straight out of a 1930s vaudeville.

Story-wise, there are some pointless additions (like giving Tonga vampire teeth, an appetite for raw meat and a carnival pit as a place to live, turning him into a reject from Island of Dr. Moreau), and we are even denied the pleasure of discovering the mystery alongside Holmes, as we are well informed of everything way before Holmes finds out. And this is full of tired clich\u00e9s: not only we get the infamous catchphrase \"Elementary, my dear Watson\" (which, as any Sherlockian will know, Conan Doyle never ever wrote), but we are exposed to such blatant commonplaces as having Hindi music pop out of nowhere when Holmes goes to see a white guy in Hindi clothes.

Bottom line: In Britain, in the eighties, two rival TV companies attempted to create a long-running series of Sherlock Holmes adaptations, and produced initial TV-movies as potential pilots. One of them starred Ian Richardson, the other starred Jeremy Brett. Thankfully, the one that got its way through multiple episodes was the good one!

3\/10. Travesty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen about a half dozen of the low budget poverty row B westerns that Ken Maynard made in the 1930s, and I am consistently amazed at how poor an actor he was. How did he ever get to be a leading cowboy actor? They say that he could ride pretty well back in the silents, but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive in these later sound films. Still, maybe he got the leads because he was big and could ride.

Phantom Rancher isn't as bad as some of the other Ken Maynard films I've seen, but it still isn't much. Some of the other characters refer to him a couple of times as a \"young fella,\" where it appears to me that he's just as old as the other older actors.

And if that's not silly enough, there's a rather significant script problem in this film. At one point, one of the characters makes a remark about how the phantom had prevented the poisoning of a well, something that hadn't happened yet. Just a couple of minutes later, we then see that particular scene. No, it wasn't a flashback. At first I thought perhaps that when Treeline Films was doing the DVD transfer, they might have reversed two of the reels. But in those days film reels contained approximately 11 minutes of film, and the whole reversal only took about 3 or 4 minutes tops. Everything else was in a logical order. So, it looks like that was a genuine continuity problem in the original film. Maybe that's one reason why Colony Pictures didn't last very long.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie earns its 3 for lousy writing, poor technical merit and continuity problems. Some people have given this movie a 10--and perhaps that is okay if you are simply scoring it for its fun factor. However, technically this is an inept movie serial from start to finish--produced by 3rd-rate writers, actors and crew. That really was true of nearly all the serials because they were meant as low-brow entertainment particularly aimed at the kids. And there's nothing wrong with that, but \"high art\" it ain't!! Spy Smasher earns a lower than average score compared to other serials because it is of even lower quality and has MAJOR continuity problems--even for a serial. It was common for a serial to have a \"cliff hanger\"--i.e., a moment at the end of the episode that looked as if the good guy dies but miraculously survives when the next episode began. BUT, in this film, it's much hokier and ridiculous. You would literally SEE the hero die in the last episode, but in the next, they re-shot the scene and showed he actually DIDN'T die (even though they clearly showed him buy the farm in the last one)! Again and again in SPY SMASHER he seems to die but in the next episode they show it from a different angle and he somehow avoided death--even if he fell 1500 feet into a river, fell into a buzz saw or whatever.

Watch this movie not for its quality but either for a good laugh or to learn what it was like to go to the movies on Saturday mornings decades ago.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"20th Century Fox's ROAD HOUSE 1948) is not only quite a silly noir but is an implausible unmitigated bore of a movie. Full of unconvincing cardboard characters it is blandly written by Edward Chodorov, who also produced, and is surprisingly directed by Jean Negulesco from whom one would expect a great deal more. Miscast is Ida Lupino in the leading role! Lupino, a lady who was capable of exuding about as much sex appeal as a blood orange, is here under the illusion she is Rita Hayworth playing the part of a sexy bar-room Torch Singer. Handsome Cornel Wilde as her lover is as wooden as usual and totally wasted is the talented Celeste Holm who's role is little more than a bit part. Then we have Richard Widmark who has the most ludicrously written part in the picture! When we first see him he is a nice O.K. guy who runs a thriving Road House. Then suddenly - and for reasons that are not sufficiently made clear - he becomes insanely jealous of his manager (Wilde) when the latter tells him that he is about to marry Lupino. You see Widmark wanted to marry her himself but - 1) He never proposed to her - 2) They never had a relationship (they don't even have anything that resembles a love scene together) and - 3)without telling anyone (including Lupino) he has obtained a marriage license. Wow! So how Widmark was to achieve something like wedded bliss with Lupino after such a \"courtship\" is anybody's quess. Huh? Well, when Widmark goes to pieces over the whole affair so also does the movie I am sorry to say. From here on the Widmark character turns unintentionally comical! His losing his marbles so early in the proceedings is totally implausible and unconvincing. He finally goes over the edge, becomes completely deranged and with a few Tommy Udo sniggers, he laughably goes gunning for poor Cornel Wilde before biting the dust himself.

And if that isn't enough of a mess of a movie for you - the picture is also marred with a constant use of studio sets and indoor exteriors. There's not a single outdoor shot in the entire movie! Added to this - 95% of the film takes place at night.

Besides an interactive press book and a photo gallery the extras also includes a featurette \"Widmark & Lupino At Fox\". Whatever prompted such a documentary is beyond me! As far as I know they were never before together in a movie at Fox or anywhere else! However this featurette is hosted by such heavy hitter know-alls as Robert Osborne, Eddie Muller, Rudy Belhmer and a few others who amazingly heap praise on this wearisome and cringe - inducing affair. All I can say then it must be me I guess. But \"Road House\" up to now was a forgotten and buried Noir and as far as I am concerned it should have remained so.

Fox would do better if they issued DVDs of superior and thus far elusive Widmark movies like \"Down To The Sea In Ships\" (1949) and the colourful \"Red Skies Of Montana\" (1952).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When you're used to Lana Turner in the Postman Always Rings Twice, and compare it to this low budget, low talent, low quality film, well, I was just embarrassed for Ida Lupino's 'singing' (more like talking) and non-piano playing scenes. When the first non-singing scene started and all the people just stared flatly at her, I was positive they were all going to roll their eyes and start leaving or at least talking among themselves (She stinks, c'mon let's get out of here). The actors are flat - emotions are deflated. And Ida is a real spoiled bi-otch throughout - just a 100% turnoff. This was like Betty Boop on conscious sedation meets a gas station attendant in nowhere's ville USA. The story was flat, the music was flat, the acting was flat, her chest was... no never mind. I felt sad for the rest of the actors. Perhaps if the right actress was to have been given the lead role, and the men actors had more emotion, then the film could have had a chance. Sorry for offending those of you who thought it was out of this world. I wouldn't have minded if it stayed out of this world.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretty dreadful movie about several unbalanced young people in a car starts off reasonably well but becomes more bizarre and hard to swallow as it progresses. Rachel Leigh Cook is the sole highlight in a tender and sexy performance, but I would recommend this film only to die-hard fans of the actress.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An \"independant\" film that, from the back of the box, promises twists, adventure and an emotional adventure we will never forget. This film also fools us into watching it by flaunting Rachel Lee Cook with a starring role. After the first twenty minutes, you realize that this movie is going to give you NOTHING. The story goes on aimlessly, revealing nothing new or important to keep us interested. All three \"disturbed\" characters have only small grains of back story to force us to care. Just as you reach the end, everything about the story is altered and instead of helping the audience catch up, you are left with no idea, and more importantly, no interest in \"why\". The director, who also thought it would be a good idea to co-star, seems to come into the film with no prior experience or knowledge of useful filmmaking. The entire piece looks like a college \"art\" film crafted by a freshman film student trying to hide a lack of true talent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw the episode about living on minimum wage. It went as far as an Oprah Winfrey's appearance for the said episode. It's bad enough people struggle making ends meet week to week. Then having this hypocrite exploiting the problem. I didn't appreciate the constant complaining from him or his significant other, throughout. Queston is how any people have the power to pay their medical bills from the ER? sure he shows that the bill is high, but he paid the remaining balance(from his own pocket) after-wards from his \"harrowing\" experience. How many poor people have that type of privilege after 30 days to pay off their bills. Instead they are starving and \"robbing Peter to pay Paul\". Complaining throughout the episode isn't a humbling thing for him. The movie and restaurant scene is appalling. Another privilege he has that poor people don't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have only seen the minimum wage episode yet i have no intention of watching the others, how can that be? Morgan starts theatrically complaining about his awful situation living on minimum wage right at the beginning of the episode and the complaining never stops. Ever. Luckily for the viewer, his skinny girlfriend is just as annoying as Morgan (if not even more annoying).

And then to top it all, they go to the movies and buy bottled water for 2,50 and after that go to a restaurant to eat out all the while they naturally *drumroll* complain about being poor.

I don't care if the other episodes may or may not be better than this. No one should be forced to watch this crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This video has audio that is meant for someone to hear during their sleep. And the same can be said for the video.

Morgan and his wife pretending to rough it at minimum wage jobs? With a camera rolling? And his little wifey-poo complaining? Give me a break. They are both rich. They are sitting in their fake $350\/month apartment filming this with their $1,000\/month each video crew of 12.

I used to respect Morgan, but now his \"30 days\" experience is nothing more than trying to fool any volunteer viewers who are willing to be fooled.

C'mon Morgan, you are being filmed doing a $6.00 an hour job and you are being paid by naive employers who don't see those big cameras filming the whole thing?? And we aren't to think they aren't paying you under the table?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Altman is very proud of the fact that people in his movies talk over each other, because, he says, people do that in life. Well, people also cough, burp, go off on tangents, etc. The point is that just because people actually do something doesn't make it compelling cinema. That's one issue.

The bigger issue is that this just isn't a very clever or direct or hitting or relevant satire, in 1988 or 2004. Garry Trudeau is still living in the 1960s and thinks everyone except a small core of Republican elected officials is a 60s-style hippie liberal. I mean the guy still trots out Zonker in his strip - a character that is a complete anachronism, yet Trudeau still employs him as if he is representative of a large stripe of American youth.

Don't get me wrong. I am a conservative, but I'm not saying that this is bad because it's got a liberal bent. It could take a liberal tack and be funny and relevant, but it's not. It is mainly a vanity piece with a bunch of prominent celebrity liberals (including the odious, repellent Ron Reagan, Jr.). At times it feels unscripted, and the rest of the time it has a snarky air of self-importance and \"aren't we oh-so-clever?\"-ness.

Someone said that this show insists it has a cult following. I think its cult status is more wished-for than actual. I'm certain there are two or three people out there who taped all the original episodes in 1988 and still have them, but if that is the standard, then every show ever aired is a cult classic to some degree. If Tanner didn't have the names Altman and Trudeau attached, it would be another forgotten HBO production from the 1980s. Instead, it's presented as hard-hitting, incisive political commentary from guys who are at the top of their game. The reality, however, is about as far from that as possible. Pat Paulsen's presidential satire is more relevant than Tanner ever was, and he's been dead for a decade.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this last night on Sundance. Altman must be the most hit or miss director of note ever. This show, despite its \"star power\" is utterly non-compelling, and its political insights--which I as a proud liberal in no way disagree with--are shallow and clunky, and seem ripped from the headlines of USA Today, despite the fact it's coming out of the mouth of someone as esteemed as Mario Cuomo. The drama, as such, is not very dramatic, and the comedy is not funny. The only points of interest, really, are seeing how New Yorkers live their lives, and the loyalty of a cast and crew to reassemble a show that keeps insisting has some cult following from 1988. Sometimes it seems like Altman's sole contribution to cinema has been the art of having all your actors talk at once, the effect of which is one feels depressingly like they're a stranger at a wedding.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This pointless film was a complete disappointment. None of the characters is likeable in the least, so you watch what befalls each without really caring. What was worst was renting this movie at a gay owned establishment only to find that this story of male hustlers was filled with homophobic young men engaged in plenty of scenes of straight sex and not one single scene of gay sex.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It has a bit of that indie queer edge that was hip in the 90s and which places an explicit sell-by date on the visual style. Characters are uniformly apathetic and farcically deadpan. Street hoodlums in Greece wear new clothing out of the box without creases or stains. They all appear to visit the same marine hair dresser. All uniformly exhibit the same low IQ when making their dispassionate underground business deals. When things go wrong its all because they aren't real Greeks - they're pastoral sunshine boys caught in a strange night city world. Makes a big whine about disaffected immigrants but never bothers to actually investigate the problems with Russian\/Kazakh\/Albanian cultures. If Giannaris had the proper perspective on this project it might have made a wonderful Bel Ami production. The fleeting glimpses of toned boy-beef is the only spark in this generic small-time mobster programmer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me tell you a story.

One day on the streets of Athens a film director bumped into a male prostitute and decided that the world just HAD to know his story because...you know... he's deprived...and he takes his shirt off a lot and...so on.

This film is the result of his revelation. Repulsive, depraved, homophobic, misogynist...but of course filled with pretty guys with their chests showing. If this is your idea of a good film then enjoy, if not avoid it like the plague.

It's put me off ever going to Greece that's for sure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At last. Here's a movie that does as much for the reputations of the men of Greece and Russia as \"Gigli\" did for the those of Mr. Affleck and Ms. Lo. FROM THE EDGE OF THE CITY details the sad and sordid lives of some young Russian \u00e9migr\u00e9s who live in and around Athens and spend their time burglarizing cars, getting laid, pimping woman \u00e9migr\u00e9s and prostituting themselves (\"But we're not gay because we don't do, you know.... And if we do, it's only once or twice. With the same guy.\") There is hardly anything here you have not seen before and better; only the Athens locale adds a little novelty--even then there's but a scene or two that's scenic. Writer\/director Constantine Giannaris (\"3 Steps to Heaven\") offer a relatively generic 95 minutes, in which the standout moments involve how stupid, sexist and (from the looks of things) pretty much irredeemable most of these guys are. (Interestingly, the gayer the guy, the more redeemable he appears.) What really rankles is the treatment of the women. Greek and Russian males would seem to give the Italians a run for their money regarding that famous madonna\/whore complex. Has life in Greece improved much for women since the time of Plato and Socrates? One has to wonder.

If I seem to be equating Russians and Greeks in this review, I apologize, but even the non-\u00e9migr\u00e9s pictured here (the cab driver, for instance) are creeps. According to another review on this site, the film (a hit on its home turf) was actually submitted by Greece for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. What this says about the state of Greek movie-making, I hesitate to ponder.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Me being one was probably having a brain fart at the time for renting it. Anyone who actually buys it, will enjoy using this as a coaster. Perhaps a frisbee? This is a dvd I actually found up front where the kids could get to it. Since dvd's don't seem to be in the position to be put in that tell tale back room with all the big box vhs tapes are, I find it rather annoying they stuck this up next to a disney film. Yep, going from Dinosaur to Erotic Ghost has shown what we all think of Disney right? I havent' stooped that low just yet. There's no acting in here. The only thing interesting is the old 1973 movie trailers for ollllld ancient erotic films that I'm amazed have escape from being burned to hell.

1\/10 (if imdb allowed zero's it'd be 0\/10)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think this movie had really bad production value. The lack of acting makes me think they should mark it as an early docudrama. It may have had no money available for its making. I feel bad that it was a ruff ride into the Major League for Jackie Robinson.

I believe he was much better than many of the white players of his day. He had to be really great to break the color barrier of the time. No getting around that this was a really bad movie.

Wish there was more info about its makers. They may have been limited by the quality of actors that were willing to take on the project. Maybe no money to get good people.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is bundled along with \"Gli fumavano le Colt... lo chiamavano Camposanto\" and both films leave a lot to be desired in the way of their DVD prints. First, both films are very dark--occasionally making it hard to see exactly what's happening. Second, neither film has subtitles and you are forced to watch a dubbed film--though \"Il Prezzo del Potere\" does seem to have a better dub. Personally, I always prefer subtitles but for the non-purists out there this isn't a problem. These DVD problems, however, are not the fault of the original film makers--just the indifferent package being marketed four decades later.

As for the film, it's about the assassination of President Garfield. This is a MAJOR problem, as Van Johnson looks about as much like Garfield as Judy Garland. In no way whatsoever does he look like Garfield. He's missing the beard, has the wrong hair color and style and is just not even close in any way (trust me on this, I am an American History teacher and we are paid to know these sort of things!). The real life Garfield was a Civil War general and looked like the guys on the Smith Brothers cough drop boxes. Plus, using some other actor to provide the voice for Johnson in the dubbing is just surreal. Never before or since has Van Johnson sounded quite so macho!! He was a fine actor...but certainly not a convincing general or macho president.

In addition to the stupid casting, President Garfield's death was in no way like this film. It's obvious that the film makers are actually cashing in on the crazy speculation about conspiracies concerning the death of JFK, not Garfield. Garfield was shot in Washington, DC (not Dallas) by a lone gunman with severe mental problems--not a group of men with rifles. However, according to most experts, what actually killed Garfield (over two months later) were incompetent doctors--who probed and probed and probed to retrieve a bullet (to no avail) and never bothered cleaning their hands or implements in the process. In other words, like George Washington (who was basically killed by repeated bloodletting when suffering with pneumonia) he died due to malpractice. In the movie they got nothing right whatsoever...other than indeed President Garfield was shot.

Because the film bears almost no similarity to real history, it's like a history lesson as taught from someone from another planet or someone with a severe brain injury. Why not also include ninjas, fighting robots and the Greek gods while you're at it?!?! Aside from some decent acting and production values, because the script is utter cow crap, I don't recommend anyone watch it. It's just a complete and utter mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Predictable Unmotivated Pointless Caricatures Contrived Actors did what they could Actors clearly indicated they were embarrassed to do this Not one emotional connection REAL SEQUENCE FROM FILM \"Who you callin?\" (sic) \"The police\"(sic) \"You can't do that, Stevie. Hang up the phone\"(sic) \"Jesse got a sh-t load o' drug money, you can't go involving the cops\"(sic) \"I'm not so sure stealing money from criminals is a crime. Even if they arrest him at least he'll be alive\"(sic) \"Listen to me, Stevie, this ain't handled right, Jesse's gonna end up dead. Now hang up that f-in phone.\" (sic) Best Friend starts to load up guns Brother, \"Hey, what're you doin'?\" No answer. \"Hey, I got a family to worry about.\" (Keep in mind his child is sitting right there watching-ish all of this) Then more and more and more exposition

Notice how in the above sequence, at no time do the police on the other line say, \"Hello? Hello? Uh, we can hear everything you're saying. We're sending someone over there right now.\"

Embarrassment for all. Oops.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Piece of junk, would've given it a 0 if I could have. Animation is good, but not quite good enough. Storyline is absolutely THE most ridiculous I've ever come across, and that's saying a lot! This 'movie' tried so hard to be interesting, but failed miserably. It's almost as if the writer started one story, then got another idea, and attempted to mesh the two together. Don't waste your time on this; believe me, you'll be as ticked off with yourself as I was. The only actor of any note in this was James Woods, and his part was peripheral at best. I'm all for doing stuff that is edgy, that pushes the envelopes, but this simply didn't cut it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ordinarily, I love these \"Stranger Within\" thrillers. Some good examples are \"Fatal Attraction,\" \"Single White Female,\" and \"Audition.\" Done well, they can be a lot of fun, and worth an hour or two of solid shocks and scares. Of course, the opposite can be true: done poorly, they can be tedious and stupid. \"The Hand that Rocks the Cradle\" is one of the latter.

The Bartels, Claire (Annabella Sciorra) and Michael (Matt McCoy) are welcoming another member to their family. But busy Claire is persuaded by Michael to hire a nanny. One day, a woman named Peyton Flanders (Rebecca DeMornay) shows up, and because she seems perfect, the Bartels hire her. Of course, once she shows up, their idyllic life is slowly unraveling...

This film suffers from a plethora of problems, but the biggest one is the handling of the villain. Peyton is never believable. Part of this has to do with how she's written, and how she's acted. The things that she does that are supposed to put us on edge are so contrived that they're laughable. De Mornay doesn't help much. She portrays Peyton as two different people. While it's true she's supposed to be the perfect nanny while hiding her psychotic tendencies, De Mornay's performance creates a divide between the two facets of her character.

The other actors are good, however. Annabella Sciorrra is terrific as the asthmatic Claire. Sciorra is very natural in the role, but unfortunately, the script lets her down. Matt McCoy is almost invisible. However, Julianne Moore is delightful as Claire's friend Marlene. Moore is a firecracker, but unfortunately she's only on screen for a total of five minutes.

Curtis Hanson is a good director, but you wouldn't know it from watching this dud. The film has a few decent shocks, but it's poorly paced, and the climax, while generating some tension, is actually kind of laughable. That being said, he's working with a script that at best, could charitably be called pathetic.

Trust me, when it comes to nannies, stick with Fran Drescher. This one should have gone to the direct-to-video bin.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know that many people will\/have automatically given this film a rating of 1, just because it doesn't have the huge budget and top-of-the-line special effects that they are used to. I, however, knew what I was getting myself into when I popped this into the VCR.

I don't think we get much more low-budget that this, unless we are filming a family reunion. The lighting is awful, sound quality is at times incomprehensible, and the acting is ultra-bad by almost all involved. BUT, this is still a fun movie and the plot is interesting enough. It centers around a fellow named Tom Russo (Asbestos Felt), who has been down on his luck with his job. He is very protective of his wife and does not allow her to work, putting even more pressure on himself. As he begins working more hours, we see him slowly transcend into madness and obsession and he becomes suspicious that his wife cheating on him and begins to brutally murder the various men (most repair guys) that he feels are responsible.

I must say that the gore effects are extremely cheap, but fit with the overall tone of the film.. The brutal ways that Tom Russo comes up with to murder these men gives us an idea of just has mad he has become. The pacing of the film is also very good and there is rarely a boring moment. The ending really doesn't follow the rest of the plot of the film, as it seems to want to go from a psycho-slasher film, to a \"Dawn of the Dead\" wannabe, but it is entertaining nonetheless and I must give Tim Ritter credit for wanting to use an unconventional ending.

I can honestly say that I enjoyed this film, but it is by no means a good film, if that makes sense. It's budget is its main stumbling block and the consequences are almost too much to overlook. I DO NOT recommend this to people who are totally spoiled by the big-budget movies and who can't have an open-mind to ultra-low budget films. You simply won't enjoy it. For others, and fans of gore--I say give it a shot. You will find at least SOMETHING redeeming in it!

My Grade: D","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Emotionally insecure Tom Russo (Asbestos Felt) reads the secret diary of his sexy wife Leeza (Courtney Lercara) and is dismayed to discover that the love of his life has apparently been sleeping with every bloke she meets; this shocking revelation sends poor Tom off his rocker, and he proceeds to wreak bloody revenge on the men who he believes have been rogering his old lady.

In my experience, really, really bad films can often be as much fun as really good ones, and no film featuring a decapitation by machete-enhanced ceiling fan should ever be considered completely worthless; but even though Killing Spree very occasionally manages to entertain with its inventiveness and cheap and cheerful gore, I found that the terrible direction, awful production values, ugly cinematography, muffled sound, dreadful lighting, mind numbingly tedious and daft narrative (which includes a really dumb plot twist that is telegraphed from the beginning, plus a pointless zombie finale), nasty synthesizer score, inane dialogue, and thoroughly amateurish acting all served to make this effort from writer\/director Tom Ritter a virtually joyless experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Is this supposed to be serious? I hope not. This is one of the most pathetically hilarious movies I've ever seen. Given that I picked it up for a buck on the \"Bad movies\" shelf, it sure lives up to its spot in the shop. What can I say, the gore effects are spattered (pun-intended) all over the place, some looking quite real, some looking like a teddy bear that's had an accident with a bottle of tomato sauce. The music is some of the most horrible I've heard, the acting is one of the most amusing elements... must I continue? Don't bother unless you've seen every other pathetic horror movie in the shop and this is all that's left.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I understood before watching this film that it would be a low budget gore film. But even by those low standards this film doesn't cut it.

The problem isn't so much that the filmmakers had a low budget or had bad acting, writing, directing, sound, music and editing. I expected all of that to be bad, and it is.

The biggest problem with this film is that it didn't even do a good job on the guts and gore. Most of the 'action' takes place off screen and all we get to see are the after effects, which look very fake -- even by the standards of low budget gore films.

There really is no excuse for the gore being so poorly done. Peter Jackson made the equally low budget 'Bad Taste' at about the same time and he somehow was able to make much more convincing guts and gore than was shown in this film.

A failure on just about every level, I can't recommend this film to anybody. Steer clear of it.



","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was initially interested in this film after reading a synopsis and seeing a few striking screenshots, and the promise was there for a gripping horror film of the Dario Argento style. Admittedly I must say that Argento's films have occasionally been rather incoherent, and some feel like a handful of visually impacting set pieces loosely strung together with a vague connecting plot.

Since Argento is credited as writer for this, I have to say, I'm not really surprised. Even his masterpiece Suspiria, when examined, exhibits the same tendency to string along sometimes unrelated scenes purely for the aesthetic impact. However, Suspiria also had the benefit of a singular main character and clear antagonists, as well as scenes that contributed ultimately to the eventual resolution.

The Church, on the other hand, has none of these things. It has no main character, no protagonist whatsoever; it furthermore has no real plot to speak of, and no crescendo, no climax, no denouement, and no resolution. It is a completely hollow, incoherent work that views as if Argento sat down and thought 'hey, that would make an interesting scene visually...let's do it!' The film is a series of these scenes.

Initially it might be interesting, and Soavi's direction is excellent, I must say. Soavi cannot be faulted for the material, as it is made as compelling as possible. However, such good direction calls attention to the horrible failings of the script, and there is absolutely no sense in it. The attempt at a central unifying plot is nothing more than plagiarism of Carpenter's film Prince of Darkness. Events happen solely because the script wishes them to, and reactions to those events are completely implausible. The narrative flow is irreparably damaged after a point, simply because there is no ability to suspend disbelief; it's too ludicrous. Added to this are numerous factual errors that are so glaringly showcased that it becomes embarrassing.

If it had been more overtly artistic and edited down into a different work, it might have been chilling or tense. If it had been fleshed-out into an actual cohesive narrative, it might have been gripping. But it was none of these. The best it managed was confusing and, at times, infuriating. Plots are introduced but never followed. Characters are forgotten about and altered arbitrarily. No logic is ever applied to any situation. It might have been scary or interesting, but to elicit that sort of feeling takes more effort on the part of a screenwriter...much more.

All in all, The Church is not worth viewing for anyone but total enthusiasts of Italian horror that is more style than substance. This is Argento's style at its worst, and it is a strong justification for the usual criticism.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Master of Italian horror Dario Argento is called a lot of bad things by non-fans. And is deserving of absolutely none of the backlash. In fact, every time I hear something bad about Argento- I think they're really talking about Michele Soavi. He just doesn't get the same amount of attention because his films were never as successful in theaters. In fact, his best film - 1994's Cemetery Man - was probably his least successful. Or just didn't get the attention he felt it deserved, because after that, he left film and went into directing television. He's never gone back. So people really don't know how inferior his other films are because by the time they've seen them, they're already fans of the Italian horror aesthetic. Which means you have to accept the fact that they make almost zero sense and are usually very unattractive films. This is where The Church stands out from the pack. Because visually, it's so cheap and ancient-looking, you can smell the dust. But it has its' charms too, though they are few. The camera-work is truly arresting and the music score is hugely elaborate and grand.

Since Argento is the reasons people have seen Soavi's work all, I don't know anyone who caught The Church before Argento's Suspiria and Deep Red. Soavi is a bit of a hack. Sort of like an Italian Mick Garris- the utmost example of a director preferring style over substance. The flaws of The Church are constant and plenty. The film opens with a somewhat interesting prologue showing knights on white horses charging through a peasant village akin to those you see in any Robin Hood adaptation, in some long-ago century. These scenes are intense enough, energetic, and get quickly to the point. Then, we cut to the present, where the film's style takes over. Yeah, the movie is okay to look at. And for about 35 or so minutes in the present, 1980's wherever-Italy, the movie is just interesting enough to get us to the slowly revealing horror elements. So now we know the purpose of the film is the build up of it's horror. And it's a decent build up, for the most part. But as the movie approaches the halfway point, we realize the movie's driving by, and... nothing is happening.

The plot is very simple. I think. Two people working in a church, one as a cataloger of books and the other as a restorer of the building's wall artwork, discover a scroll \/ scripture that the man thinks will lead them to some kind of buried treasure or priceless artifact that he can sell and get rich off of. So he follows his 'map' only to uncover a force underneath the church that has him hallucinate, while he's slowly becoming a demon who will make everyone else hallucinate. So while he is doing his demon-work, someone he passed the force onto kills himself in a manner that traps everyone in the church while the demon 'contagen' spreads onto everyone, leaving a Black preacher and the little girl who sneaks out of the church every night to go clubbing as the only 2 people who can stop the plague from spreading beyond the church walls. That probably sounds action-packed and Soavi's style is far more lethargic than Argento. But never before have I seen an attempted surrealist film this agonizingly boring. I kid you not. Absolutely nothing happens in the entire film! I've seen expressionistic (or impressionistic, I'm no film school super-grad) films before, but most of them actually show things happening (John Carpenter's Halloween for one).

It follows pretty closely in the footsteps of Lamberto Bava's Demons films (since Argento co-produced). We're shown to a location where a bunch of people gather, one turns into a demon, all the others are isolated, that person infects everyone except a couple survivors, then the demons either get out- infecting the world, or the survivors get out when the demons die. This film puts all those same elements in place. Except, unlike Argento's work, nothing happens. Okay, a few things do happen. But only one bizarre sequence has the panache of Lamberto's much more fun Demons films. A random woman's neck is impaled by a demon using a section of fence he rips out of the floor. What's bizarre about that, you wonder? It happens in front of about two dozen people. What do they do? Nothing. She dies, her head trickles blood in closeup. But all those people don't even notice, though it happens in plain view and no less than 8 feet away from them. Maybe 4 people notice the demon running up to stab anyone he can as he runs toward her, so they duck out of the way. She's killed and in the shot after she dies, everyone is just sitting around, being quiet while a boy plays a saxophone. I kid you not. That's what happens. That's more than logically incoherent- it's plain stupid.

The scene is suggesting that the woman just sort of disappears and no one saw her death. They all just up and forget about it. And this 15-second thing is absolutely the only event that takes place in the movie. I'm not saying it's the only violence, gore, or murder we see. It's not. It's just the only thing we can tell is happening. For example, in one scene a beautiful woman sees herself in a mirror looking old and ugly. She starts clawing the skin on her face off, but when she reappears minutes later- no scratches. People are devoured by fish and their faces are squashed by subway cars. But later they turn up as totally unharmed members of a possessed cult, in a scene that commits the ultimate horror heresy- copying a famous scene from Roman Polanski's 1968 masterpiece, Rosemary's Baby, the greatest horror film ever made, shot for shot. Even if Argento did that, I would be furious!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me get this straight... \"The Church\" has a safety \"lock-down\" mechanism to keep the spirits from leaving but the ultimate solution is bringing it to the ground?! LOFL! Maybe I'm missing the plot. Maybe this guy is from the Ed Wood school of film-making or something. This movie is about as useless as the church itself. Hey... maybe that's the point. That whole Rosemary's Baby-esq segment was hilarity. I can go to my corner Halloween costume shop and get better drag than that. The entire film needs to be remade. Properly. There were so many things that were played down... so many things that could have made me jump out of my seat and through the ceiling. I'm not sure if the fault lies with the writing or editing but what I saw should not have this high of a rating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had always eyed Italian horror maestro Dario Argento's efforts as producer with a certain suspicion and these were only confirmed after my fairly recent viewing of Lamberto Bava's terrible DEMONS (1985); the fact that this was supposed to be its third installment did not sound promising at all but I decided to give the film a rental regardless now that we're in full Halloween swing. I checked out the theatrical trailer on the Anchor Bay DVD prior to viewing the main feature \u0096 the undeniably striking visuals had me intrigued to be sure but, then, the film proper (which makes no more sense than what's presented in that frenzied two-minute montage and, in retrospect, can be seen to have wisely compiled most of its highlights) proved a definite let-down!

Opening promisingly enough with a medieval prologue straight out of Alexander NEVSKY (1938), it goes downhill fast because it relies too much on surreal imagery at the expense of narrative. Consequently, several characters randomly take center-stage throughout \u0096 with the insufferable male lead succumbing to the dark forces early on, the sinister-looking Bishop (Feodor Chaliapin) resulting a mere red herring, the mysterious black priest gradually assuming heroic qualities, the leading lady is for whatever reason preyed upon by a goat-shaped demon (culminating in a sexual rite conducted in front of the other cultists lifted all-too-obviously from ROSEMARY'S BABY [1968]) and a reasonably impressive 13-year old Asia Argento as the rebellious but likable sacristan's daughter (who emerges as the only survivor by the end). Incidentally, the older Argento also co-wrote the film's story and screenplay along with director Soavi and (under a pseudonym after they apparently fell out with Dario in the early stages of production) original helmer Lamberto Bava and prolific genre scribe Dardano Sacchetti (whom I met at the 61st Venice Film Festival in 2004).

The extremely muddled second half of the film, then, sees a group of people \u0096 including the inevitable teenagers but also a doddering English couple (whose constant bickering is given an amusingly nasty punchline) \u0096 similarly shut inside a building in the grip of evil spirits (the church being the burial ground of a satanic cult)\u0085not that this horror outing is likely to dispel memories of Luis Bunuel's sublimely surreal THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) you see! In the end, the film is all the more disappointing (though Sergio Stivaletti's gruesome effects, at least, are notable) given that I had thoroughly enjoyed the only other Soavi title I'd watched \u0096 CEMETERY MAN (1994), which I own via the R2 SE DVD. That said, I'd still like to catch his debut feature \u0096 STAGE FRIGHT (1987) \u0096 and the director's follow-up effort to THE CHURCH, entitled THE SECT (1991)...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the same way Lamberto Bava was a substandard facsimilie of his father, Mario (who was an extremely overrated director anyway), Michele Soavi is a substandard director in the Dario Argento mold. \"The Church\" has at least one thing to recommend it--the incredibly detailed art direction--but absolutely nothing else. The film is long-winded, filled with one-dimensional characters, and almost put me to sleep several times. There's a fine line between 'art' and 'pretentious crap,' and while \"The Church\" isn't completely worthless, you'd be better off watching something else.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have a lot of respect for Mr. Argento's work, but this film lacks many of the qualities that make his films really unique. The opening to the film is great, and sets you up for the possibility of a really scary horror film. What occurs for the rest of the film lacks structure or purpose and does not build into much. There are some good performances, though, and a lot of great atmosphere. The end of the film is weak considering everything this builds up to. Where there should be some grand climax of huge proportions you instead get a very typical conclusion that too many other bad horror movies use, making it feel like they just needed to wrap it up. A couple of scenes are very memorable for their imagery, but in the end the film does not gel to make a really good movie. Unless you feel you must see everything this director made I suggest passing on this one...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once again, the posters lied to me.

The marketing of this flick was deeply at odds with the content; 'explosive'? When I read the synopsis for this movie, I was expecting to see a townful of grotesques, every man-jack of them bloodshot and bloated by alcohol, peppered by heroin needles and bent double with chronic masturbation; into such a \"den of vice\" would come the clean-shaven hero, shining Gabriel. Instead, the movie was the complete opposite of what I was led to expect.

The first few minutes of the film showed us that Middletown is a simple little place full of poor people doing the best they can, whether fiddling a little to make ends meet, drinking to forget the pain, or watching cock-fighting (chickens, not penises) to while away the boredom. In other words, the townspeople were desperately ordinary.

The only (deliberate?) grotesque in the piece was Gabriel, the brainwashed Presbyterian preacher played by Macfadyen, whose face is built in such a way as to suggest a permanent air of bewildered fury. If I were kind, I would suggest that the Paisleyite rantings of the preacher were a witty comment designed to make us despise Gabriel and his faith. Unfortunately, Brian Kirk is so inept a film-maker that you quickly despise everyone in the movie, leaving the audience to fret their way through eighty-plus minutes of dark, hackneyed tedium. My only respite from this waste of celluloid was a game of \"guess the accent\" broken up with rounds of \"spot the location.\" Are we surprised that Gaybo ends up stealing his brother's child and suffocating his father? Of course not; he's a bible-bashing preacher and therefore psychotic. All the townspeople stand around looking shocked at the end of the movie, but I suspect that they've just realised what a turkey they've put their names to.

The Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission have a budget to spend, but there are better projects than this feeble enterprise. The only kind thing I can say in favour of this movie is that it has managed to replace \"Superman Returns\" as the worst film of 2006; one hell of an achievement.

v1:20061114 v2:20080107","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film is visually stunning: from the dusty interior of the church with the lighted stove, through the drizzly street and the run-down garage to the blaze that is the climax of the film. It also has a wonderful sense of time, both 1950's (the film's opening) and 1960's. All of the performances are top-class, especially Mathew MacFadyen as the psychotic preacher and Gerard McSorley as the father who finds his own intolerance terrifyingly magnified by his son. What a pity, then, that the story is so ridiculous. For a start, in concentrating on the relationship between Gabriel (McFadyen) and his family, it utterly fails to show how he has managed to hold so much influence on the community. In the church, we see five or six of the main characters at the front, and another two or three at the back, but the rest of the congregation might as well be mannequins: they show no sign of hearing him, heeding him or dissenting from him; at the cockfight, nobody says yea or nay when he disrupts the proceedings, but neither does anybody applaud or condemn when Caroline throws a pint over him; a situation that results in a stone thrown through the pub window is mysteriously resolved by the onset of labour pains. Secondly, Middletown (which isn't actually a town, but a tiny village) seems to lack some essential services, such as police and fire service: murder can only be dealt with by a family member with a crowbar; residents watch an inferno that threatens to engulf the whole town as though they were at the cinema. For that matter, everyday things such as telephones and newspapers are conspicuously absent, the rural community is strangely devoid of farm animals or wheat-fields, and most puzzling of all for a 'typical' North of Ireland setting, there is only one Christian community - not even a couple of Anglicans to season the mix. Even if you're willing to suspend disbelief, the story itself is pretty threadbare, a pale imitation of an A.J. Cronin melodrama. And the music? Well, it's beautiful for the first two minutes, but when the same four chords are repeated non-stop for 90 minutes it gets more than a little irritating. My advice: watch this with the sound off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For a country that has produced some of the world's finest dramatists and has such a rich musical heritage it has always been a source of bewilderment to me why so much of Ireland's home-grown cinema has been so appalling. Perhaps because, by its very nature, those talented in the field of Irish cinema have been quick to abandon their native shore for careers in Britain or America, (Colin Farrell is a recent case in point), and that the really successful Irish directors that have continued to work in Ireland and with Irish subjects have made their films with international money and an eye on the international market. I am thinking particularly of Jim Sheridan and Neil Jordan who alternate between films with an Irish setting and projects filmed abroad.

\"Middletown\", however, is very much an Irish film even if two of its principal actors are English. It's certainly well-made of its kind and might have bucked the trend that Irish films aren't really very good; (Paddy Breathnach's \"I Went Down\", written by the brilliant young playwright Conor McPherson, is a crucial exception). Unfortunately this tale of fundamentalism set in a fictitious Irish town, presumably in the North of Ireland judging by the accents, (Mid-Ulster Bible-Belt, if you ask me), and presumably in the recent past, (the fifties? the sixties?), is so over-the-top that it really is quite ridiculous.

Nothing in the film rings true and you can't help feeling it's writer, Daragh Carville, has been strongly influenced by Flannery O'Connor and that the whole thing might have made more sense had it been set in the American bible-belt and not in Ireland where even the most extreme Protestant fundamentalist was never quite as loony as this. It's all meant be to be grim in a grand guignol kind of way and it certainly is, though I was more prone to giggles than frisson's at the right Reverand Matthew Macfayden's antics. He has the Ulster accent off pat and there is nothing wrong with his acting or indeed that of Daniel Mays as his brother, Gerard McSorley as his father or Eva Birthistle as Mays' wife but the script is so appallingly derivative that good acting can do nothing to save the film. So rather than a step up the ladder for Irish cinema \"Middletown\" is, I'm afraid, just another nail in its coffin.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was supposed to be set in the \"Bible Belt\" of Northern Ireland. Well, as someone who grew up there,and was a child in the era depicted in the film it just didn't ring true! The accents were all over the place - anything but County Antrim\/Derry. The church didn't resemble any I have ever seen. \"The Church of God\" is a pentecostal denomination but the one in the film was certainly not pentecostal! The elderly minister at the beginning was dressed in the robes of the Church of Ireland (Anglican)- and no C.of I. would call itself \"The Church of God\". The minister was often addressed as \"Reverend\" - they may do that in some parts of the world but I never heard it when I lived in that area. Ministers were addressed as \"Mr ......\"

This film was very badly researched and cast - fairly typical of Irish cinema - annoying! A film can have a great plot, but if it doesn't look authentic, it is rubbish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Poor Shirley MacLaine tries hard to lend some gravitas to this mawkish, gag-inducing \"feel-good\" movie, but she's trampled by the run-away sentimentality of a film that's not the least bit grounded in reality.

This was directed by Curtis Hanson? Did he have a lobotomy since we last heard from him? Hanson can do effective drama sprinkled with comedy, as evidenced by \"Wonder Boys.\" So I don't know what happened to him here. This is the kind of movie that doesn't want to accept that life is messy and fussy, and that neat, tidy endings (however implausible they might be) might make for a nice closing shot, but come across as utterly phony if the people watching the film have been through anything remotely like what the characters in the film go through.

My wife and I made a game of calling out the plot points before they occurred -- e.g. \"the old man's going to teach her to read and then drop dead.\" Bingo! This is one of those movies where the characters give little speeches summarizing their emotional problems, making you wonder why they still have emotional problems if they're that aware of what's causing them. Toni Collette (a fine actress, by the way, and one of my favorites if not given a lot to work with here), gives a speech early on about why she buys so many shoes and never wears them, spelling out in flashing neon the film's awkward connecting motif. At that moment, I knew what I was in for, and the film was a downward spiral from there.

Grade: C-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film shortly after watching Moonlight & Valentino with Elizabeth Perkins, Gwyneth Platrow, Whoopi Goldberg and Kathleen Turner. There are a lot of similarities between the two films. They both have great casts and good acting. They both have stock characters of sisters who are very different, an offensive stepmother, a woman friend\/confidant, an emotionally unavailable father, a dead mother and a surprise lover. Both films have the characters experience life-changing realizations and both films suffer from a kind of 'love conquers all' sentimentality. They both add a little titillation with Cameron Diaz in black underwear and a partial back shot of Gwyneth Paltrow naked.

Both films seem contrived, as if the writers of the works the films are based on did market research and said, \"Ok, there's a market for stories about relationships between women, so I'm going to write about two sisters with an offensive stepmother\u0085\" In other words, instead of the drama emerging from the truth of the relationship, the relationship is invented to fit the dramatic situation. It seems forced, the characters don't seem real, the relationships are unbelievable.

The resolution of the tensions between the characters is simplistic with simple apologies completely whisking away years of acrimony leaving everyone feeling warm and fuzzy ever after. It's just not real. Romantic fantasy.

The characters in In Her Shoes are a little more overblown than Moonlight & Valentino, especially the stepmother part. Sydelle Feller is so evil that it is difficult to believe that the father would stay with her, or even marry her in the first place.

If you liked Moonlight & Valentino you will probably like In Her Shoes as well. Enjoyable performances in both, in fact, the actors bring depth to their parts that goes way beyond the contrived sentimentality of the scripts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'You're in the Navy Now' is painfully bad: very likely the worst movie Gary Cooper ever made. It's supposedly based on a true story, but the incident which inspired this film doesn't seem to have enough plot to sustain a feature-length script.

I saw this movie on local television while I was house-sitting for my mother-in-law in Long Island, New York. There was a raging blizzard outside, and I was literally snowbound. If I'd been able to get out the door, I definitely would have stopped watching this movie.

There are some interesting names in the supporting cast, notably Charles Bronson (under his original name), Lee Marvin, Harvey Lembeck, Jack Webb and Jack Warden. Forget it. Everybody stinks in this movie. Even the usually reliable Millard Mitchell is awful. Lee Marvin and Jack Warden are onscreen so briefly, there's no point in your watching for them.

Gary Cooper plays an obscure naval officer who is assigned to command a ship which is powered by a new, experimental steam turbine: basically, the whole ship is a giant teakettle. Cooper realises that the assignment is not a prestigious one: if it were, it would have gone to a better officer.

Cooper was a good actor in dramatic roles, but he simply had no ability for comedy. He made several bad comedies, and this one is his worst. Jane Greer has always bored me, and she bored me more than usual here. This ship went down with all hands, and sank without a trace. Have I mentioned that this movie stinks? I'll rate 'You're in the Navy Now' one point out of 10. Toot! Toot!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The beginning of this movie had me doubting that it would be little more than a typical B sci-fi flick. But, as it progressed I began to get interested and I saw the whole thing through. The premise is interesting, original, and has the makings of making a classic. Alas, it instead ended up a mediocre movie, done in by the usual factors which turn a potentially good movie into a bad movie (bad acting, low budget etc.). I'm interested to see how this would turn out if it were remade with good actors and a big hollywood budget.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had an interesting enough plot about clones and organ usage, but it fails as the lead actor is so annoying and whiny you want him dead. Not that anyone else is very good in it either, but when you hate the character that is supposed to be garnering your sympathy the movie just fails to work. Funny enough, it looks like a movie is coming out in the near future that has a plot that mirrors this one with more action and a better cast, still though I won't be able to think of anything else, but this film if I were to watch it. This movie has a super dumb clone that is somehow smart enough to figure something is wrong with his camp where people bicycle at one mile per hour and wrestle for no reason. The counselors tell them that when they are ready they go to America, but our \"hero\" has his doubts so he snoops around and learns the awful truth which sends him on the run from the bad guys who shoot and hit the guy repeatedly. He goes on the look out for the man he was cloned from. Peter Graves is in it and so is Dick Seargent, but they add nothing to this movie which looks like something that was made for television. On the plus side though when \"The Island\" comes out the makers of this film can proudly say \"we thought of it first\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a great premise for a movie. The overall plot is very original,interesting, and something to think about. However poor production, an obviously small budget, crapy acting from the main character, and several side actors really detract from this would be classic. An up and coming producer should try to resurect this story and give this basicly half hearted atempt a proper release.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like most other people, I saw this movie on \"Mystery Science Theater 3000.\" Although it received some well-deserved barbs, it's one of the better films to be featured on that show.

The premise is better than even your average Hollywood blockbuster these days; it poses some interesting moral dilemmas. Although the score is sometimes obtrusive, it also provides a few lovely moments when Richard is walking by the river. Watching the movie, you can see where a lot of plot developments probably looked very good on paper. Richard's discomfort in modern society is an interesting problem to ponder, and the ending probably would have been a nice '70s-style mindfuck if the preceding affairs hadn't been so goofy.

Unfortunately, the movie is visibly cheap, making the flaws all the more obvious. The \"clone farm\" is very obviously a college campus, and a beer can serves as a major plot point. Lena and Richard have zero chemistry -- we are supposed to believe this is a meeting of kindred minds, but there doesn't seem to be a brain cell between them. The \"cranky old couple\" schtick also gets real old, real fast. There are also some mistakes that can be blamed on bad directorial choices, such as the decision to hold a climactic conversation out of reach of any audio equipment whatsoever.

In all, a noble effort, but is nonetheless best viewed on MST3K.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The premise of this film is the only thing worthwhile. It is very poorly made but the idea was clever, if not entirely original. It's a shame the other aspects of the film weren't better. The acting is especially bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have now suffered through Parts, The Clonus Horror.

To have the word horror in the title of this movie is an insult to real horror.

The story was about a cloning-central owned by the \"The man\" They grow Clones for harvesting organs from the clones later on for the original humans in need of transplants. One clone escapes, The government gets angry and kills all involved, but the story somehow leaks out anyway.

It is Truly Shameful how a movie with potential is destroyed by amateurs such as Fiveson. The only thing he genuinely succeeded in doing was to weave in the concept of human rights and the very philosophical aspect, what makes a human a human, and would it be OK to grow clones for organic harvesting? Sadly, mediocre actors have been chosen and the plot has left town, until the very end in where a pathetic attempt is made to sum it up.

But!! What disturbed me the most was the introducing of new characters lacking actual relevance for the plot. Despite that, Fiveson feels the need to kill them off in a bad explosion which only Sir Coleman Francis Himself would be proud of.

The setting was interesting. How Fiveson thought that pulling out sheets of plastic and running water over them would make a believable river is beyond me, but I guess if you were to compare the setting to Coleman Francis' gray pasty oatmeal of a setting, this film would win.

Perhaps Coleman has changed what bad movies are for me. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have never seen this movie on its own, but like many others who have already commented, I saw it as an episode of MST3K. Really terrible 70s television schlock. But someone saw its potential because it's just been turned into a $125 million flop called The Island.

And to the person who asked whether there were ANY good movies made in the 70s, I want to remind her that it was a golden age for American film with directors like Robert Altman and Martin Scorcese first coming into their own. Not to mention little things like Star Wars (1977). Just a reminder that the 70s were far more creative than the 21st century has been so far.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie was actually not THAT bad, especially plot-wise, but the doughy (and hairy!) actor they chose for the leading role was a little chintzy in the acting department. I would have chosen someone else. The idea of \"going to America\" was very ingenious, and the main character questioning everything that he'd ever known made him somewhat likable, but not very much so when there's a pasty blob for a leading actor.

The storyline was interesting. It brings about the question of how the subject of cloning will be handled in the future. Certainly cloning wouldn't be allowed for the purposes in the movie, but it's still a valid argument even for today. Clones ARE still people... right?

The movie wasn't particularly special, but it still is a lot better than some of the cheese released during the 70s. Let us not forget the \"Giant Spider Invasion.\" I give it a 4, since it didn't TOTALLY stink, but the MST3K version makes this movie a 10. (I still like Dr. Super Mario!) You'll like this movie, but it won't be your favorite.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a mediocre, low-budget flick. I've seen much worse on MST3K, let me assure you, but this is still a pretty crappy film.

The film is about Clonus, a top-secret government facility in which clones are used to give organs to politicians. It's an almost Orwellian society, actually: almost (but not quite) effective.

The film starts to roll downhill when the head clone (Tim Connely of `Emergency' fame) falls in love with a female clone (Paulette Breen, who appeared in this and at most four other films {and this was not her first film}). They begin to suspect something. After finding a beer can in the nearby river, the plot starts to unravel. The clone receives no answers from either the head scientist (Dick Sargent from `Bewitched') or the `Confessional', a computer which supposedly knows everything, so he breaks into the main Clonus building and (in a scene hilariously destroyed by Mike and the Bots) finds out the truth (including a clone video which, eerily, shows the exact same method that was used to clone Dolly five years ago . .. and this film was made over twenty years ago . . .) about Clonus. He breaks free, pursued by two guards. He has one hell of a time breaking through the two-foot high fences, though he has a considerably harder time climbing up some boulders. From there it continues to slide. Also appearing are Peter Graves (`Beginning of the End', `It Conquered The World') as the Presidential candidate and Keenan Wynn (`Dr. Strangelove', `Piranha', `Once Upon A Time In The West') and Lurleen Tuttle (`Ma Barker's Killer Brood', `Psycho') as the elderly couple who help Clony after he escapes.

The MST3K version was priceless; one of the best episodes ever.

Four stars for the film;10 for the MST3K version.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...in a TV-movie 70's kind of way. It's one of those movies that show up in the wee hours, but rarely because more modern late-hour schlock movies bump it off. It has likeable performances by Graves and Wynn. Generally, it's just a harmless little piece of nothing that doesn't offend too badly. Nothing good, a lot that's mediocre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Parts: The Clonus Horror is a horror all right. There are of course the bad fashions of the late 70's. There's the really bad acting from Dick Sargent to Peter Graves. And then there's the clones themselves. Their days mostly consist of running, jumping, cycling, and wrestling with each other. When they're not doing that, they learn about America. Not the band America, or the song by Neil Diamond, but an America where they go on to become part of a greater society. But they're given some strange drug then they have all their bodily fluids drained(General Ripper was right!) and they are placed in the freezer and await Thanksgiving or Christmas when they will be thawed out and roasted at about 450 degrees or so. Oops, that's not what happens, but it would've been a lot more interesting than what's shown. Mario, of Super Mario Brothers fame, makes a delightful cameo as a doctor who bickers with Dick Sargent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll say this first...the film would've been a 70s sci-fi classic if it had been executed a lot better.

That said, let's examine the plot...it starts with Peter Graves (or is that Clarence Oveur?) running for President, then cuts to a goofy college campus-like environ full of authoritarians in goofy trucker caps and headsets and retarded athletes who all act like they're perpetually age 8. It then shows one guy apparently going to America, having a party, then taken to a medical lab where he is drugged, wrapped in a plastic bag and then prepared as if the doctors were bagging vegetables for steamers packs...okay, actually he's being put on ice so the doctors can extract the organs they need.

It then cuts to another dopey man thinking the place he's living in is a bit strange after a beer can (of all plot devices possible) he finds in a river makes him look suspicious (damn those beer cans!). He and some equally stupid love interest of his feel they need to get to the bottom of it all, so he makes her stay behind as he escapes through what is basically a large college administration building with some evidence he discovers on the way about cloning...and how he's a part of it.

He escapes his controllers after being shot some and an old reporter guy helps him find his 'father'--the man he was cloned from. It just so happens he's a clone of the brother of Peter Graves. After debate about what to do with him and his evidence, he goes back to the facility to find his girlfriend (who has been lobotomized in the meantime to be even more stupid, harmless, and ready to host a talk show according to the SOL crew). He is captured and put into cold storage just like his Nazi-build retard friend from the beginning of the film.

Meanwhile, a confrontation at Graves' brothers house results in several deaths, including Graves'. The reporter guy and his wife are killed in the middle of an exciting conversation by a bomb. It seems the conspirators have won to some extent...

Then, Peter Graves turns out to be able to survive being run through with a metal poker by the miracle of cloned parts, and giving another 'vote for me' speech just as reporters confront him about the cloning thing.

Definitely MST3K fodder, but on the low end of the spectrum as far as overall badness goes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I'm even giving this movie a 4 is because it was made in to an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The horrible direction is only slightly overshadowed by the characters complete inability to act. The lead is an actor i have never seen in anything else and it shows. No chemistry with the love interest and so bland you almost don't care what happens to him. Dick Sargent was not convincing as a villain least of all this guy was suppose to be super evil...he was more annoying then anything. Peter Graves was the only person the movie that wasn't awful, his part was small and even he couldn't compensate for his co-stars lack of talent. In 2004 someone tried to make this mess all over again it was called The Island...I personally didn't see that movie but from what i understand its the same movie. If you want to laugh at this movie get the MST3k episode its really funny...full of bewitched and biography references it makes this movie finally watchable","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Parts: The Clonus Horror is not that bad of a movie. I have the MST3K version of it on tape and it is hilarious, but its still not the worst film the have ever done. I would go so far as to say that it was better than 80% of the movies they have made fun of. The concept could have worked if they had a better script, more money and decent actors. It could have become a classic if it was not so boring and had a bit more excitement. Sadly it was botched in production and ended up on MST3K.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SLOOOOOOOW, tepid, poorly produced 70's schlocker made moore cowvincing because of today's headlines; nonetheless, this film is worthy stink-fodder because of uncowvincing acting, absent direction, and silly 70's clothing(sadly, the MooCow remembers when Adidas clothing was all the rage...). This has the same sort of feel to it that some better 70's sci-fi moovies accowmplished, namely \"WestWorld\" and \"Logan's Run\". While the premise interesting(rich people clone themselves to keep a ready supply of body parts to keep them alive theoretically forever), the film makes the mistake of saddling us with Richard(Tim Donnelly), a clone who is at once both boring and irritating. Hollow acting by Donnelly doesn't help, but fits right in with the rest of the cast. Even such B-illuminaries as Dick Sargent(\"Bewitched\" tv series, \"Ghost with 1,000,000 Eyes), Keenan Wynn(\"Dr. Strangelove\", \"The Dark\", \"Laserblast\"), and Peter Graves(\"Beginning of the End\", \"Killers from Space\", \"It Conquered the World\")provide only the moost tepid performances. Produced, directed, and edited by a bunch of nobodies, it's no surprise that \"Clonus\" fails to horrify anyone in the least, much less keep anyone's attention! Truth be told, there's nothing in the feeble flick that even schlock-fans would love - wanna see some realllly bad, funny 70's films, put on anything by Greydon Clark. \"Clonus\" is no bonus; the MooCow says even the MST3K-version is a yawner, so proceed at yer own risk! :=8P","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was sourced from my friends mum who worked in a charity shop. She gave it to us along with a load of other unknown cassette tapes. The film itself is a bit rubbish. There are a few notable bits to laugh at like the bit when his girlfriend gets her head drilled into, but in general the film is bland. Interstingly when I saw the trailer for \"The Island\" I couldn't help noticing the similarities. Clonus may have been the inspiration for that film? All in all don't bother watching this film as it is dull and boring. We enjoyed it so much when we were 16 that we named our band after it. Another sign this film is a bit crappy is the shots on the back of the video case don't actually appear in the film? weird","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Danish Bladerunner\" is boldly stated on the box. Are you kidding me?! This film is a complete drag. When I'm thirsty and go for a soda in the kitchen, I usually pause the vcr, so I won't miss anything. Not this time. I actually found myself looking long and hard in the fridge, just so I wouldn't have to go back. Why the hell is there not ONE sciencefiction-scriptwriter out there who has the vaguest clue about how computers work? It's mindboggling. One of the premises of film, is that our hero (who's a hacker), has a little computerassistant to help him (the Microsoft Office paperclip finally caught on in the future). When he loses the assistant in the movie, he's helpless and can't get into any computers. HE'S A HACKER! It's like saying, that you can't drive your car, if you don't have your lucky \"driving-cap\" on. I won't even go into the lightning-effect when he recieves electroshock...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you really loved GWTW, you will find quite disappointing the story. Those who may think this is just about a romantic story and the south, will be probably satisfied with this decent TV production (altought I consider an important miscast the choice for Scarlett). But, let me say that considering the novel, nothing good could came out of this.

I've read GWTW more than 20 times and I can really appreciate the adaptation Mrs. Mitchell did for the film. It took me some time to understand how good the ending was: Scarlett knew for sure she was going to recover Rhett, since she always got what she wanted. But there was no kiss in the end.

Then Alexandra Ripley came to \"fix\" this by showing us exactly how perfect and mighty Scarlett could be, and of course, describing in detail how exactly she gets Rhett back even when she had an important affair with someone else (nothing could have been further from Mrs. Mitchell mind, I am sure).

The story between these points is in my opinion just a long and boring ride made up to tie ends, showing off costumes and scenarios just to give us an obvious and totally unnecessary ending.

If Margaret Mitchell could came to live again, she would die one more time at the very moment she'd find out what Scarlett became after GWTW.

Sure it's not fair to compare this to the original but this is not GWTW fault. Isn't it? Is it any good if I don't compare it to the original? Maybe. Sorry to say I don't really care.

I would expect little more compromise to continue someone else's (suberb) work, otherwise don't even try.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As everyone knows, nobody can play Scarlett O'Hara like Vivien Leigh, and nobody can play Rhett Butler like Clark Gable. All others pale in comparison, and Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whalley are no exceptions. One thing that I really couldn't get past was that Joanne has BROWN eyes. The green eyes were the most enhancing feature of Scarlett's good looks, and in this sequel she has been stripped of those.

The movie, as well as the book, had several lulls in it. The new characters weren't all that memorable, and I found myself forgetting who was who. I felt as though her going to Ireland did absolutely nothing whatsoever. It could be that I'm only 11, but I saw no change in her attitude until the last say, 10 minutes when Rhett told her she had grown up. If Rhett hadn't told her that, I would have never guessed that there was any change in her attitude. She really loved Cat, her baby. She likes this child best because she had it with Rhett, her only loved husband. Still, if you've read Gone With The Wind, you would see that children make no difference in Scarlett's world.

Quite frankly, it seemed to me like there was way too much going on without Rhett. All anybody cares about is whether or not Rhett and Scarlett get back together, and Scarlett took way too long to get to that. It is virtually nothing compared to Gone With The Wind, but then again what isn't? If you have read the novel, you will like that better than the movie.

I would watch it, just because it is the sequel to Gone With The Wind, regardless of whether or not it's worthwhile. It may not satisfy you entirely, but it will get you some of the way there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've read the book 'Scarlett' and was expecting a good movie the first time I saw it. I'm afraid to say that I was disappointed. The movie did not follow the book and made many changes that I did not like.

One of the changes that I did not like the way that Lord Fenton was portrayed. It made no sense to make him out to be a bad man. The way that things ended between Lord Fenton and Scarlett was a lot different and their whole relationship was too intimate.

There was also a lot less confrontation between Scarlett and Rhett in the movie than was originally written in the book. The movie sent the two in two completely opposite ways and they did not seem to cross paths often enough to make it seem like there still could be love between the two. A fine movie, but I believe that it certainly could've been better than it was, had it more true to Alexandra Rippley's book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the \"Scarlett\" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an \"arrangement\" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's \"roots that go deep,\" and is eventually named \"The O'Hara,\" the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clich\u00e9d \"night-on-white-horse\" - type of a rescue. The \"Scarlett\" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fianc\u00e9 and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.

I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...But not this one! I always wanted to know \"what happened\" next. We will never know for sure what happened because GWTW was Margaret's baby. I am a lifelong fan of Gone With the Wind and I could not have been more repulsed by the movie. I did compare \"Scarlett\" to the original GWTW because any film worth following GWTW needed to be on the same quality level as the first. Rhett was cast beautifully, although NO ONE will ever compare to Mr. Gable. I am also a strict Vivien Leigh fan!! She WAS Scarlett. She fit the bill. Not another actress in this lifetime or another will ever fit the same shoes but with \"Scarlett\" the job could have been done better. Not enough thought went into finding the proper Scarlett, that was evident.

Overall, something to look to but if you want to know the what happened to Scarlett and Rhett, I suggest writing it yourself or finding fan fiction. This movie is not worth the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am insulted and angry over the idea that a sequel to 'Gone with the Wind' should EVER have been undertaken. Having expressed that, I have no problem with the quality of the acting or the actors in this film. The performers are talented people whose talents were wasted on this piece of garbage. The hype surrounding this book and film just happens to be an exercise in futility. I think it will go down as one of the misguided films of Hollywood. I don't believe that the beloved characters created by Margaret Mitchell should have been soiled by the ideas and interpretations of another writer. The film and the book should be on the list of worst ideas conceived in the world of publishing and film-making. The sad thing is that people actually made money off of this tripe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.

Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clich\u00e9s. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.

The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of \"The Man You Love to Hate\" and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.

But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.

Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Margaret Mitchell spins in her grave every time somebody watches this mess! Fine costuming and sets can't even begin to overwhelm lackluster performances by Joanne Whalley (as the title character) and the ever-bland Timothy Dalton (as Rhett). Even worse than the acting--and perhaps partially explaining it--is the script, which is astoundingly cliched and predictable. Add to that hellishly bad script a score that'll have you cringing, and you've got a disaster I wouldn't wish on any viewer. SCARLETT is just amazingly lousy, and I can't imagine how it ever got made, much less made it to video.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was NOTHING like the book. I think the writer of the screenplay must have wanted the job of writing the sequel to Gone with the Wind and been turned down. This was his or her way of getting their ideas in anyway. The only similarity between this movie and the story it was portraying was the names of the principle characters and the location of the main action. None of the events that are shown in the movie happened that way in the book. For a Gone with the Wind fan (of both the book and the movie) this was deeply disappointing. If you loved the book Scarlett, don't watch this movie hoping to see it played out on the screen. They only share the title in common.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

Summary: Not worth the film

As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the \"Scarlett\" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an \"arrangement\" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's \"roots that go deep,\" and is eventually named \"The O'Hara,\" the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clich\u00e9d \"night-on-white-horse\" - type of a rescue. The \"Scarlett\" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fianc\u00e9 and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.

I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Breaker! Breaker! has Chuck Norris as a truck driver and a karate master, talk about juggling two disparate careers. He gives a load he can't deliver to his younger brother Michael Augenstein and then when the young man doesn't show up, Chuck goes looking for him.

What young Augenstein has got himself into is a speed-trap run by Judge George Murdock who comes from the Roy Bean school of jurisprudence. Of course Norris deals with matters in the usual Chuck Norris way and when he gets in trouble, the call goes out over the CB for all the truckers to come and help their good buddy. This speed-trap known as Texas City has a bad reputation and the drivers are only too happy to help a pal.

Chuck's of course quite a bit younger and with no facial hair in this one. He's got the tight lipped look of a man who realizes the Academy won't be looking at this gobbler. George Murdock is overacting outrageously as the Judge Roy Bean wannabe.

This one is strictly for the fans of Chuck Norris.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've always been a fan of Chuck Norris for what he's accomplished and his movies. For while I had been meaning to watch this film, but for whatever reason didn't have chance. Apparently I didn't miss much. This has to be one of Chuck's worst films. So this trucker, Billy Dawes (Augenstein) is given the chance to make his delivery, but on the way he is detoured and forced into a jerkwater town where a foolish local corrupt Judge Trimmings (Murdock) who runs the whole town, has him arrested and phony charges brought up on him. He denies the charges and makes a run for it. The local hick cops beat him and he disappears. But now his brother JD John Dawes (Norris) another trucker goes looking for him. He soon finds that the town is run buy the loser judge and that his brother is nowhere to be found. Not long after he begins to beat off just about everyone in town. In the meantime the female of the film calls on local truckers on a CB radio, and they all come rushing into town demolishing it. LOL with there big rigs. Eventually Norris finds his brother and beats off more thugs.

This movie was pretty bad. It actually starts off OK and you feel great when Norris starts to smash some of these local corrupt cops, because there such losers. But there is virtually no story, the acting is bad, and the ending \u0085..well it doesn't really have one. The Judge has his house rammed into by a big rig and you never know what happens. Does he live? Norris never even gets to trash him. In the meantime Norris takes on some thug cop at the end. Who cares? Norris also manages to take on everyone in town, gets his hand broken and shot in the side and goes on to keep fighting. Come on! This movie was apparently made to cash in on the CB craze of the time, why there was one is beyond me. They barley even use the CB's in the movie. Adding to this, the movie near the end seems to drag on and you wonder why it's not over yet. This movie is bad, but if you're bored and need something to watch it will pass the time. As far as Norris he went on to make much better films than this. 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Save some very early Norris, \"Breaker, Breaker\" has nothing to offer which can't be found ten fold better on any broadcast channel. A pathetic attempt at film making, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. In spite of that, I did watch it, thumbing the fast forward button, because the acting was so awful it was comical. Of course, the film is supposed to be an action\/drama but turned out as a treatise on how NOT to make a movie. Everything which could be wrong with film is on screen in this \"dog\". If you happen across it, give it a peek. It's so bad, it's funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Saw this used DVD cheap, and got it for a chuckle. I had recently also found \"The Octagon\" on DVD and bought that one to reminisce, having seen it in the theatre as a pre-teen, and loving it at the time. The problem now with \"going back\" to these American karate films, is that I've since then seen so many Hong Kong and Thai action films, in which the fight scenes are long, fast and jaw-dropping. I'm thinking particularly of fights like Jackie and Benny \"The Jet\" at the end of \"Dragons Forever\", or Tony Jaa's circular-stairwell fight from \"The Protector\". The Hollywood kung-fu offerings are just not \"filmed right\", and even make someone of certified skill, such as Chuck, look awkward at times. And what's worse than a fight going into slow motion? Then you know it looked crappy at normal speed, so they slowed it down for effect. It really highlights how ridiculous an opponent looks as they stand and just WAIT to get kicked in the chest.

Poor Chuck, he just has no intensity in this film, nor does he project any righteous menace. Compare that to his former co-star Bruce Lee, who had charm and attitude to burn. When Bruce would square off against some opponent(s) you could nearly see the air around him crackling with what was about to happen. In \"Breaker, Breaker\" Chuck seemed to accidentally be kicking people, with complete nonchalance. When the judge comes to see him in jail, and sentence him to death, Chuck is staring off with a sad look, and I thought \"OK...he's doing that 'third eye' focus thing and is going to grab the judge by the throat and get out of this\", but he does nothing except look up with a doe-eyed stare. Terrible. And while the DVD case gives you hope, listing a run time of 1 hour, 5 minutes, it's actually 1 hour, 25 minutes, so there's 20 more minutes of viewing pain.

For great fight action, go watch Jackie Chan in the first \"Police Story\"....the fight in the shopping mall at the end is pure gold......","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In terms of quality movies, this isn't one of them. It's actually the first Chuck Norris movie I've seen and I was left pretty underwhelmed. The fight scenes are slow and don't have a lot of variety. Norris just uses a lot of roundhouse kicks on all the bad guys coming after him which makes the fights pretty boring. The movie also is quite short, but for some reason the movie doesn't even seem finished when it ends. It's a pretty anti-climatic ending. All the same though, I've watched a lot of bad movies, and this isn't one of the worst that I've seen. It's worth a watch, I'm guessing especially for Norris fans. There's also nothing like seeing a group of rigs hurtling down the desert which in my opinion was the highlight of the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I caught this movie a few years ago one night, and it was one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. However, since it is supposed to be an action movie, I cannot give it more stars since the humor was unintentional.

Chuck Norris plays a truck driver who comes home from the road to see his family, and within the first five minutes the conflict arises which leads Chuck to seek vengeance for the rest of the film. Good thing too, 'cuz the sub-par acting by everyone involved was starting to get old very fast. Actually, the judge was pretty good, but I can't really describe what makes him work, you'll have to check it out for yourself.

And the custom van Chuck Norris drives is hideously classic!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ok with this film there are a number of ingredients at work:

First put in loads of hillbilly truckers--good ole boys who have secret desire to take law into own hands. Second put in evil hillbilly cops controlled by a Texas bred outlaw. Third put in karate fighting trucker played by Chuck Norris. Fourth put in a chump teenager as Norris's nephew captured by evil hillbilly cops. Fifth show Chuck Norris fighting in slow motion.

Now mix all together and what have you got?

You guessed it...one very mediocre movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ever want to see a movie where Chuck Norris takes the bad guys aside and calmly discusses with them the errors of their ways until they see the light and, with tears in their eyes, they shake hands, right the wrongs of the world together in peace and harmony and forever end the reign of evil in the world?

Well, forget it, Jocko.

\"Breaker! Breaker!\" instead goes right for the drop-kick as our truck-drivin' man Chuck steers his big rig into the small backwoods town where his little brother is being held by a corrupt judge and his even-more corrupt law-men.

Chuck karate kicks, chops, slices, juliennes and crinkle-cuts every baddie in sight until not an evil-doer dares raise his head. A lot of fights are in slow-motion, for excitement purposes, but just help pad out the movie to fill 86 minutes.

And there's a lot of fights here, which leave just about 15 minutes for plot development...and that's about all the plot you get. But what did you expect: calm discussion?

One star for \"Breaker! Breaker!\"; and that's a small 10-4, good buddy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I work in an office on weekends, and there is a TV that only gets ONE channel. So, I don't have the option of turning to something better. I keep it on, though, because it provides a little background noise. Sometimes, I get a decent movie\/show. Not today. Today, I got \"Breaker Breaker.\" The city looks like a third rate set (which, of course, it is). All the actors and bad guys look like they just graduated from stuntman school. I have seen better dramatic enactments at a carnival. The special effects (flames at end of movie are more fake then Michael Jacksons masculinity). Even the horse at the end of the movie was a terrible actor... A badly acted, badly shot, badly written movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this Chuck Norris DVD knowing that it was one of his earliest films, and it shows. We all know that he will never win an Oscar for his acting, but that's not what we watch him for. Although there have been a few earthquakes in California since this movie was made, there never was any desert or hills between Hwy.99 and I 5. Billy was supposedly crossing over from 99 to 5 along 120, a distance of less that 15 miles. I wish that the writers, producers and directors of these movies would, at least, look at a map. As a truck driver who spends a lot of time in California, I could tell right from the start that the geography was wrong. However, there are worse ways to spend an hour and a half. So grab your Doritos and an adult beverage and enjoy a trip back in time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a Very Very Boring and uninteresting action film, and without Chuck Norris it would have been unbearable!, plus the low budget shows big time!. Some of the fights were good, but the story is laughable, and there no menacing villains at all.The dialog was laughable I had some trouble finishing this film, but Chuck Norris, made it somewhat bearable. I really have nothing more to say, since i was only paying half attention,because it was so incredibly boring however it did pick up a tiny bit towards the end. The Direction is terrible. Don Hulette, does a terrible job here, with lousy photography, an awful pace, and overall the film looked dull!. There is no gore. The Acting was terrible. Chuck Norris is very good here, he kicks that ass, and he made the film almost bearable(Chuck rules!). George Murdock, is terrible as the main villain, and very unconvincing. Terry O'Connor, is decent here, and had okay chemistry with Chuck. Michael Augenstein, is decent as Chuck's brother. Overall It's quite simple AVOID! * Out of 5 (Chuck saves it from the BOMB rating).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is definitely one of the best Kung fu movies in the history of Cinema. The screenplay is really well done (which is not often the case for this type of movies) and you can see that Chuck (in one of his first role)is a great actor. The final fight with the sherif deputy in the bullring is a masterpiece!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I couldn't even...I mean...look....okay...

Wow.

Not even a bunch of my drunk friends trying to make fun of the movie could enjoy themselves in the least bit.

I can only think...how. How do independent film makers everywhere go years without getting noticed (or even their lives) and con-artists like the guy who made this get a DVD on a shelf? It seriously looks as if some guy with a home movie camera went out with some guys he met at Subway and made the worst thing he could think of.

\"Hey guys, give me some ideas. Start with a corn-field and work backwards.\" \"Well, you've gotta have actors straight out of high school, and some broken corn stalks with shreds of clothing attached. And boobs.\" Thanks, guy, I'm sure that you and Windows Movie Maker will be side by side on your next anxiously awaited project.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No. Just NO. That's all that needs to be said.

Summary: A random guy is in a cornfield. For some reason, I'm not sure, but it's his duty to run around inside. The next great thriller?

A five year old could make a better movie just filming an anthill, or even just grass growing. Seriously.....

You can't say it has bad acting, because there is NO acting. You can't say it has bad writing, because it has NO writing. You can't say it has bad cinematography, because there is NO cinematography. You can't say it's a bad movie, BECAUSE THERE IS NO MOVIE! If you don't believe me, go watch it. Just don't say I never warned you.....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented Dark Harvest (the first one) because it looked like a cheesy monster-on -the-box type of thrill ride. Scarecrows also freak me out. The movie had an effective title sequence, but what followed was pretty lame (flat, bad lighting, acting, editing, direction...). Recently, I noticed that DH 2: The Maize had a pretty extensive ad campaign. I thought maybe the first one was marginally successful, so they upped the ante on this one a bit, possibly delivering some bigger budget scares and fx from the killer scarecrows. Well, there are no scarecrows in the video... Not a problem. The problems start in DH 2 with a title sequence that looks like an unfinished concept, with strange shapes and bars wiping away titles and whatnot. As far as the actual photography... every time the sun shines in a shot, you'd have all these blown out whites, confirming that you're watching some ultra-low budget mini-DV project that some Midwesterner filmed at his Uncles farm. The acting was not acting at all. The cheap rip-off of The Shining twin girls was below freshman film student standards. The editing was extremely amateur and lazy. The sound was jarring and choppy. (e.g.- every time the editor would cut to a new shot, you'd here the sound change perspective with it). It's as if someone gathered their friends and family (actors), took a video camera out in a cornfield for three days, put a light on top of it for the night sequences (no joke - that's what they actually did), burned through some tape, stuck the footage in their computer, cut a (very) rough version, tossed in some music, bypassed any imaginative sound work or mixing, burned it directly to DVD, and threw it on the video store shelf. Any horror fan should be insulted by this type of direct to video work that is void of ANY skill or style. Just because a person owns a video camera and is able to get somewhat of an image on tape, doesn't mean it should be released to the public. If I could give this a rating lower than a ONE, I would.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is absolutely the most stupidest movie ever produced in front of a camera. I cant believe I was gullable enough to rent this piece of junk. I have seen some bad movies in my time, But this takes the cake....Ice cream ,,,, and Chips Too. Omg, I still cant get over how bad this thing was. The acting was a Joke.... The Plot was Non Exsistant..and the camera work had to be done by a 3 year old child. I have never seen a movie take so long to go Nowhere. I mean the whole movie could have been shot is less than 30 minutes. I guess this guy had some extra time on his hands.... ( Like 3 Hours. ) And an extra 60 bucks in his wallet, and decided one night...( Hey ..Lets go make the stupidest movie ever made. ) And they did just that. Give me a break.I'm heading back to the video store right now to get Demand my money back.Anyone else who has watched this piece of trash, should do the same.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A guy, with the unlikely name of Shy Walker, looks for his two daughters in a cornfield for an hour and a half. That's the entire plot...with across-the-board bad acting, of course. Walker wanders around a corn maze (maize? I get it! HAHAHA...not funny) and yells \"Girls? Where are you?!?\" about 1000 times. For some reason whenever he runs by a pumpkin, a chipmunk-sounding voice laughs (as if the pumpkin is laughing at him, yeah OK...). His daughters scream for most of the movie...even when there is no reason to scream (maybe because they are still stuck in this awful movie?). Twin girls straight out of 'The Shining' show up every now and then. Most of the corn maze looks the same so Walker's search gets very old very quickly. The filmmakers realize there is NOTHING going for this movie (even the music is repetitive) so they try to make things interesting by spinning the camera around really fast, filming upside down, inserting smaller pictures of the same shot at different angles, using red lights to make the corn look scary, and rotating the camera 360 degrees (at least I'm assuming these were done intentionally but it's likely just examples of incompetent film-making). More often than not, when Walker is wandering through the maze, you can't see his face. I guess the kid holding the camera can't look up that high... This movie gives you a new appreciation for the original 'Dark Harvest' (which doesn't have anything to do with this movie except for the fact it also features a cornfield). Don't be fooled by the R rating. Walker says the F word three times and now we have \"an R-rated horror movie\", ugh. The scarecrow on the cover doesn't even show up in this movie...and when you are wishing that those cheesy scarecrows from the first movie would come back, you know things are bad! Instead we get a guy in yellow boots chasing our hero around (unfortunately he is dressed similar to Mr. Walker so I didn't even realize he was being followed for a while). I figured out the identity of the guy in the yellow boots long before Walker did (the movie is almost over by the time he puts 2 and 2 together, natch). The end of the movie drags on and on...and just in case it isn't slow enough, there's some slow-motion! The last sound you hear (besides your own laughter) is very poor sound-dubbing. In case you can't tell, this is the worst movie I've ever seen. At least they didn't end with the promise of another sequel!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Besides the comments on the technical merits of the production, or lack thereof, the acting is absolutely horrible. What is really scary about this movie is that I actually OWN a copy of it, of course, it was in a bargain bin and had been renamed as \"Dark Harvest 2\", and after having seen it, I can understand why it was in the bargain bin - they should have paid me for taking it out of their inventory.

The majority of the movie, if you want to call it that, is spent by a frantic father running around a corn field maze looking for his daughters because he has a premonition that something is going to happen to them. I suspect that the camera that the girls were playing with at the beginning of the film was probably one of the production cameras for this fiasco. In the maze, he runs into the ghost of some children, which are poorly done, and the movie goes horribly south from there.

I can see why they renamed this movie, otherwise, they would never have gotten rid of them. Absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever had to sit through, and it wasn't worth the $2 I spent on it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Completely agree with other review.

I watched this movie for about 5 minutes. I looked up the one review on another site and found that it wasn't even a real sequel. This was after I slowly backed away from the TV with remote in hand, jaw dropping lower and lower.

The quality of the filming is beyond low budget. It doesn't even look like a freaking movie. If I were watching 'home video' footage from a documentary I would expect it.

In summary: Avoid, avoid avoid. Boooo Lion's Gate!

Completely ashamed of myself for watching 5 minutes and I hope that I've saved others from renting or owning it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anyone can make a movie these days. Budget, production value, or experienced crew don't have to stop the self described \"director\" from \"realizing their dream\" these days.

Respect for the craft of film-making, or even just respect for any film aesthetic are no longer prerequisites for actually executing a film.

Director Bill Cowell must have thought he struck gold when Lion's Gate decided to market his original film as a sequel to a film he had nothing to do with.

I personally find Lion's Gate far, far more in error than Cowell in regard to Dark Harvest 2 being made available to the public. Lion's Gate's deceptive marketing of this film should be investigated by the state attorney general's office and Lion's Gate's officers should be pickled in sulfuric acid and kerosene for their utter disregard for film, film-making, and good sense.

As for the film itself, it's not even worth commenting on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This IS the worst movie I have ever seen, as well as, the worst that I will probably EVER see. I see no need to rehash what all the others have said previously, just be forewarned...

This IS NOT one of those bad movies you think you want to watch because you want to be able to make fun of it, its just plain BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD.

This movie is the equivalent to having a \"pet rock\" as your friend. You wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait for something to happen. Unfortunately, it never does. At least with a pet rock you knew what you were getting into. Lion's Gate completely deceives on this bombshell... No...this is a disaster. After watching this film, you would swear George W. Bush had his hands all over the making of this film... yes its that idiotic.

Stay away, unless of course you just want to watch the worst movie of all time. Its probably how Lion's Gate figured it would make some money off this piece of tripe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Only adding to the chorus of people who deemed this to be 'unredeemable' I will state the following without repeating the obvious FLAWS plainly stated by some of the other commentators: The \"film\" is shot on video (what type of camera I don't know) but the cameraman had it on AUTOFOCUS(!) all the time, so that any slight movement makes it go In and Out of focus. In many of the scenes the actors themselves go OUT of focus for their scenes. This alone screams \"Amateur\".

I also noticed that out in the 'middle of the cornfield', you can hear the sound of the gasoline generator that is powering the lights ... loudly.

Also what is with that single lighting source that follows (and many times 'leads' the actors) when they walk around. It looks like a newscaster with that 'on camera light' that follows the people around like a spotlight. There was no 'credit' for lighting design\/DP and I know why. The 'filmmakers' saw no need to have someone who actually knew what they were doing lighting this picture (note I didn't say \"film\"). So be prepared for a SINGLE glaring spotlight as the sole source of 'cinematic lighting' for most of the movie. UGhhh!!!

This is probably the most technically inept production I've ever seen commercially released. I \"bought\" this title because I like bad cinema. Usually it's so bad that you can laugh at it. This is just so bad that it's unwatchable. Plan Nine from Outer Space is \"Citizen Kane\" in comparison to this title.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so bad I don't know where to begin, apparently neither did the filmmakers. It starts off with a guy in his mid thirties to late forties watching TV. The news tells of a corn maze that's open for Halloween. He has a \"vision\" of God knows what and rushes off the save his kids who are walking into a cornfield maze and are somehow linked to this \"vision\" How you ask? I don't know, and as I said before neither do the filmmakers. They're simply visions of people's feet. How did he get these \"visions\"? It's never explained, we're just supposed to go along with it. He enters the maze to find his two daughters who are lost inside, and twice the girls he's looking for walk right past him, one time they actually run into him. What does he do? Does he chase after them? No. He stands there like an idiot calling for them when they just ran past. Do the girls stop? No. They run off then ask \"Was that Dad?\" Then someone dressed as demon jumps on the \"star\" (the Dad character) he beats him up in a pathetic fight only to find out he's a worker at the haunted maze. The police are called and after finding the \"star\" (which is a really bad term to use) they cuff him. They cuff his hands in front of him, so that he can find something to pick the lock with, which he does. First off, anybody who's ever been arrested knows that cops cuff your hands behind your back, and secondly why does this \"average guy\" seem to know how to pick the lock on handcuffs? Well he eventually gets away from the cops who give up and leave after a the \"star's\" wife sets off the siren in the police car as a distraction. By the way, it's now night time and all the workers running the maze have seem to have left once the sun went down. Leaving a man who attacked one of their workers and two missing children in the maze. Considering it was a slow night that these are their only customers, why not. Besides the cops apparently have better things to do as well. By the way, the \"star\" who goes by the name of \"Walker\", we figure out it's his last name, a name in which his wife even calls him by. Somehow he knows there is something buried in the middle of this cornfield maze and starts digging. I say 'somehow' because I couldn't figure out why he started digging in the first place. He finds a locket, what does it mean? Nothing to anyone who watches this, but to him it's some sort of clue to a crime. Somebody killed their kids in his \"vision\" and I guess that's what he's going on, real detective work. And by now he knows there's a killer loose in the corn maze, one he somehow knew was there from the start of the film, which is why he's looking for his girls. Every time we see the killer, or rather the killer's feet, we hear a weird robotic sound, like a sci-fi reject toy that changes a persons voice to sound mechanical. Why do we hear this sound? Is it in anyway related to...anything? Again, who knows? Certainly not the filmmakers. The peak of all the bad acting and bad dialog was when \"Walker\" yells out \"Hey you, Mr. Bad Man...I'm gonna get you.\" Another time his wife is attacked by the \"Bad Man\" at the entrance to the corn maze, which like I mentioned before is oddly empty of any employees or policemen. The \"Bad Man\" calls \"Walker\" on his cell phone to tell him that he plans on killing his wife and kids and him as well. \"Walker\" can only reply with \"Hey. HEY!\" before dropping his phone and running off. With no one on the other end to talk to, the killer drops his phone too, he drags the wife a few feet then leaves her alone for the rest of the film, losing the first opportunity to hold true to his treats. If this script wasn't written by a child I'd be surprised. Opps it wasn't. It was written, directed, and produced by the same guy. And not only that, he also did so much of the crappy camera work as well, where we get random shots of feet walking through the muddy maze and meaningless shots of the cornfield, that waste 90% of the film time. In the end \"Walker\" uses the cuffs to cuff the \"Bad Man\", who also seems to know how to pick locks with the same metal object that \"Walker\" had picked it with. Apparently there are lots of small metal objects just laying around this cornfield. But after the killer insists he's still going to kill the kids \"Walker\" kills the \"Bad Man\", and everything is right with the world again. Now in reality this makes \"Walker\" a murderer, he's killed a man who \"Supposedly\" murdered his own daughters and was trying to kill his. He knows this, not because of proof, but because of his visions. He never found a body, nobody else knows this guy was even in the maze. And the locket? He gives it back to the ghosts of the two dead girls. No proof. So he kills a man without any tangible reason. I can't imagine what the filmmakers were thinking with this one. It must have been a way to cover up a misappropriation of funds for the production company. I would rather watch the Blair Witch Project five times than see this film again. The actors should be ashamed. The director\/producer\/writer\/cameraman should also be ashamed. In fact the entire production company should be ashamed. If there is anyone associated with this film, please reply. What were you thinking?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the worst ever 'horror' movie, no, make that any movie, I have ever watched. Shame on Block Buster for even carrying this type of crap. I never ask for a refund on any movie, but I think this will be a first.

The movie is so bad that I had to stop after just 15 minutes of watching it.

I had more fun watching any of the fuzzy YouTube movies than watching this piece of dropping.

The marketing dude for this movie must have some type of silver tongue to move this thing into an establishment as Blockbuster.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My spoiler is in my pants because thinking about this movie made me so angry I crapped myself.

Once you finish watching it, you stare at the TV set in confusion and horror. Then, there's a soft tap on your shoulder and a voice hisses, \"You will die in seven days.\" You turn around, and one of your best friends is standing there with a look of absolute hatred for the one that suggested this movie when you were in Blockbuster.

I won't lie: this is the worst movie on the face of the Earth. I saw it with 5 of my friends all 18-year-old guys, and these were our reactions: -One person actually began crying and punching himself -One person screamed and passed out -One person stood up and staggered out the front door to reappear more than an hour later -One person simply blacked out (this one was me) -One person started babbling incoherently, as if he had both cerebral palsy and Touretts' Syndrome -One person went into a sort of catatonic trance and did not respond to our voices for more than twenty minutes

The movie really is that bad. There's one part where the retarded cameraman actually trips (while holding the camera), but the producers decided to leave it in. Seriously, you can hear him grunt and swear when he hits the ground. There's only one special effect, and it's special in the same way that a retarded kid trying to solve a Rubix Cube is special: the camera rotates so that the on-screen action (action, n. Some dumbass lost in a corn field for 80 freaking minutes) does a barrel roll.

Under NO circumstances should it be watched, and the movie itself even warns you of this fact. Do you know what the tagline on the back is? \"Some warnings should not be ignored.\" I honestly think that the release of this movie to the public is a sick practical joke on the producers' part. That's not to say, however, that you should pass it by if you see it at the movie store - it would then sit on the shelf for some other poor sucker to see. Rather, buy every copy of it you can get your hands on and mail them to people that you hate.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, shuck me sideways. I haven't seen a home movie this bad since the abysmal 13 SECONDS or HALF CASTE. Someone should take away this guy's Sony Handycam! This movie proves that just because you can make a movie on your camcorder for $20, doesn't necessarily mean you should.

I remember that one of the things that Robert Rodriguez wrote in his book, \"Rebel Without a Crew\" was that when you set out to make a no budget feature, you have to use whatever assets you have at your disposal. Rodriguez says that you should take an inventory of all the locations and props that you can beg, steal and borrow from your friends. Robert Rodriquez was friends with the Mayor of some town in Mexico, so the Mayor let him shoot all over for free. What you got in EL MARIACHI was a movie that looked like it cost much more than the actual budget.

I'm sure that the director of this movie has a copy of that book, and he took that advice to heart. In this case, he was apparently friends with a guy who owned a cornfield where they put on a haunted house every year. Seems like a pretty good location for a scary movie, but it's hard to keep a cornfield interesting for 90 minutes. Not a single installment of the CHILDREN OF THE CORN series spent more than a few minutes in the cornfield. Hitchcock only spent about ten minutes in one in NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Take a hint, fella... cornfields don't make for riveting cinema. It would have been good if the director would have had more friends with more locations, because this thing gets pretty tedious after the first 15 minutes. This movie looks like it cost about $30. (or whatever it cost in admission to the cornfield maze).

Apparently he couldn't even find anyone to act in his movie, so he cast himself. Big mistake. Here's a thought, if you really want to make a movie, get an actor. So, as far as assets go, it seems like the cornfield maze is the only thing the poor guy had. Maybe he thought that was enough. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I KNOW he thought that was enough because the movie, before it captured the coveted honor of being the sequel to DARK HARVEST, was called simply THE MAIZE: THE MOVIE. Maybe this he's already planning THE MAIZE: THE MUSICAL or even THE MAIZE: THE MINI-SERIES.

Our Jack-Of-All-Trades (and yes, the Master of Nothing part of that saying is definitely appropriate here) plays a psychic dad who can tell when bad things are going to happen. Think of the character from the DEAD ZONE, but not anywhere near as good an actor as Christopher Walken or even Anthony Michael Hall. Psychic Dad has a premonition that his two daughters, who are at the corn maze with mom, are going to be killed. He rushes to save them. From that point on, the whole movie is spent watching Pyschic Dad run around in a cornfield, looking for his two daughters. He finds the two little girl ghosts from THE SHINING, and he helps solve the mystery of their murder.

Shot on a $200 Handycam. The director cast himself. Edited on iMovie. Improvised story. If that's not enough to keep you away from this a-maize-ingly corny catastrophe, consider this as a final warning... The WHOLE MOVIE takes place in a cornfield, boils and ghouls. Here's Ghoulie Guru's tip on how to save some money and still feel like you've seen this movie. Next time you see a cornfield, stop the car. Take a flashlight and go run around in there for like 90 minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My friends and I have often joked about movies being in real-time. But this movie really is... They will literally show 4 minutes strait of nothing but a guy digging in the dirt with his hands. It has no-plot, and an incredible amount of gratuitous screaming. I honestly don't believe that it won an award for it's alleged suspense. If you are like me and saw the first film and loved it for it's horrible acting, accidentally hilarious one liners, and all-around low budget\"ness\", it won't matter; this is so bad it's bad memories might even rub off and taint any good memories you have of the original. You would be more entertained if you were staring at a blank screen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was horrendous it was sorta like accidentally watching a gay porn waiting for the girls but they just don't come....I waited for almost 2 hours for the damn scarecrows....they just don't come...instead it's just some dumb ass wandering through a dead cornfield with a camera it's a mix of Blaire witch and some bad episode of the twilight zone. And the best part is that as of October 23 2005 they started filming a sequel please don't be fooled by the box even though it looks exactly the same as the first dark harvest it's not lions gate bought the rights to the Maize:the movie and had the brilliant idea to release it as the sequel to the original dark harvest;which i thought was funny........the only thing they had in common was they were both shot in a cornfield....This Movie WILLLLLL not scare the crop out of you like the first one so just stay away!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just above the box i am typing in now, i was required to pick a number between 1 and 10, and rate this feature film. Unfortunately there is no option for a number less than zero, and i have to put something. If i had my choice i would just put nothing, no number, because there exist no digits that express the worthlessness of this movie.

If you do decide to watch this film even after reading all of these horrible reviews, make sure there are no sharp or blunt objects in the area, this will help prevent you from trying to kill yourself in the middle of the film.

I don't know how this film was released to the public, it should be locked up and guarded 24\/7 somewhere in Fort Knox. I am angry that this film was even available for me to watch. I feel cheated by humanity, i had no idea humans could be this cruel. Stalin, Saddam and Hitler got nothing on this douche bag Cowell.

Do not be fooled by the movie's cover. 1) There are no scarecrows, no one knows why there is a legit looking scarecrow on the front. 2)None of the characters on the back of case are even in the stinking movie! 3) The tag line says something about \"new moon, more victims\", there were no frigging victims no one even died. We don't know if the dam cop died, and i'm assuming the killer didn't die because it sounded like he was being hit over the head with a frigging whiffle ball bat.

Do yourself a favor and stay away from this movie, it wasted about 4 hours of my life. That's right four, it took an hour for me to watch it (i fast forwarded thru the 4 minute zooming scenes that reveal nothing in the plot), i stared at the television for about an hour after it was over, contemplating my life and the direction it was heading after watching this crap, and then i began to cry for the next two hours because i know someone out there will unfortunately see this movie and there is nothing i can do to stop it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This...thing. oh god this thing. i can't even call it a movie. a movie is something that does something. goes somewhere. has some semblance of a plot or SOMETHING. i don't know how i'm doing it. i really don't. first i say dark fields is the worst movie ever. and i thought it was. then pirates of ghost island proved me wrong. and now, third time in a row, another film goes above and beyond the call of duty to prove me wrong.

(sighs) OK. Dark Harvest II: The Maize. lord this is awful. Let me break it down for you. Man senses daughters are in danger through some magical psychic powers he got from his Act II popcorn apparently and races to find them in a corn field. Of course this is the hugest cornfield in all of existence, being the size of the cornfields from Jeepers Creepers, Children of the Corn, and Signs combined. the main character, whose name is Shy (awesome name btw) then runs through a corn field....finds some ghost girls, talks to them, and...runs through a corn field. digs a while...and runs through a corn field. and the incredibly sad thing? i'm really not leaving anything out. That pretty much IS the entire movie. The only thing i may be leaving out is how he gets chased by two policemen who want to arrest him for... i don't know. pretending to be an actor. i didn't care by this point. He gets away and the police are -somethinged- by the killer offscreen. holy crap there's a killer? apparently yes there is as he's introduced nearly 4\/5 into the movie. but wait! then he runs away for a while and there's, you guessed it, more running through the corn field and digging. Then there's the ending where he saves his daughters. huzzah.

The biggest problem with this movie is, it's boring. it's INCREDIBLY, INHUMANLY, TREMENDOUSLY boring. I can't explain how atrociously dull this thing is. nothing happens, the characters are as appealing as a root canal, and it's just an hour and a half of NOTHING. the ONLY good thing that came out of this movie was that me and my friend may have found enlightenment due to the near nirvana state this movie put us into after the effects of the drugs in our brain had to kick into overdrive to keep us alive. During the ensuing insanity, i found hugging a wall much more enjoyable and my friend found a new passion for laughing hysterically while flopping all over the floor as if he having a seizure. This is the sort of insanity this movie brings. it's not just bad. it's bad for your health. The cover looks awesome with a picture of an AWESOME scarecrow killer that i would totally consider dressing up as for a horror con, but this was THE most misleading box ever. DON'T LET IT FOOL YOU TOO! do NOT watch this movie. watch a better corn movie. ANY movie about corn is better. just don't let it get you! don't! a 0 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After sitting through the trainwreck that was the first Dark Harvest movie, I couldn't leave bad enough alone. Upon seeing that there was a sequel (or rather what I believed to be a sequel)I had to increase my pain level. Seeing that this had nothing to do with Dark Harvest, that should have been a good thing. We didn't get any killer scarecrows in this one, instead we got a jackass walking around a cornfield screaming out little things like, \"Girls!\" and \"Can you hear me?\" every so often. Plus we got two (four if you include the two girls that the director wanted the same effect as the twins in The Shining) obnoxious little girls who couldn't act. And the cherry on top of this mess would have to be the Corn Cop. I should have known this movie was going to be terrible when the dog got an opening credit. How I managed to stay awake through this movie, I'll never know.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first DH wasn't that great, but I really didn't expect it to be. But this horrible movie was just beyond criticism. I really try to look on the bright side and give movies like this a chance, but I just could not find a real good thing about this one. I appreciate what Bill Cowell was trying to do, but this movie was just soooooo boring. The story of the movie really isn't that bad. In fact, it's somewhat original. But the movie form is really as bad as a lot of people say. In my opinion, this one ranks right up there with \"The Off Season\", and \"Dracula 3000\". I know a lot of people really trash and put down movies like this, but I really can't think of any other good things to say about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to be one of those times you come across a movie with a neat cover, my first impression, sweet, full moon, crows, a scarecrow holding a scythe. OK my impression (I had watched scarecrow on TV a weeks ago) perfect, a nice slasher film to start the evening with. ................... wrong, absolutely wrong I think 5 mins in I was gonna take it out, but thought I wasted 3$ on this so Ill finish it wheres the scarecrow, well Im guessing its the legs of the fisher man wearing heavy duty rain boots. you see that every so often. I was watching this thinking.... OK when are those brats gonna run into this dude, at one point I thought they died. but no.... I mean frig, their still alive. I only chuckled at a few parts cause of how badly staged they were. one was the zoom in part at the start. the director\/actor\/writer says, \"remember I had that feeling, well I have it again\" and it was either a zoom in or zoom out, to hell I'm checking back. but I guess the scene was supposedly shocking, I mean whats more shocking is his wife had the same shocked look.... OK... she believed him??? Im sorry but YEAH.... i didn't know he was psychic until I read the movie box to make some sense out of what I witnessed. not only that, they used pictures to make you think this movie is at least clear.

the other thing that made me laugh a bit was the, scream in the camera, to make it scary....... OK............... filming a girl close up screaming into the camera for 5 mins.......right..... I laughed cause of how pathetic it was these kids cannot act like the rest of the people in the movie.

to top things off the scythe must have got lost or something.... cause seems the bad guy had just a stick. not even an ax, someone should axe the dam production film

Don't fall for the picture, this movie is a piece of sh*t. I watched the trailer and guess what it has

GIRLS WHERE ARE YOU TALK TO ME and CORN","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you want to enjoy the money you would spend to rent this money, go buy a bag of ice and watch it melt. That's more entertaining than this movie.

Bill Cowell, shame on you.

Or if you wanna see this movie plot, go in a corn field, bring two of the most annoying little girls you can find, run around for a couple hours having the girls scream as loud as possible. Then send me the couple bucks you woulda spent.

I enjoyed the first Dark Harvest, after watching the sequel, I'm going to cry myself to sleep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are looking for the feel-good hit of the summer, Dark Harvest 2 might just be your ticket. The production values of this movie are extremely high (looks as if it were filmed with a Sony Handicam and edited using iMovie), especially the sound effects -- they sound straight off of a \"Spooky Halloween Sounds\" CD! The scarecrow from the cover, although he doesn't appear in the movie and otherwise has no relevance, is terrifyingly realistic! From beginning to end, you'll watch as a man aimlessly searches for his daughters through a, pun intended, MAIZE! At the climactic ending of the movie you'll see, well...you'll have to watch for yourself.

What I'm really trying to say here is, don't come within 1000 yards of this movie. I rented it because I thought it would be a campy sort of \"Troll 2\" funny, but it's not. I cried after I watched this movie, because I realized I had spent money on it (and I found the $4 I spent on renting it). I actually fell asleep for 20 minutes and still knew what was going on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My friend Zac rented this movie free of charge since his mom works at a rental store. I still feel ripped off, since I won't ever be able to get those 100 minutes of my life back. Having watched the first \"Dark Harvest\" the night prior to this viewing, I expected to at least see a crappy remake of the first film. Wrong.

There isn't a single scarecrow in the movie (unless you count the one of the cover of the box), nor are there any real death scenes. The movie got its R rating from an 8 year old girl screaming \"god d**n\" at her father.

There is no amount of tequila that could make this movie bearable. Believe me, we tried.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was horrendous... It had absolutely nothing to do with Dark Harvest. And the DVD was very misleading because it showed a scarecrow and a scythe, neither of which appeared in this movie.

The beginning was a jumble of random scenes that, most of which, had nothing to do with the movie, except that they sort of show that the man is psychic... but not too well...

After the first 10 minutes of the movie there is an hour of just the man character looking for his daughters. It gets vaguely interesting when the daughters meet two girls who died the year before. But that's the extent of it.

And why, might i ask, was this movie rated R? There were two drops of blood and 4 curse words. And how on earth did it get into a video store?? This movie was poorly acted, poorly filmed, poorly written, and overall horribly executed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was really funny even though it wasn't meant to be! The acting was stupid and so were the voices. Pretty much all it was was some guy walking around a corn maze for an hour and a half. They threw in this stupid super natural thing that made it even dumber. It wasn't even like a normal movie, this weird creepy music was playing almost the whole way through the movie. What is it with corn maze horror films? Children of the corn was really scary I thought and I thought this would be something like it, but really it was just stupid. The main character guy just walked around aimlessly yelling for these two little girls. And then at the end he like kills someone or something. It's worth seeing if you're with your friends because it's really funny how bad it is, but if you're looking for a horror movie then don't waste your time","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The idea for the movie wasn't too bad: a horror film shot in a corn maze on Halloween. The bad part was the shoddy camera work, the ten million shots of puddles and corn, and the hour and a half long walk this guy took in the maze. Oh, I'm sorry, the \"maize.\" I picked up this movie because it reminded me of a corn maze near where I live, and I thought it was a cool idea for a movie. But taking everything into consideration, it seems that your average Joe could take the same idea and run much further with it. Bill Cowell's acting wasn't too bad, in fact, I would say it was pretty good. But the lack of talent from his co-stars didn't help his efforts. Here's to hoping his next movie will be easier to swallow.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can be said about THIS? Truly one of the most mind-numbing experiences of my life. Your brain will attempt to shut-down as part of a primal impulse of self-preservation. I was left shattered from the experience of watching this 'film' and I took a good two hours to fully recover. This movie now joins Revenge of the Boogeyman and Zombiez as part of the hellish trinity of horror films. I certainly do not mean this distinction in a good way. I mean this in a terrible way. A terrible way.

This film has no redeeming features. Everything is appalling. Artless camera-work endlessly presents us with the ugliest setting imaginable, i.e. lots of corn, lots of mud. The story is beyond stupid. The script is\u0085was there a script? The villain is severely unscary and wears yellow wellington boots. The kids are annoying. The lead man is charisma-free. And it has the audacity to go on for 100 minutes. Utterly without merit on any level, this is akin to torture. Normally such a statement would be an exaggeration meant for comical effect. Not in this case. I'll even say it again \u0096 this is torture.

At the end I was in a state of paralysis. This was brief thankfully. But once I recovered I decided I had to watch the 'Making Of' featurette. I had to understand. Maybe there would be a reasonable explanation for this atrocity. Was it all an elaborate joke? I watched the first 2 minutes of the 'Making Of' featurette and discovered that the writer\/director was, to put it mildly, somewhat misguided. I also discovered that because I had taken time out to watch the first two minutes of the 'Making Of' featurette of Dark Harvest 2 that I was an idiot. Not a pleasant voyage of self-discovery. Life sucks.

Highly unrecommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Apparently this was an award winner. Apparently someone had a gun against his\/her head and was force to nominate Maize: the Movie.

Or this must have been a mistake.

This is the most unwatchable movie ever made. The screening and the editing is the biggest horror of this movie. Two little girls get lost in a cornfield and get stalked by someone who can be heard laughing under his rubber mask. The little girls run into their hero dad, and then runs away from him, W.T.F.? The hero dad in the movie keeps losing track of them in the few minutes of watching this.

The girls obviously weren't trained actors, and had no common sense to them. They were so annoying and so infantile in the movie, it not even remotely comedic. Hearing them scream over and over again like a broken record was the reason why I got up and left. You can't even listen to this movie without nearly going into convulsions.

I can puke a better award winner than this garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Apparently I am swimming against the tide of the glowing comments on this film. I have not seen it since I was 4 or 5 years old but there is one thing I remember distinctly...

The Bunyip was TERRIFYING!!! Nightmare inducing terrifying. With the creepy music and the little girl and kangaroo running\/hopping away for their lives...

As a kid I also remember the animated Hobbit... no worries. Watership down? Didn't blink an eye. Dot and the Kangaroo? It still haunts my dreams. And I have several friends the same age who also think it was massively creepy. Maybe we can get a group rate on therapy.

In short: one freaky film for its time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Code 46 is one of those scifi movies where the government controls who you are allowed to love, and in fact will punish you if you try to procreate with the wrong person. The haves and the have-nots live in completely separate territories, the powers that be can remove your memories, etc. We've seen this stuff before, but that's OK- no movie is 100% original. This kind of premise is always fun to contemplate. Unfortunately, just imagining such a future is more interesting than actually watching Code 46. The characters are boring and rarely say anything interesting. Maybe that's commentary on a dehumanized future, but it's still dull to watch. It's sloooow.

At times the imagery is nice, but usually (coupled with its \"evocative\" soundtrack) just looks like a glorified perfume commercial. Code 46 also sometimes uses the kind of television camera-work that I find annoying. You know, two characters talk as the camera artlessly \"floats\" on one side. Two seconds later it's floating on the other side of them in a vain attempt to keep your attention.

My friends liked this movie. If they tried to get me to watch it again, I probably would not do so unless they agreed to pay me $50.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad dialog, slow story, scenes that drag on and are absolutely pointless. I can't believe this much money was invested in such a poorly written film. The directing and acting couldn't save this bomb either.

50% through the movie and you're still waiting for it to start. They lay the foundation with the opening preface and then spend the next 40 minutes setting up NOTHING. You watch 40 minutes of footage that is absolutely directionless in an attempt to do what, I have no idea.

Much of this film is like watching a really bad french movie where nothing ever happens and the characters are just sort of dull, lifeless and egocentrics living without purpose or care.

Avoid this film at all cost. Anyone that recommends it is setting you up for disappointment and you will undoubtedly question their taste and depth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Interesting concept that just doesn't make it. I watched the whole movie, but had to read IMDb comments to find out what Code 46 meant. If\/when it was explained in the film, I must have been in a coma, or possibly brain-dead by then. I only watched it for Tim Robbins. The fact that I did not know any of the other actors should have been a tip-off. We all have to start somewhere, but this film should not be it. As to the 'anti empathy virus virus'-Holy Utility Belt, Batman! Where were The Joker, The Riddler, etc? Also, why are the women all so damned ugly? If I want to see less-than-plain stick-figures, I'll just walk down the street. The best part of the film was the car crash. It was totally believable, and not over-the-top like most movie crashes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found Code 46 very disappointing. I thought the concept was good and therefore had great potential as a movie but found that it didn't deliver. Code 46 lacked thought and structure and the storyline didn't flow well. I thought that Tim Robbins character wasn't well developed, for eg. I thought there should have been more info and thought put into his family life and not have it completely ignored as i felt it was. When they were first in violation of a code 46 it was suggested that they were not to know that they may have been genetically linked but all the technology was available to them, he took her fingerprint and therefore genetic details when he was investigating the fraud. I constantly found myself waiting for something to happen and the story line to develop and yet it never did. I felt that the film had great potential to be intellectually stimulating but turned out to be the opposite. Code 46 tried to be too clever and in the end just ended up lacking imagination.I would not recommend this film to anybody, the only good thing about the film was that it was relatively short.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was released in all major cinemas in Australia. I watched the movie on the weekend of 7th AUG and I thought is was absolute nonsense (and I am using that word extremely litely). How it got released to every major cinema no idea. The plot seemed simple enough about the world being divided into subclasses and people needed identity cards and the actor Tim Robbins playing an investigator who goes to shanghai to investigate a employee stealing ID cards, which turns out to be the actress Samantha Morton.

You think from that summary the rest of the story should intertyne but it doesn't it just confuses the audience even more with different storyline that don't relate.

If you thinking of seeing this movie let me save u the trouble DO NOT GET THIS MOVIE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was initially excited about this movie and fully expected it to be a combination of Equilibruim and Farenheit 451. Unfortunately, I was continually disappointed in the lack of depth and interest of the plot and subplots. Midway through the movie, I divulged into poking fun at the characters and sets to avoid having to turn it off. I did enjoy the premise of a future with merged cultures and separation of the have's and have nots. What could have been an artful and intelligent look at the future is morphed into a plodding, semantic SciFi channel midnight flick with horrible acting, cheap sets and a final gratuitous shot of Tim Robbins vagina. Maybe he should stick to his socialist political ranting - it has all been downhill since Shawshank.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film disappointed me for many reasons: first of all the depiction of a future which seemed at first realistic to me was well-built but did only feature a marginal role. Then, the story itself was a weak copy of Lost in Translation. The Middle-Eastern setting, man with family meets new girl overseas, karaoke bar, the camera movements and the imagery - all that was a very bad imitation of the excellent Lost in Translation which had also credibility. This movie tries to be something brilliant and cultural: it is not. I wonder why Tim Robbins even considered doing this film!? The female main actress is awful - did she play the precog in Minority Report? And why do you have to show the vagina in a movie like this? Lost in Translation didn't have to show excessive love scenes. R-Rated just for this? This movie isn't even worth watching it from a videostore!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just finished watching this film and think it is one of the worst films I have ever seen. It was so boring that I found myself zooming through it at X2 speed and finished it in less than 30 minutes. I was not just disappointed, but angry that I had wasted my money to rent it. It ranks within the top five of the worst films I have ever seen, and I've seen thousands of movies! The plot was very confusing. Had I not first read the DVD sleeve cover, prior to renting it, I would have been totally lost throughout this film. I would not have thought that Tim Robbins, after having made such good films as \"Shawshank Redemption\" would have agreed to appear in this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are a weirdo who thinks it's \"romantic\" and wonderful to have sex with a woman who is the genetic equivalent of your mother, get her pregnant, and then have sex with her again once she's had an abortion AND not tell her that she is related to you, then you would like this movie.

Nevermind the fact that the guy is married and has a son at home - it makes it even more disgusting and deplorable that he has no conscience as to what he's doing. He can't do right by his job, his family, OR Maria. He's a loser. There is nothing romantic or positive about this movie - it is vile and incestuous.

It moves slowly and it leads nowhere for over the first half of the movie. I couldn't even finish watching this pathetic excuse for a 'romance'. I'm glad we didn't waste our money in the movie theater on this one. 0\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We're in a not so distant future, globalization seems to have reached a high point, languages mixes with each other (although English prevails over the rest), races have merged, human clonation is a fact, and all the territory seems to have been divided in two zones: the one for the valid and the one for the non-valid... a brave new world (in Aldous Huxley's style) in which people are genetically filed and blood relationships are strictly forbidden (for health reasons \u0096that's the Code 46 of the title-). In such environment two souls that are destined not to meet fall in love with each other.

Winterbottom had an important story, with quite a big potential. A nice recipe that he ruins giving it a so slow rhythm, narrating it in a so weary way, removing any emotions... Coldness, that's all Code 46 transmits. Coldness and boredom. Not even the presence of Samantha Morton and Tim Robbins (both of'em play their roles wonderfully) , nor the visual and sound power of some sequences can do anything to save the movie. What a pity.

Code 46: what could have been and never was.

*My rate: 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***

I saw this movie last night at a screening. I started out already liking Tim Robbins and loving sci-fi. The first third of the movie was very cool. The score was good, the cinematography was interesting, the film maker's vision of the future was realistic yet starkly interesting nonetheless. I remember thinking to myself: \"this is the most intelligently done sci-fi movie I've seen in a while\". Then they just couldn't keep it together.

Although from the outset, there were a number of more \"rough around the edges\" issues with this film (namely the editing, and later some of the writing\/plot development), these issues were forgivable. They became unforgivable once the movie sort of lost all momentum around the half way mark, and then the film just got tedious when you realized that it wasn't going to go anywhere at all.

Robbins could not breathe life into his character, but did the best he could. His female counterpart (her name escapes me now) was good in her role.

The main reason for the meandering of the movie seemed to be that the film makers could not decide whether or not to do a sci-fi movie or a futuristic love story. They ended up with neither.

Good:

Some of the cinematography: grainy, it felt like \"21 days later\" some times.

Very fitting for a futuristic movie like this.

I dug some of the location shots.

The music was cool.

The film makers vision of the future was realistic but still cool and interesting.

I liked the interactions with the other minor characters in the movie.

Some of the writing was interesting (early on).

The girl who played Maria Gonzales (name?? can't recall), she was good.

***SPOILERS BELOW***

A few questions\/comments:

I felt that a lot of the futuristic things in this movie were convenient to fix a patchwork story. Namely VIRUSES. Obviously the virus they gave her at the end of the film that made her physically 'afraid' of him was just there so that they could stick in another sex scene and then she could uncontrollably report him for Code 46. Then they take him away and erase his memory and the movie ends. Classic 'dream sequence' cop-out ending if you ask me. ties up all the loose ends very neatly if you just make it all a dream right?

Was Robbin's character naturally good as intuition or was it the virus?

Why didn't they explore the myriad of issues surrounding the girl being a clone of his mom? That could have made some interesting story.

At first I like the salutations from across the globe in everyone's speech. But it became intrusive especially since their accents were not convincing. I get it, the future will undoubtedly be racially and culturally more androgynous, but it started feeling like an AT&T Global Networking commercial by the end of it.

If they were 'outside' how could they have gotten busted for Code 46?

'Cover' was never well defined. Sometimes it seemed as trivial as a Visa, and other times it was as vital as life or death. Again, loose definitions allow them to use it for gluing disparate parts of the plot together.

Okay, I'm starting to get to negative about it, so I'll stop. There were some cool scenes, and interesting things about this movie, but that only gives it a 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought this film was a poor effort by the British film council - fell flat as hey, come on, Tim Robbins is an old guy and here is this beautiful young woman who falls straight for him as well. Like lost in translation its really hard to suspend disbelief in this context. It's a good looking film but lacks punch. When Tim Robbins is pretending to be psychic it looks like he has a small migraine. He looks uncomfortable and life less. The part where he is screening suspect employees at sphinx is laughable. If an investigator came to my factory the last thing I would do is tell him about my freckle fetish. It's obviously over-intellectual. Clumsy. The city is as it is, a convenient backdrop. They obviously picked the most futuristic city they could (shanghai) as a backdrop but the city never really comes out and effects the characters as in for example blade runner, where the characters of the city often intersect the story. slow as a wet week. No chemistry, real dramatic high points, so so plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is nothing worse than science fiction crafted by folks who don't have a feel for it. Grasping at a concept which wouldn't be so terrible by itself (a future where cloning is common enough that it is necessary to make it a crime for you to breed with someone too close to you genetically) the screenwriter proceeded to allow his ill-suited imagination to run wild.

When Tim Robbins' character was able to guess a security guard's computer password simply by getting her to tell him one thing about herself, I knew I was in for trouble. This ability was later revealed to be due to Robbins having taken an \"empathy virus\", viruses being used to grant instant (or nearly instant) skill upgrades to their users. Robbins' love interest complained about her own experience with such a virus -- a Mandarin Chinese language virus, which allowed her to speak Chinese, but as she complained, \"she couldn't understand what she was saying.\" Okay, first off, empathy, no matter how intense, isn't ESP. Without incorporating some sort of true mind-reading aspect (like an empathy virus which actively releases virions into the vicinity, infects nearby people, picks up bits of their memory, then departs for the original host -- which is, as you can probably tell, a smidgeon on the impractical side) you can't justify being able to determine a specific detail like someone's password just by \"listening to the things you didn't say\". Nor can you acquire the ability to speak a language without understanding what you're saying -- the virus can't infect your vocal cords and translate for you on the fly, because a virus can't *think*. To give you the power to speak Chinese, such a learning virus would have to modify your brain. It would have to encode the knowledge among neurons, and once it's in there, it's *yours* -- you certainly understand what you're saying, because you have to. To use your own brain to perform a task, you must understand that task (for the most part). Unless, of course, they movie is suggesting that the virus was deliberately designed to put in place some bizarre multiple-personality mental schism where some sub-personae of yours functions as a built-in, one-way translator.

The m\u00e9lange of languages spoken by the characters is decent enough, although nowhere near remarkable enough to warrant all the love other reviewers have given. What's more, all the multicultural insertions in the world can't make up for a simple, frustrating fact: The dialog stinks! It's slow, it's plodding, and it's unnatural. Again, I'm sure adherents have convinced themselves that the dull strangeness is simply the result of an inspired genius creating a truly futuristic (and therefore subjected to linguistic drift) form of speech. I disagree. Good dialog is good dialog in any era -- and the same goes for tripe.

Lastly, I'll revisit the central concept of the movie -- the banning of sex with yourself. Widespread cloning is a nice, classic sci-fi topic. So is global warming leading to ecological devastation (which Code 46 also incorporates). Unfortunately, the two don't go together! If you have an ecological disaster cutting down severely on the available living area, you don't run around cloning people! You have population problems enough as it is -- you don't add to them by cranking out re-issues. Regular, old-fashioned sex-and-birth provides all the population you need, and cloning of any sort would be ruthlessly suppressed.

To be fair, the movie wasn't all bad. It had some nice cinematography. Perhaps if I had watched it muted, I could've enjoyed it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like to think that I can appreciate a movie that is a bit out of the ordinary, and I certainly love a good movie that makes me think.

If you like out of the ordinary movies that make you think, then look elsewhere. This movie is so bad and so disjointed that the only thing you will be thinking after it is over is how it is possible you wasted 90 minutes of your life watching this.

A movie of this kind needs a driver to get buy in from the viewer. Why are we interested in the main characters? What motivates these characters through their existence? Why do they make the decisions they make? This movie makes a very weak attempt at doing these and fails in the process. There is no chemistry between these two actors, both of who are superb in their ability to be comfortable in any role. So why did they fail here? I strongly feel that they didn't know what their motivations were either, and when an actor doesn't know, their audience can't follow.

In sum, I have seen macromedia flash videos that offered more in the way of provoking thought, at least I have more interest in the morphed hamster who likes the moon than why this married family man would risk it all for a \"Code 46\" violation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Many times the description \"full of sound and fury signifying nothing\" is used and is right on target. Unfortunately \"Code 46\" lacks both sound and fury. A bit of fury would have been greatly appreciated. Tim Robbins character (William) is so lacking in passion that the idea of his falling instantly in love with Maria (Samantha Morton) seems almost absurd. These folks are so passionless that one begins to wonder if perhaps the water supply of this future world has been dosed with thorazine. There is a \"Brave New World\" sort of atmosphere to the film that is helped along by every scene being shot about 2-3 stops overexposed. Unfortunately this technique gets tedious and rather hard on the eyes. The cutesy mishmash of languages also grows tedious when there seems to be no apparent reason for its existence. Many futuristic, scifi films are criticized for being all flash and no substance. This film has neither flash nor substance. Its a code 6 all the way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I guess your \"palabra\", will you let me go through?- Asks William Geld, a Tim Robbins that keeps on acting like if they told him a fantastic joke and he is attempting not to laugh.

He is trying to get to a forbidden area. The woman stopping him continues blabbering: -Your \"palabra\" is Carrefour.

-How did you know?- the lady asks, surprised. He answers, in the name of Wisdom: -I was hearing when you weren't talking. :\/

Yes, this defines the movie. This precisely. It doesn't matter if Carrefour is \"road conjunction\" in french, or if the Future is coldly bureaucratic and mixes languages. Or if Samantha Morton has nothing, nothing of Spanish (Maria Gonzalez being her name in the film) with her Irish, Scotish whatever tone.

It's boring and dull. If you fall in believing there are multiple symbolisms, you will buy the most bizarre, sickening love relationship ever, set in a future that may well be in seven seconds. I can guess this movie's palabra: it will be \"painful\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An Epic Story of Hope constrained by budget and limited artistic ambition. Seeing as Terrence Malick produced this, I expected something haunting and lyrical. Instead, we get a typical Norwegian co-production (\"Revolution\" with Al Pacino, anyone?), where - quite possibly - good intentions are scuppered by a dreadful screenplay, and where many of the characters are reduced to stereotypes. The \"me-Tarzan-you-Jane\" English dialogue between the non-English-speaking protagonists is particularly cringeworthy \u0096 one could speculate whether Nick Nolte and Tim Roth ad-libbed their own, as they almost sound like real people. The story is loaded with implausibility: we are expected to believe that Binh can speak a smattering of English after having spent his entire life living as a peasant slave (his vocabulary, but unfortunately not grammatical command, increases impressively in the Malayan refugee camp, without the benefit of night classes). Coincidence is rife; I wonder whether an hour or two has been edited from the first third: he tracks down his mother in Ho Chi Minh City almost immediately - after bumping into his thirty year younger half brother, who nonchalantly recognises him! Mum gives him a gold locket (or something similar of great value) as they part, but this is never referred to again. His relationship with \"Me Dead Inside\" Ling is supposed to provide the obligatory \"love interest\", but feels as artificial as Leonardo and Cameron in \"Gangs Of New York\".

The voyage in the rust bucket of a boat does convey a sense of the appalling conditions that human trafficking entails. Indeed, the only time the film is remotely exciting and unpredictable, is the jerky, hand-held footage shot from the bridge during choppy weather conditions. (Incidentally, a boat cruise from Malaysia to New York via The Cape Of Good Hope and the African coast, without stopping for fuel or supplies, is certainly an epic journey). The beautiful shot of the New York skyline echoes Malick's use of magic hour, but I want to know why the Coast Guard didn't show up. Perhaps they were watching the Super Bowl, or something. Of course, Binh manages to track down his blind old Dad on a remote farm in Texas, with the same navigational flair he displayed in Ho Chi Minh City. I was impressed at how Nick Nolte could wander around digging fields and feeding horses on a large ranch without the aid of a guide dog or white stick. For demonstration of how a story about the travails befalling refugees could be structured and shot on a small budget, check out Michael Winterbottom's far superior \"In This World\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Beautiful Country\" is a big disappointment. It doesn't come up to my expectation. Bihn, a tall muscular guy, is a son of an American GI and a Vietnamese woman during Vietnam War. We were told that that he was treated \"less than dust\" in Vietnam in the early 90s, so he fleeted to America to seek his American father.

Sounds like a heart broken material? Maybe, but showing in this film. I find myself having a hard time to connect to Bihn emotionally, because the film is full of clich\u00e9 and I simply don't understand or believe him. The writing of this film is a total failure. The plot is full of holes. It grabs some events on a needed basis trying hard to stir the emotion of the audience. We are not that stupid and it doesn't work that way. Let's see what the film is trying to do. So, you don't feel Bihn's boat trip (yeah, he was on a boat!) is hard enough, let's have a storm over night and let the ship shake a little. Still not touched? Fine! Get a little kid to suffer the heat, the hungry, the sickness, the violence with the adults on the boat, hopefully that will do the trick to touch the audience. Still not touched? You heartless SOB, let's... OK, I don't want to give any spoiler of the film, but you get the idea.

The film is really long and slow. It never tell us why Bihn didn't go to find his mom and dad, until the moment in the film when he left to look for his mom and dad. What has he been doing the 20 some years before he went to Saigon to look for his mom? And guess what? He has the luck and everybody will tell him where to find the person he is looking for, and he will find anybody without a scratch. I really think the Department of Homeland Security should hire those Vietnamese who helped Bihn. The beautiful country? Which one? Both Vietnam and America seem hell to Bihn.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thursday June 9, 9:15pm Egyptian Theater Saturday June 11, 2:00pm Uptown Theater

Being loved and belonging is essential for most children. Those born to Vietnamese mothers and GI fathers often found neither. The Beautiful Country is the story of one such child, Binh, rejected by his rural village then struggling to find his American father. The film begins with green and wild country but descends into grimy sweaty ugliness and boredom. The considerable talents of Tim Roth and Temuera Morrison are wasted in pointless and ill conceived roles aboard the rusting freighter carrying Binh and is dying brother across the ocean with what appear to be stock shots of stormy seas. New York City offers slave labor and clich\u00e9 characters. While very uneven from it's start the great curiosity of this film is the final segment. Nick Nolte is given top billing among the cast. I jokingly suggested he would probably be in the final scene only and was not far from the truth. As the journey brings Binh to Texas and his father the film takes on a serene and austere simplicity. A tenuous cohabitation knits these two men together into a family of father and son. The ninety odd minutes of garbage we have just watched is rewarded by a profound and subtle performance from Nolte as they slowly interact. The credits rolled and I was surprised to see the names of Badlands executive producer Edward Pressman and West Texas native Terrence Malick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife and I never got into the movie.We thought it was way to sloooowwww and to many subtitles.I understood they needed them for Vietnam,but took to long to get out of Asia.She wanted it off I said it's going to get better.It never did yes they had a tough time trying to get to America,but I wanted to see him looking and finding his dad.Not at the end but forming a relationship.Did I mention it was slllloooowwwwww.I love to watch a movie to feel good not sad at the end.I know they don't make many good movies now days.I think action movies are the only ones to watch.I have been renting a lot from netflix and now blockbuster,maybe 20% are worth seeing.I don't kneed realism or facts just a movie thats fun and makes you feel good.Gary","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An Epic Story of Hope constrained by budget and limited artistic ambition. Seeing as Terrence Malick produced this, I expected something haunting and lyrical. Instead, we get a typical Norwegian co-production (\"Revolution\" with Al Pacino, anyone?), where - quite possibly - good intentions are scuppered by a dreadful screenplay, and where many of the characters are reduced to stereotypes. The \"me-Tarzan-you-Jane\" English dialogue between the non-English-speaking protagonists is particularly cringeworthy \u0096 one could speculate whether Nick Nolte and Tim Roth ad-libbed their own, as they almost sound like real people. The story is loaded with implausibility: we are expected to believe that Binh can speak a smattering of English after having spent his entire life living as a peasant slave (his vocabulary, but unfortunately not grammatical command, increases impressively in the Malayan refugee camp, without the benefit of night classes). Coincidence is rife; I wonder whether an hour or two has been edited from the first third: he tracks down his mother in Ho Chi Minh City almost immediately - after bumping into his thirty year younger half brother, who nonchalantly recognises him! Mum gives him a gold locket (or something similar of great value) as they part, but this is never referred to again. His relationship with \"Me Dead Inside\" Ling is supposed to provide the obligatory \"love interest\", but feels as artificial as Leonardo and Cameron in \"Gangs Of New York\".

The voyage in the rust bucket of a boat does convey a sense of the appalling conditions that human trafficking entails. Indeed, the only time the film is remotely exciting and unpredictable, is the jerky, hand-held footage shot from the bridge during choppy weather conditions. (Incidentally, a boat cruise from Malaysia to New York via The Cape Of Good Hope and the African coast, without stopping for fuel or supplies, is certainly an epic journey). The beautiful shot of the New York skyline echoes Malick's use of magic hour, but I want to know why the Coast Guard didn't show up. Perhaps they were watching the Super Bowl, or something. Of course, Binh manages to track down his blind old Dad on a remote farm in Texas, with the same navigational flair he displayed in Ho Chi Minh City. I was impressed at how Nick Nolte could wander around digging fields and feeding horses on a large ranch without the aid of a guide dog or white stick. For demonstration of how a story about the travails befalling refugees could be structured and shot on a small budget, check out Michael Winterbottom's far superior \"In This World\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a child of the 80's like so many of the other reviewers here I hated the original V and V: the Final Battle. I own both on VHS and never hook up the VCR to watch them. I do remember not liking this short lived series very much, but I couldn't remember why, so I rented the first disc. By the third episode I had my memory refreshed. It's terrible. The writing is beyond horrid. It's not even FUN. They had a lot of material to work with here, but it seemed like they just didn't know what to do so they turned it into 'Days of our Lives with lizard aliens'. How cool and full of potential is the concept of Elizabeth the Starchild? All they could think of to do is grow her into a whiny, boring teenager to compete with her mother romantically? Marc Singer looked less embarrassed to be in Beastmaster II than he did when he was trapped in this drivel....point is, whether you're one of the younger folk who's just discovered V or one of us older sci-fi fans looking to rediscover some old fun, spare yourself and SKIP THIS!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Relesed from Troma (which is my favorite movie company)Unspeaksble is a messy horror film that can be interesting but very dark and twisted.

Unspeakable starts with a family in a car, they get into an accident which leaves a daughter dead and a mother deformed. the father eventually goes crazy and slashes prostitutes. He sees his daughter in other people. He kills for her. Meanwhile his now deformed wife is being raped by her orderly. These are sick people!

Unspeakable tries to be sick and disturbing and it does manage to do that as a good horror flick this is not. Most Troma movies have a sense of humor to them but however this one doesn't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to like this movie, because I love Troma and loved the trailer and loved \"Ghouls,\" another of Ferrin's films. It did have some almost-good moments, like the oldies love song playing over the car crash scene, and a scene near the end where the protagonist gets some closure. But on the whole, it was just boring and mildly unpleasant.

The \"unimaginable\" shocks that Ferrin came up with were really predictable and worn-out. Poop, murdering prostitutes, incest. Could have still been good, but poorly done. Unsure whether it was trying to offend, amuse, or both. Ultimately did neither.

IN conclusion, we watch Troma movies because we want films with heart. This film did not consistently feel like it had heart. There were some good scenes, but ultimately it was dull and unpleasant.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot believe that this is a film that I did not like. . . I usually find that I am open minded about all sorts of stuff. . . but this flick is just, well, bad.

I could deal with the subject matter if the script and story were better. I could deal with the acting if the camera work was better or if the characters were better established. . . I think it mostly boils down to script and direction though.

it was just bad.

i want to give this the lowest rating, but . . . I don't believe in that, at least this guy got off his tail to make a movie. . . so he gets four stars (just above the average rating which this has so far)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unspeakable starts in Los Angeles with Jim (Roger Cline) & his wife Alice Fhelleps (Tamera Noll) arguing as they drive along in the pouring rain, unfortunately Jim crashes the car & his daughter Heather (Leigh Silver) ends up dead while Alice is turned into a wheelchair bound vegetable. Devastated by the death of his daughter Jim starts visiting prostitutes, he then kills them because of voices in his head. Erm, that's it really.

Written, produced & directed by Chad Ferrin I hate Unspeakable as a film. There are some films you occasionally see that move the 'goal posts' as it were in regard to everything you watch thereafter, some films are so brilliant that all other's will be judged by it while other's like Unspeakable for example are so bad that it sets a new cinematic low. This is truly one of the worst films I've ever seen & I am seriously surprised by the largely positive comments on the IMDb although I'm not surprised the the low overall rating on the main page, I not sure if I missed something but for a start Unspeakable has no plot, it has no story & a lot of it seems almost random. There was nothing in Unspeakable to maintain my interest or entertain & as a result became a test of endurance to get through to the end. The film tries to be shocking with some limp scenes of sexual abuse of a rent boy by a priest, there is a scene in which a disabled person craps herself, it splats on the floor & her dodgy male nurse starts feeling her soiled genitals, legs & underwear. If anyone can find such crap entertaining then I'll just cut my wrists now, the character's are some of the worst I've had the misfortune to know, the dialogue is hilariously bad with some it sounding like it came straight from some dirty faggot porno of the worst kind. It doesn't work as a horror as it's not scary in the slightest, it's absolutely hilarious & frankly insulting to claim that it is trying to be a serious drama about someone suffering a great loss & attempting to cope with it & overall I just think it's a pointless, rubbishy, badly made piece of crap from Troma.

Director Ferrin films like some badly made documentary, the special effects are terrible & are of the 'let's pour tomato ketchup on our actor's face & the audience will be convinced that they died a gory death' variety, there is no graphic violence at all apart from a suicide where someone sticks a knife in their own mouth. Considering the amount of prostitutes in Unspeakable the nudity levels are kept to an absolute minimum...

Apparently Unspeakable had a budget of about $20,000 & all I can say is where did all the money go? Oh, a quick note to the filmmakers, if your going to record sound live make sure you don't have your actor's deliver their lines next to a main road that half of Los Angeles seem to be driving up... The acting sucks, period.

Unspeakable is, in my opinion, total crap. It's probably not the worst I've ever seen but it's right down there & I can't remember seeing such a awful film recently. One to avoid unless your a masochist or insomniac.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't want to write this movie off on the reviews and critics in the western world, I mean how wrong have they been about Asian cinema that has now become a staple diet of the Hollywood remake monster? Plus Jet L is pretty damn cool, and he's made some interesting movies in Asia. So with an open mind I was surprisingly averaged out by this movie.

There are good points. The story is very clever, using M-Theory as a base to bring forward the plot that there are multiple universes each with their own versions of worlds, and most likely you. Each time one of you is destroyed the rest share the energy and power amongst them. The idea that someone might try and purposely become the only version of themselves in all the Universes to find out if they become a God.

There's also Jet Li, and he's not a bad actor and pretty nimble as a martial artist, plus Jason Statham who is an all round good actor. As for the special effects, some of them are really cool, a mixing of bullet time, and slow motion with normal speed, very cool to watch in places.

The bad points? Well Statham's accent is appalling, and some of the effects aren't as comparable as others, so it's quite apparent that money was spent on some of the main shots and not on others that were probably deemed as too short on screen or they just plain ran out of budget.

A big sore point for me is the close cropped camera action that Hollywood has long favoured, something that Jackie Chan has often talked about. Filming fight scenes close up serves two purpose. It gives greater emphasis on a single punch or movement, making it look harder and more real than it really is, and it also hides what is going on around the camera lens. For example people holding a fake arm or the face of a stunt double, etc.

What Chan always said was that he tried to open out the camera and show the audience what was going on, let them see the people fighting properly rather than a close up of a face and a fist, cutting to someone falling into frame. Showing the whole picture is more effective, and it's more impressive.

So the close cropped shots were just more annoying than anything, you failed to see the impressiveness of Li's fighting skills, and you found it hard to see some of the action. Slow the cuts down and pan out the camera Hollywood Directors! The biggest problem was the story though, despite having such a strong base on which to build, they seemed to loose the sense of the plot and concentrate on the action scenes. There are some serious plot building and explanatory moments that are just totally overlooked and covered in the space of a few sentences, yet these could have formed some excellent and complex character development.

It just all held together too weakly, and not enough was made of the story. All in all, not a great movie and it's potential was badly spoiled.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wanted to dog this movie, but somehow I can't find it in myself to do that.

Exhibiting a duality of fighting styles, it's Li vs. Li in a somewhat decent battle for supremacy.

This is one of those movies where the story carries the performances. Li's acting is extremely amateurish, hesitant, and stiff for most of this movie...right up to the very end. At first I tricked myself into believing he was just doing that for one of his two characters. You know, to show a difference in personalities. But it appeared to be inexperience or a lack of talent. It did get a bit better, more relaxed, toward the end. But that wasn't enough to save his performance. Jet Li's acting does improve as his career moves forward. I don't hate his acting. I just hated him in this.

I also have to say that the effects were very \"B\" class effects. What effects there are.

The story itself had great potential. It was uniquely creative, daring, and fresh. Unfortunately, either the budget was not ample enough to accommodate better lighting, effects, film quality, and some acting lessons, or the director just did not care enough to bother with these little details. He also did not bother with the SCIENCE in the science-fiction. A fact which was a great detractor to this film.

The fight sequences were a bit one sided, as he seemed to give more to one character and little to the other. But all in all the story line made for a very enjoyable attempt.

As enjoyable as this was, I couldn't help but think, all the way through, that this was just one of those movies that you can't help but watch it for what it SHOULD'VE been, rather than what it is.

It rates a 6.0\/10 on the \"B\" scale.

That's a 4.2\/10 (on the \"A\" scale) for having a good plot, from...

the Fiend :.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a thorough diappointment. There was no development of the story. Viewers were thrown into the story without explanation and left to fend for themselves in trying to work out what was going on. The action sequences were okay but confusing. They weren't The Matrix and they weren't Crouching Tiger. This movie is best left to cable tv where you don't have to pay to see it or convincing a friend that they should hire it and then go over and watch it. As a huge Jet Li fan, I expected more. How can someone involved with Once Upon a Time in China put his name to this one???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Post 1988 after the disaster GJS Amitabh's films lost the quality they had earlier

Barring MAIN AZAAD HOON released in 1989 which was a great film rest all films were craps mostly except HUM(1991) later in 1991

This is another of the crap Amitabh films people rejected in early 90's

The film he did like a friendship token to Shashi Kapoor who directed the film and he didn't take a penny The film also had Rishi and Dimple(again not paired opp each other after RANBHOOMI)

The film came in 1991 when Bachchan had 4 releases and 3 flops amongst them INDRAJEET, AKAYLA, AJOOBA

Ajooba came 2 years after TOOFAN and JAADUGAR both supernatural films which were rejected This is another type of crap Bachchan wears a mask and a Krissh type outfit and performs magic changing 1 person to a donkey.etc Of course being 1991 you can excuse the special effects but the film is too bad to be watched

Direction by Shashi Kapoor is not good Music is bad

Amongst actors Amitabh had become too old by 1991 and looked tired, his acting is okay but not on par with his best Rishi is okay Dimple is alright, rest are forgettable","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If there's one word I can associate to this movie, its 'embarrassment'. It must be embarrassing to everyone associated with the movie, to actually watch it in a theatre. Everything - the script, screenplay, dialogues, song lyrics, direction - shoddy, lousy.

Saw this movie when I was a kid. Liked it then, mainly because it was a fantasy, a superhero-movie. Its a not-so-explored genre in Hindi cinema. The attempt deserves credit, but that's all there is to it. Sashi Kapoor seems to have been in a great hurry in making the movie. Can't understand the reason behind casting foreigners as Hindi-speaking characters, who can't even get the sync right (nothing to say about the dubbing). The screenplay is terrible. The editing even more. If one follows the dialogues closely, one can detect grammatically-wrong sentences (which completely alter the intended meaning). Nothing special about the music.

The biggest embarrassment must be for the Censor board. There are a couple of nip-slip scenes in the movie, one of which is absolutely clear (so much so that I can't even think of a metaphor). The director missed them. The editing team missed it. And the censor board missed it too. So much for the no-indecent-exposure-on screen motto. The officials probably fell asleep while watching the movie.

Can't think of why Amitabh went with the role. It might be because he was a good friend of the Kapoors. But the role hardly has anything for him. With wonderful roles in Hum and Agneepath behind him, he couldn't have followed it up with a worse one. There are a couple of heroic scenes, really worthy ones. But otherwise, they're embarrassingly unbelievable (arrow-catching for instance.. it probably could've been better with CGI, but it was '91..).

Dimple and Sonam do not exactly set the screen on fire. Shammi Kapoor and Rishi Kapoor give an inspired performance, but their scope is limited. Amrish Puri is his usual self in the role of a fairy-tale villain (letting out the villainous laugh every now and then).

On the whole, an interesting concept. Could have been a lot more better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A complete zero out of four. One worst sums up Ajooba: awful. Actually, more words come to mind: ridiculous, third-rate, and terrible. This is one of Amitabh's worst movies ever, he prances around in a cheap leather jacket and equally cheap tinsel foil Zorro-style mask with what appears to be wings on the sides.

The movie is set in ancient Persia or Arabia and is characteristically un-historical for an Indian movie. As stated above, a leather jacket from K-Mart with velcro straps did not exist 400 years ago, unless all my history teachers were wrong.

Rishi also does his patented cross-dressing in this movie. Far from being funny, it is very embarassing to watch. What could possess the son of the legendary Raj Kapoor to flay the memory of his house like this on screen?

On the plus side, if you want a real laugh, go ahead and watch this film. The glaring inconsistencies in the plot and costumes are no match for the awful dialogues and shoddy acting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How pointless, hideous characters and boring film. Saved by brief sex scenes, mad witch, gorgeous desert island and Brooks body. The plot is tenuous, the characters are shallow and unlikeable. Having said that I did manage to watch it all, mainly because I was totally transfixed by the jiggling and kind of hoping that her character would come good in the end. The film was well shot, well directed but perhaps the casting let it down in some ways. Disappointing. Really summed the review up in the first line but this website dictates that you need to write 10 lines minimum. It would be better to spend the time watching another film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A holiday on a boat, a married couple, an angry waiter and a shipwreck is the reason to this films beginning.

I like boobs. No question about that. But when the main character allies with whoever happens to have the most fish at the moment, mostly by having sex with them and playing the role of the constant victim, my anger just rises to a whole new level. Take two guys (a husband and another man), put a pure bombshell woman in the middle of them, ad a deserted island, subtract all her moral issues, ad a whole bunch of moral issues to the men and mix it in a big bowl of arguments, fish and a zippo lighter and you will come up with a piece of junk movie like this.

The acting is, I would say, good. There are some bloopers but not many as far as i could see. The main female character makes me sick. This is due to her lack of moral values. The man with the most fish get's her attention. Even though one of them is her husband, she sees no problem with being unfaithful with (Manuel) the other man because \"I must do it to survive\". How can you justify having sex with another man for fish when your husband is 30feet away? And he won't even benefit from it? The female character has absolutely no problems to justify anything that she does. If she doesen't get approval for her actions, she's a victim.

I recommend everyone to see this movie. This is the kind of movie that will make just about everything else you see this year a pleasant movie experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can only assume the previous posts came from execs at the production company...

Attended the UK premiere last night. Zane and Brook attended (they probably knew I was gonna be there) and are undoubtedly stars, but what a turkey of a film. I felt sorry for them at times, when the audience erupted in laughter at what were serious 'thriller' scenes.

But perhaps I was missing the point. Perhaps an element of tongue-in-cheek was intended. If so, pure genius. If not, career genocide.

On the plus side, Zane always shines, and Brook can actually act a little. As the other half said (as we ran out the cinema, avec broken ribs), they can be forgiven for this film as they both seem like nice people! The scriptwriter, however, should be marooned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, bad acting isn't only one thing to mention. Bad script,not so bad music. Unfortunately.

Nice girl and nice boy with perfect bodies and super teeth just isn't enough for me and for you too.

First thing in the morning after crash they go to swim to the sea, to have some fun !!! Smiling ...

They find everything in the sea. I mean things like fishing-net, knife, scuba dive things, ropes, bottles, husband ...

Woodoo stuff , are you kidding. Stupid. They are so happy on the island, they are going to die, and they are happy. Love, peace. Love. Just stupid.

Terrible, skip this one please.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"did anyone notice?when miss brook went skinny dipping,she left the water wearing white bikini bottoms and yet had previously taken it all off to join cabin boy.this could have been a good film without miss brooks phony accent and a year on the island please.how come that Kelly looked always clean and ready for a FM photo shoot.what started out with premise turned in to soft porn.and billy Zane come on,you cant be that hard up for film offers.check out dead calm.also when the people took her away ,how come she scoffed her face and after all that time didn't feel like throwing up.i suggest billy find decent scripts,Kelly stick to photo shoots and cabin boy play the son of Zorro in a future sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you make a suspense movie it is kind of important that the \"villain\" not be more sympathetic than the \"victim\". And this fails miserably. It was so terrible and frustrating to watch that I was actually moved to register and comment. OK, so the husband is rich and cocky. There are worse vices, and the cabana boy and wife display plenty. The husband is a jerk because he - um, didn't approve of the cabana boy physically assaulting that woman - the witch one which had absolutely nothing to do with the plot BTW. The cabana boy threatens the husband and repeatedly attempts to seduce the wife. He then forces himself on her - which the woman finds so hot she stops thinking rape and starts thinking she wants him. Uh huh. The misogynistic, inferiority complex thoughts the director displays are just revolting. It is one thing when a fine film like American Psycho deliberately tries to get us to empathise with the villain but in Survival Island I felt like I was watching a movie about Ted Bundy but the director failed to make him unlikeable and instead made us hate his victims. What was he thinking???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is playing on SHOWTIME right now but is going to be released as a movie called THREE or has been released for 2006. Mess ups include a supposed nude body comes out of the waves with her bottoms on. You can have fun finding the others. It was a decent stranded, hungry, cold, crazy person video but that is about it. And of course what would a movie be without sex. The lady has a nice body and the men are pretty, but the story is the same as Swept Away or A Savage is Loose type with some blood. Wonder if the movie studios know they made a big booboo and already released this show and now gonna release it as THREE. Billy Zane should have worn a top hair piece or shaved his head completely. Juan Di Pace is awesome and there is a couple good sex scenes. There is a voodoo woman that loves the character Di Pace plays and in real life her name is Di Pace too. Not aware of any connection but probably kin or married.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What the heck is this about? Kelly (jennifer) seems to drop all moral behavior as soon as she arrives to the island. She finds this Juan P (Manuel) existing and exotic, though she witnessed when he slapped his ex in the face, which he also justify later on in the movie, right or wrong? These two guys are the first to find each other on the island. Kelly are totally lost in every sense and the great Juan P can fish and built a somewhat house. Mr handyman. They seem to have a great time. Then Billy Zane (Jack, Kellys characters husband) shows up and of course, two days without knowing what his wife has been doing whit this gorgeous Juan P, he is a little bit jealous. Billy Z is the stereotype rich guy and maybe not the nicest man in the world. He dislikes Juan P (for hitting his girlfriend at the pier, who can blame him? Hes also is arrogant, but he paid loads of money to rent that boat and Juan P who is the waiter\/everything cant even fetch him a beer whit in 20 min. Wouldn't you be upset? Yet Billy is probably the guy you want to punch in the face if you meet him. But at the same time, he is, not to be blamed for, suspicious about the scuba goggles Manuel has. Kelly and Billy just lost some dear friends! How convenient he just happens to have them, no matter what!). However, for some strange reason Kelly likes this girl hitting Manuel and starts to hate Billy for being jealous. OK, Billy is overreacting, thats for sure, but Kelly isn't doing much to convince him either. She spends more time with Juan P and even wants him to sleep with them since hes been so nice (and even though Manuel yelled at her and calling her things for asking him some intimate questions. But Kelly is SO forgiving...). Yeah right. And then she starts to have sex with this Juan P. It should be said that Kelly and Billy seems to have a working relationship before this island incident, at least, they have intimate sex on the boat and talks like people do when they like each other. Now, you can think that this scenario is possible. But for real, is it? Are you cheating your husband after two days on a coconut island just because hes jealous and acts like a drunk in the bar? (i wouldn't disagree if there relationship was really bad but the director doesn't give much hints if thats the case). For Christ sake, Juan P hasn't really shown himself being a good person. Catching some fish and built a wood house to get into someones panties, is that showing a good side? Not trying to befriend Kellys husband in anyway (which would be very simple by letting them be alone most of the island-time, simply be respect) He doesn't care about their relationship (and Kelly cant figure that one out), he just want to have sex with Kelly. Kellys character is just not trustworthy (if she was stranded with Billy and another attractive girl, wouldn't she be upset or what?!). Or maybe she is? Billy Zane plays a not very nice person, and Juan P isn't actually much better if you really think about it. And poor Kelly is so confused, and believes having sex with Juan P will solve everything because her husband is so strange and so aggressive towards poor Juan P? So... for all of you who reads this... What do you think about it? If you where the Kelly character, would you consider cheating on your husband, knowing one day you'll be back in real life, and all of a sudden Billys maybe not that horrible person after all. Hes just too jealous. And if you where Billys character, what do you say, is he totally wrong in his behavior? And Juan P character what do you guys really think of him. One thing is for sure. Manuels exist! Ps... The voodoo thing is so totally wrong here! What the heck was that about?! Seriously! Anyone tell me?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thankfully I watched this film alone, enabling me to fast-forward through the worst scenes (aka most of the film, actually). OK, some of it is not all bad, with partially good photography (even some of the under water scenes) and at times not too bad directing. But it still doesn't save the incredibly poor script and way worse acting. Additionally, when I don't find the movies \"hottie\" to be all that, even the wannabe-sexy love making scenes get dull. Really dull! And for the drama: You know it's always a bad sign when you get to dislike all of the characters so much you really don't care who lives and who dies.

If you still haven't gotten tired of the reality series Survivor, you may find something to your liking in this movie. If not, stay well clear!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Three\" is a seriously dumb shipwreck movie. Masquerading as a psychological thriller, it's closest relative is the monumentally superior \"Dead Calm\" (also featuring Billy Zane). \"Dead Calm\" provided well drawn characters to root for in the form of Sam Neil and Nicole Kidman's grieving parents attempting to re-define their relationship on an ocean cruise. They end up being terrorised by Zane's adrift psycho-killer. It provided sharp, increasingly ratcheted suspense, a scary feeling of claustrophobia in open seas as the cat and mouse game of life and death unfolded.

\"Three\" suffers from poorly drawn characterisation (the audience doesn't care what happens to any of them), a stupid and unnecessary voodoo plot device, a total lack of suspense or excitement and some thudding, hammy performances from the principal players. Zane in particular goes way over the top in an irritatingly mannered fashion. In \"Dead Calm\" he was menacing, wired and seething with barely controlled sexual violence. Here he is bombastic, petulant slimy, and unravelled. And where does he get his seemingly inexhaustible supply of dry cigarettes and cigars? And how come his lighter stays full of juice for over a year? Ms Brook is very picturesque, stunningly pretty, but both her chest and rear appear to have been wildly over-inflated by some sort of life-raft pump. They do, however, succeed in acting with more skill and conviction than the rest of her. Dramatic actress, in the purest sense of the term, she is not. The guy playing the voodoo-hexed Manuel, the third component of this sorry triangle, could have been replaced by a lump of driftwood - no one would notice. In fact, judging by his complete lack of ability to deliver dialogue in any meaningful or dynamic way, driftwood represents a potential improvement in the casting stakes (excuse pun).

Plus sides: the scenery is nice and the cinematography (above and below the water) is credible.

I'm guessing this had a very limited (if any) theatrical release or went straight to rental and retail DVD. The reason for this is it's not very good. If you want something decent along these lines, get \"Dead Calm.\" It was made by people who knew a bit about cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, I just watched a movie on SHOWTIME called Survival Island. It says it was a 2006 movie with Billy Zane and since I like him and couldn't sleep I thought I would check it out. Looked interesting. Watched it, and decided to look up on the IMDb who was this new face Juan Pablo Di Pace and OMG I could not believe it, this movie has been renamed THREE and will be a new movie?? It is playing again in 1 hr and 30 mins on Showtime Channel again and this date is May 28 and EDT or Florida time. You can check your showtime listings by title and see it. I wont get into details so you can see the movie but at one point there is a lady in a white bikini that goes into the water taking it all off, you see her naked body.... when she runs back out of the water you see her bottoms on. Funny, there are a lot of other mess ups too. I can't believe by coincidence I decided to look up this movie... Go figure! Wonder if the people renaming it sold it to some movie studio to put out but it is already playing on Showtime, ha ha. Good laugh. I give it 1-1\/2 stars. C-, D+ movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How much do I love this film?! Now I'm not a fan of bad films, but I do love a film that is so bad it's good. This is one of those. Juan Pablo Di Pace has a great butt, looks fab on screen, and definitely doesn't make a bad turn at his acting debut (I believe). Billy Zane is suitably mean and moody, though I still constantly feel that there is something more in him. I felt it in Titanic, the look on his face when La Winslet spat on him for example, totally broken, shocked, and put-down ... fierce! Kelly Brook is a pretty face ... no seriously, I think that's it! It's worth catching this to see one really hot guy, some big bra fillers from Brook, nasty growling from Billy, laugh at the dialogue, revel in the scenery and madness of the whole affair ... I'm gona go watch it again now - yes, I bought it!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"By far this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I watch practically every movie that is on at night (either showtime, hbo, cinemax, etc). \"Three\" AKA \"Survivor Island\" keeps you in as much suspense as watching paint dry only to let you down even more miserably. If you want to feel like you just wasted what seems like an eternity on the worst film ever created then by all means watch this movie. I must have screamed at a minimum 900 times from the idiotic twists. If I had 4 hands I'd give this movie 4 thumbs DOWN.

In my personal opinion, I believe the only people who would like this movie are those with terrible morals.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is the worst film I've seen in a long long time, never mind the fact that so many useful things keep appearing on this island \"how convenient!!!!\", the acting is beyond poor from the outset, its like one of those really badly scripted soft porn films on channel 5, a complete waste of time, and i cant remember the lead actors name but i cant believe he still gets work!!! I've never seen him act \"I've seen him in lots of films... But I've never seen him act. here are a few of the blaringly obvious errors, apparently petrol lighters still work even when they've been soaked in sea water!!! also according to this film you can walk into the sea naked but come out wearing bikini bottoms (I'm guessing the camera man and editor were students)there are plenty more errors but I'm ranting now, besides its no so much the errors as the cast the script and the whole film avoid at all costs","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In a nutshell, skip this movie, it's that bad. In short, this movie is about a weapons factory where secret weapons are being developed. Because they make bad things, they aren't popular so to speak. A new female CEO comes in to clear things up, and make sure the reputation of the company will be improved. She does this by leaking company confidential information to the press... Do you believe this? Furthermore she starts to fire people she has never seen. Incredible uh? A pacifistic group tries to destroy the company's mainframe, because there are the blueprint located of those secret weapons. This mainframe is located in the bottom of the building hidden in a kind of vault. Of course the movie would not be complete without the mad scientist and a robot which is the ultimate killer machine, which resembles like an 'Alien' from the Alien movies. The mad scientist likes the female CEO.

The mad scientist instructs the robot to kill everyone, and so protects his job, rise in chain of command, and make the movie interesting. The pacifists team up with the CEO and another person of the board of directors to escape from the robot. Further down the line they agree to blow up this evil computer mainframe, whilst avoiding the robot. They also discover that the factory was developing a part man, part machine soldier. They can erase a persons memory and replace it by a veteran soldier's one. One of the pacifists is transformed in such a soldier and will hunt the killer robot. I guess the mad scientist also wrote the script of this movie. This super soldier looks and acts much the same as Robocop, though not as funny.

It boils down to this. People are running, being chased by a killer robot, are hurt by it, but they do not seem to troubled by that, besides limping a bit, and of course the female CEO is the leading character of this movie, and cannot be killed, i.e. survives every attack, explosion, you name it. I won't bother you by the chase, let's skip to the end. They have lots of weapons, yes the pacifist too and they know how to use them. When they're at the roof of the building they empty all there weapons upon the killer robot. They step into an elevator which is used to clean outside windows. And then the female CEO knows some magic as well, at the roof she was complaining about being out of bullets, and like magic the gun is reloaded. This way she can shoot the cables and let the elevator plummet 70 stories or so, and let it stop right above ground surface by pulling the brake. And to top it all off, the police is waiting there for them. The robot jumps after them, and kills the cops. Hilarious no? The robot chases them down the vault where the mainframe is, and when finally the robot is so close to her, that he can touch\/kill her, it stops. Because the mad scientist did not want her to be killed. A better name for this guy would be the idiot scientist. Although he is the one who made this movie watchable. At this moment I was already pulling for the killer robot to finish them all of, so the movie would end.

I cannot believe that this movie rates this high, and this is why I wrote this comment. Avoid this movie like the plague. It's a monster, and I'm not talking about the Death Machine.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i just got done watching this movie and i have to say, it was a good film, i loved some of the good guy's and i loved the killer robot but the movie had some hole's in it.

the name's of the people in it was kind of..stupid..i think people should of sued the maker's of this movie for how lame it was at the end..the first half hour was good but then it just dragged on and on then i was happy..it was over...but still loved the the killer robot and some of the movie's good guy's in it.

i think it was the best two buck's i have ever spent because i do like stupid b-movie's like this one and come on..it is a b-movie everyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe the subject was good, but put down to a script it fails in pace. Maybe the author was trying to obtain something slow-paced like Alien, but instead of being haunting, this movie turned out just boring. Technically good, anyway, a pity for the lack of tension.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film promised a lot, so many beautiful and well playing actors but with a plot that had virtually NOTHING to say. So many potentially promising conflicts between the family members that could have been developed and elaborated but it was all dropped and not taken care of. There was no story to be told, just a show off of acting, technique, beautiful scenes - that were all EMPTY. But again, the acting was excellent so many of the individual scenes were entertaining, but as you became increasingly aware of the lack of underpinning ideas, even the acting lost its sense. So from the promising start you became increasingly disappointed as the non-story went along.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tedium as only the French can do it. I checked my watch for the first time 7 minutes in, and with 143 minutes left, I also considered walking out. I won't even try to discuss the incoherence of the \"plot\" or the inability of the characters to be personable because at about 1 hour in, I realized none of this mattered. It was not merely self-indulgent or pretentious, it was a vacuum. A soul-sucking vacuum. This film has no saving grace, no enjoyable character, nothing funny, and nothing sad. It isn't smart enough to be drama and there's no moment that's in the slightest bit farcical. The most intriguing thing about this movie is how it has managed to get mostly glowing and positive reviews. I was tricked by those reviews, but you don't have to be, gentle reader. All I want for Christmas is my three hours back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't remember the last time a movie was so boring that I walked out. The Weatherman and The Island were both so bad that I thought about it but I even stayed to the end in those. This movie was incomprehensible, not funny and just went on and on and on. Like some other commentators, I wondered if parts were just French humor that I didn't get or if the characters were serious. I finally just gave up and tried napping because I didn't want to disturb my husband if he was enjoying it but he noticed and let me know that it was OKAY if I wanted to leave and out the door we went. He would like to know how it ended...if Denevue lived or died etc...(I don't even care).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a waste of great acting talent. This is a shame because with Catherine Deneuve, Mathieu Amalric, Emmanuelle Devos, Chiara Mastroianni, and Melvil Poupaud (not to mention others less well known in America) that's a lot of acting talent to waste. This film by Arnaud Desplech was a terrible disappointment. After having enjoyed his \"Kings and Queens\" and this film left me completely bored and frustrated to the point where I actually left before the movie ended. The movie wandered around its central storyline (involving Catherine Deneuve's illness) getting sidetracked by every peripheral storyline and supporting character that appeared on screen. The movie also gave us too little character development to understand why the different characters disliked each other so much (this was a story of family dysfunction) so that the dearth of coherent narrative became even more critical. Finally, the soundtrack (which ranged from hip hop to Bach to Mendelhson's Midsummer Night's Dream) was at odds with the emotional temperature of the movie and further obscured any emotion the viewer should have been feeling at the time. The photography (the director often began scenes with a mainly dark screen, where our only sight is through a small opening, making feel as if we are watching through a peephole, that then expands) was also pretentious and inscrutable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Time travel is theoretical, so I can give the script some leeway.

I also understand the concept that by changing just one variable, you can potentially change the way history unfolded.

What I cannot understand, however, is the way the change in time unfolded. We are subjected to a series of \"timewaves\" which progressively retrograde planetary evolution. While this is a convenient plot device, as it allows our heroes enough time to resolve the problem, it makes no sense whatsoever. Surely, if you change a variable, and that variable has significantly, or even completely, altered planetary evolution, then by the time you come \"back to the future\", the evolutionary process has already been established and there would be no need for waves? After all, why would a change that happened 65 million years ago need to wait until now to be effective? The fact that the moth was projected forward in time may give it some credibility, but the life of that moth 65 million years ago was significantly altered, ergo, any change to evolutionary history would have begun then, and not be dependent upon a return to our current time.

To solve the problem, the team goes back in time to prevent the change in variable from ever happening. By doing this successfully, we see that the changes to evolution never happened, and that no-one even remembers the events! Surely, what works for the solution should work for the original change? I like a good rollicking sci fi adventure, but unless it is set \"in a galaxy far far away\" it needs to have at least some grounding in theoretical possibility to make it truly entertaining.

Good premise, bad plot, reasonable acting and, in all fairness, just a twist on Jurassic Park.

Not on my \"watch again\" list.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yeah sure, the movie its visuals already did looked horrible and not very promising but the premise and the cast looked good, so I still sort of expected to be entertained by this movie. This however unfortunately wasn't the case. The premise is good but the story is filled with improbabilities and is logically flawed.

This movie is potential flushed down the toilet. The main plot is interesting and somewhat original. It's good enough to make a good adventurous movie out of would you think. This movie however fails to entertain and I think that that is this movie biggest flaw. Perhaps it takes itself too serious and a little bit more humor certainly wouldn't had done the movie any harm. Instead it now is nothing more than a lame and cheap looking movie, filled with the one unlikely event after the other, that also steals a bit too much from other, more successful movies. Mainely \"Jurassic Park\" obviously.

The characters also don't help to make the movie any more compelling or at least interesting to watch. I still think that Edward Burns did a fairly decent job as the 'heroic' main lead. The rest of the characters however really get muddled in into the movie and they get very little interesting to do. The movie rather relies on its visual, which are extremely poor. Catherine McCormack also plays a very irritating character. Basically all her character does is complain and talk about how right she was and the rest oh so wrong. Her character just isn't a likable one. And the rest of the characters...well I already have forgotten their names, I think that that is saying enough about them. It certainly is true though that Ben Kingsley's performance alone makes this movie worth watching. He is really excellent in his sort of villainous businessman role but from the moment when he disappears out of the movie the movie really goes downhill rapidly.

Visually the movie is extremely poor. It has some dreadful looking CGI effects and they couldn't even get the more simple 'blue-screen' effects look convincing in the movie. The sets are also awful and cheap looking, like they can fall over and break down every moment.

The movie never gets tense, exciting or adventurous since the story is brought in the least interesting and engaging way possible. It's a very distant movie with distant characters that fails to impress. There are plenty of action sequences but all of them are so ridicules looking and far from believable that they never get tense or good enough.

So basically this movie is lacking in everything that is needed to make a genre movie like this one a good and successful one. It's sad to see how low director Peter Hyams has sunk to the last couple of years, after making some good movies in the '70's and '80's.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In a future where an industrious travel agency uses time travel technology to send wealthy clients back in time for explorations to the age of dinosaurs, the future is inexplicably changed when one of their clients breaks the cardinal rule not to stray off the path. In an attempt to fix the damage done, a seasoned time scout (Edward Burns) teams with the inventor of the technology (Catherine McCormack).

The premise is pretty good and engaging. It may have a few flaws in it but it could still make for an interesting movie. Unfortunately, A Sound of Thunder fails to really hook the audience in. It suffers from a number of problems and it takes itself way too seriously so it's hard to actually have any fun while watching the movie. Personally, I thought the script was the film's biggest problem. The were more plot holes than expected and the movie was kind of lazy in explaining things. I was hoping for a more in depth look into \"the butterfly effect\" but the film was more escapist fun than anything else. That's okay with me since 90 minutes of mindless fun is still a nice way to spend an evening. However, all the fun this film offered was unintentional and lame. There were a few scenes that kept me entertained but I was pretty bored.

The acting isn't much better since most of them seem more interested in a paycheck than anything else. The only person that gave a good performance was Ben Kingsley. He kept the first half of the film enjoyable and he seemed to be having the most fun as well. Edwards Burns was pretty pale and bland. I don't think he has what it takes to be a leading man. However, he could make for a decent supporting actor. Catherine McCormack was just really annoying and not very believable. I haven't really seen her in anything else but she could have potential. The rest of the actors also give bad performances though most of them are relatively unknown so it shouldn't effect their careers too much.

Looking at the message boards, most people are complaining about the special effects. There's no way to sugarcoat them and they are terrible. All the dinosaurs look really bad. The Gibbon-lizards (part monkey, part dino), while a creative idea, become stale after awhile and they are most likely to encourage laughter rather than fear. The green screen work just looks awful and unprofessional. I was really wondering what director Peter Hyams was trying to accomplish here. He fails to deliver the suspense, action and thrills and makes this movie a long sit. For the most part though, the film is pretty harmless and it's far from the worst movie of 2005. Hopefully they will remake this film in the future. There is potential in this project but for now this is the best we got. In the end, unless curiosity gets the better of you, there is no reason to see A Sound of Thunder. Rating 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ray Bradbury, run and hide! This tacky film version of his short story from the 1950s about time travel and the effect it might have on de-evolution is not well known from the theatrical run (did it have one?) and exists now as a DVD on the shelves released during a slow week.

What looks to be a fancy sci-fi thriller form the opening scenes quickly fools us as the computer generated graphics are re-run unaltered throughout a film that is supposed to be about different 'trips' back in time where a major company sells macho guys in 2055 the chance to hunt dinosaurs by paying exorbitant fees to travel back in time to prehistoric jungles. One slip of the foot\/butterfly while on one of these ventures and the course of evolution is altered with resultant time waves rolling over the planet changing everything to man-eating plants and beasties. Of course there is a pretty damsel who knows how to reverse the process and a hunky man to risk his life to act on her orders and everything is eventually OK.

Yes, that is the story...and the most surprising fact about this poorly scripted, abysmally acted mess of a film is that it attracted some fine talent to portray the comic book flat characters. Edward Burns (all buff and hunky) is our hero du jour, Ben Kingsley is the requisite bad corporate guy sporting a ridiculous white wig, Catherine McCormack is the know-it-all woman creator, and Wilfried Hochholdinger as an evil one - all are superb actors and should have known better than to align with this flop. And the saddest thing is that for those who like this genre of sci-fi monster thrillers the creative department sold out with some of the corniest animation to hit the screen in a long time. A must miss. Grady Harp","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man, I went to this movie because of the great preview. It looked like it had a great story and nice special effects.

Boy was I wrong. I wanted to walk out of the theater because of those horrible special effects. A cartoon dino, of cart board would do even a better job then this. The story was fine, if it would have been taken on by a big movie producer. Who would trow in some more money to make the effect more life like. The only thing I liked about this movie where the plants that pop up everywhere.

Even worse where the cars, in one scene 2 characters walk along the street. If you watch those cars you'll see the following: Taxi, car, motorcycle, tri-pod, big bus. And about 4x in a row!

And then there is the \"butterfly death\" that would set the whole \"evolution changes\" in to progress. If that guy didn't step on the butterfly, the next dino would have eaten it anyway! So that's absolute bull. Then, if you change something in the past, the future will be different in the same instant. Not in those \"time waves\" they made. But hey, if the future changed in a split second, the movie would be even worse, but more realistic though. This is just one of those movies you should see when you want to have a great laugh. I spend way to much money on this movie in the theater. And then they tell me this movie had $80 million dollar budget. WHERE DID ALL THAT MONEY GO????","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll start by admitting that I enjoy many movies that have low ratings on this site. I find that if I can see what the creators were trying to do I can find appreciation for their work. Sound of Thunder was a story that interested me. I wanted to see what angles the filmmakers would attack in telling the story. By and large they attempted to create an entertaining movie. The plot was contrived, but most action movie's plots are. Ed Burns doesn't know how to carry a rifle, but still holds his own well as an action lead considering he isn't asked for much. The main problem, !destroys the whole movie!, is the horrible CGI. It is totally unacceptable for the animals and backgrounds to look soooooo very fake. Aside from that the animal conceptions could have been really good, as could the action scenes but failed because the production failed. This could have been a really memorable film if they had only finished it. It really looks like they meant to go back and fix all the horrible CGI but ran out of money and still released it. Save your money because someone failed this movie. I give it three stars because it really could have been good but was totally failed somewhere I can't say it enough.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie reminds me old B movies, but not in a good way.

When I saw the first scene I thought it was going to be a spoof of one of those early SF films. The terrible acting, the plastic props and the noticeable visual effects gave me that impression.

But no, the movie is really that bad. The story is a complete nonsense, the effects are below the level of a TV production; even the editing is a mess.

The only thing that kept me in the theater was that I wanted to know the end of the story, although I was pretty sure it was going to be silly (and it was).

There are better ways to spend your time and money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(Synopsis) In the year 2055, the rich are able to travel back in time and hunt a live dinosaur for a huge price. Sonia Rand (Catherine McCormack) has developed a machine that can take people back in time. Charles Hatton (Ben Kingsley) has taken this technology and opened a business know as Time Safari. Anyone with the money can travel back millions of years and shoot a dinosaur. Dr. Travis Ryer (Edward Burns) leads his team together with the big game hunter on a floating walkway to a spot where they can kill the dinosaur. The trip protocol is that they must stay on the walkway and not disturb the land or anything creature around them. Unfortunately for the human race, one hunter steps on and kills a butterfly. This insignificant act causes major impacts to the earth's climate and creates new species of animal life. The course of evolution as we know it is now being changed by time waves. Travis and Sonia try to stop the changing process before it becomes permanent, and man becomes extinct.

(Comment) The movie was a little slow and the concept of going back in time and changing things was a little overdone. The death of a single butterfly causing the tremendous changes in the world's atmosphere and evolution is simply ridiculous. They changed the skyline of Chicago to look modern, but the new cars of the future were silly looking. You can wait to see this fantasy on DVD. (Warner Brothers Pictures, Run time 1:43, Rated PG-13)(4\/10)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wish I could use the time travel machine to jump back to the moment I considered seeing this movie and make other plans instead. I saw a free screening of A Sound of Thunder, so I can't complain about the price, but I wish I could get my 103 minutes refunded. The acting was mediocre, and the special effects were deplorable. People shouldn't make movies about dinosaurs if they can't afford to make the prehistoric creatures look as good or better than those in Jurassic Park. Spielberg spoiled us. Edward Burns as Travis Ryer was the movie's only saving grace. I noticed that females under 18 rated the movie the highest, and the only explanation is that they ogled over Burns the whole time. The whole long 103 minutes. This movie should have been over in about 80 minutes. It just dragged on and on and on. Don't waste your time or your money on this far-fetched flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The acting was terrible, the cheesy, fake, CHEAP green screen effects were ridiculous, and the creatures were absolutely retarded. The only good thing about this movie was the concept, and the laughs I got from watching such a bad movie- then I became pretty angry because I realized I wasted 4 bucks on renting it. Why would a movie like this ever be in theaters? I know this movie came out almost 5 years ago, but does anyone put any effort into making movies anymore? I am just writing random things to fill up space- because I need ten lines of text in order to publish this review. This next line should just about do it. Annnndddddd there!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A SOUND OF THUNDER. One of the greatest short stories ever written. By one of the grandest Grand Masters of Fantasy, Ray Bradbury. What a great story.

But what a vomitous movie!

In Bradbury's science fiction short story, a company called Time Safari offers big game hunters the opportunity to go back in time and kill dinosaurs. Rule Number One is: Stay On The Path, a floating metallic walkway that ensures no interaction with the prehistoric environment. During a hunt, a man steps off the path and inadvertently crushes a butterfly. When the hunting party returns to the present - the world as they know it has drastically changed. Though there are paradoxes in any time travel story, Bradbury's tale was a quick jugular stroke, a parable of the ripple effect.

A Sound of Thunder was published in 1952 (according to Wikipedia, the most republished science fiction story of all time), and illustrated Chaos Theory, Darwinism, and The Butterfly Effect (which would only be coined in the 1960s by Edward Lorenz). In Bradbury's story, the wonder of time travel was overshadowed by corporate greed, in turn overshadowed by the mortal danger to humanity's existence itself.

While in the movie, A SOUND OF THUNDER (directed by the uneven Peter Hyams, CAPRICORN ONE, 2010: ODYSSEY TWO), a clutch of bad actors goes through the time portal again and again to try to rectify their mistakes, like an excrement version of BACK TO THE FUTURE. The movie has nothing to do with Bradbury's powerful tale, except the initial jolt of the time traveling prehistoric hunting party. Egregious liberties are taken with Bradbury's story - baboon-faced reptiles, plants overrunning Chicago's concrete, time waves rippling through the city, CGI insectoids - for which Bradbury should sue the pants and underpants and ass-hairs off the filmmakers.

Novice writers Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer and Gregory Poirier should start a Big Balls Agency, for thinking they could actually add elements to a Ray Bradbury story that would improve it. How do these guys walk in a straight line with balls this big? Ben Kingsley is the corporate owner of Time Safari, with a hairpiece so bad it looks like a hairpiece, Edward Burns is his lead hunter, Travis, and Catherine McCormack (who was Murron MacClannough, in BRAVEHEART) is the scientist with the best breasts.

I can't possibly relate the hundreds upon thousands of egregious stupidities and asinine pieces of dialog, but here is just one, spoken by David Oyelowo as some kind of \"scientist\": he refers to the Pleiades star cluster, \"The Seven Sisters, they look like stars, don't they? But each of them is a whole galaxy.\" Uh, no, idiot scientist, they're actually, uh, stars.

Those three morons who rewrote Bradbury's story forgot they didn't know anything about physics or astronomy. Or writing.

Best part of the movie is Catherine McCormick's chest straining against her disheveled one-size-too-small blouses.

--Review by Poffy The Cucumber (for Poffy's Movie Mania).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bloody awful! There's just no other way to put it. In fact, it's **SO** bad that the only reason I'm wasting words on this is to warn off other reasonable viewers who want to be intelligently entertained. You'll lose I.Q. points watching this. Come to think of it, it's not even suitable for mindless viewing because of the irritation factor. There's no guilty pleasure in watching something this incompetent.

Reasons to avoid it:

1) Horribly scientifically inaccurate, to the point where this isn't sci-fi anymore, it's just mindnumbingly sloppy, lazy fantasy.

2) It sports FX that are cheesy beyond belief. Not even cheesy-kitsch that's a wink and a nod, like vintage Doctor Who, but just cheap and shoddy to the point of being insulting. The FX are so bad they're not even laughable. They spent about a dollar-fifty on this, not more.

3) The direction is so weak and mindless that the only way the actors could make it through to the end of shooting without becoming terminally depressed was to sleepwalk through their roles, although Catherine McCormack made some effort anyway, probably on principle and despite the director. Moreover, this isn't Peter Hyams's only bad film: his flubs vastly outnumber any barely salvageable ones, of which Timecop was the last such, and that was 15 years before this writing. he's had nothing halfway decent since (End Of Days was just as slapdash, Arnold was the only draw, and he needed much firmer direction than Hyams provided). Hyams just keeps making it more and more pointless for anyone to consider giving him more work.

And finally,

4) Ray Bradbury's stories deserve far better treatment than this. Refusing to watch this film sends that message, not that Hollywood is particularly listening.

Watch at your own risk. If you do and it turns you off movies altogether, you've only yourself (and Hyams) to blame because you've been more than adequately warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was really bad, plain and simple. How a movie like this gets wide release is a wonder to me.

It's a decent idea, but it just didn't flesh out. Edward Burns is a decent actor though. I liked his small role in Saving Private Ryan.

Let's get down to the big issue here.

The visuals were so incredibly bad, I thought I was watching an old \"Dinosaurs In 3D\" CDROM point-and-click adventure demo on Windows 3.1 I mean, I've seen cut-scenes in console games from pre-2000 that have better looking dinosaurs than this. I mean, heck... the original Tomb Raider T-Rex looked better than this one.

The lizard-monkeys were laughable. I thought they were some sort of ripoff creation from \"Killer Instinct\" I've seen better sock-puppet monsters now that I think about it.

You know, there's a ton of made-for-TV movies that are better than this. How does a gem like Scifi Channels \"The Shining\" get such a small audience, but this load of \"CGI, easy to make 4 Kidz\" gets put out in the open? I don't care if it's a Ray Bradbury story. Lameeeee","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't want to seem too much of a nitpicky spoilsport, but if the accidental death of a butterfly by a time traveler caused such an enormous change in the timeline, how could that be since the butterfly would have been incinerated by the pyroclastic blast of the erupting volcano anyway? And, how could time travelers keep going back to the same moments and not keep meeting up with their prior and later selves who were also at those same few minutes in the timeline? It seems there would have been quite a large crowd standing in front of that dinosaur charging.

While i can accept the idea of a time wave, i seriously doubt the wave would have caused only a few changes. As the wave passed, all changes that would have happened, would have happened at once during the passage of that wave. So, scratch the idea of the city starting to become overgrown with jungle. And why jungle at all? The location of the city would have still been at the latitude and longitude it was before and would have had vegetation appropriate to its geographic place on Earth.

And an endless list of other illogical inanities.

Bwahahaha! This flick is a weird combination of some fairly decent production values and totally ridiculous plot holes and factual errors.

Too bad. A terrific story idea that was botched up with silly science.

Sigh... why, why, why, why? Why spend all that money on production and not even bother to proofread the screenplay to see if it made some sort of actual sense?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My friend recommended this movie to me.Is should have known not to watch it because my friend is kind of a video game nerd. But the name and the cover made it look good for some reason. I was so wrong. I mean first of all, what is up with their suits? And the acting! It seems like they got the people off Barney. Except for Ben Kingsley. And why was he even in this movie? Did he think it was a comedy! But I have to say the special effects were pretty good. But that was like the only good thing in it. I mean seriously, the movie is worse than Pearl Harbor. And thats actually an understatement. Everyone must have thought \"oh I am getting paid so it doesn't matter if its the worst movie in the world.\" I would understand why someone would make this kind of movie if they were directing, acting, producing, writing, and getting their hopeless life best friend to do filming and editing. Probably one of the worst sci-fi movies ever. One truly jacked up film","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I generally won't review movies I haven't seen in awhile, so I'll pop them in or rent them to give a full and fresh take on the film. In the case of 'A Sound of Thunder,' I remembered my vow of never seeing this movie ever again, so I'll just go on memory. In fact, I haven't thought of how badly made this movie was until I read someone else's review and remembered the experience I had back in 2005, when I actually saw this in the theater. My movie buddy forced me to see it, though I wasn't interested, and wow. (Later on, I forced him to see 'Basic Instinct 2' in the theater, reminding him he made me see this crap. So, I guess that made us even.) I certainly had my share of deep laughs (at the movie's expense, of course,) which didn't make him happy as he really wanted to see it. The time-travel\/butterfly effect film had so many bad graphics, the loudest chuckles from me was whenever they showed the dinosaur (God, I loved seeing that dino and them actually being scared of it \u0096 it was hilarious!) or just simply, Ben Kingsley. It's great, Kingsley can remind us on how human actors can be: going from 'Gandhi' and 'Schindler's List' to, uh, this. (Even a Meryl Streep can do a 'She-Devil' from time to time, so they're forgiven.) For months, I pulled an MST3k with my buddy, consistently referencing this movie to any low-rent sci-fi film or Kingsley flick. Yes, the movie would be a great movie to see drunk (or otherwise inebriated): horrible over-the-top acting, \"special\" FX that even the Nintendo64 would turn away and ridiculous plot twists. The biggest disappointment was that the Razzies didn't even nominate this film for any award.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What could have been a good story was destroyed by the ludicrous time travel scenario. If something was altered in the past that changed evolution and humans never developed, the time machine would never have been built. If something from the past was brought into the present, it would have no effect on the past.

I really wish film producers would run their ideas past an actual scientist before finishing the script. Even if you suspend reality and assume time travel is possible, you have to stick to logic.

OTOH, Ben Kingsley seemed to be having a great time with his over the top performance. All of the other actors seemed to be doing the best they could as well. It was the writing that left them twisting in the wind.

\"Back to the Future\" handled it better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a pitiful movie. What makes it even more pitiful is the time, effort and money put into a super predictable script and action.

It's about some kind of monsters, by the way, and some kind of insects. Don't expect an explanation of the plot. There is none. That might work, if there was something of interest, or characters we could care about. There isn't. Everything that happens to any person is as predictable as the other movies Sci Fi channel does.

Don't try to understand what some of the characters are saying. They speak gibberish, especially the annoying lead woman, whose accent is a sort of thick British that is harder to understand than any old British movie you may have seen. She's unintelligible.

A lot of money is spent on some great sets and scenery, and that is the major crime of this movie, because it just isn't worth it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This picture is a bad and blown up rip off of the Michael Pohl short film EXTINCT from 1995. While Michael Pohl's idea was original and perfect for a short film setting, A SOUND OF THUNDER's plot was poorly adapted from Pohl's story and not fit for a full length feature film one would expect from a major Hollywod studio. The tragic flooding situation that ruined the sets in Prague was just one bad link in a long rusty film production chain in this case. For a studio to release such a product... it is a shame. Especially for Warner Brothers, a studio which broke new effects grounds with shows like BABYLON 5 in 1993. On TELEVISION. Visual effects for television shows pioneering CGI in episodic television in the mid nineties were way more sophisticated than what is brought to the screen in this picture. In cases like this, sad as it may be: Can the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although I enjoy Steve Carrell's work, Evan the Almighty, like so many other overdone films turned out to be a lot worse than I hoped it would be.

This turned out to be a cheesy family movie, the kind that employ famous comedian to improve their image, but ultimately fail to deliver.

The usual Carell's dorky humour is almost absent from the movie and though he did make me chuckle a few times, there was nothing hilarious about him in Evan the Almighty.

His 3 kids, although were probably somehow important for a biblical character, were really quite useless in the movie and terrible actors. Even his wife, was somewhat of a third leg for such a simple storyline.

Spending so much money on making a comedy was a huge mistake. Although, Carell's career might profit from this movie, there's no real reason to go see it.

If only there was a little less of his family, a little more of Carell, Molly Shannon and maybe some other SNL cast, it could have actually been a lot more entertaining.

4\/10 for a few chuckles here and there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One hundred and seventy five million dollars is a hell of a lot of money to spend on even the biggest summer blockbuster. Not even Michael Bay had a budget that big for Transformers, so exactly how Universal Pictures spent that much cash making Evan Almighty is a mystery. They certainly didn't spend it on the script for one thing as the film is not so much a classic comedy as it is Christian flag waving and bar one or two quiet chuckles, you're most likely to spend the duration wondering where the budget went or why Steve Carrell felt the need to slum it in a decidedly average movie at the exact moment when his star profile has begun to rise.

A sequel to the Jim Carrey comedy Bruce Almighty, this film sees former supporting character Evan Baxter (Carrell) moving up the ladder into the main player slot. The story opens with him leaving the news desk to become a public official and moving to Washington with his wife and three generic sons (slightly weird primary school moppet, spirited middle schooler and sulky teenager). Evan's bid to change the world through politics however gets a spanner in the works when God (Morgan Freeman) appears and asks him to build an Ark.

In other words, it's an updating of the old Genesis story, with Evan fighting off cynicism and naysayers to build the immense boat. Unfortunately, while the premise is reasonably promising, it sadly does not provide many laughs. There's a bit of fun to be had in the early going where Evan's straight-laced MP tries to juggle the demands of public service with the unwelcome packs of animals that follow him around and a beard that resists all attempts to shave it, but as soon as he accepts his divine mission, the film takes a nosedive.

From this point on, it turns into a message movie. Evan begins preaching with alarming regularity and Morgan Freeman keeps turning up to offer kind wisdom, while gently prodding his chosen in the right direction. Without Evan's resistance though, the only trace of comedy left comes in the form of a few rubbish animal-feces jokes and John Michael Higgin's role as Evan's exasperated right-hand man. Higgins may show the same rich comic potential that he did previously in Arrested Development, but his enthusiasm cannot save the sinking vessel, especially seeing as Carrell has all but placed his formidable improv skills on the back-burner.

In some respects, it's slightly similar to the Passion of the Christ, but unlike Mel Gibson's movie which encouraged everyone to believe in God through blood letting and guilt tripping, Evan Almighty tries a more gentle approach. The movie simply tells us that we should have faith in God, because He has faith in us. Unfortunately, this movie is just as likely to make you laugh as the Passion is. Carrell is on autopilot, the jokes don't exist and Wanda Sykes makes a bid to become the most annoying person on the planet. It might be sweet, but somebody just tossed $175 000 000 overboard.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, for this abomination of a film, I wasn't expecting anything good. I find Steve Carell annoying, and Bruce Almighty was pretty good but there is absolutely no reason for it to have a sequel. Somehow, this film was even lower than my expectations, even when I didn't have any.

Does anyone remember the Disney movie Noah with Tony Danza? Well, let's just say that Evan Almighty completely ripped it off in way too many ways for the movie to remain justifiable. Actually Evan Almighty was had the EXACT same plot outline as Noah, with the exception of a few technicalities, it was nothing but a carbon copy of a far-superior movie that was actually FUNNY.

Another thing, did anyone get sick of Wanda Sykes' stupid, unfunny, redundant, one-liners that were literally in every single scene? It was completely ridiculous and just dragged the movie down more and more.

Despite the fact that I basically had already seen the film ten years earlier(Noah), Evan Almighty has to be the most predictable movie I've ever seen. I figured out the entire movie from beginning to end within the first five minutes and eventually realized that it was ripping off Noah left and right.

In conclusion, if you're a little bit unsure of whether or not you want to see Evan Almighty, and are already sick of Jonah Hill playing the same role in every single movie he's in, liked Bruce Almighty, and don't want to see a predictable, dry, unfunny movie with Steve Carell trying to act like Jim Carrey, then please, don't see this piece of garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A sadly inferior precursor to \"Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf\" this film drags on and on, occasionally reviving your interest only to put you through more selfindulgent maundering and obvious but patently overdone plot points.

It may list as 111 minutes but feels like three hours of painfully wasted time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Decent action scenes, but the movie is saddled with a slow, convoluted storyline, nearly non-existent dialogue that leads to minimal character development, and a seriously horrible storyline...

Did I mention that the storyline made no sense? But, in its defense, the action scenes were impressive enough, even if they leave you scratching your head as to why they just happened.

There's not much else to say about the movie. It's a slick, mindless action adventure that makes no sense whatsoever. It's like watching a worse version of the Matrix and skipping all the storyline and dialogue.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I and my brother are very big Asian movie fans, so when finding this movie hidden in a shop, I bought this one on DVD, because it sounded very promising and I couldn't wait to watch it. So I watched this movie with my brother and I must say, in the beginning it was very promising. Both of us really loved this brutal ball scene in the first scene. But i guess that was all. There are some interesting fights, but it is not a action movie, as it claims to be. Instead it's a love movie... with the clich\u00e9 of love so extremely played over the top, even Shakespeare would vomit on this title. Sorry for my language. By the way: The characters act like being picked up from the street and given 100\u0080 for playing in this movie.

Well, I and my brother watched it to the end, because we thought, it can only become better. But, heck, it never did. This movie challenged place #1 on my and my brothers \"worst movies ever seen\"-list, only followed by \"Fantasy mission force\" - do not watch this either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a pity to throw away such a good idea. The main idea of the movie is travel into past lives which - fortunately - is not a time travel but a journey inside man which has nothing to do with the past or the future. (Maybe they shouldn't be called past lives at all in the film now that I think of it... Another minus, I guess). It's all in the present, in a different space... Very interesting without causing much religious distress.

However, the music is totally repetitive, melodramatic, sentimental and out of place (not to mention \"western\"!). There should have been more variety and more thought on where there should be music and where there shouldn't. The flashback romantic scenes take a lot of space and running time and are totally unnecessary. The acting is not bad although the language has kept me from understanding better.

I believe the idea needed a little more thought, developing and unfoldment. The inside scenes could have had better background settings because in many cases they seem unreal. As a whole, I would say that this movie leaves a lot to be desired...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i had no idea what this movies was about, it jumps from plot line to plot line erratically linking incoherent ideas with one another. it simply doesn't make sense.

the chopped up time line doesn't help either. we start in present day get a flash back to the past and then return to the future only to go back into the past.

this movie is also filled with horrible sappy lines and clich\u00e9 themes such as princess and the pauper, \"you cant have me even in my death\" lines, \"you don't even love me enough\" line. clich\u00e9 to the max!

fighting scene were horribly corny, lighting was constantly misplaced which offset the CG with the actors (meanning you could tell some of the backgrounds were clearly CG).

Although the society in di moon was quite interesting.

i wouldn't really recommend his to anyone, avoid if possible.

if you found this comment hard to follow, the movie would be equally as bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not \"confusing\" in the sense that, \"Gee, this movie is really complex, and thus hard to follow!\" But confusing in the sense that, \"Gee, this movie really has no idea what it's doing!\"

DREAM OF A WARRIOR is a Hong Kong\/South Korean collaboration, but it's all utter nonsense. A movie about parallel universes mixed in with time travel mixed in with love story mixed in with silliness.

The film has the type of concept that boggles the mind. Again, not boggles the mind because it's so great and complex, but boggles in the sense that it's so ridiculous and one can't conceive of anyone ever coming up with such an awful premise to begin with.

Nothing in DREAM OF A WARRIOR makes sense, and that's because the whole movie should never have been made. It is quite awful. The only saving grace is the actress who plays the female warrior (not the female lead).

3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The producers of this film should be sued for the misrepresentation of copyrighted materials, namely the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players' Handbook. Fear and ignorance breed the sort of mindless propaganda that inspire garbage like this film. If any of you have any doubts about the innocence of Dungeons & Dragons, why don't you go to your local hobby store and see about sitting in with a gaming group, so you can see for yourself that D&D is nothing to be afraid of.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Normally, I wouldn't even stoop to viewing trash like this, but since role-playing is a dear hobby to me, and such was the subject of the film, I did. It was garbage in so many ways that I do not know where to begin. I would rather sit through the \"Plan 9 from Outer Space\" marathon than watch another minute of this vomit. At least Plan 9 didn't have an agenda. How the media could capitulate and irresponsibly represent extremist agenda as fact is beyond me. It is a scary time when a whole group of people can be unceremoniously trounced with no defense and no real facts presented. I know this commentary went more social, but it couldn't be helped, as this movie begged it. Imagine a pro-nazi film being reviewed strictly on film merit. Won't happen. As it sits, the people who made this film are facists themselves, and should perhaps move into a communist enclave where propagandizing is accepted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'This Life' is truly as bad as it gets. Its cast of mercenary, lascivious, ruthless, duplicitous, shallow characters are intended as a reflection on its post-eighties setting and I have to admit in this regard it is an accurate creation. Unfortunately, it leaves me nothing to sympathise with or care about and I regard it as just another step toward the television premium-rate phone in scams; astonishingly bad, cheap, reality and 'celebrity' saturated television; and other cut and run attitudes that have destroyed this medium and, indeed, much of British society. Sounds exaggerated? I don't think it is. In this regard programs such as 'This Life' have indeed been as influential as they are often called.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A cheesy \"B\" crime thriller of the early '50, the story is droll, the characters wooden, Allison Hayes and Abbe Lane are the only two sexpots that make it an eye-catcher, but one short shot, only a few frames long, shows an \"el\" train crossing the river on the State Street bridge, of the 6000 series Pullman-built cars painted in their original 1950 paint scheme, as they were delivered when new in 1950. For traction fans like me, that one short take makes the picture worthwhile. I think films like this one, Ulmer's DETOUR, D.O.A. with Edmund O'Brien,THE FUGITIVE with Harrison Ford, and others of the film noir genre, (big city crime dramas) make it interesting if for nothing other than the fact that I know Chicago and San Francisco intimately and recognize most of the street locations. Other wise it's a really droll boring film!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a pale imitation of the Die Hard franchise that just sucks. The low ambitions of the movie are clearly on display when the terrorists hold the Vice-President hostage and he has to call the White House to beg them to transfer some money. In most movies of this genre the President is kidnapped or held hostage because after all he (or she) is the most powerful person in the country with finger on the nuclear button etc etc. Would most Americans have really been worried if Dick Cheney had been kidnapped? The honest answer is- probably not. Why the terrorists would choose a Stanley Cup final to carry out their operation and why, despite many explosions around them, the audience inside the hockey stadium is oblivious to the situation, are unanswerable questions. Let's just say this film is really hokey, not hockey. Those who liked the film and found it to be exciting should get a life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only thing in \"Sudden Death\" that outdoes the amount of non-stop action is the incredible number of plot holes. What with that, and the sheer amount of contrivances, one could hardly call what's left a storyline. To say the screenplay has borrowed from the \"Die Hard\" premise would be to make the world's most blatant understatement!

Here we have a troubled hero working in the huge Pittsburgh Indoor Ice Rink as a fire Marshall. On the night of the seventh game of the finals series he gets tickets so he can treat his estranged children to the deciding game, and of course spend a little time with them. Also catching the match, but for political reasons, is the Vice President of the United States (Raymond J. Barry). When a bunch of incredibly well organised mercenaries capture the V.P.'s box and demand hundreds of millions in government money, our hero Darren McCord has his plans more than slightly put out.

Each time a new one of these formula flicks is made it seems that all we get in the way of innovation is nastier bad guys, and more and more spectacular and gruesome ways in which the good guys dispose of them. Director Hyams and his screenwriter have gone over the top (not that this is an original sin) in trying to make us loathe the wicked terrorists. The horrible baddies go about shooting the secret service, the security and the civilians (both old and young) with gay abandon, and with scant regard for the relative threat of each victim.

Van Damme engages in plenty of fisty-cuffs and gunplay, heroics and death defying stunts. The script asks little of the musclebound European. Almost everyone else has walk-ons apart from Powers Boothe, who seriously overdoes his under written, shallow role as the cruelest, meanest old ring leader there ever was.

There's a lot of clever cinematography, and enough explosive special f\/x to keep anyone awake. But really, that's all this action flick has, action. Though there are some nifty sequences, nothing could be called outrageously brilliant.

Saturday, February 10, 1996 - Greater Union Melbourne","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A clever overall story\/location for a story. Action is respectable. The children are annoying and their motivation is unclear. The leading villain was a nice change but could have been better. \"I Love You\" was more overplayed than \"you complete me\" but at least Van Damme got a chance to show a little tenderness. One of Van Damme's better movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't pay any attention to the rave reviews of this film here. It is the worst Van Damme film and one of the worst of any sort I have ever seen. It would appeal to somebody with no depth whatever who requires nothing more than gunfire and explosions to be entertained.

Seeing that this is directed by Peter Hyams it has made me realise that Peter has no talent as a director, but is very good at filming explosions and the like. However, movies need other elements as well; for example, a story. This one didn't have one. This might explain the awfulness of some of Mr. Hyams' more recent films, hardly any better than this one, really.

One can't help wondering how some people ever were put behind a camera.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, here is a really short review: this movie blowed. I wish I could just have a review that stated this simple principle, but I must bore you with more bad review type words like 'horrible' 'clich\u00e9d' and 'unwatchable.' It's the type of film you watch when you are drunk or are stuck on a desert island with nothing else to do. Here's the premise: the vice president is captured by a terrorist group at a play-off hockey game and only Van Damm can stop the madness. Truly, truly terrible, but then again, I didn't pay to see it the first time around and only my dad felt the absence of girth in his wallet after this movie. I hate the fact he is a Republican and all, but then again, he did spare me the horror of paying for this piece of garbage. Okay, that is now enough space to be recognized as a review, so I bid adieu.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Talk about a bore-snore. This 3rd rate biker film was putting me to sleep as soon as the opening credits came on the screen. The shame is that the cast included many fine actors, among them-George Kennedy, Karen Black, Leo Gordon, Richard Lynch, Lance Henriksen and William Forsythe.

A take off of the Western classic, High Noon, this is basically the story of a former U.S. army green beret (Henriksen) trying to get someone to help him rid a one-horse town of a gang of creepy bikers.

Everyone tries, but the script is on grade-school level. Sad to see academy award winner Kennedy in such a comedown from his out-standing performance in Cool Hand Luke.

If you have trouble sleeping at night, this would be a perfect movie video to rent..........you'll be sleeping in no time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ben Stryker an ex-green beret stops off at a little town called Agua Dolee to visit an old friend Tick Rand. Soon after riding into town on his Suzuki and settling in. A motorcycle gang known as 'The Savages' who's led by tyrant Pigiron invade and finally take over the place. Stryker doesn't want to get involved, but that changes when he friends become the actual targets.

Is there anything good to say about this scuzzy item? Tough call, as the only fundamental reason to watch this low-budget car wreck is for the tremendous b-cast the crew managed to get hold off for this project. While I don't think it's a complete botch job, it's not terribly good either. Now what a cast! Lance Henriksen (being the main character, he strangely doesn't have top billing, but the final one), Karen Black, George Kennedy, Richard Lynch, Bill Forsythe, Mickey Jones and Leo Gordon. Now what went wrong with this scummy low-budget bungle. The shallowness of the material is too one-dimensional that it heavily borrows ideas from better movies (namely Mad Max) and comes up with a complete mess of ideas that just don't gel and could have been better thought out. The clich\u00e9s that are used can be manipulated into a good viewing, despite being predictable, but \"Savage Dawn\" seems to let it skimpily rush all by without letting the viewer soak it all up. The cast are mostly wasted in nothing roles. A bleached-blonde Henriksen is capably solid and even with his commending presence that provides an enigmatic glow to his character. He doesn't get up to hell of a lot and sometimes goes missing in action. Too much sideline action, but when he did kick some bikers' ass, the good times flowed. Karen Black's hissing performance is a very odd one and is all about the screaming and cursing. Although she does get into one memorable catfight with Claudia Udy's flirtatious vixen character Katie. A wheelchair bound George Kennedy roams around aimlessly until the final assault and Richard Lynch looks embarrassed as a wayward priest \/ town mayor in a very redundant role. An on edge Bill Forsythe simply chews it up as the head honcho of the notorious biker pack.

The junky story (written by William Milling and Max Bloom) has that cheesy comic book getup and very much is influenced by the western genre. Just look at the villains for that. How they came up with their names is mystery. Maybe they drew them out of a hat. It's pretty second rate material that more often moves onto one lacklustre scene after another. Unfunny comical elements are chucked in and as well a bit of sleaze. Tacky exploitation that doesn't get gritty enough and the deaths are quite laughable. A clumsy script is filled convoluted details and unbearable trite. Simon Nuchtern's spotty direction was by the numbers and tepidly laid out. One or two intense scenes can't makeup for its tortoise-like pacing and many cack-handed stunts. The cardboard sets had down 'n dirty look, but lack that organic sense. The gravel-like cinematography by Gerald Feil was better handled when the main focus wasn't on the town, but on the desolate backdrop (like the beginning and ending climax of the film) with some neat camera touches. Pino Donaggio's clunky music choices are drowned out by its own incompetence.

\"Savage Dawn\" is a forgettable quickie midnight movie that's a definite misfire for most part. There are better and more convincing exercises of the same ilk out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The evil bikie gang in this movie were called the Savages, hence the title, but Minor Nuisances would have been a better name for this sorry mob of weak actors trying to look dangerous. Whenever they wanted to kill someone, they generously rode their bikes very slowly so that their intended victim could easily avoid them or push them off their bikes. Their leader had a bad limp, but still thought he could take on the hero and win. As for Karen Black, she didn't seem to know where she was for most of the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The auteur of \"Prince\" manages to take an excellent cast, a decent story, a mediocre script and carefully assemble them into one boring, monotonous, amateurish mess. In spite of a strong central performance by Frank Nasso, the Prince, this disjointed film wanders aimlessly from scene to scene, painfully disintegrating into hash. The result brings a sigh of relief at the end where the tears of joy should be. A sad waste of time and talent and a good example of how NOT to direct a film.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Prince of Central Park (2000) is so utterly bad. It was a pure waste of my time and I can't believe I actually watched the whole thing. Please do not watch this movie, if it's the last thing you do!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Shameless waste of my time as a viewer. This is one of the worst films I've seen in ages. Please do not rent it as you will regret doing so! Guaranteed! I wonder how Kathleen Turner ended up in this! She is a legitimate actress and people would perhaps be attracted to this film because of her. But it really is better to act as if this title was never made! It should not have come into existence!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has an amazing cast. MGM took some of its finest character actors and starred them in a film with the usually adorable Margaret O'Brien. Lionel Barrymore, Edward Arnold and Lewis Stone star as three greedy old bachelors who live in the same home. While they have amassed a fortune over the years, they also have been selfish jerks. One of them has an idea to donate some property in order to buy themselves a good name (sort of like Carnegie) but it turns out the property they want to give away actually belongs to O'Brien. And, since she's an orphan, they volunteer to be her guardians so they can give HER property away and look like great philanthropists.

There also is a goofy subplot involving fairies--led by the wonderful character actor Henry Davenport. And, since O'Brien is Irish (as evidenced by her outrageous accent), she and the little people make up much of the plot. Frankly, I absolutely hated this portion of the film and wished they'd just dropped it entirely. Instead, the story could STILL have been about sweet Margaret melting the mean old men's hearts--this would have worked. But...the \"little people\"?!? Sheesh! Overall, the actors try very, very hard but the silliness of the plot and the deadly earnest way they tried made me cringe. I noticed a lot of people liked this film--I guess I'm just an old grouch! I found the film horrible difficult to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Imagine watching a slide show where the projector lingers on every slide long enough for you to completely memorize it three times over. Now imagine that the images in the slide show consist entirely of mundane scenes \u0096 a small park; and empty tennis court; a piano. Now imagine that the people running the slide show are having a frustratingly slow, semi-lucid conversation about events that only occasionally relate to the slides they're showing you. Great \u0096 you've just imagined the entirety of the film `India Song.'

The film is an agonizingly slow montage of images that do little except to simply scream out `Look at me! I am PROFOUND!!' with such blatant self-importance that the images themselves and the movie as a whole are rendered not merely bereft of profundity, but COMICALLY bereft of profundity. The visuals could easily have been replaced by a series of static images as described above, since it is so rare that there are actually people on screen, and even when they are, the people actually move only slightly more often than the furniture. They never speak or interact in any meaningful way \u0096 they just stand there looking at each other, and occasionally crying. The most energetic moment in the entire first hour of the film is when three people walk across a parking lot in slow motion. In fact, the visuals could easily have been left out entirely, as the story is told completely through narration. The story is about a woman who hates India because it's hot, and hates people don't hate India because it's hot (this point is covered several times). It is also about a man who feels that he is entitled to sleep with the aforementioned woman, since she will sleep with anyone who asks her to, but he doesn't get to sleep with her simply because he never asks, and he's very upset about this. So he stares at her as a single tear runs profoundly down his cheek. Later on, he stares at his bicycle, as a single tear runs profoundly down his cheek. Actually, you don't get to see the single tear running profoundly down his cheek when he's staring at his bicycle, but you know it's there anyway, just because that's the sort of film this is.

At best, the narration becomes background hum, serving as a perfect compliment to the coma-inducing visuals. Simply staying conscious through the entirety of this film would require a supreme act of determination. To watch it and actually come away with a serious and meaningful idea of what it was supposed to be about would induce the same sort of migraine as trying to read lengthy technical documents in the dark. This film is perhaps the greatest monument of pseudo-artistic pretension that man will ever know.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Extremely boring..I don't care how many avant-garde bones you have in your body, this baby sucks...and don't go and see it because I mentioned that, save it for Warhol's \"Empire\", it's far more entertaining!! I have seen other Duras films that were far better, so I am dumbfounded why this is considered a \"Masterpiece\". As an Art Historian, I have had to consider radical works by Marcel Duchamp, Chris Burden, and Damien Hurst, and in these artist I can still see artistic intent , even quality, and an entertaining aspect in the rendering of their art. As for \"India Song\" -it's not even soft-porn- Anias Nin was almost here - G-rated slide show of sex- and a voice-over that does not relate to the slide show \/ movie......pure crap and not even campy...sadly just a bore and a waste of 2 hours. To add insult to injury, the print I saw was faded and scratched to hell!!! (Harvard Film Archive), If I want to see \"entertaining boring\" I watch Bunuel!! Yes \"India Song\"- hold your head high to late modernism and be truly bored!! Watch a 70's porn film with all the good parts cut out and turn the sound down, you'll get \"India Song\" but with better cinematography and none of the annoying music or the screams of the Vice Consul!!!.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I felt as though the two hours I spent watching this film may have been better served by perhaps going to the local used bookstore and looking for old fashion magazines and Halston ads. Or perhaps by watching paint dry. Those two employments would have at least engaged my mind a bit more than \"India Song.\" The most frustrating part of sitting through this was that I could see what moods\/atmospheres were trying to be created and the notion of these could have been interesting if they had been fleshed out more. Instead, what happened was a presentation of an incoherent, silly chain of nonevents - with the same scenes rehashed over and over to beat some sort of point into our senses.

I was loathe to devote more time to this film by writing any sort of review, except to perhaps warn other folks against this waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Look, some film has got to the be worst ever. I suggest it may be India Song. When I saw the film in 1976 it was playing at the Carnegie Hall Cinema, a place frequented by people who care a lot about film. From about the halfway point, people were simply flooding out of the theater. My girlfriend wouldn't let us leave, but by the end, the theater was virtually empty. I kept telling people as they left that \"the good part is still to come.\" And it was. The good part was the screen at the end that said \"fin.\" It was the only good part. I am still annoyed by this film 24 years later. It was pointless, stupid and derivative (Marienbad, part 2). See it only if you want to spend an endless two hours learning to distinguish between merely bad and simply awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If at all possible, try to view all five of the Universal \"Mummy\" films in order, not so much for the continuity between films, but for the very evident lack thereof. Of course it goes without saying that the original Boris Karloff classic \"The Mummy\" really shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as the so called \"sequels\", all of which come off as campy or cultish.

This time around, it's revealed that the mummified remains of Princess Ananka have made their way to the United States. And once again, as your eyes deceive you, Kharis the Mummy didn't really die for the second time in \"The Mummy's Tomb\", but is alive and searching for his lost love Princess Ananka, with the help of the rhetorical nine tana leaves brewed during the cycle of the full moon. To complete the mythology, Kharis needs a caretaker, ably filled by a gaunt John Carradine as Yousef Bey, entrusted with the task by George Zucco's Andoheb, high priest of Arkan.

Kharis and Ananka are to be returned to their final resting place in the hills of Arkan in Egypt. But as we've seen before, being entrusted with the duty of a high priest is a sure bet to end in failure, with Carradine's character falling for the reincarnation of Ananka, Amina Monsouri (Ramsay Ames). It's shocking to see Yousef Bey and the PO'ed bandaged one come to blows over the gorgeous Amina.

Riddle me this - in both \"Tomb\" and \"Curse\", Lon Chaney portrays the Mummy with a limp right arm folded helplessly across his chest. When he encounters the fainted Amina, he lifts her up in both arms with no problem; as soon as he puts her down his right arm returns to it's crippled position once again.

The ending of the film is most notable - the monster gets the girl! But it's a short lived victory, as the Mummy and his kidnapped bride succumb to a swampy grave, an ancient Egyptian curse is fulfilled - \"The fate of those who defy the will of the ancient gods shall be a cruel and violent death\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Perhaps the weakest film in the \"Kharis\" series, despite the presence of John Carradine (miscast as an Egyptian high priest) and George Zucco (as his predecessor, hilariously afflicted by a bad case of Parkinson's Disease) supporting Lon Chaney Jr. as the titular creature - if indeed it was him under the bandages, as his contribution is negligible at best! It's a watchable 60 minutes in itself, I guess, but the standards have considerably lowered when compared even to the two previous entries, and the end result is strictly routine and not at all memorable. Just about the only interesting feature here is the fact that the female lead happens to be the reincarnation of Princess Ananka, mentioned a great deal in earlier films but never actually seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lon Chaney Jr returns to lumber along as the mummy Kharis seeking his mate, Annanka whose soul now resides in the beautiful host of descendant Amina(Ramsay Ames). Andoheb, High Priest of Arkan(George Zucco)leaves Yousef Bey(John Carradine)in charge of Kharis to continue their evil-doing ways. Tom(Robert Lowery)must find a way to save his beloved Amina from certain future mummy terror.

Routine, predictable entry in the Kharis series proves that nearly every film follows a specific format\/formula. The city is threatened by a skulking, one-armed corpse masked in wrapping who seems to have been gifted with superhuman power to choke the life out of able-bodied men who are restrained with relative ease by a mere chokehold from Kharis. Frank Reicher, who saw Kharis in action..and knows a great deal about Egyptian history..in the previous film(The Mummy's Tomb), proves that anyone who happened to survive a previous encounter with the mummy is sure to die if he returns in the next flick. Well produced, but lacks originality that would set it apart from the other films in the series. Sadly, Carradine sleepwalks through his role as the evil Yousef Bey. Embarrassing script mistake has Kharis, who is known for donning a crippled, lame right arm, carrying an unconscious Amina with both arms for long distances with no ill effects. One aspect, the shocking climax where Tom's attempt at heroism doesn't go according to plan as Kharis holds his damsel-in-distress hostage, lifts the film from the doldrums slightly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILER AHEAD! The mummy (Lon Chaney Jr.) is on the loose in a New England college town searching for a college student (Ramsey Ames) who is the reincarnation of his beloved Princess Ananka. Dull, slow (even at 65 minutes--it moves slower than the mummy!), indifferently acted, but the ending is worth waiting for. The mummy gets the girl (!!!!!) and she ages rapidly as the both slowly sink in a swamp. This is (I believe) the only time in a Universal monster movie that the monster got the girl! That aside, this is stricly amateur night. Probably the worst of the mummy sequels--and that's saying something!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe that I actually sat thru this entire film. A friend rented it because the jacket made it sound good. In it's defense, the jacket was correct; there was a supposed haunted room that someone slept in overnight. From the jacket, it sounded like this was on par with Freddy, Jason, or maybe \"The Shining.\" It couldn't be farther from the truth.

If you are a fan of minimalist and\/or surrealist films, you may enjoy it. If you're looking for a good fright movie, or a couple of thrills, go rent Jason vs Freddy IV -- you'll have a much better night.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is watchable, but nothing special. Four girls on a road trip to Vegas foolishly decide to pick up a hitchhiker (because he is cute). They all end up staying the night at a motel in the middle of nowhere, and the hitchhiker's psychotic issues with women become apparent.

The characters are clich\u00e9s--there is a married, responsible woman; a slutty party girl; an unsure bride-to-be; and a man-hater who just got dumped. The hitchhiker is genuinely nice until he goes crazy.

There's not nearly enough gore, and way too much rape. I enjoy slasher horror\/thrillers a lot, and this one did nothing for me. The ending was just as lame as the rest of the movie.

On the positive side, the actors did a great job with that they had to work with. The dialogue isn't awful, and overall I was impressed with the cast, having never seen or heard of any of them before. And the plot wasn't out of the realm of possibility (although I really doubt any woman in this day and age would pick up a hitchhiker--no matter how attractive he is), so I wasn't groaning that things didn't make sense.

Overall, \"The Hitchhiker\" was well-acted and made sense, but wasn't very interesting. There are a lot of better movies in the same genre that I would recommend over this one (\"Rest Stop,\" \"The Devil's Rejects,\" \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre,\" even \"The Hitcher\" remake). Do yourself a favor and skip it unless you don't have any other options.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, the current IMDb plot description seems to be misleading, the movie is about a group of girls who pick up a misogynistic hitchhiker, who plans to kill them all. They stop at a small motel, where he holds them hostage, but develops an intense attraction for one of the girls. Violence ensues.

I picked this up by mistake thinking it was the other 2007 movie \"The Hitcher\". Not that The Hitcher is any better, and I was looking for a crummy movie to watch anyway, but this was almost unbearable at times. I think I could have vomited on a piece of paper and come up with a better plot than this.

I can't even count how many movies I've seen with virtually the same storyline, so this was almost painfully predictable at times, but what really made it awful were a few scenes that ... well let me give an example. At one point a door is covered in (what is very obviously) blood, and two police officers, at the scene because of a 911 call, are looking at it from 30 feet away, see a man, also covered in blood, walk out of the door, agree that it looks suspicious, but decide to not investigate further.

But, however ridiculous it may be, the movie was never boring, was well produced, directed, and acted, complete with good special effects, gratuitous nudity, and violence. I probably would not recommend actually spending 90 minutes of your life sitting down to watch this movie, but it turned out to be perfect to have on while I cleaned my basement. Also highly recommended for fans of crummy movies, and would be a good movie to watch with friends when you plan on doing more talking than watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK I went to this website before I watched this movie, read the comments, got pumped, - cause they where all pretty good for a B-flick - watched it and was completely disappointed. The main characters wannabe lone rebel straight out of the mid-west act was sickening to the stomach, and don't even get me started on the two cops, I mean there's a bloody door right there in plain view, check it out! The plot was completely predictable, the editing was rather limited, I swear the editor was even dozing off near the end when he was cutting this movie, and the direction was clouded by bad cinematography. Now please don't get me wrong, I love B-flicks, some are really good.

Want to watch a good B rated flick???

Dave recommends

\" High Tension \"

http:\/\/imdb.com\/title\/tt0338095\/","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was disappointing for at least one of two reasons. The suspense created disappeared because of horrible acting or lack of direction from the director.. I don't know.. it was like a tasty bubble gum that seemed to run out of flavor yet you continue to chew on it because it once tasted great. Like most thrillers The Hitchhiker had promise yet failed to deliver when it had me bright eyed and ready to turn the volume down(I was watching the movie alone.. in the dark) This so called thriller simply came apart like it was made of Lego transforming into something else. It simply ran out of gas and left me staring at a made-for-TV-like style movie with one exception.. it was probably rated-R.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"About the spoiler warning? It's not \"may contain\", it -does- contain spoilers. Readers beware.

Okay, first I need it to be known that I'm not bashing the actors. They're just working with what they're given. The problem was the script. It was horrendous. There was NOTHING believable about it at all. Sure, when you have a movie based on a murderous hitchhiker, there's going to be the bad mistake here and there that puts you in the terribly horrific, movie-worthy situation. But these girls just made stupid decision after stupid decision. The only girl smart enough to ever try and call the police was the girl added towards the end because he'd already killed one and hit another with a car. Speaking of hitting her with a car...why the hell did she try and outrun a truck rather than run to the side like a normal person? Also, does the one who wrote the script honest to god believe cops are not going to investigate a door covered in blood? Frankly, it wasn't suspenseful either. The only suspense I was feeling was the frustration at just how retarded the girls were. Well, this rant has gone on way longer than I meant to for such a bad movie, so I won't bother to touch on the end besides the fact it's unrealistic and lame.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is total swill. If you take The Devil's Rejects and suck all the good out of it, and add a lot of twisted, kinky bondage parts, a few rape scenes, and like one or two sincerely horrifying scenes, and you'd get this movie. People are calling this a ripoff of '86's The Hitcher, but I don't see that at all. Even the worst Hitcher ripoffs are still better than this. The main problem on display here is that there's really nothing here besides a few of the director's fetishes being showcased like circus exhibits. Is all you need out of a movie shots of girls being abused and tied up, cowering in fear? Well, then rent this movie!

However, I'd rather just watch a good movie, which this is clearly not. The sad thing is, there are some really good thrills waiting to be uncovered here, but only a few. For instance, the suspense at the beginning before the bondage nonsense started...pretty damn good if you ask me. And the scene where the hitchhiker kills the nympho girl (can't remember names) is chilling, very brutal in a way, challenging even The Devil's Rejects for unbridled fury. How come the rest of the movie can't be that good? Huh? I really need to stop renting stupid crap like this. Closing message: Just let this gutter trash die and forget it forever. Not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Opie, Tom Gilson,was my brother,so I went to see the movie and I never looked at it again in all these years. Sorry! it was bad. I'm told I have to write 10 lines so I'll put a little trivia in. Tom and Tuesday Weld were to be \" introduced \" in this picture and Tom was told to take Tuesday to the premiere but Tom said no he was going with Joan Collins, and he did and because he did only Tuesday Weld was Introduced. I found this very funny back then and still do. The movie, while the concept was a funny one, and the actors in it were impressive but some how it just did'nt come out funny.The continuity was abstract, at best,it was like I was watching 2 different movies at the same time,each running into the other. Sorry, Bob Gilson","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have read the other user comments and I am happy someone has compared it to the original by Kamal called Perumarzhakalam released in 2004.

The original had a tight story and no loopholes as described above about the Indian Govt not having proper records, or even bad shoots and bloopers.

The story is great and a touchy one and well described by others. But sadly Nagesh taking credit for it as his own story is a sad thing and amounts to nothing other than plagiarism.

I guess he has been affected by Bollywood's so called \"inspired\" syndrome.

He must at least give credit where it is due.

I liked some of his older movies, but now I suspect if any of them were originals after all.

Here is a link in IMDb for the original masterpiece. http:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0425350\/#comment I recommend everyone to see the original, even with subtitles if needed, to know what class direction and class acting is all about.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one the worst movie I've seen and certainly worst movie Nagesh Kuknoor has made. I can't believe person who has created movie like Teen Deewarein can create utter crap like this.

Plot of the film itself is really faulty that Zeenat has to search Meera and get her clemency to help her husband avoid death penalty in Soudi Arabia. Common logic says if Zeenat cannot search Meera easily so won't the Soudi Government, so Zeenat can safely forge Meera's signature or thumb-print and produce it before the Soudis. Another silliest thing is Shankar has given incorrect address in his passport, so Indian government officials cannot get to the address but after sometime Meera gets Shankar's suitcase through Soudi government. Wow! Doesn't it make Soudis well networked in India more than Indians?

Nagya makes a slightly more than cameo in the movie with role of Chopra, who is eyeing Meera and seeks Meera's Father-in-law, Girish Karnaad(this guy is just wasted)'s help to get her as a keep.

Nagya cannot speak Hindi and he has been assisted by other guys to translates the English dialogs he writes, in Hindi. This time, it seems that his aide was in serious intoxication, when writing dialogs like \"Imaan ki Chalaang\" (leap of honesty). Within minutes, to our worst nightmares, Meera not only takes this honest leap, she taps her feet to do \"Imaan ka Naach\" (dance of honesty).

One of the only bright spot movie has is its cinematography and really nice hues. But since Bollywood has learned the thing called Post-production, almost all the movies have vibrant colors and nicely blended backdrops, so no big deal.

Conclusion is that making a cheesy movie is not limited to Chopras or Johars or Barjatyas, Nagyas and all are ready to get affected.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a clunker!

It MUST have been made for TV or Cable.

Look: forget the screenplay - forget the bunch of forgettable actors. Excuse me? Continuity? The NSA\/NIA\/whatever or whoever he is (an agent) takes-off in an F16 - is shown in an F18 chucking his guts up and, later, the aircraft shown taxiing is an F4 Phantom! Oooh, wish that I could be so cavalier.

Apart from the male actors(!?) The women are WASPS: blue-eyed and long-legged and, eventually, get to cry about the heroes who save them. Even when a solid weld could save most of the cosmo- astro-nauts, the blond drops the welding tool. Duh!

As an SF movie one out of ten. As a movie per se: 1\/2 (that's a half point). They should have ditched the space station and headed for Mars.

Major raspberries.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Admittedly, you can put a model airplane against a black background and call it sci-fi, and thats enough to get me interested, so if you are like that, Black Horizon will at least get you interested before you watch it. The best part of the movie is when they rehash some actual footage of a shuttle launch.

The movie plays like the Naked Gun series, spoofing cop dramas with bad clich\u00e9s and bad acting. Unfortunately, i don't think they meant to be funny, the actors really are made of cardboard, the dialog really does suck, so well just have to laugh at them, and not with them.

On a side note, it is rare to see a movie that takes place half in outer space, half on earth, and doesn't mix in the expected extraterrestrials and supernatural events. I really do ache for more realistic drama based on our space endeavors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Russian space station 'Avna' with a crew of four Russians and two Americans is threatening to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere in a matter of days. Russia asks for NASA's help in rescuing the stranded crew and NASA scrambles the space shuttle Atlantis. The NSA also have an interest in the 'Prometheus', a prototype microwave power source being tested aboard 'Avna' and organise for one of their men to be placed on the mission.

That's the plot. Onto less important things. The space station and the shuttle are the same, blatantly obvious models used in 'Fallout', 'Memorial Day' and 'Dark Breed' (and a handful of other films, I suspect). The model effects are so obvious throughout the entire movie and make the film look very 1960s. The sets are a little better but are far too '80s for what is supposedly a brand new station built by an American company (which later comes in as part of a conspiracy to destroy 'Avna' and the 'Prometheus' and claim the insurance. The script has a few good moments (including Yuri's farewell and the little spiel at the end) but is otherwise fairly bland and sub-standard. The acting is okay; the only real standout performance comes from Alex Veadov who offers up some of the film's better dialogue. Michael Dudikoff is, surprisingly, one of the best parts about this film. Ice-T is Ice-T. 'Nuff said. The film offers a few surprises, though, that I don't wish to spoil.

Certainly one of the better low-grade, contemporary-set sci-fi films of the last six years, but not the best. The film is watchable but the special effects and plot will probably put a lot of viewers off. Rent the other 'Stranded' sci-fi film instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I knew it was going to be awful but not this awful!!, as it's one of the most boring movies i have ever seen, not a damn thing happens!. All the characters are dull, and the story is stupid and incredibly boring!,plus The ending is especially lame!. The only reason i rented this piece of crap because i am a big fan of Michael Dudikoff, however he is wasted here, and looks extremely bored and shows no emotion what so ever!, plus i cheered out loud when the movie was over!. It's like the movie had no plot and it was all about nothing, and Ice-T is god awful(even though he is OK in some stuff), plus Dudikoff and Yvette Nipar had no chemistry together at all. There's one scene that the director tried to make emotional but he fails miserably as Yvette Nipar didn't really show all that much emotion, however there is a decent Car chase scene, but that's not enough for me to recommend this god awful film!, plus the dialog is atrocious. Avoid this movie like the plague not a damn thing happens, please avoid and trust me on this one you may thank me afterwords. The Direction is horrible!. Fred Olen Ray does a horrible job here, with shoddy camera work, laughably cheap looking set pieces, terrible angles, laughable use of stock footage, and keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is terrible!. Michael Dudikoff is nowhere near his usual amazing self, he looks extremely bored, and shows no emotion what so ever, his character is also extremely dull, as i can't believe he signed on for this piece of garbage, he also had no chemistry with Yvette Nipar(Dudikoff still rules!!!). Ice-T has barely anything to do and also looks bored, and he didn't convince me one bit. Hannes Jaenicke is not very good here, he had somewhat of a wimpy character, i didn't like him. Yvette Nipar is pretty but was really terrible here, she didn't show much emotion, and had no chemistry with Dudikoff, and as a result i didn't give a damn about her character!. Art Hindle,(Owen Marsh),Kathy Harren(Katharine Marsh), and the rest of the cast are bad as well. Overall Please avoid like the plague!, Fred Olen Ray and Steve Lathshaw should be ashamed of themselves!. BOMB out of 5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie because I am a huge Dudikoff fan. I figured it couldn't be that bad. Boy was I wrong! At the 15 minute mark , I was begiing the others to let me rip the DVD out and fling it back to the rental store, but they refused. They swore it had to get better.

They were wrong! This movie was lacking everything. The actors delivered their lines with as much emotion as a comatose rock! The plot was ridiculous and I was offended that Hollywood assumed people were dumb enough to enjoy it. None of the characters interacted very well with each other. Ice-T gives one of his worst performances here.

After watching footage of the wrong plane, bad guys standing up to get shot, and clips being emptied and missing everything, I wanted to scream and bang my head on concrete. The movie hit its plateau of ignorance when the people on the space station used an elevator to travel. Space suits are not needed and there is gravity in space regardless of what real astronauts may say.

I didn't finish this movie and hated it. I don't want to finish this movie. This is slow suicide. I could feel my cerebral cortex planning to avenge the torture I put it through.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really should have learned more about this movie before renting it. It was one of those movies where you keep watching it figuring it's got to get better. Then, when it ends, you feel stupid for having wasted precious time in your life that you can never get back. Ice-T did his bad guy thing and, well, that was the highlight of the evening. The pictures of the shuttle looks like it was done with a little toy inside of a box and the spacewalking scenes were funny because you could see the strings attached to the space suits. The script was lacking and the car chase scene with the guy bleeding and going unconscious was incredible because he drove better than I could have on one of my best days. All in all, I have seen worse but this sure isn't one I'd recommend or want to remember.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rented this tonite from my local video store. It was titled \"Black Horizon.\" I guess someone felt this was good enough for a 2004 re-release...

Micheal Dudikoff is unfortunetly not a ninja in this movie, one of the major flaws of this film right off the bat. Another major flaw would be that Ice-t's action scenes are stolen from other movies, particularly the first scene of his rescue, which is directly from the Wesley Snipes movie \"The Art of War,\" with Ice-T edited in. I hope they paid for that footage.

The plot is awful, the special effects had little effort put into them (love those wires holding them in space), the acting is wooden (also love those New York\/Russian accents). Ice-T being in the movie is pointless. These guys also forgot the fact that there is no gravity in space, but I guess they weren't worried about it.

Micheal Dudikoff should go back to doing what he's \"good\" at and make American Ninja 6.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Poorly acted, poorly written and poorly directed. Special effects are cheap. Best performance is by Yvette Napir, but that's not saying much. Story is a confusing mess about corporate greed leading to sabotage of a space station and an attempt to rescue those stranded aboard.

There is little suspense and even less action. There's one car chase that's not bad, but the rest of the movie is simply a waste of everyone's time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ed Wood rides again. The fact that this movie was made should give any young

aspiring film maker hope. Any screenplay you might have thought of using to

line a litterbox or a birdcage should now not seem that bad. Do not watch this movie unless you have a healthy stash of Tylenol or Rolaids. Watching this

movie made me realize that Boa vs. Python was not that bad after all. It probably would have been better to do this movie in Claymation as at least that way no actor would have had to take credit for being in this film. It is understandable why this director has so many aliases. There is a bright side to watching this movie in that if you can get someone to bring you a bag of chips, then you can eat your way out of the cocoon of cheese that surrounds you enabling you to

make your toward your TV set's cocoon of cheese that surrounds it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As much as we might welcome a film that deals with people who have different challenges in the area of romance, I cannot shake off the feeling that this movie was intended as a direct-to-video grade-C porn movie in which either A) the actors backed out of doing the explicit scenes or B) the producers ran out of money to hire for the inserts (an amazing thing if it were true).

I had to go back to Blockbuster to figure out why on earth I had rented it, which was due to an admittedly amateurish gullibility regarding the cover blurbs, which seemed to imply a seditious John Waters-style humor-fest with a sexual theme. Okay, I laughed a couple of times and it definitely has a sexual theme (although most of it can't be described as stimulating in any way). But, on some movies you might rewind to make sure you heard the dialog correctly--on this one, you fast-forward because you already know what they're about to say. But there's nothing to fast-forward to, so just fast-forward past it on the shelf.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot see why anyone would make such a movie. From start to finish this film is really, really bad.

The characters are all very shallow, terribly acted and downright annoying. There is absolutely nothing going on below the surface at all with either characters or plot.

The 'humour' if you can call it that is aimed at an adult audience ( I presume from the language and nudity) although it comes across as mainly toilet humour and would have problems even drawing a smile from a half-witted 16 year old.

I would recommend avoiding this excuse for a comedy. It has nothing whatsoever that would appeal to a film fan. Non-existent laughs and a plot that barely exists lead me to ask \"Why has this film been made, why, why, why?\"

I expect in the fullness of time to see this film topping the top 100 worst films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow. They told me it was bad, but I had no idea.

We've started a tradition. We found one copy of this movie, and we just pass it from person to person. Whoever has the movie watches it, and then passes it to someone else deemed worthy of seeing this unique, creative, horrible movie. Hopefully it'll travel 'round the world a few times.

It's painful. Really painful. It's even beyond so bad it's funny. Well, okay, sometimes it's so bad it's funny. But most of the time it just gives you that feeling that there's something sucking at your brain from the inside.

Wow. Watch it, then pass it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this movie at the flea market for cheap. I was so psyched because I thought it was a skateboarding movie. I got home put it on, the previews rules and the opening scene with the old guy rolling down the street on the skateboard was awesome. At that moment I realized it was a post-apocalyptic movie but I still had high hopes for it. This movie was awful. A friend of mine was stoned out of his mind when we watched it and even he thought it was horrible and a waste of being high. I kept falling asleep during the movie because it was so boring and the music was utterly awful. I don't know if during the apocalypse all the good music, and all the music that is only kind of crappy is destroyed and everyones memory of how to play it is wiped clean but I think I would rather die than have to endure that crap. Also what the hell was up with the TV studio? I can only assume that this movie was adapted from an old Greek play, with the names and title, but some plays are not meant to be adapted into a futuristic sci-fi setting. Or at least not by the people who were involved with this movie. If you are forced to watch this movie, I can only suggest bringing a hand gun and finishing yourself off before the end. It would be a good movie to kill yourself too, everyone will understand why.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't see the sense in going through so much trouble to make a movie like this, and then throw the history book out the window. There wasn't a single accurate detail in that movie other than the fact than Richtofen died, which I was grateful for at the end so I didn't have to watch any more. Movies like this are an insult to anyone who knows anything about WWI aerial history.

I'll skip the obvious, that they were flying Fokker DVII's in 1916, because the Blue Max did that too, or that 209 squadron was flying SE-5's, and will attack other parts. For one thing, they call the Pfalz D-III an 'old Albatross' at the beginning. For another, they have Voss, Goring, and Wolff all in Jasta Boelcke. The only one who was in that Jasta was Voss, and he joined after Boelcke died. Richtofen wasn't held to blame for Boelcke's death...Erwin Boehme, who collided with Boelcke, had swerved to avoid a British plane that Richtofen was chasing. When Richtofen received his head wound, it was while attacking a FE-2d two-seater, and he did not crash into the trenches and have soldiers fight over him, and NO..Werner Voss did not die that day. He died September 28th in one of the most epic battles in WWI.

Manfred was short, not like the actor who towered over everyone else. His brother Lothar was never in Jasta Boelcke either, he joined the squadron when Manfred was in charge of Jasta 11.

There's so many other glaring errors in historical fact that I'll let them go except perhaps the worst one, the death scene. In the movie Manfred is out-maneuvered by Brown and then shot down, making a perfect landing. Brown got off one burst at Richtofen while Richtofen was chasing May, and the facts amassed over the years overwhelmingly show that Richtofen was killed by ground fire, not by Brown.

The only value in this movie was the chance to see the flying scenes themselves, which were as good as 'The Blue Max', other than that I won't watch it again and I paid $30 for the tape!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a flying and war movie buff, this ranks at he bottom of my list. It is historically completely inaccurate and the cast sounds and acts like they just stepped out of a high-school play. The acting, script, direction, production standards and casting are all garbage. The only saving grace is some of the flying sequences. If the people they portray were fictitious, I might rate it a 2, but if there is one thing that annoys me more than anything else in movies, it is pretending that this is history and that the great people they are trying to be, actually did this! Its almost as if they tried to write in as many notable WW1 personalities as possible.There are many good WW1 flying films and this is NOT one of them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Took a chance to see if perhaps a really good WWI film had slipped my notice--this isn't it. John Phillip Law and Don Stroud are both stiff in their acting and miscast for their roles. The dialogue is dumb or non-existent; the flying sequences are okay but pretty repetitive. Compared to the terrific \"Blue Max\" this movie should never have been made. Watch George Peppard,James Mason, and Usula Andress in the BM and you get why that movie is one of the best war films ever made and this isn't. Recently released on DVD Richtofen and Brown is presented as some great 'lost classic' from the 70's, I resold mine the day after I bought it. Don't waste your time or $.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have just written a comment to \"ACES HIGH\" (1976) and that remind me of this film which I watched as kid when it was released; since then I have watched it only once and that was more than enough. As Kevin well says \"it is a complete waste of time\". Apart from the dog-fights which are nicely done the rest is a sequence of badly patched scenes with actors struggling with a lousy script and equally lousy direction. I do not remember the silly German accents mentioned by Kevin in his comment, but that is another pathetic mistake; if Corman tried to make more convincing the characterization of the German pilots why didn't he use German actors or have those parts dubbed? On the other hand is good example of the appalling Hollywood-style of film-making with their \"villains\" so clearly identifiable, not only by their cruel actions but also by their grotesque accents.

Talking about \"cruel actions\" the ridiculous scene were Lieutenant Hermann Goering murders English nurses during an attack on an airbase is an absolutely disgusting piece of propaganda done with \"historical hindsight\". If you want to a see a factual, moving, very well acted and directed film about the air war during WWI watch \"ACES HIGH\" (1976) or that wonderful classic \"THE DAWN PATROL\" (1938) you shall not be disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Yoke's on Me\" is undoubtedly the most controversial film in the Stooges' 23 years of shorts. The reason is understandable; by today's standards, this film can be considered racist. For this reason, it is rarely shown, if ever, on television.

Let me just state that, for the record, the Japanese seen in the film were not soldiers; they were Japanese-Americans sent to a relocation center during World War II. They were treated and shown as the evil enemy in this film. By all accounts - including the US government, who made an apology and reparations in the 1980s - Japanese-Americans during World War II were as loyal and hardworking as any American. Their imprisonment during this time is a dark blot in American history.

There are some Stooge laughs in this film, but the memories of how Japanese-Americans were treated during this time sullies the entertainment value. Let's not confuse the loyal Japanese-Americans with their representation in this film as evildoers. Loyal Japanese-Americans and the World War II-era evil empire of Japan are not synonymous. 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this as a kid, before it had been yanked from the rotation, and even then it left a bad taste in my mouth. There were some competently worked out gags, but making slapstick villains out of American citizens who'd been interned in camps strictly due to their race was amazingly tasteless.

Moe himself might have wanted this one buried. He was a liberal guy. In his autobiography he told of visiting a town in the segregated South, where he saw a black man get off the sidewalk to avoid passing too close. Moe stepped into the street to show it wasn't a problem, and the man then got back on the curb. Then off again. Finally, the man told Moe nervously that if Moe didn't stop trying to share the sidewalk with him, he might get them both lynched.

Another thing: There are exploding ostrich eggs but no oxen in the film, so the title should actually be (if anyone cares) \"The Yolk's on Me.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Great actors, good filming, a potentially interesting plot, and what should have been good dialog. Nothing else is good about this movie. Perhaps the writer or director thought they could make a thought provoking film out of annoying characters who are as deep as a cup of coffee.

Within 10 minutes I disliked the portrayal of Kim by Caroleen Feeney so much that it became a distraction. While Kim is supposed to be an unsympathetic character, I am not sure I was supposed to want to commit acts of physical violence upon her. The first (of many) bizarre things that happen is that Wes (David Strathairn) goes from \"I am missing $50.00\" to \"She stole 50$\" in about 3 seconds. It was quite implausible, since she (Kim) never had access to his wallet nor was she a master pickpocket-- there simply was no rational reason to suspect her. Most people have lost\/misplaced money and assume just that... we LOST it. Same goes for Kim later. All very unrealistic behavior in what is supposed to be (I think) a look at real people. The character of Kim was, at minimum, suffering from a BiPolar disorder. Wes had huge inadequacy issues, Nancy was just boring, and Matt was delusional (particularly about music). I actually turned this off about 2\/3 of the way through. However, to write a valid comment, I forced myself to turn it back on hoping that something would come together in this movie. No, sorry, it was still bad. Make it a point to miss this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, I must point out that the role Wendell Corey played was exceptional. Usually, Corey was relegated to supporting roles but here he is what helps carry this very limp film. Without him and the character he played, the film would have been a lot worse--hardly meriting a 2 or 3.

So why did I hate the rest of the film so much? Well, one of my pet peeves is when characters act \"too stupid to live\". You can't base major plot points on the assumption that your major characters are completely stupid (unless having a brain injury is part of the plot, of course). But this is exactly what happens in this film. Wendell Corey is a crazed man who has murdered three innocent people and they know his next target is Joseph Cotten's wife. So what do they do? Yep, they provide really inadequate police protection and a plan that makes no sense at all (no marksman and guys with shotguns that are so far away they probably WON'T stop this madman). And if this isn't bad enough, the marked woman inexplicably runs away from her hiding place and walks right into the WORST possible place she could be! Is anyone THAT stupid?!?! Arrrggghhhh---I hate when movies have such dumb characters. In fact, I found myself rooting for Corey since I felt the idiots deserved to die for their behaviors! In addition to these clich\u00e9d characters, there was also a bit player who fainted. Sure, seeing your husband shot MIGHT cause someone to faint, however in real life this is a rare occurrence--people rarely faint unless there is a medical reason. So, combining this with the above character problems is a real nightmare for people who are looking for realism--something Film Noir movies MUST have.

All these serious problems are even more infuriating since Wendell Corey's character is amazingly well-written and conceived. It was his chance to shine as an actor--too bad the rest of the movie was so limp that Corey and the basic plot idea are sunk. This is one film that could really use a remake--but this time without brainless characters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Respected western auteur Budd Boetticher is woefully out of place with this choppy modern day cops and robbers story that suffers from a strong lack of emotional believability. Boetticher seems to have waived rehearsal time and settled for the first take as leads Joe Cotton and Rhonda Fleming put little effort into their roles, delivering lines flatly and without energy.

Mild mannered employee Leon \"Foggy\" Poole works as an inside man on a bank job that goes bad and gets his wife killed in the process. He escapes from prison and immediately sets out to kill the wife of the detective who killed his. Hundreds of cops are mobilized to keep him from getting to the home of the intended who has been moved to another location but wouldn't you know in the films final moments we have Foggy trailing feet behind the victim (who thought somehow that taking a bus back to the house was a sound move) while a company of cops observe and bicker over what action to take. Sound preposterous? You should see it. It's all of that and more.

Lucien Ballard's camera work does a decent job of bringing noir to the suburbs but the editing is lackadaisical and shapeless and it drains the film of its suspense and pace. As Poole, Wendell Corey is the best thing in the film managing to evoke great sympathy as he transitions from gentle soul to murderer. These attributes aside Killer uniformly fails in construction and execution making its message clear. Go Western old Budd.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only thing that makes this one watchable is Corey's performance as the lunatic killer on the loose. What remains is a most impossible tale of revenge and matrimonial discord. During the walkie-talkie scenes I had the feeling that Cotten was squeezing a sweet potato and not a communication device. Another interesting thing about this one is that Alan Hale (the Skipper from \"Gilligan's Island\") is not yet so fat, and he can still lower his arms below his waist. Other than that there isn't much to recommend here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terrible psychological thriller that is almost painful to sit through, every aspect being awful.

The combined talents of top actors Kevin Bacon and Gary Oldman are totally wasted, and though they give good performances, one wonders why they bothered. The script from Mark Kasdan is a complete mess, and Martin Campbell has the narrative jumping all over the place, but if you're unable to follow it, take it as a blessing. There are far too many pointless, crazy scenes that just don't make sense. Jerry Goldsmith's music is not much help either.

Even if there was potential in the plot, director Campbell's approach has utterly ruined it. Avoid at all costs!

Monday, February 26, 1996 - Video","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In this film Gary Oldman plays a defense attorney, who was formerly a prosecutor. He is a bit tormented, but is more or less playing a regular guy rather than some sort of figurative or literal monster. Funny thing is, he doesn't quite pull it off. I guess you can't quite get to normal from there. Kevin Bacon was sufficiently creepy. The scene in the park was way too long with way too many false scares. And the odd sex scene with Oldman and Karen Young seemed to have come from a different movie, although the rest of the time Miss Young did just fine. This film suffers from oddness trying to cover up the predictability. And failing. Don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The blame of this terrible flick lies with the director, Martin Campbell. After viewing a few of his credits in later years, this must have been one of his first directorial gigs. He had a more than decent cast to work with but unfortunately he had no idea what he was doing. There were scenes that made absolutely no sense at all. Where was his head...............was he on drugs? I was looking forward to this movie just because of Oldman & Bacon. Maybe it was a short shooting schedule and Campbell just had to \"bang it out\". I can't imagine that the story that Campbell directed even came close to the story that the writer wrote. Oldman & Bacon, along with the rest of the cast, must have slid under their chairs if they went to the screening. As one poster pointed out, Karen Young did do a pretty good fight scene with Bacon. She really did 'let loose'. It's unfortunate that I have to fill in more space just to stay within the guide lines of what the IMDb requires because I really don't have anything more to say about this uninspiring film. One does not have to be forced to be a 'windbag' when criticizing a terrible flick and wish that the IMDb would change the amount of words to fill up a critique.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"4 out of 10

A somewhat unbelievable storyline with some haunted-house type \"shocks\" that really don't fit in.

Gary Oldham's performance is very erratic...not so much the quality of the performance but the consistency. His character does not behave in a consistent manner. Sometimes calm\/relaxed\/methodical\/thoughtful, sometimes violent\/loud\/almost crazed. It's just not believable.

Have many 80s movies dated badly? Will they be more enjoyable 20 years from now?

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man kills bear. Man becomes bear. Man\/bear meets bear. Man\/bear stays man\/bear after meeting bear. The End. Seriously, that is the entire plot to this movie. Yes, I simplified it to an extreme, but you get the picture. I just wish I maybe had not have seen it.

The 'man\/bear' alluded to is a Native American Indian that kills a mother of a cub. And while that can be touching, it certainly lacks to really draw in on the potential conflict between the two parties. Plus, there was a certain misuse of the two moose in the film. But that is beyond the point.

Overall, very much under par. Certainly needed a lot more to be entertaining. Maybe more laughs from the secondary characters and more drama between the two main bears. Thats what separates bad films from the good ones. \"D\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Recycled and predictable plot. The characters are as memorable as the story line. We came in few minutes late and only saw the end of the opening scene which turned out to be a good thing since it was too intense for a 3 and a 4 year old. Overall a disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The animation is great, I'll concede to that. But Disney perpetuated every stereotype we Alaskans have been trying to overcome for the last two generations. And the names, I mean, come on...Sitka, Kenai, Tanana & Denahi (cheesy takeoff of Denali)?! Those are real places where real people live! And the real people these real places were named for are probably struggling out of the Earth seeking vengeance over this trite little flick. Disney, you're based out of California & Florida, right amidst the rest of the states that still treat us like a foreign country. If you can't stick to what you know, at least hire and\/or work with people who know what area you're trying to caricuture. Maybe then it wouldn't be so insulting! :(","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a great fan of Disney, i was really disappointed when i watched this garbage.The animation was pretty,and the backgrounds were amazing,but i believe that good animation does not make up for a weak script,and weak story. I'm gonna have to disagree with the people who say it is not suitable for children.Yes there are some deaths in the movie but isn't death something that children should at least be exposed to? But i digress. The script is riddled with bad puns and lame jokes...the kind i could expect from most dreamworks movies. The music was soppy,the morals forced(and forced without any charm whatsoever.)and the characters would burst into song at totally inappropriate times.The characters were also cold,and i really couldn't muster up any form of emotion towards them(bar irritation). I am a great fan of jungle book,Aladdin,and emperors new groove, but this Disney movie was a total and utter waste of time.....do not watch it!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As an avid Disney fan, I was not totally impressed by this movie, certainly not motivated enough to catch it in the theaters. I am, however, so glad that I caught it on DVD and watched the special features.

You MUST check out the \"Moose commentary\": the entire movie can be viewed with commentary from Rutt and Tuke, the comic relief moose of the story, who are voiced by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas. Two veterans of the famous Second City comedy troupe ad-lib - in character - for an hour and a half about a movie that they are clearly fond of. I laughed the whole time. The enjoyment I got from this commentary completely made up for the tepid reaction I had to the film itself. Do yourself a favor and listen to it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here is another low quality movie from the \"Disney\" company. There is no more Disney spirit. The story is boring. All emotions are fake. It is not cute or moving. Disney company was at a time a sort of magic company which provided dreams for children. It is now all about making money. Shame on the people who exploit Disney name for their personal benefit. It is the fall of an empire. And, by the way, Pixar is NOT Disney !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"for everyone who has read this book, Fanny Price ends up maturing into her own woman, a beautiful woman...with a brain. Le Touzel looks like she is on medication. Terrible acting, she just ruins it! Henry is a little tall for his character. He is also too effeminate. Mary Crawford is brilliant. Edmond is a little too old. Mrs. Norris is hysterical- OK, this casting decision works. Rushworth is also perfect. Yates looks too effeminate also. But, Le Touzel is simply horrid. This is not a good character for her. Poor Fanny! I would recommend this movie only because it includes an almost complete textual account of the language Austen uses in the novel. The 1999 version is much more fun but terribly incomplete. If they could redo this version with a better suited actress for Fanny it would be fabulous!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This version of Mansfield Park, while being extremely accurate to the novel lacked the compassion I felt for Fanny which is crucial and central to this Jane Austen story. This was due to the total lack of acting ability by the actress, Sylvestra Le Touzel. She had no appeal and at times appeared to be either lost in space or out of her depth. The scene she has with her uncle where she breaks down in hysterics was hysterical. She badly overplayed that crucial scene and I actually felt sorry that Henry Crawford ever cared for her.

The polar opposite is the portrayal of Mary Crawford by Jackie Smith- Wood. What a wonderful actress, in a very difficult part to make that character witty and self-centered, selfish yet vulnerable to love.

I have always loved Fanny. She is mild mannered but with an implacable sense of what is right, and who she thinks is worthy of respect and admiration. The Fanny in this adaptation is too meek and subservient with hardly a thought of her own until near the end of the series. As much as I wanted to like this Fanny....I just could not.

I suggest skipping this version of Mansfield Park for the real thing...the Novel. Fanny will not disappoint...you will Love Her!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The whole exercise is pointless. Why make the film at all? The lighting is ghastly, but the sound is just a joke. Like a high-school production. Whoever put the budget together for this film should be drawn and quartered for allowing it to be made without the proper budget for soundmen with equipment fit for recording.

So much dialog is unintelligible due to losses in echo or the lack of proximity to the mic. Economy should have been made on any other area. The whole production is lifeless and just LAME with such amateurish half-arsed production. It lacks warmth, clarity, and has no design to it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, I haven't read the book yet but I have to say that the lead character was miscast. How can I say such a thing haven't read the book you ask? It's simple. As a viewer of this miniseries, I grew irritated by the mannerisms, gestures and look of the lead character, Fannie Price. It's one thing to be a good person but it's quite another to be a stick in the mud creature who disdains from looking anyone in the face or otherwise meeting their gaze. Apart from the overdone \"Susan B. Anthony\" profile, she seemed resolute in refusing to look at another person. The scene where Edmond is pouring his heart out to her, she is looking straight ahead the whole time, forcing him to do the same. As a result, it was just awkward and I just couldn't fathom anyone being in love with her let alone both Henry and Edmond. Many have said it was true to the book, if that is the case I find it hard to believe that Jane Austen would create such a character as her lead heroine. It's possible to create a character who has been put upon by others and succeeds in earning their trust and endearment but the portrayal of this character in this miniseries just didn't do it for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is about a young girl who goes to live with her rich cousins falls in love with one of her cousin, and reject the advance of a amoral suitor who brings trouble on the family. After seeing the 1999 version and reading the book, I decided to watch the older version. I found it did stay true to Fanny character in the book, but it was also boring character. Fanny character played by Sylvestra Le Touzel was lackluster; she often appeared to be about to faint. I also did not like Robert Bourbage who played Henry Crawford. I could not imagine him being interested in Fanny or her cousin Maria. Jackie Smith Wood who played Mary Crawford was okay but the wig she wore was so ugly. I lost interested in her acting and I kept staring at her wig. I kept expecting it would drop off her head. I could also see a slip of her real hair under the wig.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a big disappointment. The main problem is the acting. Sylvestre le Touzel is pretty poor as Fanny, and the rest are not much better, everybody is very stilted and unnatural. Also the camerawork is very 1980's ie cramped and jumpy, compared with the likes of 1995's P&P, for example.

The script is, if anything too faithful to the book, and there are some cringe worthy expressions that should have been cut.

In every way this is far inferior to the recent film version, which though it took huge liberties with the book, seemed far more faithful to the spirit of the book and was far more enjoyable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I always try not to be harsh while criticizing something that I didn't like, but after watching this mini-series I was so disappointed that could not help my irritation. On the one hand, it is true that series stayed faithful to the novel and of course I found that very nice, but on the other hand terrible casting, poor acting, especially of key characters \u0096 like Funny Price, impression of stage play, I mean theatrical way of acting makes you irritate from the beginning to the end. I am sure with this budget, even if it was low, could have been done something much better and worthwhile. it is up to you to watch this series, but personally i don't advice you to spend your time on this disappointing ecranization.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"total crap.

I was kind of excited to see this as it is the only film version I have seen of Mansfield Park. I suffered through the first four episodes but when it came to the proposal scene between Henry and Fanny I snapped and had to turn it off. Whoever employs this Sylvestra Le Touzel lady has got to be both blind and deaf cause the woman is the worst actress I've ever seen in my life. The whole thing is just bad, bad, bad. I don't know. I just don't know why people who write Jane Austen screenplays seem to be incapable of giving her work the respect it deserves.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK enough already. this is a terrible piece of television. the camera work is appalling (do i have to remind you of the crunchy gravel so loud you can hardly hear the actors speak) lady bertram has the most annoying voice in the entire world. anna massey is 'acting' in such an unbelievable fashion. and the lack of chemistry between fanny and edmund is beyond beyond. also the bertram girls aren't pretty enough, and the guy playing henry crawford is awful. to say the camera work is dodgy is an understatement. i watched this adaptation over Christmas, and i think under any other circumstances i would not have been able to endure this, and certainly would have not been able to justify the wasted time.

i am a fan of faithful to jane adaptations. so i could not bear the film adaptation or the recent pride and prejudice movie. but see any other adaptation instead, even emma is better than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This horrible action \u0096 sci-fi movie is a crap. I have just spent 90 minutes of my life watching one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The story does not make any sense, there are lots of flaws in the screenplay, the characters are badly developed, the unknown cast is horrible, the lead ham actor seems to be too old for his role. I was induced to buy this VHS, which has a magnificent cover, and see this crap due to the illogical IMDb User Rating and some \"ten stars\" reviews. I have just checked the authors, and each one of them has just one short review (of \"L.I.N.X.\") issued in IMDb, and nothing else. Why are they promoting such a garbage? My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): \"L.I.N.X. Conex\u00e3o Letal\" (\"L.I.N.X. Lethal Connection\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Keep away from this one. The worst thing is the appalling story. There seems to be an intent to convey some subtle spiritual\/love\/friendship message but it is so pathetically devoid of any substance you can't help but cringe. In addition, the majority of screen time is a far below standard story of thieves, criminals and our hero(es) dealing with some alien time travel artifacts. I know you are asking for trouble when dealing with time but the story is more full of holes than usual. Also you have: cheap sets, bad acting and some of the worst music arrangements in the history of the moving picture, overpowering, cheap, abrupt and disjointed. All I can say is \"Man alive ! This film is bad !\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I find the critique of many IMDb users a little harsh and in many cases find that they crit the movie from a very professional viewpoint and not that of the guy on the street that wants to sit and watch something just to GET AWAY from it all.

In this case however I have to say it was BAD. I am a SciFi junkie and there was NOTHING in this movie that grabbed me for even one second.

There was no proper storyline. I may be an idiot but I still do not know where the GOVERNMENT was that was so worried about these pieces.

The pathetic attempt by the main character to put together these 3 pieces is scary. Half the time the two pieces were already in place and he simply had to add the third. A 3 year old kid would have been able to put them together.

This movie was BAD.

Dominic","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worst thing I have ever watch.

The movie is pure trash. All the things is bad on this movie. The direction, screenplay, arts, cinematography, cast or anything else.

May I say more?

The main character is an boy. It has to have 20 years of age approximately, but the actor who plays the role looks like 30 years old, in addition he is an very bad actor.

The editing tries to save it, but with that very bad material in hands they can't do miracles.

As I said, the cast is poor, the text is poor, that it doesn't help the actors.

I learned how to \"do not\" make a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is nothing wrong with showing an old man falling in love with a young girl. Lolita did it. American Beauty did it.

But. They did it subtly. They did not make it so apparent from the start that the director is gearing them up to make them fall in love with each other. Not as naturally as two people would (Age no bar) but forcing them to be around each other as if they were SUPPOSED to fall in love.

All in all, there should have been chemistry. It would have solved the biggest problem. People with reservations against the subject would also have been engrossed and perhaps convinced. It would have become the perfect love story, no matter the impracticality.

I found it difficult to believe Jia's character at times. What I found more difficult to understand, is why Vijay - a photographer and an artist, who seems serious - would have had an interest in a girl so frivolous. Unless he himself has some frivolousness hidden in himself, which did not come out at all.

There is a lot of use of Dutch angles or angles in which the frame is tilted. It is generally used to show something unnatural or something that might lead to something that is not right. So RGV is himself calling the relationship unnatural.

The camera angles, background score, editing, and even the juxtaposition of shots and symbology emphasises and overemphasises their relationship. Is the Indian audience so dumb that we need to be told something in 10 different ways for us to understand? Especially when the two of them were dancing together... it was apparent what was happening. What was the need of slowing the scene down with dramatic background music? I feel the subject was very well chosen. But Verma should not have made the film with the fact in mind constantly that this is a controversial subject. If it is, then handle it delicately, why don't you?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie did not give Mr. Bachchan justice. He is a great actor and I was very disappointed in the movie and there was not much plot to it. Matter a fact this is the first movie I have ever been disappointed in with him in it. It starts out with her coming to his home with his daughter and he is a photographer. He takes pictures of her in the garden has she's hosing herself down. He is a sixty year old man that has nothing to do but to take pictures of this girl. The movie makes no sense. The whole movie is about her chasing him around and her telling him how much she cares about him. Then his daughter falls and he has to take this girl around places so she is not bored and is daughter finds out. I just didn't think this movie was up to Bachchan's standards. He is better than this movie. I always pictured him as an upstanding person and then I seen him in this movie and I couldn't picture him in this movie. The movie didn't hold my interest at all. I couldn't wait until the movie was over. And you won't either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Good attempt at tackling the unconventional topic of May-December romances. However, the treatment is totally unrealistic. Sure, sixty-year old men can and do fall for younger women, but they're usually adult women with whom they share common interests and values and viewpoints ... not neurotic, immature near-underage girls. Of course there are exceptions, and they come close to being called pedophiles! Sorry RGV, but it's not credible that a sane and accomplished sexagenarian would throw away a comfortable family life and become a joke to his peers ... all for an 18-yr old that doesn't have a practical thought in her head and that behaves like an unstable escapee from a mental institution. You don't have to have a PhD in Psychology to see that Amitabh's character is seduced by sex, and that the young woman has unresolved abandonment and daddy issues.

As for the recurring scene of Vijay perched on the edge of a cliff, contemplating suicide, that's about as close as he comes to having anything in common with Jiah, by behaving like a smitten teenage boy.

On a positive note: the actors did a good job, and cinematography good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Amitabh and Jiah Khan, raised great expectations, by their press conferences, though it was quite easy for the critics, and the fans too, that after all, this much hyped, Ram Gopal Verma Factory product, is going to fall flat on it's face, in all the probabilities ! Why, because Jiah was so immature and childish, and Bacchan, mixed up guilty, and unsure . they themselves didn't know, what the hell they were talking about, to the press, keeping up with the tag line, that some love stories are not to be understood, or some such rubbish ! Why the title is Nishabd ? Ramu needs to refresh his knowledge of Sanskrit, as Vidhu Vinod needs to study Mahabharata, tagging in line, another glorious flop of the year, Eklavya ! Comparison with the Sweet hearts, and Lolit's is inevitable, as the so-called plot line is supposed to have inspired by them. but sadly, Ramu has hardly made any serious effort, to delve deeply into the psyche of the aging, and the young ones. is lolly pop sucking the ultimate indicator of the innocence ? and contrary to that streak of childishness, the leg show at the dining table, with a Vijay, that is Bacchan in that role, bursting into squeals of shameless laughter incessantly after wards ? this girl, is in fact at her seductive game, luring poor Vijay to think, she is in love with him. the legs,too are skinny enough, and that act of putting the water hose through the legs, is down right obscene. it's beyond any one's understanding, how can a girl , coming as a guest to some body's house, can be so brazen, brash, and over powering ? and why the hell that stupid wife, played by Revathi, remarkably well, though scripted poorly, and characterized unrealistically, encourages her own husband, to dance with a sexily saying young girl ? that part of Vijay, trying to gain some refreshers to his humdrum life is absolute bullshit. because, apparently it seems that he is happy as he is, with a well settled life, and a hobby to recreate. This reminds of Blame it on Rio, the older daddy, and his young love, superbly played by Michael Caine. Bacchan looks terrible in close ups, and over all, where as kevin spacey and Jeremy Irons looked debonair and handsome, which is why the young chicks some times get attracted to older men, for their charming persona, compared to the vulnerability of young boys of their age. only good thing about this movie is those green , sprawling land scapes , winding roads, and pleasant cinematography. no substance, or even any sparkling show of emotions, drama , or even intriguing, stormy sex like in Lolita, this shallow movie has no wonder, fallen flat on it's face, and had to be wound up from the screens during first weeks ! next time round, before mindlessly copying any such theme from Hollywood, Ramu should do his home work, and Bacchan should think twice ! you can not fool all the people at all the times, Mr. Bacchan!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And the worst part is that it could have been good. But something horribly wrong. First thing first, they should not have cast Amitabh Bachchan in this film at all. He is too much of an Icon to tackle such a delicate and controversial topic let alone the role itself.

Secondly, Ram Gopal Varma ought to be ashamed of himself for taking the classic story of Lolita and turning it into a pathetic predictable slut-fest. His Lolita is named Jia (played by newcomer Jiah Khan) and when we meet her, she is devoid of any inkling of stolen innocence or that delicate naivety that one would normally associate with the complicated tale of the original Lolita who in the original story, gradually becomes nymphet. Varma's Jia is already a whore with her eye on the prize even even before the camera meets her. And he exercises no chastity in the way his films his leading nymphet. From constant panning shots of her crotch to fixations on her vulgar gestures and mannerisms, Mr. Varma makes sure he has left not one person in the audience less than uncomfortable with his voyeuristic pedophile camera angles.

Oh and let's not talk about the non-existent chemistry between Jia and her so-called friend Ritu (Bachchan's character's daughter). These girls are supposed to be best friends yet look like worst enemies even before anything goes wrong between them. Nothing they do together is believable until they become enemies. Maybe Mr. Varma should have worked on that aspect of his script rather than focusing on destroying any credibility Amitabh Bachchan might have had left as an actor.

The worst part of the movie is perhaps the subservient portrayal of the character of Bachchan's character's wife. Her role was so underwritten and ridiculously wooden that it's impossible to actually feel any pity or concern for her. I actually felt like reaching into the screen slapping her for not reacting like any normal woman would. Instead she just stood there looking Irritated and Helpless, as I imagine much of the viewers of this film might feel after watching this train-wreck of a film. Watch at your own risk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is by far the most pathetic movie Indian cinema or any cinema has come up with.it is totally a piece of crap.the story line odes not hold any water. it is shameful that such a respectful actor has stooped to such a low on making such a disgraceful movie. the little respect he had is lost forever. he should have retired longtime ago instead of making a fool of himself and loosing all the self respect. i would not recommend this movie to any one. furthermore i would suggest that Amitabh should retire already. I wonder how IMDb has given some recommendations to this movie. there are no movies so horrible that any recommendations could be made. seeing such movies as Devdas in the same line as this movie does a grave injustice to a decent movie. its overall i could say shameless.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nishabd means wordless. This must be the condition of the script before the shooting of this film started and therefore throughout this film cries for content. What you go for is an unusual love story between a 60-yr old man and an 18-yr old girl and what you get are very usual, very common events that neither excite nor surprise. So what we are left finally is with picturesque locations of Kerala shot brilliantly by cinematographer Amit Roy and camera friendly histrionics of newfound Jiah Khan. This does not cover up for lack of a concrete script. Producer-Director Ram Gopal Varma who has such a good track record of films needs to pull up his socks. As far as Mr. Bachchan goes, I don't want to discuss him in context of this film.

While reviewing, I am feeling loss of words. I am left speechless rather wordless !

Personal Opinion : This film can be compared with an equally bad film released some time back called BLACK. I don't see the difference between the histrionics of lead characters in both the films. What did you say just now- That was a world-class cinema blah blah, and I don't have any taste. Well, take a walk. No I don't mean literally but actual one to the theaters showing this film. Because in that case you might find this film an Oscar-level material.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Good cinematography, good acting good direction...cannot justify a story that is not and cannot be acceptable to any society. Amitabh has often used the media to make this junk sell able by saying that -- if such an incident happens...then what? I would like to ask him if such a thing happens for your own child or your grandchild (say girl child) then what will you do? I think every parents will have to take special care before interacting with any 60 year old neighbor if you have one -jia- with you. Such films should be banned and discouraged otherwise you inspire more more Nithari cases. Such acts are villainous and villains in films are punished..that should be the moral of the story and not glorify their act or them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The production year says it all. The movie is a marauding mess of politically correct leftwing feministic selfappreciating drivel, of a so heavyhanded symbolic variety that comes across as ridiculous today. Every scene has the purpose of shedding light on one of the burning issues of society, mainly the role of females in the working community, the role of women vs men, women as sex objects, consumerism, politics, war, etc. Every scene is commented upon by the inner dialogue of one of the main actresses, or by turning the scene into a surrealistic joke. I have no reminiscence of any plot, or who the main characters actually were. It is the sort of movie, where consumerism is mocked by having a couple make love in a furniture store sales window while the sales agent delivers his speech, or where a revealing interview of a stage actress turns into a fullblown striptease act, for \"of course\" the offensive gentlemen of the press is the equal to a raunchy club audience. Then we move swiftly on, as we need to see war erupt in a peaceful forest, we need to see multiple inflammatory feministic public speeches being drowned in the (male) blowing of cars horns or rioting crowds, and of course we need to see cinema newsreels of Stalin and all the other usual suspects. You get the idea. But all this does not matter at all. The movie is an unsurpassed piece of eyecandy for any (male) Ingmar Bergman aficionado. A movie boasting leads Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson and Gunnel Lindblom at the height of their beauty makes this reviewer surrender completely and just drivel \u0096 and also delight in watching them so generously use their acting skills in a movie I had never heard about before today. It is hard to believe how especially the face of Bibi Andersson owns the screen every single time she appears. The cinematography is gorgeously orchestrated bw, often revelling in an overexposed (?) dimensionless whitishness, and you just never grow tired of watching the performers. How absurd, that a movie made with so much consideration for the feministic agenda, tirelessly advocating that women should not be viewed as merely an object of desire, has nothing better to offer the 21st century viewer than a parade of stunningly beautiful babes. As mentioned, I am not complaining. I could rewatch it tomorrow.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mario Racocevic from Europe is the only user who has posted a comment so far and covers the major points to the film.Yet again another difficult film to purchase in the UK.I had to go through \"Midnight Video\" who have a Swedish branch.I went to the post office and bought by mail order this and a similar title at only SKR30 a title.

This film goes under many \"a.k.a's\" depending on when and where it is marketed.I had previously purchased \"The Bloodsucker leads the Dance\" (which you will find if you search on Imdb under \"people\" and input \"Krista Nell\").The actor who plays the Count on his private island in the latter film had his words dubbed from Italian into English by an actor with an unmistakably mournful and rather tired sounding voice.I smiled when I heard this same voice dubbing on the English soundtrack as the police inspector who is investigating the murder of the prostitute killed in the copse in the subject film.My choice of course was to see another outing by the delicious Krista Nell.

There are quite a few rather inconsequential sub plots in the movie involving blackmail\/extortion, sleazy affairs with girlfriends' mothers, a motor cycle chase resulting in a gangland hit, a gangrape by a \"client's\" motorcycle friends, sleazy photography, cross dressing by transvestites etc. which give a flavour to this film summarised in a word - SLEAZE, (but artistic sleaze).The aforementioned contributor liked this film but the lowly rating suggests other Imdb fans did not albeit without explaining their \"wheres and whyfores\".Personally I thought there were too many subplots and not enough put into the main story and the relationship of these subordinate characters to the central plot and the development of their screen characters.Also a professional film editor was sorely needed as some of the scenes appeared to last far too long, having made their point, so that the film appeared to drag in places; e.g. the scene of the dancing transvestite.Krista Nell appears in one fruity scene with a client but this too is but a vignette and I was left wanting more from her, the director and the screenplay.

I love the political incorrectness shown in older films (this is 30 years from its making) e.g. smoking in offices and the way some characters react to each other in the office!I would suggest 4\/10 as a more realistic rating and I have awarded it as such.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Why would someone make a movie about getting away with murder!?! Mr. Allen again plays the only type of character that he's able, the sexually stunted man who can't get the girl. Get a clue, Allen, there's a reason that's the only character that you can successfully portray. Stir clear of this movie! It's a waste of time, unless you want to know how to successfully murder someone. I feel sorry for the actors who say 'yes' to Woody Allen. Look at his cast, and tell me how many of those people are still working. My respect for all of the actors, who work for him, immediately goes down, because they chose to participate in the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't see why everyone loves this film so much. True, it does have good intentions and meaning, but you cannot compensate for such a poor script. Woody Allen is a brilliant filmaker, but I'm afraid this is just a piece of garbage. It's extremely predictable and the subject matter is all too visible. I happen to be a huge Woody Allan fan and love most of his work, but this I cannot recomend.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A few words for the people here in germen's cine club: The worst crap ever seen on this honorable cinema. A very poor script, a very bad actors, and a very bad movie. Don't waste your time looking this movie, see the very good \"mutantes verdes fritos anarquia radioactiva\", or any movie have been good commented by me. Say no more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A family of dirt-farmers moves out west.

The head of Walnut Grove's newest motley brood is named 'Charles'. He works at the mill sawing lots of lumber, though who in hell he thinks he's cutting all that wood for is a mystery, because none of the folks in all of township have enough money to buy a splinter, much less a two-by-four.

Running the town is the 'Olsons', a rich but stupid clan that relocated to these parts in order to rake in all that dough they make selling eggs for eleven cents a dozen. They have two children, a boy, 'Willie', and a girl, 'Nellie', whom between them, have only one saving asset... Nellie is hot and it's fun to spy on her when she takes a bath in the crick.

The town preacher is also the village idiot because he thinks he's really something special to this backwoods covey of country dillweeds, when in reality, they can't stand his boring sermons and the only thing they pray for on Sunday is for him to fall off the nearest cliff as soon as possible.

The town doctor is a dinosaur who saw his better days about 20 years ago, but he hangs around anyway so he can give free breast examinations to the old hags that live in town. Unfortunately, the only time these ancient hot mamas get down on their knees is to pull a loaf of bread out of the oven to give to the Doc for his services. But that's OK with Doc because he knows these old wenches give good bread.

Bringing up the rear of this colorful collection of country cow-chips is Charles' wimpy wife 'Carolyn' and their three girls, 'Mary', 'Carrie', and 'Half-Pint'. Mary is another hot chick who all the guys sneak a peek at whenever she takes a shower or a crap. Carrie is an annoying little kid, but stick a cookie in her mouth and you won't even know she's there, in fact, where is she?... oh, there she is... she's in the yard playing with a pack of cigarettes... how cute! Half-Pint is the town's youngest screw-up. She may not have a brain or any kind of a body to speak of, but she can spit farther then any boy in the whole freaking school.

It's a great town, Walnut Grove, where someone is always falling off a roof or getting run over by a wagon wheel, and it's beautiful, too, made up of one building... the church\/school-house\/town hall\/pool room. Ah, it gets a little hairy on the prairie, but that's OK, especially when Mary is taking a bath in the crick... that's when you can see how hairy it really is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some people like to tell you that Deep Space 9 is the best of all the Star Trek shows, because it stresses character development and continuity, and features a more complex background and ongoing plots. In some ways this makes it more satisfying, but in many ways the show fails entirely.

The series starts out as a soap opera on a space station, with two entire seasons of generic science fiction stories balanced with banal subplots about the characters. The characters are a good bunch, and most of the actors are decent, but I think the writers tried too hard to make them \"normal\". By \"normal\" they actually mean \"ordinary and tedious\".

At the end of Season Two we are introduced to the Dominion, who hang around menacingly for a while before finally going to war with the good guys in Season Five. This is the main \"story arc\" of the show, but it only takes up a fraction of the entire series. We still get lame stand-alone episodes, heroes still get stranded on weird planets for forty-five minutes, and there's an awful lot of low-brow comedy featuring the greedy, goofy Ferengi. A lot of episodes are merely dull, and some are unwatchable.

The Dominion, DS9's main villains, are bent on galactic domination for the convenient reason that, well, they just don't like anyone. The entire war is presented with a naive lack of moral complexity and imagination. Impressively pyrotechnic space battles appear with great frequency from Season Three onwards, but these are carried out in ludicrously simplistic ways, such as two huge fleets of super-advanced starships flying right at each other and blasting away. The writers of DS9 (including the talented Ronald D. Moore, later of \"Battlestar Galactica\" fame) spiced up their monotonous show by starting a war, but at heart it is still a pedantic soap.

DS9 remains a very frustrating experience. The continuous story is too flat and obvious to be really gripping, and the characters never truly develop in interesting ways. \"Babylon 5\" and \"Battlestar Galactica\" both fulfilled the promise made by DS9, and did everything much better. For Star Trek, stick with the original and the Next Generation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't like watching DS9 compared to other Star Treks even Enterprise, but I didn't like Babylon 5, and now I know why. They are the same show. I just read the old news that Paramount stole the idea from the creator of Babylon 5, but they chose not to sue for a reason I don't know or care, but seeing as a Star Trek series is based off another even nerdier show is just to much to bare, now I will condemn anyone who even mentions the DS9 when talking about the series. Original, TNG, and Voyager are my favorites in that order. Before I didn't understand why everyone thinks DS9 is great and I didn't, but know I know. It's also because the captain has a real anger problem, and I hate people that act cool, but freak out, out of no where; and he seems to on every episode.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although normally my preference is not for romantic dramas, seeing this film left me a little short.

It had promise, the characters and relationships could have been explored much deeper than they did, yet the story seemed not to understand the direction it wanted to take.

The comparisions and parallels within the story, especially the three generations of women in the family, had a lot of potential, but somehow didn't fully extend itself. It could have made the film much easier to relate to and attach to which is the aim of any film about lost-love and life regained.

IMHO, I think the film suffered from a lack of direction in the writing, although Harry Connick Jnr and Sandra Bullock did try desperatly to breath a little life into otherwise flat character outlines.

It's not that this is a bad film, some parts leave you understanding the reasons for various plot developments, its just that this film is underdone, and a little flat overall.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everyone I know loves this movie, but I am afraid that I don't. I hated this film so much that I had to turn it off mid-film because of the repulsion. Way too much time is spent on weepiness and emotional bedlam, the point of the Bullock character being devastated by her divorce is jackhammered into the viewer's head excessively. Enough already!! And why didn't we hear more about her ex-husband? He is portrayed as nothing but a suit who comes by once in a while. Something must of made her want to marry him, what was it? What is it about him that makes her so devastated upon their divorce? More time could of been spent on that rather than yet one more shot of Bullock lying crumpled on the bedroom floor. The dialogue is stilted, cliched and terrible, much like one of those corny \"ABC Afterschool Specials\" or something. There is no imagination or creativity about anything in this film, it is all very predictable and therefore boring. This movie also goes into overdrive on the cutsiness factor, very stupid and not funny like it was supposed to be! This is just another one of those horribly done \"I am woman, hear me roar\" films, much like \"Waiting To Exhale\". If you want to see \"I am woman, hear me roar\" films that are truly entertaining, original and well-done, then see \"Gas Food Lodging\" or \"Ruby in Paradise\". Skip this crap!! I give \"Hope Floats\" 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hope Floats with Sandra Bullock is a real disappointment. The story starts off ok. Her husband cheats on her and she finds out on national television. So she has to rebuild her life. Here it could have gotten interesting or built up in a story line, but you become so bored with it. She moves back with her parents and Harry Connick Jr. who plays Justin begins hitting on her. The two have no real chemistry at all, yet your supposed to get the impression that Justin is in love with her. The movie ends the way you figure it will but you wish it hadn't ended like every other kind like it. They had a good start with this movie and could have turned it into something watchable but instead its a movie that you definitely want to miss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a dismal attempt at recreating a crucial time in English history. The film version of Cromwell's growing involvement in the War is marginally accurate but the overall historical accuracy of this movie was way off. This film implies that the war was started over religious differences but the Civil War was in no way Catholic versus Protestant: both sides were Protestant. Cromwell was never present at the battle of Edgehill, nor did he ever \"save the day\". The royalists did not win, the battle ended in a draw.

As another reviewer has noted, Cromwell was certainly not one of the \"Five Members\" who were to be removed from the House and arrested.

Overall, this movie was decent. The producers tried WAY to hard and it didn't turn out so great.

definitely could have been better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Throughout the 1950s and into the 60s, 70s and even into the 80s, a slew of war films were produced in the former Yugoslavia, glorifying the heroism of the \"Partisans\" \u0096 civilians who turned out to fight a guerrilla war against the invading German forces. Hajrudin Krvavac, who's generally only known in Eastern Europe, directed quite a few of these \"partisan\" stories; unfortunately, only a handful of them were ever exported to the rest of the Europe and the United States. \"Battle of the Eagles\" is a rare, low-budget look at the formation and exploits of the Partisan Air Force.

Marshal Tito decrees that a Partisan Air Force must be formed to combat the German Luftwaffe in the skies over Yugoslavia. A group of former pilots join forces with two small biplanes and begin raiding enemy bases and convoys; over the course of several months, more pilots and planes join the ranks, eventually forming a formidable air force. Maybe it's history, or maybe it's fable \u0096 whatever it is, it sure isn't convincing, but a cast of great actors sure try to make it work.

The film opens strongly with a well-shot German air raid on defenseless partisans. The nuts and bolts of the plot come together almost immediately, and for a short while the audience is treated to a rather patriotic series of scenes. Then the action starts, and this title quickly becomes yet another low-budget, by-the-numbers adventure. All of the characters are familiar clich\u00e9s: Major Dragan (played by a well-meaning Bekim Fehmiu) is our typical patriotic, heroic leading man. He blasts away at strafing planes with a machine-gun and even has an aerial duel with the villainous Klauberg (Radko Polic), a completely predictable and corny climax with an equally predictable outcome. The rest of the partisans are familiar: Ljubisa Samardzic (\"The Battle of Neretva\") is a Zare, a hotshot playboy; Bata Zivojinovic (\"Hell River\") is Voss, a veteran flyer who comes out of the woodwork now that his country needs him; and Rados Bajic (\"The Day that Shook the World\") is Dalibor, a young messenger boy who moves up through the ranks, eventually becoming a seasoned combat pilot. The characters and their stories are familiar to any war fan, and Krvavac doesn't try to build upon these stereotypes. The cast does a fair job, and despite the two-dimensional script, every player is engaging and fun to watch. Bajic, in particular, has some great moments \u0096 when he's going to take his first flight as a gunner, and later, when he is forced to land a plane after the pilot is killed. The plot merely consists of a string of air raids against the Germans, and subsequent retaliatory acts.

Krvavac handles the action sequences competently with a mix of actual footage and miniature effects. Unfortunately, the miniatures are so cheap and false-looking that the transitions between actual aerial photography and toy planes are jarring and laughable. Some of the strafing and bombing scenes look shockingly real, while dogfights involving scale models, complete with action figure pilots, are just plain pathetic. Sometimes smoke puffs from the \"machine-guns\" are so big that the smoke engulfs the entire model plane. Worse, the editors often superimpose shots of fighters over real footage. Although the aircraft are usually in proper perspective, they're surrounded by a distracting glow which hinders any attempt at realism. All of this action is set to an incredibly familiar and annoying score by Bojan Adamic.

\"Battle of the Eagles\" also suffers from a very poorly edited English-language release. To begin with, 28 minutes of footage is missing \u0096 cutting the film from 130 minutes to a mere 102. The missing segments were carelessly excised, and the cutting looks very sloppy. Music cues are abruptly cut off and scenes are abandoned before they are resolved. In the last third of the film, the story falls apart, and only some badly-needed action scenes can try to save it from total incomprehensibility. Then, there's the dubbing\u0085 all of the scenes revolving around the Partisans are dubbed in English (rather poorly, however), yet several lengthy scenes remain in German, without the benefit of subtitles. The film might have made much more sense had the German-language sequences been excised instead of crucial scenes revolving around the Partisans.

On the plus side, Krvavac handles the outdoor footage quite well. There is never a moment where the audience feels like they're on a soundstage. In particular, the German Luftwaffe bases are expansive, complete with dozens of Messerschmitt fighter planes and extras costumed in leather flying jackets. The scenery is fresh and green, and Krvavac isn't afraid to shoot scenes with extremely wide angles or from far away simply to convey the scope of a battle or long trek. A German ambush of a partisan unit early on in the picture stands out, as does a sequence where Zare and Dalibor escape from an enemy base.

As it exists on home video, \"Battle of the Eagles\" is just another of many stories about the Yugoslav Partisan movement. There is nothing to set it apart from the rest of the crop, and the terrible special effects and drastic editing put it a notch below acceptable. Try to avoid this one unless you can find a full-length copy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It really amazed me to see that someone would take so much time to assess such a bad movie. The beginning (of the film) had some truth in it. The Partisan \"AF\" was started in 1943 when two communist pilots from the Croat Ustashi AF deserted, together with their observers, in Breguet 19 and Potez 33, respectively. The aircraft saw some action in strafing and hand-bombing, but didn't last very long. One crew was killed and the other survived, the pilot being killed later while flying a Spitfire Vc. The real Partisan squadrons were established when RAF detached two of its (Yugoslav) squadrons of Spitfire Vc and, Hurricane IIc , respectively, manned by Ex Yugoslav Royal Airforce pilots, and allotted them to Tito's forces on the Island of Vis. Even those were never engaged in air-to-air activities, but strictly for ground support. So the film was one giant cow manure, to put it mildly, and the lowest point for its, otherwise not at all bad, director. By some quirk of fate I was present on the filming of the last sequence of the movie, when dozens of German aircraft were destroyed (Yugoslav 522 trainers, used also in the flying sequences) on the Mostar military airport. The pyrotechnics were impressive, and the Scotch served lavishly by the film crew was even better. Otherwise, the film was a shameless lie was and frequently joked about by the contemporary audience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Playmania is extremely boring. This is the basis of the show. Mel or Shandi ask extremely easy questions that a 2 year old could answer at an extremely slow pace. This show lasts for 2 hours and they probably only play about 10 games in that period. People may like this show because the hosts are eye candy, but they're hotness completely is destroyed by the fact that they are so friggin annoying.

During the show they mention that we need more players a million times. The top 5 surveys that they do probably takes about 20 minutes out of the show. This show is probably one of the worst game shows ever made. One of the reasons they probably don't have callers is because the show is so cheap with the money. The most money I've ever seen them hand out was $210. I wouldn't be surprised if this \"game show\" is canceled by the end of 2006.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The female hot numbers on this show are breathtaking. They can also talk like there's no tomorrow. Otherwise, this show would go into the toilet quickly. How much money do they make on all the people who text in, with that hope to be called back to win, $100.oo, or whatever. Boy, now that's a scam!!! Can I buy stocks in this money maker??? Let's face it, with the technology of now, thousands of people could be calling every minute. And, with ten thousand channels and nothing worth a crap on, thousands of people watch this show. \"Oh, I know this answer!\", is probably a super common line among the listeners. With these super hotties constantly saying the 'lounge' needs callers, I think it's a bunch of B.S. Frequently, someone who does get through, sounds amazed that they're actually talking to the host. Many of them sound depressed and worn out by probably waiting so long and trying so many times to get on and score some pocket change. Wow, the producers must be just raking it in. No wonder there are so few commercials. Commercials are only on to give time for more (primarily losers) to text in and wait, and hope, and dream, and fantasize about--- what? --- winning enough money for a tank of gas and a dinner at Mc..something? I only watch it now & then on my brothers TV, because he likes to watch it when he's on the computer. I'll sit there for 15 to 20 minutes and look at Mel (one of the tastiest looking women on TV) and laugh at the scam that's in front of me. Then, I have to leave; even if I don't! People who have an active life, can only take this show in extreme moderation. Mel, get yourself into the movies, or TV sitcoms, or something. Many of us are infatuated with you! Even with the super cu-ties, I'm amazed this show is still on!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show can most accurately be described as TV Bubble-Gum: It's chewing, it has a good taste to it, and it lasts a long time. But, like Bubble-Gum, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth after a few too many chews.

This show features very simple questions that take the form of simply games, like Hangman, guessing a simple phrase or guessing items on a short list. Callers are the contestants, and anybody can play.

The questions, though, are terribly easy. There's some techno music pumped into the background that's fashioned into a continuous loop. It never seems to get old, but it never adds much to the show anyway. The hostess, however, regardless of which one that it, is extremely personable, pleasant enough to watch and can make some very amusing facial expressions. I rather enjoy that British woman.

But there's nothing to this show. It's simplistic and uncompelling, although it can be entertaining if absolutely nothing else is on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, a warning. 'How to Marry a Millionaire' comes prefaced by an apparently random five minute orchestral performance of 'Street Scene', a Gershwin-lite piece treated with the full pomp and ceremony of, well, Gershwin. Sitting through it takes some patience. If you have the DVD, rest assured, you can skip forward. You won't miss anything.

The film itself is one of the perpetual disappointments of 50's Hollywood, a movie so bolstered by major star-power, opulent mise-en-scene and perfect high-concept that failure seems inconceivable. The title alone is perfect. Generation after generation, however, are forced to ask themselves - how is this so limp? The script is an albatross about the production's neck, a dead, smelling thing that chokes everything and everyone before they can really spark to life. There are no comic situations, just isolated moments that play for laughs. Whenever an actual comedy scene threatens to develop, the movie quickly moves on to other, less interesting things. A case in point - the scene where the three leading ladies each bring a date to the same fancy restaurant. One of them, short-sighted, refuses to wear her spectacles out of vanity. One of the dates is married. A classic Hollywood farce set-up, surely, complete with mistaken identity, angry wife, and probably a pie in the face for somebody? Well, no. Instead, we cut between the three dates as the ladies react 'comically' to things their partners say. Hit the punchline, and cut to the next limp joke. If in doubt, have Marilyn walk into a wall. Where's Billy Wilder when you need him?

The three stars are almost a perfect diagram of the life cycle of the classic Hollywood screen goddess. This was one of Marilyn Monroe's breakout films, and the camera just eats her up, even though the script gives her nothing to do. She's so luminescent she almost seems newly hatched. Lauren Bacall, on the other hand, had been a major star for nearly a full decade, and she knows how to dominate the screen even when in frame with Monroe. She gets the only thing passing for a real role, and delivers the few good lines with a cynical snap - given the right material, she could have brought this thing to life. She's a curiously ageless actress - when she lies about her age in the film and claims to be forty, it isn't instantly ridiculous - and far less girlish than her co-stars, giving her a convincing authority. Betty Grable was far from ageless, and had a good eight years on her co-stars, putting her near the end of her Hollywood career. There's an air of desperation about her at times, stranded on screen with nothing but a toothpaste smile and a few scraps of comic timing, unable to play her real age but fooling no-one as a contemporary of this new, sharper generation of actresses, relying on the same old schtick that had served her throughout her career (for Marilyn-doubters, seeing the two juxtaposed in this movie helps to throw Monroe's subtlety and - yes - intelligence into sharp relief). She's also lumbered with the dead wood in terms of male co-stars (although all of the men - even the great William Powell - are guilty of lazy performances); she's unable to strike any comic sparks off them. Better to have given her role to the under-utilised Monroe, who could be funny all by herself, and left Grable with the repetitive Mr. Magoo routine.

That the movie is as enjoyable as it is can be put down to the luscious Hollywood production, the sort that renders even the twee likes of 'By the Light of the Silvery Moon' watchable. But somewhere, buried beneath the flabby jokes and professionalism, lies the rough outline of a sharp, cynical comedy about the business of marriage that Bacall could have made sing - and new generations of movie viewers will sit down with 'How to Marry a Millionaire' in expectation of that movie, ready to be disappointed all over again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe in its day this movie was special. But five decades later it seems quaint, just another cinematic relic of the dreadful 1950s. Stereotypes abound in this fluffy story about three female gold diggers who set up shop in a Manhattan penthouse, in an effort to attract wealthy husbands.

I don't mind the shallow theme. But the film's premise is lame. And the execution is worse. It's a romantic comedy, but I found little to laugh at. The plot point about an extremely nearsighted bimbo is about the only clever element of the story. Overall dialogue is flat, and so too is the delivery. And the script structure is disconcerting. The plot keeps jumping back and forth among the three ladies. It's as if the writer couldn't quite blend the ensemble roles. The result is a plot that seems choppy.

Marilyn Monroe was a good choice for her role. But Lauren Bacall was too old for the role she played. And Betty Grable, with her squeaky voice and awful hairdo, was just plain annoying.

Color cinematography is conventional. But there were lots of shots using rear screen projection, contributing to a dated look. The visuals are made even worse by costumes that reek of cheesy 1950's \"glamour\"; they are just awful. Viewers must endure a fashion show, a plot point that amplifies how the film's director was smitten by those trashy glad rags.

And then there is that orchestra. In what is arguably the worst film opening in cinema history, the first part of the film has an orchestra playing some dreary-sounding tune. At first, I thought I was watching the introduction to coming attractions. But no, it's actually part of the film. And the orchestra plays on, and on, and on. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, whatever to do with the story. What were they thinking?

I enjoyed Marilyn Monroe, with her breathy voice, as she bimbos her way through the plot. But the film would have been far better if they had dumped the other two ensemble roles, dumped that orchestra, enhanced the comedy dialogue, and downplayed those gaudy, cheesy costumes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The premise of the movie had much going for it, however, despite the novelty of models selling off someone else's furniture to live the high life, this movie has nothing going for it. The characters are cardboard. The dialog is so painfully scripted, it's hard to sit through, and if there were any jokes in the movie, I missed them. Marilyn Monroe's walking into walls because she doesn't want to wear glasses is completely unbelievable & not funny. Grable's stupidity is also too ham-fisted to be believed. Bacall's gold-digging is so forced, it's annoying to listen to. Why anyone would want to sit through this is beyond me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This two and a half hour long film was shown recently at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) at a 10 PM show. There was a scheduled 1 AM show after that, but wondered if anyone was going to stay awake to see that until 3:30 am. The opening scene is of a man walking in a field, and it lasts four minutes of movie time. It is an ominous sign of what's to come: a good 144 minutes more of pretty much the same. There is a scene of a man and a woman against a wall, standing in the sun. It is repeated 15 times, with very sparse dialogue. Occasionally, these very long slow sequences are interrupted by shocking stills, such as a close up of female genitalia, shown for one full minute of film time (audience crowd laughing in the last 20 seconds, as to say, \"what's the message?\"). The story resembles Dostoyevsky's novel \"The Karamazov brothers\", in which a cretin falls in love with a woman of easy morals. In one of the rare instants in which the crowd was laughing (more in desperation to try to justify having been there already a full two hours to see nothing happening) was when the statement by a british tourist that he couldn't see things clearly since the Eurostar train was traveling at 180 miles an hour, was translated by the translator with automatic switch of units of measure from English System to Metric system to \"they couldn't see things clearly since the train was traveling at 300 kilometers per hour\". What was amazing about this movie is that the quality of cinematography reveals that alot of money has been spent on it. This was no film kitchen 8-mm experiment. It was carefully planned, structured, acted, montaged. Yet, I got so little out of it. Some comments indictated on the excruciating detail, such as the minutae of a dandling key chain on a door just opened. Okay, it was noted, but what was the purpose? Some corageous people in the audience walked away after the first hour. The rest remained out of curiosity: there must be something happening at the end. There never was. And maybe that's what the film is about. All the movies at the theater are action-packed. This one wants to be different. There is nothing happening.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The director infuses this film with false depth by repeating a gimmick throughout the film. EVERY single shot in this movie is 3 times longer than it needs to be. You could easily cut out 1.5 hours of this agonizingly long 2.5 hour film without eliminating: one word of dialogue, one image, one event, or bit of movement.

This was one of the most gratuitous wastes of film I have ever seen. Other reviewers have called it pretentious, which is an understatement. L'Humanite is pseudo-intellectual trash designed to be anti-Hollywood so that the Cannes judges could assert their independence from the Oscars.

The IMDb reviewer states: \"Unlike Hollywood movies - which usually force the audience into overdrive - this forces the audience to slow down and look at some of life's tiniest and most mundane features in great detail.\" You would have to be catatonic to stare at some of these images this long and move as slowly at these characters. This isn't real life unless you are heavily medicated.

Finally, I felt that Schott\u00e9's portrayal was a sad rip-off of Peter Sellers' masterful \"Chauncy Gardner.\" He uses the same facial expressions and postures. He even gardens! In many respects there are parallels between these two movies. The main difference being that \"Being There\" moves along and doesn't rely on shock and gimmicks to create a meaningful experience while questioning various things we take for granted in life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"European films may be slower-paced and less plot driven than American films, but this takes it way too far. It also show a whole bunch of incompletely drawn characters doing inexplicable things. It's not fantasy, it's not even surreal, it's just awkward and bad.

What's the message here? That people in France are pensive and gaze morosely a lot? That they like to watch other people having sex? They they spontaneously scream or touch a stranger on his neck? Do not wear a watch when seeing this film, as you will be astonished at how little is explained or learned over huge stretches of time.

This is the story of a \"police superintendent\" who is deeply troubled by the brutal murder of a little girl, though actually he seems troubled before then. He is not merely upset at his own personal tragedies, but apparently mentally quite slow, behaving very much like a learning-disabled six-year old child. He stares blankly a lot, walks with arms rigid like a little kid, speaks in meek, simpering, tones, behaves quite oddly in all of his interactions (though no one seems to notice or care, even when it is supposed to be police business). He's not a troubled cop, more of an outpatient. Picture Andy Kaufman's Latka character on Taxi, but without the humor. He is not only not believable as a policeman he is not believable as an adult. That he won an award for this interpretation of his character is truly amazing -- unless he was playing the part exactly as written and the fault lies with the weirdos who scripted this thing. The plot is clearly secondary. Do not expect to see anything remotely like what police would do if a little girl was found murdered. This not that important, though the implausibility of their behavior is sort of insulting. The problem is that the rest of the film makes no sense either. That leaves the long lingering close-ups of fields, vegetable gardens, people's faces etc. The ending struck me as especially ridiculous -- totally unsupported by the events leading up to it -- unless you think, \"What's the worst way this film could end?\"

There is lots of sex and nudity, which is supposed to mean something. You want vaginas? You'll see vaginas. Not to worry, it's art. It has deep meaning, what I am not sure. And the protagonist, despite his innocent weirdness, seems to have some sort of homoerotic neck or jowl fetish.

Finally, the subtitles are in white and frequently appear on a white background -- very hard to read many of them. On the other hand, there isn't much dialogue, so this isn't a big problem. There is also very little sound -- not even ambient sounds you would expect to hear -- in the film, contributing to the emptiness of the whole experience. The old Woody Allen would have had a field day parodying this work.

That this is an award-winning film is sad. I would hate to see the losing films.

Enjoy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film at the Edinburgh Film Festival, and would not recommend it. It is two and a half hours long, during which nothing much happens at a wading-through-porridge pace.

The main characters are gormless and totally lacking in charisma or personality. No-one smiles at all during the film (neither would I if I had their lives), and although Domino seems to have a healthy sexual appetite she doesn't seem to enjoy sex at all.

The whole experience is depressing and ponderous, the director lingering over each scene in a way that drove me crazy rather than striking me with the beauty of his technique.

Too many questions were left in my mind: why does he sniff the Algerian man's head? Why does he levitate? What is he looking at over the allotment fence? Why does he kiss Joseph? Why did we go and see this rubbish rather than ordering another bottle of wine in Bouzy Rouge?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A trio sit at a restaurant table and stare wordlessly into space. Later, they lean on a rail and stare across the Channel at England. A man works a hoe repetitively in his garden, only his head and upper torso visible on the screen. A man and a woman watch another man peeing against a stone wall. Each of these silent shots lasts for roughly one full minute. Absolutely no information is imparted that could not be given to us in about one quarter of the time. The editor must have been half asleep. I know I was.

The movie open with a startling shot of the raw vagina of an obviously dead body. One's gorge rises. But then the policeman (Schotte) exchanges a few words with a neighboring couple and begins to tag along after them and the case is forgotten for the next half hour while Schotte and his friends trade unfunny insults with each other and with strangers. Eventually the thread of the case is picked up again but proceeds slowly, almost aimlessly, following the stylistic pattern already established.

Sometimes in movies like this, the location shooting provides a kind of atmosphere that compensates for the dullness of the story, but not here. The houses of the French village are attached to one another in long rows. The house fronts abut the pavement directly, with no steps. The fronts show virtually no decoration and are pretty much indistinguishable. The flat farmlands are featureless. What might have been one of the more interesting episodes -- a visit to a stone fort on the coast -- bores the trio until they begin behaving like snots and are asked to leave.

The acting is minimal. Nobody seems particularly anxious to say anything. No jokes are made. Nothing amusing happens. The policeman has a face almost as interesting as Randy Quaid's. The babe, a tall hefty blonde, looks like the kind of shot putter on steroids that the East Germans used to field at the Olympic Games.

I sat through more than an hour of it before giving it up. Maybe I'll take a crack at it some other time. Unless I've missed something or unless it turns into some deranged Monty Python routine towards the end, I don't think you'll get much out of renting it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The main character, Pharaon, has suffered a loss of his wife and child in the pre-film past. He deals with with by just shutting down emotionally. Too long a movie, too much time spent on Pharaon's inexpressive face, too much \"road time\" (one of the banes of TV: filling time with moving cars, trains, etc.) Long scenes of him doing trivial - sometimes totally inexplicable, nonsensically trivial - actions with neither reason or emotion. His best friends Joseph and Domino are not much more, their relationship based on sex (this film perhaps gives new meaning to the phrase \"gratuitous sex\"); Domino and Pharaon's mother are the two characters who display some emotion, but not much. It is hard to tell with all the characters in this movie: is it indifferent acting, indifferent writing, or simply indifferent characters portrayed by good writing and good acting. Characters in this film talk very little to anyone; it's little wonder their emotionally isolated, which is all the more bizarre because it's clear they live in a neighborhood where the people are friendly and know each other.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't remember when was the last time I have been so terribly disappointed by any movie. Probably I expected too much happening (in a way you can expect action in dogma style movies of course). But there is just nothing going on in here. Luckily I was watching it at home and could switch channels whenever the silence and dumb\/numb faces started to kill me. And that was very often! It really isn't too much of a pleasure watching ugly people who don't talk and move slowly, stroke pigs and french kiss men, not to mention ugly bodies having explicit sex. If only it made any sense... the whole murder situation is ridiculous; seems like it was only created to show one more vagina since zero characters are capable of actually solving the crime. Having only four pseudo developed characters and a movie going nowhere it is pretty soon obvious whom the director picked as a killer. And that makes no sence either. Despite all the boredom and suffering I must admit that it somehow touched me in an unexplainable way. Maybe you should check it out yourself though I don't recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just had the misfortune to see this truly awful film.

Think of that scene in Magnolia at the end with the slow pan in on that woman. Now, remove the pan, add breathing and unshaven men to the mix, and you have what the entire 2 and a half hours of Humanity was

The Inspector is a true dolt, not even a dolt, just a dim witted, slow moving simpleton. How they ever solved a crime is beyond me.

Obligatory sex scenes are awful, and gratitious.

Eventual villain of the piece (he raped and killed an 11 year old girl) is signposted very early and no surprise unless your are similarly dimwitted.

Uninspiring camera work.

The director was there saying that it is up to the audience to provide their own interpretation on the proceedings. I assume he also meant provide their own dialogue (there is bugger all - adding to its boredom level), inventive camera work (just static shots, totally stripping away the obvious beauty of the landscape the film is being shot in) and plot!

Truly awful.

0 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This French film is supposedly about a creepy, dim-witted cop who investigates the rape and murder of a young girl in a small town. However, the film is really about nothing and it takes forever to say nothing. If it takes a character ten minutes to walk from Point A to Point B, the film spends ten minutes showing this walk, and these are the \"action\" scenes. There are also static shots that last for minutes, making the viewer wonder if he accidentally hit the pause button on the remote. The script has enough material for a 20-minute movie. The movie lasts seven hours or so. You do the math. The actors were apparently amateurs and it shows. Note to self: never see a Dumont movie again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although this movie has a slow, dream-like, almost mesmerizing pace, and an interesting, though possibly not entirely accurate, description of a rural French constabulary's criminal investigation practices and personnel, I find it, ultimately, impossible to recommend. I think this movie is simply a setup piece to advance one person's -- the director's, one presumes -- disgust with heterosexuality. Certainly, human sexuality in all its forms can have their revolting moments, no denying that! But to choose the bad uniformly at the expense of the good, as this film does at every turn, suggests a warped sensibility at work. In short, if you enjoy watching homo-eroticism masquerading as compassion, and the depiction of heterosexual lovemaking and the female form in a hideous and degrading light - then this movie is for you. I don't , and it wasn't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"L'Humanit\u00e9 is a murder mystery. These movies tend to be popular,

and the 6.9 rating it currently has suggests that it has been, too.

Unfortunately, this movie has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

A few non-spoilers, for instance, include a 5-minute scene

wherein the main character eats an apple. And another 3 minutes

where he breathes.

In case you were wondering, this is not, in fact, art. Neither is it a

commentary on humanity, which from the title it seems it is trying

to be. It is, in fact, boring. There are numerous attempts in this

movie to say something about humanity. One might think to

onesself, \"How would I comment on humanity?\" And the most

obvious and boring answers will of course be sex, love, and death.

Not that these options are uninteresting when done well - just that

they are the canonical options. For sex, this movie does its best to

make it unattractive and disgusting. In your first five minutes -

hence this is not a spoiler - you will see the bloodied vagina of a

murdered 11-year-old girl; it's a murder mystery, remember? Later

on, a few people throw themselves at each other and have what

the director would like us to believe is \"raw\" sex, but in reality it's

contrived and overly symbolic - but worse yet, uninterestingly so.

I enjoy being disturbed by movies. This movie showed me why:

Disturbing movies usually show something inside of someone,

their humanity, which they did not know existed and are a bit

scared of. L'Humanit\u00e9 tried to do just this and failed, and I walked

out of the theatre not disturbed, but disgusted, thinking that I had

wasted my time in the theater, despite having seen the movie for

free.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think the cards were stacked against Webmaster, because right from the start there was this itchy feeling, like something was wrong but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Then it hit me. Dubbed. For a little while, they managed most of the lines either as voice over or off screen, with just a little hint here and there, until it became painfully obvious. This is the kind of dubbing that grates on the nerves, with nothing even remotely funny about it. I hate dubbing, but at least, however misplaced, martial arts films badly dubbed tend to have a sense of humour about it.

What I wanted was a film about a hacker doing actual hacking and stuff like that. Maybe like a reverse side of the table of the movie Hackers (being about the person trying to keep them out instead about the people trying to get in). What I got was some poorly written, nonsensical at times murder mystery with a ton of bad chase sequences, a supposedly inept hacker who was neutered without his little ego, and a director who obviously didn't know how to handle a camera. I just wanted to reach in there, grab the camera from the guy, and shoot the dang thing myself. The editing wasn't much better. The acting? Well, I guess if the lead guy didn't have such a bad script to work from, he'd be at least watchable. The main bad guy was OK, too, but pretty much everyone else was a joke. Dubbing didn't help, but the acting was pretty bad even taking that into consideration.

Before I get into more bad, let's perk up to a few good things. Well, one or two. Despite the rudimentary graphics, I rather enjoyed the cyberworld stuff, what little there was of it, and would have much rather watched a movie mostly about, in, and around that than the tepid surroundings outside in the 'real world'. The falsifying thumbprint thing seemed kind of cool, but ended up being rather useless in the scheme of things. The heart gadget, which reminded me of Guillermo Del Toro's Cronos, was interesting, though as a plot device ripped directly from the pages of Escape from New York, it was horribly conceived in the long run. There's one point where the bad guy is unconscious and our hero is right there. Why didn't he try the bad guy's thumb print then (since the heart device was thumb activated)? Nonetheless, some interesting gadgets and cyber stuff, if only they could have been utilized better.

Now, who here dares compare this movie to Blade Runner? Both films take place sometime in the future and there's some kind of off kilter type of romance in it, sort of, in both films. There's the investigation of a murder, but I've seen many a film with a murder at its center that are nothing like either Blade Runner or Webmaster. Identity, for instance. That's about where the similarities end. Period. There is no comparison, just as there wouldn't be between Blade Runner and Hackers. Ridley Scott is a brilliant director with a great mind for art direction and knows some fundamentals of film-making, like where to put the camera. Webmaster is cheap, and not just because of the budget. It's cheap because of bad writing, and because it more often than not takes the easy way out (like writing in a character who barely appeared in the first place to save the girl in the end to get her to Point B by herself without the Hero, so that he could do his thing. Very convenient. Or, the attempted sympathy factor for a character we have no reason to care for. Or, inane things like the car set up to stall them just enough for someone to get away.).

It tries to be hip, it tries to be exploitive, it even tries a twist ending that's not the least bit surprising, and it tries to be thrilling. But a bunch of near identical chase sequences, bad writing, editing, horribly shot, bad acting, etc. does not a thrilling movie make.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A desperate attempt to make a \"film-noir\" sci-fi thriller, but the movie falls short. It has no believable plot, some of the key actors were a joke (NOT Lars Bom, he is cool!). I did like the \"access restriction by bandwith maximizing\" though. I finished it on principle, but went home with the feeling of having lost two hours of my life...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only thing romantic about this movie is the pain and anguish of romance. If you are expecting this cinematic adaptation of another Nicholas Sparks novel to follow the surefire formula of previous films, such as \"Message in a Bottle,\" \"Nights at Rodanthe,\" and \"A Walk to Remember,\" think again. Nobody dies from an accident trying to save somebody else and the romance here doesn't transform these characters. If anything, it makes them even more miserable than they were.

A soft-spoken Special Forces Army Sergeant, John Tyree (Channing Tatum of \"G.I. Joe\"), has a memorable two-week fling while on leave from the military with an impressionable college girl, Savannah Curtis (radiant Amanda Seyfriend of \"Mamma Mia\"), who is spending spring break in South Carolina. Savannah doesn't drink, smoke, but she tells John that her head is filled with profanity. Inevitably, John and Savannah topple madly in love with each other and launch an endless exchange letters of love letters that are sleep-inducing by any standard. Tyree is off in the world serving the military in some godforsaken corner of the globe while she is away at college perusing his letters in class. Just as they are getting hot and heavy between them, suicidal terrorists crash planes into the World Trade Center. John reenlists along with his buddies in a wave of patriotism without discussing the option with Savannah.

Meanwhile, another guy, shaggy but likable family friend Tim (Henry Thomas of \"E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial\") who has a motherless, autistic child named Alan becomes the object of Savannah's sentiment. She is the kind of girl who helps build houses for the less fortunate and wants to start a summer horse ranch for autistic children. She delays what seems forever before she finally contacts Tyree with the eponymous letter. Indeed, she dumps him for a man with a disease! Later, she confesses to John that she knew the sound of his voice would have broken her resolve to marry Tim, so she doesn't make that fateful call. Predictably, John agonizes over Savannah's lack of communication. During a routine mission, our hero takes a couple of terrorist bullets in the back and winds up in Germany. While all this is transpiring, Tyree is trying to come to terms with his own coin-collecting father, Mr. Tyree (Richard Jenkins of \"Step Brothers\"), who suffers from Asperger's Syndrome. It seems that his father is on his last legs after John gets out of the hospital. The lead female character lacks a shred of respect and her betrayal of Tyree amounts to a pretty low blow. Tyree, his father, and Tyree's commander, Keith Robinson, are the only sympathetic characters in this long distance epistolary romance.

\"Dear John\" gives new meaning to lethargic love stories. Yuck!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had high hopes when I went into the theatre-- having seen the trailer I was as hyped as the next person to see great talent participate in the making of a story with a beautiful premise.

However, it's disappointing to see this talent laid waste by the poor composition of songs-the words are chunky and cheesy, probably because it was composed with a more western theme. I wouldn't find it difficult to imagine the same melodies with French or English lyrics. In Mandarin, they just sound strange.

The musical items were also cut together badly-- far too quickly to be enjoyable, and the shots of the actors looking anguished lasted far too long.

The special effects are the next disappointment. Suffice it to say, it is highly obvious where the special effects start and stop.

It's not Moulin Rouge, and it's not In the Mood either, inspite of the occasional (and very similar) slow waltz theme. Altogether, and hour too long to tell a simple story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was truly looking forward to this title. It sounded and looked fun. The idea of someone making a cheesy 50s monster movie could have been worth a few laughs, but instead this title only bores. First off, there is almost no Froggg in the entire movie which is the biggest disappointment. I have to sit through 75+ minutes of lame drama and dialog to get a few glimpses of the Froggg humping a bare breasted chick. Why? On top of that the film lacks any sort of fun plot. I mean give me something thats a bit more interesting than just a bunch of talking heads. I wanted to see some hot chicks search for the creature in the swamp, I wanted to see some cuties dragged off to his lair in desperate need of rescue (Creature from the Black Lagoon stuff), I wanted to see a few goofy action scenes of the Froggg going on a killing spree, or it maybe escaping a silly trap. Something exciting! Geez, have fun with it, be creative! Who wants to sit through endless and tiring dialog scenes in a creature flick? My advice to the filmmakers: Keep going, your concepts are good, but your execution needs to be a lot more inspired. Have some fun with the creature, put the humor in the action and most important...put more creature in a creature movie!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Talk about your wild life. Barely a B-movie, but what the hay...corny Sci-Fi and lesbian sex. From the mind of writer and director Cody Jarrett, a cheesy slice of fun. A chemical company is dumping waste that is causing mutants in a fish farm. The hot Kristi Russell stars as Dr. Barbara Michaels, an EPA agent sent to investigate this environmental dilemma. She just happens to enter a lesbian relationship with bartender Trixie(Ariadne Shaffer)and their love scenes are about as good as this film gets. A man-size frog incites chaos; causing a car crash, raping the chemical company boss's daughter, raping a girl under the bleachers at a football game, stiff-arm tackling a runner in the football game, raping a nun...all before being shot twice in the chest after an antidote was found all ready. The special effects...well, not special; a guy in a rubber frog costume without the genitalia to prove himself. Tough tadpoles, do you still want to watch it? Go ahead, but bribe any witness to secrecy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was one of the worst films I can remember seeing. I am sure I have seen worse, though, if that mitigates me slamming it.

The humor isn't funny, there are stupid stereotype jokes that, again, aren't funny. I was a captive audience on a plane and viewed this film. It was a complete waste of time. I enjoyed Martin in earlier films, but not this one. Same for Queen Latifah, she was excellent in Chicago and in Set it Off she was good too, but this role was horrid.

I mostly credit the failure to the bad writing of the script. I feel strongly you can't save a formulaic, unfunny script with decent actors, this movie as a case in point. Still, all involved should have been wise enough to not participate in this film. I am just amazed that something so bad can get greenlighted, made, released theatrically, and promoted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Steve Martin looks like he's had a face lift. Something very strange about his face. I usually like anything Steve does, but this movie comes off as trashy not funny. Didn't think Charlene encouraging him to be rough with his wife was a good message to be sending out to teens watching this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hollywood will stop at nothing to make money on a film even if they have to keep dragging out stereotypes and putting them in the most impossible and stupid situations. This effort is a clear example of that and I really do believe in my heart that a film like this is racially irresponsible. Story is about a divorced lawyer named Peter Sanderson (Steve Martin) who has been chatting with a lady on his computer and when he finally meets her she turns out to be the opposite of what he was expecting. Charlene Morton (Queen Latifah) is a stocky black woman who has no intentions of dating Peter but instead wants him to look at her case where she was convicted of robbery. He wants her to leave for good but she keeps popping up at inappropriate times and to save his job he reluctantly agrees to look at the facts involving her case.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Peter has his kids staying with him and Charlene turns out to be helpful in raising them but suddenly a news bulletin announces that an escaped convict named Charlene Morton has broken out of prison. Peter tells her to leave when the FBI comes snooping around but he figures out that she is in fact innocent when her old boyfriend shows up and threatens him.

This film is directed by Adam Shankman who keeps things moving at a nice pace and it is a good looking film technically speaking but the script is just so improbable and every character is a stereotype to the point that a 1970 film called \"The Landlord\" is clearly more in tune with race relations than this mess. I have always been a big fan of Martin and I think he's one of the most talented persons around but he loves to work constantly and at times just seems to pick any script handed to him. On the other hand, I've always had a problem with Latifah and the way she barges into the life of Martin is so over the top that she instantly becomes ingratiating. Basic premise that Hollywood loves to use is the hip black person showing uptight whitey to loosen up and then pass on some street logic that will help them with their lives. That's basically what the story is here but of course they have to let Martin dress black and overact like a retarded Eminem because Hollywood knows that this is what viewers want. Well, I was pretty much insulted by everything in this film and it's not because I don't have a sense of humor but unfortunately (For Hollywood, anyway) I use logic and common sense when I watch a film. Yes, I enjoyed Eugene Levy's talking jive but are we really suppose to believe that he would be instantly attracted to Latifah? I guess weirder things have happened and how many times does a main actor get shot only to be saved by something in their pocket? Wouldn't a cell phone shatter if struck by a bullet? Even if your the most die hard Martin and Latifah fan I wouldn't recommend this. I know I've said this before but this isn't an attempt to make a good film, it's an excuse to try and make money!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"4 out of 10.

This film was neither funny as a whole nor was it even worthing investing any kind of emotion into the characters. Eugene Levy is probably the most funny.... The rest of the cast do their jobs, but the story never really gets very deep and there are a lot of holes in the plot that never get filled. This just wasn't very much fun, despite being funny at times.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Steve Martin has always had my respect for being a very funny comedian and a pretty good actor, and I loved \"Planes, Trains and Automobiles\" and \"Bowfinger\" --- but \"Bringing Down the House\" definately isn't one of Martin's funniest works, and it doesn't even seem as if it's trying to be, which is just plain sad...

I don't know; maybe I didn't like this movie because of the fact that I rented it along with \"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets\" and \"Phone Booth\", both of which are excellent films, or maybe it's because I'm used to so much better from Martin, or maybe it's just because I'm in a frickin' bad mood today...Regardless, this film just wasn't very funny or entertaining, and I never managed more than a smile or a weak chuckle at the film's gags, which is really a shame, since the previews of this comedy were SO promising! I was expecting \"Bringing Down the House\" to be an all-out comedy bash, and I certainly expected more slapstick comedy and inter-racial laughs from Martin. Instead, we're 'treated' to seeing Queen Latifah jiggle all over the screen, trying to do her best with her totally uninspired character. The funniest thing in this clunker is Eugene Levy, but even he doesn't get the screen-time he deserves.

I would've really liked to enjoy \"Bringing Down the House\", but I didn't and I'd find it very difficult to recommend it to anyone but the most die-hard Steve Martin fans. Skip this one and rent \"Planes, Trains and Automobiles\" instead...

You'll have a much better time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"C'mon, let's put aside the sophomoric humor that we can find in racism and be honest...it isn't funny. I was appalled at the fact that the two main stars would agree to do a film that was so offensive and so detrimental to race relations, and I'm not referring to the obvious black\/white commentary in the movie, but to the slams towards other ethnicities, such as Betty White's characterizations of the hispanics. Should we just chalk up her agreeing to do this movie as a sign of senility...is she too old to distinguish comedy from stereotypical trash? Or is it the fault of the writers? How about the third assistant makeup person??? Nope, the fault is with us for perpetuating this kind of crap (in the guise of comedy), that hollywood will continue to feed us until we have the decency to say enough is enough...racism is for real and it isn't a laughing matter. We're all different, let's celebrate that diversity, not poke fun at it and promote divisiveness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(very serious spoilers)

this movie was a huge disappointment. there are so many problems i dont know where to start. so, i'll talk about what is good about the film.

the cast was great. steve martin delivers a really funny performance of a middle-aged, upper class, uptight white guy. queen latifah plays a big, beautiful, urban, black gal. and eugene levy, well he pretty much plays himself. add betty white and jean smart and you have a great cast - everyone played their parts really well. and if watching these guys for 1.75 hours is worth $8 to you, then you wont be disappointed.

but the movie makes a lot of serious mistakes. first of all, there are enough racial stereotypes and racial jokes to offend everyone. all the white people are uptight bigots. all the black people are ghetto ebonics-speakers. the blacks are hip, cool, with-it and poor. the whites are nerds, stiff, and rich. (except eugene levy, he is clearly taken with queen latifa and \"speaks the lingo\" - so latifa nicknames him a \"freak\". so - if you're a white man and you like black women and you know street slang you must be a freak). the movie is littered with overt racial slurs towards the black cast members and in return the whites are depicted as morons and boobs.

putting the race card aside, lets look at the major flaw in the film: they destroy latifa's character. she comes to martin's home under false pretense, but martin takes a liking to her anyway. she's supposed to be wrongly accused of robbery, martin takes up her cause. 3\/4 of the way through the film we find out latifa's character escaped from jail. so, our sympathy for her goes out the window.

there is no real plot. the movie plods along from scene to scene with latifa showing up in some place where she's \"not\" supposed to be (like a country club or martin's house) and martin trying to hide her. thats the running gag. then in the last minutes of the film they decide that they're going to finally deal with latifa's assertion that she was wrongly accused of bank robbery. martin goes under cover as a homeboy to extract a (let's face it, unusable) confession from latifa's ex boyfriend, and everyone lives happily ever after.

finally (but there is a lot more wrong with this flick) this movie appears to be a hodge-podge of clips from other movies. the premise is clearly borrowed from another martin movie \"the house-sitter\". where goldie hawn comes to live with martin and shakes up his stodgy middle-class life. martin and latifa meet online - ala \"youve got mail\". the whole \"quirky nanny fixes rich man's life\" goes as far back as \"the sound of music\" and \"mary poppins\".

i wouldnt see this movie again for free.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The previews were so funny that I couldn't wait to see this movie. I just got home and I have to say I couldn't have been more embarrassed at this movie. Yes there were times where the jokes were funny, but the stereotypical roles were painful. Joan Plowright is a fine actress but the scene with the \"negro spiritual\" was just in poor taste. Needless to say the laughs were few and far between in the movie house for a largely white crowd (I was one of a very small handful of blacks).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a long-time Steve Martin fan, it hurt to see him in a movie with such a cliched script. The screenwriter must have just rented some videos and taken a piece here and a piece there - it certainly is about the least imaginative movie I've seen in a long time - I knew exactly what was going to happen in each scene as soon as it began. The African-American stereotypes and slave references are pretty offensive as well. But the thing that was the worst for me was to see Martin in a movie without a trace of wit. He probably is one of the most intelligent actors and here he totally sold out to a totally dumbed down script. He must be behind in his alimony to be in such a lame effort.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After seeing the previews awhile back, I looked forward to seeing Steve Martin in a comedy that I thought might be a keeper. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Problem was, the previews were the only funny parts to the movie. The rest of the movie was pretty much a bunch of junk, scenes that have been done to death and characters we've all seen a thousand times.

This movie was proof positive that if you put enough cash on the table, you can talk anybody into anything. Steve Martin is a favorite of mine but this one was a big clunker. The only actor in the movie who was worth watching was Eugene Levy; he was the best of a mighty lame group.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Title: Dracula A.D. 1972

Director: Alan Gibson

Cast: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Stephanie Beacham

Review: Sometimes movies can be time capsules that transport you back to any given time. In this case...our time capsule is Hammers Dracula A.D. 1972 which transports us back to a time in which Austin Powers would have felt right at home.

The story is about these group of kids (were not a gang! were a group!) that love to hang out at a caf\u00e9 shop called \"The Cavern\". One day, Johnny Alucard (hmm strange last name...wait...it spells Dracula backwards!) a new member of the group offers the group a new way to get their kicks. He offers them a night of black mass and black magic. To which they also say \"sure why the hell not, it could be fun!\". So in no time flat, the find themselves resurrecting Count Dracula from the ashes.

This movie opens up with a swinging party at some rich doofuses home. He knows non of the people at his party, yet there they all are partying the night away in his house. Doing drugs, making out and dancing on top of tables. The filmmakers made sure that this sequence was completely engulfed in whatever young people considered cool at that time. Everyone says words like \"way out\" and \"groovy\" and they finish many of their sentences saying \"all that jazz\". So yeah, its pretty evident that this is the 70s. To top it all off, there's a band that sounds something like \"Jefferson Airplane\"...I mean you'll be drowned in all things 70s. And as I watched this I kept asking myself \"how the heck is Dracula with his black cape and get up going to fit into all this?\" And thats exactly what happens. Old Dracula feels out of place amidst all the partying and the rock and roll and drugs. Many of the scenes in the film are great....but sadly the music they decided to add to the proceedings doesn't fit at all and completely takes you out of the mood of things. Something horrifying or scary will be happening on screen and suddenly a bunch of loud trumpets and congos start to beat and your just completely taken out of the horror element. That sucked out the atmosphere right out of this movie for me.

But all in all, putting all the distracting 70s music aside (an illness that Satanic Rites of Dracula also suffered) the movie was pretty good. But I will mention this. The story was just a re-hash of what we had seen before in Taste the Blood of Dracula. In fact the story is damn near identical. Lets see...a young lad inherits Draculas ring and ashes...check. He then decides to bring Dracula back to life with the help of some people who know nothing about what they are getting into...check. Black Mass to bring Dracula back in a desecrated church...check. The list of similarities goes on and on. So this movie ain't very original if you ask me.

There are a few things that make this movie worth while though. For example the fact that the movie is a time capsule to London in the early seventies makes the film entertaining. I kept giggling and laughing every time someone spoke in 70 jargon. I couldn't believe some of the clothes these people wore and the cars they drove! It made the movie fun for me, but we are here to get spooked, were here to see Drac kill a few virgins and take his revenge on the House of Van Helsing. Did we get any of that? Well yeah. There's a few good sequences squeezed in there to satisfy old school hammer fans. First off, there's the Black Mass sequence which was above all things satanic! They mention the name of many a demon and lots blood is spilled. That sequence was awesome but it was messed up by the music in its most crucial moment. Then there's Draculas actual resurrection which Ill admit was great from a visual standpoint. Some mist comes out of Draculas grave and slowly but surely Christopher Lees silhouette and face emerge from the fog. Cool shot! I loved it! We have a Cushing and Lee face off at the end. And I couldn't help to laugh at one point when Dracula hurls a piece of furniture through the air. I laugh because he has done this in every single film since Horror of Dracula. Its this Hammer tradition where the characters start throwing candle sticks and chairs at each other. And I think to myself, aren't their more exciting things to show then a bad guy throwing a candle stick at our hero. Oh well, anyhows, Draculas demise in this one is very similar to all the other Hammer Draculas before it, vampire gets slaked and then we cut to a series of frames until there's only ashes left.

All in all, an unintentionally funny Hammer Dracula film. Its trapped in the 70s and though that makes it a fun watch (and its not as horrible as Satanic Rites of Dracula) it still doesn't gel well with the Dracula universe we had come to expect from Hammer.

Rating 3 1\/2 out of 5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In this desperate and thoroughly silly attempt to keep Hammer's Dracula franchise alive despite having lost most of its power long time already, our legendary vampire is brought back to life in the swinging London of 1972. Exactly hundred years after he was destroyed by his archenemy Van Helsing, an occult disciple named Johnny Alucard (get it? get it?) gathers his flamboyant friends in an abandoned church, among them Van Helsing's great granddaughter Jessica, and performs a satanic ritual that resurrects Dracula in a haze of smoke. Dracula's only mission is to wreak havoc upon the entire Van Helsing lineage and fragile Jessica is the ideal victim to achieve this. This is probably the only 70's film that goes immensely over the top in trying to look like\u0085a 70's film! Considering the previous six Dracula films were all set in the Victorian era, director Alan Gibson really wants to stress the fact we're in the 20th century now and thus he stuffs his film with insufferable hippie-characters, hideous 70's fashion trends and awful 70's music. Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing seem hopelessly lost in this setting and their performances regretfully show it. The opening sequence (a flashback) and the showdown climax are fairly enjoyable, but everything in between is painfully boring and the complete opposite of scary. The greatest elements in this series of films have always been Dracula's dark castles and the exhilarating coach races and, obviously, this installment lacks all of that. Luckily for the fans, Hammer Studios contemporary released other films revolving on vampires that are much better (\"The Vampire Lovers\", \"Twins of Evil\", \"The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires\"\u0085). Not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Film starts off great in 1872 with a violent, bloody fight between Dracula (Christopher Lee) and van Helsing (Peter Cushing). Dracula is impaled and dissolves to dust--van Helsing also dies. Somebody gathers Dracula's ashes and buries them in the grounds of a church. Cut to 1972--here's where the film falls apart.

We are instantly hit over the head with loud, bad 70s music, HORRIBLE fashions and silly dialogue. When this was made Hammer was losing money and decided to try anything to get a hit. Putting Dracula in the 1970s was NOT a good idea. The fashions, music and dialogue date the movie horribly. We're introduced to a bunch of annoying kids in their 20s who decide to have a Black Mass--\"for a giggle\". Naturally they have it at the church (now abandoned) and naturally revive Dracula. It's a good thing a descendant of van Helsing is around...but Dracula goes after his niece (Stephanie Beacham) in revenge.

Lee and Cushing are great as always in their roles and whenever they're on screen the movie gets a much-needed shot of energy. The opening and ending battles are the highlights of the film (although the ending is spoiled a lot by playing lousy 70s music). Also the main ringleader of the kids is named Johnny Alucard (Christopher Neame)--a truly stupid name that dates back to the 1940s. The film also has scream queen Caroline Munro looking absolutely great. The film is well-directed and pretty well-acted but the plot is stupid, the constant barrage of 70s fashion, dialogue and music gets annoying real quick and I was basically bored silly.

Most Hammer fans agree--this was one of the worst Dracula movies--it's followup (Satantic Rites of Dracula) was THE worst--and the last Hammer Dracula film. This gets a 2--just for Cushing and Lee.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you first saw this movie with Mary of the Fourth Form, then it's perhaps possible for the haze of nostalgia to encourage your charitable side. If not, it doesn't stand a chance. The young things' hipspeak is complete nonsense, people may have used the occasional word you'll hear here, but not huge batches of them in sentence after sentence. It doesn't so much date Dracula AD 1972 as blow it to pieces, from the moment anyone under thirty opens their mouth it's impossible to take the film seriously and as for it being a laugh, it's not even a smile. The idea of throwing Dracula into modern times is a good one and worthy of a far stronger script than Don Houghton can provide. The River Thames and Chelsea Male are no match for puppet bats, model castles and terrified extras, but you can't help but feel that with better writing it would have been so different.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The idea of bringing Dracula to contemporary times isn't bad--after all, it might revive the series a bit by injecting a new story element into a series that Hammer has all but exhausted in a long series of generally excellent movies. However, because the present day turned out to be the crappy early 1970s, the results were pretty silly and looked more like LOVE AT FIRST BITE (a deliberate comedy). Seeing Christopher Lee in a film filled with 70s hip lingo and electric guitar chords and laughable rock music just seemed beyond stupid. To make matters worse, the acting is much more over-the-top here--with an intense and silly performance by \"Johnny Alucard\". I also thought it was really funny that it took Van Helsing's grandson to notice that \"Alucard\" is \"Dracula\" spelled backwards--no one else figured this out for themselves! Wow, what cunning!!

So because so much of the movie was bad, why did it still earn an almost respectable score of 4? Well, when the story came to the expected showdown between Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) and Drac (Christopher Lee), it was exciting and ended very well. Additionally, and I know this will sound very sexist, but if I had to watch a bad film, at least Stephanie Beacham's character wore some really nice outfits that revealed her ample....\"talents\", so to speak. So at least it was a pretty film to watch.

By the way, the film ends with the phrase \"may he rest in FINAL peace\" at the end, though this was not the final Hammer Dracula film with Lee. He returned for \"The Satanic Rites of Dracula\" just a short time later and it was in many ways even worse than this dud of a monster film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Veteran British television director Alan Gibson's \"Dracula A.D. 1972\" qualifies as one of the least appetizing entries in the Hammer Studios series about Bram Stoker's immortal bloodsucker. Actually, this represented the first time since Terence Fisher's memorable \"Horror of Dracula\" (1958) that Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing fought each other as mortal enemies. They would reprise the same roles a few years later in the final Hammer Dracula: \"The Satanic Rites of Dracula.\" Further, it was the second-to-last Dracula for Hammer in which Lee performed as the infamous fangster. For the record, \"Dracula A.D. 1972\" was the seventh Hammer Dracula.

The exciting prologue from 1872 prepares you for something vastly different than what the rest of this disappointing horror flick yields. Eternal rivals Count Dracula and his nemesis Professor Lawrence Van Helsing are literally at each other's throats atop a runaway carriage in London's Hyde Park for a vigorous opening scene that makes everything else look comparatively anticlimactic. The carriage crashes, and Dracula emerges hugging half of a wooden wheel with its shattered spokes embedded in his chest. Of course, Christopher Lee has to grip this broken wheel against his body, but the imagery is striking enough in its own way to pass muster. The Count expires and so does his opponent Van Helsing. However, one of Dracula's disciples snatches the Count's ring and scoops some of the vampire's ashes into a vial for safe-keeping.

Don Houghton's screenplay hurtles the action ahead a hundred years to swinging London in 1972. We meet a smarmy young man, Johnny Alucard (Christopher Neame of \"No Blade of Grass\"), who loves to raise hell with a group of hippies that crash parties and drive the British police with their antics. Alucard happens to be the descendant of one of Dracula's servants. Now, Alucard has the Count's ring and a vial of his dehydrated blood. Alucard chooses the sight of a desecrated church to arrange a black mass. He invites his trendy friends, among them Laura (super sexy Carolina Munro of \"The Spy Who Loved Me\"), Gayner (Marsha Hunt), and Jessica Van Helsing (Stephanie Beacham) to attend this black mass because it offers them something different. Not surprisingly, they resurrect the Count, and the evil bloodsucker sets his eyes on Jessica. Meanwhile, after Laura's body is discovered drained of blood, Scotland Yard Inspector Murray (Michael Coles of \"Doctor Who and the Dalkes\") solicits help from Van Helsing's modern day offspring Lorrimar (Peter Cushing). Dracula wants to exact revenge on Van Helsing by taking the latter's granddaughter as his bride. Lorrimar tracks down Alucard; they fight in his Chelsea apartment, and the young vampire drowns in a tub of water. Remember, running water is just as lethal to vampires as sunlight and crucifix. Van Helsing finds Dracula in the deserted church with his daughter awaiting the Count. Van Helsing and Dracula tangle. Van Helsing flings Holy Water into Dracula's face. The vampire falls into an open gravesite with a stake awaiting him and he decomposes again.

The chief problem with \"Dracula A.D. 1972\" is that we don't get enough of Lee as the Count, though we do get considerably more of Cushing as Van Helsing. Furthermore, scenarist Don Houghton keeps Dracula confined to the ramshackle church and never allows the vampire to venture out into the city. Despite its low budget, \"Dracula A.D. 1972\" could have been a lot better. The scene where the contemporary Van Helsing has to jot down Alucard and spell it backwards to get Dracula seems almost laughable. You'd think that he'd know about this backwards spelling trick. Unless you are afraid of horror movies, this one will make you yawn. Occasionally, Gibson presents us with a superb close-up of Dracula with his bared fangs and blood-shot eyes, but this is about as scary as this chiller gets, and that isn't saying much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Though I had sort of enjoyed THE SATANIC RITES OF Dracula (1974), I knew I shouldn't expect too much from its even more maligned predecessor! Surely the least of the Hammer Draculas (Marcus Hearn on the Audio Commentary for THE CREEPING FLESH [1973] even goes so far as to call it the studio's nadir!), the film really flounders due to its totally unhip - and now embarrassingly dated - updating of the myth (the modern-day setting actually suited SATANIC RITES rather better)...even if, truth be told, it's still vastly preferable to dreck like Dracula 2000 (2000) or VAN HELSING (2004)!

Despite Christopher Lee's vociferous bashing of the film, he still cuts an undeniably striking figure as the undead vampire (even if he appears very little and is inexplicably confined to one setting); likewise, Peter Cushing delivers his usual committed performance. The only other noteworthy acting job in the film is that given by Christopher Neame (son of director Ronald) as Johnny Alucard(!) - even if that's only because of how unbelievably hammy it is! Unfortunately, the two best-known female members of the cast (both of them horror regulars) - Stephanie Beacham and Caroline Munro - can't rise above their physical attributes.

The camera-work is by Dick Bush (who had shot THE BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW [1971] and, for Hammer, WHEN DINOSAURS RULED THE EARTH [1970] and TWINS OF EVIL [1971] - but is perhaps best known for his longtime association with Ken Russell) which manages some nice atmosphere throughout, especially during three crucial sequences: the carriage-ride scuffle at the (properly Gothic) beginning; the hysterical Black Mass sequence, followed by the resuscitation of Dracula; and the final confrontation between Lee and Cushing's Van Helsing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being too young to have experienced the Hammer films when they were fresh and new, I am discovering their hallowed horror films as I find them on DVD. I know it was almost a decade and half between them but it's hard to see much of the magic in the original Hammer Dracula in this late entry to the Christopher Lee series. The original Hammer vampire story had lots of atmosphere and a terrific story to get involved in. Lee was a great Dracula, a vibrant vampire if that possible, in the early outing but here he is nothing more than a cardboard character that mostly stands around and looks threatening. The modish young people talk like cartoon characters (even though my aunt lived in England during the 1970s and she says people actually talked with those awful clich\u00e9s). I had no interest whatsoever in who lived or died amongst the younger crowd. They were all pretty terrible characters anyway. I did enjoy seeing a young and charismatic Caroline Munro; but she leaves the story too early. Lee and his historic nemesis Peter Cushing add an air of authenticity to the film but they can't draw blood from this empty film. It's D.O.A.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Proof, if ever proof were needed, that Hammer should have left their vampires firmly in the Victorian age. After all, vampirism is all about repressed sexuality, so the concept is irrelevant in 1972's London, with its thirty-something thesps pretending to be randy teenagers.

Remember, by this time, Hammer was floundering badly. The public had tired of the drawing room horror of the 1950s and 60s, so the studio was trying everything to bring them back, including ample nudity (LUST FOR A VAMPIRE, et al) and updating their characters - neither of which apparently worked as Hammer was pretty much resting in it grave just two years later. Shame ...

But I still have a great fondness for the classic Hammer period from 1957-1965.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Of all the adaptations of books by Alistair MacLean, I feel that this qualifies as the worst, but don\u00b4t blame MacLean!. It would appear that all that this film shares with the novel is the same title. We have no suspense, no sense of foreboding of mystery, no chance to really empathize with the main characters. We spend the entire duration (or at least I did) waiting for Charlotte Rampling to shed her clothing (for Charlotte, this appears to take a remarkably long time!). Still, a glimpse of Charlotte Rampling\u00b4s tits really can\u00b4t save this disastrous film. MacLean has once again been kicked into the gutter to endure the sniping of those bitter hacks and nit-pickers who would appear to blame him for all the ills that befall attempted filming of his books. Poor old Alistair must have crawled into a corner and whimpered when this one came out. At least \"Bear Island\" - which also uses the Maclean name but apparently none of his novel - was a LITTLE exciting. The excitement here is in waiting for the final credits.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a shame that such a lame plot should be hung on such picturesque locations, with some documentary style reportage shoved in for extra length. A shorter film may have held the tension a little more, and a more charismatic lead may not have mangled his lines so much. The female lead also, was not allowed to do enough resulting in a pretty but boring affair. It builds towards the end but the lead actor's own redemption is too little too late and should have been revealed earlier in the film. Not awful, just a pity. Unexciting but nice enough to grace TV schedules of the early hours.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A lot of Alistair MacLean's books have made it onto the big screen. Some of them (The Guns Of Navarone, Fear Is The Key, Where Eagles Dare) have been translated rather well; some (Breakheart Pass, Ice Station Zebra, The Secret Ways) have been passable enough; a few (River Of Death, Bear Island, The Way To Dusty Death) have been pretty rotten. Caravan To Vaccares is another movie based on one of MacLean's perennially popular bestsellers, but alas this is yet another that deserves adding to the \"rotten\" list. Peopled by uninteresting characters who get into uninteresting situations and escapades, Caravan To Vaccares is an absolute failure, both as a thriller and an entertainment. Its only semi-redeeming qualities are: a) that it is filmed on very attractive Provence locations, and: b) Charlotte Rampling looks utterly ravishing (with fully nude scenes to boot) as the main female character.

Disillusioned American drifter Neil Bowman (David Birney) is travelling aimlessly through France when he meets British photographer Lila (Charlotte Rampling). They decide to accompany each other, and during their wanderings make the acquaintance of mysterious nobleman Duc De Croyter (Michel Lonsdale). The Duc persuades the pair to aid him in protecting and escorting Hungarian scientist Zuger (Michael Bryant), who is sought by various shady parties because of some information that he is carrying in his head. Kept secret from Bowman and Lila is the fact that Zuger has discovered a secret formula for using solar power as cheap, economical energy. The Hungarian needs desperately to get his formula to New York, but hired guns have been put on his trail to capture him \u0096 presumably so that he can be taken back to some ruthless criminal lord and tortured into revealing his priceless secret, which they can then sell on to the highest bidder. Bowman and Lila find themselves and their terrified fugitive on the run in the French countryside from their deadly adversaries.

The film seems terribly cheap and amateurish, almost like an ultra low-budget independent film made by a non-professional cast and crew. Yet a fair sum of money was actually thrown at the film, and all those involved have, at various points in their careers, done much better work. Therefore, one has to assume that the film is bad simply because it has been written, acted and directed with a distinct lack of care and interest. The pacing is deadly slow, and the plot points become so laborious that the viewer has to put in too much unrewarded effort to keep up with the story. Birney's performance is uninvolving, and Rampling only creates a stir due to her nude scenes \u0096 the character itself is an absolute bore, and the actress looks rightly bored by it. For those who manage to stick with the film right to the very end, there is an unusual scene featuring some deadly rodeo clowns and a fierce bull (!) which, while not particularly exciting or well executed, is at least different to the norm. Caravan To Vaccares is a very disappointing film in most respects, and once more a strong novel by the prolific author has suffered during its transition onto the screen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's weird, this film; you get the impression that the makers of this snooze-fest spent more time in the local bars than on set. In fact, it's a surprise not to see Harry Alan Towers' name on the credits; it certainly has the flavour of one of his tax-shelter productions but here the motivation behind the project seems to be for all involved to enjoy a prolonged stay in Provence. Despite the fact that the film is supposed to take place all over the region, Les Baux and the area around it stands in for almost everything.

David Birney makes for a spectacularly colourless hero - as Michael Lonsdale says at one point \"you're a walking clich\u00e9\". What Lonsdale is doing in this is anyone's guess. For some reason, the most interesting character, played by Rampling, is sidelined, whereas, regardless of the book, she should have been the central figure because she clearly has the skill to carry the movie (which would have been dull anyway, but at least we'd have got more of something pretty to look at).

All in all a pointless affair that is only worth watching to see how action-less an action movie can be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This must rank as one of Cinema's greatest debacles. I was wandering Europe at the time and had the misfortune to stumble upon the crew making this movie in what was, even then, one of the world's idyllic, unspoiled settings. I was enlisted as an extra, and what followed was an exhibition of modern day debauchery. Forget all the accusations you've ever heard of Peter Mayall's intrusions on this rare piece of French life- Geoff Reeve and his cohorts embarked on a level of revelry at the restaurant at Les Beaux that left the Maitre'd slack-jawed in disbelief. They were, quite simply, awful, uncultured and undeserving of French hospitality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A man comes to the office of the psychiatric Dr. Sammael (Joan Severance) claiming to be the demon Asmodeus (Kane Hodder), the torturer of the 13th level of the hell, and he would like to tell weird things. He tells that he had made a deal with Lucifer to become human again. He should knock-up his virgin sister Mary Elizabeth (Alison Brie) on the day that their mother died and she should kill six people and deliver the Anti-Christ, and then he would escape from the pit and reborn. When Mary Elizabeth gets pregnant, her stressed and abusive sister Catherine (Denise Crosby) does not believe that she is virgin, but their father and former obstetrician Albert Martino (James Callahan) examines his daughter and sees her intact hymen. Meanwhile the Church discovers the truth about Mary Elizabeth's pregnancy and sends the priest and former military Father Anthony (Eddie Velez) to spy Mary Elizabeth. She is dominated by the fetus and forced to kill a truck driver, Lars (Jorg Sirtl), who is the lover of her tenant and friend Jennifer (Azalea Davila), and Jennifer herself and eat their hearts and drink their bloods, but she believes that she has nightmares. However during the ultrasound, she realizes that she is carrying a monster and she asks her father to stop her pregnancy. But it is too late.

The awful \"Born\" is a B-movie (actually a Z-movie) that believes that is a great movie. The result is a pretentious and disappointing production, with an incoherent and absurd story without humor and terrible acting and direction. The plot is a complete mess: there is a priest that is a hit-man and former soldier; a demon in existential crisis going to a psychiatric; a father that examines the virginity of his daughter; two female-demons (succubus?) that stand naked like a statue with both hands covering their sexes; a character that is a slut, and only exists to expose her beautiful body. There are many scenes with free and cheap nudity. But the worst is the acting: the unknown lead actress Alison Brie is histrionic, with ridiculous voices and grimaces. Sorry, Ms. Alison Brie, but I hated your annoying performance. I have not recognized Joan Severance, who has a good performance, since I still had the image of her youth. Denise Crosby performs a hateful character and like everybody, she got older but she is still a good actress. I believe that if the writer and the director had included some dark humor and assumed that this movie is a B-movie, the story might have worked better and better. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): \"O Anti-Cristo\" (\"The Anti-Christ\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just watched that movie, and was pretty disappointed. I didn't expect much to begin with as the premise of the movie doesn't suggest greatness anyway. Sadly, it doesn't even manage to deliver just as stupid entertainment. The main problem is probably the acting. While I've seen far worse actors in far worse movies, the story would require some people to act out as violent maniacs, some others as people caught a in really stressing predicament, and they fail to deliver that. Although I watched the German release I watched with the original audio, so it's definitely not just bad voice-overs or anything like that. Added to that, the German DVD release seems to be cut, the killings are all pretty much left out, meaning that except for a few semi-gory scenes closer to the end the German release doesn't deliver as a movie for \"gore-hounds\", either. Can't comment on that for other releases of course. The plot has some stupid moments thrown in here and there and the beginning is just hilarious (ever heard of a demon visiting a psychiatrist?). Too bad the movie takes itself far too seriously, if it was filmed as a horror-comedy and changed a bit here and there accordingly it might have worked better. The ending is just a huge disappointment.

If you've got really nothing better to do and just can't stand the boredom anymore you might (and it's really a weak \"might\") consider this movie. If there's anything else available to watch or do: Pick that alternative.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just to save you money and time I will go ahead and tell you that this movie is absolutely not worth the match and gas it would take to burn it. Don't waste your time. As a matter-of-fact you would be better off forgetting you ever thought about watching it. I have seriously seen better B movies in a language that I can't understand. Who ever gave permission for this to be made needs to be sewed. The only positive thing I can say for this movie is that with a new script and the right director and actors it could be a great story. Let me break it down; A virgin gets pregnant by a demon, the baby while inside her womb wants to feed on people. They try to make up for the fact that this is possibly the worst movie ever made with cursing and pointless nudity. All in all Totally not worth the dollar it took me to rent it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was by far the best ever... I think whoever shot it with the Sony hand-held camera was a genius and the special effects were spectacular especially the chicken breast heart...thank goodness this movie only cost me a dollar to rent.. Also the green toxic boob discharge was amazing......I could have shot this movie with my friends in high school. .................................................................... I would not recommend this movie to anyone ... you might want to kill yourself instead of watching it..... I also feel like this was a move for porn stars trying to make it into the legitimate movie business............give it to her Larz","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seriously, all these Satan comes to Earth movies always involve the Catholics. Why doesn't Lucifer ever mess with the other denominations.

The plot is that Asmodeus (Played by former Jason Vorhees Kane Hodder) has a plot to become human (but wasn't he always a demon) by getting this young girl who is his sister pregnant with his child. Except maybe she isn't his sister. The plot isn't clear on this, and they inter-splice these scenes where he is seeing a shrink about his problem.

The lead girl gets pregnant while still a virgin, with an incredibly creepy scene of her father giving her a gynecological exam to prove her hymen is still intact.... Eeeewwwwww. Her sister (played by a washed up and looking much worse for wear Denise Crosby) concludes that this is a sign from heaven. Praise be!

Well, the demon baby takes mom's body for a joy ride and picks off, in order, a truck driver, her friend's boyfriend and her friend, all being watched by an ex-military priest whose mission is to kill the baby when it is born. We discover that Asmodeus is actually a Catholic Cardinal who is running the whole thing.

The ending is pretty much incomprehensible, and if you could make it that far straight through, you have a stronger stomach than I did. (I paused the film a couple of times, it was so awful.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow. I thought, Eskimo Limon was the most awful and embarrassing first-sex movie ever. But I had forgotten that Germany always tries to compete. In this case, the well-known German film producer Bernd Eichinger was successful in producing even worse crap. Harte Jungs is stupid, not believable and predictable, and above all: not funny. It's almost a tragedy that so many kids went to see this in Germany (and, I'm afraid, also Austria).

Tobias Schenke, 19, looks too nice to have no girlfriend and too ripe to be 15, and his character is too dumb to be true. Schenke tries real hard to make us believe that he doesn't know ANYthing about sex, but that doesn't help. Harte Jungs seems to be made by someone who watched Al Bundy and took him too seriously.

The best actors in the movie are Sissi Perlinger and Stefan J\u00fcrgens who play Schenke's semi-liberal parents. Perlinger and J\u00fcrgens are stand-up comedians who are not particularly talented in movie acting. Still, their performances are the `best' and `funniest' in comparison.

A complete failure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In a up and down career with all sorts of movies, this is Altman's one try at science fiction, and it clearly shows that it's not his forte.

The film is practically incomprehensible. It seems a disastrous combination of experimental theater pretentiousness and a major studio trying to jump on the post-Star Wars bandwagon (not that this film is at all modelled after that one, but you can imagine that the studio signed on hoping for a much different Paul Newman sci-fi film). The story is nonexistent, the characters remain strangers to us all the way through.

Altman has packs of dogs feeding on dead bodies throughout the movie, obviously straining to make some sort of POINT. But since the movie is so poorly thought out, starting with the lack of plot on up, it really isn't about anything at all.

The production designed is confused, the photography is undone by the blurs on the edges, and the score is terrible. However, \"Quintet\" does have one redeeming feature. Not only is the movie clearly filmed out in the snow and ice, but the interiors are kept cold as well. You see the actors' breath in every scene. You really FEEL the cold.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Altman's Quintet has to be considered more than just flawed: As so many other reviewers have pointed out, the ideas behind the film, even some of the choices in depicting those ideas, ought to work--and yet very little in this difficult film does. The partially fogged camera lens--I remarked to my wife that it has to be the most distracting directorial conceit I've ever seen--never allowed me to get \"into\" the film's world.

In general there are serious problems with the mise-en-scene employed here. It's clear that no small amount of thought went into factors like costume and production design, but neither is very effective in evoking a believable world. Perhaps it is a matter of scale; the film is so stage-bound that I laughed out loud once it was mentioned that \"five million\" people lived in the city. (Yes I understand the constraints of the film's budget. Matte paintings here and there might have helped.) In all the most disappointing Altman film I've ever seen. Great ideas and grand metaphors do not always come through in art--it's just part of the game.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watching QUINTET is not unlike watching a group of people playing a word game in Portuguese, or some other language you do not understand. You get the idea that they are playing a game, and if you watch closely enough, you may just begin to understand the rules. But, why bother, since it is clear you can't join in and you wouldn't want to if you had the chance.

Director Robert Altman is not one to beg an audience to like his films, let alone understand them. Sometimes he lets you slip into the picture to be a part of the crowd, like in M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE and A WEDDING, films so full of hubbub and orchestrated chaos, one or two more bodies in the scene wouldn't make much of a difference. And other times, he seems to resent the fact that someone might even be watching his film; as in IMAGES or THREE WOMEN, where the stories are almost personal monologues made for an audience of one, Altman. With QUINTET, Altman seems to purposely dare anyone to become involved with the narrative.

You can't depend on Altman to do the logical or the expected, which is sometimes the thing that makes his films so remarkably iconoclastic. But sometimes doing the unexpected isn't daring, just dumb. For instance, in QUINTET, we are introduced to a young woman who is apparently the last person on earth capable of getting pregnant, and she is, indeed, with child. This last ray of hope in a decaying society is almost immediately extinguished; Altman doesn't even wait until the end to play his last depressing card in this elaborate nihilistic and pessimistic tale. He lets us know how empty and meaningless life is right off the bat. Brave? Maybe. Stupid? Definitely. Devoid of a purpose, he tries to build a story on a rapidly melting iceberg, all the while reminding us how pointless the effort is.

For the record, QUINTET, can at least claim to be prophetic. The story is centered on a treacherous game played by the various bored characters. It is a form of TAG (the assassination game): a handful of people target each other for elimination, each as a would-be assassin and each as a would-be victim. Two or more can form alliances to kill a third. As they die off, new targets are assigned. Whoever lives, wins. All of this happens at some exotic, inhospitable wasteland. It is, to a great extent, an extreme, sci-fi version of \"Survivor\" -- minus the commercial plugs and faked \"reality.\"

It is not a bad concept for a sci-fi epic. A post-apocalyptic setting, a microcosm of the world (the cast is pointedly multinational), a game where no on can be trusted or least not for long, and where no one really wins. Literally a cold war. A steely eyed director with a taste for dark humor and violent invention could have a field day. The mystery in QUINTET is not in the game or how it is played, but in why it exists it all. If the game \"Quintet\" is a metaphor for life, then Altman, seems to see nothing in the material but a chance to show life to be an empty, meaningless game -- a conclusion as obvious as it is untrue. Given the lively, albeit cynical nature of the rest of his diverse films, I don't believe that Altman believes in QUINTET either. And if Altman has no faith in his material, why should we?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was sooooooo sloooow!!! And everything in it was bland, the acting, the plot,etc. It was such a disappointment, since the description looked so good! Do not be fooled! This movie is not worth the time it takes to watch it!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The earlier review is pretty much on target, which Altman was NOT with this film. I haven't seen it since its original release but I have seldom spent two hours in a theater feeling as miserable and disappointed as I was with this film. If some pretentious community theater attempted a sci-fi version of a Ingmar Bergman film, it might come off like this. I can't bring myself to give anything Altman has made a \"1\" but this is probably the nadir of a career that has had some remarkable highs and lows. I would have walked out, but as a paid film critic I couldn't. (Think about that the next time you envy movie critics.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Robert Altman's \"Quintet\" is a dreary, gloomy, hard to follow thriller where you finally give up after awhile because it's so complicated.

I remember seeing this at my local twin on opening weekend with a full house. By the time the picture ended it was less than a quarter full. Never have I witnessed such a mass exodus without there being an emergency to drive people out. That should tell you how bad it is. I believe it to be the worst film ever made involving such major talent in front of and behind the camera.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Quintet\" is definitely not a film most people would find amusing or even interesting for that matter. There is no scene, dialog, acting or plot development that would light a spark. The icy world is one thing, but muddled plot is something you really can't bear. The characters are not only three-dimensional, they're not even one-dimensional, there is no emotion and there is no sense in anything that goes on. There is a world encased in ice, where nobody is doing any meaningful work, except playing Quintet, and the rules to the game are never even hinted. The homes are not heated, even there is electricity, but who and what produces it? There is wood, but there are no animals, except dogs, so where do clothes come from, or shoes for that matter, since, apparently there is no industry, and everybody is dressed as in 16th century Europe, which is in odd contrast to not so futuristic pavilion backdrop. The entire movie seams to be stuck inside Altman's imagination, and he never bothered to share his ideas or his vision with audience. Desolation or hopelessness have nothing to do with lack of appeal to this movie, the world of George Lucas's \"THX1138\" is no brighter place and characters are no more fun, but the story has it's path. In Quintet, there is no obvious or even hinted path, and in my opinion it doesn't even provoke thinking about the idea behind it all, as, for example, similar film, John Boorman's \"Zardoz\". It's not even done in Altman's unique style, so it doesn't appeal to his fans,either, and I'm one of them. All in all, Robert Altman had a dream, and he woke up without telling anybody what it meant, not even to him.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The things that I find irritating on screen, the things I nitpick about and annoy the people who try to watch movies with me are those moment where the writer, director, set-designer, on screen caterer, or whoever, doesn't think it through to the end and, by a single act of omission - or commission - undoes all the other work done by everyone else who has worked on the movie. That moment of \"Wait a bloody minute.... What just happened?\" that stops the narrative dead in its tracks. (Not that this film's narrative needed a lot of stopping, because anyone who has ever seen it will know that Quintet's narrative drive has pretty well frozen solid before the end of the opening shot.) There are several of those moments in this movie. And you get so long to think about them too. The film is two hours long and the scripted dialogue probably ran to five pages. There's a lot of time to ponder its deficiencies.

The movie is set in a frozen Earth. Another ice age has set in and the whole world is dying. It's cold. Very cold. It's actually very cold on the screen. The movie was shot in Canada in winter and there are icicles and real snow and people's breath misting from their mouths in every scene. Time and again we are reminded how fecking cold it is. People wear big hats and layers and layers of clothes and waddle around like over-dressed Weeble people. Must have been a horrible shoot. My nitpick comes in a sequence when our hero checks into a room of a hotel. Woken up in the middle of the night by voices coming from the room next door, he overhears a conversation of vital importance to the meagre plot through an large grill in the wall dividing the two rooms. I'm not questioning why there is a convenient grill in the wall between the two rooms. What got me annoyed was the fact that the grill had not been blocked up by the long term tenant with the noisy visitor. If you are trying to keep warm the last thing you need is a huge gaping draughty hole in your wall that leads into an unoccupied unheated room. Trust me. I live like this, I watched this film sat on my living-room sofa under a duvet with a hot water bottle. My breath was misting as much as the actors'. If that whacking great hole was in my wall I'd block it up with something. Maybe not the best choice of movie to watch in an unheated room in midwinter but boy did it make me notice the lousy insulation in the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The best thing I can say about \"Quintet\" is that it's not quite as bad as I remembered it being on my first viewing.

But that doesn't mean it's good.

This weird, sci-fi thriller is not quite like any other movie I've ever seen, which I guess at least gives it the stamp of novelty. But it's a borderline disaster of a movie, and one of the worst Robert Altman ever made. On the DVD special feature about the making of \"Quintet,\" it's clear that even Altman didn't know what the hell the movie was supposed to be.

It's set in some distant future when the world is in the grip of another ice age. The film was shot at the abandoned site of the Montreal Expo '67, and I do have to admit that this gives the movie some interesting production design elements, even if much of it looks like it's being filmed in an iced-over shopping mall. Paul Newman, looking zonked out and absolutely disinterested in anything going on around him, and Brigitte Fossey, play drifters who wander into this futuristic city looking for Newman's brother. Soon Newman is caught up in a deadly game of \"Quintet,\" which all of the bored inhabitants play for lack of anything better to do, and the rules of which are never made clear to the audience. All we know is that the object of the game it to kill everyone else you're playing with and remain the only person alive. This gives these nihilistic inhabitants their only thrill, because as one of them says at one point in a psychobabblish soliloquy, only by being near to death can one appreciate being alive.

The movie is slow, ugly and actually uncomfortable to watch due to its unrelenting gloominess. It's almost as if Altman was purposely setting out to make a movie no one would want to sit through. There aren't characters -- oh sure, actors walk around speaking lines, but none of the lines really means much and the impressive list of international actors Altman assembled for this register not a whit. Only Bibi Andersson gives the closest thing to a memorable performance as could possibly be found in a movie like this. But nevertheless, it does succeed in establishing an atmosphere, even if that atmosphere is one of pure awfulness, and it is oddly fascinating in the way that watching a man slowly starve himself to death would be fascinating.

Altman really hit a dry spell after nearly a decade of superb films. \"Quintet\" followed close on the heels of the atrocious \"A Wedding\" and was followed in short order by the not bad but mostly forgettable \"A Perfect Couple,\" the by-all-accounts terrible \"Health\" (which I've never seen because it's not available anywhere TO see) and the disastrous \"Popeye.\" Thank God he rebounded.

Grade: D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Quintet marks the only venture of both Paul Newman and director Robert Altman into the realm of science fiction. It was said of Newman that he could not do comedy, but he tried until he finally scored a real success in that genre with Slap Shot. But the failure of this film left him gun shy and he never tried it again.

This is one of the biggest downer films I've ever seen. It's a futuristic ice age, brought on by who knows what, but presumably it's a nuclear winter. Even during the ice age of thousands of years ago, the equatorial parts of the earth still sustained animal and human life, but apparently not here. Seals have survived and Paul Newman is a seal hunter on the outside.

But hunters do need a little R&R and Newman goes to a futuristic city where things are so boring the natives have some kind of game played with six people and it's a kind of Russian roulette. To win you have to kill five other participants in your game.

It's a sad turn to see what man has come down to. Which is one of the reasons I just could not get into this story. The atmosphere is bleak, the story is bleak, the people are bleak, it's all so bleak. No wonder this thing came up short at the box office.

It's a film that just about everyone thinks is never going to be on the top ten list of Paul Newman films, including me.

This is man's future, what a bummer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Legend has it that at the gala Hollywood premiere screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey, about 20 minutes into the film Rock Hudson yelled out \"Would somebody please tell me what the hell this movie is about?\" Well, I have Rock beaten by about 19 minutes, 59 seconds. This movie made absolutely no sense at all. Who were those people? Where were those people? What were the rules of the game called Quintet? Are there any rules to Quintet? Were Robert Altman and his cohorts making the movie up as they went along? What was Paul Newman thinking when he signed on to this? Maybe ol' Fast Eddie saw Zardoz and thought \"Well if Connery can get involved in a futuristic film that makes no sense, so can I.\" Maybe the good stuff is on the cutting room floor and all we get to see is the incoherent stuff. Also, did all the cast get to keep their individual funny hats? You never saw such bizarre looking hats all in one place in your life. Quintet just confirms what I've always thought: when Altman's good he's superb, but when he's bad, he makes stuff like Quintet","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I supposed I was actually expecting a Bollywood remake of \"The Fog\", from the title, but this is actually more of a Bollywood remake of \"I Know What You Did Last Summer\", with some elements of \"Scream\", kind of, sort of, and not a very good one either. Apart from a couple very entertaining song & dance numbers, this is pretty terrible. It's obviously got a decent budget & yet it's wasted on reheated leftovers that weren't that tasty to begin with. A young woman is threatened by a creepy guy to not enter a beauty contest, because he wants his sister to win (she, thankfully, doesn't look as creepy as her brother), but she enters anyway and wins, and of course the creepy guy comes after her, and is killed, after which comes a rousing game of \"hide the body\". Of course, the body disappears and no one seems to know why, but someone knows, and they're waiting for the end to reveal a ridiculous plot twist. Interspersed with all this tired rehash are a few nifty dance numbers, especially the celebratory dance number at the party for Simran, the girl who won the beauty contest...it's highly colorful, it's well done & downright fun, and utterly wasted in this terrible film. I would much rather watch an old Ramsay brothers movie than this piece of crap, although someone has deemed that these don't need to be made available, for the most part, which is a crime in itself. But not as big of a crime as this film. I took one for the team watching this one, so take my advice, don't bother. 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To call this film a disaster will be an understatement. I don't even know where to begin! I have questions though, and lots of them. I would like to know who conceived of this script? Who gave them money to make this film? Who was in charge of casting and costuming? They should all be sued! I saw this film in my local library's catalog and I thought \"Hey! great!\" I had just seen the two FOG movies that Hollywood had produced and then realised that Bollywood had a version. Unbeknowst to me, that it would turn out to be a total and utter crap-fest!

Dhund - the fog, is a film about four friends (actually just one of them but you should know that there are four friends), one of them is a beauty queen (played by India's 1st Mrs. World, Aditi Govitrikar) and the director spares no expense at letting you know this. The script even claims that she (the character's name is Simran) has Aishwarya Rai eyes, Kareena Kapoor lips and Rani Mukherjee hair. Feel free to barf if you want to, at least at this point you haven't seen the film, unlike poor me. :*(

Anyway, Simran receives a death threat one day from one of the contestants' uncle, who tells her to drop out of the contest so that his niece would have a better chance of winning, but Simran's boyfriend doesn't allow her to do this and thus she participates in the pageant and wins. This causes the crack-cocaine-sniffing uncle of her former college classmate Tanya to come after her. But with the help of her cousin Kajal, Simran drowns the culprit and they enlist both their boyfriends in the task of getting rid of the body. It's tough but they eventually get around to doing it.

In a scene that borrows from Hollywood's film Diabolique, the pool where the dead body is hidden is drained only to reveal that the body is missing and this begins a conundrum of Whodunit and Where-is-it? By the time the film is over, the film successful steals scenes from 'I know what you did last summer, I still know, Scream 1, Scream 2, Scream 3, Murder she wrote episodes and not to mention, Columbo and Scooby Doo'! Shameless, I tell ya!

Inconsistencies and problems within the film include but are not limited to:

1. A scantily clad Simran answers phone-calls three times from her would-be-killer, the camera shows her drop the phone off the hook yet the phone is able to ring again each time and she picks it up to answer.

2. Tanya tries to kill herself because she doesn't win the beauty contest? WTF? Even Aishwarya Rai who is ten time more beautiful did not attempt suicide when she didn't win Miss India!

3. In the pool scene, the kids who come to retrieve the ball that has fallen into the pool conveniently disappear as soon as the police arrive. And the ball disappears too.

4. The clich\u00e9 blue contacts lenses of the killer change from blue to brown in the drowning scene, yet when his corpse surfaces again, his eyes are blue.

5. Nobody who dies in the film is mourned (strange, especially for Indian society).

6. When Vikram jumps into the dirty murky pool, an underwater camera shows us his actions and miraculously the pool is transformed to Olympic size and is clean and clear as day.

7. Sexy belly-dancer performs a pseudo-orgasm drenched song and dance number about coming of age. That would have been cool for some bachelor party, but they were celebrating Simran's pageant win! Hello!!!!

8. Kunal, Sameer, Simran and Kajal can neither dance nor Lip Synch properly. But don't blame them, just accept that there was no choreographer for the dance numbers.

9. Nothing within the film was choreographed, it was like they just told the actors to show up and do whatever the want.

10. The film played out like there was no script. Either that or the director was high and drunk when filming this junk!

11. When Simran's picture was published without her consent in a magazine, she flew to the police headquarters to have the photographers arrested, yet she receives death threats and never bothers to alert the police.

Just to mention a few of course. This film was a painful experience for me and I advise everyone to skip it by all means necessary and possible. Bollywood should be terribly ashamed of this kind of film-making.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ramsay \u0096 the kings of comedy (or was it horror, whatever) wake after years of hibernation. And yes, I did get scared. No not because of the horror element (of course I am not that squeamish) but because rats were constantly dancing on my feet in the khatmal-chaap theatre (where else do such movies run).

So check the plot. A man is repeatedly stabbed, choked to death, stuffed in plastic and dumped in a pool. But he still returns to take revenge. Now was the film a thriller or a horror? That itself is the suspense for you to discover. And the end turns out to be another mask mystery. Remember those trademark Ramsay undercover agents \u0096 men wearing some stupid horror masks. Only here the mask is of a human. I suppose, no more detailing is required to skip this flick.

Amarr Upadhyay tends to get over-dramatic and theatrical, forgetting the difference between cinema and TV soaps. A cheaply and skimpily dressed Aditi Gowitrikar in her typical pink lipstick looks like \u0085.. (Uh! you know what).

The background score is a straight lift from Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. Not a single department of the film, whether technical or creative, is worth commenting. Novelty lacks both in story and execution.

Dhund certainly fogs your senses.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I think Bollywood. I think of lite feel good musical dance numbers, with gorgeous outfits on the men and women. And catchy tunes. Horror, Thrillers, Mystery and Suspense, don't come to mind though. And this, to my Western eyes, is like an abstract comedy.

I think it would have been a better movie, shorter even, if the writer and the director had made a definite choice. Either gone for outright Thriller-Horror, Comedy-Mystery, Supernatural-Suspense or Musical-Romance, instead of an awkward mixture of them all.

I'll have to say more than once I thought the director must have seen \"I Know What You Did Last Summer\" and tried to give it a Bollywood twist. My first film was Bride & Prejudice. Which I thought was acted well.

This seemed like what a Western Audience would consider a straight to video cheese fest.

The acting was over the top, at times it felt like they were intentionally trying to parody western thrillers, but when you saw them try to inject the dramatic crying, screaming or fear, it felt out of place.

The viewer was left wondering when one of the actors would wink at the camera. More than a few times when the audience was supposed to be horrified, we could only snicker a the absurdity.

I watch a lot of foreign films, and even though I don't know Hindi, I have to say they did a poor job subtitling the film. Sometimes it was difficult to read the white lettering against the bright background.

The villain was particularly amusing, at least to me, because he came with his own mood music. The supposed surprising twist, actually felt like a cop out.

The lead couples were handsome\/pretty enough, and the musical numbers made it worth my rental fee. I'd suggest it to someone as a musical- comedy, but I'd tell them to just fast forward the rest of the movie, because it wasn't worth the effort of reading. If you're determined to read a whole subtitled Hindi flick, then check out the superior Romantic Drama 'Namasteay, London'.

But I was not scared..unless that's really what they think is horrifying in India. 1 out of 10 for what it's being touted as. 6 out of 10 for it's unintentional quickness & ability to illicit lots of laughs, and it's musical\/dance numbers. Enjoy :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This tatty am dram adaptation scrambles soulessly through the plot of Dickens' wonderful book, replacing the emotional impact with hurried transitions and any exterior locations with drawings. It's not the fault of the actors and the production team that the budget is so low, of course, but you have to question the point of making this in the first place when there's neither the time nor money to do it justice. Michael Hordern's Scrooge is far too gentle at the outset, making his transformation lack power, and this isn't helped along by a lack of reaction from him as he watches the visions. The other actors range from acceptable (Clive Merrison, Paul Copley), to non-committal (Bernard Lee) to seeming like they're about to forget their lines (John Le Mesurier). It doesn't even score points for effort, to be honest.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched part of the first part of this movie, and tiny little bits of other parts. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think this movie is really worth watching. The odd characters and happenings does catch your attention and is rather interesting, but there are bad things in it as well, and some gross things. The magic and mythical side of it turned me off, and for most Christians this movie would not be very suitable or worthwhile to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director Lo Wei was known to read the racing papers and take naps on the set - tells us something about his \"approach to film-making, huh? The reviews I've read fall into two categories: 1) this is a film so bad it is funny, or 2) this is a film so bad it is boring.

So let's get to the point we all agree on - this film is really bad.

I vote for category 2). The story is almost incomprehensibly complex, and it is further shredded and twisted by the remarkably poor camera work and editing. Yet Lo Wei was so in love with it that he slows the pacing so we can all have a long look at it, whether we want to or not.

Maybe Lo Wei was upset the day (or two) this film was made - he just wanted to make everybody suffer, cast, crew and audiences alike.

Spare yourself the agony.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Early Jackie Chan film where there is no sign of the Chan persona we know. This is Chan in a full on traditional revenge tale of the sort that was cloned and re-cloned by countless producers and studios all through Hong Kong Taiwan and Mainland China. Its a very serious story that shows none of the humor and warmth that would catapult Jackie Chan to super stardom. Its also clear from watching this that had he not reinvented himself odds are we would never have known him because his career would have been painfully short. As a film on its own merits this is a good looking but pretty unremarkable movie. I was watching it, in the midst of an all day marathon of martial arts films and it would have blended together with every other film that I watched that day had I not noticed Jackie in the film. Honestly I don't think the film is really worth bothering with (there are too many other better variations) except if you're interested in seeing where Jackie Chan started.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yet another Lo Wei production to completely waste the talents of a young Jackie Chan, To Kill With Intrigue is a strange mix of wuxia, melodrama, supernatural action, and plain old-school kung fu fighting that is pretty dull despite featuring several surreal WTF moments and lots of laughably bad dialogue.

In an effort to protect his pregnant girlfriend Chin Chin from the Killer Bees, a gang of ruthless killers that are about to attack his home, Cao Lei (Jackie Chan) pretends to be a heartless cad, driving her away, and thus saving her from danger.

During the attack, Cao's relatives are all killed, but he is left relatively unharmed by the gang, whose leader, a scar-faced woman, seems to have the hots for him. Cao then goes in search of Chin Chin, whose safety he has entrusted to his close friend Chu Chuk.

During his quest to find his true love, Cao befriends the head of a courier company whose precious cargo has been stolen by the leader of the evil 'Bloody Rain' clan. Eventually, after being injured in a fight against members of the nasty clan (a fun scene with lots of silly weaponry), and then nursed back to health by the scar-faced Killer Bee (who shows her love by burning his face!), Cao ultimately learns that he is a lousy judge of character: his friend, Chu Chuk, is none other than the power hungry head honcho of the 'Bloody Rain' clan, who has plans to marry Chin Chin himself.

Cue the drawn out climactic battle, with Cao getting kicked in the face repeatedly before eventually choking his traitorous ex-pal to death with a scarf.

Even die hard Chan fans will find this one a chore to sit through, with only the final fight managing to showcase some of the star's amazing acrobatic abilities. Fans of general Asian weirdness might dig the spooky appearance of the Killer Bees at the beginning of the film (with one character inexplicably demanding back his severed hand!), or the moment when three men float through a window to attack our hero, but, for most, this film will have very limited appeal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As many have detailed here with a level of seriousness that I find amusing, this is *not*:

A FILM. (cue dramatic music)

It's just a so-bad-it's good, totally surreal, Jackie Chan stunt-for-all. The women fighters are totally kick-butt and Jackie is definitely put in his place.

This is the movie you want to see with some good friends on a Sunday afternoon -- surrounded by munchies, ready to roar with laughter, cheer on the good guys, boo the bad guys, and continually yell, \"WHAT?\" when something totally bizarre happens. Great fun!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this film to be a bit too depressing. I don't mind dramas, but this was a bit too much for me. Luckily, there does seem to be somewhat a decent outcome. I suppose it was well done. I'd watch it again, but it's nothing to rave about.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a waste of time. Though it has actors who have the potential to do something decent, the acting in the movie is sub-par, and has a clich\u00e9 point. \"You never know what's going to happen tomorrow, so live your life to the fullest and do what makes you happy.\" That sentence saves you from wasting hours of your life on this movie. People who like this movie are the same people who would enjoy sitting for two hours before finding that the entire movie was a dream sequence. If the most important part of the movie isn't even going to happen, at least make it enjoyable to watch and captivating. There's a reason this project didn't make a theatrical release, and though indy films can turn out very good, this one does not even come close.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Stealing Time\" actually dates back to 2001 when it was mysteriously titled \"Rennie's Landing\". Which explains how director Marc Fusco was able to afford this cast of now established television\/movie actors in what is obviously an extremely low budget production. About ten minutes into the film you understand why this thing never got a theatrical release after it made the film festival rounds several years ago.

Its recent distribution by Franchise Pictures probably reflects a perception that the rising popularity of certain cast members can be milked to recover some of the modest production costs. Although not a great addition to anyone's resume, young actors have done worse things when they were desperately seeking acting work of any kind.

Peter Facinelli, Ethan Embry, Scott Foley and Charlotte Ayanna play college friends who do an early \"Big Chill\" reunion and compare war stories about the failure of reality to measure up to their dreams.

Unfortunately nothing else happens, absolutely nothing. Yes Alec (Facinelli) dreams about a liquor store holdup and a bank robbery, which are then \"cheaply and lamely\" staged to completely inappropriate music. It is the least suspenseful bank job since W.C. Fields was the guard in \"The Bank Dick\".

If anyone can point to any moment in \"Stealing Time\" where something \"actually\" happens I would like to know about it, because as far as I can tell, not a thing happens in the whole film. Perhaps Fusco, through incessant visual reflections, is trying to say something profound about taking control of one's life before it is too late. Like \"St. Elmo's Fire\" the movie is littered with every profound thought ever uttered by a young adult who has left the ivory tower to experience the real world for the first time.

I felt Fusco was going for a kind of Howard Hawks Young Professionals in Action \"Only Angels Have Wings\" motif. Then again, I'm sure I was reading much too much into the film. After all, things actually happen Howard Hawks films.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a hodge-podge of various idiotic cliches. For instance, boy-meets-spoilt-rich-girl and gets her to fall in love with him by harassing her in college (an over-used backdrop in recent Indian commercial films). A male chauvinistic glorification of sexual conquest. The climax is predictable (having been used ad nauseum in several other films). As with many other recent commercial Hindi films, the film abounds with the incongruous insertion of songs, which probably contributed to the film's success more than anything else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The breadth & height of the scale of this movie overwhelm me. About a week ago I posted a commentary on the 1926 silent epic MACISTE IN HELL referring to it as \"staggering\". Then I encountered the Pollonia Bros. BLOOD RED PLANET. Wow ...

It's all about the scale of the thinking behind it. The Pollonia Bros. and colleague John McBride were thinking so big that the musings of Arthur C. Clark & Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODESSEY is lucky it was released thirty-two years before this sweetheart. As a matter of fact, Kubrick had it easy with modelers, a budget, actual actors and major studio backing for his little \"Star Trek\" ripoff, and all that Arthur C. Clarke had to do was write the damn thing. What's so hard about muscling around a typewriter? The Pollonia brothers on the other hand had to think radical, outside of the box, and quickly. They recruited a half dozen of their friends & colleagues -- including a hot lookin' chick -- bought a bunch of colored lightbulbs, raided old office supply dumps for every keyboard, monitor and hands-free phone headset they could find, got everybody identical black turtlenecks, made off with every cupcake tin in the county, learned enough 3d modeling & texture skinning to animate a couple of space ship fly-bys, spent a couple hours drumming up a script, executed what is easily the most frightening space monster puppet since that horrible little monster Jabba the Hut carried around with him was fried by R2D2, spent literally days working with a VHS camera and an Amiga to shoot & edit their film, and came up winners. This is the best D.I.Y. direct to home video fan movie space epic I've ever seen, and in proportion to the amount of talent & resources at the disposal of the filmmakers dwarfs even LOGANS RUN or BATTLESTAR: GALACTICA (the original series) as being a chilling look at our future, right down to a newscaster wearing a mis-matched, ill-fitting 2nd hand suit. As a species, we are doomed.

Seriously for a minute, though, it is a vast improvement upon such later epics as THE DINOSAUR CHRONICALS or PREYALIEN: ALIEN PREDATORS, which is funny since it was made before either of those masterpieces. Somewhere along the lines the Pollonia's started taking it easy on themselves: This film is executed with a certain conviction that gets you to believe that you really can breathe in a vacuum wearing a dust mask and two biker squirt bottles. And the scene where the alien beast consumes a miniaturized crew member made me immediately think of where I'd seen that before: GODZILLA VS. THE SEA MONSTER, where the giant rampaging monster crab skewers two canoers and eats them on camera. That made me cry when I was a kid.

This made me cry as an adult because here I am wasting my time trying to be some sort of critic or writer or writer\/critic and these guys get to have all the fun, actually making a real feature length sci-fi epic with lots of cool colored lights, a hot chick and a talking slide projector named KAL. One of the flight crew even gets to wear his black space baseball cap backwards & glower with his goatee like that clown from Metallica. Is this supposed to be a joke? No. It is an epic statement about humanity, from humanity and for humanity that deserves to be seen by anybody who has the capability to not take any of it too seriously. Look for it on a 2 disc box set called GALAXY OF TERROR in your favorite discount retailer's cutout DVD bins, which is probably where it belongs, but how many of us can say \"Yeah, they have a couple box sets of our movies for sale at Best Buy.\"

4\/10: Anyone lacking in a sense of humor might want to try SILENT RUNNING or maybe TRON. But someday an alien civilization on the other side of the galaxy will intercept a transmission of this movie and decide that we actually are not to be messed with. Good work, guys!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Occasionally funny but generally boring. I did recognize Robert Hegyes from Welcome back Carter (aka Epstein) as the ex-celebrity criminal. There is a knee slapping, gut busting scene with the French lady having a bad reaction to American food. S. Baio, S. Kellerman, and Tom Arnold are billed but have only minor roles. You never get to know the characters and it's hard to care what happens to them. Not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Bar Hopping\" seems to be trying to be about the stereotypical bar tender and lay \"shrink\" serving up pearls of wisdom followed by example vignettes played out by the cast. However, this turkey is a jumbled mess with a script full of simple-minded cliched nonsense: Hard to follow, herky-jerky flow, unsatisfying, and not worth the time. (D)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For me it's a case you'll never understand if you didn't live it.. so read this to know why would i have such unlimited anger..

I heard a lot about (Bruce Lee).. my father loved him.. my mother who hates any minor shot of violence loved him ! and how she talks till now about his \" The Big Boss\" aka \"Fists of Fury\" , and the experience of watching it at the Egyptian movies 1973 with all the gigantic success.. further to that I watched a real good movie about him (Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story - 1993).. so I found myself crying : where are your movies Bruce ?!!

I went to the video store.. and it was dumb move.. (you'll know why !).. and waw.. I found a lot of Bruce Lee movies.. I selected one named (Bruce Lee in New Guinea)

I did it to myself and watched that one.. OH GOD please forgive your servant.. I harmed myself but with no intended decision.. I wouldn't do it if I knew its evil damaging !! its mythical level of hideousness !!

After that I didn't understand at all what's the big fuss about Bruce Lee as a great immortal star ???.. why anybody would care whether he is here or there.. this hero (whom I've watched !) is not that gifted and not that genius and of course is not that sexy ???

Until my father saw THIS star and he asked me to pause at any of his close ups and after he examined his face a little.. he told me in a very definitive way \"this is not Bruce Lee\" ! so I became too confused to ask : who's this silly guy anyway ??!!

It was 2001.. 2 years after my first entry to the IMDb database.. therefore I tended to it immediately to know who the hell is that man.. and I discovered the truth.. he isn't Bruce Lee.. No my dear friends.. he is Bruce Li !!!

And what a huge.. so huge difference !! I just want to know who can love that bad clone ?? Or god forbid .. love his repulsive movies.. I watched 2 of them and couldn't bear finishing the third !

After that I ignored all our video stores because its cheap cunning (writing on the posters that THIS IS Bruce Lee !??).. and I've got the original.. The one and only Bruce Lee who is such a great star indeed and Oh BOY he certainly had the right to immortality.. and no less.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After looking for this Bruceploitation for months, and then accidentally buying it cheap, it was disappointing. I heard about it on a DVD-R site, and it sounded crazy.

But no, what I got was a pretty bad martial arts movie. The kung fu-ing wasn't too bad, but the rest of the movie was pretty awful, and made the movie seem really, really long, much longer then it's 85 minute runtime.

On a positive note, the ape was funny for a couple of seconds (especially when I think they took the only close up of it's face from another movie), and the black guy who pops up half way through was funny because of the one line he said, which singlehandedly made all black people look like complete simpletons.

But it wasn't enough, sadly.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are a number of movies that my high school friends and I used to joke about. They are mostly the campy works of the 50's that showed up on television on the late show. This was one of our favorites. The soul of a fallen native being brought to life in a tree stump with a scowl on its face. Now my friends claimed that if you looked carefully, you could see the thing had shoes. I never saw this. What is most striking to me is that the natives seemed to be white men with black grease paint on their faces; some looked sort of Italian. They also spoke with the strangest timbre that didn't seem to fit their situation. Like the mummy movies, the mobility of the thing didn't seem to offer much of a threat. In a confrontation, one should only have to walk fast; I guess it's the old element of surprise. If you see this, don't take it too seriously. Be happy that we have a battery of old horror movies that gave us such joy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Huge, waddling, grimacing tree trunk menaces fake \"natives\" on a \"Pacific Atoll\" (looking suspiciously like Southern CA...), reaking havok and revenge. Unlike the silly stumps in \"Navy VS The Night Monsters\", the Tabonga is actually a full-grown man-tree. Well, grown in 2 days: moost have od'ed on those Miracle Grow spikes...Anycow, it comes not from Hell, but from the grave of a fake native, Kimo(Greg Palmer, \"The Zombies of Mora Tau\"), murdered by the native elders for hanging out with those awful American scientists. The scientists include Dr. William Arnold (Tod Andrews, \"Hang 'em High\", \"Beneath the Planet of the Apes\") and Professor Clark(John McNamara,\"War of the Colossal Beast\"). Rounding out the cast is Linda Watkins(\"The Parent Trap\") as the obnoxious Mrs. Kilgore, the obvious comic relief spurting out an obvious fake \"cockney\" accent. A stellar cast indeed!! Anycow, because his doughy, vacant wife, Korey, played amateurishly by Suzanne Ridgeway(\"Love's A-Poppin'\"), helps set him up, Kimo declares his revenge on her and all of the elders. Then, the dopey American scientists uproot the tree, bring it back to life \"in the name of science\", & allows it to SLOWLY amble about the island, killing off everyone who has done him wrong. Of course, we all know that evil monsters carry off fair maidens, so the Tabonga grabs plucky female scientist Dr. Terry Mason(Tina Carver, \"Hell on Frisco Bay\") & waddles off with her. Vine-ally, a good shot with a Remmington hits a knife lodged in the Tabonga, and it falls over dead into the quicksand. This laughably foolish cowncept is one of the all-time cheesy howlers. The Tabonga is arguably the slowest monster in moovie history, right up there with the clanky, over-built robot from \"Robot Monster vs the Aztec Mummy\" and the perversly slow carpet monster from \"Creeping Terror\". Try not to laugh as you watch the Tabonga toss fake natives down hills & into quicksand, dodge spears, and lumber slowly about the \"island\". Shady writing, wooden performances, and sappy direction all point that this pulpy fertilizer has far mooore bark than bite. This tepid pile of wood chips was the last hurrah from long-time editor-turned-director Dan Milner, who quickly vanished into well-deserved obscurity following this film. You herd it through the grapevine from the MooCow first: \"From Hell it Came\" is a compost classic!! :\u008d","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie one time at a kiddie matin\u00e9e at the North Park Theater in San Diego in 1959 when it was released and I was 11. It was one of three features that were shown that day.

I have not seen it since but have wanted to because I am a film buff and appreciate the terrible along with the great, good and average films.

What I remember most vividly is that the more sophisticated audience members, consisting of children between 8 and 15, howled with laughter at the tree monster.

A triple bill at a theater showing 3 adventure films is something an 11 year old does not forget, but I can't remember the names of the other 2 films. (One did star George Montgomery and David Farrar.)

UPDATE: The other 2 films in this triple bill were much better. They were \"Watusi,\" 1959, with George Montgomery and David Farrar starring and \"The Angry Red Planet,\" 1959, with Gerald Mohr and Naura Hayden staring. Ms. Hayden has written a couple of books on health and fitness also.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Native Chief's son is wrongfully accused for the death of his father. The evil Witch Doctor orders to execute him. He then comes back as a murdering tree(!), Tabanga. Well, what can you say about such a \"film\"? If it was intended to be a horror film, there obviously was some sort of bad judgment involved. And for a comedy, it still isn't funny enough. I don't know why people make films like this. I guess you have to be in a really silly mood to watch it. Or you might want to see the incredible \"monstrous\" tree, which gives a new dimension to \"a slow death\". Or maybe you want to check out the great acting skills by all involved. (Ms. Kilgore!) Or the dialogue and screenplay, which were strangely ignored at the Academy Awards that year.

\"Shouldn't we try psycho-analysis on that tree? Maybe its mother was afraid of oaks.\" 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know it's not original, but what the hey? What else can be said about it? I feel unutterably silly just paying any attention at all to \"From Hell It Came\". The movie makes the important political and social issue of fallout from atmospheric atomic tests seem a matter for joking and dismissal, not the concern and alarm being raised by scientists all over the world at the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**May Contain Spoilers**

A luckless South Sea islander is executed by other (Caucasian-looking) natives after he befriends visiting scientists Tod Andrews and Tina Carver. The meddlesome scientists dig him up and find that he has taken the form of a humanoid tree. He comes to life and goes on a rampage and sure enough, that Fifties boogeyman, the A-Bomb, is blamed for this aberration. To state that this particular monster walks like it has a stick up its a** would be redundant. Suffice it to say that the critter lumbers along, like the film itself, throwing his enemies into some handy quicksand and giving the main characters one more thing to make stupid comments about. Paul Blaisdell created the tree-man suit and it's hardly his best work. Over the years this flick has been sujected to many comments like \"To Hell it can go!\" Personally I think it's the best walking-tree movie I've ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How many monster tree movies can you see in a lifetime?Well I'll go out on a limb and say one.This movie is better watched late at night,with a 12 pack of beer, the sound off and you and your friends making up the dialogue.

On a Pacific Island a young man is sentenced to death for consorting with the \"evil Americans\".(Seems his loving wife has been sleeping with the witch doctor and they set him up to die so the doc' can be king).Well he vows to come back and wreak revenge.

Before you can shake a stick the goofy natives run to the American scientists' hut screaming\"Tobanga come!\"

It seems the young corpse has done just that as Tobanga, the walking tree monster. Yes his revenge is terrible (and so is this movie).It seems that these natives cannot run from a lumbering tree so he tosses them in quicksand,rolls them down hills etc.Pretty soon the new king wants to trade his woman or kingdom for an axe or a chainsaw.

General problems with this movie are numerous. The comedy relief is an obnoxious woman with a Cockney accent (like this movie needs comedy).You want her to die upon her first appearance.The leading lady is whiny.The leading man is a boor.The acting is wooden (pun intended).The dialogue is stiff and lumbering.The natives have Brooklyn accents.The monster suit is pure giggles.

While this is a bad movie it still is fun to watch.It gets a 3 on unintentional laughs alone.Your dog may rate it just a bit higher but only if the tree wasn't mobile.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Did I waste my time. This is very pretentious film. In the beginning you will think there's something going on but by the time some 30 minutes go by you realize nothing is happening. I waited for another 20 minutes and by then i was so frustrated that I started reading reviews on IMDb and realized that the director has wasted precious time of so many people.

Unbelievably boring pointless film. Stay away. So many good soundtracks. I will give one point for the police inspector joke because that worked for me. I laughed for a long time but otherwise a very bad film. Stay away.1 on 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's not plot driven, OK; it's not a character study, fine; there's no action, alright; there's no point, hmmm...

Maybe it's supposed to represent the boredom and absurdity of living in Palistine and parts of Israel these days in a state of violence, petty disagreements, deep rooted hostility, etc. But mostly it's long, long scenes of nothing happening - or things which look like they're dripping with meaning (a checkpoint tower crashing to the ground, an Arafat balloon floating into Jerusalem, a crouching tiger women deflecting bullets into a halo) but when you try to derive some meaning, there's no there there.

Bonus: you can watch this film in fast forward and it will make absolutely no difference except that it might be slightly less boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was one of the most dishonest, meaningless, and non-peaceful of the films I have ever seen. The representation of the other, of the Israelis, was racist, backward, and unfair. For one, the song played on E.S' car radio when pulled up alongside a very right-wing Israeli driver was \"I put a spell on you\" by Natacha Atlas. The song's style is quite Arabic, but it was released on an Israeli compilation CD, and I have even heard it on the radio in Israel. Many Israeli songs (as well as architecture, foods, and slang) are influenced by Arabic culture, and there is no reason an Israeli Jew would be offended or angered by a nearby car playing that song. The way E.S. appears so calm and collected with his sunglasses and cool glare, via a long, still shot, is meant to force the viewer into seeing the Jew as haggard and racist, and E.S. as noble and temperate.

I have traveled all over Israel, and I have never seen an IDF recruitment poster, since service is mandatory. But in the film, not only is there a recruitment poster, but it depicts a stereotypical image of an Arab terrorist and the words \"want to shoot?\" This is an extremely inaccurate depiction of the mentality of the majority of Israelis as well as Israeli soldiers, and such an \"advertisement\" wouldn't even exist on a random Israeli highway. In including it, the director aims to convince the audience that Israel is a society of anti-Arab racists hell-bent on murder.

The ninja scene was gratuitous and needlessly violent. A Hollywood-style action scene involving Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinians would be just as unwelcome in an Israeli-directed film as the ninja scene should have been. But for some reason, images of an unrealistic, non-comic, and violent scenario manage to elicit applause from the audience since the director has smeared the Israeli side so much beforehand, that any shot of Israeli soldiers being killed would be welcome. The director shows absolutely no attempt at building bridges, portraying the \"other\" as human, or working towards peace; violence is made to be the only solution. This is furthered by scenes of exploding tanks, falling guard towers, and other random acts of destruction. One of my best friends serves in the Israeli military, and the targets in firing ranges are never Arab women dressed in black, or any other quasi-civilian on canvas. Soldiers at checkpoints are instructed not to fire at the head of an approaching Palestinian unless it is clear that their own lives are in danger; the method, according to my friend, is to provide a warning shout, fire into the air or around the area, and then if all else fails, shoot in the leg and then interrogate and hospitalize. Arbitrarily targeting a woman in the head, as shown in the film, is not the proper procedure.

Besides these inaccuracies, the directing style was also poor. Repetition became repetitious, and no longer captivating. Symbols, such as the balloon with Arafat drawn on it, are forced outside any plot structure or effective integration in the setting; the balloon is Palestine penetrating and regaining Jerusalem, and it is created for no reason by E.S. The ambulance being checked for permits by Israeli soldiers followed by subsequent Israeli ambulances flying past the checkpoint is an overly-overt claim of an Israeli double standard by the director. The attempt by the director to show life in Nazareth as dreary and pointless is done with overkill; showing the routines of random people over and over again, even with a slight change each time, and emphasizing that not one member of the cast ever smiles and is minimalist in dialogue almost screams out the purpose of such scenes, the dreariness of life, without allowing much room for personal interpretation. By contrasting one \"section\" of the movie, daily life in Nazareth, with the second section, the checkpoint between Ramallah and Israel, the director subtly blames this dreariness on Israel, but never provides any direct evidence as to why such blame can be properly argued.

I spent hours trying to figure out why music ended abruptly and began abruptly, and why many modern fashion-show-like and metal-action tracks were included in the score. I still cannot come up with an answer. I felt that the music was out of place in this film; the contrast between more silent scenes and intense scenes was actually annoying and not affecting or thought-provoking. I can understand if the director intended for the music to provide some comic aspect to certain scenes, but I found that there was nothing comic to be found in Israeli soldiers shooting at targets or fighting a ninja, or a woman having to suffer another walk through a checkpoint, albeit defiantly. In fact, I was tempted to close my ears during intense scenes, and annoyed by the lack of a score during quiet scenes. Whatever the director's intent, it provided only an audial displeasure throughout the film.

This film has no legitimate political message because it provides an inaccurate and extreme representation of the other, and neglects to actually address any issues. It is a propaganda film, because the director intends various symbols, styles, and scenes to draw sympathy for the Palestinian side, while displaying the Israeli side as cruel and inhuman without exception; the vibrant atmosphere of an action-packed Hollywood scene or of intense music is displayed in every act of violence by Palestinians against Israelis, such that the almost inevitably positive and thrilled feelings the music and cinematography elicit from the audience are directed to one side. There is no thought, reflection, or deepening of the understanding of the conflict by the audience; emotions are simply pulled to one side, and kept there, in a \"good vs bad\" clich\u00e9 scenario. I believe this film lacked the depth, quality, and power of other Palestinian films, such as \"Paradise Now\" and \"Wedding in the Galilee.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to like this film for all sorts of reasons -- the subject matter is inherently interesting and is probably the major issue facing the world today and has thrown up fascinating works (e.g. Linda Grant's When I lived in modern times)usually from the Israeli side of the fence. Also, a bloke I like told me he thought it was the best film he'd seen all year, so with such a recommendation...

HOWEVER I actually found myself nodding off at points! Admittedly i was tired and the cinema seats comfy but I found it too much hard work trying to identify with the characters. Once I'd got my head round the idea that it was a series of vignettes, I went with it, but this made it disappointingly like a sketch show rather than a film. I liked the concept of a restrained, almost silent mise en scene contrasted to these utopian moments - the sexy girl, the red balloon and the ninja Muslim fighter. But personally i think the film has been over hyped. I'm not saying narrative and plot is everything (it's definitely not) but even a little more dialogue would have helped.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was very concerned about this film, it was scheduled to play at a Jewish Film Festival, and was reported to be very hostile to Israel, while using clever humor and irony.

I was relieved that the film was not a diatribe, however as a work of film it was deeply disappointing. The film was full of random events, some of which eventually connected, most of which did not. Some of the events were very clever and funny, but some were merely random and pointless.

There are repeated scenes between two lovers where they sit in a car, wordlessly, and play some handholding game. Perhaps in some cultures this is erotic, but it's like watching thumb-wrestling. After the third time, it really became tiresome.

I have always found David Lynch to be gratuitously bizarre, using strange stories and images to cause audiences to think that he is SO sophisticated that they don't grasp his work; in fact, there is nothing to grasp. The same is true here, the stories do not add up to anything, and there is not much of a political point being made (in one scene a boisterous Israeli soldier humiliates Palestinian drivers at a checkpoint. That's news?)

I don't understand why this film has garnered controversy, nor why it has garnered attention. It is an inferior work and seeing it was a waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A Brazilian cable television is presenting \"Yadon Ilaheyya\" this month in its \"Cult\" channel. I saw the trailer and listened to the advertisement, and decided to see this movie. Indeed it is an absurd boring pretentious dumb pointless disconnected crap about the conflict in the Middle East, and together with \"Soultangler\", they certainly are the worst movies I have tried to see. I really wasted forty-three minutes of my life watching the first half of this crap, highly indicated for torturing enemies. How can this movie be awarded and nominated to prizes inclusive in Cannes? My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): \"Interven\u00e7\u00e3o Divina\" (\"Divine Intervention\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is like a school video project and a propaganda film that puts the whole class as well as the teacher to sleep.

Utterly boring long silent(yes, silent) strings of unrelated video clips.

Instead of this movie watch the paint dry or the grass grow- it will be more interesting unless you enjoy seeing Arabs being malicious to everyone around them.

Sulieman (the Director) should be embarrassed of this lame waste of film.

It deserves a one for the movie quality, a zero for the ridiculous propaganda message and a negative number for the script (or lack thereof.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

Won't be long on this movie. The first half an hour was one of the most boring i have had to face since i've started watching movies. The story didn't advanced, nothing was explained about any of the characters. It felt like a non-movie. (A lot of people had already left the audience at this point).

A lot of the scene were totally unjustified and unexplained.

The director should have studied film a bit more to know that each sequence, each scene, has to make the story go forward. He never did that.

The supposedly funny moments were contrived, and only a few people laughed (people with a weird sense of humor, i guess).

Prize of the Jury in Cannes 2002.....don't know what the jury was thinking about....probably the \"politicly correct effect\".

I would have loved to love it, the disappointment was therefore even bigger.

You have to see it to believe it. But wait for the video.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Palestinian situation is fertile and as-yet largely fallow soil for film-making. 'Divine Intervention' tries hard, and gives us an insightful peek into the almost surreal life of those caught up in the troubles, but the film amounts to little more than a handful of (admittedly lovely) visual jokes thrown onto celluloid, while the links between them become increasingly obscure as the film progresses. A missed opportunity to say something more coherent about a very topical issue.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"National Lampoon's Dorm Daze is easily the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen the movie Kazaam. Anyone reading this who thinks this movie was good in any way, shape, or form has no idea what a good movie is, and should never watch another movie again because they are indeed so stupid.

Its hard to name everything wrong with this movie. First off, the plot is all over the place and can't follow all the multiple \"misunderstandings\" very well at all. The acting is awful to say the least, and the whole thing was poorly made. Any and all who worked on this movie should not be in another movie of any kid Ever Again!

It is too hard to sum up this movie in just a paragraph or two, because it is so bad, but for anyone out there reading this please DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!! If you want a good movie to watch, go turn on anything else on television. Even U.S.A. has better movies than this.

_friend.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"jeez, when i heard this movie was a NATIONAL LAMPOONS i thought it was going to be awesome, but i really got a say it was a rather disappointment. I have seen the most movies they've made, from Christmas vacation to van wilder, and this movie is the worst movie in their name,, really bad actors and a to much intense movie. this movie is probably good to watch if you are watching it with a crowd of worked up people and the ability to laugh at it, but if you are into good comedy's like i am, i do not suggest this movie, i would much rather watch van wilder a second or third time, than to watch this movie... you have been warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie can best be described as a very long episode of a very bad sitcom. How many vaguely humorous misunderstandings can you cram into just one movie? Notes are misplaced, bags are switched, conversations are misheard, people get mixed up, situations are misinterpreted, and somewhere along the line people are supposed to laugh about something. The writers are really struggling to keep everything going, which makes the dialogues feel really forced. If anyone in this movie acted like a real person all this would be resolved in around two minutes or so and everyone could go back to their lives, but they have to keep the misunderstandings going. At times this movie also tries to go for some juvenile laughs, but all those do is remember you about how funny \"American Pie\" was. The scene with the nerd telling the hooker (who he thinks is a foreign exchange student) to \"eat his sausage\" goes on forever, not one second of it is funny. I've got to give this movie some credit though: because of the subplot about stolen money, it's not as boring as it could have been. It also has a laugh here and there, but then sadly goes back to yet another character misunderstanding stuff. Overall this movie is just way too lame.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to be one of the biggest misfires ever...the script was nice and could have ended a lot better.the actors should have played better and maybe then i would have given this movie a slightly better grade. maybe Hollywood should remake this movie with some little better actors and better director.sorry guys for disappointment but the movie is bad.

If i had to re-watch it it would be like torture. I don't want to spoil everyone's opinion with mine so..my advice is watch the movie first..see if u like it and after vote(do not vote before you watch it ! ) and by the way... Have fun watching it ! Don't just peek...watch it 'till the end :))))))))) !!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Worthless movie. A complete waste of time and nothing what I expected it to be. The packaging makes it seem as if it is of the American Pie genre (it isn't). rather it is a ridiculous stringing together of coincidences that makes the movie seem more like a writing exercise (let's try to see how many mix ups we can write in to make what should have been a bad SNL skit into a full length feature presentation). What is remarkable is that the director's (based on their commentary on the DVD) take themselves completely seriously. I have been a huge fan of the movies that National Lampoon lends its name to, up to and including Van Wilder. With this one, I feel completely cheated. In fact, I FEEL DUPED. I was expecting a Van Wilder like farce to relive my college days but instead was served an hour and a half of garbage. What lead to my ultimately unmet expectations? Well, for starters, the fact that the cast all appear naked (with an enormous sausage covering what must be covered) on the COVER of the DVD. Add to that the imagery on the back of the case as well as the description and you mislead people into thinking this is a movie that it is not. To make matters worse, the movie starts off as one might expect it too with half-naked drunk college students feebly trying a photo stunt, but ultimately this has nothing whatsoever to do with the movie. In fact, I didn't even realize that the people in that opening sequence where supposed to be the characters in the movie until I was told so by the directors in the commentary. Don't get me wrong, I love plot twists and being surprised by movies, but I hate the fact that this movie tries to pawn itself off as something it is not. Ultimately, it does itself a huge disservice (artistically, though most likely not financially) because it sets its audience up for confusion and disappointment simply because it neglects to deliver what it advertises.

In short, do not rent this movie based on what you see on the case. It is not your usual National Lampoon movie. The only thing funny about it is the fact that many of the actors have appeared in other movies and TV shows that make their involvement here entertaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When i went to the video rental shop to get a movie i saw this one and i immediately thought it would be funny. The picture made it seem like a classic comedy type involving teenagers (such as road trip)which i thought would be worth watching. When i turned the move on i was disappointed as the jokes were awful and cheesy. The only bit which the director may have thought would be funny was somebody slipping over on a wet floor. This is not a joke and would not make people laugh. I actually considered turning this movie off coming to half way through. I was annoyed with this movie as it was just a waste of time and money renting it out. Not enough care was taken making this film and not enough time and work put into it. I found the acting to be quite bad as well. The only time i laughed was at the extremely bad 'jokes'or actions done which were really not funny!!!. I rate this film a 1\/10. I hope you found this comment useful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Me and a buddy rented this movie the other day. At first look, it seemed to be another teen movie, which was also what we hoped for, being fans of simple horror and comedy.

It seems that the movie is designed to disappoint the viewer as much as possible. It quickly accelerates into something that holds a lot of potential. Unfortunately it never quite leaves the ground. We had watched it for something that seemed like 1 hour, when I finally, half-sleeping, managed to say :\"Dude, this movie sucks\" It was only 35 minutes actually... Dude agreed.

The problem is: the movie is simply not funny. It was undoubtedly supposed to be funny, but it failed. It failed in a way that made me sad. It kind of reminds me of myself. I had the potential to be anything I wanted, and instead i ended up watching cheap horror\/funny movies all the time. I pity the makers of this movie from the bottom of my heart. Its so sad. All that potential.. and nothing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have little to no interest in seeing another awful movie, that totally lacks anything new creative or funny, abusing the National Lampoon tag. How ever something caught my eye in the cast of this movie. I see Danielle Fishel's name i'm a big fan of boy meets world! But the movies shes in are awful. More so as a fan i'm not rewarded by seeing her terrible movies with the treasure of bare breast. So this is where my question comes in.

Has anyone seen this movie? And if so Does Danielle Fishel get naked in it? Would save me the 2 hours of my life i would never get back watching this terrible movie. Thanks a lot","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie actually hurts to watch. Not only did I not laugh once, I ended up getting a serious headache. At times, I felt so sorry for the actors involved. The best way to sum it up is to note that among sex comedies, it is probably the least funny and least sexy of all time. I'm only sorry I can't give it a vote of less than one. To give this a rating of one is an insult to every movie that scores two or better.

Now I see that they're filming a sequel. Hearing that someone is actually paying these people to make another movie convinces me that there's just too much money in Hollywood. RAISE THEIR TAXES!!! Making a sequel to this movie may very well constitute a crime against humanity; perhaps an international tribunal should be convened, or U.N. sanctions applied to the filmmakers.

In short, it's a really bad movie. Really, really.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The box is why I originally picked up this movie and the back is why I rented it. But I soon learned that I had been duped. I had thought this movie would be something like a Road Trip\/Eurotrip\/American Pie deal. But I was wrong. This movie is one of the dumbest I've seen in a long time. The unrated version teases you in to watching but will completely disappoint you. The acting was terrible and sound effects just gaudy. It appeared very low budget with the entire setting taking place in the same building. Go out and get Eurotrip or Road Trip instead. I can't believe National Lampoon put its name on this. DON'T BUY IT, DON'T RENT IT. Don't waste 2 hours of your life on this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A stupid teen supposed comedy that revolves a serious of misunderstanding including (but not limited to) a hooker being confused with a foreign exchange student, girlfriend beating, a girl loving a gay guy, and the straight guy that loves her, and bitchy gossipers. None of the following is funny or even amusing. Nation Lampoon's use to be hilarious back in the day. Now the name is sadly synonymous with crap. And this one is NO exception. I use to think Topenga was kinda cute when she was on \"Boy Meets World\", but it seems she let herself go (and yes I know she has a name, but into she does ANYthing else worthwhile, she'll stay as Topenga)

My Grade: D

Eye Candy: Kati Lohmann gets topless; Boti Bliss relies on a body double (BOOOOO!!!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Look at the all the positive user comments of this movie, then check to see how often each one posts user comments. They post once. It seems companies are probably paying for services which post junk pro-movie comments on IMDb.

This movie was awful. The plot was stupid. The acting was poor. The jokes weren't even funny. The movie included minor nudity from what looked like porn actresses but none of the other characters.

It was clear from the first 15 minutes that movie wasn't funny. There was some slapstick here and there but most of humor was supposed to be derived from the characters talking behind each other's back and spreading rumors. This isn't even done well. Every joke is obvious and you see it coming.

The movie is worthy of fast forwarding or better yet not watching.

I regret watching this movie and if I could charge the studio and distributor for 1.5 hrs they stole from me I would.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was the worst movie my wife and I have ever seen. The only concessions is that we did not pay to see it at the movies as we rented this on DVD from the video store. Simply - No plot worth mentioning (I only watched it 5 minutes ago and already I have forgotten), annoying characters played poorly by two-bit actors and if this was suppose a comedy I am still waiting to laugh. In fact the only laugh we got out of the movie was that we joked with each other that we agreed it was truly awful.

Put simply this movie was quite utterly pathetic and I warn others to not waste their time. A travesty of the National Lampoon name , Rating 0\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was like a gathering of people that had been in other movies and they decided to make a really bad movie. It had a dude from \"Detroit Rock City\", a girl from \"The Cosby Show\", that dork that kissed the chick and bought that sausage was in \"Sorority Boys\" and there was more. OK that doesn't make a bad movie in itself, that was just something I noticed. The whole thing with the hooker and the french girl having the same name was dumb and the thing with 37 people writing these notes and if you think they are going to get mixed up.....shocking enough.......you called it. And the purse thing, that was just plain stupid. It was so bad that I watched the movie in two parts and still only made it to the 50 minute mark. If you are watching this and expect \"Van Wilder\" or a movie like that......Don't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love movies in this genre. Beautiful girls, toilet humor, gratuitous nudity. So why didn't I like this movie? No movie like this should add even the slightest confusion to the plot. Who's who, where is the money, it's not SE7EN, just make me laugh. Maybe it's me, but i never felt this frustrated watching American Pie movies or any other more modern National Lampoon's movies. This movie has no flow that keeps me smiling, waiting for what's next. Instead, I find myself stopping to think, \"Why did they keep that scene?\" I do not recommend this movie. If you are expecting Van Wilder, think again. The only fun I had watching this movie was guessing what movies the actors were in when they were kids. 2\/10 generously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If anyone at National Lampoon is reading this PLEASE STOP THE CRAP YOUR PULLING OUT OF YOUR BUM, really now! Why the hell are you doing movies like these? They're not funny and watching it for the sexual content is a complete waste of time, really. It is such a horrible movie you may want to shoot yourself while your watching it. I am serious here, guys, it makes Harol and Kumar go to blah blah blah look like an actual good movie (and we all know that H&K is one of the worst movies ever made) It really sucks, it REALLY does. How bad it is? Well, even losers that actually like National Lampoon shall hate this movie...they'll want to murder the director, I swear to God. I hate you, National Lampoon, die already. Die.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I was young, I was a big fan of Chuck Norris. I just begun getting out all his old movies on video so I can see them through adult eyes. I remember that I really liked this one in particular, and thought it was one of his best. Now that I'm a little older, I can say that although it's thoroughly average, I still consider it one of his better films. In an acting stretch for him, Norris plays a cop haunted by his participation in the arrest and capture of a dangerous serial killer movie. Serial Killers are all the rage nowadays, and people would like to think of them as a wholly 90s invention. In contrast, it's good to see where the current infatuation has sprung from, most obviously, action movies (as well as stalk n' slashers) of 70s and 80s. While Norris attempts at both humour and any form of human compassion are ham-fisted and laughable, nobody could kick someone in the head quite like Chuck. Being a big fan of Steve James also, I can recommend this film, ditto for genre legend Billy Drago, as well as seeing Mitch from The Blue Brothers in a supporting role. Not great, but it's better than anything Norris did in the 90s.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I picked this film up from the local Family Video on sale for $1.50, which was probably the first sign it wasn't going to be good. Watching it with 2 friends, neither of them even wanted to finish it because of how awful this movie is. I, strangely, couldn't stop watching it. But this film is definitely a textbook case of how not to make a movie.

The plot is simple enough and sounds great: Chuck Norris has nightmares about a serial killer he put behind bars. The serial killer escapes and his nightmares begin to become reality once more. Serial murder, Norris, roundhouse kicks... this sounds like a great film.

And some of it is pretty good. The flashback scene where a man breaks a ladder with his teeth is intense, a scene where a van cascades off a cliff and gets crushed is amazing -- and I learned how to break out of prison using nothing more than Chapstick, gun powder and dental floss. But there is plenty wrong with this movie.

One: the editor is a moron. When making an action or suspense film, you have to keep the energy moving. There are far too many scenes that are not crucial to the plot left in this movie, slowing it down and distracting from the overall story. At least 10 minutes could have been cut and the pacing would have improved and the film would be slightly better. Two: The sound guy is a moron. Apparently somebody tried to film most of this movie in an area where you can't get decent sound, so most of the dialog is voiced over, killing the stereo and not lining up with mouths. Also, the music is far too dramatic in some scenes. Three: The casting director is a moron. They cast Billy Drago as a psychiatrist. Billy Drago is a great cult actor (from Brisco County, the Hills Have Eyes, and others) and would have made the proper serial killer or some sort of villain. His character is so vanilla that Drago's skills are wasted. Four: The writer is a moron. Two plots are in this film - the hunting of a serial killer and the romance between Norris and his pregnant girlfriend. Every time I saw that woman on screen, I wanted to claw my eyes out. And sure enough, she never figured into the other plot, making her story completely pointless.

Will I ever watch this again? Maybe. But unless they remaster this film at least a dozen times, you never should. Not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Hero and the Terror\" is a fairly dull thriller - a la: no real character substance, predictable plot, and... Boring. For a thriller I found this movie slow in working up to its pitiful climax, as it just seemed to drag along until Chuck's wife's baby is born... and then it drags on from there until it reaches the end - which I can hardly remember already even though I only saw the film 10 minutes ago.

I give this film 3 out of 10 - for the first 10-20 minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is simply another bad Chuck Norris movie. Norris plays a cop on the trail of a twisted serial killer of women. He put the guy away three years before, but the guy somehow gets through the bars in the nut house he's in by using what looks like dental floss. Then the killer escapes in a cleaning van and drives it over a 400 foot cliff and survives to spend time around a theater undergoing renovation. Irish Jack O'Halloran is the best thing in this movie, but like in Superman II, he doesn't say a word. Somehow that's supposed to make him more menacing. Ron O'Neal of Super Fly fame and Steve James are wasted playing the city's mayor and Norris' sidekick respectively. The film also contains the idiotic subplot of Norris and his girlfriend having a child out of wedlock; it's so 1980's. When coupling Norris' \"serious\" acting turn with over-the-top musical cues signaling every forthcoming scene in predictable fashion, the film becomes a chore to sit through. The build-up while searching for the killer in the theater is interesting enough with Norris crawling through the shadows to discover the hideaway, but the end fight is disappointing after beginning in such a promising way. It's yet another disappointment from Cannon Films, and it plays like a movie made for television. * of 4 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For a Norris movie this is pretty tame. For an action movie it is kind of dull, and as far as predictability goes my friend and I almost had every turn of this movie nailed. It was nice that the killer's every moves were not telegraphed by the cliche's of 80's action movies, but come on, the only non-predictable move defies the plot and the set-up of the editing. Mainly, it is said rather early on that the killer (Jack O'Halloran, whom is one of the few slightly known actors) only kills women. YET, he all of a sudden stops his M.O. and kills men, huh?. I guess it can be construed and rationalized some way, but why is the movie edited to show that he is going to kill women??

Yet again, I'm sure that there is a reason (i.e. to build suspense), but why spend the time watching it when many other suspense movies are vastly superior.

Fans of \"Renegade\" may enjoy the small cameo by Branscombe Richmond as Victor, but his brief appearence cannot save the movie and even a vote of 4 seems generous.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, the Hero and the Terror is slightly below average in my opinion. Yes, Chuck is a real martial artist and kicks some butt in this film but it is rather slow and the acting in my opinion is for the most part subpar although I think Steve James does a decent job. Like my friend Ryan, I was confused as to why the psychopath chose to go to the theatre at the end of the film rather than to go after Norris's girlfriend. Until than, the killer had only killed women. Oh, well, I guess it wasn't as predictable as I thought. Definitly a film you can pass on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, the Hero and the Terror is slightly below average in my opinion. Yes, Chuck is a real martial artist and kicks some butt in this film but it is rather slow and the acting in my opinion is for the most part subpar although I think Steve James does a decent job. Like my friend Ryan, I was confused as to why the psychopath chose to go to the theatre at the end of the film rather than to go after Norris's girlfriend. Until than, the killer had only killed women. Oh, well, I guess it wasn't as predictable as I thought. Definitly a film you can pass on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was painful. I made myself watch it until the end, even though I had absolutely no interest in the plot, if there was one. My patience was not rewarded. The ending was even worse than the rest of the film. Chucky walks into the hospital with a priest and his concubine says \"I do\". How vile can one movie be?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film could cure sleep disorders, thats how bad it is. The story dragged, and the bad guy is not that scary. You will not even see this one on TBS reruns. This film made me wonder about Chuck film choices. He work on a real dog with this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Chuck Norris stars as Danny, a cop who took down a hulking serial killer however when said killer escapes, Danny knows he is the only one able to stop the terror. However Danny harbors a secret, he knows that it was sheer luck that got the terror arrested and even more luck that Danny survived, now a final battle is waged but is Danny ready? Right there in my description tells what the problem of this movie is. Norris is playing a wimpy hero who still suffers from psychological trauma. In the hands of a better actor, this concept would be interesting and could make for a great thriller. In the hands of a Norris thriller it just makes it ridiculous and hopelessly unheroic. Also on board is American Ninja's Steve James and Superfly's Ron O'Neal but any attempt at character development is defeated by the atrocious script. Also there is hardly any action and I always preferred a Norris movie with more fighting and less talking. Given the rating on this website, I must not be alone.

* out of 4-(Bad)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cops Logan Alexander and Debbie Rochon escort five black juvenile delinquents cross country and end up stranded out in the sticks when their van breaks down. After a deadly run-in with a racist, white trash bitch with a shotgun (played by the director), the survivors take refuge in the house of a blind voodoo priestess. One of the teens senselessly uses a spell to call up Killjoy, who finally shows up about midway through this bore in a subpar make-up job and bigger, greasier 'fro that looks like it could slide off his head at any moment. He then proceeds to kill off the stupid characters while spouting some of the worst one-liners heard since Hee Haw was canceled.

The acting from the \"teens\" is terrible, the dialogue even worse, the FX stink and it looks a lot cheaper than the first film. Although I enjoyed him in his earlier Troma films, Trent Haaga (trying to imitate Jim Carrey here) is awful and no match for the hyperactive overemoting of Angel Vargas in KILLJOY 1 (which at least had a few dumb laughs).

Yet another nail in the coffin for Full Moon studios, whose reputation as a fun direct-to-vid franchise has completely vanished since the TRANCERS\/PUPPET MASTER days.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really don't know why I agreed to watch this movie, but like a complete fool I did and for that I deserve to be shot! I had seen the original Killjoy, well I say I have seen it.... I started watching it but found it that bad that I ended up watching it in 4x speed to get it over with and get rid of the annoying dialogue, but I said I would watch it and I did even if it was in 4x speed.

To cut a long story short Killjoy 2 kicks off where Killjoy left off. By this i don't mean the plot, I mean the complete and total bag of dirt known as acting and cheapness. I have nothing against low budget movies, in fact I kinda enjoy them, they are something different from Mega budget blockbusters, but this film is just terrible! The acting is diabolical and the script... well i think you could of given Stevie Wonder a pen and paper, and he would of produced something much better! This movie is just annoying, not to mention the annoying laugh the clown has which is so obviously dubbed! I didn't make it through this movie anyway, about three quarters of the way through it was time to turn it off and throw it through the window. It may of been a rip off to buy as a DVD but as a frisbee it was a mega bargain!

Please for the love of mankind itself DO NOT watch this muck, it is possibly the worst thing I have ever seen and considering some of the muck I've seen thats saying a lot!

My rating on this movie would be.... Nailgun to the head\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Killjoy 2 is the same as killjoy 1. Bad acting, bad characters, annoying clown, bad lines, you name it. Honestly, I'm not all that surprised that more people haven't seen this movie. The only reason I watched Killjoy 2 is because I wanted to think that the filmmakers learned from their mistakes. They didn't. This movie is just as bad, if not worse, than the first one. That clown.... that goddamn clown.... I hate him! I hate him so much! And I don't hate him because he is a good villain... I hate him because he is annoying beyond belief! I hope that the filmmakers realized after trying and failing again that this movie is unrepairable. The last thing we need is a Killjoy 3.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One day I thought to myself....what is the worst possible thing that could happen today? I answered my self with a simple,\" Oh, it already happened. I rented Killjoy\/Killjoy 2\" on DVD. Well, what is there to say? The budget was not large enough to rent a police uniform, the movie cuts out sex scenes and death scenes. There is one funny line that I can remember, and the acting is far worse than the first one. There seems to be no lighting on the \"set\" (the woods somewhere) and the killer clown known as Killjoy (who makes Leprechaun look like The Exorcist)is less than spectacular. This time, he is not portrayed by Angel Vargas and is completely changed as a character from a crazy irritating clown to a different kind of crazy irritating clown that says \"CHILD\" a lot. Somewhere between Freddy Krueger and a blade of grass... lies this version of Killjoy. Somewhere between a pile of dirt and a pile of s---t lies Killjoy 2. It's badness is underrated. This movie does not have any redeeming qualities, except the song at the very end over the credits... which at leas provides some enjoyment. Killjoy 2 is not even really a movie, so much as an exercise in tension. Killjoy 1 is at least good enough to be considered as the worst movie I have ever seen. MINOR SPOILER######### Let me describe one of the supernatural kill scenes. A girl is locked in a wood shed of some sort (maybe an outhouse?) when Killjoy peers in through a hole. He has some small chattering teeth (like the ones you can buy at Spencer's Gifts) and he does something with them (maybe winds them up?!). Then he holds them in his hands and says a terrible line (which can't be written on IMDB). From what I gather of this scene (not from what is shown by the movie) the teeth went into the outhouse and killed the girl in some interesting, but unshown way, and then came back to Killjoy. If I were those teeth I would have run. Run far from Killjoy so he could never ever get his hands on me again. Killjoy 2 is hopefully the last Killjoy we will have to endure. Even as a fan of movies others would say are very bad, I think that this \"film\" could unify the human race and create world peace if it were promised that this film and anything reminding us of it would be destroyed. I give it 2\/10 - simply because the creators succeeded at making the pictures move.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have never seen the first Killjoy film, and I have also never heard a good thing said about it. So I see Killjoy 2 in the local Blockbusters and pick it up and look at the back. Starring Trent Haaga and Debbie Rochon it boasts. Now being the massive Troma fan that I am there is no way I'm not going to rent this film out, how can it possibly be bad with these two in it? Oh how wrong I was. Even Trent and Debbie cant save this excuse of a film from being as bad as it truly is. Trent quite frankly stinks as Killjoy although this probably is more the fault of the writers giving him some of the worst one-liners in the history of film. Debbie does put a solid performance in but it isn't enough. The kills are terrible as are the gore effects. For example check out when the guy is supposedly impaled on something or other. And just to top it all off the ending is just amongst the worst I have ever seen in movie history. The film doesn't even work on a so bad it's good level. Avoid like the clap.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have never seen the first Killjoy film, and I have also never heard a good thing said about it. So I see Killjoy 2 in the local Blockbusters and pick it up and look at the back. Starring Trent Haaga and Debbie Rochon it boasts. Now being the massive Troma fan that I am there is no way I'm not going to rent this film out, how can it possibly be bad with these two init? Oh how wrong I was. Even Trent and Debbie cant save this excuse of a film from being as bad as it truly is. Trent quite frankly stinks as Killjoy although this probably is more the fault of the writers giving him some of the worst one-liners in the history of film. Debbie does put a solid performance in but it isn't enough. The kills are terrible as are the gore effects. For example check out when the guy is supposedly impaled on something or other. And just to top it all off the ending is just amongst the worst I have ever seen in movie history. The film doesn't even work on a so bad it's good level. Avoid like the clap.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It would be wrong and reprehensible of me to advise you to watch Killjoy 2, you must have better things to do, washing the car, throwing stones in a stream, but at the same time it's nowhere near as awful as you probably think it is. It's almost a proper film, which a lot more than most straight-to-DVD sludge can manage. Killjoy 2 is helped a great deal by Trent Haaga's manic turn as the eponymous clown, he throws himself into the role with such fevered abandonment that he almost tips the scales in the movie's favour, but, of course, it takes more than one man in big shoes. Tammi Sutton gives the most entertaining director cameo since Roger Corman in Creature from the Haunted Sea and the whole thing is nearly destroyed by the rushed, sugary ending. All over the place and almost good fun.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is a fantastic song in Killjoy 2 that goes on about how clowns are usually really nice and fun but Killjoy is a killer. I don't recall the song in the first movie but when singer Olimpia Fernandez sings 'Killjoy, yeah Killjoy 2' is sounds like the 2 may have been added in for this dire sequel. The film is much worse than the first movie and that was really bad. This time the cast, including the usually excellent Debbie Rochon have given up trying and director Tammi Sutton creates no tension and presents merely a dull and steady film. Full Moon pictures produced this during their 'Urban' phase, none of which was very good but none so bad as here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"some would argue this is better mainly because of the acting; but it is indeed far worse for reasons that outweigh the improvement.

the source from which all the problems stem; the story. aside from one of them people being shot point blank, with a shotgun, in the chest and surviving for hours without medical attention, there is a bigger problem. Nic, the gangsta with the golden heart is willing to do anything for the friend he just met that day; and that includes asking an evil spirit for help. Ce-Ce, who comes out of nowhere with a past in voodoo, is willing to summon Killjoy, so long as Nic can \"hook her up.\" the acting, while improved, is still horrid. these people couldn't convey emotion out of a paper bag. the script doesn't help them either. stupid lines, and i can only assume no direction from the director. this script was read like Shakespeare in high school with a teacher whipping them as they went.

while this movie (if you can call it that at its 80 min. run time (thankfully)) is perhaps even funnier than the first because of all these things, it is definitely more painful to watch. 1\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am sorry but this is the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I cannot believe that after making the first one in the series they were able to get a budget to make another. Not that the budget could have been much - this is the least scary film I have ever watched and laughed all the way through to the end (actually I can't believe we watched it to the end) but I think it is because we couldn't quite believe it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

This movie sucked! The first one was way better. No one from the first has returned in this dumb sequel and in some way that is a good thing because of the bad acting but the characters in this film are not even better. Killjoy in the woods? Come on! Give me a break! I'm suprised killjoy's friend the Blair Witch didn't show up to make a cameo. Bad acting, bad story and just plain out silly and boring. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Both Killjoy 1 and Killjoy 2 stunk, but the first was better. The special effects in this movie were not special at all. Even though the killings were better in this installment, they were not anything to brag about. One thing that was worse in part 2 were the characters. They changed emotions suddenly, and some of their lines were just dumb. For instance one character quoted, \" You better have some R.E.S.P.E.C.T. or you'll find out what is means to me.\" Once I heard that line I figured it was of the worst I've ever heard. Another thing that I hated about this movie was the fact it was too short. A successful movie has to go more than one hour and twenty minutes, like Killjoy 2. If Full Moon makes part 3 of Killjoy, that would be stooping to the lowest level they can possibly go. Overall, 1 of 10.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...the first? Killjoy 1. But here's the review of Killjoy 2:

(contains spoilers, so beware readers)

Oh my. Oh, my, my, my. I'll start off with telling you that I had no hopes in the least bit that this movie would be good. Considering that Killjoy (the first movie) is without a doubt the worst movie ever made, the sequel didn't have much promise.

As expected, it didn't deliver.

The deaths were even lamer than in the first movie. There was absolutely no eye candy whatsoever, and every single prop looked so fake that I wouldn't be surprised if they had a kindergarten class make them.

Look, I don't even know where to begin. Hm, for starters, the movie wasn't even feature length. It was only an hour and eight minutes long (68 min.), but then again, ending it early was actually a reprieve. In fact, that's the only reason that this movie wasn't as bad as the first, because the first was longer.

Usually, I don't give spoilers in reviews, but since I don't want any of you to go through the torture of watching this waste of film, I'm going to spoil away. Not that there's much to spoil.

Let's start with the ending. KILLJOY IS THE PUSSIEST KILLER EVER. It takes explosions, firebombs, guns, etc. to kill all of the normal serial killers in horror movies. Guess what it took to kill Killjoy? A F***ING GLASS OF WATER. No lie. In the end, a girl picked up a cup of water and threw the water on Killjoy's face. Then Killjoy started screaming, and they tried to make it look like his face was melting by putting dried rubber cement on his forehead. Then he laid there, and the people went to sleep.

Now let's hit the acting. VERY TERRIBLE. Not even one person was believable in the least bit. I don't even know what to say, other than it looks like they just hired a few hobos living on the streets to act in this film.

Seriously, I honestly doubt that they spent any more than 100 dollars total to make this movie. They had nothing. Most of it took place in the woods, which wouldn't have cost them anything to film on. The actors weren't giving in any effort whatsoever, so it's blatant that they were probably \"working\" for free. They didn't have any kind of special effects or nice props, and they probably used ketchup for the blood. Hell, who am I kidding? They probably didn't even spend 100 dollars. They probably spent $3.29 on a bottle of ketchup and that was it. A f**kin' movie made with a budget of $3.29.

For Bob's sake, they couldn't even afford to rent a cop uniform. In the end, after Killjoy dies, the girl wakes up and says \"Where is he?\" and the main woman replies, \"He's gone.\" Then, suddenly, some fat goofy guy with scars on his face pops out of nowhere with a cell phone saying \"You have a phone call.\" The girl answers and says \"Oh, hi mom!\" and smiles. Then the fat goofy guy walks along to reveal that it's a police officer. However, he's wearing khaki pants, and a regular button up green shirt, with a lame badge on the front pocket. Hell, it was probably the badge that the director got when he was in safety patrol in 3rd grade. Then they all got into a tan blazer and drove off as the credits rolled. They couldn't even get a police cruiser so they just got a tan blazer. F**kin' lame. Killjoy didn't even have the ice cream van that he had in the first movie.

Killjoy is without a doubt the most flamboyantly gay slasher EVER. If there was a slasher that wore hot pink spandex and carried a rainbow flag, he STILL would not be as gay as Killjoy. Killjoy isn't funny either (and believe me, he DID try to be).

The only good thing about this movie is an extremely lame threat given by one of the delinquents. Somebody makes a comment to some boy about not passing third grade, to which the boy responds, \"I'll show you third grade!\" in a threatening manner. That has to be the absolute worst threat that I've ever heard. \"I'll show you third grade!\"

This movie doesn't even work on a \"so bad, it's good\" level. It's filth. Unless you did something bad, and you are feeling so guilty about it that you want to punish yourself severely, DON'T watch this movie.

Just remember; if a flaming homosexual clown with a huge black afro tries to bore you to death with gay jokes (and attempt to kill you at the same time), just throw some water at him. Case closed.

FINAL RATING: .1 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thats not saying much. This Killjoy film has better cinematography and is more professional looking than the last. That doesn't mean it's more professional sounding. That horrible last film was about gangsters killing a kid and then being haunted by a voodoo clown. I thought the guy that played Killjoy in the last one was a bad actor, but wow!!! This Killjoy is honestly the downright worst actor I've seen in any movie, and I've seen a lot of movies. Thed last movie the clown came in about 15 minutes in, this one's shorter and the clown doesn't even come in until 40 minutes in, and it's only 65 minutes long!!! I give it a 2 because the acting from some characters is OK.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Suburban kids meet the forest. Killjoy is better in this part. He is more wicked and stronger as well. Nevertheless, most part of the acting is bad as well, like in the first one. Sometimes the characters say things to each other that do not make sense and are not convincing. I made an error to watch this one sober. You'll probably enjoy it more if you are not ;-). If you did not already stop loving clowns after the first movie, you definitely will after the second.....;-)

Problem kids and their watchers are on their way to a camp in the forest. And what a coincidence, their car broke right in the middle of a forest and.....at night? That's just their luck. They find a house and one got shot, one of the watchers stays behind (why I do not know) and the rest eventually finds another house. In that house a voodoo priestess lives.....but she is not responsible for the resurrection of Killjoy. Who is it then? Well, you better watch the movie and find out for yourselves....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really hope the makers of these \"movies\" read these reviews so that they know that people just dont want their movies. They are just trash and an embarrassment to the killer clown genre of horror. whether or not this was better than the first doesn't matter cause theyre both just plain terrible. I'm surprised they didn't learn their lesson from the first movie. Stop Now!! Warning to horror movie watchers, DONT WATCH, RENT OR LOOK AT THE BOXES OF \"URBAN\" HORROR FILMS, AND ABOVE ALL, DON'T BUY THEM!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Killjoy 2 surpasses the first movie by just a little bit.The stuff that improved in here was the acting,the Killjoy make-up,and story.This one is more of a gore fest,it doesnt have the supernatural elements like the first one did.In this installment,Killjoy kills his victims in more normal ways,he doest set them on fire,and he doesnt shoot them with bullets that were in his mouth.The only thing I didnt like about this movie,was that the ending was a little half assed,in fact it was half assed,they killed Killjoy in a very cheap way.I would strongly recommend this to anyone who like horror movies.Seriously,the first movie was good,but the second is better.9 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is extremely rare that I see a movie from 1955 that I don't love. Noir, JDs, Sci-fi, Drive-Ins; I dig it all the most. Robert Aldrich is a director who has done plenty of excellent work, and most of this cast has fine performances under their belt. So what went wrong?

When I used to work in the Independent Film world, we used to talk about something called \"actors' movies.\" Actors' movies are movies that are unwatchable to anyone but other actors. Actors like \"actors' movies\" because they get to see ACTing - which is to say completely over-the-top melodrama. Actors love to be given the chance to totally let loose \"give it all they've got\" and they get a great satisfaction from watching other actors do so. In many interviews with actors they say \"he was a great director, he never interfered with me in any way.\" Actually that's the opposite of good directing, because the whole POINT of having a director on the set is to keep the actors from making fools of themselves (which, given the chance, they will always do).

Apparently Robert Aldrich forgot that on this project. Or maybe he was ill. Or maybe he thought there was no hope for saving the script in the first place, so what the heck? Whatever the case, here is an example of a lesser-known movie that is best forgotten. The characters gesticulate, pontificate and generally ham it up all the way through. One thing I can say is realistic: it's set in Hollywood and everyone acts like their petty problems are the most important thing in the world. Doesn't make it fun to watch, but it is realistic. What isn't realistic is that a producer so desperate to keep his star under contract is going to go out of his way to antagonize him in almost every conceivable way - including requiring him to engage in illegal activity. But this and other plot contradictions merely carry along the melodrama, increasing the opportunity for hand-wringing and shouted accusations.

I did manage to get to the end of this film, which makes it no worse than a \"3\" out of 10 in my book. But, why test your own endurance when there is so much else available to rent?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The quality you're likely to remember after viewing The Big Knife is how claustrophobic it is. It's pacing is sacrificed to a uniform texture of dialog. It's talky in the extreme. Modern viewers will feel every point has been made (and then some) but the movie will still not move on, or do the viewer a favor and change the scenery. It's very inert. At the 45 min mark I was sure I had watched two very slow hours. My beleaguered response was, \"Good God, where is this going?\" It feels like Odets was paid by the word...

This is a good place to note the decline of drama from it's high point in the 40s through the conceit-laden projects of the 50s and 60s until actual filmic merit was rediscovered in the 70s, only to vanish again. Here we get show-offy, conventional, emotional outbursts from Steiger, Lupino et al. and camera moves pre-arranged to meet over-practiced blocking. This is due to the rise of the Method; the regrettable trend of sacrificing every other merit of film, to grant actors their most selfish wishes. \"Great acting,\" ho-hum, has killed thought in movies.

Jack Palance's forehead & pompadour retract and thrust forward every time he reacts to something. It's disturbing.

This is awfully boring stuff.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've tried to watch this film 3 or 4 times, but I just can't get past the fact that everything about it is just awful. I'm sure it was a courageous move by somebody to cast Jack Palance as the protagonist, but there is not one single fiber of my being that believes that he could act at all, much less act against type.

Yes, I understand that Clifford Odets was a brilliant author, but it's not evident here. This odd and forced mish-mash of 50's hipster dialog seems to obfuscate any genuine meaning, which explains why none of the actors, even the good ones (Steiger, Ida Lupino, Shelly Winters, Everett Sloane) seems to know how to deliver their lines - it's as though they don't understand the meaning of what they are saying. And in the meantime, Wendell Corey and Palance stage a terrific contest to see who can be more stone-faced.

The direction is amateurish and completely overwrought. The physical interaction between the characters is as stilted as the dialog.

And can we discuss that hideous set? It's so busy, ugly and contrived that it adds to the robotic, disconnected quality of the characters, the dialog and the portrayals.

This film seems to suck the energy right out of me. It looks like everybody took an overdose of Valium each morning when they arrived on the set. It takes a pretty lousy movie to make Rod Steiger and Shelly Winters look bad, but this one succeeds.

I can see that it might have been effective as a play on or off Broadway, where intellectuals and beats could have congratulated themselves for appreciating the power of the plot and the artsy flourishes of the pseudo-hip dialog.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Big Knife, a movie about the dark side of the Hollywood motion picture industry, is ironically far more like a filmed play than a film itself. Apart from a few very brief expository scenes, all of the action takes place in the living room of the film's hero, played by Jack Palance. He's a movie actor who wants out of his contract with his studio because of the lack of redeeming qualities in the films they put out. His on again, off again wife (Ida Lupino) is also fed up with the studio, not to mention her husband's philandering ways. Unfortunately for them both, the head of the studio (Rod Steiger) is a real bastard. He has blackmail material to force the increasingly tortured actor to sign a new contract. But it's only a matter of time before he pushes the man too far.

This film is not, I repeat NOT, a film noir. Rather, it's an exceptionally theatrical sitting-room melodrama. The plot proceeds at a snail's pace, and is so intricate and confusing that it is in violent disharmony with the static setting and carefully contrived blocking of the actual scenes. The acting is overwrought in the extreme, and veers sharply between out and out histrionics and softer, but no less unsubtle, soliloquies that are obviously meant to be poignant but come across as pretentious twaddle, especially in the hands of the woefully miscast Palance. Aldrich was obviously going all out for a stylized \"something\" here, but I doubt even he knew what it was, and certainly the audience never does.

I think the main lesson here is that films and plays are very different mediums. What might have worked in a play did not come across as even remotely natural or plausible on film. The result? A big waste of time. There's little to enjoy here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the slowest \"film noir\" film I've ever seen. Very weak script only provides opportunity for Jack Palance and Rod Steiger to deliver exceptionally well, lines that were made for an acting audition. Palance and Steiger both affirm they are indeed serious actors who can portray their respective roles with power, emotion and drama. The story itself moves at an incredibly slow pace, mostly taking place in a living room. The director obviously moved the actors around in a rythmatic circles as they delivered exhaustingly long lines, to keep the slow pace from becoming noticeable to the audience. The action doesn't pick up until the last ten minutes of the film. If you're one who's looking for more depth in a crime drama, this one's not for you!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An excellent cast who do their best with an awful script, inept direction, and some of the worst score that I have ever heard. More TV movie of the week than serious drama. Which is sad when one considers that the source material is very serious and very real. The film makers decided that instead of building drama and character, it was better to just show the most graphic and violent bits and hope that the audience would be shocked into sympathy and caring. In my opinion, one the most blatant forms of cut and paste film adapting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The idea behind this movie was great. The story of a little girl facing abuse (both emotional and physical) and trying to deal with it and survive. What makes the movie fall apart is the terrible use of voice overs and the corny dialog. The actors have to point out the most obvious things over and over again. Also, there is very tedious, almost funny, overuse of metaphors in the voice overs. The high point is the acting of the little girl. Nice try, but this one's a stinker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Perry Mason: The Case of the Glass Coffin finds Raymond Burr defending David Copperfield\/Rick Blaine like magician Peter Scolari from a murder charge involving one of his assistants. A trick involving a suspended glass coffin in midair goes awry and the body of Nancy Grahn comes a tumbling out.

Nancy was one of six female assistants who work with the act and we learn two things about her. First in a moment of drunken weakness, Scolari got seduced by her and she claims she was impregnated. Secondly she is living under an assumed name and had a secret from her past.

Billy Moses who probably never thought he'd be doing such rough stuff back in law school gets to tangle with a couple of good old boys when goes seeking the truth in Grahn's home town. A little more action than usual for Ken Malansky, he almost gets himself killed.

One big flaw in this mystery is simple forensics. The medical examiner's report should have provided concrete evidence that the victim was killed in such a way that Scolari could not possibly have done the deed. The police should have been looking in a different direction for the killer.

When you see who the killer is you won't blame the individual, but you'll also see how the investigating officer James McEachin got it wrong from the start. It kind of spoils this particular Mason film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In Los Angeles, the alcoholic and lazy Hank Chinaski (Matt Dillon) performs a wide range of non-qualified functions just to get enough money to drink and gamble in horse races. His primary and only objective is writing and having sexy with dirty women.

\"Factotum\" is an uninteresting, pointless and extremely boring movie about an irresponsible drunken vagrant that works a couple of days or weeks just to get enough money to buy spirits and gamble, being immediately fired due to his reckless behavior. In accordance with IMDb, this character would be the fictional alter-ego of the author Charles Bukowski, and based on this story, I will certainly never read any of his novels. Honestly, if the viewer likes this theme of alcoholic couples, better off watching the touching and heartbreaking Hector Babenco's \"Ironweed\" or Marco Ferreri's \"Storie di Ordinaria Follia\" that is based on the life of the same writer. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): \"Factotum \u0096 Sem Destino\" (\"Factotum \u0096 Without Destiny\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have waited a long time to see this movie. IFC finally ran it one night. I thought it would be something like \"Barfly\" from Barbet Schroeder. Wrong. This film doesn't recreate that underworld of chintzy, dirty, smoke filled, character filled bars you associate with his stories. It also fails to capture that Bukowski attitude that Mickey Rourke did so well in the above mentioned film. That natural smart-ass attitude. Fans of Charles Bukowski will enjoy seeing scenes from his books on screen but those unfamiliar with his books could get the wrong impression about his works. This film looks like just another 'Movie Of The Week\" about a drunk and his relationships. If you want to get a better idea about Charles Bukowski's world watch \"Barfly\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Clearly this film was made for a newer generation that may or may not have had an inkling of Charles Bukowski's work. The autobiographical Henry Chinaski character in Bukowski's stories was brilliantly portrayed to perfection by Mickey Rourke in 1987's 'Barfly', also starring Faye Dunaway. Anyone who has seen 'Factotum' should certainly see 'Barfly' to get a better look at how Bukowski wrote his character. 'Factotum' lacks the greasy seediness of Bukowski's screenplay and the fearless hopelessness of his loner hero. The inadvertent humor that bubbles through in the dark desperation of Chinaski's misadventures doesn't work for Dillon as it did so admirably for the overweight filthy blood-soaked Rourke. Rourke's character makes the pain and pleasure of the previous night's misbehavior a place-setting for yet another grueling ugly day in the life of a drunken misanthropic unknown writer. Dillon's character misses these marks in favor of a strutting, handsome, relatively clean-looking wanna-be writer that scarcely passes for any moment in that of Chinaski's story. Dunaway's sleazy heroine Wanda is the perfect complement to the ne'er-do-well Henry. The women in 'Factotum' can't hold a candle to Dunaway's 'distressed goddess' and the use of more profane sexual subject matter in 'Factotum' proves to be more of a crude distraction than a tip of the hat to Bukowski's raw and unapologetic portrayals of dysfunctional relationships. I was stunned at how many of the exact same scenes were used in 'Factotum' (Marisa Tomei buying all the stuff and charging it to the old man is an exact rip-off from 'Barfly').

If you want to see the best Bukowski stories on film, see 'Barfly' and 'Love is a Dog From Hell' (which also goes by the title 'Crazy Love').","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has some good lines, but watching Dillon's less-than-masterful Rourke impersonation just left me wanting to see the original. I like Marisa Tomei but she's no Faye Dunaway.

Also, in my opinion, the number one movie rule is to make the lead character someone you care about. You might not LOVE the character, but you should care what happens to him. This is achieved in Barfly with the hilarious running gag about the fights with Eddie the bartender. The main fight in Factotum is when, completely unprovoked, he stalks up to the Lily Taylor character in a bar, punches her to the floor and calls her a whore.

The whole thing just didn't work. Again, some great lines -- some laugh-out-loud funny -- but as a movie overall it's a fail. Mediocre attempt at reinventing something that was brilliant, and you can't get past that. Next? Let's remake Breakfast at Tiffany's with Kate Hudson.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"doesn't mean this movie is good. i was really frustrated by it on many levels. it's kind of the tip of the hat to bukowski. hey, i've read that guy in college--let's see what matt dillon does with him. and i like matt dillon. i thought he came close to looking a little like hank, but mostly just the ruddy cheeks. i have to care about a character, though, and there just wasn't much here to care about. i think time might be cruel to bukowski, and that bothers me a lot, because the writing was solid in a sort of post counter culture time. hard to sit through, scenes that went nowhere, and a soundtrack that made me want to vomit. i ask for very little, got less.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A boring movie about a miserable loser...that's Factotum in a nutshell. Matt Dillon plays Henry Chinaski, alter ego of author Charles Bukowski upon whose novel the film is based. As we meet Chinaski he may be a writer but he's certainly not a successful one. He floats through life, getting fired from one menial job after another and not caring a bit. The fact that he's always drunk may have something to do with his not caring. He meets a woman, Jan, played by Lili Taylor and a relationship ensues. Chinaski moves into Jan's apartment and now instead of getting drunk by himself he can get drunk with somebody else. Good times. Eventually he's had enough of this relationship so Chinaski strikes out on his own. Unfortunately he still can't hold down a job so soon enough he's broke. At this point Marisa Tomei shows up and for some reason her character, Laura, decides to rescue this miserable drunken loser whom she doesn't even know. We soon meet some of Laura's acquaintances and the film veers off into a sort of bizarro world with this rather eclectic bunch. Soon enough Tomei and friends are out of the picture and once again we're left with Chinaski and his drinking and his miserable little life. There's some more time spent with Jan but mostly there's just time spent being a drunk, unemployable loser. And then the movie's over and not a moment too soon. 94 minutes of absolute monotony and it seems infinitely longer as the movie drags on. Nothing happens. Nothing ever happens. If you want to spend an hour and a half of your life watching Matt Dillon drink then this is the movie for you. If you're looking for a compelling story, well developed characters or any entertainment value whatsoever then you've come to the wrong place. Dillon's performance actually isn't bad at all. Too bad the movie which surrounds him is in fact rather bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some twenty or so years ago, Charles Bukowski was a hero of mine. I blindly accepted the image that was created by intellectual types and seen in various films. Of course, I never got to meet the intellectual types that prescribed Bukowski as a hero. They usually could be found safely behind the counter at hipster video stores and record shops. These people hardly talked and when asked a question, usually sneered and nodded in some vague direction. They were useless when it came to locating a specific title, but their shelves were always stocked with strange and unique titles. To be inducted in the secret hipster club, I believed I had to shed my bourgeois up-bringing and espouse the counter-culture.

My introduction to Bukowski started with the movie Barfly, the late 80's film that starred Mickey Rourke and Faye Dunnaway. I was a fan of Rourke at the time. He also embodied a sort of modern male fantastical anti-hero, a brooding intellectual type. At the time, this appealed to me. Barfly's hero scoffed at convention. A mid-30's tramp, who lives life with no ties, answers to no one, --Oh--and to be recognized as a genius by a hot female literary snob, icing on the cake. Afterwards, I read Post-Office and Hollywood, the later being Bukowski's take on his experience with the film.Now, allow me to fast-forward to the latest film based on Bukowski's book Factotum, one which I read and enjoyed. Bukowski takes the form of Chinaski in this novel. I often wonder where Bukowski ended and Chinaski began. 20 years after Barfly, the fictional movie Bukowski is still the same. I have watched about an hour of the movie and I have yet to see signs of the facade cracking. Here is why Factotum Bukowski was my hero. Chinaski is handsome (played by Matt Dillon). He has clean neat hair, styled, but not over the top. When Dillon smokes and writes, he looks cool. Chinaski goes from job to job, ignoring and\/or fighting with various bosses. He screws two floozies, one of whom he lives with, walks out on, only to return to with little repercussion. Chinaski is his own man and we never see him emote. He's a sterile, one-dimensional, 30 something, James Dean archetype. Factotum lies to the viewer. It does so by haranguing the idea of a man (a writer) without consequence. A poor man, who's suffering for his art. What could be cooler than that? Now, let's say there are some truths to Factotum, in that the events took place. What the audience is missing is the pain that shrouds Chinaski's existence. Maybe the point of this movie, and most movies, is that for 80 mins., we need to escape the world that's filled with consequence and pain and take-up vicariously with an anti-social womanizer, that smokes, talks, drinks with detached coolness. One who rejects conventional behavior of job and family. My hero used to be Movie Bukowski. Long ago, that would have worked. It was easier then. Now, I have yet to claim a hero. Things are not as easy. Hipster logic and movie renditions of counter-culture icons offer no solutions or even ask questions.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After Matt Dillon's phenomenal performance in CRASH, most will probably rush to pick up a copy of FACTOTUM to see if Dillon is for real or simply got a lucky rebound from a great script.

Well, Factotum certainly has its moments, but the plainness of ...everything will most likely turn viewers off. However nothing should be taken away from Dillon. His performance is wonderful and full of excellent deadpan humor, proving he's a solid actor with significant chops; it's just a shame about the directing and script.

The story is about Henry \"Hank\" Chinaski (Dillon) and his refusal to conform to anything resembling normalcy. He quits or gets fired from jobs in mere minutes, only to find himself back in a dreary pub meeting even drearier women while trying to write a nonconformist novel. We never really know what the novel is about except that it involves \"everything\" (cancer, movies, you, me).

Skipping from workplace to workplace and constantly returning to Jan (Lili Taylor, THE HAUNTING), a loser girlfriend who's just as dispiriting as himself, Hank tries vainly to discover what his life is supposed to hold for him. Whether he ever learns what that is is up for interpretation. Some may say that he never does, while others might argue that his life is simply a path to obscurity.

Regardless, there's not much substance to Factotum even with Matt Dillon's fine performance. The story meanders through Hank's life without much thought given as to where to take the audience. And that's a shame. Dillon's performance would've shone even brighter if given a decent script.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rented this from my local Blockbuster under the title SPECK - that may be the way to look for it if you still feel the need to see it after this review.

It's a movie about the serial killer Richard Speck, who killed several nurses in Chicago in the sixties. Watching the movie, one gets the feeling that it follows the crimes to the letter. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for a good movie.

Another problem I had was the near-constant music letting us know that this was a SCARY MOVIE, and some god-awful narration letting us know what's motivating Speck. The acting was average for this type of film; to give credit where credit is due, the movie is very beautifully photographed for my taste. Your mileage may vary.

Over all, if you're interested in the subject matter, it may be worth your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched the unrated version of this movie and as a person who has studied the life and crimes of Speck closely, I must say this movie is a flawed but ambitious take on the real story. While capturing the true horror of Speck and the murders this film makes the following factual errors. 1. Speck did not inject drugs at the crime scene as depicted in the movie. In fact he was mainly an alcoholic and pill popper who rarely took drugs via syringe. 2. The Asian nurse who survived Speck's massacre did not squirm her way down stairs and under the couch in the living room as depicted in the movie. This would have been impossible. In real life she hid under a bed while Speck methodically eliminated his 8 victims. 3. The movie depicts Speck as being violent and brutal with the women as soon as he meets them. Not true. In reality Speck was at first calm and gentle, reassuring the women he wasn't going to hurt them. This is how he was able to tie each of them up. 4. The real Richard Speck was not the deep thinker the movie depicts him to be. FBI profiler Robert Ressler interviewed Speck in the 80's and said that Speck not only DID'NT know why he committed the murders but that he wasn't interested in learning why nor could he shed any light on why. Speck was known to be of below average intelligence and not the philosopher king who narrates this movie. If the story wasn't so tragic and horrifying, the voice over would be laughable. All in all, Doug Cole's performance is adequately menacing and cold-blooded even though I don't think the real Speck was so forward in his violence. No doubt he was a very violent person when under the influence but he was also known, after all, for being a fairly slick con man who was able to put people at ease before victimizing them. Beverly Ann Sotelo's performance as the surviving nurse is the finest in the film. She is a very good actress. If you are at all squeamish, do not see this film. It's very graphic and disturbing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where to start with 'Speck' the true story of Richard Speck, a killer of eight nurses in the 1960s. Director Keith Walley has worked on a few of the extremely low budget Full Moon Releasing movies (such as Birth Rite) and here works from a script by (at the time) Full Moon regular Don Adams. Unfortunaly whilst the film seems like a accurate portrayal of the horrendous crime the script isn't great, perhaps because the real Speck's ramblings were not terribly interesting!? Despite the care that has been taken to make this authentic it wreaks of a cheap cash-in of the acclaimed cinematic serial killer movies of the same period (such as 'Ed Gein'). Filmed in a dirty brown, not quite sepia, for the most part and narrated by star Doug Cole the film fails to present the horror of the crime because the narration is irritating, the colouring distracting from the story and the crime, though gruesome and upsetting to watch, is merely that and no editorial work seems to have occurred on what is pretty much a very poor quality camcorder viewing on the events. There is no examination of the motivation or of Speck's life really, just a cheap shot at a gruesome crime. Released by Full Moon there is little evidence of Full Moon's better output here, Charles Band ignoring his own rule that his films feature fantasy killings (e.g. dolls, monsters and so on) and not quite knowing what to do with this new reality. Incidentally Band introduced a special label for these films called 'Shadow Entertainment'. Band has said that he regrets the period of Full Moon output alongside Tempe Entertainment (whose Creator J.R. Bookwalter and regular Danny Draven also speak very badly of Charles Band). The Tempe era features uniform Apple Mac editing and brutal hand-held camera filming, very much like a home movie. Speck retains these qualities and whereas Witchouse 3, for example, managed to use these well, Speck is merely boring and gross.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Speck\" was apparently intended to be a biopic related to serial killer Richard Speck. There is, however, not much killing to be found in this movie, and none of it is explicitly shown. The most disturbing scene in the entire movie is perhaps when Speck stomps one of the eight unfortunate nurses to death in her own bathtub, yet even this is merely implied, and not shown, save for a few unconvincing downward thrusts of Mr. Speck's leg. The most entertaining part of this movie is most likely the voice-over, which should be a testament to the mind-numbingly boring nature of this movie. Every aspect of this movie is horrible. Unless you have a fondness for boredom, don't bother. This movie only clocks in at 72 minutes, but it feels like an eternity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is terrible. A true hockey fan would have to assume that the people that appeared in and produced this movie never played or watched a real hockey game. I got this hoping that it would be a \"guy movie\", but the only people that would probably enjoy this movie are females between the ages of 13-17. The hockey scenes are terrible, defensemen playing like they're 5 years old, goalies diving at shots that are 10 feet wide of the net, etc. It's so difficult to predict the end of this movie, though!! For those who have seen it, who would have guessed?? For those that haven't seen it, don't waste your time!

I figured it out less than halfway through the movie. To call this movie a drama is ridiculous!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I should know better. I've seen too many of Rob Lowe's early work to expect anything good from this movie, even if it is about Hockey.

Here we have, yet again, another tired sports theme. Kid has potential for greatness, has the apparent to go far if his cocky attitude doesn't screw things up. And, boom, he comes out of it as that helluva player kind of champion. Is that all that can be said of sports movies? Surely, there must be other feats that athletes undertake.

Nonetheless, this movie has got to be one of the biggest cheeseballs. Everybody's interactions are just downright silly, and not in a stupid-funny kind of manner. And I can't think of any ancillary qualities that could enliven my position. Not the actors (certainly not Swayze who plays Lowe's reluctant mentor), not the story, not the music, and very little from the skating sequences.

Normally, I'm a sucker for 80s movies, even if they do tend to be a little fishy (i.e. North Shore, the Karate Kid), but this doesn't even make for good 80s trash. For a good 80s sports movie, check elsewhere. There's plenty of them out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Give me a break. How can anyone say that this is a \"good hockey movie\"? I know that movies tend to do a pretty p***-poor job of portraying hockey to the general public. And yes, this was made back when the U.S. hadn't embraced our sport to the extent is has today, but really. I have played hockey all my life and have watched even more, and this my friends is sheer lunacy. The scenes on the ice were stupefyingly bizzare... the particular instance to which I am referring is the \"sword fight\", er I mean the \"stick fight\" at the end of the film... during which everyone is just standing around and watching, not with fascination that this is actually happening, but in wonder as to who will win the duel between Youngblood and his nemesis Rakkie. Yes the story off the ice is a little better, I do stress LITTLE.

I don't know, maybe there is no point in going on... I mean let's face it: the film is right. Hockey is just one big battle on ice... oh yeah with a little piece of vulcanized rubber bouncing around- occasionally into what is loosely termed a \"goal\". Youngblood is either appalling or hysterical, I can't figure out which... maybe someone else will have more luck.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another awful movie about hockey. I if never watched hockey and saw Hollywoods version, I would hate the game. This movie doesn't make Canada look that great either. I can laugh at it and not take it too seriously. All the same this movie is awful, with every thing you can put in a 80's movie. In the end don't even watch it on TV. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The game of hockey I play and watch has something called \"speed\" which the actual hockey scenes in this limp movie never even come close to capturing. Add to that a storyline that is clich\u00e9, predictable and stupider than stupid with some of the lamest '80s music numbing your senses in every scene and you have \"Youngblood\". Oh, Keanu as a French Canadian, yeah, whatever. Gimme Dunlop, Braden and the Hansons anytime... ONE out of TEN.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film goes into my \"Worst Films Ever Made\" file. I have a copy of this film which I watch when I want a good laugh, and this isn't even a comedy. I am disappointed that such great actors agreed to be in such a piece of garbage. This film is inaccurate (in its portrayal of hockey), offensive (to Canadians), and I wasn't even all that impressed with the acting. Even the story was a bit weak. If you have never seen this film, you're lucky. If you have, I'm sorry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE PLOT: A trucker (Kristofferson) battles a corrupt sheriff (Borgnine) by getting his fellow truckers to band together and form an unstoppable convoy that stretches for miles and soon creates a national media frenzy.

THE NEGATIVE: The film's setup is weak and the ending even weaker. It has all the good-ole-boy\/trucker clich\u00e9s without adding anything new in the process. It ends up making SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT look brilliant and inspired. Kristofferson is much too laid back for a leading man role and cannot carry the picture. Borgnine's character is portrayed awkwardly. At the start he is made to look like a real jerk of a sheriff who overacts to a minor contrivance that starts the whole thing rolling. Then at the end he is made out to be a little more sympathetic and even secretly siding with Kristofferson, which doesn't work at all. In either case Jackie Gleason is a much better actor for this type of role. The worst part about the movie though is director Peckinpah's attempts to throw in a 'serious message' into this silly action flick that does nothing but slow it down and bomb in the process.

THE POSITIVE: The only good scene in the whole film is the fight sequence inside the truck stop restaurant. Director Peckinpah puts a funny spin to his trademark 'slow motion' violence and the result is amusing. Unfortunately he starts putting all the action into slow motion during the rest of the picture until it eventually becomes tiring. McGraw is always a pleasure to look at, but unfortunately she is given very little to say or do.

THE LOWDOWN: If you've read the synopsis than you have essentially 'seen' the movie. The song that this movie is based on is pretty good, but the movie adds nothing to it and should never have been made. This is all very uninspired stuff for such a maverick director.

THE RATING: 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like another user I got this cheap - I thought. 85 kroners (\u00a38). Although not worth that amount of money it is a total classic that I - like the other users - first saw when I was a kid and was looking forward to seeing again some 20 years after. The story is amazingly thin (which is why it might have worked for kids), but all the radio language and trucker stuff makes up for it. It'll look good on my DVD shelf in years to come. First viewing (1980): 10\/10. Second viewing (2002): 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"They have taken a story dear to the people of Edinburgh's heart, a true story and changed it as Hollywood has done before to many a tale. The end result is a movie however well done for those how do not know the story yet totally different and inaccurate. The original movie of this tale that Walt Disney himself oversaw used the right breed dog that is crucial for this tale and did not make that John Grey was anything special he was a poor Shepard who died in poverty at the inn. If you like the story, watch the Disney original for a better heart- warming story. It's a Shame the cast and the potential was there for a terrific remake of a classic tale. Read the book for an accurate occurrence of the story. And if you really like it, you can visit the real Kirkyard in Edinburgh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"But like the Disney film of two generations ago, this film fails as well in the accuracy department. But at least Disney used a Skye Terrier.

Is the true story to mundane for movie producers? I don't think so. There is ample documentation to accurately portray they true story instead of the fictionalized accounts we have had to suffer through.

Some day, a movie will correctly portray Bobby's owner, John Gray, as the Edinburgh Policeman that he was, and correctly portray Bobby's license a being paid for by the Lord Provost. When that happens, I'll be at the theaters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Greyfriars Bobby was NOT a westie - Bobby was a skye terrier. A highlight of my childhood day trips to Edinburgh was to go to the monument to Bobby. I grew up with the story of the valiant and loyal little dog, as every child in my generation did, and I remember lining up with my mum outside the cinema - with many, many other Dundee children and their mums - to see the wonderful Disney film. How could a movie based on such a wonderful story have been made using a Westie, for heaven's sake. That's like making a movie about the life of Robert Burns, for instance, and portraying him as an Englishman. I say,give Bobby back his breed!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Living in Edinburgh, and have a great thirst for history, I was very put off by the \"libertys\" taken. Wrong breed of dog for a start!! Bobbys owner Old Jock was an old single man, who came to Edinburgh and died a pauper in lodgings, not like in the film at all. For anyone coming to Edinburgh and hoping to see sights of the film,you will not find the graveyard in Princes St Gardens!! There were a few moments were a tissues would have been great. The actors were fantastic at padding out a rather flimsy script. I don't feel the poor wee Bobby actually got enough screen time, possibly due to being \"lost\" at one point. All that said, the film was fine and any 8 yr old will enjoy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just saw the film tonight in a preview and it's a film for kids only. It does not improve or add to the original Disney film in any way. There is a corny Scottish pastiche style throughout, not helped by weak writing (where motives are lumped in by the spadeful) and acting that is uneven and often unengaging (despite what reads like a decent cast). I have no problem with the wee dog - although there is a certain \"Skippy the Bush Kangaroo\" (see below) quality about his shots.

* For those that don't know, \"Skippy\" was an Australian kids' TV series from the 1960s where the kangaroo would be an essential part of all the stories. It is said that to get poor old Skippy to \"act\" they stuck an elastic band round his muzzle that he then tried to get off with his paws - sort of appearing to be communicating with the human actors!!! Bobby has a similar range and you just don't buy his series of heroic rescues at all.

Advice would be to take kids aged 8-12. Below that, they might be scared. Above that, if they or you love it, good luck to you, but this is strictly cardboard cut-out film-making for the undemanding. It's a missed opportunity since there is real pathos and cuteness in the story of Bobby and this film fails to deliver it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Enough talent and sincerity went into making this film that I wish it turned out better. Everyone is clearly doing their best to be true to an intriguing premise, but it's too deep a vision, too involved attempt at disentangling mental delusion to survive a transition to the screen. It is an attempt to capture the dimensionality of gossamer patterns on celluloid -- the result is muddled and slow. I give it a 10 for effort, but a 5 overall.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie defines the word \"confused\". All the actors stay true to the script. More's the pity, because the acting is fine, but the script is a confused pastiche of pseudo-psycho-analytic random ideas. The pacing is mind-numbingly slow, and the soft-focus-lens cinematography gets on the nerves quickly. I give it 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had the misfortune to catch this on a flight recently. I had the bigger misfortune of having it played on my RETURN flight as well. Obviously Demi's attempt to get some \"arty\" cred, the movie is a shambles because of her lousy acting ability. A better actress might have made this work, but a simple look at the face of Moore shows the emptiness within. At least she's not ruining American literature this time out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see \"Passion of Mind\" because I usually get a kick out of the genre of alternate reality romances, i.e. \"Sliding Doors,\" \"Me, Myself, I,\" etc.

But this was the worst one I've ever seen! I had to force myself to sit through it. I didn't even stay through the credits which is unheard of for me.

The magical realism was completely missing because Demi Moore was grim and the lovers she was two-timing were guys who usually play villains, though each was kind of sexy and appealing.

There was actually a psychological explanation provided for the dual lives, with a distasteful frisson of The Elektra Complex; maybe the magic shouldn't be explained for this genre to work.

(originally written 5\/28\/2000)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before I speak my piece, I would like to make a few things clear: 1)I am a chick who's not into chick flicks (\"Kate&Leopold\" and \"Someone Like You\" are EXTREME exceptions- Hugh Jackman's ass). 2)I only picked this one up because I am a Fichtner fangirl who looked forward to see him in a bathtub. 3)I am not a Demi fan, though I think her performances in \"Immortal\" and \"A Few Good Men\" were sublime and have earned places in my vid library- also I think she's a little crazy (no way is she NOT still sleeping w\/Brucie).

If this is a character study of an unfulfilled woman living dual lives of independence and happiness, then I'd say we have one narcoleptic melodrama. Marty: Literary agent. Makes 6-figure salary. Lives in an upscale Manhattan penthouse. Easy for her to read several hundred manuscripts and fall asleep at her desk for some highly suggested nocturnal escapism. Or perhaps stepping through an interdiemsional portal? She has the career, the looks, a cool car, a great pad, now where are the man and kids? In steps our boy Aaron- some real escapism. What are architects? They're artists who can do math, dreamers that make real money. Aaron gives Marty the dream of security and fills a void where she, obviously has no self confidence.

On the other side of the coin, there's Marie, still living out her schoolgirl fantasies while she muddles through motherhood. Her children are her career and life. But what about Marie, does she only exist through her children? In waltzes William, a Parisian stranger who helps her focus on the one thing she has lost touch with: herself.

A supposed journey of self-discovery and late a coming of age thrown in some with angst and some resentment to Marty\/Marie's own mother. This gets a 3\/10. All I could say is thank God for the BPL multimedia division, I wouldn't waste my $2.99 at Blockbuster on this, put it toward a Harlequin Blaze title.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The year still has three weeks to go but unless a really horrendous turkey shows up before then, Passion Of the Mind may be the winner of my lousiest movie of the year contest. An interesting idea badly executed. And, for that matter, badly acted. Demi Moore is very good at curling her lip and smoking cigarettes, but is that all she does? And why so many cigarettes. Did Ligitt and Myers or one of the other bad boys of nicotine have some of their illicit profits invested in this production. It's confusing, silly and moves at the frantic past of a arthritic earthworm. I gave it a 3. Should have been a 2!

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love oddball animation, I love a lot of Asian films, but I didn't love this particular product of Japan. The Fuccons are supposedly an American family (they're all mannequins) who have moved to Japan, and they're somewhat a 50's sitcom type family, with slightly more modern sensibilities at times. The DVD features several very short episodes (like less than 5 minutes each?) and I did not find it to be either funny or entertaining, not even in a weird way. I'm not sure what the appeal is of this. I did pick up on some satire here and there, gosh, who wouldn't, but satire is usually somewhat humorous, isn't it? And nothing I saw or heard rated even a little smirk. I picked this up used and it certainly SOUNDED appealing, but I guess either I'm missing the point or it's just plain LAME. The box even says it's Fuccon hilarious, right there on the front, but I beg to differ. 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wouldn't call myself a big fan of the genre inventive silliness, so i might not be the best audience for this show. Although, being a critic i do have a sense for what i personally like and dislike, this being the later.

Lack of humor is a big turnoff when it comes to comedy, things can be catchy, cool and perky for about 4 minutes and after that you start getting bored unless its the badger animation from a couple of years ago (?) This is the exact opposite, with a stiff script and all overacted voice-overs its just plain silly and very very boring to be subjected to. Unfortunately, since it did have a big market ahead of itself, and a lot of potential.

A waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched Cheats a few years ago with my friend. He hyped it up as a great funny film that is one of the best comedies ever. I think he was on crack or something. I just recently learned that this film was not released into theatres, I can understand why perfectly.

THe basic plot involves a group of guys who cheat on pretty much all of their assignments in school to get good grades. That is the main problem of this film is that the morals are all bad. There are other teen comedy films where students do bad things but it is most often stuff that does not take place at school. So I think that the concept of having a whole movie that basically has kids cheating on everything is pretty bad.

I did not like the characters in this film either. The main character guy is a completely smug arrogant idiot who is not a good protagonist. Actually I am not sure if you could say that there is a protagonist due to the fact that they all are cheating at school which is wrong. THe other supporting characters were not funny at all and basically the cast blows in this film.

This film has a bad message and even worse acting and characters. There are other teen films that are way better than this film. So you do not have to see this one and that is a good thing because I do not recommend this film at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Andrew Gurland's \"Cheats\" is his fictionalized \"true story\" about four high school friends who maneuver to cheat on tests. The quartet are: supercilious school-hating Trevor Fehrman (as Handsome Davis), his likewise good-looking pal Matthew Lawrence (as Victor), their chubby school-hating chum Elden Henson (as Sammy), and crooked geekster Martin Starr (as Applebee). The adults include high-strung North Point principal Mary Tyler Moore (as Mrs. Stark) and pornography-loving father Griffin Dunne (as Mr. Davis). The high jinks begin with Mr. Fehrman and Mr. Lawrence supposedly urinating on a teacher's grade book. Put this one at the bottom of the pile; and, be thankful it doesn't go on anyone's permanent record.

*** Cheats (2002) Andrew Gurland ~ Trevor Fehrman, Matthew Lawrence, Elden Henson","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm generally not a fan of high school comedies, they rely heavily on humor in bad taste and rarely stray far from clich\u00e9d story lines and characters and downright dull dialog. However, I've had my share of guilty pleasures, particularly when I was still in high school myself. Seeing the oh-so-recognizable teacher figures get their butts kicked always cheered me up and an occasional laugh could also be the case. These movies only work if at least one of the characters is an instantly likable one, this was not the case in 'Cheats', especially not the protagonist. Of course, it didn't help that the actor in play was one of the most irritating, no-talent, arrogant kids I've ever seen in a comedy.

To act in a comedy is no joke, it's hard to be funny: the delivery has to be just right or the material goes to waste. In this case there wasn't much good stuff to begin with and the jokes that were half-funny were screwed up professionally by the cast.

This movie felt 3 hours long, the director never heard of pacing obviously. Stay away from this one, there are many other enjoyable teen comedies out there such as 10 Things I Hate About You, Who's Your Daddy and Superbad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Totally un-funny \"jokes\" that fall flat, amateurish acting (with one or two exceptions), boring characters and dialogue that's, at best, mediocre. After watching this movie, one must wonder how on earth a producer could come across a project like this and think, \"I MUST make this film.\" No wonder it couldn't get a theatrical release.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So.. what can I tell you about this movie. If you cheated a lot in high school, you do recognize some cheattips...

This is the best thing i can tell you about this film!

If you like American-teen movies, maybe you also like it!

But i don't see this kind of movies as something funny.. sorry to say but if you are older then 10 years, i shouldn't advise you to watch this.

Because there is one shot with a couple of beautiful women (girls.. in this movie) i'll give it a rate of: 2!

so.. deal for yourself! good luck","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I figure this to be an \"alternate reality\" teen flick...More precisely a Ferris Bueller type character as the leader of a cheat ring . Yeah, I know it's not meant to compared to Ferris Bueller, at least not in a \"oranges-to-oranges\" way, but it will none-the-less.

Bottom-line: It's galaxies away from even being even a minor classic. It is watchable, though only if you're not expecting very much. That said, the main character has some charm, but the premise wears thin because the writing just isn't clever. The movie just did not deliver enough laughs, twists, or tension to keep my interest.

To be honest I did continue watching...Watching with hopes to see if anything suddenly clicked. It didn't. So, stylish as it is, I wouldn't recommend this movie. BTW, it seems odd to see Mary Tyler Moore as the principal. She's truly miscast, I hope the paycheck was inordinately big.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thought I just might get a few laughs from this long drawn out film, but was sadly disappointed. This film is all about losers who spend most of their time trying to get a passing grade with out even trying to open a book or accomplish anything. The film also portrayed teachers and the principal, Mary Tyler Moore (Mrs. Stark),\"Labor Pains\",2000 as complete idiots. I know this was suppose to be a comedy, but it never made me laugh and I thought the entire film was a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME! However, all the actors gave excellent performances and had the hard task of trying to make this film an enjoyable and entertaining FILM! Just plain studying and getting good grades for college is the only way to GO!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually love teen\/high school genre flicks, but this film was really lacking in originality. The only premise this film has is four friends cheating their way through high school and the strain it puts on their friendship. There's just not enough depth in the story or the characters to keep the viewers attention for the full length of the film. The acting isn't all that bad although the actors don't really have much to work with as the dialog is tripe and clich\u00e9'... After watching this movie, one must wonder how on earth a producer could come across a project like this and think, \"I MUST make this film.\" No wonder it couldn't get a theatrical release. Andrew Gurland is a hack, avoid or burn.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an old-dark-house movie. A young couple creep around a weird mansion said to be run by Satan, where they run from and into one after another of an ill-assorted crew: a lady in distress, an ape, an ape-man, a midget, various odd-looking people, and (for some reason) two Chinese. They end up in a throne room where the hero is required to play a \"Price Is Right\" sort of contest involving a climb up seven steps with seven illuminated footprints; hence the title. For my taste it's too much of the same thing. The creeping around fun-house corridors is amusing for a while, then becomes repetitive. By comparison with Harold Lloyd or Buster Keaton or Laurel and Hardy doing the same bit in two reels, it isn't truly funny. It's not frightening either, and apparently wasn't intended to be: the household is too absurd. Most films in this genre balance the comedy with a genuine threat, and usually two--one that the characters are led to believe is real, and another for which it's a cover. Here the cover isn't to be taken seriously, and neither is what covered. A few moments of fun emerge from the mix, but it's rather heavy fun. The novel on which the film was based was a straight thriller and I think could have been played straight to better effect--and still could be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I guess if you like watching dudes get \"pumped up\" to outrageous sizes,this is right up your alley.Otherwise,it's an exercise in ego. I don't need to do either.Anyhoo,it's of historic interest,I guess,to see how these muscle positive and brain negative chumps got that way(before\/after\/and in between steroids)-but otherwise,this isn't going to influence many guys and,as for women,well,I'm not one so I can't say....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This old stinker makes the Flash Gordon movies look sophisticated. It's so terrible I love it, and I wish I could find a tape, but none of the catalogs I've checked list it. The rock band leader who calls himself Commander Cody must have loved it too, because he named his band after it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The comments for Commune make it sound like a very interesting film, one that I would be deeply interested in. Unfortunately, the producers didn't see fit to include closed captions for the hearing impaired and deaf. That leaves me and countless others like me, who depend on closed captions to follow a movie, completely out.

This is inexcusable for any film produced in the year 2005. In a world where all manner of handicaps and disabilities are accommodated, it's infuriating and ironic that the ever sanctimonious entertainment industry fails to demand that all productions and movie theaters be closed captioned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ugghhh!!! This is exactly the sort of Pre-Code film that could incorrectly convince the viewer that films from this time period are lousy--and they are NOT--it's just that this particular film is horrid. Horrid because while the film tries very hard to be \"hip\" and \"adult\", it also is so hopelessly old fashioned, dull and hokey that I was torn between laughing at the film or just falling asleep!! This is a unique combination, to say the least.

So why, exactly, did I hate it so much? Well, the film is incredibly sleazy but has no style and the film is meant to shock but lacks subtlety and takes too many ridiculous turns to be believable. The film begins with a clich\u00e9--a hooker with a heart of gold. Dorothy Mackaill is a prostitute and she appears to accidentally kill a man! Shortly after making her escape, she meets up with an old boyfriend who insists on marrying her (he doesn't realize her profession). Seeing this man's innate goodness, she determines to change her life and stop living the wild life. This is tough when she hides out on a fictional Caribbean island. Here, alone and waiting for her man to return, there is nothing to do and the place is infested with super-horny and totally unappealing men. In fact this portion of the movie is so dull, that the audience might have a hard time staying focused. The men on the island are so inflamed by the presence of Mackaill that they perpetually seem on the verge of raping her--only to be rebuffed because she isn't that sort of girl any more. Frankly, I got very tired of all these salacious scenes--there is simply too much eye rolling and tongue-wagging to make it seem anything other than a very bad film. And looking at all these ugly horn-dogs was just annoying and stupid.

But wait,...it gets a lot worse. The man she THOUGHT she killed shows up on this tiny island (what are the odds?!) and he tries to rape her as well. However, he's not to be dissuaded and she ends up shooting to save her new-found virtue. While the jury on the island is about to acquit her, she rushes back into court and lies--telling them she meant to kill the man and it was premeditated (?) because even if she's acquitted, she knows the evil jailer will have his way with her when she is sent to jail for a gun possession charge. Given that the jailer himself gave her the gun to set her up, her rushing into the court and saying she was guilty seemed really, really silly. Why didn't she just tell them the jailer's twisted plan?! Supposedly she did this in order to preserve her virtue but to admit to killing someone so people will think you are a virgin?! So, in order to avoid a short jail sentence (and, once again, the threat of rape), she doesn't consider telling the court that he is trying to force her into a sexually compromising situation (the jailer has promised to rape her when she is locked up). And, just before she is taken to the gallows (in order to avoid the rape), the boyfriend shows up in time for her to send him off and the credits roll.

Impossible situation and coincidences abound--coming so often that the film is just dumb. Combining this with all the sexual innuendo, this makes for a bad AND sleazy mess of a film which will only appeal to the most die-hard fans of Pre-Code films. All others, beware, this is very sticky and silly from start to finish!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am in awe of the number of people who consider this film to be decent...much less great! Do the majority of people even have basic standards for a film they watch? I just don't know anymore.

This \"commercial cinematic product\" doesn't really deserve the respect of being called a film. To call Dean Cain talented is a gross injustice to anyone who actually has talent. I have had a lot of respect for Lori Petty but most of that has gone right down the tubes. At least her role was extremely small. Maybe she had a bill that desperately needed to get paid.

The ignorance I saw while viewing \"Firetrap\" was amazing. Let me start out by getting this off my chest: if you can't show fire realistically then don't show it at all. Okay?!! It's an embarrassment to all involved when you show lame effects that don't even come close to simulating an actual burning building.

Some interesting tidbits: 1. A janitor opens the door to a large storage closet and finds the entire room engulfed in flames. What does he do? He tries to put out the fire with his broom! 2. The same janitor (who knows the building is on fire) later comes across a door marked \"HAZARDOUS MATERIALS\". His brilliant mind tells him that it would be a great idea to open said door. Big mistake! 3. A woman is giving a fantastically generous donation of $100,000 to a greyhound rescue fund but...she's wearing a fur coat to the charity event they're holding! (Wouldn't people who care about animals kinda frown on that sort of thing?) 4. Several of the people in the movie are forced into a vault of some sort with massive steel walls that even an electromagnetic pulse(!!) couldn't penetrate. Yet they have a spacious air vent leading right into the back of the thing that anyone could crawl through. That sure seems like a lapse in security.

I could go on and on but I have grown tiresome thinking about this lame movie. Our \"hero\" whom we are supposed to be cheering for is a career criminal who early on tries to kill some police officers. What a swell guy! If the general public wants to waste their minds away on this drivel then more power to them. I just wish I could have it erased from my memory. 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another stinker from the PM Entertainment group, and thankfully one of their last.

'Firetrap' is effectively a very low budgeted remake of 'The Towering Inferno' I don't mind Low budget B Movies as long as some effort is put into them - there is no effort whatsoever in 'Firetrap' is stars Dean'Superman'Cain, who is an absolutely terrible actor, seriously he has all the acting abilities of a porn star, but he turns out to be the best actor here and that's saying something, the rest are just a bunch of no hopers given the boot from various daytime soaps. The special FX are just rubbish, shots showing the burning building from the ground are among the worst I've ever seen, the fire looks like someone scribbled an orange pen at the front of the camera. on top of that there is not one character you actually root for - you hate everyone and hope they all die well before the 90 minutes are up.

The script is embarrassing - The red herring's are signposted well in advance, someone else has mentioned this but 'The scene where the janitor fights off a blazing fire engulfing the building with his broom....hilarious, or same janitor going into a room marked 'Hazardous Material', Were these scenes supposed to be tongue-in-cheek? somehow I doubt it

The one good point and only one good point was there was a fair bit of action in amongst the daytime soap dramatics which kept my attention, but so little care was given to everything in the film, I can't recommend it - Watch 'The Towering Inferno' instead

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was so bad it became enjoyable. If you want to see a soap opera cast decide to do an action film, this is for you! Overacting, irrelevant incidents, implausible dialogue - it has it all. The main character has a split personality and can not make up his mind whether he is thief, a loving father or a hero who will risk his life for others. He is plausible in none of these roles. This sets the standard for many of the other characters. The boss of the company whose building is set ablaze displays the same unpredictability, and so does his wife. And the punch line - who has taken the \"chip\" - beggars belief. I found myself laughing heartily and for that reason, I recommend you watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dean Cain, the one time Super-Man, plays Max Hooper the super-thief. He can break into any company and steal any thing for the right price. Unfortunately his latest heist ends him up in a high-rise in which someone else has set a fire to hide their own attempts to steal the product. Now the thief finds himself having to be the hero rescuing everyone in the building. Unfortunately the other thief is still in the building and the F.B.I. & C.I.A. are outside waiting for Max.

The movie is barely passable. Dean Cain is a fun actor and has done much better with more improved material but here he is saddled with a weak script and pretty poor direction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Firetrap is yet again another bad action film about a guy who- yada yada yada- and happy endings and fire, and burning, and overacting, and bad suspense, and predictable, and ------------------- just don't see.

(Dean Cain got stuck playing Superman on Lois and Clark and can't get any good roles anymore. So i don't know if he is a good or bad actor.

This isn't good.

Why can't anybody stop that bad people who keep making these things? AI swear they just s*** them out on a conveyor belt and hope they are good. They need to make a guy whose job is to just burn the movies that look bad, just have a bucket of carosine next to him and dump the cases in. Then at the end of each day light it and go home.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This might very well be the worst movie I've seen in my life. Normally I don't watch movies like this, however I was forced to watch this at school. What a torment!

The story is as average and boring as it can be: Boy meets girl at the Spanish coast, boy and girl fall in love, but the love between the two seems impossible and everyone and everything is against their love. At the end of the movie the film becomes some kind of weird kung-fu movie were the guys in white fight the guys in black. Awful!

The action is so bad that it makes you laugh. The dances in the film that I think are supposed to be cool are so simple and laughable that even I can do them! And Georgina Verbaan is possibly the most irritating person i've ever seen on screen.

Johan Nijenhuis is on his way of becoming the Dutch Ed Wood. His movies are so bad that they make you laugh.

Victor L\u00f6w however gives a surprising good performance and Daan Schuurmans also acts OK.

So please for your own sake don't watch this movie. However if you like watching soaps this might be very well worth your time.

Yuk!

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ok let's start with saying that when a dutch movie is bad, it's REALLY BAD. Rarely something with a little bit of quality comes along(Lek, Karakter) here in holland but not often. Costa! is about 4 girls going to Spain to go on vacation, party, get drunk, get laid (u know the drill). It's also about the world of Clubbers or Proppers. Pro's who're trying to lure the crowd into their club.

I'm not sure how long it took to write the script, but i suspect somewhere between 15 minutes and 20 minutes because you're watching a bunch of random scenes for 90 minutes long. Nothing, and i mean nothing is believable in this movie. It's almost too riduculous for words what happens with the storyline. Suddenly the movie transforms into a sort of karate action thing. With a one-on-one fight with 'the bad guy in black' and cliche car chase scenes trough a watertank-car (can it be more cheesy). Also the words character-development and casting are unfamiliar to the makers.

After having seen \"Traffic\" 3 days before this, i fell from sheer brilliance, from a piece of art to this. This is film-making at it's saddest. And don't start about low budget. Because even with a low budget you could write a better script. It almost seems that the film-makers were too busy partying themselves to make a decent movie.

Anyway the chicks in the water at the end made it up a little bit, but for the rest of it, don't waste your money on such garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Proud as i am of being a Dutchman, i'm truly shocked by flicks like these. Why? why this cheap acting? Why this storyline that just sucks? why a dozen sequels? why o why? they add a lot of hot Dutch chicks in an effort of saving this movie from redemption, and guess what? all the underaged breezergirlies in Holland go and see it. I was forced to watch it at a party. all the girls were going crazy when Daan Schuurmans entered the screen, all the guys took a another beer and grumbled... But the thing that really bothers me, is the fact that this kind of flicks are the only sort of movies Dutch filmmakers can produce... (apart from \"Van God Los\" and \"Lek\") This doesn't prove our superiority to other countries.. It doesn't add anything to our imagination... It just F**ks up the brains of little 13 year old girls... Johan Nijenhuis, I hope you will burn forever!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you like soap-series, you might like this film. I recommend this film to fans of Dutch soap-series like GTST, Westenwind or even American stuff like The Bold & The Beautiful. If you don't like that stuff: stay away from this movie. It has the same kind of visual style, the same quality of acting, direction and writing.The film was a big hit at home territory, but wasn't sold anywhere else outside Holland and Belgium. Pretty strange for a commercial film like this.

Maybe it says something....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to be one of the WORST movies I have seen. I tried to like this movie but they managed to mess up practically every individual aspect that pertain to this film! Cheap dialogue, no character development, no tension, not enough story to pull you in, no action apart from some REALLY cheap scenes. It seems they tried some things on the set and said to each other \"hey this looks rather cool, why not put this in there\" after which the director probably said \"Yeah....YEAH this is genius!\" and got back to snorting coke or something. When it comes to acting I think the only person that TRIED to make the movie worked is Daan Schuurmans but in the end it is all for nothing. Cause this movie SUCKS!! 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The combination of Dan Haggerty (Elves) and Linda Blair (Exorcist) is enough to make any horror fan excited about this movie. And once you see the cover art to this film of a frozen zombie coming out of their cryogenic chamber, you'll think you were in B-Movie Horror Heaven. At least that's the way I approached this film. But boy, was I in for a shock

I love horror movies. I love B-Movies as well. Nothing makes my day more than a cheesy little film about zombies, monsters, murderers, that sort of thing. But to say that this movie was lacking, is an understatement. This movie was pure trash. You'd think the zombies would look somewhat like what the cover-art of the box displays, but instead, you get actors with masks that are clearly sold at any Halloween display counter. Furthermore, the script is beyond pitiful. Our main character, Joseph, suffers the loss of his wife and son and seeks solace in the warm-hearted Mary, played by Blair. Not once do you see any sign of sadness or discomfort on the part of Joseph's character. Instead, we see the head of the cryogenic labs, a man named Dr. Miller, eager to get the dead bodies and experiment with their organs. There is no emotion or anything to make you believe you should give a damn about anyone in this film.

All and all, very disappointing. All the elements to make a great horror film were there. You had your zombies, your decent actors, and your story. But the lack of good writing and little if any sense of direction screwed this one up royally. Overall, 4 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I decided to try watching a movie about cryogenic zombies (\"cryonoids\"), I wasn't expecting a whole lot. That's exactly what I got, and then even less. Aside from a shortage of special effects (squibs?) and a severe lack of any acting talent, \"The Chilling\" also sports the absolute worst script I've ever seen made into a movie. I had to stop the tape numerous times during the first 45 minutes in order to repair the damage done to my intellect for witnessing such atrocious dialogue as there is found here.

Furthermore, the collection of characters is so formulaic and one-dimensional it's ridiculous: the corrupt doctor; his assistant, played by Linda Blair (we know she's his \"assistant\" because he repeatedly refers to her by that title); the recently-widowed businessman with a heart of gold who develops a romantic interest with Blair's character; his criminal son; the Blair character's alcoholic, abusive, unemployed boyfriend, whom we are introduced to in the most contrived use of a flashback; and, of course, the rough, tough, bearded security guard who becomes the hero.

Apparently, the preserving fluid which some cryogenics lab uses on its bodies is highly conductive, naturally resulting in disaster when all of the lab's containers end up outdoors in a remarkable sequence of events during a lightning storm (on Halloween night, no less). As for the zombies themselves, if you enjoy watching people in green latex masks walking around in aluminum foil suits, then \"The Chilling\" is the movie for you. The zombie action is very weak at its best; the zombies' primary killing method seems to be grabbing people by the shoulders and shaking them to death. The businessman and the security guard do most of the zombie fighting, including a highly suspenseful scene of re-freezing the undead with liquid nitrogen. Let me tell you, the steel mill scene in \"T2\" has got nothing on \"The Chilling\" in portraying an enemy getting frozen in his tracks like that.

How Linda Blair ended up stuck in the middle of this piece of dreck is indeed a mystery. True, her career didn't exactly skyrocket during the 80s (sadly), but this movie is an embarrassment for her. The script doesn't even have the decency to put her to any good use. The most that her character is given to do is shriek out things like \"Here they come\", \"Do something\", \"Hurry!\". The only thing I can figure is that poor Linda was compensated for her work on this film in rations of food. The hero is played by Grizzly Adams himself, Dan Haggerty. In this picture, he faces stiff acting competition from his beard and the security dog, and he does his best to outperform them both.

The only frightening part of \"The Chilling\" is the introduction which brings up the factual elements of cryogenics and suggests that \"the film you are about to see could happen in your own community\". As I was counting the number of times a few of the names are repeated in the closing credits, I was floored to suddenly see Lucasfilm get credited. Fortunately, it was only for the movie's sound production. 1\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm all about the walking dead, but my mind is still unsure of the walking, frozen dead. Sadly, THE CHILLING didn't help me make up my mind. This is really slow with nothing happening for the first 45 minutes, making me hit the \"film enhancement\" button several times. By the time the well designed zombies show up, it is too late and the director (two are rumored to have filmed this) has no idea how to shoot them. Haggerty, Blair and Donahue all look tired\/embarrassed\/recovering in some fashion. I will give the film credit as it predates the T2 ending with villains being frozen by liquid nitrogen. The Shriek Show DVD offers an extended promo reel from back in the day that runs 8 minutes long and I would actually recommend that over watching the flick in its entirety.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As to be expected, there's a pretty good reason why this film is so obscure and unknown in spite of dealing with the always-popular premise of zombies and starring the 80's B-movie queen Linda Blair, namely: it sucks! \"The Chilling\" is trying enormously hard \u0096 way too hard \u0096 to be a story with depth and factual background, whereas it should have just been a light-headed and gore-packed horror flick about frozen zombies. It takes an incredibly long time before anything remotely interesting or significant happens. There's a lot of drivel about cryogenics, which I learned in my physics class is the study of products and their behavior at extremely low temperatures. So naturally, in this film a bunch of people are studying the behavior of human corpses when deep frozen. Needless to say this is extremely boring, until two dim-witted night watchmen decide, during an electric power failure, that it's a good idea to put the metal-constructed cool cells outside at the heights of a thunderstorm. The coolers are struck by lightening, obviously, and the bodies spontaneously defrost and come to live to go on a murderous zombie rampage. \"The Chilling\" is a boring and surprisingly (for a late 80's effort, at least) gore-free horror film that doesn't even use up a quarter of its potential. All the painful attempts to build up an atmosphere of suspense and eeriness fail tremendously and I can't think of any reason why the zombie-attacks had to be so bloodless. Even in spite of the low budget available, they could have done better. The set pieces, make-up effects and costumes are pitiable. The research lab, for example, looks like a proper apartment flat whilst the zombies couldn't look less menacing with their green faces and foil-wrapped outfits. How Linda Blair managed to get involved yet again in such an embarrassing low-budgeted horror flick is a complete mystery. She's attracted to lousy B-movies like bees are to honey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Woof! Pretty boring, and they might as well have shot it in black and white, it was so colorless.

The movie starts with rolling text explaining cryogenics, and asking whether god or Satan is behind it. There are some protests outside a cryogenics lab. Some people rob a bank, and many of the robbers and guards get shot. The father of one of the robbers (I think) arranges to have his son frozen. There's a lot of jumping around in the beginning from scene to scene introducing characters without us knowing how they relate.

There's a power outage, and the cannisters containing the frozen people get struck by lightning, and they emerge as zombies. They're all wearing silver mylar-like suits, and their skin is dark green and wrinkled (no idea why they look so bad - being frozen evidently didn't preserve their looks), and they have silver eyes. They go around killing people, sometimes lurching like zombies, sometimes moving like normal people.

Linda Blair keeps showing up every once in a while, to what purpose I'm not really sure. I think her character works at the cryogenics lab, but she's not very important to the plot, and her role is very small.

The movie ends with some freeze frames with text captions that tell us what happened to the characters next, which are pretty silly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Chilling\" directed by Deland Nuse and Jack A.Sunseri is one of the worst zombie flicks I have ever seen.Why Linda Blair(\"The Exorcist\",\"Witchery\")appeared in this stinker is beyond me.The plot is really dumb:the frozen bodies at a cryogenic lab are revived after lightening strikes and turned into cannibalistic zombies.The characters are completely one-dimensional and stupid,the zombies look horrible and there is no gore.Avoid this cheap piece of trash like the plague.My rating:1 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I like to watch bad horror B-Movies, cause I think it's interesting to see stupidity and unability of creators to shoot seriously good movie. (I always compare this movies to - for example - some Spielberg's works and again-and-again don't understand the huge difference in what I see.) I like Ed Wood's movies cause it's so inept it's very funny. But people!!! \"The Chilling\" is not funny and is not even \"interesting\". It's EXTREMELY BORING horror movie without ANYTHING what makes even bad movies watchable. There's no acting, no screenplay, no direction, no thrills and not even blood. It's extremely inept amateurish film. It's definitely the WORST movie I had ever seen (and I had seen a lot of \"worst movies\" - believe me). I warned you !!! 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Really for a short film that looks high budget this is just a candy coated piece of cr*p. It tries so hard to be hollywood. But even hollywood stories have an okay story (sometimes). Money wasted on an effort to be hollywood. Waste of almost a half hour of any viewers time. For the short film buff, look elsewhere...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This short film doesn't get there. Cliche' and not very funny attempt at dark humor. Humor isn't funny enough to get you interested and the protagonist isn't likeable so you really don't care about what happens anyway. Producer spent some money on this flop and it shows in the production value which is the only saving grace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anyone who sees this film will notice that the makers threw a lot of money at this film. It's interesting they titled it \"The Hole\"! The production values are good for a short film. The hole tries to look big budget and does in some ways but is hampered by the video format it was shot on. I speculate if this was shot on 35mm it would look incredible and would elevate the content somewhat. Many hollywood movies look good and that's enough for an audience regardless of story and content.

My honest opinion, 3 out of 10 for this effort. Maybe Ishimoto's next film will deliver.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was an awful short film that tries to be funny in a dark way but wasn't funny at all. Say at a film festival in Chicago. It really is what the title says and I simply wasn't into it at all. The bad storytelling was what did it in. If you re-wrote it and re-shot it, it \"might\" work. This attempt fell in \"the hole\". Horrible filmmaking.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Comedy is a hard beast to conquer. Ishimoto fails on all accounts, as a writer and director. Some things, like making movies that are funny, just need to be left to the professionals. 1 out of 10. Awful. It wasn't funny. I tried to laugh but it just wasn't funny. I wasn't the only one, no-one else at the Chicago festival was laughing either, at least at the showing I saw. Simply very bad, sorry :(","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Directed by the same Jin Ishimoto that put Neoedision and flixer.com (a once promising online film community) temporarily out of business and off the net because of his directorial style and method of filmmaking on his next film GIRL'S BEST FRIEND.

THE HOLE suffers from this \"look at me, I am a filmmaker\" style of filmmaking that is becoming the near standard in today's hollywood, to the detriment of content.

THE HOLE actually starts out with a unique concept but that concept and the promise of captivating content soon is destroyed by the \"look at me\" directorial style of filmmaking.

There are some funny moments that still shine through the pretense but it is a painful short to watch.

How sad it is when the new breed of \"filmmakers\" choose not to be a servant to the story but rather try and dominant on and off screen. Heck, they don't care, as long as they get their studio deal, house on the beach and a new car, content and presentation are secondary issues.

The real sad part of all this is Hollywood embraces the \"look at me\" attitude so much that the whole aesthetic of filmmaking is changing. Rather than present a story in a straightforward way that puts the story first, today's directors are getting \"experimental\" i.e. \"look at me\".

Is it me or am I the only one that was really put off by Sena's opening minutes of SWORDFISH. That movie went on to rise above Sena's directorial attempts at \"look at me\" filmmaking, Unfortunately this short film by Mr. Ishimoto does not.

3 out of 10 rating from Elec Tv.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is sad what they are letting into film festivals these days. I had to sit through over twenty minutes of this dreary short that wasn't funny at all to get a good seat for a feature film that I wanted to see at a local film festival. The festival planners paired this horrible short with a great feature. I am just glad the feature was good, otherwise I would have not been a very happy camper!

For a comedy short film it got no laughs. The title says it all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film had some funny moments. Louie, the main character was well cast along with some other decent supporting characters. The opening shot of the movie set the tone but the direction and story went downhill from there. Aside from a twist at the end (interesting and funny also), I wish this film had better direction and a more developed story. Without giving any of the plot away, the whole idea is better good! I just wish it was executed better in this short film. The potential was there but it just didn't deliver the goods.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Poorly directed short \"film\" (shot on hi-def or betacam it appears). It screams student film\/video all the way. The premise is limited in scope and the short actually feels a lot longer than it runs. Some interesting acting moments and some decent production value, but not enough to lift this film from \"the hole\" it has fallen into.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a poorly written and badly directed short film, pure and simple. What is interesting and keep me watching, to some extent, was the production values. Shot on video it appears, with a bad script and bad direction, one would think it would also have horrible production value. That is what the viewer expects when they watch a film that is terrible and shot on video. BUT Not in this case, they spent some money and it shows. It keep me very mildly interested to see what was coming next, just to see!

Probably the worst short film I have seen that looked big budget hollywood even though it was shot on some sort of video format.

Instead of spending the sum of money they must have spent for some rather impressive set design, it would have been nicer to see a better executed story with some good direction. But then again how can we expect new filmmakers to do this when even hollywood won't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

After the wit and liveliness of Highway 61 and Roadkill I expected this movie to shine, but it was as bloated and self-deluded as the hard-rock stars it parodied. The pace dragged, not helped by an over-long hallucination sequence, the characters were flat and unmemorable, and Art Bergmann is no Jello Biafra. I had to poke myself to stay awake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The audience sat in silence through almost the entire film, with only a few, rare, occasional chuckles. The character of Maxwell Smart was so inconsistent, I felt whip-lashed. When it is convenient for the plot, Smart behaves like a master spy. At other times, he acts like an imbecile. They lift many classic lines from the television series, but they don't work in this version. The classic \"missed it by this much\" is funny if it is spoken with attempted braggadocio by someone who is an obvious failure - but it loses all humor when spoken by someone who is qualified. To a slightly lesser degree, many of the other characters move at a dizzying pace from skilled to cartoonish incompetent. Siegfried, the main villain, would seem to be intelligent, but he makes decisions that make no damned sense at all. Still, none of the characters in the film is as incompetent as the writers of this mess. I am utterly depressed that so many IMDb users think this was good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie sucked. The problem was not with the cast. I think the cast was great, lots of good talent, lots of great acting. But the script was TERRIBLE! It seemed to be mostly just a frame work in which Steve Carrell could do his improv. And that is what he does best, but it just didn't work here. The script was hard to follow, the story was non-sensical, and scenes were random and lacked direction. Also, much of the action was extremely contrived and poorly thought out. It was a good effort, but as Max says, they missed it by THAT MUCH! I am shocked to see how many glowing reviews there are for this stinker here on the IMDb. Obviously, the movie producers are getting people to write lots of positive reviews on their movies and fill up the entries on the IMDb. If you read the positive reviews and compare them to the negative reviews, it is pretty clear which ones are genuine reviews from normal users.

This movie was full of problems and jokes that just didn't work. I loved Steve Carrell in Anchor Man, and I like his comedy and style. But I will tell you that I never once laughed while I was watching this movie. Yes, I had a couple of light moments, a couple of chuckles, but no real laughs. Nothing that struck me at all.

Spoiler Alert! One ridiculous scene was when Max had his hands binded on the airplane and he goes to the bathroom to try to escape. He uses his special Swiss Army knife...but instead of just using THE BLADE OF THE KNIFE, he tries to SHOOT the binding with his miniature crossbow. And as the crossbow miss-fires and shoots little arrows into him over and over again (almost putting out his EYE), Max doesn't give up or try the blade instead...no, he just keeps shooting himself with the crossbow. What was he really expecting to do with that crossbow? It seemed to be THE WORST option on the knife to try to remove the bindings. It just made absolutely no sense.

That is a good example of the typical circumstances in the scenes that made up this movie. They were ridiculous, poorly thought out, poorly motivated, and made of pure nonsense. And that was truly distracting.

As I said, this movie was a big let-down, and I recommend you avoid it. A note to the IMDb: You should do something about these phony reviews that people are leaving. It degrades the authenticity of the site.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In yet another miserable attempt to make a quick Hollywood cash-in of one of televisions greatest masterpieces, Peter Segal has created a monster. Taken out of context, if one did not know Brooks' work before viewing, the movie would be a lame big budget film that isn't sure if it wants to be fat joke and stupid comedy, or just an ordinary action film with nothing to move on. However, as a young generation Y'er who just recently spent two months obsessing over the five seasons of Get Smart, the 60's TV show, this movie pained me from the moment I entered and saw Steve Carell dumbing down the part. The backstories, agent 99 getting plastic surgery and 86 as an analyst who was formerly morbidly obese, shames the complexity of the original duo and paints a flat boring reevaluation of them. It seems the screenwriters, unable to be truthfully funny in both dialogue and situation, fell back on lame set-ups for Don Adams famous lines, flashbacks to fat camp, references to Carell's part in the office in the interview style camera angles they have, and a female chauvinism that falls flat on its face.

For those who have seen the original, the writers of this movie thought they'd include some memories. They mention Herbie, Fang (now a worthless tiny furry dog that Carell covets), the shoe phone, the cone of silence, and his classic red car and the doors and phone that intro'd the show. The classic music is back, but now everything is updated, generally for the worse. Cone of silence is now some weird blue telekinetic force field, control headquarters are right under a museum that preserves Control's past. The movie lacks any creative random tech, and replaces it with crossbows in swiss army knives. Lots of the \"humor\" in the movie is Carrel hurting himself, or another character being hurt, whether it be carrel spending two minutes shooting himself accidentally with the crossbow, or getting punched by security guards, or throwing up in airplanes. In the original, Smart would insult a big foe, attack him with no success, and try to buddy up with him before getting pulverized. In this one, he attacks without success and gets pummeled. It seems the screenwriters didn't understand the humor was established with the dialogue and not the pointless violence. It's like they took the names from the show, and cut out all that made it good in the first place.

The poster hides Carell's face beyond that of Hathaway's. The movie likewise, shies away from anything that could make it good. They intertwine the classic music with the over-dramatic action and romantic music in big-budget films. Whereas the original fed off a campy feel, this one replaces quality with massive doses of cgi explosions and pow sound effects. I was really looking forward to this, as I finished the original series just two months ago and it ranked in my top five shows of all time. However, this was a massive disappointment. The credits say they collaborated with Mel Brooks and Buck Henry, but in all the things I've read on the internet, they were largely left out of the writing process. In conclusion, if you want to waste your money on a cash-in with little value and no respect to its namesake, go for it. But be prepared that the ride is not how you remembered it.

PS: I almost forgot the George Bush humor. They mention \"Nuculor\", falling asleep at fine art, President's working for their vice pres, and appreciating tackles over solving real problems. If you're into hearing the same jokes you heard 3-4 years ago in big budget movie form, chuck your money here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is in the same league as Ishtar. Lots of wasted talent. Who let this bomb escape? When Sigfried says an example has to be made, in reference to a nuclear bomb, I said \"Please let it be this theatre!\" Don't waste your time. Not even worth a free rental! And where did they get these shills to fill the comments section on IMDb? I can't believe that anyone who has ever seen the original series enjoyed this stinker. Steve Carell is not a physical comedian. If they removed the \"comedy\" and made it a straight action movie, it could pass. What the heck was the purpose of the dance scene? Also, the fat jokes and references were tasteless. This movie never missed a chance to go for the lowest common denominator and scenes just ended, it seemed, as if no one thought them through. Just awful! Save your time, if not money and give this movie a pass!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't believe the hype. If you have high hopes or have anticipated this movie to any degree, you may be disappointed. Even the hilarious and talented Steve Carrell can't save this poorly written, over-long silly spy flick. For the purists (fans of the original TV series), this movie bears little resemblance to the original characters and influence. Agent 99 and Maxwell (except for their names) are simply not the same characters. There are several isolated references to the original, but not enough to convince this fan that it is anything more than a poor shadow of the TV version. For those not familiar with the original TV series, you may not be disappointed but chances are you will be bored. There are a few cheap Hollywood political shots as well (really pathetic and oh so typical for an election year). We left after the first hour and weren't alone. Some left after 20 minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yet another TV show becomes a movie. Steve {The Office} Carell plays dimwitted agent Maxwell Smart in a movie that's so bad, it makes the worst movie you ever saw become the second worst movie you ever saw. The seventh rate story- if you can call it that has a megalomaniac trying to take over the world. It is so unfunny, it is absolutely pathetic. About the only thing Anne Hathaway does as agent 99 is look good-she seems incapable of doing anything else. Bill Murray has the fine sense to limit his screen time to about 90 seconds, and a few faces from the TV series turn up in very small roles. Movie is supposed to be part thriller and part action film. It is neither. Even though I really was not a fan of the TV series, at least it was light years ahead of this piece of -hit. All this does is drag it through the dirt and cheapen whatever good memories we had of it. Thank God Don Adams is not here to see it. Keep it up Hollywood! Keep making crappy movies like this and keep sendin 'em to the multiplexes on a weekly basis. No wonder the film industry is going down the tubes. This movie is so rotten, it's NOT even good for laughs. If this movie were a newspaper, it could be used to line the bottom of a bird cage. There is absolutely no reason to see this movie. A root canal is more enjoyable than this.! Rating- zero minus five stars. Unless you are a Masochist, STAY AWAY. Better still, do what the title says- Get Smart and save your nine bucks. You will be able to buy about 2 gallons of gas with it. Put it in your car and be thankful you did not waste it going to a multiplex to see this bomb!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a sad surprise.

Being a die-hard fan of the original series (starring Don Adams) I was really looking forward to this. Poor fool me. This is sillier and more brain dead than a monkey's bottom.

To say it was bad would be a severe understatement. It is\/was the worst movie (well first 30 minutes of one) I have seen for a long time. I couldn't stand more than the first half hour, preferring to watch my hard drive de-fragment.

I can tolerate bad... bad is O.K., sometimes even cute. BUT up with contrived Hollywood crap (and this has to be the worst in many years) I will not put. This movie is a gross insult to the collective intelligence of humanity! My five year-old daughter could have written better - and she is not even dislexic!!! I'm really tempted to try watching the rest of it, but I'm afraid I have better things to do... like making pizza dough and watching it rise.

What a sad disappointment. No... I'm buggered off! What a swindle! As Mel Brookes once said; \"Piece of shirt!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have never seen the TV Series or the previous movies. Probably that's the reason why I didn't enjoy it much. Boring and just not funny, sums it up nicely.

Considering the budget the movie seemed to have, it's embarrassing they couldn't do an even passable job.

We went to the cinema with no exceptions' at all and the hope to see a somewhat funny movie that wouldn't be too taxing on the mind. My friend fell asleep halfway through the movie and I spend the next 2 hours hoping that it would finally pick up. A hope, which died with the end credits.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Get Smart should be titled Get Stupid. There is not one funny line or gag in the entire film. This film is so bad it makes the Austin Powers films look Shakespearean. A few more films like this and Steve Carell can kiss his career goodbye. As for Anne Hathaway, what is she doing in this film? She's a good actress but is just plain terrible.

The writing is pathetically lame. There is not one funny, clever, or witty line. There is not one good sight gag.

The directing is terrible. Comedy relies on timing. Someone should tell the director that. Every line that is supposed to be funny (and isn't) is delivered with absolutely the worst sense of comic timing I've ever seen.

0 stars","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is the thrill of low-budget film noir. And there is the frustration of meandering, uninteresting movies made on the cheap. This one falls into the second category.

The Spot is the name of a nightclub. The film is about a policeman whose father has been killed by gangsters. He heads out to track them down.

Maybe it was the bad print. Maybe it's me. But I felt I'd seen this a hundred times, most of those times better than it is here.

It has promise, too: The cop is fascinated with a woman who plays records she introduces over juke boxes. They then meet. Now, though this was made well before I was born, I have seen that kind of juke box. And it is incredibly fascinating: When I was a teenager, I wandered into a bar that still had such a device. I always liked juke boxes, in bars or diners. But this one was different. You talked to it and a sultry sounding female voice talked back to you! That is addressed here but dropped into the general, uninteresting stew.

The movie has one thing going for it: In a small role, it features the very young Anne Jeffreys. What a beauty she was, and doubtless still is!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, even American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance have more adult stuff now than WWE ( at least the auditions has a number of people abusing the judges) and here is WWE, plodding with one of the worst moves in TV history, by changing itself into PG. Now when I switch sometimes to see what's going on, this is what I get:

1) Hornswoggle, the ugly midget sharing his space with the main eventers for apparently no reason except for thrilling the young fans and of course beating Chavo Guerrero, a capable wrestler, in every match

2) A guest host (arghh....!) every week to spoil the teaspoon of fun which was otherwise present. All these host are cheap B-grade celebs trying to catapult to fame again, by cracking horrendous, 5 year old jokes and making silly references.

3) Cryme Time and a female wrestler (forgot her name, most probably Eve) giving lessons on various \"street\" words (sob) which are neither street nor cool. They were fun before, stealing stuff and being loud mouths.

4) The divas are clad in unwatchable outfits, tying their best to look \"sexy, smart and powerful (by the way, I hate this catchphrase) Remember when Torrie, Trish and Sable were there? Those were the times. Plus these divas are bad wrestlers, which adds to the misery. I have seen some old matches of WWE in Vintage collection and the divas over there were \"professional\" not amateur.

5) PG move restricts so many things: almost no blood during matches, DX being terribly irritating, John Cena doing even more of his patriotism act, crowd containing many children (who are so annoying), almost no \"heels\" etc

6) And yeah, why keep PPVs so often. One in every month, have they lost it? No actual feud or rivalry is ever created and the ones that are done look fake and just-till-the-PPV-gets-over ones.

7)Vintage Michael Cole and a few of his quotes:

\" Ladies and Gentlemen, you are watching the longest running television show in history\" (every week\"

\" The BRUTAL and VICIOUS assault by (he doesn't use it for anyone else) Randy Orton\/Legacy\"

\" A vicious attack on Stephanie McMohan, Triple-H's husband!!!???\"

WWE is now almost towards its demise. Hope Vince gets up from his slumber and does something ( bring back the TV-14 or attitude era) 2 out of 10 for the current state of WWE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is absolutely nothing like the WWF and the 'Attitude Era' of the WWF. I have always been a dedicated WWF fan and I never took a glimpse of its competition. Now, I rue the day that I wanted the WWF to take charge. At the least the WCW would try something new and radical all the time instead of keeping up as a mask of the actual intentions of the show and this holds true to ECW as well. The WWF has always been about Hulk Hogan, Andre The Giant, and other old wrestlers like so and the 'Attitude Era' only happened to catch up with the radical ideas of the competition. The WWE is the same trash as it was before the Attitude Era only dumbed down and demoralized. The wrestlers are terrible, the brand split is mind scrambling, and the story lines and stipulations are non-existent. The WWE is so bad that it ceases to even be a former shell of itself by pushing characters and wrestlers into the main event suddenly and by retaining barriers of creativity. Sure, the show shakes the brains of sweet, innocent, and easily brain-washed children and meager, lousy, pariah, stupid people of the Internet Wrestling Community that actually consider the company anything good. Anybody that even shudders and rests on the thought that this show and product is good can go straight to hell.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why does this piece of film have so many raving reviews?

This is amateurish, unfunny and annoying.

The only memorable thing here is the corny title song.

The production values are low and the \"comedic\" (if you want to call them that) ideas are weak, they seem like leftovers of leftovers from SNL that even they would not dare to have put on the screen.

I'm beginning to thoroughly mistrust IMDb ratings.

This is light years away from Kentucky Fried Movie - not even in the same Galaxy.

It's not even possible to write 10 lines about it.

OK, another good thing: ugly street scenes and ugly people - something one doesn't get to see a lot in todays TV and Movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found my tape of this long forgotten 'show'. Besides the Theme song 'DISCO BEAVER FROM OUTER SPACE'. This show is barely watchable. You will be flipping through channels,just like the couple flipping through the TV channels. This is a parody of TV.

The beaver is cool. The homosexual Dracula, the chick discussing her Peria experiences and the lady with the overly big lips discussing homosexuality show us everything that is wrong with TV. It is all BAD. Just like the beaver from outer space who seems to be lost in this new world, you will be too. *** out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is truly abysmal. I just got a copy of \"Disco Beaver From Outer Space\" after hearing good things about it, and I have to say, this was just so incredibly unfunny and bad, it will leave you numb and mystified how this ever got made.

I mean, what was it? Is it that this is typical late 70's humor? I don't think so. This is just so bad, and believe me, I don't mean \"so bad it's good\" either. This is a collection of extremely unfunny skits as if you are watching cable TV. Sure enough, this was an HBO program, and to think this may have been considered groundbreaking is scary.

There is one somewhat pretty girl in it, and there is some old NHL footage of the NY Islanders hockey team, which is fun to see even though I am a lifelong NY Rangers fan. But they even mess that up, as they try to get some humor out of two hockey players scuffling on the ice as if they are \"dancing\" and, even worse, reverse the videotape of two hockey players fighting to make it look like they are having sex. Oh, how funny! In one slight bit of cleverness, there is an interview a hockey player named \"Chico\" who resembles NY Islander goalie Chico Resch, but they even blow this by having him wear a Rangers jersey! Well, maybe that was intentional, who knows.

The bottom line is, \"Disco Beaver\" is just so blatantly horrible, so unbelievably bad, you will definitely feel cheated after watching this and wasting almost an hour of your life. You'll wonder what possibly made the makers of this garbage think they had something funny here, and you'll also wonder why these skits can't even come close to the worst Saturday Night Night slop. Incredible. Just incredible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only good part of this movie was the ending. You know the part of the movie where the lights come on and you leave to go home. No no that may be a little harsh - the dancing in the film was sensational but unfortunately that is where the plot ended. As long as the cast was dancing and not talking the movie went along well. As for Chayanne's debut - not too bad but hopefully his next film will have a little more depth. As for going to see the movie wait for the rental or TV. Do not make the same mistake I did and pay 8.50","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Chayanne is beautiful enough, Vanessa is beautiful enough, I liked the storyline. But I went in with the expectation to see lots of energetic hot salsa dancing, I was disappointed. There needed to be more dancing, especially salsa.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a devotee of Ms. Frank, I remember being so excited that the play was being re-made for TV. That is, until I saw it... This film is a prime example of how IMPORTANT casting is, and how directing plays such an important part in creating the sense of purpose. The casting of any CENTRAL role is CRUCIAL to a production of this sort...shows like AUNTIE MAME and MAN OF LA MANCHA are totally dependent on the charisma of the lead actor. And in the cast of this movie, the whole thing is destroyed by the atrocious casting of Melissa Gilbert in the lead role. There is not ONE SINGLE MOMENT that Ms. Gilbert even comes close to inhabiting the sensitive, mature spirit of Anne- Ms. Gilbert is \"white-bread\" throughout the movie... the only time I was close to tears was during the reading of Anne's most haunting line: \"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart\"- this is spoken by Ms. Gilbert so rushed, so lacking in conviction, that she might has well burped and achieved the same effect. Film and dance legend Marge Champion was the dialogue coach for this production- she should have refunded her salary! Despite Ms. Gilbert ruining DIARY, other performances are satisfactory for the most part- special kudos to Joan Plowright as Edith, Scott Jacoby as Peter and Clive Reville as Mr. Dussell. Maxmillian Schell does not have the deep-rooted soul and spirit as Otto as does the creator of the role on stage and film(Joseph Schildkraut), but he's okay. Doris Roberts and James Coco as The Van Danns are relatively superficial in their parts- they're shrill and bombastic, but again, only on the surface. This COULD be due to the fact that the pacing of the project is way too rushed(as noted in previous postings)- this film clocks in 45 minutes shorter than the film version- the difference owing to the pauses for dramatic effect, which apparently is necessary to propagate the appropriate MOOD for the story. This is NOT mandatory viewing, especially for youngsters learning about Anne Frank for the first time- stick to the original film version, and or even better, the TV production of ANNE FRANK: THE TRUE STORY starring Ben Kingsley, which is the CLOSEST thing to capturing the heartbreak and reality of Anne's situation ever filmed! Note: Especially appalling is the fact that Melora Marshall, who plays Anne's sister Margot, is NOT included in the opening credits along with all the other members of The Secret Annex... she's listed in the post-credits along with the actors playing Miep and Mr. Kraler. If I was Ms. Marshall, I would have SUED!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw and have the original 1959 black and white that stars Shelley Winters and Millie Perkins and no matter how many times I watch it, I can't help but not to cry.

This version was (obviously) a set, like the 1959 was, but there were so many mistakes in layout. Spiral staircase? Items that did not exist in that time period existed in the film. Doris Roberts, sad to say CANNOT play drama, she a comedic actress and that will not change. James Coco was a horrible Mr. Van Daan and Mr. Dussel resembled a college professor of mine rather then the dentist he was supposed to play. In the original film, Anne walked the \"gauntlet\" to go to Peter's room, that seemed to take her more then a minute. In this crappy remake, it took her under 10 seconds. The first reviewer was correct... This remake is just that, a remake. What was the director thinking casting comedic actors in a drama role like that. I'm sorry but James Coco cannot play drama. Max.. Schell was better in Deep Impact then this movie. The cranky Mrs. Frank was just that cranky, I couldn't stand her. Referencing and comparing to the 1959 version, I like her better, she did a better job of being the overwhelming mother. Out of 10 stars, I give this remake 3. Don't waste your time, get the 1959 version and a box of Kleenex.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is truly a re-make that should never have gotten out of the stable. It has two casts that are acting in entirely different strata. At the top of their game are Joan Plowright and Maximillian Schell. Every nuance of the Franks is in plain sight. at the rock bottom are Melissa Gilbert and Doris Roberts. I cannot imagine how Schell and Plowright manage to play so well when Gilbert and Roberts are working their anti-magic. Gilbert ruins every scene she's in. It's like Father Knows Best in the Ghetto. She's Ann Frank light. Her run at Helen Keller was thin but not awful. This is sacrilege. Doris Roberts makes Mrs. Van Damm merely annoying. She is a completely inappropriate choice to play the sexually hungry woman whose flirtatious, dissatisfied presence caused so much trouble in het Acherhuis. This needed to be played by a woman who could convince us that she at least remembered what it was like to voluptuous. Her weight is not the problem. Joan Plowright could have played this part beautifully. Roberts was on a career high when this was made, getting lots of press and many opportunities. Her performance here displays her weaknesses as an actress shamefully.

James Coco and Clive Reville, have most of their scenes with Gilbert and Roberts , and , strong though they are, they are completely incapable of undoing the damage done by their partners. Reville is a wily actor capable of the kind of iconic performance given by Ed Wynne in the original film. He gets no support from Gilbert . She drain the color out of every scene.

I've read with dismay the comments by those of you who grew up watching this version, filled with attachment to these performances. It's a lesson in how the version you see first attachs to you. It makes me reconsider my attachment to some inferior products I loved in my childhood. I encourage you to watch the original. It has very few weak spots and it's head and shoulders above this mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rarely have I seen a work of literature translated so badly to the screen. The hysterical cast of b-movie and sitcom extras simply make the characters seem like bad Jewish stereotypes. The worst of all is Melissa Gilbert, who you hate from scene one and never develop any sympathy for. Performances like this should be noted and used against actors who wish to work again. All in all, a seedy, low-budget made-for-TV film of the sort that gives made-for-TV films a bad name.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ik know it is impossible to keep all details of a book in a movie. But this movie has changed nearly everything without any reason. Furthermore many changes have made the story illogical. A few examples: 1) in the movie \"Paul Renauld\" really meets Poriot before he dies (in the book Poirot only gets a letter), telling him he is afraid to be killed. This is completely stupid because if Renaulds plan would have succeeded, Poirot would have known that the dead man would not have been Renauld.(Poirot was in the morgue when Mrs Renauld identified the victim). 2) The movie has \"combined\" two persons into one! \"Cinderella\" has been removed by the movie. The girl Hastings falls in love with and the ex-girlfriend of Jack Renauld are one person in the movie! Why for god's sake? 3)Hastings finds the victims cause he is such a bad golf player. Totally unfunny and stupid. 4) The movie tells secrets much too early (for example at the very beginning). So you know things you shouldn't know. 5) The murderer gets shot at the end by a person who doesn't exists in the book. Perhaps because the person (\"cinderella\") who stops the murderer does not exists in the movie. 6)The book is very complex. The movie takes only about 90 minutes. Sure it is difficult to include all the necessary details but it is impossible if you include stupid things which were not in the book and have no meaning (e.g. bicycle race).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Victor Buono as the Devil? Surely somebody must have been drunk when that casting decision was made. That's not the worst part of this silly mish-mash of sundry haunted house devices but it gets my vote for being the funniest part of it. While the film is by no means terrible it doesn't even approach other 1970's \"haunted house\" flicks like Amityville Horror, The Changeling and The Legend of Hell House. The Evil can be entertaining in spots, but don't expect to be scared. It's better approached as what it is: a silly horror film made all the sillier by it's over-serious approach.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a by-the-numbers horror film starring Richard Crenna and Joanna Pettet as a psychologist duo who purchase and old mansion and invite a small crew of friends and patients to help clean the place up. Unbeknownst to them, the mansion harbors a cellar door - the gateway to hell. If you are in the mood for a clich\u00e9d horror film, then look no further, but if you want something inventive, then this little film won't appeal to you.

VIOLENCE: $$$ (Rather subdued, albeit the scene where a guy cuts his hand with a saw - rather gruesome mind you. Fans of inventive deaths scenes will not like this as every character seems to be electrocuted in some fashion).

NUDITY: $ (Nothing to speak of. Mary Louise Weller adds the good looks but her character was underdeveloped).

STORY: $$ (Cliched, but view-worthy nonetheless. This offers nothing new to the genre but the casting of Victor Buono - who is about as menacing as a department store Santa - seems to have attracted a few viewers).

ACTING: $$ (The best performances are by Crenna and Pettet with the other actors simply \"phoning-in\" their roles. The screenwriter fails to develop any characters outside Pettet's character and seemed to have forgotten about Mary Louise Weller (Animal House) who disappears for about twenty minutes and only resurfaces to be electrocuted like everyone else in boring fashion).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I actually saw THE EVIL on the big screen. I saw it as part of a double feature during the early 1980s (don't remember the other film) when I was in my mid-teens. The film is bad, cringe-worthy bad. Embarrassingly bad. The effects are atrocious (you can clearly see the cable pulling the black girl across the floor). There's absolutely nothing scary about it. In fact I laughed throughout the film.

The story tried to create this big built up for the climax, when we're suppose to finally see who's responsible for all the evil goings on and we see greasy Victor Buono, who's as scary as an overstuffed Twinkie. Seriously, what where they thinking? Buono, who was a villain on the Batman TV series, is one of the hammiest actors ever to grace the big screen and I just cannot imagine anyone being remotely terrified of him.

THE EVIL is all but forgotten now (for good reasons)but it's actually a very funny film and I wish I could see this turkey again, just to see that black girl being pulled across the room by an unseen force with that very visible cable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Evil is about a big house where a bad spirit is foolishly unleashed to torture all inside. What a washout of a movie! There's not a single scary scene. Not one! Richard Crenna overplays a nothing role. There's some animated ghosts, a disfigurement by power saw, and a ghost-rape. After nothing special happens for almost the whole movie The Evil gets personified into...Victor Buono. Great! Where did the filmmakers get the idea that Buono is scary. He looks like he was on the bum for a guest starring paycheck to pay his liquor bill. By then its too late to turn it off, because the damn thing is over. I felt like throwing the videocassette out the window. Please avoid this junk! Hopefully it will never see the light of DVD and will fade into obscurity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry, folks! This is without a doubt the worst film I have ever seen. Sometimes when a movie is really bad you can joke about it and have a good laugh (like Plan 9 from outer space), this movie is so bad you can\u00b4t even enjoy it on an ironic level.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"yeesh,talk about craptastic.this thing is brutal.horrible voice dubbing,even more horrible acting and no discernible plot.apparently there are some great chase scenes,but the problem is,you have to get to that point first,and i just couldn't.the 20 or so minutes i endured felt more like a root canal than a movie.i suppose i could have fast forwarded it,and i recommend you do the same,unless you have very extreme pain tolerance or your a masochist.i don't fall into either category.i still have a migraine from this thing so i'm about to perform some dental surgery without anesthetic just relive the migraine.bottom line,horrendous. 0\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having been a Godzilla fan for many years, Gamera was to me a cheap knockoff to capitalize on the success of Toho's #1 kaiju star. ATTACK OF THE MONSTERS was for me at the time (1975) an almost painful viewing experience.

Last weekend, I attended the annual Godzilla fest, known as G-FEST, where Carl Craig, one of the stars of GAMERA vs. VIRAS, made an appearance. Of course, they featured this movie. It was one of the most hilarious bad movies ever made. Of course, you have to be in the right frame of mind to watch it. In one scene, for example, the boy scouts held prisoner on board the alien space craft manage to escape by distracting the not-too-bright aliens. When they realize they\"ve been duped, one of them says, \"That's funny...I think those kids lied to us.\" Not even PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE can boast that kind of dialog.

This may not be GODZILLA or even GAMERA 3, but this one is a decent enough time waster, if you watch it in the right frame of mind.

However, if you want top quality kaiju entertainment, check out the recently released GAMERA 3.

Rating: **1\/2 out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Destroy All Planets\" winds up settling for 'destroy all Tokyo' by film's end, as a space monster resembling a giant squid falls to the reptilian furnace known as Gamera. Actually, Gamera is saving Earth right from the get go, knocking out Varian Space Ship #1 even before the first set of film credits roll. The scene switches to a Japanese scout camp where we meet a pair of meddlesome young heroes, Jim and Masao, who take part in Gamera's exploits after being kidnapped by the aliens and beamed aboard their ship in an electrified bubble shield.

It's pretty startling to see the boys convince a scientist to let them operate a newly invented submarine that might be defective. Previously boy genius Masao had wired the unit to run in reverse direction of it's controls, but Dr. Dobie didn't think about checking that out as a possibility. At least that prepared the boys for interfering with the alien space ship's controls by playing switcheroo with a bunch of triangular blocks.

When boss alien Viras says 'Activate the Videotron', hang on to your seats for rehashed footage from earlier Gamera movies where he battles Barugon and Gyaos. These take up quite a bit of screen time, but are no match for the fast forward button if you want to get on with it. For the longest time Viras addressed an invisible crew, and when they finally appeared, they were Orientals who could fly - imagine that!

Seeing as how these movies were made for a juvenile audience, it's surprising to see how gruesome some of the scenes are. Gamera drawing blood comes to mind, and how about the pair of space crew members being decapitated. When squid tentacles started emerging from the headless bodies I made a connection to the 'Alien' films; having the individual units merge to form the giant Viras was a neat device.

I guess the appeal for young kids might reside in identifying with the two young heroes who make friends with a giant monster, move around pretty freely on an alien space ship, and get to have whatever they want with the help of alien telepathy technology. Seeing as how the movie was presumably made by adults, it could have been a simple case of wish fulfillment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Gamera vs Viras was made lazily and much of it suffers as a result.

Space Aliens try to take over Earth and are stopped by Gamera. So they send another ship that manages to kidnap two young boys. The aliens then take control of Gamera and get him to attack mankind.

First of all I must say that I really enjoyed the monster fight at the end between Gamera and Viras. Viras looks like a big squid with a beak. He has no energy weopons and does not shoot any rays out but he can close the apendages on top of his head to make a sharp pointy weopon. SO overall this is not a bad monster for Gamera to fight and is decent. Viras really injures Gamera badly by stabbing his underside of his shell with his pointy head and I am surprised Gamera was able to survive this.

Unfortunately Gamera vs Viras decided to use footage from previous Gamera films to fill time for this film. They re show the battles between Gamera and Barugon and Gamera and Gaos when the aliens look at Gameras past battles. However when they show Gamera's battles with Gaos they show the battle between Gamera and Gaos in the city first, then they show the final battle between the two. After they show re used footage of the final battle between Gamera and Gaos they show the FIRST battle between Gamera and Gaos!!! Talk about showing the battles in non chronological order. THey did not even need to show the first battle they should have just stopped after they showed the final battle between the two.

Another issue is that they decide to re show footage of Gamera attacking cities when the aliens order him to attack Tokyo. So they show the scene from \"Gamera vs Barugon\" where he destroys the Dam. After the show scenes from \"Gamera The Invincible\" which is a huge issue for me. Mainly due to the fact that \"Gamera The Invincible\" was in BLACK AND WHITE!!!! Using stock footage from a black and white film in a COLOR film is really lazy and that is not a good thing.

Also the dubbing is bad once again. The two little kids are not that annoying but it would be nice to see a Gamera film that did not involve little kids.

So the over use of footage from other Gamera Films is a deterrant to this film. The final fight is awesome so basically I recommend skipping to the final ten minutes and watching this film. The rest is something that has already been seen before.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"More of a Frisbee like turtle with fangs that go up like a wart hog. More battles with people in bird suits that look like people in bird suits. A ping pong ball space ship. Two naughty boys who know how to do everything, including getting on board the space ship. More tiresome music. More \"Gamera is the friend of children\" stuff. I remember when Godzill and Rodan came out. The movies were a lot of fun because the monsters were actually a threat to people. Now they are just a parade of silly costumes with very little behind them. The adults are all ridiculous and moronic. Like in American sitcoms, the kids are the bosses (when in reality they couldn't think their way out of a paper bag). These monster movies must be the Japanese means of partonizing these little snots. Above all, however, is that after seeing three of these movies (with the same plot over and over; check the stock footage), the ultimate conclusion is that they are boring. If you haven't see this one, don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It must be remembered that the Gammera movies, like many of the first-series Gozilla films, WERE in fact aimed squarely at kids. Little Kenny and his cohorts are living out the daydreams of the kids in the audience: they get to run around and play with top-secret stuff while the adults stand by and allow it; they get to cavort with monsters, and even when the bad guys enter, they are never in any real danger.

Perhaps the first Gammera film is an aberration because the child DOES get punished and IS put into danger, but the rest of the series is pure wish fulfillment.

As one critic said, these aren't failed adult movies but successful kid's movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The photography is accomplished, the acting is quite good, but in virtually every other department The Greek Tycoon is a dreary bore. Taking its inspiration from the real-life love affair of Jackie Kennedy and Aristotle Onassis, the film is a glossy but absolutely empty soap opera of the kind that can be found on TV all day long. Viewers who embrace the whole \"celebrity magazine culture\" (paparazzi photographs and gossipy stories about the rich and famous) will undoubtedly find much to whet their appetite here. But those who prefer films with a bit more substance and craft and quirkiness will find the 107 minute running time a butt-numbing slog.

American president James Cassidy (James Franciscus) and his beautiful wife Liz (Jacqueline Bisset) are in Greece on official business. A ridiculously wealthy Greek shipping tycoon, Theo Tomasis (Anthony Quinn), catches sight of Liz at a party at his elegant manor. Despite the fact that both of them are married to someone else, there is an immediate attraction between them. Later, at a private party aboard his yacht, Tomasis makes his desires known to Liz. Some while later, President Cassidy is assassinated whilst out strolling on a beach. Liz is shocked and saddened by his death, but it isn't long before she seeks comfort in the arms of her Greek lover Tomasis. Eventually the two of them are married and their love affair becomes a favourite talking point for the world's newspapers, magazines, photographers and wags.

It is somewhat amusing to note the vigour with which the producers of this film denied that it was a dramatisation of the Kennedy-Onassis story. They wanted the film to be seen as an original story, rooted in fiction. But anyone with a brain can see from where the movie is drawing its inspiration. Even Aristotle Onassis himself knew The Greek Tycoon amounted to his love-life getting the Hollywood treatment (if rumours are to be believed, he actually had a hand in approving Anthony Quinn for the Tomasis role!) J. Lee-Thompson isn't really the right sort of director for this type of movie \u0096 he's better suited to action fodder like The Guns Of Navarone and Ice Cold In Alex \u0096 but he marshals the proceedings with an uninspired, professional adequacy. Quinn is very watchable as Tomasis; Bisset looks lovely as the object of his desires; Franciscus uses his toothy smile and a fa\u00e7ade of integrity to make for a believable politician. Their performances are good on the surface, but there's little for the actors to do on any deeper level. Similarly, Tony Richmond's photography gives the film an elegant surface sheen as it moves from one exotic locale to the next, but the merest of scratches proves that there's nothing behind the film's glossy exterior.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw The Greek Tycoon when it first came out in 1978. I found it extremely boring. I thought it was no better than a travelogue except for one thing: For the first time in my life I realized why it would be good to be rich. Seeing the scenery off Aristotle Onassis' yacht and getting my first real peek into the lifestyle of the rich and famous opened my eyes. To paraphrase Martha Stewart: It was a good thing. Funny, I don't remember the sex scene. I hadn't seen the movie since it was on the big screen and found the lovemaking session with the mistress memorable this time. Maybe because I was younger and single back then, it was no big deal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am ashamed of myself that I actually went to the theatre to watch this movie when it was first released. While I suppose its thinly veiled depiction of the Aristotle Onassis and Jackie Kennedy story is well enough done, it's a movie that should never have been made in the first place; hence, my low rating.

The film chronicles the tale of a wealthy Greek business shark called Theo Tomasis, who woos and wins the lovely young widow, Liz Cassidy, of a slain American President. Sound familiar? Yes, everything except the names.

The cast is not to be faulted. Anthony Quinn plays the Greek tycoon to perfection, and at least it's some consolation, having just read that Ari himself requested Quinn for the role. Jacqueline Bisset is of course beautiful and sophisticated in the part of (for all intents and purposes) Jackie, and James Franciscus has the all American good looks of the President.

I haven't seen this movie since it came out, nor do I wish to see it again. I seem to recall a fair bit of bad language and some general crudeness. Otherwise, I suppose it's a sensational and supposedly intimate glimpse into the jet setting lives of the rich and famous, frolicking aboard their yachts, beaches, pools etc. Yes, the scenery of the Greek islands is spectacular, the best part of the movie.

Of its type, it's okay, I suppose. There are no end of TV movies about the Kennedys, which I confess to occasionally tuning in to, and not to my credit. This is basically just another. Far better to allow Aristotle and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis to rest in peace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie serves up every imaginable Greek stereotype. In one particularly galling scene the tycoon says \"I'm just an ignorant peasant.\" As the grandson of Greek peasant immigrants who passed on a legacy of wisdom and love to their children and grandchildren, I found this movie contemptible and odious.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The action scenes was quite good. But the plot of the movie, I would have to give it a score of 1 out of 10. It seems that the producers and director of this movie didn't thought about it carefully?

It doesn't give much value and values to it's viewers except for it's violence. The entire story was about revenge. A boy witnessing a rape and murder. I would even recommend it to be banned. Those who watched it, you've just lose some money. If you're thinking of watching it, watch something else. I would ask for a refund if I was on a movie theater. So for you guys and girls out there reading this article. Please don't waste time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"May Contain Spoilers.

An innocent trailer park or maybe 'Compton' LA white kid witnesses a terrible childhood tragedy relating to drugs and violence. An unprofessional but dedicated police partners try to take down a 'sophisticated' high end club drug ring only to be fired and chewed out by the the drug lords high priced attorneys. The plot thickens as more people come back to seek vengeance and justice with a predictable ending. The only memorable part was a walk-on by Ron Jeremy.

If I was in a movie theater I would have asked for a refund. I feel sorry for the poor actors in this movie. It was just awful and painful to watch. The worst part was the cinematography were the director kept flashing back within the same scene so the sound would not quite match. And NO it was not a codec nor DVD problem but an intentional technique. Ughh. Two Stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I suspect this board will soon be full of comments from over-emotional people praising \"Dear John\" as a \"pearl\" and a \"rollercoaster ride\" and all the other vacuous words this film's target audience typically employs.

I am most definitely not this film's target audience, but I do not dislike romantic dramas either, as long as they are well made, so here is my objective take on the flick.

It is not good.

It's not a bad movie either. But the plot meanders, development stagnates where it should've been moving forward (right around the middle, to be precise), and as for the ending...it almost felt as if they had run out of ideas so they suddenly said, \"Hey, let's just film a last scene real quick, put some sentimental string soundtrack over it, and end it that way.\" Even Amanda Seyfried's beauty could not save this. Channing Tatum too gave a good performance, but you can only do so much with a flawed script.

Speaking of the music, it is unbearably predictably and kitchy. From the smokey voiced, irritatingly high-pitched female folk singer schtick (surely chosen to appeal to the majority of college-age girls that will go see this movie) to the overused \"shimmering strings and piano\" combo, it only annoys anyone paying more attention to the film as a whole rather than to his own \"feelings.\" The film has a good beginning and the major conflict that launches us into the second act were all promising. So was part of the second act itself, as the story unfolded. Then the film just dropped the ball. Beyond that, I'd have to give spoilers.

\"Dear John\" is not a bad movie, but it doesn't work as it should either. If you want to see a truly moving film about prolonged love waiting to be reunited, go watch \"Notebook,\" which was truly superb.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie starts in spring 2001. A soldier named John Tyree (Channing Tatum) falls in love with college student Savannah Cutis (Amanda Seyfried) while on break. Within the space of two weeks they fall madly in love with each other (!). But he has to go off to war and she has to go to college. They do but keep in touch by writing to each other. Then 9\/11 happens. He wants to reenlist--she wants him to stay home. What will they do?

Hysterically bad romantic drama. The leads ARE attractive--Tatum is certainly a handsome man with beautiful green eyes and a hot body (he's introduced walking shirtless out of the water after surfing)...but he can't act. Seyfried is a beautiful woman and she tries...but the dialogue here is horrible. When I saw it me and a friend of mine were fighting hard NOT to laugh out loud at some of the \"romantic\" dialogue at the beginning. It was just HORRIBLE. For the first hour or so I was either bored by the ridiculously predictable drama or amused by the horrendous \"romance\". Then, after that first hour, tragedy kicks in and, I must admit, had me in tears. However the filmmakers go out of their way to make sure that you're crying with death, funerals and meetings with people breaking down in tears. How can you NOT cry? This would have worked if the acting were better. Tatum's face never changes expression--not ONCE! He always had a blank look on his face. Seyfried was a LITTLE better but not much. To make it worse Tatum and Seyfried had no sexual chemistry on screen at all! They barely looked like they liked each other let alone love each other. There was some beautiful photography of the Carolinas but this is a boring and stupid romantic \"drama\". A 1 all the way...and I usually love silly romantic dramas like this!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having read this story a while ago I was very excited to see the movie. I read the book again. It is one of my favorite Nicholas Sparks books. What I think what makes the story is the relationships. That was the down point for me in the movie because I think the relationships were poorly expressed in the movie. I have no idea what the point of changing main characters roles (Tim's and Alan's characters). The movie didn't at all capture John and Savannah's relationship. Maybe if you haven't read the book you might like this movie, but I thought it was so dull compared to the book. I thought Channing was a great pick for John,but I had a feeling he was going to bring all young adults out to watch it, so I think it was more geared towards them. The ending cuts the whole point of the book out so I was also unhappy with that. I was hoping the movie was more like the notebook or a walk to remember and the way they captured the books. I do feel like I wasted a Friday night out and 10 bucks on a sappy love story, not at all the story I was expecting to see.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had the potential to be a very good movie in my eyes, Nicholas Sparks is a great romance author and this movie had every chance to be just as great as The Notebook but whats sets the two apart is the notebook had a dream team of leads in McAdams and Gosling but here the balance is thrown miserably off by the inept acting of Channing Tatum

I felt a lot of the scenes were uneven purely because of his performance, a lot of the emotion in various scenes is lost because he cant act, leaving an awkward and uneven situation, Amanda Seyfried given a great performance only to have Tatum drop the ball and the mood is lost and the scene cant recover.

This story deserved to be cast right, but what it got was a pretty boy who cant act. Tatum should stick to what hes good at, movies that are more about his physical ability, albeit horrible, like GI JOE, step up, and Fighting. The less he talks the better.

Try not to think of me as a jaded hater of Channing Tatum I went in to this movie with an open mind, because I've been surprised many a time by the likes of Adam Sandler in Reign over Me. I gave the same chance to Tatum I didn't view him here as the sum of his past roles, purely just by his performance in this movie, which sadly was a letdown","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking forward to seeing two bright young actors appearing in \"Dear John,\" but it was very slow moving; and I felt that both the screenplay and the direction hampered the flexibility of the principle performers. I usually do enjoy film adaptations of these novels. Ironically, I did think the movie did an excellent job of depicting realistic military action.

The cinematography was very good at segueing through love letters, focusing just enough on a key word or phrase in each letter. I felt that Channing Tatum became bogged down in what became a very \"hang-dog\" series of expressions in response to loss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I rated this film as 2 is because Channing Tatumis beautiful however the whole film lacks emotion and was boring to watch. Usually I adore a good romance but this was just a waste of time, I didn't shed a tear despite it containing sad content it just wasn't acted very well at all. I'm no film critic but I just advise girls to avoid this really unless the only reason you're watching it is to see Channing Tatum lol the rest of the film is rubbish and if he wasn't in it (not that his acting was any good) I would have stopped watching much quicker. It's a shame really because if the right actors were chosen for this film it could have had the potential to be a real tear jerker. .. If you're looking for a good cry or a film for a girly night in...give this one a miss!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was talked into seeing this by a girlfriend..John was a good guy, sweet, sensitive and looks great with no shirt on!! I thought it was a love story about both of them but it was mainly about his reactions to her letters. Savannah was a likable character at the start of the movie but once she dumped him I lost respect for her. She said it tore her apart being away from him and it was hard - he was the one a million miles away, he was killing people and the only contact he got was through her letters!!! She didn't have it hard, she had family & money and he had a tour of duty!! I was so frustrated at the ending when he forgave her - he was too much of a sweetheart. I would have waited the 3 years and welcomed him home with open arms.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After reading the reviews I am so relieved to know that I am not the only person who was very disappointed in this movie! I am a HUGE Nicholas Sparks fan, have read ALL of his books, most of them more than once. Of course I LOVED The Notebook and A Walk to Remember...I haven't yet seen Message in a Bottle or Nights in Rodanthe so I can't comment on those...

But I did go see Dear John this past weekend and I was terribly upset! The movie was not good at all! When looking at the movie alone, and not thinking about the book at all, it was still a terrible movie. I did not get the rush and range of emotions from this movie that I have got from other movies I enjoyed, especially The Notebook. I was not smiling and laughing and crying and worried and scared...ever! From the very beginning all I could notice was how they changed everything! The only thing about this movie that is similar to the book is that there is a guy named John who is in the military and a girl named Savannah who is not....the part about his Dad being obsessed with coins is about the only other part that went along with the book. Everything else was totally off!!!! First of all, in the book, Allen was Tim's little brother, NOT his son! WHY they had to change that, I don't understand. It made a lot more sense how it went in the book when Tim was just a little bit older than Savannah and they grew up together and Allen was Savannah's inspiration for wanting to work with horses and autistic children....that didn't happen in the movie....ugh...And in the book they spent a lot more time together than just those initial 2 weeks and then the 1 night...why did they leave those times out??? I could go on and on and on but then I would run out of space! So basically, if you are a great fan of Nicholas Sparks, don't waste your time or money on this movie...just read the book again...because it's terrible and nothing like the book!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, let's start with the good: nice scenery, Channing Tatum is easy to look at, Amanda Seyfried has nice hair, that's about it. How much of this movie went on the editing room floor? Probably the plot, action, good dialogue, and point. Terrible acting, horrible choppy dialogue. Let me tell you how bad it is: my friend who always cries at movies got to the part that was meant to evoke tears, and she laughed so hard we thought she was crying! The movie seems to want to take a stab at too many issues- war, loss, autism, cancer, but fails so miserably to cover any one topic satisfactorily. Make sure you have something to munch on and your cell phone to return text messages!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Today, being President's Day, my wife and I had \"The Notebook\" DVD, checked out at our local library. It's a movie released in 2004 that fell beneath our radar, as we are big movie goers. I'm a published author with hopes of screen playing my first book. I'd noticed references to \"The Notebook\" in reviews of other movies which is why I brought it up about us watching and this morning provided the perfect opportunity. We both really liked it. It made my wife cry; we could relate to many things in it with our own, continuing love affair and even I fought back choking up.

This afternoon, after lots of chores, yard work and eating, we decided to actually catch a matin\u00e9e. When we got to the theater, having seen most of the current batch of films playing, we elected to see \"Victoria Day\" which for some reason was not at the theater, even though both IMDb and my phone movies showed it playing there. So, instead we looked at the poster for \"Dear John\" and that it was written by the same writer as \"The Notebook\", making it the obvious choice as we enjoyed 'TN' so much.

What a disappointment! First, the characters did not have the same believability or sense of empathy as 'TN'; and we kept commenting throughout all the similarities -- two dozen or so -- quickly causing us to realize this movie was nothing but, as another reviewer commented, \"a poor man's Notebook!\" It had a real 'cash cow' feeling, meaning the Sparks simply threw a story together, based on the exact template of 'TN' simply to make a quick buck. Not only that, after the 'bug-eyed' trollop improbably 'Dear John's-John' for the wimp cancer patient, we ridiculed the movie with each, passing soapy stupid line all the way through to the end. There were only about 6 of us in the theater during this 4:45pm Monday matin\u00e9e and my wife even told me to keep it down so I wouldn't ruin it for the others...it was so bad.

Seeing this on the heels of 'TN' ensured that the rip off similarities were vividly recognizable and Sparks blatant, cheap attempt at template writing painfully obvious. We only wish we could've seen \"Victoria Day\" instead...no matter how bad it might've been after seeing this poor entry to cinema. And oh..., for the last 30-minutes, I kept saying \"...don't give that cow the coins ...don't give that cow the coins?\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i was extremely excited for this movie! my expectations were under control because i read the book first sooo i expected differences. what i didn't expect were how great the differences were. Starting off by the characters physical appearances...like Channing Tantums lack of tattoos n Amanda Seyfried not being a brunette lol but i let that go...the character developments were not there at all...you didn't have time to love amanda seyfried character and you couldn't feel for her or for john when they first separated...i thought the two weeks were rushed and i hated that she left first then him...it took the emotional separation away...and why did they change Tim from the book...why did they make him a dad instead of a brother and why did they make him sooo old looking and the movie lacked that intense moment when they find out what happens at the end (didnt want to spoil it lol but for those who watched it u know what i mean) and whhhyyyy ooooo wwhyyyy did they change the ending...in the book it was heartbreaking and emotional and it emphasized on Channing Tatums character's decision whhyyy did they twist it...it just made it look like a rushed ending...it was terrible...thats what disappointed me the most...the ending of the book should have been exactly the same :(","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, it's watchable if you are sick in bed or have nothing else to do. The suspension of disbelief required to get through this movie is significant though. First, in today's modern society do you believe college coeds get THAT committed to someone in that short of a period of time even if you are a \"virtuous\" Habitat volunteer who likes autistic kids? And the 2 week romance blossoms into a letter exchange that leads to John's \"conflict\" of whether to re-enlist right after 9\/11\/01...REALLY? He asks her what to do? Every guy we know was NOT gonna be sitting on the sidelines after those Towers came down(my husband was one of them and I love him and am proud of him for going) John's character is so flat. He's nearly expressionless the entire movie. He's good looking but not Spec Ops...he seems unsure not confident, quiet instead of a hell-raiser, no tattoos, gets into a \"fight\" with the preppy boys that is nothing more than a pushing match really...walks around without a cover on his head nearly the whole movie...and there are military technical flaws everywhere (epaulets upside down?). The war scenes are dumb...John and another guy heading off on their own...huh?, then other guy gets shot and John drags him 10 feet and starts giving buddy aid before securing the area or back-up arrival or even having their backs against cover...it's a gunfight for God's sakes, you don't stop fighting until its over...heck I wanted to shoot John in the back. Back home, when the truth is revealed and she spills the wine...we hated her for removing her shirt in his presence...WTH? break his heart and THEN tease him into adultery? She's a head case trollop. Best part of the movie is when he drives away from her...at least he had some self respect and honor there. Overall unbelievable story and we generally did not care about these characters or their love. Dismal!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are a fan of either of the two origin franchises (Aliens & Predator...duh...and even if you liked or disliked AVP flick in 06) you WILL hate this movie. The innumerable plot holes, flakey and unbelievable human characters, terrible special effects and even worse directing and fight scenes make this one of worse films I've EVER seen.

***SPOLIER*** One of the HUNDRED huge plot holes included the Pred\/Alien hybrid going from chest burster, to full-grown bad-ass in seconds (it takes off on an onboard Predator-ship killing spree and wipes out a ship of Preds before the ship even breaks Earth orbit.) AS IF. In the first AvP we saw a ship of Sr. Pred hunters drop off three juveniles hunters going on an \"earning their stripes\" hunting party, and then in the end saw them picking up the \"honored body\" of the juvenile that was left over at the end of the flick. Are we expected to believe that the single chest burster hybrid killed all these Sr. Hunters before the ship even broke orbit? Also, (and this was EXTREMELY cheap production value on the director\/producer's parts) jars and jars and jars of face-huggers somehow magically appeared aboard the Pred ship, even though the entire temple complex and queen Alien were destroyed in the AvP flick. These face-huggers end up playing an intregal part in movie...of course. And how about all these face huggers becoming full-grown Aliens in a days time? What a joke. Although there were many many more plot holes, I don't think IMDb would appreciate me filling up their servers by writing them here.

On the flakey and unbelievable characters, well, where should I go boys and girls? Where to start...almost all of these goof balls are clich\u00e9 people from other films or TV shows. The town bad-boy who left to avoid jail time but shows up just on the day everything happens to save the day??? Where did I see that? Oh yeah, last season on JERICHO!!! Then there's the 20-something town sheriff (a former trouble maker himself) who was best-friends at one-time with the bad-boy. Where did we see that? Oh yeah, JERICHO and Walking Tall! Then there's the generic soldier (WITH NO RANK) coming home from some generic war-front that isn't met like a long-missed loved one and hero at the airport or bus station, but at her OWN front door by her daughter and husband. And who is this soldier? What did she do in the Army\/Air Force\/Marines\/Navy\/Coast Guard? We DON'T KNOW because the movie NEVER TELLS US. But ... dunh, dunh, dunh...she was some kind of soldier\/airman\/Marine\/sailor\/coasty that knows how to drive a Stryker Infantry vehicle and ...magically... A HELICOPTER!!! This character is just a generic copy of every \"coming home\" service person...except that she brings home a set of night vision goggles to her daughter that cost SEVERAL HUNDRED dollars. These are things soldiers have to sign for and don't just \"bring home.\" UGH!

THe special effects and fight scenes are what pi-sed me off the worst though. These are the things I enjoyed the most in the first movie...watching Preds and Aliens go at it! The way this was filmed though, the action sequences were so dark and filmed so close up that you couldn't tell what was going on. You couldn't see who was doing what and what was going on as they were fighting it out. All in all, these hundreds of items are going to kill this franchise and the fanchise. No one is going to care anymore about seeing their favorite sci-fi movie monsters, and can only guess that the series will go down from here as producers won't like dump millions of dollars more on a sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst movie I've ever seen, and it takes the price of the rotten movie of 2007 (which is made by me), anyway this movie misses every single ingredients of a good movie, I mean come on the actors had a bad performance, the story is just crap. I'm really, really disappointed they could have done better stuff, than this piece of junk. I've just wasted my time and my money on this movie. I wish that the production company could give back my money. Anyhow I'd high expectations on this movie, and I've got disappointed. I don't recommend anybody to watch this. so if u wanna waste ur money on something do it on some thing else than this piece of junk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where to start?? I think only three other films have led me to post a review on IMDb, and all of those were positive. As for this..?

Mind-blowingly, hideously, tragically, embarrassingly, catastrophically, stupidly, irritatingly, completely and utterly beyond awful.

I am STUNNED this got made, never mind given a theatrical release. I think I am literally in shock.

I'm no \"snob\". I didn't expect beautiful film-making or intense character-depth, but this is truly beyond a joke. We simply MUST demand more from the films we see.

Avoid. Like the Black Death.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Holy crap, the beginning picked up where the first one left off (good start). Then it goes downhill from there. You it looked like as if you were watching TV and you keep on switching between this teenage soap opera, a Predator movie, and some crappy detective show. The characters that are introduced in the first ten minutes don't have anything to do with each other until the final 45 minutes or so (the characters of the teenage soap opera and the actual Alien story).

Then for the end the producers were quickly running out of money and decided to end the movie so they decided to drop a nuke on the city.

P.S- What the crap is the deal with the cameras being so zoomed in you can't tell what's going on? Seriously, movie makers, do a good job with fight scenes and make it to where we can see the fight.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you like me enjoy films with plots and convincing actors then Alien Vs Predator- Requiem is probably not the way to go. In summary, alien lands in typical American town, Predator lands in American town, both have a bit of a fight, US government blows up town, some people get away.....I'm sorry I think I might have spoilt the ending. Its easy to criticise someone who's being critical; people cry out, I bet you couldn't do any better! I bet I could ! Having made this film,watched it and then turned to congratulate each other with a pat on the back and a job well done; there must surely have been the spectre of lunacy in the room.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mmmm, a previous summary says \"if you like aliens and predator you will enjoy this film\" i could not disagree more, this film pays no respect to its weighty lineage and has reduced two of the best loved sci fi strands to little more than a teen horror slasher movie, it has none of the tension or foreboding present in previous alien or predator movies and there is no discernible lead character, i really did not care about any of the characters and i positively yearned to see the stereotypical cast die as soon as possible in the vain hope something better would replace them, it really takes super human incompetence to have two of the most fearsome creatures ever invented positively fail to make a gripping thrilling movie, only watch this if you want to see how NOT to do it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Against my own better judgment I went to see this film today, and God I wish I hadn't. Awful. The first AvP film looks like a classic compared to this, it's THAT bad. These guys actually make Paul WS Anderson look like a master storyteller. In fact, this is what I'd expect an Alien and\/or Predator film to look like if it was made by Uwe Boll! This movie actually offended me, and Lord only knows what would transpire if Ridley Scott or HR Giger were ever forced to watch this piece of crap. I can't understand how any fan of either franchise could like this film.

Truly I don't know where to begin. I mean, the first AvP was poop, but it at least a semi-interesting story and setting, and occasionally some genuine tension. It didn't take itself overly seriously and it could at least be semi enjoyed on a purely \"leave your brain at home\" basis. But this one, it felt to me as though the people behind it thought they were making the next horror masterpiece. One after the other was a contrived 'suspenseful' scene in a dark room or corridor with creepy music playing, essentially bashing you over the head saying \"be scared NOW\". As James Cameron once said, you can't be told to be scared, you can only have your own senses heightened. The guys that made this film obviously weren't paying attention because they tried everything in the book to force you to be scared rather than letting you come to that level yourself. It's a clich\u00e9 for internet nerds to say \"God, I was so bored from this movie and felt like leaving\", well this is exactly how I felt, even in the middle of the action scenes. They took this film totally seriously, which removed any possibility of enjoyment. Even the gag about how governments don't lie to their people was played without a hint of irony.

As for the characters, I knew going in that the human characters were going to be completely pointless to this film but seriously if they're going to be on-screen at least have them doing SOMETHING that is relevant to the story. I don't care about this guy being beaten up by his dreamgirl's boyfriend, I don't care about the mother who's \"own daughter doesn't even know her, boo-hoo!\" (a pair of night-vision goggles for a present? Give me a break!) or the released criminal just trying to make a decent living and set an example for his brother, what a guy. Hell, even the obligatory hot-chick-in-panties moment was more contrived than usual. I get the feeling they expected the audience to be so shocked at the ending, as well as seeing chestbursters come out of kids, expectant mothers being raped and the like, that that would make up for everything. I don't think so.

Then we move onto the stars of the film, and again very little to write home about. Were the aliens well-designed? I wouldn't have a clue because you can never see the damn things. All you see is one of a mouth, a head, a tail or a really dodgy cg outline climbing a wall, and barely enough to actually process that it is in fact an alien before Mr \"I cut Marilyn Manson and NIN music videos, think I'll do the same thing here\" Editor goes at it with the slice tool. Also, notice how hack action directors always set their films at night and in the rain? Hmmmm. The Predator could've been fighting giant sea monkeys for all we knew! Yes, the Predator was more impressive this time around, and I did think some of the new weaponry was cool, but that was about it. Also, since when does a Predator sound like a dinosaur from The Lost World? There were a couple of things that I kinda liked though. One was the use of sound effects and music from the original films (I also giggled a little bit at \"Get to the chopper!\"), although other references were stupid (The main character's name being Dallas, give me a break). I also liked the visual FX for the Predator's vision, as well as how the hybrid alien looked (certainly beat the one from Resurrection). But really, those are the only positive things.

Overall I found this movie inane, pointless, insulting and above all else offensive to the vision of the original creators of both creatures. That they've left the door open for another one leaves me almost depressed.

If they had any decency they'd remove Dan O'Bannon, Ron Schusett and HR Giger from the credits of this film. They've done nothing to deserve this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is not the true story. It is the darkest possible fiction derived from the events. It endorses suicide, morose obsession with death, a totally gratuitous sideswipe at organized religion in general (and the Anglican Church, in particular) and generally provides a nihilistic, pointless world view from which filmgoers, I suppose, are intended to walk away, richer in their poverty and more hopeful in their hopelessness.

Utter trash, though attractively performed by a capable cast. That anyone would suggest this is a true rendering, however, is very much false advertising. You want the real story? Rent 'Fairy Tale'. That's the real story. See if you can find any correspondence between the facts presented in either case. I only found one: the girls who made the original photographs were pre-pubescent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, how I laughed during those first couple of scenes. This silly little film about an 11 year-old who carries a gun, steals cars, robs stores, burglars houses, extorts money from other kids, burns houses, shoots rats, buys drugs, distributes drugs to his mother and his friends, and then kills a guy. What a great comedy! But it wasn't intended to be a comedy. It was intended as a social drama. How can this be? The events in this film are absurd and ridiculous. The characters are all stereotypes right out of a 4 year-old's comic-strip-induced immature imagination. The dialog is laughable; people talk like morons. It's a very dumb film.

The first scenes are indeed very funny, for all the wrong reasons. But the unintentional hilarity of the idiotic premise runs out after a short while, and after that the laughs come only rarely; by that time the viewer can't believe what he is seeing and is alternately amazed and bored by what follows (if he has at least half a brain cell).

A short film, but feels like an eternity. The film actually IS a seriously-intended attempt to show the world of a young degenerate, while imitating movies vastly superior to it, like \"Fun\". There is just such an air of phoniness about everything; the kids, the adults, everyone lacks credibility both in their actions and dialog. The kid in the lead mugs his way through the film as though he had seen all the Jimmy Cagney movies at least a hundred times. And, typically enough, the kid isn't portrayed as a reservoir of evil, but, instead, as a misunderstood little artistic talent. But of course. Every young hooligan is misunderstood - society made him bad. Poor child.

The film is embarrassing; a collection of stale, occasionally hilarious clich\u00e9s put together to make a movie that lacks intelligence and meaning. The intellectual level of the film is zero.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is another notorious Mexican horror film: however, while the original Spanish-language version is quite tame, all sorts of gore and nudity were inserted for the English-dubbed variant (prepared by Jerald Intrator - who did similar duties on THE CURIOUS DR. HUMPP [1967\/71] - and, like the U.S. version of that film, had previously been available on DVD through Something Weird\/Image)!

I watched the original first and, while no great shakes, it was fairly engaging - especially with a plot as familiar as this one was: a doctor goes beyond the call of duty in attempting to save the life of his terminally ill son; he even has a hulking, game-legged assistant (played by Carlos Lopez Moctezuma, who had essayed a strikingly similar role - though in a more sinister vein - in THE CURSE OF THE CRYING WOMAN [1961]). I know that several Mexican films mingled horror with the \"Lucha Libre\" (Wrestling) genre but I had never watched one myself; this element is present here - in fact, the heroine is a wrestler - but the two styles are, perhaps thankfully, kept apart (that said, the wrestling sequences are competently done, with some of the moves proving highly amusing).

The doctor's son is transformed into a monster (looking like The Incredible Hulk with mud splashed over his face!) after having had an ape's heart transplanted into him - but, then, when this is replaced with that of a comatose female wrestler, he stays this way and grows a pair of fangs to boot (shouldn't he realistically have turned into a transsexual...though I guess that wouldn't have been very interesting)!! The climactic rooftop sequence in which the monster kidnaps a child and meets his demise at the hands of the police is reminiscent of THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942). My favorite unintentionally funny moments in the film, however, occur when the doctor, trying to comfort his son, tells him that he'll soon be cured - only to turn his back soon after on the verge of tears - and also the impatient look he gives his crippled assistant (as the latter staggers slowly into the car) when they're about to chase the monster who has escaped from the lab.

The alternate nude scenes work for the film (these were actually done by Cardona himself for a racier Mexican version entitled HORROR Y SEXO) but its reputation is largely based on the added material showing over-the-top violence, such as an eyeball being gouged out of its socket, a scalping and even a person's head being torn off. There are also several graphic operation inserts which, however, give rise to a goof: while it's made clear that only two people are involved in the operation, we see a third pair of hands constantly holding an oxygen mask to the patient's face!

The film is also said to be a loose remake of Cardona's own black-and-white horror film DOCTOR OF DOOM (1962) but, since I haven't watched that one, I can't say how much of it was actually pilfered for NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The following \"review\" is one from the wrong side of the tracks, meaning two things: You will hear nothing but praises coming from me and don't be fooled by my rating. I also could tell you that this review contains no spoilers, but technically... that's a lie.

Well,... Screw the review. I'm just going to ramble a bit. It has been a while since I had so much fun with such a bad film. And if you cannot enjoy this piece of utter drivel, then you simply have no sense of humor. First off, this movie was meant to be taken seriously, and that's the main aspect were the fun is coming from. The story? A doctor's son is terminally ill. Daddy-Doctor decides that a hart-transplant must be the only way of saving his son. So, in true mad-doctor-style, he decides that the heart of a gorilla will do the trick. Of course, the gorilla-heart is \"much too potent for a human\", so sonny-boy transforms into this hideous Ape-Man that immediately breaks free and goes on a killing and raping spree (because that's simply what any horny beast would do, isn't it?). The make-up of our Ape-Man is hilarious. There's simply no other way of putting it: The guys' face looks like a turd! I'm talking human excrement here, the solid brown kind! Beautiful! The gore in this flick is wonderful too: Aside from real footage of an open-heart surgery, we also have incredibly fake (but quite nasty) looking blood & gore effects: a decapitation, an eye-gouging, a throat-ripping, the scalping of someone's skull,... It's hilarious, and indeed it's quite incomprehensible why NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES ever made it to the notorious UK Video-Nasties list, because all of the nasty things portrayed in this film are simply too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Oh, and there's only one bloody ape running around in it too, by the way. So, needless to say that LA HORRIPILANTE BESTIA HUMANA is a much more accurate title for this terrifying and convincing tale of science gone horribly wrong.

When not trying to shock with poorly staged acts of bloody violence or random portrayals of female nudity, this movie manages to be highly entertaining with ingredients like nonsensical dialogues, cheap cardboard sets, plot stupidity and incredibly bad acting. Just a few random examples, maybe? About the sets: One can clearly see that the set-designers just used the same walls, doors, windows (etc.) over and over again to be build various different interior sets (e.g.: One side of the hospital room - the window side - where the unconscious wrestling girl lies, looks suspiciously similar like the window side of the basement-laboratory from where Ape-Man escapes; The set-designers also took one of the side-windows from the laboratory, made it a bit larger and just placed it in the conference-room of the hospital; All the walls in any building are the same grey-ones;...). Then there's the setting of the park. Clearly shot in a studio, you can see (on several occasions) that the grass is loose. Whenever there's some struggling\/fighting\/raping going on, the grass just shifts and shuffles and you can see the grey concrete from the studio-floor beneath it.

Just a few random lines that come out the actors' mouths:

-- In the conference-room where all the doctors are debating the disappearance of Unconscious Wrestling Girl (a disappearance that would of course mean bad publicity for the hospital), Daddy-Doctor intelligently utters \"We find ourselves in a situation that is difficult\".

-- During that same debate a colleague-doctor cleverly remarks \"A sleepwalker! Any sleepwalker gets up.\", hereby providing a solid excuse for the disappearance of Unconscious Wrestling Girl.

-- After our investigating detective, through the amazing process of his own logical deduction, concludes and tells his superior that the murderer must be a half man\/half beast, his superior answers that it's absurd, adding the line \"It's more probable that of late, more and more, you're watching on your television many of those pictures of terror\"... Truly one of the best lines of the movie.

Other sources of laughter:

-- The two scenes were Daddy-Doctor and his Igor-like assistant kidnap the gorilla from the zoo and Unconscious Wrestling Girl from the hospital - these well thought-out acts of abduction are like taking candy from a baby.

-- Daddy-Doctor speaks to God a lot, doesn't he?

-- Sonny-boy calling Daddy-Doctor \"Papa\" on more than one occasion.

-- An old lady screaming \"Aaargh!!! A dead man! A dead Man! A Dead Man!! A DEAD MAN!!!\".

-- The plot periodically stops to wallow in scenes of women wrestling, only to go on again and do nothing with that concept. Sure, Daddy-Doctor replaces Sonny-Boy's gorilla-heart a second time with that of Unconscious Wrestling Girl, but do you think something spectacular happens after that? Like Ape-Turd-Man growing breasts or something, trying to rape men this time? Our leading living wrestling beauty (Norma Lazareno) doesn't even go into a climactic wrestling contest with Ape-Turd-Man near the movie's finale... But Ape-Turd-Man does start to show some motherly love near the end... almost (and I say \"almost\") in true KING KONG-style (i.e. the top of a building and people on the ground pointing and screaming).

Okay, I think that's enough now. I chipped in more than my two cents here. Vomitron's Rational Rating for this sleazy piece of hilarious dreck: 2\/10. Vomitron's rating From the Wrong Side of the Tracks: 8\/10. Go see this film, people. It is well worth it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was a Mexican made horror film from the late 60s. It's not that good, but really not so bad either. There is plenty of schlock and it is padded pretty heavily with nudity and violence, but it had a plot and at least tried to keep to it (even if the plot was the same damn Frankenstein inspired \"don't tamper in God's domain\" b-movie fare). There was some padding mixed in with the female wrestling, but it was made in Mexico and wrestling does seem to be popular in Mexico.

The plot is that a doctor wants to save his son, who is dying from leukemia. The other doctors have given no hope for the poor guy, but dad has the idea of transplanting a gorilla's heart for his son's to save his life (I don't know, I'm a lawyer not a doctor). The transplant works, but sonny-boy ends up becoming a man-ape who terrorizes nude women and kills anyone who gets in his path. There's also a subplot involving a cop and his girlfriend who is a wrestler (this really didn't add too much, but if they wanted to throw in some masked female wrestlers here's a good reason to do so).

The film was kind of cheap, but not too bad for a b-movie of the day. The plot was basically just recycled and there were a few things that weren't tied in that well. However, this film is kind of fun in its own way (I don't know why, maybe because it's a Mexican horror film and sticks out in my normal bad movie diet). I guess it may be because it's a mix and mash of some very weird things.

Watch it if you like cheesy foreign films, nudity, and female wrestlers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dr. Krellman wants to save his son Julio who's dying of heart disease. He decides a heart transplant with an ape will cure his son (no--I'm not kidding). He does the transplant and (somehow) his son changes from a frail guy into a muscle-bound man with a dime store mask that (sort of) resembles an ape! Naturally he gets out, kills men, tears the clothes of women and wreaks havoc. This is all inter cut with the boring romance of police lt. Arturo Martinez and lady wrestler Lucy Ossorio. We also get pointless female wrestling sequences that add nothing to the plot. It all ends by copying the end of \"King Kong\"! This is (obviously) a pretty stupid movie. The plot makes little sense, there's the gratuitous female nudity (a staple of any exploitation film) and VERY graphic gore that looks laughably fake (except for the open heart transplant). Still this does have merit. The whole cast takes everything dead serious and actually aren't too bad as actors. Also the dubbed in dialogue was (for a film like this) well done and interesting with surprisingly good dubbing. Also I saw an excellent DVD print with bright strong color (which helps). We're not talking a classic here but an OK exploitation movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Acclaimed Argentine horror director Emilio Vierya directs a script from Jack Curtis and Antonio Ross. Cheesy and ridiculous are in the mix for the method to the madness. A doctor's son is nearing his early death, until his desperate father transplants an ape's heart into his chest. As expected, things are going to get weird; when this young man turns into a mask wearing monster and roams the beaches scouting out nice looking party girls to make his slaves. When heroin is injected, his beauties become zombies. The monster summons his dazed minions with strange organ music. So bad...well...it's just bad. In the cast: Jose E. Moreno, Alberto Caneau, Mauricio De Ferraris, Gloria Prat and Gina Moret.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cult purchasers are unquestionably familiar with the term \"video nasties\". This was a notorious British list containing all the films that could bring 'damage' to society if viewed by irresponsible audiences (dramatization). For gore buffs, this is an excellent checklist as it contains inhumanly cruel and disturbingly realist movies (Faces of Death, Cannibal Holocaust, Driller Killer) as well as outrageous and ultra-sick horror films (The Burning, Nightmare City, The Toolbox Murders). Keeping this in mind, it's quite unusual to see \"Night of the Bloody Apes\" listed among the other \"nasties\". It sure is gory\u0085but the blood and violence are so poorly presented I can't imagine anyone would be offended by it. And the silly plot (about a desperate doctor transplanting a gorilla's heart into the chest of his dying son) isn't exactly what you would call disturbingly real, neither. All that remains is a fairly amusing pulp-horror flick with awful acting and pointless sleaze. The man-ape make up effects are laughable and there's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere. Enjoyable only if you're in the right mood, in other words. The few sequences showing detailed matches of lady-wrestling (which one of the lead-actresses does for a living) are very cool.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Aside from the gunfight scene, I felt the movie was a waste of celluloid. Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner, and Annette Bening could have played those roles in their sleep. The dialog was marginally tolerable (and there was plenty of it--no one sat together quietly in this movie), the plot was all over the map as if they could not decide how many themes to cram into the story, there was no subtlety at all--foreshadowing hit you between the eyes and they led you by the nose through most of the story (I think they added all the dialog to make sure you didn't miss anything), and the editing really needed tightening up (each actor's screen time was more quantity than quality--again, too much dialog).

The entire story took place over the course of a few days, but everything that happened took on epic proportions, much like how day-to-day happenings seemed HUGE to you in high school, but in the grand scheme really weren't THAT important. Yes, the bad guys beat up and killed Mose, they beat up Button, they killed the dog--all things which would get Boss and Charley's blood up. But the importance was diluted by all of the \"deep, meaningful\" conversations which dominated most of the movie. These guys worked together for 10 years and they're just now talking about this stuff? The only time there wasn't much dialog was in the gunfight scene--which is probably why I liked it.

Finally, someone give Annette Bening a hairbrush! The wispy strands of hair around her face that were (I suppose) to make her look a bit more romantic actually made her look a little deranged. If she worked outside the home, it would have made more sense. Plus, why WASN'T she married already? There seemed to be several \"kind and gentle\" (her words) single men in town aside from the marshal and his cronies. In fact, none of the bad guys seemed to want her either (a usual plot device in other movies). She stayed cooped up in the house most of the time and really didn't seem to have much connection to the people in town. Makes you wonder......

In all, the movie was entirely too long, too chatty, and too contrived for me. It felt like a star vehicle with lots of screen time for the big stars, but not enough character depth to interest me, despite all of the dialog.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this film is what happens when people see like in this particular one blair witch project and say hell people running around with cameras, acting slash documentary themed no problemo i can do it and start out with a lame idea make up a terrible script and get a bunch of talentless actors and start shooting a film. plot is that in africa there a halfcaste a breed of man like animals who hunt and kill humans, the locals think that it's a demon or a evil spirit but our wild bunch are in africa to get some proof of there own. no need for more words on the plot this movie get's a 1 out of 10 and i am trying to find something good to say about this movie but after a long time thinking nothing nada zero null.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In this horrible attempt at a Blair Witch mockumentary, a bunch of people go to Africa to investigate a creature called the Half-Caste. It's pretty obvious that there was no script to speak of, and that everything was improvised. That can work if you have good actors, which this film didn't.

This movie tries to gain points for originality by exploring a more obscure myth and an exotic culture. As a result, there are a lot of scenes out in the bush where characters do \"quirky African stuff\" like eating elephant dung. There is also some pretty good footage of lions eating (from a National Geographic perspective) but there's not a single scare in the whole movie.

If you've seen Cannibal Holocaust or the Blair Witch Project, this movie will hold no surprises for you, and you can probably watch better lion footage on the Discovery Channel.

Definitely a Half- Aste effort.

A note to the filmmakers: guys, do us all a favor and next time save the \"How I spent my African Vacation\" home movie for your family and close friends. Nobody else wants to see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know those movies that are so unspeakably bad that you have to laugh? Half-caste wasn't one of them. Which sounds good, right? But no, it's not. It's not a bad attempt at a horror movie that's fun to watch because it's lame, or not well acted, or has bad special effects or anything else like that. No, Half-caste is just plain boring. They don't even make an attempt to be scary until the last 20 minutes are so. It's just kids running around in the African bush country and getting high off of elephant dung for the first 75% of the movie, and it's not even funny. The last 20 minutes, though, are HILARIOUS. I have no idea what happened, but it was really fun to watch that CGI leopard rip out the throats of all of those white guys I couldn't tell apart anyway. If you're in the mood for a bad horror movie, don't rent this one, because you'll go to sleep before they get to the fun stuff. If you do accidentally rent this movie, I'd recommend fast forwarding to the end, and skipping any scene that happens in daylight. You won't miss anything. You won't have any idea which character is which or exactly what is going on even if you do watch all of the back-story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I swear, I had never seen such a bad movie as Half Caste is. Not only because it just makes no sense, is a huge piece of egolatry and self-confidence that makes me puke.

Sebastian Apocada (in Spanish Apocada has a similar pronunciation to \"apocado\" which means \"out of life and happiness\") makes here a one man army movie thinking he is Sam Raimi or the boys who directed the Blair Witch project. This is the Blair Kittie project, with an expensive low budget.

The story, a couple of American Filmmakers that go to Africa to make a documentary of the Half Caste, is just no-sense. The way of filming, inserting high speed shots with slow motion shots, just revolts your stomach more than the stupid lines (what the hell is that dialog about Bestiality?) or the lame performances. By the way, I don't believe this cast (or caste?) is American, they all look European to me.

To finish this, just say that the filmmakers made an intelligent move about selling the movie. They put a fake award achievement (as most original film) and a nice cover (in Spain the cover had the Half caste image in negative), so I feel now unhappy, because I can't demand my 14 Euros back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a big disappointment. The plot sounded great, about a half-human, half-leopard creature in Africa that becomes the subject of a documentary by young American adults. When many of the crew members are found dead, the 2 survivors are taken into questioning. I wouldn't even call this a horror movie, since most of the movie is actually about the (mis)adventures of the aforementioned, narcissistic 20-somethings, which include sex and smoking animal dung to get high (isn't as entertaining as it sounds--trust me). You rarely get to see the creature, and the main actor (who also happens to be the director, screen writer, editor, and producer!) is incredibly annoying.

I was finally so annoyed by the never-ending dialogue that I fast-forwarded to the end. I had guessed the ending in less than 10 minutes into the movie...and I was right. Thus, this awful movie is utterly predictable, too--as if it wasn't bad enough. Moral of the story: avoid movies that are acted, directed, edited, produced and written by the same nobody. And avoid this movie, unless held at gunpoint.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Probably the worst movie I have ever seen. It is so cheesily filmed, the focus is not even on this supposed \"real half-caste\", it is more on the crew coming from Hollywood to make the movie. No cinematic significance whatsoever, and if I could take back the almost 1 1\/2 hours that I spent watching this film, I would feel much better.

At first, it starts out giving you the impression it will be filmed somewhat generically, like an actual Hollywood production. However, then they go into the narration of the story, and it's filmed so f***ing terribly. It's supposed to be a take on \"Blair Witch Project\" really, since they pretty much use what you would think is 'real camera footage', it's not, don't be fooled.

Worst movie I have ever seen . . . on the positive side, it has like one semi-scary scene in it, and the visuals of the half-caste weren't too bad looking at all. DON'T RENT","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember seeing this at my local Blockbuster and picked it up cause I was curious. I liked movies about mythological creatures. I like movies about werewolves, vampires, zombies, etc. This is based on half-caste, a half-human half-leopard creature that preys on the people of Africa.

The movie is horrendous! The actors are terrible! There is no script whatsoever! It's all improvised! The whole thing is filmed at night because they say that is the only time you ever see it. It's obvious bull*bleep*! They film at night to make it scary. But, they have failed to scare me. After the first person was killed, I put this back in the case and took it back to Blockbuster. One of the most boring movies I've ever seen.

Now you are probably saying I have no right to review a movie if I haven't finished it. Well, this is one of the films that didn't deserve to be watched all the way through.

1 star out of 10. This is really BAD!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An annoying and talentless American documentary maker learns of a legendary

South African monster, the Half-Caste. Tradition says that it is a half-human, half-leopard creature with the closest parallel being that of the werewolf of European tradition. Rather than focus on the creature, the film follows the meanderings of the film crew. There is little action or suspense until late in the film. This problem is exacerbated by numerous irritating characters generating a ceaseless amount of even more irritating talk. The basic premise is wasted since it is sidelined by the inexplicable focus on the documentary crew.

Perhaps the director was influenced by the approach of The Blair Witch Project (1999) or The Last Broadcast (1998). Regardless, the film fails on most levels. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terrible acting, terrible script, wholly unrealistic. The Bumblebee Flies Anyway exemplifies the cliches and sentimentalism that movie studios love to cram down viewers' throats. Elijah Wood is unimaginably bad in the primary role, and the plot points are contrived and sappy. Cook's and Wood's relationship is laughable at best. But the worst element of Bumblebee is the script. This is some of the most mind-numbingly bad dialogue I have ever had the misfortune to hear. Bumblebees actually crawling inside my ears and stinging my eardrums would be preferable to hearing Elijah Wood robotically spit out his pseudo-profound lines. I wish a \"Bumblebee Project\" would be performed on me, so I could mercifully have no memories of this stinker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie because Elijah Wood has done some good work and I thought this might be an overlooked treasure. It was not a treasure. I don't know if this was straight to video, but it should have been straight to the dump.

Elijah Wood fans will like the fact that he appears shirtless in a much-too-brief shower scene. But, no sane person would like this script. Imagine Memento played by teen actors, but ten times more confusing and a hundred times less plausible. Case in point: Janeane Garofalo plays a caring psychologist (apparently `keeping the chain of mediocrity alive').

As if false memories syndromes and mind-over-matter medicine weren't hokey enough, the movie also hinges on one of those unexplained psychic twin bonds that keep the plot moving and the audience baffled. This same twin bond creates a few too many contrived love scenes between Wood's character and the girl from She's All That, who plays the saintly sister of Wood's angry cancer-victim friend.

Adding to the triteness of this screenplay, Wood's other friends are a mentally challenged cancer victim and Kidney, a young black boy afflicted with a mysterious kidney disease. Kidney's dying wish comes true when Dr. Garofalo gives him his own Walkman. This character's hackneyed function in the story is matched by his on-again, off-again relationship to walking. Usually bound to a wheelchair, Kidney has several inexplicable scenes showing him pushing others around in it.

Kindey's characterization may be one small detail, but it is indicative of this film's many other flaws. The Bumblebee Flies Anyway is definitely bumbling, but it never flies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There ought to be some kind of prosecution to punish producers from financing screenplays this stupid. I feel that some kind of criminalization of bad film might prevent more films this idiotic from being made. Sure it has an interesting cast of characters, but I don't think I've ever seen a more cardboard performance from an entire cast as in this uniquely crappy piece of crap. That director ought to be punished somehow for not eliciting at least some kind of performance out of these people. So detachment is a theme, (no really, they'll beat you over the head with this one), it doesn't mean every character has to recite their lines as if they on NPR. Did I mention this movie was crappy? Lastly I'm not sure what connection one's memories would have with terminal bone cancer, but I'm reasonably certain if you were totally brain dead your cancer would continue to grow regardless. This movie is an insult to cancer patients, medical professionals, and non-retarded people. Oh, and lastly, bumblebees fly because they produce a sufficient amount of lift for their mass by beating their wings just like every other flying insect. I absolutely despise people presenting false knowledge as fact. Next time do a little research before using an imbecilic misconception as a premise for an entire freaking movie. JUST KIDDING BELIEVE IN JESUS!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know...I know: it's difficult (if not paradoxical) for there to be such a thing as \"believable\" fantasy. But, to me, there is also such a condition wherein TOO MUCH UNbelievability interfere's with, or distracts from my overall opinion of the movie. The latter was the case for me with regard to Goliath Awaits. Not only did I have too many unanswered questions concerning the storyline, but some of the acting, too, I thought, was a bit over-the-top. (Maybe, though, it was the writing: asking them to recite too many trite, predictable, cliched (over-?) reactions.) Others have said enough about the plot. I just wish that it was done - and, I think that it COULD have been - more convincingly. P. S.: This is a FRESH comment about this film - I just finished watching it a couple of minutes ago; not a recollection from years ago.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just finishing watching Goliath Awaits that I ordered from my library. I remembered it vaguely from years ago and wanted to watch it with my son. Anyway, the movie was less than 2 hours running time and I thought it was much longer when I first saw it. The back of the VHS box states that the Goliath \"emtombs a Nazi file whose secrets could destroy the free world forever.\" The divers were supposedly on a covert mission to retrieve the demonic document. There was nothing even spoken about retrieving this document. Also, the box says that the \"bestial ship's insatiable boiler feeds on human blood.\" That would make this a horror movie and there was also nothing revealed in the movie about this. I can't remember the details when I watched this years ago on TV...but could the back of this box actually be true? Maybe the 3 hour movie revealed more details??

Just wondering if anyone knows anything about this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, Dude Where's My Car might be at least a novelty as one of few Hollywood films that seems to have been written, cast, filmed & edited in less than a day. I honestly can't believe this got made (or that I allowed my friends to make me sit through the entire thing). The jokes are too stupid and predictable to be \"dumb-funny\", and the actors involved don't seem like they would be capable of pulling off any kind of funny had the script actually provided it. Oddly enough, unlike most mindless slapstick comedies, this movie actually has TOO MUCH plot - every scene seems to introduce a new moronic and uninteresting subplot. Of course, they were obviously going for moronic, but it doesn't work on any level whatsoever...There is only one aspect of this film I enjoyed: Donkeylips from the old Nickalodean show \"Salute Your Shorts\" has a very small role. This is the role that will turn him into the next Richard Gere though, you just watch...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There no doubt in one mined that this movie is stupid and unfunny joke, but tell the truth it is quite entertaining (if you re first time viewer and try not to analyzed anything) Over all the movie have a very good ideas but badly written.

The story of the two losers, waking up to find out that they can't remember what happen to them the day before. Only to find out later that they are after by the angry twin girl friends, aliens, transsexual stripper, Aliens nerds and some gangs members.

Isn't it like The Bourne Identity? Yeah yeah, I know - how can I compare the two movies, but what the hell? They both have no memories; peoples were after them and so on.

Anyway the movie is stupid and is only for the viewer that like stupid movie.

Reason To Watch: \u00b7 Loads of young talented actors, \u00b7 Very stupid (after all you know it a stupid movie, why not make it extreme)

Reason Not To: \u00b7 If you like to analyzed, then forget it, \u00b7 Talented Young actors turn bad, \u00b7 Good plod turn really bad

Rating: 4\/10 (Grade: E+)

------------ ------------ ---------- ---------- --------- --------- ----

'Dude Where's My Car' -wait, what do you expected from Ashton Kutcher's movie. I think almost every people got the same answer for this guy - 'A really stupid movie'. Apart from 'That 70s' Shows' this guy really has nothing to offer his fan. (He should thank the series for his reputation). 'Dude Where's My Car', is one of his trademark -'stupidity'. Somehow his film is even worst than Adam Sandler's movies, (can you imagine that). The movie is really non-sense, no story line, and no nothing. Mara Sokoloff, Jennifer Garner, Alison Sweeney and S.W.Scoot should not have wasted their talent on this garbage. They even came up with 'Seriously, Dude Where's My Car'. This shows how the movie companies are dying of making money rather than quality.

Max: 4\/10

Recommendation: Borrow it from your friends or just forget about it","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I am SO glad I watched this on HBO instead of paying for it in the theaters or video store. The movie has some points, but, if you want to make it a worthwhile movie, I suggest that you become what the main characters are called...stoners.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SO THIS IS where Columbia's head of their Short Subjects Unit got his Directorial start, eh? Yeah,it's none other than Mr. Jules White who is credited (or is it rather, \"exposed\") as the Director of this entry into MGM's DOGVILLE Series. Given co-credit as co-Director is one Zion Myers; whose name is heretofore unknown to us. Mr. Meyers was, no doubt, the guy who controlled the four-legged thespians and was responsible for training and \"acting\". In short, he must have been the Dog Trainer on the set.

THE TITLE OF this comedy short is no doubt a play on the MGM feature of the same year, THE BIG HOUSE; which starred Chester Morris, Wallace Beery, Robert Montgomery and a stellar cast in support. We must plead ignorance in regards to this title; not having seen it up to this point. (Sorry,Schultz!) But there are many of the doggie gags that relate to what we've read about the movie*; not to mention some particular character specific gags. For example, we observed a canine convict who st-st-stuttered and deduced,correctly, that the bow-wow actor was mimicking character comedian, Roscoe Ates. We later cross-checked with the cast of THE BIG HOUSE and presto, his name is there! (Brilliant deduction, one fit for Holmes & Watson!)

THE PRACTICE OF lampooning popular features was already a tried and true practice in the realm of the comedy short. It was one that seemed to draw no objections from the producers and copyright owners of the major films; but rather quite contrarily received heaps of tassive approval. After all, imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery; besides, any producer would welcome even some seemingly irreverent parodying.** AS FOR THE movie, itself, we found it to be interesting in a sort of perverse manner. Seeing so many of \"Man's Best Friends\" being so artificially animated into one, long and boring sort of anthropomorphic gag seemed very tiring to we, who make up the audience. I mean just how many pooches were made to bark, needlessly, in order to achieve the illusion of 'talking'?

WHEN IT COMES to pets, or \"Animal Companions\" as the Politically Correct crowd prefers, we are quite eclectic; favoring not only dogs; but also cats, hamsters and parakeets. We don't enjoy seeing any animal exploited in such a non-funny,extended play format.

AS INCREDIBLE AS it may seem, the step that Mr. Jules White made from MGM's Shorts to heading up Columbia's 2 Reeler production would seem to have been not only a $tep up in the area of finance$; but al$o in the Arti$tic Content. We never thought that being Producer-Director for the likes of such luminaries as the 3 Stooges, Andy Clyde and Hugh Herbert, as well as some who certainly had seen better days, such as Charley Chase, Buster Keaton and Harry Langdon; would be a step up cinematically.

IN CASE WE haven't made our point yet; we're officially panning this one. So, view it at your own risk. We warned you!

NOTE * We read excellent accounts of both THE BIG HOUSE and the Laurel & Hardy send-up, PARDON US (Hal Roach\/MGM, 1931) in both MR. LAUREL & MR. HARDY by John McCabe (1962) and THE FILMS OF LAUREL & HARDY by William K. Everson (1967). Both books have our most enthusiastic endorsement.

NOTE ** The Prison Picture became a Genre of its own; all owing a debt to THE BIG HOUSE. In PARDON US, Laurel & Hardy, Hal Roach and its Director did a first class spoof,the first of many; for a Prison comedy became a required theme for so many a screen funny man to come.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Five years after the US Civil War, western folk are more concerned with the age old war between homesteaders and cattle ranchers. The cattlemen herd their wares, from Texas to the trail town of Abilene, Kansas. There, the cowboys find not only big money, but also big confrontation, with homesteaders. Tall in the saddle Marshal Randolph Scott (as Dan Mitchell) tries to keep peace in the town. Mr. Scott has experience mediating between trail hands and saloon patrons. He also juggles the town's finest looking women: sexy saloon singer Ann Dvorak (as Rita) and pretty church lady Rhonda Fleming (as Sherry). Boozy county Sheriff Edgar Buchanan (as Bravo Trimble) offers more comic relief than sharp-shooting assistance.

\"Abilene Town\" begins with some promising symbolism and contrast: gunshots interrupt Scott and Ms. Fleming singing a hymn in Church; then, the camera switches to Ms. Dvorak sexily singing her saloon number, which causes a man to fire his gun in pleasure. After that, it really becomes quite a standard western; it is somehow duller than it should be, but not quite awful. Young Lloyd Bridges appears as one of the homesteaders. Dvorak's leggy costume is the film's greatest asset; in it, she is a real mover.

**** Abilene Town (1\/11\/46) Edwin L. Marin ~ Randolph Scott, Ann Dvorak, Edgar Buchanan","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this western\/musical\/comedy is not one of the best of the genre i have seen.i found it much too slow.it just plodded along to the inevitable end.i also found it disjointed.i couldn't wait for it to be over.Randolph Scott is the headliner here,and Lloyd Bridges also stars.but for my money money Edgar Buchanan is the best of the bunch.Buchanan appeared in many westerns in his day,many times providing comic relief,as he does in this picture.i also liked Ann Dvorak as Rita.otherwise,though,i can't think of much to recommend this movie.the movie is based on a novel by Ernest Haycock,who also wrote the novel Stagecoach,which was mad into a movie of the same name in 1939,and remade in 1966 and again in 1986.The 1939 version of Stagecoach,is in my mind,one of the best movies ever made.anyway.as for Abilene town,my vote is a 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It seems incredible that the same decade which brought Star Wars to the silvery screen disgorged such unutterable tripe as this and many other 'adventure' movies. I am reminded of the similarly lavish, but equally wretched 'Ashanti' outlined elsewhere.

Whatever motivated A-list actors to sign-on for such wastes of celluloid is frankly beyond this writer. They must have been very, very desperate. To be perfectly candid, Roger Moore's appearance in any movie is the kiss of death. Although extremely handsome in his youth, his entire acting career has been predicated upon an ability to raise one eyebrow. Every emotion from A to B is conveyed by this simple stratagem. His were the dog-days of James Bond. Lee Marvin on the other hand has featured in some very worthy outings, perhaps most memorably 'Paint Your Wagon' and 'The Dirty Dozen'. He has a comic streak, but he is much better when he plays it straight.

The excellent Ian Holm is a throwaway, hardly recognisable blacked-up as a mute African. Everyone else just turned up for their pay-cheques.

The only plausible and watchable element is the German cruiser. It looks like a very large model. But it is believably massive and appears authentic - as do its crew. The rest isn't even hokum. The childish comedy jars with the brutality and violence in a story that meanders clumsily about, as if the script itself had had too many whiffs of Lee Marvin's gin. Here is a director who simply doesn't know where he's going. There are hints of 'The African Queen', a snatch from 'The Pride & The Passion', 'Gold', and one or two other rip-offs from movies who's titles don't come readily to mind.

Strangely, I have seen it 3 times, each occasion it has been shown on television when I have been laid low with a cold or the flu. Perhaps that is influencing my judgement - but not much.

Compare it with any Indiana Jones movie and you will see what I mean.

I have given it two stars; one for the battleship and the other because it finally comes to an end, though heaven knows it takes long enough to do that.

Time for another Lemsip, I think.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film had all the ingredients of a good adventure movie, but it revealed incompetence at almost every level.

The presence of Roger Moore in the cast list is usually a sign that the movie is not going to be anything more than mediocre, because Moore always has lead roles and he can't act. But this movie also had Ian Holm and Lee Marvin in it, and was based on a Wilbur smith book, so I thought I'd give it a chance when I saw the DVD for sale in the bargain bin...

It was a mistake. The opening scene appeared to start in the middle of a reel, with sound suddenly appearing as if the first second of the soundtrack had been truncated. The scene showed a dreadnought at sea with a German crew. This bad editing was a sign of things to come, but the scene with the dreadnought was interesting enough to keep me watching. The special effects were good, and the crew wore the proper uniforms and spoke in German, indicating that the director at least paid attention to historical detail. I was surprised.

So I kept watching, and then Moore appeared and my supicions were confirmed. Bad acting, clich\u00e9d lines, clich\u00e9d cinematography and cheap humour...but worst of all, there is a disastrous attempt to blend the light-hearted feel of the film with serious drama and tragedy. It just does not work.

The film ends as suddenly and as badly as it started \u0096 in the middle of a reel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I liked Half-Life. I am still it's fan. It was frightening, intelligent and challenging. I don't tell any news it is one the best FPS ever made. Maybe I'm too hardcore Half-Life fan but the so called Half-Life 2 is not Half-Life 2.

And I have a question: is THIS the next chapter of Half-Life? Maybe the creators -Valve- thinks so but I don't. Where are the intelligent enemies? Where is the frightening atmosphere? Nowhere. I believe they wanted to make a bit different Half-Life (instead of another research station story), but they didn't just made a very different one, they made something that has to do with Half-Life like for example Quake does to Doom. The entire game so unsightly and unreal that it's almost forlorn.

Though the physics are truly great and there were a few good level to play, the idea to make a revolutionary physic-driven gameplay has utterly failed. When you get the Gravity-gun, that can move objects, you can expect with rights to use it as a weapon- that would turn the schematic FPS gameplay upside down. The truth is, you can't use Gravity-gun as a real weapon. Why? Because the best you can do is throwing boxes and barrels that don't do much damage. If you want to keep an object in front of you to protect it can fall from about 3 shots. If you want to throw an exploding barrel to your enemy it can explode in your own \"hand\". The gravity-gun doesn't work as a weapon. The best usage is solving some physic-puzzles. I ask Valve: Why? The truth is you must use your boring, schematic FPS weapons to the end(except for last level) Weapons are not that made original Half-life a classic. If Gravity-gun would be always like at the last level -a real weapon- I'd admire what Valve did. But not this. This is disappointing.

So if you want Half-Life then you are searching at the wrong place. Maybe you will enjoy it but I repeat: it is everything but not Half-Life and even not a faithful continuation of that. This is the greatest disappointment of all time. Valve have shown they can make awful games too. They have managed that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just got back from seeing, \"Comedian\". It was...alright. It kept me looking at the screen. Its just not the type of thing I like to go pay $7 to see.

Now don't get me wrong, it'd make a great HBO feature. If this were something I was watching on TV, i'd be hooked right in. It gives an amazing look at what comics go through before and after getting on stage. It will interest anyone who likes watching comics.

But when I go to the movies, I like to be entertained. I'm not there to be educated. Now I know what its like for Jerry Seinfeld before he goes out on stage....great. But truthfully, I'd rather just laugh at his jokes than worry about any of that.

One more thing: With the bad attitude Onry Adams has; I'd expect to see him taking my order from Burger King before I see his HBO special. He wasn't funny. He's the kind of person that you love to hate.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The IMDB plot summary erroneously makes it sound like it is Noah Taylor's movie, when Fairuza Balk is the central character. It is unbelievable how such a cast of established actors could have been in such an amateurish, pointless, non-movie. Balk breaks up with Boyfriend Taylor, sleeps with the Devil (I guess - played by Dempsey), and accidentally kills Taylor -- who follows her about for the rest of the movie as a ghost. May be the worst movie I have ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This flick, which is a.k.a. \"Life In the Fast Lane\" is easily one of the least entertaining movies I've seen in a long time. I think it was made in mind of the sick, twisted and jaded L.A. women who represent about .00000001 of the population in the States. The characters are all one-dimensional, even the lead. After she stabs her boyfriend in the head with some scissors, a cheap laugh is attempted (and unsucceeds) by sticking a cork in the boyfriend's skull to stop the bleeding. Oh, clever! Patrick Dempsey (whose movies are almost always a class act --sarcasm) plays this \"devil\" who changes her life - but from what we've seen, her life was this series of vignettes to begin with. No emotion, no laughs, no story. The only reason I give this a 2 is that Jeffrey Jones is ok as the priest and there is a bit of style (albiet zero substance) in the camerawork. Otherwise, one of the 5 worst films I've seen. Grade 2 out of 10 AN F! I think that even the most drugged out junkie who would laugh at a toilet seat falling would dislike this film. I can't stress enough how much you should stay away.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1st watched 12\/26\/2008 -(Dir-Eugene Levy): Corny comedy murder mystery with very few laughs. The movie appears to be based on an earlier Italian movie according to the credits but was re-written by two fairly popular American romantic comedy writers. But this one by Charles Shyer & Nancy Meyers does not cut it compared to their other efforts. The story is about a couple of down-and-out traveling Americans, played by Richard Lewis and Sean Young, who stumble upon a lost dog and hope to make a fortune in reward money after seeing an ad in the paper for the dachsund's return. Upon trying to return it, they see a hand sticking out of a garage door at the lady's residence that they believe is attached to the rest of the dead body of the woman who is supposed to give them the money. They freak out and instead of contacting the police and telling them the truth they make out like runaways from the scene expecting to be framed for the murder. The other characters in the film are met on a train prior to this and hang around a Monte Carlo gambling resort doing various things to be pulled into the story. The other cast members include character actors John Candy, James Belushi, Cybill Shepherd, George Hamilton and others. After the police find out about the death, they start questioning the main characters and, of course, they have to work thru their goofy lies to figure out what really happened. None of the character actors mentioned earlier can bring this movie out of it's mediocre state despite some funny moments mostly provided by the Belushi\/Shepherd couple. This isn't a horrible movie, it just isn't that good. There are plenty of average movies out there and this is just another one for the pile. Try it, maybe you'll like it, probably you won't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, IFC runs Town and Country, and now this. The difference between that stinker and this Pink Panther rip-off is that Town and Country was watchable. This isn't.

I can only surmise that the cast signed up for this so they could goof off in Europe on somebody else's dime. Belushi is especially irritating. His scene with Candy (doing a Z-grade Dom DeLuise) was torture. Speaking of torture, five minutes of the talentless Shepherd, and I bet the prisoners at Gitmo would crack like walnuts!

The real \"Crime\" (besides this being green-lighted) is Shepherd's character: a mousy wife who takes a Monte Carlo casino for a half-million bucks! If you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Esther Williams plays a romantically unattached water-skiing secretary who longs to stop \"walking on the water\" and be some man's wife; Van Johnson and Tony Martin are her potential choices for a husband. Despite fine aquatic sequences filmed at Florida's Cypress Gardens, this romantic comedy is awfully stale. As helmed by plodding director Charles Walters, everything here is made to seem intentionally innocuous, which doesn't lend the picture much staying power. Even Esther's big moments in the water are not quite up to the mesmerizing leaps from her other swimming vehicles, though they are preferable to the asides with the men, both of whom are colorless. Carroll Baker, in her film debut as Martin's disgruntled ex-girlfriend, is the liveliest of the bunch. Flimsy stuff, indeed. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not many people remember \"The Carey Treatment\", and I can't say I blame them.

Blake Edwards did this during his lean years (i.e. - between \"Pink Panther\" movies.) and for a story of a doctor turned detective (Coburn) working to solve a murder in his hospital, it's actually pretty forgettable.

Coburn is dependable as always and O'Neill is beautiful as always but there just seems to be something missing from the proceedings. The story twists and turns aren't very involving and even the climax, which is supposed to be nerve-wracking, is gut-wrenching instead.

A missed opportunity altogether, and an unfortunate one at that, since it was based on a Michael Crichton book.

Oh well, at least Crichton didn't write a sequel to it.

One star. \"Carey\" on, Coburn.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hip, distinguished doctor James Coburn (as Peter Carey) arrives to accept a position as pathologist at a Boston hospital. Almost immediately, Mr. Coburn beds beautiful nutritionist Jennifer O'Neill (as Georgia Hightower). While sleeping with Ms. O'Neill, Coburn is awakened by an emergency involving a botched abortion - the fifteen-year-old who bleeds to death happens to be the daughter of the hospital's big donor, Dan O'Herlihy (as J.D. Randall). Coburn doesn't believe the man arrested, doctor pal James Hong (as David Tao), committed the crime; although, Mr. Hong admits to performing illegal abortions on the side. While trying to clear his friend, Coburn wades through a thickening plot\u0085

**** The Carey Treatment (3\/29\/72) Blake Edwards ~ James Coburn, Jennifer O'Neill, Michael Blodgett, James Hong","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a terrible movie this was! I made it about 50 minutes into it and started skipping chapters until the end. The plot is nothing special, and the dialog from the movie deviates from the main story so much that your head will explode out of rage. Many useless minutes wasted just listening to characters jabber on about something irrelevant to the plot, AND\/OR something that could said in a shorter amount of time. The camera work is shaky, and grainy. It seemed Mr. Milligan needed to take his finger off of the zoom button! I noticed also that at some points during this movie it seemed that Andy was having seizures, and would uncontrollably shake the camera. The splices between scenes were jumpy and didn't flow. The murder scenes were nothing special - incredibly, and laughably fake. Barely any gore, as the title suggests. This movie runs about 1 hour 20 minutes and the murder scenes take up about 1 minute TOTAL of the whole movie - if that. What a wretched piece of garbage this movie was. Andy Milligan is in fact probably one of the worst directors to plague mankind with his talentless directing, and camera-work. Usually, I can make it through really bad horror movies, and laugh about it later. BLOODTHIRSTY BUTCHERS, however, I can't. I am just angry I wasted an hour and a half of my life watching this (what I wouldn't do to gain it back). Take my suggestion, and DO NOT see this movie unless you plan on falling asleep. TERRIBLE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For the uninitiated, almost any Andy Milligan film is a shock, but despite the fact that I've seen many of his films, this one still takes the cake for sheer shoddiness.

This is, of course, Milligan's take on the Sweeney Todd tale, done with period costumes (but not necessarily period hairstyles, in some cases) and the usual headache-inducing camera-work & grainy quality. As for the gore, well, the version I saw may have been cut some, for there's not a lot, for a film with \"bloodthirsty\" in the title. The best indication of subversive film-making here is a meat pie consisting only of some poor victim's tit.

So, while I will still treasure this piece of, uh, work, on my video shelf, it's definitely somewhat of a letdown as far as content though. Recommended for only the foolhardy & morbidly curious. 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know the story of \"Sweeney Todd\" now, most likely thanks to Tim Burton's recent movie. You probably don't know it though, from this take on the old tale from Andy Milligan-that notorious sleaze merchant that gave Al Adamson and Ted V. Mikels a run for their money.

It had to happen eventually. In my years of watching horror and exploitation from the 60's to the 80's, I'm finally reviewing an Andy Milligan movie. You see, from 1964 to 1990, Andy gave us many an exploitation and horror movie-none of which was any good, and barely watchable. \"The Bloodthirsty Butchers\" is no exception.

There is dialog and well, there is talk, and that's one of the things you will find here-lots and lots of talk. The movie reaches almost \"Manos The Hands of Fate\" levels at times, as you wait tirelessly for something to happen. While I love cheap looking gore effects, the violence is too few and far between, and in spite of it's reputation, the \"breast\" scene isn't that shocking.

I love cheap and sleazy exploitation as much as the next trash cinema devotee, but \"Bloodthirsty Butchers\" is the kind of bad that MST3K would tear apart mercilessly. Sadly, Milligan would die of AIDS in 1991, and if there is any movie of his I'd say I sort of like, it would be the delirious \"The Ghastly Ones.\" This is no \"Ghastly Ones\" though-it's just bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I bought this film, I expected to get a fun, 1970's exploitation film. Instead, I got this bore fest by amateur auteur Andy Milligan. Ah, Andy Milligan. With his tight editing, breakneck pacing , and wonderfully well known actors, you'd almost think you're watching...one of his home movies! Seriously, I couldn't even stay awake the first time I tried to watch it. The scenes of boring people dragged on an on, and whenever someone got killed, the film would slow down. Sometimes it would speed up too, making the characters voices sound like chipmunks, which was probably the best thing about this film. The script actually seemed a bit better than the film, and seems more well suited to be in a soap opera than in a grainy 70's sleeping pill where the actors constantly stumble over it's lines. The cover said \"Their prime cuts were curiously erotic...but thoroughly brutal!\" Trust me, there is nothing \"erotic\" about this film. Oh, we do get to see characters that resemble extra lumpy cottage cheese making out, but that's about it. And as far as \"brutal\", well, the viewer is brutalized the most with this here film. And another thing...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The word \"boring\" gets thrown around way too often when referring to exactly how bad a low-budget Horror movie might, or might not be. I've seen many a B-movie. Many horrible, terribly inept B-movies. Some with a production value of a few hundred bucks. Does ineptness, lousy acting, worse continuity, and embarrassing budgets really make a movie unwatchable? Some would no doubt way yes. Most of which are probably huge fans of The Matrix. Well, I hate big-budget movies, so I say no. Bad can sometimes be funny (Blood Freak), sometimes even mind-blowing (Troll 2), but Boring will always be unwatchable... Hey, kinda like Bloodthirsty Butchers, which reminds me, I'm writing a review for this pile of garbage... Uh, yeah, anyway. This is one of late British director Andy Milligan's many alternatives to sleeping pills. This one is based on Sweeney Todd... Great. Milligan takes a boring story, and still manages to \"butcher\" it. Hey, that's pretty funny, I said bu... sorry, I keep getting distracted. This isn't exactly easy. On second thought, I'll make it easy. No gore, no scares, no entertainment, just unlikeable, annoying people having incoherent conversations. that's Bloodthirsty Butchers. Oh yeah, and something about a barber killing people, and something or other about meat pies. I don't know, it's not important.

For something a little more rewarding from Andy Milligan, there's always the only other one I've seen, The Rats Are Coming, The Werewolves Are Here. Yeah, you heard me. But hows about we forget about this Milligan guy all together, and pick up something sweet like Sick Girl or Teenape Goes To Camp. Whatever you decide, just know, Bloodthirsty Butchers sucks, possibly even more than any other version of this already lackluster tale. And that, B-movie fans, is really saying something. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is awful, you just could't believe it. The score is annoying, the filming is bad, for example, sometimes you see the shadow of the cameraman appearing on some actors faces. The quality of the movie is ultra bad, seems like it was made in the 20ies. It's terrible. There is a bit of blood in the beginning and through the movie but always too dark filmed. No gore no effects. The director made some better one like Blood Rites. But out there there is a following of the man, 'cause searching to find this cheap flick isn't that hard but you have to pay hard earned cash for it. Surely this will get in my top ten of worst horrormovies ever, I don't know if I would call it horror. There is too much talking, you will get bloodthirsty after watching it","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"....is the boob in the pie. Every thing else in it is an abortion, a malformed failure of a film. At least you can SEE and HEAR what goes on in an Ed Wood movie (usually). High schools drama clubs do better than this on a routine basis. Once you've you've seen the breast pie bit, you can turn it off and go watch \"Hannibal\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I write this user-comment, Tim Burton's interpretation of the Sweeney Todd tale is making big money at the box office and the film even earned a couple of Oscar nominations if I'm not mistaken. I haven't seen it yet, but I sincerely hope Burton didn't look for inspiration and\/or stylish trademarks in good old Andy Milligan's \"Bloodthirsty Butchers\". Yes, even though the title distinctively mentions butchers, the main characters in the plot are a barber (the infamous Sweeney Todd) and a female baker. Together they form a vile alliance where he kills the customers in his shop and she processes the bodies into her famous London meat pies. In other words, an Andy Milligan premise at his most typical, derivative, delirious and amateurish. I think the IMDb rating for this film speaks for itself. Although the actual story definitely isn't the worst I've ever seen, Milligan somehow inexplicably attracts sheer ineptitude. The production is one gigantic mess, with an incoherent narrative structure, truly hideous photography, poor lighting, lousy acting and directing, laughable gore and zilch tension or atmosphere. More than half of the footage is pure padding and words fail to describe how BORING the film is, even with a running time of a mere 80 minutes. Ed Wood, Ted V. Mikels and Bruno Mattei; you guys need not fear as none other than Andy Milligan is \u0096 hands down \u0096 the worst director ever, but I don't think he cared. Maybe if you dispose of a really high level of tolerance, \"Bloodthirsty Butchers\" is worth one viewing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Andy Milligan, the independent movie maker from New York, directs this little \"treat\" as his version of the Sweeney Todd legend. Sweeney slits the throats of customers in his barbershop and his cohort Mrs. Lovett turns them into meat pies. Thankfuly I was well-informed of the plot prior to seeing this film travesty. Milligan, for my money, has to indeed be running in the lead of worst directors of all-time race. Ed Wood looks like Orson Welles in comparison. This movie is so bad in oh so many ways. Let's take Milligan's direction for starters. The film quality is grainy. The sound quality is grainy. Many scenes look as if Milligan was using a camcorder to film. The credits say \"Photograped and directed by Andy Milligan.\" He wants to take credit for ceilings showing up after a death scene? How about the atrocious musical score selected for the film? The film cuts with one poor transition after another. Little logic is used in the creation of the plot. The story has little to do with the actual legend of Todd. The murder scenes are plentiful but not horrifying in any way. Hands, legs, and other appendages are cut with the skill in which the editing was done: choppily! And let's take the breast in the pie scene. Yes, it is in there. The pie maker didn't know that an entire breast with nipple filled an entire pie crust? Later we hear from our characters that they \"have been careful not to get caught\" for the 200 plus murders they have done. Obviously they are a couple of boobs not able to keep abreast of what is going on(sorry it was too tempting). The actors are not too terribly bad to be honest. Some even have glimmers of talent, and all seem to be genuine English articles. Many non-erotic nude scenes are forced throughout. Milligan seemingly has some issues regarding sex. Plot strands are left untied. The ending is almost unwatchable due to poor camera work. I could go on and on. Did I like anything about the film? Not much to be truthful. I have a high level of acceptance for films of this ilk in terms of low budgets and marginal talent, but this film lacks any real purpose other than to be crude and sick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have recently become a huge fan of Patton Oswalt. I think he's the most deliciously original comedian to come along in ages. He is refreshing and fearless in his routines, which run the gamut of topics from how much Bush sucks to the sleazy exploits of 1970s producer Robert Evans. I'm a longtime fan of Maria Bamford and her wide-eyed innocent\/schizophrenic routine. Whenever she effortlessly switches her naturally high-pitched voice to one that is clipped and throaty, I can't help but giggle. I liked Brian Posehn long before I even knew he was on \"Just Shoot Me\", and there is something so innately funny about his aging nerd persona. All three of these talented, unique comedians headline \"The Comedians of Comedy\", a Netflix documentary about their U.S. tour. They truly deserve to be stars, and this tour gave them the recognition they so richly deserve. I thought,no, I KNEW I'd like this movie...

But I was wrong. Instead of the three comics each getting their own routine segments, \"The Comedians of Comedy\" is bogged down by meandering and dull documentary scenes that contain no humor, no insight, nothing of real interest. I think there is a total of 30 minutes of intermittent stand-up routines total in the 109 minute movie. What a rip-off! Come on, is anyone really interested in seeing our stars banter in their RV? Where's the humor in seeing Posehn in an arcade and a comic book shop? Does anyone find random diner scenes particularly funny? If this movie couldn't have shown our comics strutting their stuff, at least make it about what life is like on the road. It's not even about that. Worst of all, the comics never appear to be having real fun. Oswalt admits how bored he is doing a radio interview, Posehn sheepishly admits to how much he sucks at giving a tour of his home, and Bamford nervously improvises every time the camera is pointed at her, and her humor there is only sporadic.

Sheesh, these guys deserve a chance to show the world their unconventional, amazingly crafted humor that is a refreshing change of pace from the brainless entertainment of mainstream comics like Dane Cook. Instead, we have to sit through their mundane, everyday routines on the road in a substandard bore of a movie whose quality could easily be surpassed by any student film. If you can locate any of Oswalt's, Posehn's, or Bamford's performances on DVD, by all means do. Their talent should be a joy to behold, not a chore like it is here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The use of the term 'comedy' with relation to this documentary is an insult to the art of comedy, and worse yet is the pain that is inflicted on the viewers of this production. Almost nothing was funny.

This documentary followed a small group of stand-up 'comics' on the road as they travel from town to town to perform in small clubs.

It's interesting to note that their conversations and behavior off-stage and on-stage are indistinguishable, but sadly, equally unfunny.

It's possible to understand the self delusions of grandeur which the featured 'comedians' possess, but it's harder to grasp the sounds of laughter heard from their audiences. Perhas these are the same audiences for whom the lame sitcoms on TV are intended.

This was possibly the worst film I've ever watched in my 50+ years of movie viewing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The name of Bad Company's greatest hits album is called \"10 From 6\". You could have just turned up this album and cut the sound on this movie. Most of the songs played in the movie were from this album. I guess oldsters during the 1970s were probably tired of all the period pieces made then about the 1930s and 1940s. That's how I feel about movies made about the 1970s. The characters in the movie looked like they were auditioning for Danny Terrio. Why is it that movies have to exaggerate the 1970s. The only good period piece I liked was \"Freaks and Geeks\". They cut that television show. It was exactly like things were in high school when I was there back circa 1980. I was old enough to remember the 70s and no small town was like this. It was totally youth dominated. There were no reactionaries talking about the hippies and about the inner city of Philly. That was more the 70s that I remember as a kid. This movie was very dull and cheesy. At times, I was falling asleep. I don't know why an actor who was acting during the 70s, appeared in this one. He was probably trying to lend it some credibility. Walken didn't even show up until the second half. I guess the only true thing about the movie was the \"baby boomers\" were\/are a spoiled lot. All the kids in the movie were spoiled brats. I don't know what they had against their father.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"File this one in the `How do movies like this get made?' column. A seventies-drag indie version of `Macbeth,' adapted fairly faithfully (but pointlessly) in a conventionally unconventional black-comic style. The cast gives it a shot, with Christopher Walken phoning in the eccentricity as McDuff, and with Maura Tierney rising above the dull script as Pat McBeth. The other actors are wasted, as is the audience's time. Knee-jerk fans of this brand of quirk may like it, though. 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The cast played Shakespeare.

Shakespeare lost.

I appreciate that this is trying to bring Shakespeare to the masses, but why ruin something so good.

Is it because 'The Scottish Play' is my favorite Shakespeare? I do not know. What I do know is that a certain Rev Bowdler (hence bowdlerization) tried to do something similar in the Victorian era.

In other words, you cannot improve perfection.

I have no more to write but as I have to write at least ten lines of text (and English composition was never my forte I will just have to keep going and say that this movie, as the saying goes, just does not cut it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a Scot I find the idea of \"Macbeth\" shifted in Time and Space to America totally moronic.I am sure this doesn't apply to broadminded IMDb Users,but why are so many Americans unable to relate to ANY film concept that isn't set in their Country ? This attitude does Americans no favours in the Big Wide World out here.

It was bad enough that \"The Wicker Man\" was remade and set in the USA ,totaly stripped of its Cultural context, and with a Polticaly Correct gender change for a leading Character.

One wonders what next,Robert The Bruce as a New York cop ?,Mary Queen of Scots as a \"Soccer Mom\" juggling ,kids ,a career and relationships ?

Come on Hollywood, open up to all the other Cultures on the Planet!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film last night.

And I'm worried I'm turning into one of those left-wing liberals they rightly make fun of in South Park. Because I found it hugely offensive. Am I being ridiculously sensitive? Firstly, there's the old staple that is America being the only country in the world that is physically capable of anything, ever.

Secondly, and chillingly, there is the early meteor strike hitting some (unnamed \u0096 why do they need a name?) Asian country. The reaction to this is to look at it as a warning. As in \"my god, imagine the tragedy that *could* happen\". Because, you know, it happened to Asians. It might happen to white Americans, and *that* would be tragic.

Then, later on, a bigger meteor hits Paris. Our cast on the ground are irritated, because this might mean our boys have less time than they thought. Not much upset in America. No mention that a lot of people have died.

Then there's Michael Clarke Duncan. A wonderful actor, wasted. Never has a black man been so token. Among a team of hardcore drillers, his job seems to consist of standing in the back, occasionally saying \"Hey, you da man.\" Really. Why did they even bring him? It's not like he's petite - he weighed down that shuttle for nothing! Not once does he lift a tool, steer a space ship or even help fix anything that blows up.

Even if you ignore the Russian Cosmonaut (Peter Stormare, another great actor wasted in a pointless role), who seems drunk most of the time and hits things with spanners instead of fixing them because \"Dat's how we do dese dings in Russia\", it's pretty horrific.

All cemented of course by the site of blond, blue-eyed American children all celebrating in corn fields at being saved and everything being all right. Because all the death and destruction to the rest of the world is irrelevant.

You expect the bad script, the dodgy acting, the implausible plot (fat, middle aged men being trained in 12 days to be astronauts? Including one who appears to be retarded?). But I couldn't believe the racism and xenophobia implied in the film, and the callous disregard for the lives of anyone not corn-fed American.

It's a chilling indictment of the attitude of a section of Western Society to the world.

And it's a crappy film too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Half of the movie is is flashing lights and shaky camera. The rest is made up of predictable characters (think science vs. government, 'know-how' vs. authority, etc.)

What is the worst aspect about this movie? Is it the cars being thrown around in the first 5 minutes, is the horrible 'Russian' accent of the 'cosmonaut', is it the uninspired characters, the poorly integrated Top 40 hits, or the \"US will save the world\" vitriol? No. It's the fact that regardless of the \"sad\" ending - there is very little suspense in this movie - we basically know what's going to happen.

The one good part of this movie: \"American components, Russian components: all made in Taiwan!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like action movies. I have a softspot for \"B\" flicks with bad dialogue and wooden acting. So, I've been wracking my brain to come up with one of my guilty pleasures that was worse than this blockbuster. I can't. You'd be hard pressed to put together a bigger piece of cr*p than this Bruce Willis vehicle.

Armageddon is the story (and I use that term loosely) of a team of \"Super-Drillers\" flying off to destroy an asteroid before it destroys the Earth. Realistic? Not really. But who cares? It's an action flick. I'm not blasting the premise.

Minor spoilers:

The movie begins with a couple of scenes designed to introduce the threat and the characters. Bruce Willis is the tough-as-nails leader of the team, and spends his first bit of screen time chasing around Ben Affleck with a gun for the unforgiveable act of sleeping with his daughter. For some reason, that didn't make me laugh. It was forced, like everything in this movie.

The team is called in because they're the only people in the whole wide world who can drill the asteroid. Okay, I'm prepared to accept that premise if it gets us to the action - the supposed meat of the movie. More attempts at humor, with each character going out to do some crazy, nutty thing before blast off. Again, lame. Finally, they take off. Here's where the movie really pi**ed me off. They arrive on the rock, and set to work. Would you believe it, nothing works right and everything has a suspenseful countdown!!! Whoah! Ten, nine, eight... one - Oh, surprise surprise we saved the day again!!

And don't even get me started on the jerky camerawork. When I saw it in the theater I thought I was going to be sick. I can only assume they were trying to cover up the gargantuan holes left by the insipid performances by cutting away to a different shot every few seconds (and this from someone raised on MTV - Mr short attention span himself).

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse... wait - there's a manufactured tearjerker ending that was so tacked on it made the rest of the film a virtual Citizen Kane.

Summary: The witticisms weren't witty. The plot - well, I said I'd let that one go. The acting was bad. Really bad. Even Billy Bob couldn't rise above the script, which was worse. Camerawork - again, bad. (I didn't even mention the dumbest love scene in the history of motion pictures - think animal crackers).

Rating: 1 out of 10. (I'm giving a half point for Steve Buscemi, who makes me smile against my will and another half point for the times I was able to look at the lovely Liv Tyler and attempt to ignore her acting performance) This is far and away the worst movie I've gone to see in the theater... ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"spoilers

This movie is not action packed; it's slow and boring. It's not funny or exciting, it's predictable and plays on cheap sentimentality and vague patriotism. The special effects are not imaginative or impressive. They are noisy and uninspired.

The acting talent is wasted on hopelessly stupid one-liners and clich\u00e9s. These are spouted by characters they ought to just be called `gentle giant black man,' `eccentric genius who is about to crack,' `square jawed hero coming of age,' `by-the-book coward,' `luckless gambler who lives by a code of honor,' `impulsive princess' and so on.

And the writing! How many undramatic countdowns did they think they could fit in this thing? Does a scene where people have to defuse a bomb by cutting one or another wire even count as fiction anymore? The drama of the last 15 minutes of the movie depends on the audience caring if some jerk can put aside his personal differences with Ben Affleck and say bye bye to Liv Tyler in time TO SAVE THE EARTH. All the work is done; we just have to wait a couple more seconds for Harry Stamper, the jerk, to toss off a few cotton candy lines. I know Bruce Willis is a generally charismatic guy, but his Harry Stamper character is an obnoxious bore. I thought he earned the Golden Razzy he was awarded for this role.

Since the movie is so long, the plot so obvious, and the dialogue so disposable, one can't help but notice the lame inaccuracies, inconsistencies and plot holes. 800 feet into something the size of TX is less than a pinprick. Try walking 800 feet into TX and see how close to the center you are. After all the discussion about the artificial gravity on the Russian station, it appears to be arbitrary once inside. Actually, gravity comes and goes throughout the movie. Does it make any sense that anyone besides Michael Bay would give these morons a couple shuttles and send them to blow up an asteroid threatening the earth?

The sentimental phone\/insurance\/cola commercial style montages were revolting.

I do like action movies. Really. This one is boring, stupid and really stuck on itself. It deserves hatred and scorn because it's everything Hollywood's most expensive efforts have become - a bunch of cheap cliches running from one expensive explosion to another. Oh yes, the whole thing is permeated by a Neanderthal conservative outlook on sex, politics and so on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember thinking that due to the cast, the subject matter, and the director, I was going to love this movie.

Stepping into the theatre and taking my seat, I was like a giddy schoolgirl as my anticipation for the opening scene built.

I was not disappointed with the opening and felt that I was truly going to love this movie.

If you haven't seen the movie and feel that anything that gives away scenes might be seen as a spoiler, please stop reading. I'm not going to give away anything really important, but it might be seen as such, so that is the warning.

Spoiler may be included below, beware.

I think that the first scene that really hit me as just utterly ridiculous was the Russian space station scene. I mean honestly, refueling a shuttle with no real prior warning, and then to simply show the station as being so fragile that a simple little mistake can cause the entire thing to just explode.

While all of this is possible, it seemed to me to be way over the top. I'm not sure if it was just the situation or if it was the cheesy acting, the silly view of the Russian technology, or just the campy attitude of the scene itself.

It only got worse for me after that because then we endure what seemed like 2 hours of constant super loud explosions in space...you know, that place where there is no sound because it's a vacuum.

But the coup de grace for me, honestly, was the gun scene. (spoiler possibility) - Earlier in the movie, we see Bruce Willis tearing apart their land vehicle (the vehicle that they will use to drive around in when they get there and to help them drill) when he is told that this is what they will be using. He is taking pieces off and complaining about it because much of what's on it is heavy and not required for what they are doing.

So then, as we are wandering onto the asteroids, we see that they have opted to add a massive gatling like gun to the vehicles...you know, standard NASA fare is to have heavy weaponry on all space missions in case, you know, aliens or something.

I could have taken the explosive 2 hours, the silly Russian space station refueling scene, the cheesy love scene near the end, the Bruce Willis character being nothing more than most of his other past characters, but the Steve Buscemi going mad and shooting the space vehicle's gun all over the place and causing havoc\/damage, well that threw the entire thing over the top for me.

Save your money and time and avoid this movie. If you want a good meteor movie, see Deep Impact, if you want a fun space movie with awesome special effects, see Space Cowboys, but no matter what, avoid this flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like many people in my general age range, I remember going to see this movie as a kid in '98 and coming out of the theatre practically in tears. It seemed, at the time, to be one of the most important, awe-inspiring cinematic experiences of our generation. At once riveting, action-packed, funny, heartbreaking, and truly inspirational, Armegeddeon really did have everything going on, right down to the catchy Aerosmith theme song and sappy tear-jerker of an ending.

Sweet Jebus. What were we smoking? I watched it for the first time in years last night on one of the movie channels, and... I cannot even describe it. This is, truly, one of the worst movies ever made. Where to even begin? Leaving aside the plethora of LAUGHABLE scientific errors ('personnel trackers' on astronauts? yeah, sure, thanks for that, Billy Bob), I'd have to say the worst thing about it was the remarkable - dare I even say unmatched - way in which it combined crappy writing with crappy acting. There are too many examples of this to even begin listing here, but one in particular springs to mind - the scene where Bruce Willis is telling the Feds exactly where to go to track down each of the oh-so-charmingly-roguish members of his oil drilling team ('check every bar in New Orleans', 'the craps tables in Vegas', 'the only black guy on a motorcycle in Sturgis'... all to the tune of 'Come Together'... it reminded me a bit of the \"NEWS TEAM! ASSEMBLE!\" scene from Anchorman, except serious). Ben Affleck proves, once again, that he is by far the most overpaid actor in Hollywood, having less depth, range, and overall talent than anyone else in the business. Not that Bruce Willis, Liv Tyler, OR ANYONE ELSE IN THIS GODFORSAKEN PIECE OF GARBAGE was much better.

(I have to say, though, I got a kick out of seeing a pre-stardom Owen Wilson get killed off half-way through... is this the only movie where his character dies?)

Peter Stormare is perfect as THE MOST STEREOTYPICAL UNSHAVEN Russian COSMONAUT YOU HAVE EVER SCENE. (Then again, Peter Stormare does seem to have a talent for playing over-the-top Eurotypes.) It really was quite amusing how, almost IMMEDIATELY after the Americans dock with the Russian Space Station (which is actually called that in the movie), Ben Affleck succeeds in singlehandedly causing the whole joint to explode in spectacular Hollywood fashion. I also love the fact that, in the end, Paris is the only place on Earth to get destroyed, and that absolutely no one seems to care. And on top of all that, it at points literally turns into simultaneous ads for Lockheed Martin AND Kerr McGee. Oh how proud I am to be an American.

There's plenty of other stuff to rant about, but I won't... suffice it to say that this is a really, really, REALLY terrible movie, that I feel ashamed to have ever genuinely liked.

I give it two stars just for the mockability factor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all. I do not look down on Americans. I know lots of people that are intelligent people from the USA. But this Movie is so utterly bad, that i just had to comment on it.

First of all...Movies are mostly far from the truth. This movie is no exception. Lots of scene's are so incredibly false. For example the departure of the 2 space ships. You see them drop off the full tanks in space. Just a small distance from each other. Remember what caused the space shuttle to explode in the past ? Just a tinsy winsy part that came off. In here it is just common to drop fuel tanks that are as big if not bigger then the whole ship. What idiot would let 2 spaceships lift up and do that at the same time ??? Second of it is that the Russian station is a piece of (s)crap. I hate to bring this up to you, but astronauts nowadays go to Russia. Since their equipment is much more reliable then NASA's. The Space Shuttle is retired. And NASA uses it just to pay off the bills. And there is no better alternative for it. And the list of whoppers goes on and on. This is truly an insult to people that do take space travel serious. And i know half as much as these guys do. But the most annoying part ( read: the whole movie ) is the Propaganda and patriot crap that u get choked with. MY GOD !!!! I thought i was looking at a CNN business commercial for like an hour. The actors solve their petty problems by shooting at each other, giving the middle finger to everyone they come face to face with, start up fights, ignore the police, etc, etc... But when it comes to their love for their country and sacrificing their lives, suddenly everyone stands in line to commit suicide for it ( bomb detonator ) ?? Maybe i lack the feeling of being a true \"Patriot\", that can sing the national anthem backwards in Swahili. Whilst riding with George Bush behind the steering wheel of a golf cart, driving in circles until the battery is empty. But this movie was too much for me too handle. And when i finally got hold and pulled the flag pole and fabric of the American flag out of my hiney. I realised that i was glad this movie was finally done. I do not know why so much good actors participated in this narrow minded, stereotyping, propaganda movie. But i pity them. This represents a country where you can get away with murder if you have money or power. As long as \"Uncle Sam\" thinks you are a good patriot. Where everyone is happy as long as it is another country that has been devastated, no one cares.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

I used to like some of the Hollywood action blockbusters of the 80s. They had icons such as Arnie and Sly but I think the action movie in the '90s has plummeted to new depths. The worst of these, I believe, was Armageddon.

The plot is shamelessly contrived and pulls off the worst cliches as it seeks to excite viewers. The melodrama is so cringingly saccharine and awful that you actually cannot wait for Bruce Willis to disappear from the screen. Liv Tyler, who had acted admirably in several fine independent features directed by such masters as Bernardo Bertolucci and Robert Altman, regrettably decided to jump onto the commercial bandwagon. This movie symbolises the new Hollywood aesthetic of grand special effects and precious little good dialogue or authentic melodrama. That is the norm these days and I begin to wonder if there is a role in Hollywood for screenwriters. It seems as though they just employ hacks and committees to write the facile scripts. The rest they leave to technology. There is not a single piece of grand, heartfelt human emotion in Armageddon. It just feels empty and bland. I can think of only one good aspect of this movie and that involves Liv Tyler's dad who doesn't even make an appearance in the film. Steven Tyler's band Aerosmith provide a theme song for the movie - a ballad that really soars and at least tugs at the heartstrings a little when the end credits come up.

I weep for Western civilization if people like this predictable, cumbersome movie. It stands for shallowness, lethargy, and a decline in the human intellect. I would even prefer to watch the eighth Friday the 13th.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't remember when I've seen a worse movie. The acting was overwrought, the dialog trite to the point of being painful to listen to, the special effects second-rate and the overall story laughable.

I've never wanted to walk out on a movie more, and if I'd been alone that's what I'd have done, about 30 minutes into it, and saved myself nearly ANOTHER TWO EXCRUCIATING HOURS of nausea-inducing dialog and a plot with more holes than a swiss cheese \"the size of Texas.\" I just can't overemphasize what a miserable experience sitting through this collosal waste of perfectly good celluloid was.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has bad writing and bad editing. It is difficult to follow what is going on because nothing any of the characters do makes much sense. Some major calamity occurs every 30 seconds. As a result, none of the \"action\" sequences are at all interesting. The movie is two hours worth of \"throw away\" scenes which are connected merely by the fact that they share common actors. This movie doesn't even have enough of a sense of humor to be a good \"bad\" movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two movies: \"the fifth element\", \"armageddon\". The same subject: to save the world. The same main actor: Bruce Willis. One difference: \"Armageddon\" is very inferior to Luc Besson's film. Some spectacular special effects don't succeed in hiding a labored and globally conventional screenplay. Several parts of the movie are showing it. I think about the president's speech and especially Willis' relationship with his daughter, \"Grace\". At the beginning of the movie, he tends to neglect and overprotect her and this makes her weary. Then, at the end of the movie, it's true love and understanding that shine in him. On another hand, the movie falls in the following trap: Michael Bay takes his subject too seriously. Of course, the movie tries to be funny but the result doesn't work as the humor introduced in the movie is often crude and pretty low-level whereas in the \"fifth element\", the humor was zany, involuntary and enabled to overlook the serious side of the action. The movie suffers from two other handicaps: it often falls into the ridiculous (the Russian astronaut) and almost all the actors are bad used. Bruce Willis is all the contrary of his \"fifth element\"'s character. He plays the he-man, he hams it up and sometimes, he's unbearable. The other actors are barely credible in their own roles, particularly, Willis' sinking crew. It seems that this crew is here just for having fun. One of them is taken for being very qualified but he looks like a fool. And poor Liv Tyler! She's at the NASA just to be decorative.

When the movie was released in France in August 1998, Bruce Willis expressed is weariness of saving the world. His weariness was probably justified by this spectacular but poor movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The acting was horrible. The special effects, while exceptional, dominated the movie. The writing was pathetic, and the dialogue was unbelievable. And the silly little love story between Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck was out of place.

But the worst offense of \"Armageddon\" was the total lack of scientific reality. \"The asteroid is the size of Texas,\" says Billy Bob Thornton. Er, that's 800 miles wide! No one in NASA even sees the asteroid until a midday meteor shower wrecks havoc in New York? Suuuuure. NASA hires a drilling team to join the astronauts and trains them in a week? Yeah, right. Someone brings a sidearm on the Space Shuttle with them? Yeah, that's realistic. And Bruce Willis blows up the asteroid with three seconds to spare. How Disney-esque!

How bad was this movie? I rooted for the asteroid!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being an unrelenting non-stop over-the-top explosive melodrama, this movie is one of the worst action flicks ever produced, and utterly unbelievable in every way. The pace is constantly fever-pitched, and all the action and the actors are gripped by total hysteria. It is nigh unwatchable, and a stain - nay, a blotch - on the careers of everyone involved.

The wildly exaggerated attempt at excitement undermines itself, resulting in a movie where you just go \"Come on!\" all the time. The setting and the events are impossible to take even remotely seriously. I can only rate this abomination a 1 out of 10.

If you want to see a good asteroid movie, see Deep Impact, which is intense, sensitive and thoroughly engrossing. Everything Armageddon is not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dear Readers,

I've found in my studies of movies that whenever Michael Bay makes a movie, people pan it and hate it, yet they still go to see it and it makes somewhere around 100 million dollars. Why? Because Michael Bay is one of the top five directors of all time. Standing alongside Ridley Scott, Spielberg, Kubrick, and Miyazaki, Michael Bay has cemented himself as Hollywood's best action\/adventure director. That point is proved with his most panned film, Armageddon.

An Asteroid the size of Texas is hurtling towards the planet and the only way NASA can think to take it down is to land a team of men on the asteroid, drill to its core, and drop a nuclear warhead inside then blow up the asteroid. Only one person is qualified enough to do it: Bruce Willis. Willis portrays Harry Stamper, a grizzled hardened oil driller trying to keep what's left of his family together. Not helping that fact is his daughter, Grace (Liv Tyler), having an affair with his best driller, AJ (Ben Affleck). Hired by Dan Truman (Billy Bob Thornton), the head of NASA, Stamper and his team of roughneck drillers train to become astronauts and save the world.

Armageddon is a two part movie. First there's the funny parts where we meet the gang and wackiness abounds. Then they get into space and all the comedy gets sucked out the window and is replaced by mind-blowing special effects, cool music, and great serious acting. Murphy's law goes insane in the second part, meaning that everything that can go wrong, does in fact go wrong, increasing the tension of the film to outstanding levels.

With a cool cast and crew (Michael Bay as Director, Jerry Bruckheimer and Gale Anne Hurd as Producers, and J.J. Abrams as one of the scriptwriters.), tons of special effects, great humor, awesome music, plus an intro done by Mr. Ben-Hur himself, Charlton Heston, Armageddon rocks big time.

Signed, The Constant DVD Collector, Matt Macleod

Parental Warnings: This is not a film for kids. The F-bomb is used a few times and lots of other swear words are used as well, plus there's a Strip bar scene and the extremely intense second part might be too hard for a kid to handle.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie about six years ago and I recently did so again. If I remember correctly I did not like it at all the first time and I appreciated it slightly more this second time.

This movie is obviously on a big budget. The effects are mostly top notch (except for one or two \"impacts\") and the cast is impressive. However, there are some elements that destroy the overall impression of the show.

Firstly, whoever decided that Peter Stormare should act as a crazy Russian astronaut should be fired. Being a Swede and a fan of Peter, I'm pretty sure he can play a Russian character well. But his performance in this case is plain stupid, both with respect the lines uttered and the acting. So... something must be wrong with the script. I'd like to see Peter as a professional Russian astronaut instead.

Secondly, the action scenes that take place on the surface are so intense that it is nearly unbearable to watch. It is a total chaos that lasts over thirty minutes with too few moments to catch one's breath. In addition to this, the events that unfold are simply not credible. I'd like to see a much more sensible and stripped down version of this part of the movie.

Finally, the scenes that involve flying space shuttles are too action-biased. The shuttles are maneuvering like if they were a couple of MIGs, at zero safety distance, while bouncing off car-sized ice blocks like ping-pong balls. The director should watch Apollo 13 to learn the limitations of spacecraft like these.

I like the music score because it is dramatic to a degree making it very touching. The overall performance of the actors is great. Apart from the things mentioned above the story is interesting and quite easy to follow.

With some minor changes this would have been a 8\/10 movie. I'm sorry it isn't!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This 'schlock-buster' should carry a government health warning. If you play it in your DVD machine, you are in serious risk of opening a rift in the space-time continuum and disappearing without trace into it - so bad is this 'movie'.

The fact that this movie was so successful is evidence of the true desperate state of modern Hollywood cinema, and the continual commissioning of films that appeal to the 'lowest common denominator' - although I truly dread to think of the 'lowest common denominators' that this film actually appeals to!!

I think Hollywood were just conducting some kind of proving trials when they made and screened this film! I can imagine the executive boardroom meetings at the studio ... \"Just how bad a film can we actually get away with making - and STILL make loads of money!??! Holy cow, I didn't realise we could go THAT bad!! Woooo hooooo!!\"

The only films worse than this that I can think of (and trust me it is close) are Die Another Day (RIP the Bond franchise as I knew it) and Independence Day!

AVOID - AVOID - AVOID!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to say that I had low expectations for the movie before viewing it. All the people around said it was great, but I perfectly knew what they like. They like Aerosmith's song which is indeed great, they like the amazing special effects which had coasted a lot, they like the comedy side of the movie and of course many girls who love Affleck who according to my opinion is a really bad actor who tried not to be one, failed and now he is nothing. And all these things plus the reviews and the ratings I read in internet, gave me a clue the movie would be a huge disappointment since I am a big disaster kind of movies fan. Well, I've been right, but at least I was prepared.

The movie is really commercial. It's been said, but I will say it as again. We have over #100 million budget, we have a romance between Hollywood stars Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler and many other famous actors, who are popular with the fact that they rarely agree on becoming a part of the cast of a commercial movie if their names aren't written with big letters on the screen. Such as Billy Bob Thornton and Steve Buscemi which are highly respected actors that I also like a lot. They could play many characters in many different kind of movies. They could improvise, they could turn tasteless lines into hilarious jokes. On the whole, they could turn small movies into really interesting, funny or dramatic motion pictures, people love and will always love. Such as Fargo in Buscemi's case or A Simple Plan - Thornton. And to be honest, I am really disappointed they took part of Armageddon. Thornton plays a smart and refined man involved in politics if I remember correctly. Buscemi is one of the members of the deep core drilling team which is sent to save the world by destroying the asteroid which is about to vanish the world.

What I didn't like - well, I guess I've been already understood. I pointed out bad factors. The story is dull, artless and silly. It is so obvious that the movie depends on the effects and the dramatic ending that it's ridiculous. At least movies like Deep Impact and Godzilla have something special that might be considered as art. At least it ain't that obvious that the movie is made of financial purposes. Other than that, bad performances from all the huge stars. The jokes ain't funny, the lines are absurd and sometimes, they doesn't make sense at all. In fact, I recently read that on the stage, Ben Affleck has asked Bay whether it would be easier if they teach astronauts to drill, than drillers to becomes astronauts and Bay's reply has been simply \"Shut up!\" which is a really funny story which perfectly shows the creators's desperation.

And enclosing, I'll give an explanation why I give 4 to the movie. Well, I like \"Don't Want to Miss a thing\" and I was impressed by the special effects which are obviously the only good thing in the movie. The first scene is memorable. These are the the only 2 good things I liked about the movie. Michael Bay is an average director, but The Rock and both Bad Boys were hundreds of times better than Armageddon which was, is and will always be one big bad movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I agree with Jessica, this movie is pretty bad. I'm surprised anyone took it seriously. Characters are one-dimensional, even the good guys and especially the bad guys. The only merit here is that it's so lame it's funny. Actually for me, there is the added benefit that it was shot in a state park not far from where I live, so seeing some local sights on the big screen is a hoot.

The lead character is a off-duty cop, and makes a big point of lecturing a good guy that vigilante justice is not just a bad idea, it's against the law. Imagine how long that lasts ...

Most of the movie's Northern California characters are blown-dried Hollywood cheese-balls, looking like they've never actually been in a fight. The story line is totally predictable. This film is ripe for a MST-3K lampooning. CAMP value only. I'm pretty forgiving of films in general, but seeing the old positive reviews I had to speak up. This is a dog. I give it a 3 out of 10, and then only for laughs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like its near contemporaries \"The Great Race\" and \"Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines\", I always associate this film with my childhood especially at New Year. On New Year's Day we'd visit my granny and after lunch, while the adults talked, the kids would watch TV where invariably one of these three crazy race films would be on.

For that reason alone, I really wanted to mark \"Monte Carlo Or Bust\" well but I fear I can't, the child not being father to the man on this occasion. By which I mean I can see all too clearly its faults and while I was tempted to smile occasionally, in truth I really wanted all the competitors to get to the end of the race long before they actually do.

Of course it's dated by its stereotyping of nationalities and woman as the weaker sex and I also didn't much care for one or two stray, admittedly mild vulgarities which occasionally surfaced. More than that though, the cast, despite hamming it up outrageously just don't sell the film enough. Tony Curtis, in a trial run for his \"Yank Abroad\" turn in the TV series \"The Persuaders\", seems too old to be playing the young gallant, Terry Thomas just isn't dastardly enough, Eric Sykes is unbelievable as a dirty-minded Lothario while Gert Frobe as an overdone Teuton, is just weird doing camp comedy when you remember he was Bond's best villain Goldfinger. If anything the Englishers come off best - Susan Hampshire is at least engaging as a \"bright young thing\", suitably gamine as a posh flapper and although chained to the leash of the script Pete and Dud offer the most amusement as stiff upper lip army types, although even then the \"Carry On\" team did this so much better in \"Carry On Up The Khyber Pass\".

Director Annakin tries everything to evoke the \"Golden Silents\", with lashings of slapstick, mistaken identity capers, speeded up camera shots, would-be dramatic stunts and some light romance, but there's no real tension for such a famous race and anyway the race-off at the end seems like another swizz.

Actually I'd have given it another mark if they'd stuck to the alternative title \"Those Magnificent Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies\" but in truth the animated series \"Wacky Races\" did this so much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A Lassie movie which should have been \"put to sleep\".... FOREVER. That's how I'd describe this painfully dreary time-waster of a film. So mediocre in every aspect that it just becomes a dull, uninteresting mess, this is one of the most forgettable movies I've seen. It isn't even an achievement as a \"so-bad-it's-good\" or \"so-bad-it's-memorable\" movie. The idea of Lassie turning bad is intriguing but so little actually happens, and so slowly, that you feel your life slipping away while sitting there, watching the non-actors read their lines off cue cards waiting for their measly paychecks.

It's an empty, hollow shell of a movie. Seriously, it's not worth wasting your, or your kid's time on. Unless you're both heavily medicated. That's all I have to say.

Avoid, avoid, avoid! It will drive you barking mad! Hahahah, get it? BARKING! Hahahahahahaha!

Sorry, I've had a rough week.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretty bad. This film about a grizzled(and frankly rock stupid) old prospector and his dog'Shep' i.e., Lassie, as well as an annoying kid whose name I can't recall at the moment. At the beginning of the movie, the old prospector has DELIBERATELY buried himself in some sand so that the poor dog will have to dig him out. Why? Did he hate the dog? Anyhoo, somehow or other this idiot has managed to strike gold, and goes to tell his partner. But the man has died, and his sleazy other partner is happy to assist old Jonathan in digging up the gold. The geezer tries to leave is dog with the dead guy's son, but not even the retarded mutt wants to stay with this kid. There's quaint old preacher(for quaint read smelly), and the oily guy finished off the old guy(surprise, surprise) and tries to steal all the gold. Plus he poisons the dog and tries to kill the kid, too. So I suppose its okay that a devilish and crazy Lassie..err...SHEP does this the guy in at the end, although its pretty disturbing in what is basically a children's movie. There are extremely stereotypical(to the point of racial slur) 'Native Americans' who speak without using verbs(as in, Me Make Camp Fire type speech). And that's pretty much the extent of the cast, because apparently Lassie's salary was too big for them to hire anyone else. Kind of dull. not very interesting, and a tad too dark. Not a great movie in any way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All but the youngest Americans are probably familiar with the iconic call of \"Laaaaaa-sie!\" from little Timmy, or whatever the kid's name was, wailing his little tow-head off for his border collie friend. These same Americans may or may not be familiar with the fact that Lassie made the leap from television to movies (or was it the other way around? I'm clearly too lazy to do any research here), and The Painted Hills is one of those. It is irresistible to make a \"this movie has gone to the dogs!\" pun, so I won't (even though I technically just did). But in a way, it has. Lassie (playing Shep, man's best friend) gets top billing. THE DOG GETS TOP BILLING. Now, I'm not familiar with how actors or their agents negotiate contracts, but here's how it plays out in my mind:

MOVIE MOGUL: Okay, Lassie, in the credits, it's gonna be, \"and with Lassie as Shep!\" LASSIE: Rrrrowf! Grrrrrrr. MOVIE MOGUL: Ha, ha, kid, calm down, calm down! LASSIE: Rrroo rrrrooo roooo. MOVIE MOGUL: Okay, I think I see. Co-lead billing? LASSIE: Rawrf! Rawrrrrff rawrf! MOVIE MOGUL: Oh God! Let go of my arm! Top billing! Top billing for you, now let go of my arm!!!

So, the dog gets top billing, and with the rest of this shell-shocked cast, I suppose it's understandable. We get lovable old grumpus Jonathan the prospector, his young, whiny and apparently orphaned friend Tommy, sketchy loser Lin Taylor, and lovable old religious grumpus Pilot Pete. The meat of the plot here could be summed up in a few sentences, so I'll save you the actual pain of watching the movie. Jonathan is a prospector with a dog named Shep, and his partner dies while he is at his claim. He gets a new partner named Lin who becomes obsessed with the gold, and Jonathan for some reason gives Shep to whiny little crybaby Tommy. Lin kills Jonathan, Shep sees it, and Lin tries to kill Shep. Then Lin tries to kill Tommy. Then Tommy whines, it gets cold, and Shep carries out an elaborate plan to get revenge on Lin, which he (or she?) does. The end.

Unless you have a deep, unsettling need to see a Lassie movie (even then, there's got to be a better Lassie movie than this), just avoid The Painted Hills. When it's not dragging on, marveling at Lassie's limited ability to 'act' (similar in style, perhaps, to Keanu Reeves - always the same facial expression, only the body moves), setting up the obvious using several minutes of film, or insulting Native Americans everywhere with its white-actor-in-facepaint \"Ugh! How! Me Running Bear!\" stereotypes, The Painted Hills is fit only for Lassie fetishists or people who have some kind of connection to prospecting through their days as a grizzled old prospector lookin' fer that consarned vein of glittery gold!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Along with his turn in the super-sleazy 'classic' THE TOOLBOX MURDERS (1978), this is considered the ultimate bad Cameron Mitchell horror effort. It's a little too slow-moving for my tastes, has zero likable characters in it and not much action until the very end, but Mitchell's dedicated central psycho performance as vengeance-minded whack-job Vincent Rinard is fun. Not Anthony Perkins good, mind you, but definitely fun enough. As a spoof of the shallow conceit that is Hollywood, it's only so-so; as a horror movie it's also only fair. And even as just a simple vintage exploitation picture, it's just OK. I'm a big fan of the unnecessary gratuitous dance sequence, so I was also thankful for the appearance of the Gazzarri Dancers, who just rule. Five of them do a crazy hair-thrashin', floor-slidin', hip-shaking' go-go dance routine to \"Don't Cry, Look For the Rainbow\" by the T-Bones. Watching these ladies bounce around with huge smiles on their faces in their fringe-covered bikini top and parachute pants ensemble is a defining reason why I give this a slightly higher rating that usual.

Former movie make-up man Vincent Rinard (\"The best since Lon Chaney!\") goes after people at Paragon Studios. A flashback shows how Max Black (Berry Kroeger), a jealous and drunk studio executive, flung wine in Vinnie's face right when he was about to light a smoke. He's engulfed in flames and dives into a pool, but not before scarring up one side of his face and losing an eyeball (not to mention his sanity). Now employed by the \"world-famous\" Movieland Wax Museum in Buena Park, California, Vincent uses a special serum (described as a mixture of truth serum, nerve medicine and special \"vitamins and minerals\"... Watch out Centrum!) to paralyze victims. They disappear and the dense detectives on the case (headed by Scott Brady) act baffled as new 'statues' are put on display in the museum. Vince talks to himself (\"I'm a terribly nice man!\"), chain-smokes, mumbles, hisses and describes how he gets \"excited\" by the sound of a woman's scream.

He also has to deal with a bunch of back-stabbing scumbags and self-absorbed witches, most of whom will deserve what's coming to them. There is also Nick (Hollis Morrison), a boozy, inept museum tour guide who sees a 'statue' blink, but doesn't go to the cops. Aside from Max (a real Grade-A jerk... who doesn't even die!) and the stupid cops, the other two lead roles are women and both are pretty atrocious. Marie Morgan (Anne Helm) is not your typical innocent heroine; this tramp has been engaged to no less that five different characters in this movie (!), including Vince, Max and two of the wax dummies\/missing male stars (I guess she never had time to make a go at the one missing girl). For some reason, she also begs and pleads in her irritating baby-voice for Vince to give her a 'replica' of the head he's designing of the newest missing actor (and fianc\u00e9 Number 5) Tony Deen (Phillip Baird). She doesn't know that Vince has already jabbed a syringe in the back of his neck, but I love it when Mitchell dryly agrees with her demands \"so you can completely retreat for reality.\" He also wants her to 'pose' for him, which means she's eventually held prisoner in a box. Unfortunately, the box has a hole where her head sticks through so we have to continue getting aurally assaulted by her high-pitched whines.

The other \"woman\" is Theresa (Victoria Carroll), one of the aforementioned go-go girls. She's first seen proving she is thoroughly rhythm-deficient by jiggling on stage in a lime-green fringe bikini. Theresa is tolerable before she talks, but when you realize her grating presence combines the abrasiveness of Lorraine Bracco with the airhead mentality of the Landers sisters, you wish Vincent would inject her with the serum as soon as possible. Unfortunately, we're first subjected to a scene of her making endless demands to the studio head honcho and running around in the museum trying to avoid Mitchell. She and the rest of the characters are completely unsympathetic, but function as a way to poke fun at the Hollywood system in general, I guess. And I'm probably giving this movie more credit than it actually deserves. The pluses are few and far between, but include (other than Mitchell and the dance routine), colorful, slightly stylized lighting and a bizarre ending that seems to suggest that Rinard will be severely punished for his crimes by spending the rest of his life in his own personal hell... Married to Marie!... Yikes, now that is scary.

Also in the cast are director John \"Bud\" Cardos (also the production manager) as a police sergeant, James Forrest as a film director, Virgil Frye as a statue, Rini Martin and Kent Osborne as a bartender. Many of the people who worked on this one (including executive producer and script-writer Rex Carlton) also worked on the Al Adamson movie BLOOD OF DRACULA'S CASTLE and other atrocities.

My Score: 4 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Definitely not a good film but nowhere as bad as some would paint it to be. Nightmare in Wax tells the story of a man, having had his face disfigured in a typical flashback scene, wreak his vengeance on those directly responsible and those indirectly for the losses in his life - most notably the love and companionship of a beautiful young actress. Cameron Mitchell plays the artist with his typical flair, albeit limited flair. Actually, I thought he gave one of his better performances. What exactly does that mean? Mitchell wears an eye patch, endlessly smokes cigarettes, wears a motley tunic, and talks to his creations in wax. They are not your ordinary wax dummies, but rather people still alive controlled by some serum that makes them lose control of all neurological function. They become zombies in effect. I thought the premise here was inventive if nothing else. It has some ludicrous explanation, but does serve the plot. This is a film of the 60s to be sure with some psychedelic camera-work by Bud Townsend and company. The acting is mediocre but Mitchell, Scott Brady, and Barry Kroeger give interesting turns. The wax figures of Hollywood's bygone era are done very effectively and most of the location shooting was very credible. The end of the film dissipates into something not quite real - either another example of 60s cultural cinema or the end of the scriptwriter's creativity. I'm banking on the latter. Despite its many flaws, I enjoyed the film. The opening scene showing an actor being needled was effectively done as was a police chase on the waterfront.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a treat for fans of Z-grade movies. Here you will find writing and acting bad enough to rival anything Ed Wood ever produced. Veteran bad movie actor Cameron Mitchell is a former makeup man from \"Paragon Studios\" who, after a nasty acid-in-the-face incident at a social gathering, becomes an embittered Mad Scientist (tm) with a rubber scar on his face who takes revenge by kidnapping Paragon actors and turning them into living statues in his Secret Laboratory (tm) handily located in the local wax museum. Or are they zombies who do his bidding? He's not sure.

Happily, many of your favourite movie clich\u00e9s are here. Check out the villain's lab! Are those mysterious steaming vats of liquid? Test tubes of coloured water with no explained purpose? Yay! And what ho, do we see spare arms and legs arranged kinda casual-like on a wooden rack? You betcha! Marvel at the bumbling detectives acting with straight out of Plan Nine! Now, enjoy a stupidly tame car chase, and hear more dizzy bimbo screaming than you could possibly want. Raise an eyebrow at the screwy plot line, made even more opaque by the totally meaningless ending that seems to have no connection to the rest of the movie.

Cheesy trash and much fun for the bad movie connoisseur.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Legendary Cameron Mitchell turkey about an actor\/makeup man who is burned by the head of a studio when a drink is tossed in his face as he is lighting up a cigarette. Reduced to a scarred mess and wearing an eye patch Mitchell works at the Movieland Wax Museum . He also kidnaps and kills people using a solution which paralyzes them so he can turn them into displays. Genuinely bizarre bad movie that defies description. Watch as the various wax figures try not to move, watch as the entire tobacco out put for several Southern states is consumed\u0085watch as things just get weirder and weirder. Its an awful train wreck of a movie and you won't be able to take your eyes off the screen. A classic bad movie that will amaze you even as it leaves permanent scars on your psyche.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cameron Mitchell plays an actor who is dating a young actress who used to date the head of a movie studio (she's too young for both of them!). At a party, when he's lighting his cigarette, the studio boss throws a high alcohol content drink in his face, and he catches fire. In the hospital, his face is entirely bandaged and he still lights up a cigarette! He becomes the resident sculptor of the Movieland Wax Museum and Palace, where he also lights up cigarettes!

Mitchell recovers, more or less, having really poorly done burn makeup on one side of his face that looks like gray spackle and tape, and an eyepatch. When Mitchell isn't smoking, he's killing people. Well, he only kills people sometimes, since he prefers to inject them with something that puts them in a sort of waxy coma. If he doesn't administer it regularly (and he never seems to remember), they start to move again a little, although they're in a sort of hypnotic zombie state. Not all his sculptures are people, though. He evidently does have talent as a sculptor.

The ending, which seemed to have been struck from a much poorer print than the rest of the movie, is really absurd. They seemed not to know what to do, and went back to the title for an idea. Apart from the oddly grainy final shots, the rest of the movie is in fairly good shape, except for the audio in some scenes which sounds like it was run through a blown speaker. Definitely not one of the better wax museum movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie opens with beautiful landscape shots of the Northwest countryside. Fenceposts jutting out from soddy earth, a freight train crossing fields of hay in the distance, billows of clouds, small structures by the side of the road, a motel or a diner in the middle of nowhere. Over this plays a languid but mysterious Twin Peaks piano arrangement and it's all adequately moody and atmospheric in an American Gothic sort of way. Through this however director Jon Jost keeps interleaving awkward frames, blocks of letters, opening credits with annoying swooshing sounds, color frames that announce \"BLUE\", numbers that count towards the \"12 Steps to a Conclusion\" announced in the opening credits. It's obvious by the first couple of minutes that, though Jost is more than capable to capture landscape and ambiance, he doesn't care for it. He has neither the affection for Pacific Northwest open expanses that Terrence Malick does in Badlands and neither the time or inclination of Twin Peaks David Lynch to weave mystery and intrigue around a given location.

The rest of the movie is more Jon Jost frustration with experimental tricks that serve their own purpose. The use of split screen is interesting, I like in particular how we get the first image of Ricky Lee split in two, one is recounting childhood memories that matter only to him, the other is cursing and banging his head against the wall, and over the course of the movie the second Ricky Lee prevails, the macho laid-back hipster with the shades who is hopelessly self-involved and stupid. On the other hand the stop motion animation and choice to play most of the movie in voice-over narration does not work. It does at times because Jost writes as good as he shoots static shots of the smalltown American Nowheresville but Beth Ann's monologues, delivered in the most flat nasal monotone imaginable, a voice that sounds like Stephen Hawking's computer speech program crossed with a horse whinnying, are so grating to the ear it kind of defeats the purpose of trying to pay attention.

Each of the couple relate to us their past experiences, their small triumphs and follies and doubts and past relationships that went nowhere. They say very little to each other and what they say they say with blank faces. But they hump like rabbits. That seems to be their only channel of communication left open, perhaps the only one they can trust with any safety. Jost clearly picks his main characters in Frameup among the naive and delusional, those baited by an American Dream turned sour, but he doesn't place himself above them. He's not condescending or smug in his portrayal. They may be misguided but they are graced with moments of humanity, awkward though they may be. We're called to empathize and show affection rather than point and laugh. This is the most successful Frameup becomes; the movie's characters come alive even when their expressionless faces do not, even when Jost gets in their way with his stilted framing and obtrusive camera games.

Then we go back to angry rants about the destructive effects of money played over an inserted shot of a dollar bill, we get a weird psychedelic sequence where Jost's camera glides under big leafy trees that soon turn beetroot red as Beth Ann repeatedly muses about the \"redwood trees\" in the voice-over, we even get a sudden about-turn towards plot and genre as the couple of Beth Ann and Ricky Lee, smalltown losers with nowhere to go and nothing to hold them back to their dead end lives, arrive in California and decide to rob a 7\/11. The movie doesn't soar to an emotional crescendo in the aftermath of the botched 7\/11 job such as one might expect from a 'couple-on-the-run' road movie, it slowly screeches to a halt and you look out the window to see it hasn't really got anyplace in particular. Parts of the ride have been hypnotic and parts almost touching and funny, but everything else has been mostly annoying.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I've read the book first and thought: wow would this be cool to see in a movie, than I started searching and found there was already a movie made of it... I bought the movie a week ago on DVD and watched it.. they did it awfully wrong! at first this kid Hapi,who isn't any character in the book, then the mix between the two books ('the river god' and 'the seventh scroll') than Nicolas needing funds while in the book he himself is actually the funder, the whole thing about the Hyksos is wrong also.. Taila is supposed to have invented the lightweight-chariot.. the whole thing about the tomb is also very wrong.. there is supposed to be a channel that has some kind of vacuum-suction around it.. the tomb itself was made in a maze with only a possibility to pass if one knows the rules of the ancient boa-game. There was nothing in the movie about Nicolas being English and Royan was a Coptic-Christian in the book, not a Muslim..This list is endless.. There were only a few things good about the movie, the actors which played Royan, Nahood, Taita, Boris, Mick and Tessay were well-chosen, the rest were just parodies of the characters in the book, Rasfer was the worst, it didn't get even close to the character that was in my head while I wrote the book.. It is such a shame that such a great book is mutilated in such a bad reproduction... I wonder why Wilbur Smith ever gave his permission for this..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After reading both _River_God_ and _The_Seventh_Scroll_, I can't begin to express how disappointed I was with this film. While I agree some poetic license may be admissible, this movie is at constant variance with the books, doing an incredible injustice to the exciting, plausible and wonderful stories written by Wilbur Smith. I can only believe that the writers, director and producers of the movie have never even heard of Mr. Smith, let alone read his work. Smith's vibrant characterizations are converted into wooden stick figures, all historicity is ignored or discounted, the realism of the books has been changed to include phantom monsters more appropriate to a cartoon. And why is an Egyptian henchman speaking Spanish? Geesh, no wonder the movie was made into a TV miniseries! Did Wilbur Smith have any input into the making of this movie? I can't believe that he did. Terrible, terrible movie. If you've read either or both of the books, don't waste your time or money watching this money. You will be sorely disappointed, I assure you.

Only a moment of supreme generosity persuaded me to give this movie a ranking of '2', and that only because of the beautiful, sometimes spectacular, photography.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is a truism that it takes a lot of effort to make a bad movie - this one is no exception.

I am no lover of yanks but their amazingly simplistic view of the world and their ability to reduce everything to black and white as well as make events (even fictional ones in novels) fit an agenda that bears little or no relationship to complexity of any kind is irritating in the extreme.

Wilbur Smith is descriptively verbose but weaves intricate tales that deserve more than has been delivered by this awful mishmash of a movie.

Sad really for those who will never read Smith. They will be left with a less than decent portrayal of his Egyptian series, which has to be said is gigantic in its exposition.

The Indiana Jones movies were snappy. To attempt to replicate that by manipulating Smith's novels into this production misses out by a country mile.

Pathetic except for the photography and Art Malik.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know that Full Moon, or any other film studio for that matter, could never recapture the fun and cheesy sci-fi feeling that was the original `Trancers.' And with the last two entries in the series having Jack Deth in medieval times instead of futuristic Los Angeles, it became quite obvious that there really was little hope in reviving the Trancers series. Breathing new life into a film is one thing, but taking our main character out of his element and putting him into the past, well, it didn't work! So now with Trancers 6, Full Moon has breathed so much new life into the series that we don't even deal with Jack Deth any more. We now deal with his daughter, Jo. Jack is in her body and must go into the past and fight the Trancers one more time.

*MINOR SPOILER: FIRST SCENE OF THE FILM REVEALED*

\tTo prove how bad this movie is, you only need watch the first two minutes of the film when the original Jack Deth appears on the screen. But it's not actually Tim Thomerson. It's clips of him and sound bytes strung together (trust me, you can tell they're strung together) horribly to provide the viewer the last of the true Jack Deth humor. And from this point on, things only go down hill. Having this girl, Jo Deth, as our main character while Jack Deth is supposed to be in her body, is the worst idea in the world. Having this cute young woman act as a rough and tough man isn't the right track at all! It doesn't work and it really comes off as foolish.

\tI'm not going to go into the aspects of special effects and makeup because most reading this know what Full Moon has become: A really, really, low budget enterprise. I don't know what to say about this movie, except I really wish Full Moon could be like it was in the days of Demonic Toys, Puppet Master, and Trancers 1. Back then, while the special effects weren't great, the story telling was. They made serious b-movies for serious B movie and horror fans, and that just doesn't take place today with the new Full Moon Studios. I yearn for the good ol' days, and truly hope, that Full Moon can pull itself out of this horrible slump that they're in right now.

\tTrancers 6 gets a 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, granted, I am a fan of low-budget horror, which along with it, does come the occasional piece of garbage that even the most diehard fan of campy flicks can not bare to stand witness to...TRANCERS 6, directed by DEMONICUS's Jay Woelfel.

First of all, the TRANCERS series, started back in the mid-80s by Charlie Band and his Empire Pictures, is basically the franchise that it is because of Tim Thomerson and his excellent portrayal of Trancer hunter Jack Deth. Well, low and behold, due to the sinking budgets of Full Moon features (which, despite what people have said, have actually brought along very high quality features, such as HELL ASYLUM and DEAD & ROTTING), Thomerson did not return for the sixth installment.

Full Moon writer Courtney Joyner returns once again and delivers another below-average screenplay, which features Jack Deth (played by Thomerson...in flashbacks, which are extremely poorly inserted...he has a different hair style like every time he is shown, and some `shemp' laying on a table) going down the line into his daughter's body. Well, from here on out, you have \"Jo Deth\" acting like Jack...but its a shame that she really doesn't give off the same screen presence as Jack Deth did.

The film, shot on 16mm, is, simply put, an embarrassment to the TRANCERS name...no offense to anyone at Young Wolf Productions. I mean, I respect you guys for actually wanting to jump forth and do a TRANCERS film without Tim, but with a little more time (despite it being filmed since December of 2001), it could have been better.

However, check out Full Moon's DVD of it, which is a double feature with the original TRANCERS, and features trailers for the last 10 plus Full Moon features.

Overall, I would probably have liked the feature more if it wouldn't have the TRANCERS name, but like anything, you can judge it by someone's opinion and you must check it out for yourself!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was terrible...How can somebody even think that this movie was like the ones back in the \"good old days\" when Tim Thomerson was not even in it. And to make things worse, they used clips from old trancer movies. Thats just terrible. NO trancer movie is complete without Tim Thomerson.I love Fullmoon films, and i have been watching them since i was 4 years old. I have been through everything they have done and this movie almost made me lose it. Now i got a couple of lines to fill so i will keep going. Their way of breeding new trancers is completely stupid as well as way to send Jack back in time. What happened to the TCL Chamber. AND finally! What happened in the end of trancers 5 where lina says and i quote \"Jack Has given me something special\" AND her and some other broad looks at her stomach. I don't know...maybe a BABY is in there. There were so many other places of going to, but fullmoon S'd the Bed","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another Day - this movie requires you to watch it another day to understand it. I thoroughly enjoy watching Shannen Doherty and I was quite interesting in seeing how well Julian McMahon and Shannen appeared together following the roles they played in Charmed. I can certainly PRAISE the acting skills throughout the film, even the directing - but the plot...what happened? I am at a loss for words because I am still confused. I have to stay loyal to the actors who really did a good job considering the madness of the plot. I also have to recommend you watch it because despite the plot-madness I would still watch it over and over again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The new celebrity deathmatch is terrible. They kill off the popular people and make the low budget celebs win. I mean...Andy Milonakis? Lil' flip? Lil flip and Lil Wayne should of both died.Lil' flip sucks. the fight between Lil' Jon and Lil' bow wow and Lil flip was MAD corny and short. They should of just kill off all of them. Why did Tobey lose to Jake and Christian lose to Adam? they are better actors and superheroes. They also spend too much time on talking rather than fighting which can bore the viewers. Everything seems rushed for some reason, they can't just make a long fight? the old deathmatch is way better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"World War I gets a glossy, sepia-tinted makeover in Jean-Pierre Jeunet's relentlessly whimsical \"A Very Long Engagement\". Jeunet's trademark style consists of mechanical, almost clockwork-like narrative construction garnished with lavish, chocolate box production values and seasoned with faux-naive humour. It's an approach that worked pretty well with his previous picture, the romantic fantasy \"Amelie\", thanks in no small part to the inimitable contribution of Audrey Tatou in the title role. Applied to vastly more sombre material, Jeunet's method backfires rather badly.

Tatou crops up again here in a variation on the same sort of sweetly off-beat character as Amelie. She's Mathilde, an orphan who lives quietly with her aunt and uncle in an idyllic rural setting, determined to trace what became of her child sweetheart Manech (Gaspard Ulliel), several years after he went missing in the War. Manech was one of five soldiers court-martialled for self-mutilation in 1917 at 'Bingo Crepuscule', and sent over the top into no-man's-land as a punishment. He's presumed dead by all but Mathilde who cherishes the hope of finding him. The film follows Mathilde's dogged quest to find out what really happened, and as she delves deeper she uncovers a sad, even shocking story of high-ranking corruption and inhumanity. Mathilde must filter the facts from the fictions that arise from various conflicting, overlapping or incomplete accounts of what seem to be Manech's final hours.

All this should be poignant and gripping, but it's more often simply confusing thanks to the visual and verbal clutter with which Jeunet pummels his audience. There's simply too much going on at any one time, including an intrusive narration that adds precisely nothing to our appreciation of the story and characters. Without a moment's respite from informational overload, I felt denied the space to reflect on Mathilde's quest or the room to engage with it on my own terms. Jeunet's unceasingly busy camera spirals and swoops and circles, caressing every surface contour of his exquisitely designed production, but it singularly fails to penetrate to the soul beneath the story's skin. The result is deeply uninvolving, and worse, grotesque. The First World War was a particularly dark hour in human history. Imagine it re-created as one of those picturesque commercials for a well known Belgian lager, and you have the measure of this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has been advertised for over three months in Greece as the biggest Greek production ever. Well, it could be, but... When you hear of a big production you expect to see something new, something different. What you get to watch here is a movie with no reason of existence. George Corraface looks like he didn't really enjoy making this movie. His acting is so simplistic, that looks almost amateur. The sound, especially when some of the Turkish actors speak English (dubbed?), is full of hiss. The, thankfully few, special effects showing Istanbul and Athens in the late 50's and early 70's are more like digital paintings than computer graphics. Finally, we see the same boy from 1959 (age 5) up to 1968 (age 14), but in a miraculous way he becomes a teenager five years later.

So much for \"the biggest Greek production\". At least one would think that there would be some kind of interesting script to qualify for such an expensive production. And all one gets is a love story between 7 year-olds, who meet again 40 years later. Oh, there is a political side, too. A couple of ironic remarks about the Greek \"junta\" of '67-'74, so childish that seem almost forced.

There are, of course a couple of good things in the movie: most of the actors are great, mainly Ieroklis Michaelidis, the very good scenery and the magnificent music by Evanthia Remboutsika; but they are so few for such an expensive production.

Bottom-line: Is it so bad a movie? To tell the truth I don't know. I just know that in no point does it justify its huge (for Greek standards) budget.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here's example number 87,358 of Hollywood's anti-Biblical bias, so typical of them.

Early on, Ray Liotta's wife has did and women are being interviewed for the position of housekeeper. The first interviewee is an old-fashioned-looking (dress, mannerisms, speech) who immediately lays down here strict rules, stating that \"there will be two hours of Bible study ever day.\"

This is said, of course, to make it sound like reading the Bible is the worse punishment you could ever inflict on someone, especially a kid. Once again, the Bible is equated with stuffy, mean-spirited people. That woman, of course, is dismissed immediately.

Naturally, the liberal black woman (Whoopi Goldberg - who else?) is the one who is hired and, voil\u00e0, saves the day!

Yawn.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not bad performances. Whoopi plays the wise\/warm role quite well. Still, the storyline and situations can not be believed (forced PC stereotypes). At times it is good Jews and Blacks vs. the evil White Christians (ho-hum). A typical Hollywood fantasy. The film does have its moments, but it is not one that I would recommend to go out of your way to view.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie and was bored out of my mind! I am a fan of Peanuts, but I can't understand why Charles Schultz let this disaster be made! Spoilers ahead.

I can't believe Snoopy would let his friends sleep on the ground outside in a dangerous situation and go out to a bar and swig a few cold ones without standing watch! The story was complete nonsense, even for comic strip characters. It takes them toooo long to get to France, plus once they get to France I had a feeling that the writer (I still can't believe it was Schultz) didn't know what to do once they got there.

Peanuts is best made in 30 minute episodes, not 80 minute movies.

Go home Charlie Brown, you are at your best there.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm rating 'The Decline of the American Empire' just about below average since it wasn't terrible, but also not great. I liked the very open conversations from people so incredibly selfish and ugly inside and out. That was probably the most original aspect \u0096 a dialogue-laced sexual small film with people who are extremely far from models. That aside, it seems ironic that these French-speaking Canadians have a movie about a neighboring society that, well, is in 'Decline' when their own actions are their own demise. A group of women friends and male friends spend half the movie laughing it up on their infidelities and acceptance of such behavior and the other half \"intellectually\" speaking of how powerful they are for their speech and actions. These are the normal targets in typical sitcoms the main characters make fun of at parties occupied mainly by college professors. Sadly, it's not their \"intelligence\" or mastery of \"history\" that disturbs me. It's their pedestal made of ego and mightier-than-thou attitude that pushes me away and not one character could I relate to, nor like. When one cries, I couldn't care less \u0096 it's your bed. When one complains, I barely flinched. What made me skirmish was one character, uh, peeing red. (Another example of playing with fire.) Sure, I understand it happens to some people, but it was hard to watch. And I sincerely hoped the he washed his hands as he had no problem going right back to cooking for everyone. On the complete opposite end of the noses-up educators, they introduce a stereotypical nomad. This made me cringe as no one seemed real; everyone was as shallow as their laughter on society. Unfortunately, with no one left to root for, you're left as empty as these character's souls.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"History and experience over the past couple of decades has shown us that intellectuals talking about sex is about the unsexiest and unintellectual thing anyone can do, but this wasn't quite as obvious back in 1986. Basically, the idea in this film is that these characters insatiable drive to find comfort, security, and pleasure in sexual acts is actually the unhealthy motive that makes them so unbearable to themselves--which they hide from themselves with more sex. This drive is linked to \"the decline of the American Empire\", as expressed in an early interview within the movie.

So the idea is that relatively detestable people talk about sex, and that that talk is supposed to reveal how detestable they are as people. Arcand at least keeps giving it drive and momentum by doing interesting things with the camera such as isolating most of the characters in single frames, revealing their ultimate loneliness, and cutting rapidly between them, showing how they are more at war with each other than they are at agreement. And to give Arcand credit, this is pretty much what intellectual life is, a constant struggle with other intellectuals to stand out, even when everyone knows that standing out means standing alone.

But yeah, the characters and action are unsexy and kind of pathetic. I think this film is much more an aspect of its time than it is something meant to last, which makes it kind of dated. It's also the exact type of mental buffing in dialog and references to people like Susan Sontag that makes art-house films so unpopular around the populist entertainment moviegoers. In all, I'll take it anyway--it has its place basically among the exact type of people the characters are--it's just that it's not really interesting or important to anyone who isn't those characters.

--PolarisDiB","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A lot of people in the cinema enjoyed this film, but it only made me feel misanthropic. If smug \"intellectuals\" bantering about their irritating sex lives, sounds ok to you, watch it. I felt bored, but glad I did know people like that. The premise of the film was that, as with all societies or great civilizations, they are eventually doomed to fail. According to the female historian character, who bores us with this fact, America is showing signs of it's decline (Admittedly she goes into greater detail than me). The next part of the film is concerned with the vacuous, fatuous and asinine behaviour of her friends and colleagues, and the various miseries caused by their libidinous behaviour, with a vague attempt at humor. A lot of people liked this movie where I watched it. I could not relate to it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A movie that tries hard to say something and generally fails. Like the fatuous academics that populate the movie, it meanders aimlessly, substituting endless (it seems like forever listening to it) conversation for some action or plot direction.

Sadly, it's one of the best examples of canadian cinema I've seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sex is a most noteworthy aspect of existence. It is perhaps the most interesting activity there is between birth and death. LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN studies human sexuality in a dry and boring manner. Actually, worse than being simply boring, seeing nude 40-year-olds is, well, unpleasant.

I guess there is some shock value in having adults as old as our parents talk about sex, but after twenty minutes, this stops being interesting. Perhaps if the characters were all 20 years younger, the film would be more visually captivating.

LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN is not worth the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had a VERY hard time sitting through this film. Unless you really are very pro-adultery and like to hear people ENDLESSLY talking about their sexual exploits, I can't see how you could enjoy this film. Geez--most of the main characters behaved like rutting weasels and their bragging about their MANY infidelities grew tiresome. About the only element of this I appreciated was the DISGUSTING scene where the one character was urinating and blood was splattering everywhere because he'd picked up an STD---BIG SURPRISE!?! Hmm.

If you want a GOOD film, watch the sequel, Barbarian Invasions. Despite the general unlikable nature of many of the characters, the sequel is VERY involving and more realistic--well worth your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THEIR PURPLE MOMENT

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Silent

(Black and white - Short film)

Two luckless nightclub revellers (Laurel and Hardy) are unable to pay their bill, provoking violent retribution from a hot-tempered waiter (Tiny Sandford).

Typical L&H scenario, less substantial than some of their best work from this period, but worth a look nonetheless. Stan takes center-stage this time round, caught up in a financial dilemma after holding back part of his wages to fund a night on the town, only to find out - too late! - that his aggrieved wife (Fay Holderness) has replaced his stash with worthless coupons. Some of the prolonged closeups of Laurel as he slowly becomes aware of the unfolding disaster reveal his genius for characterization and mime. 1920's morality is represented by Patsy O'Byrne, playing a hatchet-faced busy-body who takes great joy in alerting L&H's respective spouses (Holderness and Lyle Taho) to their husbands' bad behavior. The ending fizzles, but the movie still has much to recommend it. Directed by James Parrott.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this on the Sci-Fi Channel so I knew it would be bad to start with but I was surprised at how much worse it was than expected. The CG effects on the dragon were terrible, even for the Sci-Fi channel and the writing was pathetic. I couldn't tell if this was supposed to be that stupid as a joke or if it just came out that way. The only redeeming quality of this movie is that it's so terrible it's almost funny, especially the part where Patrick Swayze's knight character goes home to his Knight father who has retired after losing his legs and is now bed-ridden in his armor for the sole purpose of letting the audience know he was a knight. The majority of the movie focuses around an enormous dragon egg that hatches into a not-so-enormous baby dragon with some of the worst CGI I've ever seen. This was just awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie starts out great, and sucks you in. Most acting is good until Patrick Swayze (with his Texas Twang- everyone else sounds British-like even the Muslim) shows up, and proves that he can't act. You can live with that until the first fight scene where all they all fall to pieces. Why does Patrick Swayze fight baddies with an ax when he just stuck his sword into the ground 5 minutes ago.

There's further misplacing of swords a few minutes later, and people knowing about other people they shouldn't know about. Other reviewers mentioned \"Troubled Production\" and it shows.

At the end I just didn't even care about the fight scenes, sure, the CGI Dragon was weak, but the storyline was the biggest letdown.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie started with some promise: big name cast, good looking sets, but then it fell apart.

Most of the time it can't tell whether it's a serious movie or a comedy. One minute they're talking about how there's no joy in killing and the next there is a fight scene set to funny music and funny banter.

Some of the acting is pretty bad, mainly from Patrick Swayze and Piper Perabo. She also gets some groaner lines like, \"When I marry, it will be about love.\" Ugh.

But the worst thing about this movie is that it's just boring. Not enough action, not enough humor, not enough plot, not much of anything really. Just a lot of clich\u00e9s and cheesy moments.

Also, a movie with \"Dragon\" in the title should contain a lot more dragons than the few (and pathetic CGI dragons) that appeared in this movie.

Can't the SciFi channel show *any* good movies?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow! That James Purefoy looks exactly like Thomas Jane!

That's the most profound thought I took with me after having seen the rather underwhelming George And The Dragon. For a fantasy comedy, the story was very dull and the effects unspectacular.

The problem wasn't the acting. James Purefoy makes a good knight, and his various side-kicks are not bad characters. I even thought Patrick Swayze in this role was a pretty good idea, too. Flat-chested Piper Perabo also had some nice potential. I even liked the kid.

But the story and everything that happens, and the *way* it happens, was just \"eh\". Not interesting. Compared to another recent fantasy comedy, Ella Enchanted, which was actually funny, this movie comes up terribly short. I'm sorry for the decent actors who were in this yawn-inducing trudgery.

4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the one movie that represents all that is bad in the movie business. The actors are pathetic and the script is awful. The special effects, if there are any, are so badly done that it would have been better to do it with cartoons instead. Besides that it's great! I think the creators of the movie meant it to have humor, but the only time i was laughing was when I saw Patrick S. with long hair and the colorful costumes that every one had. The scenes at the end were good but they were not a part of the movie. In the end you will ask yourself \"why did I waste my time and money with that crap when I could have watched the plants growing or the clouds moving\". I don't think that I am some critic or anything but this is a truly lame movie! DO NOT WATCH! DANGER OF STUPIDITY OVERLOAD!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I want to believe all new horror films coming out of Japan these days are edgy and make for enjoyable watching.

Spider Forest is neither.

It is seldom that I finish watching something and end up teed off for the waste of time, but Spider Forest was an exception in this regard. I was very teed off. The makers of the film succeeded on one level; throughout the film I could not stop because I wanted to see the answer to the mystery spun by the storyline. I could not stop watching. That's why I was so angry when the film finished... they dragged me all the way through 2 hours of tedium for this POC? WARNING: Spider Forest is another one of those Japanese \"ghost\" stories, though you don't realize that going in.

I never want to see a Japanese ghost story again. They're phony and contrived. \"It's a ghost story\" has become like a big rug under which to sweep any and all unresolvable plot holes you have in your story-telling.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have an affection for these twists on British social norms and it is rare that one loses me. But Our Betters did lose me a bit. It's a tale of social climbers and their joy at breaking the rules but personally I found it a little dull.

I liked the duchess though she whines a little too much and Constance Bennett amiably fills the role of Lady Greyston, a role that Bette Davis could have played backwards.

But the movie comes the life in the third act when Ernest joins the party. He is so lively and fun (and in truth probably wears more makeup then Lady Greyston). He gets the last line of the film and it's a gas!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is not great cinema. The film is cliche ridden and in many places it is a copy of the original Carrie. The parallels with the original film are striking but with an added improbability about the telekenetic powers being congenital.

I can't say that I disliked the film because it at least passed a couple of hours ... but these were passed as one would read an undemanding book on a long train journey. That book would not be great literature but would absorb one for a while and be forgotten soon afterwards in that it would blend in with the numerous other cliche ridden books. Likewise the film was okay whilst it lasted but is perhaps forgettable. At least I think it is. I cant remember much about it now!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**Could be considered some mild spoilers, but no more than in anyone else's review of this film.**

I knew that nothing could conceivably live up to the absolute brilliance of the original \"Carrie,\" which was more of a film about social criticism than it was about setting the gym on fire. Carrie White was \"victim\" epitomized, and her story conveyed the helplessness that the truly exploited must feel.

Whoever conceived the \"Rachel\" character for \"The Rage\" must have completely missed the subtleties of \"Carrie.\" For the audience to genuinely share the victim's rage, s\/he must be a sympathetic character-- a true outcast who is more a victim of circumstance than of his\/her own vices. Rachel is entirely too unpleasant to convey any sort of the emotional depth and connection of Sissy Spacek's \"Carrie.\" And she looks and acts like she should be right along-side the 'attractive and popular brigade' that she ends up torching. She, like the rest of them, has a soul that is every bit as corrupt, whereas Carrie was a complete innocent.

It just doesn't work. There's no satisfaction in seeing the pretty children-- not even the \"Home Improvement\" boy-- getting offed in this movie's climactic scene. And it's so unnecessarily gory! There was no actual bloodshed seen in the burning gym!

And there is one person in particular that this movie should NOT have had the audacity to kill off... but I won't say who it is. If you've seen the original \"Carrie,\" it's the sort of character who dies unjustly.

At least they DID create the connection to Carrie appropriately; it's explained as it should have been. But that, and the arm tattoo, which was done rather nicely, is just about the only thing this movie has going for it.

Yet another hideous \"Scream\" knock-off, and it taints the reputation of one of the most compelling films ever made.

Rating: 1 out of 10. I wasn't expecting much, but I was still horribly disappointed. An unsympathetic character, a series of irritating pop-culture references thrown in for no good reason, and an ending scene that pales in comparison to \"Carrie\"'s gravestone shocker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the scariest movies I have ever seen was Carrie (the first one!). Now, as with other movies, they have totally ruined the Carrie franchise with The Rage: Carrie 2. From the beginnning, the movie plods along like geriatics in a beat-up van. There are hardly any scares and this movie is chock-full of all the various high-school sterotypes (i.e. the football jock, the bitchy cheer-leader, the followers and of course the black nailpolish wearing misfits). Another sad thing about this show is that you know what's going to happen the moment you see the opening credits. Sure, sure, girl gets humilated thourghly and then turns into crazed psychic murderer...yawn...

Been there. Done that.

Even the actors look like they were forced into doing this movie. Emily Bergl is as frightening as a cabbage patch doll while Jack London... let's just say i didn't pay to see wood act. Apart from the actors, the flasbacks serve more to irritate than to link up with the first movie.

Bottom line, If you can beam objects around like Carrie, then for the love of God beam yourself out of that theatre......","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd never walked out of a movie before this one. I'd entertained the idea a couple of times, but this time I did it, snuck in to see the end of another movie, but had to come back and see the end of the Rage while I waited for my friends. They told me I didn't miss much while I was gone, either. I was generally offended by the entire movie, in such a grand way that I can't even describe it. My gut instinct told me to get myself out of the theatre. It was a visceral reaction to a horrible movie. The plot centered around the cruel actions of some reprehensible teenagers against vulnerable and troubled others. There was no ray of light, no resonsible or likeable person to provide contrast. I found that even the \"good guys\" of the movie did nothing for me, were silly, stupid, whiney, or just plain ineffectual.

The repetitious, graphic suicide imagery was way overdone, unnecessary, and disgusting. (Not in a \"I'm easily grossed out\" way, but more in the portrayal of disregard for humanity way). And besides the repetition of that scene, in slow motion, from so many angles, the other visual aspects, (interesting camera work, etc) had potential, but just became annoying sometimes. I am a person who loves movies and tries to find good things about them. Usually I can find some good things to counterbalance the not-so-good of any movie. I'm not saying that this movie had nothing good, but I am saying that, whatever that may have been, I can't remember it with all the other crap that drove me mad. I'm really sorry about that, too. Maybe the best parts were the clips from the classic original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The ending made my heart jump up into my throat. I proceeded to leave the movie theater a little jittery. After all, it was nearly midnight. The movie was better than I expected. I don't know why it didn't last very long in the theaters or make as much money as anticipated. Definitely would recommend

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ok, I did think that it would be horrible. But when I saw it.. I was proven wrong. Emily Bergl did a superb job as did Jason London. Sue Snell was under-used and under-written. The meanies were ok, Dylan Bruno and Rachel Blanchard are definitely the stand-outs. As for the things the teens do and how people claim it's all wrong. Whatever. My friends and I use the term \"swank\" a lot and I have driven a car and had someone steer as I changed. It's pretty much all there. I've just never been at a after-game party in a house that big with it's very own light show.. The deaths are good. The best involves a pair of glasses, a spear gun and a pool.. all in that order. I must say, there will be people who hate it.. but I'm not one of them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Following up the 1970s classic horror film Carrie with this offering, is like Ford following the Mustang with the Edsel. This film was horrendous in every detail. It would have been titled Beverly Hill 90210 meets Mystery Science Theater 3000, but both of those shows far exceed this tripe. This film was scarcely a horror film. I timed about 3 minutes of gore and 90 minutes of lame high school hazing and ritual. Wow, what a surprise, Carrie's weird friend commits suicide! Wow, Carrie misconstrues her love interests affections! Wow, the in-crowd sets up Carrie! Wow, the jocks have a sexual scoring contest! What this film needed was way more action and far less tired teen cliches. This film is totally unviewable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this awful film moved at a snails pace it would at least be moving.Watching grass grow would be more interesting. It was painful to sit through and I only stayed in the theatre to see how all the cruel teens would die.Where is Brian DePalma????","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

I thought that this movie lacked the building dramatic suspense the first movie had. This is hard to accomplish when the film takes place over a week. The original movie lead up to the final climatic scene over a period of a year and it still was less violent than the sequel. One good thing about this film was the movie went by relatively quickly, because the plot seemed rushed. When Rachel's best friend died there was no funeral mentioned in the movie. Another bring down was the involvement of Amy Irving. All her scenes brought down the movies pace. The dialog in this movie was terrible. It in no way reflected the way kids talk. In conclusion this movie could have been a hit but fell apart after the opening scene.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most enjoyable parts of this film were the clips from the original movie. The acting was poor and the premise of sexual scorecards was revolting. The effects were marginal at best. There were no stand out performances, Amy Irving was put in this film to try and get a part of the Halloween H20 audience. The original was much more enjoyable and gratifying. I am sorry to say that this is not going to be one of the years 10 best...so far it is at the bottom of my list. Don't bother with this one folks!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Be warned by the line on the back of the box that promotes a story involving \"over sexed jocks\". There isn't a thing redeeming about Carrie 2. The plot is absurd, the acting terrible, and the ending all too predictable.

I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but I was expecting to be entertained. I wasn't. The only way I could rationalize watching this movie was because I was at a relative's house while waiting for my car to be fixed. Unless in the same predicament stay well away from this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would have given this movie a 1, but I laughed so hard, so many times, that I had to give it a little credit, in the off off off off chance the film was Supposed to be funny. A movie so bad you'll think chimps wrote it. You'll wish chimps had written it. Dialogue so canned that only it and the cockroaches will survive the coming nuclear holocaust. The movie Exaggerates its awfulness by intersplicing scenes from the Original Carrie (a really good film) into scenes from this one. Like intersplicing scenes from Taxi Driver into Baby Geniuses. Do not rent it alone, as you will NOT enjoy the experience. You will need someone next to you to confirm the badness of what you are viewing. Worst actress of the Millenium goes to poor poor Amy Irving as the stone-faced, monotone, disastrously wooden school counselor. Worst movie of the year so far (see also _Arlington Road_). --FRINK-3","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Would you be surprised if I told you this movie deals with a conspiracy? No? How about if I told you the ringleader was a shadow puppet. What? You don't believe me? ... OK. Yes, I made that up. It's too bad, this movie could have used a sense of humor. I understand Charlie Sheen doing this at the time - another movie equaled more money - as for Donald Sutherland and Linda Hamilton ... why? Don't even get me started on Stephen Lang. He was so much fun as the Party Crasher in 'The Hard Way' and now this junk.

Ah no matter. Everyone involved should feel ashamed. If you aim to make a bad movie and succeed - it's twisted - but I seriously doubt that was what they were aiming for here. Flat out, the story stinks and we're actually supposed to take this yak seriously. Makes you wonder if this movie even had a glimmer of hope. Seriously, I doubt it and in an industry so tight with the purse strings how this got green lit in the first place is beyond me. Maybe even more scary is how this dog pile made it's way to theaters!?

Oh ... Sam Waterson, how great you are in Law & Order. Why are you here? Demoting yourself to the role of the President of the United States who might I add gets to be shot at by a remote control biplane controlled by the gonzo assassin. Then again this is a masterpiece of work from George P. Cosmatos who's \"directing\" credits include Rambo: First Blood Part II amongst other gems. Hmm.... case in point?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Funny thing. Charlie Sheen, Donald Sutherland, Sam Waterston, and Stephen Lang have all had incredible performances. Who can forget Sheen as the callow naif in Wall Street, or Sutherland as the the cynical Korean War surgeon in MASH? Waterston and Lang have both also had successful TV and film careers (Law and Order, Killing Fields, De Niro's Tribeca, etc). So what in the world would any of these fine actors be doing in a stink bomb like this?

Shadow Conspiracy's plot of a Washington coup d'etat is not really that bad, unoriginal maybe but not that bad. Sure it's been done (Seven Days in May - a fine film!), but with a little tweaking, it could still have been entertaining.

Shadow Conspiracy's main problem is in the execution. Early in the film Sheen, political strategist extreme, ridiculously and implausibly resolves a potential public relations gaffe by blackmailing a Congressman. Later, gunplay with Lang's mute hitman tearing up half of what is supposed to be Georgetown is explained on the news as \"gang wars\". Has anyone remotely associated with this film ever lived a day in Washington? Sheen is about 20 years too young, way way too young, to be so senior in a White House Administration. Sheen's response to avert a political crisis is so ladened with false machismo, he looks as though he attended the David Hasselhoff school of acting. And when was the last time gang wars spread to Georgetown? We're talking about a section of Washington where citizens voted against having a Metro stop so that they could maintain their exclusivity.

I agree with another reviewer that this film would have been unbearable without the fast forward button. I taped it off HBO a year ago and then took 3 separate viewings to plod through it.

In summary: Don't buy this film. Don't even rent this film. If you see it at Blockbuster, run away as fast as you can.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would have liked to put 0.5 but unfortunately I can't. Who can write so bad scripts (I saw the movie five seconds and knew the \"bad boy\" would be Sutherland - needed to pay his taxes, when you see how good he was in Redford's movie, \"Ordinary People\" and others ! -).

Though I don't like it, but I had no choice, I saw the movie in French, but I know that hearing the real voices of Sheen, Sutherland and Hamilton would have not change things, except maybe making it more pitiful.

What makes me sick is that people earn their living making this bad stuff (I forgot to speak about Mr Waterson, far away from the Woody Allen's movies he once used to play in).

We had another movie on another French channel : a silly James Bond with Brosnan (I am not talking about the real Bonds with Connery(please it's the end of holidays, wake up !).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I clicked onto the Encore Mystery channel to wait for the movie I wanted to see, Island of Dr. Moreau. I caught only a few minutes of Shadow Conspiracy. An old man runs to meet Charlie and grabs him by the arm. Suddenly, an Assassin in a bright rain coat taps the old man in the head (with a side arm) from across the street. After waiting for \"C\" to turn around and look, the \"A\" tries to shoot \"C\" and clearly misses. \"C\" was a much easier target, the old man couldn't have run far. Duh! There is a chase and \"C\" is on an elevator \"A\" is on the roof, so he tries to shoot the cable, which is parallel to the \"A\". He hits and severs the cable, impossible. Later, this time with a specialized rifle, the \"A\" lines up on \"C\" from maybe 50 meters, but is to stupid to notice a motorcycle coming up and taps the rider instead. How does Charlie get his parts? Does Daddy go to the producers and say \"Look, my kid needs work...\" It reminds me of his stupid Sit - Com. All the actors are good except, yup ... you got it. I usually have to endue 2 or 3 minutes of that waiting for C.S.I. to come on. Let's see, what can I do for the next hour. I know, I'll trim my toenails! Much better use of my time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was reeeeeeallyyyy bad! Was it meant to be a comedy as I couldn't help laughing the whole way through it? what a waste of two hours! Donald Sutherland was wooden not that he was alone, everyone else was just as bad...and how miscast was linda hamilton???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This 22 minute short, short of a precursor to the later much better \"Rock and Rule\", features two folk singer mice who are going nowhere. The female mouse, Jan, signs a deal with the devil to become a hit rock star. So it's up to Daniel Mouse to save her soul. Made in the late '70's this has all the trappings of said decade (crap music, crap clothing and hair style, awful folk tunes) This cartoon is featured on the Second disc of the 2-Disk Collector's Edition of \"Rock and Rule\", it also comes with a Making of that runs almost as long as the show itself.

My Grade: D+","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to say that this movie was really quite awful. the acting was average the pacing of the movie was terrible as well as the soundtrack and cinematography.i found that i was bored in most parts of the movie and the clich\u00e9 lines did nothing for me. the two boys that played the main roles looked terrible at times and did'nt pull off the emotion that was needed in the movie. the little girl was creepy at times and looked like a doll which was scary. the ending wasn't satisfying although the movie to be over the ending didn't make me feel anything for the characters. this movie was boring and did nothing for me, I recommend this movie to no one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We don't know if Darlene loves all three gentleman, certainly they are wary of one another, yet they live together. Viewers might surmise that the feelings of rivalry between the gentleman and the feelings of all of them toward Darlene might make for an unbearable home life.

In the eerily beautiful rural Brazilian landscape (emphasized by the frequent use of polarization and the use of Kodachrome stock), anything might happen, and the alternatives for any one of them. save perhaps Ciro, may not be alluring enough to encourage them to change their circumstances. They seem to bear the intolerable because it is familiar-the unknown frightens them into complacency toward a fate which is more challenging than their characters can utilize. Thus it crushes them, rather than strengthening them. The web in which they are caught is made of the sanguine filaments which bind us all. Perhaps the sadness I felt after watching this movie has to do with it's portrayal of the inevitable fading of our youth's bright colors in the unforgiving light of time. The three children will enter the world fated to relive their parents lives to one or another degree. Well filmed and portrayed, the story is tragic in it's essence. Walt Disney it ain't","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although this film has had a lot of praise, I personally found it boring. There are some nice Brasilian sunsets and the characters are believable, but the story of how they interrelate, even if very unusual by our standards, is not interesting enough to sustain a movie this long. The central woman takes up with one man after another in a close knit way and putting the interests of her children first. As the tolerance of the various men is stretched, we see their characters develop. The story unfolds with dignity and aided by excellent acting. It is a rare glimpse into the Brasilian hinterland, far from the city, but hardly exciting enough to keep one's eyes open for.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This program would be useful for training hardened felons basic human emotions. Beyond this purpose, the show has no value other than to fill bandwidth that would otherwise go unutilized in the electromagnetic spectrum. I feel a greater sense of suspense and anticipation listening to a computerized voice chip endlessly droning out the products of a random number generator. Fortunately, the helpful and frequent music cues will tell viewers how they're supposed to feel, in case they are unable to fully internalize the predictable and shallow plot line. I did find Amy to be a superficially positive character, as she is a role model to young women that they can serve in traditionally male fields. Unfortunately, her totally subjective approach to the law is guided solely by whatever capricious personal guidelines Amy elects to employ, resulting in Amy's trials more closely resembling appeals to the personal mercy of a tribal despot than a true administration of justice. This show is unpalatable in any amount, although this is to some extent mitigated after two episodes by the brain's god-given filtering processes, by which the show will thankfully leave the same imprint on the viewer's memory as a television tuned to a dead channel at maximum volume.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This game is from a genre of games that tried to capitalize off of the whole Myst-inspired trend--walk around, talk to people, solve puzzles. The puzzles themselves are absolutely horrible, but I'll stick to the acting itself, which is only slightly better. If you're looking for a convincing performance from any one character, you won't find it here, but this game is worth buying if only to witness the truly hilarious performance of Christopher Walken. His acting is so horrible in this game that it seems like he's imitating someone who happens to be impersonating him. He's a caricature of himself.

So buy this game if you're masochistic, a Walken fan, or simply want to hear the F-word a lot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I kept waiting for this film to improve, but, alack, this is the worst kind of escapist movie: a spun-sugar confection that sinks under the weight of its own ponderous self-importance. The pace stumbles on like a legionnaire stranded in the Sahara. The absence of good dialogue leaves the appealing stars with little to do other than look good in white linen. Irons plays yet another moneyed charmer who's had a touch of the sun. Kaas is a pleasing singer but not much of an actress. Luckily, the script does not often call on her to emote away from the jazz club microphone. All the enviably relaxed, pretty, unnecessary characters take turns masticating the scenery with an air of weary sophistication. The whole exercise comes across like an interminably long Ralph Lauren ad.

If you're past forty and believe Francophilia is the key to sophistication, you may well mistake this piece of cardboard for a baguette. Well, if you liked this movie you probably felt smart for appreciating Godard's leaden \u00c9loge de l'amour, and you may even have sat through Le Divorce without cringing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I do not see what is the whole deal about this movie. Patricia Kaas sings, yes, and that makes the film charming, but singing is not enough. I mean, if you want to get all benefits of this one, go buy Patricia's CD and enjoy! The plot is simple (if to omit the \"dreams\"); the main characters seem to love each other instantly, and as well instantly forget their other acquaintances. Relationships appear almost \"mandatory\", and the little \"detective story\" thrown in just makes things worse. What at first appeared to be a perfect movie ending, is first screwed up and then comes out as just a dream. I measure movies by how well I would remember them, and for this one, I already started to forget the details.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well...I like Patricia Kaas. She is a beautiful lady and an extremely gifted and versatile singer. Her acting in this film is more than competent and from my point of view about the only redeeming feauture of this film. She very gently captures the essence of the lonely singer with a very serious helath problem. However what I tremendously dislike about the film is the shameless product placement for a well known French chain of hotels. The other thing is that the story seems to meander for way to long without really deciding what the film is about and what it wants to be. On a positive note you may argue that the film is not predictable but you could also say it's plainly boring because of the lack of cohesion. There are some nice shots in the film bujt you can't help thinking that all the parts just don't add up to anything at all. It really is a pity bevcause Kaas really shines in this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the type of film that makes you question your past admiration for a particular director before you stop and remind yourself that there are very few people whose body of work doesn't contain a few clunkers.

The casting in Lelouch's films is of utmost importance because he puts the viewer into such intimacy with the characters. The actors have to bring real screen magic to live up to the intensity. Otherwise it is just hollow.

None of the actors in this film had any of that screen magic, in my opinion.

Jeremy Irons and Patricia Kaas fell far short as the leads. Irons is a talented actor but he was wrong for this part. Lovable rogue didn't suit his strengths. His brand of charm also hit a false note for me here. Iron's persona is too decadence-tinged to fit into a Lelouch love story.

Although I would hesitate to pass up any opportunity to hear an English accent, I also think an American actor would have worked better in this role. So many of the songs that Kaas sings are so closely identified with the Americanness of the particular lyricist that it seemed kind of discordant to then have Jeremy Irons playing the love interest -- even though logically it really didn't matter. It still screwed up the flow of the movie somehow. At least for me.

Of course, it would have had to have been the right American. I think George Clooney would have been great in the part. And he would have brought the screen magic in spades. Brad Pitt could also have done a really good job delivering his particular combination of charming and edgy.

I was also very disappointed with Patricia Kaas. In reading about her, I've learned that she has a hugely successful career as a singer and many fans, so what do I know, but I found her screen presence as a singer very boring. She was actually a much better actress in her speaking scenes than she was a singer in those scenes in which she had to interpret and sell a song. Nothing she sang moved me. She was pleasant but bland.

In contrast, someone like Kate Hudson, who is not a professional singer and has only voice-coach French still would have handled this part a million times better. Not to mention all that stunning French talent out there that could have been tapped into. It was wrenching watching Patricia Kaas take up screen space when there are so many charismatic French actresses who could have been cast instead.

The music was so important in this film, it could not really work without the music working. And since Kaas delivered so poorly in this respect, the movie never really had a chance.

Lelouch sealed the fate of this movie when he cast Patricia Kaas. JMO.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film while I was in France and I must say that it confused me. It is a story of a jewel thief and a young singer who each end up in Morocco at the same time, run into one another and form a connection. Simple enough? Well, the problem is that this is the sort of film that has ambiguity in both chronology (the film is not played entirely in order) and in reality (did what i just saw really happen, or was it only a dream?). Given those parameters, as well as the film being bilingual, it was really hard to follow, and I was not sure as to what happened at the end. I imagine some deep artsy types could understand this film better than I could, and it may require more than one viewing to understand.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't hate this movie as much as some on my all time black list, but I consider it a total wast of film. Jeremy Irons, Iron Jeremy, Ron Jeremy. Think about it. Scene one is very good, all the rest are crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had never heard of Dead Man's Bounty when I saw it at the DVD store a few weeks ago, and I thought I had stumbled upon an unrecognized gem, since it had Val Kilmer in it in a truly unique role. Sadly, it wasn't more than ten or fifteen minutes into the movie that I realized that this is a disaster of epic proportions. The first clue you will see of how genuinely awful this movie is comes near the beginning, when you have a bunch of dirtbags in an old saloon laughing like a bunch of hyenas in a scene that goes on about five times too long. It's unbelievable how bad it is. And sadly, it doesn't get any better.

Val Kilmer is featured prominently on the movie's cover box, maybe to trick you into thinking that he has a role in the film, but unfortunately his bizarre role as a dead man is overlooked in favor of focusing on a bunch of half-wit crooks and the most inept conceptualization of a unique town sheriff that I've ever seen in a movie. He's played by Boguslaw Linda, who is unable to or uninterested in covering his Polish accent, immediately making it impossible that the movie is meant to take place in the American old west.

Does Poland have this type of frontier past? I don't know. My knowledge of Polish history is not my strong point, but I can tell you this, The Sheriff, as he is known in the movie, is the worst representation of law enforcement that I can ever remember seeing in a movie. He is introduced in a truly ridiculous scene where he is wearing some kind of blindfold and a roomful of men take turns punching him in the face. Before they start hitting him, he explains that they can each hit him once, and then, after the first round, they will each hit him again, and if he can identify who is throwing the punches, they lose. What the hell is this crap? I am completely at a loss to explain why a scene like this would ever be put into any movie.

Throughout the movie, the Sheriff continues to appear more and more beaten and bruised and drunk and battered, until ultimately he does nothing but show up occasionally, stumbling on screen and mumbling \"not\u0085without...the law\u0085\" You see, there is a lot of talk and preparation for a hanging, the details of which are as meaningless as the rest of the movie.

It takes place, by the way, in a town that consists of nothing more than two ramshackle wooden buildings facing each other across a flattened bit of dirt that is more of a path than a road. My understanding is that it is a part of Poland that is supposed to look acceptably enough like the American southwest, where none of the characters, except maybe the dead guy, could possibly have come from.

I have heard that Val Kilmer accepted the role because he was intrigued by his unique role, and also by director Uklanski's minimal use of dialogue in favor of a reliance on cleverly timed juxtaposition of images in unique visual montages.

Yeah, whatever.

Seems to me that Kilimer was unable to overcome what must have been the truly satisfying feeling that he must have gotten when he was offered the role. Personally, I would really feel that I had reached quite some level of success if someone approached me and offered me probably a few hundred thousand dollars to come and lay still for a while. I like to think that he didn't even read the script for this mess, because if he did I am at a total loss to understand why he accepted the role.

At any rate, the movie opens with a man bringing in the corpse of a man, played by Kilmer, seeking the reward. Soon he finds himself embroiled in a ludicrous love story involving the town prostitute, the alcoholic Sheriff, and lots of mayhem involving a series of stupid, stupid characters.

There is also a extensive and preposterous lack of understanding of American rituals. In one scene, a man cuts a cherry tomato in half and squishes the halves into Kilmer's eyes (for what reason, I can't imagine), and then later, a man makes a short speech over Kilmer's corpse, in which he explains that he was \"one of the finest men we ever had,\" and then he proceeds to lop his head off with a shovel. What the HELL??

Not convinced yet? Here are some more reasons not to watch it. In one scene the Sheriff appears to be covered with ash, except for the perfectly clean areas around his eyes and what can only possibly be described as bright red lipstick. A man gets a head wound that drenches his head and body in blood. In a daze, he cauterizes it with gunpowder. Smart. Near the end, the Sheriff appears to have a broken arm. Sitting at the bar, he puts a rope around his neck and connects it to his injured arm, and uses his good arm to pull on the rope, lifting his shaking beer glass in his bad arm to his mouth, rather than using his good arm to drink. Also smart.

Why doesn't he just use his good arm? I have no idea. That, like everything else in the movie, makes no sense whatsoever, like the title. Summer Love? Are you kidding me? Avoid this mess at all costs.

In the meantime, here's something for the IMDb Goofs page \u0096

Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers) : This movie got made. HA!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wish I would have read more reviews and more opinions about this movie before I rented it. A waste of money. A waste of time. Very little dialog. The dialog was hard to understand in every way. The storyline and plot were both weak. The only thing that was nice at all was the cinematography.

The characters were interesting. At the same time you will spend so much time trying to figure things out, because of the lack of dialog, that you will be rewinding the movie a lot.

Do not watch this movie. It was a mess and will leave you feeling like a mess.

You will say, what the heck was that, when the movie ends?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As most of you, I've watch a lot of great movies; In between those we often either voluntarily or mistakenly also find those movies that are so pointless that we think of reasons as to why anyone would make it. This is exactly what I can say for Dead man's bounty....

The very least I can do is try to \"warn\" some of you. If you enjoy being entertained by a motion picture because of the story, acting and intensity than you might want to chose something else. Now, it's not all bad.....In fact, if all you want is creative film editing, and unique angles along with original music ambient than you might think it's OK. As someone that values movie plots, acting and being entertained by a film, the truth is I thought this movie was so terrible beyond words. I could easily find a spot for it on my list of worst movies seen in a while.

As for having Val Kilmer in this, the truth is he was casted probably as a favor to the director; As a fan of some of Kilmer's films, I can't understand what his motive for this was. The movie seems part western part romance.........In the end, I'm sure most of you can agree with me that it simply is a rude waste of our time. In case you haven't seen this movie, my recommendation would be to avoid it completely.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sure, you get to see some boobies, but if that's all you're looking for in a film, you get more mileage from youtube. I just paid a dollar from redbox because I saw Val Kilmer's name. Bad move. Plot didn't thicken, dialogue was shoddy, characters undeveloped at best. Somebody said cinematography was alright but don't expect too much. This movie moved very slow and ended without grace. Blacklist. I spent much of the movie wondering if some event or color scheme of things was symbolic. I never actually rewound to figure it out because nothing was ever explained in the end. No twists. It also left many questions that as it turns out, I had no desire to hear answered. One of the worst movies I have ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I mean, come on! Now my countrymen have started to make westerns! Is it not enough that our cinema sucks already? Now you need to infect English-language movies with Polish acting and no sense whatsoever? Please, stay away from this movie, do not waste your eyes on it. A 5-year-old baby could make a movie that makes more sense. I am from Poland and I am ashamed this title might actually be watched by you. Please, I am begging you, do NOT watch this movie and if you do, do NOT judge Polish people and Polish movies based on what you see there. We had some good movies in our history and we had some bad ones but this one - it is like nothing worse that I have seen in my entire life. Keep away!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is said to be the first Polish western and is written and directed by Piotr Uklanski. Known in the U.S. as DEAD MAN'S BOUNTY, this film uses some strange visuals to tell a story that is short on dialog. Val Kilmer plays a corpse and some scenes are through his dead eyes. Some awkward visual situations are actually comical in a sick way. My favorite is a young man building a gallows chops off one of his own fingers and actually hangs himself testing the strength of the rope. A cowboy known only as 'the stranger'(Karel Roden)finds a dead man(Kilmer) that he thinks is a wanted man. He takes him to the nearest town to collect the bounty. He ends up losing the corpse and the potential bounty in a gambling game with the town's drunken sheriff(Boguslaw Linda)and has the few townsmen turned against him when he has a dalliance with the barmaid(Katarzyna Figura). He manages to escape sure death and leads the small posse on a dangerous 'wild goose chase'. One scene has the stranger tending to a scalp wound by cauterizing with gunpowder and a match. The corpse rots chained to a hitching post as the sheriff finds out that there is no bounty to be had. This movie also known as SUMMER LOVE has a haunting theme song sung by John Davidson. Nevertheless this western is like watching a train wreck. There is just something that tells you not to look...but you do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I rented this movie was that Val Kilmer rarely stars in a bad movie. There is of course a first time for everything. In many ways, this movie proves that oaters aren't as easy to make as we think, especially by foreign directors. The only one who got by with it was probably Sergio Leone, but even his movies lacked that something indefinably innate to our American psyche and panache. American actors in Clint Eastwood and Henry Fonda did help . I can see now why they changed the original title from \"Summer Love\" to \" Dead Man's Bounty\". That itself tells me the producers and director didn't have any core understanding about a western other than those standard shoot'em up scenes and violent themes. I suppose we can say the same about American directors attempting to make a Polish movie while failing miserably in the process.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dead Man's Bounty (the film's American title) has the look and feel of a classic Italian western. The cinematography, costumes, and sets look great. The cast is rugged, not a pretty face among them. At the beginning I was preparing for a pretty cool movie but what I eventually witnessed was an absolute disaster.

The script was perfectly dreadful. There was no suspense whatsoever and very little action or worthwhile drama.

Despite looking great, the cast spoke (English) with heavy European accents that were often unintelligible.

The final nail in it's coffin was the broad streak of pretentiousness that paints most of the picture, focusing heavily on the character of the barmaid who's featured in a couple of very awkward sex scenes. Also her speech near the end was pretty repugnant!

The only novelty comes from the stunt casting of Val Kilmer in the role of the dead man, continuing his recent string of DOA performances!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I do NOT understand why anyone would waste their time or money on utter trash like this... Don't get me wrong -- I LOVE a good Western -- Notice I said \"GOOD\" -- this is just trash

The acting is horrible -- Val Kilmer must know someone or owed a favor or something for them just to use his face and name in this ridiculous piece of crap...

To those of you who enjoyed this movie, I am making a list of you're names to ensure I do NOT watch anything you suggest -- our tastes are definitely different, yet it is your right to voice your opinion, no matter how far off base it is.

I gave this movie a 2 just in case they do throw out all of the one's and not count them.... Just bad in all area's...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And also a wonderful beginning, a real quick start. It keeps you yearning and waiting for is about to come. Unfortunately the high adrenaline dries off quickly, but most certainly after half the movie is over.

And it's a shame, because this movie has really good ideas and explores many of them thoroughly. But that is also one of it's faults. By exploring too many things, it get's mixed up into to many things, so in the end you're too confused to follow any plot or characters. It's very dark and moody, but that doesn't help much, if it's also genre hopping just to try to fit any- and everything in it's story!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"and it's only January, still I'm sure of it!

By far this is among the worst Swedish movies I've ever seen and to be honest Swedish movies ain't that good in general. It have been claimed to be \"original\" and perhaps it can be seen as that for people who never seen a English speaking movie, for us who have been to the cinema the last 10 years it can't help but to feel like M\u00e5ns M\u00e5rlind and Bj\u00f6rn Stein have been sitting down one weekend going through the most successful movies from the last years and tried to squeeze it all together in to one Swedish package. What can I say the outcome can just be...poor. First of all the story is just weak to begin with, even worse when it's not just a poor story it's a wish to combine to very poor stories - first a failed try to make Swedish action \u00e1 la Matrix and then combine it with a really bad moral story. And if you thought it could not be worse you'll notice all the \"cool stuff\" that just have been thrown in there for absolutely no reason at all more than in a bad way trying to show that Sweden also can do Hollywood movies - which we can't nor should try to. For example the main plot is tried to made deeper by letting youths play a computer game called Storm having absolutely nothing at all with the story or for example how there is a internet side about \"Storm\" while all the sudden it just is the main characters consciousness - really I don't think even Stein or M\u00e5rlind can see a point with three quarters of the movie, more than just trying to show off poor extra effects. For the actors, I've got to admit Eric Ericson does a pretty good job except he does the same job the whole movie through, even tough Storm tries to be a movie about the personal development of DD he does not change one bit in his way of acting. Jonas Karlsson, well to be honest I thought he was a fairly respected actor but judging by Storm... really he just have to be ashamed of this movie, his character and his scar. Lastly Eva R\u00f6se is just beyond critic, both her character and her acting. The only reasons Storm succeeds of not getting a 1\/10 is for Eric Ericson and, what can I say, at least it tries..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What offends me most about the critics following this film is the mentioning of 'originality'. This film does not contain ONE innovating element. If, by 'originality' you refer to pathetic action scenes, overacting, gluttony in violence, blunt humor and a script beyond intellectual belief. Then, 'originality' is something Swedish film can do without.

How R\u00f6se and Karlsson can agree to 'act' in this poor excuse for a film is a mystery to me. And how Eva R\u00f6se after the making of this film can be seen at breakfast-TV promoting it just disappoints me.

This film doesn't contain a story, the script is illogical, stiff and last but not least, just plain bad. These two young directors have put together a quite disgusting boy-fantasy containing violence, comic-strips and trivialized psychological portraits. I wouldn't be surprised if the scene of DD masturbating in the kitchen over a micro-wave dinner actually is put there to describe the everyday life of these two overgrown cinematic nerds that pose as directors.

I wouldn't show this movie to my worst enemy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I happened to catch this on TV, and wanted to watch because I remembered the Spin magazine article upon which the movie is based. I was very disappointed. First, if James Belushi is the lead actor in a movie, it should be a sign that it's not exactly an A-list production. Gregory Hines was a world class dancer, but sadly not a great actor.

In fact, all of the acting in this film is either flat or hammy, which can only be blamed on the director, who is this film's weakest link. Charles Carner seemed to be trying to ape Oliver Stone's \"JFK\" in portraying the alleged conspiracy to cover up the \"real\" child murderer(s), but without the benefit of a good script, an A-list cast or, it must be said, the talent. It just doesn't work.

It's a shame that such a worthy topic for a film did not get better treatment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Actually, I am not narrating the main plot in this comment but with just 2-3 sentences I can make it a spoiler. OK here are these-

Speed is just a 85% conversion of Hollywood flick Cellular into Bollywood by using the software Vikram Bhatt. Title has no match with the story, only it goes in the thriller direction. Just that!! It doesn't deserve even a single star for its imitation, imperfect casting, poor standard and predictable story. Undoubtedly now I can say that Viram Bhatt is slowly vanishing away from his director status as no any matured audience will appreciate his recent works including this. Beside him, Aftab Shivdasani too making his outlook as cartoon-comic type. Who knows how long will he last in the film industry more? Sometimes the standard in the performances and cinematography look like lower than a C-grade movie. But most supportive role was played by Zayed Khan which was somewhat identical with Chris Evan's role as Ryan in Cellular. With innocent face Sanjay Suri has no contribution in the movie as he has nothing to impress. That's why those who have already watched Cellular I advise you never to waste your time again with this imitation sack.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a rip-off from Cellular.

Bad casting...

Bad direction...

Bad Music...

And the list goes on...

well there was no direction since story, scenes and setting were lifted straight off of other movie.

Even fight sequence is copied. One with the mace was from Kill Bill and another one with fire hose was from either a Jet Li's or Jackie Chan's movie (i am not able to recall the name of this movie)...

Stay away from this cheap imitation and try to see the real thing...

Cannot expected something original from any of the Bhatts any more!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wait till you watch this one.... I mean even after reading this review. No other movie till date has sucked more than this one.... One thing i wont understand is that, when you are ripping off some English flick why to add your own creativity? With the amount spent for making this movie the producers should have considered buying rights for \"Cellular\" to be dubbed into Hindi and released the movie. They might have gotten some profits that way i guess. If there was a chance to rate this movie with a 0 i would have done it and the most pathetic performances come from Tanushree Datta and the girl who played the sidekick to Aftab. I don't know if my problem is that i have seen Cellular much earlier than this movie..... but that cant be a reason to support this movie... i could go on for hours but neither i have the time to discuss about this useless crap of a movie not i want to remember those awful scenes from the movie.....

please stay away from this flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Welcome to the world of Vikram Bhatt, the man who was once successful and got several hits with small actors like KASOOR, RAAZ and also the multistarrer AWARA PAAGAL DEEWANA and his one film with Aamir GHULAM

One sneak peak about this films are that all are Hollywood remakes and some decent ones like the once which worked

SPEED is a remake of CELLULAR and that too a terrible one

A look at the stars, we have the once saleable but now out of work Urmila and Sanjay Suri, then we have the flop Aftab, Ashish Chaudhary, Zayed Khan and others

The film could be a decent thriller but many problems are there The storytelling has several cringeworthy scenes like Zayed hijacking a Mobile Company and many more and the stunts too are laughable while the twists in the end are too laughable The film also took a long time to reach the theatres which looses it's spark

Direction is awful Music is outdated

Zayed Khan screams, makes faces.etc what he does always Urmila is good in her part, Sanjay Suri is not that convincing Ashish Chaudhary tries hard in a negative role and he is okay Aftab is horrible and he makes you laugh in a negative role Surprising the same director gave him his only solo hit KASOOR Sophie is horrible Tanushree is a non actress","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Speed which I believe is direct copy of the Hollywood movie Cellular (I haven't watched this one) gives an impression of a test match which is very exciting in first four days, but then gets in a very boring draw at the end. I have watched this movie today on 12th January 2008 on rented VCD. It's release date is 19th Oct 2007. But still fortunately for me I didn't know or heard much of this movie before except that it is a flop at box office. So in this situation when I watch the movie, I feel that this movie could have been a very good movie, but then the director again falls in the trap for Bollywood traditions and has wasted a very good chance.

Off course as a Bhatt movie it must be copied from somewhere else. But now days it doesn't matter for me, if I haven't seen the original movie. I just found the main theme much similar to 'Nick of Time' and 'Badshah'. In the movie Sanjay Suri is shown an intelligence agent, but his wife thinks that he is a chef. This brings back the memory of 'True-Lies'. The only new part was the use if the phone. But that too I found out now is taken from movie Cellular. So when a movie is made with the mixture of so many other movies it's future is quite clear.

The things I like about the movie is its pace. As the name suggest the things really happens fast, and there is not much time to think about in between the scenes. But this breaks in the last 20 minutes of so where the movie goes in traditional Bollywood style of Dhishum dhishum.

The plot of the movie is also quite interesting. Three stories going parallel, one after the other. One of the kidnapping of Urmila, the other of the Zayed trying to help Urmila, and then the plan of murder of prime minister. These three stories gets mixed up naturally with each other as the movie continues.

But then the very ordinary acting and unnecessary extra style has killed the spirit of the movie. Except Sanjay Suri, none other makes any impression. This goes even for Urmila, who is always promising in RGVs movies. Due to this ordinary acting some scenes doesn't really convey the feelings that director wanted. E.g. the scene at the end where Urmila leaves all hope and cut the phone, should have made a good impact. But instead we just wait for the end of that scene.

Other than acting, some unnecessary love for style demoralizes the movie. Showing so cool villains is good for Hollywood movies not for Bollywood The background of London is also only for making style and not much intelligent advantage of this background can be seen. Especially at the end, all those dhishhum- dhishhum were utterly unnecessary. May be director has an impression that the climax in Hindi movies must have such fights. They look unrealistic, increase the length of the movie and make sure that the people are leaving theater before the movie ends.

Over and all, I find the movie once watchable. If it is coming on TV or you can get it on rent its OK. But then again make sure that you have the remote and forward button handy. Next time, when the movie is on TV, you can safely watch other channels.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've watched this film about thirty years ago and it stuck in my mind until now. When I came across it on DVD, I didn't hesitate too long, even more, because I have a predilection for early Belmondo flicks. But what a bad surprise! Some movies should be allowed to resign from public exposure, to preserve a certain memory, and not to shock audiences.

Widely hailed as one of Chabrol's rare cynic works, the only lasting impression I got from re- watching it is... boredom. Some movies really do not age in style. But what about movies which didn't have any sense of style at all?

The flaws in the script, uninspired acting - presumably due to the lack of direction -, a sort of production design, which doesn't deserve its name, less than mediocre photography and, last but not least, the worst editing job I've seen in ages, make this one truly hard to stand.

My impression was, that there was a bunch of people with too much money and equipment but obviously, no idea or any skills at all. It really comes as a surprise, that this one didn't abruptly end Chabrol's career. Don't blame it on the overall bad taste of the 70s, this one is crap in its own right and a worthy contender for the most useless waste of celluloid ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It must say something about the state of our nation that this programme is one of the most popular currently screened.

The 'square' is peopled by such a miserable, untrustworthy, amoral, spiteful, unrelentingly dour group of characters as can be imagined. Everyone is stabbing someone in the back, everyone is attempting to commit adultery, everyone is trying to cheat someone. That, or they are being stabbed, cuckolded or swindled. Nobody is cheerful. Nobody laughs. Nobody has a blinding stroke of luck or a really nice day. It's hell, with cockney accents.

I suspect this programme must be sponsored by The Samaritans. It's perfect viewing for the depressed. It doesn't cheer them up; what it does do is present a whole community of such terminally despondent sad-arses that viewers are moved to believe their lot really could be worse - they might be living in 'Albert Square'.

Apart from the above; as a representation of London's east end, it is pure hokum. The programme-makers have evidently never been across town. The first thing you encounter on the Mile End Road is a colossal mosque. And this pretty-well defines the racial majority of the population. White British Londoners are a dispersed and rapidly diminishing minority. A large advertisement hoarding presently near the Bow Road flyover, and sponsored by Tower Hamlets Health Care boasts that 'Eight out of ten members of the community can now see their doctor more quickly'. Ten healthy, smiling faces beam down at the observer in confirmation. Eight of them are dark-skinned...

What's more, I used to work with a bunch of Anglo-Saxon - dare I say 'pukka' - cockneys a few years ago. And I can tell you that a more obnoxiously racist experience I've never had. Each day was like an Oswald Moseley rally. They couldn't pass 5 minutes without denigrating some other race or nationality than their own, and in terms that were repulsive and obscene. 'Fackin' Pakis' and 'fackin' Maceroons' were the small change of conversation. In fact their entire (and extremely limited) stock of adjectives fixated upon sex-organs and their application. Alf Garnett was a paragon of liberal virtue in comparison.

Any programme that purported to represent London's native east-end Caucasians in their true nature would be completely unfit for broadcast - even after the 9 o-clock watershed. Imagine a Ku Klux Klan script written by Quentin Tarantino and you'd be somewhere near the mark. But when they weren't being inveterate bigots they were at least extremely cheerful.

I don't know how such a soap-opera came to be. This imaginary castaway island of white misery has absolutely no bearing upon real culture whatsoever. And if you're of a comparatively sanguine disposition, it will quickly reduce you to tears of grief. Comparatively ordinary actors pretending to be comparatively ordinary chronic-depressives with cockney accents - what's the point of that?

Dull, dreary, unrelentingly disillusional, and ethnically preposterous. The most popular programme of an apparently diseased and dying nation.

Avoid it like the plague.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know how people can watch this - the only people who enjoy watching this are those who have no feelings and emotions and enjoy watching people die, houses burn down, car crashes, babies die, and cast members being killed off every week. Its the most absurd thing on television and i still don't know how it pulls in the ratings. Its so depressing. I can imagine the writers sitting down and saying - 'so who shall we kill of next week then' or 'whose house shall we torch in a months time?'

Its the most depressing, absurd and most stupid thing on TV at the moment, and i cant understand peoples motives for watching this depressing pile of crap anymore","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think this programme is a load of rubbish. All they do is argue and slap each other across the face and they call this acting?! These people get paid lots of money for this and most of them can't even act to save their lives. Also, the story lines are awful and after watching it for a few minutes, I am bored with it. I like the way that Harry Hill takes the mickey out of it on his TV show 'TV Burp' e.g. the weak joke \"The Princess and the Pea isn't exactly Shakespeare is it?\" that had Sonia and Naomi in stitches. I don't see how that is funny. I think this is a waste of everybody's money for their TV licence so this can be shown 4\/5 days a week. Isn't there anything better than this?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This soap is worse than bad: it's poisonous. Of the many television shows that have had a corrosive influence on British society over the past twenty years, Eastenders is the prime example. For two decades this show has celebrated the oaf, the thug, the wide-boy, the tart, the gobby, the violent, the sexually-incontinent, the criminal, the ignorant, the unambitious ...

How many times has someone or other remarked that Eastenders \"mirrors life\"? Life on which planet, exactly?

It's written about \"working-class\" characters, as imagined by middle-class people who have taken a course in creative writing. Eager to show to their middle-class peers how familiar they are with the \"working-class\" they dream up the lumpen rabble that is the citizenry of Eastenders.

This has a toxic effect on some minds less well-equipped than others to handle fiction, and so we find members of the real population assuming the attitudes and demeanour of the inhabitants of Walford.

Thus, it came to pass that Eastenders mirrors life; but only after life had been hoodwinked into mirroring Eastenders.

Other soaps have followed in EE's footsteps, filled to their stinking gunwhales with ugly, potato-faced, shaven-headed, pot-bellied characters, scowling at each other and issuing threats constantly. This is the proletariat as perceived by the writers who produce this trash. The writers will grow rich on the proceeds of such output, and will go on to enjoy the finer things of life in their rarified enclaves. Meanwhile, the burgeoning number of new, TV-induced drones will proceed inexorably toward cultural bankruptcy.

And there you have the new priests and the new creatures of the early 21st century. Much of this is due to the immeasurable power of that illuminated boxful of dancing pixels in the corner of your living-room. It's your fault, gentle reader: that's what you chose as the only window through which to look out from your prison.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this is classed as 'real life' of London, then the producers must be on different planet.

It is the most depressing, suicidal, dark, dingy, dross on TV.

Everyone is fighting, everything has nasty under tones running through it, nothing is done for genuine reasons.

If you want a real life picture of people in London or the UK, then this programme is by the farthest from reality.

There is not one good word I can say about this programme. The only certainty is that will be a great big fight over Christmas dinner.

Even the characters are totally unbelievable!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Licence fees to watch this trash, And pay for it with hard-earned cash? Humourless, no hint of laughter, God knows how it won a BAFTA!

We've now been subjected to \"Eastenders\" for twenty years. When, oh when is the Great British public going to see this awful soap for what it is? Crass Pap! This programme no more depicts reality in the East End of London than everyday life in Beirut, and never has done.

The Eastenders I know (the real ones) are kind, courageous, hardworking and loyal. And one of their greatest attributes is humour. It was the Eastenders who went through the worst of the London blitz and still stuck two fingers up to Hitler. And what do we see on our screens for five days of the week (including an omnibus)? Nothing but a bunch of moaning, wailing, \"dead from the neck up\" wimps, who seem to do little else than sit in a pub all day sniping at each other. What a great advert for Britain that is!! Do the writers actually believe this garbage they're pumping out? Obviously the woolly-minded section of the public does, but then I've heard that apparently anyone can be brainwashed into believing anything.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Young Quaids fake accent was difficult to accept at times.

The show was billed as mystery\/suspence but should have been listed as a romance.

Don't rent this one if you are sleepy, it will knock you out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"New Orleans is nothing like how it is portrayed in this

debacle of a film. Quaid's attempt at speaking with a cajun

accent (by the way, hardly anyone speaks that way in New

Orleans) is terrible. Plot = elementary and mindless. This

picture refers to itself as a mystery, but a mystery involves a

gradual process whereby a viewer is given clues and twists throughout a film. There's none of that here. \"Big

Easy\" tries to get by on trite New Orleans stereotypes.

Don't be fooled - the real Big Easy is nothing like the town

that Quaid & Barkin bumble their way through.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a native of New Orleans, I can state that almost everything in this movie, from the atrocious N'Awlins dialect to the highly creative \"manipulation\" of Crescent City geography, is horrible. This is another one of those Big Hollywood movies that decides to stereotype New Orleans as: 1. A city full of French-sounding idiots 2. A city full of people who sound as if they've just returned from Blanche Dubois' summer home 3. A city of drunkards, where every day is Mardi Gras 4. A city of deep mystery, where almost everyone practices or is a victim of voodoo (I admit that maybe we are a city of drunkards; although every day is NOT Mardi Gras). \"The Big Easy\" is one of the worst films about New Orleans. I wouldn't recommend it to anybody.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Totally brain-dead actioner made in the Philippines. This belongs to the mode of Filipino movies which tried to pass themselves as American films on the international market. After a rather dull beginning, the movie takes off and never disappoints again. It is actually a rip-off of the worst movies Chuck Norris ever made : an American prisoner in Vietnam is brainwashed by the soviets who implant a microchip in his brain so he is programmed to kill the Pope, then the President of the USA. One of his old buddies (played by B-movie stalwart Max Thayer) is sent to stop him. Utterly ridiculous action scenes, putrid acting (Nick Nicholson's performance as the evil soviet commander is a must-see!)and implausible plot make up for one of the cheesiest action pictures ever bestowed in the general public.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is the worst thing ever created by humans. You think manos is the worst movie ever? It doesn't even come close to this garbage. I dont even know where to begin. The \"russian\" commander and the rebel chic are the worst \"actors\" ever to appear in a movie. They make the sister in troll 2 look like Meryl Streep. The goofy faces the chic makes while she's in kung fu training have to be seen to be believed. Then there is the oompa music during the prison break, the totally out of place love scene, the stupid song that plays during the out of place love scene, the fake castro, the fact that everybody has either a headband and\/or a bandanna on some part of their body, the goofiest rape scene ever filmed, and the worst acting ever put on film. This movie deserves to be more well known among bad movie fans. Definitely the worst movie ever made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Addle-brained stupidity that the cartoon \"Bullwinkle\" made fun of a quarter-century beforehand, NO DEAD HEROES proves that you can rip off a good movie (THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE) without copying a single sliver of quality from the object of your plunder. The acting barely registers on the cable-access TV scale, the plot is less nuanced than an old \"Sgt. Rock\" comic, and only Boris J. Badanov-style \"bad guy\" mustaches are missing from the Commies. This movie achieves the unusual feat of being too bad, too stupid to be enjoyed by anyone with opposable thumbs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With No Dead Heroes you get stupid lines like that as this woefully abysmal action flick needs to be seen to be believed. William Sanders is saved by his buddy Harry Cotter during an extraction in Vietnam but gets himself captured by the enemy. Fast forward ten years and Harry is now a brainwashed Russian operative with a mind control microchip implanted in his brain. His new Russian superior is Ivan played to the obscene hilt by Nick Nicholson who might I add not only doesn't attempt once to speak with a Russian accent but resembles more a gas station attendant in Kentucky with his stained teeth. What is even more absurd is the fact that he was also the dialog coach for this film. Soon William is re-recruited by the CIA to hunt Harry down. He teams up with Barbara, a freedom fighter who has infiltrated Ivan's El Salvador camp and soon the both of them are blowing up half of South America. Some scenes are so jaw droppingly awful that it's a wonder why this film doesn't have more of a cult following. One such scene is the sudden lovemaking in the jungle by William and Barbara accompanied by the most inappropriate catterwalling background music I've ever heard. Who would strip completely nude in the middle of a South American jungle? There is a rape scene that uses the end theme from Blood on Satan's Claw as well. No Dead Heroes is the magic bullet movie champion of all time as one shot leads to multiple kills. In one scene Harry strafes his rifle from behind a rock and kills seven guys. I had to rewind it and count. Hard to find film that has recently gotten the full HD treatment by MGM. Track this movie down and watch it for the sheer silliness that ensues.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Makes \"Invasion USA\" look like \"Apocalypse Now\". This one can only be recommended to US skinheads, John Birch supporters or militia members. The message is very simple : let's shoot them all - gooks, commies, latinos, everything that isn't American.

Besides, this is badly acted, badly scripted, badly interpreted, incredibly stupid but no fun at all. This movie could be used as a toorture device by CIA torturers. oops, sorry, there can't be any US torturers because they are the GOOD","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why? Why? Why on earth no one tells the truth about this horrible, HORRIBLE movie? I still wake up in the morning and ask God why He didn't stopped me from seeing this revolting \"comedy\". I cant believe I PAID to see this offense to my cinematographic taste. I'm starting to think that the 5 stars it has is because of Martha Higareda 's nudity and all the men who cant buy a porn film and avoid seeing this ... I will call it \"thing\" cause call it film is an insult to the Mexican film industry. The characters are a huge clich\u00e9, the acting causes involuntary laugh and the script is... well, I cant believe a human being wrote this. And just when you thought you've been tortured enough...the last half hour is so painful that I wished to ripped my eyes out. The only good thing I can say about this abomination is that it only last 90 minutes (that would feel like centuries, but still). Really, AVOID THE PAIN!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ni\u00f1as Mal is not a movie is a bad episode of a cheesy badly conceived soap opera.

The acting is not a bit better of that in soap operas, I guess the writer and director has seen too many Mexican soap operas and can't conceive anything remotely different.

Give it up, go back to your soap operas so that you have an audience to please.

Stop waisting our time and money and giving a bad name to the once respectable Mexican film industry.

It is NOT an OK or good movie, it's a mediocre soap opera!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe I actually bought this movie! It sucks! ... Where I live Mexican movies Mexican movies are never advertised, or even available ... you can't find them in the regular rental places... so I had to buy it ... I really like Mexican movies! They bring me closer to my roots, and my people, and they are way different that what your normally used to... but this one was soo predictable!!! Your could guess what was going to happen... I'ts not a horrible movie! It just wasn't worth what I paid for it! jaja... but if you have time and are truly bored then yeah u should watch it.. but if you love Mexican movies, and love theater itself then don't watch it it'll be painful! lol","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Adela is a rebellious teenager with the attitude that she is right and everyone else is wrong. She needs to be the center of attention and she'll act stupid to make it so. With her attitude she gets sent to charm school.

There she meets the typical characters in today's cinema; the nerd, the clumsy one, the stepford housewife and the sexual minority. Things happen and in the end Adela \"learns her lesson\" so to speak. The plot tries to carry a deeper meaning to the state Adela is in, but utterly fails to deliver (at least I didn't buy it). So what you are left with is superficial interaction within the same stereotypes you've seen in a million movies before. Plus the director seems to have a breast fixation, Adela flashes her boobies a few times too many, at least I can't see that they are relevant to the story.

So the film is OK, but if you are like me and don't like to watch a teenager pissing people off and making a behavioral U-turn in an instant, which I found very unbelievable, think twice before watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first saw this movie, I said to myself, \"Hey what the heck it sounds like a good movie, why not rent it?\". So yeah, I rented it and went back home to see it. When I inserted it in my DVD player I was shocked.

Well FIRST of all, no one told me it was a Mexican movie and was spoken in Spanish, good thing it had subtitles.

SECOND, it was nude, nude NUDE! Since I have no background whatsoever in Mexican movies, you could see my shock when I saw it. *GASP! Covering virgin eyes, NOO*

THIRD, predictable to say the least, but actually being it predictable was no excuse to me in liking movies, because I don't seem to care if it's predictable, unless it's way over the top.

FOURTH, how Heidi and Kike were reunited, so cheesy.

FIFTH, how the movie ended. It was a BAD, BAD ending. How Mr. Van der Linde's sudden approval to the mayor's election was because her daughter, knew how to throw the party... BLAH, Blah. I was hoping that he wasn't that easy to accept it, the director might have just rushed it.

After all of this bashing of the bad stuff, the good stuff's are here to come. The movie was actually quite hilarious at some point with Maribel being clumsy in the kitchen and all, Heidi's attitude, Valentina being poetic with words. What I really also like about it was the song that Valentina made with her girl friend. That's all, and for the other stuffs that I haven't mentioned they were just so-so.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a massive fan of prison dramas which is reflected in OZ being my all time favourite American TV show . I guess the appeal lies in a type of smug voyeurism of wanting to see bad things happen to bad mens' bottoms , but I found Don Siegel's RIOT IN CELL BLOCK 11 to be rather disappointing . Okay I knew since it was made in 1954 it would be devoid of bad language , graphic shankings and gang rape but even so it's a rather weak film compared to prison portrayal in earlier movies like EACH DAWN I DIE and WHITE HEAT . The problem lies in the preachy tone of the movie with riot leader Dunn being something of a prison reformer . Yeah that sounds ridiculous since he's a violent anti hero rather than some limp wristed tree hugging do gooder on a salary , but that's what he is in essence , he wants to see prisoners rehabilitated to rejoin society rather than being made to suffer . There's also a problem of making a B movie with such radical themes ( Quite ironic that Siegel would later make DIRTY HARRY where the only good criminal is a dead one ) and that is the cast isn't very good with Emile Meyer as the warder being especially irritating in his performance . like i said a disappointing movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While it was nice to see a film about older people finding each other and falling in love and the performances by Andrews and Garner were not bad, this picture poured on the sapp and schmaltz at every turn. Every curve in the plot was in view from a mile away!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was only the second year of the Academy but already they were voting politically - Jeanne Eagels' brilliant performance in this creaky early talkie had to make do with an Oscar nom and the statuette went to the worst performance ever to win - Mary Pickford's in COQUETTE. The only existing print was a work print without music or final editing, but wherever it's shown, Eagels stuns and captivates with her beguiling, powerful performance. She is so convincing on the witness stand that while we know she is lying through her teeth (we did after all SEE her kill the man), we in the audience find ourselves, like the jurors, believing in her innocence, before we suddenly catch ourselves. THAT is GREAT ACTING. The film needs to be made available on video so that the world can enjoy this terrific performance again. (One silent of Jeanne's exists in archive print - MAN, WOMAN AND SIN - and her only other talkie, JEALOUSY, is \"lost,\" so this is the only document we have of her. Run to see it (when it first came out of the archives to be shown in NYC in the early 70s, the Village Voice printed a full page review, worshipping the Eagels performance).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Virginal innocent Indri finds herself at a house of prostitution run by ruthless pimp MG. Indri winds up incarcerated in MG's private prison after she refuses to make love to him. Of course, Indri and worldly top con Helga join forces and plan to escape. Maman Firmansyah's blah, uninspired direction and Piet Burnama's dull, talky script thoroughly undermine any trashy vitality this flick needs in order to qualify as a pleasing piece of babes-behind-bars exploitation junk: the sluggish pace painfully drags throughout, there's no gratuitous female nudity whatsoever (the girls don't even show any skin during the obligatory group shower scene!), the expected torture and degradation are both extremely tame and tepid, the moderate crummy gore likewise fails to impress, and even a ridiculous catfight sequence ain't nothing to get excited about. Thomas Susanto's pedestrian cinematography, the laughably lousy dubbing, the excruciatingly overlong 102 minute running time, the sappy theme song, and Gatot Sudarto's cornball score add further abject insult to already appalling injury. Only some decent last reel break-out action offers a little relief from the otherwise overly abundant stultifying tedium. A complete yawn-inducing dud.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While it's one of two movies on Tales of Voodoo Volume 1, there's no voodoo or anything supernatural in it! The box labels it \"Hell Hole\" but the screen title is Escape from Hell Hole. The title is confusingly similar to Hell Hole (1978) aka \"Escape from Women's Hell Hole\" A group of women bathe in a river and seemingly the worst thing they have to worry about is a peeping tom, who they easily overpower. No nudity in this or any other scene, however.

A woman named Cardena drives up in a car and seems to be known and liked by all the women. She invites Indri to come and live in the city with her and her uncle M.G. Once they get there, it becomes clear that M.G. wants to take Indri's virginity. M.G. runs some sort of house of prostitution, and he's either in charge of a corrupt branch of the military, or runs a paramilitary outfit, or prefers for his guards to all wear military-style uniforms.

The women who refuse him or otherwise make trouble get put into a prison. Indri gets sent there. The women get tortured and sometimes possibly raped by the guards.

Various unsuccessful attempts at escape or rescue are made, but inevitably fail despite the obvious advantages the women have: they outnumber the guards vastly, and relatively few of the guards have automatic weapons - most have semi-automatic rifles or handguns.

WIP genre enthusiasts may like it, and the fact that it was made in the Philippines gives it some novelty, but otherwise... eh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I obtained this little piece of scuzz on the VideoAsia \"Tales of Voodoo\" DVD label. Quite where the voodoo is supposed to fit in, I have no idea. Indeed I would not usually connect voodoo with Indonesia anyway (let alone with WIPs).

I know and love WIP movies. I have seen most of them. I could not therefore resist this little known gem from the description given to it on the cover.

It is APPALLING. You cannot have a WIP movie if the women keep their clothes on (even in the shower!). Although it gives a nod to the exploitation genre, WIP without nudity is like a Big Mac without the beef.

As my gym teacher used to say, on the whole, I'd rather be at the disco....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the kind of film that I am wondering why anybody would have considered doing it from the beginning. This is the kind of movie that I cannot understand how people put money in it, how the rental store can put the DVD on its shelves. This is the kind of movie I blame myself for having rented it.

There are good class-B movies, and I do not reject the genre. When they are good, they catch the interest with the action, they have characters written well enough, and acted well enough so that you can care about them. The effects in some of these movies support the film in many cases, and you may like them for the originality. Almost nothing is true in 'Coronado'. The subject and the script is at the level of cheap comics - just a cliche. The effects are cheap - and I do not care that the film is low budget - you can do a lot with low budget, but you need some talent. There are so many continuity and other directing errors as in ten other films. You do not care for the characters, you do not laugh, and at the end of the film you are left wondering if the parody was intentional or not. The only quality I could find is the scenery, there are some good locations, worth a much better film.

2\/10 on my personal scale. The worst film of the year so far.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are 10 years old and never seen a movie before, maybe this film may be entertainment for you, but if you've seen several movies, this one will be a silly fully-cliched cheap and predictable for you. Don't waste your time with this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The bipolarity of this movie is maddening. One moment it's making fun of Latin Americans, American tourists and banana republics in general, the other it wants to be touching, with burned villages and orphans. Even the serious revolutionary hero, becomes a parody of a revolutionary at one point. But the comedy parts aren't even funny, because it's so obviously stolen from Star Wars. Yes, Star Wars, the \"hero\" is basically a rogue with a heart of gold. Add to this stereotypical sounds effects, Latin Americans who speak English with one another, and a villain that just disappears from the story. And whats the point? It's basically revolution propaganda with no resolution, and no planning (because, there is just no way these people can lead a country). The US government are bad guys, but who'll make money producing this? Not some poor farmer, that's for sure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just saw Coronado... Around here the only line they came up with to sell it is \"from the FX team behind Independence Day\". I think that says a great deal. No talk about writers, directors, actors...

It's a cute little adventure story set in a banana republic in Mid America, but the storyline is thin.

All the way through the movie I kept thinking about how much this movie looks like the cut-scenes from some action computer war game. Although the FXs are nice, they all too often are visible. Much like the cut scenes in CGs style like Command'n'Conquer.

You almost instantly know that that particular truck, backdrop, bridge, castle, or jet fighter never existed. The look is smooth and nice, but not up to the standard we have come to expect of Action Adventures today. The movie is lacking a lot of obvious on-location filming.

The acting, storyline is below average and the FXs are nice but not up to feature film standard. I am not surprised this thing went straight to video\/DVD.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this film over Matchstick Men, in fact buying the tickets to Matchstick Men and going to the other, because it looked like a fun movie with action, romance, thrills, jungles, and exotic locations. They had all that but so do a lot of movies with a conception of story.

All I can say is WHY WHY WHY WHY did they not just make it a straight narrative instead of some sappy flashback story.

Here is all the movies from what I've seen the film was derived from: Of course, Indiana Jones and Romancing the Stone, but also True Lies, Proof of Life, that old 80s Tom Selleck movie, Bananas (Woody Allen), and Hero (from the use of digital extras).

PS the only scene in the movie that was cool is when the central character finds her room blown up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It didn't feel like a movie, and was thankfully short (under 90minutes), it felt more like a commercial of possibilties in computer graphics: Most of the special effects are great, to be sure. But that cerainly don't a great or even a good movie make. Not saying it's absolutely worthless viewing, since it's possible to see what are the possibilities in CGI or GCI, or what ever it's called.

As I read somewhere, \"You can't fix it in the cutting room\", a bad story and non-directed actors, can't be fixed in the cutting room or even with the most magnificent special effects! Things can be improved in the cutting room if they have a real director and material to work from.

However they thought this could be sold in USA is anyones idea, since USA is the crooks.

And isn't it sooo typical of low budget stories, they have to create an imaginative country south of Mexico??

Well Well I gace it 2! Just because of the special effects, the rest is absolute trash!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So we're supposed to find it funny that this woman travels all the way to the jungle - to the warzone - just to find out why her fianc\u00e9e didn't travel to Switzerland? Or are we supposed to take it seriously? It's not even remotely funny, clever or entertaining - it's stupid - and so is the movie. The lead actress is one of the most annoying characters I have ever seen in a movie - even worse than Jar-Jar Binks. Dialog tries very hard to be funny (almost all the time) but it never is. The number of funny jokes is somewhere between zero and nothing. And as for the plot - did they even once bothered to explain to us what are the rebels fighting for (other than being anti-government)? I guess that didn't matter to anyone - neither to the rebels nor to the characters who just blindly flew to the battlefield. Don't waste your time. \"Coronado\" is neither funny nor entertaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is just as bad as it gets. If you like logic (or the lack of it) \u00e1 la National Treasure and bad acting as well, then it could be a movie for you.

Otherwise spend your time in the sun and your money on a beer.

Actually it looks like a bad produced promo or demo picture to promote the people involved (ie. actors, special effects and so on). Accidentially they produce really bad exposing of their lack of talent.

In a case like this the film company should be ordered to pay back money to the costumers that are not satisfied with the product.

It is really lousy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Infamous for being \"brought to you by the digital effects team behind Independence Day,\" Coronado is even more of a spectacular failure just from being juxtaposed with ID4. This ridiculous mess of a film starts off with a brainless premise and goes completely downhill from there. A wealthy, soon to be married couple in Beverly Hills are the subjects of this idiotic story. Claire's fianc\u00e9e has taken off on a business trip right around Christmas, so she decides to spontaneously fly to Switzerland so they can spend the holiday together. I especially love that her initial reason for wanting to go was because he had left some documents at home that she thought he might need. She grabbed them up and yelled after him while he drove away, concluding that her best bet would be to fly to the other side of the planet rather than call his cell phone. I refuse to believe that a couple living in such a cavernous mansion as theirs were unaware of the existence of mobile phones.

So up until this point, the movie is unbelievably bad, but check this out, THIS is where it starts to get bad! She gets to Switzerland and when she can't find her husband she gets some cake and calls her friend to whine about how unfair it all is. This woman is not an action hero, and she is DEFINITELY not a German Indiana Jones, for crying out loud. She is an overgrown cheerleader, a pampered sorority girl whose outdoor experience is probably limited to digging her spike heels out of the ground when she gets tipsy enough to wander onto the lawn during a wine and cheese party out on the bluffs.

She gets a tip that her fianc\u00e9e is in South America, so she, like, totally flies there to get him. Once there, this moron thinks she's going to go into the jungle by herself, sniff out the enemy base and rescue her poor helpless boyfriend. She laughs off a comment about the danger of going in there, then freaks out later because she finds out that there are battles going on. \"You never said anything about battle!\"

There is one point where Claire and some journalist that she met up with drive this huge truck across a bridge that is hundreds of feet high and hundreds of feet across and suspended by two by fours. Literally. There are thousands of thin pieces of wood tied together with twine, and these morons decide to drive over it. Not only does it crumble under the weight of the truck, but Claire manages to fall off of it, falling hundreds of feet and landing on her back in the shallow river below. Later she recalls the event, laughing it off like, oh maybe it was only a hundred. At least she wasn't twirling gum on her fingers.

What is truly sad about this catastrophically bad movie is that they even managed to coax a terribly performance out of the tremendously talented John Rhys-Davies, a REAL Indiana Jones veteran. There is a lot of nonsense about an uprising at the end of the film, where we meet an extremist rebel leader who, when we first meet him, has such a thick accent that he rolls his r's like he thinks he's in a Ruffles commercial, then later he talks like some guy they pulled off the streets of Venice Beach. Unbelievable.

The special effects are negligible. The team that brought you Independence Day, by the very fact that they were involved with ID4, was simply going through the motions, throwing together some matted and blue screen shots, I have to believe because they just had nothing better to do. The story is astonishingly bad, and Kristin Dattilo, who many other IMDb users cite as the only reason to see the film, doesn't put the slightest effort into her performance. Maybe she thought the digital effects team behind Independence Day could superimpose some meaning into this mess.

And given how far they've fallen, maybe they thought they could, too.

They could at least have tried.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another awful movie from Hollywood. This time a female helps the revolution in a central American country. yeah yeah yeah. Hey lets make a movie without any sense of realism AT ALL. I am so sick of movies like this one. The actors and actresses are lousy, the effects are cheesy and the dialog horrible. And suddenly i see John Rhys-Davies as the evil president. From Gimli to Hugo Louis Ramos. I bet he is very proud of this. Well i shouldn't have expected much of this movie and i didn't. And i am glad cause this sucks bigtime. I wonder what kind of people who like this movie. My guess is younger people aged 12-16. And i guess some people like because of Kristin Dattilo. Well i am in neither of those group and i hate it. Rating: 2","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Have you seen all the big adventures of last few decades? If you have don't bother with this one as you've already seen most of the scenes already - and I can guarantee that those scenes were originally in much better movies.

The story (I'm sure that true storytellers will never forgive me) is childish and stupid (stupid in a way that making it play in a mortuary would result in a bunch of angry walking dead). Every character is based in a clich\u00e9 and... well, they're nothing but the clich\u00e9. And yes, again all you need to be a hero is to be American.

At least in Finland they advertised this to be the kind of movie the DVD was made for. Maybe I should sell my player then...

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Other than cop rock and that show where the kid dies from eating a spoiled hamburger he found under the bed, this has consistently been the worst and dumbest show to survive prime time. If not for Jason Lee's unjustifiable success in film, this show would have never made it out of conception if pitched with a relatively unknown as the lead.

The concept is TERRIBLE. Moron redneck hick spends his lottery winnings to redeem himself with the white trash of his past. Is it funny? periodically but not consistently. Is it stupid? Each and every single episode.

I've seen a lot of great shows come then go before their time yet this blunder has survived longer than I ever could have imagined. The dialog is incredibly unfunny as are the episode themes. Every episode for someone with an IQ over 100 is an absolute struggle. And the icing on the cake? Jason Lee's annoying voice narrating each episode. If it weren't for the state's Southern culture and rednecks of the south, this show wouldn't have an audience.

If you're a moron and need a show completely lacking humor yet overflowing with bad taste, bad dialog and dimwit characters failing at life...well then you're probably an actor on this show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I agree with the comments regarding the downward spin. The last view shows have been a little better, but surely the writers need some more direction. I think the characters are still interesting, although sometimes they spin into the \"white trash\" things a little too much. Subtlety and nuance goes a long way on shows like \"Office\". I would think the target audience is somewhat similar being they are both on the same night and lineup. One would think that Karma and the whole eastern religion thing is a big enough topic to bring some different and interesting shows, but they only scratch the surface of the subject. In my opinion it shows the contempt that many people have in Hollywood about the level of intelligence of the masses. We can handle more heady content. It has been proved before in many other shows.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With the plethora of repetitive and derivative sitcoms jamming fall, summer, winter and spring line-ups, it's nice to see a show that sets itself from the lot in more than one area.

'Earl' takes an unusual approach. It's not about the \"daily musings of an eccentric family\" (zzzz..) nor about the other boring stuff you see everywhere in sitcoms. The show is about this small-time white trash thief (Earl) who scratches off a lottery card and scores big time. Right at that moment, 'Karma' took it away from him. Overtime, he learns that that unusual incident was probably because of all the bad things he's been doing, so he sets off on a mission to right every wrong he ever did and he's got all his deeds on a paper.

This is a brilliant premise for a sitcom. Thankfully, it landed in the right hands. The execution of the show produces extremely satisfactory results: you get an innovative comedy that is genuinely funny and really touching at many times. You can't help but fall in love with Earl's sincerity and steadfastness, Randy's simple mind, good heart and observations on life, Joy's wild, flamboyant personality and Darnell's mellow, chillin' demeanor that really endears him to you very easily.

When you combine the show's innovation with its genuine humor, good heart, interesting characters and well-written dialogue, you really have a keeper. With shows like this (and the incomparable \"The Office\"), NBC is obviously on to something. Did they finally free a cubicle or two for quality assurance? Let's hope so. And let's hope for more quality shows like these will occupy the line-ups; shows that'll make both us TV viewers and NBC executives stop crying over the long gone days of NBC's golden days (Frasier, Seinfeld, Friends)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After I couldn't ignore the hype about the show, I started watching season one and it struck me as really good and I was hooked.... for about 5 episodes, then it started to spiral downwards. Why? First, Ethan Suplee is scripted to act as a complete idiot confirming that very obviously by spewing out semi-random stuff in great expectations of it somehow becoming the next best joke.

Jaime Pressly's got stunning looks, but if she thinks stretching lips to explore parts of the face to which they normally never go to and making strange grimaces to accentuate everything she says is hilarious, she's way off track. Maybe she thought her character would be too flat, faded and she wanted to make it colorful and spicy, but made a flood of colors, overkill of spices and screams out loud for attention and it hurts my eyes, ears and intellect.

I really, really wanted to love this show, like I said, the premise is great, (comes from the same shelf as The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain) and Jason Lee is doing a pretty good job here, along with some of the other actors but there is no way no how I would get 'sucked in' and forget that this is just a show, because Pressly's and Suplee's surreal, extreme characters abruptly wake me when they show up. It's worth to note that their characters and acting would be fine if this wasn't a 70 something-part series and if they didn't get that much screen time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It seems like people are attracted to shows that showcase pathetic lives that have no purpose what-so-ever. To me i give my sincerity to NBC for their dire efforts to make new changes in television, making laugh track free shows. They seem to always find big success, like The Office. When I first started to watch it seemed to me that it could have potential to be a smash hit. But after a couple of episodes, I really felt like going to church and donating every penny in my entire bank to pathetic people showcased in these lowlife, poor, disgraceful areas. And the end where they show Earl and the brother in bed together, it just seems to me that this show is trying to show the bad side of life, like street beggars or people who struggle to pay the rent and have no sense of what the real world of normal people in society are like. I just seem to always be disgusted when I watch the filth the people in this show live in. It's like Venice Beach in California, beautiful but so many hobos. Believe me I'm no rich guy, middle class, and not a clean freak either, a bit sloppy, but it just seems to me that the show just can't seem to get off of all the gruesome, schmuck people out there who have one leg. I just wish that they would show a little more class, not all filth and poorness and trailers and just below average life, it just seems to depress me. To me this show is nothing more than a showcase of what not to do in life, what not to be. It also shows me that education is the most important thing you can have because apparently these two don't have an ounce of smarts. This is a schmuck-u-mentary.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My Name is Earl(2005)

Review:......For I have seen this.

This is something else. First off, how is this rated so high? I cannot understand that. This \"show\" is filled to the top with either annoying people, stupid people, or just plain unlikeable. The \"gags\" are hideous.

I saw one episode where the wife of Earl's brother wrapped and washed herself with dead fish. Not kidding. That wasn't funny, that's repulsive. Then she and Earl's extremely stupid brother(and I mean stupid) then had sex. I nearly threw up.

This has to be one of the most desperate attempts at comedy in a long time. Jason Lee is a talented actor, but is trapped in a helpless role in this horrible \"comedy\".

Earl is now in jail for this current season. Let's hope he gets the chair just so this show gets put out of it's misery.

The Last Word: This show would be funny to people who think Larry the Cable guy is funny. To the rest of the world, NOT A CHANCE. Avoid like the plague.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched the first 10 minutes of this show I think I'm gonna barf now! One worst shows on TV. It's not even funny. It's so lame it's disgusting. I gave it a second and third change couldn't even make it through five minutes. Don't waste the time. This is one of the many shows that need to go bye bye. Speaking of regular night time shows that need to go. All the shows on CBS. All the Shows on ABC. All the Shows on FOX and Joe Buck. All the shows on the new CW network. All the shows on NBC.(Accept The Law and Order series). All the Morning and Afternoon talk shows. All the Court TV shows. And every reality show out there!! Every stupid game show. period the end! All the Home improvement shows! And all the Media News. all it is.Is a 24 hour loop of bad news. Yes,I do have Favorites Monk,The law & Orders thats it for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie with very low expectations. I didn't know a lot about it so I wasn't sure if it was going to be worth it.

The story did an OK job of getting you curious about these ruins they travel to. The suspense continues when the Mayans show up and force them to stay at the ruins.

Then the movie turns from somewhat suspenseful to pointless. The amount of gore found in this movie did not balance out compared to whether it was truly necessary or used more for shock value.

The fact that they didn't make any attempt to fight the vines from hell. They had fire and didn't try to burn it nor did they try to cut it with a knife to see if they could destroy it or not. They quickly jumped into a victim role and their helpless attitude was not real. It reminded me of the old horror movies where the people just scream and yell and don't have half a brain to try to fight back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"God! Where do I begin? From start to finish, I could not help to hate this movie. Vines? Vines that make cell-phone noises?! Oh yeah, I'm so scared - I'm going to rid the weeds of earth! Come on people! The plot went nowhere, When the group discovered the ruin, and the village people (no pun intended) came to warn them and brandished weapons in front of their faces, don't worry, Amy (Jena Malone) was there to take pictures! That whole scene really had me wondering why she didn't take pictures of her beau, Jeff (Johnathon Tucker), sawing off Mathias (Joe Anderson) legs. When the idiots first threw down the rope after Mathias, how the rope was at least ten feet from the ground, but how it eventually was able to be a mere two to four feet from the ground. I cannot begin to cover everything that was wrong about this movie, there is just too much to cover. I will say the graphics as far as the gore were terrific, but it amounted to nothing since the acting and script were so terrifically bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was really awful. It was not in the least bit frightening, or even startling. I went to see it with a bunch of friends and by the end of the night we were saying \"The Ruins ruined my night.\"

I would not recommend seeing this movie in theaters, renting it or even watching the movie on television by accident.It is an absolute waste of an hour and a half.

The plot was nearly non-existent, the characters were horribly underdeveloped, and they gave no back story whatsoever for anything that was happening, and then left it completely open at the end as if preparing for a sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The scariest thing about freshman director Carter Smith's new horror movie \"The Ruins\" is the closing credits that list comedian Ben Stiller as one of the executive producers. What was Stiller thinking when he sank his bucks into this chiller about cursed carnivorous undergrowth that creeps up on its victims and devours them. Oscar-nominated scenarist Scott B. Smith of \"A Simple Plan,\" adapting his own bestselling novel, sticks steadfastly to the standard clich\u00e9s and conventions of all twentysomething scary sagas where reckless youth do everything but tote signs begging the forces of evil to eat them. Were cretinous characters not enough to contend with in this nihilistic nonsense, we're treated to yet another film where American tourists find themselves in jeopardy simply because they are Americans. Furthermore, unlike really good horror movies that explain why the monsters have a need to feed, \"The Ruins\" provides no explanation for the supernatural shenanigans of its villainous vines.

The set-up for \"The Ruins\" resembles the 2006 horror movie \"Turistas\" where slimy South Americans trapped brainless American backpackers and harvested them for their internal organs. Indeed, \"Turistas\" generated some legitimate thrills and chills. \"The Ruins\" spawns nothing in the way of either thrills or chills. A malicious mastiff that suddenly lurches on-camera to snarl at our heroes is as close as it gets to a thrill.

The rest of \"The Ruins\" borrows from another movie: \"The Descent,\" a superb, 2006 chiller about a bunch of babes plunged into a nightmare experience when they get lost in warren of caves inhabited by albino mutants with a blood lust for murder. A couple of other movies that served either intentionally or unintentionally come to mind, too. They are the straightforward 1968 Hammer horror classic \"The Lost Continent\" about murderous vegetation that menaces innocent bystanders in a sea of derelict ships and the Roger Corman cult class \"The Little Shop of Horrors\" (1961)about a New York florist that grows a man-eating plant in his shop..

\"The Ruins\" unfolds in the scenic, sunny Mexico where four frolicking American college kids, Eric (Shawn Ashmore of the \"X-Men\" movies), Stacy (Laura Ramsey of \"The Covenant\"), Jeff (Jonathan Tucker of \"Sleepers\") and Amy (Jena Malone of \"Pride & Prejudice\"), are wrapping up their tequila-soaked spring break. Stacy loses a prized earring in a motel swimming pool, but a helpful Teutonic, twentysomething tourist, Mathias (Joe Anderson of \"Copying Beethoven\") recovers it, and the group embraces him as newest best friend. These people live to party, and they have already made friends with a trio of Greek tourists. Mathias tells them about his wayward brother who has accompanied a cute female archaeologist to a remote Mayan pyramid that isn't listed in any guidebooks. He offers to take them with him and they accept.

First rule of horror movies: if nobody knows about the place where you're going, you'd be well advised to avoid it. Since they have only one day left, and they haven't done anything adventurous, our two couples along with their Spanish-speaking Greek friend, Dimtri (newcomer Dimitri Baveas), decide to follow Mathias and check the pyramid out. They catch a bus into the interior of Mexico and look for a taxi to take them on the next leg of their journey. A cabbie glances at their map and warns them to stay away. Second rule of horror movies: when the natives warn you to steer clear, you steer clear. A crisp twenty dollar bill helps him change his mind, and he hauls them off to their destination and then he skedaddles in a heartbeat.

No sooner have our heroes found the mysterious Mayan pyramid covered with undergrowth that looks suspiciously like a variation of Mississippi kudzu in the jungle than superstitious natives appear. They know that the pyramid is haunted, and they kill Dimtri without a qualm when he tries to dispel their fears. The remaining protagonists scramble to safety atop the pyramid while the paranoid natives surround them to prevent them from escaping. Eventually, the vines slink out to greet our heroes and eat them. At this point, \"The Ruins\" turns into \"Bug,\" the recent and ridiculous Ashley Judd schizoid movie about insects that get under your skin. Before long our heroes are carving each other up in a futile effort to extract the vines from under their skin. One particularly gruesome scene shows the Americans lopping off the German guy's legs to save his life. By comparison, it makes the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition look tame.

\"The Ruins\" ranks as just another vine mess with nothing to redeem it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to say that this movie was not what i expected. Even though i have not read the book the fact that plants can one bait and then wait for a killing to happen only to have it drag off a corpse for lunch is about the worst scenario anyone has come up with. With the title ruins you would think that out of 3000 years that some kind of deity or ancient animal or god would be the culprit. This is like another movie primeval where you would think it was something strange that villagers fear the most, but not a crocodile. Either way this film was like that, it entices you to think about ruins of Mayan or Inca folklore resulting in awakening and old god or the people had another agenda for sacrifice or something to that effect. But plants?.... come on, is there nothing else producers can come up with to wow a crowd?. As for this movie it will hit the 'b' list in no time. I have to say that some of the gore was excellent to see, but it didn't make up for the rest of the film. And a plant mimicking a cell phone sound or peoples voices is just too much to be believed. I am a fan of horror films but i am not a stereo typed fan who relies on just gore or mechanical effects. I do rely on great suspense and whats the next scene going to bring for more suspense. The thing had a better story line than this did. Even the ring had me jumping for more, but the ruins is just that..... ruined for using a plant to coax victims into killing or be killed by the villagers. The premise was alright for the villagers to keep it at bay with salt and such but still a simple blow torch and lots of napalm can easily do the trick to end those pesky plants with a flesh eating disorder.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I saw 6.0 on IMDb, I was rather impressed and excited to watch this movie, as a 6 for a horror movie should be rather entertaining. At first I thought it was going to be some disturbing, unseen evil force (having not read the book) to terrify the audience -- but it turns out to be something rather mundane -- killer plants. Regardless, I am a rather open-minded individual when it comes to movies so I thought perhaps the movie would bring some kind of breakthrough spin on carnivorous vines.

Unfortunately, it failed to meet my expectations due to the excessive amounts of clich\u00e9 and lack of any originality. To top it off, the female lead character continues to annoy you off with her stupidity. Unless the movie is intentionally a bad B-rated movie that is entertaining in the hilarity of badness, no movie should ever ever ever have a main character irritate you if one expects the audience to care about the character. Such roles should be reserved for secondary characters. Characters were undeveloped, the monsters (plants in this case) left unexplained, and clich\u00e9s were dripping all over.

The only thing that is mildly effective are some of the bloody\/gory scenes, although the gore pales in comparison with movies like High Tension or Ichi The Killer. Consistently failed logic (such as why would a character not watching the top of a rope during a second attempt at descending into the ruins when it just snapped and almost killed someone), even if minor, adds up and just continues to anger the audience. The movie could've saved itself by using characters or some kind of story device to reprimand or \"redeem\" idiot characters who just did something stupid (or at least let the character recognize or regret her own mistakes). But to continue to allow idiocy to preside will certainly cause the audience to abandon all care for the character, in turn taking away the terror of the movie.

Overall this is a poorly done movie. An example of a well done movie involving pretty twenty-something's getting killed is the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake (and the prequel too) that certainly instilled fear and had much less character logic flaws. In summary, if you have a lot of time to kill, go watch it if there's nothing else. Otherwise, don't waste your time with this sub-par flick and go see something actually scary and highly satisfying like The Hills Have Eyes remake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Plants in an ancient Mayan pyramid structure killing all who come close. Yes it is weird, as the travelers do not figure it out until everything starts doing crazy. And in a movie like this, I just wished it went absurd and had marching bands being attacked by plants wielding machetes.

Anyway, a group of people from America vacation and go into the mountains with a couple of other newly made German friends who know about the place. When they get there, Mayans began shouting at them and hide on the structure. And when there, thats when the plants decide to take them out, mimicking cell phone noises, humans, and ancient Mayan dead people.

Nothing was really scary about the movie and was not even entertaining. Not even the weird ending could save this piece of crap. I kept looking for something really good to happen, but nothing. Oh well. \"F\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie started off o.k. A couple of tourists on vacation in Mexico having a good time decide they should go on a hike. They uncover some hidden trails and end up and this huge temple like fortress. Angry villagers show up and try to deter them from climbing it, but because of the language barrier people get shot and the tourists end up climbing the stupid thing. Turns out the plants are evil blood-thirsty things that the villagers won't go near so they guard the temple so the tourists can't get off. There are a couple of scares in this movie, but nothing really makes sense. I mean they're PLANTS! Don't bother buying or renting the d.v.d. Wait till it comes out on cable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was REALLY disappointed with this movie. I had heard some great reviews about it and unfortunately missed seeing it in theaters. As a result of this, I was really excited to see it when it came to DVD. I thought that it was going to be a high-paced horror movie with a lot of scary surprises but instead it was a snail-paced predictable movie. It dragged and dragged without a climax in it and after all the difficulties that those people went through to try and escape, the ending was completely frustrating. I gave this movie two stars for one reason. This is not your typical horror movie with one central bad guy slashing a bunch of people to death. The story makes this movie unique and provides a change for people who watch a lot of horror movies. Even though I don't like this movie, I recommend that all horror fans do see it at least once. You may surprisingly like it. As for this horror fan, all I can say is that I hope there ISN'T a sequel to this forgettable movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It had potential...it really did. But there is so much about the movie that was ridiculous and laughable. I'm a horror movie weenie and I thought it was stupid; as did my 13-year old! I was expecting to be at least creeped-out. And, yes, the gross-factor of the vines squirming in the people was there; however, the lead-up to getting to the ruins is just dumb, dumb, dumb.

I mean really who goes on a hike...in a jungle... with a total stranger... with a little water and a few snacks...IN FLIP FLOPS, NO LESS?! Puh-lease! Better still who goes to a foreign country and leaves the tourist area without an interpreter or being able to speak a bit of the language? Are these people complete morons?

The German's brother isn't heard from and he doesn't call for assistance? Who doesn't do that? He just finds some Greeks and Americans to go on a little search and find?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have not seen such a stupid,dumb movie since quite a while. It absolutely has no logic, no horror- doesn't scare you, no suspense, not thrilling.. I mean I didn't find even one part of the movie appealing..

I don't know what they were thinking when they made the movie.. You watch the whole movie to find out that, there is a plant that can walk around, drag human dead bodies and eat human flesh. Not just that but it can also talk i.e. imitate sounds, like a cellphone ringing or human talking... so its like, the plant makes the noise of a cell phone ringing, so they go after the cellphone and find out its a plant... how intelligent of the plant to setup an ambush.

This clearly is the creativity level of a primary school kid... Bad!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The ruins is to Turistas as Deep Impact was to Armageddon, a worse version of a mildly entertaining movie, except much much worse. One of the characters is supposed to be going to medical school, so why are they all retards? \"you can't keep cutting.\" -best line form this movie. This is an awful movie. I like horror movies, but fully appreciate that most of them are terrible, but had a bit of high hopes for this movie after seeing the reviews on IMDb. The situation they are in is stupid and how they handle it makes them stupid. It is awful, the one thing that makes it somewhat palatable is its cool Australian backdrop, despite the fact that they spend the vast majority of the movie in one place.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you value your life in any way, shape, or form, you will do yourself a courtesy and pass by this seemingly \"interesting\" movie on the DVD rack.

I know what you're thinking, \"I saw the preview and it looked GREAT!\" However, buyer beware, I fell into the same trap. One of my friends expressed certain reluctance to watching this movie, but I forced her to sit it out. Oh, how I regret that decision.

Like most horror movies, the movie starts out cheerfully in a sunny Mexican resort where two couples are lured to an ancient Mayan Ruin by a fellow resort-goer. Upon arrival, they are disturbed by the appearance of two jungle people who are all but oblivious to their greeting shouts. As if this isn't ominous enough, the tour group casts aside large plant growth and declares an unused path consumed by wildlife a perfect route to their destination. I guess it wouldn't be much of a movie if they utilized rational decision making and turned around just then, but, well, this wasn't much of a movie anyways.

After some hiking, the sixsome (the resort goer brought a friend) stumble upon the ruins and at once their doubts are dispelled by its beauty and history. That is, until frantic tribal people emerge from the jungle armed with a vengeance for no reason in particular, shouting in an indecipherable language. Since when are brutal verbal assaults assuaged by calm, patronizing language - don't ask me - but nonetheless, the cast tries anyway, to no avail, obviously. Suddenly, the sixth trail member, Dimitri, is punctured with several arrowheads from the Mayans and all hell breaks loose. A gunshot finishes the job and the horrified travelers retreat quickly up the ruin.

Now, if there was ever a plot to this movie, it ended here. The introduction took at most 20 minutes and it was unfortunately the best 20 minutes of the movie. On top of the ruins, the now fivesome realizes they are stranded by murderous locals and proceed to make countless good decisions, one of them being to use a withered rope to lower one of their members into the bowels of the ruin. Needless to say, the adventurer is seriously hurt and then trapped within the ruins and the two girlfriends are gravely injured trying to rescue him.

The rest of the movie continues plotlessly, with no real horror, only only blood and gore, as displayed when one girl yanks a plant growing within her out, gushing torrents of blood and then again when somebody's legs are cut off, only to have the same plat from within the girl strangle him later.

My only satisfactions in this movie were observing the very attractive Jonathon Tucker, playing Jeff McIntire, grow increasingly more frazzled and distressed and sitting long enough to ascertain that almost all of the cast dies a horrible, gruesome death. Their simulated pain seems an adequate compensation for the time suck that was this movie.

Supposedly, the storyline goes that the ruin is an ancient house of of dangerous spirits with an evil, flesh eating plant to ward off and consume unlucky visitors. Unfortunately, I got no such warning from screaming bloodthirsty plants and the only evil thing relating to this movie that I am truly horrified by is the script writer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My review is divided into questions that you really should ask yourself:

1. Plants eating people have been done HUNDREDS of times. It's been used by Nintendo in everything from Mario to Zelda to Metroid Prime. It's been used in plenty of low-budget 50's movies, on par with the lowest of the Godzilla franchise. And this brings it to a whole another level of cheese with plants that TALK. I've known no one who walked out, but I know a lot of people who absolutely broke out in hysteric laughing during parts of this movie. I was one of them. Doesn't the horror genre deserve something a little better than this pile of laughable crap?

2. The characters easily could have been copy\/pasted from Hostel or Wrong Turn or Wolf Creek or any other movie with collage kids with bad luck. Yet it's called \"characterizing\" when the movie takes hours of your time to tell you clich\u00e9s that hundreds of characters before have had? Don't you ever wish a movie had characters that weren't just forgettable pieces of meat with legs?

3. This was not gory. A guy cuts his skin off. Oh, my! (Not.) A guy gets his legs broken. Oh my! Gasp! (Not.) I have shown movies like this to my mother who hates everything to do with horror because it makes her sick, and she said: \"I've seen PG movies worse than that! Why was it rated R?\" So, why was it rated R?

4. Here's the only plot the movie\/book has: collage kids drink, have sex, get naked, cruse, bleed, and eventually die. This is possibly the most typical example of a cheap, thoughtless horror movie, yet people call this \"mature\"? What the . . .?

5. I do not think I have ever seen something less original sense I watched A Beautiful Mind.

Haven't you ever sat there and wished the horror genre, easily the most diverse genre out there, would do something . . . well, diverse? Something truly original?

I just wish more horror movies would have actual horror, not just cheap collage parties put on film with a few splatters of fake blood tossed around.

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, I saw another reviewer said this movie was \"fantastic\". Well nothing could be further from the truth! This movie is complete garbage!!! A moronic horror comedy that is NOT even slightly funny!! Don't take that mean that it's so bad that it's good because it's not. It's a total waste of time and money!

Here's what I see in this waste of a DVD. A group of friends get together on a weekend, get drunk and then decide to make a backyard video. They grab Mom and Dad's video camera and start coming up with scenes on the spot. They all get a big kick out of watching themselves mug for the camera. They figure, if they think it's funny then everyone will think it's funny. Well, they're wrong. This backyard home video is garbage. The \"acting\" and comedic gore effects are lousy but I guess that's to be expected since this is nothing more then a home video.

On the bright side, I guess the fact that this crap got out there gives hope to anyone out there who wants to make a movie. If these people could get their movie made and released on DVD then anyone can!

0\/10-- Save your money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've watched a number of Wixel Pixel and Sub Rosa Extreme movies lately, and have found a lot to like about them.

This SRE movie seemed a lot more slight than all the others I've seen. Perhaps that's because this is a comedy\/horror movie rather than straight horror, and perhaps it's also because the humor didn't register with me very well.

It's a little less than seventy minutes long, and the credits begin as the last ten minutes are beginning. There are some outtakes, goofs, and behind the scenes stuff going on while those credits roll.

SRE movies do tend to be short, and tend to feel padded out in spite of that. This is no exception, with some scenes that tend to go on too long.

The story involves a poor kid in Christmastown, California who'd been picked on by all his classmates. He'd had one shoe stolen, and unable to replace it, he was dubbed \"Oneshoe McGroo.\" Due to an obsession with pirates, his parents gave him an eyepatch for Christmas with a Christmas tree emblazoned on the eyepatch.

Many of the classmates are killed, and the few who remain gather together to decide what to do. They're picked off one by one by McGroo, who stalks around to the sound of sleigh bells ringing.

The characters are pretty much all broad stereotypes, like the nerd named Dorkus, etc. There's an odd scene in which a kinky couple has sex; the woman is handcuffed and blindfolded, the man wears a large paper watermelon slice over his head. This reminded me of some of the stranger sex scenes from director Rinse Dream.

The picture quality is good, and there are a lot of extras. But basically a pretty silly movie.

Oh well, I guess you can never have too many Christmas horror movies. Still, there are a lot of other needy holidays.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While this isn't one of Miss Davies' very worst films, it is pretty bad. And it's sad that in a revisionist fashion, recent IMDb raters have deliberately over-inflated the scores on some of her films to make up for her being slighted in the past--or so it seems. For years, conventional wisdom has been that Davies was a terrible actress and only got the roles she got because her beau, William Randolph Hearst, bought her way into Hollywood. This certainly is the image created in Orson Welles' CITIZEN KANE. It is true that Hearst did use his considerable wealth and clout to build Davies' career. With all this money, it's not surprising that she made some excellent films and it isn't surprising that people got snippy due to all the extra attention she got. Sleeping with the man who finances your films is bound to get noticed. However, despite this edge, she also made a decent number of bad films and I think we really need balance when it comes to the scores of her movies. After all, no rational person could believe that as of today (1\/5\/08), PEG O' MY HEART and two other Davies films recently shown on Turner Classic Movies (THE FLORODORA GIRL and MARIANNE) deserved the exceptionally high scores--ranking them higher than such films as HIGH NOON, BEN HUR, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT!! In fact, MARIANNE would now rank as the fifth best movie ever according to IMDb with a score of 8.8!!! Considering most people out there don't even know who Marion Davies was AND most of her movies were financial disasters, this is a serious problem!! However, she was a much better actress than CITIZEN KANE implied and initially broke into films before she began sleeping with Hearst.

What sets PEG O' MY HEART apart from these two other movies, is that MARIANNE and THE FLORODORA GIRL were pleasant little films--while PEG O' MY HEART is in some ways just terrible. Much of the reason was the terrible miscasting of Marion. While her French accent in MARIANNE was cute, in PEG her Irish accent just sounded bizarre--not particularly Irish. Plus, and perhaps I'm mistaken, but her continual use of the word 'ye' makes her sound like she should be doing Shakespeare, not a film set in 1933 Ireland! Also, there was a bizarre insistence that Marion should be the consummate multi-talented star--so they had her not just act but dance and sing. The singing actually fit the scripts in some of her films, but here it seemed out of place and seriously detracted from the film. It just seemed like you could almost hear Hearst shouting out \"see--she IS a great actress---look at her sing and dance\". Sadly, Marion just looked uncomfortable and out of place in many of these scenes. But for me, the biggest problem was the idea of having 36 year-old Marion playing such a youthful role. It was obvious that the character she played at the beginning of the film was supposed to be like the ones Mary Pickford played in the teens and twenties--complete with the pig tails and plucky attitude. Miss Pickford COULD carry off these roles even though she, too, wasn't a girl any more. But here, Marion had put on a bit of weight and looked at least 30. No offense--she looked fine for her age--but she DID NOT look like a teen!

Oddly, with the millions that Hearts spent on Marion's career, he never realized that the most important thing he needed to spend his money on was a good script and one that fit Marion's talents. Believe me, I have rated several of her films very high (I especially adore SHOW PEOPLE), but here she just couldn't help but flop--this film was a turkey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just watched this today on TCM, where the other reviewers here saw it.

Sorry that I was the only one to find Davies a weak actress, with a truly awful attempt at an Irish (Irish-American or otherwise) accent. As she's the star, it was sort of hard for me to get past that -- especially as the other reviewers have said that this was her finest performance.

Another particularly terrible Davies performance was in \"Marianne\" (1929), which I also watched today. In this film, given a 9 of 10 rating here, her accent switches from that of a (correct) French woman to an odd combination of Italian and Swiss.

Interestingly, in TCM's one-hour bio of Davies -- \"Captured on Film: The True Story of Marion Davies\" (2001) -- film historian Jeanine Basinger claims that \"one of the things that you note about Marion Davies in her sound work is how good she is at doing accents.\" Of course this bio also includes commentary by fans (make of that what you will).

Davies was a very attractive young woman, and by all accounts a terrific comedienne in real life.

And because a part of her anatomy added immeasurably to the real-life answer to Joseph Cotten's character's search for the meaning behind Kane's final word in the opening scene of the great \"Citizen Kane,\" she's earned her spot among the great stories if Hollywood's history.

But I think Welles & Mankiewicz got it right for the most part with the \"Susan Alexander\" facsimile of the real article.

Don't bother voting as to whether you agree or disagree with this post as I really couldn't care less.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bob Clampett's 'The Hep Cat' is a distinctly average cartoon only really notable for the fact that it was the first colour Looney Tune (previously Looney Tunes were all black and white while Merrie Melodies were in colour). The tale of a singing, dancing cat's attempts to woo a lady cat and a dog's attempts to catch the cat, 'The Hep Cat' lacks the trademark energy and pace of most Clampett shorts. To be fair, Clampett doesn't have a great deal to work with. Warren Foster's script is embarrassingly thin and, while he has spun straw into gold with other cartoons, Clampett doesn't manage it with 'The Hep Cat'. It's often said of Clampett that you can't mistake his cartoons for anyone else's and it's generally true but 'The Hep Cat' is an exception. There's flashes of Clampett genius, such as the chase scene in which the cat stops to ask the dog \"Hey, are you following me\". When the dog confirms that he is, the cat simply says \"Oh\" and the chase immediately resumes. Unfortunately, there's very little of such brilliance on show here. Knowing who directed it, 'The Hep Cat' is a bitter disappointment. We all have off days and this was clearly one of Clampett's!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is about a group of people who are infected by a powerful man-made virus. They are pursued by government men into the desert.

The premise of the film is quite interesting but is hampered by the fact that the delivery is extremely boring. At no point does the film engage with the viewer on any level. Granted, the miniscule budget is a problem but is not the reason for the film's failure. Much more at fault is the very po-faced delivery. There is a great deal of narration but, unfortunately, the narrator has an annoyingly over-dramatic voice. Very little seems to happen to these people and well before the end you will be rooting for the government men - the sooner they kill the protagonists the sooner the movie will end. A much better title for this film would have been Four People Run About In The Desert With Some Stock Footage Of A Helicopter. Overall, very tedious.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie starts off promisingly enough, the use of imagery and simple short clips convey the bigger story, which would normally need a considerably higher budget than the one here. However it did start to worry me as it continued, combined with another overly husky Max Payne type voice over the movie was starting to look not so good. I hoped it was just the introduction to the story.

The story is what really caught me and took me to this movie. The idea that a research scientist has created a virus that actually protects the cells it infects from other infection was an interesting scientific idea. Then that subjects who had the most bizarre disorders sought out the scientist and offered to be his human experiments made me think this could be one very good small movie. Yet the introduction hadn't gone well.

There did seem to be a change of pace as the movie turned to recorded interviews with the four main characters in the movie, the test subjects. Although the acting wasn't superb, there seemed to be a lot of scope for character development throughout the movie, and the recordings were done quite well with a varied mix of characters. However these faded through the movie. They weren't used again after a few brief clips and I did feel that there was a missed opportunity to provide some great character development by reflecting back to them, however it wasn't to be.

The imagery becomes increasingly disconnected from the story, often repeating to represent something that is still happening. This disconnection and repetition is reflected in the annoying and distracting commentary. It began reciting words one after the other. Short, meaningless sentences and reciting none too relevant or interesting scientific ramblings. If there was something to be described, four or five words would be used, it was too long, repetitive, circular, looping,...you're getting the idea.

Now this could have been to reflect the confusion and of the character, slowly becoming caught up in his own thoughts, rambling due to lack of food and water. What it actually did was to cause me to totally switch off to the voice and by the closing stages of the movie I found that I hadn't been listening to some of the ramblings.

A number of times that an event occurs the camera shows all the characters one after the other for their reaction, which seems to be somewhere between confused and thoughtful. There are repeated fades from the same scene to the same scene, for instance a character sleeping fades to black, then fades back in on the character sleeping again. Look, we know the character is asleep, we know time has passed, please move on. Overall there are just too many atmospheric cuts and long, hanging shots to fill time.

The acting was not bad, and the characters were okay, but not exploited and developed. When they were interacting there were some truly cringeworthy moments. For example when one of them asks if they are hungry the camera looks to each of them and returns to a group shot, they pause, look to each other, turn back to camera and say slowly \"No\". It raised a snigger or two. Their dialogue was slow, glossy and either it was missing altogether or totally unnecessary, there seemed to be no middle ground where the dialogue hit spot on.

However, there were some good scenes, but they were really hard to find unless you viewed them in isolation, and this is what it almost looks like has happened with this movie. The film has been looked at as a series of scenes and not as a complete story.

Nowhere is this seen more than in the main storyline. The characters are infected with the virus that has been killing the animals, the one that was being engineered for them. We're told that it develops in stages to something dramatic, and so that is what we expect. What we get are the characters eating loads together, all throwing up once together, water pouring from their mouths in unconvincing streams, then they all fall asleep, these are the phases which all happen really early in the movie. Then, they all say \"Good\" together when asked how they are, and that's it. That's the virus done, nothing else happens.

There could have been so much more done with this movie, so much more developed with the virus and it protecting them from all manner of harm. It could have explored a serious change of these characters as it infected and took over them, it could have developed these characters, shown them making decisions and doing things that connect back to their character shown in flashbacks to the interviews.

The ending isn't even confusing, intriguing or thought provoking. It just shows something that happens and that's it, although in the long, drawn out style with the irritating voice over above it. I really struggled with this movie and watched a number of Press members walk out (including one famous TV critic leaving within the first twenty minutes), I stayed, but regretted the lost time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you suffer from insomnia then Radiant would be the best way to send you into a 7-year coma. The film is so preposterously overwrought and mundane that it's hard to imagine that director Steve Mahone could overlook such obvious dullness.

The story has an exiled Doctor (who we never get to see) move out into the desert to create a vaccine that will cure all diseases by filling the hosts full of antibodies that can combat any infection (yes, just like that episode of Futurama). The vaccines don't work and the human guinea pigs become infected with a virus that kills within 48 hours.

Not wanting to be caught by the Government guys in masks the group head into the desert for cover, hoping that the sunshine will kill the virus. All of this is narrated by Michael, the only one of the quartet immune to the infection. And it's the most boring narration ever. They could have cast someone with an interesting voice but instead we get someone with less vocal personality than Clive Owen.

On top of this the editor insists on fade-cutting more than half the movie, giving it a weird dream-like feel and increasing the audiences desire to go to sleep. It's no surprise that half of the audience walked out of this, I was not one of them for some reason. But I bloody well should have.

The ending is supposed to be shocking and clever and foreboding. But it's plain and simply not. A relief yes, but not dramatic in the slightest.

The utter cheapness of this production and muffled sound that renders a lot of the dialogue unintelligible cripples what could have been an interesting sci-fi story if it had better actors, cooler locations and a sense of urgency. As it is, Radiant is a snoozefest.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is simply rubbish. I have to say I am an expert of rubbish movies. I reserve the \"1\" rating for movies that are rubbish but funny, but this film is just tedious and certainly not crappy in a funny way but crappy in a crappy way. It gets a \"2\" so those of you out there can distinguish between the ones that will make you laugh and the ones that will make you fall asleep. There are scenes in this movie where the actors are looking at something, their expressions are of amazement and there wide eyes and slack jaws tell the audience that what they are looking at is going to be profoundly amazing, this simply isn't it's just a cupboard or even more desert. It has to be pretty god damn awful for me to walk out, let me tell you, I walked out and so did quite a few people.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Susan Slept Here turned out to be Dick Powell's swan song as a performer on the big screen. Of course he directed some more films and appeared frequently on television until he died. It's a pity he didn't go out with his performance in The Bad and the Beautiful.

Frank Tashlin has done so many better films, I'm still not sure whatever possessed him to do this one. The premise is absolutely laughable.

Dick Powell is a screenwriter who's looking to do more serious stuff than the fluff he's been writing. He had an idea for a film on juvenile delinquency so two friendly cops in Herb Vigran and Horace McMahon deposit 17 year old Debbie Reynolds on his doorstep. She's not a really bad kid and they don't want to put her in the system. So they give her to Dick Powell at Christmas time.

I mean is there anyone out there who doesn't see a problem? The term jailbait comes immediately to mind. Additionally Powell has a girlfriend, the young and sexy Anne Francis. Why Debbie Reynolds is any competition here is beyond me.

Susan Slept Here got one Oscar nomination. The song Hold My Hand, sung by Don Cornell in the background, was nominated for best song, but lost to Secret Love.

Powell and Reynolds do have some funny moments together and Alvy Moore as Powell's factotum and Les Tremayne as his lawyer also get a few laughs.

But it's not enough.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A ridiculous comedy given an arms-flailing direction. I love one of the comments here: \"Couldn't be made today\". Well, neither could \"The Philadelphia Story\" without a car chase or two. Nonetheless, does that mean the picture is worse for the wear for being old-fashioned? I don't think \"Susan Slept Here\" was good for any generation and it should fester peacefully in the memories of Debbie Reynolds-buffs. There is no sparkle in this story of a screenwriter who latches onto a much-younger girl for 'script research'. Dick Powell makes his farewell screen appearance in what must have been an embarrassment to him. Reynolds is pallid. Produced by one Harriet Parsons--who gives her famous mother Louella a number of inane plugs. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This frothy romantic comedy is based on the kind of story I loved as a teenager, but now find rather distasteful. In the case of May-September attachments, doubtless what is on the mind of the elder party is either lust, or an inability to face the reality of aging, or both. And the younger is most likely looking for the kind parent that she (or he) lacked as a child. These underlying agendas seem more pathetic than romantic to me now; there is also something rather predatory about them.

Dick Powell looked a bit embarrassed--as well he should--at playing the elder lover in this silly story. He was, at fifty, attempting the role of a thirty-eight-year-old man romancing a teen-ager. But young Debbie Reynolds was a knockout--pretty and saucy and full of vinegar--as a misbehaving seventeen-year-old presented as a kind of \"gift\" to the morally upright and honest screenwriter, as a subject for him to study. Her spirited performance wrung from me a better rating than this film would otherwise deserve. Anne Francis was cast as Powell's beautiful, but brittle fianc\u00e9e, and handled her small role deftly.

Some of the dialogue was quite amusing, too, so it's not a total washout.

5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From what I understand, Fox was embarrassed they released a PG-13 Alien\/Predator movie not so long ago. It was not well received by any means.

Not exactly sure where to go next, seeing as they thought Anderson was the best director for the franchise and they had produced a true sci-fi gem, Fox turned to it's small, but knowledgeable group of monkeys for answers.

These monkeys were by no means veterans of writing sci-fi flicks, but had seen Burton's Planet of the Apes remake and House of the Dead.

Their first task: hire actors. Fox gave them a reasonable budget but the monkeys wanted to save the money. They hired fifteen TV actors shortly after.

Now, the script. The monkeys wanted to save more of the budget so they wrote the movie themselves. Leaving out important aspects of the two franchises was the easy part. Thinking of great new lines for the general audience to remember years down the line - that was more difficult. They butted heads awhile and came up with a truly award-winning screenplay equipped with clich\u00e9 characters, idiotic decisions an gaping plot holes.

Fox was pleased thus far with the results but wanted to see what was to become of the centerpieces to the film - the aliens and predators. The monkeys again wanted to save money in the budget so they decided to trash the great robotics used in the otherwise terrible AvP original and go with the man-in-the-suit Alien seen in the old films. The actors playing the aliens had trouble fitting into the suits as they weren't properly sized by the monkeys so they jiggled their plastic heads throughout the film with honor. As for the predators, the monkeys decided one predator was enough this time around (again, saving budget) to fight the hordes of aliens that seemingly come out of nowhere.

But what about the effects, you ask? Come on now, people. They may be monkeys but they clearly knew CGI would play a key role in the film. Without diving into the budget, the monkeys used a standard Final Cut program and cut and pasted some very nice fire and spark effects throughout. Putting red and green filters over the camera lens provided some excellent Predator visions.

The setting was something the monkeys thought long and hard about. If this was to be on Earth, in Colorado of all places, they needed to make it realistic. This was where they admitted they might have made a mistake. See, the monkeys didn't have proper training in this department so they thought turning the lights off in the city and having the movie play out in the dead of night and in the rain was the right thing to do. They simply forgot people like to see the creatures instead of looking at shadows and rain the whole film. To add insult to injury, the monkeys accidentally filmed all the fight scenes incredibly close so no one could see what was fighting or who it was. But again, rookie mistake.

The rating. Fox told the monkeys to make the movie R-rated. That was easy. Without showing how many of the injuries or deaths actually happened, the monkeys made a habit of showing the carnage after the fact. It was simple: the viewers got the gore they desired and the monkeys didn't have to film the majority of action shots involving that violence.

Some of the actors originally had questions concerning the screenplay. Why does a blue liquid the Predator has endless amounts of magically disintegrate whatever he wants it to and nothing more than that? Why is an ex-convict driving around in a police car the entire movie? Why did the monkeys forget to show a full body shot of the Aliens? Why does a clock play a more memorable role than any of the main characters? The list of questions just kept growing but the monkeys ignored them and finished their masterpiece.

Fox was thrilled with their work. So thrilled that they opened the movie nationwide on Christmas Day and even spent a few bucks advertising it the week before it came out. The monkeys had successfully made another installment in these cherished franchises.

But some ask, what ever happened to the budget the monkeys forgot to use? They put it towards their next film: Aliens vs. Predator vs. Hulk Hogan. They knew the general public would be upset with the title but they have since released this statement:

\"To the people- do not worry about our upcoming film. It will be rated R and will have violence.\"

And everyone lived happily ever after. The end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love B movies, but I like to be aware from the beginning that I'm watching one. I can't believe someone could mess up a movie about aliens and predators so bad.

Aliens and Predator are AWESOME. This movie made a big joke out of them. The creators didn't take this movie seriously at all. I am throughly disappointed in how the Strauss jerks handled this film. They made a mockery of amazing characters. It's like they were trying to be serious in the beginning, then their writers got high and gave up. Almost nothing was continuous, the main characters were awful and were NOT Aliens or Predators. I am so ridiculously sad that no one takes Alien and Predators seriously anymore. These characters are icons of American pop culture and the creators of this movie showed no respect to the original films. They should not be allowed to cash in on the names of the previous films and they should be ashamed of themselves","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really, really don't understand how that movie could get a rating bigger than 4 here on IMDb. It's simply a huge mess, and I have to admit that I actually liked AvP 1: Close to no story, okay, I can live with that, but at least they got to the point pretty much at once. AvP 2 does not. After the stupid premise has been presented there is well over half an hour of stupid and unfitting teenager clich\u00e9s, dumb as hell dialog and close to nothing else, except for a few Alien scenes that feel like an excuse to have that first half of the movie and Predator scenes that make you ask yourself whether those guys making the film even watched any other Predator movie or just didn't care enough to be bothered.

After that, that crap-fest finally gets to the point where the Predator starts attacking the Aliens, or at least pretends doing so. And boy, is that Predator stupid, blind and deaf. It's awful. How he even managed to earn that stuff he has is beyond me. He misses with almost every shot, only notices Aliens when they're right in his face or if it's absolutely necessary for the script, so that he can move where he has to be. He even gets caught on surprise by puny human teenagers and deputies all of the time. What's that guy supposed to be? After the first hour of that abomination I was more or less constantly shaking my head at every scene. Close to no scene in this movie passes by without unbelievably stupid dialogs, stupid Predator actions or stupid lack there-of or stupid actions from our \"heroes\".

Then, that thing finally ended. To my surprise not only me and my friends didn't know whether to laugh or to cry, but everybody I overheard leaving the room was half-crying, half-laughing about those 1 1\/2 hours they just wasted.

Don't watch. Never.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The review on the main page admits that the movie is horrible but that you should forgive it because it is nicely violent. No you shouldn't. There are spoilers at the end of this review but how I can \"spoil\" this rotten movie I have no idea. Even if you are a die hard Alien\/Pred fan like I am wait for the DVD. It isn't worth a 3.99 rental either but you'll be much less inclined to truly hate this film if you pay that than 12 bucks or better per person plus concession purchases at a theater.

In the theater I watched AVPr there were exactly two laughs, both by a girl sitting next to me. Other than that there was total silence throughout. No ooohs, or \"that was bad ass!\", nothing. Imagine being a patient on an operating table and just being given the anesthetic. Now you know what you'll feel like in the theater after the opening scene of AVPr.

What was the budget on this movie? Like War of the Worlds, MI 3, and other f\/x driven movies the director seems far more involved in what the CGI people can come up with than developing characters or a plot. Spielberg has tried and failed at this several times, usually with Tom Cruise. Sure the movies make money but should they? War of the Worlds and Minority Report had the budget to pay for a decent script, Tom Cruise et al, and SS himself but were still awful. I'm sure AVP wasted 90% of their budget on CG and had no choice but to hire any actor that would say yes even though the casting agent would have done better by going to the supermarket and picking actors at random.

There is no tension developed in any scene so we are never close to being surprised. Who cares who gets killed? We didn't know any of them, we all know what happens when the lil aliens make their corporeal exit, we all know the blood is acid. In Alien, Aliens, 3, Resurrection, and even AVP the directors make use of the fact that the Aliens can think, can hide and can lay traps. This director decided that the Ridley Scott, James Cameron, and others were idiots for developing characters you actually want to see either live or get killed. In this installment you will never care who lives or dies, not a kid, a parent, a pregnant woman. The characters serve only one purpose in this movie, to die. The opening scenes establish the fact that the movie is going to be a predictable joke. The character development scenes mix clich\u00e9s, bad humor, and bad acting and numb the viewer to the point where we really don't care if they get killed so long as they die in never before seen ways. But they don't. The director tried to make something different from those who preceded him in the Alien franchise but only succeeded in discarding the good parts of the first films, the human protagonists, and stealing the rest from other recent sci-fi films.

There is not one original use of the either the Alien or Pred characters. The Pred actually has little trouble killing Aliens by the dozen even though the last movie led us to believe that Pred revered the Aliens as such a deadly foe that they used the killing of one as Rite of Passage. The AlienPred is never really developed as a fearsome creature. Its ability to inject parasites into a host is ripped from several different movies most recently probably was Hellboy where Samiel's dismembered tongue injected eggs into Hellboy or Doom where the mutated creatures would leave their tongues behind after they speared a victim's throat.

Simply put we aren't given reason to care about anything in this movie. There is violence but it doesn't shock or surprise and is nothing that hasn't been seen in any of a hundred slasher flicks. The CG is OK and both species of alien are made to look and move as they have in movies past. But since the characters are never developed and the acting is so bad we kind of hope that they all die. The little girl was probably the best actor of the bunch but sadly we aren't made to care whether or not kids, women, or anyone else lives or dies. We just want the movie to end. Eventually it does but not before another stolen plot line from Resident Evil 2 has a nuke aim Gunnison's way to wipe out the \"infection\". And not before yet another stupid scene that is supposed to open the door for further sequels but does it? In a movie filled with bad scenes the worst may have been saved for last.

Sorry for the repetition but everything bears repeating: bad script, no plot, unoriginal action scenes, uninspired direction, abysmal acting, decent f\/x that were wasted because of the many flaws.

I don't mind going to an indie film and being disappointed. The actors and directors and crew are probably getting their careers going and working on a shoestring budget. For a movie with this type of budget and hype I feel cheated along with disappointed. This movie is a painfully boring waste of time from the opening scene to closing credits. Sad to say that a preview of Hellboy 2 was the best part of AVPr and HB2 didn't even look that good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This entry doesn't contain a spoiler. It doesn't have to. The movie is as predictable as the sunrise. The element in the first Alien movies was the suspense that something COULD happen. This was so in the first two Predator movies, though less prevalent. Requiem has totally removed the element of suspense and replaced it with blood and gore. You know people are going to die (well duh, it is a AvsP movie), but you know WHO is going to die and WHEN they are going to die, AND WHERE they are going to die before it happens. The directors should take a lesson from Hitchcock who said, \"Suspense is not a time bomb going off under a table. Suspense is a bomb NOT going off under the table\". What's the sense in going to a movie when you know exactly what is going to happen and when? If you really, really want to watch this movie, wait until it comes out on video and then RENT IT, but by no means would I ever buy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The production value of AvP2 can be described by one adjective: AWFUL

The script is ridiculous, even in the fictional area of AvP: What are the facehuggers good for on the Predator's ship? Why is the Predator cleaning up all signs of his influence and than wasting precious time with eviscerating and even presenting the body of an insignificant human cop? Why is the Predator alone? Why is the Predator equipping himself only on earth but on his home planet? Why does the Predator make his job so uneasy for himself by hunting down the Aliens rather than bombing the whole countryside like the humans do in the end? Why is the Predator dropping more & more of his few weapons rather than collecting them to keep them together after using one. In the end he is even dropping his armor before fighting the Predalien in hand to hand combat: what a bad plagiarism of the first predators final fight between Arny and the Predator. The Predator's gestures are so exaggerated that he is moving more like a Japanese sumo than like highly skilled extraterrestrial-safari-hunter. As one can see immediately the whole story is a mess. But it gets even worse because this botched-up job is filled up with boring patchwork of senseless interludes like a lengthy pizza ordering episode or some detailed information about the criminal past of the two brothers (Dallas & Ricky). The Sheriff is of course the friend of these two criminals who he puts regularly behind bars. (not convincing & absolutely superfluous for the plot).

In addition to that the cast of actors is horrible. Compared to the high class of directors & actors of the former Aliens or Predator movies AvP2 is an embarrassingly bad piece of crap.

At last the action of the movie is really poor. There is not a single scene of action combat in which the audience can see the whole set. Each and every fight is filmed in short & shaky bursts with close up zoom at nearly full darkness. That results in an atrocious experience for the audience because one can mostly see nothing but a dark shaky screen.

I suggest the two directing brothers Strause to buy themselves a steadycam and get a lesson in modern CG so that the next film contains some visible action of visible figures and might not need to disguise their bad directing abilities in such a manner.

I would advise anybody (even die hard AvP fans) against watching this film: prefer the first one or the original Aliens or the original Predator films but avoid disappointing yourself by wasting your precious time on this failure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There was a time when the Alien series was a success with even the third installment, Alien 3, showing promise under the guild of a fresh and young David Fincher. The first Predator was a box office hit mainly due to its story, \"in peak\" star Arnold Schwarzenegger and director John McTiernan (Die Hard). The films Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 and Predator were all highly successful and created massive followings among general film fans and science fiction fans alike. Arguably Predator 2 and Alien Resurrection should have signaled the end for both franchises, but studios were undeterred and saw the opportunity to pander to the rumours among fans and combine the two. Step in Paul W.S Anderson, Alien Vs Predator, and now the Brothers Strauss (visual effects graduates, not even directors or writers). The problem was that by allowing such profound and revolutionary creations of the Sci-Fi genre to fall into the hands of firstly a mediocre director and now directorial newbie's has led to nothing more than profanity, epitomised by incompetence. Upon witnessing Alien Vs Predator Requiem (AVPR) die-hard fans will feel sick to their stomachs that this series could have got any worse.

One example of the cinematic deterioration of this franchise is in the opening scene and is likely to cause nausea among fans. The film begins with an Alien making its way onto the Predator ship, spurting from the predators chest, growing in to a full grown Predalien and bringing down the Predator craft (which now seems to have far less Predators on it than it did at the end of Alien Vs Predator) and all this occurs with the ship still in Earths atmosphere. Once the ship has crashed AVPR quickly resorts to cheap plot methods and basic narrative conventions, it makes no venture at utilizing any of the twists or subversions served up in the two original films. The wearisome plot progresses with tedious pace, punctuated only by the near rousing conflicts of Alien and Predator and when that runs the risk of boring us we are treated to either an alluring blonde in a bikini or rapid gunfire. AVPR is plagued by an endless array of continuity errors and plot holes with little or no narrative elucidation i.e. members of the public outwitting an elite military unit or the Predator not adhering to laws established in previous editions. This is a film that has a complete disregard for its predecessors, it breaks some of the most fundamental rules of a sequel and in doing so one gets the feeling that it is trying to set itself up as a stand alone feature. Independently the film has no heart, no conviction and no soul and with reference to the other films lacks even the most basic continuity. This is exemplified by the over arching narrative of the film as it undermines the basic premise of the first Alien. Because if the species had been encountered before then those in the first Alien film would have been more proficient and not so ill prepared when encountering them.

On a cinematic note the film is close to being dire, I felt urged at some points to shine a torch at the screen, the lighting was so bad. Through utilizing such gloomy and dark effects the audience may feel as though they are being cheated out of some the action \u0096 which is ironically its purpose and also indicates the films lack of budget. As with all science fiction one scene normally surfaces as being the most memorable, in this instance it is probably the hospital impregnation scene as it ever so tenuously draws on the themes of the original Alien by literalizing it. The directing is poor, performances weak and the script rotten. AVPR is the product of a conveyor belt system of film-making in which ideas and techniques are assembled by ineffective people and then the finished product distributed among cinemas. This is personified by the absence of gory death scenes and drawn out blood battles because the certification will not allow it \u0096 a lower certification achieving a larger target audience. AVPR was purely a business venture and nothing more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry to say that this movies was one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Following one of the biggest disappointments in movie monster match up history you would think that they would learn from the mistakes of the previous incarnation. The sequel falls into many of the same traps, the plot line was completely forced, the dialog was so bad that the film might be better on mute, and the action was contrived and far from the heart pounding brilliance of each monsters original films. The best part of AVP-Requiem is in fact the trailer, which as you go through the movie end up realizing that almost every single death and every really cool shot in the movie was already shown in the trailer which leaves little to be revealed and little to be excited about. I gave the movie an extra star for letting see the extra hot female in the almost nude. the movie played out like a color-by-number sci-fi monster fest which also played into the fact that nothing was a surprise when it happened, because you'd seen it a thousand times before. the main failing with both these movies is that the creators thought that setting the films in our time would make us be interested in the story more as if it may one day happen to us. but what drew people in when they released the arcade game back in the day was that it kinda took place within an over the top futuristic version of the ALIEN trilogy time line which allowed more of a suspension of disbelief. this is where the future movies need to draw inspiration from. because to be honest, seeing a waitress killed by the ALIEN we all have feared since childhood just really doesn't do it for us. lets take the series back to its roots. learn from the former masters and don't mess with a winning formula by trying to make a 'bold new vision' we liked the originals for a reason, we want to see that again. Lastly, the ending is the real WTF moment of the whole film, *SPOILER* after the big climax, the survivors are ambushed by Special-Ops soldiers who justify their horrific actions by saying 'we were following orders' and then turn on a dime and start acting all nice and are turned into saviors. then after the long pull back with one of the survivors looking ominously into the heavens, we cut to the most bizarre cliffhanger I've ever seen, with characters you never saw in the rest of the movie (Save the Government Dude) then with all the subtlety of a punch to the face they reveal that there will be yet another film with the hint of a plot line that would make a sci-fi channel original movie blush and turn up its nose. So, in summation, if you have to choose between this movie and doing any other activity on the face of the Earth, skip the movie and do the other thing instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was only fourteen when I first saw the Alien movies and I immediately came to like it. Original, terrifying and classic. Sigourney Weaver was the perfect choice for the female hero character and she would have deserved a statuette for her act. In 1979 something everlasting was born than the immortal series continued with a nothing less legendary movie than the first. Alien3 was a different point of view but I think this part was the most stressful and unique of all, this was my favourite. Unfortunately the last one was a failure in many ways. It was strained, illogical with full of meaningless massacres. I didn't like it at all, but I never thought that a worse part would ever be made in the future. Well as it turned out in 2004 I was wrong. Alien vs. Predator was a bad break, and it should have been directed by a more talented director or should have never been made at all. But when I saw Alien vs Predator Requiem I was totally shocked moreover devastated. When I sat down and decided to watch it with full of doubt, even than I had never thought that such a bad movie could be made. Without a screenplay, without a director and without actors I don't understand how can a film be made. Because this film misses these three terms. What you get is a nice massacre show without a story but with a lot of annoying and boring dialogues. Waste of money and waste of time. This movie is rather impudence, than honor to the fans of the both sides (Alien\/Predator). Shame!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With this movie I was really hoping that the idea was to make up for the hashed together ineptitude of the first AVP, and yet to my horror: Requiem is far worse than I could have imagined.

My hopes were up in the opening moments of the film inside the Predator ship, and I almost breathed a sigh of relief when we finally saw the Predator home world (a throwaway digital matte painting, but still nice to finally see it) and then of course, the humans (if such poorly written characters can be referred to as such) are introduced...

One must wonder why it seems to be impossible for Fox to make a good film out of Aliens and Predators. At the very least the supposed filmmakers could have done their homework.

Characters are set up in the same manner in which we would expect from the worst Friday the 13th Sequel. The pizza delivery scene was cringe inducing as was every other scene of character interaction that followed it. Bimbos and teen non actors do not make for a REAL film, they make for a cheap flick, and Alien 1-3 and the Predator movies were good because they were produced above the concept (remember that the 1st Alien is a \"B\" movie done as an \"A\" movie) The Strause brothers really missed an opportunity, that could have been rectified by simply knowing their Alien+Predator roots: In both the Alien and Predator films we are introduced to characters that are part of a larger group (Alien: Refinery workers, Aliens: Marines, Alien 3: Convicts and in the Predator films we generally follow a main hero part of a unit; Predator, Arnold--Special forces, Predator 2: Danny Glover, Police) and it's easy to see where the filmmakers of both franchises started to go wrong: in Alien Ressurrection we have pirates...or something, AVP we have...explorers?...with guns?? and of course in AVP-R we have teen slasher clich\u00e9s. What is there to identify with here? In concept the idea of a convict returning to a small town and a war vet returning seemed a set up for a First Blood type of action hero, but like many things it was never paid off.

The Film-making is equally devoid of rhyme of reason. There is no sense of forward momentum to the action, just small sequences that build the most minuscule levels of tension or interest only to cut away just when they're getting interesting...taking the audience out of the movie at every turn. The action scenes themselves, though much ballyhooed in the trailers, are so darkly lit, it is literally impossible to tell what is going on during the fight scenes when they finally occur. Basically, the movie is hindered from many levels. Bad actors combined with poor direction and an atrocious screenplay (which as a screenwriter myself I noticed, seemed to hit every wrong note and clich\u00e9 that only the most untalented writer devoid of ideas could have hashed together) The WRITING, if it can be called that, is not even direct to video quality, nor does it demonstrate a shred of respect for the established lore of the previous entries in the series. Why does the Predalien all the sudden have the ability to shoot alien embryos down a pregnant woman's throat to use her as an incubator for chestbursters? More than likely because the brain dead screenwriter needed a way to have more aliens for the predator to fight (and given the accelerated growth time even more so than the first AVP: as quickly as possible. Why must meaningless small talk between cardboard cutouts on sticks (meaning the supposed characters)substitute for real character development? (Remember a character is defined by what they DO, not SAY). Why is the Sheriff leading civilians to a cache of guns? (isn't he an officer of the law?) How does the bimbo of all people know where they are? Why does the Predalien wait for the Predator to VERY SLOWLY remove his mask before it attacks? Why are the aliens still falling into that nasty series-post-Alien 3 habit of hissing all the time to let their prey know to run? How on Earth did this series devolve to a character saying \"People are dying...we need guns!\" (how this writer even works is beyond me, and reflects badly on Fox's already destroyed artistic reputation. It's like everyone involved in the making of this film suffered from a mental impairment or really are that inept at every level of the film-making process.

The EFFECTS are pretty lousy this time around. The Aliens look like men in suits and ADI is just getting lazy with their creature design. The Aliens look like modified leftovers from Alien Resurrection, with that same bulky musculature around the arms as if they did not learn from that movie that it was not a good design, nor a good one to recycle. Again, everything is shrouded in such a state of darkness not to create mystery or atmosphere, but simply to hide how bad the creatures look. And just like in AVP, Stan Winston is sorely missed when the fake looking Predator face is revealed.

There are too many faults to list so I will just say this: Do not waste your money on this movie. Fox is beyond caring about the fans, as this cheap and trashy film is clearly evidence of. I felt bad having taken my girlfriend to see it (though it was free) and apologized to her profusely after. This is one die-hard fan who is done with the franchise.

Note to Fox: What we really wanted wasn't a mindless slasher flick, it was a film adaptation of the original Darkhorse Comicbook, which was better than anything you've produced for this franchise post 1993.

Signing off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Starting where the last AVP left off, an Alien \"chestburster\" emerges from a dead Predator on a Predator spaceship, and causes the Predator space ship to crash into modern day Gunnison Colorado, where it breeds several more Aliens which start to cause havoc. The Predator race sends down a lone highly experienced and armed Predator to \"clean up the mess\". Our human characters are caught in the middle of the intergalactic battle.

The biggest problem with this movie is the pacing. This movie moves along way too fast. The opening credits have only just rolled and already the Predator ship crashes into the Earth after the Alien grows to full hight, a hunter and son character are introduced but before we even get to learn their names they are both killed, then we see the Predator home-world and the lead Predator flies off to fight the Alien infestation, and all this happens within the first five minutes. This unnatural pace does not let up for the entire movie; the National Guard comes into town but within two minutes are all killed without even getting a good look at a single ones face, the manager of a pizza store gets one scene of character development only to be killed off the very next time we see him once again without even learning his name, random hobos, a coffee shop waitress and chef are killed again without learning their names. One moment our main characters are at home, the next running around town, the next in a gun store , the next in an APC, and this random set jumping over and over just doesn't ever let up leaving the audience no time to settle in leaving them grasping for straws.

Another problem is the settings and time frame. The movie is set in modern day Gunnison Colorado. Every other Alien and Predator movie was shot in enthralling settings, such as industrial space ships, guerrilla war zone rainforest's, alien planets, and underground labyrinths. Now comes along AVP-R, set in a small modern day American town, with set \"highlights\" including a sporting goods store, parking lots, Pizza Shops, and little girl's bedrooms. I mean, were they actually trying to make the movie look as dull, drab and uninteresting as possible?! It's hard to perceive these monsters as frightening creatures when they are standing next to a shelf full of Reeboks, or hiding in the bushes outside little girls bedrooms.

Continuity is a big issue with this film. The Alien series was set in the future, no human had even heard of an Alien before the first film, and the Aliens not only had never been to Earth, but if they ever did reach Earth, humanity would be destroyed. This movie ruins that entire concept by being set in modern day, with Average Joes seeing the Aliens all over the place, and by the end of the movie, humanity is not destroyed, not even suffering what could be considered minor losses. It pisses all over that entire concept of the other movies. Attempts to maintain continuity are made with massive Deus Ex Machina's. The Predator just happens to carry around a bottle of unlimited magic blue liquid that's just to melt away any bodies with just a single drop, the army at the end of the movie just happens to go to overly drastic measures and drop a nuclear warhead that just conveniently erases all evidence of the Aliens existence despite the fact there were many survivors of the incident who are witnesses, and many more bad attempts are made at filling up impossible to cover plot holes.

Also, for a \"Verses\" movie, it has unrelenting bias in favor of the Predators. For the majority of the film, a lone Predator manages to kill dozens if not tens of dozens of Aliens, all at m\u00eal\u00e9e range while barely gaining a single scratch, while the Aliens just get slaughtered left right and center like clay pigeons, merely waiting their turn to be killed by the Predator without putting forth any effort to defend their selves. This movie should not be called \"Alien vs. Predator\", as much as it should be \"Predator massacres Aliens\". I mean, how can you have two species battle it out with suspense and tension, when one is portrayed as being vastly superior to the other?

The characters in this film are amongst the biggest flaws. Not only do they pale in comparison to the characters from the previous Alien and Predator movies, but even as a stand alone movie they are bland, dreary, and even at times cringe worthy. The characters in this movie consist of I kid you not, horny couples wanting to get laid, pizza delivery boys, blonde bimbos, high school bullies, children, and a blatant copy and paste job ripping off Ripley and Newt; the worst and most clich\u00e9 possible ideas for characters. Not only that, but all of the aforementioned characters are acted by teenagers. While the casting of teenagers is an obvious attempt to pull in younger audiences, its only effect is to make the movie look and feel like a typical teenybopper slasher-porn movie, with actors who are too young to have learned how to give a convincing performance, with them mostly having completely blank facial expressions delivering monotone dialog. Not only this, but these characters do some of the most cinematically retarded things ever, such as using Predator guns, commenting the powers out when it has been for hours, following dumb plans to get out of town rather than just walking out of town somewhat quickly, and just so many other idiocies that the movie actually had the audience in my theater sighing out of frustration.

In the end this movie is just a horrible B movie, something deserving of the direct to DVD category. The fact this movie was a theatrical release astonishes me, as every part of the movie just ranks of amateur work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If only I had read the review by Alex Sander (sic) on here rather than looking at the rating of over 6 from a select choice of the ignorant viewing public I would not have seen this desecration. Alien was a fantastic, dramatic and well made horror\/sci-fi. Predator was a great sci-fi\/action mess-about. I do really have only myself to blame though as I saw 'Alien versus Predator'. It too has an average grading of over 6 stars from the connoisseurs of film that frequent this site.

STOP READING NOW IF YOU HAVE ANY FEAR OF THIS EVER SO SUSPENSE RIDDEN PLOT BEING RUINED FOR YOU.

Right from the beginning this film was ridiculous. No explanation was offered for the Predator ship overrun\/not overrun by Aliens. OK so maybe they were again going to throw aliens down to Earth to hunt them and something went wrong but how did this result in an Alien\/Predator hybrid and why did the rest of the crew not realise sooner despite their great technology? The start was actually the most coherent and interesting part of the film because we had some idea of who was who or what was what and perhaps why. From then on it gets really ridiculous. I always leave my disbelief strictly suspended above the door of the screen before entering and collect it on the way out. I couldn't here.

A father and son are hunting in the woods. The damaged ship crash lands to (from the view given) I would calculate at the very least 10 odd miles away through thick woodland. The man and boy track there alone and find the ship and get face hugged. Even at this point you feel very little for them mainly because the face huggers are almost comical rather than scary in their movement and actions and the father seems like such an irresponsible, dumb redneck muppet.

An edgy, thriller-type scenario is introduced with an ex-con returning to the town near the crash site to be met by his somewhat emotionless, dull now cop friend from the bus. When I say introduced I mean a feeble attempt with crap actors and no feeling is played out. A slasher\/horror element is then introduced with a sexy girl and the usual supposedly nerdy or somehow undesirable cute guy who gets beaten up by the over protective, crazy, nasty Jock type (American sportsman not a Scottish man). Oh the cute\/not cute boy is the ex-con's brother by the way. Yes they're clever these director brothers whose name I will research in order to avoid any other shite they put out again. Then a modern role reversal oh so boring attempt at PC, Ripley credential type character introduction comes with a female soldier returning home to her husband and child.

Guess what happens next? I won't tell you much more about the actual (smiles sadly to himself about the demise of storytelling in the large majority of recent films) plot just in case you have got this far and are not the brightest star in the Alien-ridden universe.

The Predator is stupid for the reasons stated by the previous poster whose post I read too late. The Aliens are boring. The Predator-Alien is ridiculous. The action is at times exploitative, gratuitous, disgusting nonsense. The hospital scene with the pregnant mothers?!?! Oh I was shocked alright. Shocked at how low some people will go to get what? A scare? Some shock? To titillate the perverse? What? If you really wanted to shock, titillate and scare people who are not pregnant or expecting fathers or who have no souls why not just have the Alien\/Predator shagging the saucy women and teenage girls rather than killing them? The characters have no depth and neither does the plot. It's filmed and paced badly. It's acted by disinterested people not that I can blame them. It further tarnishes two rather interesting and good sets of sci-fi characters. This film was rubbish and if you gain enjoyment from it I really have to worry about you. If you haven't seen it then well please make your own decision.

PS Did I even mention the way that trained soldiers are all killed in about 20 seconds while amateur civilians survive throughout?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film and the 1st AvP film both all over the whole Aliens and Predator franchise.

They are awful films, badly acted, badly scripted and terribly directed. They just seem like someones desperate attempt to make money off of the good name of the original aliens and predator films but instead of delivering a well thought out, quality production, they came up with the predaturd.

The original Alien\/Aliens\/Predator\/Predator 2 films were great, they redefined the horror\/thriller genre by inventing these insane (and yet still believable) creatures who took the role of the 'serial killer', as opposed to a human.

These films are just milking the franchise and do nothing but darken its name.

The Aliens vs Predator comic books were brilliant and had a great story. They were true to the Alien\/Predator mythology, didn't crap all over the original stories etc... Why didn't they make the comic book into a great film? Because Hollywood are idiots, thats why.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Turd Pie:

* Take x2 franchises * Par-boil for 5 mins * Stir in mixed cardboard characters (non Actors work best) * Add 2 tons of clich\u00e9s then bake in Your Plot-Hole Microwave until bored. * Serve with a Sprinkling of Dawson's Crack (not a Typo)

Voila! - Money spinning Brain Rot for the Emo\/World of Warcraft Generation

Looking for the keys in drain was the best bit (?)

Aside from the first 5 mins, its one of the worst films ever made.

Utter, Utter, Nonsense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I saw Alien vs. Predator a few years ago, I have to say as stupid as a sequel it was, it was still somewhat enjoyable. Now, there are unfortunately a shortage of good movies out in the theater lately, so my boyfriend and I decided to just go ahead and see what AVPR: Aliens vs Predator - Requiem was about. So we saw it a couple nights ago and I have to say that there was absolutely nothing thrilling about this horror sequel. It took a completely different turn from the first AVP movie, it's not a bad idea that they took Alien and Predator and put them in the up class suburbs, but from the idea of the first one explaining their reasons for existing, this was just an average and predictable horror sequel. Not to mention a story that keeps introducing new characters every scene where I wasn't sure who to keep in mind on who was the main character and why, so I couldn't really keep up with the story.

From what I've gathered, of course the Predator and the Alien are up in space having to deal with the stuff of typical sit com neighbors, they're just beating the lights out of each other and they decide to why not? Go ahead and take it out on some Earthlings. So they crash and Alien is taking over the suburbia utopia. But teenagers, including a troubled couple who look like Ken and Barbie, a female marine and her daughter, among others, are going to make sure to kick some space butt, that is if the predator doesn't get there first. Because he is ticked off at the Alien, I guess for starting the party without him, lol, just kidding, actually for killing some of his friends.

AVPR: Aliens vs Predator - Requiem isn't the worst movie by any standards, it's still pretty cool with a lot of the visual effects and the fight sequences between Alien and Predator are so cool to watch. Like the first sequel of Alien vs. Predator, the cast is the thing that ruins the film and just seems like they were not well developed, I know it's horror, but the original Alien and Predator films had characters, that you cared about and wanted to win. But it was a semi-decent sequel that I would say is worth a look for some fun, especially for Ken and Barbie's sake.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My qualifications for this review? I own all the Alien and Predator movies & I have and have read almost all the books I can find that are related to this series.

I can safely say, this movie is a Stinker. Save your money & don't waste your time. If you like mindless action, mindless gore, no plot to speak of & like being taken by Hollywood, see the movie.

If you are a serious Alien series fan, send a message to the over stuffed, over paid suits in Hollywood & 20th Century Fox & don't give them a penny.

This movie has so many plot holes in it you could sieve pasta through it. Read the other negative reviews to get the big picture, it has all be said accurately, so I don't have to repeat them.

The characters in this movie are cardboard. You want them all dead. And, the movie doesn't disappoint, almost all of them die. Even the hot, bubble headed blond. Do you feel sorry for her? Nope. No plot, no character development....who cares. The Predators are now idiots too. They scan everything but their own dead warrior. They are suppose to be a high technology society, right? In the Predator movie, they scanned the soldiers and the girl to determine who was armed. Trophy kills. In AvP, they scanned Charles Weyland and let him go because he had Cancer. Major Plot hole!

Also, the R rating is because they have kids in the movie that get a face hugger, lots of gore and violence and there is one hospital scene where a very large pregnant women is injected with chest bursters. She is implanted by the Hybrid Alien with 4 or 5 eggs in a mouth-to-mouth love scene-orgy and they all hatch in, say, 30 seconds. Sensational gore a plenty, nothing more. These scenes are laughable, not serious. It is almost like the violence happens and the Alien looks at the camera and waits for applause, a thumbs up or a nod of some sort.

The Aliens in this movie are all on performance enhancing drugs. They develop fast and spread quickly all over the town, tons of them, everywhere in record spawn time. Pathetic because it does not stick to the series story line and adds nothing to the Aliens, Aliens Predator continuity.

I have noticed the positive reviews are written by people who love the gore. Laughable. As a movie, as a continuation of the Aliens franchise and the development of the Aliens vs Predator franchise, this movie is a cheesecake clich\u00e9 at best. If you have faithfully followed this series, all the rules are broken and the Aliens and Predators are reduced to comic book characters.

There is not one fantastic, memorable action scene. There are almost no special effects worth remembering. There are no brand name actors. The plot is as thin as onion paper that ultimately ends with a, \"We have two choices to get out of this mess...The Hospital or the center of town!\". I just about wet myself. The center of town means everyone is going to get nuked by Big Brother who somehow knows the town has been infested because they have an AWAC in the air that can see the infestation on a radar screen in special effects Red Spots. I just about fell out of my chair. Special effects red spot alien radar on an AWAC over middle America. I am splitting my gut laughing.

Having to get to the Helicopter Pad made me choke on my popcorn. Has anyone played a game called ZOMBIES!? You have to get your playing pieces to the Helicopter Pad to win. I almost wet myself laughing.

The ending is enough to make you shake your head in wonderment. Who did 20th Century Fox hire to write this script!? OH, OH, ask me.... a Grade 5 student. There really can't be any other answer. Oh, yes there can be another answer... Low Budget Cheesecake Sci-Fi.

The ending? \"Col. Stevens takes the Predator pulse rifle to Ms. Yutani (Francoise Yip). She tells him that the earth is not ready for the technology it represents. Col. Stevens knows Yutani doesn't want the technology to use on earth.\" You are kidding me, right? Ms. Yutani? Who is Ms Yutani? (forshadow:Weyland-Yutani: The Corporation) She is in the movie exactly 2 seconds and yet, in her infinite far east wisdom, she says the world is not ready for the technology. Seriously??!! The Brothers Dweebs (Strause) as directors? Who is responsible for this hemorrhage-abortion of a movie? They are the Doug and Bob McKenzie of directors and yet Fox entrusted the flailing Alien franchise to them. They are touted as special effects experts and yet the movie is all low budget special effects. Hmmm, I see a pattern. Laughable.

This movie is only made to empty your wallet. It serves no other purpose. It has no plot. It has no main characters worth mentioning. It is disjointed. It does not adhere to any of the character principles established in previous movies. It does nothing to advance the franchise. The special effects are lame, minimal and low budget. And, it has no ending to speak of. It is low budget and strictly designed to take your hard earned money. Nothing more.

Save your money. Either watch it on TV where it will very quickly end up. Buy a bootleg or miss this bleeding ulcer altogether. There is a reason why Fox did not Preview this movie to the critics. The critics would have eaten this mess alive and no one would have gone to the theaters to see it. JR Giger, the original creator, is at this very moment, leaning over a toilet spilling his lunch.

20th Century Fox, this movie is a stinker. It is as bad or worse than Alien 3. You insult us.

Flush now...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ed Wood is rolling over in his grave. He could have made a hundred cult classics for the price of this waste-hole. The worst script in memory (it makes \"X-Men 3\" sparkle like \"Citizen Kane\"); the most amateur directing; pre-K cinematography; the cheesiest \"special effects\" (I'm talking about \"Friday The 13th\" sequel territory); and throw in a pointless, revolting, deeply disturbed, maternity ward sequence. The lack of any talent or sensibility that put this garbage on-screen is astounding. That the \"industry\" might reward anyone involved in this celluloid cess-pool with future projects ought to be cause for serious alarm.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie made me watch Paul W.S. Anderson's AvP1 and enjoy it! I am not even going to dream of comparing Requiem to any of the Alien or Predator series' movies,this is a HORRIBLE TEENAGE B-HORROR FOOTAGE SET IN AN American SMALL TOWN NO ONE CARES ABOUT.

AvP1 at least had heaps of handcrafted art carved into the movie sets,it had bags of eye-candy not previously seen in any of the original movies - but was ruined by unconvincing characters\/acting.

Requiem takes bad acting to the lowest imaginable level,and it also lacks in every other department just as much...it's a sacrilege to include alien and predator suits in this kind of rubbish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved the blood and gore. The kind of violence is what Alien and Predator movies are about which is no one is spared. This truly answers the question of how it would be like if aliens were on Earth. The answer to that is simple. We are screwed. The effects were beautiful. How ever there are some real problems with it.

1) The acting was horrible on the part of the Human characters side witch almost put me to sleep because of how dry and boring it was which really interrupted the flow of the movie and was very annoying. The writers could have done SOOOOOOO much better. The good part was the Alien and Predator acting which I thought was done very well for the most part.

2) The size of the Predator ship was much smaller then how it was in the first AvP movie. This I scratched my head on

3) Predators having their mask on while still in the ship. This upset people and I cant understand why. Its not a plot hole like most people make it to be. So I say to you people calm the hell down. Its no big deal. If it will make you feel better, remember, they did have face-hugger's on bored in storage so that could be a good reason why.

4) Predator firing its plasma caster inside the ship. I thought that was rather stupid on the Predators part. But then I began to think if it was a younger Predator that panicked.

5)The hunter and his son almost instantly arriving at the crash site after it fell several miles away. At least they didn't bore us by showing them run through the woods for 30 min. so be happy about that.

6) Why did only one Predator go? I thought this was odd. But then I thought that it was because he thought it was only one Predalien that he was dealing with and not an outbreak.

7) Why didn't the Predators in the ship self destruct? Well if people were paying attention one did, but he was killed before he could completely activate it.

8) The unlimited blue melting goo. I thought that was rather dumb.

9) Predator hiding evidence with the goo but skins a cop. That was also dumb.

10) The black out. Well come on people, an Alien and Pred did fight it out at a power station.

11) Predalien being half face-hugger\/queen. This really ticked me off. I am an Alien and Pred fanatic. I know for a fact that Aliens DO NOT DO THAT!! Just like they don't give birth like a human does like they showed in Alien4!! Out of all the comics, games, books, and the movies 1,2, and 3, CLEARLY shows their behavior. They need a queen to lay eggs, the eggs hatch into face-hugger's, face-hugger's infect host, the parasite pops out and kills host and grows into a drone if it infects a human, a Predalien with a Predator, and Runner with any kind of four legged animal. And then after living for years upon years then they molt into a Preatorian (a mini me queen that does not lay eggs) I can go on and on but I wont. But that scene alone nearly ruined the movie for me. If the directors are smart they would go back and edit that by making a face hugger infecting the pregnant women.

Any way if you are going to see this movie, just go see it for the Aliens and Predators. And when the scene comes up where the Predalin infects that pregnant women... Close your eyes so you don't have to see that insult to the Alien and Pred universe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"AVP2 is an awful movie. The dialogue was pointless, the acting was pathetic, it had virtually no story line and you can't really tell what the hell is going on half the time due to the continuity errors and plot holes.

BUT! You will love it anyway. Because it pushes the boundaries on gore, violence, death, destruction and chaos. They EVEN kill children, newborns and unborn babies in this movie. You will be sitting there thinking \"Oh my God, that is disgusting\" And they surprise you by killing the 'sexy chick who always makes it out alive' when the predator and aliens are fighting in the hospital.

It's like the movie industry has said \"We know what we did in the first Alien Vs. Predator movie was was bad, so we're doing it again but this time we're getting help from psychopaths with vivid imaginations\" It's predicable, moronic and down right pointless....but you will be thinking about it for a while after you see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anyone who watched \"Alien vs Predator\" must've known that the conventions of the \"Alien Quadrilogy\" were not exactly adapted for the film. Amongst some of the unusual elements, the rapid growth of the Aliens over seemingly a matter of minutes, Aliens with extremely long tails, and so on. However the idea of the Predator species providing the impetus of city and temple building to create a hunt for would be warriors sounded so appealing that I couldn't resist.

I had hoped the end of the film would not be the impetus of this sequel, and unfortunately I was wrong. For those who forgot how the first film ended, the dead Predator had an Alien burst through his chest which carried the traits of both species'.

For this film, I'm going to just go through a list of \"good\" and \"bad\" traits.

The Good: Lots of gorgeous people, especially the men.

The Bad: Lots of gorgeous people get munched by both the mutant Predator\/Alien, and the Predator.

The Good: An interesting idea of the Predator planet.

The Bad: An inconsistent scale of a town. Its a small town without many opportunities, but with a very sophisticated (read: big city) sewer system, and homeless. Is it a small town, or a city? The police force is one Sheriff and three Deputies, or so I counted.

The Good: Um....

The Bad: Why do these mutant Aliens\/Predators grow so fast? In a matter of five minutes, they seem to grow to their full size. I mean, c'mon...what are these things...Chia Pet Aliens??? And while we're on this subject, why is it that an Alien inside a Predator's body mutates, but an Alien in a human's body doesn't? Does that make sense?

The Good: Still thinking...

The Bad: Why would only one Predator come? And why does it pour acid over all the remnants of the \"Aliens,\" but it decides to murder a cute deputy, and then skin him and hang him upside down. I mean, so much for being incognito!

The Good: Ah...I'm stuck. I guess there's lots of loud sounds!

The Bad: How do these mutated Alien\/Predators procreate? Apparently they find a pregnant woman and in a kiss type of motion, they deposit several offspring into the woman's body. Yeah, just what you'd like to see, eh? Pregnant women having their bodies explode into mutant aliens- as if the previous way wasn't gross enough!!!. I mean, there isn't even an Alien Queen.

The Good: Did I say that the guys in this movie are gorgeous?

The Bad: When a nuclear device blows apart buildings, how does a helicopter manage to survive the blast? And how tacky is it for one of the passengers to mockingly chide the pilot \"I told you not to crash!\" I mean, given the nuclear fallout, when he wakes up in the morning, he'll have no hair left!!!

I could go on and on, but I think you get the message. Mutated Alien\/Predator bursts through dead Predator's body, grows over the matter of a couple of minutes, kills all the Predators and manages to get crashed on earth. More mutant Alien\/Predators are created, while ONE measly Predator comes to earth to destroy this new mutant species. Predator kills humans. Mutant Alien\/Predators kill humans. Humans kill humans. Sucks to be a human in this movie, eh?

If you're impressed by lots of bangs and bumps, you'll love this movie.

If you liked the first, I suggest you skip this sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am not even willing to vote a single star for this crap but IMDb does't have zero as rating option... worst movie i have ever watched.. Story of the movie 1. Predator ship crashes on earth 2. One alien and some face huggers are released and they start killing humans. 3. One predator arrives on earth and he starts killing aliens and humans. 4. Then one human jet drops a bomb and kills human, aliens and predator. 5. Some humans find the shoulder canon of the predator. 6. The End Directors should consider refunding money back to the viewers. If still you want to watch this movie, download from some torrent site and say thanks to me for saving you money.. all the movie has been filmed in some dark corner of the earth, you see just dark shadows even in action scenes.. too much violence.. I didn't expect it from a fox movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first became a father about 5.5 years ago, I was prepared for many of the sacrifices I'd have to make. I knew I'd have to change diapers and take them to swimming lessons and attend many a freezing Santa Claus parade, but I wasn't ready for the kind of sacrifice I made last night. This, in my humble opinion, is cruel and unusual punishment.

Underdog is bad. It's not quite Karate Dog bad, but it makes The Shaggy Dog feel like Pulp Fiction. If Underdog were a television show, I'd recommend flipping on by. Not even the presence of Puddy and the voice of Banky Edwards can save it. Bow. Wow.

It was also just about the best 80 minutes I've ever enjoyed. James was seated to the right of me and Michelle to the left, and I spent more time watching their reaction to this talking, flying mutt than watching the screen. At 5 and 3 years old, they were the target audience, and this movie nailed the target. There's a scene where Underdog belches loudly in another dogs face and Michelle thought it was the funniest scene ever captured on film. When Underdog was flying into outer space, James was literally at the edge of his seat, mesmerized. The kids absolutely loved Underdog, and that's why I was there. That's what last night was all about.

Unless you're accompanying someone under the age of ten, you have no business wasting a second of your life watching this brutal film. But if you are looking to kill 80 minutes with your four year old, I won't judge. I had a blast.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"They did it again: ripped off an old show's title, then destroyed the nostalgia with boring \"re-imagined\" stuff. The '60's cartoon was one of the funniest of its time, a good-natured satire of super hero comic books. The character was drawn as 1\/2 way between animal and human, the way Mickey Mouse is. Here they use a real beagle; that's about the same as making a Mickey Mouse watch with a real rat.

Most of the clever schtick that made the original show funny is missing from this film. Instead, we get a clumsy ex-police dog who's even dumber than Cad. And some pet owners who add nothing to the story. Cheesy effects (the dog-talking animation is embarrassing). Poor scripting. A stereotyped dwarf playing Simon Bar Sinister. The gravelly noise box guy they hired to voice Underdog is painful. You'd think they'd at least gotten a voice impressionist to approximate Wally Cox's humorously distinctive voice for Underdog. But no. There are, at least, a few affectionate references to the source material (such as the rhyming lines), which lift it to a 4.

Only small children that love dogs may enjoy this. Everybody else should get a DVD of the original cartoon series. Watch this only in desperation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me start of by saying that I never wanted to see this movie in the first place; I had to watch it one day, and I figured that I guess I can lighten up and enjoy it for what it is, and it might turn out to be entertaining. What I got going in with that expectation was one of the worst movies I have ever seen, bar none. First of all, there was nothing humorous in the least bit. The creators expected humor to be laughable\/passable if they include sarcasm in every line that comes out of Underdog's mouth and use scene after scene of bland, played out aspects to \"charm\" the audiences light-hearted side, while still making them \"ooh\" and \"ah\" for more with boring action scenes and insipid, lackluster performances that made me want to yell at everyone in the audience that was enjoying it. The acting was dull, the humor was tedious and the characters\/plot felt like they spent about 10 minutes creating their entire personalities which gave the uninspiring actors\/actresses no range on how to portray their characters with the least bit of depth. This movie is plain and simply awful in every field and really only kids under the age of 10 will be able to enjoy it, which even though that's what age range it was aimed at, that does not excuse it for being so poorly daft and causing me to feel so penitent. Parents, spend your money on Up, Wall-E, The Spiderwick Chronicles, The Water Horse or Hotel for Dogs for the best, recent family\/kids flicks, or even Alvin and the Chipmunks is better than this filth!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When Underdog the cartoon debuted in 1964, at the age of 7 I was hooked immediately. He was Top Dog (pun intended) in my book-(that is, until Batman premiered on ABC a year or so later). Even when it was clear that Disney was going to make a live-action version of the once popular Saturday morning cartoon, it was equally clear to me that it was going to be a piece of crap. Even reading the reviews in the papers seemed to confirm this. However, I made it a point to: a) never attempt to write a review unless I have seen the movie from start to finish; and b) never to spend one red cent on a movie that I'm almost certain I will hate.

Thanks to YouTube I: a) am fully qualified to write this review; and b) it only cost me 84 minutes of my hard earned time.

It also proves my point, namely, that this movie is not merely a piece of crap. It's a steaming pile of dog droppings. It resembles the TV series in name only, even though they almost got it right with Simon and Cad.

All in all, Underdog is a huge waste of time- and money, which thankfully, I didn't have to spend.

Rating: 1\/2* out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Story of the creation of Underdog and adventures battling Simon Bar Sinister in a live action format. First we have Showshine picked up off the street and brought to a science experiment lab where Simon Bar Sinister works. He fights back when Sinister tries to inject him with a chemical and accident occurs, he gets superpowers and the lab blows up wounding Sinister. On the street Shoeshine runs afoul of Riff Raff, another dog and gets picked up by Jim Belushi who was a guard at the lab. Belushi's son discovers that Shoeshine has all these powers and eventually Shoeshine becomes Underdog, who will once again battle Sinister.

Once you decided that under dog was going to be a real dog you've sort of limited yourself as to whether the film was going to work or not. For me the film half works and half doesn't. The part that doesn't is all of the stuff where you see Shoeshine, the dog, as a dog with his master. Some of the repartee is funny, but it just drags on and on as we get introduced to Sweet Polly and her mistress and we go through all the typical lets see what you can do stuff. Its a deadly 20 or 25 minutes and effectively kills the film. Its painfully dull and feels like it takes forever to get through it, which considering the film is say 75 minutes sans credits, is something you don't want to do.

The parts that are good are anything with Simon Bar Sinister (Peter Dinklage is a blast) and anything where Underdog goes into action. Some how somewhere they managed to find a way to be both twistedly true to the spirit of the cartoon and to update it. Of course I could be wrong since the middle section is so dull, but I think not, since I do look forward to catching the end of this again on cable.

As a whole its probably as awful as some people have said, but if you can wait for cable where you can stumble on the good parts, this is an okay cartoon to film adaption. (But wait for cable-really)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't like Underdog!I mean it was really unnecessary and needed a big face lift and then it would have been maybe passable but for the main part i didn't like it.This wasn't like any other kid movie its one of those movies that wanted parents(who grew up watching the cartoon)to come with there kids to come see this,i am neither of them so the film didn't appeal to me in the slightest.I had some problems with it like i don't think Jason Lee was the right voice for Underdog it made it him sound sloppy and really unintelligent.Then it was really predictable which makes you feel tired and mad.The humor was really what made me mad it was just to unfunny and somewhat pathetic.The one thing that bothered me the most thought was how almost everything out of Underdog's mouth was sarcastic or rude.The acting was passable but needed a little improvement.If you have kids they might enjoy it, but if your not a kid by all means see it you might like it unlike me. 3.4 stars out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jason Lee does well to give this doggy movie fleeting promise, but it's not enough to distinguish it from any other bland family comedy

This live-action, CG-enhanced adventure sees a shamed police dog (Jason Lee) transformed into a super-dog via an accident in the lab of scheming scientist Dr. Simon Barsinister (Peter Dinklage). Underdog sets about saving the city while attempting to keep his identity secret - a challenge given that he can both talk and fly.

The odd gag raises a smile, but Underdog's human sidekicks (James Belushi and Alex Neuberger as father and son) are as dull as the predictable storyline. One for kids too young to have seen Superman. Or Spider-Man. Or even Shaggy Dog\u0085","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Starring: James Belushi; Peter Dinklage; Alex Neuberger and Jason Lee Underdog is a true hero's tale. Here is the story of Shoeshine, a regular, playful little beagle. When he is dog napped by a megalomaniac midget hell-bent on destruction, something freaky happens.

Our quirky little neighborhood pooch gains extraordinary powers. He can run as fast a cheetah; fly as fast a superhero and has the power of thunder. He is no longer Shoeshine; he is Underdog \u0096 the best crime-fighter in the animal kingdom. The city cannot sleep until Underdog rids it of the evil midget Dr. Simon Barsinister and his cronies.

If you fancy some really light-hearted entertainment with all the clich\u00e9s of superhero action flicks, then this one is for you. As for quality entertainment, this one is strictly for the juniors. Those of you hoping to enjoy the comedy of the fast-fading star -James Belushi - a word of caution: this is not one of his finer works.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"God, I never felt so insulted in my whole life than with this crap. There are so many ways to describe this piece of crap, that I think that if I said everything that came to mind, I would get banned by this site.

How do I begin? Well, for one, it doesn't take knowledge of the original series to know that this movie is a slap to the face of people who've seen it. The biggest butchering of a theme song ever made is here, from a metal version, to a freaking RAP VERSION, what were they thinking? How does Underdog and a electronic-heavy musical style match? The story is so basic, that I will do something I don't usually do and not even give a summary. Just think this: A dog gets superpowers, fill in the rest. That's how predictable this movie is. And then comes the jokes....please kill me now. This style of humor that might not even get the kids laughing, it's that bad, well, expect that punch line after the sneezing. That was slightly funny.

But what surprises me the most is why Jason Lee(Ny Name Is Earl), Patrick Warburton(Emperor's New Groove), and Jim Belushi(According to Jim) are all here. In the shows\/movies I mentioned, the actors, in my opinion, do a good job, and, excluding Lee, are the best actors in this movie, but that says very little. The rest deserve Golden Rasberry nominations for this crap. I am very sad to see such good actors buried by this disaster.

All in all, this is just as bad as Doogal, which I reviewed as well, and again, my head would explode if I saw anything worse than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Good things out of the way first:

Underdog's voice acting was FINE. But Jason Lee being awesome himself, that really is no surprise.

Peter Dinklage (Barsinister) also did fine, for what trash was given to him. He acted the part shockingly well. And so did Patrick Warburton, the moronic assistant. Now, it was idiotic character but he acted so extremely well, I actually liked the character better than the protagonists. The lines given to him were childish but witty.

However. Alex Neuberger did awful and hope he never acts again. His \"Scream\" was so disgustingly fake. Silence. Silence. \"aaahhhhhhh\". In the scene where he hears the dog talk, an \"oh no, impossible!\" would have sufficed in place of the pathetic fake scream.

And then there was the girl and her female dog that chased Patrick's character Cad on the roof. At first this makes sense, she's a \"Reporter.\" A school reporter but still an inquiring mind regardless. But why, WHY the HELL did she carry her dog around? That was worthless and the damn dog didn't even say anything other than a heartless \"oh, underdog!\" Her presence was extremely unnecessary.

Overall, the script was pathetic. The only reason I give this movie a 3 is Barsinister, his assistance, and underdog's voice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember seeing the very first trailer for Underdog back last March, I also remember at the time smiling to myself ever so slightly. Sure it was a cheesy idea, but I genuinely thought at the time the concept might work, hell it couldn't be any worse than the disappointing Cats and Dogs could it? Then by December and I suddenly remembered the film I realised how likely the film was to suck, the fact it had been delayed in the UK made it seem inevitable it would be terrible, but the horrendous reviews just made me realise it was nigh on impossible for the movie to be any good. Still I swallowed my feelings and went to see the film with a friend today, as I entered my screen I was mortified, it was the very first time I'd be seeing a movie with a friend and being the only two in the screen! Little did I know for what I was about to endure. Underdog to put it blunt is horrendous, it really is. Imagine how bad you could think this movie is and then prepare yourself for a movie even worse, that is just how pathetic the movie is. While it aims to entertain kids it just seems an embarrassing mess that seems to insult kids rather than allow them to enjoy the movie. Matters cannot be helped by the fact that the story is beyond lacklustre, the acting is generally poor, and the movie just feels like an over-long, tired and downright boring Saturday cartoon! After a brief five minutes where I thought the movie might be passable the movie just suddenly seems to die and then limp on towards the already sign posted finale. I'm just amazed the movie was actually ever released, it's an embarrassment to Disney, hell half their straight to video sequels are better than this! What's even more terrifying is the fact the ending leaves room for a sequel!

So lets get onto the acting (cracks knuckles). Okay let me be honest Jason Lee is decent, his voice suits the canine, and had he have been given a decent script he might have made the performance work. However, with such a dodgy script he just seems to flounder. In many ways it reminded me of Bill Murray in Garfield, Murray did what he could with what he had, but what he had wasn't enough to make it passable. Then we get onto the human actors, and well the majority of atrocious. Alex Neuberger plays the friend of Underdog, Jack. My biggest concern is that anybody would even take him seriously in an audition. The scene where he gets to fly with Underdog is perhaps the most cringe worthy scene in the past few years just because his acting is so poor. Not once did I believe he was a real person, in fact part of me is still convinced he was a robot made specially for the movie! James Belushi seems half dead in the film, he has nothing to work with, no decent lines, he just seems to wander around the set waiting to become relevant to the plot, which the writers try to do towards the end but do it in such a poor way its laughable. Thankfully Peter Dinklage is the one redeeming factor of the movie, he is great as Dr Barsinister and seems to be having a laugh in the role. He steals every scene he is in, although that's hardly difficult when he shares screen time with the extremely annoying Patrick Warburton. The rest of the cast are even worse, especially Taylor Momsen, she just needs to end her acting career right now!

Underdog also fails dramatically in terms of delivering anything like a funny scene. When the funniest scene involves Underdog biting a can and causing dog food to explode everywhere you know there is something drastically wrong. This could be easily ignored if the movie had decent action or a good story, alas the movie is even worse in both of these terms. The effects are so ropey that any scene where Underdog flies just seems absurd, and the dog uses his powers to such little effect that you frequently forget he has superpowers. What's the point in making a film about a super dog if the damned dog never appears super? The final fight also verges on embarrassing purely because its ten minutes of nothingness, the dog flies, other stuff happens, some stuff gets chucked about, all of this is irrelevant as this stuff is happening for the sake of stuff happening. The script as well is dodgy at best and downright pain inducingly awful at worst. When someone says \"Look its a plane, no its a bird, no its a frog...\", yes you read that right, I just wanted to burst into tears there and then. Actually I wanted to walk out by remained compelled to see whether it could get any lower than that point, this happens near the end so it doesn't thankfully.

Overall Underdog becomes the worst movie of 2008 at this early period, and is actually just as bad as last years Epic Movie. Luckily for Underdog, Meet the Spartans arrives over here soon and I expect that to be even worse. So in case you didn't get the point of my review, avoid the film at all costs, if you want to see a movie with a dog then watch Cats and Dogs, buy a real dog if necessary, just do not see this!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was browsing through the movies on demand and saw Underdog for free and it was only 82 minutes long so I decided to watch it. I wasn't expecting much but it exceeded my expectations of being awful. Everything about the movie was cringe worthy. The dialogue was atrocious including many terrible puns. The jokes were also terrible. I found myself yelling and flipping off my television screen while I was suffering through this trash. It hit its target audience very well but I don't see how anyone else could enjoy this film. It made me very angry and nearly cry because of everything terrible this film had going for it.

The only enjoyable thing about this movie was being able to give it a 1\/10 after viewing it. I beg you to avoid it at all costs. I understand the fact that its made for kids but there is nothing likable about it at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Only three words are really required for this review: Piece of crap.

If you enjoyed watching the cartoon as a child, you will find this movie to be a complete waste of your time and money. The best thing about your two hours in the auditorium will be your feet sticking to the floor.

Yes, they do use all of the names and catch phrases. The even name the dog \"Shoeshine\" (in reference to the dog being \"Shoeshine Boy\" in the cartoon). They name the love interest Polly, but she isn't Miss Sweet Polly Purebred.

My wife and son drug me to see this. They should have drugged me to see it.

The original Underdog was voiced by Wally Cox, the ultimate nerd. This one is voiced by someone with a \"smart alleck teenager that knows more than all the adults\" attitude.

As a stand alone movie, it is awful. As an homage to Underdog, it is even worse. It is not an homage. It is not a retelling of the story. It is not an updating of the story. It is purely an attempt to cash in on a known title and create merchandising. The next time I go to the store, I fear that I will see Underdog toys, pajamas, towels, sheets, clothing, etc. McDonalds and Burger King probably fought over the kid's meal rights for this.

The worst part of this movie, however, is the soundtrack. THEY DO THE UNDERDOG THEME SONG TO RAP (read that with a silent \"C\" at the beginning)! Great, now that we are going to destroy something, let's go all the way.

I knew that it would probably be bad before I went. My fears were confirmed when I arrived at my local 12 plex and found that they opened it for the first day and first showing in their smallest auditorium (and one of only four without stadium seating). Even the theatre people knew it was going to be garbage! Save your money on the tickets and invest it better by going out and buying the original series on DVD. It will be more entertaining and have better production values.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I heard Disney had the rights to \"Underdog\",I figured at the very least it would be a cool Pixar partnership affair,and we'd get a great Adults & Kids film like \"The Incredibles\". Alas...I forgot how Disney must dumb down classic material for today's dumbed down youth. What were they thinking? \"Underdog\" was a product of the 60's,your Prime Fanbase is in their 40's and 50's,why would you refocus it to 5 year olds? It should have been done ala \"Roger Rabbit\",half animated half real. Instead we get characters like Riff Raff ( a WOLF!! ) dumbed into another dog.\"Underdog\" can't have an \"energy pill\",as we're now so \"enlightened\" it would obviously be a steroid or drugs reference.The only good casting was Patrick Warburton as \"Cad\" because he actually sorta resembles the cartoon version. Otherwise,old school \"Underdog\" fans should avoid this like the plague it is. What next? A live action version of \"The Go-Go Gophers\" disguised as a re-visionist history lesson? ( My advanced apologies if Disney jumps on this! )","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And now for another point of view: I didn't like it. I didn't finish it in fact. I know that \"Unforgiven\" is ranked by some as one of the greatest Westerns ever made. I know that it stars and was directed by Clint Eastwood, one of the icons of American cinema. I know that it won a bunch of Oscars. Still, I didn't like it. I don't like Westerns, and that's clearly a matter of taste, but I also don't admire Eastwood's acting. He is not and never has been a leading man. He is no Burt Lancaster, no Paul Newman, no John Wayne. In this film alone he is dwarfed by Richard Harris and Gene Hackman; they are both actors. No, Eastwood is a tall guy with a reedy voice who usually plays tough guys. Here he plays a retired tough guy. When I see him on screen, I see a man laboring at his acting. Then there's the anti-Western Western plot. It is too obviously intended to inject contemporary values -- a respect for the role of women, blacks, native Americans, and single parents; a disrespect for violence and drinking; the wholesomeness that comes with marriage, including interracial marriage, and small adorable children -- into a century in which those values weren't necessarily accepted, at least in these ways. By promoting those values, the movie comes across as mannered, if not preachy. Then there are the hoary movie stereotypes -- prostitutes with hearts of gold, the kid who can't shoot straight, the city slicker new to the wild West, the sage brush shimmering on a summer afternoon with a musical accompaniment in major chords. Finally there is the pacing of Eastwood's direction. I gave up after an hour. Eastwood was still riding north, chatting with Morgan Freeman and the kid who couldn't shoot straight, sixty minutes after the plot driven by the slashing of a prostitute was set in motion. It was way too slow. Somebody had to find these elements uncompelling. I am afraid it was me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unforgiven is Clint Eastwoods last tribute to the once great west. But whilst i thought this was going to be good and raise the bar for future westerns to come i was sadly mistaken. Unforgiven, though simple in plot it falls flat on characters and emotions and i would certainly say that Unforgiven is Eastwoods worst film to date. Eastwoods himself seems too old to play the part of acting and directing which also adds a downfall to the overall look of the film.

All the characters seem rushed and ragged around the edges especially Eastwoods character. The acting doesn't seem to flow and contribute to what the characters are feeling. The direction is poorly misled by quirky shots. So overall Unforgiven is not Eastwoods best and by far one of the worst westerns around.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was an all around uninspiring film. It was a non-moving story that definitely does not get you thinking anything other then where is all the strong moving material the other critics say about the film The 3 main actors are good, and there is a few laughs but once again it becomes another movie that you keep watching in hopes of it getting better and it just doesn't. I watched this movie last night and wished that we hadn't wasted our precious time (while baby is sleeping) watching this film.

I plan not to recommend this to my family and friends, as well as obviously anyone looking to rent it. I was pretty much non-impressed with everything about this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I started watching this because I was looking for a nice 'background' comedy for my Sunday morning. Then I noticed that this was going to be a road-movie and I decided to actually watch this.

First 15 minutes were awful, but I wanted to give this a chance, because I never judge a movie without watching it throughly. Then things started to get little better. This seemed like a nice road-movie about friendship.. But then the movie started to get horrible predictable clich\u00e9-twists and when the movie was over it left you feeling like you had wasted your time. Did this have anything to say? Why did they even make a movie like this? And I wasn't expecting a modern Citizen Kane, but still, I have several ideas how this movie could have been improved.

So take my piece of advice; leave this alone and go watch a real road-movie. There are many of those. I won't make the directors of those movies seem bad by putting their names on this review.

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now that's it's 2008, who really has a care in the world about a guy like DB Sweeney, even back then he wasn't a big deal.

Two Tickets to Paradise is an outlined story that's well and true where three friends hit the road under each of their personal circumstances. Again, a proved plot. The problem with this film, other than it's 'so bad it's compelling' title, is the script.

Clich\u00e9 after clich\u00e9 three guys do the same things you've seen in every other road movie... and blow up vanna white's house.

John C. McGinley's acting job is superb, especially compared to that of the late DB Sweeney's. (His career is dead, hence the late. though i hear he's moving to TV, good for him). Also, John C likely has the least awful character in the film.

The score is so generic it actually feels like you're watching a third rate film from 1993, or Jeff Anderson's movie Now You Know (also set me back a few years, but at least that was more entertaining.) I mean, yah, i guess i enjoyed parts of it. But, the nerdy guy is annoying, DB tries to be this cool failed guitar player (with some rough influences, like some of the worst of classic rock) who has some strange relationship with a stripper, and John C is a gambler who's wife and kid leave him after the death of his father as well as a visit from one of his bookie's henchmen.

I keep thinking up ways to make this movie better. But i think burning the script would have been a healthy start.

But, as i've hinted this whole time, it's not the worst movie ever. And any chance i have to see McGinley in a starring role, i'll take it. Hopefully he starts getting some better projects.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love the Jurassic Park movies, they are three of my all time favorite movies.

And I hate this game, if there was one game I wish I never own for the Super Nintendo was this one.

How can a game based on a classic movie be just too awful? And to make it worst, I was scare of this game when I was a kid.

How dumb was that but then again I was a kid when this game was first out.

The game play in this game is just odd. One minute it's a action game and then it's a shooter. What in the world is wrong with making up your mind when making a video game.

The Sound in the game is just terrible to listen.

The music is just too sick to listen to.

The Controllers in the game don't work most of the time.

Jurassic Park the game is just a waste of time and money and won't be a classic.

Avoid at all cost","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Back in 1993 Sega released a dull, lackluster video game of one of the biggest films of all time. Quickly realizing their mistake they hashed out a different version of the game, claiming it would be bigger, tougher and better.

Neither were. Both were slow, boring games.

You can choose to be either Dr. Alan Grant or...a Raptor. Both have their problems. Why would Dr. Grant go around killing all those army guys (just what are they doing in the game)? And why a Raptor be killing other Raptors? Weird.

Obviously not learning from their first mistake Sega really dropped the ball on the original release and the so-called Rampage Edition. One of the slowest, sluggish and dullest platformers I have ever played.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw the trailers of this movie and found the cinematography and what was presented interesting. I saw the IMDb rating and 6.8 confirmed it to be an above average movie. Thus went to see it.

The story is about Mandy Lane (Amber Heard) \u0096 a beautiful girl in high school who is a subject of male sexual desire. Mandy's friend Emmet's (Michael Welch) provocation to another fellow student to show his love for Mandy, leaves the fellow student drunk and jump down to death. Nine months pass and Mandy is invited for a summer weekend to a secluded ranch by her teenager friends \u0096 three girls and three boys go there! There is a security guard Garth (Anson Mount) who works at the ranch. During the first night itself the killings take place \u0096 one by one the members of the group are killed. Who is behind the killings? I wont tell here to spoil sports\u0085 Did I like the movie? NO. After usual interesting opening \u0096 the movie takes a downward turn with every unfolding of event. By half-time when the killer is revealed, one looses all interest in the remaining proceedings. There is a last twist in the tale to shock viewers, but rather it made me shake the head in dis-belief and laugh! All this for suspense? Huh\u0085! Amber Heard acts and plays her role well as a shy and conscious girl \u0096 who is aware of her beauty and men's desire for her. The remaining cast are usual \u0096 nothing to say about. There are so many movies made of teenager boys and girls going to a secluded place and slowly someone killing them one by one \u0096 that it does not interest me anymore.

Director Jonathan Levine tries hard to make the movie interesting by using contemporary chat talks of teenagers, loaded with sexual overtones, but does not allow the movie to rise above the mundane.

The only and the most appealing saving grace of the movie is its cinematography by Darren Genet \u0096 who captures beautiful picture perfect images! (Stars 3 out of 10)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I finished watching Mandy Lane about an hour ago, and felt the urge to come straight home and get up here to warn anyone that's about to spend money on the DVD - DON'T.

The supporting characters are shallow, the failure of acting is higher than that of Matthew McConaughey movies, and up until the end twist, the plot is everything but obvious. In nine out of ten, you can see the next scene coming 5 minutes before it starts. The whole movie is more or less without motive or message, and the half-way revealing of \"the murderer\" just plain out kills what little interest you might have left at that point. What could have saved this shallow, tedious movie is some decent splatter, or at least gore worthy of the genre \"Slasher\" - It fails there as well.

If you need a background movie to a party that you can jump in and out of without missing anything, I recommend buying All The Boys Love Mandy Lane.

If you're looking to sit down and actually concentrate your eyes on the screen for more than 15 seconds, I don't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How could this get a 6.0 rating? Are we as horror fans so used to horror films being so utterly bad these days, that when one comes along that has some, and i repeat 'only some', redeeming quality's, we get much too excited and give a rating that is just a wee bit too high? The director has a certain visual flair. No doubt about that. But in between some decent shots he forgot a good story, mood or scares. It had a very slow first act, lazy killing scene's, annoying and flat characters and a very stupid and very unbelievable twist. And what's with the portrayal of American teenagers in so many of these kinds of films? Do they always have to be this stupid, irritating and so godd#mn superficial. I don't remember teens being like this when i grew up here in Holland. All things considered, in can't give this film anything more that a 4 out of 10 rating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All the boys seem to be sexually aroused by Mandy Lane. All the girls seem to be jealous of Mandy Lane. But, nothing seems to become of it, and this viewer wonders why? Mandy is beautiful and a magnet to every boy she meets, but we never get to know Mandy or any of the characters in the film. Mandy accepts an invitation, from her student friends, to go to a secluded ranch. Three boys and three girls drink and drug. In the film, the teenagers drink booze like its water, and take drugs to experience a psychedelic trip. And, there is absolutely no sex. In the meantime, the teenagers disappear one by one. But, the others are all drunk and high. Nobody, including those watching the film, cares or is at all concerned. Nobody, including the audience, seems to give a damn. Emmet, a fellow student, is the instigator of the entire event. There is a security guard, Garth (dashingly and handsomely played by Anson Mount), who guards and protects the ranch. Midway through the film, the killer is revealed, the tension is suddenly released like air let out of a balloon. The events are completely predictable, and the film just completely fizzles out. Mandy meets her match, but we don't ever know why--and, at the end of the film, there is still no sex. Does Mandy hypnotize the boys, or does she simply bore all of the boys and girls to their deaths? This absolutely-confused viewer can only conclude that Mandy wishes to get rid of the female and male competition--by killing off the manipulative girls and the nasty boys.

Is Mandy worth all of the attention? The director (Jonathan Levine) seems to think so, but this viewer does not. The able cinematographer (Darren Genet) provides some stunning images but, in fact, his focus seems to be on Garth, who is quite the stud. Not all of the boys love Mandy, or do they? If you want to be bored enough to find out how this film winds up, my advice is to sleep midway through film, until you see the temptress Mandy and Garth's bulging crotch. But, don't wait for anything to happen. Yep, you guessed it. Mandy remains a virgin, and there's still no sex. I rank this film a 3 out of 10, but not because of Mandy. Why? Because all of the girls love Garth, and all voyeuristic eyes seem to be on Garth in a compromising position. But unfortunately, girls and boys, this film never seems to get beyond a disappointing and incomplete sexual fantasy. Mandy goes to a secluded ranch, and nothing sexual ever happens. The audience is led to horror on a ranch--and cannot help, but wonder why?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was only cautiously enthusiast when renting \"All the boys love Mandy Lane\", as I instantly remembered hearing & reading a wide variety of opinions \u0096 both positive and negative \u0096 in the short period of time between its brief cinematic release and the distribution towards videostore shelves. Supposedly this was the most ingenious and refreshing new horror film in years, with non-stereotypical teen characters and unpredictable plot twists for a change. Okay, the basic concept may perhaps sound reasonably innovative but inevitably the screenplay quickly reverts to the same old and irritating slasher clich\u00e9s, and once passed that point even the nifty stylistic trademarks can't save the film from dreadful mediocrity. The opening sequences are indeed terrific and literally bath in a moodily melancholic ambiance, which actually makes it all the more painful to witness the film sink towards the \"ordinary\" level of rudimentary slasher flick. After the sublime intro, showcasing a drunk macho kid miscalculate his jump off a rooftop in order to impress the titular beauty, \"All the Boys Love Mandy Lane\" turns out to be just another textbook and uninspired horror movie about a bunch of idiotic kids getting stoned and horny on a secluded ranch before getting killed off by a not-so-unidentified maniac. The film's entire pretentious set-up collapses faster than a ramshackle house of cards: we never get a proper explanation why Mandy herself behaves so frigid and haughty towards all her admirers (because she grew up an orphan, perhaps? Oh, boo-hoo), the boys soon enough illustrate they'd settle for sex with any random bimbo and not exclusively with the \"divine\" Mandy and the final twist \u0096 albeit undeniably offbeat \u0096 is just plain senseless. The middle section of is rather boring and doesn't even offer any genuinely horrific excitement (shotgun killings? Please!) or authentic rancid sleaze. My generous rating 4 out of 10 entirely goes to the grainy and unsettling 70's filming style (with faded colors, bizarre but beautiful photographic images\u0085) and the surprisingly marvelous soundtrack. Director Jonathan Levine opted for the classic Bobby Vinton song \"Sealed with a Kiss\" to play during the trailer and end-credits, whereas I initially was convinced the film would inevitably feature Barry Manilow's cheesy love-song \"Mandy\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I read about this film on-line and after seeing the generally positive reviews it has received, and viewing the trailer, I decided to check it out for myself. What a disappointment! It starts out well enough. the opening scene was actually pretty tense, but from there it's all downhill. I can see that the filmmakers were trying to do something different with this movie, but by doing so, they took all the enjoyment out of watching it. Those choices combined with the \"C.S.I\" editing, use of music and montage, lack of suspense, scares, or humor really drag this film down. There's too much foreshadowing and to many \"subtle\" clues, so when the first twist arrives early on, you already know how the movie is going to end. I gave the movie three stars because I think the cast did a good job, other than that I can't recommend this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Looking at these reviews and seeing all these high ratings leave me to believe that large amounts of red corn syrup will please just about any brain dead idiot. This movie is beyond useless. All the clich\u00e9's of a slasher film without any substance. I am sure I could go in to details about the movie but why bother when you can sum it up? Obviously everyone wants Mandy Lane and she apparently wants none of the guys. Throughout the movie you will see this.

When she stops being friends to the typical boy trapped in friend-zone loser, he goes ballistic and when she goes on a road trip to the middle of no where (of course) he begins to hunt them one by one. Sounds decent so far right? But what made this movie suck beyond belief is when you find out that not only is her loser friend the killer but she is as well.. The plan was beyond ridiculous. Lets together kill all our friends and then kill each other. They give no reason why they wanted to do this and given Mandy Lane's \"Goody Too Shoes\" demeanor it makes you scratch your head even more as to what is actually motivating these characters to do anything they are doing. It's sad.. this movie had lots of potential but the director or writer apparently can't relate to the audience in anyway.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Think of this film as fan service, a wet dream for the slasher genre admirer. We start off with a gory prologue which is pretty much unrelated to the rest of the film. Flash forward nine months and the real meat of the plot begins: The virginal Mandy Lane is coveted by every jock and nerd in her school, and gets invited to spend a weekend at a ranch by three guys who think they can get lucky, and two bimbos obsessed with their weight and boob size. So.. you have a bunch of young students in a house in the middle of nowhere on a dark night, who want to do nothing but have sex, do drugs and drink booze. The only other company is a hunky ranch-hand who may or may not be suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. Hmm... potential future suspect maybe?

So as you're probably ascertained by now, all the house-guests end up being slaughtered in a variety of bloody ways, and for a change the black man ISN'T the first to die. There are some conventions that still hold up though, like the scantily clad babe being chased by a car in a field. Or the lights going out mysteriously in the evening as our 'heroes' unwisely separate to tackle the problem. Even down to the so-called shocking twist at the end, the movie is like an old 80's horror updated for the noughties, and on this score it succeeds.

Unfortunately, it also inherits a lot of the problems of the films of that era too, namely the paper-thin characters and the predictability of the whole enterprise. People get cut up, shot, bludgeoned etc but because of their innate hatefulness to the audience and stupidity in getting themselves in these situations, it's hard to care as the bodies stack up. Someone gets murdered, one of their friends goes out to look for them alone, BANG they're brown bread. Rinse, then repeat. Maybe one day we'll get a screenplay with plausible, intelligent, likable characters who make rational decisions but still end up being outwitted by a genius killer. Until then, we have to tolerate teenagers with the I.Q of pond-life being picked off by a deranged hoodie. Oh well.. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a German student so sorry for eventually mistakes (I'm working on it ;) )

The stylistic very interesting converted and with effective sound effects accentuated platitudinous action of the drama deflect in no way from the horrible bad actors (insincere and unnatural moves and expressions of feelings) and makes so the relatively weird and senseless story less better. Just the typical slasher-genre with in this case very odd action. Many by-plays destroy partly the main story and let the viewers up to the end into the dark, create weirdness and let surmise the senses of actions and the point mere hazily. For sure its an hit for slasher-fans but not for me. But although the interesting style of cinematography and adeptly use of light is turned out well.

So not the best one...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With my two stars I will probably make it to the head of the IMDb \u0084hated it\"-list for this apparently tremendously popular TV series.

Not least because of the enthusiastic comments on this website, I decided to purchase a DVD edition of the series. Because I usually find British humour suits me just fine. I gave up in the middle of the second instalment \u0096 and according to other comments the \u0084funniest\" bits were already through.

So now I know, according to another comment, that I definitely lack a sense of humour. But then I had to laugh like crazy while watching (and re-watching) Fawlty Towers to which Black Books is \u0096 albeit faintly \u0096 thematically related. Why the different reactions? It might be a mere Generation Thing, and yet the differences can be pointed out.

Both Fawlty Towers and Black Books are set in businesses which are meant to sustain their owners financially. Both businesses are not successful but seem \u0096 by a miracle \u0096 to survive. Fawlty Towers is funny because the protagonists have to deal with situations they cannot cope with. The funniness lies in the fact that they make a serious effort to succeed and while laughing one also feels sorry for them. Black Books has no situations, it's just there and the owner passes his time feeling sorry for himself. If a situation threatens to arise, it is quickly shooed away. It is remarkable how fast and how often a subject is dropped and the protagonists turn to something entirely different to produce an additional joke. Telling jokes \u0096 and not very good ones - seems to be all Black Books is about. Why a bookstore? A hardware store would have done the job just as well.

No, stop, wait. It's a bookshop because below the veneer of rudeness, vulgarity and arrogance the protagonists are supposed to be delicate and CULTURED. They are not some lowbrow gorillas but bumbling semi-intellectual losers. Hey, they are like you and me. The manner in which the series makes that claim is the only way I can explain its success. There is nothing remarkable in the protagonist's actions, what's special about them is their economically unrealistic living conditions many viewers maybe envy them for. That protagonists that narcissistic and vapid convey a sense of belonging and companionship seems to be a trademark of the time the First World is presently living in.

Recently I watched Tittybangbang, also a fairly new British TV comedy show. I found it uproariously funny. It is often quite tasteless or xenophobic \u0096 but always with a purpose and hitting the bull's eye in its social criticism. The humour is mainly created by situations or by characters with a purpose. The low ratings in IMDb might indicate that this brand of humour is not in keeping with the times, but I am glad it's still alive and kicking and hope it will continue to do so.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's dreadful rubbish. I liked 'How Do You Want Me', 'Father Ted', 'Green Wing' and Bill Bailey's standup act but I file this with 'Hippies' and 'Planets Of The Apes' (the re-imagining) under 'Great Pedigree, went badly wrong'. My guess is that it appeals to the same people who like 'Withnail and I'. It's overwritten but to little end, a luvvie-ish air pervades it and Bernard Black is simply a less camp Withnail. And I thought it was self-indulgent even *before* Dylan Moran became the writer. But the set up raidiates such comic potential that for the first 2 episiodes I didn't even notice that it wasn't in the slightest bit chortle-worthy.

The things they are saying\/doing *should* be funny but somehow they don't manage to register as more than mildly amusing or \"I can see how someone writing this down might have thought that this would be funny\". What I am trying to say is that the situations\/remarks are mildly humorous and yet too mundane\/gentle\/self-consciously surreal to be worth creating for and depicting in a sitcom.

Life is too short. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the point of budget 2.5m CAD isn't very much when you look at the animatronics, puppetry in this film, that alone being the reason for the 9 week shoot. I was really keen to see this film and had hoped to catch it when it came out, instead got it on DVD recently. My main problem is it's just not funny at all, it's better than Tenacious D which hasn't got a funny bone in it's body. But this was a truly disappointing film.

Trevor Matthews is a very strong physically performer, but his acting sucks! Rachel Skarsten gives what is possibly one of the most irritating and none funny performances I have ever seen. The only really BIG star in this is David Scott who's artwork for the monsters is fab! His special effects work is the main reason this film is worth watching, loved the Cyclops and Troll and and the Prof Monster was straight out of the Henson library.

If you watch this it won't be the biggest waste of time, but if you are looking to see this for a great Horror Comedy Romp... Don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen many horror, splatter, monster movies in my life. And of course also a lot of monster movies from the 50's and 60's. When I first stumbled over this one I thought this is from the 60's until I recognized it's from 2007.

In fact the character of Jack Brook is interesting and the acting all in all is for a splatter movie quite good, but.... I expected a splatter movie and not a drama story about a aggressive plummer. The movie runs 80 Mminutes and I think the first kill is after 65 minutes. Although it takes hours to explain the story the reason where are the monsters come from takes at least 3 minutes... the we have another 20 minutes boring dialogue and finally a, in my opinion, not that well managed splatter sequence. Although we have Robert Englund starring here I only recommend this one to real hardcore horror fans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Brooks (Trevor Matthews) is a college student with some severe anger issues. His family was brutally murdered when he was a child by a monster, and now he takes out his anger on everything and everyone.

So when his professor (Robert Englund) begins to show signs of monsterism, he learns he has to control his rage and use it for good instead of evil, and fight the creatures that have been haunting his nightmares ever since that fateful night.

Truly earns its B-rated rating, but what was cool about it was that it didn't focus on crappy B-rated CGI graphics. In fact, 0% of the film was CGI. The monsters were actually decently put together, and although the storyline was lacking, it was somewhat watchable...if for only one time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"it's embarrassing I had like 3 minutes on my way to a job to stop at the video store and it was 2 for 1 night and I was really intrigued by the half nekkid pic of the 'star'.

I guess this film shows what the new york film school and sir daddy's fortune - judging by the bio of this clown in the lead - can do for you and you and you cause that's about what we have here and in addition a photoshopped pic of the lead \"actor\" with someone else's body in a still image that doesn't happen anywhere in the movie. it's weird cause in so many ways it had money thrown at it obviously low budget money buckets but from the outset when all the extras are laughing in their scene of terror it doesn't bode well would have maybe had some charm if it had been done for 2 cents! in short order I skipped scenes and fast forwarded to see the image on the box that was all I really cared about. strange, why don't I just rent a porno or something? but wow there is bad acting that's funny I guess and bad acting that's just bad. robert englund is pretty pathetic in this along with everyone else. it does make you appreciate the more not so straight to video horror that's out there. . . blah most of which I wouldn't bother with. shoulda watched uh hellraiser 3 if I wanted to see an 8 pack! I would imagine horny old gay guys with 2 minutes in the video store are going to be the principle renters of this and they ought to start a class action suit!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If there's one thing I've learnt from watching George Romero's Creepshow, it's that if you stumble upon an mysterious old crate that someone has obviously gone to a lot of effort to hide, just leave well alone: there's probably something nasty inside.

Obviously, Professor Gordon Crowley, Robert Englund's character in 'Jack Brooks, Monster Slayer' isn't a Romero fan, 'cos he busts open the old wooden box he finds buried in his yard, only to discover\u0097surprise, surprise\u0097an ancient demon that possesses his body (initially causing him to eat and vomit rather a lot).

When the demon eventually erupts from Crowley's body during chemistry class and begins to transform the students into hellish, flesh-tearing beasts, it's up to plumber Jack Brooks (Trevor Matthews) to try and stop the foul creatures, armed only with a length of pipe and fuelled by a lifelong hatred of all things monstrous!.

The DVD packaging for Jon Knautz's low-budget monster flick promises one hell of a fun ride, offering cheesy thrills and spills of the kind one might expect from your average 80s creature feature (toothy critters, rubber monster suits, gruesome gore, and absolutely no CGI!)\u0097and for the last 15 minutes, that's exactly what viewers get: non-stop splattery effects; a silly, tentacled Jabba-style demon thingy; and mucho macho monster mashing!

It's a shame, then, that the rest of the film's running time\u0097a massive 70 minutes or so\u0097is mostly spent following Jack as he goes about his boring, everyday business: plumbing, visiting his shrink, going to chemistry class, and upsetting his girlfriend. If you think you might enjoy a film that focuses primarily on coping with childhood trauma and anger management, buying spare boiler valves from a hardware shop, and the chemical properties of Sodium, then this is the film for you; but if it's a massive dose of monster mayhem you're after, then I'd advise looking elsewhere!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Though a fan of shock and gore, I found this movie disappointing to say the very least. The effects and puppet work were impressive, yes, and the humor was well-timed, but... something was missing. See, the first act of the film is spent establishing nuances of Jack Brooks' character, despite the fact that everything we need to know about his aggression is delivered within minutes of the first title cards. As for the narration and many of the flashbacks: needless.

The pacing during the second act was tedious. Most of it is focused on Freddy Krueger eating, then vomiting, then eating some more, then flailing his arms and saying something snappy or rude. All the while, the schlock is punctuated with brief scenes of Jack discussing his rage problems with a therapist. (Definitely the entertaining scenes in the film -- excellent dialog worth plenty of laughs.) Then, without warning, Jack decides to kill a few monsters. And then it's over.

All in all, as a throwback to 1980s horror movies, Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer has loads of potential but is purposeless and plods on without conflict or adequate resolution.

Hopefully, these issues will be addressed before Jack Brooks VII: Jack Goes to Hell or Jack vs. Ash go into production.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Brooks' quirks are, at first, somewhat charming and lend to the deliberately campy feel of the beginning of this movie.

I found myself getting angrier and angrier as I was duped into seeing this one through to the end, in hopes that the payoff would be worth the super-tedious wait.

The climax can't begin to make up for all the setup time.

Normally one might expect shallow characters from this genre. But the fact that the wait-time-before-action index is so high, should mean that the meantime would be devoted to some interesting character development.

Not so.

While not without its initial charms, this movie ultimately infuriates, and disappoints.

Wish I could get all that setup time back, to reinvest it into something that pays off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I fail to understand why you would give this film anything over 4... Fair enough it does take me back to the 80s and to the 'good old days of horror comedy' but that genre has not got any better since then - it is still so 'LAME Low budget - low tech - bad acting - bad story line - not at all scary and not funny enough... in fact there is not much good I could say about it. The so called monsters are just hideously bad! I mean we have gone back in time to when they used to make the monsters out of plasticine and shoot the scenes fame by frame... I really fail to understand why someone would invest any money in order to make this script to a film - but I guess it might have been almost OK if it had been a bigger budget film.

Recommendation would be - please do not make the mistake of wasting your time on this unless if you wish to get tips for a bad Halloween make up! Personally I enjoy independent films and anything outside the box but this just did not do it for me in the least.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After viewing \"Still Life\", a short film directed by Jon Knautz, I was genuinely excited for his feature film debut, \"Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer\". \"Still Life\" had perfectly captured the essence and feel of an episode of \"The Twilight Zone\" and I was eager to see what Knautz could do when taking on the horror-comedy genre. The campy nature of the name and promotional materials suggested something along the lines of \"Evil Dead\" or \"Army of Darkness\"; a fun, gory, 80's style horror flick with lots of monsters. While that was what Knautz was going for, he utterly fails at capturing any of the fun or entertainment value these movies had.

The problem with \"Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer\" is that it completely lacks an understanding of what made these horror-comedies, that it tries to evoke, so great in the first place. Two-thirds of the running time is primarily devoted to the film's hero, Jack Brooks, a plumber and college student, as he goes to class and attempts to deal with his uncontrollable bursts of anger. There's nary a monster in sight for the greater part of the film, barely even a drop of blood or the slightest attempt at anything horror-related. Even if \"Evil Dead\" or \"Dead Alive\" had subsequent amounts of the gore cut out, they'd still be entertaining. \"Jack Brooks\" isn't. It's plain boring, which is the worst thing a film of this nature can be. Jack Brooks himself is not all that interesting, at least not enough to warrant the amount of screen time he's given. All one needs to know about him is revealed in the films first ten minutes and from that point on, whenever he's not beating the pulp out of a monster (and he rarely does), he's not worth watching. The movie goes nowhere, following him around on psychiatric sessions and scuffles with classmates.

Eventually things do pick up. Jack Brooks battles a few monsters, some heads are crushed, a few humans are slaughtered, and then it's over. Just like that. All within the span of about fifteen minutes. It is a good fifteen minutes. The monsters are all fairly inventive (and done entirely in camera) and there's some great gore gags (the best being a zombies head crushed in), but after sitting through seventy-five minutes of pure tedium, fifteen minutes just isn't going to cut it.

That's really all there is to it. I could ramble on about the acting which is fairly well done (especially horror icon Robert Englund in a non-traditional role) and how the creature prosthetics are a nice throwback to the days when films didn't use CGI, but it really doesn't matter. \"Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer\" is utterly boring and while Jon Knautz obviously does have the talent to create a good film (once again, the last fifteen minutes are killer and \"Still Life\" was amazing \u0096 check it out), \"Jack Brooks\" completely misses the mark. It has its successes (acting, make-up), but those don't change the fact that it's not very entertaining at all. The screening I caught this at had the director and cast in attendance. One piece of information I picked up was that a sequel was in development and that this time, it would focus more on fighting monsters as opposed to \"the creation of a hero\". My advice: skip this one and wait for the sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know why this has gotten any decent reviews as it could be the weakest horror comedy I've ever seen. Englund is just in it for a cameo and his performance is as unnecessary as most of the lame attempts at jokes (and scares). The direction is terrible and the acting is worse. It seems like every year producers are trying to make another Evil Dead but these weak unoriginal attempts are just stepping on the memory of a true horror classic.

Whether its filmmakers saying,\"this isn't a remake but its an 80s throwback (which is just as unoriginal in my opinion - Hatchet) or people trying to plug this with other horror classics, Its still misleading and wont make up for the lack of scares, horror, comedy, or even a decent movie for that matter.

AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was just watching a Forensic Files marathon on Court TV. The episode was identical to the plot of this movie, right down to the incest secret and the affair-with-the-sister subplot. I don't recall any Based on a True Story disclaimer, but the case does have MOW written all over it. Apparently it chronicles the real homicide of Ruby Morris by her husband Earl, sentenced to 25 years to life for her murder. Just goes to show you, truth can be stranger than fiction, because I thought the Lifetime plot was contrived and a more than \"a stretch\" insofar as believability goes. I'm with the other posters who said the acting was bad. I didn't notice it with all of the players, though. It was really the lead character, the daughter, whose performance was bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a terrible film. Angie Dickenson is a class act and always does well, but she does not get many roles any more and she must have needed some money to do this film. By the way, she is on screen less than 10 minutes. Oooh, wait, there is one redeeming feature in this film: Meg Foster has a small part in this film. Now, Meg has been on the screen for 35 years and is not particularly great but she has the scariest eyes of any actress I have ever seen. By name, you probably don't know her, but one look at her eyes and you will recognize her. To summarize: the acting is horrid, the story bad, and even the filmography is dreadful. A screen going to black every time the director wants to change scenes is pretty moronic. Watch any thing else but this, even Mr Ed reruns!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was intolerable. (SPOILER #1) Protagonists avoid the pointless disclosure of agonizing truths to their loved ones, lest they surrender said status and assume the roles of Antagonists. (SPOILER #2) The writers would have us believe that the exposure of multiple transgressions, by the transgressor, presents a threat to, and provokes a retaliatory response by, the primary victim of the transgressions. (SPOILER #3) Until the final 15 minutes, I was anticipating a score of 6 to 8 out of 10; instead, it was kind of like discovering that Lieutenant Columbo's dog is the REAL murderer. The story just wasn't credible, and I don't think the world's best director could have saved it without massive editing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know this is a made for TV movie, and the acting in made for TV movies is usually sub-par, but it's absolutely horrendous in this film. Sometimes acting gets so bad it's laughable, but in this case, it's so bad it's sickening.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm watching this film as I write this. It's about 45 minutes into the film and there's been so much back and forth and empty drama, I don't quite see where it's going. No facts, just enough to leave you making assumptions. The acting of main daughter is painful. How did this ever get made??? Not the best of Lifetime films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Come on? FANTASTIC DRAMA ON SCREEN? Are you joking folks? I wouldn't put horrible Molly Gross to play even in school play! Where did these people learn acting? Borrowing some papers from their neighbors actor? Terrible plot, awful acting. Heh ... why do you take us for an imbeciles? What can I say more. I understand this is an TV production and the acting is not supposed to be the one from Citizen Kane. But nevertheless they should try it harder in order to earn their money. And apart from that what can be said IN 10 LINES for a simple movie like this? U wanna article in the morning paper? To say what? Worse film in the decade? OK, you want it - you got it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm very disappointed. First of all, the German synchronization is bad. Maybe in the original version (with subtitles) it would have been better, but the whole movie looks like if the director saw Luna Papa and Black Cat White Cat and tried to produce something in this style, too. But failed in every aspect. It's an incongruent mixture of a weird unbelievable story and very childish gags. No atmosphere, no life. Extremely primitive sex-humor. I voted 2, because 1 is the worst, and the other point for 'Sybilla', she's really cute. Sorry - I like 'eastern' movies, but this one is really superfluous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In order for a thriller to elicit fear, suspense or any emotion the story must be believable. There is nothing believable or realistic about this film. The protagonists have several opportunities to escape or turn the tables but manage to screw it up every time. The antagonists who supposedly plan this out and customized their shuttle specifically to trap people sure left a lot of improvisational weapons laying around. There is actually one scene where the \"smart\" girl has a gun to the head of the main bad guy and decides to scold him instead of pull the trigger. This was a thoroughly predictably, brainless \"thriller\". Every character was one dimensional. The \"victims\" were the usual gutless, brainless sheep that deserved to be slaughtered. Is there anyone on this planet capable of writing an intelligent thriller?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't pick this one. ****Spoiler Alert***** The plot of this aggravatingly bad movie is four friends are talked into taking the shuttle from the airport by a very zealous driver. On the shuttle with them is a rather milquetoast looking business type.

Shortly into their trip the driver of the shuttle takes an off-ramp and some lunatic driver tries to run them off the road. The end result is they get a flat tire. The driver gets one of the people on the shuttle to help change the tire and the jack slips and the guys fingers are crushed between the tire and the shuttle. It's at this point that the driver reveals himself to be a kidnapper and he has taken all the people hostage.

Now the movie gets extremely slow and tedious, as the characters do one lame thing after another. One of the men is killed trying to escape -- even that lacks any suspense. Finally it is revealed that the milquetoast business guy is in cahoots with the driver when milquetoast guy kills the other male friend by slitting his throat.

There are a couple of attempts to escape by the women. Milquetoast is beaten over the head with a tire iron -- yet he survives.

The driver is also beaten and somehow survived a head on collision with a fence at high speed while kneeling next to the steering wheel. Somehow he didn't go through the window or even get seriously injured with a collision with windshield. Yet the woman driving the shuttle is knocked unconscious -- yet she had a steering wheel to protect her and he had nothing between him and the windshield.

He is eventually able to subdue the women and get them to an underground garage that is a front for human trafficking. One of the women is killed. The other one stabs the driver in the leg with a good sized piece of broken mirror and shoots\/grazes him in the head, yet he is able (in what should be a severely weakened state -- severe blood loss, two head injuries and a large leg gash) to drag her out of the shuttle, drag her to a large crate, throw her in and get it locked, all the while with her fiercely fighting him.

Now some people admire the message of the movie about human trafficking and how it is going on today. This is a serious problem. But, making an extremely boring movie about the topic does not entitle it to a higher rating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found 'Shuttle' an incredibly frustrating film to watch. It starts quite well and moves along briskly until the first 'injury' (which is a doozy). After that it becomes very lazy and underwritten as a story. It was the case of the plot driving the characters and not the characters driving the plot. If you hate film where you can't understand why characters do what they do, you will loathe 'Shuttle'. Particularly, the last act is odd and seems to occur in a world without common sense. Also at the end one of the characters confessed a past misdemeanor to her friend, rather than generating sympathy from the audience, most people started to giggle. This was probably because the 'heroines' of the story was a complete idiots. Finally there is an ending which just seems tacked on to be 'shocking' and comes from the horror cop-out school of 'people are bad, audience, so just accept it without any explanation'.

'Shuttle' is neither good or bad, but mediocre. And annoying.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hi, today i looked this film because of the medium (5,6) IMDb rating. I thought it would worth viewing. Also the comments here were quiet good but after start watching this movie i quick realize that this movie isn't anyway near a 5,6 ! Its just boring. You can describe the movie with some words also its just the standard horror movie story with all the standard horror movie scenes. I don't know why people still like those films or why they vote such films better then a 1-3 in IMDb. Just some examples

Bunch of people arriving from somewhere or going \/ driving to anywhere. They meet somehow on their journey strange people but hey maybe they are just nice so hang out with them. Then a very important scene for every horror movie \"Oh my cell phone isn't working oh oh mine too .. is that strange but we don't need them so enjoy our ride ...\" uhhhhhh our strange person is a strange psychopath better we all sit back and scream a while till he starts cutting parts from us or killing some of us. After a while the bunch of victims get a weapon or chance to escape ofcorse they never think about running away or even kill the psychopath if they got the chance they just talk about what to do until the psychopath got his weapon back with any of the handful of standard tricks they got in those films and all running back as usual ... screaming ... some more to kill ... oh and in the end it gets really exiting sometimes the bad guy wins sometimes some of the victim can escape wow great movies. ... OK if i never ever saw a movie of that kind i would say it is a movie which can be watched but if anyone ever saw any movie of its kind it should be just a boring waste of time because nearly everything in the movie you know before you even watched it because it every time runs like the standard horror movie shematic. .... mmm maybe there is a windows program out there? Horrormoviemaker 2.0 ? You can just pull some adjustment buttons and get the new Shuttle, Saw45674, Jeepers Creepers kind of movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK this will contain spoilers. Now I have never seen such a large pile of poop since the laxative\/feed mix up at the elephant enclosure in the zoo! It has more plot holes than moth eaten lace and as for the 'realistic' plot line. Well sexual slavery is a dreadful and very real world wide problem and this pile of bilge utilises this plague as a plot device to titillate and tease, shame on everyone involved for that piece of questionable judgement. But back to the film, if you were going to kidnap people from an airport, some of the most secure and camera happy places in the modern world by the way, then why plant a stoolie on the inside of the van who does bugger all until the plot needs a twist. Just wait until you are out of the airport, pull the gun, handcuff the passengers, drive calmly to the warehouse and kill the guys, job done. On the passengers side, on at least three occasions the good guys have the bad guys incapacitated and are armed, WASTE THEM! Once in a movie it can just be acceptable not to put a bullet in the bad guys skull, but COME ON three times! And after he's killed most of you. Also the guy is willing to put down the gun to stop a scarred cheek but kills a girl for a yeast infection that could be cleared up with $20 dollars worth of drugs. I could go on and on about the amount of holes in this but I won't waste any more of my time. Suffice to say that I have rarely been so insulted by such a dreadful piece of drivel and as for the real problem of sexual slavery, girls go voluntarily to new 'jobs' in distant lands and are abused, raped, and often killed by the gang master who meets them off the boat\/plane and takes their passports and freedom. This s**t is an insult to anyone whose life has been affected by this! Do not waste your time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Shuttle\" is an indie thriller about four young adults who get a ride late one night on a shuttle bus from the airport to find out that the driver is a sadistic psychopath.

Although some of the sequences of scares and it's unconventionally interesting plot work, some aspects just don't. The bad dialogue and unlikeable characters gives a good reason to not care for them. But, often the suspense works and asks you the question of \"What would you do?\" and usually what you WOULD do isn't what these idiots on the shuttle do.

If you're expecting a mindless, bloody horror film, you'll be mistaken. This is a film that causes you to use your mind, but, unfortunately, not until the end.

Four out of ten.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"PERHAPS SPOILER !! well, i ve seen it at the film festival in cologne and i have to say it s ridiculous ... sorry author and writer and ...whatever but it is the worst try making a good movie i ve ever seen ... if u ve got 5000 times the possibility to get away from your enemy and u don't do it .... its getting boring ... there are szenes in the movie witch gives u the impression that they are forgotten e.g. a szene in front of a security cam, they are asking for help and a somebody sees it and calles the police ... than there is a cut and .... NOTHING ??!!! ... the killer gets a shot in his head and 50 secs later he is behaving like nothing happened ... no its no zombie movie ... and finally the final ... the BIG END which we were promised .... hmmmm, lets say take a little guy who always wanted to give the world one of the best endings in history so badly that everything goes wrong .... im not going to vote \"1\" because the actress is beautiful ... ;)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Brainless film about two girls and some guys they meet in an airport getting on the wrong late night shuttle bus and ending up in a whole world of trouble. Great twists and turns are totally, and I do mean totally wasted, in a film with a plot so incredibly stupid as to defy description. What is going on in a general sense is okay, I mean the idea of a guy kidnapping unattended girls for nefarious purposes is a good one. The problem is that the details are so beyond belief that I would be shocked if you don't turn off the film in utter disbelief. Gee, a guy who is suppose to be taking you home doesn't go any of the ways you know, and you stay on the bus? It get worse from there, think of every bad choice and this film has the characters make it, even to the point where they could just walk away, but never do. Whats annoying is that some of the twists and turns might have worked if there was something intelligent before it, but there is almost no intelligence anywhere in this film. Okay, maybe there is, the end, the end is clever. The end is the sort of thing that should freak you out. it should be the \"oh #$*@!!!!\" moment and become a classic of horror cinema. Instead it just lies there among the stupid ruins of a stupid movie. One of the most brainless films of the year.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had a hard time sitting through this. Every single twist and turn is predictable. You're sitting there just waiting for it ... waiting for it ... and yes, there it is! Just as you predicted at the very beginning of the movie. Or 10 minutes out. Et cetera.

Smart writing? No.

Torture porn? No, there's no nudity. Other reviews calling this torture porn are most likely written by people on heavy drugs. Unfortunately there's no torture and no nudity (yes, no nudity).

There's no suspense at all in this \"thriller\". The only good part about this movie is the ending, but I'm not going to spoil that.

I'm giving it a 2\/10. A 1\/10 would be a horrible B-movie. This movie had better acting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The beginning was decent; the ending was alright.

Sadly, this movie suffers from complete and utter shallowness of the characters, unrealistic confrontations\/fight scenes, lack of anyone intelligent outside of the shuttle. This makes for an awful middle screenplay.

Stuff to look for: overly obvious foreshadowing, fast-healing cuts, overly smoky fires, fun seatbelts, delayed reactions.

I did give it a 4, not a 0, because the start of the movie had some nice elements of happiness and basic character development. The relationship between the main, dark-haired girl and her fianc\u00e9e is touched upon briefly, and the placement of the blond friend's impact on that relationship is present, though awkwardly so. The business discovered at the end is becoming more mainstream and decently done, though, as another commenter pointed out, not unexpected.

~viper~","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hate guns and have never murdered anyone, but when even half of the events that take place in 'Shuttle' happen to you or close ones and you find a gun, YOU SHOOT YOUR ATTACKER. THREE TIMES. FIVE TIMES. Whatever makes the pulse stop on them and increase on you. I think even God would say, \"Good call.\" In a very 'Hostel'-type film, but more realistic \u0096 as this really could happen to anyone, well, if you're a pretty young woman, that is \u0096 'Shuttle' was a decent film, though on the long side. A few good shocks (always call AAA even just to change a tire), basically just one surprise but for the most part, you could see things coming. And aside from the typical \"tie him up\" instead of the previously mentioned shooting him, the most annoying part was the revelation towards the closing from one best friend to the other. Getting past those, it's enjoyable for what it is. Basically, we have two unsuspecting females traveling alone from Mexico home (wow, that's original) and one lost her luggage preventing them from leaving the airport until late. And after an obvious foreshadowed sign-language scene, they enter a \"too-good-to-be-true\" half-price shuttle ride. Clich\u00e9d jocks, previously introduced, con their way on the shuttle, to join what appears to be Alan Ruck's stunt double from 'Speed.' From here, it's obvious what happens (I did mention it was a 'Hostel' knock off) but still, I didn't find too much horrible, yet nothing spectacular. Though, it would've served the audience better with roughly 15-20 minutes deleted, I would recommend if you have almost 2 hours to kill and are into sick horror.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is stupid, made by stupid people. The plot I suppose works well enough for a Horror movie, but the actions these characters take is insanely STUPID! Like, incredibly non-sensical stupid to the Nth degree! Basically the whole movie consists of these 4 idiots being captured, repeatedly, despite having many, many easy ways and opportunities to overcome their captor. It does not make one lick of sense and is not entertaining whatsoever. Stabbing yourself in the eye is more is more rational, and probably more fun than watching this.

****SPOILERS**** The ending is hilarious!! The only good part of the movie! I nearly died laughing at the end! That whole stupid movie, and it ends with the dumb girl getting shipped off in a crate to white slavery in Asia!! Hilarious! I thought it was a totally awesome ending to a really sh!tty movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is about as stupid as it gets.

A classic case of two-dimensional characters who always act exactly contrary as to what a sane person would do in the same situation. It reminds me of a scene in \"Scary Movie\" where Carmen Electra flees from the killer. There are two signs, one marked \"to safety\", the other one \"to sure death\" (I am reciting from memory).

And just like in Scary Movie, the characters always run into the direction marked \"Sure Death\".

Why oh why did the girl start the fire in the teller booth AND HOLD THE DOOR SHUT ??? Did she prefer to die in the fire instead being killed by the guy? Why oh why, after cutting and overpowering the driver did they sit him in the seat and have him being watched by the wounded guy instead of plain shooting him or at the very least knocking him out? He was running over their friend and killing him a minute before, yet they have scruples ?? Why oh why a hundred things more ...

If this movie were a road, you could not drive a single yard because of the holes. Everything is so far-fetched, it's starting to physically hurt at times.

Add mercilessly overplaying \"actors\" and a small budget to that and here's what you get. Looking at the rating and the comments, I get the feeling those people have been watching an entirely different movie.

The one thing missing really, is the infamous red toolbox from \"While She was out\" - a movie that is about similar in unrealistic plot and stupid behavior of the characters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Shuttle\" is\/was more than a boring movie that had an interesting start, but after half an hour it ended in the worst imaginable way I ever could imagine. This movie has lost its story, if you can call it a story? ... after half an hour. All the next scenes are totally out of proportion. The driver is some kind of superman because he survives every attack with gun - knife etc.. even after stabbed in his leg he was able to put her in the box. But what a coincidence that there was a box in that garage. I really felt sick and misled when the movie ended. It could have been such a great one if the story was far more better. In my opinion even a kid would make a better story. And why shipping the girl with water and food. I quit with counting the plot holes about halfway through. And when the movie reached its almost admirably sick over-the-top final twist, I had completely given up (better say \"throw-up). The worst thing about Shuttle is actually that it can not be even more worse that worse. Maybe writer\/director Anderson will learn from this lesson and provide us with a decent thriller next time. Think the better he'll move to a different genre. I Keep my fingers crossed. But from now on I will read the comment on his future movies first before looking. A waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just saw this film at the Fantasy Filmfest BERLIN. i am not impressed.

As far as the story goes. Too girlfriends return from their Mexico vacation. While waiting for their luggage they get to know a couple of boys, who then take the last and of course wrong shuttle bus to the city. On board is also one other older man, so weirdly portrayed that you instantly guess that he is one of the bad guys. The other one is the driver.

The shuttle takes them into industrial wasteland and then one after the other goes done, a little blood, some cut of extremities, some violence, mostly playing with the fear of the girls In the end after some ups and downs, heres and there's, some not too new scary moments, everyone is dead but the driver and the girls. the girls end up in some garage, where one of them is killed, after confessing that she had slept with the other girlfriends boyfriend. The other girl, which is the conclusion, is sold by the left-over kidnapper (yep, weirdo got killed) in some cargo box to asia (a freight harbor being the final picture.) First. Story. Tons of loopholes, questions you ask yourself, loose ends, and a conclusion that is not a good revelation, but a total disappointment. I can't see how such a unprofessional looser is supposed to have abducted dozens of women (as is indicated by a drawer full of drivers licences...aha) Second. Acting. Mediocre at its best.

Third. Scare Factor. OK. but I AM BoRED by torture as a means to nothing but itself. Trade with humans could be a good reason for a horror flick, but it's not used as one, just as a background.

Fourth, Music and Sound. Some nice tries, but the sound possibilities of the industrial landscape, warehouse garage, and truck sounds have not been really explored. Music? Would have been worse without it, but apart from that. Some pseudo moving synth string theme for emotionality when the girls reach their final destination. OK, I guess.

Verdict: AVOID IT!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"waste of 1h45 this nasty little film is one to avoid, its like a cheap badly plotted cross between saw and a few other recent films about kidnap, why the writer wrote this is obvious..he has no soul and did it to try and me some money. The twists were obvious, when those in peril could escape they did the obvious and didn't etc.. only good thing about it is I've discovered 1 new actress worth watching..peyton list, don't watch shuttle though, there are too many better nicer films to watch rather than this that will make you miserable and think less of the world. Spend your time more wisely watch good films, do some exercise, cook a nice meal..anything but waste your time on rubbish like this","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"May 2nd: someone clicked 11 NOs, and then proceeded to do 15 more on my previous 15 comments: almost as funny as this turkey!

May 1st:

As I write this, I'm still very much under the impression of what must be the funniest thriller I've ever seen. I've got a major case of the giggles, but I'll try and calm down. (It's kind of hard to write when your nose spills snot and the mouth ejects sporadic drool onto the keyboard.)

A pair of young women who just returned from a vacation take a ride on a shuttle bus. A couple of young guys join them. But the bus isn't really a taxi service: it's a kidnapping vehicle. (Don't snicker!) Its driver has been part of an organized \"white slavery\" gang who snatch young women from airports, and they've been doing it for FIVE years. (Don't laugh.) Five years on the SAME airport, without the police or even the FBI ever getting any wind of it. (No giggling, please.) Apparently, dozens of women go missing on in the same exact place for years and years - and yet no-one notices a trend. Is the FBI that incompetent? The world of \"Shuttle\" seems to consist of three types of people: easily kidnappable blonds, dumb\/comatose\/invisible FBI agents, and omnipotent psychotic gangsters (who hate sexy blonds with tattooed behinds).

The driver has barely stayed alive on this one mission, and yet he's done this for - I repeat - FIVE years, without being killed or losing one of his limbs. (Stop laughing...) Did I mention that the driver is immortal? Need I mention it? We all know that movie psychos have immortal DNA. You can stab them, bounce them against the walls of a bus repeatedly, caress them softly with a hammer, prick nine-inch nails into their ears... Hell, you could stick a hand-grenade into the average Hollywood psycho's mouth, and he'd still escape with only minor scratches. No, the driver is not Satan or even a minor demon, but just a regular Hollywood psycho with better survival abilities than the biggest, meanest sewer cockroach.

The basic plot outline: A guy loses all the fingers on one hand in a silly scene. (A magical bus that reads and obeys minds!) The passengers try to escape. They fail. They get hurt. They sulk. They argue. They try to escape. They fail. They get injured. They argue. They try to escape. They fail. They get injured. They try to escape. They fail. They try to escape. The kidnappees manage to snatch the gun from the driver! Alas, they do not kill him because the Golden Hollywood Rule Of Gandhi-like Pacifism prohibits them from doing it. (No giggling.) One of the other passengers turns out to be part of the gang! (Stop laughing.) He is played by an actor who studied in the Rob Zombie\/John Travolta School Of Over-Acting & Silly Mugging. He threatens rape. Later on, one of the gals hits him with a crowbar over the head, about a dozen times... very hard. Only seconds later does he regain consciousness. Yep, he survives. (Immortal, remember?) He gets killed a little later. (No idea how, though! He is not supposed to be killable.) The kidnapees argue. They try to escape. One of them escapes! Alas, the psychos are just far too God-like in their powers not to re-capture their prey. The game starts all over again: the passengers try to escape. They fail. They sulk. They stare into the void. They get hurt. They try to escape. They fail. They get hurt...

You get the picture.

Frankly, I believe that a drugged, heavily disorientated, inebriated snail would have escaped these nincompoop captors with ease. There were so many opportunities. At one point these bumbling psychos (remember: FIVE years!) even send one of the kidnapees into a grocery store! She leaves a message to the police. However, yeah... you guessed it: this fictional fairy-tale U.S. city has no police.

And just as you thought the movie couldn't get any dumber - not even if Luc Besson and Brian De Palma joined forces to lend a hand with the script - it does. The girls are kidnapped in order to be sent to some remote island(?), and this is achieved by transporting them as cargo. Apparently, this fictional America has no FBI, no police - and no border customs either. It does however have immortal criminals with more luck than twenty lottery winners. One blond had her billionth chance to kill the driver, and yet she failed. How is it that victims in these dumb thrillers NEVER try to finish off their immortal adversaries once they have them down on the floor and injured? I guess I answered that one myself: they're immortal! So why bother trying, she must have thought...

So why was one blond gassed to death and the other one boxed and shipped alive (complete with a kitty-litter box, and the funniest photograph since Demi Moore's primary school pictures)? Could it be the tattoo? I think they killed the prettier one, but that's just me. Was her tattoo that ugly?

Could it be that I don't care? Why should I search for logic in a movie made by imbeciles (for imbeciles)? Besides, how can I even think straight when I'm laughing so hard half the time?!

Naturally, this being a 21st-century horror\/thriller, the mobile phone doesn't work... Perhaps this invincible gang control not only the FBI, the police, and the customs, but satellites in space too.

Do I have to spell it out? There are far easier ways to kidnap people. And far more intelligent people who should be making movies. Give an idiot a camera and he'll lay an egg every single time... That sort of answers the eternal riddle of which came first: the egg or the bird-brained director.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show demonstrates the depths to which UK TV pre-watershed drama has sunk. With these dull scripts, mediocre acting, poor plots, awful dialog, one is forced to watch a DVD of any old ER episode to see excellent hospital drama.

None of the actors employed on this show seem to be able to actually act!

If you want low quality but easy to absorb soap opera style TV, this is the show for you. Personally I like something with more meat on the bone. Sadly as with all other UK licence payers, I'm funding this dross.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Creakiness and atmosphere this film has, but so unfortunately does the print I just viewed. Raymond Massey provides a laid back Sherlock Holmes, almost comically so in early scenes in his bathrobe, which he trades in for a laborer's garb to investigate the creepy mansion of Dr. Rylott (Lyn Harding). What wasn't clear to me was why Rylott would have wanted his stepdaughters dead. If as in the case of Helen (Angela Baddeley), he didn't want her to run off to get married, he would have accomplished the same thing by having her dispatched.

Other curiosities abound as well. After setting an early wedding date with Helen, the fianc\u00e9e is no longer heard from for the rest of the picture. The presence of a band of gypsies at the time of Violet Stoner's death provides merely a diversion, and what could have been an interesting murder tool, a poisonous snake, is diluted by the fact that it was not a cobra, the musical renderings of the Indian man servant notwithstanding.

Athole Stewart competently portrays Holmes' aide Dr. Watson, though he takes some getting used to if Nigel Bruce is more your cup of tea. As Rylott, Lyn Harding is sufficiently menacing, a trait that would be put to good use as Holmes' nemesis Professor Moriarty in two later films - 1935's \"The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes\" and 1937's \"Murder at the Baskervilles\".

With repeated choppiness and an unsteady camera, it's surprising that the story line isn't more disrupted than it is. It's integrity is generally maintained, even if one stretches a bit to fill in the gaps. I guess that would be my main complaint with the film, as mentally bridging some of the jump cuts in the picture proved to be a real pain in the asp.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The fact that a film is on DVD doesn't guarantee that its quality is very good. The fact that a film's quality is threadbare doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it. This review actually applies to 2 films paired on a single DVD.

The plots of these films are of little consequence. They are of interest only to people who collect Holmes films \u0085 anybody who merely wants a few of the better offerings would do well to purchase some of those made by Jeremy Brett \u0085 or, in a pinch, Basil Rathbone. There are a few other very good Holmes films featuring good actors on a one-shot basis \u0096 such as \"Seven Per Cent Solution\" or \"Private Life of Sherlock Holmes\". In any event, these films are considerably less estimable.

Here we have a pair of films featuring some of the best actors to do Holmes, even if the results tend toward disappointing. This appears to be the only disc with these films on it (although \"Deadly Necklace\") appears by itself in the same version on other discs.

\"(Sherlock Holmes and) the Deadly Necklace\" dates from 1962, although it neither looks it nor sounds it. Some who have seen this may be surprised to learn that it was produce by Hammer Studios. Not that Hammer hasn't turned out some really schlock stuff, but where Christopher Lee was concerned, they usually did a better job. The print a direct transfer from a rather worn 1:1.33 copy in black-and white. The quality of the color suggests the original may have been in color, and the snipped ends of the film's aspect suggest it may originally have been 1:1.66 or more.

The film is set in the early 20th Century \u0096 not improbable, since Holmes was still working then (and didn't actually die until 1957). However, the script is not adapted from any actual Doyle story. It involves an Egyptian necklace, and Professor Moriarty shows up as a world-famous archaeologist as well as the Prince of Crime. The plot is melodramatic and banal.

The biggest defect of this film is that \u0096 for whatever unfathomable reason \u0096 Hammer filmed it in Germany. It was nonetheless filmed in English. It was then dubbed in German and then re-dubbed in English. So what you hear isn't Lee nor any of the other original actors, but a bunch of unknowns \u0096 not that, outside of Lee, I doubt anyone would know any of the other actors. This is too bad, since Lee (see his \"Hound of the Baskervilles\") makes a quite decent Holmes. As it is, his voice double is condescending and plain as bread pudding with no raisins nor cinnamon.

The music for this film is primarily jazzy, in a possible attempt to be \"period\". Too bad nobody thought of ragtime. As it is, the music doesn't relate to what's happening on the screen, and often is at odds with the action.

The other film is \"(Sherlock Holmes and) the Speckled Band\" from 1931, starring a young Raymond Massey. The quality of the picture and sound is fully up to that of the 1962 effort, and in fact a bit better. Massey makes a quite respectable Holmes, although he certainly doesn't own the r\u00f4le in the way Rathbone did and Brett does. The other thespians who take part in this production are unlikely to be of interest to modern readers. The acting \u0096 as is true of many films of this period \u0096 owes a lot to the post-Victorian stage and to silent films.

It should be noted that, while \"The Deadly Necklace\" is available on DVD by itself, \"The Speckled Band\" is available only with the former film.

There is very little else to be said of this film. The settings seem to be an odd combination of the 1890s (horse-drawn carriages) and the 1920s (electronic devices such as a primitive dictaphone). Taken altogether, it's an interesting curio and a sufficient inducement to buy the DVD with the pairing rather than a DVD with \"Deadly Necklace\" only.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Movies just don't get worse than this. Horrible plot, terribly timed, pathetic characters and effects and yes this is using \"B\" standards.

And for the guys: nothing, this movie is a terrible let down, couple scenes that could have been great but you get nothing but build up with no delivery.

This movie appeals to no one, horrible movie,it had bad; plot, acting, \"B\" flavor, special effects and everything else. Plus no nudity or erotics for guys or the girls.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There isn't enough space to explain the many ways this movie is a disappointing mess. Silly special effects and an incomprehensible plot are the least of this movie's problems. The film looks like it was conceived in the mid-eighties and just stewed until it could finally be made in the early nineties. The mullet-headed \"hero,\" (complete with fashionable \"Miami Vice\" three-days shadow beard), the ham-fisted slams at Ronald Reagan, it would be funny if it didn't take itself so seriously. As it is, the movie is just pathetic. I actually feel sorry for the poor actresses who wasted their fine nude scenes in this awful movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, at least this was the last sequel that I could find at Blockbuster, because this movie was just downright horrible. I mean, I can understand how hard it would be to get rid of an evil house. We're talking starting a horrible fire, bulldozing, flood, etc. But a mirror? How hard could it be can it be to get rid of a mirror?! This was the most horrible movie that could've put the title of Amityville into the picture!

Well, a group of friends who are pretty much from the start, are a bunch of freaks. One of them is a photographer of some kind and buys a haunted mirror from a homeless creepy guy, teaching me a valuable lesson, don't buy things from homeless creepy guy. Of course, the horrible deaths and chaos ensues this group, though I can't imagine anyone missing them.

Please, skip Amityville: A New Generation, I've already got a few complaints about my generation, so I think this was a premonition. Not to sound so crazy. :P But believe me, this is horribly acted, not well thought out, and not even scary! I feel so bad for the original writers of The Amityville Horror, they must be crying every time person witnesses this film.

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'A New Generation' is the third Amityville entry to base its plot around writer John G. Jones's premise of an item taken from the Long Island house that causes spectral misery and death for its new owners. First a lamp, then a clock, and now a mirror. However, this is also the first Amityville since 'The Possession' to directly tie in to the real- life events that started the whole series. This time around, Keyes Terry (Robert Partridge), an artist, is given a macabre-looking mirror by a homeless man one day. Soon enough, people around him start to die, eventually leading to his discovery that the mirror once hung in the Amityville house - indeed on the very night a man named Franklin Bronner (Sonny Montelli in 'Amityville II') murdered his entire family. Unfortunately for Terry, his discovery of the mirror isn't entirely coincidental, and he soon learns the truth about his past a truth he's kept buried since childhood.

This 7th installment in the often worn-out franchise is something of a disappointment for me. Things were starting to pick up with the silly and uneven, yet entertaining 'It's About Time', and given how much this film tries to draw upon its roots - not the first episode, but the source material itself - it should have been better than it was.

However, three trips to the same well with yet another evil artifact from the Amityville house with yet another explanation for the malign paranormal visitations is wearing on me, to say the least. One of the biggest weaknesses of the Amityville franchise is the steadfast determination by each set of producers to completely ignore every other episode in the series. On the one hand, it's perfectly reasonable that they don't want to be tied to someone else's continuity, but at the very least, they could maybe acknowledge story lines that have already been done and just possibly *not repeat them over and over again*.

There's also something rather plodding about the way in which the story unfolds, doubtless due to the inevitability this repetition-fest brings. Since you already know what's going to happen, the carefully-paced build-up is simply slow and tedious. Or maybe it's just tedious anyway. Director John Murlowski probably could have done more to heighten the tense atmosphere associated with the mirror rather than simply having it flash red and emit chattering 'evil' voices, which lacks any kind of subtlety. There were times when characters seemed fairly unfazed by its otherworldly qualities. If they don't take it too seriously, why should we?

Which is a shame, because 'A New Generation' has a more-than-capable cast. I was going to hold off on watching this until I saw the name 'Julia Nickson' in the credits. She captivated my attention just as she always does, and if anything, I was annoyed her part wasn't more extensive. Terry O'Quinn was equally charismatic and again, underused. Partridge himself in the lead role clearly fits the early 90s over-coiffed lumberjack-shirted square-jawed hero type, and while I'm not sure he really gave it the gravitas needed, it's not as if anyone here is performing Ibsen.

The sets are also worthy of note, from the dramatic artwork filling Suki's room, to the claustrophobic corridors featured in flashback\/supernatural sequences. Getting the look of these right is especially important given how certain sequences are repeated throughout the film to simulated fragmented memories. Clearly, Murlowski is more of a visual director rather than either an actor's director or one of horror. Unfortunately, it is meant to be a horror film, after all.

'A New Generation' sees the same race being run for the third time in 4 years. Add to this the lack of direction where it was really needed and the whole effort fails to stand as tall as it should. However, it should be acknowledged for its strong ties with the source material and some good actors in not necessarily their finest hours. Honestly, the ideal person for this is someone who hasn't seen any of the sequels past 'The Possession', for whom the story won't be such a massive deja-vu trip.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh dear. This sequel has a mirror, this time, which houses the evil spirit of a psychopath which murdered an entire family with a shotgun in the Amityville home. The mirror captured the entire ugly incident of the horrified family who had no time to prepare for their uninvited guest. The mirror is given to a photographer, Keyes(Ross Partridge)by a bum(..who just so happens to be his lunatic father, and the man responsible for killing the family)and it's evil soon terrorizes those in a loft(..such as Keyes' painter pal Suki, portrayed by Julia Nickson-Soul)where he lives when they look into it. Soon Keyes is having nightmares, looking through the eyes of his father as he guns down the family in cold blood, worried that he might follow in his footsteps. Soon he sees other occurrences through his father's eyes like that terrible day pops bashed his mother's head against the floor of an institution or experiencing a moment inside the cell as doctor's administered a drug to immobilize him.

Pretty solid supporting cast who deserve better than being stuck in junk like this, such as David Naughton(American Werewolf in London)as the proprietor of the loft with which Keyes lives, Richard Roundtree as an eccentric sculptor\/artist, Terry O'Quinn as a psychologist-detective, and especially Lin Shaye as a hilarious ditsy, rather strange secretary-nurse in the asylum(..the one which held Keyes' father) soon to be closed down.

Rounding out the film, the sexy, leggy Lala Sloatman as Keyes' supportive girlfriend, Barbara Howard(Friday the 13th:The Final Chapter)as Naughton's betrayed wife(..he was on the verge of starting an affair with Nickman-Soul), Jack Orend as the sadistic fiend who attempts to provoke his son into killing innocent people as he did, and Robert Rusler(A Nightmare on Elm Street 2:Freddy's Revenge)as a rejected lover(..of Nickson-Soul)who meets an unfortunate demise while ripping apart paintings as a revenge for his dismissal.

This film is a poor special effects movie merely using the Amityville title as a cash-in. The franchise has never been that great to begin with, but as each sequel was green-lit, it grew worse and worse. After the third film, furniture from the infamous house become \"possessed\" items tormenting folks. The cast try hard, though, but the material(..a mirror causing chaos and murder through supernatural means)is lacking in quality..and the rather mediocre special effects don't help matters. O'Quinn, as little as he has to work with, shows why he's such a great actor, he can even shine in excrement such as this. All's not lost, you get to see Sloatman always wearing super short skirts(..or her man's shirt in panties), showing off her legs throughout..hey, you have to find a silver lining somewhere. Believe it or not, AMITYVILLE:A NEW GENERATION was the seventh film in the franchise! Coolest part of the film were the portraits of demons painted by Nickson-Soul's artist, perhaps inspired by the evil mirror after looking into it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At the rate these movies are ploughing through the artifacts from the Amityville house it won't be long before we get down to the floorboards, but for now it's a mirror that's causing problems for more cardboard characters in this sixth entry in the series. A homeless man hands it over to artist hairdo Ross Partridge, who then has strange visions and discovers some unpleasant revelations about his past. This mundane horror trundles along at a dull pace, leaving us waiting for a build up that never comes as the various 'spooky' goings-on lead to a dumb finale. Bland and lifeless, with ropey acting and Partridge's huge hair not helping matters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not a good one. -Not at all.

This installment revolves around a descent of the original murderer inside the Amityville home who must face his past to rid himself of the nightmarish terror of Amityville itself.

It's basically nothing. My bet is that this film was made for some extra fast-cash to buy a boat or something... because this one's just ridiculous... Thankfully, it doesn't kill or ruin the series, but it just has no effect on the series at all.

I'd have to say that just the fact that it is constantly referenced to the old, infamous house is probably the only thing that makes this one slightly more bearable than \"The Amityville Curse\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What movie is this??? A horrible movie with the old boring concept of infidelity which has already been achieved by the \"Bhatt camp\". The movie starrs EMRAAN HASHMI, UDITA GOSWAMI AND DINO MOREA. The movie has \"No Base\". It just goes like this... Dino an Udita are married and living in a rich mansion. However Dino doesn't like Udita to the heart as he wants only her wealth. He loves someone else (Tara Sharma). So he bribes Emraan to have an affair with Udita so that he could catch them and finally split up with Udita.. How BORING!! However Emraan falls in love with Udita and vice versa. Lastly when Udita gets imprisonment for killing Emraan, Dino pretentiously tries to save her showing his false love to her. Udita on the other hand does not understand this and feels that he loved her truly. So she lends all her wealth to Dino. Finally Dino comes out of the police - station and goes with Tara with all the wealth. What a fraud!! The songs are good and are the only thing good in the movie. Now the individual ratings: (Out of 5) Emraan: * * Udita: * 1\/2 Dino : * 1\/2 Overall acting: * 1\/2 Direction: * * Story: * Music: * * * 1\/2 Final rating: * 1\/2 Poor performances and poor casting....... Music: Good... I rate the movie: 1.5 \/ 10 (Dont waste your time !!!!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I often wonder how movies like this even get made, and the most shocking part is that people actually pay to watch them.

With Aksar it appears as though the director made up the story as he went along, adding twists and turns when he liked, no matter how ludicrous they were. The script was non existent with inane dialogs such as \"Jo Sheena Roy pehenti hai, wahee fashion hota hai\" and \"Yeh Versace hai Madam\" (yeah right).

Every one of the characters was shallow and underdeveloped. Acting was awful. Constumes (lycra for Udita and awful suits for a stocky Emran), locales (the numerous houses that were used for interiors did not even vaguely resemble a Victorian mansion), screenplay etc etc, just one word- rubbish.

For those people who love Hashmi and his movies, watch it. As for me, I'll never get those two and a half hours back. The only redeeming factor was some of the music which was decent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Aksar is an awful movie. The script, the story, the acting are all simply laughable. Dino Morea plays a man who pays Emraan Hashmi to seduce his wife. Yes, this is as ridiculous as it sounds. Both Morea and Hashmi offer incredibly and unsurprisingly bad acting. Udita Goswami plays the aggressive, capricious and angry wife. She is good-looking but has zero acting talent. The film has one hit song called \"Jhalak Diklaja\" which is composed and sung by Himesh Reshammiya. I never could understand the hype around this song as I never found it particularly good though it is catchy. The film is supposed to be a thriller but instead it just looks like a comic strip thanks to the terrible direction and writing. Avoid this cheapo at any cost.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Emraan Hashmi post MURDER did some good roles in Bhatt films but other director just made use of his kissing and naughty image

AKSAR is one of them and it came after AAA, JAWANI DIWANI in a row and I was already fed up of him and such roles

The film has a nice twist at the start i felt like an Abbas Mustan film but then it turns into a routine film with sudden love, sudden jealousy and a bad climax

Anant Mahadevan makes a terrible film Music is saving grace Camera-work is fabulous

Emraan Hashmi just repeats his act of his earlier films and has 2 expressions throughout Dino looks stiff, talks as if he is practicing Hindi and does okay in some scenes Udita is expressionless and irritates","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"weak direction, weak plot, unimpressive music, i wonder why Udita Goswami is there in the movie world in the first place ? she tried to reveal a lot of her talent (mostly skin) but failed to impress.

music wasn't that impressive as well, only one song \"Jhalak Dikhlajaa\" was worth listening to.....

Aksar, the title ? well they tried to justify the title of the movie in the end, but it didn't make sense..

there were many unwanted twists and turns in the story, which made it more boring. however if someone's a Dino Morea fan, please go ahead and watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Independent film that would make Hollywood proud. The movie substitutes good looks for good acting, a cryptic plot for a good story line, and self-absorption for character development. May be I missed something, go see it for yourself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a third rate attempt at a compelling, moody thriller and fails miserably on all three counts. It just about managed to keep my attention as the protagonist was seen slowly and predictably breaking all the life rules he had conveniently set himself at the beginning of the film.

But it's in the last 25 minutes or so that things really start to spiral. A vaguely plausible plotline (and that's being generous)becomes completely rediculous as suddenly new characters appear from nowhere and random and bizzarre events are never explained.

This wouldn't be quite so bad if the scripting wasn't so cheesy, the acting so wooden (despite a strong British cast) and the direction so uninspiring. This is not an example of good British film making nor indeed should it make Tarantino bat an eyelid, at least not in comparison to his earlier work.

My advice in this case, if it's hard to get hold of, don't waste the effort. If you're a Brit like me and it's in your local video shop, steer well clear. Perhaps head to the video entitled \"American Beauty\" - now that's an example of great British direction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"[Warning contains spoilers]

I felt no sympathy for any of the characters, incl the main one, who gets over the death of his girl friend v.quickly, (but it's OK as he shacks up with an ex prostitute from the casino he works at). The main character is portrayed as this wonderful intelligent writer who gets drawn into a web of deception, all the while there is running his monologue of the book he is writing. I can't say I would buy the book, a much better premise perhaps would have been if the voice-over (which annoyingly cuts in to narrate any bit of the film that you might not have understood, via his book) would've had 52 different personailties... to represent each card in the deck, but I digress. In the end there was a twist, whereby the main character has been setup by someone close to him, but as I disliked his character so much by this point (I found it impossible to like anyone in this film, the characters are all one dimensional zombies) that I really didn't care, and was glad the film was over.

Plus points: The English actress from ER doing a dodgy south african accent Minus points: An irritating film","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was one of the most contrived, tedious and clich\u00e9d films I have ever seen... and, yes, I've seen Pearl Harbour. Even the likes of Gina McKee couldn't act their way out of the appalling dialogue. It has been described as 'art-house', this can only be a euphemism for dull, dreadful and, quite frankly, artless. Why is it that when a film is devoid of plot, critics feel it deserves to be called art? But far more baffling, why did America love it? Without you, this film would have remained on the shelf where, perhaps, it belonged.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I respect Mike Hodges, and liked Get Carter immensely for it's bleak outlook, but The Croupier just seems like a particularly dull ITV drama.

The reserved, cold acting isn't just the preserve of the lead character, it's spread to the entire cast, meaning there is nothing to contrast Owen's character with.

None of the characters evoke any kind of feelings at all, except boredom. The ending of the film is also untidy at best.

The camera work etc is fairly good, but if you want to see Hodges best watch Get Carter, don't bother with this uninteresting, unimaginative trawl through emotions he covered better 20+ years ago","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This low-budget film about a writer who goes to work in a London casino has an awful script, wooden performances, and not much to recommend it. Of course it will appeal to highbrows for whom \"mainstream\" is a curse word, and who automatically add 20 IQ points when they hear a British accent (apologies to Jeff Foxworthy).

The script is full of holes (has he written a book yet, or not?), cliches (relationship trouble: she works days, he works nights), and provides so little insight into such basics as character motivation that it requires a voice-over narration just to move the story along.

In an attempt to keep the audience from dozing off, it includes a street fight scene that is about as realistic as a high school production of Julius Caesar.

If your idea of scintillating dialogue is \"I'll see your ten, and raise you twenty\", then RUN to see this movie. Otherwise, save your money.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hideously bad movie purportedly about a croupier who wants to be a writer and the incidents that make up casino life. Moves at a snail's pace. Dull, dull, dull! Virtually everything about this movie is amateurish and unconvincing - with one very notable exception: the performance of Clive Owen, who is like a Rolls Royce purring through a slum. Advice for the casino sequences were allegedly provided by a professional but judging by the way in which they are handled they were completely ignored by the director. While casino staff may very well be a different breed to the rest of the world they are nowhere near as witless and booooring as the characters presented in this script. Odds and ends are thrown into the script in an attempt to provide it with convincing background but would appear to have been jotted down in a list on a cocktail napkin. For anyone who makes a living in the casino business (as this writer has for the last FORTY years!) this is a poverty stricken depiction of their world which even in the farthest and most obscure reaches of England has NEVER been this wanting! An appalling, insulting mess of a movie that plods and plods and plods along to an idiotic and unconvincing ending. American critics loved it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After some internet surfing, I found the \"Homefront\" series on DVD at ioffer.com. Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago. The resolution and quality are poor. The images look like you would expect old re-recorded video to look. Although the commercials were edited out, the ending credits of each episode still have voice-over announcements for the segway into the ABC news program \"Nightline\", complete with the top news headlines from the early 1990's. Even with the poor image quality, the shows were watch-able and the sound quality was fine.

To this show's credit, the casting was nearly perfect. Everyone was believable and really looked the part. Their acting was also above average. The role of Jeff Metcalf is played particularly well by Kyle Chandler (most recently seen in the 2005 remake of King Kong). The period costumes were very authentic as were the sets, especially the 1940s kitchens with vintage appliances and d\u00e9cor. The direction was also creative and different for a TV show at that time. For example, conversations between characters were sometimes inter-cut with conversations about the same subject between other characters in different scenes. The dialog of the different conversations was kept fluid despite cutting back and fourth between the different characters and locations. That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.

As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago. Despite all the ingredients for a fine show, the plots and story lines are disappointing and confusing right from the start. For one thing, the name of the show itself is totally misleading. When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a \"homefront\" either. Curiously, the first episode of the show \"Homefront\" begins in 1945 after the war had ended. That's like shooting the first episode of \"Gilligan's Island\" showing the castaways being rescued. The whole premise of the show's namesake is completely lost. I still held on to hope with the possibility of the rest of the series being a flashback but no, the entire show takes place from 1946 through 1948. Additionally, this series fails miserably in any attempt to accurately portray any historical events of the late 1940's. By the third episode, it becomes obvious that this series was nothing more than a thinly veiled vehicle for an ultra left-wing political agenda. The show is set in River Run Ohio, near Toledo. However, the show's ongoing racism theme makes it look more like Jackson Mississippi than Ohio. Part of the ensemble cast are Dick Williams, Hattie Winston and Sterling Macer Jr. who portray the Davis family. Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil \"whites\" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable. The racism card has been played and over played by Hollywood now for over 40 years. We get it. We're also tired of having our noses rubbed in it on a daily basis. The subject of racism is also unpopular with viewers and it is the kiss of death for any show, as it was for \"Homefront\". The acting talents of Williams, Winston and Macer were wasted in their roles as the stereotypical \"frightened \/ angry black family\". The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something. The racism issue could have been addressed in this show in a single episode with a simple punch in the nose or fist-fight in which a bigot gets a well deserved thrashing, and leave it at that. Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.

In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. The workers revolt and take over the factory in a blatant pro-communist propaganda message to the viewer.

Personally, I think this series had great potential. The writers could have easily placed the timeline in 1941 \u0096 1945 as the title suggests and shown the hardships of food and gas rationing and working 14 hour days at war factories. Of course the loss of brothers, sons and husbands fighting overseas would have also added drama. The situation was also perfect for writing in special guest stars as military or USO personnel passing through their town during training or en-route to Europe or the Pacific. The possibilities for good story lines and plots are endless. But no, the writers of Homefront (David Assael and James Grissom) completely ignored any relevant or interesting plots. Instead, they totally missed the point and strayed into a bizarre and irrelevant obsession with racism and left-wing politics. It would be unfair to the actors to condemn the entire series but the plots and situations in which they were placed are total garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's important to keep in mind the real meaning of the phrase \"Inspired by a true story\" when watching Pride. It's sort of like \"You could save up to 50%,\" which can quite literally be translated to \"You can't save more than 50%.\" It all sounds great until you realize that the lower part of \"up to\" is \"zero.\" Similarly, \"inspired by a true story\" means that someone heard a story and it made them think of this one. The only certainty is that the real story and the one you're about to see are not the same thing.

There is a real Jim Ellis that began coaching the swim team at the Philadelphia Department of Recreation in the early 1970s, but I have a feeling that the real Jim Ellis must not have been able to conceal some feelings of disappointment at the way the movie turned out. Clearly, it takes wild liberties with the story of his life, and I just picture him responding to the strange looks of his friends who wonder why the movie is so much different than the man they know.

At any rate, one thing that he will surely be proud of is that he is portrayed by Terrence Howard, one of our finest actors, who starred alongside Bernie Mac who, despite the lack of an original and powerful story, still gives a heartfelt and moving performance.

The movie takes place in 1970s Philadelphia, a time and place where racism was the norm, not the exception, and the educated and professional Jim Ellis, who is also an accomplished swimmer, is having trouble finding a worthwhile teaching position, until finally relegated to a falling apart recreation center, which he is assigned the task of cleaning up before its demolition. We can certainly understand his feeling of belittlement.

When we first meet Elston, the maintenance man (Bernie Mac), he is a disillusioned grump who sits in his office surrounded by piles of junk that touch the ceiling and watching daytime TV on an old, dusty television set. Needless to say, when Jim shows up to start cleaning the place up and clearing it out, Elston is not exactly friendly with him. He knew his rec center was being closed, and all his anger about that transferred quite smoothly onto Jim.

Given his past as a college swimmer, Jim takes a special interest in the pool, which he cleans and fills and brings to top shape. A group of black teenagers who play basketball just outside the rec center take interest in the pool when their basketball rim is taken away and the heat remains stifling, and soon the group have a developing swim team on their hands, which they enter into a citywide swim meet. To call them underdogs, of course, would be something of an understatement. They're unorganized, unprofessional, insufficiently trained, and have no idea how to behave at a swim meet.

That doesn't matter, of course. The movie is your standard underdog sports story, so the first athletic outing is totally unimportant as anything other than a learning experience, a catalyst to drive their much harder and much more focused training that will lead up to the final athletic outing, the one that matters. By now, the only thing a sports movie has going for it is that the protagonist(s) do not have to win at the film's climax, we only have to understand the meaning and significance of their effort.

Sadly, the movie has all of the character development of an old Seagal movie. The good guys are the good guys because they're just supposed to be, and the bad guys are the nasty white swimmers who laugh and jeer and make racist jokes at our team. Oh, and there's one scene where one of the white guys kicks one of the black guys underwater while in the middle of a race. I didn't know it was really possible to kick someone underwater like that, but you get the idea of how deep the character development is.

We understand that this is the group of kids that Jim Ellis turned from kids hanging out on the streets doing nothing with their lives and into an organized and competitive team of swimmers, but other than that we don't really get to know anything about who they are.

But the biggest problem is that the only real statements that the movie makes are that effort and organization lead to success and racism is bad. Both of these are so obvious that when a movie is made with them alone it ends up feeling empty and unnecessary. Racism was so much more powerful in America in the 1970s that it feels like an enormous loss that the movie dealt directly with that issue but didn't really say anything about it. It's sort of a feel- good movie, but when it's over and you realize how much it should have said is much bigger than what it said, the feel-good sensation turns into a sad disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Inspired by a true story tale is full of 1970's feeling but is disjointed in the telling. This is the tale of a black college swimmer who ends up in Phillie at a closing rec center in a bad neighborhood and somehow puts together a swim team. The film staggers around blindly for the first half hour until Terrence Howard, as our hero, gets the kids into the pool.It picks up at that point by becoming somewhat engaging, though it still staggers about. There is a good story in this and its clear why Howard and Bernie Mac took part in it, but the script is poor and most of the direction seems intent on making it feel like 197something instead of making us feel anything for the story.

Not the disaster that some reviews made it out to be, it instead suffers by all of the recent sport true stories-Coach Carter, Invincible, Glory Road, etc, which at least knew that you have to at least work with the story to make a movie as opposed to just letting the audience suffer because \"its true\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To start, I'm not a person to rate movies that I haven't seen, nor am I a person that rates movies 1's when they don't deserve it. This movie was really that bad. The basic plot was extremely formulaic, and while it wasn't great, the plot deserved about a 5. The part that really bothered me was anything referencing swimming in the film. I compiled a short list of things wrong with the swimming aspects of this film.

1. No character development. 2. No sense of time. 3. Completely inaccurate swimming scenes, which include: a. A team of six swimmer going to something called both \"Nationals\" and \"regional\" with no mention of how they qualify. b. This same team going to whatever the hell this meet was without swimming a real meet at any point in the film. c. The rival program goes from being a high school to a club team back to a high school and then a club team again. d. In the scene where Ellis is interviewing for a job the banners show high school state wins and placements at nationals, yet the team consists of anywhere from 5 to 12 swimmers depending on which of the 3 meets are happening. e. A team of 5 guys and a girl win nationals\/regions whatever. f. Said girl wins a men's 100 butterfly event. g. In this race, said girl beats two guys from a team that the previous year was in the top 3 in the nation. h. The announcer changes a race from the 200 breast to the 100 breast back to the 200 again in the span on about 45 seconds. i. In the final relay, the 4X100, which is being swum in a 50 meter long course pool, one swimmer is seen doing two flip turns. j. In this same relay, the teams anchor swimmer freaks out and steps off the blocks, prompting an inspirational pep talk, which lasts for about two and a half minutes, or about 3 times as long as the leg would take at a national caliber meet. k. The movie begins in the month of July or August, assuming that Ellis was applying before the school year started, and the pool was to be closed in 3 months, so assuming these things both hold true, the swimmers went from not being able to swim to winning nationals\/regional whatever, in less than two, as the pool had to be cleaned and the kids didn't start practicing for a while. l. I'm sure there are a couple hundred more, I'm just trying to block them out of my memory. 4. Throughout the film there is not a single mention of a swimmers time. 5. If you're going to have a movie about swimming, it would be a good idea to hire extras that know how to swim well. 6. The scene where the kid is kicked underwater is physically impossible.

That being said, all the swimming scenes were way too slow, swimmers had horrible technique, and the idea of being able to qualify for a national meet within three months of learning to swim is just insulting to swimmers everywhere.

OK, if you still don't believe me, let me say that this movie is one of the 5 worst films i have ever seen, and this is coming from the guy that owns Gigli, Soul Plane, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Skullduggery, and any number of other total piece of crap that have been put on film. Please don't go!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a shame Barry Humphries infamous Sir Les Patterson character had it's film debut in this under cooked spy\/comedy.

This film reminded me of the Beatty\/Hoffman stinker, Ishtar (1987). Humphries should have learned from the mistakes that film made - if your going to change gears on a concept DON'T USE SPIES! Like Ishtar, the first 20 minutes or so offer a promise of something different. It would have been great to see the anachronistic and boorish Patterson sleazing around in the world of Australian politics. One of characters even point out that Patterson is of date with the current times - you'd think Humphires could of had a field day making commentary on the Hawke government (I can just picture a scene with Patterson and Hawkie in a drinking contest). But instead of a film that might of been clever and even a biting look into that world, we get Patterson running around the world as James Bond trying to save the world from bio-chemical weapons that runs out of steam before the half way mark.

Disappointing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The brilliant Australian comic genius Barry Humphries had a rare failure with this uneven, and occasionally distasteful comedy, which was snatched back from release after only a few days. Drunken, lecherous Australian diplomat Sir Les Patterson accidentally sets an Arab potentate on fire at the UN and is posted to his tiny country as punishment, arriving just as a palace coup puts a new leader (American soap star Thaao Penghlis) on the throne. Sir Les, with the reluctant help of Dame Edna Everage (Both played by Humphries) almost accidentally foils a scheme by the new leader to release a deadly, disgusting, AIDS-like virus on the Western World. Joan Rivers has a cameo as the female President of the United States, her desk plate reading \"President Rivers\"! Extreme bad taste mingles with slapstick and Humphries' usual scathing satire in a film which is more enjoyable in it's many funny parts, than taken together as a whole. Dame Edna's TV fans may be puzzled by the presence of a different Madge Allsop, sadly, one who lacks Emily Perry's wonderful drab comedy magic in the role. The film was written By Humphries & his third wife, Diane Millstead, and directed by the Mad Max man himself, George Miller. For die-hard Humphries fans like myself, essential. All others, beware.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Arguably the most disgusting thing to come out of Australia since Vegemite... Predictably distasteful comedy with Barry Humphries in a dual role as boozy Australian diplomat Les Patterson and undercover agent Dame Edna! So many bodily function gags that even the Farrelly brothers would have been sick, and several gross-out moments, especially the effects of the horrible H.E.L.P. virus. Only for fans of extreme toilet humor. Oh, and that\u00b4s the \"NeverEnding Story II\", NOT the \"Mad Max\" George Miller, who directed... *\u00bd

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When one considers that Carson McCullers is one of the foremost literary figures of the 20th century, it seems that it needs a very great lack of talent to be able to ruin one of her stories, but this movie shows it can be done! How do actors ingratiate their way to becoming directors? Wooden, unatmospheric, unsympathetic, totally out of sync with the poetic compassion of McCullers' writing, my jaw dropped with horror and disbelief that such a mish-mash of a movie could ever have found finance and backers. The only redeeming features are some moderately good acting, (although that said, Vanessa Redgrave seems to permanently render much the same performance whatever character she plays), and some good cinematography in places, but otherwise it is a bitter, bitter disappointment, and it could, and indeed should, have been a contemporary masterpiece. Simon Callow should hang his head in shame and stick to acting!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How do you make a totally unappealing movie out of a story by one of America's most famous authors? Watch this film and find out. Maybe I am overrating author Carson McCullers, but I was impressed by \"The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter\" and was hoping for something memorable here, too. Forget it.

Vanessa Redgrave looks like a man with her short haircut and clothing. I never found her much to get excited about in almost any movie, anyway. Rod Steiger as a preacher? How insulting is that? Unlikable characters, one after the other. Well, maybe that's the book, too, and I am being unfair to this film. I am not familiar with the story other than what I saw on screen and this was so unappealing a movie that I could never recommend it to anyone.

It's just one backwards person after another in a backward town. Outside of some nice cinematography here and there, there is nothing to recommend. How anyone could sit through 100 minutes of this is amazing.

I didn't even go into how bad this is directed. There is good news: this was the only film Simon Cowell directed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Ballad of the Sad Caf\u00e9\" worked hard at its image, but when it came down to crunch-time, it was left standing in its own self-created dust.

One cannot image saying this out loud, but if Vanessa Redgrave's Amelia were to fight John Wayne or even Clint Eastwood, my hard-earned dollars would have to go to Redgrave. Her portrayal of Amelia was as close to perfection and consumed with more detailed dedication than most actors are willing to give to any multi-million dollar contracted persona. Redgrave gave Amelia this soulful drawl that was a blend of her own unique voice and a hard-earned woman from the south. To the average viewer, this could be construed as annoying, but as the film progressed it became her \u0096 Miss Amelia transforming this stage beauty into a roughneck. It was Redgrave's performance, as well as her interaction with the other characters, that made this film stand tall \u0096 but not the tallest. The others following her performance were needed, but not stellar. As we moved past the murky clich\u00e9 image passed on by every set designer hired for the post-Depression South job, the minor characters felt like poster board. The image was needed to set the scene, but the characters of the town had no other purpose. Take for example Rod Steiger's vision of some old, wild spoken preacher. His scenes alone will make any viewer question the validity of this off-the-beaten-path town. The main two players who surrounded Amelia battled with charm for the admirable top scene-stealing moment, but due to the lacking direction \u0096 it just seemed faded. The most absurd of the two (albeit both rank high among the questionable sanity line) is Cork Hubbard who plays Amelia's \"cousin\" who shows up randomly one night. His character is never quite defined, he lacks true motive, and his loyalties remain uncertain. He plays no vital role in this film outside of forcing us, the viewers, to question his sanity and honesty. Can you create a character simply by sticking out your tongue, flicking your ears, and punching your chest and head? Finally, there is the other end of the absurd \u0096 Keith Carradine. Callow's close-ups of this tormented man build character, but our lack of understanding between him and Amelia causes his purpose to flounder. These were the characters, as clich\u00e9 Southern as they were \u0096 some stood forward and attempted to create an absurdist period piece, and I cannot argue that they failed.

Where \"Ballad of the Sad Caf\u00e9\" failed to rise above mediocrity was in the cinematography and narrative. This film was about Amelia, and her need for other souls in her life. The audience's level of comfort with the arrival of her midget cousin was entertaining \u0096 one couldn't help but wonder if he was honest or merely a confidence man attempt to leech off a warm heart. Cork Hubbard's character is never quite understood, but we do accept him with brief shots of him and Amelia doing small things together. It is his idea that transforms from a recluse businesswoman to a bona-fide caf\u00e9 owner. The problem is that director Callow never quite takes us to that dramatic take level between Cork and Redgrave \u0096 is the man crazy or does he represent all of Amelia's family? I needed something from Callow that brought these two out of the David Lynch-esquire relationship that they had. Then our pool gets even deeper with the addition of Carradine as Amelia's \"love interest\". Using the technique of a flashback within a flashback, we see the two wed, but never consummate their love \u0096 which Amelia's anger against their love drawing him into the world of madness. Why was Amelia so angry? Why was there no connection between Carradine and Redgrave? Why was this even in the film? With the lack of focus towards these characters's connection, the eventual scenes between the two made no sense \u0096 throw in Cork's choice and it just gets completely discombobulated. While there were a few beautiful choreographed scenes that Callow created, the inability to transfer his characters from point A to point B. I lost focus, interest, and my care for the characters plummeted when I didn't understand the ultimate question \u0096 \"why\"?

Overall, \"The Ballad of the Sad Caf\u00e9\" began with a bang, but ended with a very small crack of a firecracker. My emotional feel of this film swung up and down, up and down, and eventually stayed further down mainly due to the lack of understanding of the motives of the characters. Redgrave did a phenomenal job as Amelia, and while the other characters (outside of the random Steiger) tried their best, I just didn't quite understand who they were. Their motives were so muddled that when the emotional ending finally occurred, I was apathetic. Director Callow seemed to have been lacking importing connecting scenes that would allow us to understand the dynamic relationship between all of our main players. Callow created some beautiful scenes where faces seemed to overlap the scenery, which allowed us to focus on Amelia \u0096 or Carradine, but nothing was explained or developed. The film played out with anger, discover, happiness, flashback, anger, anger, anger, fade out. Without the comparative connectors, this transformed from distinguished period film to actors playing parts in front of camera. It was a shame, because \"Sad Caf\u00e9\" had the promise, it just couldn't deliver.

Grade: ** \u00bd out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was ridiculous from the start. Let me save you all time from watching this movie. A woman who sells corn liquor to the locals takes in her cousin or nephew and he convinces her to open a caf\u00e9 downstairs from her home. She does and she and the cousin become close. There is a scene later where she is locking lips with him. Later, the woman finds out an old boyfriend is coming back from jail and its tense between them, leading to a down and out fist fight in the caf\u00e9. The woman's cousin\/nephew is enamored by the man. The ending was awful, the story was awful, and if I could get back the time wasted on this movie, I would appreciate it. A definite skip.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to say this, this is the first movie I'm reviewing on here I didn't finish watching. I mean.. I COULDN\"T CONTINUE! No matter how adamant I am for watching things until the bitter end, 'The Ballad Of The Sad Caf\u00e9' proved no match to this viewer. Vanessa Redgrave stars as the Strange Woman in Town who does things like walk through the river with a full set of clothes on. Anyways,. A long lost relative comes to visit, he's a midget and\u0085 well, that's as far as I got. What the heck was the point of all of this? I didn't even bother to wait for Michael Carradine to come on, as I was already pummeled senseless by the combination of the slow script AND having to deal with a midget in a dramatic role. I call this coffee table cinema. The type of cinema that appeals to just a scant few of you, but the others just STAY AWAY.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Looking and sounding like a cheap porno without the sex, this is the first in an impressive string of stinkers from producer (or in this case director) Geoffrey Reeve.

And it's a doozy. Laughable on just about every level.

Some government agents (I think) are \"professionally murdered\" in Amsterdam and a considerably less-than-charismatic, block-of-wood Interpol agent (who I assure you is not named Louis Salinger) is sent in to investigate by walking around a lot to ensure the tax-dodge financiers get their money's worth for the plane tickets to shoot on location.

The wannabe-hard-hitting attitudes to drugs and depiction of prostitution must have looked laughably outdated even before the celluloid dried, but the script at least is very obliging in that it explains exactly what's happening regularly in horribly contrived direlogue (\"Were you followed? Oh no of course not. No one outside Washington even knows you're here!\") yet despite this the plot somehow remains confusing. By the time a sinister Vladimir Putin lookalike Priest (no less than Kronsteen from From Russia with Love) swaggers up to his pulpit to deliver a sermon your brain will have switched off, which is unfortunate because you'll miss our hero - pinned to the ground during a fight - struggling to reach for a plank of wood only to later realise he is in fact sitting on a loaded pistol, and him shouting \"You bastaaaard!\" at his friend's murdered corpse, and the leather-bound, moustachioed go-go boys, the morris dancing and the hilarious torture sequence - all of which provide ample laughs. Only the climactic boat chase impresses. It's an exciting, well-directed sequence that really has no place in this movie. Such a glaring anomaly is explained when the credits roll - Reeve had nothing to do with that sequence! Thankfully everything goes back to business as usual for the ridiculous, spit-out-your-drink twist and warehouse shootout.

Unless such a wretched thing as a Geoffrey Reeve completist exists - and you're one of them - I wouldn't bother with this instantly forgettable nonsense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Storyline drags. Drug smugglers a Beautiful women and a determined cop. Nothing not already done a hundred times before. The boat sceen will be well worth the wait Amsterdam is the perfect city to pull it off. The canals and waterways put you on the edge of your seat. I would say the same as did the car chase in Bullitt, very intense!.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ruggero Deodato is often credited for inventing the cannibal subgenre with JUNGLE HOLOCAUST in 1975. But director Umberto Lenzi, usually acknowledged as a Deodato rip-off, directed THE MAN FROM DEEP RIVER 3 years earlier in 1972. Is it a worthy start for the genre? Well....not really.....

A photographer accidentally kills a man in self-defense and while retreating into the jungles of an Asian country, is captured by a native tribe who hold him captive, force him into slave labor, and eventually accept him when he marries the chief's daughter. Throughout the whole film, I never felt this was a horror film. It was more reminiscent of a drama, like A MAN CALLED HORSE, which I liked better. Ivan Rassimov is pretty good as the photographer, but it is Me Me Lai as the chief's daughter who is memorable and great. I have always been a Me Me Lai fan ever since her breathtaking performance in JUNGLE HOLOCAUST and she is never given credit for her acting chops because she hardly speaks in her films. She is still very talented and charming. Lots of real animal mutilation is the one thing about DEEP RIVER that could make it a horror film, but even that doesn't execute well.

THE MAN FROM DEEP RIVER is good to see for those who want to see what started the cannibal subgenre, but as an entry in the genre, is easily eclipsed by Deodato's entries and even Lenzi's own later entries. Recommended only for completists and Me Me Lai fans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No shortage of female flesh but still not interesting! Lenzi at least is capable of so far greater probably peaking at Spasmo and starting with Kiss Me Kill Me

The Hard Gore R2 DVD release may be cut at 86 minutes, but this movie contains one act of cannibalism and one victim - a scene with a native girl who is brutalised and disembowelled by the cannibal tribe we are warned of and who later set fire to some huts. Arsonist Holocaust? Firestarter Fernox anyone?

Certainly not a cannibal flick but was there ever a decent one made? Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I purchased this one for a couple of dollars at the local video store, as they cleared out their tapes in favour of DVDs. I doubt they'll be replacing this one, somehow.

I couldn't say that it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but it's very dull. No real cannibal scenes. Me Me Lai is not naked enough of the time (only about 4 or 5 times). And she's not the Thai goddess that I expected, either. So two of my reasons for watching this movie were knocked out.

There is some severe animal violence here for those that enjoy that sort of thing. A great fight between a mongoose and a large snake gets quite bloody. Animal torture, as well, some of which is real and some fake. Thankfully the fake is somewhat funny, but the real is just a little sickening.

Generally speaking, it's a 70s film - overly long, under-developed, not as deep as it would have liked to have been. But it's something different, right? ONE AND A HALF STARS!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the late teens to the 1920s, Stan Laurel was a solo act in films. During this time period, Laurel was definitely NOT among the upper echelons of talent and his humor isn't nearly as good as contemporaries such as Lloyd or Keaton. However, for second-tier short comedies, he did create a decent niche. As far as the quality of the films go, they varied wildly. Some, such as DR. PYCKLE AND MR. PRYDE, were terrific, whereas most were of average to below average in quality.

FROZEN HEARTS is an odd film. Like many of the films he made for Hal Roach and distributed by Path\u00e9 during this period, the costumes were absolutely first-rate and the film looked very nice. However, despite this and having support from the likes of James Finlayson, one thing they forgot to include in this film was humor. None of the jokes seem to work and the film looks almost like a drama, not a comedy. Only the really silly intertitle cards betray the type film it's supposed to be.

My advice is try to see all his Laurel and Hardy films and then see the solo films. In addition to DR. PYCKLE, try seeing THE SOILERS and MUD AND SAND--two of his more tolerable solo shorts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am testing myself to watch 3 bad movies in a row to find out if watching 3 bad movies in a row could give me amnesia I have a dubbed to English version of this movie. Now let me go down the points Music Score: bad quality but at least it suits Story: it's about a guy who goes to a town and he meets his sheriff brother and they fight for farmers land from a major and he allies with mexicans to drive them out and Trinity and his brother try to teach them to defend it - The final climatic fight scene will confuse anyone about who the #### are the good guys Conclusion: better than I thought but I need to continue with this I am next going to watch the Dolph Lungren and Jean-Claudde Vanne Damme movie \"Universal Soldier\" pray for my sanity","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very interesting to find another reviewer who had the exact same reaction to this movie as I did: It was a heck of a lot better when I was 10 or 11 years old.

Seeing it more than 30 years later, it's still okay, but it only mildly held my interest. What seemed hugely funny back then was only mildly amusing.

Also, things that were astonishing to me as a 10-year-old came across as just silly. For example, in one scene Trinity is walking along and fires his revolver behind him and kills two men without even looking. In fact, he doesn't even bother to look and see if they're dead, because he knows he hit the mark. Um, yeah, right.

In addition, a lot of the dialogue sounds quite wooden. Sorry, but 35 years later, it hasn't really aged that well.

Although it's been a long time since I've seen that one as well, probably a better Terrence Hill film than this one would be My Name Is Nobody.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is overrated, to say the least. It's not good as a comedy, and it's not good as a \"serious\" film either. The pacing is far too plodding for the former, and there is too much lame slapstick for the latter. The only laughs come from some of Bud Spencer's reaction shots when he becomes exasperated by his brother's behavior. The dubbing is excellent but the full-screen framing is appalling. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think I win the \"bargain\" contest for this movie, since I got it as part of a \"Martial Arts Movie Classics\" DVD collection with 50 movies for 20 bucks, which means I paid something like 50 cents for the chance to watch the \"Black Fist\" version of a movie that was released as \"Bogard.\"

For a basic \"revenge\" flick, \"Black Fist\" isn't too bad, even though it is obviously hampered by a low budget. One of my informal \"rules of thumb\" for watching a movie is that if the lead actor is better than his production and screenplay, the movie automatically gets at least three stars. That is certainly the case here; Lawson has some presence and some charisma, and probably deserved a better film career than he got.

The street fight choreography (the ostensible reason for the film) really won't to impress anyone who has ever sparred in a martial arts school or even just been punched in a schoolyard fight. I only spent about two years learning basic kung fu, but even I would never fall for the front \"stamp\" kicks, arm drags, and roundhouse punches on display here. But the atmosphere is good - dust and blood and shouting crowds, and the actors put some feeling into the fight scenes.

Less believable is the plot. Dawson's character \"Leroy Fisk\", is portrayed as a street-smart, sharp young man who goes looking for work as a pick-up fighter in illegal, unsanctioned street matches. Yet he is surprised and indignant when he has to pay off the cops? Excuse me, but I was raised in small town Iowa and even *I* knew (from watching \"Hard Times\" with Charles Bronson) that the cops have to be paid off for this sort of action, and that the guys who fight needed the fixers in order to get their matches, and that the fixers were worth the money. So you have to watch this movie with a sort of willful suspension of your critical faculties in order to accept it as a \"black brother being repressed\" movie. (Most of the other non-black fighters in the stable get punched in the face for the same deal too,yes?).

The movie suffers from a short attention span. The director obviously didn't have the budget to film some of the scenes he needed, so he had to fill in the gaps with some fairly ludicrous exposition scenes (The \"I wined him, I dined him, and then I killed him\" scene just doesn't work) along with voice-overs and montages that are clumsy and unconvincing. This is especially true with the whole romance angle which seems to have been filmed as if it were an afterthought. This is a little shoddy when you consider that the death of \"Fisk's\" wife's death is supposed to fuel his drive for revenge.

But, once the movie switches all the way from \"young fighter rising through the ranks\" to the revenge theme, it picks up a little steam and plays with a little more conviction. I'm not sure that the final payoff is worth the buildup - Roger Ebert calls this sort of thing \"a long drive for a short day at the beach\"..but it does tie things off in a reasonably satisfying way.

If Sylvester Stallone had made this film with a real budget and the same cast, slicker sets and costumes, and himself as the hero, people would have hailed it as the next \"Rocky\", which goes to show you how circumstance and chance can play havoc with would-be filmmakers' dreams.

Worth seeing once for various decent shots and lines and to watch Dabney Coleman embarrass himself in a role that is beneath him.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw Bogard when it was released in the 70s. It was one of those pictures that received an X rating for violence. We snuck into our local grindhouse, and saw it anyway. Pretty good picture. Lots of blood from the street fights, although the cheap sound effects for the punches took something away from it. And lots of sex. I remember one of the early scenes when Bogard meets this pretty brunette in an apartment she is showing him. Without saying a word, he picks her up, puts her in the windowsill and nails her. From what I remember the picture sailed from that point on. So, when I found out Bogart is also called Black Fist and was available on VHS, I ordered it online. I was very disappointed. Black Fist is Bogard edited for television. So many of the scenes I remember were missing, I wondered if indeed, this was the same picture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got this movie in a bargain bin, hoping for an amusingly bad flick. Boy was I disappointed. (except for avon.) You see, the movie is indeed horrible, but so horrible, it isn't even laughable. The plot, oh wait, there is no plot. I suppose you could say it's about the main character rising up in the ranks of street fighting. At the end of the movie, the directors decided to either not make any more sense, or, more likely, died and had a monkey finish directing the movie. DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT THE ENDING SPOILED! although the ending doesn't really spoil anything. The main character somehow ends up in a room filled with mirrors, a la Enter The Dragon, and then gets real angry, has stupid flashback, and hits a mirror. The end. Wheeee.

The only redeeming factor of this movie was Avon's scene. He's talking to the rival street fighting boss and says something along these lines, completely deadpan: \"Do not worry about him anymore sir. I have killed him in a sophisticated manner. I wined him, I dined hm, we went to a disco. We was havin a lot of fun. And then I killed him.\" at which point the boss says \"good work avon. You're number 1.\" And avon says \"Number 1! Alllriiiiight! Alriiight!\" The scene continues with avon continuing to say \"alllrriiiight!\" over and over. The next scene is of a dead Avon floating in a pool. Intelligent? I think not.

Lastly, I own the \"Homeboy\" version of this movie, meaning the title on the box I own is \"Homeboy.\" It shows a huge guy holding a giant gun and screaming. This never happens in the movie. This man is never in the movie. High quality.

Note--I am new to this reviewing, but hell yes I am going to keep it up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a really mediocre film in the vein of \"Buckaroo Banzai.\" The cast runs around like \"Mad Max\" wannabes, and they seem to be sharing a joke that they do not want to share with the audience. Wheeler-Nicholson is one of the those guilty pleasure actresses you are delighted to stumble across in films, but she isn't worth the price of rental. Space Maggot starts an electrical fire, and burns a vote of 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After seeing this film, I did not want my money back. I wanted my TIME back. I wanted that hour and a half back in my life - it was the most amazing, hideous torture to know that I had squandered precious minutes of my life on this dreck. I am scarred for life, and ever since this \"film\" entered my life I have had trouble sleeping. I am trying to suppress the memories, really I am. . . but they make me want to burn things.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where do I start. Lets list the good things about this movie first.

1. Mikael Persbrandt is great as the Gangster Thomas. This is the only character you will actually care about, and he's a bad guy! (allthogh never does anything bad, and is generally a pretty likable guy) 2. Kjell Bergkvist is always great. He's a bit toned down here, but he is quite funny still 3. The movie looked pretty good by Swedish standards, good use of depth of field and lights.

Now the bad. This is by far the worst script to make it into the big screen ever. The acting by everyone else was pretty bad and over the top. The direction was horrible. A totally meaningless story, totally unrealistic characters and events and 1.5 hours to long. During emotional scenes pretty much everyone in the theater laughed. People just started walking out during the course of the screening.

There's no way to actually summarize the story into something coherent, so I wont even try. Every clich\u00e9 ever conceived is in there, and in all the wrong places. I'm sorry to say this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my entire life.

Watch it for a good laugh, but try not to pay any money for it ;)

.R","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie features several well known actors which I usually like, so I had at least modest expectations when I rented this on DVD. I was highly disappointed. In fact I walked off for some snacks somewhere during the last half hour and somehow I ended up in the kitchen rather then going back to the TV. The actor performances where poor pretty much all across the board and none of the atmospheres in the movie felt very convincing. Virtually all scenes had that \"just a movie\" feeling to them, I just sat there waiting to hear the director calling \"CUT!\" followed by the crew having a little chat about the scene before moving on to the next.

Since the movie is about gangsters most characters are tough and mob-like, the problem here is just that this whole bad-boy attitude is played out so poorly that it just feels like a joke. The constant guitar-drilling soundtrack really tries to emphasize this atmosphere too, but when the same track is played the 18th time it just adds to the already strong feeling of the whole thing just being fake.

Maybe it was just a really really bad script, maybe it was just poorly executed. I'm no movie critic, in fact I consider it rare to see something that's REALLY good, but this was just plain bad no matter how objective and forgiving I'm trying to be. NOT recommended, not even as a rental!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is not worth seeing, at least not at a cinema. The story is hard to follow and understand (it starts with 10 minutes of something happening 3 years earlier). It's hard to know if this movie is trying to be a comedy or just is so bad\/weird that it sometimes seems like it. American sirens and lights on Swedish police cars is just one example. The acting of Persbrandt and Bergqvist is good as usual, but I think Jenny Lampa acting as Jasmin acts very poor. Zara Zetterqvist acts pretty well, she's not been seen as an actor in Swedish movies for a long time. If you still want to see it, wait until it's released on DVD or is shown on TV.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just saw this on a local independent station in the New York City area. The cast showed promise but when I saw the director, George Cosmotos, I became suspicious. And sure enough, it was every bit as bad, every bit as pointless and stupid as every George Cosmotos movie I ever saw. He's like a stupid man's Michael Bey--with all the awfulness that accolade promises.

There's no point to the conspiracy, no burning issues that urge the conspirators on. We are left to ourselves to connect the dots from one bit of graffiti on various walls in the film to the next. Thus, the current budget crisis, the war in Iraq, Islamic extremism, the fate of social security, 47 million Americans without health care, stagnating wages, and the death of the middle class are all subsumed by the sheer terror of graffiti.

A truly, stunningly idiotic film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"MST3K fodder. It's so bad it's actually worth seeing just for that reason. There are some hilarious things in it, such as the mysterious device the bad guy is seen working on for the whole movie, that turns out to be this tiny helicopter that flutters around carrying and firing a machine gun without so much as a wobble, but is brought down by a bag of balloons (the kind they release at political conventions). Many other wonderful touches of that sort. Stars Charlie Sheen. There's one scene where he spends five minutes recording a conversation, only to drop the microcassette in the Potomac River by accident. If they'd cast Emilio Estevez in the part that never would've happened.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"They make everything too easy in this film. It sort of reminded me of Indiana Jones where he hides on the outside of a submarine during an ocean crossing. Everybody knows everything that's going on, it's just real easy to get anyplace you want in the White House. I don't even know why I watched half of it. Because I like Charlie Sheen and Donald Sutherland. I expect the usual ability to dodge bullets from every angle, and be able to run faster than a motorcycle (usually it's faster than a car in a garage or a allyway). It was silly, mostly, and I didn't even know then had a ten-story elevator in the White House. Anyway, anything conspiratorial is always interesting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1st watched 2\/25\/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-George P. Cosmatos): Predictable action thriller where any frequent movie goer could guess what was coming next. Charlie Sheen is the good old boy to the President who just happens to be not liked by the rest of the presidential staff. Of course, he gets involved in a situation where he's framed over and over again and he has one friend in the White House, played by Sutherland, who naturally doesn't stay that way for very long. His other friend is a reporter played by Linda Hamilton(who has very little to do or say in this meaningless role), and of course his biggest and bestest friend is the President himself(Sam Waterston) who stays his pal till the end despite everyone else being killed around him. Brainless yet action-packed meaningless trife despite loads and loads of acting talent(all pretty much wasted.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is filled with so many idiotic moments, that you wonder how it ever got made. For example, they get into the sewers from the Capitol and while they're in the sewers you can see signs pointing to various government buildings, and then they come up in the middle of the street! I highly doubt that government buildings would provide public access through the city sewer system. Anyways, I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 just because of its comic value. I laughed the whole way through at the idiocy of everyone involved in this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is bad. It's filled with glaring plot holes, characters who are ruled by stupidity, bad acting and above all, a poor script which has been done before in many, many films, only better. I feel sorry for Donald Sutherland, I just hope he had to do this film rather than wanted to! Miss it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My Take: Routine political thriller with mediocre action scenes and predictable twists.

A rarely seen political thriller, which made a very poor box-office response, I managed to catch THE SHADOW CONSPIRACY on TV just now, and while I was glad that I satisfied my curiosity to see this rare film, I didn't exactly feel this film was all special. Considering the box-office response to it, SHADOW CONSPIRACY is not all quite as bad as critics and the public reacted to it, but still ain't very good to begin with and everything, from script to direction, is pretty predictable. Charlie Sheen plays the presidential assistant who finds himself caught up with assassins and chases (a lot of them) when he discovers a deadly conspiracy which lurks amongst the White House staff. After a professor is murdered, Sheen aids the help of ex-flame reporter Amanda Givens (Linda Hamilton) to uncover the traitor and unlock the conspiracy of the title.

But this script, written by Adi Hasak & Ric Gibbs, are pedestrian as they come, not much differing from other White House conspiracy thrillers as in ABSOLUTE POWER and MURDER AT 1600. Some considerable talents (Donald Sutherland, Ben Gazzara and Stephen Lang) try their best on a routine script, but rarely saves it from predictability of the script. Not to mention a ludicrous scene which involves a toy helicopter, which seems far too silly and out-of-place in this \"serious\" political thriller. THE SHADOW CONSPIRACY has its moments I'm sure, some of which are much to under-appreciated (director George Pan Cosmatos serves up some decent chase scenes), but none of which lifts this routine thriller of which there's not much payoff or surprises.

Rating: ** out of 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This all looked quite promising. An up-and-coming Presidential adviser is framed for a series of murders, as he has been tipped off that a conspiracy is going on within the White House. It stars the excellent Donald Sutherland among several capable actors. Yet very few people have a good word to say about it.

The whole thing really needed some depth. You can pick up the idea that the President is being too left-wing with his ideas, and some within the Government want him dead to stop those ideas being carried out. Conrad appears to simply want the country to be Governed his way, rather than the way of the elected leader.

However, the action scenes had a few logic holes - the sewers and elevators already mentioned, and the rather haphazard assassination method - and Linda Hamilton's character is completely uninspired. Her 'the President's my Father' 'diversion' was ludicrous - that would make the President about 10 when that happened. Worse still was her predictable final scene with Bishop.

They could have made a challenging, inventive political thriller, but either bottled it or failed. They could've gone to town on special effects, but the good ones were wasted. They could have achieved so much more in general. This was barely worth the \u00a31 it cost me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film starts with a pedestrian setup before blundering into the standard sort of suspense action where an office worker keeps beating up trained secret service men etc.

I couldn't say the acting was bad - there were some good \"surprised\" faces by Hamilton and Sheen - but then I really wouldn't have to.

Risible finale did at least give me a good laugh for my pains. Still, if my life was flashing before my eyes, I think I would fast forward this 90 minutes.

I have to write two more lines of text just to get this thing published. Yes, very resistant suit that sheen wears. I made a special promise to myself never to watch a film this bad again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I still wonder why I sat through this entire thing. It only had about 3 minutes of actual entertainment, the rest of it was just a total bore. The acting isn't that great and the action scenes are soooo cheesy it's not even funny. I kinda wish I could say something good about this film but I can't think of anything right now. There probably was somethings in it some can enjoy but the ending of it is gotta be the dumbest idea ever. What type of person would get a little toy remote controlled helicopter with a burned in machine gun in it to assassinate the President? This idea could have never been done in the first place let alone have anyone dumb enough to try it, I guess the writer must have been to obsessed with the toy car scene in The Dead Pool but actually tried to make this look serious.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rarely have I seen an action\/suspense movie that was so boring. None of the action scenes are exciting the story line is nothing special and except for a couple of actors the acting is bad. Charlie Sheen (Platoon, Major League) stars as the White House Chief of Staff, who gets himself in the middle of a conspiracy that wants him and more people dead. Donald Sutherland (A Time to Kill, Fallen) plays a friend who he tells everything he can and Linda Hamilton (Linda Hamilton, Terminator, Dante's Peak) plays a reporter who gets involved in the situation. Charlie Sheen is OK as the star, Donald Sutherland is a good actor who gives a good performance. Linda Hamilton gives a poor performance. With a bad movie, I can actually like it if it has a good ending, but this movie has a very cheesy ending with some almost laughable stuff.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After watching this movie, I felt as if I had just eaten a box of stale, chewy cracker jack only to find no prize inside. This movie has real promise: porn stars in a skinemax feature! Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell the producers that WE LIKE SOME T&A IN OUR T & A FLICKS!!! Sure, we get a few quick flashes and a couple of \"bathing in the creek\" scenes. But where's the sex? How can you have four girls, \"sorority girls\" no less, in this type of movie with only one, pitiful 5 second lesbian scene? Good night, USA Up All Night provides more titillation! Look, we don't watch this type of movie for great cinematography, screenwriting or action. We want to see some kink! What a letdown.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bare Wench is another softcore parody of the Blair Witch project (I think there's about two dozen of those things out there). It has 5 very attractive women (which includes Nikki Fritz, Julie Smith, and Julie Strain), and one dorky guy whose only purpose is to provide comic relief.

Okay, so I'm thinking \"Cool. Great looking women, having softcore lesbian sex with each other very 10 minutes or so. This should be real good.\"

Unfortunately, the producers blew it. There is nothing in this video that actually qualifies as a sex scene. There's a couple of false starts, but the majority of the action is just the women posing for the camera. I guess once the producers had spent their money on the women, and spent more getting them to remove their clothes, they didn't have any money left to get them to actually do anything. And I guess they also used up all their alloted nudity time too early, because towards the end of the video, there is a huge amount of pointless dialogue that is obviously being used for no other reason than to pad out the run time. \"You're a liar! No you are! You go into the cave! No you go! I think we should go home! Well, I don't!\" This goes on and on and on forever.

There's way better stuff than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can you say about a film that makes \"The Erotic Witch Project\" look like \"The English Patient.\" Again, the plot and characters are secondary, but the plot is almost an exact copy of \"TEWP.\"

Four buxom sorority sisters and a goofy male guide enter a forest to look for the bare wench, and the women become sexually charged. The bare wench leaves porno devices and a blow up doll, just like in \"TEWP.\" They get lost, the doofus gets lost, and the girls find their way back to their hotel. There they reenact the end of \"The Blair Witch Project,\" as cameras are dropped and the guide is seen playing hopscotch, a game integral to the thin plot.

At least three of the sorority sisters here have unnaturally large breasts full of dimples and stretch marks, along with the rather obvious surgery scars. The one \"natural\" gal here is humiliated by the director. In a very unfunny, and overlong, end credit segment, outtake scenes where she could not get a line right is played over and over again ad nauseum.

Julie Strain shows up in a fright wig to play the bare wench. This one scene seems to be added later, since no one could possibly be credited in the cast with shooting it. In the background, as the women cavort and stroke, you can see someone's picket fence. This may be director Jim Wynorski's backyard.

This is just bad stuff. The lesbian love scenes are kelvin degrees cooler than \"The Erotic Witch Project''s. Most of the lovin' consists of the four women mashing their eight collective breasts together. I think they are trying to form a silicone based lifeform that would rescue them from this bad career decision. No such luck. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then the makers of \"The Blair Witch Project\" should be really really mad.

This is unrated, and contains mild physical violence, strong profanity, female nudity, sexual content, and sexual references.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Looking all of 29 years old, Rob Lowe is a detective in charge of a murder investigation.

When the husband of a society woman (Leslie Hope) is found dead, police suspect the rich chick might have something to do with it. Enter Rob who immediately falls for the pretty widow even though he claims that he's just trying to be 'helpful'. Rob is such a good cop, he is able to sneak some of her incriminating love letters into his coat pocket before he accidentally throws them into the fireplace. Monotonous murky drama with an endless drone of background music.

This is a good substitute sleeping remedy if you've run out of Sominex.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is exactly the same as Ridley Scott's, \"Someone To Watch Over Me\", which is a classic. It stars Tom Berenger and Mimi Rogers and the bad guy from the Fugitive. It's a quality movie, with good direction and great acting. This movie is the polar opposite. It's the same plot, just minus any good acting and adding TV movie direction. I do have to say I like the interaction between Lowe and the woman. She's hot and their romance is believable on many levels. Unfortunately, that alone cannot save this carbon copy of the classic Ridley Scott film.

Usually crappy TV movies have some redeeming quality that makes them watchable at the very least. I think for me, this film's redeeming value is that Rob Lowe and the lead female have chemistry. That and I was able to watch and compare the plot to another quality film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There was absolutely nothing in this film that hadn't been done better in a hundred other films. It was barely worth the trouble of watching through to the end. Even the bad language sounded tired. Tom McCamus, a very fine actor, was particularly disappointing here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Orson Welles' 1974 documentary \"F for Fake\" examines trickery and fraud, mainly focusing on two men who have been exposed as frauds themselves. Clifford Irving is a biographer who wrote the allegedly fraudulent Howard Hughes autobiography, yet, at least it seems, purports his innocence. The other main subject of the film is artist Elmyr de Hory, a man who has spent his life painting fakes of famous masterpieces, sometimes selling them to museums as real works by the original artists. Interspersed among these stories are bits where Welles does magic tricks to illustrate points, etc., and he also addresses the fact that his career began as a fraud when he first lied on his resume and then created a radio sensation with \"War of the Worlds\".

I really wanted to love this film and find it profound since I am such a Welles devotee, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Part of the problem lied with the fact that it was not just non-linear, it was completely scattered. While I appreciate stylish editing and quick jumps and zooms, particularly when used in an unusual format such as a documentary, there was simply too much of it going on in \"F for Fake\". They created a distraction as opposed to lending style. If the story had been more clear and comprehensive, I think that the editing probably would not have been as annoying. The scattered storytelling was made all the more obnoxious by the fact that these were truly interesting subjects, particularly Elmyr de Hory. His artistic fakery brings up the topic of fraud in the art world, and who is truly able to determine the authenticity of certain works; and if the works are not authentic, what does it say about those who admire the pieces in museums? This is one documentary that I would say to at least give a shot, but don't be afraid to turn it off if you're not enjoying it. It is certainly the most discombobulated documentary I have ever seen; it is a cross between a documentary, an art film and experimental film, none of which is properly represented or isolated. I don't have any lesser opinion of Welles after seeing it, but it certainly, in my opinion, doesn't stand out as a glowing specimen in his oeuvre. 4\/10 --Shelly","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"that Welles said was that he's been in decline his whole career.

There was an interesting story here. Unfortunately, Welles seemed completely incapable of telling it. Instead, he was trying to tell a bunch of different stories, about Elmyr, about Clifford Irving, about his pompous view of critics and experts, oh, yeah, and trying to jump start his current girlfriend's career by giving her unneeded screen time. (Oja, honey, when they told you to sleep with the director, they didn't mean one washed up like a whale on a beach!)

Welles was probably trying to cash in with a bunch of footage of Clifford Irving as Irving was becoming a household name with his role in the faked auto-biography of Howard Hughes. Unfortunately, it means the subject of his film, Elmyr, didn't get the time he deserved and he was probably the more interesting story.

The great tragedy of Orson Welles was that he peaked early, and then spent the rest of his career sputtering, finally doing wine commercials and awful documentaries...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I typed Savage Intruder into the IMDb's search engine one of the options it came up with was Savage Garden: International Video Collection: The Story so Far (1999), the only reason I mention this is because I'm a huge Savage Garden fan & you should do yourself a favour & check some of their music out like Affirmation or To the Moon and Back rather than bother with this average pot-boiler, sorry I just wanted to say that. Anyway, Savage Intruder starts with a bizarre montage of what looks like MGM musical & premiere footage & a few spinning portraits which have no meaning whatsoever in the long run. It's late 60's Hollywood & amid the glitz & glamour a serial killer is at work selecting ageing actresses, killing them & dismembering their bodies. A young man named Vic Valance (David Garfield as John David Garfield) hops off a tour bus looking for employment when it stops at the house of a now retired actress, Katharine Parker (Miriam Hopkins) who was 'one of the biggest stars of the motion picture' but now lives in a big house with an elderly housekeeper named Mildred (Florence Lake), a personal secretary Leslie Blair (Gale Sondergaard) & a young maid named Geta (Virginia Wing). Katharine has recently broken her foot & needs a personal assistant & gives Vic the job. Slowly Vic charms his way into Katharine's affections & more importantly her large wallet. Vic starts to turn Katharine against the other employees, but Vic isn't what he seems. Vic is a drug addicted loon who gets Greta pregnant while still having sex with Katharine. Greta threatens to tell Katharine & spoil Vic's devious plans but she has a close encounter with an axe, no one in the house is safe as Vic brings drugs, sex, rock 'n' roll party's & gardening to the Parker mansion while his sinister plan starts to become more & more apparent...

Written, produced & directed by Donald Wolfe I thought Savage Intruder was a bit of a mess but a mildly entertaining one at the same time. The script is all over the place & it can't really decide what it wants to be, Savage Intruder suffers from an identity crisis! The film starts with the discovery of a severed head & limbs, straight after another woman (Dorothy Kingston) is killed by a mysterious unidentified figure but then it completely ditches the slasher film elements that it has just built up never going back to them. Savage Intruder then becomes a sort of feel good film as Vic befriends Katharine & shows her how to enjoy life again & having an implied sexual relationship with her, it's actually disgusting to think about as she's old enough to be his Grandmother. Katharine stops living the life of a recluse & gives up the alcohol as Vic appears to make her happy as they go to party's together & hold banquets for Katharine's friend like she used too. This part of Savage Intruder wouldn't look out of place in a Disney film! Every so often the tedium of the feel good stuff is interrupted by Vic shooting up & having silly hallucinations about his Mother (Sybelle Guardino) & chopping her hand off with an axe, he has sex with Great at one point as well. Then, after Greta has been murdered, Savage Intruder becomes a bizarre horror film as Vic is revealed for the loony that he is. Savage Intruder just doesn't flow properly as a film in my opinion as it mixes various genres with little success. Similarly the murder mystery elements don't work & are frankly a bit of a puzzle, why go to great lengths to conceal the killers identity during the murder scenes but then make it perfectly clear who is committing them throughout the rest of the film anyway? Vic as a character didn't work for me either, one moment he's a cool, calm, clever & devious con man & then next he's a stark raving loony! Why kill all his other victims but with Katharine try to con her? What makes her so different? If it is because she has money why not go after her to start with? So many questions & so few answers... Some of the 60's dialogue is pretty funny to listen to these days like when Vic offers Greta a painkiller, in reality hard drugs, & Greta says \"what do I need a painkiller for?\", Vic helpfully replies \"because your a pain\" wow this guy knows how to charm the ladies! Or when Katharine suggests that Vic do some gardening & ask's \"do you have green fingers?\" he replies \"no, but I'm good at grass!\" There isn't much gore in Savage Intruder, some severed limbs & a couple of decapitated heads. There is also a fairly impressive shot when someone has their hand cut off with an axe which is probably why it's repeated three or four times. The silly looking drug hallucination scenes need to be seen to be believed. Technically Savage Intruder is OK, the location filming in the grandiose mansion & Hollywood hills probably give it a better look than it deserves, the acting is average as is the rest of the production. Overall I'd say Savage Intruder feels like it tries to be a murder mystery that unfortunately gives the killer away & as a result just doesn't work. It's a mildly entertaining one-time-watch at best & a complete mess of a film at worse, you decide which!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Every once in awhile I'll remember that I've actually seen this bizarre fiasco that's a cross between \"Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?\", \"Sunset Boulevard,\" the Lana Turner LSD movie \"The Big Cube\" and the Manson murders, which also took place in 1969 but maybe before this so-called \"movie\" was made! There are some descriptions of the plot already here, so I won't go into it. But it's worth noting that Miriam Hopkins plays a parody of herself: a chattering, ego-maniacal, fading actress. Perhaps she thought she was making a movie that would be as successful as one of the Bette Davis horrors. The old gal Hopkins never stopped working, so you have to hand it to her. She shows a little too much flesh in this movie, something Davis and Crawford would never have done. And there's a scene with Miriam in the actual tacky Hollywood Boulevard Christmas parade, which must have been filmed Xmas, 1968.

Gale Sondergard is old, old, old. It's just shocking how wrinkled and awful she looks. John Garfield, Jr. looks a bit like his father, but not as interesting. I think one of the Three Stooges is the tour guide at the beginning. If it's not one of the Stooges, it's somebody.

I was astounded to come across this thing in the form of a commercial videotape given to me by a friend who knows all about junk like this. It's amazing!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the brilliant mind that brought us \"The Exorcist\"...and \"Cruising.\" \"Rampage\" is unfortunately more like the latter. It's an overall messy movie that has a major made-for-TV vibe going for it. The whole film pretends to hinge on the question, \"What if the 'Boy Next Door' was a serial killer?\" but instead it winds up being an uninspired courtroom drama and meditation on the the insanity plea and death penalty that makes little sense. The movie is very loosely based on the Richard Trenton Chase case, culling a few facts here and there to make a fake character and a different outcome. One of the main points of the film seems to be that ending the life of a terminally braindead child and ending the life of a murderer are somehow analagous. \"Sometimes you just have to choose,\" says the lead character. Yeah, sometimes you have to choose to pull the plug...on your TV!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man this thing bites! I am sorry I ever sat down and watched it! Friedkin was insane for making a film attempting to win over the viewers sympathy for this lunatic If it were up to me I'd have made the audience hate that low life instead of getting all misty eyed over him! He killed people! Quite grizzly I might add too! And Friedkin wants you to feel sorry for him because he's \"not right\"! I say Friedkin can forget it! I hate the guy this movie is partly based on and hope they did wise up and give his sorry butt the juice!!! In a nut shell, don't waste your time! It's sick and perverse!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first heared that there was going to be The World is not Enough video game for the Nintendo 64, I was so excited. When it finally came out, I was one of the first ones to rent it. I rented it for 7 days, and I got through the whole game!!! The game was to easy and gave out too much hints. A majour dissapointing sequel to GoldenEye. Take my advice and DO NOT RENT THIS GAME.

Sure the guns and gadgets are cool, but one gets tired of a watch lazer that looks like it was taken right from GoldenEye with the exception of being a red color instead of a blue color, a poor excuse for a dart gun, horrible stunner and a stupid grapple hook that can only attach itself to things that are yellow and black.

I think that RARE should of made this game instead of EA who should stick to games there good at making, like sport games and should stear clear of first person shooters and let the masters do the work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"when i first read about \"berlin am meer\" i didn't expect much. but i thought with the right people, the right locations, the right music and fashion you could at least make a trivial movie about the hip berlin everyone seems to be talking about. but eissler failed, it's so ridiculously unauthentic. it's a complete misrepresentation of what it is going on in berlin's so called scene. of course it's not all about hippness, but you should expect more from a movie that's being sold as \"the definite berlin movie\".

and apart from all the credibility stuff, it really is a bad movie. mediocre acting and a rather boring plot. interestingly some of the actors have proved in other movies that they are actually quite talented. so it really must be poor directing skills.

don't bother watching \"berlin am meer\" unless you are 17, come from some small town in western Germany and want to move to the big city after you finished school. then you might actually find it enjoyable and totally cool.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was prepared for a bad movie, and a bad movie it is, so I guess I shouldn't complain. Twentysomething Tom (gay poster boy Robert Stadlober) has so many issues he doesn't know if he's coming or going. I wouldn't have stayed but for the pretty girls: Serious Mavie (Anna Br\u00fcggemann); no-nonsense Angie (Emma Daubas); Sarah Baumann as the star of the movie within the movie. And then there's Tom's soul mate, wild-eyed Margarete (Jana Pallaske). She reminds me of B\u00e9atrice Dalle and Gina Gershon. If you've got to remember, these are fine memories. She looks good even in the most ridiculous outfits, and I mean ridiculous, even by Berlin standards. I wonder whether I'd have liked this movie when I was the characters' age. My guess is I wouldn't. Watch out for indie idols Oli Schulz and Max Schr\u00f6der of \"Der Hund Marie\" performing as street musicians, feeling no pain.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While I have seen and enjoyed similar movies to this one that were silent films about the Russian Revolution, such as POTEMKIN and TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD, I did not particularly enjoy this one. This was mostly due to the annoying and \"artsy\" way that the director chose to shoot the film. While POTEMKIN excelled in its editing style, this movie used similar techniques with a lot less finesse--in some places, the editing seemed very choppy and amateurish. Plus, and this was truly annoying, the use of zombies throughout the beginning of the film and late in the film really was over-the-top. What I mean by \"zombies\" is that to illustrate just how depressed and oppressed the Ukranian peasants were, the people stand like mannequins in many scenes. And, they stand like this, unmoving, for a VERY long period of time, while the \"evil\" Capitalists and exploiters of the masses walk by. Gimme a break! This movie is a wonderful example of style over substance--and it's only a movie for those who enjoy or can overlook the overindulgent direction.

By the way, the DVD for this film is improved, somewhat, if you leave the audio commentary on. This makes the movie easier to follow and gives a few interesting insights.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film itself is only a compilation of scenes which have no inherent meaning to someone living outside of Russia. I won't deny that some of the images and techniques were quite revolutionary at the time (filmed 1928) but the problem with the film is that it has no interest to the intellectual or common man. We are merely watching an arranged form of pictures, ranging from a one arm man beating a horse, to a toothless soldier in the war. Everything in between is awkward, haphazard and quite unnecessary. It would have been possible to invent a forum which kept the viewer interested but this would not be it although the method of the director is quite brilliant.

In all, one should view this if they are an art student, on hallucinogenic drugs, or a student of pre-Tarkovskian cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a very nice concert by the one and only MJ. The choreography was excellent and the costumes were decent. The vocals were okay. i have to admit that his vocals were crap on Human Nature and Billie Jean. You couldn't hear him half the time. The other songs make up for the singing. The Highlights of the show are: Jam Smooth Criminal I Just Can't Stop Loving You She's Out Of My Life Thriller Billie Jean (The Dancing Not The Singing) Black or White Man in the Mirror The concert was almost perfect. If it was anybody but Mj it would have been a 9. It is a must see. I wish I was born then so I could have gotten a ticket to the best concert of 1992.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is the 1990's TV show,not the movie from 1979.it looks to be three episodes totaling just under 90 minutes.before watching,i thought it was one of the movie versions,and i noticed right away,it had a TV show Feel to it.i didn't care for it too much.i just felt the story wasn't there,and there wasn't much in the way of excitement or drama.i was looking at the time elapsed on my DVD player frequently,as i was really bored.i also thought some of the dialogue was,to put it politely,not good.plus, i thought the acting left a lot to be desired. but that's just me however,it is good clean,wholesome family entertainment.there's certainly nothing offensive here.kids will likely enjoy it.for me,The Black Stallion is 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"River Queen attempts to pack a complicated, sweeping, historical narrative into just under two hours. There are some breathtaking battle scenes and the Wanganui scenery is beautifully captured. However, the film did suffer from some poor leads - Samantha Morton (Sarah) especially came across as unconvincing. There seemed to be an indecisiveness about how the role should be played - as a helpless waif tossed by fate or as a strong, determined character with a clear view of her destiny. Kiefer Sutherland's character - Private Doyle - seemed to be pointless and for the most part - unintelligible. Keifer's Irish brogue needs a little polishing. On the other hand, Cliff Curtis, Temuera Morrison and Rawiri Pene (as Sarah's son \"Boy\") were well rounded and believable.

The last 20 minutes of River Queen came across as particularly compressed and rushed. It seemed as if they decided they had to tie up all the loose ends before 120 minutes were up. E.g. How on earth did Wiremu know how to find Sarah and Doyle? No explanation and very unsatisfying.

I did go to this movie with an open mind. I hadn't read or heard anything much apart from its troubled production. What I experienced was a mish mash of New Zealand history, beautifully photographed but ultimately disappointing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As the above suggests, I was ultimately unimpressed with this movie. It is lovely to look at, the scenery is lush, but the detail of the story, in particular the characters, are totally unbelievable. Films don't have to be believable, but films like this, with a political edge and social commentary do.

Similarly, I have no problem with commercialism as such, but once again, films like this shouldn't be making casting decisions purely based on box office draw. This is absolutely the case with Sutherland, who is frankly rubbish as Doyle. His accent was far from authentic, but he fell into the biggest trap of all, his accent IS his performance, and we end up with a caricature of Irishness with no personality outside of his nationality. I find it totally implausible that anyone involved thought he was the best man for the job. All in all, this is a clear case of commercial interest over quality and when you're trying to be The Mission, this kind of thing wrecks your chances of success.

Speaking of accents, there were a couple more problems, one being the striking modernity of Boy's accent which acted to dispel the feeling of being transported to another time. More surprising was Samantha Morton's much lauded Irish accent, which was variable to say the least. Her voice meandered between strong north and soft south, even in the voice-overs, where I would've expected any such discrepancies to be picked up.

However, these are minor gripes compared to the motivation and actions of Sarah. She never seems at home with the English, and almost instantly at home with her son and his tribe, the dilemma between the life she knew and the life she if offered just seems like a no-brainer. Perhaps a lot has been lost in editing, perhaps this was meant to be a three hour film or a mini series where these things could've been fleshed out, but I can only judge what I've seen.

Now the biggest problem, Sarah's (Morton) relationship with Doyle (Sutherland) is incomprehensible. The fact is that her affection for him is not conveyed in any way until her having to choose between him and her son, the conflict she goes through at this point was frankly ridiculous and killed the movie for me.

As you may have guessed. this movie didn't work at all for me, but it is top notch to look at, you really won't see anything more stunning in terms of scenery, there are some good performances and my wife liked it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Set in the mid 1800's when the British is clearing New Zealand outback wilderness to establish colonies. The daughter of a British army surgeon, Sarah(Samantha Morton), falls in love with the son of one of the Maori leaders. The Maori is an indigenous tribe and a dangerous people for the Europeans to deal with. By the time Sarah's child, which she calls \"Boy\", is born, his father is dead. By the age of six, \"Boy\" is kidnapped by his father's family and Sarah will begin her search for him with a man(Kiefer Sutherland),who is deeply in love with her.

Two-time Oscar nominee Morton is definitely the star of this movie. Sutherland is a total waste. Also starring are: Cliff Curtis, Stephen Rea, Temuera Morrison and David Rawiri Pene. This movie is rated R for some sexual content and violent battle scenes. I find the title RIVER QUEEN very misleading and the DVD cover with Sutherland only and making you believe he is the leading star should be a crime.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Reading through most of the other reviews, I tend to agree with most of the comments. The one thing that I would add is the disjointed way the movie has been Directed and Produced. I think that some of these new wave movie makers think that they are being clever using unusual (sometimes jerky) camera angles, and flitting from one scene to another. It goes down well with these movie festivals, and with some of these Indie type critics, but it spoils the movie for me. I noticed in the reviews, one comment saying that none of this movie makers films have become blockbusters. This would maybe prove my point, as the film has that 'rushed to finish' feeling that makes you wonder why such a beautiful film appears to be lacking a smooth flow. As for the comment about Kiefer Sutherland being a big name to put on the poster, I would bet he cringed when watching the final cut. This is a story with real potential, spoilt by trying to be different in it's production. Worth watching, but not many would come back for a second view.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With an interesting premise (in the conflicts between Europeans and indigenous peoples sometimes the battle lines were not so clear), this should have been a good film. But the story is sabotaged by the director's overriding infatuation with his own cleverness twinned with a very poor script.

Yes, the natural setting is beautiful and, yes, the movie is authentic to its 19th century historical setting. But the filmmaker keeps gilding the lily over and over again, adding layer upon layer of over-the-top musical accompaniment, not to mention a completely unnecessary voice-over, to the soundtrack, that ultimately overwhelm the viewer and, by calling attention to themselves, take away from the story.

To me, it was clear the director, with his microscopic closeups and the endless recurrence of the musical motif of \"Danny Boy\" (of all things!) was trying to make a New Zealand version of an epic Sergio Leone film, something on the order of Once Upon A Time In The West. But given the earnestness of the story (most of Leone's westerns were tongue-in-cheek), not to mention that it's no longer 1968, he succeeds in making a parody of one.

Too bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was one of the dullest movies I have seen in some time. I'm in my late 40s, and watched it with my son-in-law (early 20s) and son (17). The scenery was beautiful, but the story was a bust. We watched about an hour of it and turned it off. I spent more time on my iphone during the hour that we watched it than I spent actually watching the movie. I gave it a 3 because I enjoyed the scenery and cinematography; otherwise I would have given it a 1. I'm sure there are people who are really into the \"art\" of it all who will find my review appalling but we're all entitled to our own opinions, right? I couldn't figure out if this was supposed to be a \"chick flick\" where the focus was on the mother, or if it was supposed to be a movie for guys, with the focus on battle and adventure. In my opinion, it didn't succeed in either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A good example of reversed, politically correct racism where white men are presented as senseless brutes who're only there to be massacred and their aboriginal adversaries as noble heroes, superior both in their appearance and abilities. Apart from making the story overally dull, this also prevents the neutral viewer to identify himself with one or the other side - it's just too simplifying. The repetitive score is incredibly annoying (as is the voice-over), the characters lack any depth and the viewer is soon lost between questions like \"who is this character\" and \"what the hell is that supposed to mean\". Photography is wonderful, though, and on the whole there's a lot of atmosphere to it but nice shots of misty landscapes alone don't save this movie. The DVD box uses Kiefer Sutherland as an eye-catcher. In fact, his character could have been played by anyone else because it's basically just an empty shell (like most non-Maori characters), and disappears anyway around halfway the film. But if you are eager to see Jack Bauer in a kilt, that's your kind of movie...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was really looking forward to this movie but sadly it didn't live up to expectation.

A good movie has the audience identifying\/empathising\/sympathising with the main actor. Unfortunately this was very hard to do with Samantha Morton.

The storyline seemed very disjointed and didn't flow as it should\/could have done.

Keifer Sutherland appeared to be little more than window dressing and made me wonder why he agreed to play what appeared to be a bit part. Beautiful scenery and the acting of Tem Morrison and Cliff Curtis was about the only plus.

Maybe by being a kiwi I set the bar higher for locally made films. Maybe the change of director\/ supposedly hard to work with main actor has biased my opinion.

Maybe I'm just trying to make excuses for a movie which could have been great.

A lot of maybes which still does not explain why this movie just lacked anything special.

It could have been great, it wasn't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wait... wait... wait... wait... wait... wait..... WHAT!? This movie is terrible, absolutely terrible. 1. The only reason Kiefer Sutherland is on the cover is to sell it to Kiefer fans, only to have their hearts broken. He kills one guy, gets shot, and dies before half the movie is over, not to mention he was only in the first 10 min and then disappeared until the point which he died...WHY put him on the cover if his character BLOWS. 2. Where are the EPIC battle scenes promised in the preview on the back cover? 3. It was way too confusing, i mean whats up with the girl? She had to narrate the movie to TRY to get our attention, she failed! 4. If Kiefer dies in a movie..... it fails. Now I am going to go watch 24..... THIS MOVIE FAILS!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For weeks I had been looking forward to seeing this movie only to find myself hugely disappointed after wards. In my opinion, the only good thing 'River Queen' had going for it was the amazing scenery used as backgrounds. The story line was all over the place, Samantha's character Sarah was very difficult to understand and what on earth were all the many close ups of her face for? It brought absolutely nothing to the story-if there was one at all!A better actor for the part of Boy could also have been selected, to me it sounded like he read his lines straight of the script while shooting his scenes.Overall, a real shame as it could have been such a good movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far one the most boring movies I've ever seen! And if you don't believe me go ahead and watch it for yourself.

The movie starts of slow, the storyline makes no sense at all. People fighting doesn't make any sense. I could not make sense of what they were talking during the movie (in most cases I didn't even bother) It does nothing to keep you watching the movie, the only plus point would be the cinematography. New Zealand looks awesome. Everything else just plain sucks.

The actors try their best to keep us awake, but unfortunately you will go to sleep instead.

Do us all a favor, even if this gets on \"On Demand\", Don't WATCH IT!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"wow, i just got one watching this.

How CRAPPY post production is on this movie.

I kid you not, I literally could've done a better job myself.

ALL of post production is flawed, all of it. Whoever cut this film should be banned from the film industry.

That aside, the script was a trainwreck. absolute rubish.

Not to mention Jack Bauer and his Patchy the Pirate in Spongebob accent. WTF is his character doing there? But to me, the biggest flaw of all was character development, intereaction, dynamics, dialogue. WOW. I cant believe how bad it was.

I give this movie a 2 out of 10. 1 for Samantha, who is a great actress, too bad the production made everyone look like amateurs out there.

the other 1 goes to cinematography, which was indeed good.

Other then that my friend, this is one bad movie.

I don't even feel like making an elaborate post on this, it was just horrible production. Poor actors, didn't know what they were getting into...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"River Queen's sound recordist should have been fired, in this day and age there is no excuse for poor recording on the set. Mumbling voices was the end result, and the cinematography was average to fair at best. The story had potential and I feel sorry for the overseas actors who must have known they were on a turkey shoot while they were filming. Its obvious that the movie was suffering from el cheapo budget syndrome, and the scene where Temuera is procreating inside the house while a battle rages outside is just too stupid for words.

I noticed a few shortcuts taken on the Maori protocol side of things, but this was probably due to movie length time restraints etc. All in all I wasn't impressed with this movie, the Whanganui river has many beautiful spots but this movie gives us a cold, drab and claustrophobic image, with none of the beauty. The movie needed more sunshine and better camera angles, less on screen confusion, better sound recording, and more thought needed to be put into what the movie goers would be seeing on the big screen.

Hats off to all involved though for completing what must have been a very difficult shoo. I have the utmost appreciation for anyone who can make a feature film, sadly I did not enjoy this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Apart from the beautiful imagery thanks to New Zealand cinematographer Alun Bollinger, this film is not worth seeing.

The storyline is so fragmented and lost that it's hard to know what is going on at any given time, and just when you think you're following then the direction changes again, like a lost bi-polar puppy dog.

The musical score is awful, relying too heavily on extremely emotive pieces that try to force the audience into feeling a certain way, as if the instruments were acting as an emotions queue sheet \u0097 'feel sad here'; 'feel shocked here'; 'feel scared here'. On top of that, the repetitive samples used over and over again leave the audience on the verge of laughter.

Gone are the days of silent film, where musical instruments were the sole portrayal of voice \u0097 but you wouldn't think so while watching River Queen.

The voice-over was so over-utilised that one has to wonder if this film really even needed any accompanying imagery. It could have easily been a radio play although even then it would be hard to follow the story.

And the stolen ideas from Jane Campion's The Piano are too obvious to overlook. Not only are the beach and forest shots almost identical to those in The Piano \u0097 perhaps some of this comes down to Alun Bollinger's camera work on the latter \u0097 but the voice-over feeling and levels too are strikingly close. And who could forget when Holly Hunter's character has her wings clipped, in the form of her index finger being cut off by Sam Neill. Does it remind you of when Wiremu has his 'trigger finger' amputated, and surprisingly too with an axe? I thought so.

All in all I cannot recommend this film for viewing, unless you wear some ear-muffs and just go with the scenery in mind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**Warning - this review may contain spoilers **

The idea behind the character of Danny (Jet Li) is a good one - young boy is taken by hoodlum and raised to behave like a vicious pitbull, controlled mainly by whether his collar is on or off his neck.

However, the writer did not know how to deliver this idea within the constraints of believability.

He has Danny meeting a blind pianist, Sam (Morgan Freeman), who has to be the most trusting fool a man ever was - along with his nit-wit, endlessly babbling, rather unattractive step-daughter, Victoria (Kerry Condon). I was stunned, by the way, when I learned Victoria was supposed to be 18 - she looked 25 or 30 to me.

Amazingly there is no romance between Danny and Victoria.

When Danny turns up again, wounded, what does Sam do but take him straight home. Danny is out for 2 days, but do these nit-wits take him to a hospital? Nooooo. I don't know if they even called in a doctor.

Now Danny is obviously not a mentally stable person, this is apparent from the get-go, yet Sam takes him into his home, where both he and his step-daughter could have been seriously harmed or even killed by this rather strange, young man.

Why Morgan Freeman took this insipid role in this asinine film I can't even begin to guess. Surely Mr. Freeman is not that desperate for a paycheck.

Then we have Bob Hoskins as Bart, the gangster who \"owns\" Danny - now you talk about a son of a gun that's hard to kill. The car Bart is in gets riddled with bullets that would have rivaled Bonnie and Clyde's demise. We think he's dead, but no.

Then we have another car accident - and yet again, ol' Bart escapes unscathed.

In addition to that, we also have Danny fighting half a dozen tough guys at a time, plus a scene where Danny has decided he doesn't want to fight any more. I don't care how much a person doesn't want to fight, when it is down to the wire of you fight or you die, I think anyone would fight.

As I said in the subject heading - this film is about 40 miles outside the boundary of reality as we have come to know it. It's not just a case of suspending belief - it's completely beyond that.

Furthermore I never did understand why Danny's mother who turns out to be a nice lady, rather than the prostitute Bart claimed she is, became mixed up with Bart and his gang and got shot. Maybe that was my fault, I got distracted right about the time that scene came on--but it seemed highly unlikely she and Bart would have ever crossed paths.

4 stars out of 10 - and that's being generous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I though that it was hard, if not impossible, to watch, and not because of the horrors it depicts but by the way they were depicted. Imagine what Costa Gavras could have done with this true horror story. What I object to is the idea the need to denounce, which I subscribe to, is enough. What about showing it to us with the power of powerful cinema. I feel that the eagerness of the filmmaker, maybe even the justifiable anger, didn't allow him to see it clearly from a cinematic point of view. Or, if this was a cinematic point of view, I mean, a choice, then, I didn't like it at all. I was more disturbed by the way the movie was shot than by the movie itself. Well intentioned I'm sure, but, unfortunately, that's not nearly enough.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It may have been thrilling for an audience in 1946, but the movie is now a bit boring. I had a hard time sitting through the whole thing, and it was very predictable: I mean, we know from the beginning of the movie that Welles is the nazi war criminal, and I'll give you one guess as to whether he is caught and appropriately punished in the end.

Not worth watching. It's sad that Welles only made three movies worth seeing in his long career: Kane, Ambersons, and A Touch of Evil.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the award that made me lose all respects for the Hugos.

If such a \"distinguished\" panel can't see or care about the obvious story-telling problems of Battlestar Galactica, then what worth is their award? The answer: not much.

Award-winning shows should be examples of creativity and excellence, neither of which are in evidence in BG, in this episode or any other that I've seen.

Shooting in drab video is not \"artistic\", it's just cheap. Shaking the camera is not \"creative\" it's vomit-inducing and lazy as can be.

All BG has shown is how corrupt most award-giving \"academies\" really are and how easy it is to buy awards with a lot of PR money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Frankly I'm amazed to see that this movie is getting relatively good reviews. I'll be completely honest and say that the only reason I even got through it is because of Ryan Phillippe, and not for reasons particularly connected with his abilities as an actor, though I think over the last years he has proved himself to be a better actor than his first major roles in the late 1990's indicated.

As far as action\/suspense movies go, this movie fails in nearly every respect. The acting is OK, I guess, but the script is absolutely horrible and makes very little sense, a fact which the filmmakers try to cover up by adding absurd references to Chaos theory, as if it would convince anyone that the film is actually 'clever' - but then again, judging from other reviews, some were. Don't be fooled: the script is a boring, derivative mess and no other element of the movie makes up for it. Wesley Snipes has probably never had a less interesting role in a film, and Statham is a thoroughly dull actor.

Not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"those people,who told me\"this movie is good\"-shame on them!this film is for an audience,who has no problem to watch everything{especially when it's all about tough guys,guns,chasing&heists}.i 'd compare this movie with\"The Inside Man\"{the same loss of time}. i'm tired of copy and paste movies.and i'm discontented,but what can i do?fans of that types of movies are much more.... if you want to watch good movie from that type ,i will recommend to you \"Lucky Number Slevin\". i'm not mean, i just dislike this movie{weak actors,weak script,weak action}.probably someone else will like it.many people-many tastes.HOWEVER FOR ME\"CHAOS\"IS TASTELESS!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seeing the names of the starring actors (Statham, Snipes and Phillippe) I thought that the movie should at least be decently funny or interesting. Instead all I got from it was not just boring 92 minutes, but the frustration of knowing everything that was about to happen, and hearing tons of lame and shabby \"bad cop\" phrases.

The main problem is that the movie doesn't have a good story to begin with. And when you have that, than no one can help you, not Statham, not Wesley Snipes...not even John McClane could save this movie :-) It could be cool for the kids, if they aren't over 12 years of age, because they don't care so much about the story, and there are some big explosions in the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this because of snipes \/ statham, but honestly, Chaos is terrible. This movie has absolutely nothing going for it - it should not have been made.

Don't read this review if you don't want to read spoilers, cause I'm going to address a lot of plot-holes here.

First of all - the opening scene. It's the great big event that made the two semi-lead characters (Statham and Snipes) turn crooked. But it's boring and mundane. Only at the very end we get to see what really happened and by the time you won't care anymore. Also - this whole event, where one bad guy and his hostage get killed is hardly big enough news to fill hundreds of newspaper articles, as referred to in the movie.

Then the bank job - it doesn't get off the ground for any second. The bank robber makes some un-needed references to chaos theory (which has NOTHING to do with the whole story, by the way). The way Statham gets summoned is very 'Die Hard With a Vengeance', but more boring. Then the things that happen in the bank are strange and pointless. -What's with the safety deposit box. There seems to be some plot unfolding there, but then, it doesn't. -Why go through the trouble of stringing up two people, when it leads to nothing? It involves a lot of preparation and it's used for nothing at all! -Why doesn't the SWAT leader listen to the officer in charge when he tells them to stand down?

And this is only the first 10 minutes. It keeps getting worse and worse.

-The whole romantic \/ love interest story (with the 'he wasn't just a better cop, he was a better man' remark to finish it of) is painful to watch. It's just pointless -Why would Statham's character point out the change in camera position in the footage reviewed from the bank. This essentially leads to finding the 'virus' that will get him all the money. -Why go through the trouble of forging some guys signature and killing him, but then NOT kill the guy that can identify you.

I could go on for ages (really), but it's like this movie is... pointless. The whole script is a mess. The 'smart' references to chaos theory are really laughable and quite pathetic. The plot 'twists' can be seen from miles away and the lead characters seem to be making mistakes all the time. It is really painful to watch a movie like this, where the audience is taken for granted as dumb popcorn crunching people, of which the director hopes they won't see all the plot holes and the over-all ridiculous script. The 'explanation scene' at the end only adds to insult. It is really, really not a good movie. In any way.

People who come to see an action film don't get what they come for. People who come to see a cop-buddy movie don't get it. People who come to see a smart thriller don't get that. In essence, everyone gets the same - a huge disappointment and a waste of time and money. Do yourself a favor and skip this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Obvious tailored vehicle for Ryan Philippe. It seem the studios were hoping he could play a lead tough cop and not look like he's eternally 16 (he can't).

Heavyweights Jason Statham and Welsey Snipes serve as bookends to Phillippe, but when they're not on the screen Phillippe flounders; his shallow acting style has nothing to bounce off of.

The script is a typical late 20th century potboiler good cop\/bad cop with a ridiculously predictable plot and dialogue lifted out of 1970s TV cop shows, such as \"The Streets of San Francisco.\" Snipes reprises his role as the eternal black-hat villain, playing a slightly less crazed madman than his Demolition Man role. However, there wasn't much for Snipes and Statham to chew on. Statham's character announces he'd given up nicotine and caffeine - something this movie badly needed injections of.

Truly forgettable moment: Ryan Phillippe expounding on Buddhist dogma: Galloway: Are you a Buddhist? Dekker: No. It's just something I picked up along the way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have just watched this movie on DVD late this morning and was so disappointed that even thought it was a good joke for the audience. In other words - the creators planed to make comedy not drama. Howsoever, at the end I realized that Mr. Tony Giglio was earnest about this movie. It's a pity because: the dialogue is ridiculous, the acting is poor and lifeless, the story is a fishy tale! Poor Ryan Phillippe - despite of his efforts his character in the movie remains probably his worst performance! What to say for Jason Statham - lack of all kinds of skills to develop the role which is an imaginary fiction... For this reasons I vote: 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film \"Chaos\" takes its name from Gleick's 1988 pop science explanation of chaos theory. What does the book or anything related to the content of the book have to do with the plot of the movie \"Chaos\"? Nothing. The film makers seem to have skimmed the book (obviously without understanding a thing about it) looking for a \"theme\" to united the series of mundane action sequences that overlie the flimsy string of events that acts in place of a plot in the film. In this respect, the movie \"Choas\" resembles the Canadian effort \"Cube,\" in which prime numbers function as a device to mystify the audience so that the ridiculousness of the plot will not be noticed: in \"Cube\" a bunch of prime numbers are tossed in so that viewers will attribute their lack of understanding to lack of knowledge about primes: the same approach is taken in \"Chaos\": disconnected extracts from Gleick's books are thrown in make the doings of the bad guy in the film seem fiendishly clever. This, of course, is an insultingly condescending treatment of the audience, and any literate viewer of \"Chaos\" who can stand to sit through the entire film will end up bewildered. How could a film so bad be made? Rewritten as a novel, the story in \"Chaos\" would probably not even make it past a literary agent's secretary's desk. How could (at least) hundreds of thousands (and probably millions) of dollars have been thrown away on what can only be considered a waste of time for everyone except those who took home money from the film? Regarding what's in the movie, every performance is phoned in. Save for technical glitches, it would be astonishing if more than one take was used for any one scene. The story is uniformly senseless: the last time I saw a story to disconnected it was the production of a literal eight-year-old. Among other massive shortcomings are the following: The bad guy leaves hints for the police to follow. He has no reason whatsoever for leaving such hints. Police officers do not carry or use radios. Dupes of the bad guy have no reason to act in concert with the bad guy. Let me strongly recommend that no one watch this film. If there is any other movie you like (or even simply do not hate) watch that instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bank heist \/ Cop thriller sounds OK right?

Chaos looks good: nicely framed, good production values, high concept action heist...

But...

The plot has the unique achievement of being both smart and incredidly, blatantly implausible in the \"how we actually got the money\" mode and overcomplicated in the \"who done it and why\" section at the same time...

In addtion, Ryan Philippe shouting is NOT, seriously NOT either tough or scary...and he is especially not tough or scary when throwing a tizzy fit. Honestly, his great outburst is the only really funny scene in the whole film. Must make him thrilled that he turned down the role of Anakin Skywalker and is now doing this....

Stratham is normally good as the tough but silent hard nut with the self-deprecating humor, but here, the extra relationship lines are so laughably bad that even he looks uncomfortable saying some of the clich\u00e9d mush required. More silent seems best?

Snipes is actually OK in a typecast way, but another nail in a talented actor's coffin: he needs an actor's role not an action hero rehash. Perhaps that business with his taxes will allow him to break that mold and the public and critics will let him on the sympathy vote. It would be good if he wasn't so typecast all the time.

The lines these guys speak when they're not doing the plot development and detective work can be summed up in one word.... pheeeuuuh.

The film feels all out of whack and it never gels: I found it irritating for the first 45 minutes, and the tighter last part was passable. It should \/could have been good but it just can't redeem the awful lines, the overwhelming score, and the general level of irritation with the levels of plausibility.

Overall I nearly didn't make it through: incredibly irritating, and Ryan.... please, please, please get rid of the goldilocks....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How? I wondered why I hadn't seen this in theaters, or even a single commercial for it, and then after I saw the movie, I realized I was duped HARDCORE. I am a big Transporter fan, and a big Blade fan, so when I saw this I imagined some killer fight scene between two badasses, lots of gunplay, a whole bunch of stuff. Instead, I got the Ryan Phillippe movie with a brief cameo by Statham and Snipes. The guy that does the audio and video in the crime lab got more screen time than Wesley. It was like renting a Jackie Chan movie expecting a bunch of kung fu and getting Erin Brockavich. I expect bad movies from Hollywood, but actors like Snipes and Statham should treat the fan base better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How much can you really say about a condom with teeth? The plot was really out there, but it was something campy to see on a Friday night. The story has a lot of unexpected twists, and it's a great way to offend all you're conservative friends!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yet another \"gay\" film ruined by asinine politics. Luigi's final speech just about sent me running out of the theatre with its bumper-sticker epigrams. Read the comic book it was based on for a much more entertaining experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd love to write a little summary of this movie's plot, but...there simply isn't one! If you just take a look at the plot keywords for this title, you pretty much know the entire content of the film: sex, breasts, exploitation, female frontal nudity and women's prison! 80 minutes of pure sleaze and nothing more. \"Escape of the Island Women\" (an alternate title that isn't even listed here) clearly wanted to become another notorious and controversial woman-in-prison classic, but it totally lacks the brutality of one. WIP-flicks are meant to blend graphic sexual images with shocking violence, but the violence here has just been replaced with more sex. Director Erwin Dietrich surely can't compete with specialists in the field, like Jess Franco or Joe D'Amato, and he should have sticked to making ordinary soft-core flicks. The only aspects that slightly look like cult-cinema are the resemblance of the tyrant-president with Fidel Castro and the group-rape of a (minor?) girl by soldiers. The girls are ravishing, though, and the Ibiza filming location looks very enchanting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another example of the women-in-prison genre. This is not exactly a genre known for quality films, but this is a notch below most. A bunch of women are taken from the bordellos where they work to a prison on a rocky island. Once there, they are subjected to lots of poorly directed sex and atrocious \"dialog.\" For a film with an astounding amount of sex and nudity there is really nothing erotic about any of it. The sex scenes are awkwardly acted, and some scenes, like the shower scene, seem to drag on and on. That said, there are at least some minimal production values. On the W-i-P scale I would put it above Frauen fur Zellenblock Neun, but below Chained Heat.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've come to realise through watching this sort of film that I don't like them very much. Caged Women is yet another 'women in prison' film, and like the most of the rest of the genre; the plot is completely forsaken in favour of simply showing nude women. Now don't get me wrong; I love nude women, but I also like there to be some sort of plot thread to go with the nudity, and since this film has only the basic 'women are in prison' theme running through it (aswell as the essential escape, of course), I got a bit bored before the end. The film is good because there's barely a moment in it where the women are wearing clothes, but that's about the only positive element. Director (and writer, ha ha) Erwin C. Dietrich delights in showing close-ups of the naked female body, but it's never very erotic. The director was the producer on a number of trash flicks, including some directed by Jess Franco. In my opinion, he should stick to producing as his writing talents are non-existent, and he doesn't seem to know how to film a sex scene. This sort of material is rather dry a lot of the time, but I reckon Franco could have made more out of it. Overall, this might suffice for people that are really into this sort of stuff; but I can't say I enjoyed it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Much like Tinto Brass (\"Caligula\"), the people who made this movie can't tell the difference between explicitness and eroticism. No build-up at all, just throw naked women on the screen; no, it doesn't work that way. If close-ups of female genitalia aren't your thing, prepare to be looking away from the screen at many points (I often did). The \"all women are whores at heart\" mentality of the movie is offensive, and the \"story\" is by turns absurd and boring (the escape is the most boring part!). But halfway through there is a random scene that pops out of nowhere and involves one of the (female) prisoners and one of the (male) guards in a nude wrestling match, which she wins with a couple of judo moves. Although the choreography of the fight is bad, the whole scene is undeniably memorable. In fact, that scene and the nice cinematography are the only two reasons I give this film * out of 4, instead of 0.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This music is totally out of touch with the film, showing up now and then as wagnerian bombast and Lone Ranger hurry-up, otherwise nonexistent. The acting, outside of the two principals, is nonexistent. It would have been an excellent student film. The Russian soldiers are just models trying to act. The constant interruptions with wow-explosive-camera angles and monocolor clips of pieces of people were quite irritating, but that's just a personal feeling. The story line isn't worse than others, actually not worse than most, completely ignoring logic and reason and reality. At least nobody walked in front of a machine gun for three minutes without being hit. The three top-level bad guys were campy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I admire the effort of trying to reach out to the rest of the world with this tragic story. However, the movie is done SO BADLY that most people I know couldn't sit through it. The movie was relevant to me since I lived in Estonia when these events took place, but it is written horribly and fails to capture the attention of someone who knows nothing on the matter. The music choices do not flow well with the movie, it seems as if someone just turned a CD player on in the background to put the actors \"in the mood\". The acting... well, what acting? The only people acting are J\u00fcrgen Prochnow and Donald Sutherland, even though Prochnow seems uncomfortable in this role. As far as the relationship development goes between Erik Westermark (J\u00fcrgen Prochnow) and Julia Reuter (Greta Scacchi), it is like watching a train wreck. There is absolutely no chemistry and it is painful to witness their \"sincere moments.\" This is not a good movie. There is a difference between trying to get a message out (could've been a documentary!) and trying to make a good movie. This is a failure and anyone here who says otherwise makes me wonder if they are trying to promote it. As a matter of fact, as a native of Estonia I am offended by this miserable effort. This tragedy deserves more than just a homemade low-budget ghost chase excuse of a movie. This could have been much more!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Controversial German journalist Jutta Rabe who herself got divers to the Estonia wreck, put this silly \"thriller\" together to save her investment.

Donald Sutherland is of course always watchable - but he's only in three scenes. He delivers his material perfectly - as you can ask from a professional. Also, the main lead, J\u00fcrgen Prochnov, is at times very good.

The rest of the cast is, however, bad. The actress that plays the Swedish minister secretary (or whatever she was - she seems not listed in the cast) is EXTREMELY bad.

The script has some nice ideas, and the story is actually kind of interesting. The final screenplay should have been re-written a couple of more times though. Some scenes are plain ridiculous - especially the end scenes.

The film is almost 2 hours, which is about 45 minutes too long. Presented as a 60 minutes TV-film, this could have been really interesting. As a two hour feature, it's pretentious, boring, stupid and plain out silly.

Jutta Rabe might be a good journalist (her ideas about governments using Estonia to transport military items from Estonia to Sweden have been concluded as true recently, when the Swedish military officially said that they actually used the ship Estonia for this), but as a film producer she sucks.

The director, the writer and the actors suck more.

I give this film 3\/10. I would've given it a 1, if it wasn't for the fact that the story is quite interesting at times, Donald Sutherland is in it and it has real stock footage.

But we don't even see the boat sink! What kind of movie about a ship that sinks is that? Like a werewolf movie without werewolves...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to admit, I picked this movie just for the cast, and while Sutherland, Scacchi, and Prochnow were - as usual - great performers, the rest of the movie was such a let down. It feels like it was put together by a team of adolescents with low level scripts, that is, scripts lacking any depth, awful photography and editing, and hilariously lousy score! I can't believe I was able to watch this seemingly long movie until the end... the sad thing is, this could have actually been a great political thriller given the interesting plot. All the potential was there to make it a hit; that is, two main ingredients are there: a great story of national conspiracies, and a great core cast (even though many other actors are pretty much soap opera quality). But maybe I'm missing something; until then it's still not worth more than a 3 in my opinion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Clossius says that \"Baltic Storm\" is banned in Sweden. That is not correct! Instead you can buy the film almost everywhere, like in gas stations, shopping malls, internet (of course) and so on. Often to a very low price because this movie is so BAD and nobody wants to see it, despite all the tricks to keep up the interest. The movie only appeals to conspiracy theorists, psychos and other persons living in la-la-land and those who \"knows the truth\".

Working on a museum with the Estonia disaster as a theme I have meet them all! I have heard about every theory that exists like cocaine-smuggling, weapon-smuggling, biological warfare, nuclear smuggling, red mercury, aliens, the Russian- the American- the Estonian- the Swedish- and the Finnish intelligence, often in different combinations.

Some normal persons have asked why we don't show the film? A question only asked by them who haven't seen this terrible nonsense movie.

Once again, \"Baltic Storm\" is not banned in Sweden. It has some entertaining qualities but what a hell is Donald Sutherland doing in this movie?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a really obnoxious show. It is in fact an example of how low television has fallen since 'reality' got in style. Tanya is pretty but she is also extremely rude and has awful taste. Is a house show the place for sex appeal? Apparently some males like the show because they find Tanya attractive. The other boss is not pretty but he's fully as rude and also has awful taste. It is unfortunate that so many houses have to be shown while someone is still living in them. Most of the people who are allegedly viewing these houses before changes are made should be moving into brand new houses or completely empty ones so they will not be insulting anyone. Most of them ..like the 'crew'..need to be taught manners. I can imagine how awful the British show is since the British reality shows tend to be even worse when it comes to manners and taste.

What happened to the Arts and Entertainment channel? When it started out (and for some years afterward) it was filled with treats. Now it's one big trash machine.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Angel-A is a change of pace for Besson; monochrome, mawkish and rather mediocre. It is well photographed on location in Paris, although subtitle-readers should note: quick-fire dialogue AND good cinematography may make for frustrating viewing.

This film is no \"Wings of Desire\" or \"Wonderful Life\". Despite its shared themes (heavenly intervention averts suicide, angel\/mortal relationships ensue), Besson does nothing to enlighten or inspire us. Even the well acted, teary moments, rapidly descend into toe-curling sentimentality.

The film's flawed ideology irritates; an Angel whose message of love and respect for self is constantly undermined by her own violent and promiscuous behaviour; a \"happy ending\" which negates the hero's supposed journey from helplessness to self-esteem and independence.

Verdict: Quite nice to look at but confused moral and philosophical messages tarnish the film precisely where it should shine. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having spent the six years previous writing and producing, Luc Besson returns to the directors chair with Angel-A. I'm a huge fan of L\u00e9on, and quite liked the prospect of a black and white French film from the same chap.

Andr\u00e9 is a liar and gambling addict, owing money to almost every loan shark in Paris. Unable to repay his debts, and fed up with being held over the edge of the Eiffel Tower, he decides to kill himself. He happens to do so at the same time as a mysterious woman, who he decides to save. Determined to thank him, she begins to help him fix his own life.

The film starts with some laughs, which run well throughout. The visuals are quite nice and work well with the sights of Paris. But that is it. That's all the film has got going for it. And these mere two facets can do nothing to hold back the torrent of terrible film-making the movie unleashes. Though I can't hugely fault the main character (his inconsistencies are close though), the eponymous one is ghastly. A terrible screen presence and bitterly annoying. The plot is ridiculously inconsistent itself, and at times bizarrely silly, particularly the ending; an ending which completely bloodied the fledgling redemption engendered by the scenes immediately prior to it. Perhaps the most ridiculous scene I've had the ignominy of observing, it is stupid, indulgent, melodramatic, and considerably too awful to be \"so bad it's funny\". The overall premise of the film could conceivably have once held potential, but it is brutally massacred by the unendingly terrible implementation of its ideas. The film really was a task to watch, and one which had me screaming at the screen the whole way through.

Massively and immeasurably flawed, Angel-A is just plain bad. Though its occasionally fun dialogue manages to draw out chortles at rare intervals, by the end it is clear that this film is nothing more than repugnant.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mr. Moto's Gamble has a fairly straight forward plot - when a boxer is murdered in the ring with a mysterious poison, it's up to the even more mysterious Mr. Moto to solve the case.

I'm shocked at the number of positive reviews for Mr. Moto's Gamble on IMDb. Because to me...well, I found it extremely disappointing. I enjoy Mr. Moto and I enjoy Charlie Chan, but I can't say I cared for this mish-mash of the two. For those unfamiliar with the story behind Mr. Moto's Gamble, it was originally intended to be a Charlie Chan film. But when Warner Oland backed-out, some of the scenes and action were rewritten for Peter Lorre and Mr. Moto. As I indicated, the end result left me underwhelmed. Mr. Moto is not Chan. He's more mysterious, he's more athletic, and he's more exotic. So trying to put Moto in a Chan film is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - it doesn't work. And listening to Lorre\/Moto try to deliver one of Chan's trademark euphemisms just ends up sounding silly. Add to that the fact that almost 10 minutes of the already brief 72 minute runtime is made up of boxing scenes (something that I never seem to enjoy) and you end up with a movie that I couldn't help but dislike. If I have to say something positive I would point to the performance of Keye Luke. But even he's not near enough to save Mr. Moto's Gamble in my eyes.

Sorry, but a 4\/10 is about the best I can give this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This isn't a dreadful film, merely insipid. The plot is deeply flawed and implausible. It tries to be a number of genres and fails at each. It fails as a comedy, as a suspense thriller and as a horror movie. It almost succeeds as science fiction. The direction is uninspired and Katie Holmes, cute cherub face that she is, should be modeling teen clothing, not acting. The only thing that keeps this movie from being a 1 out of 10 is Helen Mirren. Her performance is fabulously nefarious and is (almost) worth suffering through the rest of it. Her ability to transmute from imperious to faux sympathetic to deviously manipulate and control her prey shows masterful range. Other than Marissa Coughlin's delightful Exorcist rendition, Mirren is the only reason to see this movie. A solid 3.0.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry for any spoilers that this contains. But if you want to read on anyway: I really wonder why so many people are so high on Kevin Williamson. Let's just take a quick look at his work as a screenwriter, shall we? There's Scream 1 and 2 (plus the story for the next one), which I think are pretty funny but very overrated. Besides, by making Scream into a franchise, it ceased to become a parody of horror movies and simply became another one. Then there's I Know What You Did Last Summer, which is essentially the same movie again. He co-wrote Halloween: H20, but even he had the sense not to take credit for what he did on that monstrosity. Then comes The Faculty, which I can only say was god-awful. (Lots of fun to make fun of, though). Don't even get me started on the ridiculous, soap-operatic Dawson's Creek, I could rail about how bad that is for hours. So then we get to Teaching Mrs. Tingle. First of all, there are tons of little implausibilities in this one. For example: in most high schools that I know of, the valedictorian is NOT the only one who gets to go to college! This idea that Katie Holmes's character would never go anywhere unless she was valedictorian was absurd. Haven't you ever heard of financial assistance, damn it!? Also, I don't think you get expelled from high school or don't get into college because of cheating on one test. There are a bunch of other ones, but I'll skip to the big one now. The ending really bothered me: they committed a crime, but it was ok because the teacher was a bitch. Great. Do you know how many of my teachers I could kidnap based on that logic? I'm sure the police never took any statements to find out the whole story, either. That sure wouldn't be necessary. Helen Mirren was good, she added some nice flair to a character who (as a previous commenter noted) had NO reason for anything she did. And has anyone else noticed that Katie Holmes absolutely can't act? Her self-righteousness became incredibly annoying. \"You wanted me to fail. Blah blah blah.\" Her last two scenes with Mrs. Tingle were the worst. The only reason I don't regret losing $8.25 on this disaster is because she got beaten up a bit. No, wait, I do regret losing the money: it wasn't real, and she survived. Mr. Williamson, if you're reading this, you've made the same movie (some violence and\/or scary stuff offset by wise-ass kids who make sarcastic jokes and references to other movies) just a FEW too many times now (I count 6 so for, not including Scream 3 and whatever follows it), and I would really appreciate it if you would stop. Otherwise, I might just have to kidnap you and threaten YOU with a crossbow. Ok? :-)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"History teacher Mrs Tingle seems to have it in for student Leigh Ann Watson, who has her heart on achieving a writing school scholarship. She receives another low grade from Tingle, which doesn't help. When one of her classmates Luke steals the paper of the final history exams and pops it in her bag, Mrs. Tingle finds it sticking out. She threatens the three that she will go to the principal about it, but he's not available. So before she reports it the next morning. Leigh, her friend Jo Lynn and Scott head to her place that night and try to convince her not tell the principal. However due to Tingle's stubbornness, that find themselves reverting to drastic measures to stop this getting out.

Wasn't fan of it when I first saw it, and after another viewing, I'm still not one. Writer Kevin Williamson was on a roll after penning the successful contemporary teen horror films; 'Scream (1996)', 'I Know What You did Last Summer (1997)', 'Scream 2 (1997)' and 'The Faculty (1998)'. He was riding the success (also not to forget the TV show 'Dawson's Creek), but this project would be the final bump. The difference there, compared with this entry was other then writing the screenplay, he was also making his debut in directing. The strange thing though, was that I found his direction to be competently done, but material he stormed up to flavourless and tired. It seemed to get caught in playing both a black comedy and straight-out thriller, without making it gel. The script is cluttered with quick-wit, on-going gags, trivial stretches and gimmicky references towards other films, but the problem is that it's too watered-down with so many contrived developments and sappy moral currents disrupting the flow. The fractured script had to be more strong and potent, since it's a small-scale production that feels like you're watching a stage show because of its mostly confined sets. It tries to play mind games with the characters, but these moments are there to only serve the story's poor progression into a puddle of stupidity and senselessness. The film's ending takes the cake. Williamson's polished direction is sound, but more so in a pedestrian way and therefore it lacks suspense and the pacing even with its taut surroundings can really plod on. You eventually feel it after the halfway mark, and it shows up how minor the story is. The performances are tolerable enough, although if it weren't for Helen Mirren's classy, icy portrayal of manipulative prowess as Mrs. Tingle and a buoyant Marisa Coughlan, we would have been stuck watching a vapid goody-to-shoes Katie Holmes. Barry Watson is modest in his slacker part and Molly Ringwald has a lesser role. The soundtrack packs enough energy, but I found it terribly overwrought and shapeless in its choices.

Watchable, but mechanical all round.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I heard this movie was bad\u0085They even warned me it was terrible, but for some reason (probably Katie Holmes) I still watched it when it came on national TV. Watching Kevin Williamson films means torturing! His scenarios aren't funny, definitely not scary and not the least bit creative. Teaching Mrs. Tingle breathes the same irritating atmosphere as his brainless series `Dawson's Creek' and it's probably meant for the same target group as well. Before the credits even started, 5 people already wanted a hug and they stated that eerie `I love you'-sentence. It doesn't get any better as the soundtrack is filled with annoying pop\/rock and the storyline is ultra-thin. Three students on the verge of graduation get caught cheating by the wickedest teacher in school. Every high-school has a teacher like that, you know\u0085 To save their skin, they try to convince Mrs. Tingle that it wasn't their intention to cheat but this attempt goes horrible wrong. The typical high-school humor is completely lost on me, the overdose of sentiment is pathetic and the acting (with the exception of Helen Mirren) is abominable. I'm sure Katie Holmes can act \u0096 that's a fact proven by her role in `the Gift' \u0096 but she urgently needs to stop accepting frumpish girl roles. As said before, the only positive comments goes out to the brilliant casting of Helen Mirren as the shrew. It's like Kathleen Turner in `Serial Mom'! The role suits her perfectly and you can't imagine anyone else playing her. Other than that, this is avoidable teenage nonsense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This absurd movie was about a \"Goodie-two-shoe,\" teen-girl that really wanted to be Valedictorian but finds her obstacle in a teacher name Mrs. Tingle. Katie Holmes, who plays this \"goodie-two-shoe,\" is faced with \"the biggest dilemma of her teenage life\" when this classmate guy of hers comes along with the final exams sample that should help them nail Mrs. Tingle's test. Mrs. Tingle comes along, catches Holmes, the classmate guy and her best friend with the sample of her final exam. Convinced that the three of them planned on cheating on here exam, Mrs. Tingle enthuses on her opportunity to ruin Holmes once and for all with allegations that can take away any chance of Holmes passing her class. And the classmate guy, who apparently has his eye on Holmes, always wondered why she never gave him the time of day (he's an idiot)? Feeling desperate, Holmes and her friends visit Mrs. Tingle in the middle of the night to try to dissuade her in believing that Holmes was planning to cheat. It all backs fire somehow when the classmate guy points a bow and arrow at Mrs. Tingle, threatening her to make things right for Holmes. Mrs. Tingle fights back but ultimately ends up as Holmes and her friend's captive.

During Mrs. Tingle captivity under Holmes, they do everything from tying her up and gagging her in her own bed to blackmailing her with false pictures that they took of the unconscious Coach in bed with Mrs. Tingle. I found myself cringing when the kids were making themselves at home in Mrs. Tingle's house, eating up her food and going though her private work. At one point, Holmes found Mrs. Tingle's grade book and purposely changes the grade in her favor, decreasing the grade of her challenge for valedictorian. The end played out like a childish attempt to bring back the comedy that was sparingly in the beginning of the film, resolving on pure irony, slapstick and absurdity.

This has to be the most unlikable and wickedly evil character Holmes would ever play in her entire life. I wanted to help Mrs. Tingle get free to really dig a grave for Holmes. She was manipulative, selfish and conniving. She even slept with the classmate guy despite her best friend's overwhelming interest in him...and she didn't like him. From attempting to ruin her challengers grades by seizing Mrs. Tingle's grade book to taking her best friend's man, you would think that Holmes would get what she deserves in the end, right? Unfortunately, she obtains everything her heart desires, showing that being wicked, manipulative, selfish and whining can get you what you want.

Mrs. Tingle was suppose to be the character you didn't like. They didn't bring me to that point once to believe that she was this woman that needed to be \"taught this lesson.\" She was like every other strict teacher who even gave valid reasons for her resentment of the next generation. Personally, I felt that her opinions about young people were validated with Holmes and her friend's actions every time. I kept hoping she could get free to call the police and nail Holmes. They kept her tied up in bed, ate up her food like a bunch of pigs, drank up the woman's wine, messed with her personal belongings and we're suppose to believe that she didn't deserve to take a bat to each of their heads? And the classmate guy has to be one of the most disliked characters in the history of film. Forget idiot, we need a new word for him that isn't in the Webster's dictionary. He brought the major trouble into Holme's life then made things worse when he came into Mrs.Tingle's house, uninvited behind Holmes, and corners Mrs. Tingle with a bow and arrow. I was thrilled every time Mrs. Tingle had a chance to slap fire out of him, or choke the wannabe actress best friend.

If you're a teen out there and want to see when a teen's manipulation and wrong doing can get him or her the world, see this unfunny, caricature filled, unintentional film noir.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I made it about halfway through this movie, and at that point realized that I absolutely didn't care how it ended. It is basically a bland teen comedy that I only watched because I like Helen Mirren, who is in fact very good as an impossibly cruel teacher.

The basic idea of the movie (or let's say the first half of the movie, since I don't know - or care - how the second half goes) has been done before, most notably in 9 to 5, and a comparison between the two shows how thoroughly Tingle gets it wrong. You need to feel things are spiraling out of control in a way that makes you feel events are inevitable, and you need well-defined, interesting characters who you care about, and you don't have that. Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it never grabbed me for a second.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know, I'm getting really tired of all the generic music being used in these type of movies (see Jawbreaker, Disturbing Behavior, etc). Every scene of genuine tension here (and there is some) is immediately undercut with some cheesy pop tune, completely diluting the suspense. Why do they do that? To sell some soundtracks, of course, but in this case, mission unaccomplished - did anyone buy the CD?

And yeah, Ms. Mirren attacks her role with zest and relish (with some cheez-wiz to add kick). But what are Molly, Leslie and Vivica doing here? Their roles (they're so underused that I cannot use \"characters\" here) have no purpose in the storyline, so I can't figure out why three well-known actresses had been cast.

Oh, and the ending is so unbelievably hackneyed and irresponsible. The kids get off scot-free and act as if nothing happened - all smiles at graduation. They're criminals, people! No consequences for their actions (kidnapping, assault, grade tampering) - nothing.

Little things too - was Tingle's tale about her husband true? What's with the crossbow? Would the virginal Katie character loose her cherry on a whim like that? (Great message, guys.) Why did McKean go to her home? How did Kate's academic nemesis walk through the door at that exact moment? How do students even obtain teachers' home addresses? WHAT'S WITH JEFFREY TAMBOR?? On what basis did McKean fire Tingle? She's bloodied, battered and held hostage by students, fer cripe's sake!

Oh well, I'm spending way more thought on the script than Mr. Williamson apparently did, so I'll stop here.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I watched this movie a second time, was to learn the name of the \"second banana\" girl playing opposite Katie Holms. Her name is Marisa Coughlan. Never heard of her before. She is lovely. Captivating. With an animated face, and cute bod, she is highly watchable... She's got real, \"Poisenality\"... More than a passing vibe of Grace Kelly... with youthful exuberance. I think she is Irish in gene pool, (my favorite female DNA) so it makes some sense that she would resemble the most beautiful Irish American. The movie is unremarkable, Katie Holms is classic beauty in the flesh. But Marisa Coughlan is the one you follow with your eyes. In 1999 when this movie was made, she was around 25 years old, in her prime. This reminds me of another silly, worthless movie with the only redemption being the Pretty Girl in it. It was \"Career Opportunites\" with the first time I saw Jennifer Conoly. Or \"Grease II\" the first time I saw Michelle Pfeiffer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is such a shame when actors and actresses of high quality get involved with pure crap, probably because they were offered a great deal of money. Not one of Helen Mirren's better career moves. The acting of the \"teens\" is simply appalling, not helped by a script that is in parts simply inept.

Most of Kevin Williamson's work is above average box office dross, but this is really below par.

This is the sort of movie that you watch on TV when there is nothing better on and you have had half a bottle of wine to drink and are waiting for the Pizza to be delivered so you can drink the other half.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ridiculous thriller in which a group of students kidnapped their bad and neurotic teacher (Mirren) just to prevent her action against them. Interesting premise could render a good movie but this one is just lame and far fetched. Boring with an ending embarassing, just to say the least. Mrs. Mirren tries to give some dignity to this misfire but even she - a good actress, no doubt about it - could save this garbage. I give this a 4 (four).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Going into Teaching Mrs Tingle, all I wanted was a fun, enjoyable teen comedy that would entertain me for it's running time. Despite a rather good first half hour, the film quickly subsides into a dull, clich\u00e9d mess that's about as entertaining as pulling out your eyelashes with pliers. Rusty pliers, at that. 'Scream' writer Kevin Williamson wrote and directed this movie, and proved that Scream may well have been a fluke. Most of the elements of this movie have been seen a million times already in other films; and while it was OK for him to steal elements from other movies in Scream, due to the fact that it's meant as a slasher tribute; here, it just looks like he's completely ran out of ideas. The plot follows the cleverest girl in school, played by Katie Holmes. After being caught cheating along with two of her friends; the three decide to take the teacher that caught them hostage in her own home. However, this isn't just any teacher; it's Mrs Tingle, the meanest bitch in school. She isn't taking being tied to the bed lying down either, as she begins to play mind games to turn her captors against each other.

The plot is very similar to the 1997 flick 'Suicide Kings', and a whole host of earlier films. It's actually not a bad idea for a movie, and if Williamson could have populated the film with interesting characters; it could have worked really well. The character of Mrs Tingle is the most interesting in the movie, but she's massively one dimensional, and like all the other characters in the film; is merely a caricature. The acting is largely diabolical, with the exception of Helen Mirren in the title role. She's suitably evil in the role, and while she doesn't have a lot to get her teeth into; she clearly enjoys herself playing the central figure. The teenage cast isn't worth mentioning, with only Katie Holmes standing out; and that's only really because of her star profile, not her acting talents. Williamson has draped nearly every scene in dull soft rock music, which would be really annoying if the film wasn't absolutely terrible anyway. Honestly, this movie does have a few moments that are rather good; but basically, if you want to see a good example of the teen comedy - this isn't the movie that you want to see.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't think I'm spoiling anyone's experience of this film by telling you not to see it if you have anything better to do, like clean under the stove. It gets dirty under there and you've gotta clean it sometime.

I think the movie suffers from a lack of sex and violence, though there is one car chase stunt that looks so dangerous it could only have been filmed in a country where life is cheaper than beer. \"Gargoyle\"'s heart is in the right place, but its aspirations are conservative. It is at least not pretentious. But I had a great time acting in it, playing the perennial idiot in the horror movie who says \"What's down this hole?\" and dies for his hubris. Plus I got to meet Michael Pare. Every film junkie should work with a B-movie staple at least once before death. And Romanians are the loveliest people I've met. Literally the loveliest. Walk down the street in Bucarest: if 7 of every 10 women aren't absolutely beautiful, you're walking down a street I didn't come across; and be consoled by the fact that at least 5 of the 10 are available for drinks.

Part of the film was shot in Casa Radio, an abandoned, unfinished Classic Communist Bloc-cum-Georgian Nightmare edifice originally intended to house KGB propaganda ministries, i.e. Radio Not-so-Free Europe. The building's five stories tall and takes up a city block; best of all, while its facade radiates Big Brotheresque state solidity, it resides near the city center like a post-apocalyptic ruin in a jungle of burdock and hemp peopled by dozens of Gypsies and scores of wild dogs. Construction on Casa Radio was suspended when Caucescu and his wife were executed on TV in 1989, and still there are gaping holes that drop from the sun-baked top floor (offering surreal vistas of a modern quarter-mile stretch of concrete roof, decorated with jutting rebar and old car parts, overlooking a crumbling ancient city) all the way down to the damp, creepy sub-basement (which doubles in the film for the Gargoyle lair.) No American-style guardrails or warning signs for Bucarest.

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, Casa Radio has hosted several non-union film shoots, including \"Highlander III\". It is attractive to producers because it's a cheap location, massive in terms of scale and available space, bizarre looking, and free of insurance headaches as it's still state property. Plus no one complains if you don't clean up after your production: anything left onsite is interpolated into the resident Gypsies' construction of their shanty town in this actual urban jungle.

An assistant director was bitten bloody by a wild dog during the shoot of \"Gargoyle\". The apples provided by catering were pressed into service by cast and crew as projectiles in order to keep the prowling dogs at bay. I too was bitten by wild dogs in Bucarest, once in a bar (!) and once in a city park. I also survived two car wrecks in two weeks, both in taxis and neither of which was seen by the drivers involved as grounds for stopping the cars.

GEEK NOTE: The Sci-Fi Network or Channel or whatever was one of the backers of this film (the smaller the budget, the more producers on set), so it's a little weird that nobody had a problem with the original title, \"Gargoyles\", until it was almost time to show it on the network, even though Sci-Fi already had an unrelated series of that name. The title was changed sometime relatively close to release, as I have a color-corrected copy labeled with the former title.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is just one of the hundred million movies where the directors try to shove too much drama into a movie that's not dramatic at all. Like in the beginning, the part where the monk dude shoved the arrow into his own hand, then shot that same arrow into the gargoyle five minutes later--no sense whatsoever.

The only thing worse than the plot line is the CGI, which would be greatly rivaled by a homemade flash movie. The actors look like they're doing their hardest to portray a bunch of 70's robots; the dialogue makes so little sense it's not funny.

Many things just HAPPEN with no explanation as to how or why, such as a lady suddenly wandering around a zoo that had shut down hours ago. And when she sees this THING flying towards her, her first reaction is to take a picture, rather than what she does a full ten minutes later---power-walking (not even running) like her life depended on it--which, obviously, it doesn't.

Overall, not recommended. Makes me wish they still did new episodes of MST3K.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know that mouthwash commercial where the guy has a mouth full of Listerine or whatever it is and he's trying really hard to keep from spitting it up into the sink? That's a great metaphor for this movie. I kept watching, even though it was really difficult. But keeping mouthwash in your mouth will leave you with a minty fresh feeling. This movie left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I should have spit it out when I had the chance.

The premise is corny enough to be fun. For the first time in like a thousand years, Gargoyles have returned to Romania, and all of the priests who knew how to fight and kill these things are long dead. It's up to Michael Pare and some other secret agents to get to the bottom of things before the Gargoyles run amok. Unfortunately, the premise is completely lost in bad dialog and less than enthusiastic acting on the part of the human leads. The best acting is done by the CG Gargoyles.

In the end, this movie feels like a poor man's Van Helsing. If you check your brain at the door, this might get you through a dreary Monday night. I gave it 3 out of 10 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Gargoyle starts late one night in 'Romania 1532' as a peasant girl (Daniela Nane) travels along in her horse & cart minding her own business when from the moonlit clouds above a living Gargoyle swoops down & attacks her, she manages to escape the Gargoyle & happens upon a castle of some description where an angry mob of local villagers & a Priest are able to put an end to the Gargoyle, or so they think... Cut to present day Bucharest where two CIA agents Ty Griffin (Michael Pare) & Jennifer Wells (Sandra Hess) are about to negotiate the safe return of the son of a rich American ambassador from his kidnappers. In pursuit of one of the kidnappers Griffin loses him on the roof of a building but finds a large pool of blood & no visible signs of what happened to him. Meanwhile Dr. Christina Durant (Kate Orsini) & her colleague Richard Barrier (Jason Rohrer) are renovating a church when the church labourer Gregor (Mihai Bisericanu) informs Richard that he has found some ancient relic, the two investigate & find a cave with lots of slimy cocoons & one very angry & very much alive Gargoyle who wastes no time in killing them both. Griffin & Wells are on the case when they are reported missing & soon realise that local legends of monstrous Gargoyles are true with a local priest named Father Soren (Fintan McKeown) planning to flood the world with them...

Co-written, co-produced & directed by Jim Wynorski under his usual pseudonym Jay Andrews Gargoyles is yet another masterpiece Wynorski can add to his credits, not. The script by Wynorski, Ion Ionescu, A.G. Lawrence & Bill Munroe is crap, is unexciting, dull & is as simplistic as you can get. For a start I would like to know if there was only one Gargoyle left who laid all those eggs because I'm pretty sure it couldn't have made itself pregnant. How did it survive in that hole for 500 years? What did it eat? How did the priest know it was there? Why has no one else ever figured it out? Why did the priest want to flood the world with them? To rule it? The Gargoyles are hardly going to take over the world & then let some priest just rule it like a king & if they did what would be left to rule? Much like the guys who wrote Gargoyle I don't think he thought it through that well did he? Whichever way I look at it, whichever way I approach it, from whichever angle I try to figure it out from, no matter how many times I try to square the circle Gargoyles just doesn't make any sense & they story has huge plot holes, lapses in logic & isn't that great to start with anyway. The character's are dull & clich\u00e9d, the action repetitive & unexciting while the film as a whole is a real bore to sit through. People do illogical things & everything that happens is far to convenient like when the priest is try to convince Griffin that Gargoyle's exist & one just suddenly shows up & attacks them. The cave full of cocoons is such a rip-off of Aliens (1986) it's embarrassing & the ending was lame. The bit on the large Ferris Wheel at the fair was funny though when the guy mocked the boys fear of heights & forced him to get on it.

Director Wynorski cuts costs & steals footage from other films, in fact the best scene from Gargoyle is a car chase through Bucharest but it was taken from the Jean-Claude Van Damme action film Maximum Risk (1996). There are no shocks, scares or atmosphere. The special effects are terrible, the CGI Gargoyle looks like it belongs in a computer game & has little interaction with any living cast members, there are lots of scenes of people looking up to the sky & trying to appear scarred. There isn't even any worthwhile gore to make the thing watchable, there is one awful decapitation & that's it.

Technically the special effects are awful but otherwise it's passable, the Romanian locations look suitably Romanian. Gargoyle went straight-to-video & it shows with a pretty cheap look & feel to it. The acting isn't up to much, personality bypass victim Michael Pare makes for the dullest of dull heroes.

Gargoyle is a crap film, it fails at everything a decent creature feature should strive to achieve. A total waste of 90 minutes as far as I'm concerned, one to avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is like porn with all of the good parts removed. It's like all of the porn stars that didn't want to fulfill their obligations banded together around this awful, trite, useless piece of gargoyle abstinence.

This is a helpful movie if you're in the mood to torture a loved (or no longer loved) one. It's important that, if you choose to use this movie as a method of torture, that you put in earplugs and put on a blindfold to keep yourself from going insane.

If I had a choice between this movie and The 700 Club...I'd choose Girls Gone Wild.

Overall, better if you've been drinking. But only because it becomes a drinking game of epic proportions.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The acting was flat (at least none of the actors sounded like they'd just got the script that morning) and the film and sound quality made me think of the 70s movie of the week bombs. The only thing that told me that it was indeed not a 70s movie of the week was the reference to DNA testing. But for me, being Eastern Orthodox, the most egregious thing about this....film.....was the total Romishness of the religion. Romania is 88% Orthodox but you'd never know that from this movie: Father Soren is Irish. And I'd have known this even if I hadn't seen the actor play the Irish pub keep, Michael Sullivan in Star Trek: Voyager's \"Fairhaven\" episodes. The Bishop was wearing Roman vestments (and for the record not even Orthodox bishops wear their vestments unless they're saying the liturgy, especially if they live in a monastery). About the only non-Romish paraphernalia I saw was the 3-bar cross on the door of the church, and even then I had to squint to see it. The first reviewer said the producers had done their research. Well, if that's true they messed up on the religious aspect of the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"there is only way to describe this movie.

so bad its hilarious.

the acting is so bad i laughed my ass off throughout. The male lead in this movie trying to use a gun is so ridiculous you would think he was trying to copy a toy action figure, i know this sounds ridiculous but when you see it for yourself you can't help but agree.

the monster looks like a cgi guy trying to recreate the clay monsters you get in old Sinbad movies.

in short this movie is good for only one thing a really large laugh at how bad movies can get.

If you want to see bad acting bad script and special effects gone wrong

THIS IS THE MOVIE FOR YOU","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will not spoil your surprise by mentioning any of the hideous plot lines, I'll just say that this movie suffers from poor animation, over acting, obvious tag lines\u0085 these are some of it's good qualities. if you are deserted on an isolated island and the only link to civilization you got is this movie throw it to the fish. I can't tell you how much I'm sorry I saw this horrifying ghastly movie. Speaking of which, this movie supposedly a horror movie cannot be classified as such for the simple fact that the only horror in the movie is the playing capabilities of some of the actors.

Take care.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To this day, Malcolm McLaren is telling anyone daft enough to believe him that the Sex Pistols were his idea and that the band members were his puppets to be used to make him money. There is a good reason for him doing this, namely that he is a liar.

Here are some real facts.

* McLaren was actually approached by the band to be manager, not the other way round.

* The Pistols were a proper, organic band and not created by McLaren or anyone else. Jones and Cook were childhood friends. Rotten and Vicious went back a long way too. This is something that has led to unfair criticism of the Pistols down the years as they have been likened to manufactured boy bands.

* The band and no one else wrote the songs, recorded them, played live, created the publicity and gave the interviews.

* McLaren did not instigate the Bill Grundy incident. The Pistols only appeared on the programme because Queen had pulled out. According to the band, McLaren was cowering in the back in case arrests were about to be made.

* Johnny Rotten walked out of the band. He was not sacked.

* Far from outwitting the Sex Pistols, John Lydon (Rotten) actually successfully sued him in the 1980s for control and a considerable sum of money. Some of the evidence used by Lydon's lawyers was from McLaren's boasting in 'The Great Rock & Roll Swindle'. This would suggest that McLaren is none too bright despite his affectations.

* The sackings and subsequent pay offs from A & M and EMI were, again, not engineered, it was merely the way things panned out.

* McLaren boasts about the money he made from the band. If he had been competent, he could have made a great deal more. It seems he coudn't even organise gigs properly.

* McLaren's claim at the start of the film that he invented punk rock can be disproved in about ten seconds. The Pistols were not the first punk band, merely the most high profile.

This is a terrible film. The only parts worth watching are the genuine footage of the band, later put to much better use in 'The Filth And The Fury'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not only is The Great Rock N Roll Swindle thoroughly inaccurate, but when it comes down to it, not much about it is interesting or even entertaining. Malcolm McLaren apparently squandered the majority of the Sex Pistols earnings on this waste of film, which makes it that much more obnoxious. The intention, from the beginning, was to create a monument to the \"genius\" of McLaren, who to this day takes full credit for creating punk music, creating the Sex Pistols, and at times even writing all the songs. Viewers follow McLaren to various settings, where he tells his story to his sidekick, a female dwarf, and simply takes credit for one thing after another. One particularly irritating scene has McLaren in an abandoned airplane hangar, waiting for a plane, being hounded by reporters and giving them their \"big story\". The most entertaining elements of the film are the animated short pieces, however, even these reek of McLaren's overbearing self-importance.

Even as a farce, this film doesn't work. Little about it is entertaining, except for Steve Jones, who is surprisingly decent as a pseudo-detective type person. 20 years later, Julien Temple, who wrote and directed this film, also directed the Sex Pistols documentary \"The Filth and the Fury\". While that movie is much better and more interesting than \"Swindle\", it still is full of Temple's \"artistic flourishes\" that just don't work, like interviewing band members in shadow, as if they are some kind of crime witness trying to hide their identity. An interesting bit of trivia: Film critic Roger Ebert was one of the original scriptwriters for the movie \"Who Killed Bambi?\", which eventually became \"Swindle\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the epicenter of the cultural globe, four working class teenagers attempted to change the world through music and fashion. It was the final attempt to do so last century, and they failed. Before the dust had cleared, band manager and SEX shop proprietor Malcolm McLaren spent the money The Sex Pistols had earned to make a \"mockumentary\" about his own role in their success. The film was called The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle (take the hint) and consists of very little footage of The Sex Pistols actually playing music, and quite a lot of footage of McLaren effectively calling the audience idiots.

Cod-surrealist nonsense in which guitarist Steve Jones is a detective on McLaren's tail, soon dissolves so he and drummer Paul Cook can jet off to Rio and spend time with \"great train robber\" Ronnie Biggs. Ready yourself for the spectacle of three very unappealing men dancing naked to a hideous irony-free version of \"Belsen was a Gas\" (a song about killing Jews for gold in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp), and another song sung in Ronnie's tone deaf whine which includes the lyrics \"God save Myra Hindley, God save Ian Brady\" (lyrics that Johnny Rotten would have considered distasteful). The Sid Vicious scenes are few and idiotic. Jumping out of bed in a thong with a swastika over the testicles to sing some bad boy biker song from the '50s. Playing into to the \"Punk's a joke\" theme of the movie, in an attempt to turn Sid into James Dean. I'm surprised McLaren doesn't take credit for Siddy's death too. The redeeming scenes are those of Sid in Paris and the infamous performance of My Way. The punk rock zeitgeist right there. Mocking an adoring audience before shooting them all. No need for an entire film, just watch that clip on YouTube.

From Julien Temple's far superior (and more enjoyable) 2001 documentary followup, The Filth and the Fury, we were given a more balanced\/honest view of what transpired in '78. But there were also a number of scenes that I would have liked to have seen in Swindle (as Fury was basically a reediting of the same material). One was an animated Sid complete with Sid's voice acting; \"You f*cken betta wat'ch out, alright, or I'll slice you open\" - a still of which appeared on the cover of the Something Else 7 inch - a snippet was shown in Fury, but I don't know what context that originally appeared. Was it in original prints, but removed after Sid's death? Was there more? Fury also shed light on the film Who Killed Bambi, which would have been the mock Hard Day's Night movie McLaren was originally intending to make. It starred Sting(!) as a member of a gay New Romantics group, and looked a damn sight more entertaining than Swindle.

Sod Swindle, t'is a swindle. If you must, rent The Filth and The Fury and revel in music's failure as a world changing polemic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The brief existence of The Sex Pistols and the making of this film after the controversial, groundbreaking English punk band's break-up both happened before I was born. However, I started listening to their only album, \"Never Mind the B*&%@#&s, Here's the Sex Pistols\", in 2003, when I was a teenager, and quickly became a big fan. I didn't see \"The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle\" until 2006, but saw it a couple times that year, and thought it was pretty good (certainly not great, but pretty good), even if I could only remember bits of it, and didn't see how it all connected. Seeing it a third time, nearly three years after the second, I didn't care much for it at all. I'm not even sure what I found so good about most of it in the first place (can't remember now).

This film is a mockumentary, in which Sex Pistols manager Malcolm McLaren tells his side of the story of the band and its members; guitarist Steve Jones, credited here as \"The Crook\"; drummer Paul Cook, credited as \"The Tea-Maker\"; bassist Sid Vicious, credited as \"The Gimmick\"; and John Lydon (a.k.a. Johnny Rotten) credited as \"The Collaborator.\" McLaren claims that he created the band (and even the genre of punk rock) as a scam to make money. He tells much of the story to Helen Wellington-Lloyd (a.k.a. Helen of Troy), in various places where they go together. It's basically a hodgepodge of McLaren talking, Pistols songs, live footage of the band, fictional scenes (often silly, strange ones), several cartoon sequences, etc., all put together in one film, to tell the Pistols manager's side of the story in a bizarre way!

It has been well proved that McLaren is a liar, I know many have already pointed this out, including band members themselves. He was NOT the driving force of the band, he didn't create them (nor did he invent punk rock, and The Sex Pistols weren't even the first punk band, though they were unique). The band members were the ones who made the band what it was. \"The Filth and the Fury\", a much more believable film about the band from Julien Temple, who made this film, is told from the point of view of the band members, who contradict McLaren's claims. However, the dishonesty of \"The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle\" is not my biggest problem with it. If it were actually entertaining (which I used to think it was to a certain extent), I would be able to overlook that, like I obviously used to be able to do. During my third viewing, apart from Sex Pistols songs, some live footage, and at least one mildly amusing cartoon sequence, it was pretty dull! I found the \"Who Killed Bambi\" song mildly amusing at first, but it got tiring very quickly.

Is this mockumentary worth watching for Sex Pistols fans? It seems a good number of fans would say it is, not to learn about the true story of the short-lived but groundbreaking 70's punk band, but for entertainment. That was once my opinion on \"The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle\". After the first time I watched it, I couldn't remember a thing McLaren said, and by the time I saw it the second time, I was aware of what the Pistols manager was using this film to imply, but could still barely remember anything I heard him say! Obviously, other aspects of the film were what I found impressive. Now, after my third viewing, I can definitely remember some of the things McLaren says, but it still wasn't 100% clear. Like most of the film, I guess his words are not that memorable, probably because of the way they're presented. If you're a Pistols fan, I guess it wouldn't hurt to give \"Swindle\" a try, but to me, for the most part, it's just an incoherent, boring mess that tries to be funny but fails.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This appalling piece of tripe was (conveniently) loosely based on a true story that involved two family members of mine (played by Jack Thompson and Jacqueline Mackenzie).

This film is offensive; besides the fact that it wasn't a particular good film anyway, it does not in any way capture what it was like to lose such a close family member and completely omits those who were really affected by the true-life tragedy.

As for the director; he managed to cash in on a family's misfortune for the price of a Porsche.

If I could have given this a zero I would have.

Avoid this film at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well its ten year's on since this film was released and the sands of time have not improved it one bit, again like the other comments made the Aussie film makers should have a little more drama rather than middle class aussies riding around beautiful places on there bikes with not much in the was of dialog. middle class is not funny nor is rich. there is also a mish mash of cast. why is a young woman going to marry a man old enough to be her father, it escapes me. It's such a shame about this film, looks like a wonderful place to holiday thou. Anyway its an hour and thirty mins of my life i will never be able to get back. lifes to short to watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I turned this off within the first five minutes. It's very sick and disturbing, the moment I turned this off was when the beautiful white horse was let into the slaughterhouse and it's skull was punctured by a small tubed instrument. This creature was lying on the floor in a state of shock before it died. The narrator said the animal dies instantaneously, it didn't. I don't agree with graphic realism towards animals, insects or any living creature. I was very disappointed as I had just watched 'Eyes Without a face' which was a brilliant movie and this short film was attached, which spoilt my night - as I couldn't hurt a fly, never mind watching this savage documentary.

reading other reviews on this page, I had noticed they used words such as aesthetic - this is not art or beauty. I can imagine that the documentary would be very articulate and profound but not aesthetic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film yesterday on TV. I had just finished reading the book in which the movie was supposedly based. In the opening credits it said \"This is a free adaptation of E\u00e7a de Queir\u00f3s' novel\". I should have turned off my TV at that moment.

Vera Sacramento's idea of \"free adaptation\" is turning a story about Church's influence over people and the hypocrisy of people claiming morality at the end of the 19th century into a story about sex. In fact, the only thing she adopted from the novel was the sex part, which was only mildly referred in E\u00e7a de Queir\u00f3s' novel. And, of course, the name of some characters.

As of the characters, in the novel, Am\u00e9lia and Jo\u00e3o Eduardo were victims of church's influence. Am\u00e9lia was seduced by Father Amaro and all the time she was controlled by him. Jo\u00e3o Eduardo, her fianc\u00e9, was excommungated by the priests, because he dared to criticize them. In this movie, Am\u00e9lia seduces every one she meets and Father Amaro is just another victim. Jo\u00e3o Eduardo is a dealer of drugs and illegal weapons.

Vera Sacramento has turned a novel which criticized moral costumes of an epoch and turned it into just another movie with lots of (bad) sex. Even worse, her story was completely empty of ideas. Two wasted hours! E\u00e7a de Queir\u00f3s surely did not deserve this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was not making big assumptions on the fact that this for sure was a very, very free adaptation from the work of E\u00e7a de Queiroz, and I must say that this free adaptation form the book as a lot of possible good ideas and characters. The problem is the way that is done, without any care, without any taste, just a rumble of bad taste clich\u00e9s everywhere. The script is so fake and the characters so unreal that's makes petty seeing nice actors as Unas, Bryner, Morgado, Lagarto and others, lost themselves in a net of whatever except cinema or storytelling. For my surprise the newcomers Jorge Corrula and Soraia Chaves bravely stick in their performances, but you can see them lost like a drifted boat without any direction. And talking about direction, this seems to be something totally missing on this movie\u0085where's the Director? Everything is bad taste; the frames are whatever, and whenever, the use of hand camera without any justified reason, the light design that should build environments doesn't exist (and no excuses that the all point is a dark real story). The problem overall in this \"trying to be\" film is that as no taste, or very, very bad taste. It's sad to see Jorge and Soraia melting away in such fake and gratuity sex scenes, painted here and there trough out the movie like closing narratives holes or used as fakes transition motives. Maybe Carlos Coelho da Silva should see the 2002 Carlos Carrera adaptation of the same book of E\u00e7a and get the felling of how to build a true movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As you might not know E\u00e7a de Queiroz is one of Portugal's most rightfully celebrated writers. He was witty, he spared no one in his critics and must now be rolling in his tomb. And that's not due to this movie being bad, which it is, but as a result of the treatment dispensed to one of his masterworks \"O Crime do Padre Amaro\". It's treated like cheap, throwaway trash.

When it was publicized that this was to be a \"modern and urban\" take on the book I feared for the worst, normally modern in these contexts means taking the liberty to take the p**** when doing an adaptation, to half arse it in the shoddiest possible way. And so the moral and social dilemma of a priest having a secret,forbidden affair are substituted by extra-long passages of people dealing drugs and singing hip-hop for no particular or pertinent reason to the plot. It's just there like it might very well not have been.

Oh and there's lots of sex so you can at least be counting on that when you put this on. Remember how every movie in the 80's, no matter the genre or the tone always found a way to sneak in some nudity? If it was a thriller and they had no need for it they simply found a way that when they were capturing a felon he \"happened\" to be in bed with a woman that would prance around screaming (naked of course) when the cops barged in. Ahem, gratuitous is the word I think. Not that there's anything wrong with nude scenes but here they make the creators of this movie look desperate simply because there's nothing else to the movie, it's totally devoid of what do you call it dramatic content.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film is nothing else than an exposition of nudity. Has anyone noticed that all three main female characters appear naked? It looks like the only winning bet for Portuguese filmmakers is to include some (if not a lot) of nudity of the local stars, together with slang which otherwise, in the nowadays Portuguese society, is repulsed with horror. If you watch advertising for Portuguese films at Portuguese TVs, they all have included a \"hot\" scene from the movie. I'm not saying, by any means, that Portuguese society is alienated; just that the movie industry does not seem capable of finding others ways of success. Going back to the movie... There is nothing left from the spirit of the book, which is a masterpiece. The film could have been a good one, had there been emphasized the real idea of the book (of actuality at any time) and not the strictly erotic part. It had almost all the ingredients... but the \"chef\" was awful...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Will there be please coming an end to hyping movies that are dealing about social conflicts or other human disasters? Okay \"Care\" is about childabuse, \"Care\" is about perverts misusing boys in a school and how disgusting it might be, if it's a movie with a poor script and made with bad playing actors then it stays a bad movie. \"Care\" is a movie that could have been, but is it because it was a tvmovie I don't know but everything seemed so limited that it comes over as some cheap movie that will be seen by some housewifes and fathers who decide not to go to bed. There are so many unanswered things in this movie...the relation with his mother for instance or the death of some abused boy from which we know nothing more. \"Care\" should have been much much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh man! This series has to be the worst possible anime I've ever seen in a while.

It started out new, exciting and fresh. And I really liked it then. Kagome was a good female role model for the show. And Inu-Yasha was funny and hot-headed.

Then, it just kept falling more and more downhill as the series progressed... and I'll tell y'all the reasons why. (Warning: SPOILER ALERT!!)

Okay, they basically destroy Inu-Yasha's relationship with Kagome early on, by reviving his 50 year old dead girlfriend, who's drippy, sappy, and a total waste of time.

They introduce a pervert named Miroku, who's supposed to be a sort of religious figure for the show. (Which really bugged me,'cause it was out of place and stupid.) Then, they introduce a demon slayer named Sango, whose only purpose in life is to try (and fail) to save her brainwashed brother.

The big bad of the show, Naraku, while starting out as a really good bad guy, lost his touch after a while. (He got pretty old pretty fast. And it bothered me that he was the only baddie in the show who did anything.)

The characters all became wooden, and unemotional. And then, the ending of this terrible series was a disappointment to any anime fan out there. Nothing happened. Naraku never got killed or defeated. Kagome and Inu-Yasha never fully fell in love ('cause he was still all in love with his 50 year old dead chick.) Plot holes were left open. The animation got worse and worse as the series progressed. And nothing changed in the plot. (I mean,they dragged it out to over 150 episodes, and nothing changed in the plot... at all.) And they expected me (as well as other fans of the show) to be satisfied?? I was disenchanted, disgusted, and annoyed as crap. I at least had high hopes that there'd be a good ending to the series. Instead, all I got was a dragged out commercial for the manga.

Seriously, if you wanna see a good anime about swords and stuff like that, I strongly recommend \"Rurouni Kenshin\". That show progresses and goes somewhere, plus it has really good animation too.

But stay far away from this bland excuse for anime, as best as you can.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me state this right from the start. I do NOT hate this show. I actually quite like some aspects of it. In fact, when i first started to watch it, I quickly became hooked. I was just starting to come out of the whole \"anime is for kids\" stereotype, and the mature elements of the show had me intrigued.

Unfortunately, after seeing the whole series through and a few of the films, I can say that my overall disposition has changed, and it falls into almost all of the pitfalls that plague \"bad\" anime. Seven or eight friends and myself started watching this series on TV. By the end, only one friend and I were still watching and neither of us liked it.

Allow me to explain the plot for you. You can skip this paragraph if you don't want to know. Kagome is an average high school student, who one day falls into a magical well near her family run shrine. When kagome comes out of the well again, she has been transported back in time to the feudal era of japan. She meets up with many other characters and they form a group of five or so companions who set off on a journey of revenge\/justice\/groping in one characters case =). Overall, they are trying to recover the pieces of the sacred jewel shard which enhances the power of demons who use it.

While there are many, MANY side stories and story arcs, there is no were near enough material to occupy 167 episodes. The only story arc that is interesting enough to watch is still sort of dull (the band of seven). After the half way mark in the series or maybe even before, it becomes painfully obvious that the plot is frozen in place and whoever made the series decided instead to put in dozens and dozens of filler episodes.

These episodes have little to no impact on the story, and rarely even on the characters. In some cases, some characters who had an important role in the story will disappear for dozens of episodes at a time. Many episodes follow the exact same cookie cutter patterns as the stories before it. Inuyasha shoots wind-scar at enemy. Windscar deflects. Characters gasp in horror. Enemy turns out to have barrier. Characters spent three episodes trying to kill enemy before Kagome finally fires sacred arrow at him and he turns to dust.

Also **MAJOR SPOILER: THE CONCLUSION WILL BE REVEALED** the lack of any conclusion makes it seem like you have waisted 83 hours.

**MAJOR SPOILER OVER**

The animation itself is above average, and in some cases excellent. Even so, reused animation cells plague most action scenes, and it is very hard to ignore them when it is clear that the exact same boulder has flown past a character five or six times in a row.

On the brighter side however, all of the characters are very well developed and the romances between some of the characters were truly captivating. Also, the character designs (appearences) were brilliant and at times among the best I have seen, particularly with the band of seven. There is definitely no shortage of Cosplay opportunities here. Even so, I found myself hoping that a character would die just so there would be some sort of movement in the plot. And some of the humour in the show between characters is used again and again. One particular joke (sit boy) is found within the first five episodes, and you can literally expect it to be used again and again for the remaining 162 episodes.

Although there are some good aspects of the show and it is easy to see why it has a huge following, the series seems to be dominated by obsessed fan girls who drool over Sesshomiru and InuYasha.

Bottom line: Definitely worth checking out, but not worth watching the whole series. The first 30 episodes are very clever, original and enjoyable for anybody. But after that, it simply becomes dull and tedious. Watching a TV show should never feel like a chore, but somehow this series accomplishes just that. Don't expect much from \"InuYasha\", because you will only feel let down.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rossini once described rival composer Wagner's work as having \"some wonderful moments...and some awful quarter-hours\". Inuyasha, it seems, can also be described this way. It has many great episodes, but in between them are countless filler episodes. The entire series consists of about 175 episodes, of which I'd say at least 125 are filler or some sort of subplot (I didn't bother to count and I wouldn't be surprised if that number were in fact higher, though).

Some of these filler episodes are actually quite enjoyable, though many are quite silly or dull. Nonetheless, the constant digressions start to wear thin after the first few seasons as the plot ends up progressing at a labored crawl for most of the series. Character development, too, slows down greatly and by the later seasons, the cast has become quite unchanging, resulting in increasingly stale jokes (particularly those concerning the monk, who's ironic traits start out as mildly humorous but grow tiresome when the jokes associated with them appear repeatedly).

However, all of that isn't to say that Inuyasha is a bad series. It just isn't a great series the way Neon Genesis Evangelion, for example, is generally considered to be. As something to watch at the end of a hard day, it is nice, but it could never be confused with high art.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"May or may not contain spoilers.

Inuyasha is not a good anime. It's actually very overrated. Why? There's absolutely no story line, no plot, and the show just drags on... and on... and on... That's because there are more side stories and fillers than episodes that make the plot progress. And the fillers are just the same stories being repeated over and over again. The same episodes seem to go with the same plot: Kagome sensing a jewel shard, a worm\/slime\/tentacle demon thing pops up, Inuyasha says \"Wind-Scar\", \"Iron Reaver Soul Stealer\", etc. and kills the demon, they get the jewel shard, and then we just repeat this scene 160 or more times.

Besides the repeating of episodes, there's the repeating of comedic devices, and they're not funny anymore. Wait, they never were. Sexual harassment is NOT funny. Viz rated the series Older Teens, 16+. I have no idea why they rated it that. There's nothing bad about it except for the so-called funny sexual harassment, which is kind of suggestive, and that could get you arrested these days.

Now, this is how we know Inuyasha is overrated. The videogames. They all sucked. Especially the Mask game. I played that at my friend's house. It wasn't anything interesting. The game was slow, boring, and it had Nintendo 64 like graphics. In a magazine, it got a rating of 4\/10, saying \"...this role-playing game is slower than milkshake moving up a cocktail straw.\" Then, there's all these stupid Inuyasha toys, action figures, trading cards, stickers, and coloring books. COLORING BOOKS! We thought Inuyasha was 16+! Maybe not... But after being a member of Inuyasha groups on MSN, about half the people on there were 10 to 13. I guess Inuyasha is a little kid anime after all. (I think that just a small bit of editing done to this show, it could be shown on Toonami.) There are over 40 manga volumes. I can only help but wonder how many miles of forest that have been cut down to make them. Sad...

Then there's the music. The music is so annoying. We hear the same 5 songs every episode. After 10 episodes, the music gets really annoying. In other anime, they have music to fit the mood and we don't hear some songs very often. There are about 15 different Inuyasha soundtracks. Don't waste your money on that garbage!

And how do you think I know all this? Because I used to be a fan of Inuyasha. I feel ashamed of myself. I'd rather watch Kim Possible or Pokemon instead. Sadly, those two shows have more romance between the two main protagonists than Inuyasha will ever have...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To be entirely frank, the popularity of this show saddens me. Inuyasha is certainly not terrible - it has a few good moments, the occasional flash of clever humour, and, unlike so many animes, dignity. However, it is utterly lacking in the essential elements of a worthwhile story. From the start, its premise dooms it to be stereotypical. The main plot centers around collecting the pieces of a shattered jewel before they can be possessed by evil, and is, as one would suspect, a totally generic epic fantasy affair. The story follows a familiar pattern of fighting off various enemies for pieces of the jewel, and is thus quite predictable, lacking in complexity, and easy to lose interest in. But as so many animes have shown, a poor premise can be rescued by deep, realistic characters. Sadly, no one rescues the story of Inuyasha. Kagome, the main character, is the stereotypical anime heroine (and far too reminiscent of Akane, the main character of the original comic author's previous work Ranma 1\/2); she is kind to other females, but treats many males, especially her love interest, with unfair, unabashed, unjustifiable brutality. Inuyasha is a tough-on-the-outside-but-sweet-on-the-inside type, and Miroku is the lamentable stock character of \"the pervert\".

The flaws continue with what happens to this plot and these characters - namely, nothing. Despite constant action, the story does not progress. Despite regular romantic moments, neither does the main relationship. Despite ample time, the characters never really change. And to add a cherry to the sundae of mediocrity, all this stagnation is stretched into approximately 150 episodes.

My final criticism of this anime is the animation. While certainly not ugly, it displays almost disrespectful laziness on the part of the creators. The animators seem to take joy in long scenes of Inuyasha jumping through the air with wind whistling in which they have little to do but move a background.

In short, with all the beautiful animations of the world at one's keyboard-perched fingertips, there is absolutely no reason to watch Inuyasha.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't kill me fans but I have something to say about this.

Pros: Well, the most mildly interesting season that I've watched out of all the seasons that are out there of Inuyasha just has tobe the Shichinintai arc. Unlike the rest of the seasons, I personally think that this one has more of a real plot line and those mercenaries; good god they're such likable characters. Shame they were killed off. Of course, I would write a 15 page essay one why I like the Shichinintai so much but that would be boring for some of you. So this series actually does have some likable characters. I'll miss Bankotsu... poor, poor psycho little boy.

Cons: Outside of Shichinintai arc, the series was overall boring, repetitive and some of the characters are extremely irritating. Kagome for example: She overreacts too much to my taste; she acts like Yuka from Elfen Lied. Inuyasha: He's a loud mouth dog demon with a huge sword. What's so unique about him? He has ADORABLE DOG EARS! Tch. Sesshomaru is all talk, no action and very cocky. Naraku has just got to be the wimpiest villain that ever existed in the anime world. Miroku and Sango... they have some color but they just seem to stand on the sidelines too much. But what bugs me the most if the fact that they have absolutely no COMMON SENSE at all. Rumiko Takahashi has done a LOT better then this. I've seen it before.

If you like series with a lot of action, no annoying love triangle, no over repetitiveness, this is not for you then.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Inuyasha \" was awful . This show was incredibly over -hyped but this is nothing but a tedious bunch of anime clich\u00e9s. The characters are annoying and lifeless ,the story line is boring and endless .I think that it could have be something interesting if it have a better writing, but it seems that the writers of the show have more intentions in show Inuyasha and his stupid friends fighting with some monsters and then crying for his tragic love triangle with Kikyou and Kagome and a lot of circles around the same thing again and again . The script is cheesy and dumb and the animation is poor .The character design it 's very ugly ,I don't know why everyone love it ,all have the same face ! : Big eyes , tiny noses , a line as the mouth and the typical anime haircuts . I find \"Inuyasha \" incredibly boring and dumb . This have to be one of the most over -rated animated shows ever made .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off I want to say that I lean liberal on the political scale and I found the movie offensive. I managed to watch the whole doggone disgrace of a film . This movie brings a low to original ideas. Yes it was original thus my 2 stars instead of 1. Are our film writers that uncreative that they can only come up with this?? Acting was horrible , and the characters were unlikeable for the most part. The lead lady in the story had no good qualities at all. They made her bf into some sort of a bad guy and I did not see that at all. Maybe I missed something , I do not know.He was the most down to earth, relevant character in the movie. I did not shell out any money for this garbage. I almost wish PETA would come to the rescue of this awful, offensive movie and form a protest. DISGUSTING thats all I have to say anymore !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is totally unbelievable. The only way a girl would perform this act on a dog is if she had serious mental health issues or had a long history of sexual abuse or was under duress. Yet we are asked to believe that an otherwise 'normal' healthy female just got a bit bored and 'made a little mistake' and oops had a sexual encounter with a dog. What's more it never had any detrimental affect on her ever again except when she tells someone.

Not she was raped by a dog or the dog did something she couldn't resist - she actively initiated oral sex and completed this activity with a pet dog of her own choice. She wasn't on drugs or anything she just 'felt like it'.

The rest of the film seeks to put this action in a light of 'hey it could happen to anyone she's only being honest'.

But really for this to be believed we have to believe that this is a woman who is capable of doing absolutely ANYTHING if she 'just feels like it'. Think about it - could she have considered the rights and wrongs of this action before carrying it out? If she had she would have stopped in her tracks. Human beings have instinctive boundaries for reasons. If we are now to start considering bestiality as a 'cute' little aberration, what is next? Child abuse? Yet the 'heroine' is portrayed as a hard done by, nice girl who had one moment of aberration. If she had been forced to carry out this act by an abuser - the story might have made more sense and I would have been able to accept the storyline. But there is no way that anyone carries out the prolonged activity required and referred to even once - if there is not some deep, disturbance that requires a great deal of psychiatric help. This is NO WAY a one off happening in an otherwise perfect life.

I know this is just a film, but it is through normalising behaviour such as this via the media that society becomes desensitised and more and more awful realities become possible.

I could imagine an abuser showing this to a child to persuade them that it isn't such a big deal and then moving on with their agenda. It could also be used by an abuser to underline to a child not to tell about the abuse - because look how people will react to you if you do.

This is not about truth. The director WANTS people to think it's about truth. This is about degradation and how easily people (the viewing public)can be manipulated into accepting the most appalling concepts if wrapped up in the right way. The watching public are being manipulated, degraded and laughed at.

This is a film in which the actors and the viewers are being humiliated and made fools of in a very sophisticated way by a clever but extremely disturbed film writer.

This film appears to me to be being used as a vehicle for the creator of the film to get off on the excitement of playing with your mind in an abusive manner. I don't know whether it is conscious on their part - but it is the most classic example of Mind F***k that I have ever encountered.

I hope that this doesn't offend anyone too much. But if you watched this film - I don't think there is any room left to be offended by anything any more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not a bad concept.I just wish they had taken it in another direction. Its a movie that tries to be interesting by shocking you with bestiality to begin with, which works for most people(prudes with weak stomachs).But besides this there's not much to this movie. Its not funny nor is it romantic so please somebody change that label , and since i already knew that bestiality is actually legal most places and a million dollar industry, i wasn't really shocked. But most people do not know this and i thought that how the movie evolved after the secret came out was just disappointing because it could have been one of those shocking eye opener movies that would teach the ignorant about a fetish that is very much a reality for(yes i did my homework)hundreds of thousands of people.So if you like watching bad movies that you can daydream about how you could make them better while watching them than sure,have fun doing that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bobcat Goldthwait should be commended for attempting to do something different with this surprisingly heartfelt film, a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of being honest about everything. Melinda Hamilton stars as Amy, a girl who has had oral sex with a canine in the past on a lark. She struggles with telling her fianc\u00e9, John. Of course the truth does rear it's shaggy ugly head. The film deals with the fallout of said escapade. The movie is well-acted by all, save for perhaps Jack Plotnick as Dougie, who never really felt like he mashed well with the picture. And the film while solid enough seems to miss it's mark a few times. Every single person in the film struggles with massive hypocrisy and all our a tad hard to relate to. Bobcat should be commended for doing something different, as I said before, but different does not always equal good and this pales ever so slightly not to Goldthwaits own directorial debut, the criminally misunderstood \"Shakes the Clown\"

My Grade: C-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am not so old that I can't remember laughing at Bobcat Goldthwait a couple times. But some where in all his years of drug abuse he lost his sense of humor as well as his brain cells.

From the moment this film opens you can have no sympathy nor empathy for the female lead. Neither will you find anything remotely funny after hearing the opening line. Goldthwait obviously hates himself so much that he needs to degrade in order to feel better- even if it is his own imaginary characters he degrades.

If you ever saw Shakes the Clown you know how unfunny Bobcat was 15 years ago...this movie is worse. It was not even funny by accident It is sad, pathetic and a total waste of time. May Goldthwaits' hands be rendered paralyzed so he can not write another script. Strike his tongue so he can not dictate another unfunny scene. He is sad and pathetic and needs to make room for a new talent dying to get into Hollywood","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If one wants to have a character in a movie have a disturbing sexual encounter that would shame that character in later life the only thing left that an audience would see as shameful was bestiality and now it has been done. Judging by some of the other comments even that did not succeed that well. I cannot remember one funny scene though I have to admit, I had to turn it off before it was finished. I did watch a part of the director's commentary and it appears he was as surprised as anyone that the movie was doing well. If you want to get the same feeling you get from this movie but only cheaper, stick your head in a pile of manure and breath deeply.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was such a waste of my money. it was disgusting as well as disturbing. honestly, i would never recommend this movie to anyone. who thinks of a movie where a girl blows her dog?? seriously... it was a waste of my time. i kept watching the movie, hoping it would get better and a plot would emerge but that never happened. i'd rate the movie an F-. This movie should have been rated R for its disturbing nature. I would never let children of any age see this movie. this movie sucks. this movie is horrible. this movie was a waste of my time. i could have spent the night doing some worth my time instead of renting this movie. this movie was a waste of gas money to get to the store and definitely a waste of two dollars to watch it. pretty much, no one should watch this movie. this movie should be banned and burned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was on the pay channels today and I had nothing to do so I had it on. This has to be the worst football movie ever made. This has to be one of the worst movies period. The premium service on the cable system has a rating system, and they gave 2 stars out of 4. This movie isn't even a half a star. Bad acting, Scott Bakula sinks as usual, Larry Miller?? Sinbad, couldn't act if he tried. Rob Schneider's one liners completely stunk. Fred Thompson should be embarrassed that he was even in this movie. The only saving grace for this movie was the hope you would see Kathy Ireland nude in the shower, not even close. A complete waste of time and of film. If we could give a negative number, minus 9.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie is allegedly a comedy.so where did all the laughs go.did the forget to put them in,on the version i watched.as a football movie,it is mildly entertaining,i guess.maybe'm just a stick in the mud,with no discernible sense of humour.or maybe this movie just isn't funny.it is also annoying,with that way over the top \"you're a winner\"musical score.and the odd thing is,the team sucked through most of the season,only winning the last two games,and the last game meant nothing since they were not in the playoffs.so what is the point? are they celebrating mediocrity?I don't see it.if anybody knows,please let me know.anyway,this movie isn't great or even very good.i'm giving it a low 3*","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Necessary Roughness (1991) was a bad comedy\/ drama that tried to hard on every level to be a serious film about college football. A lot of current and former superstar athletes appeared in this production during one of the film's comedic highlights. Other than that it's a very mediocre movie. They should have just stuck to making a straight out comedy filled with no realism. Instead the film makers try to play both fields and they end up on the short end of the stick. When will somebody make a decent film about college football that's funny and realistic?

Not recommended, unless it's for free on t.v.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I attempted to watch this, and was highly disappointed. Don't expect intelligent and insightful humor ala Amy's brother David amidst this dreck... it is the polar opposite. But if you're into poop, fart and boner jokes, you'll be in seventh heaven. This is bathroom humor aimed, I assume, at those who've had several bongs, which can only explain why many ecstatic reviewers have heralded this crap as \"the best television writing ever.\" I assume that those who hate such simpleton humor were unable to watch long enough to care to submit a review, but I am just sending out a warning shot to those unaware viewers who are looking for high-end comedy. The characters overact. The shock factor is set to 10. And the laughs are set to zero (unless, of course, you seek juvenile, low-brow humor.)

I made it through 40 minutes, praying the whole time it would turn the corner toward worthwhile entertainment, but alas, it just got worse and worse. And beware of Amy's ever-present and hammy overbite expression - it will set your eyes rolling. It was nice to see cameos by recognizable comedic actors I enjoy, but I can only assume they agreed to participate as a favor to the Sedaris family.

To those who loved it, I'm sorry... this is my opinion. It was so bad it inspired me to write my first review.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Strangers with candy overacts in all the wrong context, the situations are just not funny with the cheesy voices and bad low brow comedy timing, the clear attempt at dry\/black\/dark humour is obvious and it fails to deliver on all elements of a good joke.

With a high cringe factor and low laugh ratio I was shocked this show went pass the first season, I personally like Scrubs, The Office, 30 Rock, Trailer Park Boys, Pulling, Peep Show, Simpsons, Family Guy and I know what your thinking, these shows aren't weird at all, so some other good shows I've seen are Jam, Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, The Book Group, Asylum and Snuff Box which are original with dry\/black\/dark humour\/satire and are all at least 5\/10.

Garth Marenghi's Darkplace especially is cheap looking, overacted and weird, however the context is thought out and works to make it really out there and entertaining too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Curacao\" is a foreign intrigue drama set on the title Caribbean Island which involves a retired sea captain and bar owner (Scott) and a demoted CIA field operative (Petersen). The film has numerous bad guys, foreign agents and thugs, skulking about the pair of protagonists all coveting something Scott has which they want and are prepared to kill for. A lukewarm low budget tv flick, \"Curacao\" is spiced up with a couple of babes and use some Carnival street parades as window dressing. Little more than fodder for the bored couch potato. C-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What is wrong with CURACAO ( Also known as DEADLY CURRENTS though what the reasonn for the name change is I have no idea ) can probably be summed up where a woman says to her lover :

\" Keep it down baby , I'm trying to sleep \"

It's not the dialogue that's the problem or the way it's delivered , it's the fact the actress has has a Central European accent . Nothing wrong with that until it's revealed her character is from Philidelphia in the United States ! This what struck me about this thriller while watching it - The way accents don't match their characters . Apart from the Philly woman with a German accent we see a South African with an English accent , a local police chief who sounds like he's an Irishman impersonating a Gestapo officer and worst of all George C Scott playing someone who's either Dutch or British with an accent that sounds like it might be American tinged with South African . You soon give up following what's on screen and end up concentrating on what nationality a character might be due to the strange way they speak . It's interesting to note that this site hasn't given this movie a country of origin . With so many different actors from different countries you do feel that this was produced by the United Nations

Even if you're not curious about accents or dialects you'll probably have to give up following the action anyway because CURACAO is plot less . Things happen like a boat exploding , and a hostage situation and the hero being recruited as an agent for South African intelligence but you're left scratching your head wondering what the heck this is all leading to . I was lost","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is is very sad to see someone of the calibre of George C Scott in a low budget thriller which would have been better if the original novel was written by Graham Greene and directed by someone somewhat more experienced in the genre. NOT TO MENTION A BETTER CINEMATOGRAPHER. There are so many missed opportunities with the scenery and carnival merely glossed over, rather than captured to locate the movie solidly in the exotic setting of the novel.

Elsewhere in the viewer comments on this site, one very astute observer complained about the variety of diabolically bad accents in this film. Ever since I saw George C Scott as Rochester in Jane Eyre, I have prayed for him NEVER to ever accept again a role which required him to assume a British accent. Just every now and then, he could just possibly pass for British or a very British sounding South African played obviously by an American actor. I can stomach Meryl Streep's extraordinarily laboured accents (both British and Australian) - at least she gets it right even though with every utterance, she demands that we marvel at her skill. Well, I am sorry that Mr. Scott is no Meryl Streep, and it just destroys the illusion - like having Michele Yeoh speak excruciating Mandarin with a strong Singaporean accent in Crouching Tiger etc.

Peterson acts no differently than what we see on CSI. Except he is still very handsome and more or less slim in this movie. He is the Harrison Ford of TV. Same old expressions for every emotion, every situation. No on second thought, Ford has two - perplexed\/pained and happy. I have never seen a smile on Mr. CSI!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ugh. Yes, it's exactly like the McMartin mess, or the horrific arrests in Wenatchee, Washington. In the movie, the mother keeps aggressively questioning her little boy, over and over and over, until he finally tells her what she obviously wants to hear. The court investigators and \"therapists\" repeat the pattern. The questioning itself is sexually creepy, a relentlessy repeated assault in its own way.

The moviemakers throw in a doctor talking about physical evidence of abuse, maybe to justify the film's point of view: that two- to four-year-olds never make \"things like this\" up. Well, they will if every adult they know is asking them to. The way this piece endorses such discredited interrogation techniques makes watching it an exercise in frustration for anyone who knows what it takes to get a successful prosecution in real life.

(They also add a special arrest incident towards the end to \"prove\" their case -- no parallel to this fictional incident ever occurred in real life. Can't say more here without turning this into a spoiler, but you'll know it when you see it.)

Yes, children are abused, sometimes by paid care providers. But to watch a movie which affirms the ludicrous, hysterical accusations against so many totally innocent people, to watch re-creations of the trials that ruined the lives of countless children as well as the lives of the accused -- I didn't think I'd last until the end. It's just too sad, and made more so by the writing team's seeming endorsement of the abusive, paranoid, obsessional questioning techniques that started -- what can we call it? The bonfire of the sanities?

No one I know has ever been accused of child abuse, thank heaven, but my 12-times-over-great grandmother was accused of witchcraft and killed for it. Mobs filled with what they think is holy anger are just as dangerous now as three hundred years ago. Sensational drivel like this -- \"These accusations of Satanic abuse are cropping up all over the country, there must be something there!\" \"So tell the jury that!\" -- just eggs them on.

And whoever thought it was a good idea to have kids under ten, some of them under five, play these roles? It's traumatic to watch them delivering their lines; how much more traumatic was it to act these parts? The moviemakers' commitment to fight child abuse apparently doesn't apply to themselves. And what were the child-actors' parents THINKING? \"Melinda\" (uncredited, at least in the version on the A&E Network in 2005, but I think it was Cassy Friel) and \"Teddy\" (Brian Bonsall) were terrific. Professionals or not, though, they were too young to be exposed to this material, much less to be paid to act it out. Despite ruthlessly exploiting these real-life children, \"Do You Know The Muffin Man\" got an Emmy nomination for directing -- which just goes to show how crazed things were, back in 1989.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was total cheese. It stank. The only thing good about it was the acting. Other then that, nothing noteworthy at all.

Big Time Spoilers Coming up! Don't Read Anymore If You Have Not Seen It!

This movie is centered around a family whose happy and wonderful lives have been shattered as a result of their younger son and later as they find out older son have been molested by their daycare providers. Although, they are called liars in court and the defense attorney is a real prick the jury finds them guilty and convicts them.

In the end all I can say to the director is: \"The next time you wanna make a movie like this, do it differently\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was terrible. It was so very terrible.

Most annoying was the way the trial was conducted. The defense attorney is allowed to ramble on and on when questioning a witness without the prosecution making any objections. He attacks the children brought to give testimony with cruel ferociousness and repeatedly yells at them that they're lying. These just aren't things that they subject children who have been sexually abused to. The trial is silly and it ruins the whole movie...(Law & Order has spoiled me for courtroom accuracy-ness).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was beyond disappointment. Well acted story that means nothing. The plot is ridiculous and even what story there is goes absolutely nowhere. It truly isn't worth a nickel, buffalo or otherwise..pun intended!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not sure what the appeal of this movie is, but I couldn't find it. It's a really long, barely credible, hardly lucid conversation between three guys on one set.

It doesn't move anywhere, the characters are just totally bizarre, the underlying plot equally so. It's lost on me, definitely a walk out movie.

The one thing that keeps you from walking out is the ever unrealized possibility that it might have some kind of point or meaningful climax, and the fact that, all irritation aside at the banal personalities, they're acted quite reasonably. But you have to brace yourself for endless dialog, wishing on many an occasion that Teach would just shut the %*&* up for a moment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Zombie movies are hot, I love 'em. Can't get enough. Why I would purchase a film of this caliber goes without explanation, I just really love zombies. Surprise, this really isn't much of a zombie movie; low-budget I can handle, being duped just irritates me.

A group of horror-film clich\u00e9s hold up in a warehouse\/lab\/who-knows-what to escape a fire storm outside. Panic, yelling, low-light, and (eventually) zombies ensue.

I kind of feel bad for the film makers, as it is obvious that they really thought they were putting together something good; a serious, scary horror film. It isn't, far from it, it's a boring mess of wooden acting, cheesy FX, poor lighting, excessive dialogue, and over editing.

Things first go awry when it takes a good 10+ minutes for the characters to ever sit down and start to figure out what is going on. It gets worse when another 20 minutes go by and they are still sitting around trying to figure out what is going on. All of this is littered with non-acting and bad dialogue.

Finally some one gets attached (not by a zombie though) and hope flickers just a touch before the characters are again lounging around whining (the only emotion any one every generates) about how much this sucks. Me too guys, me too.

Finally zombies are in the mix, but no one watching cares any more. I think there was some blood and gore tossed in, but I was too busy praying for the credits to roll to notice. And when the screen finally did fade to black I felt even more cheated by the pointlessly 'Cube' inspired ending.

I will give credit for trying very hard, even if it failed miserably. That and the punk chick was very hot if totally under used.

Can't really recommend this to anyone, save for film students looking for 'no-no' pointers.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK - I gave it a \"3\" just because they obviously had no money to make this film, but I feel it might deserve the \"2.3\" rating it had when I got here. I'm actually helping to raise it's rating, despite being bored for the last hour and a half. I will save the \"1's\" and the \"2's\" for the higher budget pieces of crap. At least the makers of \"Rise of the Undead\" didn't waste that much money. They did manage to waste 90 minutes of my life.

The movie is too claustrophobic for me. The entire movie takes place in the same building, in dark rooms and hallways. With a setting like this, there should have been more action or character development, but there is just a lot of meaningless talk. I didn't get to know any of the characters. There is a schoolgirl and a Goth chick but we never find out much more about them. None of the characters seem really likable.

Terrible movie made on zero budget. No scary special effects. No suspense. Really nothing interesting at all here, folks. I admit I downloaded this from the net. It was free but I am throwing it away.

Sorry to the filmmakers. Better luck next time. This one is more like a soap opera than a zombie movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So, you've seen the Romero movies, yes? And you've seen Jacob's Ladder, right? And the later Hellraiser movies? Okay, now let's make a movie out of all three, only let's just jam everything together and make a whole big mess of it, sounds like a good idea?

This movie is terrible. Absolutely god-awful. Yeah, it's an indie flick, who gives a crap? Is that a pass to make filmic excrement? The film attempts to establish credibility by focusing on character interaction, that much is evident. Unfortunately for the writers, they're not good at character interaction. This isn't Night of the Living Dead; the characters are nonentities shouting their inane lines at each other in a vain attempt to be caught by the microphones on set. The dialogue is never interesting. For a movie that focuses so much on character interaction, you'd think the characters would have something more to say than \"WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO\" \"I don't know\" \"WELL WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING\" \"Well what are we going to do?\" \"I DON'T KNOW.\" \"We should leave.\" \"LET'S JUST ACCEPT OUR FATE.\" \"No, we've got to leave.\" \"WELL LET'S LEAVE THEN.\" \"No, maybe we should stay.\"

This isn't exaggeration, there are exchanges in this film that reach that level of redundancy and inanity.

The worst thing about this movie? Half of it is a dream, and it really has zero purpose. Nothing in the dream has any relevance to anything in the rest of the movie. The writers couldn't decide whether to make a zombie movie or a monster movie and so they just made both. It's patently ridiculous, the cheapest trick in the book, and it's maddeningly insulting, especially since I'm pretty sure they ripped off the idea from Jacob's ladder, which handled the concept a hell of a lot more competently than these jokers could ever hope to do.

And then there's the editing. Years of watching MTV and playing horror-themed video games must have inspired the filmmakers, but it's surely a sad thing they didn't realize what made the choppy editing and obfuscation in those pieces of media effective in the first place. In this film, you will be confused often, and not in the good, David Lynch way, but in the bad \"Wait I thought she just got killed, no? Then who the hell was that? Wait, who is that guy? Where did he come from? How did they get here?\" kind of way. It's constant and consistently bad.

This movie is a laughable piece of trash and should only be sought out if you want to get trashed with a few friends and laugh at it.

And as a final note: as for the \"comedy\" people in other reviews are talking about, it's all unintentional. There isn't a single intentional piece of comedy in this film. It's all supposed to be a big serious character study, because the filmmakers want to have credibility in their horror-concept. Sadly, their pretensions don't match up to their ability.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hey, I'm a fan of so-bad-so-good movies but there's nothing so-bad-so-good about Rise Of The Undead. It's just so-bad and that's it. No redeeming cheese, no unintentional humor, nothing! - boring apocalyptic Zombie (The \"Undead\" : a few people with hardly any make up) nonsense with lame special effects (if you can call those effects), dumb plot and annoying actors. They also have the nerve to rip off and quote from other (better) movies (Resident Evil, Dawn Of The Dead & Night Of The Comet) and managed to put me to sleep on the side. However, it was Rise Of My Eyelids once the end credits rolled though. My advice: save your money. It's not even worth a rental, unless you want to p*ss off and\/or put some people to sleep then go ahead and give it a spin. You've been warned ;)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do not be misled. This is NOT a zombie movie. Take it from a guy who loves zombie movies, and who rents them all: the good, and the horrendous. Yes, this movie has an extended zombie sequence, but it's basically an artsy-fartsy exercise in existentialist dread, which is a long way of saying it's boring. If you've worked hard all day and want to spend a couple of hours being entertained, rent something else.

\"Rise of the Undead\" has cheap special effects, mediocre acting, and crummy dialogue. All of that is understandable in an indie, low-budget film, and I can forgive such flaws as long as a movie has an entertaining story to tell. Unfortunately, \"Rise of the Undead\" hardly has any story at all. Moreover, the acting is not laughably bad so much as non-existent. All of the actors seem to have studied at the Buster Keaton School of Wooden Faces. Would it have killed them to show some emotion? (And no, yelling does not equate with emoting). The one character who actually had some pizazz was killed off first. Granted, there was another character who briefly held my interest. He looked and acted like Kyle McLachlan channeling Norman Bates, but it was too little, too late.

The filmmakers seemed to have forgotten a tiny detail: film is a VISUAL medium. That means lighting your scenes well enough for the viewer to actually view what's going on. And all those artsy jump cuts and close ups might have seemed cool at the time, but all they did was make watching the film jarring and confusing. There is nothing wrong with telling a story in a simple, clear fashion -- just look at George Romero's low-budget \"Night of the Living Dead\" to see how it's done superbly. And I know these folks had a small budget, but if you can't hire the equipment and technicians necessary to actually make the dialogue audible, then just go ahead and make a silent movie (then those Buster Keaton wooden faces might actually work).

I will say this for the film: the zombies were creepy. Unlike most zombie movies where the undead are shown in all their decomposing glory, the grosser the better, the zombies here were just shuffling, bloody-faced people. It actually worked to make them more like us, and therefore, scarier. That's the reason I gave this movie 2 stars instead of 1.

The sad part about all this is that despite all of its flaws, \"Rise of the Undead\" does not insult your intelligence. The filmmakers seemed to have actually wanted to make a smart, scary, original movie, and it's a shame that they failed so miserably. If they could just forego the too-fancy editing, buy a few extra lightbulbs, crank up the dialogue, and come up with a real story that actually goes somewhere, then I think they have the talent to make something really good.

Trust me: do not waste your time on \"Rise of the Undead.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't give it less than a star, I tried. At this moment, Im not sure if Im halfway through it or not, but I stopped actively paying attention around the time part of it was revealed to be a dream. Or not. Or maybe it was. I think viewers who posted a comment that didn't include the descriptions \"horrible\" or \"awful\" or \"made me want to swallow a bullet\" are probably being nice because it is an indie film. Don't listen to them, listen to me- there is no nudity in the movie, skip it. I needed ten lines to submit this warning, so I will also say that the goth girl that some users have described as \"hot\" is fat. She has fat elephant legs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With the Terrible acting, the awful dialog, the multitude of bad humor, the crappy plot and over terrible film. This has to be the worst film i have ever viewed in my life, and i'm the king of finding bad movies. For the effects, they just threw fake blood on people and things, didn't spend the time to create wounds and make special effects worth anything. Most people making low budget horror flicks at least do something like clads of tissue or something to make a gashing wound. The dialog was far from even decent and the acting was without direction or effort. They just threw some actors on a set and said, have at it. I swear i've seen better films from my film I class at school. How did this ever get a DVD release?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rise of the Undead starts as some huge nuclear type blast rips through an unnamed American city, a few people survive in a building by leaning on the door so it'll stay closed & keep the nastiness out(!). They argue amongst themselves for ages, then a monster thing arrives from seemingly nowhere & begins to kill them of one-by-one...

Written, produced & directed by Jason Horton & Shannon Hubbell one has to say Rise of the Undead is terrible. The script takes itself very seriously but makes little sense, the first thing I asked myself was if there's this huge nuclear blast type thing going on outside destroying the entire city why are these people I'm watching still alive? Why is the building they are in still standing? Then I asked myself when was something actually going to happen, the entire first 20 minutes is set in one room, actually that's a bit generous it's more of a corridor as the main character's argue. Then it turns into some Return of the Living Dead (1985) rip-off with a Government created virus which turns people into zombies before one of the most abrupt, pointless & seemingly random plot twists I've ever witnessed which renders most of what has just happened a complete waste of time. Then for the final 30 odd minutes Rise of the Undead turns into some strange sci-fi type thing as something which resembles a ball of energy floats around killing everyone, was I the only asking what this floating ball of energy thing is & where it came from? Getting back to what was happening outside what was the reason again? Oh that's right we are never told. Rise of the Undead is a mess, the character's are awful & aren't even given names, the twist about halfway through will have you tearing your hair out in frustration, the dialogue sucks, nothing is explained & there's virtually no story here. The final 10 minutes (maybe a bit more) of Rise of the Undead features no dialogue whatsoever & the film just suddenly ends.

Director's Horton & Hubbell were obviously working on a low budget, the entire film is set in about two rooms & three corridors! The photography is awful, they use annoying colour filters seemingly at random & sometimes it really does look like Rise of the Undead was shot on a camcorder. There's no special effects, there's some fake blood splashed around but no actual make-up effects to speak of. There are some CGI shots of the city being engulfed in flames which look alright but the floating ball of energy creature thing looks terrible. There is one baffling shot early on where two people are sitting against a corridor wall & talking, for some bizarre reason their heads are cut off at the top of the screen! Just their lower bodies from the neck down are seen yet nothing else is happening in frame, they are not moving & there's no else there but for some strange reason their heads are cut off the top of the frame as they talk to each other! It's quite an odd thing to watch actually.

With an ultra low budget of about $10,000 & according to the IMDb shot in two weeks I have to congratulate the makers for getting Rise of the Undead finished & distributed but that's where my congratulations stop because otherwise this has awful production values & is set in about three corridors which are located somewhere in New Orleans in Louisiana as that's where Rise of the Undead was shot. The acting sucks so I won't dwell on it.

Rise of the Undead sucks, it sounds like a zombie film but in all honestly it isn't, everything about it is sub par & I know the filmmakers were working on a low budget but that's not really an excuse as far as I'm concerned. Definitely not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst movie I've ever seen. Boring, illogical, terrible. Don't waste even a minute in your life to watch this crap! I hope the directors won't make any other movie because this movie bankrupts them. The movie seems to be created in one or two days with some friends of the directors (if we can use this word for these 2 guys). They use only camera in hand. Many scenes are in darkness and nothing can be seen. Lots of scenes (80% of the movie) are with conversation only. ! There are movies like Vampire vs. Zombies which you can laugh on but this one is simply bad, no point to making such movies. Please, stop Jason Horton and Shannon Hubbel. Don't make more movies!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Beowulf\" is like a very bad game : no characters, no story, no real dialogues, bad fights ... It's probably the worst movie in the history of cinema. It's deadly boring, a lost of time. I'm really sorry for Christophe Lambert, who visibly doesn't know how to choose a role. If someone suggests you to see \"Beowulf\", believe me : run like mad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Christopher Lambert attracted me to this movie. What a waste! The plot has more holes than my string vest the special effects were not very good, it did not take much to figure out who the creature's mother was and the creature owed more than a little debt to Predator. Anti-climatical this movie could have been done a whole lot better. It does raise one interesting point however. When is Hollywood going to discover the rich vein of European folklore out there just waiting to be mined?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"GOOD: Technomusic accompanying medieval swordplay. Also, the movie looks sleeker than most b-movies, but let's face it: Quake or Doom has more atmosphere.

BAD: Unintelligent plot, no acting and totally unbelievable universe. I am usually able to see the potential of even very bad movies; heck, I love a good B-movie like \"Split Second\" and the likes. But this one has has nothing but boredom and clich\u00e9 to offer... Totally predictable from start to end. Oh, and I forgot the lousy special effects, they look more like an old Playstation game than anything out of myth! The use of a classic poem to sell this sucker offends me!

CONCLUSION: Quite simply boring. If you want to see Lara Croft, buy the game, it's way sexier!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another B-movie for teenagers, based mainly on CGI-effects, industrial soundtrack and some medieval imagery. It's a pitty that the legend for Beowulf is used in such uninspired manner. I am a fan of Christopher Lambert, but I have to admit that he is getting worse as an actor and his movies too. Rent it if you are teenager only.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Without doubt, this is the worst movie I've ever seen.

Poor acting. Poor script. Poor direction and poor production.

Why did they even bother? This entire movie was total nonsense. Suspension of disbelief can only carry so far, but this pushes the limits completely.

For a movie with no humour content, the audience laughed disturbingly often...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once I heard that the greatest and oldest preserved Germanic heroic poem was transformed into a film it almost became my obsession to see it. The first glints of its appearance I caught never disappointed me. A futuristic interpretation With Lambert our favourite highlander and Mitra, tomb raider to be,in leading roles seamed appealing, though some doubts came to life (an important female character in Beowulf?)... Two hours ago I saw the film. After I had read the director's name my world fell apart. As I said - from that point on, there was not many surprises. First and foremost, the film has NOTHING to do with the original Beowulf if we disregard a couple of violently and pointlessly stolen names. If they had not stolen the names and declared it to be a new story, it might have passed as an f-class action stupidity with nice costumes and scenography. This way it is simply a crime! An attack on a legend and its ideology as well as on common sense. Ok let me be positive for a second... apart from the general electro-goth atmosphere which is nice it also has good music. That was it for both the positive part and this comment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

I've seen this movie during a festival here in munich with a huge crowd of real fantasy fans. At about the middle of the movie one part of the audience was sleeping and the other part was booeing. Boring dialogues, badly choreographed fighting sequences, a terribly dumb story and even worse special effects. Well, at least the actors hadn't much to do, except for looking concerned or (in case they were female) showing their breasts in the right light. Even G\u00f6tz Otto, who was among the audience admitted afterwards that ge could understand the disappointment of the viewers. Be warned, folks, of the cheapest fantasy movie ever........","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The only advantage seeing this movie is that the next movie can't possibly be worse. It's childish as hell (but Children aren't allowed)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like Christophe Lambert as an actor. He has played in several good movies (Highlander, Subway, Greystoke, ...). But I can't even think he has played in that movie. The story is nearly nothing, the special effects are very bad and the actors also. To resume the movie, I have only one thing to say : it's the first time that I go to watch a movie and want to leave after 10 minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"bad acting , combats are very awful , 3-4 second between each text , bad music , bad effect and always the same plan during the movie. if you want laugh go it 2\/10 ( for the fool laugh)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Christophe Lambert once said he was still making movies only to make good and easy money. When I see his latest releases, I can believe that.

Beowulf is, all in all, in the \"good\" part of the crap movies : there are some good thrill scenes, indeed. The actors themselves aren't too bad. But the plot is silly, the \"Mortal Kombat\"-like music has nothing to do here, the ending is really s****y...

Really, the only good thing about it is that me and my friends could laugh about how uninteresting it was. I even wish I wasted my money on something else.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Took a very good book and completely butchered it. Nothing was as it should have been. Some of the best parts of the book were missing, including the major point of the whole book. Simply the worst adaptation of a Stephen King novel ever. This movie made the mini-series for IT look good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After the lush, inspiring aerial shot in fast motion in the opening of the movie, this slipped into utter boredom and a one tone note right till the end.

Where to begin, well I'll start with the characters. I really enjoyed them in the book, here they all were types and one dimensional morons that either had \"Victim\" or \"Asshole\" written on their foreheads from the get go. How any one didn't see through the store owner Lealand Gaunt (in a hammy and out of place performance by Sydrow)is beyond me.

This film lacks in thrills, suspense, and in some sense yes, entertaining values. It stretches itself for far too long with not a lot of pay off. Why introduce too many annoying should-die-quick type of characters and then forget about half of them half way through? In the book practically everyone that went into the store met a grisly fate. Here, besides one of the only decent scenes that translated well from the novel (the fight between Wilma and Nettie), was a letdown and didn't have much balls. I'm sorry but after, one off screen death,a boring shoot off, and some bickering and then a couple explosions just didn't do it for me. The brutality and mean spiritedness from the book was sadly missing. The explosion of the church scene was so over the top and badly executed, all of sudden the entire city was in a brawl? It made no sense and characters that weren't introduced all the way through suddenly are, who are these people and why should I care?

The story is all over the place and none of the scenes had momentum. I thought Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedeila were good actors in this, but the movie gives them not enough substance for me to give a damn. Amanda Plummer was credible but too pathetic to really be sympathetic (in the novel she was a sad and depressing character)here it was a too one note. J.T. Walsh was entertaining, but the role was far from interesting or layered. Too predictable.

The soundtrack was too classy for the material it was supporting. It stood out like sore thumb. Easy there buddy, easy. Something a little less theatrical I'd assume would have worked.

I will admit some of the gore it did manage to have was good enough I guess, The director seemed to hold back a lot of the times though. If your going to make a movie that reaches the 2 hr point be sure to have far more going on then this disaster of a adaption of on of Kings better novels.

I often found myself laughing at scenes that were suppose to be taken seriously (Ed Harris speech at the end, or the character Hugh Priest in general), and was bored and uninterested most of the other time. Personally the director should have done so much more with this story, his approach is too tame and hides behind too much crisp cinematography to ever come off as a decent movie. The movie looks good, but not the look I think this story deserved. I mean, this dude helmed ALASKA,not a good sign.

I'd rather just read the book, as you should too as if it is far more entertaining,layered character development, grisly violence and mayhem, a nasty sense of humour, and far more oomph. This is a butchered version, that has not much to offer.

** out of ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"** May contain spoilers ** Horrible. Just horrible. I loved Stephen King's novel, and this is just a horrible adaptation of it. They change the ending. They change the plot. They changed Alan Pangborne's character from a grieving husband to a happy fianc\u00e9. If you are a fan of Stephen King's novel, stay away. Even if You are not, stay away.

The book was awesomely dark, even for Steve King. An 11 year old kills himself in the novel. A middle school principal is found with child pornography in the novel. THis is nowhere near as good as the novel.

This movie is my least favorite film of all time. I hate this film with a vengeance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Reading the book I felt once again drawn into Castle Rock (Needful Things being the final part of the Rock trilogy), and the plot was a variant on the \"demon comes to small redneck village\" type story King likes to tell. The characters were all described in loving detail, and it made both a good psychological and gory horror. The film on the other hand is awful. Gone are the character interactions and clever plot, and replaced by a story that tries to be exciting but misses by a mile. If you haven't read the book then you might enjoy this, else avoid at all costs, as with most films of King's books.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Needful Things was one of my favorite Stephen King books. But this movie is one of the worst book to film adaptations I have ever seen they changed so many things around that it made me sick. Even the concept of the book being deception, things not always what they appear reminder throughout the book was not shown in the movie. Althogh it was enjoyable as many Stephen King films are, but as many Stephen King films this one did not follow the book and became a piece of Hollywood trailer trash. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The book was one of Stephen King's best. The movie was pure rubbish. It was painful to remain in the theater until the ending, which wasn't even the same as the book. I guess that this is the result when you try to cram 10 pages of story into every minute. There is no good reason to watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

Based on another of Stephen King's lengthy novellas, this takes place in the sleepy little New England town of Castle Rock (also the name of the film's production company!), where a new antiques store, the titular Needful Things, has opened. The owner and proprietor, Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) hides, you might say, a devilish secret. There's an item in his store that everyone in the little town wants-a small cash price upfront is first required, before a far more sinister price is asked for. As suspicion, hate and madness tear the town apart, it falls to police chief Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) to restore order and save the town from a terrifying end...

I read the novel of Needful Things earlier this year, and was eager to watch the movie adaptation again to compare them (like that was going to be any contest!) But it had been deleted on video and DVD and I couldn't find anywhere to rent it from. So I was happy when I finally found it in a flea market whilst on a shopping trip...

It's one of the cruelest ironies that King novels are generally the best to read but when they get adapted to screen nine times out of ten they are complete junk, as is the case here. The material that makes his books great simply doesn't translate into a movie script very well, for some reason. And I suppose there's always the question: why bother watching this when I could be reading the book again instead?

I appreciate that some are simply too lengthy (i.e. It, The Stand) to be made into a complete screen work with all the situations and characters included, but there's no reason this one couldn't have included all the material from the book. As a result, a lot of key characters from the book (i.e. Ace Merrill) are not included at all and we have some terrible character development that means we don't care about the characters that are involved since they are so stripped of depth and motivation- for example we have one character from the book, Danforth Keaton, who murders his wife toward the end yet we were shown no build-up to hint at any reason that he didn't get along with or hated her and so it has no impact when it happens, unlike in the book where there was a lot of depth invested and it really involved you to find out what happened to the characters involved. All the material in the script to fill in the cracks, if you like, is really stupid and corny and the typically goofy stuff that gets included in King adaptations like this.

Most of the film's problems are that it deviates so far away from the book but there's also some terrible acting from a cast that obviously can't feel for the daft material they're being asked to perform. In the 90s, a lot of King's work started skipping the cinema and just being made into made-for-TV\/video territory. Rubbish like this must surely hint at why. **","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is based on a Stephen King novel in which mysterious new shopkeeper Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) offers each citizen of Castle Rock the item he or she most desires - but there is a heavy price to be paid for these transactions. Local sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) is soon forced to deal with a variety of brutal deaths and suspicious circumstances.

Below average for Stephen King cinema: I can see why some people would think it was boring. It plods along without offering genuine scares and forces the viewer to spend time (yet again) with a bunch of repulsive losers whose hatred of each other is spooky.

I do enjoy the novel and don't believe that this lackluster movie does it justice. There are too many unfortunate changes from book to screen.

Von Sydow makes Gaunt much too charming. We're supposed to be SCARED of Gaunt at the right times, not amused by him. I also hate it that the sheriff's primary deputy (Ray McKinnon) is written and portrayed as such an annoying, Barney Fife-type moron. Star Ed Harris looks as if he was forced into doing this picture by his agent, but professional that he is, he really sinks his teeth into his dialog. Bonnie Bedelia (as Pangborn's love interest Polly) and Amanda Plummer (in one of her standard mentally unbalanced roles) come the closest to creating characters who are likable.

Yet it is also foul and mean-spirited.

Although I'll be darned if it didn't feel a little cathartic watching a bunch of unlikable movie characters tear each other to pieces. The climax has some good explosions.

I often give movies a better rating than they probably deserve, but in this case I feel I should really be honest and just say: 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Based on a Stephen King novel, NEEDFUL THINGS provides the intrigue and eeriness to keep you in your seat. A mysterious man(Max von Sydow) comes to town and soon becomes the most talked about citizen. Could it be that the devil himself has set up shop as an antique dealer in a small town in Maine? von Sydow is masterful and dynamic in this role that dominates the screen. Also starring are Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedelia. Harris is steady and Bedelia is deserving of your attention. Also in support are J.T. Walsh and Amanda Plummer. Not the best, nor the worst adaptation of King's horror on the screen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a fan of Ed Harris' work and I really had high expectations about this film. Having so good actors as Harris and Von Sydow is always a big advantage for a director but if the script is bad what can you do? I really think that Needful Things is the worst movie of Harris' filmography and that getting involved with it was a huge mistake. Anyway, I've seen much worse movies in my life but Needful Things was a disappointment because of the waste of acting talent. The story as an overall seems too unbelievable and fake. I don't know if that is because of the book, 'cause I haven't read it. But if the script was so bad, I can't see the reason for filming it. Maybe it was the commercial success of King's books, or the need for low-quality movies for the VHS era of the 90's. Whatever the reason was, though, this movie was a very bad choice for anyone involved.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, this is anti-Christian bias big-time! This is based on a Stephen King novel and he written this kind of bias before and then Hollywood exaggerates it even more. In this film, we see a Protestant minister and a Catholic priest BOTH act like fools and be profane at the same time. Of course, the Devil has taken over the town so maybe his influence is into these guys, too, but they are typical Hollywood portrayals. They never show a minister who talks and acts like Billy Graham, or your local minister or priest. And - another \"given\" - they make the Satan character the most interesting of the film.

Max Von Sydow plays the Devil and makes him a likable guy. Ironically, Von Sydow has played a number of these roles after portraying Jesus in the 1964 film, \"The Greatest Story Ever Told.\" You wonder why actors are so screwed up? They don't know if they are God, Satan or anyone in between.

Ed Harris, who played a lot of unlikeable roles up until the last few years, is appropriately cast in this story. He and the rest of the mean-spirited characters in this film do NOT make it fun to watch.

From what I've heard, King's book is even darker and more sick than this hate-filled movie but better constructed. Frankly, who cares. King and Hollywood deserve each other.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I gave this movie a rating of 1 because it is by far, the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. This movie was made in 2003 and I've seen movies made in the 60's with better special effects. I wish I could go into detail, but words can't describe how crappy this movie was. I could have done better with a home video camera and $20! I pray that Chuck Norris never makes a movie again. Now If you think I'm downing this movie because it has a Christian theme, you're wrong. I like the fact that IL' Chuck decided to make a movie that at least attempted to make God look good, but why would he make poor viewers like me suffer through such a crappy movie? This whole film can be summed up in 3 words: RE DAMN DICULOUS.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is quite possible the worst movie ever made. I know people talk about how horrible Ed Wood movies were (Plan 9) but this movie makes Plan 9 look amazing.

Chuck Norris makes a cameo, for what reason I have no idea. Perhaps to ruin his movie career. Aside from Chuck Norris, the movie's cast consists of extras in daytime soaps and Mike Norris... that's right, Chuck's son.

This director doesn't even have a resume and I have no idea where the plot or screenplay originated. This must've been green lit by a horrible Southern Baptist minister that somehow had a 3rd cousin that owned a studio (which I'm sure has since been shut down).

I don't really know what else to say about this movie. I would like to give you a plot summary but I'm lost. There is something about Jesus and Satan... some eternal battle. Other than that there are Indians. And a bunch of freaky kids that don't know how to act... they're just awkward and should not be on camera. I don't know what was going on most of the time but I know the movie was a great laugh. Mike Norris pushes his daughter (on her bike) into the street somehow... but in the shot he's in the middle of the park. So somehow she learns to ride her bike with speed equivalent to that of The Flash and gets hit by a car or bus... I don't know. But she's dead. This is actually the funniest scene in the movie. I know that sounds sick but once you see Mike raise his hands in victory and then hold his head and scream in terror... you'll understand. It doesn't show the daughter getting hit or anything... you just have to assume she got hit by some vehicle. But, the movie's not clear. So maybe it was completely unrelated and she died from cancer. Anyway... after that the movie gets really confusing and I have no idea what really happens. I am a Christian and I have no idea why this movie was made. I don't see any value for this movie in a religious or non-religious sector. This is probably the first thing they show students in Film-making 101... this is what you DON'T want to do.

Just see it... you'll hate it and me for suggesting that you see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I recently had the idea to make a short film featuring a man who is hit by a car and wakes up thinking that he himself is Chuck Norris. This meant that I would have to do extensive Chuck research, and find out as much as I could about the man. I later find out that he is not in fact a man, but an angel sent from heaven. With a face like that, who could ever doubt it? I have watched more Chuck Norris movies in the last four months than any one person should. I am proud to say that Bells of Innocence ranks pretty close to the top of the all time worst list. I spent most of the film wondering if I could return my copy to the local Wal-Mart without the receipt, which I had been biting down on to keep myself from swallowing my own tongue. The biggest reason why I chose to purchase this film was that it not only had Chuck in it, but his son Mike. I was anxious to see if Mike was a chip off the old can't-act-his-way-out-of-a-wet-paper-bag block. I came to the conclusion a long while ago; the Chuck Norris is one of the worst actors in cinematic history for one simple reason. The only character he ever plays is himself, Chuck Norris. No matter what movie, no matter what situation, he is always Chuck Norris. The one thing that he holds over his son is that he is consistent. Mike doesn't seem to understand how human emotions work. In the scene where he is talking to the little girl about his dead daughter, he seems to be extremely happy! Maybe this is because he actually pushed his daughter out into traffic, as depicted in one of the oddest flashbacks of all time. His actions confused me throughout the film, making it very hard for me to focus on what little plot there was. The other two lead actors were just as painful to watch as the son of Norris. The guy, who constantly wants to eat or tell a stupid peacock joke, was simply one of the most annoying characters that has ever graced the Direct-to-Video screen. The only thing I remember him being in other than this movie, was an episode of Walker Texas Ranger, in which he plays an equally annoying character. Maybe Chuck owes this guy something. The other guy, which is the only name I can think of because he was so forgettable, was your average Christian fanatic. I don't have anything against Christians, in fact I am one, but this guy was just too much for me. To round out the story, you have a multitude of townspeople who love to call people \"friend\", and a couple of villains who don't seem to be able to decide which one of them is in charge. Not to mention the creepy kids who remind me of the dollar store version of every other group of creepy kids in movies. All in all, the movie is possibly one of the biggest failures of all time, on more levels than Chuck Norris can kick people's asses. Despite being one of the worst actors of all time, I still can't get enough of Chuck. Maybe he really was sent from heaven...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, I'm 26 so I've been thru all the action heroes 80's hype, and Chuck Norris along with Seagal, Van Damme and the rest of the guys were my childhood heroes, fighting the bad guys, shooting dozens of bullets from one round only;) I saw the advert of this movie on TV a couple of days ago - Chuck Norris was throwing some fireballs from his fingers. WHOA! 'That is a must-see crappy movie!', I said. And indeed it was. Only a lot lot worse. It is very difficult to see all the movie - stuffed with some religious thoughts, ridiculous zombie-like monsters, who serve Satan, all the idea of a plot set in some forgotten community, which represent whole mankind - it is a load of Christian fundamentalist's wet dreams.

I've nothing against Christianity, even in the movies, but this one lacks taste, it lacks almost everything that connects with a common sense, c'mon, Chuck Norris playing an ANGEL, whose job is to look after little town, where Satan lives?!?! The whole plot is so damn straight and boring, not mentioning its silliness (yes, it's not stupidity anymore, we're talking silliness like... like a retarded child's joke) make altogether terrible movie, made as far as I suppose for elder people very much devoted to Catholic Church, because young viewers laugh at almost every scene. Technically it's incorrect, the fx are worse than the ones you've seen in early 90's in TV series, the plot seems VERY stupid, actors could be easily exchanged to cardboard stands, not mentioning the music which as far as I've heard was played on a childish toy piano. I've seen a lot of movies, even the worst ones (the ones from the IMDb bottom list) like 'Space Mutiny' or 'Manos - hands of fate' BUT believe me nothing compares to this ridiculous, terrible, horribly acted quasi-movie which brings some students' prank movies to my mind rather than regular production. Avoid it. At all cost avoid it. There's even nothing to laugh at. Chuck Norris has officially finished his movie career.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Normally, I don't like Chuck Norris films. I appreciate his work as a martial artist, and his fight scenes are usually fairly well-choreographed. Chuck is undeniably one of the martial arts greats. So, in my local used bookstore, I found a film I hadn't seen before and took it home.

While the acting in this movie was worse than most Chuch Norris films, I was hoping to see at least one fight scene. I quickly began to realize that this wasn't a typical Chuch Norris film; rather it was a Christian film, destined to illustrate the \"good will win out\" paradigm.

There is really nothing on the packaging to indicate that this is a Christian film, with the exception of the label ... Goodtimes Entertainment, which I had never heard of before. I'll certainly keep that in mind the next time I see a film from that company.

I don't have a problem with Christianity ... I do have a problem with sneaky proselytizing. If someone is going to make a religious film, at least have the good sense to indicate to the viewer that such is what they will get. The only redeeming part about the exercise is that I spent only $3.25 to spend 97 minutes to watch a great martial artist not fight. At least it was during supper-time, and I spent some of that cooking and eating.

In short, if you're looking for a mediocre martial arts film, and not hoping for much, don't bother with this film because it doesn't even offer that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen. What were they thinking. Stop preaching to me already! This is why all of us watch Walker Texas Ranger and wont admit it to our friends. Terrible acting and a extremely phony plot. While the movie is unfolding the story stops and the actors start preaching to the audience. The director somehow believed the two meshed well. It looked like crap! When I saw the title at my local blockbusters it looked interesting. Their should have been a warning on it saying it was religious instead of the false advertisement of an action \/ adventure. First time in a long time I stopped a movie and couldn't tolerate finishing it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, Chuck Norris has shown up in many an entertaining movie over the years. This is not one of them. I won't even bother trying to get into the plot about a Bible shipment gone wrong. The \"acting\" of the main characters is so wood like, Pinocchio would have done a better job! The synthesizer based soundtrack is even worse than the one in Deathstalker. Whereas traditionally low budget spooky movies are often trying to catch their audience by adding plenty of graphic violence, this one is trying to catch an audience by throwing religious mambo jumbo at the spectator. The plot boils down to different versions of the Bible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When you watch the making of with this DVD - they tell you what is attempted here- they are retelling the bible story of good versus evil & trying to preach it to a main stream movie audience. In a modern society such as ours, this is where the film fails. There are way too many sheep depicted in this movie. People are too empowered for this type of preaching today.

As far as the acting, directing, & technical functions, they are done OK. Chuck Norris actually is OK as an angel as the unpredictable appearance of Norris as an angel is no more absurd than Tommy Smothers was in the 1960's sit com.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Boring, rank nefarious plot, some of the worst direction I've ever come across, inane acting and horribly clich\u00e9d. The movie ends with one of the main characters waking from a dream. WHAT's WITH THAT? Even JR from Dallas couldn't survive that lame twist.

You have what can only be described as an inappropriate relationship developing between a main character and a young girl, which is ostensibly meant to be fatherly, but which comes off as perverse. You have freshman community college movie school special effects with loopholes the size of the Kimberly Hole. This is like Children of the Corn meets Passion of the Christ imposed on an endless loop of government administration training video - by the end of it, if you aren't contemplating ending it, you have no brain.

Don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is another one of those fundamentalist Christian movies that hit you over the head with religion like a sledgehammer. You know you are in trouble when the setup of the story is completely ridiculous. Three men are flying to Mexico to deliver Bibles. This makes no sense since the church is Protestant and most Mexicans are Catholic. Protestant and Catholic bibles are not the same. The Catholic bible has books in it that are not in the Protestant bible. I also find it difficult to believe that churches in Mexico would not distribute bibles to them. I can understand if they were going to a place where Christianity is in the minority. But Mexico is far fetched. If you cannot believe the setup of a story, then you don't the rest of the story either. A movie about religion can be entertaining, but not this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"my friends and I are always on the lookout for chuck norris films to just bash and make fun of. One of our favorites so far is Lonewolf. i went to a wal-mart Christmas shopping and i came across this movie in the 5.99 bin. i had to get it. i had high hopes for this movie and although being absolutely hilarious at times, we agreed that bells of innocence is the worst movie we've ever seen, made, produced, thought up, etc... who the hell would think this is a good idea. not only is it confusing at times, but the acting is just hard to watch. the man who plays oren has acting i can compare to my own vomit, and chuck took a dive on this one, he's not the greatest actor, but this was terrible. and what kind of names are oren, conrad and jux........ jux. come on people. if you honestly thought this movie was at all watchable, great for you because it was hard for me and i seriously had a headache and stomach pains after watching it. I'm telling you now if you haven't seen this movie, DON'T!!. For the love of god please do not subject yourself to such a horrible 90 minutes of your life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(Chances are, I'm gonna spoil Valuable Plot Points while writing this and because I can't determine and don't really care what YOU think is a Valuable Plot Point, then if you are thinking of watching this film and have an issue with learning such things, then I suggest you hop right on to the next review.) You know, I don't mind the cult films being filed under the \"cult\" section. And people who believe it can go there and get their fill of the \"reality\". I mean, is it too much to ask that the overtly pseudo-Christian propaganda films be filed with the other Special Interest movies?

I couldn't have been more flabbergasted had Pat Robertson made a porn movie. (or would that be \"flubbergasted\"?)

It was bad enough that there was an egregiously insufficient count of kicking and punching in this. It was bad enough that the same story has been done repeatedly in much better ways. It was bad enough that it wasn't filed under Special Interest, with other cult films. It was bad enough that it somehow is receiving nods for being \"realistic\" as if we live in the world where towns get possessed by the \"debbil\" and the really profound and nasty evil ISN'T done by human beings -- usually in the NAME of religions based on the god of Abraham. It was bad enough having to simply shut the thing down because people were complaining so loudly that it was awful.

No, the really BAD part was when one of our guests stood up after we finally had to just turn the damn thing off, and declared \"I for one would like to see something really violent or pornographic now, just to get that OUT of my head. Preferably both, if you have it.\" And we had just MET her.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an admirable attempt from first time filmmaker Ham Tran, offering little-glanced perspective dealing with Vietnam war victims struggling for liberation, but plays out as a glorified history special. With clunky, self-consciously informative dialog and sub-par acting, even a relatively impressive budget with attention to detail will not spring to life this sagging, albeit historically worthy, melodrama. Paying no mind to the often distracting disconnect with the actors to the reality of situations on screen, and you should be left with an informative, if somewhat impersonal educational lesson in Vietnamese post-war history.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International film Festival and I can't believe that this is Sweden's official submission to the 79th Academy Awards to be considered for best foreign film. Producer Anna Anthony last year also had Sweden's official submission for best foreign film with Zozo. I wasn't personally a fan of Zozo but at least it had some production value to it. This could have been shot as a high school film project. As a short film it may have worked but as a feature film it is as lost as it's characters. This is a story about five twenty something friends who live in a small Swedish town and have no goals or hopes or ambitions for the future and like to live in the past of their long gone childhood. Actually Falkenberg isn't like some remote northern Swedish village. It's a popular summer resort with a population of city and townships of almost 40,000 and lies between two major southern coastal Swedish cities of G\u00f6tborg and Malmo. The characters are likable enough guys but if they were high school age kids with a bleak or confused attitude about what they plan to do with their lives I would undoubtedly care about them more. They are however long past the point where they should be making plans to deal with adulthood. If they want to stay in Falkenberg forever than certainly there must be some jobs in the tourist or fishing industry instead of just riding bicycles, drinking, smoking pot and occasionally painting a house. Maybe if they hung around with a girl or two in their circle of friends, of which girls are absent from this film altogether which doesn't make sense. Jesper Ganslandt makes his directorial debut and co wrote the film along with the cinematographer, of which I use the term loosely, Fredrik Wenzel. the acting isn't too bad. I would give this a 4.5 out of 10 but despite it's submission for consideration for the Academy Awards I would not recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How on earth were these guys given funds to make this movie? The lack of script is one thing, but the cinematography makes you want to weep. A hand held camera can be of great value to the look and feel of a movie but in that case you need a photographer who knows what he is doing. I am well aware that the actors are amateurs but it's of no defence since the director might be the least talented one ever directing in Sweden. It would be a shame for the industry if he (or any in the team for that matter) is given money to make a film ever again. This movie simply provides fuel to the argument that too many movies are made in Sweden each year.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director Nico Mastorakis has made a cynical cash-grabber (by his own admission) that is too cynical to impress anybody but a sophomore genre fan.

The most extreme, confronting genre pics, to paraphrase a character in VIDEODROME, \"have a philosophy\"; that is what makes them dangerous.

ISLAND OF DEATH's philosophy is to throw many \"shocking\" elements into a cinematic mix and stir slowly. The result is a dish with no taste but an ugly appearance.

Not to be confused with Serrador's brilliant WHO COULD KILL A CHILD? (sometimes called ISLAND OF DEATH), Mastorakis's effort is set on a Greek island which is a stage for various forms of slaughter, a little bestiality and some wholesale perversion.

Everything moves at a snailish pace and the violent set pieces are poorly directed.

Touted as \"The movie that the censors didn't want you to see\", I'd hazard a guess that the censors never saw it, they simply read the presskit until their knees jerked upwards.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Island of Death is not really a good movie, by any standard, but it is a curious one. Imagine if Natural Born Killers had been made 20 years too early, as a Greek Eurotrash porn film. That's what you get here - the quaint story of a young, sociopathic British couple cutting a deadly swath through the population of a lovely little Greek island.

I'll spare you a detailed breakdown of the plot; it's not really important except to set up increasingly perverse or violent sex scenes followed by disturbingly brutal murders, often lovingly photographed for posterity by our charming young couple. It could have been brilliant, in its own sick and nasty way, but instead...

Instead, I found myself impatiently checking the run time and chapter index to see how much longer the parade was going to last. Sluggish pacing and listless, bland acting turn even vilest perversities into pablum, and connecting scenes into an eternity of dull plodding. Ah, well. You can't win 'em all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nico Mastorakis's banned movie was quite disappointing in my opinion. The movie is about a couple, who go to a Greek island to kill of all perverted people (apparently). You know you got something pretty sick when one of the first scenes include a guy having sex with a goat and then killing it off.

But things only get worse from that point as all scenes pretty much look alike. They meet some people, so they either kill or have sex with them (preferably both).

The ending is OK allright when the couple turn out to be brother and sister and she is just letting him rot somewhere but overall one would have expected more. No substance here I'm afraid.

3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a big time horror fan, and I bought this movie from all the hype it was getting on the message boards. Well, let me tell you I don't know whom was giving it all the hype, but let me speak on a few things.

First of all this film is \"not\" a LOT of things. It is NOT scary, NOT suspenseful, NOT overly gory, NOT overly sick (except for one season MAYBE) NOT beautifully scored.... AT ALL.

The premise of the movie is that a couple flee to a small island in Greece because they have done a little naughtiness in London. We don't even know what they did, but it is presumed that they killed someone.

**spoiler alert**

The male lead kills a few people out of his perversion of \"cleansing the island of perverts\" oddly enough. The killings are cheap, the characters are cheaper and the effects suck.

There is one part when he rapes a goat because his wife wont give him any in the morning, but even that is done without any care for how it is shot.

end of spoilers

The end of the movie is about the only thing that isn't totally predictable. I especially enjoyed when the \"herder\" farts on the husband. Anyway, if you can rent this and have 2 hours to waste go ahead. It's nothing better than a processed cheese sandwich on moldy bread.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I kind of liked the film, it's just that the characters run around with no real point to their craziness. As I was saying, poor goat. The goat was nahing while the guy was pretending to grind on it. I would have liked the rape scenes to be more graphic (not the one with the goat though). Jane Ryall who played Celia only did this one film. She was very nude throughout. This crazy couple who killed and tortured many people ended up in their rightful places. I almost forgot about the gay transvestite couple who are also picked out for being sinners. If you like crazy off the wall stuff, then this is your film. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I believe that this was supposed to be shocking or something.... All that I can say is....POOR GOAT!!! This flick is so poorly done that the parts that \"should\" shock and revolt you come across as laughable at best. The characters are so lame and 2....wait....1 dimensional, that I applauded each sick death.....all except that POOR GOAT.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"****SOME SPOILERS****

There's nothing in this movie that you haven't already seen browsing the net. Nothing is shocking about this film. In the film a man sodomizes a goat, there's a bulldozer decapitation, and a lesbian's face gets burnt off. All of these scenes of \"extreme violence\" are so fake, it makes one wonder why anyone would even want to resurface this piece of trash. I simply cannot believe I spent hard earned money on what certainly has to be the worst film ever made. Don't let reviews fool you, this film would be a shame for ANYONE to own...except maybe prisons who want to torture inmates. For a REAL exploitation classic, look to Bloodsucking Freaks or even the more recent Doom Generation. Island of Death sinks to the bottom of the movie toilet and needs to be flushed out of existence.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a huge fan of the original Operation Delta Force, I thought I'd pick this film up. I figured it couldn't be too bad. However, here's a list of things I learnt from watching Operation Delta Force 4: Deep Fault.

- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, are mostly mildly-overweight men in their late 30s and early 40s.

- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, carry standard police issue pistols or AK-47s on their most important missions.

- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, haven't learnt that during stealth missions, wearing bright red ski jumpers and running around in open spaces aren't exactly going to keep you out of sight.

- When you drop a Molotov cocktail into a tank, it explodes externally like a grenade.

- When you get hit by tank fire, you can run away, although the smoke caused may present minor difficulties for breathing.

- You can die from one standard gun shot, but you can also live despite being hit multiple times by a sniper rifle, and a few times by an AK-47.

- In hand-to-hand combat, members of The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, are regularly pummeled by railroad attendants.

- If bad guys are approaching you while on a slow-moving train, there's nothing to worry about - between the 4 of them, they can't manage to figure out how to get an automatic weapon to fire automatically, let alone hit anyone from 5 metres (16 feet) with at least 50 attempts between them.

- If you're short on actors, just recycle them - the bad guy from Operation Delta Force 1 plays a good guy called Mac in Operation Delta Force 4, and the guy who played Mac in Operation Delta Force 3 now plays Skip Lang, a different good guy.

- It's not OK for The Delta Force to shoot an unarmed terrorist, even if he's attempting to reload his weapon to kill you.

- Grenades explode on impact with the ground when thrown by members of The Delta Force. When thrown by non-Delta Force personnel, they explode at exactly the point where the Delta Force members have thrown the grenades back at the bad guys.

- Tanks can drive faster than standard trucks.

- Militias and personal armies use the exact same chopper that the UN used in Operation Delta Force 1.

- When a chopper arrives, a bad guy in that chopper cannot see you if you lie face-down.

- Shooting someone multiple times in the chest will cause minor damage. Stabbing that person in the knee will kill them inside 5 seconds.

- The Delta Force steal cars from old people to get around when in foreign countries, because the US Military do not provide them with any means of transport. This may also explain why they caught public transport.

As you can see, this is not really the finest moment in film-making, but it's good for a laugh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an awful movie from just about every point of view. Since much has been already pointed out in previous reviews, let me just focus on \"Serbs\" and \"Delta Force\" guys in this movie.

1) The uniforms that \"Serbs\" wear are not Serbian. And helmets are wrong, too.

2) The actors who play \"Serbs\" are not speaking Serbian, not even a language close to Serbian, unlike in \"Behind enemy lines\" where the Czech actors did their best to speak the language and add at least a bit of credibility to the movie.

3) The gray-bearded \"Serbian general\" looks and acts like a moron, firing his gun whenever US soldiers call his name:

- US soldier: \"Gravic! Give up!\"

- Gray-bearded moronic general: (fires his AK47)

- US soldier: \"Gravic! Come out!\"

- GBMG: (fires his AK47)

- US soldier: \"Gravic! You're surrounded\"

- GBMG: (fires his AK47)

- Prop guy: \"Excuse me, Mr. gray-bearded moronic general, see, we're out of blanks and I sent the boy to buy some more, but he's not back yet...\"

- GBMG: (click)

4) Since when does the Army issue AK47s to the Delta Force? I guess they couldn't find enough working M4s in Bulgaria, but there were plenty of old AK47s and practice blanks ;) Maybe they should have went for some airsofts, they are cheaper and wouldn't have hurt the credibility of the movie anyway...

5) In the scene where a DF officer is hanging on a rope while talking to a rocket scientist, he is holding his finger on the trigger all the time. No sane person with any weapons training or just plain common sense would ever do that. I guess the actor figured that his coolness level increases the longer he holds the gun that way.

This movie is such an insult to common sense..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Proof if ever more was needed, that an action movie, irregardless of its budget, can LOOK better with more setups (or cameras), closer shots, and many more cuts. The 'Martini' generation has moved on to John Woo. Deep Fault could be better for a work over in the cutting room. Ray","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Since I am required to write minimum of 10 lines, and this garbage deserves not only a single one, I'll start with the following: 1. I voted AWFUL for this dreadful so called \"movie\".

2. Let me explain why these turkeys Mr. David Varod produces are shot mainly in my beautiful homeland, Bulgaria (just in BTW, for the illiterate people around - this country is IN EUROPE, based north to Greece and has absolutely nothing to do with Mexico and Uruguay) Some years ago, NU Image has invaded our country and started making crappy mostly direct-to-video releases. Why here? Because here they pay derisively low fees to the Bulgarian crew and to the Bulgarian actors (most of them distinguished ones) which are, in many ways, better than most of their American colleagues. Personally I am ashamed of that fact. The reason is, of course, the greediness of the Americans involved and their wish to get most, if not all of the profit. Actually it would't be so bad if only the production wasn't so filthy and pale. There hasn't been a good picture shot here for years. At present NU image is being sued here over the very questionably purchasing of our national cinema production centre called Boyana Films. No doubt about it there has been corruption, there has been deceit, there has been a lies in this recent purchase. The Bulgarian cinema is dead. Long live the Bulgarian cinema!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was pleasantly pleased with the ending. I just saw this movie yesterday, and was going to turn it off, but changed my mind. It was not at all the direction I thought the story would end on. Thats about all positive I can say about this film. All of the actors are nobodys, especially the lead. While she is an attractive young woman, she'll never make it big. The writing, direction, and acting are wooded, sort of like what you would see on daytime soaps. The filming locations were very clever in making you think it could be anywhere, instead of blatantly tipping off it was in Canada. As this was shot entirely in Canada, I'm assuming the entire lot was Canadien, which is not entirely bad as some recent Canadien TV productions: \"Cold Squad\", \"Stone; Underover\" are quite well done.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, dumb is the word for this actress. I know many have mentioned her beauty, but this viewer found her empty headed and boring to watch with her bleached hair, lip gloss, and not so perfect body. Watch her walk away in those jeans, showing a rather large butt. Her butt spreads beyond her shoulders. What does that tell you? As for the leading man, played by gorgeous Mark Humphrey, he was perfectly cast. A charmer. However, he and Lancaster just didn't match. She was out of place opposite this good looking guy. Good acting by Susan Glover as the sister. Angela Galuppo had a small role and was okay. But the film's director Philippe Gagnon, wasted too much footage on Lancaster. After a while you got tired of looking at her and watching her dull acting ability. And what a bitch of a wife she was. Snooping on her husband, being obnoxious to him and just a plain spoiled brat. Was happy to see her hit with the dart gun. I thought it might be the end of her. But alas, the script tells us otherwise. After torturing myself and watching this loser again, I still came up with the same criticism. Lancaster is boring to watch. This time around her hair, folks. Her hair constantly in her face, constantly tossing it back, became annoying. I question the writer, Alexandra Komisaruk's reason why a good looking wealthy man like Philippe would even bother with the likes of a bimbo like Allison. When there were so many attractive intelligent women, with class, to choose. He picks this nothing. Is this the Rochester\/Jane Eyre thing? Oh well, it's all a matter of taste, I guess. This Sarah Lancaster is not my cup of tea, folks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I feel conflicted about this film - it is one of the most beautiful films I've seen, and provides insightful looks into a lost culture. There was an early scene of men in caps and moustaches sitting around a table, with a woman serving, and an accordion playing, that brought tears to my eyes, just because of the way it captured a way of life that must be incomprehensible to many today. It presents the lives of the characters as being inextricably bound up with the life of the village, another lost concept in today's world. Symbolism is always fun but it seemed a little dated. The fatal flaws of the movie to me were the lack of any compelling dramatic drive, and a total lack of humor. I never felt like I knew any of the characters beyond very basic universal things like grieving over the loss of a loved one, etc. The people were stick figures in the director's tableaux involving natural disasters, war, etc. The film was just one beautiful tragic scene after another, with no involving narrative thread and no humanity. As a result, it seemed very abstract, irrelevant to the lives of real people. In the end, I was too bored to finish watching it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This must be one of the most annoying, arrogant, poser films I've ever seen. What a waste of budget and actors. Angelopoulos has reached new levels of pretentiousness. It is clear there is virtually no plot, even if this part of Greek history is material for great movies. He simply had some supposedly symbolic (actually shambolic) scenes in his mind and he built a whole movie around them. Death is the main theme and is repeated ad nauseam, along with litanies, processions and the like, which should only be a vehicle for the movie but unfortunately it is the movie itself. A totally incoherent result, which can only leave you saying \"huh?\" or \"oh dear\" every two minutes.

There is no character development at all, nada, zilch. I'm usually complaining about some movies having two-dimensional characters, but oh boy, he managed to create one-dimensional characters. This is irritating for us and degrading for some of the actors. He even managed to make one of my favourite Greek actors, Giorgos Armenis, seem wooden.

And going to the core of Angelopoulos film-making: No we're not idiots. We do not want chewed food. Please someone tell this guy symbolism has to be subtle. Theo do you really underestimate your audience so much or you're simply incompetent? Personally, I think he tried to make a Greek \"Underground\". No matter how he tries, he can't reach Kusturica.

Only saving grace: Photography, costumes and the music.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Had I known to what I was submitting myself, I would have fled from the theater. The film is dreadful, in the literal sense of the word. Despite striking images, intriguing locales, and a subject matter that might have been fascinating, the film is dead.

I was unfamiliar with this period of Greek history, and prepared to experience a great film. The filmmakers's hand is heavy. it is not enough to see a train going by; we must watch it from afar, we must watch it car by car, we must see the smoke, we must see it slow down, and we must see it stop. The director's approach is didactic. Likewise, the characters that he creates never develop, they never change. They are so stereotypic that we wonder, are they meant to be Everyman? Everygirl? Everyoldmusician? Is there some point to this allegory? It is the most pretentious film that I have seen in a long while.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can pretend no knowledge of cinematography or Mr. Angelopoulos. But I know Greece and I love her people. In July my 14 year old son and I traveled to Cappadocia, Turkey in search of some remains of the neighborhood where his great grandfather Iordanis lived until the great exodus of Anatolian Greeks in 1923. Reading the summary of the film (refugees from Odessa) I thought that perhaps I might learn something more about the forced migrations of modern Greeks. If I did not have a home in Rhodes, had I not been to Greece 28 times in as many years, were I not familiar with dozens of islands and cities in Greece and if I had never enjoyed the friendship of these ebullient, life-intoxicated people, I might have believed that this lamentation had something to do with modern Greece. As a professor at a New Jersey State college, let me assure you that I am familiar with the history of the period covered in the film. Indeed, my wife's uncle was murdered by the communists during the communist grab for power. My mother-in-law lived through the Italian invasion and German occupation...barely. These characters on the screen speak Greek, they listen to Greek music but who are they? No, they are not even vaguely Greek. Of course they are not people at all but simply allegories. They are that which the artist invents when life does not entirely fit or is inadequate to his perception of how it was or should have been. All represent some aspect of post WWI Greece that greater outside forces consigned to a fate they didn't deserve. As we joked in the late 70's in America: \"The Revolution didn't happen.\" For an ideologue\/artist, this is no joke. It's in fact grounds to put us through two and a half hours of torment. And it's all because the various Powers (Eleni's soliloquy of \"guards\" in different colored uniforms) didn't allow the generation after the \"aristocrats\" of 1919 (Spyros) to follow the call of peace and freedom (the music of Nikos and his fellow musicians, i.e., the Movement, the Cause). This dark, surreal revisionism smears the true and heroic efforts of the Greek people to sustain their lust for life through the tragedies of the 20th century, to achieve more than any of their Balkan neighbors, to have become so politically evolved and globally integrated.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While the film has one redeeming feature, namely some striking shots e.g. the shot of the sheep hanging from the tree, the scene of the funeral procession on the raft, or the scene of the boats leaving the village (which seemed influenced by the scene when the warships approach in the fantastic \"Fellini Satyricon\"), these were more photographic than cinematographic, and would have been better appreciated hung on a wall in an art gallery than embedded in a painfully slow-paced film that comes in at a whopping 162 minutes and suffers from terrible dialogue, extremely poor character development, over-acting, uninspired symbolism and heavy stylisation. This is the first film I have seen by Angelopoulos, and his reputation having preceded him, I expected a lot better, but can honestly say that this is one of the worst films I've ever seen, and I won't go out of my way to watch any of the director's other work in the future. The four friends I went to see it with agree.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film 2 weeks prior to going on a snowboarding holiday, so for me it was really just to get my mind in mode for my holiday. The film boasts some sweet snowboarding skills, throughout the films in the action scenes. These moments were great, a bit like watching extreme sports channel. Sadly the story was quite honestly awful, the acting was generally alright, with a fairly small cast. This film is apparently comedy, at least it tries to be comical, but it seems like the comedy and the storyline was written by a teenager. The story lacks any depth or purpose and the comedy struggles to be anything more than a small snigger a few times during the movie. It might be worth renting just to see the snowboarding action, but then again there are plenty of movies out there that are totally devoted to snowboarding stunts and don't feature a UN-funny badly written story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ewe, The opening screams zero budget. The titles whooshing in look like my grandson was let loose with iMovie. The DVD box gives the impression that you'll be treated to the old days of '80s boobie movies. NOPE! Hardly any nudity from a flick that stars Traci Lords! This movie really did need the nudity too. Instead you get a lot of Lords perkies pointing through a shirt, however they seem to be activated by hot steam. That's odd, in my world the headlights go on in the COLD.

The plot is pathetic, the blind guy is just is a joke, and not a funny one. His antics are so forced and predictable. He trips over stuff and you see him bracing for the fall. He needs to work on his physical comedy.

Most of Frostbite's nudity comes from a hot tub scene that looks like it was shot months later and inserted in to get a distributor. And the nudity is not worth it.

NamoiBucks; it's just a matter of time before Starbucks sues over that. Not even funny. As Billy arrives in town for the first time they come across Namoi Bucks, He comments \"Wow they have these everywhere.\" This leads you to believe it's a parody on Starbucks, but surprise, behind the counter of this location is Namoi herself. Apparently she loves coffee so much that the owner of this huge chain decided to work in a tiny cold town.

The only thing this movie has going for it is the Warren Miller snowboarding footage. Yep this is all Warren's stuff, so if you want to see great action, get a Warren miller flick. Leave Frostbite alone.

There is nothing good about this movie. There is no reason to rent it or buy it, and if a friend offers to loan you a copy for free. Hit him and end the friendship.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie starts out with its most intelligent joke, and goes downhill from there (pun intended). After that there's lots of potty humor and sexual situations. The beautiful women were the best part of the movie. Swear-word puns are not meant to be central idea jokes, but they try it here. The battle between the two groups in the local town (richies and poories) is an old tried and true setup, so how could it go wrong? Well, there is no reason to envy the \"richies\" nor any reason to feel sorry for the poories, so we can forget the central plot. The situational humor is all toilet or sexual aimed at teenagers, but only garners giggles, no true belly-laughs.

The only thing that salvages the comedy for this movie is the character humor, with the blind man providing some rehashed, but seldom used setups, and the black bar owner providing the formulaic \"street\" or \"hood\" humor.

OK, forget the jokes, there has to be some killer snowboarding shots since this was a commercial enterprise. Unfortunately, there was only 4 seconds of backdrop action that might be inspiring. The rest was all \"B\" grade tricks or worse. The big moment, where the main character rides \"the goat\", a man-killer ski run, did provide one shot where a small avalanche eats the stuntman. This was the best of the boarding in this movie. Any serious snowboarding fan will be disappointed with the quality of the stunts in the movie.

As for the technical aspects of the movie, the soundtrack was average, which surprises, as those snowboarding documentaries are regularly filled with quality tunes. You can catch a lot of editing mistakes and even though it was shot on a ski mountain, the majority of \"scenery\" shots failed to convey any sense of true size.

Overall, it MIGHT be worth watching if you have managed to turn your brain completely off and you like silicon breasts. Even then, you wont remember a thing from this one two days later.

Snowboarding is still waiting for it's definitive comedy, you'd do better to watch a snowboarding documentary for sure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"About 20 minutes into this lame excuse for a movie, I realized it reminded me of one of those annoying people at work who're always telling really lame jokes or doing extremely unfunny things, because they think it's funny and are trying to entertain everyone.

This film is billed as starring Traci Lords, she's not that bad of an actress, but her lines aren't funny and SHE'S NOT THE STAR

The acting is some of the most god-awful I've ever seen, except for Lords, the girl who plays Casey, and maybe the Colonel-who seems oddly out of place. I can't imagine why a retired military Colonel would want to start a SNOWBOARDING ACADEMY. Do those even exist?

The budget would've been better spent coaxing these women into doing a full length porn feature.

\"Freddy Got Fingered\" currently has a 3.5 score, \"Frostbite\" has a 2.7. I'm baffled these two movies are within a 1.0 to each other, FGF is \"The Godfather\" compared to this garbage.

1\/10 stars","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"on this quagmire of mediocrity? You are SO much better than this.

Simply put, Frostbite is worthless. Bad acting (and I use that term loosely), minimalist \"plot,\" sophomoric humor, and lackluster snowboarding. There's not even a sufficient display of feminine pulchritude to spark the prurient interest of socially inept, but red-blooded, males.

Top Gun had spectacular flight sequences to goggle at. Days of Thunder had heart-pounding racing action. Even Point Break had skydiving scenes to its credit. Frostbite has none of these. It's not worth your time, my time, Traci Lords' time, Carmen Nicole's time, nor the time of anyone involved with this destruction of celluloid that would have been perfectly usable on something worthwhile had it not been wasted on this fodder for the recycling center.

The world will be a better place when we forget that Frostbite ever existed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I guess if you like snow boarding you may get some enjoyment from watching some nice scenery and some nice tricks. but that is all the film has to offer. the story line is non-existent, and any jokes that may have been in the film were not funny, even on a sympathy level. I also disliked the characters, the main actor (Adam Grimes)tried his best, and for a comedy like this that doesn't have to be much, but when surrounded by so many other bad actors he had no hope of making this film good. but i shouldn't be too harsh on them, for all i know they might have great skill, but with a script that i could have written in ten minutes, what ever skills they had were ran and hid for fear of appearing in this film. my advise is don't watch it, i wish i never did!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After watch this movie I was surprised that someone had like it!!!! I think this is the worst comedy I ever seen....ever!!!! If you think you had already seen the worst comedy made wait for watch this crap!!!! Not funny at all( OK one or two laugh maybe.......but you have to be really high), the acting is terrible and the story doesn't exist. Even if you like snowboarding ( and I really do) you will hate this movie. OK, OK you can see some nice babes , some nice snowboarding tricks and some beautiful mountains but that's all!!! Watch a porno set in the mountains instead because the acting and the story line might be better!!!!! Sometimes in IMDb I read bad review about some movie and at the end they are not so awful....but this one, believe me,is pure trash!!!! Don't waste your time and money in this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What makes this movie so damn bad? Is it the lame sub-par juvenile humor? Could it be the horrid \"trendy\" suck ass music? Perhaps the uninspired go nowhere story? Or maybe even the fact that Traci Lords gives her worst acting performance ever and to add insult to injury keeps all her clothes on throughout the length of this steaming turd sandwich. Regardless no matter what the reason this film sucks, the fact remains that it really REALLY does. I have never wished I could be watching a movie with Dean Cameron in it instead of what I was watching in my life, but \"Ski School\" is a masterpiece of comic genius compared to this travesty.

My Grade: F

Eye Candy: Nikol Nesbitt, Buffy Tyler and Suzanne Stokes all unleash their Tupperware tits

Where I saw it: Starz on Demand","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't actually think of one good point in this film. The story is absolutely terrible. THe acting is as blunt as a carrot, and the script is so bad it makes you want to kill yourself. OK fine if you love (and you have to love it to understand) snowboarding you might enjoy it microscopically better, as it has large mountains and some cool moves but apart from that it is terrible. It has some absolutely stupid ideas and it is racist with both black and white people insulting each others races. The only time you will laugh is when you are laughing at the stupidity or you are feeling embarrassed for the film. I have seen a lot of films and i have to say that this is the worst film i have ever seen. If you have this film i would suggest you take it back to wherever you bought it from and get you money back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is just downright horrible, the movie was only an hour long and for about 25mins of the movie was just useless random snowboarding clips that don't even connect to the movie. The storyline is completely \"retarted\", my 5 year old cousin could probably write a better script. I don't understand how someone could fund the production of a film like this ... horrible. This is definitely the shittiest most horrid movie i've ever seen in my entire existence. I think the casting director just took some random kids from off the street to act in this movie. The directing, acting, producing and writing for this film are all really bad. I feel bad for the people who wasted money funding this garbage. U couldn't pay me to watch this crap again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After a while I realized it was just my IQ slowly dropping. Frostbite is one of those pathetic movies where no one, and I mean no one, is even trying. I rooted for the dorky hero to die inside that trashcan (how did he even manage to fit in there, anyway?), Traci Lords, the queen of B movies, was horribly unfunny and ripped me and my friends off by not showing her boobs a single time.

The \"characters\", though I use that term loosely, are people so exaggerated and one-dimensional they might as well have used cardboard cutouts. The \"jokes\" (I use this term loosely as well) are simply hilarious. A guy's fart causes an earthquake. Roflcopter! Our \"hero\" gets a butt acupuncture by Traci Lords. Oh God, I can't breathe! The blind guy uses the F word repeatedly! This is too much!!!

Say what you want about the acting but I thought Adam Grimes did a pretty good job at playing a mentally challenged snowboarder. Apart from that the sole source of entertainment value here is boobs. I think I counted three, maybe four pairs throughout the entire film, scattered over maybe five minutes of screen time. That's five minutes worth watching out of 83 minutes of unfunny trash. Don't watch this. Watch Barb Wire with Pamela Anderson - at least there was plenty of nudity and action in that trashy flick!(r#26)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is beyond Horrible AVOID AT ALL COSTS!! I want my hour and 20 minutes back!!!

Not funny AT ALL, you can watch this movie without laughing or even smiling once. Swears spill out of the speakers like a waterfall, each one getting more annoying as the last, and not contributing to the comedy OR plot (general comedy - not this movie in general!).

All in all, its a lame-a$5, watered-down -typed- \"Out Cold\"ish movie - But Tremendously Awful. The movie focuses around two groups of a city Poories and Richies (how obviously dumb is that?), where the two opposites have snowboard battles with each other. (story is much like a 4-year-old's bed time story without all the swears and stupid jokes)

MOVIE - 1\/10 - because you can't give any lower scores","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Motion Picture Association of America has seen fit to advise potential viewers and this is particularly useful to parents and guardians that this film which is hereby titled \"Frostbite\" is given a \"R\" rating.The \"R\" rating has specific information which allows any person who not knowing anything about a film to know something about what this film provides.The \"R\" was instituted for Sexual Content including Nudity and Perverse dialog,language, crude sense of humor and drug use.There is no reward in viewing such a film though it would be useful to know if this could be removed as a possibility at all I would as this reviewer remove such a possibility.This is a film whereby merely a 1 was not the equal to a number as it did not qualify as a film to be counted,in fact such as this purpose is with this film so should such a purpose be with this films place at all.This is a unwholesome and undesirable offerring that should of been given a much stricter interpretation because at no point is conduct or language suitable for viewing and this kind of film may wish for a Blacklist rather than a stricter definition as to its content.It is suggested hereby that the stricter definition would allow,it is hereby put forth a criminal charge.It may any way irregardless of its rating.This is a unsavory world which would damage any persons viewing this film as its purpose is to commit an offense.It is an offense and it is offensive in its purpose.There is no sense of humor in the film but a depraved and indifferent purpose as to its undesirable underpinning.Without reservation this is a do not see list and perhaps not entirely necessary to say to any adults considering but to any whose interests concern the environment to which there children grow up in,do not allow nor provide any young person the viewing of this film it is unfriendly.Society often sends the wrong message when these kinds of problems are in the public domain let this not be one of those times.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Rise of the Footsoldier' follows the unrelentingly cruel journey of gangster Carlton Leach and his associates through drugs, violence, sex, violence, guns, violence and did I mention violence?

Protagonist Carlton Leach (Ricci Harnett), member of the I.C.F (Inner City Firm); a group of football hooligans turned professional gangsters, guides the audience through the events leading to the 1995 'Range Rover Killings', in which three gang members fell victim to particularly vicious professional 'hits'. Leach's success as a doorman and talent for locating aptly violent friends to control unruly punters at a local nightclub launches him into the company of notorious drug dealers and gangsters, profitably benefiting from the 80s\/90s rave scene and drug culture.

Opening with brutally realistic shots of the dead men, the viewer is left thirsty to understand what happened, but left wholly unsatisfied. The next 2 hours meander through a series of countless character introductions. Each of these basically establishes yet another typical 'hard man', shows him assaulting usually undeserving victims, before probably coming to an even nastier end. What little emotional understanding the audience is allowed to form for a few of the characters (for example a family man blamed for missing drugs) is quickly destroyed when they are either anti-climactically killed, or their storyline left unresolved. The hints of a plot introduced in the beginning are inadequately concluded with vague impressions of how the murders occurred, as the events are slotted into place with little reward for persevering with the hazy muddle of previous events.

This film has been made with a standard formula in mind, for an audience who prefer violence and 'ard nut' slang to an actual storyline. 'Rise of the Footsoldier' borrows too much from 'Football Factory', leaving out the good bits, demonstrating no moral ramifications of hooligan subculture or establishing empathy with the protagonist. The violence, although brilliantly shot, seems excessive and implausible because no one is around long enough for the audience to form an emotional attachment. The implication that the gangs are untouchable by the police is fair enough, but machete-wielding doormen regularly committing blatant murder in public places pushes the imagination of even the most willing viewer. The audience are left bewildered as to the relevance of many key events and developed characters that had no knock on effect on the eventual conclusion. Attempted 'gritty-realism' is further destroyed with a substance called 'Truth Serum', which the Turkish Mafia use to coax honest answers from unwilling individuals. This is NOT the genre in which to invent psychologically unrealistic drugs, and renders the interrogation almost absurd.

The actual scenes of violence (before becoming repetitive) hold some tension, spliced with rapid flashes of colour or the end of a film reel. Seamlessly choreographed brawls coupled with obligatory but effective shaky hand-held camera work saves the film, but unfortunately the plot (or lack there of) limits it to a niche demographic.

In essence, the events this film is based on aren't deservedly represented, and an adequately sequential storyline is sacrificed for stereotypical characters and an unoriginal plot. This film has a place in the market, but if you like a bit of brain with your brutality this one isn't for you.

http:\/\/www.obsessedwithfilm.com\/","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie could have been great. It is not in my opinion. The storyline is fragmented, the editor appears not to be able to choose between a Guy Ritchie-style of storytelling and a more straightforward one. There is a great emphasis on excessive violence, including torture. Too much so if you ask me. The characters are very shallow and stereo-typed, I would have liked to see more depth there. It is hard to identify with the main character. As a result the movie remains shallow as a whole.

The movie says it gives the spectator an inside view of the British criminal underclass, more in particular the Essex underclass. Football-hooligans, steroids, cocaine, heroine and violence, lots and lots of violence. Violence resulting from paranoia and fear in general. In this movie no-one seems to use his (or her) brain, we're looking at a bunch of animals in clothes. Like I said, there is not much of a plot and the storytelling leaves a lot to be desired.

If you're a male below 30, like gore and hardcore violence and think that's entertaining, than this is a movie for you. If you're looking for a movie portraying real people with a well developed storyline, suspense and depth, well... you can skip this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Blame Guy Ritchie. The late 90s success of Ritchie's clich\u00e9-ridden Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels triggered a series of pitiful gangster movies from which the genre never really recovered. Sadly Rise of The Footsoldier - the true story of Essex hardnut Carlton Leach - isn't likely to reverse that trend. Despite a decent lead performance from Hartnett, the film falls victim to all-too familiar East End stereotypes. They're either busy blowing someone's brains out or shagging a scantily-clad blonde.

From fearsome football hooligan in the eighties to a key figure in the criminal underworld during the nineties, Footsoldier charts Leach's rise through the ranks of thuggery. Leaving the terraces for nightclubs, Leach becomes a bouncer where he's given carte blanche to kick the crap out of anyone. Here he gets in with notorious gangland leaders Pat Tate (Fairbrass) and Tony Tucker (Stone), and begins to realise gang-warfare ain't what it's cracked up to be.

There is fun to be had deconstructing writer-director Julian Gilbey's laughable join-the-dots yob patois, as every sentence seems to start with an, 'I'm gonna fackin'\u0085' or 'You fackin'\u0085' or, on occasion, 'So then I only went an' fackin'\u0085', typically concluded with a mandatory 'caaaant!' The direction, too, smacks of sadism, especially the obvious glee Gilbey gets from filming violent scenes in close-up and, in the case of the bloody shotgun-to-the-face denouement, in triplicate.

Director Gilbey's use of the classic rise-and-fall gangster narrative isn't what will condemn Footsoldier to big screen obscurity. Nor is it the fact that half way through, the film annoyingly sidelines Leach in favour of the events culminating in the infamous shooting of Tate and Tucker. It's Gilbey's sickening appetite for scatter-shot violence that ruins the film; whether it's a brick in the face or axe in the head during a vicious attack on a train, it's all unnecessarily prolonged. Footsoldier doesn't so much pack a punch as leave you feeling violated and more importantly, robs you of two hours of your life you won't get back...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is possibly the worst of the cockney gangster genre that has blighted the British film industry since Mockney Guy Ritchie unleashed Lock stock and two badly acted barrels. This \"True Life\" story of Carlton Leach (who?) has everything that is wrong with this genre, a truly awful script that consists of people screeching \"Cant\", \"Fahcking Cant\" and \"I'll kill ya, ya fahcking cant\" ad nauseum. The acting is uniformly dreadful with the two most recognisable cast members being two former soap stars quite visably out of their depth. For some reason the film assumes we have heard of these people and i can assure you anybody north of Essex hasn't, and that we should be interested in some low lifes story. Why? This isn't Goodfellas despite the blurb on the DVD cover. The story centres around a football hooligan turned bouncer turned gangster who's friends end up getting shot. Boo hoo. The fact that these people are totally unsympathetic is the only minor plus for this film. In all of the action scenes it seems that the camera was tied to a piece of string and whirled around while people pretended to fight and the story of somebody most people have never heard of and nothing really interesting happens too is a complete waste of time. People talk about how violent the film is as though it's the sign of a great film and, although many great films have violence in them, this is just an excuse for the FX man to show what he can do. Overall this film is a reminder of why the British film industry is defunct and the sooner we stop funding these pathetic abortions the better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a big fan of British films in general but especially gangster movies. Unfortunately this film was shockingly bad. I think its pretty depressing that this film is getting any good customer reviews. The idea that this film is gritty and realistic is laughable. I have read and heard fist hand quite a lot about the real life events shown in this movie and they have nearly all been glorified with over the top violence etc. The only gritty true to life event in the whole film was the Range Rover murders where some overblown bouncers got rubbed out for messing with people they could not handle. This film is a disgrace to British cinema! It has no plot and no decent acting and just relies on being violent( gritty and realistic as some people like to put it) The sort of people who made this film should not be allowed near a budget or film camera just as the sort of people this film is about should not be given the opportunity to tell this pathetic violent little tale of no consequence.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watching this movie all I could think of was, maybe it gets better, but after 20 minutes I couldn't watch it any second longer. I don't want too wast to many lines about this, but really its a complete wast of time. All the actors say is c*nt this cont that. If you are still going too watch it, don't say I didn't warned you. Maybe if you are an hooligan or something, you might think its a tribute to your hobby. again.. Film is a term that encompasses individual motion pictures, the field of film as an art form, and the motion picture industry. Films are produced by recording images from the world with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or special effects. .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having had more than a few mates suggest i check Rise of the Footsoldier out, i eventually got round to it last night. Undoubtedly the story Colton Leach has to tell (and did so in his autobiography) is a compelling tale of one mans ascent from Terrace boot boy to connected underworld villain. This film sadly compromised in quality by miscasts, appalling accents and woeful acting.Ricci Harnett in the lead role of Leach does a reasonable job of conveying the transition from thuggery to serious criminal but his accent is all over the place. As his voice provides the stories narration it is something that after ten minutes was driving me nuts. Terry Stone as Tony Tucker provided the unintentional comedy with an ill fitting wig (or the worst Barnett going)dialogue that was so expletive riddled it bordered on juvenile and an over the top vehemence in line delivery reducing Tucker to parody.What troubled me most about this film was that the events leading up to the shooting in Rettenden, Essex and the formative years of Leach are of genuine interest to crime fans and fans of football hooliganism so, to have this story sabotaged by a lack of credible accents and acting left me feeling an opportunity had been missed. Roland Manookian and Frank Harper provide the films only source of authenticity. On the positive side some of the films pacing and construct flowed well and kept the attention. The violence was well choreographed and aside from an over reliance on projectile red syrup for blood spatterings was on the whole realistic. If you enjoyed the film then it is worth checking out Essex Boys telling a similar tale from fictionalised viewpoint and also featuring Billy Murray.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh dear, just what we need another Essex -Cockney garbage effort chronicling the rise of the UK footy hooligan\/ rave gangster who did of course follow West 'am (East Londan\/Essex style). Didn't anybody tell you that they won the world cap!? And then of course the inevitable decay into UK rave culture underworld. Blah blah blah. Why how and who would want to fund a film like this i do not know but lets pray that it was from Private financiers (lets see ex drug dealers, merchant bankers -we all know what to call them, and the rest of the mockneys) rather than publicly funded means. Hopefully with the recession we will not see the like of this again. If we do we will be calling the death knell for British films and of course we will all be able to blame Britains number one Mockney Country gent wannabee gangster Guy Ritchie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off i'll give this movie a low scoring 4 out of 10! It was nothing more than a wannabe film. I felt very let down watching this film. I was lead to people it would be more drama and more facts about the true story it's based on. Instead i spent over an hour watching middle aged mean break the law and take drugs.

It's abit like football factory but with no real storyline and not a good ending. After watching the film i was left wondering \"What was that film all about?\" If you like films with no real storyline and a lot of drug taking and swearing then this is the film for you.

I'm a BIG fan of mob and gangster movies but this film did not live up to the hype. I can see where the writer was trying to go with the film but it never reached it's destination.One of the worst British films that i have ever watched. If only the movie had more of a storyline this would have bad an excellent movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is no doubt that the Kokoda Trail depicts a truly great event in Australian Military history the brave defence of Australia against the cruel barbaric Japanese Army.Howver this film fails to take into account the story of the \"Fuzzy Wuzzy's\" or the New Guinea natives that The Australians used to help them carry out there military operations. The film also fails to give a credible account of the Australian soldier and his behaviour in this event. It is more like an uninformed contemporary view of what is was like.

Again the Australian film industry has failed to give this important chapter in Australia';s history the film it deserved. This is film making at its worst with arbitrary cinematography , bad scripting and dialogue , no character development and clich\u00e9 jungle warfare scenes.

It fails to imbue the audience in any meaningful perspective other than the Japanese Army were ruthless and cruel murderers of an ill-equipped and badly trained group of Australians fighting in a jungle.

The film failed as most Australian films do to attract a significant Australian audience in fact they stayed away in droves.

I am not going to join the usual parochial garbage of saying its great because its an Australian film. I say either do a great job or just leave it to some one who knows how. This government funded film is just another failure by Australia's wealthy and spoilt rich kids.

I am giving it zero stars because its an insult to the descendants of these truly great Australians and their enormous sacrifice. What a shameful waste and disrespect and I know this review will provoke more negativity from the Movie Show crew and most reviewers but I have a right to my opinion and that's what Australians fought for OUR FREEDOM and that includes freedom of speech and the right to express an opinion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kokoda was inspired by events on the Kokoda track during WW2 when Australian militia slowed and ultimately stopped a push by 10,000 Japanese soldiers to move overland and capture Port Moresby. What they really mean is that the movie is set in this time period but is fiction and everything that happens is just a jumble of standard scenes from other war films. The first hour is just one clich\u00e9 after another. Some of the scenes are simply there to be able to draw us into a feeling that this conflict was horrific beyond compare, when there appears to be little evidence of this. Both sides fought hard to control the track and no mercy was shown by either side. Both sides suffered from logistic shortages and the terrain was a great leveler in this conflict. As the Japanese got closer to Port Moresby their supply line grew and this ultimately led to their downfall. On the other hand as the Australians retreated closer to Port Moresby their supply line decreased. Some of the scenes appear to be straight out of the handbook on standard scenes to include in any war film. The film was misguided and highlighted the youth of the production team. At a time when Australia could have done with a great film about one of Australia's best moments the film Kokoda is a shallow disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From all the bad comments about this movie and add them up I feel the same way. It may look like the Australians are weaklings instead they were brave soldiers. In this film it was very terrible and too graphic. I didn't see enough heroism just more cowardice which is ashame because its nothing from what I read. We don't need the extremity of violence like that we can use our vivid imagination of what they went through. It's like saving private ryan where the nazi is pushing his knife slowly in the soldier. For example Mel Gibson is a over extreme director for his movies not because of the violence but for the level of historical inaccuracy. Letters of Iwo Jima was one of the war films that was close enough to history (although I could be wrong) except Flags of our Fathers and Bridge of the River Kwai. You're better off reading it its an insult to the victims and the fallen if you don't tell it right, and the movie drag on for too long there was nothing interesting about the dialogue and not enough retribution from the aussies to kill Japanese soldiers. Just read history on the internet, mags and in books. Movies always kill the sense of realization. What they did to POWs in Singapore and the Philippines was just dreadful escpically to civilians. It just makes me feel proud to see goodies beat the baddies but movies like this ruin it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was like watching the trailer of a up and coming movie, except that there was no movie coming up. The film is so unsatisfying and obviously unfinished as to be almost laughable. The subject of this film is over a very short time frame and frankly, nothing much actually happens in the 90 odd minutes of screen time. I was hoping for the definitive Australian film about our soldiers in WWII and how they fought against incredible odds in awful conditions.This is most certainly not it.

Having said that, the acting was great and locations authentic. This could easily have been a great movie given a lot more money and time, instead it isn't even mediocre and I cannot recommend it at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A totally pathetic attempt at movie about sacrifices of Australian Soldiers during the New Guinea Campaign. Total waste of money even if you only see it on DVD. Thankfully the video store provided a free weekly hire with the DVD else it would have been a complete waste of money. Probably made by arty types and full of the symbolism that today's Chardonay socialists seem so into. Frankly this movie is an insult to the memory of the brave chaps that never came back. Somebody please provide the funding to make a decent movie at least the equal of Saving Private Ryan. Hopefully the RSL will put as much distance between itself and this movie as possible. The story needs to be told from all sides the Australians, the locals & the Japanese - Although getting the latter to tell the truth about anything that happened during the second world war is highly unlikely. Basically its rubbish, don't see it, don't buy it. Walk away","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For all its wonderful images, for all of its good intentions, this just comes off as yet another disgustingly one-sided, over-glorified, self-promoting propaganda.

The message is simple, \"All Japanese fighting on the Kokoda Track were sadistic, malicious f*** sticks who enjoyed gutting every last Aussie troop, cutting their throats before beheading them.\" Not only does Kokoda pick up on \"Gallipoli\"'s only flaw (that the enemy are faceless, nameless, and apparently inhumane), but manages to prove quite the opposite to Weir's masterpiece. Instead of giving us a perfect film with one flaw, we have a horrible mess with one redeeming feature.

Let's start off with this: we're, without any comfortable adapting to the characters, introduced to these apparently quite laid back, two-dimensional people who we never... EVER get to sympathize with. We're kept at such a distance that even when we could so easily relate to the characters, they find a way to keep us away. That alone is a sickening feature, as it drives us from the very plot, helps the horrible pacing to leave us with a lasting impression, and makes it so much easier to see the contrast between an overtly sentimental ending and an otherwise lackluster body of a film.

In other words, it drags us through a painful journey (not just for us, but apparently for them) and just as it should end, we're thrown into another eye-roller of a skirmish that ends faster than it began. So, for the as yet STILL uninformed: when it should end, it starts up again, only to end when we expect more. S***! It's just a confusing and agonizing pace!

Which brings me to the ultimatum: this is meant to educate us on the events of the Kokoda track. It doesn't come close. Not only does it detail a very small, insignificant part of the campaign (sprinkling a little \"mateship\" on top in an attempt to make it relevant), but it succeeds in doing the one thing a film as important as this should be does, it makes us NOT care.

Honestly, my eyes were constantly glued to my watch the entire time. The audience around me, all proudly Australian, bickering as they came in about how great the film is going to be, groaned, moaned, and whined in disappointment as every one of the painful ninety-five minutes droned on (for a short running time, it felt like Apocalypse Now: difference being that Apocalypse Now was a good film and deserved the three hours it got) and on to the point where suicide could wholeheartedly be an alternative should it be mandatory for this film to be watched.

Though, considering how much the TV has been advertising this trash, I'd say it is mandatory, in a subliminal sense of the word.

Watch if you like pretty images. Though you'd do better watching The Constant Gardener or Gallipoli anyway, since they have superior cinematography and ACTUAL plots.

Overall: *","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie today on the big screen and i can honestly not believe some of the comments made by people on here. I was really hoping to be touched by this film, but wasn't.

I'm ex Australian Army and very patriotic towards this great country, but I feel this movie no way does justice for us and those soldier who fought at this battle.

The movie is poorly filmed. I thought the acting was terrible, they were not believable and they didn't give me any reason for me to care about them. People are saying this movie was graphic, there were a couple of graphic scenes but I found most part very weak. The war scenes were very short and only last a couple of minutes.

Overall a weak film that doesn't do these soldiers any justice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What was the aim here...I started to have a look at it but then I realized that it had no aim...poor acting...no action and no story..i ended up listening to it while i was surfing the web reading about David Beckham's $250 million dollar US soccer Galaxy contract. Do not rent this Don't borrow this NOT WORTH A DOWN LOAD i've seen so many films that I could sense that this was going to be crap from the get go.

War films should be accurate and if possible have some artistic merit and actually not feel like Christian melodrama...This film pales in comparison to any that i've seen before.I must say that Iam truly disappointed at this film..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's great to hear the 3 or so comments, that point out what 'Footballers Wives' signifies for women. The title alone, washes away any supposed equality women have in the media industry or society, reducing them to two dimensional cartoon caricatures of how men think women should behave . It is a post modern moronic farce. It might as well be called, 'Footballers Wifey who stays at home and knows her place'.

On one hand, it could actually be some sort of parody on the U.K.'s, gutter trash press representation of celebrities and the role they have in maintaining a patriarchal society. So women can undermine stereotypes by acting like those stereotypes and own the image that has been created for them by mens desire. Nah, that would be to ironic and clever. I also sound like I should be praising it.

Zoe Lucker is simply too camp and over the top to be taken seriously. Just like an even cheaper Cruella De Ville. She just needs some maniacal, condescending, yet at the same time, self appraising laugh to show off her true acting range. Oh she does? Right. Anyway, it just about sums up whom this is aimed at. Either 'clever clever' journo's, who think its an up-roaring send-up of vaudevillian proportions, or people who think its 'real'. \"Finest actors\"? OMG!! Stop watching this afterbirth of a pantomime and get a life.

Its utterly sexist and is of such low quality, that maybe those who enjoy it think they are \"in\" on the \"joke\". Do the actors really care or understand what they are communicating? Its so demeaning to women and men. They are not all self centred, selfish, football loving materialistic jerks, who think women are nothing but another trophy to be put on display for the public. It's so humiliating. I am sure Ms Lucker would easily stand up to them in her \"real\" life, and twist them round her finger as so easily done in 'Footballers Wives' .

But of course, its doesn't really matter. I mean its only a T.V. programme after all. So please let it stay axed. It's dreadful and will only be looked back on in the same disbelief that 'Prisoner Cell Block H' was so fondly remembered for.

How did it come to exist? It sure ain't subtle or complex. It could only come from the same mind set who read FHM magazine, and think its \"alright\" to look at soft-porn, and \"do\" as many women who bow to their \"will\" and chant patriotic and racist comments whenever \"their\" football team losses\/wins. It's totally crass.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Thank God I saw it for free. I would have hated to waste my money on it.

First off, there isn't a character in the movie that is in any way likable. Michael Caine comes close, but even he is pretty flawed. The rest of the \"commandos\" are made up of disgusting ex-cons. There are the two gay Arabs, and three guys who try to rape a red cross nurse, and the \"leader\" who has no trouble sending his men off to get killed so he can escape.

The \"mission\" is anything from suspenseful. They are to blow up a fuel dump. Sounds exciting, right? Well, the footage follows them through endless sandstorms and fixing flat tires. Yes, you read that right. The \"suspense\" is whether they will run out of spare tires. We actually WATCH them change something like 12 flats on the way. That's how incredibly exciting this movie is.

They get to the fuel dump to find that it is a decoy. So, nothing to blow up. And at this time, for some very convoluted reason, the British army decides that they don't need these guys anymore, and radios their whereabouts to the Germans to kill them.

So, now at least we'll have an exciting race to freedom? Nope, instead, they decide to blow up a different fuel dump, to create a diversion. But, when they get into the place, they set off a trip wire, and the Germans come to get them -- calling out their names over a loudspeaker.

Really weird. If the Germans knew where they were and where they were going, why did they let them get all the way into the dump before springing the \"trap?\" Instead, they wait until they get into the fuel depot, and set all of their charges. Yeah. Right. That would happen.

So, they blow the dump, the leader sells out all of his men -- except for Michael Caine, since he's been offered $2000 to bring him back alive.

OK... so, the men are all betrayed and killed, and Michael Caine and Nigel Davenport survive. The British troops come in with tanks, and they decide to go get rescued. Since they are wearing German uniforms (they wore them to blow up the dump) they tie a white flag around a stick and walk out into the road.

Some British guy walks up behinds them and machine guns them to death. Credits roll.

Yep. The two \"Heroes\" of the movie die due to a random act of violence.

It's almost like the movie suddenly ran out of budget and decided: \"That's a wrap. Kill them off and we'll go home.\" I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this tired, unimaginative and totally unrealistic movie that ended with a gracefulness of a bomb.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I should've realised it was a sign of things to come when the trailer for this film bored me.

Having watched several \"indie\" films on the strength of the reviews on here, and subsequently finding that my view is completely opposite to those other reviewers, I began wondering if it's possible I am watching completely different films from these people, or are they perhaps friends\/family etc of the film makers trying to 'big up' their work? Hmmm.

Are you interested in seeing an amateur's homage to Pulp Fiction and 11:14, except done with worse actors, a silly score (undermines various scenes) and unbelievable jumps in logic? If not, then skip this film.

Here is my open letter to two of the players in this film.

Alfonso Morgan, please, please, please, stop trying to 'be' Samuel L Jackon a la Pulp Fiction. No-one can do what he does as well as he does.

Director, please come up with something original. It does you a disservice to churn out this stuff pretending to be Quentin Tarantino.

Simply dire, and I really cannot see how anyone could say this is a good film. It is a disgrace that people have somehow managed to put a score of 8.5 on this, the same as films like Pulp fiction or Goodfellas. It is no-where near these movies; a 4 or 5 would be a more reasonable average rating, I give it a 3.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly, people who gave this movie a ten would have given 100 for pulp fiction. This is the level that we are dealing with here.

The movie isn't bad but no way is it like \"OMG, the best movie since Pulp Fiction!\". Some people have incredibly low expectations for movies, even those of indie variety. Personally, I found my interest in the movie waned after the half-hour mark. The plot defies logic and belief. You have got to hear the part about why the wife did what she did in order \"to save her husband\". Yeah, right. I guarantee that you would walk out of the theatre thinking, \"hmm, now that doesn't make sense at all.\" This is one movie in which you really need to suspend all logic and belief.

Those who said that the music score is good were probably listening to their MP3 players. It absolutely killed the movie in some parts.

In conclusion, watch the movie only if you have nothing particular important to do. I give this a three because there is one long sex sequence in the motel which is decent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Worst movie ever!! Its not clever or funny or thought provoking. 84 minutes of bad actors doing their best with an awful script.

Acting was so bad that you can see the dead people breathing.

Maybe the writer\/director combination believed they were Quentin Tarantino or something (you know make a movie about nothing still cool) but failed miserably.

I hope the writer never makes another movie EVER!! not everyone is born a writer, sometimes we need to count our losses and go back to being a bathroom attendant or whatever.

Please don't watch this movie, even on mute with the stereo going its still a painful 84 mins.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Nest is really just another 'nature run amock' horror flick that fails because of the low budget. The acting is OK, and the setting is great, but somehow the whole film just seemed a bit dull to me. The gore effects are not the best I've seen but are fun in a cheesy sort of way. The roaches themselves are just regular cockroaches that bite people. The Nest reminded me of a much better film called Slugs. If you liked The Nest then Slugs is a must-see as it's ten times better. Also worth noting is that Lisa Langlois who plays Elizabeth was in another 'nature run amock' type film called Deadly Eyes (aka The Rats), which is about killer rats as you may have guessed.

If you enjoy these types of horror films then you may want to give this a watch, but you'd be far better off seeing Slugs which is far more interesting and gory.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie features roaches as super flesh eating killers. This may have been the first movie where roaches were the primary killers, though not the first movie where roaches are killers. \"Damnation Alley\" featured a scene with killer cockroaches and \"Creepshow\" had a story that had them. In this one they are the star. Not as good as it could have been this one doesn't have all that many kills in them. I could be wrong on that point, however, because I have not seen this one in quite some time. The roaches have gone killer and this very strange research lady is in town to study them. Yes, she is quite strange as at one point she has her hand in a box on the killer roaches and she is like \"They are biting my hand\", and she says this in almost a state of ecstasy. There is also one super big roach near the end of this one, like in so many insect films. Not a great movie, but worth checking out on a night you are bored out of your mind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story has little to do with Jack London's original novel. I thought the acting was very unnatural, the dubbing was done very sloppily and the story itself contains a fairly large number of inconsistencies and loose ends. Apart from that, the pace of the movie was horrendously slow at some parts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My mother took me to this movie at the drive-in when i was around seven years old, which is thirty years ago. She had no idea a family movie would be so violent. My clearest memory was of the boy's father's face of pain as he was stabbed in the stomach and killed. This image haunted me for weeks. I had learned that I lived in a world where a person might stab my father at anytime. How could I stop them? How could my father protect himself? You must realise that this stabbing is not fantasy to a seven-year old. It is as real as witnessing an actual event, and has no place in a child's innocent mind. It is sad that we still do not understand the impact that bringing violence into the lives of our children has both on our children and our society. If only parents would protect their children from images of violence with the same vigor that they protect them from images of nudity and sex.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll say one thing for Herman, USA: it will probably always play well to Minnesota audiences. I can't imagine that there's another place in the world where a reference to the fast life of Bemidji or a line like \"I knew there was something wrong with Iowa guys\" would bring down the house. I actually quite enjoyed the first hour or so. Basically, a bunch of lonely country boys take out a personals ad and find their town beset with willing female suitors (is suitors a gender-specific word?). It ain't progressive, to be sure, but it's sorta charming in its own right. Pity that the filmmakers felt the need to tack on a contrived subplot about a conniving golddigger and her violent husband. Overall it's just too cloying for its own good, but you've got to give some props to a film with the guts to give a guy with Kevin Chamberlin's build a nude love scene. I will always applaud the depiction of people who don't meet the usual standards of beauty as sexual, caring human beings, but that's not enough to redeem Herman, USA. To paraphrase Jello Biafra, it's nostalgia for an age that never existed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story of the bride fair is an amusing and engaging one, and it is to the filmmaker's credit that he sets out to portray rural Minnesotans with the same respect ordinarily reserved for Coast-dwellers. It is weird, though, to find an independent movie, the brainchild of a single person, that is as unambitious and clich\u00e9-ridden as a committee-brewed Hollywood potboiler.

The portrait of rural people is intended to be affectionate, I think, but these characters don't ring true to me--I have had quite a few meals in small-town diners, but never overheard a debate on the merits of different nineteenth-century English novelists. One might suggest that writer\/director Semans has no more experience with rural culture than the Coen brothers, and considerably less satiric verve.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No, it's just a cheap 1940s serial using the Cap's good name. If you are a fan of the comic book, you will be greatly disappointed. They have radically changed the character. No shield, no Bucky, no fighting the Nazis, no wings on the side of his mask and most importantly: Captain America is now a District Attorney and no longer a GI.

Dick Purcell as Captain America? Don't look too closely when he changes into his costume. It is pretty obvious that he was not in the best physical shape when he made this serial(can you say flabby?). It is also VERY obvious that a stunt man is performing most of the action here. Almost every chapter has an obligatory fist fight that is shot and performed in exactly the same way. The villain is rather bland and although he uses an alias (The Scarab), he doesn't wear a disguise of any kind. The story is repetitive and very simple. The effects are laughable and the action is average. On the plus side we have sexy Lorna Gray as the D.A.'s assistant and the good Captain gets to ride on a cool looking motorcycle in one early chapter. Overall OK but nothing special.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie started out cringe-worthy--but it was meant to, with an overbearing mother, a witch of a rival, and a hesitant beauty queen constantly coming in second. There was some goofy overacting, and a few implausible plot points (She comes in second in EVERY single competition? ALL of them?) Unfortunately, the movie suffers horribly from it's need to, well, be a TV movie. Rather than end at the ending of the movie, an amusing twist in which the killer is (semi-plausibly) revealed, the movie continues for another twenty minutes, just to make sure that justice is done. Of course, now that the killer is revealed, she suddenly undergoes a complete personality shift--her character gets completely rewritten, because the writers don't need to keep her identity secret any more. The cheese completely sinks what otherwise could have been a passably amusing movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A `Wacky Chick' flick. A beauty contestant winds up dead and the Usual Suspects are rounded up. Another entry in the vein of the Texas Cheerleader, this is an average example of its type.

Yasmine Bleeth turns in her usual wholesome girl performance, and Jill Clayburgh does a good job as her stressed-out slightly obsessed mom.

Some mildly funny moments listening to the vapid self-serving PR coming out of contestants' mouths. (`I'd like to own a restaurant so I can give left-over food to the homeless.')

You have to ask yourself what people are using for brains when they think a cheerleader spot or beauty crown is worth killing for!

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*****Spoiler Ahead*****

I suppose that you shouldn't expect much of a made for TV movie, but this one was especially bad, the plot was a good idea, but badly done, the acting wasn't especially good. And the ending of the film was just terrible. The main character was perfectly normal all the way through the film, and then suddenly when we find out that she was the killer she just turns into a mentally challenged psychopath. It's completely pathetic.

There is only one reason really to watch this film, Yasmin Bleeth, although haven't we all seen her in a swimsuit before ? Don't bother even watching this waste of time, if you want a film about the world of beauty contest then watch \"Drop Dead Gorgeous\" instead, it's only an infinite number of times better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Primary plot!Primary direction!Poor interpretation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"During production, this LWT series was titled 'Rocket To The Moon', a title that everyone on set at the time thought was cheesy enough. Then word came through that it had been retitled 'Reach for the Moon', as if this the addition of this new word would evoke heavy metaphorical meanings involving the relationships and aspirations of the characters. This same heavy handed lack of subtlety and understanding is clear throughout the very fabric of the entire series, and the same tired and boring love-triangle storyline is actually stretched out over 7 episodes! Any television program that decides to use the 'love-triangle' storyline for even a single episode is pushing it, but to smear it over seven episodes is unforgivable. There are reasons to watch however, with the scenery of the Isle of Wight certainly providing a beautiful setting, and the seemingly effortless performance of Lynda Bellingham hitting all the right comedy marks. This, however is not enough. A number of performances are noticeable , especially when placed against the static and emotionless wasteland which Jonathan Kerrigan refers to as his face. I have already mentioned Lynda Bellingham in the role of 'fussy mother' (yes, thats as far as character development and back-story goes), but I was impressed by the actor Maurice Roeves (who is by far the most experienced actor in the cast, having appeared in everything from classic movies such as Richard Attenborough's 'Oh What a Lovely War', and 'The Eagle Has Landed', and TV including Baywatch, Holby City, The Bill, Eastenders, Cheers, Doctor Who in the 80s, Star Trek, and even going to Hollywood with Sylvestor Stallone in 1995s Judge Dredd) whose performance reminded me very much of actual teachers I have met - often incapable men, whose lives are tinged with a very sad streak. It is refreshing to see that Roeves is still getting work, having also appeared in the 1998 British film 'The Acid House' and even more recently alongside the wonderful Maria Bello and Sean Bean in 'The Dark'. The standout reason to watch this series, even though his appearances are very few. Another actor who tries his hardest to elevate the program, is Ben Miles, in the role of the sex-mad 'typical man' brother (once again, what an original character!). As with Roeves, the CV says it all. After elevating this, Miles has since appeared in the Hollywood movie 'V for Vendetta', and the 2001 star studded film 'The Affair of the Necklace', alongside Brian Cox, Adrien Brody, Christopher Walken and Jonathan Pryce. Unfortunately the fairly capable actors I have mentioned are resigned to relatively small roles in comparison to the dramatic driftwood that is Kerrigan and Saira Todd, both of whom seem to have been in Casualty for too long, and haven't yet learned to act. Even the tolerable Frances Grey is made to suffer in the presence of such theatrically fetal mannequins, and unfortunately for her, the lasting memory I have of her from the set, is of the AD asking for another take of a relatively complex shot because during the take, she subconsciously 'pulled her knickers out of her crack!'. Familiar faces appear in each episode - child actors from CBBC programs, and dramas such as '2 Point 4 Children', and other regulars from commercials such as Mr Ben's (\"they'll remember me for this\"), Lynda 'the Oxo lady' Bellingham, and others that I don't even want to remember. Each episode halfheartedly tries to 'deal with issues' such as teenage pregnancy, disruptive pupils, and rocket building(!)... things that Grange Hill was doing better when my parents were young! Overall, this series was a disappointment, and a wasted opportunity to craft a genuinely interesting and well developed drama series. Unfortunately, for them they took the easy route, both in the writing and (for the most part) in the casting. I would recommend both 'Waterloo Road' and 'The Street',to fans of good drama - the latter in particular which managed to achieve this. If you like the Isle of Wight, don't 'reach for the moon', reach for the holiday brochure instead - it probably contains more character development!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This well-meant film falls just a bit short, and unfortunately in too many areas.

The scenery is gorgeous, with vistas of north-central Vermont providing the setting for this mid-century tale. Quebec Bill endeavors to go back to his whiskey-running past in order to save his farm.

Going back and forth between scenes of magical realism and straight-forward action, this film rarely hits its stride.

Kris Kristofferson as Quebec Bill seems pretty stilted, or else it's his lines; or else his cross of Yankee and Quebecois accents. Anyway, he just comes off as a low-key blow-hard. His dialogs with Gary Farmer's Coville character do sparkle, though. William Sanderson's Rat Kinneson is solid. Charlie McDermott shows some real potential as young Wild Bill; but his part's not large enough to carry a scene and he never steals one. Luis Guzman shows up on Lake Memphramagog (with a fine stand-in performance by Lake Willoughby) as a monk with a boys'n'the hood accent: who knows? And then there's Bujold's Cordelia: an oracle like her namesake, she channels Yoda as she intones lines like \"You will marry a Quebec woman!\"?!? Just too weird and nowhere near enigmatic enough.

The end gets really choppy. Again a bad mix of magical realism and the concrete. And Yoda never provides an answer we can understand.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Could possibly be the worst film ever made. At least plan 9 From Outer Space was funny. I can't believe they talked someone into actually putting up money to make this thing. Complete waste of celluloid. Before I saw this crap I had some respect for Kristophersson. I guess somebody needed a tax write off. Please, in the name of all that which does not suck, stop whoever made this, before they suck again!This movie should be avoided by all people who are not on LSD, or my crazy cousin that insists we're part Native American.If you are in the woods, and an owl starts talking to you, see a psychiatrist. It is not necessary to make a movie about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie plot seems to have been constructed from a disjointed dream. There is not enough realism to hold the viewer's interest. The Vermont Farm scene was a failed opportunity to show the way farms were set up and farm families lived which would have been interesting and entertaining. There was little if no research into the whiskey bootlegging trade of the period. The costumes of the Canadians looked like something from the French Revolution, totally unbelievable. The fiddle playing was good and of the time period but Chris's motions while supposedly playing were unbelievable. The owl's appearance was a never explained mystery and the train disappearing into thin air was too much. I couldn't understand how a live trout got frozen into the ice and why two men in the wilderness without food would release the trout, a good food source.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK... so... I really like Kris Kristofferson and his usual easy going delivery of lines in his movies. Age has helped him with his soft spoken low energy style and he will steal a scene effortlessly. But, Disappearance is his misstep. Holy Moly, this was a bad movie!

I must give kudos to the cinematography and and the actors, including Kris, for trying their darndest to make sense from this goofy, confusing story! None of it made sense and Kris probably didn't understand it either and he was just going through the motions hoping someone would come up to him and tell him what it was all about!

I don't care that everyone on this movie was doing out of love for the project, or some such nonsense... I've seen low budget movies that had a plot for goodness sake! This had none, zilcho, nada, zippo, empty of reason... a complete waste of good talent, scenery and celluloid!

I rented this piece of garbage for a buck, and I want my money back! I want my 2 hours back I invested on this Grade F waste of my time! Don't watch this movie, or waste 1 minute of your valuable time while passing through a room where it's playing or even open up the case that is holding the DVD! Believe me, you'll thank me for the advice!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie so that you don't have to! I have great respect for Kris Kristofferson, but what was he thinking? He did this for scale?

At least the film's title practices truth in advertising, since people and objects routinely disappear throughout the film, adding to the confusion. Kristofferson mentions this in his commentary that even he wasn't sure if Genevieve Bujold's character really existed. This does not bode well for the viewer being able to follow the story!

The \"making of\" feature was far more interesting than the movie itself. It explores the difficulty cobbling together funding for an indie, even as the film is being shot.

To it's credit, this movie is visually pleasing and doesn't in any way look like a movie made with just slightly over 1M. Too bad the money wasn't spent on a better project.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like the previous poster, I am from northern Vermont, and I was inclined to like this film. However, not since \"Red Zone Cuba\" have I seen such a confusing plot. The things the people to bootleg make no sense. Two of the gang paddle across the border send a second party across in a car. Uhm, why? Then they meet two others, and drive up at night in to the bad guy's hideout in a luxury Packard. --Wouldn't just two people in a flatbed truck make more sense? Then, parked outside the garage that holds the targeted hooch, the four fall asleep! When they waken in the morning and and start hauling the whiskey out, of course they're spotted and shot at, losing some of their precious cargo in the process. Then two of the smugglers put the whiskey in a boat and float it over the border. Again, why? I am told by someone whose great uncle really did smuggle in the area, all one needed was to drive a vehicle that could outrun than the U.S. Canada Border Patrol, which back then had a fraction of the resources it has now.

And don't get me started on the last half hour, which made no sense whatsoever.

The only good thing I can say about the film is that Kris Kristopherson has actually grown some charisma with the years.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just finished watching Disappearances at AFI FEST 2006 with about 30 other people in a mostly vacant 1000 seat auditorium. The festival programmer, after seeing the lack of audience, started his opening comments with, \"Well at least a few of those attending the festival have good taste in film\". Well Mr. Programmer, after watching this film I must answer back \"No we don't, and either do you!\" This \"back-woods\" period piece follows young (not so) Wild Bill as he and his mystic family dangerously run illegal Canadian whiskey across the border during America's prohibition. The old-time outlaws (Kris Kristofferson and company) not only need the money to save their ramshackle Vermont farm but want to introduce little Wild Bill to the virtues of manhood.

Although handsomely photographed, this adventure story lacks what makes films of this sort good, \"tension\" and believability. Kristofferson's lackluster performance and dry monologue reminds me of a dream I once had where Al Gore was playing the role of Willy Wonka. I just didn't care and when Wild Bills mystic grandmother appears out of thin air to give him advice it just didn't fit. Yes, I almost fell asleep more than once.

Gary Farmer does do a good job as the Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller character; brother-in-law of Big Bill while the teenage Chris McDermott does uses those piercing blue eyes to his acting benefit.

But overall expect to see Jay Cravens Disappearances playing at a Block Buster $2 Bin near you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Forgettable pilot that never really explains why Nostradamus is really important to the plot of this movie, but Rob Estes plays a a hunky cop who happens to be Nostradamus for some reason and who battles time-travelling Medieval monks that run around with guns and set people on fire to start the apocalypse. Oh yeah, there's also a sexy FBI agent who happens to be a pyschic and is trying to get Rob to believe everything before it's too late. Too bad they couldn't predict a better plot. Yawn.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hmmm, started well, like a hybrid of X-Files & First Wave, unfortunately, if the mere notion of Da Vinci's lost time machine is preposterous to you, then the final 'battle' between one man with a pistol and 4 16th century monks armed to the teeth with automatic weapons will seem positively ridiculous equalled only by poor acting, poor script and screenplay, or, in other words, giggle factor 5 captain.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has good intentions, at least in the message \"don't be afraid, no matter how tough it can be. Fear will kill you in the end\" It's a good message, but the container is so flawed that the message gets squashed by bad acting, complete lack of credibility in the feelings, dialog that's delivered as if it were read out loud, stereotypes instead of breathing, living people.

It abuses from effects such as slow-motion to compensate for a complete lack of credibility in the acting and thus, a lack of emotional force...

The suicidal part of it still reminds me of a low-budget film from the pre-90s, when lesbians seemed to have (at least on celluloid) an utter incapacity of live good, happy lives, and a tendency to get caught in over-the-top dramas that often involved separation, death, or prison.

Had it focused on the rewards of living life according to how we feel it (and not according to how others think we should live it), it would have being less dramatic, more inspiring. But it doesn't, it focuses of pain, on loss and leaves the message at just a theoretical ideal.

I can't see how this movie can be an inspiration to anyone to come out or overcome fear and rejection.

If you're looking for a really good movie that talks about overcoming fear and daring to live what you feel, go back to the magnificent \"Desert Hearts\" (even better: read the novel!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yeah, I made it all the way to the end. It was pretty hard though.

Sometimes I was wondering if there was even a director on set. The acting...well, I don't even know what to say. I thought the girl who played Emily tried her best with the boring, sometimes wacky and sometimes predictable dialog.

I know that it was low budget but the hollow sound and the lighting unfortunately made it look and sound like a 100-minute-long audition tape.

I'm not even going to talk about the ending...

The best thing about the movie was the music.

That being said, I do not recommend this movie to anyone. Even for lesbians who don't have many movies to watch overall, this is nothing to waste your time on. If you're looking for a sad lesbian themed movie, check out The Children's Hour, Lost and Delirious or High Art. Those will all leave you depressed and gloomy but you won't have to suffer cinematic hell in the process.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, I don't want to upset anyone who enjoyed this film but it was a really bad movie. Just the way the scenes were edited and the acting, it made me cringe at some points. I really tried to enjoy it but it was like a student film, they must have had the smallest budget. I really liked the story line to an extent and the characters were likable but the film on a whole was just awful. Also, why is it that in almost every film with lesbian characters one of them has to either commit suicide or die or turn straight?!?! This is so sending a wrong and unrealistic message. I gave it 3 stars and everything considered I think that was very kind of me. Only watch this film if you want to laugh at how bad it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved Heavenly Creatures and make it a point to catch it whenever it is on.

So, imagine my delight when I discovered Love & Suicide while browsing NetFlix. Echoing Heavenly Creatures, an easy choice, to the top of my queue it went.

I watched it last, made myself comfy, and waited. What I thought was some crappy preview of a stoned high school student's prank film project (I laughed out loud once or twice, thinking \"that just lowered the bar of straight to video\") turned out to be the movie. Horrible acting, amateur direction, weak dialog. I usually enjoy low budget films, there is something tangible and real about them because they cannot afford the superficial stuff to distract from the \"meat\" \u0096\u0096the acting, the direction, the plot, the story. I would liken it to a student who hasn't studied for an exam goes in knowing he is going to fail and just puts his head on the desk and sleeps.

In someone else's hands the plot would have serious potential.

Do not expect magic or even a cult classics like, say, Divine's Polyester, or Showgirls, at least there you learn to expect bad acting.

Love & Suicide went from bad, to worse, to the WORST movie I have ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My friend and I rented this movie for 3.99 at blockbuster. If I'd have known how absolutely horrible this movie was going to be, I wouldn't have paid a cent. I had no warning for this bs. The acting can't even be called acting, the inevitable sex scene is awkward, and you can tell that both girls feel completely uncomfortable doing it, and the male villain... god, who couldn't tell he was going to attack emily And the musical cues... my lord. This movie makes me want to cry. Never rent this. In fact, if you happen to look upon it, gauge out your eyeballs. This movie isn't of God- it's from hell. I'm just gonna take the last couple lines to write blah blah blah shiz cause I really don't want to continue on with this review.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie obviously had good intentions. At the end there is a dedication to someone named Kellie who, as a viewer, I can only assume found herself in a situation similar to the one the movie depicts. Perhaps she made the \"wrong\" choice. That dedication is the ONLY redeeming quality of Love & Suicide.

The movie becomes unbearable from the opening sequence. Once the viewer is already that irritated only about five minutes into the film, it's pretty much going to be downhill after that...which it was. I know the film was low budget and the camera shots were actually pretty good...unfortunately, everything else was horrid. The acting, the plot, the sound quality, the picture quality...the acting. I'm sorry but the acting is horrible. Beyond horrible. It's as if the actors are trying to act like people acting. That's the only way I can think to describe it. As I watched, I actually pictured the script with the stage direction in my mind. None of the movements were natural and none of the characters' reactions to one another fit. In short: the timing is WAY off. The timing of the entire film is way off. I'm no director so I know the limits of my knowledge but I really feel there had to be SOME way to convey the passing of time...until they explained about graduation not being too far away I was under the impression that the first portion of the movie had taken place over the span of a week...a month at most.

All that being said, it's really a shame. This movie truly could have been powerful with a little tweaking. All the moments in the film in which we are supposed to feel something are obvious but only because the set-up is obvious (which is a bad thing). The moving scenes totally fell flat. For instance, when Kaye's brother takes his hat of his head and puts it on hers, we should feel the understanding he has for her, the innocence and protectiveness of the love of her brother...somehow it just doesn't come off that way. There are so many more scenes like this (for example: ALL of the fight scenes) and all they do is take away from the movie. All these things put together, Love & Suicide comes off as one long, cheesy, low-budget commercial.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I registered with IMDb.com just so i could comment about this movie. My god what a steaming pile of horse crap this was! It shouldn't even be touted as a real movie, this is very deceiving. this is a 15 year old's film project at best. The acting is terrible. But even good actors could not save this. The dialog is probably the worst part of this movie. Who the hell wrote this crap? And that constant joke coming from the chubby lesbian about Kaye being a \"damsel in distress\" got old real fast. God i'd rather have a camel take a wet dump in my ear than watch this crap again. Do not rent this movie. If they gave you the movie for free do not watch it. smash it with a hammer. Even if smashing this video caused you to lose your Hollywood video or blockbuster video account it would be well worth it. this is an abomination. I suppose i have said all i can about this without being redundant. any questions....email me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILERS, BEWARE!!! Flashdance is a fair movie, in my opinion. Some things do confuse me about it (e.g. Jeanie asks Alex how long it took for her to get so good at dancing; Alex replies \"About 25 years,\" isn't Alex supposed to be 18?) and some things do fascinate me about it (I LOVED the spins!). Overall, though, it intrigued me. When this movie was made, I wasn't even born. I didn't really experience the eighties (I was born in '85) and I have to wonder: sometimes Alex would just run in place a bit, or throw herself all over, not really dancing, just banging in to things, tossing her head back, and waving her arms-was this considered \"dancing\" back then? If it was, I'm not sure I could've standed it. The spins, the flip, the fluid movements were great, but some of it-my neighbor's toddler could've done better! Also, if Alex is a welder during the day, wouldn't she be tired after a hard day's work? When she doesn't go to work for nearly a week, wouldn't she be laid off? Living in a warehouse-I can almost see it, but not quite. It doesn't seem right that she's a welder, owns a warehouse house, AND is trying to get into ballet. None of it really makes sense. I shouldn't be too judgemental considering my own background, but please. Maybe Jennifer Beals is too feminine for me to see her as a welder, I don't know. But either way, they could've picked a better actress. The actors were fine. I even liked the romance. You make your own decision. But mine is-rent it once, don't see it again-it isn't worth it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was a sophomore in college when this movie came out and I had never actually seen it until last night. I finally decided to watch it because I like good dancing and because the movie had such cultural impact. After seeing the movie I am completely baffled by how it had any effect other than putting people to sleep.

The story is pretty preposterous when you think about it. Does anyone actually buy the idea that that beer joint full of gnarly old steel-workers and teamsters could keep their client\u00e8le with the high concept dances that those girls were doing? They would have all been over to Zanzibar faster than you can say \"performance art\". Can you imagine the reaction of the real life versions of that audience to that bizarre TV watching No theater dance thing that she did? Please.

It seems plausible to me that there could be a woman that worked in a steel yard and was also a dancer--after all both are physically demanding jobs. But I didn't buy for a second that THAT girl worked in a steel yard. And I didn't buy for a second that I was looking at a real steel yard. Steel work is dangerous. You don't keep your work area looking like a junk yard and not end up loosing a limb. I love some of the inane shots like when two welders are sitting in the big corrugated tubes welding. What the hell are they doing in there? Or when she is cutting six inches off of a rusty steel bar with a cutting torch. She was obviously board and just started cutting random things up.

But story holes like that can be overlooked if the movie is fun or at least stimulating in some way. Flashdance doesn't offer anything to balance it, however.

The dancing horrible. It is the spastic twitch-and-pose style that ruined American musicals until...well are we really over it yet? The sensuality that the movie tries for is ruined by Jennifer Beal's complete lack of personality. I mean I am a 42 year old male and when she was supposed to be eating lobster my only reaction was to think that she should get a lobster bib.

You can't really get behind Alex and her dreams because her character is so stupid and shallow. The dog had more going on than she did.

The love affair is flat. It comes across as nothing more than a boss with the hots for one of his workers. Zero passion.

Even the final scene where she dances for Orville Redenbacher and some other stiffs is unsatisfying because the panels reaction is so unbelievable. What serious dancers wouldn't roll their eyes at Alex's lame cheerleader routine? In short the movie had nothing but leg-warmers and large sweatshirts. Oh, yeah, there is a good chunk of nudity when Alex \"rescues\" her friend from being a useless erotic dancer (a laughable bit of hypocrisy). Other than that the movie is a waste of time. I wish that the MST3K crew were still in business. This would make good fodder for them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Flashdance is one of those awful, stupid movies that you actually kind-of enjoy, just because they're so crap. I just watched it on TV & my friend and I were amazed at how dopey it was. It's true that Don Simpson and the other producers came up with the idea of a fairly cheap, lowbrow flick with lots of sweaty bodies to help sell a soundtrack of (admitedly catchy) pop, so Flashdance is an odd sort of pioneer: the first MTV movie. Adrian Lyne started out in advertising and it shows because Flashdance is almost a commercial for itself. You've already decided to watch it but the movie has this weird, panicky undercurrent, as though it's frightened that you might change your mind at any moment. It keeps selling itself to you over and over, all the way through, using slick commercial-style editing and glossy close-ups of jiggling breasts. The story is wafer thin (I honestly can't think of another film I've seen with less plot) and it never makes much sense, but its a very contrived, calculating movie, so it feels consistent. People say it's dated but Flashdance was always rubbish. Viewers in the early 80's knew it was just cheesy T&A but it does work in its own silly fashion. There's soppy romance for the chick-flick crowd and stacks of oily, writhing female bodies for their dates, all set to a pumping disco beat. How could it fail? It helps that the dialogue is pointless, so you can grab a popcorn without missing anything major and, if this sort of thing isn't your cup of tea, you can always laugh at the 'interpretive dance' on display. The scene where a stand-in for Jennifer Beals convulses\/'dances' on stage in front of a TV with a fan in it and a face full of white clown make-up had us in stitches. A genuine guilty pleasure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first watched this movie, in the 80s, I loved it. I was totally fascinated by the music, the dancing... everything. However, I recently watched the whole thing again on DVD, and I was completely struck by how extremely stupid the storyline was - how it contained holes, inconsistencies and - frankly - a whole lot of crap - and how horrid the dancing was. I mean, in a realistic world, she would NEVER have gotten into that ballet repertory... The whole thing was quite pathetic. The character developments also lacked in depth. I think that this was, very much, a product of the 80s: the film does not hold up today!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a dance teacher and was looking forward to some good dance routines in this film. How sad to have been subjected to such a painful experience.

I had major problems with Jennifer Beals and her character. I found Alex extremely repellent. Beals' face is so young, sweet and innocent, and this very incongruous with Alex's very disturbing lewdness, especially in that disgusting restaurant scene. She also has the temper tantrums of a toddler. It is very difficult to believe that Nick would keep coming back to such a moody teenager after her frequent rantings and ravings, especially after she opens the door of a moving car and chucks a stiletto at him, opting rather to walk home - in the middle of the road - with only one shoe!!!. And what about after her idiotic behaviour after the night at the ballet. In fact, the whole romance was very disturbing - the 30 something year old man going after a girl who looks about 16. Yuck.

As for the dancing, I'm afraid this 80s style is totally dated. What on earth was that TV dance sequence about in the club? Who was supposed to be dancing? I wasn't even sure if it was a woman or a man in drag! And even that famous final sequence is pretty disappointing, especially given the context of an audition for a ballet company. The camera shots of her leap actually ruin it's effect because you can't see what she's doing. And what on earth was she doing when she went past each of the panel pointing at them? And as many other comments have pointed out, she would NEVER get into a ballet company on the strength of that audition - perhaps that's why they don't actually say at the end whether she was successful or not, the closure is the fact that she overcame her fear in the end. Of the 'Flashdancers', I actually thought the best sequence belonged to Cynthia Rhodes (Penny in Dirty Dancing). You could see that she was a real dancer, and her acrobatics were very impressive. This is of course if you can get past her appalling costume and makeup.

There were two good bits in this film - the ballet dancers stretching when Alex goes for the first time to apply for an audition - they look so lovely and classy, and at least this helps to underline the difference between her current dance career and the one she aspires to. The other good scene was the break dancing in the street. I also liked the ice skater's parents, they were funny.

Some other random points - who was Hanna and how did Alex get to know her? What was an 18 year old doing living in a converted warehouse all alone? How did she afford that lovely barre and all the furniture?Where were her family? Was that scene in the 'nude' club really necessary? The person who wrote in their comment that it was something like a Disney film needs their head examined. And anyway, what happened to the ice skater?

Many people said the film was poor but they liked the message - don't give up hope, keep on trying, and your dreams will come true. Watch \"The Little Mermaid\" instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was Jerry Bruckheimer's idea to sell some records . No seriously it was . The thinking behind it is that if you made a film full of pop songs you could stick the tracks on a LP , sell it and make even more money for the studio . You could also release a few tracks as singles and intercut the promo video with clips from the movie so that when MTV play a track you're actually getting free advertising for the movie . This is a good business deal but an artistic disaster because many of us still have nightmares about Hollywood movies from the 1980s and I rate the mid 1980s as the poorest time in artistic terms for American film making and FLASHDANCE opened the door to this \" Let's make a 90 minute pop video instead of a movie \" type film making

Jennifer Beals plays Alex Owens a dancer who works as a welder to make ends meet and right away logic disappears with this career choice . Welding is a fairly sophisticated trade , it's not something you walk into and learn in five minutes . There's other gaps in logic like ballet dancing and \" flashdancing \" being somehow similar . ie if you apply to be a ballet dancer and do some hot , dirty flashdancing the male judges might want to meet you after the audition but you won't get the job . it's kind of like saying that screen writing , novel writing and play writing are somehow the same when they're not

But I guess none of this mattered to Jerry when he asked director Adrian Lyne to make the movie . Actually Lyne almost makes a very sexy movie , JenniferBeals is very sweet and innocent looking . Fortunately I sussed out why her face is brightly lit in close up while her silhouette is darkly litin long shots except when the camera cuts to close ups of her heavenly toned body . That's because a body double is used most of the time and frequently the body double is a man ! I bet there's a few naughty boys who are feeling guilty not to mention slightly disgusted to know that","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If it wasn't for the terrific music, I would not hesitate to give this cinematic underachievement 2\/10. But the music actually makes me like certain passages, and so I give it 5\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I give \"Flashdance\" a lowest rating of 1 out of 10 because it's nothing more than a series of music videos with a movie short surrounding the music videos, in order to clock in as a feature length film. Since when does that count as film? Jennifer Beals plays Alex Owens, an aspiring 18-year-old dancer, who, incomprehensibly, has a job as a welder in a Pittsburgh steel factory. Not a line of work most older women find their way into, much less 18-year-olds fresh out of high school. Meanwhile, at night she works as an exotic dancer, who never actually takes off her clothes, in a greasy spoon bar called Mawby's. Yet looking at the well choreographed and well polished dance routines the girls do every night at Mawby's, you would think they were working at the best casino on the Las Vegas Strip.

Alex ends up having a predictable romance with her boss, Nick Hurley (Michael Nouri), who is about twice her age. After resisting Nick's advances, because going out with the boss isn't a good idea, she wastes no time in going all the way with him after their first date. Alex and Nick make no effort to hide their relationship on the job, which makes no sense given how it is likely to look to Alex's co-workers.

When Beals isn't being doubled for the many dance sequences in the movie, her character spends most her time throwing temper tantrums. Alex's dream is to get an invitation only audition at the prestigious Pittsburgh Conservatory of Dance. Inexplicably, when her boss\/boyfriend helps her get the audition she's been dreaming of, she's throws one her tantrums. She angrily tells Nick she isn't doing the audition because of his intervention, and then gets out of his car in the middle of a busy tunnel. This is just one scene that leaves you wondering what the hell the makers were thinking when they were making this.

Of course, Alex does eventually get her audition at the Conservatory. She puts on a dance routine before the Conservatory board that is so ridiculous that you would think it was in a movie marketed to the MTV generation. Oh yeah, it is a dance routine in a movie marketed to the MTV generation.

I don't think I can judge whether or not Beals can actually act well on the basis of what I saw in \"Flashdance\". This is because the character she is forced to play is so poorly written, that I don't think it is a fair litmus test of her acting abilities.

You have to hand it to the makers of \"Flashdance\" though. This movie is proof that the poorest film making can be covered up by a slick marketing campaign. In this case a best selling and award winning soundtrack and music videos for said soundtrack in heavy rotation on MTV. If they had devoted more of their energy to the writing of the script, then they might have been able to come up with a plot and a story with characters that I cared about. Instead what we get are stock characters put in ridiculous scenes any viewer with a functioning brain can't take seriously. A truly forgettable \"film\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, this may be one of the worst movies ever, but atleast there are some nice t*ts in it. The movie is a very bad spoof of The Blair Witch Project, and should be watched only by those wanting to see some t*ts, and NO point other than to flaunt them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wynorski films are always excreble. This is just another case in point. Out of the five naked women shamelessly flaunted here, MAYBE one has real breasts. And that's a strong MAYBE. No humor, no gore, just boobies, boobies, boobies. And some tepid softcore lesbo action. But know what? For fifty cents less than this video rental, I could have rented legitimate porn. Do I feel cheated? With Wynorski, always. So I prepared myself for a letdown, as one must always do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to agree with the other two comments. I waited over a month to see this great new show A&E had been hyping. What a disappointment!!! The show is pretty much all about Ryan Buell. His voice-overs are campy, not creepy. It sounds as if he is talking into a can. As of the second episode, which is roughly 30 minutes or so (if you take out the commercials) he is being chased or followed by something that he knows is demonic. He can't say the name, anytime someone needs to convey that name, they write it on a piece of paper and hand it to someone else. Not particularly informative or entertaining or believable for the rest of us. Why can't he say the name?...supposedly it would give the demon more power. Funny, I always thought demons wanted to hide their true identities. If you know the exact name of the demon, doesn't it make it easier for you to cast them out. Now the next episode, which airs in just a little while is titled \"exorcism\". So is Ryan in need of an exorcism already? Not to say that it couldn't happen but the show so far has not given any evidence or proof of anything. I can tell Ryan that if I were a small child, hell if I was an adult, and someone gave me a little bottle of holy water to chase away something that was terrifying me, I would look elsewhere for help!!! Besides which, if you don't use holy water & blessings, etc. in the right way don't you risk just further infuriating whatever is already mad at you? I will probably watch tonight but if these episodes are as ridiculous as the first, it will probably be the last time I watch it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I initially tuned in to Paranormal State because I (more or less) find the paranormal search genre to be interesting TV, if nothing else.

I really enjoy Ghost Hunters because well over half of their investigations result in total debunking, and find Most Haunted to be hilarious with its use of mediums and frumpy British women with Paris Hilton day-glo eyes fainting from fear\/demonic presences all shot in lovely night-vision green.

Paranormal State has none of this appeal. It feels like it was cobbled together from \"leads\" that Ghost Hunters rejected. The episodes ranged from trailer trash families and single mothers with emo adolescents sitting around and scaring themselves, to an \"interview\" with a 5 year old about the monster who lives in his room (the monster goes RAWRRR, we are told). All of these people calling upon a college club to solve their problems. The whole show is about Ryan and his partner, his enormous ego. He leads his troupe of doe-eyed coeds around, except when a case is deemed \"too extreme\" and orders them to remain at the hotel HAHAHA. Better leave it to the pros, ie himself.

The unwitting comedy of this show is all in how gullible the participants are. Ryan spins his tales of being hunted, followed, etc by a demon that he first encountered when the Catholic Church recruited him to assist on a case. Sorry, but the Catholic Church has people who can do that, they don't need the day-shift manager at Quiznos to chip in his 2 cents.

This show is awful, shame on A&E for bankrolling this silliness, trying to follow in the footsteps of some much better paranormal-themed shows. It's almost unintentionally funny, except that Ryan is so arrogant and devoid of charisma that watching the show long enough to mock it isn't worth the trouble.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For awhile I was hooked on shows like Ghost Hunters and Destination Truth and stuff, even though I thought they were full of crap I found them interesting and entertaining, and that's why we watch entertainment TV. It's fun to turn off your brain and believe that every shadow caught on camera is not just some shadow, but some insane asylum inmate's tormented spirit or something, so long as you can snap back to the real world later.

That being said, enjoying Paranormal State requires more than merely shutting your brain off, it requires you to consume lead in large doses on a regular basis during your childhood, then suffer repeated head trauma, then take up huffing paint in your teens. Then you have to get high\/drunk and watch.

Paranormal State is beyond the pseudoscience (which I can enjoy with a degree of critical thinking) that you'll find on Ghost Hunters (which I still find to be reasonably interesting and entertaining program), it's pseudo... everything.

The show follows the adventures of a group of students from Penn State University (not to be confused with University of Pennsylvania) lead by Ryan Buell as they take it upon themselves to exorcise demons and spirits using ceremonies from whatever religion seems most dramatic at the time (ranging from Catholic exorcisms performed by college coeds to Wiccan spells cast by socially awkward goths, to Native American cleansing rituals. To their credit, these are performed by Native Americans). If you believe in Wicca or you're Catholic or a follower of a traditional Native American religions, I think you'd want their cleansing rituals performed by someone who... isn't a maladjusted college student with some free time. I don't remember the scene in the exorcist where the priests threw up their hands and said \"it's no use! Call up an after school club from the state college. This one is too much for us. They've probably read the Wikipedia article on exorcisms.\" The show is frankly insulting to the intelligence to the viewer. The show's opening title sequence has Ryan talking about PRS (the Paranormal Research Society), saying that when he came to Penn State (notice you don't see any shows where the host says the same thing, but instead of Penn State he says \"When I came to MIT\" or \"After I got my theoretical physics degree...\") he found other people with similar interest in the paranormal. He says they are sometimes \"warriors.\" I remember when I used to pretend I was a warrior and I fought ghosts. I was six. Then the emotionless Ryan brings out the flamboyant and obnoxious Chip Coffey, who pretends to go into trances and become possessed by cussing at the cast. Awesome. I thought people had learned some sense about how ridiculous the idea of psychics and mediums is after \"Crossing Over\" went off the air. The show takes itself way too seriously, as this small group of societal misfits pretends they are battling against some ancient, cosmic evil. Production values are low, stories are boring, and, unlike Ghost Hunters, which will occasionally catch something anomalous (although likely explainable, but interesting nonetheless) on their equipment, PS requires you to believe that the noises and creaks that they hear are evidence of demons, ghouls, and possibly leprechauns. The only thing scary about this show is that there are people out there that take it seriously. The only thing paranormal about it is that the people on it are able to make each episode while keeping a straight face.

Call me jaded, but I feel like the great mysteries of the universe and the afterlife are too great to be solved in a half-hour TV show by a journalism undergrad at a state school.

All that being said, I highly recommend that everyone watch this show at least once, if for no other reason than the sheer entertainment derived from watching a truly terrible movie or TV show. Or you can make a drinking game out of it. I think the second would be preferable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When this show first aired I will admit to being intrigued by the premise and the setting. With an open mind I watched the first two episodes and naturally dismissed it as being destined to run for a half-season at most. I happened to be watching A\/E recently and witnessed an ad for this garbage and I could barely contain my surprise. I truly hope people are watching this for a laugh and not taking it seriously. The characters are truly some of the most ridiculous and outright laughable on television, scripted or otherwise. It's obviously generating ratings so I must give the creators credit for establishing and maintaining a fanbase, but I seriously hope no one is watching this under any pretense of seriousness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, of course its fake. But it is agonizing to watch. I personally know more creative film influenced minds that could \"make\" this seem real. The young lead male couldn't be more unconvincing. He line-reads everything he says. Are we really suppose to believe he knows what he is talking about? There is a plethora of ways to Blair-Witch this show up. Fear does not breed from what seems \"cool\" and computer generated. Nor does it generate from such proverbial lines as \"What was that? Did you hear that?\" Also, There are real convincing psychics out there that don't just \"Want to be on screen\". Another DUH-Factor is... how do these producers think we are actually going to buy that paranormal activity will just magically happen within the 2 possibly 3 days (if we are lucky) they film. I don't think so. A 2 + week at one site would be more convincing. It is also disarming that they think including \"Nasa radar checks\" and computer's that show fancy bs really make us scared. AND IE: Exorcisms should not be staged like the film \"The Exorcist\". When are they going to get it right? Possession of the Devil or other evil spirits influence people differently. They don't just snarl and lower their voice like Linda Blair or fallel around like Courtney Love on a drug binge. As stated better concentrations on \"psychic ability\" would aid this show greatly. We want to see and hear EVERYTHING that supposingly flashes before them. Not cut-away to other story bs. On a final note- Shooting Stars do not generate interest when you showed fake pictures of UFO's ahead of time. Might I stress again the young dark haired man that hosts this show is absolutely down-right awful. Avoid this show. For fright: watch old Unsolved Mystery episodes... not the new ones (the recreation got it oh-so wrong). But that is for a different blog.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show, Paranormal State, has an almost \"Blairwitch Project\" feel to it. As in, you're watching a 'documentary' that's actually just a scripted movie, made to look and feel like a documentary.

My biggest problem with the show, is their 'go to' outside advisers of the Warren's, who were made famous for their 'investigations' of the Amityville murders, which were shown to be completely fraudulent, just based upon the police reports of the family's deaths! (such as the eldest daughter actually having been involved in the entire thing, to the point of possibly even helping with some of the deaths!) Then there's the way they constantly jump to blaming demons for everything. Not to mention how haughty the group is about what cases they take. They don't want to help those who need it most, they just want the weirdest cases, that will get them the most press and attention.

They're complete frauds, plain and simple.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Paranormal State\" is an interesting show for most paranormal believers. I enjoy watching what the \"team\" has to say and what they \"find\", however, I know that the entire show along with it's build ups and story lines are completely set up. They go to real haunted locations and I suspect that they speak with actual witnesses. I commonly feel as I watch it that I am not watching non-fiction but an actual movie that is contradictory to reality. I personally would not advise or recommend anyone to watch this show unless you are a basic scare seeker.

Interesting show. Stick to \"Ghost Hunters\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The atmosphere in this show is great. There's plenty of excellent buildup, but thats where this show fails. There's way to much build up for nothing. You will constantly see a creepy set up that makes it feel likes something really freaky is coming right out of the corner and then....nothing. Over and over again nothing. You hear plenty of stories of people talking about freaky events but you see none. They show up at these peoples doors, talk about their deep and emotional pasts, set up lame equipment and find nothing! there is nothing on this show thats leads me to believe in anything paranormal. I laugh every time they need to exercise a \"horrible spirit\" that we as an audience have seen nothing of. They get rid of the spirit that never was and everything is put in a neat little package. A show that looked so freaky and had such great potential leads up to one thing...Nothing!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There really are no redeeming factors about this show. To put it simply, its just terrible. Absolutely dreadful. It's just a dreadful \"reality\" show. Not only that, it's dreadful fiction.

Imagine this: A bunch of overly-imaginative teenagers get together one night and go \"Hey! Let's make a paranormal show just like \"Ghost Hunters\" and whatnot!\" So they grab a camera, harass local residents and film random landscapes behind a painfully \"trying-to-be-dramatic-yet-failing-misreably\" monologue. This show is basically a bunch of teenagers running around with a home movie camera trying to make a really bad horror documentary. The only difference is this show actually has a budget and writers. A wasted budget and terrible writers.

Oh, the problems, how do I count thee? Well, first off, let's talk about this from a personal level. I am not a total skeptic when it comes to the paranormal. I am willing to believe in whats paranormal and whats not, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who feel the same. So, if you're going to do a show about the paranormal, you have to do a good job convincing the viewer that what they're seeing is either paranormal or not, because the viewer can easily believe otherwise. I hate to compare, but I don't see why not at this point. Take \"Ghost Hunters\" for example. In \"Ghost Hunters\" you can tell that the cast is leveled with the audience. They're not totally skeptical, yet they're still willing to keep the possibility of any paranormal anomalies in mind. They have to look at something and be willing to say \"this is possible that its simply nothing\". And, with that in mind, they set out to try and prove themselves wrong. They use technology and several other gadgets along with constant moderation to determine what is paranormal along with bearing the fact that what they may be monitoring could be nothing in mind. Not only are they trying to convince themselves what is real and what is not, in the process they are trying to convince you. That element of doubt is not present in \"Paranormal State\". Strike one.

In \"Paranormal State\", the cast simply says \"there's this spooky place, and its HAUNTED, so we're going to find some SPIRITS!\" And immediately you know and saying to yourself \"Okay, convince me otherwise\". The cast is not professional in their interviews. In fact, sometimes it seems like they're just harassing local residents of these so-called \"haunted\" areas. They have no real evidence to back up their claims besides assumptions and theories, and the best they can must up is somebody who \"claims\" they can contact the dead, with no one ever backing up who this person is and how valid they really are. They could have easily just picked some random person off the street and said \"pretend you can contact spirits for our show\" and went at it. In the \"Mothman\" episode, this just happens. Without any convincing evidence towards the end of the show, they bring this sort of individual out where he does a random, painfully scripted \"reading\" of a supposed area of how something is \"haunted\" in order to convince its audience. Very, very poor effort. I feel that one of the main problems with the show is that it feels scripted. During one of the episodes, the cast gets attacked by one of these \"paranormal anomalies\" at times in an attempt to be dramatic. These sort of dramatic sequences would make any skeptic laugh and even those who are on the fence realize what they're watching is just a bunch of tabloid-esquire trash. If the show's aim was to try and convince their audience that these \"paranormal\" events are real, they're doing a horrifically poor job at doing so. Strike two.

However, there is always the counter. Just one last viewpoint to see if the show is actually worth something. What if the show isn't trying to convince you that these paranormal events are real and are simply trying to entertain you with good fiction? It even fails on that level as well. If the show's creators were trying to craft fiction to entertain its audience, the writing is too poor and even on a fictional level, it fails to convince the audience that its cast members are really experiencing the unknown in all its full, horrifying glory. The writing is simply not compelling and even, dare I say, boring. Strike three.

So what remains of this show is simply a bunch of teenagers who are too willing or too gullible to believe in the paranormal simply because its simply much more amazing than reality who set out with a camera, a bad script and bad actors to generally just make a really bad horror documentary. Thats all the show is at this point. There is no reason to see it, not even for the entertainment factor, and there's no reason to care about it. To be blunt, its lame. There are absolutely no redeeming factors about this show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was excited to see this show when I started seeing the promos on A&E. I've been fascinated with ghosts and the paranormal since I was a kid, and love catching \"Ghost Hunters\" when it's on (SciFi Channel). I've tried to watch three episodes of \"Paranormal State\" and only use up my time commenting on it because it's so bad and perpetuates the notion that anyone who believes in the paranormal is a gullible freak. \"Paranormal State\" is beyond cheesy. Cheesy \"Director's Log\" voice-overs that will leave you wishing for Captain Kirk. Cheesy teasers going into commercial breaks that are taken completely out of context. Everything paranormal on this show is automatically assumed to be \"evil\" and the work of a demonic spirit. Then come the exorcists, demonologists, psychics ... like in \"Poltergeist\" you almost expect the team to leave and say \"This house is clear.\" I very much appreciate the \"Ghost Hunters\" approach, where they go in to disprove claims, then take away what they can ... and they are almost always reassuring to the client (if they find anything) that haunted does not equal evil. \"Paranormal State\" is not \"so bad it's good\" ... it's just plain bad. Didn't A&E used to stand for \"Arts & Entertainment\"? The art part has long been gone, and the entertainment factor is now waning as well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was very excited when Paranormal State first came on A&E. I thought that it may bring some more interesting ghostly evidence. The production value looked good and I really love the logo. Then, after about few episodes in, I started to feel that this show may not be looking for evidence but had a strong religious agenda.

It seems like every case they investigate has some big powerful evil demon that can't even make a teacup move on camera, yet everyone is terrified. Then comes some power of Christ ritual that saves everyone.

Also, there is very little focus on other members of the team. The entire show focuses on Ryan and he feels like one of those people that hands you pamphlets about his church on the street.

Has paranormal phenomenon and demons become the new missionaries of Christianity, scaring people to convert? Really, this should be on a Christian network. I was very disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a fan of the paranormal and I love Ghost Hunters so when this show first came out I decided to give it a try. I could barely sit through one episode. The show is so obviously staged. I mean come on, every single episode involves someone being possessed or involves a demonic force trying to kill the family. Another huge flaw is that these guys never debunk anything. When I watch Ghost Hunters they find evidence and try to disprove it and if they can't then it is evidence. On this show they find a voice or a piece of video evidence and they are very quick to call it a ghost. This completely ruins their credibility unlike TAPS and Ghost Hunters who actually know what they're doing. Honestly if you're interested in the paranormal and want to watch a show about it watch Ghost Hunters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even if Ryan wasn't such of an annoying person, this would still be bad, i said even if, where do we begin? \"directors log\" You will have the urge to snatch his tape recorder and pound it with a hammer or punt it into a lake, a haunted lake of course. Oh how i wish \"dead time\" was more literal as opposed to what they refer to it as, but alas, no death, maybe a pillow out of place or a \"humming noise\" oh wait thats the cat. I actually expected to see some sort of evidence or at least something to verify their escapades, don't worry you wont see anything you that you would not see on a normal day.

An entire season and what do they have to show for it, um nothing. No in fact they have less than nothing, they have a waste of time. They took my challenge, the do something for the paranormal challenge. Now in this you actually do something for the paranormal, you could say go on camera and say \"i love the paranormal so much I'll draw stick figures of ghosts\" or \" I love the paranormal so much I'll film hot co-eds pretending to be ghost hunters\" you would be wasting film, but wasting it for the paranormal. Or you could say \"I'll mess with a demon\" but don't say it's name you might get hurt, and you know god doesn't like that, that would be quite a thing for god but he wouldn't like that so don't do that. So i asked them to waste time for the paranormal and they followed suit, they went into an old building looking for \"mothman\", it was a waste of time, it made no real difference at all, it had no effect, we learned nothing new, it was a waste of time and film.

There amazing detective work is just so uncanny, \"well we found your problem\" a cat died here so were going to psychically communicate with that cat and tell it to move on, kind of throw some catnip at it, and it'll be OK......directors log....\" Captain log star date 541.2 ...oh i mean \" directors log, i just brought on a few new investigators, a couple 8's and 9's but this chic is a 10....um yeah....we have a new case... strange things happening.... .......focusing on one of the children.....were going to investigate..\" Now we will bring is a psychic, we haven't told them anything this is TV trust us,","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I give this nonsense a 2 instead of a 1 because there is a worse show called Haunted Homes. But this kid and his buddies conduct their investigations like total idiots. They assume that there are ghosts from the get go and if they ever find rational explanations behind the experiences they have to be drug kicking and screaming into admitting it. But beyond that, the show's whole format is incredibly annoying. Even though a lot of it seems scripted, the college educated kids who make up the the cast can barely speak English but still insist on trying to use \"big\" words they obviously don't understand. And head investigator Ryan's ridiculously self important voiceovers make me just want to throw the TV through the window. (and he looks stoned all the time). In short, this group make the guys from TAPS on Ghost Hunters look like MIT scientists!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show was rushed, and relied heavily on surprise cuts to commercials (When it came back from commercial, the noise or \"surprise\" was something simple like a mouse) This is a pure rip-off of Ghost Hunters and it attempts to go \"beyond\" them, and fails miserably. Also, what is with the Directors log thing? Is this star trek? It just ruins the novelty of this show, which wore off quick. The only reason it's been watched is that people want to laugh at the pure anti-climatic nature of it. They never find anything, and most likely never will. Funnily enough, they always point out something that is the thing they are \"hunting\" and guess what?! It's the local radio station's tower light that is blinking red!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me first off say that I am a believer of ghosts, and I do indeed know they exist. I have had enough experiences with them to know they are there.

What I hate is the people who bring the Bible and Religion into all of this. People forget there is more than one \"Bible\", thousands of religions and beliefs, and different ways to interpret what is said in the Bible. Not everyone believes in God, and not everyone believes in stereo-typical religion.

Religion does not make everything fact, one of the things I should mention in the Bible that many do not know is that even the most rampant Bible thumper is breaking the very rules written within....you are supposed to never wear more than one fabric at one time, slavery is OK, and you may murder your neighbor under certain circumstances. None of this, \"Oh that was the Old testament, and now we have the New Testament.\" If the Bible is the word of God, and cannot be changed..there should be no changes, or versions. Religion is full of misinterpretations, mixed facts, and people who so blindly follow it that there, \"Is no other way.\" The excuses these said blind followers use are either pathetic, or they themselves cannot explain the discrepancies properly, and instead use excuses handed down to them from either their Pastor or teacher.

But anyhow, onto the review. I am a decent fan of \"Ghost Hunters\" and when I heard this show was coming soon, I was pretty excited and thought it had some potential. As much as I like watching \"Ghost Hunters\", I do not like some of their members, and I do not like the way they can dismiss a place as being haunted, yet cannot explain anything that is going on. Just because your investigation equipment does not pick it up, does not mean the camera filming the show did not. I am glad they are skeptical, but it's like they do not understand that just because you did not get anything on your recorder and film does not make the place haunted or not. If Ghosts were that easy to capture, it would be known as a fact, not a belief. It's more of a \"right place at the right time\" kind of thing, as well as if there is something there, what makes you think it's going to \"perform\" for you? This show is kind of silly. It's usually boring, and there is lots of talk, lots of psychics, yet hardly anything happens. The main guy's filtered narration is usually either boring to listen to, or is basically not needed.

Also, the reliance on psychics is too abundant, as I believe VERY few of them are actually gifted. Silvia Brown is one I definitely believe in, but most are sometimes hard to believe.

I really wanted to like this show, but of the few I have seen I have yet to be terribly impressed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Can anyone give me a reason why only one American dies in this movie, and when he does, it is supposed to be a very emotional scene, yet when the Operation Delta Force team kills hundreds of Russians, in slow-motion action scenes, or thousands of Arabs, also in slow-motion action scenes, you are supposed to cheer and say \"Take that, you non-American monsters!\". I know I used \"slow-motion action scenes\" a lot, but that is because every action scene in this movie is in, you guessed it, slow-motion. Every last one of them... And this squad should be called \"Invincible Slow-Motion Bullet-Dodging Force\", since they seem to have supernatural powers that help them to dodge bullets. And if this supernatural power fails, they have some kind of regeneration superpower, which is all they need to kill the complete non-American army that stands between them and victory. By this point, nobody cares since they have been put to sleep by another laughable slow-motion action scene... That is if they are not laughing out loud at the bad acting, cheesy dialogues and incredibly poor story. Which is what I did... The cast is made of unknown actors, which will probably remain unknown since they don't even play characters. They are just playing guys with guns(and, lets not forget, superpowers)... The only quality is that the special effects are surprisingly not that bad(although they are in slow-motion) for a TV movie... But it still sucks... and at the same time is so bad it's good... OK, maybe at the end it gets a little too repetitive...

25%","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad sequels.....this one's a real one! When the first movie was very very bad, you have to be fool to make a sequel.....Worse actors, worse scenario,worse special effects,worse movie!!! This is history! Bad history! I give it 0 and a half (for laughs) out of *****.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can you say after watching this movie? That is, if you had the interest and concentration to see it to the end. I was left speechless, due to the amazingly dull story, annoying situations where one American equals that of a fifty or more Iraqis, and boring dialogue. I think that if this movie has something to teach, it probably goes like \"Don't screw with US, or we'll come and kick your butts\". Plus, this film truly encourages and votes for killing masses of foreigners, in the name of war. I got the image of tackling chess pieces out of the playing board. Except, now it's fast and there's not so much thinking. And on top of that.. no character there has any spirit; then, how can you care at all what happens to any of them. Excluding war movie fans with no taste, I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. There should always be something more interesting to do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Normally i would applaud a movie that tries to do something different or original in a genre. It is obvious that this movie is some sort of parody on ninja movies. And i really did my best to enjoy the movie. But I just couldn't. The jokes aren't funny enough! (I've seen my share of Japanese movies. And most of the times I like and understand the humor used in those movies. \"Red Shadow\" is just silly!)The characters that are portrayed in this movie know that this isn't a serious movie and show that all is about the fun. Look at the characters from parodies like \"Hot Shots\" or \"Scary Movie\". Everything they do on the screen is done with a straight face and never fall out of character! And because of this, certain scenes become funny and hilarious. In \"Red Shadow\" the actors never achieve that. The shadow ninja's supposed to be very skilled and deadly. Sadly the actors don't do their best in convincing us of their talents. They don't do things with a straight face. The jokes would have worked better if they did! The bad choreography of the action scenes also damaged the viewing experience for me. I like humor in martial arts movies as long as the action is good. \"Red Shadow\" just fails in that department. So what is left to be enjoyed. Well,the music (techno) was uplifting. It had to be as the action it self never is exciting. And there are some short dramatic scenes that are good but simple. The use of humor,lack of story and depth make me think that this movie is meant for children. But I do wonder if children actually would like this movie. Waste of time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst kind of film.

The plot is ludicrous, the characters are unrealistic stereotypes who never look like they believe it themselves. Are white people such monsters that they will continue to call two white child rapists in their 20s \"good boys\" and need to be persuaded that this might be grounds for provocation? Are black people universally inspiring? Do the Ku Klux Klan really stand outside court rooms shooting at lawyers with nobody intervening? Do judges really think that a fair trial can be conducted when the jury can hear a mob outside shouting \"Kill him\"? Do black people really stand shoulder to shoulder with the Klan waiting to hear the verdict? Do wives really take several months to realise that their husband might be defending a man from unfair hanging because he knew might have done the same thing? Do juries really acquit people of murder because they feel sorry for them? Do lawyers really use a defense of sanity in order to persuade people that their client was temporarily insane?

Worst of all, any high-minded principles of this film were lost to the completely exploitative and gratuitous use of sexual crime to titillate the audience. Was the subject of rape, let alone child gang rape, really in competent hands here? Is it really a subject that belongs in Hollywood hands? And if so, why the completely gratuitous kidnap and stripping of Sandra Bullock? And the completely pointless statutory rape charge against one of the witnesses? Seems like the director didn't feel THAT strongly about sex crime after all.

This was taking the excellent plot of To Kill a Mockingbird and making a crass, shallow, tasteless money-spinner from it. Shame on them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A Time To Kill is based on John Grisham's first novel, the one he wrote before he was famous, and the one that didn't skyrocket him to fame. (That would be accomplished by \"The Firm\"). That's why this movie didn't get made until much later, after Grisham was off churning out meaningless books with the movie dollar signs fresh in his head. Unlike most of those, this book was actually about something. It had meat, it had weight, and it had heart.

But it also had a fatal flaw, and this fatal flaw gets translated into the movie. Namely, \"A Time To Kill\" sets you up.

Here we have a black man (Jackson), on trial for the murder of two white men who brutally raped and tortured his 10-year-old daughter. We have an underdog lawyer (McConaughey) battling the big bad system to save his client. And oh, by the way, the whole thing is set against the backdrop of racism in Mississippi, complete with hooded KKK men burning crosses.

In other words, we're supposed to sympathize with Carl Lee Hailey. We're supposed to believe that a father who loves his daughter is justified in killing the men who raped her. We're supposed to feel the injustice of a system where a racist all-white jury could judge a black man who was just trying to avenge a brutal crime. We're supposed feel like we're standing alongside the people chanting \"Free Carl Lee\".

But the racism issue is a smokescreen, and the whole thing is contrived. Carl Lee Hailey was a vigilante. Yes, there were mitigating circumstances for what he did, but the fact remains that he wasn't innocent. This would have been true no matter what his skin colour, or the skin colour of the assailants of his daughter, the judge, the jury, or anyone else.

And what's so heavy-handed about this film is that it paints anyone who believes Carl Lee should have been convicted is a racist. The message seems to be that if you believe that the law shouldn't be taken into people's own hands, then you might as well be burning crosses on a lawn somewhere wearing a hood.

This isn't the first time a heavy dose of sentimentalism is inserted into a story like this, and it won't be the last. As a movie, A Time To Kill stays pretty faithful to the book, and the acting isn't half bad. But it played the hand it had been dealt, really. Even a good cast can't elevate bad source material.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are other reviews here expressing similar views, but I still feel impelled to add my comments. The film is generally well-made from a technical point of view, apart from possibly being too long. The acting is mostly very good, although Kevin Spacey isn't given much space to explain his character's motivation (apparently ambition rather than racism), and Sandra Bullock's only function seems to be as eye candy, which she admittedly manages very well.

At a fundamental level the film's heart is in the right place in being opposed to racism, and I get the impression that it tried to set out to be some kind of definitive treatment of racism, perhaps why so many famous names agreed to be in it. However, it seems the writers bit off far more than they could chew (I haven't read the book, so I don't know how much of that is down to Grisham). The biggest problem, as many others have said, is that it ends up advocating vigilante justice. Aside from the fact that I don't agree with that position, I don't think that such a view actually helps the anti-racist cause at all - it's more likely to be applied to acquit white defendants who kill black victims. At the end the prosecutor invites the jury (and the audience) to imagine that the raped girl was white - but follow that through and imagine the defendant to be a white man who murdered black rapists ... in the end the message seems to be that it's OK to kill someone as long as you hate them enough. It's also convenient that the man killed was presented as totally evil and his guilt was in no doubt, which removes any of the moral ambiguity likely in a real case.

Samuel L Jackson gives an excellent performance, but unfortunately this also undermines the plot - he comes across as someone with considerable integrity, but it's hard to believe that he would be willing to hide behind an insanity plea (and indeed he doesn't, when push comes to shove). We're presumably supposed to think that it's because he faces the death penalty, but in fact at one point he's offered a plea of manslaughter, although if you blink you might miss it. Why not take it, given that he must know his chances of acquittal are slim? Or if he wants to make a stand in court, why plead insanity?

There are less serious flaws too. The medical experts, on whose testimony the case supposedly rests, are jokes - both are discredited for highly implausible reasons, and neither of them offers any real psychiatric diagnosis. The message seems to be that expert witnesses will say whatever they're asked to say, and shouldn't be believed. The fact that the injured policeman supports Jackson is moderately plausible, but still a bit convenient (and what if he had died?) I find it hard to believe that the KKK would march down the street in broad daylight. Other apparently serious crimes (riot, arson, kidnapping, attempted murder) go by without any visible attempt to detect or prosecute them. And the scene where the dog comes bounding back is ludicrous.

My final reaction is to be left feeling rather dirty - as though I must be a racist because I disagree with the resolution. It may be that the film intended to explore different viewpoints and leave the audience to decide, but if so they seem to have forgotten it by the time they got to the end. The film did make me think about my views, read what other people thought here and add my own opinion, so at some level maybe it succeeded - but I worry that it may have re-inforced highly illiberal views in some people, which I hope is the opposite of what it intended.

Final thought - try watching Law and Order, it covers issues like this with much more depth in about 38 minutes of screen time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First things first - though I believe Joel Schumacher is at best a mediocre director and more often (as here) downright bad, the lion's share of the blame for this ugly travesty of a film must go to John Grisham whose novel this is based on.

Set at an undetermined point in time (the 50s? the 70s? now?), the film opens with the rape and murder of a child by rednecks so caricatured that their purpose seems to be to reassure racists that \"at least we're not that bad\"\u0085 Cut to the bad guys arriving at the courthouse when the girls father, Samuel L Jackson, fearful they will get off on some technicality, guns them down in cold blood before the trial.

The setting is a 'deep south' that probably never existed - the few black characters live in shacks and seem to pick cotton, the dyed-in-the-wool racists (Kiefer Sutherland is a cartoon version of a Klansman) are laughable in their villainy. The set-piece is the trial: for the defence, are the \"good guys\" - a milquetoast lawyer played by Matthew McConaughey as though in a coma, his assistant played by Sandra Bullock's breasts (she doesn't seem to serve any other narrative purpose) and Donald Sutherland as the requisite drunk-lawyer-who-sobers-up-to-fight-the-good-fight. For the prosecution, Kevin Spacey goes through the motions of being demon spawn, while in the town at large, crosses are burned, witness are intimidated and the local citizens don't seem to care\u0085

Some of the reviews here claim the film immoral, since surely Samuel Jackson is a killer and should trust to the forces of the law rather than get off on a feeble heart-tugging piece of oratory by Matthew McConaughey. To be honest, objectionable though the underlying message \"Vigilante justice is good\" might be, everything about the movie stinks: the characterizations are pitiful, the acting leaden, the direction plodding, the screenplay and the dialogue almost verging on parody. Peter Menzies lush, 50s Technicolor cinematography is pretty but derivative.

And it goes on for nearly two and a half hours!!

What's left to say? This is a waste of 141 minutes of anyone's life, it is tedious, vacuous and hammy, and, almost as an afterthought, it is morally repugnant.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have not read \"A Time to Kill\" by John Grisham, and perhaps that would have helped understand the film better. But perhaps not. I hear this is the most faithful Grisham adaption yet, and if that is true, I can see why so many publishers turned down the novel when Grisham introduced it as his first work.

\"A Time to Kill\" is one of those films that is seriously confused and wants to do too many things at once. It wants to be a suspenseful crowd-pleasing thriller and, at the same time, a film dedicated to exploring certain social and moral questions. Let's face it, those two types of films do not go together in Hollywood, which is why \"Dead Man Walking\" had to be made independently.

The story involves a young lawyer named Jake (Matthew McConaughy) out to defend a black man named Carl (Samuel L. Jackson) from murdering two hillbillies that brutally raped his young daughter. The day before the rapists' trial, Carl hid in a closet in the courthouse and when the rapists were brought through the building, he charged out and shot both of them dead. To help out with the defense, Jack accepts the help of a former law student (Sandra Bullock), who proves that her role in this film was totally unnecessary, and put in the film only for marketing purposes.

Meanwhile, one of the rapist's kid brother (Kiefer Sutherland) was angered that a black man killed his brother and decided to act out a revenge. All of this leads to a shooting in front of the courthouse, a kidnapping, a brutal beating, and race riot. I'll admit that all of this held my attention greatly throughout the film, in addition to the courtroom scenes. What I later objected to was the film's handling of ethical questions and its use of formulas in the plot.

The main question that the film constantly asks, over and over again, is whether a black man gets a fair trial from a white jury. Sure they can, but that doesn't mean that the man has to be acquitted in order for the trial to be fair. This film, however, doesn't seem to think so. Besides that, there several gaping holes in the plot used for conveniences. For example, there is an unknown character called Mickey Mouse, who is a member of the Klan, and, for reasons unknown, is helping the members of the defense team escape from serious dangers of the other members of the Klan. After Bullock is kidnapped by Sutherland and company, and left for dead in the wilderness, this unknown person comes and saves her---and we NEVER find out who he is and why he is helping out the people he should be terrorizing.

And speaking of the Sutherland character's reign of terror, it's amazing how witless the police and the Bullock character are in stopping him throughout the film. There's a scene when Sutherland becomes a sniper from a building across the street from the courthouse and tries to shoot Jake as he comes out, shooting one of the guards instead. Now you'd think since there are dozens of police around, it would be easy to surround and capture the sniper. No such luck. From what we could see, no one seemed to even care that a sniper was still on the loose. Even after Bullock, was rescued by Mickey Mouse, she never, ever mentioned who her kidnapper was, nor was it even questioned. Why was this? Simple. The Sutherland character was needed throughout the film to add continual suspense, although logically, he should have been out of the picture.

Besides Bullock's character, there another thankless character. He is Jake's assistant played by Oliver Platt. There seems to be one reason for his character to be in the movie--to supply a number of one-liners for the audience. In my opinion, one-liners show a major weakness in \"serious\" films when used. It demonstrates that the filmmakers are not confident that the story and dialogue alone are enough to keep the audience's attention, and so use them to make the audience laugh to reassure everyone that they are watching an entertaining film.

But enough of the film's many minor problems. What about the film's message here? It is clear that Carl is indeed guilty of murder. We saw how he planned for hours to murder the men who raped his daughter. The lawyers argue that it was temporary insanity, etc that caused him to kill. In desperation, Jake asks the jury to close their eyes as he recounts the rape in detail as part of his closing arguement. After describing everything that took place, he adds on one final line...\"The girl is white\". We then see members of the jury with tears in their eyes.

In the very next scene, a girl comes out yelling \"He's free! He's free!\". Wait a minute! Do juries base their verdicts on their emotions or on the facts? Most of all, why weren't there any scenes that showed the jury deliberating and what they were really thinking after their emotions worn off. I'll tell you why. They couldn't show the delibertion because NO JURY could acquit a man of such a crime, no matter how much the defense's closing arguements touched their hearts. What is the message? That someone is justified in killing if it is a form of revenge for a previous crime done to them?

This film should have had the courage to say that murder is NOT OK in this situation, because in reality, there would not be an acquittal. But since dollars were at stake, the filmmakers were more concerned about sparing the audiences' feelings than they were about presenting a responsible message. If people start killing as a form of revenge, the makers of this film should be held responsible. What a socially irresponsible film this is!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie endorses self-justice! It grants freedom to a black man who killed the men who raped his daughter and in the end he gets of scat-free! Despicable enough as this may be, there is also adultery in this film. The Connaughey character has the hots for the Bullock character and the film has some of those stereotypes of trial films (like the important news brought to the court in the nick of time)that make every aesthetically demanding film-goer such as me sick! I really cannot believe that someone liked this junk. It is a film so bad and holding up false ideals that I am unable to put my critic in an eloquently pleasing way. When will the American people wake up and find out that they are being manipulated 24\/7 by films like these that turn reality into some BS where there is justice for all if only they take it into their hands. This cowboy attitude just makes me sick and in my eyes it represents everything that is wrong with America!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Regardless of whether the predominant social message of this film - that vigilante justice is acceptable - is justifiable, I was more insulted by McConaughey's closing statement. In a courtroom drama, the closing statement of the defence attorney is pretty much the crux of the film, and when the issue is as difficult to resolve as this one, the statement is really being delivered to the audience as well as the jury. This basically implies that the audience consider the rape of a white girl to be a more horrific crime than the rape of a black girl. I for one find this very insulting. As for the rest, I found the acting reasonable, with the exception of Sandra Bullock, who seems to be playing her usual bubbly self (doesn't really work in a courtroom drama), but what's the point when the film's message is as poor as this one. It tells you that vigilante justice is fine, and accuses you of racism if you disagree.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So many great actors, so little worth watching. But with a script that misses so much of what made the book special, I don't hold it against anyone on screen. Though flawed, the book was one of Grisham's only that I truly liked, especially how it captured the flavor of a deep south small town, a slightly different world to a coastal urbanite such as myself. I also loved the matter-of-factness, naturalness of what occurs in the book. In the movie characters are given a \"nobility\" of personality that seemed so stilted. The villains and foils are flat and 1 dimensional. But as with so much of Joel Schumacher's work, genuineness and authenticity are conspicuously absent, and every point must be delivered via sledgehammer to the midsection. So preachy, stilted, and superficial about so horrendous a tragedy, I wish someone would do a remake and get the story a little more right.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Chip Foose is an absolute genius and the end result of the projects are truly amazing. The co-hosts do a good job. I particularly enjoy watching the \"project\" come together. The end results are much better than when they came off the assembly line what with the mechanical and cosmetic advances of today. However, I do get annoyed somewhat at the fact the \"projects\" seem to be the property of the already rich and\/or famous. It's too bad the ones getting overhauled can afford the undertaking. Let's see now, Vince Neill of Motley Crew gets a car make over for his buddy. Hello! If he (Neill) were a true friend he would have paid to have his friend's car restored. What a joke! Another episode shows a middle aged seemingly well-to-do gal getting her '56 caddy named Betsy done. The husband of 30+ years was behind it all. The couple looked like money was not in short supply. What a shame. I guess the lunch pail guys like me will have to save for the day that will never come. I happen to own a '53 Ford project Chip. Will somebody pick me?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have just wasted my Saturday night watching this crap! I saw the names of Chris Noth (Mr. Big, from \"Sex & the City\"), Robert Patrick (from \"X-Files\"), the decadent Elliot Gould, Colm Meaney and Mercedes Ruehl on the credit; a very reasonable IMDb Rating (5,6); and many good reviews in IMDb. For my total surprise, the film is horrible: the characters are badly constructed; the story tries to be funny, but it is totally silly; the character of Mercedes Ruehl is amazingly stupid for a professor of Princeton. So, I decided to investigate the credibility of the good reviews, and I found that most of them are made by IMDb Users with only review, therefore relatives or friends of the cast and crew, or people hired to promote this garbage. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): \"Sem Retorno\" (\"Without Return\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Could someone please explain to me the reason for making this movie? Sad is about all I can say; this movie took absolutely no direction and wound up with me shaking my head. What an awful waste of two hours. Noth should be ashamed of himself for taking money for this piece of garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This started out slow, then got worse. The best parts of this were all seen in the previews.

Bad Apple has the feel of a pilot - if that's the case TNT should save their money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a writing teacher, there are two ending I never allow my students to use: \"Then I woke up\" and \"Then I Got Run Over by a Truck.\" I am now going to add, \"Then I got a bump on the head.\" I feel it's utterly unfair to use these tricks to cover up a lack of imagination. The whole issue of transmigration could have been handled with some intelligence and craft, yet, in this film, they either couldn't or wouldn't do that. I'm not saying it's totally worthless, but it is so predictable in its progress, except for the stupid ending. There are even gangsters who go to the police to get help from this guy. They should have done him in immediately. It's just a forgettable, borderline horror\/sci fi film, with nothing new to offer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"A young man, recently engaged to be married, is the victim of a traffic accident and dies as a result of his injuries. His father, desperate to revive his son, agrees to let a scientist friend try his experimental soul transmigration process to save him. After the young man returns to life, the father and fianc\u00e9e notice a dark and violent change in the young man's behavior, leading them to believe something went horribly wrong in the revival process,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

At one point, Edward Norris (as Philip Bennett) is asked, \"What do you think this is, Boys Town?\" Mr. Norris should know, since he was in \"Boys Town\". \"The Man with Two Lives \" is more like \"Black Friday\" minus Karloff and Lugosi. You do the math. This film might have been a contender, with a re-worked script; it does feature an intriguing final act. After a tepid \"shoot out\", hang in for the drama to pick up with a well-played scene between star Norris and pursuing detective Addison Richards (as George Bradley).

**** The Man with Two Lives (1942) Phil Rosen ~ Edward Norris, Eleanor Lawson, Addison Richards","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Black Friday\" did this plot so much better, which is why it is remembered and \"The Man With Two Lives\" is just a forgotten potboiler. \"Shed No Tears\" was it's working title and it would have been a better one as he was a thoroughly evil character for most of the film.

Philip Bennett is newly engaged when he is involved in a traffic accident. Dr. Clark (Edward Keene) has been involved in some experimental operations on animals - bringing them back from the dead. His colleagues urge him to try his operation on Phillip, who has died. As he is operating , a dangerous criminal, Wolf Panino, is going to the electric chair and trans migration of the soul occurs. When Phillip awakes from the operation, he has the soul of Panino. He is a changed person, he is rude to his family and starts to hang around Panino's old haunts. He takes over Wolf's old gang - going by the name of Philip Bennett, he also romance's Wolf's former girlfriend - who smells a rat. Bennett, as Wolf, is determined to even up scores and starts to eliminate his enemies.Bodies pile up, including the girlfriend and a policeman, then his own family begins to fall victim.

But - I HATE those \"bad dream\" movies - you always feel let down. This film would have been better if he had stayed in character as Panino and had a final shoot out. Eleanor, his fianc\u00e9e, would have ended up sadder but wiser with his brother.

Edward Norris, the star, had a big career mostly in B movies.

Not really recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, it is a Monogram quickie from the dreaded period of the '40s when poverty row studios put out a good many \"horror\" films that are almost unimaginably dull... So I was expecting the worst.

The story concerns a doctor who has been working on a way to restore life to the dead through the use of a room full of non-utilitarian electrical devices which spark nicely. There is a dog's heart hanging under a bell jar and twitching fitfully, which we are informed is proof that his method is perfected.

A brief discussion of the metaphysical implications and mention of an important plot point precede the inevitable death of a young man who is revived in a rather undramatic sequence - undramatic even with the sparks. The important plot point is that a convicted murderer is being executed just at midnight, which turns out to be exactly when the young man is revived. It is no surprise that the young man is very different after his experience; apparently amnesiac and with a strange desire to visit the haunts of the underworld and become acquainted with certain gangsters...

It's hard to explain why this all is not completely unwatchable, but perhaps it suffices to say that it's mildly interesting and contains several murders and a couple of interesting characters. Towards the end it even begins to move along with a bit of real tension and a confrontation that is downright Hitchcockian. SPOILER

I have to warn of a very, very bad ending. A tagged on unnecessary, pain in the ass sorta ending. After the plot resolves rather effectively...

You know the sort of thing... It's all a dream. Never happened.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've been watching a lot of Asian horror movies lately, but this one has to be the worst so far. It started out interestingly enough, but lost momentum after the first 15 minutes of the movie. The added \"drama\" scenes, flashback sequences and serious plot holes left me hanging. What really happened in the tunnel? Just \"something terrible\"??? Who started all the killing if it wasn't the ghost? What did she want returned to her????? No answers whatsoever! Overall, not very scary at all and the movie makers need to come up with a lot better ideas than this...

One positive was the cute actress, but that's about it.

Not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh gosh,I'm really fed up with all these generic Japanese horror films about long-haired female ghosts and ghostly kids.\"Ghost Train\" is no exception.It is clearly influenced by \"Ringu\",\"Ju-On\",\"Shutter\" and \"Pulse\".Two years ago I was into such modern ghost stories,because they usually managed to give me some goosebumps,unfortunately there is nothing fresh or interesting in \"Ghost Train\".In fact the film is really boring.Noriko goes missing in a subway tunnel-like an elementary-school classmate-Nana must investigate a mystery of multiple disappearances,with the help of a youthful train conductor and another \"disappeared\" child's mother.The film offers some mildly creepy moments,however the CGI effects are laughable and the climax is illogical.Skip it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh noes one of these attack of the Japanese ghost girl movies... i don't even remember how many i've seen. maybe it sells... but not to me. not scary at all. the japanese horror movies are have been very similar since the first one of these... also the pulling of the kid. i have seen that pulled under scene so many times in so many horror movies. cellphone scene is also nothing new... the dramaticness of the guy getting hit by a train kinda sucked... i mean it lacked all dramaticness... OK this is for kids 14-16 who listen to japanese rock and think they are so unique... we'll let me tell you. there's a million of you =D this is one of them. 3\/10 i've seen worse but you won't be missing anything by NOT seeing this!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before \"Miracle on 34th Street,\" Maureen O'Hara and John Payne made this, this, this film. I was going to describe it, but can't find words for how badly this film turned out. The subject matter of adopting a child and Maureen's illness are both very serious and sensitive issues, but that notwithstanding, this could have been done a whole lot better than it was. It was so extreme in its portrayal that it didn't come across as real at all. Probably its problem started with a weak script.

Another example of a screenwriter taking a novel and writing a weak movie. (See my review of \"A Stranger in My Arms.\") The beautiful O'Hara was often saddled with clunkers like this, another being Forbidden Street (Britannica Mews,) which I may review eventually.

If you have any emotional ties to this from childhood, you'll be kinder to this rather lifeless, colorless, and lackluster film. But for something along the lines of this, maybe you can find its TV-movie remake. It has to be better. It has to be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maureen O'Hara is always beautiful and appealing. Here she plays an actress terminally ill. We don't know with what.It is a bit of a precursor to \"Love Story\" in that respect.

William Bendix is good, as is most of the supporting cast. John Payne is meant to be grieving but he seems to sleepwalking. The girl who plays the child he and O'Hara adopts does her best with a contrived plot device: Of course! Adopt an orphan. She will live on after the passing of your wife. It's a sweet movie but it doesn't feel sincere.I was hoping to be moved. I was, by O'Hara's gentle performance. But I don't like to feel manipulated.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Try not to see this one. I thought it was going to be good because I'm a fan of cheesy 80's films and I've enjoyed quite a bit of Linnea Quigley's work. I was wrong. I should have said \"no\" and watched Gigli instead, which is probably a far better film. I guess my biggest problem with this film was its attempt at humor. Nothing about it was funny or even close to funny. The acting is bad, even for the queen of cheesy 80's films. There is no story, just random clips. I guess I shouldn't hate it so much because it was just made as a fun and silly piece but I didn't have any fun and I wasn't entertained once. I even had to fast forward to the ending to get through all of the crap. I'm sorry, but I don't find zombies doing aerobics funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This 'documentary' sheds absolutely no light on what it would be like to be backstage during the Hard Knock Life tour. Granted, I wasn't there, but watching this film didn't make me feel like I was. And for a film like this, that's not exactly a compliment. The whole time I watched it, all I could think was, \"What are they leaving out?\" When it's all over, the only rapper you feel like you have some insight into is DMX, and that's mainly because he just talks about his dogs. A waste of time.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is bad as we all knew it would be. Most times i usually love the bad 80s \/ early 90s trash-can comedy (haha no pun intended). I list Ski School, Career opportunities, Hot Shots, Summer School and many more made around this time. This even has the classic yet forgotten comedy of Dean Cameron (aka.. ski School section 8 instructor and Party Maniac for Summer School). But this movie is just to slow. It takes almost 30 min to get going and we have to sit through pointless dialog between to half-wits the Sheen boys (E&C). And yes i can hear the bloggers dieing to trash me with \"obviously you don't watch 2 and 1\/2 men). Well Charlie was not at the level he is now during this flick...not that he's anything worth watching now. Charlie only shines when his co-stars support him and Emilio isn't anymore than an overused wonder bra offering little support. Actually, this movie was written by Emilio and it shows. It has no real ending (come on Emilio, even the Ski School 2 writers barfed out an ending). No idea how any issue brought is solved, no hot babes, no swearing to lighten the bad plot, characters, acting... I'm now tired of this tirade. Just save your time and watch the movies i listed above. You'll enjoy them much more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those movies that I watch every time it's on not because I like it, but because it's so bad I can't take my eyes off it (like \"Battlefield Earth\" or \"3000 Miles to Graceland\"). The first time I watched I kept waiting and waiting and waiting to laugh and didn't get my chance until about 3\/4 of the way through the movie when they strip the harassing cops to their undies and handcuff them in the park in a unflattering position. Beyond that, the jokes aren't funny, the characters aren't funny, their mishaps and missteps aren't funny...add it up, it's not a very funny movie! Not even at a slapstick level! And what's with the reggae soundtrack? It's a movie about two white garbagemen and the music is all reggae. Seems out of place, don't it? If you like a good trainwreck, this is for you. If you like a good comedy, look elsewhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was duped into watching this by the many friendly reviews here. Boy, are they way off mark! To give this 9 to 10 points and call it \"one of the best movies of the 1990ies\" is just unjustifiable. The big problem here is lack of pace and a paper-thin plot. It's like slapstick on Prozac. Everything trundles along predictably and listlessly. The plot is weak to begin with -- two garbage men peep on their foxy neighbour, witness a murder and unravel a waste disposal conspiracy -- and the movie never manages to go much further. There are some amusing situations and decent acting, but that's not anywhere near enough to save this jalopy of a movie.

It's simply a comedy that doesn't get its fat ass off the ground, so why waste your time?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Writer-director Emilio Estevez shows a definite lack of talent here with this un-redeemable, supposed comedy. The script is completely hopeless, let alone the fact that it is unoriginal and badly worked. The comedy just does not work. When Estevez isn't using poor taste sex jokes, he is borrowing used gags and re-doing them very poorly. You would think the teaming of Estevez and brother Charlie Sheen would be cool...but...it isn't.

The entire cast is uninspired and unfunny, never managing to raise a laugh, and barely coaxing a smile from their audience. Do yourself a favour and leave this one on the video shelf.

Thursday, June 25, 1992 - Video","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know i loved this movie when i was 12-14 years old. Now that i am 24 i watched it again, and i wished i hadn't. Because all the things i laughed at when i was younger, is no longer funny. so this is an hour and a half without fun. For me the jokes were lame, not funny or just too childish. So the same thing i loved about the movie when i was a kid, is now the things i don't like about it. Besides not being funny it is not actually believable at all. The evil character is very poorly done but i guess that is the kind of movie it is. And the last 20 minutes of the movie is pretty lame with bad fighting sequences and so on... But if you are young you will probably love it. I rate this movie 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought I had seen this film before as the plot summary sounded familiar. However, when I watched it one afternoon (in need of some mindless-but-amusing entertainment), I didn't recognise anything - if I had seen it before, I must have blocked the horror of it from my memory.

This film is dreadful, and it shows its age. In fact, it looks older than it is: more like a mid-80s moronic comedy. Whilst I am a fan of toilet humour and can see the funny side of many things, this is \"comedy\" at its most puerile and homophobic. The plot is as thin as a Supermodel, which wouldn't bother me if only the film were funny.

There is only one amusing line in the whole film, spoken by the character Louis: \"Looks like somebody threw away a perfectly good white boy!\" In fact, Louis is the only likable character (and that's not saying much). James and Carl are the type of irritating, immature men that a sensible woman would run a mile from, their practical jokes about as humorous as the war in Iraq; the character of Susan Wilkins is colourless (looks like Julia Roberts, but lacks her charisma) and there is zero chemistry between her and Carl - though it may be unfair to blame the actress, as I don't know what she could have done with such a poorly written part; and the villain is neither funny nor scary nor memorable.

There is good trash and bad trash. This is trash that definitely should not be recycled.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the dumbest movies in the history of cinema. Wait, I take that back-- this movie can't be included in any category related to \"cinema\"; it belongs in categories like \"waste\", turds, or similar categories. Ironically, it's even _about_ two garbagemen. The movie is \"Men At Work\", a lightweight crime comedy starring the Estevez (Sheen) brothers from 1990. Setting aside the asinine and implausible plot line, bad acting, bad dialogue, poorly executed stunts and slapstick, continuity errors, and high rate of no-name actors never to be seen again, all in all it was a pretty bad movie anyway (at its core, I mean). It was the kind of movie that might be good for one thing: you can watch it about 200 times, learn every line, and in a campy kind of way repeat them back and forth in public with your *wasted* friends, thus securing your status as the biggest dorks in your tenth grade class.

To make matters worse, I actually submitted an IMDb trivia entry (along with this bad review) to the movie's IMDb web page, if only because I spotted a silly little punk music joke that apparently nobody else spotted yet(about the Butthole Surfer statue). I'm so conflicted about why I should even *waste* my time submitting what looks like a supportive trivia note, when what I really want to do is blow up Emilio's acting career (no, wait, he's already done that himself. Thanks, dude!) I'm so glad I *wasted* only time on this, not real money. For that matter, can I maybe have at least one tenth of their budget? Anyone other than this director (Emilio) could have made two or three much better movies with just what they spent blowing up cars, carefully placing bikini-clad bimbos in the background, and beating up useless extras (henchmen) in haz-mat suits. I'd mention Emilio's writing credit, but it would be a stretch to call this screenplay \"writing\" -- it's more like crayon-scrawled cartoon ideas. And Charlie Sheen, if you're reading this, I assume M.A.W. must have been made during the part of your career in which you were a coked-up, hooker-loving Hollywood brat who had not grown up yet. (Oops! Sorry, I guess that part of your life isn't over yet. Get well soon, you \"half a man\". Such a promising talent, so *wasted*\u0085 oh look, there's that word again.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unfortunately, Koontz seems doomed to die without seeing a decent adaptation of his work. Whispers follows the original book very closely, seemingly until the production company ran out of money. All of the sets in the first half of the movie were meticulously recreated from the book - something which has been lacking in many other Koontz films. Despite its other (numerous) downfalls, I continued to watch in anticipation of some really great scenery. Wrong. By the time the detectives show up at the crack head's apartment (in the book), the movie is out of funds, and one of the most suspenseful scenes from the book, is ruined. Where the book offered grisly discovery, a search and a chase through the guys apartment, the movie offers the backseat of the guys car.

Let's face it - Koontz writes without a budget in mind, because imagination is free. If a Koontz novel ever gets made into a decent movie, no one will go and see it, because they have been let down so many, many, many times before. This is why Dean Koontz's Frankenstein is now just Frankenstien - if you had seen your work butchered that many times, you'd get out early if it looked like happening again!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I actually saw the movie before I read the book. When I saw the movie I was upset because I wondered why Dean Koontz had made such a bad book\/movie. The movie was confusing and didn't have a flow at all, it was choppy and made me want to throw a rock at the TV. I couldn't connect with the characters at all, so i didn't care about what happened to them(normally I love the characters because I can relate to their personality or problems). Then I read the book and loved it. I often re-read the book, and the movie is collecting dust. I wish someone would make a Koontz movie that follows the plot of his books, then the movies wouldn't suck so much. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU NEED TO WASTE MONEY!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just ONCE, I would like to see Koontz's work given to a decent screenwriter, director, and producer! JUST ONCE!

This is a good attempt by Jean LeClerc and Chris Sarandon, and an even better attempt by Victoria Tennant, but everything else is pure unadulterated garbage. The screenwriter should be shot for bastardizing Koontz's work this way and the director...please.

The story is a well-written story, but the screenplay is quite dull, unbelievable and horribly executed. The only elements which work are the performances by LeClerc, Sarandon, and Tennant.

On a personal note, I really wanted this to work. I adore Koontz's novels, but they have never given them the attention, backing, and talent they deserve. If they put the same money into Koontz's work that they shovel by the barrels-full into King's, Koontz would quickly rise above. But alas! Without powerful people who believe in his work, I fear he will never get the chance.

As an adaptation to the novel, this movie was a total suck-fest. As a stand alone movie, it wasn't that bad, though extremely weak in many places with huge plot holes and terrible, stiff, unprofessional dialog which never should have made it to the final cut. This movie failed miserably to live up to its potential. Had they followed the original work by Koontz, a bit more closely, and invested a decent amount of production money, this could have been a far better endeavor.

However, all I can manage to see in this, is how good it could have been, and wasn't.

It rates a 4.3\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A terminally dull mystery-thriller, which may sound pretty sound theoretically but plays out very poorly. The ludicrous script is full of (MINOR SPOILER) people dying and then coming back to life when the plot requires them to, and the director doesn't seem able to work up any energy and suspense. The gooey sequence that kind of \"explains\" the film's title is the only halfway memorable one in this tiresome film. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The 1977 animated-live action hybrid version of Gulliver's Travels (or rather 'Travel,' since he only gets as far as Lilliput) didn't get much of a release, and it's not too difficult to see why. Michel Legrand comes up with some catchy tunes, but they merely inspire lyricist Don Black to the likes of \"One simple fact remains\/No-one here suffers from growing pains.' Richard Harris once again over-indulges in his passion for excessive makeup, toning down the eyeliner for far too much foundation this time in an effort to hide the fact he's at least 25 years too old for the role, but at least he (perhaps inappropriately) reduces his larger-than-life tendencies for a performance made up mainly of patronising whispering. The Belgian animation looks only slightly better than early morning French children's TV, but Peter Hunt's film is not nearly as bad as it sounds \u0096 the use of real model sets for the animated characters harks back to Max and Dave Fleischer's 1939 version while a couple of moments of Swiftian satire do remain - although it's definitely aimed at the youngest of children.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had watched this on Italian TV as a kid and recall being fond of it \u2013 in view of its mixing live-action with animation; however, it was universally panned at the time\u2026and, catching up with it again after all these years, I have to admit that the critics were right!

What must have seemed wondrous to a child's eyes is actually very poorly done, not to mention boring for a fantasy-adventure; fatally, both star (ex-'Angry Young Man' Richard Harris) and director (action expert Hunt) are ill-suited to the material! At least, Michel Legrand's score (with lyrics provided by scriptwriter Don Black) is serviceable \u2013 if not exactly inspired. By the way, a number of well-known personalities are featured among the voice artists on this British-Belgian co-production (Julian Glover, Bessie Love, Murray Melvin, Robert Rietty, Vladek Sheybal, Graham Stark and, this being his last film work, Michael Bates).

While the essential plot points of Jonathan Swift's classic novel ('giant' Gulliver becomes the pawn in a war between the little people of two neighboring countries and, on escaping, ends up in a land of real giants) do emerge here, it's done on a strictly kiddie level (with stereotyped characters though, thankfully, little intrusion of the comic\/romantic variety) \u2013 which renders the whole venture somewhat pointless, outside of its intrinsically experimental nature, since Max and Dave Fleischer had already done a splendid feature-length cartoon version of the book way back in 1939!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Peter Hunt started out as a very gifted film editor and got his first stab at directing when he helmed the James Bond film \"On Her Majesty's Secret Service\" (considered by many Bond fans to be the best of the series). Other titles in his filmography include epic scale adventure movies like \"Gold\" and \"Shout At The Devil\", both adapted from Wilbur Smith novels. \"Gulliver's Travels\" is an odd one on his list of films; it seems strange that a director of Hunt's style and expertise would choose to direct a film of this kind. A half-live action\/half-animated retelling of Jonathan Swift's classic satire, the film looked twenty years out of date even when it was made, and in all honesty it simply doesn't work. And there's not a damn thing that Hunt (with his usual eye for fast-paced action), or star Richard Harris (who can usually enliven the most stilted of roles) can do to rescue this one.

Lemuel Gulliver (Richard Harris) is a brilliant medical student living in 17th Century Bristol. His father (Norman Shelley) wants him to go to London to make his fortune; but Gulliver prefers the idea of receiving rather less pay but a heck of a lot more adventure as a ship's surgeon aboard a ship called the 'Antelope'. During a voyage, the 'Antelope' is blown off course during a storm and hits a reef. The ship sinks and everyone is lost, apart from Gulliver\u0085. who finds himself washed ashore in the kingdom of Lilliput. When he comes round, Gulliver finds that the strange land where he has washed ashore is populated by incredibly small humans, no taller than his toe. To them, he looks like a giant. They persuade Gulliver to help them in a war against another race of tiny people who live on an adjacent island. But Gulliver doesn't like being manipulated for purposes of war and devastation, so he makes plans to escape\u0085.

Harris is left to carry the entire film here. His first couple of scenes involve other actors, but once he is shipwrecked in Lilliput he spends the rest of the film striding over knee-high sets and acting alongside his animated counterparts. The idea of mixing live action and animation was not new at the time, but it certainly hadn't been done a lot. A few Disney movies like Song Of The South, So Dear To My Heart and Pete's Dragon had tampered with the idea, but it was still pretty much in its infancy. \"Gulliver's Travels\" is not an especially well-animated film, but the scenes showing interaction between Harris and his cartoon co-stars are at least competently done. Occasionally the film tries to be true to its satirical origins (there's one scene where we learn that Lilliput has gone to war with its neighbour because of eggs !?! - and the point seems to be that wars can begin over the most ridiculous of things). But at its heart, this is very much a kids' film and the satirical overtones are barely dwelled upon. Everyone involved has done better things during their career \u0096 \"Gulliver's Travels\" might fill an otherwise empty afternoon, but apart from that it is a forgettable and underwhelming experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was painful! Recently given away as a free DVD with a British newspaper, this British-Belgian co-production from 1977 (could've fooled me, it looks ten years older than that at least) is quite deservedly obscure and if you make it past the half-hour mark, consider yourself a trouper. The combining of animation and live action is ropey at best and downright dreadful at worst, which makes you wonder why it was decided to even attempt making the film in this manner when clearly the technology wasn't really there. Harris is no more than a human prop and the animation is some of the most flat and lifeless I've seen, with the obligatory 'trippy' moments (especially where the animation of the brainiac-type Subtracto character is involved) that rendered countless cartoon features from the late sixties onward instantly dated. The screenplay by Don Black provides a convincing argument for the usually resilient lyricist to stick to what he does best, and the pace is so slow that even the very young will be bored. As for adults, stick to Jonathan Swift's original novel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Blindingly stupid guff from the formerly talented John Hughes, who'll soon be making a film with the sperm from 'Look Who's Talking' if his stars get any younger. He recycles the 'Home Alone' formula yet again to produce this idiotic comedy, in which a baby makes his way around Chicago while inept kidnappers Joe Mantegna, Joe Pantoliano and Brian Haley try to catch him, along the way enduring much tiresome slapstick. If Mantegna and Pantoliano can't find a laugh somewhere in your movie then you're in trouble, but the laziness of the movie is most glaring in the scenes where crowds of people fail to notice a baby crawling around on the pavement. Utter nonsense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Get Shorty was an excellent film. It was funny and had the perfect balance of highly comical acting and a serious plot. Be Cool is like some cheap knock-off trying to pass for a sequel. John Travolta as Chili Palmer seems to have forgotten that he was ever in the mob. He plays it like he's a bored movie exec, rather than a bored movie exec who used to be a Shylock. Uma Thurman, great in nearly every role she's ever played, comes off as strained and confusing. Is she supposed to be ditzy or clever? The chemistry between her and Travolta is strained and uncomfortable. Other than that, just add every movie clich\u00e9 you can think of. A well-educated rap producer by Cedric the Entertainer, an inept gangster wannabe in Andre 3000, the girl with heart, soul, and a good set of pipes in Christina Milian, a gimmicky black dude wannabe in Vince Vaughn, and a stupid celebrity cameo by Stephen Tyler. The only funny part was the Rock, who invents his own new clich\u00e9 as a gay Samoan bodyguard actor wannabe. Probably the biggest crime is the plot: IT MAKES NO SENSE. Get Shorty was clever with Chili playing one group against another and coming out on top. But this film tries that with about a million different characters. And even Chili doesn't seem to know what's going on. Fans of Get Shorty be warned: this is a very different, very worse movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Back in 1995, Barry Sonnenfeld directed a movie that ended up on many critics best of lists by the time the year's recaps were being printed in entertainment publications. The movie was Get Shorty and it gave lead star John Travolta his second big hit in as many years after Pulp Fiction put him back in front of the paparazzi's lenses. Based on a novel by Elmore Leonard, the film focused on wise guy Chili Palmer (Travolta) and his attempts to break into the movie business. I, for one, was completely captured by the diverse characters and crisp dialogue of the original. So much so, that when I heard there was going to be a sequel, I seemed to forgo my usual shivering that occurs when a studio tries to rehash what was a good idea over ten years later. The sequel, also based on a novel by Leonard, is this time directed by F. Gary Gray who's Italian Job in 2003 was one of the years highest grossing films. Couple that with the cast now expanding to include Uma Thurman, Harvey Keitel, Cedric the Entertainer, The Rock, Vince Vaughn and James Woods and you have all the makings of a great continuance in the exploits of one of the more interesting characters of the 1990's. This time round we pick up as Chili (Travolta) is leaving the movie business after being disappointed in both himself and the industry for participating in the making of a sequel to his successful first film. Thanks in small part to his friend, Tommy Athens (Woods) and the misfortune of his death, Chili decides to look into the lucrative and dangerous music industry. This first leads to the famous Viper club where Chili meets singing sensation Linda Moon (Christina Milian) who as lead of an upstart trio, can belt out tunes like Whitney Houston (that is, the Whitney before Bobby Brown started bringing home the small packages of sugar). Linda is under contract with Raji (Vaughn) who, with his overly apparent gay bodyguard Elliot Wilhelm (The Rock), plan to ensure Linda fulfills the final five years of her contract even if that means putting Chili on ice. So with Linda's future in the balance, Chili weaves an interesting web which will include a record producer (Thurman), a gangsta sound mixer (Cedric), the Russian mob, the police, Aerosmith's lead singer Steven Tyler and a whole lot of angry gun pointing. Woo-Wheee! That sounds exciting. So why wasn't it? Be Cool tries too hard to, well, be cool. But the result is a film that unlike the original, has no heart and no soul. Be Cool feels instead like it was directed by a Saturday Night Live producer as there are individual scenes or skits that don't string together over a whole movie. Take for example the scene where Travolta and Thurman dance together for the first time since Pulp Fiction, as Black Eyed Peas performs live in the background. The scene is forced and should have ended up on the cutting room floor. Instead, it is coupled between two other needless chapters that do nothing to push the story forwards with any real thrust. The Aerosmith concert, and The Rock's trip to a boot shop are also prime examples of individual moments that don't amount to much of a movie when put together. But those aren't the only issues with the sequel - which could probably be renamed Product Placement with the amount of 2-Ways and Diet Pepsi's that seem to stare at you more intensely than Chili's serious look. The story contains just about every stereotype imaginable and each one has just enough screen time to become slightly offensive or embarrassing. Whether it is the gangsta entourage or the gay muscle guy that has a movie poster of Sylvester Stallone's Rhinestone on the wall, no characters is above offering us anything we haven't seen many times before and in much better films. With the magic all but gone from the first film, we end up with an inferior product that is the second film in the past six months (Ocean's 13 being the other) that cram a bunch of stars onto a marquee only to end up as a movie that no actor would bring to an open audition. Be Cool was a major disappointment. I so wanted it to be the Get Shorty of the new millennium and I ended up with a film where the outtakes must have been a gas, but experience left me with a stinker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I laughed twice watching this movie and in case you were wondering, I wasn't having a bad day nor was I subjected to anything else that would've skewed my opinion while watching this cinematic bowel movement. This movie is bad. I wanted to enjoy it and I just couldn't. With all of this talent, you'd think this would've been at least watchable, right? Wrong.

Let's play Sucked and Didn't Suck! John Travolta- Very likable. Though obviously buried under too much makeup, I found him to be enjoyable to watch. Didn't suck.

Uma Thurman- After Kill Bill 1 and 2, the girl deserves more than this atrociously written character. This character's big moment was showing someone how to operate a T-Mobile Sidekick. Sucked.

Vince Vaughn- The done to death role of white guy who thinks he's black goes to Vince \"Money\" Vaughn. Is this character template still considered to be funny? I love the guy but I want to see him in something better than this. It felt like he was slumming. Sucked.

Cedric the Entertainer- This guy is good. He delivers a great monologue after being called a racial slur (you can probably guess as to what it is) that was probably the best part of the movie. He was funny and truly elevated the material he was given just with his presence. Didn't suck.

Harvey Keitel- Sucked due to a phoned in performance.

James Woods- Sucked but not his fault. Actually, yes it was. Reminded me of his role in Casino for some reason. I don't like manic James Woods, I like slow burn James Woods. Victim of bad writing, maybe? Andre 3000- Sucked but he went down swinging. I think he has potential, as long as he's not being directed by a hack on his next picture.

Christina Milian- She's absolutely beautiful and obviously talented but this movie isn't going to make her a star. Didn't suck but needs a better vehicle for her talents that isn't directed by a hack.

The Rock- This should have been the role that catapulted him to movie stardom but as directed by F. Gary Gray, winds up sadly mishandled. In this movie, the Rock projects this charisma that makes him so likable that I wound up feeling sorry for him. He tries really hard and while he doesn't succeed completely, he gets an A+ for effort from me. This guy is not afraid to embarrass himself and go completely against type, playing a gay bodyguard with his eyes on stardom. I really want to see him make it big. He has what it takes as long as he's not being directed by a hack.

Which brings me to what I feel was the weak link in this production. I might as well just come out and say it, right? F. Gary Gray's direction was about as solid as really bad diarrhea. Wow, it was bad. Who had the bright idea of letting this guy direct? The Negotiator was good but what else on his resume convinced people that he was the man for the job? Between his direction and the atrocious writing, I'm willing to chip in for both culprits to get a nice lead salad to the knees. Wanna see John and Uma dance? I might be able to think of another movie with those two that I could recommend watching instead of this. Not worth the ten dollars and fifty cents it cost me to get into the theater.

This movie could've been okay and it wasn't even \"just okay\".

RATING: * out of *****.

P.S. Fergie from Black Eyed Peas is noteworthy to mention. Sizzling!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"John Travolta reprises his role as Chili Palmer, Hollywood gangster, who now turns his eye to the music business. Using his \"negotiation skills,\" he tries to run an independent record label with the wife of a murdered friend, played by Uma Thurman, and try to get his young singer (Christina Milian) a hit record.

Before I saw this sequel, I had heard that it was a terrible film. However, Be Cool is still an enjoyable comedy even if it's not as good as the original. The movie focuses on the music industry this time around instead of the movie industry. The music business is portrayed very poorly in the movie and they use a bunch of lame stereotypes. I can't tell if this was the intention or not since Get Shorty did a nice job of spoofing the movie industry. The same can't be said for the sequel and the attempts just come as lazy.

An impressive cast is what saves the movie from sinking. The best performance is given by The Rock and it's nice to see him in a different type of role. Vince Vaughn also gives a funny performance though he started to get annoying before the end. Surprisingly, Uma Thurman gives an average performance and I was expecting more from her. John Travolta returns as Chili and he does an okay job. His performance is kind of dull though. Christina Milian gives a horrible performance and she's also not that good of a singer. Cedric the Entertainer gives a good performance though he isn't in the film for very long. There are also a bunch of cameos including Steven Tyler and James Wood.

F. Gary Gray directs and he does a poor job. He just doesn't handle the film very well and the movie is kind of a mess. There was also a ton of product placement and it got annoying after awhile. Also at 118 minutes, the film is too long and there are a lot of slow spots. The film needed to be edited badly and it clearly wasn't. Fortunately for the film, the actors are able to rise above the weak direction and script and they deliver some funny scenes. Sometimes, the film tried too hard while other times it was actually pretty funny. Compared to the original, the sequel doesn't measure up well. However, Be Cool is a fairly harmless and forgettable comedy. In the end, Be Cool is worth a rental and that's it. Rating 6\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a fan of Get Shorty. This is the sequel for the movie that needed no sequel.

Chili is back but Rene Russo is gone without a peep. Unfortunately Chili's game was played out in the first movie and rather than find an interesting personal arc for him, they just have him stand around repeating lines from the first movie. It's pretty tepid. Travolta looks old here. It's like they move people around him because his bones are getting creaky. His pink lip gloss and the blue eye contacts are very weird. The 2nd bad role is Edie (played by Uma Thurman). She's a music producer, a role that requires her only to be the female Reuben Kincaid. (\"Hey these kids have a great new sound.\") In any scene she strikes the wrong pitch motivationally or emotionally or both. It's painful to watch. Despite it's plentiful problems, Be Cool gets better after a very unpromising start.

I certainly got my laughs out of it (Vince Vaughan running around on fire, Cedric the Entertainer, Ludicrous, the Rock, a t-shirt that says \"widow\" on it), but it offers no great memories after it's over. It's a helium-light love fest from the first frame. There's no one as pricelessly idiotic as Gene Hackman in the first movie. It's just about doing good in the world, for a couple of kids who deserve a chance (Beyonce & the Rock). Ho-hum. The first one wasn't preachy.

Working in (repeatedly) gags & lines from the first movie is annoying as is the dumb concession to the Rock's wrestling fans (he raises his eyebrow twice) as are the droll inside jokes: Steven Tyler saying \"I'm not the kind of singer that make appearances in movies\" ar ar.

The all-star spectacular line-up is part of the problem. The first movie wasn't burdened by \"stars.\"

For a buck rental let's call it even.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first 10 minutes of the movie makes fun of sequels and pg-13 movies. These are the 2 reasons the movie is so bad. They constantly reference a movie called \"Get Leo\" which is the movie-in-a-movie version of get shorty. Every time they do this, you will be really angry. Travolta isn't very cool, neither is Keitel. However, The Rock and Vince Vaughn are hilarious. They aren't the kind of funny you would expect to see in an Elmore Leonard movie though. If you haven't seen get shorty, you will probably like be cool. If you liked get shorty, you will leave the theater wanting to kill the director and screenwriter. Wait for the DVD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That movie while slightly flawed was entirely entertaining. About half an hour into Be Cool, I started to have Hollywood Homicide flashbacks. But guess what? This is worse. Even the dance number is bad. I like most of the cast in this movie, so that makes me feel bad about writing a negative review of it but I feel obligated. The Rock, Andre 3000, and Vince Vaughn were in a comedy. No one else seemed to decide what movie genre they were acting in. I feel bad for Travolta because he brought the same Chili Palmer from Get Shorty to this movie. He was totally consistent in the role, but this movie is so different from the original that the character sticks out like a sore thumb. I was going to give this movie 4\/10 because I like the actors so much but there is a conversation in the movie about a certain song that is so asinine I couldn't believe the performers actually said it. If you want to go to the movies this weekend there should still be some Oscar contenders out there. That would be a much better way to spend your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rarely give ratings less than 5, but in this instance I must weigh in. Elmore Leonard is a great writer with many wonderful, complex books, original characters, crisp dialogue, invigorating plot twists. Films based on his books go way back to Hombre (Paul Newman), Mr. Majestyk (Bronson), and Out of Sight (Clooney \/ Lopez) among others. Even when done so-so the films at least have some measure of story essence coming through. This one, .... it is simply not a worthy addition to the catalog.

The acting is bad (I do not know why, because these are very capable people here) and the story is handled with stupidity. The characters are re-arranged, the chemistry is missing, the actors and actresses are mis-cast.

Since Elmore Leonard is a really great story teller, I would hope that anyone who does not know his work would be dissuaded from reading his books because they saw this disappointing rendition of one of his stories.

The story is a sequel to Get Shorty. If you have not seen that film, do not watch this. If you have seen Get Shorty, do not proceed to this.

I saw Be Cool a few years back, and tonight have been re-visiting the vid. The first time must not have made such a negative impression because I had forgotten how dismal this sequel was.

Fortunately, I think no less of those who appeared in this film for having done so. They probably expected something more. Get Shorty was original and great fun. Travolta I nearly always like, but he is so much better in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and in the preceding Get Shorty. He was clearly unable to enjoy whatever was going on here.

And I hear Freaky Deaky,another Elmore Leonard book, is in pre-production for 2008 release. Hopefully they can pull it off.

Read the books. They are almost all great.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If pulp fiction and Get shorty didn't exist this might be an OK film.When i say this i mean that nothing from this film is it's own unless it's another bit of terrible dialogue or a clich\u00e9 full scene.All the lines like 'i won't say more than i have to if that' from Get shorty seem to appear in this rubbish sequel, all the cameos like Steven Tyler's are acted terribly and are not needed and as for Christina Milian, man, don't get me started.Sadly some of the coolest actors and actresses like John Travolta and Uma Thurman seem like they are trying to be down with the kids and hip and have nearly ruined there reputation because of this film and frankly i think the best acting is from The rock who plays alongside one of my least favourite actors, Vince Vaughn.The man tries to be funny throughout with him taking the mickey of how apparently rappers talk.Cedric the entertainer and Andre 3000 play another terrible double act {i personally think the background actors were better than Cedric and Andre} and the only funny part of the acting of Cedric,Andre and the rest of there gang do is the way there trousers are down to there knees so you can clearly see there boxers and the only reason i find this funny is because lots of people actually do that.So in conclusion this film tries to be funny and fails miserably, it doesn't have any new material, comedy or coolness throughout as it copies every other film and finally the only reason you should see it is if you want to compare how bad it is to it's brilliant predecessor Get shorty.Oh yes i forgot to mention there is a BIG clich\u00e9 at the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes when I hear an A-list cast will be bunched up together for 2 hours in a movie I hope, and pray that it is good, not for the sake of my 10 bucks or 2 hours, but for the sake of these actors' careers. In the case of \"Be Cool\", everything went to waste.

In the beginning of the film John Travolta (aka Chili Palmer) and a music executive played by James Woods are driving in a car talking about movie sequels, and how most aren't good. If you look passed the fact that this scene was shot the same way Quentin Tarrantino filmed his car scene in \"Pulp Fiction\", and listen to the dialogue you can't help but ponder whether this is 1) a disclaimer to the audience that this movie is going to suck, or 2) an attempt to get the audience laughing at the sheer humor of 2 people talking about sequels in a sequel. Oh the irony! (In case you were wondering, choice 1 is correct.) The cool and slick Chili Palmer from the first and good film \"Get Shorty\" is revived to play a mobster gone music business pro. He steals a young hot singer (Christina Milian) from her ghetto pimped out Jewish manager (Vince Vaughn), and turns her into a singing sensation. Of course a movie about an ex-mobster can never be complete without new mobsters causing havoc. This time around the mobsters of choice are Russian, played by American actors who cannot act Russian if my entire family hit them upside the head with their Russian bare hands.

As a Russian I wasn't so much offended by the way this film portrayed Russians, but instead as a writer I was more offended by the horrible dialogue. This film tried too hard to get the audience to laugh. It turned potentially good lines into a redundancy. The Russian, black, and gay jokes were the same ones only reworded a couple of hundred times. After calling The Rock's character a f***** (he plays a gay bodyguard to Vince Vaughn), and Cedric the Entertainerer's character a n***** (he played a black rapper with an entourage who threaten those who don't play his tracks with guns) I wanted to walk out of the movie theater, because it was painful to sit through. If this was \"Get Shorty\" none of this would've even needed to be in the film to build up drama, or a really bad laugh.

What lacked in this film that didn't in \"Get Shorty\" was Chili's hot spicey attitude. He's a completely different person in this sequel. For one thing the old Chili would've had more dialogue. John Travolta doesn't have more than 20 speaking lines in \"Be Cool\", because he is out staged by the repetitive lines, and the hundred and two cameo appearances by the most random celebrities. I won't ruin the shock by revealing all of the cameos for those who actually plan to see this movie (PLEASE DON'T!!!), but I will say that it will forever amaze me that these people agreed to be in a film of such inanity.

What was even more stupid was the very lame dance sequence with Travolta and Uma Thurman (she plays the widower of James Woods who LUCKILY gets killed in the first 10 minutes of the movie). Tarrantino never made Pulp Fiction for an idiot like the director of \"Be Cool\" to mess around with. This dance number was boring, long, and just plain throbbing. The Black Eyed Peas playing in the club with a total of 10 people didn't make the scene any memorable.

There were so many plot holes that I left the theater asking myself WHY?! Everything about this film was a big question mark. I just didn't understand the point to anything. I couldn't even explain to you why the Russians were after everyone, or why this film was ever made, because I'm baffled. All I took out of this movie was that everyone in L.A. has a sidekick, and the only way this movie was probably funded was through all of the advertisements by Diet Coke, Yahoo!, Honda Insight Hybrid, T-Mobile, Trimspa (even the spokeswoman herself is in the movie) and the Bad Screenwriters Guild. Plot holes, stupid dialogue, too many random cameos, horrible acting (even by the pros), and a not-so-entertaining attempt to mimic \"Pulp Fiction\" makes this film the worst movie of 2005, and it's only the third month of the year.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw a 12:45 a.m. show last night, and I would've walked out 20 min. in, but there was nowhere to go! Blatant product placement, juvenile script, so much talent gone to waste, gay-bashing...what didn't they do? The movie is also insanely long (we got out at 3). As a person who rarely pays full price at the movies, imagine my chagrin doling out $22 for this self-indulgent, mean-spirited nightmare (plus $2 parking). I woke up today still feeling depressed, and haven't been able to shake it all day. I love Vince Vaughn, and he seemed straight up lost in this thing, as was I. When Cedric the Entertainer is the high-water mark (a man so un-entertaining that he has to call himself \"the Entertainer\" so you'll understand what it is he thinks he's doing), you have a serious problem. Also, the appearance of Robert Pastorelli is down-right creepy, since he died almost a year ago (March 10). This should give you an idea how long they've been polishing this turd. This movie is mean to the bitter end. We stayed just to make sure they didn't give Robert an \"In Remembrance\", which they didn't. Save yourself! Save your money! Save your soul!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Chili Palmer is tired of doing movies and know wants to do some success in music. Being half mafioso half expert negotiator, he wants to rise in the music market. However, know everyone is like him and making the good singer Linda Moon to record a hit will be harder as expected. The first part is funny and filled with irony, this one falls into the easy jokes and has many less good moments. Only the two women (Uma and Milian) are decent in their part. Most of the film is done with histrionic character, excessively exaggerated (a little is OK, too much is disgusting) and the only one that one could save is the gay bodyguard, who, at least is coherent, the rest, are too much idiot. The most surprising thing is the fact that the movie is not boring, everything happens so quick and there are so many things happening that you do not have time to get bored, if you want to follow the movie. It may insult your intelligence (a lot!), and the movie is bad(yeah!), but, well, it's not boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK I was bought this a few Xmas' ago by my brother in law, who took me to see \"Get Shorty\" in the cinema, which the both of use were \"uber\" impressed with. And watched both get shorty and be cool one after another. I have read reviews of people that had not seen get shorty and thought this film was quite good.... I just think its another way for film companies to cheat the paying customer. All I have to say about this film is WTF? After nearly 10 years and Chili Palmer had become a pussy.... The script was basically the same, they teamed up Travolta and Thurman after their success of Plup Fiction, threw in a couple of big stars(plus a shed load of nobodies) and thought that it was going to be good..... Vince Vaughn's character was just annoying, despite me being a fan of both him and the Rock both of the actors were way under utilised and unrealistic. Basically I am glad that this was bought for me as a present as if I had paid money for it I would have been super annoyed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was an embarrassment. Ulma Thurman looked like she had some kind of disease and John Travolta looked like he was walking in his sleep. I was expecting this to be a so-so sequel to Get Shorty not a half-baked remake of the exact same movie (except that some of the character's have different names and clothes)

I would not recommend this to movie to my worst enemy. I feel like I was ripped off and Hollywood has once again tricked me into seeing another horrible sequel ( I also suffered through Alien Vs. Predator).

The best thing that I can say about this movie is that it has my vote for the worst movie of 2005!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although I think the reviewers who hated this movie have encapsulated exactly what it does wrong (everything!), I had to add my two cents. If you'd like a long version of how terrible this movie is, please read the review by coinlightning.

Here's the short version: shameless use of the actors' NAMES to propel the plot as opposed to using their talent (no one brought their \"A game\" to this), blatant commercialism (I guess Pepsi can afford to stick an advertisement - or 40 - into a movie now), and a plot (???) that was so convoluted with \"rock star\" clich\u00e9s that it was totally ridiculous.

Let me put it to you this way . . . I was thinking of 'Wayne's World' the whole time I was watching this movie, but I wasn't laughing! Anytime you try to throw in Steven Tyler (Aerosmith) to help your movie plot along you've got SERIOUS problems.

PLEASE, warn your friends and family - this movie sucks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really liked Get Shorty, but this movie was completely disappointing as a sequel. First of all, Travolta does not in any way resemble the Chili Palmer from Get Shorty. He merely half-assed this performance as he has done in all of his more recent movies. He totally isn't smooth or have the mobster presence about him that makes you kinda root for him throughout the movie. It just seems like Travolta rolled out of bed and decided he was good to go for acting in this movie. The plot just wasn't exciting or clever, there really aren't any highlights that happen, the only thing that resembled entertainment was watching Christina Millian perform and The Rock was funny. But anyways, long story short, this movie was trash and I had to force myself just to get through it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Uma and Travolta were very good together, but - unfortunately - when they left the screen, the movie was nothing but a bunch of very boring and wordy secondary characters wrapped in some extremely bad writing. Occasional glimpses of greatness like the dance scene between Uma and Travolta quickly eroded when the likes of Harvey Keitel and similar uninteresting thugs came on. And the white dude who tried to act black got VERY, VERY tiresome after way too much exposure in the picture. He weighed down a fairly good performance by the Rock, the only secondary character who you couldn't wait to see leave the screen. Bad, dumb plot. The writers clearly couldn't figure out if they writing to Generation X or the 12-15 year old rap crowd, and the combination turned into a film that kept me staring at my watch!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Get Shorty\", \"Out of Sight\", \"Jackie Brown\" (and even \"52 Pick-Up\")--folks were finally getting Elmore Leonard right, making good movies out of his work. So, despite my students' warnings about how bad this movie would be, I couldn't resist renting it. I thought, How bad can it be? Oy, what a mistake, especially right on the heels of reading the book, which was lame (and too circularly self-referential, too) relative to the rest of Elmore Leonard's books. Still, the book was better than the movie. Leonard again trumps the weak and unskilled screen-writers who try to take over his book. The dialogue written for Steven Tyler was painful to watch. And the lyrics to the character Linda Moon's first song? My middle-schoolers write with more depth. Sad, sad, sad. Why even give it a star? Because Harvey Keitel and Uma Thurman are still fun to see on screen, and Andre 3000 didn't make a complete fool of himself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Travolta and Thurman deserved a better movie. This one is very secondary in all aspects, not a single fresh idea. But the biggest problem is this film's ridiculous philosophy. A gang of black rappers after all their criminal activities and even killing people are becoming almost positive Mickey Mouse-like heroes performing on stage and giving away awards at the ceremony. Perhaps this matches the real life. But showing it as a quite normal \"happy-ending\" is beyond my imagination.. \"What's wrong with shooting a couple of bad Ukrainians if they are not politically correct?\" - the show must go on! That makes me think that Hollywood writers have a big problem with separating good and evil, even if the genre supposed to be a \"black comedy\"..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite John Travolta's statements in interviews that this was his favorite role of his career, \"Be Cool\" proves to be a disappointing sequel to 1995's witty and clever \"Get Shorty.\"

Travolta delivers a pleasant enough performance in this mildly entertaining film, but ultimately the movie falls flat due to an underdeveloped plot, unlikeable characters, and a surprising lack of chemistry between leads Travolta and Uma Thurman. Although there are some laughs, this unfunny dialog example (which appeared frequently in the trailers) kind of says it all: Thurman: Do you dance? Travolta: Hey, I'm from Brooklyn.

The film suggests that everyone in the entertainment business is a gangster or aspires to be one, likening it to organized crime. In \"Get Shorty,\" the premise of a gangster \"going legitimate\" by getting into movies was a clever fish-out-of water idea, but in \"Be Cool,\" it seems the biz has entirely gone crooked since then.

The film is interestingly casted and the absolute highlight is a \"monolgue\" delivered by The Rock, whose character is an aspiring actor as well as a goon, where he reenacts a scene between Gabrielle Union and Kirsten Dunst from \"Bring It On.\" Vince Vaughan's character thinks he's black and he's often seen dressed as a pimp-- this was quite funny in the first scene that introduces him and gets tired and embarrassing almost immediately afterward.

Overall, \"Be Cool\" may be worth a rental for John Travolta die-hards (of which I am one), but you may want to keep your finger close to the fast forward button to get through it without feeling that you wasted too much time. Fans of \"Get Shorty\" may actually wish to avoid this, as the sequel is devoid of most things that made that one a winner. I rate this movie an admittedly harsh 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to like this movie. The previews looked marginally funny but I figured they put most of the funny stuff in the previews. In this case, they not only did that but they twisted the clips so that they appeared much funnier than they were in the real film. I like John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Vince Vaughn, The Rock, Cedric the Entertainer, etc. so I wanted to like this movie but it just never seemed to do anything.

I saw Get Shorty and did not particularly care for it. Too slow and unfunny for me. This movie is certainly no better and, if anything, is worse. There were a lot of opportunities for some good comedic moments but it took none of them.

The acting was okay but even John Travolta seemed toned down. Cedric was okay but he was too reigned in to be really funny. Vince Vaughn and the Rock were pretty good and ready to be funny but they just let it all pass them by. I wish they had been given a chance to follow through with the funny things they set up but instead it just kept going back to the same old thing and back to just setting Vaughn and Rock up to be funny (though never allowed to really deliver that punchline or comedy).

Overall, this was a very disappointing movie and I am glad I only saw it on video. At least it was cheaper than the theater.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is such a waste of talented people and Hollywood budget. It made me think everyone in the movie was paying off a favor by being in it because they were all out of place and wasted talent in this horrible trash pile of a film. It's a contrived plot that is just pathetic, unrealistic and not even close to fun or interesting. The only thing that kept my interest was the numerous big names in the movie that kept popping up for no apparent reason and who had no acting or good lines to contribute to the mess of a film. I kept expecting it to have some good stuff since all of these people had been cool in other films. But it never came through. This film should be shown in prison as punishment, but that would be cruel and unusual. You will be shocked to see so many recognizable faces parading around such a horrible pathetic script with flat lines and horrifically bad acting. This movie reminded me of another complete waste of time with lots of recognizable faces BIG TROUBLE (2002), which also went off the readable scale on the suck-o-meter.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to the cinema slightly apprehensive, I came out seething with anger at the garbage (passing for a film)I had witnessed. The actors, particularly Travolta, should be ashamed of themselves for their participation in this. Clearly the only thing in their minds was the pay cheque, never mind the debasement of their talents and us . Travolta needs to go back to doing some more \"Look who's Talking\" movies as he has sunk back to the level of his pre-Tarantino work. It comes to something when the L W Talking sequels are better than this one. Travolta is no longer the King of Cool but the King of Corn. Michael Caine himself admitted to doing bad movies for the pay cheque, Trvolta should follow suit if he has any self respect !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Travolta, Thurman, The Rock, Vaughn, Keitel and so on. One should think that this star parade of great actors could really heat up this movie, but no. Travolta takes on the role as Chili Palmer again, but this time we have already seen the gangster who tries hes luck in the hard world of movie making, its not funny anymore. This is a typically problem in Hollywood, they think that if the first was good, the second will be twice as good, NO, the first was original, the second cant be, Hey Hollywood try to understand originality cant be duplicated, you got to give us a new twist, not just the same movie again made with a bigger budget. I constantly found my selves Hardly laughing when I was watching this movie, but still it got a lot of cool actors like Harvey Keitel, James Woods, Vince Vaughn and The Rock and for that and that only!

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I enjoyed the beautiful scenery in this movie the first time I saw it when I was 9 . Dunderklumpen is kind of cute for kiddies in a corny way. It reminded me of HRPUFFINSTUFF on sat mornings, Its Swedish backdrops make it easy on the eyes . Don't expect older kids to be interested as the live action\/animation is way behind the times and most older kids will get bored.This is definitely an under 10 age set movie and a nice bit of memories for those of us who were little kids in 1974.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If there was justice in the cinematic universe, director Lewis Schoenbrun would never be allowed to set foot on a movie set again. It would seem inconceivable that anyone who spent two full decades in an editing room, where LS started his movie career, could be so utterly devoid of any sense of pacing or dramatic staging, but this film is damning evidence.

As bad as it is, it is fascinatingly so. From the opening scene, where a nurse is clad in a costume appropriate only for a porno film or a skit on a Mexican variety show, the viewer is compelled to see just how low it can go. The answer isn't far away, as in the next scene we move to a funeral parlor, where the next stunning fashion statement comes in a sexy off-the-shoulders black dress worn by one of the mourners.

Aggressively inappropriate costuming isn't the film's only flaw. The dialog is a treat for connoisseurs of bad writing. \"You turn my tears into wine,\" is a sample gem. The actor deserves an Oscar for delivering that one with a straight face.

The director reinforces every cheeseball scene with what is possibly the schmaltziest soundtrack score ever recorded, which veers from embarrassingly maudlin in the dialog scenes to cheesy groovebox wannabe rocknroll in transitional scenes.

The script introduces characters with no rhyme or reason and story beats are doled out as if with a broken ladle.

Let's not forget this is a \"horror\" film, though. Our characters find themselves in a forest wherein lurks Dr. Chopper and his two \"scary\" henchwomen, who are supposed to be some kind of Frankencreatures but look exactly like Valley Girls with fake blood dabbed beneath their Supercut shags. I've honestly seen scarier make-up on eight-year-olds out trick-or-treating on Halloween.

And again we get a whiff of the costume designer's malodorous handiwork, as Valley Ghoul One prances around in a pseudo-Victorian polyblend smock while her buddy wears a nondescript ensemble that might have been almost fashionable in less hip corners of the 1980s.

Dr. Chopper makes the big fashion statement though, looking like a Crisco cowboy who got lost in the woods on his big black Harley, clad from head to toe in zippered black S&M leather.

If this sounds intriguing, by all means check it out. There is plenty of side-splitting and belabored dialog (like the precious \"elephant's graveyard\" scene or the \"intellectual\" discourse on Ginsburg).

To be fair, the cinematography is good, considering what was put before the camera, and the actors strive (with wildly extreme results) to make something from a scrap heap of clich\u00e9s and inanities. You do have to wonder if they were really really stupid or just blindly desperate, not to walk off the set after catching one glimpse of the ridiculous-looking villains with their 99 Cent Store weapons.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"20 years ago Dr Chopper(yes, he is driving a chopper as well as chopping people up) disappeared when the police found dead bodies at his clinic. Since then people have been disappearing around Lake Tanoka(or something) and dead bodies\/parts of bodies has been found all over the place. Turns out Dr Chopper needs body parts to stay alive and has been taking them from strangers, like pair of lesbians and 5 sorority girls on their initiation(you get the picture) traveling through Lake Tanoka. When a bunch of teenagers decide to go camping they are bound to clash with the doctor.....

Well, if you wanna waste some time this is the right choice. Acting varies from really bad to mediocre with the girls tripping and falling all the time for no apparent reason. Every chance of showing skin is taken but without actually showing anything at all. The same goes for the special effects who are pretty pathetic with every slash filmed in an angle so you cant see it but there are a lot of body parts in the movie all drenched in blood(probably to cover up how sad they really look ). The plot is pretty faulty and dialog rather sad. Only time I laughed was when Dr Chopper said: \"Howdy!\" when trying to be scary. Don't watch this one if your not a hack'n'slash freak. Even then I would recommend you to watch something better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I started watching this because i thought it was a really shitty porno. As i kept watching the only thrill i got from this movie was finding out what the name of it was so i could look it up and rip on it. I just finished it and have considered ending my life knowing that someone actually made this movie.

For the people who commented on this movie as having a good script and great acting, my words of wisdom for you are that you probably have no friends because you were in the movie. You are probably wishing you had all that time back of your life that you wasted on making this movie.

There is no way that this is a serious movie. There was an old guy that gets stabbed and it doesn't even hurt him at all. And when everyone else gets stabbed they drop dead.

It was probably important that these people killed random people and ate them and also hung out with an 80 year old man that wanted to put the parts into his body.

My favorite part was when the old man found the \"hemoglobens\" or however you spell it because that made the movie seem very intellectual and probably helped to reach the older crowd.

What really blew my mind that they decided to throw in that random scene about the college girls going into the woods looking for fake skulls.

If you do attempt to see this movie, you should probably fill up your bathtub and drop your hairdryer in it and be ready to jump in.

THIS IS A MUST SEE!!!....for anyone who believes there life could not get any worse because this will help you realize there are people out there(the makers of this movie) who are even more pathetic and are going no where in life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dr. Chopper starts shortly after teenager Nicholas' (Robert Adamson) mum has died, he is still cut up about it but every cloud has a silver lining & in this case it appears that his mum owns a log cabin at Lake Tatonka the self proclaimed 'friendly place for happy people' that she didn't tell him about. So Nicholas together with his girlfriend Jessica (Chelsey Crisp) & three friends, Jimmy (Butch Hansen), Reese (Chase Hoyt) & Tamara (Ashley McCarthy) head out there for a fun weekend. Unfortunately things don't go according to plan, the cabin turns out to be little more than a run down shed & their neighbours turn out to be Dr. Chopper (Ed Brigadier) & his two nurses who go around killing anyone they meet to use them in horrible experiments...

Going straight-to-video\/DVD Dr. Chopper was edited & directed by Lewis Schoenburn & this film seems to be having a hard time here on the IMDb with some pretty harsh reviews, while I think Dr. Chopper as a horror film is pretty worthless I don't think some of the criticism I've read is entirely justified. The script which takes itself very seriously is credited to Ian Holt (whether he likes it or not...) who has a role in the film as Detective Crocker according to the IMDb cast list although I can't remember any character of that name, maybe he was one of the cops at the start? Anyway, the basic story is alright I suppose although it's a tad dull & lasts for too long, it's typical slasher fare with some sort of evil character running around bumping off our annoying American teen cast, you know the drill by now. Besides some brief & undeveloped nonsense about Dr. Chopper using body parts to replenish his own deteriorating body there's not much story here & the script seems to exist solely to invent situations for girls to take their tops off, there's the inevitable sex scenes, there's a sequence where some girls have to complete a sorority house initiation topless & there's even a couple of lesbians here as well one of whom is seen without her full compliment of clothing. Oh, & when I say topless I mean they aren't wearing any tops but they all keep their bras on so you may want to bear in mind there isn't any actual full frontal nudity in Dr. Chopper at all. So there you have it really, it's an average story that has a mildly surprising twist at the end which is wasted, is populated with poor clich\u00e9d dumb character's that exist only to showcase some cheap gore scenes & girls in bras. To be honest I expect a little bit more from my films but then again maybe I'm just being picky.

Director Schoenburn does OK actually, this is by no means the worst looking film I've seen although it still looks cheap. There's no style here, I didn't think it was scary & there's no atmosphere either. The gore is restrained & restricted to some dead bodies & severed limbs, there's nothing new here or any particularly convincing special effects. Dr. Chopper is also one of those films where character decisions & motivations are ridiculous.

Technically this is a little rough around the edges but is reasonably well made on what was probably a really low budget, the forest locations are suitably isolated although the cops office looks like someones front room & the two nurses outfits at the start look like stripper outfits. The acting is alright, it could have better but I've certainly seen worse.

Dr. Chopper indeed features a doctor who rides around on a chopper motorbike but unfortunately that just isn't enough to satisfy me, despite it being a reasonably competent production the lack of any real gore, nudity or a decent plot sinks it without trace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The acting was very sub-par, You had Costas Mandalar acting like Triple H's dumber forest ranger brother, a Scott McMahon look-alike as his depute who I guess your supposed to care about but there is no emotional involvement anywhere. You have the Stupid lesbian, Not that I have any thing against lesbians, i don't just stupid ones who keep running around in a punisher like shirt and a grunge like hat who keeps asking if anyone saw her dead lover.

The Villain could be scary and there is a morality tale somewhere about trying to fight age and death but it is lost in this movie. Costas Hurst Helmsley points out to the soon to be victims the way back into town, while obviously there are city lights behind him.

Also A mispronunciation of Ed Gein but pronounced it Gine. As a citizen of Wisconsin. We have had our share of Monsters Gein,Dahmer, and McCarthy, but if your going to use it pronounce it right.

God Why do i watch all these terrible films. Oh yes I am a glutton for punishment and I watch these so you don't have to.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is by far one of the worst B-movies I have ever seen. There are no plot twists at all. Though the acting is decent, the storyline is terrible. There are also many mistakes in the movie, and it was bothersome to watch. For any of you who like horror movies, slasher movies, or even B-movies, I don't recommend this to anyone at all. Most of the movie is focused on pointless killing, in ways that aren't even worth discussing. This movie could very well be compared to a crappy remake of Jeepers Creepers, which, too, wasn't that great of a movie. For anyone who wishes to spend a day at home, watching poorly made movies, this one takes the cake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Possibly one of the best, most horrible b movies ever, as in it's so bad and random,it's kinda hilarious and i don't know how to feel about it..reminds me of Cabin Fever..there's just something about that kid jumping off the porch doing karate and yelling 'pancakes' that's intriguing. Since a lot of people have already outlined the plot and everything all i'm going to do is sum up the quality of the movie with one quote: \"I'm the park ranger who's going to f*ck you up\". yeah, enough said?. If you're looking for quality or a really scary movie, i don't recommend it. but if you like these sorts of films then I guess you would enjoy it..I don't know how, but I guess some people would.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i paid $2.00 for this piece of crap, i want my money back. it is a d grade horror movie that isn't so groovy

There are many MANY floors in this film, including the acting, the lack of actual horror, the lack of nudity (which besides the starting Nurse (porno outfit) and the still breathing nude corpse flash, there is none.

The sound track maybe is the best thing because it has some upbeat sorta guitar riffs\/tracks.

There are your usual typical characters, the jock, the jocks woman, the nerdy guy (who looks more like a jock), the rookie cop\/ranger (who has the biggest gap in his teeth i wanted to slip a few dollar coins into that gap..or go for a field goal) the mysterious fella and the Pure girl.

The make up was pitiful with side views of dr chopper showing a clear \"make up line\"and natural skin tones, the cover art to the DVD is clearly photoshop\/enhanced to make the cover more enticing as Dr chopper looks like an old \"plopper\" The scraggy women that hang around Dr chopper are not explained and or look convincing like the rest of this movie.

The plot twist was VERY predictable and the abundance of bad looking FAKE limbs was laughable, what did they think,.... um throw some limbs around and some fake blood and you have a horror film.

Dr chopper himself is the most stupid character created I've seen in a while, though original i believe that the creator of this film was strained for ideas and possibly tried to use the rhyme Doctor and chopper (bike) and thought \"bingo\" ill make a crappy movie about that.

I've seen worse before..... but this is just plain bad.. everything about it is bad... the lack of suspense...the lack of actual horror or character development... the lack of a decent storyline ...the only thing good about this film was when it finished. This film doesn't fall into the category \u00efts so bad its good\" for me either\/

Overall 2\/10 the director\/writer\/editor should know better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ugh, bad, bad, bad, but I have seen worse which is why I gave it a 2 instead of a 1. Just got finished watching this movie and I thought it was about as rotten as the flesh on Dr. Chopper's face. The worst line of the movie had to be \"I like to introduce you to someone... meet my inner b*tch\" which consisted of the lone survivor of the fantastic 5 group throwing a trash can at Dr. Chopper and then falling on the stage. Second worst line, \"I'm the park ranger that's gonna f*ck you up\" What, this freak ain't even a cop????? Did anyone else notice how everyone instantly dies from the magic gut stab (no one dies that quick from a gut stab, I know this cause I see them frequently in the operating room) except super park ranger. Dude had like a bucket of blood poor out of that wound, writhes around on the floor some, and then comes in for the finale to take a parting shot at Dr. Chopper while inner b*tch lies cowering on the floor. And if that don't beat all, he doesn't even have the decency to die then like everyone else. Inner b*tch helps him limp outside and proceeds to tell him not to die while she runs for help cause he's like her only friend left alive now. Since when did these two become friends? I don't think a frantic meeting in the woods where he tells you to head for the city qualifies as getting to know you time but whatever.

Only watch this movie if there's nothing else own and you have nothing else to do with your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, I'm upset there's no choice of a \"0\" out of 10.

I was bored tonight, and while flipping through the channels, I see Dr. Chopper. With there being nothing else on, I decide to watch it, expecting it to be just another crappy horror movie, with a similar plot to Cabin Fever.

Man was I wrong...Dr. Chopper made Cabin Fever look like it should have won numerous Academy Awards. May I remind you, Cabin Fever contains a scene of a little hick boy doing roundhouse kicks off of a porch screaming, \"pancakes!!\", characters who leave their dying friend in a tiny shack to bleed to death, and Shawn from Boy Meets World mistakenly fingering a hole in a girl's thigh.

So needless to say, Dr. Chopper was a big, smelly pile-o-crap. It wasn't even funny crap. It reminded me of a horror movie I had to make in 8th grade, called \"The Campout\". Except for the fact that \"The Campout\" had a better script (we wrote it about an hour before filming), better actors, plots, bloody scenes, and camera work. I was hoping to get some laughs out of a poorly-made horror film, but instead I could only watch in astonishment as I thought to myself, \"Was this made by 8th graders?\".

The acting was horrible, the events and different little subplots were thrown together and didn't make sense, and the gore and violence was very minimal. I liked how that from a small stab wound, people died instantly, and the only weapons the killers had were small pocket knives...if you're going to make a horror movie, at least give the killer(s) an insane killing device.

Also, what the hell was the point of the sorority girls hazing their pledges? Good way to bring in some scenes of girls running around in their bras, even if they have no relevance to the story whatsoever. And I must say, my favorite line was when the blonde says to Dr. Chopper, \"I'd like to introduce you to someone....my inner bitch.\" Her \"inner bitch\" then proceeds to grab a garbage can, throw it at Dr. Chopper, miss, and back up in terror of the killer.

Wheww....well that was a long one, but I felt that I needed to express my feelings on how absolutely horrible this \"movie\" was. I know that everyone has their own opinions, but if anyone rates this movie higher than a 2, they should be shot to Hell...

...seriously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie sucked on so many levels! Ever seen the Dentist? This movie made The Dentist look like a masterpiece. I do not recommend this movie to anyone, unless of course you are really really really really really bored, then maybe. It was SO corny. The killer reminds you of the grandpa from the monsters, except he has goggles on. When Jessica said \"I want you to meet someone, my inner bitch, I thought she was going to kick his butt, however all she did was throw a frig-gen trash can at him. I was very disappointed. And when the ranger had the crying scene about his wife, I SO felt the pain behind his tears.........NOT!!!!! So before watching this movie, grab a blanket and a pillow, get comfortable because it is very relaxing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stupid horror film about five 20 somethings (3 guys, 2 girls) going to this place in the middle of nowhere. What they don't know is Dr. Chopper and his female assistants attack and kill anybody who ventures in their woods. They use their body parts for some experiments...or something. Also five college girls and two lesbians are thrown in to be killed off and show some cleavage.

Pretty desperate. The story is confusing and boring; the gore is laughably fake; Dr. Chopper and his assistants overact TERRIBLY; there's some dreadful black \"humor\" in here and people just stand around while their friends are being attacked or just stand there and let the people kill them.

This was pretty insulting. There are a few pluses. A twist an hour in was pretty good and the five young actors are actually good! Chase Hoyt is great as Reese; Butch Hansen is OK as Jimmy; Ashley McCarthy is also good as Tamara and Robert Adamson has his moments as Nicholas. Best of all is Chesley Crisp as Jessica--she was excellent! Some of the dramatic scenes between these five were well-acted and interesting. Unfortunately the dialogue wasn't really there for them. I'm giving it a 4 for their performances--but nothing else here is worth mentioning. Hopefully these actors will get roles worthy of them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Low budget \"films\" like this just give me hope as an aspiring screenwriter. In other words, if there are people out there who are willing to finance a piece of schlock like this, than there's certainly much more than a glimmer of hope for someone like myself who can actually write stories. This film is right up there, or should I say \"down there\" with the Ed Wood's of the world. The story, if you can call it that, and the dialog, not to mention the sophomoric acting, is a travesty toward the genre itself. Someone should have driven a stake through this stinker while it was still just on paper. It follows that since literature has pretty much been killed off, that film should follow. In order to have a good or even just passable movie, you must have at the very least decent writing. The legendary Curt Siodmak springs to mind. They used a lot of his stories for low budget films way back when but they still come off today as good, serious entertainment, i.e. \"Donavan's Brain\". The cast for this \"work\" should seriously consider going back to work at their respective hamburger joints or shoe stores and forget about any future feeble attempts at appearing in front of a camera. Avoid this one like the plague itself!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen many - possibly too many straight-to-video, no budget slasher films and have developed a taste for the \"good ones\", or the ones that are less sucky, as ridiculous as that sounds, hahaha. DR. CHOPPER, is what I kindly like to refer to as... absolute crap. Nothing about it is enjoyable - the acting sucks, the characters suck, the killer sucks, the gore is minimal... and sucks. It is about a group of college friends who drive out to a newly discovered family cabin, owned by the parents of one of the kids. It is meant to be a relaxing retreat, but little do they know that a deathly ill former plastic surgeon-gone bad, along with his two female assistants, search for usable tissue to save the doctor. His name is Dr. Chopper since he rides around on a motorcycle and of course, chops. This is just a terrible movie, not worthy of anyone's time. Enough said.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is terribly bad. Kevin Spacey is a really great actor, he shines in LA Confidential, American Beauty, Usual Suspects, 7 etc.. But this is truly rubbish, he came nowhere near a decent Irish accent, maybe he should have practiced it with Kate Hudson while she was doing About Adam. To Irish people this film is laughable and even worse, its quite irritating for several scenes. I think the producers made this film hoping the target audience (non-europe)would had never seen or heard of the 'General' or Martin Cahill and be enthralled in an intriguing and entertaining story. Total crud!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The German regional-broadcast-station WDR has shown both \"The General\" and ODC. On Saturday I've seen \"The General\" and I thought, it wasn't very bad, but not very good too. But yesterday I've seen ODC and I switched it off after about an hour. Although Kevin Spacey was the main actor the movie was totally confusing and seems restless. \"The General\" told the story straight and ordered, but ODC just wanted to be cool. There is a reference on the Guy Ritchie Movies \"Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels\" and \"Snatch\", but doesn't have the Coolness of these movies.

So, in the end I would rate it 3 of 10!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a big fan of Kevin Spacey's work, but this is a sub-standard film. If you think it looks interesting, or you saw it and liked it, go and check out John Boorman's \"The General\". It is basically about the same guy, but is far superior in every way (and doesn't suffer from the Hollywood glorifications).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"an oirish film not made for an irish audience. with fiorentino, baxendale and spacey each incapabable of a half decent oirish accents the powers-that-be had but one choice - force the irish actors to adopt equally bad oirish accents, reducing the whole thing to the lowest common denominator.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kevin Spacey is without a doubt one of the best actors of the 90s. After his performances in The Usual Suspect, Se7en and American Beauty, you expect more and more from him. That is why Ordinary Decent Criminal is a huge disappointment.

Michael Lynch is the most artful criminal in Dublin who is never in a bad mood. His next heist becomes an obsession when his partners start questioning Michael's ability to plan everything perfectly, although this is the only thing he does when he isn't playing good father at home.

I guess, it's partly my fault for not paying enough attention to the thousand plot details which sadly turn out to be the \"essence\" of the film. I gave the movie a chance by calling it a parody and.... well, parodies are always funny, no matter what they spoof or how they do it. So, it wasn't after all a complete parody on purpose. It's just a different con movie that desperately tries to be funny and fails.

Unlike some of his \"colleagues\", Ordinary Decent Criminal depends too much on story development and logical continuity, forgetting what's the main reason, the viewer has picked this kind of movie - to be entertained. This is definitely not entertainment. It includes one of the most ridiculous scenes ever - the introduction of Michael's TWO wives. I don't know whether it's some kind of a mindless metaphor or strange, dark humor, but the chicks are sisters. Remember, Spacey's character has kids.

Ordinary Decent Criminal is complex and confusing. You are not waiting for a funny scene. Instead, you carefully follow the dialog, because there is a big possibility of losing yourself into the boring, pale universe, the film has inhabited.

Let's go back to Spacey. I wonder in what condition he has been, signing for that movie. It's not miscasting, but something much worse. An insult to his work in American Beauty, released an year before Ordinary Decent Criminal. The character Michael is eccentric and talkative. Spacey is almost pathetic at times. The only cure for this, is thinking of Lester Burnham and Roger Kint.

Writer, Gerrard Stembridge should definitely re-consider his screen writing abilities and be more objective this time. Because, the dialog is very weak and the scenes are often pointless. And we are still talking about a comedy.

Ordinary Decent Criminal is a really bad crime comedy which does not deserve your attention.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kevin Spacey is my favorite actor of all time, he is without a doubt on other's lists as well when it comes to great actors. He even pulled off a good Irish accent in Ordinary Decent Criminal as well. But Kevin Spacey, as a Mafia leader? Or even a burglar? I'm not so sure he could go that far. The movie to me just didn't make any sense and the some of the story just didn't feel solved to me.

I know once again that IMDb is going to make me write ten more lines. But I'm not so sure on what I could say about this movie because I am still trying to figure it out. Silly, isn't it? But I'm pretty sure that more than a few of you IMDb users have been in the same predicament as I am in right now where you just want to say a line or two about a movie, but now you have to do ten lines? Wow, that should do it. :D

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well,

First of all, as many reviewers have pointed out - this is a rip off of the Martin Cahill story - first represented by the BBC and by the John Boorman film \"The General\" - which is a great film and far, far superior to this one.

Speaking as a native British person, the supporting cast to Kevin Spacey was really good in terms of British and Irish acting talent, especially Peter Mullan - but it was totally wasted. The characters were c**p! And as for Kevin Spacey - didn't come across as a loveable rogue but as nothing really substantial or significant.

Not a lot to redeem this film. The best bits are the gags and tricks nicked from the other films it rips off. Compare notes on this film and \"The General\" - I'd be interested to see what others think.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After the general, a film that romanticized the life of Dublin gangster the general to such heroic proportions that it made the average Dublin person sick, along come Kevin and his attempted portrayal of Mr. Lynch or martin Cahill, aka the general, the acting is so bad that this crime drama becomes a comedy for the native Dub, and a tragedy for the Kevin Spacey fan. in short, is the movie worth a look.... No, unless u like bad acting with hilarious 'proper Irish accents, ah sure to be sure to be sure'. The story is ripped off from the commercially successful 'The General' which, despite is glorification of a well known Dublin animal in Martin Cahill is still worth a look, on a domestic scale because it shows real working class Dublin, and on an international scale because of he true Irish acting and killer cast, including John Voight. All in all, 'Ordinary Decent Criminal' is anything but a decent film. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Ordinary Decent Criminal\" is sort of based on the exploits of Martin Cahill, already the subject of John Boorman's 1998 film \"The General\". Cahill had a rough upbringing in a slum area and graduated from petty crime to armed robbery with honours. He justified his criminal career by pointing out his poor background at every opportunity. This is a common excuse for criminals that conveniently overlooks the thousands of slum-dwellers who don't turn to robbing post offices and selling guns in order to make ends meet. Cahill made fools of the police and local authorities, not to mention the IRA, which earned him a sort of \"Folk Hero\" status as well as making him many enemies. However, he was basically an amoral, self-serving thief.

My primary problem with \"ODC\" is that the protagonist is made out to be a lovable Irish rogue. Kevin Spacey does a good job portraying Michael Lynch with a blend of oily charm and quiet menace, but the character is too amoral and selfish to be seen as any sort of hero, even an anti-hero.

The film is well shot and well acted by a fine cast, but what lets it down is the script. Writer Gerard Stembridge can't make up his mind; is he writing an Irish \"Lock Stock\" or a grittier treatment of Martin Cahill's thieving career? That's the problem when a writer bases his central character on a real person.

It's also unfortunate that \"ODC\" followed the cinema release of John Boorman's \"The General\", which was a more accurate portrayal of Martin Cahill's story. Cahill was a cunning thief who knew the value of good publicity, so it's not surprising that his exploits got the movie treatment.

What IS surprising is that a studio was prepared to take Cahill's story and give it a happy Hollywood-style ending. Kevin Spacey's charismatic-twinkly-bigamist-thief Michael Lynch gets to ride off into anonymity on his motorcycle in \"ODC\". In the real world, Martin Cahill was executed by the IRA, just to prove that no-one makes fools of an out-dated, sectarian and corrupt para-military organisation and gets away with it.

The real Cahill would never have walked away from his notoriety because it bolstered his \"Man of The People\" self-image. Having Michael Lynch give up everything to avoid death in \"ODC\" is a cop-out ending to a weak and shallow movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"one of the worst excuses for an irish accents i've heard. from a truly great actor too. its a bad irish accent not to mention a dublin accent (which is completely different) anyway the film is loosely based around the story of ganglord martin cahill and its done much much much better with brendan gleeson in the title role in THE GENERAL","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was really looking forward to watching this film. It had all the ingredients of a great tongue in cheeker, but it just didn't come together AT ALL. Kevin Spacey's accent was tolerable except that sometimes he forgot to use it and I would rather NOT have had to listen to Linda Fiorentino's pale attempt. She and Helen Baxendale were totally lacking in charm and personality, thankfully their screen kids had loads, so you could find at least some members of his 2 families endearing. You could have strained spaghetti with the plot and I'm sure that the script was written by some adolescent schoolboy in a high school English competition. That said, when I wasn't cringing, I was smirking so it wasn't a totally wasted 90 minutes. I did find the superimposing of Kevin's face on the painting very clever and quite funny. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh but I was expecting a bit of quality viewing and it just never came.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is really quite odd. Clearly certain *events* portrayed identify the main protagonist as the Dublin criminal known as \"The General\" but almost everything else is just wrong. We are not talking of a distortion of ancient history...but a complete distortion of irrefutable, documented facts. The question indeed is why? The garda are shown as latter day Keystone Cops, his gang as non-menacing, and the man himself as..well Kevin Spacey. Almost pure fiction anyway, why bother to try to give a semblance of realism? Having said all that, it is a poor exercise *any* way you want to look at it. Not worth a second of anyone's time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Ordinary Decent Criminal\" is sad because it is obviously trying to succeed and equally obviously hasn't a chance in hell of making it apparently owing to the absence of a clear sense of purpose. A abysmal failure at droll Irish comedy with Spacey as a thief who enjoys outsmarting the cops and his competition becoming a sort of folk hero in his own mind, this flick manages to be mildly amusing when it's trying to be funny, slightly more than boring when it's trying to be interesting, and forget sentimental or poignant or endearing though it takes shots at those qualities as well. \"Ordinary Decent Criminal\" has a clumsy screenplay, naive direction, journeyman execution, thin story, poor casting, mediocre acting, and eventually becomes lost in itself and sinks into a mire of hopeless mediocrity. Pass on this one. (D)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To keep from being bored during \"Love and Sex,\" first I tried to think of all the movies this was imitative of: \"Breaking Up\" with Russell Crowe and Salma Hayek (though that had a more original ending), \"About Last Night\" with Rob Lowe, and a lot of TV shows.

Second was admiring just how gorgeous Framke Janssen is so I couldn't believe for a nanosecond that she could have a problem getting a date. She is certainly in line to give Julia Roberts a run for her money, literally-- and wasn't Julia in some movie with this same plot or other?

Third was trying to figure out why the writer\/director bothered to give Jon Favreau's character the Jewish name of Adam Levy; he even refers admiringly to eating a ham sandwich.

Fourth was trying to figure out why some critics had given this a good review which is why I was in the theater.

(originally written 9\/2\/2000)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kate is a jaded young woman who has trouble meeting and dating guys. Throughout the movie, you get to meet several of her loser boyfriends. And throughout the movie, you are subjected to Kate's cynical negative outlook on love and relationships. This negative viewpoint is continued throughout and presented as Ultimate Truth. I had a real problem with this. Why would anyone want to be taught about love, life, and dating from someone who is obviously so messed up? It would work if that was the joke, but it is not. For the jokes in the movie (which are neither funny nor original) to work at all, you have to believe what Kate is saying: that all relationships inevitably end up with bad or no sex, that the highest level a relationship can evolve to is when you are able to fart in front of your partner... You get the idea.

There is no movie in recent memory that comes close to upsetting the stomach as much as Love & Sex. Why did the filmmakers waste their time on such trash? Every joke in Love & Sex is something that I have experienced in another movie or in my own life. There is NOTHING original or creative about the story, the production, or the style. It is cynical, dumb and pointless. Mind numbing!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has a really weird mixture of genres - toilet humour and action in one. It doesn't really pull it off - it should have stuck to one genre. The best thing I can say about the movie is that the dog in it is cute.

The most disturbing sequence is in the middle of the film when Moses (Sandler) and Carter (Wayans) decide to stop off at a hunting lodge\/motel. I'm not quite sure what the point of this sequence is - it just seems gratuitous in the extreme. The proprietor of the hunting lodge (\"Charlie\") is a very nerdy looking guy. For some reason, Moses starts a conversation with Charlie about porno, jacking off, homosexual sex, sex in a threesome... Charlie's photo of his \"wife\" appears to be Charlie dressed in drag. There is no reason for this really juvenile dialogue and scene. Anyway, the whole scene seems to be directed to the moment when a naked Moses ends up with Carter's gun up his butt and Charlie sees them through the window. It all reeks of school boy humour about homosexuality - horrified and titillated all at the same time - which I don't find funny at all.

I have a friend who is always raving about Adam Sandler movies. This is the first one I've seen - after this, I'm not sure I want to see any more.

BTW, this is my husband's account - he's seen Happy Gilmore, and he tells me it's quite good - maybe I should give Sandler just one more chance.

Countess Skogg","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My age: 13

Keats, played by Damon Wayans, and Archie Moses, played by Adam Sandler, are the best of friends and have been for a year. What Moses doesn't know is that Keats is really Jack Carter, an undercover cop, who is waiting for the right time to bust Moses and Frank Colton, a major criminal who Moses is involved with. When Colton and Moses find out that Keats is a cop, Colton wants to kill Moses, but he gets away after shooting Carter in the head, which does not kill Carter. Moses is found by the cops and is taken for proof of Colton's wrongdoing. But when the cops, including Carter, are about to escort him across the country on a plane, all the other cops are killed and Moses and Carter are alone in the desert. Carter has to stay alive as well as take Moses in.

A fairly average action-comedy, Bulletproof has a fair plot but a lot of the film is just plain stupid. For a comedy, I found most of the jokes entirely unfunny. But as an action movie, it has a few fairly good action scenes. Not being a good fan of either Adam Sandler or Damon Wayans, I found the acting and therefore, the characters, well below par. The climax isn't really great, and the film is so unrealistic. It is not entirely bad, but also not too good, and it is far too short. Running below 85 minutes, I though there was another 15 minutes left before it ended, but there wasn't, and the film felt too short. Overall not a complete waste of time, but I still wouldn't recommend Bulletproof.

Australian Classification: MA 15+: Medium Level Violence, Sexual References, Medium Level Coarse Language

Rating: 56 out of 100","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Drug runner Archie Moses introduces his friend Rock Keats to his boss, drug kingpin Frank Colton. Unknown to Moses, Keats is actually an undercover police officer. During the bust on Colton's factory, Moses accidentally shoots Keats in the head. He survives the wound & later arrests Moses. Dodging Colton's hired assassins, the duo must overcome their mutual hatred to survive.

Adam Sandler's films are usually a hit-&-miss affair, with his comedies either loved by his fans or hated by everyone. This one is not as stupid as his other films, but still cannot overcome a lazy script. The direction is incredibly patchy, with fast-paced action sequences giving way to slow comic exchanges between Sandler & Damon Wayans. Some of the action scenes \u0096 flying a plane with no engines, a car chase at night through a forest \u0096 are quite absurdly contrived. The acting is the standard for this genre, with Sandler & Wayans making a good pairing. In short, the film is dumb but fun to watch.

Grade: C+ Review by M. K. Geist","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bulletproof is quite clearly a disposable film. The kind where bullet riddled good guys and bad guys are splatted everywhere, so much so that you really aren't supposed to see them as human. The yawns between the lines from Wayans and Sandler are extensive indeed. They try hard but , alas and alack, persona itself does not a good film make. Jimmy Caan plays a nifty villain but he's always had that redneck edge at the ready. My favorite's scene is the repeated clips of a TV ad in which Caan reveals the virtues of America can be shown to the world by having 2 cars in every garage. Aside from that it's a buddy movie with guns for brains. Pass on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't for a long time seen such a horrible film. I hoped that at least Adam Sandler could be funny... hopeless. Seems, like some teenager have written it's script and he's daddy pushed this so far, that someone agreed to shoot it. (Movie)World could be better place without this, whatever it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw it on video. Predictable, horrid acting, film flubs. What more can be said, this movie sucks. The actors are annoying to say the least. This was suppose to be a comedy, but there was only one funny moment, other than that is was painful to watch for me.

1 out of 10. PASS!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie came highly recommended, but I am not sure why. I am not really and Adam Sandler fan though, apart from in 50 First Dates where he departs from his usual angry man routine. Damon Wayans is an undercover cop and Adam Sandler is the guy he pretended to be friends with for a year in order to bust him. Naturally Sandler is rather angry about this betrayal. Cue angry shouting and silly facials from the king of variety. They end up on the run and of course they become friends again after a big misunderstanding (involving Sandler shooting Wayans in the head - he survives thus he is Bulletproof). Need I go on? You will work out what is going to happen if you do watch it anyway. When our DVD player kept pausing (hey it was $80 from the supermarket OK?) it was commented that the player knew the film was boring and was refusing to play it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"im sure he doesnt need the money for a life saving operation or transplant. in all honesty i think this review qualifies as a better movie than 'bulletproof'. thanks for listening.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We screened this movie in a club as an example of how classic literature can become twisted into some of the most awful movies of all time. Just the fact that the back of the box proudly proclaimed the plot to be set in the \"techno-futile\" future should have been enough of a hint. I think that word describes the movie itself, because no matter how much technology they tried to use to save this movie, the effort was completely futile. Not to mention that our club advisor told us that it allegedly couldn't get a distributor for two years.

This cinematic failure is littered with cheesy, cliche dialogue that's worse than angsty teen poetry. Beowulf's character changes halfway through in a way that is in no way credible, and whenever he's in an action scene, he's constantly flipping like a hyper gymnast. There is even, as they say, a \"token black guy\" whose attempts at humor are completely out of place. And, of course, the daughter of the leader of the outpost Grendel is terrorizing is a total vixen. A vixen whose breasts are exposed throughout the entire movie. A vixen who wants to fight the creature, yet she never puts on armor. And her weapon of choice is a little carving knife. And despite their dire situation, she still dresses up for dinner, in a dress with a see-through skirt that exposes her short-shorts underwear. There are a couple scenes that could pass as soft core pornography, and in the second scene they even reuse footage from the first. I thought the portrayal of Grendel was bad enough, but then came the end of the film, which featured a display of CGI that might be decent for the 80s, but is totally ridiculous for a late 90s venture. I could go on, but you all should watch this film for the fully laughable effect yourselves.

The other club members and I did manage to have fun watching this by taking a cue from MST 3K and mocking it the whole way through. I'm still reeling from an extra's weapon: a perpetually spinning pizza cutter on a pole.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've heard many things about Beowulf, maybe because i'm from Romania and a good part of the movie was filmed here, in my country. And i expected a lot from this film. At the end, i was disappointed. It is not as horrible as other users said, but it's definetely bad. It's all about a monster killing people in a 6th century castle and Lambert the one who comes to kill him. Lambert is good, as he is in all his roles, but the rest of the characters suck, and the action isn't too good either. Plus maybe the only thing that could've saved this film, the special effects, are also very bad, the monster looks awful (not scary, but awful). Oh and another bad thing: the music. The movie tries, and manages to create the 6th century atmosphere. But all the action sequences are presented on rock music, which is very very bad. I mean action on rock works perfectly on a movie like Charlie's Angels - where that's the perfect way to shoot your action. But here, that was a very bad idea.

Vote: 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The future of fantasy never looked so dark! Christopher Lambert gets to fight the evil demon Grendel in this grim looking trashy fantasy-epos. \"Epos\" I said? Er... there's only one location, so you can't really call it an epic adventure, can you? The location is a medieval\/futuristic 5 inch tall castle, so how did they manage to cram in all the actors? Oh, I get it, those where special effects. A miniature. Silly me.

Here's some reasons why you might want or NOT want to watch this motion picture:

- Lambert gets to do his sword-swinging tricks over again like he did in Highlander.

- The sets and costumes are amazingly cool (if you're a 12-year-old).

- Rhona Mitra has a voluptuous pair of knockers which she likes to show off through-out the whole movie.

- ...er, Christopher Lambert has white hair...

- Every time they start fighting, this over-the-top raving techno-soundtrack gets going. So why are these medieval slayer-dudes fighting while they should be dancing.

- They don't have electricity in this castle but they do have speakers installed which seem to work fine. So where's the amplifier? I guess they borrowed it from the techno-dj who delivered the soundtrack.

- Watch it for the climax in the end which features an outrageous demono\u00efd CGI creature coming straight out of any Playstation 2 survival-horror game.

If all this got you interested, then go watch it (at your own risk), but don't tell anyone I told you to. I strongly suspect Pinhead visiting the set while shooting, because this movie has no soul. Anyway, if you want to see beautiful Rohna Mitra really show some skin, then watch Paul Verhoeven's HOLLOW MAN.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What. Uh...

This movie is so dissociative and messed up that I literally lost a bit of my sanity after it was over. I will never be the same person again. I'm trying to put my finger on what, exactly, is so completely insane about it... It's not just the hilarious techno music, or the \"outside of time\" medieval\/Blade Runner\/wild west\/Highlander setting, or the weird CGI \"Grendel\" monster that looks like a man made out of animated sausages, or even the \"Grendel's mother\" monster, which looks like some Alabama table-dancer who grew claws and tentacles when she stayed in the tanning bed too long. All of those things are weird, but what's really the strangest thing in this movie is the acting. I simply can't explain. This script is obviously, hellishly silly, but the actors exude deadly seriousness through it all. Lambert is always weird, and usually kind of boring, but for this one he's gone into Dolph Lundgrin territory: I can't help but just start laughing every time he talks.

I will give this movie some credit for being completely scatter-brained and crazy as opposed to conservative and boring. I'll always take a bizarre disaster of a film over an utterly mediocre one.

Warning: if you are planning on watching Christopher Lambert as Beowulf, be prepared to spend several hours thereafter wandering the streets in some kind of nightmarish, hyperactive-catatonic daze. It's true. When I was done with my Beowulf spirit journey, I woke up in the middle of the Siberian tundra in a puddle of blood and milk. There was a dead wolf lying next to me, and I later found I had a handful of human teeth in my shirt pocket. My VHS copy of Beowulf was sitting on a hastily-constructed stone altar nearby, enshrined with candles and wilted flowers. The tape told me to walk. I rose and I walked.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ha ha! First of if you've never seen a \"Dimension Film\" your in for a real treat! Known primarily for SUPER LOW BUDGET Horror\/Slasher films, \"Beowulf\" was no exception.

However, this video was more in the style of ultra-cheesy. I missed the K-R-A-F-T label on the side.

Consider the Anachronisms! (something out of place and time)

We had: candles, armour, swords....

Yet we saw: telescopes, Soled Shoes, Cigarette lighters, Loudspeakers, Electricity, Body Bags, aluminum foil tins,, and spoons\/forks.

Not bad for something that takes place in like the 8th Century!

This is not a horror film, is a horrible film. Its very laughable. Its really a comedy made to look like a horror film! I couldn't stop laughing!

Christopher Lambert (\"The Highlander Series\") -- must have really taken a tumble in his career if he's working for \"Dimension Films.\"

I've learned my lesson though. I'll be looking at the film studios on the videos, a LOT more closely now.

RATED NO REELS OUT OF FIVE. If you want a good laugh though, its hard to pass up on this piece of work!

This move had some cleavage in spots -- I especially liked the blonde bimbette!

Wayno

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is painful. That's probably the best way to describe it. It's 93 minutes of your life that you will never be able to get back. Well, actually it's more like 86 minutes because there is no way anyone would want to sit through the credits in this stinking pile of dog feces. Immediately you can tell the movie is from the producer of \"Mortal Kombat\", due to it's thumping and annoying techno soundtrack. This drains the few laughably enjoyable moments this movie can give you. The rest is drained by the completely uninteresting and annoying characters, the \"Freddie Prinze, Jr. School of Acting\" acting abilities of all involved (including the miscast Christopher Lambert), and the non-existant directing. Did I leave anything out? Of course I did. Let's not forget about the suicide-inducing script, with it's unitentionally (??) funny dialogue. Oh, yes, and let us also talk about how they shamed the original poem with this sad and useless futuristic\/medieval translation. The costumes and weapons (were those giant pizza cutters I kept seeing?!?!) are just plain stupid, that's the best way I can describe them. And the last culprit of the night is the always awful CGI. When will filmmakers learn that CGI sucks? When will we see the wonderful effects used in the 80's? Probably never, but films like this and \"Star Wars, Episode 1: The Phantom Menace\" make us wish that they would bring them back. In closing, avoid this movie like the newest Freddie Prinze, Jr. movie. Then again if you like Freddie Prinze, Jr. movies then you deserve to sit through this horrid excuse for filmmaking.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Renting this direct-to-video film, I was not expecting an amazing piece of cinematography. (Not to say just because a film is in cinema it will.) Only very loosely following the story retold in the epic poem, this film provides a unique take on the tale of monsters and super humans. The general photography can be summarized as conflicted, with its mixture of mediaeval and post-apocalyptic (reminiscent of Mad Max). With a rock and techno soundtrack to boot, one comes away feeling a bit off. The fight scenes, though unbelievable, are entertaining, and Christopher Lambert possesses some of the most interesting weapon combinations I have ever seen on film, though often a tad unfathomably inefficient. The special effects used for the monster Grendel are surprisingly effective and are one of the few highlights.

Christopher Lambert delivers an average performance as Beowulf. It will be nowhere near as memorable as Highlander, but at least it wasn't as poor as Fortress. The supporting cast is rather neutral.

If you're looking for a good action-adventure story with a complex and engaging plot, I would not suggest this film. However, if you want a flick that is of little substance, full of campy battle scenes, and a somewhat predictable plot, find a copy of this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The original review I had planned for this movie was perhaps a little over-harsh, so I'll preface with the good: Sleepy Hollow is a perfectly acceptable beer-and-pizza or sleepover movie, the kind you watch with a good group of people when the mood is light and no-one's really focusing on the movie. The visual elements are beautiful, and it is kinda fun, in parts. But horror, my friends, it is not. I made the mistake of watching it expecting something to shiver at with all the lights off. If this is your intention, send me a personal message and I'll offer you a list of alternate recommendations. (That's a serious offer, by the way. True horror fans deserve better.) Now my complaints, complete with SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS Why bother even making a movie \"based\" on a classic story if you're not even going to attempt to stay true to the sense, feel, tone, or theme of the original? Listen carefully between the lines of ill-written dialogue and you'll hear the slow churn of Washington Irving rolling over in his grave. I will even accept the Big-City Detective bit, but... Ricci drawing warding-hexes around the bed? Come, now. Not only is there nothing even vaguely like this in \"The Legend of Sleepy Hollow\", but it's historical BUNK. I don't care what neo-pagan axe you have to grind, but in the 18th century, \"witchcraft\" meant selling your soul to the Devil in exchange for diabolical powers; this whole fluffy white-witch goddess-worship \"an'-it-harm-none\" approach to witchcraft dates back, historically, about as far as the British Invasion. (Parties interested in real old-school pagan practices are referred to James Frazer's \"The Golden Bough\", if you don't believe me.) This creates such a discordant element thrown into the context of the film that the very framework of the Sleepy Hollow legend is shattered. So we wind up with a totally different story altogether. If that was Burton's idea, I wish he'd warned us in advance. Also, I wish he'd come up with a better story than the rather pedestrian one witnessed here. And he might as well have dropped the Irving pretensions altogether. And, at any rate, the movie isn't scary. Not once. Not at all. The warped tree came close, but was more than counterbalanced by the laughable effect of the Hessian's farce-comedy bellowing. And finally, yes, I too wanted Christina Ricci for Christmas, but God clearly never meant her to be a blonde.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"surely this film was hacked up by the studio? perhaps not but i feel there were serious flaws in the storytelling that if not attributed to the editing process could only be caused by grievously bad, criminal indeed, writing and directing.

i understand the effect burton wished to achieve with the stylised acting similar to the gothic fairytale atmosphere of edward scissorhands, but here unfortunately it falls flat and achieves no mythical depth of tropes but only the offensive tripe of affectation. ie bad acting and shallow characterisation even for a fairytale.

finally not that scary, indeed only mildly amusing in its attempts. the use of dialogue as a vehicle for plot background was clumsy and unnecessary. the mystery of who is the headless horseman would suffice, no need for the myth about a german mercenary, although christopher walken did cut a dashing figure but not that menacing - seeing the horsemans head makes him seem far friendlier that a decapitated inhuman nine foot tall spirit as in the original legend.

no real rhythm or universal tone was ever established and not a classic in burtons oevure. stilted and clipped as my parting shot...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Several things become apparent after the first few minutes of this film. First, the scenery and special effects are incredible -- the best, and if everything else worked as well, its austere presence might have made it a great film.

But as soon as the actors open their mouths, you suddenly realize that you are sitting in your den watching a movie. The story itself is full of clech\u00e9 and melodrama, and the dialogue is some of the worst I've ever seen. And as if that weren't bad enough, they made a fool out of the protagonist, and in my experience, you don't want to do that unless the film is a comedy.

Bottom line: I had a hard time getting into it, and I wouldn't recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this film had a lot of potential - it's a great story and has the potential to be very creepy. but of course tim burton doesn't really do creepy films, he does wacky cartoonish films. and i usually like tim burton's stuff. but i thought this film was really weak. the best thing about the film (and it is actually worth seeing just for this) was the art direction - the film has an amazing intangible quality to it. the script was not good. it was boring in parts and confusing in other parts, and there was no building of characters. i never really cared that people were having their heads lopped off by a headless being. i thought johnny depp had a good thing going with his approach to the character, but given that the script was weak he couldn't go too far with it - and i was very irritated by the attempts at a slight accent on his and christina ricci's parts.

anyway, it is sadly not a great film and not worth seeing unless you are interested in the art direction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have in the past loved Tim Burton. I loved Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, and even Mars Attacks. But I hate this movie. The costume drama scenes in the beginning were the sort of poorly done, stodgy things that used to plague historical drama 25 years ago. Then there were all the head-cutting scenes, which just left me cold, and that's the sort of thing that ought to mean something, I would think. Yes, there were some nice bare trees and foggy evenings and the horseman jumping out of the tree was a nice special effect, but on the whole the movie was just boring and pointless.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Adored by fans for his unusually charming creativity and by Hollywood for his softball, user-friendly movie-making techniques, Tim Burton tipped the scales too far in formula's favor with his new upset of a cinematic legend, Sleepy Hollow. Following the quest of Ichabod Crane \u0096 played by Johnny Depp, delivering this dreary film's only shining point \u0096 to the heart of the mystery surrounding a town's seemingly random and gruesome murders by a fabled headless horseman, the story plays out as if it were purposely trying to be repugnantly predictable. Contrived as a children's bedtime story, humdrum character introduction is laced with intended-upon exciting non-engaging chase scenes which, with undeveloped characters fleeing for their lives, produce about as much fright and thrill as The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Toss in an endless bundle of old trees for ambience and a wide-eyed, big-busted blonde love interest (Christina Reechi) and Burton has himself a movie that takes the age-old legend of Sleepy Hollow and succeeded in making it like a Disney movie without the charm or captivation. Dialog was choppy and ridiculous, severed heads were aplenty, and there were enough plot-revealing monologues to embarrass the likes of James Bond. Even with the backing of Emmanuel Lubezki, the most sought-after cinematographer in Hollywood today, the wonderful acting of Depp and Burton's astounding name-recognition, Sleepy Hollow is nothing to lose your head over.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A movie this dumb should never see the light of day. The acting is lame, the violence is just all over the place, the sneaking ending is just plain stupid.

It's all about a lawyer who saw a murder done by the R.I.C.C.O. squad. No one has never seen him, not even the hit men themselves. So he and a beautiful lady are on the run trying to find the leader of this R.I.C.C.O. squad, before they find them.

Then the movie goes on to a romance, gun shooting, and voodoo. Now how in the hell did voodoo come in this. Never see this film if your life depends on it. Trust Me!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"R.I.C.C.O. is the STUPIDEST film ever made. I can't believe my father bought this crap. This film should da never got made. If this film was wide known, trust me it will be on the #1 spot for IMDB's worst.The acting is horrible it's scary,which it is why it's horror. This piece of s*** had no horror in at at all. It's an urban action,which is funny, because I could of swore it was a comedy. When people got shot I couldn't help but laugh. I am the only person who reviewed this and I hope that I am the last. With this vote only I hope it make it to the #1 spot at the worst!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went into this film really wanting to like it - it headlined a film festival earlier in the year, and boasted an all-star cast. But (and you could tell there was a \"but\" coming) it's a failure of a film. Outstanding character acting by Sarandon and Walken is destroyed by editing and the antics of the supporting cast. Turturro's performance is lackluster, and most of the comedy is overplayed. The recurring puppet shows are pointless, and a few scenes are completely out of place.

That said, there are some wonderful moments sprinkled in the film. A genuinely touching stage moment, several of the seductions, and a few of the comedic color actually work out. Unfortunately, they're overshadowed by the diffuse, incoherent script and some bad acting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While I'm normally a big fan of John Turturro's work as an actor and director, ILLUMINATA is a great disappointment. Although the film has some charming moments, overall it falls flat. Worst of all, the film is confusing. Where is the movie set? Italy or an Italian troupe in New York? Why bother making a historical film if it fails to convey a setting? If you want to see a well-made, inspiring historical film also about theater, go see Tim Robbins' THE CRADLE WILL ROCK. This movie has many pluses, including a fine performance by John Turturro.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Best around the middle, when most characters get horny and go after someone they haven't had before. It is around this point that we get to see Susan Sarandon's majestic breasts (even if through a veil). Strangely enough, Beverly D'Angelo who isn't shy about nudity doesn't show any at all, while Aida Turturro \u0096 of all people \u0096 does. On the other end of the spectrum, the less said about Walken playing a homosexual the better. The film itself has little plot; the dialogs from the theater play and the \"normal\" dialogs cross over often and that's not the sort of thing I'd consider a good idea. Life in the theater: who cares? Occasionally the dialog has something going for it, but the film drags in stretches.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't mind the odd artsy film. But when they are larded with arcane symbolism and murky dialogue and when it's obvious they were done for the filmmaker's ego rather than the viewer's benefit, I get upset. I'm not a stupid person yet I simply didn't understand what this film was trying to say. Or do. Film is a magnificent form of human communication. Why do some filmmakers use it instead for obfuscation?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's partly bad luck for \"Illuminata\" that it comes out after \"Shakespeare in Love\" as it deals with virtually the same themes of life as art, art as life and the Magic of the Theatre and the same archetypal Foibles of Theater Folk, but a whole lot more ponderously.

There are scenes that come alive, as a play develops and gets reinterpreted by a writer's life, but there's a whole lot of Orson Welles-ish ego in this produced by\/directed by\/lead acted by John Torturro as a vehicle for his wife Katharine Borowitz (with an adorable cameo by their son).

Each actor gets his\/her moment literally in the spotlight, but there's so many \"masques\" or set pieces that seem like 19th century parlor games. Bill Irwin Talks. Susan Sarandon gets to be a diva. Christopher Walken gets to be a different kind of villain - a gay critic. The women have to disrobe unnecessarily because this is an Art Film.

The art and set direction are marvelous, though quite dark. This should get an award as the Best Use of a Jersey City Theater as A Set Ever In a Movie. (originally written 8\/21\/99)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie treads on very familiar ground -- the confusion of art and reality in the life of actors. It does not have anything particularly novel or interesting to say on this subject and is in fact rather dull. The final scene in particular is interminably tedious. Seeing the audience crying at the \"moving\" acting they are seeing on the screen made me ask \"who do they think they are kidding?\"

Nevertheless there are some good performances and interesting scenes, particularly from some of the minor characters. Ben Gazzara plays an old and slightly touched actor, who gets a whole posse of policemen clapping his performance when they come to arrest him.

Christopher Walken again plays an over-the-top wacko. Remember his character \"The Continental\" on Saturday Night Live; an aging eurotrash satyr chasing a young woman around the furniture and trying to get her into bed? He does an identical turn in the film, chasing his young (male) prey around an antique table and plying him with champagne.

Overall this film was both enchanting and irritating, but mostly irritating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Illuminata' has expanded the limits of John Turturro's mediocrity from second rate actor to third rate director, writer and producer. This film was dreadful. It is disjointed and flits from scene to scene with little flow or meaning relevant to the main story line.

We are served with a smorgasbord of fragmented scenes, each a non sequitur to all the others. The only thread that seems to run through them is that they occur in the lives of the members of the same theatre repertory company. The few scenes that do matter to the plot are so convoluted that you frequently can't tell if the dialogue is from the story or the actors running their lines for the play within the story.

If this story were a person it would be a schizophrenic with mulitple personality disorder. It couldn't decide if it was a drama, a romance, a comedy, a tragedy, a sex farce, or a parody of theatre. It came closest to being bearable as a sex farce.

Turturro was lifeless and impassive as Tuccio, supposedly a complex and passionate writer whose play gets its big chance when the currently running show needs to be cancelled due to the illness of the lead actor. Susan Sarandon gave a good performance as the aging actress trying to seduce Tuccio for a role. Unfortunately, she found it necessary to go topless which only goes to illustrate that the hardware of aging sex symbols is much better left to the imagination. Christoher Walkin gave a delightful performance as the uppity theatre critic who makes impassioned overtures to a member of the cast. Beverly D'Angelo and Ben Gazzara also had minor roles.

I gave this film a 2. Other than Walken's vignette, there is really not much to recommend it except that the puppets used in the opening and closing credits were phenomenally lifelike and beautiful. Avoid this movie like the plague that it is.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story is: a turn-of-the-century troupe of actors, along with producers and theatre-owners, have very complicated relationships. A resident playwright has written a psychological drama. He wants to get a good production on stage, but can't unless he convinces a pariticular reviewer to revisit the production, and give a positive review. If his production does not go on, then the troupe will put on The Doll House, recently written by Ibsen. Many different relationships among the principals are explored; none of them interesting. But the involvement of the characters with one another lead to giving the play by the resident playwrght a second shot.

This movie is purely an excuse for the director and his friends to get together and put on a movie. The story lines are incoherent to anyone who isn't a buddy of one of the stars. The only reason I didn't leave the theatre after about a half hour is that a fat lady was resting a full meal atop her stomach at the end of my row.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I liked all the Lilo and Stitch movies. The TV series weren't that great, but I put my opinions of the series aside when I watched this movie. And I must say... It was bad.

One thing I found disappointing was the animation. Yes, you heard it. The animation. I found its quality greatly degraded since the first movie. Its quality was only as high as the TV series', something which I did not expect at all. If you're looking for eye candy, don't expect anything much here. Also, the animation failed to portray any serious moods. Even in the supposed sad scenes, I didn't feel anything for the character, another downgrade from the first movie.

The next, was the absolutely horrible voice acting. I found it very, very unconvincing, and wondered why, Disney, with all its riches and glory, couldn't afford voice actors with real talent. The voice actors' skill were just as annoying as the one in the series. I tolerated the one in the series because, hey, who wouldn't be tired out when made to voice act for so many episodes? Heck, I don't even know how many episodes there are (Theoretically, there are 624, but I just can't believe that). However, I thought that the voice acting would improve in the movie, and I was put down in the face by the truth, that what they could do in the series was already their best.

Next, was the horrible script. It was cheesy beyond redemption, and the writers just try too hard. They try to put some jokes in, but I just found them annoying. Maybe it wasn't the voice acting, but the cheesy dialogues that ruined the sound section. (On the upside, the soundtrack wasn't too bad, and matched the mood quite well.)

Fourthly was the problem with the storyline. I predicted everything, and the storyline was what made the characters so unoriginal and unlikeable all of a sudden. You have the aliens get new positions and responsibilities inouter space. After the initial hype, they realize that they actually didn't like it and miss their old life.

Meanwhile, the evil villain gets broken out of jail after a very 'action packed' action scene and breaks in to Jumbaa's lab to steal his experiment. The experiment was then cloned into 100 others and the hamster wants to conquer Earth. When the main characters find out, they try to stop the evil hamster but gets confronted in some cheesy final showdown against the experiment and owns him in an extremely lame excuse for trying to make the series to look cool. The characters then give up their new privileges and return to Earth to resume their life. Seriously, how many other movies has used that ending already? The that storyline was extremely short and formulaic, so don't expect too much from it.

So Disney has failed in sound, graphics and storyline. The only charm of the series was the original characters, and how they managed to retain the 'feel' of the characters, but even that wasn't able to save the movie. I tried to like it, I really did, but I give it a rating of 4\/10. Another Disney failure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have now seen quite a few films by Pedro Almod\u00f3var, but this would have to be the most disappointing so far. This film seemed to lack the zaniness that is usually everywhere in his films, and the story just never got me interested. Many Almod\u00f3var regulars appear in this film, so it's not like there was a lack of on-screen talent, but this film just seemed more serious than his other films. If there was a comedic edge to this movie, I certainly couldn't find it, and it made for one surprisingly weak movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is my first Almodavar film. I'll confess we chose it mainly because we knew this had the enticing prospect of Antonio Banderas in gay sex scenes.

Unfortunately, that is about all that this film has to recommend it. I consider myself a fairly sophisticated viewer, I like European films, \"art\" films, and I am generally able to recognize a quality film even if it is not to my particular taste.

But this film was a complete blank to me. The plot was ridiculous, the characters lifeless, the box called it a \"hilarious comedy\" but I didn't laugh once. Loosly and awkwardly constructed, with a lot of pointless dialogue. I don't get this at all-- it seems like an amateurish effort. Can someone enlighten me?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Remember when Rick Mercer was funny? 22 Minutes was a great show when Rick Mercer was on it and Made In Canada was a great show once too. Talking To Americans was such a funny special too. But like my friend said \"Rick Mercer woke up one day and wasn't funny any more\" I think that day was when Rick Mercer Report went on the air. What is the point of this show? Rick Mercer reads wacky fake headlines, shows pictures of bad sheds that people mail in and then spends about 20 minutes of the 30 minute show going somewhere and just talking to people hoping to say something witty or clever enough to get on TV and maybe even make somebody somewhere laugh. We're supposed to be interested in seeing Rick Mercer visit a gymnastics team and then try to do some of their moves, and then suck at it on purpose while trying desperately to be \"funny\". Rick Mercer got old or just lost interest or just ain't funny any more. Even his classic rant bits have lost all their bite and humor. You can say that about CBC comedy in general though because how many years have they been sticking Air Farce on TV to deliver the same kinds of useless jokes?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The comments already left for this show are way more funny than the show itself and they are all accurate. I feel exactly the same way, that I am very disappointed at how far Rick Mercer has fallen when he used to do some really great things on This Hour Has 22 Minutes but now he is just clowning around, going places and talking to people. He does some bits in the studio about things going on in the news but they are never funny at all, just really sad and predictable jokes about headlines. Most of his show is him going somewhere to talk to people, for example this week he is going to a rodeo and the video pieces are all of him making funny faces and acting scared of the wild horses, etc. He used to be funny but has gotten way less funny since leaving This Hour Has 22 Minutes and that show is also not funny at all any more. Now that Air Farce is off the air (finally thank goodness!) Mercer and This Hour Has 22 Minutes have got to be next in line for the axe, just old tired predictable comedy that almost nobody finds funny any more. It's sad really considering Rick Mercer used to be the funniest man on Canadian TV!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's 2 stars only because they put a lot of work in making this game look good. I played plenty of good and bad games and I think this game has the dullest story I was ever forced to listen. The best thing they could have done is to let you skip the conversations (but no, you must listen to them talking for 10 minutes) and just continue doing the same things over and over again. Climb the building, save the citizen, go kill some dude. IT'S ALL THE SAME! Ubisoft should really hire someone with some imagination.

I'm a huge fan of Prince of Persia series (first 3). The story was good and you wanted to know what happens next all the time. I don't even hate Prince of Persia 4. But I think anyone who was in charge of developing the story for Assassin's Creed should be banned to write another thing for the rest of his life.

Boring story and same missions over and over again! If just one of these two things was good the game would be worth playing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is hands down the most annoying and frustrating game I have ever encountered. Every time you turn around the game takes control of your character or creates invisible walls that you can't walk through. The cut scenes leave you in control of your character's movements, but only to a slight degree. Also, you have to play the game for about 2 hours just to get past the intro\/tutorials. It's terrible! I am afraid if I play this game any more I will end up breaking something. This game sucks. The graphics are good, but nothing special, the game play, however, is awful. To say I hate this game would be a huge understatement. I got it on sale, but I want my $20 back. What a waste!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This game was terrible. I think they worked too hard on the visuals and didn't do much with the gameplay, which is the most important part. I mean, the visuals look incredible, but is the game really \"fun\"? NO! I mean it's like \"hey let's jump off buildings\" and all I'm doing is holding up and A\/X. The game play just isn't there, and I don't agree with what Ubisoft did, because they had this hot girl (the producer of the game, Jade Raymond), and they were like \"OK we've got this hot girl, let's pimp her\" and if you go to gaming websites, you're not gonna see gameplay stuff of Assassin's Creed, you'll see her face with a microphone and it'll be like \"We interviewed Jade Raymond about her favorite cookies!\" It's like man, shut the F*@K UP WHO CARES?! Apparently...a lot of people do, because they bought the game and like it...I mean compare this game with Super Mario Galaxy. A Wii game that really doesn't abuse the Wii Remote, but STILL is very innovative and delivers in the most important part, GAMEPLAY! They were able to do a bit of everything with Mario Galaxy, the graphics were still stunning, the music in the game was orchestrated and sounded amazing, and THAT'S a game that deserves game of the year. NOT Assassin's Creed, man, it doesn't even deserve to even be a NOMINEE for Game of the Year. The hype around this game where it was like \"oh it's the next generation of gaming\"....really? I think not! So let me get this straight here, because I think the people liking this game are only liking it because they're Jade fans, so I'll tell you guys, JADE WILL NOT MAKE OUT WITH YOU OR ANYTHING IF YOU LOVE OR DEFEND THIS GAME! If you want a REAL game on the PS3, get Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, if you want a REAL game for the Xbox 360, get Call of Duty 4 (and a ton of other games too), and if you want a REAL game just in all the systems? GET SUPER MARIO GALAXY! I know this comment will be hated by many, but seriously, pressing two buttons for doing all this cool stuff, is that REALLY a fun game? The only reason why other games make it more complicated is because after it'll end up being more innovative and fun. And this game just isn't it.

1.3\/10 A LIVING HELL!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This could have been the best game ever!! But the game makers just screwed up after 3 assassinations and the ending!! This is a combination of Prince Of Persia, Hit-man, GTA and Age Of Empires II (Saladin).

Yes these four games mentioned above are considered to be one of the greatest games ever made.

You combine the four and you get this game!! It has all the good aspects of the four games like acrobatic skills, stealth assassinations, open world and the HISTORY!! For the first 3 assassinations you feel this game is greatest!! But after the third, things seem to get so repetitive, that you only hope for the GAME to END.

I have played this on a PC and the PC version is horrible with glitches and the stupid side missions are senseless.

MY advice to all. This is a good game but get it EITHER for the XBOX360 or PS3. DON'T get it for the PC.

Lastly, this game came from the creators of Prince Of Persia. Surely the producer is hot, but the game is not hot and it is NOT better than the four games mentioned above!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sure, the concept had already been done with Alf and the Charmings: thrust modern society onto one or more out-of-place characters. But I loved both shows and watched them religiously until they ended in 1990. When I learned about Scorch, I was actually very hopeful for something new, as new TV in the 90's so far hadn't impressed me (but at least Star Trek: TNG and the Simpsons were still going).

What I got was a big disappointment. The acting was awful, but considering the ridiculous dialogue and wholly unbelievable writing, I can't blame them too much for what they had to work with. There were a few humorous moments, but most of the deliberate jokes seemed forced in their delivery. The whole production work on the show seemed too low-budget for what was on TV at the time. In the 80's it would have fit right in.

Still, it was the first episode and had to introduce the characters and establish the entire premise of the series, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. The second episode wasn't as bad, and I started to get my hopes back that once it got into its stride, the show would improve. Sadly, my VCR ended up not recording the third episode aired, I never got to see it, and the series disappeared from the TV listings after that. All I have now are the first two episodes recorded off the air onto a VHS tape.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This should have been a moody, gritty, movie which lingered in the memory as an exposition of relationship where the dominant personality only survives because the personality being dominated sees no hope of change.

The acting was intense and skillful, the dialogue worked but the movie was irritatingly ineffective: too many distance shots that suggested lack of focus rather than a broader picture. Poor flow. The first 5 minutes could have been missed out altogether.

I suspect that, with a different edit, this movie could have been compelling.

In its current form it is flat, formless and tremendously disappointing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This filmmaker wanted to make a movie without having a story to tell -- and did so. Really awful jumble of unlikely\/unexplained coincidences and unidentifiable plot line, all without character or clear motivation.

We get clich\u00e9 snapshots instead of characters. One in particular is the diminutive and beautiful crime boss, who projects an overdone \"tough guy\" persona and casts a cartoonish shadow of intimidation over the actual tough guys who have been brought in to work for her. Nothing much startling to look at in the film except for one shot when the boys hit the road and one of them carries a tiny suitcase (as in, the smallest from a complete American Tourister set) in a bright, sky blue, without explanation or apology. Otherwise it's standard visually -- one other exception is a compelling shot of a beautiful bridge in CT.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My, my, my: Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance must have been desperate for work to have lent their talents to this turkey. A horribly muddled story about satanism in modern day Greece, Land Of The Minotaur (aka The Devil's Men) is a misfire on more-or-less every level imaginable. It has precious few scares (always a slight flaw for a \"horror\" movie, don't you think?); weak performances; countless scenes where characters foolishly wander off alone or turn down the opportunity to remain in the safety of a group; and some rather irritating editing techniques which add nothing whatsoever to the proceedings. I got prematurely excited at the prospect of Cushing and Pleasance working together 17 years after The Flesh And The Fiends - but this film isn't worth getting remotely excited about; it's a huge let-down and rather an embarrassment for its much worthier leads.

In a remote region of Greece, outsiders such as tourists and archaeologists keep going missing, and local priest Father Roche (Donald Pleasance) suspects that something sinister is afoot. He writes to his friend, New York private eye Milo Kaye (Costas Skouras), asking him to fly out to Greece to help him get to the bottom of the mystery. In the meantime, three more visitors - Beth (Vanna Reville), Ian (Nikos Verlekis) and Tom (Robert Behling), who are all personal friends of Father Roche - go missing while snooping around nearby Greek ruins. Milo eventually arrives in Greece, but is initially dubious about Father Roche's beliefs that the missing people have been snatched for satanic sacrifices. Milo and Father Roche are also joined by Laurie (Luan Peters), the girlfriend of missing man Tom. Together, they uncover the activities of a Minoan devil-worshipping cult headed by creepy Carpathian exile Baron Corofax (Peter Cushing). These crazed cultists have been busily sacrificing their victims to a statue of the minotaur. Furthermore, they seemingly cannot be killed by normal means, so Father Roche has to use a variety of religious artifacts in his fight against them.

Land Of The Minotaur should have been much better than it actually is. The plot is so wacky and improbable that it has all the hallmarks of an enjoyably goofy cult\/camp favourite. But the handling is just awful. Director Costas Carayiannis has no idea how to link the narrative together cohesively, so the whole thing progresses like it was being made up on a day-to-day basis. He also has no idea how to coax convincing performances from his cast, so they are left to embarrass themselves in either dreadfully hammy (Pleasance, Cushing) or dreadfully amateurish (Skouras, Peters) performances. What's worse is that the narrative makes no sense. Why would Father Roche seek help from a private eye who is utterly flippant about his beliefs? How does Roche know that the sacrifices only occur during a full moon? How can the minotaur statue speak? Why is one one of the sacrificial victims instructed during a vision to stab Father Roche, only to herself be stabbed a few scenes later before getting a chance to carry it out? And - most baffling of all - why does Father Roche drag Milo halfway around the world to help him when all he needs is a crucifix and and some holy water to dispose of the bad guys? These questions - and more - will pop into your mind during Land Of The Minotaur.... but, alas, there are no answers to be had. Frustrating, dumb and disappointing!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Devil's Men represents what turned out to be one of the last gasps of the occult obsessed horror scene of the 70's shortly before Halloween came along, tore up the rule book, set fire to it and kicked it screaming through a plate glass window.

To cut a long story short a couple of enterprising Greek film makers fancy their chances of nailing together a new film franchise featuring the unlikely double act of womanising, wise talking American investigator Milo and stuffy but kind hearted priest Father Roche. An exiled nobleman is mixed up in some satanic jiggery pokery - offering up tourists as sacrifices to an extremely unfrightening effigy of the minotaur and only Milo and Roche can stop him!

Or something like that.

The reality is however horribly dull, frustrating and loaded with wasted opportunities. I strongly suspect that the fledgling film makers blew most of the budget on getting Donald Plesance, Peter Cushing and Brian Eno (for the soundtrack) onboard and hoped that would be enough to sway audiences in the English speaking world.

It isn't. The Devil's Men looks beautiful with assured, camera-work and fantastic locations. Eno's score, though basically just a one chord drone that he probably cranked out in an afternoon is suitably atmospheric and the movie is laden with cracking 70's crumpet including that Austrailian sort from Fawlty Towers and uber hottie Jane Lyle of Island of Death infamy. But there the positives end. Cushing sleepwalks through it, looking like he has a corn cob up his bum and Pleasance fusses about trying his best, but never quite getting things right. To make matters worse the character of Milo is appallingly flimsy and unlikeable.

Okay, so it doesn't look that good. But from there the film simply refuses to go anywhere. There is an insinuation that the local villagers are possessed, but to be fair to them, they never really do anything very much other than shuffle about looking glassy eyed. Perhaps they were just tired? Just when you are sure things will come to some kind of a head Milo and Roche interrupt the Baron's satanic party with laughable ease, sending him on to meet his maker. The statue of the minotaur falls silent and hey presto! Satan is defeated.

Yeah right.

The inane optimism that The Devil's Men might be the first of a series of films is hammered home by Father Roche's final line mere seconds before the ridiculously rushed ending.

\"Who knows Milo? Perhaps one day I may call upon you again to help defeat the Antichrist.\"

I'm sure you'll be putting that call in any day now Donald.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Donald Pleasance and Peter Cushing united in one horror film; that always sounds like a terrific plan. Two of the most versatile cult actors of their generation, who previously already starred together in terrific genre outings like \"The Flesh and the Fiends\" and \"From Beyond the Grave\", pairing up in a mid-70's satanic themed exploitation flick. How can this possibly go wrong? Well, unfortunately, it can. To my deepest regret \"Land of the Minotaur\" can hardly even be called mediocre, and that in spite of the cast, the exotic setting, the appealing title and the potentially great sounding premise. In a remote little area in Greece, more particularly near an archaeological site, multiple tourists vanish because Baron Peter Cushing and his docile followers keep feeding them to a fire-breathing Minotaur statue. Cushing, who never looked more bored and uninterested in any role he played before, owns a giant medieval castle and apparently in Greek this means you also own the complementary archaeological ruins and an underground network of caverns. That is of course quite handy if your hobby is the kidnapping of random campers and amateur archaeologists. When three of his young friends also mysteriously disappear in the same area, Father Roch - the priest of a couple of towns before) - decides to investigate. \"Land of the Minotaur\" is a boring and extremely slow-paced horror effort that never really undertakes any major attempts to generate a satanic atmosphere and doesn't bother to elaborate on all the potentially fascinating elements and pagan trivia details. The titular Minotaur, for example, is an intriguing creature of Greek mythology with the head of a bull and the body of a person, but for some inexplicable reason the script never deepens out the significance. Instead, the film focuses on tedious and overly talkative sequences and loud inappropriate music altered with experimental noises. The only reason to even consider giving this major disappointment of a film a chance is because of Donald Pleasance. His portrayal of rude, bossy and old-fashioned priest who criticizes everything that represents modern youth is powerful and reliable as always.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance are legendary actors, and director Kostas Karagiannis was the man behind the successful Greek Giallo-esquire thriller Death Kiss in 1974; and yet when you combine the three talents, all you get is this complete load of drivel! God only knows what drove the likes of Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance to star in this cheapie devil worship flick, but I really do hope they were well paid as neither one deserves something as amateurish as this on their resumes. The story focuses on a group of devil worshippers that kidnap some kids, leading another group to go after them. The pace of the plot is very slow and this ensures that the film is very boring. The plot is also a long way from being original and anyone with even a passing interest in the horror genre will have seen something a bit like this, and no doubt done much better. The obvious lack of budget is felt throughout and the film doesn't manage to overcome this at any point. This really is a depressing and miserable watch and not even a slightly decent ending manages to up the ante enough to lift this film out of the very bottom of the barrel. Extremely poor stuff and definitely not recommended!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How can you go wrong with a film that mixes the sophistication of Peter Cushing, the determination of Donald Pleasence and the bust of Luan Peters? Easy, you give them a terrible script to work with.

Peter Cushing, in an evil role, leads a Satanic cult that has captured a couple friends of Donald Pleasence. Donald plays a determined but aloof priest that desires to locate his friends but needs the help of Fred from Scooby-Doo to locate them. He summons the help of a New York bloodhound, who dresses just like the hero of the cartoon, in his task. Meanwhile, the girlfriend of one of the missing people, Luan Peters, joins the search. If all this sounds interesting, then you, like myself, were mislead.

It doesn't take long for the trio to sniff out the baddies but their methods of bringing the bad guys to justice are foolish. Also, women will find this a crapfest. Every time they get on the bad guys trail, our two male heroes tell Luan to stay at the hotel even though she can handle herself better than the squeamish priest played by Pleasence.

STORY: $ (The script really lets us down. No tension is built. No worthwhile dialogue is given the stars and you'll need both hands to count the number of times Luan Peters is told to stay behind and let men do men work. If you're interested in seeing a minotaur on film don't bother. We get a statue of a minotaur that spits flames).

VIOLENCE: $$ (There are some attacks and a few sacrifices, but those of you who drool for gore will be letdown).

ACTING: $$ (Even though there are three of my favorite actors in this film, there is nothing redeemable here. Peter Cushing doesn't have much screen time, Donald Pleasence is clearly aware that he is on the set of a stinker and Luan Peters is ill-used. This should have been much better given the talent involved, but then again, the Yankees lose a game here and there too).

NUDITY: $ (Luan Peters takes a bath but you see next to nothing. She isn't as obliging here as she was in The Flesh and Blood Show).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Low budget junk about bloodthirsty cultists in Greece headed by Peter Cushing. Its up to priest Donald Pleasance to stop them. Crown International released this crap in 1978, and it was \"dog-of-the-week\" on one of the episodes of Sneak Previews with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. I forget which of the two \"dogged\" it, but I see the point. Crappy movie has the worst Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance performances I've ever seen. There is a monster on the video box. No such beast exists in the movie. Instead you get a statue, but at least its atonomically correct. (Woo hoo!)

The cultists look like the Klu Klux Klowns...if a group could exist. Skip it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While walking to buy cigarettes, the professional dancer Daniel (Tom Long) is abducted and forced to have kinky sex along many days by three hooded women. When he is released, the director of his company Isabel (Greta Scacchi) has already replaced him in the play and his girlfriend gives a cold reception to him. The disturbed and humiliated Daniel leaves the dance company and travels obsessed to seek out the abductors. Daniel has sex with many women that he suspects that might be the kidnappers.

\"The Book of Revelation\" is a weird movie with a promising beginning that loses the initial power and becomes a sort of too long erotic soap- opera or soft-porn chic. The production is classy, the cover of the DVD is awesome but the characters are not well-developed and the trauma of Daniel seems to be excessive since most of the men would fantasize with the dream-situation that he was submitted \u0096 to become sexual object of three sexy women. The melodramatic development with the illness of Isabel does not add any value to the plot; the open conclusion is very disappointing and there are no explanations for the motive of the women or the title. It is very clear that the screenplay about a man's feelings was written by a woman. It was good to see the still beautiful Greta Scacchi again and her make-up in the end is impressive. There is a saying in Portuguese that could be translated to English as follows: \"If the rape is inevitable, relax and come.\" Daniel should have done this and spared me of watching almost two hours of a pointless story. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): \"O Livro das Revela\u00e7\u00f5es\" (\"The Book of Revelations\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here's a couple of paragraphs out of an essay I wrote for university about TBOR.

\"The Book of Revelation is an erotic thriller about sex, power and a talented dancer's struggle to regain his sense of self after being unfortunately raped by three cloaked women. The three women that violate him all have distinctive marks on the bodies; one has a giant birth mark on her buttocks, another has a butterfly tattoo on her lower stomach and the ring leader has a small circle on her breast. So he lives his new life in search of these markings, and to find them on these intimate places he does what any sane man does when he needs to see as many naked women as possible to solve a mystery, he has sex with them. An hour and ten minutes into the film and you feel like he has almost had a piece of every woman in Melbourne.

The film is a giant chunk of pretentious celluloid; it is like grandiloquence drips from every frame. At only one point towards the films final climax does Kokkinos give a scene the same energy and strength as her debut feature Head On had in droves. As like many films funded by the government bodies the film takes it self way to seriously, the script and its execution appear to be chores rather then gifts and unfortunately for the talented thespians, their brilliant performances (particularly Tom Long as the fractured protagonist) are stuck within the confines of a pompous wan k fest.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Many questions arise about the making of this film. The first of which is: Why make a film that plays out as little more than an awkward female fantasy? It's one thing to leave an audience with issues to discuss about a film's intent, it's something entirely different to go into the process of writing a script which fails to adequately address real human issues before they are rendered on the screen.

Why the outrageously melodramatic and often comical soundtrack? Why the excessive and frequently clunky dialogue? Why is the lead character's girlfriend one of the hooded abductors? What purpose is there to turning the lead character's freedom from abduction into a joke by having him complete his \"mission\"? (This is a classic Little Aussie Film moment. Resort to quirky comedy at the most inappropriate moment.) Why so many scenes where absolutely nothing happens? (This accounts for approximately 15 minutes of the film, which is at least 30 minutes too long.) Why, if a man is imprisoned for so many days, does he not endeavor to make a serious attempt at escape?

The Director, who co-wrote the script, has failed on many counts to deliver a satisfactory story.

Dave Garver, Australia.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sure, I like some indie films. A lot, actually. I don't always understand them, and that's okay. Not all of them were meant to be understood, especially by mainly main-stream people like me. I'm probably showing my ignorance, but I'm still puzzled why 'Book of Revelation' is called that. I love those end-of-world stories and the only thing I could see similar to the end of the world and this film was the torture it took to get through this. I'm not talking about the subject matter; perhaps I've been subdued from all the other torture\/porn I've seen. It was just the incredibly slow story, one hour 15 minute material stretched for nearly two hours. (Major spoilers lie ahead) Hetero-man dancer gets abducted, seduced and raped six ways from Sunday, or in this case 12 days, by three hooded women. Upon his release, after his somewhat distraught dancer\/girlfriend barely flinches (other than dropping a glass) after wondering which she missed more: him or the cigarettes she originally sent him for upon abduction. Still in a state of reasonable shock, he refuses to talk, and she goes on to work without so much a hug as if nothing happened and he takes a well needed shower. Problem. As much as he's tormented through the flashbacks to his, uh, \"attacks,\" he's as equally aroused. Granted, I haven't been bound and used as a plaything, but I doubt I would really \"be in the mood.\" Oh, I forgot, and how does he try and solve this crime? Sleep with as many women as he can to try and spot the birthmarks or tats the criminals had. I see where they're going with it \u0096 show a gang rape from the male POV. Fine, twist notwithstanding, you could never feel for this guy. Only saving grace was the good acting of the LifetimeTV Dancer\/Cancer Instructor. But even she couldn't save the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Book of Revelations starts very well. Daniel, an egomaniac dancer is kidnapped, abused and sexually raped by three masked women.

After that, nothing else really happens. There is some hint of rediscovery but the movie gives nor explanation nor a real ending. Daniel reactions after the abuse are very basic. He quits dancing, has sex with every women around and finally starting a relation with very simple and common woman.

I have seen a good share of art-house movies but this has something missing in it.

The main leads are fine; but some characters does not seems to be completely defined.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well it certainly stunned me - I can not believe that someone made another Australian film that's even more boring than Somersault. The story is implausible, the characters, with the exception of Friels' and Mailman's characters, are unlikeable and wooden, Tom Long possesses a VAST array of facial expressions: happy and not happy, and the \"sex scenes\", which could have been very confronting and disturbingly erotic, would have been at home in a low-budget porno flick.

This is the first movie I have seen in 30 years of cinema-going that has had me on the edge of my seat....ready to get up and leave.

The best thing about this movie is the promotional poster.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Firstly, the title has no relevance whatsoever to the movie. It started off fine with good development but got annoying when he couldn't tell his girlfriend what had happened to him. Even his attempt to tell the police failed, which just added to the annoyance value. There were too many pregnant pauses in the movie that seemed more like filler than anything worthwhile. The plot never revealed who did this crime to him although a good plot would have allowed disclosure. The ending was nothing short of \"hey we've run out of budget let's stop it here NOW!!\"...If I'd written a novel that ended this way I'd top myself. TRASH TRASH TRASH!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to agree with what many of the other reviewers concluded. A subject which could have been thought-provoking and shed light on a reversed double-standard, failed miserably.

Rape being a crime of violence and forced abusive control, the scenes here were for the most part pathetic. It would have been a better idea to cover short glimpses of what was happening and let the audience imagine the deed. And the victim's laugh with the cops, when he aborted his police complaint, seemed as genuine as that of the cops. No awkwardness, no hesitance to merely join in. I don't know if this was bad acting and or bad directing but someone missed the point entirely. As for his half-a**ed supposed search for his attackers, pathetic. They should have skipped most of the sex scenes - another monumental failure in themselves, and had him meet Colin Friels when he first went to the police. The story could have then been drawn forth with good dialog and the occasional flashback - and saved by the superior acting and presence Colin Friels - the only reason I watched this movie - brings to any project he does.

The only concrete revelation of this movie, is, it was crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This looks like one of these Australian movies done by \"talented\" students and funded by the government. It is chock full of smart shots of colors and shapes and verbal excursions into Freudian psychology to be appreciated by art students and teachers alike, but in general it is perceived a stupid mockery of good cinema, good storytelling and generally good taste. This what happens I guess when art students become so obsessively indulgent. \"Pink Flamingoes\" is miles ahead one the same subjects. Some porn movies from 70s are far more watchable and inspiring. Book of Revelation is not entirely without merits, but as an overall experience it is well below average B-grade.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was also disappointed with this movie. For starters, the things that happen to him don't seem too terrible to me (Sorry male chauvinist PoV). As is pointedly said by one of the lady captors: \"Most men would _pay_ to be in your position\". To which he replies \"But this is not _my_ choice\". OK, OK, fair point, so how bad was it really? Please let us know. But now the kicker: He does not let _anyone_ know, until after the movie-end (unseen). Not his girlfriend, not is mentor, not the police, not anyone. In stead, he comes up with the brilliant plan of f*ck*ng every girl he knows, so he may recognize the tattoo (or something) of one of his captors. I thought he'd just had enough unpleasant sex during the 12 days of his captivity? Isn't it time to take a little break from all that? For me, his, to put it mildly, ill advised actions broke the \"suspension of disbelief\" of the movie. I took out a book while watching the last half hour out of the corner of my eye.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anna Kokkinos' success with' Head On' now begins to look like it depended totally on the script and Alex Dimitriades great lead performance. The degree to which this latest, \"The Book of Revelation\" is both derivative , pretentious and utterly unoriginal ( except for Tristan Milani's fine cinematography) seems to bear this out. .

Alas, there have already been quite a few Aussie movies dealing with such themes , some reviled for 'sexism' (and\/or explicit sex scenes) in the 1970s and 1980s and beyond and maybe they're worth looking at again after this piece of fluff. Of course, setting the whole thing in the world of ballet and making it all achingly slow (and in its choreography, like a 1960s Dutch Ballet experimental number) does suggest Great Art if you've not traveled around much-and then only if you never progressed beyond Art Theory 101.

Add to the pretension, appallingly arch dialog ( \"you will do as we command...\") and the whole shebang falls onto its well funded face. Then there are the 'sexy' bits : straight from Dario Argento.

Given the lovely but truncated performance by Colin Friels - how about a real city primeval thriller ?

All in, all ,with 'The Book of Revelation' , the feminist project has been set back yet another decade - and with the willing and deeply imitative (of male writers like Henry Miller, William Burroughs, even Bukowski) collaboration of some collective in Melbourne, Oz, suffering from a form of educational -and ideological- amnesia! No revelations await us here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm shocked that all the \"hated it\" ratings are sixes and sevens, still above average. To me, this seems a case of \"the emperor has no clothes\". I understand this film was produced on a very low budget in the early 70's...Regardless, it became a struggle to sit through and watch. The DVD I saw did have some subtitles, but about 75% of the speech is not subtitled. Some of it is hard to understand. The Jamaican patois was cool to hear, but you struggle not to 'tune out' after awhile. Some of the shots were nice, and the realism was there, even if some of the performances were not great.(Jimmy Cliff did a good job) The plot is not bad, but quite predictable. In the 1:43 film, the highlights are Jimmy Cliff(Ivan) singing for a scene, and a couple of shoot-outs and a fight. Probably 15 minutes or so. The rest is pretty boring. BTW, near the beginning of the film, there are some weird cuts with the Ivan character that seem like a editing mistake, which made me laugh for a bit. One reviewer said this film has been cut so many times, that there are few copies of the original 1972 theatrical version out there. The ending was kind of interesting, showing how the media from a young age influences people, it could also be a general comment on the white man's\/colonialism's influence on Jamaica. Other main themes are poverty, corruption, church, ambition... In closing, the soundtrack is definitely worthwhile, the film much less.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"TV director uses astral projection to kill people taking the form of the blue man.

Dull uninvolving horror film that kind of just sits there before your eyes and makes you wonder why you are watching it. I sat through the film to the end and I really can't give you more than a cursory account of what the film was about because I kept finding my attention diverted by other things.

I can't really recommend this. I think my feelings are best summed up by the fact that I paid a dollar for the DVD as a double feature and I feel kind of ripped off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The use of \"astral projection\"(wandering soul), to exist outside of body, with the result inflicting horrible death(..crushing the insides of victims leading to broken spine and ruptured organs)on those close to the one with such ability, is the threat of ETERNAL EVIL, providing Karen Black(..as Janus) with another \"unique\" character to fool around with as a woman who influences a commercial director, Paul Sharpe(Winston Rekert) tired of his waning marriage and dull career. In actuality, she's dying and needs his body, her spirit potentially harmful to his wife and son(..his son has a \"special friend\" who talks him into things, even poisoning himself at one point). A detective, Kauffman(John Novak) investigating the unusual homicides concerning those killed by the benevolent spirit, links Paul to the deaths and through him uncovers Janus. Soon both realize that Janus must be stopped or she'll simply move to another human host. What Paul doesn't know is that his new secretary is Janus' lover, both were actually older intellectuals featured in his documentary of astral projection called WANDERING SOUL.

Director George Mihalka(My Bloody Valentine)certainly creates a weird atmosphere with this movie which contains a rather bizarre premise. It seems that Paul's boy can see the spirit moving in the shape of a \"blue man\", manipulating the kid into disorderly conduct. Black, despite the star treatment, rarely is shot close up taking advantage of her face which can produce the type of malevolent evil her character warrants. Instead, she's shot from afar, her voice dubbed, and she never quite establishes herself with the proper menace which is an opportunity lost, in my opinion. For some reason, despite the intriguing(..if oddball)idea of astral projection causing a spirit to kill folks from within, the film just never takes off. The soundtrack is very \"Yanni-ish\" and the lighting(..and sound), while at times moody and effective, often is quite murky. The pacing is a problem, also, as the story mules along. The cast is rather limp, especially Rekert in the lead, his performance erratic, at best. It doesn't help that there are few characters(..except Paul's wife)we could care less about, and what really hurts is that Paul himself isn't exactly the most lovable person in the world..he can be quite difficult and moody, his unfulfilled career a reason for such behavior. Black should've been a more prominent figure in the film, yet remains mostly in the background, talked about in dialogue between Paul and Kauffman, but rarely does she get a chance to amuse us with her histrionics, which is a shame.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"A bored television director is introduced to the black arts and astral projection by his girlfriend. Learning the ability to separate his spirit from his body, the man finds a renewed interest in his life and a sense of wellbeing. Unfortunately, the man discovers while he is sleeping, his spirit leaves his body and his uncontrolled body roams the streets in a murderous rampage,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

The synopsis isn't entirely correct, as it turns out.

Anyway, the movie opens with a dizzying \"out-of-body\" example of handsome director Winston Rekert (as Paul Sharpe)'s newly discovered \"astral body\" experience; it also foreshadows an upcoming dogfight. Young Andrew Bednarski (as Matthew Sharpe), being a kid, draws pictures of \"The Blue Man\", as his murder spree begins. Handsome detective John Novak (as Stewart Kaufman) discovers the victims are connected to Mr. Rekert. Mr. Novak's investigation leads to the supernatural; a prime example of which is Karen Black (as Janus), with whom Rekert fears he is falling in love.

Several in the cast perform well; but, \"The Blue Man\" winds up tying itself up in a knot. Aka \"Eternal Evil\", its unsatisfying story tries to be far too clever for its own good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a good plot concept, so why-o-why is it such a poor film. The acting is terrible and every shock is signposted so far in advance that it is almost laughable by the time it reaches you. Spend your time and money elsewhere, this is not worth watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I never figured out what the attraction of Karen Black was. She always had those beady eyes and kind of an odd look about her. She seemed to often be eccentric or cast as the \"other\" woman. In this one, she is the psychic adviser and expert on the occult to a crummy producer of bad commercials as he learns astral projection. He is a mean sucker, even without the new baggage. Apparently this is the avenue to immortality, because if you get good at it, you can inhabit the bodies of future generations. I believe Star Trek had a plot like this with Jack the Ripper hanging on for several centuries. Anyway, this guy is really dangerous. He has a nice family and makes them miserable. He begins to murder friends, just because they have an unkind comment for them, or he doesn't like them. You can see the ending coming from the back row in left field. It's a very harsh, humorless movie. Most of it must be taken as truth. Why are some called but few chosen? I found it long and not very satisfying.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"AALCC informs us that 14-year-olds can be pretty obnoxious and vicious. To those who don't know that, the film performs a public service. Otherwise, it's a lot of flashy videography with little or no reason for being. I will allow that the camera-work is sometimes striking, but also that it can be madly self-indulgent at other times. The actors occupy screen space and screen time, but do not compute as compelling human beings. I suppose the e-mail that flashes across the screen throughout means that you have to figure out which character has which moniker, but I simply couldn't tell enough differences to do so, and really didn't care anyway.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wish it were \"Last Dumb Thriller\". But thrillers are like that. They are like children: numerous, illogical, and often annoying. They want so desperately to be taken seriously but what is there to take seriously about a child's behaviour or a thriller's plot? Having seen this particular child - I mean... thriller - I understand why reviewers refer to it as \"a hitchcockian thriller\"; they might as well have called it \"idiotic\" for that's what \"hitchcockian\" means in the movie dictionary (look it up, if you don't believe me). Even the soundtrack is old-school Hollywood which is a mistake: it doesn't fit a late 70s film and makes it look phony. Besides, how dare they steal De Palma's idea of stealing from Hitchcock?! The story is absurd. Scheider's wife is killed, and her killers are never an issue. Instead, first his former employers follow him around, and later decide to kill him. Why do they decide to kill him? No explanation. Perhaps because the FBI is a dark, dark organization (\"X-Files\") which is very trigger-happy about knocking off its former employees for pension-funds reasons. Or perhaps because it's fashionable to want to kill Scheider in this movie; everyone seems to be after him. And while the poor unsuspecting viewer is trying to figure out the mystery by logically assuming that there is a major conspiracy, in reality the killer is... Janet Margolin! Yes, the woman occupying Scheider's living quarters; the one that briefly hinted she was \"depraved\". Why does she go after Scheider at precisely a time when his wife was murdered and he is feeling paranoid - and followed by his own ex-employers - and not a few years earlier or few years after the wife's murder? A pure hitchcockian (look it up again in the dictionary, in case you forgot what it means) coincidence. And how about that brilliant motive of hers...! Her grandmother was forced into prostitution when she was a fresh-off-the-boat 15 year-old virgin in NY, and then syphilisized by a bunch of horny Jewish men, one of whom - tah-dah! - is Scheider's grandfather. As a result, Margolin has been playing a hooker in her spare time (among other things) in order to kill off all the descendants of the men who so cruelly syphilisized her once-virginal grandmother. How hitchcockian (look it up) is that? The finale then shamelessly rips off the Mount Rushmore scene from \"North By Northwest\", except that the love-interest is a killer and she doesn't get saved.

The movie also offers some dubious\/off-kilter dialog and some not-so great acting. Check out the silly and obvious way in which Napier follows Scheider at the cemetery. Let's also not forget the moronic plot-device of Napier reaching for his jacket and holding his hand very suspiciously - but it wasn't a gun! How brilliant! Napier in the tower: now, there's another string of illogical behavioural patterns. J. Demme was, is, and always will be a director without style, without flair, and the man who directed \"Philadelphia\". Let's give him another Oscar!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jonathan Demme is such a character-oriented director that, to see him pulling a Brian De Palma (which is to say, aping Hitchcock), it is nearly predictable when he fails to work up much suspense within this tepid mystery. Working from a screenplay by David Shaber, from Murray Teigh Bloom's novel, Demme attempts to strike a chord somewhere between Alan J. Pakula's paranoia dramas and Hitchcock's dangling-participle thrillers. Roy Scheider stars as a retired Secret Agent mourning the murder of his wife who is now busy dodging bad guys who are out to kill him. Takes off right away, but the script is full of flimsy threads and any excitement dies out quickly. There's a visually impressive climax at Niagra Falls, but Demme gets little out of his cast, and even less out of this bummer of a story. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Congo is another multi-milion dollar adaptation of Crichton's works. Like Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Sphere, etc, the film raped the book of its true meaning and essence. I'll make this short and to the point. The scenery is beautiful. The actors, well it's the best they can do. The script? Try congesting hundreds of pages into an hour and half movie. You get a mess in the end but how neat of a mess is what counts and Congo falls somewhere below that. There were some silly moments, like why did the killer gorillas decide to jump into the lava? And Amy, raised by humans, surrounded by humans, yet can intimidate dozens of killer apes around her? What sort of twist of common sense is that? Which brings me to this. If there was an annoying character in every movie, Amy ranks of one here. You see Amy is this naive little female ape who can talk with a special backpack and harness strapped to her. Neat idea, but it gets annoying after awhile hearing her talk. Congo is worthwhile to see, and not deplorable, but certainly not a memorable film either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard to tell if this ham-brained B-movie adventure is a spoof, a homage or just plain bungled, but it doesn't work whichever way you look at it. Based on Michael Crichton's so-so novel, it's a nutty mixture of lost cities, giant hippos, monster monkeys, naff visual effects and corny dialogue. The first thing that scuppers this tosh is the gorilla that can communicate in sign language, and needless to say the film doesn't get any better from that point on. Making all this old rope somewhat worthwhile are Tim Curry, turning in a feverish slice of ham and sporting a bizarre accent that defies identification, and Ernie Hudson, who also seems to know that this is all a load of old rubbish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm really not too sure why people are being so complimentary about this odd movie. Having said that - I did actually sit through the entire 2 hours and can't say it wasn't entirely un-entertaining.

I think the key problem is that Frank Marshall is not a true director and this is clear in the film - he is an experienced producer, so will have seen a movie made many a time, and will understand what goes into the process. But I think this is quite different to being able to truly direct a movie - the direction was competent, but somehow flat and direction-less. Marshall has more experience as a unit or second director, and this came through, I feel, in the finished product - it appeared to be a group of sets that failed to really have any continuity in its feel or its character.

Fun, watchable, but good? No.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is just one of those movies that continually make you groan and that I wished was over. The problems are many and the good points are few. I feel the main problem with this movie is that it has what amounts to a cheesy plot and they try to make it out to be a epic movie, which a movie about super evil monkeys and smart ones that sign just is not epic, it is cheese. When you have cheese you make the movie more fun. Granted, the final scene with the monkeys and that laser was very nice to watch and more of things of that nature was needed. Instead the actors are doing such a serious job that you feel the movie just has a corny plot amid all the serious tension the movie is trying to set up. The plot revolves around a woman trying to find what happened to her missing ex-husband while also searching for some sort of legendary diamonds. She uses these two guys who trained an ape to do sign language and now wish to return her to the wild as cover to get into the country and begin the mediocre adventure of a lifetime. The only things that make this movie somewhat tolerable is Ernie Hudson's character and the laser attack at the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is a shame that such a great book was turned into such a terrible movie. I could not wait to see this movie after reading the book....it really did not do it justice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Poorly acted and poorly directed, \"Congo\" unsuccessfully tries to recreate the feeling of \"Jurassic Park\". But the truth is, the book wasn't all that great either. Still, the movie's first problem is that Tim Curry's character was added; the second problem is that the talking arm was added; the main problem, though, is that the cast members don't create realistic characters. I guarantee that this movie will not make you think that there are killer gorillas anywhere on earth. Also starring Laura Linney (happy birthday, Laura!), Dylan Walsh, Ernie Hudson, Grant Heslov, Joe Don Baker, James Karen and Bruce Campbell; I'm guessing that they don't wish to emphasize this movie in their resumes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As an avid cinema go-er i felt that whilst i was ranking my favourite movies i felt it only fair to rank my most hated films.

I'm afraid i really have nothing positive to say about this movie. It is in fact one of only two films that i have ever walked out on. In fairness I went back and watched the movie again to give it another chance and sat through it only to wish that i should have stayed away.

The sad thing is the movie has a really decent cast and crew...but then even the brightest stars in Hollywood cant bring a dead duck of a script to life.

Stay away...Save yourself from this truly woeful 'film' 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of people goes deep into the jungle for various reasons, and finally find a lost city (where apparently King Solomon's Diamonds are) and a race of super-gorilla's... Now, you know you're in trouble when you put fine actors like Linney and Curry in one movie that stars... a talking gorilla, and that is just the beginning. Okay, what else...?

For an action\/adventure movie the film is... well, lacking just that. The first hour (!) of the movie they aren't even in the jungle, just trying to get there, with subplot after subplot (something about a local military regime, whatever), and when they finally do... it's just no fun anymore.

The effects of the movie are only so-and-so (and really bad compared to the earlier Jurassic Park movie).

Now, the ending... The father not caring for the death of his son, but just interested in the diamonds? Uh-huh... only in the movies folks, only in the movies.

A complete waste of talent, this Chricton (Jurassic Park, Twister, ER) adaptation. 2\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After a string of successful 'a man and his monkey films', which included the seminal \"Every Which Way But Loose\", \"Every Which Way You Can\" and \"Peter's Friends\", the genre fell on hard times. In an effort to rejuvenate this once celebrated area, director Frank Marshall brought Michael Crichton's acclaimed novel to the big screen.

Think 'Gorillas in the Mist' meets 'Tron' minus the box-office clout of Bruce Boxleitner. This is one mans doomed love affair for his talking monkey. Not helped by bad accents (Tim Curry struggles with a Romanian), a baboon of a screenplay, hungry hippos, skydiving primates and Bruce Campbell. Ape-Sh*t.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"publicity got me to the theatre

advice will take you away from this waist of time.

very bad everything.

do you really want to see a monkey talking with a technological device?

X","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd give this film a zero if I could. How anyone could rate it any higher is beyond me. Until I saw Rollerball, this was my pick for worst film ever from a major studio with a real budget (claiming Mangler 2 or Leprechaun in the Hood as the worst ever isn't really saying much, those are supposed to be bad)

Tim Curry's mom must have needed surgery or something for him to agree to this non-sensical garbage. I'm really not sure what happened here. The novel was great, the director Frank Marshall had a solid track record with Alive and Arachnophobia (perhaps they should have changed the title to 'Africa'), the cast was good and the budget was there. You'd think someone would have bothered to read the script.

You'd be better off watching Battlefield: Earth again than wasting your time with. Congo makes you long for the return of MST3K","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Congo\" is based on the best-selling novel by Michael Crichton, which I thought lacked Crichton's usual charm, smart characters and punch. Well, sorry to say, but the same goes for the film.

Here's the plot:

Greed is bad, this simple morality tale cautions. A megalomaniacal C.E.O. (Joe Don Baker) sends his son into the dangerous African Congo on a quest for a source of diamonds large enough and pure enough to function as powerful laser communications transmitter (or is it laser weapons?). When contact is lost with his son and the team, his daughter-in-law (Laura Linney), a former CIA operative and computer-freak, is sent after them. On her quest, she is accompanied by gee-whiz gadgetry and a few eccentric characters (including a mercenary (Ernie Hudson), a researcher with a talking gorilla (Dylan Walsh), and a a nutty Indiana-Jones-type looking for King Solomon's Mines (Tim Curry). After some narrow escapes from surface-to-air missiles and some African wildlife, they all discover that often what we most want turns out to be the source of our downfall.

The actors in this movie were not talented. Dylan Walsh acts like a pathetic crybaby, especially at the end; Ernie Hudson is unconvincing (is it no wonder he went on to star in TV films?) and Laura Linney is nothing special. I think I can safely say the only talented actors in this film had very small roles: Joe Don Baker and Tim Curry, an always enjoyable actor (although sometimes scarred for life by constantly being reminded of his \"Rocky Horror Picture\" days).

This movie also had some other problems, including awful direction style, cheesy dialogue and a just-plain-boring plot, which was completely hashed when compared to Crichton's novel.

Not even Stan Winston's creature effects could save this movie from being a disaster. I am deeply disappointed in this movie; there was not even a campy quality to redeem itself with. It was just plain awful, cheesy, boring and ridiculous, and proves to be one of the worst Crichton book-to-film productions.

2\/5 stars -

John Ulmer","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's see: there's a civil war, a lost city, a talking gorilla, some regular gorillas, a previously unknown species of killer albino gorilla, the most powerful laser ever known to man, a *lot* of diamonds lying mined and loose in the sand, attack hippos, an active volcano, and a hot air balloon packed in a suitcase in a downed plane. That's not too much, is it? I've had more coherent fever dreams (\"... and then the Romanian guy picked up a bunch of diamonds, because this was a lost city that he had been looking for or something, but then the mean gorillas that we had seen before came out of nowhere and ate him. Now somehow the talking gorilla was back from visiting the regular gorillas, and, as a kind of earthquake or volcano started, the woman industrialist\/doctor built a gun using a laser and this big diamond she had just found in her dead fiance's hand...\"). It's a blast if you're looking for more ammunition against the pernicious influence of Michael Crichton in American entertainment (and hence world entertainment), and if you keep firmly in mind the extent to which this cynical and half-hearted attempt fell on its face at the boxoffice. But, sadly, the men responsible -- Crichton, sceenwriter John Patrick Shanley, director Frank Marshall -- probably never lost a dime. Shame on them, and I mean that. 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The book, while not particularly great, was decent, but this movie completely changes it. A lot of the elements of the story are consistent between the book and the movie, but Dr. Ross' character goes from a creatively written character who lives for money and ends up causing the volcanic eruption with her greed to a heart-on-her-sleeve damsel in distress who won't do anything if she even catches the slightest hint that it might be less than noble. When movies change the book that much but keep the same name, it should be a crime.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anyone who has seen the piece of steaming smelly poo called Congo understands my title. And I feel for you. This movie wasn't just bad. It was painful. The book was stupid, the script was even dumber and the cast was terrible. Dylan Walsh? Rumor has it Julia Roberts dumped your ass cause this movie blew so bad. Huge diamonds? Killer gorillas? Talking gorillas? Hmmm. Sounds like a hit! OH! Tim Curry's accent is so bad in this movie I would prefer being deaf! I recommend this movie to bulimics looking to purge after a heavy meal or Kavorkian patients who just need that one more reason to die. If this is faithful to the book, I would say lets have us a good old fashion Footloose book burning and destroy every copy. If future generations look back and find this garbage, how would we explain ourselves? Listen to the others who hated this movie! Don't watch it! Run away! DO NOT WATCH this movie! If you think it is full of action or suspense or cool effects, YOU ARE WRONG! If you think it blows more cock than Nicole Ritchie, you'd be right. So if you still are going to watch Crapo..,.I Mean Congo, I say do it after you just took 50 Tylenol PM.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love bad movies: Showgirls, Plan 9 from Outerspace, so on. And this movie fits right in. Don't believe anyone who tells you this is good film. It's downright awful. Tim Curry's accent moves from German to Portuguese to Hungarian. There's a person in a gorilla suit who is supposed to be able to communicate using a glove that interprets the ape's sign language. There is a scene with a killer hippo that moves around a river like a Great White Shark. There are people hopping up and down Mt. Kilimanjaro as if there were escalators installed on it. This thing is laughably ridiculous. So ridiculous I was rolling on the floor. It is totally implausible. I loved every minute of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you can make it through this flick without laughing out loud at the screen, you are a better filmgoer than I.

Count the logic lapses, common-sense leaps, and credibility stretches... betcha need more than two hands!

P.S.: If one more film uses a location that is clearly UCLA, and claims that it is a different university (in this movie's case: Berkeley), I'm going to lose it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a highly-hyped movie prior to its release, but turned out to be a dud. I never talked to one person who ever liked this movie. I agree: I didn't like it, either. Perhaps one big reason it wasn't a box office success was that it had nothing but unappealing characters in the story.

For awhile there - I don't know if this is still true - I hadn't any movie in which Laura Linney or Dylan Walsh played anything BUT annoying characters.

That, and a stupid story, make this film a big disappointment, especially considering that big buildup. Did the filmmakers, with dialog this dumb, really think this was going to be a hit?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"CONGO is probably the worst big-budget movie of the 1990s. It is so bad that it is watchable over and over again. A bunch of folks with different agendas probe deep into darkest Africa, where they encounter a temple of riches just like in KING SOLOMON'S MINES -- but with cannibalistic gorillas guarding those riches. On their side, the humans have a \"talking\" gorilla named Amy who helps save the day at one point or another. So much for the plot. The dialogue throughout is witless, the acting almost uniformly atrocious, certainly campy (Tim Curry and Ernie Hudson are both on hand to assure the ham factor), and the special effects abysmal. Wait until you see the cannibalistic gorillas. And the lava! Oh yes, did I mention there's a volcanic eruption to top off the big finale? Laura Linney of all people is along for this bumpiest of rides. What could she have been thinking? This is right around the same time she appeared with Richard Gere and Ed Norton in PRIMAL FEAR, a movie that helped guarantee her stardom.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just watched Congo on DVD.In most cases I love these kind of movies but this one is different. It made me write my first comment for a movie on IMDb. I was amazed how such a team of experienced filmmakers could come up with this movie as a result. You can see there was a lot of money for this production but you can't make a good movie if you don't have a good script. And as a producer Frank Marshall gave us plenty of great movies to watch; he never should have tried to become another Spielberg. This one shows how hard it is to make a good movie, maybe you've got all the ingredients but if you can't cook stay out of the kitchen. If Can make a suggestion don't spend your money on this one. If you want to see it watch it on television first and make up your own mind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of Crichton's best books. The characters of Karen Ross, Peter Elliot, Munro, and Amy are beautifully developed and their interactions are exciting, complex, and fast-paced throughout this impressive novel.

And about 99.8 percent of that got lost in the film. Seriously, the screenplay AND the directing were horrendous and clearly done by people who could not fathom what was good about the novel. I can't fault the actors because frankly, they never had a chance to make this turkey live up to Crichton's original work. I know good novels, especially those with a science fiction edge, are hard to bring to the screen in a way that lives up to the original. But this may be the absolute worst disparity in quality between novel and screen adaptation ever. The book is really, really good. The movie is just dreadful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh God. Why is it that Nickelodeon has such a hard time producing even a half-decent movie? I mean, this movie might have been good, but it was:

A. Too short B. Rather superficial, stereotypical, and insulting to some C. Ultimately pointless

First of all, the \"dress up the nerd to look cool\" thing was VERY consumerist, VERY superficial, VERY pointless, and VERY insulting. It has the stereotypical nerds-stupid faces, glasses, never kissed, vacations with his mom, etc. Well maybe the reason that guy has never kissed a girl is because he's gay! Does that mean that all gays are nerds? And what's wrong with being friends with your mother?

The worst part, by far, was the ending. The whole drama of the movie revolved around Zoey finding out Chase loved her, and blah blah blah, and then, when Chase finally decided to tell her,

A. he didn't tell her in person because right as he was about to the typical distraction came along B. he tried to text message her, but her PDA fell into a fountain and died before she got the message.

The End.

HOW LAME IS THAT????? I mean, why is it that cartoonists just can't change anything in the series? So many of us would like to see these two get together. Why can't we see it? I mean, are the producers really that uncreative, that they can't think up new problems to go with changes in the series? So they have to stick with the same plot and outlines, and make as many episodes as they can just using those? After a while, it gets dull and frustrating.

I WANTED TO SEE SOME ACTUAL ROMANCE IN HERE, DARN IT!

Okay. I'm done with my rant.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ughh this movie is awful. The script is stupid and of course chase doesn't tell zoey he doesn't love her!!! Like every episode...ill never understand zoey 101 (the show) Also , why the heck does Logan's dad act SO retarted. And its only about zoey and chase what about the other characters. Its always the same in every episode Quinn makes and invention something goes terribly wrong with the invention and zoeys brother always gets involved in it. If you haven't seen it don't waste an hour watching this cuz you'll be wasting your time!!SMaybe this may be interesting to an eight year old well 8- 10 but i cnat imagine any1 older watching this retarted film. But what can you expect from nick???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh My God, this is so idiotic. Completely pointless, offensive, and repulsive. Why do the writers have such a problem with actually getting Zoey and Chase together we all want them too! in normal shows, there's actually MORE THAN ONE plot conflict in the show, wow, what a concept. also, you cant even tell the Zoey 101 episodes apart from each other because the same thing happens every time. Quinn exploits Dustin for some weird thing, Nicole is giggly and stupid, Zoey is just kinda there, Chase slobbers after her all the time but she amazingly fails to notice, and Logan is a jerk. repeat. Quinn exploits Dustin for some weird thing, Nicole is giggly and stupid, Zoey is just kinda there, Chase slobbers after her all the time but she amazingly fails to notice, and Logan is a jerk. repeat. it's like a shampoo bottle. and the end of the movie, omg again. so pointless NOTHING HAPPENS. it's like they specifically designed it so that the movie could fit between any two episodes of the show and the show would go completely unchanged after the movie plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't say I was surprised at this atrocity when I watched it a couple months or weeks ago (can't remember). I saw it as a two part episode of Zoey 101, because that's how they showed it here in Canada.

I was incredibly annoyed at the Makeover a Nerd thing, it's just an example of how unaccepting, unappreciating, superficial, negative, biased, and stereotypical the people in the entertainment business is and frankly I'm extremely peeved. It wasn't at all funny. A nerd is a stereotype and it makes people very offended.

Secondly, the people in Zoey 101 don't have real problems. Logan has a big house, he has a famous dad, he has everything and Zoey is rich too. They never have to deal with the things that today's tweens and teens have to do deal with such as peer pressure, and stereotype problems. Also, the actors are horrific. Jamie Lynn Spears doesn't deserve to be in a television show as successful as Zoey 101 (what is wrong with the world?), she doesn't have any talent as an actor. In fact, she's worse than Britney! The Chase and Zoey thing was incredibly predictable, I mean how could the show go on with Zoey and Chase dating? What other problems could they possibly have? Except for the fact that Chase doesn't get the girl he wants, everything is perfect! The absolute worse 48 minutes of my television watching life. Ever. 0\/10 (and that's being generous)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's not really that much wrong with Crash of the Moons. Basically it's a few episodes of Rocky Jones, Space Ranger merged into a film. It is extremely dated, however. Winky's treatment of Vena is a good example of this. One has to remember that it was geared to be shown to children in the 1950's. In this respect, it succeeds. If you like children's sci-fi from the 1950's, go ahead and take a look at it. You'll see John Banner in a pre-sgt. Schultz role. He does a pretty good job in it. All in all, I'd give it a 6 out of 10. Not great, but not bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"By all appearances this serial could have been made any time since the mid forties. The cardboard sets, the moon kings with lightning bolts sewn onto their aprons, you know the drill. This one is a Rocky Jones adventure, featuring the space cop's dealings with the insufferable Bitch Queen of planet Offeecious, a commie planet that won't join the United Planets. When the noble messengers of intergalactic reason announce that Offeecious is on a collision course with this other, vaguely Slavic planet, Bitch Queen decides to blow the other guys up rather than evacuate her land. This introduces a moral to the effect of \"The greatness of a nation is not in its land, but its people,\" which is hammered home five or six times in the climactic talkfest. The BQ's constant nasal ranting about \"OffEEEEcious\" provides relief from some seriously wanting space effects, is this a TV show?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this movie for a couple of dollars at a \"Clearance warehouse sale\" one day when just looking around. The cover looked pretty good, (in colour), but the movie is B&W, (I wish they wouldn't try to trap us with coloured covers on B&W movies, but it's a common thing to look out for!).

When I watched it I was pleasantly surprised. It turned out to be better than I expected. I was disappointed that it was a B&W, but the effects are pretty good, certainly better than, say, \"Invaders from Mars\" which has crappy effects, and it is great to see John Banner in something else apart from Hogan's Heroes.

Overall, this movie isn't too bad for a B grade, and certainly worth the two dollars from a nostalgia point of view. It isn't my favourite sci-fi, but it's not my worst either. It's o.k.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh boy! I really trashed Manhunt in Space. I think this flopper deservedly rates worse than Manhunt. It goes nowhere and fungi growth was more exciting than this tripe.

Poor Cleolanta. She's so misunderstood. Smug Rocky struts around and thankfully, there's no mention from Winky about his \"gay nightlife\". There's a lot more talking, a really awful (to watch) space marriage on the rocks, and crappy space effects cut-outs. Then, there's Bobby. You decide who's more annoying: Bobby or the Winkster? Personally, I'd jettison them out of an airlock into a black hole not before first subjecting them to killer flesh eating alien mutants.

At least there's Vena. She's just a cosmic girl!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"TANDEM is an odd slice in the Japanese pink genre-as it has the requisite sex-scenes and misogynistic tone that is all but required for these types of films-but also throws in a disjointed drama\/dark-comedy storyline that seems like it'd have been better suited for a different type of film.\u00a0

The film starts with two lone guys at a restaurant-each daydreaming about a previous sexual encounter. One is a mutual subway groping, the other a pretty typical (for this type of film) semi-rape scenario. The two pervs meet and start talking after one lends the other a cigarette. They hang out for an evening and talk a bit about their respective sex- lives. The film is inter-cut with flashback scenes of both of the men's interactions with the women that are central in their lives. The two men have a falling out and the film ends on a weird but predictable note...\u00a0

I really don't know what to make of TANDEM. It sorta comes off as a soft-core, 'odd couple' type of anti-buddy-film, but doesn't really explore the subject-matter to any satisfying degree. There's also not much of the typical extreme sleaziness often so prevalent in these types of films-so I can't really figure out what the point was. I also cant quite tell if the film was supposed to be funny, depressing, or both. \u00a0I think that TANDEM could have had some potential as a more serious drama film with a dark-comedy edge- but as a soft-core sex film that tries to be too 'smart' for its own good-it just doesn't work. \u00a0 Can't say I hated this one-but can't say there's anything notable about it either. 4\/10\u00a0","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, and BORING!!! It's not the worse film I ever saw, on the contrary, but.......how shall I put this.......IT'S BORING! There is some very nice scenery and some clever dry wit but that's about it. If it was advertised as a travelogue I would rate it a 7 but it's supposed to be a film with a plot, some drama, and for god's sake a point or a satisfying conclusion.

I read some of the comments on this board about this films and I wondered if they saw the same movie as I did.

See this film (yawn) at your own risk........one thing for sure- it really is rated correctly= G RATING! (Which most stand for GOD AWFUL BORING!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst movies I saw in the 90s. I'd often use it as a benchmark when viewing other films; \"At least it wasn't as bad as Caro Diario.\" Three absolutely pointless segments, all featuring the director playing himself -- and he's not that interesting. A whole segment about this hypochondriac going to the doctor. Another that features him riding around the countryside on his scooter. For three interesting minutes and another fifteen torturous ones.

The only redeeming factor was that the scooter scene was set to Keith Jarrett's 'Koln Concert'. Prompted me to go home and rediscover that marvelous album. The best thing you can say about the director\/actor\/egotist is that he's got great taste in music.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow. I thought, Eskimo Limon was the most awful and embarrassing first-sex movie ever. But I had forgotten that Germany always tries to compete. In this case, the well-known German film producer Bernd Eichinger was successful in producing even worse crap. Harte Jungs is stupid, not believable and predictable, and above all: not funny. It's almost a tragedy that so many kids went to see this in Germany (and, I'm afraid, also Austria).

Tobias Schenke, 19, looks too nice to have no girlfriend and too ripe to be 15, and his character is too dumb to be true. Schenke tries real hard to make us believe that he doesn't know ANYthing about sex, but that doesn't help. Harte Jungs seems to be made by someone who watched Al Bundy and took him too seriously.

The best actors in the movie are Sissi Perlinger and Stefan J\u00fcrgens who play Schenke's semi-liberal parents. Perlinger and J\u00fcrgens are stand-up comedians who are not particularly talented in movie acting. Still, their performances are the `best' and `funniest' in comparison.

A complete failure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was so bad, I want God to give me an extra two hours of life having had to sit through it.

First off, the acting was uniformly bad. There was barely a plot, unless \"Shaggy dog story with a guy in a rain poncho and skeleton mask instead of a dog\" counts.

The editing was was all over the place, and the slow-mo shots of the \"gore\" (red corn syrup flying through the air--doubtless flung using a spoon) got irritating after the tenth time, and infuriating after the hundredth time.

I like Michael Rooker. He's done some good work. This was not good. This was less than good. And by that, I mean that it sucked. Hard.

For god's sake, don't watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie tries to rip off Predator, but that movie is much better. This movie has truly terrible special effects and a mindless plot. The team that enters the forest to find the cause of the disappearances of military and scientist is a combo of rough and rugged male delta commandos and pretty but tough female rangers. None of them are too bright. All the characters seem to be more than willing to run off into the forest alone and headfirst into a spear or sword and their death. Some of the pyrotechnics are very big and must have cost a bundle. But the close-ups of the creature are laughable as are most of the death scenes. Every clich\u00e9 that the writers could think of was used. If you're looking for a mindless slaughter fest, this may fill the bill. The night I watched this was very slow so I sat through the whole thing. I have to admit that it's been a while since I watched something this bad. There is very little to redeem this movie. I'm amazed that junk like this gets produced.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where to start? Some guy has some Indian pot that he's cleaning, and suddenly Skeletor attacks. He hits a woman in the neck with an axe, she falls down, but then gets up and is apparently uninjured. She runs into the woods, and it turns out there's the basement of a shopping center out there in the woods. She meets a utility worker and Skeletor attacks again. Luckily, like any good utility worker, he's got a gun and shoots at the guy. Doesn't work, everything starts on fire.

Cut to some people walking through the woods. Even though they've been hiking together for some time, they sit down and introduce themselves to each other. Wouldn't they have probably done that when they first met? Anyhow, they're \"undercover\" Delta team members (undercover, I suppose, because that way they don't have to pay to dress them in uniforms). The cute girls are various things such as a sniper school instructor and, oh, I can't remember the rest. It doesn't matter. Eventually they all take their guns out and immediately start aiming them at various things. ? Anyhow, they meet an old Indian who is sitting out in the woods. He wants beans. You know, like pork and beans? He mumbles some stuff, I can only assume that it's the premise of the movie. I relied on having heard the premise from the commercials, because you can't really understand anything he says.

So, they walk around the woods some more. All the dialogue is a load of quasi-military, macho BS. I mean all of it, as in every single word. Like \"This reminds me of when we were in Kabul\" or \"This reminds me of when we were in Laos\". Skeletor attacks again. Let me give you a rundown of a basic attack. One of the female characters is crouched behind a tree and she aims her gun at the approaching guy on the horse. For some reason, she doesn't fire but yells several times for someone else. Then as Skeletor approaches, she jumps out from behind the tree so that Skeletor can stick her with his spear. Then everybody starts shooting. The bullets cause sparks to fly from the trees. Apparently the folks who made this movie never shot a tree with a bullet. They don't make sparks.

Then Casper Van Diem is all of a sudden driving a semi-truck, trying to run over Skeletor. He misses, and the truck slides to a stop. Van Diem is injured, apparently he slid across the seat and bumped his hip on the window crank or something, so he crawls out of the truck and it explodes. Later he's in the woods dying and everybody says a bunch of quasi-military, macho BS. They meet a couple guys in the woods and blow their \"undercover\" status by immediately identifying themselves as being from the Army. They beat on the guys for some reason, then they go away.

Some other stuff happens, people mumble, the camera shakes, etc.

I think it comes to an end eventually.

My theory is that the Sci-Fi Channel is getting a little annoyed with everyone bashing their movies, so they put this out to remind us all how bad movies can really be. Like, you think our movies are bad? Well, you haven't seen bad. HERE'S BAD!!! Okay, now that we've got that out of the way, the rest of our movies are pretty good in comparison, right?

Well, it's just a theory.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, where to begin with this one. Well, if you enjoy laughing at the utter failures of filmmakers, then this one is for you. I bought this movie for 5 bucks because I never pass up an opportunity to laugh at B-movie God Casper Van Dien's blunders, and boy was this one of them. It may have been enough that this movie contains the single most lame movie monster ever. This thing, which is supposed to be an Indian ghost, looks more like a plastic candy bowl skeleton that you put on your front porch on Halloween. He dons a cape that is clearly a garbage bag, complete with what appears to be a bucket-shaped bonnet over his head. At some points this is a man in costume, at others it is clearly a plastic prop placed on top of a horse. This monster has the uncanny ability to see with \"predator\" vision, a clear rip-off, and can miraculously appear after throwing his spear. Sometimes the spear cuts people, sometimes it doesn't. This thing also manages to down a helicopter with a single arrow. Wow, this makes a much sense as when the kid blows up a spaceship with a firecracker at the end of \"Critters.\" This creature is impervious to bullets, but somehow dies at the end of the movie. At the end of his killing spree, which we never really find out why he is on, he gets blown up. This is an incredible feat, for we had already seen this thing blow up 3 times in the film. But, I guess this last time was the charm.

And don't even get me started on the lameness of the other characters. First of all, what Delta Force unit employs women? Last I checked the military still disallows women into combat situations. Also, this unit is \"undercover.\" Why? What possible reason would they have to be undercover? And they're not even good at it, I guess no one would realize that they were military if they didn't have on uniforms, BUT THEY WERE ALL CARRYING MACHINE GUNS (which incidentally change sound effects throughout the film, at some points sounding like air rifle BB guns, and at others, canons). There is one part when the Skeleton Man throws some construction workers from a catwalk, and you can clearly see the pad that they fall onto. At another point. Michael Rooker falls down a hill that is clearly flat ground. They tilted the camera slightly to give the appearance of an incline, but he is clearly pushing himself along in this looooooonnnnnggggggg fall scene. Then when he is helped back up the hill, the rope is flat, and when it shows the woman at the \"top\" of the \"hill\" the rope goes upward from her grip, not the way it would look if she was pulling someone up a hill. Rooker actually has a line that says, \"I'm not going after him, I going after it.\" What? That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and I watch these bad movies as a hobby. The saddest part about this quote is that you can tell that everyone involved in the writing\/production of this film thought that it was so bad-ass. Believe it or not, compared to the rest of the dialog, this is good.

The acting, bad. The makeup, really bad. These characters either had scars or wounds that liked to change sides of their face. Maybe these are alien scars that like to run around on your face. Yeah, I think I'll make a movie about that, \"Attack of the Alien Scars that Move Around on Your Face.\" That villain would be more intimidating than the Skeleton Man, and the film would probably be scarier.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thank God for DVR and the high speed of it's fast forward. Even with that I couldn't sit through any more of that travesty. When they came across the old Indian asking for beans I gave up and erased it. Is this the best that SciFi Channel can come up with for Saturday nights? How about some old classics instead? The idea of a coed special forces unit was bad enough. It seems like they wanted to save money by having everything filmed out in the woods. What more can I say? It was so awful that I don't think I can come up with enough lines to qualify for space to review it. But, it looks like one more line will do it. Save your time, let alone your money on this dog of a film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To be honest, the movie was SO HORRIBLE that I loved it. Never in my life have a seen such a TERRIBLE movie. I was in shock. I mean, i don't even know what to say.

The characters couldn't even keep their own guns, one minute a guy had an M16 and his friend had an MP5, then in the next scene they switched guns. (Don't ask, trust me I know my guns)And i will never understand how they got from a place that looked like Vietnam, to an Arizona highway, to my backyard, and then to a chemical plant in California, that is what i took from it.

Why would you be afraid of a guy in a Halloween mask wearing a trash bag for a cape and shot plastic arrows at you? How is that frightening? I wanted to swallow arsenic halfway through the movie. I love how the \"skeleton man\" randomly decided to go on a killing spree at that particular day. But hey, whoever made this movie should be shot in the knees and fed to a mound of fire ants.

Good day.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife and I enjoy bad science fiction movies. Some movies are so bad they are good. Mansquito was one of those. That one was bad but it had some redeeming qualities. It makes you wonder how a self respecting actor approaches lines like \"Hey! Mansquito!\"

This one is so bad it has now taken its place as our standard for bad. It isn't just a bad movie, it really stinks. There was the coed strike force, the \"Indian\" that rode around in a black cloak and used a SWORD for crying out loud. He shot down a helicopter with an arrow!!

We tried to laugh at this movie but there were no points at which it didn't rise above pitiful. We couldn't come up with any redeeming features except for one. Those were the words \"The End\"

There seemed to be no plot, no character development, and no point to the movie. Someone in Hollywood needs to be fired.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you like to get a couple of fleeting glimpses of cleavage on some attractive women, there may be a second or two of enjoyment from this film. If you enjoy seeing poorly conceived and executed \"action\" scenes, there are plenty. If you are both blind and deaf, I still advise you to not have this film on in your presence. It is surely the worst or very close to the worst film I have ever seen. And it does appear that there was some money spent on it. Talk about throwing money away! As an editor, I would hope that the \"editor(s?)\" of this \"movie\" never again be allowed to edit a film, book, or even a post-it note. As a writer, I would hope that the author(s?) never again be allowed near even a broken crayon. You would think that I am not recommending that you view this movie. NOT so. Tape it (so you may stop your pain when you need to) and educate yourself as to how bad a movie can be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although Casper van Dien and Michael Rooker are generally relegated to B movies, even they are above this movie. It fails to convey even the slightest sense of excitement, fear, or dread -- unless you count the dread of sitting through the rest of this garbage. The direction is amateurish with annoying cuts and jerky movement that hides the fact that the killer is no where near the victims when he attacks. And what a killer he is: a cheap skull mask and a black hood. I liked him better when he was fighting He-Man. This is one of the laziest jobs of character design I've ever seen. I mean, it's Skeletor! And he's on a horse! This is supposed to be some scary, supernatural creature? How are we supposed to take this seriously? All we get is scenes of this dude riding around the woods on his horse -- which he can barely stay on -- interspersed with scenes of soldiers shooting randomly into the woods, thinking they can shoot a ghost. Occasionally, Skeletor will shoot someone with an arrow or ride by and stab someone, revealing how corny the effects really are. I generally enjoy Sci Fi channel fare on a basic cheese level, but this film is too inept for any level of enjoyment. Where's Dolph Lundgren when you need him???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This ranks up there as the worst movies of all time. No research or thought at all went into this movie. Action scenes were thrown in at random intervals which made no sense in the context of the movie. Items appeared and disappeared at random, etc. It's obvious that this was directed by a \"stunt coordinator\", who should go back to his old job. The Skeleton Man rode a horse throughout the movie, which amazingly, could change color at will. Either that, or someone thought the audience would all be colorblind and not notice. Blood would be on the actors in 1 scene and the very next, miraculously disappear and then reappear. Seems that everyone connected with this movie forgot to check for inconsistencies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I write this, no user reviews are in yet, but there are 17 votes with a 4.8 average, so apparently some people thought this movie had its moments. I didn't notice any, and even if I had I don't think I could have stopped rolling my eyes for long enough to appreciate them.

A common debate among movie buffs is whether major mistakes in science, police tactics, and the like so common in B movies should detract significantly from one's enjoyment. I tend to fall into the \"Yes, that's a reasonable reaction\" camp -- especially when the mistakes are central to the plot. With this movie, I look forward to reading how anyone can defend this mess. They completely botch pretty much every aspect of military tactics and strategy, police tactics, weapons, science, folklore, common sense, and human behavior (outside of B movies, that is.) In short, I can't think of any non-trivial thing they got right.

Any movie would have its work cut out for it when its central premise is a supernatural spirit, impervious to all small arms, able to disappear into another dimension at will, and yet apparently vulnerable to simply a bigger explosion. (They don't make ghosts like they used to.) Combine this premise with every detail being wrong and you have a memorably bad movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The scientist Charles and his wife (or assistant) Marissa receive some objects and a skull from an ancient Indian cemetery, and while cleaning a vase, they are attacked and murdered by a mysterious being, the Skeleton Man. Then, a military squad commanded by Captain Leary (Michael Rooker) seeks out two groups of four soldiers each that vanished in the jungle. They face the Skeleton Man, shooting him while he kills each soldier. Then the Skeleton Man goes to a power plant, and Captain Leary explodes the facility destroying the supernatural being.

I bought \"Skeleton Man\" on DVD expecting to see a funny trash, but I found an awfully boring, annoying and senseless crap, with shoots and explosions. The imbecile story is totally disconnected and does not make any sense, and the military team is composed of imbeciles, insisting in shooting the supernatural Skeleton Man until they are totally slaughtered. Their leader is also the most stupid, with the blow-up of an entire facility in the end to destroy the supernatural rip-off of the extraterrestrial warrior Predator. On DVD, it is possible to use the fast forward button along the movie and reduce the suffering of the viewer. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): \"Skeleton Man\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have very few to add to what all the other reviewers already made more than clear! This movie is awful! Beyond awful... In fact, so insufferable that they have yet to come up with a term to describe the awfulness that is \"Skeleton Man\". In case you expect your movies to feature a minimum of logic and plot, you should stay as far away from this as humanly possible. Sure, loads of people are getting killed by this skeleton-puppet wearing a ridiculous cape, but nobody ever bothers to properly explain what he is, where he comes from or why he's so angry with the world. He looks like a crossover between Skeletor from \"Masters of the Universe\" and the horseman from \"Sleepy Hollow\" and runs amok in some godforsaken wilderness. The setting of \"Skeleton Man\" is another totally retarded aspect! For nearly half an hour, I assumed that the movie took place at a small isolated island, but it simply plays at the mainland where fancy highways cross the forest and power plants are located at the end of the woods! Huh? Why does everybody pretend to be trapped when there are like a million escape routes? Anyway, after a couple of totally random killings, a special commando squad, led by poor washed-up Michael Rooker, arrives to come and hunt a monster they don't know anything about. Really hilarious is how every member of this squad introduces him\/herself as the expert in a certain field (we have a sniper-specialist, a tracking genius, a drill instructor...), yet they ALL die before any of them is able to demonstrate their supposedly masterful skills! The horror Gods must really hate Casper Van Dien, as he's present again as well, portraying an heroic soldier who steals a truck for no apparent reason, crashes on the highway, but somehow gets catapulted back to the middle of the woods to die there. Right, that makes sense... Furthermore the characters steal cool one-liners from \"Predator\", the bonehead's horse constantly changes colors, helicopters are brought down with bow& arrows, ordinary bullets cause trees to explode and completely pointless Vietnam flashbacks haunt Michael Rooker. I say we all combine forces and vote this pathetic flick into the IMDb bottom top 100 ASAP!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a helpful warning for others, I believe \"Skeleton Man\" is actually worse than \"Raptor Island.\" I have been using RI as an example of the worst original movie presented on the Sci-Fi channel, but SM is the most laughably incoherent and wretchedly designed movie I have yet seen. Yes, I did watch almost the whole thing, coming into it about 35 minutes into it. It drew me in with its pure ineptitude. What was Sci-Fi thinking? Once Skeleton Man and the surviving platoon leader (or whatever he was--I'm not good on military unit terminology) reached the chemical plant, the movie moved into a zone of impossible nonsense that was almost mesmerizing. I had the same idea as another viewer who wondered if more than one movie had someone been edited together to make one terrible whole.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A whole lot of the people that have seen this are confused, obviously. The original title of \"Cottonmouth Joe\" would've put things into better perspective for much of the viewing audience. I have personally experienced the condition of cottonmouth (often accompanied by a really bad hangover after a weekend bender) and it is indeed a lot like the movie Skeleton Man -- a dry, scummy film that provokes regret for recent choices and begs for a hot shower.

It is unfortunate that the choice of \"Skeleton Man\" for the title was finalized by the distributor (probably the work of some meddling Hollywood no nothing studio exec who just didn't get it) and not \"Cottonmouth Joe.\" Those of us who have seen the film know that the Skeleton Man is actually Cottonmouth Joe (a skeletal-manish apparition, not a true Skeleton Man). The deception of the folks marketing this film is unforgivable, and for that alone, I cannot give this film a high rating. Imagine this: when future filmmakers get together to create the true definitive Skeleton Man movie and need a title, they will be totally screwed and we are all, as serious fans of the genre, diminished for that.

Cottonmouth Joe could've become a horror movie icon right up there alongside Madman Marz, Black Claw, Mansquito, Humongous, \"Nature Boy\" Billy Conners, Morty the wooden doll, the Boogen, Eegah, The Moon Beast, Bloody Bill, the Driller Killer, Mickey Rooney, and so forth, but he will always be remembered as a sword wielding-caped-tackle dummy skull face-tied to the side of a horse-skeleton man wannabe.

That's too bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this on Sci Fi, and in retrospect, I'm not sure how I actually managed to watch it all the way through. This is utter trash. It's not a B movie, it's a \"D movie\" at best.

Basically this grim reaper looking thing on a horse (and sometimes not on one) goes killing everything in it's path somewhere in the mid west of America. A load of people are missing (infact murdered) and a bunch of mismatched spec op soldier types go looking for them. The best part of this movie, I'll tell it now, is there's some really cute girls. Let me now spoil this by telling you that all but the least cute one get their heads either chopped off, slashed apart, or hit so hard with a m\u00eal\u00e9e weapon that the head explodes off. That's no spoiler... The gore in this movie is over the top and really grotesque. It serves no real purpose, either.

Here's what's good: The sets look OK, the actors sometimes act OK, The outfits and props, some of them, are decent.

Everything else that you can think of, sucks. A lot of the badness is in the editing. Some times it just switches over from a rapid action scene to a real quiet and dormant scene. Sometimes the characters do non-understandable things, and they're always splitting up, but not even in a way that the viewer can follow. Looks like they get split up without realizing it amongst themselves but they also all seem to know that they're splitting up all the time and are OK with it even tho they're in a really dangerous situation and there's bodies all over the place and people are dying right and left. Nothing in this movie is the least bit plausible, most of it is incoherent and confusing, and I don't really get how this immortal, indestructible bad guy killer was able to be stopped in the end, and frankly, I don't care. Too much stupid, hilariously bad nonsense happens during this movie and I don't really care to list it all here. And they're all so serious throughout the whole ordeal when it's almost laughably bad... just awful.

This movie is a complete waste of time. There's no excuse for watching this, unless the only channel you happen to receive is SciFi and you're bound to a chair in front of the TV. But if you're not bound, you're better off doing a crossword, throwing a Frisbee, or even just thinking. There's lots of much better B movies that you can watch.

My senior year in high school my friend and I, in visual communication and deign class, made a long movie trailer type deal for our own movie (There was no full movie, just a really long trailer) and we did a better job of filming and editing the piece with premiere. It was better work than this movie. That really says something about this and I'm puzzled and troubled as to why Sci Fi would show anything like this when there are so many good low rate movies they can show.

The only movie that I've ever endured that was worse than this is Raptor Island (another brilliant SciFi work)-though it had smoother and more followable flow than this movie- but this comes very close and is definitely 2nd on my list of worst movies I've ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A Delta Force Army unit, assigned to find a batch of missing Green Beret bad-asses not known for going completely missing, will be in a fight for survival against a cloaked skeleton man, the supposed spirit of an ancient Indian warrior who was revived when archaeologists disturbed his grave. The Skeleton Man rides a horse and has the ability to propel to and fro using a type of dimensional portal, and seems unaffected by bullet-fire and explosives. The Skeleton Man's horse leaves no hoof prints and he can ride from behind and around his prey silently. The film's point-of-view through the Skeleton Man's eyes looks at his prey with a different color. In other words, he's not seemingly human, so how can Captain Leary(Michael Rooker, as grizzled and intense as ever)and his gang of would-be commandos stop this menace? For some reason, the Skeleton Man murders employees of a nearby chemical plant. What are the Skeleton Man's motives for slaughtering endless human beings? And, why is a blind Indian living in the forest our commandos inhabit spared if the Skeleton Man, as a human, slaughtered his entire tribe to prove himself?

As completely stupid as it sounds. Just unbelievable horrible. This is the kind of film that can deaden brain cells. Casper Van Dien gets second billing in the credits just under Rooker, yet is saddled with a ridiculously underwritten character who exits the film quite early. Rooker deserves better than this. If I were an actor, I wouldn't want this movie in my resume. The Skeleton Man is a reject Templer Knight from a de Ossorio film. He has a spear which can merely knock certain people down while exploding the head of a woman on impact. An arrow shot from the Skeleton Man's bow actually destroys the propeller of a chopper plane. For nearly 99 % of the film, bullets are shot at the Skeleton Man and he can go in and out of that portal thingee yet, at the end, all of a sudden, he becomes vulnerable to attack. Oh, and the horses also change as the Skeleton Man freely moves through the forest from that portal.The film is written and edited by clowns. The attack scenes are poorly constructed and the characters, who are supposed to be experienced pros, make really bad decisions throughout this film. The mind boggles with this film. Good for some laughs, and some gore scenes make this hunk of pure crap watchable as a trash movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Was this supposed to be a comedy? The black cape and skeleton mask are hilarious. There is like zero plot. The movie starts out with an archaeologist and his assistant. They make a small mention of their dig site being cursed. And then, lo and behold......in drops Halloween Costume Man, dressed in the shiny black cape, with a skeleton mask face, holding an axe. So, he kills off these two people. Then we cut to the woods with a bad imitation of Predator, only the commandos are being hunted down by Halloween Costume Man who is now riding a horse! More commandos show up, but these people are supposed to be disguised as a hiking group. Yeah, production probably ran out of commando costumes. Can you say, low budget? Anyway, they come upon a lone old Indian guy sitting in the woods. He's just too funny. And he starts babbling about something, but you really don't know what he's mumbling about, so they flashback to some Indians getting killed. None of it really makes sense. And then we go back to our commandos where more of them get killed. And that's really basically the plot. It's so laughably bad, you just can't really look away because you want to see just how low it sinks. You could make the same movie with a camcorder, a Halloween Costume and a bunch of your friends with fake guns. Don't see this thing if you want a horror movie. If you want a comedy, maybe? Or just skip it and get something like the real Predator.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This may contain ***SPOILERS***

Where to start on this particular empty wasteland? Well it would have been nice if they actually had a plot. Acting talent, decent dialog, suspense, humor, hey even gratuitous sex would have helped this flick. Unfortunately there was only a lot of gore, (even that wasn't done well), shooting automatic weapons and missing.

There seemed to be no reason to attach the basic premise, a Native American cursed to protect the bodies of the tribe he murdered, with his being tracked down by a Federal Special Ops team who dressed in civvies(?). Most of the time involved violating one of the basic rules of conduct in a Horror movie, separating from the group so you can be picked off one by one. You'd think this team would know better, especially because they are actually the third team sent to investigate, the other two teams disappearing without a trace. When they finally realize they're being picked off they make one of several stands and fire their weapons only to hit the trees a whole lot. Tree shot scene repeats endlessly in this movie to save money.

When they're not shooting trees they're tracking this spirit who leaves no trail, (who knows how they're tracking it), and spouting a lot of macho BS. By the way, did I mention that most of this team are women? Interesting listening to them talk tough. Not very entertaining, but interesting.

All in all, You can find better movies in the bargain bin at Kmart.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"You got any beans? Beans is good. You just eat them and you go.\" I couldn't help but laugh at that bit of dialog. Beans are the musical fruit, you know. The more you eat them, the more you go toot, toot, toot.

Hmmmm... OK, i can understand why the actors were in this because they needed paychecks to pay their bills with, but i'm not really too sure what the intentions of the director and the writer were. Even after watching the making-of documentary in the DVD extras.

Mike Rooker gave this a performance it really didn't deserve. I've seen him in other movies MUCH better than this one. What would have vastly improved this movie was to throw everything out, keep Rooker and instead made another entry into \"The Substitute\" franchise. Rooker would have made for a terrific substitute teacher who instructs naughty and morally-impaired youth regarding the error of their ways and how they can become more useful and productive members of society.

Casper, you really shouldn't be just pushing through the undergrowth like that as you could get poison oak. Whoops. Never mind. I guess poison oak is the least of your worries now. Well, at least this time your croaking wasn't done by the tail of giant python. There are few things more embarrassing than being skewered through the chest by a giant snake. At least the death scene in this movie had a bit more dignity to it. As well as a more liberal smearing of karo syrup and red food dye. Nothing says sad and tragic death like the liberal use of karo and red dye!

First time i've seen a monster wear a shiny rayon cape with a fur collar ruff. First time for everything, i guess. Just to be nitpicky, though, if this was an Indian ghost, how come it looked exactly like a monster out of European culture and folklore? Wouldn't the monster have been more sort of more indianish?

While i did watch this all the way to the end credits, i don't realistically believe that i could in good faith recommend it to others.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SKELETON MAN was okay for the first 5 minutes but as soon as the so-called \"Special Force Agents\" hit the screen, it went down hill faster than a fat kid on a sled.

The opening makes us think we might have a corny, yet fun, horror flick on our hands but no...the film makers ruin any hope of that when the \"Special Force Agents\" show up. I wish the screenwriter took a different route and had the \"Skeleton Man\" chase down some dim witted teenagers until one of them finally gets the upper hand. Instead, the \"Skeleton Man\" chases down some dim witted \"Special Force Agents\" and offs them until their Captain finally gets the upper hand.

I know the whole \"stalking of dim witted teenagers by a killer\" thing as been done before but it would of been more suited for a movie like this.

When the \"Skeleton Man\" finally does meet his \"so called\" demise, in a building that blows up, the Captain of the \"Special Force Agents\" is asked the following by a police officer outside of the building: \"What the hell happened in there?\" My answer to that question: \"Who the hell cares?\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got this in The Horror Six-Pack from Echo Bridge Home Entertainment. This one is not the worst movie ever made, but it still sucks. In fact, this movie sucked so hard, I don't know how I'm gonna write this review, especially since 1. I popped it out of the DVD player because I couldn't even watch another second and 2. Hurricane friggin' Ike is coming and God knows how long 'til it take for me to get this review done.

The movie starts off with a scientist and his wife. The scientist receives a valuable artifact and examines it when this supposedly Urban Legend known as the Skeleton Man kills him, and later on his wife. Then...

I'm sorry, but there's really not much else I can say about this POS except don't bother. I'm currently using the disc as a coaster, and if you see this, you might want to do the same. Casper Van Dien and Michael Rooker must have needed cash...BADLY!

PS. I'll pretty much be reviewing the movies in the boxset and might do a new review on Ghoulies IV.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, God! Why didn't you give this money for charity? I thought I saw the lowest crap by now, but I was wrong! Who did this script, anyway? A retarded? Who did this cast? I can't believe that there are people that spend money and time to do garbage like that! I was under the impression that I'm watching a porn movie, only without sex scenes, that bad was the so called acting. Onestly, did this film have a director? I believe not and I'm convince that everybody had upon them a page with some lines and red it in front of the camera. I can't explain myself how all the characters in this garbage died without a fight. Nobody can do lower than this! Please, erase it even from IMDb! Bleah!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like many, this dung heap caught my eye while I was channel surfing. It's a horror film, set in the woods, it has a stupid title, but hey \"Michael Rooker\" is in it, and he has been a part of some great horror flicks, I know he wouldn't steer me wrong.... Ugh! The most insulting part of this, is that I actually watched it. I see director Johnny Martin is a stuntman, well this stunt simply sucks, and how he got some of the actors to do this watery bowel movement is the biggest mystery of all... I can understand Casper Van Dien, but shame on you Mr. Rooker. Your good name in the horror community has been forever tarnished, and your agent should be fired immediately. I'm sure this nugget of fecal matter is available on DVD, but if you enjoy the .99 cent menu at McDonalds, you'd get more for your money there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dear SciFi Channel: How have you been? How was your summer? I've been OK, but I feel like our relationship isn't the same anymore and we're growing apart. I don't understand why you don't love me anymore. I've just finished watching your SciFi Channel Original \"Skeleton Man\" and, once again, you've shown a blatant lack of respect for my feelings by KILLING OFF EVERY HOT GIRL IN THIS MOVIE!!! I mean, I understand that you're just in this for instant gratification. All you care about is producing a movie where people get sliced and diced by a homicidal Indian spirit\/creature\/legend\/whatever. So you really don't have time to put some thought and effort into anything else -- like finding a costume for Skeleton Man that doesn't make him like the gay lover of Skeletor from \"He-Man.\" Seriously, his robe looks like a satin blanket sheet and his skull is smooth as a baby's behind, he almost looks like a killer Halloween-costume-for-a-6-year-old as he marches through the wilderness on a homicidal rampage. So we throw you a bone, because we're not looking for Oscar-winning performances, intriguing plot or realistic character reactions to the situations at hand. Because we realize that even though Michael Rooker, Caspar van Diem and all the girls are supposed to be trained Special Ops agents, they are all mysteriously transformed into Keystone Kops who can't shoot or see straight whenever Skeleton Man appears. And we also fully expect that nothing -- bullets, explosions, electrocution, nothing -- can kill Skeleton Man until there is one minute left in the movie and we need to find a way to tie things up neatly. We expect to see blood and guts. But you have a knack for taking the least attractive actress in the entire cast and making her the only female who survives. And quite honestly, I think you do it just to antagonize me. Because this movie, as silly as it is, has the potential to be a \"so-bad-it's-good\" classic and just killing off all the hotties ruins everything -- and forces me to lower its rating. All I ask is that once, just once, you take my feelings into account and let the sexiest girls survive the movie. Please.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I, like so many others on here, bought this movie at my local WM in the \"Two for $11.00\" cheap-o bin. I love cheesy B horror and sci-fi movies, and this one definitely fits in that category. Pretty much what everyone else on here said is dead on. Yes it was bad, but that was to be expected. The \"main\" problem I had with this movie is that it was just basically BORING. I mean serious yawn-o-rama. The acting was bad, the costumes (K Mart Skeletor outfit circa 1982) were worse, and the editing was awful. No continuity whatsoever. Mr Skeletor ultimately dies in an explosion of sorts...uh, although he encountered multiple explosion throughout this move. I guess the last one just took its toll on him. Apparently earlier encounters with this \"military\" group (cough) took its toll on his horse....it would change from red to black throughout this crap fest. Even for a B movie, do yourself a favor and skip it. The only good it serves me now it to add to my DVD collection. Hopefully no one will recognize it when they look through my movie collection. Thumbs down, big time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most of the other posts beat this movie up, and deservedly so. I've just got to chime in on the technical ineptness of the film makers. It would have been nice if the director had at least had lunch with someone who knew what a gun was, because he had no clue.

SPOILERS AHEAD!!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

Stupidity:

Spec Ops team assembled from various military units whose members have never met each other before.

Maybe two people in the unit had weapons that used the same magazines, parts, ammo, etc.

The sniper school instructor uses a sub machine gun (pistol caliber) as opposed to a rifle which we would assume she would be more proficient with.

One poor team member's night vision optics weigh more than the rifle does. You can tell when he handles it, that it is SERIOUSLY top heavy.

The team leader sends out a team member to \"challenge\" the Skeleton Man when they first confront him. Challenge a 200 year old reanimated Native American skeleton with a long spear and an attitude riding an undead war horse with a severe nosebleed? I think not, Bubba.

Bullets do not spark when they hit trees, Mr. Director. (a couple of people have already mentioned this.)

The teams \"air support\" consists of a ubiquitous \"black helicopter\", only this one has a couple of sidewinder missiles slung underneath. Someone forgot to tell the helo crew that the Skeleton Man doesn't fly, and they are over the American heartland where there won't be any enemy aircraft. They should have carried some air to ground missiles instead.

The helo's air to ground ordnance consists of a door gunner with a semi-auto AK-47(or 74?). Needless to say he only hits dirt. Should have brought a belt fed light machine gun.

Door gunner later finds out that a grenade launcher is pretty useless as well.

A wooden arrow from a freaking recurve bow does not down helicopters, Mr. Director.

I pretty well could not take anymore after this point (about 30 minutes) and gave up. You seriously need a morphine drip to make it through this flick, it is just that painful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was definitely worth viewing, I don't regret that. But also it was kind of ordinary. Something, that I would expect from a movie titled like that. Love story was nice to watch. Humour was involved, but nothing surprised or spooked me. Shooting, \"tough guys\" etc. ain't worth it any more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film may be great, but it is a complete ripoff of Bill Forsythe's Comfort and Joy. c&j is one of the sweetest films I've ever seen without becoming diabetic.

It's OK if you do like it, but realize that EVERYTHING in this film is a direct rip-off.

The original is http:\/\/us.imdb.com\/title\/tt0087072 I can recommend almost anything by forsythe - Local Hero, Gregory's Girl, That Sinking Feeling. I better go rent some tonight. Local Has a young Peter Capaldi, and an old Burt Lancaster.

Unfortunately he's given up film-making after some really crappy Hollywood treatment. Sad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hadn't heard of Soap Girl but I saw a poster with a five star review from Film Threat outside the theater so I figured, how bad could it be? Well, I soon found out. My god this film was awful. The most wooden acting I have ever seen outside of a porn flick. Absolutely agonizing dialogue. I just can't understand how this was made and why anyone agreed to be a part of it. And I find it completely unfathomable that this was actually being shown in a theater and money was being charged to see it. How did this happen????? And most importantly WHAT THE WAS THE GUY FROM FILM THREAT THINKING?!?!?!?!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worst movie I've ever seen in my life. From the amateur directing to the porn-quality acting, it looks like a home movie somebody decided to shoot becuase they had nothing else to do with their time.

Unless you have no hope left in life, absolutely avoid this crap.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i recently went to a free screening of soap girl where the filmmakers were present. before the movie they strutted around, laughing, taking pictures. i was excited to see them dressed up in real life, and couldn't wait to see the movie on the big screen.

during the movie, the audience errupted with laughter. it was clear to me then that they weren't laughing with the picture, but at the picture. this is purely a grade B movie with no logic behind it. throw in some nudity, some blood and whala! you have a movie!

after the movie i approached a bunch of the filmmakers and asked them why they wanted to make this movie. they all acted so serious, like they were serious filmmakers. they each told me something different: to make a controversial movie, a funny movie, an uplifting movie, a socially responsible movie. everybody mentioned something different. it was clear to me that none of the filmmakers knew what kind of movie they were making, and they were now trying to recoup their money by publicizing this movie any way they could to get people to see it.

Let me warn you: don't buy into the hype! unless you seriously have nothing else to do, it might be worth a film student's time to study how a film should not be made. otherwise you are better off saving two hours of your life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From an artistic standpoint, the movie fails to entertain or provide any moral resolution. The plot is hard to follow, if there is one at all. The acting is tough to stomach. The dialogue is cliche and clearly written by somebody who doesn't know English. Only the cinematography was worth watching in this movie, although you can still see flaws in the picture.

As an Asian-American female, the movie angered me because it proved how narrow minded people can be. Politically speaking, putting Asian women in such disgraceful roles should be outlawed. Perpetuating stereotypes of Asian prostitutes is not only bad for the self-esteem of Asian women, but also to the country as a whole. I feel for the lead actress who played Maya and the exploitation she must have faced in playing such a role.

As Americans, please avoid this movie. Art should be used to develop our tolerance and respect for one another, not hold it back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I enjoy films of various kinds and qualities. Whether it's your typical standard Hollywood action movie or your Oscar season tear-jerker, movies that meet a certain standard will almost always be enjoyable for me.

In Soap Girl, I received nothing but confusion. First, we meet Maya, a massage parlor worker who seems to attract all the customers in the parlor. A virgin poet named Harry comes in one day and they fall in love. After that, there are various twists and turns thrown into the plot which seem to lead nowhere.

Although many have commented on the controversial issue of an Asian prostitute being exploited by the white man, keep in mind that this film was made by an Asian director who wanted to bring light to the issue. But whether he succeeds or not does not matter, for the issue at hand is whether the movie is enjoyable or not.

For me, Soap Girl fails to meet the standard I expect from movies. It was hard for me to get involved emotionally with this movie, given the loose plot and the mediocre acting. Worse, it seems as if the director wanted to make a drama, when the tone falls more towards comedy.

A movie such as Soap Girl which fails to trap me into the magic of cinema will always leave me bored. Throughout the movie, I couldn't help but think, \"What is this really about?\" A movie has to answer that question before it is made. If not, what you'll end up with is an empty push to captivate the audience.

Grade: D+

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I agree that this film wasted my time and my money. The poster mislead me to thinking it was a different type of movie. I should have known given the unprofessional look of the poster. Someone should sue for false advertising.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The director has no clue. I know ... That is the obvious comment. Maybe, we should delve into the story ... the relationships ... how about the quality of the actors?

The story is ... well, idiotic would be a simple yet honest answer.

The actors are ... they tried very hard. Can they be faulted for the director's choices?

All I can say is ...

Why was this made?

Well, isn't this an embarrassment to the Korean-American film industry?

Should we be selective about who we support?

Am I being too harsh? Check it out for yourself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why???? What a disgusting joke of a supposed movie...from the poster it looked like a cute movie.. what a disappointment.. who the heck is the male lead? He looks like an old retarded retired reject cop... I am a cop and I can tell.. the man can't act... go back to being a cop..no screen presence.. why did they show his bare ass so, as if he is Mel Gibson,, hell no... put the filmmaker out of business.. this guy has no business making a movie... I seriously doubt women or gay men find him attractive... whoever cast the film is a no talent hack who cast no talent hacks in the lead.. it's great that us white guys are alway getting the Asian women but why an ugly white guy why not Dean Cain or Brad Pitt as the white boyfriend.. why to Asian women like ugly white guys or black guys in what I see??? Don't get it.. must be low self esteem..

The only hot girl who can act in the movie was the Kate Holliday..why was there one hot white chick among all the rest of the ugly Asian chicks who think they are hot and can act???

Only two actors in this movie the Host of the Poetry at the end of the movie and the one hot white chick in the massage house.. TL Young and Kate Holliday should have been the leads in the movie..

The Asia Character was ridiculous looked like she was trying too hard to be some kind of ghetto\/sexy black girl...key word here is \"trying\"..

Gina.. you can't act and you are not hot enough physically for this kind of role.. you need to play character roles and be more humble in your self presentation..

I think the actress is Gina Hirazumi... I looked her up on the IMDb and she is a great Asian Actress???? if that is the case I don't want to see what the bad Asian American actresses are..

. No wonder Hollywood doesn't have Asian American Actors!!! if this is the best they got!!! they were supposedly winning some kind of Asian film award?? give me break...it looked like they just made a movie for the sake of putting a bunch of Asian girls in them.. they aren't even hot..Gina...you are not hot.. stop trying..play character roles and improve your acting..you are not a leading female type...

If this movies makes money pigs can fly..sorry for being so blunt but I feel that these actors\/ actresses need to either get better or work on their craft: for the exception of the two actors I mentioned who should have played the leads.. I say this in love for all the Asian lead girls in the film please do what your parents say and go and be doctors\/lawyers\/and engineers...and do acting on the side for fun..hopefully that is what you are doing now.. I am not trying to be mean but hoping this will be read and push you people to either get better or go do another business.. there was not even a message ethically in this movie..

I would not be surprised if \"Soap Girls\" was secretly funded by members of the Ku Klux Klan special department of Asian American hate propaganda of the Klan

.. Otherwise Asian people must hate themselves..seeing this film makes me as the viewer grateful that I am not Asian..you folks are pathetic..have some self respect you Asian people.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like another ticket buyer I saw a nice cute poster about this film, it's five star review, and awards won. Thought what the heck, let's by a ticket for myself and my two sons. BAD IDEA. The movie was not a family film, it was gratuitous, and it contained nothing worth watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, sure, this film will never win an oscar. Citizen cane this film is not... BUT why does every film have to be scrutinized? when was the last time you saw a film that was funny not becuase it was good, but because it was goofy? doesn't anyone remember roger corman, king of exploitation?

well, I had fun. I liked the cheese. just go in not expecting to think, and prepare to throw popcorn at the screen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a pretty much a sucker for those Ghost Hunter shows. From the Cheesy mockumentaries like Discovery Channel's \"The Haunting\" to Scooby Doo Reality shows like \"Ghost Hunters\". When I saw promos for A&E's \"Paranormal State\" I knew I was going to watch. Especially when \"Paranormal State\" was juxtaposed against a weak Monday Night Football game.

By the end of the pilot of \"Paranormal State\" when the main \"character\" in this reality dance macabre gives a Creepy Kid a bottle of Max Von Sydow Holy Water and reassures him by telling this boy that he, too, had a unspecified bad experience as a child with things that \"came out of the closet\" and the (Catholic) Church gave him a Holy Water to fend off the Things Coming Out of the Closet I knew I should have given Monday Night Football another shot.

The shtick behind \"Paranormal State\" is a group of Penn State students all got together and started their own Ghost Hunting club. Or Society. Or Super Adventure Club. And they run around Pennsylvania researching the most terrible hauntings and the lost plot to an M. Night Shymalan Movie.

The \"They\" is kind of a misnomer. Really Paranormal State revolves around a Nittany Lion named Ryan Buell who would probably be running Penn State's yearly Anime Convention if it wasn't for this show. He is often accompanied on \"investigations\" by hot co-eds and some other people seen in the credits but rarely caught on camera. Hey, are they ghosts too?

This is Ryan Buell's show. Paranormal State is his \"vehicle\" as we like to say in the Biz. And, oh, what a dull ride in a vehicle he can be.

Did I mention Ryan narrates the entire episode of Paranormal State in a star date-less \"director's log\" voice over? Almost immediately that gets annoying because the obvious intention is to give Ryan's ghost hunting some gravitas, but his filtered monotone does nothing but provoke grunts and laughs. Seriously, every serious intonation sounds like the radio chatter from a Call of Duty video game.

The \"investigations\" -- the plot that each episode revolves around -- are interesting on the surface. No haunted Inns or Restaurants to be found in \"Paranormal State\". This is a show about fearing the unknown like a good Catholic Boy and by god they give you stuff to fear.

Small children are harassed, things loom in the dark, voices encourage the living to kill, and the Aleister Crowely in me rubs my hands. Of the two episodes I watched each revolved around violent, nasty hauntings tied to violent, nasty deaths.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Everything in \"Paranormal State\" is short-handed into half hour, \"Dog the Bounty -- er, Ghost Hunter\" blocks. Every time there is an interesting, verifiable shred of evidence -- the murder of a family in a farmhouse in the 1800s -- the proof is waved in front of the viewer like a con artist trying to convince you a stack of papers currently under your nose is proof of that ten million coming from Nigeria and then yanked away before you can get a good gander.

At least with Sci-Fi Channel's \"Ghost Hunters\" there is a somewhat over-exhaustive need to trot out every possible shred of evidence and present it to the viewer. EVPs that could be a rat farting, cold spots in a drafty house, and \"orbs\" that even the Ghost Hunters themselves discount as dust. It is a sort of Scooby Doo like approach that makes \"Ghost Hunters\" ... almost believable.

Whereas \"Paranormal State\" claims to have EVPs but gives the viewer a ten second video clip of a wave file in Garage Band with no audio. Yep, see, an EVP, right? People are claiming to see dark figures in the basement... Well, we will just go and see about that... while leaving the night vision camera on an enthralling stationary shot of the living room. Ryan, the intrepid leader of this pack of Penn State Graduates, is claiming to see \"visions\" of a demon's name he knows and that might be involved in a paranormal haunting... But he can't tell us, the audience, or his team of gothed out undergrads, because... He can't. You never say a demon's name out loud, Ryan informs the wide eyed Co-Ed who dare inquires.

Well, how very very convenient for you. Especially since this is a Television Show where the audience cannot read your mind.

\"Paranormal State\" is all Turn and no Prestige. The audience gets told what is supposedly happening but you never see an ounce of proof that the creepy kid is seeing Dead People. Not even grainy video of a chair moving, or a black blob running between prison cells. Nothing. You are just told what happened by Ryan in yet another mechanical voice over.

If you are going to try and spook me dress it up a little. If you are trying to sway me, show me a orb or a blob and have the fat chick who works days at Hot Topic tell me why that black orb is really the spirit of an ax murderer. And if you want to make me watch a ghost hunting show give me something besides trotting out Lorraine Warren by the second episode.

\"Paranormal State\" is weak sauce. Not really worth watching unless you are hard up for TV time, or just have that thin of a DVD collection. Or unless you want to know what really happened in that closet with the Holy Water.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I suppose I should be fair and point out that I don't believe in ghosts. That said, I'm very interested in the subject and I enjoy a scary story as much as the next guy. I am a fan of Ghost Hunters because they at least try to give their investigations a scientific angle. Even early episodes of Most Haunted had a camp entertainment factor to them. Paranormal State has neither of these qualities. The cases themselves have the potential to be interesting, but as with so much \"reality TV\" these days, it suffers from overproduction, poor acting and silly scripts. The makers of the show freely admit that writers \"guide\" the stories. I hear they are even going to shoehorn in a romance subplot to appeal to the young female demographic. The show has many other flaws too. As others have stated, the narration quickly becomes like nails down a chalkboard. Over the top visual and audio effects quickly become just as irritating. I'm willing to suspend some disbelief for the sake of entertainment, but this whole \"demon with a vendetta\" story arc is just ridiculous. Given that the producers of this show are also responsible for brain dead fodder like MTV's Laguna Beach and Newport Harbor I suppose this is really no surprise. If you are a die hard fan of Ed & Lorraine Warren or a big \"reality\" show junkie I guess you'll find much to like in Paranormal State. For the rest of us....I recommend you avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Unorthodox journalist Mike Sullivan (Vinnie Jones) flits away his time winding up the local constabulary and trying to romance a member of police personnel. But everything changes when the landlady of the Thames side pub he frequents is found murdered and a transcript of an unpublished novel cum confession by legendary writer Charles Dickens is found. As he digs deeper into both mysteries, he is plunged further into mystery and danger than he bargained for.

In 1998, former footballer Vinnie Jones shot out of nowhere and took everyone by surprise with his gangster cult classic Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Okay, no one was blown away by his acting ability, but his presence as a hard man looked set to ensure a decent career as a movie tough guy. But it all proved to be a one hit wonder, and all he really achieved after this was supporting role status amongst far more acclaimed actors in films like Gone in Sixty Seconds and Swordfish, before descending into the realm of straight to DVD hell, the latest being this muddled and labourous thriller, which might have been okay had he not taken other acclaimed and promising new talent stars like Derek Jacobi, Julie Cox, Vanessa Redgrave, Jason Flemyng and Mel Smith along with him. What caused him to fall from the dizzying heights of success so quickly (apart from maybe being a one trick pony) is anyone's guess (a dodgy personal life being a possible guess) but here he is.

A script as far fetched and incomprehensible as this would have been a task in anyone's hand, but with a miscast looking Jones in the lead, it's even more of a task to fathom. Jacobi's juxtaposing roles as a former thesp tramp and Dickens himself talking directly to the camera through-out are obviously hints building up to something and the script is predictable in other areas too. Add to this cheap looking production values through out and debut director (also writer) Brendan Foley has made a bad first impression.

What exactly did I expect with something that came free with The Daily Mail? *","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE RIDDLE was written and directed by Brendan Foley in what appears to be an attempt to pull the mysteries of the Charles Dickens' novels into a contemporary story, but that attempt is thwarted by electing to use the two periods of time format in which the 'riddle' is unraveled. Despite a cast of well-known actors, trying their best to pull off this direct to DVD movie, the end product is a long, tedious, amateurish mess that can only be considered as entertainment if viewers are fans of the cast as remembered from other films.

Mike Sullivan (Vinnie Jones) is a journalist confined to reporting on dog racing events while he dreams of important reporting assignments. A series of similar murders happens to include an old friend of Mike's - Sadie (Vera Day) who runs a pub on the banks of the Thames, having just discovered an old valuable unpublished manuscript by Charles Dickens, and has a heart of gold, giving sandwiches away to such pathetic creatures as an old tramp beachcomber (Derek Jacobi). Sadie's murder attracts Mike to the role of detective journalism and with the help of policewoman Kate (Julie Cox) he begins to tie the investigation to clues he finds in reading the Dickens manuscript. Disrupting the flow of this rather simplistic story is the use of flashbacks to Dickens' time as Dickens (again Derek Jacobi) narrates a rather personal story of peculiar murders. The parallel between stories and the cross casting among actors may have worked in another's hands, but the finessing of this kind of venture escapes writer\/director Brendan Foley. He draws his story to a close (at long last) with a tired Hollywoodesque ending.

In addition to Jones, Jacobi, Cox, and Day, the film somehow attracted the attention of Vanessa Redgrave, Jason Flemyng, PH Moriarty and Mel Smith: their contributions are minimal but happily distracting. This is a flimsy bit of treacle leaving the viewer wondering how films of this quality ever find funding. Grady Harp","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILERS FOLLOW - and I haven't even seen it.

Let me guess... the murder is related to the evil property developer wanting to develop the riverside, and Dickens was murdered because he was trying to uncover a similar dastardly plot. If anybody who's seen it could let me know if I'm half right, you'll have saved me the time it might take to watch something worthwhile and the rest of us will know to steer clear of both this film and its enthusiastic reviewers. On the other hand, it *sounds* intriguing; but if it was any good would it *really* be given away with a Sunday rag? And what sort of track record does Foley have anyway?

...So, as a public service, I managed to sit through it. It's worse than 'Swept Away'. Really. I've read stories by eight-year-olds with more drama than this. Truly awful. And I was half right.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Famous as the British film so bad it had to be given away for free with a newspaper, the quality of this sub-Children's Film Foundation \"thriller\" can be guessed from the abnormal number of 10\/10 votes it gets and the large number of rave reviews from posters with no posting history and no other reviews to their name. The regulars know what this mean, the gullible might be conned. If they do dip into the waters of this one they won't last long before it drags them under. Technically inept with the boom mike getting into shot or the reflections of the crew visible it just goes on forever in a forgetful sub-DAVINCI CODE on $5 a day way. The end is just insulting but don't worry. It's not as if you'll get that far!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother. ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother. ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother. ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let Freedom Ring was probably made with the best of intentions, but it sends out a curious mixed message in the final product.

The folks at a western town where the railroad is coming through are overwhelmed by the arrival of immigrant railroad workers, working on the railroad being financed by robber baron Edward Arnold. There are a few ranchers and farmers whose land stands in the railroad's path and these folks are dealt with summarily by Arnold's hired men. One man who won't give in is Lionel Barrymore whose son is coming home from Harvard a lawyer and ready to take up the rancher's cause.

Only Nelson Eddy decides the best way to fight is to go Zorro on the bad guys. But other than Charles Butterworth no one knows he's the Wasp (a very interesting choice of names by the way).

What Arnold's done is used the tried and true methods of the political bosses of the east, getting the immigrants to vote. Nelson's idea is simple, if the immigrants only knew the truth about what a bad guy Arnold is, they'll vote with the original settlers and knock out the alien urban political machine in their midst. He kidnaps newspaper editor Raymond Walburn and takes him and the press to a mountain cave where some subversive newspapers are printed and distributed.

The railroad workers are a real mixed bunch of immigrants, not the Irish working west or the Chinese working east as history has it. It's a real United Nations working on Arnold's railroad. The workers are kept in line by foreman Victor McLaglen and Nelson has the unenviable task of beating some sense into him like John Wayne did in The Quiet Man.

Of all the films that starred Jeanette and Nelson and they certainly have come down in history as a duo, this was the worst of what they did at MGM. Nelson is about to be hanged along with Barrymore for crimes that are undefined at best, but certainly nothing worth being hung for. And Virginia Bruce who plays the Nelson's girlfriend saves the day with a rendition of My Country Tis of Thee that the immigrants join in with. In the face of a revolt by his paid for immigrant voters, Arnold quite rationally packs up and leaves town to build his railroad somewhere else.

I kid you not, that's the ending here. Just what is the message, vote with the settlers and lose your jobs with Arnold? But somehow you'll get by here?

I do wonder some times if 20 years from after the incidents of this film take place and the town as settled into a sleepy backwater of the west while some towns where the railroad has come through that are now cities, that the good citizens of that town haven't rethought about what Nelson Eddy did. If they did they're probably running him out on a rail.

Nelson is of course in good voice and has a variety of concert and popular pieces to sing including a ballad to the immigrants written by Sigmund Romberg, Where Else But Here. The song is a heartfelt tribute from an immigrant who did make good in his adopted country. Too bad it didn't have a better venue.

The almost platinum blonde Virginia Bruce I'm sure is dubbed here. And I'm sure Jeanette MacDonald was just as happy she wasn't accompanying Nelson on this trip west.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What an atrocity. I am not one to demand total verisimilitude from a movie, but the plot and screenplay of \"Killing Zoe\" are so artless that I found myself wincing through the entire (mercifully short) ninety minutes of the film.

Readers of these reviews will by now have figured out the plot: Zoe, a call girl who falls in love with American safecracker Zed, is also an employee at the bank that Zed will help rob in a high-stakes Bastille Day heist.

The film strains one's credibility from the get-go. Zed and Zoe's night of magic is highly prosaic, and Zoe's claims to have experienced the orgasm of a lifetime would seem to reflect the screenwriter's lingering teenage fantasies more than any actual on-screen chemistry. Zed's complete indifference when his friend Eric throws Zoe out of the hotel room hardly sets the stage for their later strong attachment.

In act two, Eric's band of bohemians--drug-addled losers leading a marginal life of petty crime--prepare for their big heist with a night on the town. Here Roger Avary's main goal seems to be to prove that he knows something about drugs. A secondary thread involves convincing us (by endless repetition) that Eric is really, REALLY glad to see his old friend Zed again. Really glad. Eric's devil-may-care, over-the-top flamboyance and affection for Zed isn't even remotely believable--check out, for example, his phony bemusement at discovering a dead cat in his apartment building. Development of the characters who will accompany us through the rest of the film is an afterthought.

The heist is a disaster--understandable, since the plan is laughable and the criminals are complete amateurs. This is where Avary continues to pay tribute to his idol Quentin Tarantino by showing that he can be more violent than violent. In reality, though, he's just more boring than boring. To build up the excitement, there is an extra security guard hidden inside the main safe. This was boring in video games, and it's boring now.

Zoe is taken hostage during the heist but despite our expectation that she'll play a pivotal role, she just sits pretty. Or more precisely, Avary fails to do anything with her. In literally the last five minutes she springs to life, breaks the hostage situation and saves the grateful, but still dazed Zed from suffering any consequences of his crime. Why she doesn't mind his involvement in the crime--or why she gives a damn about him at all--is impossible to tell. After all, she's had no chance to see that he's any more decent than the rest of the gang.

Throughout, the dialogue is stilted and phony. Much of it is in French. As a native speaker, I can certify that it doesn't ring even remotely true. Eric's sugary-sweet discourse, rapidly alternating with tough-guy boasting, is meant to be at turns charming and scary, but is instead just grating. Meanwhile his scaredy-cat accomplices are more Scooby-Doo than Thomas Crown. When Eric is gunned down in a ludicrous example of excessive force, we can all breathe a sigh of relief: like the bank hostages, we will soon be freed from this miserable ordeal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen this film 3 times. Mostly because I kept thinking while watching it, \"have I missed something here?\". Is there some reason this film was made? Was it trying to say something and I just missed it? Well after 3 viewings I failed to come up with an answer.

I guess the worst thing I can say about any film is that it bored me, and I did not finish it. I will admit there is plenty of eye candy and fast editing and hip music to keep my attention all the way through but is that all a movie should be?

I am not against extreme violence, it is almost non-stop, but it seems there should be some sort of inspiration. Something that is highlighted by it. The word gratuitous comes to mind but it is worse then that somehow. In the first part of the film we are all given insights into the motivations of the characters. And yes the 3 principles are very good in their roles. But the roles are completely unbelievable. So in the first part we get to know the characters, and in the second part most of em die and use sadistic glee in killing others. That seems to be the whole movie. And the first part has nothing to do with the second.

For example. How could a nice smart guy like Zed agree to join a bunch of junkies and amateurs to do a job like this? It makes no sense. He is portrayed as smart, yet he goes ahead with this suicide mission. The fact that he survives is totally inconsistent with the rest of the hyper-real violence and mayhem. So what are we watching here a Hollywood romance with a happy ending or a super real, super violent blood bath? I recall having the same reaction to two other films this director was involved with: True Romance and Reservior Dogs.

Needless dreck!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Quentin Tarantino's partner in crime Roger Avary (co-writer on \"Pulp Fiction\") ventures out on his own (Q.T. goes exec. prod. this time) for this over-boiled French thriller.

Eric Stoltz is Zed, safe cracker extraordinaire who has drifted over to France from the U.S. at the request of an old friend. There he teams up with a motley crew of drugged out hippies who, with little or no planning, think they can knock off a bank vault full of gold bullion on a French national holiday.

Avary has reworked the robbery gone wrong theme that Tarantino developed so well in \"Reservoir Dogs\", only \"Killing Zoe\" is not good enough to survive on the strength of this alone, so Avary has thrown in a rather beautiful distraction. Julie Delpy is Zoe, a student come call girl who entertains Zed on his arrival in Paris. A stunning distraction she certainly is, but nothing more.

I guess our director wanted to add a different angle to this basic theme, but sadly the move did not help to add the depth his shallow plot so desperately needed. There was never a story in this idea, which was nothing more than that, an idea. Even the surreal journey into the seedy dives of Paris is uninspiring. I figure one would have to concede that there was never much of a movie in the story of a bunch of gangsters shooting each other up over a botched jewellery heist either, that is until you add intricate characters and snappy dialogue. \"Reservoir Dogs\" had it, \"Killing Zoe\" did not.

Stoltz's strong interpretation of the doubtful Zed and Jean Hughes-Anglade's mad portrayal of the obsessive ring leader do nothing to lift proceedings. In short, Avary has unsuccessfully attempted to conjure entertainment out of nothing.

Friday, September 15, 1995 - Astor Theatre","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another film to punish us for the crime of enjoying \"Pulp Fiction.\"

If you like watching people get killed by machine gun fire for an hour and a half, this'll probably fit the bill. Fans of the debut episode of \"Aeon Flux,\" wherein the title character slays literally thousands of seemingly faceless soldiers single-handedly, will really go for it.

Otherwise, it's not exactly a clever movie. In fact, all it is is an excuse for a bunch of young people to act rude and shoot people. Sometimes an entire scene goes by, and the only thing that happens is, you guessed it! someone gets shot. Or, to spice things up, twenty people get shot. First, they're just sitting there, the next minute, they're sitting there dead. Yahoo!

Rough plot: A young American goes to Paris (An American in Paris, get it?), hires a prostitute (the ethereal Julie Delpy), gets in touch with some old French buddies, one of which has AIDS, they plan and attempt a bank heist. Of course, movie convention states that no bank robberies on film go off w\/o a hitch, and this hitch takes up about three-quarters of the running time (it's like \"Dog Day Afternoon\" without the Sidney Lumet's wit, patience, or humanity). While at the bank, things go wrong (surprise!), and the Parisian with AIDS, goes wacko with his Uzi several HUNDRED times. No spoilers here, but suffice to say that you're at such an emotional distance from these characters that it's not likely you'll care who lives and who dies by the end of the film.

Some have called it stylish. Perhaps it is, but it's someone else's style, it's a movie that's already been done, and \"Killing Zoe\" is trapped by convention. Nowhere in the course of the movie does the director (Roger Avary, co-winner of the \"Pulp Fiction\" screenplay Oscar) do anything really original, stylish, funky, or outrageous. Unless you consider the fact that no movie that has taken place inside a bank has had such a high body count, there isn't anything else to set this one apart from the multitude.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you watch the documentary extra, you'll note that the director is totally inexperienced and was actually a co-worker bud of Quentin Tarantinos in a video store. Put two and two together and you realise Quentin is doing a favour for his old bud, despite the bud being rather talentless. Was that harsh? Well see this film and you'll realise it isn't. Too slow in the beginning, too nonsensical in the middle, and too slow to end. That about sums it up. Eric Stolz & Delpy were the only two showing some charisma. And Kemp actually put in an OK performance. But the rest was real bad. One instance of plot stupidity was when \"lead robber\" accidentally leaves his mask off during the raid. So what happens? Well the other robbers decide they may as well remove theirs too! What great thinking. The violence was relentless and insane. But not in a \"cool\" way. Rather in a farcical way. I wondered if this was meant to be a comedy. More fool Tarantino for having his good name connected to this garbage. More fool me for watching it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Who wrote this flick? An uninspired 15 year-old?

Could have been written by one of the kids who did the Columbine shooting.

Totally nonsensical, not funny all, boooooooriiing...

Plus this: the French do not put their flag everywhere. You do not walk into a French bank and see the tricolore flag displayed like that. Even on Bastille day.

I have nothing against the blood bath thing. It's just that none of this is either credible or funny. Or parodic, or anything like that.

Ok, those who liked this flick will tell you I must be some type of fascist, so forget about my comment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"with this film being directed by Roger Avery and Quentin Tarantino doing the screenplay i was sure this was going to be a gem. i was wrong. i don't hate this film but in no ways do i like it.

i love Roger Avery because of his amazing direction in rules of attraction and his screenplays to pulp fiction and silent hill but he made a mistake making this. do i really need to comment on Tarantino, we all know hes a genius.

this movie is just set around a gang robbing a bank but fails due to silly people participating in the robbery

i'm disappointed in Tarantino and Avery for doing this film but doesn't change my mind on how amazing they both are. everyone makes mistakes......... 3\/10...........j.d Seaton","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those movies that go out of print and are very expensive on eBay. This movie is a little-known, fairly amateurish flick that has the strong advantage of being the only movie that Shannon Doherty appears in multiple nude scenes (looking very seductive, I might add). It also has the minor advantage of being popular in the fetish Shannon Doherty and smoking fetish arenas. It's a fairly mediocre attempt at a horror\/drama\/whodunit movie. It tries a little misdirection, but you can see what's coming a mile away. Shannon does a decent job with her role, but the woman playing her sister is straight out of amateur-night, as is Shannon's husband character. Avoid, unless you're one of the groups I mention above. Now, let's hit eBay and see if we can unload this thing. 8)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the type of late-night cable flick usually associated with Andrew Stevens or Shannon Tweed. Though unlike most of Tweed and Stevens' T&A fueled vehicles, this is lethally dull!

Let's cut to the chase. The real reason for watching this non-thriller is to see Shannon Doherty's breasts. Anyone who states otherwise is a LIAR! However, most of her steamy sex scenes appear to be all smoke and mirrors.

Notice that all the shots where her head and chest show at the same time are quick peek-a-boo flashes. The frames where the camera lingers on her nude body, there's little or no face attached or she's behind a dripping, wet shower door.

All you boob-watchers out there know what that means - Body double!

I must admit though, that the finale where Doherty is bound, blindfolded and menaced with a knife, provided a certain fetishistic thrill.

If you find a VHS copy anywhere, buy it! As all involved are probably too embarrassed to ever let this come out on DVD!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I for one was actually expecting this movie to be pretty good, maybe my expectations were a bit to high, but the fact is I love Judd Nelson. In fact he is the only reason this movie is worth watching and really his role isn't all that great. The main highlights of this film are raunchy sex scenes and boring dialog. If those are the highlights I'm sure your getting a pretty good idea of what kind of film this is. There is definitely a reason this was a made for television film. Only see this one if you have nothing better to do on a Friday night or just like to waste money on video rentals. Save your time and rent The Breakfast Club!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite a great soundtrack and the presence of the ever amazing Rappaport and Woods, this is another one of those moronic comedies where New York throws itself at the hero in an effort by the writer and\/or director to show what a zany place it is. Yeah there's some other stuff in the movie that sucks too, but that's what's important. The trend for New York independent filmmakers seems to be \"I don't need to be talented, I have NEW YORK!\" Okay, to be fair, the movie has its moments. The flashback bit about why the one guy is called Wacky Jack was pretty amusing. The script isn't a story or a plot, it's a bunch of not-good scenes tied to each other by featuring the same character.

One of the worst things is that there's no motive behind what the characters do. Uncle Sam has the kid deliver the drugs, why? If its so important why didn't Sam do it himself? Then the lead character lies his ass off in scene after scene with absolutely nothing to gain from lying. The guy falls in love with a flight attendant with neither of them having any reason to fall in love. The characters are a bunch of pawns for the writer to move around to see if he can get anything zany to happen.

If you're easily amused or like watching bad indie movies because they make you feel smarter than watching bad mainstream movies, watch this. If you want to see what a GOOD light hearted crime movie looks like, watch Takeshi Kitano's \"Brother\". \"Kicked In The Head\" is the perfect example of why so many people hate offbeat indie movies: A LOT OF THEM SUCK. And a note to the director: Don't be afraid to excite, amuse, enlighten or entertain the audience now and then. Being boring doesn't make you a better filmmaker than the ones who can interest me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Kicked in the Head\" is all about the Corrigan character, a twenty something man on a quest to find himself, and his involvements with a handful of quirky characters. This thin and ambiguous story, which was written by Corrigan, has a make-it-up-as-you-go feel and a screenplay which smells like an uninspired low budget indie. In spite of that and some annoying Hindenburg scene interjections, the film has an off beat, quirky kind of charm which may appeal, in some small way, to people with a similar sense of humor. Not for everyone, not for most, but maybe fun for some. (D+)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was made because the concept translates well into a two sentence summary that can be used to lure investors. That is, the premise is interesting and sellable. I mean, I rented it based on the synopsis. The problem is there is nothing beyond the initial concept. There is no coherent plot, no fully fledged characters, no real comedy, no interesting scenery, no surprises, and no good performances (except Jon Herder, he does something with very little). It's as if the people who green lit this thing never read the script but only the synopsis. And if there were enough people like me, it may even have made money.

To the prospective viewer: don't waste your time, there is nothing funny or interesting to see here. To the creators of the film: hey, you got your film made, so what if its not that great. Most people never get to see themselves or their work up on screen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rutger Hauer helps along a film that basically can be summed up in the young person finding themselves category, and rather obviously so, so it needs a lot of help.

The beginning holds a lot more promise, of a film that could turn into Michael Clayton or Stranger Than Fiction. It's too bad because I really got hooked into the beginning. Then, like the opening soundtrack, it went from great and intriguing to basically nowhere.

It's fun enough with plenty of curiosities and interesting characters acted well. I'm sure that will be enough for many people. The problem is it all feels contrived and empty which, ironically, is supposed to be the main discovery for the character's self realization. Not the film itself (it's not a self aware film), but that the character is supposed to recognize his own life is contrived and empty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had so much potential to be hilarious yet moving but fell way short of either. It had a great story line, it just was not executed as good as it could have been. The weird \"hallucinations\" during his sleep scenes made absolutely no sense and definitely was not needed, they made no impact nor did they enhance or lend any understanding of what was to come or happen.

Jon Heder's character was OK but could have been expanded upon more. He played the crappy part he was given at his best. The character was funny, but again, it fell short of what could have been.

Mila's character was perfect and her performance was spot on.

In closing, the writing was horrible and more often than not, made no sense and his hallucinations did not fit with the movie at all. This movie, with better scripting and directing, could have been a contender to National Lampoon's Vacation as far as funny, bad things happening to a person on a trip across America.

Instead, it was only worthy of a second \"flush\". If I would have seen this at the theater, I would have demanded my money back and boycotted the film.

The only thing that this film did was waste an hour and a half of my life. It also managed to make all those involved in the movie look bad, simply because the movie was a stinker.

I do not recommend this movie to anyone! Ever!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If only the writer\/producer\/\"star\" had the slightest inkling of the limits of his acting range, and the way he is perceived on-screen (wearing glasses and a side-parting is not enough to make you look gawky and quirky if your face and teeth have been sculpted by various medical professionals to conform to American ideals of generic, characterless symmetry, erroneously perceived as beauty in this obsessively superficial society) he would have cast John Heder as the main character instead of attempting to pull a Good-Will-Hunting and create a vehicle to showcase his... his... well, himself.

The excellent supporting cast (Lord knows, they must be having problems to agree to this) is wasted in an agonising perpetual struggle to react convincingly to a main character incapable of delivering even the simplest line with appropriate intonation, and believe me, he is not short of simple lines to choose from, as the dialogue appears to have been composed by a five-year-old. Ah wait... it's the same person pretending to be a writer as pretending to be an actor. It's not often that I don't see a film through to the end, but this ejaculation was irredeemable from the outset and showed no signs of improving after the first hour. Excrement.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Romantic comedy movies are definitely the most fertile genre for \"bellow from average\" movies and source of frustration for viewers. This one is a perfect example of this and got a place in my \"top ten worst movies\".

History is far from creative and jokes are weak. I found no reason for a single laugh during all the movie! Characters are plain and the performance of the actors and just good. History develops slowly, it's tedious and foreseeable. Ending is also foreseeable and sugar-coated.

This is one that movies you watch in a rainy Saturday afternoon when you have nothing better to watch in my humble opinion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Simply put this movies is without any substance whatsoever. Just take my word for it and save yourself the time it is a complete DUD!! I would say the characters are one dimensional but that would imply there was some sort of character development. I thought Eric Roberts was going to jump out any second it was so close to B-Movie status.

The girl from That 70's is beautiful...but unless you are a stalker type fan of hers this movie has nothing for anyone.

Avoid..Avoid...Avoid

This movie was straight to DVD for a reason...that being...it is a train wreck!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rutger Hower fans Don't BE FOOLED - he only plays a cameo in this movie and that's IT. This movie loses an extra point for that scam. I think Rutger Hower has a total of about 2 very short scenes and 2 very short voice-overs.

The female lead for this film is way above this poor material in looks and talent-she's great, this movie is a dog and she's wasted on it. The story is of a Lawyer hoping for that partnership one day at the firm getting suckered into having to cart the Boss' niece across country. They have several encounters on the road with various oddballs and that is the vehicle for a variety of skits and the dude that played Napoleon Dynamite is thrown in the mix as a side character for good measure.

This is a road-trip where extreme circumstances put our repressed hero to the test and he slowly winds up loosening up a little bit by the end of the movie, ah isn't love grand, yadda yadda..

Only watch this film if you want to see a hot chick be annoying to a dork in a truck for an hour and half.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was really bad. I mean really really bad. The scenes were like from a parody and special effect sucked a lot. And it was filmed in 2003!!! i think this was a great waste of time and money and Michael Shanks with his 'Shaggy from Scooby Doo' image just made me laugh. Never waste your time with this picture... I really don't know what the director was thinking after seeing the final cut of this movie but the fights were so unrealistic that it hurt my eyes to look on them. The 'latex cat women' fighters were like sheep just rolling around the scenes and looking frightened around like they had no clue what to do on the scene... I think this is a beautiful example of Bottom 100 picture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this out of curiosity. I enjoyed Stargate SG1 and I've watched many of the other TV shows and movies that the principal characters have worked on.

My expectations weren't high, so I was surprised to be so monstrously disappointed.

The acting throughout is appalling, and the script is worse.

Zero research into the bad science that is spouted throughout the movie, or into martial arts (which several cast members engage in throughout the movie, despite clearly having no martial arts training (baton twirling does not a warrior make)) training makes the already implausible plot even less credible. The same weapon (carried by Michael Shanks), when shot at the side of a mountain, causes extreme damage, but when shot indoors at the wall made of wicker, creates a small fireworks effect without damaging the wicker structure - OK, I suppose Michael Shanks fans will be sued to seeing that in Stargate SG1, where a staff weapon creates either a surface burn on a main character, or blasts a hole in a section of castle wall as required), but still... A bad CGI snake 'god' eats one of the faithful in the way a dog would eat - snakes just don't behave like that.

The basic premise of an amazonian warrior cult on a distant planet is silly at best. Matriarchal societies have always been based on a lack of understanding that men are required in the process of propagating the species - for instance, the Picts, who didn't figure out the role of men in sexual reproduction until the ninth century - at which time, the balance of power moved from the women to the men. They carry technological weapons and demonstrate some knowledge of science - particularly of medicine, so the idea that a matriarchal society could exist with this level of scientific knowledge is based purely on the original author's wet dream. Of course, the few references to stellar science made in this movie demonstrate that the author knew nothing about that either (except for a few keywords that he must have heard in other movies). Still, it could have been done better - like 'She' in 1965 for instance, which showed matriarchal society with a certain reverence, far more believably, and even after 45 years it seems fresher than this fetid exercise in stupidity. Marching a few women around in 'armour', pouting aggressively, and spitting out their lines like a kiddie looking for a fight in a nightclub (\"Come on then! I'll do ya!\" style), seems to be over-simplifying the complexities of a matriarchal culture.

The cultural references are so simple - 'all hail the snake mother' pretty much sums it all up. Even the tiniest hamlet shows more cultural variation.

There is nothing clever, thought-provoking, interesting, visually exciting, or remotely entertaining about this movie. The soundtrack is of similar quality.

I can only assume that the few, overly-charitable positive reviews this movie has received are from blinkered Michael Shanks fans who will give a thumbs up to anything he's involved in. Don't be fooled. Low budgets are not a reason for a film to fail - cheap B movies can be brilliant. This isn't one of them, and there's no reason to inflict this movie on yourself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a production, what a waste of screen-time and money. Here is what some european so called producer think, of a scifi movie. Take former model, Alexandra Kamp, pair a with an US c-class actor and get one of film business most notorious producer Harry A. Towers. Towers then finds some obscure munich based prod. house, Tandem communication, Rola Bauer, and then mix it all up with no script whatsoever and you'll get \"Sumuru\" - a priceless gem among the worst movies ever done! Get a live people, and do something else, whatever you do, no movies please!! To top everything, producers went to South Africa for filming, what you see on screen is one giant sand hole, where the \"action\" takes place, between extremely bad actors and extremely bad fx that any film student would do better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretty.

Pretty actresses and actors. Pretty bad script. Pretty frequent \"let's strip to our undies\" scenes. Pretty fair F\/X. Pretty jarring location decisions (the college dorm room looks like a high-end hotel room - probably because it was shot at a hotel). Pretty bland storyline. Pretty awful dialog. Pretty locations. Pretty annoying editing, unless you like the music video flash-cut style.

This one isn't a guilty pleasure - this is more an embarrassing one. If you must watch this, pick a good dance\/techno album and turn the sound off on the movie - you'll see the pretty people in their pretty black undies, and probably follow the story just fine.

The cast may be able to act - I doubt that anyone could look skilled given the lines\/plot that they had to deal with.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"DeCoteau has to be one of the worst \"directors\" working today in any genre, and it has nothing to do with his movies usually containing homoerotism and having guys run around in their matching boxer briefs. Remember... anyone in tight black underwear is satanic and evil and want to suck out your blood\/soul... such deep symbolism here). I just sat through The Sisterhood to give him his fair shakes, I try to watch every horror movie I can and this one had Barbara (FROM BEYOND, RE-ANIMATOR) Crampton in it (I had previously been sucked in to the world of DeCoteau thanks to Linnea Quigley, Adrienne Barbeau and several other actresses I like).

Lemme tell you what about The Sisterhood... Like the other reviewer pointed out, the supposed plot involves lesbian vampires on a college campus. But never has a parade of hot young babes (\"actresses\" if you want) running around dressed in bras, panties and bikinis been so boring. The movie has no plot, no gore, no nudity and the dialog is ridiculous and seems like they made it up as they go along. Parts are put in slow-motion and repeated many times to push the running time up. About ten minutes of this one consists of characters just walking around on campus (oh, the excitement!) that looks more like a hotel resort than any college I've ever been to. And the acting is the absolute worst. The only thing these girls do well is lean forward and bend over to show off their bodies. The cast were so devoid of talent that I'd be shocked to see any of them get a one-day walk-on role on Passions in the future. Ditto for the guys. Yeah DeCoteau squeezed more hot guys in underwear in this one, too... Guys who should be in some K-Mart brochure instead of trying to act. Do these people actually have to audition or just show up in Dave's office and take their clothes off? I think the answer is obvious.

I am willing to give any movie a chance if 1.) it's intelligently written, well directed, original and competently acted (or hell, even ambitious and stylish)... Or 2.) it is chock full of gore, nudity, assorted trashiness and\/or it's unintentionally hilarious. David DeCoteau's movies deliver NONE of that and they do it on better-than-usual production values for direct-to-video flicks. What a waste! So what is the appeal, especially with the advent of porn of the soft- and hard-core variety that's easily accessible to anyone with a computer? I simply cannot answer that.

DeCoteau is a gay horror director and could use his resources to put a unique spin on the genre. Instead, he produces mind-numbing drivel without an ounce of talent or intelligence shining through. Ironically, when you think about it, his films are anything BUT pro-gay. They actually make homosexuality seem seedy, secretive and sinister. The obviously gay characters in his films are always trying to corrupt, seduce and\/or kill off the innocent, sexually-confused leads. There's no shading here to make things interesting. The protagonists are naive and seldom prove themselves to be strong, assertive or confident in who they are. I would understand this plotting if Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps or Dr. Laura starting making direct-to-video horror films, but from a gay director, it just goes to show that he puts almost no thought into these beefcake cheese-fests.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't honestly know what legal or illegal substance they - the writers - were on when the wrote this horrid piece of tripe!

The cast - sucks The plot - sucks The editing - sucks The whole premise of the movie is that a girl with psychic\/telekinetic powers comes across a lesbian vampire sorority, you just have to be totally out of your head to watch even 1 minute of this.

The only reason I had to watch it - it was on the here! network as part of a two-picture purchase and the movie that came on after it was the real one that I wanted to see. I fast forwarded through the whole thing and was just amazed how stupid this movie was in double speed!

Do not rent, buy, or watch this movie....the vampires in the movie don't suck as much as the overall movie and production does!

If you want a good lesbian vampire movie - The Hunger with David Bowie, Susan Sarandon & Katharine Deneuve - excellent movie to watch\/own\/rent in place of this piece of pure sh*t","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wasn't expecting \"Citizen Kane\" but I was hoping for some extreme guilty pleasure! The script is bad, but the school exterior shots were obviously done with the same 5 extras on the same day & the dorm exterior shots were easily shot during a hurricane.

The wardrobe was swapped around so much, I hoped the wardrobe mistress had some good strong soap to wash the panties. I know the budget's time but do you think they could have bought a couple of DIFFERENT styles of underwear? What oversexed up vampiric hot chick would wear boy-leg panties under latex trousers? I was relieved to see one appearance of thong in the penultimate scene.

Good points: the actors were all *very* attractive, and the girls had natural boobs. Too bad they never took the bras off.

The special effects were neither effective and could only be describes as special, if they rode the short bus to the edit bay. The final scene in particular is horrifically, laughably bad.

-Lizzzzzzzz","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK if you are looking for a fun lesbian romp. This is NOT the movie If you are looking for a fun movie with hot sociopathic characters (in the vane of 'cruel intentions' or 'wild things') This is NOT the movie if you are looking for a classic vampire lesbian seductress's movie. This is NOT the movie.

However if you are looking to wast an hour of your life, this is your movie. It is badly written, badly directed,badly scored, badly filmed.It had bad special effects...i mean really bad special effects. I think that you can actually generate the same special effects in imovie lol.

IT REALLY IS A PRETTY BAD MOVIE.

The actors were classic starlet beauties however look more like porn stars. it is shot like a soft core porn however you never get the money shot and the actors all look bored out of their brains. the 'girl on girl' scenes, which suck btw, were so LAME that there hardly worth mentioning. go watch the 'almost sex scenes' on youtube cos that's the only reason you would want to watch this movie and even there not worth it.

A WAST OF MONEY AND TIME!!! don't even pick it up, go watch 'Cruel intentions 2' instead - same movie without the bad special effects, bad storyline,bad writing,bad dialog and bad acting. actually i might go watch it now just to purge my mind","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was made in 2004 for gods sake, what happened to our state of the art special effects? What happened to our rough around the edges but still good actors? The actors in this movie were unbelievably horrible, there was one or two that weren't bad, but the rest, biggg thumbs down. Couldn't stand listening to the badly written dialogue, I mean, who the heck wrote that script? Please don't ever write again! Special effects? Don't even get me started on the special effects. SURELY they could have come up with better then fully fake looking green balls of light in the eye sockets. It looks so old and..lame frankly.! Even the easiest thing to make look real..the teeth, THEY looked so fake and stupid I would almost wipe a tear from my eye in annoyance. Come onnnn I cant believe this was even shown to the public.!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After seeing the movie in a class of mine and having a talk with the filmmaker, I found out exactly why the film bombed the way it did. The creators of the movie had no intention to call the film \"8MM 2.\" Originally, the film was called \"The Velvet Side of Hell\" but was changed at the last minute by Sony Pictures to 8MM 2 without letting the filmmakers have any say in the matter. By doing that, it screwed them out of theatrical releases and doomed it to a straight to video release with minimal advertising.

Again, this is from the filmmaker's mouths, not mine, so I really can't say what is truth, and what is hype.

If you look at the film as \"Velvet Side of Hell,\" it isn't THAT bad. It isn't great, but it is not god awful. It would basically just be a B-movie that likes to show boobs. But as a sequel to \"8MM,\" the film fails terribly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sure, this flick set in Eastern Europe is filled with sexy, but it absolutely has nothing to do with the Nicholas Cage flick \"8mm\" An ambassador's daughter and her fianc\u00e9e mix it up with a local woman in a threesome that ends up being taped. The tape is used for blackmail and the stakes get higher and higher as the couple try to work it out themselves instead of going to authorities.

The sex comes and goes -- and would be the only reason for renting it, I suppose if you like this sorta thing -- and is quite gratuitous towards the middle when we cruise along the porn scene looking for the \"other woman.\" I definitely question how it got into Blockbuster even with a Youth Restricted Sticker considering how just a hint over the edge of soft core it is. (Oh that's right, it's the double standard. Actual art-house flicks like \"The Dreamers\" and \"Y Tu Mama Tambien\" get castrated R versions, but Straight To DVD crap like this get the UNRATED banner proudly attached. Whatever.)

The acting is horrible, the plot is mind numbingly unoriginal, but really the worst offense is the idea that this is a sequel to 8mm. I'd give the flick a D for a grade and be nice, but considering they tried to trick me, it gets the F it frankly deserves.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1st watched 2\/9\/2008, 4 out of 10(Dir-J.S. Cardone): Sexual political thriller that doesn't really succeed in any of these areas very well except early on where there are some interesting soft-core scenes. The movie starts off portraying a couple exploring their sexual fantasies amidst their work environments or wherever and whatever suits their fancy. The couple takes an excursion to a retreat and bathhouse where they run into a woman that's willing to be a part of a three-some and fulfill some of their fantasies. At this point, we only know that this couple is well off but we don't know until they return that the fianc\u00e9 is part of a well-to-do political family. The man hopes to be on the rise to the point of possibly getting a congressional seat after the marriage. They then receive a package in the mail from an anonymous source with explicit pictures of their encounter at the bath house and their qwest begins as to how and why they were filmed, who sent the package, what they want, and how to clear their names before any of this gets out. This qwest becomes an obsession that leads them deeper into seedier worlds and takes a lot of their time, to the point where their friends & family wonder what they're doing all day and why they look rundown all the time. This movie is interesting at times but drifts into ridiculousness as they personally seek out the problem instead of getting the police involved early on because of their pride. This mistake, of course, keeps the movie going. The performances are fine despite the no-name cast but the lunacy of the situation overrides and the movie starts to become ho-hum about \u00bd the way through. And of course, they throw in a twist at the end that defies and challenges everything that happened prior(as is the norm these days when they don't know what else to do to spice up the movie). This doesn't help this movie one bit, though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, the first thing that came to my mind after I finished this film last night was \"Why the title of 8MM 2?\", because I saw the first one obviously, and what did this have to do with the first movie's plot? The only thing that was similar was the fact that the couple had to go into the porno industry and that wasn't even needed in the plot, because after you see the ending that I will not spoil, it just didn't make any sense.

A diplomat and his fianc\u00e9e are in Hungary and notice a woman who is swimming naked in the pool area, she's very attractive, so when they see her at a club, they decide to have a little fun and have a steamy threesome. But things get extremely intense when the diplomat is mailed pictures of them all having the affair, fearing that it might go public and jeopardize his career, they pay off the guy who sent the pictures, the diplomat freaks out and \"kills\" the guy, leading into a murder case. He and his fiacee decide to find the girl they had the affair with, but things just get deeper and darker as they go further into what they got themselves into.

What could have been an alright thriller, turned into an unexplained and not well thought out movie, which was sad. Like I said, the title really has nothing to do with the first one, so don't fall for it. It's just a sexual thriller that makes no sense, but it's good for those nights alone, because quite frankly this is one of those films where it's so close to porn that it might as well be labeled as soft core.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why was this film made? What were the creators of this thinking?!?! The first 8MM film at least had a plot that made sense and was potentially interesting. The first film was about the snuff film industry. This sequel is about... hold on... the porno industry!! Yes, as if the snuff film industry, an industry in which people are supposedly killed on film for entertainment, were at all in the same league with the adult film industry, an industry in which people film other people engaging in unstimulated sex acts and situations for eroticism. The idea alone should warn you about how poorly conceived the idea for this film alone is. It isn't helped by a lack of plot, character, acting, direction, script, logic, theme, or even sound design. This is a remarkably boring film that never once held my attention. Literally nothing works. Why would a mystery thriller film about the porno industry involving assassination and betrayal work anyway? I don't have much of an interest in adult films, but I certainly have watched them before. Why would somebody make a film about the evils of it and that they would make it in a sequel to a film about snuff movies? I don't even know if there is an industry involved in snuff film making, but I hope it doesn't. The idea of a snuff film alone is horrific and only people who are truly sick and bad would be a part of it. I don't think that the adult film industry revolves around murder and torture. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people make pornographic films for good intentions rather than to hurt and kill people. It is never okay to hurt another human being. The adult film industry isn't about hurting people. It's about creating films that are, to me, a diversion and a waste of time. What is this film trying to say? It doesn't work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I believe the production value is OK..probably deserves a 4\/10 or 5\/10.it's traditionally filmed,featuring good looking people with model quality and a little class..

but the premise let me annoyed..a decent woman would do such dirt? I mean she is gonna marry a man who would have sex with another woman?

and what's more serious she is also active in the behavior...... only in de Laclos's mind....the film also have many aspects that makes Eastern Europeans seem immoral

after all, it's just movie, if it doesn't intend to degrade women in general, I will give one more point..but obviously, it does

conclusion: a nasty piece of crap with a little taste","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is another one of those movies I just knew I would hate, but it ended up not being as bad as one would expect.

It has a lot of T&A in it and even the DVD menu is chocked full of women's breast. The first few scenes of the movie has a lot of sex and nudity and I was beginning to think there would be no story at all just exploiting nudity for the sake of making money off a popular prequel 8MM.

As I continued to watch there was just more sex and nudity and main characters that I could care less about, but then the story started to unfold and I started to see a point to it all, and it was a tad better.

It is about a man who's fianc\u00e9 is the daughter of an Ambasador and they all have a promising future until nude photos of a menage a trois sex act shows up and blackmail is in the senders cards. The man and his fianc\u00e9 must now get to the bottom of who sent the pics and how to shut them up.

The movie first of all is nothing to do with part 1, it doesn't even have anything to do with 8MM's, its about a sex video though so I can see the similarities, as small as they may be.

The acting is neither good, nor bad, its just nobodies playing parts anybody could do. The films production value is middle of the road and its pure drama yawn.

I did enjoy going along for the ride getting to the bottom of the blackmailers motives. I was anticipating answers which is way more than I could say for the first one which I consider garbage. This movie has some nice twists too which are always welcomed.

It's not great, and it is very slow started, but it does ultimately entertain. I wasn't on the edge of my seat and I won't rave to my friends that this is a must see, but hey if you watch a lot of movies and always seek something new, this might entertain you for 90 minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

David (Johnathon Schaech) and Tish (Lori Heuring) are a couple in Budapest, on business commitments and staying at a luxury hotel. One night, they meet an attractive woman at a nightclub and invite her back to their place, where they end up in a threesome. All is well, until David receives some negatives in the mail and he and Tish end up being blackmailed. But when some people involved in the deception are found murdered, things get messy and they are forced to enter the seedy underground world of pornography and hardcore bondage to track down the woman who may hold the key to everything.

Whereas the original film dealt with the concept of snuff films, this straight to DVD sequel deals with the more wholesome (!!!) theme of threesomes and sleazy sex. It plays like a porn film, a cheap piece of titillation with plenty of hot T\/A action going on. If this sounds like your idea of a good film, you'll probably like it, but you'd probably be more at home in a porn shop than a video store.

This tries to copy the original film's dark and voyeuristic feel, but while it does a pretty good job of this, it still can't hold up to that of the original's. It has an apathetic story, with a dodgy narrative flow. And compared to Cage, Schaech comes across as interminably wooden.

Better than I thought it'd be, I suppose, and better than your average one of these DVD direct sequels that seem to be coming out a lot these days, but really, haven't we seen enough? **","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm so sorry, but I have to tell this film was the most terrible I have ever seen before. I thought that it will be a good film after 8mm. WHAT A SELL!!! There were nothing interesting in it, except the beautiful Hungarian women. Everything might be known forward. It's a miracle I didn't sleep trough all. I don't understand how might you let make it!! I'm so sorry, but I have to tell this film was the most terrible I have ever seen before. I thought that it will be a good film after 8mm. WHAT A SELL!!! There were nothing interesting in it, except the beautiful Hungarian women. Everything might be known forward. It's a miracle I didn't sleep trough all. I don't understand how might you let make it!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, what's this on the video rental store's shelf in front of me? Nothing other than a questionable \"sequel\" to 8MM. It wasn't a very good sequel to a movie that had a very definitive end and an abundance of emotional depth far greater than this movie.

Basically, from the plot outline verbatim, an American diplomat, David Huxley, and his fianc\u00e9e, Tish Harrington, venture into the sordid underworld of sex and pornography in Budapest, Hungary to find out who is blackmailing them with a porno video taken of them with a prostitute, Risa. The entire story is based around the various characters who make up these various sex clubs and strip joints throughout the city. The mystery is solved when, in the end, Tish finds out that the ransom money for the video and (essentially later on in the story) her fianc\u00e9e which came out of her trust fund money is basically going back to her future husband as the story unfolds til the bitter end.

I didn't like how this had nothing to do with the original 8MM at all. The only thing close to the original is the type of thriller that it was, the fact that David ends up with some kind of bondage contraption over him to keep him prisoner looks like the kinky world of the first film, and the fact that the entire movie has sex emblazoned throughout almost every key scene. Otherwise, its a totally different movie. It made for a lousy love story, even before the end is known, which makes the ending more of a possibility because I didn't believe the words coming out of David's mouth the whole time. But we were warned that he was a liar about most things that might get him in trouble.

There were ridiculous nude scenes in most of the \"shocking\" moments of the film, which were trying to stir emotions in the audience to cheer for Tish to figure out the plot so she can leave this \"hellish\" sex debauchery. I counted at least 11 ridiculously filmed sequences when there was nothing but sex to be shown. Even the menu screen on the DVD is nothing but film with naked women on it to make the DVD seem totally provocative.

David was no heroic person throughout the film. You could guess he was the main problem long before the end. The actors who played each role were all new to me, which might explain how they got so many of them to strip down to gain acting \"respect.\" There were plot holes (How did David and Richard finally impress Tish's father by getting the lease they wanted when David was so wrapped up in this damn investigation to try and find a prostitute?) There were cheesy technology moments (like the talking email program dressed up like a bondage queen), and a gay brother character which did nothing but show how the director was trying to get a Joaquin Phoenix knockoff to play this character. The tag line featured on this profile for this video is complete BS, too, because it wasn't even about a last breath. Nobody really dies. But they did have a good car crash sequence that came out of nowhere...but that was a good 10 seconds long out of an hour and 3\/4 long movie.

Go rent (and maybe buy) the original. It's one of Joel Schumacher's better and more original films. It has everything better about it from this film. I wouldn't recommend seeing this unless you want to compare apples to oranges.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry, ELO fans, but I was disappointed with this concert at the CBS Television City in Los Angeles. It's decent music-wise, but the presentation is simply boring - big-time. Most of the songs sound the same and lead singer-writer Jeff Lynne is about as animated as a store mannequin. He has a pleasant voice, but he isn't much to watch. He just stands in one spot and sings for an hour and 40 minutes. The songs all sound like 1970s-1980s bubblegum stuff: pleasant but not exciting.

Lynn is accompanied by a very pretty woman, Rosie Vela, but she isn't too animated, either. The only song - out of 23 - that creates any excitement is the last one: \"Roll Over Beethoven.\" Now if only some of the other 22 songs had that excitement to them, this could have been a much better concert DVD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this film for $5 and felt sorry I did it...I wouldn't give a 5c for it if I knew.This is the worse movie ever...None of the filming locations was in former Yugoslavia,map at the beginning what the...???English actors are trying to speak Serbian eg. pretending they are Serbs and they did it terrible bad.My first language is Serbian and I could not understand what they were mumling about.They drove a big jeep in a country where 3 sides (Croats,Serbs and Muslims) are in war and they wrote on it peace 4 Sarajevo???Ha,ha, how stupid was that...Don't know why English are making stupid films about war like this one...or even if they do why they are blaming Serbs for everything,when there was another two sides in a war too.And we all know they were killing too,not just sitting and pretending innocent,so they should at least show the whole truth.This film also Harrison's flowers,Behind enemys lines,The hunting party and few others were total bullshit and that's proved eg The hunting party was biggest loser in 2007\/08 spent 20 mil 4 it and they earned 800.000 ha,ha, what a crap...The truth will come out sooner or later.Proud to be Serb!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"6 out of the 8 comments on this subject rated this film as worth watching, so let me redress the balance.

If this is the best that British Independent film makers have to offer then they need to pack away their cameras right now and find jobs in another industry. Unfortunately for me that was 82 minutes I'll never see again and hopefully I'll save some of you from wasting 82 minutes of your own.

Whilst the idea behind the film is interesting, it is not developed enough to keep the viewer attached. The student characters are bland and uninteresting and quite frankly you won't care about what happens to them. The soldiers are practically caricatures of every baddie ever seen in film, I kept waiting for Captain Markovic to twirl an imaginary moustache. Some of the effects were quite good and showed some imagination, but these were ruined by the shockingly bad acting, poor script writing and patchy camera work. The budget may have been better spent sending the \"actors\" (and I use that term loosely)to acting classes or the Thomas Brothers to film making school or maybe on a spell checker because the subtitles were incorrectly spelt. The fact that the mis-spellings were not picked up on and rectified speaks volumes about the immaturity of the whole production.

I can only assume that the positive comments are staged by the film makers, either that or they were watching a completely different film. I implore the Thomas Brothers to never give up their day jobs for if they continue in this field, they will surely starve to death.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The positive reviews on this page are planted by the filmmakers and their friends. This film is amateurish in terms of direction, acting, in fact in every aspect. If the IMDb are gonna allow filmmakers to dictate what is written about their films then that is a very sad thing. This film has a marketable premise but it is absolutely horrifically made.

Film is subjective so everyone has their own opinion. But this film is on a par with the work of Ed Wood, but without any of the charm. To think otherwise shows bad taste of the highest order.

This is not a personal thing. I don't know anyone associated with the film. I'm just a film lover who feels that the reviews on this page are completely inaccurate and therefore I felt the need to address the balance and give a more accurate view of the film. It's very poorly made and the direction is below even film-making by the numbers. The acting is the worse ever committed to film. The best thing about this film is the poster and DVD cover art. Beyond that it's not worth the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The highlight of the movie is a comparison between the smell of natural gas and a dirty vagina.

The acting is pathetic. I know acting is hard work and stuff, but that's why it should be left to real actors. Watching these people act is like watching Michael J. Fox perform brain surgery. It's shaky at best.

One of the other comments would have you believe that the movie is saved by the acting talents of Dan Gordon as Chris. Only Dan himself or maybe his mother could believe that was good acting.

The special effects in this movie were terrible. The worst special effects were for the gas explosion in the lighthouse. It looked like someone was shining an orange light up from the bottom of a model constructed from a refrigerator box. Sure there was a little bit of computer animation layered over top, but it didn't help. I suspect that the special effects on this movie were created and rendered using a single Amiga computer from the late 80s.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's incredible how a movie can take so much time and effort and still end up being abominable. For those of you who appreciate painstaking special effects and inconceivable detail in every shot you will watch this film in awe. Simply because Predator Island contains none of this. It is a redundant remake of every horror monster movie in the last two decades. Now I appreciate bad horror films, they have a certain flare for humor in the most dramatic of circumstances. However, if your goal is to create a memorable work that will thus be engulfed in the Cult Hall of Fame then my first suggestion is to find some imagination\/creativity plus get some talent. Oh, and a few extra bucks to put into your picture.

One horror film tradition has been to shock the audience with violent deaths and gore. However, shock doesn't deliver for more than a few seconds. To really evoke a satisfying reaction from paying crowd there should b development of characters, some identifiable traits. I know, you're probably saying this guy is not providing anything intelligent to the filmmakers, he's just stating an amateur remark. Well, that goes to show you how amateur these filmmakers are.

Despite having to go through the horror of watching this movie, there was a silver lining. The performance by Dan Gordon as Chris is splendid. He is given nothing to work with in a script and yet he is able to come out of that film looking like a star. Out of all of the actors he is the only who believes in what he is reciting. He not only provides the audience with someone we can identify with but we also have someone we look forward to watching so we can get through the rest of the film. Gordon shows genuine talent and the ability to pull off quality work and overcoming a huge obstacle, that being the rest of the cast. Dan Gordon is going to be a star, hopefully sooner than later. That is to say if he can get away films like this that will hold him back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The kind of B-movies from the 1950's that were schlocky yet so much fun are to what Predator Island pays homage. Filmed in Connecticut, Predator Island is set on an island called with a lighthouse Hell's Beacon which is inhabited by only the couple who tends the lighthouse. In typical 1950's sci-fi fashion after a half dozen young adults crash their boat into the island's rocky shore hideous creatures from outer space invade the island after a meteor hits nearby. The creatures start both inhabiting the bodies of their victims as well as devouring them. Lots of cursing and lame comebacks are the primary form of dialogue in this movie. It is so hokey that you just have to laugh at times. If you are looking for a movie that is stupid, but in a fun way, then this one fits the bill.

Interesting note: I appear in the film as a dead body in the far background of the final scene. During filming they needed about 50 extras, yet around 300 people showed up for the opportunity. They eventually used nearly 200 of them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once in a while it is good to see a really bad film like this, just so you know how decent an actor Keanu Reeves is by comparison. The premise of this story is good: teenagers go out on a boat, meteor lands in water, aliens kill teenagers. What's not to love about that, if you're into scream thrillers? But I should have known something was up when I read it was only 75 minutes long. I thought, \"I hate judging movies by how long they are. Who says a movie has to be 90 minutes?\" But once I took the DVD home from BBuster, I was shocked at the awful production quality, acting, directing of this completely amateurish piece of garbage. The only reason I watched it to the end was because I don't have cable TV, and I already paid four bucks for it. However, there was one ray of light: the actor who played \"Chris\" is actually decent, and far outclasses this dreck. First of all, the special effects were cheap and unconvincing. Then the aliens--the costumes seemed interesting (rubber suits) but since most of the film takes place in the dark, you don't really get to see them! And hardly any of the actors were convincing enough to suspend disbelief. Finally, I must say that the DVD jacket was made with much higher production standards than the film itself, which felt like a rip-off, so beware of that when you rent other DVDs. Save your $4 and buy a pint of beer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the opening shot of the meteor falling towards Earth, you know you're in for something special.

This is an ultra-low budget shot on video movie about a group of teens stranded on a lighthouse island with some monsters. The story is unremarkable and nothing you haven't seen a thousand times before. The acting isn't great but isn't completely horrible, however the special effects - of which there are a good deal - are laughable at best. In fact, if you can read this sentence, chances are better than 50% that you could do a more credible job creating the video explosion and compositing effects in this movie than the filmmakers.

The movie's saving grace - if you're in the mood for a grade Z turkey of a film - is that there's always something happening and it never gets boring. And if you like making fun of bad movies with your friends, you might just find this worth a dollar rental.

And I must say I appreciated the opening joke, \"that is the dumbest name for an island I've ever heard.\" Probably the best moment in the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Predator Island starts as six friends, Eric (Tom Dahl), Chris (Dan Gordon) along with Heather (Iris McQuillan-Grace), Kim (Iana Baker) & Denise (Melissa Roby) get invited to spend sometime on Kevin's (Michael Wrann) father's boat partying in the open sea. What could go wrong with such a super sounding idea? Well for starters a big green meteorite could crash into the sea near your boat & an alien life-force could emerge from it & try to kill all of you, then again that's just a ridiculously stupid idea, isn't it?

Co-edited, written & directed by Steven Castle I thought Predator Island was crap & it's a simple & straight forward as that really. The script is of the worst kind, you know the sort of abomination that's full of highly annoying teenage character's who do & say the most stupid things, it's full of clich\u00e9s & is utterly predictable, it makes next-to-no sense, things just suddenly happen without any build up or explanation, it's boring even at only 70 odd minutes & it has virtually no entertainment value whatsoever, not even unintentional laugh value. The film doesn't really have much of what I would call a plot, there's no explanation given as to why or how this alien creature can take over people's minds or why it can be selective in the sense that one moment the person will be 'normal' the next, when the story calls for it & with no apparent cause, they suddenly get green glowing eyes & a sudden urge to turn cannibal. There's not enough horror in it, the so-called action scenes are pitiful & I really don't want to waste another second thinking about Predator Island let alone wasting my precious energy typing these words...

Director Castle doesn't do anything to make this thing watchable & the 'special effects' are absolutely terrible, this alien creature dude wouldn't even get into a 50's sci-fi film. The filmmakers even play some blooper footage over the end credits but this has to be the least funny collection of mistakes ever, I mean they can't even get it wrong right if you know what I mean! Forget about any decent gore as there isn't any, there's a bit of cannibalism & some intestines placed on the unfortunate actors stomach so another unfortunate actor can pick them up & pretend to eat them.

With a supposed budget of about $150,000 I have to concede that the filmmakers were working on a seriously low budget, that's still no excuse for making such a poor film. The whole thing looks very cheap & the acting is pretty bad.

Predator Island is crap, I'm sorry but that's the way it is & I just fail to see what anyone would get out of it. In my humble opinion this probably one to avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I carefully checked if there's another movie named as this one, and there isn't ! But I really don't think we all saw the same movie ! There's no way ! How can you vote more than \"1\" for this movie ?! The idea of this movie let's say it's acceptable. Oh, and the acting of Dan Gordon (Chris) is quite good. But those are the only two things acceptable in this project. The others are... awful ? It's a very delicate word to describe the acting of the other actors, the directing, the (so said) \"special\" effects, even the way that the crew was filming ! I don't even like the way that the camera operators were moving to record the scenes ! This may be the most miserable film I've ever seen. I really don't remember a movie lower than this one... Maybe there is, but... I don't think so... Ehh, what's done, it's done... That's the movie and there's too late for anyone to change anything. I've voted \"1\", but my realistic vote starts with a \"-\" (minus) in front....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like to think I have seen it all. SS DOOMTROOPER. The one about a family of sabertooth tigers. The one about a family of pteranodons. GOAT EATER. DEMON CHILD (a nonanimated child's rubber doll with horns glued on its head. Several SASQUATCH flicks, none of them good. A couple of giant spider\/insect flicks. Endless HELLRAISER sequels. Endless LEPRAUCHAN sequels. Endless JASON sequels. A kickboxing scarecrow. AX 'EM, which is actually about an urban street parade recorded on someone's $199 camcorder. And so on. I watched part of an STV the other night about folks stranded on a desert island kickboxing to the death with a group of badly animated totems. I have even sat through DREAMCATCHER, as recently again as last night -- well, I should say I sat through parts of it, having seen it in all of its awful glory years ago. But nothing compares to PREDATOR ISLAND, about a group of youths trapped on an island during a storm, forced to do battle with aliens that arrive in a meteorite. The meteorite looks like it came out of a SUPERMAN cartoon from the 1940s. So do the aliens, for that matter. The photography and acting and directing and writing are all equally bad. I turned it off halfway through. Good luck.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has got to be the WORSE move I've EVER seen!!!!! It was not only boring, it was \"gag me with a spoon\" dumb. Where'd ya find the actors ... on a street corner? Who did the special effects...Maaco? For God's sakes I could have made a better movie with my CELL PHONE. And if that wasn't bad enough, you even had extras at the end of the movie so we could see just how stupid the actors are in real life. Who ever did the makeup for the aliens...must have spent $5 at your local used costume store and called it a day. And who in the world wrote up the movie description on the back of the DVD case should be shot. PUHLEEZ!! It's not even 1\/8 % of what it is described as. That description is just to suck people in to buying, renting or paying a ticket to see it. No wonder there was never a trailer to it....ya would have drove them all away!!!!!!!

Bad Actors...$5

Special Effects...$5.50

Fake Fire....$1.89 (cigarette lighter)

Time Spent Watching This Movie....total waste! (I should sue ya for my time watching it)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie is so bad. but its so bad that i was laughing my ass off. for people that like movies, do not watch this one. for people who like movies good and bad, i recommend this one. the story lines shaky,the script is horrible,the acting is horrible to mediocre. the soundtrack throughout the movie was corny but i loved it. the cool catchphrases were a plus tho. ha ha. \"if it can bleed, it can die\". the fight scenes cracked me up. it seemed to me like they spent more time on those parts than any other cuz the fight scenes for the most part were pretty clean. i almost feel like this movie could have been good if it weren't for the f\/x....no it would have still been a crapshoot. the eye thing was corny. and how the chick was eating the guys stomach in the kitchen,they coulda done something where shed be actually eating something or at least put more of the fake blood on her face. and the lighthouse explosion disappointed me. i thought they might have gotten real fire instead of crappy computer synthesized stuff. and the ending was so predictable, which surprised me when they actually did what i though they might do. so overall. id say this is a classic as far as crappy movies go. its in my bottom 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I see that the majority of the comments so far have been if not overly positive, then at least positive. I can not understand that. The only explanation I can find is that the people who commented had something to do with the film, because this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It makes \"Boggy Creek II\" and \"Mutant\" look like masterpieces of horror. The acting is shaky at best, and awful for the most part. The entire movie is almost pitch black, probably so they could shoot it all in the same location. The monster looks like something from one of Roger Corman's worst films. And the plot...well, the less said about it the better.

One to avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rented(free rental thank goodness) this as supposedly filmed in CT where I live....could have been filmed in a tunnel for all that matter! Dark ninety percent of time, and just an awful attempt at a low budget flick, which can be good if done right. In a nutshell about a bunch of young adults who witness meteor fall, and subsequently fall prey to aliens on a lighthouse island, assisted by keeper and wife. Analysis:

- acting = dreadful

- writing = uninspired

- story = done a million times before with different settings

- production values = okay (lighting) for budget

- effects (creature, digital, other) HORRIBLE,VERY CHEAP LOOKING

So, you get the gist of it. To add insult to injury, end credits has bloopers of filming - really now......who cares! Distributed under a Universal company, shocked they would even do so after viewing.

Finally as alternative, try \"CREEP\". Low budget, but well written, well acted, and fairly, well, creepy!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow. So my boyfriend and I went to the movie store to rent a film. I like dumb horror movies, so I browsed the variety of terrible films they had to offer while he went off in search of Michael Moore's 'Sicko'. So then I found the worst of all of them (as I would soon find out). It looked good on the cover and the description on the back seemed decent enough. The fact that there was an IMDb quote on it as a review was proof that it would be bad in a good way. So the next night, we put it in the DVD player and from the first five minutes, we were so incredibly confused.

The movie is utterly incoherent, with badly placed time-jumps from past to future that leave you asking a major 'WTF?' The plot has no sort of coherent story -- other than the vague allusion to a local myth about a murder, but this only actually comes into play in the movie in the last twenty minutes of it. So pretty much for the first hour you have this: random, confusing time jumps; incoherent plot; parents who don't age; bad acting; bad dialogue; a boy who magically changes hair colour; and a host of obnoxious characters for you to get bored with!

The movie moves so slow that it's a chore to actually sit there and watch. I'd rather be scrubbing the toilets, honestly. Don't bother with it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I only watched this because I saw a couple of good reviews for this, so I was expecting at the very least a half-way cheesy movie. Toybox doesn't even deliver that. There are so many problems with this flick, that I don't even know where to start, so I will list a couple of main issues (Once again, spoiler warning. Just read them, it'll save you the trouble of watching this later).

One, this movie starts out with, and often mentions, the mythical folklore of both Celeste Noir (A witch, who the main character claims she is the reincarnation of), and the mid-folker (or something like that, an evil man with a big smile who cuts people open with hooks and sells their innards in pies). I liked that, it was a cute concept, anything to do with pies is simply enjoyable. But then you watch the movie and it's all about this idiot girl and her boyfriend (And what was the deal with him? Was he psychic? Did he have powers? Why did he keep seeing visions that even the so called 'Witch' didn't notice??), and them meeting their insane family. Not really insane, they just argue a lot. That's what most of this movie is, arguing, and they barely touch on the supposed myth ever again except in a couple of confusing scenes that you can't make heads or tails of.

In one scene, Berenice (The main witch-related character) wanders off and does some sort of ritual by candle light. It seemed rather important, but absolutely NOTHING happened after she did it, it just wasted more of my time.

And who the hell was that guy with his dog? You see him walking towards the house from the very start of the movie with that evil red-eyed dog, and then he finally gets there and gets killed? What the hell?? Was he the mid-folker? Was his dog possessed? Did someone kill the dog? They never really showed that. Also, any scene involving the Vicar was completely pointless and only served to weakly explain the lame ending. It was like they had all these interesting character ideas and they all went nowhere! The boyfriend, who obviously had some sort of powers but never explains them. The grandmother, who appeared to also have some sort of witch powers, but never used them. The Vicar, who...OK, never mind, there really was no point for his existence at all. And then there was Berenice and her stupid amulet. Could she really do magic, or did she just use it to reflect light and blind people? This was a complete waste of time, and the only reason I give it two stars at all is because a) Berenice is kinda cute, and b) It mentioned pies. Save yourself the money of renting this and dear god don't even think about buying it, unless wasting money is a new fad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to like this movie, because it is refreshingly different from the hordes of everyday horror movie clones, and I appreciate that the filmmakers are trying for something original. Unfortunately, the plot just didn't hold together and none of the characters were likable enough for me to really care about them or their fates.

Visually, The Toybox was pretty interesting. The director took a lot of somewhat risky moves, like adding in little bits of (Flash-looking) animation in parts and really cheesing up some of the special effects (such as the light from a certain amulet). Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn't, but he deserves kudos for the attempt, and the cinematography was generally of high quality.

Unfortunately, when this same approach of throwing lots of things at the wall to see what sticks was applied to the plot, the results were not very good. The film never really finds a tone that it likes, moving schizophrenically from black comedy to family soap opera to 80's witchcraft flick to childhood nostalgia to embattled-family slasher. Taken on their own, bits and pieces of each of these elements work fairly well, but nothing ever coheres into a satisfying whole. Besides that, large bits of the plot are never really explained. I'm not one who likes to have everything spoon-fed to me, and I like movies that leave things up to the audience to decide, but the parts that are left out from The Toybox just seem like they either ran out of money before they could explain them or they didn't really think things through to begin with.

I look forward to the director's next project, since I think there is a lot of talent lurking under the surface here, but I can't really recommend The Toybox on its own merits.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Really!Here the French cinema hits rock bottom ,and compared to it, the least appealing of the American adolescent horror movies,the likes of \"Friday the thirteenth\" \"Freddy\" and co are masterpieces of the seventh art.

It's all the more infuriating as there were exciting original elements :the for\u00eat de Broc\u00e9liande and its legends ,the druids and King Arthur ,all were splendid assets for a dreamlike fantasy and horror film.Alas! Filmed ,as an user aptly pointed out in a fake forest,near Paris ,the movie is fake horror,fake Celtic history,fake vestiges -you should see the professor (Wilms who was a wonderful M.Le Quesnoy in \"la vie est un long fleuve tranquille) scream for the \"invaluable scrap\" -which the production probably bought in a dime store-fake characters ,fake excavations...

The boys disguised as druids are unintentionally very funny ;so are the girls who seem to be experts in martial arts.And what can we say of the professors? of the monster? A ten year old would write a better screenplay than this grotesque farce.To think that people can spend money for such drivel when artists are still waiting for a producer!

Word to the wise:Maurice Leblanc wrote a marvelous story dealing with druids and old ceremonies in his Arsene Lupin saga called \"l'\u00eele aux trente cercueils\" .A miniseries was made 30 years ago.Avoid this \"Broceliande\" garbage and try to see it instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the early 00's, production companies had a short-lived craze for supernatural genre movies in France after \"The Crimson Rivers\" and \"Brotherhood of the Wolf\" turned out to be hits, so several movies were green-lit or saved from their \"direct-to-video\" fate. However, France, as opposed to the US, UK or Italy, has little tradition of fantasy B-movies and it turned out quickly that \"Samoura\u00efs\", \"Bloody Mallory\" or the \"Crimson Rivers\" sequel were ill-advised attempts at recreating a kind of magic that had never existed in French cinema in the first place. As they flopped, producers have gone back to their usual fare: derivative farces or the umpteenth self-referential tribute to French New Wave by a former critic from \"Les Cahiers du cin\u00e9ma\".

\"Broc\u00e9liande\" could only have been green-lit during this short window, as it serves no other discernible purpose. It's your by-the-book slasher movie mixed with vague mythological element and horror references and you'll find bimboesque female characters, a French University looking like a US campus and plot twists so lazy you don't even care because you had guessed it by yourself an hour before, even before the movie started.

These elements make all the fun of a 70's or a 80's B-movie and you expect them in a 70's or 80's movie. However, we're not in the 80's anymore and nobody warned director Doug Headline, as this tribute to the slasher movie genre is nothing more than a derivative slasher movie. Headline himself is no rookie and has been writing as a critic about this kind of pictures since the early 80's but as a first time director he shows a lack of skill and ambition that makes \"Broc\u00e9liande\" a bore.

When you put together clich\u00e9s from a movie subcategory and hand them to a skilled and inventive director such as Wes Craven or Quentin Tarantino, you get a \"Scream\" or a \"Death Proof\", movies that are imitations from old guilty pleasures but also magnify these clich\u00e9s and add a great deal to them. That's called \"talent\" and that's why you can't confuse these recent movies with their original inspirations shot decades ago.

\"Broc\u00e9liande\" takes the lazy path and only reproduces the worst elements from past movies (unfortunately for the male viewer, the gratuitous nudity is mostly missing). There are very strong similarities (presumably unintentional) between the plot of \"Broc\u00e9liande\" and the reviled \"Halloween 3: Season Of The Witch\", as both deal with supernatural Druidic evil rituals and some silly attempt at taking over the world on Halloween night. As even the plot of \"Halloween 3\" makes more sense than this one, it means that something seriously wrong went with \"Broc\u00e9liande\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The actresses are cute and the sets, while simple, quite OK. Apart from this, there is nothing to save from this movie. Incredibly bad acted, dumb to tears dialogues, all-too-expected plot, a lot of goofs and inconsistencies (for instance, a pretty young girl gets hits in the head by a morning star and not only she survives, but barely with a scratch !)... To make it short because it does not worth more, even the fans of the genre can avoid it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After a few misfires, we are still waiting for THE French horror movie that the critics will certainly vilify, but will launch a new trend. Not this time. Doug Headline can't be accused of not being knowledgable in the genre (He is editor of a high-class fantasy imprint, has worked for legendary magazine Starfix.), but why a scenario that uses EVERY clich\u00e9 in the book (except maybe the Odious Comic relief) ? Why make it so predictable ? Even the nods towards Argento fails flat. It's not even an euro-teen movie like the German \"Anatomy\", much better, just a compilation of scenes that barely seems to have any relation one with the other and features LOTS of plot holes. The whole \"Celtic\" aspect is barely touched. And, after a \"revenation\" painfully predictable, the screenplay offers us a boring, endless chase in a subterranean necropole which seems bigger than Parisian catacombs. I really wanted to love this film. Really. But even a mother would not. Oh, and writer Valerio Evangelisti was supposed to have a cameo, but I vainly looked for him.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I HATE THIS MOVIE!!!!!! I have never seen such utter, complete trash in my life!!! I live in France so it turned out that I was in the front line to watch this awful movie. At first, it seemed cool, kind of like something about a cursed forest that chomps people. Unfortunately, it turned out it was something QUITE different: a good start with a girl that meets a guy and all that whatnot, then the girl gets threatening messages in the form of ravens shut up in her bathroom closet(ludicrous), from that bit and on, the movie starts to slide downhill very quickly with a lot of desperate thrashing in the process. The movie ends with sacrificial druids galore and ancient ugly, stinky creatures coming back from the past to kill a few people. Many questions were rushing around my head by then: why the heck did they bring back that scummy monster? Do druids look like maniacs dressed in bedsheets? Why did they even bother making this movie?? The \"climax\" of the movie was so goofy I laughed all the way through it: the \"awful\" stinky monster does battle with the two young women(who appear to be expert kung fu masters) and the professor gets sliced in two or something. What surprised me was that the monster was so slow and ungainly in battle, wasn't it supposed to be a god of war or something? Anyway, the movie in it's death throws was a pitiful sight. A brief condensation of the contents of this movie: Kung fu mayhem+druid stones+mysterious murders \"\u00e0 la thriller\"+ancient prophecies+shabby ravens+old clumsy boneless war god+nutty professor=complete and utter, diseased, boneless, worm eaten, GODFORSAKEN, GODDAM, RECYCLED, FAKE, WANNABE, LUDICROUS SH*T!!!!!!!!! Things I learned from this movie: -Ancient war gods are lousy at kung fu. -All young women who study archeology at university in France are kung fu experts. -Professors are so resistant they can survive being sliced in two by a saw-mass-whatchamacallit without any injuries.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What should i say? I only saw this flick for curiosity, and this is truly a shame... I grew up in Brittany with stories of celtic legends, and spent 5 years in Rennes, the town in which this film is said to take place... Shame that not any actor nor camera from this flick ever arrived in Rennes. They could at least have chosen a likely town, or a likely forest, but nothing even SEEM like Brittany nor Rennes... And calling it a film about celtic legends is really making a fool of the audience. Besides those details, it could have been a good film, but it's crap. Silly scenario, silly characters and no originality. Definitely to avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, absolutely dreadful, And this coming from someone who loves bad movies - but there's a limit. I enjoy all sorts of horror\/suspense films, and have seen some wonderful work from European film makers. Broceliande is sadly not among those those wonderful pieces of film-making. The camera work is worse than amateurish. Not the fashionable, shaky MTV \"cameraman needs Ritalin\" type of camera work so many film-makers use to camouflage their lack of talent. This is simply bad frame composition and terrible image composition. The acting is farcical when it is not entirely two-dimensional. The dialogues are stilted and unnatural - even more so than your usual run-of-the-mill horror\/suspense film delving into pseudo-mysticism. I think that what put me off the most was the horribly choreographed fight scenes at the end of the film. These were bad to the point of being ludicrous. I've seen what a small budget can do, and it can do wonders. This was just bad film-making. Very, very sad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another try, another miss. France may be doomed for not being able to produce a good horror movie. I mean... the least they could do was to shoot the movie in the forest of Broc\u00e9liande, but even the forest is fake ! It was shot near Paris ! The subject is useless, the actors are really insignificant and the text makes you wish you were deaf. Nothing could save it.

Bad... to the bone. I wasn't warned. I want my money back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a stupid movie. Like a lot of these karate movies it is badly written, awkward, and sometimes just stupid. The action really isn't all there and the movie overall leaves much to be desired. Everyone here is talking jive, doing bad karate and doing a very bad job of acting.

Watch for Scatman Crothers in a small role, he is too good for this movie overall. Jim Kelly is good at karate, but he is a terrible actor. Gloria Hendry is real bad. All of them are, there are just so many parts to this film that make absolutely no sense. The supposed love\/running away scene with Hendry and Kelly, what the hell was that? They destroyed that man's guitar, for no reason!

And then there was the mandatory girls on trampolines!!! Now what was that? They were in the movie for five seconds, then you never heard from them again!!! Then there is the whole racially charged element of the movie, which is cool and all, but in this movie it goes absolutely nowhere. Like I said, this is good for a laugh one time, but don't watch it again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a parody. That means, there are no characters as such, they are all plain stereotypes, and the movie relies completely on the quality of the jokes.

Well, there ARE quite some good jokes in this movie. Unfortunately, they are hidden in a mass of real stupid ones. If one expects all dialogues to be absurd, the fun wears off.

You see, there is American Pie 2, my all time favorite teenager movie. It contains a lot of real original characters. Maybe the jokes are tasteless, but all the people have some kind of live. For example, they feel embarrassed if something embarrassing happens. That is what makes the jokes themselves actually funny !

Not so this movie: every scene is clearly arranged as a pure parody, so there are no characters at all, therefore there is really no room for any sympathy. Too, if you know the original movies, you know whole scenes in advance. Add the fact that many jokes are not funny at all, and you have this movie.

The only thing that saved me from getting completely bored where in fact the comments from some teenagers in the cinema where I was watching the film.

Ah, and my personal highlight of the movie was the very short appearance of Melissa Joan Hart in one scene. Sigh. She is just too cool, she can't be real. Hmm, worth a whole movie ?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Of course, all this nonsense begs the question 'Does a genre as self-referential as the teen comedy really need another parody movie?' The woeful 'Scary Movie' (I and II) took the formula about as far as it could go - 'Not Another Teen Movie' really doesn't have anything either intelligent or shockingly excessive to add.

The plot, essentially based on fairyfloss teenflic 'She's All That', walks a shaky line between parody and homage ('John Hughes High School'). Everything from 'American Beauty' to 'Varsity Blues' is mined for references. The result is ultimately an unfulfilling viewer experience. The downside of giving us a carbon copy plot of 'She's All That' is that we all know where its going anyway. And if we didn't then the jokes would be meaningless.

There's extremely little to recommend here. The token gross-out scene (an erupting toilet) seems badly out of place here amongst all the 'feel-good' references. There are moments of humour - the song is funny enough and the odd good line is send the audiences way. It stinks, don't watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is not a remake of She's all That ( 1999)?

Where is the renewal of the american movie? This was probably the worst movie I saw in the last 5 years. This and the last movies of Schwarzenegger.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK i have seen Hershall Gordon Lewis movies before but this one really takes the cake,its really gory and gross,not to mention disgusting the way the strippers are done in,I'm talking bad acting that makes plan 9 from outer space look like hamlet,the only saving grace is the late great Henny Youngman as the strip club owner,yeah take my wife..., please.the stripteasers are real sexy for 1972,i believe they used this same plot again in the Roger Corman movie;stripped to kill in 1987.i did enjoy the earlier H.G.Lewis flick 100 maniacs,which was a mini masterpiece of sorts,but bad acting,no awards here,but be aware this is a splatter movie that paved the way for Friday the 13th,and saw.in one disturbing scene a half naked stripper has her butt spanked with a meat tenderizer.ugh!morbid stuff here.H.G. Lewis strikes again. 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some might remember if having seen the film Juno a scene where Ellen Page has a moment of praise for Dario Argento's Suspiria, her favorite horror film. Jason Bateman's character then asks if she's ever seen a Herschel Gordon Lewis film, and to wit he has a copy of a movie (I forget which at the moment) and shows it to her. At the time I saw Juno I had seen Suspiria and a few Argento films but not Lewis. Now I can see that it's not just another one of Diablo Cody's pop-culture \"in\" references, but something that actually is an indicator on the tastes of the characters and, maybe more subjectively, how to judge them based on their tastes. In other words, Herschel Gordon Lewis's reputation is maintained some many years after he ended making his gore films - and it's that of a schlock-Meister, no more no less. Actually, less.

It's interesting then to take Argento as a basis of comparison, because both filmmakers approach, at least in the case of The Gore Gore Girls and, well, any given Argento picture, similar material. Where Argento is extraordinarily conscious about his craft, getting an audience wrapped up in whatever little story there is by the power of the movement of camera and music and style, Lewis takes the easy route to get at an audience, which is with an immature script and (putting it lightly) lackluster direction. The Gore Gore Girls reveals a filmmaker who isn't interested in entertaining his audience in an actual compelling way as a horror film, but as a side-show or a brothel. He can't direct actors worth a damn, he lights like it's a porno movie, and for every one possibly clever or funny one-liner there's ten that either totally stink or are too clever by half or not clever nearly enough.

That being said, perhaps as the best substantive thing to say about The Gore Gore Girls, a mystery movie about a detective (2nd rate Sherlock Holmes guy played by somewhat amusing Frank Kress) and a newspaper reporter (dummie Amy Farrell) investigating a series of murders of go-go dancers, is that it serves as the template for countless more Troma-style pictures. Perhaps this is faint praise, however, and really the best thing that can truly be said is that Henny Youngman- \"Take my wife, please!\"- has a few scenes and steals every one of them without having to try much. It's sad, since it could be the kind of picture that could entertain on an awesomely-bad level. But even on that score one may laugh more out of embarrassment for the production, some of the actors (i.e. that guy who plays the cop, my God) than out of some guilty pleasure enjoyment.

Even the gore itself is somewhat of a letdown. At first one thinks that Lewis is at least delivering on this end, showing these women being murdered in crazy and vicious and exaggerated ways. But with the killings it all goes on longer than necessary; I don't mean this in terms of shock value, for that it's fine. But there needs to be something else to really make it \"stick\", that showing women's faces dissected and eyes gouged is fine if you're 12 and seeing this as one of you're first 'horror' films. It becomes, dare I say it, dull. Dangerously dull for such a \"daring\" so-called movie.

This was Lewis's last film until 30 years later an apparently worthy swan song came with a sequel to a film he made earlier brought him out of his retirement from movies and job in writing books on how to make it in business. However, whatever experience he had coming up to this one doesn't show. It's not a failure, but it could have been, and it's just simply... schlock. Take it or leave it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"what a lousy movie, took me 3 times to finish it. The thing i disliked the most was the infantile sense of humor. jokes made by a 10 years old child. not funny. pretty annoying actually, for example when the detective cant get a place at the bar he yells \"she's taking it all off\" and then they all run \"fast foreward\" slapstick kinda' rush. so stupid. and also a guy sitting at the bar smashing fruit to work out his post traumatic stress disorder. on the bar! and the bartender is supplying him with more and more fresh fruit. thats supposed to be funny? and i mean ... i love good ol' exploitation gore flicks, and saw a lot of terrible movies, but his one is plain bad. and also the \"gore\" is not that exciting. don't bother. i wouldn't recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Aside from Frank Kress (who played Abraham Gentry), an appearance by Henny Youngman and the last seconds of the movie, there really wasn't anything particularly good about this film. Why it is currently rated 5.3 and adored by some reviewers is beyond me--the film is 99.44% crap...and exactly what I would have expected from director Hershell Gordon Lewis. In the 1960s and 70s, Lewis was known for making a string of incredibly low budget exploitation films, such as BLOOD FEAST and MONSTER A GO-GO. However, in recent years he's been christened \"the father of gore\" and he has many, many fans--fans who ignore the ineptitude of his work and only focus on how groundbreaking some of his films were. But apart from the liberal use of fake blood and real guts, at heart, his films are pure crap--and don't believe scores of 9 and 10 for his films. This would be like putting a velvet Elvis painting in the Louvre!!

The film is about a string of very grisly murders that happen to strippers. When I say gruesome, it's very bloody and sick for 1972--though by today's standards the special effects look amazingly lame. So, while some very deviant and cruel murders happen in the film (I'd rather not explain them--they ARE from a pretty sick mind and show a particularly sick disregard for women), at least they won't nauseate you because they were done so poorly. It's obvious that in many cases they are cutting apart rubber dolls and mannequins. But to have them doing some of the sick acts, even if unrealistic, is pretty nasty and shows a lot of misogyny.

The only hope in the film, as the police are all idiots, is a guy named Abraham Gentry--whose mannerisms and style of speech are very close to the stock actor, David Lochary, from the early John Waters films. While his acting is bad, he is so flamboyant and funny that he kept my interest. He could be pretty funny and oddly this is the only film he ever made!! It was also odd that so many women wanted him--especially because they just didn't seem like his type.

As for the rest of the folks in the film, they are cretins and idiots who could not act. In fact, I was kind of hoping MORE would be killed--they really had it coming! None of their acting was the least bit believable and apparently the director NEVER re-shot a single scene--as most of the scenes in the film were worse than any of the ones in Ed Wood's masterpiece, PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. In fact, for many of the women in the film, the only prerequisite for their appearing in the film is that they be willing to take off their clothes. Now I know this will sound pretty mean, but most of them were incredibly unattractive and looked like drug addicts who strip to get their next fix. When these ladies take off their clothes, men in the crowd give them money to put it back on (wow--Henny Youngman SHOULD have said that in the film)! But, considering Lewis' budgets, these were probably the best \"actresses\" he could get.

Overall, a sleazy bucket of bile that manages to be worse than most of the director's other films...and that's saying a lot! It's violent (yet dumb), anti-women (treating them like meat and things to be mutilated) and is thoroughly incompetent from start to finish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love camp movies, believe me and the usual technicolorian gore of Gordon Lewis don't bother me at all, but this is just one of his most stupid movies, even more than BLOOD FEAST, i'm not kidding. THE GORE GORE GIRLS is about a mad person who kills a lot of go(re) - go(re) girls of a night club. A detective and a reporter tries to find out the big secret. Maybe the performances here are slightly better than the usual average acting H.G Lewis films, but that is not saying much. The camera work is even dreadful.

But at least is kind of watchable with the go go girls acting ... you going to pass a good time with it, and the killings are just absurd in a very, very bad way: A girl is killed with a wooden hammer punching in her butt (!) and just don't let me talk about what it does with the nipples. You going to laugh like anyone with this. But the better of all this mess is a scene that i only love of it's campness: the go-go girl before being attacked by a lot of feminists dancing in a very American way. Though is important to note that this was one of the first films that got an X rating because of it's violence.

ONLY if you want lo laugh and pass a good time (But only with a lot, A LOT of beers).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I debated quite a bit over what rating to give this one because it's my least favorite Herschell Gordon Lewis film so far other than The Gruesome Twosome, but it has the best acting I've seen in a Lewis film. However, we all know that's not saying much. Once the movie was done, I was happy because it felt like I had been sitting through a 4 hour movie, though it was only 82 minutes long. I'm trying to see all of HGL's films and that's probably the only reason to see this one.

The gore is good as usual, the one thing that Herschell seemed to get right. The acting is just as bad as usual with one exception. That exception is Frank Kress. Now, would I say that he's a good actor? No way, but he's good compared to everyone else. The story is boring and flat and goes no where and by the end, I didn't care what happened just so long as it ended. I know this is a cult classic but I didn't enjoy it very much at all. I hope you will.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Say what you will about cinema's \"Wizard of Gore,\" Herschell Gordon Lewis, it must be conceded that from his first films (1963's trashy \"Blood Feast\" and 1964's crackerbarrel massacre \"Two Thousand Maniacs\") to his last (1972's \"The Gore Gore Girls\"), the man remained faithful to his muse, gleefully chopping up the bodies of young men and women for the delectation of the camera. In \"Gore Gore,\" for example, someone has been mutilating the pasty-faced and pasty-clad strippers at the Tops & Bottoms Club, and obnoxious ex-detective Gentry is hired by a hotty cub reporter to assist on the case. The film features remarkably annoying and repetitive background music, terrible lighting, abysmal acting, repugnant characters, problematic sound AND, of course, some of Lewis' patented gross-out scenes. Thus, one of the strippers has her face shoved into boiling oil; one has her head ripped open; another has her face ironed and her nippies cut off; and still another has her bum paddled with a meat tenderizer until her entire backside is covered with what appears to be Buitoni tomato sauce. (I could be wrong here; it might have been Ragu.) The film also throws out some fairly lame humor, although some of the lines ARE pretty funny. For example, we learn that the real name of slain stripper Suzie Creampuff was...Ethel Creampuff! A bottle of acid says \"Made In Poland\" on it (don't know why, but I thought this was funny). And some of strip club owner Henny Youngman's lines are, of course, amusing. Still, this is NOT the movie to show to Aunt Ethel or Sister Agatha. It is one of the sickest you'll ever see, with only one surefire, crowd-pleasing moment--the title card at the film's conclusion that reads \"We Announce With Pride: This Movie Is Over\"!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Low-budget schlockmeister Herschell Gordon Lewis reaches a new low (even for him) with \"The Gore Gore Girls,\" a 'film' (snicker) that possesses all of his technical trademarks: badly-recorded sound, poor lighting, and OTT gore. This would be tolerable, even a bit charming, if the film at least had an interesting plot (\"Blood Feast,\" in all its ridiculous glory, is a fine example), but \"Girls\" is a total snooze. Completely unlikable pompous-ass private investigator Abraham Gentry (Frank Kress) is recruited by a newspaper reporter to find out who's been murdering out-of-shape strippers (you'll stop caring who the culprit is long before these two are wrapping up the case). As before, the appeal isn't the plot, but the creative methods of bloodletting (including a girl's fanny being tenderized with a wooden mallet) and the occasional flashes of then-risqu\u00e9 skin...but this just isn't enough to elevate the material above tedium.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, this stripped my nerves raw, they got that right. I first rented this movie back in the 80's, when my friend opened a video store that carried every rare movie he could find. He also carried all the shock, horror, and exploitation movies he could dig up, and I went through almost of all them. Previously I had seen Blood Feast and 2000 Maniacs, and the Wizard of Gore. They were gruesome (especially for the time period), and the Wizard of Gore got pretty nasty. The Gore-Gore Girls, however, was the one I remember as being the most disgustingly gory.

I rented it on DVD a little while ago because I wanted to hear the commentary, and thought it might have some cool dancing and clothes. I forgot that it was made in the early 70's, so fashion had kind of gone downhill by then. I also realized this was a movie I didn't really need to see more than once. It had amusing parts, but gaaaah! It was much more disgusting than I remembered. I'm very jaded to movie gore but a couple of times I just got too grossed out and had to look away. This wasn't a good choice of movie to put on DVD all crisp and cleaned up with better sound and picture quality. The commentary is amusing in parts, and interesting (I think HG said the budget was $6100.00) Maybe HG Lewis wasn't feeling well that day, but he sounded tired overall and also had the nerve to get offended when the interviewer from Something Wild compared him to Ed Wood Jr. Sorry pal, but you're not exactly Martin Scorsese yourself.

The extremely thin plot is about a series of murders of topless go-go dancers in strip clubs. A cute reporter and a really unattractive private detective team up (sort of-he can't seem to stand her) to try to solve the crimes. Henny Youngman owns a strip club. A bunch of really ugly murders happen.

I'm going to apologize in advance because I don't want to sound like I need to lighten up, but this movie was so misogynistic it p***ed me off more than \"Company of Men\". Mainly because the main character's and the director's extreme dislike for females- and the audience- just oozes from every frame. It's not just the murders. The highly unattractive detective goes out of his way to treat the female reporter like dog dirt at every opportunity, for no apparent reason, (he's not exactly a threat to George Clooney, like I said) and she still follows him around like a puppy. She faints upon seeing a horribly mutilated body and he looks distastefully at her, then pours cold soda from a can onto her face to wake her up. Later he calls the police to report the crime- \"No...no hurry...she just seems to have...lost face.\" This guy is THE HERO. You can imagine how the other characters feel about women. I could go on and on but you get the idea. Please note that I am making this movie sound much more politically correct (and much more fun) than it actually is.

Most of the cast are the type of actors you pray will never take their clothes off- not too easy on the eyes, so don't watch the movie just to see the nudity unless you're not too picky. The go-go dancers all look like they desperately want to have the scene end so they can get their $10 or whatever the going rate HG paid them was and get their drug fix. OK, it's not quite that bad, there was one dancer that looked like she might have been a pro and also one other cool dancer with a huge afro that didn't look as miserable as the rest, but still not too thrilled. The only slightly entertaining things were a couple moments of brief unintentional humor, such as when a policemen in charge at a murder scene angrily yells \"Get outta here before I have you all arrested!\" not to a bunch of reporters but to some other policeman calmly going about their work (they mutter and stroll off, though). Henny Youngman is kind of funny though, like Lewis says, he said his lines so fast that they almost needed subtitles (I'm sure he was trying to get the whole day over in a hurry so he could get paid and get the hell out of there, though he doesn't look like he minded watching some naked chicks).

Might be worth seeing just out of morbid curiosity- for the era the movie was made, it was probably the most gruesome thing on film at the time- or if you're really big HG Lewis fan and find him or low-budget film-making by anyone fascinating. Otherwise, if you've seen it once, you've seen it and can move on to other disgusting but much more entertaining low-budget movies from the early 70's...this movie doesn't even come close to, say, \"Pink Flamingos\" when it comes to the skip-the-popcorn factor. If you've never seen an HG Lewis movie, I recommend you try \"Blood Feast\" first instead, you'll have a much better time.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Give H.G. Lewis points: He managed to incorporate beefy exotic dancers, gallons of his notorious fake blood, and Henny Youngman all in one movie. \"The Gore Gore Girls\" was Lewis's horror film swan song, and ends with a head being squashed by an automobile. Oh... Henny plays a surly night club owner whose girls are falling prey to Lewis's standard butchery.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This sequel to \"In the Heat of the Night\" will suffer in inevitable comparisons to its infinitely better predecessor. Instead of looking like a theatrical movie edited for television, \"Mister Tibbs\" looks suspiciously like a TV movie edited for theatrical release, with grainy photography, cheesy opening titles, and sets that look like they're made of plywood. The murder sequence has a glaring continuity error: the camera shows two hands choking the girl, then a shot of a hand reaching for a statuette, then a shot of the girl being choked with two hands again, and finally the statuette coming down for the fatal blow. Solving the case should be easy: find the only guy with three hands! But the shoddy production values can't completely obscure this film's considerable merits: namely, Sidney Poitier's performance as the cool detective determined to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, even if it implicates a friend. Martin Landau is also convincing as the do-gooder preacher-activist suspected of brutally murdering his prostitute girlfriend. In addition to being haunted by the case, Tibbs is conflicted about his home life, but the issues of race and Tibbs' barely concealed sense of social outrage are absent here. So is the complex murder mystery that made \"In the Heat of the Night\" so compelling.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Academy Awarding actor Sidney Poitier of \"Lilies of the Field\" reprises his role as Lieutenant Virgil Tibbs from the 1967 Oscar winning Best Picture \"In the Heat of the Night\" for veteran director Gordon Douglas' tired, uninspired sequel \"They Call Me MISTER Tibbs,\" with nobody the equivalent of Rod Steiger with which to swap dialogue. Clearly, both \"Bullitt\" scenarist Alan R. Trustman and Robert D. Webb of \"Cape Fear\" were off their game when they penned this predictable police procedural potboiler. The dialogue is drab and none of the characters are interesting, not even the chief suspect. Absolutely nothing remotely exciting, suspenseful, or surprising occurs in this tame whodunit. Meanwhile, things have changed considerably since Virgil was last seen in \"In the Heat of the Night.\" He worked as a homicide detective for the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Police Department. In \"They Call Me MISTER Tibbs,\" our hero works for the San Francisco Police Department. Moreover, he has a wife, Valerie (Barbara McNair of \"Change of Habit\"), and a family, a young rebellious son, Andy (George Spell of \"The Naked Kiss\"), and a younger doting daughter, Ginger (Wanda Spell of \"Hickey and Boggs\"). Tibbs drives a medium blue Mustang and his wife holds down the house and hovers over their two children since he doesn't have as much time to spend with them. Literally, there are no surprises in this pedestrian murder mystery. Indeed, the best thing about \"They Call Me MISTER Tibbs\" is Quincy Jones' terrific orchestral soundtrack with a memorable opening theme, more memorable than this forgettable crime thriller deserved.

Everything begins sensationally enough with a struggling prostitute, Joy Sturges (Linda Towne of \"The Adventurers\"), being bludgeoned to death in the bedroom of her downtown apartment by an unseen assailant. Apartment handyman Mealie Williamson (Juano Hernandez of \"Intruder in the Dust\") enters Joy's apartment and finds her strewn on the carpet dead with a bloody forehead. He picks up the statue briefly and then puts it back on the floor and reports Joy's death to the superintendent of the apartment, Rice Weedon (Anthony Zerbe of \"License to Kill\"), and Weedon gives Mealie and fistful of dollars and sends him packing. Afterward, Weedon anonymously notifies the SFPD that popular minister Logan Sharpe (Martin Landau of \"Nevada Smith\") beaten Joy to death and was seem leaving Joy's apartment. Captain Marden (Jeff Corey of \"True Grit\") assigns Tibbs to handle the case; it seems that both Tibbs and Sharpe have known each other for 18 years. Naturally, Tibbs' wife Valerie cannot believe that the well-known, politically active evangelist could have committed such a crime. Just to give the movie context, it should be noted that when Tibbs and the police study the crime scene, they mention the word 'semen,' no doubt a controversial term to mention in an early 1970s movie.

Tibbs questions Weedon whom he suspects is either a drug pusher or a pimp. Weedon explains that he has no records on Joy Sturges because she was subletting the apartment from another realty company. Tibbs visits the realty company and realtor Woody Garfield (Ed Anser of \"JFK\") flees and drives off, essentially doing an O.J. Simpson until he crashes his car after a lengthy but tame pursuit. When Tibbs proves that Woody didn't kill Joy, he allows him to leave, with his disgruntled wife, Marge (Norma Crane of \"Penelope\"), prepared to file for divorce after the revelation that he paid a hooker to stay in an apartment.

Tibbs tracks down handyman Mealie and clears him of the crime, and then he goes after Weedon. Luckily, for Tibbs, our hero catches the evil Weedon in the middle of a narcotics transaction. One of Weedon's henchmen assaults Tibbs, but Tibbs dispenses with him briefly before he embarks on a long foot chase after Weedon. Eventually, he corners Weedon in an underground parking garage and they shoot it out. Guess who wins.

The scenes in the Tibbs' household are more interesting than his investigation. Andy runs rampant, striking his sister, and smoking in the garden. Our hero wants him to clean up his room. When Andy refuses, Tibbs pops him three times on the jaw. These child rearing scenes could probably never be handled today as they were back in 1970. At the end of the movie, as if to solidify the family sequence, Tibbs is seen walking off with his wife and kids. There is on confrontation between Valerie and Virgil about the welfare of their children and how his long hours at work has affected them.

Director Gordon Douglas directs in competent fashion. Surprisingly, for a film released in 1970, the filmmakers never play the race card. In one scene, when Tibbs searches a billiards parlor owned by an African-American, we see a mixed breed of races scowling at the hero when he finds Mealie and leaves with him in tow.

Altogether, \"They Call Me MISTER Tibbs\" is a poor follow-up to \"In the Heat of the Night.\" Mind you, Poitier delivers another fine performance with nuance, but everything looks prefabricated. All of the sets look fake and there isn't much physical violence: one underground parking lot shoot-out that doesn't last long and a fight. Beyond Jones' seminal jazz score, the only surprise\u0097and it really doesn't qualify as a major surprise more like a convenient contrivance\u0097is the ending. Donald Medford's \"The Organization\" followed \"They Call Me MISTER Tibbs\" as the second, more action-packed sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pumpkinhead was in itself a decent 80s horror flick. No classic by any means, but an enjoyable piece of fluff. Why then, have we now been treated to a fourth film in this franchise is beyond me. As in previous sequels, there's nothing here to really connect the films except for the monster, the witch and Ed Harley (Lance Henriksen). This time out we follow the feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. Part of the film is a Romeo And Juliet romance as a young McCoy boy and his Hatfield lover decide to run away to be together. Soon, however, they are torn apart and the boy's sister is killed. The boy escapes to the woods and gets the witch to resurrect Pumpkinhead for some vengeance. The acting is passable at best, amateurish at the worst. The titular demon doesn't even really show up for almost forty minutes and when it does its a pale comparison between it and the original design. Overall, Blood Feud fails to impress. It may be worth a watch once, but certainly not an addition to the collection.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well they've done it again a new pumpkin head film, the first pumpkin head film was perfect for its time, a dumb, gory, and clich\u00e9d monster flick. so heres how it goes, some one loses their loved one, goes to the witch in the woods, gets her to raise pumpkin head and have it murder everyone responsible. unfortunately the film makers have deemed it irrelevant to try and do any other than this, for the films fourth outing, deeming it far more suitable to add some lame romeo and Juliet sub plot, involving an idiotic family feud (over a car!!!!) and surprise surprise some gory pumpkin head slayings, so far so formulaic, but it doesn't stop there the acting talent in this flick is dire...oh so bad half of them can't even keep up a southern accent without slipping into their native and often posher accents. Lance henrikssen is on board so surely he would bring some gravitas to the movies proceedings...but no lance merely ambles on screen lets the words fall out mouth with absolutely no emotion or seemingly direction, and walks off again, i honestly think he just turned up for the money, then went off to his trailer to drunk and reminisce about aliens.

this film is utter cack there is no redeeming feature other than it ending credits which signal its all over.

despite the failings of ph:bf...if you want a no brainer that'll make you laugh for all the wrong reasons watch it.

if you want something with abit more meat and originality avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Writer\/Director Michael Hurst's Sci-Fi Channel sequel to Stan Winston's classic horror tale of revenge gone awry has its moments and some decent gore, but ultimately falls short in comparison to the original.

I'm pretty sure the filmmakers weren't trying to make a comedy, but I caught myself laughing throughout. A family feud started over a car accident is the basis for this entry into the franchise. The Hatfield and McCoy families live in a backwoods town with dirt roads, drive pickup trucks, drink moonshine, and kick each others asses every chance they get. Just when they thought it was safe to hate each other and live happily ever after, Jodie Hatfield (Amy Manson) and Ricky McCoy (Bradley Taylor) decided to fall in love causing the fit to hit the shan. One night the two lovebirds decide to head out into the woods for some quality time while Ricky's sister plays lookout, but it just so happens that on that very night some of the Hatfields accidentally kill Ricky's sister and catch him and Jodie together. You know what happens next. Ricky finds his sisters body and decides to pay a visit to Haggis so that he can exact his revenge through the mighty Pumpkinhead. Ye Haw! Also, Harley (Lance Henriksen) is back to warn potential damned souls against using Pumpkinhead to ease their pain. Which really put a kink in the story because Harley is supposed to have called on Pumpkinhead years before this story takes place, but the setting and characters look like dirty Pilgrims that somehow traveled through time in order to bring the pickup truck back to Plymouth. Then there's the Sheriff (Rob Freeman) who has his own ties to the demon and looks like he belongs in a 70's revenge movie instead of a made-for-cable horror flick.

Some of the gore and special effects were cool, but instead of sticking to the man-in-a-suit way of thinking Hurst used some terrible looking 3D shots for certain scenes. One particularly embarrassing shot shows Pumpkinhead jumping from tree branches like a badly rendered 3D monkey. The cinematography was exceptional and elevated the quality of the movie quite a bit. The acting was pretty decent also, with the exception of a few poorly executed accents.

Family feuds never end well, especially when the families involved in the feud have to deal with Pumpkinhead. I didn't enjoy every minute of this flick, but it was much better than most of the movies the Sci-Fi Channel spits out. Maybe it's a sign that the Channel is trying to bring the quality of its movies up to match the quality of its original series'. I wouldn't waste any coin on a rental, but if you get the chance to catch a rerun of it on the boob-tube I would say to check it out. It's a not-so-killer-film but it rises slightly above the level of trash that makes it onto DVD these days.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I realize it's a small statistical sampling (8 votes as of this posting), but 5.9 out of 10? I'm giving this movie a 3 and even that's generous. I've tried to watch this movie three times now (the Saturday night 9 p.m. premiere on SciFi Channel, and the Saturday night at 1 a.m. and Thursday night re-broadcasts) and I've fallen asleep all three times before the movie ends. Which leaves me with a laundry list of unanswered questions. For example, is Lance Henriksen that strapped for cash that he has to keep playing supporting roles in these god-awful \"Pumpkinhead\" sequels? Is Henriksen contractually banned from doing any non-\"Pumpkinhead\" movies? Can't the creators of this franchise do better than a monster that looks like a geriatric, emaciated \"Alien\" who walks like he has a stick jammed up his a**? When are the hick characters in these movies going to realize that handguns and rifles don't hurt the \"Pumpkinhead?\" Why don't they try jamming another stick up this thing's a** instead? And, lastly, are the writers of this movie so creatively challenged that they couldn't come up with names for the two feuding families more original than the Hatfields and the McCoys? While you're at it, why not write a screenplay about a fictional president and name him George Bush? Someday I may have the mental stamina to watch this movie all the way through without drifting off to sleep. Until then, if somebody has the answers, please let me know.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved the original P.H. and was somewhat satisfied with Bloodwings (II)and Ashes to Ashes (III), then I saw part IV. Oh boy..... As a Pumpkinghead enthusiast, I did my best to give part 4 as much credit as I could, but it's pretty bad. The wedding reception fight right at the beginning of the film is a horrendous mess for one thing. The Hatfield and McCoy storyline is incomprehensibly stupid and clich\u00e9. How did the producers get away with using that tired family feud storyline? Wow, unbelievable. The acting, besides Henrickson, is below average. The plot and script are mind-numbing. The actual editing and cinematography are average, as is the directing. I mean, the movie isn't a total loss. As always: I really enjoy watching Pumpkinhead, I love seeing Haggis the Witch, and like watching Harley's ghost in action. But all three characters had WAY too much screen time. I thought Haggis and Harley would wind up going out to a supper club for an evening bite to eat and drinks, the way the were being so buddy buddy in her cabin. The bottom line is.... Is that I wanted all the characters in this puke fest of a plot line to be dead within 20 minutes of the start of the picture. Where does Sci-Fi get these so called \"film production professionals\" from anyway!? I could do a better job writing a script stone cold drunk. I'm sure there was a limited budget and everything, but come on! See it if your a fan of the other three, but just once. And then go back and stick to the original two. Shame on you Sci-Fi!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just wanted to leave a quick comment as its not listen on here ,but i have just seen this movie,the version I just rented was released in 2005 as far as I know and it was actually called \"Don't go into the attic\" I only realized it was the same movie as Devils Harvest upon searching for some of the actors who looked familiar in the movie. Anyways I'm in Ireland so maybe this has only been released over here and in the UK now,but thats what its called over here..........not really like it matters because I would not recommend this movie.The only words that spring to mind watching it are CHEESE CHEESE CHEESE!! My one mark out of ten is purely for the one little jumpy bit :o)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The artist Daniel King (Chris John) and his mate Laura Peters (Lara Clancy) are invited to move to an old house in Cornwall, in Great Britain, by his childhood wealthy friend Natasha Carlton (Carol Kentish). Natasha has a crush on Daniel, who is an ambiguous man regarding his sentimental life. While alone in the house, weird things happen and Laura is startled and scared. When Laura meets the old insane priest Gabriel Norton (Brian Blessed) on the road, she is advised to immediately leave the house, since evil lived there. But the couple stays and has to face tragic consequences.

What a messy screenplay and awful and cheesy movie this \"Devil's Harvest\" is! The cinematography and the camera work is not totally bad, but the amateurish performances of Chris John and Carol Kentish and direction of James Shanks, together with the terrible story, ridiculous situations and dialogs make this movie one of the worse I have ever seen in the genre. I have occasionally seen in YouTube a couple of shorts from cinema college that are better and better than the pointless and dreadful \"Devil's Harvest\". In the end, it is not a horror movie but a horror of movie. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): \"A Colheita do Diabo\" (\"The Devil's Harvest\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How in the name of decency did this film ever get made?

One presumes the subtitles merely say 'awful' on every single frame of this truly dismal effort.

Horrendous acting, woeful dialogue and the lack of talent from everyone involved in this nightmare make for an excruciating 90 minutes.

Overall impression?

A bunch of excitable drama students got lucky with a lottery grant and proceeded to make one of the most painful films ever made.

This makes Hammer Horror TV shows look like Oscar material.

And don't for a second think this falls into the 'so bad it's good' category. It's not even that bad.

But the fart lighting scene is probably worth another look.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So this ugly guy with long, nasty hair and his girlfriend end up in this house and they argue and argue about his old girlfriend. There was suppose to be something scary in it but I didn't see anything scary at all. There is some mention of a demon from the sea but that doesn't go anywhere at all. I wish it did because then it would've taken the tension away from the jealous love triangle. The title of the movie makes it look like it would be a scary and exciting movie but it is so far from it that I couldn't believe it. I waited and waited for it to end and was so happy when it did. It did not live up to the title like it should have so boo hoo hoo. The cover had a cool picture but I shouldn't judge a cheesy movie by its cover.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Gun is probably the worst film I've ever saw. The comedians direction is very poor, the dialogs sounds like they were written by a 13 year old teenager, the plot (what plot?) is another \"suspense\" in which it is very hard to get into. Finally, nothing in this movie is any good. A big thumbs down to everyone involved and particularly to the Montreal film festival who presented this movie IN COMPETITION!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was quite excited when I saw this film in competition at the Montreal Film Festival. Along with Elephant and a few others, I thought the issue of American gun violence\/culture would be treated intelligently and in a fashion compelling for film-goers. The press-release promised (in not so many words) a `Red Violin' for the gun-violence crowd, something to make us ponder our NRA-shoot-em-up mindset in this country.

After waiting until after 9:15 to be seated for a 9AM screening (what technical difficulties they would have encountered is beyond me), we were finally let into the venue to see the film on DV (where did the advertised 35MM print go?). I think I just answered my first question.

The result is an abhorrent mess. We get the \"gun\", in a vignette with the most unrealistic \"biker' I have ever seen (and I do know more than a few). The film then lapses into irrelevant \"character development\" only because the characters are either a. stereotyped, b. losers, c. stereotyped losers, and\/or d. racial caricatures. It takes another 30 minutes to get to the plot movement, and once we are there, we wish for the inane conversations between the couples and\/or the bikers and pawn brokers.

The film finds it's conclusion, but not without leaving any clich\u00e9 untried. I didn't care for the white-trash characters who came in contact with the gun, and the depiction of the minority characters should have the NAACP crying foul immediately. All these people WOULD chase after a gun, because they are at the bottom of the societal trash-heap, and would look for an opportunity wherever it was found. Placing the action a level up would have at least provided some soul-searching on the part of the characters.

The biggest problem is the promise unfulfilled. The plot outline was great. In the hands of a P.T. Anderson or Gus Van Zandt, it could have been a powerful piece. But due either to bad screenplay, direction or both, the thing is an unmitigated mess that needs to be ignored at all costs.

My bigger question is who at the MFF thought this was competition material. Better bury this on Showtime at 3AM.

Art Blose","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wakayama Tomisaburo's portrayal of fugitive ex-Kaishakunin Ogami Itto felt entirely natural. His demeanor, his voice, his appearance- all of it spoke to dislodgement. When he entered a space I, as well as characters on the screen, could feel he didn't belong there and that his determination to be there spelled trouble.

I read somewhere that Mr. Wakayama actually took Kendo (Japanese swordsmanship) training and that would explain his comfort with the katana, which showed magnificently in every cutfest. If you watch the movies, from the moment he draws to the moment he sheaths the sword you feel as though you were witnessing something inevitably ugly. He'd even spin the katana quickly to flick off the blood before sheathing it and it would happen in an effortless instant.

Nakamura Kinnosuke's rendition comes across as a rendition. It feels as though he were trying too hard to be someone else or tell someone else's story. As a result, every time I tried to engage I'd lose my grip because HE didn't seem to have a firm grip on the role, himself. As though it were awkward for him.

The swordsmanship in the TV series was entirely old-school Hollyweird, too. Camera cuts to disguise Mr. Nakamura's awkwardness with the katana, slow action, targets sitting still, etc. Extremely bad, from a viewer's perspective. There was a moment in the episode The Castle Wall Attack when Mr. Nakamura drew his sword like a child. It was embarrassing. He handled it as though it were heavy! I almost fell off my chair.

And let's be frank: The story is about an excellent swordsman. Period. Swordsmanship is an issue.

Realism isn't, however: the swordplay in the movies was excellent and manga-like, as was intended, I'm sure. (The baby cart was outfitted with a cluster of automatic, rapid-fire muskets operated by a 3 year old? Yes...manga-style.) It's how the story seamlessly weaves historical cultural accuracy into, basically, superhero fantasy that makes the movies captivating. (Read Yoshikawa Eiji's Musashi [%historical legend]%!) I couldn't really sit through the TV series episodes. They just felt cheap. See the movies first and you'll know what I'm talking about.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a very interesting acquaintance! \"Two-fisted tales\" contains three foolish and childish episodes - genre isn't actually horror or action, more like something in between. Where's the suspence? Where's the fun? Where's the common sense? Definitely not in here but if you don't expect to get it, you don't necessarily miss it.

First segment is called \"Showdown\". It's a violent, absurd western. I failed to understand the whole idea of it. \"King of the road\" is a stupid story starring Brad Pitt. At the time of \"Two-fisted tales\" he was just a pretty face who really didn't know how to act yet. Luckily he learned the skill later and now he's a fantastic, talented actor - one of the big ones of the younger generation. Story is almost ok in all of it's stupidness. Final episode \"Yellow\" is the only segment that's almost entirely successful. It's foolish but funny. We have to thank Kirk Douglas for that.

This movie is something to watch when you sit in an easy chair and eat popcorn. (I should know, that's what I did) If you loved \"Tales from the Crypt\", you'll love \"Two-fisted tales\" too because basically it's all the same. I understand these three episodes are actually extremely rare \"piece of art\" and very difficult to find anywhere. I have the whole package on VHS but I don't think it's a big privilege. You'll have to be a fanatic Brad Pitt fan to search it out. Otherwise don't bother, it's not worth the effort. Silly crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Corny and horrible, I was not surprised this short lived show didn't make it. I remember fondly when Tales From the Crypt tried reusing these corny episodes like they were actually scary. Coupled with bad acting and lousy music, I was surprised this crummy showed was ever conceived. It never showed up again, and one can only be thankful for this circumstance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm so glad I only got this movie for $5. Anime is expensive, no doubt about that. I've had my eye on this one for awhile and finally I saw it on sale. I grabbed it immediately and took it home only to hang my head in disappointment. This movie sucked. I've heard people talk about how gory and violent this movie is. It's really not that gory or violent. I've watched it three times, and I think I've wasted enough of my life on this. The demons get a point for being unique and kinda cool at times. The sex gets a point since it's almost non-stop. The horny old man gets half-a-point for being horny and still having the sex drive. And the main character (who's name I've erased from my mind) gets half-a-point for the cool design of his gun. I saw major connections between this movie and Demon City Shinjuku. Both have same style animation, that's obvious because of the director, both have lame soundtracks which suck like the Antichrist, and both have terrible endings. Avoid this movie unless you're into anime sex.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Victor Jory never became a major star. He is better known for later character roles than for his early leads. But he was very handsome and an excellent actor.

His love scenes with Loretta Young in this romantic adventure thriller are passionate. Their kisses look very real. And very modern.

Vivienne Osborne is a standout here also. She plays a woman with a reputation. But the character has a good heart.

The print I saw was not clear. But what a joy that rare movies like this are turning up! And they are, in some sort of watchable condition, still intact. This is nothing truly special. But if one is willing to sift through movies of its era with similarly intriguing titles, one is likely to find some suprtb movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...but memorable because it includes an actor I actually recognize! James Horan is, by these types of movies' standards, Lawrence Olivier. He's given some decent performances on stuff like Highlander and various Star Treks, so it's kind of amusing, if mildly depressing, watching him degrade himself here. Okay, yeah, there's a plot. Horan's character and his wife are fighting, he's having an affair with a movie reviewer while trying to do his \"masterpiece\" film, and their guest decides to enjoy the wonders of stripping. But watching Horan is really the only enjoyment to be found here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The problem with making a movie like this, though, is that the finale, the cr\u00e8me-de-la-creme of the movie, the battle between the two souped-up ships, must be done well. Disappointingly, this scene in Ironclads is obviously done completely with little model ships in an overgrown tub. There's no tension, little explanation of what exactly is going on and what the timeframe is of the stand-off.

The film takes quite a few liberties with the surrounding story, as all true stories do when converted to a movie, such as the Union traitor and most notably that of Betty Stuart (Madsen), a Virginia belle.

It resorts to making a possibly-decent movie involving an interesting story on the ironclads to preaching about the evils of slavery. It was out of place in this historical drama, and was a cheap ploy to bring in the women viewers. It only succeeded in lessening the positives about the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well now this strange movie. It was listed as a comedy but I certainly found nothing to laugh at. Actually I am struggling to find anything positive to say about this film. Oh here I go. Alex Ferns is not bad in the lead role and I did not pick the ending for a change, but apart from that this has no great direction solidly two dimensional characters and is not funny enough to be a comedy or serious or dark enough to be any form of decent drama. I would really avoid ever having to watch this movie again and think it does nothing to benefit any of the working class characters it is attempting to portray. I found it hard to empathise for any of the characters and was not given enough information on the lead character Jimmy to believe his motives. Best avoided.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is so poor it's watchable.

The plot deals with a grizzled spaceship crew happening upon a drifting, apparently abandoned Russian craft.

In the empty vastness of space, the two craft accidentally collide (!) - and 'Alien'-esque fun ensues as a cyborg from the Russian ship menaces our crew.

The spacecraft interiors are clearly a dolled-up factory set (metal walkways, boilers, piping). In this entirely unconvincing setting, 'Kody', 'Snake' and the rest of our hero crew grimace, grunt, run about and continually and repeatedly rack their shotguns without firing them.

The continuity gaffes are what define this movie, and they are nothing short of amazing:

Stuff appears and disappears. The shotguns are racked. A cigar gets longer by being smoked. The shotguns are racked again, just to make sure. Content of a bottle increases by being drunk from.

The film progresses through the usual clich\u00e9s by way of intense ham acting, poxy camera work and Ed Wood quality props to a showdown climax.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As other reviews have said, another of the countless number of Alien clones, this time with a great wodge of The Terminator thrown in, add a bit of the classic SF Story \"Who Goes There?\", and a insanely stupid plot device lifted from The Andromeda Strain (apparently flashing red lights make rampaging killer 'droids unable to detect scared people standing three inches away from them).

OK, the story: after a sequence of people running around in a space ship and killing each other we get a caption.

\"25 years later\".

The crew of a relay station orbiting Mars, due to be relieved in 48 hours, detect a ginormous space ship on a collision course. It's The Siberia, the ship we saw in the opening sequence. Not a good time to have taken everything useful off-line on the relay station to do some repairs then. The approaching ship doesn't deviate from its course and is broadcasting a \"Do NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES Enter This Ship!\" warning. After a lot of shouting at each other, the crew of the relay station patch something together and get the station out of the way just in the nick of time. But the ship changes course and rams them any way - impaling one of the crew on a stick-outy pointy crew impaler thing. The satellite starts to \"loose integrity\". Bits de-pressurise. Lots more shouting and running about in which only two crew people are sucked out into space backwards. (Why are they ALWAYS sucked out backwards?).

After a few keystrokes the wheelchair bound techy (who is called 'Wheeler' - the only only detectable joke in the whole movie) deduces that the Siberia is draining them of all their power and they need to go aboard her and switch off its engines. They all go on-board and take their helmets off. \"Do NOT Enter This Ship!\" obviously means get on board the ship and expose yourself to possibly fatal infectious diseases. One team head for the Main Computer room where they find a dead frozen guy clutching what looks like an American Express card but turns out to be a minidisc. The other team find some switches. Amazingly the dead bloke turns out to be the father of the attractive female crew member voted most likely to survive an encounter with a rampaging alien. They switch the engines off but this means the ships reactor will explode. A spooky Point of View Shot starts killing people. There's some guff about the Siberia having discovered an new ore, a petential power source worth millions, which mean the more venal members of the crew immediately thrust themselves into danger to get hold of it. The POV shot returns with whoosh! whoosh! walking noises on the soundtrack. Unfortunately these give you the idea the killer is wearing corduroy trousers and the effect is wasted.

After that it's all just running around and getting killed in order of ugliness and acting ability, until only the obvious survivors survive - along with the cute dog which had managed to lead at least two crew members to their deaths. Just why space hardened veterans wander into the jaws of certain death looking for their pets cats and dogs has long been a mystery of this kind of movie. Other stupid highlights include everyone forgetting to act the falling levels of oxygen until reminded by the voice of the on-board computer (not that the low levels of oxygen in any way dampen any of the impressive fires this load of idiots start). If the Killer Droid id so clever it can steer the ship in a tight curve and have another go at ramming the relay station why didn't it turn off the \"Do NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES Enter This Ship!\" warning signal.. I'm sure if it was looking for more people to kill then yelling GO AWAY! was not a good way of going about it.

Musetta Vander is the only person who gets to do any acting - everyone else just flares their nostrils all the time while baring their teeth and shouting and pointing guns at each other. It that sort of script; full of exclamation marks - the only thing that kept me watching till the end was the hope that the script demand she take all her clothes off, or get wet while not wearing a lot. Unfortunately it didn't. One of the things wrong with this movie (apart from it having more cyan put on screen than in any other movie ever) is that there was no gratuitous nudity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Each year the company called Nu produces couple of \"action packed\", \"full of suspense\" movies. This little nugget, called Shadowcaster III(Until I visited this site I wasn't avare this is a whole trilogy), is a great example of the good job the company is doing. Frank Zagarino is as mean as always and does a great job as almost undestructable(?), schizophrenic(??) android. I won't waste any more words since I don't want to reveal the terrific plot and ruin you a couple of great laughs.

Rating 2\/10 (Revard for those hard working tehnicians. Man, putting together this kind of rubbish must be nervewracking.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Happy Days\" was produced and broadcast from the mid-1970's to the early 1980's and seems to get more ridiculous with age. At the time of its broadcast, most viewers who grew up in the 1950's were in middle age with families, and the scenes at Mel's Diner probably brought an artificial nostalgia to them. The Fonz was of course the coolest of the cool (although the actor Henry Wrinkler to this day has never learned how to ride a motorcycle). Richie Cunningham was the all-American blond-haired kid who would probably be elected student body president. Potsie was Richie's best friend--the star of the show has to have a best friend, I guess. And Ralph Malph was the bumbling sidekick to the Fonz, if not the entire group. I loved it when the Fonz would beat up on poor Ralph Malph. And there was Mel, the middle-aged lug who ran Mel's Diner. And of course who could forget the appearance of Mork? Was this really the 1950's? Ironically, films produced during the 1950's, such as \"Rebel Without a Cause\" and \"The Wild One\" have gotten better with age and portray the period more honestly than this show which was produced 20 years after the period it portrays.

Unfortunately, the TV show \"Happy Days\" is not in the same league as \"Rebel Without a Cause\" or \"American Graffitti\" for that matter. \"Happy Days\" may have captured some aspects of the 1950's with its burger diner, juke boxes, cool cars, and tacky plaid shirts, but it is more a nostalgic idealism done strictly for laughs rather than an honest portrayal. \"American Graffitti\" had something to say about young Americans in the 1950's whereas \"Happy Days\" seemed more about what middle-aged people of the 1970's wished the 1950's had been like. The result was a kind of watered down fabrication that really has nothing to do with the 1950's. \"Happy Days\" is, at best, a comedy-fantasy with some of the artificial culture of the 1950's as its backdrop. As pointed out by another reviewer, the all-American kid Richie Cunningham would probably have been chastised for befriending the likes of a drop-out like Fonzie. And Mel would probably forbid Fonzie from entering his Diner.

A quick history: \"Happy Days\" was originally a pilot called \"Love in the Happy Days\" that was rejected for broadcast. Comedy pilots that had themes concerning sex and romance that did not make it to pilot airing sometimes appeared on the infrequently broadcast show \"Love American Style\" which was often aired in place of baseball games that had rained out or other unexpected programming cancellations and\/or alterations. In short, \"Love American Style\" was a throw-away show that contained all these one-episode comedy pilots that never made it to a slotted debut. \"Love in the Happy Days\" did appear as a \"Love American Style\" show sometime in the early 1970's, but at the time TV executives could not foresee how a show about 1950's young people would be popular, particularly during the hey-day of comedy shows centering around middle-aged people, such as The \"Mary Tyler Moore Show\" (and its subsequent spin-offs such \"Rhoda\"), \"The Bob Newhart Show\", and \"All in the Family\". (How things have changed since now most TV sitcoms are about young people and the industry avoids most shows about middle-aged people like the plague!)

Subsequently, one of the young stars of \"Love in the Happy Days\", a child actor from \"The Andy Griffith Show\" named Ron Howard, got the chance to star in a film about young people taking place in 1959 called \"American Graffitti\" directed by the relatively unknown George Lucas whose previous \"THX 1138\" had bombed miserably at the box office. Even when it was premiered to movie executives, again the studios could not see how a movie about young people in the 1950's could become popular because it didn't \"fit\" with what had been popular in the past, although they didn't realize that much of the movie-going audience had been young in the 1950's. As everyone knows, the movie was a huge hit, and studio executives recognized that they had completely misjudged their audience. Somewhere during the theatrical run of \"American Graffitti\", TV executives realized they had a comedy pilot in their vault that was a lot like \"American Graffitti\". They brought it back with the original cast, plus Henry Wrinkler as \"The Fonz\", re-titled it \"Happy Days\" and the rest is TV history as it became one of the most popular shows of the 1970's.

\"Happy Days\" now seems ridiculous. The characters are flat and cardboard, never being more or less than what they superficially are. The issues they deal with are trivial. And their reactions appear mindless and even silly. Nowadays, the character of the Fonz seems to be a caricature of, well, The Fonz. Was the idea to be a kind of parody of Marlon Brando's character in \"The Wild One\"? Looking on the show with fresh eyes, I feel the producers really missed out on a great opportunity to present the 1950's with depth and realism that still could be fun and entertaining. Instead the producers decided on cheap laughs for quick bucks. This is definitely a show that has not withstood the test of time. \"American Graffitti\" has many of the outward appearances of \"Happy Days\" but it had an edge. It had an honesty about the characters and their issues. \"Happy Days\" took the look of \"American Graffitti\" but failed to take its heart.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"HAPPY DAYS was one of my favorite shows when it aired in 1974. But the critics were quick to show their ignorance combined with a total lack of a sense of humor by slamming this show because they thought it was a cheap attempt to cash-in on the success of American GRAFFITTI.

There were some similarities between American GRAFFITTI and HAPPY DAYS.

Both opened with \"Rock Around the Clock\" by Bill Haley & the Comets. Both took place in a bygone era and both featured Ron Howard as one of the leading roles. But there were also some major differences. While American GRAFFITTI took place in 1962 California and centered around a group of newly graduated high school students about to take that big step into adulthood, HAPPY DAYS took place in Milwaulkee, Wisconson and centered around a group of teenagers in high school, dealing with the joys and tribulations of adolescence.

HAPPY DAYS originally opened with the juke box playing the original version of Bill Haley & the Comets' ROCK AROUND THE CLOCK. But when oldies became hot, thanks to the success of American GRAFFITTI, , and the original 1954 version of ROCK AROUND THE CLOCK, entered the Billboard Hot 100 and became a hit again in 1974, royalty payments went through the roof. So a \"remake\" of the song (the correct term is now \"new stereo recording\") was quickly substituted.

The current theme song for HAPPY DAYS was then introduced for the second season if memory serves me right.

Fans and foes alike agree that this show is escapist. Liberties were taken and details overlooked, making this show less than completely authentic.

This is perfectly fine. HAPPY DAYS is supposed to be a comedy, not a history lesson. But occasionally the writers did sometimes stick their necks out by hitting on controversial topics. One episode centered around the Cunninghams building of a fall out shelter. Another episode was about a divorced woman moving into the neighborhood with a dream of starting a new life. The topic of prejudice was addressed when Howard was invited to the wedding of an old army buddy who just happened to be black (in an era when prejudice and discrimination was sadly an acceptable part of the American way of life). The issue of the draft even came up on a later episode!

The show as originally set in 1955. One problem that was dealt wisely was with the cast. Most of them were teenagers and as each year passed, it was obvious that they grew older so the series aged with the cast, moving the series out of the safe waters of the Eisenhower years into the Age of Camelot, all the way with JFK and then into the turbulent later half of the 1960s. That, along with the writers running out of ideas, and later, cast members like Ron Howard leaving the series, wisely quitting while they were ahead, left me wishing that they had all done the right thing by pulling the plug on this show and quitting while they were ahead. That, along with the idol worshiping studio audience who just couldn't control themselves every time the Great Fonzie entered the scene, began to wear very thin very fast.

This show originally portrayed the Fabulous Fifties as we LIKE to remember that era. Time heals wounds, you know. Everything has its place and though I would prefer hearing the \"original hit versions\" over those \"new stereo recordings\", those \"new stereo recordings\" worked very well on HAPPY DAYS. And this is where I find myself regretting my buying the DVD! Unlike the complete first season DVD, the original music on the complete second season, has been replaced with different music. While it is great that the original episodes were digitally restored to digital perfection, the removal of the original music destroyed what it was that made this show so much fun to watch!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oddly enough, it's Fred MacMurray who plays the more \"screwy\" part in this screwball comedy. Carole Lombard shows a fine performance combining lighter moments with and undercurrent of drama and seriousness.

As usual, Fred MacMurray remains a mystery to me. The camera is no fan of his, he's not that attractive, and he doesn't have the style and panache to pull off this very Cary Grant-like role.

Ralph Bellamy is excellent as the kind friend coming back to life through his relationship with Lombard's character. One can only wonder why her character wouldn't want his gentle, reassuring love instead of the almost certain doom of MacMurray's ineptness. But that's Hollywood!

The picture almost works but misses the mark, primarily due to MacMurray's performance. It would've been lovely to see Grant or even Clark Gable in his role. Lombard and Bellamy are largely believable and likable; MacMurray is stiff and makes you want to keep him at arm's length.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The acting is excellent in this film, with some great actors. It was fun to see Fred McMurray as a young man. This is not a comedy. It's a drama and the apparently comedic instances are pitiful. This is not a comedy. It's a drama and the apparently comedic instances are pitiful, and some of them appear forced and contrived. It's in the script, though, not the fault of the acting.

The 10 line requirement forces me to write some more...Hmmm. Loved Carole Lombard's My Man Godfrey, because it is a comedy and, while the acting is wonderful, the story line and the script itself, wins the day. Carole Lombard is pretty and a wonderful actress. I will try to watch Fred McMurray's features.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cheaply pieced together of recycled film footage, music and ideas, this film cannot really be called \"well\". But for me, when I watched it as a teenager, it was quite amusing. (I didn't know BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS before.) In retrospect it has got something nostalgic, regarding the SF wave of the early eighties and the special effects of this time. Its trashy old-fashioned look and its naivety provide a certain attraction. To enjoy this movie I recommend to concentrate on the paternal relationship between the characters of Vince Edwards and David Mendenhall. In addition, I liked the idea that a bunch of scoundrels discovers its heroic qualities after been unwillingly confronted with the challenge to take care of a child.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If there were an EPA for film, then this movie would get their most sincere approval. If we all recycled our \"stuff\" to this degree, we'd never run out of anything.

Funny how I was reminded of this movie when I first saw Starwars I: The Phantom Menace. At least Lucas didn't recycle his old footage.

This is a dud. But it's a nice dud. Cute in spots (I liked when the kid said, \"damn rocks\"). And, if you like explosions (even recycled ones) you will get your fill.

Actually for an obviously \"no budget\" film, it makes out fairly well. Acting is weak, but there is a little characterisation here and there. Story is predictable, but will lead you along anyhow.

This is an \"everybody chases the kid\" type of movie which probably will appeal mostly to younger audiences. I gave this one a 2 out of 10.

I dug up my old VHS copy of this film. I don't think it's on DVD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This one hardly compares to the space adventures of its time. Those being Star Wars and Star Trek. And while I am no fan of Star Trek, I recognize that this film pales in comparison to the series Trekkies ooze over. In fact, I would place Back to the Future in better light in terms of space and travel.

The story is of a boy who is captured by space raiders (pirates). In a obviously fake and unentertaining battle, the captured boy befriends the pirates and even helps them. And slowly, one by one, those raiders die off. In the end, the boy gets to return home and the last remaining pirates escapes gravely wounded.

The acting wasn't that great. But what really is obvious is the total lack of interesting dialogue, effects, and storyline. How they even got 80 minutes of this is beyond me.

If you want to take a shot at it because it involves space, go ahead. But be warned. \"D\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It took me a few years to hunt down this title, a major staple of my childhood. Almost every trip to the video shop I'd pick out Space Raiders and watch it three times every time my mother rented it for me. It was, I suppose, my Star Wars.

It's a shame then that it's such a stinker. My memories were so hazy that it offered nothing in terms of nostalgia so I had to take it at face value. A crew of space pirates accidentally kidnap a pretty annoying little kid and spend the rest of the movie trying to get him home.

Aimed squarely at the under-tens it's got unwelcome slapstick, very shoddy costumes and make-up, recycled special effects, wobbly sets and poor acting. But even with the unintentional comedy it's no fun to see it as an adult, where I can pick out not just the technical faults but wonder at how spectacularly the writer and director managed to botch an endless stream of no-brainer fun\/powerful moments that have been seen in a million other sci-fi movies and in the hands of anyone remotely competent should have been successful.

I imagine as a kid I probably found it quite empowering - there are lots of \"I can't do this, I'm just a kid\" \"Sure you can kiddo, you just have to try!\"-type exchanges; the kid drinks beer, etc., but even by low budget 1983 sci-fi standards this one's pretty awful, with a real snoozer of a \"finale\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As several posters have \"hinted,\" this is a sorry \"Star Wars\" ripoff. Now if you're going to rip off \"Star Wars,\" at least do it right; \"Battlestar Galactica\" did, and there were a few other space operas that didn't do a bad job of it, but this is definitely not one of them. David Mendenhall, the juvenile lead, actually isn't too bad, though he goes overboard on the \"cute\" factor every so often. Vince Edwards hasn't improved much as an actor since his \"Ben Casey\" days; if anything, he's even more wooden than he was ten. The other performances are nothing to write home about, either. Even worse are the special effects; the best you can say about them is that they're lousy. It's glaringly obvious that the \"aliens\" are simply actors wearing rubber masks with a little foam or latex slopped on them, and the \"battle\" scenes between Edwards' raiders and the aliens are poorly staged and badly shot. A very weak effort from Roger Corman. Skip it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A Roger Corman rip-off assembled for what appears to be virtually zero budget. All of the special effects were originally used in \"Battle Beyond the Stars\", and I suspect a fair amount of the props, costumes and sets were re-used from other sources as well. The story seems to have been written around these elements, so this isn't really a movie as much as it's a recycling project. Third-rate \"Star Wars\" junk wasn't needed then or now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a desperate attempt to ride the skirtales of the success of the Star Wars movies. The film uses recycled footage from \"Battle Beyond the Sars\" which is another Roger Corman Sci-Fi Turd, but atleast this one is better than \"Battle Beyond the Stars\" - there is no real acting in this film (but its a Roger Corman film-What did you expect)again the entire soundtrack was done on a Keyboard\/Synthasizer, the sound effects are recycled from \"Battlestar Galactica\" - there are no special effects because they were recycled\/rearranged space scenes from another movie, the costumes look like something right out of 1981 salvation army salvage. --ironicaly, the little boy in this film gives one helluva performance, and he'd resurface again to star in the Sylvester Stallone movie \"Over the Top\" - I give this movie 3 stars out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've been trying to remember the name of this movie for years (not consecutively, of course). I saw it at the local dollar theater when I was 11, and it was so atrocious I almost walked out; I think I didn't realize one was allowed to leave before the movie ended. Anyway, it stuck in my mind as just about the worst movie I saw growing up. I can finally give it the rating it deserves.

1\/10 (that was strangely satisfying)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Truly awful. Obviously an attempt to cash in on the Star Wars craze, but there's no excuse for this insipid piece of garbage. The storyline gets lost before the middle, the characters are forgettable and the kid is such a non-talent that all he does is pose for the camera. An alien planet they land on is actually the Naval stockyards in Long Beach, California.

This movie actually made me physically ill watching it.

Roger Corman has made some good, some bad movies in his career, but there's no excuse for this one.

0\/10 - IMDb won't let you score a zero.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, no one will confuse this with Citizen Kane but you've got to love a movie where the women are always topless. There are a few catfights and some kinky sex as well. On the other hand I hope they didn't overpay the guy who wrote the dialogue. Here's a prime example. After one of the captive girls dies:

\"This is terrible. It reminds me of the day Zenobia died\" \"A relative?\" \"No, my favorite cow.\" I guess they saved some money on the script and blew it on great special effects like that plastic crocodile. I will say that it took me three sittings to make it through this fine work of art, never a good sign. I guess that's what happens after a while when everything looks the same. I hope the folks waiting to rent it next didn't get too impatient. Don't worry folks, it's on it's way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a fan of Jess Franco's bizarre style, and a lover even of his trashier films, and my personal opinion is that he has, besides several very entertaining movies, also created a few masterpieces, such as the brilliant \"Paroxismus\" aka \"Venus In Furs\" of 1969, for example. It is, however, an undeniable fact that the 180+ movies this highly prolific filmmaker has directed in his career, also include a bunch of big time stinkers. \"Sadomania\" of 1981 certainly is one of these stinkers, just an utterly bad and plot less movie with the ability to bore the hell out of you in spite of constant sleaze and nudity.

Sure, the constant nudity will keep you entertained for 20 minutes, but since it keeps going on and on like that one is pretty likely to get bored after a short time. The only thing that really kept me watching this was the intensity of the sleaze which is, generously spoken, slightly amusing.

After couple of newlyweds get lost in the desert on some island, they are stopped by a bunch of topless women carrying guns, wardens of a local prison camp. While the husband is banished from the island, the wife is taken to the prison camp, a place of torture and sexual humiliation, reigned by the sadistic nymphomaniac Magda and an extremely perverted governor. The prisoners are, of course, entirely hot chicks, most of them blondes, the wardens are entirely topless women carrying rifles.

The plot, if one can call it that, is extremely stupid of course, but who is going to watch this for a good plot anyway. The (only) interesting thing about \"Sadomania\" is the high level of exploitation, even for a 'Women In Prison' film. There are probably two short scenes in the movie where we see a woman actually wearing a top, the sleaze contains all kinds of sexual perversions from rape to bestiality, and some of the torture scenes are really nasty.

It is amazing that a film with this extreme level of sleaze, however, can still be so boring. The sleaze will keep you watching in the beginning, but after the first 45 minutes I actually had a hard time not to fall asleep. It also makes me wonder why, out of all pornstars, Jess Franco chose Ajita Wilson, who was, according to most sources, a transsexual who had been born a man (well, maybe for exactly that reason). If you really want to watch this, make sure you have enough beer at home to sit through it and watch it for the sleaze and exploitation only (and maybe for the slight unintentional fun factor). Don't expect to be highly entertained, however, it is almost unbelievable how a movie with such a high sleaze level can be so boring. I am a Jess Franco fan and I always will be, but \"Sadomania\" is just bad. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jesus Franco is pretty hit or miss on his films & I'd say this was a miss, that is, unless you're into total sleaze. I will say that the man has an eye for a good shot, even if it involves topless women with machine guns silhouetted against the ocean. This is overall pretty ridiculous and the acting is horrible, but the acting is the least of what this is about. And what is it about? Well, it's about 102 minutes of lesbianism, women picking and shoveling in the hot sun for no apparent reason, and just about as much sleaze as you can stand and maybe then some. Most notable (?) is a scene involving one young woman who is tied to a chair and an apparently amorous German Shepherd, and while what's going on is merely implied (thankfully) it is probably a scenario that I could have done without. I'd rank this up there with Tender Flesh as one of the Franco films I'd rather not have in my collection, although the music is jazzy and fun. 4 out of 10, yecch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't help thinking that this is Franco's 'hamage' to the Marquis de Sade's \"One Thousand Days of Sodom\". People (in this case women) abducted to serve as slaves to a privileged elite? Check. Kinky sex? Check. Torture including whipping? Check. Victims chosen at random to be killed? Check.

Thank goodness Franco didn't go the whole hog and introduce cinema audiences to the delights of coprology (and indeed coprophagy), another perversion that crops up repeatedly in de Sade's tediously long and disgusting saga.

I rather hoped that this film would fall into the 'so bad it's good' category. But even the acres of naked flesh and numerous sexual encounters didn't make up for the dismal dialogue, dreadful acting, elusive plot and - just to put the tin hat on it - dubbing AND English sub-titles (a belt and braces approach missing from the women's costumes). The Alsation gave a very professional performance though.

Of course I could be wrong about the de Sade angle. After all, I failed to realise that the actor playing the head warden at the 'prison' was a trans-sexual. I must pay more attention to the size of people's hands in future.

According to another reviewer, the film was banned in the UK. Well it clearly isn't any more, though I fancy that the nipple-needling scene was cut to satisfy the censors. On the DVD I watched, it was only clearly visible on the Spanish trailer (which, in case you're wondering, I watched to compare it with the English one).

The DVD also features an interview with Jess Franco, though you'll need better Spanish than mine to understand it. Unless I'm much mistaken it's neither dubbed nor sub-titled. And it points out that the person sodomising the character played by Franco is Ajita Wilson disguised using a moustache. Kind of ironic, given that (s)he had had the requisite appendage surgically removed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Generally speaking, I'm a an admirer of Jess Franco's film-making but, for some of this movies, I really have difficulties understanding the motivation behind them or even their reason of existence. Like this sick puppy, for example. \"Sadomania\" has absolutely no cinematic value, it's poorly made without any sort of plot and featuring some of the most ill-natured sleaze footage ever captured on film. This is another filthy women-in-prison film where rape, lesbian-action and violent torture games are daily routine. The guards are crazier than the prisoners and the institution is protected by an impotent governor who only gets sexually aroused when he spots a girl having sex with a dog (!). The girls are all very beautiful and naked throughout the entire film, yet you can't really enjoy this sight with all the perversion going on. The dubious highlights include a barbaric hunting game (you can guess what he prey is), a duel-to-death between a guard and a prisoner and the image of a poor girl having a needle injected all the way through her nipple. Auch! Avoid this sick mess and you'll save yourself the trouble of taking TWO baths in order to wash the filth off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie is the worst EVER!!! sorry but this was a total waste of good hours. quasi-psychology and b-actors makes a baaaad horror movie. you can say that if you are into bad movies you will adore this one. and the \"hot chick\" wasn't all that hot. there is absolutely no climax to the movie, and the worst part is the ending song. some homemade thing with these words \"its in awful condition the world is a mess. when heads fall of bodies and girls wont stay dressed. the cops they are clueless, eating donuts in their car. newspaperflash next morning: headless body,topless bar.\" Jesus! sorry guys, but milks gone bad with this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My mate and I chose to watch this obvious piece of junk purely based on its tagline\u0085 After nearly 30 years of lousy and rudimentary teen slashers, I can't believe that only just now some nerdy horror brainiac come up with the brilliantly witty slogan \"They Axed for it\"! Other than that, \"Miner's Massacre\" is just as random, annoying and forgettable as all the rest out there\u0085. Perhaps even more! The script contains all the typical clich\u00e9s and features all the dreadfully stereotypic characters you wish a horrible and painful death to. The gore effects are computer engineered and thus beyond pitiable and the obligatory \"big\" stars (Karen Black, John Philip Law and Richard Lynch) are entirely wasted in spite of their top billing. Cursed mines and abandoned ghost towns form an ideal horror setting \u0096 the creators of \"My Bloody Valentine\" already figured that out in the early 80's \u0096 but his dull film simply hasn't got any innovative ideas or even remotely surprising elements to offer. Bunch of greedy twenty-something losers, which refer to themselves as friends even though they clearly can't stand each other, desecrate an ancient mine in search of the gold that is allegedly hidden there. Of course they unwarily resurrect the zombie miner this way and he just 150 years of rest in order to prepare for a massive teen massacre. Yay! The cast is exceptionally irritating in this one. The girls all have impressive racks but refuse to show anything. Instead, they all prefer endless whining and the taking of needless risks. The dim-witted blokes clearly just serve as screen fillers. In her barely five minutes of playtime, Karen Black still manages to make an utter fool out of herself by depicting the most prototypic and hysterical local nut woman ever. The zombie has a stupid and very unconvincing face, but he looks okay and reasonably menacing when shown in the distant shadow of the moonlight whilst swinging around his pick-axe. Since the best thing about \"Miner's Massacre\" concerns the aforementioned tagline and you can read that on the box in the video store itself, there's very little else to recommend here. Director John Carl Buechler scored a few modest hits during the eighties, like notably the original \"Troll\" and a fair \"Friday the 13th\" sequel, but it's obviously time to retire now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was bad enough. I really hope that there is no sequel. Maybe that is giving away part of the plot to let you know that it is open to the possibility, but no, it really isn't.

There is really not at all special about this movie. Well, the special effect were fairly good, but nothing to write home about.

There were some hot babes in her, especially Elina Madison and Alexandra Ford, but nothing to see folks. PG-13, definitely not an R. That also tells you the slasher aspects were less than spectacular. The shovel to the head was the only thing that was unusual.

Tame scare fare.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director and FX man John Carl Buechler doesn't have to do much in order to terrify me; the sight of his name in the credits alone is enough to strike fear into my heart.

His lamentable straight-to-video output in the 80s sat on the bottom shelf of the horror section at my local rental shop; twenty years later, and his DVDs occupy the same space. It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same. You can rely on old JCB to serve up dreck, whatever the format and regardless of advances in movie-making technology.

In this contemptible offering, a bunch of friends travel to a remote town where they discover the secret treasure hoard of Jeremiah Stone, AKA the forty-niner\u0097an evil, claim-jumping, cannibalistic miner who caused havoc in the mid-1800s. Before his death, Jeremiah cursed anyone who should find his gold, and it's not long before the pick-axe wielding killer is back, bumping off the hapless treasure seekers.

With its dreadful script, unimpressive make-up effects and Scooby-Doo style villain, 'The Curse of the Forty-Niner' is par for the course for Buechler. Only genre stalwarts Keren Black, Richard Lynch and John Phillip Law lend this movie any credibility whatsoever, with the rest of the cast giving performances ranging from bad to awful (although I'll forgive Alexandra Ford, who is a complete hottie).

Even fans of bad schlock horror will be disappointed since most of the women keep their clothes on, and a lot of the deaths occur off-screen (which is probably not such a bad thing since the on-screen deaths are pathetic).

'The Curse of the Forty-Niner' is another in a long list of duds for John Carl.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The monster will look very familiar to you. So will the rest of the film, if you've seen a half-dozen of these teenagers-trapped-in-the-woods movies. Okay, so they're not teenagers, this time, but they may as well be. Three couples decide it might be a good idea to check out a nearly-abandoned ghost town, in hopes of finding the gold that people were killed over a scant century-and-a-half before. You'd think that with a title like \"Miner's Massacre\" some interesting things might happen. They don't. In fact, only about 1\/10 of the film actually takes place in the mine. I had envisioned teams of terrified miners scampering for their lives in the cavernous confines of their workplace, praying that Black Lung Disease would get them before The Grim Reaper exacted his grisly revenge, but instead I got terrestrial twenty-somethings fornicating--and, in one case, defecating--in the woods, a gang of morons with a collective I.Q. that would have difficulty pulling a plastic ring out of a box of Cracker Jacks, much less a buried treasure from an abandoned mine. No suspense, no scares, and a couple of embarrassing performances. Somebody forgot to tell the writers that \"Fool's Gold\" refers to the genuineness of the gold, not the people who are looking for it. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Return to Frogtown was a hard film to track down. Well, I accomplished that mission and it had been sitting on the shelf for a good while. Wish it was kept that way! First, Sam Hell is of course not Roddy Piper. He is replaced by a dude with a large face, less charisma, and this poor actor is very soft-spoken for the part! Sam Hell is supposed to be rebellious and awesome. Here, he gets captured THREE times! What kind of a hero is that?! Spangle is replaced as well here by another actress. Why did we not get different characters here? This was stupid! Lou Ferrigno stars in this film and he is not even the hero. Common sense says let Lou be the hero of the film! Bad effects, poor acting, and just a forgettable film. Funny as they take shots at Ninja Turtles 2 with the whole concert scene in this movie. At least Ninja Turtles 2 was funny and not a bad movie! I really wanted to like Return to Frogtown, but I just cringed when the fight scenes would commence. This film makes Turtles 3 look like gold! Avoid this or you will be the one singing \"meaner, greener, talking turtle TV dinner!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hercules wound up falling into the same category as many promising television productions that could have been a really great classic, only to become a sad joke.

I really like Kevin Sorbo and his supporting cast, but I didn't care for the direction the show took since their movie equivalents either. I believe the show would have had a much more successful run if they had kept the same format they did for the movies.

I watched in the beginning and lost interest along the way. I did encounter the odd episode afterwards, but my attention span towards it was lucky to make it to commercial break.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This Game is a good looking First Person Shooter. -----------Hang on......

But of course a story must be put around this genre, so a quite innovative plot about soldiers now driven by drugs to save the world and kill the terrorist, Nectar is the drug of choice which creates a super soldier.

Great, now just give us some fun, challenging missions, throw in some great new weapons and free terrain vehicles that can be driven at our leisure and I will be quite content.

NO!!!!

The maker's of this game decide to create a propagandish, military driven game, that tries to make sense of our fears of terrorism and embracing democracy. The game has twisted ideals that just re-enforce morals that we learned when we were in primary school, nothing new is told to us, but \"Drugs are bad...mmmkay\". Then pushed in a type of ....Yvan eht Nnnioooojjjjj! (join the navy) of how standing up for the common good, given rants on normality and abnormality, right and wrong....GOOOOOOOOOOD WE GET IT! LET's KILL SOMETHING!!!!

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't, You are forced to endure extremely long gaps of completing BULLSH!T objectives such as \"Run to Helicopter\".......\"Go to group of Troops\" .....Then once this is completed.........CINEMATIC takes over.........You sit there for at least half of the game watching little scenario's played out by the characters, one's you CANNOT skip, but sit and wait, sometimes when people aren't even talking, we sit and wait for a helicopter to land!

Bad game, by a laughable group of programmers! Don't bother making another because I will rather see the movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For many months I was looking forward to this release. The previews looked good, early reports on the net were encouraging, and golden eye and Timesplitters were excellent shooters (by the same people). It turns out I was greatly misled! Haze had the potential to be up there with Call of Duty 4 and other next gen shooters, however it looks, plays and feels like something from 5 years or so ago. I played Haze on a 1080 TV and was initially disappointed that the game's developers had limited the graphics to 720. The Haze universe lacks detail and atmosphere, the feeling of \"they must have really rushed to finish this\" is always there.

The controls are sluggish and cumbersome, and i have yet to find an adjustment for x\/y axis sensitivity . There are many parts of the single player game that are very dark (visually), to the point where you can't actually see where you are going. Why not add a torch function like in Halo? or even better, night vision? The use of the performance enhancing drug \"nectar\" is interesting, however just as you get used to it you switch sides and don't use it again! why bother? I could go on with many more Haze faults, but instead i'll just say Don't BOTHER! wait for killzone 2 or play call of duty 4 and try to unlock the gold AK!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At the beginning of 'Loggerheads', we're introduced to three pairs of seemingly unrelated characters. To make matters even more confusing, we're informed (via titles on the screen) that the action is taking place in three separate time lines (between the years 1999 and 2001). It takes a great deal of time but eventually we come to see how the three pairs are related: Mark Austin, a young man in his 20s, gay and HIV Positive is estranged from his conservative parents, Elizabeth and Rev. Robert Austin.

Mark is now a drifter and arrives in Kure Beach, North Carolina, a seaside town, where he meets George (sensitively played by Michael Kelly), a gay motel owner and they eventually become involved with each other. Meanwhile, Mark's birth mother, Grace (played by Bonnie Hunt) has come to the point in her life where she has decided to find the son she gave up for adoption when she was 17. Similarly, Mark's adoptive mother, also has decided to track her estranged son as she misses him (despite the misgivings of her homophobic minister husband).

'Loggerheads' we're told is based on a true story and that perhaps is its Achilles Heel. Director\/Writer Tim Kirkman tries too hard to create scenes fraught with dramatic tension where there is very little to be found. Take Mark and George\u0097they're both sensitive souls who have little to disagree about. There's some slight tension when Grace faces off against an Adoption Agency Director who is forbidden by law to give her any information about her lost son as well as a slight conflict with her mother who denies that she disapproved of her when she became pregnant as a teenager. No sparks fly either between Elizabeth and Robert since the good Reverend has adamantly insisted from the beginning that he has no intention of reconciling with his son.

'Loggerheads' is similar to 'Brokeback Mountain' in that the gay couple are the good guys and the straight males (for example, the Kure Beach cop and the Reverend) are the baddies. The biggest letdown of the movie is that there is no interaction (and hence no dramatic conflict) between Mark and either one of his 'mothers'. Mark is already dead before either the birth or adoptive mother has a chance to reconcile with him.

Kirkman's theme is both a plea for tolerance and an exhortation for family members to express their heartfelt feelings before it's too late! Kirkman's sentiments are for the most part well-intentioned but they do not make for good drama. Loggerheads moves along at a snail's pace without providing any new revelations (or suspense) regarding such topics as AIDS, Adoption and Homophobia. Ultimately 'Loggerheads' fails due to a lack of originality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, now that all of the director\/ productions company's friends and relations have posted their shill reviews after seeing this at various festivals, I guess it's time to show reviews written by people who actually paid 10 bucks to see it.

Like the director's \"Dear Jesse\" (the only other one of his films I have seen), \"Loggerheads\" suffers from a lack of focus and too many ideas crammed into an indie budget. I swear, this guy might have better luck doing miniseries. I kept waiting for the various plot threads to come together, but they only intercepted at points blatantly forshadowed in a way obvious to all but the most dense viewer. It was like watching a season of Lifetime made-for-TV movies crammed into one, long (did I say LOOONG) sketch on the old \"Carol Burnett\" show. Maybe an enterprising male suitor could take his girlfriend to see this and then exclaim \"Hey...remember all of the chick flicks we went to last year...the one about the adoptive mother...the one about the gay guy...the one about the Christian housewife. We went to THREE Chick Flicks last year; so now we have to go see Terminator 4!\" I guess one has to do anything to cast a familiar actor to get funding, but what oh what is Bonnie Hunt doing in this flick? She isn't exactly known as a dramatic actress, and this attempted \"performance\" won't be sending Mr. Oscar to her door. I mean (speaking of Lifetime Original Movies), wasn't Valerie Bertinelli or Farah Fawcett available? Ms. Hunt has always come off to me as cold, maybe she should have played the other mom? I wish I would have chosen \"Capote\" to fill my weekly Gay-themed Indie Allowance..oh well, maybe next week. I think there is a good reason why Capote is playing at tons of theatres all over the NYC area and this one is playing at only one; let the distributors faith in this flick assure to to run in the opposite direction if you don't trust this review!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A wallflower is tossed into the sea and dreams herself into a pirate fantasy as a damsel in love with a pirate's apprentice. Energetic and good-natured, perhaps, but a shoddy enterprise; a failed musical send-up of \"The Pirates of Penzance\" with a cheap, backlot feel, wan bubblegum songs and constant, leering overacting. Kristy McNichol's film career took a real hit after this, while leading man Christopher Atkins cannot get a grip of any particular emotion, his voice wobbling about in search of an appropriate tone. You have to wonder, if that's the best title they could come up with, what's the level of wit going to be in the actual script? The movie's \"Grease\"-like affection for musicals doesn't gel with its penchant for slapstick a la \"Airplane!\", although McNichol works overtime being effervescent and nearly makes the limp handling look endearing. For the most part, it is an embarrassment. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, I would like to make it clear that I voluntarily subject myself to the viewing of terrible movies. I have seen what I thought were the worst of the worst. In my mind, movies could not get any worse than the likes of D.E.B.S., Leprechaun 6: Back 2 Tha Hood, and Terror Storm. Until I saw this movie.

The Pirate Movie, without any exaggeration, is the WORST MOVIE IN THE WORLD. I was informed prior to watching that the movie was, indeed, awful, but I did not believe the allegations. Believe me when I tell you that this movie is simply an abomination to film.

It starts out with a 3 minute clip of a boat of pirates apparently in the middle of a battle with themselves. \"The End\" splashes across the screen. Unfortunately, it is not the actual end of the movie. The movie is about an unpopular, awkwardly nerdy girl named Mabel, who carries around a ghetto blaster and is attracted to ambiguously homosexual pirate boys. She drowns and has a overly drawn out hallucination in which she stars as a scantily dressed skank who falls in love with Frederic, who happens to have just crawled out of the ocean. He might actually be homosexual. The Pirate King has a ruby and diamond studded codpiece. It honks and squeaks when he squeezes it.

There is singing in this movie. You might have the impression that this is a hilarious musical. It isn't. Trust me. They are the worst songs that you've ever heard, and by the end of the first original tune you will be searching for objects to pierce your eardrums with.

There are \"references\" to other movies in here. By references, of course, I mean \"obvious rip-offs.\" The inclusion of Indiana Jones, Inspector Clouseau, and the lightsaber were, in fact, anti-hilarious.

The dialogue is, in its better moments, painful to hear. The direction is flat out awful, and at one point you can see the stunt pad in the scene, which isn't very well hidden at all.

In conclusion, if there is even the shadow of curiosity in your mind about this movie, get rid of it. There are times when people want to see how bad something really is, but this movie is not worth it. Put it completely out of your mind and never think about it again. If you cherish your mental capacity then I beg of you, NEVER EVER WATCH THIS MOVIE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Phoned work sick - watched this in bed and it was so awful I would have went back to work if I could have gotten out of bed. The dog ran off with the remote so I was stuck.

I'm positive Hammer was grooming the eldest daughter to become his beeeatch.

Horrendous to watch - made me vomit more than what I was doing anyway. So there you have it - this would be the film that they play in the waiting room of Hell before you go in. Or maybe your stuck in the film for all eternity with the Hart kids. Just remember to take a gun with you....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man, did this film stink! It's obvious this film helped spurn Hollywood's need to churn out tired sequels to appeal to the masses. First of all, it came out too quickly, and second of all, it just didn't have the same hipness which made the original film so successful. No new ground was broken, and it turned into a rather mundane effort.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Slayer is a mindless vampire movie with a few twists on an ancient plot. Special ops team is sent into south America to hunt down blood sucking natives. Their leader is a real old man who has aged well. There's an environmental twist as the vampires are attacking villages because their rain forest and old diet of wild animals is disappearing because of the greedy corporations and farmers. Lost of fighting and so much blood they just never bothered to wash off the cast for the whole film. It looks like they slept in the bloody clothes and caked on blood. While each member of the cast brought their own talents, it really didn't all click as a film. The effects were OK, except for the vampires dangling from the buildings on wires. If you're looking for lots of blood and violence, this is for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is about some vampires (who can run around out in the sunlight), that are causing some problems down in South America. Casper Van Dien is sent in with his team of commandos to investigate. The movie opens with Van Dien & Co. walking through the jungle, and there's this huge black guy who just absolutely, positively cannot act. He speaks all his lines as if he's reading them off the cue-cards for the very first time. His voice is also so low that, well, it's positively hilarious. Great way to get the movie started! Anyhow, they run into some of our vampires, shoot them (this causes them to appear to die for about 20 seconds), and then of course they come back to life. Van Dien notices that one of them was impaled across a tree limb, and yells to his buddies to kill them with wood. The stunt work must be seen to be believed - the vampires are on wires that pull them up trees, which is supposed to make them look like they can climb really easily, but it just makes them look like they're bouncing around on bungee cords or something.

Yeah...anyhow, later on, the huge black dude is down in South America with some guys (Van Dien not included), and they're attacked by more vampires. It's really too bad these guys never heard of a crossbow, because it would seem to be the perfect weapon to kill the little bloodsuckers with, but instead they use big old wooden stakes that they try to impale the vampires with by hand. The big black dude ends up getting captured and he eventually becomes some big powerful vampire leader. Van Dien ends up battling him later on. It doesn't help that all through the movie, everyone forgets that if you shoot a vampire, they are knocked out for 20 seconds or so, which would enable a person to stick a stake in them fairly easily. They just try to stick stakes in them in the middle of hand-to-hand combat. Yeah, not exactly brilliant tactics.

There's a hot babe (remember Veronica from The Lost World TV show? Yes, it's her!) who also happens to be walking around in the middle of Vampire County on some sort of research mission, and she also just happens to be Van Dien's ex-wife. Hey, what are the odds? It's a shame she's not in the movie a whole lot more than she is. Will her and Casper get back together in the end? Will Van Dien defeat the huge black dude who can't act? Will the circus performer vampires make you laugh through all the numerous action scenes? Will we hear the three stooges music when somebody does something funny? Has even Lynda Carter forgotten how to act in her small cameo (she's more convincing in her Sleep Number Bed commercials)? These questions and more will will be answered if you make it all the way to the end of the movie.

I don't know, it might score some points on the so bad it's good scale, but that's about it. Eh, it's a bunch of goofs running around in the jungle, I guess it's kind of entertaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a relatively watchable movie (+1). After watching UKM: Ultimate Killing Machine, this one looks good, in comparison. There are no obvious technical gaffes, although the vampiric teeth look odd.

The story line makes no sense. Let's see. An American GI fights vampires. Comes back to the states and is rehabilitated for seeing... Vampires. His commanding officer is the aunt of his ex-wife. Who happens to be doing some research on the biodiversity of the South American area where the vampires are. Huh! Don't pile on too many coincidences. Who cares about the head vampire? Or, his daughter? Or, any one in this film? The only originality in this is that most of the myths about vampires (allergic to crosses and garlic, can't come out in the day, etc.) are wrong. But, they can't be killed except by beheading or a wood wound in the heart. Yeah, right. It's obvious they just didn't want to film a dark movie, since this is a made for TV film.

It would have been nice for the viewer, if they had hired some actors. Oh, they've got Lynda Carter (TV's Wonder Woman), and a big, black dude with a tremendously deep voice, who snarls appropriately in order to show off his vampire teeth prosthetics. But, otherwise, you would never know they had actually paid people to read these lines.

There is more than enough fight scenes, and some vampire-biting-neck blood, but no real violence.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Slayer starts in the South American rain forest where Captain Hawk (Casper Van Dien) & his men are attacked by a bunch of Vampires, they barely manage to escape with their lives. Jump forward six months later & Hawk is called to see Colonel Weaver (Lynda Carter) who informs him there has been other reported sightings of Vampires & that his ex-wife & her Goddaughter Dr. Laurie Williams (Jennifer O'Dell) has gone out there on an expedition to study beetles, worried she ask's Hawk to take a squad of soldiers back to South America & officially provide back up to Captain Grieves (Kevin Grevioux) & his men while at the same time unofficially look for Laurie & not get killed by the Vampires who have decided to venture out of the caves & into the civilised World...

Edited, written & directed by Kevin VanHook this is yet another poorly made Sci-Fi Channel original which just isn't very good in any respect. The humourless script has nothing going for it as far as I could see, it's one of those modern Vampire films which decides to pick & choose the 'traditional' Vampire film lore rules it wants to use like these Vampires can be killed with stakes through the heart & have fangs but at the same time can freely walk around in sunlight & they don't sleep in coffins. The film moves along at a reasonable pace but it's all very dull, bland & lifeless. The story is poor & just rather stupid, the character's are terrible, the dialogue is forgettable & there's very little here to recommend. Slayer also tries to have some sort of ecological message as the head Vampire claims they are only starting to kill human beings because of their systematic destruction of the rain forest where they have lived in secret for centuries, unfortunately there's no conviction there & is more like a throwaway line to fill the time than a serious statement. There isn't enough exploitation content & is a rather unsatisfying way to spend 90 minutes of your time. The makers don't even do anything with the jungle setting, hell I didn't expect Predator (1987) but I hoped for a bit more than this.

Director VanHook has made several horror films all of which I have seen have been equally poor, I'm sorry but he does nothing here & turns in a throughly forgettable looking & feeling film. There's no atmosphere or tension & as for genuine scares forget about it. The gore is restrained, there are some bitten necks & a bit of spraying blood but it's nothing we haven't seen before or has much impact. There's also a huge Vampire monster creature at the end but it doesn't look that impressive & it gets itself killed far too easily.

With a supposed budget of about $2,000,000 this actually had a decent sized amount of money spent on it but it's still a rubbish film, it's reasonably well made but nothing special or memorable. The acting sucks, I'm sorry but that's the way I saw it.

Slayer is yet another poor, stupid & boring made-for-TV Sci-Fi Channel rubbish that I simply can't recommend. Not to be confused with the rather fine one time British 'Video Nasty' gore film The Slayer (1982) which is 100 times better than this so track that down & watch that instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like vampire movies, I like B-movies, I love B vampire movies. But this one has nearly nothing going for it. Some of the acting is horrible, especially by 3 of the male leads. The story is not particular interesting. At a relative short 88 minutes it still seems too long and you'll find yourself fast-forwarding quite a bit. There are an awful lot of kung-fu vampire attacks. Sound cool? It isn't when it's done on a low budget. It gets repetitive very quickly. There is some minor blood and gore, nothing to get excited about. There some good wire work where you can see the wires. It has some good landscapes being filmed in Puerto Rico.

Not worth the rental","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I suggest that in the future, any movie made by the Sci fi channel and subsequently released on DVD must say that it was indeed made by such channel as I would not buy this stuff if I had known this fact. Not that this was all bad, but when you have fade out for commercials in the middle of your movie it just ruins the flow of said film. This in turn makes the movie rather more boring. This one had an interesting story however the light hearted and extremely generic soundtrack distracted one from the film as did most of the bad actors with the exception of Dien and Linda Carter. The story, vampires are on the attack in South America, of course the rules of vampire movies are not in effect, which the usually aren't in any of the movies about vampires I have seen lately with the exception of the Blade trilogy. Group of soldiers are sent down to battle said squad another team is sent to meet up with the team and to track down the ex wife of one of the soldiers...why she is not just his wife, who knows as this part of the plot really goes no where. Still we get an interesting boat ride some nice jungle scenery and a lot of blood. This fact, however, does not save the film from being way to jerky in its presentation and really dull seeming at times. I don't know maybe it was the cgi blood, and smoke and whatever they have to make cgi now even though old effects look better and don't cost that much more. I mean cheap Italian zombie movies could do a bullet hole without cgi why can't we now?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This proved to be a rare case of a poliziottesco made with British funding; unfortunately, the result is undistinguished (except by its exceeding unpleasantness and borderline-camp approach) despite stars and director. The former is led by a wooden Franco Nero and an ultra-hammy Telly Savalas as a couple of would-be robbers (if anyone is able to believe either actor \u0096 who generally exude cool \u0096 as a duo of bumbling crooks, he's more gullible than I am!).

Their 'job' goes awry (ending in murder and saddled with cases of cutlery instead of jewels!) \u0096 however, the mismatched criminals see an opening to their dilemma when they inadvertently 'kidnap' the son of a British diplomat (a miscast Lester, who even gets to kick trigger-happy Savalas where it hurts at one point). Still, they never actually ransom him and their sole intent is to cross the border into France; tagging along with them is Nero's girlfriend (a wasted Ely Galleani): soon enough, though, she's had enough and decides to run away while the others are sleeping; the crazy Savalas notices this and, following the girl, kills her. In the meantime, Nero and Lester have woken up \u0096 the former thinks his accomplices may have double-crossed him, so he goes on the lam with the boy in tow; after a brief spell at a rich old lady's country estate (which features totally gratuitous rear nudes by both Nero and Lester!), Savalas catches up with them. They continue their trek, where the trio run into a family of German campers: the situation degenerates to the point where Savalas shuts them inside their trailer and tosses the lot into the river \u0096 though he's badly hurt in the process himself; typically, it all ends with the 'heavies' getting killed just as they're about to reach the border.

The film, therefore, contains most of the genre's typical elements \u0096 sleaze, sadism, violence, chases (the aftermath of the opening robbery when the getaway car causes havoc in the city's narrow back-streets and even disrupts a funeral procession is downright farcical), etc.; one mildly interesting aspect to it is that, by the end, Lester himself is seen to have been definitely (irrevocably?) marked by the experience \u0096 coming to feel excitement when an act of violence is committed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I actually went into this film with some expectations, not because I thought the film sounded particularly good, but because I'm a fan of Italian exploitation flicks and with a cast that sees Franco Nero and Telly Savalas starring alongside Oliver Twist, I figured it had to be interesting at least. Well...RedNeck does have one or two positive things going on, but for the most part; it's a dull, lifeless film that is as ridiculous as it is pointless. The plot simply focuses on two criminals (Nero and Savalas) who kidnap a young kid (Oliver). The twist in the tale is that the kid realises that he'd have more fun if he gets accepted into the 'gang'. Telly Savalas and Franco Nero are two actors that have proved they can carry a film on their own on numerous occasions, and they do have some memorable moments in this film - although really for all the wrong reasons. Savalas in particular gives a silly portrayal of the 'bad' criminal. The plot doesn't flow badly, but since nothing interesting happens, that's not really a positive point and doesn't save from the film from being mediocre. Overall, I can't recommend this film; it may appeal to some for its cult value but it didn't do anything for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Definitely not your typical Polizia, Redneck just never worked for me. The movie tells the story of a jewel heist gone wrong and a young boy who is inadvertently kidnapped in the process. In their attempt to get away, the robbers leave a bloody trail of death in their wake as they hatch a plan to ransom the boy. The plan is never carried off as the robbers are more intent on getting to France and the boy is intent on staying with them. While I could cite a number of problems I had with the movie, I'll focus on the most obvious \u0096 the character Memphis played by Telly Savalas. From his work in The Dirty Dozen and Kelley's Heroes to other Italian films like Crime Boss to his most remembered role as Kojak, Savalas was a winner. I've always thought of him as one uber-cool customer. Unfortunately, Savalas is almost unwatchable in Redneck. Did the director turn on the camera and instruct him to act as psychotic as possible? It might not have been too bad had his actions been done within the context of a plot I cared about, but here he seems to be acting bizarre for sake of being bizarre. It's appears to be random lunacy. And what's with that accent? Savalas might have been a lot of things, but Southern isn't one of them. He sounds completely ridiculous even attempting the accent. Beyond that, I found little of interest in the rest of the movie. As I indicated, the plot never drew me in. I just didn't care about what was going on. And the notion that the boy is so quickly attracted to the criminal lifestyle doesn't ring true. As for the other actors, Mark Lester is almost as bad as Savalas and the usually reliable Franco Nero isn't a whole lot better. Three \"name\" actors and not a good performance between them. To make matters worse, I believe the director filmed many of the night scenes with nothing more than the glow from his watch to light the shots. I couldn't tell what was going on. Characters I hate, a plot I don't care about, and a production values that failed \u0096 little wonder I've given Redneck a 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know a lot of people would claim certain films as 'the worst of all time' but I think Redneck stakes a claim for this prize. A combination of quite dreadful acting from both Mark Lester and Telly Savales and plot progression that defies belief.

On Telly Saveles: was he drunk when he acted in this? He seems to play a slurring, laughing lunatic with no sense of conviction. Maybe he mixed his medication with his whiskey, I don't know.

On Mark Lester: A performance more wooden than a carpenter's workshop. His clipped British tones don't belong in this film; and his transformation from sheltered teenager to gangster's apprentice in 24 hours is mad. And the strip scene with Mosquito does not have any relevance to the plot at all; perhaps the director likes this sort of thing.

Plot logic: when Memphis and Mosquito ambush the car at the beginning, why doesn't Mark Lester's mother do or say anything to get her son out of the car, before the loonies drive it off? She just lets them all go, without saying a word!! On the other hand, Redneck has to be seen - you won't believe how bad it is otherwise!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"sdiner82 had clearly not seen the film in decades, and his memory is appalling. His attempts to paint the Mark Lester shaving scene as suspect are utterly erroneous, as are his incorrect comments about the bad guy \"sneaking peeks at the kid's body\". Lester is clothed for the entire time the man is in the room, and the man barely gives him a glance.

The scene is a crude attempt to show Lester's innocent curiosity about the man's body.

Like everything in this film, it's badly done, but nothing more.

Even sdiner82's comments about Savalas' character who \"casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff\" is nonsense (it was a single woman, she was already dead, and she was in a car).

I suggest that sdiner82's review says far, far more about his own, far from liberal mindset, than it does about this valueless film.

The only reason I even bothered to look it up, was out of curiosity to see if it was made before or after Kojak.

The film is a worthless piece of 70's trash, but sdiner82's review of it is the worst kind of slander. He wraps up his review in pseudo-intellectual \"facts\", but the only fact is that he is plain wrong on almost every \"factual\" matter he discusses.

I can only assume that sdiner82 saw exactly what he looked for, which is disturbing. Now he can return to burning copies of Catcher in the Rye.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the mid-1970s, my NYC apt. building was finally wired for cable-TV and since Showtime (instead of HBO) was the only premium channel offered showing recent movies, I signed up for it. Being a writer and night-owl by nature, I soon discovered the channel was showing movies late at night and until the wee hours of the morning I'd never even heard of--most of them American independent films and foreign films that had never been given a U.S. theatrical release. Many of them had recognizable \"star\" casts and respectable directors, and thanks to Showtime, I discovered many first-rate films I (and other Showtime subscribers) would never else have had the opportunity to see. Most of these cinematic mongrels were indeed \"dogs\" but often so bad they were unintentionally hilarious. One night, Showtime unveiled a little Italian-made gem called \"Redneck\" (filmed in 1972, given a limited European release in 1973). Even though the movie had never been released in the U.S., the MPAA rating was listed as an 'R'. Since the director was one Sylvio Narizzano (the director who made his name with the glorious \"Georgy Girl\"), and the three leads were Mark (\"Oliver\") Lester, Fabio Testi and Telly Savalas, I decided to give it a try. And found myself nailed to my TV screen in disbelief for 89 minutes. As I recall, Savalas and Testi played two criminals, the former a raging maniac who, in one stomach-churning scene, casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff, thereby plunging to the wilderness depths below. So far, so bad. Then, out of nowhere, Testi (as the \"nice\" psycho) and Lester (all of 14 when the movie was made) are seen, both nude, in a men's room, Testi sneaking peeks at the kid's body while shaving, and poor confused Lester fixated on close-ups of Testi's naked butt. As a not-yet-jaded member of the movie industry, and a card-carrying liberal (I was as much against censorship then as I am today), the entire movie made me queasy (and, being the early '70s when I thoughtI'd seen everything in the anything-goes movies of that liberated era--including the uncut version of Altman's \"That Cold Day in the Park\", a real jaw-dropper until it was trimmed for an 'R' rating and would have spelled The End for Altman's career had he not next come up with something called \"M*A*S*H\"), I still wonder if anyone else except me ever saw \"Redneck\" and was appalled as I was. Trashing the actors and movie-going audiences is joy maladjusted filmmakers have been merrily indulging in since the beginning of time. But leeringly exploiting a highly respected and talented child actor (Mr. Lester) at a time when he was beginning to make the difficult transaction from child to adult actor (and I'm sure his film offers had thereby dwindled to meretricious junk like \"Redneck\")...Mr. Narizzano, you should be hanging your head in shame. (Incidentally, I was soon to make friends with actors who had appeared in Narizzano's future, undistinguished efforts. They both despised him. Surprise?)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Have just seen this film for the first time after purchasing it on DVD

It comes across as a cheap attempt to cash in on the two Conan movies.

Unfortunately, this film didn't appear to have the same budget as the Conan films and hence some of the sets and effects aren't as flash and some scenes seem hurried.

Nielsen is OK to look at but unfortunately she couldn't act if a gun was put to her head.

Arnie's supporting role looked like it was done as a favor to director Fleischer, who also directed Conan the Destroyer. Maybe Arnie wasn't confident that he would go on to headline films like Predator, Total Recall, T2, etc.

Some of the female guardians of the talisman early in the film looked like they were struggling to lift their swords and the looks on their faces suggested they were having great fun making this film. I couldn't be so jovial if I was fighting for my life.

All this aside, this film required very little concentration to watch and was mildly entertaining. I've seen a lot worse. Two stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes intentionally campy, at other times unintentionally silly (like in the opening scene, where a woman is \"informed\" that she has been raped and that her family has been slaughtered, just for the sake of exposition), this film is ultimately neither funny enough nor competent enough (as a straightforward adventure story) to be really enjoyable. I'll leave you to decide which may be the highlight, but the low point is probably the fight with a silly metallic dragon. Brigitte Nielsen was a good choice for Sonja, with her fresh face and her firm, slightly muscular body (and I think that her dark-red hair suits her perfectly), but Schwarzenegger gives one of his few colorless performances as Calidor. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is sad that Schwarzenegger was the best thing about this production, especially considering the fact that he had not yet come into his own, and was still as stiff as cardboard in his dialog delivery.

Actually, this isn't as bad as some critics say, but it isn't good, either. It IS amusing, and DOES play like a poor country cousin of the Conan line, making it a conflicted, uneven, poor work. And speaking of poor, the quality is terrible, due to the era in which this was filmed, but that is not the only reason.

The story herein is inferior, even to the Conan line, but moreover, it loses itself in the \"Red Sonja must be dominated by big strong Schwarzenegger\" ploy, and entirely forgets its purpose, if it ever had one.

It's entertaining, but in a low-budget, guilty-pleasure \"B\" kind of way.

It rates a 4.2\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Red Sonja is a career-step-in-the-wrong-direction for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Having made a couple of sword 'n' sorcery films (as Conan) he had moved onto slightly more serious acting roles in films like The Terminator and Commando, only to make a mystifying return to the sword 'n' sorcery genre for this 1985 debacle. It's hard to figure out why he bothered, as this is weaker than both Conan films in every conceivable department. Allegedly, this was to have been the third Conan film, but for one reason or another the emphasis was shifted onto the leading female character, the titular red-head, leaving poor old Arnold to play an incredibly dull supporting role. Spare a thought, too, for director Richard Fleischer who had given the world classics like 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, Fantastic Voyage, The Boston Strangler and 10 Rillington Place. In this - his penultimate film - Fleischer also has taken a gigantic career step backwards.

Evil queen Gedren (Sandahl Bergman) wants to rule the world, and she needs a priceless and powerful talisman to do so. She and her brutish army storm a keep populated by priestesses and steal the said talisman, massacring the helpless priestesses as they go. One of the dead priestesses has a sister named Sonja (Brigitte Nielsen), a fiery red-headed warrior, who upon hearing of her sister's death swears revenge upon the evil Gedren. Sonja rides across the land in search of Gedren's lair. Along the way she picks up travelling companions in the shape of a boy prince, Tarn (Ernie Reyes Jr) and his bodyguard Falkon (Paul Smith). She also meets the muscular warrior Conan - sorry, I mean Kalidor (!) - who offers to join her in her quest. Initially Sonja doesn't want the help of Kalidor (Arnold Schwarzenegger), preferring instead to prove that she can confront and defeat her enemies alone, but eventually she warms to him and accepts his assistance.

Red Sonja is a staggeringly poor film, all the more so when one muses that it was made in 1985 when the sword 'n' sorcery genre was close to its end. It seems so simplistic and amateurish that one could easily mistake it for an early example of its kind. The performances are poor on the whole, ranging from Bergman's embarrassingly OTT villain to Reyes' unbelievably irritating spoilt brat to Schwarzenegger's wooden and unenthusiastic hero. Nielsen is slightly better as the heroine - presumably full of enthusiasm at the thought of being in her first starring role - but she is let down very badly by the stupidity of Clive Exton and George MacDonald Fraser's script. The film is riddled with goofs, including a scene where Schwarzenegger is seen in close-up hacking down bad guys but in a long-shot in the same sequence there isn't a corpse in sight. Technically it is very inept too, with sub-standard special effects and appallingly mechanical monsters. There are a few compensations, such as Ennio Morricone's enjoyable music (Morricone spent a great deal of the '80s providing good music for awful films, e.g The Island, Treasure of the Four Crowns and Hundra). Another compensation is Giuseppe Rotunno's lensing of the locations - in fact, much of the time it's a hell of a lot more gratifying to look at the lovely scenery than the actors standing in the foreground! There were very few sword 'n' sorcery films after Red Sonja, so in some ways it might go down in history as the film which destroyed its own genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Red Sonja\" is flawed, weak and lacking. Even the camp-ness isn't good.

There are only two good things about \"Red Sonja\"; The costumes (even though the Red Sonja costume is ridiculous. It's ironic that a girl who is even afraid to be touched by men, because she was raped, still choose to wear so few little clothes, even when it rains.) and the music by Ennio Morricone. Still the movie is somewhat watchable but certainly not recommendable.

The story is extremely simple and they didn't even bother to make it interesting. The story could have been forgotten if there had been some good action sequences and some humor, both are present but are seriously flawed in many ways. The movie takes itself too serious and tries to impress but fails completely.

Brigitte Nielsen is an horrible leading lady. I don't know who's accent is worse; Hers or Arnie's and on top of that; She can't act. There is also absolutely no chemistry between the two characters which makes the love story totally unbelievable. Even worse was Sandahl Bergman as the main villain who acts more poorly than a paper bag. Ronald Lacey was somewhat good in his role, but my God he looked horrible, he changed so much since his (only well known) role in \"Raiders of the Lost Ark\". Maybe it had something to do with his illness which claimed his life in 1991? And by the way, what was with all those \"Raiders of the Lost Ark\" actors in this movie? Next to Ronald Lacey, Pat Roach, Terry Richards and Tutte Lemkow appeared in a role, it seemed like some kind of \"Raiders of the Lost Ark\" reunion.

The only times when the movie gets a bit interesting is during the (sword)fights even though some of them are needless and weak.

Only really watchable for the fans of the fantasy-genre.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie, or part of it, in hope that it would be fun to laugh at how bad it was, but it soon became clear that this was just plain silly. For one you have the worst acting EVER! The lead \"actress\" Birgitte Nielsen is terrible, uninspired and hardly even attractive. And she certainly do not look like the female warrior who could easily kick some veteran warrior kings butt, but she does. And whats with the feminist attitude, it's plain hypocrisy. For one her family was killed by a women, then she joins some warrior school or something so she can learn how to fight men. She then joins up with a fat servant and his child king, whose city was destroyed by Gedren. Those two characters are just plain stupid and destroys the little of atmosphere that the movie managed to create. After this i could not take any more of Nielsen painful acting, and the stupid clich\u00e9s and lack of some real action.

Schwarzenegger as Kalidor was the only part of this movie which actually made it remotely watchable.

I liked the Conan movie, but this is pure crap!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I figure the company that made this movie wanted people to think of the Conan movies, but unfortunately for the ones who made this one it does just that. You will be thinking, man the Conan movies were pretty cool...this one is totally boring and sucks. The story, who cares? It isn't going to help you like this movie more or less as it just seems like a really cheap film. Arnold, doesn't look like he belongs in this one, why he agreed to play the role is beyond me. Well probably for the money. I just love the monster in the water that turns out to be a machine. Lame! This movie is just plain and simply terrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This, in my opinion, is a very poor movie that advertises Arnold Schwarzenegger as starring (despite him being the co-star) only to sell more copies. Obviously taking influence from the similarly themed \u0091Conan' movies, this film fails to prove as enjoyable and eventually fails to entertain at all.

Bridgette Neilsen stars as Sonja, a beautiful woman who has been given unbelievable strength by a ghostly figure after her village was pillaged, her family killed and she herself raped by the soldiers of Queen Gedran (Sandahl Bergman). Gedran is a tyrant Queen who wants control over the barbaric world and seeks out a talisman protected by Sonja's sister to do it. After discovering what has happened Sonja sets out for revenge and at the same time she must save the world from the wrath of Gedran. Kalidor (Schwarzenegger), the master of the talisman, sets out to protect her whether she wants him there or not.

The first major problem with this movie is the beginning. The events leading up to the point where Sonja receives her powers could have easily made a good ten to fifteen minutes of enjoyable film. However, the beginnings are rushed into what seems like a quick one-minute `Previously on\u0085.' segment from a television show. Had they actually made these events part of the story and cut out some of the filler later on they may have been able to start redeeming this movie but unfortunately they didn't (I wonder why director Richard Fleischer has only currently directed two movies since Red Sonja).

This film also features some of the most annoying characters in history like Tarn (Ernie Reyes Jr.) who is a stupid character and just adds an over abundance of camp to the movie, which sometimes works but in this case fails miserably. He was quite obviously written into the movie for some comic relief but with the overall absurdity of the film anyway this was another costly mistake for \u0091Red Sonja'.

For all it's faults there were some good fight scenes involving both Neilsen and Arnie which are worth noting but these are nowhere enough to save this turkey. The acting is about as good as it gets for movies of this quality and even Arnie didn't seem too bothered about his performance. I don't recommend this film at all; to me it's a waste of an hour and a half. My rating for \u0091Red Sonja' \u0096 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was released soon after the Conan films, a sort of female Conan, Red Sonja played by Sylvester Stallones ex-wife Brigitte Nielsen. She's not a very good actress unfortunately as proved in Rocky IV and Cobra. The whole film feels cheap, but strangely Arnold Swarzenegger appears in this film but not as Conan, although he looks, acts and fights like Conan from the two Conan films, I don't know what thats about. Anyway he only appears about every twenty minutes and doesn't hang around for long. Maybe Arnold filmed this in his time off from filming Conan the Destroyer or something? Anyway the film is way to slow and boring for an action film, skip this and watch Conan the Barbarian instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... when dubbed into another language. Let's face it: Neither Nielsen nor Schwarzenegger are really good actors when it comes to dialog. And given the campy lines they are supposed to utter this is a loose-loose situation. Any type of voice-over is sure to be an improvement (and it actually is - at least in the German version).

But that is only a minor point. The acting is bad. The speeded up combat sequences are pathetic. Nielsen couldn't use her sword to fight her way out of a wet paper bag. This becomes painfully obvious when compared to the fluidity of motion exhibited by the kid (who has had some martial arts training, no doubt) and to the athleticism shown off by Sandahl Bergman.

Schwarzenegger does his Conan thing - nothing new here.

Some of the visuals are nice, I'll have to grant that. The dragon skeleton bridge looks cool. But more often than not the plaster is all too evident.

Overall the movie isn't worth seeing. Even 'Conan the Destroyer' is better than this (although only marginally). I would have much rather seen Bergman as Red Sonja as she was originally supposed to be, but I doubt that that could have saved this movie - oh well.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Recap: Since the warrior queen Gedren raised and slaughtered most of Sonja's family, she has trained in the art of sword fighting. Now, Gedren has taken a very powerful talisman, that threatens to destroy the world if not destroyed, killing Sonja's sister in the process. Now Sonja is out for revenge, and to save the world. Along the way, she meets the very Conan-like (but not Conan, no!) Kalidor, the child-prince Tarn and his bodyguard Falcon. At first Sonja declines all help, but is later forced to accept it, and together they go to save the world.

Comments: When you watch a movie like this, and you think that it is the story that the is the best element in this movie, the movie is in big trouble. Because 1) a movie like this should draw its strength upon good swordfights and effects, and 2) the story is really, really bad. It is simple, and uncomplicated and really offers nothing in way of character development or even suspense. It is predictable and boring, and the obvious couple, Sonja and Kalidor, has no chemistry at all. And the kid is just annoying. And most of the scenes is drawn out so long that they become boring. Though the movie is not very long, it has not material enough to fill its time. And so back to point 1). The fighting is slow, uneventful and really bad. It clearly shows most fighters clearly blocking the opponents strokes far ahead of the opponent has even begun to strike. In my honest opinion, I believe most kids, fighting with sticks, creates more exciting fights playing knights than this movie did. All in all, this is a really bad spin-off, that should be avoided by all who liked the Conan-movies.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, I admit I like Brigitte Neilsen in an unhealthy way, I just have a thing for 6' tall women with swords. There I said it.

What's wrong with the movie? Just about every mistake you can make was made. You take a successful movie series (conan) and you drag it through the mud with a bad script, bad casting, bad effects, and the worst thing of all...you put a cute kid in there for comic relief. This kind of thing almost killed the Indiana Jones series ya know. Cute kids are for Disney movies, not real movies. Neilsen at least took the movie seriously, even though it seems nobody else did. The plot had Schwarzenegger repeatedly pulling Red Sonja's fat out of the fire and that undercut her character considerably. A warrior woman doesn't need a dude to get her out of a mess, thats her job! To not re-use the Conan character in this movie was a crime. Kalidor? Sheesh. The movie never set the proper mood and its pacing was rather disjointed and sloppy, unlike Conan the Barbarian which had multiple story lines that flowed gracefully. When it comes to fantasy movies, its okay to have cheesy costumes, its okay to have harryhausen style animation, its okay to have silly exorbitant sets that make no sense, but to have a horrible script is unforgivable.

This movie could have been a classic, but the script felt like it was written by a 12 year old.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly, this movie is weak. Very weak. Only capital character can something. She's work like supercharger on bad engine...so, if you like red-haired Valkyries - see that. But better find picture of Brigitte as Sonja and put it on desktop. It will save of disappointments. Well, Arnold also do his deal...but it definitely not best his role. Other characters - bad is not that word. Sword fights? Monsters? Ridiculous. Plot is really shame. Why was necessary rape she? Especially, we don't see it.

Anyway movie is weak. Though worse movies exist...Without main characters it would be just ******. And if somebody even discusses it, maybe...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember the trailer for this infamously weak spin-off of Conan. I saw the movie years later and laughed my head off. Unintentionally! Poor Briggite Nielson. Her career never had a chance thanks to Cobra and Red Sonja. The plot of the movie is this: Sonja(Brigitte Nielson) hails from a tribe of female warriors who were killed off by an evil queen Gedren(Sandahl Bergman). Queen Gedren steals the orb the female warriors were protecting and uses it to destroy each town she passes by. Sonja goes on a hunt for Queen Gedren and later finds out that Gedren killed her parents. On her quest she reluctantly joins Kalidor(Arnold Schwarzenegger), an arrogant prince named Tarn(Ernie Reyes Jr.) and his bumbling idiotic servant, Falkon(Paul L. Smith). Together they go on a hunt for Queen Gedren and the orb. The acting is sub par and the action scenes are soso. I mean Briggite Neilson looks so emotionally distant. For someone who lost her whole family as well as her female comrades, Sonja doesn't look fazed at all. Arnold is playing his usual stoic role and Ernie Reyes Jr.... what an annoying snot-nosed brat he was in this movie! The moronic manservant Falkon had more personality than these guys. The action scenes are the only redeeming moments of the movie even though sometimes they fall flat. The scene where they fight the mechanical sea creature made me laugh till my ribs ached. The dialog is a hoot also. Its as if the screenwriter thought that nobody was going to take the movie seriously so he gave everybody stupid lines to work with. I can only recommend this movie to you if you like your epic movies extra campy. Anyone else don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Possible Spoilers As Peter Jackson has so brilliantly shown in his `Lord of the Rings' trilogy, it is quite possible to make good films, even great ones, within the heroic fantasy genre. The genre has distinguished literary antecedents, dating back to the mediaeval chivalric romances, particularly the Arthurian legends, upon which Tolkien and other authors have drawn. `Lord of the Rings' apart, however, it is difficult to think of any other sword-and-sorcery films which are any good. I would agree with the reviewer who said that the best of a bad bunch was Ron Howard's `Willow', and even that achieved little distinction other than that of being a merely mediocre film as opposed to a positively bad one. `Red Sonja', however, cannot achieve the even more modest distinction of being simply a bad film as opposed to an appalling one.

As with `Willow', many of the plot-elements in `Red Sonja' are derived from `The Lord of the Rings'. An evil ruler seeks to gain control of an artefact with supernatural powers in order to achieve an ambition of world domination, but is thwarted by an assorted group of heroes. The film, set in the Hyborian Age, a barbaric era in the earth's remote past, starts with the villain of the piece, the wicked Queen Gedren, making unwelcome sexual advances to the heroine Sonja. When these are rebuffed, Gedren (not a woman to take no for an answer) reacts by murdering Sonja's parents and brother. (In 1985 it was presumably still considered politically correct not only to make the chief villain a woman but also to make one of the main motives for her villainy frustrated lesbian lust).

Gedren's next move is to capture the Talisman, a sort of fluorescent green soccer ball with magical powers, by slaughtering the whole of the scantily-dressed female priesthood charged with protecting it, just as they are about to destroy it because they feel its powers have become too dangerous. Among the dead is Sonja's sister, her sole surviving relative. Sonja herself, however, has not been idle, but has enrolled in a martial arts academy from which she graduates summa cum laude, and sets out to avenge herself. Along the way she teams up with Kalidor, a heroic wandering swordsman-king resembling Tolkien's Aragorn, Prince Tarn, the spoilt child-ruler of a kingdom that has fallen to Gedren's powers, and Falkon, Tarn's loyal servant. The rest of the film is fairly predictable, as Sonja and her allies try to overthrow Gedren and prevent the destruction of the world threatened by the out-of-control Talisman.

Just what is it that makes this film so bad? Well, the acting, for a start. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Kalidor gives the sort of typical wooden, poker-faced performance that became his trademark, at least in the early part of his career, complete with heavy foreign accent. Compared with Brigitte Nielsen as the heroine, however, he looks like Laurence Olivier. Miss Nielsen seems to have had even worse language difficulties, delivering every line in the mechanical, toneless voice of someone who has just completed lesson three of a `teach-yourself-English-by-correspondence' course. One wonders if she was hired for the role just to make Arnie look good by comparison. The other characters, while not conducting their own private struggles against the English language, are simply cartoonish caricatures, especially Prince Tarn who must be one of the most obnoxious screen youngsters ever.

An even worse fault than the bad acting, however, is the film's almost complete lack of imagination. This is a particularly glaring fault in a fantasy film, as films of this genre need to rely on their imaginative power in order to persuade the audience to suspend the natural feelings of disbelief that would be provoked by a fantastic plot. When we watch Peter Jackson's masterpiece we can persuade ourselves, at least for the next three hours, that we are in Middle-Earth, that elves, wizards and hobbits do exist, and that the fate of the world really does depend upon the destruction of a magic ring. When we watch `Red Sonja' we are persuaded of nothing except that we are watching a bunch of actors with bad accents fighting one another on a hillside for possession of a lime-green football.

This lack of imagination even starts with the film's title. The British science-fiction author Brian Aldiss, when challenged about the exotic names given to his characters, replied that there was little point in creating a fictional alien society with its own distinctive culture if you were going to spoil the effect by calling the hero Joe. (Admittedly, Tolkien was able

to get away with giving the name Sam to one of his main characters, but that was because Hobbits were supposed to be reassuringly familiar, the Middle-Earth equivalent of tweedy, pipe-smoking Englishmen). Similarly, giving the heroine of a tale ostensibly set in a long-gone barbaric age a common girls' name like `Sonia' (which is how the name `Sonja' is pronounced) is about as appropriate as calling her `Betty' or `Mary-Jane'.

The film seems to have been made on a very small budget, which makes me wonder why they bothered at all. Fantasy needs to be done convincingly, or not at all. It was obviously shot in a remote mountain area, with little or no attempt to suggest a distinctive culture. The few buildings we see, such as the temple of the Talisman or Gedren's palace, are obviously cheap sets. We learn that Tarn's capital city has been destroyed by Gedren using the power of the Talisman, but we do not actually see this event; all we see is what might be a thunderstorm taking place on the other side of a hill. At first you wonder how Sonja intends to overthrow an entire kingdom with only a few allies, but when you see how small an army Gedren has at her disposal it becomes more understandable. When an earthquake threatens to destroy the palace, you wonder if this is the Talisman at work or merely a crew member inadvertently leaning against the set. If we can enjoy this film for nothing else, we can at least enjoy it for its inadvertent humour; a fine example of the so-bad-it's-funny school of filmmaking. Ed Wood would have been proud of this one. If it had been shown on Californian television the night before the recall election, Gray Davis would still be governor. 2\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After a long hard night being partied away at the Walkabout in Islington, I needed a pick-me-up. My throat hurt, my wallet was empty and I ended up chatting to a drug addict at a bus-stop trying to sell me some petrol. Today, I watched \"Red Sonja\" and I can honestly say that I felt much better last night than I do right now. Brigitte Nielsen leads a bunch of ass-kicking warriors in various shapes and sizes to recover a green rock from some evil queen whose motives are never fully explained. Yep, it's that good.

\"Red Sonja\" isn't in a genre known for great films until Peter Jackson came along with a certain Oscar-winning trilogy. In fact, the best swords-and-sorcery film I could think of before \"Lord Of The Rings\" was George Lucas's kiddie-friendly \"Willow\". Perhaps, in view of this, one should go a little easy on this film. But I can't - it's poorly written, badly acted (with the exception of Paul Smith, who's just average) and dreadfully put together. The film is as convincing as an episode of the Flintstones, with costumes and scenery seemingly lifted straight outta Bedrock. Considering the comic-book source material, it is easy to forgive the various plot inconsistencies. Why Sonja insists on saving the most annoying kid, in this world or that one, is bewildering. His personality seems to flick from spoilt brat to polite gentleman at the flick of a switch. Schwarzenegger displays less charisma than a field full of cows and just goes through the motions, a perfect actor for his breakthrough role in \"The Terminator\".

It's simple to kick a film when you're down but the fact remains that this is not a good film, by any stretch of the imagination. When Nielsen mourns the death of her sister and Schwarzenegger tenderly places his hand on her shoulder to comfort her and then blurts out, in that distinctive Germanic accent, \"she's dead\" then you know you're in for a rough ride. A few smiles were raised at inappropriate points, such as the priestesses of a temple who, when sent plunging to their deaths in a hole in the ground, seemed to enjoy the experience - at least, judging from the orgasmic moans that seemed to echo around the place. If you have to watch an Eighties fantasy film that wasn't porn, watch \"Willow\" (but never take that as a ringing endorsement). For the real thing, take yourself to your local multiplex and show Peter Jackson what a great job he did with \"Lord Of The Rings\". Trust me, 11 Oscars really does mean it's a great film - unlike bloody \"Titanic\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Corny and some really bad acting but for a Golan-Globus film about right on par. Saw this movie back in 1985 mostly because I liked sword and sorcery films(what was i thinking?). Arnold is in it playing a high lord trying to make sure an ancient talisman is destroyed before it blows up the world.Brigitte Nielsen is the title character who at the time was Sly's girl and a pretty bad actress.Movie producers like to cast Playboy type women who cant act in low budget B movies. Brigitte cheeses it up as Sonya and Arnold acts wooden as Lord Kalidor.There is also Sandahl Bergman(who was in the original Conan movie as Valeria)here she plays the evil Queen Gedren,an obvious camp to her Conan role. And then one of the most irritating child actors onscreen(ernie reyes)as Prince Tarn who should have been slapped hard and sent to bed.What a little irritating scut. Some of the swordfights arent too bad but the music really sucks. Special effects are cheap and look very 70's ,like the explosion of the evil queen's castle at the climax of the movie.

Overall a very low par film but b movie film buffs might like it for its campiness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know that this film is in SERIOUS trouble when the BEST acting job is the support role played by Arnold Schwarzenegger. While this was still relatively early in his career and he wasn't the best actor, compared to Brigitte Nielsen, he's Sir John Gielgud. In fact, this film proves that the only reason she got much of any attention were her boobs and because she was involved with the incredibly self-destructive football player, Mark Gastineau. So, instead of this being her \"break out film\", this and a Beverly Hills Cop movie mark about as high as she went in her one-note career. It was obvious, too, that the financing wizards gave up on this movie as well, because the supporting cast (aside from Arnold) is pretty lame and the script is dull, dull, dull. Fans looking for another CONAN movie would no doubt be very disappointed in this slow and uninvolving film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's nice to see Julie Andrews trying a straight dramatic role here--something she hadn't done in awhile--but her character of Judith(wise they didn't try to pass her off as a 'Judy')has the old refined manners and tomboyish hairstyle of yore, and Andrews enacts 'grown-up' as any other actress would interpret frigid. It's a surprisingly bland drama set in Barbados involving Omar Sharif(not the liveliest leading man around--not even in 1974!)hoping to make Andrews a spy while also slowly leading her into the proverbial bedroom. Unmemorable outing does have some camp value: the James Bond-like credits at the beginning are a cheesy hoot. As for Julie: she's quiet and contemplative, but that doesn't do much for the audience, or for the film. Blake Edwards paces the freakin' thing like a funeral. * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly, buying this movie was a waste of money. It's one of the most boring movies I have seen in my life. The only part I liked is the ending, but it's so slow that not even the fantastic ending can save this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What's up with this movie? Does Mr. Lyne and his writers think that a sado-masochistic fling between two screwed up Yuppies can carry a feature length movie? Maybe if it had some comedic elements (which is doesn't, at least intentionally), or there were some additional dramatic elements (which there are not), or maybe if it was hardcore. No, it's simply the history of the affair; a chronology of a bunch of R-rated trysts. Ho-hum, who cares? \"Nine \u00bd Weeks\" deserves every Razzie nomination it got. It's a loser.

And by the way, what's up with Roger Ebert and his rave review? Where was his head back in 1986?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is high-gloss soft-porn; a boring soap opera concentrating on one thing: sex. They actually made sex boring, sad to say, because I defy you to watch this casually and tell me what the storyline was. What this is, is an excuse for Kim Bassinger to show off her great body and for Mickey Rourke to smirk a lot. That's it. Rourke's smugness is so bad it's sickening and Bassinger, despite the great figure, looks cheap more than beautiful.

Kudos to the photographer for some nice closeup shots and some wonderful color, but the story is so weak - no character development and no plot - it's unable to compensate. Let's face it: this movie was made for only reason - to titillate male viewers. On that level, it probably succeeded. If I recall, it's why I gave it a look being a fan of Bassinger's looks, but I actually expected a story, too.

Those trying to pass this off as \"arty\" and something deeper than soft porn are only fooling themselves.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kim Basinger and Mickey Rourke star in this controversial story of a wall street exec and an art gallery employee who hook up and begin a very experimental sexual relationship.While the acting by Rourke and Basinger is ok, the flim doesn't allow their characters to truly form. Allegedly there was a lot of film left on the cutting room floor that delved deeper into the characters and the effects of the relationship on them - Basinger's character considering suicide - that would have made the characters more involved for the viewer. As is it is a glossy, well produced, with MTV style editing piece of soft core voyeurism. 4 of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I bought the DVD was to satisfy my curiosity about the scene when Liz (Kim Basinger) strips to the music of Joe Cocker: You Can Leave Your Hat On! That was the best part of the whole film. Not because the scene was any good; only the song. I am not saying it was a terribly bad film just not that good. Disappointingly so!

Especially when the exploration of male and female sexuality could have been expanded upon. Instead of expanding on the dangerous side of lust, obsession and infatuation and where it can lead to it drags its heels obscurely from one idea to the other. For example when John (played by Rourke) is able to leave her on the top of the Big Wheel, Liz (Kim Basinger) is unconvincingly rattled at the bizarre experience courtesy of John's sense of humor but less rattled at his sexual exploits involving the ever willing Liz; and like one reader mentioned, that for a woman to enjoy sex she has to experience the dangerous side is unconvincing. This \"dangerous\" side is not exploited enough in the film and one gets a sense of anti-climax from the view point that it all could go horribly wrong. The theme of bondage makes an appearance often but only just takes one to the brink of danger and then all goes well.Is the film sending the message out that this kind of \"foreplay\" is FINE! If the film was making a point about the pitfalls of bondage and by extension the ugly ramifications of sad-masochism then maybe it would make a good moral point. Instead the film awkwardly jumps from one \"sizzling\" scene of Rourke feeding Basinger and blindfolding her to another. In a film that could have been good it falls flat on its face because it does not expand and extend the themes the film is MAYBE trying to relate; thus for me it doesn't have a plot nor a theme just a mixture of ideas.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't really see how anyone can have any interest whatsoever in seeing this movie. A woman meets a man, he wants to play games, she too, but only until she realise what she's missing. She leaves, and that's it really. It took 9 1\/2 weeks before Elizabeth (Kim Basinger) left John (Mickey Rourke). She should have left him after 30 minutes and ended our misery.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A woman who deals in art starts to have a passionate love affair with a man named John. They make love everywhere they go and they play sexual games. The problem I had was that was all they did. There was no plot at all to this movie or I just didn't see it. The hot erotic passion was the best thing about this movie but I wanted something else to happen. Perhaps he could have been a serial killer or she could have had a secret. I just needed something and all that there was was a bunch of love making scenes. Not that's it was bad or anything, I just wanted more things to happen in the movie. Perhaps a coworker was sleeping with him too. Anything! I was greatly upset that this was all that there was. Mickey Rourke was so hot back then. I wonder what happened.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The main character is a whiny, irresponsible study of how to throw yourself a pity party. She loses it at the drop of a hat, acts pathetic, is schizophrenic, and left me wondering why on Earth she doesn't understand why these 'friends' of hers haven't called her in three years. (Get a clue, sister - you're a juvenile mess!) I couldn't stand her or the friends. I never felt connected to any of the characters. To make the entire movie even more unbearable, someone went far out of their way to put the world's most hideous collection of crocheted and knitted hats in existence on film for all of eternity (this alone should warrant someone be put on wardrobe probation for a decade!)

The acting wasn't awful, but not really believable either, and in the end the only thing that I DID care about was the two hours I'm never going to get back. Don't waste your time - go catch up on a dentist appointment instead!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before I begin, let me get something off my chest: I'm a huge fan of John Eyres' first film PROJECT: SHADOWCHASER. The film, a B-grade cross of both THE TERMINATOR & DIE HARD, may not be the work of a cinematic genius, but is a hugely entertaining action film that became a cult hit (& spawned two sequels & a spin off).

Judge and Jury begins with Joseph Meeker, a convicted killer who was sent to Death Row following his capture after the so-called \"Bloody Shootout\" (which seems like a poor name for a killing spree \u0096 Meeker kills three people while trying to rob a convenience store), being led to the electric chair. There is an amusing scene where Meeker talks to the priest about living for sex but meeting his one true love (who was killed during the shootout), expressing his revenge for the person who killed her \u0096 Michael Silvano, a washed-up football star who spends his days watching his son Alex practicing football with his high school team (and ends up harassing his son's coach). But once executed, Meeker returns as a revenant (or as Kelly Perine calls \"a hamburger without the fries\"), whose sole aim is to get his revenge, which basically means making Silvano's life a misery.

Let me point out the fact that Judge and Jury is not a true horror film. It is a supernatural action film, with Meeker chasing Silvano, using his ability to change form (which amounts to David Keith dressing up as everything from an Elvis impersonator, a French chef (with an accent as bad as his moustache), a drag queen, a clown & a stand-up comedian), a shotgun which fires explosive rounds & an invulnerability to death (although that doesn't stop Martin Kove from shooting Keith with a Desert Eagle), to pay Silvano back for killing Meeker's wife.

Director John Eyres does not seem interested in characterisations, instead focusing solely on action scenes, which the film has plenty of. But that is the film's main flaw, since there's nothing to connect the action scenes together. The acting is surprisingly good, with Keith delivering the best performance, supported ably by Kove, as well as Paul Koslo, who plays the washed-up cop quite well. Kelly Perine is annoying as the cabbie who tries to help but makes the situation worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this is not heavily featured on every list of \"what not to watch\", it should only be because those keeping that particular list are not aware of its existence, which, as long as that remains so, is the acceptable alternative. I'm not kidding you, this is a *bad* \"movie\". Joseph Meeker returns from the dead, with various vague, undefined supernatural powers, the most employed of which would seem to be appearing in new, increasingly comical-looking and ridiculous(and never scary or creepy... in general, when this goes for the latter of those, it winds up just being bizarre, and attempts at the former just don't work, period) outfits and stereotypes\/archetypes, and he is portrayed by David Keith(whom I respect in... well, at least Daredevil), doing a more often than not terribly inconsistent(which could also have to do with script) and often over the top performance. A character or two have personalities so unbelievably irritating that they're painful to watch. The editing thinks it's considerably more clever than it really is(and what on Earth was with the red tint for the flashbacks?). Cinematography... oh, dear. Framing, coverage, effective use of angle(that one could be attributed some to editing, too, perhaps), please, guys, stop me when I say something you've ever heard about the existence of. As far as the technical side goes, this is a pretty lousy excuse for something more worthwhile to put in the projector than unexposed film. But why stop there? The plot is just poor. The basic idea's been done, and it's been done so much better than this(The Crow would be one). The way it's told is gimmicky, and while there is some explanation behind the flashbacks, it still doesn't satisfy. Pacing is about non-existent. The lead is distinctly unlikeable, and there's more personality in a barn door, not to mention that those are also considerably less wooden. Kelly Perine and Thomas Ian Nicholas? What in the name of all that is good and just(pun intended) are you doing in this? Perine, you were already funny before this, on The Drew Carey Show, Nicholas, well, I haven't seen you in anything preceding American Pie, but if nothing else, you *were* funny later on, and in those productions, the amusement was intentional. Dialog is... the less said, the better. Language is unrestrained, and tends to be stupid. The violence is shoddily done, and they don't even seem to care to try to hide it(hinting at it might have been the smarter strategy). Characters, don't get me started. Why spend so much energy on portraying unexciting, at times utterly illogical, events? The more you think about this, the worse it gets. It's not even passable as a \"bad horror flick\", or a B movie(it may very well pass through the rest of the alphabet, and go further still), it couldn't scare you on the scariest day of your life if it had an electrified scaring machine. I recommend this only to people who want to disprove how bad this is, and don't say I didn't warn ya. 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So much for JUDGE AND JURY, which lives up to its nonsense title. What good is there? The lighting is terribly foggy! Another horror movie you ask? Well, that's perfectly explainable. David Keith actually does pretty good at disguising clowns, chefs, and other shenanigans while being the killer who escaped death row. But overall, despite some new twists, it's reasonably stupid. Unapix has been putting out some ludicrous productions recently, and this one only means so much. We, the jury, find this film guilty for its indecent exposure to many of us sitting around believing it's a total waste of our time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this thinking it would be pretty good just by the cover of the movie case. Judge and Jury started out pretty good killer chasing the man who killed his wife on a bike with a cool gun, but this movie got progressively stupider as it went on. David Keith is awesome actor especially when he plays a role like this too bad the movie was a piece of crap it really wasted his talent. Judge and Jury was well plain dumb I gave it a 3 should have gave it a 2, I gave it an extra star just because David Keith's gun was cool.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It`s funny how instinct warns you of something . For example as soon as the company credits read Nu Image I knew instinctively I`d seen a really crap film by them somewhere before but couldn`t remember where . Nevertheless I just knew JUDGE AND JURY was going to be crap and it was . Maybe I`m psychic ?

!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!

The opening is rather violent with several people getting blown away for no more reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time . I don`t know about you but I`m geting slightly fed up with exploitive violence onscreen nowadays along with bad language , especially if it`s spouted by actors as bad as the ones in this movie . Anyway the plot revolves around the bad dude getting executed and coming back to reek revenge on the man who shot his wife . Oh did I mention the bad dude and his wife murdered a couple of people on their wedding night ? Yeah he`s a serious badass mofo . In fact he`s so bad ( And I don`t mean the acting - I`ll get to that in a moment ) that he`s impossible to take seriously and this is before he`s executed only to return as Elton John , Elvis , a French chef etc . I wonder if Keith David got paid for this ? because he looks lke he`s having so much fun on screen that`s the only reason he`s playing the role . What a pity this reviewer didn`t have any fun whatsoever watching JUDGE AND JURY . Hey maybe the producers could send me Keith`s fee ? Gawd only knows I deserve it.

I disliked this movie a lot as if you hadn`t guessed and my main beef isn`t with the stupid plot or the cheap production values but with its attitude to violence . If like me you`ve had a wine bottle cracked over your head or been kicked in the ribs very hard several times you`ll know violence is an obscene painful thing , but JUDGE AND JURY will have you believe that if you`re thrown through a window , crash through some bannisters and fall twenty odd feet onto a table not only will you be unhurt but you`ll be able to outrun a couple of rabid devil dogs . It could of course be argued that any film starring Sly , Arnie or Bruce also suffers from this same dishonest showing of violence but with JUDGE AND JURY it yanked my chain","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has EVERY clich\u00e9 of every terrorism or airliner crisis movie.

However, it is not entirely unwatchable, thanks to good performances by Rowland, Loken and Smallwood (and maybe Enberg).

What IS amazingly bad, though, is the computer animations they try to pass off as live action scenes. Boy, oh boy, the CGI scenes in \"The Last Starfighter\", filmed in 1984, are better than these (filmed 17 years later). The feeling of cheepnis really sends shivers down your spine.

A pity, this could have been a much better movie with a little more budget and taste.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It must be a long time ago that I have seen such a bad movie. I have to say it is really hard to make a good and\/or realistic movie about air disaster but this movie was such a waste of time and money. Also I think this is an unofficial way trying to get a bad reputation on Airbus. First, the cockpit look a lot like an Airbus cockpit, second you got a stick, third using computers to control rudders\/elevators\/aileron via \"fly by wire\". When I saw this movie I thought like the intention of the film was \"don't fly with computerized airplanes like Airbus, use Boeing instead they have a direct connection of steering and rudders.\"

All I can say: Bad story, horrible acting (most of the actors), worst film trick ever...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie because I love Kristanna Loken and I've watched her on many TV shows and since she's having her 15 minutes of fame nowadays with her new T3 movie I wanted to check out what other movies she has been in.

She's just OK in terms of acting. Not good and not bad either. She makes up for everything by being extremely gorgeous. YUMMMMM

Rodney Rowland was quite a surprise as the hero. He provided the only solid good acting in the movie. He's a very good actor and should probably be an action star.

Besides Kristanna being OK and Rodney being really good everything else about this movie is garbage in its purest form.

A computer hacker hacks into the system of a plane from the ground and using a joystick he tries to slam the plane into a nuclear power plant ..... or something. And of course there are the heroes who stand in his way and ruin his game.

This is one of the worst scripts I have ever seen and no wonder it was a low budget flick.

What's shocking is that this movie was made in 2001 and it has way too many similarities to the September 11th tragedies.

Why do they make movies like this in the first place?

Panic * - one star (a waste of too good actors) (also a waste of time) (also known as Air Panic)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It amazes me that someone would actually consider spending some money on a movie like this. Really. Let's forget for a second that the plot doesn't even give a single hint of originality... Most of the movies today are based on other movies' stories, so a \"simple\" lack of originality is not that big a deal.

But I can hardly believe that none of the guys involved in the movie had never even got on a plane before shooting this. Because, let's be honest, that would be the only excuse to come up with something so ridiculous. To be sincere I think a 6-years-old child with a fake camera could have come up with something technically much more believable. Some examples following.

The scene that really drove me crazy is when the engines turn off when they regain control of the plane. When they have to turn them on again the guy on the radio says something like \"Ok, push the 1 and 2 buttons on the dashboard\". Now, those are not buttons. They should not be pushed, they should actually be pulled up and toward the pilot. That's something only plane-addicted would know, you say? Wrong. The next scene you can see their fingers pushing the \"buttons\"... And of course the so called \"buttons\" don't move at all! Not even a single millimeter! (And note that I haven't even mentioned the fact that aircraft engines are not like cars engine, that you just turn the key and the magic happens... You have to do quite a complicated procedure to turn them on...) Come on guys! You could have faked the movements at least!! Not to mention the hilarious final impact, where the plane crashes against every single thing along the runway (Light poles along the runway? What where they thinking?!)... And the wings don't even get ripped off! It happened to me too, once... Except the plane was made of Lego! What about the flight attendant? She's actually so skilled that she perfectly knows where the \"aux 1\" and \"aux 2\" fuses are, in the middle of the wires behind the cockpit. Should we mention, then, the guy that can drive an ambulance _and_ fly a plane behind the ambulance using his computer? And how did he turn the other airplane engines on?

Really, I could go on hours with this stuff. This is the dumbest movie I've ever come across, and I'm including garbage like Alone In The Dark and other stuff in the list. Want to do yourself a favor? Don't watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"normally,i would say i loved this movie.not for acting,although that was OK.not for the script,which was so-so.the reason i would have normally loved this movie is for the intense action,which starts from the get go and doesn't end until the final credits roll.but,the problem with this movie,and i felt it was a big problem,was the horrible CGI.it looks like they ran out of money and couldn't complete the the effects shots. a lot of the effects look lime they are in their very roughest form.since it is obvious they didn't have enough money to finish the movie,they should not have released it.i actual found the effects insulting.it seems obvious they didn't care about making a decent end product for the consumer.if it weren't for that,i would give this movie a much higher rating.my vote for Air Panic is a 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So it's a space movie. But it's low budget. You ask, \"what about the effects?\" The effects are at times good, and at times really, really bad. I mean bad. And notice I started with the effects.

There's a story here, but it's told in what I think is the wrong order. I don't mean a Tarantino style wrong order. I mean, it's told in a completely nonsensical arrangement. Most of it's about a mother (in the future, because you know, it's sci-fi) as told by her daughter, which is mostly exposition done in narrative from the daughter's perspective. Only once you're through the first hour and hear Paul Darrow's voice as a computer do you realize how much more tolerable the constant narrative would have been if he'd read it. This narrative is so constant and inclusive, that the actors on screen hardly say a word for the first hour.

There's also a lesson here for you up and coming filmmakers: if you're not doing 2001 and want to have some action (this one does), then PLEASE hire a good fight choreographer. Otherwise, your fights will look like, well, what's in BATTLESPACE. And notice the title has the word \"battle\" in it. Ugh.

I think this might be the classic scenario of trying to make a movie based on nothing more than a concept. And some effects. My biggest surprise is seeing the IMDb listing this film as costing $1.8 million. When you compare it to something like PRIMER, which did better with a budget of a few thousand, you realize in low budget film-making, it's all about the story. I wasn't expecting much - but I was STILL disappointed. Two out of ten stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I made it through half of this, but was not enough of a masochist to see it all. The first half of the film had next to no dialog ! Almost everything was voice over commentary to carry the story. The scriptwriter forgot that sometimes less is more and tried to explain several millennium of detailed history in the voice over. At the same time he forgot to do any character development. Most science fiction fans don't require huge amounts of character development, but it would be nice to know why the two main characters who survived the destruction of the space fleet together ended up fighting each other.

There are some good things going on in the film. The soundtrack was well done. Some of the computer generated graphics are very good, but others were just mediocre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am willing to tolerate almost anything in a Sci-Fi movie, but this was almost intolerable. While a few of the special effects are very cool (landscapes) this is no 'battlespace' rather a disjointed weird mother\/daughter relationship with sci-fi concepts thrown in. The acting (wooden), framing and shooting (kindergarten film school) and with \"hand-to-hand\" combat scenes funnier than any Hong Kong chopsocky movie, this film bores. The plot line is convoluted and the devices used to move the plot along (narrator), unexplained scene jumps and plenty of deus ex machina reinforce the idea that writer cum director is not a good idea. Save your love of Sci-Fi for something else instead of losing a bit of it here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Today I had a real craving for a sci-fi movie and so I decided to check out Battlespace. Sadly, that was one of my biggest mistakes this year.

I see that the director, Neil Johnson, has directed over 500 music videos, and I suggest he goes back to that. Music videos are a perfectly good form of entertainment, and not everybody can cut it making movies.

The worst part of this movie is probably the voice over. And that says a lot since the special effects are appalling at times. Voice over didn't work in Blade Runner, and it doesn't work here. The first hour or so is spent watching the main character walk through the desert, while her daughter tells the story. I think the story could have made a great movie, but not like this.

The second worst part are the effects. They are simply bad and they don't blend into the rest of the picture at all, so you simply don't believe in them. And absolutely all the frames in the movie has been filtered, and not in a good way. Filtering used as an effect is good. 90 minutes of it, bad.

And what is it with all the gadgets talking all the time, and not shutting up!?!? If I had used technology like that I would have gone mad. I was just waiting for the guns to blurt out with: \"I am awfully sorry, but I seem to have run out of ammunition.\" No, stay away. This movie is just not worth the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You see a movie titled 'battlespace', what are you going to think? Space battles with cool as heck explosions and everyone shooting at each other. What do you get with this movie? Well, you do get SOME space battle goodness, but for a great majority of the time it's just stupid people wandering around doing almost nothing. NO ONE TALKS!!!! What is this nonsense?! We get a narrators, and a ton of British computers, but thats about it. The main protagonist must be the worst one I have ever seen, as she doesn't even have any dialog, and sleepwalks though scenes (literately!). Some of the things happening are just stupid, like they use a rocket (like to go to space) for basic transportation planet side, why not just use one of those nifty space ships? In any case, the music is almost non-existent, with a few boring dull lifeless samples, but the main thing you will notice is the Atari sound effects the ships use...you have got to be kidding me. I can also tell that the budget was low, because everything looks fake, which is not what you would expect from a movie, especially what should be a super cool space battle movie. I seriously think the budget must have been in the double digits it is so bad, making you laugh more than you should at how plain bad it is. I am starting to think that they paid the actors based on how much dialog they had, because their is very little here (if you can't tell already that is my main gripe here, as I probably said that like 3 times already).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In a world where humans can live forever you spend the entire movie wishing they would die. First off if you insist on watching this movie do two things first put it on mute, don't worry you miss a plot, hell they don't even talk for the first 70 min of an 87 min movie, after putting on mute you must now hit fast forward till the main chick dies don't worry even if your paying attention you won't know why or how she died. Once you get to the \"good part\" take it of mute. Oh, how will you know the good part, wait for an elevator scene with two morons in space suits with WWII weapons. These weapons won't seem like much till you realize that the first protagonist had a laser tag pistol and a bandoleer of CO2 cartridges. The only remnants of a plot take place between a glowing ball and a semi hot chick who looks like she was attacked by Wolverine. After listening to the \"plot\", you will wish they went back to not talking. Of the four people that are in this movie none of them can remotely act, not even a little bit, you will have better luck witnessing acting at a kindergarten theater.

To comment on the special on the special effects, let me just say \"Wow\", no really you will spend the entire movie saying to your self \"Where did this movie's 1.8 million dollar budget go!\" Seriously it will leave you in aw of the magnitude of ineptness. The best \"sets\" are basically windows wallpaper backgrounds. The Ships are basically flying wrenches, Wait some are barges that kinda look like whales . I have never heard so many made up words in my whole life. They have buttons on their wrist(large pedometers) that can put them in \"fight mode\" and super runing mode (makes them super blurry). This will seriously drain their power reserves but they find bits of wires to chew on to regain their strength. The explosions were less impressive than my fourth of July, I only had sparklers.

So the plot as far as I can figure goes something like this \"mother\" is a space ship captain and goes to the desert for a while rides a rocket dies. Then her daughter 6000 years in the future ( no I am not exaggerating) recalls her mother's memories through some sort of capsule. Anyways they jabber on for another 10 min and then the cause a big bang. Yes the Same \"Big Bang\" that started our solar system. It's explained how she goes back in time or something, it does not really matter it happened i guess. Roll Credits Seriously the whole script was mercifully on one sheet of paper, unless that actually detailed any of the dreadfully fight scenes.

After watching the credits I have now laughed more than I did the entire movie, the jobs the created like catering supervisor \"galactius sarcophagus\" and then the special thanks to George Lucas was just the best.

I really wasn't expecting that much for a movie I paid 99 cents for but seriously some body owes me for this. Most frequent comment heard after the movie \"I want my life back\". You have to admire that some but put time and effort in to this movie but seriously, why ?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me break down this film for you...

The first fifteen minutes are a showcase for terrible special effects. I'm not one to nitpick about special effects, but what you've got to understand is that if you can't afford good special effects, you shouldn't anchor your film around special effects. Starships fire blobs of color at each other, flaring into stock explosions, and careening past moons with polygon counts low enough to count with your fingers. You will have no idea what is happening. It will not make sense.

The second act involves a woman walking in the desert. At this point you will be treated to drab scenery, and illogical, boring fight scenes. Nobody speaks. Nothing interesting happens. The protagonist's goals are unclear, and are not very compelling. This goes on for about 45 minutes.

Then in a five-minute montage, she sneaks into an enemy base, straps herself to a rocket, tries to destroy a doomsday weapon, fails, and dies.

None of this has any bearing on the eventual direction of the film.

In the last twenty minutes, basically the chick's memories get transferred to her daughter, who goes into stasis for a very large number of years, learning the secrets of mankind. After this, we see the first, and last five-minute segment of human interaction in the film, then the new heroine is forced to choose whether she wants to become part of the material that causes the big bang or not. You know. Because when the universe is collapsing, you get to decide if you want to be a part of it.

She chooses yes. BUT THE MEMORIES OF MANKIND SURVIVE IN A CAPSULE. Maybe we won't make the same mistakes again, huh? If you like movies with characters, then this is not a good movie for you. The lead roles could have been fulfilled nicely by any old wind-up toy capable of staying right-side-up while walking through sand. All of the story is told through painfully dull narration.

The film tries to seem deep by throwing together a whole bunch of undeveloped science-fiction ideas. There are enough concepts here to fuel a number of films, but as it stands, it's bloated with completely irrelevant details. Two-thirds of this film could have been reduced to a 45-second montage. Instead, the narrator fills in a novella's worth of backstory without ever giving us a reason to care what happens to the characters.

There are good ideas in here, but nobody watches films to see ideas ineptly explained. People watched films to be entertained. This film does not entertain.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, please believe me when I say that this is a terrible, terrible, sci-fi movie. Its done so poorly that much of the film plays out as unintentional surrealism and its absolutely a 100% waste of time. Awful, but somehow also deeply unfunny. I watched this as a double feature with \"Recon 2020: The Caprini Massacre\" and although \"Battlespace\" WAS an incredibly superior film, that's not saying much. The plot of \"Battlespace\" is so completely convoluted that its impossible to follow. The narration is cryptic, often nonsensical, seemingly endless, and thoroughly exhausting. Literally half the film is duplicative scenes of the female lead, who looks like Brian Bosworth, walking through the desert. The movie actually starts out pretty cool, but then nosedives into pooptown and somehow continues to deteriorate, minute by minute. Absolutely horrible and truly an Absurdist Endurance Test. Zero stars. ---|--- Reviews by Flak Magnet","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film begins with a 30 minute explanation about the war, the human cyborgs, battles, history, and then dumps 2 actors into a gravel pit. They run around this gravel pit\/desert area for about an hour shooting at each other. That's it. Must have cost about \u00a310.00 to make, with change. Avoid.

Marks out of ten: Acting -9 Sets 1 Costumes -9 Direction -50 Production 1 Titled intro 4

I think to improve this film would be to: Lose the commentary. (Let the watcher decide what's going on). Remove some of the awful CGI. Add some techno rave music to it. They might just rescue it.......","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I knew it would be a bad movie when I rented it but I hoped for a good bad movie. Oh well, had fun making fun of the endless sand trudging, eating camel dung (well, actually eggplant) and weird grimacing acting from I think it was about five actors. The DVD needs a director's commentary so that I can find out what he was thinking...or if he was at all. I can't believe they actually went to England, Austrialia and wherever to film this...could have been done ANYWHERE. Would have been better if they had managed to get her naked. The best line of the movie? \"He waiting for his upgrades.\" \"Yup, still waiting\". Now that WAS FUNNY! If anyone had more than 3 pages of dialog (beyond the narrator....SHUT UP ALREADY) then I'll watch it again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was rented for free, I had no misconception about this being a very bad movie. I rented it for Thanksgiving because we eat turkey and then the family watches an awful movie. So you ask, what makes this movie so bad you gave it only 2 stars? Dialog. The lack of dialog makes this a movie perfect for a deaf audience. In fact if you rent this, just turn the volume down to zero and pop in any heavy metal CD from your favorite artist. I know you will enjoy it better. The plot of this holiday turkey was so encumbered with tech and geek speak you need a translator for the narrative. Now for all you people who enjoy good sci-fi effects... eh, they are not much better than video game trailers or cut scenes in cases worse. The actors, um both of them, are not much to look at either. They say nothing much through out the entire movie. Many of the technical aspects will make you laugh like the scene where the hero straps herself to a missile and fires it at the city 70km away (it never showed how she landed). The scene before that we see a robotic sentry fire at her with a cannon from 12 feet away and he misses multiple shots. Also we are told that the political division between the antagonist and protagonist is bio-tech (genetically enhanced humans) vs cyber-tech (machine enhanced humans) but both seem to be cyborgs or enhanced humans. What told me this was a bad movie at the rental store was the cover that looked like a video game cover art and there was only the one copy, good new releases have many copies available.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have no idea what these people were thinking when they made this film. No plot, very limited action, and what is with the 3rd person commentary throughout the film???? Instead of running around the planet to shoot on all of these locations, they should have spent some money on script writing and actors. What acting there was, was lousy. This was 90 minutes of my life I will never be able to get back. I should bill the director for the cost of renting this film. To the director and the writers of this film....please quit now. This film should have a tag on the front of it saying beware of boredom. The only good thing I can say about this film, is the computer generation. It's OK as generation is. This movie should never have a sequel....ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched the first 10 minutes and it bored me to death. So, I fast forward all the way through the end. This movie must be the worst of all in the low budget sci-fi movies category so far. Bad acting, cast, directions, Lara Craft custom imitation, story, plot, everything! Through out the entire movie, I think that there maybe only 6 to 7 people in the entire cast, but ONLY two of them started in the entire movie. I was expecting something like the Starship Trooper, but it was nothing close to it. I was fooled by the movie title and the picture on the DVD cover. Don't waste your time watching this boring and bad movie. Come to think of it, I wonder why did they even bother to put out bad movies like this one?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd never heard of zero budget \"auteur\" Neil Johnson before seeing \"Battlespace\" on DVD at Hollywood Video. A few minutes into the movie I realize this isn't a bad thing. Like many straight to video Sci-Fi movies, this is a film dominated largely by overused bad special effects and a constant parade of pretentious sci-fi concepts that fail to create a story.

Viewers are tortured with a religious sounding text introduction, then a spoken introduction followed by a narration by the main character's daughter. To me this seemed like a smoke screen to mask a film with militantly ugly visuals and zero character emphasis. Some people on here seem all too ready to take this film seriously and swallowed it's seemingly new age messages hook line and sinker. These favorable reviews must come from the same kind of people who can delude themselves into thinking that things like \"Battlefield Earth\" was a brilliant movie, or that Shasta is just as good as Coke.

Those who were lured in by the cheesy cover art can look forward to lousy acting (in small doses, spaced with long blocks of people not talking), rotten computer animated effects (in extra large doses), and irritating talking computers. What you won't get is excitement, emotional stimulation, memorable dialogue, or a good story.

\"Battlespace\" is impenetrable bull and the constant irritant of the narration proves it. Real science fiction, hell, real film-making, is about characters and their dialogue, not special effects and dull predictions. This is right down there with similar direct to video sci-fi like \"Cl.One\" and \"Recon 2022\". If the boredom of \"Strange Horizons\" and \"Alien Visitor\" is something you seek out, by all means, watch the crap out of this. If you enjoy good storytelling and hate fake lens flares, you're better off with a real movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First i have to say that i don't like since fiction movies at all so much! But there are some movies i liked really. This is one of the others ;) I've the same opinion like some (most)others here. The Film is still going on in my back, but the few effects are really not enough to watch the whole time....I think what they have done well are the animated sceneries with 3 suns and 4 Moons, but its the only i liked. There are no intelligent dialogs (are there???). But its a Great Film for everybody who loves Lara Croft or some other Girls in HOT-PANTS... ;)

For the directors: \" Stop to try again, PLEASE!!! \"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...and that's saying something. No matter how bad a movie gets, I'm normally able to sit through it so I can judge the full movie. Through this one, I made it about 20 minutes.

Maybe it was the DVD, or maybe it was my laptop, but I could not hear the dialogue, even with the volume turned all the way up. Sound effects were fine, so with the volume turned up to hear the dialogue, I was blowing out my eardrums with the effects. As much as I wanted to see this thing through, I wasn't going to sacrifice my hearing for it.

From what little I could tell about the plot, the movie was one big flashback by the main character's daughter. It seems the mother, a military pilot, had to flee her ship because the one person on her ship she trusted turned out to be one of the enemy and now he is pursuing her across a desert planet.

The only thing I liked about the movie was the look of the main character; there was something I liked about her hairstyle.

Oh well, looks like this one is going into the dumpster...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nothing to spoil here at all but this could be a SPOILER so beware.

Special effects were on the level of a video game -- about five years ago, or perhaps of the original Star Trek. The acting was just pathetic -- some cheesy looking blonde treking across the desert while a voice in the background droned on. And on. And on. This was the trek and drone half that I actually made it through. Progress is interrupted by a few fights. Ships blow each other up for no real reason that is apparent episodically. Again, it's not that there is a real fight that you would expect from a movie, more like a cheap video game. Boi-ing! Boi-ing! Ship explodes. Next ship. Apparently some of the ships are looking for the blonde. Here in the far future, ships must be nearsighted and astigmatic because many of them pass directly overhead of the stylishly dressed futuristic babe in black but never see her.

Then there are a couple of choreographed fights that look like something put on by high school kids. Again, the crude video game mentality is prominent. The combatants shift to \"Fight Mode\" by flipping something on their wrists, and a loud computerized voice echoes and flashes \"Fight Mode\". That must be a dandy design if you are trying to sneak up on somebody. Then you go to a big power station which looks just like a current day power line tower and plug in to charge back up. LOL, I'm not kidding, you can't make this stuff up, it's like watching a freaking video game from about 2000 only the acting is better in the game.

More trekking. Then she shows up at \"The City\". (Lame sound trek gets even lamer here.) She gets into a fight with a mech robot of the future who cannot hit her with his big gun, even though she runs right in front of him, about five feet in front of him. Obviously robots of the far future are about as useful as toaster ovens in a fight. She throws sand in its eyes and beats it to death by throwing rocks at it. rofl, I was at about 95% of tolerance by that point, my nausea circuits flashing red.

In the next scene she ends up strapped to a rocket with some rope. I kid you not, tied right to the outside of a rocket. This is supposed to be an advanced form of transportation. At that point I bailed.

This movie is an utter disgrace for a movie made at the present time. Just a freaking disgrace. There was a drippy story but the movie distracted from it -- somebody droning on about \"mother\" constantly.

I gave it a two because there were a few scenes which displayed some pretty nice artwork of a science fiction nature as background. Unfortunately the plot, acting, action, cinematography, and narrative distracted from this artwork and degraded it. No kidding.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You just cant touch NRFPTP! The new crop is just awful. The jokes are not funny. Some of the troupe make me want to stop watching TV all together. Lorne - you have let your creation go down the toilet. The guests sometimes are good, the bands are mostly garbage. Weekend update, Seth has to tell the audience when to laugh.....Seth would get a proper reception in a Baghdad cafe though...Make sure Andy goes with him... The show has about 10 jokes in all and they just keep rehashing them over and over. Even the segments that are obviously not funny. Offending people has become the name of the game, but they cant even do that right. Just offensively. I am so disappointed with what has happened to the show, but now I also know it is safe to go OUT on a Saturday night!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was a huge \"SNL\" fan back in the days of Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Ackroyd, Gilda Radner and many other memorable stars. But every time I've tried to watch it in the past more than ten years I've been very disappointed and sometimes even disgusted with it. Ten years ago I believed the show couldn't possibly survive, since it had become so utterly bereft of the sort of humor I could understand, and yet it kept plugging along, which I've always found dismaying, wondering how in the world anyone could possibly find its lame humor at all funny. Whenever I've tuned in over the past decade I've never once been glad that I did. Indeed, I've always been annoyed at myself for staying up and wasting my time. For me, the absolute low point came several years ago when a popular young male actor I liked a lot was the guest host. At one point that night he played a big star, perhaps himself, and in the skit, the character \"Mongo,\" I think, played by Chris Kattan, again I think, ended up in the backseat of a car with him. What followed was Mongo being forced up and down and up and down on the actor's lap, with him screaming hysterically as he was presumably sodomized. The audience was laughing their heads off and I'm shaking my head, amazed that they could find that remotely funny, amazed that NBC would even broadcast such a thing. In the years since then I've repeatedly tried to approach the show with an open mind, hoping that it might regain the sly sense of humor I adored for so many years. But, up until just a week ago, for me, it hasn't done so. Not even close. One exception: During the 2008 presidential campaign, I thought that Tina Fey was fantastic, and she was the one performer who kept me tuning in. But those Sarah Palin skits, while hysterical, were still not enough to save the rest of the 90 minutes and I would always regret not turning it off as soon as I heard the familiar \"It's 'Saturday Night!!!'\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show was an amazing, fresh & innovative idea in the 70's when it first aired. The first 7 or 8 years were brilliant, but things dropped off after that. By 1990, the show was not really funny anymore, and it's continued its decline further to the complete waste of time it is today.

It's truly disgraceful how far this show has fallen. The writing is painfully bad, the performances are almost as bad - if not for the mildly entertaining respite of the guest-hosts, this show probably wouldn't still be on the air. I find it so hard to believe that the same creator that hand-selected the original cast also chose the band of hacks that followed. How can one recognize such brilliance and then see fit to replace it with such mediocrity? I felt I must give 2 stars out of respect for the original cast that made this show such a huge success. As it is now, the show is just awful. I can't believe it's still on the air.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just spent about 1.5 hours waiting for the movie to begin. It didn't. The story is vague and uninteresting, the speed in the movie is absent and the voiceover irritating. I can't understand why movies like this one are even distributed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Beats me how people can describe this adolescent exercise as film noir. True there's a gun & a bottle & a dame & the lead is a private eye, but that ain't what makes the genre, folks. This thing plays like reheated TV cop show stuff - lots of bloody beating & lousy continuity - with a dash of Chinatown memories thrown in. Pretty hard to watch beyond the first 10 minutes. You want contemporary feel, watch anything by John Dahl.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show is based on the concept that loud + obnoxious + repetition = funny. The comedic writing is non-existent, in fact I face serious repercussions by even comparing it to entertainment of any sort. Here is the premise. Two girls accidentally get their shenanigans posted on the internet and hilarity ensues after their initial success, they contrive the idea that they should make a web-cast to showcase their brilliance.

OK, so where should I begin? Let's start with the laugh track, the oft used but never successful reminder that, we the viewing audience should laugh. According to the foley guys, this show is the funniest thing on the planet. We should all be dropping loads into our pants because of the brilliance of the humor placed before us. The laugh track seriously goes every few seconds. It quite possibly usurps Scooby-doo for the king of laugh track over-use.

Then the in-your-face-shout-at-the-top-of-our-lungs-the-craziest-grouping-of- words-to-seem-silly trick is also employed with little to no success. Whoa and let's not forget creating new words to sound funny trick. That is web-o-licious and poop-tastic? What the hell...

Finally, the acting. I can't entirely complain here. The actors are young and inexperienced, but this should and can be corrected by good professional help. Because of the inexperience nick should be helping the actors define their craft. Instead, in usual nick fashion, the actors are placed in front of the camera and told \"act\". Which for the most part is robotic recitation of lines, missed timing and overall epic fail.

The lack of anything in this show makes it a disgusting representation of how not to be funny. Don't waste your time. This show is debasing to all of humanity","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Look, I've practically lost all hope in Nickelodeon after watching their newest \"hit,\" The Naked Brothers Band show, and \"ICarly\" is no exception! If you haven't noticed, ICarly is now the #1 hit tween sitcom on television right now! After hearing this, I decided to watch a few episodes myself to see what the hype was about! I have one word to describe this show in general...\"EFFORTLESS!!!\" I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT DAN SCHNEIDER WOULD GO THIS LOW AND MAKE SOMETHING THIS CRAPPY!!! IT'S HORRIBLE!!! Let me give you the details...

The ICarly cast starts out with a girl by the name of Carly Shay, played by Miranda Cosgrove! Carly, unfortunately throughout the episodes, doesn't really have a personality so to speak of! I guess she's supposed to be the average girl in the show!(because a LOT of people have an Army veteran for a dad, an artist for a brother, and a popular teen web show taped and produced with thousands of dollars of equipment!) and to say the most about Miranda, HER ACTING IS PATHETIC!!! She sounds like a 3 year old girl with Tourette's syndrome on a sugar-high half the time!

Next, we have Sam Puckett(good GOD where do they get these names!?) played by Jennette McCurdy! Sam is the \"CO-HOST\" of Carly's web show!(Wait a minute, if Sam hosts the show with Carly, shouldn't the show be called \"ICarly and Sam?\" I bet Sam feels like she's been ripped off!)Sam is supposed to be the bully in the cast!(Yeah, because EVERY girl bully wears girly skin-tight shirts and pants with blonde hair extentions!) She also, I think, is supposed to be a Tomboy, too. I would find this a little funny, but it's her Clich\u00e9 PUNS THAT RUIN IT!!! The \"Give me a bucket of fried chicken\" pun is overused WAY TOO MUCH!!! GIVE THIS GIRL A SCRIPT!!!! and GIVE HER A COFFEE because, don't get me wrong Jennette's acting is okay, but, throughout half the episodes, she looks like she's about ready to fall asleep!!!

Next we have Freddie Benson, played by Nathan Kress. Freddie is the technical producer for Carly and Sam's show! There's not much to say about Freddie other than the fact that he's a techno geek and has a crush on Carly, which never works out! HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH THE Clich\u00e9s!!! DOES IT NOT STOP!!!? Nathan's acting is also okay, but seems to get excessive sometimes! HE'S TOO BORING!!!

Lastly, and my most favorite, we have Spencer Shay, played by Jerry Trainor! Let me make this perfectly clear; IF IT WEREN'T FOR HIM, THIS DIRT CLUSTER OF A SHOW WOULD BE MUD!!! Spencer is the one who keeps the show alive! Spencer is the older brother of Carly! If you had a little 5 year old who was both on a Caffeine high and constipated, you would have this character summed up! Spencer also earns money from being an artist!(hmmm... I wonder...) You would think that a professional artist would make promising sculptures... yeah, I just love sarcasm! HIS ART IS PRETTY MUCH UTTER CRAP!!!! I mean, what kind of sculpture name is \"MERRY SNIFFMUS!!?\" WHAT!!? THAT'S ABOUT AS MUCH CREATIVITY AS A HILLARY CLINTON SPEECH ON DRUGS!!!! IT'S STUPID!!!!

THE PLOT SETTINGS AND MORALS ARE EFFORTLESS BAGS OF POOP!!!! These shows are now telling kids that stealing, lying, and being an asshole to your parents is a GOOD THING!!! IF THESE ARE THE KINDS OF AWFUL CRAPPY SHOWS THAT THEY'RE THROWING AT KIDS THESE DAYS, THEN I DON'T WANT TO TAKE PART IN WATCHING ANY OF THEM!!!! THIS IS BIGGEST PIECE OF CRAP I'VE EVER WATCHED ON TV! BAR NONE!!! NICKELODEON, \"I'M THROUGH WITH YOU!!!!\" END OF STORY!!!! 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, we all know about Dan Schneider's odd little fascination with making shows with young kids and iCarly is no exception. See young girls wiggle their toes and stick their tongues out for the camera and wear skimpy clothes and bikini's. Yes, it makes you wonder if these shows were made for teens or for some older degenerate crowd. Either way the show isn't that good when compared to Dan Schneiders other shows like the far superior Amanda Show & Drake and Josh.

The show is about a brother and sister (Carly and Spencer) living alone and having to get by on their own while their father is off in the Army and their mother is strangely absent from their lives. Carly has a mean spirited friend named Sam and they do a very well produced, award winning web show called iCarly with their little school friend Freddie. The episodes deal with their lives in and around the web show and their hi jinx at school.

Carly Shay is a young, all knowing web personality\/ business woman\/ producer played by Miranda Cosgrove, a young actress who relies on talking very very loudly and fast to get her point across and making odd faces. Her brother Spencer is a somewhat mean-spirited, dim-wit and eccentric artist played by Jerry Trainor, who tries a bit to hard to be like Jim Carrey and whose comedy style seems to be aimed at the young male audience who'd like this type of Joey Gladstone humor. Then there's Sam Puckett, an unlikable, mean little, lying thief of a brat who needs an attitude adjustment played by Jeanette McCurdy who clearly wears hair extensions as you can see them disappear then reappear from scene to scene. And finally there's Freddie Benson the web shows nerdy cameraman and technical adviser, who has a major crush on Carly but will obviously get nowhere with her who's played by Nathan Kress.

Other secondary characters come and go such as Freddies mother, Carly's grandfather, annoying teachers and many of their annoying little school friends to round out the cast. Most of the comedy is mean spirited, like blowing up Lewbert the Doorman as a gag, throwing a water balloon at a teacher and knocking over the table of young girl scouts selling cookies. All of the adults come off as complete idiots while the children are all knowing, and certain main characters have absolutely no morals. Lying, cheating, stealing and violence all are acceptable in this children's show created and written by Dan Schneider, Yes... it's a children's show! What more could the young viewers ask for?? Well, with Dan Schneider we can expect to have the young girls dress in tight clothes and bikini's and do some odd things like sticking their tongues out for the camera and eating banana's.

Shows like this are just what the young crowd likes though and I guess no worse then any of the other garbage Nick shovels at its young crowd. There's always fans to be found for anything seen on TV, at least this is a bit better then most of the stuff seen on Nick like that horrible Naked Brothers show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I won't say the show is all bad, because there are some funny parts, like Spencer, and a few random incidents. But other than that, let's face it, it's just another dry sitcom that kids are buying into.

Miranda Cosgrove was cute and funny as Megan on Drake and Josh. Honestly, she is mediocre in ICarly and is just not as funny as she tries to be. The actress who plays Sam seems to be half-asleep most of the time, and her antics are so clich\u00e9d that I would think of them. They're not funny, just annoying. And Freddie is okay, but not that interesting.

Of course, the situations are unrealistic, but it's not all bad. Some are bothersome, though. Here are a few:

1. The girls are 14, and have a web show that gives away too much personal information, with a weekly audience of 27,000(WTF), with little to no advertising, and they can still go on about their lives not being attacked by crazy people

2.Their web show gets too much praise ($100,000 yearly to advertise sneakers, a free trip to Japan, Plain White Ts performance, and so on). Honestly, anyone over the age of 6 would not find their \"comedy\" entertaining.

3. How is it that they are so \"average\", yet they own a three story loft, Spencer does hardly anything and can still afford many basic luxuries, and they have all the equipment for a web show? 4. All of the adults are idiots. ALL OF THEM.

5. No 5 foot high girl, no matter how obnoxious and tenacious, can take down trained cops, unless she's muscular. Sam is skinny and petite.

6. No one can fall down 9 stories in an elevator and live.

7. Kids can handle finding out about criminals better than cops.

The show is stupid. Really, it seems harmless, but making kids think that they can be obnoxious to their elders, live alone in Seattle when they're only 14 with an irresponsible moron, and give out personal information is just wrong.

I'm disappointed to say that my cousin, who is 3, enjoys the show. What happened to the cartoons when I was her age?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I... No words. No words can describe this. I will try for the sake of those few brave people who stick knives into their toasters... after watching this show.

This... Cosgrove person... Her acting is like watching a female gorilla dance upon the nest of highly agitated insects. Perhaps I exaggerate. However, I have a feeling that the description fits a regular day of writing this show.

The characters in this repulsive pile of raw sewage are as useless as a small piece of space rock that flies into the sun on any day of the week. Though heart attacks have not been experienced while watching them act like fools on the cheaply built sets, I have no doubt that it will happen eventually.

The main plot of this *belches loudly into the faces of the actors* is that of a foolish girl who hosts a live weekly web-cast on the creatively titled iCarly.com with her brainless friends, one of which owns equipment that the producers of this show probably couldn't afford. Her legal guardian is some kind of moron who is apparently her older brother.

I haven't watched all of this show for fear of developing cancer, or perhaps a cold, but some of the plot points I have seen involve the brother getting stuck in an elevator, the doorman of the apartment almost dieing, and the world's fattest priest coming for a visit. No, really.

Avoid this if you are over the age of unborn or if you have a history of joining mysterious cults due to mental trauma. If you do decide to watch it, laugh when the laugh-track tells you to, as this will drown out the repetitive noise that will eventually put you in a coma if you listen to it for too long.

The show receives a one star rating because the IMDb inexplicably has not adopted the use of negative numbers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you think Hannah Montana or the Suite Life are at the bottom of tween sitcoms then you've obviously never watched iCarly. iCarly is without a doubt the worst show I've ever seen. From the lifeless acting to the low budget sets the show reeks of cheapness like last week's Chinese takeout left to simmer in your overheated car.

The show revolves around a pretty, perky, and \"supposed to be\" funny girl named Carly, as she and her friends make a live web show called iCarly. Carly lives alone with her older brother who seriously needs some counseling or something, because he's a few cells short of a brain.

The plots of the shows are highly ludicrous and unbearably annoying. But having to watch Carly and her friend, Sam, do their little iCarly show-within-in-a-show is even worse. They basically show weird pictures and stick things up their nose as the laugh-track plays over and over. I mean seriously, every two seconds the laugh track seems to come on for no reason.

So, what's the point of this review? you may ask. Just to ridicule iCarly? Well, yeah, but I'm also warning you to beware of this show. Because seriously, if I had to choose between watching iCarly and Barney? No questions about it, I'd choose Barney.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, I just want to say that this show could've done well, way better than it's doing now. What brought it down was certainly the acting. Miranda Cosgrove, who acts as the main character Carly, looked almost worthy of her own show when she was on Drake and Josh. Unfortunately, iCarly was a big let down. Not only can Miranda not act convincingly enough, but she's incredibly stiff when she moves. She looks as if she's not sure how the character \"carly\" would move or stand. In the very first episode at the end when she throws the hat up, her arm doesn't ever leave her side from her elbow up. even when she was dancing she looked like a stick in the breeze. And the singing? The theme song was great, only because Drake had been in it, the music was pretty good and Miranda's voice sounded fake. I have to admit, the plot and settings are good, unrealistic, but hey, that's Nick. They're practically known for stupid lines and characters. But wow, is iCarly the worst of them all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Again, like many other TV Shows, a certain actor\/actresses in thrust into the limelight, in this case Miranda Cosgrove, having built up her reputation in previous Movies\/Series (especially by Nickelodeon and Dan Schneider. She is now the star of the show, gets to sing the soundtrack ( which she DID NOT WRITE and thus gets even more fame from that). Wonderful? It creates as much imbalance in popularity vs her other co-stars, especially Nathan Kress, who is continually thrust into minor rolls in each episode, except iDont Want to Fight. Cosgrove's music would never have met the charts without this show and her singing the main theme song (which was not written by her) and other covers such as About You Now and Stay my Baby. Let's not forget that she lip sync\/sings her song live too. Is that how you create vocalist nowadays?

Back to the show, Cosgrove reveals more physically by acting scenes in a bikini, Hawaiian hula type bra and mentioned bra many times through out. Bras and seen in many cases (though not of the other actresses). Wedgies are mentioned, panties have been mentioned once. Og let us not forget \"Oh My God\" a come phrase (are any of the scriptwriters\/actors Christian?) Granted that the show is not meant to be just for kids, I'm surprised at the multitude of mentions of the female undergarment, especially in the first episode, where the phrase \"pointy boobs\" were mentioned. I'm not sure whether kids would thus refrain from saying that at home\/in school afterwards.

It's not that I'm against the mentioning or showing of female undergarments (which girls will wear), but for a show from Nickelodeon, the people in charge should have realised that kids would get the exposure to such stuff. I doubt that other Nickelodeon shows have such content in them.

As mentioned is other reviews, the laughter track is extremely annoying and unnecessary in many parts--for example, when the character Sam cries, how on earth is that a time to laugh? It distracts people from getting the joke and is used almost in every sentence.

As mentioned, Cosgrove is made the star of the show and thus gains the utmost fame and support from die hard fans, who even scolded a hotel staff when she is told to keep her noise level down (see http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=kk0gtfUk98U). Jennette McCurdy is the second star of the show but she faces competition from Cosgrove in the music industry (compare the popularity of her new single vs Cosgrove's covers). As noted, the third co-star Nathan Kress is the least noted of the lot. He is portrayed as a atypical boy who suffers the brunt of bullying by a girl and other boys but somehow a wizard at technology. His height in early episodes make him a cute actor but unusual given his character's crush on Carly\/Cosgrove. Beyond that, Kress isn't breaking into the music industry and as Cosgrove's fame grows with each episode, Kress falls behind. I would bet that he is the least paid of all the three actors.

The content of the show is of course fictional, but also lets one wonder how it fits into a comedy series at certain times (thus the laughter track is used).It also contains several continuity errors (how can your father be and Air Force Colonel on a submarine? US Special Forces have their own branches, and the Air Force doesn't use US submarines--that is for SEALs). A unique feature is that of allowing viewers to submit their own videos to be shown during or after the episodes, but again the videos somehow do not meet the theme of comedy.

Once again, it is a show that is riddled with mentions of the female undergarments, exposure of skin, and over used laughter tracks. It is a series which thrusts a teen actress so far into the crowd such that her songs\/actions are excessive supported by her fans, leaving her co Stars behind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this show is just plain awful. I liked to watch Drake and Josh, which was great, and before that The Amanda show, also funny, but this is just AWFUL. in my opinion watching this felt like watching those --- movies from Seltzberg, painful and uncleaver. this is about 3 dumb@$$ kids who make a crappy web-show (while stealing the hole Ithing) while their retarded brother is making sculptures (he has no life). the cast is crap, Megan from drake and josh is carly (AHHHHHH!)a ugly b!tch is sam and some kid they pulled off the street plays fred. all i saw from this (ugg) are random \"jokes\" that include the brother making a clay-mation film, he also played an arcade game called PAC-rat (genious), Sam and Carly being retards on their web show, and Fred being a dork. the only episode a saw (cant remember the title) where Fred gets bad luck by not forewarding an email.i find videos on youtube funnier than this junk. and why the hell do they get youtube jack@$$ fred, get AVGN to cancel the show with his potty mouth. just skip this show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Out of boredom and vast curiosity, I decided to check this show out today since my four year old niece loves it. I should have known that it was a show that only a four year old could like. The show was pretty bad.

First of all, the show just wasn't funny. The laugh track went off at the most inappropriate times which was very annoying, especially since none of the jokes were funny. The laugh track went off at some point when the one kid who's the cameraman said \"I'm going to go polish my lense\". How the hell is that funny? The parts in it (like meat drumming) that were supposed to be funny was just stupid to anyone who's over the age of eleven.

Now, I have a feeling that four year olds are not the target audience. However, since I have a four year old niece who watches it, this sort of thing concerned me while I was watching it: It doesn't show very good behavior. In the episode I was watching, it shows Sam stealing Carly's sandwich and pushing her down to the ground, just so Carly can stand up and do the same thing back to her. I would not want to see my niece acting that rude. I also don't like the idea of two young girls having a web show where they give out personal information... If this was real, there would be freaks all over her.

This show would probably be good and funny to someone who's eleven or younger, but anyone older than that, just stay away from it. I'll give this two stars since I guess I can see how it can be funny to a kid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched the Halloween episode...oh my god I wanted to die. The acting was just awful. The lines were uttered with absolutely no conviction. Its a bad idea for a show as well, I mean who would watch some web show like that in real life? Miranda Cosgrove was great in a supporting role in Drake and Josh but doesn't have the force of character to anchor her own show. I'm even more upset because her leaving is a major reason why Drake and Josh ended. She was approached with her own show...she jumped ship on Drake and Josh. They then decided that maybe they would do a thing with Drake and Josh moving to college, thereby explaining the loss of Meagan as a character but Drake had already had thoughts of moving on to bigger and better things and he figured if Miranda did it why couldn't he. The best part of the show was the theme song... a catchy, good tune in a mire of mediocrity. Of course Drake Bell was dubbing Miranda's voice for the whole thing and wrote the tune...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ever went on Youtube? Well, the definite question to that is YES. Do you see the boatloads of ICarly and Nickelodeon rants? No definite answer.

Many people think ICarly is a dull and idiotic program, and others think it's the best program on the face of the Earth. I have seen many of the loads of reviews panning ICarly in the head and some giving it a bouquet of roses. In my opinion, Icarly is for the kiddies, but the show is just awful.

If you did not read the last review, here are reasons 1-8: #1: Steryotypes #2: Goofed-up drama #3: Everything is silly(taco truck for example) #4: Carly thinks she's nice but she's mean #5: Anyone over the drinking age is stupid #6: Sam is petite but strong? #7: No real companies #8: Mean teachers

#9: The webshow overuses 3DFX. Just look on the webshow to understand what I mean. #10: The webshow also spills personal information. #11: Almost every famous thing is insulted. Icarly insults the Japanese race, Solitare, Mercades-Benz, and Pac-Man, to name a few. #12: There are too many reoccuring jokes(Sam's obsession of meat, Freddy's computer, Gibby pulling his shirt off, etc.) #13: The video games based off the show suck. #14: Freddy has a lack of masculinity. Why? It's getting unoriginal. #15: The show is targeted towards a female audience. I also hate shows directed to a male audiences too, so I prefer Icarly to be for both genders. #16: The words \"nub\" and \"no chiz\". #17: The overuse of laugh tracks.

Part 3 coming in early Spring! Just in time for Spring break!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"iCarly is about a teenage girl named Carly Shay (Miranda Cosgrove) who lives with her artist brother, Spencer in a loft in Seattle. Carly has a web show that gets millions of views and makes tons of money a year, so much money she \"doesn't even know its a real number\". Her best friend is Sam (Janette McCrudy) who's as predictable as they come! She says \"normal\" things and beats up Carly's neighbor, Freddie who is in charge of all the technical things for their web show. Carly shouts every word and looks like she doesn't have emotion. Sam chases Freddie around and Freddie screams. In one episode Carly and her friends shoot Lewbert (the doorman) down in elevator and he survives.

I would not recommend this at all, unless you like teenagers shouting, hurting people and making fun of stuff.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first time I watched this show it was OK. There were some funny moments and I laughed a couple of times but this show is getting worse and worse. Carly and Sam's web show is NOT the least bit funny. They play a stupid video from the internet, scream at the camera and make some very bad jokes. And then the laugh track goes off?! One problem with the show is that none of the main characters are funny. Carly is not funny. Miranda Cosgrove's acting is lackluster at best. Her acting in this show is nothing like her acting from Drake And Josh. Her friend Sam is very rude and crude and the show is written in a way that makes her look like some kind of hillbilly. I mean they make jokes about her mom driving a rusty old truck, her mom smashing an old TV with a bat, and then there's the jokes about Sam failing in school, getting detention all the time and running from cops. None of that is funny at all. Then there's Freddy who is a computer geek. He isn't too funny unless his Mom is treating him like a baby. The show's only somewhat funny full time character is Carly's brother Spencer. He makes some funny jokes and does some pretty funny things like pretending to drive a space ship while making spaceship noises, knocking over a girl scouts' cookie table for revenge as they did the same thing to him. His material is the only thing worth laughing at. Aside from the characters other things make the show bad too. Like the fact that a couple of kids doing a local web show from a Seattle apartment is a worldwide hit and got them a free trip to Tokyo? Another thing is that how can a 26 year old single guy with no real job can pay for a 2 level apartment in downtown Seattle and raise his 13 year old sister and pay for a room full of camera and sound equipment including a remote controlled projector and a green screen and an HD camera? This sounds like it was written by a 10 year old. The worst thing is that the show contains some pretty questionable content. There are a couple of times when Carly(remember a 13 year old girl) appears on her internet web show in a bikini top. WTF? Then I saw an episode where Freddy tells Carly and Sam that he \"slept in JUST his socks the night before.\" I mean WTF? Then there's an episode where Carly's rival Nevel blackmails her by taking her website rights and agrees to give her the website back in exchange for a kiss. Creepy! And I just saw an episode where Carly meets a boy who just moved into their apartment building and he has some kind of back injury and he takes off his shirt and Carly stands there drooling over him. I can't believe Nick even lets them show that kind off stuff and I can't believe that this was created by the same guy responsible for Drake and Josh. This show is not appropriate for kids under the age of 12 and that's even questionable. iCarly is just another addition to the long list of awful Nick programming.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First Off Acting Is So Terrible Except For The Actor Who Plays Spencer. Mirinda Cosgrove Does Not Deserve Her Own Show She Should Have Stick With Drake And Josh.The Only Person I Like Besides Spencer Is Nevel Hes Super Bad@$$ He Kicked Carlys Crews @$$ And I liked It

The Episode I Hate A lot Is Imyourbigesstfan I Hate That Young Icaly Fan She Made Me Almost Kill Myself Fake Is A Well Word To Describe This Please Don't Watch This Nothing On TV Is Good Go With Classics Like Family Matters Good Show Ban Icarly Lets All Go Back To Doug Nick Version Only Please Don't Watch I Hate Icarly Oh Also Nathan Kress Is A Wannabee Fredie Highmore","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The actresses bra in a changing room--well I guess they are preparing young children for changing room time? (Boys you must close your eyes at that scene A humongous bra (34C which definitely neither of the actresses size) dangling and supposedly talking--oh don't worry if your son takes your bra then Stripping boys (a girl pulls down a boys pants) to reveal his boxers--kids try that at home and in school Beating a girl with male briefs--nothing wrong. The show likes to show underwear--panties next?? Actress--at an age below 18 in a revealing bikini--mom can you buy me one when i reach puberty? So many sexual innuendos to learn:eg: \"Don't doubt my ball skills.\"

\"I like to dance. With my shirt off.\"

\"Wet and sticky is very icky. Sticky and wet make Mommy upset.\"

\"I just wanna stick my face in this pie and go 'bbbbbbuuuub.'\"

\"I come up with my best ideas when I'm wet.\"

\"He sliced my banana!\"

\"Come on boy, let's do it\"

you'll never guess where I found this fish\"

\"I'll leave you two to do..it\"

\"Carly (about Sam): She just ditched iCarly to go play with Jonah?!\"

\"You won't get respect if your back's not erect.\"

\"How's it hanging\"

\"What can I say, I'm a great ball handler\"

\"Watch me spank your daddy!\"

Spencer: That's big. Freddie's mom: Thank you

\"Hey! Could you keep your hands off my equipment?\"

Freddie: Oh, and last night, slept with my socks on. Sam or Carly: So? Freddie: JUST my socks

\"They wanted no part of me or my fudgeballs\"

\"Freddie, you know how I feel about you handling tools!\"

\"You don't even wanna know where the batteries go\"

\"It's like she stuffs waffle cones in her bra!\"

Spencer: \"Well, it spread...to places.\" Freddie: \"Where?\" *Spencer motions for Freddie to come near, then whispers in his ear.* Freddie: \"Ugh!\"

\"Wow, it's just that you've always seemed . . . so willing.\"

\"I have to take my daughter to a special doctor\"

\"I send a lot of guys, a lot of places\"

\"Yeah, you've been having all kinds of fun this morning.\"

\"I'm looking for some 'cheap entertainment'...\"

(mom I learn how to say **** indirectly today!!) All in all very educational for young children. Lesson to be taken: if you want to know more than where babies come from kids, watch this show!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nickelodeon has gone down the toilet. They have kids saying things like \"Oh my God!\" and \"We're screwed\"

This show promotes hate for people who aren't good looking, or aren't in the in crowd. It say that sexual promiscuity is alright, by having girls slobbering over shirtless boys. Not to mention the overweight boy who takes off his shirt. The main characters basically shun anyone out of the ordinary. Carly's friend Sam, who may be a lesbian, beats the snot out of anybody that crosses her path, which says it's alright to be a b**ch. This show has so much negativity in it that nobody should watch it! I give it a 0 out of 10!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, I'd like to say I am a teenager so this is all marketed towards me, and I can safely say that iCarly very poor programing, and the fact that it's accepted among both genders baffles me. It contains some of the worst attempts at comedy I've ever witnessed with mediocre acting to boot. The supposed humor within the show is all based on saying someone's lines again with poor sarcasm, poor sarcasm, saying bad one-liners, and, well, you get the picture. Also, I should mention that I do still watch Spongebob, which I know I'll get a negative backlash for, but that's quality programming with some honestly funny moments in it, less we forget something iCarly's missing; WIT. The show's about a young girl, Carly, putting on a web-show with her friends, which I can say is without a doubt a nicer version of the internet. That's fine, but the show's just...well, not funny at all, as previously stated. If this is what children's programming has come to today, parents, show them something that's ACTUALLY funny; Spongebob or Rocco's Modern Life would work.

Also, compared to it's brothering show, Drake & Josh, it's terrible, which was implied. Seriously, please watch something worthwhile. Even for a children's show it's poor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off... I have to say acting isn't very good. Miranda Cosgrove is the main character but is not such a good actress quite frankly. Spencer, her brother is a way much better actor. Spencer is easily my favorite character because he probably is the only one that knows how to act. Carly on the other hand tries to act her heart out but... sorry, it just isn't good. Sam doesn't even get credit, I mean come on... ICARLY... pretty self centered eh? Freddy isn't bad, I don't have a comment. I must add that Carly and her puppet Sam change their attitude whenever they go to film a web cast, they go shouting out all their lines.It's sorta bad influence in a way because Carly has a web show and if kids will copy this, they might be giving their own information and that not pretty safe.

The only nice things is that it has SOME funny parts of the show which makes it entertaining. At least this show isn't boring, it has nice plots, pretty strong. Many kids will like this because they don't look for flaws.

Overall this is a bad show but it's not boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nickelodeon has gone down the toilet. They have kids saying things like \"Oh my God!\" and \"We're screwed\"

This show promotes hate for people who aren't good looking, or aren't in the in crowd. It say that sexual promiscuity is alright, by having girls slobbering over shirtless boys. Not to mention the overweight boy who takes off his shirt. The main characters basically shun anyone out of the ordinary. Carly's friend Sam, who may be a lesbian, beats the snot out of anybody that crosses her path, which says it's alright to be a b**ch. This show has so much negativity in it that nobody should watch it! I give it a 0 out of 10!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"iCarly is all that's wrong with the world. All the main characters but Carly's brother and Freddy are morally bankrupt.

Sam damages other people on whim. She breaks a kids locker and he is forced to pay a 100 dollars to fix it, and all she says is \"Tough luck\" and moves on to smash Freddy's cellphone. She just caused at least 300 dollars worth of damage and she is more focused on getting some food. What the hell?. The only time she's every felt guilt is when she made fun of Freddy on the show. And that's only cause Carly nagged the crap out of her.

Carly is the \"I'm perfect, everything I do is nice.\" type of girl. Everything she does is for her own benefit and she is often shown only having remorse for herself. What's worse, she encourages Sam's crap. Sam ruins some of Freddy's clothes? She laughs. Sam ruins a kids grades? She shrugs it off.

Don't even get me started on the humour. The laugh track is played at every moment.

Sam: He's not that hot Carly: Yes he is Sam: Yeah you're right *INSANE AMOUNT OF LAUGHTER*

The shows humour consists around degrading others and saying obscure words and occasionally bantering on about trivial matters using similar sentences.

Not to mention all the 'super cool special techno effects' they do can be done in Windows Movie Maker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Miranda Cosgrove is known for her debut in \"School of Rock\" with Jack Black and her role as Megan in the show \"Drake and Josh\" and she has become a fan favorite amongst the Nickelodeon public, so it isn't a surprise that Dan Schneider would create a show just for her. Unfortunately, it ends up being as bad as, if not worse than, \"The Amanda Show\".

\"iCarly\" is about three friends, Carly, Sam, and Freddie, who have become idols in the junior high community through a webcam show called \"iCarly\". Carly and Sam are the hosts and Freddie shoots and puts it up on the internet. Carly also has an older brother named Spencer, acted by the hilarious Jerry Trainor who is known for his work in \"Drake and Josh\" as Crazy Steve.

Well, let me tell you this. Don't believe the 8.3 out of 10 this show received because it is pathetic in nearly every aspect. Dan Schneider probably went through about 5 minutes of studying teenage interests because all I see is him saying \"iPod? iPhone? iHome? Aha! Teenagers love anything beginning with 'i'!\" and a majority of gigs that were used in \"Drake and Josh\", if not, then they are just really dry and forced jokes that don't even count on a generousity chuckle, such as \"You want me to turn up the AC to 60 degrees?\" \"No. We want you to turn it up to 60 pickles!\" Not only that, but if you look closely, nearly all the sets in the shows were used in \"Drake and Josh\" and \"Ned's Declassified\" that were simply spit-and-polished with random stuff to try and make it look different.

The scenes where the show is showing a broadcast of the iCarly network is just as terrible as the entire series itself. The dialogue in them is atrociously bad, which may be accepted by some since it IS just two friends playing around in front of a camera, but what's the deal with the really odd, humorless antics they do like \"Random Dancing!\"? And it just gets worse from there.

In terms of acting, Miranda and Jennette aren't at their best, by far. Nathan Kress, who played Freddie, isn't believable at times, but he does an okay job. The person who really steals the show is the humorous prowess of Jerry Trainor, who fits in his \"protective older brother\" role very well and his wide-eyed loud-mouthed acting can make for some pretty funny segments. Too bad they aren't frequent, because that might have given the show an extra star in my opinion.

Dan Schneider must have made this show for the sole purpose of giving Miranda Cosgrove her own cable-born playground to hop around and spew unfunny jokes and pathetic cue-card lines in every direction, because everyone else has exceptional talent buried underneath the poorly-done script and weightless acting. Dan Schneider did a great job with \"Drake and Josh\" so it's a real disappointment that \"iCarly\" is such a failure. Jerry Trainor's acting saved this show from a 1 out of 10 rating, but he alone can't save \"iCarly\" from being as horrible as it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nickelodeon has gone down the toilet. They have kids saying things like \"Oh my God!\" and \"We're screwed\"

This show promotes hate for people who aren't good looking, or aren't in the in crowd. It say that sexual promiscuity is alright, by having girls slobbering over shirtless boys. Not to mention the overweight boy who takes off his shirt. The main characters basically shun anyone out of the ordinary. Carly's friend Sam, who may be a lesbian, beats the snot out of anybody that crosses her path, which says it's alright to be a b**ch. This show has so much negativity in it that nobody should watch it! I give it a 0 out of 10!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Flatland is one of my favorite books, thus I was looking forward to this film. Unfortunately, the film is absolutely horrible. The dialog is so bad it sounds like improv half the time. The new storyline makes me think they took the book and a couple of newspapers, threw them in a blender and used what came out for the screenplay. It's a disgrace to the book and independent film making. The only reason I even managed to get all the way through the film was my hopes that it'd get better. Unfortunately, it only got worse, climaxing in a really retarded ending.

That's not to say EVERYTHING about the movie is bad. The CG is acceptable, in a 1990's \"Reboot\" sort of way which I assume is what they were going for. And I suppose you can't go wrong with \"people\" getting chopped in half and gushing blood all over the place.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I got and saw this movie based on the rather high score here (7.1 now), and some of the good reviews. Usually IMDb is a good guide when it comes to score, though in this case I was very much deceived.

The movie is a present-day detective story, with Vinnie Jones as the investigator journalist, who investigates the death of a construction worker. Mixed with this is a made up Dickens' novel (called The Riddle, set in the 18th or 19th century), which also deals with a murder story. Both story lines are connected through the discovery of an unpublished manuscript.

Sounds interesting? It could have been, however this movie horribly fails in a number of areas : 1) Acting. Mediocre at best, but it is watchable. No worse than your average UK sitcom, though for a movie one expects a little better. Especially with a score of over 7. 2) Music. The music used is simply horrible, it distracts and it is annoying. Especially the pub music, and the music which plays in the journalist's apartment. 3) Storyline. This is a big joke. There are gaping plot holes everywhere and even the obligatory love story is so unrealistic that it's almost funny. Furthermore, without going into any detail, I can safely say that the ending is absurd, and one of the worst pieces of acting and storyline of the year. 4) Camera-work. At times camera positions and views are distracting, and serve absolutely no purpose to the \"story\".

I'm a bit of a movie fanatic, and watch on average 1 to 2 movies a day, but this is easily the worst movie I've seen in months. Don't waste your money or your time on this rubbish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What more can I add? This is without doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen. Terrible acting, a daft script, tediously slow pace - even visible microphones dangling from the top of the screen. I could go on, but I really can't be bothered. I watched this for 90 minutes before the sense of losing the will to live became too great for me.

I can only assume that the first set of comments and votes were from people associated with the promotion of this insult to British film-making.

And worst still, I had to buy the Mail on Sunday to get it :-) The only reason the DVD hasn't now been redeployed as a coaster is that it now takes pride of place in my Top 10 Worst Films Ever collection.

Definitely one to be avoided.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Words fail me for this appalling waste of two hours of anyone's life. The story is contrived to the point of complete incredibility.

The acting is leaden and so much of this is laughably dreadful. Vinnie Jones - so wonderful in Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, is unbearably awful and unbelievable as Mike Sullivan, journalist.

I honestly can't ever remember seeing a worse film. It's only worth watching for the appalling continuity lapses. After Jones is handed a huge beating he emerges without a scratch on him. His girlfriend upends a drink over him and he chases her, emerging from the pub bone dry. It's quite dreadful, made all the worse by the talented actors who appear in it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A pretty awful film, I'm amazed the likes of Derek Jacobi & Vanessa Redgrave agreed to be in it, it's like an overlong episode from a poor TV detective series.

The biggest flaw has to be Vinnie Jones, he simply can't act, whoever had the bright idea of casting him as a leading man wants their head examining unless he put his own money into the project? He should stick to playing thugs, looking menacing & NOT speaking!

Also was central heating around in Dickens times as there were three big radiators behind his desk??

No wonder they gave this away free with a newspaper as no one would pay to see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ever notice how so many really bad films attract so many 10\/10 votes? Not much of a Riddle how that happens, but this is not much of a film. There are two ways of looking at it being given away in the Mail On Sunday.

1. It's free, so you can't complain about it to much. 2. It's free, so it can't be much good.

My vote is number 2. The free DVD in the Sunday papers things is a recent trend and some great old movies have been given away. They're ones that have been out for ages and have made most of the money they'll ever make, so it's a case of anything else is a bonus. It's the last stop for old films, not the first for new ones, so you can guess how bad this must be to skip TV and DVD rental.

The plus points are that Vinnie Jones does try hard and Derek Jacobi is good as Dickens. The minus points are a longer list. Trying isn't the same as succeeding for poor Vinnie and Jacobi's other tramp character is talkative ham that's gone off. The story is very weak. The Dickens story does not have anything to do with the film's murders and feels like another movie slapped onto the script to make people think it's a British Dan Brown without the religion. The supporting cast are either there for the money (Vanessa Redgrave must be really hard up) or because they are friends or girlfriends of the filmmakers. It is also very, very long for what it is.

Vinnie taking his priceless Dickens story with him in his jacket pocket everywhere is good for a couple of laughs, but that's it. Not funny and very not good even for free.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The growth of tax funds and sale-and-leaseback schemes has led to a raft of unsaleable films that are gathering dust in laboratories and vaults all over the British Isles because they seem to be made purely because they fit the financial criteria rather than had any potential audience. A lucky few get a week at a small screen in London before going to budget DVD, but The Riddle distinguished itself by completely bypassing cinema, TV or even the rental market to premiere as a free gift DVD in the Mail on Sunday.

It's all too easy to see why this ended up being literally given away. Aside from a couple of glitches (a boom mike is clearly visible in one shot) it's not particularly badly made, and while Vinnie Jones comes over like modern British cinema's version of Freddie Mills Mills as the greyhound reporter who wants to move up to the crime desk and the supporting cast veer from ham to vaguely passable, nobody's distinguishing themselves here by being either outstandingly good or outstandingly bad: mediocrity is more the norm here. The real problem is that like so many sale-and-leaseback tax fund films, it's a 'soft' film - there's no reason to watch it. It exists because the circumstances existed for it to be made, but it lacks pace or forward momentum. It seems to be aiming for the Sunday teatime telly audience (despite being shot in Scope) but doesn't cut it. There are a couple of okayish ideas in this determinedly inoffensive tale of a unpublished Charles Dickens manuscript and a couple of suspicious deaths in modern-day Limehouse, but the mystery element is so painfully obvious - as is the last-minute supernatural twist (you'll never guess who Jacobi's literate tramp really is. What, you guessed?) - that you're almost expecting the Scooby Gang or the Double Deckers to turn up to solve it.

It's a very misconceived film for all kinds of reasons: a few cast members are playing double roles when they shouldn't even be playing one, and the whole shock reveal of the truth of the Dickens manuscript is completely bungled because it's all narrated in the first person by Dickens rather than the supposed character of the novel. The main murder in the film is clumsily integrated into the main plot, with characters suddenly reminding Vinnie that he's forgotten about that one already, heralding an increasingly desperate final half hour that sees wicked developer Jason Flemyng's secretary puts some Rohypnol in Vinnie's drink so she can have her wicked way with him and leave incriminating photos behind \"to make you look a git with your girlfriend,\" leading to him having a dream where he talks to Charles Dickens (\"You're Charles Dickings\" \"What's in a name?\"), who offers the somewhat less than likely suggestion that \"You read too many books.\" But all that's as nothing compared to the finale, which falls into utter absurdity, with logic and common sense going completely out the window as it plays like some bizarre Jacobean revenge tragedy with handguns on the banks of the Thames, with two-day guest stars Flemyng and Vanessa Redgrave looking like they'd much rather be somewhere else (Mel Smith turns up in a one-day cameo, so it's clear that the film's 'names' are mainly there for an easy $10k or to meet their alimony payments). The film's final image is so utterly absurd and pointless as to almost make it worth watching, though.

One curiosity is a fairly prominent role in the first third for Vera Day, a sort of prototype Liz Fraser and one-time mainstay of 50s British films - the barmaid in Hell Drivers, the barmaid in Quatermass II - here promoted to pub owner, while standup comedian Kenny Lynch turns up briefly to give the best performance as an old school gangster. Oh, and the late Gareth Hunt makes his last bow as - oh the irony - a coroner...

Just to round out the package, the freebie DVD also included a trailer for the director's other film with Vinnie Jones, Bog Bodies, a naff-looking British horror with transAtlantic scientists and Vinnie in Elmer Fudd duck hunter outfit terrorized by a reanimated 2000-year old sacrificial victim from the nearest peat bog (\"Be wewwy, wewwy qwuiet: I'm hunting dwuids\"). I can hardly wait...

The one thing I can guarantee, however, is that every indie producer in the UK is going to spend the next few weeks trying to find out exactly how much the Mail paid for the license to press the DVD (they paid Prince \u00a3250,000 for his new CD). With so many British tax-shelter indies on the shelf and with money so hard to find at the moment, this could become an interesting fallback market for British flicks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The riddle as a concept is an interesting idea, but i'm afraid is miscast, Vinnie if given the Hard man role is his element as in Lock Stock and Snatch. In this movie Vinnie plays a Newspaper sports writer (greyhounds to be precise),who during the course of the movie is easily is beaten up with ease and bundled over a balcony by a man who 10-15 years his senior. I'm sorry Vinnie is tough looks tough and has so to cast him like this is foolish. Trying to investigate the double murders of a friend and a drug addict found near the Thames. He takes on the role of policeman, whilst the real police are bit part players, interceeding with flashbacks from Charles Dickens.

When Vinnie is on screen his reputation precedes him he looks tough but does'nt in this part need act tough, snarling at the camera in parts. If you watch the Mean Machine, he is perfectly cast, and believable and does a very decent performance.

Getting back to the movie what confuses the matter somewhat is the flashback to Charles Dickens who is narrating a different story with characters who are also appear in present day, these two stories are it appears unrelated apart from the same actors are used.

The sound on the movie especially from Julie Cox is inaudible at times, and not really fleshed out what her role in the movie is short of Vinnies Love interest, she starts the film as a Detecive, but quickly becomes the Girlfriend.

The Death of the Prostitute is sort of answered but yet\/not answered . Strip out the Charles Dickens stuff and you may have a decent movie.

Vinnie, is slowly becoming Britans Steven Segal, stick to the supporting actor role, your'e quite good at it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I could not believe the original rating I found when i looked up this film, 9.5? Unfortunately it looks like I am not alone.

The film, is slow and boring really, one of the sad things is that if the film had been given a realistic rating of around 5 or 6 then the expectation would not have been so high.

Unfortunately, this was not the case, so when watching the film, and seeing the poor story and acting, I am left giving it a 3\/10 score.

Vinnie Jones is superb in Lock stock, and also Snatch, and he plays a great hard man, however, he should stick to this role. Its a bit like when Stallone and Schwarzenegger have done comedy films, they just don't work.

Neither can he play lead actor, he plays better as supporting or otherwise. When he plays lead, his acting talents are too 'in view' and shown up as not really very good. Mean Machine is another good example of this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It doesn't surprise me that the makers of this hopeless movie couldn't find a UK distributor, and then had to release it as a free DVD with a Sunday newspaper. The distributors could clearly see what the film-makers and the Sunday newspaper couldn't, that this was one movie that just wasn't going to recoup its costs.

Since it's a thriller about riddles, it would have helped if they'd picked a lead actor who could enunciate properly, rather than the mumbling Vinnie Jones who appears to pronounce \"riddle\" as \"riell\". And it would have helped if the dialogue hadn't been swamped by noisy locations or scenes flooded with distracting and inappropriate music. The plot is ludicrous: The lost Charles Dickens story supposedly helps our hero solve a series of modern murders, but so would a copy of Herge's Adventures Of Tintin, since the link between Dickens and Jones is more non-existent than tenuous. And we have the ridiculous premise that a would-be investigative journalist who lays his hands on a previously undiscovered Dickens manuscript, would take several days to read it, just so that flashbacks to Dickens can continue to be played throughout the movie, as if they had some connection to it. Which they don't. I mean, if you found a new Dickens manuscript, wouldn't you just go somewhere quiet and read it ? The film ends with one of those surprise revelations that have become mandatory since The Sixth Sense, but in this case it doesn't so much surprise you as insult your intelligence. If the film is suddenly going to turn supernatural at the twelfth hour, then revealing that Vinnie Jones is a robot might have been more acceptable. It might not have seemed so turgid if the film had been stylish, but it isn't. And in several places it appears decidedly amateur: There's a scene where a table is laid with a 60's jump-cut technique, but they haven't made sure that the person actually laying the table is completely out of frame between the cuts. Consequently, you can see things changing at the edge of frame, when you're really supposed to be watching things changing at the centre of frame. A good rule in movie-making is: If you don't understand how to do a technique then try something else.

The real riddle is why anyone thought it would be a good idea to make this movie in the first place.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only Riddle in this film was how it ever got made. the British film Industry needs to make films people actually want to watch and not look to get Taxpayers money (a'la BBC) to keep Luvvies in their life style they have been accustomed to, with doing nothing for it.

the Film was every thing wrong with British Films it relied on stereotypes, it had to be about a London were people were either Posh and corrupt, Gangsters, Luvvies or gawd blimey jellied eel types, the story script was just pathetically weak, to the extent when the Police man pulled out his phone and the ring tone was the \"Sweeney \" theme I just expected it. The whole film was a happy shopper sweeney \/ Minder rip off.

the priceless manuscript I noted got left behind and lost on a few occasions and is something even I with my limited street wiseness wouldn't carry around in my breast pocket every where, to the beach and fights etc Saying that Vinnie Jones is likable which is about the only thing in the film, poor bloke.

When Derek Jacobi walked into the water at the end because he was Dickens, oh my god, what a load of crap, and I am being positive here","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Its No wonder this was free with the Mail on Sunday, slow going, poor acting, and filming (camera flare, near start of movie, is not even artistic) = Straight to video, but not in this case, why not recoup some of your (Film production costs) by releasing it free with a UK Sunday newspaper, at least this way you get a captive audience, and recover some costs.

I have not given this film a 1 out of 10, due to the effort to pull some old actors out their shell, it was nice to see some old faces (Vanessa Redgrave,this an't no Blow \u0096Up), but Vinnie Jones as a lead, and I think he was better in Gone in 60 seconds when he did not speak.

This Film is dropping in Ratings every day,i think this will find its true mark at the 3-4 out of 10,in the very near Future","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I'm listening to my parents watch this (after I gave up 10 minutes into the film), they have absolutely no idea what is going on. When \"Charles Dickens\" stared into the camera, I half expected him to turn into a demon (yes, he looked like one). Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

This movie had various reasons I did not finish it: one, it was unbearably slow. I mean, seriously, it was SLOWW. You can only understand 10% of what is said, and the characters were poorly introduced.

If you have an English accent and you like a LOTTT of talking, no action, terrible acting, cheesy laughs, and the same music\/sound effects played over and over and over, then this is THE movie for you...

1\/10 - completely horrible.

Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Come on now. How did all of these talented actors\/actresses end up in this mess? Was it some sort of blackmail\/lost bet situation? Vinnie, you are a muscle man. Be what you were born to be.

The hot tub scene? The Scrabble scene? I was expecting to hear the \"needle dragging over the record\" sound at any point.

And what was up with him carrying around the priceless Dickens manuscript with him? Let's see, I'm drunk at a bar, why not pull out the priceless Dickens manuscript? I'm going to meet some questionable thugs down on the edge of the Thames, why not take my priceless Dickens manuscript?

Crapola.

Terrible. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whoever saddled this piece of drek with a title like Riddle deserves some kind of Award; there are dozens of riddles here like who conceived such a dire project, who funded it, who cast it, who persuaded Vanessa Redgrave to share even ONE scene with Vinnie Jones and so on. The most sane voice connected to the whole schmeer belongs to the person who decided - very, very wisely - that this was unreleasable and not even good enough to go straight to video\/DVD which throws up yet one more riddle, why - if we rule out serious payola - did the Mail On Sunday get involved and deign to give it away. This has Golden Turkey written all over it and smacks of being shot in two days in somebody's garage and cobbled on to some library footage of London except somehow you KNOW that someone actually DID shoot this on location when it would have been kinder to shoot him\/herself. Vinnie Jones and Julie Cox are not even cardboard cutouts more like tissue paper and I swear Pete Doherty and Kate Moss couldn't have done worse whilst Derek Jacobi is a grotesque joke and the plot moves with the speed of the Irish team sliding UP the Cresta Run. Apart from that ...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't know anything about this DVD when I hired it. Had a quick look here at the comments but decided to keep an open mind. Obviously an independent film and low budget but that didn't worry me. I will watch anything with Derick Jacobi and as always he played his part well. What a pity no one else did. I had watched 'Atonement' a few weeks ago with Vanessa Redgrave and she was sublime. In this she seemed to just turn up to read the lines. In my opinion the main mistake was in casting Vinnie Jones. To be honest I saw his picture on the DVD cover but didn't notice that he got top billing. A sticker was strategically placed over his name! It was watchable and I quite liked the Dickens story alongside present day. Maybe with a more capable actor playing the lead this might have worked better. Still it was weak.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The fact that this film was distributed free with a certain national newspaper which I do not care for did, to a degree, put me off of watching it, but as I had come across a copy that a local charity shop was giving away for nothing I felt I could watch it with a clear conscience.

The film does have its moments, the evocation of the Thameside location is nicely done, but it does suffer, I feel, from a few too many faults. Firstly, Vinnie Jones is simply not convincing as the journalist. Whilst Vinnie himself is an interesting character, the truth is that he simply does not have the range of acting ability to pull off a role like this.

Secondly, who would carry around with them a lost manuscript that they have been informed is \"priceless\"? It seemed that everywhere Mr Jones went this manuscript went with him! Thirdly, the whole Dickens aspect of the story, whilst appearing to be important, gets in the way of what could have been an interesting film of corruption in high places. Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but I really could not see the point of the story-within-a-story Dickens style. This added nothing to the film, and only served to confuse matters when things started to become interesting within the modern day story line.

The one bit of praise I will give the film makers is that at least they did attempt something a little different. I am all for British Independent films that try to be 'out of left field', but this is not a 'Red Road' or 'This is England'. What it is is a bit of a mess, and an over-long one at that. Yes, it entertains in part, but in the end it felt like two films merged together to make a whole, and failing both by doing so. (Also, I can not help think that I have seen something similar done recently on TV by Ian Banks, set in Edinburgh with a story concerning Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a shame that some good talent was wasted. This is a tedious and overly self-conscious movie, that could tell its story in half the time. Is that Derek Jacobi under that beard doing two roles? Gosh, who would have guessed.

The emotional payoff a the end was weak and unsatisfying. Certainly not worth enduring the padded length of the movie for. I felt quite let down.

The sound was dreadful. First, they used stock music. Second, it was so loud during some of the dialog, that the words were hard to make out. Only three sound crew, and a trainee? There were more people listed in the credits for either the accounting or the legal.

Some of the camera work was quite good though, and the actors did a good job with a mediocre script.

Not a good use of viewing time, at least for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie must have looked when it was being pitched at development stage and getting a Redgrave and a Jacobi on board must have excited the money men. All I can say is that they clearly did not have anything on that week. Jacobi camps it up in the way that only Jacobi can do and I thought that he seemed to more of the actor that he parodied in his cameo role in Frasier a few years back. Vinnie Jones is not exactly bad, he is just clearly out of his depth as a leading man. He is really quite amiable throughout and if this was a pilot for a TV series, it may have just got picked up. However, the scipt and the camera work were appalling. Quite why this \"jounalist\" and a press officer from the Met would ever work together is never explained. It certainly cannot have been because of the sexual chemistry, of which there is none. There is nothing wrong with a ridiculous and far fetched plot that you can pass off as original, but the whole thing is just so contrived that the two stories just do not make sense at all. It was like two stories confusingly edited in to one just to make up two hours. Go watch some paint dry for a couple of hours. You life will be more fulfilled than watching this rubbish","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was pure trash. Not the worse film ever. If it were to be broken down, the acting was good enough to get the job done but the script was SO out there and so stupid that one was left thinking, \"Where did my life go?\" Even Vanessa Redgrave~ whom I love (and is the reason I watched this) was wasted. Utterly wasted. She didn't even leave an impression. The directing was so distant that non of the characters left me much of anything, but to see Redgrave leave nothing. Her part was nothing. She was good as a mean boss but that was it. Do depth and she's given depth to small roles~ see Venus and Atonement. I would not waste my time and was upset to have spent the $5 on this movie...I wanted it back. No returns. Skip the film. It'll only bring you grief...and boredom.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At the least some of the sitcoms that churn endlessly out of the US are honestly bad. This junk, however, portrays a \"heart warming\" parenty side to a clothes horse. Acting laughably \"learnt\" with glances and phrases delivered in the \"I'm SO important and thin and beautiful\" fashion. In the episode I just sat agog through, someone's \"job\" was at risk simply because a colleague had \"placed\" a phone call, slagging her capabilities off ... !! Really, this is the lowest of the low. What kind of damage does this foist on the watching masses, seeing only glitzy glam-puss people parading around \"working\". Utterly sick making. When the titles rolled, I thought, oh well, it provided jobs for the boys. You know who you are.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Baby boom was bad enough, basically making a series of every straight mans nightmare is worse. Yeah watched a few always made me feel better after a bad day, it reminded me it could be worse. Guy was rich successful, single(smart man), and dating celebs from singers to actresses, then his screw up of a cousin dumps his biggest mistake on him. In reality it would have been straight to foster care I'm sure, this was definitely a chic series. Oh and what's all the wining about the baby change, most the time it's probably a doll besides at that age it's nothing more than a prop anyways.

Any case I'm glad it didn't last more than a year.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an extremely competent movie technically. The camera work and direction are excellent and the acting is fine as well--especially the fine acting by Daniel Auteuil as the Marquis. I really thought there were no problems at all with these aspects of the film. Instead, I was a bit annoyed by the way the Marquis was portrayed, as it didn't seem all that honest and seems to be a very revisionistic view of history. In fact, in recent years, the Marquis has undergone a bit of a transformation to a defender of freedom with great insight, not the fat sado-masochist rapist he really was. In a way, this is highly reminiscent of the whitewash given in THE PEOPLE VERSUS LARRY FLINT--where these men are elevated to hero status. Even if you don't think that the Marquis' perversions weren't all that bad (they included rapes and extreme violence), his portrayal in this film as a \"sexual social worker\" in this prison seems pretty silly. Instead of the violent and selfish Sade, he spends a lot of time carefully grooming a young virgin and slowly helps her to explore her own sensuality. What a nice and kind man. In fact, now that I think about it, this performance reminds me of the man Maurice Chavalier played in GIGI (but without the singing)--a cute older man who loves the ladies. I strongly doubt the real-life Marquis de Sade would have recognized this character at all!

The film, surprisingly, doesn't have a lot of nudity, though what it does show is extremely explicit. Only a maniac would let their kids see this as this is a very adult drama. It's very well-made and pretty entertaining--just not all that truthful. The director admits that the film is largely fictional in the interview among the special features on the DVD I watched. So go ahead and see the film if you'd like--understanding it just isn't very good historically. During the 18th century, sexual libertines were quite accepted in France as they were pretty broad-minded, so despite what the movie implies it wasn't SEX that was the issue, it was the violence and rape that was (and still is) the problem.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The title is a misnomer:the movie depicts barely one year of the so-called \"divin marquis\" .Twas a hard time for him 'cause he was threatened by the guillotine :the quiet joys of the reign of Terror .

Historically speaking,the background is rather sketchy: \"the f\u00eate De l'et re supreme\",Robespierre's failed attempt to create a secular religion,his downfall ,a heaven sent opportunity for showing Doctor Guillotin's sinister machine at work (full speed).

As far as Sade is concerned ,it's a downright mediocre affair :he's waiting in a former nunnery with other nobles ,a golden cage if you compare it to ,say,Marie-Antoinette's or scientist Lavoisier's fates,and he exchanges futile conversations with a young virgin about death,love and other trivia.There's the obligatory \"daring\" scene but you've got to be patient because it's a long time before it comes on the screen.And anyway ,by today's standards ,can we call that risqu\u00e9? Cy Enfield's \"De Sade\" ,which enjoys one of the lowest ratings of the IMDb ,is at least entertaining ,and Keir Dullea was a more credible marquis than the aging Auteuil.And it featured John Huston.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was expecting to this to be hilarious and it was mediocre at best, the only funny character is, believe it or not Andy Dick. The timing was just horrible on most of the jokes & gags and the writing was bad, I mean I know its supposed to be like blaxploitation but it just did work. besides this whole genre has been beaten to death already, with all the austin powers movies & undercover brother, it just seems old, it also just feels like a rip off from undercover brother (which also wasn't hysterical, but a lot funnier than this). Also, for an comedy\/action movie the direction was kind of bland. I don't know if this is going to be released in theaters, but it definatley is made for TV.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Hebrew Hammer is a clever idea wasted, as the execution is weak. As if often the case with iconoclastic humor, it relies overly on outrage to generate laughs, which simply isn't enough. Poor-taste humor has two elements -- poor taste and humor -- and both are needed here, but the humor is pretty scarce. As a result, it is often painful to watch, all the more so because of good attempts on the part of the performers, particularly Adam Goldberg as the HH himself. The Shaft references are funny, though, but only to those who know those movies, and they certainly don't carry The Hebrew Hammer.

Another problem is that many of the jokes rely on knowledge of American Jewish culture, and many in the audience will simply not understand the jokes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is dreadful. It has absolutely zero laughs. Hebrew Hammer (Adam Goldberg) sets out to save Hannukah from Evil Santa (Andy Dick). Perhaps a promising enough basis for a plot, in actual fact the film does not progress beyond this premise. While there are some (far and few) nice touches and the plot is relatively coherent, it is laboured, hackneyed and ultimately, mindlessly boring. This despite the fact that Goldberg, Dick and Greer (Hammer's client\/love interest) all have quite considerable screen presence. Despite being played for what might be described as whacky over-the-top gags, this film is consistently middle-class middle-of-the-road muck. DO NOT waste 85 minutes of your life on this. (note- the music was good..!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw the *star* of this movie on The Daily Show, and thought I might tune in (the movie premiered on Comedy Central, Then went into theaters). Oh Vey!

This makes \"Shakes the Clown\" look like \"Citizen Kane\"! Avoid, avoid, avoid at all costs. Not one laugh, not even a grin. This movie will make your face come out in pimples and your eyes burst like the last remants of \"Raiders\". I can't even think of a worse movie, be it \"Manos\" or \"Ishtar\". As the Pythons beckoned, run away, run away! Why did anyone green light this unless they used their own money? The horror is that there is not ONE good line, not ONE good joke, and only ONE bad thing...the making of this movie.

I feel that, if made properly, this would have been hilarious. As it is, I need a new pancreas for retching so loud. Damn anyone involved in this travesty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I picked up this movie because it caught my eye as movie with a Jewish comedy focus - something I had not seen before.

I approached this film with an open mind, and was interested in the way it began. The opening is well put together, and the first half of the film gave me many reasons to laugh, and this is good.

However, the humor soon became repetitive, the plot became confused and strained, and I realized I was no longer enjoying the film. I have tried to avoid saying this, but the movie became rather \"cheap\" - not a bad thing for a comedy if the humor holds up, but it didn't. I confess that I may have missed some of the humour, not being Jewish myself, and having little experience with Jewish culture. However, considering how heavily telegraphed the bulk of the humour was in this film, it's unlikely I missed much.

The idea is a good one, and perhaps if a little more thought was put into it the film would have been watchable all the way through. I wish I could give the movie a higher rating, but strictly speaking it would have been better as a TV series or as a series of skits. There was just not enough worthwhile fresh material for a full-length movie.

One thing to say about the casting - the lead role looked as if it had been designed with Ben Stiller in mind, but I don't think the movie would have been any more worthwhile if he had been in it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Technically speaking, this movie sucks...lol. However, it's also hilarious. Whether or not it's intentionally funny I don't know. Horrible in every aspect, it also is the only movie I know of that has 1) a fat kid being played by a slim actor in a (very obvious) fat suit, 2) an attractive 30-something actress playing a character who's supposed to be in her late 60's, and 3) the most compliments for plastic yard daisies ever. Don't take this film seriously, just watch it for laughs....a great party movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You can see that if the flick ain't directed by his brother, this is the best he can do. And sad to say, his best just doesn't cut it. \"Ice Cream Man\" is a very bizarre horror film, that's a real blast to watch if you're in the right mood. In the wrong mood, it has been known to cause people to lash out violently at loved ones, so please, watch with caution.

Clint Howard stars (Does anything really star Clint Howard though?) as the \"evil\" \"psychotic\" \"bizarre\" (Yes all in quotes, he's not quite any of these, but he's getting close) ice cream man, who tortures the local children with bomb pops that are really melty and ice cream that has chopped up humans and dogs in them. Ick.

Anyway, the plot's really just an excuse to show of the...well, the...um, well it's a plot. Oh wait, I know! It's an excuse to show off all the loser actor cameos! There's Jan Michael Vincent and Lee Majors II (The sequel?) as cops tracking the elusive man o' ice cream. And even Doug Lleyweln appears as a supermarket clerk.

Even better than that, are some of the bizarre goofs in the film. I really like the fact that for some reason, instead of hiring a fat actor to play the unhappy \"fat\" kid of the group, they just make this one kid wearing padding under his clothes. And the entire premise that anyone would by scoops of ice cream from a ice cream man. Who buys ice cream scoops from the ice cream man? Then there's the entire psychiatric ward scene, in which Jan Michael Vincent's acting ranges from mildly interested, to bored beyond the state of consciousness. These are the cops who also scour the Ice Cream Man's place for clues but manage to complete gloss over the ice cream truck (where, of course, the various bodies and such are kept). Oh well, better luck next time troops.

Howard himself overacts like he's making sure people two towns over can see and hear him. It's all just plain dumb. And fairly fun to laugh at in the fine tradition of The Pumaman or Gymkata. You'll have a GOOD laugh with the right sense of HUMOR. I love that one.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only good thing that this movie created was that it made me hungry for ice cream, minus the dead body parts in it. The movie is one of the most cheesy I've seen in a long time. When the \"Ice Cream King\" dies in the beginning, I was laughing so hard because the kid took the ice cream from him and started eating it. His mom asked him to say something and should should have said \"Leave me alone and let me eat the free ice cream so I can watch my acting career go down the drain at a young age.\" That seems about right for a line. Then I wondered why the ice cream prince was behind the bars of his ice cream truck. Was someone going to rob him of his twenty cents? I've never seen bars on a ice cream truck window. It seemed pretty stupid. You might as well forget about the acting because it is just awful. Forget about this movie and go down to dairy queen and get an ice cream.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A conversation about how Jan-Michael Vincent is a lush led me to foolishly re-visit this mid-90s DTV entry. A kid is traumatized when he sees an Ice Cream man gunned down in the 1950s and he grows up to be a psycho Ice Cream man (Clint Howard). Something happens and people disappear and end up in the ice cream. Blah, blah, blah.

Director Norman Apstein (credited as Paul Norman) made a career of doing porn before this and went right back to it afterward. That is what you get for having all murders happen off screen. And for casting a skinny kid as a fat kid and making him wear a fat suit. Just cast a fat kid! Also, there is a scene where Vincent stoically reacts to a group of escaped loonies surrounding him. He was either totally drunk and was frightened for his life or the filmmakers captured his \"Have I really sunk this low?\" shame full on. Despite being low budget trash, this did line up a few good names including David Naughton, Olivia Hussey, David Warner and THE PEOPLE COURT's own Doug Llewelyn. How you can make a boring slasher with that cast is beyond me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Clint Howard, brother of more talented Ron, stars in this abysmally awful horror comedy about a mental case who serves ice cream to children and kills people. Striving to be a movie that's of the 'so bad that it's good' variety, this film misses that mark by a good mile and instead has to be seen as 'so bad that it's...well...BAD'. Wheter it's the constant 'shoe ad' cinema, the pillow stuffed 'fat kid', or the sleep inducing 'horror' that soured me on the film, i don't know, all I know is I loathed the film (and this from a guy who has a soft spot for B-horror films). Paul Norman choose to continue making films in the porn industry both before and after this, his only 'mainstream' film. A wise choice indeed as horrible acting, nonsense storyline, and ludicrous dialog are much MUCH more palatable while seeing a porn starlet do her thing. Funnily enough this turkey has absolutely NO nudity (another reason to steer clear)

My Grade: D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this movie at a thrift store. Months before, my friend told me about it when we were talking about dumb movies we've seen. Once I spotted the cassette, I knew I had to have it. I watched it that night. I could tell it was going to be very cheesy and cheaply done. . . That's what drew me to it. I popped it in and I laughed the whole way through. I recognized Gregory (The Ice Cream Man), but I didn't recognize his name and I couldn't remember where I saw him. Later, while watching the Andy Griffith Show, Clint Howard (Ice Cream Man) was featured as an extra since he is Ron Howard (Opie Taylor)'s brother. I saw the credits and I gasped. I turned to my mom, who was also watching the show, and said, \"That's the Ice Cream Man!!\" She, too, gasped. This movie is great, but only for laughs and criticalness. It is the perfect example of a cheesy horror flick. If you feel like laughing as well as poking fun at low-budget movies, rent this video.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, this movie is gross to the point of nauseating, and my advice is to avoid it at all costs if you ever want to eat ice cream again. I tried watching it because it looked like it might be funny, but it soon became quite disturbing with the ice cream made out of body parts and surprisingly graphic effects. It opens with a boy named Greg witnessing the gruesome murder of an ice cream man (Greg subsequently goes crazy and grows up to be the title character) by what appear to be mob assassins. There is no explanation for this murder, making it the biggest WTF moment in the entire movie. Other, lesser WTF moments include the surreal asylum Greg goes to (featuring evil clowns), a woman speaking in tongues because she has been possessed by the Holy Spirit (what this has to do with anything I don't know), and the fact that Olivia \"Holy crap has her career tanked this badly\" Hussey is in it.

None of these are good enough reasons to watch it. The only reason is for the character Tuna, who is a skinny kid with pillows stuffed under his shirt so that he looks like a fat kid. For some reason this struck me as hilarious. I stayed up far longer into the night than I should have watching this movie just to figure out if there was some reason they couldn't use an actual fat kid for the role. Although I fell asleep before the end, I've gathered from other reviews that Tuna ends up losing the \"weight.\" Okay, so they didn't have the budget to pull this off realistically. Suggestion to the director: how about making the character... not overweight?

That's it; if the prospect of Tuna has not interested you enough, there is no other reason to acknowledge this film's existence. If disgusting horror movies about ice cream are your preferred source of entertainment, check out the far superior \"The Stuff\" instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those movies you find when you stay up too late and only have basic cable. It's hard to believe this movie was made in '95, considering it looks like something out of the late 80s. Plucky youngsters with varied home problems face a demented ice cream man who's on a mission to make the best flavor ever: Soylent Cream!!!

This movie is extremely demented and is only scary in how creepy and absolutely, ridiculously gross it is. Actually, the really scary thing about this movie is the nature of the problems these kids face at home. The fact that these kids have no escape from their silent suburban sufferings makes any random loony loose in the neighborhood seem like a walk in the park.

The most laughable part of this movie is the fact that the stereotypical \"fat kid\" is so obviously a slim pre-teen with a mountain of padding under his baggy sweatshirts. I guess that either a) they hadn't invented\/ couldn't afford a fat suit, b) the casting director was too lazy to find a pudgy child star or c) we are honestly supposed to believe that this child is starving and has an enormously distended belly.

So if you're up at 2 am and need something ridiculous and disgusting to rip on with your intoxicated friends, go ahead and take a look. Personally, I'd rather be sleeping.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is often hard to decide what the best film is that you've ever seen, since this may vary by genre, preferences for actors\/actresses, or even the mood you're in on a particular day! Having said that, this movie is by far, in my opinion, the WORST movie I've ever seen!! I thought the acting was terrible (was there any?), the plot was just idiotic, and the props were totally fakey. Could a lower budget production be created without being an amateur production? I don't think so. Even the friends I watched the movie with agreed that it was the worst video we ever rented, and to this day we still joke about the night we saw this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After reading other reviews on this site, we weren't sure if we were going to be able to critique this movie because it didn't sound bad enough. However, 2 minutes into the movie, we knew we were in for another flop. No summer is complete without ice cream, but this movie served up a melted, sour, broken-bottomed ice cream cone (you know, the kind that leaves you sticky and dirty and looking for a wet-nap). The biggest problem with this movie was the plot. What was it? It appeared to be a psychotic ice cream man driving around the neighborhood. That's it. Nothing else happens. First of all, what are the qualifications for becoming an ice-cream man in this crap town? 1. Spend several years in the most ridiculous mental hospital known to man. This hospital was plagued with clowns, graffiti, fake plastic sunflowers, and oversized syringes to the head. 2. Have extremely poor hygiene and a mutant face to scare the kids away. 3. Make sure your truck is stocked with severed body parts, roaches, and don't forget the eye whites!

The actors in this movie are pure B-Movie caliber. Mixed in with a bunch of unknowns is, who other than....a trailer-trash version of Macaulay Culkin!! Even his bratty charm couldn't save this kick in the pants. There seemed to be no rhyme or reason for any of the murders in this movie. The whole concept of the movie reeked! Who would kill an ice cream man in a drive-by shooting? Gangsters? Fiends? Vanna White? Who? We are still struggling with this question.

Whoever was in charge of the wardrobe for this movie should be immediately blacklisted from Hollywood. Did they honestly think a pillow under a kid's shirt would make the audience believe that he was really fat? Did they forget about the arms, face, legs, and all other body parts? Second of all, this movie was made in 1995, yet the wardrobe seemed to be picked from a lame 80's movie, evidenced by the big brother's white, crotch-hugging high-water pants.

While we were watching this shotty production, we both developed severe cases of ADD. We found ourselves leaving the room to walk around aimlessly. At many points it the movie, we found that staring at a blank wall behind the T.V. set was more entertaining than the actual movie. We were stunned that this movie didn't make it to the Bottom 100. Afterwards, we took the tape out of the VCR and left it on the black top to melt like a sub-standard ice cream cone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This abomination and the sequel ONE MORE TIME (no thanks) and the hideous Jerry Lewis disasters like Don't RAISE THE BRIDGE LOWER THE WATER (why not just flush instead) drove cinema owners to close their doors rather than be forced to run these films. True: in the 60s block booking of films was still enforced on hapless suburban and country cinemas... this means that in order to get a good film the cinema was forced to run woeful timewasters like these: I remember well in 1974 keen to screen FIDDLER ON THE ROOF or something good like that, I was bailed up in the United Artists booking office by some sozzled salesman who waved a sheet of flops before me and squinted, bellowing: \"Now before we get to that one, lemme see ya date these ones first\". which basically means: \"book these duds and we will give ya a tired hit\". This is how and why so many cinemas closed, forced to screen and annoy their waning audiences with these assembly line failures with lame comedians and bored talent. Cinema owners, exhausted with arguing simply closed, sold to a petrol station and saw the cinema demolished. These days the same type of films (eg: I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK AND LARRY) get banished to the 20 seat cinema 99 in a mega google plex instead. Not much has changed. FREDDY GOT FINGERED... anyone?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this DVD for my young son who loves the ToyStory movies. I never expected it to be in the same league as the Toystory movies but what I got was just another lazy Disney cartoon, way below what I expected from Disney\/Pixar. The story is unoriginal, the characters are dull and two dimensional, the animation is below par, even Buzz isn't that great. The movie could have been so much better. I especially hated the paint by numbers storyline. I know it's meant for kids, but even kids know when something stinks to this level lameness.

Although I did enjoy some aspects of the movie, I really liked the opening section of the movie, with the slag mutant monster, it just went downhill from there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man were do I start,everything about this Cartoon from the Episodes,to the Stories,Script, an Animation is to me the Stupidest,Dummest and Most Annoying Cartoon that Walt Disney Television Animation ever CREATED and MADE ,Im so glad that Both Toon Disney (2006) and Disney Channel to Stop Airing it in the U.S. as Of This May 2008.

Believe me it's A wise choice to skip this out cast and black cloud of A cartoon,if you watch it don't say I did not alert an warn you.

Your in for A Boring and Down right Dull and Confusing Time,I wish and pray I never even saw 1 Episode of this Cartoon Buzz Lightyear Of Star Command. If I could I would have the Part of my Brain removed that Remembers watching it,yes it is and was that Bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We sat through this movie thinking why is this or that scene in the movie, what does this have to do with the plot? We hoped that by the end everything would be slightly more clear. It was not to be.

I think the director in a fit of pique threw the script up in the air and then some minor (and vengeful) underling reassembled it randomly with no regard to the scene being filmed (possibly with scissors and glue-stick).

The film's motifs include: Communism bad? Nihilism bad? Poor parenting bad? Threesomes bad? TV bad? Coherent scripting bad? Deconstructionism good? It's really not clear.

Finally, no German water taxi would EVER have an unchained staircase that would let passengers fall in to the water. The abundant quantity of \"achtung\" signs everywhere is testament to this fact.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To begin with its a rip off of the Japanese film Battle Royal except it's missing the one thing that made BR unique, balls. It's a weak satire at best and as far as the real TV phenomena it attempts to comment on well everyone knows how warped and stupid that genre can be so why was this film made?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is possibly the single worst film i have ever seen - it has no good features at all.

It looked as if it was made in about 20 minutes with the other time filled with title graphics.

The lead male transformed from deaths door to superman - eh you what

Other than that totally predictable and not at all interesting.

I left the cinema feeling cheated.

Needless to say i could not reccoemnd this film to anyone","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is possibly the single worst film i have ever seen - it has no good features at all.

It looked as if it was made in about 20 minutes with the other time filled with title graphics.

The lead male transformed from deaths door to superman - eh you what

Other than that totally predictable and not at all interesting.

I left the cinema feeling cheated.

Needless to say i could not reccomend this film to anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*Spoilers ahead, but that shouldn't matter since i hope you wont see this one anyway*

If you planned to see this one i have to strongly advice you not to. Because this was one of the most wasted 1\u00bd hours I've experienced.

First of all, this is an complete rip-off of the great movie \"Battle Royale\". It is as stupid as watching any lame American TV-show like \"Cops\" or \"Candid Camera\".

The plot are totally predictable. One challenger pregnant and another is a nurse, anyone doing some logic thinking understands in the beginning what should happen between those.

The concept is ripped as mentioned before and the movie lacks the violence necessary of making this movie enjoyable. I mean, the preggo shoots a guy in the back and no blood or not even any trace of the hit in the back.

I could go on forever without finding anything good about it, so take your money and get a copy of Battle Royale instead of watching this piece of crap.

1 out of 10, too bad i couldn't rate it lower. Almost makes Scream 3 a masterpiece..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite the potentially fascinating premise, Series 7 is weak attempt at attacking reality television. Aside from its bargain basement production values, which present an eyesore 10 minutes in, the overall tone of the film is misguided. Several reviewers have attacked the acting in the film, but I think the real problem is this lame attempt to make the film into a farce. Aside from the fact that the jokes are not funny (a pregnant woman swears a lot, a young girl gets a bunch of guns), it doesn't gel with the overall tone of the film. Had the makers actually made Series 7 to bear a striking resemblance to actual reality TV-colorful yet hollow edits, lame sound effects, sweeping camera motions-maybe their point would have been more solid or at least more palatable. Instead Series 7 meanders through the already harried world of death and game show. You can just imagine the director slapping himself on the back for stating the obvious","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I turned this off about 50 minutes into it! Whoever the moron was who decided to steal the idea of Koushun Takami's book(Battle Royal), & make it into a pathetic reality TV show scenario, deserves to be shot!

It has done the Film Industry a good turn though. Now Directors like William Malone(Fear Dot Com) can say \"well at least it's better than Series 7\" This piece of crap & Dracula 3000 tie for first place in the worst 100 movies ever made!

Be warned this is not a 'So bad it's Good'Flick!

This is a disgrace to Film Makers everywhere!

Never see this movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the people who came up with this are SICK AND TWISTED FREAKS how the hell can you exploit people like this? tricking people into thinking that this is real? which i probably don't doubt that it is... i saw this thing for the very first time today series 7 and it made me sick to my stomach i almost threw up. i just couldn't stop crying my eyes out for these poor people and if that woman really did have that baby you SHOULD ALL BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES!!!!!!!!!! i have a 4 month old daughter and it is just absolutely appalling that would put a \"real\" pregnant woman in SO MUCH FRICKEN DANGER! you people are bloody ANIMALS and should be locked up for life allowing something like this to put on t.v. if this so called \"reallity show\" is for real then why isn't anyone being put in prison for allowing people to die and not doing a god damn thing about it. YOU ALL DESERVE TO BE FRIGGEN HUNTED DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film last night, a satire of the reality style programs that seem to be making the rounds at the moment.

What can I say. I absolutely hated it. About as interesting as watching paint dry and with maybe one or two only slightly amusing moments.

Maybe it had something to do with me definately not being a fan of the Survivor and Big Brother type shows, but if this had been a video\/DVD or if I'd been watching at the cinema on my own I would have definately not endured more than the first 5 minutes.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is little more than an ersatz Verhoeven. The filming is supposed to be tele-realistic, but is simply sickening. The parody disappears after about 15 minutes to be replaced by a story which seems to take itself seriously. The Brechtian pauses for non-existent advert brakes are tedious, and even painful; undoubtedly there was no actual intention to render this film Brechtian, it was just an accident which happened like that. If you want to see a parody of reality tv, watch Celebrity DeathMatch - it's funnier and wittier, and most importantly shorter. I have rarely felt so much pain whilst watching a film. To be avoided like a rabid rabbit.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film coincides with Mike Allred's comic book mini-series, \"Red Rocket Seven\" and tells the story of an alien who escaped to Earth to wait for \"Astroesque\" which ties into the book of Revelations and the apocylpse. This is only part of a bigger story (if the movie confuses you, read \"RR7\" too). You can easily tell that Allred is used to telling stories with pictures. The direction is very good and the effects aren't bad for a $500 budget. Unfortunately, Mike used many friends to play the roles and probably didn't have the heart to say that they couldn't act. Also, Mike is not showing his writing skills in this movie. His dialouge spoon-feeds the plot to you and doesn't let you enjoy the characters. This was actually disappointing considering his tremendous writing ability shown in his comic books. 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"ASTROESQUE (2 outta 5 stars)

I have no idea what the title is supposed... even less of an idea of what is supposed to be going on in this movie half the time... yet, it still kept me sort of interested. This is low, low budget film-making along the lines of \"El Mariachi\", filmed in 16mm... and, for what it's worth, the shots are very well-composed and visually stylish. Directed, written by and starring comic book writer\/artist Michael Allred... I guess it's no surprise that the film looks good. Unfortunately, some of the acting is beyond bad... and the rest is competent at best. Allred himself comes off the best... but only because he doesn't actually speak much. He just strides around looking cool most of the time... or running from crazed rednecks who are trying to kill him. The sound is also pretty bad... almost as if it was unfinished in places... maybe they couldn't afford to pay for the music they'd planned to use? Strange, vaguely science-fictiony plot... similar in tone to \"The Man Who Fell To Earth\"... but most of the film boils down to a standard run-from-the-bad-guys and kill-them-before-they-kill-you plot. Ultimately too oblique to be successful but not without interest for adventurous movie watchers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Michael Allred's comic book stories, particularly his work on Madman, usually are a great deal of fun. \"Astroesque,\" Allred's no-budget indy film, is the opposite of fun.

Worst acting ever coupled with truly horrible dialog makes for a brutal cinematic experience. Pretty certain Allred understands WTF's going on, but he's the only one. Daring you to watch the entire mess isn't enough...defying you to watch the entire mess is more on target.

\"Astroesque\" is some kind of movie tie-in to Allred's \"Red Rocket 7\" comic book, which, ironically, is mostly unreadable. So if your \"Astroesque\" experience isn't terrible enough definitely track down the over-sized comics and continue the fun.

Felt sorry for Allred, who was totally out of his depth attempting a film. Also felt sorry for myself, what an incredible waste of my time and money. Please buy my VHS copy, which is available right now on eBay. Hurry up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know if I'm wrong or everybody els'es that says this movie is good are, sincerely I just wanna do a favor to people that has doubts about seeing it, renting it or even worse buying it(don't do it really!).

The trailers and very early previews might seem fun in some way or another but its not funny at all, it gets to fall in a series of you're-supposed-to-laugh-here scenes that tend to get in really bad jokes, bad very very bad acting, tasteless scenes, cheesy effects; this movie has it all, all wrong that is.

As final comment the movie would have been funny due to the basic concept, but believe me is really way far from that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The commercials for RAT RACE made it look too juvenile for me to enjoy, but since my boyfriend adores this movie (and the soundtrack), I finally relented and watched it with him tonight. I make him watch David Lynch films and all sorts of obscure indie stuff (I recently forced URBANIA on him), so I felt I owed him an innocuous Hollywood product.

I didn't want to hurt his feelings, so I saved my bitching for y'alls. Yeah, RAT RACE has its moments, but a great deal of it irritated me. Let's start at the beginning. RAT RACE was marketed as a \"family film,\" so I was a little surprised to discover that the first scene centered around a porno movie. (I can hear it now: \"Mommy, what does AFRO WHORES mean?\") This scene has no purpose in this movie other than to cram some naughtiness into a PG-13 movie.

And while we're still on the segments in the casino, it's pretty convenient that all the characters happened to play, within the same time frame, the slots that held the gold coins. What would have happened if they didn't? Would those millionaire gamblers just sit around and wait? And how did they get those gold coins in the slots in the first place?

But I'm belaboring a plot point that's necessary for the movie to exist, so I'll press on. About Whoopi and her long-lost daughter: they're meeting for the very first time, yet throughout their whole ordeal they don't discuss with each other anything about themselves. Why make their relationship such a presumably complicated one? Couldn't they have just been, say, a mother and daughter on vacation together? Why the business concerning a long-ago adoption? And why portray the daughter as a hard driving career woman chained to her cell phone who never again needs contact with her business? Did the screenplay just forget about this subplot and character trait?

This illustrates the main weakness of this movie - the characters are inconsistent and interchangeable; it's exhausting when everyone is equally zany and with no identifying traits. And another thing - the events aren't plausible. Oh, sure, the characters can do some quirky things, but the characters themselves have to be believable. Take THE NAKED GUN (another Jerry Zucker movie) for example. Frank Drebin has some pretty exaggerated moments, but everything he does is, in theory, possible in his world. (Jane is also funny, but it's a different kind of funny, which makes all the difference.) A character in RAT RACE defying natural laws by leaping onto a speeding train destroys any plausibility the movie may have; these clearly aren't real people, so why should I care about them?

Another problem I have with RAT RACE is a moral one. The characters obtain their modes of transport almost totally by theft. I know, I know, this is just a silly comedy, and the same actions didn't bother me fifteen years ago when I saw MILLION DOLLAR MYSTERY, but there's a lot of lawbreaking in RAT RACE, and it bothers me now. And I won't delve into the whole airport-sabotage sequence other than to wonder if the screenwriters didn't consider the real-life implications of such an action; was that scene funny before 9\/11?

I'll skip over the distasteful bits concerning the heart, the drugging of one's family and the Nazis (whose buildup and payoff worked better in an episode of \"Seinfeld\"), and move on to complain about the acting. Rowan Atkinson started out annoying and ended insufferable; I don't know when I liked a comical character less. And the three Oscar winners need new agents. Whoopi came off best, but she didn't have much to work with (loved the copper perm and purple lipstick though); Kathy Bates' part was shrill but mercifully brief; Cuba, was...oh, man. Cuba, babe, please fire your agent! Following INSTINCT and CHILL FACTOR, this is your third strike (be glad I haven't seen PEARL HARBOR or SNOW DOGS) - it's time to give your '97 Best Supporting Actor Oscar back to its rightful owner (Edward Norton, for PRIMAL FEAR). An actor of your stature has no business running half-naked through the desert and being checked out by a transvestite Lucille Ball impersonator. Do you even read the scripts to your movies anymore, or are you reaching into a bag and pulling your next project out at random?

There's other small points that bother me (how did Grisham and the hooker get to the loot so fast?), but, basically, RAT RACE amounts to little more than your basic batch of character types being hindered by arbitrary obstacles on their way to a rather underwhelming and inexplicable ending. They give the money to charity? What kind of ending is that?!? Yeah, it's the \"noble\" thing to do. Never mind the probability of cross-promotion\/licensing whores Smash Mouth (do they ever say no to selling out?) putting on a benefit concert in the middle of the New Mexico desert, but who would honestly do such a thing? Yes, they say it's the journey, not the destination, that makes a trip worthwhile, but there's no journey without a destination. If there was ever an example of a \"wrong happy ending,\" this would be it. What a bummer end to a movie that, despite my nitpicking here, I did enjoy parts of (I confess to enjoying the bit with the cow and some of the Lucy stuff along with the character with the tongue piercing - at first I thought his indecipherable speech would run me up a wall, but he grew to be my favorite).

But as far as my boyfriend knows, I found RAT RACE quite funny and charming.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are a fan of slap-stick that has terrible writing, awful acting and cliche after cliche this one is for you.

There is far too much to list for the reasons why this movie sucks. In a brief synopsis, people with a combined iq of 100 journey to New Mexico on a race for 200 million dollars. And yes they are all apparently super heroes, as they can do many things such as jump onto trains that are traveling 80+ mph, survive numerous car crashes, and endless instances of outright cartoonish roadrunner and coyote antics.

If you are a teen, or dont want to think for a movie, this one is for you.. Not one actor outside of Lovitz is believeable at all.. Lovitz saves the movie from a 1 with the Hitler bit.

2\/10 (save yourself the 2 hours of pain and $4)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie received a great write up in Blockbusters 'coming attraction' I was looking forward to the release date,08\/07\/02. The plot sounds reasonable, the cast alone should have guaranteed a side-splitter, but whoa there; apart from the 'off the wall betting events' this was quite a bore.

This will never become a comedy classic, and I'm afraid it has done no help to the fine comedy reputation of John Cleese. Rowan Atkinson, now he was quite funny, in a Rowan Atkinson sort of way!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILERS THROUGHOUT:

Not good. The movie differed completely from the book(Not that the book was exactly a classic but it really was very good.)

I guess Demi Moore was OK. Actually, I don't really remember to much about her performance one way or the other. However the big disappointment wasn't with Ms. Moore.

WHY did whoever did the rewrite decide to suddenly make the millionaire have a heart? (I'm referring to him as \"the millionaire\" because he also had a different name in the movie then the book version-just another change.)

People who didn't read the book obviously won't know anything's different but in the BOOK version this guy is much more ruthless as well as complex overall. He is also fascinating. The fact that such a big change was made in the movie alters the whole plot. It was almost like seeing a completely different movie.

I know MANY movies vary widely from the books. But I also thought Redford's character was a bit of a wimp. This ISN'T Redford's fault(He's a great actor and could have played ruthless well) but without those qualities he becomes just another dazzled man in love hence the story becomes just another clich\u00e9 love story involving 1 woman and 2 men. That wasn't really the point of the book.

This could have been a lot better. Even if I hadn't read the book version I wouldn't have liked this all that much, but changing so much around definitely takes it, for me, a few points down.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Demi and Woody are married, but they're poor. They meet Robert Redford, and he's REALLY rich. He takes a fancy to Demi, and since he's a gambling man he makes the couple an \"indecent proposal:\" one million dollars for a night with the little woman.

At this point you need watch no more of the film because you can put the details together in your sleep. Of course Demi is going to accept the offer. If she doesn't there's no first half of the movie. Of course it will affect Demi and Woody's marriage. If it doesn't there's no second half of the movie. And of course everything will turn out okay by the time the credits roll. If it doesn't, there's no happy ending for the sake of box office.

The absolute best thing you can say about INDECENT PROPOSAL is that Demi Moore looks good in a black dress. As for the rest... The script is incompetent, the direction amateurish, the performances negligible. I suspect Redford, Moore, and Harrelson blush and change the subject every time the film is mentioned. Do them--and more importantly yourself--a favor. Unless some one offers you a million... Miss It!

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Only saw this movie late last night. I remember the hype of it's release and to be honest had I viewed it back then I maybe wouldn't have been so generous. I hate hype, it can ruin a movie. I think the movie glossed over the characters and put too much emphasis on Woody. He was good too - although kept wondering if he was stoned the whole time. It never went too deep. Redford was dark but not too dark and his character let me down in the end. To me he should have been more confrontational with Demi - throwing her out perhaps or telling her that she was paid for. After all he would have investigated them before he made the proposal - that's not shown in the movie, but no one in his perceived position would have made an offer to just anyone. He was cruel to the point of breaking them up and the last straw was the house and yet Demi fell for him? The passages giving an insight to Demi and Woody's relationship were the best part of the movie. There was a keen deepness that outshone the shallowness of John Gages character. He really could have been a lot stronger and as other people have alluded I think the movies draw-card was Redford and they didn't want tarnish his \"image\". I say what the hell Robert was old in this movie! Woody and Demi's characters were naive in a sense, but I think that was very intentional to draw you to their plight and champion their decision. But the reality is, they were losing their dream home and where did they go? Las Vegas? to gamble what little they had left and then accept a proposal from an insanely rich billionaire. I found their naivety when Redford was seducing them a little too unrealistic. The movie could have been so much more and other actors would have made a difference, but having said that on late night TV - it was enjoyable and I if you don't think too much - also palatable","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This story had the potential of a good film. The difficult choice of love versus money and the angst and regret of making the wrong one. However the movie was ruined by the horrible miscasting of Robert Redford as the villain who offers $1,000,000 to sleep with Demi Moore. Like Redford has to pay for it. Redford's boyish good looks and All American charm just don't cut it as an unlikeable, threatening, boor. Redford's acting skillls are insufficient to make his character menacing. I can see it now, $1,000,000 to sleep with Robert Redford. OK says the lady but you will have to give me some time to raise the money. Jack Nicholson would have been perfect as the sleazeball.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A good example of the differences between American and foreign cinema can be seen in a film I recently watched on television: Indecent Proposal.

Indecent Proposal's two protagonists, David and Diane Murphy are played Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore. I'm not sure if it was their total lack of chemistry or that they were not acting well, but why we should care so much whether these two stay together was beyond me. Love, affection, playfulness, attraction \u0096 none of these materialized on screen in their interactions together.

Since I knew that eventually Robert Redford would show up, it was clear from the beginning that the good part, the meat of the movie, would be the scenes between him and Demi Moore. Poor Woody Harrelson just could not muster any emotion at all for the film. He seemed to be holding back, preoccupied with his receding hairline.

OK, so fast forward. What idiots these two (Diane and David) are for thinking they can win back the $50,000 they owe by gambling. No acting faux pas there, just hideously bad, lazy, unforgivable writing. Of course they lose all their money. Surprised? I know I wasn't. Enter Robert Redford (John Gage in the film) \u0096 a romantic, perhaps emotionally frigid man, an updated Gatsby. A very good role and though not a great, great actor, next to those two, Redford looks like Olivier. He immediately falls in love and lust with Diane and we the viewers for once FEEL it. This is how to love a woman! Not David's way, trading gum mouth to mouth with Diane on a slimy pier. (Did I see that right?) As Gage, Redford wears a suit and tie in every scene. Yes it's meant to instruct the seemingly brain dead audience that here is a Rich Man, but he also looks damn good and by this point the brain dead audience appreciates it! Other wardrobe symbolism includes David's now-ironed shirts at the end of the film, signifying resolve, getting it together after a long interlude of forlorn wrinkled shirt wearing.

And what is it with California garden parties as depicted in Hollywood movies? Suddenly everyone appears British, complete with lacy dresses, three piece suits for the men, hats (HATS!) and of course the parasol. Yes Diane, her transformation to Rich Man's fianc\u00e9e now complete, is there at the auction daintily twirling a parasol. Though she insisted that she couldn't be bought, she succumbed at last to the sexual tension. Here is where the film branches off into pure Americana. I mean, of course David and Diane will end up together, my question is: WHY? Diane was bored with David, why not let her ride the Robert Redford wave? And I mean for a good long while? How can she pull herself out of the sexual-romantic thrall of this sexy older man so easily just because Woody Harrelson brings his receding hairline to the garden party, sits himself down and looks Demi Moore in the eyes. That's just not how it goes. He was so WEAK.

But we must have our happy ending. We have to swallow the Moral Lesson. We're not sophisticated enough yet to have it otherwise. Director Lyn tried to make a Fatal Attraction for the juvie set, the young'uns.

In addition to garden parties in which there's nary an SUV, tee shirt, or baseball cap in sight, such films also feature a reliable public transportation system that connects far-flung California cities and municipalities. How else to symbolize the return to middle class or working class life?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was one of the biggest pieces of crap I have ever had to watch. I mean, seriously. How would anybody else feel if they were in Woody Harrelson's shoes and your wife was even CONSIDERING it would be a good idea to sleep with the other guy even for a million bucks. After all, she was the one talking about it in bed and saying how it would be good for them since he can build his house or whatever with that money. Woody never fully agreed to it until she talked him into it. How CAN you trust her? Who the hell would actually even consider that if they were married? I don't care how desperate they were. That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. Then, he flips out on her. Apparently, he had no right to mistrust her, other than the fact that his wife just slept with another dude who is extremely rich and handsome. Oh and wait, then he's supposed to apologize to HER after she files for the divorce so she can be with the guy she slept with. Of course Woody has no right to say anything to her or mistrust her especially after she still has Roy Hobb's card in her wallet. Then, at the end of the movie, she's apparently so in love with Woody still and misses him so much, that she was not going to leave Hobbs until he made some ridiculously stupid story up to try to hint to her to leave, and she bleeping thanks Hobbs???? Are you bleeping kidding me? Was she under contract as his sex slave or something?? I mean what the bleep?? Oh and wait it gets better. She bleeping kisses him passionately before she gets out of the car. Yea, she's not a whore. Oh, thank you for letting me go, let me go make out with you one last time for good ole' sake. Smooch smooch, smooch even though I'm still married to a guy I left for a rich guy. I have never seen such a piece of crap in my life. How the hell are we supposed to feel good after that horrible ending? What was this movie supposed to represent? NOTHING CAME OUT OF THIS! This was the most pointless movie I have ever seen in my life. Two pathetic desperate people. If I were Woody, I would tell her to go drown herself in that body of water they were near. Apparently, he had no self respect. What the hell was Roy Hobbs thinking by taking this horrible role. I feel like puking after watching this. This movie was so bad, it was seriously laughable. I want those two hours of my life back that I wasted watching this piece of ****.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mind-numbingly boring, utterly predictable and in the end simply laughable. That pretty much sums up the disaster that is Indecent Proposal. Starting with a decent premise the whole thing just unravels and becomes a complete mess. Basically the story boils down to the question, \"would you let your wife sleep with another man for one million dollars?\" Here of course the answer is yes because otherwise we wouldn't have a movie. Quite frankly, we'd have been better off if we didn't have a movie.

Our married (and financially troubled) couple are played by Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore. They go to Vegas to get rich. Yeah, that'll work. Anyhow, a billionaire, played by Robert Redford, takes a liking to the wife and makes the million dollar offer. For one night with the wife he will give them financial security. The aftermath of that one night is what the movie is really all about. Unfortunately nothing in that aftermath is the least bit entertaining. The script is so predictable you can say the characters' lines before they do. The performances leave much to be desired. Harrelson would be better off sticking to comedies as this attempt at serious acting completely misses the mark. Anguish is not something he seems capable of portraying. And it is quite safe to say that Demi Moore will never have to clear space in her home for any Academy Awards. Why is she a movie star again? In a part that should be full of emotion she conveys none. Only Redford escapes mostly unscathed. He's appropriately slimy yet suave and clearly the best actor of the bunch. But he can't save this film. Awful script, lousy acting, plodding pace, zero entertainment...Indecent Proposal is downright awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Obviously, a number of agents didn't see beyond dollar signs when they signed up their clients for this 117-minute *omage* to the courtesan complex.

Sure, the film could have been alright, had the $1 million been left out of it. Seriously. The amount of the check doesn't matter,prostitution is still prostitution and no amount of \"love conquers all\" can change the fact that no marriage vows ever meant to imply \"for richer for poorer, for pimping as in fidelity\". Picture the story otherwise, though: 2 kids, flat broke, borderline \"desperate\" and completely stupid. They collide with wealthy business man. Kids' marriage is strained by imperfect times and the fact that the husband is something of a loser. Enter Mr. Tuxedo, oozing charm and stability -- a virtual magnet for the ticking biological clock -- and with him the wife's temptation, tensions, suspense. Whom will she choose? Maybe, under those conditions, I could actually care. As-is, frankly, Redford's selfish and manipulative playboy winds up the sympathetic character. A woman who will sell herself is just about what a guy deserves who will pimp out his wife. The indecent proposition makes the husband a TOTAL loser, deficient in every positive male characteristic, and makes the wife a cheap strumpet seduced by money rather than confused by another potential love, a woman devoid of moral center and self-respect.

All the impressive talent (acting, directing, cinematography) wasted on this film -- and it was an impressive amount -- couldn't save it from its splashy-but-too-trashy $1 million pitch line. If I see this turkey at one more bridal shower, I'm going to roast it! (Or maybe cross it with Titanic and pitch the tape in the ocean!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has a premise that is good enough to get anyone talking, and a sure-fire conversation starter. 'Would you sleep with someone you dislike or don't know for one million dollars?' While the film had lots of potential, poor execution turns it into a b-grade soap-opera. The film has a great lead up, and after the proposal is made, we are really into the film, but then it falls dramatically. The last 3 quarters of the film is spent by characters whinging, complaining and regretting what they have done! The ending was so cliched it had me in tears! This has a very similar premise to 'honeymoon in vegas' which is far better. See that instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm no slouch at finding \"redeeming social value.\" Whatever book or film people want to suppress, from Huck Finn\/Heart of Darkness to, I don't know, Deep Throat or the latest hostage beheading, I sincerely wish they wouldn't. I'm not a lover of porn or of violence-as-entertainment, but what of them I chance upon I tend to see camera angles, cuts, pans, lighting, rhythms, nearly to the exclusion of fear or titillation, sometimes even missing filmmakers' or actors' intent. Even from footage that reasonable people may argue should never have existed, I always imagine there's something to learn. I wonder more at how a film does than about what it does. Maybe that's wrong of me. Wiser but harder than deconstructing unpleasant cinema, might be to see cuts, pans, etc., at one with and inseparable from no matter what content. I ask myself what horror filmmakers and church architects have in common. Add in political filmmakers, fascist and not. All manipulate with light, space, and sound in order to alter perception and mood. How different are their goals? How different are the goals of those who film real atrocities for use as propaganda?

When the original All Night Long (ANL) trilogy appeared on my shelf, I left it unwatched for nearly year. Curiosity had made me buy it. I sampled a few minutes of \"1\" the day it arrived, up to the awkwardly sound-effected street corner stabbing that seems really an attack on film viewers' sensibility, found it inept but effective. I'd have to come back to it, certainly, but didn't relish the prospect. Clearly this wasn't the sublime horror of Kairo, Cure, Angel Dust, Lain, the rawer but still traditionally framed horror of the first Evil Dead Trap, the overtly political work of Koji Wakamatsu, or even the brilliant crudity of early Cronenberg.

Maybe that word \"attack\" is key. Matsumura attacks not his characters, but his viewers. I can't watch these at this point in history without thinking of both Abu Garib (some of which I think I recall was evidenced on video) and the hostage videos, but also about Godard's torturers (in Le Petit soldat?) to whom atrocity is just a job, a fraction of a person's workday. And then there's the prolonged Northern California news story whose details I barely remember but can't entirely forget because it too entails \"cinema,\" a duo of serial killers notorious, if suggestion isn't playing games with my memory, for having videotaped themselves torturing victims.

All three ANL entries are revenge cinema, vigilante exercises, but I'm attaching these notes ANL3 because it's the most ambitious and may constitute a turning point for director Matsumura. (I haven't seen the entries that followed ANL3.) Through the first two offerings, I imagined a camera fallen into the hands of one of those fringe kids from middle or grammar school who obsessively draw war scenes or other atrocities. (Or as if one of Matsumura's revenge-crazed characters had turned writer-director. Anyone watching these who hasn't seen Michael Powell's Peeping Tom would do well to see it.) But ANL3 seems to aspire to mainstream. Matsumura's protagonist grows carnivorous plants, allowing for some typically Japanese cool close-up nature shots. There's also, for the first time a Matsumura film, a traditionally erotic sequence: Kikuo's female boss sneaks up and begins to caress him while he's peeping at the love hotel's customers. Kikou finds himself unhappily sandwiched between. He's a middleman voyeur. The brief thrill comes from the layers of voyeurism. There's even a philosophical\/poetic garbage sifter, a garbage voyeur who somehow makes me think of the poem repeated in Wakamatsu's not-at-all-what-it-sounds-like Go, Go, Secondtime Virgin.

I'm getting nowhere with this, and it's getting in the way of my commenting other films. Can't escape the suspicion that a few years on I'll walk into a Matsumura retrospective at my local film archive, maybe hosted by some learned character who's caught onto something I'm missing.

How much does it matter whether the director is or simply \"gets\" his lethally muddled protagonists? Does he even have to understand them? Maybe a director's job is just to spew it out, then let critics, sociologists, and the rest of us hash things out. Maybe directorial or artistic responsibility is a bogus notion.

My final struggle with this thing had me wondering what on earth a woman thinks watching these overwhelmingly male exercises. We put women through this over and over, from Star Wars to et cetera and et cetera and on and on and on and on, but is anything quite as male-skewed as the All Night Longs?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This SOFT soft-core\/sci-fi B-movie is what you'd have if you took an early Fred Olen Ray film and took out the fun. Or conversely, it's like an Uwe Boll 'movie' but without as much ineptitude. A young nubile chain-gang convict (C.C. Costigan) agrees to pose as a space marshal in order to stop wacky Kim Dawson's plans of...having everyone have sex with everyone else apparently (that vile fiend). Anyone who went into this film looking for serious science fiction, well you got what you deserved for not doing any homework on the film at all. First of all when did Kim Dawson EVER star in anything other than soft-core Skinamax level crap. For that matter take a look at the resume's for Costigan and the Director before you take a hissy fit saying you expected something else. Don't get me wrong, for a space\/action\/soft-core\/titillation flick, this film is STILL not good, but if you expected something along the lines of \"Contact\", I DO NOT pity you.

My Grade: D-

Where I Saw it: Starz-on-demand (Available until December 8th, 2005)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like science-fiction movies and even, low-rated, made for TV, bargain bin, movies I may still find interesting. Well, I found this one in a bargain bin and brought it as a selection to a movie night with a group of friends.

I was, literally, *emabrrassed* that I brought this movie.

Right from the beginning, the acting is bad, the story is bland and the plot is almost non-existent. All this leads right to what the movie really was: A soft core porno graphical movie.

The movie started with a woman prison where the prisoners are all sexy women working in some sort of mine. First clue that this movie is NOT serious: attractive women in a prison being forced to do physical labor. Yeah, right! Whatever. :P Once the \"plot\" continued, it was overshadowed by pointless scenes of people having sex. Halfway through the movie, my friends and I stopped watching, it was so stupid. The next day, I thought that I would give the movie another chance and watch the rest. I watched about another 15 minutes and gave up again.

If you are looking for a decent, science-fiction or even a sci-fi monster movie DO NOT watch Lethal Target! If you want to see a low-budget, soft core porn that is light on plot, then see Lethal Target.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terrible movie. Just terrible. The start of this movie is like something out of a bad women in prison movie. Then it moves on to being a B-movie version of Aliens. B-movie in this case meaning the addition of gratuitous sex-scenes and women in lingerie. Oh and a lot of the footage is the exact same as used in two other movies by the same company (including the women in prison schtick). The only thing saving this movie from a 1\/10 is that I have actually seen worse movies. Not many, and not much, but worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I challenge you to watch this film and deny the above statement. That is, IF you can stop looking at her practically flawless face. She also does a bit of fighting and a bit of shooting, but not nearly as much as I was hoping for. The film is extremely slow-moving and low-budgeted, though at least they tried to find an excuse for the spaceship being so underpopulated; nearly the entire crew is on \"suspended animation\", and the ship moves on auto pilot! And the heroine doesn't rescue any of them, or bring anything useful back \"home\"; it seems that tricking that evil lady into traveling through space was the only part of her mission that couldn't be more easily accomplished by the missiles that blow up the ship at the end. There are also some long but rather tame soft-core scenes, and a couple of \"Alien\"-rip-off monsters that kill about 2 people. *1\/2 out of 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Its a space flick, or at least i think it is. you got half-naked female prisoners in a space prison and a monster on a space station using a virus to infect humanity through sexy encounters. Its Friggin Hilarious. The acting is so bad that space nuts looks like an Emmy award winning film. The story is simple. Space prisoner gets chance to reduce sentence by investigating a space station that lost contact with humanity. She finds a doctor \"experimenting\" with women and a angry of alien. She fights them, so on and so forth. Its a movie worth seeing it just to wet your pants with laughter. If you like Real sci-fi flicks its a no-no but its a great mood setter for the amateur film maker because i can guarantee their film is better than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was one of the worst movies that I have ever watched. The story was about a woman prisoner sent into space to try and save mankind but what it actually turned out to be was that the prisoner was actually put on board a space ship with a nymphomaniac lesbian commander. All the story was about was having sex over and over again. There was no need for all of this footage - only to create a soft porn film. Of course we had to see the heroin of the movie having sex for about 2 minutes. I don't know what all this had to do with the actual plot of the movie -except I assume to get men to watch it. I gave it 1 out of 10 only because there was no other rating lower. Don't waste your money or time- it has nothing to do with science fiction but rather a movie for young adolescent boys to watch to see t&a. The creature was shown only more than half way through the movie and looked like the alien in the movie with Signorney Weaver. Poor excuse for entertainment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I come from Bangladesh, and here, C.C.Costigan is a goddess of awesome sex. All kidding aside, a friend and I were awake in the middle of the night, watching movies on the Encore: Action channel, when we came across a series of sci-fi-esquire flicks. There was RoboCop 2 (not bad,...not bad at all) ... then Judge Dredd, (Stalone almost ruins his career) then a movie called Lethal Target. One would think the title \"Lethal Target\" could only be awarded to a really cool, and really cheesy Rambo knock-off. But nay, what is delivered is what I would like to call a \"Semi-softcore, semi-pseudo action, semi-sci-fi film\" ... actually, I think I can say that this isn't even a film at all. If it wasn't for the main character's sheer hotness, my friend and I would've turned off the movie as the opening credits rolled.

I have a few questions to the people (I wouldn't even dare say \"professionals\") who made this film. -One, In the future, why are they using the weaponry we used in 1999? Oh, wait, I get it, it's all that they could get their hands on,... right???... well then,.. why is the main character wearing what looks like a normal everyday linen shirt and a vest, kinda like what people wore in the late nineties? .... oh ... I get it ... in space, it MUST have been a fashion statement.... well, then... WHY,OH, WHY does the main character pull out a 3.5 floppy disk at one point in the film so that she can upload some bullshit ?! wtf !? ...we've progressed so far that we have space travel, but we still haven't progressed past 1.44megabytes of space..?

I guess I'm just asking for too much.

Question two, Let's just say...that yes... this is a softcore porn. Then why is there only ONE real sex scene, and why does it last for 2 minutes?

I mean, you're taking the REASON people are staying up in the middle of the night to see this crap (dare I say 'movie' anymore?) ... and whittling it down to 2 minutes. Hell, they should've just taken that sex scene and sold it to another porn movie, and they would've STILL made more money off of this \"crap\" than they did.

C.C.Cortigan is hot. And no offense to the actress, but she acts about as well as I do. and I'm mentally retarded, and only have one testicle... (C.C. Cortigan,...e-mail me ...we'll have lunch) I would write more, but I've run out of space.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everyonce in a while,4kids brings new shows to it's company. For the past few years, they brought pure gold like Kirby: Right Back at Ya! or Mew Mew Power. But Recenetly, 4kids has been off. CatDog is one of the examples.

It's hard to write a negative comment without bashing the show, but in truth, Weekenders is pure garbage. It revolves around A group who with an over active Brain. The catch though is anything he thinks up comes bad. It may sound good on paper, but after watching it, you'll realize how far from good this show is.

The Pizza Guy is an extremely dumb character. He's very 1-dimensional, there's really not much to him. He's hyper-active, end of story. Though many feel all the character are a rip off of the South Park, I think just the contrary. Mechazawa from cromartie High-School is an interesting character, and he's able to make me laugh. Tino fail to do either of the two.

The cast for the show isn't any better. Like Tino's Mom they suffer from lack of character. They only stick to one characteristic and thats it. The only redeeming quality is the fact that the show can cause you to smirk. Whether it's that the scene may actually be funny, or you may just smirk because how stupid it is.

Thje Weekenders is a very crappy show from Disney\/4kids. Though it does seem to love some fans, it should really be left to the kids.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Final Draft - A screenwriter (James Van Der Beek) locks himself into his apartment and succumbs to psychosis in an attempt to write a horror script. Not a terrible premise, but the execution is awful. This feels like a first year direction and writing job, and probably is. The director jump cuts the hell out of everything. It's meant to be disorienting. What it IS is annoying. So much so that small chunks of film are incoherent. The writing is predictable, and doesn't use follow through on most of the ideas it offers (bag of oranges). It's like they ran out of time and slap-dashed it together for the Toronto Film Festival.

This film is not jaw-droppingly \"oh my god it's so bad it's good\" bad. It's boring bad, and irritates you for a long time afterward. James Van Der Beek is not a terrible actor, and keeps the ship barely above water. But he's too normal for the kind of psychosis the film tries to offer. He is merely a withdrawn guy who one day sees people and hallucinates things, then decides to act mildly deranged. Cause follows effect. Maybe there's something in the water. Now Darryn Lucio, who plays his \"friend\", is a terrible actor. He shares the likeness of Chris O'Donald and is even more annoying, a superhuman achievement.

The atmosphere the film provides is good (dull gray and somber), but as it's the only thing the film achieves it means nothing. This film wants to be Jacob's Ladder or The Machinist. It isn't even Secret Window. It's the preppy girl in class deciding to turn goth.

Not irksomely terrible, but the sheer stupidity of it will ebb at you. I've already put more thought into this critique than the filmmakers did for this.

D","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very silly high school\/teen flick about geeks trying to prove themselves better than the rich brats. Sound familiar? This television movie from director Rod Amateau (\"Uncommon Valour\" and some \"Dukes of Hazaard\" episodes believe it or not) says nothing, does nothing, and surely will entertain very few.

Notable for its \"who's who\" of television cast, including Michael J. Fox, Bob Denver (\"Gilligan\"), and Todd Bridges (\"Different Strokes\"). This lame effort barely limps over the line. Also stars Anthony Edwards (\"E.R.\").

Saturday, September 5, 1998 - Video","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All in all, this is a movie for kids. We saw it tonight and my child loved it. At one point my kid's excitement was so great that sitting was impossible. However, I am a great fan of A.A. Milne's books which are very subtle and hide a wry intelligence behind the childlike quality of its leading characters. This film was not subtle. It seems a shame that Disney cannot see the benefit of making movies from more of the stories contained in those pages, although perhaps, it doesn't have the permission to use them. I found myself wishing the theater was replaying \"Winnie-the-Pooh and Tigger too\", instead. The characters voices were very good. I was only really bothered by Kanga. The music, however, was twice as loud in parts than the dialog, and incongruous to the film.

As for the story, it was a bit preachy and militant in tone. Overall, I was disappointed, but I would go again just to see the same excitement on my child's face.

I liked Lumpy's laugh....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw Winnie's Heffalump a couple of days ago. A nice story based on well known characters created by A.A.Milne. Although Winnie, Piglet, Tigger and Rabbit are all present in this animated feature, the main character is Roo this time. He befriends with scary Heffalump who proves to be not scary at all and shows everybody that friendship knows no boundaries and everybody wants and deserves to be happy. I love this film and I would love it even more were I 10 or 15 years younger. Alas, I would like to become a kid again to enjoy this Heffalump story much more but all I am left with is a sense of sadness at the loss of a sort of childishness and innocence of which this movie is full\u0085 I was glad to hear Carly Simon sing, Joel McNeely provided great score.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of I should point out that I used to love Winnie The Pooh as a child and I really enjoyed The Tigger Movie even though I am in my 20's.

But this movie was so bad I was ashamed to have been a fan in my youth.

OK, OK I know this is a movie for kids and isn't aimed at people like me anyway but this is my thoughts on the movie for other people of my age.

The main downfall in this film is the heffalump itself, it has to be the most annoying character I have seen in a child's movie (possibly even more annoying then the young child in Monsters Inc). It has the most annoying voice and prattles around singing stupid things and making even more stupid comments, I know Pooh movies aren't exactly high brow but this was insulting to even a 2 year old's intelligence!

Secondly - where was the story? Previous Pooh outings had a least a point to the story- yes I can see this was about accepting people who are different to you into your hearts - but really it ended and I felt like I had watched a 5 minute cartoon on kids TV.

I don't have children of my own but when I do I fully intend to show them quality children's movies like The Tigger Movie, Toy Story and Finding Nemo (even though they are too childish for me these days I can see how they would be of great appeal to young children). Not so with this appalling attempt at a movie.

Oh and one more thing - NOT ENOUGH Eeyore! He should have his own movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't understand the many good reviews, here. I found the photography and scenery beautiful, and the two lead actors appealing, but there's little else here to recommend this movie. Most annoying are the fake Southern accents and badly written dialog. These do not sound like real people to me. Although it's refreshing to show men exploring various forms of sexuality without the usual labeling and stereotypical character traits, most of the story is without motivation or logic. The only thing that makes very much sense is the responsibility Griffith feels toward his mentally ill Aunt, grossly over-acted by Karen Black. Lee is an interesting character who would have been more compelling had the dialog he was made to speak been more natural and his motivations more clear. Yes, I understand that he's a drifter, but his actions as the movie draws to a rushed conclusion make no sense at all. This movie is worth a look, chiefly because it has a nice atmosphere about it, but it's slow moving and deeply flawed. A serious rewrite and better editing might have saved it, as the premise and story outline are promising.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think Purvis starts out to do a gay \"Gone With The Wind\" If so, sorry, Tag, it didn't happen. It also didn't happen as a gay \"sexploitation\" flick. I guess I'm confused; what are we trying to do here? Much as I'd like to, I simply can't get to where I care even a little about these characters. This movie is effective in capturing a taste of the decadence that lives in the South; it does nothing to explain, enlighten or advance my understanding of a gay relationship, or the conflict the protagonist seems to be grappling with.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Close but no cigar! - that's what my opinion of this film is! TAG PURVIS both wrote and directed this script which should have gone through a re write before shooting. At times, laughable because or a corny script, this film's shining star is Dan Mongomery Jr and the Director of Photography. Both of these talents are ones to watch out for in the future. My recommendation is to wait until it hits your local cable station and use the rental money on a classic!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terrible direction from an awful script. Even the DVD looked muddy and out of focus. Laughable accents all over the map. Unlike most of the other commenters I had no idea this was about boys in love in the mud, but that fact became immediately obvious from the opening scene and all the lovingly drawn-out shots of nude or scantily-clad young men, usually wet or glistening with sweat, looking longingly at each other.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film at our crossroads film festival, and was looking forward to it because it was filmed in mississippi and starred karen black. I was severely disappointed by the clumsy script which never flowed and the apparent lack on the effort of the actors and director to understand anything about the culture they endeavored to portray. How did lee and griffin become such deep friends in five minutes? Which of the two were f***ing the girl under the tree? It was unclear. And, There seems to be some law in hollywood about southern accents, and rarely do you hear anything remotely approaching the everyday sounds of the south., despite the awful, \"this must be how they sound, just soften the \"r\"\" approach to dialogue, so many times the actors lapse out of it altogether. Aleksa especially sounded like a new york street tough during \"emotional\" scenes, and nobody sounded mississippian at all. Walt Goggins' character was supposed to have been from Morgan city, Louisiana yet sounded nothing like that city's blend of new orleans and cajun accents. The other bothersome point seemed to be an urge by the writer to make us all feel that every man must have homosexual urges inside him. Before I start a firestorm here and am accused of homophobia, I've enjoyed many films with gay love themes, notably \"punks\" \"when love comes\" and \"b monkey\". But this seemed to be some man's wish about all young men. Well, Tennessee williams has already covered this ground, and did a far better job of it. So, I wonder, if the coen brothers can get regional accents and culture dead on in films set in Minnesota and in Mississippi, why can't anyone else? What a waste of my time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thank God this has not been renewed by ITV.

This series, while popular (God knows why) has a very simple - 'Look I've found another body behind the flowers\/bushes\/trees\/wherever they are working - for the sixteenth time this series' plot. The dialogue is so simple it's as though this has been written for children - talking down to the viewer and explaining every plot point.

They just 'happen' to be around when someone does something out the ordinary - and no-one notices them.

Every time they look into and investigate someone's murder, they get in the way of everyone else - messing up the lives of all - including those completely innocent.

They break and enter into people's homes, stealing items and evidence (even firearms) being nosey and getting into people's lives, spying on them and going through their stuff. They never apologise, never get caught or arrested (and if they do they can talk their way out of it, even though another character who does the same gets put in prison!!!).

They always come up trumps. Now I know that this is an easy going series, but I think that realistically this should not have made it past the first few episodes! Put simply, it's unrealistic.

I think that they have found enough bodies in the undergrowth both here and on the Continent (where they are every other week), so I do hope it never comes back.

ITV should get some action on the screen instead of all the years of humdrum - 'someone's been murdered at the village fair - again' type series.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show makes absolutely no sense. Every week, two ladies go to an estate to do some gardening, and every week without fail, they somehow stumble upon a murder. Because everyone who owns a big house with a large garden is involved in a murder, right? But even if they did somehow happen to stumble upon murder after murder, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to tell the police? You know, the people who can actually do something about it... But every week, these two fools go around, polluting evidence, committing crimes of their own, and, in some cases, causing more murders. Once they do miraculously solve the murders, there is no way the murderer could ever be convicted. All the evidence has been sabotaged. And you'd think people who are covering up murders would think not to hire these two, wouldn't you? Yay! We've solved the murder! Now like every other week, let's go and confront the murderer ourselves and, with no back-up, tell them that we know about it. There is no way we could get ourselves into any danger, is there? Rosemary and Thyme is one of the worst shows on television, and certainly the most ridiculous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the story of a news investigator who hates his job - which prove why actors - even as weak as Tom Cruise and Denzel Washington - are on the big screen and your neighbors are not!

I'll say this though - the better moments show some basis for being really funny (not just wacky), to keep trying, maybe taking some classes, and using the time to keep learning how to make a good movie. (\"Dude, Where's My Car\" and the \"Scary Movie\" sequence have it all over this ... college attempt.)

The lighting wasn't; the production wasn't; and the script had moments (the conversation from space - very nice try unconvincingly executed). (This reminded me of \"Dark Star\" - which is about being \"lost in space\" - but this movie is just lost.)

The talent was the bartender (he said 'dog' so annoyingly that I knew he had to be acting... wasn't he? ... now THAT's acting!), the Mark Hammond guy, and Marty. I guess I gave the movie a point for each one of them... 3\/10.

-LD

______________________________________________

my faith: http:\/\/www.angelfire.com\/ny5\/jbc33\/","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a huge lover of really bad B movies. And I especially love alien\/scifi movies. I say the cheaper, cheesier, and campier the better. A low budget and a hokey idea are fun enough for most bad B movies, but this movie is so bad that I really felt embarrassed for the people who made the movie and for the schlocky ad-lib actors. First off, there's no real plot, it's all sort of situation \"comedy\" (if it can be called that). The \"comedy\" in this movie is more about characters saying, in essence, \"look at me, I'm in this crazy situation! Isn't this funny?\", but it's only pathetic because nothing anyone's doing is that funny. There's no comedic acting skill, nor any kooky plot to carry all the very un-imaginative scenarios through this dreary turd.

The bad comedy and lack of anything remotely comical is only worsened by the bad ad-lib acting, actors saying really stupid things over and over again (perhaps trying to ape for catch phrases, perhaps just b\/c everyone in this is so bad), really unattractive women being played off as hot chicks, and people barfing and passing out in bathrooms.

There was one middle aged actor toward the end of the movie who I could tell had some acting chops and was kinda' convincing in his role. He was as out of place as a solid BM in a weekend detox unit's bathroom. Corey Feldman was filmed for about 3 minutes in total (thankfully we didn't have to put up with him any longer), and he was filmed off site -- probably outside his apartment on the way out somewhere. He said a few really un-funny things about aliens and having sex with aliens and that was the extent of his appearance.

If you value your life and the 90 minutes (and years of pain in remembering) you'll lose by watching this garbage, avoid it. If you do a lot of drugs, like Adam Sandler's comedy stylings (and thus have no standards whatsoever), and are considered mentally slow you might like this movie.

P.S. I think the people who raved about this must work for Troma or something, b\/c I can't believe people can be so lame as to actually enjoy this movie. (Do drugs really ruin your judgment that much?)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are looking for a movie with beautiful shots of Mount Everest, then you may enjoy this movie. Just skip ahead to the views of the mountain.

(Spoiler Alert) However, if you, like me, believe that lives are precious and not to be wasted then this movie will leave a bad taste in your mouth. 6 people died, 5 Sherpas and a member of the Japanese party just so that one man could attempt to ski down Mount Everest.

The question is raised in the movie about whether the continuation of the expedition to meet his personal goal was still worth the cost in lives, and he answers an emphatic \"Yes\".

The part about skiing is in the last 15 minutes. He skis for a short time, then falls the rest of the way until he comes to a stop in the snow.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film when it came out. Let me see now--this guy who had earlier skied down Mount Fuji manages to accumulate the funding and hire personnel to document what sounds on the surface like a bold and daring act---to ski down the world's highest peak. Well--AND HERE COMES THE SPOILER--what happens, see, after a large crew of people manage to help him get near the top--and a life is lost in the bargain--he gets on his skis, manages to make it down a very very short way, at which point his PARACHUTE OPENS...and that's that. And instead of burning the footage to hide this amazingly anticlimactic ending to an embarrassing debacle, the guy goes ahead and releases it. SPOILER ENDS I do admire the amazing courage and effort it must have taken the film crew to get some of the stunning shots they got. ANOTHER SPOILER--Oh yes, one of the Sherpas is killed by falling into a crevasse. The narrator, who is quoting the \"daredevil skier, casually remarks that, according to the Sherpa religion, since this man's body cannot be recovered his soul will roam the world forever and never know rest. Is it worth it, the narrator muses. YES he answers--because it served the purpose of letting this clown \"ski down Everest.\" I can't remember ever seeing a more meretricious piece of celluloid. This is one to miss at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this gem in a rack the local video rental store had of tapes which are exchanged among various rental outlets. 'The Man who Skied Down Everest'. Hmm... never heard about it. The box reads of some Japanese fellow who always wanted to ski down Everest and actually did it. Sounds interesting. I rented it. As expected it was documentary style. The first part can be summarized so: \"I always wanted to ski down mount Everest\". This is followed by some footage of preparation for the event. LOTS of preparation footage. OK, I suppose it takes a lot of preparation. Then we are treated to a protracted piece on the skier, Yuichiro Miura's philosophy on life etc. More filler follows and I begin to wonder where the skiing fits in to this show. More preparation is shown and they begin to make the trip to the mountain. More philosophy is shown. At last they arrive at the mountain and maybe perhaps he will get around to skiing down the friggin' thing. Lots of climbing footage later there is a description of the parachute device intended to slow Miuras' speed on the steep slope. Finally he straps on the skis and gets ready to go.

He's off... He skis about twenty feet and his skis shoot out from under him, he deploys the parachute and tumbles in an inglorious bundle for some distance down the mountain and that's that. End of story. What the heck was that?

OK I can buy that he always wanted to ski down Everest, made extensive preparations and actually tried it with camera crew in tow. It didn't work and he ended up tumbling down and almost killing himself, so what egregious hubris would inspire the man to release a film of it and call it skiing down Everest? Perhaps the title,\"The Man Who's Feet Shot Out From Under Him and He Slid On His Ass Down Everest\" was just too long for the tape box.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I adore Hedy Lamarr. I think she was vastly underrated as an actress during the 40s. She was the Nastassja Kinski of that era, and critics didn't take her seriously. Having said all that...this film is a BORE. When I watched it for the first time, I was shocked at the lack of continuity, not only in story, but in makeup and costumes. Hedy's makeup changes from shot to shot. So does hair length and style. Reason: This thing had so many writers and underwent so many stops and starts it's amazing they ever released it at all. Her \"Lady of the Tropics\" began filming AFTER this one began, yet it was released before \"I Take This Woman.\" In fact, at the time, it was known in Hollywood as \"I Re-Take This Woman.\" That should tell you something. I'm a Spencer Tracy fan as well, but he is AWFUL here. I've read in various film histories that he absolutely despised Hedy Lamarr, and that looks perfectly obvious on film. NO chemisty whatsoever. The story wanders around for reel after reel and finally just rolls to an end very strangely. I can't recommend this one at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hedy Lamarr who may have been kept by more men on screen than any other actress, is again the kept mistress of Kent Taylor, society playboy and general all around rat. On a boat from the Yucatan after Taylor's given her the brush she tries suicide. But Doctor Spencer Tracy saves her from drowning in the Caribbean.

Tracy's quite the all around medical fellow. I guess he never heard the word specialist. He runs a clinic in Manhattan for the poor and his trip was a sideline into medical research. Lamarr and he marry and she tries to introduce him into her world and he even becomes a partner of society doctor Louis Calhern. Of course Kent Taylor reenters the picture and the Hollywood inevitable happens.

Watching I Take This Woman it seemed to me that the writers were very much influenced by Tracy's Oscar winning Boys Town. Unfortunately his role as Doctor Karl Decker ain't a patch on what he did as Father Flanagan. Maybe they were trying to give Father Flanagan a little romance in his life in this film so to speak.

Tracy and Lamarr did not get along too well. In fact this film was dubbed I Retake This Woman because the original director Joseph Von Sternberg walked off the film, presumably because Lamarr was not working out for him the way Marlene Dietrich did. She did Lady of the Tropics and then MGM went back to filming this with their contract director Woody Van Dyke who was known for the speed of his productions. And a whole new supporting cast was brought in.

Fortunately both Spence and Hedy had better roles in store for both of them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I fully agree with the previous reviewer. There's no chemistry between Spencer Tracy and Hedy Lamarr, and the focus of the film is on their relationship. Hedy Lamarr isn't at her best, and Spencer Tracy appears to be naive, simple and overly-hopeful -- both in love and life; an idealist role that played out best in 'Boys Town'. If you can make it through the ridiculous crowd scene by the train station...whoa...it's rather slapstick and not worthy of any actor in the cast. Not the best acting on anybody's part. Miscast and mismatched. Story is empty and various and disenfranchised input is apparent. Hedy Lamarr is her absolutely stunning herself, which is truly the best part of the film. Spencer Tracy can't match the sophistication of her beauty and wardrobe, and the film doesn't come off as believable for at least that reason.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard to know exactly what to say about this ever so bland and dull little film. The story is predictable when not completely laughable. It's all a matter of \"dutiful gestures\" which, as presented here, carry absolutely no conviction. Yes, the MGM \"production values\" are gorgeous, and yes, Ms. Lamarr was exquisitely beautiful, but she and the great Spencer Tracy have absolutely no \"chemistry\" together - and that's the only thing that would have made this parade of cliches at all effective... It's my understanding that this movie received poor reviews when it was originally released; the passage of time has not improved it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is on the level with \"Welcome Home Roxy Carmichael\" for biggest pieces of garbage that have ever hit the silver screen. If these guys weren't Adam Sandler's gay friends, this script would have ended up where it should have: as some big time movie exec's toilet paper. I hate this movie, it makes me want to injure people. I will admit that I have high standards, but honestly I'd rather watch Step Up 2. The ultra sad part was when I logged onto IMDb and read that you pieces of trash actually gave this movie a 6.9 rating. This is a testament to all of the retards in our society that will go watch terrible movies that are just hour and a half long dick, fart, and weed jokes with little to no originality. After seeing this rating, I would like to suggest \"Tyler Perry's House of Pain\" to all of you guys who enjoyed this film; you'll see some high quality humor there on about the same level of this abhorrent abomination.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Creating a comedy is like walking a pretty thin tight-rope. It either works, or it does not. Grandma's Boy is one of those movies that does not work. It may have a few very funny parts, but for the majority, it's just a terribly unfunny comedy from the usual supporting characters in Adam Sandler films (sans Sandler himself, he's just a producer).

Alex (Allen Covert) is a game tester. He's 35, and is the best tester and game player at his otherwise kid-filled workplace. He ends up getting his apartment and his stuff taken from him for not paying the bills (as it turns out, his roommate had just been spending the rent money on Philipino hookers and not paying the landlord). Desperate, he moves in with his grandmother, Lilly (Doris Roberts of Everybody Loves Raymond) and her two roommates.

That's the basic plot of the film, thrown in with subplots about a hot new girl named Samantha (Linda Cardelli, unrecognizable from her days as Velma in Scooby Doo) trying to get the testers to complete a new game as fast as they can, a robot-like game creating prodigy J.P. (Joel Moore) who works with Alex and wears much of the same clothes as Neo in The Matrix, and of course, all sorts of sex and drug related jokes. That's it.

The problem with the film, besides the fact that the real conflict in the film occurs and is resolved within the last fifteen minutes of the film, is that it just is not funny. It is totally mind-numbingly boring, and only sparingly funny. Nothing really happens at all. No emotion, no real sense of direction, and a whole ton of intense swearing. You find yourself maybe laughing at a few funny quips that the actors say, but otherwise sit in complete boredom, wishing you had not even bothered with the film. How this film was greenlit and how Fox thought it could make money will always remain a mystery to me.

There's just no entertainment value to come from it. None of the actors are actually putting in good performances, they are just acting like idiots for the camera, and hoping for the best. Stoner comedy has been done before multiple times, and on occasion, actually works (Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle and Dazed and Confused come to mind). Here, it just makes for making the film even less funny than it is already. The random inclusion of a monkey and a pair of bare breasts really does not make the film any better either.

Other than a few funny one-liners, this movie should just be out-right missed altogether. It's not very funny, the entire plot is silly, it's boring, and it just makes for one horrendous film. Avoid it like the plague.

1.5\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly, this may be the worst movie I've ever seen. And I've seen Spider Baby, and Not of This Earth. Heck I've even seen 200 Motels. Having just discovered the Freaks and Geeks series and being surprised at the acting ability of Linda Cardellini I checked out the reviews here and decided this was worth a try. That is the LAST time I will ever rely on a review at IMDb. I didn't realize that MORONS were writing IMDb reviews while they were waiting for their calls to be answered on AM radio.

This movie is so far beyond bad that mere words cannot express the wretchedness of its vomitous state. Seriously.

Watch this movie if you think Will Farrel is really really really funny, if you think Adam Sandler is a comedic genius. Watch this movie but PLEASE DON'T BREED!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What could be expected from any Adam Sandler-produced comedy, Grandma's Boy is predictable and so dumb it is sickening. Allen Covert stars as Alex in the film, a 35 year old pothead who works as a video game tester and has had to move in with his grandma and her two roommates after losing his apartment. Some usual plot turns occur: he has trouble adjusting to his new living situation, which in turn makes him have trouble at work, which is particularly bad because he is trying to nail one of the office's new consultants. Throw a weird boss, almost alien company star, really nerdy best friend, a few scenes at burnt-out pot dealer's place, a really big party scene, and an original video game Alex is trying to finish by himself into the mix you have Grandma's Boy in its entirety. Allen Covert does make a marginally good lead, Linda Cardellini is cute enough for her role as the just-one-of-the-nerds office consultant Samantha, and a few scenes do manage to squirt out a chuckle or two but none of that makes Grandma's boy worth much of anyone's time. Most of the supposed funny \"jokes\" or \"gags\" or whatever you want to call them are nothing but \"humor\" that would make anyone at National Lampoons embarrassed to watch, Joel Moore is incredibly unfunny in his role as video game mastermind J.P., and the entire film actually manages to be boring on top of not funny or substantial. Well, at least Grandma's Boy did something for someone: Adam Sandler was able to get a few paychecks to his out-of-work friends David Spade, Kevin Nealon, and Rob Schneider.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Positively ridiculous film.

If Doris Roberts, Shirley Jones and Shirley Knight persist in these kinds of films, they can submit their retirement papers and collect social security full-time.

While the idea that a 35 year old swinger, who works on video games, loses his apartment and his forced to move in with Grandma Roberts and borders Jones and Knight, this is foolishly dealt with. Imagine the 3 bags getting high on stuff that grandson Alex has left in their home and Jones going to bed with someone who may qualify as her grandson!

The video game sequences are as foolish as the rest of the film. The assortment of characters that Alex works with is beyond belief as he enjoys his weed habit along with the others.

Terrible best describes this miserable film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's an underlying current in all the positive reviews of this movie - it's just a brainless comedy, don't take it seriously. Chillax dude!!! Well that's one point of view. The other would be - why are we accepting exactly the same script, the same formula and the same unfunny people in all these \"comedies\".

What you get is a slacker who, through some totally unreal circumstances, has to change his life (always a he), overcome a set of circumstances which would only pose a problem to a raccoon or a teenager, beat the equally stupid bad guy who is trying to steal the gal he met two days earlier and triumph by remaining a slacker but with more money\/self-esteem. On the way somebody does something gross but very illogical. This means you the viewer can call someone after the movie and say something like \"you won't believe it maaann. This guy finds the otter drowned in the bucket of diarrhoea the other guy left after he ate laxative brownies. Then he shines his shoes with it\". Hilarious.

Most of the usual names turn up. David Spade and Rob Schneider do unfunny shtick but they're crrrazzeee characters - a Russian and, I'm holding my sides, a waiter in a vegan restaurant. Adam Sandler, the king of the brainless unfunny, illogical comedy co-produces and some talentless nobody called Dante shows up, yet again. The US will have to explain to the rest of the world what this guy Dante is famous for cos we are clueless. Allen Covert plays a 36 year old which got the biggest laugh of the night from me. He was 42 and looked years older.

Did I laugh? Yes, but no more than I would at a TV sit-com and I don't have to pay a penny to watch them. Please stop making these movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Call me old fashioned, but I like movies with plots. I thought \"stoner comedy\" was just a way to more specifically describe a comedy in which lots of weed is smoked and the people watching it are more apt to enjoy it high. \"Grandma's Boy,\" however, has decided this is a full-blown niche and that stoners represent a piece of the comedy pie that need to be reached. Apparently, Allen Covert (star and producer) and the Happy Madison gang were right, but that doesn't make \"Grandma's Boy\" any less boring and unfunny. They might be completely stoned -- but the characters are mostly half-baked.

Alex (Covert, a longtime supporting player for Adam Sandler, first-time star) is a mid-30s professional video game tester whose roommate has gotten them evicted. He could look for a new apartment, but then we don't have a movie. After trying a couple friends, he ends up living with good ole Grandma Lilly (Doris Roberts of \"Everybody Loves Raymond\"). She wakes him up a 6 am and has him do chores and soon he's falling asleep on the job and so the new video game sequel might not get done on deadline.

Like most people, Alex deals with his frustration and eradicates boredom by either playing video games or getting high or both. His friends\/co-workers all do the same thing. Most of them are virgins that live at home in addition to loving video games. They're all awkward and all with the exception of Nick Swardson and Joel Moore (only at times) their characters aren't funny. Funny if you're blazed ... sure, i suppose, but I can't say from experience.

Maybe all we loser guys like is getting high, playing video games and awkwardly ogling women with specific attention on their breasts, but even so, it shouldn't be the driving force of an entire film. Neither should old women getting high on accident (saw that one coming) or being the but of gross-out sex jokes -- but that's what happens when a film isn't about anything. No conflict occurs until the last 20 minutes outside of the slight problems of being out of pot, Alex trying to get the hot girl (Linda Cardellini) to like him and the guys scrambling to finish their levels for the video game deadline.

Characters can be the saving grace for these meandering stoner flicks, but aside from a lovable Doris Roberts, the aforementioned Swardson as the virgin friend who lives with his parents and calls them his roommates and Joel Moore's skill at making robot noises, there's little character ingenuity. Covert is a run-of-the-mill main character with no comedic dimensions, his dealer friend Dante is an inept actor and waste of screen time and Jonah Hill and Kevin Nealon are written so far into the periphery it doesn't matter.

If you like movies about nothing and watching them in a state of mind and body that enhance that nothingness, \"Grandma's Boy\" will likely be just what you're looking for. Those who need a little more talent and wit to get on board with a comedy will be left unaffected. The most I can say for \"Grandma's Boy\" is that it's watchable despite its pointlessness. It won't feel like a total waste of time but you'll wish you did do drugs so you could at least have made the most of the hour and a half.

~Steven C

Visit my site at www.moviemusereviews.com","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, I'd like to say that I really enjoyed this movie. However, that said, I can't say that it was a \"good\" movie. I went into the theatre with pretty low expectations (something I've learned to do). I'm glad I did, because the plot and development wasn't stellar. The jokes were low-grade humor. But, I was in the right mindset to enjoy them.

I wasn't the only one. In fact, the entire theatre was laughing out loud. I didn't hear anyone complain after the movie came to a close. I even saw one guy fall out of his chair laughing! But again, I have to warn you, Grandma's Boy is NOT a top-quality film. It is a funny (albeit low-brow) movie, and if you go with the right mindset, you'll really enjoy it. Oh, and don't take kids to it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alright, how someone can actually think this movie is awesome, is so beyond me... I can't even comprehend how someone can find this movie remotely funny, the only character it has going for it, is the evil super nerd game designer, and that gets old after a while. This movie is so predictable, the punchlines are not funny they're forced, you see better acting at the red light district, and the story sucks it's so predictable, you know EXACTLY what's going to happen. Even the characters do not react like they should, try going to the hot chick that is your boss at work and telling her that you're banging 2 crazy chicks that you live with at the same time, her response wouldn't be (smile) \"ok let's get back to work\". I didn't laugh once during this movie, and I wish I had never seen it or spent 3$ to rent it because that's not even worth it. Adam Sandler produced this movie, I have lost all respect for him. All his movies are the same, his comedy style got old ever since The Waterboy came out, if I knew Adam Sandler had produced this before I rented it...there's no way I would have wasted my time on it. This movie is as bad as it can possibly get from every aspect... ace ventura wasn't a smart comedy movie, it didn't have a killer plot...but it was original and it was hilarious. I'm not knocking the movie because it has 'low-level' humor, i'm knocking it because it sucks, it's a piece of Hollywood crap. If this movie was presented to a production company and din't have \"ADAM SANDLER\" behind it, it would be thrown in the garbage quicker than a used condom. If you want a good movie about pot-culture watch Cheech and Chong, or Whitecastle. If you rent this movie all you will get is a generic comedy that targets 14-17 year olds, with loud rock music at every possible cut, acting that will make your eyes squint and your stomach turn, and comedy that is equivalent to watching your stoned friend eating mcdonalds for an hour and a half. Don't do it.... for the love of God...this movie sucks, treat it for what it is and look past all the Hollywood glory behind it.....Hercules in New York used to be the worst movie I had ever seen, but it's actually so bad it's good. This instead was a very expensive movie that sucked just as much, if not more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie has NO plot. it was SUPPOSED to be that a guy moves in with his grandma, and everyone thinks hes a loser and he has to redeem himself. but what happens after everyone finds out who he's living with? they have a big pot party at grandma's house. the climax of the movie didn't even relate to the rest of it. that whole plot was introduced within minutes of the movie's end. i can see how it COULD have related to the supposed story - that Grandma's VG skills redeem him - but that just wasn't there.

However, the movie was funny as hell and clearly relied heavily on the jokes.

\"Her pussy smells like the great depression\" \"He just sucked his first titty...yeah for 13 hours\" \"It's for you...i think it's the Devil\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must say I was really excited about this film before renting it as it was an Adam Sandler \"Happy Madison\" production and I am usually attracted to that type of silly humour.

There were a few funny moments at the beginning of the film, but this film lacked everything that makes a good movie. I realize that many filmsthat are not realistic can still be quite funny, but this film was unrealistic and not funny at all. The acting was horrible, the cinematography was very poor, the plot made no sense at all. I cannot get over the fact that 3 classy older ladies would even work for such poor writing. Overall I was very unimpressed with this film and I do not recommend wasting 5 bucks on renting it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can laugh at just about anything, but unfortunately there is not a single one to be found in this stink bomb!!!!I honestly watched this movie from beginning to end, and did not even crack a smile. I am shocked that Sandler, Schneider, Spade etc., would put their names on this piece of crap. Worse than the worst that ever came out of the worst that ever came out of former SNL players. What more can I say? How could such tasteless, extremely unfunny drivel come from such a pool of apparent talent!! Maybe I have lost my sense of humor, (not likely), but I cannot remember a movie that I have disliked this much in a long time. What a waste of 2 hours I will never get back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If a movie has an unimaginative, hackneyed story and bland characters it needs to make up for it by being really, really funny. You can get away with a lot if you're funny. But while there are a few amusing moments scattered here and there in Grandma's Boy, they are so far and few between that they cannot begin to make up for the hack work the film displays in such abundance.

The movie certainly doesn't aim to surprise anyone. When Alex hides marijuana in his grandma's house in a tea tin you know what's going to happen later on and it does. The movie appears to have been written by a committee who did a study of mediocre comedies and grabbed any gag that appeared in more than one of them.

The most interesting thing about the movie is its somewhat unusual setting. The game takes place in a video game development company, which should be an interesting source for some clever comedy. But don't be fooled, this is not a movie about video game developers. This is basically a college frat house movie in which all the frat boys have been shoved into a big room to play video games.

The way the movie completely fails to think through its setting and use it for original laughs can be seen in the character of J.P. J.P. is I think more-or-less conspired by the creator of Doom, John Carmack. At least inspired to the extent that he's an odd genius who makes games.

In the movie, J.P. is a weird, obnoxious geek who is despised and jeered by the company game testers. That makes no sense at all. If you are one of the most significant people in the history of video games (as J.P. is supposed to be) then even if you're quirky and obnoxious, people will still admire and respect you on some level. If Stephen Hawking is obnoxious his associates still aren't going to make jun of him to his face.

Also, game testers are just as likely to be geeks as J.P., but in the movie they are basically frat boys. It's a fun normal guys against the obnoxious dweebs movie. And while that formula has worked, very occasionally, in the past, it is absurd in the setting of a game company. If you decide to use an unusual setting for a movie, you don't simply cram in all the conventions of movies from different settings into that one. Unless you're a hack.

About two thirds of the way through the movie I gave up. Something happened that I knew would result in a series of painfully predictable events. And I realized I hadn't actually laughed at anything for the last half hour anyway. So I stopped (although I did fast forward just to make sure I was right that they would follow the most predictable clich\u00e9s, which they did).

Normally if a movie's bad I just say it's bad and then run out of things to say, but this movie is such a phenomenally shoddy production that it deserves a long diatribe.

Shame on the movie for luring a good actress like Linda Cardellini into it, then surrounding her with talentless nobodies. I'll give the movie 1 point for giving Shirley Jones the chance to be the anti-Shirley Partridge though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sadly, this movie did have potential with such a willing cast, but everything was so poorly thought out and poorly executed. I don't think I've ever seen any film where every scene just falls flat with a loud thud, as it did here. Also, I don't think I've ever seen a \"stoner\" sex comedy that didn't provide at least one laugh, but this vortex of pain provided nothing but groans and misery. The last time I was this stunned at how un-funny a comedy can be was with the awful \"Big Momma's House.\" Scene after scene, these movies will turn your brain into jelly. Silly and stupid can sometimes be funny, but here, silly and stupid are used as a torture device against the viewer. An absolute, rock-bottom dud.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the last few years of Ron Miller's (son-in-law of Walt Disney cum Producer) reign he churned out live-action crap on a stick often starring the very boring Dean Jones, whose entire career was based on that kind of light, empty-headed fare. Other horrible films from that same period include Pete's Dragon, the Last Flight of Noah's Ark, Unidentified Flying Oddball and the dreaded Condorman. I'll not mention Tron because I thought it ambitious and Miller was only the executive Producer on it, so he had little to do with the actual production. However he was in full force when this god-awful piece of human junk was expelled from the bowels of creativity. Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo. Second sequel to much- loved Love Bug tale finds Herbie in love with another car who has a brain and heart too. There's a race, some lame bad guys, a diamond and Barney Fife. Shot in France, the film actually is nicely photographed and the countryside is lovely. But one gets the idea the film was made so all involved could have a three month vacation in France. The rest of film is a wreck. Prat falls, bumbling thieves, wicked German racing competitors and a pretty bouncing feminist all fall under the category of stock supply. The biggest insult of the film: trying to further develop Herbie's lover personality via shakes, beeps, flashing lights and movements indicative of a horny seventeen year old, Disney's writers do an injustice to our cute little VW. Then again I would think it'd be tough for anyone to top Helen Hayes driving Herbie around a skyscraper ledge in the second outing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even Disney are guilty of the cash cow disease, after the roaring success of The Love Bug in 1968, the house of mouse cashed in with Herbie Rides Again, Herbie Goes To Monte Carlo, and Herbie Goes Bananas. Neither sequel capturing the charm and inoffensive appeal of The Love Bug back in 68, in this one we find race driver Jim Douglas and his sidekick Wheely Applegate, entering Herbie in the Monte Carlo Rally. Naturally things outside of the race start to take over priorities, they get mixed up in a diamond robbery and Herbie falls in love with another car!. The car stunts are of course pleasant and easy on the eye, and it would be churlish of me to really vent venom on such a friendly piece of fluff, it's just that the film goes nowhere fast and personally now i can see it for the coin motivated piece of work it is. Still you get to see Herbie take a bath, foil the baddies and of course dance for the lady in his life, so something there for everyone i think....................4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you thought Herbie trying to kill himself by driving off a bridge in 'The Love Bug' was daft, wait 'till you see him acting horny in this bewilderingly silly second sequel. Dean Jones is back as the driver who competes in the Paris to Monte Carlo rally; this time his sentient VW falls in love with another car in the race, a Lancia driven by Julie Sommars. By this point in the series the energy and charm is lacking even more than in 'Herbie Rides Again'; the movie is overlong and threadbare, although it's watchable thanks to the return of Jones's typically likable performance, a few funny bits, and the cast's frantic mugging.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie made my face hurt. I don't understand it...things just happened, inexplicably, and they usually resulted in someone bursting into a song and dance number. I don't understand how people can laud this film with praise. There are B-movies, and then there are B-musicals, and then there is Rockula.

The songs made me want to run headlong into a wall. The only saving grace is that one of the musical explosions turns out to be a musical video, which eases the pain, yet still fails to justify why it needed to exist. The most frightening section of the film is Toni Basil's creep-dance that accompanies her weird song. But on the bright side, she can manages to find the notes that she is looking for, unlike pop music sensations Rockula (aka Rapula) and Mona...wow, can we say tone deaf. So if you want to question life for about 90 minutes, see this film. If you hate your life, then buy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a CA resident, I'd like to see the jackholes who were shutting down the electricity plants to raise the prices get some jail time too.

I thought the movie was pretty good and has some very informative pieces. While they stuck to how Enron rose and crashed, I found it really interesting. However, when the movie focused on it's anti-Bush slant, it made me wonder if they were really being accurate.

It's fine to point out any connection the Republicans had to Enron, but the monster was created while Clinton was president. The CA energy crisis happened under Davis's watch. Both were in office during Enron's abuses, but neither are held accountable in any way. Rather, many minutes are spent on how Bush was friends with Lay. So what? Lay played golf with Clinton and spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Why are Democrats given such a free pass in this film? I think most politicians are a waste of our taxpayer money so I'm not partial to either party but I hate feeling like I'm subject to someone's political agenda when I watch a documentary. Yes, politicians deserve some blame, but I really doubt that the only guilty one's have Rs after their names. I found no value in portraying the Bush's as Kay-lovers when Democrats received just as much Enron campaign money as Republicans did. Like I said, it weakens the rest of the film for me because it makes me suspicious of the rest of the facts they lay out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I learned little of significance from this film that I did not already know from CNN and The New York Times. (And I did not follow the Enron case obsessively as did some others.) The film did a very poor job of explaining what \"business\" Enron was in that might actually have been on the up-and-up before it started hiding its debts in the entities created by Andy Fastow. It also significantly underplayed the role played by Arthur Andersen and Vinson & Elkins in validating practices that were afterwards found to be illegal. Nor did it go as far as it might have in exploring what the \"investors\" -- all those prominent bankers -- thought they were doing. With the 24 hour a day cable networks, the Discovery Channel and the History Channel, documentaries have proliferated. I've seen many in the past year that were better than this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, man, I hated this movie. Granted, the site locations were great, but that's about the ONLY positive thing I can say about it. Now, I'm going to state right at the beginning that I am VERY critical of the way weapons, especially firearms, are both portrayed, and handled, in movies. Being a war flick, portrayal was fine, but the shoddy weapons handling in the movie would have NEVER been tolerated by a real SEAL Team. The acting was more wooden than my first sailboat, the equipment carried (or lack of it) was laughable, and the dialogue was, shall we say, lacking in ANYTHING interesting. Well, with the exception of the journalist, which was actually prescient. Watching this movie was comparable to watching \"Palmetto\" with Woody Harrelson, where each scene was so bad you just couldn't turn it off, because you had to see if they could get worse with the next scene. Like Palmetto, they certainly did. The scene in the water, where, after shooting the first of the enemy, they BLOW THE DAMN BOAT UP, thereby having to face possible drowning, made me laugh so hard, that for a millisecond, I almost thought it was worth waiting through the movie for. Then Charlie Sheen decided to drag the surviving enemy down to the depths of the ocean (the way it was filmed, with the many camera cuts, it looked like they went down about 80 feet. Nice continuity there....) before slashing his throat was so damn stupid, I was stunned. Then again, so was the whole damn movie. I enjoy action movies, but not this one. NOTE: The version I watched was a TV version, pan & scan. I can't imagine that made a difference, except for making the whole thing blessedly shorter!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Someone commented that Charlie Sheen's character should be court martialed for doing whatever he wanted. You may be right, but that is how SEAL's truly are. I served for several months with a SEAL team out of Norfolk, VA. Actually, I should say they used our ship to deploy themselves around Europe for a couple of months. I was the postal clerk on board and everyday these guys would try to get their mail. Since only one person was allowed to pick up the mail each day we issued one pass to one person. Each day a different SEAL would come up pretending to be someone else. Well, after the third time I said no to them until I had proof who they were. They went NUTS!!! I thought they were gonna bust through my cage, gag me, and then steal the mail. Luckily I had not only the President on my side (The Navy), but the Federal Government (US Mail). That was the only time I saw the SEALs stopped from having whatever they wanted. They were allowed unlimited shore leave, where we had to be back on ship at a certain time. They killed and tortured a woman in France and the two SEAL's only got a 1 week detention on ship, whereas a Seamen was caught stealing a bottle of wine from a French wine shop and he got a court martial. Is it any wonder why the SEAL's retention rate is over 85%? As a SEAL you are god. So this movie does a pretty accurate job of portraying how a SEAL acts and thinks... unfortunately it is so unbelievable to normal people that it comes off as being fake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The contemporary chapter of the U.S. Navy's elite underwater demolition team is called to do.... whatever they want, apparently.

Charlie Sheen was made an officer. Already the storyline is unbelievable. Michael Biehn is his immediate C.O., but he keeps Charlie on a rather long leash and one of the guys pays for it early on by getting killed thanks to Charlie's patented stupidity. The rest of the team spends their spare time committing courts-martial offenses. Mostly an exercise in random gunfire and paper-thin ethics, these particular Seals might be better suited to serving as crash-test dummies.

Some good action scenes counter the goofy proceedings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Top gun without the in-house animosity. Or class. Or money. Or Cruise. An excuse for an upwardly mobile cast of next-big-thing actors to market their ability to lead a matin\u00e9e this doesn't really have anything anyone can get their teeth into. It's a shame because the opening shot of Charlie Sheen opens out with great promise which is squandered almost straight away with a preposterous wedding set piece. Barking.

Dennis Haysbert is a changeable actor for me but in this film he is fine, particularly the action sequences. Michael Biehn is a first-class action hero but not a leading man: Charlie Sheen is, to all intents and purposes, the leading man but never quite an action hero. There's a stunt cast of hundreds who are also mentionworthy. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Note to self. Never ever ever again watch a serious movie with Charlie Sheen in it. Great comedian, horrible seal. This movie makes Navy SEALS look like a reckless group of rangers when, in fact, they are the most elite form of military in the world. Charlie Sheen helps destroy the Navy SEAL reputation. Thank you for making such an incredibly select group of individuals look awful in one of the worst action movies I have ever seen. This is a great story which could be made into an amazing action movie, but why Charlie Sheen? There are possibilities for a very passionate story here, but Sheen decides to wreck them with \"funny\" comments.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Navy Seals is an ignorant, racist and complacent movie which thoughtlessly uses the Middle East conflict as the backdrop for an action flick concocted for a comfortably sheltered American Mid-West audience. The conflict, as well as those involved, is used simply as cannon fodder to glorify the photogenic young Americans who proudly kill Arabs for the good of 'freedom'. But what is worse is that the film's action scenes are sloppily handled and unexciting, which prevents Navy Seals from working even as a mindless shoot-'em-up.

Charlie Sheen's character (Hawkins) is disgusting, obnoxious, ignorant, reckless and, above all, racist. He refers to the Middle East as a 's**t-hole' and to its inhabitants as 'rag-heads'. Throughout the film, the Navy Seals' characters are glorified through the use of the Lebanese natives as cannon fodder. They indiscriminately massacre these people with a consequence-free attitude. There is even the tasteless murder of a young Lebanese boy who is shot by Hawkins; Hawkins makes fun of his language before shooting him whilst making another humorous quip. Besides being tasteless, this should be unacceptable. The film's extreme (though predictable)pro-American stance is also revolting. This can be seen when the Lebanese-American female journalist informs Hawkins that terrorists cant be made to talk because 'they are religious zealots.' Hawkins then retorts with 'yeah, and we are the Navy Seals!' The implication is obviously that zealots are meaningless next to American military might. Moreover, even after insulting this journalist's racial heritage and treating her like a sex object, the script demands her inability to resist this disgusting thug and she still ends up sleeping with him - because he is an All-American Navy Seal. This marginalizes the journalist's character by making her submissive to the 'superior' pro-American attitude of Hawkins despite his insulting behaviour toward her. Beyond ethics, this plot twist also has little credence as drama.

The screenplay is also amateurish. Most scenes are simply strung together without any thought for mood, plot or character development. The 'music video' scene at the golf course, for example is just shoddily edited eye candy. And the two scenes where Charlie Sheen plays the reckless hero are also pointless. In one he jumps off a bridge from moving car just to show his mates how tough he is, and in the other he chases down a tow truck on a push bike and drives his car-off it. Neither scene has a follow-up anti-climax, both are highly improbable, and neither has any bearing on the plot as a whole. They are just candy designed as a vehicle to showcase Hawkins' cheap all-American heroics, and are poor substitutes for character development. Most of the other plot development scenes are also badly filmed and poorly scripted as - in fact this affliction affects the entire movie. Apart from the African American Navy Seal and his wife as well as the characters of Michael Biehn and Charlie Sheen, every other member of the team seems unknown to the audience, so that when the climatic scenes roll around there seems to nobody to root for and anybody's death to lament.

In such a film, the action sequences can potentially rescue the production. But here they don't. These are badly directed, badly lit, and showcase badly performed stunts. In fact, their direction is so poor that they are almost incoherent to the viewer, resulting in not only the scenes being incomprehensibly hard to follow, but also in a complete lack of fear and suspense. Poor lighting only adds to their impotence. The explosions look fake, gunshot wounds unconvincing and one of the more daring stunts, involving crashing a Mercedes over a tank, looks just like a stunt which has been staged on a backlot and then poorly edited.

The ending of Navy Seals places the coins firmly on the eyes of this production. First there is the obligatory slow-motion 'running-away-from-the-big-explosion-that-should-have-killed-me' scene with Sheen carrying Biehn on his back. This was obviously the default scene intended to be the star of the movie's trailers. Then there is the ending itself when the remaineder of the Seal team, wounded and floating in the ocean, are rescued by a submarine. This submarine had in fact turned for home long before, but of course it had miraculously returned in the nick of time. Topping it all of, despite the Seals' violent and stressful ordeal, and despite the fact that numerous of their colleagues had just been killed, with a number of them still bleeding acutely, they all manage to laugh heartily while blessing America vociferously. Predictable? You can just imagine this ending while watching the opening credits.

This movie indulgently uses the Middle Eastern conflict as a vehicle for the macho All-American tendencies of the movies' photogenic young leads. Arabs are treated condescendingly and dismissively, and their slaughter in the movie is used as a fulcrum to glorify the use of American military might against an 'inferior' minority group in a consequence-free environment. The events of 2001 have pointed out that such smug and overconfident trivialising of the conflicts of such minority groups is certainly not a consequence free passtime. The Middle East can no longer be written off as a s**t-hole full of rag heads knocking each other off (to quote Charlie Sheen here); it is now a place in which involvement can lead to severe consequences. Today we are reminded that the consequences of such arrogance can manifest themselves quite close to home. Therefore, in the very least Navy Seals looks pretty foolish these days; but this is to be kind. This is a highly ignorant movie, whose production values and professionalism are equally suspect. Navy Seals is, ideologically and artistically, a complete insult to the intelligence of its audience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a fan of good, plausible, action movies. And I'm a huge fan of the elite military units such as the Navy SEALs. Finally, I'm a huge fan of Michael Biehn. Sadly none of those allowed me to really enjoy this movie at the time. I gave it another chance more recently when I bought the DVD. Here's the problems with this movie in a quick list: 1. It's a poor mans top gun, for example including a virtual music video of the SEAL team playing golf with a soundtrack of \"The Boys are Back In Town\", which concludes with Charlie Sheen doing an inane chase to get his towed car back.

2. This is quite simply a Charlie Sheen movie, when Sheen was trying to be famous before he started doing stuff like Hot Shots. Reports I've heard indicate that Sheen was a baby on the set and it affected the roles and Direction the rest of the actors in the movie got.

3. Biehn is the head of the SEAL team yet Sheen seldom obeys him. Any SEAL showing the lack of discipline that Sheen's character does, or who endangered the team as he does, wouldn't even have made it through BUDS training let alone gotten on a team.

4. SEALs are cross trained on weapons. Yet in one part of the movie a SEAL has to \"figure out\" how to use a U.S. Stinger Missile.

There are a few good scenes in the movie. The assault entry at the beginning, Bill Paxton as \"God\", and some of the footage in what was supposed to be Beirut at the time. Overall though this movie is a loser.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is absolutely terrible... Definately a bull***t story and even worse acting. Too bad Charlie Sheen is involved in something like this since he is a decent actor and has done a couple of really good movies.

The special effects are 'A-team'-standard with the classical car gets shot and then flips over with a little fireball under the hood.

Of course the enemy are portrayed as total idiots and die as fast as they can say '-Die evil Americans'.

Unless braindead movies are you game, don't spend 113minutes of your life on this rubbish. Pick up 'the Platoon' or 'Apocalypse Now' instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Be very afraid of anyone who likes this film. They probably inhaled too many paint chips as a child. Its so awful I refuse to relive a plot. O yeah, there wasn't one! This movie is a true definition of what Hollywood creates for people who don't want to think at a theatre. Do the bad guys win? Do the good guys win? Who cares!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alexandra Maria Lara: A very beautiful and enticing woman, but not a good actress. In all the films I've seen her in, she appears to me as the exact same character. Whether it be in THE DOWNFALL, NACKT, VOM SUCHEN UND FINDEN DER LIEBE and now WO IST FRED! She always is (plays?) the young, good-hearted woman, who is a little naive and doesn't know how to handle the things happening to her. She disposes of a repertoire of probably five different facial expressions that she works with abundantly. I personally have a hard time believing that she could play a mysterious and slightly obnoxious character because it just isn't in here. So she's typecast as the nice girl next door, which she is, but, once again, she ain't up to snuff when it comes to acting. Til Schweiger: Same thing! The film: Downright stupid. As it was an American movie it would have been a great role for Adam Sandler who I don't like either. I wasn't offended by the fact that this is a film with handicapped people in it, I just thought that the jokes resulting from this weren't funny at all. I chuckled twice or three times but when I was halfway through it, I was just bored and annoyed and wanted this flick to end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seen this one in a Sneak Preview yesterday and must say it was terrible. After the credits I thought: \"Hey with this cast it'll probably be pretty good\". Didn't at all turn out that way.

Lame predictable groaners, terribly simply drawn characters (maybe except a little Ms. Lara's) and an ending one could foresee 10 minutes into the movie. And worst of all, it misused a delicate theme (handicapped persons) for low level and mostly tasteless jokes without ever touching anything but the surface of the issue. The handicapped person the film sympathises with the most is the one who is just faking it. What kind of message is that? And the film doesn't have a thought through ending at all, it basically comes down to: \"I love you, doesn't matter that you acted like a prick.\"

To sum it up: Great cast that must have been terribly bored to sign up for a terrible flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(There Are Spoilers) Usual slasher film with the story taking place in and around this God-forsaken mine outside the almost deserted town of Sutterille. After receiving a letter map and gold nugget from her brother Jared, Shadrach Smith, Clair and her husband Nick Breman, Carrie Bradac & Sean Hines, drive to the village together with four other friends and armature gold-prospectors Alx & Tori, Steve Wastell & Sangie, and Hayden & Rox Ann, Rick Majeske & Elina to stake their claim.

It later turns out that the fact that Jared disturbed the long-forgotten gold mine caused the ghost of the notorious Jeremiah Stone, Vernon Wells, to come back to life and with that restart his reign of terror. Stone, or 49er, is about the most ridicules slasher\/killer in motion picture history. Stone looks like he was buried for years under a few tons of coal runs around with this hook slicing people in two. After doing in almost the entire cast local hermit Aunt Nelly, (Karen Black), who's daughter Eve (Alexandra Ford) was also one of Stone's victims, tells those still alive that unless they return the gold back to the Stone mine the crazed miner will never rest until he kills all those who still have it.

Aunt Nelly is given just enough time to tell her story before she's turned into a human torch by Stone and ends up jumping into a nearby stream.The movie goes on endlessly with the killer miner on the rampage looking like he's about as scary as burnt toast and just as dark. Even those in the film seemed to show no real fear of him. In one scene when he broke into Aunt Nelly's house everyone inside all charged, instead of running away, him causing the ghost miner to lose his right arm; Stone spent the rest of the movie with a miner's pick attached to his \"stump\".

Besides Actress Karen Black the film \"Miners Massacre\" also has veteran actors John Phillip Law and Richard Lynch as the town Sheriff Murphy and Old Man Prichard. Passable stuff but nothing special the movie has a predictable ending with the entire gold mine going up in flames. The audience given a hint by the makers of \"Miners Massacre\" that the end to this mindless lunacy is nowhere in sight and may very well resurface in the very near future in a possible sequel, God help us all!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of douche-bag teenagers go up to an old mining town in hopes of finding gold nuggets. The one hitch in the hair-brained scheme is that the ancient supernatural miner whom the gold belongs to doesn't wish to part with his treasure so easily and so begins to dispatch the interlopers accordingly.

Literally clich\u00e9-sprouting dialog, horrible acting, some insanely terrible 'southern dialect' and a lame unmemorable killer who resembles Jeepers Creepers (without the aforementioned's predilection of young boys naturally) combine to make this stinker just about unwatchable. Even cult legend actress Karen Black in a small role can't save this aberration.

Eye Candy: Elina Madison shows (badly lit) T&A

My Grade: D-

Where I saw it: TMCX","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seeing the cover of this before I watched it, my expectations weren't high, especially since it was amongst those other crappy horror movies at blockbuster (alongside films like Junior).

Alright, not only does this movie have the brainless stereotypical characters (the rich douche bag, the bitch, the sheriff, the localer that knows what's going wrong in the town, and so forth), but has such god-awful dialogue, acting, directing, and cg effects. The Jeremiah Stone dude was hilarious. (*SPOILER*) I'll never understand why he bit his finger off out of nowhere when he was holding that chick up hostage.

The premise for the movie is just as atrocious as the other flaws. From what I could get from it, Jeremiah Stone was a gold digger during the Gold Rush, and a notorious outlaw. He had a crapload of gold, (*SPOILER*) and put a curse on anyone who went after his gold before he was gunned down by the locals after he killed some girl, but not only did he survive, he bit off his own finger and ran off. So, present day, a group of clueless morons find out about this gold mine, and of course, they are warned by locals about \"The Curse of the Forty-Niner\". And what do they do? As expected, ignored the warnings and greedily sought for the gold. They get the gold, and all sorts of s**t goes on. Thankfully, (*SPOILER*) the bitch gets her head cut off.

That's about it. Looking at the cover of the film, you can tell what kind of movie it's going to be. It's just so terrible it's hilarious.

1 1\/2 stars out of 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The monster will look very familiar to you. So will the rest of the film, if you've seen a half-dozen of these teenagers-trapped-in-the-woods movies. Okay, so they're not teenagers, this time, but they may as well be. Three couples decide it might be a good idea to check out a nearly-abandoned ghost town, in hopes of finding the gold that people were killed over a scant century-and-a-half before. You'd think that with a title like \"Miner's Massacre\" some interesting things might happen. They don't. In fact, only about 1\/10 of the film actually takes place in the mine. I had envisioned teams of terrified miners scampering for their lives in the cavernous confines of their workplace, praying that Black Lung Disease would get them before The Grim Reaper exacted his grisly revenge, but instead I got terrestrial twenty-somethings fornicating--and, in one case, defecating--in the woods, a gang of morons with a collective I.Q. that would have difficulty pulling a plastic ring out of a box of Cracker Jacks, much less a buried treasure from an abandoned mine. No suspense, no scares, and plenty of embarrassing performances give this turkey a 3 for nudity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And unfortunately, so did I. ANY movie that relies on a bad pun as its tagline or its title should be relegated to the $2.00 bin, but we decided to try a second consecutive bad movie for movie night. We had a winner in \"House of the Dead\"--go with that one if you want a laughable flick.

Some witch jumped into the water after being set on fire by Mr. Miner. Some guy took a dump in the woods. And that same guy grabbed a new girlfriend right in front of his old one. I don't remember much else. The last third of the movie was utterly insipid, and we were all waiting in agony until the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh dear oh dear. It really gets on my nerves when a low budget, pointless horror affair tries to look interesting in the credits by having a bunch of good names pop up in the cast, only to involve each one in the smallest, most pointless possible roles. In this film, we have Richard Lynch in one scene, a momentary appearance from Martin Kove, a brief spot for Vernon Welles, slightly more time on screen for John Philip Law and a little time for Karen Black. This bunch of random cameos does not really add up to much though Richard Lynch and Karen Black do raise some of the few smiles of this film with their appearances, and its quite painful really, as none of the main cast are much good at all. I couldn't help but think that if more scenes were filmed with any of the b movie veterans above the film would be a whole lot better but as it is there are just a few tantalising glimpses of good entertainment without the film ever actually attaining much entertainment value. Of the main cast the only charismatic or likable performances in my opinion were Steve Wastell, as Axel and his girlfriend who I believe was played by Elina Madison (never heard of her before but she has some measure of screen presence and is a good looker). The plotting in this one is simple, evil undead miner goes after those who eek to steal his gold, and it should make for good slasher fun, especially given that it is directed by John Carl Buechler, who has done special effects for many of these sort of films, including having worked on all three of the major slasher franchises (Halloween, Elm Street and Friday 13th) and such small gems as Mausoleum. Unfortunately, the film is sadly lacking in suspense, likability and satisfying gore. There are one or two mildly gory moments but nothing worth the effort of watching the film, I wouldn't say. In fact, aside from the above mentioned cameos this entire movie is really quite stale and turgid with characters that couldn't get offed quick enough for my liking and an unfortunate lack of any real interest. I didn't even find it fun in a laughable bad movie sense, which is rare for me, since I love a lot of pretty crummy films. I'd say, avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of friends receive word from a pal who has found gold in an old mind shaft nearby an ancient abandoned western town of Suttersville. Despite warnings by the local sheriff, Murphy(John Phillip Law), Old Man Prichard(Richard Lynch)a bedraggled hick who swindles tourists with supposed collectible Wanted posters, and kooky superstitious Aunt Nelly(Karen Black)to stay out of the mine due to it's notorious legend(..that an evil coal miner who sold his soul to devil and murdered a priest's(Jeff Conaway)daughter will return from the dead to kill those who remove the gold from his shaft), these people only see the green, not the blood red which could potentially ooze from their slain bodies. Finding the gold of Jeremiah Stone intact, they line their pockets and carrying cases, prepared for the bright futures that supposedly lie ahead. But, when you do not heed the warnings of those you consider backwoods loons, the obvious result will be gruesome death. Jeremiah Stone, as we see, is lying merely a skeleton near an alter containing skulls lined next to each other as the candles on top of them light up, the pickax underneath awaiting it's master, with dust particles returning him to a grotesque corpse with demonic exposition, his eyes aglow with wrath. This hapless group, hoping for some fun around the campfire with gold providing them with warm prospects for life ahead, will fall prey to the vengeful ghoul and his mean pickax. Another victim will meet the nasty end of a shovel thrown through the windshield of her vehicle, directing it's path straight into her neck. Another failed attempt to retreat has Stone causing a frightened victim to drive his car into a tree, his body engulfed in flames as he fails to escape without harm. Another, a local girl searching for her new friends, worried about their well being, receives the pickax buried into her stomach. Aunt Nelly informs those still alive about the Forty-Niner and the curse on those who raids his eternal stash..and pays the price for relating such information. Will anybody survive? Or, is the entire group fated to perish at the hands of the zombie miner?

Make-up effects artist and monster creator, John Carl Buechler directs this supernatural slasher without worrying about logic or strong story-telling, opting instead to allow his zombie miner to destroy anyone and everyone who happens to be in his path. He provides just enough back story, and this is feeble at best, for the killer allowing special guest star, Karen Black(..oh how her career has sunken into the abyss)to explain to the viewer about him. The story given to us has the miner holding a priest's daughter hostage, threatening to execute her as the Suttersville authorities warn against such an action. Startling enough, Stone plants that pickax right into her back, with the opposition unloading their guns with little effect because he sold his soul to Satan. Retreating to his domain, the mine shaft, Stone sends out a warning against anyone even attempting to take what's his, the loot. Typical of most slashers in general, this bunch of twenty-somethings are your garden variety victims, with little development other than some banter and exchanging of words provides as filler until the undead maniac pops onto the scene to slaughter them. They are the usual group, from the city, trespassing unto unfamiliar territory, resurrecting an evil that should remain dormant. Like many of the later 80's slashers, a good deal of the violence is off-screen. What is on screen, the minimal gore, is rather mundanely presented and happens rather quickly. The ghoul make-up for the killer is only shown occasionally;he's mostly shrouded in darkness, the victims' horrified faces as he catches or chases after them are given more credence than the method of destruction. One thing's for certain, stunt men were set on fire many times. At least three times, a character is burned alive by either a lantern or flaming vehicle. Martin Cove has a minor cameo as Black's former husband, Caleb, now living with a much younger, and dense, honey. Vernon Wells(..of The Road Warrior and Commando fame)has the back story role of Jeremiah Stone as a human, still capturing the same type of menace he specializes in. John Phillip Law seems to be enjoying himself as the rather polite and hospitable sheriff, welcoming the outsiders to his neck of the woods. Buechler has quite an attractive cast of actresses, all wearing tight pants and smallish shirts, showing off their sleek and athletic figures, especially Elina Madison as easy-lay Roxann, always willing to remove her clothes for greedy jerk, Hayden(Rick Majeske). Stephen Wastell(The Ghosts of Edendale) is Axl, a rather clumsy foil, used as a butt of many jokes including his \"dump in the woods\" scene and current unemployment status.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Certainly expected more after seeing the cast list, but WOW!

I think a first time director could have done a better job with this project, and the fact that a veteran like John Buechler made it, puzzles me to no end. Somehow, the budget allowed them to secure a bevy of D-List actors, whom they succeeded in embarrassing for an hour and a half. The unknown actors were just plain awful, less Steve Wastell who does a decent job as Axl. The story is so bad, that it really needs no mention. The overall production value seems standard, with some above average camera work, if you can make it through the God-Awful \"slo-mo\" scenes and the painful \"person on fire\" sequences. I knew it would be dumb, I just had no idea how dumb, and unfortunately it's time spent that can never be returned to me. I suppose if you enjoy really bad \"B\" films, this might work for you, but if you value any story at all, this one is simply dreadful... A complete waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And believe me that's a pretty stunning accomplishment. Take \"Jolly Roger: Massacre at Cutter's Cove,\" change the killer from a pirate to a prospector, change his obsession from buried treasure to old gold, and his color from puke green to deep blue. You now have \"Miner's Massacre.\" The problem is, at least \"Jolly Roger\" was entertaining enough -- albeit in a so-bad-it's-good way -- to keep you watching it for the whole two hours. There's no strip-joint-murder scene or any bizarre killings. I can't tell you how many times I lost interest in \"Miner's Massacre\" and started doing dishes or cleaning around the condo. And, the ending is absolutely silly. The 49er dude just randomly re-appears out of nowhere to kill the local sheriff, while the lead actor and actress are sitting in the sheriff's cruiser, screaming. A truly horrible movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"how does anyone keep on seeing horror movies after this one??? really this one it's so bad that makes me sick!! and love horror movies but come on....... who could had remembered to do such a awful movie? It as no history!!it's only a men who chases a bunch of teenagers because they take something from him !!! and what have they took?? gold....it's typical.... The movie is boring from the beginning until the end!! And what is Karen black who is a great actress doing in such a ridiculous movie like this? but what can I say ?? I think everyone should see it because my opinion is my opinion!! may be you would like??? I don't think so but.....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The storyline is a ticked off claim jumper made a deal with the devil to find gold, and is forced to protect it forever. A bunch of friends find the gold and gets talked by the old miner and they're forced to blow the gold to smithereens in order to send him back to hell.

I mean seriously...how did this film NOT win the Oscar for movie of the year? What a compelling storyline of late 20 year olds running from a claim jumper straight out of the 1800's. I love how in other movies you can't kill the monster but they can knock it out...this movie they write the monster as completely indestructible.

The opening of the movie clearly rips off Nightmare on Elm Street part 4 but what the hell, not like that movie was a 5 star classic either.

Highlight of the movie is when we're introduced to a girl who's never been to school, never been out of the town, never learned to read or write....yet speaks perfect English, is smoking hot and wears the latest fashion. How did the Oscar's miss THAT?

OK I'm done with the bad jokes, this movie is pure crap and only watch it if u have nothing better to do and all the spices on the spice rack are in alphabetical order already.

2 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me start out by saying I LOVE horror movies. Big budget, low budget, big name actors, no name actors, it doesn't matter. And when it comes to judging movies I am very forgiving. This movie however, is pretty bad.

The actors show little or no emotion when delivering their lines and the acting is worse than many lower budget horror flicks I've seen. As the actors get killed off, you could care less. There is very little gore (I have no idea what film other reviewers watched when they say there is good gore in this one, because there isn't) and the special effects are substandard at best. They steal so much from so many better horror movies (Jeepers Creepers, Friday the 13th, Leprachaun) and it still doesn't help.

Luckily I saw this on Showtime and didn't have to actually pay any extra money to see it or waste a spot in my Netflix queue on it. There are so many better horror movies out there and I recommend you see those instead of this big letdown.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am shocked to see that this movie has been given more than two stars by some people. They must either be kidding or be totally blind for the art of acting, directing and other flaws of the movie.

I must admit that I just could not force myself to sit through the whole movie, it was just too bad.

The three first characters, not including the \"digger\" were just awful actors, and I mean AWFUL! Maybe the director didn't care, or may be he is a worse director. It was like watching a bad school play. The movie was of course filmed with a video camera (lowbudget - not real film), and the light settings were not very good either. In addition, the sound man (if they had one) must either have been a newbie or a drunk as the sound were amateurish. Even in one of the first scenes from the kitchen (AWFUL acting btw) the sound from the dialog was pretty bad. For example, when the woman moved her head while speaking, you could hear her voice disappear and come back. It sounded like they had tried to correct that in post-production by turning up the volume a bit when she turns her head. In addition, you had the ongoing irritating buzzing sound from either camera equipment or other sources in the kitchen.

All these squeakers in the first 5 minutes or so. Need I say more?

A good school project or fun project for friends to watch, but should never have been released for a real audience, especially not for a PAYING audience. THIS WAS A RIP OFF unless you have a very low standard regarding movies, or just bad taste. You are WARNED! SB.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an embarrassing nth rehashing of the same plot in the nth bunch-of-idiots-young-adult-in-peril-because-they-are-idiots slasher movie of the early millennium: this time we get the story of a crazy miner who comes back from the dead to retake his gold from the hands of the usurpers. We have almost no thrills, almost no bare flesh (even if the girls are really hot only one of them goes showing her bare ass for a few seconds), the usual bunch of sunset boulevard horror stars in cameo roles (this time Karen Black, Richard Lynch, John Philip Law, Jeff Conaway), lots of fake blood, only the crazy miner resurrected as a zombie is cool enough to leave you stuck - well not exactly - to the screen till the end. Don't waste your time if you are not a completist.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of friends discover gold deep inside an old mine. But by taking the gold and thinking they've hit it big, they awaken a long dead miner who's Hell Bent on protecting his treasure. \"Miner's Massacre\" is a chintzy b-horror movie in the extreme. You've got all your familiar clich\u00e9s, your group of intellectually-impaired teenagers, characters going off on their own to investigate strange noises, a few pop-scares, the mysterious sheriff, the old lady who everyone thinks is nuts (Played by top-billed Karen Black no less), and so on. Nevertheless, it's done in an amusing, non-pretentious fashion that makes the film mindlessly entertaining in a \"so bad, it's good\" kind of way. The characters and dialog are what you'd expect from this type of film\u0097familiar, routine and unoriginal. The actors all do a decent job though, considering\u0097I've actually seen bigger-budget films of it's type with worse acting (I know what you did last summer, anyone?) and add a bit of credibility to the film itself. The villain in this film (The 49'er) is obviously derived from the creeper from Jeepers Creepers, all the way down to the brown overcoat, the hat and the long white hair. Like the creeper he never talks, and is butt-ugly to boot. The gore is somewhat disappointing in my opinion. There are a couple of fairly gruesome moments, but too much is off-screen and the death scenes are often laughable (Spoiler ahead!). There's one truly hilarious moment where a girl gets decapitated by the said villain, and to achieve this 'effect', the filmmakers hid the actress's body beneath the villain's coat, with her head poking out, and put some fake blood on her neck. Seriously, you could see the outline of her shoulders! I think they could have done a little better there, even if the budget was low (And I'm sure it was, but, still\u0085). The special effects are cheap but sufficiently effective and for the most part, moderately well done for a low-budget film. Either the effects guys or the director seem to have a thing for explosions and fire. Almost every scene towards the end of the film has at least a couple of characters being burn to death (Always filmed in slow motion) or SOMETHING exploding, be it a car or an old mine cave. Seriously, hasn't anyone ever heard the term; \"Stop, drop and roll\"!?!?!?

\"Miner's Massacre\" (Or \"Curse of the forty-niner\", what ever you want to call it) is cheesy and dumb, albeit entertaining, and as long as you don't have expectations through the roof, you'll be sufficiently entertained.

I'm feeling generous, so I'll give it a 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Curse of the Forty-Niner\" doesn't really deserve a long and detailed review, so I'll just make some random observations about it:

- Cool opening credits.

- No plot.

- Is there anyone who's ever seen a horror film before and can't guess, within the first 20 minutes, who will survive and who will not among this group of walking stereotypes?

- Hey, that newcomer (Alexandra Ford) is pretty hot!

- Richard Lynch (made-up to look about 100 years old) and John Phillip Law have fun, tongue-in-cheek cameos.

- Karen Black has a bigger role, but she's not fun - she's rather embarrassing.

- Martin Kove is on-screen for about 40 seconds, but still got his name on the video cover. Did they pay him for this appearance or was it the other way around?

- I hate cheap computer-generated effects in horror films.

*1\/2 out of 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie absolutely terrible ..not only was the acting awful but so was the sleep got while this movie played..this movie achieved the all powerful goal of crap ..i watched this movie thinking my 5$ wouldn't b in vein .but i was very wrong ..i guarantee u r better off just reading what i have to say about this unbelievably horrible movie b4 ..puttin yourself in the way of this dignity depriving movie ..i give it a negative 1 for trying..but no please no don't watch this movie..i had friends who joined me for this film..shortly after they were no longer found this movie actually will make u end your life please please don't see it i beg of u. if u see this movie make sure u destroy all copies because this movie is a spawn of Satan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The monster will look very familiar to you. So will the rest of the film, if you've seen a half-dozen of these teenagers-trapped-in-the-woods movies. Okay, so they're not teenagers, this time, but they may as well be. Three couples decide it might be a good idea to check out a nearly-abandoned ghost town, in hopes of finding the gold that people were killed over a scant century-and-a-half before. You'd think that with a title like \"Miner's Massacre\" some interesting things might happen. They don't. In fact, only about 1\/10 of the film actually takes place in the mine. I had envisioned teams of terrified miners scampering for their lives in the cavernous confines of their workplace, praying that Black Lung Disease would get them before The Grim Reaper exacted his grisly revenge, but instead I got terrestrial twenty-somethings fornicating--and, in one case, defecating--in the woods, a gang of morons with a collective I.Q. that would have difficulty pulling a plastic ring out of a box of Cracker Jacks, much less a buried treasure from an abandoned mine. No suspense, no scares, and plenty of embarrassing performances give this turkey a 3 for nudity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie really SUCKS, SUCKS REALLY REALLY HARD, this movie should be in the Bottom 100, but it is so bad that almost nobody has seen it to vote for her so many times that it should be at the same time of \"Manos - the Hands of Fate.\" I should have him position 1 (awful), but the reason for which I put him 2 was for Eve, the girl of the town that, besides some scenes of nudity, besides, I thought of voting for 3, but like they killed Eve, I returned at 2. it is that movies like this they should not be financed by anybody, since not even they took to the fame or other productions to the actors main, great falsehood, jaja, the history of a mining ghost that kills to \"mansalva\" and after they put an end to their misdeeds, it reappears, because with the end they shitted it very ugly.

FINAL SCORE (VOTE): 2 (for the nudity and the performance of the beautiful Eve)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What's the point? Hasn't this been done before, better? And again? Why is Werner Herzog wasting his good talents and time with junk like this? Shouldn't he be shooting a movie somewhere--I mean a real movie?

It all felt fake from the beginning. Werner Herzog would never have sought to make a film about the Loch Ness myth--at least not on such a small scale surrounded by losers--so the plot was not believable from the beginning. The actors who are supposed to act like they're not acting were obviously acting. The story was not interesting, the \"everyday people\" requisite in every mockumentary were invisible, the personalities were stale, the jokes were not funny, the effects were unconvincing and the ending was nowhere to be seen.

I just don't see the point. It's a fake movie about a fake movie. Hah, hah. Perhaps if those who thought up such a movie sought to make one that mocked people who really were out to find a real Nessie, now that could have had some potential. But Herzog is not a believer and never claimed to be. A mockumentary about the cryptozoologist crowd would have had so much more fuel.

It was a miss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Had she not been married to the producer, Jennifer Jones would not have been the most obvious choice for the leading female role in this tragic tale of an affair between an American soldier and an English nurse, set against the backdrop of the First World War. Her British accent is not perfect, and in the fifties it was unusual for a big romantic lead to go to an actress in her late thirties, even one as attractive as Miss Jones, especially when she was several years older than her leading man.. There were a number of beautiful young British actresses in Hollywood around this time, such as Audrey Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor, Jean Simmons and Joan Collins, any of whom might have been more convincing in the role, but Miss Jones had one important attribute they all lacked, namely a marriage certificate with David O. Selznick's name on it. In the event, the film turned out to be such a turkey that they were doubtless grateful not to have it on their CVs.

The film tells, at great length, the story of the romance between Frederick, an American volunteer serving with the Italian Army as an ambulance driver and Catherine, a nurse with the British Red Cross. After the Italian defeat at the battle of Caporetto, Frederick is wrongly accused of being a German spy and sentenced to death. (The film paints a very harsh picture of Italian military justice; it would appear that Italian Courts-Martial had the power to pass the death sentence after a trial lasting all of thirty seconds without hearing any evidence and without allowing the defendant to be legally represented or to speak in his defence). Frederick manages to escape and to cross the border into neutral Switzerland, accompanied by the pregnant Catherine.

Hemingway's novels have not always been a great success when filmed. Howard Hawks succeeded in making a good version of \"To Have and have Not\", a film that is considerably better than the book on which it is nominally based, but that is because he largely ignored Hemingway's plot and turned the film into a remake of \"Casablanca\", set in Martinique rather than French Morocco. Like the 1943 version of \"For Whom the Bell Tolls\", \"A Farewell to Arms\" is overlong and fatally slow moving. It is also miscast. Jennifer Jones never makes Catherine come to life. As for Rock Hudson, his assumed Christian name could be unfortunately appropriate. He could be as solid as a rock but also as impassive as one, and in this film his Frederick seems an impersonation of the Great Stone Face. Despite the passion and emotion inherent in Hemingway's plot, the emotional temperature is always far too cool. The picture has little going for it apart from some attractive picture-postcard views of Italian and Swiss scenery. It is hardly surprising that it was not a success and that its failure ended Selznick's career as a producer. 4\/10

A goof. Shortly before the battle of Caporetto, an Italian officer states that Russia had already concluded a separate peace with Germany. That battle started in October 1917, at a time when Kerensky's Russia was still fighting alongside the Allies. The Russian Revolution did not take place until November; it was only the \"October Revolution\" by the old Julian calendar. The new Bolshevik regime signed an armistice with Germany in December 1917, but a separate peace was not signed until the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film should be called adventures in Cinemascope. It is like the screenwriter and director tooks the Cliff's Notes page 3 outline and decided that this would be a great vehicle for a film about the Italian Alps. Rock Hudson is pretty good here, but the dialogue bears no resemblance to Hemingway at all. This is a made up version of Hemingway. Hecht, the screenwriter, is a hack. Watch the 1932 version with Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes. That is great cinema and was made by someone who understood Hemingway and the war in Northern Italy. Gary Cooper is very, very good compared to his performance in For Whom the Bell Tolls where he is stiff as a board and thinks he is in a western.

Anyway, if you are a Hemingway fan, do yourself a favor and do not watch this film. Your best bet is to get the unabridged audio CD and just listen to one of the greatest novels ever written.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terrible adaptation of Heminway's low key love story. An American soldier (Rock Hudson) falls in love with a British nurse (Jennifer Jones) in Italy during World War 1. What's wrong with this? Virtually everything. Hudson is WAY out of his depth here. He could be a good actor but not in this movie. Jones is far too old for her role (she's 21 in the book--here she's 38...and looks it!). Also her acting wavered between overdone and underdone! They took a simple low-key love story and blew it all out of proportion. The film is fatally long (a little over 150 minutes), self-indulgent and padded to a ridiculous degree. It seems producer David O. Selznick thought he was doing \"Gone With the Wind\" again. Some of the scenery is truly stunning (even on a small TV screen) but there's not enough of a story to match the images.

SPOILER!!! The ending where Jones dies is supposed to be tragic but the bad acting and overblown theatrics had me fighting not to laugh!

To make matters worse actor Vittorio De Sica overacts to a truly embarrassing degree. Overblown, self-indulgent, badly cast and slow. Pretty terrible. This was (understandably) a financial and critical bomb and ended Selznick's career as a producer. You might want to tune in for some of the scenery at the end but it's really not worth it. I give this a 3.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I managed to avoid reading Hemingway in college. From what I could tell, along with his reductivist verbiage, he offered reductivist story lines. This film-transfiguration of AF2A into a simplistic, hoary, belabored narrative, does not disabuse me of my suspicions: A guy who barely sees action on the European battlefield (Hudson) falls in with a nurse (Jones), and they conspire to spend time together. Hemingway's big contribution to narrative was the romantic travelogue? Who knows what these two lovers have in common? They're so utterly generic. The movie never even brings up the utter irresponsibility it takes to abandon the front in favor of a lovers' adventure. The two have a season on the Alps, straight out of a J. Crew catalog. A number of better scenes are undermined by corny, conventional melodrama elsewhere. The movie keeps piling on tiny, improbable, unspecific details that fight the epic treatment. The cavernous hospital that Miss Barkley works in is virtually empty, so that no secondary plot line can possibly distract from the flimsy main story. Complicated, it is not.

The camera work is better than average, with some amazing location photography. Director Charles Vidor (or maybe Huston?) does striking things in the first hour with an on-location, wide-screen camera... there are no second unit cop-outs. Vidor shows massive, panoramic tableaux, pans over a line of hundreds of soldiers trooping through the mountains; and then with a 90 degree swivel of his camera catches up with Hudson's ambulance barreling down on him.

Hudson looks great. He's a better actor than he gets credit for, but with unshaped material like this, he can become very mechanical. Mercedes McCambridge plays a one-dimensional shrew. Jennifer Jones is puffy and miscast in the lackluster female lead. The movie is best when she's off screen. The love scenes are about as affecting as a coffee commercial.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For producer David O. Selznick, no one director would ever do. Hence, on \"A Farewell to Arms\" (1957) we get two \u0096 Charles Vidor and John Huston. Though both men were quite accomplished in their own right, neither could make head or tail of this disastrous remake of Hemmingway's magnum opus. Hemmingway in general has never translated well from book to screen. But under Selznick's zeal to transform it into his next 'Gone With The Wind' the excursion is both punishing and exhaustive. At this point in Selznick's career, he was no longer the titan who could take \"box office poison\" and transform it into Gone With The Wind. Tired, frail, minus his studio, and, with an impending sense that his second marriage to Jennifer Jones might have been a mistake, Selznick handed the creative reigns of this flick over to Fox Studios \u0096 but he kept enough of himself in it to become a damn nuisance on the set.

By now one is, or should be familiar with the bittersweet tragic love story of a nurse, Catharine Barkley (Jennifer Jones) and her soldier hero, Lt. Frederick Henry (Rock Hudson). Their passion is supposed to serve as the stabilizing force for what is essentially a war correspondent's tale with romanticism thrown in for good measure. But the chemistry between Hudson and Jones is both turgid and dull. In the final reel, Jones' facial contortions during child birth are so bad I am surprised that neither director opted to cut them from the general release. Part of the problem with Jones is that at thirty-eight she's far too wise to play the optimistic Catharine with any great conviction. Yet, older actresses have frequently managed to make an audience forget discrepancies in age. Not so with Jones. One is painfully aware that she doesn't fit the bill in either acting chops or years invested on this planet. Hudson's laconic charm is hopelessly out of touch with to stoicism of an army soldier whose heart is broken but head remains strong. The supporting cast is peppered with such luminaries as Vittorio De Sica and Mercedes McCambridge, but these are wasted bits of nonsense that in no way reflect upon the formidable talents of either actor and best made evident elsewhere in their canons of film making.

The anamorphic picture element for \"A Farewell to Arms\" looks good enough, though there's just a bit too much film grain present in certain scenes for this reviewer's liking. Overall, colors are subtle and muted, though balanced in accordance with the DeLuxe color processing employed at this time. Some fading is evident. Flesh tones don't appear very natural. Contrast levels are a tad weak. Blacks are generally solid. Whites are almost clean. There's not much to recommend this film sonically. It's essentially a wordy picture with gun shots as a backdrop. There are no extras.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the worst Hemingway adaptation ever. Rock Hudson was badly miscast and entirely unbelievable as a hard-bitten soldier\/adventurer drawn to war. Jennifer Jones was far too old for her part and Vittorio de Sica seemed to think he was acting in some other movie altogether. They tried to make a large-scale epic out of a low-key romantic novel and the result is terrible. As if that were not enough the whole thing is so slow, overlong and dated that it is practically unwatchable. Rock must have kicked himself for turning down \"Sayonara\" and \"Ben Hur\" in order to make this ghastly crap.

0\/10. To be avoided.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a huge Laura Gemser fan, I picked this up at a rental outlet just to see another Emanuelle film. Boy, did I make a mistake!

EMANUELLE IN EGYPT has nothing to do with Emanuelle. Laura Gemser is in it along with her husband Gabriele Tinti, but that is the only connection to Emanuelle. Here, Laura plays \"Laura\" (original, huh?) a beautiful supermodel who goes to visit her wealthy friend Pia (Annie Belle) in Egypt. In tow are her a**hole photographer Carlo (a haggard-looking Gabriele Tinti) and some blonde woman who is never named. Also living in Pia's mansion is Horatio (the sexy but dumb Al Cliver), a mystique who speaks nothing but nonsense. Arriving for the weekend are Pia's two daughters, one a short-haired lesbian and the other a brunette. Lots of sex is implied, but hardly shown. One good-looking actor plays Ali, the Egyptian servant, who gets lucky with three of the women in the mansion. Laura has sex with the lesbian, the lesbian has sex with Horatio, Pia and the blonde have sex with Horatio at an Egyptian orgy, Laura drinks goats' blood and is possessed during an Egyptian ceremony, Carlo rapes Laura. It all happens with so little flair that EMANUELLE IN EGYPT is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Far from erotic, even the actors themselves look bored during their sex scenes.

Considering there were two famous couples in this film (Laura and Gabriele & Al and Annie), the number of available sex scenes are uncountable. Instead, a film that offers a top-notch Eurocult cast and never delivers the goods will piss every viewer off, except the hardcore Laura Gemser completist. Otherwise, steer clear of EMANUELLE IN EGYPT!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"overrated, poorly written, badly acted. did the academy even watch this? i guess not. the political content guaranteed it an Oscar nomination -- indo -pak border -- a little boy , terrorism. anything with the word \"terrorist\" gets attention in

this post 9-11 world. its like holocaust movies that are guaranteed an Oscar nomination irrespective of their merits.

and please cinematography does not mean shooting landscapes which are pretty in the first place. you have to be a rotten shooter to screw up making the desert pretty. at least this didn't win the Oscar. they got that right at least. would have been a travesty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film truly was poor. I went to the theatre expecting something exciting, and instead was afforded the opportunity to hone my \"guess the next plot twist before it happens\" skills. Seriously, the plot was written with an extra thick crayon so everyone could see. Nothing was truly shocking. In fact, even the gore was met with such complete suspension of belief that it really didn't add up to much.

The excessive wise cracking and cops talking shop at the crime scenes made it seem all the more phony. And the scene where Lambert's character is struggling with the clues and reaches his \"investigative epiphany\" goes to great lengths to indicate the level of intellect expected from the audience - little.

Probably the most annoying aspect of the cinematography was the \"X-Files\" treatment: Every building in the film, whether it's the precinct building, or a house at noon, or a hospital, was suffering from a lack of any discernible lighting (not to mention a lack of 'patients' in the case of the hospital). I don't recall a single scene when someone flipped on a light switch. It sure would have been nice.

Mr. Lambert really isn't an Oscar-grade actor, so I suppose you have to take this film for what it's worth. In the end, I've reached the conclusion that the only thing that would make this film seem more entertaining is to watch it after watching \"The Warriors\". Otherwise, you're left with an effort that is dull and unoriginal, and nowhere near the equal of films of the genre such as \"Silence of the Lambs\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK. First said, I just wanted to check whether this movie has an average rating below or exactly -1. But 5,9. This is sicker than any of the killers' proceedings -,- . That made me curious what people wrote here.. which in the end made me set up an account to give my 2cents of truth into this \"well of delusion\" i find here.

How dare you guys even MENTION this movie in the same sentences as e.g. Seven? The only thing they got in common is that they show various crime-scenes. That-is-it. And \"Best thriller of 1999!\" ? have you even watched another movie form that year? Or any other movie in your life at all? 1999 is not a year which people are reminded of by RESURRECTION... what's with actual MOVIES like 8mm, Eyes wide shut, Arlington Road, Double Jeopardy? (Theyre actually more a \"thriller\" than this one could ever be..). Resurrection does not even deserve to be dedicated to A SECOND of 1999.

Really, you guys can't be serious. I watched that movie yesterday with my girlfriend, highly recommended by a friend of her. A \"great film with Christopher Lambert\"! ...which I had not yet seen? Hmm..

Well, first look on the Covers: OK, nothing special. At second glimpse you don't need to have supernatural powers to be aware that they simply mirrored Lambert's head, clipped his nose 'n this&that, then made a fancy negative pattern on top of it, to get the killers image on the COVER. You could even think they had some apprentice eat a gallon of marshmallows just to caption that creepy (booooh! -.- ) mouth.. whatever. Turned it around and the plot starts with.. \"it's raining in Chicago... blabber blabber\". Come on, a six year old could have made that snippet sound more exciting. Now, with this enormous excitement coming from the movies terrific presentation -.- , you absolutely wanna start watching it. Because it can't be that bad, it still is Christopher Lambert. That assumption of mine was proved wrong. WIth \"proven wrong\" i mean it was brutally executed by a deadly mix of the worst imaginable acting ever known to mankind (every actor, but the tops are the \"i can do 1-Liners!\" police chief, Prudhommes Wife __ actually a better detective than Prudhomme when she recombines several incidents to a yet ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWN hint in the case!!!! -.- __ and .. yes.. Prudhomme himself) featuring a squadron of inhuman fake feelings, logic errors in a 1-minute-cycle, light-years far-fetched conclusions which in my point-of-view represent an insult to any thinking human being and last but not least a camera-man who obviously was a hyperventilating kangaroo. Oh well, and if you do not completely shut down your brains (these aren't premises to watch it) then you should know who is who and what is what after max. 30minutes, simply because you know ANY scene after the first. That is thrilling. Thrilling because this movie almost makes you think you can tell the future.

The bottom line: This is BY FAR the worst movie I can remember. Trust me, I've seen many horrible movies which in some way were at least only bad attempts or bad copies of another movie. Resurrection however, is the best example on how to fail in every aspect possible. It was so bad that after being shocked by its unimaginably low quality in e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g, I laughed more often than in any recent comedy, simply because I was fascinated by the crew's brazenness to publish such an -extraordinary- film strip. Good thing for Lambert he was in Highlander:Endgame a year later, thus he can be pardoned. ;^O

Anyhow, I DO recommend watching this movie to EVERYONE. In the end, we had great fun watching it :^D. I guarantee you, after you completely watched Resurrection (be brave, you can do it!) , you will worship the level of acting in any given daily soap.

Or just go 'n watch highlander one more time... that's what I'm gonna do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A bare-faced rip-off of Se7en and not fit to clean its shoes. The word 'predictable' must have invented for just such an occasion as this. Lambert is wooden, as always (his moments of 'emotion' are laughable, as is his accent). The 'climax' is not that at all as we've had so many signals, and by the end we're simply immune to flesh, rotting and otherwise. Altogether a real mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I didn't know any better, I would have thought Resurrection was made in the late 80's\/early 90's, when crap sold as film in Hollywood.

I don't understand why people like Christopher Lambert. He speaks like he's reading off of cue cards and turns into a fountain whenever he has to emote. He was easily the movie's weakest aspect. The other actors were OK, nothing horrible.

It's easy to see where the majority of the budget went: the special effects. The killings look pretty professional, but hardly make up for the film's dullness.

I wouldn't go as far as to say Resurrection is a carbon copy of Se7en, but it certainly bears a certain resemblance to it. Centering on a religious-minded murderer on a modern crusade, the detectives investigating his work have to rely on Bible passages and Christian history to piece together the killer's puzzle. Resurrection, however, is bereft of Se7en's clever storytelling, cinematography, acting...well, everything that makes it good. Instead, Resurrection lies to the audience and uses the Scooby Doo method of mystery to surprise it.

In conclusion, Resurrection was about as bad as I expected it to be. I almost feel bad for criticizing this movie since I knew it would be bad going in, but...sue me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Predictable, gory, over-gimmicky, mediocre. Don't waste your time - there are many much better movies out there.

Resurrection starts out OK but the plot quickly becomes repetitive. My interest level fell off steadily. By the end of the movie I was just glad it was finally over. The characters never fully developed. The cinematography is muddy and the quick change POV rotations - while impressive in 1999 perhaps, presently merely serve to label the movie as attempting to substitute gee whiz flash for plot and character substance. The film shooting gimmicks serve some purpose (convey tension and anxiety) but are constantly overused and ultimately become counterproductive. A shame overall - the film\/story obviously had potential and the producers\/directors and actors obviously have technical skill. A disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I normally love Jackie Chan movies but this one was terrible. There are only 2 or 3 fight scenes all of which are up to normal standard more or less. The bad thing about this movie is it focuses a lot on car chasing\/racing. The car chase isn't so bad (though not as exciting as fighting) but the car racing at the end is exceptionally boring. Basically it takes all of things that make a Jackie Chan film a Jackie Chan film and leaves out everything except Jackie Chan. Even the traditional outtakes at the end lack their usual humour.

I suppose to a certain extent it was made worse by the fact I saw one of those horrible dubbed versions. I usually try to see the subtitled version...I wish I could understand Chinese.

I've only seen one Jackie film worse that this one and that was one of his early forays into Hollywood films that didn't turn out so well.

Avoid unless really curious or a lover of motor sports.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Thunderbolt\" is probably Jackie Chan's worst movie since \"The Protector\" in 1985. Yes, I know that nobody watches his movies for their stories, but the plotting of this one is unusually lame, even by his standards, and while the fight choreography IS up to his standards, the fight scenes (the whole two of them) are ruined, as others have mentioned, by the frenetic, distracting camerawork. Even the most serious Jackie Chan fans shouldn't really bother with this offensively haphazard, stunt-and-plug-filled garbage. Anita Yuen's cute and perky performance is one of the few redeeming virtues. For a good \"serious Jackie\" movie, I recommend \"Crime Story\". (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just cant see what everyone sees in this movie. The acting is just awful, the choice of music is, mildly putting it, peculiar, there arent enough fighting scenes, the plot is non-existent and whatever small entertainment one could get from this film is ruined by the annoying way some of the movie is filmed and gives you a splitting headace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jackie Chan movies are typical examples of how offer is bigger than demand.Well,to be honest,which demand?In this one Jackie Chan is whatever his name is in this one,I doubt if he even knows,and he is some kind of race car driver.Well,he drives 10 miles an hour and then the footage is sped up,that way I can do all the stunts myself as well.During the great finale,in which Jackie Chan wants to arrest the bad guy by beating him in a race,we finally get to see how shoddy this production really is.Chan's fighting,especially in the casino scene is decent,but when we're talking about special effects,dear Lord.And must everyone crash in this race?That's just stupid.And here it's really not safe for the drivers,there's not even a concrete wall in the neighborhood.And don't get me started on what kind of awful story this has,I mean,it's Hongkong,it was probably written at gun point by eight-year-olds,but still,what a mess.I like Chan as much as the next guy,perhaps more since I saw \"Rush Hour\",but his agent's retarded cousin really needs to pick his projects better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Potential viewers be warned, the current IMDb viewer rating for \"Tomorrow at Seven\" is an anomaly of low voter turnout. It has an interesting premise, a killer leaves an Ace of Spades calling card at the scene of his crimes, while alerting the victim in advance. The execution falls flat however, and to say that the movie has it's share of plot holes would be to imply that there actually is a plot.

Chester Morris portrays mystery writer Neil Broderick, weaving elements of actual murders by the Ace of Spades killer into his latest novel. Broderick intends to interview a wealthy businessman for his book, but first he has to get past the man's eccentric secretary - \"If you line his relatives up, you'd have enough nuts to hold a Ford together\". That line unceremoniously endears him to the \"nut's\" daughter Martha (Vivienne Osborne), who offers to make the introductions.

Broderick meets Thornton Drake (Henry Stephenson) just as the latter is about to complete a jigsaw puzzle delivered by a courier that morning. The only remaining pieces, as we learn in the following scene, form the bold, black shape of the Ace of Spades containing the words \"At Seven Tomorrow Night\". Now what person putting together a puzzle doesn't use the pieces with contrasting colors FIRST!

Initially I was intrigued by the appearance of Frank McHugh and Allen Jenkins in their roles as a pair of police detectives summoned to the Drake residence. Generally, their characters are colorful enough to offer genuine comic relief, but here they're just plain annoying. McHugh's Clancy in particular winds up shouting objections to inane comments made by his partner Dugan, and both usually head in the opposite direction when real trouble might turn up.

Now here's a question - in light of the identity of the Ace killer, why would he have invited a novelist and a pair of cops that he just met, on a flight to his Louisiana plantation? Especially when at seven o'clock, all parties would be a captive audience aboard the plane when the first murder is committed. It's not Drake however who's dead, but his secretary Austin Winters (Grant Mitchell). The early suspicion falls on pilot Henderson (Cornelius Keefe) following a lights out scene, but Henderson still hasn't reported the murder to his supervisor until well after he arrives at Drake's plantation with everyone else. Can you imagine anyone trying to get away with that today, unless your name was Ted Kennedy?

With the cause of death yet to be determined, the local coroner is called in, but the first one that shows up (a Broderick accomplice) is a phony. Yet, when the real coroner shows up, he simply disappears immediately after! In a second dark out scene, a letter from the murder victim Austin Winters is about to be read. It winds up missing when the lights return, and because it may point to the murderer, it becomes a clue that must be retrieved. So where was the letter? Winters' daughter Martha grabbed it and placed in on the mantle of the living room! How much thought was put into this?

Obviously, the entire affair is so inane that Morris' character solves the case rather easily. Even though the film comes in at just about an hour, it becomes almost a chore to watch with all the nonsense going on. There's really only one humorous moment worth repeating; while aboard the plane, the detectives have this exchange: Dugan - \"Hey Clancy, how often do these things fall?\" Clancy - \"Once!\"

Except for McHugh and Jenkins, I can't say I've seen any of the other players in films of the era, though I'm a fan of most \"B\" grade mystery movies from the '30's through the '50's. Fortunately, the pair fares much better backing up Humphrey Bogart in a goofy 1938 gem - \"Swing Your Lady\", where the laughs are intentional. The best I can offer about \"Tomorrow at Seven\" is a quote from Martha Winters about midway though this turkey - \"This is just a silly waste of time\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first twenty-five minutes stand out as possibly the worst in modern British film. Director\/adapter William Cartlidge has treated Wilde's original with such reverence that he seems to have completely ignored the needs of a cinematic audience. Thankfully the quality of the direction and editing improves significantly after the first half hour, but by then the damage has been done. Of the actors, Prunella Scales and Robert Hardy wipe the floor with the rest of the cast every time they are on screen. The other exceptions are Jonathan Firth's Arthur and Karen Hayley's Mabel, who are given enough latitude to deliver their lines with the true comic sense which Wilde intended. The ostensible leads, James Wilby and Trevyn McDowell, are in comparison lacklustre and wooden. In an obvious attempt to eke every penny out a meagre budget, the play has been nominally updated to the 1990's, but in conjunction with the original script the effect is more of a badly script 1970s TV drama. True moments of comedy are few and far between, but when they arrive are highly amusing - a sign, maybe, that more judicious pruning of the rest of the play might have led to a better paced, more even film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This should have rocked. VH1 moved away from the traditional divas (Whitney Houston, Celine Dion, etc.) that had made the 2003 show so stale. Sadly the move backfired. The show had no MC keeping the show together. Queen Latifah did a fantastic show at the 2003 Divas. The show kicked of with a horrific rendition of Lady Marmalade featuring Patti Labelle, Cyndi Lauper, and Jessica Simpson. Okay in the studio with some control they can all sound great.

However, when they are competing with each other (why?) it just sounds torturous! Jessica Simpson has the most bizarre facial expressions when she sings that i've ever witnessed! Cyndi Lauper also performed Girl Just Wanna Have Fun. That wasn't as bad but it was hardly impressive. The worst was yet to come! Cyndi and Patti Labelle teamed up to perform Cyndi's hit 'Time After Time'. It was acoustic, and didn't fit in with the rest of the show. Still it could've been okay if they both hadn't insisted on squealing like mamed animals. It was just dire.

Debbie Harry (from Blondie) is always cool. She has a style of her own and although maybe she can't compete vocally with a many of the divas although she certainly can sing very well. Debbie came out and performed Blondie's #1 hit 'Rapture'. With some lovely vocals. She really hit the notes perfectly. She looked stunning. Rapper Eve provided a new, but sadly inferior rap. It was good. Debbie's next performance was a team-up with newcomer Joss Stone. They performed the Blondie hit 'One Way Or Another'. I think Joss misunderstood the style of the song and just shouted over Debbie. A rather sad bit was when Debbie tried and failed to match her shouty style which spoiled it a bit. She should've just let Joss get on with her totally inappropriate warballing. The whole of Blondie performed this track. The final track Debbie performed was Blondie's massive hit 'Call Me'. It was pretty poor. Not Debbie's fault because you just couldn't hear her. The sound was atrocious all the way through the show.

Joss Stone also performed a few songs on her own. They were quite well done. Ashanti also showed up to perform two inexplicable cover versions. Firstly she did Diana Ross' 'I'm Coming Out', and then Chaka Khan's 'Ain't Nobody'. She is not a diva! She can sing to an extent but she has no presence whatsoever. Why not just get the real singers in. Chaka was even interviewed on the show....

Gladys Knight showed up and did a medley. It was very good. She was probably the best bit of the show. I don't know much about her other than she is a seasoned performer in Las Vegas and her experience and class really shone through. Patti Labelle fitted in another performance this time her 80's hit 'New Attitude'. It was the finale and it was okay but it was too little to late. This was one big dud. Better luck next time VH1.

The version I saw was a heavily edited 55min version which was shown on VH1 in the UK. If these were the best bits.....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like the most of the Full Moon Pictures so I ordered this movie from the USA, because in Germany you can't get it anywhere. I thought it would be so nice and amusing like the Subspecies or Puppetmaster Series, because they were full of atmosphere.

I was glad when the movie finally arrived.

But after watching this cheesy movie, I was very disappointed. The actors ( I think you can't even say actors) are boring and untalented. The story was a poor performance and even the set and the monster were very cheap and lousy.

I hope no one ever make a sequel or remake of this terrible movie. :-)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The creature? Yeah, it and the movie it stars in. Hell would seem infinitely more frightening if the damned were forced to watch this for all eternity. Six college students shack up in a condemned hospital to save money and end up victims of an ancient monster who must claim five victims before it returns to \"the shadowy world from which it came!\" Other than having major logic and coherence problems (plus the fact it appears to be unfinished), this disaster is terribly acted, written, edited (by J.R. Bookwalter) and directed, and the make-up FX are almost nonexistent. It's also significantly shorter than it claims (at only 80 minutes), but I'm not complaining. It's the worst movie I've seen from executive producer Charles Band's Full Moon productions and boy is that BAD!

To note, I almost didn't bother with a review, but this has gotten inexplicably good reviews on here and I figured a varying opinion was in order. Proceed with caution!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hunk of trash only the Full Moon Studios could make has a group of college kids, staying for free in an old hospital with no one knowing, as a demonic creature with two faces(barely visible the entire film because of incomprehensible lighting)passes through walls killing each member who has a certain sheet of paper with ancient markings. Someone amongst them(it won't be too hard to prove, but a slight twist is so uninspiringly revealed and limply executed you'll just scoff)is the mastermind behind who the beast kills and must be revealed before it kills everyone.

Cheap, badly acted mess has a \"That's it?!\" kind of weak ending that'll have you exasperated at why you just wasted your time. Tanya Dempsey, who couldn't act her way through a wet paper sack, has the heroine duties as the newest member of the college rooming bunch named Clark. Oh, and the title refers to the sound the beast makes before it attacks it's next victim.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes Full Moon makes entertaining movies. This isn't one of them. Full Moon is like a low-key Troma. Their movies aren't as violent or off the wall, but they're usually just as devoid of talent. The acting in this movie isn't terrible but the script is pretty bad, and overall it's pretty boring and it doesn't even contain any nudity (like many Full Moon movies) to somewhat redeem it. Skip this one, and go rent \"Head of the Family\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't believe I've seen a horror movie this bad since...hell, I don't believe I've ever seen a horror movie this bad. The acting alone was enough to make one cringe. The bad acting went way beyond horror film cheesy. It was just plain awful. And did you check out those god awful special effects? When the demon (which looked more like a cheaply constructed puppet) came out of the wall I couldn't tell if I was supposed to be frightened, or laughing my ass off. As a huge fan of the horror genre, this film was more than mildly disappointing. I couldn't help but notice the director is from Portland, OR, which just happens to be my own hometown. I must say I'm deeply ashamed. If I could, I'd give this film a negative 500.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The best thing about Shrieker is the dialogue. Like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie is cognizant of the conventions of this type of horror movie and manages to come up with a few good lines and scenes that play on those conventions. Unfortunately, Shrieker is just boring. The plot is your basic Ten Little Indians whodunnit with a monster controlled by one of the suspects\/victims. You know from the beginning that each of the characters will get bumped off until only the hero(ine) is left to defeat the evil. And this is exactly what happens. Absolutely no surprises and no tension. Production values and acting were ok, but I had no motivation to watch to the end (although I did) because I already knew how the end scene would play out. The ending did surprise me a bit, because it managed to fizzle out, literally, instead of throwing out a bucket of special effects. Maybe the special effects budget had been spent up by the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SHRIEKER is a Full Moon production. I knew what to expect (very little quality) but I didn't expect this to be as painful as SHRIEKER was to watch.

It's just awful. Bad acting, confusing script and direction. Annoying characters I wanted to kill. The whole thing was probably made in one week. I've seen episodes of CHARMED that were more complex and convincing than this cheapie.

It has the look and feel of an orphaned episode of a badly conceived TV series no one has ever seen. It was a chore to watch and I could feel my mind getting dimmer and dimmer by the minute. Watching a movie shouldn't be this much hard work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film did entertain me with lots of laughs at the actors who kept the film moving along in all types of crazy directions. If you like suggestive language and sexy looking gals they were all in the picture and gals and guys all looking burned out before they even graduate from high school. There is one scene where the teenagers drive their car into a very fake deer and then proceed to throw it out into a lake or ocean, which is repeated over and over again. There is no horror to this film except the word Horrible for the entire picture and Arnold who plays a plastic cop is really one sick character. Please don't waste your time viewing this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I lived next door to the author in 1980 when he first moved out to Portland from Downer's Grove, Ill. with two of his high school buds. He seemed like a normal-enough guy, though he had a lot of artistic pretensions. Within a few years, he jumped into Portland's post-punk music scene with buddy Phil and a few others, and a band that definitely wasn't headed anywhere, although it got him a lot of action, including a fling with Courtney Love in her Portland groupie days. He seemed to think his musical prospects were good enough to move to San Francisco, then N.Y.C.

I was surprised to hear that he got a publishing deal in '95 after the band crashed and burned. Courtney Love's name seemed to be the clincher. I have no idea how the movie came about, especially with this cast, but I doubt that Gus Van Sant was involved. Anyway, the reviewers here seem to be unsure whether the lack of narrative focus is intentional or not, so I would just say that this is the work of a fairly intelligent guy who wants to be a writer, or artist or something, but doesn't have anything to say. Like Kerouac without the Benzedrine.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this is the author's and director's idea of a slice of life, they are clinically manic depressives. A sad, moody film at best, with ubiquitously aimless and unhappy characters who negatively interact with disastrous results. This film is billed as a comedy. What was so funny about losing your home to an allegedly premeditated arson or the drug induced, forcible rape of one of the main characters. Is this art imitating life? Jack Black was mildly amusing as the mountain man, weed farmer. However, even this segment of the film was rife with pathos. What was the point of living in the middle of nowhere with an entourage. If Black's character was so paranoid, why was he doing acid with a group of people right out of Woodstock? Is there no end to disconnected relationships, a plot less script, and scene transitions lacking any cohesiveness or logical chronology.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It starts out looking like it may be going somewhere, then quickly leads the main characters into a three-ring circus of remarkable stupidity which permanently destroys any likability of the characters. I'm a huge collector of stoner movies, but this is something I would not consider a valid addition. Bong Water is trash from the very deepest regions of the dumpster, and I wouldn't be caught dead with this on my shelf. I'm actually convinced this movie was created by a Partnership for A Drug Free America. If you're a Jack Black fan then I would say that you may think 5 minutes of the movies is OK because Jack Black continues his legacy of singing songs for retards. I really can't say enough bad things about this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is nothing in this that the viewer could point to and call \"good\". The acting was dull and sedated. The sets and cinematography look like they were developed by someone grew up in a Starbucks and tried to make the perfect Gap commercial. Characters have no drive, motivation, or reason for us to care about them. There's such a lack of interest and tension that it's hard to follow the banal action and dialog. And the plot... if anyone finds it, I'm sure it would be as boring as everything else.

This isn't funny, it's not romantic, it doesn't reflect on the human condition. If you want a good stoner comedy, watch Half-Baked; if you want a good stoner drama, watch Trainspotting. The only reason I gave this 2 stars instead of one is because it's kind of fun seeing some familiar faces in the mid-late 90's cast. Which is a shallow reason to give the film even one star, but, then again, this is a shallow movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard to believe that with a cast as strong as this one has, that this movie can be such a dud. It's such an incredibly horrible film. How was it ever made? How did so many good actors wind up in such a terrible film? Don't waste your life. Don't watch even one moment of this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a waste of a great cast. Figured I'd check it out because it looked like a good stoner comedy with a lot of fairly well-known actors. What it turned out to be was a pointless collection of boring intertwining stories about several characters with minimal connections with each other. Characters who start off looking like decent people but end up with not a single likable or interesting characteristic among them. Calling it a comedy was a stretch as well...the only thing that made me chuckle was Jack Black's song, which was basically Tenacious D. I waited for something big to happen but ended up with nothing more than 97 minutes of my life wasted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"absolutely nothing about this movie is funny, interesting, or relevant. besides two characters getting together at the end, nothing is ever resolved, and there is no plot. and by the way, what is the deal with the cover of the dvd? it has a female ass in daisy duke shorts... where was that scene in the movie? no one ever wore daisy dukes in this film! surprisingly enough, almost all of the acting in this film is good, and jack black plays a full song (could be a tenacious d track... don't know though)... those are the only redeeming values, though. overall, it's just a waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"About 5 minutes into the movie you're thrown into this brutally tepid cat and mouse romance between the two main characters and it just gets worse from there. The biggest problem is the characters and how completely unbelievable they are. This is what 50 year old producers and out-of-touch Hollywood script writers think stoner life is like, as if they gave the cast of Friends some pot. Bland, dull, annoying and completely unrealistic. I despise this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This Film Was One Of The Worst Films I Have Ever Seen. This Movie Drags On and On and I Almost Turned It Off, But I Gave It A Shot. I Wasnt Expecting Anything Great, But I Was Expecting More Than This. Good Thing I Work At A Video Store and Saw This For Free, Because I Would'nt Spend One Dime On This Movie. I Gave This Movie a 2, Only Because I Have Seen Worse. If I Were You I Would Stay Away From This, Very Far Away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The title leads viewers to believe that this is a fun movie to watch and probably much better when watched under the influence, but it is not good at all. One 15 minute sequence with Jack Black beautifully playing one of his songs and tripping on acid while venturing through the woods does not save this movie at all. Every actor in this movie has gone on to do better things, except for the main girls I could not think of one movie where I had seen them before. I hate to bash movies but I also hate not being able to find something decent in movies. The film is sad, not very funny and had such potential with its awesome cast. If it were redone and written over it could be awesome. If you want a good movie to see stoned, watch Grandma's Boy, or Half Baked or Dazed and Confused, but this is not a movie to be seen at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Movies like this give independent films a bad name! This simply a boring compilation of vingettes, with no structure whatsoever. I wouldn't be surprised if the screenwriter was completely stoned. If you want to see a good stoner comedy, watch \"Half Baked.\" It's no award-winner, but at least it made me laugh. The film was obviously made on a micro-budget. Every scene either takes place in someone's house, someone's apartment or some outdoor location. If the writing was good and the dialogue was interesting, I would've ignored the film's budget (like in the case of Edward Burns' films), but obviously that's not the case this time around.

I quote Robert DeNiro from \"A Bronx Tale\" when I say, \"There's nothing in the world worse than wasted talent.\" Everybody in the cast is talented. Luke Wilson, Alicia Witt, Brittany Murphy, Jeremy Sisto--all talented performers! And they all have been in much better movies. The actors give it their all, but they couldn't go too far with such a lame script. The only scene I found interesting was Jack Black's cameo, where he sings a song about being in the woods. And of course, there was the brief strip club scene at the beginning, which I also found appealing.

The characters are uninteresting and the story barely exists. Many movies are awful, but at least you understand their intentions. What was \"Bongwater's\" intention? The world will never know.

My score: 2 (out of 10)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When Exploiters become evangelist, they still exploit in the name of poverty!

My first reaction after seeing the movie is \u0096 God Bless me that I am not eating fish or any non-vegetarian products!

The documentary is about Lake Victoria of Tanzania where numerous varieties of lovely fishes used to live, and one day during 1960s somebody came and injected the mighty fish Perch, who became the exportable commodity for Tanzania to European and Japanese markets. The consequences were severe \u0096 firstly all local small and big fish were extinct; secondly the plane that came to take the fish could not travel empty because it does not make commercial\/ business\/ capitalist sense, so it is filled with arms and ammunition (that is what Europe can give this world); thirdly the pilots (as all migrants and traveling population like truck drivers) has to survive their sexual needs by flourishing cheap local African prostitutes for them; fourthly the brokers, dealers, middle men in the chain (mainly Indian origin business people) get richer and Tanzania's poverty remains the same; fifth poverty drives the children to crime, drugs etc.

The premise to make this documentary was excellent. But has the Director Hubert Sauper succeeded in making a good documentary? It is a big NO.

I say the reasons: Like in India, it requires a higher caste Brahmin to stand up and project to the world, Indian poverty and untouchables; similarly it requires an Austrain born European documentary maker to tell the world the story of Tanzania and its crumbling and ruining economy and poverty. It is the pathetic motive of unaware breeding of that rich class (who have never seen poverty or known poor), who survives, live, earn and fame like pest hanging on to projecting poverty to the world as soon as they see it. There is nothing more but despise by poor people in African and India who see such images of their.

The intention and motives of the Hubert seems totally lop-sided. The images, characters, locales, interviews are too grave and murky, dark and disturbing. He uses exaggerated ignorance as a voice to present his case. What we feel in the end is pity and sadness for Africans. We also start considering the Tanzania government and people as villainous. May be some westerners sitting in their air-conditioned rooms would find time to discuss and debate about the pathetic living conditions of Africans, but there would be nothing more than that.

The director restrains to show himself even once on the screen \u0096 so as not to be identified among the Europeans who exploit this poor country.

This Director Hubert can only survive being exploiters themselves like today's CNN and BCC media giants. Hubert did not have guts or common sense to talk to any Europeans who eat or companies who import these fish products. A totally lop-sided flimsy effort! But I understand the reasons of the same \u0096 Hubert just wanted to rake his fame, sitting and smiling with awards in his European comfort.

No more words to spare for this pathetic effort. I hesitantly give the documentary a higher rating 3.5 Stars out of 10, just because the theme was correct; but was pathetically exploited and blown away by amateurish ill conceived director made solely for un-intelligent western audiences! (Stars 3.5 out of 10)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry to say that, but this is actually one of the worst documentaries i have EVER seen.

Due to its name \"Darwin's Nightmare\" i expected a documentary on problems relating to the Nile perch in Lake Victoria.

What I actually saw in this \"documentary\" is a loose accumulation of individual stories, most of which have no relation to neither fish nor lake. And for a large part you can hardly call them stories - it's more like some accumulated scenes that lack a meaningful connection...

Why does this movie waste time on: - Showing us non-relevant information on the families of the Russian pilots (several minutes are wasted for example on their private digicam snapshots of wives and daughters) - Mourning the death of an African child who got bitten by a crocodile (as if that could not have happened without the Nile perch) - Showing us about 100 times how planes land and start at the airport - Showing us strange religious events for several minutes - Discussing in detail the life and death of a whore at the airport - Talking to kids about their mothers, fathers - what they work and\/or how they died (well, guess what: some died of HIV - who would have guessed that?) Those are just some examples, i could go on for several pages...

This movie is absolutely unfocused, and does not know at all what it wants to tell the viewer. If you have never heard of Africa and have no idea that this continent has Social\/Health\/HIV\/Violence\/War problems then this movie might be right for you. If you haven't had your eyes closed for the last decades 90% of what this movie shows won't be new to you - and the way it's presented here will try its best to make you fall asleep.

Perhaps my expectations on this movie were to high, but i really didn't like it even though this is a topic that I would generally find interesting. If this movie wants to show how the poverty is related to the Nile perch, than it perhaps should have spent some time on discussing that matter...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The title of this documentary is very misleading. At no time during the documentary do they show how the introduction of the Nile Perch fish into Lake Victoria has cause any of the problems facing the town of Mwanza, Tanzania. The film tries to place the problems of Tanzania on an environmental cause but the truth of that matter is the problems stem from a parasitic outside force. The documentary is very slowing paced with no narrative what so ever. Instead it relies on small blips of text between none related segments to display bits of information that do little to add or expand of the subject matter. There are only two attempts to discus the environmental effects of the Nile Perch fish. One is a small segment about 10 seconds long where they interview the factory managers where the fish is processed and he briefly mentions how 50 years ago the Nile Perch was introduced into the lake and it consumed the other fish species. The film maker makes no attempt to follow up on the matter or go deeper into it. The second attempt is when within this documentary they film the showing of another documentary that is discussing the environmental impact the Nile Perch has introduced, and again no real attempt is made to expand on just how devastating the problem has become.

The subject matter that this documentary does delve into has nothing to do with the Perch fish itself and more to do with the problems facing most African countries. The film tries to link the introduction of the Perch fish with AIDS, Poverty and Pollution in Tanzania but never makes a direct connection. As any intelligent person well read with problems in Africa, the problems shown here are not unique to Tanzania but affect most of Africa and have nothing to do with the fish. It would have been great if the film makers would have shown how the local economy or life was before the fish was introduced and how it has been negatively impacted by the introduction of the fish but they don't. The fact of the matter is that many of the people they interview say that the fish has provided jobs and opportunity for many. Yes things are BAD within the town of Mwanza but they are far worst in other parts of the country and continent for that matter.

A weak attempt by the documentary makers to link the fish to famine problems in Tanzania is quickly discredited by the documentary itself. First off Tanzania is a very large country and Lake Victoria is only a small portion of the country. Many of the individuals interview actually say that they can to Mwanza, the fishing town on the lake, to find a job and feed their families because things were so bad in other parts of the country.

This documentary is very weak, has no narrative and makes no attempt to actually link anything they display to the Nile Perch. It plays on people's emotions by displaying images of the devastation of poverty, famine and AIDS making no attempt to show you how any of this is unique to the Lake Victoria region of Tanzania or directly related to the Perch Fish. The fact is most of the problems have more to do with War, Globalization and Christianity than and environmental effect of the Perch fish itself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This documentary was boring, and quite stupid.

I mean... the documentary maker obviously does not even know what how Darwinian evolution works? It is a theory, and the name is just plain dumb. Reading a college biology text-book could have told the documentary maker what Darwinism really is. Darwinism is a good theory, but evil if it is done as politics.

Also there was no real evidence in this documentary just interviewing some people... no expert testimonies, and shady leads...

The documentary was also boring. I mean it could have been edited down to 35 minutes, and then it would have been lots better.

There are a lot better documentaries than this... this was not worth watching... you can get better information from Wikipedia =D DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY AND TIME!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After having watched Darwin's Nightmare, one must have the impression of Tanzania being a living hell, with its population being quasi-slaves delivering the finest fish to the well-fed Europeans while leaving the fish bones to the starving population. In exchange for the fish they get western-made weapons, which the mainly unemployed population eagerly awaits to use, because being a soldier is their only source of income.

So everything is all dark with trade as the incarnation of evil and source of all misery? Not quite. Fortunately Darwin's Nightmare shows the dark sides only and completely spares the positive aspects. In fact, the documentary hardly tells anything about the economic and ecologic importance the victoriaperch has for the region.

For the countries around lake Victoria the victoriaperch is the second to third most important source of income. The wages in the fishing industry are way above average. Tanzania has banned huge trawlers to secure the jobs of thousands of fishermen. The adjacent states have met agreements to keep fishing on a sustainable level. Cities at the lake are benefiting from the taxes the fishers have to pay for each kilogram caught fish and the taxes on the factories' exports and profits. Furthermore Tanzania has banned exporting the local traditional fish, which still play an important role feeding the local population.

By ignoring those positive signs the documentary deters the badly needed western consumers and investors and thus threatens to aggravate the African's situation.

For further reading I can recommend two articles the German alternative-wing newspaper wrote on the subject: http:\/\/www.taz.de\/pt\/2006\/09\/02\/a0013.1\/textdruck http:\/\/www.taz.de\/pt\/2005\/03\/17\/a0151.1\/text","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My mom and I went to see this film because my brother is serving in the U.S. Peace Corps in the same region in which it's set. Halfway through the film, I decided that given its failure to measure up to what it pretends to accomplish, the title is pretentious. The subject it deals with could have made for an excellent documentary, but because of its poor execution, it left me far less educated about the issue than I had hoped to become. I agree with laura-jane from Canada (\"Powerful Message but Lacks Focus.\"). I also agree with the user who commented that this filmmaker's narration-free style is the opposite of that of Michael Moore, but I don't agree that it presents varying points of view and invites the viewer to decide for him- or herself. I do agree with one user's comment that \"a lesson is better learned when we draw the conclusions ourselves\"; however, our conclusions can't be anything but poorly founded if we are presented with little relevant information from which to draw them.

The main points of the documentary seemed to be that 1) The African people who live near Lake Victoria are very poor and suffer greatly. 2) The introduction of perch to Lake Victoria, inflicted by Europeans, ruined its ecosystem. 3) The communities surrounding Lake Victoria are financially dependent on the perch economy.

The best things I can say about the film is that it attempted to relate the perspectives of the average people in sub-Saharan Africa, which, unfortunately, is an anomaly among films, and that it attempted to portray poverty as the result of a dysfunctional economic system rather than a universal, inevitable phenomenon. I liked the irony it captured in the massive amount of fish leaving the country in the face of a famine. I appreciated the portrayal of how out of touch the U.N. team assigned to the region was with the people. Like almost all documentaries that don't have the word \"women\" in the title, this film fails to do a good job representing women's voices -- the majority of the talking done in interviews is that of men.

Maybe I need to watch the film a second time in order to catch some key points I might have missed, but I failed to detect Sauper's theory of the relationship between the introduction of perch to Lake Victoria and the unjust living conditions for Africans living near the lake. Furthermore, I could be wrong, but it struck me that Sauper could do well to improve his interview skills. Not only did the questions he asked and the responses he included seem to be arbitrary, but he seemed to have a real knack for making interviewees awkward and uncomfortable.

The most compelling development in the film is the suggestion that the exportation of perch now functions to mask the importation of arms and that the real economy screwing over Tanzanians is that of war, not fishing. Sadly, Sauper shies away from conducting a thorough expose of the idea (or at least extending the interview with the reporter who seemed to know what he was talking about in regards to the weapons importation) and cops out with a \"decide for yourself\" approach.

If Darwin's Nightmare was meant to dispel the myth that first world exploitation of the third world gives them \"a chance for a better life,\" it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to depict how the weapons manufacturing industry in the U.S. and Europe is responsible for much armed conflict around the world, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to portray what drives people to prostitution, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to cast light on the inability of the U.N. to carry out its mission, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to say that meager income Tanzanians earn from the perch isn't worth the human cost of tinkering with mother nature to create a profitable product, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to imply that Tanzania would be much better off had Europeans never come, it didn't do a good job of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think the movie was one sided I watched it recently and find the documentary typical of western movie makers that was biased without substance. The fact is prostitution do exist everywhere in the world not in Tanzania alone and not because of this fish business, there prostitutes were there way before the Russian and other business people arrived in Mwanza. Poverty is indeed endemic in Africa let alone Tanzania and this is not because of fish fillet business, in fact the fish industry has helped millions to support their families on their daily life. This movie just tarnish the good image of this peace loving country. As for the arms trade the film could not substantiate if there is any truth in that indeed looking critically at the films one is doubting the authenticity of the film maker, it seems that their trying to prove their point by using a few characters which can be done for anything really. Yes Tanzania is a poor country yes there are prostitutes and street children but they are not the product this business, it is just a common scenario in most poor countries indeed the world over even in the western world...What a load of rubbish.

The pilot themselves are talking of sending weapons to Angola which is more than 2000km south of Tanzania and the war was in DRC also miles away from Mwanza, the director could not give evidence how these weapons were transported from Mwanza to DRC!

In short the films lacks focus and respectability, it is quite easy to find the character anywhere in Africa and has nothing to do Darwin's nightmare or fish fillet...What a load of rubbish!

The truth is the Nile perch has not decimated all other species in the lake contrary to what the movie portrays and also less than 25% of all catches from lake Victoria are exported the rest is consumed locally so lets get that one right.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this film was just outrageously poor would be fine, the problem is many take it seriously. To make it short, a few points:

- There is no story, no focus, no lead whatsoever and all the questions raised fail to find an answer. Overall, the film is extremely repetitive and boring (I have been in war-torn African countries several times and found all the lingering on local misery and hopelessness very painful to watch but still having no sense).

- Questions raised are pure manipulation and the truth is that they are no questions but statements.

- I am no doc filmmaker, but what's the point in raising, for example, the question of weapon smuggling, if the only element brought to the audience is a local reporter's statement? The director doesn't even bother showing us at least a sequence where he would be waiting near the airport trying to spot heavily loaded trucks leaving the area right after a plane landed.

- The story of the fish takes up less than 5 mn, and is only supported by a sequence where the director films a documentary shown during a local conference. Did this guy do any work at all????

- Abject poverty is shown all the time in endless sequences but where's the point? One can go almost anywhere in Africa with a hand cam and shoot the same images unfortunately. Where's the big news?

- Filming the prostitutes watching and crying over images of their assassinated friend and fellow prostitute is worth the worst emotional manipulations one can see these days on thrash and real TV.

- The parallel drawn between the famine devastating the country with over two million starving and the exportation of fish is absolutely pointless, dishonest and makes no sense but to manipulate viewers in typically anti-globalization and anti-western feelings.

There is an interesting debate in France after an academic published a very detailed comment on the film, which brought number of journalists working in Africa for decades to investigate a bit further about several details. It turns out that:

- The fish waste shown drying in the sun and collected by some local people is not at all meant to be eaten by human beings but is collected to be exported for reasonably good money for animal-feeding purposes. I think I am not the only one having had the impression that the director suggested the exact opposite.

- Arm smuggling is a reality (but there again, where's the big news??), but not the way this film explains the issue. If the empty planes landing in Mwanza do participate in smuggling, they actually unload their shipment in a different location in Africa, then go to Mwanza to pick up fish in order not to make the trip back empty (meaning that they do actually land empty in Mwanza...).

- People do eat fish locally, contrary to what the film suggest (around 40-60% of what is taken out of the lake) and thousands of people make their living with it. Good for them! It's private business of that kind that will one day take African countries out of poverty and not western moaning and endless foreign assistance.

I cannot tell how shocked I am seeing the success of this film!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw the movie in original Italian. It must be said that the acting and interpretation is most heavily polluted by the TV-generated trend to speak in a severely muffled voice, not moving lips, straining tones, as emerged in the \"That's real life\"-productions and \"Let's-raise-our audience-with-a-few-tears\"-screen-playwriting. The late Massimo Girotti towers upon the other characters for intensity, clarity of expression and intellectual honesty. The movie has some good hints, but (as in another comment before mine) it lacks a focal point and dribbles away in many plot-lets of lesser and lesser relevance, another trend dragged in from the TV productions, well known to Italians. A few drops in style could be spared to the public, such as the patisserie drag (Charm and aesthetics of cooking plus sensual payload of sweets, see Chocolat, Babette's lunch, Vatel etc.) Hammam and the Fairies are definitely more truthful, seems that Ozpetek has learned the tune of Italy in the early 2000s and is humming along... I'll give him a last chance though...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really liked this movie. Number 5, the star robot of the movie gets hit by lightning and some thing happened to his circuits. He act and thinks more like a human.The robot repeats commercials he learns after watching TV. He then applies these sayings to his circumstances. Number 5 is quick witted and funny. The character imitates voices of stars, tries to dance like John Travolta in Staying Alive and a lot of other things. He has a saying for most of his circumstances that he memorized. The actions of the robots is really good. Number 5 wants to drive, cook and please Stefany with all the characteristics of a human. The way the robots move and line up is really hysterical.I am disappointed that the writers could not keep this clean for all viewers. This movie has a surpris ending something you would not expect. I hate movies that have swearing in them even though I like them I give them a lower rating. This movie had swearing words. Jesus Christ was used as swearing word which offends me it is used a least 3 times. G-d D-m, Bull sh_t etc. It could have been a wonderful movie with out all this offensive language. There is no sex in this film, some violence like robots blowing up cars and machines.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a complete and utter waste of time, one of the worst films I've ever seen. And coming from me, that is definitely saying something. In fact, I wish I could have given it negative stars instead of just rating it as a pathetic one-star awful.

When I rented this movie, I had an open mind. I find the legend of the chupacabra interesting and I have a fondness for cheesy horror flicks. But I draw the line at this one.

The acting sucked. The lead male gives one of the worst performances ever, looking and sounding unnatural as he delivers his poorly written lines. The lead female gives a slightly more palatable performance, but that really doesn't take much.

The chupacabra... well, considering how low budget this movie must have been, the creature was tolerable. It does, however, look exactly like someone in a mask and body suit. The mask is fairly detailed and might look cool in person, but not so on screen.

Speaking of on screen, you'd think they could have at least used a better camera. It looks like it was shot with a camcorder for crying out loud. Not a very good one, either.

I don't know what whoever wrote this abomination was thinking. The dialog sucks and just... I can't describe what I feel about it. At least not without getting in trouble with the site.

My advice? Avoid this at all costs. It's just not worth it. If it comes on TV and you have nothing else to do or watch, then *find* something else to do or watch. Read a book, listen to music, *anything.* Just don't subject yourself to this. If you do, you cannot say you weren't warned. And for Lord and Lady's sake, don't rent this sucker. It is not worth it, even if you get the chance to rent it for fifty cents. Trust me, I know.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"According to this masterpiece of film-making's script (pun intended), Charles Darwin was full of nonsense when he presented his evolution theory, because he made absolutely no mention of any alien intervention. For you see, aliens sent Chupacabras to the earth and they form the missing link in the evolution theory. However, the rest of the film clearly seems to emphasize that Chupacabras are a typically Puerto Rican phenomenon, so I don't really know where that fits in. Are they saying all Puerto Ricans are aliens? Whatever, it's all pretty irrelevant anyway. The only thing you need to memorize is that \"El Chupacabre\" is an utterly cheap and imbecilic amateur B-movie, lacking tension, character development and any form of style. Several duos of people are chasing this goat-munching monster (remotely resembling the midget version of the Pumpkinhead demon) through the streets and ghettos of an ugly city. We have an untalented dogcatcher and a nagging female novelist, a pair of obnoxious cops and the supposedly evil scientist with his dim-witted accomplice. Since they all are extremely incompetent in what they do, the monster can carelessly carry on devouring all the Latino immigrants of the neighborhood. The monster itself looks okay and the make-up effects on his victims' leftovers are acceptably gross and bloody. The acting performances are irredeemably awful and headache inducing. Particularly Eric Alegria is pitiable in his first and only lead role as the overly ambitious employee of Animal Control. Yes, it's an incredibly stupid film, but surely you have struggled yourself through worse and less amusing low-budget garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Boyle Heights, Los Angeles: legendary South American goat-sucking vampire, El Chupacabra, is on the loose, feeding on anyone unlucky enough to cross its path. Animal control officer Navarro (Eric Alegria) and Chupacabra expert\/author Starlina Divide (Elina Madison) attempt to track down the creature, but find their progress hampered by a pair of dumb cops, money hungry locals keen to capture the beast for a fat reward, and a couple of nefarious scientists who want the monster for their experiments.

Stinking higher than a two-week-old taco, El Chupacabra is an incredibly bad horror movie that even fans of incredibly bad horror movies might struggle to sit through. With its dreadful script, awful direction (by not one, but two talentless hacks\u0097Brennon Jones and Paul Wynne), laughable dialogue, and some of the worst acting this side of a porn flick, I recommend this film about as much as I do drinking the tap water in Mexico.

As Navarro and Starlina proceed with their investigations, viewers are treated to some incredibly weak gore, the worst designed book jacket in history, the most unconvincing dead person I've seen since the blinking corpse in Dr. Butcher MD, and a high-tech computerised security system consisting of a keyboard nailed to a post.

To be fair, for a guy in a rubber suit, the monster itself is fairly creepy (hairy, with big claws, and a face like a particularly ugly bat), but its appearances are few and far between, with more screen time spent on the tedious trials and tribulations of whiney Officer Navarro than on the killer antics of the titular creature (just how many times is it necessary to see Navarro handing in paperwork to his bitchy boss?).

If, like me, you make the mistake of wasting your hard-earned cash on this dreadful latino bilge (in my case, it was a whole 50p), consider using the disc as a coaster for your tequila rather than actually watching it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a great example of what could have been a great film and a great idea but turned out to be really bad in the process. I was mainly tempted to get this because of the DVD cover, stupid me, but I did anyway and I was blown away, in a bad sense. This movie is essentially about El Chupacabra wreaking havoc around Los Angeles and it's up to a local animal cop and a writer to save the day, before two corrupt cops and two evil scientists bring them down. The main reason why I did not enjoy this film was because of big continuity errors that were hard to not notice. Along with some bad acting, okay lighting and nothing scary, this movie did not hit me as much as is it probably should have. However, compared to other Chupacabra movies, this one certainly tops the charts, just barely.

First off, the continuity in this movie is way off and I mean off the shoulders and into the ditch. There were so many points were the characters said or did something and then in the next shot, they aren't doing it or the change never occurred. Case in point: the main character has a gun, the Chupacabra attacks, he whips out a flair from nowhere and distracts and the gun in missing. The girl runs while he defends here with the mystery flair and she had no gun, then the main character is running with the girl and has the gun. Where did the flair come from and what happened to the gun. The time of day gets screwed up. One minute it is sun set and you can still see the sun and then the next minute it looks like midnight. There were some plot holes as in, why was the Chupacabra there, what were the scientists doing, what happened to this guy and why did he shoot the animal and it still lived? These things bugged the heck out of me and none of the questions were answered.

Next on the list is the acting. Boy was it wooden and bad. The main character Navarro, played by Eric Algeria, seems a bit too calm at points and too dedicated to finding out what killed a few dogs and when a tragedy hits, his emotion was just not there. Elina Madison, who played Starlina, did a fairly poor job. She was the author of a bestselling book about the Chupacabra and she just didn't seem into her role or her performance. Her acting was kind of laughable and a poor. Even for an author she knows too much about that thing, and knows how to disable a high security defense system in a hidden laboratory. Tony Criss was okay, but he seemed a bit to calm for some of the stuff that was going on. The movie reminds me of a bad reenactment to murder for some crime solving show, where the actors and actresses aren't really that committed to their work.

I rarely don't get this anal when it comes to lighting or editing, but for this movie, I could not help but be harsh on the lighting. It took me out of the movie a number of times because the lighting was so poorly directed. There were times when they were trying to be creative by adding color filters to the scene to make it more \"comic bookish,\" but it backfired. The worse part is at night when it is pith black outside, but the scene is so oversaturated with light, it seems like its day. They keep switching from high intensity light to soft light for random scenes, and the lights seem so bright that the actors were squinting. It shouldn't be that bright that there are dark shadows at night. During the sunset when the lighting was perfect, that's the only time when the light was good, other than that it was terrible.

There were not scares in this film. There was only one time where I did jump but other than that, it wasn't scary. There were points were it probably could have been scary but it was so damn light out, you could see the Chupacabra approach the man, but if it was dark, it would have been better. Even the creature design for the Chupacabra was poor, it looked good but it was a short man or kid in a jump suit. They didn't hide his face; they showed him with no sense of mystery or any enigmatic appearance. There was a fair amount of gore, but it seemed unreal. This movie just wasn't scary, that's all.

Overall, they did Americanize a great South American legend into a blood-thirsty human eater, which the Chupacabra isn't. In fact, it was scared of people and it only killed goats, sheep, dogs and deer because it was said that it hated the smell of humans. But, then were would the story be? I did not enjoy this film for any reason, but I will give them credit for trying to make a good film with good intentions. I would not recommend this film to any horror fan, but if you like indie or B-movies, you should check this out. Also, if you are easily tempted by cult-classics, you'd enjoy this film. I didn't, I won't see it again, but in some deep sedated way, I enjoy these kinds of movie just to see what the other side of Hollywood is making.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The back of my DVD describes the plot of \"El Chucabra\":after his capture in the wilderness,the legendary bloodthirsty creature Chupacabra escapes into the city creating mayhem and panic.As they pursue the deadly beast,an animal control officer and scientist Dr Starlina Davide realize that a vigilante with his own suspicious plan is also tracking the elusive killer for a mysterious research facility run by the diabolical Dr Goodspeed.This putrid horror flick is somewhat amusing,if you watch it under the influence of alcohol.The script is completely silly,the acting is wooden beyond belief and the direction is amateurish.Two rubber Chupacabra suits are easily the best thing about this movie.3 out of 10 and that's being extremely kind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You want the worst horror movie of the 21st century? El Chupacabra is it. \"Manos:The Hands of Fate\" is THE worst movie of all time, but El Chupacabra certainly is the worst movie of this century. It also has to have the distinction of having the absolute worst leading actor ever. Eric Alegria, the actor in the lead role, has never done another film other than El Chupacabra, gee - I wonder why.

Apparently the monster is attacking people, but everyone that is attacked moves really slowly and is really stupid. And, there are no cops at all in this town just two idiot detectives - Hello! Cops show up on the scene of homicides first, then the detectives come! And, apparently the monster only attacks in one person's backyard, and some deserted area by the docks. Or...thats the only places the filmmakers could get access to film.

This 'film' is the reason why IMDb must allow us to give negative stars. This easily deserves -10 stars, or at least 0. They should allow a 0 rating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, so i have recently been collecting a lot of vipco and hardgore titles on DVD and i have to say that this one is one of the most disappointing ones. A more recent film compared to other titles in the Hardgore catalogue this was a straight to DVD release. i've always been interested in the myth of el chokeberry ever since i saw a documentary on it as a teenager. however this film is a terrible let down shot on tacky dv the storyline and acting are terrible, it took me three goes to watch this film all the way through. While cheap 80's and 90's horror films are good because of their cheap budgets and comedy this film is not.

check out some other titles in the hardgore series first, boneyard for example is older but much much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the latest (disaster) movies from York Entertainment, \"El Chupacabra\" excels in making its viewer want to die after having wasted two hours watching it. This movie appears to have been filmed with a spare camcorder normally used for birthday parties. The only reason I could tell that it wasn't was because of certain scenes where the cameraman's shadow is in the frame.

Just about every aspect of cinema is plagued by this movie, and I'm sure that it has set the film industry back another ten years. The actors are borderline retarded, often pausing while they wait for the off-screen cue-card to change. The actor that plays Navarro not only slurs and skips word in his dialogue, but stumbles through the swiss-cheese plot line with a squinting and confounded look on his face. Other actors break the forth wall and overall show the acting skill of a twelve-year old kid doing a science project in his backyard.

My friends and I purposefully search out the worst possible movies, and this one gave us more than we bargained for. The humorous parts are unfunny and the rest is riddled with horrible clich\u00e9s and plot holes. As one friend so humbly put it, this movie is the aborted fetus of the industry. I would highly suggest this film for people like me that purposely search for these movies, but for all others, beware!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILERS

This movie was rented as a joke, and what a joke it was. The film is based on a dog catcher who is looking for El Chupacabra. The dog catchers outfit is so ridiculous. It looks like he sewed the patch on his hat and for some reason he shows of his \"muscles\" by rolling up his sleeves. Throughout the movie, mostly at night, you can see how bad the lighting was. They are in a car which is brightly lit and they are driving in pitch black. Often you can see the camera man's shadow on the ground. The costumes are terrible, the lighting is terrible, and the acting is terrible. This is a good movie for a laugh...maybe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where do I start? The box should have been enough to keep me away from this attempt, but I'd been taught early on not to judge a book (or movie) by its cover, so I ignored the disgusting graphic quality of the box and rented it anyway. But common sense should tell you that if they can't do a single still image properly, then how dismal will the moving ones be, later? Yeah. They were pretty awful.

The actors in this flick appeared totally unaware they were being filmed, as just any expression seemed to do fine, regardless of the situation the characters were in or what they were reacting to.

However, a good story can offset the downfalls of low budget productions. Good dialog can carry a poorly-funded attempt at times. Unfortunately, this was not one of those times, as the story was as weak and nonexistent as the other required elements of good cinema.

There simply aren't words for how bad this was.

Perhaps you can get the idea from my rating of -2.3\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is a reason why the world forgot these creatures: they are dull. This is a Hammer Production which means that whoever made this movie should be struck with a hammer, several times if possible - and where it most hurts. Most people put more thought into taking a dump than these idiots have put into making this movie.

Seriously now\u0085 The movie begins with some cavemen hunting an antelope-thing. Now, antelopes must have evolved a lot from those pre-historic times because they actually attack and kill people here. After that, it's time to meet the rest of the tribe: more bearded men, some fashion-models, and even a couple of very old, grey-haired grannies and grandpas. These old geezers obviously never heard about cave people not surpassing the age of 30; they refused to bow to the will of both logic and pre-historical records, so they remain alive. One of the cavemen isn't bearded; he is clean-shaven. Not quite as clean-shaven as Tarzan, The Lord of the Humanoid Clean-Shaven Ones Roaming the Jungle Since Childhood And Without a Razor, but thereabouts.

What follows is the obligatory earthquake\/molten-lava destruction sequence which causes a lot of our not-so-hairy friends to meet their doom. It is interesting to note that before the earthquake the fashion-models showed their breasts more. After it, they must have gotten shy or something, because they covered their chests for a while (maybe they were covered by ash so I mistakenly thought they were covered). More action follows in the form of two fashion-models wrestling in the sand; the next-best thing to female mud-wrestling, I suppose. After a good deal of the desert has been crossed, our black-haired tribe meets - how else could it be - a blond tribe. Yawn.

More spellbinding stuff follows. There is that redhead fashion-model who is bothered by seeing a cave-teen kill a hedge-hog-thing. There is also the scene of a woman dying at birth: those cave-fashion-models are so frail. Eventually we get to meet an even darker -haired and -skinned tribe, i.e. an evil tribe. One of them becomes a WWF champion after he actually beats(!) a huge bear-thing in a wrestling bout. 1,2,3... and it's done: the bear is the loser. We also witness a jealous caveman miraculously recover from two major injuries: first he gets stabbed with a big spear into the thigh, yet he walks away from that as if it were but a scratch. Then he gets thrown off a cliff - onto a big rock - by the blond goodie-two-shoes caveman, yet he walks away from it as if he were thrown onto a giant sofa. It's unclear in the end whether he dies from falling off an even higher cliff or from that voodoo doll being crushed. Oh yes, voodoo was used in pre-historic times by white tribes that live in the desert and whose females were fashion-models. It's always important to learn from movies.

The message of the movie is as insightful as it is educational: cave people liked to fight for local power and they loved their fashion-models, too. As if any self-respecting caveman would fight to be leader of such a sorry bunch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has got so much in it. Prehistoric society, adventure, romance, true brotherhood, violence, sex, religion; all depicted abundantly..without a single word uttered!!! And how come it sucks so bad? This film will make you rethink the origin of humanity. If this were the product of anthropology, you would rather defy Darwinian theory and Hegelian synthesis all together. You cannot bear to watch this even with your brain shut down. And now you are thinking, \"I've got to see this.\" I warned you. I take no responsibility whatsoever should you regret spending over an hour staring at this piece of art. Well, I did warn you. This should be forgotten and buried for ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Awful, Awful, Awful show. \"Real world\" issues dealt with blatant unoriginality. Stereotypes galore. What the hell is going on with the African-American (black!) guys eyebrows? Tyrone power! Awful, Awful, Awful, Awful, Awful show. The fact that it lasted three seasons beggars belief. This show truly is swill for the brain dead accepters of mediocrity.

Saved by the Bell almost seemed humorous compared to this. Well, upon hindsight, no. It's of the same banal ilk and therefore equally devoid of intelligence. The only thing that it's missing so far is the Jesus is GOD message. The mentality and deliverance is the same, yet somehow feels evil and soulless. You can almost hear the TV executives sprouting buzz words at each other. In fact I felt so incensed at this shows excremental existence, I felt compelled to comment.

Awful, Awful, Awful show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot believe I actually set up a 'season pass' on my TiVo for this, apparently they had a good preview or something .. I can't imagine it though. After seeing about 5 minutes I thought to myself.. why am I watching this.. It is definitely not reality, and some of the worst acting I have ever seen on television.. I am a total addict of reality TV and there is nothing real about this. THE ACTING.. (if you can call it that) is awful.. The only ones that are almost 5% decent are the girls that are meant to draw viewers to the show.. although they would need to be a lot prettier to save this train wreck.. if they would have more lines they would probably change my mind as they probably have no talent either. This is obviously a very low budget production with 'actors' who are apparently very cheap. There is no way they could get a job in anything else. Someone needs to direct these people to a job in food service.. Maybe they could do that. Oh and by the way, Parco P.I. no longer occupies any space on my TiVo or TiVo's season pass list. Definitely the worst show I've ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I totally agree that the reenactments kill what could otherwise be a great show. I'll admit that I'd seen 1 or 2 episodes last season and was not clear at all that it was all reenacted. But when I caught one episode recently it suddenly jumped out at me BIG TIME and I lost interest immediately. Then I noticed the disclaimer at the start before an episode that followed. Has anyone followed the show closely enough to tell me, did they actually make the \"acting\" and reenacting parts more artificial on purpose, or did I just not notice before. I'm usually pretty good at sensing this stuff, but the recent episode was so obviously artificial I practically tripped over it. Now I have no interest whatsoever in watching and have given up entirely on it. It just doesn't have any real value if it's all scripted and acted. And at least lately, it seems VERY poorly scripted and acted. The comment above that says who cares if it's all reenactments, I do. Without visual truth, this is just a bunch of \"you know what happened, one time this guy\" heresay. It's info better read in a book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just finished watching this movie. I couldn't imagine watching this on VHS, as there were scenes where I needed the subtitles to hear through an accent or sound effect, even though the scene itself was in English.

Visually, the movie is pretty appealing. The few CG effects were very obvious insertions, but the prosthetics\/creature effects weren't bad. Not perfect, but photography and editing (which were pretty good) made up for a lot. Acting was generally bad, though how much of that can be blamed on the director I couldn't say, having never seen any of the actors before. The exception, I think, was M. Gomez (Uxia). She stole every scene she had a part in, and not just because of a very pretty face, but there was something akin to an urgency to her performance that none of the others had. The writing could have been a lot better - the plot was still unmistakably Lovecraft, and plenty of Lovecraft details were written in, but I personally could have done without most of the dialogue.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anthony Perkins and Sophia Loren are absolutely gorgeous in this ca. 1840 \"Western\". That alone, however doesn't help a ridiculous story, with countless historically incorrect elements.

Byrl Ives is convincing as the 70-something tyrannical patriarch, an egomaniac who swears to see his 100th birthday. His wild dancing at a party he gives for his neighbors will make anyone take notice (this guy is SEVETY SIX?). Always mumbling Bible verses, he demands respect, while driving sons and friends away with his self-righteous rantings and emotional cruelties.

The love affair between Perkins and Loren at first appears absurd, but becomes believable near the end. There is plenty of drama, but not enough to feel good about. Clearly written for the stage, this story was dated even when it was filmed. Perkins whistles \"My Bonnie\" in the 1840s, although the song wasn't composed until 1882.

Critics knocking Sophia Lorens \"command of the English language\" are rather petty. I found her English flawless and completely audible. As a Neapolitan, Loren speaks a distinct dialect that often had to be dubbed into \"proper Italian\". Her \"accent\", however, hardly affects how she speaks English. As a first Generation German American, I can appreciate the efforts of those who learn English as a second, or even third or fourth language.

\"Desire Under The Elms\" is a drama (or even a tragedy) in the Classic Sense. For my enjoyment is was missing a logical story and an overall \"pay off\" for the time invested. Fans of the stars won't want to miss it, others, however, tune in at your own risk!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In fact, everyone responsible for this dreck ought to be whipped, dragged, and hung! IF this is what great Eugene O'Niell drama is like I never want to be victim to viewing it ever again. There are so many things WRONG w\/ this feature where does one begin? First, Elmer Bernstein's bombastic score is present thru out the entire film even in the quiet scenes where background music subtracts from the character's motivations. Second, these characters are NOT pleasant people and while some reviewers might enjoy that I personally disliked every scene in which Ives ate up the scenery, but that was the way his characters was written: to be disliked. W\/ Loren it just never is made clear whether she's good or bad \u0085 and all her babbling about how she's going to change things back to the way they were before the baby arrives \u0085 well, I saw what was coming clearly. Perkins is miscast and then he plays the role like a warm-up for Norman Bates (which he played two years later) even wanting to take blame for the murder at the end. Hokey! Third, this film is a studio sound-stage production and it suffers because of it. The story would have benefited from location shooting to develop a sense of \"place\" regarding the farm (which all the main leads are fighting over). As it is filmed there's no sense of value to the property because the film has a studio sound-stage feel to it that isn't convincing. This is a really awful film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tom Selleck plays an absentee son to senile \"pop\" Don Ameche and weary mom Anne Jackson, making up for his indiscretions (one presumes) and taking them in after Ameche has burned down his mobile home; meanwhile, Selleck's job is vanquished by the F.B.I., his assets are frozen, his wife and kids leave him and his obnoxious sister and her brats have come to stay. Brightly-painted comedy-of-ills is as out of touch with reality as Ameche's doddering old coot. Perhaps a serious first draft (with scenes such as Ameche walking out into traffic with two toddlers) was incorporated into a sillier second or third version (with Selleck getting poked, bumped, prodded, and eventually losing a toe and a testicle!). Either way, it's a painful experience, and Selleck's sudden dedication to his father makes little sense; he hobbles around and howls in pain, but retains his heart of mush. This movie is mush. * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Folks! is a \"comedy\" about a man whose parents beg him to kill them because they're going senile and want to be put out of their misery. Several times he tries to kill them and then changes his mind, saving them from his death-traps at the last minute and losing one of his body parts each time in the process. The movie seems to hate its main character, which makes it all the more painful to watch. There's also the usual tacked-on love-interest and predictable ending.

This movie was also the first time I'd seen Tom Selleck without a mustache, and I remember his shaved upper lip looking weird and making me feel slightly slick. But this might have been just because of the terrible premise and lame execution of the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My father insisted I should watch this film with him and I regret that I wasted my time watching--I want that approximate hour and a half back! The \"funny\" little film concerns the elderly Don Ameche staying with his son, Tom Selleck. It turns out that Ameche isn't just \"forgetful\" like he's been told, but has dementia (it seems a lot like Alzheimers). And, because Dad is so frequently \"out to lunch\" he gets into so much trouble again and again--almost like the adorable tyke from BABY'S DAY OUT. The problem, though, is that you know BABY'S DAY OUT is all fantasy and the baby is going to be fine. Plus, you aren't laughing at the baby for having a deformity or illness. But, in this case, you are being encouraged to laugh at a man who is slowly losing his mind--and where's the humor in that?! If this film had been more successful, would the producers have then made films making fun or people with Cerebral Palsy or a Flesh-eating Virus?!?! There are a lot of people who should have felt ashamed at having made this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Recap: A band of five young American men, all that is left of a platoon hit hard during the Ardenne offensive during the WWII get the assignment as a forward outpost and to look for enemy activity. They're in really bad condition, both physically and mentally, and think they have struck gold when their outpost is in an abandoned but once plush mansion full with food. But after a while there is some enemy activity, and it is very odd. Not hostile, but odd. It seems like there is a German squad out there, in equally bad condition, that want nothing more than to surrender.

Comments: Based on a novel and my guess that the novel is much better but the story doesn't seem to translate very well to the big screen. Indeed it is a different war movie, much more about the mental pressure during wartimes than fighting and battles. But I can almost feel that scenes that must have been full of suspense, full of uncertainties and unknown elements, just fall flat in the movie. It is not suspenseful, just different and in many ways absurd. Many times people just act insane, and the reasons are unclear or at best hinted at.

So when this mental pressure fails to come through, the main building piece of the entire story, I thought the story fell through. It wasn't good, it wasn't interesting, it didn't keep me on the edge and it didn't really send a message. Actually it did nothing.

The cast is interesting, many young actors that then turned into stars in beginning of their careers. The acting is good, but not stellar, and a few characters also fell through into the absurd zone. Much of that too I feel is due to that this story, these characters need the time, space and pace given in a novel, that they can't be given here. And going halfway definitely isn't good enough.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Midnight Clear\" has a great premise. A group of over-educated, overly bright GI's are sent out by incompetent leaders on a vague mission to patrol around an isolated farm house on the eve of the Battle of the Bulge. The GI's encounter a group of battle-weary German regulars, and it becomes clear that they don't want to fight anymore.

Therein lies the problem. It's really pretty simple. If the Germans want to surrender, they do so and that's the end of the movie. If the Germans want to fight, they do so and that's also the end of the movie. So instead of doing either the GI's and Germans play games with each other, even throwing snowballs at one point. Interesting for one or two scenes, but it soon becomes very annoying. After all, these are GERMANS. The enemy. Nothing in this film makes me think they should not be either taken prisoner or shot. The film does noting to make them more human. In fact, much of what the German characters did made ME want to shoot them, including one scene where the German officer refuses to deal with a Jew or to surrender to a mere enlisted man! Why should I care about such characters? Just shoot them and let's move on to the Battle of the Bulge. It's much more interesting, anyway.

One good scene: The GI's are returning from a recon of the German position, where they had the Germans in their sights but did not fire. While walking across a clearing, they realize a group of Germans have their Mausers leveled at them. The Germans are about 100 yards away. The GIs then do something I've NEVER seen any GI's do in any Sillywood movie. They throw down their rifles and throw up their hands! Unusual as this may be in films, it is an entirely sensible reaction to having a rifle aimed at you from that distance. Though it seems far, in reality it's point-blank range for those rifles. I'll lay odds that someone working on this film was a cruffler!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film captures the short moments between a mother and son in rural Russia, as she lays dying.

I am so torn between being nice to the film or declaring it a test of patience. On one hand, the film is beautiful, with the sparse dialog capturing the essence of their feelings. There is really nothing to say, because everything that needs to be said is conveyed beyond words. The son shows so much care, love and patience towards his mother, that I think it is a celebration of unconditional love towards one's family. It also cruelly reminds me that I could be in a situation like this, stuck in a joyless place, having to take care of a very ill person. \"Mat I Syn\" is cruel reality.

On the other hand, \"Mat I Syn\" moves really too slowly. Do I really need to watch a train passing by the horizon for over 1 minute? With my previous experience of \"Telets\" and \"Aleksandra\", I am so tempted to put \"Mat I Syn\" among them as a total bore.

I guess one has to be in the right state of mind to appreciate this film. I surely see the beauty of it, but maybe I am not in the right state of mind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved this movie! It's the finest parody of Russian cinema to date. Who else but Sokurov could lampoon Tarkovsky so brilliantly. You thought \"Stalker\" was slow? Well, step up to the plate. \"Mat i Syn\" makes \"Stalker\" look like \"Raiders of the Lost Ark\". By no means should you miss this film! There's no excuse - even if you live a busy life, you can still enjoy this film to its fullest by holding down the fast-forward button on your VCR. Sokurov has given us the first feature length film that can be appreciated in 12 minutes.

I suppose the next great masterpiece of the form will come when someone has the vision and courage to exhibit a film that consists of no sound or image at all - 45 minutes of a black, silent screen (wasn't this already explored in \"In The Soup\"?).

Apparently the filmmaker (and fans) have forgotten that \"motion\" is the first word of \"motion picture\".

!!!MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Want to reach the heights of genius that this film achieved? Here's a step by step guide:

1. Find a talented photographer.

2. Find some subjects and a suitably picturesque landscape (think Tuscany!). If you need inspiration, watch some luxury car or perfume commercials.

3. Shoot about 3 rolls of film.

4. Photoshop the results to play around with saturation, blur & aspect ratio.

5. Now just get out your movie camera, film 40 of the best pictures and have your \"actors\" mumble their lines off-screen. Don't worry about writing it ahead of time - just let the actors say whatever they want (lines like \"Do you want a drink?\" and \"Let's get something to eat\" are really all you need to fill up 8 minutes or so). If you can't think of enough dialog - no problem! Just have them repeat what they say a few times. If that still isn't enough, just let the camera run anyway.

Congratulations, another masterpiece! As a bonus, if you want to distribute it over the internet, no problem! The static images will compress down to nothing with standard mpeg encoding - a 73 minute movie would probably be about 2-3 megabytes, even at the highest quality levels.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film shows relations of the dying mother, and the son, who is very attached to her, and definitely loves her. What does it show? It shows their living in very poor conditions. It shows how tenderly they \"walk\" (really he is bringing her). But what do we see further? After their promenade he walks alone at the same places, where they walked together. It is not possible. A person, who love and care about another dying one, would do everything to make the life of this one better. He would not have a free minute to ponder, to be alone with oneself, and if he finds a few minutes a month for that, he would run away from the places where he has usually to be. Another thing. The author devoted this film to Andrey Tarkovsky. We see he learned many Tarkovsky's visual effects. But in Sokurov's film they are only effects, they do not support any senses or mood. Someone has compared this film with \"Mirror\" (\"Zerkalo\"). There is nothing common except these visual effects. \"Mirror\" is a great film and this one is just poor imitation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If Andrei Tarkovsky had been a hack, he would have directed Mother and Son instead of Mirror. This is the single most pretentious film made anywhere in the world, I am convinced. A son, without a name, takes care of his mother, without a name. They love each other, I guess. No, they don't, I'm sure. These aren't characters. They aren't even actors playing characters. At least it could be pretty, but even the nature seems ridiculously touched up and changed wherever it was necessary with a Macintosh computer. And could Sokurov have come up with a technique as hackneyed as a distorted aspect ration? You would have to have been born yesterday to buy this garbage. 1\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe being a government bureaucrat is not the most glamorous way of making a living but it's still a way to make a living. However, after watching this movie, one may come away believing that every government bureaucrat is a lazy, bloated, conceited, paper pusher who lives exclusively to partake of his next lunch break. Not exactly a pretty picture, but this is the picture that the audience has to endure when watching what is nothing more than another tedious, noisy, overacted action movie. Just what the doctor ordered ... right? How many more of these movies has Hollywood made? One thousand? Two thousand? The formula for making these movies is so beaten into the dust that by now it should be completely unrecognizable. The locales change but the plots remain the same, and with the same shallow character development and the equally shallow acting as trained performers are asked to devolve into pseudo-cartoon characters and act accordingly. This movie seemed to run-on interminably. \"When will this movie end?\" I repeatedly thought to myself. Leonardo DiCaprio was totally unbelievable as a CIA operative, but what has to be one of the great gaffs of miscasting, an overweight Russell Crowe plays a CIA bureaucrat. Please note that in this movie the on site operative is \"lean and mean\" while his desk jockey supervisor is fat. This is called stereotyping. What was the casting director thinking? Why not have Jack Nicholson play an overweight office clerk? Or Nicole Kidman play a frumpy department store saleswoman? And the story was so fantastic that no amount of literary license could afford it credibility. An obviously non-Arab American (Mr. DiCaprio) trying to pass himself off as an Arab ... speaking fluent Arabic ... concocting all kinds of hair brain schemes that are doomed to failure ... trying to out think and outfox real Arabs who are completely unfooled by his laughable Arab masquerade ... trying to romance a Palestinian woman while in the middle of conducting a highly sensitive and complex espionage mission ... etc. By now you get the point. Next time try casting an actual Arab in the role. Not even the most naive movie goer can believe all that. There should be a rough balance between the protagonist and antagonist. In this movie the protagonist is so transparent and incompetent that it leaves the story in shambles. Next stop for this movie - DVD land and oblivion. And one other thing. Don;t let this movie discourage you from working for the government. The pay may not be great, but the fringe benefits are excellent, a critical fact that this movie conveniently omits.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After two terrorist attacks in Europe, one in London and the other in Amsterdam, the prime suspect is the leader Al-Saleem (Alon Aboutboul). The CIA agent Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio) that operates in the Middle East is assigned by his superior at Langley Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe) to keep a \"safe house\" in Amman under surveillance, and he associates to the Chief of Security in Jordan, Hani Salaam (Mark Strong). Roger does not disclose the whole operation to Hani, and it fails due to the intervention of Ed. Meanwhile Roger has feelings for the local nurse Aisha (Golshifteh Farahani) and he gets close to her family. When Roger plots another scheme to catch Al-Saleem using the innocent architect Omar Sadiki (Ali Suliman) as decoy to lure Al-Saleem, he jeopardizes not only the safety of Sadiki, but also Aisha that is kidnapped. After the execution of Sadiki, Roger tries to negotiate the release of Aisha with the terrorists and proposes to deliver himself to save the nurse.

\"Body of Lies\" is a disappointing pyrotechnical tour through Europe and Middle East despite the names of Ridley Scott, Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe. The IMDb User Rating indicates that there are many viewers that like this type of fast paced movie of espionage using high technology, satellites and all sort of lack of respect to the sovereignty of other nations in the name of oil that gives no time for thinking, but that is not my case. It is boring and ridiculous to see the fat Russell Crowe with a cell phone like a family man while his partner is risking his life in a dangerous operation. The rich character performed by Leonardo DiCaprio is poorly developed and in my opinion this great actor is miscast as an operative agent in Middle East due to his biotype. But the movie never explains his connections with the Middle East. The rescue of Roger Ferris alive is also very stupid and corny. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): \"Rede de Mentiras\" (\"Network of Lies\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Based on the 2007 spy novel by David Ignatius, Body of Lies tells the story of a CIA operative Roger Ferris (DiCaprio) who is sent to Jordan to track down an Al-Qaeda mastermind, all the while treading a narrow tightrope of loyalty to his Jordanian hosts and his manipulative American boss Ed Hoffman (Crowe).

Anybody who's seen the trailers could be forgiven for thinking the story revolves around double-agent action and the betrayal of Ferris by Hoffman, but the actual story is much more mundane. Instead we are served a tepid broth of ridiculous subterfuge as white pretty boy American Ferris moves with virtual impunity through the teeming streets of Amman Jordan with nary a worried look over his shoulder or the attraction of attention from the locals. Only during a scene where Ferris takes his new-found Iranian sweetheart out for tea does reality intrude as the couple are bombarded with glares from Jordanian men.

Compounding the film's problems are plot twists and turns which seem designed as nothing more than padding. Ferris flies to Jordan, Ferris gets expelled from Jordan, Ferris flies to Washington, Ferris flies to the UK, Ferris flies back to Jordan, Hoffman flies to Jordan, Hoffman returns home to take care of his kids \u0096 an on it goes. This is the sort of stuff you expect to see in an episode of The Amazing Race, not a spy thriller.

In body-punishing loyalty to his craft, Crowe gained an impressive 63 pounds of flab for the role of portly Ed Hoffman, thus joining the small select club of actors consisting of Robert De Niro and Christian Bale as thespians who've subjected themselves to massive weight gain or loss for their roles. It's too bad that everyone else involved didn't share Crowe's level of dedication to quality, for if they did, we'd have a far better film on our hands than this sub-par mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I first read about the Left Behind series a few months ago and made a mental note to check it out since I have an interest in the way religion is used to control people in our ever more hate filled world, so imagine my surprise and joy when I found a copy of Left Behind : World at War in my local library, nestling innocently among the big budget action movies.

Now as a movie it's extremely poor. The acting is straight out of an elementary school production and the \"special effects\" would have looked dated in the early 90's. Being the third part of a series the story would be unintelligible to anyone who hadn't seen or read about the other Left Behind movies, and even with my prior knowledge it was still pretty laughable.

On the religious front, I don't think anyone who wasn't already filled with the spirit of the lord would find anything in the movie to convince them to change their ways. How are you supposed to fear the Antichrist when he's got a comedy Russian accent, and the worst of his powers are some pitiful CGI?

However, my main problem with this movie is the blatant attempt to try and dupe people into believing that it's a big budget action movie. Upon picking up the box and reading the spiel I immediately noticed something odd...nowhere on the packaging was there a mention of the true nature of this film. To someone not in the know it would appear for all intents and purposed that Left Behind : World at War was no different from the latest Tom Clancey. Nor, on the copy that I rented did it say anything about it being the third in a series.

Considering the whole premise of the series is that the Antichrist has deceived the whole world, I find it extremely hypocritical that the film makers tried to deceive me TWICE before I even got the to counter! If you're so firm in your beliefs then why not be honest about it?

The simple fact is, had this not been a \"Christian\" movie with the built in fan base that goes with it, I seriously doubt it would ever have seen the light of day. If Cloud Ten were hoping that I'd see the error of my ways and give myself to God, I'm afraid to say I would have died of boredom and\/or laughed myself to death before I ever had the chance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As with most viewers of this film, I'm an avid reader of the books. The first 2 films have Buck, Ray and Chloe as the main characters but in this the second sequel they play second-fiddle to Louis Gossett JR's Presidential effort. World at War is based on the meeting he has with Buck in the book series.

The problem is - this film is as awful as the first two. Amanda appears just from nowhere and suddenly has a significant part to play (I won't reveal it in case anyone hasn't read the series). Other illogical parts feature. I really really want Cloud 10 to make a good Left Behind film but sadly this is similar in all the bad ways to the first 2.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lou Gossett, Jr. is an excellent and captivating actor, but to have him take the role of a \"president\" and then have him act like he's James Bond, running around carrying a Gun and entering a warehouse to uncover a plot to kill Christians, and then being able to Escape the supposedly High Security Facility to live another day, does Not do him Justice - this movie has so many Unresolved Issues

I will attempt to list just a few:

1 - what was the purpose of \"stockpiling\" a Vaccine if no one is Vaccinated? - for example, the preacher could have been Vaccinated if the \"tribulation force\" already had Vaccine on hand - later, buck Williams' wife goes to be with the sick preacher and she herself becomes sick; so, was the Virus, therefore, Contagious? - IF it was Contagious, then why did Ray and his wife go into the church without Proper Protection? - why didn't they become Sick too? - and when Chloe drank the wine and was \"cured\", how did she suddenly know the wine was the \"antidote\"? - was it California wine, ordinary Red Table Wine? - could Red Grape Juice been adequate - and,if the preacher had received \"communion\" at least every time he preached, maybe he would have had anti-dote flowing through his body already? - buck and Chloe got a \"heavy\" box of vaccine that was never used - what mysterious message should we see in that?

2 - the presentation of \"evil\" forces who are working with the Anti-Christ Nicolai to destroy the world, as being Russian, Chinese, etc., is really a Relic of the 1950's and the early James Bond era, and shows an Ignorance of Modern Society and of Humanity - are we to believe that Russians and Chinese are perpetually trying to destroy this Planet? - and for what Purpose, mere Destruction? - this was such a Narrow-Minded view of this world and was so Clich\u00e9 as to be Laughable

3 - the main purpose of this movie was the scene near the very end where Kirk Cameron and Lou Gossett, Jr. are proselytizing the non-believers in the audience (by showing Kirk proselytizing Lou) - it was a movie with no meaningful storyline, too many disconnects with reality, and a completely inappropriate plot for a great actor

I, therefore, rank this as a 1, since Zero is not available","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the 3rd installment of \"Left Behind\" the makers did not care to put ANY KIND OF CONTINUITY into the plot. Although all weapons on the planet have been confiscated by the United Nations, World War III suddenly begins at the snap of a finger. Within a few split-seconds the ex-lover of one of the main protagonists moves from passionately seducing him to outright hatred to a melancholy confession of love without any trace of direction.

But foremost this film is really an irony-free zone. After the president of the United States accepts Jesus as his savior he immediately becomes a suicide bomber and blows up a skyscraper in the middle of the city. Osama Bin Laden will be very jealous when he sees this film!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kudos to Baxley's DP for making this look like a real movie, the first time that's happened in this series (with the notable exception of the F\/X scenes). In moving closer to movie production values, however, it lost most of the entertainment value of the first two. They were very much in the 'so bad they're good' category of horrendous film entertainment. Can an argument be made though that the 'believers' were simply trying to make a generic action film with praying in it? There are so many times in the film where they discard their own belief system as to be annoying. If everything that happens is according to God's will and they are simply his instruments, than the people who are infected with the virus have that happen as a part of his plan, right? Apply that to every situation where someone of faith doesn't submit to God's will, and you get a fairly hypocritical little movie from the director of 'Action Jackson'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was OK, as far as movies go. It could have been made as a crossover into secular movies. However, it had little to do with the Left Behind books that it was supposedly based on. Major story premises were removed, and new major story premises were added.

What disappointed me most was how Nicolae was portrayed. He was shown with supernatural powers that he did not have at this point in the books. Antichrist is not Satan, is not omniscient and not omnipotent.

Faith and beliefs were portrayed in weird, surreal ways that seemed to make the movie just silly.

Non-believers who watch this will have more ammunition to mock Christian beliefs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Purportedly this is the final film of the Left Behind series which is fundamentalist preacher and novelist Tim LaHaye's idea of what we can expect in our future in the final days of Planet Earth. If this is the case we can expect an activist presidency in every sense of the word if Barack Obama becomes president next year.

The Fantastic Four of Revelation are all back with one cast change, Arnold Pinnock who most would know as the guidance counselor in Life With Derek, is now the minister taking the place of Clarence Gilyard. Brad Johnson as the anti-Christ's pilot by day and Christian by night is there as his daughter Janaya Stephens and ace investigative reporter Kirk Cameron. These are the only four people on Earth who have divined the true nature of UN Secretary General Nicolai Karpathy and once again are throwing sand in his machinery.

This time they've got as an ally the President of the United States who is played by Louis Gossett, Jr. He's having one hell of a rough time, especially the guerrillas launch on RPG attack on a presidential motorcade killing Vice President Charles Martin Smith. That's right, the Toad is Vice President. Somebody really messed up bad here because everyone including those who would do them harm know a President and Vice President NEVER travel together.

It takes all of them the entire film to convince Gossett exactly who Karpathy really is. Once again the best one in the film is Gordon Currie as Karpathy.

We may yet see another Left Behind film yet, the door was left open though people assure me that they've run out of source material from Tim LeHaye. I suppose as long as they make money and these players can't get jobs in the mainstream film industry. And there are some unresolved plot issues involving Brad Johnson and Chelsea Noble who is Mrs. Kirk Cameron in real life.

One of the Fantastic Four does die in this film, so will it be the Fantastic Three or will they get another fourth. Stay tuned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes I think that somewhere in the \"Lifetime\" Channel's office complex there is a room where the writer's hang-out, with a large wheel on the wall - sort of like the Big Six ones in casinos. The latter have a lot of spots where you win even money, and fewer for higher amounts, until there are perhaps a couple which pay bigger bucks.

But I picture the channel's wheel having about six different genres on its wheel, with two of them, appearing the most, labeled \"The Psychotic Neighbor,\" or \"The Spouse with a Hidden Past or Secret or Both.\" \"Lifetime\" movies have a few repetitive story lines, and these two seem to be the most ubiquitous.

The \"Spouse...\" category can have a spouse of long-standing, but some person appears, or an event occurs, exposing that the good wife was once a hooker, one of the couple was involved in some nefarious act long ago, or that something else in one of the background in different than presumed -- etc., etc., or, as in this flick, one of them has entered the marriage with the most nefarious of aims.

One constant, in all of their genres is that the husband or other males are usually clueless, vacuous, and slow to have any idea what in the hell is going until the climax, or at best, very late in the proceedings (unless the male is the miscreant). Not the case here.

Whether the referenced miscreant might be the \"neighbor,\" or as in this offering, \"the wife,\" it is always fascinating how easily, successfully and effortlessly they proceed with their dastardly deeds. They manipulate many of the others, whack them as necessary, assume various poses, and juggle more deceptions than you can count - with unfailing success until just before the end.

The lead actor here, like many in this channel's movies, is an old hand. I noticed that another film in which he starred was titled \"The Perfect Neighbor.\"

Finally, the vengeful \"perfect wife\" in this flick dispatches those in her path with more expertise and ease than the most experienced and competent \"button man\" in Don Corleone's family could muster. And I couldn't help but imagine that Jack Nocholson's Melvin Udall character fro \"As Good As It Gets,\" with his massive OCD affliction, could provide counsel to the anti-heroine to assist in dealing with he obsession which was the basis of this opus.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, Lifetime has a habit of making the male species look stupid. And this soap opera ain't kidding when they make Perry King, supposedly a well renowned medical doctor, unable to see the evil surrounding him. Puts your trust in doctors, huh? How can anyone not see what's going on? Is he that stupid? And the evil wife, with a face like a horse, goes around killing off his entire family without a trace. How does she acquire all the drugs? That isn't explained. How does she get off being a secretary in a hospital without any credentials? I guess the director, Don FauntLeRoy asks us to just believe it. I didn't. I kept yelling at the screen at the stupidity of King with all right in front of his face. If the wife was that attractive, maybe, just maybe, I'd accept it. But she's not even that. Shannon Sturges is the perfect wife and I tell you she has the face of a horse. I wouldn't cross the street for her, yet our perfect husband does and quickly. After everybody in the cast get knocked off, I wasn't satisfied with the come up pence given to our villainess. She deserved more than she got. William Moses plays the doctor's brother who unfortunately you know his outcome from day one. Pleasure to at least see one pretty face in this clinker. That of Lesley Anne Down. She gives the film a 2 count just on the relief of seeing someone fetching in this mess. Perry King deserved his fate. What a jerk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to say, its not very good. Polly Bergen is fine in this film.The rest are so so. I'm gay and honestly , there are so many clich\u00e9's for this time in history that its just sad. We started watching it then turned it off, then decided it would be fun to make fun of the rest of the film. But all said, the basic idea of the film is good. If it was re-written with less contrived lines and better acting it could have actually been prety good. Over all i would not recommend it. IN additon the this is coo coo thinking line is so lame. On top of that the fight in the hair salon is funny because its so bad. The lesbian sister in the room with them while they are trying to get it on is so weird its sad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An example of all of the worst gay stereotypes all in one movie.

And Charles, why do you speak in that weird pseudo British\/high-brow accent, and insist that the kid speak that way too? Did anyone else notice that all of the soundtrack music is exactly the same? You should stick with the good old Hollywood camp drag stuff that you are so good at! Die Mommy Die II, the Sequel!! I don't see the value of spending time and money on a project like this; there are so many REAL life gay youth stories to be told and we should be seeing those, not this garbage. Sheesh, what a waste of time. Embarrassing example of gay cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Team Spirit is maybe made by the best intentions, but it misses the warmth of \"All Stars\" (1997) by Jean van de Velde. Most scenes are identic, just not that funny and not that well done. The actors repeat the same lines as in \"All Stars\" but without much feeling.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really liked the idea of traveling between dimensions, and I even liked the Wade\/Quinn tension in early episodes. Some of the worlds they created gave the main characters extremely interesting backdrops for their stories. However, as the show went on there were more silly disputes among the friends and less of a true bond. There was less wonder and excitement when they were involved in other worlds and more condescension. And every world had one of the characters falling in love. The writing just got boring and everything was way too over the top. Too bad it would've been nice to have a closely knit band of friends (a la Star Wars) traveling to different dimensions on TV for several years, rather than a tired band of knit pickers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I mistakenly thought that this neo-noir effort from the Buffalo - Niagara Falls area might be something different. Unfortunately I was incorrect. There are are many problems with \"The Falls\", that really have nothing to do with it's low budget video production. Immediately one has to question why all the constant narration? My feeling is that if you have a decent script, the audience will follow along, without having to be insulted with voice over storytelling. The acting is very amateurish, which is not unexpected, but simply adds to the problems. Finally, the entire thing is annoyingly shot like an MTV music video, which I found to be totally unacceptable. The narration, bad acting, and annoying video effects are all good reasons why this should be avoided. - MERK","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm only going to write more because it's required. However, the summary I put at the top is way too wordy for what this film was. You pretty much know who's in on it from the beginning. In spite of its attempts at plot twists and turns -acting 'talent' trying hard to have looks of shock and dismay when a twist happens-, you never really need to wonder 'whodunit' in this 'mystery'.

The more I write, the more I feel bad that I have to write so much in order to have a comment, but rules are rules. I really feel bad about saying this, but this is the lowest I've ever rated a movie... I think. It makes me wonder what I'm saving votes of 1 and 2 for. However, I thought this film deserved a 3, since I believe there was some talent in the film. Johanna Watts (or is it Watson) did a pretty good job. She was crying and distraught in one part and I thought she conveyed that emotion well. The man who played the character that was 'the drummer' did well, too, for his short part.

Many of the actors did an 'ok' job. But the lead actor, David -forget his last name (terrible with names)- was pretty bad. I think he must have thought he was doing dramatic displays for 'The Young and the Restless' or 'Days of Our Lives'. If you try, you can just picture him in a white lab coat, playing a doctor with multiple personalities on 'General Hospital'. It doesn't help that the movie is even shot like a daytime soap. Although, I'm pretty sure I could shoot this same movie with a camcorder; though without the obvious and soap'ish sound editing.

First time I ever thought the money to rent this movie was wasted. Though, I wouldn't watch it again, unless I was paid a large sum of money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought this movie was awful. I understand it was shot on a small budget but the acting was terrible and the movie itself was just plain dumb. The plot was predictable and the central character was an unsympathetic moron. In fact, all of the characters were unsympathetic and none were fully developed at all. The audience relates to no one in the movie. It was supposed to be suspenseful but if you don't care about the characters, it's hard to get \"into\" the movie at all. I felt like an outsider being forced to listen to someone tell me a stupid story. All the plot twists at the end were just a little too much - I was actually laughing when I guess I was supposed to be \"shocked.\" All in all, I thought it was really just a bad movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a collector of films starring Ms. Weaver, so I bought this only because of her being in it. I find it really odd that her early career is filled with so many awful movies. She started with incredible promise in Alien but then had a slew of bombs. These bombs include this movie, Deal of the Century, One Woman or Two, and Half Moon Street. She also appeared in The Year Of Living Dangerously, which was not a bomb, but her performance was less than notable. In the time between Alien and it's 1986 sequel, Aliens, the only movie she did that was worth anything was Ghostbusters. before the release of Aliens, I'm sure everyone thought this woman was on her way out. Luckily she wasn't.

Back to Eyewitness though, the film is boring. It doesn't create any suspense. William Hurt seems like a cardboard stand in, and the atmosphere is just to dry. Sigourney is decent but nothing worth remembering.

Watch this movie if you must but don't go in with any expectations of a decent movie. Watch better movies with these two stars like Accidental Tourist and Working Girl.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Peter Yates film from the pen of Steve Tesich is a relatively low key \"thriller\" that doesn't really manage to get off the ground. Story concerns the mysterious murder of an influential Asian business man and the subsequent implication of a pathetic Vietnam veteran (James Woods) who, the police believe, may have taken revenge on his ex-employer. As the \"Eyewitness\", William Hurt never believes his friend is capable of such an act.

Hurt is well below his usual strength, and one finds it hard to sympathise with him or an uninspired Sigourney Weaver. James Woods and Christopher Plummer do a little better in their support roles. Worth noting is the appearance of Morgan Freeman as Detective Black.

In retrospect Steve Tesich's story is only an unlikely romance dressed up as a mystery flick. The plot is far too contrived.

Friday, October 17, 1997 - Video","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the 1930s, Hal Roach Studios was on top of the comedy world with such stars as Laurel and Hardy, Charley Chase and the Little Rascals. Most of these films are exceptional and have withstood the passing of time. However, a lesser-known Roach product was the pairing of Thelma Todd and Zasu Pitts (later, Todd was paired with the equally untalented Patsy Kelly). Try as I might, I just can't stand these pictures--they just aren't funny. Plus, unlike Laurel and Hardy, there was not an ounce of chemistry between Todd and her two co-stars. Before you just think I am a crank, understand that I have seen and reviewed several hundred Roach films as well as many other early comedies, so I am well acquainted with the genre and within the genre, this team is among the worst. Part of the reason I think I am right about the team is that as a lower-tier team at Roach, they were given all the scripts no one else wanted. If Stan or Ollie hated a given plot idea, it was often given to Todd and Pitts\/Kelly--and usually it showed.

In this film, however, the team is at their absolute lowest. It's hard to imagine a comedy with less laughs and a more contrived plot. The film begins with Zasu in the jury and Thelma as a defense lawyer. As for Zasu, she's a completely annoying moron. NOT the lovable type moron (like Stan Laurel or Lou Costello), but just a totally annoying and grating person who is pushy and obnoxious. As for Thelma, as usual, she's the rather bland \"straight man\" and as such has little to do but react to Zasu's boorish behavior.

The plot involves Thelma defending a client who is accused of selling exploding diet pills. Considering that the pills are highly dangerous, when the attorney asks Zasu to try swallowing one it just seems dumb. And, while they were called \"pills\", they were more like giant black blobs that were larger than golf balls. Swallowing them only seemed contrived and made no sense--even for a low-brow comedy. When they find she has swallowed the pill and it really is explosive, everyone panics and runs about like idiots until the film ends.

As I said, I am not a fan of this team. However, even for those who want to like the film, there isn't one legitimate laugh in the entire short! When I talked over this review with my wife (who also saw the movie with me), she thought my score of 2 was overly generous!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This takes place in 1920s Harlem. A black owned nightclub has to deal with gangsters and corrupt policemen.

Terrible vanity project for Eddie Murphy. It tries to mix comedy and drama and fails at both. The comedy simply isn't funny and the drama is boring and badly acted. You think a film with three comedy legends--Eddie Murphy, Redd Foxx and Richard Pryor--would be great but it isn't. There's nonstop swearing and the OPENING scene has a young boy shooting a man to death (this is shown as being OK). Also we have the beautiful Della Reese degraded into playing a madam. One of the \"comedic\" highlights has a long, unfunny and terribly vicious fight between her and Murphy. A boring, offensive and stupid mess. Not the worst Murphy movie but pretty close. A 1 all the way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Produced at a point in his career, where he had the juice to do whatever he wanted, Eddie Murphy took on the task of producing, directing, co-writing and starring in HARLEM NIGHTS, an expensive-looking but ultimately empty gangster saga about a group of black nightclub owners\/gangsters running a ritzy club during the 1930's, headed by a wisecracking hot shot (Eddie Murphy)and his adopted father (Richard Pryor) and their attempts to avoid being overrun by white gangsters who think they are taking over turf that, it seems, they think is rightfully theirs, simply by virtue of their color. This was an idea that probably looked great on paper but it definitely lost something in the translation. This was a vanity piece for Eddie and I think he spreads himself a little too thin here trying to be the whole show here. Admittedly, it was a pleasure seeing Murphy and Pryor together on screen, but the rest of the large supporting cast, including Arsenio Hall, Redd Foxx, Della Reese, Michael Lerner, Danny Aiello, Jasmine Guy, Thomas Mikal Ford, Stan Shaw, and Eddie's brother, are really given precious little to do (though I will admit Murphy's fight scene with Della Reese is hysterically funny and probably, the movie's best scene). Murphy clearly poured a lot of money into this film and a good deal of it shows on screen. The art and set direction are impressive and the breathtaking costumes should have won an Oscar, but this one was a big miss for Eddie as he definitely tried to wear too many hats.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"by Dane Youssef

I was kind of looking forward to this one. I enjoy Eddie Murphy and I love it when a star hand-makes a vehicle for themselves or when someone who writes decides to mark their own directorial debut. But when the star's head gets too big for the rest of his body, there's always a danger of a big-budgeted Hollywood vanity production.

Will the filmmaker keep it real\u0085 or will he just waste amounts of money (the studio's, ours) and time (the studio's, ours & his own) patting himself on the back for an hour in a half? Sadly, it's the latter here.

Another thing I really like is when someone breathes new and fresh life into an exhausted and dried-out genre. None of that here. The warring nightclub movies have become so worn-through that even the parodies of it are dreary and done to death.

Murphy does neither. He does the most clich\u00e9d: He plugs into a routine conventional formula gangster picture and plays it as seriously as if it were \"The Godfather.\" It's like a script where the next draft, they put in the jokes and the new ideas. But it seems like someone with clout just looked at it and went: \"No\u0085 this is fine.\"

Probably Murphy. He is credited all over this. In the opening shot of beautiful white satin sheets, his name headlines across the credits about five times.

THE PLOT: A young orphan saves Pryor's life and Pryor adopts the little ragamuffin.

20 years later, Pryor's dump has become a first-class hot spot. They're pulling down big money and a gangster wants their action. He's even got a dirty cop in his employ. But Pryor comes up with a scheme, a la \"THE STING.\"

Murphy's screenplay plays like an unfinished first-draft that nobody had the pair to call him on. The actors aren't really allowed to stand-out much, if at all. Even the almighty Murphy seems to be on auto-pilot.

Pryor shows class and gentlemanly manners as Sugar Ray (perhaps it would have been better to name his character BROWN Sugar Ray\u0097further evidence that this one needed a polish), but everyone here is basically just on vacation.

The Oscar-nomination the movie received is richly deserved (Joe I. Tompkins' Best Costume Design), but the production values are the only part that makes the '30's feel authentic.

Some sets look somewhat fake, but this is supposed to be a comedy of sorts. It's rare one movie gets nominated for both a Razzie and an Oscar (unless it's one of Lucas' new \"Star Wars\" chapters).

It's 1938 and everyone is talking like it's 1988, particularly the comedians. This is a prehistoric white man's formula. And with all these black comedians and satirists, you expect them to skewer the genre or at least bring new life to it. Nope. Murphy is pretty much just coasting here.

The great Roger Ebert summed it up perfectly when he remarked in his review: \"Murphy approaches his story more as a costume party in which everybody gets to look great while fumbling through a plot that has not been fresh since at least 1938.\"

Jasmine Guy is perfectly cast and seems to be indulging herself in her role and Michael Lerner has all the looks, evil and mannerisms of the prototypical mob boss down pat. And there are moments where Pryor gives you an idea of what a more interesting leader and authority figure would sound like. He gives every scene he's in a feeling of dignity.

Would it have been too much to ask that Della Resse sing? Or at least quit embarrassing herself with all her \"Kiss My Ass talk?\"

And the late Redd Foxx doesn't get to leave much of a swan song here. He has some back-and-forth with Resse which could have been some great stuff. Nope. Murphy wastes another opportunity again here.

Murphy's Quick is charismatic and likable. But those moments are few and far between for sure. Murphy has never looked better and never been duller. His character made me laugh twice throughout the whole movie.

Stan Shaw's boxer with a horrible speech impediment isn't just painful and embarrassing, it's annoying. There's more to comedy than simply showing something unpleasant. You have to incorporate some kind of light touch and funny situation. Watching him strain even the some of the easiest words just makes us feel sorry for him and annoyed with Murphy.

Can Murphy write a screenplay? Well\u0085 there was \"Raw,\" but that was really stand-up material. He wrote the outline for \"Boomerang\" and \"Coming to America\" for sure. But her didn't have the last word there. Maybe a team of ER-like script doctors could've revived this one.

Murphy's direction is so slow and quiet, you'd swear he was asleep at the wheel some of the time. He has too many static shots and doesn't seem to know how to build and release suspense. On some level, I think Quick is the real Eddie Murphy. Angry, young, hot-headed and ambitious. But occasionally charming. Now if he were only funny sometime.

There's a scene in which Murphy has a femme fa-tale in bed who plans to make love with him and kill him. You can probably guess how it turns out. Like everything else in the movie, this could have been better, but\u0085

\"Surprisingly,\" Murphy has not directed another movie since (he got a Razzie nomination). And he no longer writes the finished draft for his films either (he WON the Razzie for writing this!)

It's great to look at and the music is beautiful, and there are a few really nice scenes. But that just falls under the category of \"gems among all the junk.\" Not enough of them.

Couldv'e been. Shouldv'e been. Wasn't. Oh, well.

by Dane Youssef","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is truly one of the worst movies ever made--and I don't mean in a so-bad-it's-good kind of way. Eddie Murphy is a great comic, and it is a testament to how bad this movie is that it nearly killed his career. The writing and direction are inept, the sets and staging about as imaginative as a Brady Bunch episode, and the acting shows just how bad a great cast can be when they have absolutely nothing to work with. If it weren't for the costumes--which, aside from Eddie Murphy's ego, seem to account for the major part of the budget--you would swear this thing was slapped together by a bunch of high schoolers wasted on peppermint Schnapps. That anyone could find this travesty in any way funny or entertaining is mind-boggling. It's probably no coincidence that the misguided souls who are praising this stinker are barely literate. But if your idea of hilarity is Della Reese getting her \"pinkie toe\" shot off, then by all means, put aside your drool cup and go rent this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1989 was already a year in where Eddie Murphy wasn't that longer hot and started making movies that soon would be forgotten. Funnily enough, it was also the year in where Murphy directed his first film, but it also would be the first and last experiment. \"Harlem nights\" wasn't exactly what you can call a success even if it was great to see the two best black comedians together namely Murphy and Richard Pryor. Don't blame it on the actors as they all played their roles like you expected them do, even if you have to face (again) the typical Murphy-laugh. The worst thing from \"Harlem nights\" are both the scenario and its terrible decors. Everything is set in the roaring twenties and everybody has their profit from the forbidden clubs. Sugar Ray (Pryor) and his adopted son Quickie (Murphy) are gathering easily 10000 dollar per day but of course soon the mob and the corrupt police come around the corner to claim their part of the cookie. Sugar and Quickie aren't guys who give their money for free and have their own plans. You can watch \"Harlem Nights\" that's for sure, but if you puke from the moment you hear the name Murphy you better avoid as after all this movie is nothing but a lame excuse to see some good jokes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just read through the other comments here, and was a little surprised to find that no one had said anything about the acting or plot.

Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy can both deliver an amazing Stand-up comedy show. Great actors they are not. Enough about that.

As for the plot? Oh man. Every time the movie tries to \"fool\" you into believing the good-guys are going to lose, you know those scenes: \"What? The good-guys loses? Oh.. I see, it was just a trick\", it's done so terribly bad, you can spot it a mile away.

It had 2 or 3 funny moments, but not enough to save the day.

It's a little silly that these comments has to be 10 lines now. A lot of people will fill it up with crap, for it to be eligible. Being brief is an art.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wasn`t expecting much with HARLEM NIGHTS but I wasn`t expecting it to be as bad as it was . Without doubt the worst aspect is the obscene language , it really is awful the amount there is in this film and before anyone accuses me of being a wimp let me point out two things...

1 ) Amongst my fave films I would include GOODFELLAHS , PLATOON , RAGING BULL while my favourite movie of all time is APOCALYPSE NOW

2 ) My all time favourite American television show is the HBO prison drama OZ

so you see films and television shows with massive amounts of swearing don`t normally bother me but the problem I had with HARLEM NIGHTS is to do with the fact it`s supposed to be a comedy but it seems the production team came to the conclusion that an audience laugh everytime someone ( Especially if that someone is black ) says a rude word and decided to subsitute funny situations with swearing all the way through the film hoping to get a laugh. Well I thought I`d never start laughing and I didn`t","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor team up in this would-be comedy about nightclub owners being squeezed by organized crime. Eddie Murphy wrote and directed this obnoxious ego trip, and therefore has no one to blame but himself for its failure. This is a genuinely bad film, so completely devoid of energy and humor that it serves only as a example of Murphy's contempt for his audience. It would be remarkably easy to continue beating up on this movie, but I will show it more mercy than it showed its audience and stop now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eddie Murphy put a lot into this movie by directed wrote starred and produced this story about two nighclub owners in the 30s who try to fight mobsters and corrupt cops from taking over their club..a great cast in Murphy Redd Foxx, Richard Pryor, Danny Aiello, Della Reese, and a gorgeous Jasmine Guy that would make it worth seeing on its own..but the story just doesnt hold up interest or give the great cast enough to work with.. on a scale of one to ten..a 4","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie i totally not funny, and I would imagine to be pretty offensive to Jewish people. (and I am not Jewish) Why? First, the whole movie portray the protagonist Zucker as a lier\/cheat running shady business and deals, while his son is gay, his daughter is lesbian, and his niece is a slut. Then there is the incestuous relationship that happens in the family, first his daughter with his Joshua and Jana, and then his son with his niece. Two incestuous relationship running in family. I am surprised they didn't add the plot of having a mentally disabled in the family...Now, that would really complete the Nazi ideal sub-human! (gay, lesbian, Jew...)

Totally disgusting film. I am surprised this film gets no response from any Jewish community.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was praised to be a fast paced screwball comedy and the best German movie of the year, so I gave it a try, even though I've already seen some films by Dani Levy - or at least parts of them.

I got what I had expected: no comedy at all, unless you think that heart attacks are funny. It's a fine example of sloppy screen writing, with an implausible plot and characters, loaded with clich\u00e9s that might be true, but surely are not funny either.

The most annoying character is that of Zucker's wife, played by Hannelore Elsner. She has to behave incredibly strange to keep the plot moving. For example: She doesn't know a single thing about Judaism, but by reasons most likely unknown to even herself she gets the idea to play the charade that she and her family are Jewish laws obeying Jews for her husband's family, who really are, and of the very orthodox and self-righteous variety. To make it a bit more complicated, she invites the four of them to stay at her city flat, because they arrive from Frankfurt in Berlin without having booked their hotels in advance, something no 60 years old business man, actually no grown-up German would ever do. This gives the viewer a lot to swallow, but still fails to produce any jokes.

Zucker and his brother Samuel haven't seen each other for forty years, but it turns out that his daughter - now a lesbian - and Samuel's son - now a militant orthodox - were once lovers, and he's HER daughter's father. Samuel's daughter - a nympho - goes after Zucker's gay son. Is this supposed to be a somehow humorous parody of Jewish incestuous tendencies? Probably it's just a thoughtless way to add some \"love action turbulence\" every screwball comedy needs. And of course is also fails to produce any jokes.

The praise for this movie is purely political. Therefore only people who enjoy watching movies that are supposed to be \"politically important\" will enjoy this one - even though \"Alles auf Zucker!\" quite clearly has no importance of any kind.

For all the rest: Don't watch it without a \"Fast forward\"-option. I really missed it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie starts with the main character lying in a coma in a hospital ward, attended by two orderlies. The unconscious main character is heard in a voice over, saying that the orderlies are gay. The orderlies kiss. I watched this in a DVD version and I have the suspicion that this is supposed to be funny \u0096 it said \u0084comedy\" on the DVD case, after all and it goes on like that. Had I seen this in a movie theater I probably would have heard part of the audience roar with laughter, because it is so funny \u0096 and because they are supposed to sit in a comedy. While it is fascinating to think about what it is funny and what isn't, this movie unfortunately only delivers arguments about what isn't.

Brilliant brains can MAKE anything funny, people like Ernst Lubitsch, Billy Wilder or Mel Brooks have proved that fact. But you have to know the \u0084mechanics\", I suppose. Director and co-scriptwriter Dani Levy does not bother about those mechanics, he thinks that certain things simply ARE funny, the fact that two orderlies are gay and kiss over a man in a coma, for example. Do not get me wrong, some people can MAKE that funny, Dani Levy can't, not for me, anyway.

The main problem I have with this movie is that I can't see a reason behind the way the main characters behave. I could not understand why the two brothers, one an orthodox Jew from West Germany one a third class carbon copy of Fast Eddie Felson from former East Germany so strongly disliked each other. They are both rather bland characters. Their children are boring apart from the fact that they are sexually attracted to each other (well, one is a lesbian now but raises the daughter she has with her cousin). But even these incestuous relationships \u0096 if anything they are embarrassing - just come through as an excuse because the scriptwriters could not come up with anything better.

The acting is not bad, Udo Semel I actually came to like quite a lot although he reminded me more of ex chancellor Helmut Kohl (a lighter version) than of a venerable Orthodox Jew. The direction in itself is not really bad either, but maybe Levy should stick to directing movies, leaving the scriptwriting to someone else. Now I heard he did a comedy about Hitler. Oi, Vai!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Robin Williams is excellent in this movie and it is a pity the material is not enough of a match for him. This may work if you buy into the \"U-S-A! Number One!\" mentality but story wise nothing much happens. Quite a shame really since the movie is really trying to say something, and says it sincerely. It just doesn't pack enough emotional punch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie could have been oh so much better. It is a beautiful story set in very trying times, and yet it was so poorly executed. The leading actors have in the past done excellent jobs, and for the most part they do an adequate job in this film. Although at times their dialogue seems stilted and forced. The directing could have been more concise. The bulk of the criticism should go to the writers, who took a good story and made it tedious. In short, there are thousands of MUCH better ways to spend 2 hours.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is not generally my practice to review movies that I dislike to any great degree. However, one or two times a year, I temporarily set aside my rule to only comment on things I like to give a word of warning. I find it more enjoyable to comment on something I like and boost it than I do shooting at bad movies. But some \"movies\" cry out for the razor.

Bilitis is one of them. The cinematography isn't the only aspect that is blurry and out of focus here. An almost indiscernible plot (certainly incoherent, if there even is one) bad acting, cheesy script and awful pacing. Those are its major problems.

Understand, I firmly believe that not all movies are created equal and films should be judged according to their category. It is not reasonable to judge, say, Beach Blanket Bingo against Gone With the Wind. I judge Bilitis against other movies in its weight class. Measured against movies like Emmanuelle or Secrets of a Chambermaid, it comes off very badly indeed. Even eye-candy has to be entertaining and Bilitis most definitely is not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When it was released this film caused a sensation. I watched it and was thrilled. Beautiful, usually young, naked women filmed in the classy style we knew so well from director Hamiltons photography. His photographs never become porn and the same is true for this movie. Today I saw it again and was bitterly disappointed. The soft core in extremely slow paced scenes, all filmed with some Vaseline on the lenses, actually is all there is. There is no real story, the characters remain beautiful and beautifully filmed bodies, but they are not real creatures with a soul. Actually nothing happens. It is like Hamilton is photographing using moving pictures rather than stills. And this gets so boring after a while. I even didn't watch the whole thing the second time, for I fell vast asleep. That is all that remains of this masterpiece: it is a very good sleeping pill. And you will never become addicted to it!

Back then 7 out of 10, now 3 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's dreadful, but ...

Cat Stevens fans are given the opportunity to see the woman who inspired the lovely song \"Lady D'Arbanville\" on his album \"Mona Bone Jakon\", before Cat turned into a fatwa-supporting religious zealot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was so let down by this film. The tag line was something like 'The story of a girls sexual awakening'. You can only imagine how disappointed I was. I was seventeen at the time and I took my girlfriend to see it. I thought we were going to see a sexy movie that would leave my girlfriend gagging for it. Sadly that was not the case. I guess we just weren't ready for a deep and meaningful movie that required an element of sophistication that we just didn't possess at the time. I'm not so sure I possess it now, and I have long since parted company with that particular girlfriend (pity really... my first love). We left the cinema half way through the film, my friend, who should have known better, stayed for the whole thing. I still got the required result with my girlfriend, the film just didn't help much. It would be interesting to see it again so that I can make a more informed critique, though I feel the experience has left me scarred for life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented the DVD in a video store, as an alternative to reading the report. But it's pretty much just more terror-tainment.

While the film may present some info from the report in the drama, you're taking the word of the producers - there's no reference to the commission report anywhere in the film. Not one.

The acting, all around, is pretty bad - pretty much all of the stereotypes of 'hot shot' bitchy foul mouthed government agents, each thinking they know more than everyone else. There may be some truth to it, but it really has a bad Hollywood stereotype smell to it.

IMDb's user community ratings & comments tend to be more right than wrong, and I have started to glance at the ratings before renting whenever I can.

I wish I had on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I tried. Lord help me, how I tried. But there are just some people almost incapable of creating quality. Brett Ratner, Uwe Boll, Britney Spears, and Asylum. To their credit \"The 9\/11 Commission Report\" seems like an honest attempt by the company to advance into a more sophisticated state of storytelling and movie making. But for all intents and purposes, it comes off as another truly film in their gallery. At the opening, the disclaimer notifies audiences that all the names have been changed, but the names of the terrorists remain relatively the same. A man named Mussaui attempts to learn how to fly a plane. With a stone cold grimace that would instantly make anyone uneasy, this \"undercover\" agent is able to learn how to fly on a small computer. And you have to wonder, not how he was able to get into this program so easily, but on how these people didn't even ask questions; because this scene is so far-fetched in its presentation, and the actor playing this man is extremely over the top. And you can see that director Scott attempts to mimic Paul Greengrass with a bright grainy photography that's followed by an awfully dizzying and irritating hand-held direction that, throughout the entire film, attempts to take off from Greengrass's gung-ho guerrilla film-making techniques.

You can sense Scott emulating Greengrass's technique for realism, but it becomes rather lame-brained halfway in. Meanwhile the film comes off less a \"Traffic\" take off, and more a take off on \"Law & Order\" in which we'll have the disclaimer notifying us the names have been changed, the logo almost reminiscent of the \"Law & Order\" logo, and then ninety minutes of the actors pumping their chests and discussing politics.

Neither of which are ever as compelling as it tries to be. And then when the film seems as if its attempting to be an adult drama, Scott relies on his old failsafe, the sex scene. Scott's new film looks like it really wants to be thought of as a low budget \"Munich\" but it's not, and it manages to be underwhelming on every such occasion possible. \"The 9\/11 Commission Report\" falls flat, and that's because its limited in its attempts to imitate other films.

While I appreciate the ambition inherent behind the camera, this new perspective of the events leading up to 9\/11 is flat, and dull. Hard as it may try to be a low-budget \"Munich\" it's only really as entertaining as a normal Dolph Lundgren film you'd find on Cinemax.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This documentary was very amateurish. It could have been made by college students. Assuming that it was, my grading is as follows. Content : C, Sound Quality : F ,Cinematography : F ,Acting : D, Soundtrack : F, Casting : C, Boobshot : A ......Overall Grade :D

I found myself getting seasick as we walked down the streets with the characters,bobbing up and down with each move of the cameraman'step.My mother-in-law even changed the batteries in her miracle ear and she could not hear the muffled dialog. Extensive post production editing and CGI would not help this bomb. These students would \"barely\" pass my course.My advise...don't waste your time or money for the one \"A\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Am I the only one who thought the point of this film was the graphic violence? I knew nothing about Leigh Scott when I rented it, and would not have done so if I had known that most of his previous films were horror films. I am not into that at all, I was just expecting an informative docudrama of the 9\/11 report.

Instead, I got an almost incomprehensible, violent movie. The only good thing about it for me, was that it made me want to read the report, to figure out what the heck this movie was about.

I wrote this because I am shocked that we have become so immune to violence in films and on TV, that it was not even worth commenting on by the bloggers whose reviews that I read.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We'll never know The Truth about 9\/11. And this shoddy movie proves it.

I recently watched a YouTube report claiming there were no planes involved in the Twin Towers' destruction; that all the news programs were supposedly provided with same-angle shots of the Towers from a mysterious source (probably the gubmint?), and in that provided footage CGI planes were substituted for real-life MISSILES which actually hit the towers....

It's a compelling video, and though I am not a Wacko Conspiracy Theorist per se, I am still not sure myself whether actual planes hit anything that day (the Towers, the Shanksville field, the Pentagon) - because there is no plane wreckage available. (And what about those infamous \"black boxes\"? None recovered.) A million other theories abound, all of them courting a droplet of Truth awash in an ocean of speculation. But you'll drown in malarkey before you find anything truthful or worth speculating about in THE 9\/11 COMMISSION REPORT, a no-budget movie that is trying to close the barn door after all the horses and jihadists have escaped.

Writer-director Leigh Scott is obviously a concerned American citizen who wanted to enlighten audiences on what the 560-page report might reveal. It would help if his movie had actors, instead of a guy who looks like David Duchovny, a chick who looks like Gina Gershon, a guy who thinks he's Russell Crowe and another guy who I'm pretty sure is trying hard to be Sean Bean. It would help if his camera operator didn't have Parkinson's; if the lighting director wasn't trying to save on electricity; it would help if his editor didn't have Attention Deficit Disorder, or if the soundtrack wasn't some tuneless new world order esoterica; and the looping should have probably been inserted when people were actually moving their mouths.

We can't even call this propaganda. It's too funny. And by funny, I mean unwatchable.

You can't squeeze an issue this complex into a two-hour film, but Leigh Scott tries anyway, including all those sexy catch-phrases we've grown inured to: bin Laden's intent to attack, purchasing weapons from Somalia, non-aggression agreement with Iraq, Mussawi attending flight school, weapons of mass destruction...

The problem is: we know it's all retrospect, so every discussion the concerned intelligence operatives have with each other reeks of fake hindsight all crammed into a neat conversation. Like contrived reverse engineering, everything pertinent is mentioned succinctly so that we can shake our heads in wonder at how incompetently all these branches of government screwed up.

There's a ludicrous interrogation scene with a lubricious bimbo beating up on a guy with tomato sauce on his face. Now - that would be considered torture if most guys didn't consider it a turn-on.

The tagline is: \"What if the attack could have been stopped?\" By this movie's account - and, we presume, according to the Commission Report - the CIA and other underground agencies were all set to capture bin Laden and didn't. Everyone involved with the \"terrorism\" reports (you mean you actually read these reports?) is so concerned we just want to slap them for their bad acting.

Yet the whole story goes so much deeper than the banal soundbytes the negligent Ku Bush Klan foisted on the American people after 9\/11. We now know that even capturing bin Laden before the 9\/11 attack would not have changed or achieved anything - the wheels were in motion with or without that Taliban figurehead whose involvement was the possible figment of someone's fevered imagination to unite America against a common enemy. Contrary to popular belief \"they\" didn't \"attack us.\" As Ron Paul tried to elucidate, it was a case of Middle Eastern blowback - \"they\" were so sick of America planting their infidel feet \"over there\" that they brought the war \"over here.\" So though George W. Death likes to tout the nonsensical, \"We're fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here,\" in reality \"Because we're Over There, the fight has been brought Over Here.\"

The 9\/11 attack was not so much about the intricate planning of terrorists, as it was the gross negligence of the Bush administration, who we know (without the probing of Commissions) had all the intel from the Clinton administration onwards; information about terrorist cells reaching critical mass and their intent to cause chaos. But the Oil Idiot of Texas, who refused to read his Daily Briefings and would rather vacation at his Crawford ranch than spend one extra day at work, abrogated the duty he swore an oath to perform - protect the American public.

And then the scum who called himself president used the attacks brought about by his negligence as a political hammer against his own dumbed-down countryfolk to score a second term, shred the American Constitution and take America into a Fake War on the basis of a lie (WMD), with a country that had nothing to do with the 9\/11 attacks. Strangely enough, the movie never treads near the Ku Bush Klan, offering no opinion or judgment, Leigh Scott wanting to remain neutral. Tell that to the raped and pillaged hundreds of thousands in the Fake War on Terror in Iraq.

Out of pure coincidence, I realized I was watching this DVD while wearing my \"Bush lied. Thousands Died.\" t-shirt.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was full of plot holes, inaccuracies (doesn't the time-clock stop for injured players or loss of helmets in Texas football games?) and not so much redemption (So Your Dad Beats the Crap out of You? Well, do something right for once and then he will Love You and make it all worthwhile).

Either make the movie about a team and its quest for a championship OR make a movie about a player within a team and his personal struggle but instead, this movie tried to do it all and came up more than a couple yards short. The book probably showed the whole story much better; the movie should have picked one element of the story and stuck with that.

Instead, the movie jumped from one character dialogue to flashes of game play and then another character dialogue months later without actually telling you who people were or why they were important--the QB calling his sibling to take care of the mother--whatever happened with that? Because the mother was coherent by the end of the final game, does that mean she's not crazy anymore? Its one redeeming quality was the soundtrack. Buy that and then watch SportsCenter highlights while Iggy Pop plays in the background.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was very disappointing in that several elements of the book were wrongly done. The main story is the same but there are several flaws that hurt the movie.

1) Boobie Miles gets injured in the beginning of the story in a preseason game at Texas Tech. This means he won't get anything done during the season at all and Chris Comer comes up sooner on the team.

2) The game against Marshall was lost at Marshall. The team depicted as Marshall was actually Midland High one of Permian's main rivals and here is the proof- Marshall High is the Mavericks colored Scarlet and Silver, Midland High is the Bulldogs colored Purple and Gold. Look at the jerseys and you will see who it is. Also the real Marshall High's football roster is overwhelmingly Black, the team shown was racially mixed like Midland High.

3) Permian only loses to Midland Lee by one point in district play. Midland Lee loses to Midland High and Midland High loses to Permian. These are the teams that set up the coin toss as such.

4) Boobie comes back on the team as a reserve to Chris Comer and after not getting any playing time in the Midland Lee game, he quits the team completely at half time and never stands on the sideline or goes to any games again.

5) Brian Chavez was a Tight End and Defensive End who wore #85 not a Tight End and Strong Safety. In addition, Boobie wore #35 and Ivory Christian wore #62.

6) The coaches end up liking Chris Comer as a player more than Boobie because he has a better lifting ethic and runs more straight up plays the way the staff prefers him too, this is in part why Boobie quits the team.

7) Dallas Carter is played in Austin at Darrell K. Royal Memorial stadium where UT plays in the state semi-finals not the state finals. Carter wins the state title but is forced to forfeit due to an ineligible player.

The acting is done pretty well but if you read the book, you will see these flaws are pretty true. I am also tired of hearing all the PC hypocrites out there complain about the depiction of Dallas Carter's football team. The team according to the book is as large, monstrous, talented, and black as the movie shows. People say it is a racist depiction but reading the book, you see a true depiction of the team. The story is very altered giving this movie a score of 3.5\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I honestly expected more from this movie. That may have been the problem. There was not one time when the camera was still - ever. On close ups, the camera shakes, the subjects move, and I get a headache. The cuts are so often and so fast, that the viewer often finds himself\/herself wondering what just happened. (LOOK OUT, SPOILER ALERT) And at the end of the movie, when you expect to have a happy ending after being put through so much useless thought to comprehend what is going on, they end up losing. To me, this was a basically terrible movie, wrecked by a camera man with ADHD, and lack of a meaningful meaningful plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just saw this movie last night, and after reading all the reviews I expected a good, emotional sports film. What I got was something clich\u00e9d and boring. Yes, I thought it was boring. I saw the all-star getting hurt long before the game. I figured maybe they'd wait for him to collapse until, ya know, the game before the \"big one\" but I guess the first game is good enough.

The parental relationships were also very clich\u00e9d, with the dominating drunk father (I will say McGraw impressed me, however), and the boy who wants to stay and help his (ailing?) mother.

I especially liked the random girls (Melissa and Maria) who were in the movie for all of 5 minutes, and placed there simply to get the football boys some action off the field. I thought \"ok, now how does this work into the plot again?\" Maybe I missed the point, beyond \"Well they play football in a town that loves it so the girls throw themselves at their feet\" point.

The sports action had some good points, but most of it was so rushed! I think the first game lasted longer than the montage of the entire playoffs! And I wasn't so sure about the continuity of the winding-down clock in the final game.

I guess I could see this movie winning the ESPY for best sports film if it was the only one released. Honestly though, I found it to be a boring movie full of people sickeningly-obsessed with the pigskin. For a better football film, see Remember the Titans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having been born and raised in Odessa, and having graduated from the \"other\" high school in the late 70's, Odessa High School, I had mixed emotions about this movie. I no longer live in Odessa, but will always be a Texan at heart. I didn't like the way that this town of 80,000 plus was portrayed as a dirt poor small town. If I'm wrong about this, please feel free to correct me, but I believe OHS also plays in the town stadium, and the \"Home of the Permian Panthers\" sign that was shown at the stadium used to be at the practice field at Permian. I would have liked to have seen a little acknowledgment about the cross town rivalry of the big game in town every year, OHS vs Permian. I am curious why the outcome of the game was altered though, I think it would have been just as dramatic if the real outcome was portrayed. Overall, the movie was okay, made me a little homesick, remembering the \"good old days\" of MOJO.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm at a loss. This entire movie made absolutely no sense. It was like watching a Soderburg film for football. The camera cutting, the pace, all so copied. I thought the subject was too not serious for them to treat it like it was. Yes, we all know Southerners like football and beauty pageants. Must we be inundated with it as an audience? I watched because of Lee and Jay. I was expecting young talent assembled in the style of Dead Poet's Society or similar to Remember the Titans. I was completely put off by the film. You didn't get the characters. It was character driven, but you didn't understand anyone's motivations or their actions for the most part. The one kid who's mom is obsessed with him being a football player. Why is he so silent? What's his deal? Did we really need the scene with him \"proving\" his heterosexuality? Why should we care? The movie gave us insights into these kids lives, and offered no pay-off for caring. It just made no sense.

And why show a movie about a team that lost? I know it's real life, but who makes movies about losers? Give us some pay-off for these guys working as hard as they did with all their \"conceivable\" problems, darnit. We got nothing. We got a little blip at the end of the film telling us that Mojo won the next year with the 3rd stringer (Lee). Why didn't you follow that story? What were we to get out of this one? The movie led you along, but didn't lead you anywhere. I just felt like something was missing. It felt like a bad genetic cross between Varsity Blues and Remember the Titans. At least those two movies led you somewhere. Friday Night Lights was about a loser team that lost their star player early in the movie. The actor who played him was great. You were completely annoyed by him, which was the point, but at least you understood why. They made sure you understood him, but he couldn't play, so why make sure we get his issues?

And the other team in the play-offs...are we to believe those are high school teens? Those men looked like college seniors or professional player in their 30s. Who were they trying to kid? I know the other team was to look intimidating, but that was crossing the line a little. I liked the gritty element of them negotiating with the black team, but again, how did this fit into the overall theme of the film. Nothing pieced together. The characters knew more about each other than we did, and that settles weird with me. Jay's characters had absolutely nothing to add, but he was showcased. It was all just a mess. Not worth a movie ticket or a rental fee.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One: your screen will be filled with beautiful effects and colours. These do nothing for the story, but they will keep your lazy eyes occupied for some 50 minutes. A good example is the eternal use of a computer screen that shows each fingerprint from the database as that print is compared with the one they want to find out about. Yeah, right.

Two: these guys being like real professional Pros, they will engage each other in intriguing Pro talk: \"Look, Grissom, these are what we call fingerprints. Everybody has them, and they are different on each person. So, with these fingerprints we can actually find...\".

Yup! Exactly like real pros would talk to each other if there wasn't a completely uninformed and stupid audience around.

However, not everything about this show is bad. Some stories work to some degree, and the colours _are_ really beautiful. They use red, blue, green, yellow... all of them colours I've loved since kindergarten.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My ratings: Acting - 3\/10 Suspense - 2\/10 Character Attachment - 1\/10 Plot - 2\/10 Character Development - 2\/10 Overall - 2\/10

This show sucks very much officially. For me, CSI Miami is the best, CSI NY 2nd and CSI 100th. I don't know, in the other CSIs you get into the episode you're watching. But in this one, you just can't get into the episode, no matter how much you try, so in my opinion, this show is not worth watching. I know people have different opinions, and I respect that, but for me, this CSI ain't good enough. So if you like suspense, real acting\/performance, good plot, direction, character development\/attachment and you an overall good show, I suggest you to watch CSI Miami.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like the concept of CSI, but the show is spoiled by some seriously wooden acting. The Medical Examiner has the best lines and delivers them in an arch, offhand manner that livens up the story. Unfortunately he has little screen time.

Also, why does Jorja Fox always look and act so utterly unhappy? I know that forensic investigation is a very serious business, but the characters, for the most part, seem to confuse seriousness with humorlessness and a complete lack of personality. I can't imagine dating either Sarah Sidle or Catherine Willows; what would you talk to either one about? I'm waiting for the episode when, at the end of a shift, Catherine picks up a remote control, points it at Grissom, shuts him down, and wheels him into a closet until the next day.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had the privilege of seeing this powerful play on Broadway with Kathy Bates in the lead. I only saw one other play in the 1970's-1990's that had an emotional impact like this play did. I really looked forward to the play being made into a movie but was very disappointed when I learned that Kathy Bates wouldn't reprise her role in the film--she wasn't well known off Broadway at the time and the producers must have wanted star power I suppose and cast Sissy Spacek instead. Sissy did an adequate job in the lead role but did not measure up to Kathy Bates in any way. I love Anne Bancroft but she seemed too young for this role. The movie plot was true to the play. Anyone who ever contemplates suicide should have to watch this movie to realize the devastation on those who are left behind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"************* SPOILERS BELOW ************* \"'Night, Mother\" is the story of Jesse (Sissy Spacek), a divorced epileptic woman who calmly announces to her brash mother (Anne Bancroft) that she's going to commit suicide. This is a fascinating premise that is drained of all vitality and excitement. The brilliant hook turns out to be a cheat- the story that follows is lacking in substance, gravity and revelatory value. Where are the shocks and surprises as mother and daughter have what may be the last conversation of their lives? Where are the secrets revealed, the confessions and fantasies and regrets? They're here, but they've all been painted the same dull color that keeps emotion in the background and celebrates the 'genius' of playwright Marsha Norman at the expense of everything else. The result is not a film but an exhausting endurance test.

Let me preface my comments by saying I find Sissy Spacek to be one of the greatest actresses in the history of motion pictures, a woman so magnetic, so natural that she continues to surprise and amaze me after twenty years of stardom. She brings a touch of class and magic to everything she does, and I've seen her rescue more than one film from the recycling bin with her angelic face and vulnerable eyes, her soft voice and sweet smile. It was because of the great Spacek that I watched this film in the first place, and for one of her movies to be terrible it has to fail in a significant way. This film fails in two.

First and foremost the film is adapted so faithfully from the Pulitzer-winning stage play that it is claustrophobic and repetitive. The entire movie is a two-woman dialogue between Jesse and her Mother. What worked on stage- a middle-aged mother and daughter argue for two hours in small house- dies on film. A play, no matter how great, needs to be *adapted* for the screen\u0085 it is self-indulgent and arrogant to believe that the dialogue is so perfect that not of a word of it can be altered. The screenplay for this film could have been shortened by thirty to forty pages, and a knowing screenwriter would have given the brilliant Spacek and competent Bancroft some *physical* sequences, some facial reactions, something to break up the wall-to-wall yak fest and prison-like single-set. It is no wonder that the screenplay was adapted by the original playwright Marsha Norman, who may know theater but reveals herself here to be clueless in film.

I cannot over-emphasize the effect the stage-play script has on the film. Watching Jesse and her Mother argue about Jesse's impending suicide is redundant and dull. The women walk from the living room into the kitchen into the den and back into the living room, where they start all over again. A tiny Midwestern house is not the ideal location for a single-set film, and the director never tries anything clever or original, never tries to break up the monotony with an exterior shot or cutaway or a flashback or *anything*. There's no music, no other characters, no other stories... just two women covering the couch cushions and arguing their opinions. The reverence given to the play is sickening\u0085 even Shakespeare's most solemn classics get shaken up for the screen. The commitment to the original play seems almost spiteful\u0085 it's as if the film was made only to document the dramatic treasure that was the stage play, with the audience an afterthought.

The other reason the film fails is Anne Bancroft. She may be a good stage actress but on film- where presence is 80% of performance- she rarely seems to fit. She certainly doesn't fit here, playing a Midwestern grandmother but looking more like Mrs. Robinson before her morning coffee. She chases Jesse around the house, looking more aggravated than astounded, and seems extraordinarily unsympathetic, even when her lines convey a loving- if flawed- woman.

Sissy Spacek is great as she always is, honest and open and so good that you actually understand and agree with her character's choice. Sissy lets us see that Jesse is a flat tire, a wrong turn of a woman who has had every bad break and made too many wrong choices. She's never had control of her life, and her suicide will be her way of finally saying \"No more- this is where I get off.\" That's how she puts it anyway, and when Spacek speaks\u0085 you listen. She proves in all her films that a good actress doesn't have to behave like a man, doesn't have to be all bluff and bravado and borrowed testosterone. In this and in films like \"Coal Miner's Daughter\" she quietly demonstrates a soft strength and quiet depth that is as impressive as it is hypnotic\u0085 you can't help but fall in love.

That's why it was so hard for me to watch \"'Night, Mother.\" Spacek is wasted in a stilted stunt of a film that never serves to engage or even distract. I would not recommend this movie to anyone except die-hard fans of Sissy like myself and even then you'll be disappointed. I do give the film an entire letter grade bonus for the ending, which is courageous enough to let the lead character do what's right for *her* and not pander to a hackneyed happy ending. GRADE: C","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is likely to be a real letdown unless you understand the circumstances under which it was made. The Marxes were chosen to be cast in the film version of a play that was not originally written for them. They are sort of force-fitted into the roles. Ironically it might have been funnier if it had used different actors who did not have such high expectations placed upon them. Instead, it has been forever enshrined as part of a canon to which it really doesn't deserve to belong.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Picking this up along with the rest of the Marx Brothers box set, I found myself disappointed by most everything beyond A Night at the Opera. This stinker is prolly the worst I've seen of them so far, with the clever lines left out and the characterization is woeful. The playwright is so obscenely stupid in this play it's hard not to tackle the television and try and strangle him.

As it is, the Marxes seem to do better as outsiders brought in to wreak havoc, and are much much better when they have a good gag or two at least. The material here is all obviously written for anyone, and it really wastes the Marx's talent. Avoid.

Rating: 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jumpin' Butterballs, this movie stinks! It's a dull and listless drag that never lets up. It's a wonder anyone even bothered to make Groucho up in his bizarre trademark eyebrows and mustache, as he has nothing witty or outrageous to do or say throughout this bore. Chico must have been so disinterested that he forgot to use his Italian accent.

Only Harpo provides a grin or two, and there's precious little of that to go around here anyway. Figure in a loudmouthed hotel manager and another obnoxious co-comic in Frank Albertson, and the road gets even bumpier.

A real misfire.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Army private Gene Kelly, who's also a talented trapeze aerialist, comes under fire for doing daring stunts without a net and alienating his high-wire cohorts; meanwhile, there's an elaborate 'camp show' to put on for Army soldiers and personnel, and the whole studio of M-G-M has shown up to join in the fun. Mickey Rooney plays M.C. (unctuously), introducing acts like Kay Kyser and His Orchestra, Bob Crosby, Benny Carter, and the M-G-M Dancing Girls (who appear to be dressed as vegetables). Red Skelton does a cute bit with Donna Reed and Margaret O'Brien, but the other comedic bits suffer from an apparent vacuum between the performers and the allegedly-live audience (they're awfully silent until the editor cuts to them for exaggerated reaction shots). Judy Garland sings an inappropriate song about a jumpin' night at Carnegie Hall (improbably accompanied by classical pianist Jos\u00e9 Iturbi, whom Judy calls 'hep'). The production is glossy, but the manic energy feels false, fabricated. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I spotted the DVD on a store near my home, and since I'm a \"cheesy horror movie\/alien flicks\" addict, I wondered how good it was. It even had two award mentions on the cover (I don't remember what festival it won) so I figured \"Hey this might be good\". So I bought it (for five euros) and I came here to IMDb to check out some reviews. Here, either people bashed the movie to say it was bad, or people said the movie was a wonderful feat in indie movies bla, bla. I then played the DVD, not thinking about any review I had read, with an open mind, and not expecting anything at all.

Man... I don't' like being this critical, but the movie was genuinely bad... OK, I'm just going to give out some pointers of what I thought:

1-Acting\/dialog: The acting was so confusing... sometimes the actors did a decent job, but there were scenes were I could spot no effort at all from them! The dialog was even worst... I think it was probably the aspect I most disliked in the whole movie. The talking in between characters seemed... off. Not just bad, but far away from the actual happenings in the movie. The monologues of the female character, although well delivered, became boring and annoying in a little while... But of course the most ridiculous aspect was the... \"aliens\" or the \"infected\"... I wont even comment on that one, just going to say that it was absolutely ridiculous and took the entire mood away from the picture; 2-Visuals: the strongest aspect in the movie... if you forget the awful FX and light flashes they used to simulate explosions or what the hell they were supposed to be. The \"camera in car\" aspect was quite cool actually, but they didn't even used the environment to inspire fear or dread. They left that to cheap sound and video FX and the three \"infected\" characters. The movie becomes boring in so many scenes...; 3-Sound: Talk about editing... this movie has no problems in showing how weakly edited it was. From computer sounds imitating the forest animals to the \"alien dialog\"... ah...

So what did I like in the movie... (SPOILERS) the only thing I really liked and it was actually quite scary was the succession of two scenes where the car is still and you spot something\/someone walking in a distant. At first I really thought it was me seeing things, but when the character realizes that the \"figures\" coming towards her were her own reflection, I was surprised! Pretty creepy idea done well! Apart from that... I had an awful time.

And I don't recommend this to anyone... not even \"teen get together\" because you can't even laugh at this...

I give it a solid 2. Only some technical achievements worked here... apart from that... yeah... nothing","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, first I should say that I assume this was just made by a group of friends with a limited budget. With that in mind, it really shouldn't be compared to blockbuster features and my rating would be higher. But still...

After giving it a chance, it still violated some basic film-making rules to such an extent that both the viewer and the amateur director in me cringed. A LOT.

Think: Blair Witch in a car but REALLY boring.

Think: You left your camcorder on the dashboard and recorded yourself getting lost in the park at night for an hour, then making your friends watch it.

The scariest part (POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT... IF SPOILING HERE IS POSSIBLE) was at one point the picture rewinds and you might think you will have to watch it all over again. SCARY.

Silliness aside, this is a pretty good idea for a low-budget lets-go-make-a-movie-tonight film. But the concept walks a fine line between being really good and really bad, and let's just say it wasn't really good. There were just too many parts where nothing happened. At first I thought that was the director's plan -- you were supposed to be lulled into a sense of security and then really scary things would start happening. But...no.

I kept trying to find good things to say about it (and I had plenty of time to think), and I'll say the music was kinda cool. And I have to give the female lead credit for standing around by herself looking scared for a really, really long time. But that's it. The actors playing \"infected\" people looked as if they were making fun of zombie movies. Or they got their motivation from the Bug wearing his Edgar suit from \"MIB.\" Chances are, if for some strange reason you're going to watch this movie, it's on DVD or Tivo, so you can fast forward it whenever waiting for something to happen gets too difficult.

I hate to be so critical of something, but at the same time I've watched a lot of similar movies and nothing has ever been this painful. If they just chopped a half an hour out of it and added some scary stuff, it might be decent. Maybe that'll be the director's cut...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here is a fantastic concept for a film - a series of meteors crash into a small town and the resulting alien infection is caught on a deputy's single camera dash cam as the town slowly taken over. Leave it to Albert Pyun to screw that up! Don't get within 100 feet of this flick! Holy crap, what a bomb...it might be Pyun's worst yet! The crazy thing is there is the germ of a creative idea in here - an entire of an outbreak told from the POV of a dashcam. When I heard that a while back, I imagined the car smashing into stuff, people getting run over, and infected types breaking the windshield and surrounding the car in chaos. That would be cool right? Instead, we have the lead driving around in circles for the entire time in a wooded area, occasionally running into the three infected types who just stand there. The last bit is literally a 15 minute shot where nothing happens in front of the camera, just noises are heard offscreen. Stay away!!! On a somewhat relieving note, I think I am officially calling an end to my Pyun watching...only took me 20 crappy movies to realize I have better things to do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jesus Christ, what the hell happened here?. This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen, how is it possible that they screwed up such a nice idea for a movie. To tell you the truth I was so hyped for this, I though it was like Blair Witch but with actual alien creatures chasing the camera guy. Goddamn it, I have been reduced to fast forwarding this pile of sh*t, and I never do that while seeing movies. The high rating here on IMDb makes me believe that actual aliens are giving 10's for this piece of crap.

Invasion is about well, an invasion. The movie starts by saying that everything you're about to see is real, blahblahblah. Then they go and tell me about a special camera system used in cars, as if I need to believe their bullsh*t to enjoy this movie. Next thing you know I'm seeing the most boring car driving ever filmed, in a forest at night mind you. Is this a movie, or a Disney theme park ride? The first 20 minutes is all boring dialog between cops while seeing grass and one straight road with a flashlight. Where the hell were the aliens?! They were sleeping of course! Then we learn that bad acting is not only reduced to high school plays, as the cop behind the camera goes out of his car to look for a missing man who was 'nightfishing' and had stumbled upon a mysterious meteorite. I wonder what happens to him? Out of nowhere, we see the 'nightfishing' guy walking like a zombie. The cop is apparently too dumb to notice that something is wrong with this man. Apparently he was indeed dumb, as the zombie\/alien guy injects in the cop's ear some sort of alien parasite, thus changing him into an alien. Then the cop\/alien goes back into his car, looks for a young couple that were having sex a while back in the forest, gets to them, changes the guy into an alien, and then the girl runs to the cop's car and escapes. If this quick plot introduction didn't get it in your head that this movie was bad, then the following 40 minutes will. Watching this movie is as painful as stabbing yourself repeatedly with a plastic fork. The script, while it may sound interesting on the back of the DVD box, is badly directed and sadly, we are left with another boring straight to DVD atrocity.

The only thing that kept me awake were the constant flashing and loud sound effects (lamentably). If seeing the same forest trail for 63 minutes is not enough, we must endure crappy flashing techniques to \"scare\" the viewer and constant wailing of a bad actress that gets old and annoying pretty quick.

If you feel you must rent this, I say to you, why? There are better SciFi\/Horror films out there. Even the dreaded remake of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers is more entertaining than this. For the love of all things good, don't bother with his crap. My eyes bled, and for the first time, I wanted suicide. A 1\/10, avoid this like a disease.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before going any further, I have to admit that I only saw the first episode of this show. If I had the time, I might have considered watching it every week, if only to see how the season played out. However, it was very clear to me from the beginning that Martha Stewart's version of \"The Apprentice\" just doesn't \"fit in.\" Martha Stewart made a career of being a happy homemaker, a domestic diva of the likes of Oprah Winfrey and Julia Child. It was only since her scandalous legal troubles and subsequent incarceration that her public image began to reflect the true roughness of her character. Sure, she was compelling for a while, and this entire series poses the interesting question of what it means to be a woman in business. Does she have to come off as cold and tough? Shouldn't she?

But the truth was, by the time Stewart came out of prison, her attempts for a public comeback, though certainly warranted, were never going to seize viewers' interest for very long. Perhaps a true comeback would have worked had she returned home peacefully and waited a year or so after her often mocked ankle bracelet was removed. Instead, she frantically dove into overkill with 2 series at once, the other being her syndicated daytime series Martha, much like her old show, but more mainstream, with famous guests like Bette Midler. Of course, even at her peak Stewart was never mainstream, so it's too much to ask that American audiences immediately accept her foray into reality TV. Maybe America wants Stewart to make a comeback on her own rather than be the basis for it.

The show was basically a tired retread of Trump's \"Apprentice,\" which still holds my interest, depending on the tasks, the cast, and Trump's firing decisions (often controversial - likely for that reason). The letter bit was certainly not clich\u00e9 but obnoxious in the least. The fact that Stewart never says, \"You're fired!\" - mentioned in the message board on this site - is particularly distressing. Producer Mark Burnett should be admired for dealing with Stewart's jail time honestly while trying to make her a hero, but the truth is that anyone watching can tell that she's basically trying to put on a show of being this nice businesswoman. Again never mainstream, Stewart lacks the agreeability and identifiability of Oprah Winfrey and the admirable, charismatic \"toughness\" of Donald Trump. Yes, this can be a gender-biased assessment of her character, but I mean it to be more about the nature of her business.

It comes as no shock that Stewart has been fired, but I wonder if they really always intended it to only last for one season?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh boy, oh boy. This movie is something for the lovers of \"real\" cineatique art. It really does not make ANY sense at all. It is totally boring, especially because of the \"anti-climaxes\". All people behave more than strange, and unrealistic. Sometimes it feels like sitting in a theatre, because in dialogues the actors tend to face the camera (and therefore the audience) instead of each other. Like I said before, if you are in to those more artful movies, shown in Cannes - go for it. If you are not, better leave this movie alone, because you will be more than disappointed, and in the end know that you have wasted your time - like I did. Two thumbs down... :-(((","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the second adaptation of Charlotte Armstrong by Claude Chabrol for the screen:the first was \" la rupture\" (1970)(from novel \"the balloon man\" )and it's really a pity no one cares about it.It's Chabrol's sleeper,and I urge any of his fans to see it.

\"The chocolate\" cobweb was not that strong a detective story to begin with.I read it 20 years ago and forgot all about it.The movie promises some good things at first,though,then finally disappoints to a fault.This is a confusing Chabrol movie,mixing elements of the heyday (circa 1969),and a lotta tongue-in-chick stuff coming from the eighties ,the likes of 'poulet au vinaigre\",not one particularly memorable work.

Part of the disappointment comes from the cast:this is a distressingly poor gathering:Jacques Dutronc plays like a zombie,Isabelle Huppert reveals herself a somewhat limited actress,finally rather vulgar .It worked in \"une affaire de femme\",it does not here.They are not supported by the young couple :both are bland and unremarkable.Actors from the past,say,Stephane Audran or Michel Bouquet(both in \"la rupture\") were brilliant and contributed to Chabrol's then unique atmosphere.

The story itself is undistinguished:beginning as some kind of \"serious\" \"la vie est un long fleuve tranquille \" (besides,a character hints at Etienne Chatilliez's very funny movie),the movie drags on and on as a laughable psychological drama afterwards.We will not congratulate the young female pianist ,who,after all she learned about her wicked hostess,agrees to drive a car along a dangerous road.

Because he makes too many movies,Chabrol frequently releases turkeys.One wonder why people who wants to watch one of his movies should choose this one among all his stuff up for grabs.

It seems that Chabrol's bourgeoise satire has finally given way to leniency.In \"la rupture\" the first Armstrong adaptation-an average detective story which Chabrol completely transcended-,you should hear Audran say \"they have so much money!\".Here ,Chabrol has lost his bite,his strength.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I did not like this film at all: The scenario is boring - and after a while, its primitive predictability really gets on your nerves. Even if you give Chabrol a high bonus for not being a beginner, I did not manage to find anything specially interesting on his characterization of Mika neither.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The beginning of the film is promising. When Jeanne Pollet(Anna Mouglalis) hear the story of the incident that happen on the day she was born that raise the possibility that she is the daughter of a famous pianist, Andr\u00e9 Polonski (Jacques Dutrone), she set to find out whether it's true or not, and giving the fact the she plays also the piano that's not such a remote idea. Jeanne meet Andr\u00e9 and his wife \"Mika\" Muller(Isabelle Huppert) and their son and on the way uncover the fact that there are some secrets in that family as much in her own.

O.K. we have seen this before and it has been done in a more interesting way than here.The character of \"Mika\" Muller is left with out us understanding her motives to her action and she is not interesting enough to care for her. The piano scenes look fake and the whole piano sub-plot doesn't add anything to the character's insight but serve as to make the film longer than it should have been in the first place.

In short a very disappointing outing from Chabrol, who can do better than this","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The French either make pro-Marxist films or anti-Marxist films - with a few in between. \"Merci pour le chocolat\" is the latter of this genre. From the opening credits telling the viewer what music is going to be played and by whom it was who composed you know that you are going to be swathed in middle class pretension. It is an old man's film with an excess of 40's plus people. It is also directed by an old man along with an old crew who have nothing to say about life to the viewer. The plot is not only banal but preposterous. How many films reveal the plot through dialogue only to repeat the same message via flashback some five minutes later? Maybe the director and actors had a low retentive capacity? In truth their is no tenable plot at all. It is riddle with holes like a good piece of French cheese.

Whether intentional or not, it is a film about the bourgeoisie. At least a third of the film focuses on the piano and the pretentious twaddle espoused in each scene. I concede it has some well framed shots though they couldn't have used a steady-cam in this film - it would have woke them all up! Other than it being a nonsense story, the film allows the upper middle class to parade their values and vanity in a very comfortable Swiss location. A telling line of the film is when Rodolphe Pauly tells Anna Mouglalis that she need not lock her car while in the resort! Oh dear me.

On the DVD, Miss Huppert makes a comment about shedding a false tear for a scene. Smirking she says: \"Like they do in the American Actor's Studio!\" I think Miss Huppert and the rest of the cast could learn well from the Actor's Studio.

If there is one statement that stand out in my mind it is when Huppert remarks 'we are having friends for the weekend and all the servants are away'. No doubt they had all escaped from the mind numbing set lest they be associated with such an appalling film.

Safety Medical Note. In the film they show a hot water scald being covered with ointment and a bandage. This should never be done. Only cold water should be used.

Minus 10 marks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The dominating conflict is between a couple of fine actors (Huppert and Dutronc) and the horrible script. Evidently, the actors lost, since the director\/screenwriter Claude Chabrol eventually forced the leading couple to follow this worthless piece of sick imagination to the letter. Fortunately, the powerful performances by Huppert and Dutronc dramatically improve the overall quality of the movie, which miraculously gains the depth and humor. As for Chabrol's persistence in keeping the film bland and illogical, it reaches the climax in the final scene, which is so incredibly poor that you will wonder which pills he was taking himself while directing it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Something does not work in this movie. There are absolutely no energies between the actors. In fact, their very acting seems frozen, sometimes amateur. Also, the script is not convincing and not reliable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think it is very interesting this movie is called a thriller. It is anything but thrilling.

Most of the time you hear piano sounds. Then you hear piano sounds. Then some people talk about facts which do not concern anybody.

Then again piano sounds.

To be honest, this movie was the reason for me to register at IMDb, because I think this movie is one of those which humankind has to be warned of.

Spoiler: By the way, the most action-like part happens when a can of hot chocolate is spilled.

Also very interesting: The \"actors\". Yes, the quotes are intentional, as you can think, because they do not act. They play piano and do smalltalk, but it's not acting they do.

I think before this movie I never left a cinema and felt angry. Really, this film made me angry. Angry for the time and money I spent on it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a waste of time. It looks nice, pretty settings, nicely acted, appears earnest and seems to be leading somewhere so you stay tuned awaiting a meaningful payoff. It doesn't happen.

It surprised me that so much effort could be put into a movie, it was clearly very professionally done, and have an outcome that seems nothing short of a b-movie.

Save your precious time and see a good french film like Les Visiteurs (funny), Jean de Florette or Manon of the Spring. I can't recall the language in Europa Europa, but that's another Great film--heavy but very worth viewing.

This film appears to promise a lot but delivers nothing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For any wrestling fan, this is the wrestlemania to forget. No logic to the matches, some garbage gimmicks (doink the clown, and the Giant Gonzalez) this was a forgettable PPV something rare for the WWE(F). The logic of Hogan winning the world title at the end made no sense, and many people feel that alone help put the nail in the PPV. From the meaningless gimmicks of the roman soldiers, to simply some real bad wrestling (doink vs Crush being the worst match) to simply bad match making (Scott \"Razor Ramon vs Bob Backlund, how can you have one of the greatest mat wrestlers, making a comeback, and working his first wrestlemania, face a power wrestler who was undefeated at the time), this is a PPV that even the WWE has since admitted, was way below what the expected. just all around a stinker","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I liked the whole set up with Ceasar's Palace, the Roman guards, and announcers in togas. This event also marked \"the passing of the torch\" as far as the voice of the WWF goes. Gorilla Monsoon who had done the play by play for every WWF PPV up to this point opens up and gives the typical introduction making it look like he's there to announce another PPV. But then introduces Jim Ross who is making his WWF debut and JR continues to do the WWF commentary to this day. But outside of that, this event is pure garbage. Good ol scientific wrestling has been thrown out the window and enter the birth of gimmicks. This to me was the event that the WWF started to go down the toilet, and didn't recover until the attitude era of the late 90's. Here's a review of the event.

IC title match: Tatanka (Challenger) vs. Shawn Michaels (champ): An okay opener, but given what Shawn is capable of, it was very disappointing. I have no idea why the WWF was hell bent on putting Tatanka over. They should of realized that Shawn was the future and Tatanka was just some hyper wrestler in an Indian Gimick. The ending of the match itself was very lame. Shawn grabs the ref and pulls him out, then gets called for a count out. While it was fun watching Sherri get beat up afterwords, this match just was forgettable. Shawn had to carry this match and had trouble doing it.

The Stenier Brothers vs. The Headshrinkers: Steiners get the win via a Franknsteiner. This match had it's moments, but the crowd just didn't seem into it. There was no heat behind it, I think it was a match just to throw two tag teams in.

Crush vs. Doink the Clown: TERRIBLE! TERRIBLE! TERRIBLE! This match completely sucked. Two very lame gimmicks. A clown and a Hawaiian dressed in bizarre colors. The ending caught everybody by surprise. In the upcoming months, Crush turned heel and Doink turned face, but none of the fans seem to care. Sadly, this was not the worst match on the card.

Razor Ramon vs. Bob Backland: You got a brand new heel that is very over going against a wrestler who was forgotten about 10 years ago. The fans snicker and laugh when Backlund comes out. And like Hogan\/Rock in WM18 and HHH\/Owen in WM14, the heel wrestler gets louder cheers in the face. Thankfully this match was short. The right guy won, but I wish they had Razor totally beat the crap out of and squash Backlund rather than winning by a small package out of nowhere.

Tag Team Champion Match: Ted Dibiase and IRS (Champs) vs. Hulk Hogan & Brutus Beefcake w\/Jimmy Hart I still would like to know the full story on what happened to Hogan's eye. Oh well. The crowd was really into this match, but it had no flow to it what so ever. Hogan and Beefcake were clearly suffering ring rust given that both wrestlers had been on the shelf for at least a year. Dibiase, being the great technical wrestler that he was, did help to carry the match from being a complete waste. The ending was a surprise with Dibiase and IRS getting the win via DQ. But to please the crowd, Hogan and Beefcake did their usual playing to the crowd at the end like they had won the match.

Lex Luger vs. Mr. Perfect: The best part of this match was the four hot chicks that accompanied Lex Luger to the ring. Other than that, this was completely forgettable. The Mr. Perfect gimmick was born for a heel role and he just lacked the heat as a face. And Luger is just a waste of time no matter what gimmick he's in. Luger wins via a backslide despite that Perfect's feet were in the ropes. Then Perfect spends the post match getting his butt kicked. First Luger knocks him out with the running elbow. Then when Perfect regains consciousness he goes back to the dressing room to find Luger only to get the crap beaten out of him by Shawn Michaels, setting up an HBK\/Perfect feud that had the potential to be a classic but the WWF misused.

The Undertaker vs. Giant Gonzales: ABSOLUTE CRAP!! What was the WWF thinking bringing in such a horrible wrestler as Giant Gonzales. Sure he had size, but I'd rather watch the Brooklyn Brawler in a match than him. This isn't even worth commenting on.

WWF CHAMPIONSHIP MATCH: Bret Hart (champ) vs. Yokozuna (challenger) You have one of the greatest technical wrestlers of all time going against a guy who's only advantage is that he's a gigantic lard ass. Bret was able to carry the match, but a rather predictable ending with Mr. Fuji throwing salt in Bret's face.

POST MATCH: Yokozuna vs. Hulk Hogan Pure crap right here. Hogan comes down to the ring for no apparent reason and Mr. Fuji challenges him to a match after Yoko just won the title. Even the die-hard Hulkamaniacs find this to be total BS.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1993 was a time of change in the WWE but for this Wrestlemania they decided to wind back the clock as Hulk Hogan returned, along with his good friend Brutus Beefcake, who had been out of wrestling since a paragliding accident in 1990.

This was not a great event. Only two matches had any real build and the whole thing came off as being rushed. The in ring action wasn't great and the twist at the end, which I'll discuss later, really wasn't the earth shattering moment the WWE hoped it would be.

This forgettable night started off with Shawn Micheals defending his Intercontinental Championship against the undefeated Tatanka. Tatanka had beaten Michaels a couple of times leading into the fight. Michaels had a new manager, Luna Vachon while Tatanka was accompanied by Michaels' former manager and future WWE Hall of Famer Sherri Martel. Tatanka won by DQ. Michaels kept his title and went straight back into his feud with Marty Janetty, which had been put on hold just for Wrestlemania. Why, I have no idea.

Next up saw the Steiner Brothers (Scott and Rick) defeat the Headshrinkers (Samu and Fatu) with Scott scoring the pin after hitting Samu with the Frankensteiner. Good match.

Doink the clown needed help from another clown to win his match against Crush. A second Doink distracting Crush when he was in complete control and allowing Doink to get the pin and the victory. Doink was an entertaining gimmick character, who got old rather quickly.

Razor Ramon easily defeated the returning Bob Backlund in the next match.

This brings us to the first in our double main event. As the Mega Maniacs Team of Hulk Hogan and Brutus Beefcake, with the newly turned good guy Jimmy Hart in their corner, took on Hart's former buddies Money Inc (Ted DiBiase and Irwin R Shyster). This was a fairly sketchy finish. Beefcake, as mentioned, had been in a paragliding accident requiring full facial surgery and had wrestled the match with a face mask on. Shyster ripped the mask off him and beat Beefcake to a pulp. The ref went down, Hogan grabbed the face mask and knocked out DiBIase and Shyster and then Hart, who was wearing a referee shirt, counted the three. Another ref came down and reversed the decision, declaring Money Inc winners by DQ.

Next up Lex Luger or the Narcissist as he was also known at the time defeated Mr Perfect. This match came about because Luger was being managed by Perfect's old manager Bobby Heenan. Perfect had is feet on the ropes when he was pinned, but the ref missed it.

The Undertaker picked up a lacklustre DQ victory in a pretty poor match against the Giant Gonzales. THe Undertaker had earned the ire of Gonzales' manager Harvey Wippleman in 1992 and Taker had defeated his big monster Kamala at Survivor Series. Wippleman vowed revenge and took it at the Royal Rumble as Gonzales attacked Taker, costing him the match. Gonzales dominated Undertaker in this match, but was DQ'd for choking Taker out with chloroform. Weird finish to a bad match.

This bought us to our main event as WWE Champion Bret Hart, seriously challenged as champion for the first time, put his title on the line against Mr Fuji's unstoppable monster Yokozuna. Yokozuna controlled the early going, but Hart resisted and then took control. He had Yokozuna in the sharpshooter, surely he would give in and Hart would be established as an heroic hero after taking out the big monster. But Fuji had other ideas, throwing salt in Hart's face, rendering the Canadian helpless as Yokozuna got the pin.

What a downer ending. But wait here comes Hulk Hogan. He's checking Hart to make sure he's OK. Suddenly Fuji challenges Hogan to a WWE Title right then and there. Hogan accepts. Fuji throws salt towards Hogan, but hits Yokozuna instead. Hogan hits the leg drop and wins the match and the title. What did I just watch? And so, what most fans thought was going to be the night we either saw Hart establish himself as a giant killer, or Yokozuna establish himself as an unstoppable monster, we instead saw Hulk Hogan pick up a meaningless title win. A title that he would not defend for three months. As a matter of fact this was the only match Hogan wrestled for the WWE before the King of the Ring PPV in June 1993.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"UGH!...this is the worst Wrestlemania hands down....no good matches.....Hulk Hogan rears his over tanned bald head yet again in the main event, the spot light hoggin scum!....not one thing note worthy on this tape, oh..I take that back...this is Jim Ross's first WM...but other than that....it has nothing worth seein....a major bust...

1 out of 10 stars WOOF!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worst Wrestlemania ever.

This had no must see bouts and many crap ones at that. This took place in Las Vegas and WWE made it's employees dress up like Egyptian gods! They even changed Howard Finkels name to Finkus Maximus, which probably doesn't mean anything. The sight of seeing Jim Ross in that terrible gown still gives me nightmares to this day and I'm 21 years old, so you could imagine it when I was 7 years old! Bobby Heenan was funny though.

Matches included The Undertaker vs Giant Gonzales in a p*ss poor match, The Headshrinkers vs The Steiner Brothers in a useless match, Doink vs Crush in a comedy match and a boring match featuring Razor Ramon vs Bob Backlund. Hulk Hogan teamed up with Brutus Beefcake to battle Money Inc. You could clearly see Hogan had a black eye. In storyline purposes Ted DiBiase and IRS beat up Hogan while he was playing poker or something like that in the casinos, which is a poor storyline, but in reality, Macho Man Randy Savage hit Hogan because Savage thinks he's like The Hulk (no pun intended) no not the wrestler but the film character.

The main event consisted of Bret 'Hitman' Hart facing off against Yokozuna in a very boring main event match. Mr Fuji threw salt in the face of Hart and Yoko won, but not until Hogan came down and squashed Yoko in 21 seconds.

Overall Grade - E","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on \"scrubs\" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show \"scrubs\" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love how everyone treats this show like it was the next great American sitcom. I watched five episodes of this abomination, and the only person that came close to an actual teacher was the old guy that sort of loved and hated his job. The rest of them were just pretty people trying to read the lines written by people who never actually went inside of a real classroom. I loved how every episode consisted of the two idiots (one who got laid and the other who didn't) getting into some form of zany trouble that indirectly involved their students. The British girl who thought she found an likable quality in the main idiot, but in the end was somehow shocked that he turned out to be a jackass. The hot chick that was there for the particular purpose of being hot, and the principal and her lackey that served to somehow move the almost non-existent plot forward. I loved how almost all the teachers on this show were very young, but I ask you to think back to your high school days and remember the teachers that you had . . . did they look like that? Or did you go to the high school that had middle-aged people teaching in it? That is the high school that everyone else went to. The show lacked any form of research into what goes on in schools. In public schools, principals do not have the power to higher and fire teachers, the school board does, but in every episode that I watched the principal made threats to fire her teachers. Think back to your history class . . . . . or think of any history class, did you ever see an incredibly hot British chick teach an American History class? No. Did you ever see a teacher's lounge that is so huge that you could actually play basketball in? No.

Teachers could have been a great show had it actually of based itself in some form of reality. What makes teaching funny is the stories that you get from interaction with students, and the teachers find it funny because they deal with the students day in and day out. The overemphasis on their lives outside of teaching just made it another four camera sitcom that had unrealistic people in an unrealistic environment saying unrealistic lines, and I'm sorry, I just didn't buy it. The show could have modeled itself after other currently successful sitcoms and used a single-camera format, and it should have centered more around the teacher's relationships with their students and not with each other.

It gets a star for trying and a star for the hot chick (she was really hot).

In the end, it was a failed sitcom that will go down in history as a hacks attempt to understand a profession. I only hope that if they make another sitcom based on teaching that they learn from their mistakes so that a monstrosity such as this never touches the television screen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was watching TV one day with a friend and we caught the last twenty minutes of \"Going Bananas.\" Believe me when I say it was enough to get a good judgment of the film. The first scene that I saw was the monkey, the kid, the fat guy, and the black guy who looked like Dave Chappelle, flying around in a crop duster thousands of feet in the air. While everyone else was solemn about the journey, the monkey seemed to be on some kind of drug binge where he kept shouting something that resembled the English word faster. They then landed on a twenty yard long dock in Africa. After a heart felt goodbye where the monkey cried (Hahahaha), the \"villains\" of the film appeared. They were tearing complete ass in their vintage Cadillac when the evil monkey took an Air Jordan leap form the dock onto the boat that was sailing away a clean 40 yards away and made them sink their beautiful car into the Pacific Ocean. After seeing this film, I have a new purpose in life; to find the midget who played the monkey and stab him in the eye with a fountain pen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A good friend of mine one said: \"A monkey is funny, anytime, anywhere.\" There is one exception to this: GOING BANANAS. It is quite simply the WORST MOVIE I have ever seen. It's worse than PLAN 9, worse than THE BEAST OF YUCCA FLATS. It is TERRIBLE. The talking monkey gag gets old after about three minutes, and believe me that's all there is. Make sure you have a bunch of people around to revive you after you go into TOXIC SHOCK from GOING BANANAS, the worst movie ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I somehow failed for a few years to see this film, although it has been quite successful and generated a lot of discussions in Israel. I am sorry that I did not postpone indefinitely seeing it.

The theme of 'Kadosh' is a very real and painful one for those who know the Jewish religious world - the place of women in the orthodox family and society. The basic situation that sits at the premises of the film is possible, the problem is that the way it is brought to screen and the 'solution' that the conflicts described receives in the movie is wrong. Gitai does not seem to have too much sympathy for men in the religious world, but his approach of picking characters that are either fanatic, or unable to express their human feeling makes the whole story seem simplistic. Neither does he a much better service to his women characters, although here at least he shows more sympathy and he also enjoys the participation of two beautiful and gifted actresses in Yael Abecassis and Meital Barda. Overall Gitai's vision is too one-sided, his cinema means are too basic, he focuses on the technical details of the Jewish religious life, which may be interesting for people who do not know them but are really not relevant at all in the context of the whole story. Starting from interesting premises what we get here is a boring film which seems longer than it is, with a very static way of acting, obsessive use of music that plays in the same register not only from a musical but also from an emotional perspective and a very inconclusive if not even confusing ending. What difference between this film and 'Ha Ushpizin' inspired from and describing the very same social landscape and which succeeded to transmit human feelings on the screen. In 'Kadosh' there are both too little cinema and too little human emotions.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The one line summary is actually the punch line of a very old joke that begins \"what is a Jewish porno film?\"

While this film had its interesting moments, it was far too slow moving and did not do enough to explain to those of us in the audience unfamiliar with orthodox Jewish custom, exactly what was going on and why? How many people who came across this film would know that the bathtub the female characters were washing in is in reality called a \"Mikveh\" which is a ritual bath used to cleanse spiritual uncleanliness? The same question might be asked of why the bride was walked around the groom a dizzying number of times while her face was covered just prior to the marriage vows being performed. These two examples are but two of a large number of such moments that remained completely unexplained to the uninitiated audience.

This film does have its touching moments along with expressions of great love and emotions. The characters are presented very authentically right down to the number of garments an ultra orthodox Jewish male must wear as well as the religious rituals he must engage in upon awakening in the morning to begin his day. The attitudes orthodox Judaism has towards women in general and wives in particular is both intriguing and at times maddening. This is another reason why more explanation is needed if this story is to be understood in context.

I recommend this film to people who are familiar with orthodox Jewish tradition and ritual as well as those who might be interested in getting a brief peek at what the lives of people who practice this way of life is like.

The story itself about two sisters who in their own ways rebel against \"the system\" is of moderate interest at best.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here is a film which clearly banks on being marketed as exotica to audiences unfamiliar with its subject matter.

An attempted hybrid of fiction and document, \"Kadosh\" clumsily falls in between the chairs. As a documentary, on the one hand, it is neither accurate nor insightful. To realize its sloppy handling of detail, one needs to go no further than the opening scene where it is quite obvious that the ultra-orthodox protagonist does not know even so much as how to properly put on his t'filin. More generally, the tedious rote-style presentation of details (in this case of Jewish ultra-orthodox ritual) is the role of a manual, not of a good documentary; the latter should provide an organizing principle (a gestalt, if you will) for the viewer, so that she may emerge with a better understanding of the viewed. This clearly does not happen here, as ultra-orthodox ritual is being made even more enigmatic. The director seems to have done a decent job explaining it all verbally during the film's release campaign; cinematically, however, this is a severe case of stuttering. As a fiction-feature, on the other hand, it suffers from flatness of character, simplicity of plot and bluntness of message. At some points I felt I was watching a cartoon. (e.g. the wedding night consummation scene - without going in detail into angles, positions and dimensions ... well, technically this could not possibly be a realistic portrayal of human sex, savage as it may be.)

There are no subtleties in this film. The clever manipulation of hints, stimulating the viewer's imagination and thought into taking an active part in the cinematic text, which I believe is a mark of a good feature, is completely absent. On the contrary: watching the movie I felt, at times, as being force-fed again and again with the same already chewed-up and way-too-obvious content. It is, indeed, as director Gitai himself put it in an interview, an architectural \"shifting objects in space\", and then coloring the scenes with the appropriate emotions when called for and advancing the plot on its appropriate and predictable track; but the spark, that creative, duende-like dark, inarticulable spark (let's not forget \"Kadosh\" is supposedly a tragedy), that which casts on a two-dimensional screen the spell which turns it into an extension of the viewers world, is missing without a trace. Perhaps a work of a visual-engineer, perhaps of an unsophisticated ideologue; definitely not of a true filmmaker. What I saw was a passion-play for animated issues rather than flesh-blood-and-complexities real people. The acting, by and large, failed to transcend this directorial flatness of an idea forced (at times even tortured) into film. One notable, though relatively minor, exception was that of the mikve-lady and the mother, both played by the excellent and seasoned Lea Koenig.

It takes more than strict adherence to a winning formula (namely, a serving of exotica, plus heart wrenching yet simple melodrama, plus a popular agenda, preferably politically correct) to tantalize my interest buds. The bottom line here, all being said, is that for a considerable portion of the movie I was simply bored. In spite of the novel, perhaps even pioneering achievement of using an ultra-orthodox neighborhood as a movie set, for which Mr. Gitai and his crew deserve all praise, I found \"Kadosh\" way too Nadosh (Hebrew for \"trite\").","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a writer and a lapsed Orthodox Jewish woman, I was let down tremendously by this movie. The dialogue is hackneyed and wasteful, the characters, too engaged with lines ranging from the wrackingly prosaic to the stunningly melodramatic, aren't allowed to expand into genuinely textured individuals. The one-trick musical score tries to make up for the blandness, swooping portentously into the silence to jar the viewer and the script out of protracted catatonia.

Like an adolescent revolutionary on a self-righteous tirade, this film is blown away by the wisdom of its revelation--patriarchy is wrong--and thoroughly squanders its energies, hammering on this point. The resultant artistic crime is a complete lack of imaginative development; the moral crime is the reduction of human beings to caricatures: martyrs and grotesques.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film is a gross misrepresentation of Orthodox lifestyle and practice. NEVER will a Jewish court enforce a divorce between childless couples. Although the concept exists in Jewish law, the conditions are too numerous for it to actually ever take place. Childless couples do find it difficult to cope with their childlessness in a community where children are a very important part of life, but nowhere are they \"rejected\" by their community as depicted in the film. They are treated with extreme sensitivity. In fact, many great Rabbis have lived their entire lives without children and never considered divorce.

The depiction of Yosef, a horrible human being, is meant to - perhaps subconsciously - show the behavior of a typical orthodox male. In reality, it is as typical as a violent drunkard rapist is typical of secular society. Both exist in their own worlds and both are despicable.

It is surprising that so many people form their opinions about a society based on a MOVIE (by someone who is personally biased against a community). I have always thought that it is only the Orthodox, because of their narrow-mindedness and insular lifestyle, who judge all secular people based on the violence and immoral conduct they read about in newspapers or see in the movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My mother told me not to go to see \"Kadosh\" -- but who ever listens to one's mother?

I was so turned off by it while I was watching I thought I must have lost my feminist credentials on the way into the theater, so I checked with card-carrying feminists the next day. No, they also thought it was much more an anti-Orthodox screed than a pro-feminist statement, painting the Orthodox as equal to the Taliban.

While this Israeli movie is careful to show that the sect the story is about is the ultimate ultra-Orthodox Messianists, it is so nasty as to be unbelievable (plus that the non-fanatic Orthodox rock-'n'-roller(!) one of the sisters is in love with is incredibly sexy--even in Israel that must be fantasy).

The theater was quite crowded, so there's a pent-up curiosity to see Israeli movies; too bad this vicious movie is the one getting wide distribution. This was almost enough to drive me back to insipid Hollywood romantic movies.

(originally written 4\/29\/2000)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know what Chasidik movement was this film about?I saw this film a year ago.I am an Orthodox woman, living in an Orthodox Chasidic? community And I can tell you I was offended by this movie!It's so far away from the reality, it's scary ! The director could at least hire a Chasidik Rabbi for a brief consultation, before making a \"Realistic\" movie about ultra -orthodoxs! For example Meir's Davening (Morning Prayers)! Or a Jewish wedding, or a Mikveh ( ritual bath ) customs.

Movie is loaded with technical inaccuracies..but it's not them that bothered me. It's the spiritual side. Orthodoxs are portrayed next to Taliban. Woman are powerless, while men are the ultimate rulers ! Please!No one can force a Jewish girl to the Chuppa against her will ! We ,Orthodoxs,also, live by the law (Halacha ) which clearly states man's responsibilities towards his wife.No beating and no raping,also!And no man ( even Rabbi)is allowed to peak at the woman in the Mikveh.And Balanit is not to place a hand over woman's head,while she's taking a ritual bath, the idea is to immerse the whole body at one time! Director was clearly trying to bash Ultra Orthodoxs ! But could he do so at least in a nice and more educated manner?

Love story? Cute ! But not credible.Dialogs are long and boring.The ending sucked totally.For all that drama I was at least hoping for a nice ending ,for all that sitting I felt I deserved it! Obviously someone was trying to make a nice consciousness soothing movie for less observant Jews, or for Non- Jews, perhaps..(look at those Fundamentalist, they are so evil and mean...)and they succeed! Long thing short: Was hoping for a nice Europien (Kane level ) movie, got instead a tradition bashing, unrealistic,mistakenly guiding junk. I mean , today,we live in a time of a free will as never before. Everyone has a right to choose. Malka chose a rock singer.Rivka made her choice.Meir made his. Many people from non observing backgrounds are choosing Orthodox Judaism these days.Because,in this mad world Religion might be a nice gateway !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie opens with a scene that simply could not be. A man wakes up and while his wife remains in bed, he begin his morning prayers in his bedroom while his wife sleeps peacefully. Morning blessings are recited, but only the ones Gitai finds controversial. the rest are conveniently omitted. then while in philactories and a tallis he kisses his wife good morning!! This is not an accurate depiction of jewish prayer in any home, let alone a chassidic home. Amos Gittai is not interested in accurately portraying chassidic life. He is interested in adding to his ever growing list of melodramatic and empty films. The mikka (ritual bath) scenes are far from accurate and his jewish wedding was laughable as it does not even approach the atmosphere of a chassidic wedding. I have many problems with the chassidic way of life, but i have no use for Amos Gittai's commentary on these issues. He would have you think that the chassidim are all dense comformists with severe bouts of depression. I may not agree with the chassidic lifestyle, but i acknowledge that chassidic life has many layers. Amos Gitai is blinded by his own secularist pseudo-intellectual stubborness and is therefore, incapable of portraying an accurate depiciton of chassidic life. Aside from his poor research and unbalanced portrayal of chassidic life, Gitai fails in other aspects as well. The plot is full of holes, the dialogue loaded with silence, the soundtrack is too repetitive and the acting while at times powerfull was too often loaded with melodrama. The movie drags on and on and the ending is not worth sticking around for. watch if you must, but be warned. If you want to learn about chassidic life go to the communities and talk to chassidim. Do not rely on Gittai's film!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

This movie is best enjoyed amidst a large audience with the giggle-fits.

Very frequently the characters in KADOSH are seen staring ahead intensely at nothing. Very intense unhappy faces, very pensive, very serious. During these moments there is very serious sounding music just to make doublely sure the viewer realizes that the scene being watched is not about fun and games.

The more entertaining portions of this film come in between the many pensive stares. We learn that the women of the KADOSH community have two duties. One is to breed as many male babies as possible for their husbands. The second is to stay employed so to free their husbands from having to work. What do these men do with their ample free time? They pray. And we learn that at home they pray out loud, \"I give you thanks for not creating me as a woman.\" And at their place of worship they pray to give thanks for possessing functioning male genitalia.

Along with the praying there are many scenes of frenzied antics, screaming, and endless head bobbing and bodies rocking back and fourth, and mixed in with everything are many intricate and bizarre (or simple but just as odd) ritualistic activities.

The cream of the unintentional comedy comes from the sex. The imagery of an hot and bothered man actively exchanging body fluids with his wife in bed while attempting to keep his beanie from falling off his scalp is unforgettable!

Every sex scene is funny, but one that stands out is when a husband rubs his face against his beautiful wife's (Ya\u00ebl Abecassis) feet. Oh yes, we are finally entering the land of sensuality... but NO! The feet rubbing stops before anything happens and the husband begins his autistic looking head bobbing and body rocking until the scene ends!

There are three attractive females in near states of undress, however KADOSH contains absolutely no nudity. Technically, there is some interesting imagery and pleasing uses of light and colors by the director.

For a more believable, educational and entertaining treatment of the plight of being an unclean female unworthy of holding a book in a world where respect is measured by the speed by which a man can cite a phrase from ancient writings, I suggest Barbra Streisand's YENTL.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is apparent that director, writers and everyone else knows nothing about their own religion or the people who practice it. This movie is endlessly flawed and overall a complete crock.

For instance, there is a scene where the rabbi enters the woman's ritual bath while a naked woman is bathing, puts his hand on the head of a woman there and blesses her. This is complete mockery of the laws, in this scene alone some of the laws broken include: Modesty, a rabbi would never enter a ritual bath house while there are woman in it.

Improper contact, a rabbi would never put his hand on a woman's head, not to mention that it is not the way a blessing is given.

The woman from the ritual bath is dunking a naked woman by pushing her head under the water, the laws regarding ritual bathing require the entire body to make direct contact with the bath water; this means nobody should be in contact with the person bathing, certainly not pushing them under!

There was more just in that scene alone, like dunking 13 times (where does that concept even come from?) not to mention the rest of the movie was a total fallacy. It is scary what ignorance can concoct!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And again, Columbia Pictures decides to merely make \"hash\" using the original version with Curly and without any of the gags or jokes to boot! Toward the end of this pitiful flick when Joe gets stuck riding the bull, the studio didn't even make much of an effort to re-record the sound for if you listen carefully you can still here Curly going \"Woo woo woo woo\". Also, when Moe and Larry throw the darts in order to \"slow the bull down so he can get off\", that's lifted right from the original because you can actually see Moe and Larry \"magically\" appear 15 years younger. Why oh why did Moe allow all this to happen? It's a burning question that probably can never be answered because as far as I know, in real life he was quite sensitive to any type of criticism and had rather high standards for his work, as also did Larry, Curly and Shemp. Don't waste your time on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This short subject is a remake of the Three Stooges' 1942 film \"What's the Matador?\", about the boys' trip to Mexico and their bullfighting adventures. Although the original short was made during the Stooges' peak period, it isn't that memorable and I believe it is one of the more mediocre films with Curly Howard.

Having established that, I believe that \"Sappy Bullfighters\" is just pathetically awful, like all the other shorts with Joe Besser. Moe and Larry never should have hired Besser, because his whiny, almost feminine character was completely wrong for the violent comedy of the Stooges. His 16 films with Moe and Larry marked the nadir for the team, and those shorts are embarrassing to watch. This short was released in 1959 and was the team's swan song with Columbia. Maybe Besser was a nice guy, but he was all wrong as the third stooge.

I won't review any more Besser shorts, because I would just be giving the same scathingly negative review over and over. Do yourself a big favor and don't watch this. Instead, try to catch \"In the Sweet Pie and Pie\" or \"Hoi Polloi\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Three Stooges are arguably the greatest comedy team in film history. For that reason alone, they deserved a much better ending at Columbia than they received with this short.

\"Sappy Bullfighters\" is just not good. Granted, this is not all Joe Besser's fault. I personally feel that some of his shorts are fun enough, simply because of the departure from the Stooges usual fanfare that they contain, and for the fact that Larry is sometimes showcased more. However, this short just will not do. And the fact that one knows that it is their last short that was ever shown, well that just adds to the overall disgust.

This film just epitomizes how short subjects were on their last dying breaths during this time and how little effort went into making them. This short is so sloppy. It is a simple re-make of a Curly short, \"What's the Matador?\", filmed years before. As if this fact wasn't bad enough, the studio actually threw in footage of Moe and Larry from the original (which was filmed nearly 20 years prior). Are these things not obvious? Laughable or sad? You be the judge.

Another part of this short that makes it miserable is the fact that it is basically a Joe Besser showcase, with him showing that all he is (at least in this film) is a Curly-wanna-be-gone-completely-wrong! Moe and Larry have little to do in this short. As a Larry fan, I also must say that I feel it a bit disgraceful to have Besser get to use the joke that Larry originally popularized in the short \"Ants In The Pantry\". To see Besser say \"I can't see, I can't see!\" and have Larry say the simple \"Why can't you see?\", while Besser gets to quip \"I got my eyes closed\", is just wrong on all levels.

The two brave soldiers who stuck it out for all those years, Howard and Fine, have so little to do in this short. There are hardly any funny bits with them. The only thing that qualifies is Larry hiding under the bed of a jealous husband, attempting to be \"Pepe\", his dog.

One can't blame the dynamic duo. Larry and Moe give it their all. No matter how ridiculous things could get (and I'm sure they had their opinions by this point in their careers) Howard and Fine never gave anything less than their best. Their efforts do not pale from 1934-1959.

I often enjoy many shorts that some will dismiss as horrible. I'm all for their more \"experimental\", unusual shorts. At least those contain new ideas. However, this short, I think everyone can agree, is just not good.

Thank goodness TV later discovered the boys after the shorts department closed. Had they been forced to go out in THIS fashion, well that would have been a gross injustice to all the years they invested in making audiences laugh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How pointless, hideous characters and boring film. Saved by brief sex scenes, mad witch, gorgeous desert island and Brooks body. The plot is tenuous, the characters are shallow and unlikeable. Having said that I did manage to watch it all, mainly because I was totally transfixed by the jiggling and kind of hoping that her character would come good in the end. The film was well shot, well directed but perhaps the casting let it down in some ways. Disappointing. Really summed the review up in the first line but this website dictates that you need to write 10 lines minimum. It would be better to spend the time watching another film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A holiday on a boat, a married couple, an angry waiter and a shipwreck is the reason to this films beginning.

I like boobs. No question about that. But when the main character allies with whoever happens to have the most fish at the moment, mostly by having sex with them and playing the role of the constant victim, my anger just rises to a whole new level. Take two guys (a husband and another man), put a pure bombshell woman in the middle of them, ad a deserted island, subtract all her moral issues, ad a whole bunch of moral issues to the men and mix it in a big bowl of arguments, fish and a zippo lighter and you will come up with a piece of junk movie like this.

The acting is, I would say, good. There are some bloopers but not many as far as i could see. The main female character makes me sick. This is due to her lack of moral values. The man with the most fish get's her attention. Even though one of them is her husband, she sees no problem with being unfaithful with (Manuel) the other man because \"I must do it to survive\". How can you justify having sex with another man for fish when your husband is 30feet away? And he won't even benefit from it? The female character has absolutely no problems to justify anything that she does. If she doesen't get approval for her actions, she's a victim.

I recommend everyone to see this movie. This is the kind of movie that will make just about everything else you see this year a pleasant movie experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can only assume the previous posts came from execs at the production company...

Attended the UK premiere last night. Zane and Brook attended (they probably knew I was gonna be there) and are undoubtedly stars, but what a turkey of a film. I felt sorry for them at times, when the audience erupted in laughter at what were serious 'thriller' scenes.

But perhaps I was missing the point. Perhaps an element of tongue-in-cheek was intended. If so, pure genius. If not, career genocide.

On the plus side, Zane always shines, and Brook can actually act a little. As the other half said (as we ran out the cinema, avec broken ribs), they can be forgiven for this film as they both seem like nice people! The scriptwriter, however, should be marooned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, bad acting isn't only one thing to mention. Bad script,not so bad music. Unfortunately.

Nice girl and nice boy with perfect bodies and super teeth just isn't enough for me and for you too.

First thing in the morning after crash they go to swim to the sea, to have some fun !!! Smiling ...

They find everything in the sea. I mean things like fishing-net, knife, scuba dive things, ropes, bottles, husband ...

Woodoo stuff , are you kidding. Stupid. They are so happy on the island, they are going to die, and they are happy. Love, peace. Love. Just stupid.

Terrible, skip this one please.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"did anyone notice?when miss brook went skinny dipping,she left the water wearing white bikini bottoms and yet had previously taken it all off to join cabin boy.this could have been a good film without miss brooks phony accent and a year on the island please.how come that Kelly looked always clean and ready for a FM photo shoot.what started out with premise turned in to soft porn.and billy Zane come on,you cant be that hard up for film offers.check out dead calm.also when the people took her away ,how come she scoffed her face and after all that time didn't feel like throwing up.i suggest billy find decent scripts,Kelly stick to photo shoots and cabin boy play the son of Zorro in a future sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you make a suspense movie it is kind of important that the \"villain\" not be more sympathetic than the \"victim\". And this fails miserably. It was so terrible and frustrating to watch that I was actually moved to register and comment. OK, so the husband is rich and cocky. There are worse vices, and the cabana boy and wife display plenty. The husband is a jerk because he - um, didn't approve of the cabana boy physically assaulting that woman - the witch one which had absolutely nothing to do with the plot BTW. The cabana boy threatens the husband and repeatedly attempts to seduce the wife. He then forces himself on her - which the woman finds so hot she stops thinking rape and starts thinking she wants him. Uh huh. The misogynistic, inferiority complex thoughts the director displays are just revolting. It is one thing when a fine film like American Psycho deliberately tries to get us to empathise with the villain but in Survival Island I felt like I was watching a movie about Ted Bundy but the director failed to make him unlikeable and instead made us hate his victims. What was he thinking???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is playing on SHOWTIME right now but is going to be released as a movie called THREE or has been released for 2006. Mess ups include a supposed nude body comes out of the waves with her bottoms on. You can have fun finding the others. It was a decent stranded, hungry, cold, crazy person video but that is about it. And of course what would a movie be without sex. The lady has a nice body and the men are pretty, but the story is the same as Swept Away or A Savage is Loose type with some blood. Wonder if the movie studios know they made a big booboo and already released this show and now gonna release it as THREE. Billy Zane should have worn a top hair piece or shaved his head completely. Juan Di Pace is awesome and there is a couple good sex scenes. There is a voodoo woman that loves the character Di Pace plays and in real life her name is Di Pace too. Not aware of any connection but probably kin or married.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What the heck is this about? Kelly (jennifer) seems to drop all moral behavior as soon as she arrives to the island. She finds this Juan P (Manuel) existing and exotic, though she witnessed when he slapped his ex in the face, which he also justify later on in the movie, right or wrong? These two guys are the first to find each other on the island. Kelly are totally lost in every sense and the great Juan P can fish and built a somewhat house. Mr handyman. They seem to have a great time. Then Billy Zane (Jack, Kellys characters husband) shows up and of course, two days without knowing what his wife has been doing whit this gorgeous Juan P, he is a little bit jealous. Billy Z is the stereotype rich guy and maybe not the nicest man in the world. He dislikes Juan P (for hitting his girlfriend at the pier, who can blame him? Hes also is arrogant, but he paid loads of money to rent that boat and Juan P who is the waiter\/everything cant even fetch him a beer whit in 20 min. Wouldn't you be upset? Yet Billy is probably the guy you want to punch in the face if you meet him. But at the same time, he is, not to be blamed for, suspicious about the scuba goggles Manuel has. Kelly and Billy just lost some dear friends! How convenient he just happens to have them, no matter what!). However, for some strange reason Kelly likes this girl hitting Manuel and starts to hate Billy for being jealous. OK, Billy is overreacting, thats for sure, but Kelly isn't doing much to convince him either. She spends more time with Juan P and even wants him to sleep with them since hes been so nice (and even though Manuel yelled at her and calling her things for asking him some intimate questions. But Kelly is SO forgiving...). Yeah right. And then she starts to have sex with this Juan P. It should be said that Kelly and Billy seems to have a working relationship before this island incident, at least, they have intimate sex on the boat and talks like people do when they like each other. Now, you can think that this scenario is possible. But for real, is it? Are you cheating your husband after two days on a coconut island just because hes jealous and acts like a drunk in the bar? (i wouldn't disagree if there relationship was really bad but the director doesn't give much hints if thats the case). For Christ sake, Juan P hasn't really shown himself being a good person. Catching some fish and built a wood house to get into someones panties, is that showing a good side? Not trying to befriend Kellys husband in anyway (which would be very simple by letting them be alone most of the island-time, simply be respect) He doesn't care about their relationship (and Kelly cant figure that one out), he just want to have sex with Kelly. Kellys character is just not trustworthy (if she was stranded with Billy and another attractive girl, wouldn't she be upset or what?!). Or maybe she is? Billy Zane plays a not very nice person, and Juan P isn't actually much better if you really think about it. And poor Kelly is so confused, and believes having sex with Juan P will solve everything because her husband is so strange and so aggressive towards poor Juan P? So... for all of you who reads this... What do you think about it? If you where the Kelly character, would you consider cheating on your husband, knowing one day you'll be back in real life, and all of a sudden Billys maybe not that horrible person after all. Hes just too jealous. And if you where Billys character, what do you say, is he totally wrong in his behavior? And Juan P character what do you guys really think of him. One thing is for sure. Manuels exist! Ps... The voodoo thing is so totally wrong here! What the heck was that about?! Seriously! Anyone tell me?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thankfully I watched this film alone, enabling me to fast-forward through the worst scenes (aka most of the film, actually). OK, some of it is not all bad, with partially good photography (even some of the under water scenes) and at times not too bad directing. But it still doesn't save the incredibly poor script and way worse acting. Additionally, when I don't find the movies \"hottie\" to be all that, even the wannabe-sexy love making scenes get dull. Really dull! And for the drama: You know it's always a bad sign when you get to dislike all of the characters so much you really don't care who lives and who dies.

If you still haven't gotten tired of the reality series Survivor, you may find something to your liking in this movie. If not, stay well clear!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Three\" is a seriously dumb shipwreck movie. Masquerading as a psychological thriller, it's closest relative is the monumentally superior \"Dead Calm\" (also featuring Billy Zane). \"Dead Calm\" provided well drawn characters to root for in the form of Sam Neil and Nicole Kidman's grieving parents attempting to re-define their relationship on an ocean cruise. They end up being terrorised by Zane's adrift psycho-killer. It provided sharp, increasingly ratcheted suspense, a scary feeling of claustrophobia in open seas as the cat and mouse game of life and death unfolded.

\"Three\" suffers from poorly drawn characterisation (the audience doesn't care what happens to any of them), a stupid and unnecessary voodoo plot device, a total lack of suspense or excitement and some thudding, hammy performances from the principal players. Zane in particular goes way over the top in an irritatingly mannered fashion. In \"Dead Calm\" he was menacing, wired and seething with barely controlled sexual violence. Here he is bombastic, petulant slimy, and unravelled. And where does he get his seemingly inexhaustible supply of dry cigarettes and cigars? And how come his lighter stays full of juice for over a year? Ms Brook is very picturesque, stunningly pretty, but both her chest and rear appear to have been wildly over-inflated by some sort of life-raft pump. They do, however, succeed in acting with more skill and conviction than the rest of her. Dramatic actress, in the purest sense of the term, she is not. The guy playing the voodoo-hexed Manuel, the third component of this sorry triangle, could have been replaced by a lump of driftwood - no one would notice. In fact, judging by his complete lack of ability to deliver dialogue in any meaningful or dynamic way, driftwood represents a potential improvement in the casting stakes (excuse pun).

Plus sides: the scenery is nice and the cinematography (above and below the water) is credible.

I'm guessing this had a very limited (if any) theatrical release or went straight to rental and retail DVD. The reason for this is it's not very good. If you want something decent along these lines, get \"Dead Calm.\" It was made by people who knew a bit about cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, I just watched a movie on SHOWTIME called Survival Island. It says it was a 2006 movie with Billy Zane and since I like him and couldn't sleep I thought I would check it out. Looked interesting. Watched it, and decided to look up on the IMDb who was this new face Juan Pablo Di Pace and OMG I could not believe it, this movie has been renamed THREE and will be a new movie?? It is playing again in 1 hr and 30 mins on Showtime Channel again and this date is May 28 and EDT or Florida time. You can check your showtime listings by title and see it. I wont get into details so you can see the movie but at one point there is a lady in a white bikini that goes into the water taking it all off, you see her naked body.... when she runs back out of the water you see her bottoms on. Funny, there are a lot of other mess ups too. I can't believe by coincidence I decided to look up this movie... Go figure! Wonder if the people renaming it sold it to some movie studio to put out but it is already playing on Showtime, ha ha. Good laugh. I give it 1-1\/2 stars. C-, D+ movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How much do I love this film?! Now I'm not a fan of bad films, but I do love a film that is so bad it's good. This is one of those. Juan Pablo Di Pace has a great butt, looks fab on screen, and definitely doesn't make a bad turn at his acting debut (I believe). Billy Zane is suitably mean and moody, though I still constantly feel that there is something more in him. I felt it in Titanic, the look on his face when La Winslet spat on him for example, totally broken, shocked, and put-down ... fierce! Kelly Brook is a pretty face ... no seriously, I think that's it! It's worth catching this to see one really hot guy, some big bra fillers from Brook, nasty growling from Billy, laugh at the dialogue, revel in the scenery and madness of the whole affair ... I'm gona go watch it again now - yes, I bought it!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"By far this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I watch practically every movie that is on at night (either showtime, hbo, cinemax, etc). \"Three\" AKA \"Survivor Island\" keeps you in as much suspense as watching paint dry only to let you down even more miserably. If you want to feel like you just wasted what seems like an eternity on the worst film ever created then by all means watch this movie. I must have screamed at a minimum 900 times from the idiotic twists. If I had 4 hands I'd give this movie 4 thumbs DOWN.

In my personal opinion, I believe the only people who would like this movie are those with terrible morals.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is the worst film I've seen in a long long time, never mind the fact that so many useful things keep appearing on this island \"how convenient!!!!\", the acting is beyond poor from the outset, its like one of those really badly scripted soft porn films on channel 5, a complete waste of time, and i cant remember the lead actors name but i cant believe he still gets work!!! I've never seen him act \"I've seen him in lots of films... But I've never seen him act. here are a few of the blaringly obvious errors, apparently petrol lighters still work even when they've been soaked in sea water!!! also according to this film you can walk into the sea naked but come out wearing bikini bottoms (I'm guessing the camera man and editor were students)there are plenty more errors but I'm ranting now, besides its no so much the errors as the cast the script and the whole film avoid at all costs","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a shame that quality actors like Baldwin and Booth have to succumb to lousy stories and scripts just for the money. But, hey, it's a cruel world...

This is just another one of a long line of assassin thrillers that use all the usual narrative twists to try to make it appear more appealing than it is. Sure, it has some nice locations, it's a slick production, there is some good camera work and editing, and it's fairly well paced, overall.

So, what's the real problem? Quite simply, the whole premise is just totally unbelievable. However, instead of spoiling a rotten story for you, I'll let you find out what it's all about, that is, if you can get through it. I managed, but only because I like Baldwin and I kept hoping that it would get better.

It didn't. And, it had one of the most anti-climactic endings that I've seen for a long time. In fact, maybe never...

But, it's harmless fun, I guess, if you've got nothing better to do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Second Nature will not go down as one of the worst tv movies of 2003, but perhaps the worst of All Time. Formulaic, derivative, and every performance phoned in, from far, far away. Everyone associated with this project should have a hard time looking in the mirror.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie was awful. The production company should be required to pay a fine for wasting electricity transmitting this nonsense.

There were too many holes in the plot. Why would the DOJ send a killer out to assassinate a world leader? If they weren't the DOJ, why would they send someone they thought would not do the job? To quote Butch Cassidy, \"Who are those guys?\" Apparently, the director does not know either because he never told us.

The characters were unbelievable. They did not behave in any way that seemed to fit who they allegedly were. With the exception of the doctor, none of the characters were particularly compelling or likeable.

If you want to waste money on the electricity required to watch this movie, feel free. Otherwise, run the opposite direction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As usual, leader Leo Gorcey (as Slip Mahoney) and \"The Bowery Boys\" are hard-pressed for cash. After unsuccessfully trying to sell their old jalopy, the lads look for help at the local bank. There, hapless Huntz Hall (as Sach) has his picture taken by pretty photographer Teala Loring (as Cathy Smith). But, since the shot was snapped during a robbery, it makes Mr. Hall look like the prime suspect. With pals Bobby Jordan (as Bobby), William \"Billy\" Benedict (as Whitey), and David Gorcey (as Chuck); Mr. Gorcey wants to clear Hall, and collect the $1,000 reward money. \"Bowery Bombshell\" goes through the motions, with Ms. Loring a main strength.

**** Bowery Bombshell (7\/20\/46) Phil Karlson ~ Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Teala Loring, Bobby Jordan","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm always interested to see neglected movies that appear to have good credentials, but in this case the film's neglect appears justified. Evidently based on some actual incidents during WWII, the film just doesn't connect with the viewer for some reason that it is not quite clear to me. One very likely reason is that - in the print I saw on TCM, anyway - none of the scenes where the Germans talked among themselves were given titles. This interesting directorial concept - to let the non-German speaking viewer just guess from \"context\" what the Germans are saying to each other - is, in my book, an utter flop and helps to lock the viewer out. Also, the way the movie begins - just dropping us into a very confused situation without much setup - is disorienting. Brian Keith is pretty good here, but the reputations of \"The Great Escape\" and \"Stalag 17\" will not be challenged by this flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Great piece of fiction played as if factual. Tonight I was looking at the Birdman of Alcatraz. Robert Stoud was not a model meek prisoner and he was in jail because he was pimping and a customer did not pay up. Once he got into jail he was so uncontrollable he spent most of his time in solitary confinement or in the prison hospital. Killed a few people in prison too. This movie reminds me of the Birdman of Alcatraz but even worse. Robert Stroud did write books and he did contribute to society in someway. And the BOA had some hints of Strouds lunacy. BUT this guy Henry Young who Murder in the First is suppose to be about was a a known bank robber who took hostages and beat them up in more then one robbery. He wasn't some poor guy who stumbled into a grocery store which just happened to be a post office and took some money. This man was a hard core criminal. He also killed a person 3 years before he went to Alcatraz. He killed another person in jail not because of the solitary confinement which ended over a year before the murder. The real story of his life would of been more interesting. They did not even get the warden thing right. You can't be a warden in 3 different prisons at the same time. And by all accounts the warden in the movie was a pretty stand up guy as wardens go. Plus if my math is right the Warden played by Karl Malden in the BOA is suppose to be the same warden in this movie. Oh Boy. Not only that, in this movie we are to think poor Henry committed suicide. And he wrote the word Victory. Not true..he might be alive right now. He was sent to Springfield where Robert Stroud was also a medical center prison then Walla Walla for another murder he committed and then was released and jumped parole in 1972, never to be found. Maybe he is hanging out with that CB Cooper guy who jumped out that airplane in Washington state after committing a bank robbery lol. Now the acting was very good. Kevin Bacon is in that class of actors which include Jeff Bridges and Dennis Quaid, the vastly underrated actors club. Gary oldman well they just might of made-up the warden part so he could play it because he was great. Christian Slater still somehow sounds like Jack Nicholson, I am not sure if that is a good thing or not. Bacons wife Kyra Sedgwick was in the movie I think just because she is his wife. I like her though but not in this flick. For some reason I felt this movie when it first came out was suppose to be a special project for Kevin Bacon. I feel he could of taken a person who is truly a victim of the penal system, there sure is enough of them and spread some light on their plight. Other then picking a psychopath to show as a victim.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me begin with a personal note as a film and television buff, more on the enjoyment side of life: I love what James Woods can do and has done, and I always love Melanie Griffith, and Natasha Wagner was very good in this awful, miserable, stinking \"true crime\" essay.

Whoever really wrote this film apparently never spent any time talking to real criminals with real criminal talents: yes, some thieves are junkies but they have very short careers as thieves. Truly successful thieves are seldom caught because they don't do \"junk\" or any drugs before going on a score ( job ).

The James Woods character was true to this paradigm in the beginning of this film, and then the script fell apart completely. He turns into a raging, alcoholic lunatic .... nice work for a high-strung guy like Woods, maybe, but not in the least bit believable.

Most criminals are lazy. If they wanted to work they would work.

These people in this film are beautiful, self-indulgent, drug-addled narcissistic losers. They couldn't pull off a real score in the real world, the real world where a big and beefy security guard who beats the living hell out of a skinny kid ( as happens in the early scenes of this \"DOG\" ), keeps him beat down and doesn't let him up. Ever.

How many ways did I find to hate this film ? Many. Even totally vulgar people -- like most sneak thieves and junkies -- have a larger vocabulary than these cretins. And the 'rip-off' scenes with the neo-Nazi bikers ? Puhlease. All rednecks ain't neo-Nazis and those who are neo-Nazi speed dealers just ain't that dumb !!

This film earned a two because Natasha Wagner was extremely good in her role as Rose and because Melanie Griffith still has 'that something special,' or at least she had it for this brutal and offensively stupid film. I'm not one to sing praises of real criminals for any reason, but the reality of these criminal types in this horrible film is that they'd all be dead or in jail by Act 2, Scene 1. Watching a lousy Zombie movie would be time better spent than this .... thing ... and I hate zombies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I find myself alarmed that people are not so critical of a work that deserves criticism. The many similarities, both structurally and literally, with 'Amadeus' aside the 'Copying Beethoven' deliberately chooses the easy path by putting audience before art. And therefore denying the world a discerning, intelligent and creative work.

Now consider the following: Is it not possible that the real story of the creation of the ninth symphony may actually be an engaging and powerful story itself and equally so in a dramatic telling? Beethoven was completely deaf by the writing of the symphony \u0096 isn't that more interesting? How WAS the symphony conducted? Wouldn't it be great to know? So ask yourself, what possible motivation could a filmmaker have for introducing a woman as the copyist? If there was a copyist, he would certainly be a man. What was his story? (please try to be a little critical here even if you like the invention of a woman composer).

Fantasy should be much MORE than a distortion of reality to serve a writers purpose. For those who find themselves comparing and justifying the invention of Anna Holtz with the invention of Salieri's claim to have murdered Mozart in 'Amadeus', consider that he confessing to a priest in a lunatic asylum (Schaffer uses this device to great affect in the film). 'Copying Beethoven' may have worked if Anna was a figment of Ludwig's fevered imagination. But we are meant to believe she is 'possible'... Yes and that Strauss was assisted by aliens.

Most of the positive reviews I've read here so far are often expressions of a DESIRE for the film to be good; almost a deliberate amnesia. Remembering the film for what you wish it to be rather than what it is.

For those who believe that fantasy justifies the means then consider you are not only accepting an inferior interpretation of real events but also sacrificing the truth for the sake of a triviality.

Finally, a short note on the acting here that may surprise some of you. Ed Harris is NOT good as Ludwig Van Beethoven. Does that shock you? He looks awkward throughout the film, much like an actor dressed up, but off set and standing at the catering table. Most of his lines are said as cues rather than replies to Anna Holtz's lines (i.e. he is not listening to the actor). He is quite clearly an actor masquerading as the character rather than BEING the character.

Really, how many times does Beethoven have to roll in his grave before we get it right? Just ask yourself, would Ludwig approve?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I made a big mistake going to see this film. That's the lottery of going to see films I guess. After five minutes you just knew it was going to be a clunker, and I fought quite hard to stay in my seat - the old \"lose two hours of your life\" kind of feeling.

The fundamental problem is that, without even mentioning the whole \"historical accuracy\" thread of reviews, the script is achingly, painful, bad.

The first thirty minutes could have been spread out to an hour to give a plausible, real, plot development. Instead, it lurched from from one undramatic \"dramatic\" event to the next. Having the girl cry at the start of the film makes no sense because the audience has no emotional attachment to anything at this point. And that whole walking off into the sunset through the long-grass field at the end, what the hell was that about?

Not even the excellent Ed Harris could save this one. You could almost feel his pain at some of the lines he had to utter. The most fabulously awful one was, for no apparent reason, he stares at the girl as she copies his work in his apartment, she looks up, it all goes a bit fuzzy romantic kind-a lighting (or am I dreaming), and he says, with authority in his voice,

\"WASH ME.\"

And she gets up and washes him, with a sponge. \"Wash me\" WTF? That's hilarious.

And then there was the music. The long extended session when it was just Beethoven conducting and the 9th Symphony pouring out of the surround sound in the cinema and the choir waiting, waiting, standing there silently for what seems like forever. And then, finally, launching into enormous sound. It was spine-chillingly wonderful and dare I say it, it brought tears to my eyes.

So that is where the film picked up two stars. The only part of the film where Beethoven got to say exactly what he wanted to say.

And I believed him.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"About your terrible movie copying Beethoven. As a professional musician it's my duty to watch every movie made about any composer and Beethoven is one of my favorites. When Hungarians and Americans meet, it's a terrible combination of empty over the top emotions combined with the worst taste possible. You proved it in your terrible b-movie. The only thing that carries the movie is the music. Of course you didn't bother to look further than the good but in my taste contrived performances of the Tackacs quartet, but OK I have to admit that the performances at least have quality as contrast to the movie you've made. It starts of with the dying DEAF Beethoven who perfectly understands Anna who is merely whispering. Beethoven's hearing during the movie get's better by the minute, but that must be because of some vague divine thing. Then there is the quite impossible semi-pornographic \"eyes wide shut\" double-conducting scene which is totally over the top with the luscious Anna and the crying nephew in the end (who also cries in the deleted scenes with constant red eyes, my GOD what a performance). And as culmination the rip-off from Amadeus, with Beethoven dictating music to Anna not in notes but in total nonsense, which she understands perfectly but no-one else in your audience even trained professional musicians will understand. Of course your reaction will be that negative response is a response at least, but I can assure you that Beethoven himself is turning in his grave because of your worthless creation and with reason. This so called homage is blasphemy and I am so sorry to have rented one of the worst movies ever made even though it's about my favorite subject. Ed Harris and others, you cannot comprehend the greatness of Beethoven in your wildest dreams and certainly not after a couple of lessons in conducting and violin playing. That's the trouble with you Americans: you think you can grasp everything even when it takes a lifetime of hard work. Yeah we can do it anyway! Remember that a good product comes with hard labor, talent, devotion and professionalism. All these you creators of Copying Beethoven lack. See you in kindergarten.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is the proof that a good actor is nothing without a good direction. Ed Harris is awful. How could you cast an actor built like Rambo to play the \"Maestro\"? He shows no credibility at all and overplays Beethoven. Most of all, long hairs doesn't look good at all on his head. The main actress is missing all the subtleties needed for its character. The camera shots are cheesy and too conventional. The lights are to close of the characters feelings. Bad casting and cheap direction. Too bad! The only scene that worth the movie is when Beeth (I hope you don't care that I call him trough his nickname?) is turning the girl's song to a joke. Any way, I hope that Harris could find his way back to true movie where he can really shows his hairless talent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, I realize that half a dozen other reviewers have called this movie \"Copying Amadeus\", but it cannot be said enough. Scenes seemed to have been lifted directly from Milos Forman's script with only superficial changes. You can expect to see:

-The maestro's arrogant scene (\"I am the voice of god. Everything else is meaningless!\")

-The maestro making fun of the mediocre composer's work (complete with raspberries & simulated flatulence, just like in Amadeus)

-The mediocre composer's dialogue with god (\"Why do you instill me with music but deny me the ability to compose?\")

-The musical dictation from the deathbed scene (\"Common time. Begin with the violins... cough cough\")

-and the list goes on...

The problem is even worse. Not only were these scenes shamelessly copied, they weren't even done very well. Jeepers, if you're going to rip off an original, at least you should try to improve upon it in your own creative way.

No wait, there's something even worse than that. It's the fact that the director tried to beat the story of Mozart into the story of Beethoven. Folks, Beethoven was not a crass, vulgar slob the way this movie portrays him. Furthermore, Beethoven was not a babbling idiot who takes pointers from his copyist, a 23 year old music student. Unfortunately, films like this are responsible for butchering history.

And another thing, Beethoven (in real life) never called it the \"Moonlight Sonata\" the way he does in the movie. That name was given by a confused critic some years AFTER BEETHOVEN DIED, and unfortunately it stuck. But Beethoven's original title was \"Quasi una Fantasia\".

AND ANOTHER THING, when Beethoven (in the movie) yells \"B-flat! B-flat! B-flat!\" and hits the note on the piano, he's hitting a white key!

AND ANOTHER THINGGG!!! Beethoven (in real life) was completely deaf for several years before the composition of his 9th Symphony. This movie shows him as having barely a minor disability (saying \"what?\" every other line, just enough to be annoying).

AAAND!! ANNNOTHER!!! THINGGGG...!! The American accents...! Oh never mind. Just... never mind. I've wasted enough time on this already. Go see \"Amadeus\" again. Then, if you want to see an interesting biopic on the life of Beethoven see \"Immortal Beloved\" which takes poetic liberties, but at least they're interesting ideas. Lastly, if you want to see something on the lighter side, check out \"Impromptu\", a film about Chopin. But aside from those three, I've never seen a good homage to a classical composer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I expected so much more than what I received from watching this movie. It is not that I object to literary license, (if that is what it should be called) especially when there is no overt attempt to say \"based on a true story.\" But this movie is about Beethoven -- a real historical person who is so widely known and so deeply embedded into our musical experiences and I expected the movie to be true to history at least in the primary elements. This movie took such great exception from the historic record it could only disappoint.

My assumption (because I had not researched the movie at all) was that it was true. Half way through, I stopped the movie to look it up on IMDb. The rest of the movie was a remarkably different experience. I was relieved that this was not accurate with history because it was so hard to believe a major portion of the story. To enjoy this movie, I was required to recognize it as a fantasy, a \"what if it was like this\" story. The movie lacked this honest disclaimer.

What disappointed me most was the fictionalized conducting of the 9th symphony. The very concept portrayed in the film stretched my imagination to the point of incredulity. I ended up doubting anything was true to history other than Ludwig van Beethoven and his relationship with Karl van Beethoven.

I really enjoyed the performance of Ed Harris - an exceptional actor who knows how to play a role and keep himself out of it and that was about it and for that I give it a 3\/10.

Those who portend that this movie is as good as or better than Amadeus have not a clue about either either composers life and are looking only for what this movie really is, for in the end it was a cheap novel of a story - pulp fiction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Awful!

Despite the good performance of Ed Harris, Diane Kruger, and the strong budget (the reason for the 3 stars), the movie is by far the worst I saw about a composer, and the worst edition of a masterpiece of music. I agree with some fictional stuff to upgrade a biography, that otherwise couldn't be so \"charming\". This was done in AMADEUS with best results, but this B copy here is a flaw. Beethoven had a strong personality, but was a sensible artist. Here in this movie however, he looks much more as Mike Tyson! I wonder also, whether despite his deafness, he heard all the whisperings in the last scenes (may be a cochlear implant?). I prefer to listen to the ninth on a CD with some nice maestro. Today most of them conduct modern Wagnerian orchestras. By the way: I gave Amadeus 10\/10!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Trite and unoriginal. It's like someone watched Immortal Beloved and Amadeus and decided to mix them together and, in the process, steal other formulaic plot parts from other movies to make another one. As with most historical movies nowadays, there are some inaccuracies as history is manipulated to better suit the story, which is understandable for the most part. For example, during the remaining days of Beethoven's life, it was necessary for other people to write down what they needed to say in order for him to understand them. That, of course, would have been a nuisance to have to show on screen. The script, although filled with some quotable lines, doesn't quite capture the feel of that time period and, coupled with some bad acting, seems rather contemporary. Diane Kruger is nice enough to look at but she still has lots to improve on her craft. Ed Harris doesn't work for me as Beethoven and I mostly blame Gary Oldman for that. Overall, not a very good interpretation of the musical maestro's life. Better just find yourself a copy of Immortal Beloved.

http:\/\/iwascalledclementine.multiply.com\/reviews","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a music lover and was excited to see this movie. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. I was ready to walk out half way through the movie. I didn't identify with any of the characters, which meant that I didn't care what happened to them and lost interest in the story completely. On the good side, Ed Harris looked exactly like Beethoven, and the 9th Symphony is always a pleasure to hear, so that made part of the film bearable. Also the parts where they talk about the bridge almost redeemed the entire movie, but it couldn't sustain me through to the end. The actors did what they could with what they had to work with, but the screenplay just wasn't adequate to make it even remotely interesting. The bit about \"wash me\" was utter rubbish. I wonder how many takes the actors had to do on that one (I wouldn't be able to say those lines without bursting into laughter.) Anyway, such a shame, it could have been so much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For a movie I was really looking forward to, I was very disappointed. I had no expectations of this being another Amadeus, but did expect a more significant portrayal of Beethovens last years.

The performance by Ed Harris was superb, but the story line was so weak that the film simply moved from one dreary scene to the next with no continuity.

The only enjoyable part of the film for me was the performance of the 9th, and from that point on I could quite happily have walked out without finishing.

I left feeling very dissatisfied and still have the feeling that something important was missed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From Kreestos:

The dialog is terrible, awful, drivel. Acting poor. Many plot flaws. I don't recommend this at all.

From Wikipedia:

Artistic licenses The working manuscript of the score is attributed to two copyists [1], both of whom were male, not female as depicted in the film.

The copyists neither contributed to nor altered the score. In fact, they were berated by Beethoven for any deviation that occurred from the original score.

The movie is set in 1824 during the composition of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Throughout the movie Beethoven is shown to be hard of hearing but quite capable of understanding people who speak loudly. In reality, Beethoven had lost much of his hearing seven years earlier (1817). Beethoven never experienced permanent deafness; his condition fluctuated between total silence and terrible tinnitus. The Ninth Symphony was composed at a time when Beethoven's hearing had deteriorated severely. At this point in his life, most of Beethoven's conversations were facilitated by the use of notebooks. It can be argued, however, that he was also able to read people's lips, evidenced by his insistence that people face him when they spoke to him.

In the film, Beethoven makes an allusion to the Moonlight Sonata. This is an anachronism as the Sonata No. 14 \"quasi una fantasia\" was not named \"Moonlight\" until several years after his death.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Am I the only person who saw and remembers Amadeus. Every scene in \"Copying\" has its counterpart in the Milos Forman, Amadeus - from the galloping carriages accompanied by frenzied strings, to the entrance of Anna through the dark hallway preceded by the man with the key, to the very dialog of the conclusion with Anna at Beethoven's feet a la Salieri before the dying Mozart. Does no one else recall the dialog in that script:

Salieri \"Time?\" , Mozart \"Common time\". .....\"We begin with the strings...\" and so it \"copies\".

Remember Cynthia Nixon leaning against a door jamb, tears falling down her freckled face - same scene, just replace her with Beethoven's nephew. Even the scatological humor (fart jokes) are the same. We even have a cardinal followed around by a plate of sweet cookies which recalls Salieri in the banquet hall. Does no one else remember? !!!!

And the scene where Anna cries to God \"Why did you give me this gift?\"... Salieri said the same thing!

And beyond all that we have a juvenile script with an opening exposition that reads like the character identifications you'd find in a children's story. \"I am Mr. Beethoven. I am the composer....\"

And what, after all, is the purpose of the bridge builder? Other than to juxtapose the technical against the artistic... a comparison that is not at all developed - probably because it has no meaning, especially when it comes to Beethove who was a master of the technical.

There's only one great scene - the playing of the ninth. First, the music, which of itself takes you to tears. But then, there is the highly erotic interaction of Anna the copyist keeping time and Beethoven conducting which surpasses the most explicit sexual intimacy. So intense, it's almost embarrassing.

But, please - the rest of the film - Where is the world's collective memory? You have seen this all before .... and better!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"According to \"Lucien Rebatet\" in his \"Histoire de la Musique\" (Robert Lafont, BOUQUINS 1973 page 338) Beethoven's character was not very compatible with women. He had quite a number of \"Platonic Passions\" with female members of the \"Vienese Aristocracy\" to whom he dedicated some \"sonatas\". But Musicians , even composers did not qualify for Husbands of \"Fine Ladies\". Haydn was a \"servant\" of Prinz Von Esterhazy, Mozart died from drink or Poison and Bethoven was according to Rebatet a frequent customer of \"street prostitutes\" in Vienna. A British biographer, Newman says that Beethoven contracted syphilis, before he was 40. That he became deaf because of that, is possible, but not certain.

The Ninth Symphony was premiered on May 7, 1824 in the K\u00e4rntnertortheater in Vienna, along with the Consecration of the House Overture and the first three parts of the Missa Solemnis. This was the composer's first on-stage appearance in twelve years; the hall was packed. Although the performance was directed by Michael Umlauf the theater's Kapellmeister, Beethoven shared the stage with him quiet.

So what remains of this \"Female Fantasy\". Ed Harris interpretation and characterization are quite good, but too linear, based on the Painting by Ferninand Waldm\u00fcller date 1823. I have it in front of me. It shows a man that despises (perhaps hates) the World. With good reason.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The original Body and Soul (1947) is a masterpiece. John Garfield, Ann revere, Lilli Plmer, William Conrad, Canada Lee...and filmed by one of the greatest cinematographers to ever grace the screen..James Wong Howe. This remake is abominable. In spite of the presence of Rod Steiger, Joe Mantegna and Jennifer Beals there is nothing of value here and it is a shame this product bears the same title as the brilliant original. Only the main character's name, Charlie Davis, is the same in both films. I don't think there are any redeeming qualities in this remake. I am amazed that Rod Steiger participated. This may be the only bad film he ever made. Maybe he needed the paycheck.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After the suicide of his father, Charlie 'Kid' Davis (Ray `Boom Boom' Mancini) accepts the invitation and advice of his friend Tiny (Michael Chiklis) and travels to Las Vegas with him trying to become a boxer. On the road, they meet Gina (Jennifer Beals) hitchhiking, they give a lift to her and she becomes Charlie's girlfriend. Johnny Ticotin (Rod Steiger) is convinced by Tiny to be Charlie's couch, and the powerful agent Alex Dumas (Joe Mantegna), after watching him fighting, becomes his manager, promoting Charlie's career. This movie is so boring that it indeed does not deserve to spend much time writing about it. I do not like boxing, but sometimes I watch some worthwhile movie about this theme. But this one is horrible! Predictable, full of clich\u00e9s, having an awful lead actor, a pure waste of time. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): `Corpo e Alma' (`Body and Soul')","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My only question is: Why did they make this movie? Did they have a script or did they make it up as they went along? Boom Boom doesn't look like a Charley Davis. John Garfield probably turned over in his grave if he saw this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My guess would be this was originally going to be at least two parts, and thus at least a quarter longer, because otherwise how can one explain its confused, abbreviated storyline. I was never completely lost, but I was often partially lost and usually unclear on character motivation. The movie feels as though joining plot points were dropped to squeeze it into its time slot.

If it were longer, it might make more sense, but it still wouldn't be much good. The movie's most interesting idea is of the war between Zeus and Hera as being a war between the male and female, but the movie drops the ball on this, making Hera's followers fairly horrible while not being clear on what Zeus' followers do or believe. The movie is also interesting because you don't see the gods and there's no real certainty that they exist. So it's got a couple of intriguing ideas, but it doesn't do anything useful with them.

Bad dialog, cardboard characters, and one interesting scene involving Hercules and his three antagonistic sons. Not unwatchable but also not worth watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought there might be some level of worth to this movie, and sat through the whole thing. I can summarize by saying it left a bad taste in my mouth.

The movie started out OK, I think the initial characterization of Herc was true to the myths. Both as a child and a young adult he started out pretty strong but not the brightest bulb. But later on he somehow transforms into a charismatic speaker beloved by all. Huh?

Other problem: terrible CGI. The satyr looked OK, but the rest of the critters just looked terrible, especially the hart, the phoniest looking beast in the movie. And how come Leelee Sobieski's skin was sometimes golden, sometimes normal? The worst part for me--and everyone should cringe at this--was the twelve labors of Hercules. Because the producers obviously didn't want to cover all of them; maybe they thought us primitive screw-heads watching this garbage couldn't count that high. Instead of the TWELVE labors of Hercules, we got the FIVE labors of Hercules. Yes, the five labors! WTF?!? He did't even finish the last one, so it was really the 4 1\/2 labors! Just terrible. I'll take Hercules: The Legendary Journeys over this piece of crap any day of the week.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eh. I watch this movie in class because someone taped it and brought it in. I was expecting some half hearted attempt to portray the Herakles myths, and because the commercials for it looked serious, I was expecting something that was halfway decent.

Ten minutes into the film, I realized that it was utter CRAP. The only things in the film that are halfway true to the myth are the bare(and I mean bare) minimum. Parents, half brother, and labors seemed to be named correctly. Other than that, the rest of the film seemed to be one giant inaccuracy.

I would say that this was not much better than the Disney version of the film. The Disney version was made for little kids, therefore wasn't too serious. This movie, with all the sex, violence, and nudity, was clearly intended for an older audience, yet the story presented in this was nearly inaccurate as the Disney film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know how expensive was the creation of this movie but the effects were awful. Half of the movie was filmed on stage in front of a movie canvas (that's sure that blue box wouldn't look so artificial). When they traveled on a boat, the background canvas was moved imitating the movement of waves but the characters weren't moving. The CGI effects: terrible (I am not sure but I guess the effect were created with Paint and made a GIF sequence of them - next time the creators should hire a professional CGI maker team). It looks like the CGI creator would have drawn on the picture strip with shaky hands. Awful, that's sure. When I first saw the trailer, I thought it was created in 1983. One of my friend told me the correct date: 2005. My jaw dropped, I was so shocked, I thought he was kidding. People, I recommend you to skip this movie, the story is also twisted, you won't enjoy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is easily the worst adaptation of Greek mythology I've ever seen. It utterly fails as an adaptation of the original myth, inventing silly plot twists and reducing the 12 labours to... 3 or 4, I think. It makes up utterly needless things to try to integrate other myths in clumsy ways which bring into question the writers' having ever read the myths, like changing birds to harpies, lions to sphinxes, the Oracle of Delphi to Tiresias, and bulls to a pedantic version of Proteus, even integrating aspects, never seen outside of Sam Raimi's entertaining series, concerning his first marriage, to a woman with the co-opted name of one of the Furies so it sounds appropriate to the period.

I could accept much of that, but it also fails completely in pure film standards; most painful is the dialogue, leaden, portentous pseudo-Shakespearean tripe. It is a poor re-interpretation of the myths, making a sad attempt at the kind of post-modern revisionism that Crichton's \"The 13th Warrior\" attempted in regards to the Beowulf legend, while still including the strictly mythological elements such as clear interference from the gods and magical super-strength. A sad, sad failure of an entertainment experience, who I'm sure many of the quality actors involved regret deeply.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I survived the first hour of this and came back for the last ten minutes, just to say I saw the end. If you want *real* mythology, flawlessly executed, look for Armand Assante's \"The Odyssey.\" Great storytelling doesn't need to be tweaked - the stories are fantastic on their own. I only hope Sean Astin needed the money. And Sophocles and Ovid must be whirling in their graves - wherever those may be.

At least with Sorbo's version, the tongue was poked relentlessly in cheek - we knew it was mostly balderdash, but perhaps enough interest was generated in the backstory to send someone to the library.I'm surprised Halmi could turn out something so amusing (the TV series), and follow it with something so devoid of quality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Paul Telfer, who plays Hercules in this TV film, has to be the hottest thing on two legs EVER. Wow.

But this film is a 100% distortion of the Hercules story. Just like \"Troy,\" this film has nothing to do with the original story. Zero. What makes it especially insulting is that they actually contrived a gay character just so people could hate him, making him as dastardly and evil as any character in the history of TV or cinema. This is triply insulting since Hercules may have had a wife, since that was the expectation of those olden days, but he also had at least a dozen male lovers. So it is ironic that they should create a gay royal adversary character for this film. No, not ironic. Evil. The creators of this travesty should hang their heads in shame.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Embarassing\" is the only word to describe this laughingly awful production. From the blatant disregard of the source material (sure to infuriate anyone remotely familiar with mythology) to the predictably insufficient production value, this entire mini-series is a train wreck.

The cast (which includes some good actors, whom I pity) delivers the illogical dialogue in the same generic \"European\" accent so common to bad epics. Worse is the lack of originality in almost all other aspects, from costume and set design (blurring together styles from across time and space) to the score (which seems to poorly mimic many recognizable classical tunes as well as \"Lord of the Rings\"). Most offensive of all are the visual effects, which single- handedly prove that if you can't afford to do them well, WRITE THEM OUT.

It pained me to see yet another legendary tale bastardized by a cheap \"adaptation.\" Maybe one day, someone will do it right.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hadn't heard anything about this project until I saw that it was going to be on, so I watched it with a completely open mind. And, gee, the cast is full of strong players.

Unfortunately . . . it's awful. I don't mean it isn't good; I mean it's extraordinarily bad -- sometimes laughably so, but mostly it's just boring. Its strongest appeal comes from having attractive people as naked as US network TV will allow, but it's all tease and no substance, and having nymphs as backup characters can't justify several hours of bad TV.

There are two basic problems that the cast can't overcome. First, the script is *awful*. Yes, making changes to the Hercules myth (which is certainly not a single monolithic story in the first place) is traditional, but this version is relentlessly dull and much too frequently dumb (and sometimes downright head-shakingly peculiar), with terrible pacing, bits borrowed from here and there (and several parts seemingly belonging in different films), and truly awful dialogue. The dialogue is frequently unbearably bad, in fact, to the point where you feel embarrassed for the actors. Sean Astin, apparently now typecast as second-banana, seems especially burdened by one awful line after another. There's no consistency of tone or atmosphere and little cohesion to the plot.

Second, most of the special effects are really bad. REALLY bad. There's occasionally a decent bit of CGI, but mostly, again, you feel really embarrassed on behalf of the cast. I have no idea what the budget for this project was, but it sure looks like crap compared to \"Clash of the Titans\" or even \"Hercules: The Legendary Journeys\" and doesn't even compare very favorably with the old Lou Ferrigno and Italian 'spaghetti' Hercules movies. Just painfully miserable.

There are plenty of other problems -- the story is needlessly complex and can't keep up with itself, and Hercules himself isn't presented as a very interesting character. Almost everyone who doesn't have a European accent tries to fake one of some kind, which is not merely amateurish and dated but never really made sense in the first place: drama doesn't become better just because the actors use British accents, after all. But the terrible script and equally terrible effects sink the whole thing right off the bat.

In fairness, \"Hercules\" was apparently intended as a four-hour miniseries but truncated (for this airing, anyway) to a three-hour TV movie. I don't know what they cut, but it's possible the edits made things worse. I don't think you could make \"Hercules\" good by adding to it, but that doesn't mean that the continuity, say, hasn't suffered from the network edits. There's no way I'll watch the USA version to see, though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The problem with this movie is that it is trying to compile a 6+ hours movie into 2 hours. The result is clear. It seems too forced, unclear and too simple minded.

The only plus side is the beginning. It explains well why and how Hercules was born. The rest of the movie was...just mumbo jumbo that is put together. It has a potential to be a great movie like LOTR if only it is not forced into 2 hours.

The acting is not very convincing either. OK not all is bad. But most of them are. Special effects are stupid and look like it is made ten years earlier (although the 1st monster is pretty good) Overall, I give it 4 out of ten for the reasons I described above.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really thought this would be a good movie, boy...was I mistaken! For a quick summery: B grade acting C grade special effects D grade for the overall movie. Don't get me wrong, the story was pretty good and not kiddish so an adult too ride along with it, the \"hero\" is good looking so most women will like it :-), not a total chick flick as it contains some fight scenes and some blood

but the way it is shot... horrible

the special effects->would be better suited for TV->on a kids show

and lastly...send some of the actors back to acting school if they ever attended a class there.

Trust me there are much better ways to waste 2 hours.

You have been warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, so Herc is a hunk... but the rest of the 3 hours were wasted, wasted... oh the humanity!

Poor Sean Astin had to follow his master up the very same hills of New Zealand that ... wait! Couldd it be? Someone in the production crew of Lord of the Rings was making home movies in his spare time! Yes that's it!

I wish I could at least say he was promising.

The Special effects were often laughable.

But, Herc was a hunk.

NH","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hercules: The TV- Movie Hercules - A very twisted and molted version of the story about the Greek superhero. Paul Telfer makes a good attempt to play this hero. Sean Astin rehashes his Sam Gamgee image by playing Lupin, a thrown in character to make the whole thing a buddy-movie picture. I almost expected his to say at one point \"We're in a bad situation Mr. Frodo, uh I mean Hercules. An unexpected good performance comes from Timothy Dalton (one of the lesser James Bonds) as Hercules's father. Herucles's love interest looks like Paris Hilton, something which just turned me off right away. Unfourtunetly someone has twisted and molted the original story into somewhat of a murky and sometimes incomprehensible story. The special effects don't help either. While the Hydra scene does the original story justice, the Nemean Lion and Harpies are just....well lame. I believe the creatures and effects from Power Rangers flashed across my mind at least twice. And the Golden Hind felt rushed and very computer generated. And they took out Cerberus! One of my favorite parts of what was originally a very cool story. The movie can't decide whether it's Greek, Roman, or American. And it almost ruined the original story; a classic epic. Don't bother looking for this one on the direct to DVD. - C","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just saw it....the story, the plot, the script makes absolute no sense!! Its Samvise the brave part 2(without the RING), its characters showing up out of the blue(for no reason),its Hercules hated by everyone(no one knows why), its Leelee Sobiesky showing her true talents(two of them), its crappy special effects, its a few good actors wasting their talents(did I mention Leelee's two talents??)... do I have to say more??? ITS JUST AWFUL, even for NBC-TV standards!!! Its just the lowest....what a waste! by the way: how can you people give this mini-series so many stars????? Its beyond me!.... Shame on you! Have to make 10 lines, so this is my final word: AVOID, AVOID, if u are considering buying it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In Chicago, four electricians leaded by Dean (Richard Grieco) come to an old building to disconnect power. They accidentally activate a portal and arrive in another dimension, where Chicago was destroyed by a Spider Queen and inhabited by mutants. The group meets survivors leaded by Crane (David Nerman) and Elena (Kate Greenhouse), and finds the inventor of the portal, Dr. Richard Morelli (Colin Fox), who has been living in this dimension for thirty years. They join forces, trying to rebuilt a portal to bring them back home. \"Webs\" is a watchable plagiarizing of \"Sliders\", only worse. Most of the dialogs seem to be written by a person who has not concluded the elementary school, so imbecile they are. Further, the story is illogical, and seems that Chicago is the only city in the world. The scientist trying to start his sophisticated machine with broken wires as if he were stealing a car is very funny. The face of Richard Grieco looks like a white version of Michael Jackson and is horrible. If the viewer shuts-down his or her brain, he or she may like this forgettable TV movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): \"Na Teia do Terror\" (\"In the Web of Horror\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A Sci-Fi Network original. Not the best. Not far from being the worst. An electrician(Richard Grieco) stumbles onto a \"key\" that can open a gateway to a parallel Earth that has been taken over by mutant spiders. The mutations have been controlled by a super-sized alien Queen for the past thirty years. She has already eaten up the population of this parallel world that resembles Chicago minus inhabitants. Guess what? Now she must find another world to feed on. The electrician leads a four man team that reluctantly finds themselves with the task of saving the world. The finale confrontation is probably the best part of the whole movie. The cast also features: Richard Yearwood, Colin Fox, Kate Greenhouse, Jason Jones and David Newman. One would have thought that the Sci-Fi Network could have spent more money on special effects.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had seen this movie just days before Halloween 2004. I noticed it around lunch-time and it was an interesting description in my menu box so I decided to watch it. Seriously only a movie only suitable for late night TV...you know, after Conan but before the infomercials sorta deal.

Although this movie has very little to do with webs, it does have a lot to do with spiders, refer to my heading if you need a refresher.

I found the idea behind the story absolutely fascinating. A hidden nuclear generator, a scientist and a believable portal...Would have been a good start to a cool fantasy but then it goes downhill after 15-20 minutes.

The cast is poor with no memorable performances, poor quality queen who has had her breasts amplified...considering spiders don't carry breasts. As well as poor sound effects. An obvious low budget movie though the cast has tried.

SPOILER:

4 electricians stumble upon a hidden nuclear generator while on a job. They fiddle with the buttons and open a portal. 2 workers fall into the portal and it closes...scrambling to figure out what is going on, the party still in our world seeks help while the other party observers their surroundings.

Help does not arrive so they open the portal and follow through meeting up in a parallel dimension. They encounter a race of human spiders dubbed soldiers. After a death and chase they are saved by survivors.

Now it gets boring...they hide, talk a bit, try to build another portal then attack the hive. After losing 2 more electricians they open the portal and escape returning to our world...some 200 million years ago.

Sounds interesting huh?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is so much wrong with this movie. Greico with a girls wig, old man scientist time machine fixer, tough guy Jones who stays behind with a shotgun that has three rounds, Spider people with tentacle hands and bad teeth, etc. The make up was so bad and they only had a few visible spider people on screen at one time (Aliens Cameron technique could have been used) instead they chose to dress every spider person the same way...badly. The nice thing about Greico's acting is that he bobs his had at every syllable as if he is counting how many words he gets to speak in the script. It amazes me that with all of the information out there on DVD commentaries, people like this still exist who make movies. This movie could have been worse, how I don't know. Oh and one last thing. I am going on a SCI-FI movie hunt down. The people running that channel should not be allowed to procreate to further continue the nepotism that exist in Film and Television.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK we have 4 city electricians who find a mini nuke reactor, turn it in and fall into a parallel universe inhabited by a Giant spider queen also from a parallel universe, who managed to slip through with a few of her kin to take over the earth, but alas she is the only one left? If so why did not the rest of humanity join up and hunt her down. Also what happened to the military, no way a few billion plus round of ammo could have been used up and why hide out in a basement when a lot more defensible places had to available. Also not a dig on city workers, but how is it they knew what a mini nuke reactor looked like and how if they did not have one in the parallel universe, could they reopen the rift? Sorry but there was nothing likable about the movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Someone said that WEBS is a lot like an episode of SLIDERS, and I have to agree. Spoilers: I never liked the actors on Sliders, and rarely have seen it except when nothing better was on. WEBS is the kind of movie to see if you have no other choices. Read a book. WEBS has those kind of TV has-been actors that look like they are there as part of their PROBATION or Work Release Program. Some low budget TV movies have actors that at least look enthusiastic. The actors in WEBS look like they were getting paid minimum wage and were working on a Time-Clock. They have that desperate, \"The-Paycheck-Better-Not-Bounce\" look. The Queen Spider looks great, except it is rarely seen, and there are no other spiders (and no webs). The Queen Spider bites people, and they become Spider Zombies, which means that they try to keep their eyes WIDE OPEN when they are attacking the humans. The humans are all fighting among themselves over a number of different reasons, and they are not sympathetic. After meeting all the \"humans\" I would have recommended charm school for the characters. All that WEBS made me feel was APATHY. I was numb to the characters, and hoped for some interesting gore and special effects. The gore was minimal, and the special effects were reserved for the ugly spider queen, who looked good. If WEBS had a bunch of Spider Creatures eating humans, it would have been more entertaining. Apparently they could only budget \"spider-zombies.\" WEBS is a sad entry into the field of SPIDER oriented movies. It may qualify as the worst Spider movie ever, because Eight-Legged Freaks had great special effects.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Webs starts in 'Chicago: Present Day' as four electricians, Dean (Richard Grieco), Ray (Richard Yearwood), Sheldon (Jeffrey Douglas) & Junior (Jason Jones) are about to disconnect the electric to an unused building scheduled for demolition. As they search for the relevant cables & stuff they come across a set of doors that according to the buildings blue-prints shouldn't be there, being nosey & all that they force the doors open to have a look & find a room full of computers & scientific machinery. As they mess around with some buttons a portal to a parallel universe opens, Dean & Junior accidentally 'fall' in with Ray & Sheldon following soon after in search of their friends. Unfortunately they've all ended up in an exact parallel Earth that has been taken over by a mutant spider thing that either eats people or turns them into mutant soldiers with which she uses to protect herself & do whatever she wants them to really. In a desperate bid for survival they team up with a few of the last remaining humans including the original inventor of the portal Dr. Richard Morelli (Colin Fox) who says that with the help of our electrician boys he might (yeah might) be able to build another portal to take them back home...

Edited & directed by David Wu I thought Webs was pretty crap, it's as simple & straight forward as that really. The script by Grenville Case & Robinson Young is preposterous to say the least & has plot holes in it you could drive a tank through, for instance is this film really trying to suggest that a few mutant spider things no bigger than a couple of people in size took over an entire world? How did they do this? If this parallel Earth was the same as ours where the hell was the army? The police? All of our weapons? A few fragile looking spider things against literally billions of humans?! The whole flawed, stupid & downright naff concept constantly bugged me throughout the entire film. Lets not forget that there is a inter-dimensional portal to a parallel Earth in the basement of most buildings that have sat there undisturbed for decades & remain in perfect working order, right? Then there's the nuclear reactor the size of a briefcase, the fact one electrician can make it work perfectly purely by accident as he randomly presses a few buttons in a room that probably had 100's spread over dozens of pieces of equipment & what about the wonderfully thoughtful guy who sets an explosive bobby trap in his base without telling anyone, what if one of his mates had set it off & found themselves blown to pieces by their mates homemade bomb? You wouldn't be best pleased would you? What about food? Do they grow their own in little vegetable patches? I could go on & on all day long about how flawed, ill conceived & poorly written Webs is but I can't be bothered. The character's are clich\u00e9d & annoying as is the film as a whole which obviously doesn't help. The only half decent thing I can say about Webs is that it's short & it moves along at a fair pace but when all said & done it's still crap.

Director Wu has to take a large chunck of the blame here, for a start the film looks cheap & the editing that he is credited with is terrible. There's lots of annoying inappropriate slow motion shots that come from nowhere, the action scenes are almost identical & become incredibly boring very quickly. He uses that highly annoying quick cut technique along with a bit of the old jerky camera movement, now I don't know about anyone else but I hate this editing style as it just looks a complete incoherent mess. In fact I don't know a single person who does like this sort of thing & I'm puzzled as to why filmmakers think people do. Forget about any gore, just a few shotgun wounds to the spider zombie soldier guys & they don't have red blood anyway so it doesn't relate to reality in my mind.

Webs was made-for-TV, the American Sci-Fi Channel I think & it looks every bit as cheap, low budget & rushed as you would expect. It's all so bland, forgettable, flat & dull. The special effects are far from special & the spider thing lacks imagination when finally revealed. The acting was OK considering everything else was so poor & I still can't believe the sweater Grieco was wearing in this.

Webs is crap, I can't really say anything good about it other than I've sat through worse films & that's the sole reason I'm not giving it 1 star & a quick glance at the IMDb user ratings for Webs confirms what I already knew in that it has more '1' votes than any other & there is very good reason why...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"WEBS is a pretty odd movie, albeit slightly watchable. Richard Grieco plays an electrician who gets suck into a parallel Earth overrun by mutant spiders, or something like that. The film itself was made with a modest budget, which explains the limited locales, and the somewhat tedious screenplay that manages to do very little with quite an interesting premise. Basically a 90 minute episode of the TV show \"Sliders\", and nothing more.

4 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review and reviews of other films in the genre)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There can be no worse criticism for a movie than the word BORING.

Some \"bad\" movies are lots of fun, some \"fun\" movies are really bad, but to be BORING means no-one will ever buy the DVD to watch it over and over again.

It appeared to be a movie that employed the drama class from the Antartic, they were all too busy running around to stay warm instead of acting. The lead actor, spoke is a near whisper, husky style voice, damn, it seemed that he was gonna seduce someone, and he didn't care who.

The movie can't make money if it's boring, I hope this one dies a swift, never to be seen again, death.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Friz Freleng's 'Snafuperman' is one of the lesser Private Snafu shorts. A warning of the importance of studying your field manual, 'Snafuperman' makes it point rather clumsily. The story, in which Technical Fairy, First Class makes Snafu into a superhuman in order to help him see the error of his ways, is predictable and unfunny. Freleng's earlier Snafu short 'Rumours' had been bursting with ideas and laughs but here the director is lumbered with a rather boring topic and he struggles to make an entertaining short from it. Even at around three minutes long, 'Snafuperman' seems to drag and, unlike the best cartoons in the series, it feels like an instructional film first and entertainment second. Though they were knocked out more quickly than the usual Warner cartoons, the Snafu shorts largely maintained a surprisingly high standard. 'Snafuperman' is a reflection of the sort of quality you'd more reasonably expect from a less talent bunch of creative minds.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This good-guy-vs-the-evil-tyrant story, set in 19th century Russia, may have been an attempt to extend Steve Reeves' career beyond those \"Hercules\" movies. However, despite the different costumes, it's still a \"Hercules\" movie with the usual stilted dialog, haphazard dubbing, and cardboard characters. On the other hand, there's lots of action, the pace rarely flags, and Reeves gets to do yet another one of those scenes where he's stripped to the waist, bound with ropes, and given a vigorous whipping which, needless to say, has little effect on his defiant character.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The White Warrior is definitely one of,if not Steve Reeves weakest films. Set in 18th or 19th century Russia (??) Steve plays a cossack warrior who tries to over run a mad man Russian czar by running up a mountain side with his rebel band in a goofy looking Russian white tunic..... For the most part the great Reeves physique is hidden in a goofy, knee length tunic, with an even more sillier looking russian hat.

The action is rather minimal, with only a good wrestling scene from the mid waist up that shows off the great Reeves physique. This is an apparent attempt by the producers to move Reeves out of the sword and sandal genre into another historic era, with poor results. The dialogue from the script is hard to understand at various points, and only commentary from the narrator allows the viewer to understand what is really happening from scene to scene. I would image Reeves regretted making this film, but in an attempt to try and get out of his toga and sandals and tribune armor it helped launch him to other historic characters such as Morgan the Pirate and the Thief of Baghdad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Reeves plays Haji Murad, a hero in 1850's Russia.

This is a badly dubbed movie, with June Foray doing some of the voices. Unfortunately who ever was suppose to sync the voices to the lips was blind since the words never match the lip flaps. Anyone who says that Japanese films are bad have never watched this film.

The film's plot is instantly forgettable and so I've forgotten it in the time its taken the movie to end and for me to sit and write this down. Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that the film is one of the many that Reeves made in hopes of moving away from action to more plot driven sort of films. It may have been a good thing for Reeves, but its deadly for the audience who have to slug through nooze fests such as this, where its all court intrigue with very little action.

In Reeves defense, he was a good actor, he just had no real luck in picking films that were any good. They all looked great, but very few of them didn't put the those watching them into a coma for the film's running time.

This film will put you in a coma. Watch it only if you have the need for sleep and all other gentler means have failed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie is quite bad, aggressive, not played well, not directed well, seems low budget, low quality,emotionaly weak and disconnected. after watching earlier comments, went to see it, but if u try to compare it with apocalypse now, PLATOON, or any others, u'r really off the tracks. this movie looks like a 60's old and purely made film with cast of grown neanderthals, not to mention (or actually do), not paying attention to details like changing rounds, low budget fireworks and all sorts of poorly filmed characteristic. is watchable though, if u'd like to see it as an early development of the movies document.. not to go back!!

p.s - afterall, the guys are quite alright.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has some of the stupidest fight scenes of all time. If I was a veteran of any war I would cry when I see this movie, not because I would remember being in Vietnam, but because it is a poor representation of any veteran of that war. Even though the troops are carrying M16s, that movie resembles nothing like Vietnam. The Viet Cong even uniforms look like old leftover Japanese uniforms from a WWII movie. The setting is obviously some crappy Hollywood back lot. The worst scene contains a US soldier fighting \"hand to hand\" like in a bad martial arts movie. After he dispatches several enemy troops he says, \"hey come down here and lets kick some butt!\" to a helicopter in the air. He then is shot. This movie is trash.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very Cliched. Quite corny. Acting gets worse as the show goes on. Don't believe anything that folks say about the \"realism\" that this movie is supposed to portray. It's just a shoot'em up. Interesting twist in that the VC sieging the base were given a human face and weren't portrayed as evil incarnate.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is not realistic at all, more of a comedy than a serious war film. Very old-fashioned too. Maybe I was just expecting it to be on a same level with \"Platoon\". I wonder, why 50% of the voters gave it 10? Something must be wrong.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't think this movie had the effect on me that was intended: seeing American soldiers shooting wounded soldiers from the other side, and punching wounded prisoners in their wounds to torture them into making them talk made me root for the other side. It certainly made the US forces look anything like \"the good guys\". Was this supposed to be acceptable?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst war movie I have ever seen, possibly the worst ever made. I find it incredible that some people have actually rated it as a 10. It has a stunning lack of even rudimentary traces of realism. Almost every war movie cliche appears in this film and is done badly. On the other hand, I wouldn't have watched it to the end if it hadn't been so remarkably bad that it amused me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I also have been a wife of an abusive husband, even if in my situation the attacks were psychological, not physical. He presented a very respectable, responsible and generous personality to anyone who saw us together, which, in contrast to myself, resulted in having others treat me as dull and unstable. Initially, I was so incredibly flattered that anybody like Gus (who worked in a bank and was handsomely confident) would even give me the time of day, and I fell completely head-over-heels for the IDEA of him, rather than the person he was. If I'd had my head on straight, and gotten to know him much better first, there's no way I'd have married him. However, that's my mistake. It wasn't my mistake to be abused. I didn't deserve that, nor did I see it coming until I was embroiled in the mind games, criticism and isolation. He acted like I had no business holding an opinion that differed from his own - actually he went further. If I didn't agree, he assumed I misunderstood, and increasingly simplified his wording ... by the time I finally lost my self-respect, I was incapable of recognizing the predicament I was in, and I had to be jolted to reality by outside influence. My dad said Gus called me a bitch. Well ... it was still a half-year before the rage that began at that moment finally exploded and I packed some stuff while he was at work, and I left. .. and it was still another several months before I could grasp the fact that I had been abused, and that it wasn't my fault he was doing the things he did. ..... so please, anyone who assumes it's the fault of the victim, THINK!!! If a puppy is kicked by a cruel owner when, in an anxious situation it has an accident on the rug, do you blame the puppy? by the time the abuse in a relationship reaches an obvious violent level, the target of abuse has been so wounded and depersonalized (much like in Nazi concentration camps) that it's nearly impossible to judge the circumstance accurately, because by then, the victim believes all the horrible things spewed by the abuser. Have a heart, people. Labelling abuse victims as stupid morons is like kicking someone who's already terribly beaten. -------> and this helps how???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In fact, parts of it I liked a lot. It had some interesting twists. But it just left me with a been there, seen that feeling after all of the SAW movies. Granted the ending was different from a typical Saw, but let's face it...a group of guys, unknown to each other (or so they believe) tossed together in an abandoned chemical factory....

But then it loses something. There's no intensity, there's poor group dynamic, there's no sense of urgency.

Some nice twists at the end, and definitely worth a watch if there's nothing else on your plate, but it just left me empty...it passed the time, but it didn't satisfy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I seemed to find the trailers better than the movie. They did their job and made me interested in watching UNKNOWN. The interest waned early. A simple premise laking in scenery. Five men wake up in a chemical warehouse not knowing why they are there; let alone know how in the hell they got there. Confusion and paranoia brings with it fear and distrust. The men learn that a kidnapper is on his way with plans to kill his hostages. Now the men size each other up trying to distinguish if all are victims and who may actually be one of the kidnappers. The cast includes: Jim Caviezel, Greg Kinnear, Joe Pantoliano, Bridget Moynahan, Barry Peppper, David Selby and Adam Rodriguez.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Since the characters begin with \"Unknown\" identities, they not identified by name, so you start with handsome James Caviezel waking up in a warehouse. He finds out the place is locked up tight. Don't ask - the windows are made with security glass, and it's impossible to get out. Four other awakening men make it a quintet - Mr. Caviezel in his \"Jean Jacket\", Barry Pepper in a \"Ranger Shirt\", Greg Kinnear with a \"Broken Nose\", Joe Pantoliano as a chair \"Bound Man\", and Jeremy Sisto shot and \"Handcuffed Man\". Oh, Man\u0085

These five men have collective amnesia. They think that three of them are kidnappers, and two are victims - but, they don't know who is which or which is who. The forgetfulness is due to a pipe leak. Don't ask - it happens. Meanwhile, on the outside, lead lawman David Selby (as Parker) sends his cops to solve the kidnapping while one of the men's wives, Bridget Moynahan (as Eliza Coles), frantically waits. But, criminal element's gang leader, Peter Stormare in \"Snakeskin Boots\", is also on his way to the scene.

Like the DVD synopsis says, \"As secrets are revealed and clues unraveled, (the five men) must race against time to figure out who is good and who is evil in order to stay alive.\" This story reads a lot better than it looks on film, unfortunately. When the secrets are finally revealed, and memories become clear, there is no longer much interest in what has happened. Simply, director Simon Brand has a great premise with Matthew Waynee's idea, but they encumber light investment in the characters holding the short end of the stick.

**** Unknown (11\/1\/06) Simon Brand ~ James Caviezel, Barry Pepper, Greg Kinnear, David Selby","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I Remember That Hey Hey Fuss & I Saw The Jackson Jive, It Was A Pretty Straight Forward Comedy Skit But I Saw This & It Is Free & Is Out In The Clear? Have I Missed Something? If The Black Community Should Be Complaining About Any Racist Comments In A TV Show It Should Be This & If You've Read My Earlier Comments I Am Not The Easy-To-Offend Guy. The Basic Plot Is That An African\/American Moves In Next To This White Guy & They Make These Racist Comments Like The Value Of A House Will Drop Just Because Of Black Neighbours & The White Guy Makes References Like (If Your Easily Offended By Racial Slurs Do Not Read On) Nig-Nog Jungle Boy Sambo. (I Apologise But That Really Happens In This Show I Really Am A Guy Who Is Fine With The Black Community) People Might Say Hey Lighten Up But Even When You Take The Racial Slurrs Away It Is Un-Funny No New Jokes Badly Acted & I Can Swear In One Episode I Saw Someone's Eyes Focus On Something Unconnected With The Situation. All In All Horrible Comedy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The promotions for \"Clubbed\" project a slick looking film based around the clubbing scene of the 1980's. What we end up with is a film with identity issues. The sub-plots end up taking over from what viewers would assume to be the main plot, so the focus on this film being mainly about \"clubbing\" ends up being left in the gutter.

Boxing, depression, self-loathing, gangsters, bouncers and drug-deals, are all hastily crammed into 90 odd minutes. On no less than 4 occasions I had to check the run-time of the film, as the worry grew that this film was bound to disappoint.

What club scenes we do see are bland and repetitive, featuring approximately 3 extras dancing in what is barely recognisable as a \"club\", hardly capturing the vibe of the day.

If you're looking for a film about the 80's club scene, something along the lines of what \"Human Traffic\" did for the late 90's, forget \"Clubbed\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was an absolute waste of time. It's nothing but a wanna-be gangster movie. It contains a very predictable plot. My feelings are unsympathetic to the characters, and the dialogue is mediocre at best. Half the time you are looking for something else to do, because the movie is that boring, since you already know what's going to happen. The other half of the time you're desperately hoping the protagonist grows a pair of balls or just ends his life by jumping off a bridge or something. Also, the secondary characters are for the most part one- dimensional. There's no depth to any of the characters in this movie! No depth!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Clubbed\" is yet another 'will-this-do?' entry into the Brit fisticuffs genre and is sure to keep punters who aren't expecting too much moderately entertained for ninety minutes after a few beers. However, for anyone seeking intelligent, quality entertainment it's really best avoided.

There are so many misnomers in the appalling script that even an actor of the calibre of Colin Salmon is left looking daft. The action is set in the 1980s, but it's never clear why, especially when they haven't been able to pull off any convincing feel for that decade - it takes more than a few 80s soul records on the soundtrack, the occasional zoot suit and a handful of 30-year-old cars. Then we see central characters studying texts such as Sun Tzu's \"The Art Of War\" and speaking about how violence should be a last resort, while the same characters seem only too willing to start doling out punches with all the testosterone-fuelled, unthinking abandon of a bunch of chavs fighting over a bag of chips.

Character development does not exist in \"Clubbed\". Nor does irony, subtlety or pathos. This is a film which trades on fond memories of Guy Richie's early gangster films, which despite their flaws certainly had much more wit, better editing, snappier dialogue and packed more emotional punch than this limp little saga. They're a decade old now, anyway - isn't it time we moved on from trying to emulate them?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Danny (Mel Raido) is a lonely factory worker who tries to get by with his job and to be a good dad to his two daughters after a messy divorce from their mother (Maxine Peake.) But after an altercation with said daughters present at a Working Men's Club, he uses a trip to their dance class to take a glance at Louis (Colin Salmon) and his gang of hard men who train in the boxing gym\/free weights section there and to train himself into a tougher, more assertive person. Before long he's taken the philosophies of Louis to heart and has joined him as a nightclub doorman as the 80s disco faze kicks in...but when associate Sparky (Scott Williams) tries to do a sideline in drug dealing, everything turns pear shaped.

As Robert De Niro once stated in the film A Bronx Tale 'there's no bigger tragedy than wasted talent.' The writer of Clubbed had a good idea and a talent to make it into some sort of film...but without the ability, it seems, to put it all together into some sort of coherent film.

As a brummie, some of the filming locations (especially a scene at the end outside the Ring O' Bells pub in Moseley!) were quite easy and fun to spot...but the dour look of the cinematography is really a downer on things. Some really poor acting, for instance lead actor Raido with an indecipherable accent that's all over the place, and a hammy script with some misfiring dialogue are bigger problems for the film though. More established actors like Peake and even telly favourite Neil Morressey are sidelined to very small supporting parts, while the disastrous Raido and Ronnie Fox's lame villain take centre stage. Williams does a poor man's Sick Boy from Trainspotting impression, leaving Salmon and Shaun Parkes seemingly the only performers left with any integrity from the whole thing, as the excessive, blood splattered violence (becoming a common trend for Brit flicks!) takes over. Truly a missed opportunity. **","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why does the poster & artwork say \"Clubbed is one of the best UK indie films I have seen in a very long time. SCREEN INTERNATIONAL\" when it was a quote of the French distributor REPORTED by Screen International (an influential film trade publication). See www.screendaily.com\/ScreenDailyArticle.aspx?intStoryID=39811 which reads:

\"Pretty Pictures has acquired all French-speaking rights to Neil Thompson's Clubbed ....James Velaise, president of Pretty Pictures, said: \"Clubbed is one of the best UK indie films I have seen in a very long time.\"\"

Isn't this rather misleading? The distributor is bound to say it's good. Are the other quotes real?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mockumentaries are proliferating lately so much that the approach therefore needs an injection of fresh and creative material each time it's used to maintain its vitality. This film does not deliver anything but worn out retreads of similar stories, an aimless script, weak ad-libs, uninspired acting, and unfunny self-gratifying humor.

The premise would seem promising enough; the legend of the Loch Ness monster is made to order for one of these goofy mockumentary misadventures, with a vast array of history and legend waiting to be tapped for outrageous satire. The film makers totally waste this enormous potential, however. We get some fool inserting a fake Nessie into the water. Gee, that's original. Another scene has one obnoxious idiot threatening another obnoxious idiot with a gun. Sidesplitting. Some gratuitous shots of a pretty girl in a bikini. Annette did that 40 years ago (and far better, by the way). Throughout the movie, somebody always seems to be yelling: I suppose this is designed to wake up the audience who have nodded off by this point.

Worst of all, though, is the relentless salvo of those reality show type \"interview comments\" made by the characters. Not only do they nuke you with this tired joke every five seconds, but apparently, the actors also improvised; that's the only explanation for how humorless the jokes are. If lines like, \"I've never seen anyone write a book about non-evidence\" were actually scripted, then the writer should be shot on sight and fed to Nessie.

No wonder Nessie got violent; it obviously saw this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Christopher Guest is the master of the mockumentary. Werner Herzog is one of many documentary greats out there. Zak Penn isn't good at either but he could certainly take a lesson from the other two. Guest often plays around with reality and fiction but the line between the two is always clear in his films, sort of an essential with a mockumentary. Penn could also take a lesson from the The Blair Witch Project. Even though you knew it was a fake documentary going in you totally bought into the world the filmmakers created. It seems to the audience as if the whole thing is real even though you know, deep down, you're watching fiction. In other words, it was fiction successfully disguised as truth. In fact many early audiences watching it, at Sundance and other premiere audiences thought it was real. Penn, whose forte, by his own admission, is screen writing, should probably stick to that. Documentary or mockumentary film-making (and it's hard to tell where one begins and the other ends with this film) is obviously not.

Penn sets the stage for what he tries to sell as a legit documentary on the filming of a documentary, sort of a meta-documentary. Penn, however, confuses the audience, and loses their trust, from the get-go as he enters Herzog's house before the filming of Herzog's film, \"Enigma of Loch Ness\" about the myth of the Loch Ness monster (a film which apparently was never finished \u0096 probably because of Penn's interference). Even though Penn is apparently the director of the film we're watching, he starts it by looking at the cameras and saying, \"What is the film crew doing here?\" and starts shying away from them. He does this on a couple other occasions as well. He will stop and tell the cameras to stop filming, thus forcing the camera guy to hide in the shadows to pick up snippets of dialogue between Herzog and Penn. It seems to be a gimmick, but that is never made clear, and Penn is apparently keeping us in the dark intentionally. This leaves the audience scratching its head wondering, \"Who is in charge here?\" If Penn is working against his own film crew what kind of a world are we a part of? This is just one of many examples of how he confuses the line between reality and fiction.

Penn seems to only fully enter the fictional world (I think) when the crew has sightings of what appears to be the Loch Ness monster. But by the time the monster makes its first appearance we have totally exited the fictional world Penn has attempted to create, so it all just seems silly and pointless.

This is a potentially fascinating movie and a real missed opportunity in that Penn has a chance to document a master at work, but completely loses focus and it becomes a movie about Penn and his antics instead of the filming of a documentary. Penn's presence begins to pervade and overshadow everything else in the movie.

The Herzog interviews are convincing and we actually believe he isn't acting. We even start to wonder if he and others on his crew are being duped by Penn, much the way the audience is, but you're never sure of even that. Penn, in his interviews to the camera, attempts to be quirky and unintentionally funny, like the characters interviewed in a Guest mockumentary, but he only succeeds in being annoying. In a Guest film this effect is hilarious, while here it falls flat because you're never sure what Penn is about. As a result we, the audience, start to dislike him as much as the crew apparently does. Aside from the beautiful scenery and the superfluous appearance, out of nowhere, of a beautiful model, thrown in to give the movie spice, there is little to recommend here. Perhaps its only redeeming quality (an unintentional one at that) is that it's a great example of why the audience is important; and by completely ignoring the conventions of storytelling your doing them a disservice. For that reason alone I think this would be a good film to show to film students \u0096 sort of a \"what not to do\" kind of movie. I have nothing against a movie told in an unconventional way as long it's done skillfully, with a thematic base to give it substance. This film is completely lacking in that.

I'd like to call it a valiant effort at something, but I'm not sure what it is, other than a complete mess and ultimately a waste of time.

(As a side note: It seems like bad art always calls to mind good. This film made me think of the book \"Picture\" by Lillian Ross. Ross followed John Huston around during the filming of \"The Red Badge of Courage\" and brilliantly documented it for the New Yorker. It would make a great movie in fact. If you want a great example of meta-art, read it.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wish that all the mockumentaries and horror spoofs would go away. If you are going to investigate loch ness..do it for real. Enough of the bull****. Same with horror and sci-fi..if you are going to make a movie and it is supposed to be scary..make it scary..not funny. I hate when watching a horror movie and the character is fighting for their life(or running or whatever..their life is at stake) and they are cracking jokes. This never happens..cmon where have all the good directors gone? I think horror and sci-fi have really gone down the tube since the 70's. I long for the days that a horror flick was scary..all this \"scary movie\" crap is for the birds. This film is also for the birds. If you really would like to see a good investigation or here serious talk...don't expect it in this video.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of my favorite \"bum\" actors, C. Tom Howell, stars in this tepid remake of WOTW. He runs around a lot, while a CGI-generated spider-like machine goes around killing everyone. The budget for this one obviously was pretty low. It also was one of The Asylum productions. Have you seen any of those? Yikes! I am not sure why anyone would have made this while the big-budget Spielberg version was slaying them at the box office. And if truth be told, neither version is all that hot. The George Pal version from the 1950s remains the best representation of the H.G. Wells novel, primitive special effects and all. Perhaps because Gene Barry was much more convincing in the lead than Howell or Tom Cruise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why does C Thomas Howell do these movies? Cruise (Howell's one time co-star) does a huge blockbuster of WOTW and Howell follows with this lame effort.

Where do I start here? Production Values - I'll start with the good stuff. The look and feel of some of the scenes in this movie are not too bad to be honest. The set-ups are okay in spots and the direction not too bad.

Script - Terrible. A series of clunky scenes that could have been put in any order you like permeate throughout the movie. The amount of times the scene faded to black and reemerged a second later in the same room was uncountable. Very poor storyline (but so was the Cruise WOTW) takes some blame but an abysmal screenplay kills it off.

Special FX - Okay, I don't want to be too harsh here as I imagine the budget was smaller than Cruise's lunch bill - but in the overall context of the film the effects are badly done. Some shots are quite impressive - mainly far off destruction shots of bridges, Washington, liner. But in the main the \"alien\" machines and tentacles themselves are dreadful. Also the camera quality is fuzzy on some shots and cuts away entirely on others.

Acting - I'm a fan of Howell but as he has reduced himself to acting in these low-budget flicks - he has succumbed to the \"over-acting\" bug a long time ago. Look at his performance in The Hitcher and compare it to this movie. There is no comparison. He overdoes his facial expressions, his flailing arms and legs (where did he get that running style???) and for a final coup-de-gras look at the scene where he loses the photo of his family. Hysterical. But after saying all that - he is still the best actor on show here. Busey is embarrassing to look at and Peter Green (Zed is truly dead now baby) mumbles incoherently through his one and only scene. I honestly could not understand one word he said - I even went so far as trying to enable the subtitles on that scene - but the DVD did not have subtitles. This seems to be a real keep-it-in-the-family affair too as Howell's son, the director's wife and the line producer all make it into the film. None of them are good.

Direction - not bad but not good either.

Score - Dismal.

Overall, a lame duck effort that will do nothing for Howell in his attempt to make it back to the big time. He should take a look at Rourke and try to figure out how he made in back to the A list but if he keeps doing stuff like this, he won't have a career soon enough.

3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is incredible that there were two films with the same story released in 2005. This one came out a day before that other one with Tom Cruise. Didn't they do that with Truman Capote the same year, and the Zodiac killer last year? Interesting.

Writer\/Director David Michael Latt didn't have Steven Spielberg's budget and C. Thomas Howell is not Tom Cruise. This is a pale imitation of the blockbuster that grossed $588 million worldwide.

The action was minimal and most of the time we were treated to the whining of Rhett Giles, who played a pastor that was giving up on his god.

Gary Busey was creepy as an army LT.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do you hear that sound? That's the sound of H.G. Wells rolling over in his grave, between this version and Spielberg's cinematic abortion it's been a tough year for the classic novel. But at least Steven got a few things right compared to this crapperella. Hello, the ships weren't big insects, they had names. They were Tripods and the aliens worked in threes. The ships and the aliens were all wrong, you don't really get to see the aliens until the end. The effects and the cast work fine. But these actors are much better then this \"movie\" deserves. The bulk if not all the movie is the Howell character wondering through the devastation, meeting one person, they join him and he looses them for one reason or the other. There's not more then two people on camera at any given moment though most of the movie. It's like if they filmed three at once it would put the movie over budget or something. So fat the only and mean only watchable adaptation of the WAR OF THE WORLDS story is the GEORGE PAL version way back in the 1950s. THE BLACK HOLE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I normally finish every movie or book I start, even if they're poor, just 'cause I hate giving up on them. This was so poorly made, I was in disbelief.

I'm not just looking for Spielberg magic - I rent foreign films, and I rent really old sci-fi's (most recently Soylent Green - worth the rent). I like both Hollywood action and slower moving character development. Different films need to be approached differently to be appreciated. I could find no redeeming element to this one... The action was so wooden I wasn't the least bit on edge. The character development was virtually absent - you're not left feeling sorry for anyone, or even identifying with them. Finally, there were so many pieces that just didn't add up.

Don't waste your time - better to watch paint dry...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mad scientist Professor Tabani drinks a potion he has brewed up in his laboratory but is turned into a blood craving vampire instead.When Dr.Aqil pays a visit Tabani sees a picture of Aqil's wife Shabnam and,after turning Aqil into a vampire,heads for Shabnam to make her his bride.Aqil's brother discovers the grave of the vampire and his brother at Tabani's castle and kills his brother with a knife to free his soul.Tabani succeeds in putting the bite on Shabnam and once turned she tries to lure her young niece away.Aqil's brother races against time to put a stop to the vampire curse.\"Zinda Laash\" almost put me to sleep.The plot is extremely slow but more or less follows Bram Stoker's famous novel.The suspense is completely absent as is the gore and nudity.The film is only recommended for curious horror fans that want to see the second horror film made in Pakistan(after \"Madman\" from 1964).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stop me if you hard this one before, some cheerleaders, their coach and a couple guys are trapped within a cabin in the woods when an unseen killer kills them off one by one. Shame on me, after I totally wrote off Jim Wynorski after the horrid \"Busty Cops\" (it was a long time coming as his last truly good film was 1990's \"Hard to Die\"), I still for some reason got my hopes up for a supposed sequel to \"Slumber Party Massacre\". Sadly even my mediocre expectations were not met. This outing is not nearly as fun as even the three previous films in the franchise (and yes I'm including SPM 2, that should tell you something) Furthermore how can you have a slasher film with this little gore??? I mean Come on now!!

My Grade: D

Eye Candy: Ricky Ray gets topless; April Flowers and Charity Rahmer show boobs and buns in a shower scene (April gets nude again later in the film), and Tamie Sheffield gets topless and bares buns","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Slasher sequel (fourth SLUMBER PART MASSACRE film) concerns a group of nubile cheerleaders stranded in a mountainous cabin in the snow, being offed by a deranged killer. Typical slasher elements for hardcore slasher fans, gore, wonderfully gratuitous female nudity, no plot. Though it wears out its welcome eventually, even at its short length.

Original star Brinke Stevens makes a cameo, which only seems to be there for the sake of including her in the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cheerleader Massacre was supposed to be the fourth installment of the Slumber Party Massacre series; if that's what they were doing (which it is considering ONE actress from the original returns in a small cameo role), they have failed miserably and made, by far, the worst installment of the 'quadrilogy'. Cheerleader Massacre seamlessly combines bad acting, a horrible plot, a dumb killer, dull and boring deaths, boring scenery, and hideous camera work to make it one of the worst films ever made. Did I already mention how bad it was? Don't get me wrong: this cheesy and retarded excuse for a horror film is nowhere near as bad as Napoleon Dynamite, but it is undeniably a horrible movie.

Cheerleader Massacre is an exact polar opposite of the original Slumber Party Massacre. Stay away by all means! This movie is utter garbage!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've never expected too much from a film by trashy B-movie director Jim Wynorski: a silly premise, some cheapo effects and a bit of nudity from some busty babes, and I'm usually fairly happy.

Well, Cheerleader Massacre delivers on the former and definitely the latter, but unfortunately is a tad light when it comes to the splatter. And when a film has the word 'massacre' in the title, and scrimps on the gore, then Houston, we have a problem.

Wynorski's movie centres on a group of cheerleaders who, along with their teacher, mini-bus driver and a couple of guys, become stranded in the mountains during a snowstorm. They make their way on foot to a deserted mountain retreat, where they find food and shelter. And a crazy killer who wants them all dead! From the outset, good old Jim ensures that his film features plenty of scenes loaded with T&A, and includes the obligatory shower scene, along with numerous other moments in which tasty women get nekkid (including a spot of raunchy softcore sex and a very gratuitous three-babes-in-a-hot-tub scene). None of the women look young enough to be cheerleaders (and are never even seen in their outfits), but who cares about such details when they're all too willing to strip off in the name of art?

I do care, however, about the movie's numerous lacklustre deaths. With such an extremely lurid title, I had been hoping for some inventive bloodletting to go with all of the bums, bush, and boobs; instead, practically all of the killings occur off-screen or feature next to no gore. Only a silly post-decapitation scene (achieved with cheap-as-chips CGI) comes anywhere near to delivering the goods.

Still, if you're feeling in the mood for some titillation, or a bit of slasher silliness minus the grue, then, at 82 minutes, at least Cheerleader Massacre won't be too much of a waste of your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A movie like this makes me appreciate the work that professional actors do. I think movie-goers, in general, are a little too hard on professional actors and are ready to bash them for the most minuscule reasons. Just watch a couple minutes of \"Cheerlader Massacre,\" and trust me, you'll change your views. A razzie would be almost a compliment for these no-talent actors. But then again, it's a Jim Wynorski film. Wynorski is a popular director of these ultra low-budget B-movies (having worked with Roger Corman on many an occasion). The problem with this movie is it actually tries to develop a plot. And when you have actors delivering lines like they're reading letters off an eye chart, how am I supposed to care? In Wynorski's \"Bare Wench 2,\" he didn't try to develop a plot. He simply tried to make a softcore porn\/goofy takeoff on the \"Blair Witch Project.\" It was fun and it was titillating. \"Cheerleader Masscare\" is no fun. There are a couple obligatory female nude scenes, but they are few and far between. So it's not even worth enjoying on an erotic level. I must say, the worst scene is the one where Nikki Fritz walks across a bridge that's about to collapse. First of all, her character didn't have to walk across that bridge. Second of all, as the bridge starts creaking, rather than try her best to run across, she just stands there and acts helpless. And top it off, we don't actually see the bridge collapse because the filmmakers made this for a budget of 2 dollars!!! Unlike a lot of B-horror films, this one's actually boring. And that's what makes it the worst of all bad movies. One of the few bright spots was Lunk Johnson, who's probably the most natural actor in the film (though certainly no more than halfway decent). He was funny in \"Bare Wench 2,\" and had some funny scenes in this movie too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hard to get in-depth with this kind of stuff since there is absolutely no existing shred of even partial reason for watching it, let alone expressing an opinion on it. I don't know anything about this - watched it for a laugh and stayed for the fake breasts. Apparently, it's an unofficial sequel to 1982's \"Slumber Party Massacre\", which I DID enjoy as a fun slasher. \"Cheerleader Massacre\" looks like a late-nite soft-core Cinemax porno! And not surprisingly, chicks like Nikki Fritz and Samantha Phillips (prolific T&A actresses) are in this. Plenty of nekkid hooters and not much else... A group of 20-something high school cheerleaders, two random guys, and the fat, stupid comic-relief slob become stranded in the country and find a house where they plan to stay the night. The recently escaped \"Slumber Party\" killer is in the area and begins killing them off. There's no gore or originality and I wouldn't say the nudity is a real \"selling point\" since this is just about as boring a slasher movie can be. Absolutely terrible...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like CURSE OF THE KOMODO was for the creature feature genre, Jim Wynorski's CHEERLEADER MASSACRE is a straight-faced parody of slasher movies, such as SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE. A psycho, who has escaped from his padded cell,(..he was sent to the loony bin thanks to killing eleven people)is working across the mountainous backwoods countryside of Bobcat County attacking anyone within his reach. A van load of cheerleaders, their teacher, two equipment hands, and the driver are on their way to a contest when their vehicle runs out of fuel while taking a supposed short-cut to avoid having to turn back. Luckily the group find a cabin up ahead, but fall prey to a killer who attacks each victim one by one. The psycho loose in the county couldn't have killed one girl because she was in the cheerleaders' locker room while he was elsewhere which means someone among their own is the culprit. Meanwhile the sheriff of the county and his deputy pursue the whereabouts of their psycho, while also trying to find the location of the missing cheerleader squad.

Shot cheap on video, Wynorski does what he can with the limited budget having to find clever ways to assassinate characters off-screen without the luxury of properly effective special effects. In other words, lots of melons were stabbed, the sound effect used to let us know that certain victims whisked away into the darkness by a black gloved hand died savagely. Wynorski incorporates a scene from SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE regarding Brinke Stevens' character Linda, her being pursued by a killer with a drill(..that killer and Linda both wound up dead, but I guess Wynorski wanted to connect his film to that one, albeit rather poorly)..still it was nice to see her, even if it was a glorified cameo. Tamie Sheffield, as Ms Hendricks the teacher of the students in trouble, has a long bathing scene in the shower soaping her naked body and fake breasts. The girls who make up the cheerleaders are a bit unconvincing, because their obviously in their twenties. Aging soft-core porn stars Samantha Philips(..as a police officer who is attacked by the psychopath she's searching for)and Nikki Fritz(..a hiker who is victimized while jogging across a dangerous bridge)surprisingly don't have to strip. Wynorski vets Bill Langlois Monroe(..as Sheriff Murdock) and Melissa Brasselle(..as a detective who assists Murdock on his case)contribute to the sub-plot of the search for John Colton's serial killer McPherson. Interesting enough, the McPherson story serves as a McGuffan as, in truth, the meat of the film is devoted to the cheerleading group and their perilous situation. I'm not sure if slasher fans will embrace this movie because it takes too long for the kills to flare up and when they eventually enter the picture, the violence isn't potent or shocking enough to satisfy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was one of those movies where it completely fooled me into thinking that it was a cheesy 80's slasher flick, based on the cover, but it wasn't. It was quite possibly one of the worst slasher films that I have ever seen. The picture on the cover did not match any part or scene in the movie; in fact it didn't involve a chainsaw. Not even the tag line fit the movie. The film is about a group of cheerleaders and two potheads who escape to a desolate cabin, in the cold woods, for a weekend getaway. However, things get extra chilly when they start to get murdered by an unknown killer. At the same time, the local sheriff's department is hunting down a dangerous killer. I'll name the problems in a list.

1. The Acting. Boy was it cheap and horribly bad. It felt unnatural and it seemed as thought it was very scripted. None of the actors seemed as though they tried to perform with good intentions and therefore they seemed silly and tired. There was bad acting by all the characters in the movie, so I won't point out specific people, but I wills say that the stoners did a horrible job, as well as the police and the cheerleaders, which is not a surprise.

2. The Plot. This story had set up a perfect storyline for good ol' fashion slasher flick, but instead they peppered it with plot-holes, useless and unnecessary scenes and an overall stupid back-story to the killer's intentions. There were major plot-holes including how the killer killed the last victim so quickly and yet still be there in the group of girls when it happened? The ex-con virtually served no purpose in the movie aside from being a useless plot device. There was random and unnecessary sex and nudity sprinkled throughout it, even for a b-movie or my taste it was a bit too much. As for the killer's intentions, lets just say it was stupid and it makes no sense as to why she \/ he is killing young girls. Plus, there was also some very predictable kills that I saw coming about 30 miles away.

3. The Technical Side. The lighting was okay, it certainly wasn't the worse lighting that I've seen in a movie, but there were points where it was supposed to be dark but it looked more like the afternoon. The house seemed darker with the lights on, then with the lights off. The camera work was average, it didn't have any good establishing shots or amazing pans or zooms, thought it did get the job done is building some suspense with it's framing.

Overall, this movie, in the sense of plot, character development and performance, was a huge disappointment and a waste of my time. What I thought would have been a great slasher flick turned out to be one of the worse movies that I have ever seen. The acting was really bad and wooden, there was hardly any sense in the plot and there was no emotion to this film. However, the technical aspect of this film saved it for me, because if the camera work or the lighting was bad, then I would have turned off the DVD player and popped in something else. I would recommend this movie to those who enjoy really cheesy b-movies as well as those who follow cult classics, because this movie certainly is. I would partially recommend this film for those who enjoy 80s slasher flicks. But for me, this movie was pitiful and utterly horrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Based on a joke once told by Jim Wynorski\"... that's what I've read at the end of the closing credits. Well, Mr. Wynorski gotta have an awful sense of humour then! This film is terrible, really. I loved the first two chapters of The Slumber Party Massacre series; the third film was quite useless, but completely watchable, compared to this piece of crap! There's not even a Driller Killer and the plot, the acting, the characters, the locations, the events... everything is boring, absurd and laughable. The only good reason to watch this turkey are the girls: if this film were a porn, I think it would have worked really much better! The film lacks gore too: the first scene (the one in the tent) could be bloodier and the scene with the headless guy knocking at the door lasted one second! Some moments of slight thrilling can't save a nonexistent plot. Buzzy (Lunk Johnson) seems to be the only real actor here: I found him the only bearable character in this movie! Oh... there's a nonsense part with Brinke Stevens, who performed \"Linda\" in the first Slumber Party Massacre: the police bother her to know more details about the killer; but what we get is only some footage from the first film! Not a dialogue, neither a monologue, or anything from this still-traumatized grown-up girl, who's forced to revive the worst 30 minutes of her life (as she says), giving us no clues at all about the murderer!

Watch at your own risk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Originally harped as a sequel to \"The Slumber Party Massacre\" series, this film falls flat on it's face with a new title. First off, if you are going to include the word \"massacre\" in your film's title, you better deliver. This one certainly does not. There is no gore, no on screen murders and no chainsaw, as the box art would lead you to believe. Instead, we get a paper thin, overdone plot about a group of cheerleaders who get stranded in an abandoned cabin on the way to a football game, only to be offed one by one. Again, this film could have been OK if the gore quotient was upped a bit. Why directors, especially those doing direct-to-video flicks, are afraid to show ANY gore is beyond me. Now, I am not a huge fan of excessive gore, but come on...why else would anyone rent a movie called \"Cheerleader Massacre??\" Besides that problem, the film suffers from a shot-on-a-home-video-camera cheapness. It looks cheap, sounds cheap, and the actors aren't all that good. It tries to throw us off track to who the killer may be, but even that fails. The ending ends up being a ridiculous mess. Folks, if you run across this film, walk away and go find the original \"Slumber Party Massacre.\" 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was just plain bad. I can forgive low-budget films for being low budget but it wasn't funny, it wasn't smart, it had no redeeming qualities at all unless you really like looking at fake boobs. I don't know what this genre is classified as, possibly erotic horror, but if so-- well, it's neither sexy nor scary. Tying it into the Slumber Party Massacre movies was useless; I'd never seen the previous movies myself, and except for one scene that attempted to tie it together, I had no way of knowing who the escaped psycho killer in 'Cheerleader' was or why they were bothering with including him, especially because (and I don't think I'm revealing anything here) it was really obvious that the cheerleader killer in this film wasn't him. As for the actual murderer? All I can say is, lame. Really lame. When you find out why the killer is offing the cheerleading squad (and the squad's coach, and two stoners who happened to be on the bus trip they're taking, and the bus driver just for the heck of it, apparently) you will sit there and go-- WTF? Worst excuse for a murdering spree ever. The \"actors\" (two guesses why I added the quotes) generally looked like low-budget porn rejects, which they most likely were. Those poor people, trying to break into \"legitimate\" film. One of my friends had this to say about the actor who played Buzzy, the bus driver: \"He looks like the guy who, you know, gets really into it, and his face gets all red and stuff.\" We had a good larf at that. Half of the other actors had all the skill and subtlety of the actors in the sixth grade production of \"Annie\" I just saw. The other half pretty much seemed bored to death (especially in the deleted scene, this one redhead...), and by ten minutes into this movie I was, too.

A note: the DVD contains one deleted scene, which would've put the movie from R-rated to NC-17 if it had been left in. It was entirely gratuitous, and as adult entertainment goes of no quality whatsoever. The only reason to bother with it is to laugh, a lot, at the badness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"CHEERLEADER MASSACRE (2003)

starring: Tamie Sheffield, Charity Rahmer, Erin Byron, Leonard Johnson, E. Eddie Edwards, Samantha Phillips, GiGi Erneta, April Flowers, Nikki Fritz, Tylo Tyler, Brad Beck, Summer Williams, Brinke Stevens, Melissa Brasselle.

plot: A group of cheerleaders, along with their coach and three guys, are on their way to a game when suddenly their van breaks down and they take refuge in a nearby cabin. Soon, they drink, have sex, and are brutally murdered one by one by an unseen killer.

the good: A few laughs, surprising identity of the killer, a Brinke Stevens cameo, my favorite scene from THE SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE used as a flashback.

the bad: I was excited about this film, I loved all three Slumber Party Massacre's because they were just so fun, and I was expecting a lot from this \"Slumber Party\/Sorority House Massacre with Scream tones), but it just sucked! They overdid it on the \"We're cheesy but proud\" thing and basically made soft-core porn but with a good who-dun-it.

**","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this on the shelves at the rental place and I have rented everything else so I said why not. Why not is because it's one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It looks like it was shot with home camcorder. I guess thats all the budget would allow. There was less boobs in it than I thought there would be. Some people made it out to be soft porn with a few killings. The funniest part of the whole movie to me is in the extra stuff. There is a spot with deleted scenes. Well there is only one but it is the dumbest and I think it may have brought the rest of the movie down. The girls get in a hot tub and find some chocolate syrup in the bathroom. Yes it ends up all over them. Great stuff !!! This movie is very very bad. Don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ok. I'll admit it. I'm a huge fan of b-movies. Back when Michelle Bauer, Linnea Quigley and Brinke Stevens ruled the roost. And back then, even the bad movies were still good. Unfortunately, this is a bad movie that is just plain bad. Even a small cameo by Brinke Stevens (reprising her role as Linda from \"Slumber Party Massacre\" 21 years earlier) doesn't help this one out. A group of cheerleaders take refuge in a fancy cabin after their van breaks down. A psycho stalks them one by one, catching them in various states of undress. Bad script, bad direction and horrible acting make this one plain bad! Skip this turkey and go rent \"Slumber Party Massacre.\" 1\/2*","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even as a big fan of the low to no budget horror genre, I couldnt find this disaster mildly amusing. With horrible acting, a painfully generic \"plot\" and no dimensional characters, no matter how bored and drunk you are, this one is not worth your 81 minutes. Don't make the same mistake I did. Rent something else. ANYTHING else!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before I start, I need to inform you that I love horror films with a passion. LOVE THEM! I have seen thousands and rarely does one come along that I do not like. I am very forgiving of the horror genre. One of the greatest lines in movie history is in the film \"Ed Wood\" where Ed Wood (Johnny Depp) freaks out and yells at the overly critical producers after they comment on \"Plan 9's\" cheap sets and continuity problems, \"You don't know anything! Haven't you ever heard of 'suspension of disbelief?!'\" Well, I try to bring that \"suspension of disbelief\" philosophy with me to every horror film I see and it usually works. Unfortunately, it didn't work for me during the screening of Cheerleader Massacre.

Strike One:

The first thing you'll notice about this \"film\" is that it is shot on video and has that crummy hand-held-home-digital-camera style. The camera work and quality are so bad it makes daytime soaps look breathtaking in comparison. In fact, it makes Troma and Full Moon video releases look good. And, that's bad.

Strike Two:

Jim Wynorski. This \"filmmaker\" probably fancies himself a chip off the ol' Corman, but nothing could be further from the truth. Roger Corman shot fast, furious and under budget, but was able to deliver a tight original film. Though Wynorski delivers a cheap film, he cheats his viewers (and perhaps other artists) as he steals entire pieces of James Horner's \"Humanoids From The Deep\" and \"Battle Beyond The Stars\" musical scores and inappropriately drops them into Cheerleader Massacre. On the back of the box art and during the beginning credits the music score is falsely attributed to, Dan Savio (an extra in Wynorski's \"Deathstalker II\"). You will also notice how Cheerleader Massacre jumps from video to film and back again as Wynorski lifts entire scenes from both \"Slumber Party Massacre\" and \"Humanoids From the Deep.\" Wynorski utilized this deception, fourteen years earlier, in his horrible version of \"Not of This Earth.\"

Strike Three (you're out):

While Cheerleader Massacre does have some nudity, (40-year-olds playing teenagers and the grossest set of fake breasts that I have ever seen in a horror film, ugh), the murders are relatively bloodless. What the heck is that all about? The film is titled, Cheerleader Massacre, but a handful of off-screen killings, in my opinion, does not add up to a massacre. It doesn't even add up to a bad mosquito bite.

The \"film's\" story is fair enough - unseen killer stalks a vanload of cheerleaders (old gals playing teens) until the van runs out of gas and the \"girls\" are forced to hold up in secluded two-story mountain home. I won't ruin the ending for you but this is one of those \"films\" where the person who is obviously the killer is not obviously the killer. Cheerleader Massacre would have been great if it were shot on film, directed by Joseph Zito and had special effects by Tom Savini. Instead it is an effect-less, shot-on-video travesty by Jim Wynorski. Ouch.

I beg of you, please don't buy or rent this abomination. If we keep supporting these clowns, the more of this talentless video garbage they'll produce. Go out and rent \"The Prowler\", \"The Last House on Dead End Street\", \"Delirium\" or \"The Burning\" instead. You'll be glad you did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When Jim Wynorski first announced he would be doing a new sequel for my favorite series of all time, the \"Slumber Party Massacre\" series, I was ecstatic. I had been waiting for a new installment for literally years. So, production began and very small bits and pieces on the shoot and the actors involved were released until the shoot wrapped. Then, the announcement of a title change. No longer would this new sequel be titled \"Slumber Party Massacre IV,\" but \"Cheerleader Massacre\" instead. I was a bit disappointed, but having a different title would be a very small price to pay for a film I had waited so long to happen. I was still extremely intrigued and on the edge of my seat to see it.

Maybe a month ago, some very advanced copies of the film were released to some extremely lucky viewers, who got to see the film months before its release date. A few reviews leaked on the net and judging by them, I began to become apprehensive on Jim Wynorski's \"Cheerleader Massacre.\"

Tonight, I got to see the film for the first time in full length and I am still scratching my head. As I read in another review, \"Cheerleader Massacre\" is definitely NOT a new installment in the \"Slumber Party Massacre\" series, but a slasher flick all on its own. And a bad one at that.

Before I get into the specifics of the film, let me first state what an enormous fan of Jim Wynorski's films I am. I always thought him to be a true camp genius, with a winner almost every time. Yes, his movies are made on shoestring budgets and don't contain the most top-notch acting around, but they're fun nonetheless. They are what they are: campy movies you watch when you want to have a good time. From \"Sorority House Massacre II,\" to \"Hard to Die,\" to \"Chopping Mall,\" Jim has produced the goods on more than one occasion. One of the reasons why I was excited that this film would be his latest project.

\"Cheerleader Massacre\" does not (in my opinion) reflect any of the films I had seen this director\/writer create in the past. Firstly, the production was extremely inexpensive and the film was actually shot on videotape, something I had never seen Jim do before. The actors were mediocre, to say the least, and the story is almost laughable. The killer is also extremely stupid and reminds you more of your cuddly old grandpa, rather than an escaped lunatic.

Of course, the film is littered with female nudity. This is a Jim Wynorski movie we're talking about, folks. But some of the boob-shots seen here almost seem like they were done for time. There is an extremely long shower scene, containing the cheerleading coach, that seems to go on forever and it greatly reflects a shower scene in Jim's \"Sorority House Massacre II.\" The girl even bathes herself almost in the exact same way.

\"Cheerleader Massacre\" is also extremely cliched, to say the least. The opening scene is literally something we've all seen in HUNDREDS of past slasher flicks. A guy and a girl making out, on the verge of consummating their relationship when...you guessed it. They're hacked to pieces.

Brinke Stevens, who I've never really considered to be a tremendous actress in the first place, also gives one of her stiffest and forced performances in her small cameo. We're talkin' possible cue cards here. She recalls some incidents her character endured by the killer seen here twenty years ago to the police, while footage of the original \"Slumber Party Massacre\" plays. Why was footage from the original film used if it was definitely not a new \"SPM\"? I have no idea. There is also two explosions seen in this movie that I am almost certain were recycled from other films.

Not only does this film recycle FOOTAGE from past films, but it also recycles the scores from other films as well. Some of the music used in \"Humanoids from the Deep\" (which was also recycled prior for \"The Coroner\") can be heard throughout the entire film. There are at least two more as well that I cannot identify, but am certain have been used before.

After sitting through this film's horrendous acting, ridiculous story, non-existent gore\/special effects, and camcorder-like quality, I am having some serious concerns toward Mister Wynorski's career. Has the man who delighted audiences with films in the past finally lost his niche? Only time will tell. Oh, and let's not forget his newest film. A new installment in the \"Sorority House Massacre\" films, now titled \"Final Exam.\" I think I'm seeing a pattern here...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I go to blockbuster, pick out a random movie, got this, and yeah.

This... was a good sexual porno.. the quality kind of sucked, and it kind of gave me a damn headache. To me, this movie was good for its sexual things, but not as much for the horror and suspense. It was ... magical...

The suspense.. not as good as I would have expected. I wanted to be at the edge of my seat hoping to jump up in fear, but instead I lay down on the couch and didn't see much.

The quality.. not really good at all. I mean, if you pay close attention, during when the people are on the COLD mountains, their barely wearing anything. It doesn't make much sense too.

So if your looking for a crap, not really suspenseful, and a pretty much sexual movie, you've got this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hmmmmmmm - cheerleader massacre. Let me think - high school girls get sliced up, except the cute one survives. Got it. Next movie.

I was actually surprised this one was made in 2003. I really thought they quit making these movies in the 80's. This was truly your run of the mill slasher movie with teenage eye candy, dumb male horn dogs, even dumber male adult, and hot teacher. It continues on the list of dark and stormy night and abandoned cabin in the woods. We have seen it all before.

However this one had a few interesting plot twists that places it above the normal me-too slashers, so if you have got a few brain cells to fry and 2 hours to kill - you could do worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Directed by Jim Wynorski (Chopping Mall, Return of the Swamp Thing), Cheerleader Massacre is the fourth installment in the Slumber Party Massacre series. Just think about it: it's the fourth chapter of a slasher series that no one really cares about! So how could this even be good? Well, it's not! But since when did slasher films have to be good? Cheerleader Massacre is entertaining, that's for sure. But in the entertainment field, we've seen better, that's for sure too! As you can see, I'm not sure about where I stand concerning this movie. Those who watch slashers only for nudity will be more than satisfied. This movie's all boobs, but unfortunately no blood, or not enough. I think I'm being generous with this movie because I had a good time watching it and I really enjoy watching slasher movies, even as bad as they sometimes are. If you want me to be sincere, The Slumber Party Massacre Part 1 is the best one and all the others are a waste of time, so I guess I have a lot of time to waste!! For more fun, watch Sleepaway Camp 2 and Cheerleader Camp.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On my continuing quest to find the worst movie of all time, my friends and I stumbled upon this little gem. It is hilarious through and through, especially if you don't know (like we didn't) that it's a semi-sequel to another horror series.

I won't bother going into the plot except to mention that everyone complains about the horrible snowstorm that was coming (it was equivalent to the characters just screaming \"FORESHADOWING!\" at the camera and waving their arms), and, in some odd twist of fate, the snow storm ever occurs. Budget problems, I guess.

Add that to a magical front door that is opened or closed depending on what scare effect the director wants to create and the electricity being cut off until the gym teacher decides to take a shower with lots of soap. I'll admit it; I had trouble breathing at points.

The only actual decent part of this movie, as it turns out, was from the original Slumber Party Massacre movie. It's so much funnier now that I know that.

*SPOILER* The end, where it is revealed that the slasher did it because her drunk friends stumbled in on her and a female friend making out and then the friend driving into a train or something is probably the funniest psycho killer origin ever, heightened by the fabulous use of blurring and stock footage. I'm glad all of the slasher's friends forgot the incident completely until a flashback was necessary.

Run, don't walk, to pick this up and see the hilarity. Of course, the continuity editor should be given an award for all of this, if only they weren't stuck in that horrible snow storm...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After reading many good things about it ,i finally watched \"the clearing\".With a cast of great actors like Redford and Dafoe ,one would,at least, expect a decent film.After the closing credits had rolled i was still shocked by how bad and incoherent this movie actually was.

Is it supposed to be an \"art\" film??I don't think so cause it is too melodramatic for that.The bad thing is that the drama seems way too forced and unrealistic.

The truth is that the script makes absolutely no sense.First of all it never really explains the motive behind the actions of any of the characters,it just overblows their so called \"personal issues\".What's so bad about Redford's character's life that he has to \"clear it\"??The fact that he cheats,occasionally,his wife??The guy is a millionaire who has had a good life,has a great son and a great daughter,a wife that loves him(and a girlfriend that also seems to be way above the generic mistress type of woman)o and a new-born grandson.The only problem seems to be that he...has been working hard for all his life to be a successful person.So what??It seems that his hard work has really paid off and there's actually no real problems with his life.

Then we come to Dafoe's character:here's someone who was a manager for one of Redford's companies and was fired.Why is this guy unemployed for ...eight years???It seems that he must have some kind of good education to have a job like the one he had in the first place and seems to have been a man with solid ideas about his work(as evident by his flashback of a conversation that he had with Redford when he was working for him).Why couldn't a man like that get a decent job and have a decent life??Cause he was ,once,fired??Totally unrealistic.

The film really tries to portray these men as \"tortured souls\" or something and that comes off as really cheesy.In fact i would say that if the creators of this film were trying to say something about the American dream then they failed miserably.

As for the actual events that take place during the movie ,they also make no sense at all.In fact the last 20 minutes of the film come off as an insult to the viewer's intelligence,because there's not one thing that takes place that actually makes any sense.Redford seems to have about a 1000 chances to escape ,yet he doesn't.At one moment he is ready to escape and yet he misses his chance cause he feels sorry for his kidnapper and doesn't want to hurt him!!!Then Dafoe picks up his gun from the water and the mud,which should be useless(if you fire a shot with a gun after the gun has been in the water and mud it will possibly blow up in your face)and the gun is in perfect condition!!! The way an unemployed ,useless(as portrayed in this film) and mentally unstable character,manages to outsmart the entire FBI with such ease brings the narrative of this film to \"twilight zone\" levels.The cheesy ending(with Redford's wife illusion) comes to finish the viewer off.

This film pretends to be something,it's not(i.e a quality,sophisticated psychological thriller).Unfortunately it fails so hard,that it becomes a disaster and that's the word that describes this film best:A DISASTER.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hate it when people in the movie theater talk back to the screen. It's one of the main reasons why I stick to DVD's or videos . I saw The Clearing on DVD but if I had seen it in the movies I would have had to stand up and SCREAM \" HE'S NOT DEAD YET , YOU MORON ! \"

The Clearing is another in a long list of horrible movies that feature Mr.Redford . Legal Eagles , Havana , Indecent Proposal , Up Close and Personal , Sneakers , Last Castle , and Spy Game . If Robert Redford told me to invest in something I'd go the other way .

But the worst possible thing you can do to an audience is this . Say you're being kidnapped and your kidnapper has a gun . He's holding it on you for most of the movie . You turn the tables on him and start strangling him . Whatever you do keep strangling him until he's DEAD ! Don't just strangle him for ten seconds . Stay with it ! Ten minutes at least . But Bob stops too soon , walks away and forgets about Mr. Kidnapper until ....... He gets up , finds the gun and holds it on our hero again . At this point I wanted Mr. Kidnapper to shoot Robert Redford . More than a few times . And I wanted to shoot him as well .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now I know why this movie can be bought for so cheap at the video stores. I was curious since it had three big-name stars yet was among the 'B' movies that the video apparently can't even give away! The answer is, it is a film that would attract a very limited audience: an over-50 crowd with very Liberal sensibilities.

Who else who watch Robert Redford, Willem Dafoe and Helen Mirren give, essentially, a basic message that \"cheating on your wife is okay so long as you still love her.\" That's the nice \"feel-good message\" here, particularly at the end at the end of this strange kidnapping story. Who wrote this script.....Bill Clinton?

I say \"strange\" because the kidnapper is the nicest kidnapper (Dafoe) you've ever seen, except at the end. He unties his hostage (Redford) frequently, which no kidnapper would risk, has casual conversations about family matters, etc. It's all ludicrous! Well, the L.A. Times says it's \"an intelligent thriller.\" Ha ha. Well, that confirms what most people know of the L.A. Times. For those of you who believe that, and haven't seen it, I won't spoil it with more of the gigantic holes in this story, particularly at the end. The fact is, it's an insult to anyone with intelligence.

Anyway, you can't fool all the people all the time, as critics have yet to figure out. Here is another film they touted that justifiably bombed at the box office and video store.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wanted to like this film, and certainly there is room for a psychological character-driven movie which doesn't go for the cheap thrills. Yet, for the enjoyment of a movie, one requires a believable plot, some pacing and editing, and a feeling of involvement. In The Clearing, what starts out as an intriguing mystery, with a kidnapping and unknown motives, turns into a slow draggy pointless exercise. Nothing much really happens, and the so-called character-driven angles (as expressed by the director in his commentary) really don't add up to much.

Fine actors are wasted here. Robert Redford does his best trying to engage and outwit Willem Dafoe. Dafoe brings a bit of nuance to his character, insofar as one can feel somewhat sympathetic towards him. It's unfortunate that Dafoe has been typecast as a villain, he's gone into the Christopher Walken Hall of Fame of Typecasting.

Wendy Crewson is usually good but her character's entry into the movie was brief and contrived, and I was wondering why they even bothered to introduce her character. By far the biggest waste of talent was Helen Mirren. In the director's commentary, all I heard was how fabulous a talent she is. I agree, she's a great actress. Then why was she not used properly? Only towards the climax of this movie does she get to show herself, but by then the viewer has quit caring.

Too bad, I liked parts of this movie, but as another reviewer wrote, once you're halfway in you know the film is not going to get much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How do two great actors foist off a piece of junk like this on film-goers. My only conclusion is that they and their director believe that ANY film in which they star just MUST be seen and applauded,

Now to the film - probably the worst \"thriller\" I have ever seen. The actors showed minimal emotion; the plot was reasonable for a 1\/2 hour time slot (not 91 minutes). The FBI agent was almost a silly parody - his partner was apparently struck dumb and spoke not one word. To paraphrase Robert Redford, the villain was a meaningless piece of crap! The film was drawn out and meaningless - the only question was whether the hero would die or not. One truly bizarre part of the story - The waiting family seemed to go on for at least several days; the hero and antihero seemed to only take one day.

All in all - waste of time","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do not watch this movie, go see something else ... I was very disappointed, I cannot rate this movie any better than 3. The acting was quite good and I really liked William Dafoe as the villain, but I cannot see why this movie made it to the big screen. The story was old and has been shown in 100+ other movies and 1000+ TV series\/movies. The main problem was basically: Nothing is happening. Take a kidnapping, let the villain make the wife of the kidnapped man deliver the money, make the police look stupid and boring and extend this to 95 minutes, you got your \"Clearing\" movie. The only 2 reasons I did not rate this a 1 was a) Dafoe and b) the \"plan-B-ending\". There are not many endings you can give a kidnapper movie ... 75% of these kind end with ending A, 20% end ending B and 1% ends with something unforeseeable. Boring, boring, boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It has been a long time since I have been to a movie as lame and boring as this one. It is one thing to have a slow pace where characters are being developed in a progressive way, or some aspect of the movie clearly is enhanced by such pacing (such as 'Lost in Translation\"). However, there is a difference between slow progression and outright stalling, as happened in this one. I guess from the look on Helen Mirren's face she must have been distraught by the disappearance of her husband!! Surprise, surprise!! What a marvelously creative moment the meeting of the mistress and wife was.(sarcasm) And what a great way that the whole story fell apart at the end. Truly a masterpiece.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"what the hell was the point of this dull movie? it looked pretty interesting in the beginning but quickly fell flat on its face. its supposed to be based on a true story but for crying out loud is there no more script writers left in Hollywood? man iv'e seen these guys in some of the best movies ever made,defoe can play just about anything and when i see he's in a movie i don't have a problem renting it but I'm starting to wonder.redford also a great actor is also slipping; perhaps their hard up or just losing their senses. the dialog was long and terribly heavy eyed,especially at home with the family.i wonder if the actors thought they had a hit going here? perhaps...uh..an Oscar?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Business Executive is kidnapped, made to wander miles and miles in a woodland for days and days exchanging dialog with his kidnapper.And we have got to listen to all the nonsense......

Meanwhile his snotty wife and family are at home with the FBI wondering what to do...... .....at no time does she seem concerned about the fate of her husband except when it comes to the ransom..... A \"love story\"? Give me a break!

The plot is ludicrous. And almost every scene is filled with an air of expectation that something significant is going to happen but it never does.

The result of the kidnapping is predictable and stupid, and it becomes even more silly when we learn the fate of the kidnapper.

This is garbage:

2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What an atomic bomb of a movie. The story goes nowhere and comes fron nowhere. It leaves the theatre goer with ones arm up saying \"is this it\". What happened to Redford. He was once a fair actor. Now he thinks that he can show up on the set and make a few scenes and it's a take. Wrong. What an unemotional film. I don't mean to be so so cruel, but what crap of a movie. Unbelievable amateur crap. If I was in this movie I would be so embarased that I would not show my face. I tell you what, if I was associated with this movie, I am in big trouble. This movie will go down in the annals of movie making as the king of bombs with which all others will be compared to.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry but i don't understand how the studio get's away with this. The movie is just not worth it. Maybe as a theater-play but certainly not as a movie! And why do they call it a thriller??? Offcource the acting is good but i did'n't expect anything less from these perfect actors. Robert Redford plays very well and Willem Dafoe is convincing enough as the softy \"bad guy\". Helen Mirren can play almost any role and always (still) looks beautiful to me ;). I'm also a fan of her British detectives. Still they just can't save this ow so boring movie, i'm sorry. I hope we don't get to many movies anymore from this director \"Pieter Jan Brugge\" cause he obviously doesn't now the meaning of the words \"suspence and thriller\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had never heard of \"The Clearing\" until I was really bored one day with some friends in the local Blockbuster and it grabbed our attention. The description on the DVD jacket grabbed our interest, but once we popped it into the DVD player, the boredom was only beginning.

The story was dragged out for waaaay too long. It seemed to follow the same outline as other movies which include a kidnapping. The most suspenseful parts were in the beginning of the movie, however. After that, the outline was followed exactly and that made \"The Clearing\" unoriginal. The flashbacks were too many in number and the grief of the victim's family provided nothing interesting nor enhanced the nature of the film. And I also found that I did not like the ending, so that probably led to me not liking the movie at all.

The acting was not horrible...it wasn't the greatest, though. Robert Redford has given much better performances. Willem Dafoe's tragic character was the only one I really saw develop throughout the story line and the viewer only really sees that change in the last ten minutes or so in the movie. Helen Mirren's portrayal as Robert Redford's wife was flat and sort of followed the same generic mold as other movies which include a tragic and heart-splitting event.

In my opinion, \"The Clearing\" is nothing to rave about. Use your movie rental money on something else...like \"Garden State,\" perhaps?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"like in so many movies of the past, you would think Hollywood would learn this by now, makes for a very disappointing movie, not to mention, make sure the kidnapped victim is alive first before paying the ransom.

Maybe this film wants to remind of these basic facts in case it should ever happen to one of us. Why the long walk in the woods and can a city guy really go through the woods without getting lost? Just an opportunity for some sentimental dialog that was meaningless in the end.

I had to listen to part of the director's comments in the special features section, from the great moves that Redford has made in the past, (Sneakers for one) surprised he agreed to star in such a film. The director's comments and reasons were weak.

The best parts of this movie was the scenery, can't wait for spring to come.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love most Jet Li movies (with the exception of Romeo Must Die) and I bought this movie in a VERY cheap three-pack with \"The Master\" and \"Twin Warriors\". While Twin Warriors was very impressive and I was thoroughly intrigued by it, and the master was a bit \"Karate Kid\" but also enjoyable, I thought this movie was TERRIBLE. I'm not just saying that because I'm used to better movies. I'm saying that it was almost down there with \"Kazaam\". The fight scenes were terrible (blurry cameras and no real fighting) and the plot was your typical \"stupid kung-fu plot\". If you are going to have a plot this stupid (see 'man turns into woman to become all-powerful then falls in love with Jet Li') you best have some great fighting to go with it. If you are looking for an original HK Jet Li movie, I suggest you go rent \"Shaolin Temple 2\" (aka Kids from Shaolin).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually like hongkong - martial arts - fantasy movies but I hated this one. Once Upon A Time In China, Shogun Assassin, A Chinese Ghost Story and even Big Trouble In Little China are my favorites but this film sucked! Too much fancy tricks and stupid story.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whoa!Terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, did I mention terrible?You can tell just by the DVD cover not to get this movie, but unfortunately that wasn't the case for me.Well, someone brought this home for me to watch, and when I looked at it I just wanted to strangle the person, because they used my money.I will certainly be taking it back soon, but I might as well tell you about it while I have it in memory, for I definitely want to forget it.This movie doesn't deserve to even be called horrible.It's beyond horrible.Quite possibly, the worst film ever.The acting was so, so, so, so horrifically disgusting, as well as the deaths being so ENTIRELY lame and predictable.I didn't even laugh at how bad this movie was, which kind of frightens me a little.Don't see this film, shame on you if you're even looking at this movie page, and I have EXTREME pity for you if you're looking at this movie page, because you think this will be DECENT.Final word: YUCK!!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to say that there is one redeeming speck in regards to this \"film\". It firmly establishes the bottom of the barrel. Now filmmakers know what to aim above when making a movie. Other than that I regret watching this debacle. What shameless abandon the making of this \"film\" was. What a waste of $100,000 (that's right folks, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars). This \"film\" reminds me of that \"Adult Video Awards\" show in which of group of \"industrial prostitutes\" stand up a praise themselves, believing that they are real actors, actresses and filmmakers. Ironic then how I've watched blue movies with better acting, directing and writing. I also found it funny that the Executive Producer, Justin Ament, just had to be in the \"movie\". He plays Deputy Jake Barker. I'm sure his \"acting\" career has taken off... Ted Pfiffer, the writer, has a part. He no doubt was wallowing in the clich\u00e9d glory he created. It should be noted that Carrie Finklea has a lead role in the movie. You might remember her from Gus Van Sant's 'Elephant'. Though I'm not too sure that she'll want to write this film on her resume. And I'm not sure which is a more depressing point; money was spent to make this film or people are going to watch it. Along with 'Torque', 'Godsend' and 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow', one of the worst films, IF NOT THE WORST FILM, of 2004.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is not that good at all.Its pretty stupid, pretty annoying, and very poorly done.I really only saw this film was because one of my friends said they hated this film.Although I didn't hate it as much as them, I still found it to be a pretty bad film.The only thing that is remotely good about this was that it was a little entertaining at times, and also I feel that if it had been done a little better it would have been equally okay.What I mean by a little better is that if it had been totally recast, not have had it looked like it had been shot for a film festival, and if the script had been improved it would have been a okay slasher film.Instead it isn't but instead what it is now, a crappy film.The acting is atrocious I felt as if I was watching a couple of teens act for like a Halloween show or Thrill ride or something.The kills are pretty cheap(as is the film itself), and basically everything else is low-class.Overall this film really is bad and you wouldn't be missing out on anything if you decided to skip this film.

3.8 out of 10 stars","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a new approach to comedy. It isn't funny.

The joke is that this, in and of itself, is supposed to be funny.

The story is based on a French short story, located in Paris, and the characters have French names. Louis Aubinard, for example ... played by ... Bob Hoskins? The movie also stars the equally French Jeff Goldblum and Natasha Richardson. The situations are similar to and the characters perform as if in those Carry-On movies from years back.

I believe these are also jokes - to cast these actors who make no attempt to act French in any way, to have them cavort in the manner of broad English dance hall comedy, and to leave the whole bloomin' mystery unexplained to the audience.

In the humour department, this is practically the Algonquin Round Table, isn't it?

The movie tries to be charming and quirky, and I guess these characteristics are sort of funny. Not as funny as Duck Soup or Love and Death, perhaps, but funnier than The Deer Hunter or The Battleship Potemkin.

It is an example of personal filmmaking. It makes no real effort to reach out and share with the audience, but stays true to its premise and its internal logic. Although all the situations are unbelievable, they are logical within the film's own bizarro world.

I generally like this kind of eccentric movie, but I found this one to be paced too slowly, to be dull-witted, tedious, and to provide too few pleasurable surprises or genuine wit. It just kind of meanders in predictable and sophomoric ways, and wastes some wonderful talents along the way. It has to be the low point in the career of each of the major stars, who are all otherwise distinguished players. I found it to be the biggest waste of talent since The Betsy, and I wish I had never seen Goldblum and Hoskins in this thing.

So, call it an interesting miss, and pass on it as a rental unless you really have a lot of time to kill.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Relentless like one of those loud action movies. The entire cast seems to be on speed. I didn't quite get the director's intentions if any. I wonder if she's ever seen a Stanley Donen, Vincent Minnelli or even a George Sidney musical. Structure, please! This is one hell of a mess and I loved Abba. The costumes the unflattering photography - unflattering towards the actors but loving towards the locations) The one thing that makes the whole thing bearable is the sight of Meryl Streep making a fool of herself. No chemistry with her friends (Christine Baranski and Julie Walters) think of Streep with Lily Tomlyn in the Altman film and you'll understand what I was hoping for. I was embarrassed in particular by Pierce Brosnam and Colin Firth. The audience, however, seemed to enjoy it so it probably it's just me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's no better way to describe the HORRENDOUS experience that's to watch Mamma Mia: Hitler must be looking up, saying to the pseudo-director Phyllida Lloyd 'You monster, what have you done?'

Everything about the movie is wrong. Just\u0085 Wrong! Even its success, which is unexplainable. I can understand when those crappy parody movies, like Epic Movie, make their minimal share of money and turn profit just because they're cheap (of course they are!). But when something like Mamma Mia makes 450 million dollars worldwide, you think 'what the hell is wrong with the world?'

And to think we have Meryl Streep, one of the greatest alive actresses of the world, in it? What was she thinking? 'I need the money', she could say. Well then, sell one of your grandchildren, even that would be less embarrassing. It's not that Meryl is good in a disastrous piece of, err, 'movie'. She's also disastrous! When she sings, even though she's got the vocals, it's ridiculous. Worse than her only Pierce Brosnan. He used to be James Bond. Now he's singing Abba in a purple spandex during the credits of the worst movie ever. Really? And when I mention Abba, not that I have anything against the band and their music. Though it doesn't help them when actors started singing (badly), dancing (worse) and the extras join then (They pop out of nowhere! Frequently!) to present one terrible musical sequences after the other. You wanna cry when the music starts. And I love musicals! But this is the first in the genre where you PRAY for actual silence.

I could keep going. The list goes on forever. You could write a Stephen King novel with the complete list of mistakes in this movie.

To sum up: go watch it! Really! You've got to witness to understand!! And since it's already a huge success, who cares if it makes a few more dollars from you? And it's not liking you're selling your soul to the devil. Meryl did that before. For the whole mankind. And now the world must end, because we've committed the ultimate evil and we must be destroyed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everyone knows the so-called plot, so let me cut to the chase.

Forced frivolity. Miscast performers working hard to have fun so you can have fun. The brilliant Meryl Streep gives it a great try. Pierce Brosnan just plain embarrassing. Inexplicably set on a Greek Island. Lots of squealing, shrieking women. Lots.

It was a silly juke box musical on stage, now it's a big, splashy, poorly shot screen juke box musical. If you like ABBA, so-so. If not, an assault on the senses and an insult to whatever intelligence you're left with when you exit the theater. I readily admit that I didn't really want to see this movie and went with some friends who did, but for the love of God. Why does my gender shriek and squeal to convey delight? Ever sit next to a table of women who have had too much to drink and are absolutely determined to have GREAT night out on the town? That's the feeling of this whole project. It just felt so good when it stopped.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know where most of you were at, but where I watched the film we didn't have people singing as some have told they experienced, we had people laughing, mostly at the campy plot line, the horrible dance sequences and the singing of the likes of Brosnan. The only people in the audience who seemed to be enthralled with the film were the seventies generation folks who were some how reliving the past with the songs. I was a DJ in the seventies and even went to the ABBA concert at Northlands Coliseum in Edmonton in Sept of 79, so I did appreciate them then and I still do now. But this film should have gone the same way as their marriages and ended in divorce. The sequences were so poorly staged, the dubbing and editing absolutely horrible and this has to be Meryl's worst production. I cannot believe an academy award winner would stoop so low as to do this piece of garbage. So save your money, wait for it to come out on DVD and then maybe spend your money on something better, like cat litter.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love musicals, all of them, from joyous Oklahoma, to Poignant Porgy and Bess, to the touching romantic \"Damn Yankees.\" And I know most of the songs, sometimes singing them spontaneously, with a crowd or humming them alone.

In a \"real\" musical, as differentiated from this vaudeville show, every song is painstakingly crafted to fit the exact moment. It is an expression of sadness, regret, love, joy or exaltation--a natural extension where mere words fail. So, in Guys and Dolls, \"My Time of Day\" describes the adventurous life of Sky Masterson as it is about to be compromised by the most unlikely woman. Every song in this brilliant exemplar of the genre sets a mood, or develops a character, creating a phantasmagoria of place, turned absolutely believable by the self disclosing evocations of song.

For this lover of the Broadway Musical, and their adaptations to the screen during the last half of the 20th century, Mama Mia is somewhere between satire and a cruel fun house distortion of the genre. There, the songs of these musicals advanced the often elaborate, often delightful, plot lines. While here, the songs, simply picked up from a collection, only interfered with the shaky premise of the film.

Perhaps most of those viewers who are making this film into a monumental success simply have no exposure to the art form of 20th century Musicals. They have no idea of the magic performed by writer and lyricist that can turn a dance hall floozy into someone whom we know and love, as achieved in \"Sweet Charity.\"

Let me offer an apology for the arrogance of this review. Perhaps, another day, another mood, I could have gotten into it, and not have been so critical in this review.

But I can't help but imagining what Richard Roger, Oscar Hammerstein, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin and so many others could have done even with with this silly premise. I think about it, while the memories of seeing this film is fresh, and I can not help but to mourn the great loss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After sitting through this film, I have decided that it is one of the WORST movies I have ever seen. I knew it the moment I was subjected to three teenage girls screaming and overacting when they (OMG!) meet again, and then watching the same thing, only done by women old enough to be my mom. And that was only the first few minutes. Yeesh. So here are my comments...

1. Middle aged women + ridiculous dance moves complete with hip thrusts and over the top costumes = not a good idea.

2. Pierce Brosnan could not sing his way out of a paper bag. Nor could practically anyone else in this pile of excrement, for that matter.

3. The songs were so random. It was obvious to me that they were thrown, willy nilly, into the incredibly contrived and STUPID plot.

4. My three year old nephew could have written a better script.

I was either cringing or laughing derisively during the movie. And I normally really like movie musicals. Of course they are bound to be a bit corny...but this was ridiculous. What a waste of talent. I mean, you have great actors and actresses in this movie...I am embarrassed for them that this is now a part of their career. I regret wasting my money and time on this piece of crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is pathetic not because it's poorly directed, acted, sung, danced, filmed, etc ... but because it's really difficult to ruin a movie using an ABBA soundtrack - yet, unfortunately, this is the only thing the movie succeeds in doing. The musical presentations in the movie, SouthPark, was much better than in Mama Mia. The director of Mama Mia is proof that you don't need talent to be a director - all you need are ABBA songs.

Just to give a sample of the awfulness: An aging Meryl Streep is shot with close-ups in the harsh sunlight singing and just ruining the song with all the distracting wrinkles on her face. Why do that to one of the most talented Actresses out there?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having avoided seeing the movie in the cinema, but buying the DVD for my wife for Xmas, I had to watch it. I did not expect much, which usually means I get more than I bargained for. But 'Mamma Mia' - utter, utter cr**. I like ABBA, I like the songs, I have the old LPs. But this film is just terrible. The stage show looks like a bit of a musical, but this races along with songs hurriedly following one another, no characterisation, the dance numbers (which were heavily choreographed according to the extras on the DVD) are just thrown away with only half the bodies ever on screen, the dance chorus of north Europeans appear on a small Greek island at will, while the set and set up of numbers would have disgraced Cliff Richard's musicals in the sixties!Meryl (see me I'm acting)Streep can't even make her usual mugging effective in an over-the-top musical! Her grand piece - 'The Winner Takes It All' - is Meryl at the Met! Note to director - it should have been shot in stillness with the camera gradually showing distance growing between Streep and Brosnan! Some of the singing is awful karaoke on amateur night. The camera cannot stop moving like bad MTV. One can never settle down and just enjoy the music, enthusiasm and characters. But what is even worse is how this botched piece of excre**** has become the highest grossing film in the UK and the best selling DVD to boot? Blair, Campbell and New Labour really have reduced the UK to zombies - critical faculties anyone???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot remember a more trivial, mind numbing and shallow film in other words a real chick flick of the worst kind. How can anyone watch this film and recommend it to others ? Only if they don't like admitting they made a mistake. It seems to summarise the worst of female aspirations. No real substance to it all happy and shallow. Yeah that'll please the masses. Well not this member of the masses. What a trivial load of drivel. I wanted to leave the cinema within 5 minutes of the start. And to think I paid \u00a37 to see this ! I think this does however represent the dumbing down of cinema as with most media these days. So I like a bit of reality in my musicals call me sad or what ?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I do not remember, at least in the last ten years or so, a movie that I have liked less than Mama Mia. From the non-existent acting to the atrocious singing, I was cringing at least once per minute. I don't believe I could even recall one brief segment that I tolerated. I do know that I will never watch this disaster again. I cannot believe that with such high expectations due to the talent - Colin Firth, Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, that a movie could be such a flop. But to see the lack of acting skills shown, the seemingly drug-induced dancing, and then, horrors of horrors, to hear the singing of Pierce Brosnan(!), I cannot see how this movie will not make it into the hall of shame. Definitely, a movie that never should have been made, and just in case you missed it the first time, one that I will never watch again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The supposed writer and director Mr.Dhawan has copied almost the whole plot of the blockbuster Hollywood movie \"HITCH\" starring Will Smith. Many scenes are also exactly the same. The plot was just copy pasted and some low grade humor(probably mr.Dhawan's own creation) and frequent dancing was added to increase the movie time to local standards.

Although Salman khan and Govinda's acting did give us some smiles, however it does not suit legendary artists like them to be a part of plagiarism, specially when they themselves keep telling people to stop buying pirated discs!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Movie is not bad in itself...till you see the original movie Hitch(2005) starring Will Smith. The movie is a straight copy with even the dialogs for most part of the movie simply translated from English to Hindi! The plot in the original is tightly executed. The Hindi version fails to keep the viewers interested. The over-the-top kind of comedy of David Dhawan seems to have gone overboard with Govinda hysterically shouting at all times...sometimes more time is spent in understanding the reason for that than the plot. :)

If you know English, which I assume you know given that you are reading this, see the Hollywood original. At least watch \"Hitch\" if you have watched Partner to be able to compare. This is the least we can do to support the creative geniuses whose work, I am sad to say, is shamelessly lifted by \"inspired\" people like David Dhawan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was recommended to me so we went to see it together. I wouldn't call it a movie, it's more like a combination of 10 different unfinished, illogical stories, which are not all that funny. There're several characters in the movie who looked important in the beginning, and they just disappeared from the story. He's just trying too hard to fit everything in 2 1\/2 hours. I left the show without wondering what happened to this and that guy.

I think this movie is just an extended version of \"Hitch\", padded with a lot more characters and dancing.

If this is the best movie that this couple has ever made, then I'm pretty sure I'm not interested in any of his previous ones.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is widely admonished as being a copy of the Will Smith feature Hitch. That movie was dull.

This movie isn't so much dull as unbearable. Govinda looks way past his prime. He is not at his best doing roles like this. It is similarly unconvincing as his performance in Deewana Mastana.

Salman Khan is at his eye-aching \"best\". And that's in the few scenes where he remembers to put clothes on. It could only have been through nepotism that this eye-sore's scenes could be saved from the trash bin of any movie's cutting floor.

Another case of Bollywood embarrassing itself with it's shameless cloning. Another case of the Bollywood audience majority embarrassing themselves by making this a hit.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all let us discuss about the story. It is a copy of the movie \"Hitch\" with an added Indian Flavor to it. One guy, who is a Love guru, and another man who is seemingly a sucker when it comes to ladies, and how this seemingly sucker becomes a charmer with the help of the love guru forms the story. Salman Khan is the love guru, and Govinda is the lame guy.

Now coming to artists' performance, Salman Khan overacts throughout the movie, he tries to be funny, but fails big time. You can see Salman shouting throughout the movie, no real acting is seen in his performance. Govinda pairs opposite Katrina Kaif(Oh, my god, she is one heck of a girl. A real Beauty)is in real life a 50 year old dude, and Katrina is a girl in her early twenties. In the movie Govinda looks like Grandpa of Katrina Kaif. What a pity! Coming to Execution of the movie. This movie feels like a B-Movie, and a poor imitation of the movie Hitch. Where Hitch looks like a movie with a purpose and depth, this movie is shallow and purposeless, nowhere there is justification or clarity.

Just forget this movie, for it is nothing but boring, typical Bollywood fare. Actually I give 3\/10 because this is the lowest I go.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly, I have to admit that I go and see certain stupid films based on the hype they have generated or are currently generating. This dumb Salman Khan & Govinda feature is one of those stupid films. Okay, by now we've all seen 'Hitch' starring Will Smith as a date doctor trying to help out odd people find true. Then why would we need to see Salman Khan re-enact this? Therein lies the $64,000 question. In case you were wondering, Govinda plays the oddball in search of the love of his life (an unreachable socialite) played by Katrina Kaif.

Lara Dutta is along to play Sallu's Eva Mendes, and Sallu's real-life love Kaif pretty much plays her character like every role you've see her in thus far, no stretch no acting required. And for nearly three and a half hours we get tortured with spoofs of other Bollywood films and characters or better yet we get treated to low rate performances of past hit films. Rajpal Yadav co-stars. F","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There wasn't a 0 in the voting option so i was compelled to use the next available figure.

It is a sad day for bollywood when such type of movies which have star-cast actors is nothing more are than a bunch of juvenile acting, and an awful script.

This movie is nowhere near to be called a clone of Hitch. Salman khan with his usual take-off-you-shirt theme and Govinda with his in-humorous laughs. If somebody had told 2 decades ago that I would be writing a comment on Salman (after his success with Maine Pyar Kiya), I would have written him\/her off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Talk about over acting...!!!! not just by Govinda, but also by Salman and Lara....The direction was awful. The first half hour you would pretty much want to switch the movie off..because this movie is a real stinker (mark my words.

I liked Govinda in some o his comedy roles like Haseena Maan Jaayegi, Jodi No. 1, Akhiyon se Goli Maare and Jis Desh Mein Ganga Rehta Hai and this does not compare to any of them. And Salman Khan should not do comedy roles at all!! He sucks. He does not know how to do comedy. The only good comedy role he did was in Andaz Apna Apna, which was brilliant next to Amir Khan.

There were so many 'overly done stupidly unfunny' scenes in this movie that make you want to take out the DVD and burn it so no one else in your house watches it ever again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is another Bollywood remake of a Hollywood movie. Hitch...If I'm correct.

The film has some great moments which will have you laughing out loud which frankly only come from Govinda who has become a legend within Indian Cinema and will always bring his A game in terms of comedies. Another bonus is Rajpal Yadav; who is hilarious as the gangster who mimics 'Don', an Indian icon of cinema. Lara Dutta is a plus...I know I sound shallow but its mainly because I have a soft spot for her, she tries to be funny but its seems to be forced. Her acting is weak...but she still shines. Salman Khan is atrocious, he tries to bring the cool, charming depths but fails miserably, he over acts and keeps shouting for no apparent reason.

'Thats not acting mate, thats called being mentally challenged'

Katrina Kaif is just bad...not very good at anything. No charisma, no talent..and I don't see why people consider her pretty... The plot was far fetched and I had a hard time believing that Katrina's character was remotely attracted to Govinda. The only good thing is the music...'You're my love' was the best in the soundtrack.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is not a good movie. It is a tried remake of the English movie 'The Hitch'. But it insults the original one. This is hardly a movie you expect from a veteran director like 'David Dhawan' who is credited to directing good movies like \"Raja Babu\", \"Coolie No.1\", \"Hero No. 1\"...

The main theme for this movie is taken from \"The Hitch\" with some changes so as to appeal to the Indian audience but somehow the story and the screenplay is not convincing enough. Plus the acting from the lead roles i.e. Salman Khan and Govinda is pitiful. It seems that they need the slightest provocation to remove their shirts to reveal their bare chest. I do not consider this fascinating and least of all comic. What was the director thinking ? Added to this the viewers have to bear the case of Govinda's Over-acting. It was simply unbearable. I ADVISE THE VIEWERS TO WATCH IT AT YOUR OWN RISK. My rating of 2 for this movie could be considered to be a very generous one.

Instead I would advise the viewers to watch the English movie \"Hitch\" which is a lot better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Soon after this movie was released,Salman Khan was handed over a 6 Year Imprisonment.(Read further to know why am i mentioning this.)

And i heaved a sigh of relief.Not that i was happy that he got jail for something which because he was a celeb but i was happy cus this meant No more Salman Khan movies,no more his histrionics and no more over hyped Acting(read Overacting).

This movie made no sense whatsoever.

The scene where the kid belonging to one of the family makes a rocket which was voice activated .According to the movie script it would chase anyone.But ultimately it finds only Salman Khan Bare Chested. Well this is what happened.

The Rocked gets activated in another foolish way and you have to have an IQ of .001 to believe that. Then it chases Salman Khan ,who was on his water scooter and the chase continues unless he is done with all the possible stunts he could show to foolish audience. (In my regard all those people who have given this movie 5 and above ,unless they are paid to do that.)

Another of breath taking ,unbelievable scene was at the end when all the arrangements about the marriage is made and Salman Khan with Govinda in Disguise comes and stall the marriage by another of those highly unwanted songs .Later on even though everything is done and ready a mere confession of govinda and Katrina Kaif to katrina's Father and Bingo . Everything is fine and Govinda marries Kartina....

This made me wonder if convincing was so easy why did not they do that and tortured us for so many hours and wasted my Money.

This movie is must avoid and don't even think it had any scene worth watching . The plot is way too disconnected with characters popping from no where and ultimately vanishing..for ex Choota don...What a waste of characters.

After this movie i took a pledge that i would not watch Salman khan Movies for the rest of my life unless it wins an Oskar...(hahahah...which means i would never watch)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just don't know how this stupid, crap, junk, garbage & good for nothing film is a blockbuster. It was so boring with a very, very weak (or no) story-line and wasn't even a jot funny. The film was about 135 minutes of only a paragraph of story about Prem (Salman Khan) is a love guru and is helping hapless & romantic Bhaskar (Govinda) to get the girl he wants. I'm not saying that I didn't like the film because it wasn't funny or anything, I will accept a movie that is not funny but has a decent story. The only two reasons why I can say it's a super-hit are:

1. Salman Khan & Govinda are on-screen together but there first time together was in Salaam e Ishq which was a flop so it can't be. But it was a really good movie.

2. Salman Khan's name is Prem and all the films with that name have been a hit including Maine Pyar Kiya. So it's just luck.

I heard that it's a remake of Hitch, I've not seen it & I'm glad I didn't. Music is OK the only good songs are Do you want a partner, You're my love & Soni De Nakhre but what is the use of it in a really bad film, that too, if you have someone like Katrina Kaif who dances with two left feet? She is completely crap. Neither she knows acting, language (her voice is always dubbed for her), dance and always fails to impress. I do not like her one bit she was even disappointing in Koffee with Karan. Overall Partner is a disposable film with a disposable actress Katrina Kaif. Its better off that she is kicked out of Bollywood and never comes back again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"David Dhawan copied HITCH and such an unofficial copy The film isn't even 1\/2 as funny or amusing as the original it's boring with forced stories like the Lara track of having a child and no hubby Plus there is an unwanted stupid Chota DON and David tries to choke drama too but the film looks disjointed, boring

Songs just pop in, so does romance and everything barring some funny Govinda scenes, the dance before interval nothing else is worth mentioning The last few scenes are quite funny but there tend to get too long

David's direction is as bad as MAINE PYAAR KYUN KIYAA, he needs to change his style or attempt something good Music is saving grace, some songs are good but the situations seem forced

Govinda looks overweight and seems too loud and screams his lines in initial reels but he gets into the groove and gives his best in the office and the scene with Salman in his cabin and towards the end

Salman just plays himself and his nasal tone plus his fake style of acting is a headache

Lara is avoidable, Katrina is fake as usual

The kid overacts","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are planning to watch 'Partner' and are on IMDb reading reviews about it, you have already wasted too much time over this stupid, idiotic, awful movie.

It's a horrible, horrible, horrible copy of the movie 'Hitch.' I choose to ignore all the other warnings and bad reviews I had heard about this movie, and wasted a precious 20 minutes on it - I thought that after all its David Dhawan who is making it, and it has Govinda - how bad can it be? But after 20 minutes of watching this nonsense, I couldn't take it any more, and turned off my computer.

Overacting by everyone in the movie, stupid dialogues, total time waste - I gave it a 1-star rating because that's the lowest you can do. If I could go lower, I would have given it a -100 rating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't know what to expect when I started watching this movie, by the end of it I was pulling my hairs out. This was one of the most pathetic movies of this year...in fact, in the last ten years. David Dhawan should just give up his career as a director. I am yet to come across one original script that David Dhawan has worked on. This one was a complete bit y bit rip off Hitch. I have nothing against remakes as such, but this one is just so lousy that it makes you even hate the original one (which was pretty decent). I fail to understand what actors like Salman and Govinda saw in this script. I read somewhere, that this was supposed to be Govinda's comeback vehicle. If thats true, then only God can save his career. Salman just overacted to the hilt. Govinda who I think is an actor of very high caliber was completely wasted. Katrina Kaif and LAra Dutta had nothing to do apart form wearing designer clothes and smiling for no rhyme or reason. Please stay away form this one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was really geared up to watch when two of best movie critics tagged this movie as a 'laugh riot'. But the movie turned out be disappointing.

You will be advised to watch this movie keeping your brains at home but you simply can't ignore the flaws and the shortcomings.

1. The missile scene was total stupidity.

2. Katrina Kaif and Govinda pair looked awful. (He's 49 and she's just 24... more than double of her age) 3. Salman's comedy is less of acting and more of overacting.

4. Songs are good but interrupts the pace of the movie.

5. Some scenes were deliberately attempted by the movie makers to be funny, and 6. Poor and flawed story.

However, there are few pluses- 1. Govinda. Great Individual Performance.

2. Some scenes are actually quite funny.

3. Kattrina Kaif. Looks and Acting keeps on improving with every film.

4. Rajpal Yadav's Don sequences. Though under-utilized but hilarious.

So 4 good points, 6 bad ones.. this one gets 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie only coz it was expected to be yet another entertainer by David Dhawan.

Bad Bad comeback by David Dhawan.he has made lots of funny movies in past which made no sense but none of them was a crap bag!! What a waste of talent and beauty it was?Donno why actors agree on doin movie like this.

There was not a whit of practicality in this movie.The movie is below par and not at all justifies the standard and potential Bollywood has.

The only thing worth watching in this movie was katrina but we don't need to watch a movie like this to see her! Being a remake of Hollywood flick Hitch its clear that bollywood directors cant even make a proper remake. I consider this to be the worst ever movie I hv seen. Awful 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie is nice Well pictured, but no originality...

this movie is directly copied from \"The Hitch\" where Salman plays like a Date Dr. like Will Smith, and Govinda like some fat jerk, who is desperate to get in love with her boss by the end the movie comes to an old Indian Flimi style, the bride's father doesn't like the bride's lover and gets some other groom, and Govinda the bride's lover comes in the end and saves her from the new groom and a fancy dance and stuff.

the comedy was real good, no doubt when the hitch meets Hindi would be more funnier....

Ultimately worth a watch but when it comes on TV after few months...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A dull stroll through the banalities of Mormon prosthelatizing. Utterly un-funny. A testament to the widely held theory, that in order for bathroom humor to be funny, it must necessarily be vulgar; it also bolsters the claim that a close relationship with Jesus makes you not funny. More propaganda than film, don't worry about any touchy social issues coming up at the dinner table after this one. The saving grace of this movie is its accurate portrayal of young Mormon females as particularly attractive. Oh well, its your $7.50.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has a look and feel of many \"Fresh\" directors (closeups and focus on the emotions being experienced by the actors). The point of the film was presented from many angles and expressed well by the relatively inexperienced cast. The point being \"Have faith in Jesus Christ and the Morman Church\" Oh, and if you read or hear anything contrary to the teachings of the Prophet, it is just Haterade. (Fuel for Hatred)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, I sensed that a film by Mormons, about Mormons, for Mormons would be a disaster waiting to happen, but little did I know how so very painful it would be. A little known fact is that Mormons have always made exceptionally fine propaganda films. The Church's official cinematic campaign has produced rare and lasting gems that transcend the Mormon community, including the wonderful short film \"Cipher in the Snow\" which ended up making the rounds as an educational film in the late 70's. Then there's Neil LaBute's disturbingly masterful ouvre....

However, the success of these films depended largely on the fact that they didn't focus on Mormons or any specific Mormon theology. Instead they opt to focus on a universal theme and deal with it on a basic human level. \"God's Army\" abandons any pretext of universality and runs headlong into the stilted and myopic world of the orthodox. While this might be enough to alienate anyone but the most devoted Mormon, director Richard Ductcher's ineptitude as a filmmaker and his juvenile approach to storytelling are sufficient grounds to judge \"God's Army\" unwatchable by almost any standard.

Dutcher's own appallingly wooden acting sets the tone for his army of the least interesting Mormons you're ever likely to meet. Of course the cast's sorry performances aren't helped any by Dutcher's pathetic script. He should be given credit for not avoiding some of the more controversial aspects of the Church, but, as can be expected, he conveniently frames these controversies in a sympathetic light. It should also come as no surprise that most of the answers to the Church's darker side are addressed with little other than faith. At one point an African-American missionary is scolded by a black couple for joining a church that was segregated up until 1978 (some ten to twenty years after nearly every congregation in the most degenerate parts of the deep South had already done so). Instead of addressing the Church's actively racist history, perhaps the sorest spot in Mormon theology which even Church leaders don't defend anymore, Dutcher's troubled character instead ponders Joseph Smith's murder--an obvious and perhaps outrageous allusion to lynching. Top off this syruppy milktoast with third grader leper jokes passing as comic relief and you have a strong case for the revival of silent films.

If you knew little about Mormons before watching this film, you might become prone to avoiding them at all costs. If you are Mormon, this film offers absolutely nothing to be proud about.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director \/ lead actor Dutcher revels in this look-at-me film, wherein he attempts to gain worldly acceptance for tarnishing the otherwise very upbeat world of Mormon missionaries. Some of the acting is fair. But some roles are unrealistic, i.e. the ominous (rather than fatherly) Mission President, etc. The film does give a fair look at how some missionaries may struggle with their faith, but the actual missionary program he claims to represent is far from his concept of it, in terms of being upbeat, cohesive, and inspired. The only inspiration I see in this film is Dutcher's self-inspiration. The film is slow and boring, and the shooting and screenplay look like a college student project.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"let me first just say that in the past, i have been a huge carlin fan. i think george is one of the smartest people and best comedians on the planet. what made george so great in the past was his ability to look at things in his own twisted way, and give us his unique perspective on those things. it wasn't always meant to be funny, but you always respected his opinions, because they were presented in such a clever way. but you are all diseased is just a long rant. he doesn't give us any unique perspective on anything, he just gives us a long list of stuff that he's p.o.'d at. there is no insight, no cleverness, just an old man complaining for one hour straight about things that we have all complained about. and on top of that, it wasn't even funny. you are all diseased appeals to dumb people who can't handle anything more advanced than something simple and direct. i don't mind anger fueled comedy, but george could have done so much better. i really hope that george carlin's next show will live up to the quality that george has shown in the past.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is a movie which sheds the light on the begging of the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli occupation of Palestine but it does not show the real feelings of the people back then and how they were tricked into believing that they could return to their home soon , it does not mention the massacres committed by the Jews like Der Yassine and how they tortured and killed and destroyed the family of any Palestinian freedom fighter it lacks the credibility about the real Palestinian struggle and about anything Palestinian , however it has something about the suffering of Palestinian citizens ending up as refugees in the nearby Arab countries , the movie focuses on the story of the man in coma he is now in the present time and through his story we see the film . The movie is just telling the life of one person and has some nudity scenes which are irrelevant to the story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pepe le Moko, played by Charles Boyer, is some sort of international criminal mastermind wanted in countries throughout Europe, and to stay free he holes himself up in the Casbah, a mysterious part of Algiers where even the police are reluctant to go, until a senior officer is sent from Paris to capture le Moko once and for all. For le Moko, although the Casbah allows him to remain out of police custody, it also becomes a sort of prison at the same time - a place he can't leave, because the moment he does, he knows he'll be arrested.

Boyer's performance was good, and I can understand why he was nominated for an Oscar. He captures the essence of such a character - a perfect combination of very dangerous and yet very classy at the same time. The movie itself, unfortunately, was quite a letdown. A number of parts of the story seemed inconsistent, of which I'll mention two. First was the idea that the police wouldn't enter the Casbah. That was stated pretty clearly at the beginning of the film by the local commander, and yet repeated references in the movie suggest that in fact the police did enter the Casbah fairly regularly. So, neither the suggestion by Commissioner Janvier that the police wouldn't enter, nor the statement by Inspector Slimane (also a decent performance by Joseph Calleia) that they could get into the Casbah but not out seemed to make much sense. I also found it difficult to believe that le Moko - hardened criminal mastermind that he was - could be so quickly swept off his feet by Gaby (Hedy Lamarr) to the point where he entertains the local populace by singing love songs and then leaves the Casbah to find her, essentially giving himself up. I understand the irony of the final few scenes, of course, as Pepe leaves the freedom of his prison (the Casbah) only to find real freedom in his capture (because he's shot and killed by the police.) I just found it impossible to believe that someone like le Moko would fall into such a trap.

This is worth watching for Boyer, and to a lesser extent Calleia, but the story is disappointing and inconsistent. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Algiers is not a classic, it is a perversion of the wonderful original Pepe le Moko, directed by Duvivier and starring a much more attractive and charming Pepe, Jean Gabin. If you want to fully experience the Casbah and the characters in Algiers, I recommend you don't even watch this movie and see Pepe le Moko instead, for it is much more elaborate, more beautifully filmed, the lines are not clich\u00e9d and the characters adhere much more to reality. Furthermore, the ending is so dramatic and key to Pepe's character that you'll find the Algiers version intolerable. Although Algiers does an almost excellent job mimicking each scene, the acting falls short as does the credibility of the characters. Plus, the wardrobe is truly breath-taking in all scenes, particularly Pepe's in the last scene and Gaby's (at all times) but also when she's on the boat. Frankly, Algiers is cheap as far as imitations go.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Atmosphere and droll dialog don't redeem this overrated classic. Boyer is a French thief hiding in the Casbah of Algiers while the police try to figure out how to get him out. Meanwhile, he falls for Lamarr and tries to find a way to escape. The film is slow to get started and never really goes anywhere. Reminiscent of Casablanca in some ways, it's completely lacking any larger theme than the wanted man seducing a good woman. It's all talk-talk-talk, with endless scenes of Boyer swaggering among his idiot cohorts and Boyer wooing Lamarr in the shadows. Personally, I didn't care for Boyer's character for a minute, so the tension was utterly nonexistent.

Stock 1930s character actors stumble thru the mushy plot as Boyer's henchmen--guys who clearly do not belong in Algiers. Sigrid Gurie is the wildly-overacting jealous girlfriend of Boyer. His brazen womanizing in front of her doesn't bode well for any future he might have with Lamarr.

Especially bad is a long sequence in which an underling comes to tell Boyer how another henchman was captured. It sounds exciting... too bad we didn't see it for ourselves. The ending is completely anticlimactic and seems to be remarkable only because it is not a Hollywood happy ending; that doesn't stop it from being sappy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eric Idle, Robbie Coltraine, Janet Suzman - it should have been almost impossible to go wrong. Of course it has some funny moments - the scene in the showers when Robbie Coltraine echoes Lon Chaney Jr's ghastly werewolf line \"I can't help myself\" is hilarious. But ultimately the plot, script and direction are flat as a pancake and as tired as a 90 year old nun after 180 \"Hail Mary\"s. When I was a child, Carry On films filled this niche slightly better, which is a really sad indictment of a film with such a promising cast.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has been compared to the hilarious British comedy \"A Fish Called Wanda\", although I can't see why. The only connection I can find is the Monty Python one (Eric Idle in \"Nuns\", John Cleese and Michael Palin in \"Wanda\"). Otherwise the two are incomparable.

Idle and Robbie Coltrane are two gangsters who want to get out of the business before they end up dead, so they decide to rip off their boss and make for Rio. When the getaway goes wrong, the two are forced to take refuge in a convent, as nuns.

What at first promises to be a riot soon becomes a predictable, average movie with the usual tasteless sex jokes and bland humour. Once again there are the occasional high spots, but neither cast nor crew manage to inspire proceedings. An attempt at a \"Wanda\" type manic finish fails too, along with the effort at \"men in drag\" humour, which is hardly surprising. When you think about it, men trying to be women is funny, men trying to be nuns is ridiculous.

Friday, April 22, 1994 - Video","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Coltrane and Idle are members of a bank robbery gang who double cross their leader during a robbery. They hide out in a nunnery school and disguise themselves appropriately to avoid detection from the mob and the police. Alot of catholic humor and slapstick but the script is kinda thin as are the laughs.. There is a GOOD shower scene though... on a scale of one to ten..4","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Does anyone remember BRAVEHEART ? It starred Mel Gibson who also directed and was scripted by Randall Wallace . The film contains over 200 errors . Does anyone remember THE GREEN BERETS ? That`s the John Wayne western where the Duke saves a homestead called Vietnam from a bunch of injuns from the commie tribe . If you watch WE WERE SOLDIERS you can`t help but be reminded of these two films .

First of all what`s with that Scottish lament that`s played three times in the movie , four if you count the end credits ? I mean what`s the connection between Scotland and `Nam ? Maybe Wallace is using it in the vain hope that because BRAVEHEART was bombarded - Undeservedly I might add - with several Oscars then so might this film ? Whatever reason it`s included it really jars . Gibson plays Hal Moore as a cross between William Wallace and John Wayne and I was expecting him to say something like \" They`ll never take our freedom - The hell they will \" and it`s impossible not to notice other similarities with THE GREEN BERETS like the subplot of a journalist picking up a gun and turning into a warrior and Moore telling the journalist about guilt in a scene almost identical to the one seen in the Wayne movie

When not reminding the audience of other movies WWS also fails to stand on its own legs , it`s based on real events in 1965 but seems to lack an integrity needed to do the story justice , it never feels like 1965 and lacks a sense of time and place probably because it was filmed in America not Asia . Hal Moore might have brushed up on the French experience in Indo-China but if that`s the case then he was unique because the American military went out of their way not to read up on the French Indo-China war , indeed when asked about the previous conflict Westmoreland replied he had nothing to learn from the French \" Who haven`t won a war since the days of Napoleon \" so I was confused as to the portrayal of the NVA in this movie , when in 1965 the American high command , brimming with hubris held the North Vietnamese and VC in contempt . It`s like history has been rewritten in order to show the rice farmers of Vietnam are superlative warriors . They are , but very few Americans believed this in the mid 1960s

There`s a couple of other things that confused me like how the wives back home get telegrams telling them their husbands are dead ? No bodies are shown being flown back to base and no one on screen is seen referring to who`s been killed in the La Drang valley . Likewise we`re not seen reinforcements arrive on screen so how do we suddenly see the Americans out number the NVA ? I put these down as directorial\/ editing blunders on the part of Wallace who doesn`t strike me as much of a director , and his biggest problem seems to be communicating the horror of the battle . Take the scene where the American burned to a crisp is flown away screaming \" Tell my wife I love her \" . This should have an emotional impact similar to THAT death scene in PLATOON but here there`s no impact . In fact I found the scene cliched and patronising , and he`s not the only character to mouth the words \" Tell my wife ... \" while mutilated or dying , I counted at least two other characters use the phrase . Did characters actually say this at the battle ? I`ve no idea but since Randall Wallace wrote the script I do have reservations

I sat in shocked awe watching APOCALYPSE NOW , PLATOON and THE KILLING FIELDS made my eyes water , I laughed at FULL METAL JACKET , I kept looking at my watch with THE DEER HUNTER , and after seeing WE WERE SOLDIERS I felt totally patronised","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So many people have taken shots at Platoon and Born On the Fourth of July among other calling them \"leftist propaganda film.\" Now its my turn to take a political shot at a movie. To me this movie is very imposing on certain religious beliefs and on its political views.

The acting and writing was a little to clich\u00e9d for my liking. Mel Gibson seems to like to play in these unnecessary violent films and proves it once again by teaming up with his partner Randall Wallace for yet another one. Throughout this movie there was this garbage prototypical \"Just tell my family I love them\" or \"Tell Ronny to pray before hoe goes to bed\" lines. The was so overloaded with this garbage retread lines that I felt like I had to vomit. How about that scene were Gibson's wife goes to do her laundry and this \"no colors\" applies to what to put in the washing machine. Its in the mid-sixties was she some how stuck under a rock not noticing the racism around her. Another scene is were Gibson's daughter asks him what war is and the scene is shot in such a trivial matter.

The directing displayed this all perfectly. The countless scenes of Gibson and his family or soldiers praying. I'm fine with showing that once or twice but after a while I wonder if the movie is trying to shove something into my head. How many scenes with the American flag at its finest hour were shot with the melodramatic music on. The director also makes it seem like we won some sort of victory in Vietnam. What exactly was won their. The cinematography was the worst of it with the slowed down scenes see the American flag in the distance scenes spread throughout. I love America but movies like this seem to glorify every little thing we do.

This may seem like a rant and maybe it is but I cannot stand it when a movie like this makes people who are not religious are not so patriotic that they will agree with anything their country does look bad. This movie to me is narrow minded and limited in so many aspects. To me it says if your not Christian your wrong. Would God or Jesus want people to kill I don't think so. To me this movie was offensive. At first this movie was funny with the countless clich\u00e9s and overacted scenes but then when I looked at what this movie was trying to say or not say it was really frustrating to watch. I guess though it is my fault that I chose to watch this movie. I hope no one takes this comment offensively because I am not criticizing religion or patriotism but some of the narrow minded people who are so into both and discount everyone else.

If you want a real depiction of the Vietnam war watch Platoon, Born On the Fourth of July, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter or The Killing Fields. Even Full Metal Jacket which I absolutely hated was a better depiction. I have read a quote that in context says a true patriot does not go with everything the government or country does but questions it when its wrong. A real patriot loves their country too much to see it do bad things.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've read all the complimentary posts on this muddled semi-noir and am puzzled at the high regard for what seems, in the cruel light of 2007, a very sloppy late-RKO assembly-line product. All that endless documentary footage of fish, waves, fish, waves has little to do with the central conflict and just pads the running time. The editing is downright careless: Scenes just end, and are followed by other scenes that have little to do with what preceded them. The dialog bears the stilted traces of the Odets origins: high-flown metaphors that never could have come from the limited imaginations of these workaday people. But what's really surprising is how horribly overacted the triangle is, on all sides. I love Stanwyck, but she snarls and contorts and lashes out wildly -- an undisciplined performance several notches below her standard. Douglas, overplaying at being lovable, then goes onto a would-be murderous rampage and is similarly hammy, as is Ryan, snarling and shouting most unnaturally. The less interesting second couple at least provides recognizable human behavior: Keith Andes, whose character is kind of a Neanderthal by today's standards, nevertheless is smooth and persuasive as Stanwyck's (much younger, one presumes) brother, and Marilyn Monroe, as his girlfriend, is natural and unaffected. On Monterey's windswept coast (and all that Monterey footage, while largely irrelevant, is interesting as a document of what the town looked like), amid all the overheated hysteria, these two are islands of sanity. A final point, and a spoiler: Perhaps the Breen Office mandated it, but does anybody believe the happy ending for a second? Stanwyck may temporarily have regressed into being an obedient wifey, but I give the marriage a month.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Big disappointment. CLASH BY NIGHT is much to talky and stagy and the dialog doesn't resonate as true coming from these characters. This is melodrama at its peak. The acting is truly over the top and very unreal. Only MARILYN MONROE and KEITH ANDES as supporting players give this film any zip. Wish they had more to do. I'm somebody who looks at details in films. Two big questions...1 Who is watching the baby the entire day when Stanwyck and Ryan are together and Douglas is working, then breaking up a fight in a bar with is father? 2. When Stanwyck is packing to leave town, why is she seen packing at her brothers place where she hasn't lived for at least two years? Also, when everyone goes to the projection room at the Theatre, who's taking care of the baby again? Such details really irritate me and cause me to give films much lower ratings. What were the writers, directors and everyone else connected with the film thinking? Nuf' said.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ok, so I saw this movie at this year's Sundance, and I was sorely unimpressed. It took a good fifteen minutes of footage before there was an edit or a line of dialogue that made any sense, and it took another 30 minutes before the ham-fisted script gave way to a working plot that wasn't contingent on a close-up of Ryan Gosling's smile or contrived moralizing. After the first 45 minutes however, the script blossomed into a watch-able albeit not completely entertaining or thought-provoking. The highlights certainly include both Gosling and Morse's acting, Gosling being an up-and-coming star, and Morse being an extremely well-established character actor with a good feel for disparate emotions. As a sidenote, after the screening I was talking a little smack about the movie to some of my friends when David Morse walked right behind me--He looks like the nicest guy in the world, but he's a solid 6'2\" and probably outweighs me by 50 pounds. I removed my foot from my mouth and promptly changed the subject.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here's what's good about \"The Slaughter Rule:\"

--Ryan Gosling, Clea Duvall, and David Morse all give great performances. Gosling is, as always, pretty darn outstanding. The locales are often breathtaking.

Here's what's bad about \"The Slaughter Rule:\"

--Everything else. The script is horribly muddled. And while I can certainly appreciate a non-\"feel good\" movie, this movie is just boring. Great performances can't make-up for a movie with a stupid premise and a script that is filled with throw-away lines that often don't even make it sense. Just getting through the first hour became a chore.

I stuck with it because of Gosling, but eventually I did myself a favor and changed the channel. Spoilers on here relayed the ending to me. I didn't miss much. Do yourself a favor--if you want a good Gosling flick, check out \"The Believer.\"

My score: 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So, as far as I gather, this episode is trying to make a statement about how real-life villains are very bad people, and this is just as scary as the paranormal. The \"paranormal\" imagery associated with the villain, Donnie, is purely symbolic. He's actually just a normal human being.

The problem is that I just don't buy it. Donnie is simply not scarier than the paranormal. He's not even that scary at all. As a guy who seems confused and weird rather than malicious, likes dead girls and hair, and has only newly become a murderer, he's significantly less disturbing than most well-known real-life serial killers (eg: he's like a VERY watered-down version of Ed Gein). Which is why Scully's horror at seeing nothing but bodies with hair and nails cut off (something not too different from a normal personal hygiene routine), before anybody has even been killed or hurt at all, is completely out of character. She sees things a hundred times worse in almost every other episode and hardly flinches.

So, as Comic Book Guy says... \"worst episode EVER!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw the movie after checking its rating on IMDb. Back then, it was at 8.0 and I thought, \"wow! That must be a good one\". I thought wrong. The beginning of the movie actually keeps what the plot promises, but then it goes exponentially down underneath its basement. I think without the character of Richie Nix, it might have been alright - although he is the reason the story line takes the course it does. The character is just too extreme for my liking, and hard to endure. Also, the journey the main character takes from the beginning of the story till its \"climax\" at the end is partly irrelevant and could easily have been omitted - the alternative is, I just did not understand the movie.

Although I must admit that it is \"easy watching\", and I had no problems sitting through the whole movie, when it had finished I was somewhat unimpressed by the ending. All in all, rather mediocre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, Killshot is not awful, but it comes close. Production values are decent and the main actors do a pretty good job (except for Rosario Dawson in a wasted role), but the story is just pathetic. I don't know if the Elmore Leonard book had such dumb characters,since I haven't read it, but I'm guessing that the book was supposed to be at least slightly humorous. The movie has no detectable humor. After the first twenty minutes, you'll be yelling at the screen, \"Oh, come on! Nobody's THAT stupid!!\" In a nutshell, and without any spoilers, everybody acts in a manner convenient to the plot, which makes no sense anyway. A very frustrating and unrealistic movie, which may account for it sitting on the shelf for as long as it did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Following the whirlwind success of The Wrestler (see my review), Mickey Rourke had this \"gem\" head straight to video. Every copy was rented for months and I even heard some good buzz around it. So months later I caught it on a movie network and sat down to watch it. First of all...one of the locations in the film (Walpole Island) is a place I used to visit on a regular basis as a child because we lived very, very close to the reserve. Cool huh? That's about where the coolness ends with this dud. I mean the story is decent enough to warrant a four and even the direction is not bad but the performances are just awful, and downright ridiculous with some truly wasted star power and Mickey $%#@*&! Rourke playing a Native Canadian\/American hit-man?!?! What in the Lord's name were they thinking?? He doesn't even resemble Native blood and his attempt at the generic Native accent made him look even more ridiculous. They could have went anywhere with this story...they could have hired a Native actor, or changed Rourke's character, how about a white man raised by Native parents? Instead they made Killshot a complete and utter joke.

As you may have caught Mickey Rourke \"stars\" in Killshot, I use that term loosely. I have never liked Rourke much although his Oscar winning performance was decent enough. This shows and confirms my dislike for him. He looks bored, constantly bored, and his lame attempt at portraying a Native is bordering on insulting I would think. He makes a decent cold blooded killer but then the story never explores that part of him which is totally backwards to the story. Diane Lane, although well respected in Hollywood, turns in another drab performance. She has had her moments but overall she just usually doesn't take off in any one performance. She looks like she is going to be great but then when she isn't, its even more disappointing. Thomas Jane plays her protective husband. I've always felt Jane deserves a bigger career than he has. I think he's got action star in his blood. All said and done his performance in Killshot is actually not bad. He doesn't take things too far and he's tough and almost heroic in a way. Him and Lane manage to have decent chemistry but he doesn't get a lot in the way of his character. I have absolutely NO idea why Rosario Dawson A) did this movie and B) had a character at all. Her character is absolutely useless and had no point to the plot or story making any performance she would give equally as bad. I have rarely seen a character who is supporting so incredibly useless. The only redeeming character and performance in this film is that given by Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the deranged mini killer who wants to team up with Rourke's hit-man. Gordon-Levitt is over the top crazy and entertaining and his character is actually engaging. If this film had been entirely about him it would have been a smash. He literally saves this from utter crap. His performance is almost worth watching this drivel for.

Oscar nominated director...whoa wait? Yes Oscar nominated director John Madden (I think the football coach could have done a better job) helms this mess. I have actually never seen Shakespeare In Love, but I remember the critical acclaim it received and it surprised me because the direction in this film and with the characters was downright awful. Screenplay writer Hossein Amini has done nothing I recognize but apparently has been slated to write the next Jack Ryan movie and after this mess I can't even imagine why they'd want him. I understand this is based on a novel and I really hope the novel is worlds above this mess. A little bit of action and some sort of hokey attempt at an emotionally charged story of a hit-man and his partner and the mess they get involved in. Unfortunately unless you're a HUGE Rourke fan or really love Joseph Gordon-Levitt then there is no reason to put yourself through this pain. I did it for you and I still feel the pain. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are many distinct problems with the movie \"KillShot\". For one, there are way too many coincidences. The husband is a hunter and just happens to be hunting on the day that the main killer shows up, with someone the killer knows. Okay I will take that one. The kid calls the real estate agency that the wife works for and asks for money to be ready when he comes to get it. Okay, I will take that one as well. Before he goes to get the cash he decided to rob our killer, who doesn't kill him but decided to go with him on the job. It's starting to get real weak. Then they show up, on the same day that the husband has an interview with his wives boss. No one is there but the wife and the husband who has decided to make his way into the empty office. They make their way into the office and the professional killer just assumes that they are talking to the right guy. That is just in the first 15 minuets.

There are a lot more holes in this movie then I care to talk about. Why the killer didn't just kill everyone at the real estate agency I don't know. Why he didn't shoot the woman on her porch, I don't know. Why he kept letting that dumb kid make all those stupid moves and mess a whole lot of crap up, I don't know. Why the girlfriend was even in the movie, I don't know. Why he decided not to pocket the gun and just leave it out on the counter, I don't know. Why they even went into the witness protection program, I don't know. What I do know is that the Casting Director did a great job, the Director of Photography did very good work, the Location Scout picked great locations, and the Production Designer was worth every penny. So my advice for anyone that is going to pick a script that is going to be so well worked by the crew, make sure that every attempt to kill someone by the hit man is not foiled by a peak through an open window.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ugh. Even the ever-popular Diane Lane could not save this movie, and the most exciting thing about the movie was seeing if Rourke's face would move. One has heard so much \"gossip\" about his botched face lift, etc., so like an accident on the side of the road, we just had to slow down and see the wreck. The plot was thin. Here we have a very professional mob hit man who somehow latches on to a wild and uncontrollable punk\/crook, and throughout this movie we're wondering why this guy stays with this idiot, let alone gets together with the guy in the first place. Then the crime that was not even committed has the pro to go after the witnesses. He would have popped them right then and there. But then, we would not have had a movie then, would we? And why did the realtor even agree to the extortion? There were more holes in this flick than in my colander. The acting was horrid, the entire movie predictable down to the minute, and even the ending. And so much could have been done to make this a much better movie. But if you have about 90 minutes to kill and not have to use any brain cells in the process, then this movie is just what the doctor ordered.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Truly appalling waste of space. Me and my friend tried to watch this film to its conclusion but had to switch it off about 30 minutes from the end. And i can count the films I have switched off before the end on one hand.

The script and direction are leaden and deeply uninspiring. I wouldn't be surprised if they found the script in a pile of cast off scripts from 1983. For example the irritating scroat threatening the real estate guy from his house phone. I mean seriously. The police would be beating his door down in minutes. The scenes and events just wash by you like turds in a river. It is difficult to understand the actual thrust of the film. The narrative flicks between characters in a seemingly random manner breaking up the pathetic attempts at building the characters. Oh and what \"characters\" they are. The protagonist played by Rourke is dreadful. He could have just sent a cardboard cut out of himself and stayed in bed. After 60 or so minutes of the film I had built absolutely zero attachment to this character. He is neither sympathetic nor hateful. Just a disfigured dummy from a shop window blundering through every single scene. His motivation is impossible to discern from his generally mumbled and emotionless delivery. Is he happy? Is he sad? Angry? No idea. Just those same dead eyes staring out at you from a disfigured chunk of flesh. And the native American theme is just awful and pointless.

The good guys are at best unlikeable. A dull white collar stereotype and a simpering neurotic ex-wife stereotype. Cue archetypal wife with shotgun face off with bad guy, \"you aren't going to shoot me\" that is both tiresomely unoriginal and annoying.

The richie nix character seems interesting at first but soon descends into an irritating one sided psycho character. Which seems at odds with the seeming intention of making the bad guys in some way sympathetic or at least realistically motivated.

Roasario Dawsons character starts with some promise but soon descends into a sickening and childlike parody of the gangsters chick scenes from Jackie Brown. You really want me to believe her character was SO attracted to Rourke's? Or worse she is just a floozy who sleeps with anything that moves? Realistic female characters FTW!

In summary a complete mess of a film. Hopeless characterisations and performances. A leaden and hackneyed script along with uninspired direction. And ultimately extremely dull. Its not even comedy bad either. Laughing at Rourkes haggard face gets pretty old after sitting through the first 15 turgid minutes of the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I decided to watch this movie in order to fall asleep. It kept me awake, so it was interesting; however, it was pretty bland.

The acting was good. I don't think any of the actors did a bad job. Mickey Rourke is as believable as an over-the-hill hit-man can be. The dialogue in this movie does not provide much opportunity for these actors to show off their full potential, but they still shined.

The atmosphere was great. Music was good and colors matched the mood that the director wanted to paint for the viewers. Even the weather enhanced the mood of the movie. Everything was well done.

The failures of this movie are in its story development. The storyline with the mafia vs. Blackbird doesn't get enough attention. The storyline for Carmen and Wayne's divorce doesn't get explained. The FBI seems to work extra fast here. Is there no paperwork for all these processes? Is it really that easy to dig up your brother's body from his grave, burn the corpse, and have it be identified as you? There are too many loops in the storyline for me to give this movie anything higher than a 4 out of 10 rating. I wouldn't recommend this movie to people unless they're really bored and have smoked some really good weed. Even if WoW is down for maintenance, go find something better to do than watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am so disappointed in this movie I can't express it. I was so excited when I started watching this film to see Mickey Rourke all leather faced and that kid from Third Rock From The Sun acting like I psycho. I thought, wow, this is going to be a winner, freakin' Natural Born Killers style. And it got better. The production value was great, the directing was great, the acting was great, the cinematography was great, and the plot was, well, the plot, well, what WHAT PLOT? About half way through this film I was pulling my hair out yelling \"What the hell is going on?\" and I mean that quite literally? Nothing makes any sense whatsoever. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Aaaaaaahhhhhhggg!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mickey Rourke hunts Diane Lane in Elmore Leonard's Killshot It is not like Mickey Rourke ever really disappeared. He has had a steady string of appearances before he burst back on the scene. He was memorable in: Domino, Sin City, Man on Fire, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and Get Carter. But in his powerful dramatic performance in The Wrestler (2008), we see a full blown presentation of the character only hinted at in Get Carter. Whenever we get to know him, Rourke remains a cool, but sleazy, muscle bound slim ball.

This is an Elmore Leonard story, and production. Leonard wrote such notable movies as taunt western thriller 3:10 to Yuma, Be Cool, Jackie Brown, Get Shorty, 52 Pick-Up, and Joe Kidd. This means that we get tough guys, some good, some not so good.

It also means we get tight, realistic plots with characters doing what is best for them in each situation, weaving complications into violent conclusions. Killshot is no different. Tough, slim ball killer Rourke stalks unhappily married witness Lane. Think History of Violence meets No Country for Old Men. It is not as intense, bloody or gory as those two, but it is almost as good. If you like those two, including David Croneberg's equally wonderful Eastern Promises, you will like Killshot also.

Director John Madden has not done a lot of movies. His last few were enjoyable, if not successful: Proof, Captain Corelli's Mandolin and Shakespeare in Love.

Diana Lane hasn't had a powerful movie role since she and Richard Gere gave incredible performances in Unfaithful. Lately she is charming and appealing in romantic stories such as Nights in Rodanthe, Must Love Dogs, and Under the Tuscan Sun. Here she is right on mark, balancing her sexy appeal with reserved tension.

This is a small part for Rosario Dawson. Yet Dawson does a good job with it. You see a lot more of Lane, including an underwear scene to rival Sigourney Weaver in Aliens and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut.

While you are in the crime drama section, also pick up Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, and Gone Baby Gone, and Before the Devil Knows Your Dead. The last has wonderful performances by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney.

Killshot flopped at the box office. More is our luck. It is certainly worth a 3-4 dollar rental, if you like this genre. 6\/20\/2009","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me first state that I rarely review movies, I only comment if I'm blown away or disappointed in something that I thought was going to be good. Killshot was a major disappointment on so many levels. The script was horrible, the acting was sub-par (espically coming from heavy weights like Rourke and Lane) and the editing and effects were comical, (blowing up cars etc. etc.) Rosario Dawson had a horrible role, I can't believe would even accept it, it was such a misuse of her talent I can't even put into words. I should have know after I saw the trailer for this movie 3 years ago and it kept being put on the shelve that their was a serious problem with this film.......... B movie all the way.........don't bother unless your really bored........","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Diane Lane, Mickey Rourke, Rosario Dawson & Thomas Jane.....Not a bad cast in my opinion however they were totally wasted in this movie.

There was no real direction, there were no unusual turns, in fact the whole movie was very predictable from start to finish. Mickey Rourke had a really annoying sidekick who did nothing but irritate you from the start. Rosario Dawson was totally wasted and there was hardly any point in even having her character in the film.

I really do believe this is one of those straight to DVD movies that everyone will forget about very quickly which is a shame as the movie could have been so much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most predicable movie I've ever seen...extremely boring, I feel like I've seen a hundred movies with the same storyline as this one. Acting is OK at best, there's no action really and there is definitely no thrills. Capable actors with terrible script i think it could have been written better by a 10th grader. Felt like more of a chore to watch because I was hoping that there would be something in this movie that was going to set it apart from all the other garbage but this fit right in on the heap. The whole movie I was waiting for something good to happen but it never came. I never rate movies and I never review movies but this movie was so bad that i had to log in here and post a review to try and save a few poor souls from wasting their time (and\/or money) with this movie. I pirated it and wish I never even wasted the hard drive space. If I spent 10 bucks to see this in theaters I would kill myself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Based on the Elmore Leonard novel of the same name, Killshot suffers from a lack of focus, direction, and creativity \u0096 all elements which the original story likely had, and negative test screenings forced severe edits, (including the complete excising of a character) resulting in a film that feels almost nothing like a Leonard story. Far too many characters populate a storyline too simplistic and straightforward (not a typical trait of the author's work) and the focus continually switches between two hit men who are difficult to like and a troubled couple who don't command our sympathy. While the story itself provides precious few twists and turns, sadly by the end of the film its appeal still remains a mystery.

Washed-up hit-man Armand \"The Blackbird\" Degas (Mickey Rourke) follows a strict code during his missions that inadvertently sours his latest assignment. Now on the run from his former employer, he haphazardly joins forces with inept misfit criminal Richie Nix (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to gain some quick cash by extorting a wealthy realtor. When struggling couple Carmen and Wayne Colson (Diane Lane and Thomas Jane) are privy to the thieves' blundered plot, they are forced into hiding as the crazed killers will stop at nothing to silence the two witnesses.

Killshot proves that being based on an Elmore Leonard novel isn't grounds for immediate success or even a promising adaptation. The characters, situations, and even resolutions in the film are all tired and unoriginal and only very randomly hint at something more. It's not that there wasn't potential, especially when Rourke's black-garbed, calm and collected assassin perfectly executes a hit during the opening scene \u0096 purpose and principals are just continually abandoned as each minute ticks away. The style and manner in which each character is introduced is the most intriguing; visually the roles of Bird and even Wayne are fleshed out befittingly, giving immediate interest and depth to personas that typically end in a creative impasse.

The pairing of the cold and calculating Black Bird with the irrational and explosive Richie is an enticing combination (comparisons to Fargo would be extravagantly too kind), except that each character seems to slowly lose track of the traits that kept them initially interesting. As Richie starts picking up the more experienced killer's habits, Bird loosens his grip on his own methods of murder. Regardless of what he sees in his momentary lighthearted fling with Donna (Rosario Dawson), it's hard to imagine that his final confrontation with panicky Carmen would provoke a confession of his true nature and subsequent carelessness that drastically affects his outcome. Likely or not, this is Killshot's unfortunate downfall \u0096 and little entertainment can be garnered from these characters who steadily lose their originality by continually contradicting the habits that once made them intriguing.

- The Massie Twins","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry guys, all who thought this film could be something great, I'm afraid you would be disappointed.

The standard, the movie wanted to set is completely ruined by some very simple plot. So simple, that the movie is not evolving until the end. I asked myself if the plot wasn't about the action but about the main character (played by Mickey Rourke), but I found that the character was inconsistent - either he is a professional killer or some guilt haunted brother. But both don't go together, because the kid he tries to guide poses him in dangerous situations where no professional killer would put himself. Now, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is a good looking actor, but he played his character a little unnatural. I didn't believe his acting, it looked like the director tried to pull out of him some personality he couldn't provide. And he didn't have to, because his less crazy behavior was creepy enough. The only one whose acting was great, was Diane Lane. If not her, i would give this movie 1 star.

In conclusion, I expected to see some well played movie and some interesting plot. And I completely blew it with my high expectations.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unfortunately House of D is just awful, with a ridiculous plot, terrible writing, some mediocre acting, and in fact just about everything else about it is sub-par.

Tom flees NYC to somehow survive as a lone child in Paris, and manages to convince the beautiful Parisian girl he eventually marries that he's French, despite a poor grasp of her language. She's shocked when years later he reveals his \"secret\" to her! Riiiight!

He then \"gifts\" his tale of woe to his own son, and who we are expected to believe thinks that's just the greatest birthday gift a dad can give his 13 year old boy. If only such things were so easy! David Duchovny miscasts his own wife Tea Leoni in the role of his mother and strikes out yet again. Leoni makes me laugh as a comic but she's just plain wrong for this role.

One of the problems with that is none of the characters are sympathetic. I just didn't give a damn what happened to any of them. I did rather hope that Robin Williams and his trademark \"child in a grown-up's body\" schtick would fall into a Village pothole, but alas, it was not to be and we had to endure his simpering performance all the way.

Anton Yelchin and William's daughter Zelda were not bad, but I suspect the rave reviews others are giving them is simply because they weren't anywhere near as bad as everyone else in this movie. They weren't great, let me put it that way.

There are so many silly and contrived aspects to this film - Erykah Badu, the bicycle, the Catholic school and it's staff of morons, the conveniently stupid characters, etc - that this review would go on for ever, so I'll just finish up by saying that House of D is a very poor movie, and I'm almost embarrassed for Duchovny.

The thing that really annoys me is how I was so strongly encouraged by online \"friends\" to see this that I traveled a long way to do so.

I would not have been so annoyed that this movie is so bad if I'd just wasted a couple of hours down at the local movie theater, but instead I lost a whole day, and discovered that my so-called \"friends\" are either stupid or dishonest, because this is an awful movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An American boy goes to Paris after his mother commits suicide, becomes and artist and then discovers himself and returns to the States so he can make things right with his former friends.

I have to think that the people who are rating this movie so highly are all X-Files fans, even though there are no aliens or serial killers in it. Don't be fooled, this movie blows chunks.

The story is incoherent, with little or no explanation of what people are doing or why. When you do get an explanation, it doesn't fit the story that went before it. What it does is bore you. For all the acting talent in the film, it just isn't interesting. I spent the whole movie wondering when sex-addict Duchovny was going to bang someone. Maybe he was doing it behind the scenes; they should have filmed that instead.

What comes across is a story of a self-obsessed artist worrying about minor incidents in his life and wanting to make them right somehow - even though they didn't seem that wrong to begin with. There aren't any particularly interesting or shocking revelations, despite the mention of a big secret in the first few minutes. It's just a guy thinking that his life is as interesting to you as it is to him. It's not.

I saw in the trivia that Duchovny claims he wrote the script in a week, that's entirely believable. The guy can act, there's no doubt, but writing and directing are obviously beyond his talents.

Why Hollywood keeps greenlighting these self-discovery stories is beyond me. I discover myself in the shower every morning but I don't bother making a movie about it. Mine would probably be better than this one, though; at least there would be some nudity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"They say David Duchovny took six days to write the script for this movie. That sounds about right.

This movie is one of the worst films I've ever seen and I've seen Gigli. It's not as bad as Gigli, but that's like saying Saddam Hussein wasn't as bad as Adolf Hitler.

Tom Warshaw has been living in France with his French wife and 13-year old son. He has been pretending to be French all this time. He reveals to his wife that he is actually American. For some reason, this comes as an earth-shattering reveal for her, despite the fact that she always commented on her husband's American accent. Also, their son - remember, he was born in France and never knew his father was American - speaks perfect American English without a hint of French accent. That's just one of several huge plot holes in this movie.

The main bulk of the movie is a flashback to Tommy's youth in New York City during the 1970's, as he explains to his wife why he has been hiding in France. His best friend as a boy was Pappas, a retarded adult played terribly by Robin Williams. I assume Duchovny thinks that \"retarded\" is someone who is just sort of dumb, because Pappas comes off only mildly slow at times, while other times he comes off as just Robin Williams. Yes, Williams actually fits in his tired improv schtick although he is supposed to play a person who is mentally slow.

Tommy's mother, played by Duchovny's wife Tea Leoni, is a pill-popping nurse who is distraught over the recent death of her husband. Leoni does a good job, but she mainly just smokes a lot and yells at Tommy for things that don't seem to be too important. The script didn't give her much to work with. Tommy also befriends a lady (whom he calls \"Lady\") who is in prison and offers him advice through her jail window (this house of detention is called \"House of D\" for short, thus the title). Tommy has no qualms yelling his personal problems out loud on a city street so this incarcerated felon can offer him advice, and he does so many times without care.

I don't want to bore you with the entire summary of the movie, but plot holes are abound in this film that tries way too hard to be touching but comes off as, well, bad. Real bad. Real real bad. Near the end of this train wreck, the script gets cornier and cornier and ends with a laughably crappy ending.

Critics tore \"House of D\" apart and rightfully so. I can't believe some people actually like this movie. It is a painful film to sit through and I felt weak afterwards - not from emotion, but from how terrible it was.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a movie with a wonderful concept, but very weak writing. It should never have been released with out at least three more re-writes (assuming it got any). The story is too loosly held together, and there are too many 90 degree turns in the story to make it a cohesive movie. It would be great to see what a decent screen-writer could do with the story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are having trouble sleeping or just want to take that nap in the afternoon but just can't seem to drift off, pop in this movie. The only neat thing about this movie are the electric planes. Aside from that prepare for some sweet zzzzz's. It boggles the mind how big name stars such as those in this movie can be part of the one of the dullest movies I've ever seen. Now, if you will excuse me, I will finish my nap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was strange mainly because the plot was so incoherent. The title refers to a vicious wind which renders the surface of the earth almost uninhabitable when it blows, but this seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with what was going on. The movie seems to be an extremely poor rip-off of Bladerunner ie rogue android being chased by bounty hunter(or ruthless cop in this). Luke Skywalker turns in a surprisingly good performance as afore-mentioned rogue cop. Nothing seems to be resolved at the end of the movie, we never find out anything of any substance about the android or what his intentions are. There is one baffling scene where Bill Paxton(who has kidnapped the android) plays one particular song in his cardboard airplane for no particular reason(the song is called \"Shape of things\", by The Yardbirds). This happens again in a later scene where the same song is played for no apparent reason. Does this song have any relevance to the movie? Don't think so.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film fails on many many levels. The script is the first failing, and as I understand it, if the script stinks, there's nothing that can fix that. The plot is boring, after the first 45 minutes, I'm looking at the counter on the DVD saying to myself, \"how much longer?\" The cinematography is pretty awful. I'm not sure how bad the transfer was to DVD, but it looked like a VHS copy. Also, the sound was bad. I realize this isn't going to get remixed for 5.1, but yikes, it didn't even sound like it was in Dolby Stereo which had been around for almost a decade when they cut this film.

Slipstream was far too similar to both Mad Max and Blade Runner for comfort. Because of the lack of decent special effects and high quality dialog, it is extremely disappointing. If I recall, the pointer scene took place during the last 20 minutes, usually it should take place in the first 20. Most people will be totally confused as to what the heck is going on until the final 20 minutes.

The film's music was excellent in parts, and then completely inappropriate in others. Elmer Bernstien did the scoring, but it sounds like someone else had a hand in sticking in 'other' stuff elsewhere as it doesn't match the overall good orchestral score (with some synthesizer music.)

There were great actors cast, Bob Peck, Mark Hamill, Ben Kingsley, Bill Paxton. And they did a great job breathing the little available life into their characters. (Well, Paxton's character was pretty stupid, and the whole movie was centered on him. I'm not sure a heroic stooge is a good choice for the main character who carries the film.) Again, a major flaw with the script.

Thank goodness I watched this from a mail order DVD service, and not the theater. Overall a major disappointment for Sci-fi fans, or fans of Paxton, or Hamill. 90 minutes of your life, you'll never get back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story and the characters really REALLY needed work. The world idea is kind of neat, but no one bothered to develop any of it either through exposition, or through the plot. Despite the cheesy notes at the beginning of the film, it makes sense that you wouldn't use exposition, since no one is new to this world. And yet, when Matt Owens (Bill Paxton) and Byron (Bob Peck) stray off-course and get lost, and get introduced to the wind-worshipers and the fat, lazy, rich people in the museum, we don't get any real idea of who these people are, or why we should care about any of them. Smart films have ways of developing this simply by having the characters live in the world. Simple things, like ordering a drink at a bar, or talking about something in the past -- these are the kind of things that make the film world memorable, not endless shots of crappy planes, and cheap CG effects of someone trying to do loops in an ultralight.

If this is too difficult for you, here's a little tip -- pare down the multiple locations. If everything's becoming disjointed because you're pulling up to often, stay in one place for a little while and have the characters talk a little. All the superfluous crap should be removed. Get rid of the entire wind-worshipers scene. Get rid of the stuffy museum people. Get rid of all the crappy flying crap unless you can make the wind relevant to the story. Have the entire thing set on a big plane, or something. Just get people talking about something we care about.

Hey, get rid of Bill Paxton. Have the film center around Tasker's character and his relationship with the robot, Byron.

Indeed, the biggest problem of the film is that we don't care anything about anybody, because no one takes the time to either explain their motivations or delve into their characters. We don't like Matt (well, because he's played by Bill Paxton, among other things). He's a scoundrel, who doesn't redeem himself enough, except to let the android, Byron, go. And this action has even less meaning than most because of three key points:

1. Byron is a murderer. 2. Byron is indestructible 3. Byron can leave any time he damn well pleases.

We try to like Byron, because there's a kind of pathos there, but it's largely undeveloped. All we're left with is a whiny, glassy-eyed robot guy who's acting is subdued and wooden one moment, and practically zany the next. We don't know why or how he develops emotions, but we do know for a fact that he's murdered someone. We don't know why he murdered someone, or the circumstances of this grisly event, because it isn't developed. We can't feel pity for him if we don't know the story. All we know for a fact is that he murders people. And he likes Bill Paxton.

We don't hate Tasker enough (partly because he's played by good-guy Mark Hamill), since while gruff and ruthless, doesn't do anything out of the ordinary for his character -- a post-apocalyptic peace officer. Sure he kills Montclaire (Robbie Coltrane) and his team, but they are drug dealers, on their way to grow poppies for heroin. And they shoot at him first. He doesn't kill anyone who doesn't get in the way, or who does not try to physically harm him first. That goes equally well for the final confrontation in the museum. He uses a smidge of police brutality against a lazy dilettante (F. Murray Abraham is wasted in this role), and everyone else draws a gun on him.

I really don't understand what's the deal with Belitski (Kitty Aldridge), Tasker's partner. After only an accumulated 10 minutes with Matt, she's ready to switch sides, despite her shouts of loyalty, and despite Matt's trash-talking her, and punching her out. If that's love, then I'll choose hate any day.

Really. Paxton's character is about as lovable as Simon in \"True Lies\", or Pvt. Hudson from \"Aliens\". Does anyone fall for him in these movies? No. Why? Because he's a loud-mouthed idiot, and a loser. Why put him at the helm of this film?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The quote above just about says it all for \"Slipstream\". I should have bailed out of this film after the first half hour, but decided I ought to be fair and give it a chance. I won't watch it again, so if anyone with the temerity to do so can get back to me with the number of clich\u00e9d lines in the movie, I'm sure it will set a record.

Some otherwise fine and talented actors got mixed up with this clunker; Mark Hamill portrays a futuristic bounty hunter and Bill Paxton is his quarry. Paxton's character has hijacked Hamill's prisoner, an android taking his name from the poet Byron (Bob Peck). Tasker (Hamill) shoots Owens (Paxton) with a dart containing a tracking device so he and his companion Belitski (Kitty Aldridge) can keep tabs on the pair. The real question though is why didn't he just fire the device at Byron thereby cutting out the middleman.

If you enjoy scene after disjointed scene with tedious characterization and artsy fartsy pretense, then I suppose you'll find something of interest here. But you can't convince me that the film makes sense on any level. Scenes of a futuristic Stone Age make way for high society snobbery, but the pinnacle of poor taste is reached when Paxton's character is displayed following a night of revelry with hickeys all over his torso. If anyone thinks there's some hidden meaning here, you're really stretching.

Patiently waiting for the frame proclaiming \"The End\" to come into view, alas, even that was denied. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then so is understanding; this movie had neither. Yet there was a single redeeming feature as the closing credits began their run - an awesome view of a half dozen hot air balloons. Apparently the film was keeping them afloat.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Combine good casting, bad writing, good orchestral scoring, bad dialogue, and good story idea with lots of potential but is never realized then you have Slipstream.

Just bought the movie for a buck, it is worth it, but not much more.

Good to see Mark Hamill act again.

There should be a decent sequel made to remedy the damage from the original. Or at least give it the proper attention it should have received in the first place.

Berstein's score gave demanded your attention from the opening credits, however, the long shots of slipstream planes and the even longer revealing of interesting plot points mutes his attention getting score.

It is really easy to dog a movie like this, after all it is by the producer of STARWARS and the director of TRON and a tremendous cast but it is what it is. And that ain't much.

Favorite Line- \"We're going to make it, ha-ha!...(BOOM!)\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yeeee-Haa!

I have seen it argued that most American Movies are cowboy movies in disguise; that Hollywood is so in love with it's only truly original creation that it keeps reinventing the cowboy myth. I'm not sure I totally buy that argument but Slipstream is evidence in support of the theory; it's a cowboy movie with aeroplanes.

Actually it goes one better than that. It's a Spagetti Western with aeroplanes! Substitute the planes with horses, make the android a priest and this movie would be indistinguishable from any one of a dozen Italian Spanish semi-arty \"shoot-'em-ups with pretensions\" of the Seventies.

The film isn't as BAD as I had been lead to believe by some of the reviews I had read here but it certainly wasn't good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow !! I didn't even know about this movie until I was searching for the name of another Mark Hamill classic (Time Runner). Some things are better left unknown. Mark Hamill's role is quite ... limited. I would compare his appearance in this movie to all those appearances of Vincent Price and Christopher Lee in those bad horror b-movies of the 60's and 70's. In those movies, they appeared in the the first and last 5 minutes of the movie. Memorable acting by Mark with such great lines as \"Don't try to run. You're under arrest.\" Did I mention he says that EXACT thing more than once. Bill Paxton fell into an Uzumaki type spiral of drugs and booze after Aliens, because he ended up in this movie after waking up on the set after a binge session. The HAIR .. the HAIR !!! .. Priceless Bill. Truly should have been \"GAME OVER\" for Bill .. but somehow .. he got treatment .. and went on to better??? movies. This movie blows. It is more dull and boring than The Crazies. At least that movie was crazy... this is just boring. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE SOBER.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film has so much potential which was not developed. Mark Hamill gives a good performance and so does Bill Paxton. The scenery is beautiful and the ultralight aircraft are neat. The problem with this film is that the story is way underdeveloped and the plot goes nowhere. The film at certain points almost puts you to sleep. I give it 3 out of 10 stars for the flying scenes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film when it first came out in the cinema. We were all looking forward to seeing Mark Hamill relaunch his career, but we came out wishing we hadn't bothered. Many people walked out after about half an hour - I wish I had too. The basic premise seems okay, but the plot was ridiculously involved and tortuous, and runs out half way through. Its completely unmemorable, and not a film you want to have paid money to see. If you're really bored and it's on TV, then it'll help you kill a couple of hours (or help you to nod off!). 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"AWFUL wot more can i say i remember seeing it in the cinema (see how it sticks painfully in the memory)as a 16 yr old lad. Mark Hamill was the older generations skywalker and wasn't great at that, he was worse in this. Plus a dour soundtrack by Then Jericho AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH. There is one film equally as bad as this i saw in the cinema Arthur 2 on the rocks. Funny how that question \"What is the worst film you have ever seen is?\" is easier than \"what is the best film?\" which incidentally varies between The Italian Job (original), Untouchables, Casino, Things to Do in Denver, Goodfellas (getting a sense of what I like??? - this will fool you!) Finding Nemo, Pirates of The Caribbean and Moulin Rouge! Please Never Watch this film or it will stick in your memory too!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"But then again, what ever is? I picked this up at my local 99cent store for, you guessed it, 99 cents (plus tax). I remember seeing this on video as a teen and thinking it was a cool flick. Too bad the film and my memories don't match. Regardless, its not a too horrible way to blow a couple hours, and it is neat to see some vintage Bill Paxton and Mark Hamill. Blah.... Blah.... Blah.... Man, oh man, I CANNOT think of anything else to say about this flick... (Just filling space to meet the ten line rule...) Good golly, this is pathetic, just how bad is this movie that the best I could come up with in regards to it were five frickin'lines of text? So anyway, ten lines of text, eh? Hmmm, ten lines are hard to come by when you can't remember squat about a film you just watched.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My overall feeling about this film is that it was a slow, drawn-out, structureless wander through some of the worlds genuinely unfortunate situations with a bit of redemption and an obvious message. The film is composed mostly of fairly uninteresting video footage of the countries he visits with bad reenactments, all slow-mo'ed down to a snails pace and overlaid with depressing music. Certainly some of the materials and interviews contain some compelling stories, but unlike what the description on the back suggests, it wasn't so much the victim's story that's being told as it is the director's, Mr. Ripper, and he doesn't tell it well. This film could have included longer, better interviews with the people themselves, letting them tell their stories. Instead Mr. Ripper indulgently draws the story towards himself making it some kind of personal journey, and unfortunately it doesn't end up being much of one. I never really got a sense of any growth as he explores the subject, and he never indicates what about the subject pulled him in in the first place. He just drags us from one place to the next, brushes lightly on the situation and characters, hangs around showing too much uneventful slow-motion footage of people just walking around the streets, then moves on to his next destination. He does this over, and over, and over again without any real development. I felt like this film could have been cut down to 45 minutes but it's drawn out to close to 2 crushingly slow hours. We feel morally obliged to care about the topic, but the director's self-indulgent, meandering, uninspired delivery of his journey makes you grow numb after a while.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Scarier than any horror movie ever made because you're in controlled of this blood fest which make it more scarier than watching other people doing it on the big screen or on your television screen. This game got two CDs which make the game much more entertaining.

Each cd contains a different character with a complete different story line which make the game much more fun. I recommend you to buy this game and the first game too (isn't as good as this game, still fun though)

****

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On top of the fact that Skylar is a complete douche bag and his cons are unimaginative, his schemes require way to much preparation to make any of his scams worth while. Without giving away any spoilers (as if it matters with this piece of crap) his cons are such a sham because it takes the effort of days and days of planning, and the use of multiple accomplices and an entire camera crew etc. just to scam someone into a service that would cost less than a hundred bucks.....in addition if you read in the credits they re-stage some of the phone calls etc. because they don't pan out...The whole concept of this show is bunk because all of his cons have the cost in both the crew and the effort of ten times the actual cost of the service he is trying to get for free...what is the con?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have decided to flush this show from my memory down the toilet of bad TV show into the obscurity of forgetful, disappointing, pointless, garbage TV show hell.

The Skyler guy who is the host\/star\/creator of this show is boring, uninteresting, unbelievable, not particularly good looking and not at all funny, in short why is this guy on TV and especially why is he in a comedy show when he's not funny, pretending to be a professional con man when he definitely is nothing but an obvious pretender? Others have said it here already but this guy is a total fake and fraud, if you believe any of these cons I think you should seriously consider going to get your head checked because they're all fake, and the ones that might possibly be true are so pointless, like spending all day to con someone out of giving you an average meal at a restaurant? Seriously this guy needs to go away, glad this show got canned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What exactly is the point of pretending to \"con\" people out of things like ski passes and pizza? I fail to see a point. I'd not clever or original and it strikes me as being extremely pointless.

Skyler Stone doesn't seem to be a very down-to-earth or even a nice guy. He has very little charisma and just about anyone could do what he does in this show.

The worse thing about this piece of crap, is the fact that a lot of the phone calls are reenacted, so not only are they apparently conning the poor people on the other end of the phone, but they are also conning the audience who don't have enough time to read the \"disclaimed\" that flickers across the screen for about half a second at the beginning at the end of the show!

Not only that but he also claims this is how he lives his whole life. What an lie. No one could live their lives like this and the fact he says this is not only yet another con to get his show watched, but it's also one of the most fabricated, blatant pieces of bull$hit I've ever heard. This guy is an @$$!

What makes them think that going to all the trouble of, for example, write and record a song, get someone to pain a HUGE picture of you and two mates, get dance lessons and actually travel to a ski resort is actually worth only getting free ski passes and some food for free? What is the point of that? It's an awful lot of trouble to go to just for a few ski passes and a bit of snow.

As far as \"comedy\" goes, this is bottom of the barrel stuff.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just finished watching this movie and largely found it a waste of time with little or no redeeming factors. I really don't understand where all the positive reviews came from -- the animation is clunky and unrefined, the plot makes no sense at all from an objective standpoint, and there is no sense of intrigue or suspense in that which is trying to pass itself off as an intriguing and suspenseful film. I have never read the book so I can't say if the movie was faithful, but as with most movie adaptations, it tries too hard to cram as much information into the shortest amount of time possible. The result is a disjointed and illogical storyline that doesn't really let you understand or relate to the characters, or, actually, anything at all. Overall, I felt completely detached from the characters and the plot to the point where I couldn't bring myself to care about what happened to them, and the only way I can see how this animation could be considered beautiful is if your normal standard of animation is a Scooby-Doo cartoon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Blame it on Rio\" is a romantic comedy 80's style, with more than an eye full of sex throughout its 101 minute running time.

The plot concerns two middle-aged men in crisis, one of whom is sorting through his divorce, the other dealing with the possibility of that same prospect. Both good friends, they decide to take a vacation in exotic Rio de Janeiro, each with a daughter at their side. Complications set in when one of them gets involved with the other's daughter.

This potential riot of a story is fairly funny and there are some good lines, however it never really becomes hilarious, as it could have. Any attempt at handling the moral issue seriously doesn't work either, and perhaps director Donen should have stuck to the humour of the situation.

Not a bad film, but what really ruins it is Michelle Johnson's awful performance as the naughty little temptress Jennifer. While she uses her body to full advantage, it's the only thing she's got. Michelle's acting prowess leaves a great deal to be desired. No wonder we haven't seen her in anything else.

Friday, January 7, 1994 - Video","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All in all, don't expect much and you won't be disappointed.

And if you want to see a movie that will take you back to 1983, this will do that for sure. The only reason I gave this movie 2 points more than it deserves is for 2 reasons:

#1. Michael Caine

#2. the people, the sights, the culture and the music of Brazil

The movie is almost completely carried by Caine as he commits the seemingly impossible task of transforming it into a viable and semi-believable story. Even Joe Bologna and Valerie Harper fall short.

Michael Caine is pure class, as always. Besides being a gifted classical and comic actor, Caine brings a blend of introspection, mischievousness and sensitivity to every movie he does ... the focus of his charm as far back as his role in Alfie...and the reason why he won the Academy Award for Hannah and her Sisters 2 years later. In this farce, he is tenderly beguiling...funny and vulnerable... melancholy and sentimental....and besides the jewel that is Rio de Janeiro, the ONLY reason to not seek out a better form of entertainment.

Well...maybe a glimpse at the 2 lovely young actresses, Michelle Johnson and Demi Moore would be a reason. But look is all you can do at Michelle (though her look seems sorely dated)....there couldn't be a more painful movie experience than watching her \"try\" to act (most of her dialogue seems overdubbed, too). Demi's acting and looks hold up 100 times better and you could easily transplant her, as is, into any movie today (she doesn't really look much different to be honest). Ms. Moore is surely underused, especially considering she was the bigger star of the 2.

Save the fact that it is a silly farce, at the end, I actually kind of like the maturity with which all these people handle this scandalous situation...that it doesn't end friendships nor marriages and that an affair, even with the underage daughter of your best friend, could be forgiven and everyone can move on. The injured parties do show anger and disappointment at what transpired, but all works out for the best....a bit unrealistic for sure, but surprisingly refreshing. Hope always is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not the funniest movie ever.....but I have to watch this film at least once a year just so I can fall in Love with Michelle Johnson all over again. She never looked better than she did in this film. by the way The story is good too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie should be called Blame it on the Script. Directed by Stanley Donen, of Singin' in the Rain fame, this celluloid mid-life crisis is not all bad. It's got some lush scenes of Rio de Janeiro and various scantily clad extras cavorting with each other and romping around the beach to the sultry sounds of samba, but there is just something about watching fifty-something Michael Caine get it on with whiny teenager Michelle Johnson that makes you feel...well, sleazy. This storyline is a complete stretch, too. Nobody but pervy and vain old studio execs in Hollywood could have green-lit this embarrassment. Maybe they are so used to having young bimbos as arm candy that they forget it's their fat wallets that hold the key to their appeal, not their huge Larry King-style spectacles and yellow cigar-stained teeth. It's one thing for a nubile young sexpot to have a crush on an older man, but on her best friend's father who happens to be married? And then to throw herself at him shamelessly? Ugh! There's nothing entertaining about that. It's rather pathetic and grotesque. Take note of a young Demi Moore's budding *cough* talent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this in the theatre a couple decades ago, and fuzzy recollection suggests that I liked it. However, seeing it for a second time two things stand out: (1) very poor acting on the part of Michelle Johnson, and (2) very poor music throughout.

It's not that all the music was bad. Some of the Brazilian music was fine, but the theme song and others that clanged their way in were reminiscent of the worst of '80s pop music.

Johnson's voice seemed all wrong, possibly dubbed. This was distracting.

On the positive side: (1) The story's not bad, (2) it's interesting seeing such a young Demi Moore, (3) Valerie Harper never looked better, and (4) Johnson did look quite fetching in various stages of disattire.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yeah, I know the girls are hot and the scenery lovely but for someone knowing the place, it's hilarious.

If you want some accuracy, this is not a movie to rely on. It starts with the flight from S\u00e3o Paulo to Rio aboard a 747. This will never happen on the 400 km flight. Smaller planes such as 737 or A-320 shuttle passengers between the two cities every half an hour. The drive from the airport home if shown on a map would reveal an intricate zig zag back and forth. Perhaps the producers tried to emulate one of the very known taxicab drivers itineraries when faced to tourists. Not that it would be a local habit as I myself got ripped off in very serious places such as Switzerland. The girls, yes. All topless. That's something an outsider will never understand. Brazilian chicks will be happy to expose 100 % of their incredible bodies at the Samba Schools parades and wear almost non-existent bikinis at beach, but never go topless. A handful beaches across the whole country will allow it. All carefully secluded and out of town. Oh, the indoor decoration; the amazing wallpaper... maybe in Disneyworld... Apart from that, it is very entertaining and, yes, Demi Moore is absolutely splendid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Michael Caine's character has problems. He's a plain, nearsighted, insecure man in his mid-40s. He's married but his wife doesn't seem to love him anymore. He has a poor relationship with his only daughter. But his most immediate problem is that a stunningly beautiful young woman, played by Michelle Johnson, is pursuing him too ardently, kissing him, groping him, and trying to initiate sex at every opportunity. What's the poor fellow to do?

This movie should be taken out of the Comedy section and placed under Science Fiction. Only an intergalactic brain chip can explain the actions of Michelle Johnson's character. Let's see - 3 billion men in the world - she can pretty much have her pick - she goes with an clumsy, aging loser. This goes beyond a middle-aged male fantasy into something so delusional, you just hope that everyone involved voluntarily submitted to therapy.

There's not really anything funny here. There are some quick attempts at wit from Caine, who often seems to playing Hawkeye Pierce more than a new character. Joseph Bologna is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Michelle Johnson is no actress - she has one crying scene that wouldn't pass muster in a high school play - but she is beautiful and she does take her clothes off. So buy the DVD, skip to scenes 4 and 9, and forget the rest.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I never intended to write a review of this movie. Actually I was just on the sight looking for the name of the star of the film and then I started reading reviews... I guess I'll never learn. This movie is horrible! I'm not going to justify my comments with specific reasons because I really find it hard to believe that anyone with any taste actually LIKES this. A guilty pleasure? Okay, I guess. But a film this bad that wasted talent so good (Caine, Gelbart, and Donen) is a reason for mourning not a pleasant diversion. A low point for all involved except perhaps Bologna, who must sit up nights trying to figure out which bomb was THE bomb that destroyed his career.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie just arrived to Mexico and since I read very good reviews here about it I decided to go watch it with my friends and girlfriend, but i was greatly disappointed, I don't understand how people can rate it 10\/10 I mean screenplay and directing were beautiful, but a great overall movie need a good story which this flick lacked altogether.

I've enjoyed several dramatic Asian and European films but they had a good story, watch this movie at your own risk unless you are eastern European or orthodox i don't think you will like it.

Half the people on the theater left including my 4 friends who waited outside since they were really bored so was I but I always wait till the end of the movie.

Regarding the movie, it was extremely slow paced, with a lot of time wasting scenes, the full length of the story could have been shown in no more than 40 minutes, but they made it longer by having scenes of the monk getting coal that is like 15 minutes of the whole movie plus panoramic views and so on, until they made it a full length movie a really boring one.

I recommend you listen to me if you still watch it come back and rate this comment as useful after wards to help people avoid this waste of money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This puddle of derivative drivel stole from every Soviet film of note and failed miserably. I was left with an experience of everything that is wrong with organized religion in general and the Russian Orthodox Church's particular shortcomings (mind you this comment comes from a person of faith). Even the outstanding cinematography left me uninspired. I spent its most beautiful moments very aware of the masterworks that it was poorly imitating. I would not recommend seeing this movie unless you have a deep passion for the Russian Orthodox Church, its monastic traditions, miracles in the face of Communism, and Saints of the Seventies. It is a meaningless film from (and about) a narrow perspective that did absolutely nothing for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe it is unfair for me to review this movie because I walked out well before the end. That's odd, because I usually like Shakespeare on the screen and I enjoyed Midsummers Night's Dream once, many years ago, when I saw it on the stage.

I think that two things did me in: that squeaky twerp with the Shakespearian name, Calista Flockhart, and Michelle Feiffer sitting in a giant clamshell. Well, I suppose you could say it supposed to be a comedy -- but when the scenery is funny and the actors aren't, I'd say we have a bad movie on our hands....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An absolutely baffling western featuring flash-forward sequences set in an insane asylum, South of Hell Mountain was one of the first films produced by the schlockmeisters at Cannon Film. Co-directed by William Sachs, who would later deliver such fan favourites as The Incredible Melting Man and Galaxina, the film tells the very dull tale of a trio of gold robbers who stumble upon a cabin occupied by two women who are hiding some secrets that aren't worth discovering. The cast (most of whom never made another film) try gamely, but are hamstrung by the screenplay, which generally makes no sense. The asylum scenes are edited in to little effect and are punctuated by ridiculous sound effects and tape loops. Ultimately, it's a lot of talk and little else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went into this film expecting\/hoping for a sleazy drive-in style slice of seventies exploitation, but what I got was more of a bizarre pseudo western with far too much talking and not enough action. It's clear that this film was made on a budget; the locations are drab and poorly shot, while the acting leaves a lot to be desired also. The plot focuses on a trio of robbers (a father and two sons) that steal a load of gold after killing some miners. They come across a cabin inhabited by a young girl and her stepmother...and all this is told in flashbacks by the young girl, currently residing in an asylum. It's clear that directors Louis Leahman and William Sachs thought they were making something really shocking; but despite its best efforts, South of Hell Mountain is just too boring to shock the viewer. The film drones on for about eighty minutes and most of it consists of boring characters spouting off boring and long-winded dialogue. The only good thing I have to say about the film is with regards to the music; which is good in places. The ending is the only other good thing about the movie; and that's only because it's the last thing that happens. I wouldn't recommend anyone bothers tracking this down...there was much better trash made in the seventies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well.....horror this ain't, but.......!!!??? A terrible low low budget backwood-flic of the worst kind, sort of AND...therefore quite charming and funny to watch...at least on my tv set!!! A cross between Pete Walker, Herschell Gordon Lewis and...say....damn, I give up...just can't come up with any \"prettier\" resemblances for this trashy movie. Everything is soooo wrong that I just have to enlist it in my film collection alongside with....Death In Venice.....Nekromantik.....Blue Velvet and The Good,Bad,Ugly... right !!?? People with some small talent for adding gory inserts or sexy happenings to film they buy offa other people, should pick this film up immediately....sure is a fat lil' ol' goldmine waiting here, oh maaaannnn!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen this movie and in all honestly was quite disappointed. And in my opinion this movie lacks heart. I frankly didn't care what happen to the characters by the end of the movie.

There was so much there they could have done with the movie that they didn't because they were either so rapped up in trying to be obscure and make some deep comment on life, or trying so hard not to, that the characters and story were completely lost in all of it. I have seen another picture by this director and enjoyed it well enough. But I felt this film lack of the whimsy and heart of the other and I was left wondering what the point was, or if the point of the movie was that it had no point. Honestly, while I didn't feel like tearing my hair out during the movie, I did remorse the lost time on the sad little film.

I have no doubt that some people will love this movie, but frankly I didn't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know Terry Gilliam is considered as a good director but claiming that this movie is good is just foolish. What was the movie about? What is it a spoof? Fantasy? Comedy? Satire? No answer there from Gilliam's screenplay. Totally confused and pointlessly hurtling from one historical age to another. I find it amusing that some people actually call this movie magical. Is it because they have to praise any movie which is vague and indecisive on what it is about?? 3 stars for special effects considering it is 1981. Roger Ebert has it right in his review. The movie is ambiguous and looks like Gilliam's romp with money just to make a vague children's move masquerading as a historical revue. The movie also tries to confuse the would-be viewer by giving John Cleese and Sean Connery top billing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got this movie from the library, and saw it had a lot of actors I like in it(John Cleese, Ian Holm, Ralph Richardson, etc), so I got it and watched it. I expected Cleese to have a large role since he had first billing, I was surprised to find out that he had about five minutes of screen time, along with everyone else I liked. This movie is amazingly pointless, the characters are nobodies, the plot is non-existent, and the ending is one of the worst endings I have ever seen. There were a few funny parts, but that's about it. Stay away from this movie if you want to prevent going \"What?\" and \"Huh?\", a lot. And if you don't want to waste your time. Ignore the people who say this is a very funny movie...it isn't. Just stay away from it at all costs...please.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For some reason I just didn't like it at all and felt embarrassed about how bad it was since I bought it and watched it with my family. All of us hated it with a passion. It's a nice enough kids' movie, maybe in the year it came out. However, think about it: an outdated kids' movie? What's the point? Kids do not generally like to watch such old movies anyway, and I don't see what adults are supposed to get out of this movie at all.

Some kids' movies (like Mary Poppins or Wizard of Oz) can be enjoyed even now, but Time Bandits is totally outdated. For your reference, and I think applicable in this case, I also did not like Dr Strangelove or Spinal Tap at all. So, if you disagree with me on those similarly outdated movies, you might like Time Bandits.

There is also a horrible case of overacting as I recall from the 'bad guys'. Think of the two stupid 'bad pirates' in the Pirates of the C. movies, except in Time Bandits they are not even remotely funny.

Anyway, I warned you, that's all I can do. People that rate this movie high must have liked it from many years ago. If you have not seen it before, then don't bother watching it now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show has shown it's true colors now that Democrats are in power. It never did lead the world in IQ as anyone who thought it has intelligence has been programmed to think one way (which is a scary thing).

Comedy Central moved this & it's spin off back to an earlier time once the Democrats took power for a reason- because now when the Democrats screw up - which is just as often as Republicans do - Stewart no longer takes pot shots at them. That is why the ratings for both this & the spin are dropping.

Basically, most of the humor now is either lame, or lame Sarah Palin jokes - which all the ratings dropping Comedians are now telling. The facts to back this up speak for themselves. The Jay Leno show which has been doing the same kind of humor is on the verge of being canceled. The ratings for Letterman & Conan & the shows that follow them are down.

So Emperor Stewart is not alone. Trouble is if any of them start taking real rips at the bungling Democrats in power, they could raise their ratings in a hurry because the best humor is always at the expense of whose in power. The Bush years proved that because the ratings for this show & Colbert, & Letterman & Leno were higher there.

O'Bama has done one thing, proved these shows have to be willing to take chances & rip the folks in power if they are to prosper. Right now, the Daily Show & Stewart are sagging but maybe they can get lucky & have Palin elected as the first woman President in 2012. Then the lame Palin jokes will become ratings grabbers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have tried watching this show on several different occasions and each time found it to be utterly pale of humor.

The reason, to mention one thing, is that it is solely based on ridiculing anything the Republicans have done. In short it is basically Democratic party political opinions touted as humor.

All Mr. Stewart does is wisecrack about anything the Republicans have done and the audience wets themselves in gales of forced laughter.

My guess is that the left is so devoid of any real substance that they have to define themselves in terms of how much they all hate Republicans.

-LD

_____________________________

my faith: http:\/\/www.angelfire.com\/ny5\/jbc33\/","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Comedy works best when it relates to stuff that's true. But even as such, some effort is required to make jokes that everyone likes and even the most grumpy of viewers can crack a smile. When I look at the Daily Show, I see the whole \"it's funny because it's true\" thing, but I don't, however, see the effort and often times I don't if they're being funny or just trying to make a point(I notice this mostly in the interview segments). The Daily Show started off as a news parody, by definition they poke fun at how the media plays it's own news by pretending to be inept and dumb news reporters and anchormen and they tackled tons of subjects from science to movies and sometimes politics, then Jon Stewart came along...and it all went to Hell. Thr first years of Jon Stewart's reign were arguably golden, I though he was so funny, but then 2004 came along and it's where you start to notice a huge chance in the show from there on. The show's humor has gone stale, Colbert left, Steve Carell left, many of the show's best anchors left and now it's mostly about Jon Stewart and the show's gone from a parody to a semi-serious news show, essentially Evening News but with some gags here and there. For those who haven't seen the show and are having trouble finding out what to watch on cable, I'll give you a brief description of what the show's about(at least until 2009): -Bush, Cheney and all Republicans(unless they happen to embrace an opinion shared by Democrats as well) are stupid, evil, corrupt and hypocrites, anyone who stands by conservative beliefs is also evil, corrupt and a hypocrite; -people who doubt the man-made global warming theory are evil and stupid; -vote Democrat; There, I saved you 25 minutes of your time, go watch something else. At first, I though that the producers hijacked the show for their own personal political agenda, but when I actually see the interviews, it becomes crystal clear what this show's about(what I mentioned above), but I'll get to that in a moment. Frist off, the humor in The Daily Show according to Jon Stewart expects you to find a random filmed quote said by either Bush, Cheney or a random republican humorous because well, because. Jon sets up the joke, setting it in writers specific context and expects that the random quote somehow delivers the punchline. So, unless you \u00abget\u00bb the context, it's entirely useless as bankable humor. Also the Daily Show expects you to laugh when they show a montage of one politician talking and in another separate video saying another thing, again putting into a context that the writers expect you to understand, thus making it funny,why? Well, because Jon said so. Now imagine The Daily Show using that formula countless times for years every week, and you'll start to understand of what used to be a laugh-fest that is now 25 minutes of just silent stares(yes, even in the Lewis Black segments). At first, some decent amount of effort was put into these jokes, but now much less of that is apparent. And the interview have the most odd sense of bias that I've ever seen. Jon Stewart calls Bill O'Reilly a bully, but what does that make him, when he sucks up to every single actor and democrat(John Kerry before, Obama today) that appears on the show and looks down upon respected republicans and accomplished conservative newsmen such as Weekly Standard's own Bill Kristol? He puts them in some sort of people's tribunal as if they're being charged with a crime, often times any person on the show who stands up for Bush is portrayed as delusional, as if that person's out of touch with reality and assumes he speaks for the majority of America, that's the de facto treatment for anybody conservative, unless they happen to share a similar point of view with Democrats, if so then's it's an endless love fest. But still, it doesn't matter, in the eyes of Jon you are already wrong before you walked into the show and are still wrong afterwords. That's the kind of treatment you get if you are anything remotely right-wing. Now you have to wonder what that could possibly have anything to do with humor. One wonders what'll happen if Democrats win the White House...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jon Stewart (aka John Liebowitz) constantly rips conservatism and anything Republican. This liberal comic is anything but, as he pours his cutting \"humor\" down the throats of impressionable youths. I've viewed the show while stuck in a waiting room while my car was repaired and this guy borders on treason. He'll take Al Queda's side over Bush any day. He's shameless and everything he says is punctuated by a phony laughtrack. I do remember four years ago when he \"interviewed\" John Kerry. The two made faces at each other that seemed to preclude a makeout session. It was like, \"Get a room, you guys\". I just don't like smirky little traitors who peddle their propaganda. Call me shallow. The Daily Show has had a long run and there are many likeminded liberals who have a seething hatred for Republicans and Conservatism. I'm not surprised at its success, but do that many people actually watch Comedy Central? That Mancia guy makes me barf.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, the title \"DAILY\" is a LIE.

Every \"Daily Show\" program opens with an on-screen visual of the date it was made, followed by a pause and the opening announce. On the many days when they are RE-RUNNING a Daily Show, they slip-cue the tape and OMIT the date and begin with the opening announce giving the false impression that the show is a new one. That's a lie. There is no mention of it being a rebroadcast. And that kind of crap is just a small indicator of how sneaky and deceptive this show is.

Furthermore, it's only on 4 nights a week. That's not quite \"daily\" - meaning Monday through Friday - another shortcoming but one I am grateful for.

It's sad to think that many clueless young people use this fake news program as their main, often only, news source. This leaves them woefully ignorant and much worse - badly misinformed.

Although it leans liberal-left, politically, this show can be amusing at times. However, its veracity is low. Facts and information are often cleverly twisted to fit the writers' agendas. It's often hard to tell where the facts leave off and the fiction and comedy writing begin. The result is pre-digested, reinterpreted information designed to persuade and influence. This is called \"PROPAGANDA\".

The remote interviews are heavily kluged in editing.

It really loses me when it bashes God and Christians - which it does all too often. However, you'll never hear anything vaguely anti-Semitic.

If Jon Stewart and company attacked anyone but Christians, it would be considered an offensive outrage. The names in the credits explain the source.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't get me wrong, the guy's a success dynamo, but he got to the top by selling overpriced plastic toys to impulsive brats. So I get a little peeved when he looks at comic book fans as an extension of that same market.

See, \"The Invincible Iron Man\" wouldn't be bad if it were slotted on a Saturday morning and geared exclusively toward undiscerning children. But it's not directed exclusively at children. Periphery characters are killed every five minutes and there's enough bloodshed and semi-nude bodies to make network censors squirm, so it isn't quite cut out for children's television.

So what audience is this video aiming for then? It's the audience that enjoys nigh intelligible story lines about reviving a tyrannical Chinese emperor with 5 arcane rings, that's who. And I think that audience is restrictively small.

A lot of great writers have passed through Marvel's leathery yoni over the decades. So it's a shame that Marvel would risk their pricey animation investments on so many questionable storytellers and scribes who, like Mr. Arad, are better accustomed to peddling action figures during Saturday morning cartoons. How many lukewarm receptions do Marvel have to endure before they come up with a better strategy?

***

Animation: just passable cels, some segments are better than others, a low budget look all throughout -- this ain't no Bakshi (Ralph) and it ain't no Bluth (Don)! CG animation's okay, but far from impressive.

Story: a litany of clich\u00e9s, all over the place, convoluted, contrived, and uninspired.

Characters: so why is Rhodes even here if all he does is add to Stark's sexual ambiguity? Hmmm... her Dad's in a wheelchair... Tony misses his mom... Asian chicks are hot and, apparently, little else; the female lead is thoroughly objectified by the feature's end.

Performances: can't blame competent voice actors for a bad script.

Art: very Western musculature, very clean lines, faces are very derivative of Eastern art, very boring mattes, very bland CG.

Conclusion: Not great, but worth a watch for the fans and those who enjoy superhero myths. A 'must-buy' for collectors. A valuable \"what not to do\" course for junior animators.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am obviously disappointed so I'll be brief and won't waste your time. First off, the plot was uninspired... at least. The animation was even worse, we're in 2008 for god's sake and it looked like a shinier version of G.I.Joe. I won't even bother characterizing the actors' performance and the dialogs. Or maybe I will 'cause I just saw that in order to post a comment over here you need 10 lines (?!??!?!). Where were we? Oh yeah the performance, well it was totally flat, lacking passion and talent if I am excused. Now as for the dialogs, just like the acting, no memorable quotes, nothing that someone wouldn't expect. Let's just hope the movie will be decent ...at least.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was something I had been looking forward to seeing. The Ultimate Avengers movies had both exceeded my expectations and since Iron Man has been one of my favorite Marvel characters I thought that this same production team would be able to do some really great stuff with an Iron Man solo title. But the final film was unsatisfying. I wasn't expecting them to spend most of the movie paying tribute to Iron Man gray armor. The red and gold armor is seen for maybe ten or so minutes all together. Not a major complaint but not what I expected from the ads and box. The worse thing however was the story, the acting and the cell-shaded CGI animation for the monsters and Iron Man armor that was not convincing. It didn't blend in well with the cell animation at all. Even on it's own it seem stick-like and lifeless. Tony Stark's character arc, as incredibly slow as it takes, is so forced and unconvincing. I wanted to see this movie because I love Iron Man but after forcing myself through the film I wondered if they couldn't have come up with something that had been as good as the Ultimate Avengers movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have been collecting Iron Man comics since the early 70s and always enjoyed the character who is far far from the average clean cut hero and his many and varied enemies. There have been no less than three attempts at an animated series for Iron Man and only the original and part of the second have ever done the character justice. So I was somewhat hopeful that this newest version would be good. Boy was I wrong! The DVD art is VERY misleading and presents an image that is not the movie. Fist off the good, what little there is... The art and animation are well drawn and the writing and dialog are generally good, though with notable exceptions. Character voices are very well selected and each character is distinctive and well acted. Now for the bad... Unfortunately the writers opted to totally screw around with both Iron Man's origin and especially the Mandarin's. On top of that they decided to do Iron Man and his opponents all in CGI. Bad CGI. This makes them stand out almost as badly as live actors would in a cartoon. The CG work is often repetitive and glaring shortcuts are taken at times. The CG battles are clumsy as well, further enhancing the fact that CG and line animation do not mix well. The movie would certainly have fared better had they opted to actually DRAW all the characters. Another problem is that Iron Man is in his traditional Red and Gold suit for all of ONE battle! And its not even the big fight at the end. All this drags the movie down and it never picks up.

************ SPOILERS (or warnings) MAY FOLLOW ************

The movie starts off with an interestingly unusual stop motion credit sequence of machinery, welding and gears. Then we are introduced to what looks like a Chinese temple in the process of being restored, and prominent is a statue of what fans will recognize as the Mandarin. Things go strangely, impeding progress in restoring the temple. Overseeing it is James Rhodes, Tony Stark's long time friend. Seems they plan to actually raise the temple up from the earth, despite opposition by a group who insist that raising the temple will bring about a terrible disaster. Rhodes is captured in a raid. Stark, shown in a hot tub with a lovely lady, is informed of the problems and sets out to personally oversee the project and rescue his friend while in the background his father deals with Board Executives who are pushing to have Tony removed. Tony arrives only to have his armored escort ambushed and blown to pieces. Tony later awakens mortally wounded in the heart and a prisoner of the rebels. He is saved only by quick action from Rhodes and a scientist. Eventually Stark must build the prototype gray iron armor and makes good an escape, but only after some loss of life. While with the rebels he meets a troubled girl named Li Mei, and the two fall in love. The Temple is raised and four elemental beings (all done in CG) appear and proceed to start collecting hidden rings of power. Stark and Rhody find trouble back home but manage to confront the elementals without success in really stopping them, First using the Aquatic Armor, then the more classic Red and Gold Armor and finally everything returns to the temple and Stark is back in the bulky gray armor for a final showdown and a run in with what may be Fin Fang Foom (also in CG.) Here the story takes a major twist as it turns out that the Mandarin needs a host body to manifest. This leads to a somewhat tragic final battle marred by the fact that the Mandarin is little more than a ghost and isn't seen till the last 5 minutes of the movie. ugh...

If you are an Iron Man fan then you will likely not enjoy this outing. And even non-fans may well find the movie somewhat lacking or not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a fifth grade language arts teacher, and after we read this book (which the students loved), then we watched the movie. They laughed out loud! Unfortunately, it's NOT a comedy! The acting was so awful, I felt like I was watching a bunch of kids in the neighborhood putting on a play. My students were mimicking the lines and making fun off and on the whole way through. I have to agree with them, at times, it was pretty bad. Still, I would show it to students again, just for fun, and to compare the film with the book. We did a Venn Diagram (teachers know what that is) afterward, to show what was the same in both and what were the differences, so there is an educational value in showing it. I noticed that another adaptation is being filmed for 2005 so we can only hope the acting will be better!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was in 6th grade and this movie aired on PBS during a series called 'Wonderworks.' I distinctly remember sitting on a couch watching the movie with tears running down my face at the end. In the film Jesse, the main character, forms an unusual friendship with a girl named Leslie. Due to a very simple, but careless mistake one of the pair dies. At the time, I found the story very powerful, because the fatal mistake is exactly the type of mistake a kid would make and so any kid watching the film will find it very easy to identify with and feel the emotional weight of the tragedy that ensues.

Last year, I finally tracked down a VHS copy of the show. I probably should have stuck with my memories. Watching the show as an adult I was absolutely shocked by what a horribly made film this was. My girlfriend had a similar memory of the movie as well, and she too was pretty sad about how bad the movie was compared to her memories.

Many adults probably have a good memory of watching this movie when they were kids. I strongly advise that these people leave their memories intact, and avoid seeing this film as an adult.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have recently gone to the movie theatres to see the new (2007) version of Bridge to Teribithia. After, I went to the library to rent the older version to see it again without paying again. I must say that I was extremely disappointed! I found the older version to have horrible acting as well as corny lines including Jessie saying, \"I know Daddy, but I hurt so much inside\" after Leslie dies. It was quite horribly done and the casting was not much better in my opinion. I watched in amazement all the while saying no wonder they remade it. The story is great but trust me spend the money and see the new version, if you just see the old one you may never experience the true magic of Teribithia.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The acting is generally pretty weak. The dialog was also apparently dubbed in after the filming, so it just doesn't come across well. What do you want for a TV movie?

Annette O'toole was OK; there were a few strong lines from the parent of the queen.

Otherwise, these kids weren't quite up to it. Didn't impress my kids either.

On the upside, it is only an hour long. Considering that, it got through plot and character development in a creditable fashion. The settings and cinematography are OK too.

Some other viewers may like it for sentimental reasons.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This year's Eurovision was to me a big disappointment. I've watched the Eurovision Song Contest every year since 1986 (well, at least that's the earliest one I can remember, and I was only 2 at the time). As any other year this one contained both good, bad and horrible songs - nothing new there. However this year's show was the worst one I can remember. Only very few good (decent's probably more like it) songs and a lot of absolutely terrible songs.

Turkey's winner song \"Every Way That I Can\" sounded to me like a rip-off of Turkish singer Tarkan's hit \"Simarik\", just sounding a lot worse. It didn't deserve to win from my point of view. Belgium's song \"Sanomi\", coming in second, was a no-language song. Wonder what's next? Animals singing? Nevertheless the music for the song was quite catchy, giving the song a kind of dreamy feeling, to which the \"lyrics\" seemed appropriate. One of the better songs, but that's not saying much.

After one of the closest races in Eurovision history Russian duo t.A.T.u. ended in third place just three points behind Turkey and behind Belgium, with \"Ne Ver', Ne Boisia\" (\"Don't Trust, Don't Be Afraid\"). To me t.A.T.u. was one of the very few highlights of the show, surprising just about everyone by being some of the most covered up girls of all the female contestants. They let their song do the talking and if we ignore the fact that they failed to pitch a few times in the first chorus, they let the song speak very well indeed.

The biggest surprise when looking at the scoreboard was Austria. The bookmakers here in Denmark had the biggest odds on that song - a song that indeed was beyond horrible - but ended up in 8th place. Could it be that bum of his being shaken to the rhythm of the song? That performance was the one that made me and my family laugh the most, not because it looked good, but because it looked so stupid that it was actually fun.

Sweden did what they do the best; ABBA. In 1999 they won with \"Take Me To Your Heaven\", by sounding like ABBA. In 2001 they made the top 10 with \"Listen To Your Heartbeat\", again sounding like ABBA, and once again this year they did it ABBA-style, again ending in the top 10.

England was finally punished for making those absolutely horrible, non-catching songs, that they've been the past years.

Ireland ripped off the winner from 2000, \"Fly On The Wings Of Love\". And I could go on and on about how bad the songs were.

I feel a bit sorry for the Aussies, who this year finally got the chance to see the Eurovision Song Contest. They deserved better than this.

I wasn't surprised by the show though. The Eurovision from 2000 to me stands out as one of the best in recent years. 2001 was quite good, but not as good. 2002 was okay, but certainly no more. This year was quite simply disappointing.

Let's hope it'll get better next year. If not for us, then at least for the Aussies.

4\/10. One for t.A.T.u., one for the close race, one for the butt-shaking and one for all the rest.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tom is about to tuck into a delicious Jerry sandwich when a huge bird of prey swoops down and flies off with his snack. Not at all happy with having his sarnie stolen right from under his nose, Tom takes off in hot pursuit, determined to retrieve his mousy morsel.

As much as I love Tom and Jerry, I have got to say that this one is a bit of a stinker: the story is rather mundane; it introduces a badly conceived peripheral character that lacks charm; and it flogs the old 'dress the cartoon character up as a woman' gag to death.

In my opinion, 'Flirty Birdy' rivals 'Fraidy Cat' and 'Mouse in Manhattan' for the title of weakest Tom and Jerry caper thus far.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I heard the film was to be released and the theme of what it was about, I felt very curious. But when I saw it was the biggest deception of my life. Technically speaking, the sound is poor, you can tell about man dialogs that were remade on studio that are poorly achieved in the final mix. Secondo of all, the photography is mediocre, some part of the films show some soldiers with night vision goggles, and the way the cinematographer achieves that \"dark night\" is by illuminated everything like if they were in an actual military base with lights, there's no reference used of the moonlight, my god! Thir but not least, most of the ac tings are really poor, it's totally not believable the roll of the wife of one of the soldier, her performance it's pretty poor.

Great disappointing, shame of the jury who chose to send this movie to represent Colombia on the Oscars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a mess of a movie! If it wasnt for Eric Roberts and Susan Sarandon's performances ,this movie would be a total waste! A very muddled plot and phony dialogue.Eric Roberts debut....where did his career go from this movie on?Nowhere but down!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't particularly like Sliding Doors or Twice Upon a Yesterday, so I certainly didn't this poor second-rate excuse for those films. An idea that's been done to death (what would happen if...?) and the script is shoddy and unsuccessful, not to mention the obvious attempt at adding sex\/nudity simply to gain an R rating and certain scenes that just weren't necessary but were there to push the boundaries (I really don't need to see a kid urinating or a struggle with a diaphragm. Especially when they have absolutely no connection to or use in the film).

The acting was also very poor, the only actor I found the least bit satisfying was her daughter; the rest were two-dimensional and quite unbelievable. The people I watched this with left the room about halfway through; I managed to finish it, but not without fast forwarding through part of it.

Overall: Nothing new here, it's a generic and boring film. The few rather amusing moments are far outweighed by the silly or stupid ones. This would be dull even if it hadn't been done before. If it weren't such a rehash I'd rate it a five, but even for an Indie film this was severely lacking, and as a rehash it loses on originality as well: 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, this movie wasn't as horrible as I thought it would be. I was expecting to give it one star. I chose to give it three. Why? Well, for a cheesy horror\/sci-fi movie, it's not all that bad. Sure the characters are tacky (as is their acting - including a young Leonardo DiCaprio), the effects cheap looking, and the monsters...well let's just say that I've seen some more effective Halloween costumes in Elementary Schools... But there was something about this movie that made me watch it till the end. A little bit of humor helped out a bit I guess. And if you ever wanted to see an alien pass gas, this movie will let you live your dream. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Basically the first two Critters movie were already silly ones but in a good and entertaining way. This movie is way more of a B-movie, that is silly but for all of the wrong reasons.

This is the first sequel that doesn't really follows the plot of the first two movies. Basically all of the characters are new and there are no bounty hunters this time (well, as good as none, since the bounty hunter in this movie shows up far too late) and the budget for this one obviously went down again. To save even more costs, the movie got shot back-to-back with part 4, which I imaging will be just as bad, since it directly follows this movie and got made by the same people involved as with this one.

It's just a typical B-genre movie, that doesn't really have any originality in it or brings entertainment. It makes \"Critters 3\" a real redundant sequel, you can easily do without. Granted that things could had been way worse for this movie but it just ain't exactly a good one either. The movie just falls flat as a science-fiction\/horror\/comedy.

Also kind of strange to notice how the Critters has suddenly changed in this one. They are about double their usual size this time, without giving an explanation for that and they are even more Gremlins like in this movie than was the case in the previous one.

The movie is only made interesting because this was the feature film debut of Leonardo DiCaprio. He was about 17 in this movie and of course looking baby-faced like he still does now. I like watching this well known actors in their early roles. It's fun to see how they act and if their style has improved and changed over the years. Of course DiCaprio got only better but he already was kind of delivering his lines in the same way as he does these days.

Really a too silly and lame movie.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Critters 3 starts on the open road as Clifford (John Calvin) his teenage daughter Annie (Aimee Brooks) & his young son Johnny (the IMDb list two actor's Christian & Josephh Cousins, identical twins perhaps?) are heading back home from a vacation. Suddenly the tyre on their van blows & they have to stop at a public rest area to fix it. While there Annie & Johnny meet a kid named Josh (Leonardo DiCaprio, yes that one) who in turn all run into Charlie McFadden (the films co-producer Don Keith Opper) from the previous two Critter films. Charlie tells them the story of the Critters & the town of Grovers Bend but they don't believe him. Meanwhile back at the van a Critter lays some eggs on it's underside, out of sight from everyone. Once Clifford has fixed the tyre the trio set off for their home, a run down urban tenement block in Los Angeles somewhere complete with Critter eggs along for the ride. Upon arrival the eggs hatch & the Critters head straight inside the tenement block quickly disposing of Frank (Geoffrey Blake), the caretaker. As the night draws on the few remaining residents, a fat woman named Rosalie (Diana Bellamy), a telephone repair woman Marsha (Katherine Cortez), an elderly couple Mr. (Bill Zuckert) & Mrs. Menges (Frances Bay) must come together with Clifford & his kids to fight the Critters. Josh also makes an appearance as his Stepfather (William Dennis Hunt) owns the building. But will the group be able to defeat the Critters & prevent themselves from becoming dinner?

Directed Kristine Peterson I thought Critters 3 was an incredibly undistinguished film, but at least she can say she made a film staring Leonardo DiCaprio & not many people can say that! The budget for Critters 3 probably wasn't exactly a fortune as the whole production looks cheap throughout, there are very few characters, very few Critters & I think only 3 ever appear in the same shot at once & it does away with any sort of space angle so there are no expensive spaceship or distant alien planet special effects to pay for. The script by David J. Schow is strictly by-the-numbers & very predictable. A group of humans are stuck in an isolated situation with Critters & have no means of contacting the outside world for help, that plot scenario sounds very familiar right? Well it's same as the previous Critters (1986) & Critters 2: The Main Course (1988) & many other horror films so it should. Critters 3 does nothing with the premise, it never even tries to add anything to an already old, tired & well used storyline. Critters 3 is also very tame for a horror film with only two people actually being killed, the comedy elements are seriously lacking as well with the best joke Critters 3 can mange being a Critter eating some beans & then farting, very funny if your about 5 years old. The characters are mostly standard horror film clich\u00e9s & quickly became annoying. There is virtually no blood or gore in Critters 3 at all, just a few splashes of blood & disappointingly Critters 3 in fact seems to go out of it's way not to show any violence. The special effects on the Critters are OK but they still look like static, simplistic hand-puppets that have very little movement. The acting isn't that good & Critters 3 happens to be a certain Leonardo DiCaprio's very first feature film, to be fair to the kid he's alright & I wonder if any of the other cast or crew had an idea what he go on to become. Why on Earth does that Charlie guy have to keep popping up in these Critter films? To give Critters 3 some credit it moves along at a good pace & isn't boring, it's generally well made with nice enough production values & it's a bit of harmless fun if your in the right sort of mood & thankfully it only lasts for about 80 odd minutes. Overall Critters 3 is an OK time waster but don't expect anything deep or meaningful. There's nothing really wrong with it as cheap horror film but I couldn't help feeling that I'd seen it all before. An average time-waster that isn't as good as either of the previous two Critter films. Critters 3 ends with a 'to be continued...' as this was filmed back to back with Critters 4 (1991) which unsurprisingly went straight to video, probably to save even more money. Critters 3 is a decent enough way to waste 80 odd minutes if you can watch it on T.V. for free otherwise don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sadly, this movie is not very good. But does it really matter ? We all know the basics for the story, and this has nothing new. But I love low budget horror & sci fic camp classics ... so I forgive this one. About thew only thing that anyone remember from this movie, is that little Leonardo DiCaprio made his debut in it.

He did OK. The part didn't ask for great acting skills, and the direction probably never gave him any chance of providing one anyway ... Little Leonardo DiCaprio was very cute ... and so was the girl. The movie is fun, if you like horror & sci fic camp classics and are experienced in watching them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*Spoilers - sorry!* The first word that sprung to mind whilst watching the film is 'Gremlins'. It's the only critters movie I have seen from the four movies, but I enjoyed it. It wasn't too complicated as I hadn't seen the past two, but I thought it was quite a good movie all the same.

Critters starts with a man, his son and daughter stopping off on the way to a vacation (although it turns out that they end up at their own home - which I have no idea what the hell went on) The girl meets up with a boy (played by Leo DiCaprio) and they go hang out in a nearby forest. They meet this weird guy who tells them to be careful and stuff because of the critters. He seems a bit psychotic and if I was in that situation, I would not speak to him. The critters steal a ride of the girl and boy's car and end up in their flat thing. They hide out in the basement and end up killing this lazy jerk. They then nearly kill this fat woman and the girl's dad. They are chased higher and higher up the flat until they hide in the attic. The critters eat stuff in the kitchen (Spoof of the gremlins kitchen scene???!) And I can't remember (not a good thing) but I'm sure they have to go back for something\/someone. Anyway they end up getting out and saved. The psychotic guy comes back and before he kills the last two critters he is told he can't because they are endangered and so he sends them home.

The ending was disappointing and I was annoyed that only the lazy guy died as there were quite a few annoying characters I would personally have killed off. It's a thrilling, exciting movie worth a watch. But, if you're looking for a better version of this genre I recommend the gremlins movies. Sorry!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

As a fan of bad movies (and MST3K, and a member of MFT3K), I must say I've seen my share of them. But geez! Even the worst I've seen at least had a soundtrack. As George Lazenby stiffly wanders around Hong Kong, doing who knows what, you can guarantee that you won't be distracted by any of that background music that fills todays cinema. Or any of that music that fills elevators. I don't think anyone in this film even hums.

Now, this isn't entirely true -- there *is* a sound track. if you listen closely, you will hear it chime in about a half-dozen times through the course of the film. Of course, the timing will be entirely inappropriate, and it doesn't last very long, but something that could be classified as \"music\" does occur. Your best bet, though, is to sit your toddler armed with a wooden spoon down in front of the TV with a collection of pots and pans while you watch. The rhythm and flow would be better than anything the film offers.

Keep an eye out for Sammo Hung as a minor villian in this film. Aren't we all glad he found Jackie Chan to work with?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My first question, is NOT about the horrible acting, NOT about the horrendous writing, it is the directing. The choices that were made about the cinematography are some of this worst decisions I have ever seen. Why does EVERY single bad guy have to die in slow motion? I was about to beat myself with a rubber hose. The camera shots make it so that you can't see whats going on. I was JUST about to turn the movie off because of Jalal Merhi's accent, when it made it to the sex scene, so I thought it might get better, well it did not. If you rate special effects on an A,B,C rating scale, I would have to put it around a W or so, and did I mention the acting? Wow, was it bad!!! And the WORST part of the entire \"Expect to DIE\" experience, is the blatant misuse of the phrase on the cover, which is: \"THE MATRIX JUST GOT DEADLIER\". comparing this movie to the Matrix is easily the WORST comparison I have EVER seen. If you haven't seen this movie, Don't, unless you are looking for a good reason to beat your head against the wall.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the wake of the matrix this travesty of a film with loose connections to VR has been reissued with the tag-line \"The Matrix just got Deadler!\", in a box with a very Matrix inspired cover (still called \"Expect to Die\" though). Due to the choice of font however the tag-line looks to all the world like it says \"Beablier\". Anyway.

To complete the transformation to Matrix wannabe they have mocked up a VR fight scene with a Morpheus-a-like on the back of the box. It may be important to know that this character DOES NOT FEATURE IN THE FILM.

Overall this film is a travesty on every level. Jalal Mehri is an awful actor and does not impress with his martial arts. However his partner Stone is played by Evan Lurie, who in this film is simply the worst actor I have ever seen. Clearly he was chosen to make Jalal look good in comparison. Worst film I have seen for a long long time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"They must be. I'll list them so that you can check them off one-by-one:

- Police regularly leave tens of millions of dollars of cash and drugs just lying around, because they don't have evidence facilities.

- When you get shot, you always grunt the same way, and fly back the same way, even though there's never a mark on your body.

- Police are not able to identify the sound of gun shots, and don't think anything is suspicious when an undercover policewoman's phone call during a high-level drug-and-money deal is cut shot by that gun shot.

- Bad guy gunmen can hit mannequins with one shot, but can't hit a big, bulky martial artist with 100.

- If you rocket launcher a car in a car park, the next three cars in a line will blow up evenly in 15 second intervals.

- Further to the last point, all the cheap cars are always parked next to each other.

- The smoke that is caused from the firing of the rocket launcher is much greater than the amount of smoke caused by four cars blowing up.

- Virtual reality games that are a long, long way ahead of anything any other gaming company can produce fit on five floppy disks.

- Virtual reality games that are a long, long way ahead of anything any other gaming company can produce have graphics that look like Windows 3.1 screen-savers.

- Floppy disks can be read even after they've been shot up.

- Semi-drunk guys in bars attentively watch the news when they're at the pub, and have a deep understanding of American modern military history, Agent Orange, and the family trees of high-ranking military officials. However, they're only able to articulate their points using dialogue that sounds silly coming from anyone over the age of seven.

- Even though fights appear to break out almost hourly in a bar, that bar has only one staff worker, who both pours the beers and handles security. Of course he knows martial arts.

- Gold medal Olympians regularly make the simple transition to corporate CEOs of software companies in a matter of years.

- A woman who works for a computer game company knows everything about how to beat a game she's never played, raves constantly about her competitor's great games, and can rattle off facts and figures regarding her company's rivals - but she didn't know that they overtook almost all the other companies in the field in large corporate mergers.

- Bad guys always die in slow motion. Always.

- Wives tell their husbands that they're pregnant by raving about their man's bravery in killing bad guys.

- Wives do large amounts of their husband's police work; this might explain why she whines and complains so much every time he has to go to work. Although, it doesn't explain why she adores him so much every time he gets up in the morning and she can read about his murderous escapades.

- It's fairly typical for a police officer to be involved in kidnappings, kill tons of people on three separate occasions and stop a variety of multi-million dollar illegal deals in a week.

- When trying to lose a car that's following you, it's wise to continue driving under the speed limit. And if you're following a cop, subtlety is not important - you can tailgate him for miles, then park right next to him. He won't notice.

- All cops are experienced martial artists.

- It is possible to kick a guy four metres in distance.

- People scream or grunt in pain when they are punched or kick, yet when they have their arm broken, they don't make a sound.

- Bad guys clean their bloodied axes with their handkerchiefs, and then leave them in their pocket for many days.

- Pieces of wood, when swung with one sharp blow, shatter sturdy ladders in six or more places simultaneously.

- The photo, and listed special features on the back of the DVD case don't necessarily have to be on the DVD. The advertised interactive menus? Why not no menu at all! The advertised scene index? Why not have the whole thing as one scene\/chapter, and not need an index! Likewise, it's OK to use The Matrix's font and title in the tag-line, and not be a rip-off in any way.

With all of this, I'm in shock that 12 out of the 15 top credited actors never acted again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, Jeez, I don't even know where to begin commenting on this thing they called a movie. I seriously don't know what the hell David Bradley began smoking after making Hard Justice, which in my opinion, was quite a good movie after the American Ninja features. I hadn't seen any of this guy's latter movies after Cyborg Cop. Lucky I saw them on Amazon for like 5 pounds each and I can safely say the following: if I had thrown down the drain the 5 pounds I spent on Total Reality, Crisis and Expect to Die, I would have ended up happier than having to sit through the 90 minutes that each of them lasted. My God, how the HECK can anybody label these as \"movies\" ??? And why do action\/martial arts actors fall knee-deep into the smelliest horse-dung when they've like reached their peak?? I mean, David Bradley's no Oscar deserver but his first movies were pretty entertaining. Tough, cool guy with pretty good martial expertise who delivered corny lines but at least entertained action and martial arts fans to a certain extent. But I seriously would love to know what went through this guy's head after making Hard Justice. His final 3 movies have to frankly be the WORST I have ever had to sit through. As I mentioned before, I'd love to get my money back on the 3 DVDs I bought. Crisis was the epitome of sleepiness, Total Reality was harsh but this Expect to Die is just utter nonsense. I bet the director was either mega-stoned when he made this or he was just taking the pee out of every David Bradley fan who would sit through this heap of crap. The plot circles around a doctor (Bradley) who develops some type of Virtual Reality game in which he's just killing different people off one by one. Sorry but I just couldn't take this guy seriously playing a baddie with that posh hair-do, glasses and gray slacks and doing absolutely NO physical fighting whatsoever (frankly, his best asset). The film is even worse than any of those Saturday afternoon B-movies because the acting is laughable, the directing is horrendous and the few fights in the movie, well, what can I say... The actors look like they're training with their gym buddy. We get a dumb muscular cop who starts to show off his fighting stuff like one hour into the movie and fails heavily... a french hairy version of Van Damme who just can't fight, act or speak to save his freaking life and Bradley, the supposed protagonist, playing the evil doctor who I was really happy for when he stopped making this type of expendable rubbish. I even reckon he didn't throw a kick in this movie probably due to his heart condition already playing up on him. For a B-actor, I must admit I really liked this guy, his style, physique, fighting skills... But I'm really, really glad he stopped acting after this monstrosity because I honestly wouldn't have been able to sit through another ninety minutes of pee-taking material like this one. Avoid at all costs even if you're family of David Bradley, you'll be glad you did, word.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Purchased this film for one dollar and figured I could never go wrong, my big mistake was watching it. Enjoyed the acting of Ice-T and the rapping which gave lots of class to this film about Los Angeles and the world of pimps. There is a boxer who kills one of his opponents in a practice ring and who has a career, but because of mental problems from childhood and the killing of this other boxer he retires. He gets hired by a pimp who is looking for a bodyguard to protect the girls that work for him at their trade and make sure they are not beaten up. This boxer falls in love with the boss's girlfriend and all kinds of trouble starts. This is entertaining and it then becomes a big laughing comedy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie from my local library and thought it might be good considering I like this type of movie and considering who was in it but boy was I wrong. The acting stunk, the fight scenes were just as bad and they got a couple of known people to be in it but didn't cast anyone with acting ability to play the lead? I noticed some people gave it a 10. Why would you ever consider giving this pile of horse **** a 10. You can say it's worth a 10 for the sheer comedy of it but when you vote on a movie that's not supposed to be a comedy you can't give it a 10 for comedy. You have to rate it on what it was supposed to actually be like and not for something the director wasn't intending. Maybe some of you voted 10 cause you thought it would be funny to have this crappy movie have a high rating so that people would go out and rent or buy it cause you think it's fun to mislead people. You're playing with peoples time and money which you have no right to do. If the movie sucked give it a bad rating if it was good give it a good rating but don't lie. I gave this movie a 4 and am glad that I was able to check this out for free from my library cause this movie sucked and really isn't worth paying a cent to see.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you would like to watch an example of how not to make a film, then you need to watch this. I, myself, with no film making experience could do better. The script is laughable with a weak plot and there is no effort to be seen for any intelligent structure. In order to make up for this flaw, you would think the action would be decent, wouldn't you?

As the acting, editing and overall piecing together of the film is appalling the only saving grace is the dreadful performance by the lead actor. The reason why he is the saving grace, is because he is so genuinely bad at acting, that he should win an Oscar for it. At least some recognition for making me laugh at him so much.

Toss in a dead woman's body after an all male shoot out (where did she come from?), pull the semi automatic trigger tens of times while the soundman pulls off two gunshot effects, reflection of the camera crew in Kool Mo Dee's shades, one and only ONE music track for the WHOLE film, an unoriginal script that has no logic; is a perfect recipe for a really, really bad film. Its actually more fun spotting the errors than actually trying to find something positive. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Last night, I got bored and decided to watch a movie called 'out kold' which I had once bought with a whole lot of other cheap movies from a videostore. Seemed like a good old action movie, so I took out the chips and coke and was ready for a relaxing evening. Well, the pain started right from the beginning. The main character is a boxer who is the nicest guy I have ever seen. As the good person he has to be nice of course, but he is just a pussy! That totally doesn't fit with a boxer that has 28 KO's and starts working for a pimp to earn some extra money. Even nice guys can still be cool. Well, then came his first fight while he was working for this pimp. Every punch was clearly missed and that became even more annoying because the sound effect weren't synchronised with the punches. Then there is this totally worthless acting of the whole cast, and you have enough reasons to leave this movie for what it is. I gave it a 1 because I have never seen such a bad movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad, a lot a crap. It copied simone, also a bad movie! Them flips when \"loretta modern\" sang was lame. That internet scenes made it worse. And Roscoe loves a \"hologram\"! Thats plain stupid! I give 0 stars! Because they copied, the plot was stupid, THE WHOLE MOVIE WAS THUMBS DOWN ALL THE WAY!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Completely ridiculous. The story is bad. The animations are completely childish and displaced. The physics of the holograms are hilarious from how much they are completely wrong. OMG, I even wanna believe that this film has Disney label on it. Yuck. The actresses are somewhat beautiful, but there are so many good films with astonishing actresses that are far more valuable to see than this one. Final remark, bad film. Don't bother to watch it. If you're looking for films to see with your kids consider other alternatives like Ratattuile, Monster Inc or an Enchanted Story (on theaters). Seriously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not sure who should be blamed for this debacle - in truth, the acting isn't too bad and the story isn't as terrible as some made-for-Disney movies have been. The story itself is shallow and undeveloped but that isn't surprising in a film of this type. The acting is more than a bit two-dimensional, but I give the actors credit for managing to do anything with the material that they had to work with.

However, it's inexcusable, in my book, to base an entire storyline on the theory that they've created a 'perfect' pop star and then cast an actress who can't sing to save her life. If the girl can't sing, have someone who can record the music!

This actress is a TERRIBLE singer - she was so flat she was usually singing in a totally different key!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This pathetic excuse for a movie doesn't have a decent structure or a sensible closure. The characters were confusing and the entire plot kept getting off track. I'd have to say that Pixel Perfect was a disgrace. This is what happens when you let Disney channel make movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Gene Hackman is a former Marine Corps colonel who musters a handful of private Vietnam vets to go back to Laos and rescue some Americans who have been listed as missing in action. Hackman suspects that, in actuality, the half-dozen or so MIAs are secretly being held in a remote camp by Laotians to be tormented and to provide more hard labor. Hackman is being paid by the wealthy Robert Stack, whose son, like Hackman's son, is thought to be among the MIAs. But the circumstances are such that Hackman can only manage to buy old and out-dated weapons, though he manages to pick up the help of a fervid anti-communist Loatian and his two daughters along the way.

I don't think the movie was deliberately concocted to endorse the myth of the Vietnames still holding our MIAs for propaganda purposes. The myth was real enough. If anyone remembers, there were many bumper stickers in 1982 and 1983, BRING BACK THE MIAs. I think, instead, that the film was made partly in order to cash in on the myth. It was absurd on the face of it. Why would our former enemy refuse to return MIAs? Propaganda? Where is the propaganda value in something that's kept secret? To add the labor supply? They need a hundred extra laborers in Vietnam and Laos? The motives behind this movie -- with its triumphant music and high body count -- were scurrilous.

But how about the movie itself? Stripped of its theme of rescuing mythical mistreated MIAs, it's a routine paramilitary actioner, no better and no worse than dozens of others that appeared in the 1980s. Gene Hackman's performance is the only one that manages to keep its head above water. He's just about always reliable.

Of the others, this being a formulaic plot, derived from \"The Dirty Dozen\" among others, I kept trying to guess which of the gang would sacrifice themselves for the mission. Of the three anti-communist Asians, I figured one or more were dead meat. That's why Asian helpers appear in movies like this. (I was right two times out of three.) I also figured Patrick Swayzie as the rookie ex-officer, the youngest of the group, who'd never \"earned the respect\" of the others because he'd never seen combat, would also have to go in some heroic mode. Wrong. He becomes a hero, true, but survives intact. I thought there was a fifty-fifty chance that Hackman would have to go too, but he makes it out okay. The formula doesn't really stretch for originality either. Charles Bronson's claustrophobic POW escapee from \"The Great Escape\" is here in Fred Ward's ex tunnel rat, a claustrophobe who is forced to crawl through a drainage pipe with a snake inside it, so that he can do a recon on the Laotian POW camp.

The title, \"Uncommon Valor,\" is from a tribute that Admiral Nimitz made to the men on Iwo Jima -- \"Uncommon valor was common that day.\" Nimitz was certainly right about that. Whether or not the men who fought in Vietnam were all equally valorous is remote from the point. Anyone who saw combat or even came near it, putting their lives on the line for the guys in the line next to them, were heroic enough. This movie, and the way it exploits our bitterness about the Vietnam war, doesn't really do them justice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know these types of films sell tickets and make a profit for the film makers but it just won't do as a film about Vietnam. Viet Nam was filled with horrors for the men who lived it day in and day out.

This film stars Gene Hackman who is Korean war vet assigned to train a group of rag-tag Viet Nam Vets for a return trip to that country to rescue a group of American POW's held at a camp there. These men include a former tunnel rat, a crazy acid dropping sailor, a blond tanned surfer from California and some inexperienced kid (Patrick Swayze) who just so happens had a dad that was killed in Nam. They train first at some camp in Texas and once in Nam they are found out and lose all their weapons. They are able to find replacement weapons and continue on their way to free the captured men. Most of the men are found and saved but the rag-tag group is mostly wiped out.

This movie played like a video game in which you could figure out what was going to happen next and who would pop out of behind what bush, and who was going to die and who was going to live. Viet Nam I'm guessing was not like a video game....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"But to be a little more precise I do not think that it is as bad as it actually could be. Eventhough the actors (famous to semi-famous) didn't do a very great job. Directors fault? Could be the script as well hard for me to say? Anyway, if you are after a lot of cool guns and action this is not the movie for you but they do run around with a lot of ww2 vintage guns. Sort of fun :) Well I guess I could say more but it just doesn't feel as if it's worth it. If you are desperate enough or a Hackman freak see it otherwise don't!

Live well and prosper","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe our standards for Vientam movies have increased since Born on the Fourth Of July, Full Metal Jacket, and Platoon. This movie has a predictable plot, bad writing, bad acting, bad directing, bad special effects, etc. Compared with other Vietnam movies this one is completely unbelievable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is sad to have to say that a film is truly awful and one tries to find ways around saying this. However, this is a dreadful film. Gene Hackman wastes time (and one suspects, many dollars) on re-playing his most famous, and oft recreated, role as \"Gene Hackman\". Otherwise, television actors are given the chance to become film stars, and successfully, resist the temptation. Patrick Swayze has a minor part and went on to greater things, for which he must be eternally thankful.

I watched this film, as a result of someone else's review and I felt that another point of view was merited. You may not agree with my review but now, at least, you have been warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Disappointing comedy-drama with sentimental coating has Michael J. Fox ideally cast as a former child star who now runs a talent agency for thespian tots; Nathan Lane and Cyndi Lauper are his assistants. This all sounds as if it can't miss, however too much of the scenario is given over to strident Christina Vidal as a streetwise tyke whom Fox believes will be the next big thing. They lock quickly lock heads, and the bantering dialogue takes them back and forth to an uninteresting, formula finish. Fox and Lane are both appealing, but the energy of the early scenes gives way to treacle. Slickly produced, but ultimately stale. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This isn't a bad movie. It's fun to watch for the first time. However it has absolutely no replay value at all. When you try to watch it again it gets so boring you have to turn it off. I give this movie a 6 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so incredibly boring, Michael J. Fox could've done so much better. Sorry, but it's true for all you people who liked the movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has got to be one of the all-time lows of Michael J. Fox's generally respectable career. I should have known how awful this movie was when I rented it and found the movie only half viewed and not rewound by the previous renter. Never a good sign! Fox plays a grown up child star who's now an agent for other show business kids. His character is delusional in that he still believes that everyone should love him for being Mikey. His big break comes when he meets Angie Vega, a talented child. Vega is abrasive and not at all likeable. In fact, the only likeable character in the whole movie is Cyndi Lauper as a Brooklyn accented receptionist for the agency. One of those movies that makes me want to stick a post-it note to the box warning others not to waste their time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yet another cookie-cutter movie about a hardened adult who meets an adorable, street-smart kid (Cop and 1\/2, Gloria, etc). And once again, it is not funny or interesting, for anyone to watch - kids or adults. I'm sure some people might find this movie amusing, but I have no earthly idea why. Once again, I feel sorry for the poor kids who were forced to work in this movie, so that everyone else and their parents could make some bucks at the price of a cheesy cheesy movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another sadistic and ultra-sleazy late 70's\/early 80's revenge movie?? Wes Craven sure launched a popular trend with his \"Last House on the Left\" Although \"Terror Express\" is more like a rip-off of other rip-offs, like \"I Spit on your Grave\" and especially \"Night Train Murders\". Storywise, this movie has absolutely nothing new to offer so the only thing left to do for director Ferdinando Baldi was to multiply the sleaze-factor by a thousand! This is actually just a soft core porn flick that gets a little bit rough near the ending. On the night train from Rome are three hopelessly imbecile loser running amok. They provoke the male travelers and sexually harass the females. Things get a little out of control and a traveling convict comes to the rescue of a prostitute who keeps being screwed around by the three. This is a very tame movie and there wasn't even enough budget to buy a couple bags of fake blood. This type of movies is generally infamous for the brutal rape sequences and the discriminating behavior towards women, but the sex in \"Terror Express\" isn't unsettling at all. On the contrary, these 'rapists' spend more time orally pleasuring their victims then getting some themselves! The music is great, the dialogs are unintentionally hilarious and the characters are the most ridiculous ones I ever beheld. The villains are wimps and the train-passengers are so motionless they look like part of the set. If you like your exploitation as sleazy as it gets, this is your film. However, your hunger for blood and controversy will definitely not be stilled. \"Terror Express\" should be in the porn-section of videostores.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The unpleasant \"home invasion\" genre can be traced back to Wes Craven's early sleazefest \"Last House On The Left\", with such nasty off-shoots as \"I Spit On Your Grave\", \"Wrong Way\" and \"The Visitors\" soon following in the footsteps of that film. Here, in this early '80s Italian offering the same plot is regurgitated once more, with the twist being that this one is set on a continental train. \"La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto\" \u0096 known in English-speaking countries as \"Terror Express\" \u0096 starts out surprisingly well but about twenty minutes in it takes a turn for the worse, as the sex scenes start to gain precedence over the more serious action and suspense.

David, Phil and Ernie, three rich youths who wallow in terrorising and humiliating others, board a trans-continental express in Italy. The train is full of other passengers, among them prostitute Juliette (Silvia Dionisio) who rides the train frequently and has struck up a deal with one of the porters to act as a kind of pimp, persuading the male passengers to part with their cash for a night of passion in her sleeping compartment. The three cretins quickly set about upsetting the passengers with their aggressive, drunken behaviour, but matters get more serious when they seize control of an entire car on the express and barricade themselves in from the rest of the train. Pretty soon, they are revelling in their temporary control\u0085. a young wife (Zora Kerova) is raped by two of the youths in a cramped compartment; Juliette herself is subjected to a prolonged sexual assault; and later the odious trio force the male passengers to role a dice in order to decide which one will rape a 16 year old virgin travelling with her parents (a concept made doubly tasteless by the fact that her father is one of the men forced to play the game). The only passenger who seems prepared to fight back is a convict who is being escorted to Germany, but what hope does one man have against three armed thugs?

La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto gets off to a decent start. Various intriguing characters are introduced, and the three hoodlums are shown to have a genuinely unsettling influence over the travellers. Though the story is clearly the stuff of exploitation, the opening scenes are built up carefully and the film seems to be rising above the usual gutter-level of its genre. Things fall apart during a horrid scene in which Kerova is sex-sandwiched in a toilet compartment by two of the thugs. The scene is gloatingly filmed, and the effect does not seem to be to generate sympathy for the victim or hatred towards the perpetrators\u0085 instead, we are being asked to feel turned on. This is sensationalism at its worst. Further humiliating rapes follow, but the rape sequences involve too much lingering camera work over acts of oral sex and the female genitalia. One sequence featuring the 16 year old girl teeters on the brink of hard core and feels particularly \"wrong\". By the end of La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto it is easy to forget that it was intended as a thriller, for the final hour of the film is dedicated to pornography rather than suspense. Lovers of sleaze will revel in it; others might want to look elsewhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've got to say, I'm a big fan of these 'Last House on the Left' rip-offs, even the ones that most people seem to hate are often held in relatively high esteem by me; but one of these sorts of films that I didn't like much was Aldo Lado's 'Night Train Murders', and unfortunately it would seem that trains and The Last House on the Left don't mix, as Terror Express is another lacklustre rip-off. Something that this sort of film really needs is a resoundingly nasty lead character; and while Terror Express offers up three potential candidates, not one of them steps up and becomes this villain, leaving the lacking in the most important area. It actually gets off to a good start as three young men on a passenger train begin slightly irritating the guests on board. This leads the audience to believe that there is more in store, but unfortunately it never really gets going once the scene has been set. From there, the trio end up 'taking over' the train and use their new found power to terrorise the guests and rape the women.

It has to be said that there's a fair amount of sleaze in this film, which will be pleasing to many viewers; but there's hardly any blood. Director Ferdinando Baldi seemed to think that he could get away with replacing the blood with sex scenes, and he may have gotten away with it too; if he could film a brutal sex scene. The idea that these men have taken the train by force goes out of the window once it gets to the sex, as the people that you would expect to be powerful and forceful seem all too keen to show their women a good time, and despite one very tame 'sandwich' sequence, none of the sex is particularly interesting. Since a lot of the film is taken up by these sex scenes, this becomes a massive problem. Films like this are often lacking in style, suspense and credibility; but you know you're watching a bad one when it's boring you. As you might expect, none of the acting is up to anything; and the central three in particular stand out for being rubbish. The direction is lacking in style, and there's very little tension or suspense; making it difficult to care what is going to happen. Overall, this is a pretty crappy example of an exploitation film, and I can't recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"La Ragazza del Vagone Letto, or Terror Express! as it was called on the version I saw, starts as various passengers board a long distance train. Three thuggish idiots, Dave, Phil & Ernie (Carlo De Mejo) board & it's clear that they're there to cause trouble as they intimidate & verbally abuse the other passengers & staff. As the train speeds along things turn nasty when a prostitute named Juliette (Silvia Dionisio) refuses to have sex with Dave, he & his mates decide to hold the entire train hostage so they can have an orgy with Juliette &, well not much else actually happens apart from some hero cop & his prisoner who set about saving the day. Erm, that's it really...

This Italian production was directed by Ferdinando Baldi & is complete total & utter crap from start to finish. The script by George Eastman as Luigi Montefiori could just as easily be described as a really boring porno as much as a horror\/thriller. It is tediously slow, it's 35 minutes before anything even remotely sleazy happens & as a whole the film lacks the sort of exploitation elements that Italian sleaze & horror was delivering at that time. The film can be compared to another Italian production the infinitely better The House on the Edge of the Park (1980) made the same year, it's a very broad comparison though as everything that made The House on the Edge of the Park the notorious film that it is is absent from La Ragazza del Vagone Letto, there's no blood, no gore, almost no violence, there's only a couple of really tame rapes, the story has no twists or turns & as it's incredibly boring to watch. Italian sleaze & horror from the late 70's & early 80's isn't known for it's strong story lines or great scripts but this films really does scrape the bottom-of-the-barrel on all counts. The character's are awful, the film spends the first 30 plus minutes building them up & giving some background as to why they're on the train but this is all quickly forgotten & comes to absolutely nothing. I hated the lame ending as well & I don't know if I missed something but was any sort of reasonable explanation given as to why these three lamebrains would hijack a train? I don't think there was, was there? I'm sorry but because your angry at a prostitute is not enough of a reason, surely the filmmakers could have come up with something a bit more substantial & interesting if not more plausible. In my opinion this film stinks, it's as simple & straight forward as that I'm afraid.

Director Baldi does an OK job, to be fair he only has one corridor & a few train compartments to work with so I'll cut him some slack, having said that the film does become very repetitive. There is no style & he films the sex scenes like a bad soft core porno complete with awful romantic sounding piano music. There is NOT ONE SINGLE DROP OF BLOOD SPILT IN THE ENTIRE FILM, that's right not one single drop. Forget about any gore or violence as you'll be very disappointed if you do, like I did. There are a couple of rapes but they're amateurishly staged & have zero impact, the nasty exploitation & sleaze of say I Spit on Your Grave (1978) or The Last House on the Left (1972) is not here.

Technically La Ragazza del Vagone Letto is OK & it's quite well made on what must have been a low budget but the setting obviously helped keep the cost down to a minimum. The acting is poor as usual, although since it was dubbed the original performances have been lost. Fans of Italian horror will recognise a lot of the voices here.

La Ragazza del Vagone Letto is a terrible film, it's just my opinion but I was bored to tears waiting for something to happen & when it eventually never I felt cheated, I want those 80 minutes of my life back. This piece of crap isn't even fit to grace the 99p VHS bargain bin in your local Blockbuster, one to avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't understand the people here. The film is neither as good as as bad as some people say here. Except for De Kok the acting is OK. The problem with the film is mainly the script. The characters are not believable. The sex is done okay, but the psychology behind the people makes very little sense. The film doesn't look good, but what do you expect? The film was shot for very little money on video. Off course then it doesn't look as good as a normal film, duh! The one thing I do agree on is that the music is bad. Sounds like a cheap soft erotic film from the '80's. The film is not good, okay, but you have to give some credit for pulling this of without any money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is not a new film. It is a re-cut of 1994's \"Emmanuelle, Queen of the Galaxy\", and it has been significantly truncated. Warning: Many characters appear in the credits that have been cut from the movie!

If you want to see this one in its original form, pick up \"Queen\" - avoid this one at all costs, as the cuts make it even choppier than it was originally.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I caught this movie on late-night TV. Honestly i saw most of it, and the whole time i was sitting in complete and utter disbelief.

Is there any genre that's more pointless than soft-core porn? If there is i don't want to know about it. Softcore porn combines all the horrors of porn (lousy production values, abominable acting, crappy scripts) with the coyness of sex-scenes in regular movies. So the end result is arousing nor entertaining. This movie also has the rather odd approach of a science-fiction setting, and it works horribly. All the sex is performed in some sort of virtual reality setting where the crew from the future learn about physical love. And yes, it's about as confused and silly as it sounds.

But there has to be some positive points though, right? Well, there is one... Krista Allen is amazingly hot. That's about the only thing that was less than awful in this movie. I don't know what it is about her, but she has an amazing sex appeal. The rest of the cast look like the standard porn-cast though. Rather unattractive women with poorly done fake breasts, and men that have spent far too much time in the gym toning themselves grotesque. Probably a gym in Germany as well judging by haircuts and clothing.

To sum things up. If you enjoy Krista Allens presence on screen you can watch this for the brief moments where she shows some of her seductive potential (most of the time she tries to articulate crappy lines of dialog though). If you don't enjoy Krista Allen then you might as well stay away altogether.

I rate this 10\/10 for Krista Allens sex appeal, 1\/10 for everything else and 2\/10 for entertainment value since this is a unique crappy porn\/science fiction hybrid that's not really like anything i've ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, the only reason I watched this movie is because Krista Allen is in it. Since I admit to watching Days of our lives... I know her as Billie. Oh sure, perhaps there will be a reason to watch this movie.. that would be the soft porn area. They seem to exel at that. And little else. I would hope anyone renting\/buying this movie rented it only for the sex scene's. Because if they bought\/rented it for anything else, say quality tv, they may die of a heart attack. This movie involves little imagination whatsoever. While I do have a good laugh at it's stupidity, and perhaps I'll buy it myself, I am but a fool. Rent before you buy on this one. 2 out of 10. (note I have yet to give a movie a 1 star. the sensual scene's alone gave itself and up from a 1. if they hadn't a straight 1 in the pot and I want a refund if it hadn't.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just have to comment on this movie because I gave it a 4 rating, and in my opinion that's pretty high for a softporn smut movie. The actual plot is kind of hokey (who would expect otherwise) but Hafron is so incredibly funny, and he delivers everything in a cyborgish voice so it's easy for him. Whoever wrote the script had some wit definitely! I must have laughed out loud ten times, and that's not a reason anyone would pick up this movie. The only softporn movie I've seen which had any merit other than beautiful women (and believe me, Emmanuelle is drop dead gorgeous...just look at the cover!)

Any movie that can entertain me considering how poor the plot was and how bad the acting is, also considering the movie wasn't made to artistically entertain, so to speak, it gets at least a four in my book. I mean, who wouldn't watch this before Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you read the plot summary for \"Mad Max,\" you've just ruined the first 1 hour and 10 minutes of the film. You've also found out that \"Mad Max\" takes place in post-apocalyptic Australia, which will be helpful because otherwise you won't have any idea what's going on. The film, made in 1979, tries really hard to be Stanley Kubrick's \"A Clockwork Orange\" (1971) only that film, in all its strangeness, actually makes sense and leaves an impact. This film does neither and ends up being a car\/bike stunt-filled romp that crashes like every vehicle in the film does.

The first thing wrong with \"Mad Max\" is that it tries to sell itself as a revenge tale when no vigilante appears to take revenge until the final 20 minutes. If the first hour were condensed to 20-30 minutes and then the final 20 added on and then another hour added after that, \"Mad Max would be a cool action film with a great vigilante protagonist. Instead, Mel Gibson has to wait around and act like a sissy for 2\/3 of the film and then have a sudden epiphany to seek revenge. I've yet to watch the sequel \"Road Warrior\" and I have to admit I'm excited for it only because I want to know what he does next. This first film was mostly a waste of time.

George Miller does some great action stuff here, but his over-the-top symbolism is absurd and the unbearable cheesy reaction sequences every time a character discovers something horrifying like a burnt hand or what have you completely ruins those moments. Its a terribly clich\u00e9 B-movie technique.

There is absolutely no thematic value or subtle critique of society in this film no matter what you might think. A great action sci-fi movie at least makes a point, but the gratuitous violence done by random, weird bikers doesn't say anything of value. Even the villain Toecutter feels modeled off Alex of \"Clockwork\" only uglier and completely unimposing. The PG violence just does not allow the violence of this gang to settle in and get a reaction from the viewer, it just cheeses it up if anything.

I'll give credit for the amount of stuff the film crew blew up and crashed into things and Miller does a great job making you feel the intensity of the collisions. Everything else is mediocre at best and then after an hour of mediocrity, you get something good and the film ends 20 minutes later. I'm just crossing my fingers \"Road Warrior\" will fulfill the expectations of where this film ends, otherwise that's more time wasted. ~Steven C

Visit my site at http:\/\/moviemusereviews.blogspot.com","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ok, where to start. I can't believe how many good reviews I read on here. I watched this (year 2004) and I had to fight to not push the stop button, I decided to continue just because of all the good reviews I read. After watching it I felt it was my duty to let the world know about this. First of all the movie seems like it is never going to begin, the plotline doesn't actually occur until about 30 minutes before the movie ends, leaving the viewer wondering, `when is this going to start' So don't ever call this a `revenge movie' because the revenge doesn't even start until over half the movie is already gone by. Furthermore, the movie tries to make you believe this is a post-apocalyptic Australia. I am sorry if showing dusty rural roads half the movie and a crooked letter on a sign didn't quite convince me of that, even for 1979 this was not science fiction. So anyways, add this on top of randomly placed homoerotic subtext and you have got yourself one crappy movie (I have nothing against gays, there was just no need for it). The only good part was the first chase scene, good directing considering it was 1979, and another good part is how he kills the last guy. So basically I recommend you watch the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes and you will enjoy yourself much more than if you sat through all that stuff in the middle, which may lead you to gouge your own eyes out. Don't say I didn't warn you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"George Segal lives with his elderly and senile mother. There are many jokes about her Alzheimer's-like dementia and most of them aren't funny, though there were a few funny moments sprinkled in here and there (such as the nude running through the park scene and the old folks home). At first, Segal tries to kill his mother because she's tough to live with and because he's a selfish guy. Making the film sort of like a Wiley Coyote versus the Roadrunner comedy where he tries again and again to kill this indestructible gal would have been a hoot--too bad this was NOT the overall tone of the film.

I do applaud Carl Reiner's attempt to make a tasteless film that is intended to offend everyone. I have a special place in my heart for films like ED AND HIS DEAD MOTHER, EATING RAOUL and HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS--all films about death that dare to offend. The problem here, though, is that WHERE'S POPPA? has some funny moments, but it also has a lot of flat ones and the overall product is amazingly bland. Plus topics such as homosexual rape, incest and the like are really difficult to make funny. I read in \"THE ROUGH GUIDE TO CULT MOVIES\" that it is considered a cult film, though I just can't see anyone wanting to see this more than once.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"New York attorney plots to rid himself of his senile mother after meeting an attractive, available woman. Screenwriter Robert Klane, adapting his own novel (the kind of paperback kids would buy for the dirty parts), doesn't seem to have any knowledge of mental illness: to him, it's just an excuse for prurient comedy and scatological jokes. George Segal--who, in the 1960s, starred mostly in war and espionage pictures--had become, by this time, one of America's greatest sad-sack comedians; his nutty reactions and batty responses rival only his mother's inscrutabilities. Segal is paired well with Trish Van Devere, and their moments of connection (though also played for laughs) are really the only sequences one can gravitate towards. Ruth Gordon, lovable as is she, is simply around too much--and more of her amounts to less. This is one of the worst directed and edited films I have ever seen from so-called professionals. Promising scenes which ultimately don't play out for the full effect are haphazardly disconnected from other moments which flail around endlessly, causing the crass, rickety movie to self-destruct long before it's actually over. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was prepared to love \"Where's Poppa\", it features the nexus of Normal Lear sitcom character actors who, when I was growing up, felt like extended members of my raisenette-sized broken nuclear family. How fun it would be to see censor-free Barnard Hughes, Vincent Gardenia, Ron Liebman, Rob Reiner, and a pre-SNL Garret Morris.

But alas,\"Where's Poppa\" drags. It's claustrophobic and plodding, and breaks the cardinal rules of farce, lightness of mood and a fast pace.

The plot involves the efforts of a lawyer (George Segal) to rid himself of his overbearing Jewish mother, who lives in his gigantic New York apartment. Along the way we are exposed ridiculous characters and situations: a comedic group of muggers who repeatedly mug the brother of the main character, the rape of a policeman which involving a gorilla suit and subsequent gay love, Ruth Gorden pulling down Segal's pants and biting his ass as he serves her dinner. Why doesn't this work? Part of the explanation is the sense of doom engendered by the cramped, dark interiors and antique set-decoration. I absolutely eat up cinematography of New York during this era, but watching this movie felt like I was leafing through the Police Gazette in a dark bus terminal.

The main reason though is the slow pace. Modern MTV-style quick cuts have changed what moviegoers feel is a comfortable editing tempo, but, even taking this into consideration, camera shots are held for an excessively long time. Plot developments are also very slow. There is one situation in which this works: a weird love song George Segal sings to Trish Van Devere, softly, very close to her face, and for an excruciatingly long period of time. It reminded me of those cringeworthy extended shots in the British version of \"The Office\", where you find yourself mentally begging the camera to cut away, and at the same time you can't stop looking.

Sadly, most of the film is more \"hurry up\" than \"can't look away\". Which made me wonder if it's possible to have a black comedy that is also a farce. The dilemma is that the gravitas of the subject matter in a black comedy tends to weigh down lightness of the farce. Movies like Robert Altman's \"M*A*S*H\" and Kubrick's \"Dr. Strangelove\" prove that it can be accomplished. They do this not only through speed but also through entertaining subplots, something \"Where's Poppa\" neglects.

Although the film features multiple, stereotypically-funny characters, almost all of them are directly involved in the central drama of how to deal with the recalcitrant mother. The scenes featuring Garret Morris and the Central Park muggers are as close as the viewer gets to a mental break. The muggers seemed almost Shakespearean, following the tradition of comic ne'er-d0-wells. If the rest of \"Where's Poppa\" had clung a little more closely to stage tradition it would have been a better film. Edgier isn't always better. It's as if all these talented actors and the director Carl Reiner, were taking a short before the creative maelstrom of the 70's .

Random notes: After strealing Ron Liebman's clothes, the muggers mention Cornel Wilde's \"The Naked Prey\" (1966), a great action movie that was a stylistic precursor to 1968's \"Planet of the Apes\".

As politically incorrect as he was, it's disquieting to learn about the death of an action hero as formidable as Charleton Heston. Linda Harrison, who played \"Nova\", Taylor's mute mate, said that James Fransicus, in the sequel seemed to be cute and tiny compared to Heston.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the opening sequence of \"Where's Poppa?\", George Segal rises from his bed one morning, shaves, showers, puts on a gorilla suit and goes into his mother's bedroom, we realize later, to give her a massive heart attack that will kill her and get her out of his life forever. This is about the level of humor one can expect from most of this picture: insanity, blended with what might be taken as morbid daring.

Segal plays a New York attorney who lives with his supposedly senile mother (Ruth Gordon), whose life is further complicated when, while hiring a nurse to care for the old bag, meets the girl of his dreams, the pleasantly prim Trish Van Devere, decked out like Florence Nightingale. His dilemma: how to integrate the lovely nurse into his and his pesky mother's life.

Segal's performance is about the only thing holding the picture together. His frustrations, his reactions, his comic timing is almost peerless (whatever happened to that guy?); where the film fails is in other areas. Ruth Gordon's characterization is dreadful as the mother. At the beginning, you can't figure out if her character is senile or just being deliberately vague to keep her son from moving out. By the end, it's clear she's just nuts. When Segal brings Van Devere home to meet her, Gordon's eyebrows furrow and she gets a mean, sinister look. She wants the intruder in her son's life removed; she's calculating. This is not the mode of a senile person. You're not getting a consistent performance throughout the picture, which is probably the director's (Carl Reiner) fault as much as Gordon's. Ruth Gordon's old lady in \"Rosemary Baby\" is much more successful because with the kind of ingratiating, cloying person that Ruth Gordon generally plays, the audience responds to her as annoying. But when Mia Farrow is too timid to fight back, Gordon becomes more cloying, her fangs dig deeper and deeper and we're frightened for Farrow; this kind of imposition is genuinely terrifying. Here, we're being asked to laugh at what we'd normally find annoying, and if Gordon played it as helplessly nutty all the way, we might. But she's selfish and mean as well, and it dampens what little humor there is.

There are a few good laughs, though. A courtroom scene with Barnard Hughes as a military officer and Rob Reiner as a counterculture punk is fairly hilarious, and Vincent Gardenia does a nice turn as a Lombardiesque football coach. There's also an inspired bit where Segal's brother (Ron Liebman), having been stripped naked by muggers on his way to Segal's place, asks him for something for to wear home- and he gives him the gorilla suit.

But of a lot of the script is poorly conceived and simply doesn't make sense. Why is a New York lawyer with his own practice even living at home in the first place? Why does Segal, if his mother is senile, try to reason with her logically: \"If you spoil this for me, I'll punch your f---ing heart out.\" Why does Liebman keep cutting through the park if he knows he's going to get mugged? Why does he take a taxi after leaving Segal's with gorilla suit? Why wasn't he taking taxis all along? A funnier bit would have been Liebman, as the gorilla, terrorizing the muggers. Why does Van Devere keep coming back- after her first husband was a kook, why does she want to get involved with this bunch? I suppose if I put this to Carl Reiner, he'd say, 'These are crazy people, they don't have to make sense.' Which is a convenient way to excuse a lousy script that's full of holes. The characters' moment-to-moment behavior may not have to make sense, but their motivations do, and that's where \"Where's Poppa?\" falls apart; the situations are created just to have the gag, and the gags are mostly one-shots, they don't build to anything.

Carl Reiner is the most guilty in this whole fiasco. How he has acquired this vaunted reputation as a pillar of comedy puzzles me; basically, his career has been to hold a microphone in front of Sid Caesar and Mel Brooks while they talk in funny voices. His son Rob has ten times the skill and intelligence as a director. In show-biz terms, Reiner pushes buttons; a monkey could do his job. And that is most apparent in his framing of the action. Why is all of New York shot in tight and in close-ups, but the scenes in the country are all distant and panoramic? That's the mentality of Carl Reiner's direction, claustrophobic for the city, spatial for the country. In the final lunatic scene at the old folks home, the camera is so far off, you can't even make out what's going on. The abrupt ending suggests a resolution that Segal could have easily arrived at ninety minutes ago; it also suggests Reiner couldn't figure out how to end the picture. So he just cut it, as another example of \"craziness\". Reiner seems to think dumbness equals craziness, and craziness without logic is always funny. It isn't, and the creators of \"Where's Poppa\" are as demented as Ruth Gordon putting Pepsi in her Fruit Loops.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A mild-mannered NY lawyer (George Segal) is slowly going crazy. He promised his father on his death bed that he would NEVER send their senile mother (Ruth Gordon) to a nursing home. Years later he's taking care of a senile, dangerous psychopath. He meets a beautiful nurse (Trish Van Devere) and they fall in love. But his mother keeps scaring her away. Segal is ready to kill her....

Ummmm...THIS is a comedy? I have nothing against sick, black humor but come on...there HAS to be some limits! This movie goes out of its way to throw every tasteless sick joke it can think of and rub your face in it. Too bad none of the jokes are funny. The jokes involve rape, nudity, public humiliation, senile old people, swearing and racism. Basically this is a movie that thinks it's clever by trying to shock people and thinking they'll laugh at it. I was disgusted and didn't laugh once. The movie is morbid, disturbing and (surprisingly) dull. The cast is the only thing that kept me watching. Segal and Gordon were both wonderful in their roles--Gordon especially. And Van Devere is pretty good also. But the script is against them. The only interesting thing (not funny) was a pointless courtroom scene with Rob Reiner Jr. (and try to spot his then-wife Penny Marshall as a spectator).

Actually this movie could have been worse--the original ending had Segal getting into bed with his MOTHER and pretending he's poppa! That was (thankfully) changed.

A real lousy, sick film. Bottom of the barrel. I give it a 1.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was 19 in 1970 when it came out and having heard how funny it was when it came out and reading the reviews here, I finally rented it and watched it. I didn't laugh once - a very unfunny flick - and I usually love Reiner. I cannot for the life of me figure why this is seen as funny. I had not one chuckle. And I love comedies! Oh well, at least now I know what all the shouting was about. Not my idea of a comedy. Go rent The Navigator or The Love Nest by Buster Keaton - now THOSE are comedy classics! If you rent this one - have a back-up rental so your whole evening isn't a loss. Score 3 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not being a particular fan of westerns, I watched this primarily because I wanted to see Lucille Ball in something other than an \"I Love Lucy\" or \"Lucy Show\" type of role. Here she plays Christine Larson, owner of a saloon in the Arizona Territory in 1868 who's about to be married to the unscrupulous local Indian agent (Dean Jagger.) Ball's performance was OK - nothing really more than that; she didn't blow me away. It succeeded for me in that the role was very different from what I'm accustomed to seeing her in - there was very little of the outrageous physical comedy she later became famous for, although the movie tried to maintain a gently amusing feel throughout. (A typical funny line - \"there's two ways to deal with women - and no one knows either one of them!\") I didn't find the story all that compelling, although I appreciated that the Indians were shown as the victims of the Indian agent. There's typical shootout action and a lot of horses - your typical western in other words. As to Christine - we pretty much can guess from the beginning how her planned marriage is going to end up; it's just a question of how she's going to get there. If you like westerns, this would be a pretty typical one with a bit of humour thrown in. If you're not big on the genre, this will be lacking. I'm not big on the genre. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a huge street fighter fan and thoroughly enjoying the previous film, Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie, I was really looking forward to this one!

However, it seemed that the film had no real sense of direction or purpose. Most of the characters I could not associate with and it just lacked the intense action that made the other mentioned street fighter film so superior.

There are some good points however, the Animation is superb!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is based on the series Street Fighter Alpha (or Zero)! It is placed in an other setting than Streetfighter the animated movie! This movie is all about Ryu who is accompanied by Ken and Chun Li. I recognized Rose,Zanghief and Birdie! There weren't any other characters used from the video game (that i could discover)! The fighting scenes were OK but nothing really spectacular! And there were not many of them! To me this is odd! Isn't Streetfighter about fighting! Streetfighter the animated movie (1994) is far superior to this movie. It tries to be more than it really is! The use of the \"Hada Power\" and other supernatural elemnents have nothing to do with skills the characters have in the video game! And in this case that is a bad thing! The story is so boring that you don't really care what is happening! The action is toned down considerably! Why? And what happened to the other characters from the video game! Surely they are more interesting than the villain in this story! The main attraction of the video game are the characters with their own special skills! In this movie it is all about Ryu! That is why this anime fails!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Spoilers abound. You have been warned.

I was thoroughly disappointed, this being my first STREET FIGHTER movie I have seen (I dare not go near the 1994 joke yet). Very little grabs your attention in STREET FIGHTER ZERO (ALPHA) as opposed to most japanimation. The fights are hilariously done over board (Shun versus Zangief was a laugher) and the dramatization is far too moody especially toward the end when Ryu has to control everything in his fight against his brother.

The main street fighter, Ryu, has been weakening to a far darker version inside of himself. Frustrations in controlling this darkness are further complicated by the sudden arrival of a younger brother! A shady street fighting tournament is held with more than just fighting on the promoter 's mind.

What is with the artist 's drawing of feet? Any anime drawn above the stomach is impressive. The story 's soft nature makes the STREET FIGHTER genre far too intelligent, and places far more emphasis on a character (Shun), that is not even a fighter in the video game! A character study on more than just the core stars of the original STREET FIGHTER is completely ignored. How many times did you catch Rolento? Adon? Guy? STREET FIGHTER ZERO lacks the imagination of the video game.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie easily falls into the category of laughable, if not beyond that to actually insulting. I mean in what alternate universe did the filmmakers and studios think that this film would play? From beginning to end we bombarded with Quaids overacting and ridiculous facial expressions, laying on the \"im a loose cannon\" act a little thick. Another picking point I had with the movie was the lack of a realistic story of events that would make you grow to connect to a character. I mean in one scene where Lewis is playing in a bar before making it big there is this over the top, just completely absurd bar fight that every citizen in town is apparently a part of. Then Lewis begins to play his rendition of \"A whole lot of shaking'\" and everyone immediately forgets their differences and begins dancing wildly as if its the most normal thing in the world. These kind of scenes, of which there are numerous, coupled with the lack of depth in any of the characters led me to actual laughter. So all in all this film is not worth viewing for anyone not interested in mocking a filmmaker and his actors decisions for an hour and a half.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has some of the worst acting I've ever seen. Dennis Quaid's performance was high school caliber. While it's difficult to portray an off-the-wall character like Jerry Lee Lewis, it can be done. Just ask Jamie Foxx (although Ray Charles had more depth to his personality and musicianship than Lewis ever dreamed of possessing). The Phillips brothers portrayal belonged in The Dukes of Hazzard, and Alec Baldwin playing Jimmy Swaggart is a bit like Donald Duck performing Shakespeare. When Robert Duvall played a country preacher, I bought it. Baldwin never made me believe a single word. Wynona Ryder's part was the best, and she was mediocre. (And can anyone figure out how she was 13 when Lewis met her and still 13 more than a year later?) Some checking on the Internet reveals the essential facts presented by the film were true, at least no more fouled-up than most Hollywood bio pics. This film did badly at the box office, and it should have.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's really just terrible. Quaid overacts more than Shatner. The part where Elvis walks in and says \"You can have it all\" just kills anything that might have been good in this movie that's bad enough as it is. Drug use was completely snow coated, the only thing that had anything to do with his life was the bit about him wedding his cousin. Quaid also looks nothing like Lewis and has dark roots and eyebrows. I wish this could be re-made in the future with someone who doesn't try so hard. A bigger budget wouldn't hurt and maybe more about his actual life. I was very, very disappointed in Quaid. Don't watch this movie or you will be too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't seen this film in years, but the awful \"taste\" of Quaid's performance still lingers on my tongue. Some have commented on how Quaid has Jerry Lee Lewis \"to a tee\" but the fact is he only appears to have the most extreme stage Jerry in mind. Nobody acts that way all the time, and the performance comes off as hopelessly clownish, reducing Lewis to a buffoonish caricature. The nuances of a man's life are lost in the rubble of sheer over-acting.

The author of the book this is based on (Nick Tosches) is a good writer, who has written several fine musical bios (I particularly liked \"Dino\" on Dean Martin); in the books Tosches gives us a full human being, both separate from and involved in the \"biz.\" Quaid's acting seems to imply that Jerry never acted like a human being. If people were like this, no one would bother to hang around them. As cartoons go, it is mildly amusing, but otherwise it is one of the most egregious, film-destroying performances I have had the \"honor\" of viewing. Terrible...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just re-saw this last night and to put it bluntly: \"Style instead of substance\". We can already guess that there had to be a lot more to Jerry Lee Lewis than what is depicted here. The Jerry Lee Lewis character in this movie is not depicted as a real human being for one minute throughout the entire hour and a half plus running time, but then again, all the other characters are only one pencil-stroke from being total cartoon characters.

Let's take the beginning. We see Jerry Lee and his cousin, Jimmy Swaggart sneaking over to the black jazz club and we see Jerry getting his inspiration. Might be possible. We see how the two cousins choose different paths in life (also possible). Then we cut to Jerry Lee playing the piano as an adult (now played by Dennis Quaid) and it's thrilling and a little scary. Cut to a scene where he first meets his second cousin, Myra. From then on the whole thing turns into a recap of certain events played out in a style befitting a news reel on high speed.

Not that the movie is not a little entertaining and it's great to hear new versions of the songs that made Jerry Lee. Alec Baldwin as Jimmy Swaggart is also a reason why you should at least take a look at this, an indicator of his greater successes in the years to come. Winona Ryder as Myra is the most one noty character in the film. She teases, she sobs, she chews gum and play coquettish and that's about it. There is never for a minute given a reason why she ended up being the third Mrs. Lewis and speaking of wives, where are the first two? That is why this really can't be classified as a biopic, but more of a inaccurate news reel. We see Jerry get his first song played on the radio, we see his second single going into the top ten, we see his third go to no. 1 and so on. Then comes the inevitable downfall. Absolutely, no basis in reality.

To conclude another minor quarrel: The movie takes place from '56 to '58 and still Myra says: \"I am only 13\" right up till the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must say I was surprised to find several positive comments to this turkey (in desperate need of a feather transplant)! I'm giving it a 1 because I think the idea of making a movie about the wild man of rock'n'roll - Jerry Lee Lewis, is honorable, but it's a shame to put out such trash and the \"killer\" does not deserve this! It's a good thing it came late in his career... they said Elvis practically ruined his career with the movies he put out through the sixties and this could have done the same for Jerry lee, had it come out some 15-20 years earlier! It's based on Myra Gail Lewis book and that's a shame to begin with. It's a bad and inaccurate story of her life together with Lewis and there is far better books about the Killer, that could have made a much better and more interesting script. Add to this a bunch of actors who doesn't know if they are participating in a drama, comedy or a little bit of both! The otherwise fine actor Dennis Quaid is putting on what must be one of the worst performances of an actor in many a moon! He is walking around in the picture, talking about his \"god-given talent\" and as a spectator, you wish he'd show some of it on the screen too! Silly gestures and funny faces and Jerry Lee must have felt betrayed when he saw what had become of him in this truly awful movie! The rest of the crew is almost as bad... save for Winona Ryder, who does her best with the crappy lines given to her. It's \"Grease\" all over again and whenever Jerry Lee take a ride around Memphis in his convertible, having the radio on in the car, the whole town is dancing to the music from it! Everybody in this movie are like cartoon figures of the real people involved... from the wild man himself to Sun Records Sam Philips! And it's a damn shame! A charismatic and interesting artist like Jerry Lee Lewis deserves better and I hope he took the 500.000 dollars he got from the deal and told the company to go f**k themselves... twice!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dennis Quaid is tryin' hard to prove us that Jerry Lee Lewis was a dumb guy. And he's doing too much to prove it. TV sequences are very good, like a photocopy of old black and white footages. Music is fine too, because Mr. Lewis himself is singing. But the rest is just Hollywood B-Movie style, with the fifties Happy Days complex. I think the only good thing in this movie is to see young Winona Ryder.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Great Balls of Fire is the movie you show to someone you really, really hate. It is absolute torture of the highest rank and is probably used by minions of a foreign power to extract info from captured intelligence agents. I've enjoyed some of Dennis Quaid's performances in the past, but he goes totally over the top in this film. He doesn't so much cross the line, he pole vaults over it, then comes back to jump over and over again. He struts and mugs as if on some incredibly bad acid trip. It's one of those rare performances where you wish you could enter the film and beat the man within an inch of his life for doing something so truly awful. Was he desperate to win a Golden Raspberry or some other award for bad acting? That's the only conclusion I can come up with. Thank you Dennis, you gave us a bad performance for the ages. Where was the director to reign in this guy?

The opposite end of the extreme is Winona Ryder, she of the plastic features and plastic acting. I came across a review of her acting style that compared her to a wax dummy. That was of course an insult to wax dummies all over the earth, all of whom could have brough more humanity to the role of Jerry's underage cousin\/wife. This brings up the film's mixed up message, that being it is 100% okay to marry your own cousin and have a child by the union. I fail to see what is so \"okay\" about that, but it looks as though Hollywood thinks that underage incest is hunky dory. Talk about \"family values.\"

Another problem is the format. Is it a stright forward re telling of Lewis' life, or is it a musical? I'm not talking about the music, I'm talking about the truly weird scene where Jerry drives up to the school, starts to belt out a tune and everyone starts to dance like it was Broadway musical in search of a Tony. Fantasy and reality are thrown together in a mix that does not work. But who really cares? I don't. And neither should you. You can't get back the minutes of life you would waste on this film. So don't waste your time, it's too precious for something this misguided and poor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A romp across a disbelieving outback, this outragous adventure enchants through it's downright brazeness. Comedy from the clashing confrontation of cultural assumptions - as Drama from Crisis. Perhaps a little too Queenie for some - I would love to have watched IN a cinema audience in the outback. Shockingly good","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like all of the main actors involved in this quite bizarre film. Terrance Stamp, Guy Pearce & Hugo Weaving have all proved themselves as some of the best & most capable actors around, but I could not get into this. I don't know if it's because I don't understand the lifestyle or what, but I could not get my head around this film. Worse than anything is that the actors made some of the ugliest drag queens I've ever seen. I think that was part of the point, I don't know. I realize that is probably an insult, but I don't know what else to call them. I must say I bought the guys as the performers (the correct term?) but the story just wasn't very good or very interesting either. I will say that I can't usually appreciate costume designers very well, although I notice them when they are wrong or out of place, but I was very much impressed with these. Very creative to say the least, just not attractive, but I don't think they're supposed to be. I don't know I am definitely not the target audience and would never go see a performance done by these kind of performers, but I wouldn't go see ballet, or opera either so I don't know. If this is your kind of film then you will probably like it, but if it's not skip it because it is...well not for most of us. I just checked it won the Oscar for costume design & I will say rightfully so. I must say Ebert didn't care much for this film either, though he liked it better than I did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Shaggy, friendly yet frustrating film has the same old message: if you want to make it in this world, being imaginative isn't enough, you have to live up to your place in society and that means living by the (heterosexual) rules that govern us. Drag queen comedy-drama from Australia is a mostly upbeat journey of three male friends traveling across the Outback in their pink bus, christened Priscilla. While not a formula film per se, there are the obligatory \"road movie\" sequences (bonding by the bonfire, facing down the rednecks, etc.). Writer-director Stephan Elliott follows every potentially mean-spirited moment with a little humor and sympathy, but there are puzzling gaps in his narrative, a dire subplot about a gay man's relationship with his ex-wife and estranged pre-teen son (both of whom are comfortable--and the child wise--with his lifestyle), and a third act with no energy whatsoever. It has some wicked transvestite humor and a fairly game cast, but a script that seems to have been watered down along the way. ** from ***","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Priscilla, Queen of the Desert\" is always being trotted out as a masterpiece of Australian cinema. I found it quite disappointing. The lead actors are great - Terence Stamp is aging beautifully, Guy Pearce should do more comedy instead of the dour roles he chooses and I've been a fan of Hugo Weaving since I saw him play Oberon eons ago. The cinematography is great, but if you've ever been to the Australian outback, you'd know that the air is so clear and the light so brilliant that they could have shot it on the movie equivalent of a Box Brownie and it still would have looked spectacular.

So what's my problem? Well, three things. First, there is not a sympathetic female character in the whole film. A woman who has to earn her living shooting ping pong balls out of her privates in a roadside pub deserves our sympathy. Tick's wife doesn't get much better treatment.

Second, the scene when they sing \"I Will Survive\" to a group of Aboriginals is offensive. To try to draw any sort of parallel between the struggles of drag queens and trannies and the almost total destruction of Aboriginal culture, which is what I assume the scene is supposed to do, shows a level of historical understanding worthy of Paris Hilton.

Last of all, and the greatest defect of the film is that it just isn't funny enough. Did Stephan Elliott actually talk to any drag queens when writing the film? Anyone who knows a drag queen (or three or four) knows that most of them have rapier-like wits and they're not afraid to use them. Now, I can understand that a lot of drag queen banter probably would have got the film refused classification but Elliott should have been able to gather enough \"fit for the kiddies\" material to complete his film.

So, all in all, a waste of a good idea and a great cast.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those inoffensive and mildly entertaining little movies that strive to make you to like them more. But like so many others, it's material isn't strong enough to successfully fill a couple of hours.

The pitch is promising: three drag queens drive a bus through the Outback from Sydney to Alice Springs. They run into lots of trouble - with homophobic locals, with the engine, with their pasts.

The real trouble is with the dialogue. The leads are fine (though Pearce's continual campness becomes tiresome), but the one-liners and epithets feel forced where they should be casually thrown away. Characters shouldn't laugh at their own gags.

Writer\/director Elliott also feels the need to pile on the pleasingly incongruous shots of flamboyant drag costumes against stark desert backgrounds like so much cheap make-up. For a movie about self-confidence and just being yourself, it all seems very insecure with itself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The costumes are outrageous and the Australian outback scenery is fun to view, but there is an edge to this story - a mean edge - about drag queens. I particularly noticed that in Terrence Stamp's character, \"Ralph Bernadette Bassenger.\" Perhaps that was appropriate since there is nothing \"good-guy- like\" about Ralph-Bernadette and his group of \"queens.\"

Once again, we get the strong Liberal slant which says anything goes and if you're not \"with it\" - or in this case, pro-homosexual, then you are a homophobe. (Gasp!)

What's really disturbing is the ending when a young boy goes off with his \"alternative-lifestyle\" father and embraces his gay lifestyle, not because it fit the story but because it fit the agenda of the people who wrote the script. Pitiful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film tries hard but fails. Perhaps to non-Australian audiences it may have appeal as a travelogue, but to the native it is merely tedious.

Anyone who lives here knows Broken Hill is a rough, tough isolated mining town. If a couple of citified fruits turn up in drag, well it's all so predictable. Where have I come across that well-worn theme before? Oh yes -- Town Mouse and Country Mouse. Spare us.

I kept hoping it would improve but after the Broken Hill scene I could see where this was heading and so turned off the TV and went to bed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terence Stamp can carry off anything, but this is still a shallow one-dimensional movie. It's nice to look at - so are the actors - and if you're into drag queens, I guess you might like it a lot, but the plot and characters are as thin as cardboard. It's one of those politically correct movies that warps everything else in order to make a 'minority lifestyle' seem warm and cuddly. It gets a lot of mileage out of bitchy dialogue, which is amusing in this sanitized form, I guess.

Ninety percent of the action is parading around in gaudy costumes in incongruous situations. The dramatic content is a token appendage - they hardly try to get you to take it seriously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Basically a road movie. The gay, transsexual, and other gender-bender themes are rather disturbing, particularly when the child is involved. You do have to hand it to the costume designers. As for the actors, the only one I was familiar with was Terence Stamp. I suppose it was a very good performance, out of his (or anyone's) normal range. The movie as a whole was shallow, just a vehicle for the clever, bitchy banter. All in all, I don' recommend this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this in the cinema during its initial release and can only ask \"has the world gone mad?\" The seemingly overwhelming positive response is mind boggling for this poorly written, embarrasingly predictable clap trap.

Stephan Elliot is no genius film maker as evidenced by the consistent bombs he has produced since (check out 'Welcome to Woop Woop', 'Eye of the Beholder')

I can only assume making a film dealing with the gay\/transexual culture has people assuming that to dislike the film is an offense to this sector of the populace. Aren't we smarter than that? What about an interesting script and good performances? Ok so the 3 leads do alright considering what they have to work with, but this film includes the worst performance by a child actor I have ever seen, not helped by appalling dialogue and a really lame resolution that you can see a mile off.

This is a disappointing film and one that doesn't deserve the overblown reputation it has garnered.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this video at a friends house, and it was the lamest thing i have seen ever. i lost a lot of the little respect i had for NIN. very boring, and the music is as equally interesting. dont waste your time unless you are a hardcore NIN \"fan\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"like i'm sure other people have said this guy isn't a very worthwhile subject. sure, our society has a morbid fascination with death, and it's funny hearing him talk about how much he smokes and how much coffee he drinks, but he's into giving himself an unworthy mystique. anyway, the bottom line is that he's a moron racist using feeble methods to try to disprove the mountain of evidence of the holocaust, and as such he should be forgotten by time. but Morris is in love with any kind of curiosities, which normally i wouldn't fault him for.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1st watched 1\/1\/2003 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Henri Verneuil): Sober drama about a well-to-do Doctor who gets into trouble carrying on a relationship with a younger woman, whom his family brings in to live with them, as well as being married to another in the same household. His searching for happiness is not clear, but they do bring out the reason for his unhappiness rather well by displaying the overbearing trait of the females in his wife's line. Well played, but predictable drama.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Distasteful British film from a Japanese novel about a very troubled young man who comes under the influence of a Hitler-like classmate and plots to harm his widowed mother's lover. A couple of good scenes (Sarah Miles discovering her son has been peeping at her and confronts him in anger, the pasty-faced lad trying to ensnare Kris Kristofferson to his demise by being extra friendly), but what's the point beyond provoking shock? Ugly and uneasy, it doesn't showcase anyone involved to any advantage (especially Kristofferson, whose hollow stares and usual gravelly talk is out-of-place in a psychological mishmash like this one). Coldly without any sense of its own absurdity, director Lewis John Carlino seems to believe a circumstance like this could actually happen. If he's right, that's far more shocking than anything in \"Sailor\". * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie is an adaptation of a Japanese story by the respected author Yukio Mishima. It simply doesn't make the transition into a credible story about Brits and Americans.

The story moves sluggishly, especially the part where Miles and Kristofferson are separated and the director fills in with the cliched shots of a ship's prow cutting through the waves, and the little route line filling in on the maps, while their letters are heard in overvoice. The film moves so languidly that I even fast-forwarded through the sex and masturbation scenes which, although long, are not really either passionate or erotic. The film did achieve a measure of notoriety when Kristofferson's then-wife divorced him for extra-curricular activities with Miss Miles during the filming. I guess they enjoyed the sex scenes, but it isn't quite the same for a viewer.

There are no characters to hang on to. The sexually frustrated widow is unlikeable, the little kid is detestable. Kristofferson is amiable enough, but he just doesn't have the acting skills to bring much to the role, although perhaps we don't really want get too involved with him, considering his ultimate fate.

As for the little kid, well, he kinda falls in with a bad crowd after his dad dies, and they help him plot some evil against the man who enters his mum's life. Now this is a really bad crowd. They don't just shoplift and smoke dope, nosireebib. They slip a mickey to a cat and vivisect it. This is shown in gory detail. But of course, this is only practice so they can do the same thing to Kristofferson!

So the movie mostly moves slowly, with no characters to relate to, and when something does happen it is unrelentingly morbid.

The ending is about as unsatisfying as any movie you'll ever see.

This all might have made some sense if the Japanese locale and cultural context had been retained. As it stands, it is just abysmal.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"KK should stick to singing- this whole movie was a big bore. I can't understand the viciousness of the boys and the romance between Miles and KK- the sex scenes were uninspired too. The ending was awful- unresolved- there needs to be reason to murder. And the whole voyeurism of the boy was weird..... the mother always wrestled with the boy- don't you think he would get some rather Freudian with her? And why didn't someone teach KK how to speak with inflection instead of monotone?

Glad I only paid $1.00 to rent this.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is just a very bad film. Miles looks as if she is in pain during the sex scenes and the acting is wooden. It also drags on slowly and never really finds a point to it all. One of the worst films that I have ever seen!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The funniest thing about Fortunes is that one of the main characters, Lewis (Urbaniak) has writer's block and apparently so did the screenplay writer for the film. This is sad, as well, as I guess by large, this is supposed to be a comedy, or dramedy, but that's the funniest thing I can remember from watching this.

Three friends go out and drink one night. On the way home, two decide to get their fortunes told by a \"gypsy,\" as they call her. Those two lives fall apart while the third friend stands by. Then, nothing happens.

I hope I didn't spoil the movie there, but really, this extremely low-budget, bad quality movie had some kind of idea when it started but quickly snowballed into the depths of hell. Yeah, I'm being harsh. Honestly, it wasn't that bad, it was just blah.

The aforementioned writer was annoying to watch, though he delivered maybe one or two of the only two funny lines. The clich\u00e9d \"ladies man,\" the only one that didn't get his fortune told was just annoying. The only bright spot, was the remaining friend, the married dad whose fortune was told that something big was to happen to his son and he needed to be prepared. He was funny, genuine and clearly the best actor in the movie. Unfortunately, that's not saying much.

Perhaps I'm being too cruel. Heck, they got the ambition to make a movie, went and got funding and accomplished something. Unfortunately, however, I can't at all recommend the film on the basis, there's hundreds of thousands of other independent movies that have hundreds of thousands better ideas and executions. This one was literally 10 minutes of an idea stretched another 81 boring minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Poor old Robert Taylor. Other than THE FEDS, nothing much has gone his way - this almost-shocker is a wasteful ninety minutes and not much more. It's one of those cheesy detective-crime flicks with the narrative of the lead character the whole way through - usually that's reserved for comedies these days but this film takes itself way too seriously! A pity; Australian films, particularly in the 2000-01 periods, have been of exceptional quality overall - but I suppose there have got to be a few misses. Why even make a film like this, that obviously isn't going to be any good?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow...

Reading through these comments, I see a remarkable socio-cultural clash theme emerging between the US and ... the Dutch! The US P.o.V. appears to be that this is quite a good little movie, Parker being a likable hero, the story a light-hearted rendition of what could be a glorified form of reality.

All three Dutch reviewers view the world through a totally different pair of glasses it seems. They categorically and in surprisingly similar terms agree the movie is a disaster.

Far be it from me to take sides in what appears to be a dispute between cultures, on this item as wide apart as the ocean that separates them geographically. Still, based on factual observation - I saw the movie with my very own eyes - I suspect the Dutch are not too far off the mark:

\"Parker Kane\" is poorly made, utterly boring, and really not worth the celluloid that was no doubt wasted in its creation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The perfect 6 step recipe for a boring middle of the road movie:

1. Take one burnt-out, rogue ex-cop with a bad attitude, yet a sensitive touch as well (closet concert pianist with a pet cat);

2. Add some \"cool\" retro gadgets like a beat-up Porsche 356, a roaring bike, a heavily patched leather jacket and a pair of cowboy boots with holes in the soles;

3. Mix in a couple of \"free-spirit\" locations e.g. a trendy sea-side apartment and a dedicated diner booth for an office;

4. Spice it up with \"deep\" socio-romantic themes such as a post-divorce-traumatized-but-finally-remarrying-ex-wife, a secretly-admiring-and-therefore-forgiving-waitress, a pair-of-former-colleague-cops-only-one-of-whom-is-really-a-complete-jerk and a best-buddy-getting-iced-over-a-suitcase-full-of-illegal-$$$;

5. Let it simmer for about 90 minutes in a \"fast-paced\" though not necessarily logical or internally consistent sequence of mediocre action scenes, cheap tender moments and sluggish wise-cracks;

6. Serve with either a comfortable pillow to sleep straight through it all or something a bit more interesting (don't worry: even the yellow pages will do!).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There were but two reasons for me to see this film. First of all Stellan Skarsgard and Marisa Tomei were in it (who are both good actors) and I had nothing better to do. While seeing the film though, I immediately thought of something better to do: SLEEP! This film is a complete waste of time. It is a standard ex-cop flick. The ex-copper is the best there ever was, but he was fired. He keeps doing stuff on his own to the dislike of his former buddies and he saves the day. All BIG surprises (NOT!!!). Go to sleep, or if you have insomnia, try this one.

4 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Tenchi Muyo In Love 2\" is the third Tenchi movie. It seemed that its creators took elements from the first two to make this one. At the risk of giving out spoilers, Tenchi is kidnapped and the team has to get him back. Nothing new there. A past love of Yosho's is the bad guy. That was done in the second movie. The battle between Aeka and Ryoko and is starting to get boring. The movie has almost no action scenes in it and very little comedy. I personally don't know what AIC, it's makers, were thinking. I gave this movie a vote of 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILERS

*

*

*

*

This is Tenchi?

This is not Tenchi.

Practically everyone is written horribly out of character ... When it comes to characterization, the only bright spot is the friendship between Ayeka and Ryoko.

Also, the villainess is not punished for her actions, which amount to mind-control rape. If a male villain had done to one of the women what Haruna does to Tenchi, then he would have (rightfully so) painfully bought it at the end of the movie, dying horribly, and the audience would have cheered. But not only does Haruna pay no price for her crimes, Ryoko actually FORGIVES and UNDERSTANDS her actions. No! The real Ryoko would have disintegrated her for what Haruna had done to her beloved Tenchi; the audience I saw this with, myself included, all booed audibly at this scene

Anime fans, avoid this movie. Tenchi fans, avoid this movie even harder.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I felt like I was watching an example of how not to make a movie. I think the director filmed it in his back yard! There was no real plot.

Terrible script.

Terrible acting.

The worst production I have ever witnessed. A couple of bad CG effects and then the rest of the movies was spent walking around in what looked like a junk yard.

I don't normally write reviews to movies but was moved to warn everyone about this one.

Life is to short to waste your time with this movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While it has been many decades since I last read Mr. Wells \"War of the Worlds\", or \"The Time Machine\", or any other of his works, I believe that they were all set in London, or at least, in England. This Grade \"B\" (\"C\"?) movie is set in the Eastern part of the United States as was Orson Welles excellent radio adaptation 67 years ago. However, this film exhibits none of the quality of the narrative style of the Mercury Playhouse program. Thomas Howell's emoting would not be acceptable in most high school drama clubs. I was actually embarrassed for him. His rolling around in the grass on the hill crying \"My family, my family\" was almost laughable, as was his reaction to the death of his brother. Of the three film versions of the story that I have seen, this was by far the worst, with Gene Barry's 1950's version the best. Additionaally, this was the first time I ever saw a \"machine monster\" dripping sticky saliva such as did the creature in the \"Alien\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds by director David Michael Latt is a slightly less-than-average flick which isn't too bad if one considers the budget he had to work with - only $1 million. For this budget, the production value wasn't too bad - the best part of it is the visual effects (I was thoroughly impressed with the CGI considering the budget) and sound design. The less-then-stellar parts of this film are the story which is VERY prolonged at best (but again I think this is because of the budget they had - they had to prolong certain scenes to create the feature length 97 minutes), the acting (again it's because the actors had no story to work with), very few exceptional camera shots, and the music. However, again, I can let the negative parts go for the most part only because this film was made for a meager budget and still had good production value. Still you should,d see it for the sake of seeing how a low budget version of War of the Worlds CAN be made even with flaws. 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am not a big fan of the Spielberg\/Cruise version of this film. And so I must throw in with the more humble Latt\/Howel version. C Thomas Howel had more heart and more sympathy that Cruise in the lead role (at least in my opinion). Now this is hard to imagine until you strip away everything thing in the Spielberg version that cost more than a thousand dollars. There would be nothing left, no special effects, no sets, no Cruise. Because I doubt that anything cost more than a cool grand in the David Michael Latt version. So, comparing apples to turnips I guess I have to go with the turnips. At least it gives independent movies a shot at the epic science fiction disaster market.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wish I could have given this a Zero. Sure I'll admit that I also mistakenly picked this up thinking it was the Spielberg version. A clever marketing ploy releasing it at this time and being prominently displayed at the video store. However, I was willing to give it a go anyhow - I wish I wouldn't have.

Where do I start? I have read some of the other reviews here and have to say I disagree with anyone who thinks any of the acting was good - sorry even C. Thomas Howell stunk. None of the performances were any good. Not a one.

Even if the acting was decent the dialog is terrible! \"Ginormus\" and \"dick skinners\" just doesn't really cut it.

Now as for the story well - it was terribly adapted and must have been edited by a 5 year old. The main character is constantly running into situations that are way convenient - or at least appear that way due to how the film was edited together. For example he is trying to get to a place called New Hope to find his brother. During a brief break someone just randomly hands him the directions to New Hope. What the hell is that? When he gets to New Hope he just happens to stumble onto his dying brother. Then there is the part where he has been traveling away from his destination for days and just happens to come across the car his wife and son were traveling in. He was going in a different direction then they were how did that car end up where he was? He has a black back pack that randomly appears and disappears throughout the film. There are parts of the film where the characters are just waking up in the morning and then two seconds later it is night - or worse yet dusk of the next day. I also can't forget the main character and the preacher falling through the floor of a house for no reason - we don't find out until later that an alien has landed on the house. Which reminds me of the moment when they are walking and suddenly find themselves standing under an alien they didn't notice. What the hell, the aliens are like two stories tall with huge bodies and multiple legs - how could they miss it? There is one point where an alien kills a random citizen, supposedly by spitting some kind of junk at him - but you never see the stuff fly it just appears on the guys face. The special effects in general are terrible. The entire movie is like a bad \"train wreck\". When we finally get to the end, after this guy trying to get to DC to find his family, they just appear. No searching no asking questions nothing. Just oh there you are I am so happy - the end.

I am sorry if my review rambles a bit but this movie was so bad I had a hard organizing my contempt. Please save yourself the time and don't watch this sneakily displayed pile of cinematic stench. It is quite possibly the worst film I have ever witnessed. I would rather have been getting a root canal - It would have been less painful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie looked like the out-takes of the deleted scenes from a high school film class experiment. It made no sense! It was well acted, but I only felt sorry for the characters because they had to appear in this slop. The alien machines were created with Pentium I technology and no creativity, they were crabs! The under-lit and barely seen aliens were Frisbees with legs. WHERE WERE THE TRIPODS? The editing, done by director\/writer\/producer\/make-up artist\/gripper Latt, jumps all over the place, with some scenes repeated numerous times. Most of it seemed to have been filmed in the wake of hurricane Katrina. The next time Latt wants to make a movie, someone needs to slap him. In 2005 alone he produced 11 movies! That doesn't include the writing, editing, directing or visual effects credits on other movies. If the rest are like this snot-load, then he's just making fun of us. This was a slapped together rip-off of Spielberg's movie, nothing more. I'm looking forward to Latt's \"BackBroke Ridge', \"X-Man IIV\", \"The Hillocks have Eyes.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After watching the Steven Spielberg version of War Of The Worlds in theaters, I was hooked on the topic. I could think back to my favorite parts in the movie, people getting vaporized, people panicking, fire, explosions, it was all so great...

So a few weeks later I enter my video store, and I see David Michael Latt's version of War Of The Worlds on the shelf. \"It couldn't have come onto DVD, that fast, could it?\" I said to myself. I read the back of the case and saw C. Thomas Howell, instead. \"Oh, I remember him from The Outsiders!\" So I thought, it might have been a try.

I was wrong, dead wrong. As soon as I watched the opening credits, watched them take forever, I knew something was wrong. Something was going to disappoint me in this film and it did. The whole movie stunk like a cheese sauce that was left in the fridge for 10 years. From the acting, the special effects (stupid looking tripod things, when people get vaporized they turn into orange skeletons), and most of all, it didn't even come close to being as interesting as the Spielberg version, in fact, the plot was boring, and there were only 3 scenes of destruction! What the crap? I ended up being so bored, that I had to fast forward through the movie until I found something that looked even remotely interesting. And nothing was really.

My advice: Don't even touch this movie, stay 100 feet away from it. The Spielberg version is coming out near the end of this month, buy that one! But please, please, I beg of you! Stay away from this turd before it smothers us all!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so bad they should burn the master. You cant spoil the plot because this movie doesn't have one. The graphics are less than fake, they're horrendous. Then you've got the rambling through the countryside star gazer work-a-holic who bounces between his own lunacy & the mad rantings of the crazed preacher. & when he finally makes it to DC, they don't even have the decency to kill him; the monster (which you don't know at the time) is already dieing but how ... who knows & of course it has the ultimate sappy ending... everybody else on the planet is dead or dieing but his family & a handful of stragglers survive. Imagine that! This will be the movie that C Thomas Howell will go to his grave regretting he ever starred in. It probably gives him nightmares.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My paraphrase above of the slogan on the back of the DVD box sums it up: this film was far more horrible than horrifying.

This is the worst film I have seen in as long as I can remember. My wife accidentally rented it thinking it was the Tom Cruise version. The laughably crude special effects on the menu screen should have tipped us off. The gratuitous nudity already in the opening scene made us more suspicious.

But as the film wore on, we were benumbed by clumsy acting -- both over- and under-acting -- non-continuity in directing and editing, trite writing, and crude special effects. We gave up after a half-hour or less; after starting this badly, it couldn't possibly get better.

Since I despise reviews that pan a product without giving specifics, here are some examples of the film's especially awkward moments, even if they amount to spoilers:

- The lead says good-bye to his young old son as the latter is about to drive away with his mother, the latter prickly because it's their wedding anniversary but the lead is not coming along due to sudden business. The son asks, quietly worried, \"will I ever see you again?\" Perhaps it's supposed to come off as a premonition, but it instead comes off as incongruous behavior for a child that age in that situation.

- A huge alien spacecraft has crashed to earth and sits in an enormous crater. A crowd of people stands nearby, peering at it uneasily but otherwise looking generally unaroused. One woman finally says \"it's gi-normous!\"

- After this craft has laid waste a village and its inhabitants, the lead and a bystander, now alone near their homes and trying to load their cars for an escape, have an exchange something like this, in a quietly puzzled tone:

\"What was that thing, anyway?\" \"I dunno...\"

- A crowd attempting to evacuate over a bridge is blocked by the military, since part of the bridge is destroyed. When an alien ship shoots an explosive at it, the crowd starts to run away, seemingly only because a director told them to and not because they're frightened or in any kind of real danger, let alone unusual circumstances.

And so forth... writing about the film falls short of the experience of actually seeing it. But please, PLEASE, save yourself the bother, even if your morbid curiosity is piqued! The film is so bad it can't even be enjoyed as unintentional humor (versus, say, King Vidor's \"Solomon & Sheeba\" starring Yul Brynner wearing a wig). Life is too short to waste watching such nonsense. There MUST be something more productive and enjoyable to do, like walking the dog or cleaning a birdcage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is hard to imagine anyone making a Tom Cruise film look good; hard indeed, but this one makes him look good. Very good. Actually, it makes him look like Sir John Gielgud celebrating Very Good Acting Day with a bravura performance.

The acting from the entire ensemble struggled to rise above the risible and failed. The fault was, in part let us be fair, that the plot bore as much resemblance to the HG Wells original as did the butchered carcasses of the human victims in the film to their living predecessors: both were bloodied and violated remnants of more attractive predecessor. But to describe a plot such as this to be a bit holy is to say of the Colander \"My, this kitchen utensil has a remarkable lot of holes\", unless, that is, holes are your bag; in which case this film will commend itself to you.

The fault in the other part was that these were demotivated, jobbing, DVD actors who knew full well, one assumes, that this was their exhibition that would wind up on the $5 DVD shelf. And overpriced at that.

So should you watch it? Why yes, of course, you should. You are a miserable sinner and deserve punishment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's get one thing straight; This was BAD! So Putrid that it doesn't even qualify to be imprinted on anyone's memories.

The ever repeating storyline (who's constant recycling of not only jokes but story lines and character appearances.) A typical storyline goes as follows; Sue (the mother) opens the episode quoting on how she loves her baby son but smells awful (As if THAT doesn't get old! har-de-bloody-har!), some Australian quasi-nationalist \"bogan\" -look it up- appears to say how she thinks she's awesome because she's an ozzie while everything\/everyone else that isn't sucks before disappearing for the rest of the episode. (a small mercy)

The rest of the plot revolves around the father (Gary) getting in some kind of disagreement with Sue and him talking to members of his band for advice on how to sort it out.

The phrase \"words fail me\" is an old one but this is where it is the most truthful thing to say. It is so incredibly BAD! So HORRIBLE, that I would like every trace of it's existence sent to the lowest depths of the North sea and life can go on.

It saddens me though, to see someone as good as Sally Bretton (good actress, I like her) make a prat out of herself, Ardal O Hanlon (My Hero aside) has the ability to be pretty funny - but not here - and Ben Elton, distinguished for so much good stuff somehow manages to come up with this...thing then comedy is in very serious trouble!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, first off there may be a SPOILER here since i don't know what constitutes giving out too much information. My subject line says it all but surely people will want to know WHY it's so stupid.

First off, this film follows a bunch of Yuppies as they go to a sports game in Chicago but wind up taking the wrong exit and winding up in the ghetto. Scary, huh? Well, first of all, Emilio is driving everyone in the world's most overblown RV\/Winnebago, tricked out with satellite dishes and crap like that on it. So these guys are GOING to a sports game (i forget which, though likely the Bulls or the White Sox since they're near the oh-so-scary ghetto), yet they can't even make it down the freeway without having an onboard viewing command center that would put ESPN to shame. Yet they're smart enough to earn livings that would pay for the stuff, but are such sports fans that they don't even know which exit to get off at on their way to the game they so love.

I gave up on the movie within a half hour after that, but the reasons were plentiful. They wind up IN THE GHETTO, yet their main danger to their existence is DENIS LEARY. A WHITE GUY. I'm no racist, but COME ON. In anything RESEMBLING reality - and this film WAS trying to be an urban nightmare - Denis Leary would not be trying to kill Emilio Estevez, he'd be hitching a ride to get the f*** out of Dodge himself!!!

This is easily one of the dumbest movies ever created, although I'm not familiar with much of the rest of the world's cinema. If MST3K were still on, they surely would have devoted an episode to this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really liked the idea of traveling between dimensions, and I even liked the Wade\/Quinn tension in early episodes. Some of the worlds they created gave the main characters extremely interesting backdrops for their stories. However, as the show went on there were more silly disputes among the friends and less of a true bond. There was less wonder and excitement when they were involved in other worlds and more condescension. And every world had one of the characters falling in love. The writing just got boring and everything was way too over the top. Too bad it would've been nice to have a closely knit band of friends (a la Star Wars) traveling to different dimensions on TV for several years, rather than a tired band of knit pickers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Loving the Andersen fairy tails as a child and recently having seen some intriguing documentaries on this odd, though brilliant, author, I eagerly looked forward to see this made-for-TV film. Unfortunately the experience was nothing but a disappointment leaving me in anger and confusion. First of all the story\/script is filled with inaccuracies and downright fantasies and in this way creating almost a completely new story while shamefully abusing Andersen's fairy tales, presumably in order to sell the crap to suckers like me. Secondly, pretty-boy actor (really... ever seen a picture of the real Andersen?) Kieran Brew manages to portray Hans Christian as mentally retarded rather than the brilliant though very disturbed character he indeed was. Though annoying and irritating like Andersen, Brew is missing the required charisma to create any feelings of compassion what so ever. Thirdly. The love story between Andersen and the fictional Jetta (whom actually should be Henriette, the wife of Edvard Collin)... Why? This man has lived such an interesting life, it should be enough as a foundation to a great movie!

I could continue this to be a very long list but feel it safest to simply recommend all of you to spend your time and money on something else instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I did not like this movie. I rented it hoping it would be something like the 10th Kingdom. I was disappointed when I discovered it wasn't. I also found it just plain nervracking. The acting was bad, the characters where unbelievable and the time jumps were crazy. I only recomend this film if your in the mood to see a crazy dude running around, but I'm sure there are better films with the same thing. I can't believe I wasted my time on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This script was mildly original when it was written in 1935, but the poor performances and the inconsistent quality level make it impossible to recommend. Some of the vignettes are absolutely terrible and the dialogue is never natural. A few of the plot twists were creative, but I was very surprised to see it so highly rated here at the IMDB. A few scenes are worthwhile, it's as a film that if fails completely to entertain. If you like this sort of montage, run don't walk and get \"Tales of Manhattan\" (1942) a marvelous film that follows the life and times of a topcoat.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is by far the worst movie ever, The story line is weak and never shows what happens to the people after the 20 was left they hands. This really bugs me. It drags on and on with out any meaning, very boring. The only good thing was the cast, WOW, lots of big time actors and actress in it. But besides that it was horrible, terrible and repulsive, do yourself a favor, do not watch it.

I gave it a 1 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is nothing mean spirited or evil about this movie. It's just terribly dull. Dull is the photography--- the film stock appears old and faded and washed-out. Maybe it was even 16mm blown up to 35mm, dunno. Dull is the script, which is tedious and 'Jules Pfeiffer'-ish. That is, kind of 1960s bossa-nova cocktail party cool. Like our beatnik grandparents might have spoken if they were trying to appear really straight. The 'slice-of-life' characters were mostly annoying. True, they were real to life, but hey, if I wanted to see truly ordinary people doing really mundane and ordinary things, I'd just watch myself. I wouldn't trapse all the way down to a cinema and blow five quid, and an evening, watching someone else do it.

I expected a funny, bright rom-com. What I got was more like what two intelligent and moderately talented 19 or 20 year-olds might have produced on their first day with a new video camera.

I gave this a 4 out 10, because it appears that someone tried, at least.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film attempts to cash in on the success of Richard Curtis movies, particularly \"Love Actually\" (which I loved) - a series of disparate scenes following the love lives of various couples.

It's a great idea poorly executed. The script tries to be a little too clever and simply doesn't resonate. Most of the acting is stilted which is more a reflection on the director than the actors.

The version I saw (on a plane) was called \"Scenes from a Park\", which is a more appropriate title as not all the scenes were of a 'sexual nature'.

I was so looking forward to this movie, but ultimately it is disappointing. Don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the acting is good.thats the positives out of the way! SOSN is shallow and superficial.Almost all the characters are middle class and English.The gay men are depicted as fickle sexual predators aiming to use children in their empty lives.This film could only appeal to people who know hampstead heath and would get minor satisfaction from pointing out any landmarks.There is no time to engage with the characters and has a result you really don,t care about them,Catherine Tate at the height of her comedic fame stars as a woman seeking a divorce from her husband and on screen for about the same time as her Nana sketches failed to convince,however if she had said \"what a f****** liberty\" i would have agreed

I'd rather take a walk in the Park;unintelligent rubbish!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is about the encounters of 7 couples on Hampstead heath in one sunny Wednesday afternoon.

It shows 7 different types of couples: married, divorced, breaking up a relationship, homosexual, elderly, blind date and escort service. They are not connected to each other apart from the geographical location, so that is a disappointment. The film is a collage of conversations, without any discernible plot. The film jumps from a pair to another without any logic. I find this film boring and purposeless. The only redeeming feature is the great weather throughout the film. It is sad that talents like Ewan McGregor and Sophie Okonedo get wasted by this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you never have read the book and never intend to read it in the future, go on and watch the movie (6\/10). It is a nice fantasy movie with well done CGI, nice acting, a beautiful environment and an above-average fantasy story.

If you have read the book like me about 10 times or more and really love it, don't expect too much (or better: don't expect anything at all). The story is totally different from the original book. This may explain that the movie is voted 1\/10 from people around 40 or more (like me) and much better from people who most probably never read the book before and thus expect nothing.

Most of the differences between movie and book are not really necessary and change the setting (in my opinion much to the worse):

- The magic in the book works with rituals for classic magical effects. (Changing weather, creating illusions, transform into animals, ...) In the movie the magic is more like \"jedi-school for the middle ages\" (TM) (wooden sticks instead of lightsabers). That the devil is looking like emperor palpatine (after part III) doesn't make it really better.

- The mill in the book is not totally cut off the world like in the movie. In the book the story is set near Dresden, which Krabat visits one time with his master and also he visits some nearby villages for festivities. (This part might have been changed to cut costs.) I also don't understand why in the movie the mill is located in the hills while the nearby graveyard is set in the high mountains.

- The whole surrounding is the average run of the mill fantasy medieval style. Lots of mud everywhere, dirty faces, not an orderly kitchen, only very rough houses. The book never suggested such an environment.

- In the book the master tries to make Krabat his successor but Krabat rejects. Krabat is somewhere between admiration, distance and silent rejection. In the movie Krabat rejects the master always openly like a stubborn schoolboy.

- The movie is set in 1647 instead of around 1720. This makes it impossible for the master to tell some stories from his youth probably around 170x. OK, the stories are missing anyway in the movie.

Also some explanations given in the book would have been helpful and would not cost so much minutes:

- In the book all work done at day is effortless and work in the night is like normal work. This explanation is missing in the movie. Sometimes the boys are sweating and sometimes they are happy.

- The book explains why only a few \"Gesellen\" try to confront the master: If the master dies by any mundane reasons, the \"Gesellen\" are free AND keep their magical powers. If the master dies at the confrontation, all will lose their power forever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My Age: 13

James Cole, played by Steven Seagal, is sent to help Detective Jim Campbell, played by Keenen Ivory Wayans, solve a series of killings in which the victims are crucified. Since Cole has arrived on the spot, he notices that the killings have changed a little, and thinks there is a different killer. It becomes personal when his ex-wife is murdered, and Campbell finds his fingerprints on the body. Campbell investigates the mysterious Cole, and finds out about a very shady past.

I am not a fan of Steven Seagal. I enjoy action movies, but he is the worst actor I have ever seen. This film is not much fun to watch at all, incredibly dumb, and, obviously, Steven Seagal's acting performance is absolutely horrid. Keenen Ivory Wayans isn't too bad, though. The only redeeming thing in this film is the occasional good action scene, although most come round because of insanely stupid reasons. The plot in this film is absolute gibberish. I didn't care for it at all. The whole \"glimmer man\" past of Seagal's character was stupid, all the Mafia fights and fights in the restaurant were there for almost no reason. Give this film a miss.

Australian Classification: MA 15+: High Level Violence

Rating: 35 out of 100 (quite generous)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two L.A cops track down a serial killer nicknamed \"The family man\" who has wiped out whole families and when one of the police officer's wife takes the deep six, questions are raised and it turns out that a serial killer isn't responsible but rather mobsters. The idea of Seagal in a serial killer movie is an interesting concept, indeed one could see Seagal play a good serial killer however making him a cop who has a ridiculous penchant for prayer beads and razor sharp credit cards comes off more stupid than likably ridiculous. Also a running joke involves Wayon's enjoyment of eating powdered deer penis and well this raunchy material is utterly out of place. Not to mention the beginning of a school being taken hostage, due to a boy's breakup with his girlfriend. After Seagal neutralizes him, the girlfriend tells the young lad that she loves him. Now there is a lesson to be learned from all of this, if you want your girlfriend back, taking the school hostage may get you back on her good side. I myself would think flowers or the old fashioned phone call might work, then again though, i'm old fashioned. Besides who am I to put a damper on somebody else's brilliant reconciliation plan.

* out of 4-(Bad)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"New Year 2006, and I'm watching Glimmer Man again. Say what you like, I find Steven Seagal's movies amusing. Like many comments, good fight sequences - I particularly liked his answering of the phone at the restaurant saying how long it would be closed for restoration. Bit like Schwarzenegger's humour in the earlier action films - although that tended to be self-deprecating.

But the one I like here is Brian Cox. One of the most versatile actors around. Pity about his hand and foot, but so much for withstanding extended interrogation - must have flunked that class at the \"farm\".

As the films went on I wonder just how the ever thickening girth of Seagal affected his movement?. Never mind, it's entertainment!.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A not so good action thriller because it unsuccessfully trends the same water as early Steven Seagal films because there is not a very good set piece. Steven Seagal plays the same kind of character that he has played since Above the Law. In my opinion the performance of Keenen Ivory Wayans is wasted in such an average film and belongs in a much better film. Bob Gunton is okay as the main heavy. The best acting in the entire film belongs to Brian Cox who is very frightening in the role of the murderer. My favorite scenes are the fight scenes with the Russian mafia. One of the film reasons to see The Glimmer Man(1996) is for the brief appearence of the beautiful and voluptupus Nikki Cox. Its too bad that there were not more scenes with her in them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Imagine if you will an alternative universe where someone has made SEVEN where instead of a talented cast and crew they've cast a politically conscious environmentalist and a stand up comedian as the leads . If your imagination can't stretch that far just watch THE GLIMMER MAN as it's the next worse thing

!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!

Jack Cole is a cop with a hidden past and it's very ironic that he's played by Steven Seagal since he's also someone witrh a hidden past , but don't tell anyone because it's top secret . Perhaps the biggest secret is how someone like Seagal became a movie star in the first place since THE GLIMMER MAN continues in the vein of all of Seagal's other movies in that it's utter , utter crap . Look at the way he's introduced as his partner walks into his office \" Yoi love beads man . In you're in the wrong office \" Steven replies with something that is side splittingly witty , or he would if anyone was able to understand a bloody word he said because for much of the movie he just mumbles away . In fact the only time I could make out his dialogue was the scene at the school where he bursts in on the gunman holding the class hostage

\" Don't make me kill you \"

Is this what a cop would say to a suicidal gunman ? I'm just thinking that in another movie where Steven isn't the hero ( ie A good movie ) the cop would say something along the lines of \" Don't kill me , I've got a wife and a couple of kids waiting at home \" . So anyway suicidal gunman goes to blow his head off but Steven saves his life by hurtling them both through two sets of windows . It goes without saying that you shouldn't try this at home

As the story progresses Steven ( I've given up on calling him Jack though credit to the screen writer for giving Steven a sensible name ) becomes involved in a case a plagiarism where someone has been stealing bits out of other superior movies featuring serial killers . As Steven finds more victims you can see him thinking \" What was that movie that starred Morgan Freeman as a cop ? \" as he inspects the bodies , oh and the action keeps switching back to the hero's domestic life just so we know that this guy's good as a family man , this guy's very good as a family man such a pity he's so bad as a movie star","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Typical Steven Seagal fare: that is, it's crap. The plot relies on a series of incredibly improbable coincidences; there's a hefty dose of conspiracy theory which would be much more palatable if we didn't know that Seagal takes it all literally; and once again, bad-movie multi-millionaire Seagal tells us all about the evils of The Rich.

Seagal's survival relies, as usual, on the fact that Bad Guys never fire their guns from out of arm's reach, and always like to give a little \"I'm gonna kill you\" speech before blowing a man's head off.

Watch this one right after the even-worse *Fire Down Below* and note how the carpet in Keenen Ivory Wayans's apartment is more flammable than a big puddle of gasoline.

Oh, and watch in the final fight scene for the Incredible Disappearing Forehead Wound, which is probably the most entertaining thing in the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kennan Ivory Wayans was so funny in Low Down Dirty Shame that I had to see this one and it was one of the worst he has done and Steven Seagal didn't help much. It starts off with some odd religious killings that don't make much sense to Jim Campbell (Keenan). He is surprised to see a new partner waiting for him to work by his side to crack the case but Jack Cole doesn't seem to be who everyone thinks he is until Jack's ex wife is killed in one of those ritual killings that end up making him the suspect as well. It's the same thing as all of his other movies: Smoke past, CIA involvement and now trying to be a normal cop. Why does Steven dress up like he is from a Western movie? And the prayer beeds on top of that make things a little confusing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe it was the excessive weight gain Seagal had put on. Or maybe it was the horrible acting of Wayans in an action flick. Or was it the total lack of chemistry between the two leading characters? These and other considerations lead me to conclude that Seagal should have never made this acting nightmare. True, the story line was good. Yet, as an avid follower of Seagal's career and background, his physical appearance was inconsistent with his genre of clean, pure, healthy Zen Buddhist living, notably in his on screen discussions with Wayans. (Then again his real life affair with the \"nanny\" was inconsistent also!)

If Seagal wants to become a more diversified actor, then he should do what a fellow action figure did in \"Kindergarten Cop\"...put humorous material or situations in the script where the actor has no choice but to react in a comical way. Otherwise, leave the wise-cracks and the futile attempts at humor out of it while chasing a serial killer. Seagal is not a natural humor type of guy. It did not work.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This (allegedly) based-on-a-true story TV movie concerns a woman on the run from the FBI and a *seriously* stupid guy.

First, we have Roger Paulson (Tim Matheson), a \"regular guy\" type with a mind-numbing job, an ex-wife, a kid he hardly ever gets to see and some cats.

Next, there is \"Elaine-Lisa-you name it\" (Tracy Pollan), a smart, sexy, good looking woman whose tongue would burst into flame if she ever told the truth.

Roger and Lisa meet when she answers a lonely-hearts ad. Roger is one of these poor saps who can't seem to handle living alone, so after his wife dumped him, he places his ad.

It doesn't take long for Roger to figure out that Lisa is *not* a good person, but he has no idea how to get rid of her. He doesn't even have enough sense to change the locks on his apartment door after he throws her out.

Go ahead and watch this if you don't have anything else to do.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although a well produced made for television movie, Dying to Love You reeks with low grade melodramatic splendor.

The film opens up to Roger Paulson (Tim Matheson, looking much older than I remember him to be), who is a struggling businessman that leads an empty, lonely life after his wife Ruthie (who looks suspiciously like Roseanne Arnold) leaves him with the quickness. Now all Roger has is his cats....and his ad in the newspaper.

Once his ad is answered, he calls Johnnie-Elaine-Lisa-oh it doesn't matter I'm whoever you want me to be-Lawrence. Then...they have phone sex.

I'm not sure where you're from or when you were born, but I remember that phone-sex bit was played out by the late '80's. I'm sorry but that was trashy.

Soon Roger and the broad hook up and have a whirlwind romance. They fall in love, visit the zoo to see gorillas, and then have some kinky sex with Roger's son in the other room. She ties him to the bed and seduces him.

Roger is just so stupid that he does not realize that Johnnie-Eliane is just a bimbo that loves to sleep around. God forbid women only sleep with one man. Soon enough, strange phone calls begin to occur, Johnny Girl wants Roger to marry her with absolute quickness, and she keeps ranting and raving about her ex-husband who used to beat her. It's funny to see Roger believe her through all this stuff. That's until a frumpy co-worker tells him to go snooping through her belongings like a nosy housewife. He takes her crappy advice and lo and behold, he finds a suitcase crawling with fake ID cards and wigs and guns and a crossbow. He immediately takes the suitcase to the police and has her arrested. Even though all this jazz, he still loves the dumb broad. She tells so much lies, it seems her tongue will catch fire if she tells the truth once.

Roger goes on with his life and meets an ugly woman named Angela who looks like something off of Gremlins 2. She has a child as well and Roger takes quite a liking to her. But something inside Roger's subconscious keeps him connected to Lisa Rohn (if that's even her real name) and he keeps going back to see her.

Now Lisa is the \"ex that won't go away\" as she \"earns\" herself a get out of jail free card and shows up at Roger's doorstep and his son Matt is so busy trying to check her out, he pours juice all over the floor. IL' Rog is so stupid, he throws Lisa out and doesn't even change the locks. Boy, if all people were that stupid, I wouldn't even be writing this review. The ending of this movie is so corny, you won't believe.

Tim Matheson is a Made-for-TV-Movie king. he just looks like such a dawm mummy in this movie. He's a little wooden and stiff. The dazzling Tracy Pollan works well with her role and her trampiness rings true. She is extremely beautiful and I do see what Michael J. Fox sees in her.

This movie is great to watch when you're on that late night tip, but then again, you might fall asleep, considering how dull and bland it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, so this was made way back in 1993. Directed loosely by Robert Iscove and written loosely by John Miglis, it's supposed to be based on a true story. Hard to believe anyone could be so stupid and blind to the truth. For certainly it was obvious from the beginning that this dame was after all she could get.

Tim Matheson, looking somewhat older than I remember him, played the empty headed man who was looking for romance in his somewhat dull and empty life. Well, it came to him in the likes of Tracy Pollan, a somewhat vacant looking girl with kinky sex as her means of conquering her guys.

Come on, phone sex, even in the 90s was old hat. Can't believe someone would fall for that old line. But Mr. Matheson seemed to buy it. And it cost him plenty.

The hardest scene to take was when he finally threw the dame out of his apartment, putting all her junk in the hallway (IN FRONT OF HIS APARTMENT) and then had the stupidity not to change the locks. That's when I had enough of this trite movie. It made me want to wish the dame had tried it on me so I could have the satisfaction of telling her to take a hike.

I give this chestnut a 1 out of 100. That's how bad I thought it was. I guess you can't blame the actors. But they were awful. Did they actually try to play this with a straight face?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I decided to hire out this movie along with a few other old horror movies.This was the worst,some of the killings were good and theres a bit of humour but i couldnt stand this,everytime a killing happened they would show scenes of all these old movies that the killer used to be in,i give this 2\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The ABC gears up it's repertory company for another unrealistic representation of rural Australia. Yes folks, it's all there Baca Bourke (Jeremy Sims,an actor of little talent) Fire hero , Lill (Libby Tanner plays Bronwyn Craig in the bush), Fifi (Nadia Townsend) town slut, preggers by Baca's brother Joe (I think). Then there's Uncle Geoff the, Big Daddy of Lost Springs. Uncle Geoff's scenes are like Tennessee Williams on speed. Only saving grace is Russian actress Natalia Novikova as Baca's loony missus. She is great. I can't understand why John Waters took the gig as Lilly's psychologist husband. Must have needed the money I expect! Still, he won't last long as Lill and Baca will be having it off toute suit. Just watch this lemon to see how bad an Aussie show can be. Frankly, I'm ashamed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me say at the outset that I'm not a very artistic person and that I don't \"get\" new art. That being said, this film is absolutely crazy, and in my opinion not crazy in a good way. Filmed entirely in black and white with a series of very loosely connected stories, Avida is a film for those who can look at modern art and say \"wow, I feel the energy and passion of this painting.\" The only reason I give this film a 3 out of 10 is because I actually did manage to laugh at some parts, though mainly laughing at the sheer insanity of the film. Two of the characters throwing chairs on a lawn, as to do what these characters were doing, I have no idea. I wouldn't recommend this film to anybody.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Avida is a game of words mingling life and eagerness, but I personally think this movie was overblown by its ambition and does not make justice to its title. It gathers a set of awkward characters united by unbelievable links. Furthermore, the way everything is connected at the end is, in my opinion, a bit pathetic. What remains of it was a set of images... an interesting one, but not enough to make this a good movie.

I believe this film is supposed to be a comedy, but I surely didn't noticed! The nonsense and caricatural nature of the movie is actually the only good thing about it, but when it drags on an on and on it becomes no longer bearable. I have to say I fought hard to continue seeing it until the end, and I am still not sure it was worth it...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are planning to schedule your program for a film festival, do not be misled by what it says in the booklet. This is a complete waste of time and energy. I have watched Bunuel, I have seen Dali, and admired them; but this isn't surrealism, this is not supposed to BE at all. Didn't they ever think about the reputation of human race while taking this picture? After we become extinct by global warming, these will be the remainings of our civilization. What if the aliens sample this as an example of our intellectual capital? With all due respect to the effort put in this, maybe it would be a good idea to terminate all the copies of this film - or whatever it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Set in a post apocalyptic future, the new highlander is an effeminate little twerp named Quentin MacLeod, who is being mentored by a new Ramirez while his little sister tags along on their quest to thwart an evil immortal overlord. To do so, Quentin must absorb all the knowledge of other immortals before this overlord, Korton, does.

In short, this is pure crap, much like the Highlander sequels. Quentin is a fairly stupid character, constantly whining and moaning and bitching in a \"woe is me for I am a reluctant hero\" kind of way, and he never catches on to the fact that he's an immortal and can't be killed, at least not easily. Ramirez would have done better to ditch him and thwart Korton himself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had the biggest advertising campaign any movie ever had in Russia. \"Epic movie about Russian culture\", \"Great saga of Russian spirit\", endless articles and interviews. For me this movie was the biggest disappointment. The main character played by Oleg Menshikov is a stupid immature boy ready to set up his comrades because of a woman who doesn't even look like a lady. What is there to admire? In the first part of the movie the story doesn't develop at all. People's festival scenes look like boasting about Russian audacity.

I respect Mr. Mikhalkov for his previous works both as actor and director, but this movie just demonstrates his ambitions to be considered the \"Tzar\" of Russian cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this ego-centric \"effort\" at achieving a film of \"epic\" status in the company of several native Russian family members. Five people gave 5 different reactions, from Mikhalkov worship to my cynicism.

I saw a movie that looked like Mikhalkov took a lot of \"Canal +\" money, put some of it in his (and other's) pockets and turned the project over to a bunch of film students. I counted at least 4 different \"styles\" in the movie. There is no way that the same director is responsible for these different scenes. Contrast these for yourself:

\u00b7Cadets polishing shoes with a dog.

\u00b7Train station scene (saying goodbye to Andrei).

\u00b7Outdoor panorama shots.

\u00b7Ormond talking through the keyhole.

\u00b7Initial attempt on the Grand Duke and later chase scenes to get Andrei back to sing in Figaro.

\u00b7Fencing sequence

Julia Ormond is faster than superman. Learning about his transfer belatedly, she gets all the way across Moscow in one minute to say goodbye to Andrei.

The Russian natives felt that the impression given of Russian life was \"caricature\" and not history. They called it \"tourist postcard\" Russia.

They were all proud that a Russian director\/producer\/fixer has managed to break into the \"big time\" and be able to waste over 30 million dollars of other people's money while maybe putting a little into local pockets during filming.

If you want to \"think\" you have seen Russia go see this movie. Drink some coffee before you go.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most critics have written devastating about that Michalkov-movie, but I wanted it to see myself. And, unfortunately, they are right. The film had the greatest budget ever in Russian movie history, two international stars, colorful mass scenes, apparently shot quite close to the Kremlin - but in the end it appears to be a nice, sweet nothing. You would not believe, that this director earlier has made masterpieces like Urga and Burnt By the Sun. The characters in the storyline are not convincing, neither Jane nor McCracken nor Andrej. Only general Radlov worth being mentioned. It remains on the surface all the time. Politically it is to me a glorification of the army, and especially the Russian one with values like honor and duty. And, having lived at least half a year in Siberia: My Russia is much more than the one that is depicted in Michalkovs movie. Regarding \"Burnt By The Sun\" by the same director as a no-question-10-points-movie, one of the best I ever seen in my entire life, I was totally disappointed by that one. Sorry. Nevertheless, Michalkovs unique talent in delivering amazingly beautiful pictures is still there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie suffers from the fact that for years Hollywood had no clue as to how to package Jackie Chan for the masses. His low-budget Hong Kong movies were all fast-paced kinetic thrillers that highlight his amazing gymnastic skills and talent for light comedy. His early Hollywood films stuck him in the same movies that were being packaged for Stallone or Chuck Norris. There is nothing about Chan's character in this movie that requires the character to be Asian except for his being the star. In his Hong Kong films Chan is never dull, with the movies being one rapid-fire martial arts sequence after another, but \"The Protector\" is lifeless throughout. Danny Aiello isn't given much to work with either and the lacking chemistry between the two probably is more a result of the script and direction than how the two actors got on together. Both have been better in worse movies. The best thing about the movie is the Hong Kong settings. The worst part is the appalling way that Jackie Chan comes off so colorless and drab. It wouldn't be until the made-in-Canada \"Rumble in the Bronx\" that the west would finally figure out how to make a good Jackie Chan movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE PROTECTOR. You hear the name. You think, \"ah, it's a crappy Hong Kong movie.\" Guess what - it's not Hong Kong. And yes, it is crappy. This amazingly stupid Jackie Chan film, ruined by us, yes us, the Americans (I'm boiling with anger, ooh, I think I'll jump out that window!), has Chan as a New York cop hunting down a gang, avenging the death of his buddy. Sounds cool...but it's not. Don't waste your money renting it. To prove he could make a better cop film, Chan made the amazing POLICE STORY (1985).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!. All the characters are decent i guess, but the story is so so, however Jackie Chan is still amazing in this even if he did look bored. Jackie and Danny Aiello had zero chemistry together, and it was very boring a lot of times, however the finale was above average and managed to be fairly entertaining, and had some good stunts!. I have not yet seen the Hong Kong version, however i'm sure it's better then this dud, plus the twist is very predictable!. It's really lifeless and bland, and i don't blame Jackie for not looking happy in this, and if he didn't star in this it would have been unbearable and completely unwatchable. The opening is supposed to be memorable, but it's nothing i haven't seen before and done better at that, and i thought the whole film was rather lazy and could have been an awesome film if Jackie had control of it!, plus i really didn't root for any of the characters. This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film, and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!, not recommended even for Die hard Jackie Chan fans. The Direction is terrible!. James Glickenhaus does a terrible job here, with extremely bland camera work, bad angles, and keeping the film boring for the most part throughout. The Acting is so so. Jackie Chan is AMAZING as always, however he is not his usual energetic self, and looks bored and Ps*ed off throughout the film, had zero chemistry with Danny Aiello, and i really don't blame him either! (Jackie Rules!!!!!). Danny Aiello is OK here, as Jackie's partner, but his character is a bit of an ass, and he had zero chemistry with Jackie, he did OK i guess. Roy Chiao is decent as the main villain, but was just going through the motions and wasn't all that menacing, he still is damn cool though. Rest of the cast are average at best. Overall Not worth your time or money. *1\/2 out of 5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Robert Lansing plays a scientist experimenting with passing objects through solid matter, but he goes too far one night and unintentionally makes himself four-dimensional! Atomic-age fantasy is rather charming in a very cheesy way. Perhaps it was considered a thoughtful sci-fi in its time (with psychological overtones), yet seen today the film is mildly overbaked and naive; it's a camp-fest tailor-made for TV's late-late show. Wooden performances by Lansing and Lee Meriwether barely rate as one-dimensional, though Patty Duke (playing a cute brat pre-\"Miracle Worker\") gets a colorful, memorable exit.

** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst films of it's genre.

The only bright spots were Lee Merriwether showing some of the sparkle she would later bring to the Time Tunnel and Batman.

A young Patty Duke also outshone the more established actors.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Charlie (George \"Norm\" Wendt) and Rhonda (\"Just Say\" Julie Brown) are a pair of cheerful, murderous aliens who become stranded on Earth and stumble upon a tiny western town. They become deputy sheriffs and dish out a deadly form of justice to speeders, murderers and others, while getting on the bad side of some of locals (led by Wayne Grace). Meanwhile, their sexy alien daughter (Anastasia Sakelaris) arrives in a skimpy\/shiny outfit with her black human husband (Christopher M. Brown) to find them and TV reporters and government agents turn up to fill up time.

From what I can tell, this is a deliberate attempt to cover every possible genre (comedy, sci-fi, horror, western...) in one movie, and what a stupid, unfunny mess it is, despite energetic acting from the two stars. The script is downright atrocious.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the real plot...

A group of post-Civil War prostitutes seek alternative housing in FORT BOOM. Lacy Everett and a close-knit family of call girls have been eating date expired sausages for days and plan to move into the former Fort McMillian. Locals warn the women of eating more of the dated sausage. Because there is a vicious pyromaniac loose in the area and he refuse to shuttle them out to the property. When they finally arrive at their destination, they discover their stomach is full of gass after all the bad sausage. It is not long before they learn why their new home is called FORT BOOM.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is about a group of women (perhaps not of the highest repute) who are heading to a small fort to take over a recently departed uncles property where they plan to set up shop. Upon arrival in a nearby city they find no one will go there (even though its only 15 miles away), so they walk. When they get there they find there are no soldiers but a good amount of people who have taken over use of the fort and built up a small city nearby. They soon find that something isn't right here and Fort McMillan (Ft. Doom as the locals call it) is in some serious trouble.

Rather than go into the plot line I will make some comments about things I noticed about the movie. First off the acting is very flat, only a few of the people seem to be real enough to believe in. My first though was poor acting, but at the end I watched some of the outtakes and these same people became alive. So my only thought left is this is how the director wanted it. On top of the bad acting I have a great problem where the people don't react right to a given set of circumstances. Take for example no one would take them to Ft McMillan for any price even though its only 15 miles away. Yet when we arrive at the Fort we find it is well maintained by a decent population of people, all of whom must get supplies from some one, not to mention mail etc. It is supposed to take place in 1867, yet we can see the railroad car has electric lights (they aren't on at least) and a locomotive engine that is at least 30 years later, not one of the general style of locomotives so popular at that time. There are also places where you can see paved blacktop, (and maybe a car at one point, didn't want to bother to go back and look) and other anachronistic items. If they had followed the rules of the \"world\" they made and let the actors be actors it might have gotten a 4 from me instead of the 2 I gave it, and they rewritten it about 4 more times it might have done even better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alleged \"scream queen\" Debbie Rochon and her group of frontier prostitutes travel west to the title location and encounter grisly killings that turn out to be the work of a cult of ex-Confederate psychopaths attempting to resurrect the south through pointless massacre.

Action and suspense take a backseat to loads of boring dialog and uninteresting character development.

Billy Drago is good in the thankless (not to mention pointless) role of the town mortician but everything else about this wannabe slasher western is extremely poor, including the town and the fort, both of which look like modern made western tourist traps and costumes that look like they were bought at Party City.

Do yourself a big favor and watch Ravenous instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An interesting premise, and Billy Drago is always good as a dangerous nut-bag (side note: I'd love to see Drago, Stephen McHattie and Lance Hendrikson in a flick together; talk about raging cheekbones!). The soundtrack wasn't terrible, either.

But the acting--even that of such professionals as Drago and Debbie Rochon--was terrible, the directing worse (perhaps contributory to the former), the dialog chimp-like, and the camera work, barely tolerable. Still, it was the SETS that got a big \"10\" on my \"oy-vey\" scale. I don't know where this was filmed, but were I to hazard a guess, it would be either an open-air museum, or one of those re-enactment villages, where everything is just a bit too well-kept to do more than suggest the \"real Old West\". Okay, so it was shot on a college kid's budget. That said, I could have forgiven one or two of the aforementioned faults. But taken all together, and being generous, I could not see giving it more than three stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this 'film' from a gas station in the 3.99 bin for one reason: Billy Drago, who is one of my favorite actors. He is terrifically creepy and good, but that's where it stops. The movie itself is a dirt cheap, gratingly awful attempt at a horror western, and manages neither, never mind a successful merging of the two genres. The acting besides Drago's is so bad I wanted to put the couch cushions over my ears, the production values are nonexistent and the script , I don't even know where to start.

Avoid at all costs unless you are a die hard Drago fan like me.

Terrible, shameful unforgivable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Royal Rumble 1988 bored me pretty damn good. The rumble itself is pretty uneventful, filled with mid carders, and a winner that really had no point in winning, and why on earth did The Young Stallions Vs The Islanders main event? half the crowd left. Jessie Ventura sounds bored, through half the thing, and you can tell when he mentions he finds the development of Hogan Vs Andre more interesting. McMahon and Ventura don't have the chemistry of Gorilla and Jessie.

Ricky Steamboat Vs Ravishing Rick Rude. Heavily disappointing match, with too many rest holds, and too much of a sluggish pace, sink this one. When it picks up like crazy in the last 5 minutes, it's too little, too late. Steamboat wins by DQ.

2 1\/2 \/5

Next is up Dino Bravo attempting to set a new bench press record, with Ventura spotting him. Horrendous segment, with no entertainment value what so ever. Ventura is not nearly enough to carry this segment, and even McMahon admitted it was boring. Controversy or not, I wasted enough time on this crap.

0\/5

WWF Woman's Tag Team Championship.

2 out of 3 falls.

The Glamour Girls|C|\/W Jimmy Hart. Vs The Jumping Bomb Angels. This is the best match of the night, no I'm not kidding!. Very exciting stuff for Woman's wrestling, and you'll be hard pressed to find stuff this good, now a days. The Jumping Bomb Angels were way over, and the crowd went ape sh*t for their title win.

3\/5

Contract signing between Hulk Hogan and Andre The Giant. Hogan gets a decent pop, but there a few noticeable boo's for him, probably because its in Canada. A bit too drawn out for my liking, but it was necessary for the storyline. It got it's point across, and had some effective moments, but a lot of the times, I kept saying \"Get on with it\". Both sign, and Andre slams Hogan's head on the table, and pushes the table on him.

2 1\/2 \/5

Royal Rumble Match. Very weak Royal Rumble, probably due to awkward pacing, and the true lack of star power. I think Vince was testing the waters with this one, and it showed. Ventura seems uninterested, and I don't blame him. Crowd clearly wanted Roberts to win, yelling DDT almost every 5 minutes he was in there, and while Duggan got a good pop, I don't believe he was the winner they wanted, and where did this take his career? Nowhere. Bret's 1st ever Royal Rumble, and he made an impressive showing. It wasn't terrible, but it was quite lackluster, and it didn't have enough to make the show, considering this was what the show was based on.

2 1\/2 \/5

Hogan has an interview with Craig DeGeorge. Standard Hulkster interview, but not with the same craziness, and outrageous remarks he usually pulls.

2\/5

Ted and Andre get interviewed. Andre claims he will deliver the Championship to Mr. Dibiase. Short, but effective.

3\/5

2 out of 3 Falls.

The Islanders Vs The Young Stallions. Crowd is completely dead for this, and half of them bolted for the exit's. It's quite dull, and had no business being in the main event. Jessie and Vince seem bored, and argue about other things while the match is taking place. Islanders win, due to taking advantage of Roma's injury.

2\/5

Bottom line. Historically important I suppose, but there is really nothing to see here. This was just a starting cue for great things to come for The Royal Rumble, and while you can see glimpses of potential here, there is nothing on here, going out of your way to see. I usually recommend everything once for Die Hard Wrestling fans, and considering it's the 1st Royal Rumble event, I suppose I have too, but prepare to be bored a lot of the time.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With Al Jolson at the height of his popularity and Warner Brothers's the Jazz Singer having been the highest grossing film of 1927, it was inevitable that the other studios would churn out a few vehicles for their own Jolson-esquire characters. But while the Jazz Singer was a sensation for its being the first part-talkie, the Matin\u00e9e Idol lacks the singing voice of its star (the now obscure Johnnie Walker), and has to make do with just his visual antics.

The Matin\u00e9e Idol was an early directorial assignment for the renowned Frank Capra. Capra's first couple of full-length features for Harry Langdon reveal a very showy, excessive style, which made Langdon's already mediocre slapstick almost unwatchable. A couple of pictures later and Capra has learnt to ease off a bit, with some fairly regular and decent camera-work. However he still shows no aptitude for shooting physical comedy. The longest comic routine - the stage performance - seems to have a few good gags, but it's all cut up into lots of different camera angles, and there is no chance for the comedy to flow naturally from the performances. Theoretically, a good portion of the jokes are in the intertitles, but there are far too many of these and none of them is especially funny.

Of course, Capra would eventually mature into a fine dramatic and romantic director, and you can see him beginning to develop in this respect. He cuts down the line, closing in on Walker and Bessie love in the scene where she first lays eyes on him in his Don Wilson get up, neatly establishing the wordless connection between them. Then there is some beautiful and tender framing of the couple in their scene together at the masquerade, which is all very reminiscent of the love scenes in Capra's early 30s output.

Johnnie Walker, Columbia's answer to Al Jolson, is not an exceptional talent. His comic timing is good but there is nothing to make him stand out. Bessie Love on the other hand is a pretty good actress too, with a very expressive face. Kudos to her for getting involved with the physical comedy and losing her dignity with the boys. There's also a good role for Lionel Belmore, that rotund and jolly character actor who seems to turn up in absolutely everything in the late 20s and early 30s.

The Matin\u00e9e Idol is one of those pictures that has gained more than its fair share of attention thanks to its director later having made a handful of masterpieces. In and of itself it is a very uninteresting piece, and like most of Capra's work before he met Robert Riskin, a disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Role-reversal remake of 1942's \"The Major and the Minor\" has Jerry Lewis stepping into the part originally played by Ginger Rogers, but unfortunately this anemic outing is missing a lot more than just Ginger. Lewis attempts to pass for a child when boarding a train; he's successful, but the deception leads to a string of comic and romantic confusions. Sidney Sheldon adapted the screenplay, tossing in musical moments for Dean Martin (playing yet another in his stable of second-bananas) and a jewel-robbery subplot (which is dire). Diana Lynn, who played the wily teenager in the original film, plays Lewis' love-interest here. She's cute; Jerry isn't. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie isn't too bad, up until...

The main problem is with the ending, so it's a pretty major spoiler...

For the time it was made, it's a beautiful movie, and does get a lot of it right.

However...

In the book, Sam succeeds and lives his dream, whereas in the movie, he gives up and goes back to the city, completely destroying the \"you can do what you put your mind to\" theme of the book.

This movie is a desecration, and instead of remaking classics that don't need redone, the Hollywood types who haven't any better ideas should do this one, right this time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hardly know where to begin.

Huge continuity issues, bad acting, etc. For example, Sam is supposed to be far from any people yet you can see the ski slopes cut into the mountain next to his head.

But the most fundamental problem is that the essence of the book, Sam's adventurousness paving the way to improve the lot of his entire family, is not even touched upon. Instead, in the movie, he gets ticked off at his family and leaves his wealthy parents to be by himself and, when he gets tired of it, he goes home. Where is his development? Where is the arc?

If you have never read the book and can get through the hokey 60isms (double\/triple\/quadruple visions of the falcon) and terrible production quality (crackling, ahem, fire, winter winds stopping their howling for the dialog and then restarting, etc.) I guess it *might* be OK for an 8 year old.

But compared to the sophistication of the book it is a terrible disappointment.

Read the book instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is one of the poorest adaptations of a fabulous book that I've seen. Jean George's novel is a fantastic book that I think is an outstanding read for any child. I can't give the same endorsement to this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ouch. This is one ugly movie. Not only is it badly acted, but it absolutely destroyed the book as well. Horrible. How you could mess up such a classic book is beyond me, but they sure did. Don't even think about even renting this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I guess there are two ways to make a movie with kids as the intended audience. You can either say to yourself a) \"Let's make a movie that kids today will love!\" or b) \"Let's make a movie that I would have loved when I was a kid!\" The second approach explains why Steven Spielberg often make movies that appeal to a younger audience. Prime examples are E.T., The Goonies or Indiana Jones. That Darn Cat is an example of the first approach. You see these flat, unbelievable characters saying things that is supposed to be funny but isn't. The plot itself is enough for a ten minute short, but instead it goes on and on. And although I'm not a kid, I don't quite understand what in this movie is supposed to be fun for kids? The clumsy cops chased by a dog, the old lady with a tweety bird or Christina Ricci's sarcastic oneliners? One actor showed a spark of talent with his very acrobatic humour: Doug E. Doug playing the FBI agent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was 12 years old when I saw the original film (I lived in Italy and the Italian title was \"FBI, OPERATION CAT!\") That was a fun film and not just for kids. This awful remake it's pathetic even for a 5 year old! What possessed Disney to ruin their reputation and the memory of a lovely film I don't know and I just can't believe it. Even the title song in the original film (both original version and the dubbed Italian version) was extremely nice and creating the mood for the story. On this remake the title song is even worst than the movie itself. It was just nice to see Dean Jones even if for just a cameo appearance, he was a regular on the great old Disney's films. I cannot honestly see anything else positive in this remade movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Chris Ricci sleepwalks her way through most of this, but then quickly takes on an air of boredom and disdain - much as I did when watching it. Without her this would be no more than a cheap kids' movie, but at least she does add an air of quality. There are few, if any, more visually striking and charismatic young actresses in the business.

There's not much wrong with it as long as you accept it for what it is - a cheap Disney re-make aimed at very undemanding children. I could watch Ricci all day so I'm probably oblivious to many of the movie's shortcomings, but unless you too are a Ricci fan, a cat-lover, or very small child, I doubt you will find this very entertaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Disney studios' remake of their own 1965 slapstick classic concerns a clever feline leading an F.B.I. agent to a kidnapped woman. Christina Ricci gives a churlish, let-me-outta-here performance as the cat's owner and the fed is played by Doug E. Doug, embarrassingly over-the-top, like a human cartoon. A pair of rich neurotics (Dyan Cannon and original \"Cat\" cast member Dean Jones) are funny and the formula-plot still has a little juice left in it, but the handling here is so heavy and lugubrious, and the cat is so lifeless, that it's strictly D.O.A.

* from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"But I still enjoyed watching her, so I gave it a 3 instead of a 1. Her expressions are priceless. Some of the other cast members (e.g., Michael McKean) are really slumming, too. The cat himself is somewhat amusing. Aside from that, the movie is all cliche, culminating in a much-too-long car chase. (It's also at this point that the movie becomes unnecessarily crude, having been very \"family\" until then.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This remake is entitled \"That Darn Cat\", but D.C. the cat is more of a sideline than the major character. Patti Randall was not likable at all in this remake either. She reminded me of one of those high school Goth jerks you read about who have been angry since the day they were born, so they end up opening fire on the rest of the school one day. The federal cop, Kelso was okay, but not as good as the one in the original. I guess Disney was trying to make Christina Ricci and Doug Doug (or whatever goofy name he has) into stars, but they don't hold a candle to Hayley Mills and Dean Jones in the original. I'm an animal lover and a cat lover and I don't blame D.C. for the remake being so much more inferior to the original movie. After all, they nearly cut him out of the whole movie. All in all, a very poor remake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really enjoyed the first film and when it turned up again, without thinking, or checking, I took a family of friends to see it. I was ashamed that I had enthused so much about it to them.

Disney processed the original film just like the human body processes a delicious meal - takes in something good and turns out ... well, you know. And by having a dark-skinned person as the FBI man, the results of fingerprinting the informant were subdued.

Taken as an isolated film, I suppose it is not too bad if one likes that weird sort of thing, but when one has read the book or seen the first film - horrible!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"`It's as if this town has the power to suck your brain right out of your head.' -Patti

Patti (Christina Ricci) is a sarcastic teenaged girl, bored with her all-too-average little town. Bored that is until a woman is kidnapped and she finds what she believes to be clues to the poor lady's whereabouts. Now, with the help of her precious cat `D.C.' and an inept FBI agent (Doug E. Doug) she must find her.

That Darn Cat is a bad movie. It is quite foolish and it has humor that often falls quite flat. There are, however, a few buds of talent in it. Doug E. Doug was good in Cool Runnings. His performance as `Senga' was really funny. Here he is wasted as the bumbling FBI agent. He does have a good scene when he imitates the cat, though. Micheal Mckean plays Patti's father. His character must be the most understanding parent to ever live. This poor guy has his expensive cigar crushed, gets arrested for picking up his own cat, and gets bitched-at by his snippy wife and STILL doesn't get angry at his daughter for causing all of his troubles. I wish my old man was like that. The only real good performance is Christina Ricci's. She entertaining as the ever-annoyed Patti, but her occasional very bad dialogue pulls her performance down. You might also recognize Peter Boyle (Young Frankenstein, Everybody Loves Raymond), the old lady from Wings and Cliff from Cheers, in this movie. This is a movie that all these actors would probably like to forget. Even the cat isn't very good... I really can't recommend 1997's That Darn Cat. Some young children (under 8) might enjoy it a bit, but every one else should look elsewhere. If you're looking for a good Christina Ricci movie, I suggest Addams Family Values, The Opposite of Sex or Sleepy Hollow. If a fun family film is what you're after, try Snow Day, instead.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie wasn't good. i thought it'd be a cute disney movie just like the original. wrong. it was awkward for christina ricci, whom i expect so much more than this, you could just tell by watching. i think doug e. doug did the best he could. sit 5 year olds in front of the this, any older, and they might start to fall asleep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am really at a loss as to how anyone could give this movie a 10 (or even more than a 2!). It is full of bad lines, bad acting, bad slapstick, etc. I never thought I could see worse acting than the purposefully badly acted scenes at the beginning of UHF, but this was it. And just when you think it can't possibly get any worse, it does! Over and over again! You actually could have watched this in a theater? It wasn't worth free on TV! My 4-year-old and 1-year-old liked it some, but they wanted to see the cat more and the cat was almost never on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only entertaining thing that I found about watching this movie was listening to Star Wars coming through the wall of the movie theatre (yes I go to a really bad movie theatre). This movie is so mind numbingly bad that I think I would rather have my eyes scratched out by a cat rather than watch it again.

Let's compare it to the original. One is charming, funny, exciting, well acted, and one of the best movies ever made, the other is so far from funny that all you can do is hope that your eyeballs will fall out so you don't have to watch any more. I'm sorry Christina Ricci is a fine actress but cannot compare with Hailley Mills, and don't even get me started on Doug E. Doug in a part one occupied by the amazing and absolutely charming Dean Jones. Dean Jones' tiny part in the new version is the only partially redeeming part of this movie, and it is the only reason I can justify a 1* rating (also because the imdb doesn't go into negatives).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ladies and Gentlemen, may we present the worst of all Disney remakes. Although the name of this movie is \"That Darn Cat\", it should have been \"That Darn Teen\" or \"FBI Agent\". The cat didn't get any real good scenes, Ricci's character was more annoying than funny, Doug E. Doug didn't get any good lines, even Dean Jones's cameo role couldn't save this movie! The only really good characters were the town's only two auto mechanics, but their scenes were only brief. In all, I'd say that if you are considering watching this movie, go get something more intelligent like a Barney video.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is definitely a \"lesser known\" comedy short from the 1920s. The only reason I saw it was because it was on a DVD by Kino Films featuring non-Laurel and Hardy shorts featuring Ollie. They are interesting and historically important, but also generally average to below average for the style film. Compared to shorts by Chaplin, Keaton, Arbuckle and Lloyd, they are definitely a step below them in quality and humor. Also, the accompanying music was pretty poor by the standards of other silent DVDs. I ended up turning OFF the sound due to the inappropriateness of the music to set the proper mood. But, despite this, they are still worth seeing.

I've gotta be honest about this short. It was the last of 8 on this DVD and by the time I got to it, I was pretty bored with the mediocrity of 7 of the 8 shorts. So, it is possible the film might be A LITTLE better than a 4--but certainly, if this is the case, no better than a 5! The film is a pretty standard short about an incompetent bellboy. Nothing especially interesting and there are certainly MUCH better silent shorts out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not too long ago I bought a cheap VHS tape entitled \"Just Rambling Along\" supposedly featuring Laurel and Hardy. Being somewhat familiar with their output and not recognizing this title, I made the agonizing decision to part with a whole dollar and buy it. Upon playing it, I identified the film as HOP TO IT. Of course, Mr. Laurel was nowhere in the cast, making the packaging of this product criminally deceptive. Even worse, the quality is terrible. It looks like it was duped from an 8mm film source. It did have a somewhat appropriate musical score. Actually, in all seriousness, the tape is worth a buck if you just want to get an idea of what the movie is like. In my opinion, it is a decent but unexceptional short. IMDb should add JUST RAMBLING ALONG as an alternate title for this film, which incidentally was the name of a 1918 Stan Laurel film!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On one Thursday evening at 10:00pm, my local west coast ABC affiliate aired the pilot episode of \"Northern Exposure\". The ABC Network usually airs \"Men In Trees\" in that time slot but the program was preempted for a live sporting event.

Despite both shows are set in Alaska and filmed on location in the Pacific Northwest (Exposure in Washington state, Trees in Vancouver, BC), re-watching \"Northern Exposure\" (as well as few episodes of \"Sex and the City\") reminds me how disappointed I am with the poorly conceived hybrid \"Men in Trees\".

Anne Heche can be a good actress with the right material. Unfortunately her role as a writer who ends up in a small town in Alaska grates on my nerves. Perhaps because I feel that Heche is miscast, I am not convinced of her \"fish-out-of-water\" character.

I also cannot help but feel that the supporting cast fits the typical quirky stereotypes. The hot-looking local, the kindly bar owner, the bush pilot, the local police officers, the dim but well-intentioned radio DJ, etc.

The only stereotype that may have been broken was teddy bear and veteran \"ER\" actor Abraham Benrubi as the local bartender in love with two different women. Considering that one of the executive producers is filmmaker James Mangold, (his movies \"Heavy\" and \"Cop Land\" had lead characters who were large men) then I am not surprised why Benrubi was cast in a non-typical role.

Nonetheless, I can see why there are a lot of dedicated viewers who love \"Men in Trees\". It fits the quirky niche for television audiences. I wished the show could find its own voice instead of borrowing ideas from better shows.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a huge fan of Northern Exposure. Men In Trees is a complete knock-off of Northern Exposure. There's the city-folk from New York stuck in a remote backwoods town (Marin Frist \/ Joel Fleishman). She immediately doesn't hit it off with a local (Jack Slattery \/ Maggie O'Connell). The town only has one pilot who is not often available. Ther is only one radio show. And the entire show is about quirky people with sincere and odd relationships. Too many parallels. Just like Northern Exposure except one obvious demographic has been altered in each character. I'm bored. Give me something new to think about.

On the upside, the writing is pretty good. But if this was a school project, it would certainly have earned the stamp of plagiarism.

Perhaps people who love this show were sheltered from the dedicated creativity and hard labors of Joshua Brand and John Falsey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show is awesome and we have been enjoying it thoroughly. Set in Alaska, I don't agree with the homosexual content on tonight's show. I feel that you are pushing too hard to bring New York to Alaska. Its one thing to have a New Yorker struggling in the Alaska wild, but to try to turn the Alaska town into New York? This is a nice show about dainty women and true Alaska Men and to bring a same sex couple into the mix is throwing the balance way off. Alaska should be Portrayed as a man and New York as the woman. I think the first 9 shows have the perfect balance with what you all are doing. Can't we have a nice show without the imbalance of nature.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why is Guy working for Buddy? Probably because Ari was not around in 1995. Why does Dawn want to be with Guy? For access to Buddy. Why does she stay with Guy? I am not sure.

There are bunch of things about this movie that I am not sure about. But, Kevin Spacey is an excellent, verbal tsunami as Buddy Ackerman \u0096 and totally believable because he is a great actor.

Frank Whaley's Guy is certainly out of his element working for Buddy \u0096 he wants to write and make meaningful movies, not be a gofer that is verbally abused for getting Equal instead of Sweet & Low.

Michelle Forbes' Dawn, who also wants to make meaningful movies, seems way out of Guy's league.

The ending leaves a lot to be desired.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was recommended this movie by one of my film-making friends, and was therefore expecting something good. Sadly, I was very disappointed by the first half -- ah, a movie about a wimp taking revenge on their a**hole boss, how original -- and watched the second half on fast forward hoping to find something that would justify the 45-odd minutes I'd already wasted. But all I got was the 'shock' ending...

The basic problem is that this is a movie which seems unable to decide what it wants to say, and says whatever it does say (hard to tell what that is) badly. Great acting does not save a bad script full of characters I can't care about.

Now maybe if I didn't moonlight in the movie industry I'd be shocked to discover the dumb politics and exploitation going on behind the screen, but as it is my feelings are as summed up above: 'Ho Hum'.

2\/10... would have been 1\/10 if it weren't for the acting and the paper cut scene.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The role of Buddy Ackerman is no stretch for Kevin Spacey. He's played version of that character many times other, better films. This is fortunate because it gives his performance a certain resonance without which Buddy would be as flat and incomplete as all of the other characters in this pointless little farce. The script leaves little time for plot or character development, resembling a porn flick in its rush to get to the \"good stuff\". The difference is that here the \"good stuff\" isn't people pleasuring each other but inflicting pain, making it appropriate viewing for young adults.

Of course there's nothing wrong with a porn flick if you want to watch people having sex, and I guess there's nothing wrong with \"Swimming with Sharks\" if you want to watch people undergoing physical, emotional, and psychological torture. But if you're looking for incisive satire, interesting characters, or anything else that even attempts to engage more than your basest passions, you should probably look elsewhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Talk about false advertising! What was this doing in the comedy section of my video rental place? I think there was maybe one laughable part in the movie. I can appreciate black comedy, but this had only the blackness without any comedy. The movie was generally disturbing and un-funny. Yes, Kevin Spacey was good as Buddy and the rest of the cast was also good, but generally the movie falls apart because we don't really see a good enough reason for Guy (Whaley) to lose his mind so badly. The ending was disappointing as well. What would Buddy's motivation be for letting Guy get away with what he did? This isn't really explained AT ALL. Why would Buddy go for such a plan? Wouldn't it be more like Buddy to screw Guy completely by turning him over to the police? The ending didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me no matter how I looked at it.

Generally, I disliked the film despite the good acting. Spacey essentially chews scenery for most of the film, but towards the end he gives Buddy a bit of needed humanity. The story just wasn't as good as the cast.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's something wonderful about a \"revenge\" film. Everyone wakes up in the morning believing he\/she is the star of \"the movie,\" and that anyone who interferes with one's own personal agenda is in some way the enemy. Revenge plot films work particularly well if a person has low self-esteem. Rather than fighting back in the moment, the \"hero\" draws upon built-up inner anxiety to engage in a single act of power in an attempt to restore equilibrium. Quite naturally, in the \"real world\" this type of revenge seldom relieves the tension because life is not a movie; after the revenge is enacted the actions taken have their own consequences. A good revenge flick helps people ignore this bitter pill. In the movies the end credits roll and all responsibility resolved.

\"Swimming With Sharks\" is advertised as a comedy, no doubt an act on the part of the producers to figure out just how to sell this oddity. It's dark, but it isn't dark comedy (\"Company Of Men\" and the works of Todd Solondz come much closer). Parts of the film are so brutal they pre-date the current \"torture-porn\" genre everyone is so obsessed with (\"Saw\", \"Hostel\"). There are some laughs. There are laughs in \"Saving Private Ryan\" too, but it isn't labeled comedy.

The intrinsic problem with this film is that it hasn't earned its revenge case. It is ostensibly about a young man who is abused by his boss and eventually takes his boss hostage to \"pay him back\" for all the mistreatment. The hero (aptly named \"Guy\") is an \"everyman\" so vague we know literally nothing about him...what does he do with his spare time? Does he have friends\/family? How did he get where he is? What are his interests (this becomes a running motif through the film, no doubt inspired by the film's author's own struggle...\"What do you want?\", the answer to which we are denied by a vague, cheat of an ending)? It's very difficult to care for such a character, even if acted well (even Tom Hanks becomes a creep in the wrong roll, such as \"Punchline\"). Kevin Spacey as the boss, \"Buddy,\" is supposed to be a monster but he's too charismatic as an actor. The best laughs came when he abused his assistant--he seemed almost as surprised as the audience probably is at what Guy will endure. When Kevin's character is being tortured, the view taken suddenly becomes empathy for him. Guy is suddenly filmed as a leering monster without rationality. At this point any message the author had has been lost; there's no \"hero\" in this film, ergo, no reason to care at all.

It's not a stretch to assume this story is based on the author's own troubled career in the film business. I worked for a similar boss and can vouch that it's not that far-fetched. I had similar wish-fulfillment fantasies at that time and thought that I was justified. I thought you could win over the most beautiful woman in the story (actually, the ONLY woman--there seem to be all of about four people in the universe of this film) just by being your eager, naive self, that eagerness won accolades and that a boss abused you because he was a mean person. Time and tide have revealed the truth that most \"monsters\" are really just the demons of an individual's personal psyche and resentment is usually based in the self. As the film points out, if Guy was so unhappy he only had to leave. The film doesn't offer any denouement at all, \"surprise\" ending notwithstanding. We still know nothing about the protagonists, we can't even be sure anything they said was based in fact and everyone magically gets to have his cake and eat it too. In short, there was no point to this story at all other than to point out that (shock!) the film business can be pretty brutal.

There are plenty of good films that tell solid and satisfying revenge-style fantasies, both the feel-good variety (\"9-to5,\" \"Working Girl,\" \"The Devil Wears Prada\") and not so much (\"War Of The Roses\", the remake of \"The Hills Have Eyes\"). This isn't one of them--despite a fun turn by Benicio Del Toro in the Emily Blunt role from \"Prada\" and some interesting work by Spacey and Michelle Forbes, this is a frustrating, mean, confused and slightly dull creation of self- indulgence from a director who has, one hopes, \"worked it all out\" by now...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, this review may contain spoilers, but you'll thank me for it. This is the worst film I've seen in quite some time. I came to this board expecting to see the same response I had, but inexplicably, there are several people who love this film and Spacey's performance in particular.

Some will chastise me for saying it, but I find Kevin Spacey's acting quite limited despite the world's admiration for him. I felt like I was watching a meaner version of Kevin's \"American Beauty\" role. His character in this film is ridiculously overacted, all the way down to his laughable insults he throws at his assistant.

There are all-world trite and boring scenes like when Spacey is tearing into Whaley about bringing him Equal instead of Sweat and Low. Somehow, I suspected this particular scene was supposed to be funny, but by this time I was ready to hit the stop button (this is approximately 20 minutes into the film).

What about the faux-homage to \"Resevoir Dogs\"? Whaley proclaims, \"I think I saw this in a movie once,\" as if he's going to cut off Spacey's ear. But what does he use to cut him? An envelope! That's right, he's going to give him paper cuts! That has to be one of Hollywood's all-time worst scenes, and the fact that the actors and director tried to carry it out with a straight face makes it even more appalling.

I will admit that I didn't see the end of this film (my DVD mercifully locked up about a half hour before the end), but anyone who wishes to say so could spare me the line that I missed a great twist and everything would have made sense. Well, I don't care what happened in the end, because it could never make up for all that bad acting and relentlessly over-the-top dialogue. I even got the feeling that the actors themselves wanted to get out of this film as bad as I did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ugly, heartless Hollywood crap that expects nothing but ugliness and heartlessness from its audience. The scenes WITHOUT Spacey reveal how truly awful the film really is. But the scenes WITH Spacey are just so entertaining that you hang on in there right to the end. Yes, he could play this part in his sleep but he does it so well, he's such a joy to watch, so believable and marvellously monstrous. Enjoy it for his performance, but don't expect anything else from this movie. If you want to see a great film about the evils of modern Hollywood, check out Robert Altman's \"The Player\". This sad little potboiler is not remotely in the same league.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I tried to like this movie. I love Kevin Spacey and I knew the other guy from his role as \"Big Brain on\" Brad in Pulp Fiction. But I just didn't care about the characters at all. Kevin Spacey is a prick through the whole movie and even finding out some horrible things that happened to him, I didn't like him. Especially the ending---that made me hate him even more. This was like watching a bad car wreck. Spacey played a prick well (he does it all well), but other than that, I don't recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ill-tempered, verbally abusive movie studio chief runs his male assistant ragged with nit-picking requests, keeping the young man firmly under his thumb with constant threats of unemployment; after a year of office-terror, the working stiff finally cracks. Writer-director George Huang has possibly bit off more than he can chew here. His \"Swimming With Sharks\" isn't a diatribe against Hollywood, nor is it a tribute to the hard-working underling...instead, it's stunt film-making with a twist, a one-trick pony with tunnel-vision. The surroundings don't look or feel like Tinsel Town (perhaps due to a limited budget), and we never get a sense of this stressful environment as a movie-making entity (it could be a realtor's office in the Valley, for all we know). Lead Kevin Spacey, who also served as one of the film's producers, gives a controlled and focused performance as the power-mad mogul whose ego is out of control; he does good work, and yet the character doesn't ring true. We learn so little about him and his acquaintances that his important position and high-ranking status fail to jibe with what we do see; who does this man answer to? what drives him beyond humiliating others for sport? what projects is he juggling aside from the one script we see passed around? The film is so emotionally stunted and underpopulated, it begins to seem like a stage-play padded out for the big screen--and yet one without enough characters or motivations in it. Perhaps Huang wanted to keep things simple, but instead his movie looks like a half-baked project which needed a lot more insight, humor, and atmosphere. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a low point for both Jason Robards and Sam Peckinpah. Major plot points are taken directly from Sergio Leone's masterpiece \"Once Upon a Time in the West\" (released two years earlier and also featuring Robards): A man finds a watering hole is found in the desert, being the only water for many miles in every direction, he plans to build a 'station' around the hole and to ensure there's a love interest, he falls in love with a prostitute. To this add an intemperate preacher, bad music, silly fast action shots, even sillier T&A shots - and there you go. There is little question why it failed at the box office. The real question is \"how did it make it that far?\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tug-3 is absolutely right. Although I am sure that Mr. Osmond wanted to make a sincere, heartwarming Christmas movie, this one is as cynical and creepy as they come. The religious significance of Christmas is forgotten and replaced with cute kids, clueless grownups, and dopey villains. The production values demonstrate that this was either filmed on a shoestring or by truly inexperienced filmmakers-- I suspect the latter, unfortunately. The worst part, oddly enough, really is the music. You would think someone with a long-standing musical career could do better than the title song, but you would be wrong. Even my mom didn't like this movie, and she likes the Osmonds AND sappy stuff.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This gawd-awful piece of tripe is all over the place. The script is bad, the plot is bad, the acting is bad. There are a couple of decent actors in it (Charles Durning, eg.), but the director got nothing out of them. The plot line has Santa, feeling dejected and thinking no one needs him any more, taking a little girl across country to try to get her father back together with her mother. It includes a con-man in a Santa suit with a stuffed parrot on his shoulder (played by \"Isaac\" from The Love Boat), the world's largest elf (played by Bruce Vilnach - a very funny man, but no actor), a hardened factory owner who works his employees overtime on Christmas eve, and a sleigh race where someone cuts one of Santa's skis trying to win. If the plot sounds bad, it's worse on the little screen. If you see this movie coming up next, run, do not walk, to your television and unplug it. You may want to boil your television to remove any remaining infection. If you accidentally watch more than 10 minutes of this, you may have to burn your television, and have the cable company install entirely new lines.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Amanda Bynes is an enormously talented actress, and I've really enjoyed all of her roles in the past, especially in the fantastic \"She's the Man.\" For that reason alone, \"Sydney White\" was a huge disappointment for me. The real reason for my dislike of this film is the poor use of characters. In a good fun teen comedy, its perfectly alright to have a cast of all fairly reality-based teen characters. In \"Sydney White,\" this idea is thrown out the window.

Amanda Bynes makes a fine Sydney, but she is really lacking in a lot of what usually makes her sparkle as an actress. I blame this on the script, which makes her character too bland and restrained, and on the hair\/makeup department, which gives her a detestable plastic look and an annoying hair style. The seven \"dorks\" that Sydney eventually befriends are far worse. They are so dorky that it's impossible to like them or even respect them as characters. They're essentially repulsive gag fodder. As is the story's \"Prince Charming,\" who is completely unbelievable as a character and is about as cheesy as can be.

Perhaps the film's biggest star-to-be (with the possible exception of Amanda Bynes) is Sara Paxton, who's actually very good as the conniving Rachel Witchburn. It's just a shame that the script-writers didn't make her a bit more gray than black.

The plot is basically that of \"Snow White.\" What kills it is that it is too blunt and obvious a re-imagining. The connections to \"Snow White\" are thrown at us so much throughout the film that they are ultimately annoying and overblown. Prince Charming is unrealistically charming, the \"witch\" is far too despicably witchy, the seven \"dorks\" are too dorky, and Sydney is just too pure of heart. Now, this is not to say that the movie is all bad. Though Bynes is forced down by the script, she still has her moments. As does Sara Paxton, who brings physical comedy to the max in her scenes. Sydney's room-mate, named \"Dinky\" is also great fun as a character. It's a somewhat funny film at parts that is ultimately just too cheesy and clich\u00e9d to recommend.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rated this one better than awful because I liked seeing Jonathon from Buffy in something again -- even if it was the same role.

First, the concept is kind of cute for a short, but not an entire movie. The writing was forced and contrived. I have the feeling that the movie suffered the most during editing.

Second, Amanda Bynes always looks like her eyes are crossed -- even when she's not trying to do it. She's just not funny. She always plays some sort of misfit girl who triumphs by being herself -- ironic, considering Amanda seems to always be a caricature. I would actually like to see her in something serious. I really want to give her a chance, but she is always cast in these trite roles where she wiggles and makes faces and somehow that's a good thing?

Finally, the whole \"I'm a Dork\" segment was ripped off from Revenge of the Nerds. There was nothing in this movie that was unpredictable.

Shame, shame, shame.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My 15 year old daughter asked me to watch this movie with her on Cable TV. As someone who saw Revenge of The Nerds in a movie theater, I found this movie to be an extremely predictable remake of it. The Nerds were simply replaced by Dorks. I drove her crazy by being able to predict precisely what would happen in each scene. The cast was cute, especially Amanda Bynes.

Screenwriter Chad Creasey should be ashamed for writing such an obvious remake of an early 1980's flick. The title should have simply been \"Revenge of The Dorks.\" Perhaps the sequel will be Revenge of the Dorks 2.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is fitting that the title character in Sydney White is defined from the beginning of the film by her awkwardness because the film, like the character, tends to begin every scene with a well-meant but inappropriate statement, then backtracks inadvertently making it worse and leaving the viewer in total confusion.

This scenario gets old quick. Now imagine a hour and a half of this, throw on the most predictable storyline imaginable; add some vague Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs references and Amanda Bynes blinking in wide-eyed puzzlement and you have Sydney White...for more of my review http:\/\/www.helium.com\/items\/1433421-sydney-white-review","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It must say something about the state of our nation that this programme is one of the most popular currently screened.

The 'square' is peopled by such a miserable, untrustworthy, amoral, spiteful, unrelentingly dour group of characters as can be imagined. Everyone is stabbing someone in the back, everyone is attempting to commit adultery, everyone is trying to cheat someone. That, or they are being stabbed, cuckolded or swindled. Nobody is cheerful. Nobody laughs. Nobody has a blinding stroke of luck or a really nice day. It's hell, with cockney accents.

I suspect this programme must be sponsored by The Samaritans. It's perfect viewing for the depressed. It doesn't cheer them up; what it does do is present a whole community of such terminally despondent sad-arses that viewers are moved to believe their lot really could be worse - they might be living in 'Albert Square'.

Apart from the above; as a representation of London's east end, it is pure hokum. The programme-makers have evidently never been across town. The first thing you encounter on the Mile End Road is a colossal mosque. And this pretty-well defines the racial majority of the population. White British Londoners are a dispersed and rapidly diminishing minority. A large advertisement hoarding presently near the Bow Road flyover, and sponsored by Tower Hamlets Health Care boasts that 'Eight out of ten members of the community can now see their doctor more quickly'. Ten healthy, smiling faces beam down at the observer in confirmation. Eight of them are dark-skinned...

What's more, I used to work with a bunch of Anglo-Saxon - dare I say 'pukka' - cockneys a few years ago. And I can tell you that a more obnoxiously racist experience I've never had. Each day was like an Oswald Moseley rally. They couldn't pass 5 minutes without denigrating some other race or nationality than their own, and in terms that were repulsive and obscene. 'Fackin' Pakis' and 'fackin' Maceroons' were the small change of conversation. In fact their entire (and extremely limited) stock of adjectives fixated upon sex-organs and their application. Alf Garnett was a paragon of liberal virtue in comparison.

Any programme that purported to represent London's native east-end Caucasians in their true nature would be completely unfit for broadcast - even after the 9 o-clock watershed. Imagine a Ku Klux Klan script written by Quentin Tarantino and you'd be somewhere near the mark. But when they weren't being inveterate bigots they were at least extremely cheerful.

I don't know how such a soap-opera came to be. This imaginary castaway island of white misery has absolutely no bearing upon real culture whatsoever. And if you're of a comparatively sanguine disposition, it will quickly reduce you to tears of grief. Comparatively ordinary actors pretending to be comparatively ordinary chronic-depressives with cockney accents - what's the point of that?

Dull, dreary, unrelentingly disillusional, and ethnically preposterous. The most popular programme of an apparently diseased and dying nation.

Avoid it like the plague.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife and I watched this abortion from its beginning. I hated it immediately but my wife became hooked on it for a couple of years.For me it just got worse and worse and the characters were all without question dreary and depressing without any redeeming features. My wife then grew tired of it and we stopped watching altogether. Occasionally I catch a clip of it or pass through it when channel surfing.There is always someone yelling at someone else or doing something dreadful. There never seems to be any lighter moments or happiness of any kind. That was always my main gripe with it when we first watched it- no humour. The writers seem to have no idea about drama - they seem to think conflict IS drama, and of course that is only one element of it. Light and shade is sorely needed and actors who can bring something to it. I am sure the actors in Eastenders are competent but they have nothing to work with. It must be the most depressing acting job in showbiz. I fail to understand why the British public watch it and love it. What on earth does it say about our psyche? I have heard it said that it is \"just like real life\"-its nothing like my life or anyone's life I know, otherwise we would be flinging ourselves from high buildings or under public transport. The themes it tackles are far from family viewing but still are shown pre-watershed. I love series like Breaking Bad or The Wire but I would not expect to see them at 7.30 or 8.00 in the evening. The programme is trash writ large and should be avoided at all cost.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I spent three months living in the East End of London in the latter half of 1987, when the show had been on the air for almost two years. It was considered a running joke there.

Why? Because it had an all-white cast. Every cast member and extra in the first couple of years was white.

The street where I lived was a long one, with over 800 houses, and to the best of my knowledge I was one of only three or four white faces living on that street. We were on the corner of the Indian and Turkish \"quarters\", and even if you excluded those two races the Asians and Afro-Caribbeans outnumbered the white people twenty-to-one. Plus, of course, of the very few white people who *did* live in the area, the vast majority were Scots like me - a \"Cockney\" accent was never heard.

That wasn't a racist rant, just a simple statement of fact. The BBC either couldn't be bothered crossing London to do their research before writing this soap, or else they only had white actors available and decided to bluff it out.

Either way, as I say, in the East End of the time, we considered it a comedy show. :-)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eastenders has gone full circle from unmissable in 1985 to totally abysmal now. It's such a bad reflection of the nation this crap tops the ratings.

The ideas for plots can consist of nothing more trivial than putting ever characters name in a hat. The first two out (regardless of their sex) will sleep with each other, the 3rd & 4th out will have a fight in the Vic, the 5th one will be arrested, the 6th develop an addiction, 7th get pregnant etc etc.

The producers are clever though. The 30 minute show is only actually ever comprised of 3 lines.

1) Someone will walk in the Vic & say \"What's goin on?\" 2) Someone else will stand up say \"leave it aht\" (out) 3) Then a woman will say \"Doan choo come in ere 'n' insult mah fam'ly\"

That's it. That's every show. Apart from the occasional \"Get it sort-id \/ Is it sort-id?\"

The show was once a realistic portrayal of East End folk & their way of life. The buffers came off when 1) They extended it from two nights a week & 2) The Slater family turned up. How they attract viewers is beyond me. The Kat character symbolizes everything that's gone wrong with society, treating anyone else like something she's pulled off the bottom of her shoe.

The people who vote her the best character, in these polls, must the same as the ones that vote Jamie Redknapp 'Best Sportsman' despite the fact he hasn't played a game for 3 years.

What I can never understand is if the show is the pinnacle of British TV why do all the biggest names leave? Ross Kemp, Martin Kemp, the list is endless.

How long has the longest couple's marriage lasted, with them being faithful to each other? Yes, people leave, but until the script writers realise that characters, couple can be interesting & likeable without sleeping around the show will continue to deteriorate. An episode last week had 3 separate plots of exactly that. And Zoe & the doctor top even Lofty & 'Shell' as 'Most Unconvincing Couple Ever to appear on TV.'

Yes, Eastenders is the most watched show, thats undisputed. But many external factors contribute to that. 19.30 \/ 20.00 is the perfect time of day to gain the most audience figures, it has an omnibus edition for 2 hours, and more than that, millions of the viewers watch it, out of nothing more than habit, but if they were completely honest to themselves, they would admit that (in 2002, more than ever), it can be absolutely pitiful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know how people can watch this - the only people who enjoy watching this are those who have no feelings and emotions and enjoy watching people die, houses burn down, car crashes, babies die, and cast members being killed off every week. Its the most absurd thing on television and i still don't know how it pulls in the ratings. Its so depressing. I can imagine the writers sitting down and saying - 'so who shall we kill of next week then' or 'whose house shall we torch in a months time?'

Its the most depressing, absurd and most stupid thing on TV at the moment, and i cant understand peoples motives for watching this depressing pile of crap anymore","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think this programme is a load of rubbish. All they do is argue and slap each other across the face and they call this acting?! These people get paid lots of money for this and most of them can't even act to save their lives. Also, the story lines are awful and after watching it for a few minutes, I am bored with it. I like the way that Harry Hill takes the mickey out of it on his TV show 'TV Burp' e.g. the weak joke \"The Princess and the Pea isn't exactly Shakespeare is it?\" that had Sonia and Naomi in stitches. I don't see how that is funny. I think this is a waste of everybody's money for their TV licence so this can be shown 4\/5 days a week. Isn't there anything better than this?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This soap is worse than bad: it's poisonous. Of the many television shows that have had a corrosive influence on British society over the past twenty years, Eastenders is the prime example. For two decades this show has celebrated the oaf, the thug, the wide-boy, the tart, the gobby, the violent, the sexually-incontinent, the criminal, the ignorant, the unambitious ...

How many times has someone or other remarked that Eastenders \"mirrors life\"? Life on which planet, exactly?

It's written about \"working-class\" characters, as imagined by middle-class people who have taken a course in creative writing. Eager to show to their middle-class peers how familiar they are with the \"working-class\" they dream up the lumpen rabble that is the citizenry of Eastenders.

This has a toxic effect on some minds less well-equipped than others to handle fiction, and so we find members of the real population assuming the attitudes and demeanour of the inhabitants of Walford.

Thus, it came to pass that Eastenders mirrors life; but only after life had been hoodwinked into mirroring Eastenders.

Other soaps have followed in EE's footsteps, filled to their stinking gunwhales with ugly, potato-faced, shaven-headed, pot-bellied characters, scowling at each other and issuing threats constantly. This is the proletariat as perceived by the writers who produce this trash. The writers will grow rich on the proceeds of such output, and will go on to enjoy the finer things of life in their rarified enclaves. Meanwhile, the burgeoning number of new, TV-induced drones will proceed inexorably toward cultural bankruptcy.

And there you have the new priests and the new creatures of the early 21st century. Much of this is due to the immeasurable power of that illuminated boxful of dancing pixels in the corner of your living-room. It's your fault, gentle reader: that's what you chose as the only window through which to look out from your prison.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this is classed as 'real life' of London, then the producers must be on different planet.

It is the most depressing, suicidal, dark, dingy, dross on TV.

Everyone is fighting, everything has nasty under tones running through it, nothing is done for genuine reasons.

If you want a real life picture of people in London or the UK, then this programme is by the farthest from reality.

There is not one good word I can say about this programme. The only certainty is that will be a great big fight over Christmas dinner.

Even the characters are totally unbelievable!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Licence fees to watch this trash, And pay for it with hard-earned cash? Humourless, no hint of laughter, God knows how it won a BAFTA!

We've now been subjected to \"Eastenders\" for twenty years. When, oh when is the Great British public going to see this awful soap for what it is? Crass Pap! This programme no more depicts reality in the East End of London than everyday life in Beirut, and never has done.

The Eastenders I know (the real ones) are kind, courageous, hardworking and loyal. And one of their greatest attributes is humour. It was the Eastenders who went through the worst of the London blitz and still stuck two fingers up to Hitler. And what do we see on our screens for five days of the week (including an omnibus)? Nothing but a bunch of moaning, wailing, \"dead from the neck up\" wimps, who seem to do little else than sit in a pub all day sniping at each other. What a great advert for Britain that is!! Do the writers actually believe this garbage they're pumping out? Obviously the woolly-minded section of the public does, but then I've heard that apparently anyone can be brainwashed into believing anything.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now the television schedules (in England, at least) are crammed with home improvement, bargain-hunting, house-hunting and cookery shows in the afternoons, the chances of any of the terrestrial broadcasters digging out a complete obscurity like this to occupy a couple of hours of screen time on a slow afternoon are slender, to say the least. But back in the eighties, the BBC did just that, and guess what, I watched it. And it's a testament to the overwhelming weirdness of this Hungarian-American co-production that I can still remember large chunks of it, over twenty years later. To begin with, the eponymous hero appears briefly during the opening titles, only to vanish again for at least half an hour. (Imagine AN American TAIL re-edited so Feivel is nowhere to be seen, and you'll appreciate how confusing this is.) There's a supremely bizarre bit of animation where one of the characters gets his elaborately waxed moustache tweaked and stretched, complete with a boingy sound effect that causes him to go boss-eyed. Probably hilarious if you're stoned, but to a child, quite disturbing. Speaking of which, the infamous 'hippo cull' scene is represented in an abstract manner - clouds in vague hippo shapes are struck by lightning - but it's still pretty unpleasant. In fact, this film is pretty cold and uninvolving throughout, a sad state of affairs hardly helped by the strange-looking production design, all muddy colours, wobbly lines, bloated forms and that uniquely European bleakness reminiscent of Jan Svankmajer, only not as compelling. Then, to cap it all, we get songs by the Osmonds! This isn't so much an awful film as a deeply misguided one, not so much phantasmagorical as a rather bad trip.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"War is in your blood\" Rambo says early in the film, \"don't fight it\". Say, what? Is the scriptwriter taking the Mickey out of Sly? It is impossible for any person with a primary school education to miss the joke here. Yet, Stallone utters it without a hint of irony.

The same lack of humour applies to the movie. Rambo IV is an over-the-top, idiotic actioner that would have been funny without intention if it weren't sickeningly violent. A redneck fantasy of the basest kind where villains are so villainous, it is not enough just to kill them \u0096 you have to dismember them with relish. Stallone stops at no blue-collar clich\u00e9 to make his point. It is not enough for the chief villain to be feed-them-to-the-pigs, throw-babies-into-fire kind of sadist. He is also a pedophile homosexual.

What is happening to IMDb? Is it taken over by the Rifle Society? How can this loathsome excuse for gross exploitation rate that high? I like a good action movie as much as the next man, but this is not entertainment \u0096 this is pornography of violence that trivializes and ultimately denigrates the real tragedy of Myanmar. The only good thing about the movie is that Sly doesn't take his shirt off. For this I will give it one star...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i hired this movie out from my local movie shop, not really expecting anything to flash or fancy. Since it was a \"B\" grade movie, made on a very tight budget. The opening scenes of the film were rather original and so was the plot and thats what made me hire the movie out. However the film becomes very boring and frustrating at points. The story had plenty of holes in it and the acting had its fair share of disappointments as well By the end of the film i was praying that a higher power was going to strike me down where i laid as i was extremely bored but more importantly frustrated with how the story turned out. i still don't understand what actually happened and i don't particularly care. in conclusion the devil would cry in disgust to know that Hell (his domain ) was used as a basis for such a crappy film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"11:11 a.k.a. Hell's Gate (2004) is another bad horror movie that tries too hard to be something it's not. A young girl has an imaginary play mate. One day whilst out in the fields playing with her friends, a couple of fugitives visit her parents and whack them off for no apparent reason. The young girl runs off and hides from the bad men. Years later, the girl grows up into a woman with problems. Losers at her school (looking like repressed homosexuals) flaunt their manhood in front of her when she rejected one of them. The girls hate her and life in general is miserable for her. A secret from her past returns to visit her. Who or what is it? Why does everyone hate her? What's her Guardian's problem with her? To find out you'll have to watch Hell's Gate.

The new title makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I don't know why people are given money to make such bad movies. This film is not even good enough to make fun of. It's a head ache inducing mess that'l confuse anyone who tries to make some sense out of it. Not worth your time.

Not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, this movie is so confused that it is almost impossible to summarize it, since I myself did not understand this horrible story. Further, the unknown cast, leaded by an actress called Laura Mennell, is simply awful. The expressions and screams of the character Sara Tobias are laughable and ridiculous, confusing grimaces with acting. Last but not the least, there are many favorable reviews about this flick in IMDb as follows:

- Top Notch- Can't wait to see more of the directors work \u0096 the author has only one review in IMDb on 24 September 2004;

- Incredibly shot, amazingly intense \u0096 the author has only one review in IMDb on 12 August 2004;

- Not your typical blood and gore, in fact better. 7\/10 \u0096 the author has only one review in IMDb on 13 February 2005;

- As intense as Asian horror!! - the author has only one review in IMDb on 14 November 2004.

Coincidence? Or are they the parents, relatives, friends or people hired by the production to promote this crap? My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): \"11.11 \u0096 A Nova Profecia\" (\"11.11 \u0096 The New Prophecy\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can be said about such a pathetic movie ?

- Very bad acting ! The main actress seems to know only one facial expression : fear mixed with weakness. Like a poor beaten dog... The other actress (the one who plays the evil) looks like the female double of Ozzy Osbourne, with an awful red wig. The other actors are so pitiful that they don't even worth being described.

- There's absolutely no plot. The story begins with possibilities but goes nowhere : we don't know anything about the meaning of \"11:11\", nor who Rayden really is, excepted the simple \"she's evil\" or \"she's a child of Apocalypse\"... which is not an explanation. We don't know why the parents have been killed, what kind of danger is growing and why Sara was chosen. As the film goes on, we just watch pseudo-scary scenes, with a bad music. Moreover, the end doesn't tell anything : we just see two possibilities as if one of them was a bonus scene or the director's cut... There's no plot, so no possible interpretation.

- \"11:11\" is just full of clich\u00e9s ! It is so obvious that i couldn't help laughing. For example : the deserted library or the bathroom scenes, ghost silhouettes walking with a blast of wind, ... there's even the fashionable \"little scary girl\" as in \"Dark Water\" or \"The Ring\". Of course, the main character is bullied at school and looks like a stereotyped Gothic girl (dark hair, red lips, skinny, black clothes). Is it an obligation to make her credible ? I don't think so. The psychology of Sara is so few developed and so typical that it doesn't make her credible, nor endearing.

- Terrible direction : as i said, nothing original, everything has already been seen a thousand times and is used here without any real purpose.

- There are some funny incoherences. For example, i don't know if \"ghost science\", \"paranormal course\" or whatever is taught in American universities... In Europe it is really not the case : teachers talking about negative energies or using \"unmaterial\" creatures sensors... ridiculous. Also : how can you watch a movie shot in the sixties with a Super-8 camera on a computer screen without spending hours of your time for a digitalization (in the movie they watch it immediately on the computer screen) AND how can you, on this old film, isolate a tiny detail then zoom in and see a perfectly identifiable face ? I wonder if the director has ever tried to digitize an old analogical film...

Eventually, \"11:11\" just worths being watched if you like to laugh at silly movies, or maybe if you want to fall asleep on your couch... But it's an expensive way to fall asleep !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well This was a complete waste of celluloid. The preview was promising but after watching the movie, it looked like the preview *was* the whole movie. No plot, no clear storyline, just some misplaced suspense. It looks like the director tried very hard to create an atmosphere of mystique and fear, but still there are gaps to be filled. Why the drugs? Why the number 11.11? (Btw. As Sarah enteres the library, the clock says 11.14) What's the connection to the murder on the parents? What's the role of this Rayden woman? Is she one of the children or not? Who are those children anyway. There is a lot of material lying around to create the ultimate cult movie like \"the Omen\" but the director just leaves them lying on the floor without digging into the story. Even \"the Blairwitch project\" was more scary than this one. All the gaps you hope to be filled like in \"The Butterfly effect\" stay open as the credits start rolling.. OK. Off to the next movie...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, what a bad film. Not frightening in the least, and barely comprehensible. The plot doesn't hang together at all, and the acting is absolutely appalling. What's that line from a famous critic? \"She runs the emotional gamut from A to B.\" Yup. That about sums it up. Not even good for camp value! I wasn't expecting Oscar material, but this? And gosh, her friend's a ghost? You'd have to have the IQ of particularly stupid mollusk not to see that one coming.

This film (and I use that word loosely) is an insult to the movie-going public. If only someone involved with it knew how to string together narrative! This gets a 1 out of 10, simply because there's nothing lower. On the bright side--at least it's not a full two hours long.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film starts well enough. It is a truly terrifying scene as a couple of fugitives on the run from the law tear apart an innocent family living in a secluded country cottage by killing the mother and father. The young daughter only manages to escape with the aid of a mysterious spectre, who kills the two aggressors while she covers in a downstairs cupboard. Then, we catch up with her 15 years later as a drug-addled student researching the supernatural, living with her promiscuous aunt and being looked after by a mysterious redhead. She has no real friends, was almost raped at a party and keeps having bizarre visions which no-one else can see. So yep, life is grand. Things get a lot more pleasant when she has a falling out with her mum's sister, who is later found dead in a bathtub under suspicious circumstances with 11 etched into her forehead. Hmm, I wonder who the police's main suspect will be? This is quickly followed by more deaths, all linked by their relation to our heroine having been on bad terms with them before their passing. Could she be the culprit, or perhaps the explanation could be something of a more ethereal nature? Clue: If you think the former, you've picked up the wrong movie from Blockbuster. Go back and get the correct one, short-sighted gimp.

As I said, I was all ready to fast-forward to the good parts, safe in the knowledge that I wasn't missing out on anything but a mediocre suspense potboiler. But the first ten minutes grabbed me, and I decided to give it a chance. I was quite pleasantly surprised: it certainly wasn't a masterpiece but the acting was good enough and the script kept throwing up intriguing situations of which I looked forward to finding the solution to. Alas, 45 minutes in, I realised my attention start to wander during a long sequence where the main character is walking round a library, doing nothing. We then get a cheap scare, followed by quarter of an hour of goddledegook about the paranormal between her and her new hunk of a boyfriend. Things only got worse from there, as the promising beginning is thrown out the window as we get one unconvincing plot twist after another, followed by an ending so anti-climatic it's like being promised the moon and ending up with a teeny weeny meteorite instead. Pathetic.

If it was bad all the way through, it would have been far easier to swallow. The fact that it starts at a canter and barely ends with a whimper is not just disappointing, it is heartbreaking. How can something which began so promisingly end up being so formulaic? I don't know, and I don't particularly care. I'll just give the writer and director a bit of advice for next time: Don't spend 5 weeks writing the first part of your screenplay, then 5 minutes finishing the rest. You tend to notice these things in the final product when you treat your project as sloppily as you have here... 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad plot, bad acting, bad direction.

It had possibilities but just didn't achieve anything.

This film looks like someone started with an idea, googled a bit of info and then tried to flesh an hour and a half with lots of night shots and bad suspense music.

Others had to stop watching because they were scared 2\/3 of the way through - I had to take a break purely because I just didn't care anymore.

Reminded me of an episode of Days of our Lives with marginally more suspense.

Just bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know a couple people who look just like the lead actress in this film (or, at least, like the character she portrays.) They all give me the creeps and I would be the last person to ever lend one of them a gun or even a sharp knife. She has one mean and ugly-looking expression. If you can conjure up a bit of sympathy for her, let me know.

Of course, I might have the same expressions of concern and fear if I had an imaginary friend who had been killing off my real friends and acquaintances for the last 15 years.

And for our European friends on the IMDb, I'm saddened to say that, yes, some colleges and universities in the US teach courses on paranormal phenomena, relying on the pathetic defense that it represents \"academic freedom\" and open inquiry.

This film is not worth your while. You will have no sympathy for any of the characters (except for Aunt Lydia, who gets offed pretty early) and the plot makes no sense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Newly released on DVD in the US; just stay far away from it.

I usually give plenty of room for stupidity in horror films; I'll settle for nearly anything remotely suspenseful, supernatural, spooky, or even just a vaguely interesting concept. This one simply stank. I knew there was trouble when Sara's \"best friend\" in college, who had considerable screen time, wasn't even listed in the credits on IMDb! I wasn't surprised not recognizing any actors, but that character (\"Daysha\" or \"Day-Glo\" or whatever her name was) apparently didn't even exist!

I'm so embarrassed that I actually paid a rental fee for this garbage; deeply, deeply ashamed...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you see this film in the TV listings just ignore it. If you're looking for something scary you'll be better off watching reruns of the X-Files.

Previous comments referencing the incredibly poor acting by the female lead are dead on. She is almost unwatchable. The sum total of her range includes 'whiny and scared' and 'whiny and not scared'.

I am the kind of movie buff who enjoys a good 'bad' movie. But this is ridiculous. There is no direction. The plot is as simplistic as the set of numbers they keep throwing at you and much like that set of numbers, it ends up having no meaning in the end.

Your time will be better spent if you turn off the TV and give your dog a bath.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Good lord! This movie needs to have a new classification on its cover \"watch only if you have absolutely nothing else to do!\". I am disappointed. I was looking forward to a good horror movie over the weekend...needed an adrenalin rush and that awesome tingling sensation going down my spine. But this movie didn't do it. A reasonably good story but pretty awful acting, dialogue, and filming. It was disjointed and sometimes outright silly. We had actors looking at the wrong direction of the camera, people talking out loud (by themselves) and narrating what they feel and what is going to happen, shadows of equipment in some shots, silly clich\u00e9s like \"I just need you to hold me\" in the totally wrong places and situations. Thank you for allowing me to offload and sorry if I'd offended anybody but it was a waste of time and money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Years ago, Sara, a young girl witnessed her parents being murdered, now as an adult she suffers from various mental ailments (did I mention she has an imaginary friend?) This film lulls the viewer, not into a sense of tension, mind you, but rather a sense of sleepiness. Deathly boring, I found it hard to sit through as I could feel my eyelids growing heavier and heavier with each endless minute of mindless prattle and supposed 'mystery'. Is Sara going crazy? or is it the paranormal? A better question would be, Who cares? And the answer to that, no one. No one at all. Skip this film, save yourself some time better suited to do other more worthwhile tasks.

My Grade: D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Was a college acting class exercise filmed and released as a movie? The formulaic posturing and stylized drivel of a \"horror\" soap opera for people who don't like horror films but wish to be able to tell that friends that, yes, they did see a horror movie. It even features soap opera music.

Do books falling off library shelves scare you? Do doors shutting terrify you? Then this flick is for you. Have you ever been kidnapped? Yeah, most of us have. When you were raped, was it simply ignored, because the rapist was the cool kid? What's scary is not this movie but this filmmaker's view of the world.

And then the little twists aren't even original. This is a film for people who've never seen a horror film before, who don't want to see one now, and who want to see another flick about everyone conspiring against the weird kid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This quirky and watchable film is the story of a deluded dentist who starts out on his mission or crusade to fight tooth decay in the back and beyonds of Patagonia. Hailing from Northern Ireland, via New Jersey, the main character, Fergus, sees his crusade as a mission of mass importance and approaches it with all the enthusiasm, vitality, discipline and attention to detail one would expect from a trained dentist. Which adds to the hilarity, as his grand plans unravel and gradually fall to pieces as he goes from disaster to debacle in the Patagonian outback on the back of a customised motor bike or his, er, mobile dental unit. We never get to meet his wife, nor the rich philanthropist who is sponsoring the ill-fated mission, but, we do get a solid display from Lewis. Fans of his work will not be disappointed with his very believable performance as the deluded dentist who is gallantly adored by the, innocent but sexy, 18 year old female lead who tags along on for the *ahem* ride.

This film is not for everyone and I can understand why it wasn't pushed by the suits. It's a low budget, sometimes charming, always disarming, mildly amusing and instantly forgettable film that sets out with low expectations and almost succeeds.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst work ever of Daniel Day Lewis..... I can not believe that in the same year he made this awful movie and My left foot..... Please stay away from this movie....this is a movie only for Argentine people as a curiosity... The plot is impossible to understand...... The writer thinks that in Argentine all the people speaks in english... Of course the Patagonia bring a very good frame for the photo shooting of the film, but that is not enough reason to see this movie.... I repeat , only if you are very fan of Daniel Day Lewis, or if you want to see the south of Argentine, part of the Patagonia, and you do not have enough money to travel yourself.......","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In a word, god-awful... too many plot holes.. um, yeah... Who takes their kid to dig up a dead body in the middle of the night? and what's up with his wife stealing the skeleton.. who does that? why, exactly did the shrink stab himself in the neck? and that whole dog thing.. i mean, really! Having Sparrow narrate from the beginning also just completely destroyed the suspense for me.. i mean, if he's narrating the story, clearly he's lived to tell it, so there's no chance of him getting offed.. where's the suspense there?

Of course, you expect plot holes in a film like this. But, there are so many I lost track of the story completely because of them. What kind of name is Fingerling? Or Toppsy? Why did the wife dig up the body? (Who does that?) or go into that crazy spooky asylum alone? and where'd all those candles come from? Why does the writer have his PO BOX in the freaking book??? I mean come on... And the book just happens to find its way to the bookstore next door to the wife's bakery?? Way too convenient... Oh and Happy Birthday Honey, here's a book about a serial killer.. What a THOUGHTFUL gift! The book is like 20 pages long, half of which are blank, and it takes him freaking FOREVER to read it. If he's truly obsessed with this book, wouldn't he have read it all in one shot?

A bit convenient for him to bump into his future wife (carrying a cake!) about 23 seconds after being released from a mental hospital.. how old was he playing? 36??

Was I the only one at the end rooting for the bus to actually run the guy down? Not good when you're rooting for the protagonist to bite it in the end.

It seems like this was written by committee.. I imagine that the first draft probably had nothing to do with the number 23... It seems as if they needed a gimmicky hook to bait the audience into thinking there was some supernatural thing going on, when in the end it really didn't seem to have anything to do with anything. I mean, I wasn't expecting the Godfather or anything, but everything about this film was a total let-down. Without all the numerology stuff, this movie could actually have been OK, instead of some hackneyed Se7en knockoff.

Not scary, unintentionally hilarious and otherwise a total snoozer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has no respect for the viewer's time. It takes a 15 minute story and stretches it into 95 minutes. In order to achieve this, they have to use a very slow narration and have everyone run around with some implausible frantic angst. By the time this movie showed anything interesting in the plot, I just didn't care. The problem is not in the acting, but instead the pacing. The story is just weak. Jim Carrey is a capable actor, but his attempts to inject light humor into a serious role is just out of place. His style of humor is not generic, so he comes across as a watered down version of himself. The number 23 causes great grief and frustration to the people in the story, but the justification for this is never logical. At most it's just mildly interesting. Jim Carrey has far more ability in a serious role than this movie reveals. Don't waste your money seeing this in the theater. Rent this movie if you've had problems sleeping. If you are still wide awake after 10 minutes, then you liked it more than I did. I was not fond of the lighting and artistic aspects of the film making either. A lot of passive visual eye candy was thrown at the viewer with lighting or effects and it did little to enhance the already weak story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Apparently, a massive head wound is the cure for homicidal tendencies, turning a murderous sociopath into a lovable and oafish dog catcher. Also (this ones for the ladies), it seems that the front gate of a psychiatric hospital is an overlooked hot spot for meeting potential mates. Those are just two of the approximately 23 absurdities we're supposed to accept for this movie to have any meaning. I love movies and I believed, as I'm assuming many Americans do (forgive me if I'm wrong), that Hollywood turned out the best product. I've come to learn how sadly naive and brainwashed I was and 2) how much more sophisticated European\/Asian Cinema is in comparison to its American counterpart.

I watched this allegedly disturbing psychological \"thriller\" the night following a viewing of a Japanese movie called Suicide Club. As the camera faded on Walter Sparrow's happy little family enjoying some quality time around a prison visiting room table (not to mention the patronizing voice-over extolling the virtue of \"doing the right thing\"), I suddenly had an epiphany. I had just finished watching a movie that left me feeling as though I'd just had a glass of water when I really wanted a beer. My thirst was sated, but it was strictly utilitarian. The premise was mildly interesting, but the story itself, with its innumerable \"coincidences\" (How do we explain her finding the book? We'll just say something like,\"...Or did the book find her?.\" They'll buy that), gaping plot holes (why did wifey take the skeleton?), predictability, and obligatory happy ending, turned out to be just another Hollywood hack job. Additionally, the casting of Jim Carrey was just\u0085wrong. At any moment, I felt he was capable of breaking into some shtick from one of his stupid comedies or In Living Color. Jim Carrey as a tattooed hard-boiled police detective who enjoys bondage and rough sex? Didn't buy it for a second.

You want disturbing? Deeply disturbing? Watch Suicide Club. The story surrounds the mysterious mass suicide of 54 school girls. The film opens with a group of giggling high schoolers mulling about on a subway train platform. We then watch in horror as they line up, hold hands, and happily throw themselves in front of a fast moving commuter train. Needless to say, much chaos ensues. That's as far as I'm going to go with the story line because I encourage the reader to see the film. In fact, I'm not sure if I could outline the plot even if I wanted to. What begins as a straightforward mystery quickly descends into a madhouse of grotesque imagery. Did I understand the movie? No\u0085not initially\u0085like many of the foreign films my girlfriend has introduced me to. So naturally, I thought it was \"bad.\" But this one lingered in my mind. I went to bed thinking on the film and awoke the next morning and looked it up on IMDb. I read some of the viewer comments and was astonished at 1) the insights others had derived from the film and 2) the fact that I had so thoroughly missed the whole point of the movie. I realized that I was so used to being spoon fed the \"message\" from Hollywood, that when confronted with a film that actually required the viewer to participate\u0085to actually think for themselves, I was totally unequipped. It's as if I had been conditioned to \"check my brain at the door\" of the theater.

Am I saying that Suicide Club is the greatest movie ever made? Of course not. It has its flaws, many of which were reported adroitly by the IMDb reviewers. Am I saying that all American movies are bad and all foreign movies are good? Again\u0085of course not. My point is that there's a whole world of film-making outside of Hollywood\u0085a body of work that engages the viewer; forces them to think and question\u0085movies that don't telegraph plot twists, follow a strict linear sequence, and above all, don't insult the intelligence of the person watching. I look forward to expanding my mind while exploring this new world of film that doesn't \"do the thinking for me.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the most stupid movie ever made. The story is laughable. His wife and kid think he's insane. Then they don't. Then it turns out he is and I think they knew it all along. There is a dog named Ned that causes some problems and I think it's all his fault...so does Jim Carey. God only knows why Virginia Madsen took this role...this is a career sinker. I think the target audience for this is 11 and 12 year olds. And that adds up to 23. Or maybe it's for 8 and 10 years olds which also adds up to 23. Or maybe it's for really dumb 23 year olds. Or maybe really dumb 32 year olds because that's 23 in reverse. Or maybe 46 year olds would enjoy it because half of that is 23. I think looking up things on the internet about the number 23 would be more entertaining than this movie, unless you wanted to see a comedy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Fate\" leads Walter Sparrow to come in possession of a mysterious novel that has eerie similarities and connections to his life, all based around the number 23. As the story unfolds in real life and fiction, Sparrow must figure out his connection to the book and how the story will eventually end.

The Number 23 offers an intriguing premise that is undone by a weak execution. The film just failed on many different levels which is pretty disappointing because it held so much potential. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was filled with silly sequences and laughable dialog that just killed the mood of the movie. It seemed like the screenwriter had a good idea, he just didn't know how to develop it to stretch over a ninety minute running time. The second half of the film was running low on ideas, the twist was pretty obvious and the ending was awful.

Joel Schumacher is responsible for one of the worst movies ever and he did redeem himself a little with Phone Booth and a few other films but The Number 23 reminds me that he's still capable of making a stinker. He has the movie drenched in style but he just can't get a good focus. He moves the film at a clunky and slow pace. He switches from reality to what's actually happening in the book which quickly got annoying. The actual book in the film that's titled \"The Number 23\" is an awful detective story and the audience gets stuck listening to Carrey narrate it which just bored me to tears. When Carrey is finally done with book, we get stuck watching him run around trying to solve the mystery. At this point, the audience has lost interest and there is no real tension. We impatiently wait for the movie to reach it's horrible ending and unconvincing explanation before celebrating that film has finally finished.

The acting was mostly average and pretty forgettable. Jim Carrey was clearly just sleepwalking through his performance and he didn't even seem to be trying. He was either completely over the top in some scenes or just very wooden. His narration was a complete bore to listen to and he put no life inside his character. Virginia Madsen did the best she could with a limited role but she needs to pick better scripts. Logan Lerman was pretty bland as was Danny Huston. Overall, The Number 23 was an awful thriller that offered more laughs than suspense or thrills. Rating 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Good

Carrey is good actor and he proved it in \"Man on the Moon\" and in \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\". But hey, what can an actor do without good story and proper directing. He can do \"Number 23\".

The Bad

Joel Schumacher is poor, overrated director and he proved it in almost every movie he made. What he did with Batman is just disaster, but probably Batman movies supposed to look good. Well, they didn't. Instead of Gothic and macabre we got Disneyland. Sure \"Falling Down\" was great but can You ruin the film with Robert Duvall and Michael Douglas AND with excellent script? No You can't.

And so good actor and poor director finally met and made \"Number 23\"...

The Ugly (23)

I know that it's stupid to begin with but... Fingerling's subplot (almost half of this movie) looks exactly like intro to another chapter of Max Payne2. VoiceOvers, quality of detective story itself, quality of the characters, even colors, mood and music, editing, and sound mix too! Perhaps it works for the game, but surely it doesn't in the cinema.

Mise en scene is so bad that it becomes funny. It's not even annoying. Carrey reads walking down the stairs in park? Why? Is it natural? No, but it looks good. Why Suicide Blond covered walls in her apartment with white paper? If she just wanted to kill herself? There is no logic in that, but still it looks good. Guess what it, it doesn't look good at all. It looks unnatural instead.

All female characters are Flat. Why is that so? Who cares, let's go on with the story.

Who is this Fingerling? Private eye on the suicide? Hardly believable.

Scenes when Walter Sparrow is arguing with his wife about weather book is really about him could be the best part of this movie. Instead we get Moulder\/Scully routine. Disappointment.

Interiors has no sign of people living in them, except the significant objects (shoes, photos etc.) Hard luck.

Dialogs ain't that bad. But what about V.O.? Well that's another story. \"There's no such thing as destiny. There are only different choices\". Captain obvious to the rescue! \"Number was coming after Fingerling. And now it was coming after me\". Clich\u00e9. And so on.

It's obvious that average housewife would break into public building in the middle of the night. Successfully and undisturbed.

The subplot of the dog dragging main character to the graveyard. This is so old trick and so comfortable for writer, and that it should have been banned. I mean it!

Flashbacks and editing similar to \"what happened in last episode of X-files\" isn't the best way to present the most interesting part of the movie. Is it?

I wish I could say that this story deserves a better fate, but it doesn't. It makes no sense. Told in chronological order is weak and unbelievable. All the time we have undeveloped characters trapped is chain of situations which are nothing but badly written fiction. This could be fun, but - since whole movie is dead serious - it isn't. To many coincidences is just bad for every story. And the \"mystery\"? It's predictable and easy to guess.

Losing touch with reality is great theme for good movie, but I never saw any of that in Hollywood's productions. If You're interested in the subject just watch \"Repulsion\" by Polanski or something by David Cronenberg, \"Spider\" or \"A History Of Violence\" both of that movies deals with similar problems that \"Number 23\" wanted to show. Wanted, but failed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"** out of **** stars

Let's see...14 divided by 20 times the square root of 13 equals 23, which was my departed grandmother's favorite number and the year she was born, 23 minutes past the 23rd hour. Assign the number any way you choose and ooh be very scared. Be EXTREMELY scared when you throw in a brain-dead looking mutt to go with 23, and you have Schumacher's latest attempt at a dark suspense fest with The Number 23. Oh yeah, 23 is also my record in Cuervo shots at my favorite dive on 23rd street in the 23rd state in the union.

Carrey carries the film to about it's halfway point, then we lose sight of him, not caring much. Don't look for any crazy expressions to come from the comedian Carrey, as you have seen in The Mask and Me, Myself and Irene. No. And don't expect an embodiment of a character as he did with Andy Kaufman. This role is a sad and peculiar devolvement for Jimbo. Where's The Riddler when you need him! I know, we don't need him. Virginia Madsen, like usual, is underused as the supportive, speculative and peculiar wife. Her talent, like Carrey's, is suppressed, and it's almost painful to watch her try to rescue her underdeveloped character from near anonymity.

To give credit where credit is due, there are a couple of interesting scenes in The Number 23 that showcase some very crafty cinematography. They are arresting enough on their own without having to be convoluted within the incoherent narrative of this silly story.

I don't know about you, (and I realize this is a work of absolute fiction) but I don't know of anyone who often reads his novel in a dank, dark basement, or spends his time at graveyards on a regular basis like Carrey does in this movie. Schumacher keeps his film dark and blood-red and gloomy and rainy and smoggy and gloomy and rainy and dank and on and on and on from beginning to end. Even Flatliners and The Lost Boys had a little more daylight in them, and we're talking about medical students obsessed with death and teenage vampires!

If you feel like watching this film, even if it's out of mere curiosity...make sure you do it while enjoying about 23 catnaps, that way you can kill 23 birds with one stone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What the hell was this? I'll admit there were some scenes that caught my eye such as the 23 bullshit where the protagonist sees or calculates the number 23 everywhere he goes, but that was pretty much the movie in a nutshell?! For crying out loud this was supposed to be a suspense movie and being labeled as a psychological thriller I would have expected it to have at least some catastrophic effect on the mind but instead what did we get? We just got something as shitty as an animal control guy finding himself in the middle of a mid-life crisis and his journey to redemption. Kinda like an old-man flick if you ask me. I probably should have just rented Wild Hogs, it wouldn't have made a difference. I mean who are we kidding, they should have made someone else the killer of that girl. By juxtaposing Sparrow with the protagonist of that book The number 23 they were pretty much giving out the movie to the viewers by hinting that he was the killer all along. How would that have shaken our heads? Shame on all of you voters who chose to show some generosity towards this wretched piece of work you call a movie and kudos to most of the critics who concurred with my reaction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not just because of that theme in the movie. Which was one of the lame excuses for something reminiscent of plot. No.

I watched this, knowing I would not like it. I HATE numerology. Whenever someone starts going off about patterns with numbers I feel the urge to slap them. My own brain starts hurting out of empathy. And fully aware this is a movie just about that topic, I couldn't resist the urge to watch it and maybe get a good laugh. But it wasn't funny. Just exactly the dumb sort of \"Isn't this totally scary and yet amazingly cool?! I can turn any crap into 23!\" dialog I was afraid of. As soon as the son started to chime in, I knew this movie is a turd, no matter what happens. But I hardly ever stop watching a movie I started. I sat through it. I enjoy the pain.

The movie pretends to mock numerology under the disguise of showing how obsession can end badly. But it rides that wave as much as it's supposed to crush it. I don't see that message. I only see characters raving about a stupid number with little plot to justify.

Top that off with the usual \"surprises\" - trying to put another twist to throw you off, that makes no sense, and you almost believe it due to the quality of the narration up to there - and you get one hollow piece of movie-making. That just happens to be centered around the topic I despise. If only it did not try to be serious and rather had been some hilarious movie with actors I don't give a damn about. But I was starting to like Carrey...while it's not his fault, he is trying. It's not even good for watching with a bunch of friends and mst3k the hell out of it.

My expectations were low enough for someone to trip on them, but this movie managed to live up to be one of the worst I've ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie starts good, it has a thing going for it. About 1\/3 into the movie things go downhill. Carrey starts obsessing about the number 23 because he sees it everywhere. So what? Thats no reason to go nuts and start writing stuff all over your body and on walls.

The acting by whoever is playing his son is bad. From the get-go, as soon as he hears of his fathers obsession, he jumps on the bandwagon and is hysterical about it. Totally unbelievable. I hope I never see this kid in another movie again.

Its a waste of time watching this movie. Grab another. Boring piece of ... well. The number is killing him? Give me a break. I won't spoil the ending for you, but let's just say it is equally disappointing.

3 \/ 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There was a time when Joel Schumacher was ranked quite high on my list of favorite directors. Back in the late 80's and early 90's, when his name was attached to several great films like \"The Lost Boys\", \"Flatliners\" and \"Falling Down\", he truly was one of the most gifted directors in Hollywood. Then came the stupid \"Batman\" sequels, unfortunately, and after that it seemed as if every potentially sublime screenplay turned into a gigantic mess in Schumacher's hands. Both \"8MM\" and \"Phone Booth\" could have been much better films and even the incredibly imbecilic concept of \"The Number 23\" should have been processed into a slightly more compelling and entertaining movie. Literally from start to finish, \"The Number 23\" desperately attempts to be a mysterious and uncanny thriller and therefore uses all the dreadful clich\u00e9s from the big book of cinema history, including heavy-voiced narration, flashbacks, disorderly structure, characters with multiple personalities, numerous plot twists that grow increasingly absurd and sinister asylum settings. Nothing helps, however, simply due to the sheer silliness of the basic formula and the clearly uninspired engagement of cast & crew. As much as you try to associate with the lead character and be open-minded regarding the insane theories, this still remains a movie about a two-digit number and two-digit numbers aren't scary. Walter Sparrow (Jim Carrey in a rare non-comical role) is a bored animal trapper whose wife Agatha gives him a bizarre book on his birthday. The book tells about all sorts of devilish theories and strange coincidences that are linked to the number 23. Walter almost promptly identifies himself with the book's protagonist (a sleazy detective investigating a grim case of suicide) and begins to spot copious examples of the 23 enigma in his own private life. I did some research on Google and Wikipedia and, apparently, this whole 23 numerology nonsense really exists and certain people honestly believe that most catastrophes and accidents are directly connected to this evil number. Well, that's just \u0085 crazy! But hey, I'm not here to judge people's beliefs and fears, regardless of how demented they are, and I can only share my humble opinion on a movie that is based on an out-and-out berserk enigma. \"The Number 23\" is not suspenseful, in spite of several gloomy set pieces and nasty make-up effects, and never at one point manages to make you contemplate about the role of numbers in your own life. All cast members perform below their normal capacities, but it was still nevertheless a joy to see the lovely Mrs. Virginia Madsen in a relatively big production again. Definitely not recommended in case you're looking for a solid and creepy evening of thriller fun, but endurable and not entirely without merit.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One would make you believe that this game is about a man obsessed with a number. And sure, it's an interesting subject - can a person become so obsessed by something marginal as a simple number that he completely loses touch with reality and becomes hopelessly delusional and paranoid?

Well, perhaps someone will make a movie about that sometime. This one unfortunately doesn't have anything to do with the above, never mind what the trailers (or even the movie itself) would like you to believe. I would like to say that this number is just a MacGuffin, but it isn't even that. It's pointless. A gimmick. A hook for unsuspecting audience.

Well what IS the movie about? A dog-catcher (Carrey) who becomes obsessed with a cheesy noir crime book because he feels it somehow reflects his own life. There. Sure, the character in the book - detective Fingerling (sigh) - is (for some reason) obsessed with number 23, and Carrey himself becomes obsessed and starts seeing the number everywhere.. but it's just padding, and totally irrelevant to the story. In fact, you can cut out all the 23 references and have the main character(s) obsess about cheese or something and you'll have the exactly same story. It is painfully obvious that all the \"23\" stuff was written in waay after the story was already finished, rejected and sent for \"rewrites\".

Which would be OK.. I guess.. if the movie wasn't dull, dull, dull. Half of the movie is narrated, for chrissakes. You aren't watching the movie, you are listening to Jim Carrey narrating the movie. About a quarter-in Carrey starts reading the book, and from then until the horribly clich\u00e9 ending we are forced to watch \"real-life\" scenes from dog-catcher's life (where nothing happens) interspersed with narrated artsy film noir-ish \"book\" scenes which will either leave you snickering or just plain depressed. It's like a poor man's \"Sin City\" with all the violence cut out, narrated by Carrey and shown in slow-motion. Ugh.

This is a simple case of a C-movie script somehow being filmed with an A-movie cast.. probably because of the \"number 23\" hook which I guess sounded intriguing enough on paper to warrant the premium Hollywood treatment. However, since - as I said already - the movie is about number 23 as much as it is about cheese production in Switzerland, one cannot feel anything but cheated.

I give \"Fingerling - the movie\" 3 out of 10, because I guess it didn't insult my intelligence as much as \"Forsaken\" did or made me downright suicidal like \"Battlefield Earth\" did and the bottom of the scale must be reserved for abominations like those. But fear not, this is still a pretty lousy flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I didn't go in with high expectations, but as soon as it started I thought it might be o-k. It wasn't. Jim Carrey seemed to try, but he spoke all his lines as though he were some diabolic cartoon character. The other actors all seem to try their best but are kind of wooden. The plot has a good basis, but the melodramatic lines make it dull and kind of stupid. I was laughing during the whole second half of the movie, and after five minutes of that I got tired of that. Most plot 'twists' you could see from several miles off. It's just not worth watching. I really wish I hadn't wasted my time with it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So, this starts with at least an interesting and promising basic idea, goes on and on with tension, Carey in a good untypical role but in a less than you expected performance, weak direction from Joel Schumacher match with some plot holes, the \"detective scenes\" show us the luck of creativity. If you don't have great expectations (because of the negative reviews) maybe you will enjoy this . At the end they offer to us a lesson about morality (for those who remember \"Falling Down\") and the \"Family Joy and Cure\" that ruins every possibility to be kind and find the film watchable P.S. It's obvious who is the \"killer\"! I wonder why W.Sparrow (Carey) didn't resolve the mystery from the beginning of the film...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A couple move into their dream home, unaware that it and its neighbours have been built over land formerly used as a cemetery. The film is said to have been based on a true story, although how much of it is supposed to be true is not disclosed. The plot is hardly unique - see Spielberg's 'Poltergeist' (1982). Within a short time, they experience various supernatural phenomena: these range from the disturbing - mysterious shadows, the serious illness of the daughter - to the frankly ridiculous - toilets continually flushing and garage doors going out of control. There is little depth to the story: once it has become established that the land had been used as a cemetery, we do not learn anything more. The plot does not seem to develop. The characters are not particularly well drawn or in any way memorable, nor is the atmosphere particularly special. The film could be disturbing to some viewers. There is no sense of catharsis or any kind of positive message from it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bathebo, you big dope.

This is the WORST piece of crap I've seen in a long time. I have just stumbled onto it on late night TV and it is painful to watch. Really painful. How does something like this get made?? Horrible, horrible, horrible! OOOOOO ..... The toilet is flushing by itself again! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! 1992 doesn't seem like that long ago to me, but watching this makes it seem like 1952. I mean its horrible. Please don't waste your time on the drivel!

Scary old black man telling them not to build the pool in the yard. Scary! Scary! How does this stuff get MADE???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This takes place on Fire Island back in the 1970s. A couple Peter (Craig Dudley) and Buddy (J. Will Deane) are throwing a 4th of July party at their house. Unfortunately their relationship is falling apart and they have to get ready for a house full of very strange guests. The rest of the movie chronicles the party and what happens between Peter and Buddy.

OK--I'm a gay man but I was 8 back when this was made. If this is a true view of what gay life was in the 1970s, I'm glad I wasn't around. From the puzzling opening credits which shows kids playing in the sand (???) this movie slides slowly into disaster. There's a guru (Robert Case) who talks nonstop about nothing of any importance. I wanted to gag the guy halfway into his first LONG speech. There's the young kid Danny who is there for his first time. There's the lesbian couple (who do nothing--except one strips for no reason). There's the leather queen. Worst of all is the effeminate man named Jimmy (Jimmy Foster). We're introduced to him and his friend (whose name I never got) when they get a flat tire. They basically scream and screech for 10 minutes and have NO idea how to fix a flat. I know some people find this funny but I found it offensive and pretty sad. The party itself is full of people you would never want to know. It's like being dumped in a party full of bad actors playing obnoxious people. With the sole exception of Dudley no one can act.

This may be valuable as a portrait of what Fire Island was like in the 1970s...but it's pretty dull viewing. This gets a 2 only for the frequent male nudity of some very nice bodies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"They give you the set up then bore you to death with a constant cat and mouse chase. The main characters are involved in one constant stand-off where they threaten each other, every five minutes or less. And I'd like to see the police force that would let one of their cops pull off the A. Garcia bit. It's like some local cop walking Charlie Manson out of prison to go get a cup of coffee. Get real!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well the plot is entertaining but it is full of goof. To summarize things up, cop\/dad badly wants to save his son from cancer but the only way is by getting the transplant from the criminal(Michael Keaton).

well criminal agrees BUT escaped in the hospital while the transplant was going on and the police and the cop-dad is not allowed to shoot at the criminal in order to save his son. (dead criminal-no transplant-dead son).

well, the police in this movie doesn't have a brain, in case they never heard of a TAZER to knock off the criminal without killing him. end of movie, as simple as that.

But it when all crazy and stupid including the death of 2cops and a few doctor getting burned up pretty badly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to see this film - I thought the plot was really unique and intriguing. A cop (Andy Garcia) has a son who is dying and needs bone marrow replacement in order to live. The only match is a convicted serial killer, who escapes from jail. To save his son he has to track down the killer.

Michael Keaton plays the convict in one of many disappointing aspects of the film. Keaton is a great actor at times but here he is pretty much boring. It's over-the-top to the point where you just stop caring.

Garcia is better but tries too hard for a film that isn't up to par. Barbet Schroeder (at one time such a promising director with films like \"Barfly\" that amounted to pretty much nothing in the American market) directs well enough - I honestly thought the script was the culprit here...it's just a big mess.

The film ultimately wastes a lot of good material, good actors and a good director - all because of a faulty script. What should have been a tense and thought-provoking film is just a Hollywood action dud.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe I watched this whole movie. Another \"Ishtar\" in that I kept waiting for it to get better, which never happened. The sound is terrible, going from too low to hear the conversations, to blaring sound in seconds. The plot is absolutely implausible, the acting is mediocre, although Keaton does his usual good job as a mental case, although being typecast in that role could certainly be considered a negative. The director knows absolutely nothing about hospitals, medications, science or anything of a technical nature. \"Sociopath\"???? I wonder how they came up with that diagnosis? There are so many errors, goofs and things wrong with this movie that if one were to list them all it would possibly set some kind of record. Demerol as a general anestetic? A motorcyclist on the freeway wearing a non DOT\/Snell off-road helmet. San Francisco??? Paper walls move when tapped, helmets just appear out of thin air, guns point one direction but hit things in another, lighting appears and disappears and there is barely a scene in the move that doesn't contain some kind of error. My wife, who is an RN in an Oncology unit finally left the room before the end of the movie so upset over all the medical errors. I gave it a 2 only because of Keaton's acting, else it certainly would have gotten a 1.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is absurd. Absolutely terrible. Michael Keaton and Andy Garcia must really have needed the work to do this movie. The plot is totally not believable! Michael Keaton agrees to donate bone marrow to the dying son of a detective, but then escapes. He manages to elude the police throughout the hospital - not believable that he would have so much knowledge of the hospital. He takes an extremely convoluted route to get out of the hospital, blowing up the power generators and a pedestrial bridge (why?). And to top that Andy Garcia (father of the dying boy) and a doctor help the criminal so as to get the bone marrow. The plot is such baloney! Maybe the worse movie I have ever see.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those movies where I was rooting for whoever could end the movie the quickest. I wanted to see the cops kill Keaton AND Garcia just to get it over with. Basically, this is the deal--Two cops have to die and a third has to get horrible burns on his face for Garcia's son to get a bone marrow transplant from convicted killer Keaton. Is it worth it? No!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having broken into a secret database file for matching DNA serums,federal agent Frank Poo (Andy Garcia)discovers the only person who can save his son's life is a psychopath,played by Michael Keaton . However,when a serum transfer at the local hospital goes terribly wrong,a certain Mr.Poo has to do everything in his power to ensure the madman stays alive in order to make the inevitable transfer possible. By the way,his name is'nt really Poo,I just feel like calling it him. Despite the original concept at hand,this is an implausible and turgidly unexciting action thriller.I've never been a big fan of Andy Garcia,and granted his charecter here is'nt that attachable,this movie winds up all the worse.The action sequences are handled pretty disappointingly,and the ending sucks pretty bad. Having done a great villain in Pacific Heights,Keaton's psychopathic bad guy here is a let down,providing a madman too funny and charismatic to be deplored.Brian Cox is also wasted as Garcia's firm and frank superior.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a movie that should have been a mini-series as it tries to get too much information in too small a space. The whole story is constantly being bombarded with sub-plots, character introduction and meaningless pieces information that go nowhere. There is a underlying plot where boy meets a girl, she has doubts but gets married anyhow and then her doubts surface and she goes to see if they are real. They turn out not to be but her husband won't believe that she was not unfaithful and her almost boyfriend doesn't want her as she was not unfaithful to her husband. With that said there are no less than 1000 sub-plots and character introductions that make this plot almost incomprehensible. In the first 15 minutes you are inundated with so many things and situations that you just stop caring. You don't care about any of the confused and screwed up cast that drifts in and out of the story like vultures feeding on a corpse. Each one comes in and takes some interest away from the viewer. After a half-hour, and completely disinterested, I stayed and watched the remaining two and a half hours out of pure morbid curiosity. I couldn't imagine where it was going but like staring at a fire I just couldn't get up and turn it off. The production values are superb but the resulting movie is a waste of time; wash your socks instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a complete disaster for me. There is one thing that movies must have in order to be watchable, and that is *some* psychological credibility of characters... unfortunately, here, this is not the case. The main characters behave irrationally most of the time, and even if they have some reason for such behavior, it is not revealed to us by the director. Sophie Marceau's character is particularly irritating, making pictures of everything throughout the whole movie, when one could expect something more rational (for example meeting with her mother in the hospital)... and why exactly did she marry this guy? (no, this is not a spoiler) The plot at times seems like ripped off some soap-opera, and while the actors' performance is not bad, this does not help much. All in all, I just could not find a way to connect with this movie. Not that I tried too much after the first hour, though. I have never walked out of cinema during a movie, but this time was the closest in my life so far.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen this movie but not in a single sitting. What happens it that it is playing on the TV, I watch for a few minutes, find that I have take all that I can take and then leave the room. During those few minutes I do not laugh once, experience no pleasure in what I am viewing, and find myself more depressed that angry. Interestingly, I am told the psychological states are incompatible, that is, one cannot be angry and depressed at the same time. This movie tests that theory.

I think part of the problem is that I spent nearly ten years in Chicago so as I am watching the scenes I am thinking of my own experiences in that rotten town and thus I am clearly bringing a lot of my baggage to the piece. It is entirely possible, I am willing to concede, that if you are not a Chicago denizen you will find the piece amusing. If so, I envy you.

And yet. John Hughes set his films in Chicago and those movies worked for me. I think the difference is that Hughes was a first rate writer. I think it obvious he knew how to comically balance his situations, as well as make his characters both sympathetic and believable. In a comedy (as distinguished from a farce) this balance vital. And it is not easy to achieve. If it was everyone would be making great movies and we would not have to fret as we do in the real world wondering when genius will ever appear. In \"Adventures in Babysitting,\" it doesn't. I hated those characters.

There is a difference, profound and real, between sympathetic and simply pathetic.

For me every scene in this movie is a clunker. There is no humor, no humanity, no people one can recognize. Just actors reading their lines as if it all they can do to restrain themselves from screaming them out, certain that finally hilarity will ensue, this time for sure! It's like watching the antics of very bad comedians. It's embarrassing and after a while, usually at the point when I get up and leave, I start to feel pity for all concerned, which is a kind of emotional connection, I suppose. Elizabeth Shue is terrible. She doesn't act, certainly not act comically, and it's entirely possible she can't. But lord how she tries. She looks older than 17, and acts way younger like a seven-year old straining in a school play certain that this is how one gets an award. And she is not alone. It is as if everyone cannot relax and let the tale flow. As if everyone simply has no idea what they are doing.

Now, this was an early effort for Chris Columbus and he clearly would improve and having better writers (e.g. John Hughes himself) certainly helped, so perhaps some forgiveness is in order. But the film just reeks of desperation. Yet like I said it may work for some. If any of the above appeals to you, and it clearly did some of the reviewers, then go get the DVD and knock yourself out. Otherwise, avoid this mess like you would a dark Chicago alley where as you hurry by you can only see shadows and hear muttered threats.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would not recommend this movie. Even though it is rated G and is clearly for kids there is quite a lot of swearing (including the dreaded 'F' and 'S' words). This kind of language doesn't offend me particularly but in a kids film? Come on.

There was also quite a bit of implied sexual content, between one of the early adolescent male characters and any willing adult woman who came along - including a prostitute!

The acting was as good as it gets in this genre of film but the story line was very very cheesy and even my four year old remarked that it was 'stupid'.

Despite having Elizabeth Shue, this film is definitely not worth checking out if you haven't seen it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To this day, I have never seen Elizabeth Shue in anything else because of the stench of this movie. Poorly acted, poorly plotted and racially Neanderthal, it took place in a Chicago where every black person apparently lived in a blues club. . SPOILER AHEAD. . . . . ..

SPOILER: Her \"blues\" solo was even more painful to watch than her clueless acting and the intro into it - 'Nobody leaves without singing the blues' -- was as dumb as a post. The children her character was babysitting were insufferable and well before the movie's end I was wishing for something horrible to happen to all of them.

I have to say though, there is one special thing about this movie; it takes a lot for a movie to offend me but this smoldering piece of tripe did what Chopper, the Phantom Menace and Catwoman could not -- make me sick to my stomach.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe this movie has an average rating of 7.0! It is a fiendishly bad movie, and I saw it when it was fairly new, and I was in the age group that is supposed to like it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are many mysteries in life. For example: Why did any of the people other than Carrot Top agree to appear in this movie? Why did anyone distribute this movie? Why did anyone pay money to see it? I guess none of these questions will ever be answered, but one thing I know for sure, this movie is one of the worst ever made with a budget this big. It would already be bad, but the addition of Carrot Top's \"humor\" makes it even worse. The only entertainment one could possibly get from this movie is to burn it, smash it, or otherwise destroy it in an amusing fashion. If you were to rank it against every movie ever made, it would be right between \"Problem Child\" and \"Biodome\". Nuff said.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is stupid. There's no getting around it. But so is Dumb and Dumber. Mind you, Dumb and Dumber is significantly more funny than this. However, I for one love seeing stupid movies (Tail Sting) and laughing with a group of good friends over how bad it is. Call me callous, but see this movie, and you'll find that the only way you can laugh at it is if you laugh at it instead of with it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So I turned on HBO which I just got thinking that it would have some quality movies and I saw this. Carrot Top is so unfunny it's nauseating to watch. I've seen unfunny movies before but I think I find this one so impossible to watch because Carrot Top seems to think he's hilarious. Watching this movie is really like watching a movie designed for 5 year olds with crazy, over the top overreactions replete with ultra stupid jokes that only a 4 year old would appreciate.

What is amazing is how some other talented actors actually signed on for this project, such as Larry Miller and M Emmet Walsh. If you've ever seen Carrot Top's absolutely horrible MCI commercials (or whatever they were) then this is more of the same, just worse. It's a slapstick fest that is a waste of a high budget that could have done something, saved homeless people... anything but this. I'm not sure it's in the bottom 50 of all time but for the $10 million spent it's a disgrace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The humor is non-existent in this loser of a movie. Carrot Top plays a surfer dude inventor who consistently blows the rent money on his goofy, useless inventions. Then he helps an old guy broken down by the side of the road, and voila, he's inherited a major corporation. And on and on and on past the jealous relatives, humanizing the corporation, hostile takeovers, the obligatory love interest.. aargh...let's just say this movie is virtually unwatchable. What Carrot Top has accomplished is to convince me never to go to his stage shows.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Chairman of the Board\" is a ridiculously stupid film from the popular comic Carrot Top (also seen on the 1-800-COLLECT commercials). He plays a surfing inventor who comes upon a man who has a flat tire. Top helps him out and a few days later discovers the guy's died and has given his company to the comedian. Even if someone else was in Carrot Top's role, it still would have been bad. The jokes (which are constantly rigged throughout) are terrible and the idea of a romantic \"plot twist\" should have been discarded. DO NOT WATCH!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Masterpiece. Carrot Top blows the screen away. Never has one movie captured the essence of the human spirit quite like \"Chairman of the Board.\" 10\/10... don't miss this instant classic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is without a doubt the most poorly thought out movie in history. The invention gags by Carrot Top are some of the most awful attempts to be funny in recorded history. I am not familiar with his other work, but if it is half as bad as this then I am just going to cry. I give this movie 1 out of 30 billion stars, and may God have mercy on the souls of those responsible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, the votes are in. This film may very well be the Plan 9 From Outer Space for our generation. But whereas Ed Wood's film, for all its flaws, retains a certain charm despite it all, this film defines the word \"charmless\" to the nth degree. In fact, I'd suggest to the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary to cite this movie as a key example defining the that word in the next update to the dictionary.

Carrot Top is a performer of such abysmal ability that normally rational people that I know once they hear his name become homicidal maniacs dedicated to wanting to kill Mr. Top as soon as possible. Indeed, if one goes to Amazon.com and look at customer reviews for Carrot Top's movie and other performance DVD, one will find several that could be construed as death threats to Mr. Top.

One other curious fact about this film, I recall that Mike Nelson, the head writer for MST 3000, in his book Mike's Mega Cheese about movies, good and bad, said he saw this film and shortly afterwords couldn't recall a thing about it, including the title. Obviously Mike was suffering a classic reaction to trauma. Viewing this atrocity was so soul numbing, Mike Nelson had to block it from his mind. (Evidently, in a later chapter in his book, Mike Nelson had recovered his memeory of this film. From the review he offers, Mike Nelson was definitely not grateful for the recovered memory.)

The only comment I offer about the film, and it is not a spoiler, it's simply God's honest truth, it's not funny. None of it is, not even a nanosecond of it is funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First and foremost this movie has the stupidest plot of any movie I have ever seen, and unfortunately I had to see this one. I was flipping through channels one day and stumbled upon this lousy excuse for a movie, and it confirmed what I have been saying for a long time. Carrot Top is not an actor, and IS NOT funny in the slightest sense. He acts like he's a great comedian and thinks he commands the audiences attention. Frankly he has the acting ability of a 10 year old class clown, scratch that less than a 10 year old's ability to compare them to Carrot Top would be a grave insult upon their good name. This movie tries to be funny using dull one liners which all seem to have been lifted from 50's cartoons. By the end I would have done anything to erase my memory of this movie, but sadly the memories stay with me. The only thing I can do is to warn others to never to watch this movie. However it proves the rumors true Carrot Top can't act worth a damn.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad Movie! Bad! Go stand in a discount bin. Carrot Top should really stick to low lit comedy clubs. It's movies like this that make old Jerry Lewis films look like Shakespeare and John Agar like John Barrymore. Coutney Thorne-Smith (a fine talent)is absolutely wasted. Her purpose seems mainly to look pretty and oblivious.

The only enjoyable things about the movie is seeing Raquel Welch doing an Alexis Carrington type role, and Estelle Harris as a harridan of a landlady. The only way I can imagine someone thinking it would be a good idea to make this (beyond sophomoric) film, is if the producers' fourth grade child was allowed to pick the script. Well, maybe his third grader. What this film really needs is to be rubbed in the noses of its creators.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This should not have been made into a movie. Everything about it was idiotic and I don't think I laughed even once. There were bits and pieces that were okay I guess but that's about it. A lot of parts were strikingly similar to a lot of other movies which did them a hell of a lot better. There were some famous actors\/actresses in this but no one did a good job, they must've just not cared. This is one of those movies that tries to have a \"cute\" ending but it was so idiotic that it literally had no redeeming values. Carrot Top is probably the worst comedian out there right now. Do yourself a favor and steer clear of this one!

Final Decisions:

Movies : NOOOOO!

Purchase DVD : Absolutely not!

Rental : Only if you've seen EVERYTHING else and have a free coupon but even then it's still not worth your while.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you like stupid jokes and a terribly predictable storyline, then perhaps this movie is for you. Courtney Thorne-Smith, Jack Warden, and several other members of the supporting cast actually have talent, but it was completely stifled by the paper-thin script. This is a generally boring and joyless time waster of a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Should I have expected anything other than putrid from Carrot Top? This was on of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is by far the worst comedy I have ever seen. \"Chairman of the Board\" did not add humor to my attitude, rather it enraged me. That's right, Carrot Top is such a bad comedian that I became enraged that this man is making movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is terrible. It's about some no brain surfin dude that inherits some company. Does Carrot Top have no shame?

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Carrot Top's \"Chairman of the Board\" and his AT&T commercials are living proof that fly-blown fecal matter is available in the color orange. Not FREELY available, however, as HBO charges for such garbage. Blehhh! The saving grace of COTB is that it surely fills suicide hot-lines across the country, perhaps providing employment for thousands of telephone therapists who lost their jobs when recovered memory treatment was discredited, although (sadly) Carrot Top probably contributes to his sponsor AT&T's bottom line with the increased phone traffic from devastated HBO viewers. I can visualize the hordes of traumatized TV viewers, phone in one hand and fully loaded .45 auto in the other hand, dialing out of last-minute desperation before walking off the plank of life to escape the specter of COTB's orange-haired monster echoing in their synapses like the agony of searing, irreversible meningeal swelling.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Or at least forceable retirement! This movie is awful, horrible, terrible, rank, rotten, putrid... well, you get the idea. Do NOT under any circumstances watch this piece of decaying garbage unless you have a death wish, because it's sure to kill you. (I only survived because I missed the first half hour.) Carrot Top is a bad comedian, and an even worse actor. I cannot BELIEVE he got anyone to fund this huge waste of time and money. It just goes to show that some people have no scruples if they think they might make a buck or two (literally... I can't imagine this made more than $2!).

And someone please tell me what possible motivation Courtney Thorne Smith (a halfway decent actress, certainly above this at any rate) had for signing onto this steaming pile of dung. Was she THAT bored during that 3.5 second dry spell between Melrose Place and Ally McBeal? Or did she owe some kind of karmic debt to the Most Annoying Person on the Face of the Planet (aka Carrot Top)?

I give this a 2\/10, and that's probably way too high. I try to save my '1's for movies that make me vomit, and since I didn't see all of this one my stomach contents thankfully stayed contained. I don't think I'll be watching it again to find out if it's really worth a 1!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Is this a bad movie? Don't take my word for it. Consider the following press reports of people who tried to watch this movie:

\u00b7 While he was watching this movie, the brain of Mr. Harold Faber of Sandusky, Ohio, forcibly ejected itself from his skull at over 200 kph and preceded to squirm across the floor shrieking NOOOO NOOO NOOOO.

\u00b7 Mrs. Louise Robbins of Enid, Oklahoma, a 69-year-old retired homemaker, committed ritual seppuko with a butter knife while watching this movie.

\u00b7 Ms. Janine Hosmer of Columbia, South Carolina, gave birth to a severely deformed baby while watching this movie, although she had not been pregnant.

\u00b7 While watching this movie together, Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Wells of San Franciso, California, spontaneously exploded with such force that Mr. Wells's left tibia was later found embedded in the wall of a house in Marin County.

There have been many similar incidents.

Of those who did not suffers more serious effects such as those detailed above, at least 75% became incurably, violently, and understandably insane after viewing this movie. Of the remaining 25%, most had already been insane before viewing the movie; the remainder were either blind and\/or and deaf or in a persistent vegetative state.

I'm not saying don't rent it, if you want to. I'm just reporting what was in the papers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is what they came up with for prop comedian Carrot Top's first feature film.

A stupid surfer (carrot dude) inherits an R&D enterprise from an old kahuna (Jack Warden). Things go less than swimmingly, but get much worse when the company is threatened with a hostile takeover attempt by corrupt corporate raiders. The most implausible thing about this movie is that smart-girl Courtney Thorne-Smith would find this red-headed step-child fascinating in the least (but then, he just inherited millions). 'Classic' moments include comic Larry Miller drinking sweat from a plastic cup.

Funny comedy? Try UN-funny toilet humor, and that's exactly where this belongs - in the toilet... flush twice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"People don't seem to agree with me that movies can be bad and good at the same time. The same type of people that see a movie with Carrot Top on the cover, surfing through a frickin office and continue to watch the movie with serious expectations. Is Carrot Top funny? Of course not. Was this movie anything special? Of course not. It was a dumb movie and everyone assumed so simply based on what they know about Mr. Top. Movies like this, or Kazaam, or Killer Klowns From Outer Space and pretty much any movie Pauly Shore has ever been in are not meant to be taken seriously and because of this, they really shouldn't be considered some of the worst movies ever made. You watch them either expecting a dumb movie that's hilariously bad or you are like six years old and genuinely think Carrot Top is hilarious.

Please people if you ready know Carrot Top is retarded and you want to watch a serious movie and bother writing a serious review....don't watch this. Picking on this movie is like picking on a 5 year old for not knowing the alphabet.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movies shook my will to live why this abomination isn't the bottom 100 list i don't know.

My life was saved by the healing power of danny trejo.

Worst movie ever, i dare you watch. It's like a 90 minute collect calling commercial, only much much worse. i rather watch the blue screen it's that bad really","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"carrot top in a full length movie, enough said. only reason this doesn't get a one is through my personal voting system of only one 1 and one 10, and this is no extreme ops. horrible god awful. there are some movies that are so bad they are unintentionally funny, then there are movies that make you physically unwell and then there are those that lead to serious contemplation of suicide. burn all copies of the movie, shoot anyone who had non creative input on this movie, torture anyone with any creative input and as for the star, there are only so many things that can be said online, but he should be begging for the final ten seconds of existence with a severed head by the time the work is done.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before I sat down and watched this film on HBO, I wasn't expecting nothing but a few laughs here and there and all together a stupid and common plot. Well, that's exactly what I got out of it, except that I was somewhat satisfied at the end of the movie. I wasn't expecting it to be, I thought it was just going to be another hour and a half that I had on my hands to waste. Well, it was, but still it was somewhat worth it. The whole plot was very stupid, cheap acting, and some of the lines were very very dumb. Otherwise than that, it still had it's funny moments, even though not many.

All in all, if you're going to rent this, don't. Watch it on television. I gave it a 4, I was generous because it made me laugh, but yet it was still pretty stupid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is a reason Chairman of the Board got a 2, (which is too high) this movie flat out is one of the worse movies of all time and I seen my share of rotten films. Chairman of the Board stars two of the most annoying actors\/people today, Carrot Top and Courtney Thorne Smith. Carrot Top just isn't funny anymore and wasn't in this piece of trash. Courtney Thorne Smith isn't any better, just watch \"According To Jim\" and you will see a prime example of what I am talking about. Chairman of the Board got a 1 from me, because that is low as you can go it is that bad. I am a little shocked that this piece of junk isn't on the IMdb bottom 100 somewhere, I would put this in the top 5 on that list, but its slowly working its way there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't really get this movie because I'm not some perv like you, who is into lesbian stuff.

The girl in the red wig tries too hard to be funny (her lips are SO silicone!), but she's really lame and insecure. She tries to come off like a surfer-guy (better than dressing slutty, but still weird and definitely unfashionable); the movie doesn't explain why she's trying to pass herself off as a man. Oh, right, to \"get\" the poor, dumb girl. I forgot. She makes all these dumb inventions which are not funny, and she's a really lousy actress. Plus, that waif look is so OUT!

This dumb blond girl from Melrose Place plays(surprise) a dumb blond.

She thinks the girl in the wig is a guy! They even make out! Ewww! I guess that part was sort of funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why wasn't this voted for Best Picture of 1998? This has to be the best movie ever. It makes something like Citzen Kane look like utter crap, come on, Citzen Kane wasn't even in color! I love this movie, it has to be the best movie I've ever put money down on. I am still shocked that it wasn't nominated for ANYTHING!

If 10 is the highest you can give it, I give it 20!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite the famous cast this animated version of Dickens tale is the borest I've seen. Enough that I zapped away in he first commercial break. The characters didn't appeal to me at all and the animation is looking cheap.

I'll give this movie a very low rating. Give me the Disney version anytime.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Season on the Brink\" is one of my favorite books of all time - an insightful unflinching look at Bob Knight and his Indiana Hoosiers. And Dennehy is one of my favorite supporting actors of all time. So I made a point of watching this adaptation.

It disappointed on every level. Dennehy's performance was less than inspired, and he seemed unprepared to play Knight - like he had accepted the role just prior to filming. The rest of the cast isn't much better.

And it was obvious that this was ESPN's first movie. It was poorly directed, poorly filmed, and the lack of budget was obvious anytime games were being simulated (smaller gyms, empty seats, etc.) Skip this adaptation and read the book - it holds up well to this day!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Its obvious ESPN drools whenever Knight is in the news, but did they have to make a freakin' movie about him? This was THE worst attempt at a serious dramatic movie I have EVER seen. It had it all: terrible acting, terrible dialogue, ridiculous casting, cheap sets, etc etc. It looked like it was shot on a $10 budget. Cummon, whats up with the game scenes? Were they in a middle school gym? And the lighting, well, let me just say it was ridiculous. And Brian Denehy as Bob Knight? Give me a break. Denehey looked like...Denehy in a red sweater, nothing more. ESPN lost a lot of credibility with this flop attempt. They poured millions of $$$ in advertising, then the premier was a huge dissapointment. Bob Knight is not a subject that can be covered in a 2-hour movie. ESPN blew it. Even Knight himself thought it was more stupid than anything else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this with great trepidation, and my trepidation was well founded, it seems. What was this movie about? Knight? The season? The Players? What? It was all over the place all the time. It had no tension (sorry, we all knew Bobby was going to curse and throw things) but Brian Denehy, a fine actor, comes across as mailing in the anger and delivering zero tension. Cheaply shot, like a MacGiver episode. Contrast this Thanksgiving main course with the job HBO did on the Don King movie \"only in America\" to show how to do sports biopics, warts and all. Notice that ESPN promoted the hell out of it and then never showed it again?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie probably seemed like a great idea in pre-production. \"Let's make a movie about one of the greatest and most controversial athletic coaches of the modern era! And let's cast Brian Dennehey as Coach Bobby Knight!\" That's where this movie went terribly wrong. Why cast an actor who bears no semblance of the man he's portraying? And then, why let this actor turn his character into not Coach Knight, but Brian Dennehey in a red sweater? As I sat watching this movie on ESPN, I didn't find myself believing this man was actually Coach Knight. He didn't look like him, talk like him, act like him, or even walk like him. I could not get past this fact, and thusly, I could not enjoy the movie. When Paul Newman and Robert Redford were cast as the outlaws Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, we didn't care if they were accurate historical models of their true characters because most of us had never even heard of these men until we saw the movie. But, with someone as visible in today's media as Coach Knight, you have to do better. When Anthony Hopkins was cast as Nixon, it was the same situation. But, Anthony Hopkins made us believe he in fact was Nixon. Dennehey didn't even try. What might have been a great movie was turned sour by this. Besides the fact that this movie tried to do for the four-letter word what \"Saving Private Ryan\" did for dismemberment, it stunk. Too little of the real Coach Knight and too much profanity for the sake of shock value turned this movie into a \"season to turn off half-way through the broadcast.\" The only good thing about this is that it was television movie. I didn't have to waste my hard-earned money on this piece of trash.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is TRASH from the word go. First, it gives an account of a season that took place 16 YEARS AGO! Who cares? This movie had about as much depth as a bottle cap. It makes a complex person like Bob Knight into a cartoon character.

Swearing doesn't bother me, but I'm still amazed that ESPN showed a movie with more cursing than a Kevin Smith movie on a basic cable channel. The F-word was dropped at least 20 times before the first commercial break.

This movie was terrible and anyone associated with it should be embarrassed. I rate this on the same level as Jaws IV - The Revenge and Everybody Wins...2 movies that are in the Crapfest Hall of Fame.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When just days away before the film's premiere, its screenwriter backs out of the project, and demands his name to be removed from the credits, you know that this does not bode well.

The books, on which \"Wiedzmin\" is based on, have great potential for a vivacious fantasy film \u0096 \"Geralt de Rivia is a witcher; his sole purpose is to destroy the monsters that plague the world. But not everything monstrous-looking is evil, and not everything fair is good\u0085\" But all that didn't matter, when a polish film crew, with a low budget, and no, or little appreciation for Sapkowski's work, decided to make a 13-part mini-series out of it. The two-hour film is a by-product of their actions, to maximize the profits.

It's not hard to point out in this case, what makes people label this film as bad. Plot (incoherent, thanks to cramming it with too many stories), acting (below average, with exception of Zebrowski), dialogues (bland), editing (choppy), special effects (unbearable) and choreography (poor), add up to the film's overall bad experience. Only the soundtrack, done by Grzegorz Ciechowski, brings out the beauty of the world of \"Wiedzmin\", which was never brought to the screen. Even Poland's grandiose flora and fauna (where part of \"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe\" was shot), a crucial element in almost ANY fantasy film, were not used up to their full potential. The more I think about this dead loss, the more I'm running out of words. At least, it's a comfort to know, that Marek Brodzki, the director of \"Wiedzmin\", has directed only one film ever since (in addition, in Germany).

For now, we're left with top-notch fantasy stories and a fantastic computer RPG (released in 2007) referring to the Wiedzmin books. But I'm sure that one day, justice will be done for the Wiedzmin saga, and we'll be treated with an equally good film adaptation soon enough.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, for a start, I must say that, here, in Russia, a saga of Geralt of Rivia is known and loved. Andrzej Sapkowski - a gifted writer, or, maybe, even genius of some sort - created one of the most realistic, honest, cynical and God d@mn well written fantasy worlds in a history of literature. And when such amazing material gets in a right hands well, see RPG game \"Witcher\" and you will understand what I am talking about.

\"Vedmak\\Wiedzmin\" is an excellent example of the opposite outcome.

Lack of budget. Lack of directing. Lack of good script.

These three whales of Disgusting Movie Making sunken this movie, ate it alive. Acting is good, sometimes even more than good but for god sake it can not save this project.

I still have some faith though. I still hope that someday a new Vedmak movies will be created and entire world will see magnitude and breathtaking splendor of Sapkowski's books. p.s. But before that a Uwe Boll must be eliminated. Just in case, you know","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the movie is simply horrible (2\/10). Although actors are trying their best (well sometimes that isn't much) special effects are ...let me put it this way it would be better if there weren't any.

The script is based on Sapkowski's prose, so it should be the biggest advantage of this movie. Sadly it's the opposite. There is nothing left of the original atmosphere. And it's all very chaotic. Maybe they just had too much material to show in 2h time.

Anyway if you would like to see this film I would recommend you to look for the TV series (same title, same actors, even the plot stays the same) that was made in the same time the movie did. It is so much better (9\/10) and the story there actually make sense:)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Brodzki's creation is a great example of how NOT to make a movie. First there was a book written with a great humor. Book that has numerous fans who would be happy to supply help when producers for some reasons decided to employ people who hardly heard of the book in the first place. Then came a script as humorless and full of nonsense as possible. At the same time the script was written in a way to allow only those who actually had read the books to understand anything of the plot. Not that anything in this movie made much sense anyway(ex. \"I'm like an ice shard. You can burn yourself\" said Yennefer as a word of warning - warning that logic is something this movie seriously lacks). To add to that we have to mention that no matter the amount of money that was supposedly spent on the movie everything looks like an amateur production with two (2) computer effects one of which is a see-through dragon. Even the costumes look as if the were borrowed from a really poor theater. That is the better ones look this way. And to add to that we have a few 'naked scenes' put there only so they will be in the film because they have no explanation in what one may mercifully call plot. The movie has only one strength that can hardly make up for the rest - music is not bad. Though if I was to choose I'd prefer to have it separately. It sounds better if you don't have to look at this failure of super production.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are three main problems with the film. Or rather there are three reasons why it isn't even a contender worthy of more serious consideration.

Firstly, and this was always going to be true, it's not nearly as good as the books. However, at least we could have expected to reflect some of the Sapkowski's wit or depth.

Secondly we have the production. Fantasy movies are, in my opinion, the hardest to produce well. Everything from the props through costumes, scenery, stunts and (especially) CGI is substandard.

Finally, and this is many be very subjective, I just can't quite take the acting seriously. I wasn't brought up in Poland so I can't really judge- it may me my lack of familiarity with films in polish. All the same the lines seem very amateurishly delivered... The casting could be better as well.

In summation, the only possible redeeming feature of this film is the remainder of the plot shining through: not unlike a diamond ring on a rotting cadaver.

On a separate note I heard that the books are coming out in English. I haven't seen them yet but I can't imagine how one would even begin to translate them... I would ask the English-speaking reader to bare this in mind when judging the book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"a very mediocre film based on a superb series of stories and novels. I hope Somebody, someday will be able to film it the right way. In the meantime, look for the books (by A. Sapkowski), a very inteligent, postmodern fantasy. By now there should be a translation in english, there translations in german for sure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, that's true. That movie is a horrible piece of... you know what. Almost all fans of Sapkowski's books in Poland think the same. The truth is that polish cinematography can not afford producing fantasy films. It's a shame when you compare \"Wiedzmin\" and \"Conan the Barbarian\" for example. I hope no one outside Poland will ever see this nightmare.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"not many people outside poland have had an opportunity to become familiar with andrzej sapkowski's brilliant writings. he's very popular in poland for his fantasy short stories ( i believe none of them has ever been translated intrto english. alas!). to make a long story short, wiedzmin - the main character of sapkowski's books - is a traveling monster slayer, a man of extraordinary strenght and skill: he's pretty much your favourite tolkien-style cool guy. unfortunately, no one would figure this out after watching the film. 'wiedzmin' the movie is nothing but a collection of random scenes, featuring wiedzmin and other characters from sapkowski's writings, but not eben remotely resembling the plot and dramatic pace of the original. event the fact that some of the shots in the film show attractive naked women does not add any quality to it. the movie gets worse and worse with every minute, and does not even meet the requirements of 'so bad it's actually good' category. if you really are into fantasdy and want to learn something about wiedzmin, read the books instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I grabbed La Bandara because it reunited Jean Gabin and Julien Duvivier, whose Pepe le Moko is a noir masterpiece. I'll give it a few points because Gabin is in it, but the clumsy plot, cheap sets and the ludicrous Annabella making like an Arab princess put the film on my `to sell' shelf. If you watch it, you'll find yourself asking, why didn't the idiots build the fort *around* the well, instead of a deadly few yards away from it. And why use tin roofs in the middle of the desert? But by then the sheer perversity of contrivance that makes up the script should numb you to any further contemplation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Usually when a television biopic is released on a celebrity, its, at the very least, campy (i.e. Cybill Shepherd as Martha Stewart, Lauren BaCall as Doris Duke), this is the most horrendous, cheap, and BORING television movie ever made. If VH-1 is going to make a television film, they have GOT to spend a little more money on them. Flex Alexander--though gifted with the Michael voice--is not a great dancer, does not resemble Michael one bit, and does not even have his mannerisms down. VH-1 would have done better by hiring an actual impersonator, that way when see Michael go into get plastic surgery, he doesn't actually come out looking EXACTLY the same. Why should we be taken aback at the shrinking of Michael's nose when its exactly the same size as in the beginning of the film? The woman playing Elizabeth Taylor cannot act and looks nothing like her, and don't even get me started on the woman as Janet Jackson. Terrible script and a severe case of miscasting needs to keep VH-1 from producing any more movies. Flex Alexander would have made a much better JERMAINE JACKSON rather than Michael. Costumes? Trashy ripoffs. Neverland? Spliced together footage from news docs. Don't bother with this one....its not even remotely worth it. The one good piece of casting--the actor portraying Joseph Jackson and MAYBE the actress as Lisa Marie Presley, though she should have been more tomboy than girlie girl.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The main word that comes to mind when considering this film is \"dodgy\". This is a low-quality film biography of one of the most iconic performers of all time. The Gloved One deserved better.

Before getting into the meat of my thoughts on this biopic, I have to say that there are two things I found effective. First was the use of actual fan footage and interviews at certain points in the film, especially in the scenes depicting the first set of child molestation allegations. I feel that this contributed a certain authenticity that was *severely* lacking throughout the rest of the film. Second was the sequence depicting the courtship of Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. I will not comment on whether I believe the marriage was a sham, but by many accounts, it was a relationship where care and affection existed between the two parties involved. That really came across in this film; Flex Anderson and Krista Rae had decent enough chemistry to pull it off. These successful points are enough to keep Man in the Mirror away from 1-star status.

That said...there was very little else here that worked. Very few of the actors looked like the people they were supposed to portray, most egregiously those playing Elizabeth Taylor, Janet Jackson, and Diana Ross. Also, the absence of Jackson's music was a huge loss. How can you effectively tell a story about him without his music?? I understand that they were unable to secure the rights to it with this being a low-budget, unauthorized production; it seems, though, that if you can't have the man's music in a film about him, you might as well pack it up and go home, because you're missing out on an extremely important part of his life story.

This film's characterization of Jackson bothered me a little, too. I won't argue that he was troubled and may have been a few fries short of a value meal, but here, he was portrayed as something close to mentally disabled. I don't believe that Jackson, known to have been a shrewd businessman, would have been quite as naive about how the adult world works as he was made out to be in this film.

Finally, the way this film was written was nothing short of disgraceful. Many lines or exchanges of dialogue were either extremely corny, like Michael and Janet's \"Tinkerbell\" exchange, or nonsensical, like the \"Blanket of love\" comments made by Michael. Also, the screenwriters don't exactly have a knack for subtlety. There was a lot of telegraphing of upcoming events (\"What could possibly go wrong??\" sorts of lines) and extremely overt hammering of themes and motifs in the film (if I'd heard the word \"believe\" one more time...). This is what ultimately hobbled the film as something that could be considered awesomely bad.

Perhaps when we are a few years, or even a decade or three, removed from Jackson's death, someone will be able to bring his story to life in a more deserving film. By that time, we might have a better perspective on his life, and someone will be able to present a truly thoughtful examination of who Michael Jackson really was and what he's meant to the world of entertainment. This very dodgy biopic was not that film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am speechless, honestly I cannot understand how anyone could have conceded to a script like this, cast anyone in the film let alone direct it. The fact that I am writing this review feels like an insult to my fingers, this film should be thrown in to the dustbin rather than be reviewed. I am disappointed in Flex Alexander for even thinking about accepting such a POOR EXCUSE FOR A SCRIPT let alone essay the role. OMG! I think I just insulted the word \"essay\"...uh yeah I did. Y'know what, the less said about this mindless drivel, the better. You have been warned, nobody warned me I had to experience the horror myself. WATCH AT YOUR OWN RISK.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is like so many biopic TV movies I have seen: formulaic, exaggerating, poorly acted, and most importantly, happening too soon.

What I mean by that is the movie was filmed and, for that matter, aired before Michael Jackson's acquittal from his child molestation charges, which I think was one of the most significant periods of Jackson's life and career so far. It probably would have made a great ending to this docu-drama. However, this movie already bites off more than it can chew, cramming too many details in this overly ambitious project.

It's no doubt that Michael Jackson has led perhaps the most interesting life so far of any musician, let alone modern day pop star, to date, and his story would probably take six Behind The Music specials to tell accurately. This movie tried to tell too much in three hours, and needless to say, it failed.

Flex Alexander did what he could in playing Jackson, but he came off more like an SNL caricature by the likes of Tim Meadows and Amy Poehler. It would admittedly be pretty hard to find someone who accurately portrays Jackson without meeting with the King of Pop himself and studying his methods of madness. On a shoestring budget, though, one can only depend on what they see in the tabloids, and those do not necessarily give an accurate representation.

Furthermore, the director's efforts to make Alexander look like Jackson are completely foolish. The Caucasian makeup on Alexander's face makes him look more like a reverse minstrel show, and everyone who has been in a grocery store knows that Jackson's nose is not as big as Alexander's. It's also amazing to me that the film documents Jackson going under the knife to get cosmetic surgery, yet in the next scene, Alexander still has the same size nose. This kind of suspension of disbelief that the director expects can't hold up to TV viewers in the 21st century.

It was even more distracting when footage of the real Michael Jackson (i.e. the time he hung his infant child over a balcony in Germany) was interspersed into the movie in real time. It was a nice try, but it just didn't work.

If this movie as it is was released into theaters, it would gain a profit only because of its tackiness. It even pales in comparison to \"Mommie Dearest\", and that's saying a lot. Above all, this was a movie that was probably rushed into making, like many TV movies that aren't on HBO. It could have been done a lot better if it had just told of one aspect of Jackson's life. Even if it just covered the child molestation allegations, it probably would have been done a lot better and would have even been more intriguing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The writers and creators of this film should actually be sued... For polluting the world with this crap! \"Man In The Mirror\" is in fact beyond horrible! Way, way, way beyond!

...and people, I'm not just saying that because I'm a Michael Jackson-fan! Or due to the fact that this is truly one of the most retarded depictions of his life I've ever encountered!

I'm saying it because this is a waste of time, money and celluloid! I feel ashamed of myself just having seen all of it! That's 1 hour and 26 min of my life I'll never get back! I'm telling you; watching grass grow is literally more entertaining than this film!

Consider yourselves warned!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even though i sat and watched the whole thing,i must say it was not good.it was all over the place,with big chunks of information missing about how things developed and even inaccurate at some bits too.If you know nothing about Michael , you wont understand a thing.You have to rely on your current knowledge of the man in order for some bits to make sense..Acting was a bit dramatic, Flex Alexander looked nothing like Michael which was a put off for me and towards the end he literally looked grey.saying that portraying Michael as somewhat naive but highly positive, gentle and loving individual was okay even though they still made a fool out of him time to time.If you want to watch MJ's life story check out \"An American dream\". It is much better but the only thing is it will cover up to \"Bad\" era. I have no doubt that they will eventually make a big budget movie of MJ's life story, cos Michael You rock ;-) !!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, first of all, I missed like the first 15 minutes of the movie, so I missed credits and stuff. SO when I finally got to it, I was like \"Who the hell is this dude?\". I found out it was Flex like hours after watching the movie.

Flex didn't look like Michael Jackson. Not one bit. He couldn't dance like him, or move like him, the only thing he almost had was the voice. People commented on Elizabeth Taylor, but I can't really comment on that because I don't know much about her.

The whole movie was like just plain wack. The dialogue sucked. The cinematography-if it can be called that-sucked. The soundtrack sucked. The acting sucked. Yes even Flex...I'm so upset about it though. I didn't want it to suck. I'm so sad that Flex got told he can get away with it. But the whole thing looked like dress-up. You know? It's like, nobody looked like they were supposed to except for Joseph Jackson.

The concert sequences just sucked. I'm sorry, but Flex just can't dance like Michael. I mean, like what the hell was VH1 thinking? The makeup didn't even match like the time of whatever Michael was going through. For example, in the movie he was still dark when Neverland got raided the first time around. In real life, MJ was white as hell. There was some sort of stupid delay in his skin discoloring.

The movie wasn't boring, well for me it wasn't. It wasn't really anything. I was just so upset about everything that was wrong with it. I wanted to see how it turned out and if Flex could redeem himself. He didn't, really. The only part I found like a bit interesting was the whole Lisa Marie thing. When they fell in love. That was nice. But I had to turn my face away when they kissed. Heh. And only two parts made me collapse with laughter. The first time was when they cut from Michael with short hair, you know the Thriller era, to Michael with long flowing hair from the Dangerous era AND HE WAS STILL BLACK! That was funny. The second time I laughed was when they showed all of the posters and memorabilia of Michael but they had Flex's face instead! It was so funny.

Overall, this movie was cheap trash. It was simply two hours of dress-up and could have been so much better. But no, VH1 is cheap. Watch if you want. But this movie is not funny, considering the ridiculousness of it. I came out of it feeling angry. And when I found out it was Flex, I just started to feel so bad. So...watch if you want.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen. I hope the REAL family and other portrayed characters have lawyers suing the hell out of VH1 for there portrayal. The acting is horrible, the writing is worse and the portrayal of characters is scary. Its supposed to be a drama, but it was a comedy to me, you have no choice but to laugh at the bad acting. I usually like Flex Alexanders acting but this time he has completely missed the mark.

You could argue he took this role for a couple of laughs himself, because it was so horrible. If you really want a dramatic movie for the night, DO NOT CHOOSE THIS ONE. But if you are in for some laughs over bad acting and stupid writing, Tune in. Other than that, don't waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where the hell did VH1 find the scriptwriter for this movie??? Out of high school? This movie tries so hard to be sympathetic to Michael Jackson, but instead, turns him into a horrible, tacky caricature. All the lines are filled with clich\u00e9s but surprisingly the acting wasn't bad. As usual, this is a bad movie with pretty good actors. The actor that plays Michael Jackson, jeez, I feel sorry for him! I think he did the best he could with the weak script. I didn't mind that Flex did not look like Michael Jackson, I thought he did the best he could, but later on when he had all that white make-up on, oh man, did he look yucky! The other actors that played Debbie Rowe, Priscilla Presley and Elizabeth Taylor were pretty good. Except that the actress that plays Liz Taylor looked too young and healthy to be playing Liz. The actress that plays Diana Ross didn't look at all like her and I couldn't figure out who this woman was until much later on in the movie.

This movie does a disservice to everyone who is on the side of Michael Jackson, or against Michael Jackson. It doesn't do anything to change anyone's opinion. As a matter of fact, the only opinion anyone will have after watching this movie is, oh God, this movie really, really sucks! And where the hell is Michael Jackson's wonderful music and songs? There are none to be found in this movie. I love the soundtrack to this movie anyway and I'll probably purchase it if I could.

On the lighter side though, this is a very funny, campy movie! It's a great time waster if you want to watch something light that won't trouble your brain too much. I'll probably watch it again, because it just is so entertainingly bad!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is based on Michael's life from 1983\/4 till 2004. Flex Alexander did a good performance but looked nothing like Michael. I feel Michael was portrayed as a stupid person which I don't believe he was (even though he trusted the wrong people at times). I thought Flex Alexander looked Chinese when they made Michael look white. I think Latoya should of been portrayed in this, she was always pictured with her brother in the 80's. I never thought any of the supporting cast looked like their counterparts. There were some things that were inaccurate Lisa-Marie Presley's son looked about 4 in the wedding scene even though he was not yet 2 when Lisa and Michael got married. Also when Michael says to his mother Katherine he thinks he and Debbie should marry if she is carrying his child, it was Katherine's idea for the two to get married.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You might suspect that the plot of this movie was written in the process of filming. It begins as a \"punks versus vigilante\" movie, but in the middle of the film, the plot changes abruptly when the vigilante turns to be an honest man with his honest girl and his honest gym and has to fight the corrupt \"businessmen\" who want to turn the gym down at any cost to build a mall or something. Then, the plot changes again, and we forget about the corrupt guys. The villain now is the friend of the leading man, who thinks he is a Ninja. The guy becomes \"crazy evil\" and wants at any cost to win a Martial Arts Contest. Seeing this movie is like having a nightmare with the television on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was filmed in my hometown and I was acquainted with many of the \"actors\" in minor rolls. Most of them were students at the local karate school and even at the time it was filmed we all knew what a stinker it was. It was interesting however to see it being made. Most of the places it was filmed at no longer exist, such as the nightclub, the pizza shop, etc. The \"world premiere\" was held at The Akron Civic Theatre and we all laughed hysterically at how inane it was. I personally believe it's the worst movie ever made but it brings back many fond memories for me. Watch this movie with a word of advice...enjoy it for what it is..a very low budget, poorly made , karate flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, it might be not historically accurate(actually only 6 soldiers of 9th rota were killed there), and yes, it has some mistakes and exaggeration(bended machine gun? come on! or the that \"history lesson\" about how Afghanistan was never conquered by anyone - educated Russian officer would know history much better than that - take for example British campaign in Afghanistan). And yes, it does not have multi-million dollars Hollywood-style special effects, but it's strongest point in showing soldier's life there, their relationships and their feelings when the best friends are being killed in front of their eyes. In my opinion 9ya rota really does a good job showing all those things.

Again, movie has it weaknesses, but, in my opinion, it appears to be one of the strongest Russian movie for the past few years.

8\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, I'm sorry for my English. Second, the true story of this episode: 39 soldiers, operation \"Magistral'\". 6 soldiers were killed. Hundreds of insurgents were killed too. Within 10 years the Soviet Army has lost less than 15 thousand person and killed over 900000 insurgents and civilians. There is no insurgents without permanent help of USA The veteran of war: \"Traditions. There are no traditions in this film. There is no military oath, there is no first jump, no farewell to the Fighting Banner. There is no delivery of awards and medals. There is nothing sacred. There is only a hatred to Soviet army. Being in this area on investigation, we have revealed start-up jet shells by insurgents . An exact place could not define. So gunners have asked to give easier square. Also have covered it. Through pair minutes. Here it was the reality of fights. So there was no feeling \"oblivion\". These feelings have appeared then. Already on other war and in other state (Chechnya). Others were children. More kindly. More humanly. And \"prapors\" were as fathers. Well and culmination fight - full orgy. Shooting in anywhere. Mental attacks young Ben-Ladens, not killed both not broken through. And full absence of mutual aid. That there was a main thing on this war. Even Americans accused us of inadequate application of force against insurgents. And here it is direct on the contrary. In the summer 1981 I about myself have firmly solved, that personally should fill up a minimum 50 insurgents. As a result accepted \"plan\" has been under-fulfilled, and on a demobilization I departed strongly contused and malicious as fig. After returning the first months there was a feeling of that I not was at war up to the end, not business there have completed all how follow. There was any vague, but an oppressive sensation of discontent with itself and caustic irritation. Such here night ideas, can be and out of place at all. Officers really in film are not present absolutely. In occasion of that, what is the time they spent with staff. On fighting-is constant. New Year on fighting. From where did they take beds? In mountains? And so on...\"

If you want a fairy tale about war, \"9 rota\" and \"Shtrafbat\" is for you. If you want truth, you must see \"Come and see\" or \"Batallions Ask for Fire\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The main problem with 9th Company (9 Rota) is that it is not sure whether it wants to be Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket. The attempts at Spielberg sentimentalism are embarrassing, such as the burley sergeant crying in a field of red flowers!!! The training sequences have none of intensity or realism that Kubrick gave them in his masterpiece.

A further bone of contention is that the Afghan fighters are called Ghosts because they strike and are hardly ever seen. Here they attack a Russian strong hold almost in formation with no attempt to use cover. I am sure tactics have move on since Waterloo.

Every scene in this film has been seen before in other war movies and done considerably better.

I have to ask: Why do all talented marksmen need to chew on a match?

Finally, I am always suspicious of a film that starts with no narration yet needs to qualify the end.

\"We won!\" ...errrr....... no you didn't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I borrowed this on DVD from a friend the other day. I didn't really know what to expect. I haven't seen a lot of Russian movies, and i don't think i've ever seen a Russian war movie. Maybe that made me expect something different, something more along the line of an imagined Russian mentality. But whatever those expectations came from, they were put to shame as this is a quite ordinary war movie.

The whole formula of following a few young people from their recruitment, through training, to deployment and through some battles, is well known. We have seen it done both many years ago, as well as more recently (as with Jarhead). Sure, there's a difference here because the movie is about Russian soldiers instead of Americans as is almost always the case. But in general this could just as easily have been a Vietnam-movie. I guess that just underscores my feeling that Afghanistan was the Soviet unions Vietnam. A country that should have been a pushover for a superpower made the war drag on for years with terrible loss of life both for soldiers and civilians.

The good points in this movie i felt were good photography (there are some beautiful ambiance shots) and decent effects for what i guess must have been a rather low budget movie. What made me disappointed is mostly the story itself. It just doesn't manage to stir any emotion in me. Mostly because the character development is lousy. And to really feel something when people are gunned down you have to make them people, not just faceless cardboard cutouts. They fail to do that in this movie. Also it's overly long, and that seems to a kind of trend lately. In my opinion a movie that's more than two hours long has to have a lot to offer, and this movie doesn't cut it. Also there is a disturbing music that's put like a wet blanket over every scene. Especially in the action scenes this is highly disturbing, not that you need action-music but something more than just slow keyboard-music would be nice. Otherwise the production values were good enough, that was not where the problem was.

I don't know how to view this movie. As a reminder of the fact that no matter where you are, war sucks? That Russian film-makers have already watched too many American war-movies to make something original? Regardless of which, this movie is rather clich\u00e9d, lacks in spirit and while it has acceptable technical qualities, it lacks in script and character development. In the end it just becomes another of all those war-movies that fails to make you think, and fails to add something to the genre. I've seen a lot worse, but a lot better too. I rate this 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The polar Express \" was an awful movie .What makes this movie worst is the hypocrisy to present itself as a innocent ,sugary and harmless tale for children about the \"true \" meaning of Christmas . I never read the book of Chris Van Allsburg in what it was inspired ,but the most disappointing is that it was directed by Robert Zemeckis ,the same who made the great \"Who Framed Roger Rabbit?\",a excellent movie where he proof that the animation could be appreciated for kids and adults equally ,while in this movie it seems that he was victim of his own ambition and he give too much importance to create impressive level of detail than a interesting story .I'm sorry to say this ,but \"The Polar Express \" have so much artistic level as a publicity campaign of a video -game or toy . Everything in this movie seems to be so lifeless : the characters could look like humans ,but they don't have nothing of life on them ,and they have a malevolent touch in their eyes .

But the worst ...is the \"message\" in this movie .You could see it at some parts of the movie ,and believe me ,it was vile .Take for example one scene ,where one kid refuses to enter to the Polar Express . Notice that the character that looks like Tom Hanks makes a gesture like saying \"you are stupid to don't accept my offering \" .Second ,when the girl says that the toys are so \"warm \" and things like that . All the damn movie the kids keep talking about how big would be the gifts that Santa would give to them . There is even a song about the gifts !the vagabond is a irrelevant and weak character . And ,in the last scene the character seems to \"discover \" the true meaning of Christmas : and what would be ? what do you think ? the gifts ! many Christmas movies are close to say something like it ,but \"The Polar Express \" it's a ode to the materialism and greed . Seriouslly ,I refuse to call it a \"children's movie \" , because if is that what the kids would learn ,I don't want to think how would be our future .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is awful. It creates characters not in the book, and some of them are ethnic or racial stereotypes. Including an obnoxious little Jewish boy and a politically correct little black girl. Not to mention the Yiddish speaking elves. The book was a simple story about belief, and this movie is a dark, ugly, and needlessly scary movie about nothing.

The animation is superb, but the story has been ruined by Hollywood.

The good thing is that this movie will take a bath in the box office and maybe producers will learn to keep from tampering with a story that needs no improvement. Hanks was overdone and i don't see why there couldn't have been other actors' voices be used.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Polar Express. Director Robert Zemeckis, I love Back to the Future, Forrest Gump, Contact, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit (NO QUESTION MARK AFTER THAT MOVIE TITLE!!). And Tom Hanks, one of my favorite actors. The reviews of this movie were almost unanimous saying that this is an instant holiday classic. Ebert & Roeper give it two ENTHUSIASTIC thumbs up! Even Ebert's written review gave it a full four stars! Wow... OK... this I gotta see! But wait... the motion capture used looks really weird. Hmm... maybe I'm NOT so interested in seeing this anymore.

\"Well, you comin?\" says the train conductor to the boy in The Polar Express. The boy is reluctant at first, and the train begins on its course without him. The boy soon changes his mind and jumps aboard just in the nick of time.

Now, most of you have probably decided to not jump aboard this train and wait for the TV Train or Rental Express (hee hee, I'm so witty and clever). I, on the other hand was like the boy who was skeptical at first, but jumped on to see what the fuss was all about.

I just wasted $10 and two hours of my life.

I can't even begin to explain the pain in my stomach. The Polar Express was so painful to sit through it's not even funny. There's no story. There's no pay off. You sit there through these series of events and you wonder \"is there any point to all this?\" It'd be one thing if the scenes were entertaining... but they're not.

This movie is void of any emotion, any soul, any ounce of plausibility, and most of all: any fun. This movie is NOT FUN.

And let's talk about the way these characters look for a second. Saying that it's the same technology (motion, I'm sorry, \"PERFORMANCE\" capture) used to make Gollum is a real shame because Gollum was Believable!!! Photo-realism just does not translate well in this medium. You're using animation, why not design the characters to be more expressive? Or why not just film it all with real actors? They certainly COULD have. We as people know all too well how we walk, talk, interact with things. Seeing it on the screen done unconvincingly is not impressive. Caricatures done convincingly is all the more believable, as The Incredibles has proved. The result of The Polar Express now is as if they took corpses of dead children and turned them into puppets. They're moving and talking, but where's the heart? Where's the soul? That's what we're seeing on the screen. UGH UGH UGH UGH UGH! This movie is so horrible!

There's a scene early in the movie where the boy takes a girl's train ticket from her seat because she got up and left it. He wants to give it to her but you sit there going \"why??!\" Just leave it.. she's coming back! He of course loses the ticket and \"adventure\" ensues. And then there's a boy who's stuck in the back of the train all the time, and they bring him hot chocolate, but he can't come up and join the rest of the kids? And then there's this annoying \"know it all\" kid with the voice of a 35 year old. It's all so very disturbing.

Oh and there's songs! One girl goes into the back of the train where the lonely kid is. He's singing a song to himself. And then she interrupts and joins in! They end the song as they're holding hands, looking into each others eyes as if they were lovers. Very awkward. I won't even go into details about the song about serving hot chocolate while waiters dance around the train. \"keep it hot keep it hot!\" The one scene where Tom Hanks slides on his knees with his arms stretched up in the air has to be one of the most memorably BAD scenes in the history of bad scenes.

I have to stop now or I'll just kill myself. I need to watch something crappy to cleanse the palette. Yes... crappy is better than The Polar Express.

\"The one thing about trains, it doesn't matter where you're going, what matters is deciding to get on.\"

Don't get on this one. For the love of God, I have decided for you! This is just another film taken from a children's book stretched incredibly thin into movie form. It happened with the Grinch and The Cat in the Hat and those were horrible also. But who can blame them? I bet if I took the book, The Berenstein Bears' Too Much Junk Food, and turned that into a feature film, it'd probably be pretty dull also. But at least... there'd be a story and a point, which is what The Polar Express is so lacking of.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Much like Final Fantasy, if you look at a still shot - it doesn't look so bad. But when the people start moving, it's utterly horrifying. Uneven jerky motions, frightening lack of emotion, and lack of a feel of life in the face gives me the creeps. The characters do not even appear ALIVE\/organic.

I saw a preview screening with my daughter, who actually fell asleep! She was not at all engaged. For the record, I thought her to be easily engaged by both Pixar-esque films as well as a number of the 'bad' 2D films like Sinbad.

The lighting is painful, giving the children the appearance of holding a flashlight under their chin at a campfire. The lip syncing is bad - worse actually than Final Fantasy.

I also seriously question having Hanks play five characters.... this was a major distraction throughout the film. The role of the conductor is eerie - although in a way I just can't pinpoint. It reminds me of my father's fake \"phone\" voice when greeting clients.

I think this is why the multiple roles are distracting - you are accutely aware that the voice is the same, but yet distinctly different. It gives each character the feel of being ACTED, as opposed to being real human characters. The illusion of reality is broken by the multiple role playing of Hanks. I've seen the technique work - a la Eddie Murphy, but Hanks just can't come close to pulling it off with a voice alone, given the horrifying animation.

I would not waste my money on this - wait for the rental.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know most of the other reviews say that this movie was great, but I have to disagree.

Sure, it's a good book! It was actually one of my favorites when I was verrry little. But it's just not meant for theaters. Maybe for a little half-hour short, but I don't see how they can turn a short kiddie book into a whole feature film.

It is a cute movie, but I would only recommend it for really little kids. Older kids will have no interest it. Adults may have a little more interest if they watch it with their young ones. But anyone ages 7-Adult will have a snore-fest.

Sorry if you disagree with me, but this is my opinion. :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am not kidding: there's a scene in this movie where a hobo hits his head on a tunnel keystone and explodes (with no fireball, though) into a million pieces! It made some kid in front of me scream in terror! ...In a G-rated film!

This film might serve to convince children that Santa Clause is EVIL! His helpers are ugly, misanthropic, over-the-top and mean! When Santa (here an anagram of Satan!) appears, all 200,000 elves begin singing \"Santa Clause is Coming to Town\" as though it were a Druid war chant. Then, in the reflection of this movie's \"Rosebud\" object (a jingle bell that whispers hints of why you can't hear it ringing: \"doubt....doubt...)), old Saint Nick appears, looking like a stoic Donald Sutherland, his face glowing like Moses' from \"K10C\". When we hear him speak, his thundering voice sounds less like a jolly old elf, and more like James Earl Jones' voice slowed-down about 20%. Frightening!

The syrupy music is out-of-place, boring and repetitive. It doesn't follow any emotional threads (as in \"Titanic's\" very effective score). It just seems thrown in at certain points in order to generate feelings of warmth and magic. It fails to stir, partly because it doesn't match the imagery of the film. There are some musical train wrecks (no pun intended) where, out of nowhere, the eerie, symphonic score slams abruptly into happy, child-voiced POLKA about the title locomotive. It just makes the whole movie sound like it was rushed into production!

Finally, I agree with some other reviewers about how, well... \"dead\" everyone looks. It does seem a little macabre at times. The motion-capture technique is good for allowing the Kings Island-like roller-coaster train sequences to look convincing from a distance, but up close, \"real\" actors should have been used. Overall, nice eye-candy for killing time in front of the TV, but not much else here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I do think Tom Hanks is a good actor. I enjoyed reading this book to my children when they were little. I was very disappointed in the movie. One character is totally annoying with a voice that gives me the feeling of fingernails on a chalkboard. There is a totally unnecessary train\/roller coaster scene. There are some characters and scenes that seem scary for little children for whom this movie was made. The North Pole scenes with Santa and the elves could have been cute and charming. There was absolutely no warmth or charm to these scenes or characters. It usually doesn't work to make a short children's book into a feature film. This movie totally grates on my nerves.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't see the point. It's ponderous. The animated people are creepy (look up uncanny valley). Scenes go on and on and on for very little purpose. The plot is skeletal and must be padded out with lots of meaningless dramatic, screaming roller coaster rides, as if Disney or Spielberg were planning an amusement park ride based on the movie. Most of the characters are annoying and unlikeable. Some of them keep showing up as if they will have something important to add to a climactic scene. They don't. They just vanish with no lasting impact. Somebody summed it up as \"if you don't believe in Santa Claus, you'll be kidnapped on a train on Christmas eve.\" That pretty much sums it up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like underdogs. So, 12 years after having first seen Star Trek V, and thinking it was bizarrely bad, I gave it a second watch, hoping I would find some redeeming quality which I missed the first time around.

I didn't.

The writing is half-baked, and although at first the quality of the acting is stable enough to keep the movie on its feet (albeit shakily), the further we get into the plot the sillier it gets. The last quarter of the film is just plain ridiculous. What was even worse, from the original cast's POV, is that this was the first ST movie to be released AFTER the franchise returned to television with Next Generation, and the average episode of Next Generation would put this to shame* - including the special effects! What an embarrassment.

The Final Frontier isn't thoroughly wretched - I gave it 4 out of 10 - but it's so far below the standard of its predecessors (yes, including the first one) that the only reason I can think of to watch it is because you'll appreciate the other movies more.

* unless it's an episode with Troi's mother in it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What is it with studios like Paramount that have a proven hit film series on their hands, and figure it can screw around with the budget and formula? Paramount spent less on this film than they did on TMP, which doesn't sound bad until you realize that there's a 10 gap between when the films were made. The $40 TMP cost to make would be equivalent to about $75 million in 1989. This film is the reason that Shatner has never been given a fair chance to direct other films, as well. Every time he turned around, the studio was slashing the budget and making demands regarding the storyline. The fact that this was the one storyline that Roddenberry and Shatner could agree upon for the most part made the freshman directorial task tough enough, but after all the machinations were done, all anyone ended up with was an uneven story and a load of badly executed special effects not worthy of the original series, much less a major motion picture. The most glaring examples: - All of the Phaser effects were severely ashed out and fake-looking. - The shot of the Enterprise going into the great barrier was so obviously a still-frame shot being zoomed away from. At least the popsicle stick that held the Enterprise cut out up was successfully matted out. - God \"chasing\" Kirk up the mountain... Egads, they may as well have just cut in shots of Godzilla climbing the volcano at the end of \"Godzilla 1985,\" and used thumbtacks to scratch the emulsion off of the film to make electric bolts come out of his eyes at the imperiled Captain Kirk.... Yes, friends, I have a real problem with the look of that last scene, especially.

Thank goodness Star Trek VI was such a redeemer of a film...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I find it almost touching how Star Trek fans try desperately to like this film in spite of its unbelievable number of flaws.

To begin with, none of the familiar characters are really in character so to speak. Scotty is depicted as a bumbling tinkerer instead of the competent engineer he was in the original series. Uhura...Gods, I can't even think about what they did to her character. All of her dialog was painful to listen to. McCoy seemed like a neurotic stepfather to Kirk instead of his trusted friend. Spock...well, let's just say that Leonard Nimoy was terribly wasted. He was given bad dialog (\"I do not believe you have grasped the gravity of your situation Captain.\" Gravity, get it? Get it?) and made almost into a buffoon. Kirk...oh man, don't get me started. William Shatner is a hammy actor to begin with, so to allow him to direct really is to invite disaster which is what we got.

The plot is beyond ridiculous. Giving Spock a brother is a pretty desperate story line and unnecessarily soap operaish. But hey, let's go with it. The search for God. Again, a weak plot basis. You don't think so? OK, let's go with that too. So assuming that the two aforementioned plot elements are sound, what's wrong with the script? Well, for one thing, it recycles way too much. The Enterprise, for example, is yet again, not working properly. Are we to assume that Starfleet would send a grossly malfunctioning ship with a skeleton crew into a potentially dangerous situation just because they want James Kirk to handle the situation? If that's the case, then why not put him on a better ship as an adviser? Adding to that...the crew is grossly incompetent. Scotty has the ship in pieces (and apparently is cloddish enough to bump his head knocking himself into unconsciousness WHILE there are hostiles on board!), no one seem to notice the Klingon ship decloaking at a crucial moment (despite the fact that the sensors are clearly showing the ship in weapons range) and the crew all seem way too familiar with each other. In other words, there is no sense of discipline. If this is the flagship of Starfleet, then it's a wonder that the Klingons hadn't already overthrown the Federation.

As to the personal struggles with pain, it was crap. Lawrence Luckenbill is a competent actor, but even he couldn't save this turkey. In short no one could. Of all the people involved, I imagine Leonard Nimoy is the most embarrassed by it. I hope he is, anyway.

Thank god the original cast didn't bow out on this cloddish opus.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was so bad I can't even review it. So I'll jot some sentences about what I witnessed, and it'll be up to you to decide.

Captain Kirk, with toupee and tubby gut, is rock climbing Yosemete's El Capitan. Spock meets him halfway riding on a floating skateboard-like hovercraft. Kirk falls. Spock flies down, catches him inches before Kirk hits the ground head- first.

Later, that night, Spock, Kirk and McCoy are eating beans around a campfire. Spock likes the beans. Then, Kirk and McCoy sing \"Row Row Row Your Boat\", and want Spock to join in on the three-way harmony. Spock doesn't want to sing. And later that night, he disagrees. \"But life isn't but a dream, Captain\". Should I go on?

Okay... A renegade Vulcan, who happens to be Spock's half brother, leads a revolt on a sandy planet - taking hostages. The crew of the enterprise land on the planet, and Uhura, pushing fifty-five and weighing two-hundred some-odd pounds, lures the natives with her bare legs. But they can't trick the brother, who claims he can find God.

He kidnaps the crew and the Enterprise. They go to a planet where a big bearded apparition, claiming to be God, spits fire at Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Spock's sibling, realizing it isn't God - but is really a form of himself - or something - joins with the apparition in order to destroy it and... sparks fly.

Then, after stuff happens too complicated to explain involving Klingons who resemble Lorenzo Lamas...

The Three Amigos - Kirk, Spock and McCoy - return to Yosemite (did I mention, Kirk was wearing a GO CLIMB A ROCK T-shirt?). With Spock playing some kind of funky Vulcan guitar, they sing \"Row Row Row Your Boat\", this time all three harmonizing as the credits roll.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I guess that after Leonard Nimoy had been successful in directing \"the Search for Spock\" and \"the Voyage Home,\" William Shatner thought he could direct too. Although he is a competent actor, he shows here that he's just not a good director.

Actually, this movie is hard evidence to support the arguments of Trekkies who say that William Shatner being an arrogant egomaniac. For although his character, Captain James Kirk, was always arguably the most important role in the original \"Star Trek,\" it seems in this movie that he is the heart of the movie, the two other most important characters, Captain Spock and Doctor Leonard McCoy, are just there to support him, and the other characters are just there to add comic relief.

The plot is that some emotional Vulcan outcast named Sybok is mindmelding with people and releasing the pain bottled up inside them from that traumatic event early in life that changed them forever. Grateful, they join him in his quest to make the entire world free of pain and thus at peace. Sybok and his followers commandeer the building in which a peace conference between a Human, Klingon, and Romulan diplomat is taking place. This lures the still-being-constructed Enterprise there, since none of Starfleet's other ships have \"experienced commanders\" (honestly, with how Starfleet is run, the Klingons and Romulans should have conquered them years ago). Sybok adds the Enterprise's crew, save Spock (who is revealed to be secret brothers with Sybok), McCoy, and Kirk. Sybok orders that the Enterprise take off to \"the center of the universe\" to meet \"God,\" who apparently every race has a word for. However, it turns out that this is only a minor entity when he demands the use of the Enterprise and Kirk asks, \"what does God need with a starship.\" The entity is destroyed, but not before Sybok, realizing he's been lied to for years, sacrifices his life and earns Spock's respect in death after the Enterprises photon torpedos destroy the entity and inexplicably Sybok as well.

OK, science fiction movies are not known for realism, but at some point, rationality must be enforced. Why do people follow Sybok just for releasing their pain? Why are all humanoids defined by a single traumatic event? I've certainly led a trauma-free life. Why doesn't Kirk try his crew for mutiny and treason after they join Sybok? What was the point of Sybok sacrificing himself when the torpedos were going to kill the entity anyway?

So the plot's weak. Another problem is that Sybok, though played well by Lawrence Luckinbill, is poorly portrayed. Just because he's an emotional Vulcan doesn't mean he should act exactly like a Human religious fanatic. Shatner (who was a co-writer as well as the director) could have at least developed dialog fitting for an emotional Vulcan. I guess he feels that any emotional being talks like us. Gee, I guess that means that Klingons should say \"isn't\" and \"don't\" more often than \"is not\" and \"do not.\" And the Cardassians shouldn't prolong their sentences because they like to talk (yeah, I know it's sad that I know this). Please... every ST race uses unique dialog. Why is Sybok the exception.

The only thing to not complain about is the acting. I've always known \"Star Trek\" to have great actors, and this movie is not exception. Cudos also go to Leonard Nimoy, for it had to be difficult to play the dispassionate Spock in his old age.

Some other things I didn't like:

Shatner and the late DeForrest Kelly twice show what bad singers they are by singing \"Row, Row, Row your Boat\" in this movie. I guess Shatner wished to silence his detractors of his singing ability. What he did was prove their point.

Uhura does a fan dance while wearing nothing but tree bark to draw some men into a booby trap. After all, the dreams of all us men are filled with images of middle-aged plump women dancing naked.

Comedy's all well and good as long as it doesn't affect the nature of \"Star Trek\" too much, but when Scotty bumps into an object on the Enterprise and KOs himself, it's kinda goin' overboard.

Kirk is the only crew member who can reject Sybok's offer of releasing their inner pain and see through the God imposter's deception. Not even Spock can manage either of these? Perhaps this scenes were valantines from Shatner to his character, as many suspect.

The concept of an entity posing as God had been used in \"Star Trek\" before this movie more than once. Be creative, Shatner.

Speaking of uncreativeness, I didn't purticularly care for the ripping off of the music of \"Star Trek: the Next Generation.\"

All in all, pretty bad \"Trek\" movie. If you're a Trekkie, watch it once because it's \"Star Trek.\" Otherwise, watch \"Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan.\" It's way better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... Once. \"Manos, the Hands of Fate.\" That was worse than this, quite a bit worse: but it did have one thing: it had beautiful women in negligees wresting each other -- for about 20 minutes. This has a fat 45 year-old with 3 tits and a tail, in a cantina scene cloned directly from \"Star Wars.\" Not to mention an obese, blue seductress Uhura, her fat legs and ass hanging out of some sort of insane bird costume, in this Method Acting Mess. She always wanted to perform before a \"captive audience\"? She must have meant the poor slobs who shelled out 8 bucks hoping to see another \"Wrath of Khan,\" or at least a \"Voyage Home.\" Captive\" is right. I wonder how many people in the theaters tried to slit their wrists while crying out: \"mother, make it stop.\"

No question about it, \"Final Frontier\" is not just an unmitigated disaster, it's cruel and unusual punishment. This is Star Trek from hell. This is Shatner on mushrooms -- or maybe peyote. This is Where No Man Has Gone Before and Wished He Never Had in the First Place. Or, to paraphrase a review of \"Heaven's Gate: \"It's as if Gene Roddenberry sold his soul to the Devil for the success of a TV series, and Devil is just now coming around to collect.\"

And don't even get me started on a drunken Kirk and a grinning McCoy singing \"Row, Row, Row Your Boat\" together, like they were lovers in some sort of demented gay fever dream. Then we've got the Hideous Dynamic Duo of Sulu and Chekov, hiking through the woods together... probably en route to a Barry Manilow concert. Then there's Laurence Luckinbill as Spock's brother???!!! Yeah, right! Amazing how these relations we never heard of suddenly crawl out of the woodwork when we need a new plot line. And not to forget Spock rocketing through the air after Kirk when he falls from a cliff in Yosemite. Sure. He catches up to Kirk and saves him ONE FOOT away from the ground. Where'd you get those nifty Rocket Shoes, Spock?!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The voyage here is a search for God, the big guy in the sky, the big cheese with a beard. Cunningly disguised as the thirst for ultimate knowledge. Taking over from Leonard Nimoy in the directing chair is The Shat himself, Captain Tiberius William Shatner Kirk. In an attempt at blending the fun corny aspects of the series with sci-fi histrionics {Klingon dialogue consultant, really?}, Shatner and his co-writers have only achieved what is almost an embarrassing parody of a parody. Where's the danger,? where's the brothers in arms spirit,? in fact where is our badly underwritten crew?. Star Trek humour is a wonderful thing, when it's in the right places and done with a straight lace so befitting what has come before The Final Frontier. Some light moments exist, but they do not compensate for the lack of serious moments. While do we really need another Spock revelation,? really?.

Some nice sets and little knowingly Trek moments aside, The Final Frontier is just a bad movie experience. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Supposedly, director William Shatner had in mind a much 'darker' film when it came to 'Star Trek V: The Final Frontier' but the suits at Paramount, looking at the huge box-office receipts taken in by its humor-filled predecessor, insisted the new film have plenty of laughs too. So what we get is arguably the weakest and goofiest of the six Star Trek movies with the original cast. There are bad ideas aplenty, along with a few good ones, and if you're in a charitable mood, you could look at 'The Final Frontier' the same way you would a so-so episode of the TV series. On the plus side, Laurence Luckenbill is a fine actor and gives one of the best 'guest star' performances in any Star Trek, big or small screen, ranking right up there with William Windom's Commodore Decker. His portrayal of Sybok, Spock's half-brother, consistently lifts the film when it threatens to sink, which happens all too frequently. Charles Cooper is good too as the fat old Klingon General Korrd; too bad his role isn't as large as he is. If the story about Shatner's intentions is true, then I owe him an apology, because I was prepared to lay the blame for the incessant silliness and not-very-convincing action scenes squarely at his directorial feet. The reason is I've always felt that, of all the Trek regulars, Shatner was the least 'tuned-in' to everything that makes Star Trek work and what makes it special to its fans. Having read his Trek memoirs, it's very apparent to me that he considered the show another action-adventure series that just happened to have a science-fiction setting. He preferred the vision of Gene Coon over that of Gene Roddenberry; Coon was known for his work on the popular western series, 'The Wild Wild West.' Shatner also mentioned that a favorite Star Trek episode of his was 'A Piece of the Action,' a silly second-season episode co-written by Coon. So, finally given an opportunity to direct a Star Trek feature film, would not Shatner follow his instincts and produce an action-filled flick with lots of tongue-in-cheek humor? Well somebody did, because that's what 'The Final Frontier' ended up being. Shatner himself definitely returns to form as The Great Ham and, as Leonard Maltin points out, the film suffers from a bad case of 'the cutes.' In the opening scene at Yosemite National Park, it's hard to say which is worse, the super-cheesy special effects or the godawful dialogue. Running gags about equipment malfunctioning on the Enterprise have run all the way from 'Wrath of Khan' and by this, the fifth Trek movie, have run themselves into the ground. So has the idea of a 'skeleton crew'. One new development is an apparent romantic relationship between Scotty and Uhura and suffice it to say one does not exactly sense flames of passion burning between the two. It's a pointless subplot and adds nothing. The climactic scene where 'God' is encountered doesn't add much either; whether or not this was a good idea in the first place is debatable, but the scene itself doesn't make much sense. (The 'God' creature's abilities seem to vary according to what is needed at the moment.) Roughly half of this is a tired retread of the climax from 'The Search for Spock.' Leonard Nimoy manages to salvage Spock's integrity, even while spouting such un-Spock-like lines as \"Get a grip on yourself, Doctor.\" And DeForest Kelley, as usual, outperforms both Shatner and Nimoy; he really came on as an actor in the final Trek films. So this Trek outing isn't terrible, it just isn't very good. There was to be one more original cast Trek movie before the baton was passed to the 'next generation,' and it was far better suited to the task than 'Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first saw it 9 years ago, when I was 9. I thought it stunk. I'm 18 now and I still think it stinks. I mean geez no Special effects or anything, it was boring and kinda anti-climatic. My cousin watched once and George Takai (Sulu) kept talking about how it was supposed to be so much better, but they kept cutting to the budget. It would have been a great episode, but it was a terrible movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Leonard Nimoy directed Star Trek III, which wasn't half bad. Maybe William Shatner thought seeming as how Nimoy did it he could. After seeing this film he should have reversed that decision.

Star Trek V The final Frontier is the worst in the series. The acting from all involved and that includes those like Shatner and Nimoy is bad and washed out and making them seem as old as they look in real life, the special effects are tacky like when Spock has to rescue Kirk on a jet pack when he falls down from a mountain.

The attempts at humor were pitiful and story is so awful it dosen't bear thinking about which basically involves a Vulcan stealing the Enterprise to find god (seriously) I just didn't care about any of this film and oh not to mention Uhura does a belly dance to distract male guards. She looked like she was taking part in a granny competition. If they meant to make her look sexy. They were wrong. She looked grotesque.

How this got to production or even written...well it dosen't bear thinking about. The only place good for this film is in the garbage. The worst one of the series.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even not being a fan of the \"Star Trek\" movies or universe of shows and books and such, I still find some enjoyment in some of the movies featuring the old cast and in the case of \"First Contact\" even the new cast a bit. This one though was kind of sad to watch...it seemed to want to be so much, but it failed on so many levels to be one of the worst Star Trek movies. The plot is very far fetched seeming to want to combine three or four stories into one ultimate Trek adventure, but it ends up an unfunny when it tries to be, not tense when it wants to be and not action packed like it tries to be mess of inconsistencies. The whole movie to take a phrase from Spock is illogical. The effects are nothing special as I have seen episodes of Next Generation that are just as good, which is to say it is fine for a television show, but not a major motion picture. The plot is laughable as the gang at first tries to stop Spock's brother then joins him on his quest to find God, yes you read that correctly. The Klingons make a tacked on appearance, which actually will set up the much better Undiscovered Country movie. All in all you know it is bad when the best part of the film is Kirk, Bones and Spock singing row your boat, well Spock was not really singing, but rather questioning the lyrics.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While Star Trek the Motion Picture was mostly boring, Star Trek The Final Frontier is plain bad. In this terrible sequel, the crew is on shore leave when they get a distress signal from the Federation that ambassadors representing Earth, Romulus and Kronos (the Klingon home world) have been kidnapped by a renegade Vulcan bent on his quest to attain a starship to venture into the great barrier. There, he hopes to find God. Using mysticism and bad writing, he persuades many of the senior officers of the Enterprise to betray Kirk and get a hold of the ship. They do reach the inside of the great barrier and find a planet where they do meet a god-like alien. This one is so bad it is hard to figure out where to begin. At the core is a good idea that is never really developed. The plot goes nowhere instead of where no man has gone before. It is almost like the writers had no idea how to end this fiasco. The action scenes don't have the suspense of Wrath of Kahn, the philosophy is boring, and the humor is stale. Now I will focus most of my anger on William Shatner. When he takes the director's chair, the ego gets bigger. Most of the focus is on him, Spock, and McCoy, but does not give the others enough to do. Moreover, whereas Shatner is usually guilty of over-acting in previous movies and television spots, he is just plain bad in this one. Now Kirk is reckless, a practical jokers, and silly. One of the worst scenes involves the three leaders singing the song, \"Row Row Row your Boat\" in a round by a campfire. In any case, this is the worst of the Star Trek franchise. I should have given it three out of ten instead of five.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't think I can add much more to what has already been said about this film. However, I can offer a small recollection from seeing ST-V in the theater. In the last (dreadful) scene, as the camera is pulling out from the camping shot and it seems likely that the credits will start rolling at any second, the audience seemed to rise in unison. Normally, for a movie like this, at least -some- die-hard fans stay to watch right up until the final disclaimer. As the people filed out, I remember hearing no laughing and cheerful banter, only low murmurs.

I remember reading a movie review in the local paper in which the critic said that it was so bad that only Trek fans would like it. What an idiot. The fans were the ones most apt to tear it apart first!

Favorite worst scene: Target shooting on a Voyager space probe, through a periscope no less! Space must be a much smaller frontier than we thought.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm aware that there are some fans who might like this movie. I'm aware that the idea of 'searching for god' might appear interesting to some, to me, however, it's really boring.

The movie is simply boring. When it does get a little bit interesting, it gets stupid. Come on... Kirk fights against god and wins? How low can we possibly get? The only good part in the film is the camping scene at the first 5 minutes, which is truly great, but after that, the movie becomes boring, irritating, with nothing more than a good music.

Thank god we have Star Trek VI. (Oops, Kirk beat him).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No one expects the Star Trek movies to be high art, but the fans do expect a movie that is as good as some of the best episodes. Unfortunately, this movie had a muddled, implausible plot that just left me cringing - this is by far the worst of the nine (so far) movies. Even the chance to watch the well known characters interact in another movie can't save this movie - including the goofy scenes with Kirk, Spock and McCoy at Yosemite.

I would say this movie is not worth a rental, and hardly worth watching, however for the True Fan who needs to see all the movies, renting this movie is about the only way you'll see it - even the cable channels avoid this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Star Trek V definitely earns the dubious distinction of being the weakest film in the Star Trek series. Despite the good acting efforts by the actors, it suffered from a general lack of funding from Paramount Pictures. Paramount Pictures was not enthusiastic about this film at its very onset.

The movie begins with the Enterprise crew enjoying their extended shore leave as a reword for saving the Earth from total ecological disaster. Their shore leave is cut short when a disturbance occurs on Nimbus III, the Planet of Intergalactic Peace. Captain Kirk and the Enterprise arrive at Nimbus III only to have their ship hijacked by Sybok, Spock's half-brother. Sybok brainwashes the crew of the Enterprise and sets it on a suicide mission to rendezvous with \"God\" just past the Great Barrier at the center of our galaxy. Captain Kirk must then figure out a way to regain control of his ship and to fend off the Enterprise's Klignon pursuers.

The only bright spot in the film is the acting and directing. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Laurence Luckinbill, and the rest of the cast all give good performances. William Shatner also does a pretty good job directing this film.

However, the film suffered from a general lack of enthusiasm and funding. First, the part of Sybok was initially offered to Sean Connery, but he refused. So, Laurence Luckinbill got the part. Second, many of the special effects were severely cut back ... reducing the movies entertaining potential. Third, the scene that depicts the arrival at the Great Barrier left much to be desired. Finally, the romance between Scotty and Uhura in this film did not make much sense at all ... considering that no such romance ever occurred prior to this point in the Star Trek universe and it was never explained how such a romance could suddenly materialize between Star Treks IV and V.

Overall, this is a very weak film. You should probably just skip this film and move on to Star Trek VI. After all, the cast and crew made Star Trek VI partly to bail themselves out after their debacle with Star Trek V.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That's the only word I can think of to describe this movie. Not waste as in a waste of time (any time spent with these characters is never wasted), but waste as in a waste of opportunities.

When I see this movie, I think of all the Star Trek novels that were written which would have made a much better film than the story Shatner chose. The setup was like an average television episode, while the finish felt like the climax (if you can call it that) of the first movie.

Nimoy, in directing II-IV, focused on the character of Spock--how he faced the Kobayashi Maru outside of the classroom, and how he handled his emotional live now that he had a chance to start fresh. Shatner could have done the same with Kirk here, but he didn't. We don't know much about Kirk that we didn't know before. Again, one of the novels would have been better--try \"My Enemy, My Ally\" for a very interesting character study of our friend James T. The minor characters are used mostly for cute bits, and the Scotty-Uhura subplot seems way out of left field, particularly since the subtext in the original series was Sulu-Uhura.

Even hardcore fans can't find much to enjoy here. Sorry, but it's true.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The weakest of the 'old' crew Star Trek films, this film suffers from an awful script and obvious budget constraints, particularly in the mishandled finale. The bones of a good movie are here, and the directing from Shatner is not as bad as is commonly made out, but the characters end up speaking and acting way out of the style that the previous 3 films had carefully established. Lawrence Luckinbull is convincing as the renegade Vulcan with msyterious and mystical powers to influence people and these powers are responsible for some of the best scenes, particularly for Deforest Kelley who shines as 'Bones' McCoy in this his second last movie. However, as good as those scenes are, they ultimately do not advance the plot, and end up feeling as more of a distraction. A great score from the ever reliable Goldsmith and some funny scenes in Yosemite between the main three are not enough to cover the gaping chasms in the plot, and the frankly embarassing attempts at humour serve only to alienate even die hard trekkies. All in all, a wealth of possibilities which although it fails to deliver, has its moments. Watch out for the pool table in the bar brawl scene...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man, this would have been a bad episode of the original series. I can't believe they actually spent money on this one... I caught the second half of this on tv and, having never seen this one before, thought I would watch it... Boy, what a waste of time... More cheese than Wisconsin!!!

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie just recently, and I said to myself: \"This movie is bad!\" William Shatner is a great actor, but he is no director!

It's not just that the acting is bad, it's terrible. And instead of a plot, we have a very bad storyline that is called a plot! What I really thought was bad was at the beginning where Kirk and McCoy were teaching Spock how to sing \"Row, Row, Row Your Boat!\"

Do I have something against William Shatner? I do not. But when it comes to being a director, he sucks! This film is not one of the worst movies I have ever seen. But it is the worst of the Star Trek series!

I noticed that after this Shatner did not return to direct another film in the series. They apparently did not want him to direct another film again after this happened!

Overall, this movie sucks!

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Welcome to the Plan 9 From Outer Space of Star Trek movies. Come on, trekkers, admit it. This movie is so bad, so staggeringly inept in every department, it's become something of a classic.

The Shat gives the worst performance ever committed to celluloid. \"BOONES! Hi, Bones\" Brilliant! This isn't just Ham - it's several large pig farms in Kentucky!

The \"Special\" Effects. Should be done under the trade descriptions act for using such a term. The Enterprise is a moving piece of cardboard in this film. Really! Even the Star Trek TV show had better.

Bones, Spock and The Shat sing! Yeah, Spock sings Row Row Row Your Boat. After struggling over the meaning of the words!!!! \"Capt. Life is Not A Dream\" Poor Leonard Nimoy, he must really want to strangle Shatner for this. Could The Shat not have given us his rendition of Mr. Tambourine Man, or harmonised with Nimoy on Ballad of Bilbo Baggins? Sorely disappointed.

A Sean Connery look-a-like plays Spock's half-brother. Only cos they couldn't get Sean Connery! Uhura does a fan dance! That would have been sexy in 1966. In 1989 it's like watching your drunk granny embarrass herself at a Christmas Party.

Cat Woman Jumps on Shatner's back! Shat twirls her around a few times like a WWF Wrestler, and chucks her off. Yayy The Shat! Seems Connery 2.0 was a bit of a Vulcan rebel. Which explains why Spock hasn't previously mentioned him in 79 t.v episodes and 4 movies. McCoy apparently mercy-killed his Dad, BUT AFTERWARDS THEY FOUND A CURE. Tell me this isn't hysterically funny.

The 11 deck Enterprise suddenly grows another 400 decks for an escape sequence in an elevator shaft. Spock's antigrav boots amazingly support Bones and The Shat as well. Should also have used em on the humped-back whales in Star Trek IV! Shatner meets God! Or what purports to be God, but I assume is really some kind of alien being. God looks a bit like Charlton Heston in The 10 Commandments. Sean Connery the 2nd calls on God to share his pain, and promptly dies. Or something. God punishes the Shat for questioning his identity. So Spock kills God with a photon torpedo. I'd love to know what Jehovah's Witnesses made of this scene.

The Shat, having killed God, promptly goes back to his sing-song with Spock and Bones. Altogether now, Row Row Row Your Boat.....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have been a huge fan of the original crew of the Enterprise since I was eight years old. I watched all the movies and appreciated each one for what they retained from the old series and for further developing the characters (and the Star Trek universe, in general). Even in \"The Undiscovered Country\" I thought the aging of the characters was well handled and the story worthy of a theatrical release. However, having said that, \"Star Trek V: The Final Frontier\" is easily the worst of the series featuring the original crew. I agree with many that the camaraderie of Kirk, Spock and McCoy is well handled, but the overall script, the direction -- by William Shatner -- and the special effects are not worthy of anything more than a television episode. This is a \"buddy movie\" and, at times, almost unrecognizable as a Star Trek movie. The action sequences are not sustained and therefore, build little or no tension. The dialogue is weak though it does provide for a few laughs, both intended and not-intended. The Klingon's seem thrown in as an afterthought. The whole \"Sha-Ka-Ree\" concept is just silly and Laurence Luckinbill, a fine actor in everything else I've ever seen him in, boarders on the absurd in this movie. The scene where Sybok conjures up images of Spock's pain and McCoy's pain shatters the image of the characters as we've known them. Spock would never be party to such stupidity and McCoy, trying to save his father is full of insipid, redundant dialogue and totally wastes DeForest Kelley's acting abilities. The whole scene is wasted and really shows us nothing new and nothing we want to see from these characters. I understand that Shatner didn't have the luxury of working with ILM for the special effects and that the budget for this movie was tight, but that doesn't allow for such a bad story. In some respects, I think this story does fit in with the old series, but the movies, including \"Star Trek: The Motion Picture\" are all much better quality than this. It's a shame that most of the other characters have so few lines and so little to do with most of this movie. The focus on Kirk, McCoy and Spock is nice, but way over used. The old crew really seems to be out of character. I liked the old Klingon General and the sultry Romulan in the bar. I liked some of the humor and the idea that Spock has a half-brother, but that's about it. If this was a TV episode, I'd be able to accept a lot of the faults. As a movie, this is just bad, uninspired film making. It's a shame too, because I want this movie to be good. Even if it was the level of \"Star Trek III\" I would be happy, but this movie makes all the other movies in this series seem like works of Shakespeare.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Especially if you love horrible movies. When I first started watching it, all I could say was \"I hope there's a dance sequence in it.\" Imagine my delight when not ONLY did the two main characters dance, but the main ghost began break dancing as well. AND on top of THAT, Sherman Hemsley sings the break dance song (not to mention the theme song). It makes me a little sad that he went broke because of this movie, but I've never liked him as an actor and he really should have known better. Not even the director would take credit for this movie (and you should check out some of the other films he directed!).

One note of warning, though, the writer seemed to really like jokes about the, um, male lower regions. For example, one of the characters discovers a book called \"Groins of the Darker Species.\" I am not kidding. And that, to me, is the most disturbing part of the film. Other than that, find the most obscure video rental store in your town, get the movie, invite all your friends over, and laugh until you cry with Ghost Fever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was telling a friend of mine about the time my grandfather actually picked this horrible piece of crap for us to see one night at the theater. He never picked another one again! It was that bad! Anyway, my friend then told me that her father did some of the writing for this garbage. I thought she was kidding. It turns out, she was serious. She had never actually seen it, and she said that it put a quick halt to her father's writing career. I told her not to waste her time. But, if she did actually break down and watch it, she would see within the fist minute why this ended her father's days as a writer. I mean, even for the 1980's, this crap is bad beyond description. I mean, Joe Frazier as Terrible Tucker? And why in the world would two cops care one bit about a house full of ghosts? And the movie poster? A ghost with his tongue hanging out? What is that about? Nothing about this makes any sense. Well, I told my friend that this crap not only ended her father's writing career, it ended the careers of everybody involved. Or, at least none of them ever fully recovered from being in this garbage of a movie. Let's just say that I will forever ridicule my friend for revealing to me that her father was a writer for this movie! That alone should tell just how bad this is!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

This movie is s\u00f3 incredibly unfunny it makes any man want to cry, the clich\u00e9 are put on thicker than 5-year old peanut butter and in such a way that it actually sucks humour out of your heart, every single joke was badly timed and wouldn't have been funny if it were timed correctly.

Don't see this movie, there's a real chance you'll never be able to enjoy going to comedies again...ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sherman Hemsley was great in the Jeffersons and especially All in the Family. He was also very good in Amen, why on earth would he do this movie? This movie has a terrible script and is a waste of a very funny man. Luis Avalos does the best he can but this is awful. This movie was the beginning of bankruptcy for Sherman Hemsley. I think he is very funny but this is an awful awful pointless ghost story. Stick with Ghostbusters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This piece of garbage belongs in the basement of some moldy old mansion where it will never see the light of day again. The only thing scary about this junk was the price of admission. I was only amused when the ending credits started rolling and I was free to vacate the auditorium. What an unmitigated bore; a complete waste of 1 and a half hours. When I die, I pray I can come back as a ghost and give a fever to the moron who penned this gibberish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another of those flimsy stories coupled with most forgettable musical numbers. Powell and O'Keefe as battling publicists are quite forgettable. However, there are two shining moments. Hubert Castle is the most incredible tightrope walker you will ever see - his \"drunken walk\" on the wire has to be the most spectacular piece of balancing ever recorded on film. He has to be seen to be believed. The other is Sophie Tucker doing a turn near the end of the film. Her magnetism, her professionalism, her sheer talent at being herself - well, charisma is not learned - you have it or you don't. A great lesson for all would-be cabaret artists. A sad note: W.C. Fields in his last film cameo is completely forgettable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie is about people living at a trailerpark. later in the movie it gets obvious that those people are out-of-work comedians, mainly old males. well, more or less they sit around the whole movie and talk about f***ing. but never there is any action, just those people talking. in the beginning I thought it's some cool perverted redneck-stuff, but after a while it got boring. I mean, how many versions can you think of saying f***ing, d**k & c**t? for sure, this can be funny - for half an hour maybe, not 80 minutes. but it was funny to watch those people trying to act. I'm pretty sure that they often were reading their text on some sheet when playing. but it does not disturb the movie, it's cool like this. because those individuals seem so poor, f***ed-up, crestfallen a***oles that the style totally fits. their wooden, helpless reading of the texts makes quite good atmosphere, I fell in love with the characters a little.

***SPOILER AHEAD*** later in the movie the f***ers do some comedy-shows (rhymes about f***ing) with just themselves as audience and imagined applause. then one gets an eviction-advice and so they decide to defend the trailer park and enter their roofs - armed with some weapons. then they got shoot. fin. sounds like action, but it's not. just some trashy home-camera takes. ***SPOILER END***

but the movie is totally consequent in it's style and I'm pretty sure it's just what the movie-maker wanted to have. it's the portrait of those f**k-ups in an groggy home-camera style with characters who can not act but seem interesting personalities so they are nice to watch. but the texts about - you know what - the whole time get boring after a while.

pretty young director who also seems an interesting person, as he played some teenager-stuff in popular movies\/TV-series but now got in more horror-movies which is more his cup of tea I guess. and this, his first direction-effort will be distributed by troma now. don't know anything about a release, I got this one as an \"advance screener\" from this years cannes which says \"for bootlegging purposes only\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only positive thing I can think of regarding this utter piece of garbage is that now I finally have a good answer ready if anyone ever asks me what the worst movie I ever saw was called.

It would have taken such little effort to make it more watchable...a lot more effort and it could have been brilliant even.

Why would anyone want to produce such waste?

I refuse to believe that a director could be so ridiculously untalented.

Making a completely intolerable movie must have been the point.

Anything else just doesn't make sense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Officially the first martial arts movie in USSR cinematography featuring actual martial artists like Tadeush Kas'yanov and Russian Bruce Lee - Talgat Nigmatullin. Bad people highjack a ship in the high seas but fortunately just about everybody on board is a trained martial artist. A collectible for martial arts aficionado.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was the first action movie made in banned in USSR Hollywood action style. It is not even close to the Hollywood action movies of that time. The plot is childish, the directing is so-so. This movie succeeded because it was first of its kind in Russia. Even though I watched it many times I have to admit it was kind of naive and I did not like it. This is not the best example of Russian action movie. This is just the first experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has a few good performances going for it -- and that's all it has going for it. The leads, especially Pauley Perrette, are appealing. (Although some of the bit players seem to be acting from a teleprompter.) The material -- that is the problem. I feel as though the screenwriter\/director watched the entire run of Felicity in one sitting, then sat down to write a script without catching any sleep. It really did remind me of Felicity -- a thoughtful young woman finding herself, finding love, with a shake-them-up-and- see-what-happens approach to the characters and their relationships. Except that while I usually enjoyed watching Felicity, this movie left me cold. The writing is just awful. It's amazing that the cast could come off as well as they did, as the dialogue is dull at best. At its worst it becomes trite, stilted and amateurish. There is nothing original here, with plot elements recycled from gimmicks that weren't so brilliant to begin with. (Angels and fortune tellers? Come on.) For the first half of the movie, I rooted for the actors and hoped to be rewarded for my patience. By the second half, I just wished for it to end already. My sympathies to the cast, who deserved a better vehicle for their talents.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only interesting part of this movie was it's jazz and reggae New Orleans back drop. It tries to be one of those movies that has two struggles the heroine has to overcome, one from the past and one from the present which she fails to do convincingly. The acting's bad and the direction is even worse. I'm not surprised at all that this went straight to video. The end result of this film leaves no one satisfied or convinced including the actors themselves.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This low-budget indie film redefines the word \"blah\". It will surprise most that this word can actually be found in the dictionary, defined as: \"nonsense.. uninteresting, dull, lifeless\". The movie redefines the word because I would have to add to those four words: \"PC crap\", \"pretentious on a pathetic level\", and \"pointless\".

The film tries so hard to be \"hip\" and \"in touch\" with contemporary beautiful-people-struggling-for-je-ne-sais-quoi behaviour and \"thinking\" (do they think?). There is almost no plot to speak of, though there IS one to sleep to. The phoniest and most politically-correct things about it are how a white woman is great friends with a young, black stud, the black street-sax-player with a penchant for oh-so wise council and advice, and the fat black psychic. Isn't it beautiful how the races can get along after all?... Ahhhh... In the end, the woman reads out \"poetry\", which is nothing more than one of her dull \"dear diary\" entries. She gets a standing ovation(!!!), although in real life her listeners would have more likely than not dozed off into deep slumber. But this movie has little to do with real life, even though that is where it's supposed to be happening. In real life her \"poetry\" reading would have gotten standing ovations only if she had the sense to include the juicy, sexual details. \"And then I rubbed his huge penis against my sweaty, impatient pink little vagina...\" Cheers! What's worse, the lead actress has a dozen scenes in which she either bathes or screws with someone, yet they never have the sense to show her breasts, which was clearly the only thing left to save this mess.

The black guy and the blonde, who are separated by about a meter in height, hook up: they look like a cheap variation of Rodman and Madonna (as if the latter two aren't a cheap enough combination already). Nicole Eggert, mentioned by Howard Stern in his \"Miss America\" book, is the blonde. Stern writes of Eggert that she took her implants out. Yet I believe that when they took her implants out they also sucked most of the meat out of her flesh and muscles by mistake, for she looks starved here.

The sax player in one scene develops angel-like wings; he looks like Al Roker advertising angel food cakes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although the film does have a fairly stylish look for an indie made on a really low budget, that's not what I go to movies for. There wasn't one character I found sympathetic, they all seemed to be absolutely clueless losers. Everything they attempt ends badly, it's all too hopeless for me. Reviews refer to the Puffy Chair as a black comedy...comedy? The brother Rhett behaves like an escapee from an institution. When Josh talks to girl friend Emily about his brother, he almost hints at Rhett not playing with a full deck. Nonetheless Josh performs a \"wedding\" for Rhett and a woman Rhett met just a few hours before. There were a few interesting performances by some of the characters encountered on the road. However for me the most telling thing was that people were walking out of the film...and I saw it at a free screening.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When THE PUFFY CHAIR beckons, beware of its soft, colorful upholstery.

The movie starts out quite well. Josh (Mark Duplass) and Emily (Kathryn Aselton) are a boyfriend-girlfriend couple having a bit of a tough time with their relationship. An argument occurs one night and in order to make up, Josh asks Emily to come along on a roadtrip to his father's house where Josh plans to deliver a purplish LazyBoy recliner for his dad's birthday. Emily accepts and along the way they pick up Josh's flighty brother Rhett (Rhett Wilkins), an Amish-looking fellow more in touch with other peoples' lives than his own.

The roadtrip quickly devolves into more squabbling between Josh and Emily, as well as a bitter feeling for The Puffy Chair (it is initially very grubby and falling apart until Josh \"convinces\" the original owner to refurbish it). Rhett quickly ascertains that the cause of all of Emily and Josh's problems is the LazyBoy and sets it to the torch one night ...

And that's the last we hear of the chair, even though there are many minutes left in the film.

The big issue is that the title of the film is The Puffy Chair, when it isn't the chair at all that takes center-stage. It is Josh and Emily's doomed relationship and how the roadtrip seals their feelings for one another. Once the chair is destroyed, there's never another mention of it, even though they arrive at Josh's parents place on his father's birthday without a gift. Josh never mentions the chair, nor does his father. There's no connection between it and the lives of these people. So why call the movie The Puffy Chair and why isn't there a tie-in with it at the end? Bad script.

The other annoying thing is that Mark Duplass' brother, Jay Duplass, is not only the director but also the cameraman (and not a very good). Nearly every scene has a rapid zoom-in on the characters that goes grainy and out of focus before the camera's autofocus catches up and rights itself. Initially this took on a quaint and artistic feel, but rapidly became unbearable.

The acting in the film is accessible and entertaining. All of the actors\/actresses did fine jobs. But the poor production quality, stilted ending, and lack of coherency to the title caused this flick too many problems.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most films are crappy with high production values, this one is crappy without high production values. Which sets it aside from the large pool of horrible movies. As bad as this film was I need to give due respect to Kathryn Aselton who, I believe if given the proper script, could probably turn in a pretty good performance. She plays Emily the girlfriend to perennial doofus Josh, who often refers to her as \"Dude\" or \"Man\" in a non-ironical tone.

But heres the thing, Emily is a semi-believable character which means Rhett will soon need to be added to the cast, to counteract this almost believable character with a guy even more preposterous than Josh. When we first meet Rhett we learn that he is \"deep\" because he is videotaping a lizard which is PROOF that he sees the world \"uniquely!\" Rhett then shows the tape to Emily and in one of Emily's few unbelievable moments she acts impressed by this amateur tape of a lizard, WOW i believe is how she responds once again with no irony of sarcasm even mildly implied.

From the opening scene you are given warning that the camera work will be crappy, we open on a shaky close up of Josh as he attempts to win over the viewers by acting GOOFY! oh how care free this main protagonist is that he will act GOOFY! haha. This film could almost be a case study in just how BAD films can be (and for that matter just how FAR bad films can get in the festival circuit, I mean by comparison of most circuit crap this film probably did appear pretty awesome).

I believe SXSW gave this film some minor award (oh south by southwest, why do you encourage them, its only cruel). But here is where I hand this film a compliment, it is the best of the mumblecore movement. Mind you all other mumblecore movies sucked beyond belief and generally included grotesque nudity and incomprehensibly bad acting, but still, its good to be the best of something.

I haven't seen baghead yet, but it looks like maybe they have made a few strides forward, the preview at least made it appear tolerable, where as even the Puffy Chair preview couldn't really hide the fact that it was going to suck. I've gotten off topic here, anyways Rhett is most likely not portrayed by a professional actor at all, much like Josh most likely isn't an actual actor but rather the director (or brother of director, there's some mixed messages there). I think Rhett was somebodies buddy and they said hey why don't you play this guy named Rhett in the movie, the fact that Rhett is the name of the actor and character probably means the actor and character are the same, unless I am mistaken, which I am not.

If Rhett shaved the raccoon off of his face you would probably say he was attractive. So anyways Rhett, Emily, and Josh team up to bring the Puffy Chair to Rhett and Josh's dad. Some stuff happens along the way, more bad acting, bad supporting actors, crappy camera work, an attempt at significance. This film wouldn't have been bad if it hadnt been so shamelessly pursuing profound self importance.

The whole thing is amateurish, if you can view this movie without paying for it, like if its on TV or for rent at the library, then consider looking at it, just to see if you like this super cheap style of film-making. I like what the duplass' are doing the whole make a movie with nothing concept, but I wish they would make a movie that someone would want to see.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Puffy Chair\" was a supreme waste of 84 minutes of my life which cannot be retrieved and spent in a more worthwhile way (even \"The Blair Witch Project\" was a better use of life's precious moments). It must be called \"The Puffy Chair\" because only 'puffy' chairs could accommodate the extremely 'puffed-up', self-important brothers who drooled it out for public consumption; and, obviously, they are SO full of themselves that they have assumed the public would actually want to consume their drool. \"The Puffy Chair\" made \"The Wooly Boys\" seem like a cinematic masterpiece! \"Valley of the Dolls,\" \"Beyond Valley of the Dolls,\" \"Pink Flamingos,\" \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre,\" \"Night of the Living Dead,\" \"Urban Cowboy,\" \"The Blob,\" -- all of these would be a better use of one's time, than viewing \"The Puffy Chair.\" The characters portrayed are either too predictable or too lacking in normal, emotional reflexes to even come close to being likable or believable. Also, at one point in the film, while the characters are supposed to be in the same small town, if one watches closely, one can see that one part of the town is apparently in the southern United States, and the other half is located in Maine. That's some town, eh?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd love to sit down and write an intelligent, well thought out review however, I feel I'd be spending more time in the writing process than the filmmakers did. I live in Los Angeles and I'm sorry to say that the characters seemed just SO much like underemployed and overly ego inflated ACTORS. There was not one moment in the film when I could escape the feeling I was watching the drivel ridden conversation of unemployed actors at a hipster LA coffee shop. One of the worst \"indie\" films I've ever seem with so little to recommend it that hearing it won at Sundance has effectively removed any prior interest I may have had in attending, much less considering a postitive Sundance review to be meaningful. Watch at your own risk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this at my city's independent cinema - no surprise, because no mainstream theatre would want its fingerprints on this train wreck.

The camera work is very distracting. The constant shifting, refocusing, and zooms could induce a sensitive person to have motion sickness. It looks more like a film student's project than a serious movie.

Though well-acted, the characters are unlikeable. Josh is devious, always trying to manipulate situations and people to his advantage. Without any context to Emily and Josh's relationship, she comes off as a whiny, insecure girl who's desperate to get married. Rhett is an emotional infant, incapable of understanding the complexities of human interaction. Without any redeeming qualities, I didn't care about what happened to any of them.

Obviously some people liked this movie, as the couple sitting behind me were laughing hysterically. Of course, they could have just making fun of it. I could hardly blame them for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In spite of many positive reviews this is a very slow film with three essentially good actors improvising the most banal dialog you will ever hear. This is another road movie that really goes no where. The camera frequently goes out of focus and the constant panning in some of the over long scenes is annoying.

The three characters are attractive but note likable. The cast also sets what must be an intergalactic record for the use of the tired word \"dude\". (Even Howard Stern has abandoned this tired pesudo pronoun).

The three primary actors and one supporting actor show great promise. They are clearly comfortable and bravely allow themselves to be depicted as shallow and even goofy. The character actors all seem as they are plucky amateurs who generously volunteered to speak a few lines.. Indeed they all physically fit their roles well.

All in all a dull 90 minutes that seems more like an eternity. This is among my ten worst films of all time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So then... this is what passes as high art for the likes of SXSW Film Festival and Sundance, eh? Well, I suppose I can relate as long as story, script, dialog, acting (save for Ms. Aselton), cinematography and editing are completely irrelevant.

I remember telling other film-making friends some years ago that the biggest problem with digital video was that we were now going to have to wade through a future sea of crap to get to anything worth watching now that anyone and his brother (or brothers in the case of the Duplass') could run out and make a movie. \"The Puffy Chair.\" Need I say more?

This feature length video is yet another chapter in the dismal, ever-expanding world of \"dudeology\" movies; young guns armed with a DVX100A, a few thousand dollars, a hastily written, shallow script, and some friends they call actors who decide one afternoon to make a movie and voil\u00e0!, instant feature video-makers. Don't get me wrong -- I'm all about independent cinema (i.e. Hollywierd sucks). But having said that, you can't argue with some of the realities of that system.

If the Duplass Brothers would've had to have gone out and raised a real budget and bring on real producers, its clear a script like this would never have been green-lighted! And therein lies the problem. There is no longer such a thing as a vetting process for getting films (sorry... videos) ready for production. Just grab a DV\/P2 camera and off you go! And what makes it worse is that high-profile festivals like the aforementioned actually embrace and encourage this kind of nonsense. And why? Precisely because its no-budget.

I think its important, especially in todays climate of indie films, to quit allowing video-makers to high-jack the language by labeling themselves, \"filmmakers.\" There is quite a difference in my book. When you have to go out and actually put your script on the line, asking friends and family or business people for real money to make a feature \"film\", knowing the potentially losses at stake, then you will know what it means to be a \"filmmaker.\" But dropping a few hundred at Sam's Club for some DV tapes, some soda and chips doesn't cut it.

Oh... and by the way... I have to mention how utterly annoying it was to listen to a female being addressed as \"dude\" throughout the entire movie. Even Mark Borchardt reserves that intensely-overused moniker for his male friends only where it is at least endearing where his buddy Mike is concerned!

I think its high time the indie film community started to call out these shoddy, no-budget videos for what they are, and simultaneously scold prestigious festivals for giving such casual efforts, high praise. Either that or ask these festivals to at least have the courtesy to add a new category to their festival line ups... \"Dude Films.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"IMDb lists this movie as a comedy. I have no idea what genre this movie falls into but it certainly isn't comedy. tragedy maybe.

I won't say whether this is a good movie or not. All I know is it is not a comedy. I wanted a laugh tonight and what I got was some bizarre notion of someones attachment to some ugly chair.

This movie is not what is advertised. It's film school tripe that I can only assume is intended to \"make people think\". I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone that I know, or even that I don't know. It's ridiculous drivel that makes no sense whatsoever.

It made me think alright. It made me think, \"I wish I had those ninety minutes of my life back.\"

I'm sure the world is full of armchair critics who have a liberal bent on their world view that will make this movie something worth watching to them.

I am not one of them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Plot:

- A Chair from EBay

- Random people

- Random people talk (\" Dude, it's right. \" \"I'm feeling it.\" \"Lets get married now!\")

- If you are a \"hippie\" then you will love this movie. (You must be high or drunk, otherwise you will question your life watching this junk.)

This movie was clearly not thought out from the beginning to the end, and the other comments are probably the crew padding the reviews. If this wasn't aimed at my demographic, I don't know what it is aimed for. I found the plot everyday boring. It's something that I would do, and trust me it's not worth filming. Going on a roadtrip and filming half of the silence does not make a movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is ridiculous. It's attempting to be a comedy but the screenplay is horrible. The whole movie is done in low light and you cant grasp the fact that it's a comedy. Truly is bad cinematography. You really have to sit there and watch it to realize there's a few jokes here and there going on but either way they're all inside jokes amongst themselves. This is more like a wannabe drama flick that went bad. It really is a very pointless movie.Their expressions reveal nothing but dismay and disaster which turns out that way anyway. Unless you want to be bored out of your ass, I suggest you stay away from this gag of a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film at the 2005 Edinburgh International Film Festival.

This film had been compared in the EIFF program to Sideways - which I liked - so I was quite looking forward to this movie. I also liked Garden State, Napoleon Dynamite etc... so I have had good recent experiences with slightly weird American indy films.

Unfortunately, I found that Puffy Chair does not compare favourably with any of these movies.

I was sitting for 35 minutes waiting for something amusing, witty, insightful or even mildly interesting to happen. It didn't - and the shaky video cam was making me sick - so I left.

This is only the second film I have ever walked out from (the first was \"Showgirls\") which is slightly disappointing. I probably could have lasted the duration had it not been for the nauseating effects of the wobbly picture - but nothing within the first 35 minutes gave me the impression that I would be missing anything.

Disappointing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I walked out of this movie and I did this only one time before with the Australian movie Sweetie close to 20 years ago. After about three minutes I felt like killing the camera man and just couldn't believe that this film actually showed anywhere and- guess what - was nominated for two independent Spirit Awards. What???? Regardsless how realistic the dialog might be (I will NEVER use the word \"dude\" again!) -who wants to listen to these conversations? I don't go to the movies to be annoyed but that's all I got. The only good thing I came away with was the realization that if this movie can make it to Sundance and other festivals, anybody can. Well, wait, that might not be a good thing after all...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Starring Tomas Milian and Manny Perez \u0096 'Washington Heights' is a low budget drama set in a Latino neighborhood in NYC.

A young comic-book artist (Manny Perez) wants to escape his Latino neighborhood. When his father is crippled by a robber's gunshot, the young man is forced to run the family bodega.

The movie was shot in a budget (low resolution video and poor audio) with low profile actors.

The plot flowed well for 85 minutes but the last 5 minutes were just terrible. We don't know for sure if Perez and his girlfriend remained together and if Angel ended-up in jail for the shooting.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Total Garbage!!! No reflection to Washington heights what so ever. If I had four arms, I'll give it four dumbs way down. Acting performance worst than storyline. Truly over rated. Hour and a half of visual torture.Rather watch Ben Aflec movies for the rest of my life. Feel bad for the films that lost to this crap. What were the judges at the film festival watching? Total Garbage!!! No reflection to Washington heights what so ever. If I had four arms, I'll give it four dumbs way down. Acting performance worst than storyline. Truly over rated. Hour and a half of visual torture.Rather watch Ben Aflec movies for the rest of my life. Feel bad for the films that lost to this crap. What were the judges at the film festival watching?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"....and now I'm up to episode #7. I really was hoping it'd be over by now (not to mention canceled, once everything connected with the show -including the actors - had been dumped along with some toxic waste in the middle of the ocean somewhere, never to be seen again), because this series really is dire.

To have this program listed under the genre of 'comedy' is at best misleading! It's so hard to believe Ben Elton could write something this bad, maybe this points to a lot of input from the other writers in everything he's been connected with before. In some episodes I haven't even laughed once!

Oh, and I can't believe Ardal O'Hanlon actually stopped doing 'My hero' & started doing this instead, his decision making skills were obviously impaired that day - perhaps he simply can't read, and didn't realise just how poor the scripts for 'Blessed' were. Don't get me wrong, 'My Hero' is not masterpiece, but it's a million times better than this piece of junk.

And just to annoy me even more I bet this gets a DVD release as well, when there are so many great TV series' that aren't getting released!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this film with a group of friends at the 1999 Melbourne International Film Festival and no-one had a good word for it.

I happen to love Bluegrass and Country Music so it's not as if I'm unsympathetic to the subject matter. But the problem is that at heart it's a very conservative movie- little more than a filmed Mills and Boon story. A bodice-ripper of the most simple-minded and soppy kind.

It's not just that the love story at its heart, that between Reece and Dr. Lily Penleric is more than a tad unbelievable. (Why any male would be attracted to the nostril-flaring man-devouring Lily is beyond me, and frankly, Mike Harding as Reece seems to be just going through the motions).

It's simply that the whole movie is too tame and well-mannered for its own good. There is precious little danger, dirt or drama. Sure there's a moment of \"excitement\" involving a school run by Lily's younger sister, but this whole episode is funnier than it is dramatic (it's just so poorly written and acted). And the movie betrays its conservative agenda in the manner in which this subplot is resolved.

As for good old Reece Kinkaid (now, what's wrong with a name like Eberneezer Bumpass?) I ask you! Is the ending of this film believable? Fitting in with the character this film had earlier constructed? I think not...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some folkie friends recommended this, but as a film it's really lacking in originality. I found the characters to be unflattering stereotypes, and the plot is predictable almost from the beginning. However, if you like traditional English\/Appalachian ballads, it will keep your interest long enough to hear the next one. I've also read that the soundtrack is nothing like the music in the movie, with professional musicians filling in for the actors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst shows of all time. The show would begin with smart ass ed comments to each other that would be totally off the wall and uncalled for. The fat computer geek was unbelievable, the bible thumper, the bad-ass girl, who are these actors??? Never heard of any of them except Cole who was totally unbelievable in the part. Every time he opened his mouth you expect to hear, \"you see kids...\" Pulling the plug was a mercy killing for this horrible show. The stories were as unbelievable as the actors. Lame would be the best way to describe it. Somehow this show makes a slug like Ice-T more believable as a cop, and he wrote the worst song about cops ever recorded.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had great expectations surrounding this movie (not as it was an apocalypse now or an 8 1\/2, but high enough), and when i saw it on cable, they were all shattered. Starting by the acting (poor,almost mediocre, an astonishing waste of good actors and talent) and the story itself: Since when does a 5 men squad go out on patrol on a supposed \u00abhot\u00bb zone???To suicide??That\u00b4s one big mistake, that costs the film dearly. Very good actors do very poor acting here, like Sean Penn, that recently repeated the irritating way of talking on \u00abI am Sam\u00bb, and Michael J. Fox, that wastes a good opportunity to beat Charlie Sheen on \u00abPlatoon\u00bb, performing just \u00abaverage\u00bb. But the most irritating character was Diaz (played by John Leguizamo, another stupid waste of fine talent by the director), that was a cheesy,scared and insecure kind of person, even more irritating that Jar Jar Binks (yes,you heard it). The battle sequences are average, the only one that really stands out is the opening sequence, with Michael J. Fox trapped by his feet on a VC tunnel.Mr. de Palma has a weak work here, and if it wasn\u00b4t for films like \u00abScarface\u00bb and \u00abThe Untouchables\u00bb (these ones excellent films), i would consider him a \u00abbluff\u00bb director: too much publicity, bad filming.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The problem with this- and with all Vietnam War films- is that they're all too biased. Antiwar films overlook the fact that the vast majority of U.S. soldiers were heroes, while prowar films overlook the fact that a lot of the soldiers did indeed commit atrocities like the one in this movie. This film sucks. It's time for a movie that is neither prowar nor antiwar, nor liberal nor conservative, but COMPLETELY UNBIASED.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie describes a truly horrific event, to be sure. But it all falls down from poor performances from all the cast. It is impossible to feel the emotion of almost any character, as all the emotional scenes seem like parodies of themselves. For example, a character is shot at the start of the movie, and you get the clich\u00e9d desperate, \"Am I gonna make it, Sergeant?\", \"Yeah it ain't nothing'\", but it plays out like a sketch from a Wayans Brothers movie (I don't know if they've made the War Movie yet) or something starring Leslie Nielsen.

The sergeant played by Sean Penn reminds me of Al Bundy from Married With Children, while Fox is the greatest self-deprecating good-guy clich\u00e9 you can imagine... Thank God he curses and smokes during it.

His emotional \"NOOOO!!!\" is definitely more suited to comedies like Back To The Future than so-called serious movies such as this.

To their credit, some of the \"main\" scenes... (without giving too much away, where they actually perform some fairly horrific acts) ...are well done and do make us take the subject matter seriously. But that is in spite of, not thanks to the acting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this cartoon accidentally on television one night when I couldn't get to sleep. It didn't help in the slightest. I found myself staring up at the ceiling, trying to forget that face. I could quite happily never see this cartoon again, simply because of that face.

Now, don't get me wrong - I love fairy tales and nursery rhymes as much as anyone. But this twisted and terrifying rendition simply is disturbing. It is mainly the cruel laughter, and the exaggerated features that terrify me, and I still have nightmares because of it. Please, I urge you not to allow your children to see this. It is far, FAR too scary. Please, I pray you, keep it away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the mountains of Japan, forlorn young artist Sessue Hayakawa (as Tatsu aka \"The Dragon Painter\") paints magnificent landscapes. He prays \"Divinity\" will restore his fianc\u00e9e, whom he believes was changed into a dragon, 1,000 years ago. Meanwhile, in Tokyo, an forlorn older painter, Edward Peil (as Kano Indara) laments not having a son to carry on his family line of artists. When Mr. Peil sees Mr. Hayakawa's paintings, he sees a painter worthy to become his \"son and disciple.\" Hayakawa also falls in love with Peil's daughter Tsuru Aoki (Ume-Ko), believing she's the reincarnation of his long lost princess. But, with his love fulfilled, Hayakawa loses his ability to paint\u0085

An introduction notes, \"'The Dragon Painter' was originally released in 1919 by the Haworth Pictures, a Hollywood-based production company formed the previous year by Sessue Hayakawa, a Japanese-born actor who enjoyed great popularity in the silent period. The film was ninth of twenty-two features produced by Haworth, each of which was tailored to Hayakawa's talents and to his stock company of Japanese actors.\" Fortunately, a print of this film was found, in France, and restored.

The description, \"The Dragon Painter is a fantasy-allegory of love and creative inspiration that is lost when longing is fulfilled,\" is accurate. \"With its production, Hayakawa intended to provide a different view of Japanese culture to American audiences, avoiding the stereotyping, violence, and melodramatic conflict expected in 'Oriental' films of the period.\" Hayakawa was successful in that part of his goal; although, this film probably did not and will not appeal to most viewers, and is not the best example of its intent.

**** The Dragon Painter (9\/28\/19) William Worthington ~ Sessue Hayakawa, Edward Peil, Tsuru Aoki","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me say this new He-Man cartoon is not destroying childhood memories, as I didn't like the old He-Man cartoon either. I loved the action figures, but I found the cartoon to be corny and I hated the storyline (the He-Man I liked was the one from the very early, pre-cartoon mini-comics included in the figure boxes, where He-Man was a Barbarian, the Sword of Power was split in two pieces, and there was no Prince Adam, no Shazam-ripoff premise, and no Orko). Anyway, let's leave the old stuff alone.

The new He-Man cartoon (or at least this pilot) is a disgrace on its own, s it represents both the worst cheesiness of the old show, and the worst tendences of nowadays. I watched it because I had heard the in-your-face morals of the old show were (thankfully) gone, and this one had more swordplay and character development. But I encountered an awful mishmash of the worst clich\u00e9s of the genre, characters I couldn't help but hate, and the sadly inevitable Matrix-esque visual style.

I think it was a good idea to give a bit of a background to the characters, as it was showing a pre-face-peeling Skeletor, but that's how far the character development goes, aside from the usual coming-to-age rubbish I see coming in the subsequent episodes, where this teenybopper Adam will be learning the responsibility of his new-acquired powers, blah blah. At least in the old show Adam was not a spoiled brat! I found myself hating his guts. That's what we get when they put out an adventure show aimed at pre-teens: pretty faces and wanna-be-cool-and-look-juvenile clothes. I should check new episodes to see if N'Sync make a special appearance. Man, does this show remind me to the 1996 Flash Gordon stinkbomb cartoon!

Dialogue? Ha! It follows absolutely every clich\u00e9 in the book, from the goody-lil-two-shoes Randor in the opening scene to Skeletor's immortal \"Oh, and He-Man... I lied!\" in the ending. And Skeletor's voice is still the same high-pitch kind than in the old series. 20 years, and nothing we have learnt.

And sure, nowadays there can't exist something remotely action-related that's not Matrix-style. Leave Anime to the Japanese, folks, think fresh ideas. And seeing the characters' poses while fighting didn't help either.

Of course, we have our usual dose of PCness: Evil-Lyn (now I think about it, who the hell comes up with these names?) has no yellow skin now, but grey-ish. Oh, so no Asian people will be offended. I bet Jitsu won't appear in the show either. Shades of the 1996 FG again, where Ming the Merciless was a green, toad-like alien!

People are complaining about Cringer's lack of speech. I don't think I would have liked this more or less if Cringer spoke, he's corny enough this way. And you have your extra ration of cheese with Orko! The shocking thing is, probably many of the people who (rightfully) hated Jar Jar Binks, might be huge Orko fans...

I watched the feature-lenght pilot, and I've had enough. Leave the series alone. 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thankfully brief mystery about a telephone operator who is discovered to be the kidnapped daughter of a railroad tycoon. The discovery brings about an attempt on her life which is foiled by Charlie Ruggles as a \"crime deflector\". Things take a turn for the dangerous when everyone ends up in the title location and another attempt is made on the girls life. Your enjoyment of this film will depend upon your tolerance for Rugggles and his nonsense.I normally like Ruggles but there was something about this role that rubbed me the wrong way. Actually I think it didn't help that the mystery wasn't very good so there was nothing beyond the characters to keep you watching. yes the finale on the train was exciting but it didn't make up for everything that went before. Not worth searching out but if you stumble upon it give it a try.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this one mostly to see Charlie Ruggles and Una Merkel, two of my favorites.

The plot has many a twist and turn -- it's not bad as a straight mystery aboard a train.

But why throw in a circus train wreck and an escaped gorilla? I can mention this without it being a \"spoiler\" because the circus train wreck and the gorilla have nothing to do with the intricate mystery plot.

The bad person trying to kill the good people has many tricks up his sleeve, but the circus train wreck was purely coincidental. It allows for a single scene with a menacing gorilla, but then it's back to the murder mystery!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Danny is beyond sorry.

He keeps making the same mistakes, and is no longer interesting to watch. At first I could feel for him, as an addict myself. My heart went out to him at the beginning, and somewhere along the line he went over the line. It is almost as if he is continuing this behavior to keep the show going, and at the same time is seriously risking his life, and the welfare of his family, especially his children. It is difficult even to have pity for the poor boy. I think he needs to watch this show, maybe then he might have a chance a saving this marriage. I can't understand how Gretchen stays with him, and I keep wondering how much is just for show, and how much is love. Danny, get a life - a new one that is! ...and don't get me started on Dr. Gary. What is with him and his face? His skin looks like it's stretched to the max. Besides that, looks don't mean a thing, yet he seems not to be particularly impartial. I think, he too, is keeping this going for his own monetary gain and often not in the best interests of either Gretchen or Danny. These people are few confused and each remind me of a dog chasing its tail. sad, very sad. C'mon pull yourselves together.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know we shouldn't expect much from a low-budget indie film. But the idea behind it is sound: an attempt to open America's eyes to the cozy relationship between the government, and the journalists that are supposed to be keeping an eye out against it. But somehow the documentary aspect of it, takes away from its drama. The protests during the 2004 Republican convention in New York were not that compelling to make a documentary about it. Those kinds of compelling protests belong to the era of the 1960's.

It would have been better to stick to a drama format. Perhaps a slow build-up where the young journalist's eyes are gradually opened up to the conspiracy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I caught a screening of this at the True\/False Documentary film festival in Columbia, Missouri, and I was pretty disappointed. I was expecting a cool documentary into the protest and activism surrounding the RNC, but what I got was a largely flawed, bad-acted, fictitious, conspiracy ridden badly woven tale. I'd heard of its neo-documentary technique, \"blending both True and False\" but I expected more along the lines of a fictitious storyline developed for a better personification and to create a sense of unity between real interviews, but it was more along the lines of a terrible made-for-conspiracy theory TV movie.

The acting overall is terrible except for Rossario, which is not surprising considering the Director at the screening said most of the lead characters had no acting training, his excuse being that he wanted them to be real. Heres a hint, real people can't act, but actors can usually act real.

It would of been not so cornily offensive if it wasn't blatantly obvious about how keen he was to push this extremely radical conspiracy theory onto us throughout the whole movie, its especially hysterical when we get a scene where the director cameos and starts ranting on about ridiculously stupid theories and secret agendas. The movie also does a good job of laughably stereotyping every single role, it tries so hard to romanticize these street activists and stamp a big 'Good' or 'Evil' on every character.

Skip it, maybe find yourself a nice real documentary\/","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Apparently re-cut episodes from the Gangbusters TV show on the big screen. While this was frequently done in the 50's and 60's because people didn't have a TV or a color TV and producers wanted an increased return on their investment (big screen ticket sales or if it went to the small screen resale of a series that isn't in syndication), the results were usually less then the sum of their parts. The only time I've ever seen it work were where multi-part stories were put together (Ala Rocky Jones or Man From Uncle) or in the case of horror anthology (The Veil and 13 Demon Street). Here the effect is to have stories of American criminals in the 20's and 30's (Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Bonnie and Clyde, etc)inter-cut with each other as a narrator talks about how the FBI hunted them down. Its a weird concoction that doesn't quite work because its clear that there are things here that don't belong together. More than once I looked at the TV oddly because things didn't seem right. In fairness I won't describe the cheapness of the production since this was what early TV (and the series) was like. Its not bad, but its not very good either. To be perfectly honest the episodes of the series that I've seen work better a single episodes where we're not expecting as much. Given the choice I'd rent dvds of the show instead of this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was quite impressed with this movie as a child of eight or nine. The gangsters seemed very real and threatening to me, and I could see why people would have been afraid of someone like Dillinger. Seeing it as an adult, it seemed almost comical, owing to the overdone narration and jarring details like Thirties gangsters driving cars that looked like they were from the Fifties. There is a certain gritty, unglamorous reality to the way the criminals are portrayed, but the overall effect is more like a bad soap opera. The most memorable and most unintentionally funny bit that sticks with me is the scene where Ma Barker and her sons are shooting it out with the FBI and the sons are killed. The narrator says something like \" Perhaps in that moment, for the only time in her life, Ma Barker became a real mother\". This is meant to be a moment of great tragedy and pathos, as Ma finally realizes how she's destroyed her family out of her own greed, but instead, it provokes laughter. A very odd film that is rarely shown anywhere these days. Gangster movie buffs might enjoy it, but more as a curiosity than a real movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE RAP, the book this movie was 'based' on was one of the most difficult books I've ever read. Yet I could not put it down. Raunchy, crude, foul, lewd...you name it, it had it. It also had some of the best characterizations of any novel I've ever read.

Well, as for the flick...it was deplorable. I mean, Tim Mcintire as Wasco? Wasco was the baddest mutha...talking 'bout WASCO...Mcintire as Wasco is like casting Tim Conway as Charles Manson.

What happened to the MAIN character in the book? Little Arv. He doesn't even exist in the movie...Fast Walking WAS NOT the main dude in the book. Why even name credit this thing with THE RAP? None of the spirit, atmosphere, nastiness, or drama of the book was captured in this movie.

For me it was not only a disappointment, but a total waste of time and celluloid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes.A real stinker. I saw this movie on the advice of my \"sweet\" friends who told me that this is a great \"psychological\" movie. This film makes every effort not to be understandable. I was aware that I was in for a stinker after seeing the first 20 minutes.I waited since I expected to see something valuable, and most important of all, I PAID for this film. The wait was unbearable. After seeing the film, I talked with my friends and learned that in the intellectual environments ( They call themselves under this title ) of Turkey this \"movie\" had recognised as a masterpiece. Yes, a masterpiece, but in the category of stinkers.I think that a movie must be self-explanatory. This film is just the opposite. Keep away from this thing which calls itself a \"movie\". Burn your money instead of paying for this \"phenomenon\". Rate: 1 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We chose to see this movie as an alternative to The Polar Express showing at our local IMAX theater. What a waste of time and money! First, it is not cute. The Snowman, at times, looked demonic. Other times, he was simply a zombie. He showed no expression or emotions most of the time, and his hollow blue eyes were just creepy.

Secondly, Santa states in the beginning it's a movie about the spirit of giving. Santa and a snowman declaring war on each other is a movie about giving? I'm all for a little parody, but this just wasn't funny or entertaining.

The idea that the Snowman's flute is his voice is different. Too bad you never see or hear the snowman play his flute...not even a \"thank you\" to Santa.

The only funny parts of the movie were the \"outtakes\" at the end of the film. Too bad they didn't use them in the movie. It would have been better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some nameless aliens off on a distant ship from a distant planet have sent the giant robot Kronos to rob the world of its energy. They've got a prototype clanking around Mexico for openers and if he proves successful more will be sent. It would certainly take a lot of time for just this one Kronos to perform that task.

For reasons I can't explain the aliens first capture the mind of leading scientist John Emery who telepathically directs Kronos to his first targets. Since Emery is killed off later and the monster seems to function well enough without Emery as a controller, why the aliens needed him in the first place is a bit bizarre.

In any event scientists Jeff Morrow, Barbara Lawrence, and George O'Hanlon who work under Emery aren't fooled a bit about his nature. And of course they come up with a plan to deal with the raging metal giant.

Kronos is a perfect film for the Fifties, the bad guys are never seen they're just out there looking to undermine mankind. It's a perfect film for the Cold War. And Jeff Morrow assures us we'll be ready for them in the future.

The players look like they're having a grand old time mouthing as many clich\u00e9d lines the writers could put in the script. I get the impression that Kronos is the kind of film Ed Wood might have done on a bigger budget with a bit more care.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jeff Morrow is Leslie Gaskell, Barbara Laurence is Vera Hunter, and John Emory is Hubbel Eliot. Along with some ancillary Air Force personnel and a comic geek, they are in charge of a super-secret underground laboratory on the West Coast. Morrow is thrilled when he discovers a meteor passing through the atmosphere but nonplussed when the meteor decides to take a dip in the Pacific Ocean and emerge as a fantastic machine on the Mexican coast.

Nobody knows what this colossal, blocky structure is. Obviously it's some kind of carpentered artifact because it's all made up of right angles with a kind of bald sphere half visible on top.

It turns out that the machine, dubbed Kronos, is from some far-away planet and has been sent here to rob the earth of energy. You see, here on earth, we have learned how to convert matter into energy, but on Kronos' planet they have figured out the other half of the equation -- how to convert energy into matter. And now they're running out of energy on the other planet. Are you taking notes on this? Good.

Maybe you'll be able to fill me in on some of the scientific questions raised by Kronos' mission. For instance, if Kronos' builders can convert energy into matter and vice versa, why don't they just convert a little of their own spare matter into energy instead of sending elaborate machines to earth to extinguish LA's lights? But it's doubtful the writers could explain it either. Reversing the polarities of two antenna is described as an \"anthropic conversion,\" which means a \"towards-human change\", which doesn't make sense. But it doesn't seem that any of the science makes sense for that matter. The diagram that Morrow draws on the board has the current going in the wrong direction, from positive to negative.

There's a problem with Kronos' locomotion too. It marches along the coast, threatening \"populated areas\" (read Southern California), but it has no joints in its two or three legs. These stumps just thump slowly up and down, squashing some people. The film doesn't make much of these squashed people. They're shown as Mexican peasants, so maybe they don't count for too much. The USAF also drops a hydrogen bomb on Kronos -- while it's in Mexico, mind you. Nobody raises an eyebrow.

Not much acting is called for and not much is given. Jeff Morrow has a distinct and resonant voice, great for radio or for TV voice overs. His face is less expressive. He has only one expression, no matter what the situation is -- a tight smile, as if he's having his picture taken at the Universal Studios Tour. Barbara Laurence had a fine, golden quality when she made \"Street With No Name\" a few years earlier. She was a slender seventeen-year-old as Richard Widmark's wife. Here, her grooming and demeanor reduce her to the level of B-movie actress, though she's still beautiful. It's always good to see Morris Ankrum in one of these movies. He's made so many, I get them mixed up.

On the whole, the film comes across as flat, I'm afraid. (There are some nice shots of a B-47 in flight, though.) The sets reveal a low-budget enterprise. That's not necessarily bad in itself, but there's nothing to make up for the barren settings. Little tension in the script, no directorial display, and little effort put into the performances.

You might get a kick out of it -- a relaxed high -- because this is distinctly unchallenging. It's just that there are so many better films of the genre out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I once heard this movie described as either you'll love it or you'll hate it. From reading some of the other reviews and the ratings, I would venture to say that this is true. I am placing myself in the hate it crowd. I have seen some truly bad movies, boring movies, and even low budget movies. This movie is bad on all three fronts.

This Island Earth's Exeter (Jeff Morrow), returns to his sci-fi\/b-movie roots as Dr. Les (minus giant head prosthetic). The doctor and his assistant Arnie (George O'Hanlon - aka the voice of George Jetson), along with Les' girlfriend assistant Vera, are tracking a meteor. This is the crux of the cast and is almost a double date. Les has Vera and Arnie has his \"Susie\" (Synchro Unifying Sinometric Integrating Equitensor - aka the computer). Lets just say the relationship between George and his robotic maid, Rosie, (and his relationship with \"Susie\") is more believable than the cold, clam-like feelings Vera has for Les (and vice versa). The object of their all their interest is no ordinary meteor, however. It is really an alien art nouveau\/art deco energy storage device, which moves around like a 3 legged dog. There is also the little alien \"energy\" being that controls Dr. Hubbel (aka, the chief scientist there). The alien is obviously and from the get-go, malicious and evil. Is this the kind of science we are handing out? No wonder the aliens from the Explorers were afraid of us. From watching some of these movies, we shoot first. There's no need for questions afterwards.

The whole movie is synonymous with watching some really boring science experiments, like boiling an egg or adding food color to celery. Its not the fact that this is a low budget sci-fi movie or thats its a bit cheesy and outdated. It is really, really, really boring. The whole movie is about trying to figure out what is going on. That is it. Most of the things we learn about what's going on are through monologues and self dictation. Now add crappy dialog, cardboard acting and cheap-sets and you have the makings of an Ed Wood clone (by the way, Ed has made some really boring movies as well - please avoid the Orgy of the Dead). The dialog ... oh, the dialog. Jems such as :

\"..from under 2 miles of ocean ?

Why not ?! It came through a billion miles in space.\"

or

\"Do you think you'll be able to respect a husband who's probably pulled the scientific boner of all time ?\"

This movie is obviously trying to pull a Forbidden Planet, This Island Earth, Magnetic Monster or in the same light as the Outer Limits, Twilight Zone. Namely, a low budget sci-fi movie (or TV episode) that is compelling enough to get past the technical difficulties and strange situations. At the core, these movies are enjoyable on some level (the story, the underlying meaning or the sheer comical nature of the dialog or situations). This movie has none of that. It is just 90 minutes of boredom. I couldn't even enjoy this on a Ed Wood level. I definitely recommend skipping this one and seeing one of the movies I mentioned above instead. It is so bad, that if my name was Dr. Forrester, I would never think of showing this movie to anyone ... except Frank maybe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I first saw this movie at a Saturday matinee when I was very young. I thought it was cool and often thought about it. Well I finally resaw it on DVD. It was still very entertaining but in a different way. It has to rank as one of the goofiest, campiest, 1950's sci-fi movies. It seemed filled with stock military footage. The dialogue is stilted and effects are crude. There is one line of dialogue that had me in stitches. The line Jeff Morrow says while on the beach with the babe. Rent it if you need a movie to watch with a bunch of drunken friends. It is a classic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is standard goofy sci-fi fare from the 50s. In its favor, the plot does manage to pull off an alien invasion without actually producing the aliens themselves. But come on now, if aliens needed energy and could absorb it from sources like hydrogen bombs, why would they come to earth? Why wouldn't they just suck it out of a STAR!?!? The only credible reason for the presence of Kronos is a direct attack on Earth society, not the mere collection of energy. Nothing like that is even intimated; Kronos may have been built by a superior race but its activities on Earth are the most primitive. The end that the scientist-heroes plan for Kronos is based on nothing but pseudo-scientific gibberish. It amounts to the \"reverse the polarity\" gambit which has been used so much in bad scifi it has become a joke in itself. Low and behold, this causes our unwanted visitor to release its collected energy. No one in power seems to care about the impact the release of that much energy (which by the film's end includes, among other things, the entire yield of a hydrogen bomb) will have on the surroundings. And unfortunately, by the time the movie ends, the surroundings are the suburbs of Los Angeles. Whoops!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, Katherine Hepburn is badly miscast as Clara. She just can't be convincing as the devoted, selfless, rather smarmy wife that the writers have created.

But the real weakness of the film is its shallowness in the face of a potentially great piece of drama. Schumann's bipolar (manic-depressive) disorder amounts to \"Oh, oh, I have a headache\" and the occasional angry word. Suicide? The word is used, but there's no sign of it in domestic scenes and when we see him in the mental hospital he's calm and subdued and smiling and optimistic. A superficial treatment. And Brahms is so upright and bourgeois - no sign of his gruff humour, his love of tweaking the noses of the establishment, no sign of his tortured attitude toward sex and women resulting from spending his youth playing piano in brothels. And was Clara's long concert career entirely about promoting Robert's music, or was she, in fact, a remarkable pianist who wanted a career for herself, a female pianist carving out a place for herself in a male world? Any sort of treatment of the lives of great artists is better than none, but this is a standard Hollywood, middle-of-the-road approach, particularly disappointing because the real story is so much more dramatic, so much more interesting, so much more human.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Remnants of an ambushed Army unit hook up with a group of cowboys to fight their way through Indians on the warpath. Sounds like it could be an exciting western, but this one is dull, dull, dull. It moves like molasses, the action scenes are uninspired, the acting is pedestrian, the writing is flat, even the photography isn't very good. Eastwood, in a very early role, plays an ex-Confederate who doesn't like the idea of fighting on the same side as Yankees. That's about the only remotely interesting situation in the whole movie, but Eastwood wasn't experienced enough an actor to pull it off, and his character comes across as petulant rather than angry or embittered. A very ordinary western. Actually, a very less-than-ordinary western. Worth a look if you're a die-hard Eastwood fan and want to see him at the very beginning of his career. Otherwise, don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Geologist realizes a big earthquake is coming but no one will listen. Whats worse is his father in law had predicted the 1923 Tokyo disaster and he's been called unworthy to be his successor. Of course the big one comes and Tokyo is knocked flat.

A poorly dubbed Japanese film that is pure soap opera for the first half. The second half- after the earthquake destroys a model city its an escape drama. There are some nice moments but the film wastes them either by undercutting the action by too many poor miniatures or by having people do unreal things. Hokey and not very good it has an ending you won't believe...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How many disaster movies can there be before we get tired of them. Come on, we can see them on the Discovery channel all day long.

I agree with the comment that the first part of this movie is just a soap opera. The Great Predictor's grandson makes a prediction and everybody starts moaning about how he is ruining the family name. The evil mother-in-law convinces the wife to throw him out into the arms of his mistress, whom she wants to meet. Can you believe that? The wife wants to approve the new wife! At the same time the mistress' has someone in love with her that doesn't have a wife, but she sends him packing.

Now, that the soap opera is over, the earthquake appears.

The special effects are really good, but the dubbing is bad. That is why I like subtitled films. The actors are all very experienced and have won many awards, so you will get to see some of Japan's best in an oft-repeated story.

But, the soap-opera story returns with a kitchy ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was completely mislead by the comments on this film, mainly by someone saying they saw it at a film festival and loved every minute of it. Expecting this to be a nice run of the mill American pie style film, I was deeply disappointed.

Firstly the camera work is awful, I don't think the director knows that cameras can move around scenes rather than stay still and having the actors move close up and far away of their own accord.

Secondly the scenery! My god I've seen more furnishings in a bird's nest. The club was totally unconvincing with around 3 extras dancing in the back ground at any one time. The flats were bare and lacked personality.

Thirdly the actors. Wow. The director obviously went for the typical \"Reaper\" character set up, a wimpy main character with a gruff \"I don't give a f**k\" character that takes pot shots at the main. Everything the main character said and did was a chore, so much so it made me wince.

Overall the plot, the supposedly big revenge theme, lasted for about 30 seconds and lacked any real motivation. The characters acted irrationally and didn't seem to have any real relationship with anyone else. No character had any depth to them, they may as well have been cardboard cut outs walking past the static camera.

A truly horrible piece, worse than a first year students 2 minute short for youtube. Advice to the director? Change your name and deny any association with the film that will probably sell one copy at a yard sale in Ohio.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's see how many ways you can insult my gender: 1. Of course girl #1 is a horrible skank who cheats on her boyfriend and sounds\/looks like a heroin addict.

2. Of course girl #1 sleeps with the guy on the first date after getting wasted.

3. Of course the lesbians are butch \"Germans\" who are into S&M.

4. This one was actually a surprise. Ending the movie on a note of torture celebrated by the majority of characters was sickening. Seeing a woman beaten isn't my idea of comedy.

5. Director's commentary - talking about hooking up with actresses in the movie, just so you know, is crass and incredibly unprofessional.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This so called movie is horrible! The actors cannot act. There is no plot. I believe they need to start from scratch and film again. I hope that they can correct the acting flaws in this movie. I would like to see the trailer after they shoot it again. Maybe there is hope for it. I am not out to hurt feelings but I believe high school kids can do a better job. The wardrobe could have been much better. Sorry, but this just did not do it for me. I normally enjoy the trailers from this site but... this one i cannot find entertaining. I hope they take criticism well because i believe they will get much much more from others in regards to this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"they should make terrorists watch this video as torture, and not just for the disturbing final scene in which tying up and beating a woman with mental problems is apparently a source of comedy. about a half hour of this would convince even the staunchest fundamentalist to spill the beans rather than sit through even one more minute of this disaster.

This movie is awful. I rented it because a friend said it was hilarious, only to find he was talking about the blowhard director doing the commentary rather than the movie itself. I guess if you find unrestrained arrogance funny, you'll like this. It apparently is true that he goes on and on about chicks he's \"banged\", the most tasteless example being when the lead actress comes on screen.

Actually CJ Stacy was the only good part of this movie - her charisma shines like a diamond in this horrid dung pile. This apparently is the only movie she's done according to IMDb, I hope she is involved with theatre or indie stuff as I think she has the talent and natural beauty to really be an asset to any production.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this was pretty bad. pedestrian work or worse. i don't think it was homophobic, just really bad. if anything it was really amateurish, like when you're 14 and first discover curse words and skin mags.

The main point of this movie, the romance, falls really flat. I can't help but wonder if the writers ever had any serious relationships before this movie.

plotting and pacing are horrible, going nowhere at all. one minute we're watching these guys catch cheaters, then we're at a gay club, then we're at a date. out of nowhere the girl apparently likes comics, and then they sleep together. none of this feels real, like an elementary school production of Shakespeare if Hamlet was written by a frat boy.

the ending was some kind of creepy over the top revenge fantasy by a loser who got dumped by a girl. Unnecessary and actually kind of disturbing.

Still, you have to watch it. Why?

As others noted the director's commentary actually is hilarious - what kind of of professional talks about \"banging\" or \"hooking up\" with the actresses? dialogue sucked, relationships lacked chemistry. you will be on the floor laughing at this pretentious jackass.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was obviously a low budget film. It shows in every scene. What is nice to see is where it was made. A lot of the film was shot in Columbia, CA, in the Sierra Nevada Mountains near Sonora, CA. Some of the film was also shot in Jamestown, CA, very near Columbia. There is a railroad museum in Jamestown and they used some of the old trains in the picture. \"High Noon\" was also shot in Jamestown, as was \"Back to the Future III\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was actually shot and made in 1987 but it didn't hit the theaters until 1990. As I watched this film I could see the good intentions that it had but I'm afraid there wasn't much talent or experience behind the camera to make it work. Story takes place in California in the 1890's and some Italian immigrants who own vineyards are told they have to leave their land so a railroad can come through. Dennis Hopper plays William Berrigan who has offered money for the land but has been turned down. Giancarlo Giannini is Sebastian Collogero and he is to proud to leave and asks the other farmers to stand up and fight to keep their land. Berrigan grows impatient and hires a bunch of thugs to force everyone to vacate. These thugs are headed by a man named Andrews (Burt Young) and he doesn't hesitate to kill anyone who gives him problems. Andrews and his men kill Collogero one night and his son Marco (Eric Roberts) vows to seek revenge and get the land back for everyone. Marco blows up the bridge that the railroad was going to need and they also destroy a tunnel and this sets back the project for several months and Berrigan now starts to get heat from other investors. This film was directed by Peter Masterson and besides \"The Trip To Bountiful\" he has at best a spotty career in directing. He's a fine actor but here he seems to be in over his head. This was a film that desperately needed more attention to detail and its easy to see that it didn't occur. Roberts hairstyle is perfect for the 1980's but this is suppose to be 1890! The cinematographer is Toyomichi Kurita who ended up being a good cameraman but this was only his fourth film and he certainly had not learned everything at that time. Its not a sharp looking film at all and I noticed in several shots during the day that the sun would be glaring off of something and the scenes just don't have the crispness that would have helped the overall look. The script is just a revenge story and no surprises take place during the course of the film. We know Giannini is going to get it and it seemed just a matter of time. The cast is top notch and they do their best but the whole film comes across as uninspired. This was promoted as Julia Roberts film debut but I'm not sure that is correct. She might have appeared in a film called \"Firehouse\" before this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well now, here's the thing - for this movie to work, you'll have to accept the following - a woman who's murdered is alive again at the end of the movie, a detective stops interrogating the dead woman's fianc\u00e9e because a newspaper reporter asked him not to, and that same reporter, smitten by a good looking blonde hauled into night court for suspicious behavior, winds up getting married to her in exchange for the judge letting her off the hook. Are you following me on this? I can't tell you how many times I paused and rewound the picture to repeat scenes that just didn't make any sense. In the end, the blonde (Claudia Dell) and the reporter (Richard Hemingway) remained married, but I have no idea how they came to that decision. In fact, I can't figure out how the film maker came to the decision to make this flick. Oh I suppose there's some entertainment value here for just the sheer nonsense of it all, but it would have been nice if even a couple of the pieces fit. Still, I'm not ready to add this one to my Top Ten Worst list. I think that night club scene with the feathered ladies might have saved it. But why was it in the movie? I just don't know.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Only in the Hollywood audiovisual fiction world could anybody, including FBI agents, be so unbelievably stupid. The good guys are stupid enough to pick up everything they're interested in, answer phones, go up stairways, all in search for a demolition expert who's out to get everybody. Oh yes, and then we get the Hollywood SUPERVILLAIN. He can be shot, even if he's got a vest on, and then fall down a long flight of steps and then still have the upper hand over his stupid pursuers. Every clich\u00e9 you can think of in suspense movies were used. I only watched it because Yuki Amami is so HOT. Oh,,,,but yes, it's great to see how morally superior this FBI agent is, when she's pretty certain that there's a bomb in an Opera House, and she doesn't sound the alarm. Who writes these scripts????????????","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am still trying to figure out what the target of this movie was: 1) Whether to show how stupid, disorganized, unprofessional and arrogant the police is (I surely could add various adjectives here, but I think my point on this is clear). 2) Whether to show how a twisted-minded crook that does not know what he wants from himself can create chaos. 3) Whether to show if a persistent detective will solve a case just by asking the criminal the same stupid question over and over again till the criminal answers? 4) Or was it just to show that any 90 minutes of filmed material can still be called a MOVIE\u0085

This was one of those movies, that in a way - did not disappoint me. From the first 10 minutes I kind of figured out that this movie will not be nominated for the best movie award, and surprisingly enough \u0096 this was consistent throughout the whole time. It was stupid enough to be worth the wait to see how stupidly it will continue and end \u0096 and I was not disappointed there either.

Was it a complete waist of time? YES. Which raises your question \u0096 WHY DID I WATCH IT THROUGHOUT? Well, I was trying to fall asleep, and I thought this was a great candidate for that, but unfortunately I had too much coffee before that\u0085","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I speak badly of G.I.J.:T.M. mostly because I think it lacked something that G.I. Joe had. Yes It had something that G.I. Joe didn't have like celebrity cameos by Don Johnson, and Burgess Meredith but I think G.I. Joe: The Movie lacked the passion for the characters that the G.I. Joe TV series had. Most of the voice over artists really sounded like they were dead pan and they were going to die at anytime now. It's a good movie but I wouldn't say that it was the greatest movie in the world I.M.H.O. :)

Although violence is what G.I. Joe was built on I'd say that Serpentor striking Duke in his chest wasn't the very best way for Charlie Adler's character to go out. Neither was seeing Golobulus remind Cobra Commander why he was chosen to lead the Cobra forces and then being horribly mutated after he failed to deliver what Cobra-La felt was rightfully theirs.

It wasn't the best way for the G.I. Joe series to go out but it's better than nothing. :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For me, it just didn't seem like GI Joe at all. When I watched it as a kid, I just didn't care for it. In fact the part I liked best about this one was the opening credits. They change so many facts around and turn the story around as well. Cobra Commander is supposedly part of this stupid race of reptile people in Antarctica or somewhere that is frozen. Though I always thought he was a normal guy considering every time you saw his eyes in the series they were surrounded by normal colored flesh and not the blue his face was here. There is just too much crap in this one to try and make this a spectacular movie, but for me it just ruins what I watched the series for in the first place.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Absolutely nothing is redeeming about this total piece of trash, and the only thing worse than seeing this film is seeing it in English class. This is literally one of the worst films I have ever seen. It totally ignores and contradicts any themes it may present, so the story is just really really dull. Thank god the 80's are over, and god save whatever man was actually born as \"James Bond III\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so bad there are not words to describe it. If I got a video camera of a monkey dancing for an hour and a half it would be a heck of a lot more entertaining than this. The plot is so dull and unimaginitive it is not even worth mentioning. The best part of the movie was when the credits roled and I got a chuckle out of knowing the lead actors name was James Bond III. Just trust me and stay far away from this trash heap!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've watched a lot of TV through the years. So much, that when I start seeing new shows that basically seem like reruns of old shows, I get insulted. Luckily, I am not too sensitive because all \"Hot Properties\" does is updates the cast (meaning make them sexier)of \"Designing Women\" and drops them in New York City instead of Georgia.

The jokes are more TV-14-ish, but it does not make the show any better. The only thing that this show has proved is that Nicole Sullivan is SO good that she could have made a show like \"My Mother the Car\" a classic. Her comic talents remind one of a modern day Lucille Ball--only funnier. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is flashy and sexy which might be good for some brainless soap, but they just aren't funny.

Fred","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Foreigner is a straight-to-video Steven Seagal film that was originally intended to be released as a theatrical feature in March, 2003, an intention which was reportedly reversed when Seagal's prior film (Half Past Dead) tanked at the box office. According to some reports, the film had a lavish $20 million budget, including location shoots in Warsaw and Paris, and was completed as part of the studio's obligation to a two-picture deal which was negotiated after the relative success of Exit Wounds seemed to indicate that Seagal still had a solid following.

Despite the size of their investment, Sony Screen Gems probably made the right move in shelving this movie. It is nearly incomprehensible. What am I saying? It IS incomprehensible. I don't think I understood what was going on at all, except in the very broadest terms.

Seagal is employed by a mysterious guy to deliver a mysterious package to another mysterious guy. Other mysterious guys try to stop him. Other highly mysterious guys try to kill the moderately mysterious guys who try to stop him. Other really, really mysterious guys do especially mysterious stuff, all of which which was in fact too mysterious for me to figure out. The intended recipient's mysterious wife tries to intercept the package before it can be delivered to her husband. Because he is a self-proclaimed \"consummate professional\" who has been hired to deliver the package only into the hands of the husband, Seagal at first defies the wife, then later gets involved in protecting her and her daughter from other mysterious guys with unexplained agendas, as well as from her husband.

Many people have mysterious, cryptic conversations. Many people blow each other's brains out. Some guys seem to die more than once, while in other scenes gunfights end without a clear view of the result, so the audience sees somebody die, but is not sure which one of the gunslingers is headed to boot hill. Allegiances shift often, adding further mystery. Or should I say confusion?

I don't know who was on whose side, or what anybody really wanted, and the resolution was as unsatisfying as the exposition. At the end of the movie, I just sat there thinking, \"That's the end? What the ...?\"

I couldn't even figure out the credits. IMDb says that Aussie actress Kate Fischer (from \"Sirens\") was in this film, but I'll be damned if I know where. Either she was left on the cutting room floor or she wisely opted out of the project. She could have found some activities more beneficial to her career, like having unnecessary surgery, ripping those pesky insert cards out of magazines, or taking some community college courses in animal husbandry.

Seagal used to be a pretty fair hand-to-hand combatant, but the action scenes didn't manage to redeem this film at all. Seagal is in his 50's now and is a very large man, so he is reduced to a mimimal level of physical exertion and even during that he is contained in a knee-length coat to hide his inchoate Brandoesque girth. He might even get a little winded removing the wrappers from candy bars, although that's understandable if you estimate just how many of those he must have to eat to maintain his present girth.

Steven Seagal seemed to be making a comeback with Exit Wounds, but if his last film was half past dead, this one must be pretty close to filling out the other half.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When you watch a Seagal movie, you expect good action. You expect fighting, not just a lot of shooting like in this flick. And: you expect a rather simple story. OK, I can live with a more complex story even though it's a Seagal movie. But this one, this is, I don't know what to say. It's very, very confusing indeed. At the end of the movie, I had major problems figuring out what had happened. And I know I'm not the only one. The story lacks so much information and is so full of plot holes that it's nearly impossible to keep track of what's happening in the movie. There are many people in the movie, people change sides all the time, and it switches locations too often. Terrible. I just don't understand why it looks like Seagal is making a sort of sequel to this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has got to be THE worst Steven Segal movie I have ever watched (even worse than eco-piffle like On Deadly Ground & Fire Down Below). I'll start with the good points..., It's got stylish direction for a DTV movie and has wonderful scenry... That's it! The story dosen't really go anywhere, it's just an array of well staged set pieces just so seagal go shoot bad guys (the body count can easily match Tarantino at his bloodiest!). The plot is needlessly complicated and confusing you forget who the good and bad guys are. The acting (I use the term loosely) is mediocre at best, seagal's usual ONE constipated expression and wooden acting I can take but the others especially the Brits were down right terrible.

What's in the package? Why are bad guys after it? Is seagal being set up?

WHO GIVES A S***!

When I rented this movie at my local Blockbuster (Once i'd paid) the assistant laughed at me and said it was the worst movie in the shop I could have picked! (I felt like punching him till my arm went numb)

Anyway, I haven't seen Half Past Dead or Out for a kill yet and i daren't go back for more humiliation at my store, but they can't be anyworse than this turkey

The soundtrack is supposed to be young and hip - It just gave me a suuden urge for half a dozen asprins.

All in all this is Seagal at his WORST! The guy who's gained about 100Ibs and looks well past it, he's a guy who just doesn't no when to stop, he should retire gracefully NOW! and have a go behind the camera or become a Martial arts teacher or something.

My rating 2\/10 (1 point for scenery)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Im hoping this was made before Half Past Dead and Exit Wounds because it was rubbish, Seagal wasnt to blame it was down to the crap directing when the few action scenes took place. The plot was also confusing and basically just felt rushed out, maybe it was shelved and released to capitalise on Seagals newer films??

3\/10

He's not through yet, bring on Under Siege 3 and loose some weight!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw that \"The Foreigner\" was ranked in the \"Bottom 100\" movie listings here on IMDb, so I wasn't expecting much when I tuned into it on the USA channel a week back, but I did have hopes. \"Belly Of The Beast\" (which aired a month ago) was a mess, but it had great scenery and photography and some pretty cool moments scattered throughout, so I thought that this movie might have some of the same.

Alas, this movie fails the standards of basic watch-ability in almost every way. The screenplay comes off as the bastard offspring of a John LeCarre novel and a Richard Ludlum movie, but done by people with none of those worthy writers' talent for plot and characterization. Instead what we got is a glum, mean-spirited, nihilistic, cryptic mare's nest of muddled motives, tangled alliances and back-shootings. And chest shootings. And bombings. And eviscerations. This carries over to the directorial style, which relies on hackneyed 'grainy shot\/slow motion' shots every 10 seconds, along with wire work and hyperactive jump cuts. These filmic devices that were stale 10 years ago when MTV directors used them for Whitesnake videos, and the director works them like a punch press, hoping to inject some weird art-house techno thriller coolness into the proceedings.

Segal himself is just awful in this. He spends the entire film talking in a hoarse, throaty half-whisper and alternating between two expressions: looking like he is sucking on a lemon while someone waves a small turd under his nose, or looking constipated. And he's so chunky (and vain about it) that he never actually takes off his knee length duster on camera. I understand that it's hard to keep the girth under control as a male actor ages (although Denzel Washington and Paul Newman never seemed to have that problem). But you deal with it by being honest about it, and by growing as an actor, not by hiding it with carefully chosen camera angles and floor length robes.

So I can't really tell what's going on, and the movie doesn't give me a reason to care about what's going on, and the protagonist is completely one dimensional and visually unappealing. Not a recipe for a good movie experience.

Oddly, most of the set designs and scenery are atmospheric and striking; in fact, if you were to freeze the film on almost any given scene that wasn't a close-up of Seagal, you would be struck by the care and professionalism of the lighting,colors, and composition and by how beautiful the Eastern European settings are. But dressing up a rotten egg as a Faberge egg can't make it edible. And the proceedings are rotten at heart.

There are 'cool' movies (like \"Versus\"), and there are visually striking but emotionally cold movies (like \"Underworld\") and there are paranoia conspiracy thrillers (like \"The Bourne Identity\" and its remake with Matt Damon). And then there is this thing, which can't make up its mind what it wants to be, pretends to be all these things, and fails because it has no guts or soul.

This is a movie made by professionals with an actual budget, so you can't really put it in the same class as \"Manos\", \"Killer Shrews\" or \"Hobgoblins\". But I'd rather watch all three of those movies back-to-back several times than watch \"The Foreigner\" again even once.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I could have given this film 0\/10 I would, and this is the first film I have wanted to rate so low. Its worse than awful. If I went to see it in the cinema I would want the cinema to pay ME for watching it (at least minimum wage). Some of the camera shots were quite effective, but a lot were rubbish eg. villains reflection in a mirror that separates his head and shoulders side-ways from his body (seeing is believing). Several totally pointless killings of innocent civilians. 2 murders that made me laugh out loud due to the victims actions\/facial expressions when they were shot. I only watched it to the end (fast forwarding about 10 mins of the boring pointless dialogue) hoping to see Seagal in some decent hand to hand combat, but there was almost none of that (should have known that when at the beginning he threw someone while going down an elevator and it was shown in slow motion with music - end of 'action' scene). In one scene we see Seagal hand chop someones neck in slow motion which makes it obvious that his hand never even made contact). The chief villain keeps coming back to life. He gets shot in the chest on 2 separate occasions. The 1st time its with a shotgun which blows him out the 2nd\/3rd floor onto the street. To sum up, this film is a total waste of time and a total joke. It looks very low budget (even for Seagal). The colour is dull and grey. I could go on and on....just like this film, but I wont. Watch this film if you've got insomnia. Its guaranteed to put you to sleep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Since I'm from Norway (one of the top ten (or so) richest countries in the world), it was much fun to watch how we use trucks from the 50ies and live in cottages from the medieval times. And since we have very strict laws when it comes to handguns, it was fun to see how much guns there actually were in Norway during the five minutes of the shooting there. Mr. Direct-to-video even managed to bring his silencer on short notice, so he must have powerful friends in the customs.

Please do at least _some_ research before going to an \"exotic\" country, dudes -- you may hurt the feelings of old fans.

Sverre -- old fan with hurt feelings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"They actually make a big deal out of a scene in which Steven hurdles a 3 foot fence. The plot is...barely there, the acting (so to speak) is distressing and the action is catastrophically lame. This is the worst Seagal film ever, and that is saying something.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Can they possibly get any worse than this? Probably. But after all Steven Seagal gets to do what he does. Well kind of; this time instead of mortally wounding the bad guys he just wounds them. By reputation of being a bad ass agent Seagal is hired to deliver a special package from France to America. But it is not an easy task with so many people trying to intercept and foul up the mission. The fights just don't have enough bite and the big bangs are just big and that's all. Anna-Louis Plowman seems to be the only cast member not to appear wooden. Also in the cast are: Jeffery Pierce, Max Ryan and Harry Van Gorkum. Don't put all the blame on Seagal for this clunker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like Steven Seagal but I have not a CLUE what this movie was about. I am not easily lost with movies but I had no idea who was on who's side.

Hopefully some of his future movies will be a little better. My wife still thinks he looks good in black jeans, however. :P","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to say that I really liked UNDER SIEGE and HARD TO KILL.

watching Seagal doing his funny martial arts on people. I have

been always looking forward to Seagal-Movies and, unfortunately, I was first disappointed by GLIMMER MAN, which I found really bad. THE FOREIGNER is probably one of the worst Seagal has ever

acted in. Horribly boring, badly edited, wrongest soundtrack and so on! Dear reader, do yourself a favor an stay away from this!

Honestly: Stay away!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Steven Seagal's films of late have not exactly been good, but this is by far the worst since The Patriot. The plot makes no sense what so ever; it is never clear in what the relationships between the characters are, who works for who or who is double crossing who. The film is completely disjointed, each scene seems to confuse the story further rather than carry it forward. Even the action sequences are uninspired and hard to follow. Most of the blame must lie at the director's feet for not even understanding the basics of film making, but Seagal does not get off lightly, as one of the producers of this film, he must also share the blame. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned how awful the acting is, even by Seagal standards. Even as straight to video fodder, this is not worth a view even for Seagal fans. Give it a wide berth!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Imagine this...

Whenever two people meet in this movie, one of them is shot. The plot just does not exist - it appears that someone shot some action sequences and then tried to put them together to make a movie out of it. If you decide to watch it, you will regret it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First: I like S Segal! But in this movie, he has hit rock bottom and started to dig!

THE PLOT What plot? Very strange and unbeliveable plot.

THE ACTIONS WAY below Segals standards!

THE GOOD PARTS Mr Segal is a pro. And shows it. That's it.

SUMMARY I could write (and have done so) a better script for Mr Segal. In case you read this Stephen, mail me, I'll give you a better script to do a better movie! The only realistic part is the one where... (see spoiler part).

SPOILER PART (stop reading here if you plan to see the movie!) - - - Gas leak? Wow. Disecting a 'Black-box'-recorder in a hotel room? I work in the industry, laughable! The bad guy 'get's away', that much is true in life!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Seagal has been acting in several entertaining action movies, but this time this movie really sucks. Just stupid killing and really stupid storyline. In addition, Seagul looks fat and old.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad acting? Yes, but it was not a surprise. Stupid story? Yes, so what?

But why, tell me, Mr Director, why all that slow motion crap? Fight scenes were bad, really bad, because of slow motion and bad cutting. Not because of Seagal.

\"What if I just speed this up for 2 seconds and then slow down those next 5 seconds and then... Maybe I need to flip the coin to decide?\" What were you thinking, Mr Director???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually really enjoy Steven Seagal movies. They are usually highly entertaining and being somewhat of an adept of Aikido, I usually like the way Steven incorporates these martial art techniques in the fight sequences.

However this film is a really bad movie making effort and it seems obvious to me that the blame lies with the director and the producers who obviously have no idea how to make an action movie, let alone direct someone like Steven Seagal and to take advantage of his knowledge and competence.

I never saw the end of this movie. I walked out before the end simply because I couldn't stand watching anymore of this bad movie. I am sure that many people also share my feelings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a fan of his ... This movie sucked really bad. Even worse than Ticker! & That movie was bad. It was kind of like they popped it out in a week. Looked to be very low budget. Only like 3 or 4 buildings used, a couple of locations MAYBE, & poor hummh! Everything! It just blew.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seagal needs to get back to basics breaking bones and kicking butt. No more of this slow motion crap like foreigner and in the shadows fighting like half past dead. Exit wounds showed more of his fighting skills with some wires which was ok but then he went back to b movie directors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are films that are not released in theaters but on video. This one should be allowed to age and disintegrate the way old nitrate film stock does. No story, inept violence, over acted, badly written and the sorry thing is that the star was not the only bad part in the film. And I did like and enjoyed some of Siegel's other movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Three words: What a pile..... Two words: Don't bother! One word: Sucked! There are zero reasons to see this movie. Even those Seagal groupies should shy away from this movie. The martial arts, the typical Aikido, are horrible. The martial arts moves themselves are fine but the cinematography is pathetic. The movie actually goes into slow motion whenever Seagal give his \"kill move\" to his victims. Worse yet, is shows the same move three times in rapid succession from three slightly different angles. How stupid. Seagal's acting was plain stupid, but I still give this movie a \"6\" for acting because of the supporting cast whose \"villain\" roles were actually quite entertaining.

The plot is just dumb. Seagal plays a Federal Express agent with a license to kill. His character also has that dedicated work ethic which means all of his packages get delivered to the correct people on time - at no extra charge - and nothing stands in his way. Not assassins, political leaders, explosions, or even death.

I expect a certain level of violence in a martial arts film, but there are several scenes in this movie of random and horrible acts of violence that lend itself in no way to the advancement of the movie or its story. There is a reason this movie went directly to video and there are tons of reasons to avoid it. No one should bother with this tripe.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie simply does not work. The action scenes were shot to look stylish but just come out looking sloppy. seagal barely fights and a lot of his scenes are shot from the back ( if you look in some of the scenes it is not even him, but a 100 lb lighter stunt double) the movie is just all around BAD!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lord have mercy! Why was this film made? Why did Seagal and rising star Max Ryan agree to be in it? The Foreigner is so excruciatingly bad in every conceivable way that it boggles the mind.

The film has an ultra-cheap look to it. Like a budget of a couple of bucks was far out of their reach. What's worse is that the makers know this and try to make it look slick to compensate. The result is a film that just don't look right. The fight scenes are so dull and edited 'discretely' to hide the fact that Steven Seagal is not in good shape anymore. None of them are engaging or exciting. The plot is nonsense that doesn't interest in the slightest way or have any uniqueness to it. The Eastern-Europe locations (a sly move by the producers to keep the budget down, or non-existent) look unpleasant and should not be serving as the backdrop for an 'action' film (what action?).

And what is the deal with the title? As far as I could tell everyone in the movie was foreign. Which ONE does the title refer to?

The DVD is in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen and in Dolby 5.1 sound. Neither are remarkable enough to warrant even a single rent. The Foreigner is not worth one second of your time. Gotta love that tagline tho! 'If they think they can stop him, they're dead wrong.' Sheesh!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think this movie was made backwards, first they shoot a whole lot of scenes and action, and explosions, and then the story-writers got to work trying to find a story to tie all scenes up together. this movie is without any doubt the worst movie I have ever seen, your average porn movie comes with a much better written and much more coherent script. The movie makes NO sense. Seriously, even IF you are a Segal fan there's no reason you should EVER want to see this movie, except if you're one of those folks that like to stare at accidents, because this is a horrible accident, and should never have been released upon this world.

Boran.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mr Seagal has apparantly lowered his (already low) standards even more and has now outdone himself in making bad movies. The Foreigner has no substance what so ever in the script. It's director has made an even worse job and the music and score is so cheezy and malplaced that you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. Already 10 minutes into the movie, you just want to turn it off. However, considering Steven Seagal's past movies, you think 'Hey, there might be some cool action-sequences at least worth watching...' ...you are WRONG! It only gets worse as the movie progresses. Everyone (with a few exceptions) seem to kill every person that they talk to, good or bad, innocent or not. The only good thing with the movie is that it that it has an end and that it has a rather short running time. Summing the movie up in two words: STAY AWAY!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sigh... what can I say?

Why does a horrible script such as this gets approved in the first place. Its not wrong to have a complicated plot but its not explained to the audience properly!

To have the wife explain the plot via flashbacks is bad bad bad. To have such a tight editing for the fight scenes is bad too! Such fanciful editing only appears in trailers. It cheapens the whole look!

And who are the Russian guys at the top of the movie? Who is the guy being tortured? Is he with the CIA?

This film deserved not to be released in theatre. But it doesn't deserve to be produced in the first place. Its a joke to Hollywood.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Foreigner\" is a tale of foreign intrigue with Seagal at the center as a deep cover operative who has a package which everyone wants and are willing to kill to get. The flick is uninspired with less of the usual action stuff which put Seagal on the movie map (fire fights, hand-to-hand combat, pyrotechnics, stunts, etc.) and more of a story which is convoluted, uninteresting, and full of meaningless filler. What action there is seems token and gratuitous while Seagal, looking more and more like a pork chop, meanders through this insipid flick expressionless and bored while manifesting no improvement in acting ability. Somewhere around \"The Glimmer Man\" or \"Fire Down Below\" Seagal flicks took a nose dive and \"The Foreigner\" is just an continuation of that trend. Nothing here worth watching except for the most die-hard Seagal fans. (C-)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I believe Cockpuncher to be the best piece of work that has come out of the Steven Seagal factory in a long time. This movie was the first one I have seen since that fine film preview. My point? He is done. Every movie is the same. Maybe he will be good in Machete because he won't be the star. We can only hope.

P.S. Thanks for speaking to UCSB when I went to college. It was an amazing speech. You really influenced some people out there.

So I have to write ten lines about this movie? Umm....I like the smoker guy who killed a bunch of fools. Whenever anyone smells menthol's LOOK OUT. Because there could be a killer with a silenced glock (and another loud one) who wants to kill you.

Is that ten?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why on earth does five US keep repeating this one? the title actually says it all: the plot is as clear as a book read in a language you never heard of and that resembles to nothing.

You'll see ninety minutes of changing locations, most of them will be blown up later on in the movie. Right in the beginning you see a nice little farm typical for the Berry, which is in the movie moved close to Paris but then it does not survive the \"transport\" to the Isle de France very well: it explodes 1 minute later. there are also two gangster who have no tongues, as if that would make sense in the world of SMS and internet, let alone pencil and paper.

It just goes on like that, nothing makes sense in this story. my only credit goes to the cameraman, the camera is excellent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two things are changed from then.First of all i am not a kid anymore,and second most of new Seagal movies are just terrible.This is on my opinion the worst movie ever made with Derailed starred by Jean Claude Van Damme.There is no plot in this movie,the plot is just an excuse to shoot some terrible action scenes which are painful to watch.I love action movies,but this is not an action movie....This isn't a movie...this is a group of irritating scenes which are connected in annoying way to kill the viewers love for the action movies.I am sorry but i don't have any respect for anyone who liked this movie.He has a serious intelligence problem then.I hope that Seagal will make some new good movies in the future.Good luck for him !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The authors know nothing about Russians prisons, the movie is absolutely cockamamie, has nothing common with the reality. They also don't that the foreign prisoners in Russia have a special prison so the foreigners NEVER live together with Russian criminals. The uniforms in this movie look if they were stolen somewhere in Latin America. Prisoners in Russia also don't work outside the prison. Each kill in Russian prison is a subject of investigation so the prisoners kill each other only if there some very important reasons. Playing soccer is also forbidden in the prisons, contacts between the prisoners are very restricted, no chance for bloody combats etc etc etc. So this movie has Nothing common with the reality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To call a film boring is not something I would usually count as a valid criticism. However, when a film is crassly made of spare parts from other films that weren't that good to begin with, and it is slow as molasses with no real payoff, I think it's fair to call a spade a spade. And The Ghost is a very boring film.

A movie that is about as original as its' name, The Ghost tells the story of a young girl with amnesia being haunted by a ghost that holds the secret to her past. Only, it's a whole lot more complicated and less interesting than one would think.

The plot line is almost incomprehensible for most of the picture and the hook, the amnesia element, only makes things worse. It seems that no one, including the screenwriter and director have any clue what the hell is happening at any given moment. Instead they chose to do what roughly amounts to the filmic equivalent of a sitcom clip show. There are scenes taken directly from Ringu, Dark Water, Shutter, The Grudge series, and a smattering of Pulse for good measure. Making matters worse, the half dozen female leads all dress and read their lines alike, making them impossible to tell apart.

There is just nothing to grasp onto with this film. The story isn't all that well thought out. The amnesia gimmick is lazy. The mystery element is un-involving and handled with little grace. The characters never deduce anything, all the information is just handed out through the lead remembering her past whenever it is convenient for the plot.

The cinematography, full of reflections and shots of water at least attempts to add to the subtext, a thematic link with the amnesia and the final twist (which I won't reveal) is nice, but often overwrought. Even the score feels borrowed and clich\u00e9.

Worst of all, the inciting action for the curse isn't very interesting and the final twist is predictable and lame. \"Wait, you mean that one character who has 15 minutes of screen time but appeared to have nothing to do with the plot comes back in the end? No!\" Audiences are too savvy for this kind of tripe. Anyone who has seen any of the films that this rips off will find very little to even keep them awake with this feature. I used to think Shimizu was the bottom of the barrel for this kind of crap (remaking his grudge film no less than 5 times) but even his second rate work like Reincarnation, a film I couldn't even bring my self to finish, is miles ahead of this.

For more reviews please visit www.collider.com","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie starts out with this creepy song that gave me some chills like the song used in \"Nightmare on Elmstreet\"! It immediately sets the mood! The sequence that follows also shows what to expect! We are made aware that a ghost is present! The mystery concerning this ghost is what keeps this movie together! But the structure of the plot is so complex that it is difficult to make sense of it! The ideas behind the plot are quite interesting! Only the way it is told to us is far too abstract! I understand that the director believed that he had to maintain the mystery as long as possible! The problem is that when certain matters get revealed you never get a satisfying explanation! The motives of the important characters are left out and some questions raised in the movie don't get answered at all! Since we don't learn enough about the characters it becomes hard to care for them! And as a consequence you will loose interest! Only some scares and a twist save this movie from becoming a total failure! The twist is interesting but no real shocker! The experienced viewer will see it coming! Some reviewers complain that this movie is too much like \"Ringu\" and is not original at all! Well it is true that some of the effects and scares are borrowed from that movie! But there is a main difference! The suspense in \"Ringu\" mainly was based on this one twist where the viewer finds out how the characters get killed!! In \"Ryeong\" (the \"Ringu\" like) twist is used as a creepy effect to accompany another crazy twist! \"Ryeong\" heavily depends on a complex structured plot and twist that doesn't contain enough scares to hold your interest! Simply put: This isn't a scary movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Simply put, I was amazingly disappointed. I'm a huge fan of Asian Horror, and I can watch unoriginality (I myself enjoyed \"The Red Shoes\" and \"Phone\"), but this was just poor.

The movie has a lot of elements that are very high-quality: the photography is eye-catching, the visuals are cool, the directing is inspired, the acting is pretty good, the music is easy on the ears, and the CGI is incredible. But, since this is a horror film, we are expected to be scared, which just won't happen with this film. As with most South Korean horrors, this is unoriginal almost from beginning to end: there's the trademark long-haired vengeful female ghost, ominous clumps of thick, black hair and puddles of water, and near the end, a twist that *almost*, but not quite makes sense out of the whole thing (the twist is easily one of the best qualities). And to the viewer's irritation, when the film isn't recycling (at times, so exact that it could easily be dubbed plagiarized) imagery from other movies, it's making you jump. A lot. And by jumps, I don't mean things jumping out or anything, just VERY loud noises and screeches in the soundtrack used to make the audience jump six feet in the air (there's even a few \"made-you-jump\" moments that are simply infuriating). And when it is not ripping-off other movies, it's boring, and hard to sit through.

And it's a shame, because \"Ryeong\" could have easily been really good, and it has everything to make it good, but its the annoying overuse of completely predictable loud noises and jump scares that eventually ruin the movie. A perfect example of how good it could have been: there's a moment when one of out characters is looking at a corpse, and without a sound, the corpse looks back. It's wholly predictable, but the use of silence in that scene is brilliant. And unfortunately, that's as scary as the movie got for me.

Admittedly, \"Ryeong\" has a few good features, and even a couple jumps that aren't as predictable, and do work. There's a very good and sad back-story used to explain the events, and the twist is pretty unpredictable. Those are the only things that separate the film from any other Asian ghost\/horror film. But the problem with these is, even though they do work, they have been used before (J-Horror fans will easily realize the big reveal was inspired by \"A Tale of Two Sisters\"), and it takes the back-story a good fifty minutes to get going.

So in the end, \"Ryong\" really seems like a truly wasted opportunity. Tae-kyeong Kim hoped that the plot twist and other good features act as diversions, so the audience won't notice the huge flaws. But he failed, and well... We noticed everything.

My rating: 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"CORRIDORS OF BLOOD

Aspect ratio: 1.66:1

Sound format: Mono

(Black and white)

London, 1840: Whilst attempting to formulate an anaesthetic solution, a dedicated surgeon (Boris Karloff) becomes addicted to narcotics and is blackmailed by local bodysnatchers.

Riding the coat-tails of a Gothic revival occasioned by the recent success of Hammer's THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), Robert Day's CORRIDORS OF BLOOD is an odd mixture of historical drama and Grand Guignol theatrics. Producer Richard Gordon lured Karloff away from Hollywood - where his movie career had become stalled in a B-movie rut (VOODOO ISLAND, FRANKENSTEIN 1970, etc.) - for a couple of lurid shockers in which good men are thwarted by circumstances beyond their control. In GRIP OF THE STRANGLER (1958), he played a novelist who stumbles onto a horrific secret whilst researching a series of murders from recent history, while in CORRIDORS OF BLOOD, he's a drug-addicted surgeon who falls prey to a gang of criminals masterminded by East End pub landlord Francis de Wolff. Less a horror film than a melodrama with ghoulish trimmings, the movie hedges its commercial bets by including a number of gory thrills (a leg sliced open, a face destroyed by acid, etc.), but the narrative is motivated chiefly by Karloff's altruistic pursuit of an anaesthetic formula that will alleviate the terrible suffering of patients during surgery.

Produced under the title 'The Doctor from Seven Dials', the finished movie went unreleased until 1962 due to indifference by distributors MGM, by which time co-star Christopher Lee had earned a prominent screen credit, despite playing a small - but significant - role as 'Resurrection Joe', a sinister Cockney thug who murders carefully selected patrons of de Wolff's squalid pub and sells the remains to local doctors. Lee filmed this glorified cameo before THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN catapulted him to international stardom, which accounts for his limited screen time, though his intense performance is one of the film's highlights. Adrienne Corri (VAMPIRE CIRCUS) distinguishes herself as de Wolff's partner in crime, and there's a feast of familiar faces in supporting roles, including Francis Matthews (DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS), Betta St. John (THE CITY OF THE DEAD), Finlay Currie and Nigel Green. Superb art direction (by Anthony Masters) and cinematography (Geoffrey Faithful).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Notwithstanding that \"The House of Adam\" is meant to be a mainstream gay movie; that Anthony (John Shaw), who is gay curious and a major cutie-hunk and Adam (Jared Cadwell) who is openly gay, and a close second in looks; that there is a whole minute of wonderful, convincing, and naked lovemaking (sorry, no frontal) between Anthony and Adam 41 minutes into the movie (that alone may be sufficient for many of us) --- notwithstanding all that (to which I give a thumbs up), \"The House of Adam\" is a horrible movie by most any other movie making standard. A big thumbs down.

Shaw's and Cadwell's acting abilities are either sophomoric or else truly suffer from the bad script, direction, and editing, or rather the lack thereof. Their lovemaking scene is nevertheless convincing, and may have more to do with their really being into each other, considering the rest of their scripting and acting.

Writer-director Jorge Amer's (Bonus Feature) self-congratulation as to his movie making skills is off the wall.

So, the script and lack thereof is a thumbs down. Overall, the acting is thumbs down with just the slightest exception for Shaw and Cadwell. Alexis Karriker as Nina might have been the best except for the limitations expressed above. Far and away the absolute worst, and insufferable, acting was by Thomas Michael Kappier as Albert Ross, Anthony's father having not even of elementary school acting quality. He truly represents a colossal casting failure.

The actors playing the new cabin owners are worthy of truly bad acting nominations as well.

If only the production, editing and post production were as good as the trailer, this movie would have been quite something else. The trailer presents well put together clips of scenes that drew me into renting the movie in the first place. That, and the hope that this gay-centered movie, was supposedly prominently played and touted at gay film festivals.

Overall, the movie is a big thumbs down.

Is it worth buying\/renting and watching it? Only if you have an irresistible yen to see the naked love making scene, and a few minutes of semi-convincing dialogue between Anthony and Adam. Or if you truly just enjoy watching bad movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First and foremost I am a gay man, although do not live my life within the so called \"Community\", and it's because of films like this that Gay themed movies are not my favorite genre because 90% of them are crap. Like this one. f I could give this a zero I would. (I do not understand all the positive comments, unless they were all made by people who made this film) I actually stopped this at the 24 minute mark when the so called straight \"Anthony\" kissed Adam outside the restaurant for NO reason at all. And how is the son stealing from the diner if he doesn't even live in the town? Wire transfers? The acting was HORRENDOUS! The sound editing? (Listen to \"Anthony\" and Adam when they are sitting on the fence eating their lunch. Every time the camera switched between the two so called actors the sound changes, like there was not a filter on the microphone)Seriously do not rent, or god forbid, buy this movie.Horrible Horrible Horrible acting and just a stupid storyline.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hi guys, this is my first review and I would had to have picked the worst movie to review. As I only watched 5 minutes of it but trust me you could see this movie was going nowhere. The acting was deplorable, the camera work and lighting looked as though it was shot and run by a pack of 10 year old's. No offence to 10 year olds.I just couldn't take anymore I got off my couch, took the The House of Adam DVD out of the DVD player and threw it in the garbage. Maybe if you are a Colin Farrell fan this movie may interest you, because the character in the movie, Anthony, is a Colin Farrell look a like. But that is as far as it goes, he certainly will never have col's acting abilities. I gave this movie a rating of 1 (awful) only because there were no minuses in the drop down list cheers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm assuming the filmmakers heart was in the right place but, frankly, this movie is truly unconscionable. I was offended by the tone and the total cop out ending. You cannot take issues like this so lightly! Without knowing the final caveat of the movie... we watch as a guy guns down his 9 month pregnant wife and two sons and are supposed to follow him for the next 2+ hours as he tries to establish a new life?? You cannot have sympathy for a character who does this. Cannot! Not to mention, we're given nothing until the last say 1\/2 hour of this unnecessarily long movie, as to why this guy is suffering so much. No flashbacks, no sudden reactions to noise or movement - stuff that real vets are suffering from. All we know is he has a pain in the ass wife and can't financially take care of her and his 3 kids. There really didn't seem to be any research whatsoever into what current Iraq vets are going through.

Additionally, the movie suffers tremendously from a heavy handed and totally inappropriate score. Its a catastrophe. It is truly harmful to some actually good acting on the part of the male lead and at times Joe Morton. It foreshadows EVERYTHING you're supposed to feel, and sometimes gives you the wrong clues entirely! Again, this was a brutal thing this guy did, and so seeing him get a new job, meet a new blonde, struggle behind the counter making toast is NOT appropriate! And really, the ending? What a freakin cop out! How dare you.

There are far richer films dealing with the affects of war on returning soldiers, please don't bother with this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Last night, I attended a screening of Badland with my cousin. We were kind of excited to learn once we got there that the director\/writer, the producer (his wife), and several cast members were also in attendance and that there would be a discussion and Q&A after the movie. But once the movie was over and the credits started rolling (and the film really was not edited well enough and is too long), my cousin and I, without consulting each other, immediately got up and left. We found out once we started talking outside that we were both feeling so angry that not only did we not want to stay for the discussion, we couldn't even look at the cast and crew who had been standing near the exit and who we walked right by as we left.

I have figured out that the roots of my anger were planted during the scene in which Jerry slices his daughter Celina's palm with a big knife so that her blood could be used to leave a fake trail. It was unavoidable to connect in my mind the physical pain he inflicted on her body with the emotional pain he inflicted on her spirit by murdering her mother and two brothers in her presence, sparing her, and taking her with him when he fled. I've sliced my palm before (accidentally); even a fairly superficial cut is incredibly painful because the palm is so sensitive, and it is very slow to heal if you don't keep it immobile because you just keep opening it up trying to go about your life. But after a very short time with only a narrow strip of cloth tied clumsily around her palm and one scene with a big band-aid, it was as if she'd never been cut. My anger reached its peak--I won't spoil this moment for you--in Celina's final scene.

I got angry because Celina is by far the most sympathetic character in the film (the actress portraying her is a good one); I was\u0097and you can't tell me a good screenwriter wouldn't know this\u0097immersed in feeling both her physical and emotional pain; and the screenwriter, by treating Celina's emotional pain so cavalierly and with such disrespect, also treated me, the audience member, cavalierly and with utter disrespect.

Sure, the script has moments of tears for Celina, and some dialogue that tells us she's hurting, somewhere, somehow. But by this time, we the audience are feeling so manipulated that we've shut down. The manipulation starts very early on in this movie, when Jerry's family's dialogue spells out for the audience that Jerry had psychiatric problems. Rule one, screenwriters: give your audience some credit. Let them do a good bit of the creative work on their own. Tell the story; don't explain to us everything we're supposed to think and feel. We don't like it.

My cousin also knew she was having trouble with the movie early on, dialogue-wise, when Jerry and his wife had little to say to each other besides f*** this, f*** that, f*** you. Some couples do indeed find themselves in relationships so bad that the f-bomb ends up being every other word out of their mouths. But it's like watching comedians who curse a lot. Some of them are really funny; the cursing is ancillary. But some of them substitute cursing for humor, and this screenwriter, to carry the metaphor to its conclusion, is no Chris Rock.

This husband and wife team bravely chose to tackle an awfully complex story with awfully complex characters. But they seem not to have realized that the meaning of a story, especially a complex one, will vary for each member of the audience. Successful storytelling requires paying attention to important factual details, not working desperately to interpret the meaning of the story for the whole audience.

I worked with Vietnam veterans for five years, I've heard more stories than most, and I'm always happy to see films released that bring their stories to a broader audience. It's important, on all kinds of different levels, that we hear them. But I am less than thrilled that this storyteller decided before the film even began what Jerry's story meant and proceeded to spell it out for us with a very heavy hand. Next time, pay more attention to the details.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Badland is one of the worst movies I ever seen. Most of the time this is fine and I can go on with my life, but I feel the need to warn others in this case. As a veteran of the Iraq war I feel it necessary to say that the story, plot, acting and depiction of what soldiers go through upon returning home was pure garbage. It was as if the director\/writer\/whoever latched on to whatever clich\u00e9 about returning soldiers and ran with it and ran with it and ran with it..Not to mention I would imagine there was absolutely no research put into this film. The \"Marine\" uniform looked like it was fresh off a surplus store shelf and was a pattern not used since the first Iraq war. I won't go on forever, this is a horrible movie. If you are interested in the stories of returning soldiers there are much better alternatives. I recommend going to your local library.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being an American service member please believe me when I say that this movie in no way accurately portrays the emotional state of our Soldiers\/Sailors\/Airmen\/Marines returning from deployments.

That being said....

This movie is one large steaming pile of clich\u00e9. The acting as awful (with the exception of the little girl) the character's backgrounds are weak and laughable, and plot is ludicrous.

This movie is so bad I made an account with IMDb just to warn anyone with half a brain away from it.

Canadian writer\/director Francesco Lucente should be really, really, really ashamed of this movie. If he disagrees with US foreign policy, he should write a letter to the US government, not punish the entire English speaking world with a monumentally crap film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If anyone thinks this is a great sports movie it is probably the only sports movie they have ever seen. There are different aspects a sports movie can take. Whether it be professional or college or high school. Examples of sports movies I liked (and I haven't seen many) are Jim Thorpe: All American, All the Right Moves, Any Given Sunday, Eight Men Out, and Rocky, among others. All of those movies had a little more than just plain sports. Whether it was a mans ascent and then descent from greatness, or a man losing out on a dream by the actions of a vindictive coach, or the effect of money on professional sports. In Hoosiers, there is not much content. It didn't even seem as though the movie had a beginning or an end. There was no character development, all of them were forced on us. I could sum up this movie, by quoting a very bad coach: \"Go out and try to score more points than the other guy.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A coach who used to be good, but has had to move to a new area to get away from what he once did; a team of no hopers; the star player who has a row with the coach; the assistant coach with an alcohol problem, the little guy who gets kicked around scoring the winning basket; the whole town against the coach (all except for the leading lady). It's the old story - right out of the British comic books, where a team of speccy geeks and fatties take on the Brazilians at soccer and win.

This film, admittedly well put together, is full of these clich\u00e9s. The only part I didn't predict was when at the town meeting, the star player suddenly decided to side with the coach. No reason was ever given. It seemed like a very strange thing to do seeing that everything was going his way hitherto. Maybe he just felt sorry for the poor guy.

Gene Hackman plays a locker room Popey Doyle. I am sure that an actor of Dennis Hopper's calibre found nothing particularly challenging about his role. The same can be said about Barbara Hershey.

All in all, a film full of clich\u00e9s that might have been done a lot better than it was.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A poor basketball movie. A gruff coach with a dubious background comes to a small Indiana high school basketball team in the 1950's and coaches the boys to victory by \"breaking them down first, and then building them up.\"

Not a bad subject. Photography OK. But the plot is totally predictable. No real sub-plots. Nothing added to make the movie exciting. You know what is going to happen from the very beginning. Suitable for 4th Graders.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

I tuned into this movie not because I am a fan of U.S. High School basketball (in fact I only rarely watch NBA games) but rather because I am a fan of Gene Hackman, who usually manages to bring an impressive depth to his performances. In this case, however, I was sorely disappointed. This was not one of the bright shining stars of Hackman's career.

In fairness to him, he didn't have a lot to work with. As Norman Dale, the new coach of a small town high school basketball team in Indiana, he wasn't called on to do much acting. Basically his performance consisted of pacing up and down basketball sidelines ranting at the referees. I didn't find him particularly believable in the role to be honest. I also was unimpressed with the requisite romance between Dale and Myra Fleener (Barbara Hershey). Quite honestly there was absolutely no chemistry between Hackman and Hershey. The romance never captured my attention, and neither did the basketball \"action,\" which was altogether too predictable.

There were far too many problems with this movie to make it worthwhile. I never did understand the depth of the sheer hatred that so many of the townsfolk had for Dale, almost from before the time he arrived. The character development was poor and the story itself was poorly developed. Too much basketball and not enough human interaction, in my opinion. How many shots of kids shooting baskets do we need to see to get the point that this is a basketball movie? There was no suspense: is it even possible to doubt that Hickory is going to win the big one? I realize that this is based on a true story, but I guess it proves that not every true story should be a movie. Quite frankly, it just wasn't a very interesting movie. Definitely a movie Gene Hackman would like to forget.

No better than a 2\/10 in my opinion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show is perhaps one of the most boring, most unfunny shows I've ever seen. While the humour was subtle, and I'm all for the subtle humour; the jokes just weren't funny.

The show is about two Kiwis in their mid-thirties living in New York trying to start their music careers.

I saw the one episode where Brett leaves the other Kiwi behind during a mugging. Okay, the plot idea has potential; but I got the feeling that half the episode was just filler, and the other half was actually important to the story.

What I mean is, they kept on explaining how the one who was left behind felt betrayed and had a lot of mistrust for the other guy. I've got one piece of advice for the writers: mention it once for the idiots who can't figure it out by the way he's acting, and move on.

And I found the characters were annoying. The character who left the other behind, Brett, came across as being overly innocent and naive, the one left behind walked around talking in this monotone and robotic voice.

A third character, who was the band manager, was obviously incompetent, but he was the one character that I liked. He's also the one that earned the show a one-star rating.

All in all, a show I have no intention of ever watching again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From all the rave reviews, we couldn't wait to see this show. We love wacky humor and creative material, especially from Australia and New Zealand.

I admit this may not be a fair review since we only saw the first 15 minutes. But we just couldn't bear any more misery - it was definitely the most boring and painful 15 minutes we've ever experienced watching a TV show - it felt like 15 hours. The songs may be (mildly) interesting by themselves, but inserted for an interminable 3 minutes each in the middle of a story scene just doesn't work.

We're trying hard now to erase the memory. If you want some wonderful down-under humor in a delightful and engaging film, see \"The Dish\" instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The strawberry blond has a great script, But I just wish Errol Flynn was in it instead of James Cagney, he's not the person for the part. I do think Olivia did a great job. This movie is also a day dream wrap around, so it's hard to follow. I don't like the male character attitude; the way Cagney presented it was just off. I give it a 3 for poor acting by main male character. ( If you like tough ruff men that like to fight all the time and argue then this is your movie). The Strawberry blond would have been better if the main character had more of a positve attitude, and change the script so he is happy he's with Oliva.

THis movie points out Money does not bring happiness, women right jokes. Plain and simple not the best movie, but every one must decide for themselves.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stars: Hayden Pantierre.

There have been so many movies that have this exact same plot, and this one is just a poor rehashing of it. Populer white girl moves to ethnic school, doesn't fit in, soon becomes accepted. Originality is nonexistent in this, and neither are the laughs. It uses so many old poorly executed jokes it's annoying. I don't know why they think it's a good idea to make made for video sequels to mediocre films, but it isn't. With that said, the positives in this are that all the people in it are fairly competent actors and actresses.

My rating: * out of ****. PG-13 for Language and Sexual Humor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first two Bring It On movies were both quite good in their own ways. The first was fairly serious, the second was successfully satirical - and the third opted for the usual idiotic low-brow comedy that we always see in the utterly brainless teen movies that Hollywood has coming out of the woodwork. The entire point in this movie was that cheerleaders are total airheads who hardly know enough to carry on a common conversation, and that's the extent of this movie's comedy. Ha ha. Not.

There is no shred of cleverness in this movie, no theme, no subtext, nothing for anybody with half a brain to be entertained by (and sure enough, I could not sit through all of it). If you're the sort of person who're entertained by fart jokes, this movie is for you. Congratulations.

2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was terrible, mean-spirited, and full of the worst clich\u00e9s and racial stereotypes I've seen in a looong time. Seeing Hayden P trying to act \"ghetto\" was painful (hi, one pant leg up on yer sweats and some braids Downs't make you \"down with the homies\"). Solange Knowles pretty much grimaces through the entire movie. Most of the set sequences look like they were filmed in cardboard boxes...what was up with the finale??? And poor Rihanna was just plain exploited to get people to watch her \"act\", which she can't.

Put simply, this film Downs't even deserve one star. Please put this tired franchise to rest. Or at least make the next one Bring It On IV: Cheerleaders vs. Freddy & Jason.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"without a doubt, one of the most racially prejudiced films i've ever seen, with the prejudice being levelled against Hayden Panettiere as she has to move into a tough inner city school. She is constantly called \"white girl\" and other slurs based on her colour. Firstly would this be allowed the other way around if a black girl was the butt of all the abuse? and secondly the stereotyping of the ethnic kids from the inner city school is also a disgrace. The writers apparent desire to show they were \"hip\" also extended to missing the point that the inner city school win the cheerleading competition, not through talent but by intimidating their white opponents!! these overtones to the film took it away from it's expected direction of a harmless lighthearted comedy suitable for a family audience into a vehicle that does none of the participants any credit. Hayden Panettiere has star quality but I would be surprised if any of the rest of the class ever get much further. All in all a charmless film that was a waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seriously, I couldn't find anything that constituted a rational human thought in this movie. For some reason, the writer decided to have a bunch of actors in random places grunting, groveling and yelling like Cro-Magnon bipeds. I understand that this was about gymnastics, but seriously, what's with all the roaring and human bleating ? I also saw at least five actors with overactive terrets syndrome and stage 10 syphilis.

Although this movie has actual human acrobatics, I must say it is surprising that you can make a movie like this without having any intelligible form of human speech patterns. This is truly a milestone in the history of film-making because there was no conscious decision to make the characters express anything more than a timely Urrrrr ! or Rfff ! sound.

Incredible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There was a lot of hype of this movie and the commercials made it seem like it would be great. Sadly, like Bring It On 2, Bring It On 3 shamed glory of the original Bring It On. There is shameless stereotyping throughout the film. The lines given to the actors were humiliating for all the races involved in the film. The performance of Hayden Panattiere was sub-par both in terms of acting and cheerleading. There were several scenes in which I literally cringed because I was embarrassed for the cast because the scene (lines, plot, etc) were just so stupid. My recommendation to the makers of any future Bring It On films is that you should hire good cheerleaders and teach them to act because the \"acting\" of the cast was horrendous and their lack of cheerleading ability made them completely useless to the film. Only great character: Kirresha.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a nasty cynical film. Apparently this sad excuse for a dramatic urban look at what 20 year olds do whilst crawling through the gutter of Sydney nightlife is supposed to be somehow connecting with its target market. Made by some Industry nobody and pals who seemingly thought they could cobble together any sleazy behavior with a young cast and pour it into multiplexes, SAMPLE PEOPLE deservedly failed miserably at the Australian box office. It is so offensive in its clich\u00e9d depictions of obvious and easy targets it was fully rejected by the very audience it was intended. Shoddy and cruel and with no attempt to offer quality or resonance to the young audience who might have been attracted by the marketing or casting SAMPLE PEOPLE might have been interesting or even informative if not botched by its exploitive view of 'what teens want to see in a movie'. The character played by Ben Mendelsohn is particularly offensive and Kylie Minogue is again wasted by poor material and untalented film makers. It is as if the producers thought teens would watch any ugly trash and just slung-together scenes and characters who were shallow and soul less. Well the were very wrong. A mini budget film made in 1983 called GOING DOWN got this topic right and is an excellent antidote to this poison.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First: The recent campaigning of this movie is a huge hoax. Judging from the cover you'd think this was some kind of scandal movie about Kylie playing a character having sex, taking drugs and whatever. This is just a cheap market-scheme. She's barely in it and does neither of the things. The marketing here is unbelievable, and I'm surprised the filmmakers hasn't objected.

The movie itself was to me a huge disappointment. It seemed like a Sunset Beach episode directed sloppy-handed by a teenage Quentin Tarantino. And thats not meant as a compliment, mind you.

I think the weakness of the movie first of all is the story. It seems to be about nothing. Just about cool teenagers tripping around living 'on the edge'. The characters themselves does have some personality though, but the movie doesn't use its potential. As said, there's no story of any substance here. It seems to elaborate too much on cool dialog and ends up looking like a colorful MTV ad. It definitely has that feeling.

Still though, I guess some people might enjoy it, but I'd say there's far better movies like this around.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Missed it at the cinema, but was always slightly compelled. Found it in the throw-out bin at my local video shop for a measly two bucks! Will I now give it away to anyone who wants it? Probably! No purposeful plot, one dimensional characters, plastic world ripped off from many far better films, no decent dialogue to speak of. You know that empty feeling when you come down off ecstasy? Its that feeling right here. Sad thing is, the Australia I know is heading in this direction, minus the melodrama and simple answers. Interesting only to see the older Aussie actors (who had to ACT back in their day to get by) vs the newer Aussie actors (who have to LOOK GOOD to get by). Like some horribly garish narrative introduction to a film clip that never actually starts... Poor Kylie, started her career as an actress as well...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a first feature for Clinton, I was there, while he shot this mess back in Adelaide around 98...

Although I wasn't involved directly in the production, I was witness to the typically delusional behavior, post set, that went down,: the parties, the drugs, the illusionary glamor, really an example of what not to do when making a film, but also a byproduct of young, talented people getting caught up in classic ideologies of fame & worldly position.

I like Clinton, we had a curious friendship, he deserves to have another crack with a more mature script...there the problems lay, and I'm sure a much better job will be done, if there's a next time round.! Because, frankly, he certainly didn't do himself any favours with this on his CV and neither did the cast...but hey, it was a paying job, in country where actors regularly starve to death

In summary, fascinating to watch 'the making of' basically, not so much fun to experience (alas!).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got interested in this movie because somebody had made a beautiful video for Bj\u00f6rks \"Bachelorette\" with clips from it. So I watched the movie. And it is indeed stuningly beautiful. A masterpiece of animation.

Unfortunately, the story doesn't keep up. It starts out well, with interesting plotlines about people fencing for the possession of the Rose Bride, but suddenly elevators fill up with water and looses their walls, people float away, and finally for no reason whatsoever, Utena is tranformed into a car, and a highspeed chase ensues.

I like much Anime for it's ability to make alternative universes, but this universe is just stupid. If you are gonna watch this movie, turn of the sound, it's better that way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got interested in this movie because somebody had made a beautiful video for Bj\u00f6rks \"Bachelorette\" with clips from it. So I watched the movie. And it is indeed stuningly beautiful. A masterpiece of animation.

Unfortunately, the story doesn't keep up. It starts out well, with interesting plotlines about people fencing for the possession of the Rose Bride, but suddenly elevators fill up with water and looses their walls, people float away, and finally for no reason whatsoever, Utena is tranformed into a car, and a highspeed chase ensues.

I like much Anime for it's ability to make alternative universes, but this universe is just stupid. If you are gonna watch this movie, turn of the sound, it's better that way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

As a boy, Mark Goddard (C Thomas Howell) sat powerless as his family, including his hero cop father (Jeff Fahey), were brutally murdered by vicious criminals he'd tried to bring down. With an inner desire to punish wrong-doers festering in him as he grew up as a result of this, Mark employs tough means when bringing the suspects he's chasing down in and gets into a lot of trouble with his superiors because of this. But then he learns of 'Justice Incorporated', a secret group of men and women lead by a mysterious man (Ed Lauter) who serve to dish out punishment that fits the crime outside the law.But, then things get out of hand and getting out alive might be harder than he thought.

The Sweeper gets into problems from the off-set, because we've seen this exact same plot done before (and better) in films like The Star Chamber with Michael Douglas and Magnum Force with Clint Eastwood. The title doesn't make any sense either. But we also have to contend with the movie's utter ludicrousness, including a scene where a daughter's headphone manages to drown out the sound of her family being slaughtered, a finale involving a chase with a bad guy that starts on the freeway and ends on a Wright Brothers plane, as well as some of the most ridiculous acting ever put on screen and a very clich\u00e9d, pretentious script. But there's some cool action sequences here and there and the movie's unintentional laughs factor certainly keeps it alive with a pulse. **","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ordinarily, I wouldn't waste the time on reviewing a film like \"Human Pork Chop\" (the 2001 version, not to be confused with the earlier film of the same title, which is probably better known in the West as \"The Untold Story\"), but since the reviews already here are quite vague as to what it actually consists of, I figured I'd best post something more detailed, so as no one actually gets tempted (as I was) into buying it because of the film's mystique. I honestly would just say STAY AWAY.

**** MAJOR SPOILERS are contained below ****

\"Human Pork Chop\", I was expecting to be like a Chinese interpretation of the popular Japanese \"Guinea Pig\" films. Anyone who's watched enough of that series can see where its makers are coming from. There's a strong sense of humour running throughout it - you can't watch the ludicrous \"He Never Dies\" without laughing and \"The Making of Guinea Pig\" is a fabulous turning of the whole thing on its head, proving it was just made, with some glee, by fairly good natured gorehounds. All the GP films have a punk rock, DIY, shot-on-video aesthetic, occasional flashes of genuine artistry (\"Mermaid in a Manhole\"), an angry political agenda and a warped, deranged zeal that sets them in a league of their own.

\"Human Pork Chop\" has none of the above.

It's shot on 35mm film (with disarmingly good production values), it's 90 gruelling minutes long and it's utterly devoid of anything redeeming. The plot tells, in flashback at a police interviewing of the suspects, of the systematic torture, death and eventual dismemberment of Grace, a heroin-addicted streetwalker who is kidnapped and brutalised by her pimp and his henchmen when she steals money from him.

Despite its fleeting attempts at being a morality play, the film possesses a detached, inhumane feel to it and one can't help but dwell on the mindsets of those behind it. Although it half-heartedly paints Grace as an innocent victim, the mean-spirited nature of its screenplay and the protagonist's constant, vicious dialogue veers towards a shocking, utterly unwelcome \"she deserves it!\" point of view which makes the whole thing almost impossible to watch. Far more time is spent detailing Grace's degradation and when her captors are eventually deemed guilty and jailed, it seems like a hurried afterthought on behalf of the writers who've long since stopped caring less.

What makes it boggling as to why anyone would want to watch such a film is that even the kind of people who do REALLY get off on mindless sex and violence in the movies would be severely missing out. The torture is just a continuous stream of kickings, slappings, verbal abuse, psychological abuse and then increasingly bizarre displays of power on behalf of the captors use Grace's heroin addiction to make her do their bidding. And when I say that, don't get me wrong, incidentally. Unlike \"Guinea Pig\" with it's frequent barrage of nudity that gives an almost teenage feel of mock-titillation to the proceedings in spite of the ultraviolence, \"Human Pork Chop\" has no such sexual overtones. There isn't any actual nudity in the film and the violence is performed purely out of malice by the odious protagonists (who early in the film are seen stuffing a dog into a bag and banging it against a brick wall - don't worry, not real, just a cheap special effect!).

The only actual bloodshed in the film is towards the end when they dismember Grace's body and boil the bones, all very poor special FX (nowhere near \"Guinea Pig\" level) and, by that stage, you'll probably be already feeling too miserable and sick to even care what's going on.

The film is depressingly bleak and uncompromising along a similar line to Buddy Giovinazzo's \"Combat Shock\" and I guess could even be compared, at a push. Both movies deal with the gradual physical decline of an individual who exists in a nightmarish environment devoid of any social or morally redeemable characters and both movies 'climax' in a particularly visceral manner with the individual's inevitable, inescapable doom.

In fairness, neither 'glamourises' it's violence (whereas \"Guinea Pig\" could easily be accused of this) but one can't help but wonder where the place is for a film like this. It fails to many any real points in its frank presentation of such brutality and with a leaden-pace, a virtually non-existent plot line and the aforementioned lack of any entertainment value, I just can't understand what would encourage anyone to watch something like this. I only made it to the end, purely for the purpose of being able to review it fairly... which I hope I've now done.

Overall Score: 0 of of 10. Welcome to the bottom of the barrel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After consuming \"Human Pork Chop\" and properly digesting it, I felt urged and obliged to inform potential viewers, that chewing on this product is NO FUN and its substance of LOW nutritive value.

According to the dull nature of this film, the following is gonna be a WARNING more than a REVIEW. This is the first time I wished, that there is an \"I-don't-care-to-rate-this-movie\"-button on IMDB, because the only reaction to this boring piece of TRASH is stasis and indifference. Every possible rating would do injustice to all the other items listed here, a \"10\" is out of question anyway, \"1\" might persuade some readers, that this is one of those cases where \"it's so bad that it's actually REALLY bad and that's kewl!\", and \"5\" is unsatisfying as well, people might think, that it's an OK-flick and alright if you wanna have some cheesy fun, which it is not... Honest to God, it's neither a \"10\", a zero nor a 5, it's nothing, a black hole, A FUTILE WORK CONCEIVED BY AN EMBRYO. I bought the region 3 DVD, which was cheap (7 bucks!!!) at least and of good picture-quality, I bought it mainly because of the positive and promising reviews posted below my own entry. Oh boy, was I to be DISAPPOINTED. This movie is neither shocking nor disgusting nor unnerving nor... it's not even laughable, it doesn't take itself too serious to be laughed at, but still serious enough so as not to be comic. A truly unpassionate, amateurish effort. The only sequence that I found MILDLY DISTURBING is when two giggling thugs put an ugly dog in a bag and bash it against a brick wall... but even such a cruel premise only lead to a poor execution. The further down cited TOILET SCENE is unrealistic and filmmed without any sense for suspense, suffering or humiliation - the feces look like painted marsh-mellows!!! There is a butchery scene at the end of a loooong 85-minutes where three men dressed in plastic raincoats (a setup which one finds also depicted on the front cover of the DVD) start to dispose of the female body. Reminded me of \"American Psycho\" and \"Shallow Grave\", now these flicks are worth watching and true masterpieces.

Let's be REALISTIC for once and not rush to make a myth out of every Asian-wannabe-scary-movie, as seems to happen lately...

If you are looking out for some eastern horror then try Danny Lee's masterpiece of the very same (English) title \"Ba Xian fan dian zhi ren rou cha shao bao\" (Human Pork Chop) it's from 1992 and has - not without reason I might add - been compared to \"Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer\". There is also a similar film telling the same story by a different film crew called \"Ren tou dou fu shang\" (\"There Is a Secret in My Soup\") of the same year, sort of a rival production. It's available as a region 3 DVD and by most regarded as superior to \"Peng shi zhi sang jin tian liang\". I might add a few more words on the special effects... what special effects?!?... there are a few chopped off limbs, they look awful - in a wrong sense - probably \"Made in Hong Kong\".

That's about all the info I can share on this subject, hopefully it will prove helpful... ENJOY YOUR MEAL!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unlike what one reviewer said this is NOT a ripoff of Magnum Force. In that one Lieutenant Hal Holbrook put together his own little squad from Academy rookies to dispatch repeat offenders. In Extreme Justice this operation has the sanction from the higher ups of the LAPD. Just how far they sanction the exact methods used is open to question.

This Special Investigations Squad seems to be quite the haven for the misfits of the LAPD, those that have forgotten their first duty is protection and service. Which is why Scott Glenn thinks Lou Diamond Phillips, a detective with more than his share of beefs with Internal Affairs for excessive use of force, is perfect for the squad.

What should have sent him running from Phillips is the fact he's got a nice live-in relationship with a reporter, Chelsea Field. That one certainly threw me in this film, you'd think that Lou would be the last guy he'd try to recruit for his team.

And what his team is, is a death squad. They target perpetrators follow them and wait to catch them in the act. Then it's open season.

Extreme Justice went very overboard in trying to make a point. There sure would have been no harm in waiting for a gang of bank robbers to finish the robbery and taking them down outside. No civilians got hurt when the citizens of Coffeyville did that to the Daltons. Or waiting until three rapists finish the job before moving in. That's what were asked to believe here.

And frankly I couldn't buy it. A lot of good players get really wasted in this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jeff Powers (Lou Diamond Phillips, \"Young Guns 1&2\"), a cop with a history of roughing up criminals, is recruited into an elite clandestine LAPD division. This doesn't sit well with Jeff's newspaper reporter girlfriend, Kelly (Chelsea Field) who's looking for a story on the squad. Soon enough Jeff's conscience gets the better of him which puts him at odds with Dan Vaughn (Scott Glenn, \"the Hunt for Red October\" & \"Backdraft\"), the leader of the unit.

This is a fairly routine, dare I say mundane, cop-action\/drama that holds no surprises thanks to a cookie-cutter plot that's content to go strictly from point A to point B. The acting is all right for what the actors were given to work with however that's no real reason to watch the film. Kinda sad seeing as the six previous Mark L. Lester directed films right before this one (from Class of 1984 to Showdown in Little Tokyo) were all highly entertaining vehicles.

Eye Candy: Chelsea Field gets briefly topless

My Grade: D+","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, so maybe the acting wasn't bad, but I am typing this review as a public service to prevent anyone else who happens upon the intriguing beginning of this telefilm from throwing away two hours of their life waiting for some plot development that will never come. The chief investigator has a gut feeling who did away with the missing marine officer (Guy), and few people other than uninvolved bystanders and the accusee seem to dispute her. So what is the point of staying with this drama? Beats the heck out of me. I kept thinking (or hoping) there would be some sort of plot twist or new revelation, but none was forthcoming. In summary, I cannot think of a single reason to sit and watch this pointless TV movie, based on a true story or not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Czech cinematography is traveling through dark times... this movie is a tangible evidence. Slama obviously wanted to make a mediocre documentary about fictive people, characteristic of their stupidity. A young and healthy boy who doesn't want to work and prefer to live in a decaying shack with a feckless alcoholic aunt. Because of the idiocy of Tonik, who's just able to announce \"Dad, I'll not work in the factory\" (I'd really like to know WHY); I understand the condition of his \"house\", but I'm really not able to digest the horrible mess around. Cramped sentimentality everywhere. Why didn't Monika escort her boy to work abroad? Young Czech couples do it very often. And take someone else's children to live in a devastated barn... that's too much.

Irresponsible mother (badly acted by Geislerov\u00e1), naive & stupid boy (Tonik), silly and confused girl (Monika)... Yes, somebody has already told it - badly directed and acted soap opera. Actors like Martin Huba, Bolek Polivka, Tatiana Wilhelmova and Simona Stasova did their best, but unfortunately it couldn't save the whole piece.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well acted, yes. Very well, I must say, even though I don't speak Chezck. Nice cinematography. But the script is lame, really lame. A predictable soap opera, in which you know exactly everything that is going to happen. OK, maybe the ending isn't as predictable, but is it any good? It is one of those films that you have the feeling that have seen already, and forget about the day after.

I just got a note from IMDb saying that my comment was not long enough. That's really sad, because I have no idea of what else to say about this movie, which actually says a a lot about it, don't you think? The thing is.. .It has no soul and no originality. Compare this movie with Barrio, or Riff Raff, shot more than ten years ago (or the extraordinary recently shot The Child). It's sad to see that this is a much worse film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Norman Wisdom's final starring vehicle was a departure from his previous outings \u0096 bringing his accident-prone milquetoast up-to-date, this being a product of the Swinging Sixties! The end result is an uneasy and occasionally embarrassing comedy which mixes the star's typical slapstick (and sentimentality) with mild sexuality and even milder satire; the plot has to do with an executive on a trip for a banking conference falling for teenager Sally Geeson (who doesn't mind getting involved with him but doesn't take their relationship all that seriously either); Sarah Atkinson appears as Geeson's friend who warns Norman of her fickle character.

The film is nowhere near as bad as Leonard Maltin's BOMB rating would have it and, if anything, is interesting for its treatment of mid-life crisis (being in many ways similar to Hoffman [1970] and 10 [1979] \u0096 both of which, incidentally, I've only just watched); towards the end, Norman even tries to bring his wife round to his new way of thinking! The Pretty Things appear as themselves performing a number of good tunes in a nightclub and Norm himself sings the catchy title track!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I write this, Norman Wisdom is a very confused old man who spends most of his waking hours cackling and yelping old catch-phrases at his increasingly suicidal nurse.

Indeed, by the time you read this he will probably have joined the hereafter and the obituaries will record a near 80 year career of hysterical mirth-making from the lovable funster with the crooked chequered cap. What most of these obituaries won't recall is how Norman Wisdom had already committed a form of suicide back in the late 1960s with this staggeringly poor, yet strangely compelling endpaper to his movie career.

The signs are ominous from the off \u0096 \"Tony Tenser Presents\" go the titles. You scratch your head \u0096 \"Where have I seen that name before..?\" Well, on the titles of a lot of the cheapest, crappiest British films of the 1970s so just take your pick.

Then it says \u0096 \"A Menahem Golan Production\". Oh dear.

From what I could make out what follows is a combination of Confessions from a Holiday Camp and Last Tango in Paris. Sponsored by the Southport Tourist Board.

Norman Wisdom is very versatile at being Norman Wisdom (or a variation of such) here. Even in trash like this, he's never off form and somehow keeps you watching through parted fingers as he paws and dribbles all over a (clearly insane) Sally Geeson. Tony Tenser and Menahem Golan were, between them, responsible for some true cinematic horrors but the bedroom scene in filmic atrocity reborn. Sally plays the role of a lobotomised sex toy very well, by the way.

I wonder if any of the crazy young cats who populate this movie's party scenes maybe thought to themselves in a quiet moment \"Umm\u0085old Norman+sex+hippies. Get me outta this mess!!\" I guess it was a payday for them.

A do feel sorry for The Pretty Things though. They probably thought \"Yeah! This'll do for us what Blow Up did for the Yardbirds\"

And so old Norman's leading man career ended. Freezing his little balls off in Southport.

I went there once. It was a depressing place.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a shame that someone so idolised by many kids as well as parents should demean himself in appearing in this exploitative, bandwagon-jumping tripe. I often wonder if Mr Wisdom in his later years looked back at his excuse for a film with any pride. At least Sally Geeson had the decency to retire to doing something worthwhile after appearing in this low budget rubbish. A cameo by some long forgotten pop called the Pretty Things cannot rescue the film from it's awfulness. If you want 60's nostalgia invest in 'Here We Go Round The Mulberry Bush' instead, starring Barry Evans and Sally's sister Judy instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I felt I had to add a comment after seeing the breathless gushing of the other comment. I was taken to see this film as a child by my unknowing parents, expecting a normal Norman Wisdom jolly romp comedy. Instead, what you get is this insipid British sex comedy of the worst kind where Norman (Norman!) plays a swinger aiming to get off with as many 'birds' as possible. Absolutely typical of the genre - poorly filmed and acted, no semblance of a script beyond the worst kind of double-entendre, and very vague hints of 'naughtiness'. And all seemingly on that special grainy film stock that is reserved for 1960's-1970's British low budget films. About the only memorable thing is the annoyingly catchy theme tune, which still pops up in my brain after 30-odd years.

Finally, in the last scene you also get to see Norman naked - running across the sand and looking frozen. I think so anyway- at that point my mother hauled me out of the cinema. I saw it again, many years later, and guess what, it was still dire.

If you're any fan or take any interest in the little man and his career, you'll apply the '10-foot-bargepole' rule to this. Believe me, you do not need to see Norman Wisdom's backside.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film gives a look at the suffering a family experiences at the death of a child, and the healing that can finally come to them.

The family learns of the death of their son on Christmas Eve, 1991, ruining the Christmas season for them. They do not celebrate it again for many years. There is an interesting comment by the daughter that will remind viewers to consider the needs of surviving children in such a situation.

The Matthew character makes a reference to Jesus, but I suspect that other comments he makes come from non-Christian sources. I wonder if any other viewers would recognize those comments. If so, it would be an interesting addition to the data on this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought the DVD of this movie because I am a fan of William Devane and I was really disappointed about \"A Christmas Visitor\". The story of the movie is so boring and slow in the development that you just want to turn off your TV or DVD player after about the half of it. The dialogues are really bad and belong to a daily soap opera but not in a TV movie. William Devane was alright in his part and he was acting quite good, but he did so much better in other movies and projects. Meredith Baxter was horrible and couldn't really bring the warm hearted mother to the viewers. Instead she was playing very cool and wasn't better than a middle-class actress. I absolutely cannot recommend this movie. Spare your time and your money for this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are so many logical errors in this show it's barely worth me stating. 1) Mystic Gohan is non existent 2) Uub is as powerful as MAJIN BUU yet plays absolutely no role in the show, somehow he is easily overpowered by every bad guy 3) The whole Super Saiyan 4 idea is retarded and it's appalling that he loses to super 17 (which is the worst idea for a DB villain EVER) 4) Super Saiyan 4 Goku is no match for Super 17 but non transformed Goku using a move he learned in a movie that wasn't supposed to happen, kills him with ease 5) Vegeta is utterly useless 6) No character other than Goku has any impact to the outcome of the battles 7) The series ends with a spirit bomb...come on 8) Goku invincible? absorbs dragonballs? lame 9) Gotenks?...better yet Goten??? Trunks??? they both suck 10) Super Saiyan 4 involves a magical transformation into an adult 11) Goku is a kid 12) Goku is a kid 13) No super saiyan level 2 (characterized by electricity) 14) No imagination with the animation of Gogeta 15) Gogeta utterly useless 16) Big Bang Kamehameha is the biggest let down in anime history (not really logical but I'm going off on a tangent) 17) Shortest character fights ever

I could go on longer if I hadn't repressed the majority of memories associated with this show. When I make enough money I am going to fund the remaking of this series.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eh it's not really as good as the other Dragonballs. The villains are actually rip-offs of other Z villains like Cell, Frieza, and even Majin Buu. With Baby being Frieza's clone, Super 17 being Cell's clone, and the Shadow Dragons being Buu's clone(s). The story is also very bad as it deals with Goku shrinking. SHRINKING!! It deals with him SHRINKING to like the size of an eight year old just to get it going. Let us not forget how weak the characters become. Gohan can't go mystic anymore and is even weaker than Pan.(It's sad I know). Speaking of Pan she was so cute at the end of Z now she's lost all that cuteness and become an irritating,whiny little girl whose sole purpose in this series is to get in the way. Goten doesn't even have a purpose in the series and Trunks... well I don't know what to say about Trunks. GT is just an attempt to milk the popular Dragonball franchise. If you really like Dragonball then avoid this series. It doesn't even feel like Dragonball. I will be fair though as the ending however was really good and is actually pretty sad (At least to me) and the theme songs both ending and opening are better (Japanese, not American). Might've been better if Toriyama san worked on it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While traveling by train, a woman (St\u00e9phane Excoffier) mistakenly gets out in a remote station when the train stops in the middle of the night. Sooner she finds that a weird lonely pointsman (Jim van der Woude) that does not speak her language is the only person in that area and that that was the last train in that track. The man lodges her in his house and they develop an unusual wordless relationship between them.

\"De Wisselwachter\" is an overrated boredom, with a different but uninteresting story that goes nowhere. I like movies Off-Hollywood, but this story is too absurd and has no message in the end. The sexual tension between the two lead characters is funny in a moment but too repetitive. I saw this movie in an old VHS and the image is too dark; I do not know whether on DVD the image would be of better quality. In the end, I was absolutely disappointed with this feature. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): \"O Homem da Linha\" (\"The Man of the Line\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I understand the draw and appeal to such a different type of movie and I am a huge admirer of movies with little dialog but all the same this one absolutely terrible. I've been to the Scottish highlands and found the lack of Scottish accents in the characters disappointing. This plot was strong enough in theory but the cheap sets and lack of a single realistic character kept this film from getting off the ground. I feel the use of silence to create atmosphere only works when you have actors who can exude some sort of presence without speaking and these actors certainly cant. If you want a silent movie that captures that presence try (Le Dernier Combat). There have been very few movies that I couldn't even manage to finish and this was one of them. Absolute dribble!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched \"Gristle\" primarily for the presence of Michael Dorn, as I enjoyed his Worf portrayal on Star Trek TNG, but had never seen him out of his makeup. Dorn appears to have a nice presence, and probably has the potential for a profitable acting career. This movie, however, gave him little dramatic challenge, except to prove that he can, indeed, use the \"F\" word.

It appears that this movie was made by someone who fancied himself as a forward-thinking type, with a social conscience. Yeah--- for 1965. Today, the themes are so belabored and sophomoric and cornball that even Spike Lee's dreadful \"Bamboozled\" looks good in comparison.

This crime-caper flick has an intricate labrynth of double-, triple-, and quadruple-crosses, but the plot scheme is so convoluted that it collapses upon itself within the first 30 minutes. Mostly, after that point, I simply watched out of momentum, and a mild curiosity about how each scene would play out. There is a great cast here-- you will recognize virtually everyone as a character actor from much better movies. Why are they all in this? I suspect it was 1) The work, and some money, even if modest. 2) Perhaps the director knows all these actors from acting classes and social connections around LA--- you know, perhaps they participated to support him, as a fellow struggling movie guy on the third and fourth tiers of the Hollywood scene. Dunno... but the movie was half-baked--- not really \"finished.\" I gave it a 3, although my affection for the actors involved was undiminished from my admiration of their previous work. Let's hope everybody has moved on to more professional, more carefully done, and more thorough projects since.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Words can scarcely describe this movie. Loaded with ridiculous stereotypes, a silly plot, and poor music, this movie lacks in just about every category.

Don't be fooled by the IMDB credits. This is not a Michael Dorn movie. He's a secondary character in the grand scheme.

Also listed in the Credit's is an actor named \"Prince\" - which makes me wonder if it's the same artist formerly known as.... Then again, I'm not sure this movie is worth watching just for that.

Big summary... bunch of teams... one has kidneys... one has $35,000.... one has an \"Illegal Substance\".... and one has $350,000. Add some confusion and mixups as to who needs to meet who, revenge on being taken, and such, and you end up with this mess of a movie.

Given a choice, I'd pass on this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Exceptionally bad! I don't expect much from Garcia since he is one of the most overrated actors today but Keaton really should have known this movie would suck and gotten out while he could (not that I'm especially fond of him but hey, he did batman).

In one scene Keaton is transported to a hospital chained down and wearing a Hannibal Lecter kind of face mask when two attack dogs bark at him (dogs can sense evil you know (puke)) and Keaton growls back at them making them back off and whine with their tails between their legs. Did the movie turn comedy right there? Garcia makes a fool out of himself in an interrogation scene with dialogue only a complete retard could find plausible and the kid is too annoying to feel sorry for..

If you are gonna make a movie with as poor a plot as this you need some charm, humour, some solid action. Take Die Hard for example which is great despite its rather crappy plot.

Even though Keatons character was a joke i routed for him all the way. I wanted to see Garcia cry over his dead kid and Keaton sipping martinis on some paradise island, however! This movie makes for a good laugh.. Watch it with a witty friend and you can have some fun as this movie begs for wisecracks in almost every scene.

All in all its an insult to one's intelligence and a huge waste of money. Greed made this movie and thank god it bit its own ass.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie, \"Desperate Measures\", was.... I'm not quite sure how to even put it into words. Was this supposed to be a comedy? I couldn't stop laughing at how absolutely ridiculous it was. I love Michael Keaton, and I cannot actually comprehend that he did this. They did a good job at keeping my attention because I couldn't wait to see how much more ridiculous it was going to get minute by minute. I actually just registered on this site so that I could get this out. I don't review movies. I don't have time for this, but I cannot let this go knowing I haven't done my civil duty by letting people (those who have an IQ of 85 and above) know that this is no action\/thriller, It is honest to goodness funny. You people that actually got thrills off of this scare me. Go watch a good movie like Million Dollar Baby. Clint Eastwood's acting is not superb, but I was balling at the end. Exercise your brain America!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This plot had more holes in it than an OJ Simpson alibi!

I noticed two Star Trek references in the movie and, yet,

ironically we have a lead character played by Andy Garcia

who is the antithesis of the Vulcan philosophy of, \"The

needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one.\"

Let's just say that while trying to save his son from cancer he puts most of the rest of San Francisco at incredible risk. Michael Keaton's character is almost as

unrealistic as well. He neglects to kill at numerous opportunities and yet is angered when Garcia foils his

attempt to kill a bunch of cops at once. The child's doctor remains in charge of her faculties even after been

held hostage several times in a short expanse of time but

put her on a wide walkway 5 stories up and she loses it.

Andy Garcia's child is something of an anathema in this

movie. He is the most sympathetic and real character, one of the movie's bright spots. He furthermore utters a line, that must have been the result of serendipity, regarding fighting cancer that parallels Keaton's motivation to escape. All in all, the movie was not a

complete waste (see From Dusk to Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money

for that) but disappointing considering the talent on hand.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't seen Ishtar, but I did have the misfortune of seeing Kevin Costner's Postman, This is worse. Maybe the absolute worse piece of garbage I have ever seen, and if you look at my review for Moulin Rouge? that is saying something. Bad plot, acting was substandard and even wasted (even though, yes, Michael Keaton has been in some of the worst movies I have ever seen), and this movie has no redeeming value to anybody with more than half a brain. DO NOT SEE IF YOU HAVE GRADUATED THE 4TH GRADE as you will find this an insult to your intelligence.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There seems to be a whole sub genre of cheap, tired old sex \"comedies\" out there, that say the same old things about middle class couples. Sort of like Friends, but with more soft porn and no wit. This film is no exception- it had situations so familiar I died from deja vu. People sat on couches, spinning out clich\u00e9s about sex and relationships? Check. Monogamy versus cheating with some woman\/man who would never look twice in reality at some other woman\/man? Check. PORN The BADDIES!!!!111? Check. Some guy\/girl in it who happens to be the only reason you're watching this rubbish? Check. The lesson seems to be- when it doubt, make a tired old sex \"comedy\" about people no one cares anything about, in order to make some statement that everybody has already heard three thousand times before. That'll get your film made. It'll even attract some sitcom nobody in a bad wig!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This series doesn't present the British view of the Revolutionary War, so much as an anti-American view of it. The underlying theme of the series is that a silent majority of colonists enjoyed British rule; that the founding fathers were manipulative schemers whose only goal was to draw Britain into a violent civil war; that the American supporters of the revolution and the militia were racist, violent louts, duped into the struggle. Clearly, the intent of the author, Richard Holmes, is for the viewer to extrapolate these characteristics, in a straight line, from the American population of 1775 to today.

For example, in the episode \"The Shot Heard Around the World\" Holmes dredges up an obscure print of the Boston Massacre, in which he claims the skin of Crispus Attucks, a black man and the first man killed in the revolution, was purposely \"whited out\". Holmes claims that portraying Attucks as a black man would have been bad propaganda for the revolutionary cause. Holmes never reveals how he knows this. And there's more. Holmes goes to some length to work in a single, unsubstantiated, atrocity: the desecration of the body of a British soldier. He compares the American militia to the Viet Cong and the mujahadeen -- without mentioning any differences in the goals of these groups. The list goes on.

Supposedly, this series was made in response to Mel Gibson's \"The Patriot\". It says a lot when an academic feels the need to respond to Mel Gibson on any topic. Instead of presenting the British view, it seems Holmes really wanted to give a sensationalistic, anti-American view, and, in the process, he's made himself the Roger Corman of historians -- strictly third-rate schlock.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My boyfriend and I decided to go see this movie after we heard on the radio that it was a good movie worth seeing, even up there with \"Cars\". Within the first ten minutes of the movie, I was horrified. For starters, the cows, which should be females, had male voices. Then I realized they really are supposed to be guys. I put the transvestite cows aside for a bit and tried to keep watching the movie with an open mind, but it was just so corny I couldn't help but shake my head. I probably checked my phone about ten times to see if it was almost over. The plot was decent, if not predictable, but it took way to long to reach its point. I was having trouble sitting through it, and I'm 19. The children in the theater were actually getting up and running up and down the aisles. I felt like joining them. But my biggest problem with the movie was that it was loaded with drinking references, not to mention that the cows\/bulls actually hot wired and stole a car, then drank and drive, broke into a boy's house to push him out of bed (he deserved it though), then ran away from the cops, whom the writers of the movie made look like terrible people. This isn't the kind of thing I would want my kid to be exposed to. There's way too much of that in the real world, if I wanted my child to watch guys drink and drive and lead cops on a chase, I'd pop them in front of the 10 o'clock news. Children's movies are supposed to be an escape from reality, not an escape into ridiculousness. What happened to the good morals and happy endings that children's movies used to boast? That's why Disney's old movies, like Beauty and the Beast, Lady and the Tramp, The Little Mermaid, etc. are classics. If you want your kids to see a great cartoon with basically the same plot as \"Barnyard\", rent \"The Lion King\". You can get a great story without the awful drinking and driving and grand theft auto references. The writers of \"Barnyard\" were obviously trying to continue the great trend of making a children's movie that a parent could enjoy as well, but they did so in very bad taste. I would never take my kids to see this, and I suggest you save your money and watch something else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hello - I normally love movies. I'm 19, I have seen many and dislike only one or two. This one though, the second it finished, I had to pull my sister (who had wanted to see it) out by the arm and I burst into tears of laughter as soon as I got out because it was such a ridiculously awful movie.

Why it was awful: - all the cows had udders, especially bothersome were the MALE ones with udders - none of the characters were unique or engaging, except perhaps the main Coyote Dag - the idea of cows keeping watch against coyotes is just ridiculous - the 'funny' moments are repetitive and become simply a sequence to out-do the last one - the themes of working together, which should have been present at the end, were nonexistent. Instead, people get the impression: Well, I'll take this all upon myself, and in this case I was lucky that my friends decided to back me up without my knowledge - all the moments similar to the lion king (as mentioned below) were beyond corniness, even for a kid's movie

and...the worst of all... IT PARALLELS THE LION KING IN EVERY SINGLE WAY Responsible father figure who is killed by Coyotes (the Coyotes are essentially the Hyenas, with Dag, the lead Coyote, being the equivalent of Scar) The farm falls into chaos, Odis (the cow, though basically Simba) wants to play around, and is shocked that his dad died, believes it was his fault (even though in this movie, it WAS his fault), confronts the Coyotes and gets an ass whooping, after which Dag tells him to leave, and on the verge of leaving, Odis somehow decides to go and save some chickens and his friends back him up (by complete surprise of course, he leaves without knowing they will come help him).

Other things taken from Lion King: stars moving around as signs, father figures referring to stars\/signs in a mystical loving way, the obviously circularness of how the father Ben found Odis and took care of him, and how at the end Odis' love interest gives birth and he has a similar experience. Birth at the end? GOOD GOD, what the hell... and even similar type music, which seems completely tacked on at the end because it is completely different from all the previous music.

Honestly, this is the first movie I have ever seen where I really WAS rooting for the bad guys - I never understood what other people were saying, until now.

BOTTOM LINE: Don't waste your time to go see this. Convince the kids not to see it, and re-watch the Lion King. Either that, or take them to see the Ant Bully, which was creative and artistic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot believe the number of people referring to the lead characters as 'boy cows'!! there is no such thing people!!!! There are cows and bulls and all males in the bovine species are bulls and do not have udders!!!! There was even an actual bull but it was like it was another type of animal completely! my god this is like drawing human ears on a cat, boobs on superman, or mickey mouse with blond shirley temple curls - even in animation it just doesn't work! giving human qualities to the animals is nothing new & to be expected, but changing their actual bodies into basically a transsexual figure is bizarre for a family cartoon - how many people- editors, writers, producers, animators saw this and didn't know any better or didn't say anything- it is completely astounding! i'm no snob & I luv animation- simpsons, beavis & butthead, south park, even ice age & all the other new ones out there - over the hedge was great- but this is nuts - totally nuts- i could not accept that that many people are that ignorant & i kept hoping for a reason for the udders in the film - an explanation - none came - and at the end when they hold up this little newborn calf & half its belly is udder & they pronounce 'its a boy' i nearly choked!!!! please, writer\/creator let us in on the joke!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I took my 4 year old twins to see this movie today and I would NOT recommend it for children their age.

This movie had many fighting scenes throughout it, which I found too violent and my children found scary.

The subject matter was way over my kids heads and the death scene was too scary for a cartoon geared towards children.

I was disappointed because we were all looking forward to seeing this, but it just did not cut it. If you have children under 7 years old, I would not recommend this movie.

Also, the utter thing made me crazy during the entire movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Words cannot describe how horrible this movie is. Well, maybe they can. I'll take a stab at it: 1 - Pitiful. Hollywood makes more talking animals set in graphics. Apparently script and storyline aren't needed anymore.

2 - Violent. Kids movie but yet one of the characters is viciously attacked and killed.

3 - Blatantly stupid. The movie is actually depicting the farm animals as having human abilities. In Nemo, the fish could talk, but for the most part, they are still fish. We only hear the English as a translation. In Barnyard, the animals are actually speaking English that other people can understand.

4 - Unintelligent - No smart story line or even any smart humor. (Ok, the 13 year old dog on crutches was funny).

5 - Culturally insensitive - The \"black\" cow is actually played by a black actress. The pink cow is played by a white actress. The black cow was playing a stereotypical black person.

6 - Ignorant - No such thing as a male cow that I'm aware of. I believe we call them bulls? If we are going to expose our children to drek, it might as well have the simplest facts correct.

7 - Boring and Borish. My 4 year old had us leave after 45 minutes. He practically fell asleep.

I'm sure this movie will make millions, which is unfortunate, because it only proves to Hollywood producers that the American public at large is just filled with suckers waiting to pay 8 bucks just to get some peace and quiet from the kids for an hour or two. An unfortunate circumstance. Why should the producers spend real money when the returns will be the same either way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's see... a couple dozen Gary Larson gags, as well as his illustration style, a possibly legally difficult wholesale appropriation of an Aardman character, a more than generous sprinkling of art direction from various Pixar films, positively Lion King-esquire villains living in what amounts to an elephant's graveyard IN THE MIDDLE OF FARM COUNTRY, oh, and a stinking' Riverdance joke ten years after any possible relevance. The kids (three and five) liked it, but boy, it was a haul for dad. Just another weak attempt from Nickelodean Films to hitch on to the animation explosion. I really, really wish they had spent a little more money on character design, on rendering, on a script, on a director.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was so BORING! No plot whatsoever! Basically a watered-down version of the Lion King mixed in with Animal Farm. Again, no plot at all. Horrible! Worst hour and a half of my life!Oh my gosh! I had to walk out of the theatre for a few minutes just to get some relief! I maybe chuckled twice. All of the semi-funny parts are in the previews. I hate movies like that. Yeah, the movie pretty much sucked. I don't know how it got such good ratings and reviews. THERE IS NO PLOT OR STORYLINE!! If you do go see this movie, bring a pillow or a girlfriend\/boyfriend to keep you occupied through out. Awful. I don't think I've ever gone to a movie and disliked it as much. It was a good thing that the tickets only cost five dollars because I would be mad if I'd have paid $7.50 to see this crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can find no redeeming value to this movie. It appears to be loosely based on the Lion King school of thought. Father gets killed, son can't fill the shoes and tries to run away, etc, etc, etc. The only difference (other than being in a barnyard instead of a jungle) is that Barnyard tries to \"liven things up\" with club-type music. They go way over the top in trying to be cool. The problem is that it really isn't cool. It's like \"that guy\". Everybody knows at least one of \"those guys\" who are older and still hang out with the younger crowd in a futile attempt to cling onto their youth. They try to be cool to fit in but they really aren't. That's this movie.

But hey, if you have money to burn and you feel like paying someone to suck 90 minutes of you life away, by all means don't let me stop you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this by myself first to make sure it was suitable for my little boy to see.

Thank goodness I did because I certainly would not allow any young child to see this. Why? The violence, death, the funeral. If you are not ready to explain these concepts to your kids then keep them away.

Why on earth are these topics covered in a kids movie - especially one that has a tag line of \"The original party animals\". Might as well put a gangland execution in a Hello Kitty cartoon.

As for laughs there were very few and far between. Speaking for myself there were none. The cows looked remarkably similar to the cows in the The Far Side comics. I guess there isn't anything original about this movie apart from the addition of ridiculous violence and antisocial activities for all the young kids to enjoy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When my six-year-old fell asleep at the theater during this movie, that was all the confirmation I needed that this film is a stinker. It was boring. The scary parts were boring. The maudlin parts were boring. Even the funny parts -- with two minor exceptions -- were boring. And predictable. And did I mention predictable? Examples: 1) The gruff but loving Dad indulging his brat of a kid. 2) The gruff but loving Dad buying the farm (while singing a song?!). 3) The brat of a kid deciding to cut and run, but, thanks to his friends, sticking things out because they need him. 4) The brat of a kid winning against incredible odds. 5) And a sassy character voiced by an African-American actress. Gotta credit these filmmakers for that bit of originality and for perpetuating that stereotype. I did mention two funny bits. In both cases, contributed by minor characters. The mouse bouncing on the farmer's pulse was funny. The farm dog falling victim to his doggy weaknesses while vying for leadership was funny. But the rest? Painful. Someone tried to make a Hipness-Thru-Committee movie and make it even hipper by making it a computer-animated film, and this was the result. And why make the coyotes Batman-villain dumb by monologuing with their victims, rather than just eating them? Oh yeah. No blood needed in this film for kids, already concentrating on mock alcohol consumption, destructive behavior and potty humor. And the fuzzy thing-in-a-box? Just what exactly was it? A porcupine? Tasmanian Devil? What, besides a really stupid plot device to help Otis the Cow win the Mother of All Battles? Barnyard is a bomb. And I didn't even need to mention the udders.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie seemed like it was put together very quickly in both plot and graphics. My two daughters were ready to go 30 minutes before the end of the movie which rarely happens when we go to the theaters. This was a Nickelodeon Production and it would have been better if they had released it on the t.v. station. The animation itself in some parts was o.k. but the plot was horrible. A classic tale of a son trying to fulfill a fathers expectations is used in a lot of kids movies, but the animation or graphics need to be really good to keep a childs attention. This was not the case with this film. There were also awkward elements between the lead male character and the lead female character that the plot could have done without.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"BARNYARD sucked! I saw this movie last week and it is horrible. What bull has udders? My 2 year old was asking me if all cows have udders and trying to explain to her that this is simply not true and seeing the movie only confused her more!

In addition, the violent theme scared my 2 year old. They made the coyotes ferocious looking and this has instilled a fear of coyotes into my daughter. I know coyotes for a fact are not ferocious and are natural predators. The mother and son who were sitting in front of us were shouting, \"Kill him, Kill him, yea\" in a particular scene in the movie where good vs evil per say

It is a Lion King rip off and they should stop using big name actors for a lame movie. Steve Oederek who has also done Thumb movies, such as Thumb Wars, Thumbelina and many others are so so Bad!

If a good Steve Oederek movie ever comes out in my lifetime, I will roll over naked and swallow my diarrhea and post it on Youtube.com ...Enough Said!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...I normally hate puns, but this seems the only appropriate summary for \"Barnyard\". I suspect I am not the first. And I'm sure many, MANY comments focus on the idiocy of bulls with udders. It certainly bothered me right off the bat. But there's much more wrong with this movie than a fundamental lack of knowledge about how mammals work.

Personally, if I was a parent, I would be irritated by the violent turn it takes near the end in the showdown with the coyotes. (Although for me, it at least injected a little action.) And from a conventional screen writing point of view, you might expect the coyotes to play a greater role in the conflict(Gee- you have a \"widow\" cow...maybe her \"husband\" was killed by coyotes? Nope...there's a much dumber explanation.) And what kind of a farm is this? Otis vows to protect all the animals from harm, but there certainly seems to be no threat from humans. They make reference to the farmer being vegan, but what is he raising pigs for? In all children's animal stories- Babe, Charlotte's Web, you name it...the reality of farm life is at least touched on. Perhaps our friendly farmer is running some sort of rescue shelter (there is some reference to this, but it's never explained.) But all the farmer gets in return is abuse from a horse in a scene that is supposed to be funny, but left me seriously wondering if he was going to wind up buried in a shallow grave behind the barn. And what the heck is the deal with \"Wild Mike\"? It was like the Gimp scene in Pulp Fiction without the ball-gag.

Add in some truly awful attempts at emotional scenes, a nearly complete lack of laughs, and THOSE UDDERS, and you've got the worst kids movie I've seen in ages. I generally only post to IMDb to highlight a film that's not so well known- not to slam the current #2 box-office hit. But this movie ANGERED me. It was taking up space in my local theater, space that could have been used to show something worthwhile. There's been plenty of good family entertainment this summer- in fact there were at least 2 more kids films playing at the same multiplex. But I'm not allowed to see something like \"Little Miss Sunshine\" so Viacom can cheat families out of an extra $30. At least I had a free pass.

I know that as a 35 year old with no children, this film was not designed for me. But there's just no excuse for such a lazy, dreadful children's film as \"Barnyard\" in the age of Pixar. I was bored by the \"Ice Age\" films, but they certainly didn't anger me like \"Barnyard\". \"Shark Tale\" was a weak attempt at street hipness, but it had quite a few laughs. For that matter, you could turn on Nickelodeon at any time of the day, and see something more entertaining and intelligent- which is why they should be ashamed for putting their name on this garbage.

I'm giving it a 2 out of 10, only because Pip The Mouse was sporadically amusing, and Maria Bamford had a few amusing lines as the farmers wife. Well, not THE farmer's wife. Some other farmer. They didn't really explain who she was. They didn't explain a lot of things. Especially not why Sam Elliot- the ultimate \"man's man\"- had an udder jiggling around down there. Creepy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I took my family to see Barnyard this past weekend. We had so looked forward to it but had my kids not been there, my husband and I would have left. Coming from a farming community we found the fact that all of the male bovine in the film having udders drawn on them was a little disturbing. We felt like we were watching cross dressing cows or something. It was just odd to hear a male voice come from a female body. After checking some of the production notes on a different website, I felt like the animators might have slipped up on this fact. I know this is just an animated, humorous show but by putting female body parts on a male, I had to suspend my disbelief so much that I just couldn't enjoy the movie like I might have. I know udders can be found funny but they were definitely over used. None of the other animals in the movie seemed to have gender specific body parts drawn on them and I would have preferred the bulls in this show to at least have the correct ones if they had to be drawn on at all. The kids however still enjoyed the movie though we took the time afterward to make sure they knew the difference between bulls and cows.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Around 1980, the name Godfrey Ho was attached to a series of low-comedy action films starring an actor with the unlikely name Elton Chong\". Although no masterworks of the genre, they remain surprisingly entertaining films for those with a high tolerance for silliness.

It is altogether unclear why Ho (or whomever) would want to make a film that would attack Jackie Chan's Drunken MAster, the film that legitimated the making of comedy-action films in Hong Kong. But that's what this is, a savage attack on the Chan film (the imitation Chan who stars in this movie learns to cause his opponents to laugh themselves to death - a pointless gimmick in any genre).

Along with all the flaws one expects from a Godfrey Ho film of this period - no continuity, no motivation, incomprehensible plot line, irrelevant and unbelievable characters - the film suffers from two unforgivable faults that effectively make it unwatchable: the fight scenes stink, and the comedy isn't funny.

Pointless.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"This film is great! I watched it with some friends and we thought it was proof that a film doesn't have to see commercial success to be a hit!\" ...is what I would love to be able to say about this film. In the words of the film itself \"you are very very bad!\" I went to see an unlicensed acupuncturist once so generally agree with the moral of the film though.

i'd include a spoiler, but the lack of plot makes this very tricky. overall, a cinematic disaster.

quotes; 'you're not a leper at all!' 'you're beautiful, and i bet you're nice too' 'have you ever seen a naked man's body?' 'you couldn't break a piece of straw.'

cameos in dubbing; Micheal cane x3, harold bishop, steve erwine, benjamin netinyahoo, yoda.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is a below average martial arts films which is worth watching for the comedy value due to the part where a pair of symbols are used as weapons. Thats it really there is much to say about this film it lacks in every department because the martial arts are not that great either and with all movies of this type the dubbing as BAD","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to admit, that out of the many many thriller movies i have seen, this has to be one of the worst. I was shocked to discover that this piece of work had a 1.5 mil budget. When it started, i thought that the opening sequence was pretty good, fairly standard for this kind of film, but pretty good anyway. But as the film progressed i began to feel distinctly uncomfortable with the lack of pace that i was seeing, each sequence seemed to take hours. The reason for this could have been that by now the film had already bored me to tears, nothing was happening other than endless accusations peppered with confusing flashbacks and the occasional fit of bad temper. Well ... after wading through what felt like a lifetime of these scenes we finally reached the big finale...an all singing, all dancing demonstration of how lack of imagination can completely ruin what could have been a good film.

Overall i found this movie predictable and tedious and I would not recommend this film to anyone other than those people i personally dislike, but if you have a couple of hours to waste and you want to watch a thriller that is not even remotely scary, this is the movie for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so predictable and poorly acted. I really can't recommend it to anyone, not even for unintentional laughs. It is just plain bad. It is pure TV movie hell, the cast doesn't seem all that bad, but they act terribly. Just stay far away from this movie and rent something more intellectual, like porn.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Skeletons In The Closet takes the father-teenage son genre to new levels of low. This is a movie that serves no purpose. The plot is layed out in the first few minutes, there is no suspense, the characters are clich\u00e9 and despite plot twists that try to confuse and obfuscate, everything plays out exactly as you think it will. Halfway through the movie I could no longer stand the snail pace and started fast forwarding. The movie ended exactly as I expected. Linda Hamilton is great as always and the other actors are above average considering there seems to be a complete lack of direction. If you really believe you need to see this uninspired lackluster wannabe whodunit, watch it on fast forward.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The video case for this film reads \"a story of beauty, passion, and forbidden fruit\". Are they talking about the same movie I just saw?! They can't be, as the film I just saw was beautiful, but there was no passion and as for the fruit, this is all hogwash meant to entice the potential viewer to see this movie. If only it did have some passion or some life to it, I would have greatly enjoyed this film. Instead, it was an agonizingly slow paced and not particularly interesting film that I would definitely not want to see again. It isn't that it's a bad film (after all it IS very beautifully filmed), but it is dull beyond belief. I kept waiting for something exciting or interesting to happen, but then the movie just ended. There was no great sense of excitement, mystery or anything--just a rather unexciting story about a young girl who becomes a servant and spends the next 10 years of her life working as a maid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I checked out this video expecting to like it. Wanting to like it. I like foreign films, I like beautiful cinematography, I know the critics liked this film (including my favorite, Roger Ebert), and I don't mind \"slow\" films.

Well, it's beautiful. That's about the best I can say for it. The plot is very thin, the shots are very long, the glances are very meaningful, the actors are very sincere, and it seems like a very long movie. I fell asleep half way though it, woke up, rewound the tape, tried again. It was a trial, but I made it to the end. I didn't like it any better for that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I guess when people say this is beautifully filmed they are talking about the close ups of frogs and the cooking of meals. It certainly doesn't refer to the set which seems to be composed of about 3 rooms with no outside shots at all. Also all of it is filmed too close up.

I got sick of the little boy who keeps farting at Miu or pouring hot wax over ants...also do Vietnamese spend all their time sitting on their haunches? Kind of gross looking at least the way this movie depicts it--one close up of it would have been plenty not a dozen or more.

Then finally comes part two... a chick flick for Vietnamese girls with the perfect handsome rich man who spends all day playing the piano (He is cultured). The pretty maid steals him like the forbidden green mango fruit. Deep.

Except for a few nice close ups this film is a dud. It is sort of a soap opera with out dialog. It is cloyed. How is it beautiful?? The set looks completely fake.

No don't make the mistake I did and rent it because someone recommended it. I was expecting beautiful shots of the coastal mountains of Vietnam or something when I heard it was a visual gem.

I wanted to like this movie. I like foreign movies even prefer them. But this movie is dumb and dull. It will leave you irritated that something like this won a bunch of prizes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie could have been summed up in about 10 minutes. I don't know what everyone else was smoking calling this a beatiful film. I feel that a couple hours of my life were stolen from me and I want them back. I would put this in the category of a Battlefield Earth. Yes folks it is that bad. You would do just as well to watch a two minute clip of this movie over and over it would have the same effect. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This episode has just aired in the UK.

What a disappointment. The heavy-handed touches of humour were ill-judged, childish and detracted from what could have been a pretty good storyline. I cannot believe that Jerry Bruckheimer allowed this episode to take place. I have seen every previous episode of this show, and even the episode where Jack played his own older self was way ahead of this episode. The lesbian kiss was pathetic sensationalism.

There was also no continuity from the previous episode. There was nothing in the storyline investigating Martin's dangerous behaviour or possible drug addiction. There was similarly nothing explicitly written about Jack's burgeoning relationship with Ann. Usually Without A Trace is pretty good at this sort of continuity.

The next episode needs to be a considerable improvement.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i've watched this movie (movie?) casually and i've never stop watching because is so ridiculous any dog can play this act and will be better then the actors (actors?)of this bad remake of the Fatal Attraction there is no directing, no playing, only an unlucky copy of the Adrian Lyne movie if you have doubt to suicide watch this and you can choose...for \"yes\"

i can't imagine people that went to cinema to see this rubbish; maybe someone that had an empty afternoon and choose the first cinema near house to stay 2 hours with some others to forget problems but it's hard to go back home relaxed","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard to comment on this movie. It's one of the few movies Dimension actually has not shelved (it's hard to come up with a reason why) and it was rushed into a an unimpressive 500 theaters it's opening day. Maybe Dimension was afraid of how people would respond to a swamp creature using his tow truck to pull a house apart piece by piece.

Ray Sawyer is just a tow truck driver, until he rescues a Voodoo priestess from a bad car accident, and in return, he gets attacked by a bag full of snakes and drowns. At the morgue, Ray comes back to life, and stalks a group of teenagers who witnessed the awful crash occur.

What brings this movie down is it's paper thin characters. I didn't care for one moment about any of them. Also, the dialog was less than ho-hum. Also, it was very predictable. Characters did the typical stupid horror movie character things, like check creaky noises, call out people's names, and trip on a rock while being chased. I also could immediately pick out who the final girl would be. And why did the camera have those quick white flashes whenever somebody died or whenever the killer was shown?

What's good? Well, there is an impressive suspense scene where the killer walks underneath swamp waters to get to his victims and a tense sequence where the final girl must camouflage herself with bunch of other dead bodies while the killer looks on.

But other than that, It's another August\/September disappointment. I was looking forward to it, but I did not get what was expected.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I gotta admit it, I love horror films...especially 80s slasher films. Hell, I even love cheese like Sleepaway Camp and Night of the Demons. But, I didn't think much of this movie. The death scenes weren't very well done, the CGI was terrible, and the acting was ho-hum. Worst of all was the story which didn't make sense at all. I'd say save your money but chances are, if you want to see this movie...you're going to anyway. I didn't hate it...it's just not very good. Overall, it's just another bland, lifeless horror film that lacks life (it's no surprise that this one was on the shelf at Dimension for over a year after it was completed).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Overall it was a watchable movie. I didn't pause it or stop it to come back to it--a clear sign of a boring movie--so it passed the first test. Best of all, it got into the story fast, no boring unneeded back story for the characters.

It will never go down as a great movie. Nor as a great B movie. I would recommend this movie to slasher\/horror fans who don't mind straight to video releases.

Unlike some movies of it's ilk, there is no nudity, only moderate language and rather subdued gore. There is violence though. The deaths were rather dry and unimaginative sadly. The computer special effects were actually pretty good. The way the 'creature' wielded his chains in some scenes reminded me of 'Spawn' and the 'Ghost Rider' comic books.

A little pet peeve...It's set in Lousinia, but no one seems to talk with any accent. I had to watch the credits to even realize it was filmed in Lousinia.

Like most low budget movies, there are small goofs in the filming. Lack of time and money would be the main factors for the goofs. For example in one scene it went from mid afternoon to pitch black in seconds...during a short car ride. The other instance was the stunt double for the 'creature' didn't have on the 'creature' makeup when falling out of the tow truck...it also looks like he's wearing a shirt in the scene.

In summary, I didn't hate this movie but I also didn't love it. I probably will never rent it again, but if a buddy owned it, I may watch it again in a few years.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wouldn't exactly call this a good movie, in fact it might even be a bad one.

BUT there are at least 2 good reasons to keep watching this movie, those are the performances from AGNES BRUCKNER (Eden) and JONATHAN JACKSON (Eric) whom both deliver solid performances.

They are much better then the rest of the cast whom are pretty bad, especially MEAGAN GOODE (Cousin Skeeter).

BIJOU PHILIPS was excellent in the \"Suburban kids goes to the hood\"-drama HAVOC, but here she's far from good on the edge to being annoying.

THE STORY is decent enough although nothing special, BUT it would have been much better since it takes place in LOUSIANNA that any of the kids actually incorporated a down south-accent, but they don't (!).

Especially in a movie where \"the monster\" is actually bounded so deeply into the Lousianna folk-lore, with voodoo and such it's just plain stupidity not to include that accent into the characters.

The only one who does this is rapper METHOD MAN, he plays Deputy Turner and puts down a pretty good accent in his few scenes, and I mean if a rapper is able to do this then why shouldn't the \"proffesional\" actors be able to do the same? Mister Tical aka Meth is highly enjoyable in his very VERY small role, Who know the Ticallion Stallion would ever be a cop? Even if only on the big screen.

Anyways besides that it's a pretty stupid but fairly enjoyable Slasher-movie, but if BRUCKNER and JACKSON was as bad as the rest of the young cast this could have been really bad, thankfully they are good as usual.

4.5 out of 10, decent BUT there are hundreds of better slasher-movies out-there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I see this movie as a poor tribute to the old slasher movies. Because it really doesn't hold a candle to the 70's and 80's gold-era of horror, this is of course where personal taste comes in.

This movie just falls into the category of \"New generation of slashers\" in my book, the cast is the typical ones 18-24 years and potential models. I'm personally quite tired of that image in horror movies, the old movies at least had some variation in people. One or more fat people, and dorks in general. Just plain looking persons, of course having a couple of good lookers is fine they always been there. But when the entire cast is just a bunch of nice racks and butts it's getting silly. I mean, OK yeah i like to watch HOT chicks. But not in a horror that is supposed to reflect some ordinary people getting hunted down by for example a knife-wielding maniac... You expect the people being hunted to look something like any random person you see on the street. I think. There are of course a few movies with just good lookers that is perfectly alright, but they aren't many. \"Wrong turn\" is one example of the better ones.

Next point is the killing scenes that slashers should be all about. In this poor movie, all you get to see is 2-3 frames of sudden high pitched sound\/scream and music in crescendo. And that's it. The little you do get to see isn't very graphical at all, not for people who have seen some horrors during the years. The old-school slashers compared to this had much more and better death, blood and gore. Not to mention the killers in those movies, who surpassed the one you'll get to see here.

As for true horror fans it is more fun and exciting to watch horrors with new approaches because of the originalities that pops up, the killer in this one doesn't add anything new and fresh to the genre in my opinion. I have to agree with what someone previously stated as well, the CGI is something i hate to watch. Personally i preffere the makeups in that sense I'm conservative, (unless the CGI is really well done). But most importantly is to set a good setting of mood which allows you to \"get into the movie\", a good background story is one very good thing. Also revealing and explaining too much of everything in a movie to the viewers takes away all sense of mystic that adds very much of the mood, and doesn't give you much to think about. Just as an example: keeping the killers background a complete mystery for the viewer is a good move in many cases. I mean if everything about the story or the people in it has to be explained or shown in detail, then it's not much content left over for the viewer at all to ponder about... That's like watching a porno movie and hope for a great story in the meantime.

Why the old-school slashers still works, at least for some people. Is because they are established cult movies from the era when they were a new thing, making new ones of that sort today is admittedly hard. The exception might be for people who are newer to that sort of horrors of course. I have noticed that many people does like this sort of horror movies, so there are of course not \"A right taste\" for horror movies.

But for people out there that might share my opinion; here you have a frame of reference what to expect of this flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I never intended to see Venom, but I caught it on cable. It does have good elements. The Louisiana swamp atmosphere for one, something we will unfortunately not see so much of in movies because of Hurricane Katrina. It is based on an interesting concept, a regular man imbued with the spirits of evil. His confrontation with his son could have been interesting, as could much of the movie. But as tends to happen in Hollywood, an interesting idea goes down a familiar direction:

Kill off all the characters save the good girl, starting with the Black guys. I'm a fan of Agnes Bruckner, but the other characters, the villain's afore-mentioned son, CeCe who must become a voodoo priestess, are more interesting. And for the love of God, just once I would like to see the virgin get killed. We all like the easy girl, why can't she live? In this case it was Bijou Phillips, and we love her.

The ending made no sense considering what had been established about the villain's invincibility. All the carnage and atmosphere, and it leads to nothing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here he is. A new horror icon for the new millennium. Better than Freddy. More dangerous than Jason Vorhees. More evil than Michael Myers. Hard to believe, I know. But his time is here....

Ray The Prick.

Yep, the antagonist, Ray is a complete Prick. This is partly because of the naughty things he does. Also because he has a scar (oh, scary) on his face. But mainly because Ray The Prick has been milked.

Yep, Ray doesn't channel evil. He doesn't even become cursed, not even by a voodoo spell. Nope, Ray The Prick has been milked. As DeNiro once said, \"You can milk anything with nipples\". And Ray has been milked. Of evil.

How do you milk evil you ask? Snake nipples, I reply. Snake nipples.

Why Ray you ask? Because he's a Prick, I reply. Capital P.

Watch out for the New Line Pictures extravaganza entitled \"Freddy Vs. Ray The Prick\".

Thought your new horror saviour was Jeeper The Creeper? Well not any more, cause Ray The Prick is here. And I'm frightened.

Pity about the atmosphere-less, PG-13, unoriginal workmanlike quality of the film though, because Ray's a star.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, said title line does actually appear in this movie. Why? I'm not sure. When the line was actually being said, didn't somebody in the crew filming, at some point, laugh? I would have liked to see the outtakes from this movie, mostly because I think they would be more entertaining than the movie itself.

Helmed by director Jim Gillespie, (\"I Know What You Did Last Summer,\") comes a teen slasher movie that seems to assume we haven't ever seen a teen slasher movie before. Of course, he's not to be given all the blame. There are also three writers responsible, and this is somehow based on a video game that's still in production. The title of said game is \"Backwater,\" but upon looking for information on it I came up with absolutely nothing.

And so we begin the movie... I would like to say before I continue that I wasn't expecting this to win an Oscar. When I am in the right mindset, I enjoy a fun horror movie to pass the time. I think there exists an opportunity for an effective, original, and smart slasher movie. \"Venom\" is not this movie.

There is almost no character development at all. That's fine. You don't expect a whole lot. However, instead of a well-knit cast of a few, this movie decides to introduce us to the following many horror movie clich\u00e9 characters...

1. The Final Girl: She has just broken up for her boyfriend. This means that at some point in the movie when they are in peril, they will decide to get back together again. Which more than likely means he will die and she will be the last remaining survivor of the movie. \"Eden\" is played by Agnes Bruckner, without much enthusiasm, I might add.

2. The Boyfriend: He's just around to co-exist with The Final Girl until his demise. Sure, he can save her, but he's doomed and we know it. \"Eric\" is played by Jonathan Jackson.

3. The Bimbos: Usually horror movies only feel the need for one of these, but here we have two. They shoplift, they steal, they might show their breasts, (not in this case,) or they might possibly be alcoholics. A staple of the genre. They also wander around in dimly lit areas all on their lonesome, usually saying things like, \"Hello? Is there anybody there?\" \"Tammy\" and \"Patty,\" suitably named, are played by Bijou Phillips and Davetta Sherwood.

4. The Jackass: Sure, he looks pretty, but he's the idiot in the movie that's inserted purely to be an idiot. He says stupid things, does stupid things, has obviously never seen a horror movie, and is one of enjoyable kills you watch this kind of thing for. \"Sean\" is played by D.J. Cotrona.

5. The Girlfriend: She loves the Jackass even though pretty much nobody else does, and she's usually the one left alive for a while so she can scream and cry until she starts tripping and gets left behind. \"Rachel\" is played by Laura Ramsey.

6. The Creepy Janitor: In this case, The Creepy Gas Station Attendant. Enough said. \"Ray\" is played by Rick Cramer.

I could continue, but I think you get the picture. The remaining characters aren't so much common as they are equally killable. There's \"The Gay Guy,\" (Pawel Szajda as \"Ricky,\") who definitely got robbed as far as screen time is concerned, and \"The One Who Knows What's Going On.\" Of course none of that matters, because at first everyone always thinks that one's crazy. \"Cece\" is played by Meagan Good.

There are a couple other characters, namely a deputy played by Method Man, but he and others are killed off pretty quickly and get even less character development than the following clich\u00e9s.

So, you're probably thinking, \"why does this movie require such a deep analysis? It's just a summer horror flick, for cryin' out loud!\" Based on that question, does it deliver the goods? Yes, and no. The acting isn't particularly convincing, even given the amount of talent involved. Bijou Phillips was hailed for her performance in Larry Clark's Bully, and Agnes Bruckner has been an up-and-coming talent for a while now.

So, what about the gore? There's some. That's really about it. A lot of the juiciest bits are cut-aways. Namely a scene involving somebody's face and a sandblaster used to remove paint from cars.

To the filmmaker's credit, there are a couple interesting scenes. I liked the bit where part of a house was literally ripped off so that the unstoppable villain could get to the characters.

If this had all been centered around a smarter screenplay in which the characters didn't make the same dumb mistakes literally hundreds of horror movie characters had made before them, it might have made for a more enjoyable experience. All of the most interesting characters are immediately killed off in the first third of the movie and then it just becomes a not-particularly-interesting countdown until we know it's just The Creepy Janitor and The Final Girl.

I suppose I must be a little jaded, but as a horror film fan, I'm left wondering why I should have bothered when I could easily have written a better screenplay myself. I won't even mention the numerous instances of terrible CGI.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In this movie everything possible was wrong and I don't know why I bothered watching it until the end. It would have been more fun watching paint dry. For crying out loud I even liked D-Tox and it was much better than this. Here is the basic plot for you: A redneck gets bitten by snakes that hold the evil of 13 murderers and becomes an undead killing machine murdering teenagers that have zero personality. During the movie I lost hope when it didn't scare me at all, when the kills were bad and there was BAD CGI blood and CGI snakes. It got worse with the cardboard thin characters killing their friend by holding her from her legs and not letting go so she got impaled by a tree and when the bad guy moved under water like the shark in Jaws. I'm still upset why I even bothered with this. I guess because I'm a horror movie fan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie wasted my time. i saw only part of it and i was crying about the wasted time that i could of spent doing something productive and useful towards this earth. for everyone that has watched this movie more than once, i am blaming them for global warming as the the amount of black balloons that got entered into the earth from this piece of crap were not needed and if they came from a different movie, i would have forgiven them. robin Williams lowered his standards to actually participate for more than 10 seconds in this film and Tim Robbins, how he went from this film to the shawhsank redemption, i have no idea. please do not watch this movie for the safety of the earth. stop releasing black balloons into the earth from a film that they should have never funded or released. please burn all copies before anyone else has to watch this crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here's yet another movie with dysfunctional lead characters who are totally amoral and, yet, we're supposed to root for them? Not me. No character in this film was worth a damn.

Robin Williams plays car salesman \"Joey O'Brien.\" The man has no class, a loser in every moral sense and a guy who thinks he can talk his way out of anything. Knowing Williams' ability to talk, he was good for this role. The women in his life are driving him loony, too. Some of them aren't much better than him.

Tim Robbins plays a similar low-life who starts the take over the film when he, fully loaded with explosives, crashes into a car dealership showroom and holds people, including his wife, hostage. Robbins, as in normal for him, plays a disturbed and ridiculous character. I guess these nut-case roles come easily to these two actors. Gee, I wonder why.

There is so much yelling and screaming in this the movie that it will give you a headache. Combine those two screamers with the nasal voice of Fran Drescher and you really have an annoying over-the-top cast. This is like listening to chalk on a blackboard for an hour-and- a-half. This is comedy? No, this is lame.

In fact, for a Robin Williams film to only have a dozen reviews posted here tells you something. It's a far cry from his best movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jealous husband holds car dealership hostage while Williams burdens the viewer with his worn out Mork shtick at every turn. Yawn.

Pay channel grist. An uncommonly bad script coupled with a less than convincing Robin Williams as a slick talking, philandering Queens car salesman caught up in a hostage workplace crisis. The laughs aren't there, the message(s) or morals are just all wrong, and the film cant ever decide on whether its a comedy or drama. Pretty good cast all acting pretty badly. When a movie ages so badly so quickly, you got yourself a stinker. Not much else to be said other than maybe, avoid at all costs. Textbook mediocre movies like this are actually more tedious, and less enjoyable than the over the top bombs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And one only, in my opinion.

That reason is Margaret Leighton. She is a wonderful actress, on-stage as well as on the screen. We have few chances to see her, though. I think that's especially true in the United States.

Here she plays a sympathetic role. Not only that but she is also very pretty and meant to be something of a bombshell.

Walter Pigeon does not hold up the tradition of Drummond performers. He is always reliable but he's not much fun. He's not a rascal or a knave. Consequently, this seemed to me a talky endeavor with little action or suspense. But check it out for Leighton.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There really is very little positive that can be said about this film. Walter Pidgeon is a truly unconvincing hero and even moreso when he tries to go \"undercover\" as a villain who, we're meant to believe, drinks too much and knocks his wife about a bit. Margaret Leighton, as the wife\/undercover sergeant is a little more convincing but it's still difficult to believe that any hood worth their salt would not have seen through their charade in less than a minute. The plot, about a bullion heist, is silly, and the action drags rather than grips. David Tomlinson, who plays Algy in the same way that David Tomlinson seems to play all his roles, is the only glimmer of light in a wholly dull affair.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Visitors is a hard, hard movie to enjoy. It's so slow and leaden in it's pacing that at times I was drifting off during the film. This was about 11AM on a hot, sunny day, I might add, not midnight on a cold winter evening, so you get an idea of just how slow this movie is.

Strange thing is, it's not long. At 100 minutes it's only ten minutes longer than the average straight to video, and it's only fifteen minutes longer than the superior Darkwolf that I'd quite happily watched the day before. It just drags an awful lot, enough for you to lose interest.

When it's not mistaking S-L-O-O-W development for atmosphere, Visitors is good enough at action to almost make it excusable how slowly things happen. While the flashbacks are both cheap and annoying as a way to round out Radha Mitchell's boats-woman, the hauntings\/aliens\/whatever are actually quite creepy and effective, especially when her suicidal mother turns up and starts groaning in the night. Full marks for not splurging make-up all over the shop too. The single person boat is a creepy place, and at times the movie uses the full power of the location and the deserted sea to scare the hell out of you.

Still though, I find it hard to recommend Visitors. I came out of it not only feeling like I'd just watched a 4 hour film, not a 100 minute one, but also feeling like I'd been cheated somehow, as while offering many explanations as to the hauntings (Mind games? Real ghosts? Space aliens?) Visitors doesn't pick one for definite. All that watching Radha Mitchell talk to her cat and Dominic Purcell smoulder for no obvious reason about some unexplained horrific event in the past, for nothing?. Say what you like about Shyamalan, but at least he tells you what happened, however crazy\/stupid you might think it. If you don't watch a lot of these movies, your fresh perspective will probably improve matters somewhat, but I found this slow, boring and highly derivative. If you want to scare yourself silly there are much better places to do it, if you want a clever thriller there are many that are smarter.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i didn't like this movie.to me,it didn't make much sense.it was hard to figure out what was really happening.i also didn't think it was scary.i did however,think it was silly,even absurd,but not in a good way.Radha Mitchell is the main character in the movie,which cam out in 2003.She was also,coincidently in 2006's \"Silent Hill\"which i hated.it too i found confusing and pointless.\"Visitors\" isn't as bad,but i think it is certainly below average.there is just nothing special about it.the script is just too muddled and there are things in the movie which don't need to be there,in my opinion.I think Radha Mitchell is probably a good actress,if she has more to work with.my vote for \"Visitors\" is 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Idea is great, spoiled big time by the judges.

Why make fun of people? if what the inventors say is true, and as most of them say, they spent their life saving on the invention, the minimum is to reject the idea without making fun out of the people.

also, it shows when they want to accept an idea by the crier that they added to the judges.

The only one i respect out of the judges is the one who always sits on the right of the table, he is a respectable person

of course the English snob who claims to be a business man, wearing a suite doesn't make you one pal

last but not least, the big guy who sits between the English and the crier. wake up man, the is no job called and inventor for you to call yourself one. an inventor is an attribute not a job man.

i think they wanted to add someone like Simon from the American idol, they thought it worked there, it can work here as well. the context is different and the idea is totally different.

it is a good idea and they could have done a good show out of it if they just change the judges and remove their act and attitude.

just stop making fun of the people.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The concept is excellent. The execution typifies the overall quality of the ABC network.

Apart from Peter Jones it appears that the rest of the panel consist of marketing execs. rather than real entrepreneurs.

When I realised that Peter Jones was getting together with Simon Cowell my initial thoughts were wow he's gonna take America by the balls. But it appears that ABC have come along and destroyed the concept.

I was an absolute addict of the Dragons Den in the U.K. and was interested to see that Peter Jones had manipulated the concept that originated in Japan and developed his own show for the States. The result is neither inspiring nor informative.

If you lack drama in your life you have a choice now\u0085 Jerry Springer or the American Inventor To sum it up: a struggling musician selling out to a media mogul.

Idea: get me! And I'll produce a show worthy of the title","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe I'm wasting my time with a comment - but this movie is weirdly bad. If 20 different directors were brought in to film different parts of the movie without having any idea of the storyline being filmed by the other directors, this is pretty much the result I would expect.

I also think some of the scenes were spliced out of order - things don't always seem to progress in order. The movie acts like we're already supposed to know about half the characters.

And Steve Guttenberg tries to do manic, a-la-Robin Williams comedy in this movie. Ewww. And the whole premise of putting an ex-con in charge of a bunch of kids just doesn't seem realistic in this day and age.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a waste of the celluloid it was printed on. It is a disastrous scene, much like a particularly gruesome train wreck.

Watching this is like trying to explain the meaning of life. The main plot point is that the character played by Steve Guttenberg is a party animal who's not supposed to gamble, because that would violate his parole. The kids he befriends refuse to play with him as coach for a while, because he gambles. BUT... a few minutes later, after they've won the championship, a large sum of money saves their shelter. And where did they get the money? GAMBLING!!! Add this to the creepy scenes at the funeral home (why exactly are there BEDROOMS in a funeral home?) and the useless peripheral character","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would be one of the few people who owns a copy of this classic. But i dont only own 1, i actually own 2. Its THAT good.

Well, when i say good, i mean bad. But i will try to do a thorough review. I even watched 'born a ninja' which one of the other reviewers here mentioned, to compare it to this. And born a ninja is actually worse, but not quite as funny.

And is this ever funny. EVERYTHING about this movie is poor. EVERYTHING. The plot is absolutely stuffed (note the 'you'll need to keep me alive if you want to know where to find your wife'). EVERY action sequence is stuffed too. Our hero danton is more than a hero; he can stab people with twigs, take 3 bullets in the heart at 50 cm away without even bleeding, and tie a rope up to a tree which, when an enemy steps on it, ties a knot around the enemies leg, picks him up, and throws him 50 metres into a bunch of spikes.

The acting is so bad it is impossible to comment on it, but it should have you rolling, especially dantons 'jump out of the ground and growl at the bad guy'. Oh yes, and the bad guys: somehow, it seems they resurrect themselves 5 times each in the movie. Perhaps it's just that there weren't enough actors, but in a movie of this calibre? i doubt that.

The 'plot' is about how danton was a soldier in the vietnam war, and now his colonel is hunting real people for training for his mercenaries. The colonel just happens to pick up danton, then danton fights back. This is just the excuse for a rambo clone, with most of the movie being danton slaughtering soldiers. And i really cant explain the plot any more cos there is nothing else to the movie. It still rocks though.

What else could be wrong you ask? Dont get me started. Hand grenades which actually go off at the actors' feet because the explosion is the size of a match.Scenes where there are 5 people chasing danton, then the camera cuts away and back and there are 7. The way that every time danton loads the grenade launcher he is against the same background even though he is in completely diffrent locations. And the worst part is when danton pushes the plastic boulders onto the enemies, and one enemy is completely untouched by the boulders, so he doesn't know what to do so he half heartedly dies without even being touched. It's ridiculous!!!

But funny. Very, VERY funny. This is one of the few movies i can thoroughly recommend to everybody, cos if you dont find it funny, you are 1 in a million. And for the rest of us it's magic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember seeing this film when i was about 10, one of my friends had it. At the time it was just a film as i was about 10ish and just thought of it as another action film.

When i look back now as a complete film buff this is quite a shockingly bad film. Whoever produced this film i am sure had a short Hollywood career. Although the lead actor seems to have done a few films according to IMDb, albeit i haven't seen any and don't really remember him too much.

Anyway, just to say that this film is really bad, in all ways it could be. I would love to see it again though :oD","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Was unlucky enough to see this while travelling by coach across Africa. It was far and away the worst film I have ever come across. Deserves to be the #1 all-time worst ;-) No acting, no plot, very little speaking. Lots of ape-like grunting though, in this hopelessly unlikely film. An unwitting self-satire - you'll either laugh at it or cry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've enjoyed watching Lost from the beginning and endured a few bad actors in poorly written episodes because when Lost is good, it's really good! But this episode that features Mr Echos demise had so many drawn out scenes with lingering closeups of bad acting that I found myself tapping the fast forward button. This episode stood out so far as by far the worst. In fact, the variation in quality of Lost has been so inconsistent, I find myself often wondering how many writers they are using.

I will continue to watch but hope things get better and hope I stop secretly wishing for the sub-par actors in the series to die off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have been watching \"LOST\" with my family since the first episode, it used to be great. The last season it was very disappointing, it seems as if they (writers)don't know what to do with the show, so, they keep trying to make it up for it by stretching one story line in a whole episode. The present season, which by the way I decided to keep watching only to see Rodrigo Santoro, and also with a tiny little hope that things would get better; has been one disappointment after another; my husband and son even stopped watching. First of all, he (Santoro) only appears for 30 seconds in each episode. But the real problem is with the story line, THERE IS NOTHING REALLY HAPPENING, each episode could be shown in 15 minutes. We watch each episode waiting for something that never happens; I am not asking that every secret be revealed at once, but how about some variation in the story lines? In the first and second seasons, we had different story lines, we saw the characters history, a little action, a little romance, now is like one big event that takes the whole episode to unveil. It is almost tiring to watch it, when it finishes you have a feeling that you lost your time. Now, it is important to note that the actors still great.I can't believe they killed Mr. Eko(Adelawale...)he was great, Jack(Mathew Fox)is still incredible, the perfect hero, so kind, magnanimous, brave. Sawyer(Josh Holloway), the \"bad boy\" is kind of mellowing because of Kate(Evangeline Lylli), but that's cool. I miss Sayid(Naveen Andrews), Sun and Jin(Yoon-jin Kim & Daniel Dae Kim), they are all an important part of the plot (or should be), but we barely see them. I hope Paulo(Rodrigo Santoro) will have a big part on the show; if not, why did you make such a big deal of him joining the show (Access Hollywood, etc)? Sorry if I've been rumbling for too long, but I feel cheated by this show. When I started watching it was great, I got used to it, and now it is very disappointing to see the way it is going. I'll be here, hoping for the improvements!!! Katia","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe it is unfair for me to review this movie because I walked out well before the end. That's odd, because I usually like Shakespeare on the screen and I enjoyed Midsummers Night's Dream once, many years ago, when I saw it on the stage.

I think that two things did me in: that squeaky twerp with the Shakespearian name, Calista Flockhart, and Michelle Feiffer sitting in a giant clamshell. Well, I suppose you could say it supposed to be a comedy -- but when the scenery is funny and the actors aren't, I'd say we have a bad movie on our hands....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't really know why but I watched this with quite a sense of anticipation. Unfortunatly it was misplaced. Firstly this is not horror, it doesn't scare and (unless it was even worse than I gave it credit for - which is possible) doesn't try to. It's a trashy comedy and the fact I smiled once means I gave it a 2 not a 1. This film ripps of Gremlins in a truly special way, I can't claim to have ever seen a film which devotes its self more. Very, Very bad - avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lame is really the best way to describe this movie. It has a real poor script, uninteresting dialog and characters and it's lacking in basically everything else as well.

There are too many characters and problem is that you don't care about any of them. What the movie is lacking is one good and clear main character. Instead now the movie has a bit of everything, it has a bit of an hero, it has a bit of a love interest and it has a bit of villain. I wish it only had a bit less Ghoulies though, fore they are just mostly very annoying in this movie.

Ghoulies are supposed to be devilish creatures, who murder for pleasure. In this movie however all they want to do is drink beer and watch naked college girls. Besides, someone had the 'brilliant' idea to let the Ghoulies be able to talk this time. This works out really poorly and annoying. The Ghoulie-puppets had been definitely upgraded for this movie and they are more detailed looking and are able to do more, however at the same time they are way more fake looking than the ones from the previous Ghoulies movies.

It's obvious that the aim for this movie was more comedy than horror this time. The movie is like a lame '80's high-school comedy (even though this movie got released in 1991). It's humor is really the worst and most lame thing about the entire movie. It's so incredibly annoying and simply not funny at all.

The story is not going anywhere with its story and the movie is just basically one big mess, that never seems to end. The Ghoulies plot line seems basically to have nothing to do at all with the other plot lines of the movie, involving the human characters. The movie is not at all about the Ghoulies terrorizing a college, with the humans trying to hunt them down and stop their rampage. No big surprise that this is Brent Olson's only written movie as of yet. He simply has no talent for it and I think that he has discovered this as well and has gone back to college himself instead.

Even when compared to the previous Ghoulies movies; this movie is just simply terrible!

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This rubber monsters failed trying to be cool,scary or even comedians,looks like a wannabe movie of Porkys or Animals House but the sequences and history is not always clear also can't catch your attention all the movie looks cheap and with an amazing bad taste,the only thing that's makes you laugh is the awful rubber monsters who must have a cost of one dollar each,because the work or them never looks realistic,the movements and expressions make looks the Muppets as a Pixar 3D movie when you compare with this. Hope Marie Carlton is the only thing that makes supportable this awful movie,and when she dies in the movie,this turns even worst than before.A movie who only must be seen in fast forward.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Would someone explain to me when the Ghoulies learned to speak? This was a horrible film, I loved \"Ghoulies\" and \"Ghoulies 2\", but what's this? Unless you want to kill yourself, please stay away from \"Ghoulies 3\". On a scale of 1 to 10, \"Ghoulies 3\" gets a 1!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've had never been disappointed by a Kurosawa film, but this is probably the first. \"Doppelganger\" is the worst I've seen from this director.

Tartan Films is advertising this as \"The most frightening film yet from Kiyoshi Kurosawa\". What? The most frightening film from Kurosawa is definitely \"Kairo\". And if you think this is horror, your in for a surprise. This can't be classified as horror, or thriller. This is a drama, and a pretty bad one at that. A lot of scenes that were meant to be shocking have turned out being funny, and a lot of the plot is really confusing. And since it's Kurosawa, the pacing is slow. But it's so slow that you'll lose interest forty minutes in, and feel like doing something else. The thing that annoyed me the most was the use of CGI. Now CGI, if used well, can be really cool. But if executed with little care... It can be a disaster. I think that describes one scene here that has a very minimal use of CGI.

The only positive thing I can give \"Dopppelganger\" is that it has really good acting. Koji Yakusho gives a great performance, along with the rest of the cast. But that's pretty much it...

Please, do yourself a favor, and go watch \"Kairo\" or \"Ko-Rei\" if you want to be scared. This is a bad, bad attempt at a smart drama. Which it is intelligent, but... Well, there's a lot missing.

3\/10 for the good acting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a painfully slow story about the last days of 1999 when a strange disease breaks out and... I stopped caring. This is suppose to be about two people who live over or under each other in an apartment complex. There's a leak and a plumber put a hole in the man's floor so you can see into the woman's below apartment. Also since there is a crisis going on much of the dialog is actually news reports...

Sounds promising?

Not really.

I became distracted and started doing other things which is deadly in a subtitled film. Basically I started not watching, which made events seem even more surreal when I did look up.

It may work for you, it didn't for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Voor een verloren soldaat , for a lost soldier, is a sad example of how not to translate to film a touching, complex psychological study, of that most magical time in a man's life, when he is still a child, but starting to become a man. The novel records the real life experiences of Rudy van Dantzig, as told thru the boy Jeroen, during the waning days of WWII at age 11 as he deals with his incipient sexuality, and his deep fears of abandonment as he has been sent to the province of Friesland, north of Holland by his parents because of the lack of food in Amsterdam and has not heard from them in many months as the postal service has broken down.. The arrival of the liberating soldiers in the film, is presented in a painfully corny way, with the soldiers providing entertainment vaudeville style. Then one soldier, Walt, romances Jeroen and the pair is presented as two frolicking males.who consummate their love in a sexual experience. This taken in stride by the 11 yo Jeroen. The reality was somewhat different: Jeroen describes his encounters with Walt, 6 in all, in detail but in oblique language. But there is no misunderstanding their nature. Walt is aroused to an intense passion by Jeroen, during which he handles him roughly, so that in their final meeting, Jeroen is bruised and suffering a painful wound on the shoulder where Walt has bitten him. During this encounter, Walt rapes Jeroen, twice. Jeroen could have easily avoided Walt after their 2nd encounter, when Walt first assaults him as Walt is clearly anxious to keep his abuse of the boy from the other soldiers. Why Jeroen keeps seeking Walt out is a mystery of the human heart and not explainable, by me anyway. What the film leaves out is the aftermath: the nightmares, the dejection, the frantic search throughout Amsterdam on the chance of finding Walt, for Jeroen loved Walt, and nothing could shake that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Read the book, forget the movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To truly appreciate this film you had to be there (acting?) or have been a crew member.

Yes, I am \"Selena\", and at the ripe old age of 42, have serious doubts about what we were doing\/did.

It all started out to be like a \"John Waters\" type thing, friends acting badly in bad films. Somewhere along the line,the fun discontinued, people who were supposed to be friends didn't speak anymore, and BAD became worse.

I regret the bad image I might have projected.(Try to fit in size one gold spandex pants,)

Other than that, the film SUCKS so badly, I would not even make my mama watch it.

To my director, cast and crew I say,

\"Why can't we just all get along??

It's been OVER TWENTY YEARS, PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Three young movie theater employees are given the task of re-opening a long closed old-time theater at which many years before a shocking series of grisly murders took place. It seems many more murders have occurred since then but all of this remains unknown to these three young upstart employees hoping to finally make it big on their own. As they approach the grand re-opening night, things keep getting stranger and more unsettling with items suddenly starting to move around by themselves without any seen aid and a terrifying old man seemingly haunting the premises.

Oh, this is truly horrible. In fact, if it wasn't for Mary Woronov's secretary character being such a fiercely independent outspoken empowered young woman who steals practically every scene in which she appears and the incredibly hot chick who played the unbelievably sleazy yet totally sexy Selina, this would be a total loss. The only other good thing I have to say about this film is some of the movie theater murders are done in truly inventive, albeit not overly gory (a preference for me but not necessarily for others), fashion. The rest just wallows in constant sleaze (so extreme the rare few may actually find humor in it) and runs through the predictable slasher kills annoying characters off one after the other routine.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I agree that Mary Woronov (Murdoch's secretary) is one of the only good things about this film. She is my favorite actress ever, every role she plays is always done so well. Her character is sly, sarcastic, clever, light hearted, funny and cunning. She really pulls this role off well and you get a good feel for what her character is all about.

The rest of the movie is pretty bad. The music is the most entertaining thing left. One of the characters has this really strange circular radio that she brings with her while she wears her tight zebra striped tank top.

One thing that was a little intriguing about the story was the idea that someone hires these three college-aged kids to spruce up an old abandoned theater. He gives them the keys and says - go at it. That would be really fun and I wish someone would give me that chance! Imagine going into an old abandoned theater with two other people and you get to decide how to decorate it, and fix it up. You have total control over the whole building. That would be so fun! Unfortunately, the characters do not think of this as an exciting adventure, they think of it as a big chore. They walk around with long faces and fight with each other the whole time. It's kind of a bummer. But it's fun to think about the possibilities that these people aren't even excited about.

The movie does a pretty good job at making you feel helpless or a little spooked out by the theater itself. However, the acting (besides Woronov.. and possibly Murdoch, the boss - just because makes a really good money hungry fake smiley business man who never has any luck) is really horrible and you just end up feeling unsatisfied. Plus, the random slapstick is a little tacky and kind of ruins the reality that the film tries to create.

Watch this if you dig Mary Woronov, funky 80's Casio keyboard style electronic beats and if you think having a giant spooky abandoned theater to yourself is at all intriguing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most hardcore bad film buff will be surprised by the overall ineptness of this grade-z \"film\". Mary Woronov, a clever actress best known for her roles as Mary Bland in Eating Raoul and Miss Togar in Rock 'N' Roll High School, is by far the best thing about this tripe. This film is almost too bad even for MST3K - honestly!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so dumb and slow was it ever slow. The only good part of the film was the girl in the tight shinny gold pants. There was no gore whatsover and what is a 80's horror movie without a little gore. Plus the killer wasn't at all scary nor were the murders. But if you like to watch the world's worst horror movie then this is for you. Don't waste your time like I did watching this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A movie theater with a bad history of past gruesome murders reopens. Of course, the bloody killings start anew. Written, directed, shot, scored and edited with an appalling lack of flair and finesse by the singularly talentless Rick Sloane (who later disgraced celluloid some more with the absolutely atrocious \"Hobgoblins\"), this horrendously ham-fisted attempt at a slasher spoof strikes out something rotten in every conceivable way: the excruciatingly lethargic pacing, the painfully static, grainy cinematography (there's a stinky surplus of drab master shots featured throughout), an annoyingly droning and redundant hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, the flat (non)direction, a tediously talky and uneventful script, the groan-inducing sophomoric sense of lowbrow humor, the bloodless murder set pieces, a pitifully unscary killer (he's just some wrinkled-up old guy in pasty make-up), the uniformly obnoxious and unappealing characters, a dissatisfyingly abrupt ending, and lifeless performances from a noticeably uninspired cast all ensure that watching this schlocky swill is about as fun and rewarding as eating rancid raw eels drenched with sour vinegar. This crud totally lacks the necessary crude charm and sleazy vigor required to be enjoyable junk. Instead it's just a bland, plodding and meandering stiff that never catches fire or becomes even remotely amusing in a so-shoddy-it's-smoking sort of way. Only a smidgen of nudity and the delightful presence of the always dependable Mary Woronov as a snarky, sardonic secretary provide a little relief from the overall crumminess of this lousy loser.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Most Fertile Man in Ireland revolves around Eamon Manley who is 24 year old and still happens to be a virgin. He lives with his mother in Belfast. He is also a very shy guy towards women. Everything has changes for Eamon when he is seduced by a woman(as far as I can remember a neighbour). It is not because he looses his virginity but he discovers that he has a super power. Despite having protection, this neighbour becomes pregnant. He is told by the doctor that he has very high sperm count. His mother brilliantly comes up with an idea which makes us see ginger headed babies all around in the end of the film. He starts helping out women in both side of Belfast to conceive babies. First voluntarily then with the help of his colleague runs a business out of it. The Most Fertile Man in Ireland has its funny moments but needed to come up with better jokes and with a better script. I couldn't help thinking that it gave me the impression of a TV sitcom rather than a movie. Kris Marshall is a different name on the silver screen but does not shine as star. It's more like the guy you saw in such and such movie. Like him being in Love Actually(I think he was very funny in that one)..Well, it was okay to watch but couldn't help dozing off from time to time. ** out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Heaven, Mary and all the Saints above! A young man has got super sperm, it's miracle bejesus, call the Pope, all you ladies out their desperate to get preggers, line up out side his door and drop your marks and sparks finest! Risible retro ealing comedy type comedy, trying to bring you a bit of the auld Irish charm. Has an effect like placing two fingers down your own throat, voamitus maximus! One out of ten!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Roll up! Roll up! It's Big Gay Bruce and his Big Gay Death Cannon! Plausible plot? Unnecessary! Decent acting? Unnecessary! Respect shown to its mighty progenitor? Unnecessary! Yes it's another offensively stuffed turkey in the Butch Bruce canon.

I mean where do you start with this film? Okay, let's begin with the woeful misapprehension people might have that this was, in some way, related to either the book or the original film, The Day of the Jackal. It's not. In fact it's so different (and so bad) that Fredrick Forsyth asked to have his name taken off it. Now I'm not necessarily a stuffy Brit who can't hack Hollywood remaking British films. Well, okay, maybe I am a bit like that, but fortunately it's a redundant point in this case. This film is so different to the original that the name and the odd reference are the only things that survive.

Now let's move to the premise. Cheesy Russian gangster gets killed in a Moscow police raid (somehow involving the FBI although no one bothers to explain why). In revenge, brother of gangster decides to wreak vengeance by killing the wife of the US President (although again no one bothers to explain why this is a good move \u0096 although to be fair it was pre-9-11, so he wasn't to know it would have resulted in the US airforce carpet bombing Eastern Europe). Gangster hires \"nasty\" killer (Willis). Police hire \"cuddly\" killer (Gere), \"cuddly\" killer tracks \"nasty\" killer. Police fanny around and periodically get killed. \"Cuddly\" killer kills \"nasty\" killer. First lady is saved and we all realise that the IRA are just this bunch of real sweet guys y'know, who just happen to want to kill innocent people. Nice.

Let's put to one side the distasteful Hollywood habit of playing in the troubles of Northern Ireland like it was a sandpit in a theme park (I deal with this point more extensively on the message boards). If Hollywood directors want to cast the Belfast butchers as hookers with hearts of gold, that's up to them. I, of course, reserve the right to despise them for it. It's a free country.

More egregious, however, is the fact that the film manages to patronise and insult the Irish while trying to support them. That's not politically distasteful, it's far worse: it's incompetent. It's no wonder, for instance, that Gere still looks so damn good, given that he slept through the entire six months it took to make this piece of cra*p. The fact that Gere's accent is not only Southern Irish, but an appalling parody of Southern Irish shows that the filmmakers weren't looking much beyond America to make money from this film. Then there is that lovely scene at the end where Sidney Poitier (a complete waste of space in this film) says he's off for a coffee, offers to get our \"cuddly\" IRA man one, then casually says \"Ah, but then you guys drink Guinness don't you\". Yeah that's right Sidney; the Irish live on Guinness and potatoes.

While we're on the subject of Poitier: why? In the original film the detective is the tracker. In Jackal, Gere is the tracker. So what does Poitier do? Well, he just hangs around and looks like a tw*at of course. He's got absolutely nothing to do apart from call in the marines at the end, and he only does this because the nice IRA man tells him to.

While we're on the subject of Gere: why? I suppose it's only a matter of time before Hollywood remakes Gandhi with Vin Diesel playing ex-Mujahideen Commando Mahatma Gandhi beheading his way through 1940s and 50s India (he is, after all, a bit dark of hue and therefore very likely to be a Muslim fundamentalist). Let's not forget that Gere's character is a killer and therefore a nasty piece of work. And if he's not, why does he know The Jackal? If he's not, why does he know all his moves? And if he is, why is he such a limp biscuit and such a \"loveable\" person?

All this goes to show that the makers of this film couldn't be bothered to (a) think about the plot (b) have the characters making decisions that were in keeping with their character(c) avoid cheesy stereotypes like having the big boss bad guy kill his own friend \u0096 I honestly thought this had turned into a Bond movie (d) give the \"central\" characters something to do (e) credit the audience with a modicum of intelligence.

This film is an insult to the British and Irish killed at the hands of terrorists, it's an insult to the Irish people, it's an insult to not great, but pretty good film it rips off, and an insult to the intelligence. But most of all \u0096 and most unforgivable \u0096 it is an insult to my a*rse for having to sit through the over two hours of run time it took to finish. Honestly, you'd think with no plot, no characters and no dialogue, it would be over in no time. But they didn't even have the decency to quit early.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Amidst all the many problems that make this a dire piece of celluloid is the stupidest plot device in recent cinema history. Richard Gere determines who the Jackal's real target is through some form of revelation. He does not work anything out, it just comes to him. When in doubt \"He's going after the First Lady!\". This film blows chunks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Laughably awful. One might think that all the big-name actors involved in this movie would at least make it believable, but they do not--this one is a stinker.

Characters either sprint around without having a good reason to know where they are going, or they stand around making constipated faces when they should be running for their lives.

Check your higher brain functions at the door if you intend to try watching this movie. Or, get a bunch of your most clever friends together and give this one the \"Mystery Science Theater 3000\" treatment. That's what I was doing through the second half of this turkey.

And PLEASE don't confuse this with the excellent movie \"The Day of the Jackal,\" a far-superior thriller from 30 years ago.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Spoilers!! Bruce Willis, the part-time Comic and funny guy plays a Hispanic assassin nicknamed after an African scavenger prairie dog? I guess all the good Hispanic nicknames like Sicatriz (Scar), Scorpion, Viper, Cobra, Snake, Tarantula, Latigo (whip), Navaja (blade), etc. were not available?? And why would some South American assassin be acquainted with a terrorist from the Irish Republican Army?? Last time I checked, the IRA is not looking to open any branch headquarters in South America. And why would some prison-tough, battle-weary Irish terrorist look like a middle-aged Richard Gere? I thought maybe this movie was going to be a spoof of \"The Crying Game\" when Gere's character was introduced as the person who was going to hunt down \"The Jackal.\" What bad casting! And why would the FBI be hiring depraved terrorists in order to track down assassins?? It seems like a terrorist goes for mass destruction, and an assassin usually hits one target in a non-spectacular manner. But Gere is the only person who has ever seen Willis alive, according to the FBI. I thought this movie was supposed to be a remake of the very great film \"Day of The Jackal\" but this movie is just a dumber version of \"Assassins\" with Stallone and Banderas. Both of these movies are really dumb, and part of the dumb-ness is the fact that as the audience we are forced to watch Bruce Willis go through his routines and we should say \"Wow! isn't he smart!\" THE PROFESSIONAL with Jean Reno was a much better movie about assassins. \"The Jackal\" is just a movie about two fat middle-aged millionaire actors who could get paid for standing around looking pretty and pretending to be smart! \"The Jackal\" is so poor, that I expected to see Sly Stallone, Dennis Rodman, Mickey Rourke, and Jean Clod Van Dumme making cameo appearances as \"other\" hitmen or FBI. Needless to say, \"The Jackal\" has eluded the FBI for twenty-five years, but as soon as Richard Gere gets on the job, it is only a few days before \"The Jackal\" is kaput! I guess the positive message of this movie is, \"Thanks to terrorists, our streets are safe from assassins.\" Overall, the \"Jackal\" has no redeeming qualities.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This may well be the worst remake Hollywood has ever produced, and that's saying something. I'll take it further than that and say this movie is so stunningly, deliriously bad that IT MUST BE SEEN. I don't know if I'm even capable of tackling all the things wrong with it--like the fact that the casting director appears to have pulled names out of a hat, or the mind-blower of Richard Gere's character being allowed to walk away scot-free at the end (I'm sure the people saying, \"It's just fiction, who cares\" would have no problem if it was a former Al-Qaeda operative who just wants to return to his home country)--so I'll just devote my review to the utter hilarity, which is mainly the scene where Bruce Willis is testing out his gun.

In the original version, you'll recall, the Jackal practices his kill on a pumpkin. The pumpkin explodes on impact, an effect known as \"understatement.\" In THIS version, Willis sets up a pumpkin target, but he doesn't use a sniper rifle--he uses a gigantic remote-controlled cannon which costs tens of thousands of dollars and can only be stored in the back of a huge conspicuous minivan (this man likes a challenge). He reveals the cannon by pulling away a tarp, at which point Jack Black, who is there to observe, jumps around and says, \"That ROCKS! This thing ROCKS!\" about 18 times (I guess Willis didn't have to disassemble it first, he just lifted it, tarp and all, out of the back of the van, despite it probably weighing several tons). The scene then turns into an Austin Powers movie as Willis misses the pumpkin and takes out a tree, then has Black run through the mud with his pants falling down, finally blowing off Black's entire arm. The pumpkin falls to the ground, unharmed.

If I can recommend this movie for ONE non-ironic reason, it's for the Diane Venora character as a tough Russian major who becomes romantically linked to Gere despite having a facial disfigurement--a bold move for a Hollywood feature. By mid- movie I was really liking this character, so it was a shame when she had to be killed. I would have liked to see a movie about her. Other than that, this pile of crap is only useful as an objective intelligence test. 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is hard to screw up this story. GREAT book \/ GOOD Film version from Fred Zinneman, yet this film is AWFUL! First the casting was terrible. Richard Gere should of played the Jackal himself as Edward Fox was a similar type of cypher and they didn't need to mess with the original script by adding so much worthless (expensive) fluff. This film reminded me of so many Bruce Willis films, as you see huge expense with NOTHING cinematic to show for it. (It is his \"Conspiracy Theory\") It takes some real doing to make a film this bad from such a fine original script. EVERY person from Michael Caton Jones down should be banned from making films for 10 years; such is the insult this film is to real filmmakers. Were Hollywood to go on trial for having no idea what they were doing, this film would be Exhibit A. Shame on you ALL!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The 1973 \"Day of the Jackal\", directed by Fred Zinnemann from the Frederick Forsyth novel, while not a masterpiece in the general scheme of things, was nevertheless quite an above-average thriller, written and carried out with considerable panache, wit, and style. It remains a pleasure to rent and watch now and then.

In adapting that for the 1997 \"The Jackal\", it seems that at every turn the writers and director made the worst possible choice, making it all quite leaden, overdone, unsuspenseful, unsurprising, unsexy, and unthrilling. If we put together a catalog of all the specifics that went into this movie, big and small, I could give you a mini-essay for each topic on how the 1997 adaptation ****ed up.

Item: the weapon.

In the original, there is considerable intrigue over how the assassin is going to smuggle it onto the scene, how he intends to disguise it, and why it needs custom work from his underground craftsmen. In the remake, they apparently thought that today's action-flick-raised audiences wouldn't tolerate a small rifle whose point is precision and would demand the lugubrious off-the-[black-market-]shelf machine gun, which needs a minivan to transport it, and whose point is to shout Macho. The whole involved and interesting business about disguising its components, has been reduced to showing us (repeatedly, like this is a difficult point to follow?) that the joystick for his absurdly high-tech remote-control system has been in his pocket as a pen.

Item: the conspirators and motive.

Without resorting to dry lecture, the original still manages to give us a good understanding of the historical situation of the \"pieds-noirs\" [ \"blackfeet\"], the French-Algerian irredentists who could not accept that the century was moving away from colonialism, and formed the view that De Gaulle had betrayed them. This gives the whole plot some historical weight. The remake seems to leave it as a gangland-shootout revenge story, minimally spicing it up by making them Russian gangsters. Note please that I'm not opposed to updating: they could have done this intelligently and come up with something more current but non-trivial. Certainly Russia and the rest of ex-USSR have been through huge changes of late, and an updated story could have been situated there in a way that would make us feel that it *matters*.

Item: the relationship of the assassin on the run and the police hunting him down; and the complex steering of the viewer's sympathies from the bad guy to the good guy.

Above I hesitated somewhat at calling the original a masterpiece overall; but in this aspect it really was one. We follow along with the assassin for much of the first portions of the film, and having seen his cleverness and resourcefulness we begin to admire him, and not want to see his plan thwarted or see him caught -- at least, not too soon! Then we meet the policeman who gets pushed into heading up the investigation \/ protection efforts, and bit-by-bit we take to him, and see he is not the sad-sack his domestic troubles may have suggested. By the time it matters, we have been won over to his side.

In the remake, perhaps Poitier could have handled that sort of development , but Gere sure can't. And the absurd \"48 Hours\"-derived gimmick of the con brought out to help the police should have been left in those comedies where it came from.

The remake has the assassin and the assassin-hunter *talk* about how they 're like players above a chessboard, communicating indirectly via their moves and only able to *infer* what the other is like. That was achieved superbly in the original. But in the remake in fact they're brought into face-to-face confrontation way too soon, so they can grimace at each other, bloody the place up, and go through some fairly standard chase scenes.

Item: photography, and \"scenery\".

The remake does have some nice images, particularly in snowy Finland in the opening section. But the Washington, D.C Metro cannot really compete with the streets of Paris for interesting perspectives and bystander faces. \u00a0 \u00a0","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking forward to seeing Bruce Willis in this, especially since I remember being mesmerised by the original when I was young.

This movie is a perfect example of how movie companies can take a very good story and dumb it down until it's just another formula ridden hype of the fabled American law enforcement system\/army VS, (the Russians.... no sorry the cold war is over, make that WITH the Russians) VS the TERRORISTS, similar to probably 50 other movies.

Furthermore it treats its audience like a bunch of idiots. The choice of weapon is well, plain ridiculous, are we seriously expected to believe that the world's most feared and experienced hit man\/terrorist would select that for an assasination?

The whole point of the original story was the tense dual of intellects between the ordinary detective who is given the responsibility and the professional who crafts a ruthless but elegant plan to reach his target and then get away. None of that survived. All we have is the tired old American CIA\/FBI\/army vs the evil terrorist plot, we've all seen 1000 times before.

But of course the movie company's MBA's realised that a new intellectual angle here would lose them revenue from the short attention span gang, so the answer is ......Bruce Willis, BIG explosions and a crippled plot. They assume the American audience wont be able to relate to a threat to a foreign statesperson (where is France on the map afterall) so it has be an American!

Another example of a movie defiled by the boardroom.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A ruthless assassin has been hired to eliminate someone at the very top of the U.S. government. Constantly changing his identity and location, he is known only as the Jackal. Everything about this hit man is a secret. Aware of the Jackal's presence but uncertain of his purpose, the FBI's Deputy Director faces the biggest challenge of his career. In order to track down this cold-blooded killer, he and a by-the-book Russian intelligence officer enlist the aid of an imprisoned Irish terrorist. These unlikely allies enter a global race against the clock to stop the mysterious mercenary before he can complete his assignment. If you are looking for a non-stop action movie like Die Hard, then The Jackal is not your movie. It\u00b4s a slow spy thriller with many cool gadgets and weapons. Richard Gere does a good job playing an impassioned terrorist who is helping the FBI for a deeper cause than just freedom. And Willis puts forth a good effort as the Jackal. OK film but nothing more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very shortly: a bad film. If you are looking for pure action and no brain (or brain 'illusion') or you are under 15 years old and like Bruce Willis this is THE movie. Also, don't expect the scenario to be consistent or even believeable if you think a little, so don't if you just want to enjoy yourself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm normally a fan of Bruce Willis, and despite him playing the cold-hearted professional killer, I thought him the most appealing character here. That said, his character makes such a mess of his professional activity, it's incredible he hasn't been caught before. The plot is thin to the point of being nonsensical. The end was no less annoying and insulting for the fact that it could have been predicted from about 20 minutes into the movie.

** spoilers follow ** In Hollywood morality, the good guys always win, with a few casualties along the way, and the bad guys die, or are at least heading for justice by the end. The breathtaking insult of the film is the way that our IRA terrorist, who has somehow become a cuddly, touchy-feely character, gets to walk off to a new life. As does his former terrorist playmate (who is now a loving wife and mother).

Who's the bigger villain? The former (and, so far as we can tell, unrepentant) terrorist, or the hired assassin? I don't see much to choose between them --- in real life, or in the film.

This is the poorest film I've seen this year.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would ward off any temptation to view this movie, it is quite simply dull. The characters are predictable and mindless. The assassin is quite unenigmatic. There is no tension, fun, no style or even a glimmer of originality to be found in this train wreck. And the morass of Hollywood clich\u00e9's are stifling. Oh, and you have a movie that makes a hero of an IRA terrorist. Cute. And now I need to speak some more to fill up the ten lines. And a little bit more Is that enough? Not quite, how about now? No, well further confabulation should do the trick, but The Jackal is really not worth ten lines of exposition. The original was great though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So lets say you are a producer, you have some money, and you somehow got Richard gear and Bruce Willis, so now all you need is a script...but , why bother? see, this movie is really terrible, the acting is pretty good, but the casting is awful gear and Willis did their best to play these characters they simply cant play. now, this movie has no plot, or rather, there's something that tries to pass off as a plot: there's a mean hit-man (Willis) who is cool dangerous and sophisticated (actually he's none of those things, but from some dialog between the other characters, you are supposed to get this impression), so this hit-man is on a mission to kill someone, now there's an ex-IRA prisoner who is kind and nice and very likable (gear) who the FBI release from prison so he will help them. so now the FBI is \"investigating\" to find this hit-man, the investigation consists of a series of unlikely information - like some random person lost his wallet and someone used his name to buy a car - which is always right on the money. since there's no real plot and the script is so crappy, you cant expect any real character development, or tension, so instead of creating them through the story, they simply add some disconnected dramatic music, which signals you that something very dramatic is going on , instead of actually creating something dramatic..

the bottom line is that this is a very bad movie, and a complete waste of time which somehow got an incredibly high score for its level, probably because of the cast - and this is exactly what the producers where counting on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"How many ppl know about this?\"...\"Lets keep it that way!\" I wonder at least some new dialogues can be made or not? The movie is a real poor copy of the original. Bruce Willis probably did this movie while he was half asleep. The way he looks at Richard Gere's face with his cold-blooded stare when they meet near the port...oh my god! scared the hell out of me. Why does he kill Major Koslova and her mates isn't still clear to me. Another thing that I could not understand was the poison solution that he put on the car (what in the world was it?).

The movie plot is haywire and climax is dull. Another funny thing was how the Russian was killed in the club. I fell off my chair laughing when I saw that scene. Also, what was that thing about the gay guy..what purpose was it serving. I think the movie is made too swift to be easily understood. You have to really think what the hell was on Director's mind. LOL.

And the best scene after all was Richard Gere trying to hold on to the pillar between 2 fast moving trains. must have made someone loose his head if not contact with the pillar.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I could not believe how terrible and boring this Hollywood remake was.It's so dreadful. It easily lands a place in my top 10 worst films of 1998.About the only thing it had going for it was Bruce Willis,who should stick to action films,as a completely emotionless killer who'd kill his own mother for the right price.But I'd rather listen to Robbie Coltraine talk American for a week than listen to Richard Gere's nauseating Irish accent again.But this film is also implausible,unconvincing,uneven,unexciting,unimpressive and lands Sidney Poiter in a rubbish role to make a possible career comeback.One for filmroll-footie purposes entirely.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is mildly entertaining if one neglects to acknowledge its numerous incongruities of plot and sheer lack of believability. Bruce Willis as \"The Jackal\" never seems to live up to his reputation as a cunning mastermind of the underworld. Instead, he bumbles about in broad daylight, parading a mishmash of shoddy disguises. Why this man has never been captured before (or even identified) is beyond me. Not once is the audience impressed by his cleverness or daring; considering the price he demands for his services (an exorbitant $70 million), his methods are decidedly low-budget and stupid.

As for those in pursuit of him, they are at least as ridiculous in their behavior. They show no sense of expertise, instead relying on half-baked conjecture which sends them traversing across the country at their whim. Incredibly, these far-fetched guesses (maybe he bought a boat, maybe he's in Chicago, etc etc) invariably lead them straight to the Jackal, who yet again escapes their clumsy grasp.

Richard Gere, whose Irish accent fades in and out like a distant radio station, plays the inexplicable role of an imprisoned convict who is released from jail to work alongside the FBI. He actually makes a compatible partner, if only because his means are as amateurish and inept as his professional pals. At one point, he actually confronts the infamous Jackal, but unfortunately the FBI, although they trust him enough to leave him out of their sight, fail to equip him with a weapon or any means of communication. What kind of operation are they running here?

The film also appears overly reliant on gruesome violence, which is entirely superfluous and provides no suspense whatsoever. The supposedly stealthy Jackal acts more like a demented and senseless serial killer, eliminating people for sport and writing on a victim's cheek with blood.

The film's action scenes are both predictable and unrealistic, and many moments are ruined with melodrama. This movie is poorly executed on many levels, the one bright spot being the ever consistent Sidney Poitier. Avoid this movie if you are in the mood to think as you watch it.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When recounting these events that took place some years ago, (hard to believe this actually happened)i thought, well, there is a basis for an interesting story here. Many secrets were never uncovered, the horse never found, the main conspirators never captured etc.

However, this film seems to be distracted by character study, and very little attention payed to the plot. Some other questions are raised though, like why on earth would Mickey Rourke be in this film? Its good to see rourkes career has taken off again, but he must cringe at the mention of this rubbish.

If the subject matter interests you, do an internet search on the topic, you'll be more educated and dare i say more entertained. Avoid this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rourke does his usual bit part,as a sinister,rancorous,Neanderthalian,ferocious,evil jerk,in the same mold as in \"Picture Claire\",\"Out in Fifty\",\"Get Carter\",\"Double Team\" and the rest of the garbage he happens to be in.

He has very few lines.

Of course,all this is just junk,undervaluing Rourke,abasing him,and doesn't matter for his characterization as an actor.Still ,after seeing \"A Prayer ...\",\"Johnny Handsome\",\"Barfly\",\"9 1\/2 Weeks\",\"Year of the Dragon\",etc.,etc.,for many years I considered Rourke an outstanding,smart,intelligent man.I think he has changed since.

He looks callous,calcined.

\"He went about with gloomy looks;\/Despair inhabited his breast\/And made the man a perfect pest.\"(Belloc,\"The Example\").

I had absolutely no other reason to watch this dull movie except that Rourke was in.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a pretty run of the mill family move that I am sure most children will enjoy but with really no that much to please any adults viewing the movie. The premise of the film is that Belushi's cop character takes his retirement but gets drawn into a case which results in him becoming a private investigator. The movie's plot is so obvious most of the kids will surely pick the ending before it happens. But additionally to that there seem to be story arcs and sub plots that are forgotten about as the movie progresses. This coupled with a sub plot where the titular K-9 gets pimped out by Belushi. One to be avoided I am afraid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am sitting here watching the film, Tango and Cash. IT led to a discussion about other great late 80s movies. The ridiculous Tunrer and Hooch, K9 connection came up.

Granted I have never seen K9PI and if I still value my life, I never will. Joshua quotes this as his movie of the year. Wow. Wow. I am utterly astonished that this movie exists. But so much more than that the fact that Joshua likes this move disturbs me to the core. I think Joshua is one interesting guy

K9

K9","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"sorry, sorry but sorry. nice, very nice production, very nice actors, also funny. But, this type of the movies with a dog (Rex German, Gery-Jerry American) with a private detectives, with a pretty rich woman???????????????????????? Hello producer, how many movies we have out there with the same plot?????????? What do u have on your minds when you make the scenes like dog having a pupu. Or any king of that dog activities????? Micro chips who can make you rich? Micro chips who wort a fortune? There is three master chips, wow? And the creator of the chips can't make the same chips again? Hello, wake up. can give us something smarter than that? Best, D","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dooley and his canine partner, Jerry Lee are together again in this 2nd sequel (?!!?) I sincerely had no clue that they made one sequel let alone two. And for a film that was only slight better than \"Turner & Hooch\"? This time after Dooley retires, he has to mate his dog (with other dogs, people) and wait around for Jerry Lee to poo. Real classy stuff. I mean come on now. The original had at least a few good laugh. This one has nary a one. Jim Belushi just looks old and worn out. Both Belushi brothers were great in the '80's. If John hadn't died, would he be so bad today like his brother? That thought makes me sad for some reason.

My Grade: D-

Where i saw it: USA network","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"sure this movie may have had its funny moments with the sat question people and i know the movie is not supposed to be totally believable the movie made it too outrageous for example a girl like that would never in a million years go out wit ha guy like that also people in movie had lackluster performances there acting was so bad. Also the plot bad they could have don e a better job on the scripting at least and focused more on the comedy the comedy was also a little dry and got really boring after the first few jokes, it was like 10mins was laughter then the old when is this gonna end started to kick in The bottom line if u want a a lackluster of acting mixed in with a stupid plot and a romance go ahead and watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Utterly ridiculous movie which makes fun of the college admission process. While it is true that the SAT's is not everything in evaluating a student for admission to college, what the movie talks about is utterly ridiculous and not worth repeating nor viewing.

College admissions officials are made to look like stupid people who have an extremely narrow view of the entire process. The film is an insult to hard-working high school students who work hard and then have to suffer through a long process until they receive that letter of acceptance or rejection from the schools they have applied for.

This movie certainly deserves rejection on all levels.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"PDQ Bach did it better. Much of \"Bach\"'s speaking part is letters written to various patrons complaining about the amount and speed of his payment. Anna Magdalena's diary, mostly about the death of children and sundry other family matters, is an iota more engaging. The music is disconcerting: 17th century sized chapel orchestras and choirs producing 20th century concert hall sound. The overall production quality reminded me of a junior high slide show. J S Bach was a brilliant man whose music speaks for itself. This film adds nothing. Netflix sent me 2 discs that wouldn't play, so I streamed the movie. Clearly Netflix was trying to tell me something.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Dogmatic,\" as another reviewer described this film, is a fitting word. The director's idea was to present Bach without plot, acting, fun, theatrics, dialog, narrative, or drama. Mission accomplished, Monsieur Straub. \"Pretentious?\" Yes. \"Cinematic?\" No way. This is anti-cinema. No one moves. Hardly anyone talks. The camera holds static shots for 10-12 minutes at a time: very very occasionally the camera will dolly in. You may catch a glimpse of Gustav Leonhardt's fingers moving over the keys. That's it.

If you like the idea of staring at the back of a harpsichordist's (bewigged) head for 7 minutes at a stretch while listening to Bach, this is the film for you. I'd rather listen to Bach on my stereo with my eyes closed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like another reviewer, I really wanted to like this movie. I went with my father who was the biggest lover and booster of classical music but neither of us could stand this movie. I wouldn't even call it a movie. A better description might be a record of a few chamber concert pieces. As I recall, the camera never even moved. Rather, I just sat on a tripod for the entirety of each piece. The only attempts at dramatic effect were at the very end of each piece when the movie would cut to trees waving in the wind or little wavelets lapping at a beach. I'm sure the director would have preferred to have used footage of some really big crashing waves but the best he could find were a few inches high at some nearby lake, and again using a stationary camera. Truly pathetic. I can't imagine how anyone could justify rating this movie higher than a five. When we walked out, my father and I were completely mystified as to how it was possible to make such a bad movie. I don't know of of any good movies about Bach. The world really does need one, but just because it doesn't exist is not a reason to see this one. Someone will make one someday. Until then just keep rewatching _Amadeus_.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very stark, very drab, no real drama. Why not just make a documentary? This isn't exactly The Passion of Joan of Arc. The only reason for seeing Chronicles is to hear the performances. I love Bach's music and even I found it hard to sit through this misery of a film. The great Gustav Leonhardt plays (in two senses of the word) Bach. We don't get much of a sense of him as an actor, since he's given so little to do dramatically. Mostly, he gets to walk purposefully or angrily out of various rooms. Bach's life, of course, was not an Errol Flynn movie. It was indeed fairly drab and more than a little hard. This probably means that the life isn't a terrific candidate for a film. The music, of course, is another story. I recommend The Stations of Bach. Far more information, for one thing, and some insight into the music, which is, after all, why Bach interests us in the first place.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After reading the reviews I decided to rent the DVD version.

I like classical music and wanted to learn more about Bach.

I was disappointed. I guess I do not know enough about Bach music and the the comments were not enough for me to understand the importance or what music was being played.

Maybe it would be appropriate with the guidance of an expert in Bach's music that can explain the film.

I really tried and saw the whole film hopping that I would be able to enjoy at least some of it, but I did not.

See it at your own risk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ever had one of those nights when you couldn't sleep and just turned on the tube to see what was on? That is how I ran across this tripe. For myself, I would have been better served tossing and turning for the 97 minutes I wasted with this film.

In its attempt to \"be real\" this movie's characters come off as such gangsta stereotypes that the story should have been the premise for a Wayans brothers movie. The dialog? Please! It sounded like a white man was trying too hard to write this film.

The editing was horrible. One of my \"favorite\" scenes involved a car chase down a bunch of narrow alleys. Cut to the characters being chased, though, and they are driving through a park complete with baseball fields in the background.

When any of our \"homies\" get shot in this film, he bleeds miraculously through clothes that have no holes, which is more than I can say for the plot of this predictable load of....baking soda.

Indie films can be great even if they are low on budget and effects, but they still need to have some cinematic integrity. If I could have given it a 0, I would. If you watch it, I hope it is on cable, because even the cheapest rental would be too much to pay. Actually, 97 minutes was too much to pay...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll give it this: I didn't stop watching, and it's not corporate, which is kind of cool. But my internal critic cut it to pieces -- I suppose I see too many movies. Wooden script, the slang just sort of clanks out of their mouths without any kind of flow. Editing, mentioned before, is hit and miss; sometimes it evokes a good ghetto feel, but mostly its irritating -- jerky, quirky angles and really dull lingering facial closeups. The actors were marginal, though Letisha had her moments.

I'm not sure why the audience supposed to care about Curtis, he's a total screwup and the actor is entirely expressionless and not particularly funny or endearing. The directing doesn't help make you love him or hate him, even; I just wanted him to shut up and get shot already. I didn't care about his impotent vengeance when that rolled around. The completely predictable ending isn't credible at all. I'm not sure why we're supposed to believe that some erstwhile successful dealers he deposes are stupid enough to fall for his petty scams. \"Oh, you just got out of jail and are on probation? Here's thousands of dollars worth of cocaine, go run it around the corner for me. Now don't steal from me, etc.\"

A good sex scene in the beginning gave me hope, but it was let down in the end. Handling of a rape scene was slightly eyebrow-raising, if only mildly interesting. There are better movies in this genre that don't insult your intelligence by trying for some kind of authentic ghetto realism while more resembling a film-school offering. 4\/10, an F.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We were excited to rent this one after reading a few reviews and seeing that it scored so highly here. Well, we got it home and could not believe what we saw. Its basically comes off as if its written by some hard up perverted old guy who could not help inserting his sexual frustrations and fantasies into an anime film that really lacks in plot and humor. The main character is all over the place... one moment, he is like an immature little kid, the next moment he is mature and intelligent, then heroic, then a perverted stalker.

The worst part is all of the out of place sexual content. I have no problem with sex and dig a movie that has some good sexual energy, but this is just presented in a way that is creepy. Nipple slips, close ups of a girls crotch (many times) in white panties, or a swimsuit. It was totally out of place and it seemed as if the person who wrote it was trying to live out some fantasies through his cartoon characters.

We were expecting something of a mature nature, but we just kept looking at each other and asking what the heck the point of this was... besides jiggling cartoon boobs and poor dialogue. If you want to see some cartoon characters cleavage and crotch's... this is for you. If you are looking for something beyond that, this movie was empty. The characters and dialogue were just plain irritating.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dustin Hoffman's debut feature isn't as bad as it's reputed to be; a Spanish\/Italian co-production filmed in Italy with the director using the pseudonym \"Dan Ash\"(!), the film is uneven but generally diverting and deals with a plethora of shady characters in search of a $1,000,000 hidden by gangster Cesar Romero (who, despite being third-billed - after Elsa Martinelli and Hoffman himself - expires before the credit sequence has even rolled!).

Hoffman's performance, obviously, is nowhere near as nuanced as in later films but manages to dodge embarrassment by playing what basically amounts to an amiable klutz - an accident-prone American treasury agent of Sicilian descent (named Puzzu, which nobody seems to be able to get right!) sent out by his firm to retrieve the money and told to remain \"inconspicuous\" but, instead, is forever getting into trouble - though he ultimately proves surprisingly resourceful by finding the loot, foiling the crooks and winning the girl (Martinelli as Romero's daughter, who's somewhat wasted here)!!

Still, the film's best moments are provided by suave gangster Riccardo Garrone: apart from his would-be hard-boiled persona and the hilarious use of dialect, he's flanked by a trio of nitwits who more often than not prove a hindrance in the fulfillment of his various schemes! Also, in view of the story being set in Rome, it's odd that the police officer investigating the case is a Spaniard (doubtless an exigency of the co-production deal)!

Along the years, I've missed out on Hoffman's other Italian comedy - ALFREDO, ALFREDO (1972) - a number of times (I guess, mainly, because Leonard Maltin only rates it *1\/2 in his \"Movies & Video Guide\"...but, then, MADIGAN'S MILLION gets a BOMB!); with Pietro Germi directing and co-starring the luscious Stefania Sandrelli, the credentials of that film are certainly more respectable, and I really hope it turns up again on Italian TV soon...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Warning, spoilers ahead (even if I doubt that anybody hasn't seen this yet)

The movie starts off rather well, but about halfway through it falls apart and becomes a corny, sugary sweet, predictable and unrealistic 'harmony romance' mess. I mean, it's very obvious that there are serious problems in the main characters' marriage, but these problems are never solved but just forgotten.

Basically, as soon as she decides to have a baby behind his back (without even asking) all of their problems magically disappear without a trace or an explanation. Given what had happened up until that moment it would have been far more logical if the marriage fell apart rather than becoming the trite and cliche' 'having a baby will change everything' ending.

The two main characters' families and neighbours are also extremely one-dimensional, and don't seem to serve really any purpose if not to irritate the viewer, and they also mysteriously disappear from the movie as soon as the 'harmony moments' start.

I am sorry to be ripping this movie, but given the start I would have expected something more. 4\/10 for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In a not totally successful attempt to be taken seriously, and move into 'adult' films, Mr. Hughes gives us this film about a young married couple. True, it's got every cliche in the book in it, silly fantasy stuff and all that, but more importantly- it's got Elizabeth McGovern.

Clearly the best actress to have ever appeared in a John Hughes film, she lends a weight to it that elevates the sometimes silly material. Kevin Bacon (and his hair) is pretty good as her husband, but McGovern steals the movie with her quiet true moments of honesty. The 'teen film' fun that worked so well in other Hughes films falls flat here- like a favorite uncle whose jokes made you laugh when you were 9, but keeps telling them when you are 15 and you wish he'd find some new material. But I keep going back to McGoverns performance, because it's truly moving. Mr. Hughes most interesting films to me have real actors in them (Some Kind of Wonderful, Breakfast Club) and when his material bumps up against a true talent, some wonderful things can happen. If only he'd trust that it doesn't have to be tarted up with the silly fantasy stuff.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In order to enjoy 'Fur - An imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus,' Stephen Shainberg needs the viewer to suspend all reality and prior knowledge of the American photographer, Diane Arbus. Paradoxically, it's the very use of Diane Arbus' name and knowledge to her life and work, that sets this film up to fail on a grand scale.

What becomes apparent quite early on with the casting of the beautiful WASPish and glamorous Nicole Kidman as the anti-glamorous Jewish Diane Arbus, is that Shainberg didn't get Arbus or what her work was about (unsentimental realism) and seems only attracted to Arbus on a superficial level through her photographs of circus freaks.

What follows is a kind of pretty and trivial Beauty & the Beast fantasy biopic with Robert Downey JR as Kidman's hairy fictional love interest. However, it's not the banality of the story that is the main flaw in this film, but the director's misogynistic stance that Diane Arbus, one of the art world's most singular and original woman photographers, was incapable of forming her own ideas about her work. While his previous film 'Secretary' was a study of female masochism, his continued portrayal of the female as submissive spoils this film completely - and flys in the face of the real life Diane Arbus' courage, tenacity and fearlessness in single-handedly exploring the often shady world of outsiders.

Imagine an imaginary biopic on pop star Madonna's life with Guy Richie as her Svengali, the man behind her career, and you'll get a feel of how seriously flawed and imaginary this film is: It can only work if you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject, or just choose to ignore all the facts.

It's a shame because once you remove all reference to Diane Arbus, this film could have stood up on its own as an interesting study on fetishism and a good companion piece to Secretary. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For anyone who cares to know something about the real Diane Arbus, or who values psychological veracity, this film is abysmal. Arbus was a brilliant, talented, restless, and troubled person, but this film depicts her as completely self-involved, and truly bizarre in her taste and judgment. Kidman portrays her as wan and vague, whereas she was someone who knocked people over with her charisma. The totally fictional relationship that is central to the film is quite unbelievable, and Robert Downey is truly annoying in his smirking portrayal of someone who seems to think he's superior to the rest of the world simply because of his affliction. The film depicts this encounter as being the source of Arbus's interest in \"freaks,\" which is a truly banal explanation for the inspiration behind some of the greatest photographs of the 20th century. The mystery to me is why people of some talent and intelligence chose to be involved with this film in any way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hadn't really heard too much about this movie so I went and saw it. I realized that this movie only appeals to someone who has not lived in the real world. And even those people would think this movie moved too slowly.

When the movie opens up, you see Nicole Kidman going to a nudist camp. Whoa. Shock. That scene, the dialouge, were all great. And then the movie went downhill.

While I respect the vision the filmmaker must have, this movie sucked. It was too slow, too predictable, and not moving enough. Robert Downey Jr. is great, as usual, but this movie is not good enough to sit through. It tries to be shocking and abnormal but makes poor use of the talents of all the actors.

Don't waste your money, even the sex scenes were boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What were they thinking when they made this truly TERRIBLE film?

Arbus, one of the most important photographers and women of the Twentieth Century, had a fascinating and dramatic life. What possessed anyone to make this film, which explains her unique artistic vision, as being the result of an (imaginary) affair with a grotesque, yet charismatic hairy freak (played by Downey)?

In real life, Arbus broke out of a traditional marriage and woman's role to express herself. In this movie, Arbus is an ultra-dreary Nicole Kidman whose inspiration is all attributed to a \"Beauty and The Beast\" devotion to an interesting man.

For this reinvention, the film is truly shameful. Independent of that, it is also just dopey and dull.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know how this movie has received so many positive comments. One can call it \"artistic\" and \"beautifully filmed\", but those things don't make up for the empty plot that was filled with sexual innuendos. I wish I had not wasted my time to watch this movie. Rather than being biographical, it was a poor excuse for promoting strange and lewd behavior. It was just another Hollywood attempt to convince us that that kind of life is normal and OK. From the very beginning I asked my self what was the point of this movie,and I continued watching, hoping that it would change and was quite disappointed that it continued in the same vein. I am so glad I did not spend the money to see this in a theater!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As an early representation of the turmoil of the 1960's that followed, Diane Arbus (Nicole Kidman) can be excused as an early flower child. The film itself deserves no such latitude. The lack of character development, motivation and justification for the character's behavior makes the movie very disappointing. I sat watching and waiting for some explanation of the bizarre actions only to find that Shainberg was letting me peek into a story that must have been someones inside joke. That the few facts presented did not match Diane Arbus' life very much did not help to clarify things either.

The washed out Art Direction in Diane's 'normal' life was nicely contrasted with the brilliant colors in her 'awakening' life with Lionel. And the trap door stairway was a nice demonstration of Diane's attempt to inject her new life into her existing family (However, I don't see how that trap door in the ceiling of her dining room could directly connect to Lionel's apartment which was two flights of stairs up from her's).

Maybe my analysis is a little too literal in looking for some character development and relationship understanding that goes beyond one sentence or one comment. I also would have liked to see at least one of Diane's photos as well. I won't wait for the sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I could have liked this if I didn't like Diane Arbus.

Didn't really capture Arbus unique visual aesthetic(as Stanley Kubrick did in \"The Shinning\", with the twin girls in the hallway, a direct homage to one of Arbus most famous photos, and one with haunting qualities none of this movies images have), and certainly none of her character(outgoing), likeness(thin and Jewish, not wasp Queen Kidman), or life, save some very superficial similarities, she was a fashion who later photographed \"freaks\" and \"outsiders\", among many things. This film focused on the \"freak\", as her symbol for artistic and personal empowerment, in a really shallow and predictable fashion. Outside of that, it might have been an interesting movie about middle class fetish, but I was too annoyed to care.

Perhaps if Arbus name had been left off, this might have been less annoying, but had it not had her name in the title there would have been nothing to make me interested in seeing in this in the first place. A letdown from \"Secretary\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bizarre. This movie is supposed to be based on a famous photographer, but everything that happens in this movie is fiction. I guess it tries to explain why Diane Arbus had a fascination with oddities and made it her primary photography focus. In the movie, wolfman moves into the apartment above hers. She seemingly becomes obsessed with him and falls for him. She puts her kids and husband second over the wolfman, and even tries to incorporate him into her family gatherings. Some of the wolfman's freak show side kicks come over to visit and she mingles with them. The whole thing is very bizarre.

FINAL VERDICT: Nothing memorable. There is just something weird about a woman who gets her jollies from shaving the wolfman. I think you can find better films out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Poor Diane Arbus (whoever she was). Not only was she (according to this movie) a spoiled-but-sweet-acting upper East Side brat, she was a bad wife, bad mother, awful business partner; plus there is no evidence in this picture that she was any kind of an artist -- except in the bold statement in the prologue.

Nicole Kidman, who incredibly is more attractive today than 25 years ago and actually looks younger, indeed gives an excellent performance; but what can an actress do with a wife and mom who seeks out and falls for an incredibly weird werewolf-looking guy living in the apartment upstairs? Set in the early 1970's, Manhattan was a virtual magnet for freaks and weirdo's of all sizes and shapes, most not looking like human hairballs; so why is this affair worthy of a 122 minute movie?

Robert Downey Jr used to be one of my favorites, but I'd say his well known and prolonged use of drugs has taken its toll. One might think he'd be disinclined to be in a movie that treats drug use as casually as it does smoking cigarettes.

FUR has already taken a beating at the box office, but in view of those who input a score of 10 for this misbegotten slice of trash, I'd like to say, 'taint so, McGee.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was an abysmal show. In short it was about this kid called Doug who guilt-tripped a lot. Seriously he could feel guilty over killing a fly then feeling guilty over feeling guilty for killing the fly and so forth. The animation was grating and unpleasant and the jokes cheap.

It aired here in Sweden as a part of the \"Disney time\" show and i remember liking it some what but then i turned 13.

I never got why some of the characters were green and purple too. What was up with that?

Truly a horrible show. Appareantly it spawned a movie which i've never seen but i don't have any great expectations for that one either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just don't understand why anytime someone does a show about one of the largest metro areas in the country (Houston, Dallas, Austin\/San Antonio etc.), they portray the average person as someone who wears wranglers\/cowboy hat , talks with a drawl, has zero fashion sense, and drives a truck on his way to either the \"saloon\" or his next hunting trip, rodeo, skeet shooting or country music concert. I have never even seen a small town cop driving a police-truck...anywhere in Texas.

The funny thing is this is not done for artistic reasons or comedy...they are actually serious and I guess believe the average person is too stupid to know the difference. The bad scripts and equally bad acting give that away. This show makes goofy shows in the past like Knightrider look like high-brow entertainment. At least Knightrider had the talking car.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, no one with any law enforcement experience (Not ER or EMT, but real law enforcement) takes this show seriously. Walker would be drummed out of any police force in the US for his illegal and totally unprofessional tactics. On top of that, he is a comic book character---no acting ability, incredibly trite lines, no character development. The fact that Alex Cahill loves him shows just how dumb blondes really are. And Trivett is the ultimate clown in black-face. Come on---if you think Walker is a heartfelt show without bias, then explain why JT is treated as a dolt, always is the subject of Walker's jokes, never is allowed to be the one to solve the crime, and never rescues Walker, who should be dead 50 times over for the stupid things he does. While it may be true that many criminals are even dumber than the detectives who go after them (and believe me, most cops are dumber than dirt), the smart ones Walker comes up against never seem to get the point that once Walker is captured, the jerk needs to be put of his misery. But then again, Norris produced the show as well as starred in it, so how could he willingly get rid of himself or even show how stupid his tactics are. As if six guys are going to wait around to take him one at a time. What a terrible series! It is more demeaning than any of the hokey westerns like The Lone Ranger, Roy Rogers, The Cisco Kid, and Wild Bill Hickock, though I would imagine that most of you on here are far too young to remember those shows. But like those shows, in the same way as those shows, Walker TR is just as insulting and just plain silly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The fact that this cruddy series could elicit dozens of comments (much less hundreds of 'votes') speaks volumes as to the decline of Western (or at least American) civilization.

Read Proust, you morons!! Or at least Dave Barry or Calvin and Hobbes anthologies.

Chuck Norris. Wrap your brains around the fact that in order to rate or write about this series you'd have to have spent minutes..nay, HOURS...viewing this poor sod treading the boards and spewing lines with less emotional impact than the gal who used to call off the correct time on your local service.

PLEASE DON'T WATCH THIS SHOW!! SPARE YOUR FEW REMAINING BRAIN CELLS!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show is the worst show ever! Norris and his family write it, produce it, direct it, etc etc. The only reason I ever see it is because my goofy wife likes it. How many times can Norris fly though the air from plain sight to land a kick on an obviously blind villain? No trees, no building, just whoosh.....thin air. He ALWAYS solves the case or is the best at whatever skill there is. No co star ever gets the glory. Its all Norris. Its truly apparent that Norris is awful stuck on himself and will not allow anyone to one up him in any scene no matter what the content. Terrible acting, terrible script, terrible series.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This TV show is possibly the most pathetic display of crap on TV today. Horribly predictable, obscene usage of slow motion photography, cheesy story lines. Chuck Norris is an abomination who should never have been allowed to be filmed in anything. The way he chooses to make each episode into a public service announcement is really annoying. His acting sucks so bad that it makes a person cringe with embarrassment. I will give the series some credit though...it does get entertaining at times, but not enough for it make any difference. With all the negative points this series has, i still prefer it over reality TV, it can't really get any more worthless than that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Walker Texas Ranger is one of the worst shows produced in the past 10 years. The script for James 'Jimmy' Trivette, Walker's sidekick, is about as pathetically written of a part as Wesley Crusher on Star Trek TNG, and is played with about as much conviction.

On this show, people don't respond the way people respond to things in real life--everyone is polarized--everyone is either a completely good guy or a completely bad guy (unless Walker himself has a 2 minute talk with them and then they change instantly). That's not how life works, that's not how people are. This show doesn't take place in this reality.

The plot lines are about as realistic as Murder She Wrote, a show where an arrogant old lady can just walk into people's houses without them getting angry, and she can demand that police officers do what she wants and they bend over backwards for her. With Walker, everyone on the show, including the \"bad guys\", act like he's the sort of hero that myths and fairy tales are made of, and time itself bends to his whim. The lines that sometimes come out of people's mouths on this show are beyond ridiculous. It's as if the scriptwriter for the part of Wesley Crusher (for the \"serious\" parts) and the scriptwriter for Bob Saget's funniest home videos (for the \"humor\" parts) got together and wrote all the scripts for this show.

This show is for people who think that good always prevails over evil. It's for the elderly. It's for wishful thinkers. It's for people who want to be guaranteed to always have a happy ending. It's for people who want to drift away into oblivion. It's for people whose drug of choice is their television.

I cringe every time I see even a commercial for this show. My opinion is that it is THE worst show to be on television in the last 10 years.

I used to like Chuck Norris, but this show has forever tainted him in my mind. I can't even watch his older movies without thinking of this show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This series is formulaic and boring. The episodes are the same thing every week, simply with slightly varied settings. Some purely evil character does some dastardly deed, Walker goes after him, and it ends in a Karate match. The villains are super-clich\u00e9 super-stereotypical evil villains, the good guys are all pure, honest and saintly, and the story lines are simplistic and unrealistic. After about 2 episodes, the show becomes totally unwatchable by all but the least discerning fans. Certainly not Norris's best work. His other work may be clich\u00e9 but it usually does not drag on for weeks. If you enjoy formulaic,boring, repetitive clich\u00e9d snooze-fests, then this is for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd never thought that I would be caught saying this: But I think \"Dog the Bounty Hunter\" is more entertaining than this 90's era cop drama. Walker is very melodramatic and actually set a standard of the genre of \"High Octane\" cop shows such as CSI, CSI: Miami, and so forth. I'm not saying all these shows are bad, but they aren't good either. I like the karate chop action that Walker dispenses on the enemies of justice, and the diverse cast of characters as much as the science tech of the CSI series. But there are some elements that I hate in a show like this. Stereotypes\/Countertypes! That's right, Stereotypes\/Countertypes! Unfortunately, this is a show for the moderates of Red State America who refuse to part with the old prejudices of yore especially when it comes to crime. For example, there was an episode in which a kid with psychic powers ventures into Dallas where he encounters group of kids in Goth\/Punk clothing and they start harassing him. Now! This is exactly what Middle America perceives the Goth\/Punk culture. I mean come on, how often do people that dress like that rob and steal from people just minding there own business. Whenever there are Blacks and Latinos in the plot it's always about gangs in some impoverished neighborhood. Okay! Not everyone who's a minority is a desperate recruit of a gang surrounded by crime, drugs, poverty. Again, this is what Middle Red State America sees of these people. Finally, Why is the Trivette the bumbling sidekick, can't you make the sidekick an equal ass-kicker?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has got to be the worst show I have ever seen. I always liked Chuck Norris in Films, but why do we need to make these shows politically correct by adding a black side kick who is as threatening as Shirley Temple in Little Miss Marker. I also thought the show was limited because how many times can you kick a guy in the face and make it interesting. I know an African American who looks like this Trivette guy and he gets his butt kicked about once a week he is all attitude.

Chuck Norris is the man and he deserves all the kudos he gets, I think this show started great but lost steam as time went on

They should have dumped Chucks side kick","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a true Canadian, I always avoid Canadian movies. However now and then I get trapped into watching one. This one is better than most, which is to say mediocre. It has many of the usual flaws of Canadian films...self-conscious acting...an excess of cinematic gimmicks and, above all, the self-effacing Canadian habit of using Canadian cities as stand-ins for American ones. I mean using the historic metropolis of Montreal as a stand in for Harrisburg Pennsylvania is just short of obscene. I was in a generous mood. I gave it a 4.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*SPOILERS!* When I first saw the preview for this, it looked like a good old fashioned hallmark movie. I love bluegrass music, so I couldn't wait to see it. When we rented the movie, we read the back and it sounded even better. The film was pretty boring for the first half, every now and then a song would be played. Then (i'm embarrassed typing this)a lesbian love seen came in. I that ther was something more then friendship between the teachers but I certainly didn't expect nudity and prolonged make out sessions. I was watching this with my mother and I was quite embarrassed, because I picked this movie. But besides that, it was an okay movie. The acting was fine, the actress who played Deladis was great. To be honest, the soundtrack was the best part of the movie. I don't care to see the movie again but i bought the soundtrack the day after I saw the movie. And there are continuation discs that follow. If I were you, I would skip the movie and just get the music.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a fabulous premise based on lots of factual history. But the serious lack of character development left us not really liking or caring about any of the characters, especially the musicologist! She did not get any sympathy; she seems like she deserved his own black cloud. The songs were great to a point, but became repetitive after a while.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Visually beautiful with some fine music, this film otherwise has a fairly trite made-for-TV quality. The romance between two characters, which spans a cultural and educational divide, is simply NOT plausible. Of course, from early on we knew our persnickety heroine would lighten up, win over the locals, and find true love, but that doesn't make it any less woeful that the movie had to take such completely expected turns. This film had lots of promise, which makes it more of a shame that the promise was unrealized. Perhaps a nice under-the-blanket on a cold night freebie on cable, but I certainly wouldn't recommend paid rental or purchase. I'm sure the soundtrack is wonderful, though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Weak tale of an evil warlock who is searching for a centuries old satanic Bible so that he can do Lucifer's bidding by undoing creation. Hot in pursuit all the way is a 17th Centruy bounty hunter named Redfern and his reluctant sidekick Kassandra. Sound like a load of bunkum? It is.

This drivel from writer D.T. Twohy gets the superficial treatment it deserves from director Steve Miner (who helmed that romantic nonsense \"Forever Young\"). Twohy obviously knows nothing about true evil.

Julian Sands just flies around and cackles, trying to look evil, while Richard E. Grant succeeds only in wasting his rich talent. Lori Singer's career also took a nosedive with this one.

Special effects crew has some fun, and Jerry Goldsmith provides a score superior to its subject matter.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You've got to watch this movie! It is so bad it actually is great.

You've got your crazy but gutsy captain who of course is having an affair with his worn out used to be gorgeous copilot. And of course the mid air collision occurs when the captain's enemy and rivalis along for the ride to geYou've got your ex Vietnam Vet who is can't handle the pressure of another mid air collision and crash landing. Then you've got your old crazy Army Air corp buddy who is flying the chase plane and trying to well I can't tell you what he's trying to do. The plane keeps going up, up and well and then you've got your greedy and immoral corporate engineer and then you've got your Ice Station Zebra cold and then Lucky saves the bad guy from drowing so they can land the plane! aND IT DOESN'T END --- IT JUST GOES ON AND ON! You've got to watch this. It's great! YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! DID THEY ACTUALLY SHOW THIS ON COMMERCIAL TELEVISION AND HOW IT WAS EVER SHOWN ON CABLE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although I have rarely flown myself, I am keenly interested in aviation... and this film has added to the precious laughing stock in aviation cinema.

1. Why is the captain doing the ground checks? Why does he even measure the oil levels in the engines? With turnaround times as low as 15 minutes in commercial aviation this is not a typical pre-flight check.

2. WHY does the captain KICK against the aircraft tire? Strange kind of pressure check. Or anger management :-)

3. The cockpit has a crew of 3. All large, western, two-engined jets built since the 1980ies have a crew of 2 people. Now try a guess at how old the movie script is.

4. A helicopter manages to fly alongside the crippled airliner. Must be a fast one... and the captain's words to explain the \"maneuver\" to the passengers are indeed hilarious ones!

5. With arrested elevator rudders it is always possible to lower the nose of the aircraft. It happens, for example, when any aircraft moves slower than the stall speed.

6. The elevator rudders have hydraulic actuators. After the collision with the business plane it would, most probably, have severed the hydraulic lines and thus make them useless for steering, but it would NOT fix them in certain position.

7. The fire in the aft galley was a stupid idea. It was designed to show that only gentlemen ask for the extinguisher and fight the fire, regardless of who was actually trained to do that \u0096 the flight attendant.

8. At the time of collision, the aircraft's elevators would have been in a neutral position. The film could have ended here...

9. The flight engineer (the third person in the cockpit) has three bars on his uniform. In reality, flight engineers have two.

10. Why does the captain slash the cabin casing with an axe to examine the damage behind? I thought it would have been the flight engineer's duty, as he is already supposed to perform technical checks before and after flight.

11. In any aircraft, there is no unused space. At least commercial airplanes cannot afford the luxury of a compartment that can be filled with tons of water.

I could go on and on... but at last I laughed hysterically about how the screenwriters imagine aircraft disasters! Woooohooo! Most aircraft disasters happen in such a short time span that you simply cannot make 90-minute flicks out of them. But you can always fill 90 minutes with mind-boggling and insane crap, irrespective of the genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"one of the worst films I have EVER seen, but extremely funny (not on purpose though). Every scene that contains anything to do with; aircraft, romance, script or acting is badly messed up.

I recommend this film for all pilots, it\u00b4s so bad that you should burst into laughter at some point in the film (also see Airport 79:the Concorde, for the same reason).

Anyone else, avoid this film like the plague (except for fans of B-movies, of course)

enjoy","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a script, what a story, what a mess!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I actually saw this movie at a cinema. At the time, I was working shifts and went there during a matin\u00e9e on a hot summer day when I couldn't sleep. The cinema was air-conditioned.

It was an early multi-screen complex and I somehow got into the wrong venue. I had intended to doze through something else. But as things transpired, there would be no sleeping. Shortly after the wrong movie began, I was additionally disconcerted by a group of female cleaners who came in and used it as their social club. I was the only other person there, and it is a measure of the movie's appeal that they habitually expected the place to be empty and asked me if I minded their presence. I didn't.

Within about half an hour, the cleaners' conversation proved to be more interesting than the entertainment I had paid for.

This movie oozed out of the screen with the cheesiness of very stale mayonnaise. The kind that has little dark, hairy, tufts growing on the surface. I particularly remember my senses being assaulted by strident cords of music that would blare out with very little warning, and even less meaning. The cleaners provided an anticipatory cue by putting their fingers in their ears.

It was about some city bird going to live in the sticks amongst a load a backwood folk, putting them straight but at the same time being taught a moral lesson or two herself. Like you do. A sort of 'journey of discovery'. There was a sententious smugness about the whole production. In particular, the leading actress had an irritating habit of staring at every hick with a kind of intense beatific compassion, as if she herself were the patron-saint of thickies.

And I believe at some stage she wrote a book.

Long before the end, I had become fascinated by one of the cleaner's hushed and breathy tails of sexual impropriety.

One suspects that there are some to whom sitting quietly for a couple of hours and not having to think, constitutes a meditation. The best that I can say is that I would not want to share their salad.

I have never seen this movie advertised as showing on television, which surprises me. It is just the sort of pap that is screened in the afternoon to punish the unemployed for not having jobs.

If you ever work shifts, be sure to get into the right theatre. Or hope for some cleaning ladies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was an appallingly bad film! Ashley Rose Orr was horrible, she had none of Shirley Temple's charm AT ALL! Those ghastly smiles she would do when she scrunched up her piggy little eyes in a way that I think was 'supposed' to be cute and make the audience go - \"aahhhh bless!\" It just made me want to slap her. She must have simpered \"oh my goodneth!\" about a hundred times throughout the film. Also she could barely utter a sentence without accompanying it with a fake giggle. Horrible HORRIBLE film .. If I could rate it minus 10, I would. Don't waste your money on this piece of rubbish, go out and buy a genuine Shirley Temple film!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a huge Shirley Temple fan. When I saw this movie, it made me appreciate what a talented child Shirley actually was. Ashley Rose Orr made possibly the worst on-screen Shirley. Imagine an 11 year old playing Shirley Temple from the age of 5. That in itself is wrong. But getting her to 'mimick' Shirley's voice? And her singing is woeful. The dancing was good, I'll say that. As previous users have said, there was little dramatic scenes, nothing to make the story interesting. Not even Amelia Earhart... I would have liked to have seen more of the world wide phenomenon that Shirley Temple created. There was too much focus on the Wizard of Oz, when in reality, Shirley was just considered for Dorothy. The film portrays it as though it is the end of the world when she does not get the role. Shirley herself said that she is glad Judy Garland got to play her. For me the star of the show was the lady who played Gertrude Temple. Otherwise, stay away! For great Shirley Temple films, watch Heidi, Poor Little Rich Girl and Little Miss Broadway.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Did we all see the same movie??? I can't believe the raves some of the others are giving this really awful bio which, believe or not, was authorized by Shirley Temple herself, based on her book CHILD STAR. Gives me the feeling that some are awfully easy to please.

First of all, ASHLEY ROSE ORR, whatever her modest talents are, in no way, shape or form even resembles Shirley Temple enough to be cast as her in this sort of straightforward biography of the world's most famous child star. She gives no indication of why or how this child was so revered except for trying her hardest to do a Shirley impersonation which never clicks on any level. None whatsoever.

And that is the major handicap of the whole piece. But as if that isn't bad enough, any drama inherent in Shirley's story of her climb to almost overnight stardom has been completely white-washed with insipid writing peppered with occasional song and dance moments that don't even approximate what Shirley did (as for example, \"The Codfish Ball\" with Buddy Ebsen which was probably the high point of Shirley's choreographed dance routines).

Simply putting a girl in a polka dot dress doesn't make her Shirley Temple. None of Shirley's own brand of charm, warmth and appeal is even remotely suggested. All we see on display is a pale imitation of the original proving, once and for all, that there was only one Shirley Temple.

It's worthless to write anything further about this mess. None of the others are more than ordinary in lifeless roles. My advice for Shirley's fans is to read her book--or better still--watch her movies.

This is the pits.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't think this movie was very good at all. Basically they took a bunch of one-liners from various Shirley Temple movies, threw them together, and had Orr act like Shirley Temple acted on-screen. \"Oh my goodness!\" was said quite a number of times. If you are familiar with Shirley Temple movies, you will recognize several lines direct from her movies. The trouble is they have Orr saying these in Shirley's everyday life. In the end, what we get is a hodgepodge of re-created Shirley Temple movies, instead of any sort of real look into Shirley Temple's life. Save yourself the trouble and rent Shirley Temple movies, it's a lot better than watching Orr try and recreate Shirley's acting style.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was awful! Ashley Rose Orr, while a talented tap dancer, and singer (actually a little better than Temple was in terms of the latter), is a terrible actress. She plays the character as the Shirley that we saw on screen in her movies whether she's playing her onscreen or offscreen persona. So what we get is an overly cutesy, and wholly unrealistic (not to mention uninteresting) portrait. If one wants to see that side of her, one can just rent one of her movies. The only bright light here is Connie Britton's portrayal of Gertrude Temple. I don't think it was terribly realistic, but at least it was well acted. Save yourself the trouble and rent The Poor Little Rich Girl.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie could have been a lot better than it was, if hadn't been a Disney Film. I thought that the young girl playing Shirley was all right, you could tell that she was really trying to do the job right. The teenage Shirley Temple wasn't right at all. I think that they should have spent last time on her childhood, the first hour should have been about the young Shirley, then the last hour should have been about the older Shirley. This was a boring movie, and not a good Shirley Temple story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Mame\" is a disgrace to many things--to Lucille Ball, to a story which has been told better many times over, and to the musical genre altogether. Ms. Ball does not understand her character at all and she seems to be heavily sedated. Bea Arthur is good, but it is not enough. The production is very shoddy and cheap looking, the songs are sub-par, and nearly every joke misfires. Also, Lucy couldn't dance well, so the music had to be slowed down to a funerial pace. Avoid at all costs, but DO see the delightful \"Auntie Mame.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lucille Ball's version of \"Mame\" in my opinion is one of the worst performances ever saved to film. After seeing Lucy in her various sitcoms more than an astronomical number of times, I can tell you that I really love Lucy, however, this movie is a fiasco of unbelievably bad casting, music and dancing. Robert Preston is the only saving grace with a part tiny enough to miss if you blink. I don't know what she was thinking, and I can't imagine how she was advised by the studio or director, but I actually cringed watching this embarrassing performance. I could be really cruel and suggest watching it for a laugh, but it's too pitiful even to qualify for that. Don't waste your money or your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Up until around 1970 Lucille Ball was one great comedienne. She was such a perfect clown I only wish more people could have seen her with Bob Hope in \"The Facts of Life\" because she could do dry deadpan, too. as well as slapstick..

Yep, Lucille Ball was wonderful . . . until \"Mame.\"

Trying to see Lucille Ball in \"Mame\" is physically impossible because there is so much Vaseline on the already filtered lenses that you'd need Windex to see Lucille Ball in some scenes. So even if you see Lucille Ball in \"Mame,\" you can't really see Lucille Ball in \"Mame\". Which is a blessing.

That's about the nicest thing I can say about \"Mame,\" the movie of the musical of the movie of the play (this could go on, but it started with a perfectly funny book called \"Auntie Mame\"). Giving this a bad rap is like beating a sponge. So it does not matter that the music is croaked rather than sung. Most of the songs weren't much, anyway. There isn't any difference in the first three. \"It's Today,\" \"Open a New Window,\" and \"We Need a Little Christmas\" are all the same song. Celene Dion should do an album with them, they're so big and dull. The killer ballad \"If He Walked Into My Life Today\" needs a confident gorgeous voice (Edyie Gorme won a Grammy for doing it in 1967) that poor Lucille Ball did not possess when she made this movie. (True, Elaine Stritch can't carry a tune in a bucket, either, but at least Stritch can put over a song.)

If you still feel your life is not going to be complete unless you see the movie musical \"Mame,\" notice how there IS dancing in it, but whenever Lucy\/Mame starts to do anything beyond a palsied shuffle the camera cuts away, returning right when the number is over and the star poses with the dancers. Again, it's just as well. Jane Connell got to reprise the role of pathetic Agnes Gooch after Lucille Ball had Madeline Kahn fired to ensure no comic originality would upstage the star. Connell is a stage performer who, like Carol Channing and Ethyl Merman, can't scale down her performances for films, so she joins Lucille Ball in being embarrassing, though for different reasons.

The lavish gowns are by Theadora Van Runkle (Van Wrinkle?) and they provide the color missing in all but one of the cast.

Bea Arthur as the actress Vera Charles, Mame's best friend, ignores everyone and does her own fun thing. If only she was in more scenes. She's too old for her role, too, but at least she didn't maim it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love Lucy, but this movie is so wretchedly bad that I was squirming in embarrassment for all concerned within the first ten minutes . . . and it just got worse from there. Lucille Ball's \"singing\" is downright painful and the attempts to make her appear more youthful through the use of soft focus had me reaching for my reading glasses. It's bombs like this that give bombs a bad name.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a terrible movie, and I'm not even sure why it's so terrible. It's ugly, for one, with that trendy 1970s visual style that maybe seemed like a good idea at the time but which now enables one to instantly recognize a film from that time period as being a 70s product. The film retains the story and songs that made the stage version of the musical such a hit, but the songs sound lifeless on screen. But mostly, the movie sucks because of the wan performance of Lucille Ball, who you'd think would be able to make something of this larger-than-life character if anyone could. She sleepwalks through the movie like a terrified actress choking on her opening night, and the film sinks with her. Even Bea Arthur, who I bet was hilarious in the best friend role onstage, can't breathe any life into this stinker.

Avoid at all costs.

Grade: D","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lucille Ball was a mighty power in television throughout the 1950s and 1960s, but she still made an occasional film, most notably THE LONG, LONG TRAILER and THE FACTS OF LIFE. Although her television career remained strong, as the 1970s began her movie career seemed to be winding down--but Ball was determined to have one last big screen fling, and the project she selected was the 1966 musical MAME.

In many respects the role seemed tailor-made: based on the popular novel which gave rise to two different Broadway plays, Mame Dennis is a wacky, wildly uninhibited woman who \"inherits\" her orphaned nephew Patrick--and leads him on a wild tour of life's possibilities, bouncing from one comic spree to another. The music, which featured such songs as \"Open a New Window\" and \"If He Walked Into My Life Today,\" was among Jerry Herman's best work. The supporting cast, which included Robert Preston and Bea Arthur, was the best of the best. Expectations were high; opening night fanfare was tremendous; the film was a disaster. Critics were aghast and audiences sat slack-jawed.

No matter what hardcore Lucy fans may say, MAME is a fiasco, so much so that it is hard to know where to start. It is badly directed, badly filmed, badly performed, and there Lucille Ball is at the center of it all, unable to dance, unable to sing, and grinning like a waxworks dummy while incredibly bad choreography swirls around her. But the disaster is hardly of her making alone; the supporting cast fares no better. Bea Arthur and Jane Connell recreate their stage roles of Vera Charles and Agnes Gooch; the former is stagey, the latter is dismal. Robert Preston manages to sing with a smile, but he's pretty much on his own and clearly none too happy about it.

The DVD brings the film from the VHS pan-and-scan release to widescreen, but that only means there's more awfulness to see. Everybody loves Lucy, but only the least critical fan could love Lucy's MAME; while I wouldn't say it's bad enough to make you want to gouge your eyes out, you may wish you had. Not recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Truly I Love Lucy as well...comedic genius yes.....MAME...NEVER...she was as ridiculous as Mame...as was the film adaptation of Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya sisterhood. Both just completely missed the point. Roslind Russell was, is and always will be the first and only Mame. Perhaps as a young starlet, Ball could have pulled off a role like this, where her inherent beauty and youth could have carried her through...but this seemed a desperate attempt from an aged star to show that she was still viable in the field. The reason there are sooo many more supporters of Russell's version (aside from the fact that you cant improve upon the original) is that Russell had presence, she absorbs every scene, whereas Lucille Ball might as well be a pattern on the wallpaper in Mame for all the attention she commands in the role.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so awful, so boring, so badly miscast -- it took a lot of work to make what should have been a sure thing into such a travesty. I love Lucille Ball, but she absolutely stunk in this movie. Too old, couldn't sing, sounded like a truck dumping gravel even when NOT singing -- and the biggest sin of all -- SHE WASN'T FUNNY. EVEN A LITTLE. The studio shot themselves in the foot with this one, and for ruining what should have been a fabulous screen version of a fabulous stage musical, some other body parts deserve to have been wounded as well -- or perhaps they were already lacking those parts. That might explain it. But for Lucy to think she was right for a part that required SINGING -- well, that's the saddest thing of all. It's a very good thing to know your limitations. Even a legend can't come out of a stinker like this and still smell like a rose.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To begin with, I really love Lucy. Her TV show still makes me laugh. She was one of the greatest comedians who ever lived, right up there with Chaplin and Keaton. But, her performance in this movie is disappointing. She was too old, and the gauze filters on the lens make her look like a London fog refugee. She couldn't sing, and her voice was so froggy that she croaked through every song. Her dancing days were long in the past. Just because you are a Lucy fan, don't gloss over this mistaken, sad performance and sing it's praises. I prefer to remember Lucy in her wonderful TV series(I Love Lucy) and to draw the curtain of charity over the terrible mess of a movie called \"Mame\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lucille Ball cannot sing or act or dance. This makes the quality of her performance in MAME all the more dreadful. She's not allowed to do the low-brow slapstick that made her a hit on TV so she has to rely on building a character. Unfortunately, Ms. Ball never learned that skill as none of the tender moments have any warmth. How does she really feel about Patrick or Beau? We never really believe the words she says. That vacant stare of Ms. Ball is suppose to convince us she is emoting but there is no chemistry between her and Bruce Davidson, Robert Preston or Bea Arthur at all. For this reason every scene she's in is flat.

Moreover, when Ms. Ball opens her mouth to sing we are immediately made aware of the reason why the studios dubbed her voice for every other musical she starred in earlier in her career. It was stated that she demanded her voice be used so this is a mistake of ego as well as leadership. It is made worse when she is singing in voice-over and she has to \"act the moment\" without words. Whoever thought that would work forgot who was playing Mame.

I understand that Rosalind Russell did the role on stage and in the film AUNTIE MAME. Also, I am aware that Angela Lansbury won a Tony for her performance in the original 1966 Broadway musical. Neither of these women were known for their singing voices, but both could have pulled this off better than Lucille Ball. Why they went with her is the worst in blatant miscasting.

The only person that gets out unscathed is Bea Arthur. She's big and wonderful, catty and common in all the right amounts. Unfortunately, you keep waiting for this movie to take off and invite you to join in on the fun. But the film never does and you can't. No one besides Bea Arthur appears to be having any fun.

An additional bad review goes to director Gene Saks. Saks is known as an award-winning director of musicals and comedies for stage and screen, including the Broadway musical this film is based on. None of that skill and expertise is of aid here. The poor editing and storytelling quailty in this movie is beneath a director of his caliber. That glaring error in the execution of the movie is not the fault of Ms. Ball.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a big fan of \"Auntie Mame\" with Rosalind Russell. She really was the perfect actress to play that character.

I've heard Angela Lansbury was very good on stage in \"Mame\" but it's hard to imagine anyone topping Rosalind Russell.

Lucy was such a great comedienne that her comic bits salvaged her performance in this movie where I think she was miscast Really, they should have dubbed her singing voice - hearing these songs sung at a faster tempo and with strong voices really changes the whole effect.

I just saw the stage revival in Washington D.C. and I think Christine Baranski was very good as Mame, Harriet Harris - the nasty chain smoking agent on Frasier - played Vera and she was particularly good.

Both would be good casting for a TV movie of this show. Maybe if that production makes it to Broadway they'll consider filming it.

Also I think Tracy Ullman would be good as Agnes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Who the heck had the \"bright\"(?) idea of casting Lucille Ball in this film??? It should have been Angela Lansbury's baby all the way. At the very least Lucy should have had her singing dubbed.

There is some compensation in the fact that Jerry Herman's score is pretty well kept intact except for \"That's How Young I Feel\", and we do get performances by the original Broadway cast members Jane Connell and Bea Arthur.

I suppose Robert Preston had to be given a song, hence the inferior \"Loving You\".

Overall, I think in this one the wrong redhead was cast.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In 1967 I saw an outstanding Musical at the Wintergarden in New York City where Angela Lansbury lite the stage as Mame. But did Hollywood give her the lead ???? No Lucille Ball great as Lucy was given the role. She killed the film. What a mistake There was no chemistry as there was on the stage Bea Arthur and Angela what a twosome when they sang.. It is too bad a producer does not put these two together even today","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some good set design. Good songs, though like the other guy said they aren't performed with much energy. Bea Arthur, trying her damndest to do something with the material, had an occasional good one-liner as Mame's friend Vera and helped move the song \"Bosom Buddies\" along. Other than that, there's nothing here that's worth your time. Slow pacing, incredibly bad cinemetography, not very good singing (except from Robert Preston), an awful script, bad acting (except from Bea), and a horrible lead actress. Who thought Lucille Ball would be good as the classy, life-loving Mame? The heads over at Warner Bros. were no doubt on crack when they decided to not use Angela Lansbury, who had done it so well on Broadway, and instead use Ball, who wasn't nearly as funny by then as she was 20 years earlier, couldn't act the part \"the right way\" at all, and used a painful croak as an excuse for singing. Even if (perhaps because) making the movie was painful for her to make and even if she financed it, she just isn't Mame. Auntie Mame is such a better film and the soundtrack of the Broadway musical with Lansbury sounds great. For the most part, there's nothing here that's great, engaging, or interesting at all. Forget it, unless you're a huge Lucy fan who thinks she could do no wrong. Hopefully after seeing this you'll realize she was only human.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lucille Ball tries to look 30 years younger than she actually was in this poor excuse for a musical.

The movie features some of the worst choreography ever seen laced with the constant threat that Lucy might break into song with her bourbon voice at any moment. Lucy's total lack of talent as a singer and dancer sinks the film before it can begin and aside from die-hard Lucy fans, no one is likely to fancy it very much. Bad costumes and cheesy set designs don't help. Further proof that Lucy wasn't good at anything except making stupid faces.

Directed by Gene Saks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, in all honesty it's beyond the boundaries of stupid, but \"Killer Pussy\" is still one insanely entertaining little flick. No plot, tons of oiled up cha-chas, cheesy effects, and a penis eating monster! What's not to love?! Pretty much - a couple of explorers find this creature that likes to nestle itself within a woman's beef curtains until a schwang is unfortunately... ah, thrust into its mouth. It finds it's host who is later discovered frozen in a deserted house by a group of moronic guys and their equally brainless, slut girlfriends whose van breaks down. The creature jumps from each girl as they all fornicate like drunken rabbits... There's some cheap gore, girl-on-girl \"blood wrestling\", KY Jelly vomit, sock-puppet monsters and lots of soft-core sex. Ridiculous but a cool waste of time...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife and I saw every episode in this series and loved it. However, the series was cut short without a final episode by the producers of the show. It ended with a typical end-the-season cliff hanger leaving it's fans feeling cheated. A waste of great writing and acting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** A hot and sexy Linda Blair as the Witch Amelia Reynolds is very upset with her friend and rival Witch across town Erica Barens, Julie Strain. Amelia getting her husband Hal, Edward Albert, to get a promotion at his job at the Giger & Greengrass law-firm over the more deserving Larry Barnes, Larry Poindexter, who happens to be married to Erica has her cast a spell on Hal causing him to lose control of his car and end up almost killing himself.

Larry finding out about Erica's attempt on his best friend Larry's life has a violent fight with her causing Erica to fall from the balcony to her death. It's when Larry goes back to his ex-wife Carol, Rochelle Sanson, that things begin to really heat up, emotional and sexually. The wicked Amelia tries to have the dead spirit of Erica take over Carol's body and end up murdering Larry who she holds as being responsible for her husband Hal's injury that left him permanently confined to a wheelchair.

Not much of a story but lot's of cheese and soft-core action with poor Larry getting manipulated by Amelia through the resurrection of Erica who plans to kill him the first chance he turns his back on her. Amelia is a bit whacked out herself not exactly knowing who is and who isn't a threat to her. Amelia even gets her poor and innocent gardener Stan, Michael Parks to first lose him family in a bloody house invasion break-in, then his mind, by being accused by the police as being the murderer, and finally is life, by getting blasted by Ameila herself. As he's made to runs into the Reynolds' house, under her control, as mad as a hatter trying to murder both her and the crippled Hal.

Larry Parks looked and acted so weird that you had the feeling that he accidentally walked onto the set of \"Sorceress\" and ended up being in the cast playing his part as Stan. Without the help or benefit of a script he improvised his way through and then slowly realized just how god-awful bad the movie really is. Stan getting killed off early in the film was a big plus for him since he didn't have to suffer,like those of us watching, through the entire brainless and mind-numbing movie.

It becomes evident to you as well as it did to the makers of \"Sorceress\" that all this shenanigan's on the screen has to come to some kind of hopeful and successful conclusion and a trick ending is put in to finally end the movie. The ending is about the best thing, besides Miss Blair and the rest of the very well-endowed woman cast, that one can say about the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm just throwing in this review to show that I'm not crazy -- I like a lot of Wynorski's work -- Deathstalker 2, Chopping Mall, Against the Law are fast-paced and highly enjoyable -- just to prove I'm not blind, I have to mention this, along with some Shannon Tweed \"Body Chemistry 3 or 4 or something\", are the lousy ones -- I've got nothing against drawn-out sex sequences, but Julie Strain's breasts are so unnatural looking you can't help but stare at them - which may be the desired effect but I didn't enjoy staring at them -- and several members of this cast seem depressed or disinterested -- The \"erotic thriller\" was the worst thing to happen to low-budget flicks ever, and thank God that their day has more-or-less done.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The female cast of this movie is terrific: you've got Linda Blair (maturing nicely), Julie Strain (who doesn't get too many speaking lines - that's a good thing), Rochelle Swanson (equally convincing as a sweet innocent girl or as an evil possessed girl), Toni Naples, and the most beautiful of them all IMO, the simply stunning Kristina Ducati (how the goofy male lead, Larry Poindexter, deserved to get sexually involved with any of these women remains a mystery). However, beyond the chance to watch these beautiful and in some cases talented women, the movie has little to offer. The plot is disjointed and doesn't really get going until the last 15 minutes or so; and when Wynorski finally manages to create some suspense, a ludicrous \"twist\" ending comes and ruins everything. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is very much overrated. I guess it carries some nostalgic value for many people. It has its moments, but every scene is heavily overacted and the plot is quite shallow. With this cast it could have been much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Midnight Hour AKA: Tell Me No Lies (as found in some video stores) can be judged in two different ways. One by it's Merritt as a movie, complete with a plot (no holes), good story and believable conclusion and the other is by the skin flick it is trying to be. This is certainly no more than a B-Movie skin flick, whose sole purpose is to show every girl in the movie in an overly long sex scene at least once.

If you try to rate this as a regular movie, then this is bottom of the line drivel. HUGE plot holes ruin whatever storyline it has going for it. For instance, if a co-worker is killed, would you call the police or head home and hit the hot tub? Judging this movie by it's skin content, it's watchable... barely. The girls, for the most part, are all beautiful but quite obviously enhanced. The sex scenes were all long and overdone, though, and that made it's only redeeming quality a little boring.

Amber Smith could probably be a decent actress if she wanted. She was not as horrible as you could imagine or maybe next to the rest of the cast, she seemed a lot better than she was.

Zoe Anderson, who played Detective Arraya, should not even be watching a movie, much less acting in one. She looked good though, so we know why she was there.

Overall, I would not really recommend this to anyone. Even if you're looking for a good skin flick, there are much better one's out there. I rate this 4 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had heard about this movie through a friend, it was supposed to be a thriller, but what I watched wasn't a \"thriller\". It was more like a weak attempt at one. Amber Smith was a bright spot-that may be giving her too much credit. The scenes were she was in bed with actress Erika Michels were also lame. The two actresses did not seem to click with each other at all. Amber Smith was way out of this gal's league, and it definitely showed on camera. She did not seem into those scenes at all. I was disappointed because a friend of mine-guy of course-had pumped this movie up to be something \"great\", but it was actually more like watching dime store porn.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I ran across Yvette McClendon in a film at the Los Angeles Film Festival and thought she was a doll. After writing my review of her film there, I wanted to see more of her! Found this movie, it was pretty bad. Not her fault, she is only in the first few minutes where she is obviously being the person to pull you in to watch this bad movie. BAD directing. Scenes are looped over and over, with all the actresses. Amber Smith has a very bad breast job yet the other actresses looked pretty good. I really like Yvette but, this was obviously a bad choice of hers. I can't believe I rented this trash to look for her. I hope to find her other movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard to believe a movie can be this bad, but you live and learn. What's more amazing is the fact that the people who put this thing together likely had college educations. Meanwhile, the fruit of their labor bares the appearance of something a group of five eighth graders may have come up with. On the bright side, (if there is one) the soundtrack has some nice moments, which is another reason to question how the rest of the film can be so hideously bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rarely shut a movie off after the first 10 minutes but that is what I did with this one. What turned me off was it was so obvious that the only purpose of this movie was to expose as much skin of as many B actresses as possible, and nothing else really matters.

Don't get me wrong; I like pretty actresses and sex scenes, and sexploitation movies have their own scale of merits, but this director does nothing else right.

For example, take the scene where the two cops (of course one guy one gal and OF COURSE there is all this supposedly witty banter between them) are talking over while standing over the first dead body. The camera pans between them for each line, (there's more than one screen-width between them!) and you end up wondering whether you're seasick from that or the clueless dialog.

Well, it MIGHT have gotten better after the first 10 minutes, but I wouldn't know. I declined the sucker bet and found something better to do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Only if you are crazy about Amber Smith should you see this. Besides her svelte body there is pretty much nothing in terms of cinematic value. She even has a lesbian scene in this one. My guess is she is trying to metamorphize into those late night scream queens ala Shannon Tweed and Julie Strain.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1st watched 6\/21\/2001 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Emmanuel Itier): Pretty much worthless supposed thriller that spends more time drawing us into sexual encounters with and without the star 'Amber Smith.' It tries to wrap a story around the sex scenes but as usual with these types of movies it is not done very well. I was so bored with this movie that I actually fast-forwarded thru the ending to get it over with. The video version I watched was called 'Tell Me No Lies.'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dare Rudd (John Wayne) and sidekick Dink Hooley (Syd Saylor) are itinerant cowpunchers who can't seem to stay in one place very long. In \"Helltown\", the boys are headed to Montana, where they meet up with Rudd's cousin Tom Fillmore (Johnny Mack Brown), who offers them a job. It's a hoot to see the boys wearing aprons as they start out as cooks with the herd, although Dare becomes self conscious when Miss Judith (Marsha Hunt) rides into camp. Judy is Tom's girl, but the attraction between her and Dare is evident early on.

Fillmore has a cattle herd to move, and promotes Dare to running the drive, partly to prove to Judy that he may not be up to the task. Meanwhile, bad guy Bart Hammond (Monte Blue) has his eyes on Fillmore's cattle, but when his henchmen fail to rustle the herd, he figures it's easier to win the money that Dare was paid at the end of the trail. Conning Dare into a rigged card game with his man Brady (James Craig), Dare's money begins to evaporate hand after hand. It's only when Dare fails to show up back at Fillmore's ranch that Tom goes out to find his cousin. Exposing the cheats, Tom, Dare and Dink high tail it before the bad guys can get their revenge.

\"Helltown\", also known as \"Born to the West\", was released in 1937 by Favorite Films Corporation, a couple of years after Wayne's series of Westerns for Lone Star Productions. It only slightly alters the Lone Star formula; Wayne does get the girl at the end of the film, but here he was trying. There's a great runaway horse scene where Wayne rescues Marsha Hunt, in which Johnny Mack Brown's horse does a complete somersault spill. Syd Saylor does a nice job as the comic relief pal, doing his best to sell lightning rods to unsuspecting victims. He replaces familiar faces George \"Gabby\" Hayes and Yakima Canutt here, staples of the Lone Star films. John Wayne's charisma is beginning to develop here, preparing him for the leap to super star status that he eventually achieved.

\"Helltown\" was based on a novel by legendary Western author Zane Grey. If you're looking for more films based on Grey's stories, try \"Fighting Caravans\" with Gary Cooper, \"The Light of Western Stars\" with Victor Jory, \"Drift Fence\" with Buster Crabbe, and \"Heritage of the Desert\" with Randolph Scott.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is high time that American critics and fans alike start to debunk their unquestioned, sloppy veneration of films like Sergio Leone's 'Once Upon a Time in America'. The checkered history of this opulent film (and the grand, fanciful myth associated with it's production and many versions) belies its mediocrity on a narrative level. The film lurches backward and forward in fits and starts, its central figures adrift and seemingly out of place surrounded by the ersatz decadence of towering sets, the minutia of production detail and the, by 1984, cliche'd but gorgeous cinematographic confection on offer to the audience. The plot's time frame is confusing, gimmicky and laboured, leading some critics to imagine the Noodles figure's opium binging to be the antecedent of some future 'dream reality' as well as the sepia-toned remembrances. This ham handed, overly fan boy-apologetic interpretation glosses over the glaring narrative irregularities on display. Even at this full (?) running time, figures appear and disappear with alarming suddenness: the Deborah character is fleetingly established in child form, a cold and unattainable 'trophy' female, not even hinting at the gravity with which she will re-establish her relationship with a post-prison Noodles, the said re-union henceforth rings completely false. The deadening pace is somewhat to blame, certain sequences drag along stagnantly for far too long, signifying very little, hinting at a director with so little restraint and narrative economy that he often feels obligated to usurp every iota of screen time possible in order to show off his production, fatal for a film that contains figures so sullen and aloof. The trajectory of the figures' lives is presented to us as a microcosm mirroring the historical trajectory of America's teens through prohibition and its spoils, ending with the (arguable) ruin of its moribund central figures (save Deborah- a make up department fumble or intentional one wonders). This notion is commonplace, even banal. The cast of characters as imagined in the one note script (written by seven Italians no less) are flatly and awkwardly played by all but the younger actors, who at least venture a few variant facial expressions. This is understandable given the almost unworkable material. Some critics state that the characters may seem so impenetrably self-absorbed, but actively seek their own goals, assuming the compliance of others (e.g. when Noodles gets out of prison, Max picks him up and offers him a hooker without asking him whether or not this is what he desires and later makes deals assuming Noodles will comply). This explanation of their abrupt, abrasive dispositions is unsatisfactorily extraneous and merely serves to highlight the complicated ends the films unwavering supporters will go to to defend their positions regarding a film unfortunately short on sense. Although Ennio Morricone's score is much revered, it is undeniably schmaltzy and repetitive, it gushes with an emotional redolence that the scenes themselves, many violent, just do not warrant. At points it is questionable whether or not Morricone was watching the same film I was so incongruous is his work. As a paean to American Filmmaking, it succeeds in terms of mood (helped by a few strokes of masterful editing segueing between time periods) and visuals (not helped by said score) but lacks narrative cohesion and fluidity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With such a promising cast and a director that I have heard great things about, I was utterly disappointed by this film. It started off with signs of a great epic gangster tale and turned into a completely muddled mess with many unanswered questions and some completely ridiculous and pointless scenes.(and yes I did watch the full length version). I love Robert DeNiro and as usual he did a fine acting job, but in all his other gangster films, no matter how many people he kills, I always still had respect for his character, but in this movie he was a lowlife drug-addict, rapist with no care for anyone but himself. Also, James Woods, another fine actor, had some completely ridiculous scenes written for him. I thought the parts where Robert DeNiro called him crazy and he flipped out came completely out of left-field and towards the end the writers just throw in this random comment about how his father died in a nut house and that's why James Woods didn't like being called crazy. So much was left undeveloped in this movie. Also, we never find out who the men are in the beginning that are trying to kill Noodles and we never find out more about Joe Pesci's character. It seems that the writers threw together about five different stories and never fully explained any of them. The only redeeming quality of the film was the story when the characters were young kids. The story ran smoothly in this part of the movie and the kids did a great acting job. Overall, I was thoroughly disappointed by this movie and I don't see how anyone can even compare this to the Godfather 1 and 2, or even Goodfellas. I am sad that I wasted four hours of my life watching this film","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You could see the final outcome from a mile away.All the signs were there....the prom,the liquor,the fast ride,the distraction of the females.... A good commercial for seatbelt usage,and later model vehicles that sit the passengers further back from the windshield.Also,the ending is rather anti climatic,as the Ford Econoline van barely suffers a crease across its nose after hitting a bridge abuttment at high speed (highly unlikely).More damage to the van would have made it a little more believable.And why do these films always take place during\/after a prom? Is it a case of once you survive the prom,you will be good for life? More than anything else,it shows the lack of policing the prom for liquor,and not keeping tabs on the MINORs who are leaving the dance for a joyride.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film listed here as having been made in 1980 is not the film which is available from Something Weird Video in their \"Driver's Ed Scare Films Vol. 5\". For one thing the 1980 version is in color. SWV has on this disc an earlier version (1972) of the film made in b&w for WLWT television Channel 5 in Cincinnati. Either way this film is notorious. However, unlike most other driver's ed films, this was intended for television broadcast and viewing by the general public. Thus the level of carnage has been ratcheted down. It's still a pretty grim exercise in exploitation of bloody death for a purported educational intent. I live in the Cincinnati area and I remember this thing being shown every year around prom time on Channel 5. If you're looking for one film that demonstrates the tone of this uniquely American film phenomenon, \"The Last Prom\" is pretty typical - morose, hyperbolic, extremely didactic, heavy on melodrama. Whether it really affected any teenager's driving at all is anyone's guess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This Harold Lloyd short wasn't really much; not one of his funnier efforts. Of course, I never see bratty kids as anything hilarious. That's what the bulk of this story is, Harold and his wife, Mildred Davis, babysitting his in-laws two young kids. One is a baby who is constantly crying and the other is a four-year-old terror who does everything but demolish the house. Letting the kid create havoc over and over was not entertaining to me.

The best part was the last four or five minutes when the couple thinks that this big goon (Noah Young) is burglarizing their house. Half the time it's the pet cat scaring the couple, but overall, that segment is fun with some good sight gags, reminding me of another Lloyd short, \"Haunted Spooks.\"

However, the good ending doesn't save the whole picture, which I probably wouldn't watch again. Lloyd has done too many other good things to waste even 25 minutes on this one again. It just isn't that funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So pathetic its not even funny. From the first scene in the movie I knew I was in for a bad time. Thank goodness I only saw this movie on tv. The story line was terrible, not to mention the acting. It was horrid. Very unreal and unusual things happened in this move such as. The lady sticks a whip under the door and whips the guy a little and he just hands over the keys. I'm like, GET REAL. The creators lousy attempt to make a futuristic city even deepened my dislike for the film. To tell you the truth the only good thing in this movie at all was the fighting, which was in itself pretty lame. All I could ask myself when watching this movie was \"when is it gonna go off!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everybody loves to see a really bad movie sometime. You watch it, take a good laughs and forget it in the next half hour. But this is not one of those. It's the worst thing that will appear in front of your eyes for a while.

I would like to see someone to take responsibility for Dante - he's really the most stupid villain you can think of: a guy in leather pants that speaks with a voice over and has a victory laugh like a 50's Dracula. How can someone came up with this guy?? And the hero...\"The Dragon\" or whatever...my cereals box has better acting skills than him (maybe than all of them), it's unbelievable. But the worst are the fighting scenes where you would think there could be something in it. They're so lame, it's beyond any kind of description. There's no shame, i just can't believe how this movie was allowed by any studio. But i'm just thrilled it was. Watching this is a self-mutilating pleasure. See this only if you're in a movie quest for pain, and in that case, this one is a sure winner.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I actually liked this movie. Sure, the acting was flat, there was no plot, and the villain was the lamest that i've seen. Michael Bernardo as Dante is worth laughs in his own right, with an incredibly funny catchphrase and evil laugh. But its worth seeing, just for the WORST explosion you will ever see outside of the Power Rangers TV series. You'll know it when you see it. Honestly, this movie must have the budget of a low grade porno. I almost stopped watching after an hour, but i recommend watching through the whole thing; at the very least, there's plenty of eye candy for all to enjoy. Recommended for viewers with a high tolerance to poor movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why is it that virtual \"x-rated video game\" women can speak through their mouths but virtual fighting game champion Dante has to use a combination of telepathy and over dramatic facial expressions? I feel that either they needed to cast someone who looked more villain-like (Michael Bermardo's big brown doe eyes don't exactly strike fear in the hearts of well.. anyone except for maybe casting directors who consistently cast him as either a villain or a heroic 'bad boy'.) OR they needed to just let him use his real voice (and move his mouth), and maybe give him a costume that would not make him stick out like a sore thumb when walking down the street. (but of course this is the future and we must assume that bad fashion taste is considered the norm.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If movies where virtual reality characters come to life and they are all either male tough guys or female eye candy sounds good to you, then perhaps this movie may not be a total waste of film. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of people will find this to be an absolute bore, with little acting talent, and even less of a script. Yes, Athena Massey is nice to look at, but that is the only positive thing that I can say about this disaster.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have watched this movie on and off since it started playing about 1 hour ago, and i have to say, thats an hour of my life i wasted and will not be getting back, The acting is crap and the scripts need a serious look at, and whoever wrote them needs to be slapped, perhaps the TV will explode and put me out of my misery..... The only good thing about this movie is that for guys and girls it has some good eye candy in it, though, most of which i wish would disappear, as far as the movie is concerned, the special effects as sh*t, Dante? who thinks a guy dressed in skin tight leather pants and half a leather jacket is scary, he looks more feminine than most of the women in this movie, the voice of Dante is pathetic, nobody finds it threatening or scary AT ALL..... please TV i beg you to blow up!!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has got to be the worse movie i have ever seen. I only watched about a half an hour and i just shut it off. The cars in this movie look like two geo metro's front ends smashed together. This movie isn't even good for laughs. The only time i laughed was when Dante kept saying in funny voice, \"Nobody can beat Dante, Muhwa hwaa.\" I said holy god and shut it off. Bad, Bad movie. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don Wilson stars as a cop who enjoys the occasional virtual reality fighting game, however things go wrong when the people behind the game decide to take virtual reality to a new level by making real people from the video game, okay actually they make the cybersex models as prototype but the main bad guy from the video game awakens and starts killing people and now the only man who can beat the guy is Don Wilson, who in the mean time falls in love with the cybersex model. Actually with all things considered my biggest confusion was trying to understand if the people brought over from virtual reality land, were robots, human, cyborgs or just some type of unidentified computer program. It doesn't matter since this is all just an excuse to watch one of the worst actors ever butcher dialog as if he were running a deli. Don Wilson's complete lack of charisma is the film's biggest flaw since one just doesn't like the guy, he's too goody-goody, his voice is too high pitched and doesn't look very impressive in the action sequences. What saves this bore-fest from my lowest rating is Athenia Massey who looks super hot in high cut outfits and who gets occasionally naked. Also on-board is Loren Avedon (A good martial artist), Stella Stevens and Michael Dorn as the main voice of the bad guy but their efforts are in vain as they are all concealed by the very bad acting of Wilson. Another flaw which is the film's biggest mistake is a lack of action, as we are asked to watch the story unfold but aside from Massey's nudity and maybe some unintentional amusements due to laughably unconvincing acting, there really is nothing of interest. This also extends to the action sequences in which are flatly choreographed, badly directed and completely drained of all possible excitement. Making this virtually unwatchable.

* out of 4-(Bad)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, the initial concept of a lost fortune in gold bars discovered in a New Zealand lake, inside a downed World War 2 plane is a great opening. What follows is nothing but cartoon like drivel. Men chasing men, cars chasing men , helicopters chasing men, helicopters chasing boats, boats chasing boats, for the better part of an hour, the most boring nonsense, with absolutely no advancement to the story. Special mention must be made of the chop shop editing, as many scenes seem to have been spliced together in random order. The acting by all concerned is an embarrassment. One last thing, the picture quality and sound quality is so bad on this DVD that you will be appalled. - MERK","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At the opposite end of the spectrum from RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is David Hemmings' utterly inferior adventure regarding the salvage of a World War II-era plane with a valuable cargo. Assets include beautiful New Zealand settings, Brian May's energetic music score and some dandy helicopter flying and jet boat chases. The bad, however, far outweighs the good. Donald Pleasence hams as perhaps never before; half of his dialog is almost unintelligible. George Peppard attempts an Australian (I think) accent, then gives it up halfway through. Lesley Ann Warren is at her most irritating. Ken Wahl is, well, Ken Wahl. The dialog is painful to hear and Hemmings' direction is largely inept. The script is not only obvious but terrible. Jokes fall flat, scenes carry no punch and continuity is virtually non-existent. According to the end credits, two men were killed piloting jet boats during the making of the film. What a waste.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yeah, I know his character was supposed to be a drunk, and he may have been just acting goofy. But something tells this critic that Mr. Pleasence really was drinking a lot and was intoxicated during his scenes in the film. Basically everything he says is slurred and often unintelligible. Or maybe it was just the poor productions values... hard to say.

Anyway, The Race for the Yankee Zephyr is a film that just doesn't work. That's a shame, too, since the film has a terrific opening and a generally interesting plot. Ultimitely the production values are just too low and the action just too sparse for this New Zealand adventure to deliver the goods. The story deals with a US war plane which is filled with gold, money, and medals, which crashes into a lake in New Zealand during WWII. The plane remains lost for about forty years or so until it somehow washes ashore and a drunk (Pleasence) literally stumbles onto it. At first he gathers up all the purple heart medals and tries to sell them in town, actually getting $75 apiece for them! Little does he know that once he sells them, the local jeweler gets on the phone and starts trying to track down info about the plane. Before you can blink, all of the attention brings a wealthy scumbag (Peppard) and his henchmen into town and they quickly try to force the old guy to give up the location of the plane since they know there is much more on it than just medals. The old drunk's business partner (Wahl) and his daughter (Warren) then race out to try and claim the fortune before the bad guys can get to it. The resulting action just isn't as fun as you'd hope it would be.

The acting is rather awful, save for Pleasence. George Peppard tries to do some kind of (I guess) Austrailian accent, but it is hardly convincing. Lesley Ann Warren isn't too bad, but Ken Wahl is really bad. He's basically doing his best impression of Michael Pare on his worst day. And that's saying something. Hopefully he made enough money on this film to fix his front teeth which looked a bit crooked. I don't recall if he'd had them straightened by the time he was in Wiseguy. The rest of the cast are pretty untalented. Probably mostly locals who never did much else. I guess the biggest problems for me were the lack of action for much of the film, and the lack of danger. The villains are just too nice and goofy to be taken seriously. And honestly, there are NO helicopters in the film that look like the ones on the DVD cover. And none of the boats in the film have teeth painted on them, either.

The film does have its strengths, though. The beginning which starts off as a newsreel and then becomes part of the story was a nice touch. Brian May's score sounds a little too much like the one in Mad Max 2, but he included a nice little march they play for Pleasence in some scenes. Sounds just like the one in the Great Escape! There are some neat helicopter stunts and a great boat chase that apparently killed three stunt men during filming. The scenery, despite the grainy look of the picture, is still quite beautiful. The thing you'll remember most is the drunken antics of Donald Pleasence, though. He was almost enough to save this film. Almost. 4 of 10 stars.

The Hound.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was bad but it was so bad that it may reach cult status in the distant future. A sort of film-noir meets Plan 9 From Outer Space. The story was, well, there wasn't actually a story. There is a place reserved for the Ed Woods and Russ Meyers of the world and this film proves it. \"So bad it might be good\" is the best way to describe it. I seriously doubt if this movie will be picked up by any legitimate distribution company therefore it is unlikely to see wide release.

I will add that I expect to see more of actor Ron Carey. He made the best of what he had. The rest of the acting, if I can call it that, was quite forgettable. I have seen worse from big studios with vast budgets.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie wasted 2 hours of my time and just make me wanna scream: \"LAME\". Nicholas Stoller write the movie \"Yes Man\", but direct \"this\" maybe he should stick with writing.

I am so disappointed because I heard all the great review. I was expecting something like knocked up. They say this is from the maker of \"Knocked up\"? why can't I see the resemblance? but this just felt like a shallow, overdone-theme kind of movie for me. I am so disappointed. Actually it's not bad if you consider it as your-average-chick-movie, but that character of the \"band guy\" just get on my nerves

Maybe I was just not paying enough attention to the movie, but yeah they have some funny lines and scene, but i don't felt the originality. And the ending make the movie a little bit better. At least the ending is not some boring clich\u00e9 one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I gave this movie a chance only because it had very good reviews. After seeing the trailer I thought - what an unfunny movie full of clich\u00e9s. But I decided to give it a shot because trailers often don't portray the movie very well. What a waste of time... The movie is worst than the trailer and after spending 2 hours watching it, I couldn't recall one single line that made me laugh. The funniest parts of the movie were the CSI parodies, but that also is pretty pass\u00e9. I couldn't relate to any of the characters nor hope that they will be together, because I found them utterly stupid. The plot is extremely predictable and inconclusive. Unintelligent comedy for people who are either still in high school or feel that way mentally.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I endured this film just to satisfy my curiosity. It has to be one of the worst films I have ever sat through. I am amazed that this film currently has a 7.5 star rating. The acting is awful, script is non existent and the characters are so predictable and hollow. For a funny film I cannot remember even snickering once and fail to see how it could be defined as a comedy. Do yourself a favour and stay well away from this dross and check out some more worthy alternatives that would give you far greater pleasure. Check out films like the holiday or 27 dresses, these movies would offer a far more satisfying cinema experience. I sincerely hope more educated film goers vote negatively for this film, in the manner it genuinely deserves there bye giving it a more realistic rating that other film buffs could base their judgement upon. Come on folks let's be fair to everyone concerned and give those involved with this film a true reflection on what it is they have produced - an extremely mediocre picture that deserves to be forgotten very quickly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is an abomination of all that is worthy in film making. The lead actor surprises his audience by not actually acting at all. We have to watch almost two hours of his bland soulless face. The jokes are all lame I never laughed once it was Saturday night there were 5 of us having a beer all up for a laugh and then we put this on and you could feel all the warmth and colour being drained from the room. The film ended and the mood was ruined so we all went our separate ways, ruined the night ! OK so pros and cons. Pros beautiful setting in Hawaii, looks good on bluray. Cons worst acting ever; you can tell everyone concerned is just thinking about payday. Predictable poor plot. Zero character development. Forced jokes which fall flat. Many shots of the guys penis which to be fair acts better than him and has more charisma. May all makers of this film hang their heads in shame and hold their flaccid manhoods cheap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sitting in a big wing chair with a huge book in his lap, the one and only Bela Lugosi looks into the camera and, in a dreadful vocal delivery that sounds as if he were mocking a reading of Shakespeare, intones sloooow-ly: \"Man's constant groping of things unknown, drawing from the endless reaches of time, brings to light many startling things; (snicker); startling?, because they seem new (Lugosi's eyes now bulging, with raised eyebrows, and mouth sneering, he continues) but most are not new, the signs of the ages\" (cue a visual of lightening, accompanied by the sound of thunder which then continues to rumble for an astonishing 86 seconds).

And so begins what is arguably the worst film ever made. This \"movie\" almost defies description. Told in semi-docudrama style with an unseen narrator explaining the plot ... such as it is ... the story revolves around the vicissitudes of a man named Glen (Ed Wood, Jr.) who cross-dresses; hence the reference to Glenda. The film has no real structure. Instead, it consists mostly of a random assortment of vignettes that may ... or may not ... relate to Glen or to the cross-dressing motif. One long sequence consists of some unknown woman wriggling on a sofa, followed by a man whipping a woman in what we would today refer to as S&M.

Then, at odd moments Bela reappears, for no apparent reason, and babbles more inane dialogue, like: \"When he's wrong because he does right, and when he's right because he does wrong; pull the string, dance to that.\" Huh?

About twenty percent of the film's visuals consist of stock footage, accompanied by a VO that relates to the story motif but not the visuals. Hence, we see stock footage of: bustling city streets, freeway traffic, a thunderous herd of buffalo, and a playground full of kids. But it gets worse. In a film about cross-dressing, we have 58 consecutive seconds of stock footage of a foundry furnace making hot steel, and 84 consecutive seconds of battle scenes from WWII.

Even the simplest items are botched. In one scene we see a newspaper headline that reads \"Man Nabbed Dressed as Girl\". Underneath the headline, which has clearly been glued or pasted on, the article is about ... taxes. In one of my favorite scenes, an off-screen woman spouts out: \"airplanes, why it's against the creator's will\", in a voice that sounds like she's just inhaled helium.

Except for the performance of Lyle Talbot, the acting is uniformly horrendous. Production design is cheap looking and drab; (but you gotta love that tacky wallpaper). The editing is sloppy. Most of the background music is suitable only for 1950 style elevators. The B&W cinematography has way too much contrast. And the costumes look like something that came from a thrift store.

This film is so bad it makes \"Plan 9 From Outer Space\" look like \"Citizen Kane\", by comparison. I just don't know how one could make a film any worse than Ed Wood's \"Glen Or Glenda\". But thankfully, it's got Bela Lugosi in it. Every time he opened his mouth, and gazed into the camera with those big, bulging eyes, I about fell on the floor laughing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I agree with one commentator who says that it's really impossible to review Glen or Glenda? objectively. If one does so, the film on its merits would have to be rated as fairly terrible given the hilarious, convoluted dialog, the generally mediocre to poor acting by the cast as well as the zero production values. Yet, such an assessment does not capture the absolutely riveting experience of watching this film as it unfolds. It isn't the fact that the subject of the film is transvestitism and that it was a controversial lifestyle choice in the 1950s. It's not even the plea for tolerance of people who embrace alternate life choices that fascinates except as an historic relic.

No, what makes Glen or Glenda? still a fascinating film after 50 years is that Ed Wood laid his psyche bare in a way that so-called auteur directors like Hitchcock or Godard, despite their vastly superior talents, never did. In Glen or Glenda, Wood isn't afraid to reveal his own deeply conflicted feelings about being a transvestite despite the plea for tolerance for it through out the film. Indeed, the conclusion of the film suggest that Ed Wood's Glen character will be able to \"kill\" his Glenda female counterpart by transferring the feelings of love and affection Glen has for his feminine counterpart to his future wife, Barbara. The psychiatrist even reassures Glen and Barbara that as Glen makes that psychic transference, Glenda will disappear. So, while Wood could plead for tolerance of transvestites in general, he wasn't so sure of desiring it for himself.

Moreover, Wood wasn't afraid of throwing everything else that crossed his mind on the screen. He did it with whatever stock footage he could get his hands on. If it didn't cohere, so what? What the viewer saw in Glen or Glenda especially was Ed Wood's imaginative world in all of its fundamental strangeness.

The only comment I wish to add to my comment above is that my two-star rating is based solely on the objective evaluation criteria cited in the first paragraph. The oddly memeric effect the film has despite its technically atrocious qualities I don't think can be rated.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"and generally speaking, you will eventually have to research this little gem. When describing I Changed My Sex, or Glen Or Glenda as it is better known, I must echo the thoughts of Andrew Smith, who so hit the nail on the head when he wrote \"If you haven't seen any of Ed Wood's other movies, this one is a completely bewildering experience. If you have seen any of Ed Wood's movies, this is still completely bewildering\". The film is both hilarious and tragic, yet it moves with a strange rhythm of its own that leaves one in no doubt that its author knows and means every word he is saying during its running length. Wood, bless him, had some of the loftiest ambitions as a director, wanting to promote peace, understanding, and even acceptance, in the 1950s of all times. When Tim Burton recreated a viewing of Glen Or Glenda by studio execs for his biopic, he showed the execs laughing and telling each other that this had to be a put-on. More than fifty years later, there are still people fighting just to be given the kind of respect that the \"normal\" take for granted, so I say it most certainly is not.

No, the real comedy in Glen Or Glenda is the sheer ineptitude Wood displays in composing his message. Directors frequently use stock footage when they can find some that suits their purposes, and can be edited to fit with their own footage. Ed Wood used stock footage indiscriminately, and Tim Burton's biopic celebrated the fact with a scene in which Wood as played by Johnny Depp bets that he could make an entire film out of stock footage. Sadly, the real Ed Wood died before he had a chance, but Glen Or Glenda is the closest he ever came. The IMDb states that twenty percent of this sixty-something minute film is stock footage, and it is never difficult to guess which footage. Footage of busy highways, planes flying overhead, poor lightning effects, soldiers doing their thing, they're all used in a haphazard manner, sometimes repeatedly, and they often only have a loose connection to the story Wood is trying to tell. Had Wood been able to sit back and think about what he is trying to do for a while, there is no telling what kind of heights he could have achieved.

Wood himself appears in the film as the titular character, a confused transvestite who imagines himself as a woman named Glenda. Aside from the daring manner in which he attempts to make his point, Wood makes one hideous woman. Having found myself out on the fringe of a society that thinks I am \"disabled\" and need to be \"cured\" myself, I honestly found myself hoping for the best outcome for Wood's character. In order to make his point, however, Wood weaves in short stories of two other transvestites. One of them takes the extreme step of enduring a sex change in order to become a woman, the other finds himself so disenfranchised that he fears being arrested again so much he commits suicide. The scary thing about this film is that if you edited out the transvestism and substituted such disenfranchisements as my position on the autistic spectrum or such things as schizophrenia, very little of the film would even need to be changed. That is how little society has learned since Ed Wood was a boy.

The other significant personality in Glen Or Glenda is Bela Lugosi, whom Wood shoehorned into the film. Speculation varies upon Wood's motives, but the accepted theory is that Wood wanted to help revive Lugosi's career, and would do anything in order to achieve this. With the exception of taking his time to carefully construct a good film, that is. In Glen Or Glenda, Wood makes usage of Lugosi that was best described in Flying Saucers Over Hollywood as \"bizarre\". Lugosi plays a character billed as The Scientist, but comes off more as an omnipotent puppet master. People who have not seen Ed Wood films before the biopic will think Tim Burton made up the \"beware of the big green dragon that sits on your doorstep\" speech. If anything, Burton was being restrained about which bizarre speech to use in depicting Wood-ian dialogue. Nothing can prepare you for seeing the speeches in their original context, not even Criswell's hilarious ranting during Plan 9 From Outer Space.

Observant types will also note the presence of Delores Fuller, Wood's girlfriend at the time. Again, Burton dramatises her reaction to seeing the script for the first time, whereas the film portrays her as being accepting and forward-thinking. I cannot help but feel that Burton's portrayal is more accurate, as Fuller looks extremely uncomfortable in her role. She only appears for about fifteen minutes, but her delivery seems so mechanical, so lifeless, that she somehow manages to seem less talented than her cast-mates, if such a thing is possible. Whether Wood's direction was better-focused in this case than usual is hard to determine, but if the ability of the support cast to leave the stars (with the obvious exception of Bela) in the dust is any guide, then it should come as no surprise that Fuller would only appear in a very small role within one other Wood film. That she went on to write a number of hit songs tells you she made the right decision to stay behind the camera. While Wood would appear before the camera again, it was never as more than a cameo, a walk-on, or a bit-part.

I gave Glen Or Glenda a one out of ten. I generally only give this rating to films that are so bad they become entertaining as a result. Bold and well-intentioned as it was, Glen Or Glenda fits that description to a T.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Glen or Glenda\" was Edward D. Wood Jr's first attempt at directing a feature film. For this he chose a topic near and dear to his heart...transvestism, the \"art\" of a man wanting to dress in women's clothes. To his credit, Wood tried to deal with subject matter that was largely taboo in 1953. Unfortunately, Wood had neither the budget nor the know how to make the film.

The story opens with a prologue by Bela Lugosi that makes little sense and then moves to the discovery of a dead transvestite Glen\/Glenda (Daniel Davis aka Ed Wood). Inspector Warren (Lyle Talbot) with the help of psychiatrist Dr. Alton (Timothy Farrell) tries to understand why a man would want to live (and die) this way.

Glen is engaged to Barbara (Dolores Fuller) and is reluctant to tell her of his obsession. And that's it. We see endless stock footage shots of anything from freeway traffic to soldiers landing on the beach, interspersed with shots of Wood walking down the same street dressed as either Glen or Glenda and looking longingly at women's clothes in a store window. Poor old Bela, who was down on his luck and befriended by Wood, keeps popping in throughout the story. I'm not 100% sure but I think Bela's scenes were added for his name value after the body of the movie was completed.

To add to the confusion of Lugosi's narration, Farrell as Dr. Alton also provides off screen narration. Lugosi keeps saying, bevare, bevare...take care, take care, as well as, some gibberish about snakes and snails and puppy dog's tails.

The story also deals with a transvestite who has a successful sex change operation and tries to explain the difference between that person and Wood's character(s). The dream sequences are laughable. A wedding sequence in which someone dressed as the devil appears is a good example. Wood also gives us an apparent rape scene with the actors(?) fully clothed but leaving little to the imagination, risqu\u00e9 for 1953.

This film along with Wood's other \"classics\" were so bad that they became embraced by the public as cult classics over the years. For that reason, they have survived to this day.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whew! What can one say about this bizarre, stupefying mock-u-mentory about Ed Wood's cross-dressing fantasies?? Well, one word that comes to mind is incoherent! Wood uses raw slabs of innocuous, incidental stock footage, and then builds a \"story\" around them - and what a story!! Wood himself stars as Glen, a regular Joe who just happens to enjoy lounging around in his fiancee's lingerie and sweaters. I think what Wood wanted was a plea for tolerance for all the Glens of this world by showing that Glen is just like all of us underneath, only in angora. Ummm...ok. But then, we get this very bizarre montage of some horny devil, a chick in bondage, some rude, pointing people, some moore stock footage, and finally an emaciated Bela Lugusi,playing some kind of twisted, invalid Puppetmaster. Lugosi is a howl, spouting out such rubbish as \"Beeevaaare...the beeeg greeeen dragon that seeets at your doorstep: he eeeets leeetle boys, puppydog tails, and beeeeeg snails!\" Um, ok, Bela... :=8\/ There is a strange, twisted type of Wood logic going on here. Afterall, he does remind us that \"7 out of 10 men wear hats, and 7 out of 10 men are bald\". Hmmm, must be that alien\/cross-dressing\/habidashery cowspiracy-thang!! Glen or Glenda stars a plethora (whatever that is...) of reliable Wood schlock-actors, including Lyle Talbot, Delores Fuller, and Timothy Farrell, and Wood manages to coax every bit of wretched, amateurish non-talent out of each one. Everybody by now knows Bela's sad story: by the time Wood used him for this flic, he was probably jonesing for another fix and needed the moolah, but even for him this is depth heretofore unreached. One of the MooCow's favorite Wood mooments comes with the stock footage charging buffalo scene - it is sooo loopily demented!! The MooCow says \"Puuuull de schtriiiiings\", and git yer hooves on a copy of Glen or Glenda - you won't believe it! :\u008d","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me say this about Edward D. Wood Jr. He had a passion for his work that I wish more people did have. If we all had the optimism and the commanding hope of Ed Wood, the world would probably be a much better place. Being familiar with Ed Wood's story and having seen the most wonderful biopic \"Ed Wood\" (1994) several times, I admire his boldness and his strives for the job he loved; I still admire his never-say-die attitude. He had a love for directing that I wish more people in modern-day Hollywood had.

But that doesn't make his movies any more fun to watch. And \"Glen or Glenda,\" his first and most confessional film, is probably his very worst.

\"Glen or Glenda\" is a deadening cult movie about a cross-dresser named Glen (played by director\/writer Ed Wood himself) who despite his love for his fianc\u00e9e Barbara (Dolores Fuller), cannot seem to conquer his lust for transvestitism, in which he dresses in women's clothing and a wig and thus becomes...Glenda! Glen\/Glenda's story is narrated by a doctor and he too is talked and watched over by a mysterious character called \"The Scientist\" played by veteran horror star Bela Lugosi. Oh, and there's also some sub-story about an Alan\/Anne character who becomes a transsexual based on the Christine Jorgenson story, upon whom this movie originally titled \"I Changed My Sex!\" was previously to be based.

Have I dropped your jaw yet? Well, as much as I want to warn you off this picture if you've never seen it, I would never tell a lie about a movie and there is not one word of falsehood in that plot synopsis I just gave you. Every thing in it is true. This is a movie about cross-dressers and transsexuals, a topic that does not sound very appealing to begin with and is not done in a very appealing manner. I'm sure that with a good screenplay, and a good director (it had neither) that \"Glen or Glenda,\" despite the subject matter, could have been a very moving picture. It is a confessional movie on Wood's part, as he was a transvestite in real life as well as on screen. But once again, that does not make it a good movie...or a watchable one for that matter. \"Glen or Glenda\" is a jumbled, disorganized mess of a movie that sinks into new trenches in the realm of bad cinema. It makes no more sense than does its notoriously silly scene where Bela Lugosi screams \"Pull the string!\" over inexplicable footage of stampeding bison. The majority of the movie is narrated in a monotonous voice, reminding me of some very bad short informative films I've seen before. It's like one of those really bad short films expanded into a seventy-minute feature and twice as dull. We sit there for ages waiting for the plot that never comes. There is no real attempt to even build energy with the camera being locked down in one position for many grueling minutes and long stretches of time where nothing at all happens. The only moments that are worth anybody's time are those of Bela Lugosi who manages to bring some light into these dark trenches. I guess Lugosi is supposed to be like the deity of the film, but personally, I couldn't care less who or what he's supposed to be. I'll tell you what he was: A gifted actor who wound up making trash. But he and Wood were very good friends and liked working with each other, so good for him.

I will always admire Edward D. Wood Jr. for his passion for the cinema, but I will never as long as I live admire his movies. A film critic once called Ed Wood's movies \"innocent fun\" but I think even that is questionable. Innocent? Yes. Fun? No, sir. And if \"Citizen Kane\" is the Mount Everest of the cinematic world, then \"Glen or Glenda\" is probably the Mariana Trench.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw the biopic of Ed Wood many years ago. Tim Burton payed loving homage to this extremely untalented but yet enthusiastic filmmaker.

Then I saw Plan 9 and it actually tickled me to no end. A silly story, kind of bad production values but still entertaining and even funny.

Then this. What can you make of it. Well, since Wood has been reported as being a cross-dresser it is startling to see a movie that deals with it like a cartoon. Yes, there are some stabs at teaching the audience something about the subject but mostly this is some kind of really twisted self-parody.

One of it's problems is that it has a hundred points of view. On one hand it is a plea for tolerance. Another portrays transvestism as a disease. And finally, it tells the audience: \"Okay, if you are schocked now, then wait until you see this!\" The problem must have been that Wood had to compromise in order for the film to be made. You can almost sense it when you see the opening title from the producer: Personally supervised by... So, where are we. This is neither a serious subject movie or an all-out schocker.

The entertainment value is practically nil. The wooden voice-over is mildly amusing but only because it sounds so misguided. This was made in the 50s though, so one can argue that was brave making a film that even mentioned the word transvestites. It all comes down to what the film itself is trying to advocate against. Schock. The rape scene, while mild is there simply to do that.

So, sorry. This is a misfire but the discredit is not Wood's alone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Considering the film\u2019s reputation as truly the worst of the worst, I was looking forward to watching Wood\u2019s Crappus Opus (my word); it\u2019s not necessarily any more inept than the other Woods I\u2019ve watched \u2013 however, being from the REEFER MADNESS (1938) school of film-making, GLEN OR GLENDA doesn\u2019t come across as readily \u2018enjoyable\u2019 as his genre efforts.

Also, this surely emerges as Horror legend Bela Lugosi\u2019s nadir (his first of three \u2018collaborations\u2019 with the director): one wonders whether he was really aware what kind of film it was (considering the actor\u2019s history of heavy medication and the sheer senselessness of his cameo). Besides, Lugosi\u2019s idiosyncratic delivery is perhaps at its most awkward here\u2026though Wood\u2019s script is mostly to blame for this \u2013 given the impossible dialogue (with repeated nonsensical allusions to \u201cpuppy-dog tails\u201d and \u201cbig fat snails\u201d) he handed the ailing star! By the way, Wood himself plays the central role (under the pseudonym Daniel Davis) \u2013 and, being just as worthless in this area, proves to have been an all-round dog!; Dolores Fuller \u2013 his wife and co-star \u2013 was similarly untalented (she would also appear in JAIL BAIT [1954])\u2026but, at the very least, the image where the latter finally lets Glen wear her angora sweater did give Tim Burton\u2019s affectionate biopic ED WOOD (1994) its famous poster!

Incidentally, the latter film features a presumably fictionalized meeting between Wood and Orson Welles \u2013 well, for all intents and purposes, GLEN OR GLENDA constitutes Ed Wood\u2019s CITIZEN KANE (1941) given its gleeful propensity for gimmicky narrative techniques: in fact, the barest thread of plot is padded with stock footage galore (many of it irrelevant, such as the bewildering instances of S&M) and inane dream sequences (highlighted by the presence of an impish demon sporting outrageous bushy eyebrows that would make Martin Scorsese weep with envy)! The film\u2019s sincere attempt at a plea for tolerance and psychological probing into the affliction\/phenomenon of transvestism is, however, sabotaged at every turn by the sheer amateurishness of the approach.

For what it\u2019s worth, the edition I watched was the \u201cExtended Re-issue Version\u201d which included six minutes of \u2018depraved\u2019 footage (directed by W. Merle Connell) censored on original release! Furthermore, my copy went out-of-synch every so often (which forced me to rewind it slightly to get the audio back on track) \u2013 though, thankfully, this was the fault of the source conversion to DivX as opposed to the film itself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Directed and written by the famous\/infamous Edward D. Wood Jr, using a pseudonym(Daniel Davis)playing the lead role of Glen\/Glenda. This is an almost radical documentary about transvestism; Wood himself being a transvestite with a fetish for angora sweaters. It seems miles of stock footage and an incoherent Bela Lugosi is used to stretch this odd and awkward film to 67 minutes. Police inspector(Lyle Talbot)seeks enlightenment from a psychiatrist, Dr. Alton(Timothy Farrell), to better understand the emotional and disposition of transvestites.

Also in the cast: Delores Fuller, \"Tommy\" Hanes, Captain DeZita and Wood's sister Evelyn. Of note: Farrell also acts as narrator. And Fuller later helped write songs included in the Elvis Presley movies BLUE HAWAII, KISSIN' COUSINS & KID GALAHAD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just recently watched Ed Wood Jr.'s autobiographical movie Glen or Glenda for the first time after having heard so much about it for so many years. Nothing I had read or heard about this film could prepare me for what I saw. This has to be the most bizarre movie ever made. Stampeding buffalo, women in bondage, Satan prancing around and Bela Lugosi, rambling only as he can, \"Bevare, Bevare....pull the string, pull the string...\", it was totally insane. The acting was atrocious and the dialog was unintentionally hilarious, exactly what one would expect from an Ed Wood film. Having said all that, as horrible as this movie was, I have to give Wood credit...he was way ahead of his time. You have to remember that when this movie was made transvestites were not even discussed in public, much less the subject for a movie. I have read that Wood was a transvestite in real life, and I'm sure this movie was based on his own experiences. It was sad to see Bela Lugosi having to say the ridiculous lines he had to say for this film, but it was kind of Ed Wood Jr. to at least give Mr. Lugosi an acting job at a time in Bela's life when he was penniless and a drug addict and no one else in Hollywood would hire him. If you have never seen this film then you have to see it, especially if you are a fan of Ed Wood Jr.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As many know, this is the feature film debut of Edward D. Wood Jr. as as a writer\/producer\/director\/actor. I have been a fan of Ed Wood for several years now. While I don't like this as much as some of his other films it was probably the largest insight that the cinematic going public gets of Wood during his life. Everybody knows that he was a transvestite. This film is about changing one's sex and how being a transvestite can create conflict in relationships with loved ones. This film is way ahead of its time in dealing with this subject matter and how it deals with it. However, the film still contains Wood's usual pitfalls of bad dialog, meaningless stock footage, and hokey special effects. Throw in Wood's usual overdose of Bela Lugosi hamming it up and you have Wood's first attempt at being a director.

The plot is that a police inspector goes to a doctor after he discovers the body of a transvestite who committed suicide for advice on how to avoid further problems along these lines. The doctor tells him the story of Glen, who is also a transvestite. Glen wants to marry Barbara, but can't bring himself to tell her about his secret. He also tells the inspector about Alan who undergoes a sex change because he is really more suited to being a woman. Bela Lugosi plays a scientist who seems to add some kind of running commentary on what is going on (Lugosi's part really isn't well defined and proves to be most likely a vehicle for Wood to have a star in his film and Lugosi to get some cash).

All in all, the movie shows the hallmarks of Wood's career. It was obviously shot on a very low budget and has quite a few things thrown in rather haphazardly. It definitely has the \"it's so bad, it's good\" feel to it. However, I do have to applaud Ed on his progressive thinking in making this film. Transvestitism and sex changes were not extremely open subjects in the early 50s. Wood took a big risk in making a film that portrays transvestites as people who are not sexual deviants and putting a more human face on cross-dressing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like other movies from the worst director ever, Ed Wood, this movie is very bad but because of that it is also very funny. May be not for everyone, but I laughed a lot. It is a strange thing when you enjoy a bad movie. How do you rate it? As a movie very low, as entertainment at least a little higher.

The movie tries to explain what a transvestite is and it does this through a scientist (Bela Lugosi) and an inspector (Lyle Talbot) who talks to a doctor (Timothy Farrell) who knows about these things. The doctor tells the detective two stories and that is what we, and apparently the scientist, see. The doctor tels these stories because a dead transvestite is found, suicide, and because of a headline in the news paper about a sex-change. The first and longest story is about Glen (Ed Wood himself) who is in love and about to marry Barbara (Dolores Fuller) but he has never told her he like to dress as a woman, when he is named Glenda. The movie tells the same thing over and over again, especially the fact that a transvestite is not necessarily a homosexual. The movie almost says that being a transvestite is not a bad thing, but being homosexual is, since it keeps telling us the fact that a transvestite is not a homosexual. The second story is about a transvestite who really wants a sex-change and not just wants to dress up as a woman, but it is much shorter and less interesting.

A couple of things make this movie very bad, and therefore laughable. How the story is presented is the first thing, the way the same things are told over and over again and the conclusion of it all are others. This is not where it ends. The acting is very bad, especially Dolores Fuller seems to be reading her lines directly from a little screen somewhere. Every thing she says is funny. The whole dialogue actually gave me quite some laughs.

There is also a sequence where someone walks into a room. The door stays half open and we see something hanging on the wall, not completely straight. Then the door, in what seems to be the same shot although we know it is not, is a little less open and suddenly the thing on the wall hangs straight. Ed Wood didn't mind to leave this kind of continuity errors in his movie. May be a good thing, because basically it is just another laugh for the modern audience. I think you understand that it is a bad movie and I think there is a good chance you will laugh at the ridiculous mistakes as well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's a part of me that would like to give this movie a high rating. Considering that it was made in 1953, this is a very courageous movie about transvestites, tackling the issue fairly seriously and sympathetically (and offering the viewer a lot of information on the subject) and trying very hard not to stereotype. The movie clearly makes the point that transvestites are not homosexuals, and that aside from wearing women's clothing they lead a relatively normal life. It deals with the pain of not being accepted in society - the plot revolves around a police officer (Lyle Talbot) desperately trying to understand the issue because of the recent suicide of a transvestite. So, you have to give everyone involved with this movie credit for taking on such a controversial (in the context of 1953) subject.

Having said all that, I'm also sorry to say that this movie is absolutely dreadful. In trying to portray Glen\/Glenda's (Edward D. Wood) pain, the movie falls into silly (and at times surprisingly - again given the era - sensual) fantasies that make the story very hard to follow. The acting is wooden at best. None of the dialogue comes across as real; the actors look and sound like people reading speeches written by others. And - worst of all - there was no point to having Bela Lugosi in this movie. This was another of the increasingly embarrassing roles this poor man took on in the latter stages of his career. \"Pull the strings; pull the strings,\" poor Lugosi's character (called The Spirit in the credits, but really coming across as more of a mad scientist) kept crying. And nothing he did really seemed to have much connection with the rest of the movie.

For artistic merit, the movie doesn't really deserve much more than 1\/10. However, for the courage involved in just putting it out, I'll give it a 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bela Lugosi as God? Transvestites discussed in a movie in the straight-laced 1950s? By golly, this must be an Ed Wood film.

Watching this movie, I felt a combination of guilt, pleasure, and nausea all at the same time. The story is about Glen (Ed Wood himself) and his cross-dressing alter-ego Glenda. Somehow, if this movie were made now, I could see Kevin Kline playing Glen\/Glenda. Notice how all the cross-dressers' alter egos are versions of their male name (Glen\/Glenda, Robert\/Roberta, etc.). It attempts to sympathetically portray it as the mental disorder that it is, rather than as a graphic perversion.

Somehow, Wood manages to sneak in bondage and S&M sequences into his initial story of Glen\/Glenda. Along with these racy scenes, Satan himself shows up, obviously having a bad hair day. The dialog and pace are nonexistent, but the film is enjoyable in its context -- the weird world of Ed Wood.

Sterno says put on your favorite lace panties for this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, Ed Wood Jr. is not the worst director ever, Plan 9 From Outer Space not withstanding. Coleman Francis deserves that title. I present Exhibit B, Glen or Glenda.

The first half of the movie consists of a surprisingly thoughtful exploration of crossdressing, especially since it was made in 1953. The last 15 minutes of movie are also not bad as well.

This is not to say the movie doesn't have problems. Bela Lugosi was totally extraneous, intoning odd lines. Poor Bela looked like even he wasn't sure what was happening at times. The acting was decidely wooden, though no worse than a period Universal B movie. The long dream sequence that makes up the middle of the film was totally bizarre; more like a vaguely menacing stag film than a dream sequence. The Alan\/Ann story, the supposed original focus of the film has a tacked on quality about it.

No, Ed Wood Jr. is not the worst director ever. He was able, at least for part of this movie, to make an earnest social statement. When Coleman Francis tried to do that in Night Train To Mundo Fine (aka Red Zone Cuba), it just ended in chaos. Glen or Glenda is at least watchable without Robot help.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I approached this movie with the understanding that it was one of the worst flicks ever made. I sat down to watch it with this mindset, and was pleasantly surprised.

It's not great. It's not even that good; in fact, it's pretty poor. However, it's not as bad as I had been led to believe, by a long shot. It's pretty inept, and, evidently as a cost cutting measure, a lot of stock footage is pressed into service, a lot of which has no apparent relation to the narrative.

What it is, however, is an intensely personal movie made by a man who evidently did not have the skills or the funding to do his idea justice. Before you discount _Glen or Glenda?_ out of hand, examine your own artistic skills. Me, I'd love to be able to draw, but anything I try to sketch comes out like stick men. I'd love to be able to sing, but all I do is frighten young children.

Wood had an idea, and unfortunately he didn't have what it takes to make it work. However, this was an incredibly daring movie for the puritan 50s, however exploitative or incoherent it may appear at first glance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In order to describe what's seriously wrong with this movie it has to contain some *spoilers* so if you're going to see it and expect to be surprised, don't read this!

I liked everything about this movie except the plot; and in a thriller like this believable plot is essential. It is well acted, if a bit slow moving, and the camera work and Portland scenes are exquisite for a low-budget, unpretentious picture. The dialog is very good.

Mason is seriously withdrawn youth who works at a telemarketing company selling insurance. His high school buddy, Berkeley, is his employer and looks after him like a brother despite the fact that Mason is quite obviously mentally ill. Mason has nightmares which send him gasping and fumbling for his inhaler. His visions and nightmares suggest that he has had serious problems with good-looking women in his past, and the movie seems to be suggesting that he may be a serial killer of women. He meets a perky, pretty girl named Amber and he sketches her in his notebook. She takes a liking to him and poses for him so he can paint her portrait. He sees more of her and begins to awaken from his withdrawn state, almost becoming halfway human. Then something goes wrong. Amber finds sketchbooks with drawings of other girls and she begins to wonder. She becomes frightened and pulls away. We are wondering if her sudden coldness is going to push him over the edge. His behavior becomes more erratic.

This is the setup for the revelation. In order to explain how this movie goes horribly wrong I have to explain what happens. *Another spoiler warning!* In order for this plot to work we have believe that Amber, a really outgoing, pretty young girl is going to go for a seriously emotionally disturbed young man who, at least at the beginning of their friendship, has a vacant stare and can only speak in monosyllables or doesn't speak at all. He's way beyond nerdy, he appears on the verge of total catatonia. Yes I know, girls can be attracted to all kinds of weirdos, but usually the Charles Manson type or punk rockers, guys with some kind of evil manic energy. Mason is practically a zombie, he's hardly there at all. Any perky young thing would cross the street to avoid him. It is just not believable that this girl is attracted to him. Moreover there is no credible reason for Berkeley to indulge the crazy Mason, that just isn't believable either.

But wait, there's a revelation. Amber fails to show up at Berkeley's house for Christmas dinner where Mason is expecting her and Berkeley, his old buddy, has to tell him that Amber and all his other former girlfriends, the ones he drew in his many sketchbooks, don't exist at all! She and all the others are merely figments of his twisted imagination: he dreamed them up.

Well, this explains why a normal cute Amber would go for Mason, she's just a figment of his imagination. This could have been the final revelation of the movie with the proper preparation and setup, but alas, it's not. At this point Mason runs back to his apartment and finds Amber there...he's enraged, he kills her. But now we are given to understand that Amber was in fact real, not Mason's imaginary girlfriend.

In the end, after being given proof that Amber actually exists and that Mason killed her, Berkeley has to admit that he was wrong, that he misjudged Mason. This would work if Mason had been halfway sane from the beginning, but because we the audience always suspected him of being totally deranged and possibly a killer of women it is no surprise to us. We suspected what he was all along and can't understand why Berkeley couldn't see it. But then we are once again left to wonder: if she was real, why Amber would be attracted to the catatonic Mason?

To make the ending worse, we are never given to understand whether all the other of Mason's girlfriends, the ones in the sketchbooks, were real or was Amber the first real one? And if the others were real, did he kill them too? What did he do with the bodies?

The problem is that the filmmakers just didn't know what to do with the material. Perhaps there could have been a way to straighten it out and tell a credible suspense story, but this movie is not that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Decent but overrated dramatic thriller, film attempts to depict the spiraling out-of-control inner demons of a tormented artist. The problem is, not a single relationship illustrated on screen is believable, and plausibility appears to have been thrown out the window. The title character is so difficult to relate to making it's rather impossible to imagine any of the on- screen characters emotionally invested in him either. The conclusion is also fairly predictable; there are certainly enough clues provided from the get go to indicate exactly where the story is headed. Choosing to entirely suspend one's belief in the situations or the relationships, the film itself is well acted (especially by the leads) and manages to create some nice tension as the story unfolds. As a metaphorical feature there is some food for thought, and had the script been stronger, there's certainly potential here that could have been put to better use.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, we got JP from Grandma's Boy and Chuck from, well Chuck. I thought this movie would be quite good based on the reviews, and it did start out pretty high on my movie scale, but about halfway through it was just dragging out for so long I kept losing interest. I actually got so bored, probably because you can see right away what's going to happen in the end; the story is actually quite thread-bare, I skipped over 15 minutes and didn't miss a thing! This film should have been a short work, maybe around 45 minutes to an hour max. It starts out good and finishes good, too bad the filling is bland, boring, dull, and lacks everything but time. Some people say they like it for the music; I don't care for jazz and I don't go see movies for their score, I go for the story and when that's drawn out... well, ratings drop in my book.

Bottom Line: Good open, great close, boring filler. Story was cool, but if you don't know what's going to happen a quarter of the way through, you haven't seen too many thrillers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a true lover of film I must advise you to avoid this appalling effort,, God knows how funding was approved, Seriously this is one cinematic experience which delivers zero dramatic tension and plods along until nothing happens again and again and again ,, The only connectivity is two scares which at least keep you awake Possiby the worst film I have ever witnessed and the acting by the female lead is bordering on criminal intent. One blessing with modern technology you can fast forward and watch it on 12x and it will only last 25 minutes, ,, And you won't miss any of the plot

No idea how people find this at all interesting and some are giving it high marks !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, this movie leaves you in a limbo mood wise. You don't know what to feel. So much so that you don't feel bad for Caines character when his son gets murdered (which was actually mostly due to bad editing). The script was too bland. None of the situations matter as you watch them. The soundtrack, or lack there of (if there was it wasn't good enough to even remember) does not help it one bit. Only good surprise to this movie was Andy Serkis' performance. It was on par if not better than Caine's. The story would have probably gone better off if Serkis would have killed him. Because quite frankly you don't feel any kind of redemption in the climax. Just a feeling of lack of feeling, if ya feel me. Basically this movie massively lacks draw. Leaving the audience alienated throughout the entire thing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On paper this looks a good film . Michael Caine plays a tough and ruthless boxing promoter who's son is up for a title eliminator . The pity is that when the story is transferred from paper to my television screen it loses a certain everything . I had hoped we'd be seen emulating his definitive role in GET CARTER and as the film progresses it does seem to take on the qualities of a tough gritty revenge thriller but the whole tone of the film jumps around so much you'll be confused as to what genre it's trying to fit in to . For example Caine ( Who you can't believe in as Billy \" Shiner \" Simpson , he's simply Michael Caine ) has a laugh out line as he refers to someone as \" Hattie Jacques \" then in a supposedly humorous moment has his henchmen break someone's arm . Oh how I laughed . I mean it's supposed to elicit a laugh the way it plays out on screen isn't it ? But these seems at odds with the way the rest of the film plays out

Obviously director John Irvin doesn't know what approach to take with Scott Cherry's screenplay . Irvin isn't a bad director and is well regarded for his war films such as THE DOGS OF WAR and HAMBURGER HILL but he's ill suited to this type of violent drama and one can't help but feel he might have been intimidated somewhat by a living legend like Caine . Caine does give the impression he's just doing it for the money and the well known faces in supporting roles like Landua and Cranham are basically just cameos who could be played by anyone","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A vehicle for Michael Caine. Its fairly well written and there's some OK acting in it but, really, it's a mess - not funny enough, not frightening enough. It's a flaccid modern cockney thriller.

I like the premise - that even in the refracted moral hinterland of East London people do do things for the right reasons. A surprise result to the first proper fight Caine's old-school Billy Shiner has promoted inflames his paranoia. The second half of the film has him chasing shadows to deal with the disappointment of the outcome of the first.

MY greatest disappointment was in director John Irvin's failure to make more of the relationship between Shiner and his lieutenant\/filial substitute Frank Harper. Harper's, a British Tom Sizemore, understands his role well whilst those around him seem to have ignored it. Pity. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Michael Caine might have tried to make a larger than life character to a successful degree but the whole storyline and Character's around him where not likable or interesting at all. It was all very Boring and somewhat predictable. Martin Landau , a favorite actor of mine had a nothing role.He was useless. Michael Caine got a bit irritating after a while and the film couldn't decide if it was a comedy or a serious thriller. Caine tries hard and good on him but i felt the direction and storyline let him down. Don't waste your time. It starts off well for the first 10 minutes and then that's about it. A film for Die Hard Caine Fans Only. Stay away from this One...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The emergence of Quentin Tarantino and his dubious influence on the likes of Guy Ritchie may have triggered the wave of appalling British gangster flicks we've been bequeathed over the past few years, but one of our most famous acting exports only serves to perpetuate the cycle by lending his considerable name to trash like this. I only wish he'd taken a moment to consider before choosing this project for the same reasons of personal gain he admits he often employs. It's not only stifling HIS talent, but possibly the promise of future originality from British films.

Not one of this film's characters are likeable or even remotely realistic, and the dialogue consists of the usual empty threats and colourful language. Caine doesn't give the material any more effort than it deserves, either. If this was meant to be in the style of a tragic fall from grace a la \"King Lear\", it would've helped immensely had I cared about the ultimate fate of the principals, instead of just wishing that they'd get mired in the quicksand of life and dragged under almost immediately.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not every movie with lesbian chicks and vampires, touching our favorite trash\/cult genre is nice. Unfortunately this movie lucks of originality and the performances do not come up with the trash standards. Seem the creator's intention to make it cult it failed. Trash movies are trash movies because it happens. You cant create in purpose this kind of films.I don't know if Mr Creepo is a legend (first time i heard his name) BUT if he is i wonder the reason...

Awful. Even the lesbian scenes are pathetic so any fans of erotic x-ploitation films will not be satisfied, as there a thousands of movies better than Barely Legal Lesbian Vampires.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad. Personal opinion? The folks who made it? They knew that when they made it. To star in this movie, again my opinion, you needed to meet three criteria ... #1: You had to own your own Goth style clothing and jewelry. Makes wardrobe both easier and cheaper that way. #2: You had to be able to remember and repeat your lines with out cue cards. Note that I didn't say you had to do it well. Saves on time and paper work. #3: You had to be willing to get naked. Gives an R rating and thus bolsters sales. Want to watch a better movie? Easy. Get a camera and some of your buddies together and do it yourself. Trust me, you won't do any worse. As vampire movies go, well, this one sucks. And a hint here for people like me who like to look for little oddities in movies ... Consider the link between vampires and crosses. Now, take a look at the symbols and names on the headstones in the cemetery portions of this thing were filmed in. Ed Wood couldn't have planned that kind of an accident any better himself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to preface this by saying that I LOVE watching bad movies that are entertaining. This movie delivers 100%. It is hands down the worst movie I have ever seen. It is full of crappy stock footage of random stuff in a city (people walking, traffic, the skyline, etc.) that doesn't tie into anything. Then there are the overly long 'sex scenes.' These involve lots of petting and frequent rubbing of socks on each other's bodies. These are in no way erotic and are the closest thing to horror you will find in this movie. This is especially true for the shower scene where two of the so called 'barely legal' girls who couldn't be a day over 40 are spraying each other with blood but there is also a crew member squirting blood in the from the outside while one of the girls keeps smiling at him. No one had to memorize any lines for this movie, if they aren't clearly reading cards then they have a magazine in front of them they keep glancing at while they struggle through awkward dialogue. Then there's Mr Creepo. He throws Ed Wood's name around like he can somehow compare, but he is far far from anything of that quality. He walks around a cemetery babbling about random things that went wrong in the movie which really helps the complete lack of flow the movie already had going on. We couldn't stop laughing during this movie (except during the sex scenes where we were grossed out and occasionally horrified)

I give this movie a 1\/10 for going so far above and beyond all my expectations for a horrible movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Awful, waste of time. There is no camp or trash value in this one. Seen better amateur movies done by 10 to 12 years old kids in movie clubs.

How on earth someone can spoil movie about vampires and lesbians?

It's not a movie to put together a few vampire \/ sadomasochism enthusiast in a same room and just shoot it.

Could not find anything good about the film. There was no plot, no real actors, no real special effects, no humor. A few overweight Goths touching each other cannot be called a sex scene. Nothing at all.

Well, cemetery was nice but one should shot a vampire movie during dark.

Purpose was probably good: make a trash movie in a spirit of Ed Wood. Problem is that one cannot make a bad movie intentionally. It takes talent and an effort to make a \"real\" movie. Ed Wood might have lacked money but he sure had effort. These guys lacked everything. Ed Wood was a genius compared to these guys.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

In the process of boring you with the wordy, rambling storyline and the complete absence of character development, it manages to enforce a few negative black stereotypes out there. At one point I was wondering if Jesse Helms co-wrote the screenplay.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I could not believe it. This film was a total wast of time out of my life. The title is appropriate. Love didn't beat the hell out of me, this film did. I kept watching and watching and waiting and waiting and hoping for something, anything to happen. And nothing ever happened! Nothing!! Terrence Howard couldn't even save this lame piece of work called a film. It was dark, and confused and I didn't get who killed the girlfriend in the end. The tone and pacing of the film was supposed to be building to a dramatic climactic ending. This only served to confuse the audience because the movie just plodded along going no where. If you want pure torture, watch this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie isn't even good enough for the $1 bin at the grocery store.

I only purchased it because Terrence Howard was in it. Guess he couldn't be too choosy about his roles during this time.

The movie in itself was hard to sit through. It seemed they were grasping at straws with a storyline. The \"guys night out\" had to be the most boring I've ever seen. One minute they are talking and the next reciting poetry? Even the arguments were hard to follow. Most of the acting lacked any depth.

I have no idea what they were going for with this one but they certainly missed the mark.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. They said this was the man's answer to Waiting to Exhale...All I'm going to say is that we really didn't respond at all. I couldn't believe that it was actually made. The director should choose another profession, because he can't make a movie. The script wasn't good. It made no sense and was very messy. Bet movies are much better than this was, and I was horribly disappointed to see the talented actor Terrence in this bad excuse of a movie. If I could turn back the hands of time I wouldn't go back to Media Play to never buy the movie, I would just keep it wrapped sitting on the shelf, instead of wasting my time watching it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is far the most worst film I've seen this year from Bollywood so far. I may not lie, my wife liked this film very much. It was not Bobby Deol or Arjun Rampal what made this film become unbelievable, but it was Amisha Patel. She performs the role of a blind woman who get in trouble when she almost fall from a mountain where (luckily for her) the hero Arjun Rampal comes to rescue her (in the middle of nowhere). It amazes me here how a blind girl is aware of danger when she is about to fall from a mountain, because she cannot see her environment. From this scene I started to watch the movie very closely and in every scene there was a flaw in the acting of Amisha Patel. The way she plays a blind girl is very bad. The only way she does that is by not to look into the eyes of the person she talks with. When I saw this film, I respected Rani Mukherjee more with her performance in the movie Black. Amisha will never reach this level in performing as an actress.

Anyway, she falls in love with Arjun Rampal. It is the clich\u00e9 story. Sudden Arjun gets killed by a man who is madly in love with Amisha. Amisha is in despair, but then Bobby enters the movie. He also falls in love with the blind girl. Bobby Deol is a great actor in my point of view, but he cannot pull the film to a higher level where Amisha Patel buries it deep into the ground. I must say Bobby deserves better roles in better movies than he got so far. Bobby grew in acting from the first movie his lovely daddy gave him. He was so bad in acting in Barsaat, but when you see him acting now, you get the shivers and believe every word he says. Only a movie with high potential like a Yash Copra film has to meet his way.

Okay, when Amisha also falls in love with Bobby, someones enters her life. Arjun Rampal is not dead! Who believes this crap? I don't. Why didn't they give his role to one of the ugly guys from the movie family (Shushant Singh or Aryeman Ramsay) and give Bobby a role in one of the blockbusters with Amitabh Bachchan? I'm sorry if my comment sounds like a cry for an actor like Bobby to give him a great role, but he deserves so much better than a movie with Amisha (bigscreen t.v. face) Patel. This movie was so awful, that I regret buying it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A sadly predictable, clich\u00e9d story about a woman who was no better than she should have been. Sadly, too, the screenplay is by the once-great experimental novelist John Dos Passos, from an original by French exotic potboiler Pierre Louys. This time Marlene Dietrich is Concha, a manipulative, cold-hearted Spanish beauty. Don Pasqual (Lionel Atwill) raises her from the cigarette factory, but she ditches him. He warns his tall young friend Antonio (Cesar Romero) against her, but to no avail. A duel ensues, Concha reproaches Pasqualito for trying to kill the only man she ever cared for, so he doesn't: he points his pistol at the sky, but Antonio shoots him. But instead of going off to Paris with the young victor, she goes back to the man who would have died for her. With an unexpected bit by Edward Everett Horton as a Spanish Governor. Dietrich plays the part of a Spanish woman by moving constantly, twisting at the waist and posturing and then twisting back, flouncing, tossing her head, and so forth. And she makes faces, and has a curl in the middle of her forehead. The photography is strangely crowded: no outdoor scene can be shot except through a tangle of bare trees, no interior scene can be shot without so much busy detail that it's almost impossible to follow people moving across a room, no consecutive scene of Dietrich can be shot without a major wardrobe change. The carnival scenes are so full of confetti and streamers it's almost like an underwater scene in the Sargasso Sea.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Marlene Dietrich is magnificent as Concha Perez, the temptress who drives all men to despair in Josef Von Sternberg's \"The Devil is a Woman\". Her performance has nothing to do with 'acting' in any conventional sense but she's incandescent, a true star in full command of her material. But she's the only good thing about the film, (she's so good she keeps you watching this dross; I doubt if any other actress could have done the same).

The story is an appallingly lame melodrama, (surely Pierre Louys' novel was better), in which Dietrich's amoral Concha ruins the lives of two friends played by Lionel Atwill and Cesar Romero with a stiffness bordering on petrification. And for Von Sternberg it's an ugly looking movie, (maybe in keeping with its fairly ugly subject matter). Bunuel, on the other hand, thought enough of it to remake it as \"That Obscure Object of Desire\" with a greater emphasis on the surrealist aspects of it all, down to casting two different actresses in the same role. Neither film is either director's finest hour and while the Bunuel version may be the better film, it is Dietrich's 'performance' you remember.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie basically uses spousal rape as one of its main comedic devices. Now I turned it off at the point when he literally ties her to the bed and rapes her, but I cannot really imagine how that was eventually turned around into something endearing and funny. This movie not only squandered a wonderful cast and was consistently unfunny, it actually managed to be rather brutally disturbing and misogynistic. How so many people seem to find it a sweet family flick is beyond me. \"I sure enjoyed canning those apricots last night\" is not a funny joke when you know it refers to forcing an unwilling virgin to have sex with you in the hopes she will eventually learn to like it. Watching a peeping tom jerk off is not family fun. I honestly feel worse off for having watched half of this creepy \"comedy\" and am totally baffled by these positive reviews.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I never thought a movie could make me regret the fact that I subscribe to the HBO service. Now I know better! Jack is usually one of my favorite actors but not even he could rescue this part. Not that he tried. Jack plays his usual Wiitches of Eastwick type character. Unfortunately it doesn't transfer over to the American southwest. He is about as believable a cowboy desperado as Pee Wee Herman. There is no edge to the performance and for that reason the comedy fails. He is almost to goofy. The remainder of the cast was worse. Timing in delivering lines is apparently something that the leading lady had not perfected as of 1978 and the others appeared to be just happy to be there. My recommendation to those of you interested in seeing this movie is that you save your valuable time for something like watching paint dry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For some unknown reason, 7 years ago, I watched this movie with my mother and sister. I don't think I've ever laughed as hard with them before. This movie was sooooo bad. How sequels were produced is beyond me. Its been awhile since I last saw this \"movie\", but the one impression that it has stuck with me over the years has been, \"They must have found the script in a dumpster in the backlot of a cheap movie studio, made into a \"movie\", and decided that it didn't suck enough, and made it worse. I'm pretty sure that they spent all the budget on camera work and the so called \"special effects\", and then had 13 cents left toward the script AND to pay the \"actors\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are a six-year-old boy who's into dinosaurs, you will love this movie. If you are anybody else, you'll be rolling your eyes about every 15 seconds. If you want to start picking on things like the acting, the special effects, the dialogue, or the absence of a coherent plot that makes even the slightest amount of sense, you'll have plenty of material. If all you want is a safe dinosaur fantasy movie for your kid, it will do just fine. That said, there's a lot of kids' entertainment out there that's much smarter, and some of it is even bearable or enjoyable for adults. Unless your child is in an uncompromising dinosaur mood, you're probably better off looking for something else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In one sense, I kind of liked this movie because of a 'mindless', positive atmosphere it sort of conveys. I had a problem with an aspect of the plot, but more about that later. First, the characters were a little goofy and one dimensional. The 'good people' had similar physical and character traits and the 'bad people' had similar physical and character traits ... hmmm. The basic storyline was OK (pretty simple and standard) - nothing too exciting or objectionable. The main attraction was, of course, the miniature dinosaurs - kind of a nice fantasy element to have. However, they had a very minimal presence in the movie.

Outside of that, the movie kept a brisk pace and didn't get too bogged down in any one place. I liked this about the movie.

The problem I had with the plot had to do with the the idea of \"stealing\". I think this movie may not have been thought out enough - something's wrong especially if this is a kid's movie. I'll keep the next sentence abstract to not be a spoiler (skip it if you're worried). The 'good guys' do some stealing and they don't have the same info the audience has - so it's just stealing and that's kind of a bad thing for a kid's movie.

Overall, if you have kids, because of a questionable plot aspect I'd consider passing. However, this whole movie is pretty low key anyway so it may not matter. Pass this one if you have any other interesting choices.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eugene O'Neill's 4 and a half hour 1927 play brought to the screen in less than two hours. The play's combination of symbolic dialogue and gothic melodrama hasn't aged very well and the cast has some difficulty with it, especially Norma Shearer's Nina and Ralph Morgan's Marsden. Clark Gable as Ned Darrell comes off better but mostly because his is a gruff character not given to the philosophical musings of the others which better fits Gable's range. Once the plot settles down to the love quadrangle and the audience adjusts to the voiceover asides the film does become more enjoyable. The technique used here for the asides is another problem. On stage the action froze while the actors spoke their thoughts to the audience. Here they're done as voiceovers. You'd think that would work better but since the action no longer freezes the actors are forced to pause speaking and grimace at the camera to match the emotions in their thoughts. Plus it's difficult for any movie buff to watch this film and not think of Groucho Marx's hilarious parody version in \"Animal Crackers.\" Added to these drawbacks are some cuts made for censorship reasons (Nina's promiscuity is soft-peddled and there is no mention of her getting the abortion that is more central in the play) and a wretched score (uncredited) that sounds like background music to a turn-of-the-century weepie. O'Neill called this film \"a dreadful hash of attempted condensation and idiotic censorship,\" and although \"Strange Interlude\" is nowhere near as great as his later \"The Iceman Cometh\" and \"Long Day's Journey Into Night,\" it certainly deserved better than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eugene O'Neill is acclaimed by some as America's leading playwright, but for things like The Iceman Cometh, Long Day's Journey Into Night, The Emperor Jones. Strange Interlude was a piece of experimentation he concocted where the characters on stage, look aside to the audience and say what they really are thinking and then resume conversation. It was a nine hour production with a dinner break on Broadway, so you can safely assume a lot has been sacrificed here.

For the screen the voice over regarding the thoughts is used for all the characters. It probably is a technique better suited to the screen. Sir Laurence Olivier did very well with it in his version of Hamlet. But Bill Shakespeare gave Olivier a lot better story than O'Neill gave his players in this instance.

Players like Clark Gable, Norma Shearer, Ralph Morgan, May Robson, etc. are a lot more animated in most of their films than they are in Strange Interlude. The story takes place over a 20 year period. Norma Shearer is a young woman whose intended is killed in World War I. She starts playing around quite a bit, although that part is not shown in this version. She makes the acquaintance of Alexander Kirkland and his friend Clark Gable. She also has as a perennial suitor, Ralph Morgan, a friend of her father's Henry B. Walthall.

She marries Kirkland, but then is warned by his mother May Robson and shown that insanity gallops in that family to quote another literary work. Since Kirkland wants kids and Shearer and Robson think Kirkland's train will slip the track if he doesn't get one, Gable is recruited for breeding purposes. Of course you can see all the complications this can cause and O'Neill explores them all.

Gable is so terribly miscast in an O'Neill production, but he was an up and coming player at MGM and did what they told him. Shearer does what she can to lift a very dreary story, but she seems defeated at the start. Best in the film is possibly Robson who puts some real bite in her dialog.

Strange Interlude ran for 426 showings on Broadway in 1928-1929 and starred Glenn Anders and Lynn Fontanne in the Gable and Shearer parts. Perhaps no one could really have saved the film because two years earlier, Groucho Marx lampooned the stuffings out of it in Animal Crackers. After seeing what he did, I don't think the movie going public took it too seriously.

And since it's not the best of O'Neill, neither could I.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie gets a score of 3 because it dared to be so very different. It features a cast acting while you can hear their thoughts and desires! This is truly a weird film and an experience I won't forget. The only problem is that the experiment, though in some ways interesting, is generally quite dull and unengaging. In fact, it's amazing that a Norma Shearer and Clark Gable film could be THIS dull! The film is based on a Eugene O'Neill play and it really does seem quite stagy. In fact, it would have been best just to keep it as a stage production--it just didn't translate at all to the big screen.

So this movie is only recommended to die-hard cinemaniacs and those who love Gable films so much they just have to see all his films!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A four-and-a-half-hour O'Neill play gets boiled down to a little under two, and much of that running time is devoted to actors with frozen expressions on their faces as they read their characters' thoughts in voice-over. It can work onstage, but it looks hilariously stilted in this soap-opera adaptation, which soft-peddles its heroine's bad behavior and never explains why she has so captivated so many men. Norma Shearer and Alexander Kirkland, overacting ludicrously, are outclassed by a naturalistic Clark Gable--he's the only one who makes the frozen-face technique work. It gets even funnier when Shearer's and Gable's son, a surly moppet, does the frozen-face shtick. There are also Frank Morgan's brother Ralph as an unsuccessful suitor, given to soliloquizing \"poor Charlie!\" over and over again, and a young Robert Young and Maureen O'Sullivan. By the time they show up, the voice-overs have largely been abandoned, and it plays as a ripe soap, with a sentimental fadeout that actually plays \"Silver Threads Among the Gold\" as background music. Robert Leonard's direction is stodgy and he shows little facility for reining in hyperactive actors. It's certainly entertaining--there's nothing else like it, unless you count Groucho's satirical parody in \"Animal Crackers,\" or an old Mad Magazine satire that rendered Shirley Booth's sitcom \"Hazel\" a la \"Strange Interlude\". But it isn't good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can only guess that this movie was an experiment that misfired. Years earlier, it would have been moving images accompanied by music. Later, it would have been sound added to silents. Eventually it would have been Technicolor, Cinemascope or Imax. This movie must have been a misguided attempt to introduce a new element to the talking picture. During all the emotional scenes, the character stops in mid dialogue and their inner thoughts are narrated while they gaze off into the distance or appeal to the camera. This interruption is painful at it's very least. Imagine these top tier actors trying to look busy while the narration drones on. Painful. I have no idea who came up with this gimmick, but it was the only time I ever saw it used - and for good reason. In every scene the actors were forced to roll their eyes, wring their hands, or overact to such a degree, I actually wondered if this was really a comedy.

The story is a hopeless soap opera that takes place over a couple of generations. Norma Shearer, disappointed in love, searches for a reason to live. She has a friend, played by Ralph Morgan, who worships her - but she takes him for granted. She is attracted to a doctor, played by Clark Gable, but he is self absorbed and isn't interested in her. She settles for a weakling that needs her desperately. She marries him only to find that there is insanity in his family and she can never have a child with him. Along comes the doctor who selfishly pops a bun in her oven, only to find out later that he loves her after all. The child builds confidence in her husband who becomes a success, but she realizes that it's really Clark she loves after all. Confused yet? Forget the rest, just watch a couple of episodes of \"As the World Turns\" and it'll all become clear.

If your are ever forced to watch this movie, hold out for the final scene. The gyrations of the actors put Harold LLoyd to shame. It is not to be missed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a piece of Hollywood product that should have never left a film can. Dialogue without a plausible thought, plot without a point, staging without skill, directing without direction, and acting without the worth of some backwater high school's freshman class play. The entire cast should have been arrested for over acting.

But otherwise, okay!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is supposed to be about the frustrations of film making. It certainly frustrated me with its endless boredom. The setting is an attractive Spanish seacoast resort with his usual large cast. The script is very poorly written or maybe there was no script. Just all ad-lib.

A far superior film about the frustrations of film making is Francois Truffaut's \"Day For Night\" made in 1973. It shows all the delays and how the cast can misbehave in an intriguing manner. It doesn't bore the viewer and you gain sympathy for the director who somehow must complete the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have loved the book \"A Little Princess\" for most of my life, and was very excited that there was a movie. But I was appalled at this adaptation. Not only is the acting wooden, and the plot a convoluted mish mash of various incidents in the book, but the theme is all wrong. The real theme of the story should be that a girl can be a princess only when she behaves like one, as Sara does when she gives 5 of her 6 buns to a beggar child, even when she herself is very hungry. The theme of the movie seems to be that all girls are princesses, which cheapens Sara's actions considerably, and seems more like it should be written on a Hallmark card than applied to this story.

There are many other things wrong with this movie- too many to list, but here are just a few of the larger ones: This story should be set in Britian in the mid 1800s, not America during the first world war. Miss Minchen is harsh to Sara from the start, making her actions when Sara is left penniless much less startling than they would be if she was syrupy sweet at the beginning, as she is supposed to be. Nowhere is it mentioned that Becky is black. Sara's father does *not* come back, he is dead. It is his closest friend, and collaborator in the diamond mines who finds Sara, and restores her to her proper place. In fact, the diamond mines are not even mentioned at all, though they are the source of Sara's wealth.

All through everything that Sara has faced, she always acts like a Princess, giving what she can, and forgiving those who hurt her. She would never have called Lavinia a \"snotty two faced bully\". Such a thing is completely out of character for her, and undermines the entire philosophy that she is to be well behaved no matter what.

This is by far the worst adaptation of a book to the screen that I have ever seen (with the notable exceptions of \"Ella Enchanted\", and \"Anne of Green Gables the Continuing Story\")The plot of the book is wonderful, and skillfully written, so I do not understand why the director felt that it needed to be changed to make it interesting. I would suggest that anyone wishing to know this story should watch the 1987 version, which is far superior. Or better still, read the book. It will be more worth your time than the hour and a half wasted on this version on the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I absolutely despise this film. I wanted to love it - I really wanted to. But man, oh man - they were SO off with Sara. And the father living was pretty cheesy. That's straight out of the Shirley Temple film.

I highly recommend THE BOOK. It is amazing. In the book, Sara is honorable and decent and she does the right thing... BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT. She doesn't have a spiteful bone in her body.

In the film, she is mean-spirited and spiteful. She does little things to get back at Miss Minchin. In the book, Sara is above such things. She DOES stand up to Miss Minchin. She tells the truth and is not cowed by her. But she does not do the stupid, spiteful things that the Sara in the film does.

It's really rather unsettling to me that so many here say they loved the book and they love the movie. I can't help but wonder... did we read the same book? The whole point of the book was personal responsibility, behaving with honor and integrity, ALWAYS telling the truth and facing adversity with calm and integrity.

Sara has a happy ending in the book - not the ridiculous survival of her father, but the joining with his partner who has been searching for her. In the book, she is taken in by this new father figure who loves and cares for her and Becky. And Miss Minchin is NOT a chimney sweep - that part of the film really was stupid.

To see all this praise for this wretched film is disturbing to me. We are praising a film that glorifies petty, spiteful behavior with a few tips of the hat to kindness? Sara in the book was kind to the bone and full of integrity. I don't even recognize her in the film... she's not in it.

Good thing Mrs. Burnett isn't alive to see this horrid thing. It's ghastly and undeserving to bear the title of her book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to love this film. I have read the book to my daughters and we all loved it. The book is marvelous. This film is very far from the book. The book is splendid - this film is an awful adaptation.

In the book, Sara is honorable, kind, strong, and NEVER does anything spiteful to get back at anyone. That's the POINT of the book! She behaves as a \"princes\" regardless of circumstances. An important part of behaving like a princess is to not return unkindness. It is to behave honorably regardless of how you are being treated.

In the book, she endures much and touches the lives of others. Other people change their behaviors after they witnessed her kindness and ability to endure without sinking to spite and vengefulness. Sara does what is right simply BECAUSE it is RIGHT.

Outside of the bakery, she comes upon a beggar girl who is more poor and hungry than she is. She has half a dozen hot buns. She is VERY hungry. She gives one bun to this wild looking little girl huddled on the doorstep of the bakery. When she sees how ravenous the girl is and watches her gobble the bun, she gives her another. She continues to do this until she has given 3 or 4 I think - I don't remember how many.

The baker is watching through the window. She is so moved by what she has witnessed, she takes the beggar girl in and raises her as her own daughter. Other people are similarly influenced by Sara.

And in the book, her father has died. The man next door is her father's partner - he has been looking for her. Her father did not lose his money after all - the man is thrilled to find Sara; he takes her and Becky into his home and raises them as his daughters. And Sara has her full inheritance, of course.

Miss Minchin is not a chimney sweep. In fact, she remains in her same post at the school. But she is humiliated as Sara has told her new guardian of the cruel treatment she received. And Sara does speak to Miss Minchin in the end - Miss Minchin is trying to minimize her treatment of Sara and Sara with a calm steadfast demeanor, instructs Miss Minchin that she had been cruel.

There is no comeuppance for Miss Minchin. She continues on in her miserable existence. It does not matter - what matters is that Sara has a home with a guardian who loves her - and her dearest friend in the world, Becky, is now for all intents and purposes, her sister.

The book is about love and honorable behavior under the worst of circumstances. It is about self control and humility. It is a wonderful book. This film does NOTHING to capture the true story and messages of the book. My wife was so disgusted with it, she wanted to leave the theater in the middle, but we decided to stick it out. We were not rewarded.

I cannot for the life of me think of a reason the film makes should alter this excellent book in such a bad direction. Perhaps it was the influence of the ghastly screenplay from the book that Shirley Temple acted in. I don't know - but this film is so far from the book in character and values that I do not recognize it.

Don't waste your time - buy the book. It is unforgettable... even for a dad!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking forward to this so much, being a big fan of the book. However, when it came out I remember thinking it was one of the biggest wastes of money and time I've ever spent at the cinema.

In principle, the acting, the sets and the music were excellent, and are the main reason why I'm rating this a 4.

In this version, Sara is a little too self-sacrificing for my taste. There is no way she would have deliberately lied to Miss Minchin just to stop her punishing the other girls; in the book she makes a point of describing lies as \"not just wicked, but vulgar.\"

There's also far too much of a Disneyfied ending for me; Sara's father coming back from the dead and all of them trotting off into the Indian sunset. While the book does have a happy (and critics might say equally improbable) ending, it doesn't leave you thinking, \"Oh puh-leeze.\"

About the only things true to the book were:

1. Sara's father being a soldier 2. The lines between Sara and her father (\"Are you learning me by heart?\"\/\"No. I know you by heart. You are inside my heart.\") 3. Sara's friendship with Becky, and her 'adopting' Lottie (although this last one wasn't developed as much as it could have been) 4. The changing of her room by adding various luxury items. That part was brilliantly done. 5. The basic core - a rich girl being flung into poverty suddenly - is there, but that's about all that is.

People might say that this adaptation is more for the younger audience. Possibly. All I can say to that is I have two cousins - aged 7 and 12 respectively - who were big fans of this film until they read the book.

If all you want is a 'feel-good' family film, then this delivers. If you're looking for a film that actually tells the story of A Little Princess (in fact, if you've read the book) don't waste time with this one. It's such a shame; with a cast like this, if they'd stuck to at least the basic story it could have been fantastic.

Am I harping on about 'read the book' this and 'read the book' that a little too much? Very probably. But if someone attempts to adapt a book - especially such a classic - into a movie, then they should at least have done the same thing. Preferably more than once.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Milla stands out in this movie because of her personal sense of style and the way the clothes hang on her. I have learned to hate that crumpled little three-year-old face she makes whenever she pretends to cry. It makes any points she is trying to make as a serious actress drop off quickly. Of course, in a movie with a BALDWIN and Denise, she still shines as a mature actor person. David seemed to be doing Woody Allen by way of Howdy Doody. Not a single word or gesture in the entire movie seemed sincere or even sincerely acted. \"How Harry Met Sally\" and \"Two Weddings and Funeral\", even \"Sleepless In Seattle\" had scripts, locations and ACTORS. The script seemed to be a string of bad and crude gags separated by a LOT OF TALKING. The locations seemed to be within a few blocks of each other. There are only two actors in this dishrag of an indie flick, Milla and the lady who played the chick who was into the stars. I watched most of this through the first time with the sound off, just watching Milla. That subscript gag was old the first time I saw it and it's a silly rip off of a song in \"How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Owen (David Krumholtz) and Chloe (Denise Richards) are a youngish couple living in Manhattan. Owen is a moderately successful magazine writer while Chloe is an aspiring actress. Happily for her, Chloe gets big role on a sitcom and temporarily moves to Hollywood. Missing her, Owen books a flight to LaLa Land, as a surprise. When he arrives at her set trailer, however, the \"house\" is shaking, as Chloe and her hunky co-star are having a little romantic tryst. The writer and the actress are through. Hurt and mad as a hatter, Owen goes back to NYC. Sympathetic friends decide to set him up on a blind date with Nadine (Milla Jovovich) to get him out of his sulky funk. But, it goes badly, as the duo mix like oil and water, mostly due to each having a strong personality and Owen's huge shoulder chip. Yet, over the next few months, astonishingly, Nadine and Owen become pals, who confide in each other and hang out. Can it turn into something more? Well, who the heck cares! This film is so STUPID that most folks will yank it out of the DVD player after the first ten minutes. The script is pathetic, dismal, and, oh, stupid, too. Then again, Krumholtz gives a very obnoxious and offensive performance as well. Jovovich is not much better but who could look good with the lines she has to spout? William Baldwin, too, reaches a career low with his crude and sex-crazy role as Owen's brother. The only cast member who is any good is Richards but she must cringe when she looks back at this one. Okay, the costumes and production values are adequate. Then, too, there is ONE clever element in that, occasionally, the characters will speak their lines but cartoon bubbles will appear above their heads with the words of what they are truly thinking. That doesn't save the film from \"bomb\" status. Don't be stupid, dear film and romcom lovers. Do not rent, buy, or borrow this gigantic turkey. I am the stupidest person on earth, today, for watching this THING until the bitter end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Writer\/Director Brian Burns has obviously seen a few romantic comedies, and he seems to think that he's discovered the formula for success: plenty of location shots in New York (preferably in the winter), allusions to old Hollywood films (especially musicals), enjoyable musical soundtrack. Alas, all of this is mere compensation for Burns' lack of talent as a writer. (The great mystery of many writer-directors making independent films is not why they cannot get on with major studios, but how they get any backing at all for their films.)

Normally our interest in romantic comedy is motivated by the lead characters, but the couple in this film simply has no appeal. This is not the fault of either David Krumholtz or Milla Jovavich; their characters are just poorly written. What we respond to in such classics as When Harry Met Sally or Annie Hall or older films such as His Girl Friday are quirks and flaws of the lead characters' personalities. Lacking the ability to create individuals, Burns gives us an after-school special inspired by Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.

How anyone can see Burns as the successor to Woody Allen is beyond me. I did not laugh once during this film, and the screen-play is full of echo chamber dialog (\"I want to paint the town red.\" \"You want to paint the town red?\"), which is the most tell-tale sign of someone who has no business writing for a living. In one of the early scenes, we see Krumholz's actress girlfriend filming a mindless TV sitcom. It's the only moment in the whole film that the dialog feels right; maybe that indicates what Burns talents are really suited for.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seeing that this got a theatrical release nowhere around the globe, it only serves as a reminder of were the careers of those talent-free ladies Denise Richards and Milla Jovovich went. It also is a particular grating kind of movie, the kind that think they are smart, funny and original while being poor in every aspect. Full blame can go to Brian Burns, who wrote and directed this potboiler. His script takes a quite unoriginal situation and goes exactly nowhere with it. The situations develop completely without any inner logic, besides that of a desperate scriptwriter. Characters are thinner than cardboard cutouts, behave stupid and without any real motivation. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the inclusion of Mrs. Richards. We don't believe her relationship with David Krumholtz's character for one minute and the way she is brought back into play after the one-hour mark is particularly pitiful. Why would anyone fall for a egocentric, self-obsessed, arrogant b**ch like this in the first place, much less a second time? Especially after having supposedly found his..erm...true love? And if any of these things aren't enough to completely sink this movie, than the central couple is. The coupling of Krumholtz and Jovovich is only slightly more believable or developed than the Richards-one, but it is to no avail. There is no chemistry, no spark, nothing that we might loosely accept as a credible couple. Worse, these two central characters are particularly annoying and irritating, doing annoying and irritating things the viewer finally has no interest in, whatsoever.

Overall, a very poor showing. Even die-hard rom-com fans might want to pass on this one, as there are dozens of movie made with more skill or more charm.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Occasionally on talk shows a good topical debate sparks some interesting opinions from the audience, unfortunately there is always some desperately sad person seeking acceptance who will end any interesting debate instantly by getting up and saying the proverbial \"Everyone should get along and love each other\" as they know they are guaranteed to get applause and affirmation, as no one would dare disagree.

Well they are the same people who marked this film as good, why did they do that? INSECURITY. Anyway that's all I'll say on that matter.

The Film, it starts of reasonably interestingly so you hope it will build, and if like me you've settled in with a nice couple of glasses of wine and some cheese then you will give it even more of a chance simply because you can't be bothered to move.

But then you daydream, you wander, your mind drifts of onto other things, why? because the Director did too! he took his foot off the gas, and then he realized 'ooops' so to compensate he accelerates hard, but then he drifts again, and again so do you, the story slows, the plot thins and almost disappears, you even wonder to yourself 'so what happened again?' as you ponder your screen will show Nick Nolte running around with some supposed purpose, but you will have long since cared as to what he is doing and he will appear as nothing more than a screen saver in the background to your day dreaming.

Michael Moriarty who plays John Converse has an amazing ability to speak without moving his lips or indeed his face, somewhat like a ventriloquist, he must have gone to the Nicolas Cage school of expressionless facial acting, or he was attacked by the Phantom Botox injector.

Tuesday Weld was to play Marge Converse, but instead she played Mia Farrow to perfection.

In all there are hundreds of thousands of films to see, so leave this one to one of the last, you see I've just wasted an evening watching it when I could have watched or done something else, learn by my mistake, nights off relaxing are precious so don't waste one watching this boring tale, do anything else, dust off that old game of Cluedo, practice gurning for the evening or have an argument with a loved one, trim your nose hair, get rid of unused files on our laptop, it will be time better spent what ever you should choose.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just plain terrible. Nick and Michael are WAY better actors than this. A \"C\" rated flick at best. The plot was weak and the characters totally undeveloped. Even the film and sound quality was terrible. I suppose that these were all young actors at the time and this script just filled a job nitch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Start with the premise that you will do anything to replace your lost love with a look-alike. Throw in your scientific knowledge of a deforming disease (isn't this the stuff that Leo G. Carroll contracted from the spider venom in \"Tarantula\"). Throw in the fact that the main character, instead of finding some way to attract the young woman, engages in heavy-handed stalking, until he totally draws attention to himself and has to hatch this insane plot: If he can make the girl's father sick, then help him recover, she will marry him. The problem is that most of the events are random and unpredictable. Anyone with half a brain would have seen through things. There's a third party, a woman that the doctor, played by J. Carroll Naish, has treated with great insensitivity. You know she is going to be a factor. There's also a gorilla kept in a cage who is used occasionally for heaven know's what. Oh well. There is so little sense to this who thing that it plays itself out and people get their just desserts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"A scientist has developed a serum which grotesquely distorts the victim's hands and heads. The scientist decides to use his serum on a concert pianist to extort money from him for the cure as well as take the man's daughter for a wife,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. J. Carrol Naish (as Dr. Igor Markoff) plays \"The Monster Maker\" in the low budget Bela Lugosi mode.

Mr. Naish's serum causes a real disorder, \"acromegaly\", which American Heritage defines as, \"A chronic disease of adults marked by enlargement of the bones of the extremities, face, and jaw that is caused by overactivity of the pituitary gland.\" Ralph Morgan (as Anthony Lawrence) plays the afflicted man with some dignity. Pretty blonde Wanda McKay (as Patricia \"Pat\" Lawrence) is the daughter desired by mad scientist Naish; in early scenes, Ms. McKay and Naish emote hilariously.

Watch for Tala Birell (as Maxine) in a surprisingly good supporting performance; she plays the somewhat Garbo-like, and long suffering, assistant to Naish. Ms. Birell definitely steals the film; and, you've got to question Dr. Markoff's sanity in casting her aside. Glenn Strange (as Steve) and a crazed gorilla (Ray Corrigan) add to the fun. The monster makeup (Maurice Seiderman) is very good.

**** The Monster Maker (1944) Sam Newfield ~ J. Carrol Naish, Ralph Morgan, Tala Birell","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dr. Markoff is a mad scientist who is experimenting , trying to find a cure for a viral cause of acromegaly. When he attends a piano concert, he is stricken by the beautiful daughter of the pianist and sets out to woo her. But when she wants nothing to do with him, he infects her father with the acromegaly virus in an attempt to extort money and his daughter in exchange for a cure.

That is the basic premise for this B-grade low budget thriller. I have to say I was underwhelmed by this movie. Not that it was terrible-it wasn't, but there was nothing particularly noteworthy about it either. It was entertaining enough for a viewing but is not one that will stay in my memory.

The dialog is a bit corny at times and the acting is just mediocre. The story is fairly predictable and doesn't really give us anything new. Of course, I can't complain too much about a movie that has a guy in a gorilla suit who serves almost no real purpose and a doctor with a Svengali-like stare that fails to mesmerize his victims.

It may be worth a watch if you like this sort of movie, but don't go into it with too many expectations.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(Some Spoilers) PRC quickie that has J. Carrol Naish playing Dr. Igor Markoff who's not really Dr. Karkoff but an impostor who took over his identity back in Europe.

The real Dr. Karkoff had a affair with Dr.Markoff's wife that lead to him to murder the real Dr.Markoff and then having his wife Lenore infected with acromegaly that made her look like the \"Elephant Man's\" sister. This was done so that no one would ever want to look at her and he could keep Lenore all to himself; but the disturbed Lenore later got even with her insane husband by killing herself.

This nut, the fake Dr. Markoff, then spots Patricia Lawrence, Wanda McKay, one evening at the theater where her father Tony Lawernce, Ralph Morgan, a world famous pianist is giving a concert. Enchanted by the lovely Patricia who's a dead ringer for his dead wife Lenore Dr. Markoff becomes obsessed with her and goes to extreme lengths to marry her even though she's want's nothing to do with him.

After getting ridicules in his efforts to get Patricia to fall in love with him, by sending her flowers with syrupy love notes attached to then as much as five times a day,Tony goes to see the crazed Dr. Mankoff to tell him to stop annoying his daughter. It's then that Tony ends up getting knocked out by the good doctor who has him injected with a dose of acromegaly that turns him into a somewhat unsightly fellow. With his hands and body swelling up and not being able to play his beloved piano Tony is told by his Doctor Dr. Adams,Sam Flint, that the only one who can cure him of that dreadful disease is non other then Dr. Markoff! the person who gave it to him.

The movie has the usual sub-plots with Dr. Markoff's assistant Maxine,Tala Birell, who's also in love with him jealous of the phony doctor making a play for Patricia. There's also Dr. Markoff's hulking butler Glenn Strange who, like his pet gorilla, is just a big clumsy oaf who can't even subdue Maxine who's less the half the size. Strange ends up getting bopped on the head and knocked out cold by Patricia's boyfriend Bobby Blake, Terry Frost. As for the Gorilla he turns out to be but a big hairy wimp when he also tries to do in Maxine and is chased away, and locks himself back up in his cage, by the pet dog Ace. Dr. Markoff in his desperation to get Patricia to marry him promises her to cure her dad only to have her father break out of his chains and in the ensuing struggle with him ends up shooting Markoff dead with his own gun.

There is a happy ending to this whole mess with Maxine, who knew as much about Markoff's cure for acromegaly as he did, injecting Tony with a secret serum that made him as good as new. The movie ends, like it started, with Tony playing the piano to a packed and cheering house at the local theater.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No one in this movie has very much to do. This is probably the longest 65 minutes I've ever spent watching a movie. The makeup effects on the pianist with macromeglia are pretty good, but that's the only thing that keeps this from being rate a 1. The doctor's assistant goes through extreme mood swings from passivity to hysteria in seconds and then seems to forget where she was in the next scene. The director assembled a lot of the right ingredients for a mad-doctor movie, but somehow forgot the skeleton of a story to hang them on. Unless you know someone in the cast or crew, I wouldn't recommend even sampling this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"J Carol Nash and Ralph Morgan star in a movie about a mad scientist in love with a pianist's daughter. When his advances are spurned he injects the father with a disfiguring disease so that she will be forced to come to him to get a cure.

God this is awful.Its dull and boring and you'll nod off before the pianist gets uglified, I was on the verge. Yea it picks up once things are set in motion but this is one of those old movies better remembered then seen again.

If you must see it come in late

4 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh God, Why? I am aghast at the sheer ineptitude of this delicious blathering nonsense..as if all that makes sense. Well, like this film from bottom rung poverty row of 1940s Hollywood, nothing in this door slamming horror - made on three sets - makes much sense...except the horniness of Dr Markoff (jerkoff?) who lusts uncontrollably after some plonky piano-player's daughter who has big melons and a flouncy hairdoo. It is just terrible ...and even has a gorilla and a big dog for pointless added distractions. More Elephantine than Elephant man and that is just at 62 minutes!. ....THE MONSTER MAKER is the sort of film kids in 2005 just howl at with disbelief and wonder what the hell their grandparents saw in their youth that made them the lovable movie kooks they are today. I guess you just had to be there. In 1944 or whenever the hell this mad drivel was shown to impressionable 13 year olds in glorious 3000 seat velvet movie palaces on a wet day. Somehow. It was made for no reason, by botchville crapshooter movie scammers PRC Pictures in the war years by escaped German refugees who knew who to make a film since they got out of Europe as the Nazis advanced on UFA studios...the monster in this film, like the mad scientist is actually a Nazi nightmare.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I watched this movie it was an afternoon after I got home from work. I love horror movies and have seen some really cheesy ones, but this takes the cake. The plot presented to the viewer in the beginning of the movie seems a little intriguing, but as the movie progresses the script makes a wrong turn with horrible cliches and bad presentation, which in turn makes the movie completely dull and boring. I don't mean to keep criticizing the script and plot, because believe me that is not the worst part. I have to say as a whole the acting was not terrible for beginning actors, and I was impressed with Taylor Locke, this being one of his first movies. The worst part of the movie was the special effects. They reeked of low budget, and really ruined the viewers entertainment, even if he had been remotely interested in the plot. I do recommend you watch this movie to understand the power of a bad script and plot. Only then can you really appreciate good writers and directors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Book II' isn't a film, it's a sermon. This nauseating, sickly and almost unbearably tedious misfire probably works as religious propaganda but has no entertainment value beyond a few wisecracks from George Burns. Louanne plays a little girl who is asked by (ahem) God to mount an advertising campaign that will get people to believe in him again. No really, that is the story. It's a leaden load of old cobblers that has far too much self-justifying, 'explanatory' religious waffle but barely any decent dialogue and certainly a total absence of anything even approaching magic or charm. 'Miracle On 34th Street' this ain't. Suzanne Pleshette breathes a bit of life into this rancid puddle of quick-setting concrete but the pudding-headed script and rubbish performance by the irksome Louanne quickly send this one down to the fiery depths of you-know-where.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw bits and pieces of this on TV once, and when a friend recommended it, I began looking for it even though it seemed no place nearby had it. I finally got a hold of it in an antique store, and couldn't wait to watch it...Oh, that I had seen it a couple years earlier and could've really enjoyed it. I was surprised that this movie was only 80 or so minutes long, and I think this is what made the plot and story so lacking. The plot really does sound like a good one, both on the trailer and the movie comments: a teenager, Angus (Jesse Bradford) and his newfound stray lab Yellow are marooned on an island during a storm on a boat trip with his father (Bruce Davison). Together, they manage to survive the wilderness and wait to be found and rescued. Still, what is never mentioned is that everything is shortened and the events of the plot are very rushed. There is a possible love interest between Angus and Sara, but they're never shown together for more than a moment. Yellow is a mischievous dog the parents are reluctant to keep, but in a few days he seems to be appreciated enough to join a boat trip. The scene of the mother (Mimi Rogers) mentioning vaguely what death is like to the younger boy (Joel Palmer) doesn't go anywhere. In no time, we learn that 9 days have been spent on the island, then suddenly it's 14, then 19. Of all the animals a castaway could be exposed to in the wild, only 1 kind - a wolf - attacks them. Why couldn't something else have been a problem instead of having the same type of animal - maybe even the same one - strike twice? There are few views of how Angus prepares food, except when he discovers fruit and roots, and when he roasts a trapped rat. If he knows so much about survival skills, why weren't more scenes with it shown? The one thing that made me blank was why the dog didn't have much part alone. When he is rescued, and the dog is left behind on the island, there is no scene showing how he survives without a human's help. I wished I was more open to this when watching it, but I did enjoy some of this. The acting was good, and the score was enjoyable. Though, I found myself wondering why the father looked so much older than his family, and why he and the main search and rescue conductor share names. This is a good movie for kids, but though the protagonist is 14, nobody over 10 would be interested with this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I liked some of the characters, but our lead relied too heavily on a charming smile. I didn't care two whits about him. He makes bad choices and I really didn't care since he did not seem to either. He seemed rather unintelligent. There were a couple of moments that provided a chance at some human insight (the scene with the whale was interesting), but these are lost in the general malaise of the film. The love interest was acceptable and the other various characters were mildly interesting, but the plot meanders around too much and left me wanting at many points in the film. In the end, I wondered why I stayed so long.

There are some tepidly humorous moments, but ultimately I did not care. I cannot fathom rating the film higher. - 3 of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Films like this infuriate me simply because they don't deserve the funding that enables them to end up in my DVD player. This movie is ambiguous in its jacket blurb and even more impenetrable in its casting choices (why is Ms. Song a romantic interest? Did they just want an Asian woman in there, or does her unconvincingly wise character actually lend this \"message\" movie's story a fresh perspective)? One has very little to go on in approaching this film, and even less as the story unfolds. But a good hour into the proceedings, I realized the dull casting is all the casting agent could dredge up, the unconvincing character studies are the result of writers' brain-fart, and the story is amorphous and plagued by unsubtle references to the woes of capitalism, materialism, and getting ahead in the postmodern world. Towards the end of this film, just before I nodded off and missed the last two minutes, I got the sense that \"Everything's Gone Green\" is a product of \"connections\" in the world of film - someone with very little talent knew someone with very little directorial skill, knew someone with absolutely no marketing sense (but plenty of disposable ego) and out popped this dull and inefficient attempt at whimsy and humor-with-a-conscience nonsense. And this is what is most maddening - how many infinitely better scripts were passed over in favor of this almost unwatchable tripe? Skip this film, and feel good about yourself for doing so.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a textbook example of how Hollywood didn't (doesn't) trust moviegoers, and panders to its big name stars. The character of Christian is completely re-written, the anti-semitism Noah faces from his own army unit is virtually eliminated, Michael's story is changed significantly, and the end result is to decimate the power and terrible beauty of the book. I almost wish I hadn't even seen it, because of the ability of movies (sounds and images) to resonate so powerfully in your brain; I would have much rather just been left with the impression of the book. The book could have been written today, it is that honest and brave. The movie, neither. My advice: SKIP the movie; READ the book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a fine concept piece and the acting by Brando is a fine piece of work. Dean Martin isn't bad and Montgomery Clift is quite good as well. Unfortunately, it's a very disjointed, very long piece that really should have been edited down to something closer to 2 hours (it's almost 3 hours).

We follow the lives of 3 men from 1938 through the end of WWII and watch as they discover who they are and what they might become as they discover both the world about them and what they're made of. For some, it's the women in their lives that brings about this realization, for others, it's the broader general circumstances. All too often however, I found myself asking what had just happened or what the import of a particular scene was.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After the book I became very sad when I was watching the movie. I am agree that sometimes a film should be different from the original novel but in this case it was more than acceptable. Some examples:

1) why the ranks are different (e.g. Lt. Diestl instead of Sergeant etc.)

2) the final screen is very poor and makes Diestl as a soldier who feds up himself and wants to die. But it is not true in 100%. Just read the book. He was a bull-dog in the last seconds as well. He did not want to die by wrecking his gun and walking simply towards to Michael & Noah.

So this is some kind of a happy end which does not fit at all for this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was strongly recommended by a friend and, being a great fan of Brando, I ordered this film from Harrods and eagerly waited for it to arrive. I have seldom been so disappointed by a film. Brando was good as a German officer but the rest of the film was simply unbearable. You never get to like or care for any of the characters (except Brando, maybe). The acting was OK. Story, what story? Maybe that's the point. It's war after all, but I've seen far better war films. (Lawrence of Arabia, Apocalypse Now, even Star Wars) It was so boring I kept checking my watch...

Overall this is one of the worst films I have seen. Please don't waste your time and money on this. May I also add that this is the first user comment I have written, I just had to let my feelings about this film known.

By the way, my all time favourites are: Casablanca, The Godfather 1 &2, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp Fiction and Amadeus. If you haven't seen them yet, please spare the time to do so. And Amadeus MUST be in widescreen 2.35:1","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This glorified discovery channel documentary, part biblical study, part treasure hunt, all misappropriated, might have sat well in it's television origins but falls flat as a feature film. Right from first glance of it's cheesy looking cover art, one may cast doubts upon the integrity behind this serious subject, shown on front case relegating the search for Jesus's tomb to a generic action font that looks more National Treasure or Tomb Raider then any informed debate and examination of the historical burial site should. Such is the underhanded way in which the entire proceedings revolve.

More curious child then worthy researcher, Simcha Jacobovici's explorations come across as self-indulgent while his research comes across as manipulative. For all the fascinating revelations this filmmaker tries to impart on his viewers through supposed evidence, a flood of repetitious statements reiterating the same research and findings over and over proves The Lost Tomb of Jesus has very little information to back up the bloated, albeit entrancing claims. What this amounts to is a very frustrating attempt to beat the audience over the head with the same small factual evidence in support of this tomb's authenticity, which ironically detracts from it. While tirelessly linking together many of these mini-coffins found together to support the Jesus of Nazareth theory, this research forsakes a well-rounded approach to continuously pursue this romanticized archeologist's singular obsession. There may be some impressive factual data which helps shed some light on many traditional dogmatic Christian-held beliefs, but essentially the shady nature of this project made it come across as merely an exploitation piece, financed at a time when The Da Vinci Code was all the rage.

In the end, the cheesy cover art was right. Despite my appreciation for documentary form, The Lost Tomb of Jesus takes an always interesting topic and turns it into overlong and unvaried geriatric adventure hunt, substituting any relevance and sacredness for the uninspired motivations behind this team. By the time these tomb raiders have finished their explorations, reluctantly having to stop research because of social demands, viewers are left with the sense the director was insistent on forging this mystery whether it was there to begin with or not. There are a few genuinely potent moments where the halls of history come marching through this documentary in unassuming ways, but all the decoding, exploring, and theorizing in the world still left this misguided vanity piece in an uneasy void of apathetic response.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The theatrics and the drama included in the movie is fantastic, but the facts and the research is far from solid. When quoting Dr. Bovon, where the documentary tries to establish a connection to Mary Magdalene from Mariamene, Dr. Bovon later clarifies it should be used for literary purposes (ie: fables of that time) not for a historical figure. In fact he states, he does NOT believe the Mariamene ossuary in Talpiot is Mary Magdalene. He further comments on his public letter, that he was not informed that his words would be used for this documentary but rather for information regarding Acts of Philip (a literary work in the 4th century).

So what we have here is a director that took one clip for a 4th century Acts of Philip fantasy and used it specifically to support a 1st century ossuary inscription. A very sad stretch and Dr. Bovon calls the Jesus\/Mary Magdalene connection as \"science fiction\" -- as this documentary should be rightly labeled.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Contain spoilers! These guys are total scam, they did the Lost scrolls of Judas, saying Judas was a huge friend of Jesus... And now this? This is clearly a tryout to destroy a religion, and should be illegal. They have no proof, it could be clearly a setup. How can we know and trust these people? What if they carved the tomb and \"said so\"? And at the end they SEAL the tomb forever so no one can go there investigate? How stupid they think we are, really? Are we supposed to trust that they are trustworthy people? Who really found a tomb of Jesus? And how can you stab all the Christians like this? I think this documentary should NEVER be made by a non religious man. It can ONLY be made by a Christian and I mean the DIRECTION AND SCRIPT. It should be illegal for Jews to film a Christian related documentary, specially if the documentary makes accusations about Jesus not being a \"Son of God who resurrected\" (nothing against this, they could be Buddhists or atheists, anything but Catholic).

To me this is a total hoax, a pure documentary-scam. They sealed the tomb so people \"wouldn't\" think about checking things out. This documentary is a total failure, how stupid they think the Christian people are? And what about the Lost pages of Judas... that was a total scam as well, they seriously said at the end, something like: \"We know a few people that could do a fake scrolls just like these, and no one would know it was a fake\"... Oh my god, they just said it.. \"Dude we might have done these\"... This kind of documentary should be illegal, it is a stabbing on all Christians and catholics they should be behind bars!!! I am not a fanatic, I am an ex-Jew, now atheistic, but I have valors and will always respect others people religion, The part when Israel orders the tomb to be sealed forever was PRECIOUS!! PRECIOUS!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really hoped for the best with this one, but it just didn't happen. Financed at a very non-dutch manner and still looking great, with a style and pace that's very much like Hollywood. What I don't understand is how-with all these great benefits- the director,writer,producer still managed to make this film a completely horrible picture to watch. Filled with bad jokes, cheap nudity and actors that just can't really talk [act] in the english language. Kudo's for pulling it off, but what was this guy thinking!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm just filling this comment out, because I couldn't stand the fact that a positive comment was featured on the \"complete information\" page. I really think this to be the worst movie ever made in my country. This is not only because of the terrible plot, the crappy English and a tension-curve that is as flat as our country. No, it is because this was a serious attempt to make a good action movie, conform the Hollywood standard. It had to be \"The European Action Movie of The Year\".For this purpose they even hired Fejda van Huet, actor in the Academy Award- winning picture \"Karakter\", to do the job. I don't mind bad films, I can even enjoy them if they are pretensiousless b- movies. but I can't stand movies that are terrible, but supposed to be a-type movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking forward to this movie. I like road trip thrillers. I like sex, drugs, youth, action and a great sound track. And I was especially interested in taking the movie trip across Europe to see if I recognized any of my own travel spots.

From the first scene, however, this movie was unwatchable. What was Guy doing driving on the wrong side of the road? What could possibly have blown up the van that rolled gracefully down a shallow grassy incline? If they're such bad drivers, why would they take a delivery job? And that's just the first scene! Not even bad enough to be campy or silly. Just Horrible! Horrible! Horrible! Waste of time. Move on to something... anything else!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a road movie. At least the movie is in yellow anf I think that suggests a road movie (?). I can't say much positive about The Delivery. It's bad acting, certainly their English. Camera looks like it is done by a kid, there's a bomb with counter, and suddenly a Beetle is falling from the sky. Since it was so cliche we actually laught the whole time -- and that was the most fun of the movie. This movie should be released in America, but I'm not sure you should go because that might suggest that is the quality we produce. The explosions look boring. Basically everything is over the top. Everything is just too much: the yellow quality, the sound, the babe, etc. Find all the cliche part in other movies, put them together and you have The Delivery.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this movie is coming to a theater near you, consider it a threat. I was unfortunate enough to see this movie here in Tokyo. Since I'm Dutch, I was surprised to find a Dutch movie playing in a metropole like Tokyo is. I figured it had to be somekind of special if a Dutch movie makes it all the way to Japan. So I went there with some friends, and we were happily telling the theater's staff that we were Dutch and that we were so curious about the movie. As it turned out, this was one of the most infantile, silly, dumb, worst acted, with worst spoken English movie I've seen in maybe 10 years, and I left the theater trying to avoid the staff, because feeling almost responsible for this disaster movie. Sometimes you get the feeling you know what the director was aiming for: Lola Rennt, Trainspotting kind of like movie. Instead it was more like MacGyver on drugs with outdated breakbeat music as a score. But if I wasn't feeling too annoyed, the movie was unintentionally quite hilarious once in a while, as it showed Holland at its smallest.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Help, I've ended up in cinema hell! What a completely stupid film this is. Really nothing is good about it.

Let's spit it out:

1) The story is incredibly far-fetched: an anti-EU terrorist group is chasing a bunch of guys who drive around Western Europe carrying a delivery of see-through bags full of xtc pills. And the worst thing is: they are serious about it!

2) The level of acting should put great shame on all faces involved.

3) Some money-eyed guy decided to let every one talk English so that the international market would catch on. Ugliest advertising ever! The French and Dutch native tongues talking smart make all but sense and the result is laughable.

4) The soundtrack is totally misplaced and ill-chosen.

5) The camera, edit and effects work is supposed to be of some post noir road movie kind of style, but is hardly worth some thing and not meant to accompany this story (read: anti- story).

6) Hidde Maas. The hero of Wildschut never fails to convince. A true actor. Usually I would give an extra point just for the sake of him being around. But no, sorry, not this time, I would just not forgive my self...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everything this film tried to do is done better - and superbly in \"Run Lola Run\". The Red Haired Hip Cutie, the critical deadline(s), The Lover in jeopardy, and the \"Crime Pays-Sometimes\" message. BUT, unlike \"Lola\", it just isn't believable or well put together. It is a labored knock off that might have worked for me if I had seen it before \"Lola\" - but it pales in comparison. Yes! The Falling Beetle was nice! But that was about the only surprise in the film. Do yourself a favor and see the Real McCoy - (And the REAL hip Red Head!) - in Run Lola Run!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was in this movie as an extra in the Dallas filming in July 1975. Some of the things you see today,and take for granted in movie making, were implemented in this movie. The movie premise, the costumes, the special effects, the acting. It all was ahead of its time. It opened the door for movies such as \"Star Wars,\" the \"Terminator,\" the \"Matrix,\" and \"X-Men\" movies. Now people look at it and they say, \"Well this does not add up to this new special effects story...\" It did not have any computer graphics and such as the new movies do these days. It did have a story, and a wonderful cast, and a hell of a director! The places it was filmed like the Dallas' World Trade Center, and the Zale Building,and the Ft. Worth Water Gardens were at that time the most modern and futuristic backdrops in which to film. The director Michael Anderson was very creative and he tried to show a perfect future that was flawed by human desires and frailty's. It was my first film experience, the first of six films I have been in. Just because it was filmed in Texas does not make it any less a wonderful piece of filmmaker's art. Watch it again and appreciate it more. This movie was the foundation that set the standard for many great films that we now enjoy. Well, my hand is blinking... I got to run. Santuary awaits...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This screened at Sundance last night to a receptive if mute crowd. Clearly the story is worth relating, it's powerful and true, but did the director have to cast every single role with a recognizable face? I mean, really, you spend have your time saying \"Oh look, it's the guy from 'Armageddon'\", or \"Hey, it's Easy Rider!\" and you lose sight of the story. Perhaps it's the only way this guy could get his movie made, but it's a little distracting, sort of like 'The Love Boat\", or those old Towering Inferno movies, that were 'chock o' block with stars!'. I wish he's just told the story simply with less famous faces. Also, the camera work seems kind of lazy, like there wasn't any thought about where to put the camera to best tell the story. All in all, I thought it was okay, but could have been really good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Throughout this movie I kept thinking why on earth did they make this as a \"documentary,\" yet not include real footage of the people who were interviewed? Sure, it would have been just like any other documentary, but then it would have been up to the film makers to find the meaning for the movie to deliver.

Using a host of well known movie stars (many of whom apparently asked to be in it) to portray \"real\" people gave me the feeling that there was a pre-determined message to be delivered, and the director was so intent on it that real people couldn't be trusted so actors and rehearsed scenes were used. (Yes, I know this was also a play, but a documentary should be a documentary.) I really found myself getting put off by the various stars, and kept expecting one of them to drop character for a moment and say \"I'm a good person because I'm in this.\"

This movie could have had a much more powerful social commentary had it been more objective or let us see Matthew Shepard and his murderers as people rather than symbols. (The much superior \"Boys Don't Cry\" had an unflinching view of those involved--good and bad.) Instead The Laramie Project gives an almost relentless lecture that someone's sexuality should be accepted regardless, and little else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film infuriated me for the simple fact that it was made only because Shepherd was gay. The men who murdered him are clearly wicked. What happened to the poor man was truly horrible and a tragedy. However, where was Hollywood when four religious white kids were executed, after being forced to perform a host of sex acts on their killers and each other, by two evil black men in Wichita just two years ago? The celebrities only mug for the camera when it serves a political purpose. Also, Laramie is portrayed in a poor light by this pseudo-documentary, which of course is hardly surprising because they are the backward hicks who must be educated by omniscient and enlightened Californians. Still, it's always a treat to see Laura Linney.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's nothing new in this movie. Nothing you haven't thought about before, nothing you haven't heard before. The story of a gay man who is brutally murdered in a small town and the reaction of people can be broached in many ways, and this movie has chosen the most demagogic and slushy one. One of the biggest flaws in this movie is that it isn't neither a movie nor a documentary. The director has used the transcriptions of the original interviews and made the actors play them as if it was a movie. The result is weird. And finally, I read in previous comments that stated that people who don't like this movie are anti-gay. I'm pretty sure this comments come from people who consider themselves tolerant but don't tolerate that other people don't like this movie. This is a funny world.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I finally rented this video after searching for it for many months. Initially I only wanted to see it because I'm an out and out Neil Pearson fan (Patrick, boyfriend of Isobel, the lead). However, the movie stands up very well without Neil (although he handles himself very well in this movie, he is overshadowed by the three main female characters). It's an eerie, intense movie, the sort the Brits do so well - definitely a \"chick flick\" the house and it's isolated setting giving the movie an almost \"Wuthering Heights\" aura. The movie is full of tension and the ending, shocking, yet somehow inevitable. I'm glad I watched it, it was worth the wait","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a tedious turgid boring mess. This is a classic example of all that is wrong with contemporary English theater & film. About as exciting as a closet full of dirty socks. The very opposite of living film. Only the presence of Joanne Whalley gives it any spark.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hey! The Grudge 2! What up, man? I have a friend I would like you to meet. The Grudge 2 meet Johnny's Worst of 2006 list. Johnny's Worst of 2006 list meet The Grudge 2.

What's going on here? I was under the impression that this was supposed to be a sequel to The Grudge rather than a remake. If that's the case then why does it do nothing but rehash the original? This floater doesn't even feel like a movie. It's just a 90-minute soundtrack of the weird contortionist chick making that annoying croaking sound.

A sound on which I'd recommend you not get me started. It was kind of creepy the first time I heard it, but I've heard it about 12,367 times since 2004, so it's pretty much run its course. And it's made even more annoying by the 20 people in the audience who thought it'd be funny to imitate the sound whenever there was a quiet spot in the movie. Sigh.

Folks, YOU'RE NOT FUNNY SO JUST SHUT UP! I promise you, EVERY SINGLE TIME that a character was walking slowly through an empty room (which is approximately 97% of the movie), somebody in the audience would start it up, \"Uhhhhkkkkkkuuuuuhhhhhkkkkkk.\" Yes, I know that's a horrible way to replicate the sound with letters, but you get the gist. So then some dude in the audience would giggle, and not to be outdone, deliver his own rendition. I was very close to just walking through the audience and punching random people.

I told you not to get me started.

There's absolutely nothing about The Grudge 2 that I can recommend. There's not a single original scare or idea in the entire film. There's not one memorable acting performance. Are you a Sarah Michelle Gellar fan? Welp, enjoy her two minutes of screen time and one line of dialogue. Are you an Amber Tamblyn fan? I hope you can deal with the fact that she's given nothing more to do than walk around looking like she's suffering from a pinched nerve. Can you believe the story (if you can call it that) is even worse than The Grudge's?

At least the original was fairly creepy and boasted a few effective jump scenes. I didn't jump once during this lametrosity (yeah, I made the word up, deal with it). That's right. Not a single time. The \"scares\" are so manufactured and they are so blatantly telegraphed that there is absolutely no shock value once the \"gotcha\" moment arrives. Watching this movie is like playing a good game of chess - you're always four or five scenes ahead.

There are also some weird scenes thrown in that make no sense whatsoever. One that immediately comes to mind is a scene where a girl drinks a gallon of milk and then begins to regurgitate it back into the jug. Huh? I say HUH?!?! The audience laughed. I shook my head and sighed. There was a lot of that during the movie. Laughing. Sighing. Head shaking. Falling asleep (I did twice).

The movie even makes a 1\/5th-hearted attempt at a plot \"twist.\" Wow. It's so bad that I don't think we should even dignify it by labeling it a twist. Did they really think anybody would be surprised at the revelation of who was hiding under the hoodie? Please. It was as shocking as Elton John coming out of the closet.

And of course the ending goes the whole non-closure \"look, we might have another sequel\" route. As soon as the credits rolled the audience booed. My sentiments exactly. Had the audience paid money for this turd burger then things would have most likely gotten violent, and I would've gladly led the charge.

We learned from The Grudge that there's a Japanese belief that when someone dies in a powerful grip of rage, then a curse is left behind. Much like a Ben Affleck movie, it's a \"stain\" that forever becomes a part of the place where the death occurred. Well, in The Grudge 2 we learn that when a horror movie covers its budget during its opening weekend then its sequel will be rushed out, and more often than not it will be as bad as this and will leave a stain on any theater where the movie shows.

THE GIST

If you're a total wimp and never saw The Grudge then this might provide a few cheap scares. But I strongly recommend saving your money, otherwise, there's a good chance you'll be the one walking out of the theater with a grudge.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, first the good thing : If you saw the trailer then you know about 100% of the \"scary\/jumpy\" moment of the movie. And yes, it's a good thing because you should just stick to the trailer and not go see the movie.

I now understand why Sarah Michelle Gellar did not stay alive in that movie for very long, she did not want to associate her name with this production. I wish her the best for \"The Return\".

You have to follow 3 different story in this movie, and they are all disconnected (in time and meaning) until the very end. And even then it's a very bad climax. And god forbid even open the door to another sequel.

Yes, in this movie, \"The Rage and Fury\" is on the move. No need to visit the house anymore, just be close to someone who when inside and you're done. It's not a curse anymore it's kinda like a virus. Go inside the house, get scared, return back to USA and spread the joy in your apartment building.

It's not that difficult to follow, but you just don't really care about anyone. The plot line is slim to none and you have many scene in this movie where you just laugh and shake your head... Milk anyone?? I saw Ju-On 2 at the Fantasia movie festival last summer, different story completely but much better than this dud. It's not a remake, but this time, maybe they should have simply done a remake....

If you must see it, wait for the DVD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In Pasadena, Mrs. Davis (Joanna Cassidy) sends her daughter Aubrey Davis (Amber Tamblyn) to Tokyo to bring her sister Karen Davis (Sarah Michelle Gellar), who is interned in a hospital after surviving a fire, back to the USA. After their meeting, Karen dies and Aubrey decides to investigate what happened to her and gets herself cursed in the same situation, being chased by the ghost of the house. Meanwhile in Tokyo, the three high school mates Allison (Arielle Kebbel), Vanessa (Teresa Palmer) and Miyuki (Misako Uno) visit the famous haunted house and are also cursed and chased by the ghost. In Chicago, Trish (Jennifer Beals) moves to the apartment of her boyfriend Bill (Christopher Cousins), who lives with his children, the teenager Lacey (Sarah Roehmer) and boy Jake (Matthew Knight). On the next door, weird things happen with their neighbor.

\"The Grudge 2\" has scary sound and visual effects, with the creepy woman and boy, and I have startled a couple of times while watching this movie. However, the complex screenplay with three subplots is totally confused, making the entwined story a complete mess. There are too much characters and situations, and in a certain moment I was completely lost with the disconnected and fragmented narrative. In the end, I was completely disappointed with this confused, but also spooky film. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): \"O Grito 2\" (\"The Scream 2\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Grudge 2...Let's see. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Japanese Horror Film or Horror or Grudge basher. I loved the first one and the Original Ju-On. I feel that much more justice could have been done for this one. Aubrey only existed to fill in what needed to be 'discovered' in the ending, (which if you've already seen Ju-On before this, you already know the whole movie) all it was really was a complete remake of Ju-On, just more closely followed than The Grudge. Though everyone may have thought that it's coming to America was a bit interesting, it was expected as the house burning in the end of The Grudge left the 2nd hungering for a new plot.

Save your $6.50 and wait for this to come out on DVD, rent it, watch it, then decide if you want to buy it. This movie is good for a fall asleep at 2 in the morning film. But overall, I'd say a 4 out of 10. Sorry Grudge fans, it's just...They just failed at this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a horrible movie. This movie was so out of order and so hard to follow.It was so hard to follow and was just confusing. The whole time I was watching it I was wishing it would end!!I felt like I wasted 2hours of my life that I will never get back. Save your money and don't rent this movie. I now see why Sarah Michelle Gellar was barely in the movie. The first movie was great but this was just sucked. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. Save your money and watch the trailer because that is about the only thing that is worth seeing with this movie. This movie had no real story to it either. I am still wondering what I watched.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hollywood movie industry is the laziest one in the entire world. It only needs a single hit to flood theaters with the same old crap re-invented over and over again. Take superheroes for example, for each X-Man and Spiderman, there are Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider and Hulk. Japanese horror remakes are even worst. It only took The Ring, which was pitch-perfect (mostly because of Mr. Gore Verbinsky), to bring a ton of look-alike creepy-woman based horrors, e.g. The Ring 2, The Eye, Dark Water (which was fine, but pointless), and the grudges.

The first Grudge wasn't entirely bad. It was scary most of the way, which is what one could expect from it. Plus, the plot had some brains mixing narratives. Grudge 2 is exactly like the previous; this could be a good thing, but hey, what boy Men in Black II? Was it a nice thing to xerox the entire screenplay and just change the villain? For the Grudge 2, the critic goes the same way.

Tired scares, bad acting (except for Amber Tamblyn), and clich\u00e9s all over the place. Three stories take place, on different places and time. There is Aubrey (Tamblyn) investigating what drove her sister Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar) to death; Allison (Arielle Kebbel) who is taken by colleagues to visit the house where the incident depicted in the first movie took place; and finally, an American family that witness strange stuff happening on the apartment next door. Glad to say (and I mean it) that everything is tied up at the end, but one must not rely on the end to make a good picture, when everything else is simply tiresome and dull.

The chills are all over there, a girl alone in the lockers, someone who shouldn't enter a house, others that dig too deep. Meanwhile, ghosts keep killing and killing and killing, which seems even more deadlier than ten world wars or the Ebola epidemic. Hey, doesn't that seem just like another bad Japanese remake, something called Pulse? Yeah, day after day it's getting easier to hold a grudge... against Hollywood bullshits.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Aubrey Davis (Amber Tamblyn) travels to Tokyo to investigate the mysterious disappearance of her sister Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and gets caught up in the same mysterious curse that has killed so many people. With a group of others, she tries to solve and end the curse for good.

The Grudge 2 rehashes everything from the first one and it produces only a couple of scares. The first Grudge was an average movie at best. The premise was decent but the acting was wooden and some of the scenes were really ridiculous. The Grudge 2 is even more silly and less scary than the original. Also, Scary Movie 4 has made it nearly impossible to take these films seriously and I had trouble keeping a straight face during the \"scary scenes\" which should encourage laughter more than fear. How Takashi Shimizu messed up his own franchise is unexplainable yet he succeeded at creating a decent atmosphere. Unfortunately, he kept the film at a slow pace with a bunch of dull characters and lame scare tactics. Clearly, he did this movie for money and I'm glad it failed.

The screenplay was pretty bad, mainly because it made no sense and they didn't develop the characters at all. In the movie, there were three different stories going on and each of them were somehow related to \"the grudge\". The connections were weak and a bunch of people were killed without a real reason. They don't explain the rules of the curse very well and it ended up being a bit of blood bath because of everyone dying although the PG-13 rating kept things from getting interesting so even some of the death scenes were pretty lame. The dialog was weak and none of the characters were likable or developed well enough to truly care about.

The acting was on par with everything else and it was a lot worse compared to the first one. Amber Tamblyn was annoyingly wooden. She moved on screen very slowly and all of her emotions seemed fake. Sarah Michelle Gellar was okay although she just had a cameo. Jennifer Beals gave the best performance, she had a few good scenes and was kind of effective. Arielle Kebbel was okay, a little bland. The rest were either horrible or just too forgettable to mention. Overall, The Grudge 2 was a disappointing sequel. It lacked a lot of things and it's not worth watching. Rating 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would not deny that I have quite enjoyed watching any Japanese horror films, but everyone must get quite fed up with them after you have seen the same thing over and over.

The film follows the story of the Grudge. Audrey, as requested by her mom, is going to get her sister back. But when she arrives, something strange happens to her sister and then her sister is killed. She wants to find out the truth behind the curse and later a photographer (Eason) joins her. On the other hand, there's also something happening to a family and three girls, but they seem to realise it too late...

In fact, I can't see the points for the three girls from international school to appear in the movies as they're not (quite) related to the story. The reason why the woman holding the grudge keeps killing people is still not very clear (it seems to me they're just telling the same things I saw in the grudge). And the sudden appearance of Audrey in front of the boy is undoubtedly odd, which I suppose is an attempt to make the story about the family related. The killing scenes are absolutely the mixture of those in the Ring and Shibuya kaidan. The acting would be another bad point. As a Hong Konger I would really like to support Edison Chen's first effort in Hollywood, but as a film lover I really can't find any point to support bad acting. Other actors like the father , though he just appears in a few scenes, should also have done better. What is kept good is the atmosphere of the film, especially when I watched it in the middle of the night alone.

If you have time, really enjoy any horror films and have seen all the possible horror films except this, like me, you can go for it to kill some time. But if you really like Japanese horror films of this kind, you should spend some time watching the Japanese version of the Ring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I liked the first The Grudge. It really creeped me out and it had something to it that made me want to see it twice. That something was missing from this sequel. There was no creativity, nothing new or original, nothing that really sticks to your mind. It's people dying because a scary ghost comes out of the shadows and says boo. And most of the time, it wasn't even all that scary.

Plot-wise this movie is a dead end. Amber Tamblyn is a good actress, but she was given nothing to do, and Karen's death seemed really unsatisfactory because it came so quickly. I was also disappointed in the Kayako's mother subplot. I was thinking that she might provide some way to fight the Grudge, but she dies in the hands - hair? - of Kayako. That was such a stupid twist. All in all, it's difficult to feel for characters that you know from minute one are going to die. All in the same way. And there's nothing they can do. It doesn't feel like a cruel destiny awaiting them. It's just boring, because you know what's going to happen. If they had anything to fight it with, that would have added suspense, even if they failed. If there was any hope, it would make the scares more justified. Now you're just waiting for them to die.

Kayako was really scary in the first movie, but this time we saw her too many times and that took away some of it. I was still scared during some scenes, but I actually got used to the huge eye and blue face. The makers obviously realized this would happen as they added other scary ghosts. Yes, I was scared at the school psychologist scene - even if I knew where it was going as soon as she said \"I've been to the house\". A nice touch. Toshio, however, was not scary at all in this movie. I was much more creeped out by the non-blue Toshio with black eyes and a blank stare that sometimes appeared in the first movie. A blue boy sitting in the corner does nothing for me.

Some of the characters seemed really unnecessary - the notorious milk-scene with the girl whose name I can't even remember comes to mind. I wasn't scared, it was just \"Huh?\" I'm not sure if the schoolgirls were even really needed. Karen could have brought the grudge to the US with her. It could have killed people related to her life, everyone at the funeral, or something like that. Even so, it would have been dull to watch them all die, but being introduced to so many unrelated people really felt annoying. Hated the \"I won't call you mother\" scene. Aubrey's mother issues were equally dull. The little boy was a touching character, though.

The Ju-On sequel was much scarier than this one. It had some new twists - dreams and reality blurring much more, for instance - and even if it left me feeling quite down, I was also somehow satisfied. I got to think a bit and be left wondering. This movie only provided cheap scares.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"People may say I am harsh but I can't help it. The movie is so bad I was absolutely stunned. The first movie was bad enough if you ask me. It was greatly exaggerated and silly but this one, despite the creepy scenes, has a seriously ass-stupid story. They actually went deep into investigating Kayako's past and found out that she had a mother (Who miraculously speaks English) who was an exorcist and \"fed\" evil spirits to her daughter. Stupid? Yeap. OK, it started out with Kayako who was an ordinary housewife who had an affair with some bloke and got herself dead. This part is still OK. Because of this moment of rage, she became a vengeful spirit who kills anyone who enters her house. Acceotable. Now, her killings began to stretch a little where she actually had the opportunity to travel throughout Tokyo just to finish her victims. (Her victims were travelling, weren't they?) This struck me hard. Now if a ghost could actually do such a thing like travelling throughout a country without paying public transport fares, I wouldn't mind being. Ask someone to come kill me then *snorts*. And to crown things all up, the ghost who was once depicted as a very vengeful one (In Ju-on: The Grudge, which was way better than this trash) is now depicted as some spectre who truly enjoys herself and felt that it is her mission to finish of people. Things became worse (For me, the viewer) when the ghost became coming in forms of large strands of hair. I mean, ??? If a ghost had such power, I seriously dun mind being one. I never really liked movies depicting ghosts as MONSTERS cause they're not. The overall results is just plain bad. Like The Grudge 2. With a better storyline and less exaggeration, this show would have been better","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me start off by saying that I loved the original Grudge. It was bar none one of the scariest, most hair-rising experiences I've ever had in a filled movie theatre. I'm not kidding. Being a self-declared japanophile also made the flick look better in my eyes (if the setting had been changed to some American suburb I probably would've ended up hating the film).

That said... this movie is a complete mess! I won't say it sucks, because A) the movie does have some good points, B) \"it sucks\" is the lamest put-down in the history of lame put-downs. So what does the movie have going for it? Well, for starters it has a pretty cool look: through filters and the use of bleak, washed-out colours, Takashi Shimizu almost recreates the downbeat, angst-ridden atmosphere of the original. A few scenes are genuinely shocking and unpredictable. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is just plain bad. Period.

The story is all over the place, needlessly told Tarantino style, i.e. the scenes are out of chronological order. This technique is pointless in the case of this movie and it merely makes things more confusing. Frankly, a straightforward plot would've worked better. The original was also lacking plot-wise, but it did make sense and the film more than made up for its thin plot with lots of scares and a genuinely tense atmosphere. Grudge 2 has none of these elements and is just a waste of time.

Let's not forget the TV-show acting skills which make the cast of the original Grudge look like Emily Watson and Katherine Hepburn. Simply put, the movie doesn't work. It's too slow, too dull, and just not scary enough to make up for the confusing plot (which adds nothing new to the story, by the way, so not even Grudge fans will be pleased).

Oh, and what is it with the old man playing Japanese peek-a-boo on the bus?? Is this supposed to be comic relief? Artistic statement? Or what?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That was a waste of 9 dollars. the movie was terrible. all the \"scary\" parts were pointless and sadly repetitive. Seemingly all of the tense parts could be completely predicted, and did not seem to hold any bit of the audiences attention. Also, the plot line didn't advance at all during the entire movie, and it was all just a big setup for the grudge 3. When it seemed like the movie was about to make a big plot advancement, it turned out just to be a pointless scene. these directors need to follow Hitchcock's example: every scene has a point. Porbably 90% of the scenes in this movie could have been left out with no change of the plot. Final opinion: Don't waste your time, energy or money!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This \"remake\" is a complete disgrace: so mediocre, cheap and prosaic, it wouldn't deserve more than a couple of spiteful lines.

It's also a cheat, with a laughable script served by such contrived and amateurish \"acting\", you're always aware there's a set, a camera, a fake, no direction, no suspended reality whatsoever to allow you delve into the story.

The claustrophobic, stifling tension of the small spaces and rooms in the original Japanese masterpieces (Ju-On 1 & 2) is all but lost here in overblown sets and spaces.

But worst of all, the moral enormity and unbearable suffering, which both imparted a ruthless logic to the original mother and child victims turned into relentlessly vindictive ghouls, is completely ruined by utter nonsense and hollow boogie-man style scares.

If American audiences aren't willing to read subtitles and rise above the lowest common denominator, preferring to swallow this kind of patronizing hogwash instead, they fully deserve this pathetic curse: the movie itself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't waste your time or money on going to see or even renting it. It is by far the worst move I have ever seen. Its two hours (WAY too long) of your life you're never getting back. If you're looking to be scared, go see something else. We went with someone who still has nightmares about the Gremlins and she wasn't scared in the least.

There are so many things that make this movie an incredibly poor attempt at making money. Now before I begin, let me say that I loved the first Grudge! However the second one is something of a different story. The plot is very in-depth and intricate. However in the end you are wondering \"what the heck was this or that all about.\" The acting would be considered poor in a B list pornography film. I could site several examples but I don't want to spoil it for those that are glutens for punishment, but I can sum up two horrible hours in two simple words.... it's spreading.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All the way though i was thinking to myself \"Oh god why!\" At the very beginning i thought \"Right it might be average,\" but the acting and plot on most parts was atrocious.

Every part in it was so predictable, even though the first movie seemed to bare a large resemblance to the ring, it was a half decent movie, but this just seemed to take all the good things about the first and made them terrible. Some bits made everyone in the audience wet themselves, Eg. The part were Geller falls off the building had me in stitches. My girlfriend had to keep telling me to quiet down i was kept commenting on what was bound to happen next, and more times than less i was right.

Why does going into the house make her come after you, it doesn't make sense. It was a poor excuse for a lot of killings, and no really depth was seen at all.

You can see everything coming, which just left you feeling that there was no point in watching. Oh shes behind her ... didn't see that one coming *yawns*.

Surely these people must have thought to... oh i don't know, carry a knife round or at least try and fight back, instead of being eaten but someone hair? At best during the movie i was very mildly scared (and i mean mildly), i was just crying out for the credits, as they rolled i exhaled a short \"Oh thank god.\" If you haven't already, don't waste your' time and money on this; pointless, plot less, sorry excuse for a sequel!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was utter tripe. Possible that it is in fact a pollution. The subtle tense atmosphere of the original remake are no where to be seen. Sarah Michelle Gellar is given nothing to do, even in her death sequence, but still she is the best performance in this film, and the her death is the best thing about it, even though she did deserve a better death. Its the sign of very bad writing and directing. I'm guessing she did this film to end her connection with it as its turning rubbish.

Not scary. Not tense. Not funny. Makes no sense at all. And as said above Sarah Michelle Gellar gives the only reasonable performance out of the entire cast.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went into this movie with very little in terms of expectations. I went with my girlfriend and two friends, and none of them could explain the story of the Grudge 1 to me. Well, if the first one couldn't leave an impression on them to explain the plot, then I doubted this one would be any better.

Let me summarize what the trailers let you know: The Asian lady is back and so is Sarah Michelle Gellar. Luckily for her, she isn't around very long. That decision may have saved her career.

The movie has three story lines, and none of them make sense. And even worse, none of them are developed. You almost start to understand, and then someone dies and the story gets left behind. Okay, killing people could be scary, but I was left more confused over the attempted plot development than I was frightened. They jump back and forth between all three story lines, which aren't related... OR ARE THEY?!?! *SOUND EFFECTTT*~~~ The timing of the three stories are displaced, and you can tell right at the start that the movie is going to have a twist at the end. BE PREPAREDDD. Oh Wait. Sorry, this isn't a Fight Club or Vertigo quality twist, you could see this one coming from miles away. And probably envisioned a MUCH better twist in your head... they should've hired me. Instead of the girl making her \"SURPRISING\" appearance, maybe it could've been Michael Jackson instead? That part of Scary Movie 4 scared the crap out of me.

The killing sequences were terribly done. Unlike horror movies of the past, where a killer pops out of nowhere, a closet or behind a door for example, and everyone in the theatre jumps (and subsequently the fat guy behind you spills popcorn down your neck)- this lacked any frightening pop ups. They zoomed in on where the random Asian woman or kid would show up, and you knew exactly what was coming. Instead of having the music get really loud, then quiet, then a pop out to psyche you out, the music actually gave you timing for the scary scene. If I know it's coming, it won't scare me.

The movie began with explaining what the \"Grudge\" is; when a person is killed during a fit of rage, a curse is placed on the location where she was killed. So why does the Asian lady being cursed by her mother have any significance to the story? And why is the grudge now moving countries? This movie was absolutely terrible.

All it did was leave me begrudging my friends for making me go- we should've seen one of those animated Pixar movies. It would've been scarier.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a huge fan of the first four Ju-on projects. I own them, and watch them every few months. I lend them to co-workers and friends just so they can get a good scare from quality Japanese film making. I think Takashi Shimizu created a great story, and presented it very effectively in these four installments.

I was somewhat excited about The Grudge 2 opening in theaters. I saw the first American Grudge before watching the four originals. The Grudge was actually pretty good. Of course, the originals are better, but I got a good Halloween scare from the 2004 American Grudge.

The Grudge 2 started off badly, and went down from there. I kept waiting for it to get better, to make sense, to show Shimizu's talent - nothing like this happened. The thing that's great about Shimizu's Ju-on work is the story. True, it's usually told in a disjointed style that you have to think about to connect its components, but it is still a great story. There was no story in The Grudge 2. It was a series of gratuitous deaths from characters that you never had time to even start to care about.

The editing was atrocious. Disjointed (as in the Japanese originals) is one thing, but the complete randomness of scene sequence was exhausting. I just kept thinking, \"This is so stupid,\" and, \"No - he didn't really sell out this much did he??\" It made me want to walk out of the theater, run home, and watch the original work, simply to reassure myself that Shimizu has not always made this dumbed-down, generic, boring, non-sensical, thrown-together tripe.

If you really have your heart set on seeing this movie, I suggest you wait the 2 months to rent it. Really. Two of the five people in the theater with me walked out about 45 minutes into it. I debated on whether to do that myself. Going home and cleaning the house actually sounded like a better way to spend my time at that point.

I am truly shocked at how bad this movie was. Let's pray Sam Raimi doesn't put out more cash to make The Grudge 3. It's just not worth it anymore. Sigh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The original GRUDGE (the original American remake) surprisingly pulled off just about everything you could do right with a ghost flick. It had suspense, dark and moody atmosphere, some good jolts, and some genuinely creepy images. THE GRUDGE 2 attempts all of these techniques, but ultimately fails, only showing us the same old stuff we saw in the first movie, as well as a messy storyline constantly switching from Tokyo to California. It begins in Tokyo with some schoolgirls who wander into the house, now heavily blocked by one strip of police tape. One of them comes face to face with a similar wide-eyed ghost girl while trapped in a closet. She gets out, screaming frantically and they all run out of there. Next we cut to America where Karen's sister is sent by their mother to Japan to find and bring her back home. We eventually find ourselves following a very familiar concept involving a curious guy and girl investigating the history of a mysterious house. We cut back and forth to the girls from the beginning who are disappearing one by one as well as a young boy hearing strange noises in the next apartment at night, all leading up to a very unsatisfying ending. The \"scare\" scenes are dull and ineffective. Like The Ring 2, avoid this god awful sequel...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Grudge 2 is one of the films that makes me wish there were more synonyms for \"terrible\" in the English language. With a plot replete with more holes than a trawlers net, this film fails to make compulsive viewing for a fan of even the most inane films, which I am. I felt compelled to remain in the cinema until i had extracted \u00a35.70p worth of entertainment from it, though i feared that I would be there for some years. A better film could be made from the out takes of the first installment of The Grudge, though I am not altogether sure this isn't the result of such an exercise. As expected, what passes for a plot in this dire example of wasted celluloid, finishes with no resolution whatsoever, thereby leaving the producers with the option of inflicting 'The Grudge 3' upon the public when the time comes that they feel yet another pang of true hatred for civilisation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To start off, I didn't bother seeing The Grudge. The previews for that movie didn't make me jump, didn't scare me, and didn't entertain me. But when a group of friends asked me to go see The Grudge 2, I accepted the invite, a little curious as to how this movie would be. I mainly went because of my friends. Not even 5 minutes into this movie, I realized I threw away $7.50. The acting from the get-go is horrible. The schoolgirls in the beginning look as if they have never acted in their entire lives. Then, the movie plot takes over. Let me tell you, I could not stop laughing this entire movie. It is just so stupid. I'm pretty sure they tried to not make it scary. They don't make anything jump out or anything. It shows the kids, then shows them \"attacking\". It builds up to it, it's not an \"all-of-a-sudden\" thing. And even in the middle of the movie, the core of the movie, the acting is still horrible. It leaves so much time in-between the dialog for someone to add in their own comments. This movie is honestly one of the funniest \"horror\" movies I have ever seen. Poorly written, horrible acting, horrible script, horrible \"unable to act\" cast, and a horrible concept. The movie blacks out and changes situations more times than you can count. Each part eventually plays out and then ties up at the end of the movie. I would never again pay to see this movie. I wouldn't even watch it on cable, for free. This movie is a joke. Please DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved the first Grudge, I watched it in an empty theater,and in all honesty, I was freaked out. Never before had I heard the unique audio of chilling sounds, it truly was gripping.

The Grudge 2 however, had a couple of good jumps, but the story line was real messy, and not entirely believable, and all over the place, with a couple of scenes, (like a female urinating herself out of fear, or another one of a young woman drinking a jug of milk then vomiting it all up again) which really made no sense, and did not help to enhance the creep factor of the film. During these scenes, and a couple of others, people in the sold out audience actually laughed out loud. That was a good indicator to show how this film lacked the thrills, chills, or creeps. The acting was decent, the emotions portrayed were believable, so hats off to the actors, but the cluttered storyline and its lack of direction was something I couldn't shake throughout the entire movie. I was annoyed more than anything, same old grudge gagging noises, a couple of quick unexpected scenes to make me jump, but overall, I was very disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All I can say about this movie, is it is absolutely boring. The intro to the movie is quite possibly the worst intro to a horror film I have ever seen, I mean a angry chick hitting a guy in the head with a frying pan isn't at all frightening which is what I assume the director was aiming for, but in fact it was \"mildly\" funny.

The acting in this picture was beyond pathetic; a note to directors, if your making a horror film, please hire some good actors, not some popular teen soap star who has no idea how to act.

The death scenes in this movie were beyond boring... no gore, and i'm sorry but horror movies without gore, or good suspense are just cheesy. I mean this girl gets killed by hair wrapped all around her in the middle of Tokyo, and not one person sees it happen, they just declare her as \"missing\", wow thats awesome!

In conclusion if you and your friends want to see this movie, make sure u bring some sleeping pills, because I guarantee you won't make it to the end.. Me and my friend walked out cause we didn't even care what happened at the end.

Cheers","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My best guess is this piece of work will come out on DVD sometime before Christmas.

This movie was terrible. The time line jumps all over the place. This wouldn't be so bad if it left some suspense for the end. It was entirely predictable. Bitch girls pick on outcast, outcast wants to know why they hate her so much, bitch girls die a terrible death, outcast girl goes home and looks crazy. Outcast girl brought evil spirits with her, makes neighbors go crazy and kill each other. Creepy kid understands what's going on. Oh, and the younger sister not being good enough for Mommie, sick mother sending younger daughter to bring the golden child home.

To be fair, there were some great moments here and there. First of all, Sarah Michelle Geller's character dies in the first few minutes. Definite plus. Didn't see that one coming. I didn't expect the wife to pour bacon grease on her husband's head, either. If the movie had kept up those kind of thrills, I would have loved it. The beginning showed so much promise.

I was disappointed because I enjoyed the first one. It made me jump, I didn't expect most of what happened, and though I questioned some of the movie, it was still a fun watch. I didn't watch any previews for this the sequel, because I wanted to be surprised. I was, but in the wrong direction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Spoilers ahead JEEEEEEEESUSSSSSSSSSS.... I have a saying: \"Insecticides kill insects and Moronicides kill morons...\" The \"ghost\" in this movie kills morons. Several of the people who get killed in this movie are actually ASKING to get killed, by running into abandoned houses, going after ghosts, etc...

On a strictly cinematic aspect, this movie sucks real bad. The three story lines are shown to be parallel and suddenly, we learn they are separated by at least a few days. It's a cheap shot...

Also, the \"thrills\" are so cheap, they are laughable. Even \"Nightmare on Elm Street\" didn't sink so low as to show someone being attacked by his own sweater... it's pathetic.

Save your money, stay home, and you won't have a grudge against the filmmakers..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not well done at all, the whole movie was just the Grudge going around and killing random people out of nowhere. Random people that have nothing to do with the story get killed, like the 3 school girls for example.

The family at the beginning has nothing to do with the story either, I believe them to be a random family that never went in the house, and never had anything to do with the killings of the Grudge.

Did not impress me at all, I was not scared, I didn't jump at any parts, and the whole movie was just a random piece of crap to get more money off of. Makes the Gridge 1 look like crap also, which was actually an alright movie.

I believe that The Grudge 2 is like a leading movie to The Grudge 3, if they ever make one. They shouldn't have even called this the Grudge 2, they should of called it the prologue to the Grudge 2, and you will see if you watched it, because I am not going to spoil anything. Not that it would have mattered anyway.

1\/10, not scary, bad story, and is just completely random.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mr. Brento wonders if this movie was produced by the same who produced the Dragonball Z TV series. Of course not.

This is a Hong Kong real action movie based on the first episodes of the Japanese original cartoon (which was also based on a comic book series). And I really don't know if it was produced under the license of the Dragonball creators...

However, the story of the monkey-boy with special powers is an ancient tale known all over Asia (in Japan, the name of the boy in the tale is Songoku; in China, it is Sunwukong; in Korea it is Sonogong; etc) and the story in Dragonball has much to do with that tale.

By the way, as I said, this movie is based on the first episodes of the Dragonball series (which was followed by Dragonball Z, although I think the US version had a different airing order). And all the scenes related to sexuality were also contained in the original cartoon series (without so much overacting and so much insistence on it!), but because of your comments I may suppose they were completely removed in the American dubbing.

Anyway, I agree with you about the overacting in the film and about how poor this adaptation of the original cartoon is. But maybe because of that nobody can forget it after watching it...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just an hour ago I finished watching this my friend. As a fans of Dragonball we think that this movie is so bad that is good. We will say one thing : without a sixpack beers there is now way you can survive through this movie. This movie should be watched with a many Dragonball fans to laugh their ass off. The best character in the movie is the lord Horn, his makeup, his laugh, and behaviour crates the unforgettable experience. What we liked in this movie, was the fact that the island of Turtle Man was the same as in cartoon version. We believe that the only character similar to the one in the cartoon is the Turtle Man. He is also a sex maniac and kind of idiot too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When you first sit down to watch this movie, keep in mind that you are about to see something you've probably never seen before. Keep in mind that this is a movie where they obviously spent INSANE amounts of cash on explosions and not enough on acting or anything else for that matter. The crazy thing I noticed is that every character is completely over-portrayed, and it seems (most of the time anyhow) that the film had been 'sped-up' to make the characters move faster! (I wonder if the Hong Kong version was dubbed too?) I understand the cartoon had this, but it doesn't work for live-action. It just looks odd... as if the camera crew decided to act because they couldn't afford real actors.

The English version is horribly dubbed, and the character's words do not match the mouths at all. I would have preffered subtitles, but since this is a kids movie, and since some kids cannot read well, I'll let it go. But there is something extremely odd about this movie. It's supposedly a kids movie, but there's a lot of material about SEX, RAPE, and STRIPPING which isn't exactly for young Western audiences. (In the Orient, they have different laws and sexuality in children's movies is much more accepted). But parents be warned! There is a scene where two characters talk about rape, multiple scenes where people say 'sex maniac' and a scene where this insanely young japanese girl does a sexy dance for one of the 'sex maniacs' and shows him her breasts! Who was this movie made for anyway?

Oh, and the special effects are laughable. You can tell the spaceship-like things that bomb the village are cardboard cutouts (or animation, I wasn't sure) that look unconvincing, even to a kid. The makers of this movie left out a lot of cool things from the cartoon, simply because they couldn't budget the kind of money they'd need. I didn't like how the names of all the characters were changed... it made me wonder if this movie was made by the same people as Dragon Ball Z.

I don't really recommed this movie to anyone. Kids, adults, or Dragon Ball Z fans. It's just a poor representation of the cartoon, and obviously, one will be able to tell that this movie was rushed and no care whatsoever was put into it. I won't even get into the camerawork... just wait until the end credits at the still picture that sits there for 2 minutes... most of the shots are not framed correctly AT ALL and the movie just seems made by amateurs. Grainy film quality too.

Just all around horrible!!!!

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Live action version of Dragonball via Taiwan.

Evil lord comes to earth to get the seven magic dragon balls...er pearls which when brought together will cause a dragon to appear and grant your wish. Lots of action and bad comedy ensue.

What can I say that \"the best way to watch this film is with lots of drunk but witty friends\" doesn't? I don't know. This is a really bad but funny in the way that really bad movies can be. Come on this is one of the few martial arts films I've ever seen where you actually see the wires. Its a live action cartoon and not so far removed from what I've seen of the show that it makes me fearful for the big budget American version now filming.

If you have some drunk friends and feel like picking on a movie see this film. If you're going to see it sober (like me) avoid it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A low-rent, cheaply made police thriller that's kept bearable by some fair humorous bits, the nice chemistry between the two leads and, especially, by James Remar's satisfying turn as a narcissistic, psychopathic (and, naturally, indestructible) villain. Obviously a low-quality picture, both visually and dramatically, with a rather resigned Burt, but not unwatchable. (**)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was sick one day and was skimming channels and I came upon this terribly rank movie. The plot and even the subplots (if you can find one) have been done to extinction. BUT, as bad as the story was, I reserve a special comment for Liza Minelli. Her character was absolutely one of the most annoying characters I have ever has the misfortune of seeing on film. Her only two competitors in this category are John Leguziamo in \"The Pest\" and Julia Stiles in anything she's done (or half-done). Maybe she performed exactly as the script suggested or maybe (groan!) that is the limit she has to her acting range. Either way, they should have had a rewrite and killed her off in the first 30 seconds of the film (eg. Like the girl that fell off the balcony in Lethal Weapon (I) (but at least she had nice breasts))

Most Humbly Submitted...Douglas Neidermeyer","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This 1988 movie was shown recently on a cable channel. We wanted to see another film, which supposedly was starting, but because a mix up, Rent-a-Cop, was shown in that time slot. Never having seen it when it was commercially released, we took a chance at it. Bad decision.

One wonders what possessed the people behind the picture to go ahead with \"Rent-a-Cop\", or how they sold it to the studio behind the distribution. It appears this movie misfired big time. This film doesn't add anything new to its genre. It's totally predictable, as once the basic premise is shown, we know how it will end.

Burt Reynolds plays a wooden Church. This actor can do better, but who knows what was going on behind the scenes, or perhaps the direction given to him by Jerry London, had the opposite effect. Mr. Reynolds has one expression throughout the movie. He just doesn't register any emotion at all.

Lisa Minnelli, as the hooker who witnessed the original slaughter at the Chicago hotel, makes no sense at all. The romance between her Della and Church seems phony from the beginning. She and Mr. Reynolds play one dimensional characters.

Don't waste your time with this turkey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a fan of Marlene Dietrich's films, I was very anxious to see this \"documentary.\" I also got sucked in by reading rave review after rave review from the national critics. That should have tipped me off.

The movie is just plain boring and obviously extremely overrated. You don't even see Dietrich. She is heard in the background, discussing her movies and this video. She does almost nothing but complain about everything. What a drag!

The filmmaker, Maximilian Schell, constantly complains himself and pleads with her to be on camera.....all to no avail. She just keeps refusing to cooperate. After awhile, this sort of thing gets really tiring. With her attitude, why would Schell continue with this project? He should have just told the prima donna to \"shove it.\"

Regardless of what you read, do not waste your time with this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My poor Tank Girl, they ignored everything great about you. Why does it have as little to do with the comics as possible? I would have loved a movie that followed the plot, or at least had the characters right.

WHY WAS TANK GIRL American? She's Austrailian, dammit! And she's not living in a post apocalyptic war zone either, she lives in the outback with Booga like a savage. She does it because she wants to live that way, not because she has to because Malcolm Mc Dowell is acting the git. And why's she looking after those kids? The only children in the comics end up violently being choked by her, it's terrible that they made her into a lame mother figure.

And my poor Jet Girl and Sub Girl! In the comics, Jet is a sarcastic wisecracker and Sub girl is... another sarcastic wisecracker with a weird sense of humour. In the movie Jet is this mousy little thing and Sub is this ditzy middle aged hag. And Booga doesn't look or act anything like what he's meant to be either. Though maybe hot roo\/human love was too much for the USA box office? The humour was so lame too. Whatever happened to all the stuff about the Smiths and that brilliant slang they used all the time? What sort of line is \"Will this take long? I don't wanna miss Baywatch.\"? Even programmes for tiny children can come up with better material than that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film is very fast-moving, bizarre and colorful, it's like Mad Max on speed whit tons of colorers and make-up. Also very Cartoonish, as that said; cartoon sequence pops up here and there. The plot is also very saucy, but I'll believe it's meant too be. The thing that really drives me crazy in this movie, is the characters, they are painfully irritating, especially Rebecca played by Lori Petty, she's really annoying (I'll believe she is the most annoying creature I've ever seen). The editing is also annoying, very MTV stylized. Another thing that's missing from Tank Girl is an exciting adventure. The humor isn't much funny either. It has some nice visuals though.

However a lot of people love this film, most of them are women, and that's not weird at all, because this movie is all about girl power.. Tank Girl this is a real chick flick, and the best example of an hate\/love film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I made the mistake of buying this since I collect comic book inspired movies. Even at 6$ it was too expensive. I thought there might be some campy fun in it, a \"so bad\" it becomes good vibe perhaps, I was wrong. I had watched it once long ago and didn't remember any of it. Now I know why. I was bored out of my mind and was looking for distractions to do something else. I'm all for grrrrl power, punk attitude and absurd humor but Tank Girl does not work on any front. The script is bad, you don't care about the characters and the humor is mostly lame except for a few amusing one-liners. The special effects or locations are poor or often replaced by comic panels or animations that are just too jarring compared to the live-action. It's like they didn't have the money to shoot the cool stuff and so resorted to drawings, however cool they might be (an uncensored animated feature would be way better for Tank Girl now that I think about it). The action scenes were cheesy but not in a fun b-movie way. The tank itself was far from impressive or dynamic although it was interestingly decorated. As a matter of fact, the best action scenes involving the tank were in animation.

It does have some interesting songs by known artists such as Bjork, Hole and Portishead but instead of improving the atmosphere, they just don't fit most of the time. Once they even break into a ludicrous song and dance number that was just senseless and horrible. I think that's when I totally tuned out. I suppose Tank Girl, played by Lori Petty, looks the trashy punkette part but beyond her \"attitude\" and sometimes barely amusing retorts, is more two-dimensional and superficial than the worst comic book characters. Jet, played by Naomi Watts, is probably the only saving grace of the film and it's amazing how such a good actress was involved in this mess. Malcolm McDowell wasn't too bad playing his usual villain role. It might be a cult movie for some but please consider that it's really different from the original independent comics and the original creators were disappointed with the movie themselves (check out the entry for Tank Girl on Wikipedia).

Rating: 3 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe it's because I'm no fan of the comics (but if the comics are of the same \"quality\" as the movie, it's hard to believe there are any), but this has to be one of the worst movies ever made. Non-existent plot, laughable acting, dumb dialogue... This movie is so bad that it hurts. A lot. That some people actually gave this one 10\/10 is an insult to any good or at least mediocre (or at least bad) movie. If you hate yourself, then watch Tank Girl! On another thought, if you hate yourself THAT much, maybe you should just commit suicide... My rating: -34\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film doesn't know what it wants to be: is it making fun of action movies in general? Is it satirical? Is it supposed to be a black comedy? This is truly one of the worst films ever made.

Lori Petty is annoying. There, I said what everyone else is thinking. It's bad enough that she's such a terrible actress (Route 666, Bates Motel), but she doesn't even qualify as a mediocre b-movie actress. Her screechy voice, strange mannerisms, and poor comic timing dot this film from start to finish, until you just want to put your head in a vise and end the pain.

Do yourself a favor and avoid this movie at all costs. You'll be glad you did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes a movie cannot easily be classified. Such a film is \"Tank Girl\", part cartoon, part comedy, and part action flick. I'm sure somewhere there is an audience for \"Tank Girl', but it is extremely small, perhaps punk comic book readers. Most viewers will be looking for an early exit or living with the fast forward button. The only redeeming quality are short bursts of humor \"find me a microscope and a pair of tweezers\", but these tiny moments of comic relief are far outweighed by the sophomoric action sequences. There is no character development, which is not surprising, since the source is a comic book. Do yourself a favor and avoid, avoid, avoid. - MERK","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why Lori Petty was cast as tank girl, I'll never know. Her acting performance is lack-luster. Her voice is grating. It's almost impossible for me to put into words how bad this movie is.

There are several \"modern-pop\" references in the film, which I found to be very strange, given that the movie was supposed to take place far in the future. It wouldn't have been hard to make this premise interesting either. Some better writing would have helped loads.

Naomi Watts makes an appearance in it as a mild mannered techno-geek. I think they should have probably switched roles.

I'll never know why anyone would like this movie, unless they were a Petty fan.

Try not to see this movie. Total waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Tank Girl\" was, I suppose, meant to be the \"Buckaroo Banzai\" of the 90's and was marketed as such. The comparison is, admittedly, appropriate; both movies have so many things going on in any given frame of film that, as impossible as the story is to sort out, it certainly isn't boring.

\"Tank Girl\" is a fun enough ride if you turn your brain off before the movie starts. Otherwise you'll end up with a skull-cracking headache like me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's as if the editor and screenwriter only had 40 minutes of real running time. This is supposed to be a remake of a Chinese film, which is obviously far superior to this trash. It's clear that some brainless Hollywood suit or writer decided that this movie would be mano a mano, man against man, instead of just letting the story play out with the personalities of the characters that were built in the first 40 minutes. At this point in the film, the characters just don't act like regular people and not even like their own personalities. It makes little sense. It's quite clear why this film flopped. It's just not believable at all and that's too bad - it started out with promise. Don't be fooled.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On the scale of 1 to 10, I gave this a 4. I thought the film was not very good, with too much violence and not one character to like.

On an erotic scale, I give this a 6. Many of the sex scenes were tinged with an underlying ugliness. I always enjoy nudity, and Nancy Travis and Faye Grant come through, but the sex scenes were more humiliating than erotic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to be one of, if not THE greatest Mob\/Crime films of all time. Every thing about this movie is great, the acting in this film is of true quality; Master P's acting skills make you actually believe he is Italian! The cinematography is excellent too, probably the best ever. This movie was great; and I have the brain capacity of an earth worm.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one entertaining flick. I suggest you rent it, buy a couple quarts of rum, and invite the whole crew over for this one. My favorite parts were.1. the gunfights that were so well choreographed that John Woo himself was jealous, .2. The wonderful special effects .3. the Academy Award winning acting and .4. The fact that every single gangsta in the film seemed to be doing a bad \"Scarface\" impersonation. I mean, Master P as a cuban godfather! This is groundbreaking territory. And with well written dialogue including lines like \"the only difference between you and me Rico, is I'm alive and your dead,\" this movie is truly a masterpiece. Yeah right.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I saw this movie I think I was a freshman in high school and I still feel like charging Master P for the hour & 20 mins or so that he took from my life that I'll never get back.

The guy who already posted is completely right. Master P is a wannabe mobster. He, like all the other rappers in this country made his millions off of selling rap cds to young impressionable white kids in this country. It's widely known that the mob was not a black thing and blacks were not allowed to be part of it. Unfair as that might be rappers can't deal with. This movie paints Master P as a mobster named Nino? The script is terrible with the acting to match. Completely unbelievable. While searching I came up with a link or something that said he was planning on making another movie called \"The Black Sopranos\"!!!!

Please spare us that and stick to Nickalodeon. You are not a white mobster, your not even a good actor Master P, please stick to your music for the sake of whoever listens to it these days...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie rips off of every mobster\/gangster film ever made. MP Da Last Don has a reference to every movie. The acting was by far the worst i have every seen. Who the hell is John Mario anyway? His acting was by far the worst I have ever seen. He makes bad actors look good. As far as Master P goes, he's selling out quicker than an N*sync concert. I really wish I was there to tell the whole production company: WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING WHEN PENNING THE SCRIPT?\" Obviously these people are so fixated on the gangster image that they decided to make a movie and live out their gangster lives for real in their minds. One thing I do know is that there wasn't anyone who wanted to distribute this film so it seems (and how predictable) that the guys at NO LIMIT had to start; NO LIMIT FILMS. I've said enough! This movie is terrible and it does not deserve to be called a movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I don't normally think there's such a thing as a HORRIBLE movie, but this is pretty damned close! The best acting performance in the whole thing was Snoop Dogg, who has one line in a 10 second scene. I agree with the \"glad it was short\" review. The music videos at the end were cool though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The moral of this show is that bad eating habits give people bad hair, bad taste in clothes, bad posture, bad jobs, and on and on. They are obviously miserable and loathe themselves. However, if they learn to eat broccoli, they will be wealthy, successful, and attractive.

TLC ought to be ashamed of themselves for this blatant exploitation of parental fears and guilt. If nutrition is really that important, they should be able to develop a show using honest and truthful methods. If they really believed in their computer simulations, I'd like to see them do a double-blind test by finding some 40-year-olds, finding out what their eating and exercise habits were as children, and age-progressing the kids' photos. Then compare to the real things. Hey, that sounds like a project for Mythbusters! Discovery Channel--are you listening?

TLC must stand for Tabloid Lies and Cons.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Last time I checked, the Nazis didn't win the second world war - not that you'd sodding notice. After all, the Third Reich was pretty big on issuing orders and demanding cold, robotic obedience from the populace, and that's pretty much what we're saddled with today. But the way the orders are delivered has changed. Instead of being barked at in a German accent through a loudhailer, they're disguised as concerned expert advice and floated under your nose every time you switch on the TV or flip open a newspaper There's a continual background hum, a middle-class message of self-improvement, whispered on the wind.

\"You eat too much. You eat the wrong things. You drink. You smoke. You don't get enough exercise. You probably can't even *beep* properly. You'll die if you don't change your ways. Your health will suffer. Have you got no self-respect? Look at you. You sicken me. I pity you. I hate you. We all hate you. God hates you. Don't you get it? It's so sad, what you're doing to yourself. It's just so bloody sad.\" That's the mantra. And it goes without saying that the people reciting it are routinely depicted as saints. Last year, the media dropped to its knees to give Jamie Oliver a collective blow job over his School Dinners series, in which he campaigned to get healthier food put on school menus. Given the back-slapping reaction, you'd be forgiven for thinking he'd personally rescued 5,000 children from the jaws of a slavering paedophile.

Anyway, the series was a huge success. In fact in telly terms there was only one real drawback: it wasn't returnable. After all, when you've saved every child in the nation from certain death once, you can't really do it a second time. The only solution is to find a new threat, which brings us to Ian Wright's Unfit Kids (Wed, 9pm, C4), a weekly \"issuetainment\" programme in which the former footballer and renowned enemy of grammar forces a bunch of overweight youngsters to take part in some extra-curricular PE.

It's essentially a carbon copy of the Jamie Oliver show, with more sweating and fewer shots of pupils mashing fresh basil with a pestle: an uplifting fable in which Wrighty shapes his gang of misfits into a lean, mean, exercising' machine - combating apathy and lethargy, confronting lazy parents, and attempting to turn the whole thing into a nationwide issue that'll have Range Rover mums everywhere dampening their knickers with sheer sanctimony in between trips to the Conran shop. Oh isn't it simply terrible, what these blob-some plebes do to themselves? Not our Josh you understand: he eats nothing but organic spinach and attends lacrosse practise six hundred times a week.

Bet he does, the little sh1t yes, it is heartwarming to watch flabby, inconvenient kids transforming themselves with a bit of simple activity... but there's something about the underlying eat-your-greens message that really sticks in my craw, in case you hadn't guessed.

What happened to the concept of CHOICE, you *beep* So a bit of jogging might increase your life expectancy - so what? That just equates to a few more years in the nursing home - whoopee do. And besides, I'd rather drop dead tomorrow than spend the rest of my life sharing a planet with a bunch of smug toss ends trying to out-health one another.

In episode two, video games and the internet are singled out as villains in the war on flab: they make kids too sedentary, you see. Oddly enough, TV, which is equally sedentary, and unlike those two activities, actively encourages you to let your mind atrophy along with your physique, escapes without a rollicking. Funny that.

Well listen here, Channel 4 - instead of forcing kids to eat bracken or do squat-thrusts, how about teaching them to think more expansively, so they reject the sly, cajoling nature of programmes like this? Or would that be a campaign too far?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In trying to keep up with the hipness of youthful audiences as the 70s approached, OaCD,YCSF was the product of odder and odder material selected for musicalization. Here it's past life regression, ESP and hypno-therapy... pretty loopy! The real problem with the concept (music or not) are the extraordinarily low dramatic stakes; just where can a movie go, and what can happen, when a man falls in love with a previous incarnation of a girl he can't stand? It can't go any place new, but strangely, it can't even go any place old! Indeed, if it could, audiences would still have no interest in the union of Yves Montand (playing a much older, arrogant, French ass) and Streisand. (a much younger girl). We never become invested in them, their situations or outcomes. Montand is miscast and his strong accent makes many of his lyrics unintelligible.

It's all been given a shallow 60s veneer that makes it eminently disposable; despite efforts here and there from Minelli that are respectable. It's not even adapted from a non-musical story that met with any previous success... that's just too passe! Streisand occasionally has some funny business to offer, as when she's trying not to fall asleep on her roof and improvises an energetic dance. But she over-relies on her ingratiating (translation: irritating) kooky, Jewish girl shtick. She can however sing very well, at both the \"gentle\" and \"powerhouse\" ends of the range. Amidst a score of musical dross, she gets 3 or 4 amazing songs* of much higher caliber than anything Fanny or Dolly had to offer. 'He isn't you' is a sweet trifle as sublime as Lorenz Hart's 'My Funny Valentine,' but the movie isn't able to realize any impact from it; because the lyrics don't seem to be referring to anything in the movie, and nothing remotely suggests a great love is blossoming between Chabot and Melinda.

The only cut we can view is a poor hatchet job of a much bigger film. Strong research shows a longer, better-explained and more decorative, but not necessarily a better film at: http:\/\/barbra-archives.com\/films\/clear_day_streisand_2.html. You can be sure there's be more Babs in that version but more importantly, there'd be more thoughtful work from Minelli.

In the end Montand sends Babs off to sing the title song, after she discovers he's a total dick who feeds her a self-esteem homily to allow himself off the hook. And she takes the bait. So, uh... hooray for that.

(*Hurry it's lovely up here, Love with all the trimmings, He isn't you, & the title song)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"On a Clear Day You Can See Forever\" is nothing more than a New Age update of the \"Pygmalion\" \/ \"My Fair Lady\" story: A professor attempts to turn a common girl into an upper society woman. This time, however, instead of using language skills, the professor tries to do so by hypnotism and past life regression.

You know a musical has problems when reviewers constantly mention the sets and the costumes before they mention the plot and the music. The songs are instantly forgettable. (No \"Get Me to the Church on Time\" here, I'm afraid.) And the plot goes nowhere. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there is no \"there\" here. The characters wander through the story without ever getting from point A to point B. Professor Chabot claims several times that he will get to the root of Daisy's troubles, but he never seems to do so.

All meaningful conflict is avoided. For instance, there comes a time when Chabot's university demands he either stop his research into reincarnation or resign his position. Now there is conflict! Will he give up his career for Daisy? Alas! Nothing comes of this development. A scene or two later the university changes its mind and tells Chabot to continue on with his work. So much for conflict.

The talent was certainly assembled for this movie: Directed by Vincente Minnelli. Written, in part, by Alan Jay Lerner. A cast of Yves Montand, Bob Newhart and Jack Nicholson. And, oh yes, starring Barabara Striesand who was nearly at the top of her game at this point in her career.

But it all falls flat. Lerner's attempt to reincarnate his greatest success, the previously mentioned \"My Fair Lady,\" is as doomed to failure as Daisy's attempt to revive the greatness of her own past.

If you enjoy movie musicals, there are far better choices than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just listen to the Broadway cast album and to the voices of Barbara Harris and John Cullum, who do wonders for the wonderful Lerner and Lane score. Then, with that beautiful cast recording fresh in mind, watch the movie, with Streisand as Streisand, and Yves Montand reading his lines with such a heavy French accent that a chain saw couldn't cut through it. The best part (for those who need something to look forward to) is what Montand does to the introductory part of the title song. Listen as he sings\/says: Could anyone among us have an inkling or a clue, what magic feats of wizardry and voodoo you can do? (That one part sums up the problem that results from casting \"name stars\" in movie musicals instead of the appropriate talent for the various roles.) I can just see Rex Harrison entering that scene and suggesting Montand, too, could learn to do justice to the beauty of the English language.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is another of Hollywood's anti-communist polemics of the golden 1950s. Stalwart American Gene Barry, lovely Englishwoman Valerie French, and three others are kidnapped by an alien and given clamshells containing fantastic--and fantastically vague--power. What will the Earthlings do with such power? Toss it in the sea or use it to wipe out all of mankind? Anybody who knows American cinema circa 1957 knows the answer to what the commies will do, but the story gets ripe when the Americans actually test the things in the middle of the Pacific. Then one scientist, alone with the ultimate power in the universe, comes up with his own theory and uses it! His smarmy attitude afterward is nauseating, and the cheery disposition of everyone else is appalling.

Here's the spoiler for this dog: the capsules inside the clamshells have a mathematical code that tells the prof that they kill only \"confirmed enemies of freedom\"! That's right--don't worry about the ethical conundrum of killing everyone that an alien pill decides is an enemy of freedom; just do it! Hurray! No commies! Silly female--and you threw yours into the sea! Ha ha! Kiss me, baby!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I made sure to see this film because it is a 1950s sci-fi film--one of my favorite genres. Unfortunately, while I was looking forward to either bug-eyed aliens or power-mad conquerers, the aliens in this film were a MAJOR disappointment! First, you only see one very briefly at the beginning (and he looked pretty ordinary) and you also only got a tiny glimpse of a spaceship! Second, the alien was neither the evil conquerer or the benevolent friend of mankind--but a real odd-ball. And finally, the plot itself seemed so dumb, preachy and heavy-handed that it elicited more yawns than thrills.

As the film begins, five people from five different parts of the world (Germany, Britain, Russia, China and the USA) are kidnapped by an alien. The alien gives each of them devices by which they CAN destroy all life on the planet if they so choose--because, the alien admits that HIS race of people would love to inhabit the Earth but they themselves won't kill to get it. Then, he returns them all. While it's 100% obvious that no one would WANT to use these devices, the alien then announces on TV the identities of the five without telling that the weapons are THAT powerful! So, all the militarists in the world want to find the five and force them to reveal how the weapons work. Much of the rest of the film consists of some of the five going into hiding and one being tortured to get him to reveal how the device works--as the Soviets want to use it!!! This part of the film just seemed pretty silly. Sure the USSR was an evil and corrupt nation (sorry, but it's fact--especially under Stalin), they never would have thought of using it like they did in the movie! Later, one of the five (the German scientist), somehow figures out that the devices can also be used to kill only all the EVIL people who hate freedom. So, he uses it to wipe out all the evil Commies and presumably others who were anti-freedom and the world then becomes a paradise!! Preachy, silly and full of plot holes--this movie just isn't worth your time, though it is an interesting relic simply for the way it addresses Communism--in particular, the tensions between Nato and the Soviets.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An intelligent summation of Cold War era mutually assured destruction policy, up until the conclusion: it's a gasser! All Russians and Chinese are obliterated from the face of the Earth! Saw this one at the 27th Annual CWRU Science Fiction Marathon, January 2002.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is quite possibly one of the worst movies ever made. Everything about it--acting, directing, script, cinematography--is dreadful. The alien (a human in sparkly suit) claims to be from a nearby universe; one assumes the scriptwriter meant \"galaxy\" but didn't bother to get a dictionary to check his terms. A better title for the film would be \"It Came From the Planet of Plot Contrivances.\" The plot is excessively silly and nearly nonexistent. The humans are all given magical MacGuffins that conform to a tortuous series of unlikely restrictions just to move the bare plot. Any thought to the passage of time is ignored. Now it's a couple days after meeting the alien, then BAM! all of a sudden there's only a couple hours left until zero hour. Do yourself a favor and miss this movie. You will make yourself stupider for having watched it. The ending is particularly silly, and should have been accompanied by someone going \"Ta-Da!!!!\" as the scriptwriter just pulls something random out of his butt. I think the real alien plot is that this movie sucks so bad you'll get cancer watching it. If you can watch the last 10 minutes without crapping yourself (\"enemies of freedom\"--honestly) laughing, you're retarded.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has lots of action and little heart. Let's forget for a minute that it gets just about every aspect of the Russian Revolution wrong - after all we only have only under an hour here to tell our story. In fact, the czar abdicated after World War I proved a disaster for the country, and a provisional government tried to rule as a pseudo-democracy until the Leninists took power nine months later, mainly because they promised to immediately withdraw Russia from the war. Now, back to our story.

Here we have the revolution being \"rumored\" in Russian newspapers in what appears to still be a functioning country until violence erupts suddenly and upends the life of nobleman Baron Nikita 'Nikki' Krasnoff (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.). He flees his home with his former servant girl Tanyusha (Nancy Carroll) in tow, and they start to make a new life in Constantinople. Before the revolution the Baron made a regular habit out of making a play for the girl, not out of any real passion, but out of boredom as a diversion of sorts. The revolution doesn't change this, and he continues to try to take advantage of what is obviously a very simple girl. It certainly doesn't make the audience like this guy to see him toying with her so. Tanyusha follows the Baron because she literally has no place to go after the revolutionaries take over the Baron's home, and she has known no other life other than waiting on Nikki hand and foot. Once in Constantinople, Nikki quickly wearies of life as a penniless laborer, and that is when he meets up with his former lover, Russian aristocrat Vera Zimina, who has a plan for getting them to Paris where the Tsarists have congregated after the revolution. Unfortunately for Tanyusha, Vera's plan does not include her.

This film manages to completely waste the considerable acting talents of early talkie actress Nancy Carroll. She does a good job with what little she is given to do, but that is not much. Lilyan Tashman is the standout here, even though she has only a small role as Russian vamp Vera. Lilyan was so often given supporting roles just as she is here, but her earthy voice and glamorous looks make her the center of attention in every scene in which she appears. Guy Kibbee even shows up in a humorous bit as an American tourist who is curious about the Russian royalty that has been forcefully ejected from their homeland.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Scarlet Dawn casts Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as a Russian baron rudely displaced by the forces of the Russian Revolution and now has to fend for himself in a world not terribly hospitable to former aristocrats. He's also not terribly suited for any kind of real work.

Doug might have been caught by the Reds but for the fact that his former servant Nancy Carroll didn't give him away. Nancy's got a big old crush on Doug and they do marry once arriving in exile in Istanbul which throughout the film is referred to by its former Christian name of Constantinople. They marry and settle down with Doug now reduced to washing dishes.

But Fairbanks's former mistress Lilyan Tashman who's always playing bad girls of a sort on film spots him and offers to have him get back into somewhat the style he was once accustomed to as part of a swindle against father and daughter American tourists Guy Kibbee and Sheila Terry.

Good thing this film has the incredibly short running time of only 57 minutes, usually those were given to B westerns because it's both tedious and melodramatic. The ending is rather unbelievable. Doug knew he was in a Thanksgiving special and really overacts to cover up the defects of a unbelievable story.

What I didn't understand was that Fairbanks was trained in the military profession, why didn't he just become a mercenary soldier after leaving the new Soviet Union? That didn't make sense to me at all.

I'd only see this if I was a dedicated fan of any the main players.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Am not from America, I usually watch this show on AXN channel, I don't know why this respected channel air such sucking program in prime time slot. Creation of Hollywood's Money Bank Jerry Bruckheimer, this time he is spending a big load of cash in the small screen. In each episode a bunch of peoples having two team members travels from on country to another for a great sum of money; where the camera crews shoot their travels. I don't know who the hell gave this stupid idea for the show. It has nothing to watch for, in all episodes we see people ran like beggars, some times shouting, crying, beeping, jerky camera works..huh it's harmful to both eyes and ears. The most disgusting part in the race is the viewers finally knows each of the team members can't enjoy their race\/traveling experience. Even though, to add up the ratings the producers came up with the ideas of including Gays in one shows, sucking American reality show.

It's nothing to watch for, better switch to another channels.

The Amazing Race = The Disgusting Show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a documentary, this is laughable in a campy sort of way -- a schlocky collection of re-created Biblical tableaux mixed in with solemn interviews of so-called \"experts.\" Think of it as an infommercial which pushes Jesus instead of thigh-masters.

However, the detailed crucifixion scene is, in terms of historical accuracy, superior to similar scenes in such widescreen Hollywood extravaganzas as \"Ben-Hur,\" \"King of Kings,\" and \"The Greatest Story Ever Told.\" Rather than dragging his entire cross to Golgotha, for example, John Rubinstein simply carries his crossbeam strapped across his shoulders to his outstretched arms. Nails aren't driven through his palms but instead through his wrists. His feet aren't nailed separately but one is placed over the other so that just one nail need be used. Incidentally, Rubinstein's flogging prior to his crucifixion ranks 35th in the book, \"Lash! The Hundred Great Scenes of Men Being Whipped in the Movies.\"

Of course, Rubinstein and the two thieves wear modest loincloths, which probably isn't true to the shameful reality of Roman crucifixions, but allowances must be made. Curiously, the \"good\" thief is positioned on the left hand of Jesus, which goes against a long-standing tradition. Just why this thief is played by a pudgy, overweight man is, however, a mystery, especially in view of the fact that the \"bad\" thief is something of a \"hunk.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The biggest problem with \"In Search of Historic Jesus\" is that there is very little search to it at all. Shick-Sunn produced these \"documentary\" films in the 1970s and just into the '80s, which featured interviews with \"experts\" and discussion of \"science\" and \"facts\" to make a case for whatever the title of the film was looking to cash in on.

Sadly, \"Historic Jesus\" is really little more than a third-rate dramatization of the life of Christ. Unlike Shick-Sunn's more superior \"In Search of Noah's Ark\" which spends the majority of its running time discussing the possibility that the ark is resting on the earth today and where that might be, this film is basically the story of Jesus with no effort made to prove or disprove his existence. The famed Shroud of Turrin is mentioned, but little other detective work is given much screen time.

For fans of these quasi-documentary films like \"Jupiter Menace\" and \"In Search of Bigfoot\", etc., this movie doesn't offer much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This had the promise of being an interesting film. The subject matter was certainly a promising one - the excesses of the Catholic Church during the counter-reformation. However, not only was this not developed (other than a two paragraph introduction), many things were not explained - i.e. the gypsies, the Anabaptists, the inquisitors and their relationship to the one true church. Nor were the politics of the time explained, i.e. the relationship between the Catholic church and its supporters like the Holy Roman Emperor. Though these may have been apparent to an Austrian audience, the lack of explanation makes it confusing for Americans.

But perhaps it's a good thing that they didn't emphasize the history since what they showed was pretty inaccurate anyway. Instruments of torture, bloody executions, witch and heretic burnings, big shiny swords and pretty golden reliquaries are the stars of the film. It could have just as easily been one of those Conan-type sword and sorcery movies, only with period costumes...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw the film yesterday and stopped it at half time because I felt it was a waste of time. The idea to make a film through the eyes of a headsman - one of the \"evil guys\" throughout most fantasy and medieval films - is great and offers plenty of possibilities but... the film couldn't catch one of them. I was not feeling for any of the characters, the plot was all too predictable (to the point that I followed it)and the second leap of time in the storyline made me quit. Those who expect a deep insight into the emotional situation of a headsman in the middle Ages, a social outcast to that time, might be disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"STAR RATING: ***** Unmissable **** Very Good *** Okay ** You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead * Avoid At All Costs

The tale of the titular Adam (Mark O' Halloran) and Paul (Tom Murphy), two heroin addicts in the slums of Dublin and their daily amblings about in their meaningless lives searching for the next fix that will make their day. Along the way they try and reconcile with close family and friends who they've managed to let down and destroy over the years.

I know a lot of Irish people like to drink, but it seems some of them have problems with heroin, too by the looks of this movie. I know there is a bit of a drug problem over there, like there is in many parts of the world, so another humorous take on the subject matter is not an entirely unexpected thing.

I don't recall the last Irish movie I saw (the film is shot in a style that makes it stand out from any film I've seen lately!) And, judging from that, obviously I'm not as enlightened on their humour as I could be. The film is rather funny in certain parts, but it's obviously another comedy that isn't afraid to raise near-the-knuckle laughs. The scene in which the mentally disabled boy is robbed down the back of an alley is certainly true of what a pair of junkies might do to feed their habit but is nonetheless utterly despicable and I'm not sure if it was meant as dark humour in any way but it certainly didn't put a smile on my face! It's also in stark contrast to their previous actions where they're seen showing their soft side rocking a baby to-and-fro. In light of this, some may find the ending sad, others may see it as just desserts.

Overall, I just failed to see the point to the film. I didn't see any motivation in the 'story' it was telling. It just seems to amble along without really involving the audience in any way. Unlike Trainspotting (which dealt with similar themes!) it's an unsuccessful effort for the most part that had me on the verge of nodding off despite it's very short 83 minute running time. Really no more enjoyable than following two real life junkies around for a day. **","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i am working at a video store so i got to see this one for free- thank god, had i paid for it my review would be less forgiving.

well, the major idea of the film (geeky girl takes bloody revenge) isn't all that original, there are several parallels to \"carrie\" (playing a mean practical joke on a loser, except for one nice girl that is actually sorry for her, tamaras and carries bad family background). i still think it's a fun idea for trashy teen horror flick unfortunately they didn't take much advantage of the potentials that are here and rather put an emphasis on all the wrong things.

what worked: i liked the actress that played tamara. she looked great (when she was hot) and her catty lines were fun (\"Sean can't come to the phone. he's f**king patrick!\").

what didn't work: the whole wicca thing was silly. i generally prefer rational explanations (she could have ploted the whole thing with her teacher or one of the boys to get her revenge). there were a lot of logical wholes and the gore looked really bad (when the boy is cutting of his ear and his tongue- please!!!)

the whole idea wasn't bound for Oscar buzz, but i just think they wasted the comedic and the suspenseful potential they had. it was bearable but far from good!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie, and I do like horror movies.

I did not know what to expect, but as soon the movie was on his way it was nice to watch it. The idea was pretty original and the acting was nice. Especially Jenna Dewan as the exciting\/evil Tamara.

The hardest thing about horror movies, is to make a good ending. But there the movie failed. For a change, a end-scene in a hospital, where suddenly all employees are gone. First you see doctors and nurses running around, but then they all went home?

No cries for help while being chased by Tamara, Escaping to the roof (also a smart move...not) and off course a kind of open ending.

No....the movie started great, the main part was nice to watch, but they really messed up the ending using all clich\u00e9s from bad horror movies. Jeffrey Reddick failed in my eyes with this movie, after making some really quality movies like Final Destination 1 and 2.

If you like a good horror full of clich\u00e9 endings, Tamara is a good movie to watch. For me, I like movies which surprise me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Tamara\" just felt like another teen oriented knock-off of the \"I Know What You Did Last Summer\" trend and is painfully dull. A high school outcast, who is heavily into witchcraft and black magic, is accidentally killed during a cruel prank carried out by a group of bullies who secretly bury her in the woods, vowing to tell no one. The next day, the supposedly \"dead\" Tamara, arrives at school with a completely new image and seduces her would-be killers and has a little revenge... This is basically a combination of \"Carrie\", \"The Craft\", and every other straight-to-video, teeny bopper turkey that hits the shelves these days. The actors are absolutely atrocious and look about ten years too old to pass off as high schoolers. There IS some gore, which is actually nothing all that interesting since the movie is so boring and I couldn't wait for it to end. If you like modern garbage than I insist you seek this one out, otherwise don't bother...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Teenager Tamara (Jenna Dewan) has it rough. She's ridiculed by all the popular \"kids\" for being shy, bookish, frumpy and because of her interest in witchcraft. All of the football players and cheerleaders are especially angry at her for writing an article on steroid abuse for the school paper. On top of this, her dad's a drunk, her mom's not around and she's secretly in love with her supportive English teacher (Matthew Marsden). The popular kids set up a cruel prank to humiliate her, accidentally kill her during a struggle, bury the body in the woods and make a pact to keep silent. To their shock, the very next day Tamara walks back into the classroom looking seductive and, uh, dressed to kill. Yep, back from the dead and ready for supernatural revenge against everyone involved. She also takes time out to make her sexually abusive pop eat a beer bottle and tries to seduce her English teacher away from his wife (Claudette Mink), a guidance counselor at the school.

Acting and writing are strictly mediocre. You can also tell the people responsible for this have seen such movies as CARRIE (1976), HELLO MARY LOU: PROM NIGHT II (1987) and THE CRAFT (1996) because it borrows wholesale from all three of those superior films. There's some gore (a guy cutting off his ear and tongue and then stabbing his eyeball probably being the best bit), a nasty vomiting scene and a few campy\/witty one-liners. Not an awful film by any means, but not much originality went into it either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, fans, it's out on DVD. But the only reason to watch this is 1) to say you did (due to its notoriety), or 2) if you're a hardcore Bill Paxton fan. I am not a hardcore BP fan but he was fun to watch and it was the only thing that kept me from turning this off from sheer boredom. It's a shame, because this could have been a good movie with some script work and if made by someone with some intelligence (and with a cast led by someone besides the totally miscast and talentless Judd Nelson). Sure it's gross, but it's BAD, and not in a good way. If after reading all the comments on how bizarrely revolting and dystopianly filthy this movie is you are still interested, do yourself a favor and see some GOOD bizarre revolting dystopian filth instead. Films by John Waters, David Lynch, Peter Jackson's \"Braindead\", Henenlotter's \"Basket Case\", etc., all come to mind. There's lots better out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was such a mess I actually reimbursed my friends who I dragged to see it. The only reason I went to see it was that my friend was an apprentice editor on the shoot.

I'm sure that this film was meant to be campy, but the approach was so heavy-handed and self-reflexive it turned out really flat. Judd Nelson stars as an obsequious garbage man who is a hack comedian on the side. His life is hell and made worse by his obnoxious and overbearing companion Bill Paxton (who I feel embarrassed for - this was a really tasteless role for a talented actor). A freak accident alters Nelson's career course and mayhem ensues.

The attempts at humor were corny, predictable and often base and tasteless. Wayne Newton in the cast as a talent agent is a novelty but he adds nothing - comedically or otherwise.

Overall, it's a very weak and uncreative attempt at camp humor that goes over like a lead balloon. At least you could laugh AT Plan 9 From Outer Space. This one just makes you wonder who thought this was a good enough idea to finance and film. One of the all time worst bombs you'll ever witness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was invited to view this film at a small art museum screening. I had no clue what to expect. I was initially optimistic in the opening credits to see Judd Nelson, Bill Paxton, Wayne Newton, James Cann, Rob Lowe, and Lara-Flynn-Boyle listed. However after some very disturbing grossed-out scenes (that did not add much to the story advancement), this film quickly became a weapon of torture. The gimmick of the vestigial growing arm storyline is never really developed. I patiently kept waiting for this film to cash-in. There was a small payoff in the end, but having to invest and sit through the the endless gross, crude, sexually-perverted, in-your-face screaming, unfunny gore cost too much for me (even for a free viewing). What were these established actors doing in this awful film? The art direction was very convincing and creepy. At the very minimum, it should only be a 75-minute film. This is a film that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would embrace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A friend warned me that this was the worst movie he had ever seen. I was curious, because it had developed a bit of a cult status. I like a lot of odd indie cult movies so I gave it a shot. I have to agree with my friend. It is a steaming pile of dung. I am sorry to the people who love this movie, but I can recommend much better stuff if you want to watch a twisted indie cult film. Try Peter Jackson's Dead Alive (aka Braindead), Cemetery Man (aka Dellamorte Dellamore) , or Modern vampires.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has no heart and no soul; it's an attempt to whomp up a cult film out of the leavings of other, better, directors, principally David Lynch and Tim Burton. Rifkin seems to think that if he overloads on a kind of rotted visual style and fills the street with crud and garbage, he's making a statement. But it's not a statement ABOUT anything -- except the director's shrill shriek of \"HEY LOOK AT ME! I'M AN ARTIST, TOO.\" But he doesn't have the imagination of an artist, just a good memory for things that worked -- such as some of the actors trapped in this -- for other directors. All of this would be almost acceptable if this movie was not a turgid, boring chore to sit through.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":". . . and never, ever see it. Now, I've been watching bad scifi movies for years. I love watching bad scifi movies. I think that was the only reason I could watch this movie the whole way through. I was toughened up by \"Nukie,\" \"Indian Superman,\" and that awful \"Fantastic Four\" movie, just to name some examples. Usually, I have to beat my head against the wall after I've seen a bad movie to make some of the pain go away. No, not with this one. With \"TDB,\" I had to hit myself in the head with a shoe in the middle of the movie. Temporary fix. I can't believe I wanted to see that. I cried. When it finished, I cried. It was horrible. It was worse than when I saw *shudders* Wil Wheaton in his underwear in \"The Curse,\" which, by the way, never watch either. Aside from the fact that Wesley Crusher's in his tighty whiteys, it's just sooo bad. But this review is about \"TDB.\" The worst part about it is that someone wrote this movie and said, \"This deserves to go on film! It's great!\" and Wayne Newton, Rob Lowe, and everyone else in the cast said, \"Oh, this is what I want on my film history!\" I'll watch \"Indian Superman\" until the cows come home, but I am never going to see this steaming pile of dren again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i have had this movie, in the back of my head sense i saw it. i have wanted to tell people about it time and again, but never remembered. now i found it. now finally, i can tell people precisely what the absolute worst, most crappy movie i have ever seen in my entire life, bar none is.

this movie is complete trash, and is unfit for a garbage dump. all prints and other copy's of this movie should be rounded up loaded into a large rocket, and launched into the sun. only the purifying heat and pressure of the sun might be able to purify the materials this movie is stored on, so that they can be useful to the universe again.

i like movies. i like bad movies. and yes this is an opinion. but this movie was pure trash, filth, and excrement of some beast that should never be seen let alone named by man.

i would rather watch a Uwe Boll Movie marathon than watch this movie. and i hate Uwe Boll's films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie starts with interesting set design and a promising premise, but fails to provide the cult-movie goods. Set in a gritty parallel universe where everything is owned by the \"Blump\" Corporation, it concerns a horrible stand-up comic who finds success when he grows a third arm out of his back.

All the potential for great cheese is here -- washed-up 80's star Judd Nelson, Wayne Newton, offbeat visuals and strange plot digressions, obese women in skimpy lingerie, necrophilia -- but it never pays off.

The pacing is the main problem. Each scene is excrutiatingly slow. Nelson's stand-up routines are supposed to be funny because they're pathetically not funny. But each performance drags on until it's not even tangentially funny, just boring.

Imagine someone telling you the longest, weirdest joke imaginable, full of smirky self-congratulation for how funny and weird he thinks it is. Imagine after a stultifying two hours of this, you never got a punch line. You've just saved yourself the trouble of watching The Dark Backward.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a cheapy biography of a star of the black and white minstrel shows, a certain Dixie Boy Johnson. Whether this person ever really existed I don't know, but considering the cast lists a certain \"Lee Lasses White\" and Roscoe Karns playing said character as well, I assume the man did exist and that this is a white-washed (pardon the pun) version of his career. The plot, such as it is, follows Dixie Boy from career heights to depression at the death of his wife in childbirth, his abandonment of the child to friends, and his return at his daughter's sixteenth birthday and stage debut for reconciliation. Another forgotten man, Benny Fields, plays Dixie Boy. The man has a lovely baritone voice but no acting talent whatsoever and is a boring lump on screen. Gladys George valiantly tries her best to enliven the works to no avail. Judy Clark does the best impersonation of Betty Hutton I've ever seen although I believe she thought she was being herself. The scoring replete with many musical numbers for its short running time of 70 minutes earned a deserved Oscar nom. Worth a look.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No one is going to mistake THE SQUALL for a good movie, but it sure is a memorable one. Once you've taken in Myrna Loy's performance as Nubi the hot-blooded gypsy girl you're not likely to forget the experience. When this film was made the exotically beautiful Miss Loy was still being cast as foreign vixens, often Asian and usually sinister. She's certainly an eyeful here. It appears that her skin was darkened and her hair was curled. In most scenes she's barefoot and wearing little more than a skirt and a loose-fitting peasant blouse, while in one scene she wears nothing but a patterned towel. I suppose I'm focusing on Miss Loy's appearance because she is by far the best if not the only reason to tune in to this creaky antique and to keep watching. You sure won't be attracted by the dialogue, which is hopeless. In one typical passage, Nubi gazes out the window at the departing caravan and waxes poetic: \"Always the gypsies, they sing. Weird and sad. When the big sun have breath of fire that burn, and when the pale moon look from behind cloud and breathe air cold as death, they sing.\" Poetic, or what? Lovers of purple prose will have a field day. I can't help but wonder, though, if in her later years Miss Loy preferred not to recall her involvement with this project.

Like so many early talkies this one was an adaptation of a recent Broadway success. The stage version opened at the 48th Street Theatre in November of 1926 and ran for over a year. The play provoked a famous episode involving the humorist and theater critic Robert Benchley, who was known to have an aversion to characters who spoke in thick dialect or pidgin English. According to a much-repeated anecdote Mr. Benchley squirmed uncomfortably through the opening portion of this show. The Spanish village setting (moved to a village in Hungary for the movie, for some reason) gave the actors leeway to practice their accents with varying degrees of success, but Benchley's patience reached its limit when, during a family dinner sequence, a door burst open and an actress dressed as a gypsy girl dashed into the room shouting \"Help! Help! He keel me!\" She then threw herself at the feet of the mistress of the household and exclaimed \"Me Nubi! Me good girl! Me stay here!\" At that point Mr. Benchley rose and announced to his companion: \"Me Bobby. Me bad boy. Me go now,\" and left the theater.

The film version offers numerous examples of unintended humor but never comes close to Benchley's level of wit. The melodramatic plot concerns the Lajos family: father Josef, mother Maria, and son Paul, a student at the nearby college. We would consider this prosperous family \"upper-middle class\" as they are landowners with servants and all the comforts of life, but their comfortable existence is abruptly thrown into turmoil when a gypsy caravan arrives in the village and their home is invaded by, yes, Nubi the nubile gypsy girl. She arrives at their door during the storm of the title-- symbolizing stormy emotions, I daresay. The girl is fleeing an abusive relationship and begs for sanctuary. After considering the matter the Lajos family agrees to hide her from her angry lover, who shows up shortly afterward but is turned away. Nubi becomes a servant in the household. Kindness motivates the family's decision to take her in, but soon enough that conniving little good-for-nothing Nubi has paid them back by seducing every able-bodied male in the vicinity, starting with the Lajos' servant Peter, then working her way up to son Paul. Nubi breaks up Paul's relationship with his fianc\u00e9 Irma (played by Loretta Young, still a teenager), causes him to flunk out of school, and then prompts him to buy her jewelry by stealing the savings of the family's maid Lena (ZaSu Pitts). Lena, for her part, is still mourning the loss of her own fianc\u00e9 Peter, seduced and tossed aside by Nubi when she turned her attentions to Paul. Ultimately Nubi sets her sights on the pater familias Josef, and I suppose if the running time had been longer she also would've gone after Uncle Dani, Maria, the village priest and God knows who else.

I guess it goes without saying that a scenario like this one easily lends itself to parody, but during its first half THE SQUALL nonetheless exerts the undeniable fascination of a daytime soap: we watch, hypnotized, as the Bad Girl works her spell on the men-folk and wreaks havoc like an irresistible force of nature (almost like-- a storm! Ah-haa, another metaphor!). But as the plot machinations grind on the campy fun fades. During the later scenes Nubi is de-emphasized and the focus switches to the dysfunctional dynamics of the Lajos family, and after awhile these people get to be a real drag. The son in particular behaves like an absolute heel, yet the parents never acknowledge this or face up to their own shortcomings; everything, we're told, is the fault of Nubi, that no-good tramp.

The men of the cast are dull. Aside from Miss Loy the only actress who can handle performing in talkies is ZaSu Pitts, terrific as usual. The mother of the Lajos household is played by Alice Joyce, a longtime silent star who was out of her element with speaking roles, and who retired soon after this. Loretta Young's fresh prettiness provides a nice contrast to Nubi's dusky allure, but her line readings are so awkward it's kind of endearing. No, there's only one reason to watch this flick, and that's Nubi herself. I can't think of another actress who could've played this silly role and managed to come off half as well. I'm not an objective observer, however. I have a desperate crush on Myrna Loy and will watch her in anything, even THE SQUALL.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some of the early talkies survived to become classics. 1929's \"The Squall\" is a classic all right, but not in the way it was intended. Melodramatic in story and acting, today it seems ludicrous, particularly the casting of Myrna Loy as Nubi, a seductive gypsy. Imagine Nora Charles breaking up a young couple and driving a young man to steal. Outrageous! However, as many people know, when Loy first came to Hollywood, she did quite a few of these exotic seductress roles.

Based on a play, \"The Squall\" concerns the aforementioned Gypsy who in the film is now in Hungary (Spain in the play) running away from her cruel master and inviting herself into the home of the Lajos family (Richard Tucker and Alice Joyce), basically by appearing at the door. One by one, Nubi seduces the men of the family and the farm talking her pidgin English (\"Nubi not bad! Nubi do nothing wrong!\") and dropping hints about nice presents. The son in the family, Paul (Carroll Nye) is engaged to the beautiful Irma (Loretta Young) and can't wait to marry her. He loses interest when he meets Nubi.

With the exception of the lovely Alice Joyce, Zasu Pitts as a woman who lives in the household and the stunningly beautiful Loretta Young, the acting is uniformly awful. Loy is stuck with the hallmarks of her character - bad English, whining and hysteria. With her darkened makeup, peasant getup and curly hair, she is not only beautiful but right out of the 1980s - quite modern, though Richard Tucker's putting the back of his hand on his forehead reminds us we're just emerging from the silents.

Robert Osborne on TCM commented that this film is one of his secret pleasures. While it is deliciously bad, it's not deliciously bad enough to sit through again. It's just bad - but a great example of how far we've come and, had someone not picked up on Myrna Loy's sense of humor, how limited her wonderful career might have been.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Into a happy household comes the gypsy girl, played by Myrna Loy. With her amazingly wild hair and voice that sounds very high-pitched and weird, it's hard to believe this is Loy!! She bears no similarity whatsoever to the refined and funny character Nora Charles who she played in the Thin Man movies. Instead, she overacts so badly that you'd almost expect her to be in an Ed Wood movie. What a huge difference a few years made in the quality films she got as well as her acting ability!! On top of the horrendously silly character, the film also fails because it just isn't interesting or exciting--just very, very stagy and stupid. The only thing good about it is the Vitaphone sound system--making the sound quality of this turkey about the best I have heard from 1929. Heck, it was even better than most 1930 films, so the sound technician at least has something to be proud of--all others, forget it.

This is a movie that even the host of Turner Classic Movies referred to as a \"guilty pleasure\" because the movie is so bad! And, after having seen it I disagree...slightly. The movie is simply bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like a lot of Myrna Loy movies. This film was produced before her character actor personality was developed. It would be an okay short film but seems to go on forever in it's complete form.

Myrna Loy it seems is told what to do with her acting and does the job. That is about all you can say about her.

Her gypsy character is shoddy and the film has many flaws, such as the jewelry shop scene.

This film will probably be interesting to Myrna Loy fans but even as such is something of a disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It didn't take too long after Halloween had kicked off the slasher boom for the category to be cursed by continuous mediocrity. As early as 1983 the genre was already struggling to release more than three decent offerings per year and by '88 the stalk and slash flick had become pretty much the whipping boy of horror cinema. By that time major studios were all aware that repeating the tired formula was no longer a lucrative direction, which left it up to independent and mostly inexperienced filmmakers to continue the legacy that John Carpenter had created. Although there was still an impressive number of features hitting shelves in 88, most of them were weakly produced and taken as a whole they were eminently unappealing. With that said there were a couple of gems amongst the rubble. Scott Spiegel's Intruder in its uncut form was a superb gross out classic, whilst Evil Dead Trap proved that the cycle had not yet completely run out of style and panache. William Lustig's Maniac Cop was successful enough to launch a franchise and two years later Dead Girls and Mirage proved to be the last beguiling breaths of life in the ailing category.

It was the continual release of schlock like Berserker, Blood Lake and Rush Week that cursed the slasher movie to eight years of obscurity. It finally took the big budgeted flamboyance of Wes Craven's Scream to provide the necessary resuscitation. Having not heard anything about Demon Warrior before I came across it unexpectedly, I instantly assumed that it was part of the low brow trash that led to the downfall of the slasher phase. But with that said the movie boasts an intriguing premise that sits comfortably beside Scalps and Camping Del Terrore as another welcome addition to the Native-American influenced catalogue.

A truck pulls up on a woodland road and out step two laughably dramatised rednecks. The hillbilly lumberjacks are only on screen for around for ten seconds and then they are murdered by an unseen menace. Next we meet a troupe of five young adults that are heading to the same location for a spot of shotgun-target-practice on some of the local wildlife. The area is owned by Neil Willard and has been passed down through three generations of his family. His Grandfather stole the land from an Indian medicine man that was rumoured to have left a curse on the property. According to legend, every ten years a Demon Warrior with an extreme hatred for mankind stalks the forest reaping revenge on those he deems responsible for the pilfering of the tribe's home. It wouldn't be much fun if those myths were a falsehood, so regular as clockwork a maniacal assassin turns up with a taste for blood. Will the kids be able to stop this phantom killer\u0085?

Demon Warrior is best described as a bigger budgeted (but still woefully cheap) re-imaging of Fred Olen Ray's Scalps. The bogeymen from both films are virtually identical and the director even throws in a scalping sequence to confirm my suspicions. Things start promisingly with some crisp Friday the 13th-style first-person cinematography and a couple of shock-jolts that were composed with finesse by director Frank Patterson. Thomas Callaway did a good job with the photography and the tribal-drum score makes a refreshing change from the more traditional late-eighties synthesizer rubbish. Flourishes of suspense are juxtaposed with a couple of credible directorial embellishments and there are even a few attempts at humour. The killer looked successfully creepy in demon attire and the inclusion of a bow and arrow as the main murder weapon was a deft touch from the director.

Fred Olen Ray's notorious slasher was notable for its stark and credibly unsettling atmosphere. Unfortunately despite being produced on twice the budget, Demon Warrior never comes close to the film that it so desperately emulates. Rumor has it that the majority of the actors were drafted from the Texas Baylor University and were not even paid for their inclusion in the feature, so of course it goes without saying that the dramatics are appropriately abysmal. I especially enjoyed the hilarious John Langione \u0096 an 'Italian' Native American (don't ask) that portrays about as much emotion as the trees in the forest that surrounded him. Warrior started with some credible glimpses of panache from the director that actually led me to believe that this could be a welcome inclusion to the slasher index. Unfortunately, the poisonous cocktail of heinous acting and an ending plucked directly from stupidsville seriously changed the initial plan I had in mind for a rating. It's a shame that the dramatics were so scraped from the bottom of the thespian barrel, because at times Demon Warrior showed flashes of potential.

All in all, Patterson's movie is a mixed bag of ideas \u0096 some of them were good, but mostly they were staggeringly mediocre. Because this was released at a time when the slasher genre had been watered down to avoid the scissor happy censors, there's really no gore worth mentioning. Even the scalping sequence is relatively tame compared to Olen Ray's graphic depiction. Demon Warrior has the odd moment of credibility, but not often enough to warrant a purchase. Not as bad as the aforementioned Berserker, Blood Lake et al, but not really THAT good either\u0085..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I was 13 or so I was lucky enough to find this film. It was part of an endless Danish series of really cheesy stuff. This however was the cheesiest I ever owned - but I guess I sold it, too bad. Well what to write... Better than \"Manos: the hands of fate\" and worse than \"Critters 4\". But it's definitely worth an hour and a half since this was made by people who wanted to make it. The acting isn't that terrible compared to several other eighties trash - in fact I kind of like the old man even though he did'NWT look that Indian to me. But I guess you can't have everything... Do yourselves a favour and look this up...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the most pleasant surprises of this early 3-strip Technicolor short was that a ballet dancer that appears here was named Maria Gambarelli! I half wondered if Blake Edwards was naming the character played by Elke Sommer in A Shot in the Dark after this now-forgotten performer (though the spelling of the Sommer character's surname was actually Gambrelli). I watched this on YouTube mainly to see an early Judy Garland appearance as we watch her in profile with her two older sisters singing \"La Cucaracha\". That was the highlight for me which otherwise showed some dances (like that of Ms. Gambarelli) that were enjoyable and some lame comedy between Andy Devine as a great bull-fighter (yeah, right!) and Buster Keaton as a bull owner who provides one that is obviously a man in animal costume. Only funny part of those two is when they cry-with Buster providing handkerchief to \"bull\"-during the sad part of \"La Cucaracha\". Also lame was seeing Ted Healy without his stooges dealing with a crasher who keeps mistaking Healy for other movie stars. (Healy himself didn't know Zeppo had left The Marx Brothers since he puts \"Four\" between \"The\" and \"Marx\"!) Speaking of a Marx, it was interesting seeing Harpo without his wig though he is wearing a hat to hide his bald head. Also interesting was seeing Ida Lupino among the cowgirls in the beginning though I also recognized Toby Wing from her part in Murder at the Vanities last year (at least when announcer Pete Smith identified her). Oh, and Smith himself wasn't funny with his wise-guy narration. Other famous stars you may or may not recognize are also in cameos and not all are M-G-M contract players either! So with all that said, La fiesta de Santa Barbara is worth a look for anyone curious about Judy Garland's early film appearances or the early use of 3-strip Technicolor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Nuff said. An undercover cop from the state capital is sent to a small county where moonshine running is rampant. He ends up getting run off the road by some local hicks who have no idea he's an undercover cop (so they just drive away as blissfully dopey as ever). He is soon being taken care of by a woman and her three daughters who all wear low-cut tops and short shorts (gotta luv the '70s). He falls in love with one of the girls but in the meantime he still has to find out who's making all the moonshine and driving it to all the local bars and restaurants. He also has to contend with a fat sheriff and his incompetent deputy who think he's the moonshiner 'cause he's new in town.

Life in small town America, 70s style. YEE HAAAAAAAAAAA.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film's title makes it sound like a porno but it's not even a sex comedy. Instead, Hot Summer in Barefoot County is about an official sent from a southern state to a small town to locate and arrest moonshiners. The moonshine though is coming from the farm of an old woman with three beautiful daughters. Almost anyone can guess what happens next but oddly, the film is very tame. It hardly even qualifies for a PG rating. What's more, the low budget is obvious in pretty much every shot and the acting is sooooo amateurish. This film was probably intended for the drive-in crowd but it's unlikely that it satisfied them, even in 1974.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My brother was working at a movie theater when I saw this movie; I saw it for free and still walked out. I have seen a lot of movies in my time but this was the worst. When people ask me what the worst movie I have ever seen was I mention this movie in less than one second. This movie is bad because it goes from one lame plot set-up to the next, it encourages stereotypes about blacks that are sickening and the flow is awful. If you want to see how to make children cry and vomit at the same time then study this movie. Okay, this movie is not good \"bad\" but terrible bad. If you are like one of those people that watch horrible movies for fun, like me, you will not even be able to make it through this very short film. Please for the love of God destroy all copies of this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie should have ended as soon as the joke about Bebe's Kids is told in the opening. I liked Robin Harris and most of his comedy but the really funny routines were not meant to be something the whole family could go see. Liken it to taking the point of one of Jerry Seinfeld's jokes and attempting to squeeze the joke for as long as you can in order to turn it into a movie. This movie had to be self-serving because I can not find anyone who found the settings or antics familiar. Whats most funny about this movie is the gumption of the writers and producers to pass it off as something of value. 1\/10 stars because there is no half star.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"USA's AZN TV purchased the rights to this film and the network is showing it using the English title THE PICKPOCKET.

1997's THE PICKPOCKET takes amateur home-movie style movie making to amazing levels of unpleasantness. The movie depicts a long-winded series of boring wanderings of an uninteresting, confused guy. This lead character, Xiao Wu, does not simply walk about aimlessly. Viewers will unfortunately soon realize that Xiao Wu has an unsurpassed talent to seek out, and remain dormant near the most obnoxious noises to be found in China. Clanging empty tin buckets being beaten with a stick -- he is there. Every old motor in China clunking in agony -- he is there. A crying baby? Yes, you guessed it, he is there! According to THE PICKPOCKET, China is the most irritating unpleasant sounding place on planet Earth.

The only element worse than the sound of THE PICKPOCKET is the photography. The camera shakes, shakes and shakes some more. Finally, the camera stills, but then it falls to the actor's knees and just stays there until someone in the crew realizes the mistake and begins to shake the camera again. Most of the shaky film is framed in distant, long, long, long shots. The few times when the camera gets somewhat close, nothing compelling ever takes place to connect the viewer with what is happening.

The photography is murky, faded and often blurry. The use of color is -- well, there is no sign of intelligence controlling the use of color. Most every shot is held 20 times too long. Few movies are so painful to sit through. This film is painful to watch, and painful to hear. And then it simply ends.

John Woo fans might enjoy being able to hear part of the soundtrack to DIE XUE SHUANG XIONG (THE KILLER) as the lead character is hanging outside of a video store for many minutes. Anyway, be warned -- THE PICKPOCKET will steal away your good time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a case of taking a fairy tale too far. The Enchanted Cottage delivers Dorothy McGuire as a \"terrible ugly\" spinster and Robert Young as a disfigured pilot. Long story short: Scarface marries Spinster, after which their love transforms them, miraculously (lighting, cosmetics and the removal of fake scars), into beautiful people\u0097a magical change that they attribute to the enchantment of living in a seaside cottage that has been the abode of generations of honeymooners.

If the story stopped there, fine; it would be a fable with a proverbial message: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But it lurches ahead, reaching for reality. When Mr. and Mrs. Scarface greet their public, it comes as a painful shock to them that they're still homely. You see, they only appear beautiful to each other\u0096 a situation which the audience is well prepared for because all the secondary characters have been sermonizing that ill-favored people really need to lower their expectations, and find other ways to be happy. You know. Take up hobbies. Spinster does woodcuts, for instance. Scarface considers collecting driftwood.

The original playwright (Arthur Wing Pinero) and the filmmakers have zero faith in human nature. Their message is: You're either ugly or pretty, and no pretty person would ever love an ugly one. What's even worse, ugly people evidently need to imagine their lover as pretty. Reality just won't do.

One wonders what Elaine Mason saw every day when she looked at her husband, Stephen Hawking.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hadn't seen this in many years. The acting was so good as I began this time, I thought, \"Great! Another movie I misjudged as a foolish young man.\" But then the theme started to be clear and I felt the same way.

This was Hollywood, the seat of glamor; so the concept shouldn't be a surprise. But it is so condescending a concept I feel as if I need to take a shower after watching it. In brief, it tells us that even physically ugly people can seem beautiful to each other and even feel attractive.

Dorothy McGuire is likable as the homely heroine. She seems to have been filmed wearing minimal make-up. Robert Young is injured in the war and feels scarred. His parents can't bear to look at him either. He seems to have all his faculties and in part, the notions of disability are outmoded.

Herbert Marshall is on hand as a blind pianist. His character speaks is hushed tones and is omniscient.

The best performance is given by Mildred Natwick as the owner of the title residence. She is bitter and dour but not made of ice. Her story is much more interesting, and believable, than that of McGuire and Young.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before the days of home video, Stan Laurel's pre-Hardy comedy 'Kill or Cure' was known -- to the extent that it was known at all -- only because a few sequences were included in Robert Youngson's compilation film 'Laurel and Hardy's Laughing 20's'. Youngson knew what he was doing: the best gags in 'Kill or Cure' were brought intact into his compilation, while the rest of this only mildly funny comedy remained on Youngson's cutting-room floor.

Laurel portrays a commercial traveller, hawking a patent medicine cried Professor I.O. Dine's Knox-All: that name is the funniest joke in this movie, which ain't sayin' much. I should point out that this movie dates from 1923, the shank of Prohibition. During Prohibition, quite a lot of Americans purchased patent medicine if it had (ahem!) 'medicinal' properties, so -- if Knox-All contains alcohol -- Stan's job in this movie is less desperate than the one which he and Ollie famously had in 'Big Business', selling Christmas trees in the summer. Too bad for this movie that it's not nearly so funny as 'Big Business'.

We see Stan (but don't hear him, in this silent film) delivering a spirited sales talk to a man who seems to be paying attention ... until we learn that they're standing outside a deaf-mute institution, and this man is deaf. A haughty woman emerges from the gates: Stan quickly tries to engage her attention by wiggling his fingers at her. Of course she's not deaf, and she promptly whacks him with her umbrella. I found this sequence offensive, NOT because it involves deaf people (the deaf aren't the butt of the joke) but because it abets the very widely-held misconception among hearing people that they can communicate with the deaf by merely waggling their fingers randomly and performing Charades without actually learning the highly complex grammar of sign language.

More amusingly, a spinster in this movie has a pet canary named Rudolph (as in Valentino), and there's a gag involving trick photography to enable a man to hide behind an object that's narrower than his body. I've seen this device in several cartoons and live-action movies but 'Kill or Cure' is, I think, the earliest movie to use it that I've seen so far.

Stan Laurel, an under-rated actor, does one bit of physical business here that's worthy of Chaplin or Keaton, in which he conveys his emotions -- and a change in his demeanour -- while walking away from the camera with his back to us. Still, Laurel never really became a first-rate comedian until he united with Oliver Hardy to form the greatest comedy team ever. 'Kill or Cure' barely rates 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife and I watched this movie because we plan to visit Sicily and Stromboli soon. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the landscape and seascape (complete with tuna) are the only believable members of this cast. We expected reasonable well-written and well-acted movie, but were disappointed. Its only redeeming grace is an extended and remarkable fishing sequence full of authenticity: thrashing tuna, nets, wooden boats with long oars, and passionate, if superstitious, fishermen.

The movie's sequencing is stagy, its dialogue stilted, and the acting ranges from stiff to completely \"over-the-top.\" One scene, in which Bergman stresses out as her macho, native and na\u00efve husband sics his ferret on an \"innocent\" (but apparently already deceased) rabbit would be perfect grist for a Monty Python skit.

When the volcano blew we hoped for a merciful end to the suffering (ours and the casts'). Unfortunately, the movie continues to flail on, staggering finally to a melodramatic and absurd ending. Unless you're really into old-time tuna fishing, pass this hokey effort by.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why bother to see this movie? It probably rates an award for being the worst career move of a major movie star since Clark Gable's laughable playing of an Irish patriot in Parnell.

It's inconceivable that Bergman would choose both this movie and its director over a lucrative Hollywood career where she could choose among the finest scripts and directors being offered at that time. To begin with, there was no script to work with except a few notes. Then we are supposed to believe the polished Bergman as a poor refugee willing to do anything to be released from a refugee camp, including marriage to a poor Italian fisherman she doesn't even love. I read where Anna Magnani was the original choice for this part. If so, that made a lot more sense than to cast the luminous Bergman in such a proletarian part. But since she was in love with her director, common sense flew out the window.

So she goes to live in this poor village where the men must toil to extract a meager living from the sea. A place she obviously hates to be and where she doesn't fit in.

Her only friend is the village priest who knows she's not suited to the life of a poor fisherman's bride, but tells her that for the sake of love she must repress her true feelings of revulsion, and accept the poverty and despair she encounters each day. On top of all of this, there's this volcano always on the brink of erupting and drowning them all in hot lava. But like a true heroine, Bergman revolts against her misery by declaring war on just about everyone else in this dreary film. She even goes as far as trying to seduce the village priest, in a scene that would generate laughter if it were not so pathetic. Since her poor slob of a husband must lock her in a room to keep her from running away, she's forced to use her body to bribe a married man to take her off the island. To her, no sacrifice is too great; no man unapproachable if he is willing to help her to escape the island and her misery. I won't bother to tell you how this all ends. The no-script movie ending is as plausible as the rest of STROMBOLI. I even remember (from seeing it on late night TV) that it had two different endings! So be warned if you should feel brave enough to sit through this king-size turkey and catch the miscast Bergman. It led to her downfall in Hollywood for the next seven years and she was condemned for sleeping with her director while still married to Peter Lindstrom. None of the movies she made with this director(whom she later married) are noteworthy except as proof of a career gone berserk. I kid you not. It's pretty embarrassing.

- - SoundTrack","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's really a shame there was so much controversy surrounding this picture (in other words, the infamous affair between Ingrid Bergman and Roberto Rossellini), as this drew a lot of attention to a very forgettable film. The story is incredibly slow, cheap looking and uninteresting. And, to top this off, the film is stuffed to the brim with amateurish actors who can barely speak any English. I really would have preferred subtitles--it would have made the experience less exhausting. Back to the rotten acting. The Neo-realist movement was big in Italy at the time this film was made. Many of these films are absolute masterpieces (such as De Sica's Umberto D., The Children Are Watching Us and Miracle in Milan) because they got so much out of the non-professional actors. They behaved like normal people, but in Stromboli they act like normal people TRYING to be actors and come off very badly--like kids in a school play.

By the way,...if you are hoping the movie has a good ending (thereby making your time commitment to the film worth while), DON'T bother. The plot was just totally uninvolving and silly--so much so, that I really found that I could have cared less about the characters. Like the island they all inhabit, the film is desolate and without color or life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Can u believe a college professor made this film?????

The same man who made DHOOP

The film is horrible and has some of the weird scenes ever

The main message is nice but presented badly

The film looks like a collage of amateurish scenes, miscasts.etc and bad performances

Direction and everything is poor

Music is okay

Emraan's naughty streak works and he does well Tusshar is bad Tanushree and Isha are bad Paresh annoys when he looks at the mirror","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow. As soon as I saw this movie's cover, I immediately wanted to watch it because it looked so bad. Sometimes I watch Bollywood movies just because they're so bad that it will be entertaining (eg. Koi Mil Gaya). This movie had all the elements of an atrocious film: a \"gang of local thugs\" that is completely harmless, a poorly done motorcycle scene, horrible dialouge (\"Congrats son, I am very proud that you are a Bad Boy\"), actors playing basketball as if they are good, atrocious songs (\"Me bad, me bad, me bad bad boy\"), unexplained plot lines like why are the Good Boy and Bad Boy friends??? And why is the hot girl in love with the nerd?? I've never seen such a poorly constructed story with such horrible directly. Some of the scenes actually took 30 seconds long like the one where the Good and Bad Boys inexplicably ran over the \"gang member's\" poker game. Congrats Ashwini Chaudry, you are a Bad Director. If you want to watch a good movie, watch Guru, if you want to watch a movie so bad that it's actually entertaining, then watch Good Boy, Boy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you have plenty of time to kill and the DVD was given to you by your friend for free but still it may require lot of courage to watch this film which does not have good script or humor for that matter.

On the acting front imran is frozen in time\/acting, Tushar Kapoor was slightly better than Imran in this movie Paresh Rawal was good at comedy was usual.

The story revolves around a college campus where Imran is a bad boy n Tushar is the good one, they pretend to be the opposite of respective nature and so the story goes on.....

Watch it only if you don't have any thing to do and the film is running on your local cable TV.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh mY God That has got to be one of the Most USELESS BRAINLESS STUPIDEST Comedy Ever Made!! What has Happened to Subhash Ghai, Even Apna Sapna Money Money Was Worth Watching

Eww! GOD This Movie Stinks

Do Not Watch it Save your Money Bad Movie Bad Cast Bad Jokes Bad Acting, even this movie is an Example of Shoe Polish being Rubbed on a Face

Trust me This movie does even make you smile, Vulgar Jokes, Cheap jokes,A Really Stupid Movie with No concepts

Rating 0 on 10

AWFUL Movie those are the two hours im never getting back....

Syed Shabbir Aly Naqvi of Pakistan","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am an Indian residing in the United States. Why India continues, like a dumb animal, to emulate everything American is beyond me!! The main problems with the movie aren't so much the inane plot and dumb comedy. It is that this movie has a lot of sex, touching, women dressing like strumpets in the streets, and a lot of cursing that doesn't belong anywhere on T.V.

To the producers and directors of this movie, I have this message: You continue to weaken our nation's strong family values by making this sort of junk. You continue to let young women think it's okay to have a feminist attitude and have no morals. You continue to make dance songs that belong in the lowest of adult clubs and bars. I am ashamed to be an Indian after seeing movies like this.

In 2003, the United States government suggested that the best way to destroy Iran is to 'send miniskirts' there. There is no need to do that for India. We will destroy ourselves with rubbish like this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two escaped convicts step out of the woods and shoot two campers in the head. That's the first scene, and it made me wince, fearing what was in store. But by the end of the first half hour I was all swept up in the flood of images. Not because I cared in the least about any of the characters but because I was aghast at how execrable the film was and was curious to see how truly low it could sink.

Frank (Remar) and Red (Woolvett) are the ex-inmates. After murdering the two innocent campers they plow through the woods and wangle their way into the isolated cabin of Dean Stockwell and his two sons, the attorney Keith and the estranged homosexual Behr. The escapees at first pretend their car has broken down and they need to use the phone, but they gradually reveal their identities.

Well, it looks like familiar territory so far. \"Desperate Hours,\" or \"Funny Games\" maybe. But -- hang on -- the gay son is in cahoots with the two. It seems that Stockwell, upon discovering his son in flagrante delicto with another man named Billy, kicked Billy around and threw him out. Billy went on to die and Behr now blames his Dad for the death. And, indeed, Dad is something of a Neanderthal when it comes to paraphilias, the fact that he was just found cohabiting with a secretary notwithstanding.

The grief-stricken Behr just searched and searched, looking for someone else who had known Billy, someone with whom he could share his despair. It turned out to be one of the escapees, and now Behr is determined to see them to their freedom.

It gets all twisted after that. People talk. They talk and talk. They talk continually. And NOT about the two mad killers who just can't wait to put one between their eyes. No -- the dialog goes something like, \"You were just so scared of something inside yourself that you even drove away your own SON.\" That's Behr, the young gay guy, talking to Stockwell. It's as if an afternoon domestic drama had had its genes mixed with a killer thriller in some kind of transformational device or cocktail shaker.

The only real performance is given by James Remar as the more talkative and ominous of the two escapees. And that's mainly because of his gruff but fluid baritone, which sounds like Lance Henrickson's, and his wide guppy-like lips. He's easy on the eyes and ears.

Dean Stockwell has given decent performances, including his inestimable bizarro turn in \"Blue Velvet,\" in which he was my supporting player, but here laziness, advancing years, or slack direction has shaped his every move and every utterance into a stereotype. It's as if he were reading stage directions -- \"Look surprised\" and \"shout angrily\" -- and following them literally. There's not a surprise in a cartload.

If the gay son, Jason Behr, ever blinked, it must have been while I was blinking at the same time because I missed it. He has a long neck and just one expression in his instrument. Woolvett as the secondary villain fades into the pine-knot paneled woodwork. The attorney son is Robert Glen Keith. I hope he didn't quit his day job.

The direction is pedestrian, the staging functional without being in the least innovative. Sometimes it's confusing. I lost track of where everyone was supposed to be as the killers are circling around on the cabin's porch and the family has locked itself inside with a shotgun. I also couldn't understand how Stockwell could put a blast through the cabin's door, hit Remar, and knock him in a back flip off the porch, and then Remar could simply stand up, dust himself off, and come up with a cranky riposte like, \"Okay. Two can play that game.\" But why go on? See it if you must.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you've seen Atlantis 1, then you'd know that what made that film truly great was brilliant animation and a good script. This movie was SO sloppily drawn and animated. The story is also dopey. I was so disappointed in this half-baked drivel that I couldn't make it past the first hour, and MAN did I try! The one thing this film had was that it expanded the \"mole\" character, making him both more sympathetic and three dimensional. Take it from me, judge this junk from the cover on the video box. The cover is poorly drawn Disney schlock, clearly grabbing for an easy buck from an unsuspecting parent. If this was a stand alone flick, it wouldn't be so bad, but riding on the coattails of a brilliant piece like Atlantis makes it utterly inexcuseable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will not say much about this film, because there is not much to say, because there is not much there to talk about. The only good thing about this movie is that our favorite characters from \"Atlantis: The Lost Empire\" are back. Several of the bad things about this movie are that it has horrible characters, it has horrible comedy, horrible animation, and James Arnold Taylor trying to copy the wonderful, one and only Michael J. Fox as Milo James Thatch. The reasons for my criticisms are that all the characters are changed into something that they never were, and never should be, animation that has been downgraded to the lowest extent possible, and finally, why would somebody who did wonderful voice-over work for Obi-Wan Kenobi in \"Clone Wars\" want to copy Michael J. Fox? I happen to have an answer to this. Because they are the same person who thought he had to copy Eddie Murphy from Mulan in Mulan II. Yes, sadly, it is true.

.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Because Disney more often than not, ignores the animation quality and a need for a good plot in their sequels, this was actually a nice surprise. I don't know why Disney does not pay more attention to their sequels. The graphics quality is always inferior; no backgrounds worthy of the name Disney, inane plots, and worse dialog, with little or no attention given to the actual story, and the caricature drawings are almost always worse than Saturday morning cartoons in detail and quality.

The animation quality is still poor when compared to Disney originals, and the dialog is quite trite, the story line and overall execution was really quite enjoyable.

While it is not as captivating, it does not completely fail to capture the charm and\/or mystery from the first. There is some hint of it, tucked away here and there.

The children will like it, at any rate.

It rates a 4.5\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I put this movie in my DVD player, and sat down with a coke and some chips, I had some expectations. I was hoping that this movie would contain some of the strong-points of the first movie: Awsome animation, good flowing story, excellent voice cast, funny comedy and a kick-ass soundtrack. But, to my disappointment, not any of this is to be found in Atlantis: Milo's Return. Had I read some reviews first, I might not have been so let down. The following paragraph will be directed to those who have seen the first movie, and who enjoyed it primarily for the points mentioned.

When the first scene appears, your in for a shock if you just picked Atlantis: Milo's Return from the display-case at your local videoshop (or whatever), and had the expectations I had. The music feels as a bad imitation of the first movie, and the voice cast has been replaced by a not so fitting one. (With the exception of a few characters, like the voice of Sweet). The actual drawings isnt that bad, but the animation in particular is a sad sight. The storyline is also pretty weak, as its more like three episodes of Schooby-Doo than the single adventurous story we got the last time. But dont misunderstand, it's not very good Schooby-Doo episodes. I didnt laugh a single time, although I might have sniggered once or twice.

To the audience who haven't seen the first movie, or don't especially care for a similar sequel, here is a fast review of this movie as a stand-alone product: If you liked schooby-doo, you might like this movie. If you didn't, you could still enjoy this movie if you have nothing else to do. And I suspect it might be a good kids movie, but I wouldn't know. It might have been better if Milo's Return had been a three-episode series on a cartoon channel, or on breakfast TV.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What the (beep) is going wrong with Disney the last years? Are there totally run out of good ideas? Where is the magic? Where are the good animators, the good songwriters, the good directors, the good... Okay, i know, Walt himself and the famous \"nine old man\" can't come back. But is this a reason to crank out countless of those cheap sequels and slowly but surely destroying the ideals of Walt Disney? I never rent or bought a Disney-sequel of what movie however. Because i had read much enough about its (absence of) quality. But \"Atlantis: Milo's Return\" was aired today on TV in Germany and so i watch it. It confirmed my doubts about sequels. It was absolutely boring. Flaw animation, primitive color-rotation, simple characters, some unsuccessful tries to simulate the famous Multiplane-Camera with CGI, mediocre music and a patchwork of different, simple stories. It looks absolutely not like Disney! Not like Disney i know! It looks like one of the countless, cheap and simple animation-series like \"DragonballZ\", \"Beyblade\" etc. that aired every day on TV for children.

My first reaction after showing this crap, was to load \"Bambi\" in my DVD-Player, to see Disney's immortal magic, depth, spirit and charm again, to see Disney on its climax again, to see the awesome art of handmade animation again. \"Bambi\" was the first (and until today the only) movie that i give 10 out of 10 stars. But \"Atlantis: Milo's Return\"? No magic, no depth, no charm, no spirit... It deserved only 3 out of 10!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i wish i could find some good things to say about this animated sequel(but not really a sequel)to \"Atlantis:The Lost Empire\"but this would be a very short comment.the magic that the first one had is nowhere to be found here.the animation is pretty poor all over,the characters themselves are not very well drawn.the backgrounds and the foregrounds are also not good.there's very little attention to detail here.and instead of a compelling and engaging story,we have 3 short stories which are boring and don't make a lot of sense.i swear,even the characters sounded like they were bored,and would rather be somewhere else.which says that the voice actors were bored and wanted to be someplace else,at least that's the impression.some of the same actors return for this dismal effort,but an integral par of the success of the first one was Michael J.Fox as the main hero, Milo Thatch.i get the distinct impression this movie was just thrown together to capitalize on the success of the first one,without much thought or care.but at least Cree Summer returns as the voice of \"Kida\".that's probably the only good thing about this movie,and even she doesn't seem to have her heart completely in it.mind you,i guess you couldn't blame any of the cast for not giving their all,considering what they had to work with.or rather not work with.this is a straight to video movie(and i use the term loosely)which should have went straight to the nearest landfill.anyway,shame on Disney.consumers deserve much better than this.this one gets a 0\/10 and a well deserved one at that.p.u","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was horrible, and it doesn't even deserve to be called a movie. The way I look at it, it's more like three mediocre day-time Disney cartoon episodes strung loosely together to make a single video that pretends to be the sequel to the first Atlantis movie, which was way more well-made and enjoyable. And where do i even begin with the problems of this DVD? The story? The characters? The pictures\/animation? To me they're all bad and unwatchable. Firstly, the story in this direct-to-video DVD is ridiculous and pointless. The only good thing about it is that it is consistent--that is, consistently bad, from the beginning to the end. After the film's over i still don't know why Milo has returned and how the incidents occur in the three small stories are related to each other or to Atlantis itself. And all I could remember about this movie was how bad it makes me feel after seeing it. The characters feel wooden and lack personality, and the drawings look a lot different than that in the first. You can tell they're obviously not from the hands of the same animators from the first one. As the DVD played on, i found myself caring less and less about what might happen to the characters and just hoping the film would end soon. Besides the story and the characters mentioned above, the picture quality is poor in this one too, probably one of the worst in those direct-to-video products that Disney has ever released. As a fan of the the original Atlantis: the lost empire, I couldn't be more disappointed in Milo's return, which is a total waste of time and money. Thank goodness I rented it first instead of buying it. Even so, I still wish I'd never seen this crap or even known its existence.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My main criticism with the movie is the animation. I totally agree with everyone else it was very poor. Some of the characters seemed to have darker skin tones than they did in the first film, which is much better. Also the background colours looked rushed and somewhat static. It is also a shame that Michael J.Fox didn't voice Milo, he did such a good job, and James Arnold Taylor wasn't sure whether he was supposed to sound like Milo or Aladdin. I have also taken into consideration the lack of a good storyline. the third story was confusing and clumsily told, and the second story suffered from poor scripting. To make things worse, the first one I can't even remember, other than a fishing village being haunted or something like that. However, there was some nice music, and good voice talents from John Mahoney, Cree Summer, Clancy Brown and Tom Wilson, that saved the film from total disaster. All in all, a disappointing sequel to a surprisingly good film. 4\/10 Bethany Cox.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am finding that I get less and less excited about Disney's sequels to movies. Yes, I do understand that the budget for the direct to video movies are not the same, but these movies don't even try. Some examples are Hunchback II and Tarzan and Jane. If anyone has seen the previews for Stitch-The Movie, you will see my point. But I digress, this movie reaffirms my point. The animation is sloppy, the story lines resemble Saturday morning cartoons, and not all of the original voices are there. I was very disappointed not to hear Michael J. Fox's voice. It was so glaringly obvious that the person doing Milo's voice was trying to sound like Fox, but didn't come close to succeeding.

If it says anything, my children ages 10 and 6 didn't even sit through the whole movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hi there. I watched the first part when it came out, and I don't remember having left such a bad impression on me as this one.

First, the animation is choppy, wooden, not worked on, lacks naturality - I understand the drawing style was to be of some 'atlantean' kind, but, it could be done with the usual Disney finesse... see \"Tarzan\" to see what I mean. If I didn't see the DISNEY logo in the beginning, I would never say it was a Disney movie.

Second, the plot was more like a PC game style, like a good old quest. Not that it was bad, but it lacked a story that binds the viewer to the characters and their goals. It was inconvincing, at least. The film was meant for children, but this was waaay to childish at times.

Third, the music... I would say it was improper, but it just fits the whole scene with the plot and animation...

Overall, I think this was some kind of an amusement, just by-the-way kind of project by several apprentice animators, just to fill in the count for Disney movies. Sorry to hear that from myself, a big Disney lover...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry to say this but I didn't enjoy this movie at all. It was just too boring. So boring that I couldn't watch the rest of it. It's not as interesting as the Lion King or Aladdin. That's why I hate this stupid days because these days are just not what they used to be. The movies that Disney have released lately really sucks! I miss the old days when they used to produce good movies like the Lion King, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Cinderella, The Aristocats, and Robin Hood. This movie is really awful. I really tried my best to be interested in this movie but I just couldn't. I don't think I could recommend this film to anyone. I would recommend the ones that I just mention above.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason this show did not get a 0 is because one is not available. This show has gone from informative news to sensationalized claptrap. I tried to support this show in its decline, because I like human interest stories and Primetime used to have some very good ones. Unfortunately, April 21st has forever changed my mind about this show and the unethical newscasters that participate in it. ABC actually recorded a brutal case of child abuse and then refused to show it until the statute of limitations had run out and the parents could not be arrested on the charges they should have faced. What made it worse was how ABC swept the whole incident under the rug; instead of taking charge and seeking true professional help for these disturbed individuals, they had some pop psychologists send stern warnings TO THE AUDIENCE about how they shouldn't judge these poor angels too harshly. I was truly sickened. I hope this review stops one person from watching this investigative trash in the future. If it does, I will be happy. These days, all you can expect from Diane Sawyer and the good folks from Primetime Live are butt-kissing sessions with A-list celebrities and criminal acts covered up and praised to the stars. Don't waste the hour of your life; you'd be better off watching an old sitcom on Nick at Nite.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"HANA-BI has many quiet moments and fairly slow pacing. Unfortunately, during the many thoughtful interludes the viewer is left to ponder about the recent scenes just watched and many questions surface and annoy.

For example, why didn't the wheelchair guy drown in the ocean when he was stuck in the sand and the tide came up around him? There was no rescue seen or hinted at.

Can it be true that Japanese police are so inept and unskilled at arrest procedures as to not first remove the suspect's ability to reach for a weapon? These detective-level Japanese police seemed to have no experience dealing with a suspect.

Why doesn't the right eye of the lead character blink? Having one eye blinking was distracting and it went unexplained.

What exactly was the lead character spending all his money on to have to borrow so much from loan sharks? He was not seen gambling. Being a non entry-level government employee his wife must have had full health insurance.

What was the single man doing all by himself in the middle of nowhere in the nature park? What was his reason for being there?

How in the world could the gangsters find the lead character and his wife up in the far off nature reserve? It made no sense.

And again, how could the gangsters later find the lead character and his wife up in the remote Mt. Fuji resort? There were absolutely no clues available for these gangsters to even know which country the lead character and his wife were in, let alone the correct specific location at the correct specific time!

And a third same question, how could the junior detectives know which few feet of the Japanese coast line to find the lead character and his wife? The Japanese coast line must be vast. Were all of these characters supposed to have psychic powers?

Two final questions: The cute girl trying to fly a kite on the beach -- WHERE did she come from? She seemed to have no transportation or companions with her. And why in the world did she still keep attempting to fly what was left of her kite after it was ripped in pieces?! This was weird. Unintentionally Python-esque.

On the positive side, I loved the background music. It was dramatic and flowing and added much to this movie. The photography, imagery and art were pleasing to the eye.

One final point, the wife was overly pleasing to the eye. Not once did she ever come close to looking like a dying sick person. She looked very healthy. If anything, these people seemed depressed and mentally ill and not physically sick. The husband treated his wife as perhaps a newly outed gay man would treat a respected wife... a love of friendship, but not close tenderness.

A mixed movie for sure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So, it has come to this. In the top-rated comment on this flick, somebody says \"Nishi is an honorable man\". Really? This is a guy who mainly kills and maims people in the movie. He takes a short break to rob a bank. Honorable? How would you like your kids to go to school with the kids of someone who calls that honorable? Wait, there's more! The person also says \"we can tell he's constantly thinking.\" How can we do that? Well, do you know that joke \"How can you tell when a CEO\/politician\/lawyer is lying?\" ... \"His\/her lips move.\" Well, Nishi's lips never move, so I guess that means he is thinking.

Of course, this is existentialism to warm the hearts of the cult of victimization. Existentalism supposedly stresses that an individual take responsibility for the consequences of one's acts. Not Nishi. Borrow money from the yakuza. What, they want it back? Kill them. The cops find out. Kill yourself and your wife.

Really honorable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really don't see how anyone could enjoy this movie. I don't think I've ever seen a movie half as boring as this self-indulgent piece of junk. It probably would have been better if the director hadn't spent most of the movie showcasing his own art work, which really isn't that noteworthy. Another thing I didn't really like is when a character got punched in the face, a gallon of blood would spew forth soon after. I don't know how folks bleed over there in Japan, but I hope they have plenty of blood donors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Infamous horror films seldom measure up the hype that surrounds them and I have yet to come across a worse offender than Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes. Having held back from watching this for years, I was really pleased when I got it for Christmas and waited for an evening when my girlfriend was out to settle down and watch it - knowing her extreme dislike for anything genuinely horrifying. I needn't have bothered.

After a promising - if familiar - start, that firmly sets the film in the 'Desolution USA' world of survival horror, things rapidly go to pieces when the protagonists and antagonists meet in the deserted wasteland.

Looking like it was shot on a budget of $5, with the cannibal clan's costumes hired from a dodgy fancy dress shop that specialises in faux caveman and Red Indian attire, the story follows an annoying bunch of unsympathetic WASPs who take a detour on a road trip to California, to look for a silver mine in a nuclear testing zone (!). When they break down they are set upon by the local family of flesh-eaters and have to fight to survive.

While hoping for another Deliverance, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Wrong Turn or Devil's Rejects, I actually realised I'd stumbled across something that should have remained dusty and unwatched in a backstreet video store's bargain bin.

With gallons of tomato ketchup for blood and a couple of gruesome wound close-ups, I can kind of see how an 18 Certificate (in the UK) is justified, but with those close-ups trimmed this wouldn't have looked out of place as a Saturday afternoon thriller on ITV.

The whole silver mine\/nuclear test site subplot is just a McGuffin to justify pitching the 'civilised' family against the primitives, but given how easily the savages get their asses whupped it stretches credibility to think that they had survived for a generation preying on passers-by.

And then there's the ending ... or lack thereof. The Hills Have Eyes seems to be missing either a third act or, at the very least, a satisfying denouement. Instead, I was just left wondering: \"Yeah, and ... ?\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was recommended to me by several people, and after reading all the positive comments from this site I went ahead and bought a copy of the film off ebay. The acting in the film is average and a bit hammy, especially by the family of cannibals, one sequence comes to mind when Jupiter is ranting and raving to the burnt corpse, speaking right into the camera. Its one of those performances where you just cringe and feel bad for that poor actor. Its also evidence of some of the worst editing I've seen, theres a terrible jump cut right in the middle of his \"speech\". There are a few creepy moments though, and at times the music works well...but overall the film isnt that great and I dont know why people think Wes Craven is that great of a director. Thus far he hasn't showed me anything that I believe to be brilliant, the only thing that improved with Cravens films, production to prodution was his budget.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tagline: the lucky ones died...before watching this.

I've never watched a Bulgarian movie from 1920's, so I can't say this is the worst movie ever made, but it surely is the worst movie I've ever watched. I can't almost remember it.

All I can recall is a family of stupid people who don't do anything right. Their car has one wheel out of four stuck in the sand, so they decide that there's nothing to do and prepare to live the rest of their lives there. Then there's an old man who is aware of the existence of a band of cannibals in the whereabouts but has never considered the idea to report the fact to the police.

And, speaking of the police...if those freaks have lived around there eating humans for years, lots of people must have disappeared...how come the sheriff didn't suspect anything?

But I gave up asking questions after the first five minutes or so. The rest is bore. An hallucinated unbelievable bore.

I will be merciful and won't speak about the dialogues. And the acting. And the effects.

I will only mention the final scene, where the freak girl eliminates a snake (the snakes! they come out in the end, what the hell do they have to do with the story?) with a sniper-precise throw of a stone, demonstrating the full disregard of Mr. Craven for reality and for things that happen on planet Earth in general.

I believe there have been riots when the film was first released in 1977.

Even being eaten by a cannibal wouldn't be a fair punishment to the director for this attack on intelligence.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the hills have eyes is not a great film by any stretch of the imagination.for one the villains look almost normal,not what you would expect deranged lunatics to look like.for another the pacing is very slow at times and there are many scenes of the characters repeating themselves.by that,i mean there is a lot of filler in the movie, with a lot of running around aimlessly.the film didn't have a clear direction.the plot of the movie is hardly original,even for its time.the Texas chainsaw massacre came out a few year earlier and is a much more effective film, as far as horror goes.the film has little in the way of scares, and the pounding soundtrack just served to be both grating and distracting all at once.i suppose the music was used to cover up the fact that not much happens through much of the movie, though it failed in its intended purpose.i basically kept looking at the time every few seconds hoping something would happen or it would end .when something finally did happen any promise the film had was ruined by mere chaos and loud noise.i sat through it because i like to give a film the benefit of the doubt.yes, there is some loud screaming,and yes people die,but who cares.much too slow getting to any sort of pay off,if you can call it that.my buddy enjoyed it, so at least one of us got something out of it.the hills have eyes isn't the worst film we could have watched, but i doubt i will watch it again.this film was remade in 2006 and i will also have review of that version.anyway, this movie was painfully slow at times, while other times was chaotic and repetitive.unless you like watching paint dry, occasionally interspersed with someone running around your block, screaming their head off, stay away from this movie.a better bet would be the original Texas chainsaw massacre(1973)1.5* out of 10* which is being generous","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have never really been interested in cannibal movies before and up until a couple of months ago i had avoided this genre of movie.

I recently had to undergo knee surgery and found i had a lot of time on my hands as i was unable to work, so i decided after seeing almost every horror movie our local video shop had to offer i would take a chance on this.

Christ was it a mistake! I have never seen a movie this bad in all my years of being a movie addict. This is just a pile of s**t pasted to a D.V.D disc and sold as a horror movie.

I have a lot of respect to other horror fans who can switch their brains off long enough to enjoy this crap, They are more brain dead than i ever will be and that is some achievement! 0\/10 and thats generous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Flipping through the TV and saw that The Secret Life of was on; gave George Duran a shot at being the host. I know that Jim O'Connor was very energetic and that nobody could be as much as him, but George was well dull. He really didn't seem to want to be hosting; his voice-overs were monotonous, didn't get involved with the guests. It seemed like he was interviewing guests for Unwrapped, and he just happened to be in the shot. I don't know if George is going to get \"better\" hosting this show, I doubt it because he has hosted his own show now. The show did seem to pack more info in, but only because we saw less of the host. The formula of this show was very delicate, and I fear it has now been disrupted for good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lord, this sucked. There's a particular sort of sexual revolution flick from the 60s that manages to confuse sexual assault with sexual liberation. This film is an example. I lost track of how many times women are slapped, hit, whipped, or spanked in the film. And then there are all the times that women in the film fantasize about being slapped, hit, whipped or spanked (you know they want it, right?). Sometimes it is ostensibly part of safe fetish play-acting. Other times it plainly isn't, but you will wait in vain to see the heroine report to authorities that she has just been raped. Instead we get to hear her being lectured by her rapist about her inability to \"let go\".

Every scene of this film reeks of misogyny (speaking as a straight, white, married man in his late 30's, not a teenage lesbian women's studies major with a chip on her shoulder, lest you get the wrong idea).

Perhaps the one good thing about this film is that it provides a stark reminder of just how bad things really were for women only a few short decades ago.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I decided to watch this ultra-low budget film from the \"Poverty Row\" studio, PRC, because it co-starred the exciting character actor, Lionel Atwill\u0097plus I really liked the title. Even though Atwill often played in these cheap movies, his excellent style of acting always made the films seem a lot better, as his screen persona was great (his real life is also quite interesting\u0097sort of like a bizarre soap opera). The reason I use the term \"Poverty Row\" is that this was a nickname given to the very cheapest and worst production companies of the era. Many of these weren't even real studios, but production companies that rented space and sets from the major studios at night! Yes, there is a good chance this was filmed after normal working hours\u0097a common thing for such studios.

The story begins with Lionel Atwill telling his friends a story about something that he was involved with years ago. A doctor falls in love with a lady but he's afraid to tell her about himself. That's because his job is putting people to death on Death Row\u0097not exactly a glamor job! The Doc asks his friend (Atwill) for advice on how to break it to her, but regardless she won't have the man. Later, you realize it's because her own parents were criminals.

Later, a man is killed and the lady is implicated\u0097though it's obvious to anyone with a brain that her sister was involved (and is a bit of a nut) and the evidence against the lady was poor. But, apparently the jury was filled with brainless people and she was convicted and sent to Death Row. Even more brainless is that her old boyfriend was the man who was responsible for her execution. Don't you think someone else might just be able to handle this case?! Until this fateful hour, her friend (Atwill) spends much of the film trying to prove her innocence\u0097and prove that the flaky sister knows far more about the case than she'll admit.

Overall, the movie is only mildly interesting and a bit silly. While it is watchable and Atwill is good (as usual), the rest of the film never really rises above the mundane and some of the acting is pretty shabby. It's sub-par and about what you'd expect from such a low-budget flick\u0097and nothing more despite the cool title.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Finally, I can connect the dots between Return of the Jedi and Phantom Menace. We see here where Lucas lost touch with what made the original Star Wars films great and began to descend into the plot less tripe that ruined episodes 1-3. This film is more like one of those cheesy low-budget 80s swords and sorcerer films than anything worthy of being associated with the Star Wars saga. As with the Jar-Jar character, this seems targeted at children (and the toy market). The battle scenes are particularly bad. It was depressing to see Sian Phillips' incredible talent go to such a waste, after her classic performance in I, Claudius.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a stupid idea. Ewoks should be enslaved and tortured. Utterly useless as a species... Fine you want ten lines of text regarding my unending hatred of Ewoks? Fine, here it is, fool. First of all, they are an inferior race that would be slaughtered en mass had Lucas not pussified the entire series with their foul presence. They're little bears with large asses, and they probably smell like donkey crotch. Yeah, I said it, donkey crotch. They have little to no technology whatsoever, resorting to using sticks as makeshift weapons. I'm surprised they even had access to fire. Their guttural language makes my skin crawl. Can't...suppress...anti-Ewok...RAGE! AHHH!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have officially vomited in my own mouth, thanks to this movie.

I expected the absolute worst with this movie, but I expected a heartwarming and pleasurable absolute worst. This is just terrible. Absolutely terrible. Terrible like Nazis spreading the black plague. Let me explain: Ewoks are speaking English. It's horrible.

The villain girl looks like she travelled from the future set of Power Rangers. I really really want her to rise up from the ground and say \"At last! After ten thousand years I'm free! It's time to conquer Earth!\" The putties... er, I mean the big bad whatever the heck they are... they growl a lot. Many of them look like an even lamer version of the Cryptkeeper. The Cryptkeeper was pretty cool, but these guys were not.

The only merit to this movie was Paul Gleason. This movie might have been better if he'd went to the bad guys and said \"If I have to come in here again, I'm crackin' skulls.\" It would have been even better if one of the Ewoks was played by Judd Nelson, who mouthed his words as he said this.

Also, that speedy little creature is pretty badass. Word to that.

No word to the movie, though. I want to give this movie a two. I want to, so badly. There's a passage I have memorized: The path of this movie is beset on all sides by the inequities of terribleness and the tyranny of spin-off awfulness. Blessed is nothing, for this movie blows.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is awful. At first I thought it may appeal to children, due to the cuddly Ewoks, the fury little people from Stars Wars. After sitting through this monstrosity of a movie, I am certain that not even a 4-year-old would find this movie interesting. The special effects are by far the best of this movie and compare well for other 80ies TV movies. The script is bad, the actors, especially Aubree Miller and unbelievably bad and the flick is so predictable that I still can't believe I was able to not touch the forward button on my VCR. However, I came close to switching this mess off more than once.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What the hell is this!? That was my first reaction to this film (actually, my first reaction contained more swearing). This isn't Star Wars! Star Wars is space battles, this movie has none. Star Wars is the Force, this movie only has a retarded witch with a magic ring. Star Wars is lightsaber battles, this movie hasn't got any battle worth mentioning. Star Wars is humor, this movie isn't. Star Wars is a galaxy far, far away, this movie has HORSES in it!!! Besides all of this, how did Lucas get the insane idea to let a five year old baby do the leading role !? Big, big disappointment. Do you like Star Wars? Don't watch this! 1 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honest to God, the Outline pretty much says it all. The planet Andromina (not to be confused with Aunt Jemima) is represented by a cheap L.A. stripclub. There's no strippers, so the most recent male visitors go off to recruit strippers.

The men get mistaken for kings or arrested for spying on women (although despite the fact its a planet of women we only get two women who participate in any girl-girl sex scenes), and eventually, as always happen in science fiction cliche movies everywhere, the women become convinced that men are good for something. Well, not the men who made this movie, at any rate!

But boy, do we get to see a lot of that something, in prodigious amounts of softcore sex and nudity. This one has less plot then usual for such flicks, so change the channel if you don't like this kind of movie, and grit your teeth if you're into this kind of thing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can I say about THE PLEASURE PLANET that I haven`t said about umpteen other tedious soft core porn films ? Very little . It`s just another movie with a very weak plot used to set up very unconvincing set scenes between male non actors who spend too much time in the gym and bimbos who have obviously had silicon implants . Actually the sex scenes in this movie are somewhat less convincing than you usually see in this type of film as the cast members grind their hips together giving pained expressions like they`ve got constipation or something . No wonder a lot of people claim sex is over rated , they`ve probably watched too many of these films on late night cable stations","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In short, this movie is a declaration of artistic bankruptcy.

Almodovar is easily the most important European film maker of the 80s and 90s. No other living director has shaped the style and contents of present-day European cinema more than him. It is therefore not easy to say that his latest effort is not just another disappointment after two lackluster films, but rather a complete and total disaster confirming that he has run out of ideas, out of humour and, worst of all, empathy for the characters he creates.

That is not due to the complexity of the story. All Almodovar films are almost impossible to summarize. This time, in fact, it's rather easy if you are familiar with his earlier work. \"Broken Embraces\" is a remake of \"Law of Desire\", only this time the director is straight and the jealous jilted lover is a millionaire.

For those of you not familiar with that film, I'm doing a summary. If you don't want to know too much, please skip this paragraph. A blind man, who used to be a famous movie director, seduces a sexy buxom woman reading a paper to him after a chance street encounter (yes, really, that's how it starts). Just then he gets a visit by his agent and best friend. He mentions to her that he has learned from the paper that a certain millionaire has died, which takes the story 14 years back. He can still see and is about to direct his next film. He stars the inexperienced mistress of the said millionaire as the lead, as he is instantly smitten with her. The millionaire discovers their affair via silent videos made by his gay son, which he has lip-synched by an interpreter (a few great scenes: Cecilia Roth). After violent quarrels, the mistress escapes with the director to a seaside resort where he learns that the millionaire, who produced the film, had it released in the worst possible edit, destroying the director's reputation. The couple decides to return, but has an accident in which the director turns blind and the would-be actress dies. Back in the present, he learns that his agent has preserved the film's negatives and starts to reconstruct it.

As in \"Bad Education\", there are various sub plots to beef up this rather thin story, and as in \"Bad Education\", the result is more confusing than satisfactory. For instance, the agent's son, who works as a DJ, has an accidental drug overdose - which is completely unnecessary for the plot, and also interpreted rather badly.

Mostly, however, the actors are not to blame, but the way their characters are written. Blanca Portilla as the agent has so many skeletons in her closet that not even a brilliant performance can save the character from ridicule. Lluis Homar is an old man's dream of a protagonist, living in an artificial world where an English alias and a few sweet words can seduce any super model. And Penelope Cruz is the embodiment of this old man's sexual fantasy. Her character is completely lifeless. It remains thoroughly incomprehensible why she would go from one old man, who at least helped her family, to a slightly less old man, who isn't charming enough to convince as either a romantic hero or a passion fuse.

But all these shortcomings wouldn't make this film so awful. However, Almodovar does the worst possible thing of a director (or any type of storyteller) running out of ideas: he quotes himself, something he has increasingly done, and to very little benefit. The film-within-the-film, which \"Broken Embraces\" uses as a plot-driving device, is actually \"Women at the verge of a nervous breakdown\" (1988), only this time it is called \"Chicks and Suitcases\". This rather unimaginative title may give you a hint how this beloved classic is treated here: while the dialog making up the final ten minutes of \"Broken Embraces\" is a frantic, over-the-top exchange of screwball one-liners in the original film, here it is a stern, colorless, pesky business encounter.

In conclusion, this is the D.O.A. brainchild of an exhausted creator of past marvels, pretty much as awful and disappointing as the last Indiana Jones feature. Maybe not so many people would agree with that, because Almodovar used to be such a genius. I'd rather offer my respect to his accomplishments by humbly asking the reader to watch \"All about my mother\", or \"Tie me up\", or \"High Heels\", or \"Matador\", all of which bear witness to Almodovar's unique and unmatched talent. A few more film like this, and his legacy may very well be destroyed for good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've never been a huge fan of Almodovar, but, generally, I've always found something to enjoy in his films. Unfortunately, I had more trouble finding something to enjoy in Broken Embraces then I would normally think I would.

I find the biggest failure in Broken Embraces to be the characters and the lack of depth they display. The film is essentially a love story, one that is tragic, and one that wants to involve the viewer in their stories. I found this problematic from the beginning.

In the opening scene, our 'hero' the director\/screenwriter, Mateo, is having sex with a very attractive young woman whom he just met. His agent comes in as the woman bashfully leaves.

In the opening scene, our 'hero' the director\/screenwriter, Mateo, is having sex with a very attractive young woman whom he just met. His agent comes in, and rolls her eyes, as the woman bashfully leaves. Mateo babbles something about needing to enjoy life as the only thing he has left. Having been blinded in a tragic car accident that also killed his 'true' love Lena, played by Penelope Cruz, the viewer might buy into to this notion except the rest of the film really never illustrates why Lena was the love of his life or any depth to his character or any other.

Cruz plays Lena the mistress to an industrialist named Ernesto Martel. From the outset, their union is rather a pathetic one, as Martel clutches jealousy to Lena, and Lena avoids uncertainty of being on her own by staying with the much older Martel. To skip ahead, Martel finances a film for Mateo so he can keep tabs on the star of the film, Lena. Naturally, without any back story, Lena and Mateo fall in love. And, in Almodovar's world it really is that simple. Mateo, in the opening scene, has sex with a sexy young woman, now Mateo falls in love with Lena, later it's revealed he had a son with his agent after their love affair. Her son responds to this information with a laugh and an, \"Oh, well.\" Again, no depth, no understanding for any of these characters, it all just happens. From the beginning of the film to the end, I got no depth of emotion from Mateo. He is flat, and doesn't act much different from one scene to the next.

The one scene I did enjoy was when film producer, Martel, is watching video footage his son recorded under the guise of doing a documentary of Mateo. There are nice a moment of Martel watching obsessively as a lip reading confirms his worst fears. Later, Lena confronts Martel as he's watching the footage and speaks her part out loud matching the video footage of her lips as she talks. Some quite brilliant moments. Rather contrived, but still really fascinating.

Unfortunately, for me, the rest of the film left me rather bored. I couldn't care about these characters or their situations, so no amount of cleverness on Almodovar's part can make up for this lack of depth. I think if you're a fan of his work you'll enjoy this movie, but if you're like me, in between, then you'll find it lacking.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Roy Rogers (as Roy) and sidekick Raymond Hatton (as Rusty) join Teddy Roosevelt's \"Rough Riders\". Soon, they get suspended in order to \"Round-up\" the killer of partner Eddie Acuff (as Tommy) along the Mexican-U.S. border; they discover creepy gold runners in the process. Notice how, even suspended, Mr. Rogers is able to get the Rough Riders to join in his Round-up!

This is not one of the better Roy Rogers westerns. The fighting scenes look like choreographed dances. Rogers sings\/yodels \"Ridin' Down the Trail\", one of two relatively ordinary songs; and, a stand-out moment, overall.

** Rough Riders' Round-up (3\/13\/39) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, Raymond Hatton, Lynne Roberts","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A giant praying mantis is awakened from its sleep in the artic region and heads south causing havoc. Boats, planes and trains meet their match with the flying creature. Before unleashing its full wrath on NYC, the mantis meets its doom at the hands of the armed forces in a New York tunnel. The special effects are of course crude by todays standards, but for a ten year old boy in 1957 this was very memorable.

Starring are William Hopper, Craig Stevens, Alix Talton and Pat Conway.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Something strange is happening in remote areas of the Arctic. An Air Force weather station is found wrecked, its occupants missing. An Eskimo village is destroyed. A fishing vessel disappears. Curious spoors are found in the snow. A four-foot piece of a living organism is found near a destroyed airplane. The piece looks like half of the claw of a giant Alaskan crab. The military (Craig Stevens as an Air Force officer) and its experts are baffled. A distinguished scientist (William Hopper) and his pretty assistant (Alix Taltan) are called in from New York. Hopper deduces from this flimsy evidence that they are dealing with a monstrous praying mantis. He's right. The pretty assistant happens to look out the window of the office and sees the hideous face with its bulging eyeballs staring in at her. She drops what she's carrying, claps her hands to her cheeks, and screams in horror.

The mantis begins flying South along the Gulf Stream, pausing now and again to attack major population centers like Washington and New York to overturn buses and eat people. Military weapons don't affect it much but finally Stevens crashes into it in his jet fighter and mortally damages the beast, which comes to earth and occupies the \"Manhattan Tunnel\" linking New York and New Jersey.

Stevens, having survived the collision, leads his team into the tunnel and kills the big bug with \"3RG mines\" despite its fierce appearance, threatening behavior, and earth-shattering roars. Stevens and Taltan kiss in front of the body while Hopper chuckles and takes their picture.

Ho hum.

Like the deadly mantis itself, the formula by this time was panting and gasping for air, flopping around, seeking as its prey not human beings but anything at all in the way of a fresh or original idea. As it is, they overlooked one clich\u00e9. Hopper should have hurriedly had to invent a Super Duper DDT that, alone, could defeat the insect. That's what the 3RG mines should have been filled with, rather than ordinary explosive.

The model work is pretty good, considering what the budget must have been. Not much money could have been spent on anything else because everything else is pretty routine. Craig Stevens is bland, a face and style made for a TV series. William Hopper looks right -- tall and silver haired -- but his instrument has only one note. The pretty assistant is rather plain, considering her role. The part calls for Joan Weldon or Laurie Nelson. They couldn't act either but carried with them slight but distinct intimations of molestibility. Anything would have helped this fagged-out movie.

I wish the deadly mantis hadn't roared so loudly and so often because you can't roar -- you can't even whisper -- if you don't have lungs. I didn't mind, though, when the monster met its demise in the tunnel. A praying mantis is a graceful insect in its own spindly way and it's great to have them in the garden because they eat caterpillars and whatnot. But when you get right down to it, they aren't really very appealing. The male mantis is smaller and weaker than the female, as in humans, and when the couple are just about through copulating, the female bites the head off the male, also as in humans. But at least human males know when to stop. The male mantis keeps on copulating for several minutes even though he is now without a head. We humans don't have mindless males copulating with goal-driven females. Do we?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie starts by showing you a map and then explaining radar and it is quite awhile before you ever see the deadly mantis. Probably a better movie in the 50's this dated piece is a bit to slow moving and the pay off in the end isn't very good. Though it has its moments like when the guy from Perry Mason argues with an old man and when he says \"I have narrowed the possibilities to one\" excuse me, but when you narrow something down you have a couple or more possibilities not one...if you get it down to one you haven't narrowed it down, but you have in fact figured out what it is. The monster is standard 50's sci-fi fair, better than say the grasshoppers in the Beginning of the End. Acting is sub-par and the heroine is the most unattractive...in fact in some shots she does look like a guy in drag. You see plenty of fighter plane stock footage and other things, but you won't see much at all of the deadly mantis.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Other commenters have described this movie as \"classic 1950s SciFi\" with clever use of stock footage and documentary footage, and clever character interaction.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, this is classic 1950s SciFi...but 1950s SciFi at its most blindingly stupid worst.

Consider that the Mantis's first prey is a radar station shown first from the air, then on the ground... but the station is (from the air) pictured as on a mountaintop, with snow on one side and semi-cleared dark ground on the other side, but when (on the ground) investigators visit the site, it's suddenly on a flat, evenly white plain, miles from the nearest mountain.

Consider also, the ludicrous pseudo-scientific babble of the highly-recommended expert who is brought in to examine a huge claw. He says \"Well, we know one thing... it can't have come from an animal, because every known species of animal has a bony skeleton. Even reptiles and birds have bones.\" He then goes on to say that some creatures ...snails, shellfish, insects... do not have bony skeletons. Excuuuuuse me ? Let's define \"animal\", here. Not even in the 1950s could anyone over the age of six take this man as an expert in biology, since he clearly doesn't know what an \"animal\" is, nor have the ability to name several broad categories of animals who lack bony skeletons (sharks, rays, jellyfish, insects, mollusks, arthropods, gastropods, sponges, arachnids, echinoderms....you get the idea.) The characters are cardboard, 2D stock types... scientist, sidekick girlfriend, big bad monster. Nothing here shows any sense of creativity. No pulse, no life signs.

There're no witty dialogs, the special effects are silly even for their time, and the stock footage is employed with a reckless disregard for continuity. This is B-movie making at its dead worst, with a production crew that clearly couldn't be bothered to try even halfheartedly.

Use sparingly, as sleeping medicine or punishment for small children who're easily offended by bad science.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE DEADLY MANTIS certainly won't scare any one, but as sci-fi programmers go it is better than most. A volcanic eruption at the south pole thaws out a giant, prehistoric preying mantis at the north pole. Military men go missing. Dr. Ned (William Hopper--Hedda Hopper's son and best known as Paul Drake on television's PERRY MASON) is called in to i.d. the creature--but by this time the creature has eaten up several Eskimo and is en route to the Washington Monument.

About a third or more of the film consists of stock footage: old government educational films, military men in radar rooms, air planes--and would you believe Eskimos putting out to sea? Which explains, of course, why a tribe of Eskimo is attacked in the movie. (\"Hey, Guys! Think we can work this in?\") Mix in some negligible special effects, some clunky dialogue, and some sexist attitudes and you're good to go. Not as original as THE MONSTER THAT CHALLENGED THE WORLD, but fans of 1950s \"big bug\" schlock will enjoy it--and the kids will have a good time throwing popcorn at the screen.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got hold of a discount copy of this. I had seen it several years ago. My only recent experience had been \"Mystery Science Theatre\" where it was soundly spoofed. One never really gets a chance to get into these movies because of all the byplay. I love the beginnings of fifties horror movies. They give us a pompous lecture on the defense systems near the Arctic. These were there to protect us from the expected Soviet invasion, but they should come in handy, given the threat of very large insects.

This particular one flies. For some reason, despite its exoskeleton made of the stuff grasshoppers are made of, they can still fend off air to air missiles and disable fighter planes.

Anyway, it's more fun--first, the obligatory deranged case who saw the flying thing, cooling his heels in a hospital (it just teaches one--see an insect as big as a house--keep your mouth shut). I wonder if the poor guy got to go home after they found the bug.

Otherwise, this is a pretty ordinary effort. It follows the usual efforts to come up with a way of dissuading the stubborn bug--and leaves us open to other possibilities--the Russians next time. I still get a kick out of these films and this one is serviceable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So you're a giant mantis and you've been hanging out in the arctic for a while, and you're tired of Eskimos hitting you with snowballs. What's a giant mutant insect to do? Head for the big city, of course! See the sights, maybe catch a show on Broadway. But wait! Just when you find a nice cozy tunnel to call your own, some pesky humans start attacking you!! Argh! Time to smash!

Anyhow this movie is one step up on most other giant bug movies, because it has pretty decent FX for 1957. But that's about it. Avoid unless you really need to see another big bug smash things, or see another Perry Mason actor in a B movie.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thirty per cent of this movie appears to be the prototype for the Map Channel. You see a giant map for about ten minutes, then they unleash the stock footage big time while droning(droning, get it?)on about radar. Apparently there's a lot of radar stations in the far north, protecting North America's borders from attacks by deadly polar bears. The bears never show up, but a giant Mantis does. It was frozen in the ice for over a million years or so, until it was released by an earthquake somewhere else in the world(yeah, right. For my money, it was released by global warming). It is a huge prehistoric insect, and it needs lots of food. Since there aren't any cows in the frozen north, it decides to feast on the most bovine-like creatures it can find up there. I.E., human beings. It starts attacking radar stations, probably because the humming from the radar dishes was getting on its nerves.

Enter Col. Joe Parkman, the resident smarmy guy of the film. He's investigating a plane that went down, and is puzzled why there are no bodies in the wreckage. The only thing he finds is one of the claws of the Mantis. Apparently it decided to trim its nails while it was snacking on the plane's crew. Parkman takes the claw tip back with him to be analyzed by a thousand year old scientist.

Grandpa scientist can't make heads or tails of the claw, mostly because he's missed his naps so his mind isn't functioning too well. So he calls in a smug paleontologist played by the guy who was the P.I. in Perry Mason. He and his friend, a transvestite photographer, fly north because he's decided that the claw must have come from a Praying Mantis. Just one the size of a commuter train.

It's Luke warm love at first sight when Col.Parkman first sets eyes on the she-male photographer. The men at the base, obviously having been deprived for many years, think she's the hottest thing to come along since Granny Clampett. Smug science guy and smarmy soldier guy start working together to track the path of the Mantis, which has devastated some stock footage of an Eskimo village. It comes to the base looking for an after dinner snack, and crushes some cheap sets quite effectively. Then it flies south and disappears.

Now comes the tense hours when the civilian ground observer core are called on to sweep the skies looking for anything large flying overhead. I doubt that in reality they would have been told that they were looking for a giant flying mantis that eats human beings, since that would haver caused a panic. Probably they were told to look for a giant 727 that was painted green and hummed because its engine was out of tune.

Col. Parkman goes up in a plane to try to shoot the Mantis down, and botches the mission. The Mantis lands in New York City, probably because it wanted to take in a show on Broadway or visit Sex World in Times Square. The army corners it in the Tunnel, and Parkman and his men don stupid suits that they borrowed from the Orkin Man to go in and try to blow the Mantis up. Success! Well, almost, since the Mantis is still twitching enough that it almost kills the mannish Eve Arden photographer lady. There's a tepid love scene at the end, and the paleontologist takes a picture of the dead mantis because Colonel Hair Grease and Ms. Gender Unspecified are busy smooching. So kind of a nauseating ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watching this film made me wonder, just why was Universal putting out films like this? They had a wonderful string of films with all the classic horror films. The dawning of the atomic age brought on an onslaught of giant creature films. Spiders, ants, praying mantis'. With The Deadly Mantis, we have a giant praying mantis flying around the arctic, scaring eskimos, and being hounded by the armed forces. The bug reaches a tunnel in New York where the soldiers eventually destroy it. Of course, this is all made much more watchable by viewing it on MST. Who thought it was a good idea to start the film out by showing a giant map?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And I am afraid that I cannot imagine why. It really is a genuinely dire and exceptionally boring film. In some ways it is reminiscent of early science fiction when every set had been knocked up on a Hollywood back lot out of whatever was lying around. From the minuscule and unconvincing set (snipers seem to be about ten meters away) apparently made of plaster, to the actors who are also apparently made of plaster with \"amusing\" stereotypes painted thinly on top, to the oddly warm pool in a frozen cave, to the survival of the cast uninjured when medium artillery shells burst a few meters away on open ground, and finally the awful script that reads like a training manual more than a film.... I really cannot say how dull this is. Even the opportunity to see whether the young James Dean survived wasn't enough to keep me watching for more than an hour. This really is one to be avoided at ALL costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't think the number of blunders militarily and strategically contained in this turkey can be beaten. Everything in this mess was done on the cheap and made soldiers look really stupid. Examples: at the start the 2-star General is given strategic advice by a Lieutenant and accepts it unquestionably. The map used by the Lt. shows enemy positions but they apparently have only a single narrow valley to use in advancing on the battalion (even though the map showed a dozen more). The rear guard takes up position from which they are clearly spotted by the enemy and exposed. They pound our heroes from high ground but this superior fire power makes little difference. An single enemy tank advances near the end (at the beginning referred to as armored division), proceeded by a solitary infantry point (!) who moves extremely slowly without cover scouting the area, then waives the tank on when he deems it save to proceed - a most bizarre scene. The soldiers take cover in a cave. All around them is ice and deep snow but in the cave not a yard from the entrance is a deep puddle through which they all wade repeatedly - their feet would last mere minutes before they freeze off. Later the survivors wade pathetically slowly and chest high through a river to return to their unit. Remember it is deep winter and the ground is frozen. Yeah right!

And on and on it goes. They yell commands to positions on higher ground, they lay mines near their own position and warn each other not to trample on them (!) At the start, credit is given to some soldier who had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Was he blind, or did Director Fuller just ignore him?Truly the most inept soldiers I've ever seen.

One of them pokes around in his own wounded leg with a bayonet and eventually pulls out a piece of shrapnel, without a wince or a moan. He announces that that should qualify him as a surgeon. Now that was funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although my exposure to world cultures is limited, I do try. This was a film that I tried and hated. Worst of all, after hearing so many people decry the shallowness of typical Hollywood fare and its stereotypical caricatures, I saw characters too outrageous for \"Eastenders\" being paraded as realistic.

Clint wants out of the drug life and to do this he aspires to be a waiter. Aim high, I always say. Brad Dorif, or a faxed photo of him, or quite possibly a curly wig on a stick, it was hard to tell, offers to hire Clint if he gets a pair of shoes.

Clint, and a huge entourage, apparently wander the whole of England trying to get him some shoes. Eventually, they end up at a suburban home. Whose isn't clear. Mum helps a girl shoot up. Oh, now THERE'S some realism for you! Mrs. Brady may have been a ridiculous stereotype of American housewives, but she never helped Marsha tie off and find a vein. Good God! Dad comes home and sings some Elvis tunes and then chases the kids away.

Why didn't Clint borrow some money and buy shoes at a second hand store? Why didn't he go to a church and ask a kindly nun for some help? Why didn't he hang out in front of a shoe store and panhandle? I just don't know! None of these things seemed to be beneath him. Benevolent groups, like Goodwill and the Salvation Army have stores to help people. I know people who work there! If someone with no money showed up and needed shoes, the staff would give the person some shoes. Maybe not Prada or Gucci, but some form of foot covering. Not many of these groups hand out cell phones to the underprivileged, but shoes are usually no problem. What a dumb concept. The world, or at least the western part of it, simply isn't that cruel. In England, maybe it's from \"The Queen's Royal Charity\" rather than Goodwill, but people who need shoes do get them.

Aside from the quest for shoes, there was no discernable plot to get in the way of the action. Not that it made the movie any quicker or more bearable, mind you. Despite checking the tape jacket several times, I was not watching the 20-hour extended version, it only seemed that way.

Did Clint get his shoes? Did the cardboard cutout of Brad Dourif hire him at the restaurant? Did I ever watch anything else foreign ever again?

[spoiler] Yes, yes, and yes.

As for the fate of this particular film, I decided to end it all. I took out my S&W .45 and shot a half-inch hole through the cassette. Blammo! (I made sure to rewind it first.) I put it back in the tape sleeve, returned it to the rental store, and amazingly NO ONE EVER CALLED TO ASK ABOUT IT!!! Meaning, of course, that no one else rented it for at least the remaining three years I lived in that city. Others knew something that I didn't. Live and learn.

BTW, if you rent something you've never seen before and someone has actually put a bullet through it, take it as a sign. And if you work at the Kroger video department, I'm just kidding.

Footnote: this classic has yet to see the light of day on DVD, for which we should be eternally thankful to the digital gods.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I'm to like a movie, I need to care about the lead characters and what happens to them. In this waste-pod of a film, I found myself hoping that they would all die in the end. None of the characters are people that you'd ever want to meet, they all made me sick. If not for a few nude scenes, I would have given this wretched movie a 1.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this film at Blockbuster for $3.00, because it sounded interesting (a bit Ranma-esque, with the idea of someone dragging around a skeleton), because there was a cute girl in a mini-skirt on the back, and because there was a Restricted Viewing sticker on it. I thought it was going to be a sweet or at least sincere coming of age story with a weird indie edge. I was 100% wrong.

Having watched it, I have to wonder how it got the restricted sticker, since there is hardly any foul language, little violence, and the closest thing to nudity (Honestly! I don't usually go around hoping for it!) is when the girl is in her nightgown and you see her panties (you see her panties a lot in this movie, because no matter what, she's wearing a miniskirt of some sort). Even the anti-religious humor is tame (and lame, caricatured, insincere, derivative, unoriginal, and worst of all not funny in the slightest--it would be better just to listen to Ray Stevens' \"Would Jesus Wear a Rolex on His Television Show\"). This would barely qualify as PG-13 (it is Not Rated), but Blockbuster refuses to let anyone under the age of 17 rent this--as if it was pornographic. Any little kid could go in there and rent the edited version of Requiem for a Dream, but they insist that Zack and Reba is worse.

It is, but not in that way.

In a way, this worries me--the only thing left that could offend people is the idea of the suicide at the beginning. If anybody needs to see movies with honestly portrayed suicides (not this one, but better ones like The Virgin Suicides), it's teenagers. If both of those movies were rated R purely because of the suicide aspect, then I have little chance of turning a story I've been writing into a PG-13 movie (the main characters are eleven and a half and twelve). Suicide is one of the top three leading causes of death in teenagers (I think it's number 2), so chances are that most teens have been or will be affected by it.

Just say no to this movie, though. 2\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yep, Edward G. gives us a retro view of the criminal defense world. First he's an overzealous prosecutor who sends the wrong man to the chair (played passionately, albeit briefly by DeForrest Kelly), then he's so filled with remorse his only solace is the bottle. Throw in a jaded romance, a genuinely rapid descent into penury and no qualms about who he defends, and next thing you know -- Shazam! Black Leg Lawyer (god I love that phrase). He sees the light just in time to save his jaded beloved from the chair. Yawn.

But really, the courtroom action is pure melodrama. See him punch out a witness, see him drink poison, see him argue passionately as he clutches a bullet hole in his breast. Be prepared for melodrama.

The hoot of the film though, is Jayne Russell. With curves defying the laws of gravity and an IQ approached absolute zero, she is something to see. Even sings a bit.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director Lesley Selander's thoroughly routine outdoor yarn \"The Yellow Tomahawk\" (1954) pits the Cheyenne against the U.S. Cavalry with leathery tough Rory Calhoun in the middle as the seasoned, buckskin-clad Indian scout who has to lead the survivors to safety. This United Artists western was lensed in color but the TV print that Turner Classic Movies aired was inexplicably in black & white.

The action opens with Adam Reed (Rory Calhoun of \"Black Spurs\") eluding several Indians and riding up to palaver with his old friend and Cheyenne chief, Fire Knife (Lee Van Cleef of \"The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly\"), who has killing on his mind. Fire Knife warns Adam that his Cheyenne braves are poised to wipe out a nearby cavalry fort under construction because it violates a treaty that the Indians made with the government. On his way to inform stuck-up camp commandant, Major Ives (Warner Anderson of \"Objective, Burma!\"),about the impending Indian attack, Adam discovers a beautiful wood nymph seductively treading water in a lake. Katherine 'Kate' Bolden (Peggy Castle of \"I, Jury\") is another of those silly women in westerns that bathe nude in the middle of Indian country without a care in the world. Castle appears to be genuinely nude in her bathing scenes, too, perhaps the most memorable scene of all in this otherwise predictable western. Naturally, Major Ives dismisses Adam's warning from Fire Knife until the commander realizes that somebody has raided his ammunition dump far outside the fort. This is one of the many questions that the Richard Alan Simmons' screenplay leaves unanswered in this trim, 82-minute oater. Why would the cavalry bury their ammunition at a secret spot in the desert rather than keep it on the premises in the fort? No sooner have they made this discovery than the Indians attack, knock out of hero, and leave him as the only survivor. Before this attack, a pair of white prospectors rides into the fort. Sawyer (Peter Graves of \"Stalag 17\") brings in his partner with an arrow in his chest. While Adam is getting hot water to help in removing the arrow, the greedy Sawyer grinds the shaft in deeper and kills his helpless partner. Later, we learn that Sawyer and his partner had struck gold. The question of the dispersal of the gold is also left unanswered after our heroes survive the ordeal. Adam and Fire Knife have one final pow-wow and Fire Knife demands that Adam hand over Major Ives or everybody will die. Naturally, Adam refuses and the Indians begin to whittle down the whites. James Best in a supporting role as a cavalryman gets an arrow in the back for his efforts. Noah Beery, Jr., plays a aimable Mexican scout pursued by a sexy Indian damsel appropriately named Honey Bear (Oscar-winning actress Rita Moreno of \"West Side Story\") and Robert Bray of \"Lassie\" fame is on hand briefly as the ill-fated cavalry officer that Kate had planned to marry.

The biggest surprise in this unremarkable western shot on location in Kanab, Utah, is that the evil cavalry officer Ives, who slaughtered Indian men, women, and children at the infamous Sand Creek Massacre, has been keeping a secret that he is a Native American, too! Ironically, the taut bow that Fire Knife gives out of friendship to Adam at the outset of the hostilities is what our heroic scout uses to kill the stalwart Cheyenne warrior after he has run out of bullets. \"The Yellow Tomahawk\" concludes on an ambiguous note. The survivors reach another outpost, Fort Ellis, where Adam and Ives furnish their respective reports about the issue to an army general, but we never learn the outcome of this meeting. Is this artistic ambiguity or yet another unanswered question. Producer Howard W. Koch is no relation to \"Casablanca\" scenarist Howard Koch. Ultimately, \"The Yellow Tomahawk\" is one of many pro-Indian westerns that appeared in the aftermath of \"Broken Arrow\" (1950) where the Native American is viewed as a noble savage unjustly treated by some but not all whites. Selander, who made dozens of westerns during the 1950s and the 1960s, makes this minor western tolerable despite its thin characters and familiar predicament. Calhoun stands out of an above-average cast as the always serviceable leading man, and good looking Castle is worth watching for her feminine charms. Peter Graves plays a skunk as was usual in most of his early roles. Actually, Lesley Selander did a more satisfactory dramatic version of this movie the year before called \"War Paint\" (1953) with Robert Stack. Incidentally, Noah Beery Jr. and Rita Moreno both went on to become regulars on \"The Rockford Files\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I happened to have seen this movie this morning on TCM. Very bad acting, low budget and poor plot are the impressions I felt while watching the movie. The only highlight of the movie was watching tender young Rita Moreno, (23 years old), playing a teenage Indian squaw in love with an older man in his 50's. She reminded me of a earlier version of Sue Lyon as Lolita (1962), only a more innocent Lolita. She bounces up and down like a 1950's teeny bopper, almost as if you would expect her to be chewing gum, falling all over this old man, willing to give him anything, as he plays it off like she's a hindrance to him. Any man in his 50's that had a beautiful, virgin, teenage girl willing to do ANYTHING for him and be his bride, would be insane not to take advantage of her. It's too bad that the censorship board back when this movie was released didn't permit more of an expansion of a character such as Rita Moreno's. The only reason why I gave this movie a 3 instead of a 1 is Rita Moreno's appearance in the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was by far the worst movie I've ever seen. And thats compared to Alexander, Fortress 2 and The new world.

I should go back to blockbuster and ask for my money back along with compensation as it was a truly traumatic experience. For the first ten minutes i was changing the zoom on my widescreen TV because the actors seemed to be out of screen. I didn't think it was possible to make such a bad film in this day and age, i was wrong. While typing this message, I've thought of a good reason to buy this movie. A joke present at Xmas. I'm blaming the Mrs for this one as she picked it, thanks babe.

Be warned.......A true shocker all round!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Right on Colmyster. I totally concur with all your sentiments and add these. I came to my PC especially to post a comment on this dreadful (minus)Bgrade movie. I was going to say that in this day and age I am at a loss to comprehend how anyone could possibly make such a woeful movie - but you beat me to it. Anyone reading this and Colmyster's comment, trust me ---- DON't waste you time and money. It's an absolute shocker. The acting is totally pathetic, the script is way worse, and the (so called) special effects are a joke. Surely no-one actually invested money to make this movie? I really cannot think of anything else to say about this so called horror sci-fi product, but must pad this commentary to make 10 lines of comment in order to have it accepted for submission.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No budget direct to video tale of aliens in Arizona involving the military and escaped convicts.

Not bad as such, rather it suffers from the cast and crew sort of going through the paces instead of trying to sell it. Its as if they knew they were in a grade z movie and want you to know they know. Then again maybe they just couldn't get it together.

A misfire of a grade z movie that could have been something if some one cared--and had skill. Why must low budget filmmakers insist on not actually trying to make a something good instead of just making a product.

2 out of 10 because nothing comes together","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Salena Incident is set in Arizona where six death row inmates are being transfered from the state prison for reasons never explained, while driving along the heavily armed prison bus gets a flat & the driver is forced to pull off the road. Then two blonde birds turn up & after seducing the incompetent prison guards manage to get the better of them, the six prisoners are released but in a shoot-out their getaway car is damaged leaving them all stranded in the middle of the Arizona desert. They decide to head to the nearest town, Salena several miles away & take the cops with them as hostage. Once they reach Salena they find it odd that the place is completely deserted with not one single other person in sight. They soon discover that the entire town has been killed by flesh eating aliens & they are firmly placed on the menu...

Also known as Alien Invasion Arizona in the US on DVD & apparently having the working title Terror Town this rubbishy low budget sci-fi horror flick was co-written, co-produced & directed by Dustin Rikert & has no real redeeming features at all, to be frank The Salena Incident is the sort of film which gives films a bad name. The film could roughly be divided into two parts, the opening forty or fifty odd minutes focuses on the prisoners in a thriller feeling opening, the guards & the escape although it's pretty poorly written & staged stuff. The dialogue between the two blonde birds & the prison guards is so bad it's unintentionally funny as the two fit birds chat up the two not so fit prison guards. Funny stuff actually, unfortunately The Salena Incident is supposed to be a sci-fi horror film not a comedy. Then once the escaped cons & their prison guard hostages arrive at Salena it goes into sci-fi horror mode as the aliens turn up & start killing our clich\u00e9d character's off which is good because they are annoying. Look, the whole film sucks as it's badly written, thought out & made. I can't really be bothered to go into why but trust me The Salena Incident is awful on every level.

As well as being just a bad, boring & stupid film The Salena Incident is also poorly made. The action set-piece scenes are awful, the aliens looks terrible & are never shown on screen at the same time as the human character's & as such it's sometimes difficult to tell what's happening. The special effects are poor too, the aliens look rubbish & the CGI computer effects are absolutely terrible as well. The editing is poor, the cinematography is poor, the sets are cheap & the whole thing is just an eyesore really. There's a bit of gore, there's some gunshot wounds, someone is ripped in half & a severed hand is seen.

Obviously shot on a low budget The Salena Incident has low production values & looks cheap from start to finish. Filmed in Superior in Arizona. The acting is terrible from no-one I have ever heard of although the actress who plays the female doctor is pretty good looking.

The Salena Incident is a rubbish sci-fi horror film that is terrible in just about every way, not worth 90 minutes of yours, mine or anyone else's time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I was still 5 I might find it scary. It is (I guess) a low budget film. The acting is not good, but could be worse - the filming and special effect is awful. The story line is thin and not worth to dwell on. Too much time is used on boring shouting scenes. The chases or fight with aliens, remind me of kids fighting with scary masks on. Some gore with blood and body parts - would scare a 5 year old kid I guess. Apparently scare the crap out of some of the persons in the film.

It is far from reaching anything like the film Tremors.

This turns out to be an \"incident\" and we see alien ships nearby earth. It make you wonder if any will make a sequel...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Salena Incident is by far the director, Dustin Rikert's, best film --- which isn't saying much. In his past films (and I use the term \"films\" loosely), the director takes ideas from Hollywood blockbusters and severely marginalizes them. The Salena Incident is no different. The movie is basically Con Air meets Aliens done with the semblance of your average film school production. The film is riddled with out-of-focus shots and plagued by special effects that would have trouble rivaling most high school computer animation classes. For example almost every on-screen explosion is the same fire effect matted over the screen.

The weak effects and production value are only compromised by a flawed plot and rocky dialogue. In a sentence, the story strings together like an exposition of overused Hollywood clich\u00e9s. The movie begins with the worst CGI Alien ship ever made crashing into the worst CGI earth ever made and a team of army somethings going down to investigate. Next a bus of prison transports, carrying the worst of the worst from across the state, is overthrown by the prisoners with the help of their blonde girlfriends armed with silicon implants. The prisoners escape and run into the town of Salena where they encounter the aliens who... SHOCK... have escaped from an alien prison transport carrying the worst of the worst from across the galaxy. The prisoners, and their captive police armed with only guns and sad puns have to fight off the aliens and escape the town before the International Space Alliance *rolls eyes* bombs the city into oblivion.

The only real enjoyable parts of the movie are when the actors (who are clearly undermined by the script) are given the freedom to improvise and also when they fight off the smaller of the alien creatures in a flurry of gun fire. Other than that, the movie really isn't worth anyone's time let alone the plastic that the DVD is made out of. How awful was it? Let's just say the Secretary of Defense is about 90 years old, works in a room that is about as high tech 1950's real estate office and is wearing a Looney Tunes tie. Yes, if that wasn't clear enough before, THE MAN IN CHARGE OF THE PENTAGON IS WEARING A TIE WITH BUGS BUNNY AND THE ROAD RUNNER ON IT. The movie basically culminates (HAHAHahhaaa did I say culminates...) with the last remaining soldier running into the group of prisoners and guards and the new formed team fighting their way away from the vicious aliens --- which for some strange reason leads them straight back to the Alien ship? yeah...

The movie has heart but is riddled with horrible direction and even worse camera work. Someone seriously needed to slap the DP and tell him there is more to cinematography than repetitive, stagnant, chest-level shots. This movie really isn't worth renting (if it ever makes it that far) being that it's not as horribly bad as the last films made by the director which reduces the laugh-ability, but it's nowhere near watchable cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"During the summer, the cue line for this attraction is really long, since it is a water ride. It's very well-themed, but a lot of the ride's artifacts seem to be out of order. Overall, the ride is not worth it if you have to wait for almost 2 hrs. in line. The drop at the end is exciting, but the whole ride itself could have been better. Creators for Indiana Jones could have prob. helped these Hollywood designers. Also, many times the ride breaks down and causes even longer waiting periods for others. It's also very unpleasing when they only have one raft departing dock open and not the two, like they are supposed to. During Halloween Horror Nights, you ride in the dark, and it's exciting if it's your first time, but if it's not, then don't bother waiting in a four-hour line.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When i saw the first octopus movie it was a laugh see the cheesy acting and appalling effects. This film seemed to make up for the acting, but not the special effects. After Jaws and Piranha, sure, why not make a film about a killer octopus? The octopus invades the New York waters, where 2 police investigators try stopping the rampaging beast before the 4th of July.

A pretty clean plot and descent happenings but the octopus was pretty much appalling, its nice to see they actually made it this time but it looked like a piece of plastic... Better on a big budget really, this film could have been a good watch. There's a continuous amount of errors where it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't research the way octopus live...

Watch this if you like cheap DVD sequels, otherwise your better watching Jaws.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hated the first movie is really boring and we only get see the Octopus at the end.

The plot Dead bodies are being found in the New York harbor. The police have no clues nor suspects until Nick and his colleague realize the killer is a giant octopus. Everybody, especially the police captain, refuses to believe Nick's story, and soon the harbor will be filled with boats for the 4th of July celebrations...

In this movie we get to see more of the Giant Octopus and Special effects for this movie are really good for it's time.

The acting is this movie not bad but not great too but okay and watch able.

The are some really cheese scenes to movie but if can get past that, You should enjoy the rest of movie.

5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the sequel to Octopus.

Pff... OK. A lot of stock footage, but pretty good. I'm surprised that they actually had a giant robot octopus that actually didn't look that bad! I was actually quite surprised by that.

The movie overall was just OK fun. It never explained how the octopus got so big, and isn't linked it anyway to the first. But it was still fun.

The ending me and my friend laughed at. Basically, after blowing the octopus up once, the two main characters launch a bomb, and five explosions, most stock footage, appear on screen! We joked that they went to the dollar store and bought a 'five missiles in one' toy! Believe me, it has to be seen to believe! Overall just stupid fun. Worth giving a chance, buying if it's cheap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd have to say that I've seen worse Sci Fi Channel originals, but this Nu Image shonker from Yossi Wein was still quite a drag. The big problem with it is that it simply isn't convincing, not just its creature, but acting, writing and any attempts at drama. The direction lacks any kind of flair and the script from Boaz Davidson and Danny Lerner never really works, predictable, often laughable, whilst it delivers less howlers than a fair few of these sorts of films it never offers anything to engage or raise the pulse. The actors do their best, but with such material their workmanlike efforts have little effect. Matthew Reilly Burke is a blandly watchable hero, Meredith Morton similar as a blandly watchable love interest. Actually she was a bit less convincing but at least she was easy on the eyes. The film at least has the dignity to bowl along at a reasonable pace, but its biggest plus is that the octopus isn't entirely CGI rendered. So even though it doesn't look good, at least there are a few legit scenes of characters inanely grappling with rubbery tentacles in pretty amusing fashion. I also chuckled at the disparities between different representations of the octopus, the cgi shots of the creature as a whole vary over the course of the film, they are also different not only in size but appearance to the practical shots of it, and there are scenes where the tentacle action suggests that the makers had abandoned pretending they were making a film about an octopus and just envisioned their creature as a bunch of miscellaneous tentacles. The scenes of the creature attacking people get old pretty swiftly, but there are a few funny scenes where it takes on other things, like a boat and a crane. Yes, these scenes are poor, but they did make me chuckle. Undisputable highlight though is a hilarious sequence in which the octopus takes on a New York landmark, the scene may not be much more than a minute but it really is inspired, and well worth looking up on youtube. Apart from that things are uninspired all round, (a PG level lack of gore or nastiness stops this one from even pulling off much in the trash good times) the film does take a turn into semi gripping disaster movie territory at the end, but I can't really give it credit because the best shots in the last few scenes were culled from the Stallone flick Daylight (which by my recollection is quite good). Altogether this was pretty rubbishy stuff and not something I'd really recommend to anyone except creature feature die hards. Better than a poke in the eye with a wet stick, but not by much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Greetings, Moviegoers! As I watch Octopus II, I contemplate the inherent lameness of the Octopus\/Croc\/Dino Horror Genre. Many moviegoers may blame the poor acting, nonsensical screenplay, or poorly constructed plot as the reasons that cause the OCD movie to flounder. These reasons may indeed be floundering factors, but it is the inherent difficulty of filming an OCD movie that is at the heart of the lameness.

You see, the technology does not yet exist to make a realistic, life-size OCD and the CGI technology currently used by studios lacks the ability to blend in smoothly with real world environments and characters. Even with clever cinematography, you can only film the semi-dark depths of the sea\/semi-dark forest\/semi-dark cave\/semi-dark corridor so many times before the Sci-Fi aficionado becomes bored with the genre entirely (the OCD sub-genre, that is).

What can be done, you ask? I wouldn't suggest that the genre surrender to cheesiness, but another avenue needs to be explored. We can't really go back to the days of the \"Fade-to-Black\" cue that someone has been killed. Or can we? If we can't reach the goal of realism, we have to compensate in other ways, such as plot twists, innuendo, and photo-ingenuity.

It will be through ingenious and alternate methods that the disease of lameness, so common to the OCD sub-genre, will be cured.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I purchased this film on DVD for \u00a34, but it was a waste, the film is very bad. The plot is your average monster film, where it kills a few people, the mayor\/chief doesn't believe it, and they fight it at the end.

On the plus side, the film quality is very good, and the setting of New York is impressive for a budget film - as opposed to a small coastal town. The acting is reasonable too.

However, the special effects, mainstage in a monster film, are laughable and the addition of a random bus load of kids to the plot half way through just gets weird. The ending is just bad.

In summary, whenever you have a chance to see this, don't - there WILL be something better on.

R-T-C \"True horror films don't have a PG rating\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A flesh-eating octopus, where does that guy Boaz(what the..?) Davidson keep getting inspiration? Anyway,even for the low,low standards of both the giant sea animal who kills people-genre and me,this one is just beyond awful.The octopus is one of the lamest,laziest,weakest monsters I've ever seen.I think he just ended up in the (ahum)East River because Sea World got sick of him.The actors can be seen repeatedly helping the octopus choking them.Bunch of idiots,that way he'll never learn!You guys want all the other giant killer octopuses(that's the correct plural,by the way)to laugh at him?Meanies.

Up to stop the octopus are wind,razors that are hard to handle and also special sea agent Nick Hartfield and his partner,who will retire in a week but first has to be eaten by the octopus.Hooray,octopus won the fight!A couple more and he's going to evolve(the scars in my mind stay).Nick of course tries to help him by not doing a damn thing(doesn't he have a gun or something?)but no,that magically doesn't help either.

Okay,enter sea cop's love interest Rachel Starbird.Is this based on some comic book or something?Anyway,together they try to stop the octopus by walking in the park.They hope this helps,cos it's the 4th of July in a couple of days,and the octopus might join the party.And you don't know what he's like when he's drunk.Rachel then gets a school bus from out of nowhere to make sure this movie won't end while Nick feeds the octopus some more sea cops.

But all's crappy that ends crappy,Nick manages to blow the octopus to bits a couple of times,and a bunch of children who happened to be there cheer and laugh.You know,on tummy-vision,this would probably get an R.In real life,I'd say all ages but I kinda like all ages so my final idea is:Suitable for absolutely nobody.There's no sex,no gore,no nothing.Now forget this movie ever existed.Join the club.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just finished watching this one after getting sick of getting ready for the Michigan Bar Exam. I wanted something that was mindless and that I could just sit back and say, \"what the hell were they thinking?\" I was not disappointed in this undertaking, but had I been watching this one in a serious mood, I would have been irate. The company that made this thing just spliced CGI footage from the first Octopus and added a little footage with a fake octopus that makes the one used in \"Bride of the Monster\" look like a masterpiece of special effect footage. Since when does an octopus have fangs? The plot is that an NYPD diver is investigating some murders\/disappearances on the Hudson River shortly before the Fourth of July. He and his partner (who is soon to be transferred, or soon to be munched on by a fig bucking octopus) investigate in a rather inept manner (all the while believing that a huge octopus will kill people) and are occasionally accompanied by a female lackey from the Mayor's office. Of course on one believes that an octopus can get that big until the thing attacks the cop and the girl from the mayor's office. Surprisingly, all hell doesn't break loose and only a few cops and a few more civilians are killed.

Really lame. Don't bother with it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh wow, the character shares my name first name! Nick! This movie as bad as the first one, if not worse. Well, at least there's an actual octopus in this movie. An actual octopus that makes a better appearance in this film. By better, I mean, \"Longer\" the acting is pretty dry and it's hard to sit through. Just to let you know, when this ninety minute film ends not only are you freed from your couch but you get your ability to breathe back. Not only that, but you realise how stupid you are and then commit suicide, realising how horrible life is after watching this film. Really, it shows how desperate horror movies are today, more crap like this is being realised and where the hell have the real masters of horror been lately? This film should have been the final straw, so we can bring back cinematic geniuses in horror cinema, that could make some actually GOOD modern horror films, this movie bites.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As if the world hadn't already got enough cheap Jaws imitations, writer Boaz Davidson decided to make the sequel to his ropey-but-reasonably-enjoyable creature-feature Octopus a complete rip-off of Spielberg's classic, right down to having a concerned cop who no-one believes, and a mayor more worried about his 4th July celebrations than people's lives.

Even in the hands of an extremely skilled director, it is unlikely that this derivative rubbish could have been anything other than hokey B-movie garbage, but with Yossi Wein (yes THE Yossi Wein!) calling the shots behind the camera, a man with a fraction of Mr.Spielberg's talent (I estimate about 1\/10000th), Octopus 2 is guaranteed to be every bit as bad as one might imagine!

The predictable and extremely clich\u00e9d plot isn't worth describing in much detail (substitute Jaws' Amity Island with New York, and Bruce the Shark with a giant rubber octopus and you'll get the gist), although several points about the film are definitely worth mentioning, simply because they are so funny: all of the octopus attacks involve the actors struggling to make incredibly fake-looking giant tentacles look real, which is hilarious to behold; Bulgaria's capital, Sofia, unconvincingly stands in for New York, and overuse of stock footage makes the illusion even less convincing; best of all, a silly dream sequence that sees the rubber octopus attacking our hero atop the Statue of Liberty, is not only gut-bustingly stupid but also features some truly dreadful special effects.

Davidson's script also doesn't know when to quit: there are several points in this film at which it could've (and probably should've) ended, but the action goes on and on, with the octopus surviving several explosions, and causing a tunnel to collapse (trapping the film's love interest and a bunch of kids), before finally being blown to smithereens by the hero.

Sometimes very silly, always awful technically, but never actually scary, this STV stinker may find fans amongst those who actively seek out cinematic trash. Most normal people, however, would be advised to steer well clear.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Since I am required to write minimum of 10 lines, and this garbage deserves not only a single one, I'll start with the following: 1. I voted AWFUL for this dreadful so called \"movie\".

2. Let me explain why these turkeys Mr. David Varod produces are shot mainly in my beautiful homeland, Bulgaria (just in BTW, for the illiterate people around - this country is IN EUROPE, based north to Greece and has absolutely nothing to do with Mexico and Uruguay) Some years ago, NU Image has invaded our country and started making crappy mostly direct-to-video releases. Why here? Because here they pay derisively low fees to the Bulgarian crew and to the Bulgarian actors (most of them distinguished ones) which are, in many ways, better than most of their American colleagues. Personally I am ashamed of that fact. The reason is, of course, the greediness of the Americans involved and their wish to get most, if not all of the profit. Actually it would't be so bad if only the production wasn't so filthy and pale. There hasn't been a good picture shot here for years. At present NU image is being sued here over the very questionably purchasing of our national cinema production centre called Boyana Films. No doubt about it there has been corruption, there has been deceit, there has been a lies in this recent purchase. The Bulgarian cinema is dead. Long live the Bulgarian cinema!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If Daphne Du Maurier had set REBECCA in 1950s San Francisco, it might very well resemble this uptight, highly unusual noir from Robert Wise. Valentina Cortese plays a concentration camp survivor who steals the identity of a dead woman and insinuates herself into the life of Richard Basehart (who happens also to be the guardian of the dead woman's son)...it's absurd and over-the-top but also topflight entertainment. Cortese is terrific, slowly falling apart as she realizes the mistake she's made. Basehart is fine if a bit bland...although the lighting toward the end makes him appear very menacing. Fay Baker makes a very good Mrs. Danvers-like caretaker. Wise is a fine director and he keeps things moving at a pretty brisk clip. He also stages a now classic out of control car crash with Cortese (or at least a stunt Cortese) at the wheel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Has some really good music and performances; Kid Creole and the Coconuts, James White and the Blacks, DNA, Tuxedo Moon, the Plastics, Melle Mel, Vincent Gallo, Lydia Lunch...etc, but aside from this there isn't much more to it. The dialog, especially the narration(by Saul Williams), is actually pretty good, but the performances are all pretty bland or outright bad, no matter how many hipsters are thrown in; Debbie Harry and Jean Micheal Basquit(the latter being the leading role) both still don't have enough cultural cred to keep this film from being a novelty item. It goes for the a Jack Kerouac style roving spontaneity, but doesn't have the insight to keep it moving along, which is where the band performances come in. I guess its pretty balanced in that regard between great music and bad acting, and I did enjoy it, but I just expected more. Though it does have a fairy tale ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nothing but the void, a pleasant one for those who have known the eighties, but well, quite boring for those who are not interested in it. NO screenplay in this film, but a hero wandering in an underground New York full of arstists and night clubbers. It is aimless, pointless and naive. But not entirely unpleasant.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only redeeming quality of this film is that it shows bands and their music when it was changing in NY during '81. As for the film itself it has at least three major flaws. First of all, there is narration throughout the film, which is not required at all. In the few places where there is some explanation necessary just adding a little dialogue would have gone a long way. Secondly, there was no obvious attempt to synchronize any of the audio, in fact it is quite apparent that most of the dialogue was recorded later with no attempt to match the film. The third flaw was in the ending. I will not give the ending away for those brave souls that would endure the torture of sitting through the film, but it commits a cardinal sin in screenwriting. Not worth the money or time it takes to see this, unless you are a fan of one of the represented bands.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Richard Donner shows off his liberal credentials with this ludicrously overcooked simplistic attack on the politics of South Africa.It's not as if America is the cradle of racial harmony and brotherly love - and further irony is added by the fact that the movie is set in the city that was the home of Rodney King and glorifies the Police Department that did so much towards community relations with their brutal racist behaviour. So Donner's salt and pepper pairing who clearly have a late = developing teenage crush on one another do their own thing with fine disregard for the rule of law or the rules of evidence and no one worries because the bad guys are white South Africans - surely a worrying example of police racism in itself? Inside Rudd's (Joss Ackland - eminently hissable) office the decor is designed and lit to resemble as far as possible the Fuhrerbunker and just in case some rather dumb moviegoers miss the point,he and his men are referred to as \"nazis\" at regular intervals. For me the only bright spot in the movie was when Mel Gibson turned up at an anti - apartheid demonstration carrying a banner bearing the inscription \"End Aparthied Now\". The intensely irritating Joe Pesci is introduced into the franchise to take some of the weight off the boys' shoulders by following them around yapping incessantly like a badly-trained puppy.This would be bearable if there was the remotest possibility of him ending up in a concrete overcoat,but sadly he survives to irritate another day. Miss Patsy Kensit seems in a world of her own,perhaps not believing her luck at being cast opposite Mel Gibson who has little trouble sweeping her into bed in his mobile home which appears to have been washed up on a beach somewhere.Shortly after consummating their affair they come under fire from a number of helicopters that fire enough rounds into Mel's caravan to keep the U.S. Army in Iraq going for six months. Fortunately he has a pet dog who is not afraid to cause coitus interruptus just as they are going for seconds and his barking warns them of the imminent attack.I hope he got a special bone as a reward. The film climaxes(without interruption from Mel's dog) on a cargo ship bound for Nazi Germany (sorry,South Africa),when Mel and Danny murder so many members of the master race that I lost count.Despite jiggling around like Bonnie and Clyde under the impact of a hail of bullets,Mel survives,curled up in his partner's arms like a small child with a wise and benevolent father.Take that,Apartheid!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Riggs and Murtough are back but the magic of the first film has disintegrated. The story line is just awful! I mean really, South African diplomats smuggling the mythical Krugerrands into the U.S. It's just painful! And the accents are absolutely abysmal! Can no one get an Afrikaans South African accent right? Or will we forever hear the British or Americans making them sound like drunken Hollanders? The only guy who got the Afrikaans accent right was Tim Robbins in Catch A Fire. Another thing about this movie that i disliked was when Danny Glover so artlessly describes an Afrikaans accent as being shitty! I mean what a slap in the face to the Afrikaans. There's also enough hypocrisy in this film to make me vomit. I mean Mel Gibson's character is like so against the diplomats but then sleeps with their P.A. type! Don't waste your time watching this rubbish non-researched film. If you want to see a film that doesn't completely insult a cultural group then rent Die Hard 2.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Spoilers!!

I hate this one, but it is better than the others after this, they just keep getting worse. I hope Gibson has the smarts to stay out of the next one. A lot of the same with humor, ie the toilet, kids, etc. How much farther can we watch their relationship evolve. Drugs, bad guys why South Africa! I found that unbelievable, maybe South American, some country in the Golden Triangle would have made the script better. It seems the late 80' early 90's had the blond bad guys ie Die Hard, the mighty Ducks play Ice Land Gary Busey in the last Weapon, etc. Hollywood repeats itself over. This one with a similar story has to go over the top. The attacking the police, the beach condo scene, and the fight at the end, and way over the top Gibson's girlfriend killed by the copper attack were too much. Like many part 2's, they get worse, and 3 or 4 in this series picks up speed downhill. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This television show, is a idiotic waste of time if you want to learn

about animals watch the discovery channel. If you want to watch

nincompoops on television just watch MTV. MTV stands for music television

not nitwit D-listers preforming retarded skits or bratty kids crying

their hearts out for not getting a BMW for there 16th birthday. I bet

that if you like this show I bet you love viva la Bam, and jackass huh? I think my IQ dropped ten points watching this show.

This is a combination of two shows jackass and the animal planet

Some people think this is a good combination.

I on the other hand think it is retardant.

And if you notice its a lot like jackass

and viva la Bam

just a note, this show is horrible","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me start by saying you know a film is poorly run when extras make the cover. With that said, anyone who says this is the worst film ever is being dramatic, and anyone who says that the film is great is completely delusional. The film \"is what it is.\" And what is that... A modest budget ($4 million, I estimate) studio sequel. The film isn't terrible, but for Road House fans it will be a disappointment. And that brings me to problem one, just as Dirty Dancing wouldn't been what it was without Swayze, Road House isn't the same without him. The lead lacks depth, character, and likability to carry the film. I feel that the lead was poorly cast and the producers should have bent over backwards to get Patrick to do it if they were gonna do a sequel. The other cast was uneven with outstanding actors like Will Patton along side day players who couldn't act there way out of a paper bag. Busey, who I have seen do great characters seemed like he just mailed it in. Ellen was played well, except for not being believable at all as a bayou raised chick. Sherri, the DEA agent at the first bar was hot and a good actress, yet her part was awkwardly small and undeveloped. The writer totally missed all opportunities to add depth and interest to the story and characters. Instead opting for a base one dimensional film. Which leads me to the biggest problem, the script... I got a bad feeling when the credits rolled and there were three script writers separated by an \"and\" and an \"&.\" It looked very amateur. And that is what the writing was. I heard the original script was better and then a rewrite was done and the hard core sucking began. Some cheezy parts of the film to watch for are... During the first undercover meeting, the obvious drug deal under the table. \"Hey lets meet at a crowded nudey bar, I will pull a block of coke out of my jacket and you pull cash out then we will slide them under the cocktail table\" WAIT! \"Make sure to look cool when you look left and right to make sure no one is looking!\" Second, I love it when someone gets shot in the chest and then you see him sitting up happy as a lark 10 minutes later. There are some nasty editing cuts towards the end of the film especially during fight scenes and when the main character is chasing thru doors and runs into a patron. Which brings me to the realism of the DEA training, I won't both to get technical... But jumping thru doors isn't standard training... Nor do typical female agents, who bust their butts to make it in a male oriented field, act like weak characters... Boring! Thanks for the chauvinistic view Heir Director. There is other stuff I could teach a course at a school about it... The sped up fighting, the cheezy dialogue, the recycled story... etc... But aside from all that you just cannot like ex-Mr. Applegate, he totally lacks the humble zen coolness that made Mr. Patrick Swayze such a bad ass. He just strikes me as one of those 5 foot nothing actors who think they are a bad ass, but just like Van Damnit he runs into a real bad ass (Chuck Zito in Van Don't case) and he gives him a lesson about \"badassdom.\" Therefore, that I feel is the major linchpin of the film, if you are a bad ass you are a bad ass, you don't have to try. Example: Swayze! If you are a pretty boy who tries to hard to prove you are a bad ass among other things... Then well... You are why your audience, the Average Joe... Will not rent this film, and if they do they will write reviews like this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The original Road House was a classic cheesy 80s movie, which although it didn't have anywhere near award worthy writing or acting, was a very enjoyable and popular film, largely due to the presence of star Patrick Swayze and the great supporting cast, along with some excellent fight scenes and eye candy.

16 years later, and MGM \/ Sony attempts to re-create the magic which left us all quoting one liners and reciting the three rules of bouncing... with a movie which quotes all the original's best one liners and recites the three rules.

Were this an amateur fan made film, it would be seen as a loving homage to one of the most popular of Swayze's movies. As a professionally made film, it falls flat on it's face right into the DVD Bargin Bin, with its continual reuse of lines and plot from the original movie becoming more of an annoying sign of lack of originality rather than cool references to the original.

Having said that, with new lines such as \"I'm gonna kill you just like I killed your father\" no wonder the screenwriters decided to rehash much of the original script.

I knew this was never going to be anything special, being a Straight to DVD Sequel, but I had at least hoped that there might be a couple of new ideas and fresh things included to live up to the Road House name, but what you get is simply just a 2006 remake of the same film, with a little narcotics added in.

Were I the director, I'd have removed all references to the first film so as not to tarnish the original and it's characters. As it is, we got Patrick Swayze's character now supposed to be dead (killed off screen in a lame way by Jake Busey) and his brother and son now the main characters, who strangely enough have completely different surnames.

My favourite part was that Dalton's 'son' drove the same car his father did, a genuinely cool homage, although it was later ruined by having the car meet its end EXACTLY the same way as its predecessor did. That's a good example of how this film goes too far in including sequences and ideas from the '89 movie.

Also of course who can forget the legendary moment where Wild Bill promises to kill Shane \"just like I killed your father\" and then proceeds to attempt to dispatch him in a completely different manner. Amazing writing there. I see Schaech is listed as co-screenwriter. Stick to acting, or preferably, nothing.

Overall though, this is an OK film if there's nothing else to watch and you want to turn your brain off for an hour and a half, or if you haven't seen the first Road House, but hardcore fans of Swayze's classic will be totally disappointed almost to the point of feeling insulting at how much of a rip off this movie is of the first. As someone once suggested as an alternative subtitle for this film, \"Even Jeff Healy is glad he won't be seeing this one!\" Stick to the original Road House and relive the good old Swayze days!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I had never seen the first Road House, then I guess this movie might get one more star, but even then that makes it a 3 star movie. For that matter I was really surprised as to the relatively high rating it currently has.

In reality, I was not able to finish this movie, as it was painful. Where it went wrong (at least the most obvious way) is that it pretty much parallels the original exactly even though the original plot is still referenced. This doesn't really make sense and doesn't work. Also, the acting is weak...I never felt like I was into the movie yet I felt like I was watching people act. Even good actors like Busey don't work out, probably due to the screenplay or maybe the awkward editing. The strangest thing is that the movie feels like a mid 90's B movie, yet is made in 06. I am not sure as to why, but then again, this often seems to happen with sequels for some reason. The music, the look, and the whole overall feel reminds me of movies you saw 10 years ago on Cinemax late at night. The strangest thing of all is that I am also expecting Ja Rule to come in at some point...often it reminds me of more current movies with rappers as actors.

The most irritating thing is love interest girl who's character seems like a total rip off of the Lois Lane character on Smallville which is also quite annoying. And lets not forget the fakest sounding \"southern accents\" I have heard since Walk the Line. I realize this is common place in movies, but no accent at all would work better than attempting to sound like you are from that universal hick place on TV where anyone from any southern state (or KY and WV) sound exactly the same. Sure, people in desert towns in AZ sound just like people in Southeastern states 2000+ miles away. That was wearing thin 10 years ago in the B movies where technique came from. Why do writers \/ directors make such decisions?

Bottom line: I would truly not recommend this if you are a fan of Road House or if you like good movies. Also, if you have not seen it yet, don't spoil it by seeing this version first. The original Road House was one of those accidental classics that people love and watch over and over. It was an unexpected success like American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused, and more recently Office Space, Fast and Furious (only the first one!), and Napolean Dynamite. Why did they spoil it!!!???

They should have never made a sequel to Road House other than a high budget version with the right actors \/ director. Sure, you can never top the original (ex: Bad News Bears, The Longest Yard, etc.), but at least if you can do it right it will be presentable as is the case with the examples I mentioned. But to make a low budget, off-network, self production of Road House is criminal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The original Road House is by no means an award winning film. But it is one of the great guilty pleasures of all time. It shouldn't have been that hard to make a sequel. There's no need for a big budget, big name stars, and spectacular visual effects. Even the story didn't have to be original. All it needed was a good time vibe, and some great fist fights. I don't mean Matrix-style \"wire-fu\", just some well choreographed barroom brawls. Lots of them. There are a couple of decent fights in the movie, but none of them are memorable, and the focus is more on gun play. Plus, the way it ties in to the original film is laughable, bordering on insulting. Johnathon Schaech plays Shane Tanner, an undercover DEA agent who is good with his hands and feet. But here's the kicker...he's the son of Patrick Swayze's character Dalton!!!! Say what????? Let's see, the original Road House was made in 1989. So for Dalton to have a son in his late 20's (maybe even 30) in 2006...well you get the idea. They give it a cheesy explanation that he lived with his uncle Nate (Will Patton) while his father \"travelled around a lot\". Oh please. That itself almost warranted shutting this movie off. But I digress. Schaech is completely out of his element. Sure he can throw a couple of kicks, but he's got nothing going on as an actor. Plus, he's referred to in the movie by the bad guys as \"pretty boy\". I've never scrutinized men that closely, but I don't think this guy is too good looking. He looks sick. His face is way too thin, and his sunken eyes make it look like he's going to pass out at any moment. I'd never heard of him before, but I think he should give up acting and go back to his day job. Jake Busey plays the local drug runner Wild Bill. Busey is not a terrible actor. He was good in Starship Troopers, and even made a menacing villain in Hitcher 2. But here, he just chews the scenery in standard bad guy mode. Even his \"threating\" dialog is yawn worthy. We're supposed to buy him as the man that has the whole town in his pocket. But why? What does he do? Because he wants to buy a bar from Patton \"by any means necessary\"? Ellen Hollman has the token girlfriend role. A woman with a secret. Too bad that secret is about as difficult to figure out as 2+2. She's the local elementary school teacher who happens to be a former Army soldier. Guess what that means? It means that while she may quiver with fear for the majority of the movie, she'll be ready to smash heads when the fur starts to fly. Oh well, at least she's hot. Actually the fight between her and Wild Bill's girl is the best one in the movie. It's fast, brutal, and entertaining. Which leads me to my next problem with the movie...the fights. As I said Schaech knows how to throw a punch. The same can't be said for anyone he faces in the movie. Obviously the movie will all come down to Schaech versus Busey. Busey is an actor, not a fighter. He doesn't possess the skills to pull of a movie fight. Swayze may have been a trained dancer, but his athletic ability gave him the means to pull off well choreographed fights. He also faced a couple of worthy opponents, and had one killer (literally) move. None of that here. With a couple of exceptions, the fights are forced, poorly staged, and routine. The punches sound like someone smacking a 2X4 on the concrete, and there's even a couple of parts where the sound doesn't even match up to the punch. It's embarrassing. There isn't even the good southern\/redneck music of the original. Road House had the Jeff Healy Band, who were a somewhat popular band at the time. This movie features a singer called John Otto, whose music is tepid, and his acting even worse. He's given one line in the movie, which was probably inserted to appease whatever fans he may have out there. Either that, or someone owed him a favor. My final complaint about the movie is one that comes out of just being picky...the continuity. Movies are shot out of sequence, and then it's the editor's job to piece it all together. Well someone should give the editor of this movie a little shove. The problems range from little things like people not looking the same direction when a shot changes, to RE-USED footage at the end of the movie. In the beginning, we are introduced to the bar, The Black Pellican. As the camera moves through the bar, you see the band, the bouncers, and the people dancing. At the end of the movie, when the bad guys have been defeated, we get another shot of the same bar, with insert shots of our hero sitting at the bar with his girl. The problem is, the footage of the people in the bar is the SAME footage from the beginning of the movie!!! I kid you not. It's the same people, standing (or dancing) in the same places, wearing the same clothes. Want to know the funniest part? You see bouncers in the shot that were KILLED earlier in the movie. Do yourself a favor, don't watch this movie unless YOU feel the need to go out and punch someone. This movie will make you angry enough to do it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I happened to see a promo for this movie on Spike channel last night, it was grouped with a Patrick swazy rerun of another movie he made and thought swazy was in this sequel.....boy was I wrong....I see the screen writer also starred in it, and I'm thinking the budget was a bit tight. I am surprised to see Will Patton in the film he has far better credits to his name to be playing in a \"c\" movie like this. Bussey jr was trying so hard to portray the image of his father(one of the best bad guy actors ever) that failed miserably the only redeeming qualities in the movie was the chicks,,,,,good looking and with lots of T&A just not worth the time or your hard earned dollar to rent it","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man stop making sequels to great movies. The original was a great movie that was over the top with fights,sex,and one of the coolest characters that graced the screen in the 90's. The story is believable as if your been to bars in the outs of the south you would know. But here comes this piece of junk Roadhouse 2 Last Call. Lets just hope they are serious with the title and never make another Roadhouse ever again.It doesn't have the charm of the characters of the original nor is the story really believable. The Story is more of a Steven Segal type action that even though Roadhouse 2 is a B movie it still doesn't click as some B movie action still sales the movie no matter how cheesy it is. The only reason to rent not buy this movie is that we finally find out the one question is left from the original Roadhouse. Patrick Swayze's character Dalton, is Dalton his first name or last name? Well I'll save you the $4.00 rental fee. Dalton is his first name as in Dalton Tanner. NEVER MAKE ANOTHER ROADHOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie is a pile of rubbish , and to try and base it the first is just a farce , the main thing that let it down for me was the usage of the one liners out of the first one , which once said by classic actors such as Sam Elliot can not be reproduced in any way , i mean when Dalton phones wade in the 1st , and he ends the call with stay cool that was great , but when the chump rings the DEA agent back home and he ends the call with stay cool it doesn't have the same ring now really does it , there are other ones but I cant be bothered to post em up , but I hope u get my drift ,they should of named this roadhouse wannabe ..........","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well let's be fair. Following up a cult classic like Road House is no easy task. Now subtract Swayze from the equation and you get a monumental task. So with Patrick not on board whose bonehead idea was it to proceed anyway and make this piece of garbage? I am going to blame the director who didn't even provide 5 minutes of decent footage throughout the entire film. I was actually shocked they got Will Patton (Armaggedon) to jump on board. Johnathon Schaech did an OK job with the lead but the writing was atrocious. Turning down his partner brunette bombshell (Crystal Mantecon) in the film's first 5 minutes made me want to eject it right there. But I stuck with the film hoping to catch a glimpse of that great cheesy humor that worked so well with the Double Duece. No such luck. The cover of the DVD is hilarious, they show these two stacked blondes who make one 10 second appearance in the film. Costar Ellen Hollman actually puts in a decent performance as well. But again the effort is futile in a piece of garbage and disgrace such as this. Has Jake Busey ever been cast in a decent film? Could they not pull at least a few actors in from the first film for some kind of nostalgia treatment? Even one of the old bouncers or two, or Jeff Healey for a performance would have been nice. Take this film out of your Queue immediately. -LostFlix","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Direct-to-video\" is a phrase that never sounds promising to the consumer unless its a direct-to-video sequel to something that went direct-to-video in the first place. Despite this, studios have insisted on releasing numerous direct-to-video sequels over the years to cult hits. I don't think it even needs to be mentioned that these sequels rank among some of the worst titles of all time, including THE HITCHER II, STARSHIP TROOPERS 2, and CRUEL INTENTIONS 3. It's fitting that ROAD HOUSE 2 was helmed by Scott Ziehl as he was also the man in charge of ruining the Cruel Intentions series. Like his entry in the Cruel Intentions trilogy, Ziehl takes elements that made the first ROAD HOUSE a great guy flick, and rehashes them with no success whatsoever. This is no sequel, this is a remake all the way. Various lines from the original are repeated, plot points cut and pasted, and scenes are replicated almost shot-for-shot from the first one. The one thing that could not be duplicated were the amazing fight scenes, which made ROAD HOUSE what it was. Here, we get clumsily directed fight sequences that are either too short or too long and seemingly planned out and shot within an hour. Compare that with its predecessor's fight scenes that look like they took months and months to prepare. Ziehl is capable of directing action as he did well with the 2001 remake of EARTH VS. THE SPIDER, but none of the talent shown there comes through in this mess. It's not completely his fault, as the screenplay is very, very poorly written and clunky. I don't care if something goes direct-to-video, a good script is still required. Someone should keep that mind while continuously churning these low-budget, direct-to-DVD movies out. Skip it entirely. 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This in-name-only sequel to the classic ROADHOUSE has a DEA agent (John Schaech) coming to the rescue of his uncle (Will Patton) when the uncle is badly beaten up by a local drug gang, headed by that Wooden Indian of an actor Jake Busey. The gang wants to take over the poor guy's bar for nefarious reasons. Patrick Swayze is sorely missed here. Schaech is an indifferent actor and not convincing as an ass-kicking lawman. The fights here are intermittent and not nearly as powerful or vicious as the fights in ROADHOUSE. The finale is equally weak. Some good-looking women keep things afloat for a bit. There is a terrific fight between a Daisy Duke-type who turns out to be handy with both fists and weapons, and a nasty-looking babe of Busey's who is handy with sharp implements. There's also a scantily dressed gal at the beginning who is a fellow agent of Schaech's, but unfortunately she never reappears in the film. Too bad. She does a brief lap dance for Schaech that had my full attention. If nothing else, ROADHOUSE 2 kicks off with a strip club scene that comes darned close to what a real strip club looks like, a rare circumstance in any movie. The rest is snooze time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILERS: The original Road House is one of those movies that I know is clich\u00e9d and unoriginal, yet it's done so well, I'm embarrassed to admit I really like it. Turns out many of my friends, whose movie opinions I respect, think the same way. So when they attempt to make a sequel to it and it's as if it was written by some high school kids who were given the rights to do a sequel, it's just bad; really, really bad.

Oddly, Johnathon Schaech is listed as one of the writers and I can only hope his WGA membership is revoked. The writing was just bad and all the writers of this film should retire for complete lack of originality and some of the worst dialog in this millennium. Schaech already appearing to be the king of the straight-to-DVD sequel (8mm 2, Poison Ivy 2) and now after seeing this and 8mm 2, I'm thinking his acting ability is non-existent. He was awful, just awful.

And it's not the terrible fighting scenes that make this movie terrible, but take it from me, they're bad. Every fight scene is a slowly delivered punch (yet still making the \"wiff\" sound in the air) that is then blocked by the opponent, who returns a punch that sends the first guy to the ground. This is repeated throughout the film, worse than any bad 1970s cop show. Or the fact that many of the people involved in the fights seem to have a mouth full of cherry kool-aid for some reason. And we're supposed to believe Will Patton is a fighting machine; his fight scenes look so amazingly fake I was honestly embarrassed watching.

It's the complete lapses of logic in this ridiculous movie that make it terrible. For instance: Johnathon Schaech's character is in town for a day and already tells some girl he barely knows who he has no idea what side she's on, \"I'm with the Feds, but don't tell anyone.\" The female villain, who fights the good girl in one fight scene with acrobatics that rival any super hero, yet is easily held down by the Will Patton, \"old guy,\" in another scene by simply holding both her hands while he utters some ridiculous line (\"stab me once, shame on you, stab me twice, ain't gonna happen\" whew, that's bad) and then head-butts her. Jake Busey's villain shoots at the feds while caught in the middle of a drug deal, yet no DEA agents or anyone simply go to his place and pick him up after, in fact, he's simply let go because \"this is the sheriff's territory.\" Busey wants the bar because it's \"in a great location\" for drug deals, yet his own house appears to be just as good apparently offering all the perks the bar is supposed to have. Johnathon Schaech's character is supposed to be the son of Patrick Swayze's character in the original, yet Swayze's character's last name is Dalton and Schaech's isn't (nor is the supposed brother of Swayze's character). And Johnathon Schaech looks about 50 in this movie. I looked it up, he's 17 years younger than Swayze, but he looks awful.

But my favorite absolutely stupid scene in this movie was the most stock fight scene ending in movies: the villain is knocked through a window on a second floor and as they pan down I'm thinking \"please don't tell me he's impaled on something...\" and sure enough, my worst fears were realized.

Actually, I could go on for another half hour about the things I hated about this movie. Suffice to say, let's put an end to these ridiculous straight-to-DVD sequels to theatrical movies, at least the ones with Johnathon Schaech.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dark Harvest 3: Scarecrow: 1 out of 10: In Einstein's theory of relativity time is of the perspective of the one that views time. (Or so I've heard) In other words this movie feels a lot longer that an hour and change. Even on fast-forward (And you will be reaching for that fast forward button) it clocks in somewhere around eternity.

If you are familiar with Lionsgate's own version of Project Greenlight (This is where they buy a home movie but a fancy cover on it and sneak it into the horror section of your local Wal-Mart) you will not be surprised by the complete and utter lack of entertainment value contained within.

The line reading (I refuse to call it acting) is uniformly awful. This is a collection of deadbeat dads and strippers pretending to be in a movie between cans of Schlitz. The camera work is drunken father shooting vacation film quality and while the special effects are okay the scariest effect is the breast augmentation scars in the nude scene.

The story is awful, the sets are from a haunted Halloween put on by ADHD middle school students and once again the line reading (remember this is not acting anymore than sinking to the bottom of a pool is swimming) is distracting beyond mere words. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It used to be that video distributors like Sub Rosa and Brain Damage Films would release low-budget, shot-on-video horror films to a select market of gorehounds that ate them up with glee. That's acceptable to me, because you could see these movies from a mile away with their shoddy box art and cheesy titles.

Now we have Lions Gate getting into the mix, only they have decided that it'd be better to sucker in poor saps by putting a \"professional\" looking cover on it and charge the same price as one of their higher-budget, professionally made features. Do not be suckered in by this! Granted, if you've seen Dark Harvest 1 or 2 than you already know what to expect with 3 but there is a place for movies like this and it is not on a video store shelf beside professionally-made features.

I am a fan of independent cinema and have watched several low budget, shot-on-video productions that were still a worthy rental but this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The \"acting\" (if you can call it that) was abysmal. It was amusing to laugh at the horrible line reading for a minute or two, but eventually it was too much to take and became unbearable. The story is bad, the dialogue is worse, the acting somehow manages to be even worse. The only possible saving grace to this would be one disemboweling scene that still manages to be awful but is an award winning effect when compared to the blood splatters after a girl is slapped or the mannequin decapitation.

It took me three tries to make it through this entire movie and I only did so because I paid good money to rent it and felt like I should at least finish it all the way through. Stay away - stay far, far away from this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK i gave this a three A three! It deserves only one star no questions asked.

If your going to look at the movie seriously and take it as a legit B-Horror movie than yes it will get one star. But i believe it is apparent within the first minutes of the movie what we are dealing with is a piece of crap.

With this movie me and the buddy i was watching it with could of turned it off and put on something more \"Hollywood\" but instead we just decided to rip this whole movie apart from start to finish. We laughed so many times it was almost if i was watching a comedy.

The acting is terrible..... The effects and death sequences are so bad.... The Story complete crap.....

But the fact they are trying to make a serious horror movie..Priceless!

The most memorable part for me is when two of the characters are walking in a supposed \"dark basement\" which is clearly lit, and they pretend to not be able to see bumping into bones hanging from the ceiling bahahahaha just terrible.....

So if you want to laugh at how crappy this movie is, along with the fact it was made in 2004 than see this movie....

Wait why am i writing so much? no one knows about this movie...i doubt anyone will even read this hahahaha.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I couldn't spoil this piece of crap if I wanted to. After watching Dark Harvest 1 I thought \"this has got to be the worse movie ever made\" then I watched Dark Harvest 2 and that made 1 seem a little better. Then I watched Dark Harvest 3 or tried too. The only thing I have to say is \"when is this going to end?\" Very bad acting and really bad special effects the only good thing about this movie was the boob shot. Don't waste your time of money on this piece of crap... And now I have to write 3 more lines to get this to submit. I was going to sing a song but I can't think of any right now. But the movie finally ended (though it had an ending that might mean they are going to make another one of these)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As you may remember I have seem all three of the trilogy of trash and the first movie is the only one even remotely close to be watchable. Part two was low grade sewage and this installment is slightly better then two, but still one steaming pile of something I removed from my backyard last Monday. The premise doesn't make sense, why did the moonshiners murder that poor old lady and even in 1921 I think someone would notice a bunch of oily guys where a sweet little old lady once lived. Second, that scarecrow is pathetic compared to how cool they looked in the first movie. It's just old clothes and a burlap sack. Let's face it, the series is garbage and should be forgotten about. THE NOOSE!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie under the impression that it was \"Scarecrow 3:Dark Harvest\", thinking it was a continuation in the Scarecrow Slayer series (another extremely laughable and all together awful series of movies). I wasn't disappointed though. It was just as awful, if not worse, than what I expected. I was laughing throughout the entire movie. Every piece of bad acting, poorly shot and cut footage, and terrible special effects is what makes this movie worth renting.

The special features include a pathetic view into the cast and crew's six months of filming.

Favorite line, \"The sins of my forefathers! They've trickled down to this very moment of time!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is just about the WORST piece of garbage I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. The story was embarrassingly amateurish, the graphics were horrible, and the acting... I've never seen worse acting in my entire life. A kindergarten class could come up with a scarier, better written, and more entertaining concept than this. I pity anyone who wastes their time on this film, as well as the actors who agreed to doing the job. It was obvious that they were not given appropriate direction. The writers must have spent their time at film school in the \"back room\" playing peaknuckle. A lot of professors wasted a lot of time on these two. I would be truly embarrassed to admit that I knew them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If it were possible, I would have given this sorry excuse for a movie a ZERO star. It was by far the worse I have ever seen. It was as if it were a home movie that some bored highschoolers decided to make as a joke. The \"acting\" was horrific. The \"actors\" didn't even react to the fact that they were being murdered.

Honestly, I bought this movie by mistake. The Spanish title said Jeepers Creepers 3, so I thought hmm maybe it'll be OK. Wrong. It was honestly the worst ever. I didn't get past 20 minutes of the stupid movie. I skipped through chapters and nothing interesting ever seemed to happen.

The cameramen were also terrible. It was like a home movie. I would NEVER recommend anyone to watch this. Terrible terrible moronic movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I absolutely hated this movie! I was 9 when I saw it. It is the only movie I have ever walked out of in the theater. My mom, dad, and I all looked at each other during the movie and knew we were wasting our time. This movie stole approximately 45 minutes of my life. Everything about it was ridiculous. The entire premise was too warped. Being 9, I was always easily entertained. This movie proved that I couldn't subject myself to anything and still be entertained.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the first film I've watched from the Italian Ed Wood, Demofilo Fidani aka Miles Deem. The above title was superfluously added later on since there exists another similarly titled 1961 movie starring Richard Basehart which was Hammer Films' Michael Carreras' one and only stab at the Western; the genuine Italian title was originally translated as HIS NAME WAS SAM WALBASH, BUT THEY CALLED HIM AMEN\u0085although it was actually WALLACH in the Italian variant which, of course, implies a tribute of sorts to Hollywood actor Eli!

While certainly not unwatchably bad, instances of clumsiness and ineptitude abound so that I was often cracking up into howls of laughter: a horrid number by a would-be irresistible French chanteuse; a totally irrelevant bar-room brawl; actors doing somersaults when being shot; an aged villager doing an impromptu dance routine; ineffective use (indeed abuse) of slow-motion; and, easily the most preposterous, seeing Gordon Mitchell and Lincoln Tate play two gunfighters (sporting the actors' own names!) hired by the villain to kill off the title character and then never having them appear in the rest of the film at all!!

Lead actor Robert Woods is just that even down to ineffectively whispering the Amens over the bodies of his victims. Supporting actress Simonella Vitelli (actually, the director's own daughter!) as the villain's broad is quite a looker but, unfortunately, she doesn't get to do much in the film \u0096 despite having a change of heart towards the end. The main musical theme is actually pretty good but, again, the title song is, in itself, quite lousy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the films that killed the \"spaghetti\" western. It not only loses something in the translation, it is a total chaotic mess of editing as well. Either chunks of it have been edited out and or re-edited for an English language version. In any case, it makes little or no sense, period. It makes the \"Trinity\" and the Eastwood \"Man With No Name\" films look like John Ford\/John Wayne by comparison. Nothing in this film is original. Somewhere in there is a beginning, a middle, and (finally)an end. Except for the end, not everything is exactly in that order. Robert Wood seems personable enough. The rest of the cast, especially the women, should have made better career choices.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Savage Guns (video title) is a dirt cheap, bottom of the barrel spaghetti western in which the survivor of a massacre hunts the bandits who killed his brother and left him for dead, catching up with them in a town controlled by their crooked boss.

Despite plenty of violence, this manages to be both dull and colorless with bad characterizations and almost no imagination or humor.

Lead actor Robert Woods lives up to his name with a wooden and uncharismatic performance that fails to generate any warmth or sympathy whatsoever. In other words, the viewer never really roots for him despite the fact that he's the protagonist.

The worst scene (in my opinion) is the annoying dance hall scene where a woman sings in a heavy and terribly unsexy German accent. It was the worst scene in Blazing Saddles and the worst one here!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At it's core, this is a fairly typical revenge Western, heavy on the spaghetti, and if you follow it as such, the protagonist comes through successfully defeating the main villain. However there's so much going on that has no bearing on the story that you have to wonder what the film makers were thinking about. I'm referring to stuff like the way Miss Rosie's singing number just pops up out of nowhere and the boxing match in the middle of town. OK, they have a loose connection to the influence villain Mash Flanagan has, but why all of a sudden does he turn up with an alias - Mr. Donovan.

On the flip side, I thought it was pretty innovative how the camera shot showing the wounded Wallach's view of the trail might have been filmed by someone with an actual bullet in his shoulder. And wasn't it great the way Donovan's girl uses the old headache routine when he gets a little frisky? Don't let me forget either the great stunt work by the gravel pit bad guys as Wallach guns them down as part of the finale.

Still, there was one thing unaccounted for, and I kept waiting the entire movie for it. Whatever happened to that trio of hoods that Flanagan\/Donovan hires near the start of the picture? You know, the guy Martel that a funeral parlor wanted to hire for his gun prowess, the devil's henchman Mitchell with the rifle, and the knife thrower Lincoln Tate. Each had a five thousand dollar bounty on his head, and they were supposed to protect Donovan from the guy who survived the massacre of the opening scene. They were never heard from again! I like to think that maybe Donovan just had them killed and kept the 15K all for himself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This showed up on a DVD a buddy of mine bought for me. They had it listed as \"The Savage Guns\" which was an entirely different movie. Obviously the folks who packaged the DVD never bothered to look at what they were burning on the disk.

Anyway, this movie is about as bad as they come. The sound track is a combination TV Batman\/Early James Bond\/Spaghetti western. Lots of galloping around to this music. It appears that the guy has to gallop between scenes to burn up some time and give the sound track folks something to do.

English is dubbed over the Italian and it really shows. I wish it had been just a little bit worse and then it would have had some of the campy feel of the Ed Wood films. AS it is, it is just plain awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ever have one of those sneezes that seems to build up forever? You gasp and you convulse and you grab the nearest paper product in preparation for the world's greatest hanky-blower...and then it fizzles. \"Frankenhooker\" was the cinematic equivalent of that lost sneeze. Now, I'm big on B-movies, and I always look the other way when a boom mike pops onscreen or an actor speaks his or her lines with all the enthusiasm of Gerald Ford, but this one really let me down. The cover of the video, for instance, IS the tag-line of the whole movie. Using parts from murdered New York prostitutes, Dr. Franken rebuilds his deceased fiancee, only to have her run amok in Manhattan as a sort of superprostitute with a bad attitude. After an hour and a half of build-up, this fairly funny ten minutes seemed a little anti-climactic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, don't bother. This film looks so tired, the acting is so old-fashioned, and the plot and characters so drab, that it should be studied instead of watched. It is really a horrible waste of film; Stereotypes, clich\u00e9s, nonsense, and amateurish film-making. I watched it in unbelievable awe with my mouth wide open. How could such a film be made, and more interestingly, how could anyone find it funny or watchable? Old, tired, sloppy... a junior-high skit, at best. There is nothing watchable there, except for a study of very ancient film. Not good film, just ancient. This is not Abbott and Costello or Laurel and Hardy. This is nonsense. The acting is so bad that maybe it is worth it to watch just for the laugh. Some films are so bad that they are good. But, this one goes all the way around the corner and back to bad again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Johnnie (Bert Wheeler) is a would-be songwriter; Newton (Robert Woolsey) is a would-be inventor. Both work at a cigar stand in the lobby of an office building. Johnnie wants to sell a song to Winfield Lake, a song publisher who also owns the building. Lake's secretary, Mary (Betty Grable), is Johnnie's sweetheart. When Lake turns up dead, circumstances conspire to make Mary and Newton think that Johnnie is the killer. They conspire again to implicate Mary, who goes to jail. But who really shot Lake? Who is the Black Widow, the blackmailer who had threatened him? The other characters in this wacky murder mystery are: Lake's suspicious wife, a self-satisfied private detective, a seemingly slow-witted janitor (Willie Best), Lake's auditor, a songwriter who thinks Lake is stealing from him and another who thinks everyone is stealing from him. It's up to Newton and his truth machine to reveal the real killer.

The baby-voiced Wheeler and the cigar-chomping Woolsey strike me as an arbitrary pairing, but they made several movies together in the 30s and some of them were funny.

Not this one. George Stevens, who went on to have a distinguished career, directed this dismal comedy with a tedious murder mystery plot. But two scenes are good, and both feature Wheeler and Betty Grable singing the excellent \"Music in My Heart,\" written by Dorothy Fields and Jimmy McHugh. The first time, they sing it walking up a staircase (after which they dance back down). Later, Wheeler and Woolsey are on stilts so that they can see and talk to Mary, who is in a jail cell on a high floor. Wheeler and Grable sing to each other through the bars.

\"The Nitwits\" has a few laughs, but the level of comedy is best illustrated by Woolsey's line: \"Sonny, you've got the brain of a six-year-old boy. And I'll bet even he was glad to get rid of it.\" It's watered-down Groucho\u0097who didn't use the superfluous \"even\" when he said it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When you read the comment on this film, that it's smart and funny political comedy based on true events - the only true word here is that it's a comedy. If you're told it's insider movie about Russian politics - it's not. There's probably only 2% in the movie from what really happened in Russia during that election-campaign. In reality of the 1996 it was thousand times more interesting to follow the situation and that was a real funky election-campaign. Well, there were PR-advisers from the US working in the Yeltsin's staff, but their role was just minimal. The whole campaign was totally different from what is shown in the movie, it would be much funnier showing all the president's people riding across the country with paper boxes full of cash, and the celebrities giving the shows to support Yeltsin all over the place - at least that would be true. I give it three only because of the respect to Jeff Goldblum, Antony LaPagglia, and Liev Schreiber. And about the machine guns on the streets of Moscow. I was living in the place that had the highest amount of hard crime in Russia in the middle of 90-s and never seen a man with the gun on the street.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK everybody is so enthused by this film I hardly dare add a negative review but I just did not enjoy this movie.

I have to say first I saw the film in Russian language overdub so I will have missed some dialog, but not much.

Nice things first. There are some hilarious moments (the Elvis impersonator for instance). Actors seem well casted, also the Russians. Efremova is great and Goldblum is very good. Which brings us to the downsides of this movie. First of all. There is hardly any story and the end we know already: Yeltsin wins. So no drama or suspense. They tried to solve this problem with an emerging affair between the actors mentioned above, but that story kind of evaporates.

More importantly, the film does not represent reality. The Russians at the level of politics and society portrayed in this movie are not funny, they are a serious and dangerous lot. I am willing to believe that flying in some spin-doctors from the states helped Yeltsin win his campaign, but the real interesting questions that should be addressed are: who financed the campaign, what did they get in return, how was the opposition handled apart from airing some commercials?

So what we have here is a film, loosely based on reality (but strangely avoiding anything that could make the film either historically relevant or just a very good political thriller) without plot or subplot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The creators of this movie must have sat down one day and said \"let's make fun of the Russians and at the same time show people how advanced we (Americans) are\". The movie portrays the Russians as an inferior people who are unable to understand the brilliant ideas put forward by the Americans. It is true that American campaigns are probably more professional and more based on expensive studies than campaigns in any other countries are. However, this movie goes to far and it exaggerates the differences between East and West. To me it looked like a propaganda movie made during the Cold War.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"let me get started with a terrible storyline and an awful control system. good animation but not too good graphics. that is why I'm giving this game 4 of 10. THIS GAME REALLY NEEDS AN Improvement IF YOU ASK ME!!! i would remake it and make this control system better so jaws is not so damn hard to control. if i made it to improve it i would make those graphics look better than on the movie. it will drive anyone crazy when you are getting killed so freaking easy. i played this and got killed by a diver when he had one of those flick knives in 2 hits. the dolphins will kill you so much that the shark will be begging to go to the bottom of hell. this game sucks some fat ass. sorry about all the cussing i think I'm done now. it just that this game sucks so bad that it should be taken off the store's shelf. i dare you to play the garbage and you will probably get so mad by dieing so easy so Don't PLAY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's not that much to say in the end. One would have expect much more from a director who made way better movies in the past. It just seems like he did it without actually caring. The actors are doing their job (though Belmondo is far from amazing), but you just don't get hooked. In a word, it's boring. This is even more disappointing since I heard several time that this movie could be considered as a reaction to all the big American blockbusters, which are considered to be a threaten to the French exception by those who just can't admit they should turn to another job. I tell you, if that's the best reaction we're supposed to get, boy, I'm going to be really depressed soon...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Afraid of the Dark left me with the impression that several different screenplays were written, all too short for a feature length film, then spliced together clumsily into this Frankenstein's monster.

At his best, the protagonist, Lucas, is creepy. As hard as it is to draw a bead on the secondary characters, they're far more sympathetic.

Afraid of the Dark could have achieved mediocrity had it taken just one approach and seen it through -- and had it made Lucas simply psychotic and confused instead of ghoulish and off-putting. I wanted to see him packed off into an asylum so the rest of the characters could have a normal life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would not be giving away too much of the film to tell you that there are many, many, many, MANY scenes of Lucas (the young protagonist) walking and looking at things! Yep. And you'll be happy to know that the first third of the movie is pointless, meaningless, and pretty much ignored for the rest of the film!

This movie is populated by dull people who do dull things, and the dullest person of them all is young Lucas, who is going blind and needs an operation. You see, he has delusions, terrible delusions! He thinks a killer is preying on blind women! He walks around a lot and acts like an insufferable jerk!

Patience does NOT pay off with this film. By the end, the plot and events are just as confusing and lethargic, and it is very hard to care one way or the other about what any of the nightmarish images meant. Nothing is made clear, the film moves at a snail's pace, and it left me with the same effects of a hangover.

Judging from \"Afraid of the Dark,\" the British don't make stupid thrillers like the Americans do; they make boring ones.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i am still not sure what the hell this movie is about. i guess the boy was afraid of becoming blind and began imagining all sorts of strange things. this does not explain why he wanted to kill his new baby brother , however , or the unrelenting boredom found within this film. while watching this movie you will wish you were blind so you did not have to see this experiment in futility. skip this steaming pile and opt for anything else at the video store ..... anything else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie changes its way a third of the way in.its totally pointless boring and stupid.i hated this movie so much that i will never watch it again.some bad films can be really funny. this is just a British art house picture that should never of been made.1 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another example that we should stay away from trying to do spectacular action movies in Sweden, it doesn\u00b4t work, except for Widerbergs still unsurpassed MANNEN P\u00c5 TAKET. Stormare does the best he can, I suppose, and some scenes are mildly effective, but the plot is FULL of holes. Why does Hamilton continue the attack on the base, knowing that his wife is held hostage? It was fun to see Mark Hamill, but his Bad Guy-part was very underwritten. I\u00b4m constantly amazed that relatively big Swedish movies like this get made without a sensible, functioning script. 1 out of 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this is the best Commander Hamilton movie, I have no curiosity about the others.

A movie actor's greatest tools are his eyes, but when Peter Stormare wants to show great emotion, he closes his, so for five or six seconds we get to admire his eyelids while his feelings remain unknown behind them. Lousy acting technique.

Stormare also flinches sometimes when he fires a gun, turning his head away and clamping his eyes shut. Watch carefully. James Bond can rest easy with competition like this.

There are some interesting supporting performances from other actors, but not enough to hang a whole movie on. The cinematography is good-looking, doing a fine job of capturing the Nordic cold. Even the Sahara winds up looking cold. Perhaps Hamilton carries his own climate with him.

There are some individual good action sequences here. Unfortunately, the only sense of humor on screen belongs to the villain, which turns the hero into a big pill. James Bond's jokes may not be particularly good, but at least he doesn't look constipated all the time.

One positive point in the movie's favor is that the psychotic, contorted, vicious hatred of Israel in Guillou's books has been left out. What has been kept in is worship of a noble, heroic PLO, that he shows us functioning in Libya without the dictator Khaddafi's knowledge or supervision. This fantasy is hard to believe, since Khaddafi actually threw the PLO out of Libya for four years at a time. And at the end of the film, Hamilton gives the PLO a very disturbing gift. Where will they use that gift? Hamilton doesn't care.

We're a long, long way away from \"For Whom the Bell Tolls\" here.

Commander Hamilton will remain a local phenomenon. While Henning Mankell's books sell well around the world, Jan Guillou will never have the same success.

As for this film, bleeeeaaahhhhh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film just doesn't work. No two ways about it. I saw it for the first time back in '98 when it was released and I didn't like it. I just bought it on sale a couple of days ago, 'cause I thought \"whatta hell, I'll give it a try\". I don't regret for the money I put out for Hamilton, but the fact remained the same.. this movie is pointless, dull and uninteresting.

Stormare is usually a delight, but that's when he's making films in the US. Back home he doesn't do the trick. Sure the movie is well made (if you forget the odd stock footage here'n'there), but in the end the only thing that REALLY lifts Hamilton above one star garbage, is Hamill's turn as the bad guy Hawkins. He seriously has fun with the character and is also responsible for the only two good moments in the movie.. \"Swedish intelligence, huh? Now there's a contradiction in terms\" and when he allows Hamilton to have a word or two with his wife over the phone towards the end of the flick. And that's really pretty much it.

** \/ *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is without doubt the worst film in the Hamilton saga and the worst actor to do Carl Hamilton.Peter Stormare just cant pull it off,with his psychotic looks and no style at all.He may be good to do killers and psychotic maniacs like in \"Fargo\" or \"8mm\" but in this type of roles,he is just useless.

Lena Olin's presence did no use for this film.She couldnt save it from being what it is:an americanized copy of big budget action movies like \"Goldeneye\",\"Die Hard 3\",\"Broken Arrow\" etc.This film has nothing swedish in it but the actors.Its clear that some norweagian upstart director with McTiernan as model director has made this.

Mark Hamill's presence is only laughable. 2 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes. It takes a Norwegian to ruin and slaughter two great books and a concept that would work well on film - this film truly is The Worst Swedish Film Of All Time. I hated it so badly that I even considered walking out on it, something I have never done. But it was so awful i was almost compelling. I just had to sit through to the end. Much like some early-80's Stallone action reel, this one REALLY takes Swedish action back to the stone-age. So full of logical errors and stupid mistakes it is almost amusing - but who could ever see anything good in the terrible acting, Mark Hamill's surviving a mine-field or the dumb-ass, useless and irrational action?

Let me ask you: aren't we through with clocks ticking down to zero, the hero escaping in the nick of time and two friends become enemies reuniting by the end? STUPID!!!!

And one more thing: the product placement in this film is unbelievable. While other countries have understood that it shouldn't be so OBVIOUS, the Swedish film industry apparently hasn't understood at all: just look at the credit card Hamilton uses to open a window? Or or or.... this film really makes me mad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two page boys working at a radio network go from trying to solve murders to performing in black-face in between work shifts. Jack Moran and Sidney Miller star in this whodunnit from 1945. Lots of fast talking, everybody yells at everybody, and the two page boys call the police detective \"Marty\" (played by Ralph Sanford). It's a real \"shortie\" at 59 minutes, and it has the feel of being adapted from a play, since it mostly takes place in a radio station soundstage. We don't really care about any of the characters, which is probably why its hardly ever shown. No big deal. This was Phil Karlson's second film as director. We're not given any clues as to who might be knocking people off, so we just kind of follow the police detective and the page boys as they all try to solve the mystery first. I'll say no more so as not to give away any spoilers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll admit that this isn't a great film. It practically screams \"low-budget\" yet oddly I still found myself liking the film because although it lacked quality it abounded with energy. It was like the Little Engine That Could and a movie merged into one!

The film takes place at a radio network and concerns some of their low-level employees--two page boys (one very pushy and brash and the other one a wuss) as well as a new receptionist. All three have visions of radio stardom but must for now content themselves with their lowly jobs.

Into this story appears a murder that seems somewhat out of the blue. I didn't know that this was a murder mystery film and was taken a bit by surprise. However, like most B-mysteries, the cops are lamebrains and it's up to our pushy hero (Moran) to try to save the day. Throughout all this, I had a hard time deciding if Moran was obnoxious or endearing. I'm still not sure!!

There is a moment in the film that is high on the 'cringe factor' and that is when the two pages try out for the roles of radio comedians. They show up in black-face and do a 3rd or 4th rate imitation of Amos n' Andy. Apart from being very insensitive, it also wasn't funny. Fortunately the producer of the show they were trying out for seemed to feel the same way.

Overall. it's easy to skip this film and I wouldn't blame you if you do. However, the weird and frenetic pace of the film actually seemed to make up for the artistic deficiencies of the film and I am glad I saw it. A good film? No. But one that is still worth a peek for fans of old Bs.

By the way, perhaps I just don't have very good taste, but I thought BOTH female singing divas really had poor voices despite how everyone in the film is captivated by their warblings. Listen for yourself and let me know what you think. I just couldn't believe either was allowed to sing on film--even if it was just for lowly Monogram Studios.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a bottom of the barrel type of B-film from one of the poverty row studios, Monogram, in the mid-'40s, the kind that filled out a double bill.

Only reason I watched was to see what JACKIE MORAN was like in a leading role as a page boy at a radio station who attempts to solve a murder. He played Phil Meade in GONE WITH THE WIND only two years earlier and this was one of his last teen-aged roles. He's no Mickey Rooney.

The script is as hapless as the production values and is full of clich\u00e9 ridden situations with a cast of uniformly untalented individuals. WANDA McKAY is the switchboard girl who is \"discovered\" by a radio producer and SIDNEY MILLER is the nerdy friend of the hero who's afraid of his own shadow.

Mercifully, it's over in an hour when the murder is solved after a round-up of all the suspects. Terribly overacted, the only quiet performance of any interest is given by JON GILBREATH as Tex, the cowboy, but he bites the dust after too brief an appearance.

There are several songs, but all of them are forgettable, as are the lame jokes and dialog.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a awful re-make of a very good movie called \"Up In The Air\" starring Frankie Darrow, Mantan Moreland and Marjorie Reynolds. I was only able to get through about 20 minutes before turning it off. Almost all the lines are identical, I have no idea why they would re-do the movie. I totally disagree with a previous post that dislikes the songs ( there the same also), In the original the singing is first rate, I'm not sure if Marjorie Reynolds actually did her own singing, it's hard to tell since the vocals were usually added later, and the songs are very good, surprising in a \"B\" movie. If you get the chance see the original it's available on DVD. You'll be pleasantly surprised.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You gotta be a fan of the little man but I found Burlesque on Carmen dull, unimaginative and totally not funny.

Chaplin is retelling the story of Carmen and plays a big role himself as Don Jose. It's a story about men and the women they love, although it's unclear why one would love such a woman as Carmen, as she is playing the men against each other.

As I said I didn't think much of it. Chaplin made dozens and dozens of better movies so you can leave this one on the shelve.

Oh and I'm curious what the difference is between this movie and the 1915 version... or is it just an IMDB mistake?

On the whole: 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie starts out with kids telling each other urban legends such as the poodle in the microwave and getting something extra at a chicken place. Unfortunately, it then turns to your basic anthology movie. The first being about a janitor with a bit of a secret. This one is okay at best. Then it gets worse as the next story about this kid obsessed with dead flies is on and it goes on and on and on. It is way to long and not all that interesting to begin with. After that you get the typical shock scene and it ends. You need more than this in an anthology movie. You need at least three stories and one shouldn't be so long it becomes dreadfully uninteresting especially considering you can see how it is going to end a mile away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Willies starts late one night as brother's Josh (Joshua Miller) & Kyle (Jason Horst) are camping outside with their cousin Michael (Sean Astin), they decide to pass the time by telling scary stories...

First up is Michael with a story entitled 'Bad Apples' in which a young boy named Danny Hollister (Ian Fried) is bullied at school, however the sinister new janitor Mr. Jenkins (James Karen) decides to help him out...

Next up is Kyle as he tells a strange story called 'Flyboy' in which an overweight bully with a worrying fascination with dead flies gets what he deserves in a horrible twisted way...

Written & directed by Brian Peck The Willies didn't do much for me & I doubt it'll do much for you either. The script is strange as far as episodic anthologies go, instead of the usual three or four stories it only has two main tales & a few bizarre 'urban myth' type mini scenes at the start, these consist of the person who orders food from a fast food restaurant only to find a dead rat in her chicken, a man who dies of a heart attack on a ride & someone who tries to dry her poodle off in the microwave only for it to explode. I have no idea what the purpose of these scenes are but they add nothing to the film, as for the two main stories they are both weak. For a start they are too long which is a huge mistake in these types of films, usually the stories in anthologies are short, sharp & quick with a nice twist at the end usually involving people getting what they deserved. However in The Willies the stories last for the best part of 40 minutes each which is longer than the average TV episode & I must admit I found both stories very boring, they have very little going for them & seem to be aimed at children. The first story is the better to watch as a whole but it has no twist ending as far as I could see while the second one has a nice 'just deserts' ending but the build up to it is weak & drawn out for no good reason. I really like horror anthology films so The Willies comes as a disappointment, frankly it lets the genre down.

Director Peck was obviously working on a low budget & as a whole The Willies is pretty tough to sit through, there's plenty of continuity errors & it's poorly made. There's no atmosphere, there's no scares, there's no gore, the special effects are poor & it features unnecessary shots of a dirty toilet several times. Overall it's a pretty unappealing film to sit through.

Technically The Willies is rough around the edges to say the least, the effects are far from special & it has an extremely drab & grainy look to the picture. The acting is poor, no ones going to win any awards thats for sure.

The Willies is a poor film, it's not scary, it's not fun, it's not entertaining & it only features two overlong stories. Definitely not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Grim instead of amusing, mean-spirited instead of playful, boring instead of interesting. It won't give you \"the willies\", but it just may gross you out or send you to sleep. And it will certainly make you wonder: \"what were they thinking?\" (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"George Burns returns as the joshing Almighty after enjoying a big success with 1977's \"Oh, God!\", an upbeat fantasy made successful by a sudden need in the 1970s to switch from devil-driven thrillers to comedic redemption (although it made money, the original was more in line with the \"Topper\" comedies of the '30s than a return to feel-good religious cinema). Here, God appears to a young girl (Louanne, who had earlier starred in a stage production of \"Annie\") and asks her to spread his Divine Word, causing her nothing but trouble from grown-ups in the process. Peculiar, family-oriented film appears to be warm-hearted enough, and Burns gets to chime in with a nice barrage of wry jibes, but the writing is half-slapstick and half-seriousness, with the adults of the piece considering putting little Louanne away, all of which makes God seem more like a troublemaker than an elderly friend. Louanne is another problem: a perky kid with wizened little eyes, she is untrained for screen-acting and occasionally seems awkward. The medium-budget production has a gloppy, TV-movie appearance, with few graceful touches. The final scene mimics the climax of the first \"Oh, God!\" in that it brings a wistful sentiment to the mix, which is welcomed. It's the most subtle moment in the movie. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh,God! Book II is more of a bad remake of the original than a sequel to it.It is not all that funny,its plot plays too much

like a rejected situation comedy pilot,and the use of the slogan \"Think God\" is a different variation on the idea that worked so much better in the original.John Denver had not returned for this movie and that made a BIG difference.George Burns,as

wonderful as he was playing God,does not have the same chemistry with the little girl that he did with John Denver.

I would give this movie a rating of 3 out of 10,but only for

George Burns;the rest of the cast is nothing special.

If you loved the first one,don't bother to see this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lance used to get quality support work from James Cameron. Heck, he even had his own tv show (Millenium) for a coupl'a seasons. Why is he doing this? Couldn't he find some better way to pay his bills?

I love a good low-budget movie. Some of them you can laugh at simply due to their ludicrous premise, their textbook stereotyped characters, or often times because the actors are related to the director\/producers. But, this movie has no redeeming value. I didn't laugh. I didn't cry. I only had this sick feeling in my stomach. That feeling was quickly identified as pity. At one point, Lance Henriksen was an A-list support actor. He's been in Terminator (he was going to BE terminator before Arnold showed up), Aliens, AliensIII, classic B-movie Pumpkinhead, among so many others! I wanted to send him money after this. Maybe we should start a support Lance fund or something.

Then again, for making this thing...maybe not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(r#64)

Unredeemable, merit-less, and above all dreary trash. You know a movie is going to be bad when its sole star power is Lance Henriksen. The French title for this movie says it all: \"Inexplicable\". How can you possibly make a movie this unbelievably bad in this day and age? Whatever Jonas Quastel's trick is, it worked. This is \u00fcber-trash, I'm talking 'Manos'-level crap, meaningless, unwatchable, not-even-so-bad-it's-good, cinematic bile of the highest order.

Lance Henriksen IS Harlan Knowles, a character who could have been interesting if he wasn't so utterly devoid of characteristics or personality. He, along with a bunch of morons, goes on a field trip to search for an evil Sasquatch which is believed to have attacked a plane which crashed out in the woods, or something. Not much else happens. There's some soft-core (meaning: Teletubbie level) nudity and some blatant rip-offs of \"Predator\". After 92 minutes of utter pain and another ripped off scene, this time from \"Blair Witch\", the movie finally staggers across the finish line and ends. As a bonus, we only see the monster itself for about one or two scenes in the entire movie.

There's really not much to say about this film. All you need to know is, this is a very bad movie and not even worth viewing as a \"so-bad-it's-good\" flick. \"The Untold\" is to entertainment value what Orlando Bloom is to character acting. Avoid it like arsenic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen) brings a group of people to a mountain to help find his missing daughter (Erica Durance). What they don't know is that she was killed by a sasquatch (Taras Kostyuk) and it's still out there... waiting for them.

It was a late night when I poped this into my DVD player. I seriously wish I could go back in time and stop me. Most people will tell you that films like \"House of the Dead\" or \"S.I.C.K: Serial Insain Clown Killers\" will be the movies you wish you've never seen. Wrong. This will be.

I've seen a lot of crap, but this is the only crap that's haunted me. How I wish I never watched this! The acting actually isn't so bad. It's just the writing and the directing and the pacing and everything! I am actually a fan of Sasquatch films. But not this one.

Please, listen to my warning. Don't watch this!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Developing movies that are based on actual events involving cryptozoology or the supernatural has always been a challenge for directors and screenwriters. You have to mainly reconcile reported testimonies, conflicting info sources, and Hollywood creativity to produce something the audience can get into. Unfortunately, for SASQUATCH, none of these things seem to take place.

The movie starts out in typical film noir when a research team crash lands somewhere in the Cascades via airplane. From there the research team disappears, and despite attempts from law enforcement officials and local rescue parties they remain missing for some time. While one of the passengers is walking, infra-red-like images are splashed on the screen (a la Predator) which subtly hint that the legendary Sasquatch is the cause of the passengers' fates.

Cue Harlan Knowles (Henriksen), CEO of BioComp Industries and father of one of the crash victims. Knowles puts together his own search & rescue team with the explicit mission of finding his daughter and the rest of the research crew, along with the invaluable technology lost during the crash.

After Knowles' tailor-made rescue team is put together, the entire movie traverses down the path of uncolorful characters, dizzying cinematography, and a totally unoriginal plot line. I literally had to keep myself from falling asleep during this movie as it attempted to frighten me out of my wits. The only member of the cast that held his own was Henriksen, which doesn't make up for the lack of depth presented in all of the other characters. The over-done sound effects were annoying as well; basically, I didn't know if I was watching a movie about Bigfoot or grizzly bears.

Neither was the plot line all that great. It was too underdeveloped as the viewer is mainly subjected to typical fright music found in anything similar of the genre. Obviously you didn't have to be a genius to figure out who would be pulling off all their clothes by the middle of the movie, or who'd be the first unlucky soul to get mauled by Mr. Sasquatch. As far as good points, there are none, and therefore I gave this movie a 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One minute into THE UNTOLD and it`s already ripped off techniques from THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PREDATOR . Does this mean we`ll be seeing lots of trees ? We sure will . Will we be seeing an Austrian bodybuilder blowing things up ? Well this film has the budget of a TVM so the answer is a resounding no . Does anyone like these soft porn shows like BEDTIME STORIES ? Good because there`s a scene in this that resembles these type of shows . Unfortunately the only thing you see is cellulite . Do you like it when the screen fades to black during a TVM ? Great because this happens between every scene in THE UNTOLD . In fact it happens during every scene too . Did you enjoy MILLIONAIRE - A MAJOR FRAUD ? Fantastic because one of the characters looks like a bearded Major Charles Ingram the contestant who tried to swindle the show out of one million pounds . Seriously one of the characters looks like Major Ingram . I kept expecting him to say \" It`s bear. It could be a bear . But it might be a bigfoot < Cough , cough > , yes it`s a bigfoot < Cough > , it`s definately a bigfoot < Cough > Yes I`m going to shoot it . Final answer Chris \"

Oh and have I mentioned that all the above are the good bits ?

THE UNTOLD isn`t the worst bigfoot movie I`ve ever seen , that accolade firmly goes to NIGHT OF THE DEMON which I saw over twenty years ago and I think I`ve only seen less than a dozen films that are worse in all of that time . But that said THE UNTOLD is still a very poor film in just about every aspect , especially editing . As some other reviewers have pointed out it feels like whole chunks of the film are missing while there`s other bits where scenes are spliced together in the wrong order . This is a really bad film that deserves far less than its rating of 5.1. I give it 3 out of ten and I`m being very kind","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Untold... Is one of the worst films I ever saw. The story really seems original, but it was badly bestow on screen. Lance Henriksen, a good actor, ended up in this crap. But, hey he made a lot of low budget films... you need to pay the bills, you know? Kidding. Lance is a great actor, but he ended up with this bunch of silly actors. Seriously, Andrea Roth was there just to have a nudity scene, and other actors... well they were just there. There was constantly a fade out-fade in editing, and that makes me sick! That was the most horrible move that just keeps on coming and it really makes you angry. It was also very predictable, boring and slow. It has a bizarre tempo that goes just... wrong.

Can't say more... don't rent it, or buy it. You can watch it, if on TV.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This looks decidedly like \"the amateur\" hour. How this piece of trash was ever released is beyond me: the acting, the story, the characters, the supposedly special effects, etc...it's ALL wrong. Why Lance Henriksen accepted this will remain one of the great mysteries of cinema. Maybe he was in dire need for money or maybe be was under the influence of some illegal drug.

It is pointless trying to explain you what this movie's about. It deals with the big foot legend but done in the worst possible manner. In fact, this stinker smells like a direct-to-video release.

Avoid at ALL costs! 0* out of 10*","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hey all, I just wanted to give you all a few crazy facts about this movie. I was actually one of the Make-up FX artists that help create the \"beast\" for this movie and I have to tell you the original creature looked absolutely amazing. I remember when we got the first photos back from the set we were all talking about how much of a shame it was that this creature was in a movie that would probably be pretty poor.

What actually happened though was that Jason Palmer did the original make-up for the Sasquatch, but for some reason they had to go back and re-shoot much of the creature. The sad part was that Jason passed away a few weeks before that and so the re-done creature was no where near as awesome as the original one.

For me it was quite sad because this was Jasons final movie, and he sort of got cheated out of his final fame due to the bad re-shoots. Anyway, I thought you guys may find that a tad interesing, and if you would like you can head over to mmmyeah.com and check out some \"behind the scenes\" photos.

Later, Jeff","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think that this is one of my top ten worst movies I have ever seen! There's like fade out every two minutes. If this was on TV, they would have a preview every 2-3 minutes. But there is a seen I personally enjoyed: which is when the blonde goes to take a bath in a pit of boiling water with a man watching and for about 10 seconds you see her whole body with no towel on! That was the best scene in the whole film because you see sasquatch starring at them but the last 10 minutes is when we see his whole body. Plus, most of the deaths are off screen and just the scream or roar. And I was expecting the Sasquatch to die. But he dosen't shoot him and only 4 or 5 people die in the whole film I was expecting 8-10 people to die. Don't watch this movie. I give it an F-. Don't waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bigfoot movies tend to be bad, so I'm not inclined to watch them. However, there were some good commercials on The Sci-Fi Channel, so I decided to watch. A climbing expedition heads into the Pacific northwest to find a a fallen airplane carrying the daughter of the expedition's leader (played by Lance Hendrickson), and have brought a revolutionary DNA detector that could be used to prove the sasquatch's existence. And it actually generates some suspense at first. The sasquatch is unseen, but sees the mountain climbers' body heat (like the alien in \"Predator\"), and I did wonder when it was going to strike. The acting is passable, as is the background music. The dense wooded location is well-used. And when the creature is finally seen, the costume is not bad, though nothing great. But as the film grinds on, it becomes increasingly annoying and absurd. Most of the characters are unpleasant people, rude to each other and only in the expedition for money and publicity (except for Lance Hendrickson's character), so that it's impossible to care about what happens to them. And their behavior become increasingly stupid. One man shoots the creature (not fatally), then gets drunk and sits alone in the dark. One female camper puts on a slinky silk negligee before crawling into her sleeping bag, then barely escapes being dragged into the woods by the sasquatch, without getting her hair and make-up messed up. Then, the survivors conclude that the sasquatch is really after the DNA detecting machine and will let them live if they leave it behind (\"a creature knows what threatens it\"). Obviously, the instinct doesn't apply to these actors, or they wouldn't have appeared in this movie. And the ending is so stupid, you'll want to kick the TV screen. If it weren't for the script, it would have been a decent horror film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A plane carrying a rich scientist's daughter goes down in thick wilderness. He assembles a group to go and find her and the others, but the rescue party soon suspects that something is stalking them. Then ulterior motives for the expedition are revealed and that only adds to the already existing tension.

The movie is a decent idea and a take on the popular Sasquatch legend was bound to wind up on film sooner or later. However, the film's direction breaks a fundamental rule of horror\/thriller directing and that is showing too much too soon. Of course the audience knows there is something stalking the characters, just read the title! But showing what should have been the film's kicker that early just ruins most of the suspense and, as a direct result, much of the fun. The film also lacks a good atmosphere and there are almost no landscape shots that show the expanse of the wilderness, but there are plenty monster point-of-view shots that add nothing to anything. They actually knock off 'Predator' quite shamelessly. The low-budget horror film 'Wendigo' did what this film tries to do much better.

Some of the character tensions and a non-clich\u00e9 ending manage to make up for this rise above the crap pile, but it is still poor and given the premise and potential, very disappointing. --- 4\/10

Rated R for some violence and profanity, but it's pretty tame compared to most R-rated horror.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I read the other comments. Didn't think it sounded any good, but decided to tape it anyway. Perhaps not so smart to read all the poor reviews before watching this movie, because of course I would be noticing all the same weird things. Excessive use of fade to black, a few weird camera angles and crosscutting dialog for different conversations with the same people taking place at different times! But noticing all that I thought to myself: Well, this would probably be really boring if it was all going chronologically. The conversations aren't that exciting, but kind of mandatory. And the constant fading to black after really short scenes really makes it feel like the story is fast forwarding too the interesting part. Skipping the boring bits. At the end of the movie it gets a bit exciting too. Will they survive?

So I actually liked this movie? No, not really. The director had some interesting ideas on how to keep the audience from being bored while he is trying to introduce the characters. But he is overdoing it. It gets annoying, and sometimes confusing. This was apparently only the second movie he directed, so maybe he will learn and make really good stuff in the future. And if you're sitting there (in the future) reading this wondering if the now famous directors second movie is worth a watch. Well, if he is good in the future, sure, watch this crap and wonder how he ever got to make a third one. Otherwise this movie isn't really worth watching unless you very interested in film-making, and want to see one way you can cut the mandatory boring introductory scenes into something watchable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A big waste of time is all you'll get out of this bag. I rented this hoping for a suspenseful movie with maybe a few believable scenes, but boy was I ever dissapointed. I think the title should've been \"Camping 101\", or something to that effect. Well, anyway, stay the hell away from this film. It numbs you to death. Don't be afraid of big foot, be afraid of this crap!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An airplane transporting some scientists and a prototype of a DNA machine, a powerful and revolutionary invent, fall in a jungle in Pacific. The insurance company sponsors a rescue expedition, commanded by Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), the owner of a huge corporation, which owns the prototype, and father of one of the scientist. There, the group finds the rests of the plane five miles far from the expected location and the machine and the remains of the persons. Further, they realize that a Sasquatch, a kind of Big Foot, is chasing them. This movie is so ridiculous that I do not know what I am doing, spending my time again in this garbage. The direction is awful, the actors and the lines are horrible, copying parts of `The Predator' and even `The Blair Witch Project'. To summarize how bad this movie is, its best scene is when Marla Lawson, the character of Andrea Roth, is wounded, and the guide of the expedition says that she needs to have an injection of tetanus vaccine. Andrea undresses her jeans, and the guide says: 'Nice butts, but the shot needs to be in your arm'. Ridiculous! My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): `Sasquatch, O Abomin\u00e1vel' (`Sasquatch, The Abominable')

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is Jonas Quastel debut as a director and to be honest, it shows. It looks like he threw in every type of camera trick that he learned in film school to try and add some style to a badly written script, which he helped write! Film has Lance Henriksen and a group of others searching the pacific northwest for a plane that crashed that his daughter was on and also a special machine his company has built that he wants to also retrieve. The first 5 minutes of the film is either blurry or shaky or out of focus! Quastel tries to capture the \"Blair Witch\" mode with these type of shots and they grow tiresome very quickly. And there is also the POV shots that are right from \"Wolfen\" and \"Predator\". These shots are from the point of view (POV) of the Sasquatch. The editing is very choppy at times as a scene seems to shift right in the middle. I have heard this film was shot in about 12 days and I suppose instead of \"Starting back to one\" they just restarted without stopping and edited the scene together. And the rest of the film is fade-outs from one scene to another. They're are so many scenes that fade-out that I lost count. Now, the nude scene with Andrea Roth. Its not her. you can easily see its a body double. And you know your watching a bad \"B\" movie when in the middle of the pacific northwest a hot chick decides to go to the nearest hot spring and bathe! ********SPOILER ALERT********

And the Sasquatch himself is not bad when you don't really see him and he's just a blurry image behind some trees or bushes but when you finally see him at the end your of course disappointed. First of all, he's not that tall. The actor who is playing Sasquatch is only hairy in certain spots on his body. Its a partial suit! And he's bald! I have heard that a make-up person died during filming and maybe that explains why the costume looks hastily made. Some of the sound effects that are coming from the Sasquatch are nothing more than the familiar lion roars that we have all heard in other films. I do have to admit that Henriksen is not to bad. Yes, he's working with bad material but he has one of those interesting faces that can actually enhance certain moments of the film. People keep saying that a good Bigfoot film has never been made but I disagree. I have always said that \"The Creature From Black Lake\" is a good film and I highly recommend that one. I'm a sucker for a Sasquatch film but this one is just to amateurish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not sure what it is but there seems to be some curse when it comes to films about the elusive Bigfoot. There has yet to be a film that intelligently approaches the subject, nor one that creates any real suspense. Both \"Legend of Boggy Creek\" (1972) and the first film entitled \"Sasquatch\" (1978) have become minor cult classics, but neither were very memorable. Both films were targeted at family friendly audiences, thus inhibiting themselves from actually trying to scare anyone. \"Harry & The Hendersons\" (1987) was the first big budgeted film to use Bigfoot, with a terrific creature design by Rick Baker. However, they too chose to aim for younger audiences, but this time as a comedy (as did \"Bigfoot\" in 1995). I've long awaited for someone to tackle the subject as a thriller, perhaps in the vein of \"Jaws\" or \"Predator\". When I saw this at my local video store I thought my dream had come true. Boy, was I wrong! Lance Henriksen plays a billionaire who leads an expedition into the pacific northwest in hopes of finding his daughter as she was on board a small plane when it crashed in the mountains. The premise is interesting and sounded promising. The truth is it never builds any real suspense. I never found myself at all interested in any of the characters as each of them were very two dimensional and rather bland. Even the always dependable Henriksen seems to be phoning in his performance. Every time he appears on screen he looks plain bored. He should be as there is no action to speak of for the first hour of the film. As for the creature, where do I start? I figured at the very least we would get a cool looking monster running around in the woods, but instead we get this bald (yes, I said \"bald!\") man with pitch black skin and patches of fur here and there. Picture a cross between \"Swamp Thing\" and Chaka from \"Land of the Lost\" and you'll get the idea. Nothing like the artwork on the cover box I assure you. Sloppy editing and careless direction also adds to the confusion as half the time everything seemed out of sequence, while the other half of the film was constantly used up with these long, slow fade outs (which made no sense or served any purpose). They even stole the whole infra-red vision P.O.V from the creature in \"Predator\", which just looked too silly and out of place to be effective. Maybe all this proves is that Hollywood should just forget about trying to make anymore Bigfoot films, as they have yet to make one that works. So far each one has been as scary as an episode of \"In Search Of\" 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*This comment may technically contain \"spoilers\" but it sure doesn't contain surprises*

My cousin and I rented this the other day hoping to get a good laugh at a typical amateur crappy excuse for a horror movie. Unfortunately, we didn't get too many laughs, and we certainly didn't get too many scares either.

Plot outline: A plane containing a company head's daughter and some weird piece of technology crashes in an area where our furry friend lives, so the company head assembles a team of personalities, rather than skilled hunters, to recover it.

For the first 3\/4's of the movie, things get pretty boring. It mostly consists of shots of Big Foot lurking in the trees with the party members occasionally hearing him, and passing it off as nothing. We also see several shots of the party through Big Foot's point of view, and he apparently sees in thermal vision.

To set up the plot, we have to watch sequences of the group sitting around the campfire talking about possibilities to justify the sasquatches existence and actions. \"maybe he can dodge bullets...if he sees them coming\". Sure enough, we later see he can. \"There are many uncharted lands that the sasquatch may live in. Maybe this is one of them that was over-looked\". And obviously it is. \"Maybe the Sasquatch is angry because the plane hit one of his family members\". And sure enough, thats the case. Along with those scenes, there are a couple of \"Oh my god its the sasquatch oh wait its just you!\" scenes, and sadly, they are among the scariest.

Then, finally, people start dying. Well, 2 people at least. Plus, the bodies of past victims are discovered. The death scenes are pretty lame. It mostly just leaves it to our imagination by showing the Sasquatch grabbing them, then cutting to a different scene, but first, we are treated to some horrible screams off camera.

Then at last, we get to see the protagonist's final showdown with the monster. I gotta admit, I found it pretty exciting while it lasted. But alas, it's pretty short lived, and after we are treated to an ending that makes a half assed effort to seem cryptic. Then, some closing text with a rather boring conclusion.

I can't say I recommend this movie. It's not quite bad enough to give the Mystery Science Theatre 3000, and its definitely not scary enough and boring to enjoy as a horror movie. Just don't bother with it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe how bad this \"film\" is. For starters, the movie deals with the legend of Big Foot and a group of people having a close encounter with the creature. The premise is interesting and having Lance Henriksen in the cast (ALIENS)gave \"The Untold\" a promising outlook. Unfortunately that's as interesting as it gets. This looks like a direct to DVD release...or so I guess. This is basically a production-less affair with probably the worst editing (with a constant \"fading to black\" in between every scene!!!)I've seen in my life and acting that will sure make you cringe. Why Lance Henriksen picked this is completely fathomless. And the movie takes cues from just about any other genre movie, from \"Blair Witch Project\" (The video scene) and \"Predator\", to \"Alive\". This is supposedly based on true events, but the only truth to be found herein is just how BAD this movie is. I'm usually not a harsh critic and believe me, I DID try to enjoy this trash but eventually did NOT. Do yourselves a favor and steer clear from this DVD.

I'll try to put it mildly: This movie is PURE garbage and it made me want to take my gun and shoot my neighbors... or ask BLOCKBUSTER for a refund!!!

And Lance, shame on you! 1* out of 10*","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I am a fan of hospital and medical shows, I have found this one gripping and sometimes humorous (especially the scenes with Dr Whitman) which brings a bit la light relief. However, I was looking forward to the last episode because I expected that the bad ones would be punished and the good ones reinstated. Instead of that, the hospital management are making even more fools of themselves in an unbelievable manner and it's getting worse and worse for the good ones. You can't help wondering what the unions are doing or doesn't Rob, Donna and Maria know what unions are there for ? Besides, never seeing the outside, trees, grass, sunlight is a bit oppressive. Anyone understood what the last words were ? i.e. the answer Rob Lake gave to Mrs Strawberry's children question \"Why are you telling us all that?\" It was very frustrating not to be able to understand it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was hoping this would be of the calibre of Das Boot and echo the stark realism created by acclaimed German Director Leni RiefenStahl in her documentaries, sadly I was monumentally disappointed. The story line is implausible and defies credulity. An RAF airman is shot down and somehow finds his way to a hospital in Dresden. Anna a nurse whose father runs the hospital and is about to become engaged to a doctor she works with falls in love with the airman and they make love. The next evening at a lavish engagement party the airman turns up disguised as a German officer and dances with Anna. Although well directed and acted, to me it is soap opera of the lowest order.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film took up three hours, including commercials, on the History International Channel last night. But it felt like three weeks. It wasn't the cheap, stagy and unintentionally funny depictions of the bombing of Dresden. It wasn't that the film is stripped of almost all context surrounding World War II. It wasn't even that the bombing itself was often made to appear as nothing more than a major inconvenience for a goofy love story. No, it was the wooden featureless characterizations that sucked the life out of the story. Oh, and the fact that if it is possible for a movie to be obsequious, then Dresden is that movie. Perhaps a better title would have been DRESDEN--AS URIAH HEEP WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED IT.

It is especially the latter point that so irritates. Was the bombing of Dresden a war crime? The makers of this movie believe so. But in the typically emasculated way that Germans have come to approach World War II, they can't bring themselves to say so without braying about \"peace\" and \"no more wars--anywhere\" like they're Mother Teresa. And, also typical of German obsequiousness towards the British in particular, there is an unwieldy effort to grovel before \"Britishness\", while loading all the \"guilt\" for Dresden on to one person, Arthur Harris.

Did I say one person? Well, not quite. At the beginning of the movie, there is an exclamation from the leading character, Anna, with whom we are all supposed to sympathize. \"Damned Americans!\", she screams, while watching as far off bombs fall. And a few minutes later, a radio voice intones warnings about the \"American Terror Bombing\" being inflicted upon Germans.

Note the word, \"terror\". Got that? It's really the Americans behind the inhumane targeting of German civilians. No matter that the American strategy for almost all the war in Europe was the \"precision\" bombing of industrial and war manufacturing sites. No matter that it was the British who enthusiastically adopted \"area\" bombing of civilian targets in Germany--before the Germans had themselves even targeted English ones. No matter that the Americans bombed during the day, suffering more casualties in the process than the British, in order to hit precision targets, while the British bombed civilians under the cover of night. No matter that the Americans, essentially, were brought into the RAF's true terror bombing campaign kicking and screaming against it. No matter that most American officials, from FDR to Gen. Dolittle, opposed targeting civilians, while Churchill and his generals couldn't wait to do so.

No, in DRESDEN, both the Germans and British, except for \"Bomber\" Harris, are innocent of a doctrine, it is intimated, created by the evil Americans. And only the might and power of a love story between a German nurse and a downed British bomber pilot can adequately explain the \"truth\" of the atrocity. Right.

Oh, by the way, for the younger and likely less well read readers of IMDb, the first and still so far only major literary effort to give a thoughtful voice to Dresden's bombing was the pacifist novel penned by Kurt Vonnegut--an American POW in Dresden at the time of the bombing. I guess Germany's ZDF couldn't find a pretty nurse for Billy Pilgrim.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dresden had great expectations because of its spectacular theme and its high budget. I was really looking forward to it and I really wanted it to be good... but it is not. The only good thing are the special effects that are very well done, but, like in a really bad Hollywood blockbuster, everything else is missing.

It is poorly written, the screenplay tries to fulfill genre-rules with standard suspense\/love- story elements but there is no depth or originality at all. It's way below average. The next thing: It is also poorly directed. It has this uninteresting TV-directing-Style with lots of close-ups and wanna-be-great-action by fast editing where actually no action or suspense is. The actors are not bad but there is no performance that is touching in any way.

I don't know... they obviously try to do a typical TV-movie and not a film for the cinema, where its alway good to have some edges and a clear visual style. But why do they try to fulfill typical commercial Hollywood-rules? it really feels like the screenwriter did a weekend- class with some American scriptwriting-guru and then delivered this mess. Is there no producer who is responsible for the project who has an interest in dramaturgy\/ visual style or plain in simple this magical cinematic moments that make some TV-Movies great ?!? Do they think that an TV-audience is stupid and doesn't need to get a high quality- movie experience? The Downfall was a very good example for a good TV-movie but there was probably some executive or producer who knew what he was doing.

Don't waste you time with this one, rent \"downfall\" instead...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I only saw the first part of this and concluded that I wouldn't miss anything if I didn't watch the second episode. The cinematography was OK, but apart from this, the plot was just as commonorgarden and run-of-the-mill as any other war story. The actors and actresses play their characters without any passion, and the make up is really bad (Heiner Lauterbach with his white hair and Kai Wiesinger respectively, as if some dyed white hair could give them more dignity and common sense). I mean if you've watched more than two or three movies about WWII (as most of us have) then you'd only go to the trouble of seeing a third or fourth one if it promises some new insights or twists in the plot. But Roland Suso Richter seems to afraid of doing so, you can almost smell his fear of not living up to the bourgeois and jejune expectations of the conservative ZDF TV channel while watching this movie. Millions of Euros were spent to perpetuate boring and unimaginative German film-making. These millions of dollars could have been spent to make three or four independent movies, but no, let's give to some director who'll make a film that tells people that war can be explained by rational means. My advice: Read Joseph Heller or Kurt Vonnegut instead. They'll tell you what war is like! Or give me one million Euros and I make a better film than this load of BS! And another thing: Why is it that German movies only get to be nominated for the Oscars when the movie deals with WWII or the Holocaust? Probably because that is the only thing German film-making is good at. And that should get us thinking, shouldn't it?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a bloody nuisance! You can't get on subjects like these with TV budgets and some smartass director who can't tell the difference between a Lanc I, II and III. All the silly clich\u00e9s are well in place; on the character and human level the story is so schmaltzy and unbelievable it hurts. And all those responsible get carried away with joy for the brilliant ratings. Tech details: rubbish. Lancs flying that close would have kicked each other out of the sky by the dozen. Single engined night fighters attacking line astern: ridiculous. As I said: made up by a director who I bet never even heard the name Lancaster before that project and some kid 3D guys who turned Lancs into waddling ducks. But these are minor things compared to the overall mediocrity of this film. Although it might be too harsh I dare say this hurts the memory of those who died on both sides. TV crap, entertaining the dumb masses who don't care anyway. Shame on those responsible. Use your brains next time. And enjoy the profit you made from it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although unusually in colour for a second string oater, the vivid clothes of the lead females fails to bring any life to the flatly directed screenplay. The \"plot\" revolves around the Youngers newly released on parole attempting to go straight but being pursued by a vengeful ex-Pinkerton man (a scenery chewing Fred Clark) and a femme fatale determined to involve them in her bank robbery schemes whether they want to or not. As Cole Younger, Wayne Morris is big and hunky enough but his \" cool\" demeanour and wooden acting skills undermine things. The standard of action is frankly, no better than a Gene Autry or Roy Rogers TV episode with Colt .45's that never need reloading and uncanny shooting skills that allow a horse rider to shoot from the hip and wound a man from at least 50 feet...oh dear...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one incredibly standard western, that features some bad acting, dull storyline and silly action.

Biggest problem perhaps is how incredibly formulaic this movie is. It features all of the usual clich\u00e9s, yes even a bar fight and the movie really doesn't has any surprises in it. It makes this a dull and a weak western to watch, also not in the least because it's such a poorly made one.

It's obviously a small production and the movie looks like it got shot in 30 days. The directing and editing can be called bad and all of the action sequences featured in the movie are incredibly silly. It perhaps almost becomes a bit humorous to watch, for all the wrong reasons.

Its story also isn't that interesting. It's a pretty friendly western (so also no blood), in which for some odd reason everybody seems to be against the Younger brothers, who in this movie are being portrayed as good and very friendly guys. The story gets sillier and sillier as it heads toward its ending. The Younger brothers really existed and were part of the James-Younger gang, of which the famous brothers Frank and Jesse James were also part of. Of course they were not as friendly in real life as portrayed in this movie. It just was custom for an early '40's to have likable man characters in it. It wasn't really until the Spagethi-western age really that the main characters became rotten criminals themselves really. Strangely enough that approached has always worked out better than those early western's in which the main character is on the good side of the law.

Thing that does make this movie original is the fact that it was shot in color. This was something pretty unique for an '40's western and still gives the movie something extra. You can wonder though, why they shot this western in full color. The movie is still done in the style of a black & white early western after all and I actually believe that this movie would had been a bit more credible if it got done in black & white instead.

You could easily do without this western.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those films with a great potential. Brilliant actors, a debut from a very interesting director and a haunting \"Survivor\"-ish plot.

But it does not work at all.

To start with the good thing: The cinematography is stunning. The beauty of the Namibian desert shows itself as a merciless surrounding, also in the pictures. And then there is the acting. Quite allright. Jennifer Jason Leigh has never been better. Bruce Davison also seems to have developed his character from Altman's \"Short Cuts\".

Then the disappointments: Janet McTeer. Romane Bohringer. And the plot. Why on earth does Levring pick \"Lear\" for their play? The whole idea of letting Shakespeare articulate their despair and inner longings does not work. It seems like a facade. And it is clear that the tragedies takes place because of the choice of \"Lear\". They just needs to fit in in the Script by Levring and Academy Award winner Anders Thomas Jensen.

And the sex. It takes about three days, then more or less all of the characters are sexually frustrated. Dahh!! Sex is always the easy way out when you are in need of a crisis in a plot. Janet McTeer's part totally falls apart, mainly because of that ridiculous idea. The sex makes the plot fall promptly to the ground. Instead they could have focused on the dialogue. There must have been conversation between all of the characters, but we mainly see them talking in smaller groups. Their talking though is as dead as \"Lear\" and the rest of the film.

\"The King Is Alive\" still is not the worst Danish dogme '95 movie yet. But comparing it to the most recent of the homegrown dogme '95 films \"Italiensk for begyndere\" by Lone Scherfig, this one fails badly. It is not a good film. It is a bad one. But it is beautiful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie is being televised as I write.

I simply forgot how horrible an experience I had watching it in the cinema.

The whole idea of the movie is flawed. The fact that intelligent Europeans and Americans stranded in the desert forget all concept of morals and civilization within a couple of days is laughable. The madness of Lord of the flies was longer in the making.

Details that annoy are plenty. One is the single African god-like character that mysteriously survives the horrible climate and have done so for ages without losing his mind and he seems to have no supply-problems either. Ridiculous. So too is the rescue attempt from the tour guide, an Indiana Jones look-alike, whose rescue attempt ends in tragedy and death a 5 minute walk from the hut. Then there's the choice of Lear, imposed onto the group by a guru-like joke of an artist. He reminded me of my hippie high school art teacher.

The worst thing though is Levrings choice of Lear. Obviously is an intellectual brain-fart. How that ever was going to be an pass-time is never clear to me.

Positives are few and far between. It's a beautiful movie, but that's never important.

High school intellectualism. Weird for the sake of weird. It's a complete waste of time unless you like thrashing useless art movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Imagine a GILLIGAN'S ISLAND set in the African desert in modern times. Add people nowhere near as jaunty as the Skipper or Marianne--and enough angst to fill a German psychiatrist's office. Throw in a plot that manages to be interesting only episodically and literary parallelism that never delves deeply enough to truly satisfy. Season with a truly morose topic that's been exploited since the first world travelers found themselves very, very lost.

If THE KING IS ALIVE weren't a product of the reigning czars du jour of Dogme 95, would this film be garnering as much attention? Dogme 95 is to Hollywood as Danish modern is to rococo. A byproduct of digital technology, this Scandinavian movement seeks--quite dogmatically--to strip away artificiality in film-making, by using more natural elements and returning to the essence of storytelling. PEARL HARBOR, for instance, is the Dogme Antichrist.

Director\/co-author Kristian Levring's saga ponders interpersonal relations and human nature when placed under the fire of a life-threatening situation. Eleven people aboard a bus riding through the Namibian sand dunes suddenly find themselves stranded in the remains of an abandoned town. An African local who does not speak their language serves as observer and narrator (whose insights are among the film's most trenchant). As the strongest heads off for a five-day walk to the nearest village, the others stay behind, surviving on dented-canned carrots and circumambulating their likely future as vulture chow. Former thespian Henry decides that this rather unappealing crew needs a diversion, and hand-writes KING LEAR from memory. He assigns roles, and the group passes many days learning lines and rehearsing, in an effort to divert their attention from the seemingly inevitable.

Gradually the cast begins to lose it, and the savageries of their nature\u0097or, William Golding might say, human nature\u0097begin to surface. If you've ever seen LORD OF THE FLIES, you know that these things can get ugly, that being in a lifeboat situation can turn even Mother Teresa into the PMSing termagant of Calcutta.

The film was shot using an international ensemble of American, English, French and South African actors, who, the Dogme dogma dictates, develop themselves and their roles quite organically. THE KING was also filmed chronologically, adding a sense of realism to the ever-increasing desperation of its characters. After up to three hand-held cameras shot in digital, results were transferred to 35mm film.

The performance that compels most comes from Jennifer Jason Leigh, who plays a boho Pop Tart trying to bolster the spirits of the group in any and every way she can. Henry (David Bradley) is another finely played character, whose passion for his life's work ultimately saves the gang from utter despair. It's hard to feel too sorry for the others\u0097cruel wives and their oafish husbands, hirsute old womanizers, sulky French intellectuals, wealthy men who have more important places to be than marooned in the Namibian desert. Beckett might hate this question, but why is this group riding a bus together through remote Africa in the first place? Life-threatening morbidity! Utter despair rendered in graphic detail! A relentlessly tedious pace! Enjoy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A ragtag collection of Western tourists in Africa suffer the misfortune of their plane breaking down, so they're compelled to hop on a bus to travel across the Namibian desert to reach the nearest jumping-off point back to civilization. Not surprisingly, the driver's compass ends up not working, and they find themselves way off course, coming to a stop at a deserted ghost-town that had been a barracks during the fighting in WWII. They find some kerosene (useless in terms of re-filling the tank of their bus), a storage room full of half-poisoned carrots in tin cans, and a native hermit who views them with indifference. The one fellow amongst them who appears to have something on the ball in terms of survivalist techniques goes off to get help. They are to remove the tires from the bus and burn them if he's not back in five days: hopefully, someone will see the black smoke.

Does this sound interesting? Well, sure, even if it sounds a lot like *The Flight of the Phoenix* or any number of films in the \"deserted island\" genre. Which is why it's surprising that *The King Is Alive* is Number 4 (if anyone is still counting) in the ongoing \"Dogma 95\" series, which, if I remember that ridiculous \"Dogma 95 Vow of Chastity\" correctly, proclaimed that \"genre films\" are strictly verboten. Oops. Well, anyway, you can tell it's gonna try and be all arty and stuff in order to compensate for the fact that it's a genre flick. Yep, it doesn't take long for one member of the group, a wizened old stage actor, to start scribbling down -- from memory! -- the various roles from *King Lear* on, well, rolls of paper. The idea is that performing the play will help while away the time. All of which really goes against the absconded survivalist's advice to stay optimistic (didn't the old actor ever do a dinner-theater performance of *The Odd Couple* just once in his life?), quite apart from such an activity being a colossal waste of precious time and energy.

This movie is so bad I really don't know how to continue. It's so monumentally stupid, so full of absurd situations and characters that it beggars rational criticism. It may be a timely moment to offer Full Disclosure: I despise this so-called Danish film \"movement\" to an almost irrational degree. I think my face even turns slightly red at the mere mention of Dogma 95. First of all, if the name of your movement has the word \"dogma\" in the title, you've already lost me; secondly, in this particular instance, the movement's insistence on the abnegation of individual artistic achievement is a recipe for arch hypocrisy when you consider that the filmmakers here are plundering one of the greatest works of the greatest INDIVIDUAL writer who ever lived. (But, doubtless, the Dogma crowd believes the Works of Shakespeare were actually penned by a consortium of Elizabethan bigwigs like the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, Walter Raleigh, and the Queen Herself.)

Hell, I may have forgiven the whole enterprise if it had played the scenario for farcical purposes (attacking the precious Dogma -- now THAT would be subversive!). But the movie takes itself very seriously, and soon devolves into the clich\u00e9s attendant upon the genre in which it unmistakably belongs: people turning against each other; the men growing beards; the inevitable deaths of a few of the principal actors. All with a straight face. \"Is this the promised end?\" Well, not quite: we also have to endure the abysmal transfer of DV. For this is another Rule in the Dogma 95 Vow of Chastity: hand-held digital video only. Some friendly advice to the Danes: your \"movement\" is in trouble when your finished product has worse visual quality than an average high-school graduation home video. Professionalism belongs in an artist's bag of tricks, right alongside his own individuality. \"Artisan\" and \"artist\" are kindred words, Mr. von Trier: not every jackass with a $100 hand-held can be a filmmaker. Pass it on. And by the way: allow your Dogma directors to be credited for their films, while you're at it. The fact that the writer of *The King Is Alive* receives credit, while the guy (or girl) actually filming it doesn't, is just a wee bit hypocritical.

Contemptible. 1 star out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, they sent it on TV between midnight and 2:00 am - it seems like the right time to watch it, and then go to bed afterwards ...

No, it was not really living up to my expectations. I think the Dogma concept is good, because the film then gets closer to what's really happening between the involved characters when you cut all the unnecessary effects and mood-making music out. But then again, this concept requires some interesting action between the characters.

I cannot say, that I know King Lear (the Shakespeare version) very well, if I had known the play, I would probably have been able to predict much of the film.

Well, a crisis can bring the best and worst sides of a character on display - and we certainly see some bad sides. Oh yes, the paint of civilisation and culture can be very thin, and behind this paint you may find an animal.

If you then compare it with \"Italiensk for begyndere\" (Italian for beginners) or \"Mifunes sidste sang\" (Mifune's last song), you see the same but opposite thing: A crisis can certainly bring people to view their life in a more constructive way. And if you dare do, you may win.

When the film had ended, I thought to myself: \"Oh that's why I haven't seen it before ...\" The film has its own beauty. The quality of the work of the cameraman, actors, etc is good. But the script could need something more. A plot maybe wouldn't hurt.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see \"TKIA\" with high expectations, which might have influence on my opinion on it. I have seen all of the Dogme films, and this TKIA, is by far the worst. The story intertwines with themes from Shakespeare's play: King Lear, but never succeeds in capturing the audience and making them care. The directing of the actors is very loose, even for Dogme style movies, and results in poor undefinable acting. The story lacks any dynamics whatsoever, and I lost interest very shortly. There are some scenes in the film which are there to shock the viewer, but I don't think they enhanced the story at all. Mifunes sidste sang and Festen are both Dogmefilms that proved to be well directed, and had good storylines, so I shall look forward to better Dogmefilms in the future. Perhaps Aake Sandgren's \"An Invisible Man-Dogme 6\" will prove to lift the quality again. For he is, like Vinterberg and S.K. Jacobsen a skilled and educated director.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Can somebody please explain the plot of this movie to me? Yes, I know the bus ran out of gas in the middle of the desert, after the driver never noticed that his compass wasn't functioning, but what then? And how did it end? Maybe I'm to stupid to understand this movie, but to me it was an absolute waste of time.

My recommendation? Do not bother, there are far better movies to be seen. This movie ranks with my other all time low-low's (Going overboard - Adam Sandler and Fire on the Amazon - Sandra Bullock)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The King is Alive\" is a flawed and contrived mess of a movie which comes off like a self indulgent auteur's excuse to transport a bunch of actors to a Godforsaken Namibian desert where he can play major-Dogme-domo and film his selfishly conceived, silly, overwrought drama with utter disregard for the real forces of human nature, market appeal, common sense, and even good art. In other words this is one dumbassed flick and if you don't believe that, your penance is watching it. Only for filmheads, critics, dilettantes, and the like. (D)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A bad movie, but with one reel that is worth savoring. For most of the film, the jokes are bad, the songs are bad, even W.C. Fields is bad. Then there is one sequence with Bob Hope and his movie-ex; the dialogue is witty and the song (a version of \"Thanks for the Memories\") light, cynical and delightful. Who parachuted in for this one bit? Yet it makes the whole thing worth the original 25 cents admission.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pauline Kael gave this movie a good review but it is terrible. It is very outdated , the humour is silly and the music is forgetable.In fact it is so silly it is almost embarrassing. It might have been some fun in 1938 but I can not imagine anyone enjoying it in 2003.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Super Troopers was an instant classic. Club Dread, while disappointing to many, had its moments. Puddle Cruisers has fewer moments. I saw this movie on the shelf of my local video store and saw at the bottom that it was made by the Broken Lizard group who made Super Troopers, so naturally I picked it up. I only found one scene to be laugh out loud funny. A far cry from Super Troopers. All in all, I was very disappointed. I would not recommend this to anyone, unless you have an abundance of free time, and really need to kill some time. However, you're better off playing video games, or watching something that might make you laugh or think.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even though this is the first film by the broken lizard group, it's the last one I saw. Having mildly enjoyed Super Troopers, and managed to sit through the crap that is club dred and beerfest, I was surprised to hear they did an earlier film. Now i didn't sit down with high hopes, but was hoping for a funny campus romp. My friend asked me to keep in mind they are younger (obviously) and its their first foray into film. I did and was still disappointed. Not taking away the acting and comedy skills of the BL guys, they were OK. The whole film was tiresome, clich\u00e9d and frankly boring. Some of the other actors in the film were really poor at acting. And the Rugby game didn't even resemble rugby. Poor showing. They improved drastically with Super Troopers and have declined since. Lets hope they get back on form with Super Troopers 2","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"man was this hard to watch! it was not at all funny, not well made and it had no point or plot to it whatsoever. the acting was horrible. it was not well made at all. it looked like a bunch of kids my age were just screwing around and making a pointless movie. it is by far the absolute worst broken lizard movie. if you are a broken lizard movie like myself you will disappointed and bored to your death. please skip this pointless movie about ugly guys looking for chicks. you will not regret m advice. by the way, don't say you didn't find this review helpful just because you didn't agree with it. thats stupid, like this movie. the only OK scene was when the main guy was playing rugby and got beat the crap out of. i liked that cause i found his character pretty damn annoying.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was the worst movie I've ever seen. No story, no point, it wasn't even funny at all, not sure why people say this movie is hilarious because it sucked SO much!! Felix Bean the main character sucked. Susanna sucked. This movie was made in 1996 and it really was set in the 80s. What else, I'm never letting my friend pick movies ever again. Hmm, the movie cover said it was from the producers from super troopers, who kidnapped them and stole their identities. Wow, what a waste of time. The only minute thing that was funny was Freaky Ricky, he was funny, especially when he and Emily ended up together. That was funny. All and all, it sucked, waste of time and sleep. Wow, never thought a movie like this could be made, so dumb for watching for watching it to the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh My Gosh!!!! This was the first movie Broken Lizard made as a group (although it just recently came to video), and I have never been more disappointed in my entire life!!! I tell you what, if I had seen this movie before I saw Super Troopers (which by the way, is a kick A$$ movie!!!), I never ever would have watched it!! I had read several reviews online, as well as on the cover of the DVD, that raved it as being,\"Broken Lizard's funniest movie ever!\" Now if they were referring to Super Troopers as being their funniest movie ever, I would agree nonstop, but not this one. Talk about dry. It took the movie a good 45 minutes to even get going, and by then, I was so out of the mood to watch it, that it wasn't even worth it. Maybe you gotta be high for it to really be funny? I dunno. I love these guys, I really do, but that movie is by far the worst one they've made. Club Dread was a pretty good movie, but this one, just wow. I'd highly recommend Super Troopers if you want a good laugh, but if you want more of a romance, drama, with a few funny spots, I'd say go with Puddle Cruiser. Just my opinion though, everyone is entitled to their own! :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found Super Troopers only mildly amusing at best (seemed like a glorified Police Academy ripoff to me), and I rented this movie in hopes of it being better. It wasn't.

The writing is absolutely horrible and the pacing of this film is even worse. It doesn't feel like a whole lot happens in this film, or that it really gives us a reason to give a damn about any of the characters.

The actor who plays Felix is totally uninspired, though possibly due in part to the dialogue he had to work with. In short, this movie just went wrong in so many places.

I get the impression that since films like Clerks, independent filmmakers seem to think that they can make movies like this with long, rambling scenes of dialogue where characters are trying to be funny. But, where dialogue in Clerks pushes the story forward, in this movie, it hopelessly weighs it down. Films are supposed to have a decent balance of action and dialogue, and as tempting as it is for filmmakers to try to have tons of snappy, funny dialogue, it just doesn't always work. Especially if they're not that good at writing dialogue. I hate to say it, but even \"Extreme Heist\" was more interesting than this movie- and that movie was so low-budget it was shot on video.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie because the DVD cover made it look like it was going to be a ridiculous college comedy like van wilder or animal house. I took it to my friend house to watch for movie night. We ended up stopping it 15 minutes into the film, and watched Copper Mountain instead. I don't know if any of you have seen Copper Mountain, but it isn't great either. However, I would have to say that the Alan Thick Jim Carrey Duo made it a more enjoyable watch.

I later finished Puddle Cruiser. This movie was slow and the humor was forced. This movie reminded me of some stinkers that I saw in some of my earlier production classes in college. I was left wondering \"was this the film that enabled Broken Lizard to make Supertroopers?\" Also how could this movie suck so bad? Supertroopers was good and Club Dread was decent. Don't see this movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you would have asked me 1 month ago how this movie was I probably would have left most of this out, but I am a fan and as any fan I visit the movies sites often well when Super Troopers came out I visited that site after the release on DVD and was hooked yea it's a difficult site to stay on, but the good ones normally are like good families they stick together. What a story this company\/comedy troop has.BEGGING people to come and see there movies on street corners,universities, anywhere they can and all for free and after all that to develop a great fan base after a few years THEY CRAP ON IT And decide to close down there website that helped them and was created for the fans, but the worst thing about it....THEY DIDN'T TELL ANY OF THEM. They just decided that they are better than us they want new fans not the fans that helped them get where they are....you know the same fans they begged years ago. Still the smart crew they are they released the best movie with Super Troopers and got everyones attention and thank God for that because after that they have sucked with everything else. Good for you guys way to go mainstream, just remember when you realize your material isn't that good and you have no new fans left you are the ones who crapped the original ones away. FANS MAKE YOU WHO YOU ARE NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Never burn your bridges","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As Anthony Bourdain said... \"I wanted to stick my head in a bucket of lye, pull my eyeballs out and jump off a cliff.\" This summarizes my feelings about this pathetic waste of human effort. Artless, self- indulgent, thoughtless, and just bad. Bad beyond comprehension. What else can I say? If you are unfortunate enough to be in an area where this piece of idiotic trash is playing, please, please have mercy on soul and avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, I'm in the U.S.

When I first saw this, I thought it was an obvious - and loathsome - rip off of \"The Office\" (UK). I would have thus awarded it zero stars, but lo and behold, it came out long before the Ricky Gervais series.

Still, it's hard to watch this or any other show with a similar dynamic (including the American \"Office\") without comparison. It just isn't even close to being the same thing.

I will give it some credit for being original, and ahead of its time. I'll also say that it - and the U.S. \"Office\" and \"Larry Sanders\" - are actual satires. The UK \"Office\" is something grander and more transcendent, as if populated with real people in events that felt like they actually happened. However, unlike this or the shrill Christopher Guest \"mockumentaries\", it isn't really a satire, while \"The Newsroom\" definitely is.

Be that as it may, \"The Newsroom\" still isn't very funny. It's aloof, and self-aware, but with a cast and crew not nearly smart or talented enough to heft the goods. It's weighty comedy being carried on weak shoulders. Commendable, but ultimately not recommended.

--- And what's with the lack of an anamorphic DVD?! I know it was shot in anamorphic widescreen, because I saw the pilot episode on one of our HD channels. CBC, get with the programme. ; )","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show has been performed live around the country with a wide variety of casts. I saw it first in the Provincetown production the first summer it was in P-town (2001)--before it was, curiously enough, banned in that overwhelmingly gay resort (the codes which resulted in its closing have since been amended). I saw it again later in the off-Broadway, long-running production in New York. Oddly enough, the P-town production was far better than the New York one--fresher, cuter, more spirited and funnier--but that was only in the 2001 showing; subsequent attempts to clone the production (\"Bare Naked Lads\" in 2007) were definitely third-rate. This filmed production features a Los Angelos production cast, and it is, as other comments have suggested, not the best. I would rate it somewhere in between the top-notch 2001 P-town production and the third-rate \"Bare Naked Lads\" P-town show from last summer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm writing this as I watch the DVD. I grabbed for the laptop and went to IMDb during the first song. I didn't know anything about the movie except that a friend said that the show was supposed to be good. It has a decent Netflix rating too, so here I am.

Maybe on the stage this worked. But I have to say that the sight of chorus boys dancing and singing completely naked just seems silly. And the lip syncing to a prerecorded score adds to the strangeness.

Most of the songs and routines are about aspects of male nudity. This is my idea of nothing, sorry. The score, so far, is generic show tune music. Nothing memorable, or particularly melodic. Everything is to serve the lyrics. Which, I have to say, sound like they were written by a committee. Each song is essentially one extended joke. If the jokes were ten seconds, they might work. These single several-minute-long jokes don't.

I'm now watching the movie by chapters--a few minutes until I get the gist. Kind of in the hopes that one of them will be different, or entertaining enough to keep me from going on to the next scene. Nope.

Okay. I'm finished. So here's what I think. If you have any experience or long-standing appreciation of musical theater, avoid this--it's just not quality. If, however, you're a gay twenty-something and have never seen or heard a musical comedy, you might be entertained. Or maybe this would hold your interest if you've never seen a lot of attractive naked men.

I have.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I absolutely could not believe the levels of ineptitude on display in this production. I honestly thought gay men had better taste than this. I know I do.

The bulk of the blame doesn't lie with the cast, but let's get them out of the way first...the only one with real talent was Joe Souza (plus he had the best bod in the cast). He had a nice, clear theatre-style voice. Okay, and Jaymes Hodges' voice was so-so, but he had a vacant expression in every number. The rest couldn't hold a note in a bucket, even though the music was obviously dubbed in after the fact. Must have been really dreadful hearing them live. They were also all girly-boys except for maybe three. If I wanted to see naked WOMEN onstage I could go to the titty bars. Not sure why anyone would choose to film the L.A. production instead of New York. I would imagine NY has more readily available singing talent, though one would think in L.A. they would be able to find better-LOOKING guys. Apparently not.

But I digress...the real blame here lies with the creators and producers. This score was the most banal, insipid tripe I have ever heard. It sounded like some theatre queens took all their musical cd's, threw them in a blender and poured the goo onto a page. Sadly, I'm sure there are many who can't tell the difference between good theatre writing and whatever this is. I mean seriously, I was laughing my ass off through the whole thing but not at the lame jokes. I think the morbid 'my-lover-has-died-of-AIDS-song' entitled \"Kris, Look What You've Missed\" was the most hysterical thing in the whole show. Genius writing...Kris \/ Missed...wow...they ALMOST rhyme...must be a good lyric. And Jesus...the END of that song...\"Oh Kris, Ohhh Kris, OHHHH Kris...\" OVER AND OVER!!! My other favorite was \"You gotta be a Pumpy Junkie Boy to be a Humpy Hunkie Boy\"...WTF??? The whole show was full of the most arbitrary lyrics JUST BECAUSE they rhymed. Where did these people learn to write songs? Apparently they listened to Sondheim and said \"He's not so great, I can do that\"...as evidenced by the retarded \"Bobby, Bobby, Bobby\" reference from COMPANY in one song. Another irk: why are 20-somethings singing about Robert Mitchum and Tab Hunter? Obviously coming from the mouths of the lyricists and not the actors...again, bad writing.

If you love torture and pain, and I know many of you strange fetishists do, go ahead and watch it. But you've been warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That's the worst film I saw since a long time. Historic accuracy is totally non-existent. For example, James Wolfe, who his depicted as an anti-French Canadian, is shown in London during the summer of 1759. Natives are like Indians of a bad Hollywood movie of the 60's : They wear deerskin clothes and ride horses (The Montagnais had never ride horses). The film is taking place in Quebec City, but footage is set in Louisbourg, showing the Atlantic Ocean.

The original scenario was supposed to include the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, but the producers drop this idea saying that costs for uniforms and participants would be more than 4 millions dollars ! I think they never heard about re-enactment.

All the movie is planned to be a new Titanic : an impossible love during an historic tragedy (the fall of New-France). There's even a song performed by Celine Dion at the end of the movie (Yes, I stayed till the end of the movie, but I deeply regret). But the worst thing of all is that this movie cost 30 millions dollars. I just don't know how they spend all this money.

Sorry for my anger, but I'm just too irritated.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the one major problem with this film, along with a good deal of qu\u00e9becois' biggest movies: Done in a pretentious way by pretentious people.

It's really sad, but \"big shots\" movie makers (driving Dodge Stratus...) from this province believes They Got the Thruth, They Know What the Little People Like.

We're not a rich province, every time a big movie like this (30 millions?!!?) is made, it's cutting off a lot of others who won't see their movie made because of lack of governmental help. So it generates mediocrity; only movies from \"friends of the family\" are going to be made.

I sound angry and I am. I went see Nouvelle-France expecting a journey in the lives of my ancestors, but i found myself stuck in a pool of inconsistencies: french accent (we gotta please our cousins, so f*** our qu\u00e9becois' language)and lack of historical research is only a few. Add a campy love story and the same music score playing again and again and dumb qu\u00e9becois' viewer is gonna open up and ask for more. I'm glad this pretentious piece of s*** didn't do as planned by the Dodge stratus Big Shots... It's gonna help movie makers who aren't in the very restrained \"movie business\" of Qu\u00e9bec.

Rent Cruising Bar instead and have a real good time.

PS: I'll never forgive them for ruining such an awesome title.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Please, do not waste your time and money with this stinker of a turkey.

This is an over-the-top melodramatic love story set against the background of New France (aka Quebec in the 18th century). Or is it an historical saga of New France with an epic romance thrown in? I don't know, and at this point I don't care anymore.

There is a rich story to be told out there about the intrepid French adventurers, rogues and other assorted characters who settled Canada and parts of the US. This is not it. The characters are total clich\u00e9s, the story is overblown, breathless and devoid of any charm, and before long all the viewer wants to do is get the heck out of the theatre, have his or her head checked, and get hold of his or her anger at being taken in by the hype.

This film was the biggest disappointment of my year in terms of cinema, especially since, as an historian and a French Canadian or Canadian of French descent (or whatever) I am a) a believer in the fact that the story of my people in this country has yet to be told as well as it could on film b) interested in this subject c) a film-lover who thinks cinema these days could do wonders with this grandiose and tragic story.

As I said, do not waste your time with this frustrating bit of claptrap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A film about an interesting and sensitive period of history, filmed in beautiful surroundings, managed to present an appallingly trivial and clich\u00e9d production, grossly clumsy script, poor continuity, intrusive slushy music, sugary casting, and pallid acting.

It was a toss up between the script and the acting as to which was worse. The script probably won - the historical background, backstory and character descriptions were spelt out in painful detail in the dialogue. .. actually words can't describe quite how bad this film is.

In a pre-release screening there was a massive exodus from about thirty minutes in. At about an hour many of those who remained were laughing loudly. I should add I am a Francophile, I am fascinated by Canada, and love historical film. This really was a one off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's really a shame to see so many talented people involved in what's happen to be a very waste of talents. The plot is clich\u00e9. The directing is too self conscious and the characters are almost caricatures. One of the most disappointing aspect of this film is Gerard Depardieu's performance in the English version (this movie was shot in french and English at the same time). Although he is one of the best actor in the film, he gives the worst performance of them all. I must say that Bianca Gervais come very close though...

On a more positive note I must say that the newcomer Juliette Gosselin gives an amazing performance in both version. Unfortunately that the only good thing I remember about this film...

By the way I must apologize for my not very good English...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite decades of tax incentives, in terms of international visibility the Canadian film industry still lags behind most central African and Islamic states (surprisingly few Canadian films are released outside their native shores), and Nouvelle-France aka Battle of the Brave is another example of why. More than any other country, commercial Canadian cinema seems unable to develop an identity of its own and is stuck in pale imitation of other countries' failures. On paper this historical drama could look vaguely promising. There's certainly a rich vein of untapped material in Canada's history as the French and English warred over and bought and sold the colony, though none of it makes the cut here unless you count the odd blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene of characters saying \"Wolfe is dead\" or \"Nouvelle-France is no more\" before getting back to the soap operatics. But while this isn't a history lesson, it isn't a drama or the epic adventure the new title promises either: there is no battle in the film unless you count 10 seconds of shelling by a half-dozen re-enactors and one collapsed shed. The town square that is all we ever see of Quebec is a rather obvious flatly lit studio interior, giving many scenes an old TV miniseries look, as does director Jean Beaudin's reluctance to offer much in the way of long shots or even exteriors. What you do get for your money is a simple but drawn-out Harlequin romance about doomed lovers constantly separated by events beyond their control where the biggest surprise is that Fabio doesn't turn up in the cast. It's the kind of film where whenever two characters are about to make the beast with two backs the camera pans over to a convenient raging fireplace or waterfall.

An Anglo-Canadian-French co-production that doesn't so much unite once-warring nations as throw any country with a decent tax break into the stew, this massive box-office disaster was clearly intended to be Canada's Titanic - though someone neglected to tell the producers they meant the film, not the ship - but turns out more like Revolution done on the cheap without the battle scenes, crowds or the few moments that threaten to briefly work in the face of overwhelming odds. The Montreal Mirror described it as \"so bad that one can't even find the strength to mock it.\" That's rather unfair, because while for most of its running time the film looks like a below-par 80s miniseries, the last half hour suddenly becomes very funny, with characters accidentally putting their legs in bear traps, dastardly husbands declaring \"You'll never see your handsome lover again, cuckold's honor! You'll pay for this, both of you!\" and our heroine accused of murder and - gasp! - witchcraft in a trial funny enough to have been in Demi Moore's version of The Scarlet Letter. Throw in caddish British governors, devious slaves and Celine Dion singing at the end and you've got something that at times almost feels like the kind of film that Timbo Hines was aspiring to (and still managed to miss wildly) with his legendarily inept period version of War of the Worlds, albeit without the staggering technical incompetence.

Leading man David La Haye's versatility seems limited to the number of other actors he can look like throughout the course of the film: he starts out looking like Andy Garcia, briefly adopts the Al Pacino Revolution look, flirts with the clean-shaven Tch\u00e9ky Karyo style before turning into a younger Ted Danson as his character ages. While his opening scene where he reacts to news of his father's death with an expression that looks like he's waiting for the director to tell him he can go home now promises a feast of bad acting, in reality he gives the impression more of a mediocre supporting actor who's lucked into a lead at the last minute when whoever was originally cast finally read the script and bailed. He shows willing and gives it a go but the grace and charisma the part needs just isn't there. Billie Piper lookalike Noemie Godin-Vigneau's leading lady doesn't exactly set the screen alight either despite occupying center-stage as the peasant girl who is the prey of giggly Vincent Perez's corrupt and perverted Intendant Le Bigot (that really is the character's name), the duplicitous goateed drunken lackey Sebastien Huberdeau and, saddest of all, Gerard Depardieu's bedridden revolutionary dirty old priest in a manky grey-haired wig. It's a truly pitiful sight to see a once great actor at the absolute rock bottom of his game as he shuffles through the motions looking like he's not just lost the will to act but the will to live along with it. He clearly couldn't be bothered to stick around for the English dubbing sessions (or even a couple of long shots where he is very noticeably doubled). Small wonder he talked of retiring around the time of the film's brief release.

Some brief comic relief is provided by Jason Isaacs in his default Patriot mode who overplays Wolfe of Quebec rather like an asthmatic Alf Garnett\/Archie Bunker played by Timothy Dalton on speed while Tim Roth's William Pitt stands on the sidelines with the occasional bemused smile of one who's being put up in a rather nice hotel with excellent room service and plenty of days off, though like Colm Meaney's Benjamin Franklin they're both in the film for less than three minutes. (Voltaire and Madame Pompadour pop their heads around the door for a couple of minutes as well but fail to make any impression, comic or otherwise.) The supporting actresses are generally better: Juliette Gosselin and Bianca Gervais as the heroine's real and adopted daughters and a strikingly beautiful Irene Jacob looking for all the world like a young Fanny Ardant are all refreshingly good and deserve much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the title, the tag-line, the plot summary on the DVD etc..., I expected something at least slightly epic, with the historical fiction and the romance concurring to thrill you; that's what they did in Last of the Mohicans for example, and I think they did a superb job. Maybe I had standards too high for this movie and didn't give it a fair chance. But the scenery was barely OK (how could they not come up with something more beautiful when they have such landscapes to work with?), the two lovers had no chemistry whatsoever, and the plot was just so predictable it felt like it had been drafted in 5 minutes by a twelve-year-old -- and not a very imaginative one. Nouvelle-France is a love story set in an eventful historical age. But the history of Nouvelle-France is hardly a side note, and the love story is banal and fails dramatically to make the viewer care for the lovers' fate. Surprisingly, the only good parts about the movie came from something completely unexpected and unadvertised: the relationship between Marie-Loup, the heroine, and her children (one natural, one adopted). If only they'd concentrated on her family and forgotten about the love story, it would have been a much better movie. Marie-Loup's parents should have been given more screen time and character development, the politics going on in Britain should have been more than a three-minute scene with barely any connection to the rest, the rotten baddie should have been either more developed or removed from the script completely (why hire actors like Vincent Perez, Tim Roth or Jason Isaacs to misuse them so badly?) Bad work overall.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the second the music swelled (second one of the movie) and it was movie-hack tripe, I knew I was in for a very long ride. Horrendously clich\u00e9d - (I laughed a lot and knew how the plot ended WELL before the ending) - they didn't use Louisbourg particularly well and the costuming and hair were kinda awful. (My particular favourite makeup moment is that the only way they age Depardieu as far as I could see was by putting a straight hair wig on him, instead of wavy). I could go on about the ridiculous unsuitability of the music for a long time -- the movie could be improved massively by an 18th century score.

(ETA: AH, it's that horrible moviemusic guy Patrick Doyle who's responsible for the score - say no More! He should NOT be allowed near historical movies -- he should stick to 20th century settings.)

The \"visit to the notable people portion\" was also hilarious particularly his little visit to Madame Pompadour who was not particularly convincingly played.

I thought the only actor who appeared grounded in the century at hand was Michael Maloney as James Murray. He absolutely stole the show for all 30 seconds he was on screen. Tragically, he made you see what the movie could have been.

The love scenes did have some heat - the two leads were stunning together.

The most awful scene for historians is where they're at the big leavetaking dinner in Britain before Wolfe sails and he lifts his glass and says the first two lines of \"How stands the glass around\" aka \"Why soldiers why\" as if it's a toast. Absolutely excruciating failure at historicity, much better to leave it out. Thousands of people know the damn song and thousands more believe the rumour that Wolfe and company sang it (probably drunk, not all stuffy like this bunch). Daft.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was truly the most painful experience I have had in quite some time in a movie theater. I will forego such facile criticisms as 'maudlin' or 'historically inaccurate' or 'horse's crap's crap' because quite simply our sympathies would then immediately go out to these words. If a director's to make a sweeping grandiose love epic, well for god's sake MAKE A REAL DAMN SWEEPING GRANDIOSE LOVE EPIC! Why bother with such laughably unconvincing second rate harlequin romances and such boring interchanges between characters we could care less about when the most decisive battle on Canadian soil is taking place? And for the pompous people thinking 'oh well, this story must center characters!\" well you're wrong, dead wrong.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Much can usually be forgiven in period pieces that ask us to recall important historical events and spice them with enough love interest to keep the story going. BATTLE OF THE BRAVE tackles the 18th Century struggle for the control of Quebec (an all of Canada) between the British and the French with sidebars form the new America. It has the makings of a sweeping epic of fascination, but sadly in the hands of writer Pierre Billon (whose script deserves a Razzie award for worst of the season) and the scattered, unfocused, and confusing direction by Jean Beaudin this film is a dud - a two and a quarter hour tedious mess of a film.

Even a cast a fine actors - pairing No\u00e9mie Godin-Vigneau as Marie-Loup Carignan with David La Haye as Fran\u00e7ois le Gardeur, adding the lovely Bianca Gervais as Acoona , the venerable G\u00e9rard Depardieu as Le cur\u00e9 Thomas Blondeau, and the likes of Ir\u00e8ne Jacob, Vincent Perez (ridiculous in period wigs), Tim Roth as William Pitt, Colm Meaney as Benjamin Franklin, and Jason Isaacs as G\u00e9n\u00e9ral James Wolfe - doesn't help. Veteran actors such as these must have cringed at the crude lines written for their characters! Cover the whole mess in a sappy musical score by Patrick Doyle and the result is a long film to be avoided. Sad to say such bad things about a costly project, but be warned....Grady Harp","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The actors were not believable, The story was really weak, total sap, and completely predictable. Really disappointed in Depardieu. It was a shame that they did not focus more on the struggle of the Canadian fight for independence. We have seen this love story many times before, only with better actors! We had to wait for the last 15 minutes for a small sense of drama! The soundtrack was totally disturbing. The underscore hit you over the head with sentimentality. But really over the top. The only thing we found OK was the fact that they let the Indians speak their language. And we found the cinematography, of the Indian village relatively realistic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a Canadian History major, my first thing to say : HISTORICAL FACTS ARE NOT ACCURATE! How can a producer do that? The deportation of the Acadian wasn't in 1759 when we see Franklin in London, but in 1755! How can he pass that in the movie? The scenes in Londo were useless too. Then for the story for anyone that read \"Les Anciens Canadians\", you have the story line right there. It's the story of La Coriveau, that \"witch\". Add a love story too and a tragic relationship between mother and daughter ending. Sure, it brought tears to my eyes. But that's it. Then there's the fact it's apparently set up in Qu\u00e9bec City, but it's mostly shot at the Forteresse de Louisbourg. Sure it's a historical site and it's accurate to the time, but it was obvious that the scenes were not all set in Qu\u00e9bec City. Overall, if you're looking for a documentary of New France, go get Candad : A People's History, a real documentary on the history of Canda and NEw France. If you want a love story that will bring you tears, a story set up in a wonderful forest, watch New France.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"See.. I really wanted to enjoy this movie. There were moments when my heart beat faster, when the hair on my neck began to stand up, when my muscles began to tighten.. but just like a strip tease, I was left with no real action, no resolution, and money missing from my wallet.

Jaume Balaguer\u00f3 and Miguel Tejada-Flores apparently don't know the correct recipe for making a Horror Movie, and as such, utilized the old amateur cook's method of throwing everything into the pot.

This movie is really The Shining, Poltergeist, Amityville, and Hellraiser all rolled into one. Amazing, I know, but true. All the flavors are there, you can taste each of them, they just don't mix well. I'm not gonna go down the list of every thing wrong with this movie; in short, good cinematography, mediocre acting, worse dialogue.

The -real- problem with stealing from so many movie plots and combining them into one movie, aside from the resulting confusion, is while you CAN have several plots running at one time, you can't have several endings. And what does Jaume do when he runs into this problem? Just like a Freshman in English 101, you end your story with ellipses, \"The little car vanished into the darkness and ..... THE END\" Oooh, spooky. Not really. And very anticlimactic. The ending left me confused and disappointed; almost empty.

Take your $10, go rent The Shining, Poltergeist, and Hellraiser.. scare the pants off yourself, have a great time, and forget that The Darkness ever existed.

-BJamin","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What starts out as a passable movie degenerates into one of the most incoherent, UNscary, incompetently made, stupid attempted horror films of recent years.

Absolutely terrible. It's such a derivative mess ripping off every decent fright flick you can think of without successfully producing a single scare. Whether it's copying the recent trend with creepy kids or ghosts walking past the camera or the old school horror of Fulci's Gates of Hell.

The worst thing is there's not even a cat jumping out of a cupboard to make you jump. To be avoided.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This review contains spoilers. I didn't have any expectations about this movie. I pulled it off the video store rack with the movie, \"White Noise\".

First, the credits for this stupid movie run about 5 minutes into it. The pacing from start to finish is slooooow. The main heroines don't like to wear a bra and the director appears to enjoy the jiggle effect as Anna Paquin descends the stairs. If you like movies for boobies, this one has a low level buzz factor.

Second, it's nice that the movie rips off elements of Lovecraft and other horror genre mechanisms, but in better movies, there is at least some rational or consistently irrational behavior. This stinker tries to establish some sense of modernity and reality but then you have situations where no one calls the police even though they've uncovered a treasure trove of potentially incriminating forensic evidence, and otherworldly rituals are nicely spelled out in a comprehensive book on otherworldly rituals like on Buffy. I was waiting for Miles to show up and give some consultation on how to slay a certain demon type of so and so.

The premise is that it is possible to open up an age of Darkness where creatures that crawl on the ceiling can cut your throat or turn the meat grinder effect on you. Ho hum. To do this you need to have a sacrificial circle and then have seven kids who must have their throat cuts by people who love them. This opens the world to the age of Darkness. At least that's what it says in complete detail in the book of ancient occult rituals. Which raises the annoying question of, uh, well, how did the ones who wrote the book know, and, if this is what happens, would you really leave this information in a book you can take out from the library, much less get it from a library in a world that is not covered already in Darkness, an age brought on by lunatics who could have performed this like much earlier using the \"Occult Practices to Bring the World to Darkness for Dummies, 2nd Edition\"? It turns out the father in the story is the 7th child, the one that ran away from the ritual 40 years ago; he was released by his father, who is the doctor\/grandfather in the movie, who wanted to try the ritual with presumably, other stupid parents, who just wanted to see if dumb sh*t like this opening the world to darkness actually works. The grandpa let the father go because he \"didn't really love him\". Aduh. Stupid stupid movie written by a moronic director who appears to think he's some kind of Eurofilm Auteur. There's also a scene in the movie where the kid appears with big welts on his face and the mother grabs him and has this total lack of reaction. The whole movie is like this. People seeing really weird sh*t going on and not reacting to it in any sort of normal way. Must be bad plot and direction.

Anna Paquin does her best to play her character realistically without cracking a smirk, and she does look smashing in a halter top, but at several critical moments in the story, her character doesn't bother to call in for back up. You know, more of the same, \"I will walk into a likely demonic evil situation without any knowledge of defense or help from others carrying flashlights or firepower even though I sense impending doom.\" And even dumber as it may seem, even if you bring on the age of Darkness, these creatures who make you bloody can't attack if you have a light source, but they appear as people you know, and tell you to turn off the light source. Reminds me of the video game \"Alone In The Dark\"; maybe this movie is a rip off of that game's concept.

The best actors in the film are the young kid and Anna. They both die at the end. The entire family dies. The Darkness creatures lead them to their death, but really, the stupidity of the characters in the family was the main cause of death. The other adults could be interchangeable with any other actors from the Red Shoes Diaries series of fine cinema.

So to wrap up, the worst things about this movie are the stupidity of the characters in bumping around blindly in an obviously abnormal situation, the really crap plot (there is an old architect in the story who designs a house with a sacrificial altar hidden in it - the architect has suspected from the beginning there would be occult sacrifices in the house but doesn't tell anyone because, well, no real reason, they couldn't find the kids, but he didn't bother to tell authorities about the HIDDEN ROOMS which he designed into the house but he does like to hang around the house for a 40 year period because he worries about what is going on inside...derrrrh...duuuuh), the hackneyed use of scare mechanisms (more children standing around in the dark or only showing up in photographs, and blood on the wallpaper), and the egotism of the director which when you see him in the DVD features describing his crap work as a new and original rendition, makes you understand where the real horror of this movie lies.

Is it entertaining? At 2x speed on a DVD player with the subtitles turned on, it can be entertaining, until your reach the end and realize the movie is crap, otherwise it draaaaaaaags on. The cinematic equivalent of a fatty shake; the empty calories are horrid.

The movie gives the feeling the director must have seen \"The Ring\" and wanted to attempt to create something similar in mood, which in this respect, the film fails miserably, and so, also, in this respect, Jaume Balaguer\u00f3, it is my opinion that you suck at what you do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Horrendously acted and completely laughable haunted-house horror flick that has an out of place Anna Paquin playing a neurotic teenager fighting off the \"things-that-go-bump-in-the-dark\" that are plaguing her and her family shortly after moving to their new home in Spain(?!). Little more than a geographically re-planted rip-off of \"The Shining\" and most notably \"The Others\", the weak-plotted \"Darkness\" is basically your typical run-of-the mill B-horror feature with a few predictable lame scares that can be seen by audiences a mile off (so to speak)! In retrospect I suppose I shouldn't have set my personal expectations quite as high for this movie to actually be good considering the well-known fact that it was shelved for nearly three years before finally being released around Christmas of last year in American cinemas across the country to what was ultimately lukewarm ticket-sales and very harsh reviews from critics. When will filmmakers ever learn that there's more to making movies (be it horror or otherwise) than just the fey possibility of a little financial gain? (Turkey-Zero Stars)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you saw the grudge, a another mediocre ghost movie then you should know what to expect, just worse, a lot worse. This Time instead of being in Japan with all English speaking people we are in Spain with all English speaking people. It is interesting that not one shot of this movie actually looks like Spain and could have been entirely filmed in a studio back lot. Oh and a place with swings, cause there's a good 5 mins of footage of swings with no one on them, oooohhh how spooky.

This one is terrible in every way imaginable. The acting by the lameinator mom and dad don't help matters at all. Anna Paquin is the only person that delivers a decent performance in the film but I hate Anna Paquin so you can imagine my own private hell viewing this film.

There is one good moment in the movie, however, when a villain is trying to explain the convoluted plot to Anna Paquin's character and she doesn't understand any of it and asks a bunch of stupid questions and he blurts out \"You IDIOT, you have not understood anything!\" lol. Well I happen to understand this film is a piece of garbage. 0 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When you get ahead of a film, you know you are wasting your time watching the movie in question. That is exactly how I felt while I was watching \"Darkness.\" I could see anticipate every twist and turn easily. It is a combination of \"The Amityville Horror\" and a myriad of films that deal with the occult. It is so silly that I almost found endearing its naiveness. I cannot say I was wholly bored but I found the film way too derivative for my taste. Director Balaguer\u00f3 tries to redo his early Spanish hit \"The Nameless,\" but he cannot pull it off. I admit, a few sequences were creepy enough but I just abhor when I can figure out what is going to happen next. Also, I hated to see good actors like Lena Olin and Giancarlo Giannini sweat so much over this piece of dreck. Finally, Anna Paquin as the star of a horror film? This must be a joke. She is cute but she is one of those good child actors that have become a very monotonous adult actor. You can live without watching this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An American family moves to the countryside of Spain to live in an isolated house. Regina (Anna Paquin), the teenager daughter of Mark (Iain Glen), who is sick and has some mental problems, and the nurse Maria (Lena Olin), notes that weird things is happening in the house and with her young brother Paul (Stephan Enquist), but her mother does not believe on her. Reggie decides to investigate with her boyfriend Carlos (Fele Mart\u00ednez) the origins of the house, and they find that forty years ago, the place was the stage of the death of six children. Reggie decides to ask for support to her grandfather Albert (Giancarlo Giannini) to protect her brother against the house and her father.

I bought this DVD expecting to see a good horror movie of haunted house mainly because of the names of Anna Paquin, Lena Olin, Fele Mart\u00ednez (from \"Thesis\" and \"Abre los Ojos\") and Giancarlo Giannini. Further, I like very much Spanish cinema. In spite of, I found a terrible screenplay, an awful direction and a deplorable acting of excellent actors and actresses. The intention of the story is good, slightly recalling \"The Shinning\" in some moments, but unfortunately it is badly developed, never being clear, for example, the reasons and motives why the American family moved to Spain or the horrible relationship between the members of the family, mainly the situation between Maria and Reggie. The direction is confused, poorly trying to use dark and shadows to give scary effects to the story. I love Anna Paquin, but her expressionless face never works in this flick. Lena Olin is a caricature of the great actress she is; and Stephan Enquist is too much weak for such important role. Only Fele Mart\u00ednez has a good performance in his support character. I liked the open end of the story. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): \"A S\u00e9tima V\u00edtima\" (\"The Seventh Victim\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so daring it doesn't attempt to hide its similarities to The Shining. It lacks the originality to do so. And when it does, near the end, try to cover up its story of \"father goes psycho under influence of sketchy haunted house in a foreign place,\" it does so by stooping to plenty of other already established conventions and ideas. In other words, it reduces itself to mere cliche. But hell, even I enjoy a good predictable horror or thriller as long as there is an interesting story, one filled with violence and gore, somewhere before the film makes the dreadful turn towards the predictable and trite. Well, this film doesn't have a good story and I was really disappointed with it. What 'Darkness' has going for it is remarkable direction and cinematography. It is a film well-shot and carefully constructed full of fun, creepy angles and shots. What 'Darkness' doesn't have going for it is pretty much everything else. To begin with a minor quibble - the editing in this movie is obnoxious. It jumps from one scene to the next, sometimes pointlessly. For example, the old man in the movie (who pretty much carries the background story, later filled in by another character) is underscored by a hamster running circles. I mean, it looks cool the first time, but why continue to use the same image? I guess you'd have to see it for yourself, to understand what I mean. Another problem with this movie is Anna Paquin's character who essentially whines throughout the film, crying and caring all too much about everything - she's the film's failed attempt at a character-driven horror film. The movie has scenes of overblown sentimentalism and the family drama it depicts is simply not believable. By the end, 'Darkness' is a muddled melodrama, with a non-involving mystery provided with too simple of an ending. And it's hardly scary.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What could have been some majorly creepy stuff ends up being an incomprehensible, nutty motion picture that even the filmmakers themselves probably didn't understand. Had they shown more of the Satanic ritual or whatever, it might have been creepier, but as it stands now, this is a waste of time and brain cells. Is anybody else getting sick of the whole \"little kid drawing creepy pictures with crayon\" thing? Could there possibly be a bigger horror clich\u00e9? Probably not. I know, I know, it's from some different country, and it's far too refined and sophisticated for me to understand, so I shouldn't expect the \"plot\" to be spoon-fed to me, blah, blah, blah. Whatever. I still say the movie blows.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why would Burt Lancaster allow himself to play a poor schnook who is ultimately undermined by femme fatale Anna Dundee, played by Yvonne DeCarlo in 'Criss Cross'? The same reason why Robert Mitchum allows himself to be cast as another loser who falls for femme fatale Faith Domergue in the 1950 noir, \"Where Danger Lives\". Perhaps they both felt it was a good way to show that they had 'range' as actors\u0097that playing against type, the usual 'tough-guy' role they were known for, would enhance their image as actors who could play any role. But the problem was that roles like Steve Thompson, the pathetic love-sick milquetoast in 'Criss Cross', did nothing to enhance Lancaster's career. Not only is Lancaster completely miscast in the one-note role of Thompson, but there's something inherently unlikeable (and may I say, pathetic) about the film's protagonist in the first place.

'Criss Cross' is an interminably slow-moving film. Among the many unnecessary scenes in the film is at the beginning: the flashback which chronicles Thompson's confrontation with Dan Duryea's Dundee at the nightclub. Everything that occurs in that initial flashback is explained later in the picture: the illicit affair between Steve and Anna, Steve's strained relationship with Martinez the cop and his bad blood with Dundee. If Director Siodmark felt compelled to begin the film with a flashback, why not keep it under three minutes? I think it would have been more effective.

In 'Criss Cross', it takes quite awhile before the protagonist commits himself and steps out of the 'ordinary' world of Act One. That's the scene where he's \"passing by' and 'runs into' Anna at the nightclub. And notice how Siodmak spends so much time cutting back and forth between Anna dancing and Steve staring at her? In addition to the cross-cutting, he also spends a great deal of time focusing on Esy Morales and His Rhumba Band than moving the story along.

Up until the crisis of Act Two, the story plods along with Thompson having various uneasy encounters with Anna and then drowning his sorrows at his usual watering hole. At the midpoint of Act Two, he learns that Anna has run off and gotten married to Dundee. It's becoming more clear at this point that one of the film's central weaknesses is that Dundee is never on screen throughout most of the second act. There are no confrontations between Thompson and Dundee during this time and we're left with the rather unexciting machinations between the two lovebirds. As it turns out (and Anna 'explains' this later to Steve), the reason why she left was not only because he disappeared for eight months but she also felt pressure from Steve's mother as well direct threats from Martinez the cop who implied that he would see to it that she ended up in the Women's House of Detention. Anna goes back to Steve because she realizes she made a big mistake with Dundee\u0097it turns out that he's been beating her and she's now scared of him.

One of the silly refrains uttered by more than one character in Criss Cross is that you can never hijack an armored car. But everyone acts so surprised when Steve points out it can be done if it's an 'inside job'! You would have thought that Dundee would have known about Steve's 'profession' as an armored car driver and propositioned him beforehand. But of course Steve needs to make the proposal so that Dundee won't kill him after discovering his affair with Anna (if they're so afraid at getting caught, why do Steve and Anna meet at his apartment where Dundee can so easily find them?). I really got a kick out of Finchley (played by Alan Napier), the 'brains' of the operation. Dundee is so dumb that he has to hire this alcoholic ex-professor type who plots out the heist on a map. Oh there is the matter of procuring the ingredients to construct the gas bombs used during the robbery and of course Finchley is good at that too!

The only really well done scene in the entire film is the armored car robbery. The editing was quite good as it depicted the rising action of a heist gone bad. As the gas bombs go off, the brutality of the gang is shown in high relief when Dundee murders the innocent Armored Car Guard.

The climax of the film is as drawn out as the rest of the film. Why does it take so long for one of Dundee's goons to kidnap Thompson? There's that nurse, then the goon is waiting outside, then he comes in and pretends that he's a friend, Steve falls asleep and finally after he awakes, the goon kidnaps him.

When Steve finally meets up with Anna at the house, we wonder how Anna got her hands on the cash. Did she somehow steal it from Dundee after the heist when he went out to dinner? It's never explained. Even worse, Anna suddenly becomes the evil femme fatale out of the blue. Before, her selfishness and attraction to Dundee can be explained by her perceived rejection at the hands of Steve and Martinez's threats. But after going back to Steve because she fears Dundee, she inexplicably turns on him when he is most vulnerable. Just as there is 'instant coffee', you have 'instant femme fatale'.

In \"Film Noir\u0097An Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style\" by Silver and Ward, the authors hail 'Criss by Cross' as \"one of the most tragic and compelling of film noir\". I beg to differ. In order to have tragedy you need characters that have great depth and in order to be compelling you need a story that's plausible. Criss Cross has neither. It's an overrated \"B Movie\" that somehow has found itself in the pantheon of art house noirs. Once again, the herd mentality has triumphed in evaluating the pictures of yesteryear.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This could have been a good movie if more things were explained. Way too many plot holes to find this enjoyable. The ending in particular is off left field. SPOILER ALERT: How did the kidnapper get back to Dundee so fast and Dundee shows up at the house in a matter of two minutes? Way out of wack here. How did Anna get hold of the money? No explanation at all. If the Pete the cop knew Lancaster was in danger, why didn't he have a cop at the door in the Hospital. This and many more questions remain. Too bad because the premise was there, just bad writing and execution.

Good cast is wasted here. DeCarlo goes from bad to good to bad? Lancaster's character lacks development and Dureya is just blah as the \"bad guy\".

This could re-made with a cohesive story line and better writing. Of course it would be much more violent with lots of gratuitous sex and everything. The editing would be jerky as well I guess, so let's leave well enough alone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I agree with the user \"SpecialAgentFoxMulder\" that this episode is awful- posisbly thr worst of the entire show. Now I'm not keen on many episodes of the later series but this one takes the biscuit! It was unfunny and unoffensive. As for the ending, I'm sorry but it disgusted me more than any other episodes combined.

I mean, the boys think they meant well but the ending was so upsetting- that they think the whale belongs on the moon and over the credits, we see it has died. Wht could have saved the episode was if the pranksters were able to confess for what they did.

There seem to be no outgoing message. Okay, South Park may be guilty of preaching too much and its always nice to see an unpreachign one (such as Make Love Not Warcraft\") but this episode was just wrong! Avoid at all costs! Helen xxxxx","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Free Willzyx (Stupidest name\/title ever) is the worst episode of ANY of the TV shows I watch, which includes X-Files, Alias, All 3 Law And Orders, All of the CSI's, Family Guy, Simpsons, Chappelle's Show, Colbert Report, and more. South Park was for very long my favorite of the comedy shows, because of it's shockingly obscene content and disturbing black comedy. Free Willzyk has NONE of the content I mentioned earlier. It was so tame, so unoffensive it might has well been an episode of Sesame Street. Kyle goes to Sea World where a few of the workers play a prank on him, making him think a whale is talking to him. He BEFRIENDS THE WHALE, actually BEFRIENDS IT. Hello? This is South Park! the same show that brought you \"Cancelled\", \"Chickenlover\", \"It Hits The Fan\", \"Death Camp Of Tolerance\", and so many more! Not SpongeBob SquarePants! Ugh. I actually watched the whole episode, which is 30 minutes of my life I will never get back. Anyhow, I was extremely disgusted with this episode and I can't believe the shocking decline in the quality of Matt & Trey's work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have watched this show for a while, only because of my cousins, and I HATE IT! First, the girls dress in the same style clothes, and they have the same first letter in their names. (Come on, I could to better than that!) Then the villains (spare me), first we have a monkey with part of his (little) brain showing, then we have a (gay) version of the devil, a pink hillbilly, a gang green gang (whit is ironic, that's their name) a spoiled princess (once again, ironic, that's 'her' name) among others. I have also found that there is no male hero in the show. (Not that I'm sexist or anything...) I'd rather watch Sailor Moon, it's much better than this. If someone else wants to watch the show in the room that you're in, find a way to break the television. Believe me, it'll save you a half hour of torture.

Rating: I'm giving this just what it deserves, a 1 out of 10. Whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH THIS!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I always hated this retarded show .I liked the shows of Cartoon Network like \"Dexter's laboratory \" or \"Megas XLR .But I never liked this piece of turd . Basically because it have stupid characters (the good or the villains all seems to be mentally retarded ) they have stupid voices (specially Bubbles .She is supposed to be the \"cute \" character of the show ,but she is incredibly annoying ) the story lines are very ,very stupid . Some episodes could have been interesting but almost always the show turns childish and corny . There wasn't any likable character ,the music was horrible ,and the animation is the worst that I've seen . Evena five year old boy could draw better ! I don't see why all the world seems to love this piece of garbage . \"The Powerpuff Girls \" seems to be one of the worst cartoons ever made . Fortunately \"Foster Home for the imaginary friends \" from the same creator was far away better .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first watched this show on Cartoon Network, I found it uninteresting. Then I read a lot of good messages about this show, and I decided to watch it. The show was so boring. Each episode was predictable. More, this show has no logic. Hypersmart girls, who are going to school and sometimes do such stupid things, 99% of episodes start with a Monster attacking Townswille, then Mayor (he is a real fool, he is NOT funny, he is so stupid, that I can't imagine how he became a Mayor). Professor, yes, supposed to be the smartest person in this show, but actually... He even found no difference between monster and his brother. Narrator's comments also make this show boring. Because they also have similar lines in the beginning of each episode and in the ending. Also the animation is very strange. Everything except main heroes is shown in an ugly way. Also in every epsode this show is giving you some life-lessons, and it means that it is oriented on little children, but if you look closer, you will see, that there is a lot of violence and even blood(!!!) during their battles.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Isn't it depressing how the most violent cartoon on Cartoon Network is aimed at girls? While I'm not watching soldiers getting shot and blown up on Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, it would be nice if there was a cartoon or at least something on TV I could watch to satisfy my violent urges. And something that I would not get made fun of for watching. I did see some episodes (I should really be shot for this) and had to sit through the movie (now, where do I find a gun?), and it is quite clear that this lost its spark after the first few episodes. If you like seeing 500-foot monsters that can destroy huge cities in seconds getting slaughtered by toddlers about one foot tall, this is a must-see. But it does get very boring after a while, and with a show like this, even original ideas become chiefly dull. The movie just felt like one overlong episode (I can't remember any of it), and the villain should have been far more intimidating than a green monkey. This show is a laughing stock. It churns out the same basic premise episode after episode after episode, and though it may try to have some mystery and intrigue once in a while, the ending will always be the same - \"The Powerpuff Girls save the day!\" All is good and nice, but all is very, very repetitive... I give it 3 out of 10 for being the only danged cartoon on CN to revolve around violence, although it is aimed at girls, so I won't be tuning in for it ever. I've established myself as a fan of war and violence films and I won't have that reputation destroyed... 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story is shortly about the faith-lacking business man priest, Daniel Clemens (Christian Slater), who is looking closer on a case where another priest is suspected for murder. The priest denies he's guilty but at the same time he is not able to discuss the matter due to confidentiality. Enter Daniel Clemens who starts playing cop...

While the plot isn't ridiculous, everything else is. Let's start with the visual side, the cinematography is dull, it looks more like a TV-series than a movie. The camera angles are boring, in fact, there's not a single memorable camera angle in the entire movie. There's no interesting closeups revealing details. And the scene transitions, well, there's not much to say about those, they aren't smooth at all, there seems to be no connection between the scenes than the actual plot. Okay, they did use a transition with music in between two scenes, but there are no interesting visual transitions in the entire movie, the times dissolve was used there was no visual connection between the scenes.

The boring visual part could be forgiven if the film would offer anything else. Unfortunately the film only offers forced wooden acting and clumsy dialogue with no punch. On top of that the film suffers from audio problems, the sound volume is lowered several times in the movie as if the microphones would be too far.

I didn't predict the solution of the film. It could be because the film never gave me the opportunity or it could be due to the presentation, which was so boring I never even tried to figure it out.

Put two plus two together and it equals a B-movie where 'B' stands for boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Was the cast and crew on drugs before they started filming this? There was a hole in the plot...so big...nothing could have filled it up. From the first scene when the co-star is late for dinner, was there any doubt where he was and what he had just done? The suspense was over from there. Now, it was going to take another 85 minutes before the mystery was solved. I must confess that the biggest hole in the plot kept me awake for hours, wondering how dumb the screenwriter, the director, Chrisian Slater, Molly Parker, and Stephen Rea could be not to at least explain how our murderer, who was not a lawyer, or a policeman, could go into a locked cell at a jail, kill his second victim, and tie him up from a noose to make it look like suicide??? I kept wondering if I had fallen asleep out of sheer boredom and missed how that happened. If someone can explain it to me, please do...and then, why, for God's sake, did he kill the third victim? Nothing made sense...and yet, someone thought this film was worthy to be an official selection at a film festival. Perhaps it was a comedy and I failed to laugh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man alive, is this game bad or what? The graphics are way below par, even if it were on a playstation 1, never mind a Gamecube. The gameplay is pathetic and the camera movements disorientating. What a worthless game!

I totally love Warner's Batman animation and it's cool that they do all the games in this way. Batman: Vengeance could well have turned out great as they got off to a good start by keeping all the Gothic visuals and voice actors but they seriously stumbled when it came to playability and graphics. The result is a boring game that looks incredibly cheap and is no fun to play whatsoever. I really must stress how bad the graphics are. Don't let the color schemes fool you. I've seen better stuff on a Commodore 64.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am shocked by all the good reviews on the cover of this movie and on IMDb. It belongs in the $2 bin at your local video store. To say that this is a B movie is extremely generous.

Besides lacking a single redeemable character, only slightly better than average acting, and an ugly 80's style picture quality, the script for this film is dull and lifeless. This film is not only boring--it is pathetic. (Admittedly, there is occasionally some mildly interesting chemistry between the two main characters.) Even the final plot twist--rather, the only plot twist--does not save this film.

Rent \"Diamond Men\" if you must, but do not hesitate to turn it off once you become appraised of its worthlessness. 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was shot in Randolph County in central North Carolina in 1968 when a film crew in the state was a rare thing. The locations were the municipalities of Liberty and Ramseur and the surrounding rural countryside. It is not a particularly good movie. It did have Merle Haggard and it brought life to the hinterlands for a few minutes.

The plot is standard shootemup. The cinematography is that fuzzy stuff that came out of the late sixties and early seventies. The local folks were thrilled to be a part of the enterprise.

If viewers have difficulty finding a copy of this film, a record copy is available in Asheboro, NC.

Actors not credited include Ben Jones, Mimi Pravda, Tommy Hull, Bill Nunnery.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was living in Barstow Ca. in 1968 when the movie The Killers Three arrived at the local theater. The trailer was enough to get me to pay my hard earned money to see this movie. I was really expecting a Bonnie And Clyde movie and I got Dick Clark playing a shy nerdy guy while Robert Walker and Diane Varsi played an poor attempt of reinacting Bonnie and Clyde. Needless to say it never went over well. Maybe this is why it never made it to video. Even as a kid I was left some what ripped off as I left the theater. After all the best parts where in the trailer of the movie. The movie was dull and pretty much pointless. By the way, Dick Clark gets killed so it wasn't a total let down.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love the book. It's full of passion, romance, tension... and the movie drags along taking two spunky stars with it. Kylie Minogue was already a major star in Australia, having starred in Neighbours and releasing her first single. The decision to cast her in The Delinquents was surely a marketing ploy. For me, it didn't pay off.

Kylie may have been great in Neighbours, but she was far too sweet and innocent to play the feisty Lola... and, she wasn't of Asian descent as Lola was. Charlie Schlatter was an excellent Brownie, but there was no chemistry between him and Kylie.

By and large, the movie was boring. It dragged on, it lacked the passion of the book, it focused heavily on Kylie and in general, was completely disappointing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a dire film. I cannot believe that I actually sat down and watched it. A very, very, very, very, very, VERY pathetic effort, with no redeeming features whatsoever. Hateeeeeeedddd ittttt! The so-called \"racing\" sequences are laughably awful, and the plot was so bad, I've forgotten it. Part of the film was made at the Spa-Francorchamps course in Belgium in, I think, 1988, during the actual Grand Prix there. I was there and am glad I didn't appear in any of the paddock scenes shown in the film. It could have been good...what a pity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Is it just me or the fact that the evil racing team is Japanese and that their arrogant star racer is German seem a little over the top? Maybe that is how it is on the international racing circuit but if all America had representing them are chumps like Cody and his mechanic Chris (Peter Berg, who must have been still learning how to act) then I would be rooting for another country. Formula movies can be good but the characters have to be likeable and no one meets that criteria in this movie. To put it succinctly - a very bad movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, let me mention the fact that, in spite of its title (\u00abStories\u00bb, in plural), there is only ONE Kitchen Story. As to whether Isak died or not at the end, I'm not so sure since, in one of the very last scenes, HIS PIPE is seen lying on the table next to the two cups. On the DVD cover, there is a reference to Tati. It claims that the film is \u00abtr\u00e8s dr\u00f4le: rappelle Tati !\u00bb (\u00abVery funny: reminiscent of Tati!\u00bb. The great Jacques Tati relied mainly on mime and silent deadpan attitudes to achieve his comical effects and to offer his critically satiric views of his 1950\u2019s French \u00abmodern\u00bb society. Of course \u00abKitchen\u00bb does take place during the 1950\u2019s and it does offer some (rather faint) satirical references to the absurdities of bureaucracy and there are some long moments were no words are uttered -\u2013 but they are not really funny. Are all these small details enough to make \u00abKitchen\u00bb a \u00abTatiesque\u00bb movie ? This being said, I have to admit that \u00abKitchen\u00bb does deal with the sometimes false objectivity of scientific research versus the \u00abtruth\u00bb of human subjective emotions. Generally speaking, the movie was agonizingly slow, with nothing much happening -- with barely any \u00abdramatic impulse\u00bb : the involving parts were the set up during the first 15 minutes or so, and during the last half hour or so. Indeed, the last segment was -- FINALLY !!! -- interesting and moving. It might seem that it was a short subject, of less than an hour, unduly stretched to some 90 minutes. Now, about the set-up (a \u00abscientific\u00bb observation on the behavior of single males in their kitchen): at first it seemed very promising \u2013- with the charting out of the comings and goings of bachelors in their kitchen as a means to determine what new inventions would be most useful to come up with. But very quickly this premise turned out to be just a prologue, an \u00abexcuse\u00bb to introduce the real subject which was only fully developed towards the end and which was about loneliness and the invaluable bond of friendship. Pity ! I honestly wanted to like that movie. Yes, it seemed so promising when I heard about some of its unusual little \u00abanecdotes\u00bb -- which were indeed there and which I enjoyed -\u2013 such as the burning of a man\u2019s nose hair (instead of using scissors to cut it off), the \u00abinvestment\u00bb of having a huge quantity of \u00abvaluable\u00bb black pepper stacked away in a barn, the role reversals (the observant becoming the observed), a man\u2019s mouth emitting sounds from a radio program. And there is also a sick horse becoming the catalyst of half-hidden human despair, the relative importance of right or left side car driving in Sweden and Norway (a reflection of the importance for each of these very close neighboring countries to affirm its individuality ?). Am I the sole person who did not fully enjoy that film ? Does this necessarily mean that I'm wrong ? Perhaps it\u2019s almost generally praised \u00abfine points\u00bb were, in fact, \u00abtoo subtle\u00bb for me ? Perhaps... Could my individual views on this movie ironically reflect the very essence of the film itself -- which would be the vital necessity to have the right to differ, to affirm one\u2019s individuality and not to follow blindly society\u2019s trends and opinions ? Each one of us has the right to have different personal views and not to be a slave of the demands of one\u2019s bread-winning \u00abdictatorial\u00bb demands: often, we do have other alternatives that would allow each one of us to be useful to our society while respecting one\u2019s inner principles. In short, being true to oneself -\u2013 the way that in that film Folke (Isak\u2019s \u00abscientific observer\u00bb) ends up by giving up his job while preferring to stay in his new friend Isak\u2019s house and help his out with the tasks of his farm ... And so, \u00abVive la diff\u00e9rence\u00bb, as the French say !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film starts out great, with a mock instruction film about the habits of Swedish housewives. After that we get a detailed reconstruction of post-war Scandinavia with lots of amazing cars, electronic equipment and interior design; a minimal jazz score, nice cinematography and stylish titling. Also there's some funny Scandinivian rivalry like in Von Triers 'Riget'.

Sadly, after the set up, \"Kitchen stories\" collapses like the Twin Towers on 9\/11.Actors who try to portray the emotion 'jealousy\" by just staring in front of them. Corny dialog filled with stale gay symbolism in the vain of: \"I don't like white swans, I prefer bears and wolves... u ever tasted bear meat?\" The music becomes cheesier than Yann Tiersen at his worst.

It's a pity the director put all the effort in this great set-up, just to screw it up after-wards.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The fun that was present in the other 'movies' has all but disappeared with this third effort, which means the rubbishy production values show through more than ever. Another 2-parter ('The Chinese Web') cobbled together, this one suffers from too much padding, not to mention weak Spidey action taking place in such uninspired locations as a car park, apartment and printing press. Nicholas Hammond is as endearing as ever, struggling valiantly against the drab production and lame performances of the rest of the cast. The plot, in which Peter and Spidey help a Chinese official defeat charge of corruption during World War II by locating three marines who could testify as to his innocence, doesn't exactly scream 'comic book sprung to life', does it?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A man wonders if his hunky co-worker is gay. At a yard sale he finds a ray gun called \"Gaydar\". You point it at a person, pull the trigger and it tells you how gay they are. He tries it out, it works and he sets out to find out if his coworker is gay like him...

Promising idea ruined by an unfunny script (after a promising beginning) and terrible acting. The entire cast overacts and basically SCREAM their lines at each other constantly. It gets annoying and really embarassing after a while. The saving grace is that's it is short, there's a scene stealing cat (love her fall out of the kitty bed) and Charles Nelson Reilly is hysterical in his brief bit. But none of this saves the movie. I can't recommend this at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This guy is a real piece of work. An angry, immature boy in a grown man's body, packing all the charisma of a rock, he goes around to places most people would only wish to visit and does his best to be as miserable as possible.

Give this job to someone else who actually appreciates it.

I could go down an endless list of all the stupid things this guy does in his \"episodes,\" though I'll just highlight the worst: Crete. While the locals are putting up seaside picnics in his \"honour,\" this clown has the gall to act like a petulant, spoiled child. He complains about everything, including the fashion sense of the people who live there. What an imbecile.

When he went to Sweden, he spent at least five minutes feigning incredulity at a bunch of chefs (who probably had better things to do than talk with some dimwit American, like work) because they didn't think Abba was horrible. Everywhere he went, he brought up Abba. This is the kind of talk you'd hear from 13-year-olds who watch too much MTV.

When he was in New Orleans, he got upset that a certain restaurant had better-tasting fries than his, so he \"accidentally\" spilled some wine on them in order to ruin them. What a strange, emotionally unstable person.

The worst of it all are his clumsy voice-overs, where he attempts in vain to add some kind of perspective on a situation he was too thick and ignorant to appreciate. He tries to use all these \"big\" words in order to sound like an author, but he's really just a pretentious hack whose lack of awareness has convinced him he has something to say. That, by the way, is probably the one good thing about this joker's TV show. It goes to show you, no matter how inept you are, as long as you take yourself seriously enough, the world will as well.

Then there's the way he speaks with local guides whose English is obviously only rudimentary. He'll use vocabulary any writer--as he believes himself to be--would instinctively know will most likely not be understood by these people. Does he care? No. Self-important schmucks like this Bourdain clown do not use language to communicate; they use it to make themselves look important.

Mcg13jthm's review on this same page is a perfect example of the kind of mind Bourdain attracts--that of a low IQ social misfit. Observe how the reviewer attempts to justify Bourdain's sociopath nature with simple-minded, childish excuses that hardly make sense. \"Bourdain may complain but he goes through 'a lot' and, not only that, he was 'forced' to do this show but is trying to redeem himself.\" A dolt attracts dolts, and reading Mcg13jthm's review should let you know perfectly well whether or not you are the kind of person who'd enjoy this utterly useless, pointless show.

Finally, to add a bit of \"fairness\" to my diatribe, I admit Bourdain would have been momentarily amusing had I met him in a bar. But as a TV host of a travel show whose purpose is to show the viewer the beauty of other places and cultures, Bourdain is a miserable, abject, hopeless, grim and depressing failure.

A failure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very simply, they are all the syndicated episodes and NOT the original uncut\/unedited NBC episodes. It is NOT the complete first season, all eps are edited to conform to 21:00 for syndication meaning jokes are cut, an extra commercial fade is included, all of the Harvey Korman intros are not here...very poorly done! Shame on a series I've been waiting for....booooooooooooooooo! If you're a true die hard Mama fan, don't buy this and go to http:\/\/www2.warnerbros.com\/web\/main\/help\/whv\/customer_service.jsp and send them comments on why we're unhappy on this butcher job to a classic sitcom!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"well,there isnt much to say about this movie. its simply trash. very poor acting, poor script, and lame story.... well, the actress,(i odnt even know her name) who played mainrole,(not the blond one,but latina one) was acting fine,but the blond one who played the friend of main charactor,,,her acting level is just like highschool play,so as most of other actors in the movie. Also,zombies,,,,very bad acting as well. and,,the story itself has really no point at all. well, if you are really bored and really got nothing to do,but wanna kill time somehow, maybe you may wanna watch this movie,but eventho,there are still millions of better B movies than this crap. its total waste of money and time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is available as a special \"bonus\" feature on the double-disc of Horror 101 & Horror 102: Endgame. It has nothing to do with those movies, except it does show that producers\/directors Dudelson and Clavell are in a rut. Like those other movies, this one features young people who go to a building where they get trapped inside, and run down the hallways a lot, while they get picked off one by one. In the end one or more characters are revealed to have another identity. This is by far the worst of the three.

Here, people are invited to a Halloween-night only opening of the Museum of the Dead. The museum doesn't have very many exhibits, and they're all sort of ancient central-American related. There are also flesh-eating, infection-spreading zombies in the museum as well as an ancient cannibal warrior and two female warriors.

The movie is very repetitious. It kills people off fairly quickly, to the point you wonder who they're going to have left to kill off - at which point some more people show up without explanation, so that they can be killed.

Amazingly, one of the characters does have a cellphone, and is actually able to call the police, who actually take it seriously and show up at the museum. When one tries to pick the lock to get in, the other tells him that would be \"forced entry.\" If you've got people trapped in a building who are injured, I think that's irrelevant. The cops are also stupid in that when they shoot a zombie in the head, it goes down, but then they shoot other zombies in the chest and they don't go down. They happen to shoot another zombie in the head, and it goes down. They continue to shoot the rest of the zombies in the chest. Stupid.

The opening credits and a nightmare sequence are done in a sort of animation-effect over video, a poor-man's Waking Life sort of thing, but not so cartoonish. It is sort of interesting, however, parts of some of the attacks are done the same way, so there's no logic to it.

Dreadful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Plot: None. Script: A string of cliches. Acting: Not in evidence. Special effects: Title sequence kind of cool, but otherwise exceptionally poor. Fright factor: Crossing the road is scarier. Cult factor: Only the most desperate cult would latch onto this dog. Can't you say anything positive: I did. The titles were kind of cool.

(Special bonus question ... your idea of hell: Being at a party with people who voted this flop a 7.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A study in BAD. Bad direction, bad acting, bad writing and f\/x that\u00b4ll teach you that you\u00b4d better upgrade your computer before filming. It\u00b4s the kind of flick you used to do totally drunk in your cellar with Dad\u00b4s camera when you were young at heart. But YOU certainly would not show it in public when you\u00b4re sober again, would you? YOU wouldn\u00b4t even view it. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"again such kind of zero-budget digital-video cam trash. and again I fell into this trap cuz the title had \"zombie\" in it (german title: ZOMBIE ATTACK!) the story: on halloween some people visit the \"museum of the dead\", it's a trap, a crazy doctor wants to kill the people, everything connected to some aztec-cult. so they fight against some zombies in there.

ultra cheap scenery: some corridors with black tape on it. a few dilettantish drawings and a few skulls as you can find them in every fun-shop. no actors, just low-grade models waking around with absolutely no idea what to do. no effects. laughable make-up, your local hobby-make-up-zombie-fan will do it better, some time it looked as if they had not enough money for enough colour, otherwise they just could not do it like this, man, they have to realize the looks of their \"zombies\". some laughable martial-arts fights with the zombies, slow-motion. just, when the director wants to have it scary he uses some standard digital-video-cam effect where everything is flackering. unbelievable! 0 out of 10!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I tried to love this movie. I really did. Kevin Bacon plays a cerebral palsy victim who is befriended by a 10-year-old girl whose fantasies of digging to China, flying away in a balloon, and so on, are her way of coping with a dreary existence. I admit I did fast-forward through one of the scenes in which the two of them share friendship and simple pleasures while soulful piano music plays in the background. Okay, three or four of those type scenes. Maybe nine or ten. Okay, okay, it was fourteen. But I did sit and watch most of them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like Kevin Bacon and Cathy Moriarty, and I love Mary Stuart Masterson, but the movie wasn't good at all. There wasn't a likable character in the picture, and the plot was nearly non-existent.

Ms. Masterson is a great actress, but she just didn't pull off the \"tough girl\" character. (She had similar problems with her character in THE SECOND DAY OF Christmas.) Perhaps she should avoid these characters, especially those with an obnoxious female child to play off of.

Evan Rachel Wood was unimpressive. Her character was a brat, plain and simple, and no young actress could have given Harriet any positive feelings.

In the interest of full disclosure, I couldn't even finish watching this picture. Forty-five minutes of my time is enough to waste.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Diane Keaton is a pathetic actress. She is so boring and phony. She is the same on and off screen. I saw her in an interview with Ellen Degeneres and she behaves exactly the same as she does in movies. Her foolish facial expressions make me want to change channels. She has been in a couple of good movies, but they would have been better had someone else been picked for the part. Steve Martin doesn't add much to the movie either. He over acts as well and also ruins an old favorite. The ridiculous part Martin Short plays only adds more idiocies to the movie. I've tried to watch the movie twice but both times had to turn it off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film makes about as much sense as an 'Ozzie & Harriet' or a 'Father Knows Best' episode. An old copy of Reader's Digest (circa 1962) would provide more insight into modern life, or the relationship between a father and a daughter, than this weird concoction.

I was surprised with Diane Keaton. She appears to sleepwalk through the film. (Given the film's title, I realize that hers was a supporting role but even Martin Short managed a distinct, supporting character.)

I can understand the attraction of an imaginary world created in a good romantic comedy. But this film is the prozac version of an imaginary world. I'm frightened to consider that anyone could enjoy it even as pure fantasy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie on video with a couple of friends as part of a teen comedy triple header, alongside Dorm Daze and Going Greek. Obviously we weren't going for quality, but for air-headed entertainment and gross-out gags. Generally we got what we came for, but Wild Roomies really stood out: For being awful.

First impression first, the cover: The Norwegian release cover showed breasts covered up and a bunch of seemingly \"crazy\" roomies in the background; Brings up pictures of drunken semi-naked teenagers doing bunches of funny stuff stuff doesn't it?- The \"crazy\" roomies on the cover were not even featured in the picture. And the funny stuff you assume they'll be doing?- Absent as well.

This movie was labeled comedy, which is a bit strange since it not even remotely funny. Relationship drama would be more accurate.

Put shortly the movie is about a young couple inheriting a swanky house in LA, and are forced to get some roomies to make ends meet. These roommates eventually put both the young couple's patience and relationship to the test because they're so \"wild\". Problem is, they're not. And here lies the problem of this movie: The protagonist couple are so anal-retentive and neurotic that they manage to generate zero sympathy. You'll find yourself rooting for the antagonist roomies halfway through the movie. Add mediocre acting, lame dialogue and boring direction and you got yourself a movie that is best left unseen.

See something else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had high hopes for this one after reading the back of the DVD, \"In the spirit of American Pie and Animal House...\" After suffering through this I realized I just blew $2.50 to rent it. This movie started out slow and just got slower... brief and fleeting moments of levity proved that it was in the spirit of American Pie if you mean \"spirit\" as a dead thing. not very entertaining or fun! Don't be fooled like i was and expect anything barely watchable because this movie will depress you more than entertain you. \"Need to fill up three more lines for this stupid movie that doesn't deserve the effort... what a stupid piece of ignorant crud. This movie wreaked, even the brief nudity sucked!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Roomies is the story of a guy who loses everything except his incredible girlfriend and an idea for a corn dog that he plans to patent and sell. Immediately his uncle dies and leaves him a house and a car, and he gets some roommates in to help pay the rent and gets a job. Then his girlfriend gets drunk and cheats on him, so he goes and writes a book about roommates and becomes famous.

88 minutes. None of these details of the plot are explored in any detail, what you read above is more or less as interesting as the film will be. When his uncle dies there are some breasts on screen, one of the potential roommates he interviews is pretty funny for about 40 seconds. The ending is literally the worst i've ever seen. I want the other 87 minutes of my life back!

I hadn't thought anyone could make a movie with so little merit: Surely there are rules against this sort of thing getting to the public? The script can't be longer than twenty pages, and the budget must have been minuscule because the whole film has about 3 locations and a car. The only conceivable use for Roomies, in my opinion, is if you're holding someone hostage and want to frustrate them beyond human thought. If so, get it on repeat and you'll have a ready made gibbering wreck within the day.

one-and-a-half out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh boy.. This movie is so mediocre I don't really know what exactly to write about it.

I think it's easier to write what it's not:

It's not very entertaining. It's not original. And there's not one character in the whole movie I cared about.

Kind of reminds me of a certain reality TV show on MTV, but without any interesting people. It just drags on and on and I could hardly wait for it to end. The only thing that kept me from switching it off was Jennifer Lyons (c:

I thought a long time about this movie to find one good thing to say about it. What I liked was the reminder not to judge a person by the first impression you get (as Holly did when she accused Nicole) which earns it a score of 2 out of 10 instead of a 1.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a typical college comedy and its very average. The story is OK but not very entertaining. Its about a unlucky guy named Reno who looses his job, gets his car ripped off and then his uncle dies in a stripbar. His got a girlfriend though (a nice one btw. :-). Anyway this uncle gives him his mansion in LA and mercedes as heritage and soon Reno and his girlfriend moves to LA to this new house. The problem is that they would need some roommates in order to pay the high rent for this house and so the film unfolds...

The movie starts OK and has a few funny jokes here and there, but the suddenly the movie takes a turn straight down to hell... The ending is BAD. Really BAD. It destroys everything about the movie. You will know what I'm talking about when you see the movie...

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A tedious mixture of puerile efforts at humour with romantic relationship melodrama fails to provide this weakly made film with any flavour of reality. As action opens, Reno (A.J. Buckley) enters his apartment, there discovering his girlfriend in flagrante delicto with his roommate, who gloatingly tells Reno \"Well, at least it's with someone you know\", resulting in Reno's decision to never have another roommate, this decision told to viewers by means of a soon abandoned voice-over. The storyline then proceeds ten months where we find that Reno is indeed true to his word concerning avoidance of roommates, although this appears to beg the question due to his garnering of a live-in lover, Holly (Holly Fields), with whom he has generated marital plans. The plot briefly shifts to a sleazy Hollywood strip club, wherein Reno's Uncle Charley, enamoured of a \"dancer\" whom he finds eminently desirable, keels over dead atop the club's bar after seeing the unadorned charms displayed by the object of his affections. It is apparent that Charley had been aware of the flawed condition of his heart, because he created a video tape during which his commentary bequeaths his large (and mortgaged) residence in Hollywood to Reno, and we see the latter deciding to, contrary to his vow, interview applicants for two roommates as tenants, with he and Holly sharing the selection process in an organized manner. Following an inane sequence involving bizarre renter candidates, all of whom Reno and Holly unsurprisingly find unsuitable for living along with them in their house they, unknown to each other, each select a renter of the opposite sex, with the lovers manifestly cool toward the choice of their partner. The newcomers (Chad and Nicole) would seem to have little discernible point to their existence other than highly aural fornication with a broad range of partners, and it is not long before jealousy mars the harmonic relationship of Reno and Holly. Reno is bent upon patenting and merchandising a type of sporting travel bag and, as he has given an engagement ring to Holly, the potential success of this entrepreneurial adventure is of great financial significance if he intends to advance his marital plan. Unfortunately, the rapacious team of Chad and Nicole, whose every action is ostensibly laced with lust, is likely to disrupt any future wedding intentions of Reno. Direction is slack, plainly far from fulfilling basic needs of the players, although an erratically composed script provides scant material with which actors may work, and ad libbing falls embarrassingly flat. As a result, the performances are undistinguished, not aided by spotty editing, while the manner of camera-work changes as abruptly and often as a firefly's tail light. Filmed with a low budget and on location, only a modicum of skill is required for the designing processes, but a larger measure of value might have been placed upon the tasteless D.J. background soundtrack, generally blaring and nearly always invasive. A good deal of discussion has been stimulated by the movie's final sequences that are apparently not expected by a viewer based upon what has come before, but in reality these comprise probably the only thoughtful portions of a poorly cobbled screenplay, and bids fair to make the work almost watchable, despite the shabby quality of the production as a whole.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"University Professor Justin Thorne (Jimmy Smits) has got it made. A good-looking, sophisticated teacher, with a loving wife and two adorable children. He plays the saxophone, owns an expensive car and his students love and respect him. But when temptation calls, in the form of one of his bright, pretty, sexy and willing students, Jennifer Carter (Naomi Watts), he foolishly gives in. The next day, he is being charged with her rape, and his perfect life could be forever ruined.

When we see an American actor in Australian film, we know we are not in for a masterpiece. But even viewed with low expectations, \"Gross Misconduct\" is a huge flop. Based on a play with a rather unimaginative title and then adapted into a reasonably enjoyable book, it fails to engage, convince or even remotely interest its audience on a most fundamental level. The script is awkward and unconvincing; the acting is, for most part, not much better. Watts gives an acceptable performance, demonstrating for one of the first times on screen her emotion rawness, but she is the only good thing about the film, which seems almost like even it can't wait to be over.

The direction is not horrible or distracting in anyway, but it is just painfully mediocre. Apart from the afore-mentioned Naomi Watts, who could be forgiven, seeing as this was early in her career, the acting is wooden and gets steadily worse over the course of the movie. The usually reliable Jimmy Smits doesn't seem to have been trying in this one, and who could really blame him? All these small failures, however, only add to the film's ultimate fatal flaw, which is that the focus is entirely in the wrong place. Any empathy for the characters or interest in the outcome is lost in a sea of what is basically soft-core entertainment of an adult kind. By the end, audiences will probably be bored, tired and wishing they'd done something else with their ninety minutes. Unless you just want to see Naomi get naked 4 or 5 times, you could definitely afford to give this nonevent film a miss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Gross Misconduct' was one of a series of texts released in Australia during the early-to-mid 1990s that explored the supposed victimisation of the Privileged Heterosexual Male in the age of feminism. This creature only needs look at a Pretty Young Thing, and he's accused of sexual harassment, and his life is ruined. Damn those women's libbers! Grrr...

As my tone might suggest, I don't buy any of this anti-feminist BS, and correspondingly didn't enjoy this film. 'GM' trivialises the issues of sexual harassment and teacher-student relations. Sexual harassment is here the product of a Confused Young Woman's imagination, and those professional boundaries that teachers are meant to maintain ... well, when the teacher is a charming and handsome family man (and played by Jimmy Smits!), well needn't worry about those.

Sexist trash, and even by reviewing it, I'm giving it more time than it deserves.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The credits at the end read \"ALL directed by Shigeru Izumiya\". That's a fitting way to phrase it because it seems like filmed material from several projects were thrown together somehow, barely even attempting to make it all form one consistent work. It more felt like one of those music clip things that are marketed as feature films to cash in on those video commercials, just that here we have the marketable music and the live performances missing, except for one scene, which may as well be marketed as a weird music video clip in Japan. Whatever.

It makes zero sense. Visually it isn't too special either, although it has its moments (for example the female creature with the \"death powder\" who is strapped onto a bed base and some morphing sh!t throughout) and it certainly has an industrial-y feeling to it. Usually I'd call the effects dilettantish but what this film offers in this regard is baffling more than anything else. You remember those cheap video effects from 70's and 80's music videos that make them look so dated, like a picture within a picture flying through the screen? There is quite a lot of these kind of effects in this, and without any apparent reason. The most half-assed seeming effort comes in the form of a picture collage. The pictures sort of look like album covers. Whatever.

I don't know what's up with the subtitles of the version I saw. The Chinese ones (or whatever those hieroglyphics are) sometimes seem to show up when nothing is even said and the English ones often show up without the Chinese ones. The English subs talk much about life without death (is it possible?), and a mind without a body, which provides what comes closest to a comprehensible conflict between characters in this film. One guy (a scientist dude) says that life without flesh is death while another guy (a metamorphosing dude) who claims his mind is beyond his body now that he got the \"death powder\" blown into his face and that he now knows the secrets of the flesh and whatnot; metamorphosing dude is visibly p!ssed off about the scientist dude's claim. Whatever.

Erm, The End - All Written By Perception de Ambiguity","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well I'd have to say that I do own this film and I only like the ending. The movie is boring and slow but the final fight is so funny. Lets just say that if the fake bird didn't attack the main evil guy this movie would be a 0 out of 10. The bird though makes it a 3. If you are truly bored or want something terrible to watch rent this and fast forward to the final battle.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was bad. I believe Elton (or is it Mike) Wong starred in it. Anyway it was the Wong that didn't have that goofy grin and looks meaner. He plays a man who is hit over the head and suffers brain damage. He recovers and gets revenge. Gordon Liu is the only one worth seeing in this film, but he doesn't get to do much. But what little he does seems to make the

others pale in comparison. Also, the film has some cheesy rubber hawk that the Wong guy controls. This film is not worth renting or buying.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a movie that could have been great if there were not so many unnecessary historical inaccuracies and if the actors had been chosen or made up to look a little more like the real persons (not very difficult). Sissi did not go to Mayerling to see her dead son, she also did not die in the street; they carried her on to the boat and then back to the hotel, which was much more dramatic. I am not sure about the wedding night, but I find it exaggerated that a lady-in-waiting would undress the empress and leave her completely naked (and that in the 1850's) or that the emperor would announce very proudly \"yes I finally laid her\" to the assembled court. As far as I know this was done right away on the first night and nobody rewarded her as if she were a streetwalker. The saving grace of the movie is really Stephane Audran, excellent actress and true to character.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The figure of empress Elizabeth of Austria (1837-1898) is, indeed, mostly associated with Romy Schneider and the Sissi trilogy by Ernst Marischka (1950s) where beauty, gentleness, sweetness but also history are ever present. This was the Sissi, perhaps myth for some; however, a powerful portrayal. The spirit of the Habsburgs' grandeur as well as the spirit of the Bavarian simplicity and straightforwardness influenced much those films. Simply, they did have a soul. However, Jean Daniel Verhaeghe's film, though made 50 years later, appears to be a wrong depiction of the empress and her life. It seems to be an attempt to show something different, to reveal some realism as a cure to sweetness; yet, it does not occur to add a lot but rather deprives the whole story of much. Let me analyze that in more details.

September 1898, Sissi embarks at the port of Geneva. Accompanied by her court maid, she goes to visit Dr Mayer (Didier Bezace) whom she is going to tell the whole life story in order to find herself in this tragic life. The action consists of flashbacks to important moments in Sissi's life, yet these moments are chaotically presented and, therefore, someone not very knowledgeable of Austrian history may get totally misled or confused. Much attention is drawn on Sissi's bad marriage with the emperor Franz Josef. The scene of her wedding night is a failure. No one treated an empress like that (I mean undressing and payment). The focus on Sissi being misunderstood is right historically, however, the points that her views differ from the rest of the courtiers' are not the true ones. Where is her desire for peace? Where is her love to her nation? Where is her charity? Sissi appears to be rather very elegant, modern, liberal (from the 21st century's point of view). She foremost cares for her looks which is not true historically. Sissi had an inner life which is not showed in the film. \"Once women will wear trousers\" is a sentence said by her and occurs to be the image of the Sissi presented in the movie. Sissi detests monarchy, which is the film's noticeable criticism towards Austrian empire. Moreover, she partly accepts anarchist movements and, to my very surprise, she blames her husband, emperor Franz Josef, for the death of Rudolph, their son. Where is any mention in history that Sissi was present in Mayerling? Sissi's relation with Sophie, the mother in law, is better shown, however the scene of Sophie's death seems barely authentic and the conversation a bit of clich\u00e9.

Sorry to criticize so much but another crucial aspect of the movie which I find weak here are performances. Although Arielle Dombasle has her moments as Sissi, she generally does not suit to the role. She looks more like a \"femme fa tale\" than a tragic empress. Her make up is seriously inaccurate as well as most of her gestures as the empress. Malik Zidi is a bit better as Rudolph and may be regarded as the one raising the value of the performances, in general. Yet, Stephane Audran does no special job as Sophie: you simply don't get the impression of why she detests Sissi. She did despise her for the sake of Sissi's young age while crowned, for the sake of her behavior, lifestyle and her believes. Partly it appears in the movie but definitely that is not enough. But the greatest mistake is, I think, Julien Hans Capua as Andrassi. Andrassi was a count with pride, honor, patriotism...here, he appears to be a sort of libertine thinking only to make love to his queen. And the portrayal is so weak that this performance is very very pale. The accurate choice is Tatyana Ivanova as Catherine Schratt, she really fits to the role with her looks and her gestures. But, unfortunately, her role does not require much time on screen.

A good point of this movie are some costumes and pretty authentic locations. The port of Geneva is well presented and the moment of Sissi's death occurs to be a good surprise from the movie. It does not appear to be how it really was; however, the moment is good from the symbolical perspective...the empress walks and knows nothing that this is her final moment. That is how she must have felt about it, that is how one insane man destroyed a part of greatness of the world. Another good moment visually was when Sissi talks to her son Rudolph on Corfu. But these moments are rare.

In sum, it's not a good film. It distorts a very eminent historical figure, a significant historical time, it tries to cure the sweetness of Sissi trilogy but appears to offer nothing creative. Charm is gone, grandeur is gone and history is ignored! Not very worth seeking out! 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In reality that happened: the royal mother in law and father in law lunched with the couple the day after the wedding and gave her the money in public. This troubled young Elisabeth so much that she never forgot the issue. We must remember she was only 16. She was so embarrassed that she kept a fear for sex all her life. Perhaps this began to appear as a trauma. Also the constant meddling of her aunt and mother in law. As you say, she kept all her children away from her, critiqued her teeth and manners (which she considered inappropriate for an empress), and when Sissi finally went to Venice with her husband and children, her eldest daughter died, and the mother in law blamed her for that unfortunate and premature death. She never recovered.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Truly a great leap forward in the perfection of painful cinema.

Everything about this film is bad. Acting (if it can be called that), lighting, sound, script (if there was one), editing, direction, camera work, it is all atrocious. There is not a single element that is done well. If I thought that this was intentional then I might give the film some credit but I can not believe people would set out to make such a horendous film.

This film is worth buying and screening to your worst enemies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was (foolishly) with some degree of relish that I sat down to watch what a friend had promised would be the worst\/best movie experience of my life, the mighty 'Roller blade 7'. 2 years on and I'm still in therapy. Oh yes my dear friends it REALLY IS THAT BAD. They obviously got about 40 minutes of footage in the can and then decided to use said footage endlessly and repeatedly to brain-numbing effect. My only fear of the kind of post-apocalyptic world featured in this turkey is that somehow, some way, a print of this abomination would survive. Truly the living would envy the dead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"okay, let's cut to the chase - there's no way i can give this anything other then 1 out of 10; and yet you have to see it! The acting is bad, but is nothing like as bad as the script, which itself pales before the production values. Cardboard axes? yup, we've got then. Car floor mats painted silver and used as armour? here it is!

The film itself pretends to be artistic, but is just cheap; the same shots are used repeatedly - especially in the drawn out fight scenes; there is (thankfully!) very little dialogue, and there is much 'artistic' music to ram home the horror!

And yet all this awfulness is compelling - you have to watch it through just so that you can say you've seen it. I've not even got onto the barren sets, the 'plot', or the risible special effects; this really is the 'how not to do it' school of filmmaking. This must be viewed - spread the word, and let the world all join together in puzzling over what on earth is happening at the end

The best thing, though, is that they made a sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to be the greatest practical joke ever. I'm amazed that all the other actors kept a straight face. I might be wrong but the impression I get from this movie was that they duped Frank Stallone and Joe Estevez into acting in this movie that has a budget of just under $40, depending on how much those nerf bats and spray painted catcher's equipment cost, create the most incoherent movie ever created, and sit back and laugh at the fact that Joe Estevez and Frank Stallone weren't in on the joke.

If by some chance they weren't kidding and they legitimately tried to make a real movie then I feel sorry for everyone involved in the creation. I've had quite a love affair with cheesy movies, but this movie is so bad I can hardly watch it. They repeat pointless \"special effects\" so many times that it's obvious they were just trying to cover up the fact that they only shot 30 minutes of footage. If I were forced to watch this movie on repeat I would bludgeon myself unconscious with my own hands after about one and a half times through. No offense to the great Frank Stallone, but I would rather watch Sylvester teach a fingerpainting class for 10 hours than watch that movie ever again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For many years Ed Wood's Classic 'Plan 9' has been considered the worst film ever made. Forget it The Roller Blade Seven is infinitely worse. The cast is made up of famous peoples brothers and almost famous or has been actors and actresses. The plot along with the budget and script are non-existent. The running time is made up not in the classic Ed Wood style of using stock footage. Instead there is endless slow motion and repeated action. And as for The Roller Blade Seven aren't even seven of them!

You must see this film just to know how bad film making can really be. Giving independent film makers everywhere hope.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this movie from a market stall three years ago.. I gotta hand it to you when I sat down and watched it.. I thought 'OK! This is gonna be another big action B-movie..' Obviously I was wrong.. While watching this film.. I began to realise that this movie was taking me to another planet.. full of cr*p!

I began to get really bored and fed up with this film.. Although I wanted to see was gonna happen in the end.. I really felt like it was really getting on my nerves..

The people behind the film may've brought some well known name actors into this project.. But what were they thinking..? Even these actors couldn't save this film..

At the end of the film.. I felt like this was a waste of money.. just buying this low life sucker of film for a small amount of money. A few months later, I sent the tape off to charity.. I didn't want to see it again..

Sorry! But if you're thinking of watching a movie and then nodding off to sleep.. I can highly recommend it you.. Me? I'll rather go on Pro-Plus and watch something decent..!

Disappointing 1 out of 10!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I knew that I was not about to see a quality film when this title was included in a 'B-grade video night' at a friends place. Despite the warnings, I was still surprised at just how bad this film was. It was fortunate that there were a lot of us there to share the pain with each other... The film attempts to tell the story of a dark future, one in which Hawk (a Mad Max type of character) heads off to rescue a damsel in distress. In reality, the plot is a thinly disguised excuse for the producers to promote their own philosophies on life (watch the end credits and the 'these people are not real' disclaimer at the end for a real laugh). The movie is frequently lacking direction, and fails to develop its characters to any degree whatsoever. What's even worse though is the editing of this film. The film repeats scenes (often 10 to 20 seconds long) up to 4 or 5 times in a row. I think that this was an attempt to emulate things like Jean Claude Van-Damme fight sequences, but if it is it fails utterly. The film would probably be about 1\/3 of its length if we weren't forced to watch the main character move his head in front of the setting sun half a dozen times (yes, that's all that happens in that repeated scene). I give this movie my 'worst film I've ever seen' award. I doubt that it will be topped any time soon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A post-apocalyptic warrior goes off to save some kind of Nun and on the way meets some cyber-punks on skates who want to kick his ass. This is one of the hardest to watch films ever, There are scenes with silence that seems to last hours before somebody comes out with the next badly written, badly acted line. There are action sequences that keep repeating - and we're not talking the quickfire 1-2-3 action repeat on a particularly good kick that was made popular by eastern directors, we're talking many, many repeats of long, bad fight sequences. This is incredibly confusing at first but then quickly becomes annoying as you're watching a 30 second sequence for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th time. Any kind of plot or vision is lost within the confusing continuity, the only thing thats keeps this film in the videoplayer (apart from the bet from a friend that i couldn't watch it all the way through without begging for it to be turned off and disposed off safely so it may harm no-one else) is the fact that although painful, this film is unintentionally hilarious, i'm not at all a fan of those \"so bad that it's funny\" type of films but at parts i was in tears. Other points to note are the quality of the sound and picture but this is forgiveable as it's obvious money was a major problem in the making of this film. Final verdict - King of the \"so bad they're funny\" genre, anybody having that kind of genre video night should get themselves a copy. Also lets not forget that it is actually the worst film i've ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My house mate and I foolishly purchased the video of 'The Roller Blade Seven' from our local second hand video shop in the hope of finding a bad film to laugh at. This film isn't even laughable, it's pathetically poor, worse even than Jack Frost 2-and that's saying something. The script, acting, production, stunts, sound, sets, everything is absolutely terrible. In some parts the actors haven't even learned their lines and are blatantly ad-libbing or in one case actually having the lines read to them off set and simply repeating them. Set in the post apocalyptic 'Wheel Zone',The film obviously consists of about 45 minutes of film, many parts of which are edited badly or repeated ad nauseum from various different camera angles to make the film longer. This gets tedious very quickly. The plot makes no sense whatsoever (It is apparently an amalgam of two books written by Scott Shaw), there aren't even seven of them, most of them aren't on blades, they're wearing roller boots, and it seems to me that mostly the film has been completely sold on the fact that there's about 3 minutes of female semi-nudity in it. The writer and star Scott Shaw obviously fancies himself somewhat of a Samurai and throughout the film performs some very poor stunts and made up sword fighting moves that look massively amateurish. Despite all this, his website states that the film should never be compared to a traditional film because it really pushes the boundaries of modern film making. My house mate and I were left speechless by the whole ordeal, and despite my frequent attempts to burn the videotape, she has decided it may be some kind of Ring-esquire video curse that needs to be passed on. If you see the video in stores, take it from me! Leave well alone!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is, far and wide and beyond any shadow of a doubt, the single worst and most contemptible film in the history of the universe.

It really *is* that bad.

Personally I have always enjoyed the guilty pleasure of a terrible film, and rented this one thinking it would be one of those. To my immense disappointment, it was not.

The script is delivered in a way that sounds as if they're reading the lines directly off placards, the story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and the actual film looks like it was shot on a home video camera. I couldn't even finish watching it. It is even worse than \"Witch Academy\", and that's quite a feat in itself.

I cannot even begin to fathom how a director could shoot this film, and then still have the sense to believe it was decent enough to release.

Painful, awful, horrendous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Looking for a movie for your Turkey Film Festival? THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN is on my list of the ten worst films of all-time. The plot, the story of a post-Apocalyptic roller blading samurai warrior, is a convoluted hodge-podge of film references of everything from STAR WARS to THE SEVEN SAMAURI. The acting fluctuates from bland to abysmal. The scene where the villain tempts the old master is embarrassing to the point of jeering laughter. Frank Stalone's Black Knight reminds one too much of John Cleese's Black Knight in MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL. (Word of Advice, Frank: When you stoop to doing a movie like this one, your career is over.) I chanced upon this little stink-bomb on a low-end cable channel and I could not stop watching. It is like watching a train wreck, you just can't look away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this film with a group of Nazis, a French Archaeologist and my ex-girlfriend on a small island in the Mediterranian.

When the tape was started, myself and my girlfriend were tied to a wooden stake at the far end of this cave like area. I told her to close her eyes and no matter what happened not to open them. The Nazi's and the archaeologist didn't close their eyes and after a few seconds started screaming. The Nazi's faces melted and the archaeologist's head exploded.

After a few seconds the video tape popped out of the VCR and landed back in it's box and the top snapped shut. Myself and my girlfriend were left unharmed.

Consequent to this experience, the video cassette was put in a wooden crate and stored in a huge warehouse of identical wooden crates, never to be see again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Possibly the worst film within the genre in existence. It was announced as a comedy, but is simply tragically pathetic. I don't think anyone could have achieved anything more terrible and irritating if they were specifically requested to. It is toilet humour at its very poorest, I would avoid even watching the trailer. I only went to see it because it was announced that if you like Monty Python, you are bound to love this. Whoever wrote that was either biased or seriously deranged. I am still bewildered how one can honestly believe such a statement. Rarely do I leave the cinema, really it takes a lot of effort for a film to have that effect on me: this one did it in just 30 minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had seen Rik Mayall in Blackadder and the New Statesman, so I thought I'd give this film a try.

At around 4 pm I bought it, at around 8pm I started to watch, at around 8.15pm I fast forwarded the remaining film to see if there was anything left watchable for a human being with a brain... but there wasn't. At around 8.45pm I threw the DVD into the dustbin. And that's where this \"film\" belongs.

What ever happened to British humour? The humour so fine and witty, intelligent and artful that you find in Yes, Minister, Blackadder, Vicar of Dibley, Fawlty Towers or The Fast Show? The black humour Britain is so famous for? I don't want to insult anybody, but I presume even stupid children wouldn't find this funny. They deserve more intelligent fun. And Rik Mayall, you can do better, so please, do!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a HUGE fan of the bottom series i was really looking forward to the release of this film.I was eagerly anticipating a laugh a minute roller-coaster ride......alas.

Where to start on this mess?i think its a good start to say that its hardly richie and eddie on our screens in the first place as none of the jokes and one liners they usually deliver so well are funny.I was still waiting for the first laugh after a good 20 minutes of viewing.Many aspects of the story were pathetic and it was as if the film was full of those bad moments they rehearsed and decided to leave out of the final cut.

The overall sets and atmosphere surrounding the film is dark and dingy which i suppose is good if they want to portray the 'terrible' guest house the 2 buffoons attempt to run,but to me its just puts an even higher dampener on a sorry state of filming that should never have been created.

The acting,at times,is pathetic.Fenella Fielding is wasted as the loony Mrs Foxfur and i've seen Simon Pegg have much better outings.

I'd recommend Guest House Paradiso to anybody who is blind drunk because they might appreciate the terrible puns much more.But to any bottom fan who hasn't seen this film and is expecting true richie and eddie action you have been warned","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The premise of Bottom crossed with Fawlty Towers sounds great! However, Ade Edmonson & Rik Mayall have managed to create a film that raises barely a titter. Ten years ago, Rik Mayall's mad stare and Ade's idiocy were funny, now they are just annoying.

The film had promise - though the most horrendous hotel in Britain is not a new idea - but failed to deliver. The saving graces were competent performances from Simon (Spaced, Big Train) Pegg and Helene Mathieu, and the film is only 90 minutes long. Sorry, guys, but you really have hit the Bottom","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have always been a fan of Bottom, grabbing as many videos as I could find of the series here in the states. The chemistry between Rik and Ade is always genius, and the combination of smart writing and utterly stupid humor seems to work without fail. I thus sat down to watch this movie with great eagerness... and was utterly disappointed by the end.

The first 3\/4 of the movie can best be described as uninspired and poorly directed (sorry, Ade!), but with some utterly brilliant moments. Unfortunately, these laugh-out-loud moments make you realize how less-than-brilliant the rest of the movie is. The slapstick starts off funny but eventually becomes a bit boring, with only the perverted sex jokes to keep things humorous.

The end of the movie (the 'green' scenes, for those of you who've seen it) was... perhaps the worst ending I've seen in the past decade. Honestly. It was one joke repeated about thirty times, followed by an abrupt ending that made no sense (which didn't bother me) and wasn't funny (which did).

To sum up, I was sorely disappointed by this movie. I shall cling to the few brilliant moments in it, to retain the fondest memories that I can... but I have to warn you, if you're about to overpay for your NTSC conversion tape from the local importer, don't. There are far better things to spend your money on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, this film was terrible. It is as simple as that. It is actually the first time that I walked out early, as far as I can remember. This turned out okay, though: I had a very nice chat with two most charming girls while we all waited for the rest to finally give up on that crap they called a \"movie\".

Where to start. Bad acting, bad jokes. Faecal humour, which I simply cannot stand. Sorry, but snot, pee and scat are *not* funny. You have seen the title picture? That scene actually drags on for about 5 minutes, with the two \"heroes\" hitting and mutilating each other, which is supposed to be humorous all by itself. It is not.

Apart from body fluids, violence and cross-dressing, I do not remember much about this. At least not much good. I was really, really disappointed by this piece of garbage. Or let us be honest here: given that I am actually a big fan of \"british\" (i.e., black) humour, I was angry.

So, want my advice? Three words: do not watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The unthinkable has happened. Having first witnessed it a few years ago, I have had a film that has been my benchmark for awfulness and that film was called \"McCinsey's Island\". A family adventure movie with Hulk Hogan and Grace Jones (I'm not making this up), it plunged to new depths of movie making and is still the only film I've seen that made me wonder what else the film's budget could have been spent on. Like new schools or cancer-treating drugs. However, for sheer and unadulterated levels of crap, any film will be having to lower their standards even lower if they wish to trump \"Guest House Paradiso\" to the distinction of being one of the very worst movies I've ever had to watch.

Based loosely around the puerile but amusing TV show \"Bottom\", this film introduces us to two of the biggest losers imaginable. Richard (Rik Mayall) is a hotel manager, as unfriendly as anyone you can imagine and so twistedly lecherous as to almost ooze slime from every action. His buddy Eddie (director Adrian Edmondson) is an alcoholic waste of human life and together, they try to run Britain's worst hotel situated upon a cliff-top next to a nuclear power station. Between them, they indulge in cartoony violence (with sound effects) at regular intervals, steal anything remotely valuable or interesting from the fools who stay there and stare longingly at any woman at all. The plot, such as it is, involves the arrival of fabled Italian screen goddess Gina Carbonara (Vincent Cassel) who is fleeing from her wedding and attempts to lay low at the Guest House Paradiso, much to the astonishment of Richie and Eddie. And... that's it.

I used to think that the Carry On films represented everything bad about the UK film industry and God knows, we've spent so much time and money trying to escape that god awful legacy. We've had films like \"Trainspotting\", \"28 Days Later\", \"Four Weddings And A Funeral\" and the brilliant \"Shaun Of The Dead\" (also starring Simon Pegg) but this... this drags those films screaming and kicking back to the days of Sid James and Barbara Windsor's top flying off with the aid of a bicycle whistle. \"Guest House Paradiso\" is so low in its ambition that it insults you the minute you watch it. I kept watching, waiting in anticipation for the jokes to start but they never came. Just an endless stream of trapped knob gags, unimaginative scenarios that defy explanation, slightly amusing violence with frying pans and fridge doors and almost nothing raising so much as a smirk. Come the first ad break (it was on TV, you see) and I was ready to switch off but my loyal duties to you, my readers, kept me going. \"I'm watching this so they don't have to\" became my mantra so you guys better remember how much you owe me for this because this was about as much fun as having sand kicking into my eyes and being force-fed dog food.

Trust me, I used to love the \"Bottom\" TV show. The combination of suitably grubby acting from Mayall and Edmondson with OTT juvenile humour worked... for half an hour every week. Certainly not for an hour and a half, as Edmondson and Mayall indulge themselves in their little private joke and bore and depress the rest of the audience. Honestly, this makes Mayall's \"Drop Dead Fred\" seem like \"The Godfather\" and should you happen to meet either of these two people (who are pretty much solely responsible for the chaos on screen pretending to be a movie), feel free to swiftly deliver a boot to their testicle region. They'd probably enjoy it. Pegg and Bill Nighy (both as guests at the hotel) are dragged down with this sinking ship but at least they survived. Mayall and Edmondson should not be so lucky. The movie equivalent of Chernobyl and should be avoided as such.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yep, this has got to be one of the lamest movies I've ever seen. It's utterly tasteless, has no style whatsoever, the story is so thin that you can watch television through it, and the whole film has so many holes you could drive an oil tanker through it.

Sure, I appreciate a good B-movie as much as most male white homo sapiens do. But this has got to be the worst I've seen. In fact it's so B that it lacks everything that makes a B-movie interesting.

The whole movie is based around such charming artefacts as the characters beating the crap out of each other, various bodily functions and the complete lack of sanity of anything on-screen.

It's not even funny. In fact it's quite the opposite. I found it even boring at times due to it's extreme predictability.

I find nothing good to say about this movie. It was a waste of time watching it, and I hope others don't do the same mistake. If you also pay for it you should get a serious brainscan done.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This should have been a short film, nothing more. The Length of 1,5 hours is much too long, because after 10 minutes you have seen almost every joke. It's getting more and more on your nerves untill you finally kick out your brain to endure that movie.

To do yourself a favor, don't mention to see that movie...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Apart from the fact that this film was made ( I suppose it seemed a good idea at the time considering BOTTOM was so popular ) the one thing that puzzled me about GUEST HOUSE PARADISO was what happened to the lighting ? There is absolutely no artificial lighting used in this film whatsoever , and I watched it on network TV so it wasn`t a case of watching a dodgy tape. In fact the film was shot so darkly it was impossible to see what the hell was going on . But if the dialogue was anything to go by that`s maybe not a bad thing","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Herman has made northern drama his own with Little Voice and Brassed Off, but the formula falters in this ropey, flat and contrived tale of two teenage delinquents trying to get season tickets to see Newcastle.

Truancy, underage smoking and drinking, underage sex, teenage abortion, school bullying, drug abuse, substance abuse, depression, child violence, child sex abuse, shoplifting, housebreaking, auto theft, violent assault and armed robbery all put in an appearance here. None of these issues are explored, they merely serve to move the story along from one implausible situation to another. The film is not as acutely observed as Trainspotting, as poignant as The Full Monty, or as reflective of the times as Wonderland (from which it shamelessly steals music in an overly-manipulative manner). I suspect none of the filmmakers are from Newcastle, and have certainly never experienced the social problems the film references. I am all for entertainment, and Herman's track record shows he is aware of the need to balance the social message with laughs and tears. Quite simply, he comes up incredibly short here.

The film has a nice ending, but there are far too many flat, banal moments to sit through to get there. Nicely shot, not very well acted, and ultimately fails on three crucial points: script, script, script.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film is set in Newcastle on Tyne in north east England, the town where I was born and grew up. The film is also fundamentally dishonest - the way it presents the town, the kids, but above all the men of the town. In this film they are all stupid, violent, thieving, thugs.

I suppose I could comment on the plot (predictable), the performances (competently unattractive), the direction (lazy and unimaginative), but to me that is all irrelevant compared to the director's insult to the town and its people.

Thus the invitation in my summary to the director and writer, Mark Herman, to leave the north east.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Contrary to most of the comments in this section, I have to say this film just barely escapes the definition 'rubbish!'. The only readers who seem to be aware of what a catalogue of clich\u00e9s it is are those who, like me, live in the north-east and know at first hand what the area is like. I am totally sick of films that are supposed to be 'realistic', yet portray the working class (of wherever) as stupid, criminal low-lifes, but then excuse them because of their social background. And funny? I smiled briefly twice and laughed once, but that was at the incongruity of two boy actors with Sunderland accents supposedly trying to hide their Newcastle accents from Sunderland football fans! There was only one likable character in the whole film, and that was the senile grandfather played quietly but very competently by Roy Hudd -- the only non-Geordie in the cast.

As for the writing -- well, I just wonder what university sociology department the author studied at. He certainly had no ear for the local accent. And I too have never heard the expression 'Purely Belter' -- and not only am I a native, I'm a linguist who's written articles on the local dialect.

Don't waste your time and eyesight on this garbage. It isn't funny, it isn't realistic, it isn't entertaining, and it is fundamentally dishonest.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After seeing PURELY BELTER I came onto this site to review it , but not only that I also had to check out the resume of the screenwriter \/ director Mark Herman . As soon as his name appeared on the opening credits I knew that I had seen his name before somewhere and after checking I found out he wrote and directed the film version of LITTLE VOICE one of the most underrated feelgood British movies of the 1990s

PURELY BELTER is an entirely different kettle of fish . It's a grim stereotypical view of Geordie life and a very unfunny one at that . Everyone is either a wife beater , a single mother , a shoplifter , a drunk or a junkie . Since many scenes are set in a school the PE teacher is a sadistic bully and that's the closest the film ever gets to reality . Oh and everyone is very foul mouthed which adds to the grim unlikable atmosphere

I didn't like PURELY BELTER much while I watched and now that I know who Mark Herman is I like it even less . With LITTLE VOICE Herman proved you can make an amusing uplifting comedy featuring northern souls but I had to ask where his undoubted talent went in this movie ?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two teenagers in the north-east of England are desperate to raise money and buy season tickets for their favourite football team. They go through a series of \"comic misadventures\" but come up smiling in the end.

The trailer for this film sells it as a comedy and includes most of its light-hearted moments. However, the tone is increasingly grim and the end result is a depressing story peopled with familiar stereotypes. The two \"heroes\" have no problems with lying, cheating and stealing. Their adversaries are a callous teacher, a pantomime villain of a father, a psychotic skinhead and a well-meaning but incompetent social worker. The other female characters are a drug addicted teenager, a pregnant schoolgirl and a battered wife who seems to be smoking herself to death. There are no likable characters, and the audience can only feel either pity or contempt. Local actors Tim Healy and Kevin Whateley both play against type as baddies, but the writing and direction of their characters are so one-dimensional that they have no more than novelty value.

Chris Beattie and Greg McLane give good performances in the two young leads. However, they are miscast, because they have the wrong accent. To anyone from the north east, it is obvious that they both come from the Sunderland\/Durham area, and yet we are expected to believe they are natives of Newcastle. As a Geordie myself I can assure you that the accents are by no means the same. Take the phrase \"Let the poor lad speak\". We say \"Let the pooa lad speek\" while they say \"piwer lad spiyk\", with two distinctly different vowel sounds. This discrepancy creates a ridiculous double irony in a scene in Sunderland football ground, where the two lads are trying to disguise the Newcastle accents they don't have, and *pretend* that they come from Sunderland - which they clearly do. In a gentle comedy this kind of criticism might be seen as nit-picking. However, the film's bleak tone makes it clear that writer\/director Mark Herman is aiming for gritty realism: that means \"near enough\" is actually way off.

I had hoped for humour and optimism from this film, and instead found tired old clich\u00e9s. Tyneside is not a grey wasteland populated solely by losers, and in telling us it is, Herman should have known he would cause offence. It's interesting to compare the film with the same director's \"Little Voice\" - also largely downbeat and populated by one-dimensional characters, \"Little Voice\" at least has a talented heroine and doesn't wallow in misery to the same extent. I've heard \"Belter\" ranked alongside this year's \"Billy Elliot\", but that film is a vastly more enjoyable and life-affirming experience.

Incidentally, I may be just too old, but having lived on Tyneside for 42 years, I have never heard anyone outside this film use the expression \"Purely Belter\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think we are supposed to think what wonderful salt-of-the-earth characters. Unfortunately, this is lame and laboured.

As always with any production set in Newcastle, there are numerous shots of the Tyne Bridge and frequent attempts to show what great 'characters' Geordies are. The viewer is never allowed to forget where the film is set, as though the rest of the world cared about Newcastle and its inhabitants.

If you like well observed, literate and original work stay well clear.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very strange. But meant to be. This director is his own man. Even through there are strains if Polanski, Bergman, and Kafka at least in the episode no 6, the peeping tom one. What made it all so strange, and reminiscent of the above three artists, was that it went all over the place, you never knew where it was headed, and could have ended anyplace, and finally when it did end, could have kept going. The ending is hardly a finality, nobody could tell you what these two characters would be doing in even the next frame. One other thing should be said about the director: No wonder Kubrick found him fascinating. There is a lot of Eyes Wide Shut in this episode somehow, in the direct approach to character, the realistic fantasy elements of both. A Kubrick placement of the camera without any of the stark effects, much more washed out, and hurried, not as fussed over. That said, back to the beginning, still this guy has his own things to say and says them well. Yet, for some reason, there is not a single scene I ever want to see again. But definitely did not feel ripped off in the least watching it one time around. But I did keep getting the feeling of three or four other directors ghosts moving through the parade, blurring everything. The caveat being that it was only episode six: the other nine might give me entirely different takes. But since this episode revolved around peeping, looking, the absolute domain of film, I will say this, he took none of the usual routes, definitely went his own way while carrying the baggage of a lot of good directors behind him.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Think of an extremely low-rent version of \"Heathers,\" and you've got \"Pep Squad.\" That sums up the flick in a nutshell. I must give credit where credit's due, though. The film has a nice visual appeal to it. I liked the cinematography, I liked the wild color schemes, I liked the costume designs. But without good acting, a film has no redeeming value. I'd rather watch a film with little visual appeal, with good actors and sharp dialogue (i.e.: \"The Brothers McMullen\" or any Edward Burns film). The actors either recite their dialogue in monotones or scream it out like they're in a bad soap opera. This is why I don't badmouth most mainstream actors. Let's face it, most actors who are mainstream are mainstream for a reason. If they're not \"great\" actors, they're at least competent. People badmouth Leo DiCaprio, but when was the last time you saw a movie where he recites the dialogue as if he's reading it off the page? It's a shame, because the director seems like he knows his stuff when it comes to mis en scene (sp). At the same time I can't totally praise Steve Balderson (the director). He did write the screenplay, which contains some horrible dialogue. He might be slightly racist too, since there's a black principal in the movie, who inhabits a culmination of African-American stereotypes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With Pep Squad receiving an average of 4.7 on IMDb.com, no wonder Steve Balderson slanders this website so. But the fact is that Pep Squad is a poorly crafted \"black\" \"comedy\" (both words in quotation marks for a reason). It's a movie full of over-acting (Cherry, Beth's Mother), coupled with a couple of lethargic performances (Beth and Julie's boyfriend). A movie where you can follow cars from twenty feet away in a gaudy red Jeep and never be noticed. A movie chock full of not-so-appetizing cleavage and nudity shots that make you wonder, \"Does the director think this is funny? Or clever?\" Most of all, the characters are so paper-thin and poorly developed that the film becomes quite unpredictable, but probably not on purpose. Pep Squad can't decide whether to be a comedy, or a drama, or a satire (patriotic music, I get it...). The movie fails at being serious, because the idea of killing for any school position (this being Prom Queen) crosses the line into insanity (not to mention shots of flag burning and drive-by shootings, a poor attempt at being controversial and edgy), and fails at being a comedy, for all the forced and awkwardly placed jokes (big butt mama, \"funky\" black principal, and excessive cussing delivered poorly by the principal cast). Watching the documentary \"Wamego: Making Movies Anywhere\" only made this film more cringe-worthy, with praise lauded towards it by... the director and the director's father... hmmmmmm. Not a black comedy, or anything for that matter. I guess Kansas will have to wait.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a really really bad movie. That may seem like an oversimplification. A fickle, childish retort comparable to a petty unsubstantiated insult. The truth is, there is not enough I can say about the confusing senseless plot, the really atrocious acting (I'm talking nasty here folks), or the random images of violence toward women that make up the chaotic pastiche of radically horrendous film-making mistakes that propel this affront to all that is good and decent in the world of cinema, nay, human culture. Please, take my word for it, don't watch it... ever. I'm serious. Stop. You'll thank me for it later.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Saw the film at it's Lawrence, Kansas premiere. This wavering story about a group of disgruntled highschoolers killing off the competition for prom queen was just awful. It fails for many reasons - bad acting, bad script, no clear point. But mainly it just felt like the filmmakers said to themselves - \"Hey I have some money, so let's make a movie!\" - without really thinking it out. Sorrowfully most indie films that don't make it suffer from just that mentality. They just don't seem to realize that it takes more than money to make a good movie... or in this case, even a watchable one. With this film I do not feel ashamed to say, that if I didn't know some of the crew, I would have walked out. Simple as that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't mean to sound pretentious here, but to call this the next cult classic is yet another example of the lowering standards filmmakers have for themselves. This movie is an offense to everything we hold sacred, and not in the good \"artsy \" way of offending. This film becomes the archetype for PAINFUL dialogue, delivered by even more pathetic actors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...but I would be lying. A relative was a crew member, and we got to go watch the production of this movie for a couple of days (and I was an extra). I get to die and have a second of screen time, not that I plan on moving to Hollywood anytime soon. I just thought it was awesome to see how movies are made and be a part of it. Plus, I got a copy of the movie once it was finally released. They didn't have a studio backing when making this film so it truly was independent. Why the writing and acting is so awful is beyond me, but the main character \"Cherry\" is the director's sister so that could be part of it. But the cinematography was good. :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"PEP SQUAD is at a very low point with its confusing plot line and horrible acting.

First, let's tackle the characters. Cherry (Brooke Balderson) continues to hold an outrageous, boiling anger throughout the entire film, which is due to her overwhelming passion to become prom queen. However, it becomes completely unknown to the audience why Cherry wants to become prom queen in the first place. Before the nominations are even read off, she storms around the school with a constant disinterest upon being there, and shows no interest in the place or its students to begin with. Why does she care so much to be their prom queen? Brooke Balderson apparently presents an \"acclaimed\" performance but in reality just spends the entire time with an angry face, stomping around, killing people. Maybe it's just me, but I think if you handed any young actor\/actress a script that only requires him\/her to act insanely angry, you're not asking for much. You're also not allowing the character to develop very well.

Beth's character, played by Jennifer Dreiling, is even worse. Dreiling shows absolutely no emotion and no connection to her character whatsoever. When being harassed by her principal, she knocks him down (after several seconds) with no feelings of disgust or shock or anything equally traumatizing. Her lines are read like she is reading trivia off the back of a cereal box.

Throughout the rest of the film, the students in charge of his kidnapping sound more like they are planning a barbecue than deciding what they will do with their principal, sitting tied up in their basement.

Meanwhile, Cherry is off killing several female prom queen candidates, and no one even notices or cares. (Yeah, I get it, I get it, the whole town is worried about prom. Very realistic. At least you could throw in some funny scenes with the cops, but that might be asking too much.) For example, right after Cherry drives by the school and shoots down a handful of students, Beth is found being interviewed by the local media. The reporter mentions \"the shooter\" in a way that makes it seem like no one knows who killed these innocent students, but then one second later asks, \"What do you think about guns in the hands of minors?\" or something to that effect. Where did the reporter jump to such conclusions?

At the end of the movie, after Cherry kills the winning prom queen and prom is deemed over, with the media showing up again, Beth simply adds that \"she understands (Cherry's) need to be heard\" and walks away with her friends, smoking cigarettes in a calm, unaltered mood. No one is even strayed by the fact that they just witnessed a murder.

Not to mention the students constantly parking in a yellow zone, and no one seeming to care that there is a sudden rise in violence in the town, Julie living in a large house with no parents present, and the bizarre party at her house (Maybe I'm a little left out of the scene, but last time I knew, high school parties did not involve naked women artistically dancing in a pool of water while men bob for marshmallows and everyone basks in their \"I'm so indie and mod\" attitudes), Beth's parent's horrible acting with her mother acting over-the-top and her father simply nodding at everything the mother has to say (and not in an entertaining way either), along with stupid scenes such as the new black principal running after Cherry as she tries to shoot her with a gun. Yes. Very realistic.

The only compliment I can give this movie is that the photography is wonderful. The angles are flattering and the screen is very clear and crisp with each shot.

Too bad the acting and script aren't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The 2002 version of \"The Time Machine\" is just the latest in a string of terribly disappointing Hollywood remakes that fall flat on their face despite extravagant special effects.

What a lousy, uninspired bland story, with no imagination. Why so totally rewrite such a wonderful sci-fi classic? Are today's movie audiences too hip for the H.G. Wells writing largely as is? The 1960 George Pal version told a much more endearing story, even with clunky low-budget effects, beach-party looking Eloi, and Morlocks that looked like Smurfs on steroids.

The 2002 version must have H.G Wells turning in his grave:

1. The idea that the time traveler is motivated by the desire to change the past and trapped in a time paradox is an old sci-fi clich\u00e9. This totally distracts from the love affair with Mara (what happened to Weena?!) that made the 1960 version so endearing. This sets an unfortunate and distractive tone early on that makes the whole movie dour. If Guy Pearce's character was so brilliant either he or his buddy Einstein would have realized the time paradox dilemma \u0096 not have it dawn on him 800,000 yrs in the future \u0096 from a Morlock no less, Doh!! What's wrong with time-traveling just for fun & adventure & curiosity -- as embodied in the 1960 version?

2. Only if you saw the first movie would you realize at all what Pearce was doing with the time machine when you first see it. The George Pal film carefully explains the whole weird idea of 'travel' though a 4th dimension.

3. The director goes out of his way to make Pearce's character look geeky, a worn out old stereotype of scientists. In the 1960 version Rod Taylor was a little nerdy too (at least around Weena) but managed to be swashbuckling, playful and charming.

4. Among the key themes of the 60's version -- abandoned in the remake -- is the idea that endless war leads to the bifurcation of humanity. Blowing up the Moon to destroy humanity is pointless -- and doesn't do much for science literacy. For over 4 billion years the Moon has suffered vastly more powerful asteroid impacts, which would make any nuclear device look like a firecracker. Yes, science fiction needs artistic license, but this is just plain dumb and meaningless.

5. Destroying the time machine is stupid too. Apparently our time traveler invented the neutron bomb to power this thing. Blowing up the machine to kill Morlocks is sort of a cop-out 'machina ex machina' Disappointingly, Pearce never comes back to the 1800s to tell his tale to his incredulous friends, a key part of the Wells story with the irony that in a week the time travels goes into the far future and back.

6. Having Morlocks running around in the daytime totally ruins H.G. Wells' wonderfully spooky, ghoulish portrayal of them as shadowy creatures of the night. A true cinematic opportunity lost. Also, Wells depicted the Eloi as frail and childlike. These guys in the movie looked like they could take on Morlocks, if they weren't such big baby wusses.

7. The one smart Morlock \u0096 kind of a bleached-out Star Wars Evil Emperor -- had potential, but is so lame and aloof he tells Pearce to take his machine and go home ?! Boy, what a dramatic high point! In the book the Morlocks steal the machine because they are so fascinated by it, and fight to keep it.

8. The goof ball hologram at the N.Y. Public Library is too much. It makes light of the idea of human cannibalism. the 1960 version simply had the \"talking rings\" that delivered a chillingly somber eulogy for humankind. Derailed evolution is serious stuff.

Its sad the wonderful effects in this movie can never make up for a weary contrived clunker of a script. Save the cost of a ticket & popcorn and go rent the DVD when it comes out (soon no doubt), at least you can fast-forward thought the dull parts, just like our time traveler.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"H.G. Wells is spinning. No doubt about it.

Really, this would have been a decent sci-fi\/adventure movie, if it hadn't been based on a classic novel and directed by the author's grandson. I kept hearing about how this would be the definitive version of the novel. What resulted was a pathetic and simpleminded bastardization.

The novel is a great sci-fi story but what a lot of people miss when they read it (probably because they read it when they're very young) is that it's overflowing with social commentary. The Eloi and Morlocks are a satire of the class distinctions of Victorian England, and the overall message of the film is that EVERYTHING DECAYS AND DEGENERATES, a satiric jab at Victorian complacency and their belief that their civilization would last forever. There's no love story, no romance with a beautiful Eloi woman....in the novel, the Eloi are 3-foot-tall childlike beings with a mental capacity not far above that of an animal. The Time Traveler does befriend an Eloi woman but it's clear he thinks of her more like a pet, and anyway she's killed before the novel ends.

This movie first tries to give us a totally stupid backstory as to \"why he wants to travel through time.\" The treacly romance and the Lessons He Must Learn are enough to make film fans vomit.

The journey into the future is punctuated by a future disaster. OK, not bad, but it would have had more punch if we had been allowed to see that mankind just generally degenerates, as in the book. More a reflection of the times, I guess, as the George Pal version had a nuclear war take place.

The general story? Ugh. A total misrepresentation of the novel. The Eloi are too competent and warlike. The Morlocks are too intelligent. The UberMorlock is an embarrassment, and there's no setup. He just shows up in time to be killed. Yawn.

Samantha Mumba does OK. Guy Pearce is one of my favorites but he often seems confused and in pain. (Reportedly he broke a rib while filming this.) He also looks unhealthy and overly thin, as if he had been ill for a long time before making this.

A sad, sorry film version of one of the world's classics. H. G. Wells deserves better....MUCH better.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Guy Pearce looks like and acts like a Calvin Klein underwear model, or one of those bimbo guys who wear Levi's Jeans and stand in front of a herd of stampeding Buffalo because they realize that Buffalo like Levi's too. In every scene, Guy Pearce looks like he is saying, \"Look at me, I am so pretty!\" As a hero, his character is a total wimp. In every scene that calls for courage, Pearce gets the short end of the stick. SPOILERS: Yet, at the end of the movie, this wimpy book-worm character out-runs a pack of baboon-like Morlocks who can run and leap along the side of the walls (like Spiderman). Around the same time, the TIME MACHINE seems to cause a Nuclear Explosion of some kind that wipes out an entire valley. Strangely, even though Pearce and his gal-pal Mumba are about a foot away from the last Morlock that gets killed; seconds later Pearce, Mumba, and the tribe are watching the valley blow up from the safety of their mountain. Now THAT is FAST RUNNING!!! Jeremy Irons as the King of the Morlocks is great. He really makes the movie a lot better than it was. Mumba, the model-turned-actress is not very cute, and she does not do much acting in this movie. The scenes which take place in the 1900s lack any real atmosphere. Even though the period dress and vehicles are shown, the characters act like caricatures of how they imagine 1900s people would walk and talk. The original version of this movie was a lot better in this respect. The period characters were much more realistic, and they were much better actors. The original version of this movie made the PAST seem like the real base of the characters. This new version lacks substance and feeling. The scenes in which Pearce deals with the death of Emma and then fails to save her from her fate are very good. The issue of the Morlocks being cannibals is not very well explained, and it does not make sense that they have some large dark butcher shop filled with knives and cutlery, yet they are never seen using any weapons except for a blow-dart. Also silly is the giant pit full of water and bones. All through the underground, the Morlocks are all walking around chewing on meaty bones. So how can all those skeletons be in the pit? It seems like there are some Morlocks that Bar-B-Que their humans and eat them off the grill, and other Morlocks only like filleted flesh?? And where are the restrooms for all of these creatures? As I was watching the dozens of Morlocks who were gorging themselves on human flesh, it occurred to me that they must have a very advanced toilet & plumbing system, considering that they were tossing in lots of bones. All these issues were never addressed. At the end of the movie, Pearce is holding Mumba's hand, but you can see that he is eye-balling her friend, Mandingo. One other totally irritating thing about this movie is the non-stop LION KING music which is in the background. Once Pearce arrives in the future (802,710 a.d.); the LION KING music never stops, and every time the natives are around, there is that African Moaning Singer (Is it Peter Gabriel or Paul Simon?) that starts wailing and moaning over the LION KING jungle music. I watched the credits at the end of the movie, and the jungle music is not specifically identified, but I think that Elton John should probably look into this matter. Time Machine was a mediocre movie with some good FX. See it once, then forget it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Worst. Movie. Ever. I can't believe they had to hire Jeremy Irons to give this piece of crap some credibility - and still failed. Did they think that if they stuck to the plot of the book that their target audience wouldn't be able to figure it out on their own? (probably). \"Hey, let's make lots of things explode and give Mina big boobs, and have her speak in an adorably fake broken English. That'll make the morons watch.\" \"But sir, that's not how the book went at all, I think we're mot being faithful to Mr. Wells' message.\" \"F*ck it, we're going to the box office here, never mind some dead author's ideas on human nature. Also, let's add in Orlando Jones with some classic 'Black attitude' as a supporting character, and never mind the interesting conclusion to the book - Guy Pierce has to get some p*ssy at the end.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a Time Machine all right. It runs in \"real time\" for 96 minutes but it felt like 96 years. The first 20 minutes were utterly superfluous. Massive amounts of \"dead\" time throughout. What happened? When will something happen? Who cares? Apparently the film was made on a tight budget, I note for your edification the following: The Morlochs: nothing like saving a little money by reusing the sets and costumes from Lord of the Rings part I, hey? The \"scary dude\" in charge of controlling the Morlochs... The scariest thing these guys could think of was somebody wearing one of Gene Simmons: (of the band Kiss) old costumes??? Little-known fact: freaks of the future have perfectly manicured nails.

Save your money, save your time. Pass on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After reading the novel which is about a one hour read, watching this film became a sad disappointing experience. Just as he did in prince of Egypt simon wells somehow managed to direct a script that took away all the drama and mystery out of its source material and turned it into this homogenized nonsense. Now I'm a sucker for cheese and camp but this movie made absolutely no sense. There was no joy in any of the performances or any humor. There were no thrills and that silly bookend with addy's character of filby throwing his hat in the air was the last hackwriting straw. I felt very violated when this movie was over and I still refuse to believe it was only 90 minutes it went on forever. I wondered how the studio and director could have OK'd such a lousy script but then my friend pitched the movie to me exactly as It was and I said wow that sounds great but what happened to the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was one of the many fools who were sapped out into paying for this at the theater, even though I payed 4 bucks for matin\u00e9e (before 6pm) prices.

The remake's story was ho-hum, the CGI Morlocks were lame, the Eloi were rastafarian to mimic today's fads (no I did not think the chick was hot at all), the re-killing of the hero's modern girlfriend was somewhat cruel, overall just a sad, bad remake.

I'll take Rod Taylor, Weena, and the fat glowing eyed surfer Morlocks over this junk any time. My estimation is that many of the reviewers who like this awful remake are young kids, which does not account for either good taste or a true value of the old classics which are largely unappreciated by today's confused and ever-wanting-more youth.

When the 60s version came out (I first saw it in the 70s for summer fun) it was pretty damn impressive and still holds up. You don't have to have an over abundance of CGI in a movie for it to be better. Too much of this looks fake. I can't say enough of how disappointingly bad the Morlocks looked and they ran and jumped around like they were in a child's video game. 3 stars out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie sucked. From beginning to end it was predictable. There was absolutly no chemistry between Pearce and the Mumba chick. The plot went nowhere, floating off into oblivion. All of these led to the movie being very hilarious in its stupidity. And I wanted to strangle Orlando Jones, the guy just needs to go away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you loved the early-60's version of \"The Time Machine\", don't waste your time; as with last year's \"The Planet of the Apes\", this has been \"reimagined\", and not for the better. And, just as with \"Planet...\", its lead actor is woefully miscast and leaden; Guy Pearce, a terrific actor of great range, is all wrong for this role, giving a one-note performance that elicits zero sympathy; he's so dour and serious, and lacking in awe of the (supposedly) amazing things he sees that you don't believe for a moment that he's experiencing them. Worse yet, whose idea was it for him to resemble the love child of David Spade and Calista Flockhart?? A handsome actor, here he is sickeningly gaunt, which is, believe it or not, a major distraction. Frankly, the man looks gravely ill and is photographed cruelly. He shares absolutely NO chemistry with anyone on the screen, a direct result of a performance that is out of sync with anyone else's. Sadly, even with a proper leading man this movie doesn't stand a chance for it is fatally burdened with both a totally inept director - whole scenes go nowhere and are poorly realized - and a screenplay that is utterly inferior, scattered and at times incoherent - not for a single moment do you care about anyone in this film, for the single fact that there is NOTHING in the way of character development! In the original, you got to KNOW the Eloi, so therefore you felt for them, and felt their terror of the Morelocks; here, as the movie stresses several times, they are nothing but sheep and act accordingly. Unless you're a member of PETA, scared sheep are HARDLY the stuff of entertainment!

Samantha Mumba does as well as possible, in her movie debut, but, like everyone else in this mess, most especially Jeremy Irons (if he's the leader of the Morelocks [who look like rejects from \"The Mummy Returns\"], why then does HE look like Edgar Winter's long-lost brother?) is COMPLETELY WASTED. Also wasted was the money spent on the endless 'special' effects, which belie the $70M spent on the film; they are uniformly lackluster, obvious and unconvincing. And then there's the look of the film: poorly photographed, its art direction and sets are just \"there\" and its costumes are typical in design. There isn't an original thought or idea expressed behind or on the screen. Most of all, it isn't even fun! (The filmmakers use the now-ubiquitous Orlando Jones as \"comic relief\" but, as usual, Jones is irritating, and just HOW does his electrically-driven character survive in a world seemingly devoid of electricity?)

All in all, this is an empty, lifeless, dull, sterile and confused affair: didn't they ALREADY REMAKE \"Planet of the Apes\"??? (At least THAT had the fortune of some strong performances!)

*SPOILER!* The final insult (beyond a head-shakingly terrible, not to mention convenient, ending)? Not only do they BARELY feature the changing dress-store figures, they make even the time machine itself an anachronistic, gaudy glass-n-chrome bore! (If \"The Sopranos\" had a time machine, THIS is exactly what it would look like.) Pathetic...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Time Machine starts in New York during 1899 where Professor Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce) proposes to his beloved girlfriend Emma (Sienna Guillory) who accepts, unfortunately just after they are attacked by a mugger & Emma is shot dead & dies in Alexander's arms. Jump forward 'Four Years Later' & Alexander has built a time machine which he uses to travel back to the night Emma was killed in order to save her but she is still killed, only a different way this time. Alexander realises whatever he does, however many times he goes back Emma will always end up dead one way or another & he yearns to know the answer why so he travels far into the future to discover the truth. However after having destroyed the moon two new races have evolved on Earth, the human like Eloi & the monstrous Morlock's that eat the Eloi. Alexander decides to stick around & save the Eloi.

Directed by Simon Wells who is actually the great grandson of author H.G. Wells who wrote the original The Time Machine book on which the original The Time Machine (1960) film was based & it is in fact the 1960 film that producer John Logan's script is based upon here rather than Wells original literally source. While all three share the same basic story & ideas this remake adds the subplot about Alexander's fianc\u00e9 Emma being killed & that's the reason he invents a time machine rather than just because he is clever & he can. The script is a mixture of sci-fi, action adventure & drama none of which really grabbed me or engaged me that much, sure there are a few pretty special effects, a few nice action scenes & the moment when Alexander's question is answered regarding why he can't save Emma is actually quite intelligent & makes sense it never really captured my imagination & I was never really moved by it either. The time travel aspects of The Time Machine feel very similar to Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1992) in the sense you can't change the past but at the same time the future is not set only The Time Machine isn't anywhere near as good a film as Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The character's are alright although I thought Guy Pearce just looked too young to be a brainy scientist capable of inventing a time machine & there's never any real explanation behind it's mechanics either as it's like one moment there's no time machine the next he has invented & made one & it works perfectly. I reckon the Back to the Future trilogy offer far more thrills, laughs, excitement & general entertainment value than The Time Machine ever does & while I will stop short of calling it a bad film since it moves along at a decent pace, tells a reasonable story & has it's moments I wouldn't call it brilliant or even particularly good. There is also a cheeky little reference to the book & original film which are both name-checked here.

The benefit this modern version has over the original is the development of special effects & in particular CGI which leads to scenes of time rapidly passing around Alexander in his time machine complete with huge buildings being built, new ridges, canyons & mountains being formed & a elaborate pan back which ends up in space as we see passenger rockets orbiting the moon. The effects work is good, there are one or two moments that look a little below par but generally speaking the effects are good. I saw The Time Machine on telly & the station playing it badly pan and scanned it so the left & right edges of the frame were cut off the screen thus cutting off part of the year on Alexander's time machine dial so I actually didn't know what year he went to. Apparently director Gore Verbinski took over the last eighteen days of filming as Wells was suffering from 'extreme exhaustion' while the IMDb says that the time machine itself was the biggest & most expensive prop ever built for a film at that point which I find hard to believe & Guy Pearce broke a rib during a fight scene but like a trooper carried on.

With a supposed budget of about $80,000,000 the production values are high with a lovingly recreated period New York & good effects work although amazingly The Time Machine was nominated for an Oscar for best make-up but lost out to Frida (2002). The acting is mixed, Jermey Irons puts in a good performance in a terrible make-up job that has him looking like a reject from a Lord of the Rings film while singer Samantha Mumba makes her big screen debut here & is simply terrible although Guy Pearce is quite good & fairly likable.

The Time Machine isn't a particularly bad film or a particularly good one, just a somewhat unremarkable one that is watchable & passes an hour and a half but not much else. Watch Back to the Future (1985) again instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a disgrace. How can you take one of the greatest science fiction stories of all time and turn it into some kind of half-assed love story. The entire beginning of the movie was not in the H.G. Wells story and didn't need to be. Also the Eloi were done completely wrong. They did build houses or form any kind of real society. They didn't care about each other at all. That was an important part of the story. The way they had formed a world that was without hardship or complex emotions. They were barely even aware of the Morlocks. I don't know why this movie was made the way it was but some stories should be told as they are or left alone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do you know that they want to escavate the Moon for real?And in Geneve there is the debated project that could lead to make possible time machine?All i can say about this movie that is based on facts about future(at the time of the movie)scientifical projects but real. Hope the moon will exist not happen as in the movie. Now about the movie itself, I saw the original movie too, and I also read the book. The book I didn't like though, but the movie yes.I totally agree with a previous comment that this movie was depressing,unlike the 60's one.That was very good with force, this one was only a paralled future of what is good movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having not read the original book or seen the earlier film, and indeed knowing nothing about the storyline of either of those or the current film, I came to this film with an open mind.

It's really difficult to know where to start a comment on the film, because the whole thing seems so confused. It seems like there is a point or a message or something in the film, but what that is remains completely obscure.

The effects were fantastic and very well judged. The idea was set up really well with the motivation for time travel clearly made out. However, it was downhill from here.

All of the time travel seems to have only the vaguest connection to the quest that was set out at the start. There are some nice ideas, but they seem to be isolated occurrences that really do not flow and make the film seem disjointed and lost. At one point one wonders whether the main story in the film is the fate of the moon.

When Hartdegen arrives in 802,701 A.D., the film becomes very frustrating as he seems to be unable to discover anything of importance about the Eloi, and while it seems clear that there is something to find out, what it is remains annoyingly elusive. This is quite an odd change from the previous time travel instances and one wonders why all of this has suddenly been abandoned for what seems like a completely new story. So many things happen that there should be an explanation for, but there is no discovery. I really, really wanted to know what the film was \"getting at\", what there was to uncover, but to no avail. Having read a summary of what happens in the book at this point, it seems like there has been a very half-hearted attempt to render this in the film but it has been so simplified and \"dumbed down\" that the meaning and context is completely lost.

Just as we hope that we are finally to discover where this is all leading, the film suddenly takes another significant change in direction, and becomes a mindless action film without any real action. It is as if by this point the director has simply given up bothering to put any meaning into the film. By now countless significant things are happening without any explanation. Hartdegen fails to take the opportunity to return to the past on two occasions for no reason, and then suddenly loses all interest in time travel for no reason. The film comes to an abrupt end as Hartdegen decides to stay with the Eloi.

In summary, after a good start the film is very disappointing. Too much time is spent on Hartdegen's adventures before arriving with the Eloi. However, the worst part of the film is what I think is the most important part: the setting up of the situation with the Eloi. The whole point is completely missed, and this undermines the rest of the film. After this the film concentrates too much on effects and action and all attempts to return to the meaning and core of the film seem forced and out of place. With so many things happening without explanation, the film just seems to get lost and lose direction. However, the finale where Hartdegen decides he is no longer bothered about time travel is the most inexplicable of all.

Ultimately, the whole film seemed like a collection of unconnected incidents. The meaning and context was lost, although the gaping hole where it should have been was very obvious. What was so frustrating about it all, though, was that there was clearly so much potential here: it wasn't by any means a bad film, it just so easily could have been so much better. The start was very promising, the time travelling looked fantastic and would have worked had it not gone off on tangents, and Hartdegen's experience with the Eloi could so easily have worked had a few more of the right questions been asked, and had there not been such a temptation to \"dumb down\" and simplify. I just wish I had a time machine so that I could travel back in time and advise against the mistakes that were made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was one of the worst films i have ever seen. I'm still trying to get over how bad it was. Just because it has Godard's name attached to it, doesn't make it great. Beyond the fact it makes absolutely no sense, we see one insanely long shot of a traffic jam that is not stunning, unbelievable or anything of the sort. While this long shot of the traffic jam is going on you will be feeling probably more like making a pastrami sandwich than continuing watching it. Pieces of a supposed story, silly, stupid characters. What message are we suppose to take from this? It offers nothing and serves no purpose. The arrogance of the director in showcasing these puny, dull chain-smoking french people and having them sit around and converse for hours on end and then getting it passed off as art is truly astounding.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a polarising film. People either love it or despise it, it seems. Me, I despise it. The film comes from the same context as Lindsay Anderson's Oh Lucky Man, but while that is a masterpiece, this is just horrible.

Both films take Kafka's unfinished novel - America, for their inspiration and general ideal. America is a surreal story of a youth's travels through the country. Kafka uses the this character as a pure observer, one who does not change over the course of the journey (although the book is about 300 pages and still seems only a quarter finished, so we'll never know). Allowing Kafka to concentrate and comment on the absurd\/surreal situations and surroundings. Oh Lucky Man follows this same template to show Britain through the eyes of Malcolm McDowell and Weekend does the same for France.

Both films are also hugely Brechtian, using various tricks and techniques to point up the fact that this is NOT REAL, this is confabulation etc. But the difference comes where Oh Lucky Man uses the constructed film to convey the absurdity of life and the class system, Weekend uses the constructed film to bludgeon us to death with ideological polemic. Because Godard goes further than Anderson in his Brechtian principles, we end up with two principle characters in which we have no investment, at all. We're forced to spend 90 minutes with them, yet we couldn't care less about them. Deliberately so. But in doing this, Godard leaves us with a film that is entirely about his own message, which, in the first half of the film is provided through relentless and overbearing symbolism, and in the second half through a series of long speeches directed to camera. Combined with unpleasant and unnecessary scenes such as the really horrible pig slaying, far worse than any of the off camera violence of the car crashes.

The end result is like listening to a student political apparatchik droning on and on and on about his views whilst repeatedly kicking you in the head so that you get the message. The problem with Brecht is, if you alienate the audience too much, then you've alienated them from what you are trying to convey. Which always seemed self evident to me.

The parts that really stick in the craw for this movie though, is the contrast between the extremely sexually explicit verbal description of the threesome at the start and the off-screen comical rape in the middle, which, even if it could be viewed as allegorical, completely destroys the film's faith in itself and it's characters, what little of it existed in the first place. It's so French with a capital F, it hurts.

Watch Oh Lucky Man instead. That is a work of genius. Weekend is a work of pretension.

Two stars, and only for the traffic jam scene and the piano scene, which are just hints at genius, although they actually make the end result more frustrating and unsatisfying as without them, this is a bad film by the worst most pretentious director in the world, with them, well it's obvious that this is a damn good technical director making the most intellectually pretentious film in the world. Somehow that's far worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you like me is going to see this in a film history class or something like that at your school, try to convince your teacher to see something else. believe me, anything is better than this movie. it is slow paced, confusing, boring, poorly constructed, gory, gringy, do I need to go on? It's message is good, but I have seen them been handled better in several other films. The acting isn't even any good. This movie is just even more awkward, as it start off as being funny (not intensional though)because of it's surreal story, than at the end, just becomes uncomfortable to watch.

I honestly feel like 1 hour and 40 minutes of my life has been robbed. Why would anyone want to watch a girls describe a threesome for 10 minutes, than watch them drive through a traffic jam for 20 minutes, listen to a hippie who can make sheep appear, witness a sort of rape, than see the female lead role eat her husband.

Honestly this movie deserves nothing but a 1\/10. And if your not happy with my preview,seriously I'm an open minded guy and I like movies that protest through symbolism, but this movie was just awful. make any excuse you can, to avoid this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film in a Cinema-Club in Germany in 1970. Most of the attendees were from the local private school at which I was teaching. I had seen a few Godard films previously while I lived in France, and, though they hadn't been my favorites, I could at least make sense of them. Being able to speak French helped.

The fairly innocuous beginning of \"Le week-end\" soon turned into a kaleidoscope of images, very well, maybe too well photographed, that soon made no sense to me. For me, films, like books, must have some clear sort of meaning. This didn't for me. I suppose I'm not \"into\" artsy films. Images still haunt me from the film. To this day I refuse to eat rabbit meat, well-loved by the French. Those who've seen the film might realize why. Yes, the theme of materialism came through, but the cannibalism, the car wrecks, and all the other scenes of destruction and horror only sickened me. I'm not sure if I walked out before the end, but I certainly felt like it. I promised myself that I'd never watch another Godard film, and I haven't and never knowingly will.

My rating: nothing. It was the most disgusting film I've ever seen. Others may have been more inept, silly or stupid. I've forgotten those while scenes from this one will haunt me forever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I work at the video store that rents this video in Lexington and I must say...it should have never been made. I even know some of the people who worked on it who regret doing so. Bad effects, horrid acting, bad script especially. I swear the dialog wouldn't have passed for the original PSX Resident Evil; it's that bad. If you want to know how not to make a movie, watch this film to learn a thing or two. If not, don't waste your time. And even the director know it sucks because he keeps coming in to try to get us to upsale the movie. No sir. I've watched two-thirds of the horror section and this rates even lower than Plan 9 from Outer Space. Even Ed Eood would have said, \"Nope. That's too stupid even for me.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once a month, I invite a few friends over for a \"Retarded Movie Night\". We look forward to movies that are either so bad they're funny or movies that know they don't have a plot and just show a lot of chests. Last night, we were unfortunate enough to have Zombie Planet as one of our movies. The cinematography is on par with what we're used to, but the acting was a different story. The lead role is played by a Johnny Depp\/Rob Zombie wanna-be who couldn't get a role in a high school play, let alone a LOW-BUDGET horror film. Our indecisive hero, who couldn't tell whether or not he wanted to be a bad-ass this scene or a whimpering coward was one of the reasons why this was the first movie of 30 that I have ever had to stop early during a Retarded Movie Night. It had the possibility for greatness with a GREAT twist on the standard zombie infection, but they took it an entirely different direction based on Johnny Zombie. I personally would not recommend this to any of my friends. However, it's unfortunate that I already invited a few over last night to suffer through 80% of this movie with me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now, I'm a big fan of Zombie movies. I admit Zombie movies usually aren't all that good, but I like them anyways. Despite the crappy acting and worthless dialogues that occur in almost all Zombie movies, this one is by far the worst. See, there are a few ground rules with zombie-movies. 1. Zombies are suicidal. Tactics is seldom used, and NEVER do they act like a boxer. They don't dodge a blow to the head, they take it with a ugly smile. They don't try and hit you in the face, they grab a hold of your arm and bite it! 2. Zombies can't speak. Only in Evil Dead. Otherwise, they DO NOT SPEAK. 3. You don't fight zombies with melee-ranged weapons. You loose in a melee fight against zombies. Firearms are used. In this movie however, melee is the way to go, which is wrong. Very wrong.

It had NO redeeming qualities.

If you wish to see a Zombie movie, see one with an average score higher than 3 on IMDb.com","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just when you think that you've seen the worst the zombie sub-genre can offer, along comes another budding Romero and his team of no-talent mates to prove you wrong.

I've suffered the Zombie Bloodbath trilogy, endured Death Valley: The Revenge of Bloody Bill, sat semi-comatose through The Zombie Diaries, and laughed hysterically during Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence, and genuinely thought that amateur movie-making could sink no lower. However, having just watched Zombie Planet, a two hour long festering pile of drivel from writer\/director George Bonilla, I think I have found the ultimate in awful zombie movies.

In this dreadfully amateurish effort, which is part Mad Max and part Dawn of the Dead (but ALL bad), Frank Farhat stars as T. K. Kane, a tough fighter who kicks zombie ass for a hobby, armed only with knives, a machete, some concussion grenades, and what he obviously perceives to be a really mean glare.

After a desperately unexciting opening sequence in which he takes on a horde of dodgy looking zombies, Kane teams up with a group of survivors who not only have to fend off attacks from the undead, but must also must placate a gang of vicious thugs who have taken control of the area (by searching for and handing over any valuables that they find).

Of course, Kane isn't the type of man to take orders from a bunch of z-grade post-apocalyptic bully boys, and he sets about teaching the bad guys a lesson (mostly by glowering at them in a threatening manner), only pausing to periodically rescue pals from zombies.

Featuring awful acting from almost everyone involved, a dreadful script, laughable effects, and shoddy production values, there is virtually nothing in this film to make it worth a watch. To be fair, I quite like the basic premise that the zombies are the unexpected result of a highly popular slimming drug that blocks cravings for carbohydrates (we learn this when one character conveniently explains the back-story to Kane, who strangely has no idea what has happened), but this is about the only vaguely interesting aspect of the whole production.

I have a certain amount of respect for anyone who manages to fund and make their own movie, but when the results are this poor, that respect is lost when they decide to make it available for public viewing. I would've kept this one under wraps if I had made it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I live and work in Lexington, Kentucky, the town where Zombie Planet was filmed. I'd heard about the film forever ago, from various people who claimed to be a critical part of the production. Then, for several years, I heard absolutely nothing. Imagine my surprise when I found it sitting all by itself at the local video store, just itching for a rental. So, being the cinephile that I am, I decided to give these local filmmakers a shot.

Bad idea.

Zombie Planet is overlong, boring, poorly acted, miserably shot -- and that's just the good stuff. I tried my hardest to enjoy it, which included removing my brain and setting it on the table so that it wouldn't get in the way of the horrible storyline. Alas, nothing worked. Zombie Planet is so bad it's pathetic. And the very idea that they're planning a sequel leads me to believe that the director and his henchmen have listened to none of the criticisms I'm sure they've heard. Move on, you guys. Please. In fact, refrain from film-making altogether. Or attend a few classes on pacing, storytelling, and, well, basic direction.

Otherwise, for the love of God, hang it up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Zombie Planet seems like an example of good ideas and laudable ambition overstepping budget. I thought the explanation for the zombies was real original and gnarly, and loved the dog munching in the exposition scene. The rest of the gore was effective in a low budget kinda way, but too spaced apart throughout the movie. The problem was that it was too long and anti-climatic. Sure, they had a intriguing, if derivative plot line, and a similarly familiar but cool setting, but a low budget zombie film really needs to be goretastic to make an impression and there just weren't enough red moments in this for me. I think there was surplus of cheap looking and bloodless fight scenes as well especially given the generally minimal grue. Plus, for a two hour movie, there's very little closure at the end, and though it kinda makes me want to track down Zombie Planet 2, I felt a tad cheated. So probably most worth looking for the two of them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Set in the near future a dark stranger walks into some southern American city plagued by zombies. Settling with a group of friendly face inhabitants our stranger learns the harsh realities of city life. There are two groups of people; the upper classes who dwell safely behind the concrete walls of the city being provided by, at the right price, the state police. Then there are our friendly face inhabitants. These lower class folks live along side the zombies. There only means of survival is to trade goods, which they forage for during the day, with the police in exchange for tins of food. Our stranger discovers why his world is plague by zombies. A new dietary pill that suppressed the craving for carbohydrates was the foundation. The human race's desire to shed fat caused the down fall of society as we know it. These pills increased the desire for protein i.e. meat, even the pet poodle. However, there was one more grave side affect, after death people became reanimated with an even stronger craving for protein namely human flesh.

With what I feel is an imaginative introduction I felt that this film many realise some inventive material. What better way could explain the cause of the zombie race than by a contemporary idea of people's desire to make any sacrifice to change their body without the hard work of the gym? However, the imagination of this film soon stopped after this exposition. This film falls into the old trap of 'I can not imagine what the world will be like when society collapses'. When you watch this film you do not escape to a different world as you do when you watch Planet of the Apes (original), Alien, Mad Max or Texas Chain Saw (original). In this film the alternate society is define by people with hair dyed orange and green. Face paint and charity shop leather jackets. There is no harshness about life in this alternate society, just healthy faces and over made-up zombies. Films should allow you to escape not remind you that you need to clear out your wardrobe and take your old cloths to the charity shop.

Forget about some of the pitiful acting, or the over made-up zombies. This film fails because it is too polished, too congenial and too predictable. I have watch films like this since the early eighties. If you are going the make a film of this nature I suggest you need to watch again such films as Dawn of The Dead (original and remake), Threads or Fulci's Zombie to see and experience that feeling of desperation in a devastate society.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the 50's, a gay photographer called Bob Mizer (Daniel MacIvor) founded an agency of male models, releasing a muscle magazine called \"Physique Pictorial\" and movie of men, and many of the models became prostitutes. \"Beefcake\" shows the rise and fall of this pervert.

Alternating footages from the 50's, testimony of many models and Bob Mizer himself in the present days, the director Thom Fitzgerald used this subterfuge to show naked men and lots of penis along 93 minutes running time, in a complete bad taste and very silly crap. I have never heard anything about this morally corrupt Bob Mizer and I do not know what AMG is. In my opinion, only gay and very specific audiences might like the theme of this boring and pretentious movie. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): \"Carne Fresca\" (\"Fresh Meat\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...left behind when the ostensible heroine's Venus flytrap makes any man whose sexual advances are forced upon her--ahem!--disappear. Fiona \"This IS my career!\" Horsey is an attractive enough screamqueen ingenu\u00e9, although I found her acting chops to be suspect. With better direction, and a better vehicle, she might improve. Likely as not, her leading man, Paul \"Mine, too!\" Conway, never will, proving to be one of the most unlikeable, unattractive love interests I've seen in a film in recent memory. There's some nonsense involving Siamese twins, a frying-pan-to-the-head-obvious hot dog joke, a reasonable amount of bare boobies, production values in the low-budget-to-laughable range, scripting that would make Syd Field cry, acting that by and large only an Ed Wood could love, and camera-work a step above pedestrian. The vagina dentata gimmick might well have made for an interesting horror movie, but \"Angst\" botches the premise. Strictly for stoned-out viewing, and even then, you could do much better. Sturgeon's Law (or Revelation) still holds.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The main premise for this movie is every woman's fantasy: a vagina that kills and eats men. Well at least it is a fantasy for every woman who has ever had a fight against a man. What's that, 99.9999% of women? But don't worry it's not a gory kind of eating of men. It's more like a comical slurping them in, like a drain plug. There's no blood or parts left behind. So for blood, guts & gore fans, forget about this film, not much gore here.

The two main characters of the film are somewhat unrealistic. Helen is a good girl who becomes a prostitute. Meanwhile, Dennis is a nice guy who stalks Helen.

The story is already a little silly at this point, but then they throw in two more equally silly sub-stories that just send this movie into the bad B-movie territory. The first new sub-story is about Dennis finding new love with a pair of conjoined twins; and then eventually murdering one of them, and becoming a fugitive bank-robber. The second new sub-story is about Helen finding new love with a nice policeman who rescued her from a prostitution-related bad date, and decided he wanted to marry her. Dennis and Helen eventually meet up again at the end of movie in totally unbelievable circumstances, and magically Helen's murderous vagina is cured!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So umm this woman has a vagina that sucks people into it when they umm do it and there's this dude who like follows her around...everywhere....and uhh is umm in love with her and she cant love him back because of her thingy. Well her thingy starts talking to her...sort of...it just says feed me over and over and she tries to feed it hot dogs but that doesn't work because it ummmmm wants fresh meat?!?!!? So this woman heads to the red light district where she picks up tourists but only the really sleazy ones cause I guess they deserve it and after a while this dude comes looking for her and even though shes like right there he doesn't see her so eventually he gets involved with conjoined twins but he only likes one of them cause the other is a real hussy. This isn't bad good like I thought it would be cause like the novelty sort of wears off within the first 1\/2 hour and it goes on for another hour. I think it killed off a few brain cells cause I sat through this whole thing and now im a little brain damaged. Either way man this is the worst man-eating vagina movie I have ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Am I the only one to think that this is a bad movie?

I admit that horror movies often lack things like a big story or good acting or even good special effects. But the way these deficiencies come together in this movie is surprisingly pitiful.

Miserable story: The idea of a raped vagina that takes revenge by turning into a man eater sounds quite funny, but what the writer made out of it is stupid.

Bad acting: The actors move like marionettes. They play and look like people, who really try hard but completely fail to act.

Bad FX: Especially the explosion of the Van looks unspeakably cheap.

It is surprising that a director who made some nice movies during his carrier changes over to such messy stuff.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hello all--for what it's worth, I'm in a doctoral program on Indonesian politics and returned this semester after about a year's fieldwork, most of it in Jakarta.

I'm a big movie fan generally, so I went out as often as I could, and bought tons of local VCDs while I was there. This one I saw in the theater, since it opened while I was there, and, thankfully, closed soon after.

Who was the intended audience for this film? The spoiled wives and daughters of the Indonesian super-elite whose antics are weakly and ineffectively parodied? The vast majority of Indonesians who could never afford even a single dish, let alone a full meal, in the film's central restaurant location? Or gay Indonesian males, whose dilemma in the country's Muslim-dominated society is reduced to absurdly simplistic, how-to-respect-yourself preaching.

If all this wasn't bad enough, the soundtrack was either recorded or mixed so ineptly that even native-speaking Indonesians couldn't hear many of the lines.

In brief, if you're looking for a cutting-edge gay-themed film from a region of the world that seems among the least likely to produce such an animal, forget it. \"Westler\" from the early '80s, or \"My Beautiful Laundrette,\" from the same era, succeed far better in putting a happier face on dealing with homophobia, and do so by showing not telling through incessant, wordy scenes.

Overall, an unfortunate waste of money in a country that still can't educate all of its children nor keep them healthy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How can this movie be described? Oh yeah I've got it wretched!!!

I'm not big on chop socky, but this is just plain garbage. Anyone who would waste their money to pay to see it, is just too sad for words.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was ready for a Crouching Tiger style movie and all I got was the worst movie i've seen in years. It was almost as bad as Baron Von Munchhuasen. Dead script. Dead acting. Dead everything.

Granted there was some good fight scenes but the positive side ends there. If this movie arrives in your house run screming to a phone and dial 911 and say, \"Please help there is a movie in my house meant to force people to commit suicide\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sure, it's hard being gay, especially in the south. We get it. Over... and over again.

What stood out was that the film makers focused almost wholly on the more \"extreme\" characters in these small town gay bars; the drag queens, the seedy sleaze of a bar long-closed, and on a guy who was brutally murdered for being gay, yet had nothing to do with either of the bars which were the focus of this film.

There were snippets of interviews from other people, people viewers would, perhaps, be better able to relate to. But they were glossed over, practically skipped, maybe shown in a glimpse in the background.

It would have been more interesting, to me at least, to hear the experiences of the more common gay men and women who were either enriched or otherwise by the experiences of a small town gay bar and\/or the absence of that community.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe it's unfair to dislike a movie for what it isn't, rather than what it is, but I approached this hoping that finally a filmmaker would make a movie about small-town rural gay men and women. Instead, the focus is primarily on the outrageous bigotry (big news!) of the locals (and those in outlying areas) and the really gruesome torture\/murder of a young gay man.

So much time devoted to stupid people squawking about AIDS, sin, hellfire, and perverts. So much time devoted to the ghoulish preacher ranting about the Bible and gay people getting what they deserve.

I wanted to see more of the people that came to the \"small town gay bar\", not those who opposed it. In addition, the young man who was murdered isn't even from this town.

The whole movie works as a warning rather than a celebration, and it's very suspect.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After spending half an hour examining Rumors, a gay bar located outside Tupelo, Mississippi, SMALL TOWN GAY BAR shifts focus to the murder of Scotty Weaver in Bay Minette in order to demonstrate the risks run by the interview subjects. But there is a problem here. Bay Minette isn't near Tupelo, as the film implies. It isn't even in the same state. It is actually about three hundred miles away in coastal Alabama.

Director Malcom Ingram doesn't exactly rush to point out this fact, nor does he bother to mention that while Bay Minette itself is little more than a wide spot in the road, it is actually about two deep breaths away from the major metro area of Mobile, Alabama--which has a noticeable gay community, quite a few gay bars, and even a congregation of Metropolitan Community Church. If Ingram is disingenuous on these points, one has to ask if he is on others as well.

Speaking as someone who was born, raised, and continues to live in Mississippi, I have to say that I find most of SMALL TOWN GAY BAR a lot of hooey. Neither Meridian nor Tupelo, the communities upon which Ingram focuses, are as rural, small, or as isolated as he would have you imagine, and gay bars are indeed more common in the state than the film implies. That said, Ingram rather blithely ignores the fact that the absence of a gay bar does not mean an absence of a gay community, and in doing so he demonstrates a rather profound ignorance of southern culture, which tends to hold those who frequent bars--be they gay or straight--in low esteem.

SMALL TOWN GAY BAR is, in my opinion, an instance in which a film maker came to his subject with a personal agenda in hand and then proceeded to film the agenda. Do gays and lesbians living in rural Mississippi face major, sometimes frightening challenges? You bet they do--but that's no excuse for fiddling with reality to such a degree. The DVD includes a commentary track and a number of deleted scenes, but I found the feature film itself so ridiculous that I didn't waste any time on them.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What garbage, is there actually no part II? If this movie actually ends the way it did, everyone involved with this movie should be ashamed. This movie is nothing close to a movie like Outbreak, which was actually a fairly decent movie. This movie was rushed in hopes of being able to gain a few easy dollars. I started watching the movie under the assumption that it would be bad, but I never imagined it would be this bad. This movie was nothing more then a way to exploit the fears of the American people for profit! If you have not seen this movie, don't bother. Movie is full of poorly developed characters and poor acting. I really hope the production of this movie was only a couple of weeks. Stay away! Don't be fooled by the hype!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The C class cast and poorly transitioned scenes, complete with terrible acting have led me too believe this would make a good TV only release such as the FX presentation of a smallpox outbreak. At my local blockbuster however, about 9 copies are held on the shelves, none of which were checked out when I rented the title (I wonder why....) Anyway, this title was almost ridiculous in the \"fear factor\" the director was going for. The whole \"death count\" on the bottom of the screen completely contradicted the plot at times, such as when the chopper was going over Angola, and the toll was speeding at a breakneck pace from 23 million to 24. However, as the movie ends, (possibly several hours or even a day or so after the chopper has landed) the death toll counter is reset back too what it was at the moment the chopper was approaching the area. The movies end left a huge whole in th entire plot, and god knows nobody is waiting for the sequel. Anyway, do not rent this, I only advise watching this if you have obtained the title with no monetary loss, and you are in the mood for a cheesy suspense movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America: 3 out of 10: This movie is both funny and sad. The funny part is fairly obvious as this certainly isn't a sober look at a possible impending crisis. This is a modern version of The Swarm. And much like those killer bees (and the so called killer bee crisis that prompted them) Bird Flu has joined a pantheon of media inspired end of the world scenarios (SARS, Y2K, Global Warming) that simply refuse to actually come about.

The sad part is the blatant attempt of the filmmakers to inspire panic. Disease pandemics historically were fairly common after all people didn't all die in their forties from heart disease. Even recent pandemics such as AIDS mirrors the old fashioned VD crisis (Think syphilis) that used to kill more soldiers than bullets.

The flu pandemic of the early twenties was a nasty business killing millions but honestly life went on. I wonder if our over dramatic media and their power hungry government allies would allow life as normal today.

The movie itself swerves wildly from fairly competent scenes (Triage in grand Central Station) to the ridiculous (Rednecks try to ambush national guardsman in Manhattan).

The scenarios themselves are fairly useless as the filmmakers can't seem to decide exactly how contagious the bird flu is or for that matter whether the symptoms are an Ebola style crash or simply a long illness. Indeed one scene will show everyone in bio-hazard suits and the next will have nobody even wearing a mask.

The film also patently refuses to actually give any practical advice regarding what to do in a Bird Flu crisis. (Outside of wash your hands, what no duct tape?) The acting and directing are competent for a TV movie but the script is all over the map. Last the movie has a strangely non-exponential death total running on the bottom of the screen. Just like the Swarm did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie on TV last night, hoping for a realistic account of what could happen if there were an outbreak of some highly transmittable disease. I was disappointed, and I think the movie was garbage. It did not seem real to me. Some of the acting was awful, in particular that of the doctor. She was about the worst I've seen. The whole thing played like a CNN 'worst case scenario'. Even the obligatory disaster movie human relations bits didn't seem sincere. I have seen some disaster movies, in particular those weather ones, which are actually so bad they are amusing. This one is almost as bad, but it is not even amusing, it is tedious and boring.Don't bother with this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Clearly, Andreas Bethmann would like to wear Jess Franco's crown whilst coveting (at least cinematically) the old workhorse's wife, Lina Romay. Romay plays a corrupt, salacious, masturbating prison warden in this modern, ambitious W.I.P. film. With some exceptions, many of Franco's films are ineptly produced and directed in a slipshod, hurried manner. Shots don't always cut together and the sound mixes can be horrific. While watching \"Angel of Death 2\" (aka \"Prison Island Massacre\") I asked myself if Bethmann is deliberately trying to replicate Franco's patent shoddiness, or is he just naturally shoddy like his mentor? Is this movie deliberately bad, which would be self-defeating, or is it simply bad by neglect? After a hitchhiker is forced to give a gunpoint blowjob, her rapist fills her mouth, then fills her vagina with some drugs. Minutes later, she is hauled into a clifftop prison for reasons not explained and subjected to the leers and rough handling of staff and other inmates. As this is a WIP film, there are lesbian scenes galore and plenty of violent behavior. The gore is bloody and sadistic, too, with delights such as teeth pulling and scalping (courtesy of Olaf Ittenbach). The acting is pretty awful and the fight scenes are lame, but there is a love of sleaze in every frame and an understanding of what trash fans enjoy. Unfortunately, the flat script makes for a flat movie. So, despite numerous atrocities, hardcore sex, and a guest appearance from Jess Franco, the experience is an empty one. But isn't that what most Jess Franco movies are?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought this was an extremely bad movie. The whole time I was watching this movie I couldn't help but think over and over how bad it is, and how that was $3.69 down the drain. The plot was so jumpy. They did an excellent job at the beginning of explaining who dated who in high school, but they never really explained anything after that. Was it a supernatural thriller? Was it a regular thriller? Apparently you can decide for yourself, because they didn't see the need to explain. I understood basically what happened, I think. What I got confused about was all of it prior, what was the deal with the bloody noses, phone calls, etc.? Was this guy coming back? Was the wife channeling \"Carrie\" or something? Who knows? You certainly won't after watching this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd picked this one up time and time again in the rental store, wondering if I should give it a shot. Today I broke down and gave it a whirl, and I probably shouldn't have.

While the writer\/director did give the film a respectable effort, it fell far short of engaging. The characters, while you wanted to feel for them, just didn't have enough development or depth for you to get truly involved with them. Sara's sexual outbursts got tiring-- fast. I don't mind sex in films, and I don't mind bitchy characters, but being a \"bad\" girl doesn't mean you're prone to excitedly ask people at random if they'd like sexual favors. By the time what happened to the characters was revealed, I was bored, and ready to fast-forward to the climax, the end, anything exciting... and nothing delivered. The things the folks in the story eventually inform you of seems forced and unrealistic, and just wasn't played quite right. If they'd have thrown a bit more anguish in there, I might have been interested. This should have been a more of a suspense\/drama film, and should have stuck to the title \"Jon Good's Wife\" rather than the whole \"red right hand\" and horror film-like cover. Hell... this should have had suspense, period.

Either way... watch this on a rainy day or a late night when there's nothing on the television. Though this isn't as great as I'd hoped, I would go for this over some infomercials.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jon Good's Wife (simply one of the worst titles for a film ever), or The Red Right Hand (another absolutely awful sounding title that means nothing & has no relevance to the film) under which I saw it, is set in 'Salem, Massachusettes 1978' (incidently the year I was born which was quite possibly the best thing to happen during those 365 days) where five old college friends meet up for a school reunion, gay-boy fagot Roger Mather (John Kuntz, is that surname for real? Just say it out loud...), Martha Alden (Kim Brockington), Rebecca Lawson (Jenna Stern) & her boyfriend Jake Stabler (John Doe), Alan Hobbes (Michael Kevin Walker) & his wife Sandy (Megan Rawa) plus John Good (Marc Ardito, why is the spelling of 'John' different in the title?) & his wife Sara (Abigail Morgan). From the word go there is an uneasy tension in the air & when someone mentions their 'missing' friend Calef (Jason Winther) lots of unpleasant memories come flooding back. Then comes the phone calls, the mysterious nose-bleeds, hallucinations & guilt as the true horror of the events all those years ago finally comes to light...

Produced, executive produced & directed by Kurt Gioscia who also wrote the thing & Kurt St. Thomas who gets the art direction credit too & if that wasn't enough they both act in the film as well! Personally I thought Jon Good's Wife was awful, I mean she can't cook or anything! Ha ha ha, only joking! Seriously though I didn't think much of the film overall, for a start it's pretty slow going & the entire first 30 minutes is solid snooze material of the reunion consisting of lots of catching up with each other & dull character building exposition. The film never explains itself, what's with those weird nose-bleeds for god's sake, the mysterious phone calls, the almost inconsequential death of one of the group that might or might not be natural & what the hell was Sara all about? She comes across as some nosey, sex crazed, dirty talking, shameless, bitter blackmailing know-it-all whore who apparently sleeps with just about every man she meets! Some of the dialogue she spouts wouldn't be out of place in a porno & it just seems totally at odds with the rest of the film which plays out more like a drama than the horror\/thriller it was supposedly meant to be. Then there's the ending, if there's a worse way to end a film then to just leave literally everything hanging in the air with no closure whatsoever I have yet to see it. The whole thing was very predictable as well, I mean is anyone watching this not going to know that when they all mention their friend Calef went 'missing' there wouldn't be more to it?

Directors Gioscia & Thomas make an infuriating film, on top of the predictability & annoying climax there is a retrospective narration by Alan which I simply don't understand as he has no more or less significance than anyone else & at what point in time is he narrating from? The reasons behind this narration is never made clear or elaborated upon. There's no tension because the whole things so by-the-numbers.

Technically the film is OK but nothing special & some of the locations & clothes didn't look particularly authentic to me, this never convinced me it was taking place during the late 70's. The acting was alright & what about actor John Kuntz last name? I suppose if his wife was standing next to him we could describe them as a couple of Kuntz, right?!

I really didn't think much of Jon Good's Wife (a blow up doll would have been better! Ha ha ha) & I'm not sure who it would appeal to. Forget about any gore, horror, violence, scares, atmosphere or excitement, in fact forget about everything that would have made this film watchable because it ain't here. Not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's not often I feel strongly enough to post something about a film. This was, however, simply the worst movie I have ever seen. The performances were laughable at best, at worst they were, well, there's no other word for it, awful. Especially the lead female who's random sexual come-ons have to be seen and heard to be believed. Honestly, the plot is nonsensical,the dialogue appalling and the characterisation...there is none. I'm surprised it's not an Alan Smithee film. I can't stress this strongly enough... avoid at all costs.How do movies like this ever get made? This is no budget film-making at its very, very worst.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't think I've ever gave something a 1\/10 rating, but this one easily gets the denomination. I find it hard just to sit through one of his jokes. It's not just that the jokes are so bad, but combine that with the fact that Carson Daily has zero charisma, can't set up or finish a punchline, and you've got a late night comedy recipe that will really turn your stomach.

I have watched the show, never in its entirety, but many times still. It just creeps up on me after Conan. I usually watch a minute or two just to see if Carson daily is still the worst talk show host ever.

Actually if you ever do see him interviewing a guest, it's just that, an interview. I feel so sorry every time he has a guest on and their confused smiles try to mask their body language that's screaming, \"get me the hell away from this freak!\" I do recommend watching the show, not for a laugh, but to ponder, how he got on the air and what he's still doing there. Watch as much as you can, I think you will find its complete awkwardness...interesting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Carson Daly has to be the only late night talk show host that isn't a comedian. What was NBC thinking! He's not funny! The writing is horrible to! All of the sketches are painful to watch. The current new karaoke isn't funny at all, especially since he tells you what they are going to sing before they sing it! The escalator interviews is just stupid and needless to say not funny at all. All he jokes, especially during the monologue, are the least clever, dumbest, not funny jokes ever put on television! I mean, anytime he makes a Jessica Simpson joke he ends it with \"because she's stupid,\" which cancels out any funniness that was in the joke, which was already very low. Any 3 year old could have come up with any of the jokes and sketches they put on this lame excuse for a show. Seriously, don't watch this show, unless you're on the edge of suicide and want something to push you over the edge.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nothing Carson Daly has EVER said or done on this show has EVER made me laugh, or even smile a little. I DO NOT understand how this show has survived for so many years.

Even the \"funny\" band member is just like one of those kids in high school who thinks nobody is good enough to even look at him. Daly and that dude are just arrogant frat boys. It seems like they don't even try to be a little funny.

AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL show.

It makes my soul cry.

I just cannot stress enough how AWFUL this show is. Don't watch it. But if you absolutely have to, I recommend clawing your eyes out and clogging your ears with cement beforehand.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before Last Call w\/ Carson Daly, my local NBC affiliate aired much more worthwhile programming after Late Night w\/ Conan such as second city TV, 3rd Rock From the Sun & Carline in the City reruns, and some stand up comedy. These days there is nothing worthwhile to watch because all I get to see is Carson Daly and his awful show. He is not a comedian, he is not an actor, he does not deserve to be famous because he isn't a good speaker nor comedian.

On his June 21st show, he tried to use an internet meme called the \"Rickroll\" on his show. He failed hard. That event confirms that Carson Daly is awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"He seems to be a control freak. I have heard him comment on \"losing control of the show\" and tell another guest who brought live animals that he had one rule-\"no snakes.\" He needs to hire a comedy writer because his jokes are lame. The only reason I watch him is because he some some great guests and bands.

I watched the Craig Ferguson show for a while but his show is even worse. He likes to bull sh** to burn time.I don't think either man has much of a future in late night talk shows.

Daily also has the annoying habit of sticking his tongue out to lick his lips. He must do this at least 10 times a show. I do like the Joe Firstman band. Carson Daily needs to lighten up before it is too late.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For a while when I was in-between jobs I had a habit of watching all the late night talk shows. For a while I had a good selection: Conan, Leno, Letterman, Ferguson, Kimmel...

Until I reached the 1:30 a.m. time slot. The time between Conan and X- Files, on SciFi. And the only show on at that time was (and curiously still is) Carson Daly.

His show intrigued me at first. Youngish, casually dressed, and with the hip pedigree of an MTV host, I thought Carson would bring a younger aesthetic to late night. I couldn't have been more wrong.

He has no comedic timing. His jokes are plainly unfunny, and his monologue a painful affair of self-conscious babbling. I began to think he simply wasn't capable of delivering comedy (and I am right, he isn't), but it became obvious over time that the writers on the show must have had it in for him. The writing was idiotic and much too overreaching and the skits screamingly bad. And towards the end of the show being in-studio, the writers had Carson drinking alcohol on the set with gusto on every show, an oblivious Carson grinning from emaciated cheek to emaciated cheek as he sloshed his way through interviews.

Zero interview skills. None. He tries to be friendly\/chatty, but ends up being boorish and rude. He talks too much. He cuts off his guests. He asks them rude or embarrassing questions -- if he can find a question to ask them at all. And as someone had already pointed out, the guests literally stare at him or squirm in their seats, clearly uncomfortable.

Now the show has left the studio and looks as though it were shot on one handy cam. Even still, Carson refuses to take the hint from NBC. At one point, Carson didn't even get a camera man, he had to film himself for an episode! Wake up, Carson...that handwriting is all over the wall.

I see the show is produced by Carson. I can only imagine that is the reason it is still on the air, he pays for it himself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe the best part of the show is the fact that it creeps up right after Conan O'Brien and Late Night's fans are all of a sudden unsuspectingly watching Carson's show. Carson Daly can't hold a candle to Leno, Letterman, O'Brien or any other late night talk show host, and Last Call seems to miss more than hit in this hit and miss genre. The shows only redeeming quality is that it's so short. But, I wouldn't call it crap. Carson Daly is sincere and doesn't hide the fact that his show isn't great(that honesty is actually helpful here), while some of Last Call's skits and material seem to be stolen, they still find the mark sometimes. Actually, some of Carson's montages have been quite entertaining, and the skits occasionally have their moments of decent comedy.

As an interviewer, Carson is okay, even with only one guest, not exactly late night material but still above the level attained by a high school AV team. However, he doesn't have the quick wit that makes Conan so hilarious. I do not like his musical guests, but that's more because I am not a fan of that kind of music so, I'm not holding it against him.

On to the house band. I don't know Joe Firstmans band and wouldn't compare them to the CBS Orchestra, the Tonite Show Band with Kevin Eubanks or the Max Weinberg 7. Even Cleeto and the Cleetones are better. But, Firstmans band mates do still the show in my opinion. Especially the Alto Sax player that sometimes shows up (he has long dark hair and sunglasses and is always playing in the upper register), if anything, watch the show for him, I do.

In summary, this show isn't even worth a full bag of kibble n' bits. But it does have an audience, and appeals more to the younger \"mtv generation\". If you don't have cable and are up at 1:37 am, there really isn't much more to choose from and, surprise surprise, there is worse out there in that time frame. So, if you're waiting for Poker After Dark to come on, 30 minutes of Last Call wont kill you during the wait.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Again, we're getting a melange of themes well covered by so many previous films. The good and the bad son story, courtesy East of Eden. The American marine hero story, who doesn't consider himself to be one due to what he knows. And the grieving wife potentially falling in love with another man story.

The mere fact of those stories being that ubiquitous isn't so much of a problem though. Because theoretically they could still be better presented and dealt with each time around. No luck this time though, as all three of those threads ultimately fall flat all the same.

As the bad son never really gets to talk to his father, so that conflict is never resolved properly. Apart from the father kind of starting to appreciate the bad son thanks to the latter renovating the kitchen of the grieving wife. Now, how satisfying is that.

Next, the surprisingly homecoming marine suspecting his wife of unfaithfulness conflict never gets resolved. Because he never really talks to the man under suspicion, namely his own brother. So once more we're handed a loose end here.

And finally, the American military heroism hypocrisy theme, where the marine is publicly considered a hero when, due to the dirtiness of war he went through, he shouldn't really be called one as to his own standards, that third theme falls flat just the same. Because the movie ends right when, for the first time, he's just able to talk to his wife about what he went through. Where the real story would actually begin at that very point, namely his process of recovery, how that would look like and how he would finally face the family he'd have some major guilt to admit to. All that, all the really interesting bits are passed over and getting ignored.

So while story wise this film is a serious, and I mean serious, disappointment, I'd still give it points for the impressive cast. Although no film should use Maguire for a voice over, because that belongs to Spiderman. Especially a grown up Gyllenhaal seems to fulfill all the expectations he aroused as a young and aspiring actor. So much that I'd in fact love to see him entrusted with a really deep and demanding lead role of proper profile.

So while the cast really seems to do what they can, I consider this film totally forgettable otherwise. A shallow and ultimately pretentious, utterly unsatisfying tear squeezer indeed. Message du jour to the writers: we know the wounds already, see the host of Vietnam films. You want to earn some credit, show us a believable healing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When the opening shot is U.S. Marines seriously disrespecting the U.S. flag, a movie has a tough road ahead, but unfortunately it was downhill from there. There is a military adviser credited, who is also apparently a retired U.S. Marine, making it even more baffling that this incredible breach of protocol, and law, went unnoticed. Even more baffling is the way they simply glossed over how a Marine is reported KIA, then buried, in very short order, without the slightest explanation of how they identified the body, or if there even was a body. The U.S. government is still finding the missing from WWII, and it takes months to identify the remains. Military shot down remain MIA for months or years and are only declared KIA when the remains have been positively identified, or after years of red tape. Here we are expected to believe that it happens within a matter of days or weeks. Maybe this happens in Denmark, but not in the U.S. Clearly none of the people involved ever had the slightest involvement with, or respect for, the U.S. military.

Beyond that, there are a number of other utterly laughable moments when characters come up with zingers out of nowhere. There must have been some really extended meetings between auteur and actors as they struggled to find their motivation for such hogwash. Having a script that worked might have helped, but this one seems to have been made up on the spot, working from Cliffs Notes. There's no way to know if the script was this awful originally, or if it was the auteur, or the middle-management kids at the studio who bear responsibility. Either way, this is an awful movie that should have never been made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... a recommendation! Gloria Grahame runs the kind of orphanage where discipline is imparted with a meat cleaver, orphans are hung on meat hooks to punish them and the bodies are kept in the deep freeze so that they can be brought out for when social services call. That the orphanage is strapped for cash we know because Gloria puts all the orphans to work, and also because there don't seem to be enough clothes to go round - especially for the older nubile female orphans (age range appears to be 12 - 30 ish). The new arrival, however, turns out to be more than a match for Gloria - and has indeed just taken out her own mother & mother's lover (in a witty claw hammer and arson opening scene). Predictably, Gloria ends up on a meat hook herself. This one was made for about tuppence but was\/is a HUGE HUGE HUGE hit on the grindhouse circuit. My DVD cover promised \"disturbing and politically incorrect scenes\", and it sure wasn't lying. I believe it is regarded as the Citizen Kane of orphanage set torture porn movies. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this at a drive-in when I was 9. All I remember are a few scenes (the ones where the main character Elle is being chased by a guy in a mask) and being scared spitless. Seeing it now, my opinions have changed. It's a pathetic \"horror\" film about an ophanage run by Gloria Grahame (sad) and dealing with a young, talentless girl Elle who is sent there after her mother, the town tramp, was beaten to death with a hammer (graphically shown). The film has adolescents (actually actors in their 20s) being beaten, tortured, killed, starved, attacked with meat cleavers, raped etc etc. The brutal hammer murder is the opening scene and then it gets worse and worse. There is NOTHING to recommend about this crap. The plot is stupid, all the dialogue is bad and the acting...the less said the better. How did this sickie get by with a GP (now PG) rating? It would get an R now. Worthless. One last thing...a truly repulsive twist ending suggests incest!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is what happens when you try to adapt a play from the theater. Look at the end of the picture, totally theatrical.

With a reminiscent of Les liaisons dangereuses the final steam-less speech try to make us think that the whole (and deep) theme of this matter was the manhood. Who cares by this point? It was about manipulation. And so the audience feels after this movie has ended.

Young directors: A play is told with the words more than actions. A film is the opposite most of the times.

And I'm not talking about the gay theme, overly exploited without a point ('cause there's no explanation of this topic considering the so called \"philosophic\" or presumptuous basis) to the level that this film should have been called Grand Gay","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Grande Ecole\" is not an artful exploration of mixed sexuality but, if you're in need of it, a movie for an X-rated channel. Although I suspect there's nothing in this movie to spoil for a willing viewer, the plot is simply an excuse for male-to-female and male-to-male couplings set in the unconvincing context of a competition between a Parisian school for future CEOs and a major school for those seeking higher degrees in the liberal arts. There's likewise a frisson of cultural clash between high status and lower status French youth, plus a societal conflict involving native Frenchmen and Arab immigrants from North Africa. All that's missing is a female-to-female coupling, which could easily have been arranged with no more than a slight twist in the plot.

The acting is at a somewhat higher level than in the usual pornographic movie -- but \"Grande Ecole\" is, to be blunt about it, no more than pornography with artistic aspirations. I'm not offended by the sex. It's just repetitive and, before long, boring. Where's the Hays Office when you really need it?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was nothing more than exploitative gay cheesecake. It was not an \"art\" movie; just an excuse to show several gratuitous, exploitative, over-the-top scenes with extensive male genital nudity. There was a locker room scene involving over a dozen naked men. The camera zooms in on the men's asses and penises as they are portrayed for several minutes with their dicks in full screen view. There are several scenes in this film showing penis after penis. It gets redundant REAL fast and makes it impossible to take this film seriously. I was wondering if I was watching a Playgirl video by mistake. If these same scenes were filmed using women (ex: totally naked and showing their vaginas repeatedly) it would be quickly dismissed as just softcore porn and an excuse to show a lot of eye candy...which is all that this film is. Any artistic merit got flushed down the drain of the gay ghetto mentality. The themes of class distinction, homosexuality, longing-desire, etc. were simple and superficial; no more developed than what one would expect from a first year philosophy student. Just cut to the chase and rent a gay porn instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film at the New Festival in New York. It was by far the worst film there. It's use of uncircumcised full frontal nudity and a wishy-washy script and direction that neither commits to a re-make of 'Maurice' nor decides it's a Neil LaBute flick, left me feeling 'Why would anyone ruin a perfectly good cast like this?'. It lacks irony and fills the vacuum with sentiment, which causes the times when the movie turns on itself to make you want to wipe your face as your mind and heart search for what could be going on in the film but isn't. I wish the director and editor had re-edited the film because maybe there's more story there that could be released from an otherwise unpleasant experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw Grande Ecole at its world premiere on the Rotterdam Film Festival. I had no idea what I was entering and if I'd had any idea I wouldn't have entered. This is the most pretentious film I've seen for a long time. It tries to be provocative, yet deep, with its full frontal homosexual sex scenes - it doesn't succeed! It's nothing but another bad excuse of showing naked persons on the big screen. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not a terrible film -- my 10 year old boy loved it, and he would be the target demographic, so I guess they hit the spot. Pretty dull for an adult though.

Hard to relate to animated lego characters, even mod high-tech ones.

I thought the choice of the three great virtues of the Bionicle world was a bit odd -- unity, duty, and destiny. Am I the only one who thinks those sound just a bit fascistic? Especially destiny. What about freedom, equality, justice, etc.?

Oh well, it will sell Lego. Kind of dull for a movie, but not bad for a 74-minute advertisement. Could have been a lot worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Antonio Margheriti, director of the enjoyably cheesy cult horror Cannibal Apocalypse, helms this Gothic-flavoured giallo starring gap-toothed 70s icon Jane Birkin (as well as her massive-conked French lover of the day, Serge Gainsbourg).

Unfortunately, despite the inclusion of such treats as a tasty bi-sexual French teacher and a terribly unrealistic killer orangutan, Seven Deaths in the Cat's Eye ends up a dreary mess which is a struggle to endure.

Pretty schoolgirl Corringa (Birkin) returns to her family's Scottish estate after many years away, only to discover that a maniac is murdering her relatives one by one. Using the whole array of 'spooky old house' tricks (hidden doorways, dark corridors, creepy graveyards, candlelit cobweb covered rooms), Margheriti cobbles together a confusing tale which at times promises supernatural goings-on, but ends up with a lame cop-out ending that is unimaginative in the extreme.

'And where exactly does the cat fit in to all of this?', I hear you ask. Well, a rather pudgy moggy witnesses each murder thus justifying Margheriti's rather cool sounding title.

'Gory, stylish fun' claims the DVD cover; 'Boring pile of dung' says I.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Linda Lovelace was the victim of a sadistic woman hater, Chuck Traynor. I don't understand how having sex with a dog (which is animal abuse, as well) can be found to be entertaining or funny. Linda Lovelace was a virtual prisoner who was coerced into making these films. I know some people will criticize this comment but I feel strongly that these types of films fuel the fire of hatred and further misogynistic feelings towards women. This society continues to portray women as sexual objects as opposed to human beings. We call ourselves \"civilized\" however I feel we have a long way to go before we can ever scratch the surface of being civilized.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE ATTIC starts off well. The somewhat dreary story is helped greatly by the two main actors and there's a semblance of a character study going on here but the film goes downhill fast when Carrie Snodgress' character buys a monkey. Not one of those cute little monkeys. She buys a real big chimpanzee!!!

This sudden plot device basically kills the movie. It's just not conceivable for a woman like the one Snodgress plays, who has a hard time doing anything because of her domineering father, for her to, out of the blue, buy a chimpanzee. I mean, come on! Forget about it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Slow, odd film that drags and plods (I mean really PLODS) along to its disappointing climax. You may expect some sort of punchline at the end, but there is none. Both Milland and Snodgress give awkward performances; in fact, the film's weirdness may actually be the only thing it has going for it. The generally atmospheric score has some absurd parts (like the music that plays during the first appearance of a monkey), and there is a truly awful fantasy scene involving....a gorilla. (**)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, I'm mostly not the kind of person to give a movie less than 5 points. Mostly, just because of the effort from actors and directors.

3\/10 for Keyman from me. If anyone thinks the main character (or whoever) deserves an Oscar, I deserve the Nobelprize for peace.

Seriously. I can't believe this movie made it to Europe. The acting was horrible, the plot was awful and what about the '70's horror-music. Give me a break.

\"Popeye\" eg. What about him? Why is he there, he has nothing to do with the movie.

And what about the Keyman's talking. One time he can't say a decent word, the next time he's getting all talky-talk. He also nearly dies when he wakes up and some sunlight shines thru his bunker. But when he's walking down the street, the sunlight doesn't seem to do anything.

Watch this movie only of you're on the edge of dying of boredom. I regret myself for not watching my roses grow, which are in anyway more entertaining than this piece of...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No,I'm not a radical feminst bashing the hentai and yaoi genre,I just find it really boring and pointless.My god,I was MADE to watch this for initiation from some stupid punk and my my,even an MST3K movie has a storyline,not to mention that this HENTAI crap is what's giving Anime a bad name world-wide (watch out Sailor Moon!).Sadly,people don't realize that not all Anime(or any other Asian style) is sleazy porn.Death to the stereotype!!!

*starts casting Ultima*","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"before seeing this film, the 1998 version was my only experience of this dickens story. i didn't enjoy that film very much, but this 1974 adaptation moves on in a particulary tiresome fashion.

the actors don't shine, the main couple michael york and sarah miles are especially wooden cases. the only character of real interest for me was anthony quayle's intelligent jaggers.

the so called plot is ridiculous, but the story itself is a great one. it's a real lesson on how your distorted values and obsessive principles can destroy you. live with an open mind and don't care what other people say, you are what you are, if others can't take it, **** 'em. pip was told this early on, but he didn't listen.

the girl adopted by the weird old lady reminded me a little of the old kaspar hauser story, not in that same horrible level, but in the way she molded the child to create the executor of her personal vendetta against the entire opposite sex she thought had deceived her. pip's childhood didn't appear much better. the ending didn't seem to fit the rest of the story's style. the sets looked cheap, and coming to imdb i'm not surprised to see that this was indeed a tv-movie (which i had no idea of when i borrowed it from the library).

live and learn. so many good movies, so little time. that's why the reviews are here. so YOU wouldn't have to waste your time on this sort of movies.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everything about this movie is bad. everything. Ridiculous 80's haircuts. Ridiculous moustaches. Ridiculous action and fight scenes where you can actually see that the adversaries do not even hit each other. Bad, bad, bad 80's music. Repeated scenes of people running through woods. A bad guy with a silver plastic hand and silly hair. Stupid dialogue. The acting is nonexistant. Everything looks extremely cheap. This movie even surpasses \"Plan 9 from outer space\" in its utter badness.

It's not \"funny bad\" it's just bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This Canadian \"movie\" is the worst ever! Stunningly amateurish. When the bad guys rob a boat, we see two women with machine guns and one of them says, with a very low voice, \"We're robbing your ship!\" She blinks and is totally shy! Very intimidating. ROTFLOL!!!

The two karate chopping heroes are 40something year old, five feet tall twin brothers! They're really bad actors. In fact, everyone involved in this production is a non-actor.

There are so many continuity mistakes in this cheap production that it's amazing. In one scene, the guys are wearing one type of swimsuit. In the following shot, they're wearing completely different swimsuits.

Absolutely terrible! A must see for any fan of bad movies. I have it on VHS. It's very rare. I cherish it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I...I don't know where to begin. Dragon Hunt might just be the worst film in cinematic history. Even Anus Magilicutty was better than this, as it was intentionally bad. Showgirls? No, it had kitsch value and was technically a well made film. But Dragon Hunt takes the cake, and eats it, then vomits it back up and feeds it to a homeless man. It's that much of a travesty.

The acting, if it can even be called that, is rough. It doesn't have the charm of improvised acting, so it must be scripted, but it's recited with an almost malicious tone of poor quality. Several lines were delivered in a way that shows the actors (or basically, those people on screen) either regretted being connected to this film or were thinking of a particularly humorous joke from Saturday Night Live, which they had watched prior to getting in front of the camera. I could write another three paragraphs on the quality of acting in this film, but you and I both don't want to hear it.

The make-up and special effects (which, with most films, is the only good thing) was laughably bad. The antagonist, whose name is so ridiculous I can't remember it, has a Mohawk glued to the top of his head. Yeah, glued to his head. And you can tell it's glued on too, if you look at the spot where it meets his pockmarked skull you can see a plastic strip, not unlike the ones on fake eyelashes. Thankfully he's pretty much the only example of make-up no-nos in the film.

There's also some terrible character development, to put it lightly. The women, who are strangely rough handled by the supposedly benevolent fugly brothers (and I mean, they are really pushed around), are not only ugly but...gasp...they don't know what they're doing! In one scene they turn on their apparent lovers, join up with the even uglier bad guy, and then snort some coke. Apparently they managed to get their hands on some really good cocaine, because they started shaking and laughing EVEN before all of it went up their nostrils. Great timing girls! Plus they wear some truly horrible stuff, clothes that belong solely in the late 80s and early 90s.

Overall this movie, this film, this waste of film I should say, is also a waste of time. Watching it will hurt you, and will require the suspension of not only your belief, but also of your entire brain. If you want to get stoned with your friends and have some good laughs, see if you can get this film (you'll probably have to download it) otherwise, don't even think about it. Hope I was helpful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why is it that Canada can turn out decent to good movies in every genre, other then action? I caught Dragon Hunt on TV the other day and it was like a train wreck. I just could not change the channel, it's sheer stupidity sapped my willpower. Its pretty telling that the cast IMDb \"credits\" with this monstrosity apparently never worked again.

Bad acting, bad writing, bad narration, bad music, bad hair, bad cinematography. It just goes on and on. The movie really has nothing to recommend it. If you're looking for bad action films to enjoy by laughing out, there are a tonne of other films that won't require you to scorch out your retinas afterwards.

I hope this film didn't get money from the government for financing, otherwise I'm never paying taxes again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the worst thing I have ever seen on film. My uncle's home movies have more talent in them then this piece of crap.

The plot summary is basically that these twin kick boxers are playing some sick survival game with a man and his private army on some island. The man has a very cheap paper mach\u00e9 looking hand.

The acting is atrocious in this movie. There are scene changes at the drop of the hat. For instance, for at least 30 seconds we see some guy humming a song to himself which adds NOTHING to the movie. This has the worst dialogue I have ever heard of in my life, I don't think this movie could get any worse then it already is. I would describe it as a want to be chuck Norris action film gone wrong. And I hate chuck Norris.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know, I was very surprised when watching this movie. It aired during the day once when i was sick, and having nothing else to do, I continued watching. This is by far the WORST MOVIE EVER! But to my surprise I kept watching. I sat there saying, this is terrible, but yet didn't change the channel because I was so amused at how bad it was. Maybe It was the guy that looked like Big tom from survivor or the dreadful moustaches and mohawks these characters had, that kept me watching. However, the girls weren't half bad, but if that's what you want, there is far better. Oh, and there's \"NINJAS\" and \"PAJAMA BOYS!\"

So if you like ninja's, bad acting, hilarious(and terrible) dialogue, and two twins who are five feet tall and killing everything in their sight, then this movie is for you. It's so bad it's good. However, I just had to give it a 1 out of ten. I couldn't have put a 10 on it up there with Lord of the Rings.

ENJOY!!!!!!!!! :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen this movie several times, it sure is one of the cheapest action flicks of the eighties. So, I think many viewers would definitely change the channel when they come across this one. But, if you are into great trash, \"Dragon Hunt\" is made for you. The main characters (the McNamara Twins) are sporting great moustaches and look so ridiculous in their camouflage dresses. One of the best scenes is when one of then gets shot in the leg and is still kicking his enemies into nirvana. This movie is really awful, but then again, it is a great party tape!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie started off great; the first 30 minutes are very funny and clever with some interesting characters. That's the good news. The bad news is that the film then gets too repetitive and then it gets downright stupid.

What we wind up getting is a Santa Claus with \"magical\" powers with a lot of New Age baloney thrown in the mix. It's just ridiculous and hardly the kind of \"Christmas movie\" I would expect from Jim Varney's \"Ernest.\"

To be fair, it still had a decent amount of laughs and is profanity-free but just not a film I could recommend.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Ernest Saves Christmas' is comedian Ernest's Christmas special film. In this film, Ernest has to find a successor to Santa Claus in order for Christmas to continue. Along the way, he meets a young girl who is a thief and who ends up stealing something very important of Santa's (I won't tell you what that is; you'll just have to watch the film for yourself). Like most Ernest films, there is a lot of slapstick humor involved.

This film is probably one of Ernest's best films. It's funny, and it has some important lessons to learn regarding friendship and family and not being afraid to show love. It's not the best Christmas film around, but it is a good one to get you in the Christmas spirit. It's a little bit sad that the film is a little dated now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first Robocop had a sense of cynical wit and a sick sense of violence. It was a fine line to walk, but Paul Verhoeven pulled it off and the film did so well, they made a sequel. How awful. (Possible Spoilers ahead - though anything that could spoil this is beyond me).

Irvin Kershner is not the director for this type of film. He clearly did not understand the wit of the original and as a result the massive over-the-top senseless violence looks really bad - and worse is very distasteful. Even worse is the musical score. Leonard Rosenman was an old man from another era and the heroic, light music does not match the images on the screen at all! What was he scoring?! The Great American Hero?! Worst of all, he completely eliminated Robocop's theme from the first film, which was so memorable and perfect. Can you imagine a Superman film without John Williams' fanfare, or Indiana Jones, etc.? How could he do that?!!

The plot is just a collection of ideas that don't gel. In beginning we see Robo \"stalking\" his old wife. Fine, good idea. But, they completely drop it after that. Then, there is this a stupid idea of the company reprogramming Robo to be nice. That's thrown in for 10 minutes and then is immediately dropped. Or, the silly idea that the repulsive 10 year old drug lord reminds Robo of his son - Once again, a weak motif that is shown briefly twice and dropped. This may work in a comic book, but not on film and Frank Miller was unfortunately too inexperienced at the time and threw every idea in along with the kitchen sink. It doesn't work as a whole.

Some people here seem to be praising the corporate bashing in this film and the privatization of the police. That is the best part of the film that is consistent with the first. However, in the original, the old man was a tough business man out for a profit, but ultimately fair in the end. In this film, he is just pure evil in his lust for money and power. You can't just change characters like that for no reason. And Nancy Allen's character is useless in this film, whereas in the first she was essential to Robo's search for himself. She is as gratuitous as the violence in this film.

And the violence, yes the violence. I enjoy many violent, bloody films when they serve purposes and are meant to tell a story. Irvin Kershner seems to get off on human beings being blown to bits, shot to pieces, children lusting for death and torture and peoples' desire for drugs. He doesn't know when to stop. Do we really need to see every last innocent bystander (even people trying to help others) get shot up???? It is inferred when we see the bad Robocop shooting repeatedly! Instead Mr. Kershner proves he has very little taste for this type of work and creates an abominable mess that is a terrible piece of pop art and worse, a disgusting message of violence for any young person watching this film.

No, this film isn't meant to be message-y and I certainly don't watch Robocop movies or Alien or Predator movies for that reason. However, when you go too far and cross the line, much of what you do must be put into question. And as for this film, in the words of the evil kid drug dealer's last words as he dies, \"It still sucks\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was a huge fan of the original Robocop.

But to say I was disappointed by this first sequel would be an understatement.

The problems are many.

Glossy though the film may look there are plenty of bloopers on screen for all to see, wires, cameramen etc, something I find wholly unacceptable from someone of Irvin Kreshner's pedigree.

Robocop has become a robot. There is no spark of humanity to be found in the character here. A true disappointment when one considers that his \"soul\" had returned by the end of the first movie. Here his attitude shows no human side and makes him hard to sympathise with.

Caine is a poor villain. OK I know Boddiker from the first film was better than the average, mainly thanks to Kurtwood Smith's performance, but the usually solid Tom Noonan creates a character who you couldn't care less about one way or the other.

What's happened to the Old Man????. I appreciate that he didn't get to where he is by being \"nice\" but the change in his character here is nothing short of dumbfounding. In the first movie it's made clear he despises Dick Jone's tactics and attitude and yet here he's no better than Jones. It makes no sense.

Doctor Faxx is a poor replacement for Bob Morton's charismatic, if unpleasant, OCP resident genius.

The action sequences, save the sequence where Murphy is stuck to the side of Caine's truck, are harsh and nasty and repel rather than entertain.

And finally. What is with the musical score?. Don't tell me Poledouris couldn't have done it simply because he was working on Total Recall at the time. A series (TV or Movie) soundtrack is part of its personality. Part of its character. When you remove that it harms the familiarity of the characters we're watching. So it's bad enough but shame on Leonard Rosenman. His score here is lurid, camp and downright cringe worthy.

The story has its moments to be fair. There's a lot of originality in here. But it tries too many new things to take in with one film. Hob is a well realised villain and the only truly dis likable \"villian\" in the move, Thumbs up to Gabriel Damon there.

The final showdown between Robocop and Robocop 2 is fun as well.

But for the vast majority of its overlong running time this is a serious disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For most people, RoboCop 3 is the film that really is the big disgrace for the Robo series. It has few fans, and most people hate it for it's shameless commercial PG-13 approach. Now, I'm not going to say that RoboCop 3 is any good. Frankly, it pretty much sucks. But as far as being a properly shot and executed film, it surpasses this piece of circuit chaos. Yes, the truth of the matter is that RoboCop 2 is the worst of two bad and unnecessary sequels to a near-masterpiece. So what if RoboCop 3 turns Robo into a cartoonish super hero in a ultra mainstream production for kids to enjoy - at least it's doing it openly. I don't know where RoboCop 2 begins and ends, I don't know what or whom it's about, I don't understand what's going on in it, I don't understand which jokes are deliberate and which aren't, I will go insane if I try to understand the characters, I see nothing of any value in anything anybody is saying, I can't believe anybody looked at the shooting script and figured it would work and I can't believe that Irvin Kirshner saw the finished result and figured that he liked what he see. He probably didn't by the way, neither Miller, nor Weller nor Allen did. It's not hard to see why.

Now, RoboCop 2 has it's fans, I know this. Mostly they belong to this league of absolute anti-pretensions, dismissing anybody who expected any depth, or subject matter from the first film, as academic Roger Ebert Sith apprentices. It's just a lot of fun, a good piece of action and great entertainment, the argument goes. Yeah well, I guess if you just don't listen to what any of the characters are saying you could fool yourself that we might as well have Arnold in the suit instead of Weller. Don't get me wrong, I like a good action film, with pure entertainment value as it's only - most satisfying - virtue. But RoboCop 2, sir, ain't no such thing.

Look at the first couple of scenes. This horrible actor makes Robo repeat that he's just a machine, and then goes into this operatic speech about how he could never be a man, where-after Murphy's wife (who's suing OCP for robot-stalkings) walks in out of the blue and have this sad little moment with him, and then is never heard of again! I surely would like to go in to this film scene by scene, because every one has these kind of absurdities in them. It's like a twelve year old fan boy has done the screenplay, the characters act totally random and first say this, then say that. OCP wants to stop crime with a new Robo, especially this drug called \"nuke\" but then it seems they really just want to become this big capitalist empire and control the entire city \u0096 politics are abandoned I guess, understandable given the comic relief mayor, The villain (played by Tom Noonan, who did a better version of this in Last Action Hero and that's saying a lot) is an addict, but is still used for this machine. The woman behind it all has an agenda which is impossible to understand.

Speaking of twelve year olds, this film has the infamous role of \"Hub\", this mad kid who swears and kills people, played by a child actor. I'm not going to be all moral about it, it's a free world and if you want a psycho kid in your action movie, go for it. I don't know how much of Frank Miller's original vision was put into this, but the credits at least acknowledge him as conceiver of the \"story\". And, if I zoom out, I could see this as being quite a cool character. It's grim for sure, to have a maniac killer kid but then again this is the world of RoboCop and who would be surprised? This whole business with the OCP trying to become this giant monopoly over everything, is properly dystopian and good as well. Also, the idea of RoboCop getting in touch with his wife and kid, having them embedded into the story somehow - would also be great, and as far as I can see a natural and logical step if they now had to make a RoboCop sequel.

But, of course, these are just ideas. As many people have already said, the screenplay is 100% mess. The kid has one scene (the torture scene) where it's hinted that he in fact is just a stereotype messed up kid, and then we have this unimaginable scene where he is dying and gets all soft and friendly towards ol' tin head. Why doesn't he just take up his uzi and try to take him down with his last breath? Isn't that what his character would do? Does he give his life a little second thought there on his death bed? Not necessarily, given that his last words are \"it sucks\", so why? It really makes no sense, and this can be said about everybody, no everything, in this film. IS there a strike in the police force? IS RoboCop machine or man? What's the deal with turning Robo into this community service machine for 10 minutes? I mean, sure, it's pretty funny I wouldn't deny that. But why build it up, and then discard it? And why the hell is Allen so criminally underused? and what is it Weller has an obvious urge to express with his character and yeah, well, the threads are many and the mess is enormous.

This review is just as messed up as the film. The only reason I give an extra star up there is because of the actors from the first film, I'm sure they had good intentions with it. I mean it's something somewhat stable, some kind of anchor in this sea of bad movie making.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I recently picked up all three Robocop films in one box set, rather cheaply and the only reason I did this was for the special edition of the superb first one. I have seen Robocop 2 before but not for 17 years, the year it came out. I have never watched it since because I can still remember how disappointed I was when I discovered how appalling it really is. Its a complete mess really, it has all the signs of a troubled production with so many sub-plots going on at the same time. It has a very uneven tone also and it is also one of the nastiest films I have ever seen. I don't mind a little violence, the first one was incredibly violent but this one is just plain nasty. Also the SFX is terrible even for 1990, say hello to bad stop motion. Also having a drug dealing, cursing kid as a villain is just a little too much. Peter Weller at least had the common sense not to return for the next one. The only positive thing I can say for this film is it does have a couple of nice gags, like the thank you for not smoking one and the kiddie baseball team robbing an electrics store. To quote the kid who plays the villain \"It sucks\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really don't understand who this movie is aimed at. From just the absurdity of it, not to mention the ridiculously bad acting, cheesy dialogue, and the fact that the villain is a child, I'd assume this was meant to be a children's movie... but I think there may be more swear words than Pulp Fiction, not to mention constant references to drugs and general mayhem and killing-so which demographic is it trying to please? This movie is too schizophrenic, like trying to combine Country music with Heavy metal, in the end no one is going to like it because it's a bloody paradox. I would recommend this movie because it's so funny (in a bad way) except the actors are so patently unbearable that I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise.

I'm completely serious when I say that I could not watch more than 15 minutes of this. Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiible","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Old Detroit is back, with the giant Omni Consumer Corporation continuing to swallow everything in it's path as construction of the new Delta City continues and a new menace to contend with in the shape of Cain, a cruel drug lord with delusions of Christ-likeness, peddling a deadly new addictive on the streets called nuke. As he continues to struggle with the memories of his former life haunting him, the tin plated hero sets out to bring this villain down- only to wind up getting chopped into pieces of scrap metal. With Robocop out of action, a ruthless OCP business-woman proposes plans for her new android- a stomping, snarling beast of a machine that needs an equally nasty test subject to power it- which Cain fits perfectly. After a brief glitch in his system, Robo returns to bring justice to the streets and settle the score with Cain.

The original Robocop is a film that always manages to astound you each time you watch it, no matter how many times you've seen it, one of those films that just can't be done again. That said, it's not surprising a sequel was made- it's even less surprising that that sequel really pales compared to the original. Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kirschner has crafted an unpleasant, slightly incoherent and overlong film that can't capture the magic of the first film, no matter how hard it tries. And it certainly does that, the funny ads from the first film running none stop, the corporate satire aiming to be that bit sharper and the action roaring as fast and furious as before, but with blood\/gore even meaner than the first film. The first film earned a name for some nasty, blood-soaked violence (including a man's genitals being blown off and a man being blasted to pieces) but while that was more memorable the violence\/gore on display here is of a more sadistic and gratuitous nature, with a very unpleasant and mean-spirited tone to it.

But overall, the film leaves you with a feeling of general apathy- why are you watching this when you could be watching the original again instead? **","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Violent sequel to RoboCop was directed by Irvin Kershner (Never Say Never Again, The Empire Strikes Back) will never be as good as the original, because it is almost humorless, and it is extremely mean, and should have been rated NC-17, because of scenes with infants being involved in gunfights, people threatening to brutally murder very young infants with REAL automatic weapons, and even scenes with a 12 year old using lots of explicit profanity, giving drugs to lots of random people, shooting and graphically shooting up and killing policemen and SWAT officers, opening fire on police officers when lots of small and young children are present, and a whole group of children using strong profanity and beating up the store owner (who is a very old man) of an electronics store and stealing and destroying lots of items there. This film gives new meaning to the term \"appallingly mean\", but the effects and action sequences are exceptionally incredible. Overall, an OK movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unfortunately producers don't know when to leave well enough alone, or are into recycling to the point that every scrap of trash that Hollywood generates is up for rendering into Alpo. It seems that every sci-fi action adventure flick must endure a sad list of follow-up films, and Robocop is a tragic example. The first film, under Paul Verhoven's direction was a wild, stylish ride, even finding time for a little social commentary on what the dark side of bio-tech is capable of turning us into. This film has none of that, aside from maybe telling us that drugs are bad for you and could make you do things you'd regret when sober. Robocop 2 lacks the vision, the profoundly scary vision of what we are becoming, and instead clumsily takes us on a boat ride into how nauseating drug dealers and their victims really are. Social commentary be damned. This one really bit the big one for me. If you don't care for anything but the SFX, go to it, my friend. Otherwise don't waste your time with this yeastless sour cake, and preserve the first film's accurately measured, heavy-weighted pumpernickle hot out of the oven. It's that simple.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Following which, the touted update goes and shoots itself through the head. Rather apt, considering the sorry state of this movie, a sequel to a film which patently didn't need one.

What really irritates about Robocop 2 is that the makers obviously didn't understand why the original was so good in the first place. Robocop (7) was a witty, vibrant satire of bad action movies. Robocop 2 is just a bad action movie.

Thin on dialogue, particularly towards the tedious, shoot-out finale, it attracts little interest and possesses none of the energy or spirit of the original. The spoof ads, now a little tasteless (\"Warning: continued use will cause skin cancer\") seem merely there as an afterthought. And calling a new designer drug \"Nuke\" is nowhere near as subtle or as funny as the original's family board game, \"Nuke \u0091em!\"

The stop-motion animation \u0096 the weakest element of the original \u0096 is used more extensively, while this humourless sequel fails to include a credits sequence, which makes it look even more cheap and hurried. Ah, humourless? You might say. But what about the funny mayor, or the way Robo is reprogrammed to spout platitudes? Yes, these are attempts at light relief, as is Robo tightening himself up with a screwdriver (\"we're only human\") for the film's punchline, but none are likely to induce laughter. Like the rest of the film, they're staid and moronic attempts at entertainment.

The third and final film in the series (imaginatively titled Robocop 3; 5) saw Peter Weller leave, to be replaced by Robert John Burke, who does well in a undemanding role. With toned-down language and violence, it was an obvious plea to the kiddie market, a Robo action figure much plugged throughout. With it's social conscience too overstated, and Robocop's new-found arm attachments and jetpack getting too silly, the final film was never destined to be a masterpiece. Yet fluid direction by Fred Dekker and a flowing pace make this one enjoyably throwaway viewing.

Robocop, then, is the film proper. Robocop 3 is the sequel which you could watch if there was nothing better on. Which leaves the second movie hanging in the middle, an unwatchable dirge of a picture. A franchise vehicle that has nothing to say, save for the pound signs that rung up. Irvin Kershner is no Paul Verhoven, just as comic artist Frank Miller and partner Walon Green aren't the writers that Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner were. A tragic waste of a good, if limited, concept. 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a shame that they didn't trust the original enough to build on it.

But \"RoboCop 2\" takes the great ideas, imagination and characters of the original and replaces them with all the stereotypes that sequels have to offer.

The beginning commercial was cute and so was the scene that follows (reminiscent of the beginning in \"Guys and Dolls\"!) but aside from a flash of thought here and there, this is one film that is a slow, dirty slog down into the middle of nowhere.

Ideas are introduced then dropped, interesting characters from the original hardly get any screen time here, most of the new characters (Cain, Juliette Faxx) are so boring that they wouldn't hold up no matter what the movie, and then there's the tone.

In the Blessed Original, Paul Verhoeven knew how to direct with the kind of attitude where if you cranked up the attitude and the sensibility of a good pulp comic, even the most repellent violence would be entertaining. Kershner (although he DID direct a \"Star Wars\" sequel) doesn't. And scene after scene either makes you cringe, look away or just tune it out altogether.

And what's with RoboCop?? HE should be the main thing here, right? But there's whole scenes where he doesn't even show up, and what scenes he is in are so half-thought and shakily written that you don't know or care if he's part-human or part-cyborg - since he's all-boring.

Never have I seen such a rapid fall from grace. Why does Hollywood make such bad sequels? On purpose? Why; did the film-makers have a bet going?

Only one star for \"RoboCop 2\"; the FX are good but the story doesn't even try to match them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A pointless cash-in with nothing to contribute except nastiness, this is a definite case of sloppy seconds for Robocop. Irvin Kershner's numbing, plot less and tired mess of a sequel is watchable and even mildly entertaining in a dubious, unpleasantly trashy way, but it has virtually none of the original's flair, emotion, intelligence or excitement. Instead we have just another empty spectacle of a blockbuster whose only reason to exist seems to be to nauseate the viewer with relentless violence, which is far more brainlessly gratuitous than anything in the original. Omni Consumer Products, who made the original Robocop cyborg, have turned into more of a totalitarian force than ever second time round, what with the suspicious Nazi-esquire banners, stormtrooper guards and tanks for hire at the end; as for the anonymous Old Man (Daniel O' Herlihy), he's less of a benevolent protector and more of a hideous Mr. Burns type, surrounding himself with moronic lackeys who genuinely believe that putting the brain of a murderous psychopath into the body of the all-new Robocop 2 is a good idea. Oh, and the first Robocop gets a look in somewhere amidst all of this mess, though you wonder what on Earth a fine actor like Peter Weller saw in the script. The droll Tom Noonan has nothing to work with as the villain, while Nancy Allen is badly wasted as Robocop's partner. There are some hilarious moments throughout; the opening 'Magnavolt' commercial, for instance, but this is a poor follow-up to the truly great original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a fine example of what happens when a studio wants to get a sequel to a fine movie out of the gates at all cost. Only with this movie, it truly is a near miss. Everything seems in place for Robocop 2 to be a worthy followup to the groundbreaking first movie. The complete original cast (apart from the casualties, naturally) returns and gives it their best. Too bad a hackneyed script and an incompetent director as good as neutralize their efforts.

Irvin Kershner might have been the ideal go to guy for George Lucas to direct the Empire Strikes Back. For a pedestrian filmmaker like Kershner there isn't much to ruin in Lucas' charmless film series. A worthy successor to a classic like Robocop would have needed either Paul Verhoeven to return, or a director with enough brass to give his own spin on it. Kershner doesn't know how to give his own spin on anything (Lucas hired him for that) and he's surely no Verhoeven.

So what we get here is a movie that goes through all the motions to replicate the first movie, but with none of the freshness, humor or daring the original had. Kershner probably thought he could top Verhoeven by adding more gore and gratuitous violence, but instead he reveals how much he was at work as a director for hire instead of a passionate filmmaker. And that's a shame, since everything was in place to make this another classic. As mentioned the actors give it their best, but Phill Tippet delivers some groundbreaking stop motion effects and there are some great ideas in the story by Frank Miller, who was born to write a Robocop movie. If only the studio had hired a director who was competent enough to make all the potential come through.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was okay, but really a bit disappointing because I expected more laughs. Considering the storyline and the lead actor (Bill Murray), it should have been a lot funnier than it turned out to be. Only part of this made me really laugh, such as when Murray lost control of his semi and was speeding down the road at a weird angle. (You have to see it, to appreciate it.)

The supporting cast was anything but likable people. Just look at a sampling of the names: Matthew McConaughey, Janeane Garofalo and Linda Fiorentino. Yecch! McConaughey's role in here as \"Tip Tucker\" was just downright annoying. He was the worst.

Other that those people, the movie had some charming moments but overall it is not recommended. It's another Disney flop.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The over-riding problem with this film is that it can't possibly use Bill Murray to the best of his abilities, simply because of the co-star.

If this was a road movie with another comedic actor, it might work. Even if they were both trying to get the elephant across the country, it would at least allow for them to share some amusing dialogue. As it stands, Murray is left talking to an elephant who cannot answer back with witty banter. Essentially, it means that Murray is talking to himself, and this makes the film more boring than it could have been had he had another character to bounce off.

Kids would enjoy this movie,simply because of the elephant, but anyone wanting to watch Bill Murray's biting delivery and enjoy an excellent script needs to look somewhere else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"LTL is the kind of formulaic, hopeless comedy to be enjoyed by the sort of sheep that stop and listen when they come across a band playing in a shopping mall.

I remember Murray promoting LTL on Larry King's crappy CNN show, where he said something like \"if this movie doesn't become a hit I'll stop making movies (or comedies)\". He wasn't being nearly as jovial as one might think; he must have felt that LTL was a sure-fire hit and that its failure would mean his status as a star had markedly fallen - hence a sort-of ultimatum live-on-air to his fans to spend their hard-earned money on a dumb elephant comedy. (The comedy being dumb, not the elephant...) Or maybe he simply realized during the shooting (or when he saw the final cut) what a turkey this was, so he tried desperately to convince everyone how much optimism he had regarding LTL's quality. \"Go see it, it really is good!\" Actors are prostitutes inter-bred with car salesmen.

LTL is the sort of lousy project that comes from the \"Friends\" school of comedy; their motto: \"If you ever run out of ideas - or if you never had any in the first place - then stick an animal into the plot and that will at least inject an element of cuteness\". Cuteness = a sad substitute for lack of funny gags. The other motto \"Friends\" had was: \"always include pointless, dull sentimentality\", which this movie so predictably ends with, when Murray rather pathetically says: \"what they forgot to tell you is that you never forget an elephant\". Maybe not an elephant, but I certainly managed to easily forget this turkey, which I saw many years ago. I was suddenly reminded of it when I saw a scene from it on TV today (hence this equally pointless review).

Murray wastes his talent on this turkey (disguised as an elephant), but he isn't nearly as uninteresting\/bad as McConaughey (or however that man's name is spelt); one would think that M.M. would have an easy time playing himself, i.e. a hick, but he is so painfully unfunny and unconvincing that I could barely stand to watch him make such a jackass out of himself. It was cringe-worthy. To round off this nonsense, we have that generation-X buffoon, Garofalo, in a rather useless role. Then again, everything about LTL is useless...

After LTL, which bombed as far as I know, Murray went on to become more of a \"serious actor\". What is it with these comedians and their inferiority complex? Is it all just about getting awards, i.e. \"recognition from their peers\" (read: votes from their moron colleagues)? This piece of crap marked the end of a string of good and great movies Murray made in the early- and mid-90s, such as \"Groundhog Day\", \"Quick Change\", \"Mad Dog & Glory\", \"Kingpin\", \"What about Bob?\" and \"Ed Wood\". Recently we've had the immeasurable pleasure of seeing him in garbage\/mediocrities such as \"Hamlet\", \"Lost In Translation\" (you just can't get away from these \"ultra-talented Coppolas\"), and \"Broken Flowers\". Compare those two batches.

One guy described LTL \"funny as heck\". Now THAT'S the kind of audience this movie was hoping for... Shopping malls and trailer parks...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This *should* have been an amazingly funny movie...but it falls flat on its face. (In fact, I stopped watching it halfway through, which is something I rarely do...) -- Bill Murray plays Jack Corcoran, a second-rate motivational speaker who is bequeathed an elephant by his father (whom he had presumed to be dead before he was born) ; he then has one week to get the ponderous pachyderm across the country. His adventures on the way are only mildly amusing at best. Janeane Garofalo's considerable comedic talents go largely untapped. Anita Gillette is impressive in her small role as Jack's mother (who has a lot of explaining to do), and Pat Hingle stands out as a former circus associate of Jack's father. -- Perhaps the second half of the movie was better than the first, but I find that hard to believe...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have always liked Bill Murray in films like Lost in Translation, and the trailer for this film looked really good, but the result was very disappointing. Basically Murray plays Jack Corcorin who has recently found out that his father died, and he is expected to hear his will. He finds out that his father was a clown, because he left a large shoe, his squeaky nose, and his main inheritance, an elephant! The only way that Jack can get rid of this elephant is to travel 4000 miles in four days and give him to a safe zoo for $30,000. Also starring Pat Hingle as Vernon. There are small tiny moments of humour, such as a truck's front bending forward, and Murray screaming, but overall, it's pointless. Pretty poor!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mainly a biography of a lustful doctor, \"Robert Merivel ,\" (Robert Downey) who has his way in the king's palace for the first half of the film and then helps out the downtrodden in the second half, mainly \"Katharine\" (Meg Ryan).

The GOOD - Fantastic set decoration (i.e. the lush king's palace) and costuming make this a visual treat. The language is also very tame. Ian McKellen and Hugh Grant provide interesting support.

The BAD - After 50-60 minutes, this movie simply gets too boring. It desperately needed to be given some spark after an hour but it does the opposite: it drags on and on. The script certainly needed some badly-needed \"restoration,\" shall we say? The film may look nice but it's a long two hours to sit through.....too long.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Robert Downey Jr. in a 17th century wig and dress was enough to make me shudder, but I couldn't believe a great actor like Sam Neill actually took a part in this movie. The whole thing was unbelievable. I especially like Merivel's \"cure\" for the crazies. They dance...and hey presto! everyone's happy and they're all better! I guess I just didn't like the character Merivel too much. Therefore, watching a whole movie about his supposed transition from a whoring buffoon into a great physician was grueling.

Also, I'm not entirely sure, but I didn't think the plague as well as the famous fire of London took place simultaneously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to like this film. The second film in the series had this silly, drive in movie feel to it that was fun (of course, I was also drunk). I watched this film with the highest expectation of a similar experience of high cinematic hilarity, a-la- Mystery Science Theater 3000. I WAS WRONG!!!!! This movie is a god awful waste of film, and I LIKED THE SECOND ONE!!!! From the effeminate villain with the David Bowie fright wig, to the tacky, obnoxious female villains with laughs that could strip the paint off a garage door, this whole thing was just a painful mess. I actually felt bad for Sue Price, because the material was beneath an actress of her stature (that pretty much says it all). An awful, awful film (that's not a recommendation).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is going to be my first review on IMDb and I'm glad that the standard rating is 1 out of 10 because then I don't have to change anything...

First there are awful movies. Movies you can make a laughter out of, like Island City, Battlefield Earth or Conan The Destroyer. That is totally acceptable. They makes a great party enhancer. Then there are the worst movie ever. I cannot believe how utterly crappy this steaming pile of dog turd was.

I found it on a second hand store on VHS and bought it quickly because I like sci-fi, Terminator, post-apocalypse and stuff like that. Everything on the box art was very promising. Then I loaded in the tape quickly when I got home and the first thing that I noticed was... WHAT? There was maybe 10 minutes (or more) of switching between present clips and flashbacks in a very annoying blue effect, with sounds that makes you puke. And it just continues over and over. Then some \"acting\" kicks in and you wonder why you were ever born in a world, where this abomination of mankind actually exists... And then I realized, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO PREQUELS. I didn't think about it first, but the title says \"3\" in it... And I was horrified. But as I actually in great pain and agony watch it to the end, I thought nothing could ever make me feel worse about myself and this universe... But then a little text showed up saying... \"Next...\" and... NEMESIS 4?!?!?! NO PLEASE NO!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got this thing off the sci-fi shelf because I remembered seeing the first of the series when I was a kid. I'd rented the second one and it was a decent \"B\" sci-fi. This one was out right obnoxious. The \"special\" effects on the cars looked like something my 4 year old cousin could have done. The two assistant female cyborgs were so terrible that I literally cringed every time they came on the screen. The plot left so much to be desired that it made me sick. I don't know what anyone was thinking when they agreed to be a part of this movie but I'm sure that they'd have done better to have left it at 2 movies. The movies in this series are going from good to decent to terrible. I only hope that no terrorist groups have access to this movie as it makes an excellent torturing device.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Perhaps the worst of the \"Nemesis\" films (and that says A LOT!), this mess features so many flashbacks to part 2 that you might as well say that you've seen them both, even if you've only endured this entry. Making matters worse are two wisecracking cyborgs who have absolutely no entertainment value. In other words, they are a perfect fit for this endlessly boring cinematic mistake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nemesis 3 is the worst movie what I have ever seen!!! I think that Nemesis 3 was only 30 minutes long. And that movie was so boo-oo-ring. When that movie ends and I saw word: NEMESIS 4... I thought I will...NOT watch that movie never again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's something about a movie that features female bodybuilders that gets me in front of the screen every time.

I've seen \"Pumping Iron II\", \"Aces: Iron Eagle III\", \"Raven Hawk\", and even the TV movie \"Getting Physical\", which featured some big names in the sport. They were tolerable in their own ways (mostly, because they featured Rachel McLish. ROWWR!!).

Then I went and watched \"Nemesis III: Prey Harder\", on the sole basis that it featured such luminaries as Sue Price, Debbie Muggli, Sharon Bruneau and Ursula Sarcev. Love the ladies, always will, but after this I'm kinda glad I missed the first two \"Nemesis\" flicks.

Well, the first one, anyway. Most of the footage here is lifted bodily (and kicking and screaming, I would guess) from \"Nemesis II\". Actually, that one looked marginally entertaining from the evidence supplied here.

But even though Price and company flex and pose, they don't get much of a chance to do anything else (like, say, ACT!). In fact, this whole film is an exercise (Get it? Ha-ha...) in oblique story-telling, ambiguous characters and open-ended movie-making (in terms of filming as well as the story-line).

Nothing makes much sense but even if it did, there would still be issues - such as making such small parts for such larger-than-life women as these. What a crime.

Of course, it was written and directed by Albert Pyun, so what did you expect: cohesion?

One star only, in consideration for all the hard work that Price, Muggli, Bruneau and Sarcev obviously put into their bodies, NOT the \"craft\" work done within the movie itself.

Thanks, ladies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A plane carrying employees of a large biotech firm--including the CEO's daughter--goes down in thick forest in the Pacific Northwest. When the search and rescue mission is called off, the CEO, Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), puts together a small ragtag group to execute their own search and rescue mission. But just what is Knowles searching for and trying to rescue, and just what is following and watching them in the woods?

Oy, what a mess this film was! It was a shame, because for one, it stars Lance Henriksen, who is one of my favorite modern genre actors, and two, it could have easily been a decent film. It suffers from two major flaws, and they're probably both writer\/director Jonas Quastel's fault--this film (which I'll be calling by its aka of Sasquatch) has just about the worst editing I've ever seen next to Alone in the Dark (2005), and Quastel's constant advice for the cast appears to have been, \"Okay, let's try that again, but this time I want everyone to talk on top of each other, improvise non-sequiturs and generally try to be as annoying as possible\".

The potential was there. Despite the rip-off aspects (any material related to the plane crash was obviously trying to crib The Blair Witch Project (1999) and any material related to the titular monster was cribbing Predator (1987)), Ed Wood-like exposition and ridiculous dialogue, the plot had promise and potential for subtler and far less saccharine subtexts. The monster costume, once we actually get to see it, was more than sufficient for my tastes. The mixture of character types trudging through the woods could have been great if Quastel and fellow writer Chris Lanning would have turned down the stereotype notch from 11 to at least 5 and spent more time exploring their relationships. The monster's \"lair\" had some nice production design, specifically the corpse decorations ala a more primitive Jeepers Creepers (2001). If it had been edited well, there were some scenes with decent dialogue that could have easily been effective.

But the most frightening thing about Sasquatch is the number of missteps made: For some reason, Quastel thinks it's a good idea to chop up dialogue scenes that occur within minutes of each other in real time so that instead we see a few lines of scene A, then a few lines of scene B, then back to A, back to B, and so on.

For some reason, he thinks it's a good idea to use frequently use black screens in between snippets of dialogue, whether we need the idea of an unspecified amount of time passing between irrelevant comments or whether the irrelevant comments seem to be occurring one after the other in time anyway.

For some reason, he doesn't care whether scenes were shot during the morning, afternoon, middle of the night, etc. He just cuts to them at random. For that matter, the scenes we're shown appear to be selected at random. Important events either never or barely appear, and we're stuck with far too many pointless scenes.

For some reason, he left a scene about cave art in the film when it either needs more exposition to justify getting there, or it needs to just be cut out, because it's not that important (the monster's intelligence and \"humanity\" could have easily been shown in another way).

For some reason, there is a whole character--Mary Mancini--left in the script even though she's superfluous.

For some reason we suddenly go to a extremely soft-core porno scene, even though the motif is never repeated again.

For some reason, characters keep calling Harlan Knowles \"Mr. H\", like they're stereotypes of Asian domestics.

For some reason, Quastel insists on using the \"Blurry Cam\" and \"Distorto-Cam\" for the monster attack scenes, even though the costume doesn't look that bad, and it would have been much more effective to put in some fog, a subtle filter, or anything else other than bad cinematography.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

I really wanted to like this film better than I did\u0097I'm a Henriksen fan, I'm intrigued by the subject, I loved the setting, I love hiking and this is basically a hiking film on one level--but I just couldn't. Every time I thought it was \"going to be better from this point until the end\", Quastel made some other awful move. In the end, my score was a 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The original Airport (1970) was a classic of its kind, and the first two B-movie follow-ups (Airport 1975; Airport '77) were watchable fun at best, amusing camp at worst; but this crass and inept final entry lacks any entertainment value and displays a shocking contempt for its audience. It's unendurable and not even good for laughs.

All of the three \"Airport\" sequels were theatrical releases made by Universal's television wing but this one is beneath even the modest standards of a TV movie of its day, with cheapjack production, grotesque casting, visual ugliness and tasteless, unfunny \"comedy\". The project was clearly doomed by the \"creative\" efforts of Universal executive Jennings Lang who personally produced and is given a \"story\" credit.

Everyone starts somewhere, and writer Eric Roth (Forrest Gump) might have provided an element of self-burlesque, as had the previous films (especially the notorious Airport 1975), but there is nothing worth spoofing in Roth's turgid, incoherent script and even the comedy Airplane! left this crud untouched.

What makes The Concorde: Airport '79 particularly offensive is its insulting misuse of professionals. The worst victim is the supremely gifted Cicily Tyson (Sounder; The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman), pitilessly reduced to a vomitous subplot involving her escorting a frozen heart transplant on the unfortunate flight.

A special kick to the groin is reserved for the wonderful George Kennedy, who is the true lead despite being buried in the cast list. The official mascot of the \"Airport\" series and the only actor to appear in all four movies, Kennedy had more than earned the starring role and his turn in the Captain's seat would have been the only possible reason for this entry other than the squeezing of one last buck. Kennedy provides the only warmth and real humor in this mechanical muckup, briefly putting aside the bravura machismo and revealing a genuinely sweet and tender side to himself, and his lovable and heroic character of \"Joe Patroni\". Unfortunately we are never allowed to forget how fat and old and over-the-hill Kennedy is, and overage pretty-boy Alain Delon relentlessly calls him \"Porky Pig\" as part of a buddy-bonding that falls completely flat. Even Kennedy's Parisian romance, the only humane part of this plane-wreck, turns out to be merely a set-up for a hateful joke at Patroni's, Kennedy's, and the viewer's expense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is scary at times, perhaps no more so than when a naked George Kennedy tells his hooker girlfriend he wants a little more sugar. Thankfully his nakedness is covered by a blanket, but the image is still more horrifying than anything you're likely to find in, for example, Schindler's List.

The dialog in this film was inspiring; it inspired me to watch another movie. In one scene, when a stewardess remarks about male pilots, Kennedy asks, \"Why do you think it's called a 'cock' pit?\" Charming.

And yes, contrary to what some have written, this film is very, very bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All the Airport movies are stinkers, but this one is the biggest turkey of them all. The formula was different for this one because it focused on TWO disastrous flights and a lot of plot occurring on the ground, while the other movies focused on just one disastrous flight and less plot on the ground. The stunts with the Concorde are worth watching for the laughs, although the special effects aren't as terrible as I'd expect for a movie of this quality made in 1979. George Kennedy's sexist remarks are disgusting and his rendezvous with a prostitute in Paris is totally unnecessary (and made me gag a little). Poor Martha Raye was relegated to a role where she did nothing but relieve her bowel over and over in the Concorde's bathroom. There are no big stars in this movie compared to the previous films, giving you one more reason not to watch this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The real star of the last of the Airport films is that big supersonic carrier the French created called The Concorde. If you bear in mind that the whole film is dedicated to showing what that needle nosed plane could do in the sky, than the whole film kind of makes sense.

But if you're expecting some serious drama here, than by all means take some of the evasive action the Concorde shows here when some nasty folks try to shoot her down.

Susan Blakely plays a television news reporter who also happens to be the mistress of military industrial tycoon Robert Wagner. One of Wagner's aides just happens to bring her information on some of Wagner's dirty business dealings, selling arms to folks not friendly to the USA. When the source, Macon McCalman, is killed in front of her and she's nearly done in by a hit-man whom she escapes from of course she confronts Wagner with the information. And of course he denies it. But right before Blakely boards The Concorde, McCalman's widow Kathleen Maguire hands her the necessary documents.

But on the way to Moscow with a stop in Paris, Wagner and his minions try to put the big bird down. But the fearless crew of Alain Delon, David Warner, and George Kennedy is up to all their tricks. It's quite a bag full as you'll see if you want to watch the film.

If you're an aviation enthusiast, you absolutely won't care about the plot. It's like the film Le Mans with Steve McQueen which has a legion of auto racing fans who have made it a cult item. Maybe Le Mans is better at that because they just didn't bother with any kind of story.

Among the passengers is a pot smoking saxophonist played by Jimmie Walker, a distraught mother accompanying a new heart for her child, played by Cicely Tyson and Martha Raye a woman with a weak bladder who spends the entire trip from Washington to Paris in the loo. She's actually the best one here.

Robert Wagner must have been psychic though because I'm sure on the strength of this film he got the part of Doctor Evil's number two in the Austin Powers series.

I'm sure all concerned got a big pay day out of this film, but it seems to have killed the Airport saga of movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Oh, you pilots are such men.\" \"They don't call it the cockpit for nothing, honey.\" Dialogue like that is just one of many reasons why The Concorde\u0085 Airport '79 (or, if you saw it in the UK where it dragged its heels getting released there, Airport '80: The Concorde) was the last and by far the least of the series. The disaster movie was in dire straits in the late70s, what with The Swarm having offered much unintentional hilarity and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure, When Time Ran Out and City on Fire simply offering much boredom, and the desperation to find a new spin on the genre is all too apparent here. This time it's a conspiracy plot, with Susan Blakely's news anchorwoman discovering billionaire boyfriend Robert Wagner has been selling arms to terrorists and the North Vietnamese. Naturally, she decides to tell him everything rather than make the story public, but, he fobs her off by explaining \"I'm a very rich man. I have everything in life I could ever want. Why would I jeopardise that by doing something so incredibly stupid?\" Just in case she doesn't buy that line, rather than, say hire a hit-man to kill her on the ground, he decides to do things the smart way by planning to destroy the Concorde while she's flying to Moscow via Paris. \"I've done a lot of things I've been ashamed of, but I am not a murderer,\" he insists indignantly on his way to reprogramme a guided missile to destroy the plane. So, nothing incredibly stupid there. And when that fails, he sends a jet fighter after it. And when that fails\u0085

Don't even think of looking for anything resembling logic here: this is real bottom-of-the-barrel stuff that even the studio gave up on and marketed as a comedy in the US after critics laughed it off the screen. Where the previous three entries all had the look of glossy big-budget entertainments, this small-screen friendly effort (the only one not to be shot in 2.35:1 widescreen) doesn't even manage to make the Concorde look good, which is quite a feat. TV veteran David Lowell Rich presumably got the directing gig because he was fast, cheap and had previously directed TV movie SST: Disaster in the Sky where Peter Graves' supersonic airplane found itself unable to land due to sabotage and Senegalese flu (which was not, intentionally at least, a comedy despite the presence of a young Billy Crystal in the cast) and seemed like the natural choice for what looks like a $14m TV movie that somehow escaped into theatres when no-one was looking.

Cast like a bad episode of Hollywood Squares, stars are in very short supply this time round, and most of the few vaguely familiar faces seem to have been rounded up from rehab clinics and busted sitcoms. Alain Delon gives the Hollywood career that one last shot as the pilot, \"Happy Fish\" (don't ask) George Kennedy moves from the executive suite to the co-pilot's seat in the hope of reminding people of the other movies, while the rest of the ensemble includes a couple of veterans of The Towering Inferno (Wagner and Blakely), a soft-porn star (Sylvia Kristel, trying to go respectable), an Ingmar Bergman regular (Bibi Andersson \u0096 and she's the one playing the hooker!), David Warner's navigator on a diet having nightmares about being chased by bananas, the voice of the Devil (Mercedes McCambridge), Charo and her Seeing Eye Chihuahua (\"Dohn miscon-screw me\"), Martha Raye and her weak bladder, Jimmie Walker playing the sax in his seat and smoking weed in the john (in the few moments its not occupied by Martha Raye), Cicely Tyson kissing her credibility goodbye as the obligatory mother with critically ill child and a frozen heart in the overhead locker, airline owner Eddie Albert and trophy wife Sybil Danning occupying the best seat in the house, Ed Begley Jr in goggles, and the Russian Olympic team and their lovable coach Val Avery and his deaf daughter (ahhhh!) on a goodwill tour of the States (who knew about the boycott?). Just to add a touch of The Simpsons to proceedings, Harry Shearer voices one news report in the same tones he'd later use for Smithers.

Highlight? Despite the impromptu wedding ceremony during a crash landing, it just has to be George Kennedy diverting a heat-seeking missile by opening the window, sticking his arm out (at nearly twice the speed of sound!) and firing a flare \u0096 while the plane is upside down! And then Alain Delon turns off the engines so there won't be a \"heat source\" for the missiles to home in on\u0085 Yes, someone actually got paid for writing this, and that someone was future Oscar winner and screenwriter of Munich and The Insider Eric Roth (hey, everybody has to start somewhere), although in his defence it was producer Jennings Lang who came up with the plot. Still, what do you expect from a film that credits stunt balloonists and ends with a shot of the Concorde flying off into the sunset? Amazingly, in one of those won't admit defeat moments studios used to be prone to, Universal shot another 20 minutes or so of footage a couple of years later to include in the network TV showings (not included on the DVD). Sadly its box-office failure led to the fifth entry in the series, the laugh-riot that would have been Airport 1984: UFO, never getting off the ground. Even more genuinely tragically, it was the Concorde used in this film that crashed in France 21 years later.

(Oh, and if you're wondering what Charo says to her Chihuahua in unsubtitled Spanish when it's not allowed on board, it's \"What do you think? Don't worry. When the revolution comes, I promise you will fly on anything you want. I promise. What a shame, my love. What do they think they are?\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is what happens when a franchise gets lazy, and no one can think of a new twist to add. Remember what happened to the \"Childs Play\" series? The first three were played as horror films, with genuine scares (albeit predictable) that held true to the theme of the movie. Then they ran out of folks for the doll to stalk, and decided to play it for laughs, with the next two being black comedies.....

Well, that;s what happened here, but I think it was not meant to be like that. Kind of like saying, \"I WANTED to make pancakes for dessert! I did this on purpose!\" when your souffl\u00e9 accidentally fizzles flat. But the milk was spilled, and it had some value in the theaters as a goof.

When the floor ripped out from under the passenger seats, I sort of expected the passengers to extend their legs through the hole, start running Flintstones-Style, to safely land the plane in the Alps. I did. It would have fit into the silly campy theme of the rest of the show.

Instead of pointing out the obvious physical impossibilities of the film, what about the social implausibilities? Like having George Kennedy's character react calmly to the news that his date was a whore? Even back in 1979, a man would not easily accept the notion that he has just poured his heart out to a paid companion. He supposedly felt he made a connection with a kindred spirit, who is subsequently shown to be a mercenary sex-worker with a come-on line. Who WOULDN'T feel cheated by the experience? And yet he giggles, and wraps his arms around his buddy's waist as they merrily stroll off. What a cheap wrap up of a sleazy scene. Ouch.

I had an appetite for souffl\u00e9, and got served insipid clich\u00e9 pancakes. And no, you did NOT do it on purpose!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The last of the \"Airport\" sequels. This has Alain Delon and George Kennedy (who was in all the Airport movies) as pilots; David Warner (!!!) as the radio engineer; Susan Blakely as a newswoman targeted for death; Robert Wagner as a brilliant scientist (stop laughing!); Eddie Albert as a president of the airlines; Charo in a dreadful \"comical\" bit; John Davidson as a newsman (love how his hair stays in place even AFTER the plane turns upside down!); poor Martha Raye is humiliated; Cicely Tyson plays a mother who is flying a heart for her dying son (stop rolling your eyes!); Jimmie Walker as a clarinet player (what did I say about not laughing?); Mercedes McCambridge as a Russian gymnastics coach (OK you can laugh at that one); Bibi Andresson as a hooker and Sylvia Kristel and Sybil Danning as love interests.

Just pathetic. Full of stupid plots and dialogue that will have you roaring--watch for Davidson getting \"married\" on the plane near the end! The Concorde is taking all these people to Russia. They're attacked with missiles, escape, land safely in France and TAKE OFF AGAIN the very next day!!!! Don't you think the flight would have been cancelled or something? Most of the acting is terrible--McCambridge is a sight to behold in a red fright wig and a horrible fake accent. The only good acting is from Kennedy and Delon (looking fantastic) who gives a very engaging performance. Still that's not enough to make you sit through this drivel. Too long and lousy special effects too. This was a mega-bomb and (thankfully) stopped Universal from doing anymore.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some slack might be cut this movie due to the fact that it was made in 1979. That much said, it really is pretty dire.

Never mind the laughable back-projection or the awful, awful camera-tracking of supposed \"in-flight\" objects, it's the stunts that the Concorde pulls off that will have you blinking in disbelief at the absurdity. Barrel-rolls, loop-the-loops and violent \"evasive\" maneuvers left me wondering why the Air-Forces of the world didn't just fly Concordes as their main fighters.

So, here are the important lessons I learned from this celluloid cheese-fest:

1. The Concorde is at least as agile as a Phantom 4 jet-fighter.

2. You can fire a flare gun at Mach 2 simply by opening the cockpit window and sticking your arm out.

3. If the flare gun fails to discharge, do not drop it, as it may then go off.

4. The Concorde can dodge up to two Sidewinder missiles fired at it at once.

5. A flare will distract a heat-seeking missile every time.

6. Switching off your jet-engines is a sure-fire way of throwing heat-seeking missiles off track if 5 (above) fails.

7. When performing a crash-landing in the Concorde, it is apparently impossible to jettison your fuel beforehand.

8. Concorde pilots are all combat-trained veterans.

As you might imagine, this film is not very realistic. The effects are primitive by today's standards and that, coupled with the nonsense acrobatics the Concorde performs, makes this a movie deserving of little but scorn.

Not recommended. Not recommended at all!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My Take: The silliest of the AIRPORT movies, and probably one of the worst of the 70's disaster movies.

As if to milk the franchise with all its got, the producers of this third sequel to AIRPORT throws in more action, silly subplots, gratuitous star appearances and goofier elements. In its attempt to be the biggest AIRPORT yet, CONCORDE: AIRPORT '79 is the worst one yet, and probably one of the worst of the disaster movies of the 1970's. With its bad box-office results, it is no wonder that the genre has overstayed its welcome.

The film opens with a rather catchy score by Lalo Schifrin backed-up by some impressive shots of the titular aircraft in its former glory (the same plane used in this film would be involved in a crash in July 2000). But then the credits appear, and we get a glimpse of the \"all-star\" cast, which is composed nothing more of faded Hollywood stars, TV actors and none-too-popular B actors. The plot is sillier than ever: George Kennedy is back in the role of Joe Patroni, now the pilot of the Concorde (co piloted by co-pilot Alain Delon) en route to France after the Summer Olympics. On board is reporter Maggie Whelan (Susan Blakely), who has just discovered that his boyfriend, renowned weapons manufacturer Kevin Harrison (Robert Wagner), is selling their weapons to terrorist. To prevent her from revealing the news to the world, Harrison sends his most advance missiles and best saboteurs to prevent the Concorde from landing.

The cast\/subplots are dumber than ever, even sillier than an alcoholic Myrna Loy or a singing nun. We have Cicely Tyson transporting a live human heart in a cooler (!), Martha Raye as a woman with a bladder condition (and the character doesn't go deeper than that), J.J. Walker a a pot-smoking saxophonist (arguably the most annoying character in the film), Eddie Albert married to \"old\" wife Sybil Danning, Avery Schreiber as Russian coach with a deaf daughter and finally, a love story between reporter Jon Davidson and gymnast Andrea Marcovici (much to the sour watching-eye of coach Mercedes McCambidge). Plus the movie gets much closer to LOVE BOAT episode than ever with the silliest cameos of Charo (and her pet Chihuahua) and Bibi Anderson. Camp buffs will no doubt get a real kick-in-the-balls in this silly entry in a long strain of 70's disaster movies. This one is, in more than the sense of the word, a true disaster.

Rating: *1\/2 out of 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I gave \"Airport '79\" only two stars because it's a truly lousy film. Nobody who had anything to do with it deserves any praise (except for Charo's Chihuahua, who does a pretty good job in his role.) This is not to say that the film isn't worth watching. It helps if you have a buzz on, but this is not essential.

A'79 really does seem like an early version of \"Airplane!\" Every scene has a set-up and a payoff, and the scenes blunder after one another as if they were totally disconnected. One of my favorite recurring points is that the passengers, crew, and airplane get to keep going, no matter what. You're a news reporter and a strange guy gets murdered at your house in your presence? The hit-man then chases you onto your greenhouse roof? No problem. You can still catch that early-morning flight to Paris...no need to get the cops involved. Your plane dodges one unmanned \"drone\" missile, four heat-seeking missiles, and cannon fire from an unidentified Phantom fighter, doing barrel rolls, an unpowered dive, and a crash-net landing without thrust reversers in the process? No problem, we'll have the mechanics check the oil and get you on your way in just a few hours. It's truly funny.

And I'll admit that there's a bit of the anarchist in me that comes out when the passengers pay no attention to the cabin attendants. The highlight is when the attendant tells Jimmie Walker he'll have to put away his saxophone (God spare me from a flight seated in front of a saxophonist playing jazz!) prior to take-off. Jimmie basically says, \"Nope.\" Later in the flight, the sax is damaged during a barrel-roll and Jimmie actually shows up on the next leg of the flight with yet another sax that he won't put away. This aspect of the film is just fun. (ONE passenger actually obeys the attendant. When Charo is told she can't take her dog on the flight, she leaves the plane. Naturally, this is because you can't get a good view of her ass and boobs while she's seated.)

In summary, a terrible movie, but terrible enough to be a bit amusing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers and cast deserve no credit whatsoever for this, as it was probably entirely unintentional.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"WARNING **SPOILERS**

Lord knows I have seen some bad movies in my time and this one makes me just as angry. This is an insult to people who ARE LOOKING for a bad movie. The \"story\" involves a stewardess who discovers her boyfriend (badly acted by otherwise great Robert Wagner) is a murder, thief, and just an overall puke face. After the Concorde takes off, he sends guided missiles to destroy the Concorde. So while the Concorde is traveling at the speed of light, our \"hero\" (played with utter stupidity, George Kennedy) opens the window in the cockpit then, sticks his hand OUT THE WINDOW to fire at the missile! I'm no rocket scientist, but it seems his hand would at least get a wind burn. Then towards the final \"climax\" when the Concorde is headed for certain disaster and everyone will die, a passenger turns to his fiance and proposes marriage. A Priest just happens to be sitting in the next row and proceeds to marry them as the planes is crashing! (I'm not making this up) Wow, the guy who wrote the script must have been sniffing glue for a week.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is an absolute disgrace! I thoroughly enjoyed the original Airport, and I can't believe how the same people could produce this twaddle nine years on. First of all, the acting is bad. The original had actors who had done quality (non-disaster) films before, but this one uses actors who have done the disaster movie circuit already (Blakely, Kennedy, Wagner). Also, George Kennedy's character Patroni seems to get promoted very quickly. He is now the lead in the film, but his character isn't strong enough to carry it off: he has lost the charm and humour of Airport (1970), and the character is now just boring. Have I mentioned the plot? Is it at all believable that someone would send a missile after the Concorde?? NO!!! There are also too many loose ends; scenes that have no relevance whatsoever to the plot. The scene where the hot air balloon lands on the runway, the chase of the thief in Charles De Gaulle airport are two such scenes. Both would be interesting - if only they had something to do with the actual story. There also many unanswered questions: Why does Patroni open the window and fire a flare at the other plane? Why does Robert Wagner's character kill himself? (He must have another stupid and costly way of Why is there no enquiry after the missile almost blows up the Concorde? Why are the back projections so bad? (It looks as though a cartoon missile is following the Concorde; although it does work well when the plane lands in Paris) Why does Patroni think that he is in a flight simulator? (when he turns the Concorde over) Why does he get a hero's welcome in the cabin of the plane after having terrified the passengers? And why is the ending so poor, if it can be called an ending at all? Given their one-dimensional-ness, no-one seems to notice this. The blessing given to the young couple on the plane by the girl's coach is shmaltzy, the man who plays the saxophone is annoying, and the woman with the bladder problem is just plain silly. The scenes where Susan Blakely is lying on the roof of her conservatory, and the when she tells Wagner that she still loves him are quite awful. In conclusion, this film should have been the climax of the previous three Airport films: instead it is a diabolical, sub-moronic, complete and utter waste of time, money, energy, celluloid and \"talent\"!!!!!!! Remember when Patroni asks the French pilot if he has \"ever landed on his belly?\" This film certainly does the belly flop, and lands flat on its pointy nose...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is a special heaven reserved for people who make the world laugh. Alongside Chaplin,Stan and Ollie,The Marx Bros and.....(fill in your own special favourites)space must be made for everybody connected with \"Airport 80 - Concorde,the movie\". Robert Wagner in particular exceeds all expectations giving the comedy performance of a lifetime.I would never have thought he had it in him. The only way he could have been funnier would have been to have worn a red nose and a revolving bow tie. British moviegoers will recognise the fat one from Cannon and Ball pretending to be a Russian athlete,a nice trick if he could have pulled it off but,tragically,he couldn't.I have a 14 year old labrador more athletic and almost as funny. George Kennedy - bless him - has a part that requires him talk and move at the same time,and my goodness he triumphs!Brow wrinkled with effort he utters timeless dialogue,each word lovingly polished into Coward-like brilliance. Only once in twenty years does Hollywood turn out a film like \"Airport 80\".All the years of toil and struggle,the sweat,the tears,the lessons with Lee Strasberg,living out of suitcases,born in a trunk etc etc,all come to fruition.A work of art is created that will last as long as there are movies and machines to show them on. I think I'm ready for my medication now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Concorde ... Airport '79 starts in Washington where a man named Carl Parker (Macon (McCalman) contacts high profile TV news reporter Maggie Whelan (Susan Blakely) in order to hand secret documents over that prove his boss Kevin Harriosn (Robert Wagner) owner & president of Harrison Industries that develop weapons for the military has been illegally selling said weapons to foreign countries. However Maggie sees Carl assassinated & she barely escapes with her life, Maggie is to catch the Concorde to Moscow via Paris the next morning & intends to blow the whistle on Harrison who also happens to be her boyfriend which would ruin him. Determined to save himself he reprogrammes his hi-tech 'Buzzard' homing missile to intercept & destroy the Concorde during a test run killing all those on-board & destroying the documented evidence...

Renamed Airport '80 - The Concorde for it's cinema & initial home video releases because it was released here in, well, 1980 rather than 1979 this last entry in the Airport franchise was directed by David Lowell Rich & is a notoriously bad film that was apparently laughed at during press & test screenings prompting Universal to promote the film as an action comedy. The first thing to say is that The Concorde ... Airport '79 is a really silly & downright daft film but on a purely entertainment basis I can think of a lot worse films to spend 108 minutes watching, I really can. I quite liked the absurd plot about a wealthy industrialist wanting to kill his girlfriend TV reporter before she can expose him as an illegal arms dealer but this guy doesn't do subtle & decides the best way to do it is to blow Concorde up with his own guided missile & then gets a Fench fighter pilot to try & shoot it down before finally sabotaging it so really there's three mini disaster flicks in one here as each time super pilot Joe Patroni manages to save the day. You know Joe Patroni played by George Kennedy appears in all four Airport films & goes from mechanic in the first to Concorde pilot extrodinaire in this, also I reckon he's a bit of a jinx since in the space of nine years he has been involved with four major aviation disasters. I think the real reason why the Airport series stopped here was because Patroni retired after this & the jinx was lifted. Some of the things that happen here are just silly, Patroni does barrel rolls, flies upside-down & out manoeuvre's a guided missile in a huge Concorde not to mention he crash lands it & fires flare guns out of his window to destroy the missile all while keeping a calm head. This guy is good, very good. Then there's the character's, there's a Saxophone playing black dude who smokes weed in the toilets, an old woman with a bladder problem & a team of Russian gymnasts with bad accents. Also, despite being almost shot down with a missile & then attacked by a Jet fighter the passengers of Concorde don't seem that bothered & happily get back aboard the following day, I don't know about you but after that I would probably find a safer way to travel & why do the police or authorities not question anyone? Why is the Concorde captain Patroni allowed to just go off & sleep with a French prostitute? The Concorde ... Airport '79 certainly isn't boring & is full of memorable moments & I was entertained in a way although it's far from a good film & modern audiences may not have the patience with it, hell I liked it for what it was in a daft way but it's no sort of classic.

Even though Concorde no longer flies it's still quite a cool looking air-plane & there's plenty of footage of it here, the one used in The Concorde ... Airport '79 was the seventh one built. This Concorde was also the same aircraft which crashed after a tire bust caused a fuel tank to rupture and the leaking fuel catch fire on July 25th 2000, while taking off in Paris sadly resulting in the death of 109 passengers and crew on board and 4 people on the ground. When this aired on TV in the US in 1982 almost twenty minutes of new footage was included with most if not all of it being newly shot over two years after the original production had finished. I know the effects here take a bashing from most but I don't reckon they are too bad, when you consider this was made in the late 70's I think they come across quite well. The camera moves during effects shots, real footage of real planes is used rather than toy models which in my opinion would have looked a lot worse & I could certainly see what the makers were trying to do with limited funds & limited technology. In a strange way they are quite impressive actually without ever looking that good if you know what I mean. Probably the most action packed of all the Airport films there's missiles, exploding planes, daring crash landings, assassinations & a guy named Robert Palmer (no, not the singer) giving head a woman in a jacuzzi.

The IMDb says this had a budget of about $14,000,000 which is actually more than I thought, maybe those special effects aren't so impressive after all. Shot in Utah, Washington, Los Angeles & France. The acting isn't great here, people don't look worried enough that they are about to die. Goerge Kennedy gets some bad one-liners while Robert Wagner plays the bad guy.

The Concorde ... Airport '79 is fun for bad film enthusiasts everywhere & to be brutally honest I rather watch this entertaining mess of a film than some two hour Oscar nominated bore.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Airport 4' is basically a slopped together mess for Universal Studios to try and work a new twist - the Concorde supersonic airliner - into their 'disaster-in-the-sky' formula.

Bogged down with unintentional humor, the best of which is when George Kennedy sticks his hand out of Concorde's window at supersonic speed to fire a flare gun at a heat-seeking missile following the aircraft's flight path, and the simple fact that these dumb passengers keep re-boarding the same plane to continue their flight despite all the problems in the air. Many stars in this one including Robert Wagner, Sylvia Kristel, Alain Delon, and Martha Raye as a nervous passenger.

Not really related to the other 'Airport' films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Its a truly awful movie with a laughable storyline.some awful acting.and a script that Ed Wood might be ashamed of.Wagner is laughable in this. He plays his role like number two in Austin Powers.Easily the worst of the Airport movies.1 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i just saw this movie on TNT and let me tell you, this movie was downright corny and cheezy. But after a certain point, I began to laugh my socks off and to tell you the truth, they should classify this movie as comedy rather than action\/adventure. The absolutely most hilarious scene comes when the Delon and Kennedy are making loop the loop 360's to avoid the French missiles that Wagner ordered to destroy the Concorde. Our fearless leader, Kennedy, decides to shoot flares out the window to stop the heat seeking missiles????? Dumb yet funny---the kicker comes here though---after one shot, the flare gun malfunctions and Kennedy tries to fix it in the cockpit and well...if you want to know what happens get a hold of this movie. The dumb parts of this movie include the total lack of plot----yeah lets have some action for 25 minutes than land in Paris and go ONE HOUR with love scenes with prostitutes and flight attendants. Now lets switch to the saboteur for ten minutes then a wasted rest of the movie and a plane that is visually breaking apart and the PASSENGERS DON\"T EVEN SEE IT???? ITS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES!!!!-----final rating for this move--- (1\/10) out of 4 stars if it were action 2 out of 4 stars if it were a comedy","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This final installment of the \"Airport\" franchise was so incredibly awful that it took me awhile to realize it actually wasn't a slapstick comedy, like \"Airplane\". George Kennedy shooting a flare gun out an open window to divert heat-seeking missiles was comical. What would happen to your hand if you held it out a window at mach two speed? You'd lose your grip on the gun and get a broken arm. The passengers were unintentionally hilarious, as was the interior of the plane. The sophisticated French woman coming on to slobby George Kennedy was like Jackie Kennedy coming on to Ernest Borgnine. Ain't gonna happen. Susan Blakely, a talented and unappreciated actress, did not get any points on her resume for this one. Neither did Robert Wagner. This movie was so lousy it seemed surreal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Prior to Airport 79' these movies were rather good. They had decent special effects, all-star cast, and good acting. This movie destroyed the franchise, and there are many reasons for it. Lets talk about the special effects WOW!!!! they are horrific, what was the director thinking about. I know it's only 1979, but lets look at other very good special effects movies such as Star Wars(1977),and Moonraker(1979). I like the idea of the Concord and this could of been the best Airport movie, but they did too much with it. How about Joe Patroni(George Kennedey) shooting a flare out of the cockpit window, to prevent a heat seeking missile from hitting the concord. Also he is doing 90 degree dives and loops. This completely far fetched, and unrealistic WOW!!!!!! Believe me the special effects don't help this scene, and really are beyond poor.... They almost look like a cartoon, and this is how the whole movie is!!!Finally lets talk about the acting which in my opinion is extremely poor to fair at best.... Over acting is a major issue in this movie, especially George Kennedy.. Which I really like as an actor, but just doesn't cut in this movie. The full blame has to go on the director, who did a very poor editing job, and really whacked out the Airport Franchise. Too bad the Concord isn't still used today it was a marvel of Air travel...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Concorde:Airport'79, Is for now, the last of the high drama high,camp Airport series, At first glance in the TV guide,or DVD cover you would simply think that the film your about to view is as thrilling as the previous Airport's Think Again! What your treated to is 2 hours And 3 Minutes worth of unintentional laughs courtesy of the worst script ever writing it was even penned by Eric Roth, Who brought the world 'Forrest Gump! well one things for sure the script is not Oscar worthy,It's Razzie worthy! The Executives at Universal in '79,done the right thing by marketing this as a 'comedy' Apart from Charo! the film does have an impressive cast list, It's certainly watchable to say the least,","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With a cast of mostly lesser-tiered stars (Alain Delon, Robert Wagner, Eddie Albert), lousy special effects (sure, it was the 70's but \"Alien\" and \"Star Wars\" came from the same decade), and a storyline that is so laughable that one might want to cry, this is a \"flight\" that should have been GROUNDED.

Even Academy Award winners Cicely Tyson and George Kennedy can't keep this \"bird\" airborne.

The implausibility of the third film - airplane is submerged in The Bermuda Triangle - is much more believable than this turkey.

Avoid \"The Concorde\" at all costs!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Actually there was nothing funny about this monstrosity at all!! This movie was a complete abomination. The absurdities in this movie almost made me want to vomit!! I think that the people responsible for this movie took advantage of their viewing audience. They took a relatively decent series of movies (I did say decent, NOT GOOD!!) and totally trashed it by trying to put money in their pockets. The making of Airplane! was a way for Hollywood to make up for this crappy flick. The worst part about it is that either nobody in 1979 realized the asinine events of the movie (such as Concorde's door popping off at some ungodly high altitude or Patroni shooting a flair gun out the window at Mach 2 to avoid a NUCLEAR WARHEAD!?!?!?....what were they thinking???)were totally unrealistic or they just didn't care! I think that it is the latter of the two. The writers and director of this \"film\", if you want to call it that, really tried to suck the Airport dynasty dry with this crap!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has more goofs than any other movie I have seen in my life. The special effects are damned terrible. For instance, near the end, when the Concorde is falling after the cargo door tears off, the thing spins like a toy. The special effects of Airport (1970) are way better than this crap. Also, the force of a Concorde opening up at altitude and speed would essentially turn the thing inside-out. (That is if it would even open at all) But the movie has its good points. Mostly when it ends. That's also cheesy. E.g. The Thing lands on a bank of loosely-packed snow, if it did that, it would splinter into a million pieces. Overall, 2 out of 10. Instant flop. Great laugh flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film isn't a little bad. It's not even kind of bad. It's horrid. You know you're in trouble when Charo shows up in a film. She must have had the week off from \"Love Boat.\" George Kennedy, at least he's a gamer - he's in there trying. Actually, he's all right. And it's good to see Martha Raye. Jimmie Walker's okay. There's slightly better acting than in Airport '75 but what film doesn't have better acting than Airport '75? One thing I liked about this film is that it had more going on than a lot of other disaster films plot-wise. At least they made an attempt at subplots. What really hurts this film is the special effects - ugh! Not too special if you ask me. This is the kind of film that at 2am is truly, truly funny if you've been up having fun with your buddies and you're looking for something to laugh at.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Second Woman is about the story of a mysterious man who lost his wife in an accident and now believes that someone wants to do him harm. A girl who likes him wants to help him but she is led to believe that his fears are caused by a mental illness...

Interesting plot, very good acting, but the result as a whole is poor in many ways. The story is too simplistic, or rather, presented in a simplistic way (even though there is a couple of interesting plot twists). For example, people say they love each other after only two meetings. I don't want to reveal anything else, but you 'll see what I mean if you watch the movie. \"Come on, it was the fifties!\", you may think. Yet I 've seen quite a few films from that era and I know that some don't seem so dated nowadays.

Something that disturbed me was that some scenes were shot pitch dark, making it almost impossible to watch what was going on. Ok, it's a film-noir but this one is too noir at some points... :o)

Overall, the Second Woman is not a masterpiece of that era, but no trash either. Watch it if you have nothing else to do...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(May contain spoilers) This movie is the epitome of weirdness. I rented it hoping for a film so bad it would be funny. However, I still honestly can't decide if this film was intended to be scary or humorous. It combines the emotions in a rather disturbing way. Apparently this is trying to be clever but in actual fact it isn't. For instance, when the knife comes out and tries to kill the teacher, it starts playing happy music. When we go to Toxico, we have up-beat, quasi-Mr. Roger's Neighborhood music. However, when the little kid's dreaming of falling in \"blood\" and when he finds the leg, these are clearly intended to be tense. So, watch this film, and decide for yourself. It is too weird to be described in words and for that I say, kudos.

\"Nose-dive... WOW!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this film with a bunch of friends at a Halloween party last night. I got to say that the sarcastic comments were never ending and I have to say that they were well deserved. Though I felt that the directing was done well, the craziness in their dialogue is just a little too much cheese. I think I got about an hour into this before I even started to realize what it was the point was that they were trying to drive home. You catch on pretty quick that this whole family is pretty quirky and something is off about them, it's just a little too slow. This movie could easily have been about 45 minutes and been a lot better. The only thing that made it bearable was the two bottles of wine that I downed during the course of the flick. Bring on the slasher films folks, because at least I know what to expect out of them. This was not my thing, too much dark humour, and the subject material of cannibalism was a bit explicit and gross. I have to say that Randy Quaid played the part as well as it could have been, and I will give him props for that as I normally see him as a drunken goofball or a washed out fighter pilot who likes to kill aliens.

In conclusion I give this horror\/comedy film a very generous 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very disturbing, but expertly crafted & scripted and intelligently directed with a good eye for color and detail. Mary Beth Hurt, Sandy Dennis, and especially Randy Quaid are unusually good. The story centers around a young boy (Bryan Madorsky) wondering where all the leftovers they eat every night comes from. His parents (Hurt, Quaid) strange behavior causes the school psychiatrist (Dennis) to get involved. It is a gruesome cannibal movie. But it's not bad. If you like Hannibal, you'll love this. If you don't like Parents, stay away from the film. Just giving advice to Cannibal Lover and Haters.

Rated R for Strong Adult Themes and Graphic Violence.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When my parents rented this movie, I was expecting a very funny movie as Randy Quaid is very funny in comedy movies. However, this movie is not all that funny and it is somewhat boring too. You can see the surprise coming a mile away and it runs long for a movie that is supposedly only eighty one minutes long. So I can honestly say it is not a movie that is on my favorites list. It may work for some people, but it just did not work with me at all proving to be rather slow in the build-up with virtually nothing that amused me within the entire movie. Randy Quaid is wasted and the rest of the cast is a list of very bland actors and actresses. The premise of the movie had potential, as did the casting of Quaid, but all of it just sputters and the inclusion of the horror element just seems very unnecessary. Granted, the one dream sequence the kid had when he jumped on the bed and it suddenly became a whirlpool of blood was very nicely done and would have worked very well in a movie that was supposed to be pure horror, instead of one that lists comedy as its first genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"John Sayles, what have you done?

\"Silver City\" had moments in which I could see the glimmering hope of a good story, well-drawn characters, thought provoking dialog. And then those moments would quickly be covered over by layers of poor writing, clumsy direction, and abysmal acting. I truly love almost all of John Sayles' work, but \"Silver City\" is ghastly.

I got the feeling that Sayles may have been working on the beginnings of a good story involving the illegal labor and industrial corruption plot lines, but then he got rushed and stuck the secondary plot line satirizing the Bush administration onto it. The two stories don't really connect with each other, and the weaker elements of the political theme dominate the first 3\/4 of the movie, causing me to lose patience with the whole affair.

The other major flaw is Danny Huston's acting. His dialog in every scene is delivered with a gawping grin, regardless of its appropriateness to the mood. I hated this guy by the end of the film, having been reminded of every bad actor in every high school play I've ever seen. Not having seen Huston in anything else, I don't know whether to blame him or to blame Sayles' direction of him more. Regardless, he's the unfortunate focal point of a very unfortunate movie.

Right down to the last sledgehammer-subtle final scene I was disappointed by \"Silver City.\" Sayles at his best, or heck, even Sayles at mediocre, can be so very much better than this film. See ANY of his other works instead. This isn't even worth a rental.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't really consider myself a conservative, so I wasn't personally offended by this film, but it was pretty clear that the plot and the characterization in this film were secondary to the message. And the message is that all conservatives are either evil or stupid (or both). The characters are one-dimensional -- either good, freedom-loving Americans, or brainless, greedy, evil conservatives. There's nothing clever or creative, just anti-conservative. I don't really mind the political bias itself, but it shouldn't be the only purpose behind the movie. And clearly it is.

On the positive side, the cast is wonderful and Chris Cooper's impression of W is funny the first two or three times, but after that it's just the same old joke being told over and over again.

So if you really hate the conservatives, you'll probably enjoy this film, but if you're looking for something with realistic characters and a story that's less black-and-white, then you'd be better off watching something else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Generally political messages are done on television, so if you are a big fan of environmental correctness, watch to your hearts content. Most people go to the movies to be entertained, not sold some poppycock political nonsense. The hook here is the big name cast. Unfortunately the sum of the performances equals a whole movie that went absolutely nowhere. The two best performances, Chris Cooper, and Richard Dreyfus, have minimal screen time. In short, \"Silver City\" is to be avoided as entertainment. It is nothing more than a non documentary, rambling political expose on illegal immigration, pollution, and any number of other causes that do not belong anywhere except on the small screen. - MERK","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly, one of the worst written, directed and acted movies I have ever seen. Seemed like a made-for-TV movie. And a bad one at that. I cannot believe that people are still hiring Danny Huston after seeing him in this movie, or that they are still allowing John Sayles to make films. My husband and I came across this movie on TV one night and got so bored with it, we ended up cleaning the house while it was on . . . and it still bored us! It made me think that critics have been so gullible with Sayles' previous films, such as Lone Star, which was raved about at he time but didn't really add up to much in the end. Spend your time on something better. Anything.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Apparently the film has a harsh anti-Bush message... If it does (I didn't get it), that's all it is. It's boring and useless, period.

It's too serious at times to be a comedy, too slow to be a thriller, not funny, not gripping, not exciting, not film. It's too everything to be the opposite, and vise versa. I was amazed at how bad a film could suck. Don't even think of watching it.

I have watched literally hundreds of films, and never have I been so obliged to write a warning on IMDb. Avoid at all costs. You have been warned.

Even \"The Making of...\" is painfully boring. It's just people talking gibberish with loads of inside jokes infront of a camera, sort of like a home movie. There even is a part where a guy takes you on a tour of the food that was consumed on the set by the film crew. Still, beats the movie I guess...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was horrible and the only reason it was even made was because the story appealed to the far-left. I consider my self a moderate, so I was able to see this film as the pile of garbage it was. While I'm not a Bush fan, your dislike for GW is not enough of a reason to see this movie.

To start, the movie was shot on such low-grade film that it comes off as cheap, rather then artsy. Additionally, the characters are seriously lacking in depth. Chris Cooper's character was a poor parody of George Bush; better suited for Saturday Night Live then a Dramatic film. The rest of the characters are walking clich\u00e9s and are poor facsimiles of other characters from much better movies.

Avoid this movie at all costs!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SILVER CITY (2+ outta 5 stars) As a huge fan of John Sayles' work for many years now I feel safe in saying that this is the worst movie he has ever done. That said, the movie isn't exactly *terrible*... just very uninspired. Sayles throws in familiar elements from his previous movies (corrupt politics, illegal immigration, the selling out of youthful ideals) but fails to bring them together in any new or meaningful way. Even the dialogue (usually Sayles' strong point) is disappointing this time around.. sounding clich\u00e9d and forced in almost every scene. The movie looks and sounds like episodes from a TV series that didn't make it past its third episode. There are tons of big stars on hand... and they try their best to make their bit parts come alive... but the material just isn't there this time around. While filming a campaign spot a governor-hopeful (a poor and obvious George W Bush stand-in) fishes a dead body out of a lake. An investigator is hired to try and warn away people who may have deliberately set this up to discredit the candidate... but he soon finds out that there are deeper and darker (and more clich\u00e9d) secrets to be discovered. Sayles has made similarly-themed movies so much better in the past (\"Lone Star\", \"Matewan\", \"Return of the Secaucus Seven\", \"Men With Guns\"). It's a shame that he went to the well one time too many and came up with tainted water. One good line, delivered by Richard Dreyfuss: \"Danny, you're a loser. That's already been established beyond doubt. So just try and be a good one, okay?\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sayles had a very interesting film on his hands with Silver City, however it somehow became very muddied as it progressed from beginning to end. Chris Cooper did an exceptional job embodying the essence of his character, a Dubya of sorts, but he wasn't nearly given enough screen time. Instead, we find ourselves on a rampage with a character that felt less personal, less developed, and overall too confusing. The path that this Danny Huston leads us on inevitably becomes the downfall of the film. Too many characters are introduced to us in such a short time. These characters randomly were involved with the progression of the plot, which became too convoluted with each passing minute. Sayles knew what he was creating, I just feel as if it wasn't being translated well to the silver screen.

Sayles is a master of his trade. His films continue to inspire and evoke thought even if they are not commercial successes. The trouble with Silver City is that I think he found himself going too deep with not enough money or time to explain it all. At the beginning of the film, I had an idea of what was happening, but as more and more characters were introduced, as more and more plot twists tried to occur I lost the sense of the film by the ending. While the ending was very clever and very dark, I needed more explanation. I think some of the reason that I lost my train of thought with this film was due to the casting of Danny Huston as our guide. He was pathetic. I didn't seem him as very exciting person to lead us on this adventure. He seemed to go through the motions, but not really accomplish much at all. This was the first downfall of Sayles' important film.

While I will admit that the characters played by Richard Dreyfuss, Miguel Ferrer, James Gammon, and Daryl Hannah were interesting, I just needed a better guide to help me understand their roles in this political scandal. Danny Huston just did not cut it for me. Outside of the characters, Sayles needed a stronger script. I sometimes felt that unless I was deeply rooted in the political world, some of the references were well over my head. The entire reasoning for Silver City to be built and the corruption behind it eluded me. I am a simpleton that loves advanced films, but this one just didn't make much sense to me. There were several times that I found myself asking, \"Why\" instead of seeing the whole picture. I felt as if the individual stories were as clear as glass, yet the whole picture was dusty and murky at the same time. Sayles needed to concentrate more on the bigger picture instead of these smaller issues, which ultimately fogged this film.

Perhaps I went into this film with the wrong idea. I was expecting to see another version of Primary Colors, but instead witnessed something less heartfelt and more technical. Without giving the ending away, I thought that the final scene was one of the most beautiful moments in political cinema history. The brilliant symbolism has stayed in my mind for the past two days after watching this film, while the rest of the movie quickly shuffled away from my mind. Maybe a second viewing would do better for me, but for some odd reason Silver City just didn't click with me. There seemed to be too many loopholes that were never explained or accounted for. An ensemble piece is always good with me, but when the characters are introduced without explanation, it just looses steam. This was one of those rare occasions.

Overall, I was very upset with this film. Being very Democrat, I wanted to see a side of politics that I wasn't aware of and another side that would make you chuckle. I wanted to be engulfed with the world of corporate money and the dufus' that are elected. I wanted intelligent humor framed by the words of George W., but instead all I found was a very confusing story aimed at a certain audience of which I will never be a part. Sad, this picture had so much wasted promise.

Grade: ** out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm surprised over the number of folks that have rated this entry as their favorite \"Chan\" (didn't they ever see \"...at the Opera\" or \"...at Treasure Island?\"--- the latter ironically written by John Larkin, who dropped the ball here). This plot is a train wreck and overloaded with pointless characters. First, viewers are required to recall the sordid details of Steve McBirney's (played by venerable thug and HUAC squealer Marc Lawrence) 1929's murder spree. Let's not forget he escaped a capital murder rap at the courthouse with a lone policeman on his tail. There's also a victim that was fished out of a river 11 years earlier that no one ever seems concerned about. Then there's the suspension of disbelief required when all the characters are seemingly trapped in the wax museum (although Inspector O'Matthews manages to wield his fat wet rear end inside through a window). Why is Joan Valerie (as Cream's assistant) in this movie? She can't even handle pliers properly--- I realize Chan suffers the same boo-boo but yeesh, he's 66 years old here-- (and has less than 10 lines--- and her character's motivation is too weak to ever be adequately 'splained (excuse me, when I'm on a rant I write like Ricky Ricardo). The Mary Bolton (Marguerite Chapman) character is written to as a eager wide-eyed moron, apparently existing only for the vapid romantic interest of horndog lawyer Tom Agnew (played by the ferret-faced Ted Osborne). Why is Willie Fern a character? Why couldn't McBirney's henchman pulled the switch at 8:20? (not a spoiler, okay?!). One wonders how, with the IQ of lint he manages to dress himself or why he hadn't stepped in front of a bus years ago. Toler himself is given a little more acting rope than usual (a plus) and the real kudos go to set designer Thomas Little and cinematographer Virgil Miller who created some genuinely spooky atmosphere... but this entry has less logic than a Ritz Brothers film. I'm still boggled by how a toothpick can be used as a blow gun.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... I am left with little choice but to employ it at least once during the course of my review of Respiro. Among other things, what defines pretension is in my opinion a lack of emotional sincerity on the author's part. Respiro seems made with an all too contrived and self-aware intent to be artistic, symbolic, spiritual, provocative, metaphorical... mythical, even. But luckily for all true artists out there, a predisposed formula to achieve artistic beauty and depth doesn't exist. Stunning natural locations (yes, these remote parts of Southern Italy look exotic even to most other Italians), pretty actors and some amusing, gutsy, spontaneous performances by a handful of attractive children won't elevate a substanceless movie beyond a pretty succession of images. Yet this insincere and vain, and ultimately hollow movie aches to be art, succeeding only to a very limited extent, perhaps in some cases by accident. I'll admit that the conceptually pompous ending does have a certain visual poetry to it. However, it's my belief that this was achieved in ways that had more to do with the beauty of the Lampedusa sea and the strong symbolic power of bathing and water (connecting it to so much that's mythical, mystical, religious, archetypical, etc) than with Crialese's talent.

Valeria Golino is gratingly histrionic and affected in her performance as Grazia. For a mentally unstable woman from a humble and provincial background, she sure has a fashionable wardrobe. Her flattering, floaty floral dresses and attractive, sun-kissed beach hair could have graced the pages of any Vogue summer edition. The fact she was a \"nutcase\" could in a way have been nothing but a fashionable addition to her trendy demeanour and look - that's how skin-deep her \"condition\" seemed to me. Golino's two-dimensional stereotype of the innocent, natural child-woman misunderstood and oppressed by her backward community was tiresome and irritating at worse, while leaving me unmoved and indifferent at best. I agree with the reviewer from London who wrote that mental illness is very badly served by cinema - during the course of the entire movie we never really get a sense of Grazia's illness and have no idea what is actually wrong with her (other than her being a tiresome stereotype of a \"free spirit\"). We don't know why she's given injections and is required to see a specialist in Milan. This generic way of writing mental illness is one of the main tell-tale signs of the movie's overall shallowness.

Another fairly insulting aspect of Respiro is the quaintification of its location. I struggled to figure out whether this movie was supposed to be set in the present day or the past, seeing as it aimed to make even an admittedly backward part of Italy (by comparison) seem a dozen times quainter and more conveniently primitive than it actually is. Again, this smacks of shallowness and a complete lack of sincerity on Crialese's part. Some non-Italian viewers will gleefully lap up the picturesque backwardness, the clich\u00e9 of the possessive, macho Italian man as if it were common-place, so keen will they be to continue viewing my country as one culturally stranded sometime in the 1950s (the question I'd like to ask David Ferguson, the reviewer from Dallas, Texas is as follows: is YOUR country's mentality stuck in the 1950s? No? OK, then why should mine be?). Unfortunately for whoever still wishes to view Italy in such an anachronistic way, that aspect of Respiro is actually ridiculous and phoney even in the eyes of THIS Italian viewer. The subtly incestuous tension between Grazia and her eldest son was as tiresome and predictable as Fabrizio Bentivoglio's sexist-but-loving-husband routine. I especially loathed the scene in which Grazia joins her husband and male friend in some man-to-man banter over a bottle of beer, to her husband's macho embarrassment and displeasure. According to this movie, it isn't a woman's place to take part in a man's conversations. Ah, but our \"loveable\" \"free-spirit\" is too good for this place and doesn't understand the oppressive, unwritten rules of Lampedusan patriarchy! Not only does this scene depict something so fake, it should be enough on its own to discredit the entire movie's credibility. It also completely gets the wrong end of the stick of the culture it strives to depict, clearly showing that it was written without a clear understanding of the location or its population. I would challenge anyone who knows contemporary Italy to say otherwise.

For a truly accomplished contemporary Italian filmmaker, one who in my opinion deserves to be listed among the greats of Italy's glorious cinematic past (which alas, isn't the shadow of its former self!), look no further than Gianni Amelio - especially Lamerica, Cos\u00ec Ridevano and his latest, La Stella Che Non C'\u00e8. Unlike most contemporary Italian cinema, sadly derivative and stagnant, Amelio's is a fresh and independently creative voice. Despite my scathing review of Respiro, I am now more than willing to believe that Crialese's latest Nuovomondo, now showing in Italian cinemas, will be a worthwhile one. I therefore look forwards to enjoying it, though it won't be overly shocking to me if I don't (considering my feelings for Respiro!).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The synopsis of this movie led me to believe that it would be a story of an unconventional woman challenging the conventions of the society in with she lives. I like strong female characters and expected a movie much along the lines of \"Chocolat\" with a less fairy tale and more bite. What I got was a cast of despicable characters.

For a character-driven movie to be effective, I need to feel a connection or compassion for the people. There was no one with whom I could relate in the movie. Grazia (Golino, whose work I admired in \"Rain Man\") portrays a mentally ill, probably bipolar, female that is often rude, aggressive and violent. Her husband bickers and yells, when he is not hitting or slapping someone. The children are rude brats. They yell at each other and the females in the movie. They attack other children with no provocation. Violence begets violence. This seems to be an island of unfeeling, aggressive, violent and rude people all the way around.

The direction is not compelling. There are intermixed scenes that attempt to be art, but instead bore the viewer. The location is exceptionally gorgeous, but even that fails to be captured to the degree that it could be on film.

I would have to recommend that you stay away from this failure of a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A lack of character development proves fatal for this movie. Valeria Golino's character Grazia starts out looking like a bipolar personality but quickly degenerates into a caricature and seems unreal. The other characters are thin, probably the writer's fault not the actors'. The only exception is Filippo Pucillo as the younger son Filippo: his energy and bravado are funny and convincing.

I suppose the children's petty cruelty is supposed to contribute to an atmosphere of bleakness and emphasize the pervasive primal spirits in the town, but for me, the gratuitous cruelty is redundant and contributes to the overall boredom of the film. Some scenes were amusing but not necessarily intended that way, for example, when the mistreated dogs turn out to be fat and healthy and look like they are ready to show. The pretty cast and setting make for an appealing trailer but cannot carry the whole movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry folks, but these enthusiastic reviews on this prestigious site about this movie \"Respiro\" are very strange, to say the least. Is craziness picturesque, I ask and didn't find an answer. Of course, the movie is beautifully filmed, at part it's almost a documentary. But then, the fact is that when it comes to the women Grazia, she shows every sign of a deep illness and I was wondering throughout the movie what the heck she has. Her behavior is absolutely worrisome and the (shocked) citizens of the village are very right indeed in wanting to send her off to a proper institution to see what can be done about her condition. She needs treatment, urgently! Behaviour like hers is inferno to everybody around her, her husband, the poor children (especially) and the fellow citizens. Let's not be falsely romantic about this! I hated this condoning portrait of a mentally ill. WHY, for God's sake, should the husband not want to have her cured or at least try to do this? Why the horror of going to Milan (a big city, sure, but lots of possibilities of capable persons to cure her)? Narrowmindedness? Irresponsibility? Anyway, I inspired myself on this site for renting the movie on DVD and after seeing it I HAD to post this for others to make themselves an opinion on it. Frankly, I understand why the movie did not get any further as an INDICATION to the Cannes selection...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This could have been a breakout role for Valeria Golino but the film instead decided to shift its attention to another area. The film is about a woman named Grazia (Golino) who is married to a fisherman and the mother of three. She is a free spirit and prone to outbursts so the rest of the village and her family decide she should be sent to Milan and see a doctor. The story takes place on the island of Lampedusa off of Sicily and it shows the everyday life there with the teenage boys in rivaling gangs and just trying to find something to do on the sun baked rock. Grazia's oldest son Pasquale (Francesco Casisa) adores her and is always trying to protect her during her bouts of depression. The daughter Marinella (Veronica D'Agostino) is a blossoming young girl who becomes infatuated with a local policeman and the youngest son Filippo (Filippo Pucillo) is very sassy and mocks the policeman's accent. Upon learning that she is to be sent to Milan, Grazia runs away and Pasquale helps her by hiding her in a cave while everyone searches for her. This film could have really made more of an impact if it could have concentrated its focus to Grazia. We do see some outbursts and irrational behavior on her part but their is no follow up to these scenes. Nothing comes of it. The film looks great and is beautifully photographed so give director Emanuele Crialese credit for that but the story needed to focus on something more substantial. The film does a good job of showing us what life is like on this island and what is going on in the lives of the three children as they grow up. Their is some speculation that Golino's character gives a hint of being a mermaid like creature and that is why she is having difficulty existing on land. I also sense that the island itself expects its inhabitants to behave in a certain manner and if you don't then you can be subjected to the harsh realities of its rules. All speculations but I do think the films attention could have stayed with the character of Grazia. After she hides in the cave she really has nothing to do. In a sense, the character becomes stagnant. I wish Golino had more to do because I've always liked her and whenever she is onscreen you just can't take your eyes off her. She's a bundle of fury, passion and raw energy! What a shame Crialese didn't write a more complete role for her to act in. When the film ends your left feeling empty from an incomplete story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To judge a movie just for the landscapes,decor,costumes....it is just not right , you are missing the core : THE STORY

A movie has to narrate something , to tell a story something that impress you . Yes , I was pleased by the sea , cliffs , clear water and all that but ... There is the plot ?

They are more interesting movies with mad people , such as : FLIGHT OVER THE CUCKOO\"S NEST...etc...etc. This one is about a crazy woman who is more attached to dogs than his children or his husband. Just a clear psychiatric case !!!! Nothing extraordinary.Unfortunately a waste of time . And there is all that rage coming from ? Fish smell ? Sea ?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst movie I have ever seen. It's a thriller with a rather ridiculous ending. I watched this movie hoping for the best and instead found something truly bad. the movie starred two actors that I like very much, Rebecca DeMornay and Antonio Banderas. Sure they had decent chemistry together but for what? The movie's premise was bad to begin with and the execution just made it even worst.

Miss DeMornay plays Sarah Taylor, a psychologist trying to analyze a convicted serial killer whose defense hinge on multiple personality disorder. That pretty much will give you a hint to where the movie is going and the identity of the killer. Early in the movie she gets an unexpected visit from her father. This being made in the 1990's when the bad daddy was the in thing in Hollywood is another clue to the ultimate conclusion.

Mr. Banderas plays a mystery man named Tony Ramirez, who comes into Sarah's life. The whole first meeting and first encounter between Tony and Sarah is so badly done and so unconvincing it makes you wonder how it even got shot. And there's a sequence where the two of them are supposed to be knowing each other that is so sappy it doesn't seem to belong here. One thing that I would admit was that there was a sex scene that's very hot. Anyway creepy things start to happen after he arrives, weird packages arriving, things falling off the wall that could kill Sarah, incident that say things aren't normal anymore.

Overall the movie was badly conceived, the editing at times seem jumpy, and the conclusion was laughable. Another thing that bugged me about this movie was the whole Orchestral music playing in the background. A more subtle musical score would have been better. I have to say this, no matter how bad the ending was, Miss DeMornay was very good in that sequence. It's sad that she never got first rate materials in her career. She's that rare combination of talent and beauty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man, is this lousy. It doesn't deserve much in the way of comment so, keeping it brief, Rebecca DeMornay is a highly disciplined police psychiatrist who falls for Latin Lover Antonio Banderas in a wine store, he of the ponytail and jail-house tats. When she cuts loose, she really cuts loose. Other than this torrid affair she's having (and we must admit the affair has its speed bumps) she's a pretty cold fish. Her broke, ailing father shows up for the first time in years and she boots him out. She's also adept at keeping her horny upstairs neighbor (Dennis Miller) at bay. And there's prisoner Harry Dean Stanton who's trying to maneuver her into giving him a diagnosis of multiple personality disorder so he won't have his privates nailed to the wall for the serial murders he's committed.

All these people, and perhaps more, are immediately suspect when strange things begin happening to her. Somebody sends her dead flowers. Somebody does unspeakable things to her pet cat. (The next time I see a household pet turn up in a parcel or strung up in the closet or boiled in a pot, I'm going to puke.) So who's doing it? Guess. No power on earth could force me to reveal the ending, but maybe a hint will help: childhood abuse.

The abuse excuse is an interesting business in itself, far more interesting than the movie. What does \"childhood abuse\" mean? Do we mean sexual abuse? Physical? Both? How about whacking a kid over the back with a wooden cooking spoon, hard enough to break it? That's what happened to me and my brother when we were kids, just as similar things happened to all the other errant boys in the neighborhood. Sexual abuse? That never happened to any of us, as far as I know, although I'm not sure it would have been rejected with any degree of animation. In the Samoan village I studied for two years, there was one case of an adolescent boy found playing sexually with a much younger girl. The girl's family beat hell out of him. The boy's own family sent him to live with another branch of the family in another village, an exile that lasted two years. By the time he returned the incident was forgotten by everyone, including the child. (By the way, the little girl we see here is under five so it's unlikely that she'd remember Dad's night-time visits in any case since long-term memory isn't really established until about that time.) DeMornay's experience leading to her mental disorder can be called \"the social construction of trauma.\" It's not there unless we put it there. Enough of the psychiatric lecture. That will be fifteen cents.

You want trauma? I'll give you trauma. The film absolutely forces us to identify with Rebecca DeMornay's character, right from the beginning. Then, when she has her first tryst with Antonio Banderas, and Pio Donnagio's score is pounding the eroticism into our heads, the camera gives us a shot from over her shoulder of the bare-torsoed Antonio crawling over us with his hairy chest. Now THAT'S traumatic. It makes any male viewer feel as if he's on the floor of the laundry room at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo. Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike Antonio Banderas. It's just that I'm not in love with him. There aren't enough nude shots of Rebecca DeMornay's elfin body in the entire universe to compensate for that kind of anxiety.

Here's an engaging way of surviving this movie. Instead of just sitting there puling, try picking out the scenes that were filmed in Toronto and separating them from the ones shot in Budapest. It's a challenge, really, and may, for all we know, preserve your sanity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rebecca De Mornay can be a fascinating beautiful actress but as for the parts she's given to play,if you cannot say something nice...

De Mornay portrays a woman who had terrible traumas as a child with a father she can hardly stand now that she's a grown up and has become a -of course brilliant- shrink.She has an affair with Banderas ,whom we suspect of being (ouch!how original!) a serial killer.Sometimes she recalls Banderas's mother-in-law Tippi Hedren's character in \"Marnie\" .But I wouldn't count on it:Hitchcock died twenty-four years ago ,and a lot of regents desperately try to replace him .Here the director pulls out all the stops to make a thriller with an unexpected end,but that ending is so far-fetched it is absolutely impossible to buy it.The movie includes the obligatory \"conversations with a serial killer\" in the \"silence of the lamb\" tradition,murders (human beings and cats),split personality,and open ending in case the crowds should call for more.Apparently they did not,and they were right.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry I couldn't be more expressive in my summary, but those two words seemed to describe the movie perfectly. This is not only a bad film, but a bad film with bad acting and a plot that will be inconsequential to most watchers.

See it only for a naked Rebecca De Mornay tied to a chain-link fence and moaning with 'ecstasy; supposedly 'erotic', but actually hilarious.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With so many good movies coming out in 1995 (particularly \"Mortal Kombat\" and \"Seven\"), unfortunately, there had to be some bombs as well, and this film indeed falls into the latter category with a boring, predictable plot and a lousy ending. It seems that Antonio Banderas hasn't been able to find a decent script since \"Desperado,\" the only remarkable film he's done. Anyone with an eighth of a brain could tell who DeMornay's stalker was from the beginning. Her flashbacks of the death of her mother did nothing but muddle an already paper-thin story. Pity that Dennis Miller was wasted in this film; this part resembles his eerily similar role in \"The Net.\"

The convoluted ending had me shaking my head, as I pretty much did throughout the entire movie. Plus, any film that depicts animal cruelty in any shape or form, no matter how fake it looks, automatically gets the thumbs-down from me.

To make a long story short, if you want to enjoy a good thriller, then avoid this at all costs. Never talk to strangers...especially those who recommend this movie. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought Sliver offered the most boring and trivial \"trick\" ending in movie history, but of course I was wrong. I had no disillusions that this movie was going to be good. Unfortunately, it was worse than I expected. The worst part is that the obvious ending is so ridiculous and horrible that you can't believe it until it actually happens.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This derivative erotic thriller remains watchable most of the way, mainly because a viewer is casually curious about how it will turn out, and because the director, Peter Hall, manages to stage a pretty hot (and quite bold) sex scene. But the finale, though unexpected, is preposterous, and the whole plotting (complete with childhood traumas and multiple-personality disorders) reveals itself to be unbearably cliched, especially as far as motivation is concerned. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a stinker!!! I swear this movie was written by a computer that took a whole pile of other movies and merged them all together into this platypus of film. Ouch!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Forgive me, but this work of director Peter Hall is horrendous. If you can't get to us with the plot, why not kill someone's cat or dog. That surely reaches the audiences. This viewer is tired of seeing animals sacrificed for the plot of a movie. And, believe me, I saw it coming before she opened the package. How predictable can you get. Take a cute animal then kill it in a gruesome way. I have never been a fan of De Mornay and this performance tells me why. Overacted and somewhat stagnant in interpretation, I found her rather silly and definitely boring. I did like Banderas, but felt bad that he had to play opposite De Mornay. He has done much better in other films namely \"Philadelphia\" where he had some honesty in his dialogue. In this chestnut he did his best to keep his character real. But the writers, Green & Rush, did a good job in preventing this with their trite storyline and insipid dialogue. Please, let us not be subjected to this kind of entertainment. Some of us aren't fooled by corny plots, bludgeoning animals and generally long winded dialogue. Seeing her get away with it, made me furious.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A few minutes in: \"NOT credible. What idiot wrote this?\"

But, \"What's going on...who's the bad guy...then there's that Rebecca De Mornay.\" Time passes....

THE END.

\"NOT CREDIBLE. What IDIOT actually watched the whole *@#! thing!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"weird.this is a TV movie,yet the rating on the box says it's rated R.there's nothing in the movie that would remotely qualify for an R rating.aside from that,though,the movie is very slow and pointless.i mean the idea was good,but nothing was done with the storyline.it just wasn't developed.it's mildly creepy,and the acting is actually quite good,better than the movie deserves.i don't see myself watching it again anytime soon,if ever.there have been other movies dealing with the same concept which are better made than this one.i haven't seen too many Wes Craven Films,so i can't really compare it to any of his others.as for this movie itself though,i think it is poorly conceived and poorly executed.for me,i can't give Chiller a higher rating than 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After his success with A Nightmare on Elm Street in 1984, director Wes Craven for some reason decided that his next project would be this TV movie. I'm not a big fan of this director on the whole; early exploitation flick The Last House on the Left as well as his modern slasher Scream sit well with me, but the rest of his work is very hit and miss and I'd hesitate to call him the master that others have labelled him as. The main theme here is cryogenic freezing, although it's more a springboard for the plot rather than an important part of the movie. The main influence here is obviously the excellent 1974 zombie film Deathdream and we focus on Miles Creighton; a businessman cryogenically frozen for ten years before an accident that means he has to be thawed out immediately. Miles is a part of a project for people that are ill; they pay to be frozen in the hope that they will be revived in the future when their illnesses can cured. Miles is successfully revived and it's seen as a miracle...but the person that wakes up is not the person who was frozen, as Miles returns without a soul.

This film could actually have been quite decent judging by the idea behind it, but instead we're given a plot that doesn't really have a lot to it and it has to be said that Craven doesn't make the best out of the potential of the film. The 'soul' is the main focal point, but it would seem that not having a soul and simply having a murderous intent\/no compassion are the same thing, which feels a bit unimaginative. The film was made for television so it's not particularly nasty and it's obvious that not a lot of money was spent on it as the whole production feels very cheap. Michael Beck never became a very popular actor and that isn't surprising judging by his performance here; while he is passable, he largely lacks charisma and is not formidable in the central role. The plot doesn't flow too badly but there's a real lack of suspense and\/or tension and things slow down too much too often, which results in the film being rather boring on occasion. It all boils down to a predictable ending also. Overall, I have to admit that I was not impressed at all by this film and as far as Craven's filmography goes, Chiller would have to go down with Shocker, the Scream sequels and The Hills Have Eyes II as a miss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I purchased a DVD of this film for a dollar at the big dept store. That's probably the best and kindest comment I have to offer on it. At least it didn't cheat me out of the cost of lunch.

The problem with \"Chiller\" is Craven's problem as a director. The man has his apologists who claim his traveling papers prove he's a really smart guy and all-around sharp conceptualist. But it's no secret that, as a director, he has never possessed one iota of the visual and story-telling sense of a Hitchcock. As vigorously attested by \"Chiller\", he's much closer to that legendary flat-foot Hershel Gordon Lewis. What Craven lacks as a director is the main ingredient that would lift him from director for hire to a higher plane of film- making.

Let's be specific. The transitional moments of this film are sleek. The establishing shots give it the feel of a quality production. The film looks professionally put together, in the way a film shot by a TV commercial director would. (A thought: The films only visual distinction, these transitions that at least look professionally handled may very well be the work of some second unit directors.) It's the parts between the bridges and smooth transitions -- the drama -- that fall flat.

The core of the proceedings are invariably perfunctorily handled. The critical shots (after, say, the departing car drives into the well-positioned camera, then we cut to the night exterior of a hospital, then to the waiting area and hallway, then to the phone booth in the corner that will figure in the next bit of action) are quickly dispensed so we can hurry up and get to the next part. Craven never comes anywhere close to exploding the dramatic or visual possibilities of any moment. The net result of all this misplaced attention to the least important parts, and the fumbling rush to keep things moving, is a film that feels like the work of the fledgling art student who sharpens all his pencils, fussily adjusts his easel and lighting set-up, grinds all his pigments, stretches and primes his canvas ...and then has nothing to say. Craven, like the art student, never gets to the meat of the exercise.

For Craven apologists who will point out that this film was made for TV, I will point to Spielberg's \"Duel\" and say no more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Interesting topic. Pathetic delivery - script and direction.

Our hero, Miles, thaws out and has his emergency world-first life restoration surgery. This is where the fun begins. The underlying issue is that Miles has NO SOUL!!! This is used to explain his quasi-erratic behaviour of being indirectly responsible for two deaths (I believe this to be the total number of deaths in 104 minutes).

On the livlier side, Miles prefers the odd glass of brandy, blazing fireplaces and his young, maturing female cousin. The finale does indeed do justice to this film.

Some thoughts: 1. Producer $$$ were parted with to create this tripe. J.D. Feigelson was the script writer and a (or sole) producer. Looks like he did not learn a lesson on \"how not to bring an interesting idea to life\" when one views his other writing credits. This will support the credibility of this script.

2. Now available on DVD!!! This IS truly scary. Should be forever \"Bottom of the Shelf\" in VHS format.

3. A re-incarnated human without a soul will default to an evil entity.

4. The score offers minimal support. Not even an in-form Jerry Goldsmith could save it.

5. Deserved the 0230 time slot on TV and a touch more entertaining than the infomercials + test patterns it was competing against at the time of my viewing.

6. Thankfully did not spawn any sequels ala Wes Craven's \"Nightmare\" franchise. Chiller Too: The Return Return of Miles, or something like that.

Despite my rating of 1, I still recommend this movie as a great example of how to kill an acting or script-writing career. This should apply to directing, however Wes Craven will eternally be exempt due to his sole good piece of \"A Nightmare on Elm Street\" 1984.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What was Wes thinking making this dribble? It does not jive well with any of his other work but then again he seemed to fall into a slight slump after making a A Nightmare On Elm Street. This can be seen by his follow ups 1.Invatation to Hell 2.Chiller 3.Hills Have Eyes II 4.Deadly Friend 5.Serpant and the Rainbow 6.Shocker all of these films were either mediocre our crap it was not until People Under the Stairs that he gained his momentum back and started to kick butt again. Chiller it'self has none of Craven's regulars and none of his suspense. The only good scene in when the old man has a heart attack on the stairs after graveling for his job.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do you know what farmers spray on fields ? That's right - Manure , so when the BBC decided to make a much hyped conspiracy thriller about GMOs and farming what we got was some of the smelliest manure the BBC has inflicted upon its audience

!!!! SPOILERS !!!!

FIELDS OF GOLD opens with a bunch of masked scientists in a lab where a female scientist ( According to the right on trendy BBC all scientists are women ) announces \" A new strain of wheat that will save the third world from hunger \" then the story switches to another equally bland scene . If you're going to make a thriller of any type shouldn't you open with a hook that grabs the audience ? DOCTOR WHO was brilliant at this as was THE X- FILES while 28 DAYS LATER opened with a hook that took place in a laboratory. I guess someone at the BBC didn't think this thriller needed a hook because the viewers had trailers stuffed down their throat for weeks in advance

As the ( Not very exciting ) story continues a couple of journalists ( One's a drunken man with morals lower than Bill Clinton and Dubya Bush combined while the other is a female journalist full of virtue ) investigating patients at a county hospital who might be getting bumped off via \" Mercy killings \" . It's at this point things start getting confused as the female journalist is threatened by MI5 spooks and the first episode ends with the main MI5 spook getting murdered

The second episode reveals that the patients at the county hospital have actually been dying due to being infected with a VRSA superbug . This is when things go totally hay wire . All throughout FIELDS OF GOLD the audience have been led to believe the intelligence services and the company shown in the opening sequence have been behind the deaths - But they're not . It turns out the bad guy is an organic farmer who has been manufacturing the VRSA superbug in his bedroom and the story ends via THE MATRIX camera work with the drunken male journalist setting fire to a field ridden with VRSA thereby spreading the superbug throughout the land

I find it impossible to say a good word about FIELDS OF GOLD . At the time of its broadcast I was both a member of the Scottish Green Party and Greenpeace . I have since renounced my time in the environmental movement but even now I am somewhat offended by how environmentalists are portrayed here and to have the bad guy spreading a fatal genetically engineered virus as a warning to the dangers of genetically modified organisms is very silly. It's a bit like a CND member letting off a nuke in London to warn of the dangers of nuclear war . I was also slightly offended as to how the male characters were written as being bastards while all the females were highly intelligent and morally superior to men . There's also other problems with the script especially with regard to VRSA . If unlike the scriptwriters you take the time and trouble to research VRSA you'll find it's entirely different from what is seen here . Oh and if you set fire to diesel it doesn't explode like napalm . Perhaps the worst criticism of the script is that it resembles JEEPERS CREEPERS structure wise whereby the last ten minutes contradicts most of what has gone before . Where as JEEPERS CREEPERS only lasted about 90 minutes FIELDS OF GOLD lasted twice that length so is doubly irritating and illogical

As a footnote environmentalism never makes a good theme for a thriller ( Anyone remember those Steven Segal movies ? ) and it's about time TV and film producers realized this","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie for the first time on NBC Friday 11-29-02. It was a pretty good movie, but I don't think it would be the kind of Muppet movie Jim Henson would make. I mean first of all, Pepe' using the word \"sexy\" every now and then, and Pepe saying \"it would suck?\" And I defenitly know Jim Henson wouldn't allow Kermit yelling \"I WISH I'D NEVER BEEN BORN!\" thirteen time a minute. This movie just isn't like a classic Muppet movie. Sure I can understand Nicky Holiday stealing the baseball diamond from \"The Great Muppet Caper,\" but a business lady cheating the Muppets in a contract for their theater to turn it into a smoker's nightclub. If Jim Henson was here today, he would HATE this movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I once saw a bit of this film, and was interested to see the full thing just to see why the critics give it two stars, the result being that I agree. Basically the film begins with Kermit the Frog (Steve Whitmire) telling all his Muppet chums that they have lost everything, and he ends sitting depressed (and possibly thinking about suicide) on the bench. Meanwhile, in another world (Heaven) angel Daniel (David Arquette, who had already been in Muppets from Space) visits the 'Boss' (Whoopi Goldberg, another reason I wanted to see the film) to show that Kermit really needs help. In the flashbacks, it shows Kermit, Miss Piggy (Eric Jacobson, not the original and better Frank Oz), Gonzo (Dave Goelz), Fozzie Bear (also Jacobson), Pepe the Prawn (Bill Barretta) and all the other Muppets have prepared a stage show for many people to see in the Christmas holiday, and it all seems to be going well. But the really mean Rachel Bitterman (Joan Cusack) is determined to either shut the show or the theatre down, and Kermit is doing everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen. Of course, Kermit fails the last time, and Bitterman tells him that they are finished, and she can officially take the theatre. This is where Daniel is sent as Kermit's guardian angel to try and help him, but Kermit is not in the mood, and eventually ends up saying \"I wish I was never born\". Obviously, you can recognise the spoof of It's a Wonderful Life, with Kermit as the George Bailey, and Cusack as the Mr. Potter, and in the end, obviously Kermit realises how much he means to everyone, and goes back to find the theatre saved as historical landmark. Also starring Whitmire as Rizzo the Rat and Beaker; Goelz as Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and Waldorf; Barretta as Dr. Teeth, Rowlf the Dog and Swedish Chef; Jacobson as Animal and Yoda (the only character who sounds similar to Oz's version), William H. Macy as Glenn, Matthew Lillard as Luc Fromage, Carson Daly, Molly Shannon; Scrubs' Zach Braff, Sarah Chalke, Neil Flynn, John C. McGinley and Judy Reyes, Mel Brooks as Joe Snow; Brian Henson as Scooter and Janice; Jerry Nelson as Robin the Frog, Statler, Pops and Floyd Pepper, and Kevin Clash as Sam the Eagle. The most memorable moment for me is the stage spoof of Moulin Rouge, besides that and the well known faces in it, not fantastic. It was nominated the Emmy for Outstanding Music and Lyrics for the song \"Everyone Matters\". The Muppets were number 47 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons. Adequate!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've been a fan of Jim Henson and his characters since the very beginning. The most beguiling thing about them was the love and innocence and camaraderie shown. Kermit was a role model of deep thinking and problem solving. A spiritual character, yet sweetly and believably so. All the other characters were slightly eccentric but it demonstrated how different kinds of beings can co-exist in a caring manner together, respecting each other's difference.

Following movies have somewhat kept the same vibe. Yet this \"It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie\" would have Jim Henson spinning in his grave. These characters have been completely re-written to be horny, nasty, selfish, and cheesy.

The cast goes on to portray God as an uncaring corporate head, with a mean streak. Angels as spineless, non-spiritual corporate staff, and the movie was so bad I had to stop watching. I had bought it for my great-nephew but fortunately I preview anything I give a child.

This movie deserved the trash bin instead and has no socially redeeming content or charm.

Shame, shame on the people who re-wrote the characters and departed from Jim Henson's original heart-centered, socially conscious version. It does a terrible disservice to a great hearted man who is no longer around to defend his creations.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's too slow paced and complex for children, and too lightweight and dull for adults. None of our family (6 weeks to 66 years) could be bothered watching it all the way through.

Are there jokes in it? I couldn't really tell. There was certainly some unnecessarily adult innuendo. There was probably a bludgeoning message of sorts, but I wasn't engaged enough to care.

The live talent are just stumbling and mugging their way through it. I have to wonder if they were actually being paid, or whether it was some form of community service or plea bargain.

\"Please, keep watching,\" whines Daniel; honestly, I wouldn't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am and have been a serious collector of Christmas related movies, TV shows, holidays specials, etc., for over twenty-five years. Please heed my warning and do not be mislead by sterling reviews & media hype about this movie. This is not a Muppett movie as we have come to know them, and is certainly NOT for children. The fact that this was produced for a major TV network is\/was no surprise considering their level of operation at this time. What is hard for me to believe, is that The Jim Henson organization stooped so low to become involved in this travesty of Christmas.I wish there had been reviews for me to read that would warned me before I wasted my hard earned money on this piece of trash.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am still waiting for that dark muppet film where we won't know how it ends from the beginning. I think Linklater could do one hes experimented with animation. This time I was intelligently not expecting such a thing but deeply wishing.

Joan Cusack sucked. She moved to a made-for-tv level lazily acting this one with cliched cynic. The muppets were more life-life than she was. A disappointment.

But then the entire film was, bar Pepe. I loved him. He was the only one to ever get me laugh(while Goldbergh as God got me choking and cursing). If we can't see a dark muppets than how about at least a PG:13 one with more of Pepe's controversial jokes and Animals metal-head, egg-nog-chuggin persona.

The worst Muppets I saw even the boring Christmas Carol beats this one out. The muppets need to avoid this over commercialized holiday.

5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I used to love the Muppets. The Muppet Movie, The Great Muppet Caper and The Muppets Take Manhattan were good family movies, cleverly written and fun to watch. I never thought I would see the day when they would jump on the Hollywood sleaze bandwagon, but here it is: Scooter as a caged rave dancer, Pepe making lewd and suggestive comments every five minutes -- this is not your father's Muppets. It's not Jim Henson's Muppets anymore, either.

This \"It's A Wonderful Life\" themed movie has its moments, but not enough to save it. I cringed while watching this with my children. I still have hope for their next movie, but this one was certainly a disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this film extremely disturbing. Treadwell is delusional and disturbed, to the point of probably suffering from a mental illness. The footage shown is him and not an actor, but yet it is showing behaviour that ended in death. Is it appropriate to show actual footage of a suicide? Let's not mince words. The film shows footage of behaviour that directly led to his death.

For those who think that Treadwell is some kind of hero, think again. The footage he shot is about him and not about the bears and foxes he claimed to be helping. He did no meaningful research into their habits or numbers and did nothing to actually protect them. All he did was run around in the bush and convince himself that he was better than everyone else. Reality is, by helping to desensitize the animals to humans, he exposed them to great risk. His self indulgent behaviour not caused his own death, but also the death of his companion Amy plus exposed his beloved bears and foxes to greater harm.

But I'm also concerned about Werner Herzog's actions in compiling this film the way he did.

A friend and I have had a long argument about this film who loved this film. He believes that seriously disturbed people make for interesting subjects and he cites the movie Downfall as an example. But in Downfall they use actors. We didn't see the real Madga Goebells put cyanide capsules into her own children's mouths.

There was something about using the real footage in Grizzly Man which reminded me of that horrible football stadium tragedy where people were being crushed to death and the photographers who could have helped, elected to simply keep recording the horror.

Herzog's film shows us that Treadwell's footage is more about Treadwell. But Herzog has done the same. His own personality and opinions are aired in this documentary, which is supposedly about someone else. Scenes such as the one where he listens to the tape are not necessary. We already knew what was on the tape because the coroner had told us. We didn't need Herzog shedding a tear with one of Treadwell's former girlfriends. It didn't add to the film.

The film showed us that Treadwell was very self-indulgent, but it also showed us that Herzog is as well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't reviewed on IMDb before but this documentary is so overrated that I felt compelled to vent. I wouldn't have even finished watching if I hadn't been a guest at someone's house. The film was poor on many levels: First - Treadwell's video footage was contrived. The more I watched, the more he seemed to be acting as a person desperate to be famous instead of one acting out of conviction.

Second - The others in the film, with the exception of Treadwell's parents and the airline pilot, were just as contrived and corny as he was. God, they seemed artificial.

Third - Treadwell's mission to protect the bears doesn't even make sense as he did more harm than good by making the bears grow accustomed to human presence. I believe that Treadwell really did love the bears but there is much research which indicates his efforts were misguided. Sometimes we have to sacrifice our enjoyment of wildlife to really help.

Fourth - The film's entertainment value wasn't half that of other wildlife films such as \"March of the Penguins\" and \"Winged Migration\". The filmmakers, in my opinion, did a poor job of sequencing scenes and gave little incentive to keep watching.

As a person who loves Alaska, bears, and other wildlife, I would love to see more people dedicated to the preservation of our wildlands. Hopefully their efforts will be less people-centered.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really seldom give either one or ten stars to any movie, but this was so awful, I had to make an exception.

I am a SciFi fan and have seen a few comedic takes on SciFi that I genuinely like. There just wasn't anything here to like.

I realize this was started with an extremely small budget by a film student. But even considering that, the sets and effect are bad. The cinematography is mediocre, but may be the best part of the movie.

The acting is bad. A sad state when the female voice-over for the computer is the best actor. The dialogue is bad. The script is very weak and the plot is incoherent and almost nonexistent.

The humor is not just subtle and sublime; it's nowhere to be found. As an example, a whole 20 minutes, of the 80 minute film, is spent on a lame 2 punch combo joke with the alien mascot and the elevator.

This was supposed to be a parody of everything from bad 50's SciFi to 2001. What we end up with though, is just a slightly updated version of an old 50's SciFi C-movie. At least those movies were funny because they took themselves seriously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is probably the only movie I have ever not been able to make it all the way through. Not only was it annoying and boring, but the low production values made it hard to make out the action and in some cases the dialogue. Avoid this one like the plague.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched a movie called Dark Talon, dated 1974. The credits to this movie are exactly the same as Dark Star, so I'm going to presume it was an alternate title. Dark Talon was nowhere near as funny as everyone else here states. The acting was lame, the editing slipshod, and overall stupid. At the beginning there's an annoying 1970's trucking song called \"Benson, Arizona\" that has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Basically the plot revolves around a small crew of an interstellar bomber that goes around bombing places that are unstable. The bombs are sentient and respond to people. The obligatory disaster disrupts communication between the bombs and the crew. One of the crewmen goes out and has an absurdly idiotic existential conversation with the bomb that made no sense whatsoever. The movie I saw was done in under an hour and a half, with commercials thrown in, so I suspect that Dark Talon is an overedited version of Dark Star.

The alien is an inflatable red beach ball spray painted with a pair of monster hands that it walks on. It was silly and unconvincing as an alien.

It's hard to believe that John Carpenter had a hand in this. His other movies were so much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a student film and it's a piece of crap. I would use much stronger language to describe it but then the review wouldn't be posted and the world needs to know- beyond any possible reasonable doubt- this movie REALLY SUCKS.

There seems to be a different ruler used when measuring an already famous director's early work. Like somehow it was genius that we were just too stupid to comprehend since he finally got it right now today. I'm not buying it. The early movie \"Bad taste\" made by the LOTR Peter Jackson's sucks and this \"early work\" from another famous director really sucks the same way too. These \"early works\" are representative of crappy everything, from budget to scripts to actors etc.. it all is bottom of the bucket trash. Don't be fooled by the big name.

If you like watching a handful of male 70's hippie burnouts pretend they could ever command a ship with the worst special effects you have ever seen- this is your movie.

I can't f*37449ing believe this thing won a golden scroll award for best special effects. That is a joke right? Or a joke award?

If you want to watch what this movie WISHES it was rent a season or three of Red Dwarf you smeghead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I made the mistake of watching \"Dark Star\" (1974) late one night many years ago. It was one of the stupidest movies that I have ever watched:

1. Bad acting.

2. Bad writing.

3. Scientifically stupid plot. (Destroying an entire planet because its orbit is unstable or in the way will only make matters worse: instead of having one large, easily avoidable object, you'll have thousands of smaller, but equally lethal and more difficult objects to track.)

4. Completely unrealistic characters. A painted beach ball as a space alien? The writers must have been doing too many drugs.

Not surprisingly, the majority of actors that starred in \"Dark Star\" never did anything else. Of those that did do anything else, the majority never acted again after Dark Star. Therefore, having Dark Star on one's acting resume was a death star to one's acting career!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This sequel is quite awful to be honest. I'm a fan of kung-fu movies and this is by far the worst I've seen. Bride with White Hair 1 was actually quite good and this is a huge disappointment. BWWH 1 was brilliant in some ways with an unique odd-ball evil bad guy.

The couple from the first movie played a small role in this movie. Instead the movie revolves around a bunch of uninteresting characters trying to seek revenge on their fallen clans. But there's no antagonist in this movie so the revenge is mute.

The worst part to this movie is the kung-fu or lack there of. They literally had a street style knife fight. The character at the end refused to fight because there was lack of choreography.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a real let down for me. The original Bride with White Hair is a great kung fu fantasy film but this one was pretty weak. I didn't care at all for the new characters who unfortunately dominated the screen time and the story wasn't well developed. While the first film was tragic and involving this one was tedious (as I merely counted the time to the end when the ill-fated lovers would actually meet). The action was poor in this one as well. The fights were not choreographed very well and there really wasn't much kung-fu at all. Just a few weak sword fights between the highly dis-likable Lui and one of Lin's henchwomen. Lin herself mainly uses a sort of telekinesis to throw people into walls and sometimes her hair, a far cry from the impressive showing with the whip and kung-fu she displayed in the previous film. I still gave this movie a 4 because at least it was fast pace and I did want to see what was going to happen at the end, though I (as most anyone who watched the first one) predicted it would go down the way it did and after seeing it I found it anti-climactic and wished they had either made a proper sequel or just left the story alone. I really recommend the first one but as for the sequel only fans of the genre and those who really want to see Lin as the bride one more time need apply.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unfortunately this is not one of those movies which at least make you laugh at their unbelievable stupidity. It has no entertainment value at all. It just plain sucks. I don't know where to start to explain how much this movie annoyed me. I think what really takes the cake is the unbearable soundtrack. It sounds as if someone took a simple beat and then, for the rest of it, let a 5 year old child run amok with a synthesizer and taped it. It's really that awful and as if that's not enough, there's not one scene in the movie without \"music\" (=noise). By the end of the movie, you're either deaf or already cut off your ears earlier. Which would at least keep you from falling asleep, since there is nothing happening in the movie to keep your attention. Just a lot of bad acting, a few cheap and unconvincing kills, no story at all (it just jumps from one scene to another and you as the viewer can try to make any sense of it) and in the last 30 minutes or so you can witness some of the worst \"special effects\" ever. It's extremely boring. Do not watch this movie! You could do something much more entertaining like staring at a wall or reading the phone-book. Did I mention how much the soundtrack sucked?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so bad and so cheap and so corny, I found this movie to be one of the most boring slow paced early 80's movies that I have ever seen. I like most 80's cheap horror movies but I would never rent this one again. It just did not make any sense. A family that lives in the woods invites their son, his wife and their daughter to spend time with them for the holidays and during the movie for some reason the mother and daughter- in- law do not get along well. We never figure out why until almost till the end of the movie but until then, all we see is the fact that the mother has some form of ESP and the daughter- in- law is having nightmares and flashbacks of a catastrophe of what will happen to unfortunate victims to this \"thing\" that we have no clue as to what \"it\" looks like, all we see is a bright light signaling his approach and all we hear is a cheap interpretation of Darth Vadar voices and a soundtrack stolen from various horror movies. Then when we finally find out what and who it is all I did was laugh. This \"killer\" turns out to be some kind of alien Japanese warrior from WW2 who has apparently come back to life to claim the mother and her family. And all the mother does is stand there in front of the living room shaking with her hands on fire or something like she's going into some kind of convulsion. This movie is pathetic! Avoid it, it's not even worth renting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No wonder a lot of us hate classical music; and what are the children to think? With \"educational\" PR like this, serious music will soon slip from life support to the morgue. Kids know when they're being talked down to, and this is no exception; why can't someone good do a movie about classical music for kids? I must admit, I enjoyed the actor who played Beethoven, he took to the role with enthusiasm and a keen balance of the poignant and humorous aspects of Beethoven's character; he obviously did his research. Otherwise, this is a third rate rehash of the old ABC Afterschool Special format, with none of the occasional charm those short films had. Sorry about the rant, but this is an important subject for young people to know about, and it could have been done well; I wonder if musicians or filmmakers were responsible? Either way, the kids are hipper than you think, folks...

Medtner","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Beethovan Lives Upstairs is a very bad movie. In my World History class, our teacher had us watch this movie and Amadeus to be able to compare the two composers or something. We watched Amadeus first and it was a very good movie, but when she had us watch this movie directly after that, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. The acting was horrific, the costumes were ugly (the little boy's was especially ugly and girlish), and the cinematography was z-grade. My Friend compared it to a home movie without the date display in the bottom right corner. I understand this was a T.V. movie from Canada and probably cost $10 to make, but please, they could have done better. I have seen a few good T.V. movies in my time, but this was not one of them. The biggest thing that I don't understand is why my World History class couldn't just watch Immortal Beloved or something. How is it possible to compare composers when given the movie Amadeus, for Mozart, and Beethovan Lives Upstairs, for Beethovan? It's not possible to do that when this is the choice of movie for Beethovan. I give Amadeus an A- (9 out of 10) if anyone cares to know, but Beethovan Lives Upstairs gets an F (1 out of 10).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It has been a tradition since my first VHS recorder for me to collect several of the incarnations of the old chestnut by Charles Dickens, and I taped this one and \"Karroll's Christmas\" this year. Fortunately, when this one was run on the Hallmark Channel at the unGodly hour of 3 AM, I was spared having to edit commercials from it. This was, however, it's only saving grace.

The writing was excruciatingly dull with almost no clever scenes to save it from being anything more than a teeny-bopper soaper like Beverly Hills 90210. In this one, a good man who was cast aside for her celebrity seems the only logical explanation for her transformation into a Scrooge-like TV talk show hostess. It wasted Dinah Manoff who just plays bitch goddess to the other bitch goddess Tori Spelling (who, by the way, had more coats of paint on her face than some colonial houses) and Bill Shatner is perhaps one of the few fun things in this otherwise dreary adaptation.

Some of the best opportunities are wasted like the entrances of the ghosts. Aunt Marla's entrance could have been spectacularly funny in the hands of a decent writer, but this Christmas turkey didn't have one, evidently.

Tori Spelling may be a lovely person, but she has all the acting skill of a mannequin, and that makes for a bad show all by itself.

Yes, it was good to see Gary Coleman work again, but the script gives him nothing to do really except roll his eyes and spout truly lame dialogue.

And what is most infuriating was that the transformation from Scroogedom to Tori \"sweet and light\" is as convincing as a passionate conservative. Now, if anyone wants to write the ultimate Scrooge tale of a George Bush and Karl Rove, we might have a refreshing change from the usual bad Christmas Carol Clones.

I suppose if you're a fan of Ms. Spelling and\/or 90210, this might be your cup of Christmas cheer. I'd prefer a stiff shot of scotch and a cold beer to wash it down myself. This one I just may cast away before it is with me here for a long long time.

God save us everyone!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first saw this DVD in a bargain bin for three dollars, I really couldn't believe my luck: a Christmas movie starring Tori Spelling, William Shatner, AND Gary Coleman??? Needless to say, I snatched it up immediately and considered it a worthwhile investment.

The movie itself was just as bad as any movie you'd expect to be combining Christmas and the three aforementioned \"celebrities.\" The dialogue was inane, the characters were one dimensional, and Carol's character arc was completely unbelievable. The movie itself was a lifeless piece of boring that refused to end and made me feel used as a human being when the end did finally come.

My advice: Don't watch this movie unless you have to and then only under the influence of some serious holiday eggnog.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Given that Roger Corman attached his name to this production, I had high hopes for this film. Corman directed many memorable low budget horror flicks in the 1960's. I particularly enjoyed his adaptations of Poe's stories such as `The House Of Usher,' and `The Pit And Pendulum' and `The Raven' which starred the late great Vincent Price. These films had solid acting, atmosphere, suspense, strong characterization, intriguing plot development and delivered some chilling moments. Sadly, `House Of The Damned,' for the most part, sacrifices these qualities in lieu of cheesy low budget special effects, gratuitous nudity and mindless gore topped with cliche fast edits and camera angles.

`House Of The Damned' starts off interestingly with some beautiful location shots in Ireland, but it's straight downhill from here. Unfortunately, instead of spending some time building atmosphere, creating characters we might care about, or building suspense - the director opts to begin running up the body count. After a brief introduction to the lead characters, a young couple and their daughter, the audience spends the balance of the film being bounced from one `spooky' event to another which, in this film, substitutes for coherent plot development. The lead characters are so ill conceived and are so badly acted - the audience doesn't care what happens to them. To make matters worse, the `spooky' events are either utterly clich\u00e9 or unconvincing due to low tech - low budget special effects. The soundtrack has been lifted from `The Omen.' The plot, what little there is, borrows heavily from `Poltergeist' and `The Legend Of Hell House,' but lacks any of the qualities which made these films convincing.

If you interested in seeing well done haunted house flicks, I recommend you check out classics like `The Haunting (1963),' `The Innocents (1961) or look into Corman's early American International films and pass on `House Of The Damned' unless you're masochistic or mindless.

3 \u00bd out of 10.

Rob Rheubottom

Wpg, MB. Canada","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a letdown in many ways. The location filming in Ireland, though quite beautiful at times, cannot save this uninspired flick. Greg Evigan and Alexandra Paul, as the married couple trying to get their marriage back on track and who inherit a haunted mansion, just aren't interesting characters. Paul, towards the end of the film, becomes incredibly annoying and one wishes she would just close her mouth and shut up, as it seems she is screaming as if it has just become an Olympic event! Other problems with this film are odd segments that have nothing to do with the core of the film, such as the opening sequence with two cleaning women and the woman in a bed with a severed hand climbing over her writhing, naked body. Although the woman is quite adequate doing this it does nothing storywise. One is left thinking the production team needed to pad out a short running time and just tossed in some padding and a bit of T and A. The CGI effects are cartoonish as well and the fiery finale rivals co-executive producer Roger Corman's much earlier and far superior film The Fall Of The House Of Usher in all its ineffective cheapness. Any attempt at true tension and suspense, and as a result chills, are thrown out the window in this low budget bust. If you like images of Ireland you might find something here but you would do better renting or buying a travelogue. Skip this unless you are undiscriminating and think plot is secondary. Rent another low budget ghost story(if you can find it) titled The Woman In Black and see how good and scary a movie can be. This was a wasted opportunity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a clumsy mishmash of various ghost-story and suspense-thriller conventions, none of them fully realized and all of them rather irritating. The script was perfunctory. The acting, ditto. The scary FX were mostly laughable except for one exquisite seat-jumper moment that scared me even though I saw it coming a mile off. Now, explain to me someone why you would need ghosts, AND black magic, AND arcane ritual objects, AND Count Crapula CG boogeymen, AND psychic investigators, AND family curses, AND Irish superstitions, AND bowls of milk left out for the supernatural beings, AND possessed dollies, all in the same movie? With all that you would expect more than one good moment of horror, but this movie is lame, lame, lame.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"New Year's Day. The day after consuming a few too many vodka martinis and Cosmopolitans mixed with a bunch of bubbly at midnight, my wife and I discovered the local cable company is offering up the digital specialty channels for free for the month of January. We had a choice - do we make use of the freebie channels or do we start watching the eight seasons of X-Files on DVD that we received from our daughter for Christmas?

We elected for the digital freebie since the DVDs are going nowhere and we need something like ten twelve-hour days to watch all the X-Files beginning to end. The Drive-In channel was offering a horror classic three movie marathon: Asylum (1972), House of the Damned (1996) and The Pit and the Pendulum (1961). Asylum is well-reviewed here and the Pit and the Pendulum was on too late for us to watch which meant we could really only be properly critical for House of the Damned.

To be honest, we tried to be serious about the movie since its stars have reasonably good acting credentials - Greg Evigan (William Shatner's over-written Tekwars) and Alexandra Paul (the only Baywatch babe who could act although she has the body of a ten-year-old boy). Unfortunately, we soon dissolved to giggles, under the influence of a little hair-of-the-dog, as we each shouted out the names of movies from which this dog borrowed its scenes: Poltergeist, The Shining, Hell House, House On Haunted Hill, Ghost Busters!

The acting, especially by Evigan's real-life daughter, wasn't too bad considering the silly script they had to work with. The CGI, for 1996, was hilarious - at its worst point in the final scene when it should have been the most horrific it was so bad my wife and I dissolved in laughter.

Overall: Acting 4\/5, Script 2\/5, SFX 0\/5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Strange things happen to Americans Will (Greg Evigan), Maura (Alexandra Paul) and their young daughter Aubrey (Briana Evigan, Greg's real life daughter) when they move into a large, newly inherited house in Ireland. Crusty corpses are found in the cellar, a turkey squirts blood, furniture moves and the ghosts of a dead child and a cackling old lady show up to scare the little girl. Paranormal investigators are eventually called in to banish the evil spirits, but Maura becomes possessed anyway and chases everyone around with a meat cleaver.

This film is full of cliches, but there's a standout performance from Alexandra Paul... too bad it doesn't belong in this movie (nor any other I can think of off hand)! She can barely keep a straight face and her over-emoting and hysterical screaming tantrums are a joy to behold. In any case, she's a lot more interesting to watch than anything else in this movie.

Score: 3 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"House of the Damned\" (also known as \"Spectre\") is one of your low budget haunted house horror flicks, filled with mediocre performances and cheap effects. It is about a family that inherits an old Irish mansion, and after moving in begin to experience strange phenomenon and ghostly apparitions, including the ghost of a young girl who was murdered and buried within a wall in the mansion's basement. The couple's young daughter is then whisked away into some other dimension and they seek help from a group of paranormal investigators for help.

The ideas this film borrowed from the 1982 haunted house film \"Poltergeist\" are obvious. I will say that this movie does have some slightly creepy sequences, but it is sometimes very, very boring. The acting here is nothing special, the mood is alright, the score (which was mostly this dramatic Irish opera music) was somewhat annoying, and the CGI special effects are really horrible. I mean, it was 1996, you would think they could have done a little better than they did. The ending where the house was on fire was the poorest special effect I've seen, very very cheap. But hey, this was a cheap movie.

Also, the translucent monster wolf thing that their daughter sees looks horribly fake. And what was it's significance in the film anyway? What the heck does a wolf-monster have to do with a haunted house? The special effects in here are what really ruined this movie. The acting was pretty bad too. I usually enjoy many low budget horror films, but not this one. \"House of the Damned\" is nothing special at all, only consider watching it if you have nothing better to do. But you'll probably want to pass on it. 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this Film one midnight and I can say that it worse than other horror film about a Haunted House.Alexandra Paul is not one of the best actress but she can do the role better,The little girl get worse this is a example about a Bad actress,she has not got future in the great world of films. SENTENCE FOR HOUSE OF THE DAMNED:BAD","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has got to be the worst movie I have ever seen. The part where they loose there daughter? with the poltergeist overtone rip off? just pushes it over the edge with stupidity. I watched it on showtime so it still had the cheese soft-core porn scenes in it. I have to say it made me laugh my ass off. The 80's 3d effects were very out of place. Included an invisible cat and a spinning vortex. Wow I wonder if the people who made this actually feel accomplished in life. The actress who plays the wife looks familiar but sucks anyhow. Her screaming could be used as a torture device in hell for more than retired Nazis. Anyways thank you showtime for the super crappy horror movie. I will always enjoy the time I watched the biggest waist of time and money I have ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Butter Battle is an entertaining story about two fictional cities and their arms race. It is also as misguided allegory about the Cold-War and arms races in general. Yes, it is a children's book, but like so many of Theodor Seuss Geisel's works it hits people over the head with its moral.

And that moral is what, exactly? Sure it is laudable to encourage us to concentrate more on what unites us than what divides us. It is even a good thing to encourage international cooperation. But to equate the differences between the Warsaw Pact nations and the Nato west to a difference in butter application is just plain wrong. To point out the obvious, many Warsaw Pact nations enjoyed intermittent periods of shortages of butter and bread -- they would have been happy to eat it butter sideways if it were available. On a less literal level, and whatever your political inclination, Soviet socialism versus Western (particularly Anglo-American) democracy is not a mere question of preference and custom.

To make the point even clearer, nuclear weapons were not developed in a Cold War with the Soviets, but in a hot war with the Axis powers. There is no doubt that Germany was developing nuclear capability during the war. Should the US have refrained from nuclear weapons research putting their trust in their (less than inevitable) victory in the conventional war? Once the weapons were developed they were used against the enemy who attacked us at Pearl Harbor. What does a nation do at this point when the genie is out of the bottle? Furthermore, hindsight is 20-20, which is to say that there was no way of assuring another half crazed dictator wouldn't crop up with his eyes on developing nuclear weapons. The second Gulf War has shown the incredible difficulty in ascertaining credible threats and neutralizing them.

In any event, the cartoon is little more than simplistic propaganda which does little to explore the nuances of the ethical questions behind nuclear armament and instead tries to inculcate fear of weapons technology into children.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It just so happens that IVAN THE TERRIBLE, PARTS I and II both had entries in the 50 Worst Movies book by Harry Medved. Now, I do think that declaring they are among the worst movies ever is an overstatement, though they are still both pretty poor films--particularly the first one, as it featured more eye rolling and \"googly eyed looks\" than I have ever seen before!! Director Eisenstein and an awful lot of other people out there thought this made the film \"artsy and profound\"--and since I am legally sane, I must say that I hated this first film!! The second, while still very incomplete-looking, is a vast improvement, as eye rolling is minimal, though overacting and long boring scenes are present in this film just like in part 1! While part 2 looks pretty incomplete and needed at least another hour (especially since it never gets to Ivan's insane behavior later in life--like killing his son and heir while in a fit of anger). Since both parts 1 and 2 were commissioned by Stalin to both excuse his own murderous reign and glorify him, it's no surprise that Ivan's life story is left very incomplete. Even without all the truly awful behaviors of Ivan, apparently the supremely evil Stalin STILL didn't like the film and wouldn't allow its release during his lifetime. Maybe he didn't allow this because he was more worried people would see what a HUGE waste of money and resources the film was instead of seeing Stalin as a crazy guy just like Ivan!

By the way, there was one segment of this tedious film that was just so cool that the film merits a 4 (without it, a 2)--and that's the scene with Prince Vladimir at the banquet! It is well-done and pretty funny in a dark way. And, the scene was done in a Russian version of 2-color Technicolor. This is VERY odd, by the way, because by the mid-1930s, a vastly improved true color process was developed by Technicolor that no longer made everything look all orangy-red and greenish-blue. So, this film during the color sequences looks a lot like a silent or early sound color film. Very odd indeed for the 1940s.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I do not generally appreciate light-weight attempts at creating humourous stories, which means that \"Anita no perd el Tren\" cannot score very high for me. The story is good: a middle-aged but still good-looking woman finds a new love. But the attempts at making this film as a romantic comedy only managed at times to be somewhat comical.

Rosa Mar\u00eda Sard\u00e0 has ably demonstrated that she can be a serious actress in such productions as \"Amic\/Amat\" (qv), \"Todo Sobre mi Madre\" (qv), \"Las Amargas L\u00e1grimas de Petra von Kant\" (qv) and \"El Embrujo de Shanghai\" (qv). However the powers that be have over the years dished her out a lot of trivial stuff, for the cinema and for TV. Something similar could be said of Jos\u00e9 Coronado: perfectly able to produce serious performances. Mar\u00eda Barranco belongs safely in this grouping.

Such that, in the end, I was left with the feeling that I would be real pleased to see a new making of this film, in a serious tone, which would allow the actors to really show their performing skills. And the curious thing is that it should be done with exactly the same leading actors. Wasted talent on a rather silly film that could have been very promising indeed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I normally wouldn't waste my time criticizing a useless movie such as this. However, I'm off of work this week, so I have plenty of time to wallow in meaningless trivialities. To start, let me say that I frequently enjoy non-commercial, non-mainstream, non-American cinema. (Feel free to click on my user profile for a supporting filmography.) That said, there are plenty of bad movies that are released in countries outside of the U.S. Trust me, I've been tortured by hundreds of them. \"Lost In Beijing\" is one particularly bad film.

The opening half hour is an impressive, non-stop exhibition of moral degeneracy. This film provides some classic morals that belong on the same level as Kim Ki-duk's \"Bad Guy\" (2001).

1. women actually enjoy being raped; 2. rape should be glorified, praised, and respected; 3. feel free to rape any woman you like, because while your \"doing\" her she'll eventually start to like it and reach orgasm; 4. if you're wife gets raped, make sure you blackmail her rapist for lots of money, but if he doesn't pay, just repeatedly bang his slut of a wife as compensation; 5. if you're wife gets raped, be sure to screw and degrade her the next day while playing the role of the rapist, taunting her with lines like, \"Did he fu*k you like this?\"; 6. if you're husband is a rapist, just accept it; 7. after you personally get raped, befriend your rapist and hang out with him whenever possible.

How can anyone in their right mind care about any of these characters? They're nothing more than a bunch of degenerates who not only live their lives in careless ways, but actually revel in their meaninglessness and support each other. Don't misunderstand me though. I'm very capable of enjoying films that depict lifestyles and morals that are contradictory to my own. \"Ichi the Killer\" (2001) and \"Moonlight Whispers\" (1999) are very interesting portrayals of sado-masochism. \"Strange Circus\" (2005) is an exceedingly perverted play on child sexual abuse. \"Marriage Is A Crazy Thing\" (2002) is a scathing indictment on traditional marriage. Even religiously-based movies like \"Running On Karma\" (2003) and \"Samsara\" (2001) have entertained me on occasion. The difference is that those films actually have some interesting psychological content and character development to them, whereas \"Lost In Beijing\" has virtually none.

It's known that people with unorthodox mindsets exist on this planet, but without some kind of character development or psychology behind the acts themselves, you end up with a superficial exposition of despicable behavior. Why, exactly, does Bing Bing eventually befriend and care for her rapist? Why does the wife of a rapist accept his behavior unconditionally? The filmmakers never bothered to tell us. Even the obvious juxtaposition of rich and poor classes was ineptly conceived and in the end served as a mere situational ploy. It all feels too bland and forgettable after the filthy opening half hour subsides.

Other reviewers here seem to have confused moral ambiguity with complex characterization. The reason you can't choose which person to root for is because they weren't developed properly. Don't think that this movie has complex characters just because they're not clearly defined. On the contrary, the reason they're not clearly defined is because we know nothing about them or what they're thinking. This is hardly a positive attribute of this movie.

On the positive side, the camera-work and acting are quite good, but everything else just gets duller and duller as the film progresses. You can place this alongside trash like \"Turning Gate\" (2002), \"What Time Is It There\" (2001), \"Irreversible\" (2002), and the aforementioned \"Bad Guy.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I picked out this DVD out of the cheepo bin at Walmart because the cover showed one of the planes I flew during Viet-Nam (C-123k). I did not fly for Air America, but knew being a C-123 pilot, I knew a lot who did, including those who flew in my Reserve Unit back home. I am not a movie critic, but wonder about the subliminal motivation of Directors and Writers who make movies like this. The best part of this movie has to go to the cameraman. The flying shots and stunts (although totally cartoon like) are excellent. The movie begins with Hollywood's favorite fall guy in 1969. But the fact is, Nixon did not start Air America, he did not begin the lies. Johnson was responsible for Air America and Nixon inherited the lies, the war, and Air America. Its not fair or accurate to portray Nixon as a liar on the subject of Air America. All President's have inherited the lies of their predecessors. Nobody smart enough to fly a C-123 was dumb enough to not know what they were joining. That makes the Downey character unbelievable. A C-123 was a rugged airplane. It could easily fly on one engine, or the two auxiliary jet engines. The three stooges shooting a duck with one shot is more likely. Pilots who flew with Air America were civilian employees of the CIA, they were not reckless soldiers of fortune. They had a good reason to behave and believe in a future, if they survived their extremely dangerous job. They were given double time towards a retirement pension. They weren't required to sell dope or guns to get a good pension. Dope was legal and a way of life in SEA, as it still is today in Afganistan. If individual pilots tried to make money on the side, it was not CIA policy. The CIA was fighting a war on communism, not drugs. The writer based his story on \"war stories\". Pilots love to BS anybody who will buy them a beer and listen. The writer and Director who had an ax to grind about Viet-Nam and Nixon. See the movie, and remember how it starts - it blames Nixon for what existed for years. Remember, he didn't become President until Jan 20, 1969.

My favorite scene is the landing up hill in the jungle. Air America pilots put planes in places the aircraft designers never thought possible. Their were plenty of funny stories that could have been shown. Instead, the Director chose to use the oversize rubber scene to show how dumb the CIA was. This scene shows that the Director and writer fell for some pilot bar talk and the joke is on them.

MDS Fort Valley Virginia.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Skilled professionals live it up in an exotic and dangerous location. They get drunk every night. They smuggle opium. They drop pigs in parachutes. They fly under impossibly hazardous conditions. They dress weird and act weirder. They're iconoclastic, outrageous. They violate every rule of command and have contempt for their employers at the CIA. They're irreplaceable.

Nope. It's not \"Only Angels Have Wings\" and it's not \"M*A*S*H.\" It's an uneasy mixture of the two that unfortunately comes across as more silly than funny.

It aims at shock, amusement, and education, but doesn't really achieve its goals.

As far as its shock value is concerned, well, we're inured by now, aren't we? Does it really shock anyone that a bunch of hard-living pilots flew secret missions in Laos in the 1970s? No, it's not shocking. It's not even educational now, under our current circumstances, when it would be interesting to learn that some paramilitary excursion was NOT buried in a file labeled National Interest, Defense de Toucher. That's okay. So we've been wised up a little and are no longer neither so shockable nor so dumb.

The problem in this case is that the film depends on those very qualities for its power to amuse. Without that, the film implodes. A group of shaggy drunken CIA pilots are sitting around in a cat house, goosing the girls, shooting out the lights with a silenced pistol, killing lizards with same. Asks newbie pilot Robert Downey, Jr., \"When you guys act like this does it mean there's something to celebrate?\" Replies another, guffawing, \"No, it means it's night time.\" That might be funny if we expected renegade pilots to be as upright as the rest of us. If we don't, the gag, like the movie, falls flat.

There are action scenes naturally. Everything that can possibly happen in or to an airplane in flight happens in or to an airplane in flight. People fall out of them, baggage is thrown haphazardly out of their hatches, engines fail, they sustain damage from AAA, the are torn apart during crash landings, but we've seen most of this elsewhere, often done better.

Some might find this funnier than I did, and the acting is pretty good. Robert Downey Jr. is especially effective as the straight man. Check out the other comments and if they describe a film that you might find appealing, then by all means watch it. There might be some laughs in it that escaped me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Roger Spottiswoode isn't the worst director, and he did a good job on the underrated sci-fi thriller \"The Sixth Day\" (a.k.a. \"The Box Office Downfall of Mr. Schwarzenegger\"). However, \"Air America\" has to be one of his most inept projects.

It comes across as an amalgamation between drama, comedy and war film - it's not a very convincing mix. In fact, I found it to be overbearing.

Robert Downey, Jr. (during his heyday) stars as a pilot recruited into a top secret CIA organization operating during Laos in the Vietnam era. Mel Gibson plays his co-pilot and he stumbles upon the knowledge that they're trafficking drugs, and what not.

The movie was hyped on release because it starred two famous faces and Aerosmith had re-recorded the Doors classic \"Love Me Two Times\" for the soundtrack.

The redo of the song is pretty poor, which suits the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That this movie has been stapled to the wall of a chapel as proof that God is truly dead. Am I the only one that really saw (rather sleptwalked) through this \"film\"? This is the only movie I've ever seen in the theater that I regret not walking out on and demanding my money back -- it was just that dull. And I even saw \"Highlander 2: The Quickening\" at the local cinema. From beginning to end, Gibson and Downey have absolutely no chemistry as two unlikelies, cast together by circumstance, who eventually work together as best buddies. The action (what little there is) is goofy and as dull as the skullbone of the writer. Thank whatever deity is chortling down at us as it observes our \"cinema\" that there's no chance for an \"Air America 2.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm normally a fan of Mel Gibson, but in this case he did a movie with a poor script. The acting for the most part really wasn't that bad, but the story was just pointless with flaws and boring. I thought I would like the movie a little but I didn't like it at all actually. I give it a 1 1\/2 out of 5!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I decided to watch this movie because it has been noted as the \"scariest movie ever\" so, that's what I expected. Unfortunately, what I found out is that the movie didn't have a single scary moment in it (and I'm the kind of person who jumps very easily). The movie was nothing but terrible clich\u00e9s and every time there was a jump-moment it was incredibly obvious. The pros of this movie would be the music and the odd scene thats actually shot well (like the very last scene when she opens the door and you see Tun in the reflection and when it swings back to him you see the ghost on his shoulders). Overall, this movie really added nothing new to the J-Horror genre and all-around lacked creativity and scares.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I should explain that as far as this trend goes for ripping off Asian horror movies, this Shutter is a head above The Grudge, and Dark Water, while still not achieving the same amount of atmospheric creepiness that The Ring establishes.

Still though movies, like life, don't exist in a vacuum and are therefore up for comparison to other suspense\/thriller\/horror movies. Honestly, I'm not writing a lengthy synopsis here and will say that this movie attempts to rely on music induced \"startle\" scares rather than atmosphere and the \"ghost\" itself really isn't that remarkable. The plot is pretty basic and predictable and isn't anything to write home about either. While there are a few suspenseful scenes that border on creatively scary, most of the movie is pretty vanilla. If you enjoyed The Grudge and it's ilk then you might enjoy this.

Grade: C-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know, but the movie was just too similar to other movies I've seen. The Ring, The Eye, Dark Water, they're all the same to me. Don't get me wrong, it's beautifully made, lovely camera work, great graphics, but that story is just too.. too common. In the end, it's the score that makes the suspense, you know: the screams, rumbles. The characters in the movie are also not reacting very naturally, moving very slowly, surprised by anything they see. I know some people that love this kind of film, and if you do, being a well made movie, I guess it doesn't hurt to watch it. But if you've seen the movie I've mentioned above and didn't like them, then I'd suggest you don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i have seen many Japanese horrorfilms and i have to say that some of them are really interesting but they are all pretty much the same. this one is no exception. the ghost is a black haired girl, that scares it's victims by doing nothing else than walk and look dead.. the difference is just the motive for the haunting. the rest is the same as every time: black haired girl, strange things happening with some media (photos), creepy acting. while watching this flick i constantly found myself asking why i was wasting my time watching stuff that someone else has done so much better before. some scenes where quite nice though, i'll give it 3 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of my co-workers recommended this one, implying that it was one of the most frightening movies she ever watched. I checked it out together with my girlfriend and we gave up after 50 minutes or so.

Yesterday, I had a long talk with my co-worker (we're still friends!).

This movie is as original as the latest film starring Steven Seagal. It brings absolutely nothing original to the table. The spooky parts have been done thousand of times before.

The biggest fault however is the painfully slow pace of this movie. The periods between the scares are completely wasted with meaningless dialog and a lot of.. nothing..

1 of 10 Molotov cocktails","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I absolutely positively can't believe my fellow IMDb reviewers. All the praise about how \"original\" this movie is, it's like they've never seen \"Ring\" or the million of imitations that's come out in the 10 years since that movie. And some of them claim to be horror movie buffs! I think not! \"Shutter\" is okay. Average, I'd say. I give it 5 out of 10, but there's just no way it's original and great and \"the most frightening thing I've ever seen\" as one reviewer said. Puh-leeeze, people. This one is plain. It's predictable.

I swear, if I see another ghost movie where the hero traces the past of the ghost in order to find out why she's so mad and after them, I'm going to scream.

\"Original\"? Give me a break. You people need to get out more. Or at least stop calling yourselves \"horror movie fans\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Amando DeOssorio was never one to let a lack of budget get in the way of telling one of his stories. His \"Blind Dead\" series started off great but had some truly laughable moments, such as shots of a small model boat in a water tank for \"The Ghost Galleon\". In \"The Sea Serpent\", he hits rock bottom and takes some notable actors along with him, telling the tale of a silly sock monster that brings google-eyed terror to a few water tanks and miniature aquariums.

A vague opening sequence sets the stage and demonstrates an aborted military mission where American pilots, for some unknown reason, drop an atomic bomb (brazenly cartooned into the frame of the film) somewhere in the ocean off the coast of Spain. The military commander gives this order from an office that features a prominent American flag and a portrait of a deranged-looking Ronald Reagan, one of only a few things that makes this movie really seem like the Eighties. The other two are the hilariously inept subtitle that declares the year to be \"1.985\" and Tyria Power's dated Sheena Easton hairdo, which would have looked really cool next to some ripped neon sweats.

One of the kookiest monsters you will ever see rises from the depths, disturbed by the explosion caused by the bomb. We learn that the errant atom bomb has killed off a great deal of the local fish. Unfortunately for our cast, it has no effect on the Sea Serpent, which swiftly descends on the coast of Spain for some miniature-set mayhem.

Now when I say the monster is unrealistic, I am not exaggerating. It's not just \"sort of\" fake looking. I'm sure the filmmakers did the best with the ten dollars that they seem to have been allotted, but most of the time it looks like it was made out of Crayola markers, a ping pong ball, and an old sock. Not only that, it has this ominous music that accompanies it wherever it goes, music that sounds so much like the \"Jaws\" theme that it's a wonder nobody got sued.

Along with Tyria Power, Timothy Bottoms and Ray Milland are caught slumming, and the dialogue could not have been any more dismal. Through a series of plot contrivances, our leading actors are thrown together in a quest to...well, I'm not sure what the purpose is. Bottoms and Power have got to prove the serpent is real in order to save their butts (he is blamed for a serpent-induced shipwreck, she is locked in the loony bin after a sighting). None of this matters, because by the end of the movie nothing has been resolved. Nobody admits the serpent is real, and it's not even dead. Furthermore, Power and Bottoms are still on the lam from the law.

As illogical as it seems, nobody but our heroes knows that the serpent exists (despite numerous disappearances, a trashed lighthouse, and a crushed railroad bridge), and they embark on an extended non-adventure to track down and chase the monster away...not kill it, since they know they are no match for it. Their big plan is to use flares to scare it off. Although their scheme is botched, the serpent causes a big explosion in the water after it attacks a bridge support (don't ask), and the giant sea snake is so frightened that it swims away. The critical viewer would wonder why the serpent wasn't frightened off earlier in the movie when it caused a couple of big explosions after crashing into a dock. But never mind. It swims away, and our heroes are sure it's gone forever. The end.

I can only imagine the horror that the stars felt when they saw the completed film they just worked on. A lamebrain script and a couple of dim reaction shots could never have prepared them for the embarrassment of sharing screen time with a spliced-in sock puppet\/stop motion beastie. At least the supporting characters got to have fun screaming and pretending to be swallowed by a giant serpent head. I'm not sure what was going on when they made this movie; the monster is cheap, but there are some rather elaborate miniature sets, so somebody did spend some time making those, not to mention the stop-motion animation involved. It's seemingly played straight, although maybe this film's sense of humor went over my head. In the end, the film is nothing more than an easy target for a drunken commentary. Watch it at a party for best results.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has me seriously doubting again whether Armando de Ossorio was a good filmmaker or not... His BLIND DEAD films are praised by many fans. This I can understand. But wanna-be Gothic vampire trite like MALENKA doesn't show any signs from a gifted filmmaker. And that also goes for SERPIENTE DE MAR. It features horrible acting, a dumb plot, stupid events, a lot of other things you can expect from a bad monster-movie and also veteran actor Ray Milland, who does his best to mumble his way through this film while not having much of a clue about what he's doing in it. Apparently Milland was already very ill while shooting SERPIENTE DE MAR (his last theatrical feature) and going out with a ridiculous stinker like this, makes it all the more sad. One last appearance alongside Peter Cushing in a made-for-TV film directed by Roy Ward Baker (also in 1984) doesn't change much about it.

But the sock puppet\/sea serpent is a hoot to behold. Watch it swirl up a lighthouse and crush it. See it destroy a harbour with miniature boats. Look at it demolish bridges and munch on charming miniature trains.

Good Badness? Yes. 3\/10 and 7\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"and abysmal, over-the-top acting, you might enjoy this rubbish flick.Apparently atomic bombs makes life mutate in about a day or two (or according to other viewers, wake them up). Or so it seems. And apparently massive atomic explosions off the coast of Spain doesn't make anyone ask any questions at all. Coming to think of it, the plot doesn't make sense in any way whatsoever (why would evil sock puppets attack lighthouses?), so the nukes going off for no reason at all doesn't stand out too much.

OK, getting past this, and the fact that the \"monster\" is a glorified thing you make of socks in kindergarten, you may actually be able to stand this. But for once the complete lack of gore doesn't help, leaving the monster attacks in all their naked rock-bottom-budget \"glory\".

I doubt you'll be able to watch this though, so better stay well away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst movie I have ever seen. A movie that is about a stupid looking monster from the ocean that threatens a small town which has to be filled with the dumbest people on earth.

SPOILERS IF YOU EVEN CARE

They can't even kill the damn thing by the end of the movie. The movie ends and they're like, \"Well, some day we'll have to kill it.\"

Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to be one of the most awfully scripted films I've ever seen. It's basically a remake of The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (1953), but done with your standard snake-like puppet-monster instead of a sleek Ray Harryhausen creation. Combine the plot of that classic monster movie with the production qualities and acting level of The Creeping Terror and you have an idea of what this movie is like.

The movie is dubbed, although by the original actors (I think that the movie was originally dubbed in Italian for that countries audiences, then redubbed for US release), which just makes the movie seem weird...the sounds, like in a Japanese monster movie, just don't quite match properly to the action on the screen, even if the actors' lips are moving properly.

Poor Ray Milland...he's certainly come a long way down from The Lost Weekend or Dial M for Murder or any of the number of excellent movies he was in. Add this to his other sci-fi travesties (Panic in the Year Zero, X The Man with X-Ray Eyes) and you can see a once good actor fallen into a Boris Karloff syndrome...stuck doing really bad horror films in foreign countries just for the work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a family movie set in 1950's rural America about a boy whose Uncle presses sheep killing charges against his dog Drum, starting not only a family legal feud but community discord as their town begins to take sides.

This is formula film that attempts to be very touching and sweet. Its biggest weakness is that the only people who could really act were Scott Bakula (Defense Lawyer), Ron Perlman (father\/Drum's owner) and the dog. (John Shuck and Kathy Garver, \"Sissy\" from the original \"Family Affair,\" as the Uncle and his wife, were okay.) The children were not that good (basically they looked like they were acting) and that's a problem when the film really revolves around them (Aaron Fors, who plays the bully Donny makes me think of what the actor Russell Crowe must have looked liked as a child, only with no talent but a lot of ham).

Favorite line (spoken by the Prosecutor after Scott Bakula's Defense closing trial speech): \"We'll be lucky if they don't lynch us.\"

Favorite line spoken by Ron Perlman (after his son punches the bully): \"Now making him your friend, that will be the hard part.\"

Cute enough to rent\/buy used.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like J-horror, anime and even kinda dig the pink movement, which some have claimed this a member of, but this did nothing for me. I willing to go a step further and label this one of the biggest let downs of my film watching career.

Three young rockabillies go around getting their kicks out of raping girls. One of the group starts to develop a concisions about their pass-time when his kid sister nearly catches them in the act. Invariably, the group turns on itself as the once friends begin fighting with each other. It ends on a down note befitting the film as a whole.

Aside from watching the friends yell at each other, which they do a lot, there isn't a whole lot going on here. The film is littered with LONG continual shots that only exacerbate the issue. On top of that, even when the film starts to do something interesting, it suddenly gets bogged down in ethereal philosophy that never makes any sense. For instance, after one of the buddies has his change of heart about assaulting girls, he goes out and does it again, but then stops his buddies from taking their turns. Huh? The cinematography is slow and lighting is poor. The writing is OK, as is the acting, which makes this a sub-par cinematic effort from the start. Mix the lack of technical prowess with the flimsy content and you have nothing more than a waste of time.

Oh, and one more extra note, at least one of the girls that appears in the buff does not look old enough to be doing that kinda stuff.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I could give this movie less than a 1, I would certainly do that. I had read a review of this film in the LA Times and I found myself walking by the theater and remembered the review. My wife and I were game and we thought it can't be as bad as the critic said - you know critics. Sure enough... Give me a break with the awful acting, horrible camera work, poor use of the budget (that has been mentioned over and over again as an excuse). I've worked on films with smaller budgets that are 100 times better. It's the Director and the Producer that makes films work - they choose the teams. That's it. If they don't put it together and make it work...it simply won't. So, they didn't - and it doesn't. I don't think they can... I just had to take the time to write this review...though I'm sure the film crew doesn't appreciate this review - I hope I'm doing you all a favor with my wish for you to do well, but - in another career. Good luck.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There have been many movies, on living the American dream. And this is one of them.

First of all, on the technical side, there is a lot wrong. The audio is bad, i had trouble understanding the dialogs here and there, and the camera positions could have been better.

They really tried to come up with a good movie, but for example the part where they show, how Jonathan is loosing himself in the dream,with girls, drugs and alcohol, is done very badly. The acting is very poor as well from all the characters in the movie.

I had a hard time watching it from the beginning till end, and couldn't wait for the movie to be over.

If your expectations are low, and you're bored on a Sunday with bad weather, watch it. If you in for a deep story with action, then this is not your movie.

Normally i would not have give a score of 1, but of 4.5 for this movie. But the reason i gave it a 1 is because of the bad audio, and camera uses, not to mention the bad cut scenes with cheesy effects.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"jeez, this was immensely boring. the leading man (Christian Schoyen) has got to be the worst actor i have ever seen. and another thing, if the character in the movie moved to America when he was ten or something and had been living here for over 20 years, he would speak a lot better English than what he pulls of here. or to say it in my own Language \"Skikkelig gebrokkent\". But it is cool to see Norwegian dudes in a movie made in Hollywood. it was just a damn shame they were talentless hacks. The storyline itself is below mediocre. I have a suspicion that Christian Schoyen did this movie just to live the dream, as he clearly does in the film by humping one beautiful babe after another.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a real low budget production, yet I will not say anything more on that as it already has been covered. I give this movie a low rating for the story alone, but I met the director the night I saw the film and he gave me an additional reason to dislike the movie. He asked me how I enjoyed it and I told him that it was not easy to like. My main objection was the lack of foundation for the relationship between the two main characters, I was never convinced that they were close. I also told him that the scene where the main characters were presented as children becoming friends was too late in the film.

He told me that the flashback scenes were not in the original script. That they were added because he felt like I did that the two main characters did not appear close. He went on to explain that these scenes were not filmed to his satisfaction as they were out of money. I agree that they did not do much for the film.

Another fact about the movie, that I was not aware of, is the actor who had the lead wrote the script based on his own personal experience. This is usually a bad move as some writers do not take into consideration the emotional reaction the viewer. The story is so close to home that the writer make too many assumption as to the audience's reaction to his own tragedy. And the story is tragic. However, it did not work for me as I never cared for any of the characters, least of all the lead. What was presented were two evil people out to make a buck by any means, regardless who gets hurt. When Ms. Young's character decides to give up he evil ways, it appears that she does so because she is ineffective, not because she knows she is doing wrong. If the movie has a message then I suspect that only the writer is aware of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How LIVING THE DREAM managed to get into the Laemmle 5 in West Hollywood is beyond me, as it is the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I should have known when the first scene opened in-gasp, Eugene, Oregon-,that this dud of a film with characters that you want to like and feel sorry for from their exclusion days from high school,but can't, as they are such losers, is so wooden and atrocious with dialog that is beyond bad.

Then, clich\u00e9, the three high school losers end up in LA, and here is where the film could have been realistic if it had shown them trying to find a career in acting. But no, one works as a used car salesman, the other is a true loser in a garage call center selling magazines. Even the bastard that runs the place has more audience appeal than that dreadful actor with the horrible foreign accent. And, they fraudulently get money from an insurance scam to set up an Executive Recruitment firm with no experience, just showing \"the supposed good life\" in LA night spots with a cast of actors that are so wooden and bad, they better not have SAG cards...

I could go on and on about this bad film, but I ended up walking out of the theater, which had at the start six people, and when I left four men were the only ones in the audience. I wanted to like this film, but I couldn't find one merit in the story, characters, writing, dialog, nor the actors. Whoever cast this film should retire. Amen...enough...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw the film many times, and every time I am more and more disappointed,which is shame because the films from EX YU are usually very good. The shame here is, that Holiwood tried to make film about the place and people it has no idea. My self coming from the Balkans(Macedonia) found this film disappointing.Simply that the Bosnian characters are not really understood and not truly portrayed. To understand the mentality of a person from EX YU, you need to know their background, way of live, what makes them cry and laugh.And the director of the film didn't took that as guideline. When we(EX YU) make films, lots of symbolism is build in it, which makes the characters recognisable and likable, and mostly portraying the truth(if it is based on true story) The films like \"Pritty village, pretty flame\", \"Tito and Me', \"Underground',\"No mans land', \"Before the Rain\",\"Black cat, white cat\",\"Otac na sluzbenom putu\",(When father was away on business),\"Ko to tamo peva\"(Who sings over there?)Rare the masterpiece of the Balkan cinematography,and nothing can compare to it. Not the half baked story of and Holiwood studio. As somebody from the panel mentioned the story jumps from one end of town to the other with no real connection. I am sorry but when the film is made is not only for the American armchair variety of viewers but for the rest of the World too, and some of them live on the Balkans and Sarajevo too. And to add insult to the injury, half of the things are shoot in Bitola ,Macedonia where I come from. Imagen my shock when I saw the Broad st. of Bitola in the opening scene of the film, when the bride is shoot from the sniper.And what was that inserting real footage of the news covering in the film? Anyway very disappointing, as the truth is far away from the film. Shame that nobody consulted the real people how is to live in Sarajevo under fire, before they shoot the film. book is one thing and real life is other, and this film lets down both.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A better film could have been made to portray the tragedy of Bosnia. Some parts are very effective and the film does well to give some idea of the suffering of the people specially the children, but overall it looks less like a film and more like a documentary. Woody Harrelson is very good but the rest of the cast has performed well without being extra ordinary. Should be watched in order to get a rough idea of what the war did to the children of Bosnia. If one expects a great and gripping movie, Welcome...... will be a disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film has no connection with the real life in Bosnia in those days. Should be more realistic and shows the viewer real traumas that were happening to common people during the war. Please see some films of Yugoslav authors (Emir Kusturica, Ljubisa Samardzic,...e.g. Bure baruta( A barrel of powder), Tito i ja (Tito and me), Lepa sela lepo gore (Beautiful Villages burn Beautiful), etc... Just this is the real way to know about so called Bosnian problem. Hollywood is definitive not th right address to make films about the Balcan peninsula. Maybe Vietnam, WW II,... but not of the Slavs living in former Yugoslavia.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie shows me, that americans have no knowledge about the situation in the sad balkan-brother war! Please, if you want to see umpire movies with this theme, watch \"Savior\", and you will see that nobody is \"bad\"- and nobody is \"good\" in this land of tears and sorrows...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is just Art house rubbish. I sat watching this trash with my Bosnian Friends they found it as boring as i did. For a more interesting and more true account watch the excellent movie Saviour. This is just a snoozefest with people talking in coffee shops.A cure for insomnia. 1 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ken Harrison, a young sculptor in his early thirties, is seriously injured in a road accident. End of story.

\"End of story\", that is, in the sense of \"end of any physical action\". Not in the sense of \"end of the film\". Ken's life is saved, but he is paralysed from the neck down. When he discovers that he is unlikely ever to regain the use of his limbs he decides that he wants to die and asks the doctors to end the medical treatment which is keeping him alive. The rest of the film is essentially one long debate about the rights and wrongs of euthanasia and the right to die.

Ken's main antagonist in this debate is his doctor, Michael Emerson. Although the case against euthanasia is often presented in religious terms, here it is presented in purely secular ones. If Dr Emerson has any deep religious convictions, these are never expressed in the film. He believes passionately, however, that death is an enemy against which it is his duty as a doctor to fight; to allow a patient effectively to take his own life would represent a surrender to that enemy and a dereliction of that duty. Ken therefore finds himself in a \"Catch-22\" situation. He must be able to show that he is sane and rational enough to make the decision to end his life. Emerson, however, considers that a wish to die is in itself evidence of insanity and irrationality. Ken's dilemma can only be solved by hiring a lawyer to sue the hospital.

Richard Dreyfuss as Ken and John Cassavetes as Dr Emerson put across their respective points of view skilfully and with sincerity, but this cannot hide the fact that \"Whose Life is it Anyway?\" simply does not work as a film. At one time filmed versions of stage plays were done in a similar way to theatrical productions but by the seventies and eighties this was often seen as unsatisfactory because of the differences between the two media. When plays were filmed, therefore, the general tendency was to \"open them up\" by filming on location as well as on studio sets, by taking liberties with the playwright's text, often making significant changes to the plot and even introducing extra characters.

I have never seen Brian Clarke's play, but I suspect that this is a story that would work better in the theatre than in the cinema. There is very little physical action; most of the action consists of lengthy discussions around a hospital bed in which the main character lies paralysed. Such a plot does not lend itself to the \"opening up\" device at all, and the resulting film is very static, dominated by talk at the expense of action. Although it is well written and there is some good acting, I am surprised that a film was ever made of such an uncinematic subject. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't really remember any details of this movie except that the setting looked awfully familiar. Then I realized it was filmed at the Lazy Lizard Hostel in Moab, Utah. That was one of my favorite places to visit when I was younger and wandered around the country. The guy who owns\/manages the hostel managed to get himself in the movie. All I remember about the plot of the movie is that it involves jeeps and naked women. It is great to watch just for the scenery (I mean the rock formations)... If you are just looking for soft-core porn, you will probably be better served elsewhere. I don't even know if this movie is available on tape or DVD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have never watched a movie that frustrated me more than Lord Of The Dance. Frustrated because it could have been fantastic. Frustrated because the dancing might have been astounding. Frustrated because the women could have been gorgeous. How would I know though?! By the time your eyes have moved to the area of interest on the screen and focused appropriately on the spot to be admired the insane editor has moved the shot! I completely agree with the other comments here about the crappy lighting and terrible camera\/editor work. It makes me nauseous just watching ten minutes of this would be spectacular movie.

Give me an opportunity to get a front seat to the live concert and I would be there in a shot!

Nicholas T","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The production values in this video are so poor that it is unwatchable. The performance took second place to the overwhelmingly creative hijinks of the studio wanks, with about thirty special effects per minute. It is filmed through a cloud of smoke, only one or two seconds duration per shot and frequently, background spotlights shine directly into the camera. The lighting was terrible for filming. There is constant zooming in and out with a total lack of visual continuity. There may have been some good dancing available to the live audience but the video viewers will never know.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No wonder so many young people have Attention Deficit Disorder. It seems that stage (dance) productions these days are all about how many cameras and camera angles a director\/ editor can squeeze into a 1 hour show. Is there a special Emmy category for this feat? Try counting them sometimes for something different to do with this, otherwise, completely unwatchable show.

I tried to make out at least a few faces of some of the other dancers in the production. That was impossible. They didn't appear to have any faces, just blurs - it was just Michael Flatley's face, Michael Flatley's bare chest(nice sheen!), Michael Flatley's feet, and that patented Flatley over-the-shoulder-come-hither look repeated infinity squared. Since he was an executive producer of this cut and paste job I guess that was to be expected. One doesn't have to wonder too much as to who his target audience is.

Riverdance was a much better production, as it tried to present the show pretty much as one might see it from the audience, not the catwalk,side wings, or floor nail perspective. If I'm not mistaken,I believe Sir Michael has retired. Thank God for small blessings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first time I had heard of Guest House Paridiso was in the, er... \"washroom\" after having just seen Fight Club. In each urinal was deposited a small, round black circle. When the circle came into contact with moisture (to put it delicately), it caused a colour picture to form, with photographs of the two stars and the tag line \"You'll P*** Yourself Laughing\". When you'd finished washing your hands, the circle had dried and faded to black again, waiting to spring it's surprise on the next \"victim\".

Okay, maybe the punchline wasn't terribly sophisticated, but you have to admit it was innovative. In fact, I think I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it in my life before, and these days of over a century of cinema and marketing, that's a real feat. What a pity the film that went with it failed to live up to the promise.

I hate to pan Guest House Paridiso and I am indebted to Rik Mayall (Richard Twat) and Adrian Edmondson (Eddie Elizabeth Ndingombaba) for many years of laughter through their appealing television series, be it the invention of The Young Ones (1982-1984), the sitting room plays of Bottom (1991-1995), or even solo work, such as Rik in the New Statesman (1988-1993). In fact, this would have made an hilarious 45 minute tv special. Unfortunately, its an 89 minute film.

There's definitely some merit to be had, and I laughed continuously throughout the protracted finale, which spoofed the Exorcist and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and involved... well, you'll have to see that bit for yourself. Yet often the pace is leaden, and a sterile atmosphere is throughout. The two stars (Edmondson taking his usual backseat, this time due to the fact that he adequately directs) never really get into first gear, Mayall only sporadically showing the foul-mouthed mania that makes us love him on the small screen. Indeed, the writers' presumption that we are already familiar with the characters leads to them being underdelivered to the audience. The slight hints of depth seen in the series (Richie's effeminate, failed social-climbing for example) are not present here, and instead we are left with parodies of parodies.

The Fawlty Towers accusation does pass water, complete with drunken chef and unseen, called-for waiter \"Pasquele\", which uncannily rhymes with Manuel. Some of the ideas, such a hotel next to a nuclear reactor with a childrens' swing hanging over a cliff face, are very, very funny, but ultimately the frenetic pace is stolen, the two constantly looking for a studio audience that isn't there, and all the \"dead laugh\" areas patched up with incidental \"comedy\" music that would have been dated in a Carry On film two decades ago.

Paridiso's brand of puerile, sadistic, perverse humour IS funny, and I feel sure it will make you laugh ... just not as often as it should.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yet another recent comedy that shows that Hollywood can't even do the basics when it comes to film-making that it used to do in its sleep for decades. If the writer\/director had any brains they would have based the film around Stamp's character of tyrant boss Jack Taylor. When he's in the film early on it's nothing special but it is mildly promising and occasionally amusing. Once he departs for the majority of the film and Kutcher has his 'hilarious' adventures house-sitting with guest after boring guest dropping in, the film totally disintegrates.

As a result, what should have been a passable timewaster turns into an inept stinker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is about the worst I have seen in a very long time. Terence Stamp's talent is totally wasted and just about the only thing that I enjoyed was hearing a favorite song of mine, \"If I Had a Million Dollars\" by BNL, in the opening credits.

Ashton Kutcher plays the main character, a nice guy who gets roped into house sitting for his boss. Misadventures ensue. Blah blah blah. If you have time to kill and having nothing better to do, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, watch something else.

There are not necessarily any redeeming moments, but it is nice to see Molly Shannon and Jeffrey Tambor on the screen. They are always pleasures to watch though this film managed to dampen even these bright spots.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie (unfortunately) because it was the only option at that time and because David Zucker was the director. I saw his previous \"Naked gun\" (both parts), Airplane and Top secret!, and I liked, at least I had a good time and laughed. I'm not saying that the movies I mentioned were master pieces, but were OK. I don't recall any other more stupid movie than this. It's incredible how Hollywood industry is in total decadence. If some studio spends any money to produce this awful picture, then is not a surprise that this kind of histories are more common on these days. This is a clear reflect of a decadent civilization where sex symbols and stupid plots are produced to entertain the common people. I don't have any good to say about this film. If you are planning to rent it or buy it, please don't waste your money or your time, avoid it no matter what. Even if you are fan of one of the actors, does not worth it. In fact this could be a very good example of what a Director should avoid. I won't see a Zucker movie again. (He is planning to direct the fourth sequel of Scary movie, imagine that!). Pathetic. Awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anupam Kher is an excellent actor, he debuted at 28 playing a 50 yr old in SARAANSH

Now he turns director with OJJ

The film has a good plot but it's regressive

The theme has been done to death and Urmila's character looks too put on while Anil-Mahima and Abhi- Tara tracks are too sudden and then forgotten

The film moves a snail pace and begins to drag but there are several good scenes like the entire conflict between Anil-Fardeen and Abhishek where Fardeen says to sell the house

Abhishek getting caught for a crime and Anil shouting at him

The climax is too much though

Directorally Anupam shows potential, but has some way to go Music is okay

Anil Kapoor excels in his part like always Fardeen tries hard and is okay but needs to improve Abhishek is excellent, this was a turning pt, people realized he can act Urmila is okay Mahima and Tara are wasted Waheeda is good","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Patsy Kensit and some random Australian bloke star as a duo of wannabe tough coppers in the middle of investigating a series of art-gallery related murders, but in between they can still find the time to shoot juvenile shoplifters and suspect the brand new wife of the male cop of being adulterous. The serial killer suddenly isn't important anymore when the supposed lover of the wife (who's basically just a co-worker of hers) is found murdered and the male cop becomes prime suspect. \"Tunnel Vision\" is a really dull, implausible and tension-free Aussie thriller that obviously imitates popular sex-thrillers like \"Fatal Attraction\", \"Disclosure\" and \"Basic Instinct\". The characters are extremely one-dimensional and pretty much every good-cop\/bad-cop clich\u00e9 is extendedly described in the script. The struggling position of police women in a corps full of men, the shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality, alcohol problems through stress, etc etc\u0085 Even the unhealthy eating habits of cops are a running gag. Yawn! Kensit really tries her best to make this film more bearable, but she lacks the credibility and talent of a real cinema heroine. The end-twist is more or less interesting (not at all original, mind you) but, by then, you stopped caring for the characters a long time already. The scenes filmed inside the sex clubs look ludicrously fake and Clive Fleury's directing is completely uninspired. What a total waste of time\u0085","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While The Twilight Zone was a wonderful show, it was also very uneven--with some great episodes, some lousy ones and many in between. Don't believe the die-hard fans--there were some stinkers and this was definitely one of them.

In a plot that is obviously meant to be an attack on Fidel Castro, a near lookalike (Peter Falk in lots of makeup and a beard) obtains a magic mirror that allows him to realize who all his enemies are so he can liquidate them. While I do believe that Castro is a thug and dictator (and tens of thousands of refugees and political prisoners will attest to this), it's amazing how this sort of preachy episode actually makes audiences laugh at the American efforts to marginalize the creep and actually makes Castro seem okay!! Think about it--Serling and company wanted to hurt Castro but instead only seemed to be obvious, preachy and silly in the process.

It's indeed bad--almost laughably bad when seen today.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This one is a real stinker.

The story just isn't up to par with most other TZ episodes. It's pretty boring, though seeing Peter Falk made up as a Fidel Castro lookalike is kind of amusing.

Whenever Twilight Zone would be aired at an unannounced hour in my hometown, I'd grab a sandwich and a drink and settle in for some quality entertainment. 9 times out of 10, it wound up being THIS episode! Strange thing? This often happened to my mom (another TZ fan like me) as well. There were so many times that one of us would say to the other, \"I was all set to watch _The Twilight Zone_ and guess which episode was on? The Cuban Dictator episode!\" Obviously some people like this episode, as it gets a 6.7 rating ... how that happened, I have no idea - but THAT in and of itself would make a great Twilight Zone plot!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Almost certainly staged montage of women reading lines (very briefly) and getting naked (not very briefly) in front of a anonymous (and uncredited) panel - almost certainly including producer Charles Band. Thrown in are random scenes of Surrender Cinema's many movies (primarily lesbian scenes). Most of the women like \"riding horses\" (Hmmm); there is a Polish woman who seems to have no interest in acting despite going to an audition; a 'secret; camera that films actresses getting naked behind the screen...

Jacqueline Lovell (too made up but still beautiful) introduces a couple of her own movie scenes and talks in a 'sexy' Way to the camera (if you enjoy lesbian scenes the one with Lovell and Vanesa Taylor from Femalian is included and they are probably the best looking lesbian 'couple' ever). Weird excuse for a movie and aside from the obvious draw of naked women, a frankly dull and uninspiring experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Surrender Cinema has been known for their extremely erotic, almost explicit sci-fi films. While they generally do very well at these (Femalien 1 & 2, Virtual Encounters), this particular entry seems to be just a rehash of old tape. Any number of girls -- some recognizable and others not -- are in this film in all stages of nudity. There are also several clips from other films which are outstanding, unless you've seen those other films. There are a number of solo nude scenes doing a number of things -- some playing basketball, others talking, still others playing with themselves. The only thing of value in this tape is the very last scene -- a short but erotic girl-girl scene with a very enthusiastic and enjoyable Sandy Wasko and a more subdued Tammie Hainum. Not highly recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw the preview in Femalien and thought it could be a cool film. Turns out, it is an awful garbage. There isn't much nudity in the film, not to mention not having much sex either. There were just some dumb and corny dialogues along with some noninteresting dancing you usually expect to see during audition. In our case, you may even see it in the actual films. Conclusion: I ain't got none for it. Just leave it alone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The \"film\" consists of the audition tapes of the \"Surrender girls\" and some footage from previous films. It's not hot or even suitable for late night viewing on Cinemax. Only an adolescent boy could be interested in Auditions from Beyond. I recommend avoiding this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"think of the most un-film-worthy subject you can and this is 10 times worse. A woman needs to complete as many crosswords as she can in a day. We don't even get to see the questions and think of the words on our own, we just watch her struggle. The woman seems so anxious and in a hurry to do the crosswords, but for some reason she spends the time distractedly walking all around the city when she could be focused at home. The acting is horrible, the actress huffs and puffs as she tried to think of the words, and we are left completely in the dark. The New York scenery is nice but the movie relies on it too much and it gets old fast. The movie plays like a rejected NYU student film. This film has no redeeming qualities and I do not recommend it to anyone, ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Marathon\" has a very interesting premise, excellent ambient sounds, and good scenery. Unfortunately, the movie, aside from these aspects, falls flat on its face. For a woman trying to complete so many crossword puzzles in a day, she spends an awful lot of time standing around, sulking, and not doing puzzles. I believe there is more walking shown in the movie than her work on these puzzles. Also, while I understand the point of showing so much scenery, there is simply FAR too much of it. The movie is incredibly boring and unfocused. It's not worth buying, renting, watching on television, or viewing in any conceivable way. I lost interest so quickly that I'm not sure why I sat through the entire film in the first place.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do the writers that conjure up these type of \"comedies\" have such empty lives that they have to embody them in tragic shows like this?.

Why the talented and gorgeous Busy Phillips is amongst this trash is beyond me,I cannot stand the Hispanic girl whose accent sounds very fake and is so unfunny and annoying as is the other African-American girl with the shrill voice.

The jokes are often stupid, the Jewish guy yells a lot and the show never goes anywhere, one particular episode with the solider looking for love was just terrible.

I don't believe there would be that many working in a looking for love office and only one man? Of course all of the Woman are in tight fitting tops and tons of make up to make up for their lack of talent.

I actually found Holly funny in her older shows and I have always admired Busy but this show is dumb, empty and had nothing going for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This appears to be one of Noel Coward's lesser known films, and it is easy to understand why. Taken at face value it's not a bad film, but there's nothing terribly good about it either. Nothing much happens at all throughout the course of the film, it's simply the story of Chris and Leonora's ill-fated affair, and Barbara's reaction to it. The only thing that keeps the film interesting is the fact that we already know it's going to end badly for one reason or another, owing to the first scene. Oddly, there are many perfect opportunities in the story for conflict, and yet none of them are utilised. For example, it would've been much more interesting and believable if Barbara had've fallen out with Leonora, but instead the two remained on good terms throughout the film. The notion of Barbara having been betrayed by her friend was not explored at all - in fact she didn't even seem to feel betrayed by her husband; she even encourages him to go on a holiday with Leonora. Similarly, Chris' two secretaries at his practice, Susan Birch and Tim Verney, who also happen to be close friends of both Chris and Barbara, are never forced to take sides. In fact, Tim shies away from conflict by telling Chris that he's terribly fond of both him and Barbara. Despite the strange lack of conflict, the biggest flaw in the film is the fact that we don't care whether Chris ends up with Leonora or Barbara. The two womens' personalities are indistinguishable anyway so we don't know which of the two is better suited to be with Chris, and besides this, Barbara's permissiveness gives the impression that she hardly cares about the affair anyway. Furthermore, I found Chris and Leonora's relationship somewhat unconvincing. I can overlook the ridiculously short timeframe in which they fall for each other because that is so common in films of this era, but even then the relationship seemed shallow. Coward's character was too austere and cynical to be the object of Leonora's affections. He reminds me of the socially inept genius Sir Earnest Pease from the film \"Very Important Person\" - I'm sure the two would've gotten along well. Chris' coldness and austerity made his love for Leonora seem insincere. I think Coward should've sat this one out and given his part to a younger man - as it is, I was constantly wondering what this young beauty saw in such a sombre, mostly emotionless, balding middle aged man. Despite all my criticisms, the film still manages to be interesting - just not terribly compelling. The fact that none of the characters are particularly well developed gives them an enigmatic nature, which is somewhat intriguing. The Astonished Heart is certainly worth watching, but it is a flawed piece of cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The title is from a passage in the Bible (Deut. 28:28). Let's just say it is taken horribly out of context - but nonetheless, that is where the title of this agonizing movie originates. The other reviewers cover the plot details so I wont rehash. But the husband, who is a psychiatrist, delivers a lecture on \"Inferior function\" where he discusses how a person can meet another another person and they can experience a \"cataclysmic crisis\" in their lives where they cease to be masters of themselves and incapable of fair judgement. He is saying this at the podium at the exact moment as he lays eyes on Leonora Vail in the audience - the woman who will become his mistress. Not very subtle for showing that this is indeed what will happen to this poor man.

I think the whole premise of the movie is implausible and just didn't work. Here is an over-the-hill psychiatrist, and we are to believe this young, beautiful woman falls for him and comes between the happiness he and his wife shared. What's even more implausible is how the betrayed wife responds when she learns of the infidelity. Not only is she understanding, but she INSISTS her husband embark on a several month vacation with the tramp - \"so we all can get a little relief from this unbearable stress\". GIVE ME A BREAK!! I wanted to reach through the screen and throttle not just the adulterer but the dim-wit wife.

The fact that the whole movie takes place as a flashback after already revealing the end of the movie at the beginning (the fact that the husband had a terrible accident) - it leaves no doubt as to the outcome of the sordid affair. I think this was a poor decision as it leaves absolutely no plot twists to look forward to, as the whole movie is completely predictable. You already know the wife's resignation to the affair at the beginning of the film as she summons the mistress to the dying man's bedside and expresses no ill will towards her.

Not only is the script defective, but Noel Coward is horribly miscast (even though it is HIS screenplay). He and Leonora have absolutely no chemistry on screen whatsoever. Its interesting that Michael Redgrave was originally cast in that role, but was replaced during filming. I wonder what that was about? In the end, neither the husband or the wife cause you to feel any sympathy for either one of them. I do think Margaret Leighton played the part of strumpet quite well. But she couldn't possibly overcome all the negatives this film had. Also, as is the case of many British Productions of this era, the dialogue is hard to understand due to the clipped, fast speech pattern of the actors. I saw it on TV and couldn't even rely on closed captioning to fill in the blanks for me.

Don't waste your time on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like Noel Coward, the wit. I like Noel Coward, the play write. I like Noel Coward, the composer and singer, but I loathe Noel Coward the actor.

To me this is a man who should have stayed firmly behind the scenes, writing his plays and composing his music and making his profound and hilarious observations. He should never have been allowed in front of a camera.

Make no mistake, he is one of the top outstanding talents of the 20th century but the man just couldn't act, and his voice...with it's rolling R's and it's overly round tonal quality...well it could quite easily grate cheese in my opinion.

This is one of my least favourite offerings from Coward, as he unconvincingly portrays a psychiatrist embarking on an affair with a much younger woman, made worse by the fact that the much younger woman is an old school friend of his much younger wife.

Celia Johnson is as much a joy to watch as ever as Cowards wronged wife. It is her performance that saves this film from abject dullness. I suppose her own little fling in Coward's Brief Encounter four years previously qualified her for this role as she must have raised a few eyebrows playing a such a promiscuous woman and this gave her the chance to win back a few fans and gain some lost sympathy.

She was such a wonderful actress and you can see why Noel Coward used her so much in many of his productions.

However the rest of the film is drab, badly acted, predictable and on the whole boring to almost arse-clenching level.

If its Noel Coward you want then take the time to watch In Which We Serve, Blythe Spirit or This Happy Breed instead. Three Noel Coward treasures. With lovely films like these I suppose we can forgive him for this turkey.

I have given this four stars purely for the addition of Miss Johnson, but on the whole I'd avoid this one like the plague.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I once had a conversation with my parents who told me British cinema goers in the 1940s and 50s would check to see a film's country of origin before going to see it . It didn't matter what the plot was or who was in it , if it was an American movie people would want to see it and if it was British people wouldn't want to see it . This might sound like a ridiculous generalisation but after seeing THE ASTONISHED HEART I can understand why people in those days preferred American cinema to the home grown variety Back in the 1940s

British equity was devoid of working class members and it shows in this movie . Everyone speaks in an English lad dee daa upper class accent that makes the British Royal Family sound like working class scum and what this does is alienate a large amount of a potential British audience who would no doubt prefer to be watching Jimmy Cagney in WHITE HEAT because people would have , If not related to then certainly empathised with a violent gangster in cinematic terms more than some high class English shrink in 1949 . That's entertainment , the reason people go to cinemas . Even the characters names seem bizarre - Leonora ! How many British people were named Leonora in 1949 ? And the protagonists drink cocktails . And they use words like \" Austere \" . You do get the feeling that this wasn't marketed for a 1949 mainstream British audience . But why should it if the majority of British cinema goers were queuing up at cinemas to watch far more entertaining American imports ?

Watching THE ATSONISHED HEART in 2005 I was astonished how dated everything was , in fact it's so dated I thought maybe it might be a spoof from THE HARRY ENDFIELD SHOW . What didn't astonish me was the fact that these types of movie came close to sinking the British film industry , an industry that didn't pick up until American money invested in crowd pleasers like ZULU , ALFIE and the James Bond movies","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was only the second version of the classic story by Charles Dickens I had seen, and sadly it turned out to be one of the worst. The film opens with a quick live action piece where Simon Callow as Charles Dickens begins the story of A Christmas Carol, and then obviously it goes to animated story itself. You probably already know it, Ebenezer Scrooge is the grouchy cold-blooded businessman who refuses charity and hates Christmas. He is visited by Jacob Marley (Nicolas Cage) who warns him of the visits of the other three ghosts of Christmas Past (Jane Horrocks), Present (Sir Michael Gambon) and the silent Future\/Yet To Come. After all this he obviously realises the true magic of Christmas, and promises to be nicer in future. The only changes I noticed to the story were Scrooge having mice as friends (a stupid idea), Scrooge's ex-love Belle (Kate Winslet) needing to see him to help at the orphanage, the Ghost of Christmas Present showing the two kids, \"want\" and \"ignorance\", Scrooge still gets haunted after being turned nice, and he's worried he can't keep his promise to stay nice. Also starring Rhys Ifans as Bob Cratchit, Juliet Stevenson as Mrs. Cratchit, Iain Jones as Scrooge's nephew Fred and Colin McFarlane as Fezziwig. The animation is not great quality, the actors have wasted their voices for a worthless piece of garbage. The only good thing that comes from this film is the good voice of Kate Winslet, singing the closing song \"What If\", as for the rest, it is just excruciatingly awful. Very poor!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's difficult to make it through this movie without choking on your own vomit, to be honest. The shoddy animation doesn't help, as it makes this look like a decades-old video you'd find in Morrisons's 99p bin. Still, it's better than the abysmal screenplay, which spends about a third of its length on superfluous extras like Belle's present day problems, stuff about Scrooge's dad, and plenty of charmless fannying around with - choke - TWO ANTHROPOMORPHIC MICE. These bizarre additions eat up screen time at the expense of elements you'd think would be quite important, like Dickens's dialogue and key chunks of his plot - the movie buggers up the game of twenty questions, for example, and at times fails to put scenes in the right order. Absolutely hopeless.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a perfect example of how to take a fascinating subject, come up with 25 minutes of substantive material and stretch it into a six hour borefest resembling the shape a documentary might take if Fox news decided to make one. Even the participants in this obnoxiously obstreperous film can't conceal their laughter at the stupidity of their attempt to show one of the few great times in world history where people take a stand and work to make a better world. If only the creators had spoken with Ken Burns for 5 minutes, they might have come out with something mildly intelligent instead of this cure for insomnia.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When a BBC murder thriller is this rife with heterosexual dysfunction, you know who the killer must be: The Homosexual.

Who murdered the sexy blonde teenager (who's also a pathological liar) on her way home from school? Let's see, could it be the mother who (against all common sense) is letting her teenaged son make unchaperoned visits to his serial-killer father behind bars? Could it be the moody son, who's impressed by his dad's no-nonsense attitude about women? Could it be the serial killer himself, who seems able to manipulate events from behind bars, a la Hannibal Lecter? Could it be mom's boyfriend, a teacher at the school whose affair with an ex-student led to his wife's suicide? Or could it be boyfriend's daughter, who goes blabbing everyone's secrets at school, causing untold misery? No, it's none of these likely suspects. It's...The Homosexual!

The only mystery for the viewer is guessing who The Homosexual is. Of course, it could be anybody, since the only characteristics of The Homosexual are shameful secrecy and a propensity to murder and otherwise make life complicated for the \"normal\" folks. The Homosexual is the invisible root cause of society's ills; only when this person is exposed and eliminated can the fractured family come back together, and things can return to normal...whatever that is.

As for the cast, both Jemma Redgrave and Robson Green are now officially past their sell-by dates. The world could get by marvelously without ever seeing either on screen again, but as long as the BBC has roles for The Aggrieved Woman and The Misunderstood Man, I suppose they'll keep coming back in movies like this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hate a movie that doesn't have an ending. I don't care how good or bad the rest might be, I don't like to be left without a conclusion. Such shows should insist upon a disclaimer ... something like: The movie you are about to watch has either no ending or is so ambiguous as to not be conclusive.

In the movie the last scene we are left with is Dee and Dominic having a bit of a row and he says, almost regretfully I thought, that it couldn't be him because the fingers were either that of a girl or a child. THEN IT ENDS! Well sure, the smoking gun, so to say, is in the hands of the Dee's son, but what about Dominic's daughter? I actually thought we might discover it was her! Anyway, unless you like inconclusive movies, then I'd avoid this one. Otherwise, I thought the movie generally good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A friend of mine once rented this, thinking since Peter Fonda starred in it, it couldn't be bad. WRONG! It's bad as anything can be. There is so much to laugh at and it's not the jokes. For instance, in one scene Hawken walks into the forest and when he comes out he is suddenly wearing a completely different outfit! Where was \"the director's\" brain when he shot that scene?!? Probably the same place Fonda's was when he agreed to do this flick. It's truly a shame one has to see such a fine actor go dumb in this poor excuse for a film.

Nobody's performance in this movie can be called acting. Jack Elam is brought in just to bring up the star count here, but all he does is looking startled in a very dark and awfully shot scene in some kind of bar. Not to mention the \"Indians\", the girl was so godawful I wanted to shoot her just to end her misery and mine as well. If I could give this a 0, I would. Shame that mark doesn't exist here. This truly reminds of a bad joke or an amateur footage made just for fun. This should serve as a proof of how bad B-movies can get.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I couldn't wait for the end. This is absolutely the worst film I have ever seen. If you thought that just about anyone could make a watchable movie, these folks prove that there is a minimum skill set required. This is a film with no redeeming features whatsoever. It scores a zero in every department. This is more than just 'amateur' as the audience is given no consideration or regard at all. There is no serious attempt to act or entertain. The storyline is aimless, pointless and senseless. The cast look very uncomfortable and completely lack direction. The technical aspects of the film are poor.

As a DVD it makes a good drinks coaster.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Look no further, this is it, the worst movie ever made. There may be others that are tied, but there are none worse. There can't be.

I found this movie on a clearance-sale laserdisc for $3.25, and thought no movie with those actors could possibly not be worth that price. Turns out it's worth triple that - as the minimum they should have paid me to watch it.

I'm virtually certain that the girl in the picture on the cover of the package is not the girl in the movie, they substituted someone else, someone younger and cuter, to make it look more appealing. Whatever \"plot\" there was amounted to about three minutes of actual movie, the rest is filler. And I don't mean the kind of filler that you only realize is filler when it's over, or that is some kind of eye candy you don't mind having there, I mean filler that has you thinking about your shopping list. I think the \"music\" must have been made up by somebody with a friend who had a radio he listened to once. It's terrible.

If there were a shot of a nice mountain, a river valley, a forest, anything, there would be something positive about this movie. There isn't. Even with the speeder button on the remote, even at top laserdisc speed, you can't get it over with fast enough.

After years of thinking about commenting on movies, being tempted but not registering with IMDb, I finally cracked, because I had to do my part to push the user rating on this stinker down as far as possible.

The guidelines ask that you \"focus on the content and context\". I can't. There isn't enough content to focus on, and that's exactly my point. Sometimes bad is just bad, and this movie would have to be much better than it is to aspire to being only that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you want a complete waste of time, because pulling lint out of your belly button or cleaning the wax out of your ears or grouting your tile is your idea of a carnival thrill ride, then you'll not want to miss this one.

For one thing, forget the VHS cover. NO body in this movie looks that attractive (ie, the Indian girl). Someone else commented that whoever posed for the cover is not the same girl and I agree. The cover is THE most exciting thing about this movie.

To put this in perspective, I bought this VHS for 99 cents at K-Mart and three minutes, no, 40 seconds into the movie, I knew I had been ripped off.

I finished watching it because 1) I did pay 99 cents after all and, 2)there might possibly, conceivably been a hair of chance some scene in this turkey was worth more than a pinched loaf.

There wasn't.

Good grief, Fonda. I know you were hard up for roles when you did this, but this is beneath you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The problem with this movie is that it isn't funny, it isn't scary, it isn't dramatic, it isn't intriguing, it isn't stimulating, it isn't, it isn't exciting, it isn't even the slightest bit interesting. I saw this film recently on tape and I was glad I didn't spent any money to rent it. It's basically a poor attempt at film-making. I won't even bother to tell you the story. Story? What story?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD! OK the movie in a nutshell. so this girl goes out buys drugs gets pulled over by a cop, the cops name is Wolf. the cop feels her butt, then he eats her...okay? he beats her up and eats her. then this woman is at home and this guy come with bulging genitals and he does her up. then the woman goes into the other room and this black guy is there and she undresses.....then the movie turns into a porno. he starts sucking on her breasts, then she gives him head. then wolf walks in with blood all over him and says \"honey I'm home\" then he realizes his wife is blowing some black guy and he kills her, the black guy kills him cuts the girl out of wolfs stomach and the go home. the end and they lived happily ever after. THAT IS THE MOVIE.

now after reading this do u really think there is anything to like about this movie. the only thing i liked in the woman had a nice body. but the performances sucked, the story sucked, the dialogue sucked, THE WHOLE MOVIE JUST SUCKED!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As usual, another masterpiece in the Vice Academy series(HaHaHa). I don't know why they even bothered to make this trash. Just another series of cops acting slutty. A defining part was when Ginger Lynn Allen's character(Holly Wells) and Elizabeth Kaitan's character(Candy) tried to seduce the scientist by wearing nothing but their bra and underwear under their labcoats. Just a wonderful scene(Ha). A character that I didn't like was the Commissioner. He was very annoying and ignorant. They should have arrested him. Mrs. Devonshire was pretty annoying, as well. They should have stopped this series after this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is no way to put into words just how bad, how shapeless, paceless and laughless these \"Vice Academy\" films really are. You have to experience one for yourself. For the third time in a row, writer-director Rick Sloane does not show even an ounce of writing or directing talent. There is nothing here that a person above the age of 5 will believe or laugh at, yet the (very brief) nudity and other \"plot\" elements make the films unsuitable for kids. Which leads me to believe that they are really aimed at adults with the mental capabilities of 5-year-olds. Elizabeth Kaitan makes a more than welcome replacement for Linnea Quigley - she is winningly bubbly and cute, and her wonderful big smile is about the only thing that can make a viewer smile as well. But watching her and the other girls in this film is like watching a bunch of flowers in a desert covered with horse manure. (*)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terrible terrible movie for Television. Once again Lifetime brings us the predictable triangle; scheming bitchy woman out to get stupid unknowing wife of yet another stupid husband who doesn't have a clue.

I get antsy when I see these films. You may ask, why do I watch them then? I haven't a clue. Usually by mistake. And the movie is so bad I can't get away from it. I wait for the bitch to get her come up-pence. And usually I'm not satisfied in how she gets her just desserts.

Now if you can believe our vixen, she steals embryos from the clinic, and how does one do that? Without blood tests, DNA, inquiries and recommendations. She proceeds to kill the Realtor, Gabrielle Rose, who is on to her, in broad daylight in the front yard of a house for sale and no one sees her? She kills the mother, Susan Hogan, and you could predict that surmise when the mother off handedly mentions she's allergic to peanuts and that the pills to combat this allergy are in her pocket book. Guess what? I won't continue on this.

Finally you are left in the house alone with the wife and the bitch. Well good triumphs evil, but much too slowly. Victoria Pratt as the evil girlfriend is adequate in the role, looking a bit too disheveled and obvious. Tori Spelling just stands around looking blank most of the time. She's got those big big Bette Davis eyes that look like they're popping out of her head. I liked her better in TRICK. And Tahmoh Penikett plays the husband going around assuring his wife there's nothing too he and his ex-girlfriend, even though he's spotted all over town being very chummy with her, standing half naked with her in his house when he sent the wife off to the city to stay overnight. Yet he continues to deny the romance.

Lifetime never disappoints the viewers with their inane plots and stories about women and their stupid husbands. Wish I could give this chestnut a \"0\" rating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those films you can have on for a couple of hours on a Sunday morning -- able to do other things with no real complications in losing any understanding of the proceedings, and gaining some fascination in wondering why such mediocrities acquired the manpower and financial resources to be produced in the first place.

Of course, with all the cable channels, as well as Lifetime's need to fill its time slots with 100 or so hours worth of movies per week (along with incessant \"Golden Girls\" reruns), this type of fare is now a t.v. staple. Also, it seems these flicks provide livelihood to the Canadian locales where most are made, as well as the host of Canadian actors appearing in them.

Tori Spelling, like the ferret-face Paris Hilton, is somebody who - if not for family connections and resources - would likely be working at The Gap. But at least Tori has become, say, a C+-level thespian, appearing in occasional presentations appropriate to this level.

This story is one which has been seen on Lifetime and similar venues God-knows-how-many times. Devious woman, a total sociopath, trying to screw-up everyone else's lives, operating during the initial parts of the story with more cleverness than a CIA operative could muster, committing murder when necessary, and out to wreck the life of the flick's \"heroine.\"

As usual, the male lead is a completely clueless dolt. And in these types of films, one finds, say, characters about whom one can really \"care,\" about 10% of the time. This one is in the other 90%.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know if I should be amused or insulted by drivel like this put out by \"Lifetime: Television For Women\" Should be renamed \"Lifetime: Television For Shut In Drama Queens\" because I've yet to see a movie that wasn't a tear jerking pot boiler. This film was no exception. You know a film's going to be bad when the biggest headliner is Tori Spelling, completely a creation of bad plastic surgery and spoiled privilege minus any real talent. Everyone else matched her in unbelievably bad acting and the storyline was beyond dumb, as if anyone could believe any of it. If I hadn't have been helpless on the sofa pinned down watching with the same fascination you view a gory car wreck I would have changed the channel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"if you're a sucker for corny movies and are looking to see something you don't need to pay close attention to, this might be worth watching. the story itself is very unrealistic. the dialogue is also not very believable. it is doubtful you will find yourself relating to any of these characters because none of them are very likable. the acting could've been a lot worse. victoria pratt is noticeably out of place with the rest of the cast, as she seems to have a lot of potential and talent as an actress. while it's not saying much, this is one of the best acting performances i've seen from tori spelling. she appears to be getting better with age. overall, this extremely melodramatic movie is mediocre at best.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lazy writing, bad acting and wooden direction lead us to a 2005 Canadian-made TV movie called HUSH, not to be confused with about eight other movies using the same name. Tori Spelling and her doctor hubby move from SanFran to his small hometown, where they run into his old gal pal, who decides she still loves him. She gets pregnant with Tori's baby (don't ask) and starts knocking off anyone who might get in her way as she plans to reunite with her old flame. The actors playing the old gal pal and the doctor are not worth mentioning, as they act flatter than flat. Tori isn't much better, but at least she is something to focus on as the plot meanders here and there before arriving at a very lame and all-too-familiar conclusion. Watch instead THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In 1970, feminists invaded the 'Miss World' beauty contest in London and brought the occasion to a halt by pelting the stage with flour and eggs. Why? Because, rightly or wrongly, they felt the event to be demeaning and degrading to women. I offer no criticism of their actions. Its a free world we live in. What I want to know is: why don't their modern-day equivalents invade the studios where shows such as this are made and do likewise?

'Sex & The City' is all about four self-absorbed women from New York: Carrie is a slave to fashion who turns into a pussycat when a man so much as claps eyes on her, Charlotte yearns to find the perfect man ( they don't exist, love ) so she can use sex to ensnare the poor devil, lawyer Miranda scares men away by wittering nonsense like 'out of touch with my emotions', and lastly we have Samantha, the living embodiment of the old Martini ad 'anytime, anyplace, anywhere'. Feminists hold up these characters - particularly Samantha - as a shining example of modern-day womanhood. Well, if shouting rude words in busy restaurants is progress, I think the feminists should take a long hard look at themselves and what they're supposed to represent.

Had 'Sex & The City' been the creation of a man, it would have been pulled from the airwaves for being sexist. Instead, like 'Charlie's Angels' before it, it has conned supposedly intelligent women into thinking it has acted as a positive force for good. There's something very clinical and cold-blooded about the show. 'The Benny Hill Show' was sexist too, but at least it was funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To be hones, I used to like this show and watch it regularly, but now (thank god!) I don't understand why did I watch it. Sex and the city is one of the most pointless and insulting TV shows I've ever seen. I really don't get the point of this show, despite of trying. People are saying, that Sex and the city is funny. In what way? By cursing all the time, talking about vibrators and the size of the penis? Give me a break.

I don't understand the plot: we have four girls who are trying to find a perfect man by sleeping with every dork, who comes around. And this show is all about four spoiled chicks, who are sleeping with every man in the city, but in the end they admit the best pleasure comes out of the penis vibrators. And yeah... the show is trying to tell us, that sex is the most important thing in every relationship. If you can have a good sex, you're a good husband (or wife). It doesn't matter if you want to be loyal and having a good heart.. the size does matter.

The biggest problem is also bad acting. The four main actresses (Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattral, Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davis) are so bad and unconvincing, that it makes me sick just watching this show. Parker is just screaming and complaining all the time, Cattral is showing her old boobs and saying \"the f - word\" all the time, Davis delivers her smile (and nothing else) and Nixon acts like she is bored all the time. And yes... men are sex - hungry pigs in this show. But, judging by this show, women are not much better. This show is insulting for men and women. The women are shown so primitive and emotionless, like they don't have any heart, just hunger for sex. It's insulting for everyone.

Sex and the city is one of the worst TV shows and I'm glad that the show ended, because it delivers bad acting and pointless stories. The whole world is not all about sex and vibrators.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I truly despair for womankind when they discuss this joke of a programme as if it's intellectually engaging and promotes female liberation and independence. This show is the biggest insult to women next to all those libidinous hip-hop videos. If talking like a bunch of reckless teenage boys over $100 lunches in swanky restaurants, indiscriminately shopping for unnecessary fashion and jumping into bed with the nearest male in site is considered empowering, the fate of western women may be doomed as we speak.

Aside from the damage it does to the female gender, Sex and the City is NOT ENTERTAINING. Not once has it been funny, captivating, exciting or original. The episodes play out monotonously. Each character are factory produced mannequins who behave in the same manner every episode. Not once have any of these shallow, unattractive women evolved. Perhaps the worst is lead character Carrie Bradshaw. Aside from looking hideous, her penchant for over analysis of relationships is cringe worthy. On top of all this, the show portrays men as a bunch of empty headed slobs who are unable to commit to healthy relationships. Even when there is a decent man, he is somehow painted as a villain. The utter lack of empathy for men is clearly the work of some \"progressive\" pseudo feminist.

Saddest part of the whole show is that these women live unfortunate miserable lives. Any intelligent woman would never envy them. It is a banal show with even more banal characters. The NYC tourist board must hate the way this garbage is showing up their otherwise fine city! Thankfully this train wreck is over! Desperate Housewives is seen as the fitting replacement for SATC. While DH can be quite far-fetched, at least it explores women in more multi-faceted ways. Plus it treats men more respectfully and it's actually entertaining!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Appalling, shallow, materialistic nonsense. How women (and gay men?) can enjoy this rubbish is beyond me. No self-respecting man would ever want to be with one of these neurotic gold diggers. What is even more concerning is that so many reviewers say they relate to the women on the show. If that is the future of women, Lord help us all. Showing your independence and being respected as equals with men should not be about spreading your legs every three seconds with a different man. I think this demeans women and does not do them justice. But this review is no rant against women. Fans of this show say it is \"hilarious\" and \"rivoting\" but every time I have watched this show I have just struggled to stay awake. Despite the narrative of the reporter woman, at no point in this show is there even anything close to something that could be considered a rational thought. So, it's not entertaining, and it's not informative, so why would you bother watching it? One out of ten stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't expect much from the movie so am not all that disappointed. Carrie looked ugly, Mr. Big had his eyebrows colored with crayons and Samantha didn't say f***.

Charlotte's kid was annoying to watch as she was in too many scenes--the title could easily have been \"SATC: Parents' Night Out.\" Camera angles just weren't that good, especially regarding Carrie's face.

There was a token black woman thrown in whose character doesn't have a proper exit and too few appearances by the gay men friends who seemed thrown in with no purpose anyway. Samantha's going back and forth from LA choked the story flow, especially when she comes in for Fashion Week and nothing happens.

The movie seems to have been made in rush because it could have been good but scenes were just thrown in to show different outfits or to offer viewers a chance to jump back in the show without adding much to the story of the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The very first time I saw this I recoiled in HORROR at what was being presented as modern, liberated women.

Sorry, but I cannot relate to whining idiots whose lives revolve around loveless sex and the acquisition of Gucci, Prada and Louis Vuitton labels. The troubling thing is that some may actually think this is how career women live in NYC. It's definitely not. These women are incredibly shallow and materialistic and as another reviewer said, they act like gold-digging hooches.

This is not liberated womanhood and I'm glad it's gone. 0 stars and just plain AWFUL","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All my friends and various other coworkers think this show is soooo great. First I hate this show!!!!!!! I think I might be the only female alive!!! I only watched it because my best friend adores it and fancies herself to be the Charlotte character!

First the whole plot (If you can call it that) is about four women Superslut Samantha (Kim Cattrall)who most likely has every STD available and mossy,brown and green genitals considering she is tri sexual( she'll try anything).

Samantha is not like most 40 something women even in NY, but than the show would not have some kind of entertainment since Samantha (along with some good NY scenery) is the only reason to watch and those are not reason enough.

Charlotte (Kristen Davis) is a well dressed upper class NY idiot who still believes the Pince Charming myth! However sweet and pretty she is do not let that fool you, she spreads quite often.

Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) now this woman is stereotypical angry, butch feminist. I think in one episode she is thought to be a lesbian, but apparently is not...What a shame she's almost interesting.

Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) the most annoying character. I swear I thought I was watching Twisted Sister front man Dee Snider's more manly looking, cross dressing, sissy boy, brother! This is a girl looking for can't live without you love....Heard of a puppy?

This show is stupid and I love making fun of it because I hear about how it is some kind of new awakening for women. That is just sad if your looking to watch slutty, pathetic, addictive people in way too expensive clothes drinking cosmopolitans and sounding like an annoying 15 yr old on cocaine than there is a show for you............just use protection.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know that this show gave a lot of liberation to women in the late '90s and early 2000s, but come on! You have a whiner, a buzz kill, and an over-analyzer. This show really made women look bad. I cannot STAND Carrie's analyzing every little thing on this show and that's what really killed it for me. Also, Charlotte's whining about her nonexistent predicaments made my ears hurt and Miranda's cynicism was a complete buzz kill. I mean, can't she just be happy? Samantha was the only cool one on the show and the only one worth watching. There was also a good episode when Nathan Lane was on the show, but that was the only one worth watching--the rest of them were pretty much the same. The humor was drier than a bucket of sand, and not very interesting plot line. All in all, not a very good show and I'm glad it's over.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Sex and the City\" has some great things going for it. The problem is that it's saddled with a number of negatives that really hurt the ultimate rating and review for its' six seasons.

The good things about \"SATC\" is that a lot of the conversations ring true to life, the romance stories are interesting, and the characters are fun.

The bad things is that few women act like complete whores. These four women have so many partners, even going lesbian in some episodes, that you have no choice but to roll your eyes at the utter absurdity. Men on the show are for the most part depicted as shallow, degenerates, liars, cheats, and buffoons. The foul language these women use is far in excess as to what a normal conversation entails. Why do the writers do these things? Clearly, to be over-the-top and to get your attention.

Another thing that bothered me (without spoiling) is how some of the relationships ended. They simply didn't ring real to me or to others I discussed this with.

But, even though I gave the show 2 stars, in the end, I'm glad I watched the show. I've actually watched every season multiple times. I do recommend the show to anyone that won't be offended by strong profanity and soft-core pornography. I could have done less with the offensive language and the nudity and sex acts but the romance was very good and the saga ends pretty well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Week after week these women just sweep all the men of their feet. Get real. None of these women are \"Knockouts\". Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) looks like the type of woman men would pick up at !:45am before the bar closed after their vision and standards were equally impaired by ten or eleven martinis. Yet she's the queen bee, a super-sexy man-killer. The other three don't fare much better. And their constant foul mouthed comments.....not to mention that they jump in and out of bed with strange men and never catch a disease. This show is pathetic .and creepy.I don't think any man would be terribly attracted to any of these women, even if he popped Viagra like Tic Tacs while on shore leave.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watch family affairs,coronation st &east enders on uktv every week night family affairs is by far the worst, bad plots, bad sequences and the worst acting of any soapie,even worse than the Americans and that is saying something.

I find it very frustrating that all these shows on uktv Australia\" are so far behind the UK and when one trys to find out the reason for this they just fob you off with some story that they will show double episodes to catch up ,needless to say, this never happens. I am very happy that family affairs is going , to make space for something of better quality, but at the same time I would to know the background reasons, did they finally realize how bad it was? did people stop watching it? whatever it was you musn't leave us in suspense Why do you feel that you have to keep everything a secret from your fans? or is it that you just don't care? I feel strongly that you should try and keep your public up to date. Family affairs is notorious for just having its characters disappear and reappear for seemingly no reason,we do get involved in the people and enjoy following their lives.\\

I can understand why family affairs would have to come to an end, even though we are so far behind here in Australia, it is easy to see that the writers are running out of ideas for new plots,so many plots are being repeated and old episodes coming back.I have also noticed that as new characters are being introduced, a lot of them are really bad actors, like you are scraping the bottom of the barrel and ending up with the drek regards Vince","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, I couldn't stop yawning, nor could my partner. Incredibly boring - 90 minutes seemed to stretch to at least 3 hours - and I'm not even a fan of action films, but this just falls asleep on its feet - unless you are a 70's polo neck sweater fan!

** SOME SPOILERS FOLLOW ** If you were expecting ANYTHING to happen, don't hold your breath - it doesn't!

But seriously, it totally fails to convince or involve the watcher. It's like a long, boring and rather disjointed dream. Frederic floats through it, able to leave work whenever he wants, and with attractive secretaries bringing tea and messages constantly. Obviously not real life! And an office with virtually no paper or files - just a giant calendar to let you know that the film really is taking 6 months to watch.

Frederick never seems to be touched by any real emotion, neither does his wife, and the children behave like rag dolls - in stark contrast to any real life. Even Chloe, despite her strong views, never gives the appearance of really feeling anything. The only 3 seconds of any real feeling occur between a couple overseen in a cafe, and have nothing to do with the plot.

Okay, so maybe there are some moral considerations, but if it's entertainment, or even good cinematography you are looking for, I think this film is incredibly over-rated by most other viewers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why this worthless piece of French cinema has garnered any sort of attention, other than negative, is beyond me.

Don't bother renting this one. It shouldn't have even come into this country.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1960's kid show with ex-vaudevillians playing handy men for hire. As you can expect they are a disaster at everything they do. Over the course of the 11 minute episodes (leaving 4 minutes for commercials in the 15 minute time slot), they do things like set up a fence between warring neighbors, help a magician on stage and deal with a found trunk and wallet.

Growing up I had never run across this show (which appears to have been shot in New York). I thought I had run heard of or seen a most of the children's shows from the period either through having watched them as a kid or viewed them at nostalgia conventions. Until Alpha Video released it on DVD I had been completely unaware if its existence.

The show plays like the Three Stooges mixed with Abbott and Costello as done by people aping the routines. (Indeed one of the pair claims to have created the legendary \"Slowly I turned...\" routine that Abbott and Costello perfected). Its not bad, but its really not good either since everything seems watered down. The timing is often off (Though that maybe due to bad direction) and the jokes were recycled years before the show first ran. Odds are you've seen it all before . On the plus side its the type of thing that would be perfect to introduce very young kids to the magic of vaudeville style comedy, however its going to be trying for parents to sit through even with the short episodes.

For nostalgia junkies only. Everyone else should look to seeing an Abbott and Costello or Three Stooges original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From what I understand, Mr. Bava abandoned this project before completion...AND RIGHTFULLY SO!!! If I were him I definitely would have made sure that EVERY copy was burned and if anybody in the future ever asked me about this film...IT NEVER HAPPENED & IT NEVER EXISTED...end of story.

Despite some great sets and good photography this is one horrible film...is it supposed to be scary? (not in the least) is it supposed to be funny?? (puh-leese) A total waste of time...and I really don't like to have to say that!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My only regret is that one cannot grade a movie on IMDb with a 0. \"A Cena...\" would definitely deserve that! At LEAST.

*SPOILER?* The movie starts with a bunch of people entering a crypt to awaken an ancient Vampire. When a guy cuts himself and his blood drips and falls onto the putrid and dried corpse that is supposed to be a bloodsucker, the metamorphosis takes place and the Vampire, in an ANIMATION-like effect (would you believe it!), quickly takes on a more human form,only to reveal that he's wearing a tux and a bow-tie! A BOW-TIE, yes. Red, if my memory serves me right! I tried to check out random scenes by skipping through a bit, but it did not get any better than the opening sequences. That's the point when I turned the movie off, cursing it for having made me hope to see a Vampire movie. This is surely not one,unless you're 5 and could take such stupidity seriously.

So, if you like Vampires and don't want to feel revolted or even disgusted,learn from my mistake and don't even try to see this garbage!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This started out as a good sketch comedy. The first few shows were very good and I was looking forward to a long run. What was really funny was the Mariah Carey imitation and the take off on Beverly Hills 90210 featuring the hair fight. The Delta Burke vs William Conrad heavy weight battle was also good. Unfortunately the following shows went downhill relatively quickly. The writing became uninspired and oh so predictable as if the show had acquired a cult following in it's young tenure. Nothing fresh was being offered and the recurring skits were boring. One example is the gun family (or whatever it was called) which became a weekly feature. This sketch was not all that funny to begin with let alone being a regular feature. An example of a quick promising start then a sudden fall.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This story of Ted Brice, an American pilot who is the sole survivor of the crash of an Allied reconnaissance plane in Belgium in January of 1944, is pretty much of a mess. The title would lead you to think that it is principally a story about the Belgian armed resistance groups, but that seems to be just a backdrop to prop up a silly love story between Ted and Claire, the woman who takes Ted in. Claire's husband Henri is a committed resistance member, but it is Claire who decides, in Henri's absence and against his wishes, to give Ted refuge.

Crucial plot details don't make sense. Central to the story is the retrieval of the recorder on the downed plane that contains navigation codes and the positions of targets. But in the opening scene we see Belgians looting the plane, resistance members among them. Why did they not retrieve the valued items at that time instead of waiting for the Nazis to come and guard the plane? And the whole affair of transferring Ted out of the area was conducted using secret instructions and code words when the transaction could have just been a simple exchange. The ponderous music attempts, but fails, to lend some weight to this tepid undertaking.

The most ludicrous part of the movie is how the love affair develops between Ted and Claire. At first Claire is devoted to nursing Ted back from near death and, when Ted starts to recover, they become physically involved (while Henri is conveniently away conducting resistance business). Julie Ormond does a passable job as Claire, but she effects a French accent that I frequently found impossible to understand. Her responses seemed a little weak at times - when informed of the hanging deaths of several town members she reacts as though she had just been told that the local grocery was out of peaches. As Ted, Bill Paxton seems just to be reciting his lines; his performance is so uninspired that it's embarrassing. A true American pilot might evidence such a flat personality, but it does not make for convincing cinema. I did not sense any chemistry between these supposed lovers.

The most idiotic thing is the way that Ted and Claire act like lovers on holiday. Maybe sexual release from such heavy situations is understandable, but to appear totally oblivious of the gravity of the situation is hard to fathom. At first Ted is consigned to an attic room and Claire worries about his even coming into the house. But as things develop he not only comes into the house, he dances with Claire to loud music, enters the adjoining barn to have a game of baseball with a local boy, and ultimately goes on a car trip with Claire to a nearby town.

The young boy seems to be most committed to his role, but he is undermined by the script. He has an uncanny ability to be at crucial events without being noticed. And when he delivers lines like:

\"Have you ever seen someone get hanged. They look like the're dancing, but they can't find the floor.\"

you feel that it is the screenwriter talking and not a thirteen year old boy.

And oh, by the way, there are scenes to show that the Nazis are pretty bad guys.

Comparing this film to the brilliant \"Ashes and Diamonds\" about the Polish resistance, or the equally stellar \"Lacombe, Lucien\" about the French resistance, one realizes what a truly dismal affair it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought the DVD to get Julia Ormond. Well, I got that in spades. She was lovely in the romantic scenes; too bad Bill Paxton was flying on autopilot for the whole effort. I almost lost my lunch when he popped his big fat white behind out of his flight suit to shall we say 'engage' with Julia.

I realized Julia was very proficient in French while watching her in 'Sabrina'. I watched 'Sabrina' with the French soundtrack to see if Julia dubbed her own dialog. They used someone else. In any case, Julia was chosen for this Dutch film over a native French speaker with sufficient English to communicate with the American flier. Perhaps they wanted at least one familiar name for the British\/American market. To my unfamiliar eye, Julia's features could pass for Belgian.

The whole film had an odd nature. It was a Dutch film about Belgium in World War 2. I would imagine that national pride would have required a theme of heroic Dutch resistance to the German invaders. The Belgians were much more passive during the occupation period than were the French or Norwegians. The most savage fighting of all came in the Balkans where Tito's communist partisans gave the Germans fits.

I noted in another review that 'dbdumonteil' believed Julia Ormond to be an American instead of the actual British nationality. Perhaps Julia's acting skills were great enough to carry off that impression.

After watching this film several times, it suddenly dawned on me how out of season, the film is. It is set on Junuary 16, 1944 when the American plane crashes in Belgian farm country. The trees look to be in mid-Fall with lots of leaves and the weather is warm. People walk about in light clothing and the grass is still green. There is not the smallest trace of snow or ice. This must have been the mildest winter in Belgium ever.

The actual plot of the film was a mess. Where to begin? For anyone interested in World War 2 history, the film came across as farce. The reconnaissance plane used was a huge 4-engine converted bomber. Such aircraft did exist, but they would have required massive fighter escort to have any chance of survival. In reality, smaller and swifter aircraft were readily available and would have been far more suitable for the task. The vital code books in the film would never have been carried on the plane. The crew had no need of this information to complete their mission, while compromise of this information would have been a huge intelligence defeat. Even given the premise of the film, the first items to be stripped from the aircraft would be the code books. They would have been on their way to Berlin within 10 minutes of the arrival of German troops at the crash site.

The Daussois home, where 'Major Brice' took refuge was a farm where no one had the least interest in farming. Food would have been very scarce in Belgium at this time. The Germans would have required substantial quantities of locally-produced food to support their forces. The family truck would have been expropriated long before the arrival of the American flier. There would not have been any fuel available to run it anyway.

The plot twist where Henri Daussois turns in the American out of jealousy is pathetic. He would have had to reveal all he knew about the resistance in order to be allowed to live. He would have had to function as a double agent to frustrate any effective opposition. The woman with the secret radio would have never survived the war.

'Major Brice' was caught in civilian clothing toward the end of the film. That made him a spy under the laws of war and liable for execution with no defense. He would not have meekly surrendered to face interrogation unhindered by the Geneva Convention. Better to force them to kill him and spare his friends if possible.

I have not read the novel upon which this film is based. If this film is a faithful adaption, it shows an abysmal lack of development in the novel. Regardless of the novel, the screenwriters could easily have produced a superior script that would not waste this opportunity to deliver a much better film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Albert Pyun presents his vision of the lost city of Atlantis - and it's a vision so cluttered up with claustrophobic settings, weird costumes and noisy, \"quirky\" minor characters that one thing is for sure: you want to get the hell outta there as soon as possible (unfortunately, it will take you about 80 minutes). The \"Alice in Wonderland\"-like story is meandering and uninteresting, and there was probably no actress in the world who could have turned this into a good movie, though Kathy Ireland makes an appealing (annoying voice and all) attempt. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a bizarre fantasy tale, that I'm sure doesn't appeal to anyone over 10, but is too strange for children. The plot is stupid, and the acting is some of the worst I've ever seen.

25-year old Kathy Ireland plays a teenage girl who acts like a 9-year old. She seems to have gotten her character's voice by listening to Alvin and the Chipmunks. Her high pitched, screechy baby voice gets annoying the second she starts talking. All of the other acting is bad, but really Kathy Ireland is by far the worst. The plot is also terrible and is kind of a mix between Alice in Wonderland and Mad Max. Wanda Saknussemm (Ireland) gets a letter saying her father, who left her a long time ago, fell down a bottomless pit in Africa, and when she goes to find him, she falls into an underground world full of strange Australian accented people. It's one of the corniest movie you'll ever see, with terrible lines throughout.

It's annoying the effects this movie uses for character development. Kathy Ireland is a nerd who won't do anything or go anywhere. She flies to Africa....wow, what development! She drops her glasses and then doesn't need them. Why does dropping one's glasses represent them not becoming a nerd. It should represent her descent into blindness. It's just stupid. The only positive I can think is there are semi-good special effects and camera work, and the musical score sounds OK.

Overall this a ridiculous family fantasy that will only appeal to those who expect nothing from a movie.

My rating: 1\/2 out of ****. 84 mins. PG for violence.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even in her glasses wearing geek mode Kathy Ireland is very easy on the eyes but her acting is not easy to watch. Most of the actors in the film either take it way over the top (beyond \"campy fun\") or act slightly embarrassed at being there. The effects and soundtrack are nothing special and fairly low budget. The plot line REALLY stretches ones ability to suspend disbelief. Catch this one to laugh at if it comes on a premium movie channel or network Saturday afternoon TV, but DO NOT waist money on this thing.

One worthy mention for trivia purposes is that one of the underground mobsters is played by Deep Roy. Deep is now famous for playing (and doing it well) all the Oompa Loompas in Burton's \"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The director of this waste of celluloid specialises in dreadful exploitation films where pretension is all; the previous year he did \"Dangerously Close\" whose good idea (about gangs getting too much power in school and the school paper editor against them) was submerged in a sea of sloppiness, and he would go on to do \"Cyborg,\" Jean Claude Van Damme's worst film ever (no mean feat). This would-be comedy about a girl - Kathy Ireland in her film debut - who's a total schlump whose inner babe is only awakened after she falls to the centre of the Earth and has a set of badly filmed, impossible-to-follow adventures (chiefly involving a set of dwarves who want her because she has big bones - go figure!) before returning home changed for the better isn't funny, gripping or entertaining in the slightest. And anybody watching this to salivate over Miss Ireland will be put off too - not because of her voice, but because she spends most of the film buried under tons of baggy clothes, with huge glasses to boot. No wonder Cannon, the producers, are out of business. Amazingly, Kathy Ireland has made better films since then...or maybe that isn't so amazing. Next to this, \"Barb Wire\" is \"Aliens.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had a very convoluted plot and very contrived setting, that I, frankly, could not follow, which is surprising considering the acting and dialogue could have only been the product of a kindergartener's writing. If you like Kathy Ireland, then maybe you'd want to see this. The movie was probably made as a vehicle to try to get her into Hollywood, but if that was its goal I would have to say that I hope she didn't invest too much money in its production.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Back in the 1960's, those of us who were bad movie aficionados thought that \"Plan Nine From Outer Space\" was the worst movie ever made, and would remain so for all time. To put things in perspective, though, we also thought that $3,000 was a lot to pay for a new car.

As we grew older, our innocence was gradually stripped away as we were exposed to movies like \"Hercules in New York\" and \"Overdrawn at the Memory Bank,\" which completely redefined the \"bad movie\" genre. In this context, last night, my son and I saw \"Alien From L.A.,\" which pushed the envelope to an extreme unimaginable just a generation ago. To call this movie \"bad\" (or wretched or execrable) completely fails to do it justice, as does any other label existent in the English language. Even if there were words with which to accurately describe this movie, it would be of no consequence, since they would be banned in civilized society.

The Alien referred to in the title is played by Kathy Ireland, who apparently took some time off from modeling swimsuits for Sports Illustrated, to kick off her cinematic career. Her casting might seem some sort of recommendation, until you actually see the movie. The makeup artists earned their money by making Kathy look so drab and unappetizing you would not want to touch her with the far end of a broomstick -- no mean feat. To put it bluntly, in this movie she has a face that would freeze Medusa. Even worse than her look, though, was her voice, which was so raucous that I initially failed to credit it as originating with a human being. Throughout the movie, I found myself longing for a chalkboard to drag my nails across to cover the screechy twang of her dialog. At the end of the movie, Kathy finally gets a makeover and finds herself in her beloved swimsuit. I suggested to my son that the movie would have been better if they had put her in the swimsuit at the beginning of the movie, so at least we would have had something to watch. My son perceptively pointed out that if they had then removed the swimsuit and stuffed it into her mouth, it would have considerably improved the movie on two counts. I defer to the plain brilliance of his observation. If you have any doubts, compare this dreck to \"Barbarella,\" in which a competent filmmaker shows how to exploit the assets of an ethereally beautiful leading lady in the fantasy genre.

Of the plot, itself, there is little on which to comment, since there was so little in evidence. It is said that if a million monkeys typed unceasingly for millions of years, eventually one would come up with \"Hamlet.\" By the process of elimination, the rest of the time they would come up with something approximating this screenplay. Imagine, if you will, a modern-day Alice falling into a hole and dropping 500 feet onto a rock slab, following which she gets up, dusts herself off, and starts looking for her long-lost father in the city-kingdom of Atlantis. Once in Atlantis, she spends most of her time running, fighting, or climbing stairs and ladders, and basically trying to keep out of the hands of a general who seems to have no soldiers to do his bidding, and who would make Tiny Tim look macho. This summation, as abbreviated as it appears, is probably longer than the shooting script.

On the plus side, as you revel in the production values and take in whatever you can of the sets and costumes through the smoke and haze, you realize that this is one movie in which you can actually see on the screen where all $20 of the budget went.

The thought that kept going through my mind was that filmmakers ought not be given access to drugs and alcohol while they are shooting a movie, or perhaps prior, if it leads to results like \"Alien from L.A.,\" though in fairness I have to acknowledge that I don't know whether they were actually involved in substance abuse, or were simply brain dead at the outset of the project.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The opening credits are pure poetry and I have watched it several times. It had a corny 20's adventure feel to it. Of course Kathy is gorgeous, but that voice! Did she realize this was a talkie. One word--voice coach. Great film for chronic insomnia (along with a bottle of scotch).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In 1990 I saw Kathy Ireland in person - I was at UNT in Denton during the filming of \"Necessary Roughness.\" Strangely enough, the voice she's using in this film isn't too far off from her real speaking voice.

Anyway, the plot goes like this: Kathy gets a letter telling her that her father's fallen into a bottomless pit in Africa. She goes and investigates the site of her father's death, only to get sucked into a subterranean world that's part dystopian nightmare, part uninspiring fantasy, and inhabited by rejects from the Plasmatics. This movie really wastes the talent of Linda Kerridge, who, in my opinion, could have been someone had she gotten that one big role that was right for her. Anyway, the main hero of the story, Gus, is a very lame Mark \"Jacko\" Jackson rip-off. The original is annoying enough to begin with, but this guy really is torture to watch. Eventually the nebbish Wanda comes out of her shell and ends up wearing a bikini top and a sarong at the end. If you're going to have Kathy Ireland in a film in skimpy clothing, it'd better be a bikini. Anyway, the film was just all around bad and rightfully skewered by MST3K.

Avoid this one if possible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kathy Ireland: the body of a goddess, the face of an angel, the voice of a Smurf.

And the acting talent of a shovel full of calcite. If you don't believe me, check this out: \"Alien from L.A.\" actually depends on her to act throughout 9\/10 of the movie! Sure, she ends up in a nice red bikini top and a wrap-around skirt near the end, but that's too little (so to speak) too late.

Seems Ireland plays the daughter of a renowned scientist who falls down into the center of the earth to find him. Along the way, she falls for a guy named Charmin (yes, like the toilet paper - make your own jokes) and finds out how \"Mad Max\" rejects live. Did you know that people that live down deep in the earth have Austrailian accents? Neither did I.

It's bad (it was MST'd, after all) and also a Golan-Globus production but after all is said and done, Ireland just basically looks lost, like she's trying to find where the photographers are so she can do a photo shoot instead.

And I don't blame her.

One star. And if you insist on watching this, do so with the sound turned off - save your eardrums.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And the title says it all: a cheesy sounding title that is a cheesy sounding joke of a film known as \"Alien from L.A.\" Why not just call it \"Alien from South Africa,\" as this is the place where this movie was filmed? My advice for watching movies that have been featured on \"Mystery Science Theater 3000:\" do not watch the original version of the movie at all! Period! Always watch the movie with the theater shadow at the bottom of the screen, with a man trapped in space with his two funny, wise-cracking robot friends sitting at the lower right hand corner of the screen. It just seems better that way.

Movie as it was originally seen: Awful! Movie as it was seen on MST3K: Genius!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Boy, this movie is bad. And not in a good, cheesy, fun way, either. Even MST3K couldn't stop it from being boring, and it's also confusing as all get out. But the most annoying part of this dull mess is Ireland's hideous high pitched voice, which I was tired of listening to in the first five minutes. Not to mention how really unappealing her character is. Even her Dad ran away and abandoned her! I can see why, frankly. If he'd had to listen to her whine in her little mouse voice for more than a few minutes, he'd have been tempted to do her a great harm. As I was, by the end of the movie. Plus, she's useless and annoying. When she falls down the long hole in the earth a la Alice in Wonderland, she'd have been done for in the first ten minutes if that inexplicably Australian accented miner hadn't kept saving her from all of the various plights she kept falling into. He should have just tied her to the Atlantean version of train tracks and been done with it. And this Atlantis underground with the weird, confusing obsession with bone density,I have to ask-where was the light coming from down there? Did they have generators that imitate the sun? No matter. There's no real plot anyway, just a bunch of oddly costumed Goth wannabees running around trying to catch Kathy(probably so that they can stick a gag in her mouth). Stupid, pointless film. Thank you Golan Globus, for this cinematic abomination. May you burn in the seventh ring of Hell for all eternity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched the MST3K version of the movie, and this review includes minor spoilers.

When I started watching this movie, it looked like it might have promise as a cheesy sci-fi flick, but the more I watched it, the more disappointing it got. The first reason is pretty idiosyncratic - I liked the mousy shy girl with glasses a lot more than the model Wanda became by the end of the movie. More deeply, it was the fact that the loss of glasses and change in clothing replaced any actual character growth. Instead of growing into a character that could take care of herself, Wanda was just as dependent on males to do everything for her as she was at the start of the movie. The acting could have been better (though I got tired of cracks about Ireland's voice - they were even in the movie itself! It's not that bad.) The background was okay, but it was a little hokey (aliens = humans with facepaint), and could have used more explanation.

Maybe it was just that I was interested in the movie itself, but Joel and the bots did little for me. The movie might have been better without them at all.

Overall (for the movie itself, not the MST3K), a 3 out of 10. It was an okay flick, for what it was.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...don't watch it. Here's a hint: tune in to the last 5 minutes and you'll catch her in a bikini. Otherwise you'll just have to sit through the flick and endure her helium-sucking voice view for screen time with the inexplicable Aussie accents of the lost city of Atlantis or wherever the heck she goes to to locate her missing father. We now know why Kathy pursued a non-speaking career of modelling: she couldn't have survived the death-threats from those poor headache-suffering victims who heard her voice for more than 30 seconds. The rest of the story is some kind of weird poorly-lit Mad Max mish-mash.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Every boy eventually learns the lesson that just because a girl is good-looking, it doesn't mean she's good. Well, lemme tell you, at age 19, lesson learned. It's hard to tell what's worse: Kathy Ireland's acting skills, or her ultra-high-pitched voice; the one that sounds like a screeching mouse on helium scratching its tiny little claws down a blackboard. With an incomprehensible plot set in outer space with dwarves that want Kathy Ireland's bones for some obscure reason, this movie is just wrong on so many levels. If there were ever a candidate for a Mystery Science Theater 3000 revival, this would be it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Because they all just watch there MST3K with their artificial friends who make (mostly) not that funny and obvious comments about movies. And that's the only way these people watch them and then they comment and down-vote them on the IMDb based just on that, they don't even try to watch the film on it's own.

I watched this film on it's own, I didn't read the reviews first, I didn't have some people telling what to laugh at, I just got the DVD (bought for the flip side Morons From Outer Space, an old fave) and watched it.

Of cause I knew kind of what I was in for when it's a Golan Globus, Albert Pyun film, but usually they can be quite entertaining.

The film is a non too stressing on the brain Alice down the Rabbit-hole story done so many times, and kind of similar in basic structure (but completely different in content) to Warlords of Atlantis, another entertaining B-Movie.

The voice, was annoying, but then that's the idea, which they even poke at with a few lines in the movie.

The hero character had one of the worst over-the top voices\/accents in English language film history, but you grow to accept it and enjoy it.

It's not a good film, but it's not a really bad film, it's just a bit of an average B-Movie DTV kind of film, nothing too new nothing too outstanding, and probably would be enjoyed more by a younger age bracket (say 7-14 year olds) than I. It's a bit of light-hearted Fantasy.

Will I see it again, probably not maybe about 10 years ago I would have.

Don't be so harsh on a movie because a couple of puppets told you too, this film isn't taking itself seriously and it's certainly no Troll 2 or Space Mutiny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a native Chinese, I can not accept this kind of idea that some people must die for a 'better world'. I said 'better world' because it is a lie that Chinese people have been indoctrinated for thousand years!

I guess most western audience may don't know Qin Shihuang(means the first emperor), the king in this film is the most notorious tyrant in ancient China. The Tianxia(Chinese word was spoken by the king, means 'the land and the people') spoken from his mouth is totally lie. From then on, one after another, all the king in ancient china spoke the same thing but very few of them did as what they said.

Another fact is, Qin Shihuang's empire only lasted about twenty years before it was destroyed by people.

Well, I do like the beautiful scenes of this movie, but it can not make me accept the idea that people should die for a tyrant.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The message of Hero is quite clear: the idea of Greater China is more important than the death and the suffering of millions. At a time when China is dangling its war toys over Taiwan, it is unacceptable for Western viewers to endorse this piece of over-produced, government-sponsored, dogmatic trash.

Particularly surprising is the promotion of this film by the liberal media. Roger Ebert of Chicago Tribune, David Edelstein of Slate, Charles Taylor of Salon, and many others have wholeheartedly endorsed Hero. In so doing, they have implicitly legitimated its reactionary political message. The only critic (that I know of) who saw through the film's glossy facade was J. Hoberman of The Village Voice, who wrote of the film's \"sanctimonious traditionalism\" and its \"glorification of ruthless leadership and self-sacrifice on the altar of national greatness.\" I, for one, sign my name under Hoberman's final pronouncement: Hero is nothing more than \"fascinating fascism.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Impressive vision indeed, and some hot chicks with swords flying around, oh and those hypnotic Chinese violins too... Let me think, \"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon\"?

I kinda liked CTHD, with its down-to-earth simplicity and well developed characters, that still left enough room for you to enjoy the vision without having to think about the DEEEPAA Meaning of it.

\"Hero\" on the other hand is painfully pretentious and demanding both visually and conceptually. The larger-than-life moral was horrible. I mean, sacrifice your life, sacrifice your beliefs, sacrifice your love so that your mighty nation can succeed???? WTF??

No, thanks.

But, hay, Mao and G.W.B. would be proud!

Viva","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is impossible to avoid comparing Zhang Yimou's `Hero' to Ang Lee's `Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.' They were both big-budget Chinese kung-fu films with breathtaking cinematography of Chinese landscape and a cast of super-stars. But aside from the obvious, there is in fact nothing else to compare. `Hero' fails to deliver on almost every level that really matters, proving that big-name stars, beautiful scenery, and action effects are no replacement for a director's artistry and vision.

All the marketing hype preceding the premier of `Hero' has done nothing more than make its failure a spectacular one. Much anticipated, `Hero' drew movie-goers in throngs when it first opened at theaters in mainland China and Hong Kong, making it an instant box-office success. However, though the script pleased government censors, Chinese audiences went to newfound heights of caustic criticism and sarcastic wit to express their disdain. On-line critics, both professional and amateur, proclaimed the film `ideologically disturbing,' `from the viewpoint of deep servitude,' written `either by an amateur historian, or someone with ulterior motives.' One article was simply titled, `Hero, you make me sick!'

The deepest failing of the film is in its plot, which is not only morally reprehensible, and based on unforgivable historic fallacy but - worst of all for a film - is boring! All blockbuster epic films are known to take some liberties with the facts of history, but `Hero' goes beyond artistic license into unforgivable ignorance when it attempts to glorify an emperor that was as brutal as Stalin or Hitler. `Hero' does not make up for this lack of moral compass by being entertaining or fun. Instead, it is makes a woefully poor attempt at being `deep' and merely manages to be pretentious and preachy.

Though historians agree that the First Emperor of China was ruthlessly violent, Mao Zedong was known to have admired this ruler - no surprise, given Mao's own tyrannical rule. Likewise, the Communist government in Beijing sees the allegory that can easily be drawn between the First Emperor and its own iron-fist methods, so they were particularly pleased with this latest work by Zhang Yimou. Tony Leung, one of the stars of `Hero' remarked during an interview to promote the film that the Beijing government had done the right thing in 1989 by crushing the student demonstrations, because it was needed to maintain `stability' in China. For these remarks, Tony Leung received shocked criticisms in his home city of Hong Kong, but he merely stated out loud the underlying message of the movie.

Director Zhang Yimou has stated that his goal was to surpass the values of loyalty and revenge that are traditional in kung-fu novels and movies, to reveal a higher wisdom. Unfortunately, his version of `wisdom' turns out to be: THE OPPRESSOR IS RIGHT. In China, where thousands of years of historical reality have rammed this message through, art was the last sanctuary where the individual could actually find freedom from such tyranny. The great popularity of the kung-fu novel can be explained by its ability to provide an escape into an alternate world: one where kung-fu warriors roamed the country seeking adventure and fighting for justice, free from fear and winning against all odds with their super-human skills. Only in the novel did the individual ever win over institutionalized power in China, and only in the novel did the oppressed find their champions. Going against this tradition of the kung-fu hero, Zhang Yimou has not gone upwards towards a higher truth, as he had hoped, but downwards, to the level of government propaganda. It's no wonder the government was so pleased.

Some film lovers may secretly wonder, `All moralistic judgments aside, is it at least entertaining?' Fortunately, the answer is a resounding `No!' Because the same tale is told over and over with only slight variations, it becomes tedious to watch. Moreover, the three conflicting versions of the same story serves only to confuse the character development, since it leaves precious little time for the viewer to feel any sympathy for any of them once the `real' version emerges.

The film is not without its beautiful images. However, all the scenes fall flat because they do not connect to or enhance the storyline. The use of different colors to distinguish the separate versions of the tale comes across as simplistic and contrived, and the cinematography appears self-consciously rather than truly beautiful. Great for a trailer, but a disappointment once you are there to watch the entire film.

For those in China who showed disdain for `Crouching Tiger's' unrealistic kung-fu, much was expected from `Hero.' Jet Li, who plays the title role, is a real kung-fu artist who held national titles before beginning his career as an actor. His previous movies have revealed limited acting abilities, but many hoped that Zhang Yimou could use Li's lithe body movements to full effect while casting him properly in a role that would not task his acting abilities. But it was not to be. `Hero' attempts to go beyond the kung-fu genre, so there are not many fighting scenes, and Jet Li is expected to perform a difficult piece of acting: an inner transformation leading to profound wisdom and self-sacrifice. As the casting director ought to have expected, Li fails miserably. Meanwhile, the only fighting scene that reveals any true kung-fu skill is the first one of the film, between Li and and Donnie Yen. All the scenes that follow are a disappointment, so `Hero' fails to satisfy, even on that level.

Though most audiences outside China are unlikely to be aware of the historical mangling of the story of the cruel First Emperor, it seems even more unlikely that they would accept Zhang's version of `Chinese wisdom,' which is anything but. Perhaps the only time an audience coming out of a screening of `Hero' was seen smiling - instead of yawning or frowning - was at the special screening for Chinese government officials.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Salesman Lenny Brown (Woods) is fast losing his knack of selling the proverbial ice cream to Eskimos. Given a chance to shine in California by a philanthropic entrepreneur, Brown and his wife Linda (Young) live the high life off tax shelter investments; a fortune they lose when the federal government changes the tax laws.

Seven hundred thousand dollars in the red, and in need of a 'boost', the yuppies without portfolio begin to hoover vast quantities of Colombian marching powder up their hooters, until they find themselves with rather hungry monkeys on their back. After briefly cleaning up, Linda's coke-induced miscarriage sees Lenny once more careering like a pinball between uppers and downers. Living purgatory follows.

A contemporary take on Reefer Madness, with perverse echoes of Albert Brooks' Lost In America, The Boost was overshadowed on release by tabloid revelations concerning an alleged affair between Woods and Young, and their tumultuous falling out. Woods, then engaged to horse trainer Sarah Owen (now his ex-wife), reputedly slapped a $2 million lawsuit on his spurned co-star for \"emotional harassment\" during filming, citing Fatal Attraction-style late-night phone calls to his fianc\u00e9e and, in one noteworthy incident, reputedly leaving a mutilated baby doll on his and Owen's doorstep.

Ironically, the lack of chemistry between the supposedly loving leads is one of the more depressing aspects of this latter-day exploitation flick - the only real passion Woods demonstrates towards Young is when he's kicking her around the room. The script too is hilariously dreadful, perhaps mitigating Young's near-comatose performance when given howlers like \"stay with me - 'til I fall off the Earth\" to emote. Further, given Woods' edgy dramatic personae, his jittery descent loses all credibility when actually he looked that way to begin with.

Ultimately, The Boost must be seen in context: in the 21st Century cocaine use is ubiquitous. However, in 1988, with America still embroiled in an unwinnable \"war on drugs\", the very fibre of the nation looked to be in peril - hence one of the most hellish - and for that read hysterical - depictions of drug-abuse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My gosh, this movie was nothing more than filmmaking by numbers. Struggling salesman can't make a go of it in New York, mentor with a heart of gold takes him under his wing, struggling salesman moves to California and makes it big, then loses it big, then bounces back with the simple life, then hits rock bottom trying to get back to the top. I don't think I can remember any part of the plot that took more than five seconds to develop. Case in point (spoiler?): When the John Kapelos character calls to say he and his girlfriend were coming to Santa Cruz to visit, and James Woods says there's practically no chance he would come, you knew with 100% certainty they were coming in the next scene or two.

On the other hand, Sean Young sure looked good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film in the theater when it first came out, I'm sorry to say, and it was one of only a few films I have ever wanted to walk out of early. I didn't have a problem with the drug content and I could see how this cautionary tale could have been powerful. The problem was, the film-maker, working with James Woods and Sean Young, drew two of the least lovable characters I have ever seen on film. I hated this pair and couldn't have cared less if they sunk straight to the inevitable bottom. Their was not one surprise in this film. Every turn of events was so painfully obvious that I felt I could have written the script myself; although I like to think I would have done a better job. I subsequently heard nightmarish stories about the incidents on the set between Sean Young and James Woods along the lines of some sort of stalking events. It made me wonder if the terrible acting arose out of some bad feelings and dysfunction. Anyway, I refer to The Boost as the worst film I've ever paid money to see.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is right up there with The Oscar and Moment by Moment as one of unintentionally funny films of all time.

It is worth the rental for a some wildly great laugh's.

The story is absolutely ludicrous.nothing in life would happen like this.it's so completely unbelievable. the way James Woods tries and hustle heavy hitters, than they give this supposed two-bit hustler a job 3000 miles away in LA what a joke

I love the old beat VW bug to signify how low they've gotten in life because of all the `tootski's'.

Sean Young is as unbelievably bad as the, \"I'll love you forever, no matter what, wife\" you'll ever see.if it wasn't so funny you would throw up at how sugary sweet Young tries to project herself.and as bad acting as you'll ever see.

James Wood overacts throughout the whole movie and he's so extremely funny and is way, way over the top, it's just not to be believed, Woods seems like a parody of a cocaine fiend off Saturday Night Live.but watching Woods on `ludes' is worth the price of the rental.

I love it when Woods tells the guy who wants to give him some more `ludes' that he doesn't do that stuff anymore, right before that, Woods just did three giant lines of coke.

This is some very funny stuff.

The ending is so comical but right on par with the rest of the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Its almost embarrassing to say I even saw this movie. I mean it doesn't take much to make a good zombie movie besides good special effects, lots of blood and gore, some scary moments and a decent plot. Does House of the Dead 2 do any of these things right? No, not one. Of course, its not as bad as its predecessor, from Uwe Bowle and thats the only thing about this movie that scares me.

The dialog in this movie is notorious, with such lines as \"What do you do for a living?\" in response \"I kill zombies\" and \"I was never a disk jockey, I was a soldier.\" The special effects are embarrassing even for a made for TV movie, I mean seriously, the zombies all look like they have bloody lips are hyped up on crack. The army base in this movie, is a parking garage, with a desk and a open gated room. This movie is so low budget that they couldn't even get co-ed locker rooms. In fact it seems like this entire movie was filmed in a middle school.

Also, why is it that the all the female soldiers in this movie are models? And for that matter why is everyone in this movie so clueless at to what is going on that they simply just stand around letting the zombies kill them. Heck one guy even trys to give food to the zombie.

Overall, this movie makes even the worst of Scifi Channel movies looks fantastic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't had a chance to view the previous film, but from what I've read on other posts it was supposedly worse than this one, although I doubt that is possible. I'm a huge fan of the \"Zombie\" genre, and I am fascinated by the psychological aspects of viewing creatures, that for all intents and purposes are human, as an atrocity that is only worth shooting in the head. That said, HOTD 2 takes the \"Zombie\" movie to an all new low.

Without giving any big spoilers (which I really should do just so you won't bother wasting your time actually watching this movie) I would like to express my utter contempt for the way the writers of this film portray our countries Special Forces. Gomer Pile could have probably survived longer than the \"Spec Ops\" soldiers in this film. For crying out loud they should have called them the Special Education Forces instead. If you are going to write a script where you send in an elite team to deal with an outbreak of zombies, at least have the soldiers be smarter than the walking corpses. I understand that you have to kill off some or most of the team, but you can find better ways to do it than having them set down their machine guns and walk over to lay a tender hand on the shoulder of the drooling crazy person rocking back and forth in the corner of the dark creepy basement.

The writers actually try to take the whole zombie thing to a more high-tech level by making it a virus that they are searching for a vaccine for, and the idea has merit, if it wasn't stuck in the middle of such a ridiculous display of wayward film making. I mean come on, zombie films aren't exactly \"high art\", and the viewer expects some tongue-in-cheek cheesiness along with the gore and thrills, but HOTD 2 is the type of cheese that makes you turn the channel in disgust and awe of the sheer stupidity of the characters. If you are a zombie movie fan like me, please do yourself a favor and stay away from this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Granted, HOTD 2 is better than the Uwe Boll crapfest that was the first one, but thats like saying drowning is better than being chopped alive. OK OK, I'm being a little bit harsh with this one, its just that Video Game adaptations of Zombie movies always leave a bad taste in my mouth. Resident Evil was alright, but its sequels are pure rubbish. The first HOTD was entertaining crap more than anything else; Uwe Boll saw to that. And HOTD 2 was...better? The entertainment value was there, the hot chicks were there, the gore was there, but... this is it? The script, even though subpar, was better than the first one. But in the script dwells horribly written characters, stupid action sequences, clich\u00e9s, and an ending that drags on and on reaching a level of ridiculousness which would make the Bollmeister very, very proud. But, it could've been worse right?

HOTD 2 stars Sig Haig (Yes, Sid Haig) as an insane doctor looking for a cure to death. As you may guess, it all goes to sh*t. A nearby College Campus seems to be the center for the Zombie (or Hypersapien?) epidemic, and as you may expect, a group of Commandos and two Zombie scientists try to save the world by going there and neutralizing the problem. Their main goal? No, it ain't blowing sh*t up. Instead, they have to get a sample of zombie blood, so they can create a cure to the deadly virus. Between this and that lays bland character interactions, an insufferable amount of clich\u00e9s (but hey, at least the black guy isn't the first one to get killed), and decent looking Zombies.

The acting is passable. Who would've thought that Sticky Fingaz was a passable actor? Not me. Emmanuelle Vaugier and Ed Quinn shine somewhat as the leads. And the supporting cast was passable too. It was all passable.

The make up effects on the Zombies were alright, it could've been worse like in the first HOTD: just guys running around in dusty mummy suits. The gore was alright too. Cheap scares and even cheaper tension are almost non-existent in this movie, which is a good thing. The action sequences were stupid as f*ck, but at least there wasn't any sword fighting zombies or that ridiculous slow motion bullet effect.

Overall, this movie will appeal only to Zombie enthusiasts, fans of the arcade games and for someone who wants to rent a cheap Horror movie for the weekend. Apparently there's going to be a third one as hinted by the ending, but I wouldn't count on it. Unless Uwe decides to do it. A 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was on a mission to watch Uwe Boll movies to see if they were really as bad as all that. The first one I saw, BloodRayne, was not a complete loss. I liked it more than most people, and actually rated it a 4 out of 10. Next up was the first House of the Dead movie. Now THAT was horrifically bad. I could stand watching ten minutes of it, and fast-forwarding a bit, and that was it. I could see where it was going and I didn't need to see any more of it in order to rate it a just 1 out of 10.

But I had access to the sequel, too (which however is not by Uwe Boll, but, mysteriously, written by the same guys who so incompetently wrote the first one), and since it got a higher rating at IMDb than the original, I thought I'd give it a chance. And I actually managed to watch all of it. It started out with some funny references and cool lines (like how the president got his orders from the vice-president!), and acting-wise it is light-years better than the first. Here we have cool muchachas like the ultra-hot Emmanuelle Vaugier, whose coolness is in league with Carrie-Anne Moss, Claudia Black and Evangeline Lilly. Man, I hope some Matrix-style movie comes along for her sometime. And the always delectable, super-aerobicized Victoria Pratt. I love athletic women. And, there was also Nadine Velazquez (Catalina on \"My Name Is Earl\"), who performed quite well.

The story wasn't much, and the action wasn't great, either, and the ending was a disappointment, as they didn't succeed in their mission. Oh well, at least the two mains survived. Guess that's some small victory, too.

Good cast, but a pretty bad movie. The actors make it watchable, but there's no real substance there.

3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw the first House of the Dead and expected a root canal to be more pleasant to attend, so when it wasn't as bad as that, I was delightfully surprised.

Unfortunately, I then got my hopes up that the second one might be okay as well...and I was wrong.

Apparently I'm one of the few people who saw this movie that thinks it was bad.

I don't know whether to watch it again and force myself to see whatever all the people who gave it good reviews saw, or wonder if I saw the wrong movie.

Ed Quinn as Ellis and Emmanuelle Vaugier as Alexandra 'Nightingale' Morgan did a great job in roles that were way beneath them. They deserve to be in better movies.

The special effects were okay and some of the characters likable\/hate-able and that made for a tolerable watch, but for the most part, this movie was just a waste of time.

Oh and I have to ask this because I found myself asking it aloud ALL the way through the movie...did anyone not know how to close doors behind themselves so zombies wouldn't just wander into the rooms? Only once did it happen, (zombies wandering in) and I found that a little convenient...soldiers walk into a room, leave the door wide open, pay little to no attention to same said door so the zombies can just walk in if they feel like it (with the hapless \"livings\" being cornered with no way to escape) and yet only once did zombies follow them in.

Nitpicky? Maybe but honestly...if I was fighting for my life, the last thing I'd do would be to walk into a room and leave the door wide open so zombies could swarm in and eat me.

That is really the only thing *bothered* me throughout the movie, and just the movie for the most part was a bad sequel to a not totally abominable original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When Uwe Boll, cinema con man extraordinaire, released the first House Of The Dead adaptation to completely deserved mockery, it was generally agreed among fans of the source video game that one would have to be incredibly moronic to contemplate making a sequel. Hollywood's per-capita ratio of morons must indeed be high, for not only do we have a sequel, it was distributed in the antipodes by Sony, a company not normally known for its taste in expensive write-offs. Released direct to television in America, the sequel does improve on the original in most respects, but in so doing, it becomes bland rather than interesting. The scale of the scenario is enlarged, with the action taking place in a deserted town that just happens to surround a university where experiments in a virus that can reanimate the dead have been occurring. In particular, the action is spread throughout the university, where the first infected denizens can be found. Put simply, the film differs from the original in that it actually occurs within a house where dead people can be found.

The cast, on the other hand, is a real step backward. Emmanuelle Vaugier was specifically made up to resemble a low-rent Angelina Jolie, while the rest of the cast never reaches the level of a slumming-it J\u00fcrgen Prochnow. In fact, the only name that will stand out among this cast is one Sticky Fingaz, who probably did not want to be recognised that easily by the people he faces at home. Put simply, these people could not convincingly order pizza on the big screen, even under the best direction. Say what you will about Boll, but he at least inspired actors like Ona Grauer to fight against his ineptitude. That said, the people involved here at least seem to be aware that their film sucks and that they might as well have some fun with it. Much of the problem with the original was that the director thought he was crafting some kind of misunderstood masterpiece, and he took himself seriously. Unfortunately, with the actors failing to take their characters or the predicament seriously, what little dramatic tension there could have been is undermined.

Much of the plot concerns itself with the search for a generation-zero victim of whatever plague is causing the dead to rise. Or to translate into more practical terms, they are trying to find someone who was infected just after the virus mutated into a form that was threatening to humans. How this would help when a non-mutated strain is usually required to create a vaccine is anyone's guess, but the manner in which this quest is paced out suffers problems of its own. The we-have-to-go-back plot device is used in order to pad out the running time, but the actual timing of the extra quest is also problematic. We are told at one point that the town will be obliterated by Cruise missiles in ten minutes, yet the heroes drive back into the university, locate the sample they are looking for, and fight off enough zombies to eat the army of China, all in this space of time. Filmmakers take note: it only pays to be specific with time when it can serve rather than hinder dramatic tension.

The special effects used in House Of The Dead 2 leave those of the original in the dust. Where Uwe Boll simulated the deaths of the characters using idiotic rotating camera tricks, Michael Hurst instead uses all the graphic details his budget can allow. Necks are bitten, arms are cut off, heads are shot. It all makes for a much more convincing throughput, but it also disallows the mockery of obvious fakery. The photography is also much improved. As DVD Crypt put it, the fact that it is in focus throughout makes it an improvement upon the original, but this also deprives us of something to have a laugh at the expense of. The writing is also both an improvement and a setback. Throughout the script, references to other horror and survival horror games, the most obvious being Run Like Hell, are offered. The first couple of times, they work because they offer clever ways to work titles into ordinary, everyday dialogue. After the eighth time, however, they just get on the nerves because they remind gamers of things they would prefer to do with their time.

Interestingly, House Of The Dead 2 cost a mere six million to bring to television screens across America. Given that Tom Savini on his own would cost more than this to work on a film nowadays, I have to say I am somewhat impressed with the visual results. In contrast to the much-reviled original, the zombies here look like actual zombies rather than extras in bad makeup shot poorly. In a further contrast to the original, the actors appear to have a clue what they are doing. Sealing the deal is the fact that apart from some real zingers scattered throughout, the characters speak like real people. However, the story is nothing that we have not seen a thousand times already. When Aliens, the real Dawn Of The Dead, or The Evil Dead were released to acclaim, the acclaim came from the fact that these films either did something we had not seen before, or did it so well that we did not really care. House Of The Dead 2 is competent enough that we do not mock it, but it brings nothing new or particularly brilliant to the table, so we end up not caring either.

For that reason, and many others, I gave House Of The Dead 2 a two out of ten. It is too good to be bad, but too bad to be any good. Unless you are into sucky films as much as I am, you are best to steer clear of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry, but they did leave the impression that these commandos fought zombies before. But they sure didn't act like they even seen a zombie before. Jumping and turning their backs on them like amateurs. Second, the characters are pretty badly written. The actors did the best they could with what was given, I blame bad writing and bad directing. Lastly and here is where the spoiler warnings are highest. They loose the sample twice and the girl Jennifer Holland doesn't know if she's been bit or not. How stupid is that? As much as it hurts to be bitten, one would think you would know, plus gallons of blood leaking from your body is a good clue. Dumb, the first movie had it's flaws but it has re-watchablity, unlike this disaster of a movie, which I could barely get through once. I give the HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: NO GUTS, ALL STUPIDITY THE CRAP-O-LANTERN","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the most awful movies I've had the misfortune of picking up. Don't get me wrong, I love a good zombie flick, but this wasn't one of them.

...Might as well (from the opening scenes, at least) been called 'Titty Zombies from Outer Space'. It had absolutely nothing to do with the other movie or the video game (as far as I could tell.)

The best aspect of the film is how the two main characters can get covered with so much blood and remain so nonplussed. I would certainly suggest giving this one and miss and staying with a safer zombie pleaser like '28 Days Later' or 'Dawn of the Living Dead' (the remake, of course, unless you're into some serious campy action.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"House of the Dead 2: Dead Aim\" (2005) is the sequel, though you really don't need to see the first \"House of the Dead\" to get this film. That said, the production value is definitely here, with great zombie effects and it's edited quite nicely, with very effective sound design. However, that said, that's about all that's good here.

The story and script are awful . . . there's blatant plot holes everywhere. It's also funny how the soldiers don't mind if they get blood on their faces (unlike in 28 Days Later where blood in any part of the body will infect you). Also realistic how there's little order with the soldiers here unlike the usual US Military discipline.

A 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How bad can you make a film. A good question which House of the Dead 2 succeeds in answering. I could not believe it was possible to get something worse than the first House of the Dead but amazingly the director has succeeded. The only feeling you get from the film is that its bad, just bad. What with overacting, bad FX and a stupid story. Its this kind of movie which gives a bad name to Z-Movies in general. Why could they not learn the lesson from the first House of the Dead movie? Anyway I guess you will have understood by now that you should not see this film. It is but a waste of time. Watch \"Bad Taste\" or \"Dawn of the Dead\" if you want to see some good zombies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't get over how lazy the director is with this movie. Instead of setting up scenes in a creative way he relies on boring old zombie clich\u00e9s.

Where the two unarmed leads have to get down the college steps into the van he surrounds them with zombies yet neither of the leads is bitten. He can't be bothered to direct a decent fight scene so we see the leads shove their way down the steps.

Sometimes the zombies limp about and at others they run like the wind. This is really convenient for the director because he can set up anything he likes without bothering with continuity in the behaviour of the zombies.

With careful planning and a lot more inspiration this movie could have been so much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terrible, boring zombie sequel is only marginally better than Uwe's horrible first film. It consists of a group of soldiers going into a zombie plagued college campus to find a certain type of blood which could assist in finding a cure for the infection. These soldiers are your typical lambs to the slaughter and none of them are that drawn out(or at least aren't very interesting)so you don't feel a sadness at the pit of your stomach when they are disposed of. The film has the typical zombies biting humans and blood splatter. It even has the same munching on guts. It just doesn't do anything for the zombie genre to give it memory. And, the story's climax is rather anti-climactic and ridiculous. One wonders how two people can submerged in an army of zombies and not get bit(for they are the main stars who seem to always manage escapability)while others seem to get bit rather easily. The film sole motivation is to show people getting bit..nothing else. Just go watch a Romero film for lasting effect.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So lame it isn't even funny. A zombie infection overtakes a small college campus and a government squad of secret operatives back up a couple of scientists sent to find the origin of the outbreak. Collecting zombie DNA damn sure is not easy. Once bitten you're one of \"them\". The entire university has been completely infected by the run amok undead.

This sequel does not even redeem the awful original HOUSE OF THE DEAD(2003). Senseless entertainment is accomplished though. A few glimpses of female nakedness added to a gaggle of gore and exploding heads should keep any zombie freak happy. Credited cast members: Emmanuelle Vaugier, Victoria Pratt, Ed Quinn, Sid Haig and Nadine Velazquez. The \"F\" word holds together an unimaginative script.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you haven't seen the first one you have to at least know someone who has and you have to know it was painful to sit through. There just wasn't anything good to say about it at all. So what's different with the second one? Why bother making a sequel for a movie that was wretched? This one doesn't take itself too seriously. It knows it was made for TV and doesn't try to impress with great or serious dialogue. There are moments where it tries to get 'serious' or 'intense' but these moments are so corny you have to laugh.

Thankfully gone are any elements of Uwe Boll and any hint that this originated from a video game (other than the title of course). Don't go into this movie expecting anything worth mentioning to your friends unless they're into camp, lame zombie movies, or are interested in making a drinking game out of this movie. Take two shots whenever Ed Quinn's character mentions his dead brother! Take one shot whenever a bullet would have been better place in the head of a zombie instead of pumping three in the chest! etc etc.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I used to work in a video store. I saw this title in the horror section and took it home as a free rental one night.

This movie was truly awful, there is no redeeming quality about it, because it actually takes a well respected sub genre of film and just goes about destroying it. If the first film wasn't low budget enough then this film truly takes the biscuit, being housed (mostly) indoors and at night...therefore avoiding the scenic cost setting of the first film In the first 5 minutes of this film a college lecturer comically runs over an attractive student. Rather than be mortified, the lecturer half heartedly apologises and the girl mentions that despite being thrown across the cars bonnet (he sped up as he approached her) that there is nothing to worry about...after which he attacks her with a crowbar and kills her! If this isn't strange enough, he wants to perform an experiment upon her, bringing her back from the dead....and so feels the need to remove her clothing to do so.

Soft core female nudity (and pubic hair) is rampant throughout the film and is, to be honest,the only real thing to hold the average male viewers interest...like the swimming scene in the first film...but even having said that this film goes from bad to worse with its bad character acting, crappy dialogue and absurd plot turns....why introduce a pivotal character who has survived 29 days from zombie attack only to kill them within 10 minutes....its just a very very bad film","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When one of the stars of a movie is named Sticky Fingaz, you should know enough to stay away. Stay away. HOUSE 2 is just more of the same, this time with zombies overrunning a college campus (man, how that must have saved on money). As usual, the \"zombies\" are given no direction so speak of, and provided very little makeup or costuming. They look like the zombies in one of those endless Italian zombie cheapies from years ago. Which is to say, they don't look like the kind of zombies we know and love from George Romero and Dan O'Bannon zombie flicks. The folks battling the zombies are all nonactors who get to shoot guns and do little else. Some who have written here feel the sequel is slightly more focused than the original. All I have to say is I'm glad the sequel's director did away with the 360-degree pan shots that helped to ruin the first movie. HOUSE 2 is still just more of the same, which means a lot of nothing happens for 80 or 90 minutes. There is one set piece, involving soldiers tussling with a zombie football team, that might at least have been funny. It's not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am furious! It has been a while since the last zombie movie I've watched so I was really looking forward to watching a good ol' gory zombie movie. HoTD2 was a major disappointment. A reasonable story but awful acting, filming, dialogue, and nauseating clich\u00e9s and punch lines. I didn't even see the first one which is supposedly worse than this one...now I am curious about how bad could that one have been! The film is full of mistakes and goofs. Who on earth analyses DNA using a blood sample!? Why are these \"special forces\" who \"have been to hell and back\" fight like spoiled 6 year old girls? We see ferocious zombies who would take a bite at any chance they get then hundreds of them that wave their arms at our two \"heroes\", take them down to the ground, then let them go without even a scratch. I could go on and on about this but life is too short and I have already wasted a couple of hours watching this pathetic movie which is an insult to the movie industry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Isn't it strange how crap-movies always tend to be a little better when you start watching them with an attitude like: \"boy, this is going to suck harder than few things have ever sucked before\"? It's pretty much impossible for anyone to rent this movie with high \u0096 or even remotely positive - expectations, as \"House of the Dead 2\" is a sequel to something that is generally considered to be one of the absolute worst genre disasters ever to be released. The abysmal reputation of the original actually turned out to be a great advantage for director Michael Hurst, as it was really easy to surpass the quality level of its predecessor. And exactly how embarrassing must this be for Uwe Boll, huh? Having to acknowledge that a straight-to-video sequel without star power or promotional campaigns is MUCH better than his own pretentious video game interpretation? In case anyone still doubts: NO, \"House of the Dead 2: Dead Aim\" isn't a good horror movie at all but, YES: it's definitely better than the first and even worth renting in case you're looking for an undemanding splatter film with loads of gory butchering, sleaze and stupid humor. There's no real connection with the events in the first film (another advantage) and this part two opens like a typically rancid sex comedy set in a college campus. The male fraternity club plans to attack a sorority house, inhabited exclusively by blond coeds with enormous breasts, but the party gets interrupted when an insane professor (Sid Haig!) who runs his car over a girl and takes her back to his lab to turn her into a zombie. This is the beginning of a quickly spreading and deadly epidemic but, no worries, as the government is prepared and sends their best scientists & soldiers to the campus to search for survivors and to bring back blood samples for an antidote. Hunting down zombies seems like the most common thing in the world for this squadron, they even named them Hyper Sapiens, but their constantly increasing amount eventually endangers the lives of the most hardened soldiers. Director Hurst thankfully found his inspiration in the more eminent classics of the genre, like James Cameron's \"Aliens\" and \u0096 of course - George A. Romero's dead-trilogy, particularly \"Day of the Dead\". He luckily also didn't made the same mistakes as Uwe Boll, who inserted footage of the actual video game in his movie (why?!?) and *slightly* exaggerated with the use of CGI-techniques. HotD 2 contains heavy images of violence, like chopped up female corpses and detailed amputations, but it never really becomes nauseating or shocking. Naturally, there's isn't the slightest bit of suspense to enjoy and every dreadful horror clich\u00e9 features here as well. The film is very enjoyable as long as story writer Mark Altman doesn't try to explain the origins of the zombie epidemics. They're walking corpses with their brains hanging out of their skulls, so we really don't need to know what caused their deaths. Especially not when the explanations are given by a blond sorority slut who clearly hasn't got a clue what all the medical terms mean. Just avoid getting bitten, sweetheart.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will keep it to bullet points so here goes: 1. Very badly scripted. 2. Tries to be like Resident Evil. 3. Zombies slow and docile one minute the next minute Raging lunatics. 4. Never saw blood clean up so easily! 5. Special effects not as good as the original \"day of the living dead\". 6. Acting not as good as the \"Bold and the beautiful\". 7. It looks like it was written in 1 week and made the next week.

Basicaly Med team plus Special Forces go into a Zombie infested university to find the first Zombie and extract a serum to cure the plague. All die except the 2 main stars so predictable even though unarmed and swarmed with 100s of zombies they survived. However special forces (who were trained at kindergarten school scouts) only took 1 zombie to kill them even though they had weapons. Also the obligatory jerk on hand to fill any gaps. Overall load of rubbish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"oh man, where to even begin.....

dropping your gun to get in hand to hand combat w\/ a zombie, while holding a bitten soldier down debating to shoot him b4 he turns, then he turns and bites the person holding him down, turning your back on a \"fallen\" zombie, continuously shooting the chest and seeing it doesn't work, so they shoot the chest some more, having the idea that a kid slumped at a desk w\/ blood coming out of his mouth is still alright, walking along a football field like nothing is wrong then all the sudden noticing the zombie football team doing whatever in the middle of the field like they couldn't have been seen up to that point....

i could go one for a few more hours, but you get the point.....childish writing and dialog, bad directing, horrid special effects, truly sad and undeveloped storyline (zombie infested campus, must get the viral host then lose it....twice), the only plus i can find is that this one doesn't include clips of the actual game during the \"action scenes\"....

id say don't waste your money, but id be more upset about the waste of time, i saw it on cable and wanted the 2 hours of my life back","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK this movie was by far worse then the first one and the first one sucked! The zombie make up was extremely fake! The acting is very poor! And it doesn't really follow the first one! While watching this I kept thinking wow the first one is a masterpiece compared to this. I would say catch it on TV, Don't spend your money on it! Its not the worst movie i've ever seen but its on the list. I started watching it last night and fell asleep so i watched it today and almost fell asleep again! The plot was pointless, I mean i get the fact that a small military group are sent on a mission to get the blood of the lead zombie and bring it back so they can use it to save lives and stop zombies but they made it where you wanted everyone to die. They made plenty of bad guys who really were just annoying. If you ask me this was a rip off of resident evil and not a good rip off either. The plot could have made it if the acting was good and if they actually made you feel scared to see whats behind the corner. With these zombies my grandma could have went in that building and survived! out of a 1-10 i give it a 2.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK I have to admit that I quite enjoyed House of the Dead despite its well documented failings. This however was the worst film I have seen since Demons at the Door. Compared to DATD the effects are vastly superior. However the plot is weak, the acting reminiscent of everyone's favourite, the porn film, and the decisions and actions of the \"characters\" consistently verge on the moronic. I feel like trying out Uwe Boll's latest cinematic outings just to get some sense of perspective over HOTD2. I am not suggesting that he is really the cure, more a case of a different disease, but when your senses have been insulted in such an abhorrent manner the only way is up. OK there it is. I have managed the ten line minimum and shall waste no more of our time on the waste of celluloid that is House of the dead 2.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A college professor is working on creating zombies and, wouldn't you know it, things go horribly wrong. Next thing you know, the whole campus is overrun. Thank goodness there's a pair of uber-commandos trained for just such a situation. Too bad they must be accompanied by a group of moron-commandos, lead by a rapper (he doesn't even bother trying to play a military guy, he just responds to his superiors as if he were rappin' wit' da homies in da hood). The high point of this part of the movie is the locker room scene. The male and female moron-commandos share the same locker room, and apparently military regulations require all females to wear black bras and panties. Hey, if you can't make a good movie, at least you can have women in their underwear. My hat's off to the film makers.

So, after much discussion of how well prepared these moron-commandos are for the job (Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq), they all get killed off in fairly short order. Their biggest downfall seems to be that it never occurs to them to turn any lights on. A typical encounter has them walking into a room and seeing someone at the far end. Human or zombie? Can't tell. Flip on the lights? No, moron-commando protocol requires them to walk up to the person, making sure to hold their gun in such a way that it can be easily knocked out of their hand, and well, you know the drill. The demise of Sergeant Major Sticky Fingaz is especially fun - my favorite scene involving a rapper in any movie I've ever seen. Luckily (and again, hats off to the filmmakers), the hottest babe among the moron-commandos manages to survive. Her and the female uber-commando both wind up in tight T-shirts for the remainder of the movie. Now this is how a military operation should be performed! There's a bunch of running around, punctuated my humorous stuff like the uber-commandos being unable to get through a simple ventilator grating (it obviously is a thin piece of aluminum that you could easily put your fist through). This necessitates a plan to rub zombie guts all over themselves, and even though we've seen nothing in the movie to indicate that zombies locate their prey by smell, they're good enough to immediately begin sniffing the zombie guts and let our heroes go.

A few other funny bits - the Paris Hilton gag, the \"Can you hear me now?\" gag, and the fact that although the zombies immediately bite secondary characters, main characters are able to fight their way through dozens of them without being nibbled on. Another chuckle is provided by Mr. Fingaz, who can't seem to pronounce the word 'tourniquet' (toe-no-kit?).

Overall, it's somewhat amusing. Could have used some more interesting characters, but for a Sci-Fi Channel original, I was mildly impressed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So many of these types of movies out these days. This zombie flick falls into the major \"cheese\" category unlike the far more polished dawn of the dead, and day of the dead. In all fairness those 2 movies were major studio releases with big budgets behind them. But they were also good movies. A low budget movie can still be good if only they would stop accepting and using the worst scripts around. Whoever wrote this movie must have been drunk the whole time.

This movie had so so special effects and a very un-even plot line. The one major difference from other movies of its type is the time it takes for people to transform into zombies. In this one, it seems to take just seconds for them to die and then turn into a zombie. Yet with the ease this \"infection\" spreads you can have zombie blood all over you and not even seem to be at risk for infection, and believe me the people in this one get covered in blood.

The main problem I had is that our 2 main stars at times were walking around dozens of zombies and didn't get bit. When everybody else turns into zombies amazingly quickly these 2 were swarmed by zombies when they were even unarmed and were able to come out of it without a problem. Our hot chick star even survived a missile strike on the building she was in. I was laughing out load at that point. Unarmed, having like 10 zombies on her and a missile hits the building yet she manages to get out without a scratch? OK sure....

Also whoever advised these people on how special forces behaves obviously never spent any time in the military. They should have watched a movie like Blackhawk down first to get at least an idea of how they behave in combat situations.

One soldier was a fat overweight SPECIAL FORCES private. LOL that was a good one. Another kept going up to zombies thinking they were survivors, even putting his weapon down at one point. These guys are in there to fight zombies and they were acting like the soldiers from the movie Stripes. Special Forces, lol...

Then they get to the point at which they try to explain the zombie girl in the rubber room and the whole thing gets very confusing. The explanation is muddled and does not even follow the first movie. It made no sense at all.

The only thing I liked was the Anti Bush jokes. The military lady at the beginning told them that the order came down from the Vice President to the President and at the end it was the Vice President from an \"undisclosed location\" giving the orders. That was the best part of the movie for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This fake documentary is flawed on a lot of points, it's badly made, has uninteresting characters but the biggest problem I have with it is the basic premise.

This film uses the idea that H.P. Lovecraft has traveled to Italy and that some of his work is based on real supernatural events that he witnessed. I'm willing to go along with the notion that he traveled to Italy (only for suspension of disbelieve) but that some of his work is based on reality and that Insmouth exist is total nonsense.

First of all, Lovecraft didn't believe in the supernatural, in his letters he clearly states that he considered himself a mechanical materialist, his monsters where there to show that humans weren't so special after all. Another myth used in this film is that Lovecraft was an expert on the occult, he wasn't, all his knowledge on the subject came from the most basic sources.

So we end up with a film about people jelling at each other a lot and when we finally see the monster, it's so bad that you can't even laugh at it, you just feel a pain in your love for horror.

After seeing the film Frankenstein Lovecraft said that he felt sorry for Mary Shelley because he felt that her work was butchered. I feel sorry for Lovecraft.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film plays like a demented episode of VH1's \"Where Are They Now\", or \"Behind The Music\". In the first half of the movie (that depict his \"glory days\") Abbie Hoffman is unintentionally portrayed as a sort of delusional rock star. You know the kind; the poseur lead singer, the pretty boy, who didn't write any of the music, doesn't have a clue, but gets all the glory for nothing and chicks for free. Consequently he takes his success for granted, abuses it, and ultimately destroys it along with himself. Indeed Hoffman's glory days ended abruptly when he was busted for dealing cocaine, skipped bail, and went into hiding.

The second part of the movie deals with that time in hiding. In it we see Hoffman as a pathetic crybaby endlessly blaming everyone, anyone, but himself for his downfall. Eventually the times pass him by completely; and he can never to come to grips with that. How sad. THE END. End credits roll and OH NO! We learn that Abbie Hoffman eventually committed suicide in 1989.

I'm sure this is not the image the filmmakers intended for Hoffman in making this movie. Given that Tom Hayden and Gerald Lefcourt were involved, I'm sure they intended this film as some kind of homage to the life of a man who was after all, an icon of the 60's and of the Left's anti-war movement. In this they have failed miserably. The film presents Abbie Hoffman as a mindless caricature. We are never told about what drives him. How did he arrive at his views? How did he manage to capture the imagination of a whole generation? How did he organize such a vast movement? Why at the height of his fame did he get involved in dealing cocaine? Why? Who knows, and since the filmmakers don't seem to, ultimately who cares?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me start out by saying that I am a huge fan of Abbie Hoffman and have read Steal this Book and Steal this Urine Test. Also am a even bigger Jerry Rubin fan. But his movie was a discusting pile of rubbish that made a very PG version of Abbie Hoffman. The director took no chances into making Abbie Hoffman interesting in this movie. They despicted Stew Albert as a F***ing cartoon chjaractor devoid of intellegence, the man was a proffesor at Berkley for christsakes. Ok they did a horrid casting job for Anita Hoffman, did a Horrible job casting for the Jerry Rubin character. I just guess the movie doesnt fit the news flashes that I have seen of Abbie or the books that he wrote. The movie just didnt fit and upset me. Oh yeah and theat is the absolute worst voice over I have ever heard of Richard Nixon. This is one of the few movies that I have ever rented that I could not sit all the way through because, I have a passion for Abbie Hoffman and his discruntled band of Yippies and this movie was just plain badly done. And it hurt me that now when people see a movie about the yippies they will see a terrible adaptation, and not get a true sense of reality. Instead they get a hollywoodized palanthra of crap.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The trouble with this film, like so many other films that fail, is the script.

The script is so unfocused it flounders around all over the place. What IS the story here? OK, it's a biopic but I think everyone will agree there is no way that an entire life can be condensed into 100 or so minutes. Some selection and editing is required but this script just didn't select or edit enough. It didn't render Hoffman's life down to one or two definable pivotal moments or themes that the audience could identify with and, through them, 'get' the bigger picture of the whole man.

The movie wanders from being a straight plodding 'troubled genius' biopic, to semi-docu\/mocu-mentary (using new shots faked up to match archive footage), to sub True Life Sob Stories Movie of the Week (the whole \"I'm bringing up a son who doesn't know I'm his Dad\" shtick), to political conspiracy theory movie etc. etc. It just never makes its mind up what it wants to be, and the half-hearted Citizen Kane like narrative structure (reporter interviewing people from Hoffman's past) is soon abandoned which leaves the film even more unstructured and flabby than it starts out.

The movie is full of moments and incidents that contribute nothing to the story and could well have been cut to leave room to expand something more important. The whole scene in the psychiatrist's office after Vincent D'Onofrio pounds the window screaming \"I'm Abbie Hoffman! I'm Abbie Hoffman! I'm Abbie Hoffman!\" (\"I'm acting! I'm acting! I'm acting!\") could have easily been cut. All that happens is the psychiatrist says \"You have bipolar disorder here's some lithium.\", and the two women in his life say \"We could see you weekends more often.\" and bang! That's it. No more mental health problems. It is such a laughably pointless tokenistic scene it could easily, and should, have been dumped before it was shot. The scene where they all get high and watch newsreel footage from Viet Nam and Hoffman phones GOD? Pointless. Tells us nothing about anything. Yet, when it comes to a pivotally important moment like the drugs bust, the film making is so hurried the situation just comes out of leftfield and doesn't make any sense to the audience. Suddenly he's dealing in heroin? Where did this come from? Why? What is going on here?

I, being a middle-aged leftie, would guess I am sitting well within the target audience for this movie but even I got fed up with the portrayal of 'The Man', 'The Pigs', 'The Fuzz' etc. as brutal, be-suited, unthinking, hippie-hating androids. It may have been like that in 60's America, I don't know, I wasn't there, but in film terms it was cheap clumsy polemic.

Having said all that Vincent D'Onofrio was convincingly charismatic as the younger Hoffman and I could watch Janeane Garofalo in anything, even reading a bus timetable, though she just wasn't right for this part.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Want a great recipe for failure? Take a crappy, leftist political plot, add in some weak & completely undeveloped characters and then throw in the worst sequences a movie has ever known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash).

The result is 'Steal This Movie,' a cinematic experience that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places never before conceived.

This movie utterly blew chunks at my face for its entire run time. Words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not 'Plan 9 From Outer Space.' This is a long, boring and sad waste of time. 'Steal This Movie' is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. It depresses me when I realize that people *actually* took time out of their lives to act in this tripe, if you can call it \"acting.\" But then again, when you have poor direction, poor writing, poor EVERYTHING - \"acting\" is the last thing to criticize.

This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really wish I could somehow destroy every copy of this film so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Robert Greenwald, for giving me newfound respect for every other movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy and\/or boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is nothing good to say about this movie. Read Revolution For the Hell of It or any of his other writings. Abbie was often dismissed as the clown-prince of the '60's, but he was a man of ideas who used his cleverness, his sense of humor and pop culture, and his flamboyant personality to get attention to his ideas. The media too often concentrated on the man, not the ideas, and that's the problem with this movie, too. Later in his life he did suffer from depression. But this flick is like a National Enquirer version of Abbie. He deserves better. If you don't know Abbie or his times, this movie won't help.

This film lies. I give it a zero.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was one of the worst I've ever seen, it did not left out a single clichee one could imagine about a Hollywood-so-called-Thriller. The protagonist is a loving father & a private investigator who is engaged in a special task: finding out if a suspected \"snuff\" movie is real.

Certainly, he get's involved deeper & deeper, smeary pornoshops (run by mexicans) & sex theatres are his field of investigation as he's searching for the murderers of the woman in the \"snuff\" movie. Assisted by a \"smart\" (he read a book) sexshop employee, he's catching up with a murderous bondage-film producer and his personal perverts who are responsible for the film... ...and what do you expect? They are portrayed as the simple evil, no need for explanations, backgrounds, history: they are the bad ones, and he's the purifier. Boom. Killer of the killers. End of film. Is it that bad? Yes, I'm afraid so.

Ironically, \"machine\" (the mega-pervert who did the killing) is even pointing at his ridiculous character: In the last scene, our hero forces \"machine\" to put off his leather mask (yep, of course he's wearing one) and recognizes that \"machine\" looks just like the normal 08\/15 guy from the street. Then \"machine\" says: \"blablabla I'm not a monster, my parents never abused me, I had a nice childhood, I just love to do what I do!\"

I just love to kill people. Yeah, sure, \"everybody loves killing people\" (Bender). It's not only the total lack of character what made this film so boring, it's also it's ugly \"I have to kill these people\"-attitude which makes you sick. In one scene, our hero has tied up one of the killers and tries to shoot him...but he can't. So what does he do? He calls the mother of the killed woman, says that her child is killed and asks her whether she loved her child so much that she wishes to see the killers dead. The mother cries yes, she'd love her child, he goes back to the tied killer and slaughters him.

To come to the point: This film is breathing the foul air of lynchmob-supporters (certainly the police does not play any role in it), moralizes in a ridiculous form against pornography, does not take it's characters serious and wastes your time with a stupid plot. Probably the only good thing about this film is that it does not try to pseudo-psycho-analyze ... even that would be too much plot.

Don't waste your time with this.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"These days, Ridley Scott is one of the top directors and producers and can command huge sums to helm movies--especially since he has films like ALIEN, GLADIATOR and BLADE RUNNER to his credit. So from this partial list of his credits, it's obvious he's an amazing talent. However, if you watch this very early effort that he made while in film school, you'd probably have a hard time telling that he was destined for greatness. That's because although it has some nice camera-work and style, the film is hopelessly dull and uninvolving. However, considering that it wasn't meant for general release and it was only a training ground, then I am disposed to looking at it charitably--hence the score of 4.

By the way, this film is part of the CINEMA 16: European Shorts DVD. On this DVD are 16 shorts. Most aren't great, though because it contains THE MAN WITHOUT A HEAD, COPY SHOP, RABBIT and WASP, it's an amazing DVD for lovers of short films and well worth buying.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this short film on the dvd for Ridley Scott's film, The Duellists. There was no introduction by Scott before the film, it just started right up.

Boy and a Bicycle is hardly an example of Ridley Scott's other work, it bears no resemblance. The film shows a boy, played by Tony Scott, riding around on a bicycle. Guess what? That's pretty all that happens. The boy rides around, rambling on and on with pointless, confusing dialogue. The film was shot in black and white, and since it was directed by Ridley Scott, I expected some cool cinematography or visually-striking sets. Instead, I was treated with nothing. This film isn't even good for a first effort. However, I recommend that any fan of Ridley Scott should check it out at least once.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a fact that this is the 1st Saudi feature film to be shown in cinema theaters but not in Saudi Arabia for a simple reason we don't have cinema theaters in our large kingdom .. not only one cinema theater! The government forbidden opening cinema theaters after the Islamic extremists OR the religious police (or both) asked for closing it in the late 1970s & the early 1980s .. accusing the 7th art with encouraging wrong sex relationships and stuff like that .. I don't see a powerful reason why we don't open cinema theaters!! .. we have many videos stores throughout the kingdom, we watch movies in the TV from some satellite channels, we can install the \"Showtime\" set channels and after all movies in general seems harmless in many ways .. I know many people how go to neighboring countries only to watch a couple of films .. I personally went to Bahrain several times only to watch films in theaters because watching it there is big fun unlike watching a movie home. Saudis pay the most expensive cinema ticket in the world, we travel to watch movies while the rest of the world have cinema theaters around every town. This is one of the problems that we are having!! ..

The movie is produced and presented by Rotana Filmed Entertainment which is a major company belongs to the Saudi tycoon-prince Alwaleed Bin Talal (the 8th richest man in the world).

The movie's title is a word means literally \"how are you?\" but it is also a slang means \"what's up!\", sometimes used as a slang to say \"bad\" about something and sometimes is used as a slang to tell someone politely to mind his business & not to interfere in someone else's affairs. Anyway, I think they meant (how are you) & (what's up!) in the same time, I could be wrong though.

Male actors are from Saudi Arabia like Hisham Abdulrahman who is very famous and has some popularity after winning 1st prize in Arabian realty show more like \"American Idol\", he works in some TV programs like the Arabian version of \"Cash Taxi\" .. the other famous actor is Khaled Sami who is funny and has a very good sense of humor .. other actors like Mishal Al-Mutairi, Turki Al-Yusuf and Ali Al Sabea are less famous and they work on some TV series shows. Female actresses are non-Saudis and they did a very good job speaking the Saudi accent .. Jordanian actress Mais Hamdan in leading role & Emeriti actress Fatima Al-Hawsani .. not that we don't have Saudi actresses but are few and not that good.

A Saudi critic \" Rja Al-Mutairi\" who writes for Alriyadh Newspaper (the most popular newspaper in the kingdom) wrote about it saying: \"lets not expect much of the 1st Saudi feature film. It was born in unusual circumstances therefore we can't judge it under the usual standards like any other film. It is a fact that the movie hit a huge financial success in its 1st opening days only in Kingdom of Bahrain. The movie is fresh and is about a Saudi family deals (interacts) with controversial fresh issues inside the Saudi society like: women driving cars, the low-shallow thoughts about the arts, the guardianship of the society by a certain group & the differences between being conservative and being an extremist. The ideas are good but you feel you are lost in the middle of the movie. One of the movie's advantages is the beautiful music score by Rajeh Dawood which was good but sometimes it doesn't match or express what's in the picture. Turki Al-Yusuf did a great job .. his performance was the best alongside with Mais Hamdan .. the biggest loser is the leading actor Hisham Abdulrahman who came behind the supporting actors Mishal Al-Mutairi, Ali Al Sabea and Khaled Sami who did a good job within the limits of their roles.

after all, \" Keif al-hal?\" even with all of its disadvantages still an OK movie and it is a very good 1st step of Rotana .. and the movie became the speech of people and streets which is a golden goal to make a strong debates inside the Saudi society about movies in general until they become aware of the importance of the 7th art and other arts\"

PS: there is another Saudi filmmaker \"Abdullah Almohaisen\" claims that he directed the 1st Saudi movie titled \"Shadows of Silence\".

I haven't seen the movie yet .. I hope I've been helpful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Total disgrace! Truly awful! The screenplay and dialogue is a joke, and combined with a director who doesn't have a clue about life in Saudi Arabia. It's not a surprise, quite Saudi film ha, the director is Palestinian-Canadian, the writer is Lebanese, the lead actress is Jordanian, and the shooting took place in Dubai, and all those elements show very well to make the film far from representing the Saudi society. Yes it contains some Saudi clich\u00e9's, the stuff we see in cartoons in the newspapers everyday, but that's about everything. The film had the opportunity to show real problem with Saudi society, or at least give us something new and genuine about the youth troubles and concerns in Saudi Arabia, instead it copied and pasted from here and there, and the result was a mess. Even the supposedly love story in the movie doesn't exist or at least we haven't seen it. The only bright side in this total debacle is some good acting from the supporting cast. The veteran Khaled Sami was funny in a badly written role as the grand father, which he is clearly got miscasted, for he looks younger than the actor who plays his son. Also the actor who plays the fanatic brother's role, Turki Al-Yusuf, has done well, in fact he was the best actor in the film. The rest of the cast, being professionals for long, did an OK job, but the lead actor Hisham Abdulrahman was just bad. He had one look of a little adorable bobby for all situations. He couldn't even say his lines in a proper manner. He has charisma that made him win the title of Star Academy, a very famous reality show, and he is good in interviews and TV shows, but he was just the weakest link of this film. The lead actress I didn't mind very much, but even she acted badly in some scenes and overplayed her sensuality in unneeded way.

The Film was a huge hit, Saudi flocked in thousands to neighboring Bahrain and Dubai to attend it when it was screened there, and it made a tone of money, then it was screened in pay per view, then in broadcasting TV, and that was in a span of a few weeks. This was to cash on Saudis eagerness to homegrown entertainment, but alas; the film was neither homegrown, nor entertaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"what a shame our first movie is so bad .............................. hi sham , what did you do in this movie:( . . it is awful! and the director :( .. there is no story in this film . i had sleep when i was watching this film .. It is a disappointment, and the majority of the crew is not from Saudi Arabia. Supposed to be a comedy movie, but it lacks the essential elements in Comedy ,

I know it first experience of cinema in Saudi Arabia, but I expect better from Kaif Al Hal !! The only positive in the movie is the presence of some talented actors who did not help much text to explode their talents Finally.., iwant to know your comment about this movie guys... is it bad or what?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This Movie as the 1st KSA's movie should be active to their people and show the good thing on them. Otherwise, we see in this as Rotana's cast want show religion's people in Saudi Arabia as Terrorist and stupid in fact their not they are very peaceful and smart. About the director is not even less good. The Grandfather in movie is very younger than the father, everyone notes that. And the girls who not Saudi by the way show our girls as pitches looking to man to satisfy their needs. Hasham was just another part of furniture at act he did nothing to imagine only when he said to his lover I love you and yell to his friend don't talk to strange girls >>>>>>> really funny or really stupid

The Father was so not moving only set their and he watch this movie as not one of cast and only word he said \"A5zo Al Shai6an\". The Weird Thing in this movie is when the girls were set in restaurant in family's part, there voice in behind young man talk to his girlfriends \"kiss me\" many times >>>>> Is that happened in Saudi Arabia when the girls and boys grow up good and Muslem not bitches and adulterer. Any Saudi have patriot in his heart will not allow to see this stupid movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film revival right march in a bad film industry and Saudi Arabia, I want to know how the director was able to stand in front of people of the industry after he making this film, work was so very bad, we do not know how cinema Saudi companies such as Rutana and other does not support yang Filmmakers in KSA like UAE We hope in the future to prosper film industry in Saudi Arabia But without such intervention Fools traders and idiots make us bad movies do not benefit the reputation of cinema in Saudi Arabia is like the Roman and Iranian cinema At the same time, please makers simple experimental cinema in Saudi Arabia such as Abdullah alayaf And others to achieve the dream of a good film industry to participate in festivals world away from the major companies interventions stupid","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This piece of crap doesn't worth a critical review so I'll write some information for those who don't know the background of this movie. First off all it is not the first Saudi movie, they used this wrong info for commercial purpose (they lied!). Second they made it for money not for anything else so they picked the jerk (Hesham) who won Star Academy (like Big Brother) it is a popular show and the jerk Hesham is popular but dumb, cheesy & untalented then picked the famous Kuwaiti actor Mohammed Al Sairafi (also dumb & untalented) but has a popular (count how many times I'll use the word \"popular\" then email me to get your prize, however..) has popular show and the Jordanian actress Mais Hamdan who appeared in POPular comic show CBM (unfunny) so she is famous * PoPular! Then they picked some Saudi actors for .. blah blah blah. The funniest thing is the director! He is Canadian with Palestinian roots (I believe that the identity of the movie is the identity of its director) .. wait a minute! The screen play was written by an Egyptian screenwriter (very awful one!) with some help from Lebanese critic (famous as critic but actually he is a money collector!). This group of the multi races (money slaves) doesn't know anything about the Saudi culture they don't represent it but when we know who is behind this garbage all our questions will be relieved! Waleed bin Talaal is Saudi prince and (B U S I N E S S M A N) who doesn't care about the Saudi culture or Saudi people he even doesn't live in Saudi Arabia (even if he lives he will live in his own world, his world is far far far away from the real world the people world) so he doesn't know anything or care about anything except raising his endless fortune.

*Not Saudi movie(not anything movie).

Screw them all.

Beep out of 10!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The amount of hype and the huge success this film has encountered is evidence how desperate our people are towards a good independent Saudi film. In fact the huge success of \"Tash ma Tash\" is also an evidence.

I'm not going to start of how important film making is, as it is obvious to those with half a brain how films have changed the world.

And I'm not going to say how much our society needs a bunch of films to clear out a lot of issues we have in our country. Religion, politics, women's rights, education, general health, terrorism, Law and many many more.

Along came news about the fist Saudi movie which should've been a remedy to some of the issues we have, especially towards the youth. Instead we experienced a bald movie for that matter.

The ignorance and naivety of the script was obvious. It was as if a 13 year old had written it.

Now I've heard that the budget for this film was huge. I would like to know where the money went, huh? The effects were really ugly, the editing was poor. The script was \"kharabeet\". You really don't know what the story is and what the director aims at from this film.

A note on the actor who played the religious brother, his performance was good but with bad direction. Another thing with the role of the religious friends he had, that is not how religious guys act here in Saudi Arabia! They are not \"Evil\" as this film intends. In fact they are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet with some really uncommon way of living, and that is what should've appeared in the film.

The youth are following the religious here because of a reason, and that is the youngsters are the most passionate and sentimental. And with the well formed principles the religious live on, the youngsters follow them. Again, this is what should've appeared.

We need another \"First Film\" with a Saudi Writer, actor, director, composer, even cameraman. So that they all work with passion towards their experiment, not just for the money!

And we should do what Shakespeare did hundreds of years ago, we should include phrases from the Qur'an in the script of the movie. As the people in our society still see art as a form of sin, the challenge a Saudi movie maker is facing is changing the mentality in that angle.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a big MD fan. But, I call it like I see it. This film limped along. The plot was preposterous. Gaining access to heads of state in this movie is easier than gaining access to the the local grocery store. Come on! Tone Loc has the emotion of a wooden plank. Loosen up! The editing is choppy. The actors, and I use the term loosely, sound as if they are reading their lines on valium.

This movie could have been better. Dudikoff has potential, but he chooses scripts that just scream,\"Stinker\".

If you want to watch a good Dudikoff movie, may I suggest Crash Dive or Avenging Force. If you have never seen one of his films, this is not the one to introduce you to his work. You will walk away with a bad taste in your mouth and think all of his projects are this bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a bit of a Michael Dudikoff fan I sat down to watch one of his good old-fashioned actioners - I'm still waiting.

The film is based around a group of US commandos trying to get rid of a bunch of Syrian terrorists who have taken over a nuclear reactor. Maddie Reese (Felicity Waterman) was an English member of the commando unit and of course she became romantically involved with Tom Dickson (Dudikoff). I must ask since when have the Brits had female SAS members - as far as I know if they are ever needed they are got from other sources. Even if they did I can pretty much guarantee they wouldn't be as wet as Maddie Reese. I would also think that Tom Dickson would be a little more responsible in his position - or have I lost the plot?! I know there is always the romantic angle in these films as it helps provide the feelgood factor, but does it have to be throughout, especially when there's more important things to be taken into consideration - like nuclear warfare!

The signing of the treaty on the US aircraft carrier intrigued me. The \"sacred pen\" as carried by one of the supposed TV news crew - are there were no security checks to find out who or what goes on board one of these ships, especially with the calibre of people that was on it. Mind you if there was, I suppose there would be no story.

I could go on, but when it got to \"inner body bomb defusion\" in order to safely remove a bullet I gave up on the action drama movie bit and enjoyed it for the comedy it actually was.

By the way, would a news reporter really say \"Downtown Damascus\"??","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is unbelievable on any level. It fails as an action film because no one would be fooled for a moment that the props, actors and scenery are realistic. It fails because even the most gung-ho would see through the hollow chauvinism portrayed by the film, a hypocritical might is right mentality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I only watched the first twenty minutes of this movie and personally I think that this is the worst movie to be made in the recent years.

The plot was so bad that it might have been possible that a 10 year old kid wrote it. The acting was also sloppy with pretty much an unknown cast and not only that the action sequences especially at the first half of the film were so terrible it was unbelievable.

I don't know how the producers obtained the budget to film this movie but the production company must be regretting it by now.

To anyone who may come across this film in the near future, I advise you to steer clear of this joke of a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ivan The Terrible is more a filmed stage play than a \"big-screen-opus\". Citizen Kane - a similar work in many ways - is quite the opposite (in the way we come to expect such fare) in that it has lots of location shooting for example.

Acting is meant to convey a character's motivations and thinking to the audience; if it succeeds in making you understand the character, what does it matter HOW it was done? And considering the low amount of action, how else is one to express events that influence the story, and consequently the characters' machinations and decisions other than \"exaggerated movements\"?

As well, there's a historical level why the acting style should not surprise. The rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany and USSR forced film-makers who stayed behind to make films the way they knew how. As they were prevented access to more modern works that showed cinema's evolution and techniques, they only used what they knew.

The Nazi's control of government in Germany destroyed the great German film industry of the 1920's, due to their total control over that film industry. And propaganda films can only \"entertain\" German troops so much; hence the need for popular German silent films of the 1920's, for example. So a lot of Ivan The Terrible film's techniques would have been derived from such captured German films supplied to the film crew (as mentioned in other comments).

There was no confusion anywhere and though personally it was found over-hyped, it is by no means a bad cinematic experience - and definitely NOT amongst the worse films ever. The acting is fine, and part of the cinematography excellent (even by today's standards; more below). Definitely not a popcorn flick; one can't leave their brain outside this one's door. Dated perhaps and very symbolic - only worth watching on the big screen if one is unable to view the films with the lights off at home, for many of the cinematic elements will be lost in these films' chiefly B&W experience. It all depends upon what expectations one walks in with...

WARNING - SPOILERS: Do not read the following comments, in case they influence your personal view of the film(s).

...and if one does not mind the obvious communist propaganda (as opposed to capitalist propaganda). For Ivan is how Stalin saw himself - obvious in his influence on the film's direction (see other comments) - and anyone with a world historical awareness outside the US perspective will definitely understand this. Maybe Ivan was an earlier incarnation of Stalin, or maybe not; this is more a diatribe on Stalin and his motivations, decisions, loneliness, promotions of lackeys, etc - using the persona of Ivan - than any true historical record of Ivan. Also note the obvious use of particular colours in the sequel: Red (for the USSR) in the banquet scene. And perhaps blue (for the USA) during certain shots when the usurper wears the crown?

But it has many excellent visuals such as the profound use of shadows, or the exterior shot of the populace coming to beg Ivan's return to Moscow.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well I will come clean and admit that I was forced as part of my history degree to watch this film, and then write a short film review as part of my grade.

Yet even if I had watched the film alone, at my own discretion I found it extremely boring and absurd. The style is dated beyond its years, and the acting is farcical. Rather than use dialogue they instead exchange eye popping glances at each other, or sometimes into thin air. For me, such over the top acting does not convey any greater emotion, and after seeing an extreme close up Ivan's face for the hundredth time I was praying for the film to end.

The most disappointing though is how wrong Ivan's character is. This man was nasty, his bodyguard's murderous thugs and his character cowardly. For me the film was nothing but a piece of Stalin propaganda, inaccurate and dull.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, \"built\" Doris Day (as Ethel S. \"Dynamite\" Jackson) is mistaken for thespian Ethel Barrymore, and falls in love with dancer Ray Bolger (as S. \"Sam\" Winthrop Putnam). Older Frenchman Claude Dauphin (as Philippe Fouquet) also digs Doris. Honestly\u0085 What were they thinking? - This wildly inappropriate musical does feature Ms. Day prettily singing the standard \"April in Paris\", and others. Certainly, there nothing as good as her Columbia recordings from the time; and, nothing approaches Day's stunning and forthcoming \"Secret Love\". Although the material does not serve him well, it's nice to see Mr. Bolger performing. Some of the musical numbers are obnoxious.

**** April in Paris (12\/24\/52) David Butler ~ Doris Day, Ray Bolger, Claude Dauphin","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry folks, I love Ray Bolger's work but the one thing he ain't is a leading man. Maybe if you pretend he's the last man on earth, this romantic plot might work but come'on now !

Here's a movie that exists simply to showcase the title song which was a big hit for the Basie Band the year before (1951). And some pretty nifty singing and dancing save it from being a total disaster.

However, the story line is pathetic, even by 1952 musical comedy standards. And the other songs are equally as forgettable as Evening In Paris cologne. The dialogue embarrasses the stars, Day & Bolger. Only Claude Dauphin's Boyeresque charms keep his character three dimensional.

So, how to enjoy this movie on video ?

A.) Fast forward through all the dialogue...

B.) Surrender yourself to Doris Day's vocals and Ray Bolger's loose-limbed footwork. And don't miss Dauphin's hilarious take on a rain-soaked, windswept reprise of \"April In Paris\"...

C.) Finally, keep a couple of bottles of Cabernet chilled and handy.

Bob Raymond","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This one is a cut above the usual softcore T&A, with the spirit of a dead actress returning to claim the film role she believes is rightfully hers, and using the body of an aspiring young actress to do so.

As always, the gorgeously sexy Amber Newman the is main attraction; her sensuous presence overshadows the mildly attractive, Shauna O'Brien

Plot: *1\/2 out of ****

Sex\/nudity: *** out of ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are bad movies, movies that are horrible, and then there's a tiny, rarified body of movies that are so horribly bad that, even after seeing them just once, the sheer awfulness makes it impossible to forget them even decades later. This is exactly such a movie, and it's hard to believe that the original film in this series was actually quite good. Let's see, George Kennedy, the cigar chomping \"tough guy\" mechanic of the original has somehow been promoted to airline captain, and, after the Concorde comes under missile attack (don't ask), he resorts to stunts like shooting a flare gun out the cockpit window despite (presumably) flying at Mach 2, all the while doing the sort of wild high-G evasive maneuvers that would have ripped the wings off any real airliner, never mind the effect of the passengers! But the absolute worst part of the film, at least to dedicated airplane buffs like myself, is that this atrocity \"starred\" one of the coolest, sexiest, and most technologically remarkable planes ever to fly. The Concorde (or, just plain \"Concorde\" as its pilots refer to it) deserved far better, this abomination is the equivalent of taking a high class beauty like Audrey Hepburn and putting her in a \"Porky's\" sequel. Thankfully, the release of the ever hilarious \"Airplane!\" the following year brought the whole \"Airport\" franchise to a well deserved halt, as anyone even contemplating a fifth installment would have been laughed to death by studios and movie fans alike.

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, here is the deal. I love action movies and generally have no problem suspending a great deal of disbelief over plot holes or other implausible actions. However, this movie went far beyond minor flaws and went straight to the ridiculous. Let me get this straight. The police send a notorious gangster and cop killer (along with a number of other prisoners) on a bus with a grand total of two guards. They then are forced to stop at a precinct where precisely two cops are working, one of which is a day away from retirement and the other is a burn out. Apparently the building was about to be shut down so somehow the police decided that everyone else in the entire precinct got the night off for new year's eve. Right. But wait, it gets better. Gabriel Byrne shows up to take out Fishburne before he can rat him and other dirty cops out. (although we never find out anything about their relationship or dealings). Interestingly, the cops launching the assault on the precinct are in full SWAT gear with night vision goggles, assault rifles, the whole nine yards. Later on they even bring in a helicopter with MORE people in full gear. I'm not a cop, but I'm pretty sure you can't just waltz out of the station with an entire swat platoon worth of equipment without someone asking what you are doing. And the police helicopter??? In the supposedly terrible winter storm??? Also, no one near the precinct happens to hear or see this major siege going on with flash grenades and heavy rifle fire going off? I mean seriously, come on. I know this is set in Detroit, but even there it would raise suspicion on a supposedly top secret mission. I also love the fact that they find a Tommy Gun in the evidence room and somehow the gun still works and has bullets that are still intact and usable.

I could live with some of these problems if there weren't other glaring issues also. For one, the opening couple minutes of the movie are shot nicely in a very frenetic and hyperactive way and I thought was going to set the tone for the rest of the movie. Unfortunately I was wrong. The remainder of the film has no sense of pacing or tension or drama. The \"characters\" don't relate to each other in any way which is probably largely due to the fact that they aren't particularly interesting. There isn't enough interesting action to make this a good action movie, and there isn't enough character development\/storytelling to make this a passable thriller\/drama. The \"relationship\" between Hawke\/Fishburn is the only thing that the director even tries to make interesting or intense. Oh and by the way, the final scene in the wilderness? Uh, I thought this was in the middle of a run down industrial section of Detroit and suddenly we are in the woods?? The acting isn't terrible in this movie, it is just that the directing and writing are atrocious. I really enjoy some of Hawkes, Fishburne, Byrne, Dennehy's other movies but this one is terrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking for ATTACK on Precinct 13. There, the film is THAT memorable. Who is the star of this? Ethan Hawke or Matt Dillon (I can't tell who the lead actor is, that's a pretty big point against the movie right there) Gabriel Byrne (who could't have needed the money this badly could he?) Drea De Matteo is stunning but only because of her amazing body. It took me ages to finally work out she's Joey's sister off \"Friends\". I agree that the so called SWAT people attacking the station are pretty crap, as far as tactics go. We were even taught better basic skills than this in RAF basic training.

Avoid this, even the snow doesn't want to fall on a bus full of prisoners! Very bad continuity indeed.

Avoid like the plague!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**Maybe spoilers** **hard to spoil this thing more then it is, but just in case** Gee's I don't see how anybody could have liked this re-make!! It was like a \"made for T.V\" show and still pretty lame for that. Lots of fake snow, bad acting by top stars, bad action and that crazy pine forest in Detroit. What the heck??!! I didn't really think this would be a great movie but I was hoping to be entertained. Nope, we fell asleep half way and had to finish it up the next day. I could have skipped the rest easy(but then I would have missed those great piney woods!) I'm so glad I missed this at the theater! Bad enough to have wasted $3.50 at the video store. And I am a lover of cop, action and drama films. This was a very stinky 1 out of 10 stars. Give me the original any day!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie examines the now infamous Wannsee Conference where top Nazis gathered to discuss the organisation and implementation of the \"Final Solution\" First off, I want to say I was amazed to see Kenneth Branagh play a Nazi. With the slicked back blonde hair, he certainly looked the part but he didn't really act the part well. There was none of the menace & cruelty and in the end, he came out looking like a grinning cheerleader, keeping the meeting going. The real Heydrich would not have let the conference get out of control the way it did in the film.

The best performance of all was undoubtedly Colin Firth who played Dr William Stuckart, the man who wrote the 1935 Nuremberg race laws and who gave \"legal respectibility\" to everything the Nazis did. Firth's performance was stunning, the main vocal opponent to what Heydrich was proposing. The best part of all was when he was verbally dressing down one of the Nazi thugs. The thug muttered \"I'll remember you\" and Firth replies \"you should! I'm very well-known!!\" The film is historically accurate but let's boil it down to what it really is - 90 minutes of a group of men around a table discussing, shouting and bragging. There's no excitement, no real conflicts (except the brief argument). It's just 90 minutes of talking! Same room, same table, same people.

I'm not sure if the DVD is worth the money. I for one felt short-changed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is yet another pseudo-intellectual \"let's make the Nazis look real bad\" movie. The Nazis were pretty bad, no doubt - most of already know that. However, that does not necessarily make every movie on the theme good. A Discovery Channel presentation of \"The Wannsee Conference\" would have been much more interesting.

\"Conspiracy\" falls on its ass between two categories: documentary and drama. It doesn't cut it as a documentary, the movie is too `staged' and the presentation too `common'. It doesn't cut it as a drama, the characters are too shallow and conflicts too easily `solved'.

Another thing is the tagline: \"One Of The Greatest Crimes Against Humanity Was Perpetrated In Just Over An Hour.\" As the movie shows the Wannsee Conference the meeting had nothing to do with reaching a consensus on the final solution. The decision on the solution had already been taken by the SS. The sole purpose of the meeting was to make all significant stakeholders commit themselves to an already established plan. There were no decisions or plans made at the Wannsee Conference. There was only threats and coercion (some needed less than others).

Finally: One thing the movie does show (although in no exceptional manner) is, man has a tendency to turn to culture and aesthetics in an attempt to hide for himself the fact that he is committing appalling atrocities. This is seen in most powermongering `leaders' and politicians.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is yet another pseudo-intellectual \"let's make the Nazis look real bad\" movie. The Nazis were pretty bad, no doubt - most of already know that. However, that does not necessarily make every movie on the theme good. A Discovery Channel presentation of \"The Wannsee Conference\" would have been much more interesting.

\"Conspiracy\" falls on its ass between two categories: documentary and drama. It doesn't cut it as a documentary, the movie is too \"staged\" and the presentation too \"common\". It doesn't cut it as a drama, the characters are too shallow and conflicts too easily \"solved\".

Another thing is the tagline: \"One Of The Greatest Crimes Against Humanity Was Perpetrated In Just Over An Hour.\" As the movie shows the Wannsee Conference the meeting had nothing to do with reaching a consensus on the final solution. The decision on the solution had already been taken by the SS. The sole purpose of the meeting was to make all significant stakeholders commit themselves to an already established plan. There were no decisions or plans made at the Wannsee Conference. There was only threats and coercion (some needed less than others).

Finally: One thing the movie does show (although in no exceptional manner) is, man has a tendency to turn to culture and aesthetics in an attempt to hide for himself the fact that he is committing appalling atrocities. This is seen in most powermongering \"leaders\" and politicians.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was an absolute disgrace! The worst dramatisation I have ever seen. German officer's with a spotless English accent, they didn't even attempt to be German. How were we supposed to take them seriously? Garbage garbage garbage! Leave the German acting to the likes of Ralph Fiennes & Liam Neeson in future.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For a movie that was the most seen in its native South Korea for most of 2004, it was a huge disappointment. Shows that Hollywood is not the only place where people can make over-emotional, melodramatic movies. The film was over 130 minutes long but not a lot actually happened and everything that happened was pretty much what one expected, the plot was that transparent. Granted if one himself was Korean, one would perhaps get into it more, but for me it didn't do much anything. Suffice to say that as the case tends to be with Korean cinema, the plot revolves around the relationship between the northern and southern parts of the peninsula. South Korea decides to recruit and train an elite assassination squad from death-sentence prisoners to kill Kim Il-Sung.

A tedious plot doesn't bother me much if the characters are good but unfortunately that is not the case this time around either. They are stereotypes and most of the acting is mediocre and too often just over the top as it tends to be in Korean cinema. Too much time is spent on the numerous montages and the characters remain distant, one dimensional cardboard cuts. They should've spent more time establishing the characters and less showing us how tough and cruel the training and the soldiers are.

One thing it does remind us of, is that a lesser of two wrongs is still wrong.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where do I start? The plot of the movie, which is about a love between two high school students during wartime, while one is a living weapon, and their struggle to maintain that love is a very good plot. It is based on a manga by Shin Takahashi which was also turned into an anime in 2002, both of which I have yet to read or see.

This review is about this live action adaptation however. Sadly, this honest to goodness was a terrible movie. It isn't as if one could site certain aspects, and say, for instance, the budget is at fault, or the acting is to blame. It is, sadly, a series of underwhelming and ineffectual elements that bring this film down.

The acting is poor. Not to say Aki Maeda and Shunsuke Kubozuka are bad actors, but they didn't have much to work with, and seemed miscast. Neither seemed to have the physical range to draw the viewer in the story as well as being too old for their parts to a distracting degree.

The script was weak, the leads act unrealistically, and behave irrationally. The film also plays for the heartstrings, but ends up being predictable, all the while not being compelling, and under-developing the characters. There are also pacing issues.

Visually, it is unremarkable. The film uses green screen heavily and unnecessarily in too many scenes. The other special effects also have a cheap look to them, especially where minimalistic practical special effects could have been used. There is also no visual flair, as if there were no cinematographer or art designer to make the scenes look consistent and stimulating.

The music and sound effects were fine, but unremarkable.

Overall, the movie isn't devoid of enjoyment, and fans of the series shouldn't be discouraged to see it at least once just for the sake of completion. People unfamiliar with Saikano, this probably isn't the place to jump in as it isn't a very good movie or melodrama. It isn't the movie or the cast and crews fault, it just isn't inspired, and that is what kills it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My first impresson of the Saikano: Live Action movie trailer (viewable on YouTube), was \"Wow, this could be perhaps one of the few better live-action anime adaptations.\"

This time I was just wrong! Simply put, the live-action Saikano movie was a puzzle missing a number of pieces; put together just enough to get the vague image of it all.

*STORY*

The movies story vaguely follows the anime and manga, but the movies story is just the frame of a car, rather than a complete automobile. It seems that many parts of the story originally in the anime were left out, altered, or completely changed. In fact the ending is completely different from the manga or anime endings.

Characters especially; many left out or had a different feel. The connection between Fuyumi and Shuji is reduced to that of Shuji knowing her because she's the video store lady. Chise's character felt too strong already and only uttered the infamous I'm sorry a few times in the movie. Same can be said with Shuji. We lost the shy uptight yet tall male lead, the song he hums, and his frequent action of calling Chise silly. Other characters like Tetsu and Akemi had a different, toned down feel to them. Perhaps the dropping and toning down of other characters was to focus a lot more on Chise and Shuji, which it did. Way too much. Expecting a lot of sweet action scenes like those in the trailer? Well don't! Those in the trailer plus a few minutes, is the only amount of action you will get. So much of the movie is talking that while I was browsing thru the movie before watching it all, I thought I had gotten a regular Asian romance drama.

Pacing was way too fast. In the film, we see the famous scene of Chise armed with small wings and a chain gun arm, in just a little less than nine minutes of beginning it. There is very little time to get to know the characters and connect with them. What they should have done was split it into two movies, or even a trilogy. If it had been not as many things would have to be changed or dropped.

But again the movie behaves like a frame. The anime was more of a complete automobile because even if all those little details and such are minor they can really add up.

*PRODUCTION*

-Visuals- Visuals were disappointing. So much of the special effects turned out looking quite cheesy especially the CGI. Sadly, they were like those found on Sci-Fi channel movies. They are bearable and this movie isn't for the effects.

-Music- Music was average. Much of it was orchestral background music except there were really no themes. The film has dropped the addicting song that Shuji in the anime was always humming. A noticeable piece of music though is the ending song, heard in the trailer. Not a bad and somewhat beautiful song. Its a shame that it was not integrated into the movie as itself or an orchestrated version of the song.

-Casting- Saikano's casting was also so-so. The main star was Chises actor Aki Maeda, who is most famous for her role in the Battle Royale films. The actor that played Shuji was pretty good but they took away the glasses from the original character. Oh yeah and Tetsuo looks like Lupin the 3rd.

Unlike what I've heard from a few others, the acting in the live-action Saikano was not that bad. I rather feel at fault is the way the story was laid out and cramming the series into just a two-hour film.

*What can be learned from the live action Saikano:*

-CGI- I really wish the CGI in Saikano hadn't been that bad. But even with just that, we could have gotten a few more fight scenes! Probably the most anticipated live-action anime adaptation Neon Genesis Evangelion most likely wont suffer since they currently have WETA Studios assigned to do the effects.

-Modernism- Fuyumi owned a video shop. Chise used a audio cassette player to listen to music and gave Shuji a mix tape for his birthday. Why? This movie is made in 2006! Not only that in the movies reality they can create such a thing as Chise so it cannot take place in the 90s! The future is an age of CDs, DVDs, and MP3 players. Hopefully in Evangelion, Shinji will have a Sony Walkman MP3 player. NOT one that plays cassette tapes.

-Story & Pacing- As mentioned earlier, the Saikano movie moved too fast and forced the story to drop out many details. It was a smart move upon ADV Films and whoever else, to make Evangelion into a solid trilogy thus allowing more time to retell the story as true to the original as possible.

-Characters- Leave most of the character designs alone and let those classic quotes be said! What if the live action Evangelion didn't have Asuka's \"What are you, stupid?!\" or Shinji's \"I mustn't run away!\" Sometimes as small as they seem, those frequent quotes add and are who the characters are.

*CONCLUSION:*

All in all, the live action Saikano movie had potential. It really did. Those you who aren't fans and see this movie: you will be reluctant to start the anime or manga (so don't watch the movie first!) People who saw and liked the anime\/manga, don't get your hopes up on this one. Studies show you most likely will be disappointed. It was still fun to see the anime come to life in the live action adaptation but it could have been so much more.

Reluctantly, I give the live-action Saishu Heiki Kanojo (Saikano) a 2 out of 5.

As Chise says, \"I'm sorry\"

~NekoTakuto","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so stupid that I want my $2.99 back that I paid for!! First this movie starts off with a bunch of wooden actor geeks with fill in talent like they got picked off the street somewhere because the \"real\" actors either did not show up because of the laughable script or they just couldn't get anybody desperate enough to do this movie! The music in this movie is enough to put you to sleep, flute music made for faerie's dancing in the wilderness wouldn't even be good enough for this movie! And the guy dressed up as Satan looks like he's all dressed up in a K-Mart Halloween special costume! There are no dead scenes except a few lame scenes. When I saw what the terrible killers looked like in those bath robes with Nosferatu faces I just laughed! This is what the whole town is supposed to be running away from once a year! This movie is one of the worst demonic movies I have ever seen. Avoid this one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is... horrible and wonderful at the same time. I first saw it when I was about 13 or 14 years old, so it has a great deal of nostalgic value for me. In this movie, Cesar Romero actually plays the character of Octavio, the man who \"discovered\" Santana. There are also two other actors, Monte Markham (plays Sam, who is trying to save his daughter) and Peter Mark Richman (plays the priest), who have large filmographies, and these are the only performances that are okay. The rest of the acting and the movie itself have all of the B-film qualities that some of us cherish.

I recently spent 2 years trying to acquire a copy of this movie, and it is almost nonexistent. I am assuming that it was discontinued very shortly after its release. But I did eventually find a copy and paid a pretty penny to acquire it. If you happen to come upon Judgement Day in a video store (unmistakeable with a cheesy green \"satan\" on the cover), count yourself among the blessed who live near one of the few video stores that still has a working copy. A must see for those of you who like to laugh at cheesy attempts at a scary movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Movies like these do not need sequels. Part of the advantage of Don Bluth moving away from Disney is that he didn't need to suffer their endless tirade of straight-to-video, poorly animated cash-in sequels. But apparently it was someone's brilliant idea to make a sequel to \"All Dogs Go to Heaven,\" so we get this.

Charlie Sheen replaces Burt and he's not really as good. Most of the film is just a poor excuse for a sequel and it isn't nearly as dark, different or entertaining as the original.

I feel sorry for future generations who are going to have to suffer endless sequels like this without ever knowing what it was like to have a time when Hollywood didn't totally rely on successful films as a crutch to release banal crap.

Please, no more sequels to kids films that don't need 'em.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How could they take such a beautifully animated gem like Don Bluth's All Dogs go to Heaven and bastardize it with a charmless, cheesy, uninspired sequel. The haunting music and delightful characters are gone, now replaced with tacky animation and an unimaginative plot.

The Pros: Charlie Sheen is sometimes fun as Charlie, but he lacks the charming tough guy attitude that brought him to life by Burt Reynolds. I did particularly enjoy the songs \"I will always be with you\" and \"It's too Heavenly here\".

The Cons: There seems to be no connection between this and the original. In the beginning Charlie is chums with Carface, but wait a minute. Isn't this the same character who was responsible for Charlie's murder and kidnapped the sweet little orphan he loved? I guess that all changes in Heaven but why isn't Anne-Marie even mentioned? If Itchy makes it to Heaven, wouldn't Flo and Killer make it too? What is with Annabelle the whippet's voice? In the original it sounded feminine and charming and in the sequel it sounds like a whiny, bitchy, parrot. The new characters aren't all that great (except Sasha). And the animation is better compared to a generic Saturday morning cartoon. The constant cartoony \"humor\" is flat and unfunny and the \"heart\" just doesn't work when compare to the original, which had such a moving unsubtle touch that makes me cry every time.

All Dogs go to Heaven is one of my all-time favorite films. How Don Bluth allowed this sequel to be made is beyond me.

BOTTOM LINE: Not all sequels go to Heaven.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All Dogs go to Heaven was a quirky, funny movie; With good name talent who's voices lended an adult familiarity to a cartoon basicly for kids. It was just interesting enough to be likeable by adults aside from something good for the kids to watch.

Unfortunately ADGTH2 is a valueless sequel trying to make a bit of cash rideing on the coattails of the first. Charlie Sheen is a passable replacement for Burt Reynolds in this second movie and Sheena Easton's voice in a few of the movies lovely but forgettable songs makes her a worthwhile pick as a co-star for this. Add Dom DeLuise from the first movie and you'd think this would be a decent mix to make this sequel at least relatively decent compared to the first one.

Unfortunately even with the addition of other good voice actors such as Bebe Neuwirth in the horrible role of Anabelle, this movie cannot be saved from the atrocious production values and animation skills (or lack thereof) present all over this movie. Horrible editing, syncronization of the voices, and flat out spaces where characters mouths should be moving to dialouge but are not combine to make this movie look like a college interns animation project instead of the decent sequel it could have been.

All in all i'd say unless you were a very big fan of the first movie i'd give this a very large PASS.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, they ruin it with the uniquely bad animation quality, then, they get voices that sound nothing like the original. They make sooo many movie mistakes. When Sasha is singing in Count Me Out, the drummer disappears and then reappears, Itchy's shirt keeps changing color, his hat keeps changing position, one of the bridge is white, everyone in the background appears fat, halos keep changing colors and appearing and disappearing. Even heaven appears different. I don't give a damn if this is a low budget film, they shouldn't cut corners on animation. They completely ruined the first ADGTH. The only good thing about this movie was the soundtrack.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think that this is a disappointing sequel. I miss a lot of the old characters (King Gator, Anne Marie, etc.), and I don't like it due to the fact that not even half of the original voices are back to do the characters. A lot of personality was lost in Charlie, and the villain Red is not even half as bad as Carface was in the first one. If you're a big ADGTH fan like I am, it's worth seeing just to see how the story is continued, but don't count on it being 5 stars in your book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you just watched All Dogs Go To Heaven, and learn that there's a sequel, don't watch it. It's horrible. It's absolutely awful. They rush the characters to develop. Sasha, for example, begins singing about how you can count her out for love. And at the end, this seems more like a dramatic romance flick than a comedy-adventure film. They rip Charlie out of his character and replace him with a gushy, soft, but still rebellious version of himself.

The humor behind Carface's character is just completely lost. He's a totally different dog. He doesn't have a cool voice anymore, he isn't that villain you love to hate anymore, he's just a wimp voiced by none other than Mermaid Man from Spongebob. Speaking of voice actors..

Charlie has a completely different voice. And while it isn't horrible, I don't like it. It's terrible in comparison to the excellent job that Burt Reynolds did for the character in the first film. Dom DeLuise is wonderful as always, as Itchy. That character stays true, and that's why this film gets a 3\/10. Purely because Dom DeLuise was still voicing Itchy.

Oh, and my last complaint. I know Ann-Marie's movie was done and gone, she has parents now, etc, but did Charlie completely forget about her, or what? No mention at ALL of her in the second film. I mean, even a small mention from Itchy would have been acceptable. (ex. \"Charlie, we have to get back. You can't take care of every kid that needs rescuing.) Or something of the sort. I mean, he died living with her, she deserves some kind of mention.

Don't watch this if you're looking for a wonderful sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved All Dogs go to Heaven so much that I went to see the sequel in the theater, and I can't remember being more disappointed by a movie. The story stank worse than an over-aged sack of manure. I mean, come on! How could Carface possibly imagine being able to get revenge on an animal so much bigger than him, no matter how angry he was. Plus depicting Satan as a CAT?!?! How clich\u00e9 can you get? So much for the story. Is it any wonder that Don Bluth, Burt Reynolds, Melba Moore, and Vic Tayback wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole? The animation was absolutely wretched. The colors were all washed out, and I can't count how many times I was able to see through objects that were supposed to be solid. It had to be the worst animation I've ever seen! I usually like animated movies, but not this BOMB!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm glad that I did not expect too much when I saw this sequel to one of my favourite childhood films. The storyline was dull and unconvincing as were the characters, and I was disappointed that some of the characters in the original were not in this sequel. I also did not think that the characters themselves were similar from the previous film. Charlie had changed, and now, he has a girlfriend. The first film had some good music, but the music in this film was unmemorable. In short, this film just did not do it for me. And, looking at other user feedback, it looks like it didn't do it for a lot of you. It's not worth watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... because this is yet another dead one. Lifeless voice acting, second-rate animation, contrived and un-funny songs (although the bit sung by the Devil would have been worthy of Tim Curry), and a weaker plot than Land Before Time 99: Fossils On Parade.

I have to admit, I haven't seen the first film. I'm not a big fan of movies involving Heaven or dogs, especially not in combination. Still, I hope to see the first one soon, as there HAD to be a reason someone would create such a God-awful sequel.

If I didn't get this movie for free, I wouldn't have it at all. For a 'heaven' flick, the only good thing in this was the Devil. 2\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is very scary with scenes where the Devil uses Gabriels horn to open Heaven and pull the good angel-dogs out and imprision them on Alkatraz. The devil sings and dances to a few songs about the joys of being bad, and at one point, eats a live rat.

We got this movie free with a pizza. You get what you pay for.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is very scary with scenes where the Devil uses Gabriels horn to open Heaven and pull the good angel-dogs out and imprision them on Alkatraz. The devil sings and dances to a few songs about the joys of being bad, and at one point, eats a live rat.

We got this movie free with a pizza. You get what you pay for.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having watched all of the Star Trek TV series episodes many times each since the 1960s, most being quite good to superb, and only very few being mediocre, my opinion is that this one is the worst of all.

In fact, I think it's so poorly executed as to be an embarrassment to the series. It's not that the story is so bad, although it's not particularly outstanding in any way, but the acting is just abysmal on the part of the two lead characters, meaning those other than the regulars in this case. Barbara Anderson gives her weakest performance ever as the daughter of a mass killer, and who is on a mission of a sort. She practically calls in the role from a phone, and shows no real emotive abilities here. Although usually she's never used as more than a pretty face in most of her film\/TV roles,usually small parts, she has done much better.

Arnold Moss as her father gives new meaning to the term 'Ham' and is the only actor ever on a 1960s Star Trek episode that outdid William Shatner in this area, and actually makes Shatner look superb by comparison. And he gets to play a Shakespearian actor no less, which gives him more impetus to overact, and he does so.

Other than these two leads being so weak, the story is such that anybody with any sense at all can tell who the killer is within the first 15 minutes. I say this because I told my brother the whole plot ending at the first commercial break when we were watching the original 1966 broadcast as pre-teens. His reply was, Yeah, you're right.

Skip this one and watch the much superior Menagerie episodes which were originally televised right before.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Somebody decided to make a \"black version\" of Airplane.

Somebody decided to make a really, really bad \"black version\" of Airplane.

Somebody decided to make a really, really bad \"black version\" of Airplane that ran out of humor after the first twenty minutes.

Somebody decided to make a really, really bad \"black version\" of Airplane that ran out of humor after the first twenty minutes and instead spent all of its time insulting the intelligence of the audience and the cast.

This movie managed to violate the laws of physics by sucking and blowing at the same time. If nothing else, it deserves to be remembered for that accomplishment.

It's not a black thing, it's not a white thing, it's just a bad thing. A really, really bad thing. Picking it apart point-by-point would be a waste of time. The best thing that can be said about the movie is that there was a purple airplane in it. Do yourself a favor... go buy a picture of a purple airplane, and you will have gotten the best of what this movie had to offer.

This one definitely goes under the category of \"What the !^@@&*! were they thinking????\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After a humiliating experience on an airplane, Nashawn Wade (Kevin Hart) sues the airline and uses the money he wins to start up his own full-service airline. What makes his different is that it has sexy stewardesses, an on board dance club and no less than Captain Snoop Dogg in the cockpit.

Soul Plane is a very racist comedy except it is only occasionally funny. Soul Plane has been described as an \"urban\" version of Airplane. The problem is that Soul Plane doesn't even come close to achieving the laughs of Airplane. The jokes in Soul Pane are too offensive and they are mostly unoriginal. I would be lying if I said I didn't laugh since there were some funny moments. However, I was expecting more and I left the theater disappointed.

I would compare Soul Plane to Airplane 2. The latter was just a rehash of the first film while the former is just a rehash of outdated, crude jokes. There is really no creativity behind the movie and there are only a few fun spots. However, I don't think Soul Plane is \"bottom 100\" bad. Right now, the movie is ranked at number 82 and that's a little harsh. I'm not saying this is a good movie but it isn't a terrible on either. The running time is only 86 minutes long so it isn't too much of a pain to watch. For stupid comedies, you can do a lot worse.

No one in the cast is very good but they all seem to be having fun and this helps. Kevin Hart was very annoying as Nashawn. He had a few funny lines but he is a very poor leading man. Snoop Dogg, who was mildly funny in Starsky and Hutch, completely flunks here. Tom Arnold was actually tolerable and that was the film's biggest surprise. The most annoying person in the movie was Ryan Pinkston. He was not funny at all and he will never be funny. The funniest cast members were Missi Pyle and Mo'Nique. They gave the best lines and they made me laugh the most. In the end, Soul Plane may fit the bill if you're looking for a stupid comedy but it would probably be better if you just skip the film. Rating 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wholeheartedly agree with Greg in Ontario. I saw this movie today with a friend who actually went to the theatre manager afterwards and told him \"That was possibly the worst movie I have ever seen.\" I have seen a LOT of movies with this person, and he's pretty forgiving, so I was actually shocked. (The manager gave him a free pass!)

I was offended by much of the humor in the film (yes, the baked potato scene was on the top of the list!). My friend and I are white and saw the film with a primarily black audience. For awhile I thought, maybe I just don't get this movie because I'm white. Then I realized NO ONE was laughing. The writing was bad; the direction was bad; the timing was almost non-existent.

There were a few funny moments, there was just WAY too much time between them. Even Airplane Two was funnier than this, and that's saying a lot.

I was so dazzled by Snoop Dogg in Starsky and Hutch (as Huggy Bear) that I felt I was sure to enjoy this movie. Nope.

DL Hughley was funny, as usual, but his role was rather small. Tom Arnold had a few funny moments as \"the white guy\", but most other attempts at humor fell far short of the mark.

Sadly, I was not able to award this film a rating with negative stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hate to comment on something I didn't finish, but if I spare one person what I sat through for almost an hour before turning it off in disgust, it will be worth it.

I decided to watch this with an open mind, knowing it was on the bottom 100.

Bad idea. I usually love crude humor, or can at least tolerate it. I love so-called \"black\" comedies. I'm not easily offended, either.

It started off okay and quickly went downhill. I laughed a few times (for example, when the main character got stuck in the airplane toilet), but that was it and didn't compensate for the strong disgust I felt.

I didn't laugh when the dog got sucked into a jet engine. I usually can't see the humor in animals dying (except in Animal House). I didn't laugh at much else of the nastiness, either. I turned it off after an incident involving a blind man and a baked potato that I don't care to repeat the details of, only that the wave of nausea still hasn't passed over me.

Simply put, it was smut-filled and simply not funny with barely any plot. This is one of the times when if you don't have something nice to say, you should get the word out.

Don't say I didn't warn you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Frankly I did not think there was anything humorous about this movie. It was really lame and poorly done with no plot whatsoever. Surprisingly it got some chuckles from me at the beginning with the Malcolm X terminal and that was about it. Seriously Soul Plane made even the worst movies such as Gigli look like a Emmy winner. This movie is really not worth seeing unless of course you were blind like Johnny Witherspoon who played the blind man in the movie (another sad character). I cringed at majority of the stereotypic jokes and ruining Tom Arnold and D.L Hughley by casting them in this movie. This movie could be summarized in just one sentence. Nashawn wins $100,000,000 and creates his own airline, sex, drugs, homosexuality, more sex, drugs, did i mention sex? If I could I would rate this movie in the negative integers, however, the beginning was amusing which brings this movie to a 1\/10. Doing the \"t bag\" pfft!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Soul Plane\" is a horrible attempt at comedy that only should appeal people with thick skulls, bloodshot eyes and furry pawns.

The plot is not only incoherent but also non-existent, acting is mostly sub sub-par with a gang of highly moronic and dreadful characters thrown in for bad measure, jokes are often spotted miles ahead and almost never even a bit amusing. This movie lacks any structure and is full of racial stereotypes that must have seemed old even in the fifties, the only thing it really has going for it is some pretty ladies, but really, if you want that you can rent something from the \"Adult\" section. OK?

I can hardly see anything here to recommend since you'll probably have a lot a better and productive time chasing rats with a sledgehammer or inventing waterproof teabags or whatever.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie wasn't too funny. It wasn't too horrible either. Just a fun ride aboard the Soul Plane. It's a black-owned flight service with a kick-ass disco, beautiful bar, and pumping stewards. The plot takes you through the whole idea of a black (not race or color, but 'style') -owned plane with the same style of black humor. At times, there are some great rare scenes like when the main character uses the 'normal' lavatory in the 'normal' plane. Check that out. There are lulls, however, and I find it most in the character who played the Soul Pilot. Watch to find out who it is. All in all, it's a fun movie. Tom Arnold adds to the fun with his 'cracker' attitude. This is one movie to watch when playing poker, when you're drunk, or just vegging.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This \"movie\" and I say this lightly, is nothing but pure trash. I feel sorry for those people that actually wasted their money to go see this in theaters..I saw a screener of the movie from a friend and I've regretted it ever since.

As a black woman, I am EXTREMELY embarrassed to have seen this. More so, I am extremely horrified that people of other races may have seen this as well and might believe it to be behavior of black people in general. It's full of stereotypes against all nationalities and genders, horribly vulgar coarse jokes and lame one-liners bleated out by somewhat well known African American comedians who should have known better after reading this script! I must also mention the numerous rap and hip hop singers\/rappers that populate the movie like it was an overlong music video---they had absolutely no place in the movie. I guess they were the \"Jiving & Singing Minstrels?\" HORRIBLE.

The \"writers,\" producers and whoever had the stupidity to fund this \"movie\" should all be shot or locked in a room and forced to look at this crap nonstop for the rest of their lives. DO-NOT-WATCH-THIS- MOVIE!!! It's time wasted out of your life that you can never get back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well to start with I'm straight up as black as black gets, and I can tell you it's very sad when black people think a \"black movie\" sucks. I can't say i've ever seen a movie this badly directed or a worse story line.

Snoop is my dawg and all but he wasn't feeling this movie at all, I don't know how much they paid him to be in this bucket of crap called a movie, but i hope it's enough to wash the smell out.

I'm all about supporting a bothers movie, but this one was bad, really really bad. It blew chucks in every aspect, no real plot, story sucked, cast couldn't act and the best one there was the white guy!

I almost demanded a refund on my way out the door of the theatre, half the crowd up and left before it was over, I'm still wishing I had too. Save yourself some pain and go see something else, anything else...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow this really is stereotypical, terrible trash. i feel sorry for anyone who may have wasted their money to see this.

i am pretty sure i did not laugh once during this whole movie, i just cannot believe they would make such a terrible movie.

i will now be more wary when i watch late night movies.

this is most definitely the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. i am not saying it is the worst movie in existence (though it could be), but i don't think i have seen anything so stupid and unfunny it my life. it makes the Scary Movie series look intelligent.

1\/10 i'd give it a 0 if they would let me","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I gave Soul Plane the benefit of the doubt and thought there would actually be something of comedic value in it. Im not black, but that does not mean I cant appreciate black comedy. I know that because I happen to enjoy watching the Wayans Bros, Good Times and other series.

I've seen crap movies and Im not easily repulsed. As for Soul Plane, I didn't even bother finishing it. Don't know if they managed to land the plane and I couldn't care less. It would be unfair to say I didn't find some parts funny as I did laugh, but I also laugh at Youtube videos of skateboarders falling on their nuts so that doesn't say much. The men in the movie were like a bunch of howling horny hyenas in mating season looking to \"get some\" whenever and where ever possible. And we wonder why all those stereotypes don't seem to disappear. To summarize: Soul Plane makes the Harold and Kumar series look like The Godfather.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was just horrendous. How could anybody like this movie, and for the ones who liked it because of the jokes, they should really take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves if stereotypes are not bad. Ignoring the face of the racial stereotypes, this was just awful. It never had its moments, if it paid homage to 1980's, \"Airplane!\", it needs to pay some more. Awful acting, terrible script writing, even for a movie with Mo'Nique or Tom Arnold. This movie was bad from the beginning, but people might have seen the whole thing, by the thought that the plane would crash. One of the worse movies ever, stay away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"my friend made me watch this awful film.. ugh.. it was so stupid...

its about some black guy who gets a plane company and turns it into a stupid pimp thing

with snoop dog acting as pilot for god knows why.. this movie is trashing white people and having many racist stereotypical events making fun of

Asains white people and trying to make the movie seem like all black people are cool pimps and all white people a losers... and black people get all the girls blah blah blah and so forth..

i despise my friend for making me watch this movie.. i kept saying \"GOD TURN IT OFF!!\" and he's like \"NO I BET SOMETHING FUNNY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN\" we did end up finally turning it off half way through.. thank god...

i recommend this movie to people with very very poor taste in humor..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hmph. Soul Plane supposed to be a \"black comedy\" spoof of a much well known movie, Airplane. This movie, is black comedy done at it's worst. Stereotypes can be funny, and a lot of times they are. But in this picture, it's disgusting. Okay, you have clubs, sex, drugs, everything crude that people associate with \"urban\" culture today.

Tom Arnold's appearance in this movie, is this movie's saving grace if it ever had any. DL Hughley should have never accepted the script. Kevin Hart makes a poor leading figure here... his appearance in this movie will probably grow annoying to many. Method Man and Snoop's appearance were by far, their worst.

I am just happy that I didn't pay to see this movie...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This could quite possibly be the worst movie ever made, up there in a league with movies like \"Howard the Duck,\" \"Plan 9 From Outer Space,\" and \"Ishtar.\" I don't understand why I decided to see this movie, as it was a waste of my life. I also do not understand why one would like this movie, regardless of their sense of humor. The acting is among the worst I've ever seen, as is the writing. The characters are all stupid, and there is not one funny scene in the entire movie. Tom Arnold is quite possibly the worst actor ever-- this movie proves it. There is nothing worthy about this movie. Don't rent it, don't watch it, don't even say that it looks interesting. It's bad enough I saw it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie starts off relatively well and seems to be getting somewhere when an African American passenger sues an airline for negligence. There is one scene in which his pet dog gets sucked into the engine and thats really a sad thing. But the way it is portrayed makes it difficult for one to figure out if that was an attempt at crude humor or really a tragedy to reflect on the extent of negligence? After this point, they clearly ran out of ideas. If you stuck around long enough, you will soon be treated with one of the worst movies ever made. It is basically a highly racist sequence of smoking dope, toilet humor, styling of each and every segment of the aircraft to reflect African American pop culture and pretty much nothing else. You'd think that the only 3 white passengers onboard would lead to some hilarious consequences but nothing of the same happens. They were basically just added to show how badly they could initially be treated and later be accepted into the hood if they behaved. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie with my boyfriend, an avid hip-hop fan and he was really really looking forward to catch the \"soul\" vibe the movie claimed to have. Boy, we were dead wrong. When I finished watching the movie I felt two things: remorse and relief. Remorse because I regretted wasting my time to watch this awful piece of dung, and relief because I watched it free on cable.

This movie really really gives a bad name to black people, by putting so much awful stereotypes that I believe all smart black people everywhere has been trying to spell off. I'm Asian, and I feel very very sorry and sick for those who made this movie. What more to say? Bad writing, even worse acting, and horrible storyline.

Even if you're bored to death and has no other choice, don't watch this movie. Seriously. The movie really has nothing to offer, except if you want to see things like minor illegal drinking, animal slain, women degradation, and overall: A REALLY REALLY BAD-OBNOXIOUS-SICKENING-AWFUL MOVIE. Yuck.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With awful movies like this one being even considered let alone being made, it's very easy to see why Hollywood is in such serious trouble with bad plots and worse remakes all the time.

I guess the viewer is supposed to be laughing their rear ends off over the 'black' in-jokes, the 'pimped up' look and the 'Bling'. It's so incredible 'over the top' and so bad that is even past the 'So bad it's funny again' mark and have plummeted right into 'totally embarrassing for anyone involved'.

I'm very, very sorry for every single minute I wasted on this one. I want my time back !

Save yourself the agony, do NOT watch this. The only reason for me to give even 1 point in the rating is that 0 wasn't an option.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll be honest-- the pimped out purple plane with Snoop Dogg at the helm is an amusing visual gag. It would have been a decent concept for a 30 second commercial, or maybe a 3 minute music video. But the producers have committed the age-old concept comedy sin of stretching 30 seconds of material into an hour and a half of film, and the results are predictably lame. The remainder of the 89 minutes are filled with the typical gamut of racist and sexist humor and fart jokes, offensive and-- worst of all-- painfully unfunny. The threadbare plot screams under the weight of its contrivances. Best to be avoided unless you are drunk or stoned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alright lets break it down. Why is this one of the worst films ever? Because there are so many answers to that question I'm having a headache. Come on...Cracker World? Mr. Honkee? The part with the Arab guy? its just awful, i didn't really care about the whole white racism crap, but when they did that thing with the Arab guy, i wanted to get the names of all the writers. Its really not worth watching 3 seconds of this movie. It isn't even funny-bad which was my first interpretation. I hope the person who directed this movie doesn't commit suicide, but it seems likely, i don't see any other options.Don't EVER watch this movie, if you watch it, u cant say u died with no regrets.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a movie about a black man buying a airline company and turning the company into a African-centric over the top airliner. They even portray the owner as not only being in control of the airline, but also controlling part of the air terminal at the airport. One day this guy wins $100 million dollars a the next time you see him, he is walking all over the airport acting like the owner of the airport. Everyone calls this movie a parody, but nothing about this movie shouts parody! This movie is a flop and will forever be in the $4.95 bin at Wal-Mart.

I can't even come to terms to why MGM would waste 16 million dollars on this movie. This movie doesn't even warrant straight-to-video status. The writers (one black and one white) should be blackballed from Hollywood forever. Not only do they over-stereotype blacks, they portray them as ignorant human beings. I would be ashamed of going to a movie that constantly humiliates me. Don't waste your time at the video store, wal-mart, pay-per-view, or on a Sunday afternoon when the movie is shown on TBS.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Emperor's (Richard Haydn) dog is betrothed to Johanna's (Joan Fontaine) dog. However, when Virgil (Bing Crosby) arrives in town to sell a gramaphone record player to the Emperor, his dog is attacked by Johanna's dog. After a revenge attack where Virgil is banished from town, a psychoanalyst insists that Johanna's dog must confront Virgil's dog so that she can overcome her doggy fears. This is arranged and the dogs fall in love. So do Virgil and Johanna. The rest of the film passes by with romance and at the end, Johanna's dog gives birth. But who is the father.......?

The dog story is the very weak vehicle that is used to try and create a story between humans. Its a terrible storyline. There are 3 main musical pieces all of which are rubbish - bad songs and dreadful choreography. Its just an extremely boring film - Bing has too many words in each sentence and delivers them in an almost shouty, irritating manner. Its not funny............ EVER..........but its meant to be. Bing and Joan have done much better than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Intended as light entertainment, this film is indeed successful as such during its first half, but then succumbs to a rapidly foundering script that drops it down. Harry (Judd Nelson), a \"reformed\" burglar, and Daphne (Gina Gershon), an aspiring actress, are employed as live window mannequins at a department store where one evening they are late in leaving and are locked within, whereupon they witness, from their less than protective glass observation point, an apparent homicide occurring on the street. The ostensible murderer, Miles Raymond (Nick Mancuso), a local sculptor, returns the following day to observe the mannequins since he realizes that they are the only possible witnesses to the prior night's violent event and, when one of the posing pair \"flinches\", the fun begins. Daphne and Harry report their observations at a local police station, but when the detective taking a crime report remembers Harry's criminal background, he becomes cynical. There are a great many ways in which a film can become hackneyed, and this one manages to utilize most of them, including an obligatory slow motion bedroom scene of passion. A low budget affair shot in Vancouver, even police procedural aspects are displayed by rote. The always capable Gershon tries to make something of her role, but Mancuso is incredibly histrionic, bizarrely so, as he attacks his lines with an obvious loose rein. Although the film sags into nonsense, cinematographer Glen MacPherson prefers to not follow suit, as he sets up with camera and lighting some splendidly realised compositions that a viewer may focus upon while ignoring plot holes and witless dialogue. A well-crafted score, appropriately based upon the action, is contributed by Hal Beckett. The mentioned dialogue is initially somewhat fresh and delivered well in a bantering manner by Nelson and Gershon, but in a subsequent context of flawed continuity and logic, predictability takes over. The direction reflects a lack of original ideas or point of view, and post-production flaws set the work back farther than should be expected for a basic thriller.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Leon Errol handles his double role of Uncle Matt Lindsay and Lord Basil Epping superbly, but I have trouble liking the \"Mexican Spitfire\" Series because they all are contrived to produce mistaken identities, and these are telegraphed way in advance. Errol is funny as the stuffy Lord Epping, but I would have preferred a lot more wit and much less repetition.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SAIMIN

(USA: The Hypnotist \/UK: Hypnosis)

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Dolby Stereo SR

Following a series of bizarre and apparently unrelated 'suicides', an experienced Tokyo detective (Ken Utsui) enlists the help of a young psychoanalyst (Goro Inagaki) who believes the victims were acting on a post-hypnotic suggestion. But their subsequent investigations reveal an even darker force at work, linked to a young girl (Miho Kanno) whose life has been blighted by sadistic abuse...

Based on a novel by Keisuke Matsuoka, this densely-plotted mystery takes inspiration from a variety of sources (Italian gialli, traditional Japanese ghost stories, etc.), though some of the images in the climactic showdown reveal a more immediate influence: The recent commercial success of Hideo Nakata's RING (1998). For all its ambition, however, SAIMIN is a routine potboiler which stumbles badly after a powerhouse opening (the 'suicides' are particularly impressive, despite some feeble CGI effects), though director Masayuki Ochiai - who co-wrote the script with Yasushi Fukuda - rallies proceedings for an extended finale in which the narrative's startling secrets are finally revealed. Ochiai is best known for his film adaptation of novel-turned-video-game PARASITE EVE (1997) - which also starred leading man Inagaki (a member of Japanese pop group SMAP) - and while SAIMIN echoes that movie's strong visual sense, it falls short as drama, and most of the characters are mere ciphers, undermining the storyline's emotional pay-off. Which is a shame, because the final half hour is galvanized by a series of dynamic set-pieces - most notably, a concert hall sequence in which Dvorak's 'New World' symphony is transformed into an instrument of murder! - and Ochiai is well-served by an excellent production team. However, those lured by the promise of gory carnage may be disappointed - the film is long on atmospherics and short on splatter.

Performances are varied, due to the script's limitations, but Kanno (TOMIE) is outstanding as a young woman suffering from multiple personality disorder - which, the subtitles on the print under review assures us, isn't recognized as a viable medical condition in Japan! - who falls prey to a sleazy TV hypnotist (Takeshi Masu), a prime suspect in the murders. Inagaki is bland in a one-dimensional role, and he's constantly upstaged by Utsui, a veteran performer whose career stretches back to the \"S\u00fbp\u00e2 Jaiantsu\" series of the 1950's.

(Japanese dialogue)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I first saw a poster advertising this film on a street in Helsinki, Finland in June of 2000. What caught my attention was the proud proclamation advising all readers that the movie, although itself French, had been \"Banned in France\". Upon returning home to New York, I discovered that one of the \"Art House\" movie theaters in the City was screening the film, and so (with my Finnish fiancee) decided to see what all the fuss was about. Boy, did we ever.

From the comments read here, and the reviews I knew the movie was violent and sexually explicit. Not necessarily offended by either of these two conditions, I went with an open mind to see what had perturbed the sensibilities of our Gallic cousins. Presumably, as anyone who is reading this will know, the story involves two women who embark on a crime and murder spree in France (the movie has English subtitles). The resemblance to \"Thelma and Louise\" however, ends with that; the sex is unusually graphic (and in copious supply) as is the violence (a lot of stomping to death, and a lot of blood and other organic matter splattering after bullet impact).

On an intellectual level, one could make the case that the film's very essence is the relationship of sex and violence (as manifested by the only sex these women know: one is a small-time prostitute, and the other has earned money from time to time by performing in pornographic films. When they, during their descent into crime and murder, have the upper hand over their sexual situations, they react only with the same violence and brutality that they themselves know and understand. It is important to note, however, that the victims of their rampage are not only creepy men interested in creepy sex, (of which there are several)but innocent passersby, a woman at an ATM, for example, as well.

I myself do not really understand why the repeated \"porn-movie\" shots were all that necessary, (except to depict the physical contact as cruel, unpassionate and debased) and the unrelenting gore did get rather tedious after the first few violent spasms.

It is a coarse and crude movie, but in fairness, it is dealing with coarse and crude people and equally unpleasant circumstances. From one point of view, the lives of the French underclasses is explored, and it's pretty grim; a travelogue for France it definitely is not- perhaps that's why the French banned it.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the rare movies that I did not immediately discuss with my friends after watching it. This wasn't because it had particularly entranced or impressed me. The contrary, it had given me nothing at all.

Why? Because somehow, everything was so much overdone that I couldn't take this film seriously anymore. There was so much sex and violence that I got the strong impression that the film was trying very, very hard to be offensive, as if it was aiming at superlatives in ugliness, rather than in telling a convincing tale about two women caught in a spiral of crime.

Baise-moi had been described as \"Thelma & Louise with actual sex\" to me. Well, it is true that the main idea is similar. There are two women traveling through the country because they've committed crimes and know that their lives are finished now, that the police are going to catch them, and they decide that now that everything's over anyway, there is no way to hold back.

Baise-moi had been described as a feminist film where women, who had suffered from male dominance in the past, exact revenge upon the men that they encounter.

This is something that I had never interpreted into this film, simply because none of these women had ever been innocent, and because they do not just kill irresponsible, violent men, but also men that they seduce themselves, men that show the sense of wanting to do protected sex. And they kill women. No, they are in no way better than the characters that they encounter and murder in hideous, brutal ways.

How easily the \"heroines\" decide to murder, and how much pleasure they take in it, made it absolutely impossible for me to relate to them in any way, or even take them seriously. It was just all too much. Too much sex, too much violence. I got the feeling that sex and violence were only there in order to create a superlative in ugliness, rather than in conveying a story, or making a point.

Baise-moi left me with no impression, hadn't set me thinking, because it was so far removed from any real world. So constructed, unrealistic and over the top.

There was nothing that I could do with this film, there was simply nothing about it to think about, other than \"Why did they make this terrible film?\" Had the intense unpleasantness going on in this film, served a purpose, I'd easily accepted it. But since I found nothing, since the film's story appeared to be not more than an excuse to squeeze as much and as ugly sex as possible into one film... I filed it away under \"unnecessary torture\", decided to never ever, EVER, watch this film again, and I now consider this to be the worst film I've ever seen.

Worst, not just because it really isn't my cup of tea to watch people get raped, rape, have sex in other forms and kill one another... but because whatever it was that the makers wanted to tell the world with their film... if they wanted to say anything at all... it just didn't work. And there's nothing else that could save this film, because it's also filmed in such an ugly style.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A movie about a French girl who gets raped by street hoodlums. The rape scene itself is shot in all it's gory detail with all the male and female organs and their interactions clearly visible to the camera. In a fit of rage, the victim grabs her friend's (or was it brother ?) gun, shoots him and runs off with the weapon. She meets this prostitute who has just seen her pimp shot down, they team up, and make off towards Paris. A series of crazy, meaningless and wild killings follow, the girls seem to enjoy every murder more than the one before. One poor guy gets shot in the ****hole. There are good doses of sex thrown in between the numerous killings.

The movie is not the most violent I have seen, I would say Saving Private Ryan probably had more violence in it. If violence is what you are looking for, then there are lots of other movies out there. And if it's sex you are out for, then I would suggest one of those XXX ones.

I went to see the movie because of all the hype the media was giving it. The movie itself is no big deal, just a lot of violence and sex shot with something like a hand-held camera. I was surprised this movie had a 15 year age limit in Sweden, if 15 year-olds can watch this movie, they should be able to watch XXX movies too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is about two female killers going on a tour to kill random men they meet.

Wow, \"Baise-moi\" just became the worst film of all time in my list. The plot is crazy, pointless and unnecessary. The whole film is full of violence and sex, and I am sure no sane parents would want to show this film to their children. I don't understand what people get out of by making this film, or watching this film. Maybe someone somewhere has their perverted desires fulfilled. There is simply no excuse or reasons for the existence of this perverted and depraved piece of work.

The only consolation I offer myself is that I watched it on fast forward, so that I have not wasted as much time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While it's true that the movie is somewhat interesting, the execution leaves a lot to be desired (much like Blood Orgy of the Leather Girls, I Spit on Your Grave, and Born in Flames, all superior). I don't think it's not porn, but porn is in the eye of the beholder: if it functions as porn for somebody, who am I to say that he\/she is wrong? I was rather puzzled by the statement in Winkimation's generally thoughtful review (\"Such a Shame\") that \"for once we actually see men's faces when they come.\" A few years ago I did occasional freelance reviews for an adult mag and I recall seeing plenty of men's faces when they came. I think this is probably more common when the film features on of the few male porn \"stars\" (and especially when that male is the director). Though I unsurprisingly can't refer to any specific titles, I know that there are some instances in Ron Jeremy's, uh, work. I also don't know that I'd agree that a man is necessarily showing vulnerability in his face when coming.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, how to make a movie as provocative as possible? This cartoonishly straight shocker tries by having two low-life Paris women (one prostitute, one recently raped ex-porn actress, no less) lash out and go on a national sex-and-killing spree- of men in particular.

Very short running time gives you a hint of the experimental nature of this violently hardcore \"Thelma & Louise\"- but it's done completely without irony or contemplation for any possible feminist message... And since we don't get very close to the protagonists, the violence actually feels muted and numbing- and maybe that's a good thing.

As a liberal advocate of freedom of expression, I always welcome when the \"serious\" movie industry dares to contain full-on sex scenes. But the question is: Does it work for the movie as a whole? Is it any good? Here, not very, although we're given a new meaning to the phrase \"a shot in the ass\"!

3 out of 10 from Ozjeppe","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sick of the \"open mind\" argument. I'm generally quite open-minded, but this sort of line is basically made by people who enjoy things that should not be \"enjoyed.\" You know what, there is a reason so many people are disgusted by this. And just because someone out there isn't doesn't make it less so. There is, after all, a reason for the existence of the feeling of disgust, and no amount of \"open mind\" or \"pushing the envelope\" should eliminate that feeling. Otherwise we're no better than senseless living things.

Back to the film. Another argument is that this film puts women in the roles normally reserved for men, which may be why men don't like it. But just because it proves revolting for more men than would otherwise doesn't make it great. Maybe men shouldn't be turned on by what's dominating the movie industry, but is the answer for women to do the same? Maybe, if you don't like movies, TV, and entertainment having so much sexual objectification of women, so much violence, don't watch them.

And if you're a director, don't make them.

Otherwise, some day someone will ask for an open mind when what happened in this \"movie\" happen in real life.

Heck, some people seem to like it so much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another French film with absurdity. Baise-Moi(F*ck Me) tells the story of two young women who come together to kill and f*ck. One of them is a porn star who escapes from her community after being raped and killing her boyfriend. Second one is a hooker who kills her flatmate and sees her boyfriend being shot dead. After those incidents they meet at a tube station(both misses the last train)then the whole thing starts. They find a bound and come very close. They abuse men sexually, take drugs, drive around the country and have lots of sex. Thats all about Baise-Moi really. We can see that they have no mercy for their victims. They even kill a woman for her money. Both actresses are real porn stars in France that affects the movie in two different ways. They look so comfortable in sex scenes, nonetheless, they can't make the whole film worth watching as ,to me, the film does not require no further ability of acting than that. It is a version of Thelma and Louise on a different level. I could recommend you loads of things to do instead of watching Baise-Moi. So, bother to watch if you wanna see a pointless, kinky film. * out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I never really understood the controversy and hype this movie caused. Especially in French and the neighboring countries (in Belgium, where I am located, for example), \"Baise-Moi\" was announced as THE most shocking and THE most thought-provoking social drama you could ever experience. Yeah right! It might be a little shocking, maybe (how often do you see someone getting shot up the arse?), but the weak and pointless plot surely didn't cause me to think much. \"Baise-Moi\" is another one of those \"blame everything that goes wrong on society\"-films and they're generally not very convincing. About 99% of the people functions perfectly well in this society so why would you blame this exact same society for the vile and hopeless acts of two deranged nymph-girls? The two main characters and their miserable lives are introduced separately and in flashes. Nadine just killed her roommate; Manu shot her brother and the two meet in an abandoned train-station, late at night. They decide to travel around France together, leaving a trail of sex and blood behind wherever they made a stop. Although we're constantly exposed to pornography and violence, this film is very boring to sit through. Like the girls are indicating themselves all the time, the dialogues are lame and the people they run into (and kill\u0085) are very uninteresting. If people want to make porno movies, that's fine by me, but please don't pretend that it's art-house film-making. If you leave out the swearing and the hip camera-work, all there is to see is (not so) arousing pornography. Cool soundtrack, though!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This isn't a good movie. Plain and simple. Take out the hardcore sex scenes and what you have is a mediocre plot, average acting (at best), plodding direction, and dull dialogue. Add in the grot and you've got mediocre plot, average acting, plodding direction, dull dialogue, with lashings of hardcore porn. Trouble is the porn's nothing special either. So it's not a good movie, and nor is it a good porno. It fails on both counts. They can say that women made this movie and they were intending to do this with it, and that with it, etc. But talk's cheap, the end result is what counts, and what we have here is a mediocre movie with some sex thrown in for shock value to try and con you into wasting your time watching it. One of those movies where you'd rather have the time you spent watching it back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had to watch this movie for professional reasons and can only say it's a complete waste of time. When running, Baldwin looks like an ape, Characters are dull, same story has been told 1000 times better in other movies. I think everything has been now said about this film, but IMDb requires me to write 10 lines. So:Boring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivial","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this at my local supermarket and I knew that Debra was in it so I decided to buy it (out of support for that sexy woman!) The plot and acting in this movie was terrible (with the exception of Debra Wilson; and I'm not just saying that because I love her, she seriously was the only actor or actress who had any emotion in their acting and voice!) What I didn't get at the beginning is why the wife didn't just get back in her car instead of running at random like that. It was so stupid. And it's LA (NOBODY saw her being abducted on a public, residential street--NOBODY...yeah, that's realistic!) Also in the park, when Charlie stole the woman's cell phone (for some stupid reason) they were hell bent on finding him (and at one point) when they did they had him at gunpoint--over a CELL PHONE! In reality I doubt the LAPD would go out of their way like that for a stupid cell phone! The lady could've walked up to one of many of those cell phone booths and have it replaced! The kids acting skills sucked too (I think they were reading from a cue card or had somebody off camera whisper their lines) because they'd be asked questions and would look around and then answer in a questionable voice (i.e.-\"yes I do miss daddy?\") Also how could there be all of those snipers be in the trees and on building rooftops in LA WITHOUT being seen?! I see this being played at 3 AM on USA.

Debra Wilson fanatics will enjoy her parts. She's the only actor with any real acting skills (Debra, sweetheart--stop doing these cheap D-grade, direct to video films...maybe that'll change with the upcoming film Whitepaddy.) She puts some jokes in there (like when one of her superiors comes up and asks her who's she talking to, she screams at her computer and goes \"Damnit, Charlie!\") I gave it a 4\/10...a 4 only because of Debra's good acting skills.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ugh. Stephen Baldwin. I never noticed until I got the DVD home and saw his name in the credits. Double ugh. What's worse, HE'S the NAME in this low budget, mindless, wandering, wannabe shoot'em up. I mean, where did they find the guy to write this refuse? Driving a caterpillar in the LA City Dump, while hoping to break into the movie game? The whole plot is ridiculous situation piled on ridiculous premise. Baldwin is as convincing as a poster boy for American Gothic, sans pitchfork. His whole acting repertoire is looking like he needs the potty and then looking like he found it.

So, there you have it folks: bad script, bad acting by no-name actors, low-budget setting and a hero that's about as convincing as a girl scout looking for a cookie customer as an action hero. It's too late for me to get my money back on the DVD, but you can spare yourself-- unless you're one of those who likes to look at the dogs for a laugh...frankly, this one is too boring to be funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst movies I've ever seen. When I was trying to watch this I had flu and i was pretty open minded for any brainless entertainment. Unfortunately this was too much. How, so many totally ungifted actors can be in one movie? This movie makes porn look like European art-movie. Cast just speaks out their lines without any emotions; special thanks to Charlie Snows (Baldwin) soon-to-be-ex-wife who talks about her divorce like the rest of us talk about the weather. Just horrible (and funny).

With lots of booze and friends this might just make it as a background entertainment and few laughs, just like Ed Wood-movies. The plot is a joke and soundtrack straight from some cheeky soap-opera.

Hopefully nobody paid to see this movie.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this film when my girlfriend was away, hoping to see some serious military\/specialist action.

After 10 minutes of watching this \"movie\" I was so terrified and horrified and sick of the quality of everything in this film that I was ready to destroy the rented disc with a flame thrower. Luckily I couldn\u00b4t find one. I\u00b4ve seen many bad films. But this is not even bad, it is total garbage and it does not even deserve to be counted as a movie here on IMDB.

I feel sorry for the people who have been involved in the making of this total disgrace. Hope it wins some Oscars though :D.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is 1 hour and 24 minutes of pure boredom!!

In this 'Action'- movie, even the gun Baldwin uses (HK G3A3) sucks. It was sent to recycling by armed forces worldwide in the mid eighties, and is now only used by terrorists, bank robbers and military museums.

If I had known this movie was this bad, I would rather watch 10 episodes of MacGyver saving the planet.

No groove, no drive and no feel. Watch the Tupperware-channel \u0096 it's more exiting than this sorry excuse for a movie. This movie doesn't deserve a '0' on the scale. Better luck next time, Baldwin. Until then, I'll sit here watch my toenails grow \u0096 that is far more exiting than 'Target'\u0085.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie sucks. The acting is worse than in the films we made when we were 10 years old with a camcorder, the effects look like some 80's computer game and the plot is worse than terrible. Even the worst Van Damme movies make this look crappy. The accent and speech rhythm of the 'bad guys' is so bad it's funny..

I wouldn't recommend watching this unless you are a big time fan one of the actors. 1 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dear Movie Director:

In the future, when trying to create a sense of urgency, it might be best to have your hero *run* instead of jog\/shuffle. Especially if you're trying to reinforce a time line. For example, if you're trying to convince the audience that the bad guy really will kill the hostage if the hero doesn't find her, it's probably a good idea to convey the feeling that your hero believes it may actually happen... Let's face it though. Making a *good* movie obviously wasn't your goal. Your goal was to pump out some garbage that will make more money than it cost. Otherwise you might have hired some actors.

Sincerely, Bored Viewer.

This is the worst movie I've seen in a long time. I can't say that it's the worst ever, because I was able to finish it. It was bad, bad, bad though. Dude, where's my refund?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Target is the story of a special agent who, after carrying out orders to assassinate Turkish \"Terrorists\" (note that this is one of those American \"movies for guys who love mindless nationalistic super-patriotic crap movies\"), returns home to find that his ex-wife and two kids are taking hostage. Charlie Snow has just a couple of hours to do whatever the terrorists tell him in order to get them back.

This was by far one of THE worst movies I have ever seen. And, had it not been for someone I know actually (and probably, mistakenly) taking it out of the video store, I would never have watched this giant pile of garbage to begin with.

The movie plays out like any generic action movie story I have ever seen before. In fact, these are the kind of things they spoof on variety shows, that is how bad it is. I half expected In Living the Color's 'Homey the Clown' to Mad TV's Will Sasso doing his Steven Segal impression to bust out on the screen half way through, to remind you that this was just an exaggerated action movie, but now our characters are here to spoof how ridiculous it really is. There were not even any good fighting or action sequences. By the way things are played out, you wouldn't even think that anyone was kidnapped, that there were any terrorists, or that anything remotely interesting was going on.

Not only is the story completely and utterly uninteresting, the acting is so terribly wooden. Just watch the part where Stephen Baldwin, as former special agent Charlie Snow, is talking to the kidnappers on the telephone. They tell him that they have his wife, and they put her on the phone. She says \"Charlie, help!\" or something to that effect. And Baldwin replies \"it's okay, honey\" in such a deadpan manner, you think he was reading the script and trying to sound out the words phonetically. I imagine that, despite being such a ridiculously bad movie (one that belongs on the bottom 100 on IMDb--a list that they should expand to at least 250 movies and should contain nearly every Stephen Baldwin movie), someone with some talent could have at least made the effort not to ham it up as much. Someone. Anyone. I couldn't get past the fact that everyone sounded like they were reading from a script. Save that is, the only person in the whole friggin movie who has any talent whatsoever (and thus should not have been in this), Mad TV's Deborah Wilson.

This was the capital cheese fest. How truly embarrassing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hate to be too critical, but this one really was bad. I like the Baldwin brothers, I just wish there was more talent evenly spread between them. I did like the general plot, but there was just too much 'trying' and not enough actual 'doing' as far as quality acting was concerned.

My favorite character out of the whole thing was bald cop. He reminded me of Dmitri Valtane ( Jeremy Roberts, I believe ) from Start Trek 6: Undiscovered country. Just, without the hair.

If you have Hollywood Video's MVP program and are really trying to get your money's worth, then through this in with one of the three MVP movies you pick up. It's worth it for a few laughs.

The single most impressive special effect in the whole show is the sound of Stephen Baldwin's rifle firing. I suppose that lets you in a bit on the quality and excitement of the rest of the show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this film were to be rated on a scale of 1 to 10, one would need to create a new rating system, as this one should not even qualify. The film's plot, (if you can call it that) revolves around Charlie (Stephen Baldwin), an ex- special operatives agent who is being targeted by the brother of a man he killed while he was still working for the US gov't. If this sounds like an interesting scenario, please don't be fooled, as this film will not deliver that which its action-themed story suggests.

Comedian Chris Rock once said that when one sees an actor doing a bad film that it makes one want to send the actor $50, given that the actor must be desperate for money to be doing such poor quality work. After watching this film, you may want to send Stephen Baldwin $100.

It appears that Baldwin did not put any effort into his role in the film. In the film, Baldwin is forced to run all over the city of Los Angeles in order to protect his \"honeycomb\" (wife) from being murdered by the brother of a man he previously killed. However, throughout the picture it appears that Baldwin can barely pull off maintaining a light jog. His laid back performance succeeds in subtracting from any suspense that the film might have intended to portray.

If you are the type of person who enjoys watching very bad films and laughing at their shortcomings, than this film is for you. However, if you are looking for a well made action thriller, it would be best to look somewhere else rather than renting this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*The ELITE sniper team that has inserted 24h or so earlier have instead of digging in and making them selves invisible decided to take cover behind a big rock in one of the first scenes. *When the hero \"runs\" to rescue his wife he actually jogs. *When inside a building and aiming for a target only some 20-30 meter away the hero USES HIS SCOPE. Besides the fact that most non elite soldiers would make that shot from the hip and still hit there is also the fact that the scope probably wouldn't be able to focus that close. *There is a satellite that can actually look horizontally into buildings.

The list is endless... and the film is the biggest heap of crap I have ever put in my DVD player.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1- Stephen Baldwin doesn't care about his involvement in Stephen Baldwin vehicles.

2- The acting in any Stephen Baldwin vehicle ranges from horrible to mildly passable.

3- Writers don't write Stephen Baldwin vehicles, children do.

4- Most of the Stephen Baldwin vehicles revolve around one genre- the Actionless Action genre. It basically consists of crappy action sequences made with little to no effort whatsoever.

5- The director doesn't care about Stephen Baldwin vehicles; he passes his job to an orangutan from time to time.

And now you know.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so bad that it actually gets funny. One of the worst movies I've ever seen in my entire life. The funny thing was that the trailer had scenes in it that wasn't in the movie. Just by watching the trailer I would have saved a lot of my time. It actually showed everything that happened in the movie except for the conclusion and that was also so obvious.

It's honestly hard to think of a reason why this movie was made. This is just so bad. Horrible.

I would give it 0 out of 10 if that would be possible. There is nothing else to say about this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Curse of the Wolf starts as reluctant Werewolf Dakota (Renee Porada) manages to escape from her 'pack' & into the city where 6 months later she is working in a vet's. The rest of Dakota's pack are unhappy & want her back, their leader Michael (Todd Humes) says she will come back to them but fat Werewolf Franklin (Brian Heffron) picks her scent up & the pack decides to force the issue & get her back using her affections for her human friends including her boyfriend Danny (Dennis Carver). Can Dakota save Danny & finally rid herself of her Werewolf pursuers? I doubt you will care...

Executive produced, written & directed by Len Kabasinski who also had a fairly large role in the film as Stick I was dreading watching Curse of the Wolf since Kabasinski was the man behind Swamp Zombies (2005) which is surely one of the worst films ever made, ever. Unfortunately my worst fears were confirmed & one has to say that Curse of the Wolf is a truly horrible film in every way, both conceptually & technically. Curse of the Wolf is the sort of film where the low budget dictates what happens & the script rather than the script dictating the budget. You get the impression that everything was written & conceived to take advantage of the few sets & actor's they had, you can almost imagine the makers saying we've got a few actor's, some basic equipment & a couple of locations so lets make a horror film around them. The story is awful (Michael finds the location of Dakota by looking at a large dog two women are taking for a walk), the character's are awful (a big fat Werewolf guy who farts a lot), the dialogue is awful (just about every line in the thing) & there's never any motivation for anything that happens (why are the pack so desperate to get Dakota back?), people just do seemingly random things & since director Kabasinski's background is in martial arts he insists in inserting lots of random martial arts fight sequences into the plot. No offence but this is meant to be a horror film not a martial arts one, isn't it? In fact apart from the presence of a few Werewolves you would be hard pushed to describe Curse of the Wolf as anything approaching a horror film. At almost two hours in length it feels like it goes on forever & is so slow & uneventful it's just not funny.

Director Kabasinski was obviously working on a low budget but film-making this bad should be a crime. There's no continuity between shots, the fight scenes look awful & are so poorly staged it's untrue & it's sometimes impossible to follow what's going on be it because of the choppy editing & poor camera angles or the fact that it is sometimes so dark that you literally can't see a thing. Seriously there are times during Curse of the Wolf where the screen is totally black & you can't see a thing, I would hate to have to sit through this watching it on a fuzzy low resolution VHS. The sound is awful too, you can hear the wind & breeze against the microphone! There are also lots of other unpleasant & unwanted ambient sounds during just about every scene. Did the production actually have any lighting gear while making this? It doesn't feel like it. The special effects mostly consist of Werewolf mask's that look like the sort of thing shops sell at Halloween for the kids, basically they look awful.

Technically Curse of the Wolf is as bad as they come, I'm sorry because I know this had a low budget but it's truly horrible to sit through & try to garner some entertainment from. This is high school film student quality, I'm sorry if that sounds unkind but it's a fact. The acting is, well you can probably guess so I'll stop myself right here before I say something else negative, I mean I've done enough of that already & I really take no pleasure in it.

Curse of the Wolf is terrible, both conceptually & technically this is a real chore to sit through. Curse of the Wolf is the type of film where while your watching it time seems to stand still, it's the type of film that lasts for almost two hours yet feels like two years. One of the worst films you or I am ever likely to see, definitely one to avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"During the 1990's, several attempts have been made to revive old Matsumoto's series. Yoshinobu Nishizaki tried to revive old Yamato saga in form of a laughably bad \"Yamato 2520\", which was completely abandoned after mere two episodes. Captain Harlock suffered a confusing and pointless \"Harlock Saga\", while Galaxy Express 999 suffered having this hack of a movie stapled to its name.

If you've seen \"Queen Millennia\", you'll recall that it was a wonderful movie in its own way. Maetel Legend tries to tell a sequel to this already concluded chapter, also finding a way to suck at doing so.

This movie takes all the annoying aspects of a generic pulp science fiction movie, mixes it with badly paced melodrama, and to add an insult to an injury, tosses in some of the most renowned characters from Matsumoto's universe.

The only redeeming aspect of this movie is good artwork, but the remainder is so amazingly bad that it can't save this movie from being a total loss.

If you've enjoyed Queen Millennia or Galaxy Express, do yourself a favor and skip this hack of a movie. You'll thank me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While there is a lot to recommend about Maetel Legend both in concept and finished product, it's ultimately a poor film. Plot wise it's a retelling of Maetel's early life, which is usually unclear; at the same time the writers take the opportunity to tell the story of the Machine Empire. And since Leiji Matsumoto has trouble not including his other work we get a starting point for Emeraldas her sister, Her mother: the Queen of La Metalle and a bit of Galaxy Express 999 to flesh out the film.

In short Maetel is a princess on the planet La Metalle, a planet with an irregular orbit, thus meaning its cycle around the nearest sun is reaching a cold stage and it's artificial Sun is dying. The Planet grows increasingly colder throughout the story, thus increasing the sense of doom. In order to protect her subjects and family the Queen decides that mechanisation is the only way to ensure survival of La Metalle's people. Enter Lord Hardgear, a robot \/ cyborg who provides the means for the job. Through the film, the characters are left to question mechanisation, will they still be human? Can Hardgear be trusted? Do souls and hearts remain? So for a fan of Matsumoto's work, there's lots to enjoy, questions to be answered, themes continued, except it's obvious that the film is meant to be an introduction, as well as a fan curiosity. The negatives, foremost the animation, while Galaxy Express 999, a TV series from over 20 years ago has shoddy mouth animation and at times sketchy character design, Maetel Legend has all the worst traits of modern animation and thus earns an air of respectability to Galaxy Express 999. The design is well detailed but unfortunately the animation has suffered leaving well drawn characters that 'slide', as in the backgrounds move or the camera zooms, a quick way of animating. However the few, yes few well animated scenes are re used over and over in dream sequences, repetition and in extra scenes. Anyone who's seem the film will wonder how many times Lord Hardgear can drink the same glass of wine.

Next the story, While in concept everything sounds great, the finished product is in fact a series of conversations of plot which are repeated over and over to little effect, the number of times the characters encounter the same problems and learn the same things is practically insulting to the audience and the characters, which are seemingly much more articulate in former incarnations. Add to all of that some terrible character design, that seem lifeless, over exaggerated, and the audience is left with a movie so miss handled it might as well have been rewritten as a different film, at least the newcomers wouldn't be left baffled.

And yet, it really has its moments, the ending at least is surprising. The plight of the citizens of La Metalle was quite affecting and rightly disturbing; I guess I find that whole man-machine theme distressing. It's hard know who to recommend Maetel Legend to, since it's not well animated, written or executed, plus confusing once Leiji Matsumoto's mandatory cross-referencing is introduced. However I can't help but brighten up when the magnificent entrance of Three-Nine occurs, now that's good cinema.

1\/5 stars out of 5, 2 if you're a fan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Heaven Can Wait\" is a crushing bore and a candy-coated, misogynist lie. I can't imagine anyone but film students sitting through it today. Don Ameche is in almost every scene, and, while he has a mellifluous voice that no doubt contributed to his successful career in radio, he doesn't have the charisma to carry this film. Ameche plays Henry, a womanizer. Lubitsch wants to make Henry's sexual incontinence adorable and amusing, and so he directs Ameche to play the part as blandly as possible. The combination of Ameche's lack of charisma and Lubitsch's insistence on blandness results in a lead character who is both deadly dull and completely icky. You wouldn't want to spend any time with this man; he'd put you to sleep. You wouldn't leave him alone with your daughter, no matter her age. Something creepy would happen.

The movie's look is quite boring. Scene after scene consists of static, overly lighted, diorama-style shots of fastidiously dressed Gilded Age stuffed shirts and bustles lounging in excessively busy, Victorian parlors. There's so many ruffles and frills and curlicues, so much lilac and sky blue and pink, you need Dramamine.

This movie hates women as much as hardcore porn, but it presents that hatred with a candy coating and a sweet little bow on top. The contrast between the content of the message and its delivery is sickening. In one of the movie's most hateful scenes, an elderly woman is sent to hell because she's not physically attractive.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Henry (Don Ameche) turns up at the entrance to Hell and recounts his life story to His Excellency (Laird Cregar). The story focuses on his relationships with females throughout his life, and in particular, his relationship with Martha (Gene Tierney). At the end of the film, we cut back to Henry and His Excellency for a very predictable ending.

Unfortunately, there is nothing more to say about the film because nothing happens. Its a sentimental story of one man's life and its very boring. I watched it with my girlfriend and my dad and we all thought it was rubbish, despite the Lubitsch touch. I yawned more than 15 times. Hugo (Charles Coburn) is good whenever he is on screen as the grandfather and there were a few funny moments of dialogue. The colour made it a good spectacle but it wasn't enough to save this plodder from going into the reject pile. In the same mould as \"Its A Wonderful World\" and \"You Can't Take It With You\", and so, not surprisingly, it was nominated for an Oscar. A story about ordinary people, none of whom are interesting and with no storyline of any interest. Boring, sentimental and the biggest damp squib of an ending that I can remember...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To some of us, director Ernst Lubitsch, adored for his underlying cheekiness and ironic comic touches, was rather wet when it came to picking material. It isn't that Lubitsch is overrated--on the contrary, he probably was ahead of his time in terms of a visual narrative--yet the projects he became attached to (or was assigned to) are not quite the landmarks of comedy his fans like to label them. With \"Heaven Can Wait\", a screen-adaptation of Lazlo Bus-Fekete's play \"Birthday\", Lubitsch is saddled with sleepy Don Ameche in the lead--and the combination of an anemic plot, a colorless star, and a musty flashback-framework stymies the director. A wicked man at the turn of the century \"falls asleep without realizing it\", presenting the facts of his life in front of Hell's entrance. Ameche...wicked? That was problem number one. The promising opening sequence (set in the Hades lobby) quickly gives way to dreary whimsy, and the supporting cast is of little help. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"C'\u00e9tait compl\u00e8tement minable : \u00e0 fuir absolument!

This was an idiotic attempt to destroy classic source material, and thoroughly succeeded!

Do not see this film under any circumstances unless you wish to have your ten euros torn up and shoved up your nostrils by a bunch of vapid, atrociously unamusing characters.

This type of film clearly illustrates the gulf that still unfortunately divides directors and audiences. If the individual (heaven forbid a collective could have conceived this dross) behind this had been considerate enough to watch the version currently playing in French cinemas, he or she would have endured what I was forced to endure, and mercifully rewritten it or just scrapped it altogether. The vein of adult humour being mined here dates, to my mind, back to Fritz the Cat but lacks that film's avant-garde status or even its base attempt at social commentary.

With the proliferation of remakes and increasing reliance on pre-existing source material to fund storytelling these days, one would hope that choosing Snow White, and thus not having to worry about conceiving characters or a radically new story, would have allowed more time for, oh I don't know, interesting animation, smarter jokes, perhaps a coherent film that has something to say and doesn't telegraph its vacuity from the opening frame?

A manifestly appalling production.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I came across this film by accident and wish I hadn't.

Why make a sexually rude sequel (and some gore when a man is beheaded) of a well know children's movie.

Do not take young kids to see this the title misdirects you, it has nothing to do with the original Snow White except for stealing it's characters. Better still don't bother going yourself, it's not worth it.

I could not watch it all, the poor (in comparison to Disney) cartoon graphics, and no plot except on how to totally mess up a classic movie made me want to give up and leave.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a fan of good historical fiction, and was thrilled at the thought that someone would take a well written book series and film it. Writing scripts is not like writing regular fiction, but when you have a book you are adapting, it would be nice to actually follow the plot line.

The portrayals of the Vespasians (the actual Emperor, and his 2 sons Titus and Domitian) was horrid. They acted like a cookie cutter Caligula, and were the 'bad guys' in this adaptation. There was a scene with Titus dispensing justice as if he was Caligula (from the movie of the same name.) The way the Vespasianii are portrayed in the books mostly follow the reports of historians writing in that time period - they were fair, and sane, not tainted by the Imperial Claudian insanity.

Helena (the love interest of Marcus Didius Falco) gives as her reason for divorcing Pertinax (one of the traitors referenced in the title) was that he was a traitor, yet in the books it was because he ignored her and she felt that she would be better off marrying someone who valued her as a person.

Marcus in the movie gets a slave named Justus, yet in the books he could barely afford his apartment, let alone afford a slave. There was certainly no romantic interlude between the nonexistent slave Justus and a female gladiator...

On the whole, if you want good cookie cutter roman stereotypes get Caligula, if you want good roman from the classical history viewpoint, get I, Claudius.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I fail to see how anyone who has actually read the M. Didius Falco mysteries could make such a mockery of them. An Aussie has no business in Ancient Rome. Nothing of the books is in this film except the setting and characters, and they are wasted on a plot thin enough through which to read the silly script. Kevin Connor and Lee Zlotoff have a lot of nerve displaying their names in the credits.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Paul Muni and Bette Davis overact monstrously while lacklustre studio hack Archie Mayo seems distracted and oblivious in this racially provocative film that derives its \"bittersweet ending\" by condoning segregationist attitudes. Heavy handed and poorly constructed the film collapses under its own weight within the first fifteen minutes with an out of control courtroom scene that it never recovers from as Mr. Muni begins to chew up scenery by the yard hollering and howling away in an almost incoherent fashion.

Johnny Ramirez is a Mexican American from the other side of the tracks who through determination and grit attains a law degree from a store front night school. In his first big case involving an auto accident he displays only ineptitude and is quickly made to look the fool by his well heeled opponents and an impatient judge who recommends he be disbarred. Devastated by the setback an angry Johnny takes on a job at a gambling joint where he is befriended by the owner Charlie Roark (Eugene Palette) who likes his style. The owner cuts him in on the place but problems arise with Mrs. Roark (Davis) who also wants a piece of Johnny. She kills Charlie, implicates Johnny and slowly goes mad before he is acquitted and free to be with a high society Wasp who coldly explains to him that they are from \"different tribes, savage\" and it will never work. When she flees to escape his rage she is run over and killed by a car. Ramirez sells the casino and moves back to his poor neighborhood rationalizing that its best to stay with your own.

In addition to this appalling denouement Bordertown has a series of bad performances to compliment the overall ugliness of the story. Unfair as his plight might be, Muni's Ramirez is so abrasive and arrogant it becomes hard to show sympathy for such a bull headed blunderer. Davis is no better as the less than loyal wife matching the same adolescent emotions of Muni. Her Lady Macbeth mad scenes give no indication that she was about to become the best film actress of her era. Margaret Lindsay as Muni's American Dream is cold, remote and flat.

Bad as Bordertown is (and it is very) it remains an interesting indicator of the times and acceptable attitudes. The rest is just a mishmash of bad acting and uninspired direction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"German emigree and uber-hambone actor Paul Muni who never saw a scene he didn't want to chew up goes \"blackface\" to play a humble Mexican immigrant living in Los Angeles and working his way up in the world. If this creaky vehicle reminds anyone of Al Pacino's minstrel performance as an uncultured Cuban in the remake of SCARFACE, don't be too surprised. The characters are quite similar, and both get wildly pop-eyed when the script calls for it. Hispanics everywhere should be greatly offended by Muni's over-the-top performance as this giddy Mexican living the American dream, consequences be damned. I guess Benicio DelToro's grandfather wasn't available. A young, bleached-blonde Bette Davis plays one of Muni's love interests; she eventually goes insane for love of Mr. Meh-hee-can Muni. An absolute hoot, Davis is the sole reason to watch this racially offensive claptrap. There is an absolutely delirious near the end when Muni asks the gal of his dreams to marry him -- a white gal of breeding with one of those stilted, stage-like '30s accents that Hollywood loved so much -- and she calls him a savage and a brute, of \"a different tribe.\" Muni immediately transforms into Mr. Hyde and chases her to an untimely death. In the final scene, a repentant Muni tells his sober-faced priest that he is going back to his own people, his own kind. End of movie. Finis. That's all she wrote. Muni was said to have hired a gen-oo-ine Mexican as a chauffeur in order to study this exotic creature's speech pattern and physical habits. Yowza!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Kissing Bandit was the third and final film that Frank Sinatra and Kathryn Grayson co-starred at MGM with. The first two were Anchors Aweigh and It Happened in Brooklyn. And in both Sinatra wooed and lost Grayson. I guess the third time's the charm.

For romance maybe, but definitely not for screen image. Sinatra in his forty's films once again plays the nice little schnook only this time in toreador pants. Poaching on Tyrone Power's territory laid out in The Mark of Zorro, Sinatra plays the son of a man who was a hotel owner by day and The Kissing Bandit by night. He's gone and left California for an education and has come back ready to take Dad's place, but in the hotel business only. And where does he learn the hotel business, Boston.

Of course some of Dad's former gang members, grown a little old and paunchy led by J. Carrol Naish, want him to lead the gang again. But Frank's just not cut out for the outlaw life. But he does make a good impression on the Governor's daughter, Kathryn Grayson.

Somebody must have had it in for Sinatra at MGM to cast him in this after the bad reviews he got in Miracle of the Bells. Frank's in a part that was more suitable for Red Skelton. But since this was a musical, I guess the brain trust at MGM figured Kathryn Grayson had to have a singing co-star.

In fact the best number in the film are for her, Love Is Where You Find It. Also Ricardo Montalban, Ann Miller, and Cyd Charisse do a dance specialty that is nice. Frank's songs are nice, but nothing spectacular.

In later years, Sinatra would wince at the mention of The Kissing Bandit and with good reason.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Perhaps the director was trying for another PIRATE (Good Garland and Kelly musical) -- but this lame musical epoch falls flat. Sinatra and Kathryn Graysons voices do not blend well -- and their chemistry together lacks spark. The premise of Sinatra as a sweet guy who tries to impersonate his late \"bandito\" father is okay, but he seems awkward in the role. What's amazing and wonderful here, is how Sinatra can take a rather insipid song and make it seem special -- his phrasing and eloquence as a singer make you want to hear it again. When Grayson sings the same songs it's hard to believe she's not singing something entirely different and not nearly as interesting. She has her big moment with \"Love Is Where You Find It\" which suits her perfectly and shows off her abilities. The photography is lucious and both stars look appealing as do the costumes and sets. Co-stars Mildred Natwick and J. Carroll Nash put lots of energy into making the impossible work. Aside from Sinatra's singing there is a strange menage-a-tois dance with Ricardo Montalban, Cyd Charisse and Ann Miller. It's fascinating and weird. Montalban and Charisse were a wonderful dancing team and this number is a real oddity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This must be one of MGM's and FRANK SINATRAS worst films. An oddball musical comedy that fails in almost every aspect. Silly plot has SINATRA trying to carry on his fathers reputation as a KISSING BANDIT. He's no bandit and doesn't kiss!! He does play the \"nerdy\" character as well as could be expected given the dialog he has to speak. The scene stealer's are J. CARROLL NASH and MILDRED NATWICK. Too bad they didn't have more scenes together. I've given the film two stars because the sets and costumes are superior and one of the songs sung by KATHTREN GRAYSON \"Love is Where You Find It\", is sensational. Could have had a repirse of that one. Also, a comic type dance number by RIDCARDO MANTALBAN, CYD CHARISSE and ANN MILLER if fun. So for those reasons and those reasons only, it is watchable. KISSING BANDIT is part of the Frank Sinatra early years collection.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A klutzy young man returns West after being schooled in the hotel business via Boston; he quickly learns his friends in Spanish-colonized Old California expect him to fill his deceased father's shoes instead--that of a romantic thief known for kissing his female victims after robbing them. Colorful but silly M-G-M production has a great deal of talent before and behind the camera, but it never takes off. This might have been fun, second-string material for Abbott & Costello, but Frank Sinatra looks lost and embarrassed in the lead. Combination of raucous comedy and musical interludes are hindered by the poor staging (Sinatra is photographed singing at one point in a mirror, but one doesn't concentrate on his performance so much as noticing how odd the star appears reflected in this way!). Kathryn Grayson is the Governor's daughter who falls for Frank, and her high soprano trilling turns her singing scenes into self-parody. Aside from Robert Surtees' cinematography and the decent art direction, this \"Bandit\" remains kissless. * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tycoon will never be listed as one of John Wayne's better post Stagecoach film. It's good in spots, has some fine action sequences in the cave in and also in the flood at the climax. But the plot leaves a lot to be desired.

What we have in Tycoon is two men who thoroughly dislike each other and that dislike prevents them from working as a team. Multimillionaire Cedric Hardwicke has hired John Wayne and James Gleason to build a railroad. But then he refuses to give them the needed funds to do the job right.

Things get really complicated when Wayne falls for Hardwicke's daughter, Laraine Day. After a night when they have to spend time alone in an Inca ruin, by convention in South America, Wayne and Day get a shotgun wedding even though nothing happened.

What should have happened is these two should have been locked in a room for 24 hours together to work out their differences one way or another. Their petty spites cause some fatalities among Wayne's crew.

But what Tycoon is most known for is another piece of pettiness. Laraine Day was married to Leo Durocher the manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers when this was being filmed. He was a constant presence on the set, insanely jealous of John Wayne who he thought might be having an affair with his wife. Nothing to it, but he made his wife's life miserable.

Not one of the Duke's better efforts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was terrible. John Wayne is a brutal actor at times. The lead female playing the role of \"Maura\" did a good job and tried her best to make scenes believable despite Wayne's inept, one dimensional, over acting. Seriously, did you see him when he was supposed to be talking in his sleep? Ridiculous. And his character became such an awful person in the second half of the movie and then did nothing to atone for his behavior and is still forgiven by everyone including his arch nemesis without even so much as a 'sorry'. The story was completely implausible. We were supposed to believe that two grown men, both tremendous successes in their respected fields, would sabotage a job and risk the lives of innocent men simply because they disliked one another? YOu can pretty much randomly select any scene and it will probably leave you shaking your head in disbelief that someone paid money to have this film made. Its too bad because the only other Wayne films I've seen are the shootist and rio bravo, which were both great movies. Unless you're being paid don't bother watching this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Burt Reynolds plays Gator McKlusky, a likable ex-convict just released from prison who helps the feds nab a corrupt small town sheriff. Laid-back Reynolds was often accused by critics of merely phoning these 'good ol' boy' performances in; true, he's on auto-pilot throughout. But in his day, Reynolds knew just how to make a low-key effort work well for himself. Ingratiating and handsome, Reynolds comes as close to winking at the audience as he can without breaking up; he seems to know these backwoods as well as any movie star, while director Joesph Sargent provides an easy pace and a sweaty ambiance which brings the South alive. Unfortunately, the story isn't much, and supporting actors Ned Beatty and Bo Hopkins overact (as usual). Diane Ladd is fine in a small part, and real-life daughter Laura Dern can be glimpsed in the background. Reynolds returned to this character for 1976's \"Gator\". *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film must have done well in the box office, in order to give Gator the budget it deserves. This film had no budget, needed a script rewrite, and a better ending. There is flashes of brilliance in this movie. The boat ride scene, Burt driving the mean machine, and his chat with his parents. You can tell Burt is a Southerner, and not a actor. This movie shows what Gator would be like, Burt's best film. Too, bad this film did not have the same funding and was done on the Rush. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One commenter said if you like Austin Powers you will like this movie. I liked Autin Powers and was disappointed with this movie. The film works hard, maybe too hard for laughs. Maybe it was that all the villains in this movie were shouting as if the shouting in itself is suppose to be funny. I get where they were trying to go with this flick. A cross between Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel but it just doesn't work. Austin Powers if silly but intelligent, Zorro the Gay Blade lacks the savvy of Austin Powers, The Big Lebowski or Kingpin.

I kept waiting for a laugh and while waiting found myself amazed that someone actually got paid for the script. My 15 year daughter also thought the movie was flat. My 17 year old who selected this flick on it's title, walked out after 20 minutes.

It seems many people on IMDb liked this film, but for me it lacked the good timing or jokes of a good comedy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Though predictable and contrived, not a bad movie. It entertains, which is all Van Damme hopes to do. The omnipresent \"twin\" device is again used (as in a large number of Van Damme's movies) but it is not bothersome except to long time fans. Natasha is gorgeous and worth watching. Action is decent, nothing spectacular for Van Damme but exciting. I can recommend to Van Damme fans and even to those who aren't but don't mind an action film with a good looking lead couple. The Russian Mob is a nice concept and topical for the day. Clearly, not his best film but by no means his worst.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Maximum Risk\" is a step sideways for Van Damme and just more of the uninspired B-movie action stuff we've come to expect from films featuring the macho Belgian martial artist. The flick has gaping plots holes, goofs galore, a messy conglomerated plot, and a gorgeous Henstridge who spends most of her time looking like she's waiting for a cue. \"Maximum Risk\" doesn't distinguish itself in any way and will likely not have much appeal beyond the usual young male audiences. (C-)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is not a good film.

I can usually sit through a Van Damme movie if I have to, as they are usually a bit of a laugh and don't require much thought. This one has no redeeming features.

It has a distinct lack of plot, humour, acting, direction etc etc. A real stinker on all levels.

I have never walked out of a cinema during a movie, although I came damme close here.

Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jean Claude Van Damme's movie career seems to have gone to hell in a handcart so how ironic to see him playing a character who meets the same fate in a literal manner at the very start of the movie ! It's also interesting to note how very , very similar the plots of his movies play out regardless of who the producer , director or screenwriter are . Van Damme usually plays a character who is living in France then due to a set of circumstances finds himself in another part of the globe where he has a brother who dies and it's up to Van Damme to get revenge helped by a character he's just met . Look at AWOL or LEGOINAIRRE or many other films that feature the headline \" Starring Jean Claude Van Damme \" and they all feature nearly the same type of story structure . This doesn't mean they're identical of course , just very similar and if you've seen one Van Damme movie you've basically seen them all . It's the same with MAXIMUM RISK","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maximum risk is quite surprising to a person that has seen more then on of his movies. Director Ringo Lam made an average action-movie, that can be compared with most of the other mid-quality action movies, what is a special predicate to a `Muscles from Brussels`movie. It has a quite classy style, an interesting atmosphere and, last but not least, the beautyful Natasha Henstridge. Even VanDamme doesn\u00b4t make you crying by his acting, he does a relatively good job. Of course you may not compare Maximum Risk (oh, what a creative title!) to `Ronin`, but after watching `Knock off` it\u00b4s the hell of a good movie... in special standards, of course.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Story: Alain, a French policeman, is shocked to discover that he had a twin brother when his body is found in Nice. Investigating the murder, he finds out that he was in possession of a list that details the deeds of the Russian Mafia. Helped by his brother's girlfriend, Alain dodges Russian gangsters & corrupt FBI agents while trying to find the list.

\"Maximum Risk\" is another one of the long list of action films that feature Jean-Claude Van Damme. As far as things go, it is strictly formulaic. The script sticks to the clich\u00e9s & the acting is mediocre. There are some nicely done action sequences, with an inventive car chase, a fight in a burning building, an escape through rooftops, a brutal fight in an elevator & JCVD fleeing his enemies over an elevated train line. Director Ringo Lam keeps everything going at a reasonable pace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie is not that bad, Ringo Lam sucks. I hate when Van Damme has love in his movies, van Damme is good only when he doesn't have love in his movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well another shootem up. Typical run around film with guns, revenge, and violence. Not much of a story. In fact I forgot most of what this film is about. Don't rent this one. I think the exercise infomertial would be more entertaining during late night.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A quick resum\u00e9: Almost nonexistent, badly chosen musical soundtrack, steady-cam filming done without the steady but with lots of coffee and a hyperactive cameraman, NO plot, and nothing ever really happens. The film goes from one dialog into another, sounding hollow, never achieving depth, never creating the illusion that you really are inside a cobweb of conspiracy, and the everybody-has-an-affair-with-everybody is just a boring excuse to show the main actress in nice underwear. (which, combined with her rusty voice certainly is nice, but nothing to base a movie on) The high point for me is the opening scene, and the film just degraded from there to a point where I just wanted to quit the film about 45 minutes into the story. I regret sitting it out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you're an average guy like me and enjoy good acting, good plot, good scripts, novel ideas, or being entertained, you might want to skip this one. I was honestly bored from the opening credits to the very end, but tried to give the film a chance, and watched it all the way through -- only to be disappointed at every turn.

The acting was unbelievably sub par, but I'm not sure if the actors themselves are to blame or if it was the ridiculously wooden and horrible dialog coupled with an even worse script. The plot is very vague and underdeveloped and I think the audience is supposed to derive some kind of deeper meaning from it, or be able to look past it in some way, but honestly to do so would be a waste of time.

The film has a kind of crude sexuality to it which doesn't serve any purpose other than to show off some tattoos and lingerie. No one seems to have any motivation except making money off of some kind of \"investment\" deal that is never really explained. The connections between the characters aren't terribly clear, and there is little to no character development.

This is either some kind of sub-culture film meant for a very specific audience to enjoy or absolute crap, but you can decide for yourselves.

I gave it a 2 because it is definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen, but probably not THE worst.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You have to start worrying when you see that Michael Madsen is leading the Cast of any movie. I wont go through the list of shame that is his movie career.

I watched 45 minutes and still was not sure what really was going on. The movie consisted of a love hate relationship between Madsen and Argento, Which basically was Madsen insulting her, threatening violence and generally treating her like dirt. She on the other hand loves him, then shes doesn't, then she does, the she desires him, then she loves him again......whats wrong with you woman !!!!

The Script is awful, lousy soundtrack and pointless aggressive and crude sexuality which i believe was added to entice some viewers as the movie has little else to offer. I would have given the movie a 1 but it just about managed a 2 with a little excitement in the last 20 minutes. It did actually answer one question in the final few minutes but i am not going to share that, i will make you suffer for the full movie like i did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Asia Argento has never done a film (so far as I know, and this includes ones directed by her own father, Dario) where she fails to show all of her anatomy at some point. Sure enough, in the most boring opening dialogue scene ever, poor Madsen has her coming into his office and right there, reminding us that even though her hair is up, she can still stick her fingers in her crotch at any given second (which she does but in such a random \"what? am I really seeing that?\" kind of way). The DVD box, packaging, makes this look like a femme fatale film so you keep waiting to see her turn into a sleek and minimalist killer.. no such luck. She's verbose, hung up on some aging has been and even worse, has no credible skills in physical agility other than (surprise!) taking off ALL the clothes when any scene allows it. Her accented English would be cool if only she didn't try to make it sound so affected and try to talk like a 12 year old. How about this plot? Weak-minded but simultaneously nymphomaniacal woman is suddenly driven to kill while she already has another affair on the go and is running some cheap drug deal ... huh? what? does anyone have motivation in this movie to do anything other than buy a hamster? The screenplay seems to be oriented by letting everyone talk a lot about the same things over and over (I was expecting to see the worst acting on this appear as a producer who dumped money in it just to have some screen time) - there is nothing going on sub the obvious flaws of Asia's character that at any point in the movie delivers what the DVD cover promises. She's weak... but she knows how to kill. she flails A LOT. She flails naked, she flails half dressed, she even flails in a dead woman's clothing.. she is very floppy and unmotivated. In fact \"Floppy\" would have been a great name for this movie.. and a shot of Asia passed out looking angry on the cover would have been a better representation ... there are actually shots of her eating airplane food!!! What's that about?

THe ending makes 0 sense - everyone is just annoyingly wishy washy in their intent and their execution of all objectives. The wife of Lester doesn't deliver any REAL vengeance (taking someone to bad karoeke IS life threatening but not really valid).. and Lester just floats around without really making much proclaimation of anything. Totally misleading key art... yeah, we know Asia lost the baby fat of her first born but really, a whole movie trying to pretend like that's interesting enough to drive a film about a passive-aggressive chick is not worth your while. See Point of No Return instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Olivier Assayas' film stars Asia Argento as a woman who had a relationship with Michael Madsen. Madsen is a business man who's in financial trouble. In desperation he is going to sell his share of a business to a company called Golden Eagle, a company from the Far East. As Madsen begins his moves away from his company Asia Argento returns to his life. The pair had a torrid love affair that included her doing business favors for Madsen (with said Golden Eagle). Once Argento enters the film the film follows her as we see the tangled web she's woven and how the complications spin dangerously and violently out of control.

I'm not a fan. Actually I was quite bored as the film seems to go from pillar to post for much of the first hour during which I kept wondering what the point was other than to provide a meaty role for Argento. Argento, daughter of director Dario Argento and a director in her own right, is a unique actress. At times stunningly good, she is more often then not going to give you a quirky off beat portrayal of a damaged human being. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I don't think it completely works here mostly because the script is too \"complicated\" to support it. I didn't care what was going on so her wounded girl just rubbed me the wrong way(she seemed more nut job than anything else). I'm not blaming the actors but writer\/director Assayas who has once again constructed a complicated tale with the sort of parts actors love to tackle, but which leave audiences scratching their heads because they they don't really work.

If you must try it on cable","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tired, garbled dreck. The chemistry between Argento and Madsen was as exciting as a wet doughnut. Their dialogue was dramatically uninteresting. The storyline was a mess. The acting forced. The cinematography lingered on the uninspired. Lazy and pointless. Kim Gordon and her character had no reason to be there. Nor did anyone else for that matter. I couldn't have given two farts for any of the 'characters'. Their emotions skipped and jumped like a junkie who hates his heroin. Empty and dull. Why do I have to write ten lines of text on here to make my point? I think I summed it up in the first three words. But, obviously it's not enough. I think this is the last time I'll bother to waste my time critiquing a film. Anyway, I saw 'Clean' and thought that was quite ineffectual as well. Again, I cared not for the characters, whether they lived or died.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Asia Argento is a sexy beautiful woman who likes to run around naked which isn't a bad thing in it's self, but, when her character talks about all the guys she serviced, and to see her with Michael Madsen and an Asian guy in the present tense of the movie, it made me feel like I needed a condom over my eyes to watch this movie, like a disease was going to rub off on me or something.

The movie felt like it was going for a love triangle\/drama\/action\/??? plot, it just seemed to go everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The acting was great, the plot, not so great. The director needs to at least pick a genre and practice, practice, practice, before trying to do something as complicated as this again, because they are not very good at it obviously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story is disjointed and poorly written. We are given threads and a possible hook in act one, only to see it vanish. Had the writer bothered reading his work carefully, it wold have been apparent that Madsden's character's initial problem and meeting with the 'bad' girl suggests that there will be a troubled alliance between them as they try to solve his problem.

The problem goes nowhere. The relationship goes nowhere. And there is no sexual tension in any of the relationships. No-one digs anyone and no-one is appealing. The writing and directing is laughable. You can feel someone struggling with the mess and shifting the story focus about trying to extract some excitement. There is none. The writer\/director is simply a beginner whose muddled efforts somehow became a movie. From simple errors such as '...they took polaroids...' - in Japan in 2007 ? to insulting errors such as nudity for eroticism, this movie is an insult. You cannot make them much worse.

And by plastering 'Madsden' on the talent list, the producers thought they'd have some success. He is hardly acting. Asia certainly is... and the result is some heroin-chic panto.

Give it a big miss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The trailer is so deceiving... I thought this will be a good film... What was the point in bringing the women in Hong Kong for being killed? They could have done it in Paris. And the fist half hour:

-You love me!

-No I don't! -You love me!

-No I don't! -You love me!

-No I don't!Repeat for 100 times... then... Well I don't love you... So i shoot you! :D So here is the reason why movie piracy is a good thing! Imagine if I would have even give money for this torture! I'm sorry for the time I lost watching it... the film makers should pay me

for the inconvenience... Worst film ever seen...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was terrible. I thought it would be OK but it just got worse and worse. From the starting scenes it seems to be heading in the direction of another safe predictable rom-com, but the moment he arrives at the house it just disintegrates. None of the characters have any depth and the only person who was anywhere near believable was Tom, although the way he became so easily distracted just annoyed me after a while. The dialogue is ridiculous and the structure of the film almost completely non-existent. In an insulting attempt at comedy the writer\/director introduces a new character or event in practically every scene, none of which are realistic, making it very confusing to keep track of what is going on. The plot is barely an excuse for a movie : guy likes girl, house sits fathers home to get to know girl, destroys house, gets girl. A complete waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not just the money we paid to rent it or actually go to the movies. I'm talking about how big productions companies waste so much money in things that actually are boring and not to talk about ridiculous. With the millions they used to make a movie like this, because I don't think the actors here would actually work for free or for an insignificant sum. With that money imagine how many good independent movies you could make, or maybe one good Hollywood movie. Its just to rip you off, but not anyone, just the majority of teens that are willing to go and see an Ashton Kutcher movie, just because they are fans of him. I don't really know either how someone with common sense could actually act in this kind of movie. If you actually look at it in prospective the actors are the same quality of this movie. So i guess I shouldn't be surprise, I actually couldn't have expected more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have never seen a movie that annoyed me that much. It is a movie about stupid people that are doing stupid and terrible things. This is not a funny movie. I must say that the plot line is awful. I did not had patience to watch it so that i only saw half of it, but it was enough for me. The characters are not very inspired. Just terribly annoying. This movie is all about a goofy guy trying to hook up with his tyrannous boss's daughter. When he finally manages to talk to her, she asks him to go at that night at her home to watch her father's owl, and he thinks she had invited him to go with her at a party and to be at her home at 6 pm. He gets to be very disappointed finding out that he only has to take care of the owl and that she has a boyfriend. After her father leaves home leaving precise orders, about taking care of the house and his beloved bird, appears a secretary, a renegaded son and all sort of NOT funny stuff happens in the house. But he finally hooks up with his boss's daughter. TRUST ME THIS MOVIE IS TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is perfect for any aspiring screen writer, actor or director. By watching this movie you will see all the things that are wrong with the film industry as it is today. There are so many clich\u00e9s that it pained me to sit through this movie. Nothing about it is original and every single line spoken has been ripped off from those clich\u00e9d movies that we all saw in the 90's. Although it does have a few cheap laughs, overall it is wrong wrong wrong. I was so immensely bored and the movie was so predictable and pathetic i actually noticed how much make-up was caked onto Tara Reid's face to hide those massive bags and wrinkles from her endless partying. Seriously, she was wearing so much foundation you could literally scrape it off and refill an entire bottle of it.

What shocked me though was that so many of the talented and popular cast would sign on for this piece of junk. And i do NOT know how i sat through that horrible screaming that Ashton Kutcher does, you know when he's like angry or something and he shouts his words in this annoying manner? Ashton's horrifying \"talking\", Tara's face being ten shades darker than her neck, a drugged up owl, a script that seemed like the work of a three-year-old...

Seriously, in my whole life there has been no movie that i have watched that i did not in someway enjoy no matter how bad it was. This deserves an award for being the first. BAD BAD BAD... I don't think there is a single word in the English dictionary that can possibly describe this trashy movie. Today i was trying to re-watch it but i had to turn it off like ten minutes in because i was about to cry from the overwhelming amount of clich\u00e9s.

Don't even bother to rent this at your blockbuster, it's not worth a cent, as a matter of fact i am willing to pay anyone out there considering to watch this movie so they can go do something decent with their lives.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For years I hesitated watching this movie. Now, I know why. Not only is it a comedy that fails at being even remotely funny, but there's also just nothing to laugh *at* about the movie. It was even worse than I'd expected. I rented this sucker and still felt cheated out of time more than money. I have never seen a film that annoyed me that much. It is a movie about stupid people that are doing stupid and terrible things. I don't really know either how someone with common sense could actually act in this kind of movie. I have used IMDb for some time but felt obligated to register just to help prevent poor unsuspecting folks from renting or, worse, buying this stinker!! Really a waste of time and money. I must say that the plot line is awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ever wanted to see how low a movie could sink? Well, look no further! This movie has it all!

Racism jokes, handicapped jokes, overweight jokes, suicide jokes, murder jokes, drug jokes, animal abuse jokes, eating dirt jokes, old man young wife jokes, cancer jokes, gay jokes, crap jokes, falling flat on one's face over and over jokes, overuse of blood jokes, rape jokes, pee jokes, alcohol abuse jokes, anal rash jokes, a bunch of people yacking their coffee back up jokes, nudity jokes, see who can say the most swear words in one scene jokes, lesbian jokes, girlfriend abuse jokes, and the list goes on and on people!

The worst part is: none of it is funny! (Not that anyone would find most of those funny to begin with.) It seems that when it just can't get any worst, it pushes your expectations to an all new bottom, as it always seems to find another to make the viewer feel worse. There was one scene that had me almost throw up and almost completely depressed at the same time. I don't think I need to point out which one, but then again, I'm sure there are other scenes that will give people this same feeling.

There was one moment at the end of the movie that actually made sense and was slightly realistic, when suddenly one of the characters in the scene was piled on with the nastiest remains of a trash bag and thrown several feet on the ground only to have a bunch of beer bottles smashed into his head. All of this probably when he least deserved it. So all thought of a 1 more point redemption was quickly regarded. This is indeed a terrible movie. This is one that needs to be studied and bisected into small parts at a film school to teach students what not to do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For years I hesitated watching this movie. Now, I know why. It was even worse than I'd expected. Ashton Kutcher makes the worst movie mistake of his career, since 'Dude, Where's My Car?' Tara Reid co-stars as the girl of Ashton's dreams, who asks him to babysit her father (and his boss)'s pet owl for the weekend. The rules: 1. No shoes in the house. 2. No people in the house. 3. The boss' son stays out of the house. 4. Don't touch the furniture.

Well, you can pretty much guess by the end of the first twenty minutes, how the rest of the film is going to turn out.

You know, there are films like, \"Meet The Parents\", where bad things happen to someone, but it's entertaining to watch, and it's delivered in a way, that you can't wait to see what happens next. This, is not one of those films. You know right from the start that bad things are going to happen, and they're mostly stupid things that would never actually happen. It's an extremely frustrating movie to watch, and there were about three times when I nearly turned it off, because it was so bad. But, I paid the rental fee, and figured I had to watch it now.

Tara Reid was good, and I would like to see her in more films. Though, I'm not surprised if this had a hand in hurting her career.

The end result is a happy ending...but of course with the kind of film it is, you would expect nothing short of that.

Don't watch it. You'll sincerely regret it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the first time I'm entering a comment for a movie I haven't viewed till the credits. Reason for this is simple...people need to be warned: this is one of the worst comedies of the new millennium. I usually stay away from a good deal of comedies that are in bad taste but I reckoned this to be watchable. A regrettable decision which was based on other Ashton Kutcher comedies that were (semi-) enjoyable such as A Lot Like Love and Guess Who.

Where those two movies had their charms and laughs, this had none (and I mean none!!). The acting is horrible, especially the 'boss'. Tara Reid was no surprise, how dare she call herself an actress?! The premise is thin and the plot doesn't thicken at all. Not a problem if you manage to keep it funny and\/or sweet...but as you probably already guessed, this was not the cast at all! The script felt like it wasn't quite finished and I wouldn't even be baffled if the director did some rewrites while shooting. My dog could've written a more coherent script, seriously. And he's not exactly Lassie either :-).

Stay away from this tripe even if you like silly goof-ball comedies at times (like I do). This low quality movie will not be enjoyed by many...

I (almost) never give a one so therefore...a 2.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is easily one of the worst movies i have ever seen. There is so much at the house that goes wrong that would not happen it isn't even funny. Granted this is a movie meaning things that won't happen in normal life happen here, however this movie is more far fetched than theories that no child left behind is working. All of these people are in the house and nobody has noticed another, not to mention the damn owl that seems to be coming everywhere but in its cage. I could deal with an owl joke the first few times, but after an hour i just can't take it, i would rather kill myself than see that damn owl again. Did i laugh during this movie? no. Not even once? no. Horrible, Horrible, Horrible. The fact that this pile of garbage is capped off with Ashton Kutcher bending his boss over and taking his pants off in front of everybody just makes this movie ever worse. But wait, the day is saved because the damn owl can fly. WOW AMAZING! However, i do give this movie some cred, its not as bad as Epic Movie.....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the most awful movie I have ever watched. I have never before rated a movie 1 out of 10. My advice is don't watch it. This doesn't even classify as a movie.

You'd be better off sitting on the couch bored rather than watching this movie. Acting was terrible but what was worst by far was the storyline. Highly unlikely sequence of events which aren't even funny. They are actually very lame and stupid. Very foolish choice by Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid to act in this movie. Might even upset their careers a little.

When I walked into Blockbuster, the main focus was on this movie , so I decided rent it. I sincerely regret it.

Once you're 10 or 20 minutes into the movie you could basically predict what was going to happen. I was hoping it would get better , but instead it got worse.

I am not exaggerating this. The movie is terrible. Don't watch it. Hope this helps.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has got to be about one of the worst i have ever seen. The humor was crude, hardly funny and been heard a million times before. The start was noting special and it got worse and worse as it went on. I got about halfway through and couldn't stand to watch any more of it. Luckily I was only watching it on TV so it didn't cost anything, but I seriously recommend you do not waste you time or your money.

Nothing in the movie was new. The characters were not at all developed. I actually think it would have been better as a little kids movie in that it was full of stupid unrealistic \"funny\" events occurring ... thats like what happens in home alone or something. Not to imply home alone was in any way as terrible as this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"There are some things you just don't do\" so says the tag-line of this, a 2003 David Zucker comedy about a young man caught up in one horrendous situation after another entitled My Boss's Daughter, and it's the tag-line which should speak for both the people that made this junk as well as those contemplating watching it. There are indeed some things you just don't do, with the placing of mostly all of the sort of content to be found within My Boss's Daughter counting as wholly items you just should not do to the medium of cinema by including them in your picture. My Boss's Daugther is a sordid; creepy; grotesque experience, a clunky and heavy handed piece which is infantile beyond words and disgusting beyond expression. To see it is to endure it, to endure it is to survive it and to survive it is an accomplishment all by itself \u0096 if any of the cast; writers; extras; Hell, even the guys that worked as runners on the set, aid in producing anything as Earth-shatteringly poor as this again, then it'll be either because they've been sent here by the devil Himself to destroy the medium of film or, it'll be because they've most probably garnered employment on behalf of the Friedberg\/Seltzer mob.

My Boss's Daugther, (which I'm pretty sure ought to be titled \"My Boss' Daugther\", grammatically speaking), revolves around its hapless male lead, named Tom Stansfield (Kutcher), and a night in at his boss' house as he chases that seemingly elusive 'goal' that is his young, blonde daughter Lisa Taylor (Reid) - someone whom works within the same department as he does in a towering Chicago office block whilst under the strict eye of Jack Taylor (Stamp). Tom spies Lisa early on, she's taking the subway to work with all the other shmos despite the fact she owns a car and that her father is the boss of the damn company. After trying to talk to her, but having his attempts foiled by a puking baby and a dog for the blind more interested in Tom's crotch than anything else, he finally gets his chance in the office when talk of an after-dark party elsewhere arises and that he ought to come round to her house to visit her - and yes, she does still live with her father. Think Hitchcock's 1960 film Psycho with the gender roles between Norman Bates and his mother reversed and then played for laughs.

The distinct establishment of character is made painfully apparent in the opening scene in which Tom sits on the subway train and travels to work with his yuppie cohorts. They are a ruthless and smarmy bunch, whom it's made apparent swipe the briefcases of those unfortunate enough to get them stuck in the door in the ensuing morning rush, without ever returning them. One day it happens with Tom there, and his wish is to return it, thus pounding into us that he's-not-like-other-guys(!) This, as he first sees Lisa down the carriage and is somewhat shy to approach her as the other men treat the whole situation as if it would be a breeze if they were in his position. This rather obvious and flat-footed attempt to try and get us to 'side' with Tom sits uneasily with what it supposedly takes to earn a place amidst these co-workers in this company.

It is, however, as close as My Boss's Daughter comes to any level of film-making. From a seemingly harmless premise of a boy meeting a girl and wanting to get to know her arrives the comedy from Hell. Tom's arriving at the house will not see him invited to the party, instead he is charged with house sitting Jack's pet owl and generally keeping out of mischief whilst maintaining a spotless house. It's been established Terrance Stamp's character means business in the strictest of manners, firing people for the smallest of things such as the making of a bad cup of coffee. It's not that Jack is a shrewed businessman, he's a cleanliness freak; obsessed with control and a borderline sociopath in his placings of bear traps in the garden so as to keep the children next door off his land. You can imagine, that when we're let into his large and exquisite house with the orders that nothing should go wrong, there's obviously going to be trouble.

The film has fun with this premise of danger for about ten minutes. The first time someone uses the worktop to crack open a beer thus marking the pristine top, you may smirk, but by the time half the house is wrecked and Michael Madsen has shown up urinating all over the rug, you've got your head in your hands. Each joke in the film is set up in an almighty clunky manner before it is played out in a way that is closer to slow and excruciating than slick and faultless, the only thing missing as it follows through to the next gag is the sound effect of someone incorrectly changing the gears to a car as it clunks and creaks onto the next pratfall. Inbetween the gross-out wackiness, the film takes time to roll down a route of yucky, saccharine driven romance as Lisa and Tom bond whilst talking of in-workplace and out-of workplace persona's, and that maybe they have more in common than first thought. By the hour mark, the film's opted for gross out gags and hate filled jibes more than anything when there's an entire scene that exists purely to target paraplegics and a dumb subplot to do with a head-injury sporting neighbour on a blind date in which some truly unwatchable sight gags are unfolded. Throughout, Stamp's character enjoys putting people down and asking if the simplest of tasks are too difficult for them, to which the common-place reply ought to be whilst channeling Jack Taylor: was reading the screenplay first too complicated-a concept for you, Stamp?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To be fair, I couldn't bear to watch this movie all the way thru, so I have no idea if it suddenly gets better half way thru the film. But the first 30 minutes or so are amongst the worst I have seen in a while. Children under twelve might get a kick out of the poorly written, acted, and directed slapstick humor, but adults in full control of all their faculties should steer clear of this stinker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was dumb. Sort of like an Adam Sandler movie.

There were a few funny parts but not that funny.

I liked some of the actors in it though.

There were some Sat. Night Live people in the movie. But I wouldn't recommend this unless there is just nothing else better on. And it was still better than any Jennifer Lopez movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was intrigued by the nasty boss character as I am one myself, and the actual boss's daughter was attractive and it was interesting to see an even younger Ashton Kushner, but this movie is so puerile I had to turn it off. It was a waste of time to watch it. When people started peeing all over the living room, it was too much to watch. Painful, awful crap movie. If they had just toned it down a little. Are there really people out there that find it funny and like it? I was relieved to know that IMDb readers rated it so low. The career side to the story was intriguing as well as the young man trying to get a promotion and win the bosses favor. I liked that part. Also, the opening scene with the coworkers on the train was cool as I like his coworker's characters. If you can stomach non-sense movies or you are pretty young, then it might be one you can stomach.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dreamy young Ashton Kutcher (as Tom Stansfield) wants a date with sexy blonde Tara Reid (as Lisa Taylor). Ms. Reid thinks Mr. Kutcher is gay. Kutcher works for Reid's father, an anal retentive Terence Stamp (as Jack Taylor). Kutcher agrees to \"housesit\" for the boss, believing it will get him closer to Reid. Mr. Stamp has a pet owl named \"O.J.\", who becomes a toilet cokehead.

This is a film to get your restricted to \"G-rated\" pre-teens ready for raunchier \"R-rated\" fare. It will help if they haven't seen the plot before, and especially like moronic potty humor. Remember, people get paid to act like this.

** My Boss's Daughter (2003) David Zucker ~ Ashton Kutcher, Tara Reid, Terence Stamp","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film made me so angry because of its stupidity that I felt the need to create an account on IMDb to share with you my opinion. I liked Ashton Kutcher in \"A lot like love\" and this is why I still wanted to see this film despite it's current 4.2 rating. It is highly over-rated. I trusted that an actor (any of them) would judge the script and would not agree to participate in such low\/now quality production. It is very disappointing. The theme of home-sitting was much better used in \"Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo\". Things that did not make sense here: fist of all, the house owner leaves his precious pet with somebody who doesn't know anything about taking care of it. Secondly, the rule is not to let anybody in the house, but the house-sitter fails to follow this simple rule. The door is not locked?! And so on..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this thing used at a video game store's \"clearance bin\". I wanted to get that guilty feeling from watching something I've been warned is too intense to watch; I wanted the shock value. I wanted to feel guilty and bad about watching a \"banned film\". I was very disappointed.

Cannibal Ferox does not work because it is so campy and fake. Most of the time the camera does not show you the \"shocking\" stabs, chops, slicing - you just see the aftermath. (They do show a breast hooking in detail). The special effects are just OK. Nothing here that tells you any of the violence is real. The \"cannibals\" are obviously poor people from central \/ south America who were dressed up as jungle savages and told to act mean. These people were obviously in on the whole picture to get a little money, or food, or both. Again...just not convincing.

However, like everyone else has said, there is some real killing of animals going on here. That is the extent of the realism. To me, that was more shocking than any gutting, chopping of scalps, or castration, and even then, the animal deaths are not that gory at all - maybe just sad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like anyone else who bought this, I was duped by the \"20 pieces of extreme gore\" and \"banned in 20 countries\" or whatever it says in the box. I have to admit I am a huge gore fan and I am always amazed when films can lay it on thick and look convincing doing it. Tom Savini, Rick Baker and Greg Cannom are some of the best in the business. The revolutionized make-up effects in the 80's. Today, you don't need them as everything is done on computer. But computers cannot compare to the visual wizardry that these three men could conjure up. But I digress.

Watching fantastically gory films like Fulci's Gates to Hell or even Savini's crowning achievement, Friday the 13th the Final Chapter, you can appreciate all that goes into making a terrifically gory film. You can't tell the difference between reality and magic.

I can't imagine another reason why anyone would see Cannibal Ferox but the gore that is ostensibly omnipotent in this film. If that is the reason you seek this film, then you are wasting your money. As many other reviewers in here have noted, most of the gore is an aftermath. You don't see the torture, or the bloodshed as it happens, you see whatever it looks like afterwords.

The gore? Well, it's here, but not as much as one would hope, or expect. A man does get castrated and a women does get hanged by her breasts, but other then those two scenes, and one involving a scalping; there is nothing really much else to this film. The scenes of gore even in these three mentioned, are still pretty tame in comparison to what you were hoping for. Maybe it's just me and my sick and twisted experience in the horror and gore genre, but I was expecting a bit more. Call me sick or twisted, but isn't that the only reason people are watching this film in the first place? I honestly found myself bored in a lot of places.

Cannibal Ferox is just another film that tries to capitalize on a craze of a superior film. While Cannibal Holocaust is not exactly a great film, it is much better than this tripe. If you go out of your way to buy this for $20.00, you will feel cheated.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the most notorious of the banned \"Video Nasties\" of the 1980s is also one of the most excessively over-hyped. \"Make Them Die Slowly\" is about what you'd expect from an Umberto Lenzi-directed jungle potboiler\u0096inventive (yet poorly rendered) native torture techniques, some ridiculous \"social commentary\" (yes, even sillier than \"Cannibal Holocaust\"), and lots of guts being chewed. The film's exploitative violence, though, is often only shown in brief close-up, and never dwelt on for very long, which diminishes its effect (interpret that how you may). The dialog is Lenzi's usual silliness, as our male heroes show their affection for females by calling them \"tw@t\" and the like. The cast of familiar faces (including Lorraine De Selle, Giovanni Lombardo Radice, Zora Kerowa, and Robert Kerman) does their best in the face of the escalating idiocy (including a completely ludicrous \"castration preservation\"), but cannot save this overworked, lousy effort.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First thing I note is the music. It's nothing as amazing as Ruggero Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust's haunting theme or the masterpiece waltz from A Tale of Two Sisters, but I don't let that stop me so early in the film.

One must assume that the woman researching her hypothesis for her PHd dissertation that cannibalism as a organized practice has never existed, one would think they must take into the consideration that they are wrong and prepare for the trip accordingly right? Or why go at all if you already believe the hypothesis to be true before even being tested? That's fairly unbelievably ignorant and makes the movie seem that much more unrealistic and badly scripted.

That actually is similar to the Ruggero Deodato's film, just totally ill-prepared. No guns, no decent hiking clothing, just nonsense through and through.

People don't go on trips like this for college without months of planning and preparation.

But I digress...

Things don't get off to a very good start for our brave yet stupid adventurers as they swerve to miss a jaywalking iguana, and their decoy pet ferret falls out of the truck nearly to it's demise, then to fall into a mud hole, well I guess it's time to walk.

Okay then they flip a coin to see whether they keep going or forget the whole thing. How does that scene even make any sense? All their conviction rests on the flip of a coin? After they must've spent time, and money, and preparation just getting out there. This just keeps getting worse. Defiinitely some of the worst acting and scripting and music ever concocted for the film industry.

Mike talks about how he and his friend's were captured by the cannibals and put into cages in mud pits with 3 inch long leeches sucking on their blood. I found that interesting because if you remember the first cannibal they run into in the jungle, a man they mistake as a simple native, is sitting on the ground eating such leeches... wonder if they are the same ones? Really though this movie is just terrible because the script is horrible and the acting is emotionless considering the content. They just agree to off themselves rather then get eaten by cannibals like it's no big decision.

Obviously Mike is insane, but just like in the first movie they treat the natives with such terrible behavior it's simply unrealistic.

Ruggero Deodato's movie easily feels the Americans got what they deserved, while in this movie one can hardly blame the natives for what befalls the Americans yet again.

And because of that the movie feels somewhat pointless. We already got the point from the first movie, so why was the sequel made? The lieutenant's name is Rizzo?! Could it get any worse? Oftentimes with movies such as these when you look up the cast you find they haven't really acted in much other films and their bios are all but non existent, so you can imagine I was surprised to find Giovanni Lombardo Radice in this movie who was in Scorsese's Gangs of New York. Now Lt. Rizzo looked familiar and I found he was in the 2002 movie Spiderman as a very tiny role as a tugboat captain. Reminds me of how William Shatner went from being the admiral on the USS Enterprise to a cop in a car. Irony, sometimes irony works out. Shatner never could get the music right until his recent album \"Has Been\" which is really good, just like Bono of U2 never could get a haircut right, and Dan Marino never could win no Superbowls.

Sometimes irony is just sad, like Christopher Reeve, Superman can't walk irony. The man will always be a legend though because he was such a great guy, I digress yet again though.

At this point you can tell I'm fairly bored of even discussing Cannibal Ferox.

Cannibal Holocaust's message was about who are the real savages and what is truly evil? What the savages do in natural living unknown to our moral records, or what we do to others with malicious intent? Cannibal Ferox's message seems to be 'Be careful what you go looking for, for you just might find it.' I will say this for Cannibal Ferox. When Gloria comes back and writes her dissertation, asserting that Cannibalism does NOT exist, she saves others who would be curious and go where angels fear tread, but overall this movie was really bad.

***\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"CANNIBAL FEROX (1+ outta 5 stars) Miserable excuse for a movie... which you might enjoy if you really like boring, nonsensical jungle movies spiced up with scenes of graphic violence. A pair of drug dealers on the run from the mob travel to the jungles of Paraguay to search for emeralds and cocaine. They meet up with another young traveler and his two hot babe sidekicks, one of whom is an anthropologist seeking to prove definitively that cannibalism does not and has not ever existed. One of the two dealers turns out to be a bit of a psychopath and he tortures and kills a couple of natives in order to get them to tell him where they hide their jewels. (And how they could even tell him when he doesn't seem to speak their language in the first place?) Well, the natives are suddenly not too thrilled with white folks in their jungle and capture them all for some retaliatory torture. Poor acting, poor plot and poor direction. Not a decent moment of suspense in the whole dreary 90 minutes. Even the special effects are not particularly convincing (though a couple of shots will still make most viewers cringe). The only good scene in the whole movie is when the two women are imprisoned in a mud hut and seem to touch the hearts of the natives with their rendition of \"Red River Valley\". The following is a quote from the movie but I wouldn't be surprised if many viewers weren't saying exactly the same thing by that point: \"Oh God, please let her die soon. Oh, let her die soon. And let me die soon too, please.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was unbelievably bad... It's gory but the violence is just too much to the point where it looks extremely fake and predictable. Since Everything is shown to you there is nothing left to the imagination. And the plot... what plot? There really isn't any! The pacing is unbelievably slow (despite the random acts of violence) and the screenplay must have been written by a deranged 12 year old kid who kills kittens for fun. So this movie was banned in 31 countries? I could see why... not because of the gore (boring and trite) but because it was a terrible movie. It should have been BANNED from existence. Avoid this one like the plague. 1 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is about a young man's painful journey to discovering his sexuality.

The film is raw and unpretentious. It does not rely on steamy sex scenes to attract the viewers. Though the plot may seem incoherent and disconnected at times, and some events are not properly explained. I can understand it though, because this film is a collection of memories that are highly personal to the director. The subplot of about his sister and mother probably does not need to exist in the film, but I can certainly imagine that these are very important events in his life.

The low budget of the film is clearly discernible. It is a pity that the sound effects are poorly done. The narration and some dialogs (particularly the scene in the classroom with the French teacher) have so much echo, which makes it hard to make out what is said. The ambient noise, notable traffic noise, is also captured throughout the film. When a scene cuts into another, the level of traffic noise changes.

This film is probably not entertaining, but it certainly serves as an insightful diary of a young man's journey to embracing his sexuality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm probably one of the few people who defend and even enjoy \"Frisk,\" the project that put Todd Verow on the map, if that is indeed where he is. I appreciated that someone had the guts to take on Dennis Cooper and not back away from the material; Verow fairly rolls around in it. Judging from what he's done since then he's well-suited for that type of material and should probably stick to it. \"Vacationland,\" a would-be \"teen coming out\" film, is so misguided in so many ways it becomes unintentional comedy, and I'm disappointed I have to report that.

First off, our hero, the high school Senior \"Joe\" is far too old in appearance to be playing 18 . When we later meet a man who is supposed to be Joe's teacher it's confusing, as the sweaty-faced guy looks much younger than the student he's teaching. Joe's mother looks younger than he does and doesn't \"act\" any older either. Second, in Joe's opening scenes he looked like he was either playing, or actually experiencing, mental challenges. To his credit he got better as the film went on and I figured out he was \"playing young,\" but it just wasn't working--it was weird.

It's 15 minutes in before anything is revealed about who, what and where these people are, and why we should care. The second scene in the film is an extended bit of business in a men's toilet room that, considering where the story goes later, is absolutely superfluous; the subplot with the teacher goes nowhere at all, even as a \"rite of passage\" for our \"young\" hero...one minute Joe is nervously trying his hand at bathroom stall sex (a scene so un-erotic it makes you truly wonder what anyone sees in the practice), the next minute he's an expert at sexual blackmail and violent double-crossing. This is followed by an extended scene with the character we'll later learn is \"Andrew,\" and that's about all we learn about him, other than he's apparently gay but not out yet.

There's a lot crammed in to the 1:44 running time (which is about 20 minutes too long--I can't imagine how it played with the mind-numbingly long and pointless deleted scenes of Joe walking around); a sub-plot copped from \"Gods And Monsters\" with an aged patron who spouts rhetoric appros pos of nothing played by an actor who obviously can't remember his lines (he is conveniently dispatched with in a way Dickens might have come up with on a slow week); a mix-n-match almost-four-way between the boys and their girlfriends, a gay-bashing toilet tramp, a would-be wise sage in the form of a nellie queen (and hasn't the nellie queen suddenly taken over the role of the \"hooker with the heart of gold\" as most tired stereo-type?) who exists only to be degraded; blackmail, theft, murder, alcohol consumption and abuse of looping music software for soundtrack recording.

What you will NOT find in this movie are any interior establishing master shots; we're expected to imagine we're in an airport, grocery store office and classroom, as all the scenes in these locations consist of close-ups and poorly edited soundscapes to convey the idea of locales that the production must not have been able to afford. One thing they were able to get appears to have been an actual gay bar; either it's the worst bar in the world or there are only about 5 gay men in Bangor, Maine, as the bar never has any patrons in it. Another good chuckle came when the actors were supposed to be yelling over dance music that very obviously wasn't coming from the speakers, but was just more of the droning loop-music of the \"score.\"

Plots and characters come and go, emotions are unreadable and the dialog, clearly inspired by Dennis Cooper, is \"film-speak,\" meaning no humans actually talk this way. Since we aren't given any information about these characters it's impossible to care about what happens to them; it's as if Joe et al appear out of the ether one day and might simply cease to exist once the credits roll (certainly the character of Joe's sister, a wannabee Jennifer Grey who is Bohemia-crazy, seems to just simply \"stop,\" we never know where she is in LA or what her problem is...but again...does it matter?). Visually the film looks very good at times, more a testament to new developments in hi-def video than anything, I suspect. The editing is pretty clunky though (there was one great edit; Joe is posing naked and says, \"I wanted to play sports, but...\" and we cut to a shot revealing his \"butt...\" ha ha). Composition is also odd at times (I thought I was watching SCTV's parody of \"Persona\" when the boys were talking together in bed and visually it looked as if their noses were stuck together for the whole scene!).

One senses Verow is really restraining himself from making a \"naughtier\" or somewhat rougher movie like he usually does, and maybe he shouldn't have held back (the frothy toothpaste\/sex fantasy worked nicely, I thought, though the tone was out of touch with the rest of the movie)...he produces and directs this \"sensitive coming of age\" story much like Herschell Gordon Lewis directed films without gore...porn films without sex in them. I got some unintended laughs out of this and it wasn't boring, it just wasn't very good either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has too many things going on. Another reviewer comments on the disjointed, episodic nature of the film as reflecting the director's memories - that's fine, if that is how it was written and performed. Instead, what we get is straight-forward narrative - some of the time - that jumps around, under and over, leaves us dangling in some instances, interrupts the flow with unnecessary digressions in other instances, and otherwise simply doesn't work.

There are also some plot details that just don't work. For example, why drag a body onto a beach in an urban area in broad daylight, as opposed to night time? Why leave your flat sheet on the body? Why would an artist who knew the Joe character for a brief time decide to leave him \"everything\" (even if it wasn't much)? This sub-plot was poorly developed to make that point work. For that matter, why even have the man be an invalid or an artist other than to provide the money and the gratuitous nude posing scenes? He could just as easily have been a photographer, or a opera composer? For that matter, how does someone rate an apartment in an Opera House - particularly without some clear connection to the Opera? The coincidences are also both too obvious and to unclear and unexplained. Why would the guys take everything in the warehouse and \"disappear.\" If Tim was a 10 year old school mate in a town as small as Bangor, how could Joe lose track of him for 8 years, especially if they knew each other well enough that one would recommend the other for a job.

Some of the other subplots (like the mother and her boyfriend(s) and the sister wanting to escape felt like padding. There's some good ideas that might have made a feature with full development or could have been interesting shorts. As completed, this movie made little sense and offers even less.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Awful is really all one needs to know. First think of all the things that could be bad about a movie. And then try to make a movie that is bad in all of these ways. You will have made \"Vacationland.\" The state of Maine should feel insulted: it's much too nice a place to serve as the backdrop for such trite, mindless, boring schlock. I'm a romantic, and I always want movies about two people finding each other to succeed, and I tried hard to find the good in this one. It was tough; very tough. I couldn't find a glimmer of emotional connection among any of the characters in this exercise in humdrum dreariness. Except maybe in one or two of the bad guys.

Maine IS a good vacationland; this movie is not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director Todd Verow's unexpected turn into sentimental coming-out drama yields a predictable result: Nothing new to see here. Attractive but unconvincing leads - these 20-somethings are supposed to be in high school? - dribbling out banalities about confused, adolescent sexuality doesn't strike me as the best way to explore the promise of Anonymous, which was equally self-involved, but also honest, raw and, by comparison, not all that maudlin. I have no idea what to make of this drab and uninspiring movie other than to hope that Verow finds another career. Sure, it's unpretentious, but so's Mike Huckabee.

No single attribute, however, is as awful as Jim Dwyer's chintzy, electronic score, which grates non-stop, wall-to-wall for the full length of this movie. If I'd seen this, and heard this, in a theatre, I would have walked out. Thankfully, on my laptop, I could scrub and hit mute.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I first watched Kindred in 1987 along with another movie called devouring waves. I remember back then i hated them both and i have never really bothered to watch them again.

However i have recently started a crusade to collect as many 80's horror titles in their original boxed form, That have been deleted for some time. I have got myself quite a proud collection with many more titles on my list!

The Kindred although i have not as yet got a copy is high priority as all the old movies i didn't like back then, I now own and have now re-watched and think they are brilliant and the bits i do remember of the Kindred are now driving me to want to get hold of a copy A.S.A.P.

Hurray for the 80's and long live horror!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Kindred opens to shots of a Porsche racing along a highway, it catches up with an old pick-up truck and gets held up. As it speeds past the pick-up the driver (Benjamin J.Perry as Ben Perry) shouts obscenities and honks his horn. Distracted he doesn't notice an obstruction ahead and crashes his Porsche. He is quickly freed from the wreckage and is taken to hospital. On the way the Paramedic (Randy Harrington) trying to save him suggests that he probably won't make it. Then the Ambulance is attacked and forced off the road by a van. The driver of the van, Jackson (Jim Boeke as James F.Boeke) beats the Paramedic up and steals the patient. The Ambulance driver, Harry (Charles Grueber) makes no attempt to stop him. Once the injured man has been placed into the van Jackson turns his attention to Harry whom seem to know each other. Harry asks Jackson not to hit him because he broke his jaw 'last time'. Jackson punches Harry to the floor and throws a bundle of money at him. The film then makes it perfectly clear we are in San Fransisco by showing a shot of the Golden Gate Bridge. Sharon Raymond is woken up by a phone call for her boyfriend Dr. John Hollins (David Allen Brooks) to inform him that his Mother, Amanda (Kim Hunter) who has recently had a heart attack has regained consciousness. Hollins works for a company called the 'Geneticell Corporation' and is delighted at the news and heads off to see her. Once there she asks him to go back to his old childhood house in a small town called Shelter Cove and destroy all of her notes and experiments, especially the 'Anthony journals' which Hollins has never heard of, she also claims that he has a brother named Anthony. Back at Geneticell, Hollins talks with a Dr. Phillip Lloyd (Rod Steiger) about his Mother as they had both worked together before they had a falling out with each other, and questions him about her research and if he knows of anyone called Anthony. He claims he knows nothing. When Amanda dies after a visit from the sinister Dr. Lloyd, Hollins decides to carry out his Mothers request and try to find out who Anthony is. While paying his final respects at the funeral a woman named Melissa Leftridge (Amanda Pays) introduces herself to Hollins and says she was a big admirer of his Mothers work and research after she helped her. Because Melissa seems to know so much about his Mothers work he invites her to the house as she may possibly be able to help find some answers to various questions he has. Hollins, Sharon, Melissa and three lab assistants, Brad Baxter (Peter Frechette), Hart Phillips (Timothy Gibbs) and Cindy Russell (Julia Montgomery) plus a girl with a watermelon(!) named Nell Valentine (Bunki Z, great name what were her parents thinking!?). They get down to business straight away but find little of any interest. For some reason no one at this point thinks to look in the basement, which is just as well as there's something down there, something large, slimy and has lots of tentacles. First it kills Duke, the dog. Then it moves on to larger prey. When Hart is attacked by something in a barn Hollins decides he must destroy all traces of his Mothers work and whatever Anthony is. Jointly co-written and directed by Stepehn Carpenter and Jeffery Obrow, Carpenter also acted as cinematographer and Obrow as producer. This is a pretty poor film in my opinion. The script is credited to five(!) writers, Carpenter, Obrow, Earl Ghaffari, John Penny and Joseph Stefano and with five people working on it I'd like to think they could come up with something a little bit better and more coherent than this. Nothing is explained that well, why did Amanda create these monstrous sea creature\/human hybrids? What is Dr. Lloyd's interest and his motives? Why does he steal bodies from the back of Ambulance's? Why does he have a basement full of mutants? Why do none of these so-called genetic scientists think to check the basement out? Could Melissa act more suspiciously even if she tried? Why are none of the characters given any background? Why do people keep mentioning a substance found in sea creatures called Hemocynine when 99.9% of the audience isn't going to have clue what their on about? There is also a serious lack of blood and gore, only one person dies on screen, just one! And all the scientists survive in a vomit inducingly mushy 'happy ending'. This is a horror film guys, all we want to see is the slimy monsters kill and eat people in various gory ways. The one on screen death is actually quite cool, someone has slimy tentacles inserted under their skin, in their ear and up their nose in the films only decent horror sequence. To try and up the gore quotent there is a scene where Dr. Lloyd is experimenting on a skinned animal but it only lasts for a few seconds, and in the context of the rest of the film doesn't mean a thing. Melissa also turns into a fish, don't ask. There's no nudity either, which isn't a surprise. The film looks professional enough with decent production values but is just so dull and plods along at a snails pace, we don't even get to see the giant monster in the basement until 15 odd minutes before the end which is far too little far too late, when it does make an appearance the effects are OK and that makes it even more of a shame that it wasn't used more. Overall I was very disappointed and I was expecting a lot better. A horror film with only one on screen death and only three in total, what's the world coming too?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Son you must stop the experiments I have started!!\" Too bad nobody said this too whoever green lighted this project!! I was almost literally dragged to this movie by a friend of mine for a midnight showing when we were in high-school. Now, a midnight movie in high-school on a Friday night, you are not expecting much, but c'mon!! And upon seeing it again years later I sill stand by my original opinion of it. Great special effects but so what!! Quite possibly one of the worst movies ever made. Unless you enjoy blood and guts and seeing some Hollywood vets (Steiger & Hunter) make fools of themselves for a buck. YUCK!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The best way to have fun in this movie is to count how many clich\u00e9s it is rehashing. Snarling Chinese gangsters. A female vice-president. A ventilator duct that happens to be big enough to fit a big Caucasian male. Shooting through the wall to kill the bad guy. A Situation where you need to snuff out some innocent people to prevent Armageddon. Independence Day scenes where you snuff out some memorable landmarks in a fireball. The vice president in a nice well lighted room surrounded by subordinates, while the Chinese premier virtually alone in a dark room with just bit of dim light shining, snarling as viciously as the slimy gangsters. A lone hero left alone in a ship (building, airplane, whatever) wreaking havoc on clueless bad guys with big automatic weapons. Etc., etc., etc.

The second best way is to count how many zeroes you need to put after the decimal to accurately gauge the probability of the film scenario. I counted up to 45. A president agreeing to a meeting on board a private vessel. The impossibly non-overridable command from the nuke box. The part where the Chinese decided to play shoot 'em up. Etc., etc. Man the earth is more likely fall into the sun than for this film to happen.

I admit the film was interesting until the point the evil Taiwanese gangsters kidnapped the President. Then the boredom kicked in. Suspension of disbelief ceased, and I started thinking the fun I'd have torturing this film...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I at first thought this little fantasy excursion would be a little entertaining. I was wrong.

A good cast (Roy Scheider as the president) didn't help it any. The story had every conceivable possible worst-case scenario that could take place in a terrorist nuclear disaster. And none of it could POSSIBLY happen!

True -- the kidnapping of the President could only be accomplished with the inside help of a traitor in the Secret Service (ala Air Force One), but everything they depicted regarding the FOOTBALL and the helplessness of our country if were to fall into enemy hands is ludicrous to the Nth degree. Seriously, not even the President can fully over-ride our missile control. The case is only used to relay orders. In this situation, our system would have completely deleted the codes and the whole thing would go nowhere. The destruction of Beijing couldn't happen -- there would not have been a missile launch because the silo-crews would have been instructed not to (communications include a hardwired system). There are just too many safe-guards to prevent such a thing from happening.

True, film's like FAIL-SAFE and STRANGELOVE gave some credibility to the concept of us losing control of THE SYSTEM. But this film goes too far and fails to suspend my concept of the unbelievable. And that makes the experience a waste of the viewer's time. This film is a failure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...a film comes along that manages to be absolutely terrible from the opening titles on through to the studio logo tagged at the end of the closing credits. This was such a film - the very type you can not stop watching for fear of missing a moment of its ever-descending quality.

Forget the low budget that's indicated by a slow, monotonous opening sequence that shows secret service agents running alongside a presidential motorcade with no crowds, no traffic or location discernible. Forget the jumbled logic needed to even remotely make the actual plot seem plausible. Forget that Roy Scheider delivers some of the hammiest dialogue whilst completely failing to hide his shame.

This clunker is terribly paced, bombarded by a score that's simply laughable, and seems edited by a third grader. All the while twisting scenarios to cover up the hardest thing about filming a presidential storyline on the cheap: making him seem presidential.

I honestly feel asleep briefly in the last reel, and when I awoke, I ran it back so as not to miss a single excruciating frame. Try this drinking game: take a shot every time you see it blatantly aping another much better film. You'll doze off, too.

Not since 'The Man' w\/ Samuel L. Jackson and Eugene Levy have I seen such a delightfully unredeemable project. I may give out copies as Christmas gifts. Zero stars. A thousand laughs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is no doubt one of the worst movies i have seen in a long time. I was expecting alot more from the actors. It started alright, then things go from idiotic to absolutely ridiculous. Definitely not worth renting except if its a free rental.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"COC had its moments. I enjoyed the action sequences, but I despised the screenplay and plot. I hate this film so much, I'll just write about the dumbest part. First of all, the plot would never happen. Second, the bleakness of the Chinese President was uncalled for. That would never happen. Finally, the dialogue. Employing non-Chinese actors to play Chinese roles is understandable, but to write dialogue for them that's TOTALLY OFF is dumb! For those of you who understood the Chinese in the film, you know what I mean.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Poorly done political actioner. Badly photographed, acted, and directed. Every single scene is underlighted, including those very few that are shot during the daytime. It doesn't matter what the location is. At an important conference in the White House, no lights are on, and the only available lighting is a gloomy blue that is filtered through a few windows. The primier of China conducts an earth-shattering phone conversation under conditions of such intense chiaroscuro that he should be contemplating a bust of Homer in a Rembrandt painting. Honest. It's as if he had a tiny spotlight on his face and was otherwise in total darkness. The slow motion deaths are by now obligatory in any ill-thought-out movie.

Roy Scheider and Maria Conchita Alonzo do well by their roles, but Scheider is rarely on screen. The other performances are dismissable. There is a pretty Oriental woman in a short tight skirt who totes a gun and is right out of a Bond movie who's accent suggests a childhood spent in Basset, Nebraska, and who should have remained the model she probably started out as. Whoever plays the surviving Secret Service agent aboard the cruise ship was probably picked for the part because he looked most like Johnny Depp, not because of any display of talent. The Chinese villains, representing both Taiwan and mainland China, hiss and grin as they threaten the heroes.

The script is pretty awful, recycled from other, better films. There is a lot of shooting aboard the ship and practically everyone winds up mincemeat. Two thirds of the way through, the ship explodes into the expected series of fireballs. Then the movie splits into two related parts. Part one, another shootout, this time in a waterfront warehouse. Part two, an exchange between the Vice President, now acting president, and the oily Chinese premiere, lifted out of both \"Dr. Strangelove\" and \"Fail Safe.\" We unwittingly launch our missiles. They launch theirs in retaliation. We cannot convince them that our launch was accidental, even though we offer to help them destroy our own missiles. There is even the George C. Scott\/ Walter Matthau general who argues that their \"nucular\" armory can't match ours so we should hit them with everything we've got. More fireballs.

The end comes none too soon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ugh. This movie has so many unbelievable plot contrivances that they made what could have been a good movie into a hideous mess. The story is halfway decent, but the holes in the plot make the execution literally laughable. We're actually supposed to believe that the Secret Service would go against all common sense and allow the President of the United States to be put at unbelievable risk. If this is an indication of the kind of thinking that passes for good judgment among the President's protectors, then we're all in trouble. Roy Scheider turns in a good performance as the President, but it is unfortunately offset by the truly loathsome acting of Patrick Muldoon (who somehow continues to get jobs in Hollywood based solely upon his good looks and his uncanny knack of smirking at every opportunity, regardless of whether the script calls for a smirk). Perhaps someone will see this and be inspired to make a good movie from the premise--or, perhaps someone will see it and say, \"Hey, if they can get a movie this bad made, maybe I can, too!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Schieder delivers a semi-believable part as the President of the United States with politically correct Maria Conchita Alonzo as the female Vice President. The movie just stinks. with so many plot holes its a wonder they got it to stick to the film it was shot on. Relegated to late night HBO time schedules, this film is not worth seeing at all. 10 minutes into it, you are asking yourself why it was written. 40 minutes into it, you are wondering why you are watching it. Save the effort and watch a re-run of Hee Haw or something. Anything is better than this clunker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would think that this was one of those films whose director hadn't read the book it was based on, were it not for the fact that they are just slightly similar. It is certainly possible for a great film to be \"based\" very loosely on a book and this was certainly the latter but not the former.

There were a number of flaws. One was that it tried to be too much like the Railway Children, probably because adults would expect this, being from the same author. Another is that it also sought to be too like Harry Potter, down to the music and in overemphasizing the setting. I have nothing against J K Rowling or the films but the book is just nothing like the Harry Potter ones. I thought the Psammead, though very well voiced by Eddie Izzard and in character too, was almost gratuitously in a totally inappropriate environment. I may have missed something here, as the comments made about one of the characters' own books may have been a reference to the inaccuracy of the adaptation. There was also no need for the extra characters, and today's special effects could easily have been used to tell the story as it was written, but they weren't.

I saw this film with my two children, one of whom knows the book and the other of whom doesn't. The one who does know it thought it was all right but wasn't as enthusiastic as the one who doesn't. I'm not sure what this means.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1st watched 10\/29\/2006 - 4 out of 10(Dir-John Stephenson): Mildly entertaining story of a group of five kids who are forced to live with their eccentric uncle while their father and mother fight & work in World War I as England entered the war. They are told not to go in the greenhouse of the uncle's mansion, which of course they do over and over, and they discover a sand fairy who them daily wishes that only last until the sun goes down. This is the \"IT\" referred to in the title, created by the Jim Henson group and voiced by Eddie Izzard. The problem is their wishes usually bring about other problems that they are supposed to learn from. This part of the movie is not done very well because it's obvious the children, primarily the Freddie Highmore character, do not learn from them but instead keep going back to \"it\" to solve their next big problem. \"IT\" is not nearly as funny as it could have been with the comedian Eddie Izzard really not given much opportunity to improvise and Kenneth Branagh is wasted as the eccentric uncle, although he is the best character. The children are fine as far as their acting abilities but the story probably would have been much better going into the fantasy realm but they did have a human story to tell as well, which probably caused the confusion with the filmmakers. So, all in all, this was an OK film but could have been much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Great War breaks out and Daddy is a brave pilot who goes off to carry out some unsightly business to put Jerry in his place. Mummy is doing her bit as a nurse, so the five children are evacuated to their barmy uncle in the country, where a secret passageway takes them to a mischievous sand fairy and the beginning of a magical adventure.

Based on a book written the best part of a century ago, they don't make stories like this anymore. And there's a reason. The men fly planes and author books; the women change bandages and clean house. The boys lead the way with their compasses and nighttime furloughs; the girls do what they are told and play violin - badly. Fat kids who wear specs are nasty. All the kids speak in those clipped, vowel-flattening accents that are soppy and prim but which a certain economic class of English people cultivate. On top of the snobbery and yearning for Imperial Albion, there are plot holes a five-year-old would not tolerate. I mean that literally - my son was asking why the father disappeared before sunset, why the compass didn't just drop from his hand as he disappeared. The film at least tries to aim strictly for the kids, until a completely inappropriate and unfunny monologue by Eddie Izzard (what a waste of genuine comic talent) plays over the final credits.

No doubt the five percent of British schoolkids who go to expensive public schools in the UK will find it all such a jolly wheeze. For the other 95 percent of British families who no longer live in the 19th century, the good news is Wall-E, Ratatouille and Wallace and Gromit are all out on DVD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those \"family\" movies that I can't imagine having much appeal to anyone over about 9. A group of siblings discovers a \"sand fairy\" (yes, really) conveniently located at the end of a not-so-secret passage at the country home of their eccentric uncle, to which they've been evacuated from the London blitz. ...And there you have it, all in one sentence. The story is about the role of magic in childhood and the danger of getting wishes fulfilled, but neither of these issues is examined in a way that would be interesting to adults or instructive to children (or vice versa!). The only reason I can think of for watching this is to see how starkly Freddie Highmore's outstanding talent stands out from the rest of the mediocre performances.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will repeat - what a stupid scenario.

Is there anything new inside? I don't know who have wrote this. But i believe this guy have watch all Hollywood -children -family -teens movies ever made... all scenes and dilouges u can see in everywhere. Why do u people making this movies? children's like an adults? they like money gold cars... and they are positives? they have lucky... and emotions of course... without it can be done. o the young Actors - wow :-). I do like when is camera concentrated on their nice faces? what a crap... there is 90% better children movies that this one! This is not creative or funny movie. This is simply nothing.

D.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This late-ish effort from Freda plays as a modern day (70's that is) Gothic thriller, but comes out short of thrills. Certainly it's not a dreadfully bad film, it's jut got that feeling which many of Freda's later films have of someone who has given up when he's seen the first daily's. It starts out good enough, almost giallo like in tone, then takes a turn into Gothic territories with a decent (albeit terribly clich\u00e9) set up. Then suddenly Freda seems to have lost interest in the film and all we get is prolonged shots of Camille Keaton and burning candles. Then circa an hour into the film we get some sort of violent climax with decent-to-poor special effects. This is followed by a slow paced outro with a very obvious twist ending (If it's even intended to be a twist?). And throw a few very halfhearted explanatory scenes along the way and you got Tragic Ceremony. Thus in parts it's got its qualities. But then suddenly stumbles and collapses in front of you. A pity.

btw stay away from the SHAROMA DVD, a useless murky pan& scan edition which kills of what could be a good visual experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On the way home from a day at the beach, four young people seek shelter from a torrential downpour at the home of Lord and Lady Alexander after their car runs out of gas. They don't know it, but the house they're staying in is to be the site of a Satanic ritual. Jane (Camille Keaton), the only female of the group, is to be sacrificed. As her male companions rush to her aid, one of them accidentally kills Lady Alexander. Things really get out of hand and everyone else attending the black mass is also killed. The four try to make an escape, but soon discover there's no escape from what they've witnessed. One by one, they meet their fates.

Gong into Tragic Ceremony, I was positive I would enjoy it. Slow-burn Gothic horror is right up my alley. I'm also quite fond of some of Riccardo Freda's other movies like The Horrible Dr. Hichcock, The Ghost, and I Vampiri. Tragic Ceremony seemed to be a sure thing. Unfortunately, things don't always work out the way they should. The biggest tragedy with respect to Tragic Ceremony is the time I spent watching this mess of a movie. With a few minor exceptions, nothing about the film appealed to me or worked for me. The characters are unlikeable, the plot is incoherent and schizophrenic, and the pacing is terrible. There's a subplot about some cursed pearls that goes nowhere and only serves to confuse things even further. In addition, nothing interesting happens for most of the movie. By the time the four leads realize they're in danger, I was well past the point of caring. And I don't understand the reviews I've read that praise the acting of Camille Keaton. I suppose it's a terrific performance if you consider an emotionless daze to be acting. The three male leads are the very definition of nondescript. They do nothing to stand out. The supporting cast includes some genre favorites like Luigi Pistilli, Luciana Paluzzi, and Paul Muller, but none is given anything to do. In fact Muller's main contribution is a two minute long monologue at the end of the movie that attempts to explain what happened in the previous 80 or so minutes. It's a weak attempt to provide a wrap-up to a very weak movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Riccardo Freda may have a good reputation; but since we now that many of his best films were, in fact, directed by the late great Mario Bava; it's clear that he wasn't one of Italy's most gifted filmmakers back in the seventies. This film pretty much proves that as despite the simplistic plot; it's a sprawling mess and overall, I'd even have to go as far as to say that Tragic Ceremony is WORSE than Freda's insipid Giallo effort, The Iguana with the Tongue of Fire. Freda apparently disowned this movie, and I certainly don't blame him! The plot simply follows a bunch of kids that run out of petrol in the middle of nowhere. They happen upon a house while searching for fuel; but it turns out to be a bad choice, as the owner is just about to conduct a satanic ceremony...ho hum. The film features a lead role for Camille Keaton, who would go on to star in the exploitation classic I Spit on Your Grave some years later, but fails to make an impression here despite acting alongside a cast of talentless performers. The film features one decent gore scene towards the end, but this really isn't enough considering that it takes eighty minutes of tedium to get there. I have a high tolerance for rubbish Italian films that don't make sense - but even I couldn't stand this one. Miss it, miss nothing!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even Mel Gibson couldnt save this slop of a movie. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Why would mel Gibson make a movie that Im sure he couldnt sit and watch? what was this? A total goofball on some heavy drugs stalking a schizophrinic lady, who was also on some heavy ilicit street drugs. For all the moviegoers out there on heavy drugs; you will love this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie just stunk. I know that some people will say that anybody who thinks it is no good \"just doesn't get it.\" I like Wenders in American Friend and Wings of Desire. But this is utter dreck. The main character is so annoying that I couldn't care less what he does. He is, as has been said in another review bouncing around like a little annoying monkey. I just couldn't stand him or force myself to care. This is the case with most of the characters who just seem to be trying to hard to be goofey or weird. I liked the Mel Gibson character and the Milla Jovovich characters and wish they would have focused more on them. Milla is of course beautiful, pitiful and you really feel for her and what she has been thru and why she is the way she is. I see Gibsons character as almost Frankenstien like. I just wish he would have save Milla and brunt the hotel down with all the worthless boring characters that lived in it. Milla Rating 10 Movie rating 0","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Perhaps I'm just a simple person, but I prefer movies that somehow make me care about the people in them. I couldn't care less about anyone in this movie. This was supposed to be a comedy? Maybe the humor was too subtle for me (all the way down to the nano-level). The thing about it is, it missed on so many things. There were characters that could have been funny, but they weren't. There were characters that you could have liked, but you didn't. For instance, the guy who thought the Beatles ripped off his songs. There was so much potential there, but all he did was talk like a Beatle and complain about how they ripped him off. Haha. And the previous poster talked about the 'I am the Walrus' scene like it was special. What? He played 'I am the Walrus' on an old piano and sang out of tune. Is there an inside joke there? It sure stank at face value. This movie has the feel to me of a movie people say they like because it sounds 'intellectual' or 'hip' to say you like it, that you get the whole metaphysical art\/garbage message the artist is expressing. If you want to be entertained, stay away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's the one film I almost walked out of, and would have if my friends hadn't been in the movie theatre with me. Normally, even if I don't like a film, I think it's still worth sitting through it to the end. That way, you can really claim to have given it every chance to redeem itself. But with The Million Dollar Hotel, it was so dreadful I just badly wanted the experience to end as quickly as possible. I think I probably would not have been so sourly disappointed if this film had been made by a lesser director, one I didn't normally like so much. But coming from Wenders, it was all the more shocking to behold. I know Bono from U2, a good friend of Wenders's, wrote the script to this abysmal film, and I wonder why Wenders let him, as buddy-buddy as the two may have been. \"Stick to the day job, Bono\", is a sentence that easily springs to mind whilst viewing this mess. Pretentious, disjointed, a mish-mash of every possible contemporary film stereotype, a naive and transparent attempt at coming across as kooky and daring, with the most irritating characters I have ever set eyes upon, especially the leads, Jeremy Davies, Milla Jovovich and Mel Gibson, none of whom I dislike normally. The happiest ending I could have wished for would have been for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on their collective heads so as to get it all over with as soon as possible. On a positive note, the first five minutes of the film are extremely good, with an extremely stirring soundtrack from U2. But the film's opening shots make the rest of the film (which takes a spectacular nose-dive from then on) all the more disappointing as they are a promise of cinematic quality that's just never delivered, not even close.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretty pictures with a cool sound track do not constitute a 'movie'. Like all pop promos, MDH's pretentions are are outdone only by its' unjustifiable budget. One dollar spent on this aimless, purposeless dross was one dollar too many. Stick to penning pop songs Bono.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

I rented this movie on 20 June 2001, and watched it for about 45 minutes. I concluded that watching a blank screen would be delightful by comparison. There was not a single person in the cast for whom I would have shed a tear if hell itself had opened up and swallowed the whole bunch of them.

So, I e-mailed all of my friends and relatives warning them, and I am taking the time to urge everyone who may see this note to avoid this movie like the plague! I have seen some really bad movies in my time, but NEVER one as bad as this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"S l o w, l o n g, d u l l. . .

Oh my god, dull.

Characters so annoying - you'll cringe every time you see Jimy Smits, or the guy that played tomtom from now on. They must have never rehearsed or reviewed the film in progress. Mel Gibson was absolutely wooden.

This may not be the worst movie ever made, but that it went almost straight to video says it is darn close.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a completely broke film buff with a house to furnish, I'm a big fan of IKEA. My whole domicile, practically, is packed to the brim with the cheap particle-board stuff. And you know how all those stylish household items at IKEA have those funny names--a bookshelf called \"Holika\" and a bathroom mirror called a \"Grundtal\"--well, it just adds to the whole Euro-charm.

Like those interestingly-named (but horribly translated) items on the shelves at IKEA, I'd like to provide a bit of translation to some of the reviews I've read about the Swedish-made \"Kraftverk 3714.\"

Original Comment: \"For a low budget film, this is pretty cool stuff. It would be great to see what these guys could do on a Hollywood budget!\"

Translation: The film stock is crappy, the lighting is pedestrian, the cinematography is uninteresting, the sound recording is hollow.

Original Comment: \"David Lynchesque sci-fi drama set in a strange forest town with equally strange characters!\"

Translation: These \"actors\" are acting for free, the storyline is circular and tiring, the ideas that undergird the flick desperately try to be existential but are simply mundane, and the settings (especially the interiors) are dull and filled with ugly wallpaper.

Original Comment: \"The editing is well-done, and the conservative use of computer graphics shows that compelling CGI effects don't have to come out of a Hollywood studio!\"

Translation: When you've got sketchy cinematography to begin with, hide the imperfections by digitizing all of it onto a Mac and blending vigorously for three minutes. Ingenious!

I took a chance on this DVD because I'm a sucker for independent films, especially those that attempt to tackle the often-expensive and awe-inspiring genre of science fiction. I mean, some of the best sci-fi flicks of all time have been realized with little or no budget, spfx, and specious actors. Take Peter Fonda's eco-warning-time-travel flick \"Idaho Transfer\" for example! A classic.

But \"Kraftverk 3714\" doesn't fit the category of \"carefully-crafted, low-key, idea-dependent sci-fi.\" It relentlessly focuses on characters that don't do much and don't say interesting things. It goes round and round in circles. It is much too long (this coming from a major Tarkovsky fan). Worse, its concept of \"reality shifting aliens\" is Twilight Zone fodder from 40 years ago. It's just not a well-made film -and I really wanted it to be, dammit!

However, being the IKEA fan I am, I did make one ground-shattering observation. First, anyone who has shopped at IKEA knows how their tricky shopping carts work--all four wheels being multidirectional. The carts can spin a perfect 360 degrees, and it takes some familiarity to handle them like a pro, as any avid IKEA shopper knows. Well, I'll be damned, but one of the lead actresses in \"Kraftverk 3714\" goes to some inky-dinky grocery store in the middle of nowhere and what is she pushing around? A multidirectional shopping cart! So, that's not an IKEA invention after all, but is yet another wonderful invention (let's call it a \"Tacklebee\" for the hell of it) from the land of hei-doo!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After hearing that some of the people behind the low-budget flicks \"Terror in Rock'n'Roll \u00d6nsj\u00f6n\" and \"It came from outer space... and stuff\" were involved in making this movie, I decided to buy it unseen on DVD. I wish I hadn't. The other movies were funny, tongue-in-cheek and kinda stupid. While Kraftverk 3714 is devoid of any humor at all. And it is so god-awful that I'm getting angry just thinking about it. The worst actors possible, the worst script possible, the worst special effects available. And the most unsexy sex scene ever. Uhhh. And the whole thing goes on for 2 hours and 45 minutes. Please, do not ever make another movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's funny... one day before i have seen this movie i had been watching a documentary about Leni Riefenstahl, so comparison kind of came automatically... of course there isn't any :)

This movie is weak in every aspect... acting is not convincing (especially the one who plays Simona...) and unnatural..., editing in confused and always leaves a taste of unfinished shot, music doesn't fit, the story doesn't flow, it gets boring and the movie comes out much longer as it is... oh, and the characters aren't very well shown, you actually can't tell much about the girls (except what you see)... The movie also tries to shock with explicit cursing (which is very laughable :)

So... 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Half a mystical thriller and half the fractured fantasies of a fragile mind, \"Guardian of the Frontier\" is an engaging trip that soon derails. Strong imagery and a compelling premise is soon overwhelmed by incoherent plotting, hackneyed dialogue, amateurish acting, and the most outlandish and over-the-top phallic imagery in recent memory (here, a fish is most definitely not just a fish!). Evidently, this is the first Slovenian feature film to be directed by a woman -- Ms. Weiss must have been determined to prove that she could be as lurid and gratuitously explicit as any man.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Three young college women, Simona (Iva Krajnc), Alja (Tanja Potocnik), and Zana (Pia Zemljic), go on an adventure canoing down the River Kolpa, dividing their Slovenia from neighboring Croatia, in this 2002 Slovenian film by Maya Weiss. What could have been an Eastern European version of the well-known and exciting 1972 \"Deliverance\" turned out, for me, to be utterly uninspiring with flat character portrayals that denied sympathetic identification with the characters.

Alja and Zana are not convincing as students at all, though Alja expresses a desire to be a writer, and both use what seemed to me to be excessive bad language. Alja is bored with her boyfriend and seems to just be drifting along in life. Zana, even less scholarly, is a self-absorbed adventure seeker with an attraction to other women. I had some sympathy with relatively innocent Simona, conservative and starry eyed. The very idea of these three traveling together just doesn't work for me. The disdain that Zana and Alja show toward Simona makes no sense - why would they choose her as a travel companion to start with as surely they must know her demeanor and attitudes?

The three begin a carefree journey down the river on two canoes, undeterred by a news story of a woman's disappearance along the river. Things become more somber with the mysterious appearance, sometimes real and sometimes possibly hallucinatory, of a rabidly conservative fisherman politician (Jonas Znidarsic).

I did enjoy the scenes along the river and of small villages the trio visit. It may be because of a lack of cultural understanding, but the film didn't move me otherwise. I was surprised to see that the film has won some awards.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can confidently say that this is the worst film I have ever seen, and I usually love foreign films. The movie is nothing more than poorly-made violent pornography. If you choose to see it, prepare yourself for endless sexism, gratuitous nudity shots, and a stupid sensationalized rape scene, which I'm sure is the main appeal for the people who like the movie.

Additionally, the plot meanders aimlessly, and none of the characters is likable. Many scenes are filmed from the woods surrounding the river the girls are on to give a constant feeling that someone is stalking them, which was a pathetic attempt to make up for the lack of story to tell.

Perhaps I wouldn't have wasted my time to see the movie, if it had been accurately described in reviews.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a weak throw-together of just about everything: refugees, Croatia-Slovenia relations, globalization, sexual orientation.. A very big clumsy metaphor about Slovenia being at the cross roads between its past, which is symbolized by everything \"virgin\" becoming queen of the household, and its future, which is symbolized by listening to music in clubs and being a lesbian and never having kids.

It plays on a rather recent Slovenian legend involving a virgin and a \"forest king\" assuming the shape of a goat (Zlatorog Beer's imagery is also based on that legend), but unfortunately, the treatment is very incoherent. Weiss seems to think the end justifies the means: she can use all kinds of \"dream-like\" sequences, and then pick and choose which ones true, and which ones are imaginary. How can the ride in the jeep with the \"forest king\" be real for all three girls, but the scene outside the tent be real only in Simona's imaginary ? The ending just drags on and on (I can't believe the movie's runtime is only 98 minutes, have I been watching a director's cut without knowing it?), with the three girls having to look at the camera for about 10 seconds while looking afraid and happy at the same time (so obvious).

I never thought I could spot bad acting in a movie whose language I don't understand, but it didn't take long to see that \"Simona\" is over-acting most of the time, as if she was playing in a silent movie.

It wasn't so bad as I kept thinking the director was just starting and wanted to capture what she thought her generation was all about on film by doing a half-experimental movie, until I realized that the director was actually 37 years old when making the movie and that her work is probably \"serious\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A couple of teenagers have a little sex on the beach in the 1960s. That's all. They say they are fifteen while one of the actors is really twenty-five. Maybe this movie was somewhat revolutionary in 1978 in its way of touching `taboo' topics but I can't imagine that at that time anything shown in Esmiko Limon was regarded as tabooish.

Shallow dialogues are mixed with disco music that is even shallower. The selection of songs doesn't involve anything but the very very well-known `classics' that are still heard on every second radio station today. The plot of American Pie is not much different but it is at least a little bit funny. Eskimo Limon is dull, flat and not aesthetic. Almost unbelievable that it had six sequels!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thomas Hardy is one of my favorite authors. Some truly wonderful movies have been made from his novels (\"Far From the Madding Crowd,\" \"Tess of the D'Urbervilles,\" \"The Mayor of Casterbridge\"), and I had high hopes for this one. The Hallmark-Hall-of-Fame-ification of \"Return of the Native\" totally wrecked it. The cast was terrific, the photography excellent, but the script was dismal and the direction positively ruinous. People walked up to people, said lines, walked away. A meager excitement developed when Clive Owen and Catherine Zeta Jones (very young, very beautiful) exchanged a bit of flesh-pressing, but even Clive, who is a superb actor, couldn't save it. It was awash with the usual Hallmark \"romantic\" strings background music and pretend bumpkins offering plot exposition, and what could have been dynamite turned out to be awful. The richness of the above three movies was commpletely absent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Remember the wooden, undramatic literary adaptations of the 1970s at their worst? You will when you see this broadly acted, unintentionally hilarious piece of chocolate-box adaptation. Most culpable of all is Catherine Z-J who, while undeniably easy on the eye, substitutes swishing a big dress and looking sultry for actually turning in a performance. Played po-faced like a melodrama, or Cold Comfort Farm without the jokes, this effort is not helped by a scriptwriter with a tin ear for dialogue who misses entirely the novel's sense of irony or tragedy. A shame, given the quality of the acting talent on offer - Joan Plowright, Claire Skinner, Steven Macintosh all deserve better than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is an almost complete waste of time. I am studying the book for my English A level, and the film only contributes in one way, and that's getting across that the whole scenario is set in a rural idyll. The acting is wooden, the filmography is laughable, and the so called dramatic scenes in the film had the majority of my class (including me) snickering into their texts. The book, although not my favourite literary choice, is miles better than the film is, and the sound track is just plain irritating. Don't watch this film unless you are looking for a timeless, quality storyline transformed into mindless, media waste.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this because I couldn't pass up the chance to see pre-Hollywood-fame Clive Owen and Catherine Zeta Jones together, but it definitely wasn't worth it. The only reason I give it two stars instead of one is for the novelty of seeing them before they made it big across the pond.

Zeta Jones, who is usually fun to watch even if she isn't the greatest thesp in the world, is awful. Owen seems really uncomfortable to be in such a turkey, plus he wears a ridiculous, egregiously ill-fitting chin-length wig (at least I hope that's a wig and not his real hair). And the scene where he dances a country jig with Zeta Jones just makes you embarrassed for him. Joan Plowright walks around in a daze the whole movie -- she's probably wondering how she got herself into such a mess.

The actress who plays Clive Owen's wife isn't terrible, but just about everyone else is. Oh, and the writing stinks too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this Hallmark television movie when it originally aired. I lost interest in the story because a character was said to be a witch. I just was not in the right frame of mind to watch this film. But Hallmark stands for the best, quality films. Now, there is a reason to give this film a second look. Clive Owen who plays \"Damon Wildeve\" just might have a chance to be selected as the next James Bond 007 when Pierce Brosnan passes it on. Clive Owen might have to wait until the year 2008. The other reason is the female lead is Catherine Zeta-Jones is now a celebrity (she was an unknown at the time) and became an Academy Award winner for Outstanding Supporting Actress in 2003. Joan Plowright as \"Mrs. Yeobright\" is also in this film. I like the opening line in this film: \"Deliver my heart from this fearful, lonely place. Send me a great love from somewhere or else I shall die, truly I shall die.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well!! the movie has Catherine Zeta Jones in it. It's a Hallmark television movie. It's from a Thomas Hardy novel. It has Catherine Zeta Jones in it. She is by far the only one in the movie who acts better than in my high school theater class. Oh yes it has Clive Owen in it. I'm not British so that means almost as much as being a Thomas Hardy novel. Except he was in \"The Bourne Identity\", and I liked that. That just about wraps it all up folks. That really all there was. I'm becoming repetitive, but I do like CZJ, so I stuck it out to the end. The computer is telling me that I don't have 10 lines and I keep counting them. I always count 11, but maybe it just doesn't like my style, but that is my opinion of the movie, too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a fan of Judy Garland, Vincente Minnelli, and Gene Kelly, but this movie just left me cold. I was expecting another American In Paris from Minnelli, so perhaps I was expecting too much.

The movie was short on songs and short of impressive dance numbers. I was impressed by the very expressionistic Kelly dance as Mococo on the ship. I was also impressed by the Nicholas Brothers in Be a Clown, too bad the song was so annoying. I also enjoyed Judy attacking Kelly with bric-a-brac. Check Lorna Luft's autobiography for some interesting information on that scene.

Actually, the movie has what must be some of Cole Porter's most annoying songs, especially \"Nina\". Also, Judy and Gene yell constantly like screechy children.

The plot is thin--which is par for the course for musicals--but it is not saved by impressive dance numbers or by memorable songs. I suspect the best parts of this movie were left on the cutting room floor. Please, some movie restorer, find those bits of film and show us what the movie could have been!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To anyone who likes the TV series: forget the movie. The jokes are bad and some topics are much too sensitive to laugh about it.

We have seen much better acting by R. Dueringer in \"Hinterholz 8\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Years ago \"MA2412\" the feature film tried to be some kind of \"regional Blockbuster\" in Austria. One thing's for sure: I hope no one outside will ever have to see this one. Perhaps if you are familiar with the original sitcom it could be interesting to watch what director Sicheritz made of his series. I think he missed his chance and wasted time and money.

So far many director's and writers have failed to make a series concept compatible to a 90min movie (consider Alf, Inspector Gadget...). You can see how hard this is by watching \"MA 2412\". The result of this attempt in my opinion tastes like a never-ending TV-Episode (and not a good one). It fails to deliver a plot, the humor tries too hard and the directing seems very unfocused - as holds true for the visual style.

So summing up I'd clearly not recommend this one...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"they (dueringer, dorfer) are good stand-up comedians, young, not ugly, have money, the girls love them, the audience is appreciating everything there doing

and then they made this film ...

no story at all, some jokes were old in the fifties, the acting is awful. save your money for something useful, like a gift for your girlfriend.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think that saying this film has too many is not what makes this film bad. The twists are not the problem of the film. The story is quite clever and could have been very cool if filmed right. The major problems why everyone is complaining about the twists in the film is that the film is just not fascinating enough to make people follow them. The film is badly shot (at least in comparison to its genre brother Lock, Stock). Worse: the characters are (although often well acted) just plain flat. The characters don't have enough time to be introduced well enough to let the viewer get involved with a single one of them, let alone understand them. Oh, and the locations are just terrible: locations-person (I didn't bother to watch the credits for your name) - get another job (maybe still photography or interior design)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Would somebody please explain why anybody would want to make a \"British neo-noir\" crime film with a cast almost entirely American? The accents spoken in this film are bloody awful! But entirely in keeping with the performances, which are so wooden, one fears to strike a match for setting the cast on fire.

Really, what kind of disgusting, moronic, cynical crud is this? Even neo-noir films have some character you either feel for or want to feel for, even if they're wretched and doomed; they at least have some decency to them, some sense that what they've done is wrong, or that a seemingly good plan has gone wrong, and that somehow they're stuck with the responsibility for it.

Not in this stanky stew. These characters are putrid, betraying each other, themselves, and the audience.

Also, note that they are low-lives - all right, nothing wrong with that - except that they seem to be living a life of luxury. For a film supposedly about desperate petty thieves, the keynote here is - ennui. It's all so terribly dull and dross, doncha know. So let's just rip some people off or maybe murder them, and go get laid in a luxury hotel. What ambition!

Gooping this whole mess to some bottom of swampy muck are: boringly uneven pacing; predictable 'action' sequences that aren't; banal and incoherent set-design; made-for-bad-TV camera-work and editing; forgettable score; and an entire lack of any imagination or innovation in production and direction.

Wholly unbelievable, unlikeable, and for less dedicated movie watchers(or masochists) like myself, utterly unwatchable.

There are other nasty things I would like to say about this nasty film, but they wouldn't print them here. Suffice it to say, you can probably find something more useful to do with your time than watch this film - just about anything, in fact.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

I was fascinated to read the range of opinions on `Circus' from `awesome, breathtaking, brilliant' and most things between right down to `Golden Turkey candidate'. I find myself in the latter camp.

The producers obviously thought that if they mixed plenty of over-the-top violence with barrages of four-letter expletives they'd have another `Lock, Stock and two Smoking Barrels' on their hands. A pity that they forgot to include wit, style, charm and flair. And it was certainly a mistake to feature a visit to Welles' classic `The Lady from Shanghai' thus serving to remind us how much better cinema can be.

John Hannah gets his shirt off at every opportunity, a huge American drives around in a Mini Minor as `Circus' pathetically strains for cult status and even the beautiful Amanda Donohoe can't add any class to these proceedings.

If you want to see a good Brit film try the sublime `Wonderland'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Circus could have been so much better if they had reduced the number of twists and developed each better the film features a very gifted cast that mostly perform well , however it totally loses the audience basically everyone is back stabbing everyone else and not back stabbing them at the same time because they are backstabbing someone else and working with .... did i lose you? well the film is even more confusing clearly written by a first timer writer , it has some redeeming qualities though in the acting especially Famke Janssen shines as Lily but sadly gets a lot of USELESS screen time just standing there doing nothing.....the dialogue is a bit cheesy and the accents sometimes irritating but its still worth watching if you're a fan of any of the actors especially John and Famke who get the most screen time just remember to watch it with a notebook so you can write down who is double crossing who every second....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film could of been a hell of a lot better if they didn't use Brian Conley as a gangster and if they didn't start the film with Christopher Biggins.

When I watched this film I had absolutely no idea what was going on. There were too many double crosses and plot twists to make the film believable. The film deserves a 0, but seeing as I there isn't a 0 I gave it a 1.

I wouldn't recommend this film to my worst enemy, I would rather poke out my eyeballs with some rusty scissors than watch this film again. I'm telling you, that was an hour and a half of my life I won't get back.

If you want to watch a gangster film, don't get this. Watch \"Going Off Big Time\" or \"Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels\" instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Boring, cliched and predictable. The only original bit was the Brighton location for gangsters. It is certainly no \"Lock Stock etc.......\" Hannah was likeable in \"Sliding Doors\". In \"Circus\" I developed no empathy with his character and couldn't give a toss what happened to either him or his girlfriend. Although this movie was so cliched and predictable the ending was no surprise I was so uninterested I didn't even care why the movie was given the name \"Circus\"....... Booooring.......Don't visit this big top.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mockney comes to Brighton; despite a poor reception in the British press and state-funded-British-cinema written all over it I rather hoped that we'd get a bit of the grimy, hard-nosed London-by-the-sea of Graham Greene.

It doesn't even aspire to this. Characters straight out of their clone 'n crimp trailers reproduce Guy Ritchie's types. The format looks more like a British TV series than a film (Brighton is a backdrop goldmine, wasted with plastic studio work).

I watched this film in pursuit of a good performance from Famke Janssen... she's a bit slick for this company, her brand of big screen impertability belonging more to blockbusters such as Deep Rising. As for acting (a role even!) the search continues. Circus is boring. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film simply has no redeeming features. The story is incomprehensible, and the script is gross, sadistic, and stupid. The sex scenes are a joke, as is the inevitable car chase. The music is awful. The acting is limited largely to growling and smirking. A half star dud. Shame on DirecTV for putting it on pay-per-view. In a theater, people might well have thrown soda at the screen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Enter the Ninja (1981) was the first of several \"Ninja\" films produced by Cannon starring or co-starring Japanese sensation Sho Kosugi. But the star of the first \"Ninja\" film was legendary tough guy Franco Nero. Sadly not even Mr. Nero or Sho Kosugi couldn't make this film watchable. When you have two bad dudes in an action film and it's neither watchable or fun, somethings amiss. But I digress. Skip this chapter and watch the next films in the series. They're more interesting and a whole lot of fun.

Next is Revenge of the Ninja. Instead of playing the \"evil oriental\" (I use that term tongue in cheek mind you). He's the star! Strange for a western film. Watch that one instead.

Not recommended except for die hard Sho Kosugi fans or Cannon film buffs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Any person, claiming this movie to be a ninja classic film, must have seen this movie before the middle of the nineties or he was less then 10 years before he's seen it. Otherwise I can't explain this 'classic ninja movie' title.

The fight scenes in this movie are just intolerable. Instead of casting Franco Nero as the ninja, they could hire some experienced martial artist instead. In any way the acting skill is not important in that kind of a movie. Nero's fighting ability is barely of some street fighter in a bar. His kicks and punches are lame.

There's enough of old action movies with good action. This is just a waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a very famous Ninja movie but it isn't a nice movie. If you want to see some ninjas and some figures, want to know some things about Ninjas see this movie. This movie only for ninja fans and who wants to make nostalgia.

First 20 minutes and last 20 minutes of the movie are best. You can just see Ninja figures and fight in this scenes. Between these are below the average, nearly bad as a movie. Acting is bad. Sho (black ninja) is the best actor in this movie. Frank Nero is a good actor and charismatic but he cannot fight good. Scenario is also not good. Its so simple. Franko Nero comes near to his best , old friend from army and war. He also protects him from mafia but he is having sex ( go to bed ) with his wife and his friend knows this but don't say anything to Nero negative. Is this possible in life ? What a friendship !

Finally this movie started a genre ; Ninja movies. Also there is the ninja master Sho Kasugi but some fighting scenes are not realistic and not fast even with shoo. This film is below the average even it is a classic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those movies that is so bad it is awesome!!! It has everything an early eighties movie needs: Flared pants, Big Moustaches, Chicks with Farrah Hair, and most importantly, NINJAS!!!! I have a few choice moments to recant for you. Cole's army buddy has a strange monkey-like face and always seems to speak without moving his jaw. He gets his ass handed to him about every other scene by the thugs wanting his land so he gets drunk through the entire film. At one point his farm workers finally return after being run off by the gangster guy's hired goons and Frank, I think his name is Frank, is so moved he shouts to the whole group \"Lets Have A Cock Fight!!\" and they all gleefully move to the cock fighting area of the farm to begin the festivities. This is funny on every level possible. Whether you take it dirty or literally it still warms my heart. Another funny thing is Sho Kosugi's little grunts and over animated ninja style movements. I remember this dude from when I was a kid and he used to say he was the world's only real ninja (he had ads in martial arts magazines) if I remember correctly. My friends and I were a little ninja crazy during the time this movie came out and I can recall seeing it in the local theater many times. I was wondering as I watched this on Starz last night why every sleazy American gangster type always has a stronghold in the Phillipines and wears a white Steve Martin suit. As a matter of fact this guy goes way beyond that in requiring all of his thugs to wear white Steve Martin suits. There is a scene where it looks like 20 Steve Martin impersonators are attacking a 1970's Sears underwear model (Cole). As we wind up for the final battle Cole very clumsily breaks into the bad guy's headquarters and is immediately spotted by a secretary who in turn alerts a guard who fires off a round from his pump action shotgun not 30 feet from the bad guys and no one seems to notice or care. Cole, Wearing a completely white ninja outfit, proceeds to sneakily ascend a staircase then does a flip right into the area where all the bad guys are. The second in charge tells him he didn't need to kill everybody as they were expecting him, then gives him a ride to the bad guys huge Cock Fighting arena. Don't ask me why Cock Fighting is a huge part of this movie but it is. When they arrive Cole is still wearing his ninja mask even though everyone involved knows what he looks like without it. The final battle is approaching as Cole has killed everybody and now Sho, as I like to call him, reveals himself to have kidnapped Cole's lady aka Frank's wife, and they meet in the snazziest cockfighting arena you ever saw. Sho then, very politely I might add, releases said lady and the battle is about to start. They do their bowing and start circling each other, both masked by the way. When they join in battle it appears Cole becomes someone else intermittently ala \"Finishing The Game\" a funny spoof on completing Bruce Lee's \"Game of Death\". Cole eventually comes out on top, Kills Sho, who dies with honor by being decapitated and all is well. Next we see Cole, after ruining everyone's life is about to split town again but not before foreshadowing the brutal death of a fat guy with a hook hand and then he inexplicably winks at the camera, freeze frame, credits, done.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A combat veteran, fresh from completion of ninjutsu training, reunites with an old friend in Manila and gets caught up in a power struggle with a ruthless land baron.

But, do you really care about that? If you're even reading this page, you must know something of what to expect. It's your typical chop-socky, complete with ridiculous dialouge, mega-corny villains, apocalyptic sound editing, and a camera that begs for your attention. The only reason for being seen in public with this film is the fight sequences, wonderfully choreographed by Mike Stone and true master Sho Kosugi. Franco Nero ain't no slouch either, assuming you can see around the mustache.

Well, I'm being too harsh. There are some good laughs--enjoy Christopher George repeatedly screaming \"Ninja!\" and delivering arguably the goofiest death scene ever captured on film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terrible action movie in which lead Franco Nero exchanges his cowboy hat, gun belt and the coffin he dragged around in DJANGO (1966) for an all-white Ninja outfit with all the snazzy paraphernalia that goes with it! Despite virtually non-stop action, the film is utterly clich\u00e9d and unintentionally funny - with a campy villain, to boot, in Christopher George. Susan George (no relation) is the attractive woman with a washed-up husband, Nero's wartime companion, whom the villains are trying to push off her oil-rich land - but the latter haven't counted upon Nero's martial-arts (and stunt-heavy) gymnastics. The solution to their problems is to hire a similarly-skilled Ninja for themselves who, as it happens, turns out to be Nero's deadly enemy (played by Sho Kosugi, who appeared in two more sequels and is currently engaged in another!). The climax takes place inside an arena where one-man army Nero 'eliminates' George and what has remained of his gang from previous confrontations; the subtle way in which he despatches his nemesis, however, is effectively done.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Franco Nero stars as Cole a ninja who comes to the rescue of his war buddy Frank Landers (Alex Courtney) and his fetching wife (Susan George) to protect them from a mobster (Christopher George) who wants the land. Things get even more complicated when the mobster hires Cole's old nemesis (Sho Kosugi) who is also a ninja. Inept martial arts actioner, while having better production values then most ninja movies, fails to inject any life into the surroundings, or for that matter actionscenes. A poor effort all around.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I stumbled across this movie late at night on TV. My brother and I could not stop laughing at how God awful this movie is. The crappy sound effects whenever White Ninja or Black Ninja punch, kick, or use a weapon is hilarious. This movie is almost on the same level as the Evil Dead series, but you can only watch this movie once because of shear crappiness. I'm not sure if the director meant for it to be so crappy on purpose because he knew idiots like me would buy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is recommended only for insomniacs: it will relieve them by putting them to sleep. Five-year-olds might also enjoy it. But for anyone else (including fans of the genre), what a bore! The \"ancient\" plot is reminiscent of \"Return Of The Dragon\", and this film is just as inept, but Nero is no Bruce Lee, so \"Enter the Ninja\" is an even worse film. Until now, this is the second (the offensive \"comedy\" \"Bachelor Party\" was the first) film I gave 1\/10 to.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is such a total waste of time. I can't understand anyone sitting through this piece of trash. Oh, I would have loved it when I was seven years old. I think a seven year old child may have written and directed it.

There's no script, no acting, just rubbish. The best acting is that by the fighting roosters. I think I could whip these ninjas and I am not someone you'd consider tough. Totally unconvincing and did not spark the least bit of interest. I was yawning, and laughing, by the end of the first ten minutes of the film. This is one that would turn people away from martial art movies. Great comedy, bad action flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Surely this deserves to be in the bottom 10 films of all time, pity it's just a TV movie. Rubbish that only we British can produce! It perhaps has some merit in the so awful it's good scale. Watch out for scene where they start dancing !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Wizard of Menlo Park\" was deeply responsible for many things we take for granted in 2007: even if he did not invent them without rivals or assistants, he gave birth to the electric light, the phonograph, the motion picture camera, the electric car battery, the electric power grid (possibly his most important but least recalled invention), the pre-fabricated house, and innovations to the telephone and telegraph, as well as the ticker-tape machine and an early voting machine. The total number of patents is over 1,000 - far more than any other American Inventor.

But Edison was a ruthless business competitor. He frequently had vast legal fights over the precedence of his inventions over rivals. The best example is the telephone, where he was one of seven or eight rivals with claims against Alexander Graham Bell. Actually Edison's invention here was not the central idea that Bell and Gray had come up with independently of each other in 1876, but an improvement on the sound quality of the phone receiver and transmitter that Bell did not develop. Still it was part of the huge 1888 Supreme Court decision that was the longest U.S. Supreme Court decision (a single volume of their reports!) written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite - which, by the way, killed the poor Chief Justice from overwork within weeks of completing it.

In 1886 Edison found an equally ruthless competitor in the area of electric power grids for large cities. This was George Westinghouse, inventor of the railroad air break. Westinghouse's firm had gotten the assistance of a new inventor, and former Edison assistant, Nicola Tesla. Tesla developed \"alternating current\", which was a rival system to Edison's \"direct current\". Edison's system was basically a straight circuit system of electricity. Tesla's system allowed the current to be switched from one circuit to another - actually it was a better, and more efficient system. But Edison was determined to break this rival by a publicity campaign.

It started with electric power lines. Edison early on had his lines put underground, so that they would not be endangered by weather conditions. But Westinghouse was forced to have his lines out in the open - like telephone lines. When there were several accidental deaths by repair linemen on Westinghouse's lines (in particular one incident where the repairman was burned alive in front of hundreds of horrified onlookers in Manhattan's business district), Edison started insisting that A.C. current was far more dangerous that D.C.

One result of all this was Edison helping some subsidiary inventors with getting Westinghouse A.C. generators and dynamos for an electric chair. Edison himself always denied that he invented the electric chair, but he helped several lesser figures along the way - for the complete story read Mark Essig's EDISON & THE ELECTRIC CHAIR (New York: WALKER & COMPANY, 2003).

Edison experiment himself with cats and dogs (experiments he was glad to show the public). In the long run, despite assisting in the invention of a new method of execution, Edison failed to dislodge the public support of Alternating Current. But he never stopped trying.

In 1903 he had an opportunity to combine his campaign against Westinghouse and A.C. with his invention of the motion picture camera. He assisted in \"putting down\" a well known public elephant (\"Topsy\") who had killed several men. He did so by electrocuting the poor beast with A.C. But the entire killing is on film - and one can view it to this day. It is a pitiful looking film - whatever poor \"Topsy\" had done it was a poor beast - not a Machiavellian murderer. The moment we see the explosions of electricity sparks that show the death of the elephant, we are aware it will soon be over, but the sudden collapse of \"Topsy\" is still an unpleasant sight to view. The film leaves a bad flavor in the mouths of modern movie audiences. Yet, sad to say, it probably made a profit for Edison - his description of the film in his catalog of films shows real pride in his accomplishment here. In 1903 it may have been exciting entertainment for many Americans watching it. One is glad that more people are appalled by it today - sometimes one can sense the human race has improved a little bit.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This vicious little film is horrendous. My low rating for it comes for two main reasons. The first is that it is an animal snuff film and I find that whole concept so vile it turns my stomach. Filmed over a hundred years ago, I can only hope that we've evolved into something a little more humane and compassionate. This film is complete and utter exploitation, made to cash in on the sensational aspects of the film and the subject. Historical interest aside, this is something to watch only if one finds themselves in the grip of morbid fascination.

Reason number two? Look at the way that the camera is set up. It is placed in the best possible location to fully capture the full effect: long march forward of the elephant, perfect view of the electrocution platform and a cold and clinically dispassionate viewpoint of the elephant with smoke coming out of it before it finally collapses. Sickening.

Thomas Edison did many great things for civilization and his talents and intelligence aren't in doubt. Nobody is perfect, but when you realize that this film provided A) an opportunity for him to trump early cinematic competitors with a sensationalist film of an elephant being electrocuted and B) he filmed the execution to demonstrate the greater effectiveness of DC as opposed to AC, you can't help but wonder if the scientist in him was a little TOO dispassionate and cold. Any number of Peter Cushing's mad scientists would be proud. The rest of us should be ashamed and revolted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We see Thomas Edison, with a glowing smile on his face, trying to electrocute a 5 ton living being. Eventually he was successful, and so the first animal snuff film is born, cleverly disguised as an amazing achievement in technology. This is scientific arrogance at it's worst, folks. It ranks up there with the doctor who decapitated a monkey just to prove that he could keep its severed head alive for 22 minutes.

Oh yes, there's the absurd excuse that the elephant had been convicted of \"murder\" and sentenced to death, and that this was a fair and humane \"execution\". To all the people who are satisfied with this sophistry, please form a line on my right. I'm going to give you all a big collective Three Stooges slap across the head.

Go watch \"The Advocate\" (1993), a movie based on the true story murder trial of a pig in Mideval France. 500 years later, humans are still a bunch of morons I see.

What's next? We arrest birds for stealing our blueberries? Arrest pricker bushes for assault and battery? Thomas Edison, I hope you have a big fat worm crawling through your eye socket right now. Oh wait, that would be trespassing, wouldn't it? lol","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thomas Edison May Have Done Lots Of Great Inventions But WTF Is This!!!! I Am Sorry But This Movie Is Simply Awful. The Plot Is That This Elephant Walks To A Certain Point & Gets Electrocuted. Okay The Picture Quality Looked Like Someone Used It For Toilet Paper. I Thought That The Early Charlie Chaplin Films Were Awful. Okay Thomas Edison May Have Been An Inventor But Why Did He Make This Film He Could Have Filmed A Baby Being Fed & It Would Have Been Better. People Might Say I'm Being Harsh On The Times But Would You Enjoy Something Like This From What I Have Said Edison May Have Made The Lightbulb But Why Did He Make This Particular Movie. Well I Might Sound Like A Complete A##hole But Watch This On Youtube Then You Will See This Abomination. I Still Can't Believe This Film Is Completely Awful. All In All The Worst Short Film I Have Ever Seen.

Rating: 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thomas Edison had no other reason to make this film except to show that film can capture the electrocution of an innocent elephant. Edison was not a genius but a man out for money and profit; his love for life was measured by dollars, not experiences, as this film shows.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh my God, I was so expecting something more entertaining than this when I downloaded this movie, seeing as 1903 was one of my fave years for movies ever, but it sucked! The \"plot\", although I'd hesitate to call it that, is about some dumb elephant. It slowly makes its way onto some platform and gets electrocuted to death. Lame. Even for a short film, the plot was too thin to keep my attention. Edison is, like, the worst director ever. Plus, the elephant has no screen presence whatsoever. And the ending? Wow, that wasn't predictable at all. *sarcasm*

The picture quality is horrible too. You can barely tell what's going on most of the time. The only positive thing about this movie is that unlike most other un-scary horror flicks this didn't spawn eleven sequels. Other than that this is a complete waste of money and 1 minute of your life you'll never get back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There isn't much about \"Reckless\" that feels right, beginning with the off-putting title (thanks to screenwriter Craig Lucas, who adapted his own play, bringing the title along with him) and continuing with the casting (Mia Farrow playing wife to Tony Goldwyn, who's young enough to be her son). The couple live in an idyllic winter world that appears to be the inside of a snow-globe, but Farrow gets a startling dose of reality after he admits he's hired a man to kill her. She flees into the night, taking refuge with a very strange couple who want to help her rebuild her life. The production design and art direction of \"Reckless\" are fine, but they are services rendered for a completely inane, often alienating screenplay. It's supposed to be a dark holiday comedy, though the cast is at a loss with this unfunny, occasionally offensive material. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Depressing black BLACK comedy about a woman (Mia Farrow) who flees her house on Christmas Eve when she discovers her husband (Tony Goldwyn) has hired a hit man to kill her. She ends up with a husband and wife (Scott Glenn and Mary-Louise Parker) and then things go wrong. Basically Farrow keeps running and is continuously meeting VERY strange people and getting into morbidly unfunny situations.

This was advertised as a feel good movie when I saw it around Christmas time at its VERY short run in an art cinema. I found it sick, unfunny and just depressing. I like black humor but this was WAY too dark for me. What happens to Parker's character especially was horrifying. To make matters worse Eileen Brennan is thrown in as a nun (!!!) later on and proceeds to chew the scenery with gusto.

The only saving grace was Farrow's acting--it's much better than this picture deserves. Also it was a relief to see the very talented Stephen Dorff pop up at the end. The ending itself was kind of nice but it couldn't erase what had gone on before.

Sick, morbid, pitch black \"comedy\". A 1","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I recently was in a stage version of this play. And, on the last day of the run, I was excited to see that it was going to be playing on TV. I stuck a tape in as it was on late at night, and I watched it the next day. I have to say I was very disappointed. The actors in the film made few of the discovers that are in the script. That is understandable as the resersal process is probably different, but it was upsetting to see. A lot of the original script was changed for the movie as well to make it better for the screen, but I am not sure if it helped the movie out at all. I gave this 4 stars only because I know the script and the writing is a lot better than what this movie portrays.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Produced by International Playhouse Pictures, it looks as if filmed in a doll house. Everybody's a liar, everything is dream-like, toy-like for no good reason. I'm not saying everything in all movies should be totally realistic, but such unbelievable fantasy things and situations in one movie are way too much. How did they get these fine actors -actresses particularly- to this movie? It's nice to see Mia again; if we were meant to understand why her husband wants to kill her, Mia does do it well. Not funny, not moving, just fake. Stephen Dorff briefly appears at the end, fitting for a play maybe, less for a movie, but this isn't one to measure things at. Terrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was my very first \"Bollywood\" movie and I found it in the same way many other recent viewers did -- through \"Ghost World\". Having done a little bit of reading up on the film industry of Bollywood this week, I understand somewhat why there are seemingly unrelated musical numbers and romance and comedy in a horror film. But \"Something for everyone\" doesn't always add up to a cohesive product.

The ultra-groovy musical dance number \"Jaan Pehechaan Ho\" has captivated the world in a way it probably could not have done in 1965. It's all over the internet now, with many folks scrambling for a good English translation. Laxmi Chhaya does an amazing job dancing take after take, making it all look fresh, new and fun even when any normal person would be exhausted! She rules!

On the beach with Miss Kitty is a light-weight fun and pretty tune in total contrast to the horror plot. Still, I find myself singing it in Hindi a week later. I found a rough translation:

if you want to live in this life then listen to what I say leave your sorrows behind and join the party take my advice

those who want to live live with laughter and singing let your hair down and relax people of this world what do you know? come to me and I'll explain

whoever there is who will see me will stop worrying in this world fish swim freely here and there

My second favorite number in the film is The Butler's Dream where Mehmood is entranced by Miss Kitty's dancing. The electric tiki-like idols are just wonderfully tacky as is the entire set of this number. Online, I'd seen it described as what would happen if \"Liberace threw up\"!! Way fun.

Gumnaam is not a good movie as a whole. That's why I gave it a rating of 3. It's actually a real stinker of a film with some fun, kitschy musical numbers that have nothing really to do with the murder plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Geesh, I never, ever, ever thought I'd write the above four words. But, actually, she's the highpoint of this little flick.

As the movie was packaged when I rented it, it supposedly is a comedy about a girl who is kidnapped but doesn't have her medication, which keeps her stable. It sounded like a cute concept. For years, all we ever saw of Spelling was as Donna Martin in 90210 and an endless parade of dull, lifeless TV movies. It sounded like a chance for her to stretch a little, and considering that with her TV success and her rich daddy, she couldn't have any financial reason to do this movie, I figured she took the part because this must be a low-budget jewel.

Wrong.

Instead, Spelling's part is small, and the bit about the mentally unbalanced kidnap victim is just one of several storylines. When she's not on the screen, the movie crawls so badly, I could've sworn it was longer than the 85 minutes that were listed on the tape. This would've worked so much better if Spelling's storyline had dominated, and it had been changed into a romantic comedy with her and Phil, the least irritating kidnapper.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i bought this rental return for $1.99 at hollywood and overpaid. i didn't expect much, but thought it would be something to fall asleep by at least. i quickly noted the very weak storyline, the gross overacting by everyone (no one talks like that except in cartoons), and the seemingly let's-make-it-up-as-we-go-along direction. i know that the participants in this mess must be very embarrassed by it, and i feel certain that it did not help any careers. as for this movie buff of 35 years, it has now provided a ready answer for the worst-film-you've-ever-seen question.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Supreme Sanction is a movie about a female assassin who works for the U.S. government. She has to kill a known TV reporter, but spares his life when she sees that he has a little daughter. Because she hasn't killed him, she becomes the next target of her employers.

The script isn't good although I've seen worse B-movies. A hit-man with remorse, the government killing innocent people in the name of fighting terror,... What's next? Aliens rescuing the victim??? No, Supreme Sanction will never win any award because of the script. And the acting isn't any better I'm afraid. A few better known actors (Michael Madsen and Kristy Swanson), who clearly had a lot of bills to pay and therefor accepted to play in this movie, together with some other actors who probably don't even know what a camera really looks like don't do any good to the movie either.

So why should you watch this movie? Well, if you haven't got anything better to do but to watch some action flick and you are tired of the 10,531st rerun of Mc Gyver or the A-team, than this might be the movie you want to see. Otherwise you better leave it alone. I give it a 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Please give this one a miss.

Kristy Swanson and the rest of the cast rendered terrible performances. The show is flat, flat, flat.

I don't know how Michael Madison could have allowed this one on his plate. He almost seemed to know this wasn't going to work out and his performance was quite lacklustre, so all you Madison fans give this a miss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first question is: how many talentless idiots it takes to screw a movie up? Answer: one is more than enough, if he writes the screenplay and directs it. The second question is: did anyone teach the actors to handle guns properly? Answer: hell no. I wonder if Kristy Swanson got hit across the face with hot brass - because it damn seemed so! The third question is: how many times we did the \"super secret government agency conspiracy gets uncovered from inside\" plot? Answer: a good couple too many! The fourth question is: are Michael Madsen and Ron Perlman overrated? Answer: in this movie, sadly, yes. The fifth question is: can a pair of boobs save this movie? Answer: even three (Kristy Swanson's pair and the director\/writer) didn't.

God... If I see the (most probably) assassin getting her guns ready for a hit, and then the morons from prop department give her a completely different set the first bloody thing in the goddamn movie, the \"suck\" meter hits the peak. Time from beginning of the movie to me switching the TV off: fifteen minutes. Just a little bit more than it took me in case of \"Alone in the Dark\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When Kristy Swanson gets an attack of the guilts about what she does, she wants out. Unfortunately, Madsen is her immediate superior in a company where \"giving two weeks notice ain't an option.\"

As a teen killing vampires, Kristy did a very good job. The valley girl image seemed to fit. But as an assassin on the run...well, keep running Kristy. Run, run far away! This film is not a concept that hasn't been done before, but it HAS been done better!

I didn't want to watch the rest of this film, but I felt I should if I wanted to give a review of this movie. I've always liked Madsen, and his character was a bit predictable, but this movie was definitely a waste of time both to watch and make...no wonder it never got released theatrically!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kristy Swanson plays an elite hitwoman who is supposed to have knocked off a TV reporter for a group of bad guys,but once she sees this poor fellow at home playing with his kids she decides to junk the whole project and the TV reporter's life is spared.The hitwoman's life is up for grabs as the people who wanted this reporter killed now want her dead for not following through with her assignment.Such is the basis for a movie called Supreme Sanction.

Supreme waste of time is more like it.We see Swanson's character beat up,pummel and kill men far bigger than her.And she always one two fifty steps ahead of the group of murders who can't,for some reason,do away with this super hitwoman.Having one woman do away and beat all these men,makes the movie seem so gay.It is too predictable once you figure Swanson's character is going to win out anyway,thus making the film boring and inept.

Kristy Swanson is decent actress,who in her younger days was always sexy and easy on the eyes.Supreme Sanction is not one of her better efforts however.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First I have to say that I have read everything about this subject and I know it inside out, and I was excited about finally seeing it, too. But you have to read only the book this mini-series is based on to realize that it's not the true story of what really happened almost 90 years ago. It's loosely based on the facts, the rest is taken from the scriptwriter's imagination. And unfortunately these changes are anything but successful and mostly totally unnecessary.

Where do I begin? Vita and Violet didn't use the names Mitya and Lushka until their affair started, and during it Violet also called Vita Dmitri and Julian. It was Violet who chased Vita with a dagger when they were teenagers. The 'seduction' scene when their affair started Violet was much more passive than represented here and certainly didn't kiss Vita first. I could go on and on, these examples were all included when the series was only just started. Besides all these alterations from the facts, the characterizations are also all wrong. At times Vita behaves like a mad woman. Especially the scene where she saw from the newspaper Violet's engagement announcement is just ridiculous. Vita kept her surges of emotion inside. It was Violet who was temperamental and let her feelings (good or bad) show. All Vita did when she read it was that she nearly fainted, that's all. Being a gentle nature, Harold avoided confrontations in real life, but here he is sometimes pretty stern and accusing. Harold and Vita always discussed their intimate things in letters, not verbally. And Violet... I know that this series purposely concentrated on Vita and Harold, but that doesn't mean that all the other characters have to be mere puppets on the sidelines. Here she is totally one-dimensional character, and the lines gave to her are mostly embarrassingly shallow. Actually she was intelligent, gifted, quite an extraordinary woman who has rarely given the credit she deserves. I have always thought her much more interesting person than Vita. In this series her unhappiness, loneliness and her problems with her mother are totally ignored. Viewer has also little clue of her background and family, what kind of relation (and marriage) with Denys Trefusis she had or how hard she battled over Vita. Vita was the only love of her life, her raison d'etre, and if Harold suffered during affair, so did Violet. After it her life was in ruins, and it took time that she could pull herself back together again. Statue could have acted the role of Denys, that much depth his character has. Lady Sackville-West is just a badly drawn caricature; an annoying chatterbox with exaggerating french accent.

The series ends to the totally badly written scene in Amiens, and that was the end of this affair, according to scriptwriter. No, it continued a whole year after that, and it's ending was much more lingering and sad than what was presented here. But what one cares about the stupid ending if the whole series has been stupid from the start. I have to give some credit to actors, they tried to make best of those roles given to them though Janet McTeer as Vita is the only one who really shines through. One can't complain the settings either. All complaints go to director and most of all, scriptwriter. Instead of insightful character studies, there are too many sex scenes and bland conversation. Many of the scenes are too long, some are pointless and don't bring anything to the story line. On the other hand many details are shortened or omitted altogether. Especially there should have been more information about Vita's and Violet's youth, and how their friendship developed. This is one fascinating story which would have deserved a much better adaptation. Maybe someday someone will do it. At the moment one can make much more of this story by reading the actual book or Violet's letters to Vita, which are brilliant stuff.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have neither read the book on which the movie is based, nor the letters between Vita and Violet. If I came to this movie with any expectations whatsoever, it was maybe that the Bloomsbury group (including among others Virginia Woolf, and which the Nicolsons were part of) would be depicted. It wasn't, which however wasn't a problem for me. What I am wondering about is how the people behind this movie managed to make it, in my opinion, so very uninteresting and repetitive and most of the characters flat, in spite of great material and some very good actors. The script is simply not good enough. I agree with the criticism of my Finnish neighbor - too many pointless sex scenes (but only between the women, while there is nothing explicit whatsoever concerning Harold's numerous love affairs), too many pointless scenes in general, too little information about the background of characters. It seems odd considering the quality of the production - on the surface it seems a really ambitious piece of work, but the script holds of course the most weight and that is where this movie fails.

Vita's relationship with Harold struck me as unconvincing, although both of them act really well, especially her. The way they kept declaring their unconditional love for each other in a rather sappy manner I thought, well, simply unconvincing. It makes a lot more sense that it should have happened through letters, as tmmvds points out I would also have liked to know where the nicknames came from - the Russian ones* as well as Mar - why ever is someone called Vita given the nickname Mar? It might be small stuff, but it matters in contributing to the bigger picture.

*I watched the movie with English subtitles on, and where it should apparently have said Mitya, it said instead Medea. That might explain my frustration with the nicknames to some extent - I could not understand why Vita's should be Greek while Violet's was Russian!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lance Henriksen got paid something to appear in this. I hope it was a lot.

Former US National Champion gymnast, Kristie Phillips starts as Charlie Case, a gymnast-turn-secret-agent (because it's very common that munchkin gymnasts become government spies...)

There's a truly hysterical opening scene where Charlie's uneven bars routine is sabotaged by an eastern-bloc competitor. What follows is one of the most ridiculous stunt scenes I've ever witnessed....and they want you to take it seriously! Don't worry...she sticks her dismount.

Everything after that is just a messy, dreck of a spy movie. Watch the first fifteen minutes for the campy-gymnastics stuff, then run for cover.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lina McLaidlaw is a bright, solitary young women who falls unexpectedly in love with Johnnie Aysgarth, a highly eligible bachelor with a penchant for losing money. They get married, but almost at once Lina is subjected to Johnnie's addiction to lying, gambling and getting into debt. Despite his flaws, she is unable to resist his charming manner, until she starts to suspect he may be harbouring murderous thoughts toward her ...

This is a good movie, well-made, with an attractive cast, a good script and possibly the single lousiest ending in movie history. Okay, that's maybe going too far, but not by much. Lots of films change the ending of a book (Great Expectations, The Shining, etc) but the last two scenes of this one not only manage to be horribly lame, but also render the entire preceding plot completely meaningless. The story is about a woman whose husband is driven by his greed and moral lacking - and what she knows about him - to kill her. It should end (as it does in Francis Iles \/ Anthony Berkeley's book Before The Fact) with him attempting to murder her. The reason it doesn't is that the studio forced Hitch to reshoot the ending, one of the first examples of the godawful process of preview audience testing. Hitch was canny and did what he was told (this was only his third film in Hollywood) knowing that if he played the game, sooner or later he would gain creative control of his films, evinced by his masterpieces of the fifties. But that still leaves us with a turkey of an ending. This is a great shame because it really is a very good movie with an intriguing theme - does anyone really know their husband or wife that well ? The script is excellent, with many off-guard moments (such as when Lina's father dies and Johnnie assumes she's crying about it), a finely-judged performance by Grant (who never played a villain again) and fine photography throughout, culminating in the famous glass-of-milk shot. Fontaine won an Oscar for this performance, although personally I prefer her confusion and vulnerability in her earlier victimised wife role in Rebecca. I would like to rate this movie higher, but I really can't forgive that ending; this is what happens when movies are made for money, not love, which I guess is curiously the theme of the film itself. Look fast for Hitchcock's cameo as a man posting a letter.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is unique in films of Hitchcock's that I've seen, in that I didn't really enjoy it.

In fact, I actually found this quite predictable and annoying.

Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine are a newly married couple. He's the kind of \"lovable rogue\" character that you've seen in many films, without ever being lovable as far as I am concerned!

In fact, it was a barely believable relationship at best, and at times seemed particularly false and implausible.

Unable to hold down a job and trying to live an opulent lifestyle, Grant is led to borrow money that he cannot pay back.

Fontaine is convinced that he is trying to kill her in order to get the money she is insured for; and presumably what her late father was worth.

Average and rather uninteresting all round actually, but as usual you can see the influence on films that have come at a later date.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is no doubt that Alfred Hitchcock was a seriously talented director. Many of his films are undeniable classics that have stood the test of time and are highly watchable to this day. This list could include The 39 Steps, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Vertigo, The Birds, Shadow of a Doubt, and a few other films.

However, \"Suspicion\" is not aging well at all and is really so unwatchable that it seems to me that it was probably a bad film even by 1941 standards. The list of scenes that work well could be listed on a matchbook with a crayon. The script is loose and ridiculous most of the time, but the acting seems so forced and wooden and borderline amateurish throughout, that it is almost unbelievable. Joan Fontaine tries to shore things up but she is on a slippery slope and Cary Grant doesn't provide much assistance. His acting is so bad at times that I have seen better performances in high school plays or college Theatre Experience classes where a Chemical Engineer is acting for the first time with no formal training.

After about 30 minutes of watching this film you may find yourself reaching for the DVD sleeve in the dark to see if you accidentally picked up some kind of special edition version that was cobbled together without any editing.

The subject matter is serious, yet the film has a silly and trite feel to it that just seems so out of place you become numb with perplexity.

\"Suspicion\" is basically unwatchable and another very very very overrated BAD movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Joan Fontaine is swept off her feet by the suave Cary Grant. After their marriage, she realizes that her husband is very irresponsible and owes a major gambling debt. It appears that Grant tries to scheme his best friend, Nigel Bruce, out of part of his life savings. Bruce ends up murdered and Fontaine suspects that her husband will try to kill her for the insurance money. This drama drags on to an abrupt and flat finale.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't dislike Cary Grant but I've found his performances annoying in enough films to notice; this, Arsenic & Old Lace and Bringing up Baby. I don't dislike him in North by Northwest but I really find that movie unbearably silly. On top of that I find the endless raving about Grant's class tiresome. I don't have a clue what his class does for the viewers who herald it. It doesn't do a thing for me.

In the behind-the-scenes feature included with this DVD Patrcia Hitchcock says that Grant was her fathers favorite leading man; I think he was wrong. Jimmy Stewart was a better leading man in a string of better Hitchcock movies.

With it's ruined ending this is really half a movie and doesn't bear discussion, and can't support the high ratings it's getting. Even if the movie had it's ending intact there's not much to it. Fontaine is a completely unsympathetic sucker. She has to remain numb, inactive, and unwilling to contact anyone but Johnny for the whole movie, in either ending, for his ploys to work. That's not much to work with. Cary Grant begins every line with \"Monkeyface...\" until I wanted to strangle him. He says it about sixty times. It's positively grating. Hitch's technique here is shockingly shallow. An endless succession of rooms\/sets have a phony skylight projected on the rear wall as a spiderweb effect. And a light-bulb in a glass of milk may make fans excited, but it can't save a movie this poorly made.

Peter Bogdanovich should retire if he does one more Hitchcock\/Cary Grant imitation on a DVD. I think that's his whole career now. As soon as I saw him, I thought, oh crap, here comes an imitation that only he's impressed with. Instead there were two! oh joy!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Spoiler warning!!!

This is probably my least favourite Cary Grant film. I spent most of the time thinking: ignore him, leave him etc. Is he trying to kill her? Should we assume that after the end, when he persuades her to return home with him, that he will kill her after all? I see from checking in a couple of books that this is a reading that some viewers\/critics have taken. Finishing early is after all a more reasonable way to film a book, than to change the ending - and this is a more unreasonable change of ending than, for example, in Altman's The Long Goodbye. Unlike Hitchcock's earlier example of making the murderer not the murderer because a star has been cast (when Gosford Park refers to The Lodger, Ivor Novello's murderous habits are not mentioned) the book's ending is not definitely ruled out.

In Robin Wood's Hitchcock's Films Revisited, he writes: \"As one mentally 'swiches' from ending to ending , the significance of every scene changes, the apparent solidity of the narrative dissolves, the illusion of the fiction's 'reality' disintegrates, the film becomes a 'modernist' text in which the process of narrative is foregrounded.\" I enjoy playing intellectual interpretation games as much as anyone else, but unless the film stands on a straightforward reading, then it fails. This one fails. Even after considering the fatal glasses of milk that recur in a few Hitchcock films.

An annoying quibble. The year is 1941. Nothing in the film says that it is set in the past. Beaky (Nigel Bruce) keeps his money in a Paris Bank, and goes there to do financial business? Does he not know that there is a war on? Indeed, were there still any flights from Croydon airport? Is he on good terms with the Nazis? How come it is never suggested that the Germans shot him as a spy or something.

A curiosity. When Johnnie and Lina have dinner with Isobel, the mystery writer, and her brother, the pathologist, there is a fifth person present, who is never explained nor introduced - a woman in a tuxedo. The credits say that she is Nondas Metcalf playing Phyllis Swinghurst. Is this not an example of how lesbians were coded in '40s films? Are we to take her as Isobel's lover? The books that discuss overt and hidden gays\/lesbians in Hitchcock (e.g. Robin Wood again) do not include Phyllis Swinghurst.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film spends a lot of time preaching against marijuana. However, the plot and visuals are so insane that it seems more like the poster-child for LSD.

Plot: The heroic struggle of Michael as he battles his drug addiction while being subjected to the humiliation brought on by the likes of Winnie the Pooh and Papa Smurf.

Yea, yea, there's a good message, but it's obscured by the fact that the writers have taken a rather stale PSA idea and tried stretching it into 30 minutes. This includes a song sequence, where you're told that there's a million, rational ways to say \"No!\" such as \"I can't smoke pot, I have homework!\"

The writers can't make up their minds what to do with the characters they've brought in royalty-free. At first we see they all have to hide from the human characters, but within five minutes we see them all running around in plain sight without anyone noticing. Soon they begin interacting with the human cast, and the only one who's even slightly disturbed by this fact is not the drug-abusers, it's the little sister who talks to her teddy bear (Pooh, by the way.) Further, there's the little drug demon floating around. Because you know, pushers don't give kids drugs. He too is ambiguous - while he might be symbolic of Michael's addiction and hence is not supposed to be seen by other people, he laters goes and haunts little Corey to get HER into drugs. So I guess he's...uhhh.....moving on!

The whole plot finally culminates in some insane sequence in which Michael is in what would appear to be the Saturday Morning Carnival of Souls, aka a theme park from hell where the various cartoon characters beat him up and ignore him and stuff. For example, Miss Piggy eats him in a sandwich and spits him out. If the writers were not high when writing this, I must recommend they try getting high because they can't get crazier than this. Of course, the film ignores the fact that Michael's been having highs for two years by this point, so why this tripping sequence would frighten him is beyond me.

I realize I'm completely whaling on this film, but I actually just saw it again because I went through the trouble of tracking it down on eBay because of it's sheer infamy of being a BAD cartoon. The level of unintentional humor is is brilliant. Take this scene for example - Michael's dad is rooting through the fridge for a beer. He notices many of them missing and mentions it to his wife. The ever-observant Mom tells him \"Don't worry, you probably just drank them last night watching football.\" While we're obviously supposed to be learning that Michael is drinking beer (in addition to the pot and crack), we instead read further in and realize - Hey kids, it's okay to have chemical dependencies as long as you're a grown-up! Scenes like this are worth the tiny price tag of this film. Oh yea, and the fact you get to hear Simon the Chipmunk say \"Marijuana.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If there's one thing I want to distinguish myself from all the other great reviewers here, it's that I am the Queen of Finding Strange Movies in Thrift and Dollar Stores. That said, you can't possibly imagine how happy I was when I found this one.

I can even remember that Saturday morning when *every* station simulcast it, so you were stuck if you wanted to watch something else (then again, I guess that was the idea). As a kid, I didn't know if I liked the way all the different characters were stuck together (there are some crossovers that just do *not* work). But I guess the special had it's intended effect. Don't do drugs because you will have nightmares about the Muppets.

Now, if you watch this as an adult, on the other hand, you will be treated to the *strangest* anti-drug movie this side of \"Reefer Madness\". I think I'll just leave it at that before I get into trouble.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Water shows the plight of Indian widows in the late 1930s, says in the end that the problem still exists largely by giving statistics in the end, refers to Gandhi several times in the movie before finally having a scene depicting him and does nothing extra ordinarily innovative or new in the movie. Yes, the cinematography is pretty impressive but that cannot be the soul of any movie for me.

India has had several problems like many other nations but it has got rid of many of these problems at large. What if a movie is made on racism in America in a particular year which ends with 'x number of Americans still experience racism today'.

a) How would it be relevant, and, b) How would it be some thing so extra ordinary being depicted in cinema.

A view I read from a Deepa Mehta interview was that this movie is being interpreted as a voice for the marginalised every where. From reviews I read every where, the common thing I am hearing is how the director did a great job and was brave in bringing a problem to the world. The movie is more about a specific problem a society faced (and has got rid of through reforms at large).

I do not see any thing earth shattering about the movie. Moreover, the movie lacked soul and shifted between the plots of Chuiyya and Kalyani. Sarala, the young Sri Lankan actress, portrayed the role of Chuiyya superbly and that was the only thing which impressed me about the movie, sadly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a big fan of Deepa Mehta's work, especially Fire and Earth 1947. Unfortunately, this movie of hers lacks _all_ that is needed for a good film.

The movie attempts to showcase the plight of the widows in India in the early 20th century and the new wave of ideas of their rehabilitation around the same time. Shown with a child widow as a central character, although the plot too banal from an Indian standpoint, it could still have been a very powerful movie. Alas! the movie lacked both the sensitivity of Fire and the intensity of emotion in Earth 1947.

Even if one assumes that the story is a given, although there are hundreds of things I would have liked different in that as well, the movie making is especially unfortunate. Everything is said. Everything is shown straight. Absence of sensitive implied sentences. Absence of things left unsaid. I just couldn't believe that this was a Deepa Mehta film.

There were some very standard Hindi movie characters - like an old widow with her own vested interests, or a father who has double standards of the highest quality. Can one not write a script without having these old-style standard Indian movie characters?

Many people acclaimed Deepa for making a movie and proving a point against hindu fundamentalists. Well, I agree that she took a bold step, but should one not worry about the quality of movie, or is it being a controversial one an end in itself? Its obvious, that if you start with a story as in Water, you will end up feeling the pain of the widows in consideration --- It doesn't take an accomplished director to achieve that. And the movie had nothing more than that!! So where is Deepa's contribution to the film?

And talk about acting etc. - pathetic!!! Lisa Ray has a pretty face, an extremely pretty face - but thats where it ends. She can't speak Hindi; she can't emote. John Abraham is no better. Most widows seem unnatural. The saving grace are Seema Biswas and the young girl. They are fabulous.

And this was a period film - but the Hindi dialogues suck big time. Even there utterance is also as unnatural as it gets. No rustic accents!!! No local slangs. No nothing. The only thing right was probably the shooting locales. I thought that the set of the vidhwa-ashram was reasonably real. The overall blue tinge in the whole movie is also apt.

But all and all, don't watch this movie. You _won't_ get anything. There is nothing in the story, or direction. If you have to watch it watch it for the little girl's acting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Deepa has again tried to bravely bring out a subject that no one wants to talk about. The story line is OK, cinematography is outstanding, screenplay and acting are way below average. I guess the blame is to the citizens of Uttar Pradesh in India from where her original set was destroyed in 2000. This resulted in a totally different cast, I just wonder what a spectacular movie it would have been if it had the original Shabana Azmi, Nandita Das and Aamir Khan. The current actors Lisa Ray (who's just good for squirming in Bombay Dyeing bedsheets) and John Abraham are pathetic, need basic lessons in acting. Seema Biswas, Raghubir Yadav and Kulbushan Kharbabda have saved the movie as much as they can. The kid had done an outstanding job. The editing and the flow of the movie is also not something you would have expected from Deepa. Great subject, sends out a strong message about a practice which is still pretty rampant in rural India but falls short of the standards Deepa set for herself in Fire and Earth. Watch it once...when its on DVD, don't bother paying $10 to see it....well its out beats the average Hindi movie any day","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Copy cats have copied this movie from a 1974 Hindi movie called \"Call Girl\"! \"Call Girl\" had an identical story line. The way in which the protagonists fall in love, then rebel and the climax all same in both these films! \"Call Girl\" is better than Water, at least from the story telling point of view. It was not as agonizingly slow as Water! Water on the contrary does not progresses at all. The aim is perhaps to make the audience sympathize with Kalyani for ever! Are Indian film makers any better than just being great copiers these days? Well they call it \"being inspired\". In their language it is: \"getting inspired (without any citation that is!)\"! :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Deepa Mehta, Arundhati Roy and a host of other so called intellectuals get the title of intellectuals because of the fact that they love portraying India and hinduism in a bad light...and Deepa Mehta makes her money from it anyway. Anyway Hindus are too gentle or scared to protest the way muslims protest so anybody can take any liberties with Hinduism. And it is a fact that during the 1930's women in the west were also illtreated when they were widowed...just that nobody likes to point out anything bad about the west or anything other than India and Hindus. She paints an inncorrect portrayal of India and the situation of widows there. Nowhere is it mentioned that child marriage is illegal. She ended the movie saying there are 34 million widows in India. Of course among a billion people, there will be that many widows. But how many are living life she has depicted in the movie?? Deepa Mehta finally is selling India and poverty to make dollars. How pathetic....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pathetic NRI Crap.....Appeal to all who are not Indian's....This is the WORST of Indian cinema,made by the worst piece of NRI trash.....The story is boring and clich\u00e9d (the way NRIs and westerners view India).....Go for it if u want to be bored to death.

The movie deals with the plight of widows in India before independence.A lot of it is true even now in remote rural areas but not to the extent as depicted (maybe because its a period movie).....

There are plenty of other Indian movies directed by extremely talented directors that are worth savoring...This one is a definite miss...Watch a documentary instead or look up information on the net if you are genuinely interested in the plight of the downtrodden in India.

I wasted my time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What about Scream Baby Scream is supposed to make me not feel like a fool for buying it? I bought it because, God help me, I'm a sucker for old B-cinema even as worthless as this. Nonetheless, Something about this movie irritates me, it's probably Janet, Janet comes off cold & snooty, seemingly, with the intention of coming off as deep and noble, with a look on her face that screams constipation, she can't seem to agree to anything her uptight boyfriend wants. I'm glad that this is her only role. What really irritates me is that this is a 1960's gore film gone terribly awry, and as we all know, awry is Floridian for \"zero gore\". It's like the director started with a Herschell Lewis style but backed out of the gore scenes when his wife found out, so instead we end up with one dull conversation after the other, and basically, a whole lot of irritating nothing. In other words, we end up with Florida Bore. Joseph Adler should be embarrassed. Janets boyfriend, Jason is almost as ridiculous as she is, this guy has something negative to say about absolutely everything, come to think of it, he's probably the least likable good guy in horror history. The only thing this movie really has going for it is that it carries that 60's\/early 70's B-gore vibe that you can find in stuff like Undertaker & his pals, Blood Freak, or most anything from Herschell Lewis. Even Rodney from the Gruesome Twosome is in this, I Ithought his caveman comedy routine was irritating, most everything from reel to reel is stupid, even the trip scene was stupid. The only positive thing at all is the small amount of beach scenery, but that mostly includes Janet whining about life not being perfect. In the only real ironic twist, Scream Baby Scream gets even less interesting once the story finally gets started, around the 45 minute mark. If you happen to be indifferent to whether or not your entertainment is watchable, but are offended by the color red, you might not hate this. Why does Troma distribute this? Wouldn't this be Something Weird Video's area? Scream Baby Scream very well may be the worst in Florida horror\/gore of its era, but, I suppose, underneath the unlikeable characters, and the incoherent plot, lies potential. Scream, Baby, Scream really just seems like it should follow the Blood Feast pattern, so, to steal a quote from Janet, \"If it doesn't fit, I throw it out\". 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe you have to be a former hippie to fully appreciate this, because aside from some dated fashions, music and dialogue, it doesn't really have a thing going for it nowadays.

Four fun-loving college art students enjoy carefree days of painting nude models and riding on motorcycles. They take acid in one scene and go to a zoo. A sign flashes on the screen that says \"Do Not Feed The Animals,\" and suddenly they're in a cage laughing and hanging from a chain tire swing (?!) An evil artist (Larry Swanson) tells (in flashback) how his art career was almost ruined because of a crippling hand disease. He sends out zombie henchmen dressed in black to kidnap people, then injects them with a serum that distorts their faces. He's trying to create some new form of abstract act (I'm guessing here, the details given are a bit fuzzy, to put it mildly). Meanwhile, Jason (Ross Harris) sets out to save the day after his friend Scotty (Chris Martell) is killed and his girlfriend Janet (Eugenie Wingate) is kidnapped. I thought the zombie make-up in ZOMBIE LAKE was awful, but wait until you see it here! It's by Douglas Hobart, the star of DEATH CURSE OF TARTU. A small role is played by Brad Grinter, the director of the Z-classic BLOOD FREAK, which is much, much more enjoyable than this deadly dull turkey (aka NIGHTMARE HOUSE).

Useless trivia note: The 1984 Regal video release features the wrong cast (for THE BRIDES WORE BLOOD) printed directly on the video label!

Score: 1 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...Or is this another way below the bottom-of-the-barrel masterpiece? Preferably both! Somewhere between 1969 and 1972 came a host of several horrible horror movies that are all but lost again. Nothing more needs to be explained, asked, or screamed out loud. If you followed closely at my writings about CARNIVAL OF BLOOD or GURU THE MAD MONK, then you know what's in store with SCREAM BABY SCREAM. The title sounds cool; it's just the weak script that should have gone someplace else! Even so, this is hands down, the most dreadfully written piece of cinematic mastery ever worked on film!

If you thought this is an early slasher (which benefits the average IMDb user to write up another comment), better luck next time! The real truth behind the script has NOTHING to do with the movie, which supposedly tells of a blue-faced psychopath out to \"kill\" and make some ugly facial sculptures on his victims. It feels like you're watching another early \"SCOOBY-DOO\" episode. My favorite scene is the monkey cage where the four young hippie teenagers play in. And hooray for an actress under the name \"Eugenie Wingate\" for giving us the worst facial makeover, ever! 1969 has never been this bad, but it is!

Try finding this 30-year old rarity at a bargain basement for five bucks; it makes the perfect novelty item for going back to those psychedelic days of flower power, bad fashions, and trashy music! Interesting note: SCREAM BABY SCREAM is also listed in Troma's film archives on the company's website. Only time will tell when this reaches the top of the Bottom 100 List along with a few more early 70s cheapies; gosh knows they NEED to!!! PLAN 9 is history!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Have you ever watched a film, when after it's conclusion, your left pondering what in the world it was all about? Well, say hello to \"Scream, Baby, Scream\". It's not that the story's complex or anything like that, it's just that it plays out in three completely different modes...1. A fun 60s drug movie...2. A much overplayed soap opera...and 3. a horror flick (with very little to \"Scream\" about). Much to my surprise, I've found out that it was written by one of my all-time favorites, Larry Cohen. Well, I guess even the best have to learn through trial and error.

Playing out much like something from H.G. Lewis(only with lesser fx), this \"bad\" film does have it's perks. For most of it's short running time there's a pretty cool jazz score to be heard, and there are a couple of memorable scenes...one of those being where a group of kids decide to experiment with acid and take a nice long motor bike ride to the zoo. The camera tricks the director uses to indicate their hallucinatory state is just plain retarded, but amusing. Trust me when I tell you, there's no need to run out of the house to catch this one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this movie at a XXX store for $1 on VHS. The interesting thing about it is that Camp Video bought up the rights to it and slapped on a 1986 copywrite date in the credits. Anyways, enough of odd facts.

This film is absolutely not scary. To even call this horror or a \"thriller\" is laughable. There were only maybe 5 minutes at most of what you would call horror in this 80+ minute film, and that consisted of the acting, because it was HORRORible! All puns aside, the writing for this film was absolute garbage as well, just as the special effects and makeup was laughable. No wonder this is such an obscure film, probably the director has spent the last 35 years scouring the country for all existing copies of it and burning them in one big pile so no one else could be subjected to it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why remake the original \"Assault\"? To my mind \"Assault\" was Carpenter's true masterpiece. It had all the elements good Carpenter movies contain. External threat on a small group of individuals. People taking the challenge because they are forced to do so. Isolation! Just remember, the guns in Carpenter's original made no sound, being thus a lot more threatening than conventional devices. And now this remake. Concentrating on \"main character I\"s psychology and on his relation to main character II (the evil but honorable). The anonymous threat in the Carpenter movie replaced by a rather conventional conspiracy\/corruption background. The \"remakers\" just didn't understand the main plot of the original. And thus produced something pretty ordinary.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Assault on Precinct 13: 3\/10: Let us forget for a moment that Assault on Precinct 13 is a remake of a classic action movie. Taken completely on its own merits Assault is a debacle.

Lets start with the Rio Bravo style scenario. About a dozen people are trapped in a decaying police station in Detroit (If the Detroit location is giving you Robocop warm and fuzzies stop right now. It could have easily said Topeka in the opening credits and nothing would have changed. In fact the last bit in the forest would have made more sense.) Surrounding them are our bad guys; corrupt cops.

Now I know what your thinking. Corrupt cops? Were the Nazis and drug cartels busy that weekend? Of course these are no ordinary cops. These guys are right of the cover of the latest Tom Clancy video game. Yup we have body armor; helicopters; laser sights; night vision goggles the works. So we have thirty S.W.A.T. members\/Special Forces armed to the teeth verses 4 cops (drunk mind you it's new years eve), 2 girls in party dresses and half a dozen criminals.

So how do our heroes defend themselves? Truth is they can't. They all should be dead within ten minutes tops. (Not to mention the characters inside have an annoying habit of walking past the windows.) Now an illogical scenario is no reason to completely pan a movie esp. a B style action film. However with the exception of Laurence Fishburne and Ethan Hawke all the other characters seemed to be comic relief. (At least I hope they were)

While Ja-Rules and Leguizamo's characters are bad enough. It's Aisha Hind's minstrel show that takes the cake. Rarely has a more stereotypical African American character appeared on the modern screen. Her performance resembles a frat boy in blackface and drag acting ghetto.

In the original Assault a gang member takes over an Ice-Cream truck and drives around the neighborhood shooting little girls in the head. I have had an irrational fear of ice-cream trucks ever since. After this Assault I have a perfectly rational fear of remakes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sure a lot of guys will love this movie. The only woman who shows any \"balls\" (unfortunate pun regretted) is made to look, talk, and seem like a guy, the other 2 women are portrayed either as sexual objects with one thing on their mind- sex \/ being sexy, with sex as their only attribute and skill (Iris) - or as freaked out pretty little princesses who's neurosis negates any strength and professional authority they had before all hell broke lose (Doc). The only strength Iris has in the end is the result of some advice from a big strong man. Besides my negative gut reaction as a feminist, I have to give the camera work props- and Ethan Hawke is great in the very first scene. After that his performance loses steam. Empty entertainment for a brain that wants to take it easy. At least the film skims the subject of the duality of good\/bad in the criminal mind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's New Year's eve, a cop-killer (in the form of, Laurence Fishburne) end up at a precinct that's closing down due till snow. When the people are layed siege on, cops have to team up with cons to survive. This re-make of the John Carpenter classic just had to add a few beyond stupid plot twists, take out all the tension, and add a horrid John Lequizamo to the cast, didn't it? The first film was thrilling, gritty, and a joy to watch. This one is more Hollywood, clich\u00e9d, and painful to behold. The only thing I took from this movie was OCD can be very annoying...VERY. The ending song is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad.

My Grade: D-

DVD Extras: Commentary by Richet, Demonaco and Jeffrey Silver; Delet scenes with optional commentary; 5 minute \"Armed and Dangerous\" featurette on the weapons expert; 7 and a half minute \"behind Precinct Walls\"; \"Plan of Attack\"; \"The Assault Team\"; 12 and a half minute behind the scenes featurette;, Trailers for \"Unleashed\", \"White Noise\", :Seed of Chucky\"

Miscelanious: I got this at Best Buy and it came with a bonus disc including the first 2 minutes of \"Cry Wolf\"; a 10 minute first look at \"Unleashed\"; the trailer for that film; and a Fuzion interview with John Leguizamo","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Los Angeles, 1976. Indie film brat John Carpenter, fresh out of film school and with one film - his class project's no-budget spoof of 2001 called Dark Star - under his belt, finishes a gritty actioner called Assault On Precinct 13. The story of an almost deserted police station under siege by an unseen LA gang, it was a minor hit on the drive-in circuit and garnered small praise from the few critics who cared, but it hardly set the film world on fire, unlike Carpenter's follow-up smash Halloween (1978). On Precinct, Carpenter was still learning how to exploit his almost non-existent budget by using lower-shelf actors, keeping the action to the one hellishly small location, and moving the film along at a tight pace with a combination of editing, intelligent camera work and switched-on genre savvy.

No-one wants or needs to be hungry in Hollywood anymore, particularly if the week's catering bill on the 2005 version of Assault On Precinct 13 is more than the entire cost of the original. It does translate into a certain kind of laziness on a filmmaker's part - you have a stupidly large union crew, a studio and a marketing firm all doing your thinking for you. Which is why twenty years after watching Carpenter's film I can still see every glorious moment, from the small girl gunned down in cold blood while buying an ice cream, to the relentless pounding synth score. A week after Assault 2005, I remember Larry Fishburne's unmoving ping pong ball eyes and little else.

\"Forgettable popcorn actioner\" fits the top of the poster perfectly. It's New Years Eve at Precinct 13, a station closing down with a skeleton staff to see in its final hours. On call is Jake Roenick (Ethan Hawke), an ex-narc now deeply troubled and hopped up on Jack Daniels and Seconol after his partners were iced in the opening scene; Iris (The Sopranos' Drea de Matteo), a nympho with a thing for criminal types, and Jasper (Brian Dennehy), a crusty old timer one scotch away from retirement. As in Carpenter's Assault..., a bus with four heavy-duty criminals is rerouted to the Precinct. All boozy eyes are on gangster kingpin Bishop (Fishburne, still beefed-up from his time in the Matrix) who has narrowly survived an assassination attempt from an undercover cop and plans to blow the lid on the endemic corruption in the organized crime unit led by Marcus Duvall (a tired-looking Gabriel Byrne). Soon the phones are out, the power lines are down, and both crims and police find themselves heavily armed with a serious police arsenal and consumed with paranoia while waging war against a task force of Duvall's corrupt cops sporting white balaclavas, bullet vests, infra-red bazookas and more high-tech gear than the Skywalker Ranch. This, we're expected to believe as the helicopters buzz around the top of the police station shooting rockets into windows, is a clandestine operation to cover Duvall's tracks. He may as well have taken out billboards on Hollywood Boulevard.

As with the recent Seventies genre reworking Dawn Of The Dead, Assault 2005 takes the barest plot essentials of John Carpenter's original and, to quote the Seventies, \"does it's own thing, man\". The main question is - why bother? John Carpenter's 1976 is a cult favorite among genre buffs, but is hardly branded in the public's collective consciousness. Carpenter himself was busy reworking Howard Hawks' classic western Rio Bravo into a tight, claustrophobic urban thriller for only $20,000. French wunderkind director and rap producer Jean-Francois Richet, a self-professed fan of John Carpenter's work, seems less concerned with making an homage to either Hawks or JC - although the script is peppered with references to cowboys and injuns - and seems intent on squeezing in as much flash and firepower as the multi-million dollar budget can withstand. The result: some tense moments with hand-held POV cameras, an unexpectedly high (and bloody) body count, a few neat plot twists, but essentially a B-grade urban actioner with a much inflated price tag. As for name-checking Carpenter, it's pure conceit on the part of the filmmakers that doesn't pay off.

To Monsieur Richet, I say bon voyage, and I wish you luck on your music career.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't think it's necessary to outline the plot for you, because the site and other users have done a superb job of that already. That said, here's my take. This is by far the worst movie of 2005, and there have been some really, really bad ones. I don't even need to go into detail because there is NOTHING redeeming about this movie. Bad acting, bad plot, bad directing, bad special effects-you name it. If it doesn't stand alone as the worst film ever made, it's tied with some other piece of crap. I'd be embarrassed to have my friends know I was in this movie. But hey, most people that are gonna see it will do so no matter what reviews it gets, so more power to ya. When you feel the gaping void between your neurons two hours into your evening, don't blame me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie definitely made me laugh but that doesn't mean it was exactly funny. Well, then again, me and my friends had a lot of fun watching it.

I doubt there is anything about this movie that hasn't been done at least twice before, just like the plot itself. All of the characters are overused movie clich\u00e9 cardboard-box roles that don't even require acting skills; accordingly, such skills are not delivered. We have the corrupt cop, a ruthless killer who claims to care about his men and their families whilst caring nothing about people he shoots in the forehead at so close a range as to have blood spat on his face. We have the \"worn-out cop on the edge\" so nicely pointed at in the discussion boards of this movie; we have the old one-day-away-from-retirement-cop who just about everyone must have immediately identified as the most likely man on the inside, since he had most to gain and he didn't utter a trustworthy word throughout the movie. About as see-through as a glass house on a sunny day. The big black gangster king was a copy of all previous big black gangster kings in movie history (they could've just called him Marcellus Wallace), but just slightly tougher and more ruthless, because something has to emphasize that we also know Laurence Fishburne from actually good movies. Then we finally have the HIGHLY EDUCATED doctor who can't think of anything reasonable to do as soon as the situation differs from her ordinary life and who spends the majority of the movie sitting in a corner helplessly trying to figure out how to hold on to the weapon she was given. NOT USING IT.

The whole siege story is not interesting, not original (having been used twice before), and this movie manages to add absolutely nothing interesting to it. There is the initial probe, then the laying of the siege, then the assault, then the escape attempts. Meanwhile a bunch of strained, stressed, freaked out cops and thugs manage to hold off a Police assault team with high-tech equipment and the quite important advantage of VISION. Then again, in deep night, with the power cut and with a snow storm raging overhead, there is definitely a lot of light coming in, so who really cares about night vision.

But the best part comes right at the end. In the first scenes showing Precinct 13, we see it is situated in an outskirt of an industrial city; factories and office buildings surround it on all sides. From this point, the besieged walk maybe a hundred meters in a sewer and where do they end up? Some alley ending right in the middle of a forest! A FOREST! Where did that forest come from? Who decided to lay a pine forest in the middle of an industrial area? How is this forest, in the last scene, suddenly on a hill over the city in question, while in the scenes inside the forest it looked deceptively FLAT??

From here I leave the judgment to you, and to your common sense. Go and see this movie if you're looking for an unintended good laugh, I can really recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The opening scene keeps me from rating at absolute zero. I wish the entire movie was as gritty and real as the intro.

In order to enjoy some movies, a lot can be forgiven,(hand guns with 60 shots, hero's with super human powers, all women are gorgeous AND half naked) but Puuuuleeese this \"Assault On My Intelligence 13\" is so far fetched that I'm surprised the cast showed up for a second day of filming.

Firstly, how did these guys get to be cops? Based on stupidity I guess. How do the main female characters justify being half naked in the middle of winter in Detroit or wherever the heck they are. As a matter of fact no character reacts to the elements whatsoever in this movie. No windows, no electricity(which miraculously returns unexplained)during the storm of the century and they are all comfy as bugs in a rug. What technology exists which disables all cell phones, radios, and brain function. This must be the same power which causes Maria Bella to walk from her disabled car knee deep in snow with no coat and hardly any dress.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The original \"Assault on Precinct 13\" is gritty, witty, and - perhaps most importantly - short. This remake is mercilessly padded out and talky. Worse yet, the African-American hero of the first movie is here replaced with handsome white boy Ethan Hawke, which makes this \"Assault\" less progressive than the 1970s one. God, how I miss John Carpenter and his improbable plot line and his weird sense of humor. I even miss his B-list actors, who are leagues better than Hawke and company.

I can't say I care for the new villains in this version - they stretch what little credibility the story ever had to the limit. The female characters are useless, the criminals are all generic hoods, and Gabriel Byrne gives another of his bored performances. The music's all wrong, too - it's bland action stuff that actually detracts from the tension. Simply awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Assault on Precinct 13 is the absolute dumbest film I've seen since Charlie's Angels 2. The shame lies in the fact that they had a good cast and a good premise to work with.

SPOILERS ............................................................. I know they've said this movie is a remake descendant of Rio Bravo but did the writers of this film actually watch Rio Bravo? Besides the fact that Rio Bravo is a western classic, the premise of the film was that the sheriff (John Wayne) had to keep a prisoner accused of murder from being liberated by his brother and his gang. No one wants to liberate anyone in Assault on Precinct 13. They want EVERYONE dead. So, my first question would have to be, WHY NOT JUST BURN THE WHOLE PLACE DOWN FROM THE START? Why \"assault\" the place at all? I know the contrived plot turn was suppose to be clever and shocking but it didn't make sense and\/or was presented properly. If the veteran cop was in on it from the start, why the need for this whole movie? If the veteran cop suddenly cut a deal at the back door during the siege, how did he even get the chance? As soon as he appeared at the door he would've been shot and they would've had their entry point. It's all just FUBAR.

What part of any city can an all out war take place at a police precinct (complete with helicopters and massive explosions) but no one notices?? However, as soon as there's a fire they have to \"leave before the fire department shows up\"?????? How did they plan to cover up the chaos that was happening outside?? Police issue bullets in the walls, bullet casings, footprints, equipment usage, and the fact that there were going to be no bodies of \"Bishop's men\" to be found? How about those police snipers? How could they possibly miss so badly so often? I like the fact that when the two detainees tried to run, the snipers were foiled by two tiny mounds of snow. As if it's not possible to shoot a high powered riffle through a pile of snow.

The set up was interesting although ridiculous but the movie just went off a cliff when they decided to kill that particular character with a bullet to the head for absolutely NO REASON at all. I know the makers of the film were going for shock but all they got was disgust at the cruelty and the anger of the audience. Don't you think that part of the reason why this thing is bombing at the box office is the fact that word of mouth has everyone telling friends and family to stay away from this one? That particular scene has to be a big part of that word of mouth (that and the fact that every plot turn is dumber then dirt). The conclusion remains steadily stupid as the villain pauses to deliver an Austin Powers-like diatribe instead of killing the helpless people who he has finally captured. I know several people have mentioned the closing scenes that take place in the woods of Detroit city (>snicker<) but why did Ethan's character just wander off in to the woods in the first place? He doesn't even look to see if the SUV with the secretary and his friend gets away? They just cut to him prowling slowly in the woods, pistol in hand. GACK. I could go on but won't. All I can say is that you want to avoid this stupidity at all cost.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was perhaps the worst movie I've seen in a long, long time. Forget that it's clear no research was done regarding Detroit (forest in downtown Detroit! Bwahaha!!). The writing was horrible, the premise completely implausible, and quite frankly, the characters were embarrassing. I cannot for the life of me understand why seasoned actors would stoop to such a low and participate in something this god awful. Now, I have never seen the original and don't know if this movie pays tribute to it's original form. It's my understanding that the original was not set in Detroit. Why they would deviate from that without researching details about the setting only tells me that it was more than the cast that was looking to pay the rent.

Don't waste your time on this junk, unless you're from Detroit and wish for some comic relief.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a huge fan of the original Assault On Precinct 13. The ice cream scene haunts me to this day. I'm 33 now and I still remember being horrified by it as a child. When I heard they were remaking it, I thought it might be good but when I saw the film, it's 100% not the same film. It's not a remake. It's a bad stolen idea. It was completely ruined. The cast, Maria Bello, Laurence Fishburne, Ethan Hawke, Gabriel Burne, John Leguizamo and Drea De Matteo are all great actors but even they couldn't save this film. It was just wrong. Even the setting was completely opposite. And how in the hell did no one in that city notice that there was a war going on next door? Why didn't help show up sooner? Stupid. No sense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Is it just me, or is this an AWFUL film? I'm going with it's an AWFUL film...

Knowing full well that it's a guy flick (usually defined as full of car chases, crashes, gunfights, explosions, etc.), I still expect some small degree of credibility. If I can't somehow believe in the premise, the film WILL NOT WORK. Thus, we come to the problem with \"Assault on Precinct 13.\"

Not one for spoilers, I never report details of the plot. However, I will make an exception here, because the plot is SO inane. Bad guy is jailed in Precinct 13. Bad guy's buddies want to bust him out. Surprise. The bad guys' buddies are actually corrupt cops. Brooding, troubled, but heroic young cop saves the day while romancing the girl. UGH. Yes, it really is THAT simple, and that dumb.

\"Assault on Precinct 13\" takes place in Detroit. Not a bad setting for crime and corruption (I spent 3 months there in late 2004, so I know what I'm talking about). Even so, it's outrageously violent and insulting to the police and the citizens of Detroit. I have spent a lot of time in downtown Detroit, but I cannot imagine how the final chase wound up in the downtown Detroit forest. I must have missed it...

There are NO refunds for watching bad movies. Save your money. There were too many good films in 2005 to waste even $3.00 at Blockbuster on this one.

FINAL RATING: 1

(Only because I have seen worse films.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You expect it to be juvenile but you at least expect a complete and coherent movie. What a waste. I am extremely disappointed, not at just having watched a bad movie, but at having such a great concept be tainted by a common movie that we've all seen before. If this crud makes $1 over its budget, The studio would be wise to declare victory, round up all available copies, store them deep within the nuclear waste repository under Yucca Mountain, and then never make another movie like it again. Most of this movie will keep you thinking, \"This is not what I wanted to see.\" This film appeals to the unintelligent and maybe to teenagers. It's a true shame because most movies are made for that demographic. I had much higher hopes for this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I accidentally happened upon this movie when I was looking for something to watch while eating lunch. I actually turned to the WE Network because it said it had the last 20 minutes of some movie about the importance of \"sticking it\" for some gymnastics team -- I figured cheesy goodness. Well, I got cheesy alright.

First, I missed a good 20-40 minutes at the start of the movie. Luckily, most of it was recapped fairly quickly, especially in the bedroom scene where Crystal admits that she felt responsible for the death of her rapist.

I love Jenny Garth and will watch her in just about anything. She's just so pretty, and I want my lipstick to look as perfect as hers always does. She looks great throughout this movie, and doesn't really age over what seems to be more than a decade.

Overall, I felt bad for the actors as I watched this movie. All of them tried to sell their parts, but all were so poorly written that it was a constant struggle. Frankly, I was surprised to see Terry Farrell and Mitch Ryan (Greg's dad from Dharma & Greg) in this.

But the writing was not the worst part of this movie. About a half-hour before the end, her mother dies, and when they show the headstone the death date is 1979. Having missed the beginning, I had gotten the impression from the wardrobe that this was taking place in the 80s. Not one leisure suit or bell bottom in sight. Shame on the person who did wardrobe for this film! Don't get me wrong -- all the outfits in this movie were beautiful, but they were completely wrong for the time period. It almost makes me wonder if they told the wardrobe person that it was a period piece.

Bottom line -- good for a laugh or to feed a Jennie Garth fix. :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't seen many movies worse than this one. The story line, the dialogues, the acting: it's horror! The story just jumps from a to b to c without any logical steps in between. Every time you think you've missed something, but no: that was the way it was intended to be. And why on earth is the character that Jenny Garth portrays so in love with that no-no loser guy (who actually now plays in the movie Cinderella Man with Russel Crow!)? O well, it's no Spielberg, of course... I have to write ten lines to get posted. This movie really isn't inspiring enough to write 10 lines! It's a romantic feel good movie with a lousy story, so if you're up for that: you'll have a ball.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This person is a so-called entertainer who has to resort to profanity, vulgarity, and slander to try and make others believe he has talent. I have often seen comics use a little of each with effect but when all you can say is laced with it, it is a sign of a drug affected warped mind. Makes me wonder where his twisted and fried brain will be in a few more years of abuse. Poor man!!! I admit I could not watch all of it - too stupid for words. The amazing part of this is that somebody actually believes he is a philosopher!!! No wonder self respect and decency are dwindling and perversity is rising. Could it be that the UFC might have been a factor in his deadened brain?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Joe Rogan's whole act is profanity laced with bile. He is a pot smoker who entered Fear Factor, thinking it was a joke. He said he would egg people on because he did not know how stupid people were going to be. The producers of the show he explained were going on the premise of playing pranks on unsuspecting contestants to see how far they will go. The level of evil involved is a little twisted. Mr. Rogan's special is just filled with the rants of someone who is too good for regular human beings. I found him to be offensive and his stuff can be heard by more talented comedians such as Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock. Rogan even does a five minute set on the N word. Overall, ignore this special.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a truly awful movie. The jokes are few and far between and the pacing is a down right endurance test. The only thing funny to come out of this production is it's comparison to the classic film \"This Is Spinal Tap.\"

Avoid this film as if it were one of the plagues of the Bible itself.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If Jacqueline McKenzie and John Lynch weren't such talented actors this film would probably be even worse than it actually is.The story of two mentally disturbed people who fall in love and have a baby is an interesting one,and well worth exploring.However on the negative side,the plot becomes increasingly over the top as the story progresses,and the music choices more and more bizarre,so that by the end I found myself laughing when I know the director intended for me to be crying.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On the Opening night of the San Francisco Silent Film festival I was quite excited to see films that are historical and well not common. The guest speaker who opened this film created a sense of hype towards the obscurity, and how this film is underrated. The sci-fi part of the film was very interesting and fantastic for its time, but i'm not sure if it was due to the fact it was shown directly after the Brilliant 1928 \"The Wind\" or if it seemed that Russian filmmakers take after what Russian novels are famous for (hundreds of characters, tangled plots) but I know for certain that the dramatic parts, as in the parts on Earth, made absolutely no sense, were boring and I became lost within about twenty minutes. Maybe it was the acting but I found myself convinced as to why this film is \"unknown and underrated\": It's boring, there is no plot or basic story and the acting is horrible. This certainly is no \"Battleship Potemkin\", however I will say that Russian films do not make a real good effort in lightning up what life in Russia is like.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have barely managed to view the entire film... Only after about 85min out of the movie's 110min did the journey to Mars begin, and then there were 5min left for the closure. These 85 long minutes were VERY boring and didn't contribute anything to the film. When finally reaching Mars, it wasn't much better plot wise. It all could have been fitted into much shorter running time and nothing would have been missed.

What I cannot understand is the piece of trivia saying the because of the film new-born Babies were named \"Aelita\"... Why would someone want to name his\/her baby after a villain, who despite having only one eyebrow, apparently has 3 breasts???

The only interesting thing here is the sets and costumes for the Mars scenes. They are an interesting experiment in Constructivism, just as \"The cabinet of Dr. Caligari\" was for Expressionism, five years earlier.

I give it 4\/10 for the great looking design...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A dedicated Russian Scientist dreams of going to Mars. He eventually gets there but it takes the whole film before we are able to have a laugh at the Russian style of Revolution in Mars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is strange, even for a silent movie. Essentially, it follows the adventures about a engineer in post-revolutionary Russia who daydreams about going to Mars. In this movie, it seems like the producers KNOW the Communists have truly screwed up the country, but also seems to want to make it look like they've accomplished something good.

Then we get to the \"Martian\" scenes, where everyone on Mars wears goofy hats. They have a revolution after being inspired by the Earth Men, but are quickly betrayed by the Queen who sides with them. Except it's all a dream, or is it. (And given that the Russian Revolution eventually lead to the Stalin dictatorship, it makes you wonder if it was all allegory.)

Now, I've seen GOOD Russian cinema. For instance, Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin is a good movie. This is just, well, silly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After watching Avalon (which was decent only because of the very nice digital fx), and several anime films written by Oshii, including Jin-Roh (which is fantastic) I decided I should check out the Oshii cinema trilogy box set. Being that the Red Spectacles and Stray Dog are related, I will comment here on both. And let me tell you, it was one of the biggest wastes of money I have spent in a while. I first watched Stray Dogs and then The Red Spectacles. I am sad to say that these films are quite possibly the most boring two movies I have ever seen. For only about 10 minutes in each film do you get to see some action between the the characters, who are only dressed in the \"Panzer Cop\" outfits for a few fleeting scenes. The rest of the time you will see some very drawn out scenes filled with boring dialogue in some less than impressive locations. I really don't understand the motivation behind these two films at all. I love the Wolf Brigade outfits and the idea behind the plot, but the films themselves leave much to be desired. I would suggest NOT watching these films, and certainly do not buy the box set like I did, unless you enjoy wasting money. Oh, and if you are wondering what I think about the 3rd movie in the set, Talking Head, I couldn't even bring myself to watch it before I purged the box set from my DVD collection via eBay at a $20 loss. If you want cool Japanese live action, check out Returner, or Ichii the Killer or the Zeiram series.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Red spectacles

I loved Avalon, I think This director has made some awesome demented visions of the future. This film however was boring pretentious crap. The opening scene showed great promise for what the cover art and description promise a surreal live action amimae style future noir. I feel I got that with Avalon.

With Red Spectacles I was only driven to feel a uncomfortable to desire to what the hell the point was. The film barely made sense to me and I could not care less about the people in it. This would all be ok if the film was effective art. While the opening scene looked interesting and the scene with the giant robot-suit person holding the giant machine gun in the rain looked cool, it did not watch the film worth watching.

Thumbs down.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I guess this is in the public domain as its out on DVD. First off, this is a feel good propaganda movie to be shown to a wartime Aussie audience, so its not to be considered a serious retelling of Tobruk. The first half to 3\/4 is very dry stuff set in Australia, I guess like many American war films where the recruits are getting together, oh man its soooo long. Than we get to Africa and Tobruk, pretty bad, low budget stuff. The battle scenes on the DVD copy I watched were almost completely black. See it if you must, but be prepared to use the fast forward as I doubt you can take it after a few minutes. I enjoyed the cheesy Italian \"Battle of El Alamien\" a whole lot more, also Richard Burton did an African theater war flick that was good \"The Desert Rats\", this movie is just a real period piece and should have stayed in that time, does not hold up well today (I doubt it was highly regarded back then either). I say the same thing about my American counterpart war flicks so don't take it personally Aussies (I love Australia, been there twice!).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What You Need In the run up to 'What You Need', every episode since 'The Lonely' had been a winner to some extent. This episode is the first major failure since 'Escape Clause'. The Serling script is again based on someone else's materiel, a short story by Lewis Padgett. As with 'And When the Sky Was Opened', Serling altered the content significantly, removing a scientist and his machine and inserting an elderly peddler.

'What You Need' works best when it is being sweet. The opening half, in which the peddler provides customers in a bar with objects they will need in the near future, has a gentle charm about it that may have worn thin throughout an entire episode but works well in the time frame it is allotted. Sadly, the main plot which it sets up is full of gaping holes. The minute Steve Cochran's performance as a two-bit thug becomes the main focus the episode falls apart. Cochran's part is an underwritten stereotype and his flat performance highlights this flaw. His exploitation of the old peddler is dull and predictable and the revelation that he will murder the old man is totally unconvincing, making the whole slippery shoes scene seem completely false. Ernest Truex is good as the peddler, bringing a magical, mysterious but warm edge to the character, but he's not good enough to help the floundering script.

To make matters worse, the weak script is also full of inconsistencies. For instance, we learn that the peddler's power to provide people with what they need stems from an ability to see into the future. So how exactly does this allow him to produce a pen that will magically pick winning horses. That seems like it should be a little outside his realms of power. Also, for a man who can see the future, the peddler certainly acts surprised to find the thug waiting for him in his flat. There are many more holes that can be picked in 'What You Need' but it's hardly worth it when the episode is so thin that you can see through it anyway.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't mind some adult humor, but this feature was just downright dirty. The first 10 minutes consisted of Pryor swearing at some guy taking pictures, followed my even more profanities. I don't know what happened between that time the the last 5 minutes because I walked out. After seeing this I never looked at Richard Pryor the same way again. And to think that he actually went on to host a childrens' show.

If profanity and tasteless, unfunny dirty jokes make you laugh, then you'll probably enjoy this. But if you're an \"old-fashioned\" type, then don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This may not be the worst movie to ever win best picture but its up there. Well on second thought this is probably the worst film to ever win best picture. Still though you would expect it to be a worth while film. That in fact though if questionable as well. The film contains almost no depth and is just \"fun\" after \"fun\" if you want to call it that. At first its very interesting but it seems as if everything is exaggerated on so many levels.

The acting was not spectacular to watch but it was quite interesting seeing Charlton Heston in his first lead role. I found many of the characters like the tone of the movie annoying after awhile. Who I did like a lot was James Stewart as the philosophical clown. He to me saved the film in that he gave it a much needed extra layer. Sadly though after Stewart there was not much else.

The directing of the much respected Cecil DeMille was non existent to me. I found the movie corny at times and his use of Betty Hutton was a mistake. The look of the movie was very good at times but it did not generate that magical feeling that classics need to have. The writing was actually pretty good considering how shallow much of the movie was.

From movies like this did the term \"Hollywood Trash\" come up. There is no depth, no valid attempt at drawing emotions out of the audience and simply no artistic value to the film. Then of course the many holes in the plot throughout. This movie was consistently annoying and frustrating. I even had a sense through this film that much of what I was watching was not only and inaccurate depiction of circus life but instead the opposite of how it really is. Why this won best picture is beyond me but its not like the first or the last time the Oscars will and have made a mistake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In a year when \"Singin' in the Rain\" and \"High Noon\" were released, this overstuffed turkey somehow won the Oscar for Best Picture. Half the film is nothing more than circus performances. The other half is soap opera and melodrama. Heston and Wilde both overact, although they are models of restraint compared to the annoying Hutton. Playing a self-centered trapeze artist, Hutton acts like an overzealous high school student in a badly produced school play. Grahame is the only cast member to turn in a decent performance. DeMille has no interest in telling a good story, only in creating an overlong spectacle, not matter how dull.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, here's the short of it... this movie is full of corny dialogue, over the top acting, and a threadbare script.

There are moments that intended to be very dramatic but simply come off humorous because of the over the top acting and poorly written lines. I couldn't help laughing at moments that were meant to be very serious. The bright spot in this movie is the circus. Seeing the circus in its heyday was certainly a treat.

There are moments that come through as good. But then it nosedives right back into B-movie territory. I was tempted to stop watching it several times.

I certainly don't know how it won best picture, however. It must have been a slow year!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I used to always love the bill because of its great script and characters, but lately i feel as though it has turned into an emotional type of soap. If you look at promotional pictures\/posters of the bill now you will see either two of the officers hugging\/kissing or something to do with friendships whereas promotional pictures of the bill a long time ago would have shown something to do with crime. This proves that it has changed a lot from being an absolutely amazing Police drama to an average type of television soap. When i watch it i feel like I'm watching a police version of Coronation Street or something similar. I have to say i still like the bill as I'm interested in Police work and that type of thing but i really miss the greatness that The Bill used to have. I want to rate it as 2 out of ten because you have to admit it has been totally ruined by the people who took the bill over.

As for the script and characters they have both gone downhill, most of the great characters are gone now (although a few still remain i think) and I'm not saying that the newer characters are poor or anything because they definitely aren't, its just that they lack the tough looks, personalities and script lines that all of the old characters used to have because most of the new ones are at the moment involved with silly relationships and family trouble.

Overall being one of the only Police programs on television these days, The Bill will always be a crappily interesting thing to watch, but like i say it has lost a lot of its uniqueness (if thats the right spelling) and would now be classed as a terrible, unreal television soap.

Recommended to watch for a good laugh over the stupidity of the police officers involved - 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ravi Chopra wrote this film 40 years back, wanted to cast Dilip Kumar in the lead

The film finally was re-written and made in 2003 and hence the subject looks dated and too superficial at times

Like the reason Amitabh-Hema separate is too superficial even the way the youth are shown is too bad like Gulshan in AVTAAR

The message though comes well but things are presented in a clich\u00e9d manner Salman's character is the worst, looks straight out of a storybook while the climax speech of Bachchan is good and also the final of not forgiving the sons is good

Ravi Chopra does a good job Music is decent, the songs sung by Bachchan stand out

Amitabh excels like always, he has played an elder stern father earlier but here he plays a victim and portrays it well His last speech is great Hema is good in her part Aman Verma stands out Samir Soni is okay, Naseer and the rest sons and wives are decent though Divya Dutta stands out Salman Khan is fake, Mahima is okay Paresh and Lillete are lovable","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two days ago I got a chance to watch this movie on Cable (TV-Asia). I have been very disturbed since then. The movie \"Baghban\" has been very successful in portraying only one side of the real life. It is highly partial towards parents. Have you ever thought of other side (kids)?? There are few parents in this world who just give birth to their kids but don't give right parental care. I am a victim of that. Why do you (parents) want to have 5 kids in your life if you are merely making only Rs 2000 per month? I was made to work on streets along with my siblings. I have no idea how I managed to reach IIT from there. It has been a long time since then but still I don't believe. Now I am a research scientist here in USA. I have provided all the necessities to my parents along with care by my two brothers who stay along with them. They could not provide basic things to us when we were kids. I find this movie very resentful. Its very partial. It has hurt my sentiments very deeply. I strongly urge the producer\/director of this movie to look at the Indian society in other point of view also and make another movie. I can be reached at john_simension@yahoo.com","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie truly shows the farce and hypocrisy of Indian society. What it tries to show you is only ONE side of the story. The other side of the story is the hidden emotional and mental abuse of Indian children which this movie does not show.

\"Indian Parents\" are culpable for the following: a. Destroying the individuality of the children by making them completely dependent on the parents at a very early age. Such children grow up to be Adults only in physical looks but remain children in minds. Since everything has been provided to them by their great Indian parents, They children automatically do not feel the need to work hard at something or learn the basics of human communication with other human beings apart from their parents.

B. I can show you so many Indian parents who try to prevent their kids making friends, going out or prevent them to do anything which starts making them to grow into adults.

The reason why they do is the same selfishness. Indian parents \"expect\" their children to take care of them when they grow old. They do no savings for themselves and once they reach the age of 50...They cry out LOUD......We have grown old now and so we are dependent on you children since we have done the GREAT SERVICE of bringing you to this world and taking care of you and making you intellectually weak.

Most of the Indian parents at the age of 50 have dilapidated bodies and health and are financially completely insecure. Most feel that they ABSOLUTELY have no need to take care of themselves since they \"expect\" their kids to take care of them.

In the west the opposite of that happens. People start planning at the age of 20 about their retirement and once they retire they are financially secure.

Indian parents do NOTHING of that sort since like I said they have brought the kids in the world and what better investment at that?.

I am a victim of my Indian parents (i am sure there are countless other Indian kids like me), who have grown up physically but are still struggling with their lives on THEIR OWN and they continue to have pestering 50 year olds who cry out loud for HELP all the time.

This movie shows only ONE side of the story.....UTTER piece of JUNK","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watching \"Baghban\" is the movie equivalent of trying to eat one's way out of a vat of saltwater taffy for nigh unto three hours. This Indian film is a sticky sweet, sentimental soap opera that starts off like \"King Lear,\" moves on to \"Romeo and Juliet\" in the middle section, then heads back again to \"King Lear\" for its tear-soaked finale.

Raj Malhotra is a bank accountant who seems to have everything a man could possibly want out of life: a wife who adores him, a family who loves him, and a job from which he is about to retire after a lifetime of faithful service. Even though Raj and his wife, Pooja, have been married for 40 years and have four grown sons, they still act like a couple of love struck newlyweds, cooing and sighing, batting their eyes at one another and whispering sweet nothings into each other's ears almost to the point of nausea. In fact, the whole bloody brood is so happy, loving and harmonious that they make the Von Trapps look like a dysfunctional family in comparison. The parents and children joke together, laugh together, even perform elaborately choreographed, \"spontaneous\" song-and-dance numbers together (like many Bollywood productions, \"Baghban\" is a drama interspersed with a great number - in this case, far too great a number - of musical sequences).

Anyone who knows anything at all about storytelling is aware that such unadulterated bliss can not be allowed to go unpunished for long, and that all that joy is merely the prelude to some awful catastrophe destined to come crashing down on the heads of our unsuspecting revelers. Knowing this, we spend the first hour of the film in fearful expectation, wondering just what form that disaster will take when it does finally arrive. The thunderclap occurs about an hour into the film, when Raj announces to his children that he and their mother have decided to move in with one of their families, leaving the choice of which one it will be up to the kids and their respective spouses. Suddenly, like King Lear discovering the vipers hidden in the familial bosom, Raj finds out that his children are not quite as loving, selfless and eager to share their homes and lives with their parents as he had originally thought. Understandably horrified at the prospect, the kids, in order to foil their parents' plan, come up with a scheme in which Raj will go live with one of their children, while Pooja will live with another; then they will switch off until, eventually, each of the children has had a chance to host both parents and then the cycle will repeat itself ad infinitum. Much to the chagrin of the kids, the parents accede to the plan, even though the two are deeply in love with one another and have never spent any time apart. Thus, the second and most of the third hour are spent with the two aging (albeit married) lovers pining away for one another, while their ungrateful, insensitive little brats do everything in their power to make their parents understand how unwelcome they are in their homes.

One of the major problems with \"Baghban\" is that it lacks subtlety in both its storytelling and direction. The love that Ray and Pooja feel for one another, as well as the almost giddy closeness of the family unit, is laid on so thickly in the first hour that the film almost collapses under the weight of the sentimentality. Then, virtually without any warning, the screenplay turns on a dime and converts the kids into callous, self-centered monsters and the parents into passive, whiny victims of that callousness. Raj and Pooja are a little too long in the tooth and a little too self-reliant to be doing the dreamy-eyed, pouting, unrequited love bit, more appropriate to lovelorn school kids than the parents of four grown children. The purple prose style, in which every emotion is underlined and highlighted, leads to intense overacting and a heavy reliance on corny reaction shots and melodramatic music for punctuation. The musical numbers convey a certain liberating joy in the beginning, but they go on for so long and turn up so frequently that they quickly lose their effectiveness and serve only to pad out the material to unendurable proportions. At least a full hour could be excised from this bloated production with no discernible harm being done - and quite a bit of good. There really is no reason why this film needs to drag on for a punishing three hours. Most egregious of all is the seemingly endless harangue we are subjected to an the end, a speech in which Raj (who has somehow managed to turn his experiences into an award-winning bestseller) lectures us all on the verities of parent\/child relationships for ten straight minutes at the very least.

\"Baghban\" is a sappy, corny saga, filled with more sugar and goo than a king-sized box of See's chocolates. Sample at your own risk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is a movie which reminds me of avatar- starring rajesh khanna from the 80's. the issue of parents-kids divide is interesting but was handled in a rather unoriginal manner.. the characters were not developed fully and the kids seemed to go from being extermely loving ( in the first 15mts of the movie) to being totally unconcerned about the parents,, this transformation was not credible to say the least..they sld have explored this a little more. amitabh and jaya were miscast as this helpless old couple.. firstly amit was not too convincing in this role,because he just did not look like he should be helpless, i mean why not just go back to work where he is wanted instead of being w\/ kids who didnt want them.. hema was not convincing as a 60 yr old either... she didnt look a day over 50.. then the whole isssue of the book baghban winning the booker prize begged credibility.. all in all, a movie that handles an important issue but cld have been made better, i give it 5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard to make a bad movie with the \"underdog finally succeeds\" sport theme, but this movie succeeds admirably. My mind boggles at how pointless and boring this film is.

I guess the director couldn't decide whether this was about the runner or the coach. It ends up being about neither. Ultimately, who cares? Neither character has a likable personality. There is nothing in the movie to make you care about anyone. Even the \"bad guy\" isn't really bad. (I think he's in two scenes, and seemingly is on some kind of barbituate. ) I think he asks her, once and politely, to leave the coach and train with him. Then later he kinda' sorta' asks her to move in with him. that's it. Conflict! Tension! What will she do? !!

-And what's with the depiction of running? Has the director ever SEEN an actual marathon? Christine's form is so incorrect it's absurd, as is the form of the supposed \"champion\" she competes with (A character with no lines. -Maybe they could have hired, you know, an actual RUNNER?)

-And the speed the run at is beyond comprehension. Were they running or speed walking? It's actually laughable. I can literally walk backwards faster then they were running in the big race. Maybe it was too hard to move the cameras at real speed?

Another absurdity: (spoiler, I guess) At one point in the big race, the two women in the lead inexplicably fall, at the same time. What they fell on is a mystery. Maybe they both just got exhausted and fell down? -And then they get up, but don't start running again for maybe 30 seconds. Oh yeah, very realistic. This ridiculous event doesn't even add any tension, since the other runners are not close, and besides at this point you have been numbed into a state of catatonia.

-I especially enjoyed how all four of her male teammates, highly trained athletes all, drop out of the big race due to charlie-horses, or pulled tendons, or something just as improbable.

But who cares? This movie has almost no tension, no resolution, nothing. Some woman runner with absolutely no personality is discovered by an old, boring coach with some past failure that is barely hinted at. They train a lot. She is not happy. They train some more. She wins da big race. Woopie.

My description is actually more interesting than the actual movie. I just saved you 90 minutes. Avoid this one like the plague.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I only caught the tail end of this film on HBO, just the final 10 minutes or so, but I must say that it contains probably the most laughable depiction of distance running EVER put on film! I'm a serious distance runner and a dedicated fan of the sport, and I've sat through many painful demonstrations in movies before. However, nothing could have ever prepared me for what is shown on screen in the final 10 minutes of this movie, it literally defies belief! The depiction of the runners is even more ironic considering that African runners completely dominate the sport, and they are elegant and graceful. The female protagonist shuffles along like an overweight pregnant woman, and her \"highly trained\" male supporters are no better. Well into the race this alleged world class runner is surrounded by pudgy, overweight people, many of whom are WALKING! I find it interesting that the director decided to have her lead the female competition, yet near the end she is shown passing people who look like they're staggering along on two broken legs! Are we to believe that this amazing stellar athlete has only overtaken a crippled person at the very end of the race? Maybe the director just thinks that female runners can't run faster than 12 minute miles, and he has obviously never heard of athletes like Paula Radcliffe or Tirunesh Dibaba.

Even if you aren't a running fan you'll be astonished by the insanely inaccurate portrayal of running, and this movie is only watchable as unintentional comedy. Here is a note to the director: The next time you decide to make a movie about a sport, it might be worth it to hire at least one person who actually has observed that sport in action.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe it gets better. I wouldn't know. I made it through the first twenty minutes or so before cutting it off and entering a period of mourning. It was obvious that the plot itself was a familiar one. A man, Paul LeMatt, a professor of entymology at Columbia, drives with his dog to a small town in Ohio in search of his ex wife, Diana Scarwid. There he encounters people who either ignore him or are hostile. Oh, they may smile but there's something going on underneath.

That sort of arrangement is home turf for movie makers and viewers alike, and it's pregnant with possibilities. You can turn out a neatly drawn commercial success like \"Bad Day at Black Rock.\" Or it would have made, and probably DID make, a nice \"Twilight Zone\" episode.

The cast includes some seasoned performers too, as well as some formerly prominent names. Kenneth Toby, a veteran of science fiction, is the superficially amiable motel manager. Diana Scarwid can give an impressive performance, as she did in, say, \"Silkwood.\" For some of the others, their range is limited.

But it's poorly directed and shabbily written.

Example of shabby direction. That dog of LeMatt's is disliked by Kenneth Toby, right off the bat. So when LeMatt walks out to the street, Toby sneaks up to the window of his room, peers in at the dog, and something zaps. Cut to LeMatt in the street. He hears his dog howling away. Then a POV shot of presumably the dog zipping along towards LeMatt then past him while the wind blows and LeMatt gawks at the camera. Cut to an identical shot -- coming from the other direction! Whatever the camera represents, whatever LeMatt is staring at, is never shown. Maybe it was nothing, because suddenly the wind stops and LeMatt is alone in the street, looking a little bit puzzled. \"You should never have brought that dog in the first place,\" remarks a smiling Toby from the porch. Question: What the hell is that scene all about?

Example of shabby writing. Well, TWO examples. (1) If you were to sit down and write a stereotypical waitress in a small-town diner, without the exercise of any craft whatever, you'd come up with an expressionless babe with her hair piled on top of her head, chewing gum, sauntering among the tables. Right. (2) Anything resembling believability is thrown out the window in favor of special effects. LeMatt's car chugs to a halt, then explodes while it is waiting to be fixed at the garage. Chugging to a halt: believable. Exploding: supernatural. Not even Edgar Allan Poe would endorse such an event.

And the invaders themselves? Think of a modest masterpiece like \"Invasion of the Body Snatchers.\" Something is going wrong in Dr. Kevin McCarthy's small town, and it takes half the movie for the mystery to be unraveled, and all the time suspense is building and doubt is growing. Here, twenty minutes into the movie, a stranger walks into a motel room and tears off his plastic face, revealing a pulsing, light-emitting, naked brain. The pregnancy is aborted.

I won't tell you the ending because I don't know what it is, nor do I care. I suppose it had something to do with insects because why else would Paul LeMatt be an entymologist? (By the way, who's handling his classes?) But I'm not even sure bugs were involved. It's entirely possible that the bug business was adventitious. The writers may have made him a specialist in insects and then forgot all about it. It wouldn't surprise me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love movies, all genres, and from big dollar spectacles to small indie projects. But even making allowance for this piece of junk being 25 years old and its attempt at homage to the 1950's it just suffers in almost aspect, by which we judge films.

Throughout the movie, I was reminded of several \"student films,\" I've had a chance to watch, efforts where creativity is required to fill gaps where funds are needed.

All in all, chances are there are much better uses for 90 minutes of your life.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where to begin.... This hideous excuse for a motion picture makes \"Plan 9 From Outer Space\" look well thought out. The music? It's culled from every single overwrought piece of PD shlock in existence. The focus? Hell, doesn't matter if in one shot there are thirty people standing in the road; the new angle shows a lone Packard with a waitress posing for Argosy Mag shots. Paul Le Mat, Diana Scarwid, Louise Fletcher, Wallace Shawn: fine actors who must have all been starving to death at that point in their lives and the director lured them to sign on with tempting bits of cat food. The production budget must have skyrocketed to well over fifty cents with the addition of The Space Alien Phallic Transportation Machine which, for a time, must have meant that the Oscar Meyer Wiener Mobile was not available. When Bad Movies Happen to Good Actors","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is somewhere in here the makings of a decent if routine SF story. It is thwarted by several factors. First, the actor is just awful. Even the competent actors are awful. The dialog is wooden and stilted. The plot plods along predictably. This seems less like a finished movie than actors going through a walk through. Extremely disappointing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must say, I found this movie very disappointing. Yes, I know Maltin gave it 3 1\/2 and others think very highly of it. But, well, the opera sequences were god-awful. I take it Jeannete MacDonald is an acquired taste. Yes, in the short sequences I have seen her with Nelson Eddy, she is immensely preferable to him. But on her own...God, I dislike opera and despise operetta, and she is basically intolerable. At one point I had to cover my ears. Gable is just OK, and Tracy is thrown away. The plot is annoying in the JM never simply tells Gable she loves him and the opera and why can't she do both? Instead she suffers silently (or not so) with the compromises she makes. The supporting cast is distinctly unmemorable. Besides the star three and Jack Holt (and I suppose his mother), they all are just background and forgettable. The EQ sequence is the only thing that saves the movie. And just. Yes, it is fairly spectacular and moving. But the \"oh God is great\" seems very contrived. I immensely prefer \"In Old Chicago\" as far as old time disaster spectaculars go. Spare yourself on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"San Francisco, Oh you marvelously desolated town, Thank You, God, for destroying it, and making bricks fall on our collective heads, and for pummeling into oblivion tens of thousands of Your innocent, obedient sheep, oh Lord, who art so merciful in thy Heavenly ways...\" These should have been the lyrics to the title song of this oh-so inspiring and utterly mindless film.

The movie starts well enough, with Gable discovering a Cinderella with a highly annoying but much-appreciated operatic voice, and she soon shoots to stardom. One of the many problems with our Cinderella is that she is played by Jeanette MacDonald, who, if one \"takes the time\" to look through all that make-up and 30s glitz facade, realizes that she is kind of ugly. Too ugly to be playing THIS role, anyway. Yet Gable and everyone else fawn all over here as if she were some damn beauty or something. Another problem with Cinderella is that her character is so utterly humble, wholesome, innocent, God-loving, kind, and generous - enough to make you vomit for a full hour. MacDonald plays her (admittedly one-dimensional) role with the sort of \"ahhh\", \"oh\", and \"ooh\" that serves to annoy rather than make her sympathetic.

Tracy has been better, and had better roles, than playing this clich\u00e9d, heart-of-gold, God-loving, non-child-molesting priest (who boxes in his \"free time\" - as if priests have anything to do - how cute). Even the ever-reliable Gable is not up to his usual standard; he is far too animated, and his character is far too selfless for someone who is supposed to be an ambitious Western \"scoundrel\" (though this, obviously, is the script's fault).

The plot is basically this: Gable and his rival Holt play ping-pong with Cinderella - using her as the ball. How? Well, first she is working (singing) for Gable, then she works for the square Holt, then she goes back to Gable, only to return very soon to Holt. (And, of course, both want to have her as girlfriend\/wife.) And if the earthquake hadn't interrupted this table-tennis plot, it's a safe bet that she would have been bouncing back-and-forth another ten times, the wishy-washy little princess that she is.

There are many, far too many in fact, musical numbers. It's almost as though they tried to make the first \"disaster-movie musical\" ever. How silly. The stuff she sings in Gable's \"joint\" is okay, but when she starts belting out those high-pitched, annoying whines during the opera segments, that is when I felt that my ears were unprovokingly and unjustly attacked by enemy sound-fire. In fact, there is an opera number that lasts 6 DAMN MINUTES. 6 may seem like little, for those who haven't had first-hand Vietoperanam experience with such horrors of audio torture, but it's like with dog years; a dog's year is equivalent to seven human ones. A minute of opera is equivalent to 100 minutes of Chinese torture (or a dog urinating acid on your leg).

I thought this was a disaster movie, but it's more like a near-disaster movie. (I read that some of the dialog in this film was written by a SILENT-ERA FILM DIRECTOR. Jesus...) The melodramatic, and only occasionally amusing, proceedings get interrupted by the real star of this movie (namely, the earthquake), only after well over one-and-a-half hours. When Joe the earthquake finally does shake up the city, and our clich\u00e9d characters in it, I almost felt like saying \"Thank God, death and destruction are finally here!\". Unfortunately, Joe comes too late into the movie to save it from its increasing mediocrity; the scenes of devastation are very good, but even the earthquake part of the movie gets ruined (pun) by a highly annoying, religious ending. You see, Gable, who professes to be an atheist all along (without actually using the word itself), finally finds MacDonald alive - after having searched for days - and suddenly he is converted into a believer because Cinderella is alive?!! How stupid! All that tells me is that Gable's character is a weak-minded moron.

The movie ends on a very dumb note, indeed. Gable, having said \"thank you\" to God for \"saving\" his girl (and he does his on his knees) \"finds\" God (sees the light), and the movie's little old devil Gable converts himself into a believer. How very God-fearingly American an ending...

Of course, no one thought of asking this \"God\" why the hell there was an earthquake in the first place! The sad and unintentional irony is that Gable in the end becomes a \"sucker\"; all along he had made fun of \"suckers\" who fall for the holiest scam of them all - namely religion - and in the end he himself becomes one. Now that's what I call a triumph of the human spirit! Another irony is that the ending was supposed to have improved Gable as a person, but I see it quite differently; on the contrary: it took only one big Joe to turn Gable into a God-fearing, meek, little, obedient believer - who joins the world's sheep family. And as if this intellectual downfall of Gable's wasn't pathetic and disappointing enough, this first-ever \"earthquake musical\" ends with a truly hair-raising (take this word as you will), noble, and hope-inspiringly beautiful mass-choir scene: dozens (or hundreds) of earthquake survivors and proud, proud citizens of Frisco spontaneously (or did \"God\" perhaps arrange it?) sing all together the title song in hope for a better, brighter, Joe-less future. Hallelujah! If you are a \"sucker\" for Hollywood sentimentality, do not skip this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie features a pretty decent FX sequence of an earthquake for 1936. The reason you haven't seen it, is because audiences in the 30s were enamored of the \"Jeanette MacDonald picture;\" in which the eponymous star warbled her way through countless songs, while plots came to a complete standstill. The FX cross time very well. MacDonald's songs do not, and the awkward insertion of said songs to show off her only typical talent is not good.

The hoary device of two friends growing up to become a priest and a hoodlum is given another run through the machinery (Manhattan Melodrama, The Departed). At the 30 minute mark, you've already heard the song 'San Francisco' three times. Entertainment in the thirties is generally an accumulation of irritation. Only Grand Hotel from the decade foregoes annoyance to the degree shown in San Francisco, Dinner at 8, Little Caesar, Stagecoach, All Quiet on the Western Front, Les Miserables etc..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was expecting to view a more exploitation style of film but unfortunately this turned out to be just a badly made low budget action flick that just doesn't have the talent for that. Story is about a very beautiful woman named Teri Marshall (Heather Thomas) who's boyfriend Rick (Jeffrey Combs) works for a secret agency and he has invented a motorcycle that is bullet proof and can shoot lasers and rockets and has a helmet that can shoot lasers as well. The head of the agency Bosarian (Martin Landau) has made a 5 million dollar deal to sell it and sends two hired thugs to kill Rick and Teri and collect the bike. A tall blond thug named Rolf (Dar Robinson) and his partner Hanna (Dawn Wildsmith) manage to kill Rick but Teri survives. While at home she discovers a video tape that Rick left describing his invention that helps Teri on what to do next.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Teri is being chased by several agents and she gets caught and tortured but doesn't talk about where a piece of the motorcycle that is needed but she gets help from a federal agent named Waters (Martine Beswick) where they end up using the motorcycle for a bloody shoot-out.

This film is directed by Fred Olen Ray who has made his career out of making ultra-low budget exploitation films but he made a dire mistake here by leaving out the exploitation aspect and trying to make an action film. Aside from a quick shower scene at the beginning there is no nudity and the usual titillation that viewers are accustomed to seeing in a Ray film is no where to be found. I don't think anyone was expecting Thomas to get naked but she doesn't wear one sexy outfit. Not that it stopped me from ogling her in those tight jeans and admiring her near perfect form but Ray really blew it in this case. Like all of his films the cast is fun to watch and many familiar faces have roles like Robert Quarry, Huntz Hall, Troy Donahue, Tim Conway Jr., Michael Reagan, and Russ Tamblyn. Stuntman Dar Robinson died shortly after this was made and it's his last acting effort and the film is dedicated to him. You have to wonder why Landau would waste him time with such junk like this but I was interested in the casting of Combs in a very rare romantic role. Is Thomas any good in this film? Who cares! I think she showed that she could have become a popular \"B\" movie starlet if she wanted but it never did happen. Ray wastes everyone's time with this effort although the cast is fun to watch but he left out the elements that make him an enjoyable filmmaker.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although I am a fan of Heather Thomas and I have a few of her old bikini posters around here somewhere, I can honestly say that if the only movie I had ever seen her in was \"Cyclone\", I would never be able to guess why she had made it as far as she had in show business.

Directed by Fred Olen Ray (about as good an omen as seeing buzzards circle over head in the desert), this tale of a woman (Thomas) who must protect a high-tech motorcycle from unscrupulous types is about as \"B\" movie as it gets (or in Fred Olen's case, \"B minus\").

The cast itself should tell you something. It's not every movie that combines Thomas with actors the calibre of Beswick, Hall, Combs, Donahue, Tamblyn and Landau (!!). If you're lucky, very few movies do. And even though they seem to be having fun, shouldn't some of that fun be passed on to the audience? I vote yes, seems they voted no.

Of course, if you ever wanted to see Heather deliver an uppercut to another woman, use the \"F\" word and get hooked up to battery cables, you've probably been looking for this one. Myself, I'll be content with old \"Fall Guy\" reruns.

One star, given in hopes that when another \"Cyclone\" hits town, Heather runs for shelter. I know I will.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rarely does one find a movie so bad that it achieves the often-sought paradigm of having so little redeeming value that that alone makes it worth watching. \"Cyclone,\" I am happy to report, is such a film.

I knew I was in for something good as soon as I found the videotape. I am at least its fourth owner: It has a \"Used Movie Sale! $9.95\" sticker on the front, and a yard-sale sticker for one dollar. I picked it up at a thrift store for fifty cents.

The Used Movie Sale! sticker covers much of the front cover artwork, meaning that what I see is a truly odd blended still of the front of the Cyclone super bike, a car flipping over on fire, and Heather Thomas, wearing Flouncy Eighties Hair with her mouth open in an expression that says, \"I 'ave a 'ooth ache.\" I saw that and thought, \"All RIGHT.\" The case, honestly, was enough (\"with nowhere to turn and no one to trust, Teri is plunged headlong into a maze of danger and deceit\"), but I surprised myself by actually getting around to watching it. I always make time for the really bad films. That \"Fight Club\" tape can wait.

Meet Teri. Teri is a stunningly well-crafted character, as we can tell from her introduction, in which she and her friend do exercises that highlight her breasts and, later, her legwarmers. Then Teri goes off to hook up with her boyfriend for the evening that goes horribly wrong. Before she knows it, Teri is driven \"straight into a web of deadly double-crosses in CYCLONE.\" The VHS box tells it like it is.

Left out of the box summary - perhaps out of some faint hope that actual copies of this film would be sold - is how awful the acting is. It might have been just me, but I kept thinking I could read the characters' thoughts through their eyes. \"This is dumb,\" thinks Heather Thomas. \"I know,\" thinks Bad Guy with Too-Wide Mouth.

A driving force (no pun intended) for the second half of this epic picture are the car chases. Those were actually pretty good, although I'm inclined that gasoline doesn't need coaching on how to explode. What really impressed me is that, in all the chases, the streets were pretty much empty. It's like there are only twenty people in this huge city.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, \"Gee Wilikers! I have to see this movie!\" The sad thing, though, is that you can't find it. Oh no. \"Cyclone\" is a film that finds YOU. Just wait. Some day - perhaps during lunch, perhaps late in the evening, perhaps \"when military scientist Jeffery Combs ('Re-Animator')is murdered by hired assassins\" - you will hear the rustle of legwarmers, and know that it is time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was in a box set with 20 others, with varying quality, & I can safely say that this title was right at the bottom of the heap.

It is pointless to go through the plot, what there was of it, picking out what was wrong, as I haven't got all day & life is to short, which reminds me, I have just lost around 85 minutes of mine watching this tripe.

The acting was diabolically bad in a way that made it funny, though only just, whilst the comedy elements like the two idiotic cops must have made any Laurel & Hardy fans groan. One of the only barely funny moments was when the leading lady made a joke about her former friends plastic T*ts, which would have been okay if I hadn't had to watch them bob around whenever she waddled on the screen.

The lowest I can give is one, & it probably deserves that for having Heather Thomas in it, as she was certainly sexy & shapely, though her acting was as bad as everyone else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only thing I expected that this film didn't have was an intelligent, talking motorcycle.

This film is just plain awful. I gave it 1 star, which of course, means I enjoyed it tremendously. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad fight choreography. The only real actor in this movie is Martin Landau, who of course does a good job playing the villain, although the character is your standard cardboard cutout evil CEO\/Villain. Even the so-called \"plot twist\" at the end was no shock.

There was so much to make fun of in this movie, I enjoyed it a lot. And it did have a few impressive car wreck stunts.

Like bad movies? Check this one out, ouch. Want a good movie? Not here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cyclone is a piece of dreck with little redeeming value, even on the so bad its entertaining front. A friend of mine took the tape from an overflowing St. Vincent DePaul clothes bin. Okay, that may be a little bit dodgy but it was meant to be a clothes bin, not a crappy old VHS bin, something the less fortunate members of our society don't really need to make their lives better. It could be considered a mercy. Watching a movie like Cyclone would really only add to their problems. Anyway the basic premise of a woman with a super-powerful motorcycle that it armed to the teeth with rockets and lasers isn't even properly exploited. The two 'high speed' chase sequences involve vehicles travelling at less than hair raising speeds of around 40 KMPH and a super-fast motorcycle that is in danger of being overtaken by a crappy old station wagon is not that awe inspiring when you get down to it. There is only one scene where the bikes goofy weaponry is used, at the film's climax, and it is laughably ineffectual, or just laughable, when it is. This includes laser beams that look like they should be coming out of the hands of an evil wizard in a cheesy eighties sword and sorcery that produced large bursts of flame which seem to have no noticeable effect on their targets even when they hit directly. The rest of the movie is just tedious hard to watch filler. Lots of bad actors, yes even Combs and Landau suck in this, most of whom seem like they have been lifted from the set of a porno movie stand around exchanging really bad dialogue in a desperate attempt to pus forward the barely coherent plot. There are a few badly staged fight sequences and some excruciatingly unfunny comic relief scenes with some cops and the owner of the motor cycle repair shop. Comedy of the sub Benny Hill horny old man can't stop staring at the female leads chest variety. Basically the 'money' scenes involving the bike actually doing stuff are few and lame and the rest is clunky filler material. Skip it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being (somewhat) an independent filmmaker myself, I really understand what these guys were trying to do and it sounds like a good idea. On paper. On 16mm film, however, it's awful. I didn't realize the thing was made in the mid 90's because the film was so grainy and bad I would have sworn this was one of those 30 year old flicks where a porn producer tried to go mainstream. And the sound! Ugh, I don't know what kind of mic they were using to record but it sounds like someone is walking over dead leaves throughout the entire thing. I guess I shouldn't judge too harshly, after all, how many feature films has MY company put out? None, but I'd like to think that we'd at least have good picture and sound quality to go with our poor acting, writing, and directing. A+ for idea, F-- for execution.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Gave it two stars because the DVD cover was good enough to make me buy this piece of horse manure. I paid a dollar for it at the local DVD exchange and I want my money back. I have a couple of good movies(at least I think they're good) that have never seen the inside of a video store. After seeing this, I'm really insulted by that. Light years worse than anything I've ever seen, I can't even recommend this as a campy joke movie. It is so bad, instead of making you laugh it makes you angry. How did this awful film find any kind of distro? I can only believe it was self distributed as the amateurish DVD authoring would suggest. To the producers of this \"movie\" get out of the business, it's obvious you have no talent for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has one or two slightly interesting gags but they are NOT worth the wait. After an unexplained argument between two guys picking up litter in a drive-in movie theatre we cut to a family leaving! Hollywood and driving driving driving driving their camper van across the screen again and again as inane dialogue is voiced over. At least I think it's inane, the terrible song that accompanies this montage is mixed so loud it renders the dialogue at times almost inaudible.

Finally the camper van arrives, at night, at a gas station where the family get out, have another inane conversation, before driving off. The camera then pans across to reveal the actor we have just seen drive away. He talks straight to camera and we realise he is the director of the movie we are watching which is about him, and how he came to make the movie.

A nice idea which ALMOST (but not quite) makes the previous sequences worth the pain.

As the movie unfolds he encounters the two characters we met picking litter at the start of the movie and they all form a motion picture company.

All sorts of not very funny and clumsy comedy ensues as they put together a crew and attempt to raise the cash needed to start filming.

This movie was obviously put together on a shoe string and a promise and there is a nice little idea in here struggling to get out but the execution is so inept that the idea gets lost. Comedy is more than things just falling over and everyone talking (or shouting) at once. So much of the dialogue here is shouted by several actors simultaneously - Robert Altman can do this sort of thing well because he has a script, rehearsals, decent sound techies, and editing facilities. Everyone shouting at the one mike which, by the sound of it, was hidden in a dustbin in the next room, does not make for clarity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With the little respect it deserves, I would like to state that this movie was horrible. The filmmakers had good intentions, but the overall quality of the direction and production value was obviously lacking a great deal. I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes a good hard laugh and then wasting two more hours of their life enduring a truly painful experience. I'm surprised I even found this movie on the $1 DVD rack where it was aptly placed. I thought maybe it was going to be good and that I might discover some amazing independent film - I was wrong. I wish I had never seen this movie. My 3-year-old cousin couldn't make a worse film. I'm glad I saw the film because I can finally tell people I've seen the worst movie ever made, and be sure of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a laugh and a half. From the first scene, where we have an appearance of Mel Torme as a big, bad Jaguar drivin' stud muffin gang leader(and that's a giggle-fest in itself), to the final image of Mamie Van Doren, now a rehabilitated angelic teen strolling out of the prison(errr..loving girl's home run by iron fisted nuns), you can't stop shaking your head. The cast of this movie is a cheesy list from Mel and Mamie to the talentless Paul Anka(all I wanted through most of this movie was for him to just STOP SINGING!) and the King of Forty Year Old Teens, Dick Contino. Gloria Talbot, playing a humorless teen girl with more than a few chops(judo, not acting) I last saw in the horrible misogynist 50's romp Leech Woman, with a hairstyle so bad it looked like a dead woodchuck that had been squashed by a Mac truck.

Mamie is a bad, bad girl-she smokes, swears, runs wild, hits teachers, and runs around with gang leaders. She dumps her idiot Jaguar driving boyfriend Chip(who we see in the first scene trying to rape a blonde girl, before he falls off a cliff-nice guy), and proceeds to take up with Dick Contino instead. Whether this is a step up for her is anybody's guess. Mel shows up at a party she's at with her new beau, and accuses her of pushing the nasty Chip off the cliff. While I'm sure that she would have liked to, she wasn't there. A stupid fight scene between Contino and his gang and Mel and his jazz freaks ensues, with some hilariously bad moves on both sides.

Mamie ends up being sent to girls town, a reform school..errr...loving home for erring girls..run by Sister Iron Pants and her fellow sisters of correction. She annoys the nuns(and us) by scatting, tossing off sullen one-liners, and just generally showing how bad she is. She quickly runs into Gloria Talbot, playing one of the misbehaving girls, who gives her a chop sockey so that she knows her place. She meets a limp noodle of a girl who's obsessed with Paul Anka's character(why?). This little drip becomes her 'henchman'.

There's a long bit of movie where nothing much happens, except St. Paul of Anka keeps showing up and proving how saintly he is. He sings way too much in this interval, until you want to smack him in his huge snozz to just make him be quiet! And Mamie's little sister, played by Princess of Father Know's Best fame, calls her to tell her she's in trouble. Turns out it was sis who went out with the Chipster, and now Mel's blackmailing her because he found out. The girls all break out to go save her, with a hysterical fight scene between the girls and Mel and his boys. this is after a race between Mel and Dick that is just so stupid that it boggles the mind. The overage teenagers in this corny movie have a fabulous good time romping through what is basically a silly, badly written and morally preachy film that accomplishes none if its aims-unless its aim was to make you laugh out loud.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Admittedly, I watched the MST3K version of this, but it's not actually too bad outright, at least compared to others which deserve my cinematic hatred.

The story centers around a troubled girl wrongly sent to a \"reform school\" called Girls' Town. Along way, races, redemption, and wackiness (unintentional) happen. The story and acting are a little flat, as is the action. However, the entire thing is actually entertaining to a degree if you are absolutely bored.

Overall, just a simple sub par 50's flick, but far from the worst movie ever made, with some bright spots in the movie (The Ave Maria sequence was good for me).

If you get a chance to watch the MST3K version, you won't be disappointed. By it self, not so much, but I can think of worse methods of torture (\"Spiker\" anyone?).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Froggie is upset that he never has a big party like all the other kids. Spanky and the gang seek to remedy that by giving him a surprise party. Unaware that all the decorations and preparations are for him Froggy sabotages everything only to find out too late that the party is for him.

Okay Our Gang comedy works in fits and starts. The bits work but I don't think it really works as a whole. Part of the problem is that we all know where this is going and since much of the humor needs to have some form of surprise for it to work the whole thing falls down. I think in a weird way the film just sort of misses. Its the type of thing that had they actually thought about it might have amounted to something more than a misfire. Worth trying if you lower your expectations","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two years after this short, the last \"Our Gang\" short was made. After seeing this, you wonder how it even lasted that much longer. The quality of \"Our Gang\" nosedived soon after moving from Hal Roach to MGM, and this short is a perfect example. The gags are all very unfunny and Froggy's last line of this being the happiest day of his life paints a bad picture in your mind of what it's like for him the rest of the time. A very poor example of film making.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For an indy film this is probably a bit better than a 3 out of 10, but in general it only gets a 3. The effects aren't horrible and at least they have some adults playing adult roles rather than all kids as a lot of indy low budget horror films do. The acting is very wooden, but at least they had a better \"display\" than some films in the shoestring budget category. It's filmed a lot inside a building rather than a friend's basement. The plot as a whole isn't the worst. It's a Resident Evil rip off about an evil corporation invading a small town and an outbreak makes people into zombies. I would have liked to have seen some sort of creatures rather than the big baddie just be another \"super\" zombie. I try not to write spoilers but this review has one so be warned!! SPOILER ALERT!!! Not only do some of the cast just seem to shrug past the zombies (the same ones are recycled over and over but at least they have more then 5 people playing them). But one of the plot twists really doesn't fly with me. The deputy who goes inside turns out to be on the evil corporations payroll. He kills one of the other employees in cold blood and then meets with the head bad guy in an office talking about cleaning up the mess. The deputy has just shown us that he is a real bad person too and talks like he can clean it up (meaning kill all the surviving witnesses) no problem. But then 2 seconds later, he is helping them out. There was no real \"change of heart\" emotion or anything to make me feel that this bad guy went from killing an innocent guy just minutes ago and then talking about taking everyone out no problem to being their savior. There was no incident or anything to make me buy into this. Worth watching if you are a fan of low budget flicks, otherwise you will not enjoy this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is perfect for over the top cheesy zombie lovers. its a film you can laugh at from the acting to the terrible zombie action. that being said, i gave this a 4 outta 10 for effort cos horror is a hard genre to make. going down the list the bad points of this film were as following.

#Bad make up #terrible sound and sound effects #really bad continuity #cheesy dialogue #one song played through the whole film #stein couldn't act and in my opinion one of the worst I've seen #terrible ending #racist moment and stealing Simpson's character named

the good points #good costume #police officers seemed to have the best acting exp #the actors with less lines or small roles did appear to be better #good attempt with gore

i don't wanna bad mouth the film, its funny to watch cos of these bad points and i think thats what makes this film OK. if it was any better i don't think it would of made any difference but it wouldn't be interesting to see a remake with all the same cast as i believe they have possibly improved over the last 7 years.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film is a pathetic attempt to remake Ingmar Bergman's \"Autumn Sonata\"(1978) starring Ingrid Bergman,Liv Ullman and Erland Josephson.It did not take me more than 5 minutes to figure that out.

It is time Film journalists like Khalid Mohammad took out time to do some creative thinking. It makes me sad when potentially good film-makers waste their talents by making substandard remakes of Hollywood and European films.

You've got to give the film-maker something though. The film he picked for copying is one of Bergman's classics, and easily one of the finest instances of the portrayal of a strained human relationship in European cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Certainly not a bad little low budget film, this \"Bride of the Gorilla\", but nothing special, neither, and not memorable enough to be ranked among the meaningful Sci-Fi efforts of its time. Director Curt Siodmak was an eminent scriptwriter during the 1930's and 1940's and delivered stories for some true genre classics (\"I walked with a Zombie\", \"The Wolf Man\") but, as a director, he obviously lacked the required competences. \"Bride of the Gorilla\" is similar to the aforementioned \"The Wolf Man\" in story and atmosphere, but the film looks a lot more amateurish and pitiful. Both handle about cursed men that turn into large animals at night, but the titular gorilla doesn't look half as threatening as the werewolf, even though the film got released a whole decade later. During a cheesy opening speech, actor Lon Chaney tries to convince us that the jungle is an ominous place and hiding many mysteries, but actually there's no real mystery in the plot. It's just handles about a plantation manager who's jealous at his older colleague for having such a beautiful young wife and he kills him. A native woman witnesses his crime and puts a spell on Barney that causes him to transform into a hideously big gorilla at night... Or maybe she just wants him to believe he's turning into a hideously big gorilla\u0085Lon Chaney himself plays the police commissioner charged with the murder investigation while Raymond Burr (who starred in about a thousand Perry Mason TV-movies) portrays the greedy plantation manager\/nightly gorilla. Siodmak attempts to make the film look like a supernatural thriller \u0096 is it or is it not all just happening in Barney's head? \u0096 fail miserably and it causes way too much talking and too few jungle-action. Several of the jungle-settings are nicely pictured but the rest of the \"special\" effects are tacky and poorly done. Still the acting is pretty good, Barbara Payton is looking beautiful and \u0096 although very predictable \u0096 the story is strangely compelling until the very end. Weird movie, it probably voodoo-cursed me\u0085","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is a story as old as man. The jealousy for another man's wife and possessions. There are even commandments against it.

In this story, Raymond Burr (\"Perry Mason\", \"Ironside\") is the manager of a runner plantation who lusts after the owners wife and feels that he isn't treated with respect. The wife, the starlet Barbara Payton, who was trying to make a comeback after a string of sordid affairs, was lusting after Burr, who killed her husband, Paul Cavanagh.

But, lurking about was a strange woman, the housekeeper (Gisela Werbisek) who sees everything, and who was capable of some voodoo to avenge the wronged, which also included another young woman (Carol Varga) to whom Burr also professed love.

Burr is poisoned and becomes , or thinks he becomes, a gorilla. Payton will have to mate with Kong if she ever wants her marriage consummated, as he goes into the jungle every night.

The end is predictable. But, the stirring question of this film is why Payton would ever be afraid. With those sharply pointed missiles jutting out from her chest, no animal could get near her to do harm.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The cast and crew of this cheap horror potboiler are more interesting than anything that occurs throughout the movie itself; we have Barbara Payton, Raymond Burr, Lon Chaney Jr., Tom Conway, Paul Cavanaugh and Woody Strode in front of the camera and writer-director Curt Siodmak, cinematographer Charles Van Enger, editorial supervisor Francis D. Lyon and production assistant Herman Cohen behind it. The ill-fated Payton turns the head of virtually every male she comes in contact with deep in the African jungle where she lives on husband Cavanaugh's plantation: doctor Conway secretly desires her while hot-headed foreman Burr's approach is, quite literally, more hands-on. On the other hand, Chaney is (surprisingly enough) the laid-back but knowing authoritarian figure and Strode is a native police official. The plot is very simple but, frankly, does not make a whole lot of sense: after a particularly agitated dinner complete with thunderstorm, Burr and Cavanaugh (art imitating life \u0096 more on that later) come to blows in the garden over their affection for Payton and, conveniently for Burr, a large snake just happens to be crawling near where Cavanaugh hits the ground! Witnessing the event from behind the bushes, Payton's enigmatic maid (a native witch, no less), for some inexplicable reason, puts a curse on Burr (who has in the meantime married Payton) that periodically turns him into a gorilla...starting from his very wedding day (when his hand briefly turns hirsute)! Consequently, Burr takes to losing himself in the jungle for days on end \u0096 even if the ape creature itself is barely glimpsed throughout the film. It must be said, however, that the version that I watched ran for just 56 minutes when the 'official' length is elsewhere given as either 66, 70 or 76!! Therefore, the film feels understandably rushed and disjointed if never less than campily enjoyable as it culminates in the gorilla's subjectively-shot chasing of Payton in the jungle, with the former being itself pursued by the gun-toting Chaney and Conway. To get back to the film's tragic blonde leading lady for a minute: after a promising start in movies next to such Hollywood legends as James Cagney and Gary Cooper \u0096 in, respectively, KISS TOMORROW GOODBYE and DALLAS (both 1950) \u0096 her career soon nose-dived into B (and lesser) grade territory thanks to her own 'colorful' off-screen antics: her most notorious misdemeanor was being the cause of a much-publicized bar-room brawl between suave husband Franchot Tone and brutish former lover Tom Neal which ended with the former in a coma and Payton actually deserting him for the latter shortly thereafter!! But that was not all: nymphomaniac Payton also boasted that Woody Strode was among her conquests (a controversial issue at the time); short-lived husband Tone, having caught Payton's infidelities on camera, spread the damning photographic evidence around Hollywood and this virtually served to end her days as a starlet \u0096 her last film appearance being Edgar G. Ulmer's MURDER IS MY BEAT (1955) which I happen to have in my \"Unwatched Movies\" pile. The last 12 years of her tumultuous life were spent on Skid Row in the throes of booze, drugs, prostitution, beatings, arrests and even a stabbing \u0096 before, eventually, dying in 1967 in her parents' home at the young age of 39!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was cheesy and it was more than that. It was about this guy who gets a curse on him and he turns into a gorilla. I had to see how bad it was because of the title. Before this guy turns into a gorilla, he gets married. I was a little upset because she wasn't a bride of a gorilla: she is now the wife of the gorilla. She should have married him when he was a gorilla then the title would have made more sense. There are all these people in the middle of the jungle too and they all want to leave. This isn't just a B movie, it's more like a Z movie. I didn't even see any bananas for a wedding gift. Oh, right he wasn't cursed yet.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Barbara Payton is the suppose-to-be sultry sexy young hot Chickie wife of the geezer plantation owner somewhere in a jungley back lot set at a cheap studio in Hollywood. Raymond Burr wears his working shirt with the top button undone as the hunky chunky plantation foreman who Mrs Payton is desiring to blow the joint with. There is another girl, some sort of peasant slave thing that Burr used to fool around with but he's given her the old heave ho so the obligatory squatty old voo-doo hag is conjuring up a good spell to cast on him and the Payton tramp. I watched this only part way through because its really awful, so didn't even get to see the star of the show---which I guess is a gorilla that the voo-doo hag turned someone into or whatever.....who cares. I give this one half star out of a possible ten. It's not even campy, just really bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Of course I have disappeared into the movies. The Neil Young concert film 'Heart of Gold.'

There have been many great concert films through the years. The best being Martin Scorsese's 'The Last Waltz' which filmed the Band's last concert at Filmore West. A phenomenal concert and a phenomenal film, that is if you love rock and roll and felt as if you had been born into it and were part of the music, and could be in the band if you had a better guitar and someone would show you the chords and that with a few chords and a lyric or two you could change the world...as you can guess I felt all five to the bottom of my twenty four year old soul.

Neil Young was in 'The Last Waltz.' They had to digitally, before digital actually, they had to manually scrape a big hanging cocaine rock that extruded from his nose so in the film there's a bright light that is not the star of Bethlehem dangling above his lip and below his nostril...it's a famous bit of rock and roll history.

But 'The Last Waltz' was made when the Band and Neil and everyone else was in their thirties and 'Heart of Gold' was filmed last year when Neil is in his sixties and his band looks as if they are in their late nineties and the entire movie could visually be used by the Christian Right and the DEA in the same way that those Ohio State Patrol films of the perils of drunk driving were used when I was in high school showing dead teenagers hanging through front windows or dangling from trees or bloody in a ditch.

Close your eyes and it is a terrific concert, open them and view Dorian Grey's hidden portrait. Case in point, the once ethereally beautiful Emmylou Harris literally coming out of the darkness to sing with Neil and from dark to light appearing to be a ring wraith leapt full borne out of the river in front of Rivendale. Ghastly, ghostlike, a nose that doesn't appear in nature and is not an advertisement for plastic surgery, eyes that make buttons on dolls look lifelike, and the ability to express any emotion, human or not, constrained by unrestrained over indulgence in Botox. My mind reeled...porcupine...Peru...Jack Daniels...living hard for decades...my god...sweet Emmylou Harris who I saw sing for free at Fred's in Boulder, a face a 2000 year dead Pharoah would not accept. But the voice, as pure as a thick lipped bottle of Boulder beer brewed from the waters of Boulder Creek and I closed my eyes and smelled ammmmmbbbererrrrrrrrrgerrrrrrrssss (an homage...one must use homage at least once in any film review...to Fred's hamburgers on Boulder Mall and the Steve Martin Pink Panther movie).

It would have been a terrific concert sitting in the dark in Ryman Auditorium, maybe twenty rows back. But, close up, in close ups, it was a medieval morality play depicting the horrors of indulgence and the consequences of a sinful life.

The concert theme, emblazoned on the scenery, A Prairie Wind...the last song, massed guitars (I counted eight) and I wondered if irony was at play. I don't think so. A Native American bass player, a lead guitarist who looked and dressed like Buffalo Bill, a piano player whose face looked like the screamer's face in Munch's The Scream, the chick singers (actually matronly singers, mostly reminding one of the lost youth of senior United flight attendants still plying the friendly skies) dressed in matching full length distressed denim dresses...no it was played straight.

None of them had seen, I would bet, A Mighty Wind.

It will be a great CD, and would be glad to tell tales of hippy dippy Boulder when Neil was a long haired Canadian crooner whose indecipherable lyrics seemed to mirror heartache and loss, feelings as universal then as now.

But, only in a dark bar.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I walked into Heart Of Gold thinking I was going to watch a documentary about Neil Young. Instead, I witnessed a self-serving tribute to the arrogance of aging baby boomers who have lost their edge and forgotten their roots. Highly rated by aging baby boomer critics, directed and performed by more aging baby boomer artists, Heart Of Gold is a bore-fest from start to finish, that is if you can manage to sit through the entire near 2 hour movie. Neil Young and crew have long lost their edge and want the rest of us to join them on a cushioned rocking chair of middle-of-the-road mediocrity. What happened to the raunchy guitar of his earlier solo efforts? I guess all of his fuzz boxes rusted out and his over-driven vacuum tubes exploded in the hot air of his generation. As far as Demme goes, this is the daring director of Something Wild & Melvin And Howard? A student filmmaker could have made a more daring film than this poorly visualized surface performance film. Don't waste your $$ on Heart Of Gold and go straight to The Last Waltz and Gimmie Shelter. And if you really want to dig deep into the personality of a rock and roll icon, scrounge up a copy of Chuck Berry: Hail Hail Rock And Roll which is sorely out of print. And baby boomers, don't bother squawking about how this review is jaded by someone younger. I too am one of those baby boomers who listened to Cinnamon Girl on acid and danced in the streets to the Stones' Street Fighting Man. Go back and watch Don't Look Back or Gimmie Shelter and then come back and tell me that Heart of Gold has any worth as a document.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has some good performances, as others have pointed out, but suffers (as others have pointed out, except for the people who apparently are either friends of the filmmaker or the cast to otherwise explain why they would deem this a \"10\") from some self-conscious and self-absorbed film school padding and excess plots. This is the type of plot that Sex In The City could handle in a half hour episode, so there was no reason for it to be even an 88 minute movie. A perfect example of wasted footage is the fast forwarding montage in the first third of the movie. Some of the back story is merited, but too much time, for example, was spent on Daria character with the anal sex boyfriend and on the back story for Paulie, who was not a realistic character, although the actor did a decent job with the lines he was given.

The worst aspect of the movie was the level of amateurish parts: from typos in the typed material, to bad jumps and edits, poor camera positions, angles, lighting problems throughout and, most glaringly, a poorly written script with a badly developed concept. If the writer (also the director and lead) had collaborated with someone, he might not have ended up with a 100% rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes, which further belays the ability of anyone to truly believe the people who gave it a 10 on the rating system here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Julien Hernandez is certainly an attractive and likable on screen persona. In fact, his character pretty much carries this whole film, or what's worthwhile about it. The problem is, with the exception of his gal pal (played by Marisa Petroro) and Paul Lekakis (as a trick\/date\/ boyfriend for some of the characters) no one else even comes close. Hernandez plays a 30- something director of Cuban heritage, and unknown sexuality, who comes to L.A. and gets a job making a gay documentary. In the process of meeting a group of gay people while finding subjects, he comes out...but very s l o w l y. Even at 88 minutes, the film has obviously been stretched out and padded with various film-school devices, most of which only end up pointlessly interrupting the narrative (which ain't much to begin with) or pointing out the overall amateurish-ness of the film-making.

Which is a shame, because there's a love story in here somewhere, and the final three minutes, when Hernandez's Sebastien finally clicks with a wealthy West Hollywood party- thrower (nicely underplayed by Lonnie Henderson) and they share some sexy soulful kisses, it works despite all that came before. But we don't really care about any of the other characters or their situations: Why would handsome Dante have a Eurotrash priss for a boyfriend? He wouldn't. And don't even get me started on Sebastien's friend Paulie's \"rules\" for dating -- no gay man I know, hell no sane person, period, would put such constrictions on himself or others. And please tell me how Sebastien gets a peeled banana (which is normally fairly shmushy, right?) stuck up his butt and has to go to a doctor to get it removed?

I noticed Hernandez won an award for this film as a \"short\" -- it probably should have stayed that way. All this said -- I'd look forward to seeing Hernandez on screen again, in a better scripted comedy with more assured direction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to like this film but it barely eked out a 3. It's surprising that equal amounts of the votes were 10, the other half 1. All the characters were entertaining and even talented but as a whole the film didn't pay off. Sebastian Hernandez is appealing; charismatic and likable (he even physically resembles Marc Anthony in a more approachable yet ultimately conscious sort of way...) but even he couldn't save this mess of a movie. Scenes dragged on far too long and points were ultimately beaten to death. The banana scene fringed on self-absorption, seemingly showing how much movement was in his boxers. But in his defense it was his first movie as director (that I'm aware of) and I appreciate his labor of love. It just left me empty despite what was trying to be said. Ultimately I think the story would have been better handled by a more experienced director. From what I've seen of the 'extras', there is a real story behind this and, perhaps when I finish watching them, I'll appreciate this attempt more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I unwittingly walked into this \"trap\" of a movie.

If I could turn back time or simply get a refund I would be happy.

It was 7:30pm and Cinderella Man didn't start until 10pm so I rushed into the theater to catch the movie that started at 7:20pm...and I dare say God reached out his hand (or retracted it) and allowed me to punish myself for my film gluttony by sitting in for this film.

It may be unfair to criticize a movie that was not targeted at my heterosexual male cohort, however, there is no excuse for lousy sound and video editing. This movie was at most worthy of a highschool project budget...and I think I've seen better in those play acting French shorts that we used to do about Louis Laloupe.

Maybe it's because I'm Canadian and this film was for the LA fudge-packing crew and their sympathizing dames. Woe was me when I realized that then entire audience save me cracked up at all the jokes and entendres...I fully understood the hinted humor...but I just could not relate.

This show did show me, supposedly, how Gay men date and build relationships. However, even if it was their purpose of the movie, I feel that the \"Gayness\" was focused on too heavily....the humanity seemed lacking....but again, maybe that was the point...simply to be avant-gard...and to make a splash.

I guess with a low budget and poor equipment, you have to make your movie as \"loud\" as possible in order to get crowds and cash return. I really wish I had simply read my Sheldon Van Auken instead. Hehe...I was totally the wrong audience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Greedy land baron in the tiny western town of Prairie City wants all the ranchers off their land, using intimidation tactics and arson to get them to vacate; seems the town is swimming atop oil, and when a Swedish farmer refuses to leave, he's mowed down by the baron's hired gun. The farmer's seafaring son soon arrives, slowly realizing what he's up against and attempting to rally the rest of the residents to fight. Another lawlessness-in-the-West story, with everybody under the thumb of the villain (who naturally holds all the cards). Derivative and uncomfortable at times to watch, with a long wait before our stoic hero finally gets his dander up. Sterling Hayden's half-hearted Swedish accent is a big problem, though he cuts a sturdy, sympathetic presence on the screen and almost makes the picture worth-watching. Director Joseph H. Lewis stages most of the scenes stiffly, like a TV western, and Gerald Fried's bugle-heavy score is no help, though the rich black-and-white cinematography by Ray Rennahan is excellent. An independent production released via United Artists, the film has a bizarre start (beginning with shots from the finale, followed by shots from the movie's midsection), yet it does have a certain needling power which most assuredly gets the viewer on Hayden's side. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Big (and we mean plus sized big) baddie Sebastian Cabot is trying to run salt of the earth farmers off their land in order to get the oil rights. When sea faring Sterling Haden's pop is killed, how will Haden put an end to TERROR IN A Texas TOWN, armed only with a harpoon?

First off, this isn't a B-western. There are no singing cowboys, no daredevil stunts, no interesting action sequences. It's just an independent movie -- you know, the ones that use unimportant actors to say \"important things\" and cover the general low budget vapidity of the goings on with Interesting Camera Angles.

Second, this movie, to avoid compromises (one expects) that would cause the elimination of Trumbo's Important Statements about Justice in America, and the rather sick relationship between the chief henchman and his girl, IS really low budget. The main problem that causes is that the acting is really, really bad. Sterling Haden is decent enough in tough roles, but he is the last guy you want playing a sensitive Swedish sailor gone to find his fortune in the West. Sebastian Cabot tries to do a Sydney Greenstreet as (very) bloated plutocrat. It's not a bad idea, but Cabot does not have the acting chops for it. The guy who plays the hired gun with the missing arm and soul (Johnny Crale) has the best role in the film. He does nothing with it.

Third, the script really isn't all that. Trumbo gets some digs in about the immigrant isn't going to get a fair shake from the sheriff in a corrupt town, and the people, when up against real oppression tend to back down. This is a pretty stale movie message by 1958 -- High Noon, Bad Day at Black Rock, Devil's Doorway -- are all Westerns that deal with the evils of Western society with an eye to the evils of 50s America. Trumbo, in '59, certainly had every personal reason to agree with those sentiments, but he isn't doing anything new or interesting with them.

So, given all the negatives, why does this movie get a 4? Mostly because there are interesting quirks throughout the movie. (The relationship between Crale and his girl is, um fascinating.) And Trumbo, while a mediocre writer when pursuing his political affectations, is very good in creating both interesting characters and intelligent interactions between them. Just when one is ready to pass out from Indy movie boredom, will come an exchange of dialog or simple quirkiness that gets one realize that guy writing the script was not simply a hack.

If you don't like Trumbo or westerns, give this one a miss. Otherwise, try it. You might like it more than I did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sebastian Cabot is a rich jerk who wants to buy up all the land because there is oil--though none of the locals are aware of the oil. With the help of an evil gunfighter in black, they kill and terrorize everyone. When the son of a murdered man arrives, he refuses to back down and stands up to these forces of darkness.

Wow. As I watched TERROR IN A Texas TOWN, I felt as if I'd seen this film many times before and would probably see something like it again. That's because aside from a few novelties (such as Sterling Hayden using a harpoon on the bad guy), it has a plot that is too familiar. Once again, we've got a rich guy who is trying to drive out all the farmers in order to gain control of all the land. And, to do so, he's brought in hired guns to force people to sell or kill them. Been there, done that in just too many films.

I love Sterling Hayden in films, but just couldn't recommend this as anything other than a poor time passer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, let me just say that after watching this movie I felt like I'd been sold a bill of goods. Mind you it's not the movie's fault that IMDb has it listen as a comedy first and a horror second (although I don't know how that's entered...maybe some moron from the film's crew put it in). Being a fan of the horror\/comedy genre, I checked it out based on that and I'm so, so sorry I did. Where to start? First of all, to touch back on my beginning, there's no comedy in this movie. It tries once or twice, but never gets more than a chuckle at best. My reaction was primarily rolling my eyes and wondering why someone thought such tired material would be funny. Also, there's no horror here. Not a second of tension can be found. You think I'm exaggerating...I am not. No tension, very little blood, and not much violence on screen (sorry, but in a horror flick cutting away just as the good stuff starts is a major foul). Hell...there's even zero nudity. Call me a purist or juvenile...I prefer some in a horror flick if it can't come up with an original plot\/premise. And that tired as all hell \"reality TV show gone wrong thing\"? It's been done before and a lot better. Like Wrong Turn 2 or...ummm....whatever that movie was called with Edward Furlong. That's how bad this movie is. I don't even remember the name of that movie, but it was better than this. I also enjoyed the one comment claiming the timing for this was good because \"reality TV is taking over\". Did someone from the past post that with a time machine? Are you freaking kidding me? This thing is trash...and not in a fun way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Realty television crew are assigned to cover a small town high school hockey team running into a serial killer wearing a black mask and hoody. Lots of interviews where the members of the crew(and some of the locals who live in the town of White Plains where most of this film is set)talk into the camera about each other, those they encounter in the town of White Plains, their current situations, and the showbiz side of their lives. The screenplay is often acidic, cynical, and caustic and Killer Movie essentially pokes fun at realty television shows, featuring a cast of characters one might find on The Real World. If this plot is attractive to you, knock yourself out. I found the characters tiresome and the satire is old hat. Out of the cast, Paul Wesley, the director needing a big break, encountering more than he could possibly bargain for, Jake Tanner, is a nice guy, coming off very likable and tolerant of the crap he must contend with, considering the prima donnas and immature people in his entourage who often cause nothing but migraines. Particularly irksome is his producer Lee(Cyia Batten), a tyrant constantly barking orders to everyone, her poisonous attitude creating much tension..she's the type of producer who wishes to capitalize on a small town eruption regarding the killer, using the hockey team cover story as a front to exploit the tragedy occurring in White Plains. Those familiar with Kaley Cuoco know that by now she has perfected the pampered princess, got it down pat because it's the only role we ever see her in most of the time. As Blanca, she's polarizing the way she demands attention, milking what little celeb status she has to the hilt, manufacturing much friction as she becomes a source of frustration, and has quite the potty mouth(Cuoco may've taken the part just so she could escape her usual television sitcom roles, allowed to spout profanity without restriction) Cuoco, along with the entire cast, services Killer Movie as eye candy, but it's hard to find any character you wouldn't want to see hacked to pieces with a meat cleaver. Jason London is the sound\/equipment guy, a real creep with a sour attitude, often tormenting the others with his foul comments that are uncalled for. We witness lots of personality clashes, watching how these self-absorbed Hollywood types in the cast snipe at each other. The killer's identity shouldn't surprise anyone, it's quite blatantly obvious. Some minor gore, but most of the violence is shot off-screen. Despite some tame lesbianism, not even this is satisfying. Leighton Meester pops up in the film as a cute victim. Director\/writer Jeff Fisher assembles quite an attractive cast, but I wouldn't be able to distinguish this from the innumerable slashers that have stocked the horror shelves over the last ten or so years since SCREAM. While I've never liked any of Cuoco's characters, I never tire of looking at her, but eventually she needs to come up with a role that doesn't consist of her preening, with smug arrogance, always whining and complaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I tried. I really, really tried to think of something that would merit rating this higher than a two. It's not that I don't \"get it\" -- I'm a big fan of Asian cinema. The truth is, the movie is infantile in construction, long-winded, and painfully disjointed.

I suppose that if you are of Alfred Hitchcock's school of thought \"Don't tell them, show them,\" then you could try to appreciate this movie, but you would still be hard pressed.

First of all, The Terrorizers tries stream-of-consciousness in the style of Jean-Luc Godard and fails in this. Edward Yang seems to understand the basics of the technique, but he's very unskilled at it. (Perhaps he gets better with age; I don't know as I haven't yet attempted other Yang films.) The point is, he uses a dearth of \"show, don't tell\" that really only serves to interrupt the procession of the story. Sure, he gets in some visually arresting images, but they don't draw the story together, and they don't help to make it any better.

Additionally, the major concept behind stream-of-consciousness and \"show, don't tell\" is that with the right images, the right drama, repetition, and tight correlation, the viewer will be able to make his or her own inferences; not to say that these will be the correct inferences, but those can be amended as the story progresses, and every director should strive for some of this type of audience interaction. In this, Edward Yang sorely disappoints. The viewer is constantly on the periphery. There is no reason to be drawn in, no reason to consider the characters or their motives, no reason to get emotionally involved, and really, no reason to stay alert.

Finally, Yang gets lost in the story that he wants to tell, not the story that the movie itself is telling. His art moves in one direction, but like a large dog he can't control, he's constantly yanking the lead, trying to get it back onto the course he wants, not the one that it is naturally following. The most egregious example of this is the ending. The ending really should have occurred at the moment of the husband's revelation. The ending of the book that the movie is focusing on, (and by extension, a possible ending for the movie) has already been told to us. If Yang had chosen to end at that point, he would have had a much more powerful piece, leaving the watcher in suspense -- does the story play out as the book says, or does Yang's \"real world\" play out differently? Asking the viewer to think about this is the sort of viewer interaction that Yang painfully needs. Instead, he continues to tell the story he wants to tell, straining the natural conclusion for the sake of what? For the sheer sake of lingering on a main character -- we didn't' need to know more about her superficially, and Yang wouldn't feel the need to tell us if he hadn't made her into a veneer instead of bothering to make her a more engaging and deep character to begin with.

Why else does Yang prolong and torture his movie? To get in some more of those \"visually arresting images.\" The movie truly suffers for it. It wants to end, it has a conclusion that feels natural and leaves the viewer unsettled, but instead, Yang pushes on. Instead, Yang constructs a complex ending that leads the viewer on, causing him or her to constantly ask \"so what?\" The first ending, the one that Yang ignored, that was good. The second ending, well, my thought was\"so what, who cares?\", because it's not as if it is introducing something that hasn't been put forth in the storyline already... but the last ending? That really was a waste of time. Not only did the \"real\" ending leave me disengaged, but I also felt it was an affront to what the story could have been. Yang sacrificed a potentially good story for the bubblegum-melancholy-noir-tinged conclusion that he had insisted upon all along.

My last problem with the movie has nothing to do with the movie itself, but rather its post-production. The subbing (if you see it subbed) is horrible. Long sentences stay up for a second or two, while short ones stay up far too long. Also, as Yang quickly changes images, the subtitles are removed from the screen. This is one of those rare instances that subtitles should be able to stay on the screen even as the image has changed, because there's not much dialog going on anyway.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I still remember when Frog Baseball first aired on MTV. In some sort of odd, surreal manner, the cartoon captured the stupid actions that I think every boy growing up in America engages in. I cringe now thinking about how I burned a crippled grasshopper using a magnifying glass, but it was interesting at the time for some reason. Growing up in the 1980s we all knew \"stoners.\" These were the kids who wore Iron Maiden t-shirts to school, grew their hair long, had immature moustaches and were at least two inches taller than everyone else because they had flunked a grade or two. We laughed at them because they were so stupid even when not stoned. So it was easy to understand Beavis & Co because we already knew them, some of us were even them. To the extent that GenXers like myself would spurn the excess of the 1980s and embrace the grunge movement of the 1990s, Beavis & Co were sort of a strange post-modern anthem for us. Strange because like Beavis & Co we didn't care if we had an anthem. It was just an inside joke that we all immediately got even if it was awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't care if this show is suppose to be communicating profound messages about human existence.

The show is crap....how can anyone derive pleasure from watching it? Yet it was received so well. This reflects a sad state of affairs for Joe Moron out there.

I tried watching this program when it first came out as friends were talking about it. The inane laughing between the two main characters and the pitiful dialog made me want to cry.

It is beyond belief that people can watch this show. Yet I guess the creators had the last laugh....making themselves wealthy by taking the p.ss out of the very people that would watch a show such as this.

I would wager they are laughing all the way to the bank.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"According to Milan Kundera, a porcelain-cat holding a red rose is denying the crap. Well, those criminals guilty of making this series probably wanted to show how to make a total opposite of the porcelain-cat holding a red rose. Because teenaged sleazoids Beavis and Butthead are enthusiastically from the place where the sun doesn't shine and their crappiness infects the whole stoopid series. MTV has received a LOT of bad-mouthing from it's half-nude stripper beauties, while THIS is gathering positive reviews in IMDb. Well, newsflash to everybody - your butt is cool too, if you go out showing it in the middle of the winter - something these two probably would do. Still, there is no need to make a film about your butt - and yes, these two probably would do that, too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seriously... I'm amazed at all the good feedback this show has here. All we have in this show is two stupid kids who keep doing an annoying laugh and they do OCCASIONAL funny things only in like... 2 of the shows, while most of the others sucked... as then they comment on music videos which I cannot stand personally while they either love or like.

In most episodes, the only things you will hear are the repitive \"let's go score with some chicks\", or \"I'll kick your ass beavis\", or the better yet and usually used quote \"that was cool\", and above all, their annoying laugh.

If you want a good animated show, try The Simpsons, Ren and Stimpy, South Park, this show is just not worth the time or energy it takes to watch this awful MTV series truthfully.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dreadful film about a doctor who goes fishing and winds up catching a mermaid when he is thrown overboard. She traps him into bringing her back with him.

Glynis Johns, in the title role, is really a silly individual with a tail hanging out.

Margaret Rutherford is the nurse who is supposed to be so eccentric but we see no eccentricity here. In fact, Miss Rutherford was not allowed to use her true comedic gifts.

Nice to see David Tomlinson in the film. He would get together with Johns in the far superior \"Mary Poppins,\" 16 years later.

Miranda causes mischief in that two guys, a neighbor's fianc\u00e9e and chauffeur (Tomlinson) fall for her.

Ask any mermaid you happen to see, what's the best tuna, Chicken of the Sea! As for this film, forget it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yumiko (Wakana Sakai), the pretty adopted daughter of a recently-deceased Japanese businessman, inherits control of her father's company; her uncle Kazuo (Shun Sugata), miffed that he wasn't left the business to run, orders a hit on his niece. When jug-eared chef Kensuke (Takashi Okamura) enters the wrong hotel room by mistake and knocks out hit-man Invincible (Jung Yuen), he is mistaken for the killer and sent to kill Yumiko. Instead, he falls for the pretty heiress and ends up vowing to protect her. However, she is kidnapped by Kazuo's men while Kensuke is preoccupied playing an arcade game with cop Daniel (Sam Lee).

Uncle Kazuo keeps Yumiko in a hypnotic trance, and takes control of the business, but runs into a spot of bother himself, when his gangster pals threaten to reveal his illegal activities unless he allows them total control.

Meanwhile, Kensuke teams up with two martial arts experts, Lam Kau (Yuen Baio) and Lam Doi (Candy Lo) who are hunting Invincible. He learns Kung Fu and attempts to free Yumiko.

A mixture of broad slapstick humour, spoofery and fight scenes, No Problem 2 is a disappointing film considering the talent involved: 80s kung fu superstar Yuen Baio manages a few fight scenes but is getting a little old for acrobatics these days; director Kar Lok Chin delivers the kind of dumb parody schtick I'd expect from a Scary Movie film; Jung Yuen resorts to mocking his character in Operation Scorpio; and Sam Lee\u0085 well, Sam Lee is as annoying as always!

On the other hand, Collin Chou, as gangster Ben, impressed me; he has an obviously strong screen presence which has not gone unnoticed by Hollywood\u0097he has since starred in two of the Matrix movies and is soon to appear in D.O.A., directed by Corey Yuen. I was also impressed by Wakana Sakai, but for an entirely different reason: this beauty is easy on the eye and should go much further in the film business.

There is some fun to be had from working out what movies are being parodied, but at 104 minutes I found this film a real chore to sit through. If people pulling funny faces accompanied by silly sound effects makes you burst your sides laughing, then No Problem 2 might appeal to you. Otherwise, I would leave well alone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unless there's some huge ironic conspiracy going on, my jaw dropped when I read the positive reviews of this film; I cannot believe that this film was even released, it's so bad.

I admit it is not my kind of movie, but I tried to watch it objectively anyway, you know, so bad it's funny, and was still offended at its sheer awfulness.

The acting is atrocious, they can't have watched the rushes and I'm guessing there was one take per scene, it really is that terrible. It is the worst film I have seen in many a year, in fact, I wouldn't even call it a film, it's a tragedy. The gay black friend, whom no-one actually calls \"gay\", it's just implied because he's so crazy? Homophobic. This is not good, in fact, this is downright vomit inducing. The jokes die on their pathetic arses, the music is so bad it defies belief. The person who compiled the soundtrack essentially chose the most ear-mutilatingly bad songs they had ever heard and put them in this waste of film stock. Oh my good Christ I can't believe the 80's produced utter garbage like this, I grew up through them, and I cannot find one thing worth of note here, it must have been a dark time to be a cinema-goer.

If you even contemplate watching this film go see a psychiatrist, he will then accordingly slap you, you sick, sick person.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nearly everything that Stephen King has ever written seems to have been turned into a film or TV series; in fact, I'm surprised that no one has tried to make a mini-series from the guy's grocery list. Let's face it, if they did, it couldn't be any less interesting than Children of the Corn.

Based on one of King's many short stories, this 1984 horror flick sees Linda Hamilton and Peter Horton playing a couple on a long car journey who run into a spot of bother when they chance upon the sleepy Nebraska town of Gatlin, where all of the adults have been murdered by children who worship an ancient evil that lurks in the corn fields.

Although director Fritz Kiersch does manage to build a fair amount of atmosphere at the beginning (after Hamilton's silly song and dance, but before we get to meet the freakish Isaac, leader of the killer kids), he completely blows it with endless unexciting scenes in which Hamilton and Horton are hunted down by the town's homicidal half-pints. Courtney Gains, as violent redhead Malachai, manages to appear genuinely menacing, but the rest of the children are not the least bit threatening; as a result, many of the film's 'scary' moments fail to work.

Towards the end of the film, when we finally get to see the malevolent force that inhabits the field surrounding Gatlin, the film descends into a glut of terrible 80s visual effects that probably looked pretty ropey almost 25 years ago, but look positively laughable nowadays.

Children of the Corn might be of interest to King fans keen to see how the writer's work has been translated to the big screen, but your average horror-film fan will be most unimpressed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must admit, ashamed though I am, that as an impressionable young teenager this below par horror-chiller was one of my favourite all time films. Nine years after first viewing Stephen King's frightening story however I have now come to my senses, and am able to assess Fritz Kiersch's work more reasonably.

Indeed King's tale of a small Nebraskan farming community that is turned upside down by a young demonic preacher boy and his sadistic sidekick is truly disturbing on paper, but it makes for a cheap, average horror show on celluloid. A lot of this outcome can be attributed to the fact that Kiersch almost allows the beginning of the film to become a hacker-slasher show, and then turns the finale into a hocus-pocus special effects nightmare.

The cast are reasonable, but they can only portray as much credibility as this rather incredible, over the top movie will allow them, and the soundtrack by Jonathan Elias is spookier than the pictures.

A real shame that George Goldsmith's screenplay turned Stephen King's haunting short story into a shocking horror. Isaac, Malachai and all the other \"Children of the Corn\" aren't really all that scary.

Sunday, August 7, 1994 - Video","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While this is horribly dated, I MUST insist...PLEASE, NO REMAKE! Frankly, it just won't help, as there's nothing which could be added or changed, contemporarily, to make this cinematically better.

The novel upon which this is based, was atmospheric, well written, truly spooky work, but on film, it just doesn't translate. Most of King's written masterpieces fail to translate to film. I'm not sure why this is, but when you view this work, if you view it, you are likely to see just what I mean.

The book? It's wonderful. It's not a masterpiece, but it's more than just entertaining.

The movie? Do something else. You can thank me later.

It rates a 3.1\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry, but for a movie that has been so stamped as a semi classic and a scary movie, but seriously, I think when the director has me laughing unintentionally, that's not a good thing. The characters in this film were just so over the top and unbelievable. I just couldn't stop laughing at Issac's voice, it was just like a high pitched whiny girl's British voice. Not to mention Malicai's over dramatic stick up his butt character.

Children of the Corn is about a town where all the children have killed off the adults and worship a God that commands them to sacrifice any 20+ aged people. When a couple has a bad car accident they come to the town for help, but of course they get caught in the kid's trap and are getting sacrificed! But Malicai has other intentions when he is sick of following Issac's orders.

Children of the Corn could've been something great, but turned into a bad over the top movie that you could easily make fun of. As much as I love Stephen King, I'm sure this is not what he intended and it was a pretty lame story, or at least the actors destroyed it. Like I said, for a good laugh, watch it, but I'm warning you, it's pretty pathetic.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A traveling couple (Horton and Hamilton)stumble onto the town of Gatlin, where kids have slaughtered the adults and are always eager to slaughter more, along the way they're separated and Peter Horton of course must save his wife from these tiresome, er terrible tykes in this very bad adaption of one of King's best short stories. In the original story King managed to create tension and draw personality of his characters, however all of that has been zapped from the production and all that is left is a repetitive bore which is far too predictable to be all that suspenseful. Also the effective ending used in the story is in favor dumped for a happy ending which makes the overall impact mute. There is some atmosphere and stylish directing but no plot to back any of it up. The kids are woefully unconvincing also.

1\/5 Matt Bronson","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first word i can find to describe this movie is Awful.

This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. First of all is the plot a very thin plot (Wont comment further on this part) and a plot which a lot of movies from this genre is following. This makes the movie so bad, because you know whats going to happen. Secondly does the movie contain a lot of questions which never is revealed. One of the questions (and this is no spoiler) is: WHAT THE HELL ARE THE KIDS DOING IN THAT CORN!!!!!!!!!! Thirdly is the characters very bad, not only because the movie is bad, but also because of the sorry actors. They are bad as they can be.

The last thing that make this movie bad, is that its a horror movie. You are supposed to be scared of the killings or the sudden shocks, but you are not scared, you a not horrified because you know whats going to happen.

Conclusion: The movie is as bad as the movie about the killer ants! I hoped that it was a very great movie but because the story is bad, the actors are bad, the film raises a lot of questions and because its not scary, the movie is best unseen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having loved Stephen King's novels and short stories for many years, I, like most reviewers, have been consistently disappointed in the adaptations to film from his printed works. A few notable exceptions are \"Stand By Me\" from \"The Body\", \"Carrie\" from the novel of the same name, and \"The Shawshank Redemption\" from \"Rita Heyworth and Shawshank Redemption\". This movie is by far the worst thing that has ever been produced with Stephen King's name attached to it in any way. It is no surprise that Mr. King has pretty much disavowed any connection with it. I feel the thing that most offended me about this poorly acted, cheaply filmed, hideously directed piece of garbage is that they had the audacity to COMPLETELY change the ending Don't waste your time or money on this amazing bow-wow of a movie!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i found this movie to be a complete waste of 96 minutes. jones was a weird kid and is severly messed up! According to my memory which might be wrong, wasnt he only 16 or 17 years old? **Spoiler** why did he leave college and rent an apartment with a two crazy girls who feud over boys for a pasttime? and the cowboy who lives underneath jones creeped me out too, how he knew what happened in the apartments didnt float past me for a minute. i do not understand his thinking about the girl that took pictures for fun and stayed in her room when mandy moore was always over and is was quite obvious that she wanted to be more than friends with him. i dont really find this movie funny or artsy or dramatic or anything, i found it to be stupid and a complete waste of time (D- F+)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There could be some SPOILERS AHEAD but I doubt it. I have no idea how the screenplay for this one made it past the shredder. It's horrible. Completely unwatchable. I hung in there for 45 minutes (about half the running time) and just couldn't stand it anymore. I was an Elijah Wood fan in the '90s (see \"The War\") and I learned to enjoy Mandy Moore's shifts from bubbly to serious this year (see \"Chasing Liberty\" which is surprisingly entertaining). I've seen bits of \"Run Lola Run.\" So with three leads I liked this should have been fine. It wasn't. Nobody turned in a good performance. Wood's Jones was flat. For an aspiring writer he had next to no imagination (his violent fantasies looked like they were ripped off from \"A Christmas Story\" and his lustful ones were--huh, a cross between boring and alarming). Potente is absolutely unlikable from the first second and I'd only know that she was supposed to be \"THE girl\" by reading the box. Speaking of the synopsis--whoever they employed for that job made the film sound funny, quirky, romantic, and quite enjoyable. Whoever that person was, he or she should have been employed to rewrite this script. By the halfway point, I didn't care about ANY of the characters anymore. Moore's Lisa is an aspiring actress who's bubbly and a little conniving (for no apparent reason at all) but her ludicrous period play (which is supposed to be funny in presentation) is on a par with the rest of the script. There is supposedly a happy, romantic comedy ending to this turkey--given the character material they had to work with, I just can't envision it. Save your money. Warn your friends. DON'T watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No spoiler needed to steer you clear of this...well, bizarre film. Canada becomes part of the USA. OK. So, I guess I'm unusual, but I expected something about the implications of Canada becoming part of the USA. Silly me. Continue with this movie and you are off to cloud coocoo land. The opening premise has nothing to do with the rest of the film in which you will (trust me) not care a squat for any of the characters. Slings and Arrows and Due South have to be among the most imaginative series ever. But in this case, Paul Gross, I'm so very sorry to say, didn't have a clue about making a coherent film and wasted a lot of talented actors in the process. A real disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wasn't sure where this was headed until the ending. when it turned out that this was all a liberal conspiracy to hand the world over to European wimps and the United Nations. What a load of right-wing crud! Incidentally, the bit about Canada joining the US didn't really have much to do with the plot at all and the idea was never developed. The only point of it seems to be that it made the main character eligible to run for President(but they could have just made him American and dispensed with that). In any event, this was a load of bull and not worth your time. If you wan't to see this kind of thing done well, check out the brilliant BBC political thriller \"State of Play.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"MGM hodgepodge of Jimmy Durante throwing a big party for everybody in Hollywood. No major stars show up--we get the Three Stooges, Laurel & Hardy, Durante and Lupe Velez. I didn't recognize anyone else--they were probably unknowns (for good reason). The movie contains annoyingly unfunny jokes and some truly dreadful songs and choreography. The only things that save this from being a total disaster are Laurel & Hardy's \"battle\" with Lupe Velez and a wonderful color Disney cartoon called \"The Hot Chocolate Soldier\". It's a beautiful, very colorful cartoon that gives the movie a huge boost. Otherwise, the movie is a colossal bore. There's no director credited--what does that tell you?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Poor Bela Lugosi. Just another day at work. A group of saboteurs attempting to disrupt the American war effort from the inside. It's pretty hard to figure out at first because, while we know these guys are up to something, their method of operation just isn't very clear. I won't spoil it, but the ending in pretty amazing. There are a series of murders perpetrated by our hero. A police force that doesn't know what is going on. What a coincidence that all the victims seem to come and go from the same house. There are comments like, \"A true patriot would do this or that.\" It's obvious while suspicion abounds most of the world wouldn't know a spy or a subversive if it jumped up and bit them. I also was surprised to see Clayton Moore (the Lone Ranger) in a romantic role. I never realized that he ever did anything other than sit on a horse. There is, of course, the smugness of the criminals as they think that they are immune from the killer's guest list. Anyway, Bela is sort of a good guy and a bad guy rolled into one. The best scene in the movie is at the end, but I won't spoil it. As a curiosity, and a period piece, it may be fun to watch for some people.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is truly a sorry excuse for film making. The pacing is poor, the budget must have been depressingly low, and the acting is cut-rate (that is, except for Bela Lugosi). The audio at this point in time is also terrible, with so much extra noise in the background that it sounded to me as though a jet were taking off for the entirety of the movie. If these things bother you at all, don't watch this film.

If you can get past this, however, you will find that the idea behind the film is a very good one. A German plastic surgeon (Bela Lugosi) was hired by the Japanese to operate on several Japanese agents and turn them into the likenesses of upstanding American businessmen whom the Japanese have kidnapped and killed. After completing his work, he was betrayed by the Japanese and thrown into prison. He later escapes and travels to America to seek revenge on his patients through a series of highly-publicized murders.

It seemed as though Bela Lugosi was the only decent actor in the film, and, to be honest, the rest of the actors were completely forgettable and stodgy. The leading actress ended up being rather boring and stereotypical, while the police officer assigned to her case was the common, chauvinistic and always correct dominant male that is found in many films of this time period.

I also found that the camera work was completely uninspired, often taking the exact same angles of the exact same rooms time and time again. After a while, this tends to drag the film down, setting a very slow pace for the \"action,\" which is more or less non-existent anyway.

To me, the idea is a fascinating one, and with a better writer, director, script, equipment, and actors it could become an excellent film. Sadly, these handicaps keep the film back for now, and I can't recommend it to anyone but the most open of movie lovers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Black Dragons\" is a second feature WWII propaganda film popular at the time. It's not as bad as some would have you believe.

A secret meeting hosted by the respected Dr. William Saunders (George Pembroke)is interrupted by a mysterious stranger names Monsieur Colomb (Bela Lugosi). Shortly thereafter the participants at the meeting begin to turn up murdered, their bodies being placed on the steps of the Japanese embassy in Washington. Colomb is suspected. Federal Agent Dick Martin (Clayton Moore) is assigned to the case and meets Saunders niece Alice Saunders (Joan Barclay) who tries to assist him. The reasons behind Colomb's actions are not explained until the final reel. Until all is explained at the end, the story is hard to comprehend.

Lugosi who had by this time been reduced to appearing in a string of low budget quickies, is actually quite good in this one. He is not allowed to over act as much as he ususlly did and credit for this has to go to director William Nigh. Lugosi's character slinks through the shadows and is reminiscent of his Dracula even to the point of the full close ups of his piercing eyes.

Clayton Moore, a one dimensional actor at best, would become TV's Lone Ranger in a few years. Joan Barclay makes a good heroine.

Although a little dated now, \"Black Dragons\" is not a bad way to spend an hour.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a strange film. A bit horror and certainly film noir. Some fifth columnists meet and mysteriously start dying off with a Japanese dagger in their hands after Monsieur Colomb (Bela Lugosi) shows up.

Soon the Lone Ranger arrives in the person of FBI Agent Richard 'Dick' Martin (Clayton Moore). Martin is ineffective in finding the killer as he is more interested in the niece (Joan Barclay) of a missing doctor, who is part of the gang.

After the last man dies, and the doctor is horribly disfigured by some strange serum, the true story of the group comes out and that is where it gets interesting and weird. I won't spill it.

Lugosi was marvelous as the skulking killer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I probably have to blame myself\u0085but I sure as hell expected more from a movie that goes by the title \"Black Dragons\" and revolves on secret WWII conspiracies, Nazi plastic surgeons and revenge. This film is a dull failure with an incomprehensible structure. The actual plot (which basically is rather ingenious and intriguing) only becomes clear during an explication near the end, but the problem is that you stop caring a long time before. We see how horror icon Bela Lugosi infiltrates in a society of prominent American politicians and kills them one by one. The story is timed right before WWII and \u0096 especially after witnessing the ending \u0096 it surely is a premise with lots of potential, so it's quite a shame it isn't elaborated more proper. There is however one great dialogue that I can't resist sharing! Man towards woman: \"Do you want to marry me?\" \"Why?\" \"So I can beat you up\u0085it's the only way you'll leave this place!\" It's the only highlight in an overall very boring movie. Bela Lugosi is lovely \u0096 as usual \u0096 but his spooky performance alone is hardly worth purchasing this film. If you're interested in seeing other ghoulish performances of his (in movies with decent screenplays), check out \"Invisible Ghost\", \"The Corpse Vanishes\", \"White Zombie\" and of course the 1931 Dracula version.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bela Lugosi is a real enigma. In the early 1930s, he was on top of the world after appearing in Dracula. Yet, again and again, he made lousy decisions regarding his career. Perhaps he had a bad agent, perhaps his drinking and drug use had a part in it or maybe he was just crazy. Regardless, he ruined his reputation by appearing in pretty much any film--ranging from excellent horror films (such as THE RAVEN) to big-budget flicks (like NINOTCHKA) to grade-Z flicks for the cheapest and shoddiest of studios. Interestingly enough, although he agreed to do this terrible film, he actually turned down the role that later went to Boris Karloff in FRANKENSTEIN! As for this movie, it is a very silly an horridly produced WWII propaganda film that featured a dumb plot and wretched editing. Lugosi spends much of the movie murdering saboteurs--not a bad thing at all. But at the end, we find out that he is himself a Nazi plastic surgeon and all the American-looking men he killed were actually Japanese!!!! The funniest part of this is during a flashback. You see Lugosi talking to a group of Japanese men before he changes them to American-like men. When the camera scans them, the men are clearly Asian. But, on all the other non-close-up shots, they are all VERY Western looking--many with bald heads!! They looked absolutely NOTHING like Japanese men. I suspect the plot must have undergone a re-write and this might account for the obvious mistake. Or, it could just be shoddy production values and editing. In fact, early in the film, they show a street scene in the city and all the cars (circa 1942) are old Model T Fords--obviously from stock footage!!! The bottom line is that the film is bad but also very dull. Unlike PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, it's hard to laugh at the ineptitude--just be put to sleep by it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First - nick-623, Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941, not 1942. They didn't have to predict the bombing.

Second - did nobody notice these six industrialist\/lawyers\/whatever were missing for a rather long amount of time? They were killed *before* the surgery took place! Third - how the heck did Lugosi get out of cabs without being seen? Fourth - why did the Japanese not just kill him, instead of putting him in jail with a convenient look-alike companion and his surgical kit? Fifth - oh, what's the use? This movie has a few interesting moments in it, but by the time they explain what's going on, you'll probably have stopped watching. If not, you won't care.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When a group of businessmen start dying in the presence of the mysterious Mr. Coulomb, FBI agent Dick Martin is assigned to the case. As the deaths continue to mount, Mr. Martin obviously isn't having much success. By the end of the movie, the strange truth is revealed, which I won't reveal here.

One of the other users commenting on this states \"This is a Classic film and should be ENJOYED and not picked apart\". I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with this opinion. It is \"classic\" only in that it is old, not in any sense pertaining to its quality. I've enjoyed a lot of low budget \"B\" movies from around this time period, but this isn't one of them.

The pacing is unbearably slow, the camera work is pretty bland, most of the acting is fairly wooden (even Lugosi isn't great in this one in my opinion) and the plot, while it has an interesting premise, seems to be thrown together in a very difficult to follow manner.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"** Black Dragons (1942) William Nigh ~ Bela Lugosi, Joan Barclay, Clayton Moore

\"Just prior to the start of World War II, Dr. Melcher (Bela Lugosi), a world-famous surgeon, is brought in by Japan's Black Dragon Society as part of a secret plan. Dr. Melcher operates on six Black Dragon Society operatives and transforms them into exact duplicates of 6 high ranking American businessmen who are replaced by these look-alikes. With their operatives in place, the Black Dragon Society's plan to sabotage the American war effort appears to be set but, the F.B.I. Chief and an agent begin to piece together the clues that hopefully uncover this sinister plot,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

That synopsis gives away the entire ending; which, in this case, might be a good thing. \"Black Dragons\" is an incredible, wildly inconsistent muddle. A wiser course of action would have been to stay with the teasing supernatural angle. In early scenes, Mr. Lugosi (as Monsieur Colomb) is effectively creepy. Confusing Joan Barclay (as Alice Saunders), future \"Lone Ranger\" Clayton Moore (as Dick Martin), along with a cast of old stage and silent veterans do the best they can with a story that looks as if filmmakers were making it up as they went along.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had expected a fairly straightforward R-rated graphic, sexual, crude teen-comedy when I sat down to see this... it turned out to be fairly accurate... only it was far more sick and disgusting than I would have thought. I don't know if the director\/writer Gregory Poirier is sick or deeply messed up sexually, but I doubt that a normal person could have made a movie like this. I could probably have taken it if it was just that, if the only thing that was wrong was it was that it required a tough stomach... but it isn't. The film is also horribly mean-spirited and disturbing... every single character that has more than one full second of time on-screen is an extreme... sexually, mentally or physically. I don't know if this is just the director's sense of humor, but I just found it to be... wrong. Just wrong. Even in a comedy, there is supposed to be some seriousness. The plot is stupid. The acting is bad. The characters are inconsistent and poorly written... all of them. There isn't one single likable character in the film. The humor is disgusting and goes way too far. The film is just so incredibly poorly done that I really don't think it's worth anyone's time. If you like R-rated, crude comedies with plenty of sexual innuendo and graphic stuff, watch The Groomsmen, or, better yet, American Pie... or Road Trip, my personal favorite. But don't watch this. I can't possibly describe to you how bad it is... you would have to experience it for yourself. However, this is one of those times where I'll say that you're better off wondering. That way you can just imagine that this film goes very close to the bottom... without knowing that it goes through it, and far lower than that. This movie most of all looks like a group of horny teenage guys got together, put together a film crew, and every-time one of them got an idea, they filmed it, and later put the entire thing together. It lacks structure, consistency and taste. I recommend this only to horny teenage guys who have seen every single other R-rated crude teen comedy and who don't care about quality. Everyone else... do the sensible thing; avoid this. It's not even worth it to see the booty. Believe me. 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I mostly rented this movie to see Shannon Elizabeth. She played well in this movie, but the plot sucked. The movie wasn't really about anything just about trying to stay single after making a pact when one of Jerry O' Connell's friends gets married. The other friends put together this money and who's ever last to get married get's the money ($10,000) from all his friends. Anyway the movie just try to follow through by making no since and trying to make it more funny then making since. I'm glad I only paid .50 for this movie. It really wasn't good at all. I rated it **** out of 10 stars!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can you say about a movie whose funniest episode sees a fat man wrestling a garden hose? The acting, particularly that of lead man Jerry O'Connel, is embarrassing. The dialogue is so contrived and unfunny it makes you cringe. The controlling idea is actually not a bad one for this genre (infantile teen comedy), but, somehow, the director manages to make the least of it. I rate it a 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Highly flawed but just about watchable `comedy' that runs like a Farrelly brothers reject. The most criminal thing about it though is the casting. I couldn't for one minute believe Jerry O Connell and Jake Busey in the role of superstuds, who could pull any woman at the drop of a hat, nor could I believe (the very beautiful) Shannon Elizabeth as a streetwise tough cop!. Story is predictable but does manage to raise a titter on a few occasions, although, the `gross out', meant to be `shock comic' scenes, (one involving an amputated testicle, and another set in a sperm bank) are just plain awful. If this film is on TV then its probably worth watching if you are extremely bored, but please don't waste your money renting it!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Right then. This film is totally unfunny, puerile, has gags from other films, has songs from other films (Blink 182's \"Mutt\", Grand Theft Audio's \"We Luv U\"), an unlikeable leading man, a ridiculous plot, and lame parodies of films like Mission Impossible 2 and American Beauty. Redeeming features? Shannon Elizabeth and Jaime Pressly. Enough said.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is movie is garbage, it looked really funny on the previews but I didn't laugh once through the whole movie. Do yourself a big favor and don't waste your money on this, don't waste anyone's money on this. I gave it a 1\/10 believe me I would have given it less if I could have. I'm a 15 year old guy and I thought it was trash if you wanna see a good movie go out and see Jay and Silent Bob strike back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Horrible, misogynist drivel. My neighbor brought this turkey over, subjected me to it, and didn't have the courtesy to apologize. The plot was laughable, my four year old could write a better movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here's the spoiler: At the end of the movie, a little piece of you dies. You'll spend the rest of your life searching in vain for that missing piece, but it's gone, it's gone. You'll wander the streets at night peering into your neighbors' windows as they sit down for dinner. Friends and family will try to pinpoint when exactly you turned into the walking dead. You'll answer their questions and concerns with a blank stare and some mumblings about a runaway testicle. When AMC inevitably makes Tomcats the \"movie of the month,\" a series of mysterious murders will take place in your city. You'll wake up the next morning balled up on the floor of the kitchen with a faint taste of brains in your mouth. Then you'll crawl into the living room and onto the couch. You'll stare at the wall, wet yourself a little and then begin to laugh maniacally. Because once your dead inside, Jake Busey in a thong is actually pretty damn funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you want to see someone accidentally eat another man's testicle, or look at a row of pathetically fake hard-ons at a wedding, or listen to a man talk about how good it felt to have sex with a girl while she was throwing up, then this is the movie for you. Alternating, in neck breaking fashion, between romantic and gross out comedy, Tomcats is certainly interesting. The lovely Jaime Pressly plays the wife of Horatio Sanz(tell me another one) who is found in many silhouetted situations with other women, but there is, surprisingly, no nudity. Jake Busey is thoroughly revolting as a hound dog who you wouldn't want as your friend. Shannon Elizabeth and Jerry O'Connell are both good and make a convincing couple, but the movie is far too busy trying to disgust to be any good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rare and auspicious are the moments in film-making when greatness stands as a defining monument for the rest of the industry to measure themselves against and for us to immerse in that glorious moment.

Some stories transcend their time and aspire to the lofty reaches of a classic and the stuff of legends. Throw in the refined skills of an ensemble cast of thespians who are at the very top of their game.

\"Where has all the originality gone?\" It is here, as this story and it's cast sashay through a plot and story that will not only educate but also entertain even the most seasoned of Shakespearean\/action\/love story connoisseurs.

I cannot begin to imagine where the writers dreamed up this extraordinary tale. Where do geniuses get this kind of inspiration? I now have hope for mankind, knowing that this kind of talent still exists gives me hope that we will make it to the stars and beyond, perhaps to the very gates of heaven.

I have, like others before me, dreamed of greatness. Though I did not write this movie I did see it and because of this movie's noble greatness, I feel as if I have been elevated to a higher level of being, a higher level of spiritual wholeness.

It is no wonder this kind of glory eludes most of us. What would become of our world if we all could attain this level of magnificence? We would probably be consumed in a white fire of super-nova glory as we evolve into trans-dimensional spiritual beings capable of omnipotent creative power.

The most important thing to know, with all your heart and the very essence of your being, is that \"Tomcats\" is nothing like what I have been talking about. \"Tomcats\" is the antithesis of all I mentioned. It could very well destroy our world. For as some reviewers rate a movie on a star system, i.e. 1 through 5 stars, or even zero stars, I'm going to rate \"Tomcats\" a black hole.

I am willing to donate money to a cause that will put a stop to these kinds of atrocities that, as of late, seem to be running amuck at box offices. I'm not even adverse to the use of nuclear weapons. It must stop. How much more of this can we take before aliens from outer space come down here and blow up our planet because we have so many stupid, crass, vulgar, unimaginative, and degrading movies spewing out of Hollywood? I'm not even going to dignify this movie by mentioning anyone's name that starred or produced it. I'm not even going to waste my time describing the story, since we've seen it a ba-zillion times, and all of the past versions were at least a ga-zillion times better.

By the way my head nearly imploded during this movie, but with supreme selfless effort and lots-o-luck I survived to warn the public. You have been warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie, quite literally, does not have one redeeming feature. The characters are one-dimensional, cliched, incredibly misogynistic and stupid. The script looks as if it was cobbled together from 100 other movies, the acting is horrible, and some of the 'gross-out' humour made me feel nauseous.

Shame on you, Gregory Poirier, for thinking ANY of this would be funny or interesting!

The worst movie I've seen in several years.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Guidelines state that a comment must contain a minimum of four lines. That is the only reason I am saying anything more about Tomcats. Because after all, my one line summary really says everything there is to say. There is absolutely NOTHING remotely entertaining in this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is one of the worst I've ever seen. Even being hangover didn't help. The plot is lousy, if existent. The relatively large number of beautiful girls are unable to help. I guess seeing an episode of temptation island with the sound turned of would give the same kind of experience. Do NOT see this flick","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought it will be a Ok movie after seeing the commercials about it. It was funny at some parts and some very nasty. The only person I felt sorry for is Horatio Sans who got a hot wife who is cheating on him with other women. But he never got a chance to have a threesome with until the and that was good but they should have made more bigger thru out the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ah the sci-fi channel. How often do you disappoint me? Quite often I think, do you ever show good movies? OK you have given me the great 'Heroes' and the reasonably good 'The Lost Room' but they are series, and as for the movie well there really is nothing positive to say. Bad acting, bad directing, terrible characters and a shallow story, and that is just for starters. I checked out the director Allan A Goldstien and was not surprised to find nothing of interest in his resume (in fact I am half thinking that this is a pseudo name). The premises of four motor bikers out motto-crossing in a national park when one of them has an accident that needs a park ranger to come rescue them only for them to get caught in a forrest fire is weak and predictable that you know every beat before it happens. Leading man Bryan Genesse the park ranger is so bad it is terrible. Cast as the action hero martial arts boy in the footsteps of so many others this guy makes Seagal and Van Damme look like De Nero. The supporting cast are little better and well before the end one was left hoping the fire would engulf them all then the film crew. Avoid at all costs","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That is what this movie is. Good God the special effects suck in this movie. It is difficult for anything to suck more than this movie's plot, but the special effects manage to pull it off. Let me try to explain just how bad this movie is.

First, there is the plot. There are four punk-ass teenage dirt bikers who are riding around in a forest in Duluth, MN. One of them is a dumb-ass and tries a ridiculous jump and breaks his leg. A paramedic comes to help him, but gets stranded with them when the helicopter breaks. Then all five realize that there is a forest fire, which we see is started by some guy dumping tons of gas all over the forest. All they show us is his boots, and they show scene after scene of this guys boots walking around dumping gas and starting fires. Meanwhile, the teenagers try to escape the fire, only to find that boot man has somehow managed to get ahead of them (while they were speeding through the forest on dirt bikes!), dump gas all over the area they were riding through, and start more fires. He does this several times, and the paramedic finally catches him and starts him on fire. I won't spoil the ending, but this guy's resilience will have you shouting \"WHAT THE BLOODY HELL?!?!\" at the screen. Anyway, they are now surrounded by fire, and their only escape is through a mine which is filled with methane gas. Yes, methane gas. I'm not even going to try to describe the ending, because it is too ridiculous, and you'll enjoy it more if you don't see it coming. Which you won't, because you can't possibly expect what happens. This is because of the second major problem with this movie: consistency.

Is some semblance of consistence too much to ask for? Apparently so. I cannot even count the number of broken limbs in this movie (they keep breaking arms and legs while crashing their bikes). I think each character breaks at least one limb, and several more than one. They then limp around until the scene ends, and then forget that they're supposed to have broken limbs. There is one scene where three of them who are supposed to have broken legs start dancing. But then their injuries suddenly return when the plot needs them to.

Finally, the CGI. If there is a hell, it consists of watching the fire in this movie. All they did for the forest fires is line the dirt paths with CGI fire. You can clearly see that the only CGI fire is along the paths, and all of the trees more than two feet from the path are left untouched. And then they zoom out and show the whole forest being engulfed in flames. It's hard to describe in words how ridiculous it looks, but I assure you that the ridiculousness is quite impressive.

This movie is one of those so-bad-its-good types. There are some occasions where it descends into the painful-bad category, but for the most part it stays above the line and is laughably inept. I can't wait to check out the other Nature Unleashed movies that came in the four-pack with this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**MAJOR SPOILERS** Watchable only for the action sequences not the story or acting in it \"Nature Unleashed: Fire\" has one of the longest and excruciating endings in modern motion picture history. We have the fearless Ranger Jake, Bryan Genesse, leading this trio of hysterical bikers to safety in of all paces an explosive fume beaching mine shaft! This during a raging forest fire! It seems that Ranger Jake with all his knowledge of the great outdoors didn't realize that a mine shaft that's leaking with dangerous and explosive methane gas is the last place to go when all the woods around it is on fire!

***SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT ON*** All this started some time ago when Ranger Jake in an effort to save the not that on the ball miner Tiny, Chris Harz aka \"The Sherd\", let him slip through his fingers and fall to his death at the bottom of the mine shaft, or did he! Even though we were kept in suspense to who's setting the forest fires for the first half of the movie it wasn't a surprise at all the Tiny was the culprit! As you would expect in movies like these Tiny seemed to be made of hardened steel in that nothing that ever happened to him, fires explosions as well as impaling, could stop the crazed miner.

Before Tiny's reappearance, or resurrection, Ranger Jake got involved in rescuing bikers Chris Mel Sharon & Marcus, Josh Cohen Melanie Lewis Anastasia Griffith & Ross McCall, who were trapped in the woods with fires breaking all around them. Having the usual know it all-Marcus-among the bikers things don't go as smoothly as Ranger Jake wanted them to go. Marcus not only eggs on the meek Chris to do something stupid, jump with his bike over a 10 foot pile of logs, but has the guy break his leg. This makes it almost impossible for Ranger Jake to have Chris air-lifted out before the fires consume him as well as his fellow bikers!

For the remainder of the movie Ranger Jake, who put himself in charge, makes boner after boner in his attempt to save himself and the trapped and lost in the woods bikers! All this ends with Jake's brilliant idea to hide in a dangerous and abandoned mine shaft with the rescue party just yards away from rescuing them if they only stayed put and in the open where the rescue team could find them!

Even though he was supposed to be the life of the party, or movie, Tiny for all his efforts in being another indestructible super villain came across as a man who spent too much time out in the sun. The make-up job on Tiny was so outrageous that he looked like he dumped a jar of spaghetti sauce over his head instead of having it burned to a crisp.

Ranger Jake came across as either somewhat very naive or retarded in his being so taken in by the dangerous Tiny in always trying to save the rampaging psycho who never hid his feelings about what he had in mind for the play by the rules Forest Ranger. In fact Ranger Jake actually encouraged Tiny to do both him and the bikers in by showing him how incompetent he was in trying to save them. The fact that Ranger Jake was successful wasn't because he was so smart but because Tiny , despite his indestructibility, was so brainless!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"when i watched this crap, it reminded me of the the title of the movie FIRE, Which is where this garbage belongs, in a fire. I don't even know what to say the acting blew, the fire looked really fake, Andy the chicks are'nt exactly supermodels. And lastly i don't know what you people are complaining i own this damn movie, yeah happy birthday to me Well i guess it could be worse i could be watching left behind 2. And to make things worse i have the whole set on DVD fire,volcano,earthquake,avalanche. All i'm missing is the awesome tornado movie which i hear sucks balls.

Well until my next crap movie peace","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A bunch of teen dirt bikers are out in the forest riding around in circles. They're having fun; little do they know nature is about to be unleashed by an emo refugee from a Deliverance or Hills Have Eyes movie. He's armed with matches and fire accellerant. And he's got an eye that's bleeding or something. Why torch a park? I dunno. Maybe he doesn't like Smokey the Bear, or something. But he wears army\/navy store fatigues, if that helps.

The rangers send one single helicopter to battle the resulting blaze; that's all you ever see, except a bunch of people in a base somewhere talking a lot about the fire, but doing nothing. Some cop or ranger or militiaman or whatever he is drops from the helicopter on a defective tether.

Everybody now rides their dirt bikes like they're auditioning for motocross. They forever pop wheelies, do Evel Knievel jumps, spin around etc. They argue incessantly. Shots of the fire are as phony as a 3 dollar bill; it's the same footage from a dozen different angles, and the blaze never grows or moves. And you still never once see any fire fighting equipment.

SyFy channel movie which has about 0% science fiction attached to it. What you can expect from this: bad acting, cheap effects, and a story that goes nowhere (like the bikes and fire go nowhere). Laughable insomniac cure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The story line is a joke, the effects are terrible, the cinematography doesn't fit the tone of the movie, the dialogue is cheesy, and the actors do a good job at screwing up the rest. People just don't act that way in real life situations. My question is: Who would fund such crap?

The movie starts where some miners fall down a mine shaft after a fireman fails to save them. Next we join some bikers in a forest who ride around doing stunts on their bikes. One guy falls and breaks his leg or something. The fireman arrives to help them. Meanwhile, somebody starts a fire. Some more bike stunts. Bla bla bla.

I wasted my time.

Do not watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This production is an insult to the Stooges, especially Moe. It is inaccurate and poorly acted. Many of the events depicted just didn't happen that way and too much was left out or skipped over. Read the books written by Moe and his daughter Joan instead. This was a waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stephen King TV movies can go 5 or 6 parts and no one complains, right? So why give the Stooges only 96 minutes? I'm not asking for a PBS mini-series, but would a two parter had killed anyone? The movie steamrolled over events that should have been mentioned and mentioned events that could have been omitted. I do want to give a salute to the performances of the stars...they had a tough job because they didn't really look like the Stooges, but the spirit was there. After watching the movie, I pulled out a tape from American Movie Classics that had the real deal on it and laughed myself silly. The movie was pretty tough emotionally, especially after Curly has the stroke and Moe needs to keep the business going. When Curley started crying I lost it...Like I said, the movie was good, but could have been and SHOULD have been much, much better. Maybe it's fitting though...the Stooges got ripped off when they were alive and now, 25 years later, it happens again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie was a pleasure to watch if you are a fan of the Stooges. The story is told from the point of view of Moe Howard and his relationships with his brothers Shemp and Jerome (Curly) Howard, also the life long friendship with Larry Fine. The movie deals mostly with the off camera high points and pit falls of the Stooges multi decade career. The casting director and makeup artist did a fair job of finding actors who resembled the famous ensemble. The actor who plays \"Curly\" Howard did a fine job of portraying the on camera antics of the most beloved Stooge. A must see for any fan of Three Stooges shorts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember vacationing in Florida when this movie aired. I had set up my VCR to record it. The anticipation was killing me. I had known about the movie ever since it was announced some half a year earlier. We came back from Florida 4 days after the movie aired, and I immediately watched it. I tried as hard as I could to like it, but I didn't.

I am a HUGE 3 stooges fan. And as such I know quite a bit about them. So it wasn't like I was expecting to learn anything from the movie, and I didn't. I was more interested with the portrayals and seeing how accurate their information was. There were many things wrong with this film. The actors, the script, the reenactments, ALL could have been much better.

Paul Ben-Victor is a tremendously talented actor. But let's face facts, Moe Howard was WAY out of his reach. He doesn't look like him, he doesn't sound like him, and thus, he can't act like him. Michael Chiklis is also very talented, but his portrayal of Curly didn't quite score with me, although when Curly becomes ill he did very well at that. John Kassir's portrayal of Shemp could've been rehearsed better. It was more of a bad impression than a portrayal. Worst of all was Joe Besser. They made him skinny, and more annoying than he really was. It was just plain laziness. I don't like the Joe shorts, because, as the movie illustrates he hardly EVER got hit. But he wasn't that annoying, and DEFINATELY wasn't that thin. The best performance belongs to Evan Handler. He had the most accurate stooge portrayal. The problem with Larry's character, his hair is WAY too frizzy and WAY too red. I know that's too technical, so I won't count that on my list of why I didn't like this movie.

Back to Shemp, who just so happens to be my favorite stooge. He is written as a whining, quivering, chicken. True, he had many phobias, but he wasn't that bad. He didn't leave the group initially because he was afraid of Ted Healy, although he didn't like him, Shemp left because he received an offer from another studio that he simply couldn't turn down. Instead of the truth, this movie chooses to make him wet the bed, on Larry no less, run into a closet, and shamefully bow out of the group. Another problem is that Shemp made nearly as many Columbia shorts as Curly did as a stooge, but only one, Fright Night, which was his first short, is shown. His career was almost completely ignored. Plus, lousy editing caused a terrible and most unforgivable error. Shemp was born in early 1895, and died in late 1955. That would make him how old at death? Well, here's a hint, it's not 59 as the movie states.

Now for the writing, which I think was flawed only because this movie was rushed out. Some of the lines are dumb and could be developed and\/or introduced much better than they were. The one line that really got me was at the very end of the film, when Moe is showing the promoter how the eyepoke is done.

\"That's how we do it, make contact with the brow bone, not the eyes, looks real on film though.\" this line was poorly written and poorly placed in the film. It's meant to be one of those lines that make the audience say OH! In amazement and I'm sure it did with some people, but the very end of the movie was not the place for this line. A better place you ask? How about when they show up at Columbia for the first time and are introduced to the sound effects machine. I know initially there was no sound for the eyepoke, but Moe for instance could have said, \"What about this?\" and eyepokes Curly or Larry. Jules White then says \"Are you okay?\" or \"How'd you do that?\" There were a lot of misplaced lines in this film which is a clear sign that the script was rushed out. Another one involves the origin of the name Shemp, although that one isn't as bad, and so I will let that one slide.

What does this film do well? It illustrates how the stooges were screwed by Columbia, which they were. I'm not sure if Moe was an errand boy, but that was the kind of dramatization stuff that is meant to get the viewer sympathizing with them. I know this film was a dramatization. I know not everything is going to be crisp and clean and absolutely perfect. However some of the stuff they made up and the real stuff that they ignored were in serious conflict with each other. For instance Curly's stroke is not even close to the way it happened in real life. I know, I know, dramatization, but the purpose of dramatizations is to make real events more dramatic. Curly's stroke in real life is more dramatic than what they showed in the movie. Here's what really happened. Curly was sitting in a chair off screen while a scene was being shot, they called him for the final pie fight scene but there was no response. Moe went to go get him and discovered his little brother head slumped, half paralyzed, unable to speak, and tears streaming down his face. Moe then said \"Babe?\" and tried to help him out of his chair. Poor Curly drops to his knees. Then the ambulance was called.

All in all, this movie wasn't terrible, but it certainly wasn't good, or even OK. This film portrays the stooges helplessly and inaccurately and sometimes goes overboard with dramatizations. There is a very, VERY long list of inaccuracies in this film. If you don't believe me, check out a fella named Stooge's list at the threestooges.com news forum. It is about a page and a half long. Some things in the movie I can let slide. But others were unforgivable. The Three Stooges were geniuses, and a lot of today's comedy is based off of what they did. Don't believe me? Check out the Simpsons, and more so Ren & Stimpy. But this film fails to capture their genius. It more so inaccurately captures their hardships, which is important, but if the title of the film is gonna be the Three Stooges, it has to portray their ingenuity and originality more than anything.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cuore Sacro combines glossy film effects with a story that leaves much to be desired. With a script that the screen-writers for \"Touched by an Angel\" might have passed up as being too impuissant, Ozpetek still keeps us interested at times. In fact, I wanted to focus on the positives but I found the last act so bafflingly bizarre and awful that I think the couple who jumped to their deaths in the very beginning might have been the fortunate ones.

This movie is at heart (pun intended) a story built on a big twist-style ending. This kind of tenuous foundation can result in a tremendous success like Tornatore's Una Pura Formalit\u00e0 or god-awful garbage like the films of M. Night Shyamalan. Cuore Sacro falls somewhat closer to the latter. I found the cinematography in general to be above average. The tracking shots of Irene dutifully doing her quotidian laps in the pool were very impressive as was the atmosphere conjured by the interior of her mother's house. For me, the grotesque parody of Michelangelo's Pieta when Giancarlo comes in from the rain and Irene poses with him was a bit of a stretch. One big issue that I took exception to in this film was Ozpetek's method of simply turning the camera directly into the face of his protagonist and recording the emotions taking place. This worked to fantastic effect in Facing Windows, but when employed here it seems that Bubolova is no Mezzogiorno. In fact besides the ridiculous story, the main problem with this film is the milquetoast performance of it's main character. It made the final breakdown scene even more unconscionably bad.

In this movie Ozpetek continues his crusade against our corporate-driven societies by urging us to be more spiritual (not necessarily religious) and more altruistic. And while I'm certainly one who is very sympathetic to this view, I felt as if the audience was being hit over the head with a blunt object. Could the characters have been anymore two-dimensional? I tended to find this movie very enervating and soulless. Was the \"evil\" aunt Eleonora anything more than a caricature? It goes for the people on the side of \"right\" too, like the \"good\" aunt Maria Clara and the elderly doorman Aurelio. And just in case we might have missed Ozpetek's point, he decided to clothe his opposing forces in their own liveries.

This brings me to an interesting point about the director's use of color. He clothes the opening couple who briefly take flight in all black, as well as Irene (when we first meet her and after her life-conversion), the evil aunt Eleonora, and of course the good but confused Padre Carras. Black is a color that suggests a definite course, the wearer's mind is set and emotionless. It is the color of choice for that indispensable item of modern day armor, the business suit. It is also the color of mourning, such as the funerary finery sported by the suicidal duo. Finally, black is the color of piety, such as the simple robes of priests and nuns that Irene emulates in the second half of the film.

The other main color, and a very appropriate choice for a movie about the sacred heart, is red. It is a color that has an extreme inherent emotional component. The character who wears red is bold, emotional, receptive to new ideas, and indulgent. Red is a risky color in modern times; it challenges our perceptions of the wearer and at the same time makes the wearer vulnerable. Yet red carries an enormous weight of history and mysticism, as the earliest members of Cro-Magnon man buried their dead in red ochre and indeed the first man named in the Torah, Adam, is named after the Hebrew word for red. Red also has an anachronistic flavor, looking back on the past where red (and by association a less self-driven attitude towards life) was more accepted. So when we encounter the red-filled room (the mysterious frieze covered walls complete with a red accented menorah and a red painting of a Whirling Dervish!) of Irene's mother, \"good\" characters Maria Clara and Aurelio wearing resplendent outfits of red, and finally the painting of Irene's mother in a formal red gown we can see where Ozpetek's sympathies lie.

A word or two about the soundtrack, I found the original musical themes to be excellently suited to the story. The quasi-baroque theme that signified Irene was great for it's monotony and feeling of restive malaise (the absolute best use of a constantly repeated baroque theme such a this would have to be in Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, with it's masterful repetitions of an 8-bar sarabande attributed to Handel). One absolutely inspired choice was a couple of seconds of an opera aria we hear as the power is flickering while Irene is chasing Benny through the house. It is of the famous aria \"Ebben? ... Ne andr\u00f2 lontano\" from Catalani's opera \"La Wally\". The aria is sung by the lead soprano who is leaving home forever. As Irene's mother was a dramatic soprano, we can guess that this is a recording of her singing and that she is saying a poignant farewell to her daughter, as in the movie Irene is soon destined to never again see Benny alive. I just have one minor question of the soundtrack, why include the famous tango Yo Soy Maria? I love the song and personally could hear it all the time, but it didn't really fit here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I live in Rome where the Turkish director of this film lives and works. From my Italian friends I have heard many good things about his films...so after seeing the preview I really wanted to see \"Cuore Sacro\". I am deeply disappointed, one of the most pompous, pseudo-religious, highly improbable and naive films. I love film but this one is really heavy and bad. The main character is really crazy, and should be locked up in a madhouse...made me sympathise with the negative character of an aunt, who runs a dirty-dealing company that only wants to make money...and I consider myself an anti-capitalist...that bad!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rollerskating vampires?! I'm sorry but even for the 80's that's just way too cheesy to be remotely scary... You can excuse the original the odd kitsch moment because it was parodying old movies and TV shows, but that's been done once, so the sequel needed to be a little less camp, not even more outlandish! Plus, the first movie had the presence of Chris Sarandon - a man who could even make stalking discotheques in casual knitwear seem seductive! - that this one sorely lacks, so there was no 'danger' in anything that happened, it just seemed silly.

Admittedly I only saw this once when I was 7, but by then already being a huge fan of the original I remember being disgusted. To me, there is no sequel to Fright Night, just a tacky spoof that doesn't deserve any appraisal whatsoever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie many years ago, and just for kicks decided to rent it and watch it again. The plot is a carbon copy from Fright Night. I did like the hairy vampire and the bug eating driver. Otherwise it was not good at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"so if a guy meets you and he says 'I want you to look at my erection!' don't be alarmed, maybe he wants you to look at the film he made about how his house was to be built. yes! that's the only thing what happens in this movie! it's like the worst Warholian BEEP I ever saw! it's like filming the inside of your toilet before you flush it, in fact, it's less interesting to look at than that.

but if you do watch Lennon's Erection, be warned that he put a lot of background noise in it too. I mean, really, it's as if the building is being attacked by space mutants from hell or something! in the meanwhile, the building in progress is growing up as an erection can do too (in almost 20 minutes, what an accomplishment).

so if someone does ask you to watch his erection, be sure he wants to videotape it all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... ever! (I always wanted to write that:) Many years ago (in 1993 as I recall it) one of my former classmates persuaded me to watch what he called \"a epic masterpiece\". To this day it stands out to me as the worst movie I have ever seen. The acting, the story, the effects - everything is bad. Unless you are one of these people who just loves to appreciate trash, you should pass on this. However chances are that since you are reading this, you've already seen it.

Out of almost 500 movies this is the only non-short I've given a 1\/10.

I haven't seen any other low-budget Asian warrior flicks, so I guess there's even worse things out there! Scary...

:P","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was quite a mess. There wasn't anything really going for it. The only character that had any appeal was Bobbie Phillips' Maya and she wasn't even worth it.

The plot is standard, double-cross the double-crossing double-crosser. With a few too many double crosses to make any sense. Sometimes that means it \"keeps you guessing\" in this case it \"keeps you waiting\". By the end I just wanted everyone to get thrown in jail or shot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is much the same as Cannibal Holocaust. If it weren't for the needless animal killing in the name of 'shock' (\"Ooh look at us, we're hardcore, we've added real death to our films\") these films would make their way onto my dusty classics shelf - I'm a huge fan of cannibal films and zombies. But as it stands, it's another example of shock horror clutching at the last straws of the pile in a desperate effort to make a poor film generate more hype. To sum up, a crusty gore flick with limited appeal. A fan of 70's gore should give this a try, but anyone with modern ethics and tastes should pick something a little better written for their popcorn-fest.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just how bad? Well, compared to this movie, Cannibal Holocaust is Citizen Kane. There's the stilted acting, the atrocious dialogue, the half baked plot and like its companion piece way too much in the way of on screen animal slaughter that was actually done. Unlike Holocaust, Ferox is a straight forward movie. It doesn't pretend to be a pseudo documentary. In some ways that helps the production in that the film is very sharp and crisp compared to Holocaust's graininess. Unfortunately, we are once again given a group of people who are morally reprehensible. They torture the natives and essentially bring everything that they get upon themselves. There's really nothing in this film that makes it worth your while. I was fairly lenient with my review of Holocaust due to some actual attempt at a statement and style, but in Ferox's case there is no reason to watch this unless you solely get off on blood and gore.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Brave One is about a New York radio show host named Erica Bain (Jodie Foster). Her life is a dream living in the city she grew up in and loves. She has her great fianc\u00e9 David (Naveen Andrews), whom she is planning to marry. But one night while Erica and David are out walking their dog, they are attacked and mugged by a group of degenerates, leaving David dead. Erica recovers but is heartbroken and traumatized later on, and can barely cope with real life anymore. She buys a gun off a guy on the streets for protection. But one day she's shopping in a store, and a man comes in and shoots the clerk dead. It is then that Erica shoots and kills this man, and she becomes a vigilante. Killing anyone who tries to threaten or harm her or any others. At the same time Detective Mercer (Terrence Howard) is tracking down this elusive unknown killer, and in the process becomes friends with Erica. Erica begins to regain her sanity as she kills these violent people, but is unsure of whether or not what she's doing is morally right. And as her and Mercer become closer, he doesn't even realize the unknown murderous assailant is right next to him.

Jodie Foster gives a very good performance in The Brave One. She portrays this type of violent, morally corrupted character brilliantly. Terrence Howard is also great in this movie. Both have excellent chemistry together, and strengthen the film to a certain level. The Brave One looks visually pristine, and conveys some brilliant camera work, but not all of it works to a great effect. The scenes where Erica is absolutely traumatized and afraid to walk out her front door to face the world. The camera swayed back and forth to the sides in an almost dream-like way, and really captured the moment with essence. Whereas almost every time Erica killed somebody, everything just had to go slo-mo and show her facial expressions in fine detail. The slo-mo was properly used when Erica committed her first murder. But why keep doing this effect almost every time she committed murder? The camera work creates a great atmosphere in most of the film, but there a few scenes here that are just plain overkill.

The Brave One is very much about how these murders affect Erica emotionally. Her fianc\u00e9 is killed by a group of thugs, and suddenly her love of New York City is turned upside down. She realizes that there is a dark side to the beloved city, and she says so on her radio show. I don't completely understand this though. Erica acts as if she never realized that violence can occur at night in the city, and that's pretty stupid. If she lived there all her life she must be either blind or very oblivious. Erica also seems to be a glutton for inhumane, murderous people. She really doesn't even have to go look for them, they just to come to her as if they're begging to be shot dead for their wrong-doing. The Brave One deals with the morals and proper use of violence strongly at first, and then suddenly it glorifies it. The ending is very negative, and completely immoral and inhumane. It also negates the purpose of Terrence Howard's character, which the movie spends so much time trying to evenly develop, and suddenly his morals take a U-turn. The morals in The Brave One become very fractured, and just plain shatter all over the place by the end. So violence is okay? It's a good thing to commit murder as long as it's for vengeance? I pretty much refuse to believe that. You know why? Because I have a conscience, which this film surely lacks. It is not right to take the life of another person, no matter how bad they are, or how much you hate them. Erica Bain sets out to stop these evil-doers, but in the end she is no better than the horrible people she kills.

Jodie Foster and Terrence Howard provide a lot of strength for this movie. The Brave One contains a strong message, but that message is both immoral and wrong. This movie may look pretty, well acted, and intelligently strong. But it becomes pretty rotten by the end. I give The Brave One a 1.5 out of 4. The message is very out of line and morally incorrect, and really can't be saved by the good acting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am very disappointed because I expected a real ride as promised in the many reviews. The script is very bad with lot of holes and the direction too. The director failed completely to develop each violent scene with thrills and suspense. It tries very hard to follow a wannabe thriller. Therefore I had to watch how every bullet was spent without giving any sense to me. I was always asking what kind of movie I am watching. Then I didn't like that she smoked aggressively one cigarette after the other but perhaps the film was supported partly by the tobacco industry. The end is also very disappointing. I cannot understand how Jodie Foster could have been nominated for the Golden Globe in this worst role of her life. Jodie, therefore I liked very much PANIC ROOM or FLIGHT PLAN. This is definitely one of the worst I have ever seen. 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know what neighborhoods the folks who wrote the rave reviews for this movie live in, but I'm glad I'm not there if they don't comment on the cartoonish-ness of this thing. Okay, we learn to suspend our disbelief in films like the \"Die Hard\" series, but seeing little Jodie knock off a whole street gang, with a Glock, as a NOVICE yet...c'mon. All she needed was a bald head and a ripped T-shirt and she would BE Bruce Willis.

Apparently, Jodie being the executive producer blinded her to what a joke and waste of her money this would be. Or she was living out some kind of fantasy where she is the only blonde and everyone else is a brunette black, or Hispanic. Even the dog is black. Little Blondie is the only good one and (except for a Black police officer) everyone else in town is some nasty minority out to get her. Has your fear of your acting talent declined so far that you think the only way you can get noticed is to be the only bright spot (literally) on camera in a dark, morose and somber neighborhood\/film\/cast? Apparently she thought she was in the wrong movie...The Dark Knight.

Ridiculous plot holes, furniture chewing acting, gratuitous violence (\"Look girls! Now you can do it, too!\")...Spend the time with your family instead of watching this drek.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A lot of good things could have been done with this movie using essentially the same sets, plot devices and storyline. For example, why not plant a seed of Erica's capability before the murder of her lover? Why not develop Erica and the cop's relationship slowly and convincingly? Maybe contrast Eric's metamorphis by including some other post-event facet, relationship, etc., in her life that she now rejects? Why not have her injure an innocent bystander to underscore the wrongness in Erica's actions.

Instead TBO exploits the revenge fantasy to its maximum level, giving insincere lip service to the \"don't do this at home\" messages thrown in only to allow the film to qualify as legitimate.

I'm not a Jodie Foster fan. After displaying some range in films like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, NELL and one where she plays the ordinary mother of a child prodigy, Foster has slipped into a succession of roles where she plays the same hard-bitten, badgered heroine single-handedly overcoming evil. Such is fine once or twice, but I'm getting too used to her \"fight versus flight\" close-up. TBO could have used a younger actress or one that more convincingly embraced being a woman in her forties (instead of 40-something Foster playing a younger woman).

TBO is a movie with substantial actors, financing and resources that manages to descend to junk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hi, Everyone, Oh, Boy... This one is a lulu. It has really bad background music whenever they can squeeze it in. There are three bad guys who, I guess, are the stars of this. They beat people up and chop people up and crash trucks and bulldozers into people. Usual stuff.

The woman who is sending them on their missions is unable to move her mouth when she speaks. It's sort of like watching a bad ventriloquist who is her own dummy. She walks like she is balancing an egg on her head.

The wardrobe is 70s leisure style for the men and blah for the female lead who is supposed to be a good nurse. The bad novocain mouth woman wears red. A silk frock perhaps, or maybe just a poplin windbreaker that is too big.

I actually liked the ending even though it did not make a lot of sense. It lets us in on what happened earlier in the film.

The police officers are OK. Some bad, some good, all stupid except two. The two bright ones could have worked again in Hollywood.

The movie starts interestingly enough and ends with a surprise. The middle sucks. The guy in the diner who gives a free hamburger to the star does a good job. He is like a 1940s character actor. Great voice.

This one is a bit too long. The lady with marbles in her mouth could have had just a couple of lines and the rest could have been said by a parrot. It would have been easier to understand a bird.

Her scene with a sword could have been handled by a trained woodpecker.

Tom Willett","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Death Machines\" takes a fairly decent premise for an action movie (unstoppable martial arts killing machines sent out to eliminate a crime boss' opponents) and turns it into an unwatchable mess. I have rarely seen such a breath taking combination of tiny budget, bad acting and incoherent script released as a so-called \"movie\". It's easily the worst martial-arts\/action oriented movie I've seen in years, eclipsing even \"Ninja Holocaust\" (which at least had some good energetic fight scenes).

The actual \"star\" of the movie is the white \"Death Machine\", (it's basically his vehicle) so he is featured prominently in many more scenes than his two cohorts. He's in good shape, and he's not bad looking, but as an actor he's barely there - think Chuck Norris in \"The Octagon\",only without any energy or emotion.This is obviously a deliberate choice on the part of the actor and director...but you have to be Arnold to pull this kind of thing off, and this guy is no Arnold.

The movie (and the director) can't seem to find the time (or the budget) to film the scenes that would have answered the basic questions that it originally posed, like: Who was the shadowy figure giving the marbled-mouthed Asian lady her orders? How did the \"gang war\" end? Why did the mush-mouthed Asian lady decide to have her zombie assassins killed? And what the heck happened that left her assistant dead and her wielding a katana like a broom stick?

It does, however, find the time to film a completely extraneous bar fight in which a sailor (well, he looked like Popeye) destroys a bar because the juke box didn't work. It's only related to the rest of the film because in the process he also K.O.'s the movie's \"hero\", a bartender\/karate student who was a victim of the \"Death Machines\" first major assignment (he got his hand chopped off while they were killing his teacher). It follows this up with one of the most un-called for \"love scenes\" between the hero and his girlfriend I have ever watched. The segue makes no sense - at the end of the bar-fight, she's grimacing over his splayed limp body, and the next thing they are in a \"tasteful\" shadow montage of sex and love that looks like it came from a Hallmark card. BTW, we never see the sailor again.

And wait until you see the showdown between the homicide detective and his captain - it plays as if the director and screenwriter never actually saw a movie scene placed inside a police station, but had heard of them second hand and decided to include some without really knowing how they worked.

The movie is a textbook case of poor casting and community theater-level actors floundering without decent direction. The three \"Death Machines\" come across as clods; the \"hero\" knows his lines but can't carry the movie, given that his character is an ineffective wimp; his girlfriend is a charisma vacuum; and all the other minor parts are barely watchable. All this makes for a fairly poor movie- but the \"dragon lady\" does more to drag the movie into subterranean stinker territory than anyone or anything else. She looks ridiculous; her tiny, inexpressive face is overpowered by her ton-o-hair skyscraper wig, she wears her red silk dress like a bathrobe, and she talks with a terrible mush-mouth delivery that screams \"needed time with a dialog coach\". Poor lady - she was obviously way out of her element, and as far as I know, never appeared in a film again.

Add to this a low-budget one-synthesizer soundtrack that never shuts up and never plays anything appropriate or interesting; crappy film stock and lighting; fight choreography that is strictly from hunger; and a general all around dreariness and lack of energy in the blocking and the stage business...and you have one lame movie.

I got this as part of a 50 movie DVD compilation, so it probably cost me about 50 cents to watch it. It wasn't worth it. Feh!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a gargantuan pile of malodorous ordure! Ye Gods where to even begin with this one\u0085..

Well, mix crap acting (including one bloody infuriating woman who speaks as though she's either a) chewing painfully on some ice cubes or b) has just woken up after having undergone some extensive root canal surgery), editing that would appear to donate that the celluloid was cut and spliced via the utilisation of an angle grinder, some truly hopelessly choreographed martial arts 'action', a script that has ostensibly been written by a two year old and some of the most hideous and intrusively loud background music ever committed to any film and hey presto you have Death Machines aka The Ninja Murders (although note that surprise, surprise \u0096 there are in fact no actual ninja anywhere to be found in this sodding travesty!)

In a nutshell, if ever there was a cinematic equivalent of a particularly vehement bout of dysentery, then this must surely be it! Avoid at all costs!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is a point in the film where the female boss of the \"death machines\" (a multi-ethnic trio to please everyone, being inclusive I think it's called these days) talks about using leverage on a business man. Except such is her delivery that it sounds like \"leatherage.\" At which point this viewer perked up thinking this dull film was turning a corner into new world of kinkiness. But it didn't. The boss lady had to do the talking as the \"death machines\" did not say a single word during the whole film and talk she does. Interminably. There is action in the film but it is not that exciting and the plot staggers from one clich\u00e9 to another. The three mute \"death machines\" live to survive another day at the end of the film. Hopefully there wasn't a sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As bad as this movie is, I really like it. The poor acting, dialogue and action made it so funny. I loved John Travis from Omega Cop and stayed up all night working out how the Death Machines checked in at the airport if they can't speak, probably had to shake\/nod at the security questions. Actually why can't they speak!? It fails to adhere to any sort of movie making convention which makes it strangely interesting to watch- just lots of people getting killed around a very loose plot surrounding hired killers - no \"machines\" as such and those weird face\/mountain things on the front cover and the trailer do not appear! I love the fact that there is no good guy in this film until about half way through and I love the numerous pointless scenes of that aeroplane landing - lots of people get killed who have nothing to do with the \"plot\" and no explanation is given about anything - DO NOT expect to understand this film. Instead admire how the main good guy can't even handle a random old guy in the bar - who is presented as the bad guy yet speaks out against the barman's decision to hire a scantily clad woman to dance badly in the corner for \"entertainment\" - all the good guys seem to enjoy this! Why did old guy get to beat up our hero - and why did the random bloke decide to help old guy in the fight?! Why did the hero collapse under one punch from old guy onto the bar where a stream of water jets out in the background so it looks like it's coming from his mouth? Definite Top 20 B-Movie, must check for a part 2.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bay Area residents probably remember Paul from The Diamond Center, an unctuous late night huckster who flogged easy credit and cheap rocks on late night television throughout the 1980s and early 90s. I mention him only because there is an actor in Death Machines who looks JUST LIKE HIM playing the owner of an Italian restaurant. He appears in the best scene in this positively dreadful and near unwatchable crime drama about a Dragon Lady (Mari Honjo, who wisely hung up her acting spurs after completing this film) who controls the local syndicate. Our hero (let's call him Not Paul From the Diamond Center) plays the restaurateur with all the subtlety of The Simpsons' Luigi (\"you lika da spaghetti?\") and seems unimpressed when one of his patrons complains about the food. No, there's no fly in the soup or hair in the sauce: there's a Red Buddha in the pasta, the calling card of the murderous crime boss, who sends a statuette to each of her prospective victims. Death Machines is bad by any measure, and pretty boring, which is an even worse crime.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm from Texas so I thought I knew big hair, but the female villain in this movie had humongous hair. Whenever she was on the screen I couldn't concentrate on anything but her hair. Take about stage presence! There seemed to be a lot of people with hearing problems in this movie also. There was a traffic warden writing out a parking ticket who somehow didn't notice the owner plunging toward the car screaming at the top of his lungs until he hit the car. Then there was a guy in a phone booth who couldn't hear a huge bulldozer coming at him until it was 5 feet away. All the hit men in this movie seemed a bit deaf, no one had to sneak up on them. The one handed 'hero' of this movie was so whiny and ineffective that it was funny. The bar-fight was pretty funny. There is a priceless scene where the hero and his girlfriend just had sex and judging from their expressions, it wasn't good for either one of them. It made me laugh out loud. This movie is on the 50 Movie Pack Martial Arts set if you want to see a lot of bad movies (with a few decent ones).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched DEATH MACHINES as part of BCI Eclipse' Drive-in Cult Classics (featuring Crown International Pictures releases) on DVD. As I work my way through the multiple DVD sets, I am growing to love many of Crown International's movies -- especially, the creepy, erotic, psychological thrillers!

DEATH MACHINES is not one of them.

After seeing movies like MALIBU BEACH, THE CREEPING TERROR and THE PINK ANGELS, it is hard to say that this is the worst film ever made; but, it doesn't have much going for it.

No plot; really no story to speak of.

The acting isn't evident \u0096 only the actor responsible for the terribly-played Tony (with the thick, fake Italian accent) made any attempt to \"get into character.\"

The score is annoying and pedantic.

The only thing about this movie is why... what compelled the film-makers to make this film?

Did they think the story of: 1) three ninjas, 2) two competing crime bosses, 3) an ancillary bartender \/ karate school student character; and 4) his pitiful love-interest nurse was so compelling that the world would not be complete without this movie being made?

This is a complete waste of time and money, for you, me, the producers, writers, actors, and the director.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a terrible movie! The acting in this film is about the quality of a high school play, or a story driven pornography film. This is not pornography in this film, but there sure is a lot of gratuitous nudity! This is one of the only redeeming qualities of the film, one of the only things that saved it from receiving a rating on one star. Also there are a million cops that die in this film. Hardly offensive though since the violence is so unrealistic we can only laugh. But breasts pop out and become exposed in the most surprising and hilarious times, if you enjoy really really bad movies check this one out. This is a Bonnie and Clyde type story, where a mother and her two daughters are out for revenge. This film also features a sex scene with two of the oldest people i have ever seen rolling around naked!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mel Welles, you might remember him as Mr. Mushnick in Roger Corman's Little Shop of Horrors, directs this somewhat interesting yet wholly twisted tale of Dr. Frankenstein's daughter carrying on her father's work after his death and creating a creature not for its intellectual ability or its likelihood to be\/do good but rather for its sex appeal. You see, Tania Frankenstein, though a doctor and scientist in her own right, is concerned with really nothing more than satiating her primal desires for the stable boy and making some super sex slave by using his body with the excellent brain of a man she does not love. The story is tissue-thin here, and one gets what one might expect: lots of leering and suggestive comments(surprisingly most from the female lead), special effects that are not so special, acting that lacks depth of characterization, and not really much action or suspense. And while this film is almost barren in regards to good storytelling, Lady Frankenstein does oddly have some aspects which make it watchable - not highly watchable but watchable nonetheless. Italian actress Rosalba Neri AKA Sara Bay\/Bey plays the Baron's daughter with some aplomb and lots and lots of sex appeal. She oozes desire and seduction quite well. Her performance is pretty one-dimensional, but she is quite lovely and plays over-the-top a little too well. She is also very open with her performance if you catch my drift. Poor Joseph Cotten, now regulated to European horror films for money, plays the father in a brief yet competent performance. He is the star attraction but gone before the film really kicks into a gear. As for the rest of the cast, Paul Muller is somewhat effective as Dr. Charles Marshall, the baron's assistant and an admirer of the daughter for some time. As crimes and missing persons begin to unfold in the village, policeman(I wasn't buying this)Mickey Hargitay starts to pump Tania for answers - despite what you might think not to her satisfaction. Where the movie really loses credibility is in the final third of the film where the suspect script, weak performances, and lackluster direction all head further South. The creature is revealed and looks quite ridiculous. The film ends somewhat abruptly with one of the hasty resolutions very common in the 1970s. While not nearly as bad and repulsive as some might want you to think, Lady Frankenstein is indeed a very flawed film with some perverse albeit intriguing overtones.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Low budget, but still creepy enough to hold your interest in another take off on the familiar Frankenstein story. This movie is also known as LADY FRANKENSTEIN. The alluring Tania Frankenstein(Sara Bay)fresh from medical school arrives at her father's estate to find that he is still up to his old tricks. Baron Frankenstein(Joseph Cotten)is murdered by his own creation and now his daughter decides to carry on the family tradition by creating herself a lover. This is closer to being an eerie melodrama than horror flick. Supporting cast features Mickey Hargitay, Paul Whiteman, Paul Muller and Herbert Fux. A rainy night could amplify the atmosphere. Still a fun watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow. Just wow. Never before have i seen a horror movie in which it seemed like a bad self insert fanfic that somebody wrote one day in 20 minutes. And then i happened to come upon \"Lady Frankenstein\". This movie takes everything you know about Frankenstein and turns it completely upside down... and not in a good way. If you've seen this movie you either stumbled across it on Italian TV, or you have the dubbed version on the 50 Chilling Classics Box set like i have, as number 24. And lets just say there's a reason why these movies are here. Because they're not very good. enough of that though, onto the movie.

It starts out with Dr. Frankenstein trying to make the monster with his assistant who's....obviously not igor for some reason. His college graduate daughter (?) shows up and states how she just graduated with a medical degree, cause yeah. there were so many female doctors back then. So she states how she wants to help her father with his work and he says no. And then he makes the monster and it kills him. So she grieves for exactly 7 seconds and then makes up a story with the assistant how it was a burglar. The monster escapes and goes on a rampage.

OK, i really can't believe they killed Dr. Frankenstein so early in the movie. he dies like...20 minutes in. and then his daughter takes over. which.... doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but sure.

So Lady frankenstein decides the best way to kill the monster who's now rampaging....is to make ANOTHER monster! oh yes how i love her logic. so her new monster she gets the body by killing someone and putting the brain of the assistant in it...i know. just nod and go along with it. So the monsters meet and duke it out. I love how the assistant asks \"why don't we just let the mobs kill it?\" and she answers with \"They wouldn't know how to kill it!\" and in the end he kills it with an axe to the head. haha. oh yeah, nobody ELSE could have figured THAT one out. so in the end the brain switched new monster kills lady frankenstein. The End.

This movie was just....weird. it was seriously like somebody wrote a self insert fanfic. There's no other way to describe this movie. there were some odd naked scenes too. like, this girl was having naked sex in the park with her boyfriend, the monster picks up the girl and the guy drives away. haha. nice guy. She then struggles a bit and dies from.....to be quite honest, i really don't know what she died from. But whatever. It's Lady Frankenstein. It doesn't have to make sense.

This movie had a lot of those \"Why?\" moments to the point that i just gave up. Movies shouldn't do that, but for some reason i see that more than i probably should.

So final word, it's not the worst movie i've seen on this pack, but it's a tad boring, and full of many many holes and random things.

So Lady Frankenstein gets 3 Frankenstein porn scenes, out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A true Gothic Horror Trash Classic!

Uhm, actually, it's a horrible movie. Best thing about it: Rosalba Neri's erected naked nipples. Intensely suckable material.

Oh sure, Rosalba Neri is one fine lady. Never even heard of her before this flick, but she is a damn fine looking lady. But honestly, it were her nipples that did it for me, in that very last scene, before the movie abruptly ends, all naked and erected... Total dream-nipples, man. Okay, sorry, getting a little carried away here...

Basically, I got what I expected from LADY FRANKENSTEIN: It's a sleazy and horrible flick with a big stupid, ugly-looking Frankenstein monster and a couple of naked tits. And it's got a castle in it. So I wasn't really disappointed or anything. It just dragged too much in certain places (the first resurrection of the creature kept on going for ages, with daddy Frankenstein just experimenting, talking, trying some more). There was one fun, imbecilic homage to the original Frankenstein, though: Instead of throwing a little girl into a lake, here Mongoloid Franky picked up a naked chick and threw her in a river. Had me laughing.

Some friends of mine raved just a tad bit too much about this flick, though. Had me maybe expecting a bit too much. But Rosalba's erected nipples sure were worth it... (Aw crap, I really need to stop mentioning her nipples). I think I'll just end this user-comment now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, anyone looking to see a great work of art should NOT watch this film. A sophisticated film connoisseur will no doubt be nauseated by the horrid production values and the sight of watching an excellent actor (Joseph Cotten) whoring himself out for a buck. Mr. Cotten must have either really needed the money or he was too senile to realize that the film was crap. The same phenomenon occurred with Dana Andrews, who late in his career appeared in the campy and awful FROZEN DEAD. I know Mr. Andrews was in the throes of alcoholism, but why did Cotten do this mess?!

As for the plot, it's a reworking of the Frankenstein plot. The first half of the movie really looked as if they were doing a serious but seriously flawed version of the original Frankenstein story. Then, inexplicably, they introduced a daughter. This wasn't a bad thing,...until then, out of the blue, they decided to stop making a horror film but make a soft-core pornographic flick!! The change was dramatic and bizarre. It was almost as if they said \"okay, Mr. Cotten is done with his scenes and has gone home,....now ladies,...STRIP!\".

The problem is that on every level, the film is just awful except for the monster's makeup. While not great, it is still pretty cool to see. But bad writing, acting and a budget of $17.46 conspired to make this a drab and awful flick--one so bad that tossing in some nudity for the pervs out there shouldn't be enough to entice anyone to see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although I had previously watched this one some time ago on Italian TV, I found it to be a surprisingly tolerable potboiler this time round, buoyed by an international cast of familiar faces (including a bemused Joseph Cotten as the Baron) and, contrary to many another film of the Euro-Cult sub-genre, an incident-packed plot in place of lethargic pacing.

The creature itself looks a bit dodgy and Cotten is a bit too old to be taken seriously as an eager scientist still dabbling in creating life-forms out of corpses (one would have thought that he would have made himself an army of them by now and not struggling at perfecting his technique still) but Ms. Neri does look good in and out of costume and reliable Herbert Fux probably comes off best as a lecherous grave-robber\/blackmailer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Really bad Italian horror movie, a sort of remake of Hammer infamous Frankenstein must be destroyed, this time with a lady Frankenstein taking over the business from father. A few nudes, several botched bits of dialogue, no tension at all. forgettable","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ok, if you like yer monster moovies sullen, stiff, starchy, and thunderously dull, but with lots of throttling, then head right for \"Lady Frankenstein\", a stagy, costumy Italian corpse-walker. Joseph Cotten(\"Citizen Kane\")plays the crusty old Baron himself, and must have really needed to make that condo payment. Sexy Sarah Bay, who has played in cow-ntless European B-films, usually as Rosabla Neri, including \"Hercules Against the Moon Men\", plays his ambitious daughter, a surgeon in a ruffled prom dress. Cotten makes an ugly, big-headed monster (cud it really be that much effort to make a nice one??), who immediately throttles Cotten(who took his royalty check & ran), and wanders around throttling everyone in sight. Tania(Bay) decides to switch the brain of her lover(who is old and wrinkly) with the brain of a younger man (who is \"beautiful\", but stooopid), in order to make ANOTHER monster to throttle the first monster Cotten made, who is wandering around throttling people. Well, after much exposition, and some throttling, the 2 monsters throttle each other for a bit, Tania stabs the first monster in the back, and then has sex in the flaming ruins of her mansion with the second monster - only to have him throttle her! Doh! There is so much throttling going on that you almoost overlook the fact that the film is about as exciting as a dead carp, and mooves just as quickly. The Alpha Video version I saw for this review was heavily edited, and one wonders cow much nekkid people were chopped out, not that it would have improved the film much. Director von Theurmer previously helmed a variety of grade Z Euro-trash, including \"Jungle Warriors\", \"Island of the Dead\"(as Mel Wells), and \"The Crucified Girls of San Ramon\". The MooCow says avoid this corpse of a film, and find something that mooves at moore of a full...throttle.

;=8)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie clearly has an agenda, which could be summed up like this: Never, never cross the border (either physical or metaphorical). Let's shun everything that's on the other side with a wall or a fence or something else, let's pretend all \"gringos\" are evil, satanic, or drug dealers. All that is outside one's country's border (and specially US borders) is dangerous, malevolent and people there will hate you, or envy you or try to steal you or something else. The \"based on true events\" is only a perverse tag that can be pinned on anything to give it some aura of credibility or, in this case, just to help pushing the film's ideology down some na\u00efve throats out there. The perversity of the film lies in the fact that it reduces countries, people and all else into very black and white stereotyped categories: Mexicans into disgusting people, Mexican police into a bunch of corrupt cops, republicans into the right-wing morons, democrats into almost hippie humanists and so forth. Is there anything good about the film? I hardly think so, but may be you think differently.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was wondering when someone would try turning that whole Matamoros mess into a goreporn pic. Anyroad, here's a few things I learned about Mexico from watching this film.

~All Mexican Women Are Super Hot - Remember that little desert town in Unearthed? Yeah, well, this must be it's Mexican sister city. Don't even bother with the hookers, just put a few smooth moves on the hot bartender. She'll be just as hot as the prostitutes and probably doesn't have any kids as well!

~Half of Mexico is controlled by insane Satan-worshiping Palo Mayombe cultists. \u00a1Ay, caramba! The other half, as everyone here in the U.S. knows, is run by drug dealers. Fortunately, this doesn't much interfere with the sex-tourisim trade and our ultra-low wage factories down there.

~Mexican cops are useless. Don't go to them. Go to the nearest occult bookstore and ask the hot chick behind the counter what happened to your vanished friend. She'll be way more help than the cops.

~When you're being gruesomely tortured by the aforementioned bloodthirsty cultists, don't go reciting the Psalms or any part of the Bible, really. You'll just mess up the mojo.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Uggh! Hanna-Barbera of the 60s and 70s! What lousy and unwatchable cartoons that were thrust upon us by these hacks! It's a shame really, as in the 1940s and 1950s \"Hanna-Barbera\" meant quality--because they produced so many wonderful Tom and Jerry cartoons. However, with the major cost-cutting efforts of the late 1950s, cartoons in general began to look pretty poor and budgets were slashed. In fact, William Hanna and Joseph Barbera were fired by MGM and replaced by a team of Czech animators who had never even seen the original cartoons! So, in the late 50s, the team was out of work and decided \"if you can't beat 'em, join 'em\"--and began producing horrid little cartoons themselves--with horrible animation, backgrounds and writing.

It's unfortunate, but the team's production of crappy cartoons worked too well---making them rich and the most successful producers of cartoons of the 60s and 70s. During this time, again and again, bad production values was their norm and a long list of VERY forgettable cartoons were created. In this case, the amazingly bad INCH HIGH PRIVATE EYE--a completely unfunny and stupid idea. If you want to know what the show was about, the title says it all.

Rotten to the core and strong evidence that the production team had total contempt for us kids!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some of the secondary actors try, really hard. And camera shots in the desert are quite lovely. Otherwise, this film is horrible.

William Shatner's character, Harvey, is an amateur screenwriter. He's also a psychopath, a man who quite literally escapes from a mental institution. Is the point of this film that amateur screenwriters are psychopaths? Harvey will do anything to get his script read and turned into a movie, even if that means taking a film crew hostage. Do amateur screenwriters ... grovel? Maybe they do.

The film's setup is way too long. We don't get to the point of the story until well into the second half. The first half darts and flits among assorted characters.

\"Shoot Or Be Shot\" is touted as a comedy, but I found it totally not funny. Dialogue contains no subtext. None of the characters are believable as real people. They're all stick figures that perform \"action\" in a way that resembles cartoon characters. Indeed, the film is basically a cartoon for adults: silly, inane, birdbrained.

I can understand why some actors are in this film. They need the money or the exposure. But what are insiders Shatner and Harry Hamlin doing here? Maybe Shatner wants more comedy roles. Is this the best he can do? Is Hamlin that desperate for money? He used to be a respected actor. What happened?

Even though the story is supposed to be a satire, it comes across more as a put-down of amateur screenwriters. Maybe that wasn't the intent. But that's certainly how the film can be interpreted. As such, the script was very, very poorly written.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, a film about a film that takes a crack at Video movie making could be entertaining. Could be, should be, funny, edgy, even controversial, or at least interesting, and yet... This film is the bizzaro negative version of that. Hamlin was entertaining as a 'B' Film producer. Shatner played crazy yet likable, and had all the best lines. The rest of the characters were boring, predictable, boring, underdeveloped, boring and boring. The production value was lame. You'll actually see the boom come down in one scene. The sound was awful in some of the scenes. Hey I'm a big fan of Shatner's and of Hamlin now, but their talents are wasted here. At least the story had a clich\u00e9d ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie spends most of its time preaching that it is the script that makes the movie, but apparently there was no script when they shot this waste of time! The trailer makes this out to be a comedy, but the film can't decide if it wants to be a comedy, a drama, a romance or an action film. Press releases indicated that Shatner and Hamlin made this movie because they loved the script (what were they thinking?). If you like William Shatner (I do) see \"Free Enterprise\" instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While I am a long-time Shatner fan (since we used to watch Trek re-runs over the dinner hour in the early '70s), I cannot think of any possible reason why he wanted to do this film, whether for personal development or business reasons. Did he lose a bet?

As a movie fan, I like to appreciate the bad films along with the great ones. But \"Shoot or be Shot\" doesn't have any flair or funny bits, unintentional or not.

While unrated, there were no objectionable scenes (blink or you'll miss it nudity, cartoonish gunfire \"violence\" with the endless bullet gunfights), so one is led to believe that the producers merely wanted to save the fee required to get the MPAA to rate it. This will make its way to cable with barely 10 seconds edited out.

Of the eight people that were in the theatre with us, four of them left mid-way, muttering statements like \"This is stupid\".

Shatner plays an escaped mental patient who has been denied release because he views himself as a screenwriter. The examination board stamps his request \"INSANE\". He runs into a group of Z-grade moviemakers who \"shoot on video because its 80% cheaper than film\" and decides to force them to shoot his script at gunpoint. There are a few minor subplots that develop some of the secondary characters, but for the most part, that is the whole movie.

If you want to spend 90 minutes on a Shatner \"art\" film, see \"Free Enterprise\" instead, it is a much better film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Graduation Day\" was released in May 1981, during the height of the slasher film craze. Earlier that year, fans had been subjected to flicks like \"My Bloody Valentine\", \"Just Before Dawn\", \"Friday the 13th Part 2\", and \"The Burning\" and theaters still were expecting flicks such as \"Halloween II\", \"The Prowler\", and \"Happy Birthday to Me\". I have seen all of these films, and out of all the popular 1981 slashers \"Graduation Day\" is by far the worst.

What \"Graduation Day\" amounts to is an exercise in poor, low-budget film-making with bad acting, bad writing, pointless characters, pointless scenes, unneeded nudity, cheesy dialogue, and an experiment in editing that didn't work so well. And who could forget the classic 80's disco music that plays throughout the film (the opening scene's music is only rivaled by the music that plays during a chase scene). However when renting a movie like this a person should be aware that those details will be in this film. So why isn't \"Graduation Day\" considered a classic like \"Halloween\", \"Friday the 13th\", \"A Nightmare on Elm Street\", \"My Bloody Valentine\", \"The Burning\", or \"Prom Night\"? Why do fans still seek those films but disregard this without care?

Where slasher films need to succeed above all other areas is in the pacing. There is nothing worse than a slow moving slasher, and \"Graduation Day\" moves pretty slow. The most aggravating part is that there are plenty of opportunities to speed things up; there are numerous pointless characters who are introduced and who are never allowed the chance to be a suspect in the murders or be a victim. There's a sleazy teacher, a stressed principal, a cunning secretary, a dopey school security guard, a clueless detective, an alcoholic step father, a mindless grandmother, and a mom to an earlier victim still grieving. All of these characters could have a motive to killing or a reason to getting killed, but they are all wasted. The worst part is that the story still focuses on them, and at times designates entire scenes just to flesh out their character. But for what?

What does amaze me about \"Graduation Day\" and its small fanbase is that people aren't more amazed by the death scenes. Fans go wild for death scenes like the raft massacre in \"The Burning\", the washing-machine death in \"My Bloody Valentine\", the kabob death in \"Happy Birthday to Me\", the upside down death in \"Friday the 13th Part 3\", and hot tub death in \"Halloween II\", and even the car hood death in \"Madman\". But where is the respect for some truly unique (even though cheesy) deaths in \"Graduation Day\". One victim gets impaled right through the jugular with a fencing sword, while another gets that sword thrown at them like a javelin. The best death includes spikes under a landing mat. Why aren't these deaths famous among the genre like the deaths in more popular slasher films?

\"Graduation Day\" tries hard to be a great and unique film, but there is just an element of logic and pacing missing that really ruins the whole experience. Its not the worst of its kind (try checking out \"Don't Go in the Woods... Alone\") and there is a bit of suspense, plus it delivers just what fans are looking for (blood, gore, nudity, sex, and nostalgia) but \"Graduation Day\" will not be remembered as one of the all time greatest slasher films ever made. It's not a question of budget - almost all slashers have a low-budget - however it is a question of ideas, creativity, and craftsmanship. That's all any type of movie making is...

Recommended for hardcore slasher fans. General horror fans might get a little bored, and people who don't have much interest in horror at all should steer clear. It's not the worst slasher film ever made, but its a long way from being the best.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Graduation Day\" is a result of the success of \"Friday the 13th.\" Both of those films are about creative, bloody murders, rather than suspense. If you enjoy that type of film, I'd recommend \"Graduation Day.\" If not, I wouldn't. There's nothing new here, just the same old killings.

Even though I've given the film a 4 out of 10, I will say that it's not a repulsive film. It is watchable if your curious about it, just not creative.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"High school female track star dies of a blood clot after winning a race with the community in an uproar against Coach George Michaels(Christopher George playing him as a major butt-head who is VERY demanding of the athletes under his watch). He'll be canned after school lets out providing the flick with his motive as a possible killer. Some twisted psychopath in sweats(much the same as what Michaels is often seen wearing), using a stop watch to time his executions, murders the members of the track team the dead female runner was a part of. Soon disturbed parents call Principal Guglione(Michael Pataki)wondering why their children didn't come home after a prom party. Inspector Halliday(Carmen Argenziano)begins snooping around campus at worried parents' request. Instantly a beleaguered Michaels becomes a prime suspect after the body of a gymnast is found in a locker. Ensign Anne(Patch Mackenzie)returned home from her base in Guam to receive her dead track sister's diploma and soon confronts the killer herself in the climactic chase scene. Kevin Badger(E Danny Murphy)is the weary boyfriend of the lost track star.

Rather leisurely paced slasher spreads out the death sequences quite a bit trying to mix humor within and rather failing miserably. Low-quality kill sequences only increase the laughter such as a sword embedded within a football thrown into the stomach of a football player or a pair of garden shears used to behead a poor soul taking a leak. Linnea Quigley has an amusing role as horny student Dolores who sleeps with her music teacher for a higher grade and always chases after a male stud(the recipient of the garden shears before he has a chance to bed Dolores outside of the prom party). Vanna White has an early role here as a ditsy blonde who discovers the dead gymnast's body in the locker. Virgil Frye has a silly role as an inept officer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've got to say that I'm not a massive fan of Troma films. Granted, I've only seen three of them (or four including this one), but two (Blood Sucking Freaks and Mothers' Day) are widely reputed to be the best, which leads me to believe that all the others aren't worth seeing. That would certainly seem to be the case with Graduation Day, which is a Troma take on the over-popular eighties slasher. While the film is never particularly bad (given the type of film), it's never particularly good either; and by the end, all I could think about was 'why did I bother watching this?'. Anyway, the plot sees some girl die on a race track, and shortly thereafter; more people start dying. Naturally, there are a few possible suspects; but it's hard to really care about anything that happens. Of course, in slasher terms; it's the gore that is most important, and given Troma's track record where the red stuff is concerned, I was expecting buckets of it. There are some decent kill scenes, and some of them are gory; but it's never very shocking, which really just makes this another dreary slasher based on a celebratory event on the American calendar. It's worth noting that there's a small role in this film for sleaze queen Linnea Quigley, but the rest of the cast aren't worth mentioning. The direction, plot and its execution are all very mundane; and I will say that unless you're a big Troma fan or someone that wants to track down every slasher ever made; don't bother with this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A high school track star falls dead after winning a race; shortly after, her older sister (Patch Mackenzie) returns home in time to notice that all of her sister's track team members are disappearing. Who could the killer be? You may not care enough to want to find out.

Crude, cheap, amateurish slasher is just about completely worthless, although top-billed Christopher George (as the nasty, hard-driving track coach) tries to give it a lift with an intense performance. Not even the gore is worth mentioning. The whole thing is lame from beginning to end, starting with opening the movie to a track meet montage set to disco music, and the casting of E.J. Peaker, once a co-star of the movie \"Hello, Dolly\" as a character named \"Blondie\"! That's right, \"Blondie\". This may mean that we aren't supposed to take the movie seriously, but in any case it's a shambles.

It's the kind of routine slasher junk that makes the \"Friday the 13th\" movies look like works of art in comparison.

The only point of interest may be wanting to see an early film appearance by Vanna White, of all people.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Next stop on our journey through the calender-slasher scene is... oh yes, \"Graduation Day\"! All of those seniors, just brimming with possibility and ready to venture out into the real world and become adults. That is, however, IF they can make it TO graduation without having to tangle with the campus lunatic who's running around, gouging the life out of students with his fencing sword... Yeah, it all stems from a the high school track star who drops dead from a blood clot during a race and a year later, her older sister returns home from the Navy for Graduation. The track coach holds the blame and broods in his demoted position in shop-class while the girl's boyfriend still mourns her death a year later... All of these characters are prime candidates for \"Serial Slasher of the Year\" and you just have to sit through this movie until the end to find out who-done-it. \"Graduation Day\" is fun, though it isn't spell-bindingly original by any means and there aren't a whole lot of memorable demises, but there is enough going on to keep you mildly entertained. Like Linnea Quigley screwing the music teacher and getting busted with a joint, 30 year-old actors playing teenagers, and of course... Rollerdisco! Gotta love that crap! You can do a lot worse than \"Graduation Day\", kiddies...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Six months after high-school sprinter Laura dies during a race, a killer begins to murder the rest of the track team using a variety of sports equipment as weapons: that's the daft plot of early 80s slasher Graduation Day, a lacklustre addition to the genre that offers very little in the way of style, originality or decent gore.

What it does deliver, however, are some stunningly awful musical interludes, a few familiar faces (including an early appearance from scream-queen Linnea Quigley), and a smattering of nudity (a prerequisite of any slasher movie!).

So forget the death scenes\u0097they're lame and rather bloodless\u0097and instead enjoy the movie's more memorably crap elements: the rapid editing that can induce migraines and epileptic seizures; the roller disco, which is accompanied by a prolonged heavy rock song, ' Gangster Rock', as performed by the unforgettably awful Felony; an impromptu jamming session by the school's students; Christopher George hamming it up as chief red-herring Coach Michaels; and the cheesy music teacher who letches after his female students (who, for some reason, find him quite irresistible?!?!).

Towards the end of the film, the action picks up a little, with the discovery of the slaughtered kids' bodies under the bleachers, and a quite twisted scene featuring Laura's corpse in her cap and gown, but it all comes way to late in the day to save this film from mediocrity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After their star cross-country runner dies after a race, the members of a track team are stalked and killed by a mysterious masked murderer seeking vengeance for the girl's death.

From the beginning of this film, it was quite obvious it was not going to be very good (at least as far as true quality goes). The 'dramatic' track race at the end of the introduction scene was one of the least believable sporting events I've ever seen in a film. It would seem that the winner of the race had never actually run before in her entire life. Not just run track. . . but, run at all. Ever. From there, we get a horribly unrealistic female Navy member who was breaking numerous appearance rules with her jewelry and make-up, not to mention the fact that her hair was hanging loose onto her collar while in uniform. Ridiculously awkward camera angles, pathetically done gore effects, and acting that ranged from frighteningly over-the-top to boringly under done (all in one actor, mind you) all help to make this film one of the most unintentionally hilarious horror films ever made. On the other hand, the writing wasn't all that terrible and the story was actually okay. But, the direction was horrible, made worse by offensively bad cinematography. The acting ranged from acceptable to just plain abysmal. Regardless of all the embarrassingly bad elements, however, there's something here, whether it be cheese or something else that I can't figure out, that makes the film extremely enjoyable and very worthy of a watch. Maybe it was just Vanna White.

Obligatory Slasher Elements:

- Violence\/Gore: Death scenes were fun enough, but the gore was just awful: blood squirts from impossible angles, no actual gashes or wounds from knives, etc. But, this film has the first 'death by football' scene I've ever seen.

- Sex\/Nudity: There was a bit of nudity (I mean, Linnea Quigley is in it, after all), and some overly horny high schoolers, but nothing to excess.

- Cool Killer(s): If you think leather gloves, stop watches, track suits, and fencing masks are cool, this one is for you.

- Scares\/Suspense: Not really any at all. There is one moment that takes place in the girls' locker room that I was preparing myself to be scared at. . . but, it just led to some typical stupidity and was ruined for me.

- Mystery: A little, but if you can't figure out the killer's identity about 20 minutes into the film, then I'm not too sure about your powers of deduction.

- Awkward Dance Scene: There's a great impromptu jam session (\"Graduation Day Blues\") with a guitar & harmonica that leads to some awesome 80s bopping. This is followed shortly by some kind of weird blend of 70s disco and 80s break dancing that was probably the scariest part of the film.

Final verdict: 4\/10. Don't take it too seriously and you might enjoy it (just like most everything else Troma touches).

-AP3-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An interesting slasher film with multiple suspects.

Includes typical girl flashing her breasts (Denise Cheshire) as she changes into her swimsuit, creepy suspect - any one of them could be doing the deed, expected breast baring to get a passing grade (Linnea Quigley), a very unusual forward pass, more bare breasts, a track and field event that will NOT be in the summer Olympics, and a ghoulish secret.

It all comes to a crashing ending. No, there's more. Won't this guy die? I bet Anne (Patch Mackenzie) doesn't plan any more visits home anytime soon.

If you like teen slasher films, can you possible be a pervert, even if all the actresses are over 18?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First and foremost I wish to aim a big & mean middle-finger towards the Troma DVD-distribution crew, who were actually stupid enough to reveal the identity of this movie's pivot killer on the back of the cover! The synopsis just randomly mentions who's the person responsible for the massacre on graduation day, for Christ's sake! I don't care how terrible or how predictable an 80's slasher can be; just mentioning who did it ruins the whole point! So, a word of advise in case you also purchase the Troma double-feature containing \"Graduation Day\" and \"Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell\", do not \u0096 repeat DO NOT \u0096 turn the box around and read the back! Watching the film is already a painful experience, but reading the back would really spoil everything.

Now, as for the actual the actual movie\u0085 Oh boy! Personally I'm a fan of the cinematic 'work' of Herb Freed. Well actually, I don't really know whether I should admire him\u0085or pity him! All Herb's films are pretty bad & amateurish, but at the same time you can tell his direction is spirited and full of good intentions! Unlike with \"Haunts\" and \"Beyond Evil\", he followed a contemporary popular genre trend and tried to cash in on the typical high-school slasher films. Just to offer a minimum of originality, all the victims in \"Graduation Day\" are promising athletes and members of the same track of coach George Michaels (awesome name! I guess Herb Freed is a fan of \"Wham!\"). During the opening credits, we witness how a young girl dramatically dies on the field, moments after winning a 30 seconds running race. The debate of whether or not her coach and fellow track team-members weren't pushing her physical limits too much is raised, but one particular individual goes one step further and begins to sadistically kill everyone he\/she considers responsible for Laura's death. What a demented little movie! The script must be one of the most incoherent ones I ever beheld, with loads of red herrings and sub plots that go absolutely nowhere and death sequences that are almost too cheesy for words! There's a bloke impaled by a football attached to a javelin, others are decapitated with an absurdly big sword and the unluckiest bastard of them all even falls to his death on a disguised bed of spikes! Herb concentrates on the ingeniousness & the fast pacing of the killings so much that he totally forgets about the sub plots he introduced earlier in the film! For example, Laura's sister returns home from her military training and seemly starts an investigation regarding the circumstances of her death. Halfway through the movie, however, her character hardly appears in the movie anymore. Also, the girls' stepfather is referred to as a violent drunkard but this interesting given immediately gets ignored as well. Instead of carefully mounted suspense and misleading red herrings, we're served disco-dancing & roller-skating sequences and \u0096 of course \u0096 numerous images of unattractive 80's chicks stripping their tops off. Despite being really bad, \"Graduation Day\" could count on a respectable cast! Christopher George (\"Grizzly\", \"City of the Living Dead\") greatly stars as the demanding coach, Carmen Argenziano (\"When a Stranger Calls\", \"The Accused\") briefly appears as a police detective investigating the rising number of missing teenagers and Michael Pataki (\"Dead & Buried\", \"Dracula's Dog\") has a very amusing part as the school's stressed out principal. The teenage beauties on duty include Linnea Quigley and Vanna White. Heck, for some horror fans, the presence of these two ladies is enough reason already to count \"Graduation Day\" among the most quintessential slashers of the early 80's. It's a dumb film, but entertainment and chuckles are guaranteed!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is slow. This film is cheap. This film makes Friday the 13th look like a Best Picture nominee. The acting is crap. The special effects are crap. No one dies for like 40 minutes and all the people do is act badly. The only thing that saves it is it's ability to make you laugh at all the stupidity going on. The funniest part is watching the heroine \"fight off\" the attacker. She supposed to be trained but she fights like a 70 year old. They spend pointless scenes on people who don't die and no scenes on people who do die to the point where you don't even know why they are dieing. I love slashers but this is just crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretty lame and awful slasher about someone killing the members of a high school track team after their star runner dies during a meet.

Christopher George gives a hilariously over-the-top performance as the track team's coach. I don't think ANYONE has ever taken track and field as seriously as Chris does here - not even in the Olympics. It's a typically divine CG performance, and if you are a fan of the man\/the legend, you should run right out and grab a copy.

But we watch slashers for the murders (you know it's true), not the performances, and Graduation Day fails to deliver on most counts (there is one really good kill). True horror only comes during a performance by the band \"Felony\". Never heard of 'em? Watch Graduation Day and find out why.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Graduation Day\" -

i bought this movie this past week and waited for some time where i could kick back and relax and watch some \"good\" 80's slasher gems, i got this and \"Xtro\" to watch, never seen any of them. i just watched it and realized my outdoor speakers were on also. i only imagine what my neighbors thought when \"Felony\" came on to sing their one 10 minute hit? I'm sure it was loud and I'm sure they think I'm weird, with that and the chainsaw sound and screaming from other movies.

this was a pretty sub par slasher movie, no suspense, no story, some cool deaths, almost seemed on the amateur side, i usually like movies like that, but it just didn't click with me, now i will watch \"Xtro\" for the 1st time and have a margarita!

DJ Eric Austin TX","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For me, reviewing movies is an extension of my love of film--and of horror cinema, in particular. The reviews I've written thus far have been for films that I love, respect, and admire, and I have eagerly rewarded them with glowing accolades and perfect-ten ratings. A life-long horror movie fan, it is a tremendous pleasure for me to be able to share with others my thoughts and ideas about great horror films, and to, hopefully, have a hand in exposing people to movies they may not otherwise seek out. I only recently began reviewing films for the IMDB, and it was my initial intention to concentrate only on my own personal favorites, examining those which I believe are of substance and of lasting value to the horror genre. However, the existence of films like \"Graduation Day\" is, without pun, a thorn in my side. Completely devoid of any merit whatsoever, this 1981 hodgepodge of unformed ideas is amateurishly directed, poorly acted, and, in every sense, an unmitigated embarrassment to horror cinema. During the brief couple of years before and after this movie's release, we saw the appearance of domestic (and Canadian) films such as \"Halloween II,\" \"Prom Night,\" \"Terror Train,\" \"Madman,\" \"My Bloody Valentine,\" \"The Prowler,\" \"Just Before Dawn,\" \"Final Exam,\" and \"Hell Night,\" among others. These films, though of varying degrees of quality, clearly strove to achieve something in terms of story line, plotting, acting, direction, and overall tone. Not every movie released during this bountiful season of the Slasher Era would be of the artistic merit or commercial success of the original \"Halloween\" or \"Friday the 13th,\" but these films were all well-made and clearly contributed to the ongoing development of horror cinema. \"Graduation Day,\" an abysmal farce about a masked killer stalking members of a high school track team, was directed by Herb Freed, whom one can only hope will never again attempt to besmirch the horror genre with such a travesty. The task of creating worthwhile horror films is best left to those who have a genuine love and respect for the genre. This movie fails miserably on every possible level, not the least of which are dreadfully wooden performances, dime-store special effects, an irritating musical score, and, most of all, a story lacking even the slightest hint of tension or suspense. A pointless exercise in how to waste film, \"Graduation Day\" is an utter disgrace to horror cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was sheer, slow, plodding torture. Not being a fan of slasher films, and preferring classic horror, I may not be the best judge. Slasher fans may enjoy this as an early entry into the slasher genre. I really would like the 90 minutes I spent watching this back. The only reasons to watch this are 1) a young Vanna White (pre Wheel of Fortune) who has about 3 minutes of total screen time. 2) an early role by scream queen Linnea Quigley (with nudity), and legendary beauty EJ Peaker as the school secretary, who added a bit of humor and sex appeal. Otherwise, an 80's band called Felony makes an appearance, which while interesting, drags on WAY too long. Just like the movie.....I had to keep checking how much time was left and couldn't wait to \"Graduate\" to a better film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The title for this review about sums up how I feel about this movie. I can't imagine what audience there would be for this thing, if not for the die-hard fan of 1980s slasher films who simply has to see -everything- from that era. Otherwise, don't even waste your time on this.

The story is similar to most films of its type: something awful happens to one of the characters in the opening scene, which inspires a bloodthirsty killer to go on a murderous rampage. Been there, done that. Truth be told, none of these '80s slashers were known for their originality, so I can't see the point in harping on the film simply for this.

But where the film fails is in its suspense and murder sequences. I've seen some pretty scary slasher movies from the 1980s that had far lower budgets than this. This one just fails to create any real suspense. The director throws in some nice camera angles and some semi-professional directorial touches here and there, but they mean nothing if you're not frightened. The gore is pretty tame as well, so anyone who watches these things with the intention of seeing some cool 1980s makeup effects will be sadly disappointed.

The movie manages to clunk along rather dully. Honestly, the key ingredient to almost any slasher is the tight pacing--you have to keep things moving along swiftly and keep the murder set pieces staged at regular intervals, because, let's face it, we don't watch these things for the great characterization and stellar plots. But the pacing, whether due to the script or the editor, is all off. The murders are spaced out at odd intervals, leaving us with some long-winded scenes (no doubt meant to build \"character\") that serve only to bore you and leave you praying for the next kill (which, as I've said, usually isn't executed all that well anyway).

As for the killer, don't expect anything original or even remotely frightening. He (or she?) wears a jogging suit, a fencing mask, and his (or her?) primary weapon is a sword. I bet the writer just wet himself over thinking he came up with an original, \"cool\" murder weapon, but the idea just comes off as impractical and silly. There's also not much emphasis placed on the \"whodunnit' nature of the film, as if they either forgot or don't care to place any red herrings in the mix to throw us off.

I have the sense that the people behind this were trying to make something decent and respectable, and at times, it shows their intentions were probably a bit more genuine in regards to making a quality film as opposed to countless other knockoff slashers from the era. But alas, the attempt fails for the most part. There is, however, some pretty good acting (at least, for this type of film). There is attempt at characterization, but none of it ends up meaning anything in the end, so...what a waste. Here, all it manages to do is bog down the plot and make the murder sequences feel like they can't come soon enough.

In the end, if you're really into these old '80s slashers, by all means, check it out, if only to say you've seen it. There's a completest in all of us. But don't expect to be blown away or anything. What we have here is a very mildly entertaining slasher movie that leaves no real impression at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After high school Track & Field athelete, Laura Remstead, dies of natural causes during a race (an event that is shown multiple times, in slow-motion none-the-less), an unknown killer is murdering all the people who were on that same aforementioned team close to Graduation Day (hence the name)in this laughably inept slasher flick.It brings absolutely nothing new (or even good) to the slasher table, instead opting to merely unleash the most god-awful song I've heard in quite some time with ' Gangster Rock' being played in a roller-disco party that went on far too long.

Eye Candy: Denise Cheshire & Linnea Quigley get topless

My Grade: D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK.. at the time of writing, 65 people voted for this movie, bringing it to a 5 out of 10 rating. My guess is that only the film crew voted. So I'm here to bring some justice to it all.

Never has a movie provoked the audience's intelligence more than this one. Given, I laughed out loud quite a bit - but the movie\/story absolutely didn't want me to.

I've seen a LOT of bad movies. A LOT. But man, this one blows them all away.

Speaking '96 computers, ridiculous acting, and wheelchair chases - and we have young Tarantinos who can't get their ideas financed. Yup, life's a cruel joke.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I couldn't help but laugh when I saw what the public could be made to think was email back in 1996. Apparently email is an interactive discussion (similar to a chat) with lame voice synthesis reading every comment out loud. And some of the other \"tech\" aspects are also laugh-out-loud funny. I'd swear the \"high tech\" communications centre she has actually has a few Commodore 64 monitors in it. Almost like watching the movie Hackers nowadays, I guess.

Despite the fact that for most of the movie the lead actress carries off the illusion of being disabled, the final part of the movie has an unexplained use of her legs which somehow I can't ignore. I mean, why include something so stupid?

Anyway, to sum up: the plot is pretty predictable, the acting bad, the killer quite guessable. But it can be amusing in a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 kind of way I guess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie tries its darndest to capture that classic bad canadian movie feel:

\"quirky\" and obnoxious characters (a few); \"quirky\" town with \"quirky\" folk; a \"quirky\" coffee shop or restaurant (coffee shop here); lots of shots of canadian stuff for postcards (ocean stuff here); lots of mention of \"gotta get out of this town\"; downright booooring.

And it succeeds on all counts.

Something to note, though. I couldn't figure out whether this movie was just trying to be post-Northern Exposure \"quirky\" comedy or something surreal like a drug-induced or psychotic hallucination. The editing of this movie jumped around nonsensically from one unrelated thing to another with zero pacing or motivation. Not to mention the fact that half the time we didn't even know where we were jumping. Take for instance, the very opening shots, of yelling teens in a car. Who are they and what the h--- did they have to do with anything? And this sub - uh - plot (use that word plot loosely) concering kids that seem to span generations. I don't think they actually do, but the editing makes it look like they materialize from flashback, all of a sudden, to current time. Huh? What did I miss?

Avoid. Unless for laughs. Or you want to try and trip out on the inept editing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie tries its darndest to capture that classic bad canadian movie feel:

\"quirky\" and obnoxious characters (a few); \"quirky\" town with \"quirky\" folk; a \"quirky\" coffee shop or restaurant (coffee shop here); lots of shots of canadian stuff for postcards (ocean stuff here); lots of mention of \"gotta get out of this town\"; downright booooring.

And it succeeds on all counts.

Something to note, though. I couldn't figure out whether this movie was just trying to be post-Northern Exposure \"quirky\" comedy or something surreal like a drug-induced or psychotic hallucination. The editing of this movie jumped around nonsensically from one unrelated thing to another with zero pacing or motivation. Not to mention the fact that half the time we didn't even know where we were jumping. Take for instance, the very opening shots, of yelling teens in a car. Who are they and what the h--- did they have to do with anything? And this sub - uh - plot (use that word plot loosely) concering kids that seem to span generations. I don't think they actually do, but the editing makes it look like they materialize from flashback, all of a sudden, to current time. Huh? What did I miss?

Avoid. Unless for laughs. Or you want to try and trip out on the inept editing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ohhhh MAN this movie is awful!!

This kind of tripe is what gives Canadian Cinema a bad name, or no name. Well, to be fair, I guess most Canadian movies give Canadian Cinema a bad name.

Next to the characters (there's a couple that are the most grating in movie history), the most annoying thing is the editing and pace of the movie. It's like a drunken snail making its way to die.

Thank goodness Melanie Doane is nice to look at. She's the only thing that kept me watching. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie kept interrupting.

Good for a laugh, though, if you're having a bad Canadian Movie night, though.

Did I mention Melanie Doane? The only good point (too bad they didn't have the sense to keep the camera on her for more than a blink at a time).

Another addition in the Canadian Hall of Stinking Movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The TV announcer who introduced this late one Saturday night said it should have won Oscars. Quite a statement for a film I'd never heard of...though why I should have taken any notice of a TV announcer, I don't know. In the event, said announcer was talking tripe.

It's a dreary, miserable movie that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I couldn't get on with Hoskins' awful Burr-ming-gum accent. Can't see any advantage in it being set in the Midland's anyway.

Unresolved threads abound...and I wouldn't normally mind this but half of them make no sense. And what about when Hoskins' says he'll pick Felicia up from outside her B&B although she never told him where exactly she was staying??? Or her buying into the funeral that clearly never took place (and where was she during those days???) Clumbsy and ill-thought through bits of business if you ask me.

It's a thriller without thrills. It's full of pretentious bits of business. It's depressing...

Didn't like it. Thought it was rubbish. Wouldn't recommend it. 'Nuff said.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You just need to see this as a poorly executed anti abortion propaganda and you will realize just how bad it really is. The main message of this movie is that even the sickest of persons can't commit an abortion. If you ask that's not a long way away from blowing up abortion clinics. So this guy wants to kill some poor girl but he has to convince her to do an abortion first. What a load of crap. And the worst part is that he has an convincing argument (bringing a child into a loveless environment), but that is supposed to be dismissed because he's a freak anyway. And the part with the bible pushers...first they throw this girl out just because she explains someone stole her money (that rule must be in the bible somewhere) and then on the end they are some sort of angel like deus ex machina delivering the killer from evil by harassing him on his front yard. Come on. Other downpoints include a very confusing scenario (and I don't mean in a good way)...so this guy is just some psycho why? Because his mother fed his some liver once? And I don't know about the rest of you but he seemed like the nicest person in the world throughout the whole move! even though he was a wearing girlie clothes, stealing money and taping girls in his car. If you forget the idiot story, this movie has a really great cinematography and Bob Hoskins was really great, and it has one of those funny little English cars in it. If it was actually about some psycho killer I'd give it a 7 at least.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this an awfully disappointing experience! But I have appended a better option of similar style at the foot of this entry.

This \"Felicia's Journey\" is intriguing. It has drama. But it is full of stereo-types!

So it ONLY serves judgemental temperaments without concern for truer justice & fairness & truth, beyond black 'n' white judgements that fit 30-second ads of \"NEWS\" that dot our multimedia experiences everyday, especially news bulletins, true or misleading in such depictions!

It is SO EXAGGERATED, it reminds me of the fairytale of \"Little Red Ridinghood\"! Consider the innocent young girl with no identification crossing borders questioned by a guard but freed without any evidence to venture on in search of her 'Romeo' who didn't give her an address VERSUS the pathetically inept lack of substance in the raspy voice of the 'helping hand' befriending her with his unlikely story fabricated by the layer!

It seems to suit the directors & management team that no-one has faith or prays to God, even in their times of desperation!

So in these early settings, it orchestrates & tells much of what is to come! A nightmare journey that betrays the essence of substance without fairytale resolution, without truth or integrity or credibility! ...Then one twist & it's all over. What a disappointment! If you want to see a MUCH superior movie that investigates similar themes with MUCH more credibility, with much more powerful insight, watch the 1983 Paul Cox\/Norman Kaye \"Man of Flowers\" movie!!!

Unlike here, you will NOT be disappointed!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Definition of documentary: A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration. The key word here is informative. I love They Might Be Giants, and barely learned a thing about them.

The interviews with all the celebrities were pretty much worthless. I don't care what Sarah Vowel thinks of anybody and Syd Straw was downright irritating. And is listening to people recite TMBG lyrics like they were supposed to be funny\/interesting? It was neither. I think that was the problem: the movie spends time discussing TMBG's love for coffee. So what?? Millions of people love coffee. Was the presentation of the material funny? No! There were hints that both men are married, yet it was never discussed. And what about the solo material they did? What motivated them to do it? These type of questions are not addressed nor answered.

I could go on and on with the negatives. I did find the segment on Dial-a-Song very interesting. If you want to learn about They Might Be Giants, just buy a few CD's and listen. Seriously. This movie is a gigantic disappointment. I can't believe so many folks gave it a 10. Incredible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This episode was boring and was not even in the realm of horror, so far this season Masters of Horror has produced one really good episode...The Damned Thing...it is still early, I have faith that the episodes will get better. I admit that the vampire episode was okay but lacked a solid storyline. The episode about the couple catching the serial killer started out boring, but the last fifteen minutes was really good. Though, I am just plain out disappointed with the lack of originality and horror that the first season's episodes possessed. Please, save this season John Carpenter! I have faith that Pro-Life will redeem the entire lackluster season so far.

\"You're an angry little elf!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Masters Horror: Sounds Like is set in Seattle where Larry Pearce works as the manager of a computer software call center, having lost his 6 year old son Michael (Nicholas Elia) to a rare heart condition he finds that he has ultra sensitive hearing. Larry hears everything in ten fold, from people typing on computer keyboards, people whispering across the room, people tapping their foot on the floor, dripping taps & eventually even people breathing become unbearable for Larry as he is constantly bombarded with mind piercing noise. Eventually Larry decides he's had enough & if he can't stop the noises themselves then maybe he can stop himself hearing them with the help of a large meat clever...

This Canadian American co-production was episode 4 from season 2 of the generally hit-and-miss Masters of Horror TV series, written & directed by Brad Anderson I thought Sounds Like was a definite miss. The script was based on a short story by Mike O'Driscoll & I am genuinely surprised by the amount of very positive comments it has here on the IMDb at the present time, for a start I would be very hard pressed to even describe this as a horror film & it feels more like some bizarre sentimental drama until the last 5 minutes when Howard Berger, Gregory Nicotero & the boys at KNB effects actually get to do some work. Larry has this strange unexplained ability to amplify sound & noises from the start so this episode ends up like 55 minutes of exactly the same sort of repetitive build up which leads up to a gory ending although it comes to late to save the episode. This is pretty slow going & while it's well written isn't this meant to be horror themed & I'm slightly confused as to who this is meant to appeal to?

Director Anderson does OK but he just keeps repeating the same things over & over again, until the last 5 minutes there isn't a single drop of blood in the entire thing. There's no horror, there's no scares or tension & absolutely no atmosphere.

Technically this is very well made, has good production values & doesn't look like a cheap made-for-TV program. The acting is very good actually & it's shame the story is somewhat limited.

Sounds Like is one of the very worst Masters of Horror episodes, a lot of people seem to like it & that's fine but it's definitely not for me. Another Masters of Horror, another disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I agree with most of the critics above. More yet, I was shocked by the presentation of the love scenes with the homosexual couple. Why? because while they --the director, the producers?-- didn't have any compulsion whatsoever in presenting the different heterosexual couples in the most passionate embraces including nudity and super close-ups of French kissing and all sorts of nude contortions in bed, completely unnecessary in their length and in the story, when the moment came to show the same experiences with the homosexual couple, they only dare to go as far as an excruciatingly painful hug, almost among scholarly giggles, with two very nervous actors. So, in reality, the makers of this film found homosexuality to be UNNATURAL, as one of the characters says in some scene. What a difference with the Spanish cinema!! I remember being at the projection of an Almodovar film in an Italian cinema in Rome, and being completely amazed at the total lack of reaction from the Italian audience, they were afraid to have a reaction!! when in Spain people would fall down from their seats laughing at all the risqu\u00e8 situations and fabulous Almodovar wit and flair. Obviously in Italy there are dark forces in its history that impedes the free manifestation of some very normal and natural emotions. Pity. I must add that I was quite surprised to find that this same comment was censured by another correspondent. It's very bad and dangerous when we cannot be allowed by the narrowness of others to express our opinions about certain matters. Where is freedom of speech? I don't know if that censor will approve of the changes I was forced to make in this comment, and I hope he won't receive the same treatment from some other narrow minded judge. Pity again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not only the title, the film itself is a long one too, or so it seems. That's because of the outdated style of acting and the pathetic way its hackneyed themes are visualised. Bad marriages of the sisters and a homo-brother who dares not speak the name of his sexual preference - Italy 2003, you don't believe it (and you don't have to).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ru Paul plays a secret agent called Starrbooty. She teams up with another drag queen agent to fight the evil Annaka Manners (Candis Cayne)and get her kidnapped niece back...or something like that. Seriously-- I had trouble concentrating on the plot! The movie is seemingly directed by somebody with severe ADD--quick camera cuts nonstop that make it impossible to focus on anything. The dialogue is incomprehensible at times and when you can hear it you wish it remained incomprehensible! The acting is actually pretty OK except for Ru Paul who overacts to an embarrassing degree. Also the film is full of disgusting bathroom humor that is just revolting and not even remotely funny. After 30 minutes I had to leave because I was bored, sick and just couldn't stand it anymore. I pride myself on sitting through anything but this went WAY beyond my limits! People are comparing this to the early work of John Waters. I disagree. Waters' work is sick but good--this is just sick. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay,. so I went into this loving RuPaul. I still love him\/her but think a little less. This is one gross movie that shows a lot of male genitalia. THis is a spoof of the 1970s black exploitation films and is purposefully done badly. The only fun part about it for me is that all of the voices have been looped with those of drag queens, even the voices of real women. This is over an the top, nonstop, laugh your rear end off it is so stupid, badly made movie. I would never watch this again but I do appreciate what the film makers were trying to do. There is no rating on this but it would be R or even NC-17. RuPaul has done much better work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a great cast and what a pathetic attempt at a film. The script is full of holes from beginning to end. Incoherent, not cohesive...utterly ridiculous. One of the most talented\/beautiful actresses in the world (and I'm talking about Nastassja Kinski) is without a single memorable line here. Worse, she supposedly dyes her hair halfway thru the movie, but it's obvious she's just wearing a cheap black wig bought from a drag queen costume shop. The best moments are given to a character actor and his dog in the apartment building that lead actor Peter Coyote lives in. Fairuza Balk is photographed poorly, to boot. She looks like an overweight freshman who's pigged out at too many all-you-can-eat-student-cafeteria-buffets. I was so looking forward to this film. I WANTED to like it, but I think I'd rather watch Nastassja read the phone book, with her OWN hair.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In \"Red Letters\", Coyote is at the vortex of as a college professor who writes to a female prison inmate and gets more than he bargained for. There are two reasons to watch this flick...Kinski is one and Piven the other although it's difficult for their sparks to shine in such a complete directorial disaster. Everything is wrong with \"Red Letters\"...convoluted, lousy screenplay, camera, editing, and most of all acting which is subpar for Coyote, etc. Battersby has taken a story with potential and turned it into a seriously flawed and amateurish flick not worth the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a shame, really, that the script of this film had more holes than you could shake a stick at (mixed metaphor intentional), because Kinski and Coyote - both supremely talented performers who are capable of great subtlety and nuance - have wonderful chemistry together, and the always-provocative Fairuza Balk didn't hurt the mix either. Jeremy Piven would have been great here too, if his character (and all the other supporting characters) hadn't been written as a plot device. As for the main proceedings, the writers just didn't know how to create the suitable guilty-or-innocent tension for Kinski's character -- instead they gave us confusion, contradiction and, by the finale, downright let's-hope-the-viewers-don't-notice claptrap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this film as I thought the cast was decent and I like Jennifer Rubin & Patsy Kensit.

First off let me say the acting is not of a high standard. Stephen Baldwin makes his character look almost retarded at times and at other times morose. Patsy Kensit is so-so but not too convincing in some scenes, and the supposed poetry she spouts in a particular scene in her Hotel Room is utterly meaningless rubbish. Ms Kensit is certainly very suggestive and sexy here but ultimately I think Jennifer Rubin is by far the best in this film. Ms Rubins Character is at first innocent, then sexy, as she plays Stephen Baldwin's Character (Travis)for a fool. The supporting cast includes Adam Baldwin(no relation to his more famous namesakes) & M.Emmet Walsh who has appeared in many films, also I noticed Art Evans who was one of John Mclane's allies in Die Hard 2. The Movie is decent and there are a few nude scenes with Rubin & Kensit, a bit of action but this is certainly not a fast moving or intelligent thriller. There is a particular scene when they are in the car about to commit a crime and Stephen Balwin's character is wearing sunglasses and when you see him again, the area around his eyes etc is painted black instead, then the sunglasses reappear later when they are leaving the crime scene and police are in pursuit, a very obvious error in editing.

If you are fans of either of the ladies or either Baldwin then you may find something to like here, but others should steer clear. This is a reasonable but unremarkable thriller and not really worth more than a couple of dollars if you want it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A truly masterful piece of filmmaking. It managed to put me to sleep and to boggle my mind. So boring that it induces sleep and yet so ludicrous that it made me wonder how stuff like this gets made. Avoid at all costs. That is, unless you like taking invisible cranial punishment, in which case I highly recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oops. I hired this because I thought it was Bitter harvest (1981), which was recommended. After the appearance of the appalling Patsy Kensit, I checked the recommendation and discovered my mistake. OK, It's watchable, because the main characters are very sexy, but the acting is awful. Stephen Baldwin looks morose the whole time, which is understandable, considering his co-star. Is Patsy competing with Liz Hurley for the title of the most obviously useless actor on the screen?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Enormous suspension of disbelief is required where Will's \"genius\" is concerned. Not just in math--he is also very well read in economic history, able to out-shrink several shrinks, etc etc. No, no, no. I don't buy it. While they're at it, they might as well have him wearing a big \"S\" on his chest, flying faster than a jet plane and stopping bullets.

Among other problems...real genius (shelving for the moment the problem of what it really is, and whether it deserves such mindless homage) doesn't simply appear \/ex nihilo\/. It isn't ever so multi-faceted. And it is very rarely appreciated by contemporaries.

Better to have made Will a basketball prodigy. Except that Damon's too short.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What is about mathematical geniuses that get the critics juices flowing ? A BEAUTIFUL MIND wasn`t up to much in my opinion ( FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING deserved the Oscar that year ) while GOOD WILL HUNTING had several awards lavished on it undeservedly

First off is the script . When I attended film school I was told GOOD WILL HUNTING is a very good example on how not to start a script and the tutor was right . This movie lacks any type of opening hook and for the most part it`s very very slow . If you wrote an unsolicited script like this the script reader would have given up on it by page 15

Structure aside the idea of a member of the American underclass being some sort of intellectual god doesn`t really ring true . Ask yourself this : If he`s the cleverst character in the movie how come he`s gone through his short life without anyone noticing his abilities ? Not one single teacher from his childhood noticed his gift ? Highly unlikely as is the fact he`s read so much mind expanding litrature . And if Will`s so clever how come he`s so oblivous of what happens to young good looking boys in American prisons ?

But it`s the casting that let much of the film down . You want to get a couple of actors to play rough tough Irish gang members ? Let`s get Matt Damon and Ben Affleck which is like getting Russell Crowe to play a pacifist or Charles Bronson to play a liberal do gooder . I failed to be convinced by the foul mouthed Damon and Affleck as they strutted about smacking people in the chops and couldn`t help thinking that even though they wrote the script the parts should have been awarded to different actors , after all Billy Bob Thornton has written screenplays for films he hasn`t been cast in and the same criteria should have been applied here

There are some good points to the movie . Robin Williams is excellent as the man who tries to show Will his potential and also very good is Stellan Skarsgard who is quite simply one of the greatest character actors to stepped foot outside of Europe and despite my previous criticism of the script there is quite a moving piece of dialogue at the park as Williams character explains to Will what he has seen in life

But I`ve got to repeat that there`s less plus points than negatives to this movie and I`ve got to agree with the people who`ve said GOOD WILL HUNTING is boring and unconvincing","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not surprised that so many people fell for this one. When I was watching this movie, a couple viewers next to me sobbed whenever you're \"supposed\" to sob -- or at least feel \"touched\". Like when Hunting said he didn't love the girl. Like when Robin Williams' character (sorry I forgot his role's name) was telling Hunting repeatedly \"It's not your fault\" (oh Lord, just thinking of that scene gives me the goosebumps). I couldn't have cared less for what would happen to the characters. Many people sob for Hollywood manufactured characters they can't even relate to (think Titanic; Yuck!)... but it really only made me cringe and want to get out of the theatre. I guess I simply refuse to be psychically and emotionally manipulated by all this.

Folks it's not me who's being condescending ... those characters are, and for no good reason because they're unreal. Worse yet, nothing is new or surprising. Even Robin Williams' character is all cliched.

I gave it 1 out of 10. It's probably not that bad; it's just quite mediocre... but so many people went to the other extreme and gave it a 10 so I figured a single balancing vote won't hurt.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So many fans, so little to show for it. I know, I know, these words are gonna find me in a great minority. A lot of people really liked Good Will Hunting. But seriously please, great film making, not even close, and let's put the blame where it belongs... in the writing.

Now, I know they won an oscar for it, and boy did they look good emoting on the screen. But Good Will Hunting is an ABC after school special with lots of cursing in it, and a slightly bigger budget.

What this movie does show, is the brilliance of Harvey Weinstein and Miramax Pictures. Mr. Weinstein could take manure, feed it to you, and make you believe your eating bon bons. And that's exactly what the studio did with the film. They created such high faluttin buzz around it, that people believed, and wanted to believe it so much --- that they saw brilliance where there was none.

Now, I know some people think it's a great movie, I don't think it's a horribly bad movie, I like to compare it to more in the middle of the road movies, and also to some great Made for TV movies (although, not HBO films, HBO films are unusually better than Good Will Hunting would ever be.) It's just a nice, little film, with some good performances, Robin Williams was not good in it, they just gave him the oscar cause the'd been itching to do it for a while. And of course, the Miramax public relations machine secured Ben and Matt their screenwriting oscar... but come one people... there's better movies out there thatn GWH.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sappy.

I liked how they went to the \"Haaavaad baaa\" to quote books at each other to impress the ugliest girl there.

Probably the janitor at my school is a genius too but is waiting to land that big construction job.

Just because you keep your nose to the grindstone is no reason to try to cut a steak with it. \"Do you like apples?\"

the guy nods or something.

\"Well, how'd ya like DEM APPLES!\" Wow, that IS genius.

Duh, Minnie Driver would give her number to anybody. Robin Williams can't paint and keeps the good books on the top shelf. And there's a professor who always wears a priest scarf for no reason.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When Hollywood is trying to grasp what an \"intelligent person\" is like, they fail so miserably, finding it hard putting words in the mouth of the purported \"genius\".

Right, any genius walks around trying to rub in his superiority at every instance. Sure, they hang out in bars and pick fights \u0096 it's not like they are (generalizing wildly) autistic nerds who never have a tan.

Plus, if you are a genius you know all about Math and History and Politics and of course you're constantly up to date with current events and a thorough analysis of them. Coz these things, like, all go together n stuff, y'know?

Plus, you walk around with a smirk all the time. You are just a smug son of a you-know-what, that's how it is, y'all.

And of course you smoke, like someone who never smoked before, but you smoke coz it's like cool n stuff, y'know. And you're different. That is understood.

And of course you can fight \u0096 you're a bully. A bully who finds time to study 10.000 books whenever he doesn't lift weights. And whenever he doesn't smoke or drink beer because he follows a strict health regimen.

And you date a 30-something college student \u0096 Minnie Driver. Well, I won't even comment Matt Damon. Team America has hit the nail on the head already.

This movie is a daydream of a Beavis & Butthead type student (in other words 95% of them): \"Yeah, that's what I would be like if I was a genius.\" But stupid people and stupid authors in this case cannot imagine the lives of geniuses.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I sat down through 2 hours of pure boredom. I look here on IMDB, even though it is not high on the list, it is in the top 250. I was a little surpised. Even though, yes. I am very impressed with Robin and Matt's acting abilities, they still didn't save the movie. I'm not sure what I really didn't like about the movie. Maybe it's because I dispise math. Maybe I'm not too much for dreary talking for 2 hours. Even though I loved \"American Beauty\", but that was it. I just want my 2 hours back. It was a big waste of my time. If I'm missing something in this movie, please E-mail me. I am curious why this is on the top 250. And don't say \"Because it was a good movie\".

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so predictable when you know the modern American dream: Do nothing, be a loser and then suddenly... whoah! You're a genius and an obnoxious one and the world is kissing the ground you are walking on.

And surprisingly all the other smart people are losers. They don't know anything and are bitter when our wonderkid solves problems so easily. And what kind of problems? They are so difficult but still these professors can analyse the results in less than 10 seconds.

Every movie has something good in it anyway and Robin Williams is it in this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm racking my brain, but I can't seem to think of another movie quite like The Valley of the Gwangi. A Western with dinosaurs? What could be more natural? You gotta wonder why John Ford and\/or John Wayne never tried it!

The plot \u0096 While searching for a mythical miniature horse for her circus, TJ Breckenridge (Gila Golan), Tuck Kirby (James Franciscus), and the rest of the cast\/characters enter a strange, lost valley. There they find not only the miniature horse, but some other, more fearsome creatures as well. Dinosaurs rule this place. Now wouldn't that be an attraction at TJ's circus \u0096 a caged T-Rex?

It's not that I find The Valley of the Gwangi a bad movie, I just don't seem to have enjoyed it as much as many others who have posted comments on the movie. There are some parts that I actually find almost unwatchable. For the first half of the movie, there just doesn't seem to be much going on. I wasn't necessarily bored, but I did want something to happen. Plodding would be an adjective I would use. To top it off, the movie features a very contrived love story. It feels forced as if the writers decided that the male and female leads just had to get together. But The Valley of the Gwangi isn't a total waste. There are moments I really enjoyed. Who doesn't get a kick out of the scenes of the cowboys on horseback trying to lasso a T-Rex. You just don't see stuff like that every day. Ray Harryhausen's creatures are impressive. There are some really cool shots of Harryhausen's miniatures interacting with people and horses. It might not represent the best of his work, but the effects are very nice. Still, at least in my mind these good moments aren't enough to overcome the negatives. As much as I hate to do it, I've got to rate The Valley of the Gwangi a 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh what the heck, I'll reveal the secret: this movie stinks!

Yeah there are some nifty dinosaur effects that, for their time, were probably really exciting to watch. Now they don't cut it, but they're not terrible. They're just good enough to tolerate without being able to laugh at it. So they just sit there, and i sit watching this, not laughing, not excited, just, well, bored. It stinks!

If I can exercise my Jay Sherman for a moment, the film really does. The box promises cowboys versus dinosaurs, and in very generic sense it delivers. Guys dressed like cowboys fight a couple of big dinosaurs. But really these guys are a bunch of sissies, and the hero is a loser (more on this later) and the dinosaurs are hardly intimidating. The plot is a yawner, and there isn't much technically wrong with it that's there to laugh at. It's all just gray and bland.

After some dreadful night cinematography (Filmed in one and a half colors I called it), we get the plot which involves some people, doing stuff. That was what I caught. Oh and they are at the turn of the century in Mexico, so they at least dress like cowboys even if they don't act like it.

So a bunch of these people, who I think were human, they go in the desert, and they stumble on these dinosaurs (after they find a miniature horse...I don't know, let's just move on). Then the movie degrades into a really pathetic King Kong ripoff in the final act. At that point I had lost the will to even keep my eyes at television level, and I drifted in and out of consciousness.

The \"hero\" is played by the guy from Beneath the Planet of the Apes who essentially played Charlton Heston's part when Heston decided he didn't want to be in the sequel. He was picked cause, shock o' shocks, he looks exactly like Heston. That's about all he has going for him. I was really upset when he was the hero of the film cause all he does is glower, snear, bag the chick in the film (Who's named T.J...unfortunately she's not a prostitute or finally the origin of the name would have been revealed). Meanwhile his friend kills all the dinosaurs, saves the day numerous times, and what does he get for it? Not recognition, no nothing! And he dies, sacrificing himself for his friends! They don't even wait up for him while they escape!

Boring, long, slowly paced, with little to enjoy until the film decides to carbon copy King Kong's script onto it's own, it's best to avoid this film unless you enjoy pain on the scale of dropping an anvil on your eyeball.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I generally loved the Carry on movies but this one is actually pretty awful. There are very few laughs because the whole thing is so forced.There is plenty of talent on the screen and some come off better than others. June Whitfield, Kenneth Williams, Hatti Jaques and Peter Butterworth are fine but Barbara Windsor looks tired and Sid James is just tacky. Joan Sims comes off well but in the case of the usually wonderful Charles Hawtrey its just plain sad. When you think of the sad end to his career the movie is almost too depressing to watch. The homophobia of the movie is nasty and its a very unpleasant experience. The set looks cheap and unlike other movies in the series the movie is very clearly set in England. The sea side looks cold and there is little attempt to create any illusions here. It looks like a cheap production. You will be surprised at how miserable you become watching this especially if you loved the series.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have always liked the Carry On films, with their double-meaning sexual innuendo dialogue and moments of slapstick comedy, but I can see why the critics give this one two stars. Basically, many British people are gathering on a coach to go on a Spanish holiday to an island called Elsbels to the Palace Hotel. What they didn't know is that it is not completely built, plus they have to share bathrooms with their neighbours, they have crap draws, and many other complications and complaints that the owner Pepe (Peter Butterworth, putting on quite an amusing accent, e.g. peace sounding like the bad P word). Starring Sid James as Vic Flange, Kenneth Williams as Stuart Farquhar, Charles Hawtrey as Eustace Tuttle, Joan Sims as Cora Flange, Barbara Windsor as Sadie Tomkins, Kenneth Connor as Stanley Blunt, an apparently crap (I personally can't remember who he is) Jimmy Logan as Bert Conway, June Whitfield as Evelyn Blunt, Hattie Jacques as Floella (a ridiculous hag character, not as memorable as her usual Matron), Bernard Bresslaw as Brother Bernard, Sally Geeson as Lily, Carol Hawkins as Marge, Jack Douglas as Harry and Patsy Rowlands as Miss Dobbs. I admit it is not great, but there are just enough dialogue gags, and of course Babs in the shower, and going to to her bum with that iconic whistle, and later a rapid rip off of her bra. Okay!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry I couldn't disagree more ,with the last comments . frankly I thought this was worse than Carry on Columbus , enough said . Last film for THE usually brilliant Charles Hartrey who looked out of place as the humour had move on to the Highly witty level of on the buses, films of which were being made at the same time ,were frankly funnier .Barbara Windsor was embarrassing,a character like one of your mums flirty friends who still thinks she's eighteen , on holiday with some non entity of a Scotsman , Rab c Nesbit he ain't. The series miraculously trundled on with duffers like Carry on Behind ,and Carry on England . Carry on Dick wasn't bad , but really with this film the end of the series was nigh , a pity because up to this film I cant think of bad film before this?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This season lacked real oomf, but, as far as setting up stories to get us in the mood again, season 6 is without highlights and spontaneity.

This season lacked its usual Sopranos style, and if you cut out all the garbage that was filled in each and every episode this season, you probably would have had 6 episodes worth of real stories.

Side stories like Pauly's mom, is she or isn't she? was boring and had no purpose other than further exploration of his character. I would have like to have seen Bobby express his anger more at Pauly in that carnival episode, but to no avail.

And that's just it! These side stories had no real purpose, and lack finishing. If they are going to finish off these stories in the next 6 episodes, I'd rather not watch it, because, its not really worth seeing.

Disappointing is to nice a word to say about this season and its finale.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I sat watching this episode I kept glancing at the clock waiting for something to happen. As the hour wound down I thought they were really going to give us a big pop at the end, and then - nothing. The whole family is huddled around the Christmas tree like something from the Hallmark Channel then, fade to black.

Perhaps one of the poorest season finales I've ever seen. Nothing at all to drum up any excitement for next season. The only thing thrown out as any sort of incentive to watch the next season was the ambiguous nugget offered up by Agent Harris while pawing a sub sandwich that the guys in New York were looking to get one of the guys in New Jersey. Wow, really? I would never expect something like that from mobsters, I'm on the edge of my seat.

It almost seems like they're trying to get everyone to lose interest. They start more plot lines that end up just disappearing than any show I've ever seen. They tease and hint but rarely deliver any more.

What's with the Arabs that hang out at the Bing? They keep throwing them in front of us and magically, nothing happens.

Paulie knee caps some kid after Tony promised his mother that nothing would happen to her son and, poof, gone in the wind.

And how many more meandering drug montages with Christopher are we going to have to endure? Please, have him get arrested or overdose or something interesting.

This was one of the few shows that I used to looked forward to watching but now, forgetta-bout it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I picked up this movie and was horrified to find out that the movie is based on a rape of a little girl that the parents knowingly take their daughter to. My first thoughts were that I have never been more ashamed to be an Indian as well as a Hindu. I found this movie to be down right appalling. Please don't waste your time. As for the music, there are at most 2 horrible songs and the film used is cheap. The beautiful scenes are not what India is known for. I just hope that I have shed some light on how disgusting this movie really is. Yes it may highlight how evil people in power especially when it comes to religion may be, but to sit down and watch almost 2 hours of this movie can make almost anyone gag. If your up for a good Indian movie watch something by director Mira Nair.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie reeks. No money, no acting, no nothing. I caught this on on the 3am late show movie tonight and felt compelled to comment on it. This movie has nothing to recommend it. I can't believe it ever got released to US television! Nobody in this movie can act their way out of a paperbag. The lame attempts at comedy fall flat on their face, the special effects consist of a worm-like handpuppet \"monster\"... I can't even begin to tell you how rock-bottom this production is. It looks like it cost maybe $50,000 to shoot, but only because it is on 16mm, and that is probably a generous estimate! Anyway, I lost interest rapidly and had to settle for watching \"Matlock\" reruns instead of finishing it. That's how BAD this movie is!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Revisiting old films that you thought were average isn't necessarily a good thing. They sometimes get worse. Championed by the Fangoria camp (in Gorezone they labeled it \"the scariest film since Texas CHAINSAW\"\u0085um, no), LUTHER THE GEEK inexplicably developed a cult following as an \"intense\" horror picture. Actually, it is just an average stalk and slash\u0085uh, bite film that briefly sets itself aside from the pack by featuring a killer who clucks like a chicken. Yes, clucks like a chicken. To the filmmaker's credit, at least they didn't make the killer sound like a duck a la THE NEW YORK RIPPER. That would just be silly.

Narrative logic is completely abandoned in LUTHER THE GEEK. I'm not saying that slasher films are abound with reason, but at least in HALLOWEEN Michael Myers escaped. Luther is actually paroled after a lengthy scene where people argue he is reformed, even though he clucks like a chicken and has razor dentures (which he apparently fashioned in prison). It is the kind of film where a couple sees a bashed in door and the girl dismisses it by saying, \"Oh, my mom must have forgotten her keys. She forgets a lot of things since my dad died.\" The kind of film where the hysterical mother runs into a cop looking for Luther and tells him, \"The killer is in my house!\" So what does he do? He grabs her and literally drags her back to the house and says, \"Just show me where he is and I'll do the rest.\" Why not call back up?

It is too bad the film is filled with such horrible action and dialogue because the Luther character is actually pretty interesting. Most of the credit goes to Ed Terry, a dead ringer for Tom Noonan in MANHUNTER, who gives the clucking Luther a genuine air of menace. In the hands of a right director, LUTHER THE GEEK could be on the same level as SONNY BOY or SANTA SANGRE and be a true cinematic oddity. But Albright is not that director and merely places the fascinating character of Luther in tedious slasher trappings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Luther the Geek (1990) is a dull horror movie and is really bad even by Troma's standards!! It's about a freak who bites the heads off chickens, and kills people by biting their necks out, and he actually thinks he's a chicken himself!!!!! Luther gets released from prison after 25 yrs because apparentely he's been a \"model\" prisoner and deserves another chance in life (which is VERY hard to believe after you see how he acts and treats people throughout the movie).

After killing an elderly lady in a supermarket car park, he manages to sneak into a womans car, and proceeds to torture her, her daughter and the daughters boyfriend at their family home in the country.

Then we get treated to a long winded and boring movie, with awful acting all the way through, before a useless cop turns up to try and kill Luther once and for all!! Oh and the film has a ridiculous and laughable ending too!!! I love low budget horror movies and i think \"The Toxic Avenger\" is an all time classic, but i'm afraid Luther the Geek is just boring, illogical and dull, not much in the way of gore too, just afew bloody neck bitings and thats about it! 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I consider myself a big fan of low budget horror movies. The more bizarre and imaginative the film, the more blood and guts, the better, and i really fall in love with cheaply done flicks if they are done right. Luther starts out well enough... his origin at the circus, a creepy run at a supermarket, an attack of an old lady, and his disturbing occupation of a woman's farmhouse all set the mood nicely. A hot sex\/ shower scene ensues when the woman's daughter and daughter's boyfriend arrives at the house. When Luther steals the boyfriends motorbike the movie takes a turn for the worse.

The characters are presented with numerous opportunities to: A) save their loved ones, B) get the police to help, C) escape, or (most importantly) D) KILL LUTHER!!! I can't feel empathy or fear for characters that are too stupid to help themselves. Chareters snub chances to arm themselves with guns and knives while Luther is away. A policeman eventually arrives and is equally ineffective in stopping Luther, even though at one point he has a rifle squarely aimed at Luther while Luther clucks and does his rendition of the polish chicken dance. I found myself futilely coaching my television: \"Make sure he's dead!\", \"Hes gone, get out of there!\", or \"Just kill him already!\"

Luther is a bloodthirsty savage, but he is hardly Hannibal Lecter. If you can't outsmart this egghead, you deserve what's coming to you. By halfway through the movie you'll be so lethargic to the fates of the half-wits that only morbid curiosity will sustain you to last to the mildly amusing ending. This movie was noted as one of Fangoria's 101 greatest movies you've never seen... well Fangoria is half-right in the case of Luther the Geek.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has been a classic in my part of the country because it was filmed in my own small town. I now have many friends who are guards at Dixon Correctional, and I myself worked for 3 yrs at the SuperAmerica store next to the Krogers store the old lady was at. However, this is still the dumbest movie ever made, destined to be introduced by Gilbert Godfreid or Rhonda Shearer, if it hasn't been already. A bit of trivia, Illinois doesn't even have parole hearings, and Dixon Prison is a medium security facility housing burglars and vending machine vandals. The classic clucking\/seduction scene is perhaps the most amusing piece of writing I've ever seen, especially with the suspenseful build-up","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The plot revolves around a man named Luther who wears metal dentures, bites people on the neck, and walks around clucking like a chicken without the flapping of the arms. He also thinks he's a chicken.

Sounds bizarre right? Well, to me, the more bizarre and weird the person is, the better. The more gore, the better and so on.

The movie starts out with the board deciding if they want to release this maniac from their institution. They mention that he has created some dentures in prison that he used to bite people on the neck. He also clucks like a chicken and THINKS he's a chicken.

If I had a patient like this, there is no way I would release him.

First, Luther heads to the supermarket and attacks an old woman on a bench and walks away. Then, he sneaks in the back seat of a woman's car and she drives all the way to her home.

While at the house, Luther ties up the woman to the bed. When the woman's daughter and her daughter's boyfriend come home, Luther hides.

Later through the film, a cop comes to the front door and asks about the mother. You can clearly see the daughter is scared out of her mind and crying but the officer keeps asking if everything is okay. She replies that everything is fine. The officer finally gets in his car and leaves. If I saw a woman constantly crying and looking scared, I would want to at least get inside the house to investigate a little.

The ending is stupid as well. While the woman in in the barn, she starts clucking and gets Luther excited so he starts walking around flapping his arms and clucking like a maniac. She finally shoots him and just sits there for a minute before finally clucking some more.

Then the credits roll.

This is one of the STUPIDEST movies I have ever seen! NOTHING happens at the woman's house! NOTHING!

I sometimes like campy films but this one really bored me.

I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Good idea, bad direction!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so awful that I can't even describe it. I was amazed that I even sat through this pile of trash. I couldn't believe that a movie like this was even thought of. It was a about a serial killer that clucks like a chicken. He doesn't just cluck a couple of times, he clucks non-stop through out the whole movie. He even flaps his arms like a chicken which is even stupider than anything I have ever seen. I couldn't believe this came out in 1990. I thought it came out in the early '80's or something. Then the daughter isn't very smart either because she was protecting the geek or man chicken. The end just gets worse and is the worse ending I have ever seen. This movie is just chicken s**t. I was laughing more than I was scared and I strongly suggest going out and getting a bucket of fried chicken instead of seeing this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an odd movie. On the surface it's no different to many other d-grade gore movies but in at least a few ways it stands out. Firstly, the main killer character is really weird. How the heck a guy who only ever clucks like a chicken got paroled is totally beyond me. What was that female parole board member thinking: \"he's totally reformed and rehabilitated\". He clucks! Another problem with Luther the Geek is the script\/direction for the women. The daughter is so pathetic and seemingly stupid that if she was mine I'ld slap her. In attempting to untie her mother off the bed she struggles with knots and just doesn't seem to think, \"I'll get scissors, or a knife\". Later on, in a similar attempt to untie her mother she wanders down stairs and starts searching in a box of scrap-booking stuff for some scissors, eventually she gets a knife. By the way, this is after the killer has obviously left in the car and just returned. Bizarre. On the plus side the daughter did get her kit off for the shower scene, so that was nice, although again unusual. It seems that in many of these d-grade gore movies they happily show throats being bitten open with gushing blood but the sight of a female breast is somehow too strong for the audience. In general, it worked but it was annoying and nasty, although the bare breasts made up for some of that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This isn't a very good movie, but it is easily the best Troma Studios film I have ever viewed. Lloyd Kaufman - the \"brains\" behind Troma - isn't concerned with a good plot or even making a moderately entertaining film. His chief concern is making something bizarre. And his definition of bizarre oftentimes mirrors my definition of terrible cinema.

In this film we have the titled character Luther - whose favorite pastime isn't Baseball, but biting the heads off of chickens - receiving his release from lockup. The board has deemed him rehabilitated despite the fact that he doesn't speak - he merely clucks like a chicken - and has a set of razorblade dentures at his disposal. Of course, once Luther is set free, he goes about causing mayhem, first at a grocery store and later at a farm house.

VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Lots of violence in this oftentimes tasteless flick. Luther sinks his razorblade chompers into a poor elderly lady waiting at a bus stop and then spends the rest of the film terrorizing the mother and daughter at the farmhouse).

NUDITY: $$$$$ (Stacy Haiduk delivers some noteworthy skin in his picture, as the former Lois Lane (I can't recall which Superman edition she was from) gives us a shower scene followed by a romp in bed with her boyfriend - a guy who just doesn't have any chemistry with Ms. Haiduk. The extended shower scene footage in the DVD extras gives the viewer quite a bit more of Stacy. She is quite something).

STORY: $ (Forgettaboutit!!!! Whitey Styles' screenplay may just be the worst ever written. The way in which Luther is released from the asylum completely throws all credibility out the window. His dialogue is something that a pre-schooler might write and the actions he writes for his characters border on the absurd. It's as if Styles spent ten years without human contact and completely forgot how people react in certain situations).

ACTING: $$ (The film belongs to Edward Terry who actually does a decent job as the Geek. He is quite menacing in a stupid barnyard fashion. Joan Roth as the mother does a super job in support but Haiduk and her boyfriend's lack of chemistry made their roles awkward at best).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd chose either over this film. This film has been in my \"must see\" list for a while because people talked about it being \"disturbing\" and also the VHS box contains lots and lots of quotes from people saying how \"amazing\" it is, or how \"as close as you can get to texas chainsaw massacre\" and lines like that. But, sorry folks, I was disappointed big time. The idea is interesting, but the script is SO underdeveloped that each character becomes a mistaken creation of evolution and people do indeed to the dumbest films in the film.

That, in turn, takes away any credibility that the plot may have otherwise had. I couldn't believe how unnecessarily loooooong some \"where is he, let's find him\" sequences were. A few gory moments to please the gore fan, but they are so few that by the time we get to them there's no point. If Luther's a geek, then the filmmakers must really be down on the food chain.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Shot in my former home town by a couple of college kids, this movie centers around some freak named \"luther\". Luther, recently paroled (revealed to us by an arguing parole board in one of the most laughably scenes of all time), runs amuck at the local Kroger grocery by eating an old woman's neck with his metal teeth.

Luther runs to farm where he eats a guy, steals a car, ties up an old woman, and gets chased, and gets killed. Oh, and the chick from the SUPERBOY tv show gets naked.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have no qualms with how the movie does NOT capture New Jersey (like Zach, I'm from there). Fine. Whatever. I lived there WAY long enough. I don't need to see a movie that captures the Garden State.

What I do have qualms with is how bad this movie is. Let's make it easy on you. We'll use some bullet-points. There are probably some spoilers that follow. (Not that you wouldn't be able to predict the movie ANYWAY):

-The music placement was maddeningly forced and patronizing. Example: Large: \"What are you listening to?\" Sam: \"The Shins. Ever heard of 'em?\" \"No.\" \"Listen to this song - it will change your life!\" And then they proceed to play that Shins song that was in a McDonalds commercial. (Don't you love when the characters in a movie blatantly tell you - the viewer - how to react to something? I love that! Hey, they should have put subtitles during various scenes instructing us to \"chuckle,\" \"Say 'aaaaaw'\" \"cry\" \"feel inspired\" etc.)

-The scenes were SO BAD. SO Clich\u00e9. SO MELODRAMATIC. Example: The entire movie. But no, really, example: They're in the rainy quarry by the ark. Large runs up - in the pouring rain (oh he's SO TORMENTED!) - on top of a piece of heavy machinery and SCREAMS! Oh how moving! But wait! Here comes Sam and his buddy (the annoying drug addict), and they ALL SCREAM!!!! BUT WAIT!!!! OH MY GOD!!!! Here it comes! THEY KISS!!! LONG, DEEP!!!! IN THE RAIN!!!!!!!!

-The dialogue was SO BAD. SO Clich\u00e9. SO MELODRAMATIC. Example. They're leaving the ark and Sam says something like, \"Hey. Good luck exploring the infinite abyss.\" And the guy says back, \"You, too.\" Oh...Oh my! I never realized...could it be? Oh my God it is! Large's life is like...ohmigod...AN INFINITE ABYSS!!!! Another example: Large and Sam in the airport. Sam says something like, \"Is this goodbye?\" Not enough for ya? OK, Largeman says something like, \"This isn't a period at the end of the sentence... it's an ellipses.\" And guess what happens when he tries to walk down the jetway and go back to his life in LA. You know, what? Don't guess. It's a waste of your time.

-It's a Grade Z Wes Anderson rip-off movie. When not busy being melodramatic and clich\u00e9, the movie spends lots of times with crazy-kooky-off-kilter characters. Hey, Sam's brother... thank you Zach Braff for including him, because it really made the movie so much more textured. Also ripping off Anderson: the dialogue. Scene: Sam and Largeman are in a bar. In walks friends, \"Vagina!\" says one of them. Then they see him sitting with Sam, so one of the friends says, \"Sorry I said vagina.\" And Sam says, \"It's OK.\"

-Inventive cinematography that's not inventive but pointless and annoying. Give me a break with the speed-up\/slow down of film. Again, Wes Anderson does it effectively in his movies. And it was done well in \"Donnie Darko.\" But, really, it was pointless. Wow. A crazy party where people are taking X and snorting coke. Better roll out all the tricks!

-You can count the good moments on one hand (even if you're missing fingers). That's what makes it even WORSE. The retarded quarterback thing...well, that was good! The little thing he (largeman) says as they're about to enter the quarry (something about huffing turpentine)...that was good! Oh, wait, that's about it.

You know, Zach Braff is, I think, always a little too cute. But, he's likable. But, man, this is forced, pretentious, melodramatic (have you gotten that yet?), overly cute, overly everything. This movie is terrible. Apparently, I'm outnumbered, as this waste of time is currently rated an 8.0.

Please, though, if you're looking for something truly poignant and subtle and unique DO. NOT. RENT. THIS. MOVIE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Garden State must rate amongst the most contrived and pretentious films of all time. The plot is a simple one, involving a young man returning home after his mother's death and discovering love. But really, the plot isn't important. What is important to Zach Braff - writer, director, and star \u0096 is that he is able to hang from the plot all the necessary accoutrements of an 'indie' or 'arty' film. We therefore are presented with endless cute and quirky characters and scenes that don't exist for reasons of plot or character development, but simply to give some artistic credibility to the film (\u00e0 la Wes Anderson - or so Braff hopes). Unfortunately and somewhat astonishingly, Braff has not only fooled many on IMDb, but also some critics who really ought to have known better.

Of course, Braff's gratuitous use of the quirky alone does not make Garden State a bad film. What really makes Garden State a stinker is Braff's script. He simply does not have the writing skills to carry this film off, and the dialogue and characterisation are abysmal. Braff often has to resort to blunt devises and symbolism to achieve what he can't achieve through the writing. For example, the numbness of the Braff character is shown to us by his indifference to an impending plane crash (this can't be worked into the plot, and so has to take place in a dream!), later he is shown fighting back against his circumstances by screaming into a bottomless abyss (life = a bottomless abyss, very clever Mr Braff). Those two scenes must rank amongst the most ludicrous and contrived ever seen on a cinema screen.

On the plus side, the acting is passable despite the lack of material for the cast to work with (by which I mean a script), and I do admire Natalie Portman for her efforts as the love interest - a character so badly written and implausible that she is little more than a mindless doll that Braff moulds into his fantasy woman.

It apparently took Braff 3 years to write the script for Garden State (3 years to write a script this bad - he really is inept!). Hopefully therefore it will be some time before he makes another film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, so I gotta start this review by saying i was really expecting to see this flick for months, i use to watch its trailer and think it looked really cool....little did i know that the only cool thing about this clich\u00e9-driven turd was precisely its trailer.

At the cinema, i watched the first 3 frames of this movie and though to myself \"no way this movie is so bad, don't be an idiot, give it a chance! you've only seen 3 minutes\" while i rolled my eyes in shame. All those frames showed....get this....a guy with a poker face (because he feels nothing....that's deep) looking straight at the camera in the middle of the frame. In the second or third one, he stays awake in his perfectly made bed (because he sleeps like a dead guy...cause he feels nothing), and his father calls, and says \"John Garden State, is me, your father\"....oh come on! I've seen a little more than a couple flicks to hate clich\u00e9s such as the \"is me, your (insert parent)\", how the hell am I supposed to react??: \"Oh, he has a tough relationship with him\"....uh....yeah, thats exactly how I'm supposed to react....

Man, this is a crappy movie...

Anywho, as the flick goes on, we learn things about his friends, of which everyone is a ALTERNATIVE EMO WALKING INDIE MOVIE CLICH\u00c9. For example, one of his acquaintances is a guy who works in a medieval themed restaurant who speaks Klingon (Bizarre characters + Pop culture = Your standard American indie flick). Then we know Natalie Portman's character, who is a copy of Alissa Jones (from a movie that kicks GS's butt, Chasing Amy), Amelie and that chick from Eternal Sunshine... you know, smart, original (not really), cultured, beautiful and...in touch with her sexuality (!). She listens some '70s band named The Shins and gives...what? they're from this damn decade?? Then why do they sound like that?? Oh, they have no personality, OK.....so she hands her CD player to John Garden State and he looks at her with a dumb face(you know, love). As the song played on, i heard its lyrics saying \"you will love this soundtrack, it is so alternative and cool, you will love this movie, it will define you and your generation even if it is a ideological photocopy of The Breakfast Club, Ghost World and every other smart teen movie from the last 20 years, you will drink coffee and read books you don't understand\"...

By now, really unoriginal sh!t starts to happen....he doesn't care if he dies in a airplane crash (because he is already dead....and he feels nothing) and he lets us know in a scene idea taken straight out of an unknown movie called FIGHT CLUB!!!, it is a cool scene but, oh, did I mentioned it appeared in the trailer?.......then in some party, and just when you think this guy is really deep and asexual he makes out with a bimbo....so oh, he's not such a emotional zombie after all....clever character development or just a sh!tty movie?......well, lets analyze that scene, it features him sitting motionless in a couch with everyone else moving in really fast speed......scene idea taken straight out of an unknown movie called REQUIEM FROM A DREAM!......so just a sh!tty, sh!tty movie...

Then they meet more eccentric (clich\u00e9, actually) characters, and finally, one that lives next to a big hole in the ground. John Garden State says some crap like \"good luck exploring your infinite abyss\" and the guy says....and by now i wanted to really choke myself, \"You too\"..............and then we are gently told that Neo is Jesus....oh no, wait, thats from another dumb, obvious, repetitive, overestimated and clich\u00e9 piece of crap.

Finally (Finally!!!!), some more crap happens and he enters the big warehouse showdown to defuse the bombs: he has to talk to his dad who he hasn't seen in the last zillion years cause he (FINALLY COOL SPOILERS) killed his own mom....(you see, he killed his mom, so he's also dead.......and feels nothing.....that's deep). Now I really expected just clever and moving Magnolia-like dialogue between a father and a son......but this is Garden State, so this is pretty much it: -John Garden State: Father, I forgive you, you didn't know what you were doing when you drugged me for a zillion years, but I know you love me -Crappy director's dad: No!!! No!!!! I'm gonna say some simple stuff cause I'm not really so deep of a character anyway, like this whole movie actually, so no!!!! -John Garden State: No dad, we must get along cause we are equal individuals.....i mean different individuals -Crappy director's dad: No!!!!! No!!!!............OK, you convinced me.

And he gets the girl (cause he's no longer dead, you know) and the movie ends and i go and eat a piece of chicken that makes my day....

This made-for-trailer movie sucks","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Garden State was a mediocre film at best. The film seems more like a compilation of thoughts that the writer (Zach Braff) had, rather than a cohesive story. The disjointed plot may have been more engaging if it weren't interspersed with pointless scenes that were nothing more than \"quirky.\" Coincidentally these scenes are often the ones that are relayed in conversation (Zack walking past faucets that turn on as he passes, crazy under-cranked party scene, shouting over a gorge, the list goes on).

The main character is flat, disengaging, and ultimately unlikable, which is exhibited most in the scene where he talks to his father, selfishly ignoring his fathers problems, including a recently deceased wife, and droning on about his own \"What am I to do with my life?\" problem.

The film ends when Andrew (Zach Braff) decides not to go back to LA because he cannot tear himself from the love of his life, Sam (Natalie Portman) whom he has known for 2 days. Which can only lead me to the conclusion that the message of the film is that love at first sight cures occupational dilemmas... Sure you could interpret it as a misappropriation of priorities, but if that is the case it could have been done better. Much better.

This film does not know what it wants to be. A drama, a comedy, a teenage-wasteland film, or a gamut of other things. I say this not as a single-genre oriented person, but as a person who loves multi-genre pieces such as those mastered by Stanley Kubrick. The reason I feel it does not work for Garden State is because rather than blending the genres together, it jumps around; one scene is one genre, the next another, and back again, so on.

I have heard many people tell me to cut Zach Braff some slack, after all it was his first feature film and he debuted as Director, Writer, and lead actor. Impressive as it was a first film, I should think that with as much money as he has, he could do better. There have been much better first-time feature film directors (Michel Gondry \"Human Nature\", David Gordon Green \"George Washington\"). Maybe if he stuck to writing OR directing OR acting it would have been better. Zach Braff is a talented performer, maybe his second attempt won't be so tedious and disjointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wave after wave of directionless nausea - this film wants and at first promises to be quirky and original but is in fact obvious, solipsistic and mired in clich\u00e9-driven dialogue which builds to a crecendo of awfulness and cheese by the end. Throughout the film we meet supposedly off the wall characters, who are actually very dull, and just don't quite work and who clunk through the horrific screenplay like men in armour suits, driving jeeps through mansion houses and spouting preppy existential obviousness accompanied by the whinings of Coldplay. The film has occasional funny episodes, often no funnier than a dog playing with its genitals, which happened twice (an index of the slapstick, rudimentary humour of the film in general) but by the end, the film falls into an 'infinite abyss' of complete detritus and the director's egocentric ramblings which made me want to gouge my eyes out. Watch this film at your peril.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Garden State\" is another of these \"indie\"-type pictures that supposedly skimp on production values for the sake of giving the audience some real true-to-life human drama. Oddly enough, the production is very good, so are the performances (by some fairly big-name actors as well). Where the picture is lacking is in Zach Braff's script, which seems mostly culled from situations taken from other movies.

When you're as young as Braff is, you haven't really lived enough to use the experience as film fodder. Braff's experience looks to be from watching movies, then repeating the same trite clich\u00e9s in his own movie. In Garden State, he plays Andrew Largeman, a semi-successful Hollywood actor who returns to his hometown in New Jersey to bury his mother, who took her own life after suffering in a wheelchair for many years. He appears to have no feeling about any of this; he has no relationship with his father, who blames him for causing his mother's paralysis in a freak accident as a six-year-old, and has no particular despondency over losing his mother (in fact, he attends a party right after the burial to which he was invited by a friend of his, who works as a cemetery grave-digger). It all smacks heavily of \"Beautiful Girls\", also about a guy who returns to his hometown to \"find himself\" and hang with his old friends, with a little \"Ordinary People\" thrown in on the side.

It's really a miracle Braff could accomplish anything at all in his life, given his father and his useless friends (I'm surprised he didn't kill himself), who are still living their \"lives\" as though they're still in high school, partying with dumb bimbos, drinking and drugging, etc. None of them even recognize him from his TV role as the \"retarded quarterback\" (Natalie Portman's character, the most aware person in the movie, does), and say things, like \"Hey, I remember you from Junior year\". These guys are such losers, for them, watching television would be a cultural leap forward. Even one friend, who made millions inventing a silent Velcro, has no real reason to live, because his whole frame of reference is high school and partying. And you don't need big money to party like a high school sophomore.

Braff, it is revealed, is heavily medicated, which keeps from \"feeling\" and dealing with anything, really, like an adult would. Then he meets Sam (Natalie Portman) a sort-of lost girl, who gives pet funerals and lives with her mother like a 10-year-old in a bedroom that looks like a pink doll house blown up to life size. Anyway, they fall in love, and Braff learns to \"feel\" again. The clich\u00e9s come fast and furious. Braff has a long delayed heart-to-heart talk with his cold, distancing father and tells him What It Is and The Name Of The Game. In one scene, Braff and Portman are in the millionaire kid's house, playing touchy-feely is front of a giant fireplace, and the bit is so routine, so standard movie-schtick, I swear, I half-expected somebody to walk up and throw a sled into the fire. In another, Braff visits a doctor (Ron Liebman) to get his junk refilled, and Liebman tells him (in easily the worst line in the movie) \"The body can play tricks on you. I once found my ex-best-friend's cufflinks in my wife's purse, and I didn't have an erection for a year and a half.\" Obviously, no licensed physician would ever say that, but it's dirtbag poetry, a nod from Braff to, I guess, his loser friends to let them know he's still thinking of them, just as the \"37\" joke in \"Clerks\", was Kevin Smith's nod to his dirtbag buddies.

Anyway, Braff finds true happiness and gets off the dope; the story plays itself out predictably. But if you're going to have a movie that's wall-to-wall clich\u00e9s, at least give it some charming performances to breathe some life into it. And Braff does. He has the right sort of vacancy, of casual acceptance to make his role as the zonked-out Andrew both real and poignant, and Natalie Portman (also of Beautiful Girls) gives the movie a big lift. With her tiny features and flickering expressions of mood, she just about steals the picture as his traveling companion. Jean Smart is surprisingly good as Portman's mother, and Peter Saarsgard (though much better in \"Shattered Glass\") is notable as the gravedigger friend. I would recommend \"Garden State\" if you can't get enough storybook romance out of movies, but when people start hailing it as a masterpiece, they're just clueless. Braff thinks you can take the same old tired plot, write in a few \"f**ks\" and \"awesomes\" and slap on an acoustic rock soundtrack and that contemporizes the material. It doesn't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For those that might send me nasty e-mails, shove it. There is a trend in Hollywood where those that create overly-quirky movies are instantly impervious to criticism. Garden State tends to be one of those movies.

Sure, Zach Braff, star of a rather overrated sitcom, surprises people with some talent behind the camera, but that doesn't warrant the kind of praise that a film like this has been receiving. The story is often times too thin and shallow to provide any real insight. People have compared this film to The Graduate, but those type of people are the types that try to oversell independent cinema. Indie films are subject to the same hit and miss mentality that typically hits the studio films, but people seemed to have forgotten that there are far more bad indie films than good ones. Garden State isn't atrocious, but its isn't great.

First off, the film is too quick, resulting in a rather fast reemergence of Large into his former life. After ten years, people tend to act like he never left. Where's the awkwardness? Of course, the situation is always solved by a quick drug tasting scene (which I will say was portrayed rather accurately). The film seem to present a lot of emotional inequities, giving us the idea that the emotion will come up later in a more deeper and more well thought out way. However, it fails to deliver on those fronts, leaving us wondering why the journey to some of his decisions and moments were quickly resolved (like Peter Saarsgard's grave robbing tendencies). It wasn't completely abysmal, but maybe we should stop praising the film as something it isn't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Of all the directors ever to sit behind a camera Wellman could break your heart quicker than anyone. Even Ford. But this is one of his worst. Even he seemed to know it, probably from its jejune treatment, not much above a Bonanza or Big Valley.

Yet there is one moment, typical Wellman that comes out of nowhere to shatter you, the death of the Indian wife of Gable. She has gone to give her baby some water and WHAM is killed by an arrow instantly. No warning. Nada.

One of the most shocking, unprepared for deaths in all cinema. Particularly after investing a whole hour of love for the lady in what looked to be a sappy western. Of course the treatment of her afterwards is laden with Wellman's total indifference, apparently, to the film. Even so it is a reminder of the power he has always had at his best.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie begins with much voice-over, a bad sign. Then it just slides downhill with silly and intelligence-insulting scenes involving trappers and Indians. But, it reaches new and impressive lows when all the merry mountain men square dance with each other in a high alpine meadow. Meanwhile, the happy-go-lucky Indians sit around watching them. It's a better scene than the dancing cowboys in \"Blazing Saddles\". There is a minor flaw in this comparison; \"Across the Wide Missouri\" is not a comedy.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film successfully gives a graphic portrayal of the suffering of forced sex labour, but nothing more. The leftest agenda behind this movie could be seen a mile away and leaves viewer so embarrassed while watching if you know that feeling. So, the women are kidnapped and sent to ex Yugoslavian territory to work as sex slaves because (take a deep breath) the American military institution is corrupt and looks away while their private security contractors are selling people abroad. You don't need half a brain to see the relevance to Iraq war and Black Water Company.

What a load of leftest excrement! Looks like I have been fooled all my life into thinking that this problem and many others were a direct result of Communism's grip on this region for 45 years. But no, it was the American war on Iraq, which is also responsible for earthquakes, tropical storms, and the constipation I had last week.

The film ignores the fact that 95% of the sex trade is women willing to sell their bodies for money and entry to the western block. You also see scenes that are so stupid you want to pull your hair. We have someone chasing down a woman in the streets of London in broad daylight, beat her up, then somehow drags her unconscious body half a mile back to the apartment where he rapes her. No one sees this or calls the police, and the running woman does not care to scream during the chase. Even better, we later see 4-5 women lined up in the centre of London in -again- broad daylight to be sold, one of them has a smashed face, and people are shopping in the background as if nothing was happening. You can't make this stupidity up.

I used to think that such trash was exclusive to Hollywood, but apparently I was mistaken.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, make no mistake - this is a pretty awful film, but I actually thought it had a couple of creepy scenes and overcame its pathetic budget every now and then. At the very least it's unintentionally funny in spots and has a definite air of creepiness and discomfort (a face burning scene, the part with the disfigured bride).

This baby falls into the \"so bad it's entertaining\" category to me, and for that alone I would give it a star. The effects are terrible, the acting is abysmal, and the whole thing looks like it was shot in a day. You gotta love that toy ship at the beginning, too! It brought back childhood memories of seeing this on late night TV many years ago. While the Alpha DVD print looks weak and as though it was recorded directly off an old television broadcast or something, I actually liked that in this case!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**May Contain Spoilers**

The main character, a nobleman named Fallon, is stranded on an island with characters so looney and lethal he might have been better off drowning. Count Lorente de Sade (pronounced \"dee-SAYd\") talks to his own hallucinations and sees all intruders on the island as invading pirates. He routinely beats mute servant Anne and tortures his unwilling guests in the dungeon. Inadvertant laughs are provided by giant \"Nubian\" slave Mantis who talks with a Deep South accent and helps de Sade hunt down trespassers in the style of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. De Sade's crazed wife, ravaged by leprosy, provides some truly scary moments as she prowls the dungeon and embraces a helplessly chained prisoner. (This scene was viewed on late-night TV by many kids who carried the memory into adulthood.) The one nearly-normal person in sight is Cassandra, who has self-deprecation down to a science. (\"I used to be a nurse, now I'm not much of anything.\") She and Fallon plan their escape and ultimately encounter an enemy more fearsome than de Sade and Mantis combined.

\tThis movie was shot in San Antonio and directed by a man more competent at drawing horror comics than making horror movies. (I'll say this much for Mr. Boyette--he does showcase his fixatation with contagion here, as he did in his comics.) It's rather like an Andy Milligan melodrama minus the meat cleavers. The period wardrobe, library music, abuse of the handicapped and all-around misanthropy makes one wonder if Andy wasn't called in as a consultant. However, Milligan made better costumes and wrote better dialogue. Technical gaffes are too numerous to list here but you know this flick is in trouble when you see the opening shipwreck, which looks like it was shot in a fish tank. Also, a film made in Texas should have had real spiders and snakes rather than rubber ones. Glorious Eastmancolor gives this melodrama the garish look it so richly deserves. Fallon's initial encounter with the leprous Countess is truly horrifying, as is the movie's parting shot. If the rest had been half as harrowing, THE DUNGEON OF HARROW would have been a terror classic. Instead it's a funny piece of schlock that trash-fiends will love, for all the wrong reasons.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My bad film guru (and the president of the Exposed Film Society) sprang this one on us last week. There was no denying the demented gleam in his eye as he pulled it out of its brown paper bag and announced what he had in store for us: \"The Most Dangerous Game\", filmed on a budget of about $2.95.

Of course, $2.95 went a lot further back in 1962, but still...

Anyway, there is certainly a lot to dislike about this film. It abounds with serious technical gaffes (my favorite was the 'repeating musket' that fired twice in two minutes without benefit of a reload). The hero is a wuss who stands by while his wounded friend fights the henchman and gets killed.

More? OK -The plot is a shambles with no continuity to speak of. The movie wastes five minutes with a 'special guest star' who serves as the physical embodiment of the villain's madness and paranoia, but never shows him again. The hero is choked unconscious by the henchman but makes no mention of it when he wakes up and first meets his host. The mute servant girl is captured, put on the rack...and then the movie (and the hero, who put her in this predicament) just sort of \"forgets\" about her.

More? Well, the sets are cheap, and the special effects are cheaper (the makeup is an exception to this). Much of the plot is carried by the narrator's droning, monotonic voice-over, which carries less dramatic impact than the menu recital at Denny's. Most of the dialog is simply ridiculous and stilted , as if it was translated from Japanese. (\"I demand that our conversation be pleasant!!!\") And the color values tended to shift violently from shot to shot, as if cheap film stock and problematic lighting equipment were the order of the day. (Note - this last may have been the fault of a bad print, rather than the camera crew).

But there were a couple of nice moments here and there. The makeup effects were startlingly good in contrast to the rest of the film, the actors were LOOKED interesting, especially the mute servant girl and the Countess. And in spite of everything, there was a definite creepy atmosphere to be found, very nasty and disturbing.

So what was the deal with this movie? I thought about it a bit, and realized that director\/writer Pat Boyette basically tried to put a story from of the old \"EC\" horror comics on film. That would account for the stilted dialog, the sketchy character development (in a comic, physiognomy = character even more than in film), the loopy interior logic of the story (\"EC\" horror stories went out of their way to include a nasty \"shock\" ending and weren't big on psychological realism), the over reliance on the narrative voice (which belongs in captions over the panels), and the interesting makeup effects that mimicked the grisly pictures that the old EC artists did so well.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that when Boyette saw his leading man during casting, he instantly saw that the fellow was as close to being the equivalent of the lanky, shambling figures and caved in faces that artists like Johnny Craig and Jack Davis drew as an actual human could be and still exist in the real world.. He used costumes and lighting to emphasize the cartoony aspect of the visuals and turned everyone into living EC comics characters. (See: the leading lady's blank beauty, the Count's strong bony features, oddly bronze skin and sharp chin, the platinum 'do on the tall, bony black henchman, etc.)

This would explain the movie's failings. Boyette knew how to 'frame' things, but he didn't know how to deal with three dimensions and moving bodies. Boyette knew how to tell a creepy story within the confines of a comics page, but the nuances of film and live actors escaped him. He wouldn't be the first person with this problem of course - look at what Joel Schumacher did to \"Batman\". But he didn't have a big budget to hide behind.

In any case, I'm imagine that Boyette walked away from this train wreck and probably spent less time thinking about \"Dungeon of Harrow\"than the folks who post on this film's message boards. He did, within certainly vague boundaries, what he set out to do, and you have to respect him for it...even if you don't care for \"Harrow\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Buyer beware. The Alpha Video release uses a print that defies description. The movie was shot in color but you wouldn't know it for the first 25 minutes or so. The print that is used is so faded and decrepit that it appears almost sepia toned. After 30 minutes some color seeps back into the print but from there to the conclusion the color comes and goes. Keep in mind, even at it's best the color is pale and washed out. It looks like the print was recorded off a television that wasn't getting the best reception. Adding to this travesty is the most plodding delivery of lines that I can recollect. Even the voice over narration is stupor inducing. Every line is delivered in this irritating plodding demeanor. I found myself wishing that they would hurry and get the words out. For this reason I couldn't wait for this movie to end. It's one of those so-bad -it's- good movies but I wish that someone would find a half decent print.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The basic idea behind \"Dungeon of Harrow\" isn't all bad. The acting, however, is bad. The lighting is bad. The music is bad. The scenes of torture are without emotion. There really isn't much there to recommend this film. You know what kind of a movie you're in for when the credits say \"Special Guest Star\" and list someone you've never heard of. Might as well say \"Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln.\" because there's really no one in this movie you can identify. There are one or two decent moments, mostly toward the end and I think the basic plot outline may have contained an original idea, but that alone is not enough to keep you awake through this otherwise inept yawner.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This weird movie from Texas is about Fallon, a dilettante rich boy in the late 1800s (although he looks like a 60s C&W singer with greasy hair and sideburns) whose ship wrecks on an island owned by Count DeSade (pronounced de-sayd) with his captain. The count is afraid of pirates and tortures a young girl who was once a pirate hostage and also tortures the captain. Meanwhile, creepy former nurse Cassandra tells Fallon the secrets of the castle. The Countess has leprosy and went mad! Fallon is trapped but brings supplies. The captain is killed by a racist-caricature slave. Fallon is thrown in the dungeon with the leper, who always thinks it's her wedding day. The leper bride is horny, bu Cassandra kills her. Fallon and Cassandra escape the castle, but the Count and his slave chase them with dogs. DeSade kills the slave and Fallon kills DeSade. Fallon and Cassandra fall in love over the course of the next year, but when the supply ship comes, the crew refuses to take our lovers because they're both lepers now. They live for years in the castle...Fallon's hair turns gray and Cassandra goes bonkers. Fallon puts her in the dungeon. Our tale of love and leprosy ends.

So bizarre it's watchable, and you can smell the drive-in popcorn.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Dungeon of Harrow\" had a lot of things that could've made this quite a good horror film. Creepy mansion, a torture chamber, a paranoid host, a henchman, a ghoul in the dungeon, etc. But sadly to say this wasn't made very well.

A writer and a skipper get shipwrecked on an island owned by a count in a castle, his slave, and a mute maid. The count becomes more and more suspicious that the two shipwrecked men are pirates (of all things) and gets more inclined to turn on them and subject them, and the mute maid who befriends them, to torture and imprisonment. Sound not-bad right?

Well, not quite. I used to call this one of the worst movies I have ever seen, but now I hesitate. Because it had so much potential it can't really be called \"one of the worst.\" However, seeing all this potential go to waste is a really big hit against this film. All in all, it's not a very good movie.

There is a very Gothic-suspense scene when our hero is chained in the dungeon and is confronted by the insane and leprous rotting bride, adorned in a tattered wedding dress. This was both creepy and disturbing the first time I saw the horror unfold in this scene. Man I wish this was a better movie!

This movie had all the right stuff to make this a moody late-night chiller, but ultimately took all the wrong turns. I suggest someone remake this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A couple of men are ship-wrecked on a remote island. They are then captured by an insane count who lives there with a small group of servants; while in the castle dungeon lives the count's unfortunate leper wife.

The Dungeon of Harrow is pretty much a hack job of a movie. The amateur actors all sleepwalk through the film while an annoyingly insistent score continually plays in the background. The various bits of action are all filmed in an incredibly unenergetic way; in fact the film in general is completely lethargic. It just seems to drag on and on. And even though the ending isn't too bad you will be hard-pressed to care by that point. As an example of 60's Gothic horror, this is strictly a bargain basement example. I sadly can't recommend this one really.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie tries to be more than it is. First of all, the acting is horrible. You have to get past the incredibly bad delivering of lines and terrible emoting. The plot is quite interesting. A shipwreck occurs (apparently because it was made out of strings and balsa wood), and a couple of guys find themselves on shore. If this weren't bad enough, some guy named Count de Sade is living there as well. He lives in fear of pirates and has gone utterly insane. Anyway, he has a large slave, a young woman, and some dogs. There's another woman who doesn't speak and his wife, who is a leper. Anyway, things get bad as these men have to deal with this nut case. He is arrogant and likes to pose and deliver lines. The rest of the movie involves an attempt to escape. It has an ironic ending which I won't reveal and it kind of rescues the film. I wouldn't bother if I were you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why can't a movie be rated a zero? Or even a negative number? Some movies such as \"Plan Nine From Outer Space\" are so bad they're fun to watch. THIS IS NOT ONE. \"The Dungeon of Horror\" might be the worst movie I've ever seen (some of anyway. I HAD to fast forward through a lot of it!). Fortunately for the indiscretions of my youth and senility of my advancing age, there may be worse movies I've seen, but thankfully, I can't remember them. The sets appeared to be made with cardboard and finished with cans of spray paint. The special effects looked like a fifth grader's C+ diorama set in a shoebox. The movie contained unforgivable gaffs such as when the Marquis shoots and kills his servant. He then immediately gets into a scuffle with his escaping victim, who takes his flintlock and shoots him with it, without the gun having been reloaded! This movie was so bad my DVD copy only had name credits. I guess no company or studio wanted to be incriminated. Though I guess when you film in your garage and make sets out of cardboard boxes a studio isn't needed. This movie definitely ranks in my cellar of all time worst movies with such horrible sacrileges as \"The Manipulator\", the worst movie I have ever seen with an actual (one time) Hollywood leading man-Mickey Rooney. The only time I would recommend watching \"The Dungeon of Harrow\" (or \"The Manipulator\" for that matter) would be if someone were to pay you. (I'm kind of cheap) I'd have to have $7 or $8 bucks for \"Dungeon\" and at least ten for \"Manipulator\". phil-the never out of the can cinematographer","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If it was possible to give negative stars I would for this stinkburger.

Don't get me wrong I LOOOOOOVVVEEEE a good crappy movie. I am a big fan of films like Octoman, Wizard Of Mars, Queen King and others. Real classics of B-Cinema.

But this film actually makes Jack Nicolson and Boris Karloff in The Terror look like an academy award winner!! The Dialouge is so needlessly long-winded, and mostly inappropriately used. (ie. \"I will now Condensened (yes, condensend!!) to your wishes. The acting might have been a lot better if they had some more logical lines.

The story? What story, A count is exiled because his wife had leprosy? I'm still not sure on that count. A (Rich?) Fleet one and the Captian of one of his ships crash on the island? People acting unnaturally? OK, I like camp in b-films a lot, there lies a lot of it's charm, but this was just dumb..plain dumb. A salty sea Captian who sounds as well versed as a college professor? A fleet owner who is as clueless as they come (I felt this guy had no idea of how to play it, one scene he's Spanish acting, the next English\/European)? The count, who's not sure if he's a reincarnation or really DeSade (Don't ask me how DeSade figures into this, after 4 beers my wife, friend and I still couldn't figure it out.

The scare factor? I could show this turkey to my small grandkids and only worry about them sleeping through it. I like a lot of early 60's horror movies, and some still have good shocks, but this thing...never had a shock, or even a hint of of a scare.

On the info on the back it says, \"This Movie contains scenes that are so vivid and degrading that they will surpass your worst nightmare.\" The ONLY degradation is WATCHING THIS MOVIE. It's 90 mins.(The case says it's 74 mins.) of your life you do not get back.

I paid only a buck, yes one buck, for this and another film. I still feel like I am owed .50 cents for even sitting though this.

To sum up Dungeon Of Harrow had NO ONE Named Harrow in it, but, it did have a lovely cardboard dungeon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie shows what you can create if you have a camera, some spare paint and cardboard,a toy ship, a few friends who acted in community theater, and the incorrect notion you can make a film. The end result is an unwatchable time-waster that you'll skip through, unless you take it out of the DVD player and toss it through the window first.

The acting in the opening scene (especially by the rotund Lee Morgan as 'Captain') and the toy ship \"crashing\" into the rocks before the credits is a good indicator of what you're in for (with all the foam, it looks like this \"special effect\" was shot in a kitchen sink. I guess Boyette figured he save some cash by washing the dishes at the same time). In terms of bad cinema, the funny thing is \"Dungeon of Harrow\" seems to have inspired (maybe by coincidence) the twist ending of \"Manos: The Hands of Fate\". Yep, it's the same lame \"I was the victim, and now I take the mad villain's place\" ironic ending. The bigger irony is that two inept, talentless filmmakers could make two equally-wretched, Texas-filmed horror movies and get away with it.

Monotone nerd Russ Harvey is a noble in a great family line (why they were great is never broached), boring us while lamenting the death of his family line and crest before his ship even crashes (we're also treating to a droning narration throughout the film). Sadly, we aren't so lucky. His family's toy ship crashes into some styrofoam in a sink, and he's washed ashore with his bloated captain and some woman, conveniently deposited on a mad Count's island.

Meanwhile, the Count is visited by an evil spirit who, dressed in a Blackstone's Magic Kit outfit, assaults him with various puppets (spiders, snakes, bats. . . all the icky stuff). The Count (William McNulty) overacts worse than Shatner and has a visibly difficult time keeping a straight face through the typical madman ranting.

I'd be mad too if I had to be in this disaster. The woman is promptly killed by the Count's ferocious dogs, and the two jerks are captured by his manservant. The Count accuses them of being pirates (apparently his worst fear), he slaps his manservant around a lot (apparently his greatest joy), Fatboy gets tortured, there's a woman who's a servant and one who's a nurse, the rotting leper hag-in-a-wedding-dress Countess in the dungeon (she digs the Nerdy Noble and is the only effective & creepy thing in the movie), a lot of inane dialogue at a dining room table, the blubbery Captain gets killed while making a pathetic getaway (aking to watching a sloth battle a pack of lions). . . it's all an ugly haze to me. I spent most of my time on the fast-forward button.

Anyway, the jerk noble and nurse make a getaway and think they're going to be rescued by three guys in a rowboat on the lake (yeah, we're supposed to believe a lake is the ocean). They don't, since the nerd's hair turned gray and he scares the would-be rescuers away. Honestly, I think they simply took the opportunity to row away from this hideous film while the had the chance. They head back to the castle, the nurse starts rotting like the Countess (and your stomach, by this time), and we end with these two getting ready to descend into the . . . DUNGEON OF HARROW!!!! Blech!

I love old, lousy horror films, but they must have some sort of entertainment value. I feel ripped off, even at the low low price of $5.99 for this biscuit. Mystery Science Theater would have a tough time making this one fun. I was taken in by a few nutty reviewers who claimed this film had atmosphere and some creepy moments. Wrong! Avoid this tripe at all costs, and don't even waste a buck if you find it in a dollar bin somewhere. This movie makes Corman's \"The Terror\" like like a masterpiece of horror and atmosphere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That distinction has to go to THE DUNGEON OF HARROW. At least Ed Wood's misguided attempt at making a quality science fiction film had the dubious \"star\" power of Bela Lugusi, Vampira, Tor Johnson, Criswell and Lyle Talbot. THE DUNGEON OF HARROW has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. What could have been an interesting and suspenseful plot about a marooned aristocrat on a leper colony, perhaps in the style of THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU or MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, is trashed by the heavy dialog and mono tonal acting of amateurs whose lines sink like lead weights into a sea of stupidity. The \"special effects\", which took place in someone's bathtub, further doom this film to the dung heap. Even the treatment of leprosy is something out of a Victorian interpretation of the Bible. The fact that leprosy can not be contracted from an individual in its last stages belies the plot line that the aristocrat Fallon and his lady, Cassandra contract the disease and end up as the original occupants of the Castle De Sade, doomed to insanity and inhuman cruelty. It is interesting to note that not one member of the cast made another film. No wonder, talent begets talent; lack of talent begets oblivion, which is where this film should find its deplorable end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of seven people fear they are the only survivors of a near world ending H-bomb blast. Not only do they fear the radiation, but also mutants in the surrounding hillside. One of the group is already contaminated, but strangely poses no real threat to the others. Just surviving the friction of assorted personalities at close range is the sub-plot. Richard Denning plays the hero. Mike Connors is close to the edge playing a tough guy. Lori Nelson is the girl destined to start populating a brave new world. Not one of director Roger Corman's best. This is predictable black and white sci-fi.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A 1957 Roger Corman non epic in which a sundry bunch of characters end up in a lead lined valley (sic) just as stock footage thermo nuclear heck is unleashed. It's the end of the world. Four men with guns, two women, (one an unmarried virgin the other a Las Vegas show gird who drinks and smokes - guess which one makes it to the end of the movie?) Time passes, tensions develop (or are supposed to). Something is in the woods eating radioactive rabbits. A mutant monster! Seven weeks of radioactive dust has performed \"a million years of evolution\" (on an already living human) the result is a laughably bad, zip up the back, rubber monster who is strangely scared of their only source of fresh water. It rains. The monster dissolves. The remaining two characters, the Hunk and the Virgin. set out to repopulate the world as the caption 'The Beginning' fills the screen after it transpires that the brief shower of rain had washed all the radioactivity away and dissolved all the monsters running around 'out there'.

The only thing of real note about this is the incredible amount of 'curtain acting' that goes on in it. One of the staple elements of bad and lo budget movie making of the period was the superabundant use of curtains in the set design. It was cheap. Finished with one set-up? Pull a curtain across, drop a different piece of furniture in front of it and you have a different location in minutes without having to move the camera or change the lighting.

'Curtain acting' is a skill in which the actor will get to comment on what's going on outside any building he happens to be in (\"It looks like Rain\", or \"Here they come now, and it looks like they've got the sheriff with them!\", that sort of stuff). He'll do this by standing to one side of the window - reaching across his body and lifting the curtain away from the window but along the axis of the shot - ie towards the camera - thus enabling him to pretend to look out and tell us what's happening off screen, without letting the audience see he's staring at the studio wall three inches away from his nose behind some cheap velvet curtains. There was a lot of that in this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a very low budget film, set in one location in a valley shielded by the effects of radiation. The cast, an older man and daughter, a handsome visitor, a couple (a tough buy and gal), a drifter, a donkey and a radiation affected man, interact during the after effects of a nuclear blast. Added to this is an entity watching the women take a bath.

They all have guns, some of them get shot, some of them are told to have children, others are murdered and others just drift away and, well this is the movie. Harvey Cormann's first film, it shows a certain simplicity in movie making. To avoid expensive sets, actors go through curtains to enter and exit the house (ie the studio). The location shots filmed in the hills near Hollywood are the backdrop.

I would not say this is worth going out of your way to see, but interesting to see how movies with human subjects were made in the 50s.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This story starts at the end ! So the film's opening credits advise us. Unfortunately that's not true as we then are treated to around 70 minutes of a typical B science fiction movie of the 1950's. The story is dreary; the plot is very weak and has clearly been filmed on a low budget, as was often the case in those days.

The story could have covered any situation where people are taking refuge in an isolated house and being threatened by someone outside. it just happened to be adapted to fit round a sci-fi story.

The scenery consisted of a few rocks, bushes, and smoke. - Oh yes there was a pool of water as well. Someone wore a rubber mask with a beak like face and what looked like feathers.

Written by Lou Rusoff, who penned several sci-fi stories around that time including The She Creature and It Conquered The World The filming was completed in a matter of days, not allowing the actors time to develop their characters to better advantage. The low budget restraints also prevented this film reaching its potential. It could have been a much better film than it turned out to be.

Mike Connors and Richard Denning brought some life to the film, but even they could not lift this film into the category where you could say- 'I enjoyed that film' Richard Denning's acting career began in 1937. He starred with Gregory Peck and Deborah Kerr in An Affair to Remember and later became more well known on television in the series Hawaii Five-O and The Flying Doctor series.

Directed by Roger Corman who has many films to his credit both as a director and producer. He has made some good films and is still making them. He became very well known for his direction of films from the stories of Edgar Allan Poe, often starring Vincent Price. He also made other low budget films; some were good and entertaining for one reason or another, and most were much better than this.

I would not recommend this film to anyone.

Darnmay

10th September 2007","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie's only redeeming factor was the fact that it was on TV for free, and that it probably helped the Romanian economy. Other than that, Hallmark needs to re-evaluate this division of their empire, and maybe keep their movies more oriented towards bizarre love affairs between cancer-stricken hemophiliacs in Mississippi. To go into details about how mindless this movie is would give credit to it for being memorable. It wasn't. I remember the act of watching it, there being vampires (some of them teenage) and some very bad dubbing. Whoever worked on the dubbing track of this movie needs to be relocated to another sector of society...maybe food service, to the deaf. If you have the opportunity, watch this movie, just because it makes so many other really bad movies seem Oscar-worthy in retrospect. Then again, if you actually ended up at this movie's profile, I imagine that it may be too late...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. If you're looking for a nice theatrical effect, skip it and watch something else.

But if you're looking for camp-value, this is it. Here's my advice: Gather a few sarcastic friends and watch the movie strictly for the purpose of making fun of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a movie that was probably made to entertain the middle school, early high school age kids. Maybe to them it's funny, they may possibly even see something scary in it. To me, the acting is poor, and plot is poor, there's just not much value at all for the adult viewer. I saw this film as weak and boring. At times there was the possibility that the movie could become interesting but it never really materialized. The creatures look pretty good but after seeing them for a few seconds, they don't seem to have any substance other than the look. At times I wasn't sure if the movie was trying to make another attempt at comedy or was it just another attempt at horror that failed again. This movie just wasn't good for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One night on an independent channel famous for showing off-the-wall films was aired this monstrosity. Though tempted to turn it off, we watched it to the bitter end, hoping to see some semblance of redeeming value. Alas, there was none. Absolutely nothing. The film quality was cheap; the soundtrack was muddy; the editing was ridiculous. Then again, there was precious little to salvage. After a few minutes of Cameron Mitchell's doctor character narrating about some patient of his, the viewer is tortured by no plot, pathetic writing, abysmally terrible acting, and an utter lack of cohesion and continuity. The rotting cherry on top of this fetid mess was the most horrendous \"special effects\" and \"makeup\" to ever disgrace the screen, even for television. The main character stumbles through his role in a dimestore rubber mask and a pair of dishwashing gloves which appear to have been dipped in glue and rolled in beads. Perhaps the poor lighting and gag-worthy film quality were attempting to cover up how bad-to-the-tenth-power the makeup was. One can only hope that at least one deliberate decision was made in the course of this hopelessly amateurish video. Seriously, a handful of three-year-old kids could've produced a better project. At the end, poor Mr. Mitchell returns (how desperate he must've been for money!) and drones out some nonsense that's supposed to connect this pile of crap with the AIDS epidemic. Please spare you and your loved ones the inhuman cruelty of sitting through this. It was so bad, even Mystery Science Theater 3000 couldn't have salvaged it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember watching this movie on TV a few years back. It was so bad, I can only remember the scenes that just made me die laughing. The only plot summary I can give you (without any spoilers) is picture a home movie made by college kids who were high.

(Spoiler alert starts here...) When the movie starts, a guy's running, being chased by the \"Demon Cop\", when in fact, the man was really being chased by a Halloween costume gone wrong. A car pops out of nowhere, hitting the guy who was running. It sends him flying over the top of it, and what does the driver do??? Watches the man as he falls, gets back in his car and drives away. What kind of hair-brained dolt would do that? I would've at least asked if the guy was okay.

Then, some black guy stares the Demon Cop straight in the face, then, later tells reporters, \"I didn't get a good look at him.\" My sisters and I, by then, were almost choking ourselves to death with laughter.

Then, there's some scene in an alley, where this girl with an afro, pulls a machine gun out of her teeny-weeny little purse. It couldn't have possibly FIT!! I can hardly remember certain scenes. Maybe it's because they were just that bad.

Cops in the film can't even jump a fence, and the acting is so wooden, it makes planks of wood look like better actors.

All in all, this movie brings shame to Hollywood, way more than any other flop could. You have to see it to believe its sappy cheesy plot, which it has none of, as far as I can tell.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I was flipping through the channel I came to a channel 124. It is an urban channel. I saw this movie on and decided to give it a try. I almost became a mass murderer due to this film. I have done home movies and they are oscar quality compared to this huge mass of Dookie. The lighting was terrible and the acting was absolutely unrelentlessly bad. I would rather watch Star Crystal....... Holy cow maybe that is not a good example. The main question I have about this film is... Was it to be a morality film? the reason why I ask is because ther was one line where this lady in a wheelchair says \" I would have been another gang statistic\" Oh my head is starting to hurt. After hearing that line I went into the kitchen and pulled out a knife ready to stab anyone who dared watch this movie. But some sense kicked in and I just changed the channel to watch the man with the afro paint. Well that is all I have to say about this movie. If you want to endure this pain go ahead but not recommended for those with short fuses or a bad case of tourettes","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"^^contains spoilers^^

This movie is utter crap. Do not watch.

There is no one in this movie to root for, or even like, except for the wife, and she wins by default. Everyone is selfish, and many things happen that make no sense.

The acting is mediocre at best and everyone breathes too heavily about everything. No one can even cry believably.

If you leave the room for even a second, then something totally out of left field will happen, and it will make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

For example, I left the room for a second, while Jennie Garth's character was sleeping with her manager. I come back, seriously about 4 minutes later, (also I'm pretty sure there was a commercial somewhere in there) and she's sleeping with that Berko guy.

I gave up on this movie around the time that Berko was being an ass to his fianc\u00e9 in the car, because she didn't want to call off the wedding.

I wasted 2 hours of my life. You shouldn't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's schmaltzy, but then what else did you expect? The heroine is Cinderella's younger sister complete with wicked mother, sister, and brother-in-law; the hero (if you can call him that) is an ineffectual putz; and the rival love interests are full of melodramatic villainy.

The cast, settings, and wardrobe were all very attractive, and I thought the actors did a superb job considering how weak the material was. The movie was prettily filmed and boasted a soundtrack that was carefully crafted to cue the viewer about what emotions he should be experiencing throughout. Megon McDonough sang sweetly and provided the film with some of its best moments.

If you love Danielle Steel, you will love this film. If you love archetypal romance, you will love this film. I did not. I was able to sit through it, but it was close.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie is great for Venezuelan tourism, birds, birds and more birds. Only 1 piranha. Nice scenery. The only highlight was the alligator seen during a very long and boring motorcycle race. The end when Caribe drowns is a definite Hollywood prop. There is no definite storyline. It goes from Venezuelan scenery to a rip off of easy rider to diamond mining and a ruthless hunter going crazy for some reason who gets it in the end. A very low budget movie that could have been filmed anywhere with outtakes of Venezuela. William Smith is a very talented actor that has made some very good movies. Like all actors they all need to have at least one bad film Don't waste the $5.00 on the DVD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Two wildlife photographers are traveling through the Amazon River basin on their latest assignment. While trying to capture the wildlife of the area on film, our photographers cross paths with a game hunter, who is stalking the animals for another reason. Looking to eliminate the witnesses to his illegal activities, the hunter decides to\u0085\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Handsome guide Peter Brown (as Jim Pendrake) takes pretty blonde Ahna Capri (as Terry Greene) and her good-looking brother Tom Simcox (as Art Greene) into the Venezuelan jungle, to admire the view, and take wildlife pictures. After they hook up with hunky big-game hunter William Smith (as Caribe), psychological dramatics surface.

A pivotal scene, with Mr. Brown reposing in the \"vee\" of a tree, and sharing a cigarette with Mr. Simcox, is nicely staged. The circular direction reappears in the later \"fight\" between Brown and Mr. Smith; and, it is effective. Simcox' early sex romp adds nothing to the story; it could have been cut, to take advantage of what seems like flirting between the Brown and Simcox characters. An attraction between Brown and Ms. Capri could have been played up, also.

The music, including Jim Stein's \"Love All Things That Love the Sun\", is fine; but the film needs to be re-tracked, to cut out animals which do not appear on screen. And, there is far too much superfluous footage on display. \"Piranha\" is a case where less would have been more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.

If you plan on watching this movie DON'T! I warn you... this movie is TERRIBLY boring and basically horrifying, not in the Horror movie kind of way, to watch. I mistook this Piranha movie for another Piranha movie and when I had noticed I made a mistake I decided to watch this one anyway. I wish I wouldn't have. This movie is so horrendous and so intolerable in every piece of material that I couldn't bare to let anyone say this movie was halfway decent. For one thing, this movie should be called A Boring Talk About Wilderness instead of Piranha. They only show piranhas ONCE! At the same time, the way this film sounds so poorly heard, I got sleepy only 20 minutes into the thing. At the end my mouth was hung wide open and I stared gloomily at the blank TV screen. It is a VERY poorly directed and badly filmed piece of junk that I was afraid I brain dysfunction after watching it...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Obviously, this is not the \"Piranha\" directed by Joe Dante and produced by Roger Corman. It wasn't so obvious, when I bought the DVD for only $2.95, as the DVD cover art matched that of the Corman produced comedy\/horror \"Piranha\", even the DVD menu (no features of course) matched the cover. Half way through watching this odd movie, my girlfriend and I started thinking, where are the PIRANHAS? Once the movie reached the climax we realised that we must have been watching the wrong movie as we had seen the trailer, which had completely different footage, the blurb on the back of the DVD did not match the story we were watching and the credits (actors, producer, director) were also completely different. Instead, we got some jungle melodrama about a a girl and two guys who go searching for diamonds and end up confronting a vicious animal hunter. This tame, exploitation thriller is boring and pointless and is only mildly amusing for old-school, camp value. Strange that a DVD can be manufactured with the wrong film in tact, but I suppose it is an easy mistake to make seeing as though they are both B-grade movies of the same name made in the 70's. Reading other posts made on this film, I noticed that I'm not the only one with the wrong movie on the DVD. How could this be an INTERNATIONAL error? Is there perhaps, some sort of DVD phenomena where unsuccessful films try to get recognition by being put on the wrong DVDs? WHAT IS GOING ON???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got seriously ripped off with this purchase. The other posters pretty well cover the failings of this poor poor film. My DVD that I purchased actually had the 1978 Piranha poster art on the cover with the credits for that film on the front 'Directed by Joe Dante', etc. I was really disappointed to find the wrong film on the disc. I am actually a fan of lots of bad movies. There is always something funny or at least amusing on most of them somewhere. NOt this film! I am actually going to spend the three dollars in gas money to return this two dollar DVD just for the principle of the thing. Blatant false packaging here. Easily the worst movie of all time. No redeeming factors at all. BORING!!!Not even worth checking out just to see how bad it is. Seriously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's see: what are the advantages to watching Piranha, Piranha? Well, if you've never seen anything to do with Venezuela, there's a lot of travelogue footage of both Caracas and the countryside (and jungle-side), and of the various native peoples at work and play, as well as plenty of indigenous wildlife. If you like William Smith, he plays a bit of a git (as he has always been wont to do).

And that's about it. If it wasn't for William Smith, this could probably pass as a fund-raising film for Save the Children or some other organization that benefits the \"third world\". The only time you really see the fish of the title is during the opening credits. No mutant killer fish like in Roger Corman's singly-named Piranha. You'd figure with twice the fish in the title there would be twice as many monster fish preying on the characters, but alas, this is not the case.

The story starts with a photojournalist and her brother coming to Venezuela to do a story on one of the last untouched places on the planet, but their motivation quickly changes to one of wanting to find diamonds, which are apparently fairly plentiful there.

There's not a lot of real action or danger in this movie. What could've been an exciting motorcycle race is dulled by the mass of landscape and animal footage that is inserted in it to draw out the films running time. There's not a whole lot more action until the last fifteen minutes or so of the movie (which is probably about how long the movie would last without all the traveloguery).

In my view, the only ways that a movie can really be a BAD movie is to be boring or incredibly stupid. Piranha, Piranha certainly qualifies for that former badge, and is pretty damn close to the second. The only reason I won't rate it a \"1\" is that the added footage is more interesting than the rest of the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Piranha starts out as expected, stupid white people going to discover new lands and exploit them. I thought for a while it might be a cannibal film. It starts off like so many others, showing nothing but shots off untouched Amazon rain forest. For all I know it could be Florida. At this point you figure some animal mutilation or natives will pop up. Instead you get the acting talents of William Smith, who starred in L.A. Vice and Angels Die Hard. He plays Caribe, an acclaimed hunter, who I would describe him as Jack Palance Light. He is bigger in stature, but not quite the Jack Palance goodness. As for natives, you don't really get that many. Where's the piranha? Should I even ask that question? Caribe now hunts humans, I guess. He doesn't really pursue anyone till the end of the movie though, just stares at them. Caribe does race one of the tourists on a motorcycle in a over-dramatic Smokey and the Bandit kind of way. The motorcycle challenge happens for no real reason other than an action sequence. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a tourist challenge a stranger to a motorcycle race in the jungle. Never actually. Do they live, do they die? Will you care? Anybody wanna race on motorcycles? Caution: this film contains extreme dry look. My advice is to rent a Jack Palance classic like Craze.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this was absolutely the most tragic pile of cinema to which i have ever born witness. not only was the name a complete misnomer--since the film has next to nothing to do with piranhas--but the acting is as hollow and stale as the attempt to actually make some kind of plot. when you watch this film you cannot help but spend every waking second questioning when you've had enough and it's time to turn it off. unfortunately i waited until the end in my case. that's two hours of my life that i will never be able to reclaim.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I picked up this DVD for $4.99. They had put spiffy cover art on the package, along with a plot summary that had nothing to do with the movie. The acting is terrible, and the writing is worse. The only possible way this movie could be redeemed would be as MST3K fodder. I paid too much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The sound is terrible, the picture is worse than worse, the acting is awful, the female leading actress is chubby, and the story is... wait a minute... There is no story...! The plot is really bad and the title of the movie is misleading. If you expect to to see Piranhas, you might be disappointed. This movie has nothing to do with the Piranha movies from 1978 and 1981. Actually, I can only think of one scene involving Piranhas.

The only thing that I liked about this movie, besides the fact that it runs for only about 85 minutes, is the song at the end. It's written and sung by Jim Stein and it's called \"Love all things that love the sun\".

I don't recommend this movie. It is so bad it's not even funny to watch. I fell asleep after the first 20 minutes and I am the kind of person who watches anything.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie starts out as if it were a comedy. It almost appears that the actors are reading off of cue cards, especially in the airport sequence. William Smith plays the role of \"Caribe,\" a hunter, who is quite twisted and deranged. Smith seems to always play villains such as in \"The Ultimate Warrior\" (1975), and \"The Frisco Kid\" (1979) to name a few, although in this film the villainous role seems laughable. This is one of those films where senseless things take place only to fill up screen time, such as the girl chasing sequence at the beginning, and the long silly motorcycle race. I give this film 1\/10. I would have liked to see this film on \"Mystery Science Theatre\" it would have been hilarious.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the greatest lessons I ever had in how to watch a movie happened this way:

I was working in Roger Corman's offices, like so many other wanabees before and since, I was interning and trying to figure out how it all worked and how to make myself indispensable (hah!). One afternoon Julie Corman, Roger Corman's wife and a producer in her own right, asked me to load up a tape. I'm not sure why she wanted to watch it. I got the impression it was a student film or a show reel, something like that, some sort of calling card. Whatever the reasons she had to see it, the only free video machine in the offices at the time happened to be in the room I was working in, and I was the nearest person to the machine. I started the tape.

Fade in: On screen a figure sat at a desk facing the camera. Behind him, screen left, was a door that opened into the room. Against the far wall was a coat rack. A second character entered through the door and started talking. The first character, the guy at the desk, turned round to reply, (this is all one take, static camera, there are no cuts pans or dolly shots. Just one locked off camera). The second character turned to hang his coat on the coat rack and delivered his next line. Julie Corman said \"I've seen enough.\" and left the room.

What she had seen in the ten seconds of footage she had watched was that the director was an idiot. Opening with two characters who immediately turned their backs to the camera delivering lines? Nope, sorry. Next! That's how long you've got. Ten seconds. Cock it up in the opening shot and you are dead.

I was reminded of that moment while I watched the opening of this piece of crap. After an interminably long travelogue of jungle we see several monkeys apparently throwing themselves into cages. A man carrying a gun laughs. A jet liner lands and we see it taxi the whole way to the terminal. God this is boring! Cut to the interior of the Airport. Two men meet. Aha! Something is happening! They shake hands. Cut to a different angle of the two men -

- and the director crosses the line.

The first two shots of the movie that have any kind of spatial relationship with each other and the guy has cocked up. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those basic rules of movie grammar that keeps the characters from jumping about from side to side on the screen and confusing the audience. Audiences don't like to be confused. Mystified? Baffled? Puzzled and intrigued? Yes. Audiences love all of those. Confused? No. You loose them. They walk out. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those things they pound into you at film school, or should. It's basic stuff. It's not an inviolable rule (there are no inviolable rules) directors break it all the time - but not on the first real cut of the movie.

I thought, \"I've seen enough\". And switched off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie starts out as if it were a comedy. It almost appears that the actors are reading off of cue cards, especially in the airport sequence. William Smith plays the role of \"Caribe,\" a hunter, who is quite twisted and deranged. Smith seems to always play villains such as in \"The Ultimate Warrior\" (1975), and \"The Frisco Kid\" (1979) to name a few, although in this film the villainous role seems laughable. This is one of those films where senseless things take place only to fill up screen time, such as the girl chasing sequence at the beginning, and the long silly motorcycle race. I give this film 1\/10. I would have liked to see this film on \"Mystery Science Theatre\" it would have been hilarious.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And one of 'em are bad movies. The title, as it turns out, refers to a killer of the human male variety, not fish. This is not the Dante-directed \"Piranha\" of '78 (which did have the fish) and is also known as \"Piranha, Piranha.\" A trio of photographers, 2 men and a woman, hook up with a local hunter\/trapper named Caribe somewhere in the Amazon jungle. Unfortunately, they are not familiar with the film resume of William Smith, who plays Caribe; otherwise, they would have known immediately he is the villain of the piece. Smith may have also refused to film the ending or cut out before they finished filming (see end of this comment).

As mentioned elsewhere, this pic has a lot of filler - lengthy shots of the local wildlife (birds) - and the central set piece, a motorcycle race, which goes on too long. The reason this gets a second star from me is, of course, William Smith, who can't really save this sludge, but once again proves why he was the 'go to' guy 30-35 years ago if you needed a really nasty villain; at his best, Smith could be really terrifying. He's the type who enjoys killing, possibly in sadistic fashion, and you get that sense from the evil grin he usually puts on when a mood strikes him. Physically, he's very imposing, and you know the other 3 characters are pretty much doomed within the first half-hour. This was what Smith brought to most of his roles; it seems hopeless for the other characters against this manlike monster. Unfortunately, the movie continues to muddy things up to the very end, as if a minute of footage was lost - a confusing, incomplete climax.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen a lot of movies in my time and this one really stands out as being the absolute worst movie ever made in the history of film making anywhere in the world. It took me 3 efforts to watch this movie. The first time I fell asleep after 15 minutes from boredom, possibly because I was already tired as it was late at night. The second effort I managed to get through 35 minutes but yet again I found myself asleep. I can go on and on like this but I think you're getting the point......nothing happens ever in this movie. A complete waste of time and money. This movie really sucks. Watch it and you will know what I am talking about. If you can get 40 minutes into this movie without shaking your head and wondering what the hell is the point of it all then you are indeed a masochist. The only reason I gave this movie a 1 out of 10 is because 0 was not provided as an option. I just thought the world needed to be warned before either hiring or worse yet...buying this trash. LATER!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An art teacher comes across an antique wooden bed made from gingko trees and puts it in his apartment, but it has a terrible history and he becomes hunted by a ancient spirit who sustains his human form by ripping the hearts out of people.

This beautifully crafted horror\u0085 well, actually it's more fantasy\/romance than anything else does raise some chills and provide some stunning visuals, but the plot was hardly interesting enough and the formulaic script lacked any sort of life. Problem was that I spent most of the time trying to keep my finger away from the fast forward button. It sure would have sped up the film's slow pacing, but then again I wouldn't know about too much that was going on, which was reasonably hard to figure out or keep interest in the first place. The performances ranged from too melodramatic or just plain dull, and that's probably because these characters are unconvincing, stale and coma inducing. The actual back-story of the old bed and the spirits is incredibly boring and messily put together, with too much focus on a flimsy romance, being laughable when it shouldn't be and overall it's constructed in an ordinary manner that just lacks the oomph or conviction to carry the film. What compensates for the story's shortcomings are really arty images, which looked grand, but the use of some images had me somewhat dumbfounded to what they actually mean towards the film. What catches your eye is the faded colour scheme, but sometimes the actual screen would look real grainy, or snowy. Although, from that it shows the raw intensity of the production valves, but also add some nice polished effects that goes well with the soothing but sometimes edgy score. The camera work was pretty diverse (although it didn't add too much to the feature), but during some of the more upbeat scenes there were too many close ups or dark lighting which made it hard to understand what you are seeing. Also on show are some nice moments of blood and gore, but not overtly grand or distinguishable from most other films.

Lethargically odd film, with luminous images that look like something out of a painting, but still it isn't particularly enticing. Watch out, it might put you in a deep trance!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"GINGKO BED is a strange movie. It's very convoluted, as if it had a lot of ideas but lacked the ability to bring them all into one coherent story. Instead, we get various plotlines that diverges into their own separate little movies. Oh sure, they eventually meet up in the end, but it all seems rather...superfluous. Of note is the girlfriend and her troubles at the hospital. Was this...interesting? Then there were the \"we are spirits, thus we have no physicality\" elements, which leads to the same problem that people had with GHOST, namely: If the characters have no physicality (i.e. no corporeal form) and they can phase through walls and what not, how exactly do they keep from falling through the floor, or float up the ceiling for that matter?

GINGKO BED was highly touted as a new breed of South Korean film. There's plenty of special effects, but the movie itself is hollow and its faux melodrama will only \"touch\" those who are easy to, well, touch to begin with.

4 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of this movie and reviews of other foreign films)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember watching this mini-series the first time in 1984 with a growing sense of anger and indignation. Having read the comments on this title, I must agree with those from the people in Greece. This was produced to coincide with the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games and, to me, it seemed like nothing more than an exercise in jingoistic, flag-waving American nationalism in which the American athletes are glorified at everyone else's expense. Some other nationalities would have every right to feel deeply insulted at the way they were portrayed in this series. It may, however, help to explain the way in which many American spectators behaved at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics and the TV coverage which seemed only interested in events that Americans were likely to win.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Disappointing\" is the best word I could think for this film, especially considering the glowing reviews it receives from some other users.

One thing that really spoils the film is that it is unabashedly partial(in both senses of the word). Not only does it present a very selective description of the games (focussing as it does on the US athletics team) but it also contains several inaccuracies, most of which serve to exaggerate the difficulties the US team faced.

What is even more disturbing is that all the omissions and mistakes (?), appear to glorify US sportsmanship to the exclusion of other athletes (with a few celebrated exceptions). For example, the viewer is led to believe that the US won the majority of medals in the Games, when in fact they won only one out of four gold medals and one out of 6 total. Similarly, many athletes are portrayed as caricatures of their respective countrymen (thus we have an arrogant Brit, and a wine-swilling French). This attitude does very little service to the Olympic ideals that the film is supposed to celebrate.

In conclusion, I believe that this film would appeal to that part of the US audience that is looking for a quick boost of national self-esteem. Those looking for a detailed and historically correct description of the games are advised to look elsewhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Historically awful. Scarcely an accurate moment in 4 hours of ridiculosity. One cannot keep track of the inconsistencies while watching. As with all track and filed movies, nobody bothers to ask for any track consultants. Events and techniques that weren't even created until the next century are shown. From the shots of runners jogging in a 400 meters to the highly overweight actor portraying the high jump and long jump winner, one would have to know absolutely nothing about track to even be mildly entertained. Likely thrown together in 1984 as a tribute to the games just prior to the LA Olympics.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I sat last night to see this film being played in Greek television because of the upcoming Olympic Games hosted by my city.Knowing that it is an American film, i had already expected it to focus more on the American athletes story.And i was really ready for it. But what i saw was..., too much!I mean, when a movie has such a title (\"First Olympics: Athens 1896\"), even being of American origin, you would not expect it to be so propagandizing and, on the same time, ignorant towards other countries' athletes and efforts.The American athletes seem to have all the gifts of nature (strength, smartness, generosity, kindness, politeness...), in contrast to their \"sin-athletes\" in the Games, who seem being unable even to... speak their thoughts or express feelings.The number of times the American anthem is played during the film must be an all time record in filmography.Megalomania at it's best!It even uses fictionalized facts which ridicules the Greek nation, such as Greek citizens serving the foreign Marathon athletes with wine, in order to help the domestic ones win the race.So much for the Olympic spirit.

Think of it.Being a Greek and putting a bad mark to a movie whose title is also Greek is something that doesn't make me happy at all.But according to what i have seen, i cannot give it more than 4 out of 10 (being pretty generous actually).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That's all I can really say about this film. It's DBZ...like Tree of Might and The World's Strongest, it really...doesn't fit into the timeline for the show at all, though it is supposedly placed just before the beginning of the TV series. The action is pretty nice in general. The plot has a nice enough base, with a good background establishing why these guys hate each other and all. Pretty good in general, there... The problem is...there's a lot of really weird stuff. I mean, really weird stuff. Like The World's Strongest, there's a really, really odd song in this one that could only have been created in a drug induced haze...disturbing is the fact that Gohan, while singing, is pretty much drugged out himself. Creepy. The villains are odd and rather comical...moreso than the usual DBZ type--this seems more like it was made as a Dragon Ball movie rather than a Dragon Ball Z movie. In general, its entertaining enough, but...just...strange.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After reading so many glowing reports of 'To Serve Them All My Days' I went out and bought it for Christmas. A waste of money, I'm afraid. I was looking forward to something in the same league as 'Brideshead Revisited' and some of the few other great productions from British television but this is decidedly not among them.

The characters are all too good to be true, swathed in a very predictable plot and with the most trite and eye-rolling script I've heard in years. Yes, it has its moments, but they are very thin on the ground. The lead actor is interesting, mostly because of his uncanny resemblance to Anthony Andrews (Sebastian in 'Brideshead'), only dark. But his undoubted talents are wasted on a character who is insufferably self-important and priggish. His prickliness is attributed to the effects of his experiences in the Somme during WW1. He does the early episodes, centered around his nervous condition, better than he does playing the the squeaky clean, socialist do-gooder later on.

The women are completely unbelievable, as in un-real. His first wife is annoyingly chipper and chirpy, the girlfriend, the perfect sophisticated slut, and the last lady a hodge-podge of political bosh. The most interesting characters are Howarth (Alan MacNaughton) and one of the other masters, named Hobarth, I forget the actor's name.

The high-minded preachiness of the script is typical Andrew Davies, screen-writer, in his early years, and becomes tiresome within the first two episodes (this mini-series is 11 episodes long!). By episode 4 I just wanted to get through the blasted thing.

The music is equally tedious, limited mostly to one mawkish piano tune and a chorale sung by boys during the credits. No expense was spared on the location settings which gives some visual relief to an otherwise excruciating viewing experience.

I like stories of this sort, as a rule, and am very disappointed at the maudlin nature of this series. If you want to watch something riveting about WW1 and its after-effects there are many other far finer vehicles to rent or buy. One that comes to mind is 'The Unknown Soldier' from 1998. The characters in that Masterpiece Theater presentation are real and fascinating and move one, unlike the 2 dimensional puppets in 'To Serve Them All My Days.' As for films on boys' schools stick to 'Goodbye Mr Chips' or 'Tom Brown's Schooldays'.

I know this goes against the general favorable view of this mini-series, but I strongly recommend thinking twice before shelling out $80.00 to Acorn Media for their 4 DVD set, 2 discs of which on my set had insurmountable problems with freezing and skipping.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Forget any angst-ridden documentary! This film is really an out and out comedy about a 40-yer-old porn star whose goal in life is to sing junky circuit party songs. The only problem? Colton Ford can't sing! And the film cuts away whenever he appears to be ready to burst into song. Yet Ford and equally vapid boyfriend Blake Harper whine and primp and run around in their tank tops, determined to make dreams come true. Even funnier is \"manager\" Kyle who appears to have the I.Q. of a turnip and whose collagen-injected lips look like a bee stung him. How can grown men be so self-delusional? Bwa ha ha! As for the documentary, the filmmakers don't appear to have any POV and the film is poorly structured and wildly uneven. Very little background information is provided about the three leads. Such an inclusion might have made the three seem like something other than aging West Hollywood stereotypes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So what is one to do if you are a porno star with fading looks? I know, become a pop star! This documentary - and I use the term loosely - follows the trials and tribulations of Colton as he tries to transform himself from a gay porn star into a singer of electronic (read: dance) music. I only wish Mr Ford's voice was as muscular as his arms...sorry to say his vocals are painfully thin. There isn't much interesting going on here but Mr Ford and friends are eye candy.

See him record a song that sounds exactly like every other mindless dance tune. See him travel to New York to make \"connections.\" See him go back to L.A. with little success. See yourself look in the mirror and ask, \" Why am I wasting time watching this mess?\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For the first fifteen minutes the story of NAKED FAME is interesting: two late thirties male porn stars in a seemingly healthy relationship decide to leave the Porn industry and try for the world of singing and acting. The two very buff and preening men are Colton Ford and Blake Harper. With the aid of Kevin Aviance and Marc Berkely, Colton makes a dance track that is then marketed in New York with the hopes that Colton Ford will become an instant star - a unique disco singer touting his background as a Porn Star for PR.

The remainder of the film is grumbling and in-fighting and commentary by Porn Producer ChiChi LaRue and the film slowly sinks into repetition and doldrums. Not a bad idea for a film if there were a bit more depth revealed in each character's drive to move away form a successful career (though one greatly influenced by the youth both characters have lost) into an alternative one. It is just that a one-note song wears thin quickly. Grady Harp, November 05","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worse gay-related movies I have ever seen. Since these are not characters in this story it's hard to comment on the actual film. Therefore, since Colton Ford (aka Glen) laid his life open for all to see, I guess he's fair game to criticize. And that's not hard to do. Here goes. 50 something Glen is a big time porn star who wants fame and fortune as a big time singer. (I guess 11 films makes him a \"star\") Being gay and forty, I have seen porno and I did not recognize him or his lover. Personally they all look the same to me with different hair styles. Face it, guys, he's no Jeff Stryker, Jim Bently or Casey Donovon. That's OK, though. The purpose of these films takes place in about 6.5 minutes, so they all pretty much have the same requirements, if you know what I mean.

So Glen wants to be a serious (legit) singer after he dumps the porno industry but he can't get anyone to take him seriously. I wonder why? Was he so stupid to think that he could whitewash taking his clothes off and having sex on film. And according to the film it's not just porn flicks he indulges in, it's living in a house with other \"stars\" where people can hook into their bedroom, the bathroom and where ever via webcams . It's 500 dollars an hour to entertain at a private party. Strip gigs at clothing optional \"hotels\". Doing something called meth which I presume is a drug. And then you have the balls to get angry when someone at a club gig tries to touch you ---- because he's \"legit\" now. Oy!

The only interesting, non-cardboard character is the Academy Award winning gay screen writer who wouldn't give his name. And considering this is a documentary, well, porn is as porn does. You can tell he's most amused by the dumb-bunny porn star.

Glen has one hyper-nellie manager (Kyle) who wants to \"sell' him as a porno-participant in hopes of getting him gay-club gigs. He tries to do the Svengalli-routine. \"Wear this\" \"Don't smile\" \"say this\" in what amounts to controlling issues. But our anti-hero will not be controlled or told what to do. That's the first mistake. I'm not saying Kyle was right but if any budding singer starts questioning the manager, they're not going to get far. Kind of like: He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.

All of this wouldn't have been bad if it weren't for one small tiny bit of information. Drum roll, please. He's bad. He sucks. His singing talent ranks up there with Ashlee Simpson. It's hard to root for someone who -- while trying make his dream come true --- at 50! --- doesn't work like normal people. No job. Can you say lazy-ass? And the whining, and the \"Why don't they accept me.\" song and dance. And after a few months of scraping the surface of the music industry, he spouts off, \"Why don't I have a record deal by now.\" What? Actors are waiters. Writers work in low-level newspapers or mags -- whatever. This guy is above that. It's true. He wants his success now merely because he decided he wanted it. Whine. Whine Whine. His lover leaves him to return to nursing but I tell ya I wouldn't want that moron dispensing medical care to me. Both of them were useless. Airheads. The movie is useless. Unless you really like Whine and Cheeesy people stay away. Do not waste your money on the crappy lives of useless people, there are far more interesting things stuck to the bottom of your shoe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dryly irreverent, but sadly unfunny satire of detective movies, with stony-faced Michael Caine playing a British author of trashy crime stories traveling to the Mediterraean to assist in writing the memoirs of a would-be gangster; soon, he realizes he's being followed and his life is in danger. Caine narrates the proceedings with considerable sly wit and low-keyed sarcasm, but his actual performance is bereft of energy (Caine's shrill bursts of anger or frustration seem to come out of nowhere, and he connects with nobody on the screen). Other cast members (particularly Mickey Rooney, a silver-haired Lionel Stander, and Lizabeth Scott) do very well in colorfully outr\u00e9 roles, though Al Lettieri has an insulting part as an apparent cross-dressing homosexual (Lettieri gets insulted without being able to defend himself, an unenviable position). Writer-director Mike Hodges has the germ of a good idea (satirize the detective movies of the 1940s without compromising the hard-boiled talk and milieu), but he hasn't a very sharp sense of humor. When a Bogart lookalike--asking a question about a falcon--is the best joke, what follows is anemic indeed. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this video because I like Malta and this movie was filmed in its entirety there. Very disappointing, since it fails to catch any of the flavor or beauty of the island - just the hot, dry, and barren elements. The movie was dull, boring, completely incoherent from beginning to end, pretentious, and devoid of any conceivable plot. You had to be a psychic to follow the plot line, or lack thereof. It had its moments, sure; but so does going to the dentist.

In short, I'd much rather endure another colonoscophy before viewing this horrible mess again. It was so bad, I actually couldn't fall asleep. There are quite a few \"Eurotrash\" movies out there that were obviously made without adult supervision. This is one of them. On the bright side, who is Nadia Cassini? Never before have I seen a more beautiful set of legs. She is the one saving grace of this movie.

Disturbing, too, was the cruel boar hunt depicted in the closing credits. A boar that was released on someone's property (Malta has very few native mammals; all of them small - rats, bats, etc.) and then set upon by dogs before it was shot. Oh, well - go visit Malta anyway despite this film - it's a beautiful, colorful island; rich in history and lots of fun.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What bird is that ? A maltese falcon. The only thing remotely funny about this movie is Michael Caines hair. Which has more depth and character than the man underneath it.

The Malta settings are as dry and as barren as the dialogue. Salutes to Raymond Chandler and Humphrey Bogart and crime fiction etc... seem obtuse and just plain silly without the salvation of any humour or pertinency. The reason this film has no 'longevity' and near forgotten is it's so vacuous, an hour and half of pointless time spent in the company of second rate actors and film makers - This film is what the title suggests...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, enough. Every time I think I've seen a film that is so misbegotten, so bad in every way that I think that no one could possibly find something to praise, I just come to the IMDb where I'm greeted with the usual inane \"Undiscovered masterpiece\" \"GREAT film\" - I mean, honestly, what movie are you people watching, because it's certainly not the mess I just watched on the new Fox\/MGM\/UA DVD. There are about three amusing lines, and a plot that gives incoherence a new meaning. And then, after ninety-three interminable minutes, it just stops and the end credits begin. Then there's another scene. The DVD is fairly wretched, which suits the film. The source material is almost completely faded to an ugly brown. It's hard to imagine this film followed Get Carter. The critics and the public got this one right back then - it was lambasted and a box-office disaster, and rightfully so. But you pundits keep on trying. And I'll keep on trying to find a movie that DOESN'T have SOMEONE who raves about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a silly spoof of private eye thrillers as a novelist(Michael Cain)is called upon to 'ghostwrite' an autobiography of a colorful, waning Hollywood star(Mickey Rooney). At times silliness becomes obnoxious. This is not Cain at his best. Rooney is way over the top. Notable support from Lizabeth Scott, Lionel Stander and the comely Nadia Cassini. Not easy to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was hoping that Pulp would be a interesting movie, but was profoundly disappointed.

Pulp has very little storyline, and what there is never holds your interest. It was a real struggle to keep watching it. When its over you say to you self \"huh? that's it?!?\". This is one where you think after watching it - why did they ever bother?

Its too bad since Michael Caine is a good actor. I was also hoping to see the great Lizabeth Scott in this, but she only appears on screen for a total of perhaps one minute. Scott is one of the all time great film noir femme fatale girls and this was her last film.

Oh well...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a bad film but to gain any nutritional value from it I recommend watching it back to back with Rosemary's Baby.

There is a lot to learn seeing how different directors can draw different performances from the same actors playing the same characters. Observe Minnie Castevet (Ruth Gordon) and the fine work she did in the first film vs the awful rendition in this film.

It is also interesting to see how the same characters were played by different actors. Which leads me to wonder if anyone involved with the sequel were aware of the first film and did any of them watch Rosemary's Baby before making this?

If your interest in films is purely superficial then you would best avoid this one. I have a lot more to say about this film but I really don't want to go there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For a movie that gained so much recognition and appraise this spinoff to \"Rosemarys Baby\" is one big mistake. It starts off that Andrew\/Adrian whatever his name is because he's so confused that he doesn't know who he is anymore runs away from a cult with his mother and soon is kidnapped by a strange lady that ends up taking care of him as if she were his mother. The acting is terrible as Andrew grows up in his twenties and looks terrible with his sunken in face, never ending grin and Dukes of Hazard clothes on looks more like a drunken has been than the son of Satan. In fact thats all he does is drink and falls sloppily all over himself as he tries to come to grips with his past and the last memory of his mother driving away on a bus screaming to him. He finds a friend that seems to be an angel but he's quickly killed off and electricuted in a hillarious scene in which he looks more like a Christmas tree. Andrew gets cought and the cult with the members of the first part test him to see if he's really the Son of Satan. His dumb self fails the test and gets up off the alter glittering with myme makeup and jumps of the stage of a night club and dances like a clown on crack!!! This scene is memorable and well worth a watch. The ending is terrible and somewhat predictable considering how stupid he is in the whole movie. Do not watch this piece of trash or you will loose respect for the first part.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually seek to find good in movies, even the bad ones.Unfortunately this movie is one where I fail miserably-and the fact that there's barely one positive review on this board shows many IMDb reviewers share my pain.

I don't usually watch sequels but I just had to see this since I love \"Rosemary's Baby\" so much. What a mistake that was. It simply reaffirms my belief in the fact that most sequels are lousy-though thankfully, very few are as bad as this. In fact in my mind this isn't even really a sequel, it's a satire on how bad a sequel can be. Movie recommended very highly for not viewing-at any time-ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sam O'Steen, the film editor on the superlative suspense flick \"Rosemary's Baby\" from 1968, here directs a quickie TV-made sequel, one in which Rosemary Woodhouse (Patty Duke Astin, in for Mia Farrow) is shunted off early--and inexplicably--presumably to help flesh out the more ghoulish aspects of this flaccid story about Satan's son on Earth. Most interesting is the return of Ruth Gordon to her Oscar-winning role as Minnie Castevet (with Ray Milland well-cast as her husband, Roman), but she isn't given much to do--and looks terribly uncomfortable at being involved anyway. This script is strictly low-rent goods, and must have shamed original author Ira Levin (who went on to write his own sequel). Fairly dim and pallid, with poor photography and no suspense or scares whatsoever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With its few touches of surrealism, LWHTRB works as low-grade horror, but as a major follow-up statement to the original, it flounders miserably.

Things begin somewhat promising during the telefilm's opening credits... We see and hear several interesting shots and sounds: The Baby's black crib with the overhanging, inverted cross; the kitchen knife Rosemary carried into the Castevette's apartment and dropped in shock (the utensil is shown sticking out of the hardwood floor); and the emptiness of the Bramford itself, without tenants or furniture (voice-overs can be heard here from the previous film's dialog). Interesting too is the Easter Egg hunt the titular child participates in (the eggs and baskets are also black). Once the story gets rolling, it never really 'rolls'... And what happens to Rosemary when she boards that driverless bus, and is whisked away to God-knows-where?

Patty Duke (a poor replacement for Mia Farrow), Ray Milland and Tina Louise (as the Southwestern Whore who raises the child, \"Adrian\/Andrew\") head this almost-star cast, with Ruth Gordon reprising her \"Minnie\" role.

Although not a total failure, this sequel-of-sorts should have been released in book form first, then maybe we all could have been a bit better informed... and not left totally in the dark. A fairly recent sequel novel \"Son of Rosemary\" (1999?) is the legitimate followup by Ira Levin himself.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretty lousy made-for-TV sequel to the Roman Polanski classic. Rosemary's son Adrian has grown up and is embodied by creepy Stephen McHattie. After eliminating Rosemary (here played by Patty Duke) a coven of witches, again led by Minnie & Roman Castevets, preps Satan's son for world domination. It's not really scary and light years less macabre than its predecessor. Instead, writer Anthony Wilson and director Sam O'Steen opt for a Satan-worshiping thriller full of a lot of chanting, plenty of candles, and Ruth Gordon trying to act daffy and nasty at the same time. Gordon's the sole holdover from the original. George Maharis replaces John Cassavetes as Guy and a very hammy Ray Milland plays Roman Castevets, subbing for the late Sidney Blackmer. Newcomer McHattie is the film's only real saving grace. He's very off-kilter and looks really sinister without even doing anything. The music by Charles Bernstein is suitably creepy, but so over-used, it's ends up being intrusive rather than effective. O'Steen, who edited the earlier Polanski masterpiece, shows no flair or subtlety whatsoever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first film is somewhat good to me, I enjoyed it for the most part, but I thought it was really nothing all that special. However, when compared to this mess it looks a whole heck of a lot better. Why they felt the need to make the movie is beyond me, but they should have known it could not match the acting of the first movie when they only could get Ruth Gordon back to reprise her role. The story kind of follows Rosemary's baby around and stuff, but in reality it is kind of a mess, it does not help that the movie is a television movie and the television look shines through very well. It has more of a comedy tone to it as well which hinders it greatly, if they really felt the need to make a sequel they should have made it an R rated movie that had some nudity and gore in it. I am sure it would have still been quite bad, but at least it would have been more watchable and fun which this movie is not despite its trying to be funny. I saw this one on Monstervision and Joe Bob had nothing really good to say about it in the intro and I do not have to much to say either. I do have to say it was a sequel that should have never seen the light of day.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Um... okay, this is very poor indeed if compared to the first film, the very-much-so critically acclaimed Rosemary's Baby. In fact, it's a pretty poor film in general. Yes, there are a few redeeming qualities, but I'll get to that later.

Well, it has been quite a while since the last film took place... in fact, it's been pretty much eight years I believe. Rosemary is still trying to escape with her child and influence him in a good way, rather than let him succumb to the evil future that the coven (or \"tribe\", as it is referred to as here) has laid out for him. When she runs off with him and an empty bus comes and picks her up, leaving her child with a hooker, the hooker raises him until he comes of age, where Satan tries to possess him since he seems to be rejecting his evil heritage in every way.

Obviously, things don't go as planned, and then there is the ending that I would have felt seriously ashamed at had I not seen it coming since hearing that there was a sequel to \"Rosemary's Baby\"! Okay, when I was around 11 years old, I witnessed the masterpiece Rosemary's Baby and then read the book sequel. Thinking that this film was an adaptation of that, I tracked this film down and got it... was I right in doing so? Well, in some way, yes... I am a true fan of this \"franchise\" and can say that I have seen the sequel, and I have some idea as to what happens after the events in the first film (speaking of both this film AND \"Son of Rosemary\", Ira Levin's own book sequel, not yet adapted to film).

Ruth Gordon, who played Minnie in the first film, is shown a few times in this film, but why-oh-why is the coven so different? The knife Rosemary had dropped in the first film is shown sticking out of the ground, yet Minnie pulled it out! The coven is now called the tribe (as I said earlier). They now go around in hooded capes chanting \"Hail Satan... Hail Adrian... Hail Satan... Hail Adrian...\" and so on and so forth. The Gothic building is now like a two-story house on a lawn in the middle of nowhere, it looks like a little nice suburb home or something! And the child itself is pretty normal-looking, with his eyes only going all \"catty\" when he gets mad and kills someone or something in that vain.

As far as the acting goes, it's pretty poor on all parts, except for Stephen McHattie, whom plays a very-grown up Adrian. Pattie Duke Astin, replacing Mia Farrow as Rosemary, has to have one of the flat-out WORST performances ever to be caught on film! It is so bad it's almost not even funny... when she screams \"OH MY GOD!\" and cries for like the fifteenth time in the movie, you're just like \"Okay, it's not funny anymore,\" and then by the time she is gone and the movie has been on for twenty minutes only, you're like THANK THE LORD I DON'T HAVE TO HEAR HER SAY \"OH MY GOD\" ANY LONGER!! SHEESH! In the end, this movie has very, very, *very* few redeeming qualities, enough to get it at least four stars. But, if you look at it as a serious sequel to the first film, it's pretty much non-existent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I kept watching it because it seemed like the plot was going somewhere. When it ambiguously got there I was very disappointed. I'm going to tell you what really happened in the next sentence. But maybe I won't. Maybe I'll just imply something will happen. The writers lacked any imagination. This is not even a \"B\" movie - it's a made for TV \"B\" movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think \"Rosemary's Baby\" is the most overrated horror film out there. Not scary, interesting or much of anything. It's reasonably well-directed and Ruth Gordon was wonderful but that's about it. But this sequel makes it look like \"Gone With the Wind\"!

I caught this on TV back when I was 14. Unfortunately, I still remember it. From what I remember Rosemary's baby Andrew is now grown up and the coven wants him to start taking over (the world that is). But there are forces trying to stop it...and Andrew is having doubts himself...

I'm giving this a 2 for a few reasons: Gordon is in this (and still very good); Stephen McHattie was actually pretty good as Andrew and there is one spooky moment at the beginning with Rosemary (Patty Duke) being \"kidnapped\" by a bus...with no driver.

Other than that it's dull, silly and needless. The original didn't NEED a sequel! Ira Levin's book followup in 1999 wasn't much better.

Tune in for the beginning with Duke...then tune out. Not worth the effort.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you thought \"ROSEMARY'S BABY\" was bad, this one isn't much better. Easily one of the worst movies ever made, like it's lame predecessor, it goes nowhere fast.

Rating: 1\/2* out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A disturbing film, this, climaxing, as it does, with an intensely intimate reunion between a naked man and his young son, but in its confused structure it contains a poetically imagined visual exploration of the innocence of an idealised amnesiac.

The plot follows two threads, the weaker of which is the gradual revelation of Graham\/Pablo's condition. Wound through this, though, is a beautiful description of his condition, and his meandering path towards a partial awakening, driven by his affair with Irene.

The affair is the strong thread, while the specifics of the plot are carried by a seemingly tacked on collection of characters: Graham's best friend, who can reveal the cause of his condition in a clunking flashback, his manipulative boss and his comic book mad scientist psychologist: all of whom have an interest in keeping him lost and dependent.

The failure of the film lies in the conflict between the two threads. One is visual, meandering and sublime, while the other is structured like an inept thriller, all expository dialogue and unresolved patterns of symbolism.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed Novo. It keeps flirting with the abyss of taboo and shying away into something beautiful, as in the quarry, with the double bassist and the two women, when a setup for a scene of cheap pornography becomes a segment of peace and rejuvenation. I still don't get the tooth, though.

Odd, clunky and a narrative failure, but with an almost redeeming beauty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have heard that Novo was compared to Memento for the simple fact they both rely on main characters suffering from short-term memory loss. Well, that's like comparing The Silence of the Lambs and Friday the 13th as both involved a character that killed multiple people. They couldn't be further apart in ideas.

Novo deals with a copier man at a company who does have short term memory loss. He is consistently followed by another gentleman and his boss likes to have sex with him in the office. In comes a temp who also gets involved with him and may\/may not use him for sex. Needless to say, he has a lot of on-screen sex.

Wait, there's more. There's a boy who runs into the troubled amnesia male and it's obvious there's more to this boy just bumping into him. And there's a notebook the man keeps to try and remember important clues.

I admit I am not one for foreign-made films. I don't mind reading the subtitles, but I do mind that sometimes that takes away from one of my favorite aspects of a film: great dialogue. Since they have to translate, or I wouldn't be able to understand for the most part, I truly believe they simplify what the characters have to say. This movie was no exception; the dialogue was just, well, blah.

As for the story, it was interesting enough to keep me around for 98 minutes. Weird, yes, but then again I don't live in France, so I am not as familiar with their likes\/dislike or lifestyles. (Such as, I guess it's acceptable for a father to lie with and frolic in the buff with his son on the beach \u0096 that must be a cultural thing.) Thankfully it wasn't two+ hours of time invested in watching this man regain his past and progressively move forward to his cure. For, when the \"secret\" is learned, I was like, really? Well, okay then.

I can only recommend for somewhat decent acting, good looking folks and soft-porn sexual situations (like every 2-4 minutes,) however if you're not into that sort of scene, I would wholeheartedly skip this slow moving and memory-regaining film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's difficult to decide who or what is the target audience for this film. Jean-Pierre Limousin presumably had the chance to explore the problems of amnesia on a serious level and opted instead to use it as an excuse to make a soft-porn movie. Having seen, loved, admired and respected Se Souvenir des belles choses which explores memory loss - albeit as the result of Alzheimer's - in a profound and heartbreaking way, not least in the luminous performance of Isabelle Carre I find that Novo is an insult to Se Souvenirs. I have no problem with soft porn per se - and even if I had I'd virtually have to give up going to movies so prevalent is it today - but I do have a problem with writers\/directors who attempt to respectablise it by cloaking it as here in the guise of medical research. The sad thing is that fine actresses like Julie Gayet - so wonderful in Clara et Moi - and Anna Mouglalis - who seems to have hit into a double play after last week's Le Deluge and now this - are wasting their time on dross like this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to like this film, especially after all the buzz I'd heard revolving around it. But, sadly, it just didn't work for me. Paranoid Park suffers from the same delusion Lost In Translation did--If you use very little dialogue, be heavy on the slow motion close ups and concentrate on pieces of fabric in the setting, then your story will magically come across as deep and thoughtful.

Much of the plot line, if you can find a plot, of this film is contrived. I wasn't impressed with the 'write it all down' confessional being the way the protagonist deals with the accident--So what are we supposed to believe? He grew up happily ever after and wrote a book about his experiences, thus was vindicated for that horrific incident?

What is, I suspect, supposed to be a film that evokes empathy for a young man who is directionless and faced with an impossible moral quandary, instead creates a portrait of a future sociopathic personality. He has no connection to anyone around him, and by the end of the film has no real sense of what is right or wrong. He has no direction at home and feels nothing for his friends. What we have is a portrait of a non-person, a spirit that merely coasts through life as he weaves his way along on his skateboard. I don't feel for him at all, and honestly I wish he'd been caught. The entire film centres not necessarily on his feelings of guilt, but on how he is going to avoid punishment and\/or accountability for a bad decision. He not only gets away with it, he finds a way to subtly rationalise it. Quite a frightening, negative message, the suggestion being that so many of our youth are so disconnected from right and twrong that they simply make up the rules as they go along, serving themselves for good or ill. I find it an insulting treatsie on today's youth, and the pretentious arrogance of the film-maker drips thick with every plodding, overthought step and shifting eye.

(He did murder the guard, but if you blink your eyes you miss it. Whether it was an act of mercy or not is hard to say--it could be he was so mortified he lashed out with his skateboard. When he runs to the security guard's car, one of the wheels of his skateboard is stained with blood. )","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...now please move on because that's getting on my nerves.

Seriously, the man behind brilliant pieces like \"My Own Private Idaho\" and \"To Die For\" (and others not so brilliant movies, i.e. the unnecessary \"Psycho\" remake) started an experimental phase with \"Gerry\", which reached its peak with the thought-provoking \"Elephant\". \"Last Days\" had some interesting aspects but was very uneven, while \"Paranoid Park\", his new film, also has good-looking 15 year-olds walking around... and not much else. Some cool references to Fellini (the soundtrack reuses some beautiful pieces by Nino Rota) and the elegant cinematography by the legendary Christopher Doyle (\"In the Mood for Love\") are the highlights, but the movie is just too artsy-fartsy and meaningless for its own doom. We've had much better coming of age stories, and \"Paranoid Park\" brings nothing new. I don't see anything artistic about seeing excessive shots of Gabe Nevins in his underwear or showering. Or when Nevins and 13 year-old Taylor Momsen (the little girl from \"How the Grinch Stole Christmas\"), who plays his cheerleading girlfriend, have sex for the first time, just because she felt like they had to do it and after they're done, she calls her friend to say how amazing it was (and you can say from Nevins' face how traumatic it was). Everybody knows that they're starting earlier and earlier nowadays, movies like \"Thirteen\" and even \"Elephant\" itself (which shows how lost their minds are in general, not only when it comes to sexuality) have done a better portrayal of that. Gus tries to be minimalist and artistic, but the final result is just boring and uninteresting. His next project, \"Milk\", a biopic about Harvey Milk starring Sean Penn, will, hopefully, bring the good old Gus back, because, frankly, this obsession over underage kids is almost... creepy. 4.5\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"first off, i'm amazed to see that this film has got a rating of 7 on this site. at first i thought it might be industry people logging in to IMDb and jacking up the rating. but after looking on rotten tomatoes and seeing that this film has something like a 76% approval rating, it seems that maybe folks have just been duped again into mistaking pretentious crap for profundity. i mean, this film is simply awful. the acting is simply terrible, but the rest of the film is worse. at least the acting provides some (unintentional) laughs.

the plot involves a teenage skateboarding boy who is being questioned along with his friends for a murder that happened by a park where they skate. and that's about it. the rest of the film consists of the aforementioned terrible acting, terrible dialog, slow motion shots of people walking, of people's faces, of people skating, often set to music that does not fit the scene. perhaps that was done to be \"cool\" or experimental or hip. or perhaps it was done in hopes that it would fool people into thinking that it is somehow profound, but it does not work. nothing in this film works. it's pretentious garbage. i can't not recommend it enough.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How any of you gave this more than 2 stars amazes me. I made an account on IMDb just to comment on this cr@p film. The acting is cr@p and the plot is cr@p. It would deserve no stars at all if it weren't for the descent soundtrack (and yet there are still some outrageously clownish tracks in there too, most notably the ones featuring the oboe and sound like black and white cartoon comedy background music and in no way fit the intended mood of the scenes that they haunt) and quality cinematography. The dialog and plot are about as complex as that of a Dr. Sues book. These actors are horrible. I am actually watching this movie right now and, with every word, am stunned you all swallowed this shitte. The only reason I didn't turn the movie off was because I have gotten wrapped up in creating an account on IMDb and posting this review. I dig mainstream films, I dig silly stupid films, I dig retro indie films, and nearly any other type\/genre if carried out well. My brother convinced me to rent this because he said he heard it was good and he generally has great taste in movies; from the moment he told me the title I looked at him like he was crazy. I'm having a tough time ending this rant because there is just so much badness to talk about. The only way I can rationalize the good ratings on here is that you guys were paid to give this movie high ratings. It is so poorly done and no where close to dramatic, artsy, complex, well written, well preformed, or even bearable. If this was the final product of my hard directorial work, I would be to embarrassed to release it to the public, so I don't even feel sorry for the director if he reads this -- what the hell were you thinking guy?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I logged on here right after watching this movie, feeling that it was so awful that at least its reviews might be entertaining. But all you miscreants appear to kind of like it. And so, since I want the job done right...

From the opening shot, the movie establishes its contempt for the audience's attention span by showing an entirely unremarkable picture of an irrelevant bridge for a long, long time. Then it goes to some slow-motion skateboarding, which is at least a little bit cool, but then offsets that glimmer of excitement by overlaying the most repellent soundtrack song I've ever heard. Some girl screeching in whispery French over what sounds like sheets of plywood banging together. Whoever decided that needed to be there has never ridden a skateboard, I guarantee it. It seemed to be there to test the limits of the audience's patience.

From there, the movie is about 50 per cent slow motion. You know what's worse than a gratuitous slow-motion shot? A gratuitous slow motion shot of *nothing happening.* Here's a guy walking along a path. Here's a guy sitting. Here's a guy looking around. Here's a guy looking at another guy. After a while I started watching the movie at double speed, bringing it back down whenever people appeared on screen engaging in actual dialog, which was rare. Once, astonishingly, I slowed the movie to find out what a girl was saying, only to find that the camera was showing her talking, but the sound was another horrible, horrible song and her actual voice was not audible.

This reminds me of some great advice I heard once about writing -- if you don't have anything to say, don't use fancy tricks to pretend as though you do. Get back to work and think of something to say. All these camera tricks, like the slow motion and weird lighting and lenses and freaky music, is what the absence of content looks and sounds like. A lot of people have apparently bought it, and perceive emotional gravity and deep meaning, but I think they are projecting this onto a movie that did not do any of the work involved in creating it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie is honestly the worst piece of rubbish i have ever seen. this is slow, plot less and boring. the cinematographer deserved to be shot. There were various aspects of unintentional comedy, one of which was Jared being oddly camp. Raised many laughs but also many yawns. don't watch with anyone, anytime any place. If u hate someone, recommend they buy or rent this. big waste of time and money. Thanks Gus Van Sant...not. i cant think of anything else to say except Don't ever see this movie, it will make u want to jump off a cliff. Hope Gus and his mates read this comment before it's too late and he makes a sequel or some other catastrophe with what appeared to be shot with a camera phone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When me and my GF went to see this film, we didn't know what to expect, however she assured me that it had good reviews. So I went along with it. We got into the cinema and bought tickets and went into the screen. After a while of sitting there waiting for the film to start no one else walked through the door. I was very suspicious as you usually get at least a couple of more people in any film screening. The film began eventually and we sat there. After a while of very little dialogue and very \"arty\" type moody scenes I was starting to realise why we were the only people there. It was disjointed with random cuts from the main story to kids in a skate park, the story it's self made no sense. The kid was meant to have committed a crime when he didn't and If he did, writing a letter to no one is not an answer and you shouldn't feel not guilty just because you wrote that letter, he should have been punished. There was no point to this film at all. I have no idea why we didn't go and get our money back part of the way through the film. I tried to give it a chance I guess. There was little concept to this film, and the execution was disgraceful. The writer and director and just about everyone else who made this film should have realised what they were doing and stopped. It is an hour plus that I will never ever ever get back. I'm sorry to anyone who liked this film, but...it's just so so awful, i mean really really really bad. Oh well at least i never have to be subjected to it again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If it's an art and essay film, there is not enough art, not to mention essay.

If it is a thriller, there is not enough thriller.

If it is a teenage drama, there is not enough drama, and as far as teenagers are concerned, there is not enough NOFX and too much Nino Rota.

I thought it could be a trailer for Tony Hawk's forthcoming movie, but there is no Tony Hawk, so I guess I'be been cheated: it's not Tony Hawk biopic.

If it's an action movie, it lacks explosions, which would have added some interest to it, or at least would have make jump the sleeping ones into their chairs.

Most of the characters seem to be dead inside, but it's not a zombie movie. In fact, if it is a movie, there is not enough plot. If it is not a movie, it lasts too long to be a music video.

If it's a music video, well... it's an album I will not purchase","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Paranoid Park is about Alex, a 16 year old skater who causes the death even if accidentally of a security guard. As the movie goes on Alex deals with little issues like his parent's divorce and the sexual heat of his girlfriend Jennifer(played by Taylor Momsen who you can currently see in Gossip Girl) while he's consumed by guilt. I had seen just one movie by Gus Van Sant so far,Elephant, and I can assure you that he kept all his mannerisms while doing this one.Once again he crosses time lines.Once again he uses weird filming techniques like the never-ending shots of people walking...maybe you like these filming techniques, I know I don't. The plot feels unsatisfactory to me...its almost to simple to be explored for such a long time. The feeling I get (same with Elephant)is that Gus Van Sant tries too hard to make an \"artistic\" movie which causes the movie itself to loose substance. Also Gabe Nevins was pretty bad as Alex, there's a difference between looking alienated or detached and looking like a robot. If you're a fan of Mr.Van Sant then watch this, otherwise skip it.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is awful, I can't even be bothered to write a review on this garbage! All i will say it is one of the most boring films I've ever seen.

And the acting is very bad. The boy who plays the main character really annoys me, he's got the same expression on his face through out the movie. I just want to slap him! Basically 80% of the movie is slow motion shots of skateboarders, weird music, and utter sh*t..

Apparently I've got to write at least 10 lines of text to submit this comment, so I'll use up a few more lines by saying the lead character has got one of those faces you just want to slap!

Meh i give up..THIS MOVIE SUCKS !!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unless you want to be bored half to death. I've never been a fan of Gus Van Sant and as part of what previous posters have described as the new youth generation i was very disappointed and slightly angry at the stereotypical depiction of the characters in the film especially as they were used to string along the film's ridiculous storyline which is pretty much enforcing to the viewing masses that skateboarders are social rejects and should be blamed for crimes. As a skater myself i watch a lot of skate films and the filming during the skate scenes, which is obviously a major part of the plot as the lead protagonist is a skateboarder, was awful and Bourne identity esquire shaky camera technique was used with slow motion to give a horrible effect. This film is just full of ridiculous stereotypes as shown by the 'emo' soundtrack which just adds to the media myth that all skateboarders are white rockers. Simply just a really bad film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so bad it looked like a home movie. In one scene, the camera very slowly and gradually tilts down, then moves back up into place again. The sound is crackly, and occasionally fades out then in again. In another scene, the camera man is just visible in a mirror.

Then came the scene with instructions how to put down a tent... which, believe me, went on for ages and was completely irrelevant to the plot. Most scenes dragged on with conversations that were not entirely relevant either. In my opinion these were just to fill out the movie and make it longer. Even with these scenes added it was very short.

The only good thing about it was the severed head, which did look quite realistic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To date this is still the worst piece of rubbish I've ever viewed. So annoyed I even complained to Blockbuster for stocking it. Me and some friends rented it after looking at the back cover thinking we were in for a good horror film. The plot line seem to change during the film and there was lots of irrelevant padding. The film ended quite abruptly, I'm guessing they ran out of film. Sound quality was dire and the first female character had a very thick Spanish accent although she talked utter nonsense anyway. The guy provided a brief bit of eye candy until his bizarre attempts at murder. After wasting all the time to go into in-depth discussion on the workshop and its many power tools, he opts to put a plastic bag over her head. All in all on second thoughts I think you have to watch this film to actually believe it exists.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had the misfortune to see this film recently and have to sit through it. A friend purchased it for \u00a31 and insisted we watch it as it sounded good from the story on the back cover.

10 minutes into the film it was apparent that the actors were amateurs and this was an extremely low budget effort.

The scenes were very poorly acted, the script was stupid and the story contained many scenes which seemed unnecessarily long, just so the movie would be of a reasonable length.

For instance when the lead character rents a warehouse, the film spends a ridiculous amount of time on this scene, with meaningless dialogue which serves no real purpose or necessity to the plot.

The lead actor is supposedly carrying out revenge on a woman who sleeps with guys to give them HIV, he never once thinks to get tested. Instead he turns into a crazed killer deciding to torture her before killing her and sawing her into pieces.

If this sounds good and you are thinking this will have lots of gore, think again. This film has no real gory sequences and is quite tame for this type of film.

It does not scare, it does not make you think, it does not offer fast paced fun. It may however put you to sleep, it is certain to bore you to tears, so please save yourself the despair and follow my heading.

AVOID THIS FILM 1\/2 out of 10 (this does not deserve even 1)

The film was 78 minutes but seemed as if it was 2 1\/2 hours.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this film last night, i though i would rent a horror\/scary film from blockbusters and i got this one out. The opening scenes were so long winded, the conversations between characters seemed not to lead anywhere.

The story line seemed so poor to me, she gave him HIV and then she goes to meet someone else but she is killed by the man she infected ( i think she may have been doing it for a long time to different people) Then when he dumps the body it just happened to be the man she was going to meet, was in the forest and saw him dumping the body. Then he chased them ( did he ever finish burying the body??) and they got into a car and he somehow found them from a different direction they came from and killed the bloke.

I think the severed head was the only good thing in the film as it was quite realistic. and then when the woman ran she happened to fall over in front of him so he could stab her with a spade!! AND THEN IT FINISHED!!

What a relief, It was the most pointless film i have ever watched...please steer well clear of it, it is just so poorly made, i counted only 5 different people in it, and the scene where he kills her is so unrealistic and they only swear in it and thats it!! Thats it from me...

STEER WELL CLEAR!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so bad If anyone out their who starred in the movie are reading this including the director,i HATE YOU! LOL,that blonde woman, who was running away screaming through the forest.At least CRY RATHER THAN SCREAM AND KEEP DOING THE DODGY HEAVY BREATHING!! and oh dear god, if it was the director who sorted out the cameras on this one, then go back to a normal job. No one wants to be watching some scared woman's chin throughout it.Damn, don't even THINK about renting\/buying or even having a copy of this within 100 metre radius of your house since it can be harmful to,people who like good movies...When i got home, i thought id rented a pron movie by the acting and style of the camera.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't seem to find anything that is good about this miniseries. Why the hell would you ban chocolate when u could ban something far more practical like smoking or alcohol? Also the fact that its an Australian program and its all set in england and everyone is faking british accents is stupid. Overall i think that this show is Unrealistic and cheap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a nightmare! The sensation you feel when you wake up from a nightmare is the same I got when I finished watching this movie: \"Uff\u0085OK, it ended, what a relief!\" I felt pain watching this movie, so bad it was! It's a B-series low cost movie, that's for sure, but I think it not an excuse to be so bad! I've watched brilliant low cost movies, with nice plots, nice production, nice acting, and most of all, some substance! This one got nothing of it! The plot is hilarious, it almost seems like an \"American guide about how to transform ancient Chinese mythology into a ridiculous teenage movie, with some kids playing with the occult\"\u0085 I don't know if the Chinese tale present in this movie is real or not, but if it is, the \"damage\" is even worse! The production is just horrible, a plain zero (What \"special effects\" are those?). There's no suspense. The supposed \"tension scenes\" are a complete failure. The acting is not better; and what about the dialogs? Oh my God! A movie which has for several times dialogs just like: \"I will pass there later, OK? Is that alright? \u0096 OK, alright. - OK? \u0096 OK, alright, bye then\"\u0085 I'm sure it doesn't deserve more than a 1\/10 score!

Too bad to be true!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While studying the differences between religion and cult in college, Mindy (Rachel Miner), who is the best student in the class, convinces her schoolmates Cassandra (Taryn Manning), Bailey (Glenn Dunk), Alex (Joel Michaely) and Morgan (Victoria Venegas) to research the massacre of worshipers of Kwan Yin by their leader Owen Quinlin (Robert Berson) twenty years ago in California. Quinlin had found an ancient amulet in Southern China that would give an enormous power to him after the sacrifice of human souls, but one woman resists and he is destroyed. However, after the death of Morgan, who apparently committed suicide, the students discover that Quinlin has returned and is chasing their souls with his amulet.

The storyline of 'Cult\" is not totally bad. Unfortunately, the screenplay, the direction, the acting, the lines, the camera, the CGI and the edition are awful. I was completely bored and tempted to use the FF button of the DVD, but I resisted and wasted 90 minutes of my life watching this never-ending crap on a Saturday night. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): \"O Amuleto Secreto\" (\"The Secret Charm\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cult starts 20 years ago on the 'Quinling Mountain Range, Southern China' as a guy called Owen Quinlin (Robert Berson) finds an ancient amulet said to have magical powers, cut to California where Quinlin has set up a cult & the members are about to sacrifice themselves when one of them (Cazzy Golomb) foils his evil scheme... Jump forward to the present day as five college students, Mindy (Rachel Miner), Cassandra (Taryn Manning), Bailey (Glenn Dunk), Alex (Joel Michaely) & Morgan (Victoria Venegas) are researching the events of twenty years ago that have become know as the 'Quinling Massacre' for a school project. Unfortunately Morgan decides to kill herself which unleashes the evil spirit of Owen Quinlin for reasons that are rather tenuous, he sets about completing what he started all those years ago by claiming souls so he can finally inherit the magical powers of the amulet for his own evil use...

Edited, co-produced & directed by Joe Knee this is not a good film & that's being kind to it. The script by Benjamin Oren which seems to take itself very seriously is a dour supernatural tale about a cult leader who comes back from the dead to finish what he started a few years prior, as you would expect the character's involved now have links to what happened all those years ago & it's as dull as it sounds. The character's are bland & forgettable, the dialogue just as much so, there's no proper horror or exploitation in it, it's slow going at times, it's predictable, it's clich\u00e9d, it goes completely off the rails at the end & doesn't make much sense when you think about it. The story never grips or engages you, it's never exciting or particularly interesting & I'd struggle to even call it average. There is very little here by which I could recommend Cult, don't bother with this one.

Director Knee does alright but the film has that bland shot-on-video made-for-TV look about it, it's utterly forgettable & flat stuff throughout. There's no scares, there's no atmosphere & it lacks any tension. There is no gore either, sure there's a fair amount of blood splatter but no proper actual special make-up effect gore scenes.

With a supposed budget of about $950,000 Cult looks cheap although it's not as badly made as some low budget horror films I've seen recently. The acting isn't even worth mentioning.

Cult is a poor film that didn't do anything for me, I'd struggle to call this average. There are much better horror films out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Firstly, few colleges allow students to take courses from their parent's lover. Secondly, few women professors are sleeping with dorm cooks. Thirdly, few brassy coeds have a dad who cooks in their dorm. Fourthly, once a SECOND member of a college small-group project team meets a violent demise, the college PRESIDENT will disband the whole class, and NOT turn a blind eye as the professor merrily steers the rest of the group toward grisly deaths. Since the supernatural elements of CULT make absolutely no sense, it is useful to study the mundane content of this film to truly appreciate how much this flick really sucks!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The two most noteworthy things about \"I Won't Play\" are: It won an Academy Award as the best two-reel short film of 1944; and it was directed by silent-era leading man Crane Wilbur. The plot of this run-of-the-mill short is inconsequential, the dialogue lacks spark, while the acting is no better and no worse than that found in most war-themed Hollywood movies of the 1940s (in other words, it's awful). Admittedly, there are moments when \"I Won't Play\" is funny -- Janis Paige's totally artificial look and line delivery are precious -- but one laughs AT the picture, not with it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A bad Quentin Tarantino rip off, at least I hope that's what they were going for because at least then I could respect the director for admiring Tarantino. One scene a \"singing\" scene with Rose McGowan is far to well done and genius for this film and could have only been stumbled on by mistake by this director. So besides his Quinton inspiration and Rose McGowan and her one good scene this film sucked. Some of the crappiest dialogue I have ever heard, I'm willing to bet why McGowan doesn't speak much is because of how crappy her dialogue would have been. Tries to be funny, never is, tries to be dark and isn't, tries to be stylish and is just bland. Who dishes out the money to make movies like this, I'm hoping it was all the directors so no one else's money was wasted. If not for McGowan the whole cast is awful and when McGowan is your best hmmm, I gotta wonder.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie looked fun on the cover and I honestly thought 'how bad can this be?' Little did I know. Out of the gate the dialogue was UNBEARABLE. It was contrived, unrealistic and not even interesting. Dialogue on UPN syndicated television shows is more natural sounding. The story was implausible and had nearly zero play-off at the end. The end with the snake is almost confusing and seemed staged. The only remotely interesting character is Rose McGowen's, who is mute which prevents her from being ruined with cliche ridden garbage dialogue (well, at least until the end when even she has to speak). The only thing that even gives this a 3 over a 1 or 2 is Rose McGowen's nude scene. Truly awful. Save yourself the trouble and rent something more interesting like a Barney Video.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me start by saying I don't recall laughing once during this comedy. From the opening scene, our protagonist Solo (Giovanni Ribisi) shows himself to be a self-absorbed, feeble, and neurotic loser completely unable to cope with the smallest responsibilities such as balancing a checkbook, keeping his word, or forming a coherent thought. I guess we're supposed to be drawn to his fragile vulnerability and cheer him on through the process of clawing his way out of a deep depression. I guess we're supposed to sympathize as he stumbles through a series of misadventures seemingly triggered by his purchase of a dog, but in reality brought on by his own contemptible nature. I didn't get the slightest hint at any point that Solo ever possessed any redeeming character, which became disturbingly apparent when he failed to feed his dog for a few days. No spark of humanity or glimmer of conscience gave me hope that he would ever realize his life is so utterly miserable because he's a self- absorbed, self-pitying lowlife. I didn't develop any connection with this character. He didn't seem to care, and so neither did I. I actually wanted him to get his kneecaps busted at one point.

The dog was not a character in the film. It was simply a prop to be used, neglected, scorned, abused, coveted and disposed of on a whim. So be warned. Even though \"dog\" is in the title, this film is not a romantic comedy for dog lovers.

Scott Caan's role is amusing and believable as the oversexed best friend\/cad. Don Cheadle is sincere and magnetic - I always want to see more of him on screen. Mena Suvari was delightfully repellent. Lynn Collins role of a \"stripper with a heart\" was well acted, but the character was simultaneously absurd and clich\u00e9d, not to mention there was zero chemistry between her and Ribisi.

Romantic? Hardly. Comedy? If you say so.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I realize the line on my summary is not too polite.

This film written & directed by Scott Caan & starring Giovanni Ribisi,Don Cheadle & himself runs a long 88 minutes.

There is a dog in this puppy of a movie., he is cute.

The movie opened in 2 U.S. theatres in late April 2007,for one week & grossed all of $ 914. It quickly went to DVD in early August 2007.

We were only able to take about 40 minutes before we turned the DVD off.

This was the type of movie that played on lower half of double bill. You saw the main film & figured lets see what this one is like, You might have walked out before we shut it off.

The 3 actors & the young ladies in the film all have done & deserve better than this..

Ratings: ** (out of 4) 54 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (out of 10_","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This must rate with the worst films I have ever seen. It just wasn't funny. My wife fell asleep. I suppose if you are the sort of person who goes all gooey eyed at the sight of a dog then it may do something for you. If you expect a comedy film to have some humour in it then you will be disappointed unless you find an English radio announcer saying the f word a lot hilarious. The strippers in the club kept their underwear on so there wasn't even a bit of nudity to relieve the boredom. What did happen in the strip club made no sense at all. There was a great deal of mumbling by the lead character with whom I developed no sympathy at all. Mena Suvari was hardly in the film, presumably just there to make people think it was a serious attempt at producing a film. The bad guys were unconvincing and carried as much menace as a dead sheep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe we Aussies just have a totally different sense of humour and therein my lie the only problem here. I have a database of all the DVDs I own (including those received as gifts - which this was) and so, when entering a new one, I always refer to IMDb for such info as genre, runtime, director, leads etc. When entering this, I noted that it was a comedy and so I decided to watch it at a time when I wanted something light and a good laugh. Well, it was neither! There were absolutely NO laughs at all and an inordinate amount of gratuitous profanity (are there REALLY radio announcers allowed to broadcast the sort of filth that Steve Jones dishes out? What if a decent child happened to tune to his station?).

Rather than enjoy a good laugh (or even a little giggle) I found the whole thing thoroughly depressing. I have given it 3 out of 10 but, to be honest, I don't know what those 3 are for! I suppose the basics of lighting and sound weren't too bad!

We have an ostensibly stone-broke loser (Giovanni Ribisi) who still seems to be able to drive a reasonable car (who pays for the fuel?) and live in what could be a nice apartment (who pays his rent?) Given the opportunity of forming what might have been some sort of meaningful relationship with what turned out to be a nice girl, he even blew that! Perhaps it was she (Lynn Collins) who earned this movie the 3 points! The fact that she works as a stripper rather than a hairdresser is one of the few aspects of this movie that makes sense (\"I make as much in one night doing this as I do in two weeks' hairdressing\").

Unless you want to get depressed and bored to the teeth, forget it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This really is by far the worst movie I've ever seen in my whole life (I'm approaching 47)! The description on the back of the cover equaled the scrolling text right at the begin of the movie. The further plot was nil and even a bunch of corpses would have shown more life in their \"acting\". I viewed the full length of it and was really relieved when the final character's death signalled the end of my suffering! The location was either some kind of vaults or a grimy beach. I suppose, that home-video equipment served as camera and the lighting was sub-standard. The dialogues were uninspired and devoid of meaning. As were the actors faces. Which brings me to the topic \"make-up\": By the looks of it they got it as gimmicks in some teen-ager's magazines \"my first own make-up\" or similar. What made me buy the DVD was the name \"Lovecraft\" printed on the cover. The only connection with this brilliant mind's works was the use of the name \"Necronomicon\", which was wrongly translated as \"Book of Light\". The 4,70 EURO I paid for this DVD were a complete loss, for the DVD went into the recycling box without any further ado.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I was watching it, I was getting ready to compose a blasting, lambasting critique of this \"film,\" (it is actually video), but then I saw that someone already did. I pretty much agree with him. But then again, it looks like a lot of effort and millions of lira went into it, so I guess you gotta give them some credit for trying. However, that being said, anyone who doesn't already know the Lovecraftian world and that this is what they were trying to convey will probably think, ... well, I suppose, that not only is it really bad, but it makes absolutely no sense. Thank god I read part of the other review ('twas a little gushy, maybe?) which revealed that this guy also did \"The Shunned House,\" (which looked pretty bad, judging by the DVD box), so now I can avoid it and save my mind from any further exposure to such desecration of the brilliance of H.P. Lovecraft.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"it's a real big bummer that people easily are able too make movies because of cheap digital video cams nowadays. usually I would appreciate this possibility but if you see movies like this it's just a big shame. and it's also big shame if people like h.p. lovecraft get abused by the likes of this. I rented this \"movie\" cuz of the drop \"h.p. lovecraft\" on it. and I'm a big fan of many of his adaptions, mainly those done by brian yuzna & stuart gordon. this movie has nothing to deliver! a cheap scenery on a beach and in an old wine-cellar. digi-cam effect \"red light\" over the whole movie. no actors, just some stupid low-grade models who have for sure no idea what they are doing, stiff as wood. and so must be the director. It's obvious that he tried to create some atmosphere. but as the whole things is so laughable it just doesn't work. and no gore-effects, just some blood in a river (you drink = you become demon) and dropping here and there. oh yeah, the story: thousands of years ago some \"big old\" colonised the world and took humans as slaves. then mankind got independent, so the \"old ones\" tried to destroy them. and now there are some survivors in a post-apocalyptic world. the only possibility to save mankind is to find the NECRONOMICON, that's where it gets to LOVECRAFT. so those soldiers fight against some undead and demons on their beach and in their wine-cellar. unbelievable - the whole thing! but as it is dubbed (german title: \"Armee des Jenseits) and you can find it in most commercial video-stores it seems as if you can make money with stuff like that. I find this fact impressive.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sort of between the gushy review and the hate review. I've been a fan of Lovecraft (and a Lovecraft 'purist') for a long time, and while this little amateur film was of poor quality it had a number of redeeming qualities. I went into viewing expecting the worst thing I've ever seen, and wondering if Lovecraft would turn in his grave over it, but I was shocked to find that I actually kind of liked it.

I don't want to catalog the movie's faults, so I'll only mention a few that keep this movie from being a 'stellar amateur effort'.

It's very low budget and shot on a video cam, so it has the look of some soap operas, but once you get used to the idea then it ceases to be a big deal. The direction is pretty amateur and the shot framing and use of distance in the shots is rather clumsy. STILL, this film was actually kind of creepy and it stayed more faithful to Lovecraftian intent than nearly all the Stuart Gordan and Brian Yuzna travesties (my main exception to those films being Re-Animator and Dagon) put together. The idea of being impregnated by some Old One is reminiscent of Dunwich Horror and Shadow over Innsmouth (which isn't to say this movie is as good as those stories!!), so the overall plot is quite faithful to Lovecraft's ideas. One thing that annoyed me was that words out of the bible seemed to make a zombie prisoner upset and afraid. I'm not sure if this was meant to indicate that 'God's' words upset the Old Ones or just this particular zombie. There was no real answer to that. The rest of the Christian symbolism in it reminds me of August Derleth's take on the mythos. So in a way this was a Derleth style take on the mythos.

I would recommend this film only as a curiosity. It shows how a fairly atmospheric movie can be made with nearly zero budget. I liked the setting of the wine cellars. The outdoor shots were sad, though. Using the same stretch of beach and trees (and nearly the same damn shot) to convey 3 characters' long journey was really sad. The director needs whack upside the head for that. The acting was standard for an amateur film, with the blonde zombie girl getting a personal award for \"Best Impersonation of Gollum by an Italian Actress\". Actually I think this film was done prior to the Lord of the Rings movies. Maybe Andy Sedaris watched her and thought \"Dang, she'd make a great Gollum!\"

One little kudo to the director, though. The makeup on the zombies was like bad goth kids. I was upset seeing this and nearly stopped watching. I was like \"Oh so that's how we know she's evil and possessed\", but later on in the movie you see a girl painting makeup like that on the face of an older woman (both living). So it wasn't an attempt to say 'goth makeup = zombie' but rather, 'goth makeup was left on after zombification'. However, possessed\/zombie does equal 'blue contact lenses'...heh.

On the whole, I still liked this movie better than the Yuzna and Gordan films (barring the aforementioned exceptions). Yuzna and Gordan had much better budgets, but this film did a better job at filming a Lovecraft-like story than they did, and on a tiny budget.

One quick word to the the make-up artist: I know you wanted 'claws' or something on Zariah's fingers, but long, black press-on nails looked really silly.

A quick word to the writer of the score: I know you couldn't resist, and apparently neither could the director who okayed it, but when the two characters square off with guns for a 'duel', playing that little whistle from \"The Good, the bad, and the ugly\" killed any mood that scene had accumulated. It was cute, but cute wasn't appropriate.

The filmmakers of this movie have read Lovecraft and had a great deal of respect for him. I enjoyed the little nods here and there: the character Carter with the bad dreams, and the character Pickman who becomes a ghoulish zombie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a big fan of H. P. Lovecraft's books, and the Mythos background spawned some rather good other stories and stuff like that. And in the last years there came along some boys who did movies about H. P.'s work, \u0096 for the bigger part low-budged flicks \u0096 and showed them to the public at places like the H. P. Lovecraft Film Festival. Now, like I said, most of them don't have a big budged, but they at least know the heart and \"soul\" of Lovecrafts work and films like \"Cool Air\" or \"The Call of Cthulhu\" - are what I would think - gifts for the fan base and other loonies that like H.P.'s creation.

And then there are people like Ivan Zuccon, who just rip off the name and create a movie which would have been fun to watch if I had directed it myself and filmed with some friends down at the beach. That is what Mr. Zuccon did as it seems...but, while blokes like Aaron Vanek's or Bryan Moore's earlier movies might not have had more budged, they somehow still had more to offer , like a story, real characters and some connection to Lovecraft! Just blabbering out names like \"Nyarlathotep\" or \"Necronomicon\" makes a movie not a Lovecraft-adaption.

Anyway, this flick will not only make fans of the Mythos shudder and hide, it will also not appeal to people who 1. like good movies, 2. laugh about bad movies, 3. like good C-grade splatter movies or 4. watch everything that has Horror written on the DVD-cover. I will not go into the \"plott\" of this waste of time, as it has already been discussed by others here on this page, but like I said, Unknown Beyond is like a movie I would have made up with some geeky friends.. Aside from that it lacks ideas for any storytelling and goes into ridiculous \"moronic-nonsense-but-he-it's-art-stuff\". Self-made flicks of this \"quality\" are fun to watch if you know all the blokes in it and ha-ha, see how XY is coughing out the fake blood we made from old tomato sauce and stuff \u0096 but hey, you don't put this in a DVD-casing, declare it an actual movie and want money for it\u0085

I give it 2\/10 because of the I dunno \u0096 effort or something like that","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At least if you're a Disney fanatic (well, of the variety who loves their live-action films as well as the animated stuff), if you're a kid, if you're a kid at heart almost to the extent that you hardly realize you're an adult, if you love absolutely any film that features animals, especially when they're doing tricks, or if you're just not too demanding, Air Bud: World Pup is somewhat enjoyable to watch. I'm a Disney fanatic. I enjoyed this film enough, and I'll gladly watch it again.

But boy does it have a lot of problems. The main flaw arises from a combination of too many characters, too many plot threads and not enough time to take care of them all. In the space of 82 minutes, we've got adults getting married, teens falling in love and trying not to be awkward at it, teen competition for love and jealousy, preteens playing spy games, dogs falling in love, dogs playing soccer, dogs having puppies, manipulative parents who'll do anything to make their kids win being taught a lesson by their kids, housekeeper dilemmas, and crooks cooking up and executing elaborate plots. I'm probably forgetting something, but that's 10 big plot issues to be dealt with, with less than 10 minutes per thread to deal with them, and presumably weave them into a coherent whole that's both not too complicated--this is a kids' film, after all--and that's also humorous and heartwarming. Not surprisingly, director Bill Bannerman, on his first turn being completely in charge (he has a lot of previous second unit experience), wasn't quite up to the task. I'm sure it didn't help that there were at least three screenwriters involved, and probably dictating producers, as well.

The end result is that Air Bud: World Pup is extremely choppy. Events occur with little justification, and worse, often little explanation. People figure out and do things primarily because they need to--and fast--so that everything can arrive where it needs to arrive in less than 90 minutes. From one cut to the next, time might jump ahead six months or so. We have both adults who seem like maybe they're mentally disabled and kids who just intuitively figure out what a dog is thinking and rush into some unexpected action. Some of the threads should have simply been removed, because it's difficult to become too engaged in the film when as soon as you're introduced to an idea, it's already passed you by.

Also not helping is the fact that one of the threads is basically a rip-off of One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961), minus a Cruella De Vil character. And another problem is that given the way the film is edited, I have to assume that the dog, Air Bud, probably couldn't do much with the soccer ball. Unlike the first two films, a dog playing a sport is almost an afterthought here, and when we see him, it's in very quick glimpses; every once in a while, these snippets appear to be even aided by computer animation.

Yet, for someone like me, there's a cheesy charm to Air Bud: World Pup. The script and performances often teeter between ridiculous, hokey and kinda clich\u00e9d. I tend to like that combination. It makes the film both a bit predictable and subtly bizarre. And at times, like the ending, when the film completely abandons consistency and basically becomes a commercial for the U.S. Women's Soccer Team, Air Bud: World Pup is so blatantly tacky that you can't help but love it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I suppose that to say this is an all-out terrible movie would be unfair, but it's pretty bad. The sub-Disney storyline involves dogs playing soccer and falling in love (aw, how cute!) The acting isn't bad, but definitely could be better, especially that of young Canadian actor Kevin Zegers, who, during the whole movie, looks embarrassed, like he doesn't even want to be there. Anyway, kids will love it, but parents beware!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you're coming to this film to learn something about depression, forget it: you won't learn anything except how not to write a screenplay on the subject. I understand the intent was to show how severe depression can turn an average person into a complete wreck, but the result is the most one-dimensional character I've ever seen in a Hollywood feature... no small feat. Christina Ricci as Elizabeth spends the entirety of this film screaming at the top of her lungs, viciously insulting someone, bursting into tears or some combination of the three (the only exceptions being some quiet sulking at the beginning and end). There is not the slightest hint of what she might be like WITHOUT depression... not the faintest glimmer of any other aspects of her personality... she just screams. At one point, her roommate tells her, \"Lizzie, you're such a fun person to be around when you're not being depressed,\" and my reaction was, \"She IS?\" It seemed odd that the writers would include this comment without giving us any examples, but this script is a lesson in incompetence. It has no discernible structure or flow at all; instead, it consists of a series of awkwardly strung-together scenes of Lizzie screaming, then ends. Character development? No... Scenes of her everyday existence, i.e. going to classes, that might possibly be important details? No... Screaming at maximum volume? CHECK. It's not quite enough, I'm afraid. 1\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Last night I got to see an early preview screener of Prozac Nation. Because I love everything that Christina Ricci does I was very excited at first, but as the movie continued I started to wonder where it was going. Based on a true story, it is simply about Christina Ricci's character and her struggle with depression, drugs, friends and family as you can probably tell from the title. In my opinion this movie moved too fast, and it was way too dramatic. I would say there was a dramatic moment every five minutes, and the movie moved through her life extremely fast, and this left no room for us to connect with Christina Ricci's character. Christina Ricci's performance was fantastic as always but Jessica Lange stood out throughout the whole movie, and I believe this movie's success will be all because of her and Christina Ricci. I would rate this 4 out of 10 and I would suggest you rent this one or read the books by Elizabeth Wurtzel they are good and definitely worth checking out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I seldom see a film with such a cast, such a potentially strong story and based on a bestselling book that has been this weak and to some extent unwatchable...

The premise of a story reads like a Brent Easton Ellis novel - a lot of drugs, hopelessness and self-induced tragedy as a young Elisabeth Wurtzel (played by Christina Ricci) tries to cope with being a suicidal loser, that can't seem to accept that she is actually living a good life and that basically she is pathetic for being such a baby...

Christina Ricci is not only playing a tragic personae, but also a tragic actor, whose sobbing and screeching for the most part of the movie actually make you want to shout - kill yourself already and let us get to the credits rolling... The director is of no help as he supplies absolutely no pace and the story feels so disjointed you have no idea what this damn girl is actually on about. The director apparently was on Prozac when directing this imitation of a movie and hence let the movie go on autopilot making it an unbearable mess.

The only redeeming features are a sympathetic Jason Biggs, as Wurtzel's boyfriend (who thankfully decided to dump the self-indulgent egocentric egomaniac) and an unbelievably good Jessica Lange as the cry-babies mother. Lange apparently can not be brought down by terrible script, directing and dire co-actors. Pure class.

I don't know if this is really who Wurtzel is or was, but the film has successfully made me totally uninterested in her writings.

In the end I finished watching this movie and instantly started to think: OK. Time to watch something, that actually is about REAL problems...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Congratulations to Christina Ricci for making this movie and putting her mojo behind this important subject and trying to make a great film. Ricci is my favorite actress: She is so gifted, so natural, her reactions are perfect and so is the energy she constantly radiates, which gives credence to the often misapplied term \"star.\"

The film misses its mark for lots of various reasons, but perhaps most notably for the story's seeming unadaptability to the screen in making it a compelling narrative...more on that later. The cast at first glance is excellent, but come to think of it, Jessica Lang as the Jewish mother is too Protestant and not exactly right, Ann Hetch doesn't come close to showing the compassion and dedication of the psychiatrist from the book, and when your making a movie, how can you justify saying no to Anne Heche and Jessica Lange? But the real problems are in the film's construction: first in the failure to elicit any kind of lasting sympathy for the Elizabeth Wurtzle character, and second to say anything meaningful regarding the all too common and horrible situation that this poor girl finds herself in.

Unfortunately do to the flashback construction, Lizzy merely comes off as certainly more affected teenager than most, but not nearly as devastatingly ill as she comes off in the book. This is a major problem. This story had to be told from beginning to end and from the therapist's couch. She is only eight or nine when her depression starts due to devastating social factors, both society and the home, and this is a crucial point in not only eliciting the proper sympathy for her but also of the gravitas of her case. She is so talented, and such a vulnerable and disaffected spirit so early on, that one's heart can't help but reach out to her due to her victimization. This is missed on the film.

Ultimately one has to come to terms with what the film is trying to say: it is a biopic of one severely affected girl, but also it is a film about a nation who can't get its act together; that is very clear in the book but interestingly not in the film where the chosen at Harvard are even more messed up than the average college enrollee. The film finally isn't able to get either of these messages across compellingly, and that's too bad. Is Prozac a good thing or is it a bad thing, or a mixed blessing or a seeming necessity in a country in which so many people can't function without a chemical crutch? These are tough and challenging concepts to work with and the writing does not really attempt to address any of them in a more or less engaging way. The Challenger disaster is an interesting image to symbolize a dysfunctional America, but that doesn't have the effect it's suppose to have due to the crosscutting and insufficient earlier development of controlling themes.

Ricci's performance is tight and heartfelt, and one of the best of her acting career.

Michele Williams is also superb in her role.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It seems no matter what I see her in, Christina Ricci seems full of promise but fails to deliver. Sure she can cry and scream, but Prozac Nation sees Ricci totally out of her depth, perhaps I'm being too harsh.... okay, I'm shifting the blame to the director. Jessica Lange is outrageous and almost reaches Faye Dunaway heights of megadramatisation. Unfortunately I think Lange peaked with Frances and it was all downhill from there. There was every chance of this film being slick and witty while tackling depression head on. What we get instead is poorly acted hysteria dressed up with a stereotypical try hard eighties veneer. I really had no sense of the films eighties backdrop, since I was unsatisfied with the lame attempt at making believe it was the eighties just because ms Ricci wears a madonna inspired dress to her \"lost my virginity\" celebration. Cmon everyone, you are ALL better than this. The filmmakers should hang their heads in shame, and as a result of disappointment, Elizabeth Wurtzel could probably make a bundle if she sued for \"irrepairable emotional damages\" as a result of the finished product. go on lizzie, sue! I would","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the real world of art Elizabeth Wurtzel is the sexy drama queen every guy wants to do, but no guy wants to wake up next to. Her on-screen portrayer, Christina Ricci, is the ugly artsy wannabe girl that desperately wants every and any guy, but no guy will touch her. That's why, in Prozac Nation, the unreleased 2001 film of Wurtzel's 1990s bestseller book of the same name, there are immediate problems. OK, the problems start before the miscast of Ricci, who has the emotional range of a thimble- is it any wonder that, by far, her finest acting was in the two Addams Family films? First off, she is bizarre looking- with big eyes and a bulging forehead, making her look like the fetal Starchild from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Secondly, she always plays whiney brats. But, thirdly, is the way films try to make it appear any guy would be attracted to her. In one scene in the film her pal Ruby (Michelle Williams) and Liz walk through Harvard, and all the guys' tongues are wagging at Ricci, not the super-cute and sexy Williams. Hello\u0085.Reality check time\u0085. This material begged for the Andy Warhol treatment. Here is his version of the film. A five minute shot of a hypodermic needle. A five minute shot of Wurtzel's hairy pudenda. A five minute shot of her sleeping naked and stoned on the bed. She rises, gives the middle finger to the audience. Cue credits. See, less than twenty minutes to distill Wurtzel's whole life. And, oh yeah, Warhol's film would not have cast Ricci. Even Michelle Williams would have been better, and after seeing Ricci's pallid bosom, I'd take anything Williams or any other babe had to offer me cinematically. Ricci is almost the kiss of death for a film, and how she stays working is a mystery. Think of her performances in mediocre to bad films like Monster, Sleepy Hollow, and Woody Allen's Anything Else- also co-starring Jason Biggs, and now picture another actress in her role, and immediately the films could seem better, if not great. She is the female counterpart to banal, wooden, milquetoast actors like Tom Cruise and Leonardo Dicaprio.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There must have been a lot of background info that was left out of the movie. In fact, in the film, the girl, Lizzy, didn't even appear depressed. She just seemed like a girl that went out of control when she finally got to college, mainly from doing drugs and drinking alcohol. That seemed to be her problem, not mental illness. Sure, she had emotional problems because her dad left and she barely saw him as a child, and her mom seemed a little out there. But, the way she treated Noah and Ruby was just mean and I don't think caused by depression. She was very needed, which ran Rafe off, but she was like that because of her dad.

But, I think the main reason this movie never achieved a theater release is that not enough happens with the plot and the story is not written well.

FINAL VERDICT: Truthfully, I'd only recommend this if you are interested in seeing Ricci's first nude scene. Otherwise, it isn't very interesting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found it almost impossible to empathize with Ricci's character in this film. If she was supposed to be a depressive, I think the screenwriter and director neglected to research depressives before making this film because Ricci's character was more a depiction of a self-centered, worthless sh!tbag than a victim and survivor of depression.

The forced attempt at introspective narration was as ludicrous as the pained interactions between her and the people around her.

Sorry but I couldn't buy it. This is straight to video schlock. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am writing this review simply because I am a huge fan of the book, Prozac Nation, and was appalled by the film.

I think that if you hadn't read the book, you would have been lost watching the film, as it provided no real back story to Wurtzel's depression. There was no real mention of her childhood (her relationship with her father, her experiences at summer camp, her first therapists (in fact, the film gives the impression that she has never been in therapy until Dr. Sterling)...). That said, if you had read the book, you would have been confused by the amount of editing that had taken place.

I found the book to be a vivid portrayal of depression, highlighting Wurtzel's low points, and the experiences she had along the way. The film however, began at Harvard, and literally threw the audience straight in with no real explanation of what was going on.

Events that, in the book, were important (such as Wurtzel's miscarriage, her summer working in Dallas, her suicide attempt whilst on Prozac) were omitted from the film.

Also, this is pedantic, but Wurtzel did not lose her virginity to Noah. The suicide attempt that was shown in Sterling's office was completely different to the book. For a start, she actually overdosed on Mellaril, as opposed to the para-suicidal gesture shown in the film.

All in all, I would say that if you have read the book and enjoyed it\/identified with it, then don't watch the film. Read 'More, Now, Again' (by the same author) instead. Or watch Girl, Interrupted.

The only redeeming feature was the performance by Anne Heche, who I believe portrayed Dr. Sterling very well. Christina Ricci was also good, though her performance seemed a little... stilted. Jessica Lange made for enjoyable viewing, but looked the opposite of how Wurtzel's mother is described in the book.

Conclusion? Don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have a question for the writers and producers of \"Prozac Nation\": What is the root cause and what is the solution to the widespread problem of personal depression in America? In the moving performance of Christina Ricci as Liz Wurtzel, the film portrays a young woman with unlimited potential as a Harvard student and as a writer. But this is not a story of success, only one of self-destruction as we watch Liz bring misery into the lives everyone who comes in contact with her. The film examines divorce, family dysfunction, drugs, alcohol, and prescription medication as possible reasons for Liz's unhappiness. But none of those superficial explanations are satisfactory.

At some point in the film, it would have been helpful to suggest that Liz needs to take responsibility for her life and her problems. No light was shed on what the film alleged to be a runaway problem in \"The United States of Depression.\" In the story, Liz had a caring therapist (Anne Heche), a caring roommate (Michele Williams), a caring boyfriend (Jason Biggs), and a troubled but caring parent (Jessica Lange). In a key scene in the film, Liz is lying in a hospital bed watching the break-up of the space shuttle Challenger. Instead of equating Challenger with Liz's life, the film should have used the image as a starting point for her healing and recovery.

This film reminded me of a generic made-for-cable \"victim\" film on the Lifetime network. An excellent cast was wasted, especially in the earnest performance of Christina Ricci. The real-life Elizabeth Wurtzel obviously found within herself the resources to cope with her depression and become a successful author. It is unfortunate that the film could not offer us even the slightest glimpse into her courageous spirit.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is just as bad as \"The Birdman of Alcatraz\". I do not refer to the acting but rather the premise of both films, which try to portray psychopathic criminals as heroic figures. Moreover it disturbs me when well respected, revered actors like Alan Alda (and Burt Lancaster) play such roles, because their status tends to lend credibility to the director's intent to elevate the film's subject, a societal outcast.

I was in junior high school during the last years of Caryl Chessman's life and his death penalty appeals and books were very much in the news. I remember the groundswell of opinion that the death penalty was wrong and Chessman was the victim.

Get a grip people. Read the history. Chessman was a criminal and sexual predator. He drove around the LA streets at night with a stolen police light in his vehicle. He stopped cars with attractive women inside under the ruse of making a traffic arrest; then abducted and raped the women. Rape is the worst trauma a woman can experience and many victims say they would prefer death to its horror and humiliation.

Chessman got exactly what he deserved, it just took a decade too long. No sympathy for the devil here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wealthy businessman's daughter, who as a young girl caught rheumatic fever and now suffers from a shortness of breath, discovers her marriage to a charming ne'er-do-well was arranged by daddy (whom she affectionately refers to as \"Darling\"); worse than that, she may in fact have only a few weeks left to live, leaving her husband free to marry her conniving romantic-rival. Pure bunk. Paul Osborn's screenplay (via Jerome Weidman's thin story) trots out the redundant flashbacks in the second-half instead of proceeding ahead with the plot, which submerges the already-soapy scenario in grim talk. Why go backwards when we can figure out what's happening for ourselves? This is a \"woman's weeper\" with no faith in its target audience, so simplistic is the set-up. Dorothy McGuire, swathed in furs for most of the picture, isn't a canny, clever heroine at all; when she's upset, she turns inward and stony. Upon realizing her marriage is basically a sham, she shrinks away from her husband like the consummate virgin (well, that's a possibility, she and Van Johnson sleep in separate beds after all!). Ruth Roman has the film's best moments as a society shark with her trap set for Van, but what exactly do these women see in him? Johnson can be charming when it's required, but put him in a melodramatic setting and he goes stony, too. MGM production values only so-so, however director Gottfried Reinhardt tries adding some visual flavor to the flashback segues and he attempts a lively pacing for the movie's initial half-hour. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I had never seen an episode of the original Avengers, with Blackman, Rigg, or Thorson, I would have appreciated this series more. While the cast did its best to sustain the action and interest of the scripts, I was just caught up in comparing the episodes to the original series. There was an expectation of Steed participating more in fight scenes, and the continuity seemed as though the writers were struggling to keep up with the actors. To be honest, I can't blame them for trying to resurrect the fans from the original series, but it just didn't work, as evidenced by the fact that it lasted one season. Watching Steed labor through this series reminded me of Gen. Macarthur when he said, 'Old soldiers never die, they just fade away!'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Comparisons to the original series are inevitable. It's a shame Diana Rigg left the original show in the 1960's due to mistreatment on the part of the producers, and MacNee probably regretted this as much as any fan - there's no telling how long the show might have lasted otherwise. Linda Thorson was OK as a replacement and her episodes still retained almost all of the quality and aspects of the Rigg episodes - only the Rigg\/Macnee chemistry was lacking. The New Avengers should have been left on the shelf - a declining Macnee, an annoying Purdey, and a who the hell is this guy Gambit. Also, the humor was forced and poor - granted I only watched a few of the episodes, because that was all I COULD watch, but I think I got the idea. Try as many might and do, it's nearly impossible to resurrect an old show as a new format or movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Volcano' is a B-movie at best, and at worst is more of a disaster that what it's supposed to be depicting. To be fair, you have to be prepared in any movie to suspend disbelief for one major concept. 'Volcano' asks you to suspend disbelief in science, human interaction, and common sense.

Tommy Lee Jones gets to be the studly-yet-1990s-sensitive head honcho of the Office of Emergency Management, and he's fine when he's not stuck with the stupid dialogue the script provides. However, Anne Heche gives a howlingly bad performance as a smart-ass geologist who becomes Roark's love interest (while the city is burning down, natch). Gaby Hoffman goes from Field of Dreams and American President to a turn as a whimpering, needy, and victim-for-life daughter of Jones. Don Cheadle gets to sit in a really coooool office and take Jones's phone calls, doing the job that in reality Roark would and should be doing.

Anyway, the movie really starts going downhill when Heche's geology partner gets sucked into a lava vent while they're breaking into the subway lines. It picks up speed when Jones starts suggesting that they use buses to dam the flow of the lava flowing down the street, Heche's geologist (who loves to lecture everyone about The Science Of Geology) being apparently oblivious to the fact that lava is hot and it melts metal, and rock, and a dead bus is unlikely to have much effect. It really starts to suck when the film introduces Rodney King-like racial tension between two bad actors dressed as cops and an angry black man who can't understand why the fire department is busy with this large river of flowing lava. But hey, in the end, the three of them will be working together to build a K-rail dam to stop the lava from eating up his neighborhood, even though the dam is built in the wrong direction and the material used wouldn't stop lava anyway. Besides, K-rails are hardly watertight, but I guess lava wouldn't think to poke its head through the gaps, not when Tommy Lee Jones is glaring at it. Don't even get me started on the stranded-subway-car subplot, where a tunnelful of hot lava is coming down but oddly enough, it's not too hot to attempt a rescue, it's not too smoky to see, and there aren't any poisonous gases so everyone can breathe. This must be LA Lava, or Lava Lite. You know, it eats cars but is eco-friendly.

There are moments of sheer camp here that almost make you wonder if this was meant to be a comedy. For instance, the two security guards packing up Hieronymus Bosch paintings have a completely meaningless and farcical conversation about weight, and at the end, no sooner does the little boy Roark\/Jones rescued note that everyone looks the same while covered in ash, than a rainstorm breaks out and cleans everyone up -- and then the sun comes out and Heche says something along the lines of, \"aw, shucks, Roark\".

'Volcano' almost achieves Battlefield Earth status, but except for Heche no one approaches Travolta-like badness and the technical aspects are handled pretty well. If you are from the LA area as I am, it's kind of funny to think of a lava flow wiping out Wilshire Boulevard. I gave it a three for the effects and the little amount of tension you get from this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although this movie (and I use the term loosely) was made in 1997, we just watched it tonight for the first time. My husband commented that a Tommy Lee Jones movie that we'd never heard of made him a little apprehensive. I blithely watched anyway, certain that if Jones was in the movie, it must at least be worth two hours of my time. After all, he has been one of our go-to actors for years. Although Heche isn't one of my favorite actresses, I was additionally reassured by seeing another well-known face. The list of accomplished actors\/actresses continued to grow, so I endured more and more of this film, certain that if I pushed through enough clich\u00e9s and trite social statements, I would arrive victorious on the other side of the plot. Alas, there was no plot. It appeared to be burned by the ever-oozing lava of doom.

The characters were paper-thin. The plot was so chock full of holes that it literally distracted me from most of the special effects and acting in the movie. Was the fee for a brief consultation with an elementary science teacher too much for this film's budget? No acid rain...no toxic gasses (like sulfur or hydrochloride)...no deadly ash...no skin-searing heat just a few feet from the lava. Wow...it's the world's friendliest lava ever!

The events were no better than the characters. Each incident was so contrived and far-fetched...it's like the writers said \"Okay, we need to get rid of the little girl NOW\"...and poof, she's splashed by a lava bomb which burns her enough that she has to be carried to safety (not from the lava, but from her own helpless stupor)...but just moments later in the car she is in no apparent pain and soon after is running effortlessly through the (groan!) building that (oh no!) is about to be blown up. After enduring all of this, your reward is the line from the little boy at the end (about all the people looking the same)...which has got to be one of the worst movie lines I have ever heard. Even if it wasn't so painfully scripted, it was ridiculous timing for all the characters involved. Kid and cop aside, as if the mother would still be in the area and just needs to be pointed out because she just isn't speaking up...what...she's hoping to slink off into the shadows and get away from the little brat once and for all? I don't think so. Obviously the child's mother would be missing or dead - or yelling her head off to find her toddler.

The token black gangsta tough hoodlum with a secret soft spot versus the chip on his shoulder narrow minded cracker cop with a secret soft spot scene made my eyes bleed. Even if such pat characters existed, they wouldn't behave as the movie portrays them given the circumstances. Something about imminent fiery death and massive destruction tends to catch people off-guard, ya know?

There are too many canned movie moments like these to mention...really, it's just an embarrassing movie to watch. Those poor writers...where are they now?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a geology student this movie depicts the ignorance of Hollywood. In the scene where the dog grabs the bone from inside of the burning house, it is less then a foot from lava which has an average temperature of 1,750 degrees Fahrenheit. This stupidity is witnessed again when \"Stan\" goes to save subway 4. His shoes are melting to the floor of the subway while the rest of the team is standing just feet away from the flowing lava. And to finish off this monstrosity of a film, they come up with the most illogical solution, stopping a lava flow with cement K rails. Earlier in the film a reporters voice can be heard saying that nothing can stop the flow fire fighters have tried cars and CEMENT. Common sense dictates this film is a preposterous and gross understatement of human knowledge.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a disaster within a disaster film. It is full of great action scenes, which are only meaningful if you throw away all sense of reality. Let's see, word to the wise, lava burns you; steam burns you. You can't stand next to lava. Diverting a minor lava flow is difficult, let alone a significant one. Scares me to think that some might actually believe what they saw in this movie.

Even worse is the significant amount of talent that went into making this film. I mean the acting is actually very good. The effects are above average. Hard to believe somebody read the scripts for this and allowed all this talent to be wasted. I guess my suggestion would be that if this movie is about to start on TV ... look away! It is like a train wreck: it is so awful that once you know what is coming, you just have to watch. Look away and spend your time on more meaningful content.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story of a Volcano erupting downtown L.A. sounds like a nice plot for a disaster movie. This one though, is missed bigtime. The movie looks chaotic, has a storyline which is hard to follow or believe and the acting was very bad.

Im in agreement with a lot of comments that Lee Jones is only good at bossing people around as a chief in some particular field. In this one, he is heading the emergency office. Being chief of such an office it naturally is a good idea to bring along your daughter to dangerous scenes. Clever thinking. Ann Heche touching walls and walking in tunnels that suppose to be 678 degrees fahrenheit. Yea right. Aside from the bad acting those factual errors make the film look almost as silly as Armageddon. The only good point of this movie is that there is no Ben Affleck to make matters even worse. Avoid this movie at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hahahahah Probably one of the funniest movies i've even seen. Obviously this isn't intentional though. It takes about half the movie for the main characters to realize what the big hilly thing is in the middle of the city is spewing hot red stuff, and the other half spent diverting the lave flow through the city using fire trucks (yer right). It certainly made me laugh. The acting makes Arnie look like a RSC thespian. It is amazing that films like this get commissioned. A more interesting version would be someone going near an active volcano and filming it, and would probably cost about \u00a320 to make. ($40) I can see some guy pitching the film to a film company \"well there's this big VOLCANO and it erupts in a CITY....pretty radical hey\" If you can find it in the dollar bins, maybe worth buying as after watching this most other films would look good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Volcano is set in Los Angeles where a minor earthquake has just hit, vacationing boss of the O.E.M. (the Offcie of Emergency Management) Mike Roark (Tommy Lee Jones) decides to cut his holiday short & go in, once there he sees that everything is alright but then drives off to the epicentre of the quake where seven underground workers have been killed by a fire or intense heat of some kind. Mike isn't sure what to think so he brings geologist Dr. Amy Barnes (Anne Heche) in to try & explain things, unfortunately a huge underground river of molten lava has been released after the quake & erupts at the La Brea Tar Pits sending the lava pouring out into the city streets engulfing anything & everything it touches in flames. Mike, his men & the emergency services have their work cut out trying to stop the river of lava & save as many lives as possible...

Directed by Mick Jackson this was the second big budget disaster flick revolving around the idea of an erupting Volcano during 1997 with Dante's Peak (1997) being released a mere two months or so before Volcano was & while Dante's peak is hardly any sort of masterpiece at least it's slightly better & more plausible than Volcano is. The script here is total nonsense & is not based in reality at all, underground rivers of lava that seem to appear & then disappear just as quick, various character's standing inches from a river of lava yet not being affected by the heat (when that guy is on the train the metal seats around him start melting but he remains perfectly fine, as far as I am aware human skin is not as heat resistant as metal, is it?) & it constantly happens, helicopters flying is clouds of ash (in reality it would be impossible), one simple blockade at the end of a street will stop the flowing lava (what about down the other streets & other directions?), being able to blow a perfect trench in a street & then blowing a huge building up to make a massive dam & when Kelly sees the lava heading towards her car she gets out just like anyone would but then for some reason just stands there & watches two firemen get burned to death & waits for her dad to save her even though by this stage her leg has caught fire, despite all those concrete blocks being placed together to make a barrier in less than twenty minutes the guy's do such a great job not one bit of molten lava manages to seep through & loads more besides like that massive building falling on Tommy Lee & his daughter yet then both being fine afterwards. The character's are awful too although they were not as clich\u00e9d as usual with no romance blossoming between Tommy Lee & Anne Heche & minimal city official's who try to shut Tommy Lee & Anne Heche up before the event labelling them scaremongers. There's a few badly written & at times embarrassing moral moments as Los Angeles pulls together, the black guy & that semi racist cop who warm to each other & by the end are wishing each other well & that little kid at the end when he says 'everyone looks the same' is cringe worthy & is surely a ham-fisted attempt & trying to say whatever colour we are we are still human beings & we can all get along in time of a crisis as it brings people together. Having said that I think Volcano is one of those so bad it's good films, it entertains & it moves along at a decent pace but just don't expect anything grounded in reality or any human drama either.

I suppose a film like Volcano could be seen as an updating of a 70's disaster film such as The Poseidon Adventure (1972) or Earthquake (1974) but on a huge budget with modern effects work. Speaking of the effects they are alright but none stand out that much & the set-pieces are also surprisingly forgettable, sure there are a few impressive explosions & a few OK river of lava flowing through Los Angeles effects but little else. Generally Volcano just isn't very exciting & while occasionally unintentionally funny & completely ridiculous it doesn't really work in the way the makers intended.

With a supposed budget of about $90,000,000 it opened to a little under $15,000,000 at the box-office, it looks alright & there's lots of fire but nothing stands out & Volcano is a pretty forgettable film overall. Filmed in Los Angeles I think most of the places featured here were shot at their real life locations. The cast go through the motions with some terrible dialogue & ridiculous set-pieces to contend with, Tommy Lee Jones deserves better than this.

Volcano is a bit of a disaster in both senses, it is a disaster themed film that ended up a bit of disaster itself. Worth it for a few unintentional laughs & the ridiculousness of it all but it's nothing great & I doubt I would ever want to see it again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie and I thought this is a stupid movie. What is even more stupid is that who had thought an idea that there should be a volcano in Los Angeles? The fact is that there are no volcanoes in Los Angeles. This movie should not be filmed in Los Angeles, it should be filmed in Honolulu Hawaii. Hawaii has volcanoes which is a real fact that this movie should be made in Hawaii's state capital. This movie should be filmed in Hawaii because this is the real idea and not in Los Angeles. There are earthquakes in Los Angeles, but there are no volcanoes. To be honest with you, this is unbelievable nonsense and very foolish. In conclusion, I will not bother with this movie because a volcano in Los Angeles is nothing but nonsense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is all right, fairly silly and to be taken lightly. But what I can't stand are the numerous heroes and that boy's ILLEGALY SENTIMENTAL comment near the end: \"look, they all look the same\". Isn't that by far passing the good taste standards? I thought it was revolting, as were the heroic, unselfish acts by some of the people in this film. I'm not saying it won't happen like that, but zooming in on all the bravery like that makes my stomach churn.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Considering the subject matter, I thought that this film would at least be enjoyable, if stopping somewhat short of a masterpiece. I was wrong. I was still waiting for something to happen and it finished - I thought that the finale was the bit that happened before it got exciting. The only reason I gave it 2 instead of 1 is because the effects guys deserve some recognition.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw the trailer for this film before watching Titanic, and I must admit that it whetted my appetite. Volcano seemed to be quite spectacular and full of promise. But what a damp squib. Corny is not the word for the script, and the characterizations are often ludicrous. The stupid daughter is just beyond belief - she is supposed to be 13 not 4. But then the scientists,firemen and peripheral characters don't offer any more. This movie ranks just in front of Cruise II and Twister, but only because those 2 films are completely appalling. This does have some reasonable effects, but overall its a 1 out of 10. Don't waste your time","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The scriptwriters, directors, and actors have lost sight of the cornerstone of a good story - the concept of suspension of disbelief. In Volcano, the concept goes up in smoke almost as quickly as the city. Contrary to earlier commentators, I much preferred Dantes Peak amongst the 97 vintage of volcano movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I saw this movie, all I could think was: What a disaster! No I'm not talking about the volcano, but about the movie itself. I have seen a lot of movies, but this is certainly one of the worst ever. I don't care about the fact if a volcano erupting underneath downtown L.A. is possible or not. Perhaps it isn't, but even than this could have been a good movie... but it sure isn't and I'll explain you why.

I don't know how much lava flows out of an average volcano, but what I do know is that the volcano in this movie makes the Vesuvius, Etna and Mount Pinatubo together look like a little barbecue. I don't think there has ever been so much lava flowing out of a volcano as what we see in this film. I'm sure the director had a lot of money to spend on his movie, but I really wonder why he all spent it on the special effects and not on the script and the actors. I'm not saying that he should have hired a top cast, but this really is the opposite of what I would call good acting. Their performances are so unbelievably poor that it makes the entire movie even worse.

And what's wrong about the script you probably ask yourself. Well, can you tell me who comes up with the idea of people standing a few yards or even a few feet from the lava without getting burned or having to hide for the heath? Or people sinking in the earth when the flow of lava isn't even two foot high?

I'm sure I wouldn't be proud if I wrote such a script, but apparently there are script writers in Hollywood who don't mind about believability as long as it pays good money! VERY good money!!!

When you see the movie, you'll probably agree with me that this is one of Hollywood's worst disaster movies, not worth more than a 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a real waste of time and effort. The film lacks plot and depth. The visuals are decent but nothing to write home about. There are far better films out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Riotously cheesy lunacy about lava spewing from the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles. Even if you attempt to suspend disbelief by ignoring this ludicrous premise, you'll still be howling with laughter at the inane dialog, nonsensical plot contrivances, and wildly reckless scientific plot holes that parade across the screen.

I have a theory: every successful actor is doomed to appear in at least one bad movie at some point in his\/her career. This was Tommy Lee Jones's turn. Although he makes a decent effort, the script is just so pathetic even he goes down in flames (oops, sorry about that). Most of the supporting cast is also choked by the hackneyed writing; a few of the actors simply phone in their roles. Anne Heche deserves special Hall of Shame recognition for her awkward portrayal of a scientist. She is about as convincing in this role as Pee Wee Herman, and even he would have at least done a better acting job.

Since the scientific plot holes are too numerous to list here, I would instead suggest that you screen the film with friends, and have a game of \"Find the scientific absurdities.\" The loser could be forced to listen to tapes of corny lines from the movie like \"Everybody looks the same\" over and over. Here's a sample of the kind of nonsense you can expect: a scheme to blow up a building is devised, engineered, and the dynamite set and detonated all within a space of about 20 minutes.

Let us not forget the obligatory disaster movie clich\u00e9s: divorced dads, scientists who get ignored by everybody, obnoxious cops, tough street kids, bratty teenagers, greedy investors etc.; all are present and in abundance. The film also bashes you over the head with a relentless barrage of political correctness.

For fans of cheese and silliness only. All other viewers: beware.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A horrible mish mash of predictable story lines and toe-bendingly poor delivered PC clich\u00e9s ad nauseam (races working together, the heroine being smart as well pretty, a guy sacrificing himself to save another life, a father\/daughter relationship etc etc etc). The movie looks like something created for network television and should have probably stayed there. Even the gifted Tommy Lee Jones does not manage to salvage this BOMB. I urge you not to waste money or time on this cinematic ruin from the time when disaster-movies roamed Hollywood.

The two stars are given solely to the CGI-people and the PR-peoples' ability to get even one movie-goer to sit through it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"only if its the last thing yo do and your humour is evaporated should you ever attempt to watch this. If you do, watch it alone invite no one, they will never return to watch another movie with you. It might be an excellent tool for that very purpose, invite people you want to get rid of in your life.

Apparently I need to write more about his film in order to qualify as a review. This is sweet irony for this film it really does sum it up perfectly. after wasting my time it wastes more of your time. IT does have a function I take it all back.

I recommend this film, watch it, its provocative, really go ahead watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When the film started I got the feeling this was going to be something special. The acting and camera work were undoubtedly good. I also liked the characters and could have grown to empathise with them. The film had a good atmosphere and there was a hint of fantasy.

However, as the film went on, the plot never appeared to takeoff and just rolled on scene by scene. I was unable to understand the connection between the stories. All I could see was the characters occasionally bumping into each other and references to ships in bottles. Without that connection, I was just left with a few unremarkable short stories.

Am surprised it did so well at Cannes","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this because I'd never seen Tel-Aviv, where the story is set. I was disappointed, since it doesn't offer many views of Israel's largest metropolis. It's also pretentious\u0097one of those movies that leaves you guessing at its meaning until you ultimately give up with a shrug of the shoulders.

The main protagonist is Batya, a woman in her twenties' who works as a waitress at catered weddings. Her parents evidently don't care about her very much, and when a little girl walks out of the sea with an inflatable ring around her, Batya feels compelled to take care of her. The little girl doesn't speak, and Batya can't give her to social services because it's the weekend and the agency is closed. So she takes her back to her apartment with the leaky roof, and when it comes time to work in the evening, she has to take the little girl with her. The boss is very unhappy about this and other shortcomings in Batya's work performance.

Another main character is Keren, who is getting married. At her wedding party (where Batya is of course working), she breaks her leg climbing out of a ladies' room cubicle whose door won't open, and so she and her new husband cannot take the Caribbean vacation they've planned. They end up in a dingy hotel on the seafront without a view. It smells bad, there is noise from the traffic, and Keren is complaining all the time. Her husband meets a strangely attractive older woman \u0096 a writer \u0096 who is also staying in the hotel, and Keren worries that he has slept with this stranger.

The third main character is a Filipino woman named Joy who looks after old people. The old woman she is hired to care for is very crabby and speaks no English, only German and Hebrew. Joy speaks English but no Hebrew or German. Joy is mostly concerned with how her son is doing back in the Philippines, and wants to buy him a toy boat, as he has asked. She finds the perfect boat in a store and plans to buy it. The daughter of the old woman, who hired Joy, is an actress appearing in some sort of post-modern \"physical theater\" adaptation of Hamlet, and does not get along with her mother.

The way in which these three stories\u0097which intersect momentarily\u0097resolve themselves is presumably supposed to mean something profound. I didn't get it. There is a fantasy element to Batya's relationship with the little girl, and maybe Batya's non-existent relationship with her parents is somehow inverted in this relationship. When Joy sees the toy boat in the shop window, there is a strange effect used where the little sails billow as if blown by the wind, and they do this as if they are on the scale of a real-life ship. Keren draws the outline of a bottle around a ship that is on a brochure cover in the hotel room, and a narration of the strange woman's poetry mentions a ship in a bottle. But what does all this mean? I thought about it for a while and realized I wasn't going to lose any sleep in the process. If anyone out there has a clear idea of what it's all about, maybe they can fill me in.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The director is sweet, as is his co-directing wife Shira Geffen, but their movie sucks. It has its moments (and some pretty girls), but there is too much of everything: \"Am\u00e9lie\" meets \"Breaking the waves\" meets \"Pauline at the beach\". You walk away wanting to know more about the wedding photographer, and about the girl who likes it best when nothing happens, be it in movies or in real life. Instead, you get a suicidal writer, a neurotic actress and an illegal-immigrant-come-social-worker with a heart of gold. It feels like there's more than one truly touching story hidden in the script, but at face value it's a truckload of wasted story lines and sentimental bullshit. Hard to sit out as it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The world now seems to be in an odd stage of downsizing, in which objects such as DVD and CD players are steadily decreasing in size. It is obviously much cooler to have a smaller iPod than a larger one. This is not so with theater screens, as is the case with the IMAX, the enormous, widely-known theater system that has stunned audiences upon its release, and to this day. As long as the material's right.

The main problem with 'Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D\" is that it uses the huge screen as its main advantage. It is dull, uninformative, and relentlessly eager to please and amaze us with its corny special effects and inspiring quotes from famous names such as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Another problem with the film is that it doesn't even take the time to sit down and interview those lucky few who have had such an extraordinary experience as to have been to the moon. Instead, the writers have simply pressed COPY and PASTE and hired famous voices such as Morgan Freeman, Bill Paxton, and Matt Damon to imitate their famous quotes. This tactic is unrelentingly repetitive and tedious.

I'd say without one moment's hesitation that I didn't learn one piece of information from the film that I didn't already know.

And it repeatedly insisted on irritating the crap out of me with its insistent sentimentality. Every three minutes there seems to be a cue for Tom Hanks' voice to say something like \"Without the contributions of these brave men and women...\" Watching the film is like watching a bad commercial. For forty agonizing minutes.

1\/4","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, This was my first IMAX experience so I was pretty blown away about that, primarily; although with hindsight, I can't help wishing that it had been some other (less monochrome)film.

Magnificent Desolation very much had the \"Programme for Schools\" feel the way it listed all the astronauts and this made it feel a LOT like reading National Geographic Magazine in 3D. Weirdly it actually had a very two dimensional quality that only occasionally exploded into reality and a lot of time it felt like some PowerPoint Presentation. There was a moment in the film when an unnoticed abyss opens; seemingly at your feel, that had a bit of a WOW factor but to be honest, that may have had more to do with me being an IMAX virgin.

The commentary, provided by Tom Hanks, I personally found very, (what's a nice way to put it??) \"flag-wavingly nationalistic\" which didn't go down too well in central London, judging by remarks overheard as we left.

Over all, I loved the IMAX experience, but dearly wish a different film had been on on that day. The Moon isn't a particularly colourful subject and to be honest, a lot of the 3D effects were lost in the monochrome scenery. All that would have been well, were it not for the documentary inserts and distractions like the interviews with American schoolchildren which spoiled it a bit","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You'd think a movie about incestuous sisters who eventually murder their employer couldn't help but be gripping, but then you'd be wrong.

There is no plot. There is no character development. There is no redeeming visual beauty.

This movie is a waste of time. The exploration of how the relationship between the sisters develops is nil, their sexuality is never anything but a grotesque, the class relationships are glossed over, and employer is a silly caricature.

Ponderous silences and period clothing do not equal depth of meaning.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Tragic Hero\" is a film that is most definitely trying to emulate the classic Godfather films, focusing on family, crime, loyalty, and revenge. Also, this is part of a two part series as The Godfather also was (at the time). However, this film comes nowhere near the level of those classic films and actually fairs worse than other Triad thrillers being released in Hong Kong at the time.

One reason is the acting. With the exception of Chow Yun Fat, the acting is generally over the top and unbelievable. The audience tends to find the proceedings humorous simply because the actors' inability to maintain any degree of seriousness. As a result, we find the film not truly emotionally involving or intense since we don't particularly care what occurs with these characters.

Another reason is its lack of focus. The narrative tries to incorporate many different story elements into the film, but this results in portions of the movie becoming underdeveloped as well as lacking any real sense of coherency. The audience sometimes becomes lost at the proceedings we are viewing, not knowing what the character's motivations are.

The film's climax does contain a decent gun fight, but again since we don't care about the characters, we don't care who lives or who dies; The scene loses it's intensity and suspense because of this. The other action set pieces are rather mundane in nature, with a feeling of it being too controlled rather than free flowing.

In general, this is a strictly average film and isn't recommended to the general film viewer... Only hard core genre enthusiasts and fans of Chow Yun Fat should consider this film for viewing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Danny Lee's performance as a wisecracking cop is the only spot of interest in this film, even though it has an excellent cast including Chow Yun-Fat, Carina Lau, Andy Lau, Shing Fui-On and Alex Man. CYF plays a triad boss who wants to settle down to a life of peace and plenty but Alex Man, a total psycho who has a big grudge against CYF, won't let him. CYF tries to escape to Malacca but to no avail. After his family is blown to bits, his cronies dead or turncoat, wounded and broke, CYF returns to Hong Kong to get into some serious revenge.

It sounds a lot better than it is. CYF is well-dressed and handsome, looks pained, grimaces and cries on cue, but somehow or another you just don't care. Andy Lau looks great, but that's about it. Carina Lau has a tiny, tiny little part which was nice, but she gets a bullet in the head early on so that ends that. Alex Man is a cartoon villain he's so over-the-top which at times can be intriguing but the writing here is so flat that he just comes across as a garden-variety nut.

Danny Lee is great though - too bad he's only a small blip on the screen of this dark (literally) and essentially boring movie.

Rent it, don't buy it. Or just skip it altogether.

This is the sequel to \"Rich And Famous\", even though it apparently was filmed simultaneously; it was released first because of CYF's boxoffice power.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Black Vengeance\" is an alternate title for \"Ying hung ho hon\" AKA \"Tragic Hero\" (1987). I have just seen this on VHS, together with the first part of the story, \"Gong woo ching\" (\"Rich and Famous\"), also 1987. (The poster and 2 stills featured on the page are for a 4-DVD set of movies starring Rod Perry (The Black Gestapo), Fred Williamson (Black Cobra 2), Richard Lawson (Black Fist). The fourth movie is called \"The Black Six\"). Strangely, while the characters retain their original names in \"Rich and Famous\", in \"Black Vengeance\" Chow Yun-Fat's character is named Eddie Shaw, Alex Man (Man Tze Leung) is Harry, and Andy Lau is called Johnny. Also confusing is the fact that 1994 is given as the copyright dates on both films. Perhaps that was the year they were American-dubbed. According to the release dates given on IMDb \"Tragic Hero\" was released before \"Rich and Famous\". Was there any reason for releasing the sequel first? Despite some users' comments, I enjoyed these films, although they aren't among CYF's best such as \"The Killer\" and \"Hard-Boiled\" which are truly astonishing. However,if one day I come across a 2-DVD set of \"Rich and Famous\" and \"Tragic Hero\" I won't hesitate to buy it. Hopefully, these comments about \"Black Vengeance\" clear up, which was also for me, a mystery as to where it belonged in Chow Yun-Fat's filmography.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a documentary about homeless women. It was interesting in the sense that this focused on women who are engaged socially - having jobs and lasting friendships - but are in situations where they can not afford housing.

I found some of the women covered to be interesting, but there was little focus or progression in the story. The direction and editing failed to maintain my attention. There were differences in the stories of these women, of course, but the message was essentially the same and could have been told by focusing on any one of them in more depth.

I made it to the end of the movie, but it was a rather boring journey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(This review is based on the English language version)

Orson Welles' legendary unfinished epic was just that - unfinished. It should have been left as such, not thrown together in this clumsy, boring compilation of whatever material was available.

While I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions, the filmmakers have not only failed to do justice to Welles' vision, they've also managed to discredit it by inflicting this version upon audiences.

The first thing that strikes the viewer is the amateurish quality of the audio. Not only are the newly dubbed voices rather poor performances, they're also inconsistent - Welles' original recordings (using his own voice, as he often did) have been retained in a handful of scenes, & they don't match at all. There hasn't been the slightest attempt at consistency. Add to that an extremely empty sound mix which has only a bare minimum of sound effects & atmos - a long sequence during a huge festival (including the running of the bulls) sounds like it was recorded in a deserted suburban street with about three people making the sound of a crowd that's meant to be in the thousands.

However, the real problem is the unavoidable fact that 'Don Quixote' was incomplete, & it's glaringly obvious from watching this. The film consists of a handful of scenes strung together & dragged out to ridiculous lengths just to make up the running time. Case in point - the sequence where Sancho searches for Don Quixote in the city goes on forever. It's just Sancho approaching people in the crowd, asking them the same questions over & over again - there is no way that Welles could ever have intended using every single take in its entirety, but that's what appears here. It lasts over twelve minutes, when, in fact, it would most likely have lasted about two minutes absolute maximum in a proper finished version of the film.

While the start of the film is relatively complete & rather well done, the rest has massive holes which simply can't be filled with endless overlay of Spanish countryside & still more shots of Don Quixote & Sancho going back & forth. There's also no ending. No resolution, no conclusion, no punchline, no point.

Although there is material in private collections that was unavailable to the filmmakers, that couldn't possibly account for what would be required to make this into a complete, coherent work. Welles simply didn't complete shooting, largely due to the fact that his lead actor died before they could finish.

However, putting aside the fact that it wasn't complete, & never could be, one would think that just seeing a collection of footage from this masterpiece that might have been would be enough. Unfortunately, by putting it all together in such a slipshod manner, one is left with a very negative impression of the film overall. In particular, what was clearly a terrific performance from Akim Tamiroff as Sancho is utterly ruined with the new voice & with long, drawn out scenes that eventually cause him to be simply irritating.

Orson Welles' vision for this film was something far more ambitious & complex than a simple retelling of the story of Don Quixote, but that's what has been attempted here, & as such, the point is lost. The only person who could have assembled all the material into anything worthwhile would have been Welles himself, & he didn't.

The footage could have been put to far better use in a documentary chronicling the whole saga of Welles trying to make the film. Welles himself even came up with the perfect title for such a doco: \"When Are You Going To Finish Don Quixote?\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An atrocious offense to the memory and genius of Welles, this senseless assemblage of self-indulgent improvisation on a grand theme should have been locked up in storage along with a number of other unfinished Welles' projects no one has ever seen. Now we know why! To add additional insult to prior injury, the appalling English language dubbing by amateur America dubbing actors and even the great man himself only heightens all the sloppy mistakes in story-telling and construction. It's as if every weekend some good hearted Spanish soul gave Orson a few pesos, a 35mm camera and some short-ends of negative film left over from some other production and told Welles to drive out to the Spanish countryside and just keeping shooting anything and everything until the film stock ran out. It's true that if Orson had really shaped this film himself instead the notorious Jesus Franco, he might have thrown out 85% of what he shot, but we will never know. As Welles never took the time to edit his own work here, and somewhere along the way he or his heirs sanctioned someone else to do so, he is not entirely blameless for the debacle. Those who wish to prove that in his early days Welles was the luckiest of young men because he surrounded himself with the likes of John Houseman, Herman Mankewiecz, Greg Toland, Bernard Hermann and Robert Wise need no better proof of his adult inadequacies than this mess of a film. In his sad old age Welles was capable of doing anything when he needed a few bucks or pesos, including selling his artistic soul. The devil certainly got his due with this one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is terrible, and don't blame Jesus Franco, because its not his fault.

This film was shot silent over many years by Welles as he got the money to bring a crew and the actors together to do some shooting. How much film Welles actually shot is not clear, although not all of the film or all of the sequences are here since several \"key\" sequences, such as Quixote in a movie theater, are in the hands of collectors or backers who wouldn't give them up. The film here is just under two hours and I would be hard pressed to imagine it ever really working at any length. I'm of the opinion, based on several comments that Welles made before his death, that he never really intended to release the film, but was putting it together as a personal toy.

What exists here is for the most part is beautifully shot, but dramatically dead. Very little happens for the first hour other than Quixote and Sancho wandering around the country side. Dull would be a kind description of the material. In the second hour Quixote ends up in modern Spain and in a series of not very good sequences deals with everyday life. This isn't to say that there isn't a few nice moments, the windmill and the chicken sequences are quite good, but mostly this is a vast waste of film and time.

\"Completed\" by Jesus Franco, who was Welles' assistant director on the vastly superior Chimes at Midnight, we have a bunch of film fragments that have been put together as best as possible. Many people have crucified Franco as having been the reason the film stinks, but frankly one can not make a good movie from crap material. One critic has gone on record as having seen a different cut of the film in the 1970's, which meant that Franco made this version up on his own and ruined it. While that maybe true, I've run across stories of Welles cutting and re-cutting the film many many times over the years since he could never get it right.

This film is terrible no matter how you slice it.

Ultimately I'm left wondering just how good a film maker Welles was. Aside from Citizen Kane almost all of his films have been plagued by lack of budget or interfered with so we are left with the excuse that many of his films \"would have been better if only...\". How do we know? How can we know? Perhaps Welles was a man of less talent than we thought and many of his borderline films just aren't that good, and never would have been. While this is no place to argue the place of Welles in film history, the surviving material of Don Quixote, assuming it approximates what Welles intended (I think it does), is a good case for rethinking how we view the man and his work.

4 out of 10 for the good sequences (though 2 out of 10 is probably closer to reality)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Are we serious??? I mean wow ... just, wow. I think I saw this flick in an old issue of War Journal. This is pathetic, originality is completely dead, instead of trying to formulate a new idea what we receive is a bland re-do of an old plot line and to \"switch it up\" we just change the gender or race of the original character it's moronic and everyone should be sick and tired of seeing it ... but I guess this is just a rant and will most likely fall on deaf ears to engrossed with the sound of another turd hitting the toilet water like the best western since 3:10 to Yuma ... (wait for it)... 3:10 to Yuma! Thank You Hollywood for killing film as an art form and turning it into a commercial barrage of neo-pop junk and blatant retardation ... wonderful!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Brave One seems to indicate that the main character, of course, is brave. I'd disagree. The more brave thing to do in a situation like the one that happens to her- getting brutally beaten along with her fianc\u00e9e who doesn't live another day from it- is to go after the criminals without resorting to a total distorted view of society. Jodie Foster's character, Erica, is a radio personality who's niche is walking the streets and recording what goes on. We're given no real depth aside from 'she had someone she loved, he died, the police don't pursue it, she gets a gun, yada-yada-yada, she gets somewhat but not really involved with the lead detective' into the character, and so were left with something leftover from past movies: the vigilante code of justice, where taking the power in one's own hands is all there is. But we're never too sure if Erica is sane or not, if the filmmakers take a position one way or another (that is until the end, which is such a stupid message to take anyway, dog included as overbearing metaphor), while making the New York City of today, which has become significantly safer than, say, twenty years ago, look like you'll get knifed or beaten if you go down just the right alley or just sit alone on a subway car.

There could even be a somewhat better movie in the midst of all of this- perhaps just in the undercooked subplot with Terence Howard's detective, who is involved in some custody battle of a child that isn't his and a woman who he's not linked to and a step-father who, I don't know what aside from owning parking lots and being a bad dude- but we're left to a script that's both ham-fisted and disjointed with logic. It becomes laughable, for example, to see that at first the logical side- of Erica unable to really shoot properly, as seen in her first shooting in a convenience store at the convenient moment of a robbery of a wife by the husband- and then giving way to the illogical of her crack-shot at shooting at a pimp driving a car head on at her and killing him and ducking just in time to not get run over. It doesn't help that Jordon's style with the camera becomes a little more than insufferable: it's called a stedi-cam for a *reason*, not because it can weave in and out.

Ironically, the script and direction become very good, or rather work the best they can under the desired circumstances: when looking at the actual beating scene under the bridge, caught between a video-taped point of view by one of the criminals by the regular film cam in a pace that is perfectly disorienting. And when Erica first comes back on the air to her radio show, and she freezes up trying to do her old shtick, and speaks out a 'from-the-heart' about how afraid she is- this scene, from Foster's performance, to the clear direction and script, is the best scene in the film. But aside from that, there's just a lot of posturing into a psychology that's flimsy: is she a De Niro in Taxi Driver or a Bronson in Death Wish? We have her narration over scenes, some of it doesn't have to do at all with her radio show, observing how disgusted she is with walking around at night, nothing to do but her self-imposed task of cleaning up the streets. But unlike Death Wish, a movie that held more ambiguity and never held an answer at the end in a revenge scenario, the path of endless violence just heeds to a message, one that won't be news to anyone who's seen a second of Lifetime movie-of-the-week melodrama.

The actors make do with what's given, and in the end it becomes much more frustrating trying to stay with the anticipated, the hackneyed plot turns, and the plain old inexplicable (plus the unintentionally hilarious, like a few expletives shouted by Howard after getting shot in one scene), and the temptation to walk out grows stronger and stronger. It's a very problematic picture, with only a few moments of genuine interest and clear-headed convention-bending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't usually like to comment on the acting in a movie, because it is the one thing that people who have agenda against a film will go after. In this movie, I will make an exception. The acting in this film are below average all around. I mean halfway into the film, I wonder how the hell did the producer and\/or the director gets around casting such an ensemble of people who can't act. Even-though the production value was good, the ill written story just compounded on top of the bad performance of the actors, and there is even a half-hearted attempts to a twist to the ending of the movie, which ends up quite confusing. Is all the Spanish horror films this disappointing?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The major flaw in this Spanish slasher\/shocker is within it's script. For the first half hour it's an okay effort, building some suspense and an atmosphere of fear and dread. We even get some nice killings too! Then it goes completely downhill and turns into a whole catalog of \"your basic slasher clich\u00e9s\". I must admit that I was quite disappointed because the trailer promised so much more. The final thirty minutes consists of some killings and a lot of running around in an abandoned convent. It should have been so much better (although the final scenes in the flooded room is quite okay)!

First of all, we have the dialog. It's awful most of the time (there was quite a few giggles in the audience here and there when I saw it) and merely adequate elsewhere. It is also barely audible during a lot of scenes, drowning under the pressure of sound effects and the soundtrack (however that might not be such a bad thing after all considering the stupid lines we have to listen to!). There is one line in the whole movie that makes a reference to the \"I know what you did last summer\"-movies, indicating that the film makers wrote it all as one big joke, but I doubt it.

And the ending...well, some will hate it, others will dig it. For me, it was mostly a question of the former because the final twist comes from out of nowhere! If the audience had been given some clues to the girls mental status, I might have thought otherwise. It also throws all logic out of the window, because the murderer could never had been in place for some of the kills! But as an avid horror fan I have learned to live with these inconsistencies in Spanish and Italian movies.

But all is not bad. The movie has a big budget appearance, mainly due to the excellent cinematography (the scenes from past times really shines here), tight editing and an atmospheric soundtrack. Even though most of the actors are pretty bad, Anita Briem is an exception, making the most of what she has to work with. Real screen presence!

And, like I mentioned before, the killings are gory enough for the fans of such stuff and they are usually accompanied by very good special effects involving images of water (but the \"water theme\" tends to get tiresome in the end though).

So, to end this review, it's a movie that is quite fun in a \"so-bad-it's-good\" kind of way and it's also pleasing to the eye. But don't expect too much because it doesn't deliver as you probably think it will, judging from trailer and plot descriptions.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought this movie'd be totally different than just another teen-slasher. Well I was totally wrong. There's a liquid nun coming out of the toilet seat and something really odd. I know that Spanish culture is a bit different and their movies too, but I didn't expect to see a fake Hollywood film. They certainly faked it pretty well though. Why'd they make a movie without any new aspects? This is just plain boring and it'd been done totally without any imagination.

I thought that having a nun as the bad guy in the movie'd be something really original. It turned out to be a teen slasher. If this'd been done ten years ago then it'd have been something new.

I can't recommend this movie for anyone but it certainly has some comedy value! It's like a horror parody in some points.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Six students at a convent do the unthinkable - kill a nun who was overbearing. Now, eighteen years later, the nun's spirit is back and getting revenge for her murder.

Yea, basically that's the short of it. There's more to it than that, but I still have no clue what it is. The only really cool thing is the effects on the spiritual nun, as I was pretty impressed for being a more low-budget flick. I'm also confused as to whether or not it's in English. Most of the actors are Italian, and even the title here is in Italian, yet they spoke English in the film (I think, or it might've been dubbed, I still can't tell).

Anyway, the real premise of the film is pretty idiotic, and the ending not only doesn't make sense, it...well...doesn't make sense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Review: Nunsploitation films. They've been around since forever. A few that pop to mind are the Mexican devil worshiping movie Alucarda, Night of the Demons 2, The Convent and of course Dante Tomasellis Desecration. Cant blame somebody for trying to exploit a religious\/holy image and twisting it around to make it scary. If done right, it works. Here comes the most recent addition to the nunsploitation sub-genre simply titled The Nun.

The story is about this group of girls that live in a Catholic school. In this school there's a Nun who is particularly cruel to one of the girls. The girls acting in self defense against the abusive nun accidentally kill her and then decide to bury her and tell no one. Fast forward 18 years later and the nun is back searching for revenge from those who killed her.

This movie was produced by Brian Yuznas Fantastic Factory. You know, the company that makes horror movies in Spain. Need a reminder of the kind of movies that this company churns out? Well heres a small reminder: Arachnid, Darkness, Romasanta: The Werewolf Hunt, Rottweiler. You get the picture. About the only really good movie that this company has produced (in my opinion) was Stuart Gordons Dagon. Thats it. Oh no, wait, I believe they also produced the excellent Christian Bale vehicle The Machinist. But thats it. So when I consciously rented this movie, I knew I wasn't going to watch anything that was mind blowingly good. Still, with all that mental preparation I was disappointed.

One of the only good things this movie has going for it is its slick look. The movie has some nice cinematography. It doesn't look like a cheap horror film. The movies special effects were alright, with The Nun being able to travel through water. Well, that was an image that lended it self for some cool fx moments that sometimes scratched into cheesy territory but sometimes were cool enough to watch. I dug that scene with the Nun hurling herself at people like a bucket of water. Its not a particularly deadly move, but it made for a cool visual. There's some gore here but not a lot of it. One particular scene involving an elevator death was cool, but sadly the movie hit its peak with that scene. And it was only half way through. After that, nothing really cool happens and the movie deludes into an incredible borefest.

The movie just turns into The Nun popping up every now and then to give us a boo scare, she would kill someone and then CUT! We get back to the characters talking crap, going through rooms, opening doors, you get the drill. And I just personally hate it when a horror movie turns into that. People opening doors and going into rooms. Boring! And when the characters do talk its terrible dialog. In one particularly stupid scene a character decides right out of the blue that the nun turns into flesh and blood whenever she is in the water so thats they way to go to try and kill her. And everyone just says OK! And they all elaborate this plan to kill the nun in a water tank. Now, who gave that guy this info and why did the others just take it for granted? Who the hell knows, but its scenes like that that make the movie look stupid.

And yet another thing that got in the way of my enjoyment of this film was the fact that they used Spanish actors who have a very thick accent. When they try to speak English its very hard to make out what the hell they are trying to say. Id prefer to have them be dubbed then try and figure out what they are saying and become frustrated. The fact that this DVD has no English subtitles didn't help matters either.

So in conclusion, this is a movie that has some slick visuals, nice sound effects but a terrible terrible script. I guess this just goes to show that you might have the biggest budget or the best special effects, but if your movie has a bad script with terrible characters and situations that your audience cant connect with, then you've still got a bad movie. Such was the case with The NUN.

If you want to have some real fun with evil nuns, rent any of the films I mentioned at the beginning of this review. Now, as for the makers of this film, they should go say ten hail maries and light fifty candles to their saint of choice to see if they'll be forgiven for making this sinfully terrible film.

Rating: 2 out of 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The headline describes it exactly. This dribble of a film was nothing more than the typical 'group of teens killed someone accidentally now that someone is haunting\/killing them off 20 years later' crap that has been shoved down our throats for decades. The only twist is instead of an angry ex-classmate or lovable psycho\/loser, it was a nun. Nun wants to eliminate the sin from the girls, blah blah, girls accidentally\/purposely drown the nun, blah blah, nun haunts the girls, people die, movie ends. The only thing that made this watchable were the death scenes, which were pretty cool (especially the one with the elevator door ripping off this fat lady's arms) but even they couldn't make this a great movie. Brian Yuzna should hang his head for attaching himself to this refuse. I'm sure glad I rented it and didn't buy it, or I'd be furious beyond belief. If you want a nunsploitation flick to please the senses, go watch Demonia or something. Stay away from this garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't buy this, I didn't rent this, it was on PPV and someone burned a copy of it and loaned it to me, so at least I wasted no money on it. For someone that did Darkness, the Nameless, Devil's Backbone, this is a pretty lame film. Seems to have something to do with a bunch of girls that were at a convent back in the day and now they're all grown up and they're being pursued and killed one by one by a nun that comes out of the kitchen sink, the toilet, and even manages to negotiate the revolving doors in a hotel. And what makes this nun so mean and nasty (and wet?) I dunno, this was so boring that at some point about halfway through I just stopped it, put it away, and watched something else. Wasn't even interested in finding out, really. Oh sure, there's some lovely young ladies to look at but hey, are two of them lesbians? I guess, there's a picture on the bedside table of one young lady's bedroom and what self-respecting horror movie wouldn't be complete these days without a lesbian couple? Yeah whatever. 2 out of 10, if you want to see a worthwhile nun horror movie try \"Desecration\", \"Dead Waters\", or \"The Convent\" (and that's the one with Adrienne Barbeau, by the way, not the one with John Malkovich).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a huge horror fan, particularly Spanish horror. This film had so many possibilities to be good. It's a marvelous idea, a vigilante ghost nun, as most of what has come out of Jaume Balanguer\u00f3's mind. Both visual and sound effects were also pretty good. But everything was shamefully spoiled by bad direction, awful casting and a painfully bad (exposition, exposition!) script. Too bad. Maybe Balanguer\u00f3 should write and direct himself a remake...

Moreover, I don't really understand why this had to be spoken in English by actors who can't really speak English (and when they do, they do it so bad it just makes their performances even more fake). If you look at contemporary Spanish horror films like El Orfanato or Rec, the performances are totally in tune with this type of stylish ghost story - and that is being realistic, being believable as someone like ourselves, like real people, because that is the only way horror achieves it's goal. Unfortunately, everything failed in La Monja.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie is nothing extraordinary. As a matter of fact, it is an insult to the horror genre. Nothing about it borders on scary... not even close to the threshold of scary...

It's just another case of \"another teenage horror movie\"-seen one and you've seen em all. First few minutes in the movie and you'll know what will happen next. The worst part is, the script is blunter than the most recent installment of scary movie. Would have been better if it's written in Spanish. And don't get me started with the inside jokes and punchlines.

Though i will give a little credit for the special effects. But trust me, like any other Hollywood made horror movie, CGI's and special effects has little or no effect to a horror movie's ability to scare. In fact, it makes it worse.

Between the fresh faced Anita Briem and the spooky location, there's not much to see in this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only good thing of this movie is its final twist. In 97 minutes of film we can only save one single idea, which was totally wasted in this movie I must say! For more than 90 minutes this film is just a collection of clich\u00e9s, bad acting, stupid ideas and disclosures, complete lack of suspense, stupid deaths, terrible special effects; all this in a pathetic and unoriginal plot\u0085 until the last three minutes, where, FINALLY, a good idea appeared! It's nothing outstanding or an extremely original idea, but, at least was a \"decent\" good idea, the only one the entire movie has! I won't spoil it, but I must say I think that idea with a better plot, better FX and, definitely, a better acting, would turn into a good film. If you watch this movie and can stand it until the end you will know what it is\u0085","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, first of all, excuse me for the lame pun in the title. I was browsing for movies to rent the other day and saw this. I heard something about this so I picked it up and looked on the back and there was a short little review blurb on it from John Fallon AKA Arrow in the Head! At that moment I thought \"Well if he likes it then I gotta like it!\" So I rented it and just finally got around to watching it last night (college keeps me so busy). Oh and I might wanna add that I read a little of Arrow's review and it turns out that out of 4 stars he gave it 1 and a half. So my expectations from this movie went from very high to iffy. Well after watching this, I once again agree with Arrow (and turns out that quote from the review was the only positive thing he said about that!) Wow, did this film stink or what? Where do I begin with why it did so? Well, the film was so dull in my opinion. Not even the cool gore bits excited me and when a decapitation doesn't excite you in a movie, that's bad! The characters I hated a lot and from the beginning I could tell who would die and who wouldn't. Actually the film proved me wrong at some points, but the worst thing is that one particular character I wanted to die didn't! What the heck? And the chemistry between the main girl and the guy she met? Didn't feel it. He obviously was just there to be eye candy and give her a love interest, otherwise I thought he was a waste! And as a horror fan I should know that doing the \"dumb horror movie\" sometimes gotta happen or else there wouldn't be much of a movie, but the ones in here ticked me off! Hello? Why are you making out in the room of the killer nun when you should be on the lookout from her? And it was done by the supposedly smarter characters no less. The twist....ah, it would have been alright, if it hadn't been done a billion times and I didn't have to sit through this wast of film to reach that point! My main point: Stupid movie that sucked me in with some words of my favorite (actually my only favorite) movie critic. Jerks!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Movies like this make me wonder what modern horror would be like if someone had (mercifully, for movie fans) put an end to M. Night Shyamalan inside the womb. This garbage is a prime example of what kind of lame, random, uninspired, last minute, generic plot twists have become the norm since movies like \"The Sixth Sense\" and \"The Others\" were released. This was an okay movie until the writers took a dump all over whatever of the mediocre script they had written, and decided, \"Hey, here's an interesting idea: Lets throw in a wacky twist at the end and make the main character the murderer! That'll throw the audience for a loop!\" What an original idea.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe they even released such a movie. The only good acting came from the water in the movie. This has to be one of worst (if not the worst) movie I have ever seen.

The only scary part of the movie is the bad acting, me giving this movie a 1 is me being to kind, this movie deserve a 0.

The storyline, and if you can call it the plot of the movie, seems to have been written by an high school kid. Ofcaurse you have to ask yourself if it may have been better with better actors in it.

Do yourself a favor, wait for it to show on TV.

AND EVEN THEN WATCHING IT WILL BE A WAST OF TIME.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Nun is a revenge picture whereby a very strict nun is killed by her rebellious trailer trash charges and comes back years later to get even when the now adults visit their old school. Story line is predictable in spades and will hold no surprises as it slowly winds its way to the end. It is a screamer of a movie with passable acting and a below average script and screenplay. Much of the special effects are low grade and there is almost zero believability in the final battle. Still, if you look past these there is some suspense and acting jewels. If you like senseless cookie cutter screamers, you'll like this, otherwise you should pass.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can only say this: ee03128 from Portugal, I couldn't say it better. The worst movie I've ever seen... and I've seen lots of crap! When I read you comment I thought only about the thoughts I had while watching the movie. When I saw who was one of the script writers I understood it. Balaguer\u00f3 uses the same tricks in all his movies. And his scripts are not much better either. And, of course, in Barcelona we have tons of temples and churches around the city so we can keep cursed nuns to scare young Americans coming on vacations. Please, be serious! And I do not want to talk about the quality of the actors... There is something remarkable too. It is fair to recognize it. Compared to the usual level, all the Spanish actors use a fairly good English","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i can't even describe it. it's the worst movie i've ever seen (i'm being a nice guy when i call it movie).Just another big-budget-made-to-someone-who-doesn't-like-to-think-much.It's not even scary. It's revolting when there are great movies that never reach the big screen and then comes this...\"thing\" to trick movie fans. I guess big producers make whatever they want.

Just get a big producer, hot chicks (allthough horrible actresses) and a ton of horror movie clich\u00e9s and cook it for a week or so, and you'll get \"The Nun\".

And I thought Bad Boys 2 was horrible!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have spent the last 5 years in the entertainment business and most recently find myself working for the company that made this movie, which is a REAL pity, because I like these folks, I just can't believe ANYONE could possibly make anything as bad as this?!!!! This was crap from every possible angle. From camera work to dialogue to acting to costumes and production design was one of the worst films I have ever seen! The actors in this film looked like they had been taken straight off of a porn that was being shot in the San Fernando Valley and put on a set with an even less talented crew.

I just can't get over the fact that I am sitting on some of the best material I have ever read and contacts within the industry that could help me make my dream a reality and have hit every roadblock possible? Yet the folks behind this spectacle of a film have no problems putting it together and in fact, sleep well after it is released.

Life, what a trip!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"LORD PROTECTOR is kiddie fare, but for whose kids? Obviously shot for television or STV, this amateurish rehash KRULL has several stock characters -- a magician, an assassin, a warrior, a scientist -- on the trail of something or other in order to defeat the Dark Forces about to be unleashed on their planet. Badly written, acted and staged in available California locations like municipal parks and a ranch, LORD PROTECTOR has nothing to recommend it, not even as a time waster. Jay Underwood is the only \"name\" actor, and most people, especially the intended audience of five year olds, are not likely to remember him from such ancient Disney fare as NOT QUITE HUMAN. A no-name actor playing a magician in an ill-fitting silver wig at least plays it with tongue planted firmly in cheek, while those around him act as if they are in a dinner theater production of KING LEAR. I was hoping at least for a decent action or special effects sequence. Alas, the action sequences are pathetically staged and the few special effects are those old fashioned painted-over cartoon gags we used to see in 1950s and 1960s fantasy flicks, like Bert Gordon's THE MAGIC SWORD. The filmmakers planned a sequel that mercifully never came to be. Often, such cheap Hollywood back-lot productions use a combination of legit and porn actors. I kept myself occupied during the film's seemingly interminable running time, trying to figure which was which in this one. I didn't have much luck.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Edge of Madness is a tale about a woman in the 1800's who gets hand-picked by dirty Scotsman who can't keep his penis in his pants. He just so happens to have a younger brother who is against rape and kills him, but continuously says it was an accident. This makes his wife go crazy, she gets delusional and she takes the fall because she loves George too much.

Like I said, this type of thing has been done before. This is just more \"artistic\" because it's Canadian and it's an indie production done on a low-budget with hardly known actors (except that one kid from Lassie, yea, he's in it). I dunno' whether this was going for Oscar bait, but it was sure as hell boring. And this is based on a 40 page short story. Half of that short story is incorporated into this flick, and I'm glad. Otherwise, I'd bore to death. Unfortunately, I had to watch it in my Media Fundamentals class, and I had an assignment on it. Read the short story and compare and contrast the flick to the story. BORING.

You know, it's harder to answer movie questions when you don't like the movie. Ah well, I hope this is the last type of assignment me and my class get. For what it's worth, Annie Herron was totally hot, she had a nice, soft ass and I liked the nude parts of her in the movie.

3\/10 for boring, Oscar bait performance and graphic sexuality..plus nudity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How can any of you call this propaganda a family film. This is nothing but a PC, insensitive insult to small-town churchgoers. The film portrays a woman as the great white savior of some small Midwestern town, and everyone else in the town (mostly men) are just mere damsels in distress, incapable of honor, who can't fend for themselves and have to rely on the main character for redemption. This film is just some love affair that the producer has with some undisciplined, arrogant, pushy little squirt, who he expects the audience to admire.

The person who made this movie probably spent his whole life in a seeker-sensitive church, and had the freedom to dump garbage on small church members as wacky lunatics and not the majority. The same people who give money to the Salvation Army at Christmastime, collecting donations to help missionaries, the poor and the homeless, singing, fellow-shipping, and making friends with each other. What is wrong with this humble group that offends these self-righteous traitors? Most Christians in this world would step in front of a train and give their lives for any person in trouble, even if they disagree with them. Most Christians wouldn't mind if the pastor, or some church worker, of some church took of his or her coat (or outer shirt). They would not condemn her. This film is ridiculous!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Get the CD instead. The show is tame, and the editing sucks. The crowd gets way too much screen time, as does Till Lindemann. The cameras spend more time on the same kid shaking his head around in the same way (which leads me to believe it's the exact same shot) than they do during Richard Kruspe's solo in Weisses Fleisch. The scenes change so quickly it's impossible to tell where the camera is pointed, and the replays are simply redundant. Not worth the tape it's recorded on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not the best of the WIP's, but not the worst either. I honestly feel guilty laughing at this film considering it had to be career lows for all involved. Yet the acting, dialogue, preposterous scenarios, and the ever present boom mic get to me everytime and certainly add to its bad movie charm. As much of a Linda Blair fan I am, top (or topless) honors go to Sybil Danning. Also, special kudos to Henry Silva, who's the only one in the cast who doesn't play his role too seriously. Viewing, the film now, though, makes me look at Stella Stevens character more closely. She plays the head officer, and I have to wonder if this where Hilary Clinton decided to adopt her current look and demeanor. After all, I'm sure she had to look no further than her husband's video collection to find this film. Not that I'm judging. I've seen it several times myself, and it all makes me wonder what would've happened if Mr. Clinton had been allowed to install a hot tub in the Oval Office. Hmmm.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ugly women-of-the-cellblock flick rakes the bottom of the midnight-movie barrel, combining pulpy sleaze with the hoariest of girls-in-the-shower clich\u00e9s. Linda Blair plays an innocent sent to jail (we learn offhandedly she was involved in running over some guy with her car), facing hard time in the Big House with some of the nastiest characters this side of a Russ Meyer pic. Blair is continually pawed at, punched, raped, humiliated and harassed. The dialogue is four-letter-word disgusting throughout, and the flick offers no let-up from its barrage of violence and stupidity. Still, some viewers see this as a camp classic, though perhaps its tongue isn't far enough in cheek. * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sad... really sad. This movie has nothing (hmmm, well maybe Sybil Danning) to keep you watching. It also hurt my eyes to see Linda Blair in this exploitation flick. She certainly deserves better.

So what's the story about? Let's see... Warden John Vernon tapes the inmates in rather inspiring positions, while prisoner Sybil actually runs the prison and little Linda must fight to survive... Sounds like a B-movie, huh? It is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A lot of actors have a multitude of good movie roles in their soul. Some, a handful. Others, maybe a couple.

Then there's Linda Blair. \"The Exorcist\". That's it.

When you see \"Chained Heat\" and watch Linda Blair in it, you have to wonder what, if anything, was running through her mind.

Certainly not, \"Oh boy: Oscar for Best Actress, here I come!\"

Just another women in prison film like they used to make for the cheap in the '70s, this one actually has names you may recognize. John Vernon plays the dean... I mean, the warden (with a hot tub in his office; wonder what he told the contractor?), Stella Stevens pops up, even Henry Silva and Louisa Moritz show how bad they needed the work.

And special mention, of course, for our heroine Sybil Danning as a bisexual prisoner who puts the moves on poor Blair. To paraphrase, Sybil is as Sybil does and everything Sybil does is done perfect. Makes you forget what a terrible movie you're watching.

Almost.

Two stars. One for Sybil and another for trying to pass off Linda Blair as a sex symbol. Whatever could have possessed them (get it?)?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You Belong To Me was the final teaming of Henry Fonda and Barbara Stanwyck as a screen team and it was a loan out film for Fonda to Columbia Pictures. Fonda had signed a contract with 20th Century Fox in order to get the Tom Joad part in The Grapes of Wrath. But after that it was usually his loan out films that were good while he was cast in mediocre things at Fox.

But the rule was broken here. Though the character he plays bears some superficial resemblance to Charles Pike from The Lady Eve, this film isn't anywhere near as funny. In fact feminists would probably be aghast at it.

In fact Barbara Stanwyck herself didn't like it at all. She liked working with Henry Fonda right enough, but thought this film was ridiculous. As well she should have.

Fonda is another millionaire playboy, who we would now call a trust fund baby who doesn't really do much with his life. He's sort of lovable lunkhead who meets Stanwyck on a ski slope and literally falls for her trying to show off. Turns out she's a doctor and they have a whirlwind courtship and get married.

But it turns out Fonda has a jealous streak, especially when it involves Roger Clark, another millionaire patient of Stanwyck's. And he's not understanding as to her professional obligations.

Stanwyck, like Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn, was and is a feminist icon. When she tells Fonda that he ought to go out in the working world and live on a salary and see if he can do it, Fonda goes out and gets a job as a salesman in a department store. She's so proud of him, that she actually is going to give up her medical practice and live with him on his salesman's salary.

Today NOW would be picketing the film. Stanwyck did not have too much conviction in her performance, probably because she didn't believe any of it. I certainly couldn't.

I don't think even back then audiences believed it either. But the two stars and the rest of the cast tried their best, but this one was a Thanksgiving special.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite having an absolutely horrid script (more about that later), this film is still vaguely watchable just because it stars two excellent actors, Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda. Aside from one or two REAL stinkers, I'd probably watch just about anything with them in the film, as I am a huge fan of Hollywood's golden age of the 1930s and 40s. However, no matter how much I love their films, I just can't recommend this film.

The movie begins with Fonda and Stanwyck on vacation at some ski resort. The two haven't yet met, but the film begins loudly and obnoxiously with a scene in which Fonda horribly yodels while skiing. It was done so unsubtly and made my teeth grind but I stuck it out--especially when Fonda fell into a snow bank and this stopped the yodeling!! In hindsight, perhaps I should have just turned it off then! Fonda is knocked out in the fall and Barbara goes for help. Back at the ski lodge, he seems okay but fortunately she is ALSO a doctor and has him x-rayed and nurses him back to health. He, in turn, becomes infatuated with her and proposes to her. Despite hardly knowing each other, they marry and so far the film seems like a sweet but very slight romantic comedy.

Once home, however, all isn't rosy as she jumps right back into her job as a family doctor and he begins exhibiting signs that he is a controlling and potentially dangerous man due to his jealousy. The film plays it all for laughs, but frankly Fonda's behaviors were really creepy--spying on her and her male patients, attacking or threatening ANY man she treats, tripping a patient who already has a back injury and stomping into a surprise party and insisting that everyone there (men and women) are out to steal away his wife. He comes off as a combination of a sociopath and paranoid schizophrenic, but it's all supposed to be for laughs. Considering that he seems like a dangerous nut, you would think that Stanwyck would file for an annulment along with a restraining order! But, oddly, she gets mad but just can't stay mad at Fonda because he's so........? I can't think of the right word--'creepy' is all that comes to mind!!! Later, out of the blue, multi-millionaire Fonda gets a job working the counter at a department store. Then, through magical thinking, he and Babs seem to assume his hostility and violent jealousy is all a thing of the past--so a job apparently cures anger and suspicions. When this job falls through, the film ends with Fonda buying his own hospital, giving Barbara a job there and they live happily ever after. They don't go any further with the story, but I assume based on Fonda's character that he then spent most of his time as hospital administrator beating up all the male patients.

The first portion at the ski lodge and the next did NOT fit well together, nor did the final \"Horatio Alger\" inspired section where the rich boy made good in the business world. They were like three separate plots but despite this, the most serious problem with the film was its seeming to excuse away domestic violence and delusional jealousy! What a creepy little film! Thank goodness neither Fonda nor Stanwyck are known for this yechy film but for all their other lovely films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"YOU BELONG TO ME (1941) is a example of the 'ScrewBall Comedy' which started in the mid 1930s and ended postwar (WWII). Some of these films maintained their status. Others have earned undeserved praise when originally were critical and box office flops. Like BRINGING UP BABY (1938) or MR. & MRS. SMITH (1941). Then there is this one which value just keeps sinking.

Why can be rooted in the screenplay\/story. It strains credibility from the get go, betraying a superior cast. BARBARA STANWYCK is married to millionaire HENRY FONDA who is insanely jealous. He would be content to sit back with his million$ and love her, she wishes to maintain her profession as a Doctor. She wants him to become in what her eyes is a useful member of society. This conflict is supposed to amuse us. It cannot be salvaged by either the principals or the supporting cast.

The faults in this scenario can clearly be laid at the feet of DALTON TRUMBO. HENRY FONDAs' character is written in such broad strokes that any viewer has a instant dislike for him. BARBARA STANWYCK just has nothing to do but react to each idiotic situation of jealousy. TRUMBO must have been spending to much time outside the studio being a \"useful idiot\" then being on the job. COLUMBIA obviously did not get their moneys worth from him, maybe ROBERT RISKIN should taken over.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Begrudgingly gave it a 3 - one point each for Fonda, Stanwyck, and the supporting cast.

Never saw this one before - am watching it right now and it has just gotten to the part where Henry Fonda is carrying Babs over the threshold. If I continue watching, it will be just to see if Fonda and Stanwyck will be able to pull this one out of the dumper.

But after reading the other viewer comments, I'm not very optimistic.

The opening ski scenes were enough to put me off my lunch. The voice-overs were obviously done in a sound studio, and the editing between the exterior shots and the closeups was horrendous. I do not know that much about the technology of that era - but I can't believe there wasn't something they could do to make it more believable.

My second gasp of disbelief was when Fonda wiped out and (I imagine due to the extreme velocity of travel) he is burrowed head first into the snow up to his torso - Stanwyck pulls him out with obvious staged difficulty - and, (I imagine because she is such an experienced doctor) does not react at all to his apparently unconscious state and limp posture.

Look, I'm completely capable of suspending my disbelief, but I couldn't get over the fact that she had just jostled a man with a possible head injury and that he might be paralyzed for life. Not my idea of big yuks.

So, as I finish this comment, we have just seen Kirk's first jealous outburst, and Dr. Hunt is off to perform an appendectomy! I'm not sure which I hate more - the script, the background music, or the story!! Argghhhh! I'm done. Game over. Click.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A multi-millionaire marries a female doctor. He hasn't worked in a day and she is devoted to her profession. He sees her off each day. Something has got to give.

Our hero, Henry Fonda, finally decides to do something with his life. He becomes a salesman in a department store but is soon fired as poorer people need the job. In the meantime, Dr. Helen Hunt, (Barbara Stanwyck) has given up her practice? What's there to do?

Kirk (Fonda) buys a bankrupt hospital and the two shall now be happy aiding others while they eke out an existence.

What's with the writing here? When annoyed with her husband, Dr. Hunt says, \"You've been acting like gestapo.\" This is supposed to be a comedy. Hogwash.

A very boring, tedious film. Very little going on here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terribly disappointed with CITY OF MEN after being swept away by CITY OF GOD. Lost is the exciting and unpredictable storyline, and instead, in its place, is bland predictability with the obvious attempts at audience manipulation by a superficial pretentious production and distribution team. This story ended up feeling like a sappy soap opera rather than a gritty indie feature, which is what is should have been. This is what happens when distributors try to seek a wider audience (ridiculous sweeping shots of the Rio coastline, etc) at the expense of a gripping story and characters. I really couldn't care what happened to any of the characters in this film - they were all so 2 dimensional. In short, sad waste of potential that should have been a slam-dunk following the exceptionally inspired CITY OF GOD. Boo!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An expedition party made up of constantly bickering and obnoxious jerks go trekking into the dangerous African jungle in search of both a fortune in diamonds and a missing young lady named Diana (luscious brunette looker Katja Biernet, clad solely in a skimpy loincloth that shows off a lot of her hot shapely body) who's worshiped as a goddess by a deadly primitive tribe called the Mabutos. Director\/screenwriter Jess Franco crucially fails to inject any style or vigor into the generally blah and meandering proceedings, allowing the sluggish pace to crawl along at an often agonizingly slow clip and staging the infrequent action scenes with a singular lack of skill and panache. The lousy dubbing, excess amount of grainy \"National Geographic\"-like animal stock footage, groovy, jazzy lounge score, terrible acting, talky, uneventful narrative, tepid soft-core sex scenes, and static photography don't help matters any as well. Fortunately, there's plenty of tasty gratuitous nudity on sight to alleviate the tedium to a reasonable extent: Besides the delectable Biernert, both Aline Mess as fierce, wicked high priestess Noba and Mari Carmen Nieto as the conniving, treacherous Lita are likewise real easy on the eyes. The beautiful jungle scenery is very nice, too. But overall this picture sizes up as barely watchable and hence instantly forgettable swill.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Franco films can be divided into 4 categories- the \"earlies\" (often black and white and inventive), the \"naughties\" (late 1960s\/early 1970s often involving Soledad Miranda), the \"nudies\" (of various periods, but using full frontal female nudity as plot drive)and \"the rest\".

This is part of the \"rest\". It is not really a cannibal movie at all. It is certainly no gorefest. The few women in the picture dont even lose their loin cloths and there is little full frontal stuff at all. The picture quality on the German DVD I watched is poor. The film peters out (insofar as it ever catches fire). As a Franco fan, I would tell others not to bother. Do something else with your time...read a book....get a copy of \"Women in Cellblock 9\"...anything really...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jess Franco makes exploitation films, and he has made tons of them. Franco is responsible for some of the most shocking films in cinema history, and god bless him for it. Unfortunately, The Diamonds of Kilominjaro is a truly awful movie that is not up to his usual standards.

Exploitation films should be judged on story, sex, and gore. What else is there? This film fails on most of those benchmarks. The plot is paper thin, placing a nubile young girl in the jungle among cannibals. We really don't get information on why she and her father were there in the first place. As expected, her father is the \"Big White Chief\" and she becomes a goddess, sitting in trees, naked. Add fortune hunters and precious stones, and you have your basic rescue the girl for greedy intentions plot line. The characters are stock, not adding an ounce of believability to the proceedings.

Gore? None, or at least very little. This film is often mentioned in the same vein as the classic Italian cannibal movies. Those seeking that type of gore need to run the other way. Save for one cheap be-heading, this movie features surprisingly little blood and guts.

As best I can tell the only reason this movie exists is so Katja Bienert, Aliene Mess, and Mari Carmen Neieto could run around naked. Actually \"Lita\" (Mari Carmen Neieto) does the full frontal heavy lifting, while the two jungle ladies are bare chested throughout. Yes, there are love scenes....probably the most sterile Franco has ever supervised. The women are beautiful, but nothing here to really make this movie an erotic classic either.

This movie just reeks of low budget buffoonery. The sets are laughable. The acting is horrid, and the editing is confusing. There is no real story to hold this together, and not enough of a budget (or effort) to shock or titillate. I think Franco fans have come to expect more out of the master of exploitation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of adventurers travel to the 'dark continent' to try and locate a lost heiress named Diana, who disappeared years before in a plane crash, and who is now believed to be living with a savage tribe that consider her to be their goddess.

Once again, my search for sleazy, European cannibal movies has taken me deep into Jess Franco territory\u0097a seemingly endless cinematic wilderness swarming with sub-par scriptwriting, crawling with crap camera-work, and abundant with awful acting (Franco regular Lina Romay taking the prize this time for her pitiful performance as an ailing, elderly woman). It is here, in this hellish place, that I finally stumbled upon Diamonds of Kilimanjaro, an abysmal jungle-based exploitationer so stupefyingly bad that it took me three successive evenings to finish watching it.

Tawdry and unrelentingly dull, even by Franco's standards, this wearisome piece of trash fails on almost every level: the story is a dreadfully dull derivative of Edgar Rice Burrough's Tarzan, albeit with a feminine twist; the film appears to have been filmed in the local botanical gardens, although grainy stock footage is poorly integrated into the film in a pointless effort to convince viewers that the action is really taking place in Africa; and the death scenes are virtually bloodless (Franco can usually be relied upon for some splatter, but despite initial appearances, this isn't a cannibal movie and it isn't that gory).

Where the director does succeed, however, is in his casting of sexy young Katja Bienert as jungle jail-bait Diana. Running and leaping through the undergrowth in nothing but a skimpy loin-cloth, her curvaceous bod belying the fact that she was only sixteen at the time, this nubile beauty makes quite an impression. Franco also throws in some further nudity courtesy of Mari Carmen Nieto as treacherous traveller Lita (who gives us a glimpse of her untamed regions), and Aline Mess as topless warrior woman Noba, thus narrowly avoiding getting yet another rating of 1\/10 from me (although I'm sure he'll be receiving plenty more in the future\u0097I have loads of his films yet to see).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Good old Jess Franco! The always-reliable choice of director in case you're looking for undemanding sleaze, shameless exploitation and 200% gratuitousness. Jess once again really surpassed himself with this utterly trashy piece of jungle \"adventure\". Let's face it, this film is basically just an excuse to have the ravishingly hot (and underage\u0085) actress Katja Bienert parade around topless. It's actually a rather disturbing thought that an innocent 16-year-old girl had to walk around a film set naked in front of a whole crew and particularly before the gazing eyes of pervert Franco! And it wasn't even the first time, since the duo previously already made \"Linda\" together. Anyways, just in case you wondered: YES, \"Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro\" does have a plot, albeit a very imbecilic one. During the opening sequences a plane, carrying aboard a wealthy Scottish guy and a girl child, crash amidst an African tribe of vegetarian cannibals. I say vegetarian because they never at one point in the film so much even attempt to consume human flesh. The obnoxious Scot declares himself the Great White Leader and the girl grows up to become the beautiful and scarcely dressed White Goddess. Several years later an expedition reaches the middle of the jungle to get the girl back to civilization and \u0096 even more importantly - to steal some of the tribe's legendary diamonds. This could have been a compelling and action-packed adventure movie, but Jess Franco obviously couldn't be bothered. Why shoot jungle chase sequences or bloody cannibalistic rites when you can just as easily aim your camera at a hot young chick sitting naked in a tree? Most of the jungle settings simply appear to be filmed in someone's garden and there's a massive amount of clumsily edited National Geographic wildlife footage in order to fill up the gaps in continuity. The back of the DVD describes \"Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro\" as an ingenious, feminist and adult orientated version of Tarzan. Yeah right, they just put that sentence there because Katja Bienert's character swings from one tree to another using a a couple of times.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just saw this movie on opening night. I read some other user comments which convinced me to go see it... I must say, I was not impressed. I'm so unimpressed that I feel the need to write this comment to spare some of you people some money.

First of all \"The Messengers\" is very predictable, and just not much of a thriller. It might be scary for someone under 13, but it really did nothing for me. The climax was laughable and most of the audience left before the movie's resolution.

Furthermore the acting seemed a little superficial. Some of the emotional arguments between the family were less convincing than the sub-par suspense scenes.

If you've seen previews for this movie, then you've seen most of the best parts and have a strong understanding of the plot. This movie is not worth seeing in the theaters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, the editing of this film consisted of one major flaw which I don't understand how was missed - you consistently see the overhead microphones bobbing in and out of the film. The first time I saw it I just said \"well, mistakes happen\" and brushed it off. After about the 10th time, it began to get incredibly irritating and distractingly funny. If you haven't seen the film yet, try counting how many times you see the microphone; might make for pretty interesting game.

Now, about the film. This movie started out with the makings of a pretty solid \"ghost\" story; however, the plot twist at the end just ruined it completely. You begin watching the movie under the assumption, alluded by the TV commercials, that the haunted house consists of ghosts which can only be seen by children; particularly young children, which makes it even more freaky as they will be unable to effectively warn the family of the impending danger. The opening scene did a good job of misleading the audience that this would remain the premise of the film. **(SPOILER)** The movie starts with the family being stalked and ultimately killed by an \"unseen\" force in the home. The idea that only children can see these ghosts is set in motion when the daughter, at the beginning of the movie, asks her little brother to tell her where \"it\" is right before \"it\" grabs her and drags her screaming into the cellar. The young boy also witnesses this supposedly \"unseen force\" kill his mother after she tells him to hide under the bed. After his family is killed, the boy attempts to run and hide only to be snatched away as well.

As I said, this movie started out with the makings of a pretty spooky movie in which the family would be stalked by an \"unseen force\" with their only hopes of survival resting on sightings by a two-year-old. This began to be ruined less than halfway into the film as the daughter began to see the ghosts as well; completely ruining the \"only children can see\" illusion set forth by the commercials and opening scene.

Regardless of this, the movie didn't actually get \"ruined\" until the plot twist at the end. In which the man who had been helping the family cultivate the farm turns out to have been the man responsible for killing the family at the beginning of the movie. All of a sudden, after being attacked by a swarm of crows, the man snaps and tries to kill the mother, daughter, and son while having a psychotic breakdown in which he believes them to be HIS family; which he killed at the beginning.

The whole plot twist at the end just created a whole list of unsolved questions and left me going wtf. First, why was the family's souls trapped in a house? If the director was going for a Ju-On (The Grudge) approach in which the family, after dying in a fit of rage, would haunt the house and kill whoever enters, why did the haunting stop after the father was \"captured\" by the ghosts of his family? If the ghosts only wanted to kill the man that killed them, why were they attacking the new family? Here's another one for you. It takes several months from the time you sow seeds until the plants fully blossom in time for harvest. This tells me that the man who killed his family at the beginning, the man that the ghosts apparently had a grudge with the whole movie, was living on the property for months. During all this time, why didn't the ghosts just go kill him?

This movie included a lot of clich\u00e9d \"horror movie\" scares as well as an obvious combination of ideas from other horror movies. However, I'm telling ya, this movie still could've pulled off okay if not for the plot twist at the end. It's like they just ran out of their budget and just threw together something for an ending. For this movie to have been a success, they should've stuck with the \"only children can see them\" premise and ended with either the family barely getting away or being killed off like the family at the beginning (would've opened the door for possible sequel,too).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't expect a lot from ghost stories, but I do expect a story to make a bit of sense! Is that asking too much from the screenwriters and filmmakers? When the bad guy, all of the sudden, becomes a homicidal maniac solely because a bunch of crows start pecking him, then I have a problem spending $9.00 for a ticket! Alfred Hitchcock would be spinning in his grave. Didn't anyone learn anything in their college Film 101 class? A good movie has at its roots an INTERESTING story!

Here are some of the ridiculous messages in this movie: If you have desperate financial problems move from Chicago to the middle of no-where in North Dakota to grow Sunflowers (I kid you not!). If your toddler has serious neurological problems from a car accident move away from some of the best hospitals and speech therapists in the country to an isolated small town, which, at best, has a community hospital. Hire a drifter to live & work with you, out of the blue, without checking any references, when you have a teenage vixen daughter, a wife and toddler. ( I'm glad they're not my parents!)

A town where everyone knows everything would have no problem missing a triple homicide, just outside of town. And, of course, blame the man's lunacy on a bad crop of Sunflowers! (Doesn't anything else grow in North Dakota?) A couple of days after you buy your rundown house - with huge vines growing everywhere - that it reminds you of Jack and the Beanstalk, a guy from the X-Files, ala Smoking Man, (I'm glad to see the cigarettes didn't get him, I guess he doesn't inhale!) will just suddenly sneak up on you while you're working to offer you the sale price of your home, plus 15% more, for absolutely no reason!

I think you get the picture. I have seen so many godforsaken awful movies in the past month, it just blows my mind! Is it that difficult to make a movie that doesn't treat the audience like an idiot? I'm glad at least the crows in this sorry film turned out to have the some brains! I wish I could say the same for whomever thinks they are going to make money off this celluloid piece of trash!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After having problems in Chicago, the Solomon family moves to a remote North Dakota farmhouse to start anew, but their attempts at an idyllic farming life is disrupted when their teen daughter Jess (Kristen Stewart) and her 3-year-old brother Ben start seeing and being attacked by supernatural beings who won't allow them to live in peace.

The Messengers starts off decently although it eventually becomes a generic horror film that's a lot more humorous than frightening. After reading the premise, I thought this could have been a decent movie since it sounded creepy and it held potential. Unfortunately, the film didn't live up to its potential although I should have expected this since the trailer was awful. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was full of silly sequences and bland dialog. The characters were not developed at all and most of them were acting like a bunch of idiots so it was hard to feel sympathy for them.

The directors did a horrible job at building up suspense. They mainly relied on cheap scares like loud noises and random jumps. The music was really over the top and it just made it easier for the viewer to telegraph the next \"scary\" moment. I also didn't like how they pretty much just used one location for the whole movie. The house was the centerpiece of the story and that's where the majority of the filming took place so it got a little boring after awhile to see the same area. Also, I didn't like the close-ups of the actors. During a conversation, the camera would continually jerk from character to another in the span of five seconds and it got really annoying. The directors did create a decent atmosphere and they do get some points for making their movie stylish. However, since we have come a long way in terms of style and effects, it's not really that hard to make your movie look nice especially if you are working on a Hollywood film.

The acting was atrocious and if this movie had been released in December, I'm sure it would have received several Razzie nominations. Kristen Stewart showed some talent in Panic Room but you wouldn't be able to tell she has talent by watching her performance in The Messengers. She was okay at acting scared and that's it. The rest of the time she was dry and unconvincing. Penelope Anne Miller was just awful when it came to everything. It sounded like she was reading her lines and she had some of the worst facial expressions I have ever seen. Dylan McDermott was just very wooden and he showed almost no emotion. John Corbett gave the best performance and he had a couple of good scenes. The twins who played Ben were also decent and managed to out act many of the adult actors. Overall, this lame horror film is not worth watching because of it's blandness and lazy film-making. Rating 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"******Spoilers within******* What a dull, predictable, non-scary snore-fest. The movie had no character development: I felt no empathy towards any of the characters (except may be the small boy), and did not care what happened to any of them. The movie had so many clich\u00e9d bits, or elements stolen from other horror movies.

The movie was so predictable. Many times I would be saying to myself, \"Let me guess, {fill in guess} happens next?\" Yup, I was right. Even in the opening scene, I predicted that the \"attack\" on the family was by some man, probably the father (because only the wife and children were attacked). Sure enough, that is what happened (of course, you have to wait 79 minutes to find out for sure). And, of course, another \"evil man\" scenario. Why was he evil and killing his family? Because he's a man, duh!

As someone else stated, this movie may be scary for someone under 13 years of age, or for a movie from the 1970's, but it is FAR from being a 'scary' movie by todays standards. AND, like so many other crap horror movies, a lot of the scares were \"fakes\". Scary music, Scary music, Scary music, and.....A crow suddenly flies at the window! Wow, scary!

How did the old bank guy manage, a few times, to walk across an open lot without the father seeing him? I thought, for sure, that the old man was a ghost. Nope, just a crappy movie.

I rated this movie a 2 out of 10, because it did keep my attention enough to sit through the whole thing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's cut through everything in the first paragraph. \"The Messengers,\" the newest film by the Pang Brothers (Danny and Oxide), as a horror movie, is profoundly bad. And just as a movie in general, is a big disappointment. It's nothing but a rewarmed \"Sixth Sense,\" and as long as that picture is still available, there is no reason on Earth to pay money to see this turkey.

Lately, horror\/slasher films such as the \"Final Destination\" series, \"Wrong Turn,\" \"Boogie Man,\" \"The Ring 2\" and \"The Grudge,\" are becoming increasingly more reliant on big shocks with no payoff (for instance, something jumps out at the person on screen, elicits a gasp from the audience, but turns out to be a cat or a crow or something.) Little goes into making it a genuine frightening experience like \"The Sixth Sense,\" or \"Signs,\" or some of the classic horror movies of the 1940s, '50s and '60s.

\"The Messengers\" relies upon the same old, tired clich\u00e9s as these newer, far inferior films, and is therefor old, tired and - to my surprise - ended up as one of the most boring movies I have seen in awhile.

The plot has another stupid family, led by dad Roy (Dylan McDermott, \"The Practice\"), mom Denise (Penelope Ann Miller, \"Awakenings,\" \"Kindergarten Cop,\" TV series \"Desperate Housewives\"), big sis Jess (Kristen Stewart, \"Zathura: A Space Adventure\") and toddler Ben (Evan Turner), who move to North Dakota from Chicago.

The reason for the move is never really outlined here, but it has something to do with the dad's inability to find work and Jess' drunken driving escapades. We know there will be trouble immediately because they move into a big Gothic house in the middle of nowhere; a domicile that looks like the Munster's summer home. Oh, and the first five minutes of the movie show something really horrible happened there.

Jess hates the place (hey, who could blame her), but optimistic pop hopes to make a go out of raising sunflowers (despite the unusually large amount of crows fluttering about). But when he meets Burwell (John Corbet, \"Raising Helen\" and looking like Kevin Costner in the film version of \"My Name Is Earl\"), an itinerant drifter and expert on raising sunflowers, things start to pick up.

But then weird things begin to happen; Jess is terrorized by a violent unseen force in the house (of course, no one else but the two-year-old Ben can see it, so she's labeled a flake) and the crows keep hanging around. Ben also is able to detect the unearthly creatures, but since he's two, he cannot articulate it. Scene after scene of people telling the little boy to tell them what he sees finally had me wanting to yell to the screen, \"He can't tell you! He's two - freaking' - years old!\" Yes, have the only protagonist who can solve all of these things be a mute toddler is real smart.

Anyway, we're left to ponder the sanity of Jess; when and if Ben will ever properly describe the paranormal visions he sees; if dad will make the sunflower thing work; if the high plains drifter is a good guy or bad; what the point of the George Plimpton-looking Realtor is; how a pitchfork plunged in the back can only be a flesh wound; what mom's role in the family is; and where are all the crows coming from.

All of this while waiting and wondering for something - anything - to happen. The conclusion is really lame, as well, and once again begs the question of how a spirit which has no physical body can cause harm to a living person. Very dull, pointless and most terrible of all, not frightening in the least.

Oh, and there are a lot of crows in this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has all the ingredients of a great horror story and loses it in the last half. Few movies can actually give me chill bumps. This one did. Few horror movie give me a sense of dread. This one did. It kept me guessing. I cared about the story. I cared about the characters. The acting was decent. Unfortunately, about half way through the movie, the story just doesn't have many good directions it can go. It becomes evident that everything cool about the plot is going to self-destruct. It does. What builds in the first half as a great horror concept shifts away from horror and towards the absurd. A plausible fear turns into a series of implausible reactions from the characters. The story concludes with disappointment. While this movie seems complete, there is one loose end that could setup for a sequel. The movie isn't good enough for a sequel. This movie is worth seeing in the theater, just don't expect to be stunned. This is best suited as a movie to rent. It's probably not a movie you'd want to own.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite a totally misleading advertising campaign, this flick turns out to be an irritatingly clich\u00e9d, sub-par haunted house flick with a totally implausible ending. Clue #1 for all considering seeing this turkey: Sam Raimi didn't direct it. Although commercials for the movie play up his involvement, in truth he is one of four producers. It's too bad that someone as talented as Raimi has allowed his name to be used in conjunction with such a poor movie. I don't think he would ever have directed something like this; that task was left to the Pang Brothers.

The screenplay for this film seems to have been cobbled together from numerous other \"horror\" films, so you'll find absolutely zero original content in \"The Messengers.\" What we get are a scene here and there that was plucked straight out of \"Pulse,\" a couple that could have come from \"The Birds,\" one or two from \"The Others,\" etc. Nearly every scene, almost every line of dialogue, is one that has been lifted from any number of other movies. The whole thing makes for such a predictable movie that almost anyone will be able to figure out the \"surprise ending\" long before it comes.

Right about here would be a good time to point out that the advertising campaign, centered on the idea that only children can see ghosts, has nothing to do with this movie. In fact, everyone can see the ghosts. The teenage daughter and mother characters certainly see them, even quite early in the movie. I'm sure that whomever was in charge of marketing came up with this campaign because the film needed a unique angle to have any box office appeal, which otherwise is entirely absent. Now you know, so don't be fooled! Perhaps what this movie lacks most of all is anything resembling chemistry between the actors. It simply isn't there. All of the interactions come across as awkwardly stilted. Coupled with the hackneyed story and ridiculous plot holes (just what is a guy who murdered his whole family doing still lurking around the small town where the murder happened, anyhow? Didn't anyone think to maybe arrest him?), it all adds up to a profoundly unsatisfying ghost flick that only manages to surprise anyone over the age of ten with cheap shots: loud noises, visual flashes, and anything short of a sheeted figure jumping out of a closet and yelling \"Boo!\" All we get for our buck this time around is yet another poorly-made film about spirits attempting to warn people away from a house. If there's any message that \"The Messengers\" delivers, it's \"Don't waste your time on this movie.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, at least we have to acknowledge the big Hollywood horror-producers are finally getting smarter and more perceptive. Instead of patiently waiting to buy the rights of Asian horror hits and subsequently remake them in America, they now discovered they could simply hire the Asian directors and assign them to make their brand new ghost story directly in the states. That's like killing two birds with one stone; way to go guys! \"The Messengers\" is pretty much identical to every other supernatural chiller that came out of the Oriental countries ever since \"Ringu\". Roughly translated, this means it's a boring, overlong and entirely gore-free film, but it does feature copious amounts of false scares and embarrassingly weak \"did we scare you yet?\" moments. The Pang Brothers (Danny & Oxide) previously made the extremely overrated \"The Eye\" and it sort of is a tradition for them to build up a story with clues and hints towards a point where it becomes nearly impossible to meet the expectations of their curious audiences, yet they don't seem eager to alter their formula any time soon. And they're also unscrupulous enough to recycle the same old & repetitive ghost topics over and over again. Restless spirits of the previous inhabitants trapped in the walls of a remote countryside farm? The protagonist family torn apart by unprocessed traumas from the past, so they first have to restore faith and trust in each other? Give me a break! Throw in a videotape and a seven-days-curse, why don't you? Even the attempts to make you jump in your seat are too d\u00e9j\u00e0-vu and won't scare anyone over the age of 7. Slamming doors, filthy & gradually larger growing stains on the walls, ghostly appearances, noises coming from the cellar... The endless overuse of cheap tricks like this is almost becoming insulting to horror fans. \"The Messengers\" revolves on a family on their way to a new life in the country as the growers of sunflowers. The family situation is kind of dysfunctional since a personal tragedy (which doesn't get revealed until late in the film) caused their youngest son to stop talking and the parents to distrust their revolting teenage daughter. Soon after, the children experience strange presences in remote farmhouse, but they don't manage to convince their parents to leave. That's pretty much concludes the entire film. Little Ben sees things but he can't talk and Jessica repeatedly gets attacked by supernatural forces but nobody listens to her. The basic premise of \"The Messagers\" is very derivative of Stanley Kubrick's immortal classic \"The Shining\", only it lacks the constantly ominous atmosphere and disturbing tone. The script takes itself far too seriously even though it's fairly easy to predict the final denouement and the total absence of violence and bloodshed is unforgivable. At least \"The Eye\" delivered some genuine shocks in the end, whereas the happy happy joy joy ending of \"The Messengers\" is just pathetic. The only positive elements I can think of are the beautiful rural filming locations, the adequate editing job and the promising young acting talents (and beauty) Kristen Stewart. And there's an uncanny, but sadly underdeveloped supportive role for William B. Davis.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Special sneak previews are always a good time. No matter what movie it is you are seeing, the theatre will always be packed by people who have been awaiting the film, like free stuff, thought it'd be something to do, or just got lost. Either way, no matter how good or bad the film, the audience alone will make it enjoyable. Now when said movie is a PG-13 pseudo- horror film (can you really delve into horror when the MPAA is on your back censoring everything?) you know there will be chatter, laughing, and breath holding. With The Messengers, the crowd did not disappoint giving numerous outbursts and warnings to the characters on screen. As for the actual movie, I feel sorry for those involved because it really could have been much better had it been paced right and allowed to stretch its legs beyond the scare\/fade-to-black\/show aftermath progression these films have. In the end we are shown a boring, plodding story with no surprises and few moments of actual suspense.

The story is a common one. A family moves from the big city to the country after a traumatic event to try and rebuild their relationship with each other. Once settled in, the spirits of the house come out to the reformed troublemaker child whose past makes it even easier for the parents to disbelieve everything told to them. Of course the child is not crying wolf and those around only find out when it is too late. I will credit the Pang Brothers, (directors of the acclaimed The Eye that I would like to watch more than before to see what they can do without Hollywood interference\u0097supposedly reshoots on The Messengers were done by someone else, but the brothers retained credit; it's a shame what our studio system does to foreigners especially when it was creative independence which made the films that brings them in and not bottomline interference), for really having a fitting style and for keeping the tired plot line somewhat fresh. Unfortunately, though, I also must give them credit for the almost unbearable slowness. Similar to why I disliked What Lies Beneath, I couldn't stand the drawn out suspense, which goes so far as to make it laughable. When our heroine and her brother stand in a hallway with a ghost behind them, the scene lasts about eight minutes with just static, oddly composed close-ups and depth of field focus changes to end up culminating to absolutely nothing. For being only 84 minutes, I almost think it would have worked better even shorter.

Besides a very effective opening sequence, featuring the fantastic Jodelle Ferland, (strangely playing a boy), and a great atmospheric credit sequence, the only thing that saves the film from utter garbage is the acting. Except for Penelope Ann Miller, who first made me wonder what ever happened to her and then, after a few scenes, made me understand why I never asked that question in the years she was absent, and Dustin Milligan, completely lacking in credibility, the acting is very strong. Dyan McDermott does a nice job as the father trying to keep his family together through all the tough times. He has many little moments of light comedy to counteract his serious, dramatic role. William B. Davis (everyone's favorite Cancerman) is used effectively as an almost foreboding character, sadly not utilized more. Our true stars are Kristen Stewart and John Corbett. Stewart plays the emotion very well and shows some promise as an actress with this and Panic Room on her resume. As for Corbett, if he didn't pull off his role, the entire movie would have unraveled completely. I do wish he would be given more work as I've enjoyed him since the under-appreciated series \"The Visitor\"\u0097I still need to check out his first role in \"Northern Exposure,\" a show I haven't yet been able to catch up on. It's a shame he will probably be most recognizable for the overrated My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

If anything, The Messengers gave me a nice introduction to the Pang Brothers' work and reinvigorated my desire to check out their Chinese horror catalog. The mood and performances were there; it was just the simple and vacant story that needed way too much padding to make a feature film. If they delved more into other characters, rather than just Stewart's, it could have been more effective while also having something more to show then ten minute scenes of nothing. If our protagonist is the only one being attacked, there is no suspense as to how far the creatures will go to harm her. The moments of danger had no gravity to them and until the ending really just stood in as filler. I am excited, however, for the free comic book given away after the special screening, as hopefully the medium will allow for a faster paced story that engrosses before it tries to surprise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My Take: Yet another lame PG-13 horror movie with predictable scare tactics and a derivative plot.

The spirits move. The walls creak. There's something wrong in the basement. These, along with several other horror movie clich\u00e9s haunt the walls of yet another house in the country in the Sam Raimi-produced THE MESSENGERS, a lame pastiche of the most predictable scare tactics thrown in on a plot savagely recycled from better (and sometimes, even worse) horror movies of the past.

When the Solomon family moves into an old South Dakota farmhouse, in yet another attempt by dad (Dylan McDermott) to reconnect with the family, especially with their formerly drunk-driving daughter Jessica (the underrated Kristen Stewart), in the more subtle countryside than their home in Chicago. The horror ensues when Jessica begins to get little surprise visits from the house's poltergeists. Thinking she's some teenage girl who cried wolf, her parents don't believe her. How could they? The real horror in THE MESSENGERS is waiting for which horror movie it will savage next. Will it be an angry flock of crows wanting more than the family's crops (a direct rip-off of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece THE BIRDS)? Will it be the haunted house with a history dating back from THE AMITYVILLE HORROR or POLTERGEIST? Or will it be the grotesque phantoms taken from your familiar recent horrors like THE RING and THE GRUDGE? Heck, the movie even manages to rip-off a scene or two from some truly bad horror movies like AMITYVILLE 3-D and the mediocre COLD CREEK MANOR. Perhaps all the Pang Brothers really wanted to do was a B-level horror movie, but did it have to be this bad? Couldn't they rip-off from the best? Avoid it.

Rating: * out of 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was one of the slowest movies I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. After the introduction where we are given the backstory of \"something\" killing a couple people in a farm house, We are introduced to a white looser family that is moving to a farm - AND NOTHING HAPPENS for a looooong time. Then they meet this drifter who helps out on the farm AND NOTHING HAPPENS again for a very long time. Then FINALLY the girl of the family has some plotergeist stuff happens. Then some more happens, the drifter guy goes nuts and the movie ends. In between its all about how this family had to move out becuz the girl got in some trouble back home and they have no money and its done SO POORLY that I could care less about these pathetic people. I cannot believe I actually went to the theatres to see this! Not only did this movie suck, but some a$$hole answered his cell phone, dumb morons were making noise AND the movie sucked. THATS WHY THEATERS SUCK - Bad movies, overpriced crappy food, and idiots in the theatre, I'm staying home and watching DVDs from now on, at least I could smoke if I was at home while watching this stupid movie. Stay home and bake some pie rather than going to a theatre to see this piece of typical crap. Dumb stupid crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Directors of \"The Messengers\" Danny Pang and Oxide Pang are responsible for \"The Eye\" and its sequel and their premiere American picture plays like \"The Grudge\"-lite set in a farmhouse.A family of four move from Chicago to a run-down sunflower farm in rural North Dakota.Almost immediately their teenage daughter Jess starts seeing ghosts.Of course her parents and the police are skeptical.Admittedly the film is well-made and there are two or three effective scares,but relies too much on 'boo' effect.Still the plot is a carbon copy of many ghost stories and the ending is anti-climatic and stupefyingly awful.Scares are on the low side too with a tendency toward CGI.Overall,\"The Messengers\" is a pretty weak horror film that simply doesn't deliver.4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was trying to something, but failed miserably. All the attempts at suspense were cheap, and there were so many tired gimmicks and plot holes I ended up laughing and making fun of it the whole way through. At least I was entertained.

The ghosts are attempting to warn the family, so why do they attack the girl, whose name I didn't care to remember. And what was with the black and white at the beginning? I know what they were trying to do, but they fell far short. And where the heck did that guy (John Corbett's character) come from? He just waltzes in from no where in a vast field. And why did he suddenly lose it again when the ravens came? And if the ravens were a manifestation of the spirits of his family, then why did they attack him if it would make him try to kill the family? Makes no sense. So many things in this movie just don't make sense, and the acting ain't too pretty on the part of the main girl character. It's not terrible, just a little like her kiddy movie days.

So all in all this movie wasn't brilliant, but I had a good time ripping at it, and sometimes that's all a horror movie needs to do. Rent for entertainment not quality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I almost laughed out loud when during the commentary the director said this movie is original with a strong plot line. There is not one... repeat ONE original plot line or special effect in this blah movie.

The Crows.... Hitchcock did it superbly back before CGI and even with CGI this film falls short of a well done attack scene. The creepy crawly boy... The Grudge did it and did it better. The psycho...done in Cold Creek Manor most recently, however it has been done to death. No pun intended. Disconnected\/rebellious teen who no one listens to... about a dozen films have used this one right down to Beetlejuice. The oozy stuff from the basement... can you say Amnityville Horror? Doors opening unbidden... What Lies Beneath did it with much more flair. Creepy farmhouse... too numerous to mention.

The backdrop of metaphysics-- which should have been the central focus, gets lost once you figure out what is happening, which by the way is pretty early on.

One thing (of many actually) they never even try to explain in the movie is how they explain to the police that their attacker was sucked down the ooze in the basement, so they really don't have a body.

Overall... DON'T BOTHER","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry but I can't agree that this was a good movie. Yes, it looked good visually, but it's the story that drives the movie and I must say the story sucked big-time. How in the world did they manage to slip some of those plot-holes past the critics. Better story and I would've gave it a higher vote but I was impossible to do that and still be able to live with myself. I have always been a fan of scary movies, and the previews really had me fooled. All the scary scenes were shown in the previews. And why did the family that got killed stay to haunt the house? Why did the father come back again? WHy did he decide to kill in the first place? Why were the kids the only ones to see the ghosts first? To many questions, not enough answers. If I could've gave it a zero, I would've.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Spoiler with plot explanation: a poor family is being thrown in the middle of war between the evil guy (that pops out from nowhere, and no questions asked... ) that went wacko, and Casper the friendly ghost trying to avenge his death. With every frame movie gets more and more predictable, a big disappointment. Ending seams completely dumb, it has nothing to od with the movie itself, i think someone run out of ideas or just get to the point that movie is s**t this way or other, so it may as well have a stupid ending. Waste of time, resources and money. Actor play is very poor. If you think about the dialogs you may find out that family conflict is artificially enforced by poor communication between characters. Some scenes seam random. In summary: boring, predictable, poor, pathetic. Waste of time, and money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Messengers is a bad,generic and boring ''horror'' movie.The film has got a big problem:it does not scare.The performances and the screenplay are totally stupid.It uses old tricks for scaring and all the supernatural events make laugh.I would not call The Messengers as a bad movie...I would call it an accidental comedy because it's so bad that makes laugh.The only good thing about this movie is that it's short,so this crap will not stay with us for so long.There are a lot of masterpieces of horror genre which count with a low budget(like Subject Two,Lucky or May)which are sadly ignored,while this crap is all a success in the box office.So,I do not recommend this weak and pathetic horror film which is called The Messengers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You're Dead is an indescribably awful attempt at a British gangster film. It has not got a single original idea in it, being an atrocious copy of various elements of Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, The Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. The acting and dialogue are absolutely excruciating, the plot is ludicrous and utterly predictable despite constant attempts at plot twists, and contains nothing but one dimensional stock characters and clich\u00e9s. It has some good actors in it, but they are off-form, and unable to do anything much with the dreadful material they are working with. It is absolute torture to sit through this drivel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Theres not much you can really say about this film except that it was crap and probably the worst film i have ever been to see!! Take my advice don't watch this film it just wastes your money and time!!

I gave this film a 1\/10 which is doesn't deserve.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is strictly for fans of Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher.

I get angry at TCM for showing this mess more frequently than Bachelor Mother, the delightful original. I get angrier still that some Hollywood boob thought it would be a good idea to remake Bachelor Mother, filling it with some lame songs that only serve to interrupt the flow of a cute comedy. Instead, Hollywood could have spent the time, money, energy and talent wasted on this horrible remake to give us something new and original - Wow, what a concept!

Bachelor Mother (the original), with Ginger Rogers and David Niven is a spicy stew, simmering with sexuality. It is a 1930's wink at the Hays Office. Bundle of Joy (the remake), with Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher is strictly milk and cookies. It is a 1950's handshake with Eisenhower.

Which cast would you rather watch - Debbie Reynolds, Eddie Fisher and Adolphe Menjou, or Ginger Rogers, David Niven and Charles Coburn? For me, every member of the cast in the original version is far better than his\/her counterpart in the remake.

In the original a beautiful, young Ginger Rogers is at her peak. David Niven delivers perfectly as a somewhat spoiled, sophisticated and yet befuddled scion of a wealthy department store magnate. And I always love to see Charles Coburn in a movie. In Bachelor Mother, he is priceless as the desperate grandfather wannabe.

In Bundle of Joy Debbie Reynolds is her usual perky self. She is fine in this role, although her performance (along with Fisher's) completely changes the tone of the story. As an actor, Eddie Fisher is hopeless. He is completely lacking in screen \"presence.\" Here he is way too wholesome for this story. His acting is completely bland and clueless. Likewise, his singing is so bland and unremarkable that it has been completely forgotten by the world at large. The only time he is not completely painful is in Butterfield 8 - where, incidentally, he doesn't sing. Here, Fisher's lame performance alone is enough to ruin this movie. Adolphe Menjou, a favorite character actor, delivers a competent performance, but not one of his best. He is more blustering than commanding. He and Fisher are not convincing as a father and son.

Do you see a musical for the music, the story being merely incidental? Or do watch a musical for a story, with some (hopefullly) good music used for seasoning? If the former, you might like this lame remake. Otherwise you are much better off watching the Ginger Rogers non-musical original, Bachelor Mother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eddie Fischer was simply bad. Possibly the worst scene came early in the movie when he broke into a spontaneous song and dance number centered around a piano and some conveniently placed employees. The song was totally stupid... I think I could drunkenly offer a few lines on a sheet of paper that would far exceed it and probably win a Grammy. Then, as if the writers could come up with no better way to escape the ridiculousness of the scene, Fischer says something to the effect of, \"Don't tell (insert the guy's name). He doesn't like music\" and smiles. I can't describe how bad this is, I felt a little embarrassed. And that guy Debbie Reynolds works with and who's always hitting on her is so annoying too. I can't even imagine someone like her wasting a fraction of time on him. The jokes were delivered without any sort of chemistry between characters which made the movie crawl by. At least the baby had cute hair. The two stars are for Reynolds, who was like a swan among ugly ducklings.

See Bachelor Mother instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this piece of pseudo-intellectual crap a couple of years ago, and it is now making a comeback at the local film club. It uses every clich\u00e9 in the Intellectual Movie Makers Handbook (Beginners Edition) in order to appear as intellectual as the director probably imagines himself to be. You get your run-of-the-mill slow-motion tempo, brown color scale, slow pans through bombed-out environments, blank, suffering facial expressions, over-symbolic imagery, and the requisite miserable ending.

It is a complete failure, an unintentional perfect caricature of the typical Russian art movie. The director, Aleksandr Sokurov, has excellent command of technique, but he lacks eye. He doesn't see when he crosses the line into the realm of the pathetic.

This movie is a wet dream for art film haters. It lives up to every stereotypical view of the genre that there is.

If it was bad in an entertaining way, it would a turkey. But for a movie that is so bad that you walk out afterwards royally p***ed-off, we need a new term. This movie is a Sokurov.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a big fan of Patricia Hodge and Mariam Margolyes, so I watched this show when it came on A&E some years ago. The show was strange to say the least, but I gave it a chance because I liked these actresses. This has got to be one of the worst shows I've ever seen. I wouldn't watch it again and certainly wouldn't waste money on buying the video. The storyline of this TV version is ludicrous and just plain stupid! The \"kicker\" (pun intended) comes when Ruth has surgery done on her leg bones. That kind of nonsense belongs in James Bond and Sci-Fi movies. If this version is true to the book, then I won't be checking the book out from my local library! The American version came out some years after I'd seen this original. To my surprise the Americans got it right this time, as their version with Meryl Streep and Roseanne is played for laughs and is rather funny. When played for laughs the storyline works.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll give it a two because it has a lot of music, otherwise it would be a one.

I saw this movie for the first time tonight and it's the first \"Road\" picture I've seen. I was expecting waaaaay better. Robert Osborn says this is the best of the Road movies. If that's true I needn't bother to see the others. The best thing about this movie is that it has a lot of songs in the first half, but that's balanced out by only one production number with dancing in the entire movie.

I didn't like the movie. Neither Hope nor Crosby came across all that well, their characters weren't very charming, the movie was not funny at all, most of the dialog was just lame filler, there wasn't much action, there wasn't much spectacle.

The movie wasn't what I expected. I was expecting more \"Road,\" but there isn't much. They quickly make it to the palace and then most of the movie takes place there, until the end. I was also expecting a lot more of the famous \"road\" style of breaking the fourth wall, wherein the characters talk directly to the audience or comment on the plot. There was only about 4 instances of that. One of those is an example of the non-funny humor of this script:

(Hope recaps the plot up to now to Crosby) Crosby: I know all that! Hope: Yeah but the people that came in half-way through the picture don't. Crosby: You mean they missed my song?

Those are two weak punchlines, but at least they are actually jokes. Much of the rest of the script doesn't even have any jokes. An example is:

Crosby: Remind me to throw you a piece of cheese in the morning. (Indirectly calling Hope a rat).

That's not funny at all, it barely even qualifies as a joke, but that's the kind of non-joke dialog that carries most of the movie. Many of the scenes don't even come that close to a joke, just using generic uninteresting dialog like:

Crosby: Hey, whadda ya' take me for? You think that you can just throw me to the dogs? Hope: Well why not, you did it to me didn't you? Crosby: Yeah but that's because I was lookin' out for us. You're not lookin' out for nobody. Hope: Oh yeah? Well then why did I pay the check?

(the above is just from my memory. It's not exact but it illustrates to you what I mean).

And so on....just generic dialog with no jokes at all.

My grade: A waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When a friend and I saw this in the recent releases, we decided to get it despite the fact that neither of us had heard of it before. We both like Costas Mandylor and it had James Coburn so we figured it couldn't be that bad. We were wrong. It was. It was REALLY that bad. No actor or actress could have made this film worth seeing. It was like taking Titanic, The Poseidon Adventure and some nuclear bomb film and trying to cut and paste it all together.

I must admit that there were a couple of chuckles. I did laugh when the head cabin boy is asking Alan (Costas Mandylor) if he's some \"pussy marine.\" The other laughs this film got though had nothing to do with the writing. I would dearly love to know how the people making this movie thought that you could have a cruise liner knocked upside down and have it remain steady. It isn't tipped or anything.

If you are looking for something to watch for Costas Mandylor, James Coburn or any of the rest of this cast, move on. Find something good that they did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In my opinion, this movie is not good. I hardly find a good thing to say about it, but still I would like to explain, before I conclude it is just another bad movie.

I decided to watch it because Costas Mandylor is starring in it, and that was the main reason I watched it till the end. I like action movies, and I understand that such movies are built on the action rather than the story. I know they don't go into details when it comes to the credibility of the story and the events, but even that does not explain why some scenes, just because they lack the sense of reality, look ridiculous.

At the beginning, the movie looks quite promising: a tough, good looking specialist and his not so tough but smart and funny partner must do a job, which turns out a bit different than they expected. The story takes place on a cruise ship. A disaster happens, the ship is turned over, and only a few are left alive. During their struggle to survive they have to escape a shark, a professional killer and the rising water.

Furthermore, the movie is quite violent. The main weapon (beside the disaster which already took out most of the passengers) is the gun, which is successfully used in many cases. I personally missed a good man to man (or woman to woman if you prefer) fight. Family fun? I don't think so.

All in all, I think this movie was shot in a hurry, without a real vision what it is trying to say. Made of the usual action movie tricks, with a bit of something called love, and without a real meaning, it just results in a bad movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Shirley Temple's films for Twentieth Century Fox aren't negligible because they're poorly-made (Darryl F. Zanuck supervised most of them, after all); they don't retain much of a \"classic\" stature among cinema aficionados mainly because they're weighed down with the syrupy optimism of Depression-era Hollywood. 1930s audiences were placated by the delight of seeing a dimply, often orphaned sunshine girl making the grown-ups look foolish by comparison (they fretted and wrung their hands while she danced her troubles away). Seen these many years later, Temple's vehicles barely get by on story (aided always by musical sequences to bolster the content), and her timing (always too-perfect) and exaggerated reactions might leave most modern viewers rolling their eyes. No one could possibly be blamed for their exasperation over Temple's performance here (shouting lines at the top of her lungs) or the perverseness of her dance steps, sashaying with a crowd of sailors to \"At the Codfish Ball\". Still, the fantasy aspect of this particular story, previously filmed in 1924 from the book by Laura E. Richard, is enough to captivate those in the proper saccharine spirit. Seems Shirl was pulled from a shipwreck by a government-appointed lighthouse keeper, but when a truant officer from the State Board finds out the tyke isn't in school, she threatens to take the kid away. It doesn't really matter if the prune-faced officer has a point that Temple isn't being raised properly (the woman is turned into the proverbial villainess almost immediately); one can see right away that Temple can hold her own, taking care of herself and her elderly guardian in the bargain (as well as the local widow who has her hooks in for the Captain). Temple isn't the only one overly-rehearsed; Guy Kibbee's January is cued for wide-eyed reactions so often you wonder if maybe if he didn't film them all in one day. The dialogue is steeped in waterfront metaphors (\"You can't rush a trout!\" ... \"Well, don't give up the ship!), and something about the whole enterprise seems strangely pixilated. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was a still photographer working in Europe the summer that Jim Salter shot the movie Three.

I did some swell pictures for him, one of which I was told became the poster for the movie. I didn't see the film until years later. I thought it was bad. A pity, because the elements that went into it were compelling. Robie Porter's girlfriend was almast as beautiful as Rampling herself. Salter asked if I would stick around and be an extra cameraman so they wouldn't have to shoot everything twice. I said sure, but I had to return to NY, promising I'd be back. Alas, I never did get back. One of life's unsung melodies.

I wish I could post the pictures I made somewhere.

Rowland Scherman","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No doubt about it, Rampling is gorgeous -- a classic beauty, here very young. She manages to appear simultaneously sophisticated and poignant. Her two male foils act well too. But seen in 2003, the flic is all

American-trying-to-be-artsy-and-not-be-Hollywood-while-shooting-beautiful-sh ots-of-the-French-Riviera-and-three-pretty-young-people-in-their-cute-old-ca r. I enjoyed the view (both the actors and the nature) but the movie is boring and pretentious while trying to be the opposite.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you haven't read Tolkien's masterpiece; prepare yourself for maybe the best movie experience ever! If you have however... After having read the books several times, over many years, I have come to love the characters and story, and feel I Know it intimately. I have my own personal vision of The Shire, Hobbiton and the character-gallery. Thus for me the movie was a disappointment. Why? It dictates the appearance of the characters (unavoidably), it changes events, it removes important storyline, it removes not-so-important storyline. Great chunks of what makes The Lord Of The Rings what it is, is simply ignored. Even 2001 special effects can't do Tolkien's (and your own) imagination justice. Peter Jackson has made an honest attempt at the impossible, and I don't think anyone else could have done it better! But the fact remains, I regret seeing the movie. The next time I read The Lord Of The Rings, Peter Jackson's limited vision will leap forward, not my own.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, I am a huge fan of Tolkien, and as one I will base most of my critic on his books.

The movie is a standard adventure movie, well made with nifty special effects, nice sound track and fine acting. Now if this movie was called something else than lord of the rings the reviews wouldn't be half this good as they are here.

The problem of the movie is that it takes the basic story line from Tolkiens books but then it goes and \"hollywoods\" everything it can, numerous scenes from the book are eighter missing or changed quite a lot, the characters are changed from the book also, a thing that I think should be punishable ! What the movie lacks is deep insight of the characters in it, I know that it is almost impossible to make a good film out of a good book, and it didn't work here eighter, mostly the motivation of the characters is left hazy at best.

As a adventure movie it would rate 7+ \/ 10 As a adaptation of Tolkien it rates 2 \/ 10

I mean honestly, what on earth was Arwen doing at rivendell ford ? And as for the comments that this movie \"is the best ever\" I can only say that eighter you are very young, or you havent seen good movies...

Peter Jackson should have called this movie an adventure movie based on the lord of the rings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Debbie Boone had a monster hit with her recording of the pop song \"You Light Up My Life;\" the Didi Conn film of the same name, however, was a horrifically embarrassing flop. Conn plays the stereotypically goofy-homely-vulnerable girl who is in love with Michael Zaslow, who plays the stereotypical yuppie-wannabe guy. They are engaged, but every one knows that Zaslow isn't going to marry any one that isn't blonde and built, so only Didi is surprised when he dumps her. Needless to say, Didi is quite embarrassed.

Fortunately, she has been doing a little songwriting in her spare time, and she's come up with a tune she thinks is pretty nifty. She calls it--can you guess?--\"You Light Up My Life.\" She hops in the car and drives off to the big city to sell her song and make a new life. Now, I recall sitting in the theatre and watching her hop in the car to drive off to the big city, and thinking \"Well thank heavens, we've finally got all the exposition out of the way. Now maybe something interesting will happen.\" And something interesting did happen. The credits rolled.

Yep, that was it. Not only was the movie badly acted, badly written, and badly filmed, it also ended in the middle. This movie is a really, profoundly bad movie, and we're not talking cult-movie-bad here. We're talking unmitigated flop, a real yawner from start to finish. If you liked the Debbie Boone song by all means buy a copy of it. But don't waste your time or money on this flick. This is one movie you'll be glad you missed.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember this movie with feelings of sheer . . . agony. More than half of the film is commercials (no, really!). The slight excuse for a story could easily have been told in 25 minutes (and almost is!) The end result is a prefab love story of predictable schlock, all obviously thrown together in a crassly commercial attempt to wring a few more bucks from the contemporary Debbie Boone hit. Yep, that's how fast it was produced... the song that \"inspired\" it was still big on the charts when the film was released!

Despite decades of seeing bad movies, this one still impresses me for its extravagant, no-holds-barred, headlong jump into the most tedious, absurd, and indelible cinematic badness. It truly deserves to be on the IMDb list of the 100 worst of all time, and has never left the top 3 on my personal \"worst\" list.

Enjoy it for the sheer masochistic thrill!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I enjoy gay-themed movies where the characters aren't stereotypically gay and that's what attracted me to this movie, that and the principal actor, which is the only reason I'm giving this movie one more star than it deserves (although not because of his acting in the film, let me tell you). A lot of people complain about the cinematography, but the camcorder feel of the movie added a certain \"underground\" quality to it for me and there are a couple of scenes, usually around sunset or sunrise and among trains that would make any movie screen blush.

But the acting is cardboard, the music is repetitive (I got through the latter half of the movie listening to a soundtrack from another film), you have to wait almost twenty minutes for any dialog and then it is awkward and amateur. The subject of graffiti could have made this movie great had it been gracefully exploited and had the art itself been more intriguing, but it isn't.

Worst of all, there is no climax; there wasn't really a plot to begin with. The movie just crawls back into its shell of silence and dies. A forgettable movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I give this movie 2 stars purely because of its slightly liberal plot line. Without going into too much detail.

The acting in this movie is terrible. Really terrible - wooden, shallow.

The graffiti on show is weak, so bloody weak that I can only wonder why they bothered to use graffiti artists at all. IT was obvious in the spraying scenes that they'd gotten other people in to do the 'work'. They might as well have let the actors do the painting and saved themselves a few cents.

I would avoid this film at all costs.

The kid loco soundtrack used to be something I listened to on my iPod, its going to be a while before I can go back there for fear of this movie coming back into my mind.

Avoid at all costs. Unless you are thinking to yourself \"Wow, its been a while since I've seen a really sh*t movie....\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wasn't impressed with the Graffiti Artist, despite it's artsy (aka. low budget improvisation) appeal. There is little dialog and at least for me, I was disappointed that it didn't give more credit or promote the work of guerrilla artists such as these. Instead, it was a story that covers familiar territory. Two guys who basically do little more than tag buildings become friends, tagging partners, and eventually experiment with a relationship. They seem like opposites, rather uncomfortable together. Little is explained about their backgrounds and the things between the two young men happen at rapid speed (although, this I can understand because it's only 70 minutes or so). There's been countless numbers of similar plots and productions in recent years to the point that the sphere of independent film is starting to become just as saturated with this particular storytelling just as the mainstream has become saturated with this and more.

Much of the film may bore the viewer who needs immediate dialog and purpose. The primary figure of this story (at least extensively), performs his routines with nearly no dialog, no insight, and nothing else to carry the viewer. And, for a short film, I wished they could've gotten to the point a lot faster. That, aside from the typical plot annoyed me. Yet, there was something about a momentary glimpse into the daily habits of at least two graffiti artists, even if most of it was rather unoccupied time.

Recommended if you're tired of the mainstream crap and don't mind an indie picture and have some interested into this underground, urban art form. But, you really have to watch it for yourself, because this seems to be one with a more acquired taste. For more recent indie films centering on graffiti artists, check out Transit.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Other reviewers seem to have held this film in high regard. For something made by an eighteen year old film student, I would say bravo, but that is not the case. If you want to watch a good movie about graffitti stick to the documentaries. It is filmed with the same quality as a digital home video. The two main characters are dismal actors and once again that would be okay if this were a student film. The plot follows a lonely artist who skateboards around Portland writing graffitti. He is joined by another and they skate around together creating art. Then comes the unnecessary gay love scene. Then comes the dispute between them that is never actually discussed because this film has about as much dialogue as a charlie chaplin picture. This movie does show the gravity street artists give to their form well, and the music is nice, but overall I wouldn't really call it a film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How did this film get into the Berlin Film Festival? I understand it got into the Panorama section, but still.

This film featured:

1. No plot. 2. Horrible acting. 3. Atrocious videography. 4. Some of the worst graffiti ever captured on video.

The one clincher that accounts for most of its festival acceptances is the presence of that old standby: homosexuality. That's right, about the only thing that does happen in this film is that one graff artist makes out with another one and jerks him off. Then he feels weird about it and they have a boring old \"breaking up\" conversation that you might expect to hear from your first crush in middle school (featuring lines like \"You kissed me first, dude.\"). Oh, and by the way, this is no Crying Game...you see the gay angle coming in the first ten minutes of the film. Aside from that it's mostly just bad tags, badly costumed \"undercover\" cops, some skateboarding, and a train ride.

If the subject matter is of interest to anyone I recommend looking around the web for some underground graff videos taken by real graffiti artists. There's plenty out there...and they are a hell of a lot more entertaining than this crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't understand the people who rated it over 5. I think it's a horrible film from any point of view. Plots, acting, art, dialog, music, whatsoever! I don't mind a low budget..However you have to get some point. Wandering, wondering..pointless..then two boys started kissing in bed. awful,,just awful. I love indie films, don't mind it is slow. However this movie disappointed me from any perspectives. Even the Graffito, not artistic.

I was wondering what kind of people would like it. I am a female in my 30's. Is it for teens who have some kind of the loneliness about life, or I just don't get it? What I gained then? Wasting time! Please go for some others.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wouldn't have given this film such a low rating (2) if its average hadn't been ridiculously high, but someone had to bring it down to something more reasonable. I sat through most of this film, watching scene after scene of tagging and shoplifting. No dialog, just tagging and shoplifting. Finally the two taggers kissed. Something happened. But then back to tagging and shoplifting. I left the screening. I recommend this film only to those who are impressed by pretentious film-making. I disliked the directors previous film (a self-righteous defense of man-boy love) but at least that film had a story, interesting characters, dialog. The Graffiti Artist had only scene after scene of tagging and shoplifting. I want more from a film than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a gay love story disguised as a tale of graffiti and friendship. Not ONE review described this movie as a gay romance film, and that's the weight of the plot. I don't know if this was to trick people that would otherwise be uninterested to sit through it, expecting the film to be as it was marketed... The film is out of touch with graffiti culture, abuses and defames graffiti culture, and the acting is abysmal. Oh yeah, the graffiti sucks too. This movie was a clever way to hide the agenda of portraying young boys getting gay. Just look at the rest of the movies the director's been involved with, all contain the same subject matter. Boring as hell, not what I expected.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has made e mad. I believe the original of this film ,'The Mask', was an awesome film, worth buying and watching a lot. I strongly believed that they should make a sequel, but when i saw this, i thought again.

This film has spoilt the whole idea of 'The Mask'. Mask mode? A baby flying around in a room? My little brother who is seven didn't even laugh, and he is into these childish movies, but this was worse. A load of crap!! I am telling you now, please do not watch this film, it is a waste of money and a waste of time. Instead you could actually be having fun! Watch 'The Mask', but do not, I repeat do NOT, watch this hunk of junk. Thank you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mr. Kennedy should stop ExPeRiMeNtIng with bad movie scripts. What WAS he thinking? This is a movie that should not have passed the \"hey, I've got an idea, let's make a sequel\" stage of inception. If there was a ZERO rating, I'd give it, but I guess I'll settle for a generous 1. It seems these days that if there is a buck to be made, movie execs will dig up an old hit and run it by a set of writers and see what turns up. (Hey, I said \"hit and run\"! Kinda describes how I felt when this movie ended!) How THIS piece of trash ever saw the light of day is beyond me. It is filled with unpleasant humor, strange animation and jokes that don't quite take you anywhere besides a state of confusion. If you are being dragged to this movie, and someone is paying for you....fine.... but its still going to be more painful than a brick in the forehead. However, if you're planning on paying your own hard-earned money, search out a better alternative.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. I say this without hyperbole, and believe me, I've seen a lot of bad movies. It's embarrassing and annoying that millions of dollars went into this film and that hundreds (thousands?) of craftspeople spent so much time working on what the writers and producers MUST have known would be a colossal failure.

When a 90 minute film feels this long, drawn out, boring, and incomprehensible, you know that something went wrong somewhere. Also, Jamie Kennedy (whose work I've enjoyed elsewhere) is simply terrible in this role; he was obviously never given a screen test, because no producer in their right mind would consider him entertaining in any way, especially in the guise of The Mask. Simply awful.

Personally, I can't wait to see the reviews by the major film critics, because I know they're do a better job than me at tearing this train wreck to shreds.

The producers of this film should be embarrassed, and more importantly, NEVER be allowed to make theatrical films again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What the hell is this movie about? Well, if I didn't know that \"son of the Mask\" is categorized as comedy, I would never have a clue! A comedy? A tragedy, that's the right genre for this yet-another-so-called-sequel.

Yes I've watched \"Dumb and Dumber\" but I never believed somebody will ever make it's title real in Hollywood. Yes, You watch \"Son of the Mask\" and You think.. 5 minutes - Dumb... 10 minutes - Dumber... 15 - minutes Dumbest... And then, after 16 minutes there is only one thing to say :\/ I'm out of here...

Sorry, my nominee for Comedy Crap of The Year 2005.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can just picture how this movie came to be:

\"So how else can we screw up our careers?\"

\"I know! Let's take a film that was wildly successful and make a sequel out of it!

\"Perfect! We'll get B-grade actors who have half the charisma and want only 10% of Carrey's original salary. We'll save millions and rake in a massive profit, never mind the fact nobody wants to see a second rate sequel with none of the original actors that made it popular in the first place! We as executives still honestly believe a movie was popular based on the name and story, not the actors who made it so in the first place!\"

\"Brilliant! Let's put a massive budget and get the cheapest actors we can find!\"

And really, that's what Son Of The Mask can be described as. Just a simple B-grade movie that attempts to suck the life out of it's original classic.

Nevertheless, if the movie didn't contain the words the mask, or anything to do with the mask, it would be a nice kids movie. For all it's massive flaws and horrible acting, this really will appeal to kids. It's a good natured flick that really wants to scream out \"like me!\" but only those 8 and younger will truly enjoy it.

Jamie Kennedy is the only worthwhile mention in this movie. He clearly is trying to make the material work, playing the desperate dad but the script is so poor, the only thing that spews out that is worthwhile was my drink after seeing this. The character of Loki also deserves a mention, as he was the most enjoyable character and really one of the only reasons for older adults to see this film. It's too bad the character is wasted on this film, I would have really liked to have seen the character take on the true mask. Instead, we are reduced to fart jokes and toilet humor near the end.

The plot is so much by the books, I won't bother to mention it here. It's all so clearly obvious that even a Disney exec would be green with envy.

Save your money, this one is heading to DVD in three months from the looks of it. Shame on the studios for once again smearing a decent film with a horrible sequel. Didn't dumb and dumberer teach them anything?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife received tickets for our family to attend the premier of this movie from her employer for free. I only regret the price of the popcorn and the two hours of my life wasted on this garbage film.

I own the DVD of the original Mask, and quite enjoyed it. I expected a remake nowhere near the original in production values or writing.. but wasn't prepared for this vulgar pile of trash. Weak acting, poor plot, a bad CGI baby passing gas and urinating in hyper \"mask mode\".. a woman turned into a giant nose, spewing mucous.. Fun huh? My eight year old son loves movies like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Star Wars. After this was over I asked him what he thought. His exact words; \"I hated it. It's like the Scooby Doo movie. They take something good and have to put all that gross stuff in.\" My twelve year old daughter and wife hated it as well. My wife later told me that my son asker her twice during it if we could leave. He's never done that before. I'm proud of him. Lest you think I'm some kind of puritan, from the groans, and lack of laughter I heard in the theater, I think most of the patrons agreed with me.

This film represents everything bad about children's entertainment today, and any positive reviews MUST be from people financially connected with the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eleven years ago, Stanley Ipkiss released his true inner self and became the hero of Edge City by finding and wearing the Norse god of mischief, Loki's mask. The Mask helped bring Jim Carrey to the forefront of comedy and reached a very popular status for its originality and just pure fun. Everyone knew how to spell party. P-A-R-T-Y. Why? Cuz I gotta! Now, eleven years later, it seems to me that the same philosophy has been applied to the new movie \"Son of the Mask.\" Someone asked director Lawrence Guterman why are you making this? And he responds \"Cuz I gotta!\" Unfortunately, that answer doesn't cover it because after seeing Son of the Mask I still left the theatre thinking, \"Good Lord, Why?\" Guterman and the rest of the people involved in the blasphemous film need to realize that the response given to why are you making this film should not be as simple as the answer to the debate on whether or not to party.

The Son of the Mask begins with Otis the dog finding the infamous mask and bringing it back to his owner Tim Avery, a clear homage to legendary Loony Toons creator Tex Avery. Tim, played by Jamie Kennedy, is a struggling animator who is stuck working as a turtle tour guide for the animation company he aspires to one-day draw for. On the night of the company Halloween party, Tim puts on the mask and transforms into the mischievous, insane character that we all expect. After the party Tim goes home, mask still on and conceives a child with his wife. Nine months later mayhem ensues as the baby born of the mask has remarkable cartoonish powers. Otis the dog, jealous of the baby's attention, puts on the mask and partakes in Tom and Jerry type mayhem to out the baby. Meanwhile, Loki, played by Alan Cumming, is in search for his mask at the orders of his father, Odin.

First off, ill admit that I do respect the fact that this film pays so much homage to the classic cartoons such as Tom and Jerry and Loony Toons, with its Wile E. Coyote type contraptions and the infamous dancing frog type plot. However, this reverence cannot save the film and makes it less respectful and more of a waste of time.

The premise of the movie becomes increasingly silly. Silly is not always a bad thing, but in this movie, the silliness gets to the point of just plain annoying. The characters are not fun to watch, and what's worse, they're not funny. The dullness of the characters can also be attributed to the fact that so much CGI was used. One of the greatest things about the original is that while, obviously computer animation was used, so much relied on Jim Carrey and his exuberant style of just being. Jim Carrey, we were convinced, was an actual cartoon. Jamie Kennedy just doesn't have that kind of ability, a fact that is clear when you watch him wear the mask and his facial features rarely shift. The baby and dog were mostly completely animated which became increasingly distracting throughout the movie. The side story of Loki searching for the mask just became more and more stupefying.

The son of the Mask is a sad sad state of affairs. What I suggest is you go rent or buy the original the Mask and thank the Norse gods, or whoever, for bringing it to us. And will consider seeing the sequel my sacrifice as I continue to ask the infamous question \"WHY?\" The son of the Mask gets one star, although that star should be divvied up between the classic creators of Loony Toons and Jim Carrey, who will always be, in my book, the mask.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"IS there any reason to revive characters 10 years after the fact when the only reason they worked the first time was due to the actors playing them.

Who can replace Jim Carrey or Cameron Diaz -- or better yet, who can replace them at cut-rate prices since most studios know that sequels don't bring in the same amount of revenue as the originals so they cut corners from the get-go.

Where are the good movies going to play if powerful Hollywood studios can clog up 3,000 theaters opening weekend with whatever turds they feel like the general public can be suckered into.

Enough's enough people, this sequel-itis has got to stop and the Hollywood people need to start getting their act together or start distributing the much-better foreign product that's floating in limbo.

Wake up Hollywood, cause the people HAVE woken up and they aren't buying it just cause it's new and shiny. Give us the good stuff and send the rest to the DVD shelves, cause we are taking back the theaters once and for all!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I sort of liked this movie, not a good one, but not the worst ever made. Though, everyone else says it is one o the worst movies ever created, I thought it was okay. There are a lot of immature jokes. It wants to be funny sometimes, but fails.

The story is OKAY. It may be a little hard to follow for the younger audiences, though.

The acting is pretty bad. Jamie Kennedy is a horrible actor at most times. At some times, it is even laughable. Alan Cumming is probably the best actor in here. He is funny when he is supposed to be, but some of his lines are god awful.

Oh, and the main bad thing about this movie that I hated was Tim Avery's voice when he is possessed by the mask. The voice is HORRIBLE. Also, the scenes that he is in are so unfunny, that they are almost unbearable. I am sure they could have cut him out, and it wouldn't affect the movie at all.

Overall, you can live without seeing this. It is a nice movie to watch if you have nothing else to watch, though. They definitely could have gone without making the sequel, but it is a decent effort. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Actually, Son of the Mask did make me laugh a few times...mostly due to the cartoonish jokes that made Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner so funny. The CGI is very impressive and is used extensively in this movie. Garfield, for example, is no where on par for CGI, but I would give it the same vote.

Everyone knows the story...which wasn't that bad for a KIDS movie. Yes, it is a KIDS movie...and therefore should be treated as such. Jamie Kennedy is not very good in his role. His attempts to act \"crazy\" are not very good and overall acting is poor.

Everyone else is not too bad.

Basically, my 2 and 5 year old watched the whole thing without complaining. At least I was able to sit through this.

There is no way this movie is worst than **shudder** Class of 1999

4\/10 for the CGI and a few laughs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well I had the chance to view this film the other day. I didn't know what to expect as I never saw the trailer and such... but what I did discover simply by watching the first 10 minutes is that this film is the worst I have ever had the misfortune to see.

I wish I could give it this film a 0 rating. The first 10 minutes were bad but as soon as it goto the party scene I wanted to just enter a coma it was really poorly done. The actors didn't have any direction, there was no real story, I read some reviews that state its good if you have a little child to entertain for 90 minutes etc... but really why should we expose children to this type of film? Its got poor humor, rude and crude comedy at best and focuses on poor special effects to fill 80% of its time. I am sure a few people in Hollywood will be out on the streets after this film bombs.

Also How can 39 people give this movie a 10. I mean get real anyone that gives this movie a 10 either has some mental issue and or works for the film company. This movie should average at 1.5\/10 instead of its current 2.3\/10 due to the people that ranked it 10. Truly sad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a real shame, not just for the plot,the empty performance of the characters, it is for the lack of creativity from the director and all the crew, this is maybe one of the worst movies of all times,and it is hard to believe that is the sequel of one of the most famous movies of the 90's.

I am a great fan of The Mask, when I went to see this movie I was expecting to a movie with a good sense of humor, a movie with a acceptable plot, instead I saw a really bad copy of Chuck Jones and Tex Avery cartoons, the movie was not funny even for my 7 years old sister, so I wonder:What was wrong New Line Cinema???.Was it trying to repeat the success of the first movie, or was it trying to create another masterpiece like The Lord of the Rings???.Because if they did, they were completely out of their minds.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cant believe it! I thought this is a good sequel when Jim carry in the film has a baby but instead its a film with crappy actors, stupid plot and stupid scenes. This should be in 'crappest films of sh*t in earth'. Thank god the same director did not make this because this is so stupid with some cartoonish parts like the fart was not funny, not the pee and not the dancing! I laughed at this because of how stupid the person made this like homer Simpson making a movie about a doughnut! I wish someone makes a remake of son of the mask with a plot like this! The mask guy (Jim carry) and his wife have a son which is a normal baby. When the baby finds another mask he became the mask, too and the mask guy tries to get his mask back! This is very crap so i'll give it a 1 out of 10. Fu*king sh*t!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILERS

I love movies. I've seen a lot of movies. I didn't think I'd ever see a film that I actually hated. Son of the Mask ruined it. Son of the Mask is so bad I'm not even going to do a detailed comment like I usually do. In fact, I'm not even going to write a lot. I think all of you should know that this movie is horribly awful. And poor Jamie Kennedy. He was awesome in Scream, but now this film! Also, this film takes a SMO-CAN film and turns it into this goofy kids film that not even kids will like. This film also consists of very rude humor. Like the nose woman. She has a nose for a head and when she sneezes white stuff spews out of her nose. There is also an Exorcist parody. Yes, a kid film has an adult parody. Maybe they thought the adults would like it. Quite frankly, it made the film even more cheesier and crude.

Here's the basic, stupid plot. Tim Avery's dog gets the amazing Loki mask and turns into a cartoon dog thing. When Tim is paying more attention to the baby with special powers, cartoon dog becomes a Wiley Coyote ripoff. Then Loki takes the baby with amazing powers and Tim and Loki have a really cheesy animated fight. Tim's wearing the mask. It all ends happy. Too bad this movie is horrible.

Overall, the original the Mask was a fantastic Jim Carrey movie. This, basically is not. Please, please, don't rent, buy, or download this movie. I made a terrible mistake renting this. I don't want you guys to make that same exact mistake. I feel horrible that I couldn't write a detailed comment, but really, what's there to comment on?

2\/10 I'd give it a one, but come on, it's basically a kid film.

Recommended Films: The Mask.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Loki, Norse god of mischief, creates a mask that endows the wearer with cartoon-like powers. At the command of his father, Odin, he spends the rest of the movie looking for the mask so that it can cause no further grief to mankind. In the meantime, the possessor of the mask conceives a child who inherits the powers of the mask. Etc. etc. If this sounds like a pretty thin plot line, it is. Add to this the fact that the movie is handled ineptly from start to finish, and the result is very, very bad. You can find worse movies, but you'll have to actively search for them.

For the most part, Son of the Mask is presented at the intellectual level of a pre-schooler, but in light of scenes such as the mask-baby urinating copiously in six different directions, including on his father, this premise seems unlikely. I asked my son who he thought might have been the target audience for the movie, and he responded \"Convicted felons,\" apparently forgetting for the moment that the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

But just making a bad movie is not a sin, or Hell would be overflowing. What makes it a sin is that $72 million was spent on this piece of garbage. To put things in perspective, the day after we watched Son of the Mask, my son and I watched \"Good Night, and Good Luck,\" a movie that garnered six academy award nominations (including best picture), and was brought in for $7 million. That's right. Just one-tenth of the amount of money spent on Son of the Mask. This, then is the sin -- to flush good money down the sewer, when it could have been better used in making watchable movies, or feeding starving children, or for that matter, almost any other purpose. The producers should truly be ashamed of themselves.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, about 11 years ago the awesome, funny movie, \"The Mask\", came out and everyone loved it and now, 11 years later the mask is brought back in this awesome movie right? WRONG!!!!!!!!!! this movie was the stupidest movie that i have probably ever seen!! i mean when i rented it i thought that i would be laughing so hard that i would almost pee my pants like from the first one. but after i saw this \"sequal\" i barley even let out a chuckle. i mean no offense to the director or the cast of this movie, but what a waste of time and money. so, the plot of the whole story was about this little baby that has part of the mask in him and this evil person is after him for some thing, because that is all i really got, i would have least added some more things to it so it would be higher than a 2 out of 10 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(Contains really bad Spoilers) So what can I say about this....It's a really HORRIBLE and AWFUL movie!!.Too much CGI and special effects....you could tell how fake the ridiculous baby is!!.PLEASE at least go watch \"Dungeons and Dragons\" which is another terrible pile of TRASH.Son of the Mask makes Dungeons and Dragons way better!!! Uggg!!!!!!!!!!!! Pure Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!I Hate this Trash!! I would also like to say that \"Superbabies:BabyGeniuses 2\" was also a really stupid movie.Probably just as stupid as \"Son of the Mask\".\"BabyGeniuses 2 was just as fake as\"Son of the Mask\" and also contains way too much CGI!!

Anyway Yeah...this was a BAD BAD REALLY BAD movie....just please avoid it....Do NOT recommend this to no one...please its just way too ridiculous....makes no sense and really bad plot.The baby peing on his dad was just lame!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There was no need for this movie, plain and simple. The original, although hated by some, was something I found to be actually really entertaining, mainly because it was before Jim Carrey started to really lose his touch, and Cameron Diaz was, well, \"Smoooooookin!\" 'Nuff said. So why make a sequel\/prequel thing? Honestly? Knowing that Jim Carrey wouldn't do it should've been clue enough that it didn't deserve to be created. But then they just make mistake after mistake. Jamie Kennedy. Why is this man still allowed to breathe? The writing and story: terrible. Why would I ever want to see a baby wearing the mask? Moreover why would I want to see it fly? Ever? HOW DID SOMEONE THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?! The acting is despicable, in fact nearly everything about this movie is. I'm trying to keep calm, or IMDb probably won't let me post this. Bottom line: don't watch this piece of trash. Pick up the original, see how good Cameron Diaz looked and how Jim Carrey used to have a career, and laugh. Don't waste even a second of your time on this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie isn't worth going to the theaters to watch, i did and i didn't like it, the effects on the movie are really well done, and you get a laugh here and there, but the story is really bad, it seemed like they had run out of ideas, and what is that of loki and odin getting along? that totally destroys norse mythology, and i guess they forgot that loki's powers only worked during the NIGHT!! If you really MUST see this movie rent it when it comes out, don't go to the movies for this!

They could have done a lot more with this than they did, it felt like they just wanted to do a movie to show off cool animation and effects","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"-So the weak excuse for a story in the generic waste of time involves a guy that wants to be an animator but can't get his career of the ground. His super hot wife is more successful and she doesn't seem to care that he's a loser but the man isn't satisfied with that and wants to make more out of his life. One day their dog brings them a magic mask that changes his life. Unfortunately for him, the god Loki is looking for his magic mask and once he finds the man with the mask he tries to get it back and that's the whole story. If that sounded exciting to you then someone needs to throw some water on you to wake you up

-This movie is terrible. There's really no other way for me to say it and I just can't stretch it enough. The only good thing about the whole thing was the woman that played Jamie Kennedy's wife who was hot but apart from her there's is nothing about this movie that is worth watching. I know it's meant for kids and that's why it's so idiotic but what about the adults that have to take their kids to watch this trash. Why do we have to suffer through this vile vomit sack of horrid crap. The original mask was a very good movie that had a great mix of comedy and great story telling. This one is a lame attempt by hack filmmakers to cash in on the franchise and judging by the laughable BO gross I'm guessing the franchise won't go on any longer.

-The cinematographer needs to be beaten severely because the sugary colors of the movie will make you feel like throwing up. If there was music, I didn't pay attention to it because I had already punctured my eardrums to prevent myself from hearing the horrid dialog. Then there's the acting or at least what passes for acting nowadays. you could watch an infomercial and see much better acting in that than the one in this movie but I can't really blame the actors since it's the director who deserves the blame for apparently not realizing that the actors needed to do another f**king take. If new line is looking to start a franchise with this then they need to up their game by hiring writers that can actually write and stop thinking that the audience will watch any crap that comes out

-Bottom line if you're a sadomasochistic and you love torturing yourself then please by all means check this out because it is painful to watch but if you're not and you actually like to watch movies that are good then avoid at all cost","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Son of the Mask is a terrible movie. I don't like the baby and I don't like the dog. Jamie Kennedy and his wife are a cute couple but that can't redeem sitting through this garbage. Even at only 88 minutes (or so it says), the movie could not end soon enough for me. The only real laughs come at the beginning with a brief appearance by Ben Stain. That's it. The rest is just a rehash of the first movie. Actually that is just an insult to rehashes. Why was this sequel made?? This movie cost millions of dollars to make. Why would I sit through a movie with a baby and a dog intentionally trying to drive the dad crazy? Jamie Kennedy is talented but he has nothing to do in this movie. I am not bothering to be nice to this movie. 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Son of the Mask\" is a terrible excuse of a movie. I went to see this with my friend and I still wish we had seen \"Because of Winn-Dixie\" instead. I must say that it is partially my fault, as I agreed to go see it with him. Being a fan of the first \"Mask\" movie (Jim Carrey was hilarious) I had hoped it wasn't as bad as all of the critics said it was.

Ten minutes into the movie I knew it was headed for disaster. Disgusting and pointless attempts at being funny got little seven and eight year old children shrieking with laughter, but the rest of us were left staring at the screen in disbelief.

Finding the movie as repulsive and unfunny as I did is surprising to even me, as I loved \"Scary Movie\" and \"Anchorman\", two films which many people I know found crude and offensive. But the thing is, \"Son of the Mask\" is not funny unless you're under the age of ten.

The film features lots of CGI in it, but it cannot save this piece of rubbish. Whoever allowed this movie to make it to the big screen was probably thinking it had potential, considering the success of its original. Unfortunately, it has none of the laughs, fun, or excitement of the first, creating a mockery of the original movie. I recommend renting the original \"Mask\" to anyone who is thinking about seeing this one. 1 star out of 10 is generous to this awful mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This \"film,\" and I use that term loosely, reminds me of the first joke my daughter wrote, at eighteen months: \"P.U., stinky poopies!\"

Like that joke, this movie can only appeal to the very young, the very immature, or the very stupid.

That said, there are a few bright spots.

The effects, where the majority of the reputed $100 million went, are kinetic and convincing -- I mean, as convincing as those kind of kinetic CGI effects can be. The CGI baby effects are not great, but I imagine those are very hard to do well... although for a hundred-million bucks, they could have been better!

Moose, the dog from \"Frasier,\" phoned in his usual exemplary performance. Steven Wright did well with a small part. Alan Cummings was, well, Alan Cummings-as-villain, which we've seen before, and Bob Hoskins as Odin was unrecognizable, but enjoyable.

The actress playing Mrs. Avery was cute-as-a-button, as you'd expect, and Jamie Kennedy stunk, as you'd expect. His best role so far was in the Scream trilogy (not to be confused with the Lord of the Rings trilogy), and in Three Kings. He should stick, perhaps, to more subtle forms of comedy. Jim Carrey, he ain't.

The writing and direction were, if anything, worse than Kennedy's performance. I semi-remember one clever (though seven-year-old clever) line that I wish someone would quote accurately for the \"Memorable Quotes\" section. Something about Avery's proposed costume being the \"crappiest crap in Craptown,\" it was a second-grade joke, but sort of funny in context.

Over all, since there's nothing lower than a \"one,\" I give this film a \"one.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The satirical movie website Dateline Hollywood joked that \"Son of the Mask\" was all a practical joke star Jamie Kennedy played on New Line Cinema for his show \"The Jamie Kennedy Experiment.\" If only. And if only the movie had been half as funny as that satire piece.

\"The Mask\" was the ideal vehicle for the face-pulling Jim Carrey that so many viewers dote on; it also delighted males over the age of 12 by introducing Cameron Diaz. So having a followup minus both of them was not a good idea, plus you'd have thought New Line would have learned their lesson after \"Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd.\" But no... though to be fair, having an all new cast is in keeping with the original comic (in which the Mask went from owner to owner). As written by Lance Khazei and directed by Lawrence Guterman, however, there's nothing there in return, except a steady stream of admittedly decent FX by the usual squadron of houses (Industrial Light and Magic improving on the \"Ally McBeal\" dancing baby and their own \"Baby's Day Out,\" with the Tippett Studio, Giant Killer Robots, Digital Dimension and so on in support) and an even greater pandering to cartoon fans by having our hero work at an animation company (responsible for such gems as \"Siamese Popes\"), naming his character after Tex Avery, and working in not just references to classic cartoons but actual clips.

The trouble is that last approach doesn't really work, partly because most of the attempts to bring cartoon trappings to live action fall flat (especially the cars getting in the party mood) and mostly because the tributes to the Flintstones, Woody Woodpecker, \"Duck Amuck\" and especially \"One Froggy Evening\" show up how weak this movie is in comparison. Plus the movie fits in shambolic slapstick alongside strained sentiment (the underlying theme of the story is family; our hero isn't ready to have a son, and his nemesis - Alan Cumming as the Norse god Loki - is far from the apple of Odin's eye... and what Bob Hoskins is doing here as Odin, even after \"Super Mario Bros.,\" is beyond me), and Kennedy just isn't in the same league as Carrey in the zany stakes - though it's not like he gets any help from the script. Also note that unlike Diaz, the very cute Traylor Howard (as the mother of the son of the Mask) doesn't get much to do; giving HER the Mask might have helped the movie.

Further points are lost for throwing away Cumming, Hoskins, Steven Wright and Magda Szubanski; for a suspiciously abbreviated running time (which would account for some gaping plot holes and scenes that seem to be missing); and for an incredibly bad attempt at an inside joke when our hero fails to sell the concept of the \"green guy\" as an animated TV series - \"The Mask\" did become an animated TV series in real life, and was a far better follow up than this sequel. The fact that this actually opened in Britain before the US should tell you everything... what with this and \"Blade: Trinity,\" New Line seems intent on cornering the market on dreadful sequels with cast members from \"Two Guys And A Girl.\" What next, \"The Butterfly Effect 2\" with Nathan Fillion?

Somebody stop this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"I remember waiting to be born...\"

\"Vision quest that was the American West.\"

\"We went to a psychic...\"

\"I'm sure their first reaction is that she's cuckoo\"

\"...the place is haunted...\"

\"I think there's another dimension right here.\"

An artist (Marta Becket) and her husband many decades ago left the hustle and bustle and culture of New York and moved to a god-forsaken town with a population of 10 in Death Valley. There, they renovated a theater--painting it is a very home-spun\/folk art manner. And, once finished, she bega putting on dancing performances for practically no one. In many ways, it's highly reminiscent of the Werner Herzog film FITZCARRALDO or FIELD OF DREAMS--though AMARGOSA is a documentary of a real person--not a mythical crazy man like Klaus Kinski or Kevin Costner. Her husband eventually leaves--much of it apparently because of the lifestyle she chose. So, today she lives on with her ten cats and a sanctuary for burros eventually along with her new male companion, Tom.

What you think about this documentary depends on your perspectives. If you are into New Age ideas and open to these sensibilities, then you'll more likely appreciate the film. Her talking about how she remembers her birth, ghosts, vision quests and psychics frankly made the psychology teacher in me cringe and this would definitely be the case for many people. In addition, her burro sanctuary and trying to preserve horses in the desert will most likely appeal to PETA and many other animal lovers, though with my background in environmental concerns and biology, I see the burros and horses as a blight that would destroy the native plants and animals. So on two different accounts, I tend to think quite the opposite of Marta--who is more of a \"feeler\" and \"sensing\" individual. Depending on how you feel about all this will definitely color your opinions--and I am pretty sure most people will either think she's a genius or a nut! You'll just have to guess what I think.

Now despite all this, the film is interesting and Marta's life is definitely NOT dull--particularly since in recent years, people have actually begun taking trips to the desert to see her perform. There is a definite following for her and her unusual little world. While I would not be nearly as positive as most reviews, I also can't be as negative as the one review, as there is definite merit to this odd documentary. I like films about unusual people and Marta certainly is unusual! I also appreciate her love of her art and happy life--that is a rare gift.

I teach psychology at an arts school and it sure would be interesting to show this to the staff--where I am pretty sure we'd get a strong positive and negative reaction to the film--probably depending on whether the teachers taught the arts classes or core curriculum! It sure would be interesting.

By the way, and I am not trying to be sarcastic, but when Marta's husband was having affairs, with whom did this occur?! After all, they lived in the middle of no where and I was left wondering where he'd find partners.

By the way, if you'd like to see her perform and\/or stay at her hotel, it can be found at www.amargosaoperahouse.com\/ . The site is in English, French and German and hotel rates are pretty reasonable as are ticket prices.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I lasted almost ninety minutes through this dreadful movie waiting for some revelation about dance or spirit or inspiration or something and gave up! What possessed the filmmakers to do this? This is an old woman of limited talent who is obsessed with herself and nothing else. To fill in a story without a point we get some stuff about the other folks in her thrall, her aid to burros, and, of course, her ten cats! Do not see this film. And have nothing more to do with anybody who loved it - they do not have a clue. There are fascinating people in this world with wonderful stories to tell and insights to share - but Marta Becket is not one of them. The people I took to this movie say they have forgiven me - but that they will never, ever stop kidding me about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this cooking show for a few times before I wanted to pull my hair out. Just one question.....Who CAN'T cook a slapped together plain meal in 30 minutes when everything you need is at hand, already bagged, sometimes pre-chopped and you have very little else to do except chop a few greens. Also, almost every cooking show on TV is 30 minutes and most of these chefs do all of their prep work (except for Sandra Lee), during their show. Oh and yep....they do full meals too.

Love the comment by the guy who hated the \"EVOO\" comment. Add \"DE-LISH\" to my list of stupid tag words.

Then you have the obvious....a Loud, gregarious woman who is truly her own best audience. She laughs at her own lame comments, mugs too many times for the camera because she wants to convince us that she's as good as the thinks.

NO she ain't \"the cutest thing.\" She's a 40-something year old woman who isn't DE-LISH.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Forget what I said about Emeril. Rachael Ray is the most irritating personality on the Food Network AND all of television. If you've never seen 30 Minute Meals, then you cannot possibly begin to comprehend how unfathomably annoying she is. I really truly meant that you can't even begin to be boggled by her until you've viewed the show once or twice, and even then all words and intelligent thoughts will fail you. The problem is mostly with her mannerisms as you might have guessed. Ray has a goofy mouth and often imitates the parrot. If you love something or think it's \"awesome\" (a word she uses roughly 87 times per telecast) just say it. And she's constantly using horrible, unfunny catchphrases like \"EVOO\" (Extra virgin olive oil!). SHUT UP! What's worse is Ray has TWO other shows on the network! I think this is some elaborate conspiracy by the terrorists to drive us mad. Give me more Tyler Florence! Ray is lame.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this movie immensely interesting yet a little jaded, it talks of violence and what there doing, I still don't see the point in becoming terrorists in order to stop the terrorists. We have similar people in the United States and other countries justifying the use of violence and war tactics because they think they are right. Think of the Puritans,and the Christian crusades against the Islamic people during the Medieval times. Lots of blood and death far exceeding the violence of today, the western world has had a negative impact on the religion. I do not justify their actions but western culture in the past has had a very negative effect on some. But still do remember the majority of the Islamic people are PEACEFUL! People of any nation feel some sort of patriotism but to start a war on the fact that I'm right and your wrong needs to be rethought. Again I repeat you cannot stop terrorists by becoming like them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's complete nonsense. I've studied Nazism and read many manuscripts from the day - the \"parallels\" use most of the classic debased apocryphal myths of Nazism and then compare it with complete specious generalizations about what constitute 1\/3 of the planet. It's crafted for an audience of Polly-Anna complacency who diet heavily on spoon-fed gibberish, horribly thought out arguments, irrational conclusions, fallacious ideas, and nonsensical logic.

Who made this hit peace? Easy.

When all is said and done; Que Bono? That is, who benefits, in the long run?

You don't. You sacrifice money and rights. Muslims don't, they get our bombs. Try again. Answer this, and you've unlocked a major door.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Brought to you by the following among others:

1- Yigal Carmon (Hebrew \u05d9\u05d2\u05d0\u05dc \u05db\u05e8\u05de\u05d5\u05df) is the president and founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)

Yigal's Career:

Colonel, Israeli Army Intelligence from 1968-88 Acting head and adviser on Arab affairs, Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria, 1977-1982

2- Raphael Shore is an Israeli-Canadian film writer, producer, and Rabbi employed full time by Aish HaTorah. He is the founder of The Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization that seeks to advance the idea that the United States faces a threat of radical Islam. Shore is also a regular critic of the media coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, coverage which he alleges is regularly anti-Israel. (LMAO)

3- Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Funny how ADL supports this hateful propaganda. You can never tell by reading their \"Anti-Defamation\" name title.

Use your mind and see how objective these people are. They have their own agenda!

I think, therefore I am.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"- Contains 1 spoiler, market with: ***** -

Not presenting itself as yet another remake of \"The Interview\", Five Fingers actually is. Alas, besides maybe the hardship of physical torture, it never adds anything to it's predecessor's accomplishment in terms of suspense, plot or performances. In fact, Five Fingers never gets anywhere near its level.

What I found to be in particular painful to watch wasn't the torture itself, but the way Martijn (Ryan Philippe) acted out his ordeal. To me it looked as if Philippe tried too hard to get his accent right and it made his performance glibly amateur which in turn even dragged down the performance of an otherwise great Colm Meaney. Phillipe's accent btw, being far from anything near Dutch, sounded more like Eastern European.

Besides the acting of Philippi(which to my surprise turned from poor to actually decent towards the end) there is the matter of the flashbacks with the hackneyed Dutch scenery. (If these scenes were set in Switzerland they would have had the cast eat cheese on mountaintops with endless pastures with grazing cows wearing expensive timepieces). Scenery aside, The way these flashbacks pushed the plot didn't work for me at all. It made it being served like French fries at a drive-in and caused the build-up of suspense to flatline.

Admittedly the movie did become more enjoyable as Phillipe's acting improved but I couldn't help being annoyed every now and then with scenes that were just too implausible. E.g.:

************ Start spoiler

At some point (after days) Philippe is almost tenderly washed by the female terrorist. This only to be followed by the brute severing of yet another finger. Why give the guy a wash if he's in for a torture? And the severing of that last finger seemed to only serve the title of this flick anyway, I mean, he was practically begging to have it knifed off. Didn't make sense\u0085

************ End spoiler

What ultimately kept me watching was the performance of Fishburn who once again proved to be a brilliant actor but who also had the best part of the script to work with.

All in all one is just far better off seeing \"The Interview\" with that other Matrix-icon: Hugo Weaving. And when you do, I'm confident you won't find this review that disagreeable.

3.5\/10

\"The Interview\", 1998 www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0120714\/","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Five Fingers relies heavily on barbaric, shock value Hollywood tactics to elicit apparently a positive movie-going response. This is where this movie fails throughout, primarily because it is too graphic to be taken seriously. I was repulsed and disgusted that Five Fingers was even made, and essentially had to force myself to continue watching it. Torture in and of itself is gruesome. Even the sounds coming from a room where someone is being tortured are gruesome. But obviously the makers of this stinker of a movie felt that was not enough. It had to go way beyond what was needed, and simply and effectively ruined any chances this movie had of making some sort of valid point. For this reason, this movie came across as nothing more than being self-gratifying. Five Fingers also pretty much relegates itself to a B-movie status solely by its indulgence on manipulation of time. In other words we are shown the present and then the past is revealed in snippets. This is a little bit of a twist of the normal Hollywood manipulation of time. Whereas the viewer normally is shown page 95 in a 100 page script as the beginning of the movie, and then the rest of the flick is essentially explaining the ending, Five Fingers is dedicated to flashing back, which gets quite tiring by the end of the movie. Overall, Five Fingers made me feel stupid for watching the whole movie, because torture is obviously obscene, and it certainly was not necessary to resort to graphic mutilation to make this point. I am surprised that Dick Cheney did not make a guest cameo appearance at the end as some sort of torture superhero. This movie is a perfect example of what happens when an important topic falls into the hands of greedy, mindless dolts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Boring movie. Poor plot. Poor actors. The movie happens in a room supposed to be in Morocco but actually in some American city! The \"Arab terrorists\" are the patriots the blonde patriot is the \"Arab terrorist\"...DAMN!

There is something good about this movie though (that's why the score is 2 out of 10). The director turns the ridiculous stereotype about terrorism the media feeds us every day into the real thing, the terrorists are Americans (or western people if you like).

The movie is divided into two parts. The first part of the movie concerns the Dutchman travel (15 seconds) while the second part is about the staying in the amazing dark brown room (1 hour and something).

The Dutch guy is going to deliver money in Morocco to some \"charity organization\", gets off the plain, takes the bus and ends up kidnapped in a dark brown room. He is kidnapped with another guy that is shot after telling \"They will not shoot at us\". The Dutch survivor is forced to play chess with a Morpheus-like Arab guy for so long that you'll learn how to play chess too! At the end the dutch guy reveals his plot not because they cut four of his fingers off but because he is tricked by such a lame game you should watch the movie for!

Good when you are so tired you can't sleep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Five Fingers is so bad, that I hardly know where to begin. So let me admit first, that I have only seen the first half hour. When the first finger had been chopped off, I thought sleeping a more useful activity. I told my girlfriend the meaning of \"five fingers\" and she immediately followed my example.

Couldn't the producer, the director and\/or the scriptwriter consult a chess-amateur? Like me? They should have used a digital chess-clock and not an analogue. This major goof makes the mental pressure put on Martijn just a laugh. How, when and why did Martijn date a Moroccan girlfriend? Such an affair is very rare in The Netherlands.

Calling me a retard is of course an insult to all those people suffering with a much lower than average IQ. Moreover, as far as I know, retards don't play chess. I do.

The biggest problem is the script of course. Just compare the little intelligent movie Hard Candy. To keep the spectator in a grip, the information must be revealed bit by bit. A nice twist now and then also helps. I understood from other reviews, that there is a big one at the end of the movie. Any smart person can guess what it is. This of course just raises more questions - why is the travel guide killed? Oh my, why should I even care? The whole movie focuses on just one thing: the chopped fingers. The makers have not even learned Hitchcock's lesson: it is thrilling to get a bomb exploded. It is more thrilling to show that bomb ticking. But no, we don't see the paper-cutter until the impossible countdown is over. I will not waste more words on this crap. Go see Hard Candy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie isn't that great...at all but it's good when you want to just laugh, because it's pretty ridiculous :) there are a lot of mistakes in it and it's cheesy. i got this movie for Christmas like 5 years ago but for some reason i've never given it away. i guess i just like it for a rainy day even though i only watch it like once a year. This is a very 90's movie so it's really funny to see how everyone dresses and acts. this movie is good for someone young...although come to think of it, i didn't even like it much when i was like 12 but that's just my personal opinion. the movie was really predictable. i wish it had had some extra weird twists but i guess it was trying to be an appropriate movie for everyone to enjoy. i think it was appropriate for the whole family but Hallie's dress was a bit unmodest but certainly appropriate enough for family material.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe the target audience of this Disney Channel TV-movie will be pleased with it, but if any parents are watching along with the youngsters, they will clearly see that \"cranked out\" is written all over this production. Obviously it was no one's dream to make this movie, but rather, this was concocted in a board room somewhere, then produced with cold efficiency. There is some talent among the cast, but actors like Dabney Coleman and Jay Thomas don't get much of a chance to showcase their talent. The impossibly cute Elisabeth Harnois is engaging as the First Daughter, but Will Friedle is stuck once again playing another dumb character, though he's not nearly as moronic and annoying as in his \"Boy Meets World\" role. The background for this movie is Washington, D.C. and the White House, but there is no real \"presidential\" feel to the film and the Secret Service is made out to be little better than the Keystone Kops when it come to doing their duty. The Disney Channel presents a lot of original TV-movies and most of them are better than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this was nominated for a screenwriting award by the WGA, a professional association of screenwriters, then it's time to hang up the word processor. Astonishingly inept writing, direction, production, at every level, even for a TV movie. No cliche goes unexploited in this jaw-droppingly bad movie. What were they thinking? Does anyone really believe kids are stupid enough to watch this?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pointless and pretty silly film that is just basically a compilation of clips from horror, science fiction and suspense films. There are unnecessary shots to an audience watching the clips and Donald Pleasance and Nancy Allen are among audience members who turn to the camera and explain why we love horror films. Not a bad idea but all the explanations are obvious (\"movie horror helps us deal with real horror\", \"you are at the mercy of the filmmaker in a theatre\") and pretty trite. Also the clips are shown very quickly and the changes are kind of jarring. And, shown out of context, these bits aren't very scary at all. And it's REAL short--I saw it in a theatre back in 1984 and was outraged that I paid $5.00 for an 84 minute movie!

Still, it is reasonably well-edited and Allen and Pleasance seem to be enjoying themselves. For people who have an interest in knowing more about terror this might be fun and interesting. But if you're a horror fan (like me) you'll probably be bored silly. Good idea, bad execution (no pun intended). I give it a 3.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I used to think that \"It Came from Hollywood\" was the worst movie I had seen that showed clips from horror, sci-fi, crime and drama movies. Of course, I hadn't seen THIS beauty yet.

What's wrong with \"Terror in the Aisles\"? Four things:

1) It assumes that most of the great moments in shock cinema history began in the '70s when directors like John Carpenter and Brian De Palma came along. And what bones are thrown to the true classics (i.e. - the black and white films) like \"Frankenstein\", \"Dracula\" and \"The Wolf Man\" are either shown with Martin and Lewis or Abbott and Costello alongside or not at all!

2) The clips are most times so brief and out of their originals' place that they just give a momentary shock to the viewer and, for those unfamiliar with these films, will make no sense at all (indeed, the moment where the shark jumps out of the water at Roy Scheider in \"Jaws\" is shown much to the effect of a sight gag. Whereas, in the original's context, it had power.)

3) Did we really need Pleasance and Allen in the audience reminding us that \"it's only a movie\" or that most of the violence in the horror movies \"is, sadly, against women\"? So, is that an indictment against the movie-makers for adding those scenes or the movie-goers who tromp into the theaters and watch the same kind of fodder time and again? Sorry, that's a whole can of worms to open for a more deserving movie.

4) And most importantly, why is the movie so SHORT? It isn't like there wasn't enough of these kinds of movies to use. If they had just opened up their resources and used EVERY available film, they could have had a \"That's Entertainment!\"-style movie that would have been comparatively more entertaining. Heck, even drag out Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing (Cushing was alive then, mind you) and better yet, even Vincent Price would have been more than willing, I'll bet! What a cheer THAT would have gotten from the audience!

But no... all we're left with is a dreary little flick that pretends to pay homage to these movies but all it does is leave the viewer feeling cheated out of less than 90 minutes with which they could have went and watched a REAL movie. Don't get me wrong; it was good to see what clips they did show, but if they could have just done more with the goods!

Two stars. Another good idea left laying \"in the Aisles\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Terror in the Aisles\" might look like the ultimate treat for horror fans but it has, in fact, very few to offer. Granted, it presents a decent and versatile (too versatile?) selection of horror\/thriller fragments that are considered classic but ...what's the point? This documentary primarily aims for the horror-loving public so we've pretty much seen all these clips already, haven't we? The only thing really praiseworthy about this project is the editing. If you're into scream-queens, chases by vile murderers and that sort of things, \"Terror in the Aisles\" has some neat compilations of the most famous sequences. All these different scenes hang together by a lame wraparound story starring Donald Pleasance and Nancy Allen sitting in a movie theater. In between two sequences, the address the viewer and \"explain\" why we love horror so much. Those speeches naturally are soporific and rather obvious (it's in our nature to be afraid ...bla bla bla) and I fail to understand why many people love the concept. This is worth a peek in case you're a loyal horror fan but it certainly isn't essential viewing. On the contrary: in case you still have to see a classic genre title, beware that bits and pieces of it here don't spoil your future viewing. The main reason why I overall disliked it is because it shamelessly ignores a lot of lesser known, but fundamental (foreign) titles endlessly focusing on \"Halloween\". This does result in a cool inside joke, however, when Donald Pleasance screams to the screen at his own character.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So you've got a number of models on an island, and one by one they're picked off Agatha Christie-style. We get somebody lost at sea, pushed off a cliff, poisoned by a solvent, driven off a cliff, blown up, etc. Nothing terribly graphic.

Before any of that starts, one woman inexplicably has a dream of a killer in a weird human face mask.

The owner of the magazine is a sleaze who had an affair, and somebody had photos taken of her before she was of age.

In the end, it's all about business, or something,

There's an 80s style montage of a photo shoot, most of the bathing suits being one-pieces, surprisingly. A couple are fairly translucent. There's camera clicks during the montage where the frame of the camera appears as a white square or rectangle within the picture. The photographer is rather bad at framing!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie just happened to be on HBO yesterday so I watched it. This was a mistake. I guess I got sucked in and kept watching although it was a lot like a train wreck, terrible, horrible, but somehow you just can't look away. shaudenfraud I guess! ; ).

This is the story of a photoshoot for models on some island in the Caribbean. One by one they are all murdered. One drinks cleaning fluid, one gets blown up on a waverunner, one goes over a cliff...so these are NOT accidents, but for some inane reason the police are never called and no one thinks that perhaps they should \"wrap\" the shoot and go home, not just in respect for the dead, but perhaps out of fear for their own lives. No. They just continue with their shoot because THAT is what's most important. Forget about the dead models, we have a magazine to produce!

One of the subplots is the Evil magazine owner, played by Lee Majors, Rex is his name. He is the most obvious suspect and every time a model gets killed he twirls his mustache and says \"well, I can't say this won't be good for sales\", mooo hoo hoo hoo ha ha ha ha\". So absurd. Another subplot is when it's revealed that Rex is one of the models baby dady, only when he learned of the baby he tried to convince the girl to abort. She didn't, but always resented him for even suggesting this.

They try to give you false clues and point toward some guy named Raule, seemingly because he's the only one with an accent and \"looks creepy\".

At the very end (sorry to spoil, but this movie came out years ago so if you haven't seen it by now...) one of the women was found face down dead in the pool. THIS was the Last straw!!!! Vanessa Angel, forget her characters name comes at Rex with a gun, they struggle, the gun fires and now SHE'S dead too!!! While she's laying on the floor his business associate tells him that with all this bad press the magazine will be worthless and it's all his fault. He gets him to sign over the magazine to him. Once he does voila! All the dead models come back to life and you find the entire thing was an elaborate ruse to get back at Rex.

Oy! What a ridiculous movie. As someone else said; if you want to see something like this April Fools Day is far better!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I caught this during a brief run in a Philadelphia theater. Despite its local provenance (and its relation to a hometown tragedy, namely the beating death of Eddie Polec in 1994), I really have to come down hard on this movie. The director, for reasons best known to himself, decided to shoot the entire film guerilla-style, with nonstop handheld cameras and rapidfire cuts. Such technique might work for the scenes of jarring violence, but is utterly inappropriate for the rest of the material, which makes up the majority of the film. A stroll down the sidewalk, a brother-to-brother discussion on a sofa, hell, even a kiss on a first-date are all shot cusinart-style, distracting this viewer from ever being able to enter into the drama. Martin also undercuts his narrative by packing in far too many topics: besides the birth of mob violence, we get anorexia, alcoholism, divorce, racism, parental abuse...did I miss anything? No doubt a better cast (and a better-focused direction) would have knit these threads together, as Martin surely intended, to demonstrate how one moral flaw leads into and sustains a host of others...but good intentions do not necessarily a great film make. Just a sprawling mess. Martin, I know you're from my town, and I'm down with you man, I really am...just do a better job next time, like you did in Two Plus One.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was outright painful for me to watch. I understand that indie films do not have the same resources as other mainstream films. But there are basic elements of film making that typically you want to adhere to. First off, jump cuts. There are numerous in the film's opening 15 minutes. There are shots in which it appears that two separate takes of the same shot were edited together. What I mean by this is a character will say half a line from one take, and the rest of the line is from a different take. Secondly, the dialog. I understand that many writers strive for a very realistic and true dialog for their films. Since this film is very specific to its location, the dialog must be spoken in a specific tone also (example: set a movie in Boston, yet people use west coast slang with a Chicago accent). Even with understanding this, it is still hard to sit through some of the lines these actors present. These are only the two most vivid problems I encountered with this film. There were a few others. I do not mean to sound like a harsh critic who doesn't know a thing. I have years of experience in the film (more importantly the low budget indie film) industry. I also understand that with many directors there is often a method to their madness. I have been unable to discover this method used in this film. This makes it difficult when trying to decide whether I view this film as an example of unique style in film making, or just another low budget, poorly put together film. I honestly hope that it is not the latter. If anyone has any insight into why things were done a certain way, or has any thoughts\/views of their own concerning this film, I would love to hear them. Hopefully I can understand this film more and my current opinion can be changed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is an example of a movie that can have great potential and is executed very poorly.. i am a fan of kids and thumb sucker and many other so called teen angst films, but this one bugged me.

why is every white kid made into a thug who loves rap, its getting to be one dimensional. the acting was awful but simple since It mainly consisted of just dropping f bomb after f bomb just a bad bad movie if you'd like to see better movies like this : thumb sucker kids bully all

those i think are better so i recommend one of those is you'd like to see a good \"teen movie\" i hope my comment you found useful and hope you hear future comments from me","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**SPOILERS** With the title of the film having the name of the killer fish twice not once you would expect to see them in action attack biting ripping and eating up almost everyone in the cast of characters. Instead you have to wait until the movie is almost over for you to get as much as a glimpse of the Piranahs. Even then all you see is the water bubbling and stirring around as a poor individual disappears under it assuming that he's being eaten, whole and alive, by the fish.

The movie \"Piranha Piranha\" starts with this scary looking Piranha on the screen as the credits start rolling down but****SPOILER****that's the only time in the movie that you ever get to see the killer fish or fishes you never get to see a Piranha is the movie again. What you do see is a travelogue of Venezuela and it's people and the Venezuelan jungle along the Amazon River basin. Together with a lot of nice and breathtaking photography of the landscape as well as the people and wildlife but that's about all.

There is some kind of a story that has to do with this great White Hunter Caribe, William Smith, which ironically means Piranha in the native language spoken there, is this what the title of the film \"Piranha Piranha\" really meant? \"Caribe Caribe\"! The person Caribe is played by legendary Hollywood Hell's Angles biker and all around tough guy William Smith.

At the beginning of the movie this trio of American tourists Jim Pendrake and his sister Terry, Peter Bown & Ahna Capri, and their American guide Art Green, Tom Simcox, are on their way into the Venezuelan jungles to go sight-seeing with Terry taking photos to send back home. Terry is terrified of guns as we learn that as a young girl saw her father get his head blown off by a gun. Even when Art saves her life using one when see's attack by a six foot long diamondback rattlesnake Terry almost belts him for having a gun; which he promised her he wouldn't take along with him on the trip.

At a jungle rest stop, or bar, the three run into Caribe who we first saw catching monkey's in the jungle at the start of the movie. Caribe makes himself more then welcomed by the three with his knowledge of the jungle and his half-baked philosophy about life and death as well as his ability to get them where their going to the local diamond mines deep in the Amazon basin.

Even though a bit strange at first, the guy is so in to himself that he doesn't seem to notice that there are any people around him, Caribe turns out to be a swell and likable guy engaging in a long and friendly motorcycle race through the swamps and jungle with Art. Caribe even shows Terry, who at one time in the movie almost knocked his teeth out, the fine points of hunting and shooting wild game that he believes don't really die but become a part of him after he kills them! A bit crazy but you have to admit this guy's got imagination.

It's much later in the movie that for some strange reason, maybe it was the cheap booze that he was drinking, Caribe suddenly goes insane and become homicidal attacking and raping Terry and then murdering her enraged brother and feeding him to the deadly Piranha's. Trying to escape from the rampaging lunatic and then being forced to have to fight it out with him Art gets beaten up so savagely by the dirty-fighting Caribe that he's almost left unconscious. Just when Caribe's about to finally kill Art he's shot to death by Terry who after experiencing what this insane nut-job is all about finally decided that guns are indeed very necessary and should be used to kill on very rare but life-saving occasions.

Worth watching, if worth watching at all, only for the scenery and nothing else. It's just a shame that the movie has to advertise as a killer fish, or Piranha, horror movie when if it was honest about itself it could have been a more or less average jungle adventure flick with Smith, he does have the build for it, playing Tarzan of the Venezuelan, not African, Jungle","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like the above poster, I got burned on the title thinking I was getting the other Piranha... This movie is everything the above poster said and worse...

Poor camera, lousy acting and just plain horrid storyline...

There was very little here that was even worth watching... How this movie even got released is beyond me.

Make sure the movie you buy is the one you want... and not this one.

The movie I bought was labeled \"Piranha\" and not \"Piranha, Piranha!\" which is what it actually is... This is the only way they sold this movie at all.

Peace Out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was duped as well. Here I was expecting all sorts of man eating Pirahnas and what the hell do you get.

An hour and a half of nothing, but awkward silences with some weird guy, who isn't weird enough to be scary.

I thought there was no way $5 could be too much for a movie.

Damn I was sooooo wrong. It was very hard to watch the whole thing.

Don't fool yourself. Its not so good that its bad. Its not even that kind of movie.

Its nothing. an hour and a half of absolutely nothing.

PIECE OF CRAP!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is just one of those films which cannot justify much of anything that happens. These people are going on a trek: the young girl wants to photograph animals. There really are no Piranhas, but I guess the psychotic hunter guy is the real piranha. Anyway, there are lots of animals and there is lots of driving. There is considerable anti-gun talk, but we all know where that is going. Toward the end, there's lots of action and a rape thrown in. Somebody must pay, and they do. It would have been nice to have a couple of piranhas to sort of fill the thing out. There were lots of monkeys. If you fast forward through the dull parts, you have a tight little five minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was dreadful. Biblically very inaccurate. Moses was 80 years old when he led the people out of Egypt, the movie has him about forty. Moses was about forty when he fled Egypt, was gone for forty years, and was with them wandering for forty years. Moses was 120 years old when he died, and was denied the privilege of crossing over to the promised land. I realize movies use a lot of \"poetic license\" as the biblical account isn't that long, but, if making a biblical movie they still need to reflect the facts known, and keep the general flavor of the main biblical character, this movie fails in this aspect, and in many others.Even though the 1956 version has its problems as well, theatrically it was much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I realise it's very hard to live up to the first The 10 Commandments movie (which was grandiose and personally not a Charleton Heston fan) but wow...this movie\/mini-series was disappointing. Even the animated The Prince of Egypt was better.

The one thing that threw me off was Ramses. Compared to Yul Brynner's version, Paul Rhys's version just seemed so weak and un-Pharoh like. The acting really wasn't that great. For a modern adaptation, I was expecting something better. It just didn't look as stunning visually as the first one. I guess they were running on a tight budget or something. There's an occasional voice-over narrator which I found strange and unnecessary. It also broke up the flow of the story. And um...God's voice\/lines were kinda weird.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wish Hollywood would come up with some new ideas and quick. Instead they go around and recreate and mess up a perfectly good movie with a re-make. This movie is awful from the DeMille version. All the way through this movie I was saying to myself, Huh??? - What???? - I don't remember that part. The only exciting thing in this movie so far was the parting of the Red Sea. And in Heston's version - it was a heck of a lot better than this version. Did anyone else see an atomic or nuclear bomb cloud fade in and out when the Red Sea was being parted? I think I did. Anyway, I Might - Might - watch the last part tonight.

I wish Hollywood would tackle different ideas and subject matters when they are making new movies. Instead of re-hashing old films.

They should of left well enough alone.

UPDATE:

Well I watched the last part. Did Moses make up the second copy of the ten commandments with his own hand - or was I seeing things - please someone - email me and let me know. HORRIBLE","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"if you're a fan of the original ten commandments, this movie will make you weep inside. granted, i'm only about 1\/2 hour into it currently, but it's so painful, i felt it was my duty to warn away real ten commandments fans before they are subjected to this bastardization. i didn't think it was possible to actually make the special effects worse than they were in 1950s when the original was shot, but this 2006 remake proves me wrong. i can forgive some lame special effects, but the craptastic dialogue, melodramatic lifetime movie-style schlockiness, and the stilted we-are-wax-figures-come-to-life acting makes me hope they'll rewrite the plot and drown moses in the red sea.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The reason why this movie sucks, have these people even read a bible? Everything in the movie was about moses, God was staying out of it. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN! God directed everything, he told them where to go and what to do. Also the people wandered for 40 years AFTER they arrived at Canan and betrayed God again! They didn't wander for 40 years then suddenly find it, It was a punishment for their doubts. Maybe if the people who made the film actually picked up a Bible first they would say oh no we got it all wrong try again. Everything in this movie was about Moses. They made God look like a jerk who was messing with Moses the whole time. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! God was their the whole time and he wanted the people to see he was taking care of them. How dare they say otherwise not even close to the passage. AND Moses was kept out because he was angry at the people and blatantly disobeyed God! He sinned badly and was told he would not be allowed to enter for it. When did moses run off and yell at God for everything in the Bible? NEVER!!!!!! Actually read your story before you make up whatever you think is a good idea. Also this whole God stayed out of it for the most part and made them do it themselves is not true!!! God did everything for the people, he provided for them in every way and God told them where to go. He was there the whole time. The whole we have to do it ourselves is true in some ways, but back then thats not how it worked! Yes today He doesn't work directly for everyone to see, but back then he actually killed people after the golden calf thing! God worked directly with the people. Read the Bible Next Time Echo Bridge or don't make another Bible movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a waste of 3 hours of my precious time..in the first 10 minutes i was already annoyed as i am familiar with the real version on the story according to the torah (5 books of moses)...but i decided to watch it to get my moneys worth and too see how bad it sucked. Well it sucked..way more then i thought it would. First and for most lets start with the script and characters the skeleton that makes up the body of a movie. If you study torah at all you'll see that the story is all wrong here are some of the distasful mistakes: moses doesn't do slave work because he was in the tribe of levi, moses doesn't kill anybody at mount sinai.. but yet the movie depicts moses being whipped and aaron and himself killing people...reeeealllly not!. When moses speaks to the burning bush he knows who hes speaking too but the movie makes moses look like an idiot, he states that he doesn't know who the g-d in the bush is... whatever|Aaron knews his brother well regardless of their distance growing up, aaron was known for his calm, composed peaceful nature but yet he is depicted as angry and arrogant in this movie. Moses looks like Jesus in this movie.. how ridiculous....pharoah the real one was actually and ugly dwarf who sat upon a pyramid of stairs so he could appear bigger then he was and moses was more then 10 feet and in the movie pharoah is taller then him and hes hot with light eyes! The woman of Am Israel (nation of Israel) covered themselves meaning their hair and bodies and they didn't dance or sing in front of men, they did not participate in the golden calf so they would definitely not dance with a man in public as the movie depicts. Moses's wife Tzipora was married to moses and she therefore covered herself and being as humble as they were did not cuddle or hold hands in public. Batia Pharoahs daughter ( the one who adopts him and saves him from the water) actual converted to Judaism and therefore would have been proud of Moses when he said he was going to go free his people.fast fwd to mount sinai moses comes down the 2nd time with two sets of tablets...with gibberish writing on it..at least put the writing in the holy tongue, hebrew or English and put it on one tablet not two sets.. Bottom line is the movie is horribly written, directed and the characters are all wrong..basically EVERYTHING is wrong about the movie... The old one is inaccurate as well but its more realistic, and they actors are believable. Am Israel Chai!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie could have had a lot of potential. Certainly with today's technology, one would expect real special effects. But movies are not made with special effects alone, of course acting is needed. This film lacked both!

First, let me say to those who are upset with this not following the bible: why can't a movie take artistic license? If you want to know about the story of Moses, read the bible. I have seen very few movies that follow a true story fact by fact. Look at of movie from its artistic quailities.

In viewing this movie, you will inevitably compare it to the 1956 version. It fails miserably in that. Heston and Brenner had PRESENCE. They became their roles. You don't see this here.

Even if you don't compare, standing on it's own, this movie to too rushed. Parts where a scene should be developed, it does not. It becomes boring.

My advice: skip this and watch the other. As campy as the other is, it's far and away the better movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For a really wonderful movie, you could also try seeing the movie about Saint Francis of Assisi - good for any audience. Best thing I liked about this movie was the Mexico landscape, & it gets the movie up to a 2. I was surprised that these actors didn't have terrible sunburn, they were so were not desert dwellers. And Moses is said to have a speakING impediment, but certainly not here. Even the \"miracle\" scenes were contrived & un-believable. And what's the point if you can belief anything in a TV story? Talk about dumbing down, I thought this Hallmark-made movie was pathetic, & I can see why others hate Hollywood. I don't, just some of these corporate profit grubbers. You don't have to be any kind of religious to benefit from \"Jesus of Nazareth\", but for this waste of celluloid you need to be bored, with nothing to do, dumbed-down & religious. And for a real movie experience, try \"Short Cut to Nirvana\", a very highly rated film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the English accents to the so unnecessary violence after violence. Showing Moses as a murderer. People who actually believe in the Old Testament will just sit there and shake their heads. I am not a religious person at all. But even i felt as though the writers of this movie were trying to turn us all against God and the Jews.When Moses picked up that rock and threw the first stone at the woman to kill her for committing adultery. I wanted to stone the writers. I can't believe in this day and age that Hallmark and ABC (Disney) would attempt to show such garbage as this. Don't we have enough problems in this world already?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is difficult to compete against classic greatness, but once you make that choice and the decision is in play, you need find the best and brightest resources to keep your product top drawer, and on the cutting edge of quality. If your intention is to aim for second or third (or fourth) best, why even try? It is with that, I wonder why this version of the Ten Commandments was written, produced, and aired. I would ask the producers, \"What were you thinking? Were you endeavoring to create a projected deficit?\" If perhaps the producers were thinking, \"We want to examine this biblical story from another point of view...\" Then I would say \"OK, I watched the show, now what's the point of view?\" The premise of this \"possible point of view theory\" eludes me. I can generally watch programs, and (right or wrong) at least get a sense of what the creators were trying to accomplish. Not so, here. I recognize names such as \"Robert Halmi\" (the producer) and I can associate his work with some eye catching product; Tin Man, Earthsea, Flash Gordon, Jason and the Argonauts. Low budget entertainment based on myth, history and comic book entertainment. A perfect genre for Sci-Fi Channel. So I still have to ask Robert Halmi...\"What was the point of THIS Ten Commandments, What WERE you thinking?\" \u0085\u0085\u0085\u0085FJS","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nice attempt to bring Shakespearian language alive in a post-apocalyptic setting, but the final result is dreadful. Futuristic Liverpool is not convincing at all; the budget was obviously not very big, but the production designer could have come up with a slightly more creative approach to the matter. Alex Cox has made some good films, e.g. Repo Man and Highway Patrol Man, but i really don't know what he was thinking here. Just an opinion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i really wanted this to be good as i am from Liverpool where it is set but it truly awful. the acting from everyone involved is cringeworthy the script is terrible absolutly terrible. terrible","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Does anyone care about any of the characters in this film? - Or for that matter what happens to them? - I doubt it. That is the key problem - for a tragedy to work we have to care about at least one of the characters and none of them inspire any sympathy or appear to have any redeeming qualities at all.

What may have worked in the 16th Century, certainly does not work in one can only assume 'post apocalyptic Liverpool' if that was indeed what it was meant to be. The problem is the characters in post apocalyptic Liverpool, whilst still driving around in cars, using mobile phones and watching television, have reverted to speaking in Shakespearian language - with a Liverpudlian dialect. Oh dear! Bad enough you might think - but this often lapsed into pure scouse - with comments such as 'eh lah are you a cockney? And was that a Merseyrail announcement during one of the scenes filmed in the underground? Well the good news is that in Post apocalyptic Liverpool - the trains are still running.

The characters without exception are badly drawn, wooden and more like charicatures on the lines of the Joker\/Penguin in Batman and Robin except there is no real storyline to speak of - or if there is - it is one that doesn't work in a modern setting where half the sets are gloomy and 'Blade runnerish' and the other half are fluorescent garish or just 21st century normal. Costumes are also mixed up with half wearing their everyday clothes (Parkers are big in post apocalyptic Liverpool - apparently) and the other half wearing costumes from the leftovers of a fancy dress party?

The film explores the ideas of lust, incest and revenge in the most inane fashion imaginable - the tragedy is that this film was made at all.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie, after hearing Chris Gore saying something to the effect of \"five stars!\" on that Attack of the Show show. Well when I turned around the DVD and it showed the 3 stages of hell, well I had to buy it. Just to see the spectacle of a mother yelling at her son to drop her other son into a flaming pit.

I wasn't expecting ECW or CZW for an hour and eighteen minutes, but I was expecting at least a summarized version of what seemed to be the main highlight of this movie. Well sadly there wasn't anything like that. The 3 stages of death part happens right from the beginning, and its pretty much downhill from there. Nothing really happens in this documentary. It was pretty raw, bare and unbiased. Not a bad thing, but there is a narrator in this one. You'd expect him to have opinions on the subject of this documentary, but he doesn't. Which would of been nice to have, a message or reason for this doc.There was no real reason to have a narrator, there should of been just text explaining some of the less obvious scenes.

It doesn't really explain the lives of these wrestlers either. It shows a few moments of some dramatic scenes, which sound interesting, but the reality isn't as great as it sounds. For instance mom watching her son wrestle with light bulbs and tacks, for the first time, at a public park. instead of seeing her reaction to the wrestling, They show her reacting to the camera, instead of say a interview later on, or just actually witnessing her reactions.

Legitamit document wise, this one ain't. The source material was flimsy to begin with. Nothing truly profound or interesting really happens. No conclusion to a few of the more interesting stories, No real point or final thought to backyard wrestling, edited together badly, and its and its basically a cheap, failed rip off of Beyond the Mat.

Wrestling wise, this is pretty boring. the better bumps are at the beginning, and slowly become less amazing and shocking. If you have seen Japanese wrestling, Indie wrestling, or even Backyard Wrestling Dvds, than this wont shock and awe you. If you want wrestling don't make the same mistake I did and see this one. Go get some CZW ECW or XPW Dvds instead.

The only thing I got out of this documentary was how stupid people can be. Not for supporting self mutilation or doing dangerous stunts, but their reasoning for committing these acts. The backyarders seem stupid for wrestling. Most of them are jobless, and probably have a few issues in their head, and wrestling is a type of therapy for them. Than the supporters seem even more idiotic. Mothers basically take the whole \"if ya cant beat em join em\" reasoning to cope with the fact that their sons are basically killing themselves. School authority figures support their students in their dangerous stunts because its an alternative to joining gangs and to a lesser extend doing drugs, which is kinda funny since that segment took place in a rural town, where like people live 20 miles from one another. People are stupid. Thats what I extracted from this documentary.

If you want to see the reasoning and thoughts to someone brutalizing themselves in wrestling and basically what the back of this DVD promises, get UNSCARRED: the Life of Nick Mondo. Its more amazing, and interesting than the Backyard, and a lot more entertaining. Oh and its actually good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Uncle Fred Olen Ray once again gives us a little of his Retromedia \"goodness\" in the form of this soft-core Cinemax non-classic.

A numb-nut pair are out looking at rocks when they come across a swirling vortex a \"black hole\" as the intelligent dolts put it. Pretty soon an attractive cave girl from one million years ago happens into out time-line and she beds her way into the future. Pretty soon her studly other half makes his way into the future as well and blazes a path through the beds of the future.

Ray again delivers a passable (but barely) smut-fest that has horrible acting but some decent skin. Yeah it's barely titillating but heh! If worse comes to worse it will cure you insomnia.

S10 reviews: 1\/5 or 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The VHS cover for The Evil Below makes it look like a cool underwater horror flick. Sadly it's closer to a boring adventure flick and has no real horror elements. It starts off with some divers who get attacked and we see a bit of blood, but that's the only blood in the entire film.

The Evil Below isn't the worst around, but for a horror film it is tediously boring. The acting is decent and to be honest the only thing that keeps you watching is the developing romance between the two leads. There's a few nightmare sequences where it just seems like the director didn't know what to do. I manged to sit through it all (just about) but I wouldn't recommend this film to ANYONE. Horror fans might want a copy for the cool VHS cover, but it's best left at that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Evil Below starts on 'The Straits of San Sebastian 1683' as the 17th century treasure ship the El Diablo sinks in a violent thunderstorm. Jump to 'The Straits of San Sebastian Present Day' where two divers are exploring the beautiful underwater coral reefs that are rich in wildlife, the come across the sunken wreck of the El Diablo & explore it but are attacked & killed by something that looks like a vicious eel. Captain Max Cash (Wayne Crawford) owns & runs a boat-for-hire named the 'Vagrant Viking' which caters for tourists who want to fish, dive & generally explore the islands. Sarah Livingstone (June Chadwick) is an art teacher who dives for treasure as a hobby (well we all have to do something to pass the time right?), she hires Max & his scantily clad assistant Tracy (Sheri Able) so she can try to locate the El Diablo & get rich. Talk of sunken treasure excites some of the more unscrupulous members of the local community, as they dodge the criminals & thugs it is brought to Max & Sarah's attention that the El Diablo has a sinister past, a past that supposedly still leaves it's supernatural legacy behind even now...

Directed by Jean-Claude Dubois, according to the IMDb with a little help from star Crawford although the version I saw only listed Dubois, I thought The Evil Below had some potential & is a bit different but unfortunately that's not enough to save it from sinking to the bottom of the sea like a stone. The script by Arthur Payne starts off OK with the two divers being killed by some sort of sea creature but this opening is NEVER referred to again, the creature is NEVER seen again & there are no more supernatural killings. The Evil Below then suffers from a serious & terminal case of identity crisis, it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be as it chucks bits & pieces of various genres in there from underwater adventure, horror, action, thriller, crime & it even has time to throw in a little murder mystery & religious nonsense as well. As a result The Evil Below feels very bitty, fragmented & since the best scene in the entire film is the opening sequence I found myself sat there becoming more & more frustrated at the lack of any consistent horror as it went downhill rapidly & the fact we never see the sea creature thing again. The Evil Below is dull, slow, uneventful, predictable, silly & lacks any sort of charm or intelligence, in short The Evil Below doesn't do anything right that a good film should.

Director Dubois fails to liven things up although he obviously shot plenty of underwater wildlife material as at times I thought I was watching a National Geographic documentary with all the shots of fish, coral & the wildlife in general. Forget about any gore, some blood stained water & blood coughing is about as gory as it gets I'm afraid.

Technically The Evil Below is very basic, it's bland & totally forgettable apart from nice underwater photography of fish. This is point & shoot stuff & as a whole the production values are very low, even the place where this was shot doesn't look very sunny or appealing. The acting is poor, but then again did you expect anything else?

The Evil Below is a poor film, it's basic story is all over the place & it can't decide what it wants to be & as a result it ends up being a mess. Add that to the low production values, the fact there's no gore here & absolutely minimal horror content you have a film that is probably best avoided unless your absolutely desperate & even then surely there are better ways to spend 90 plus minutes of your life...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Max Cash a charter boat captain who works off the Caribbean island San Sebastian is hired by Sarah, who's looking for legendary boat, El Diablo and its stolen treasure that sunk out in the reef in the 17th century. But something seems to be protecting the whereabouts of the ship, as people who knew anything about it are being killed.

I have to agree with those that were under the impression that this was going to be a horror feature. Instead what we ended up with was a low-rent, b-grade late 80s take on 1977 deep-sea adventure film 'The Deep', but with a baffling supernatural origin and an injection of mystery. The story is a tame muddle (so many inconsistent angles don't make a lick of sense and encourages a blotchy pace) and the technical side is clunky. Nice exotic location and under-water photography though. While the carefree performances weren't too bad either. A gruff Wayne Crawford is enjoyably witty and June Chadwick is fair along side him. Sheri Able is pretty much eye candy. There are some bizarre developments that amuse and one or two eerie sequences. However there's a real lack of cohesion. Most of the cutaway deaths happen off-screen, except for the bloody, fitful opening kills done by something unseen. Again just another thing that leaves you high and dry. The music is generic with its thumping cues to warn us of approaching danger and the POV shots get a good working out. Tatty, but watchable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***Minor Plot Spoilers***

I must confess to having a soft spot for Wayne Crawford. I know little about him, but he appears to have masses of enthusiasm to compensate for his lack of talent. In his films he usually performs multi-tasks - perm any 3 from lead male, director, producer and script-writer - tackling story lines from the sub-basement. Despite this the end product is usually enjoyable fun for the non-discerning.

'The Evil Below' features Crawford as a down-on-his-luck Captain of a ramshackle charter boat, a bit like Bogart in 'To Have & Have Not' - the similarities between the films ends here though.

The story begins with an underwater scene with two divers searching a wreck, before being attacked by an unseen creature - bit like the start of 'Jaws 2'. The wreck turns out to be that of the 'El Diablo', which went down centuries earlier. The ship was manned by heretic priests on the run from Spain, with a cargo of stolen Church treasure. This allows the introduction of various links to supernatural forces with Lucifer and The Armageddon both getting a look in. The films title refers to this sunken Devil-ship, rather than any malevolent sea-creature.

Whatever faults the film has (and there are many) it is fun to watch and competently made. You can't help but like a film which, in the final 5 minutes, copies the famous beach scene in 'From Here to Eternity' and the final line from 'Casablanca'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a total yawnfest that took forever to get going, but never really did. It was simply boring to watch, so much in fact I could just never really get into it. This movie is not a horror movie by an stretch of the imagination, the cover of the videotape made it out to be one. Instead it is a thriller type movie with a few elements of horror thrown in as to make the movie more interesting. Of course, it does not help this movie at all. Mostly all I remember is that this movie was kind of like a movie from the 1970's called \"The Deep\". Bunch of looking for treasure, rival groups that sort of thing. There are supernatural twists in it too, but to tell you the truth I was so bored when watching this movie that I kind of zoned out so I can not really tell you what the supernatural elements were. I kind of remember footprints on the bottom of the sea so maybe it was some sort of walking dead, or that may be me thinking of Lucio Fulcio's \"Zombie\" movie instead as that one was a horror movie that was set in a tropical island and as outlandish as that one was it was a lot more entertaining than this movie. That day we learned a valuable lesson, never rent a movie based on its cover art.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In this Silly Symphony, a mouse from the country visits his cousin in the city. Most of the short is the two mice exploring the dinner table. The animation is fine, where this short suffers is in a lack of humor. Perhaps I've just seen this \"dinner table adventure\" in one too many Tom and Jerry shorts. Even though this came first, I just didn't find it that enjoyable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

Very dull, laborious adaptation of Amis's amusing satire. The hero is portrayed not as a likeable loser but a merely oafish cretin. Most of the rest are pure caricatures with only Helen McCrory putting in real quality and providing something of the novel's wit. The period setting is camped up as if it were the 1920s, not the post-war period of horror comics and rock'n' roll. A real dud even by the standards of bad UK TV.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On the plus side this does contain interesting information over a wide range of topics, particularly concerned with Himmler, the SS and their research branch. It also has some good piano music, some interesting footage and some excellent camera work.

However it is a very poor piece of historical work. It has no clear aim to it and the entire thing could be summed up as follows.

Himmler set up a department in the SS for research into the origins of the German race. They went all over the world. They did some things and launched expeditions to all manner of places... (nonoe of these avenues were explored, the results were not shown and the arguments were barely refuted). They wanted to establish that the Aryan race and the German people were one and the same thing through historical proof. They didn't find any. The members of this research group were leading professors, members of the SS and therefore linked to the holocaust, and were seen as OK after the war and went on to lead German institutes.

These facts in themselves are fascinating but they are never explored in depth and no coherent argument is presented in the program that either condemns these people or exonerates them. Nor does this seem to be the aim of the programme, the aim of the program is unclear, it hops from topic to topic. The witnesses, though presented as credible, are few and unsupported.

Sadly this programme does not know where it is going or why and fails to impress. The topics are fascinating but this program tries to take on a huge area of research and consequently appears to not know what is going on. I would avoid this.

Also the 'Holy Grail'is the German bloodline, nothing to do with the Holy Grail of Christian mythology except in passing. Mentions of expeditions to look for the Christian Holy grail are made but never followed through. The title is misleading and the content of this documentary unconvincing and incomplete.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The good news for IMDb is that this movie was so very bad that it compelled me to register and make a comment. I should add here that I'm a film buff who rarely passes harsh judgment. But sometimes a movie is so poorly acted, poorly conceived, poorly edited, with a such a poor story line that it begs criticism.

I'm surprised by all the claims of how superb, brilliant, dark, and beautifully shot this movie was. I can only conclude that the cast and crew are active posters here. The acting was extremely thin. The pace of the movie was agonizing. I gave it new chances at every turn (mostly because I didn't want to feel like I was wasting a Saturday morning in NY), but with every new scene, it dragged longer, delivering characters in which I took no interest, with which I could not connect, for whom I could not empathize.

When I see negative reviews on IMDb of small independent films like this, I sometimes wonder if the poster has a personal axe to grind (something like. . he used to date the gaffer, she dumped him, and now he's going to trash everything she ever works on). But here, nope. I know no one who worked on this film. And I wish it would have been great. But the film wasn't dark (as some have mentioned) or depressing (as others have claimed). . . those suggest that I connected with the film . . . nope, Henry May Long was just too long, empty, and tedious.

That's the Tomas Take on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film with fine production values features secrets and how friends use each other. Henry May Long is a very well-acted, dimly lit, depressing turn-of-the-century period piece about a friendship between a fatally ill man and a melancholy, indebted junkie. Talky drawing room dramas are not my cup of tea, and all the crying wears thin. Recommended if you like independent, slyly intellectual, slow-paced Merchant Ivory-type features.

I suspected that the main characters were in love, but their connection was so intimated, it didn't really have the emotional impact of 'Brokeback Mountain.' It features some good writing with a scene discussing how to disappear in life, but it is truly a dark and depressing film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched 40 minutes and couldn't bear it any longer \u0096 the television went off and I returned to some light reading \"Lobotomy for Beginners\".

It was hard to say what aspect of this production was most displeasing - dialogue made up entirely of sound-bytes or the acting by numbers.

It was difficult to determine the period in which the drama was supposed to take place. There were throw-away references to Lord Nelson and slavery but Edmund, the cleric-to-be, played by Blake Ritson was the only actor who one could believe inhabited the early 19th century. The other bright-young things had make-up and costumes more appropriate to a 21st century fancy dress party - the bleached-blonde Fanny, Billie Piper being the least credible character.

UK commercial television obviously believes heaving bosoms, pouting lips and deep meaningful looks make a good story. Fortunately Jane Austen had other ideas.

If you want to find out the story of Mansfield Park, buy the 1983 mini-series DVD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I doubt whoever wrote this screenplay has ever actually read Mansfield Park...or if they have it was not very well. None of the characters are what they should be: Fanny is lively and conscious of her mistreatment, while Sir Thomas, who treated her very well, seems to have accidentally fallen into Aunt Norris' personality. Additionally, a first person narrative by Fanny is highly inappropriate to both the story and her character. Fanny is not an entertaining heroine, and I would contend that she is not meant to be. Additionally, in the movie version, Fanny flirts shamelessly with Edmund from the very beginning, when they have been raised as brother and sister! Austen's Fanny would have shrank from flirtation of any sort, and the novel paints the Fanny\/Edmund pairing as highly uncomfortable...as it should be. Unlike some other Jane Austen novels (P&P, Emma), Mansfield Park does not rest on the strength of its female protagonist. It is a very different sort of novel than the others; it is not meant to be a love story. I watched this movie because I have just now finished reading Mansfield Park, and I am absolutely horrified by what I see; Miss Austen is rolling in her grave.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, this latest version of Mansfield Park seemed to try and take the edginess of the 1999 theatrical version (outright copied some of the ideas from it in fact), but tone things down a bit to bring it more in line with the original story. Unfortunately, the result is a rather lackluster, and schizophrenic, production. And, as with all the other versions of Mansfield Park out there, the character of Fanny Price is no where to be found. Instead there is a strangely child-like, bleached-blond woman running around who never really fully develops as a character. At least in the 1999 movie the character they call \"Fanny Price\" is firmly established as rebellious tomboy who is too clever for her own good. This \"Fanny Price\" is a complete enigma. Someday, I would really like to see a dramatization of Mansfield Park that actually includes a depiction of the character of Fanny as she was written by Jane Austen. A sweet, kind, compassionate girl with a timid personality and frail constitution. She is reserved in manner and painfully honest, but also strong in her convictions, unfailingly loyal, extremely intelligent, and remarkably astute. A bit of a late bloomer, it is not until her eighteenth year that she finally begins to make the transition from awkward adolescent to self-possessed young woman. And she wants nothing more in life than to be of some real use to those she loves most. It's a wonderfully complex character that I look forward to one day seeing faithfully portrayed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh dear! The BBC is not about to be knocked off its pedestal for absorbing period dramas by this one. I agree this novel of Jane Austens is the difficult to portray particularly to a modern audience, the heroine is hardly a Elizabeth Bennet, even Edmund is not calculated to cause female hearts to skip a beat. However I must say I was hoping for an improvement on the last and was sadly disappointed. The basic story was preserved, but the dialogue was so altered that all that was Jane Austen's tone, manner, feeling, wit, depth, was diluted if not lost. If some past adaptions may be seen as dated the weakness of this one must be that it is too modern ('his life is one long party'?????) The cast was generally adequate, but I think Billie Piper was the wrong choice, it needed someone more restrained, I gained no impression of hidden depths beneath a submissive exterior, she was more like a frolicking child. I see I must wait for the BBC to weave its magic once again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm no Jane Austen purist but why make a film like this if you have nothing to say.

Billie Piper was so wrong for the part it is difficult to know where to begin-wrong personality,modern make-up,completely wrong hair (there is no way a young lady of her age would have romped around in public with her hair loose and unbrushed like that),she didn't seem particularly meek nor put-upon by the family and I didn't understand why everyone seemed to think of her as particularly saintly or kind.

The picnic(substituted for the ball) was so low-budget it was embarrassing to watch and missing out the Portsmouth section completely destroyed the point of the piece (as well as losing scenes which could have added a gritty counterpoint to that oh-so-claustrophobic pink sitting room.)

To those responsible:-If you haven't the imagination (even the budget doesn't matter so much as the imagination) to do something meaningful with an adaptation please don't pretend to be producing Jane Austen.

It was about 10% Mansfield Park and 90% nothing much at all

PS Edmund was very good","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... when we all know, no one does it like the BBC.

Being an avid fan of this sort of Sunday night watching, i was quite looking forward to this. How disappointed was I! In the first thirty seconds I didn't think it was looking promising and after two minutes i was finding it hard to watch.

However me and my friends persisted only to find bad acting and a complete misunderstanding of half of the characters. The plot was hurried to the extreme and the make up and costumes gaudy and very 21st century in a 'bbc robin hood' style. This modern style may have been able to be placed within sharp camera angles and visually sumptuous cinematography but unfortunately we got neither. The direction felt decidedly sloppy for both acting and shot choice.

After 30 mins we couldn't bare to watch it and went out and rented 'The Prestige'(which is very good btw) Maybe it is unfair that I judge this as I have watched so little of this, but rarely have I felt so compelled to warn people not to watch something! However, me and my friends did think that the house and parasols were pretty- but thats as good as it gets.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Please...if anybody gets the chance to read this BEFORE watching the movie, if it can be called so, refrain from it... do not waste your time!!!! I too watched this film right after finishing the book, and was seriously disappointed... the main character is basically a new made up Fanny, for she shows NO resemblance whatso ever to the book...she's so lively and laughing all the time... if there was one thing the author wanted to set on this was that she was a very shy, introverted character.... please!!!!! All the most important parts of the story, which are supposed to convey to the heppy ending, are simply not taken into account...and the rest made up!!! I think one is better off using the time to either read a little bit of the actual novel or simply do nothing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was just telecast here in the U.S. Others have commented on the faithfulness (or lack of same) to the novel; the 1983 BBC version is far superior on this and all other counts. Given the scope of the novel, it should not have been condensed to 85 minutes. Key sections have to be rushed or alluded to, or omitted; there barely enough time just to get in the chronology of events, so character development has to be sacrificed: we cannot get much of a sense of who the people are, which robs us of what makes Austen so great.

One major negative for me was the cinematography, which I thought was just awful, and quite literally sickening. The camera is constantly doing ultra-closeups, and swirling around and around in circles. Maybe on a small TV box this is OK, but on our 40\" hi-def screen it was so literally dizzying that both my wife and I had to look away from the set repeatedly (my Dramamine supply had run out). Of course, this did distract from the rather lackluster I'm-just-reading-what's-in-the-script acting (isolated scenes are nicely done, but not enough to save things).

Adding up the score so far in the Complete J.A. Sweepstakes: I'd rate \"Northanger Abbey\" a success, because of superior direction and production values (and the story lends itself better to short treatment), \"Persuasion\" OK (though not the equal of other versions, with condensation again being at fault), both far ahead of this attempt. I will hope for better in the two remaining novels in this TV Reader's Digest Jane Austen; like others, I am thankful they left P & P alone!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why bother, ITV? Admittedly, Mansfield Park is the most difficult of the novels to \"get,\" and Fanny is certainly the hardest to like, but... If one is going to take it on, then have the courage to risk being true to the book and its rather complicated spirit. And for heaven's sake, have the guts to cast Fanny as she was written: A prissy, good-hearted, sweetish, whiner! Mrs. Norris wasn't nearly as awful as she should have been. And what the heck happened to Portsmouth? The contrast between Fanny's rather dubious family and family home and the splendors of Mansfield is key to, well, so many aspects of Fanny's refusal of Henry, her uncle's rejection, Henry's near transformation to a good person, etc., etc. Again, given the complexity and challenges of the novel, why did they bother? It's beyond me...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why did they have to make such a dreadful adaptation? The whole \"Complete Jane Austin\" series as a part of Masterpiece Classics looks like a huge disappointment. Characters are totally miscast and there's no chemistry on the screen. The whole thing feels rather rushed. The 1999 movie release based on the same novel seems like a masterpiece compared to this. I really want to forget it. I'm really happy though that \"Pride and Prejudice\" won't be re-made as part of this project and we will see the iconic and magnificent Colin Firth and Jennifer Elle as protagonists. if you skipped this \"Mansfield Park\" production consider yourself lucky!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've read plenty of Jane Austen in my time and approve of several cinema\/TV adaptations but this one we just don't need.

Rating is a 2 as I wouldn't say it's awful just so boring you will feel like you've wasted 90 minutes of your life. Dull script matched by even duller acting. I've heard Billie Piper is OK in Dr Who (not a fan so can't confirm) but in this she just sucks. There is absolutely no chemistry between the leads. This is Austen, it's supposed to be a romance!

Please don't let this put you off Austen or historical dramas. There are plenty of better programmes to view.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For a teenager who has never read Austen, this adaptation might be fine. But only for them. This is a disjointed \"Cliff Notes\" version of Mansfield Park, and if you have not seen another version or read the books parts of it would be head scratching.

Why has it been so hard to do a good adaptation of this book? The one in the 1990s took such liberties that it barely seemed to be the same book - the mindset was completely modern and prurient.

Here we have Billie Piper who looks like a pretty country wench. She has a charming personality that develops nicely - but she has flagrantly died blonde hair, with black eyebrows and - through much of the pic - dark brown roots. So much for unspoiled cousin. It is incredibly distracting, and the rest of the cast is in the greasy hair, rumpled clothing genre that shows a real disrespect for period accuracy.

One thing is good here - Haley Atwell is the best Mary Crawford of all the versions. She is note perfect, flirtatious without being at all modern or suggestive, flippant and completely without any moral or ethical compass. Henry here is actually good looking enough to be a slight temptation for our heroine.

Jemma Redgrave takes one of the most interesting roles in the story and manages to make her actually boring until her last scene - much too sensible. This is just a production that really missed the mark, a real low for Austen fans.

The only serviceable version is the one with odd duck (perfect for the role) Sylvestra La Touzel (despite the very very gay Henry Crawford - he's just laughable).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rozema's 1999 adaptation of Mansfield Park is far superior to this ostensibly slightly more faithful film. The 1999 film is reviled by many Austen purists, but I admire the job Rozema did in making Mansfield Park her own. It may not be strictly Jane Austen's Mansfield Park, but at least it was well-written, beautifully shot, and well-acted by a superior cast. I don't see how Austen purists can be any happier with this 2007 version from ITV (and rebroadcast on Masterpiece Theatre\/PBS). The screenplay is shoddily pasted together and dumbed down to boot, the production values are lackluster, and the cast (apart from Jemma Redgrave and Blake Ritson) are largely guilty of bad acting. I can't think of a worst miscast than Billie Piper as Fanny Price. Her look was all wrong (bleached hair and dark brows??) and her talent simply wasn't suited to the material. Sir Thomas looked constipated the whole time. Michelle Ryan as Mariah was on autopilot, as were the actors who portrayed the Crawfords (when I think how superior Alessandro Nivola and Embeth Davidtz were in the '99 version, I just kinda shake my head).

I haven't seen the 1983 version, so I can't comment on it, but I'd advise anyone who's curious to give the '99 version a chance. Read the novel before or after and make up your own mind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Is it just me or are most of the actors in this adaptation miscast age-wise?

Jemma Redgrave, although a superior actress, seems as if she should be joining her children instead of nodding off on the couch. (I would have loved to see Brenda Blethlyn in the part, her connection to the latest Pride and Prejudice notwithstanding.)

Blake Ritson and Rory Kinnear were the only two whom I felt lived up to their characters in spirit and performance. Every else looked confused or out of place.

Luckily, I'm not very familiar with Dr. Who (I've only seen a few episodes so far) or it would have definitely soured this further.

Too bad Mansfield Park has not yet seen its due on screen (either large or small). This novel requires the talent of a Robert Altman to balance all the complexities of the characters successfully.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mansfield Park, in its second half, is my favorite of Austen's novels, and Fanny Price my favorite of her heroines, so I'm saddened by the unhappy fate she's suffered in her big- and small-screen representations. The only good reading of the character I've heard was done for radio by Amanda Root, who gave it the same quality as she did the character Anne in the film of \"Persuasion\": a stern, sure, heartfelt moral centeredness. If the actress had been younger she would have been good visual casting as well; but the Fannys that have reached our eyes to date have more resembled, respectively: Mary Crawford; Ruby the scullery girl; and (in this incarnation) a jovial serving wench, or possibly tart, with her high moral principles pulled down a peg.

Well, I had hoped for better, but had feared worse. The serial had a solid Edmund, in an actor who was best at likable saps, and the perfect, i.e. perfectly abominable, Mrs. Norris; otherwise it was dullish. The film, which was apparently intended as a deconstruction or some other bad theatrical idea, came off as a mixed-up burlesque. After such disappointments, and the more recent disappointments of this production's sister pieces (the new \"Persuasion\" and \"Northanger Abbey\"), I couldn't help but have mixed expectations for this one; and on the whole, it left me feeling slightly better disposed to it than not. It condensed the novel intelligently, and in the end left me with much the same feeling, as a comic-book version might. On the other hand, to do so it had to rework most of the characters, except the Crawfords, and it incidentally diminished or eliminated most or all of the most memorable things in the book, including its most famous character and what should be, if it isn't, its most famous scene.

The character is the officious Aunt Norris, always ready to direct other people in what to do, but always managing to avoid having to do any of it herself; here one gets no sense of that at all. And with her goes much else: her remark that cuts through Fanny, \"...considering who and what you are\"; Sir Thomas's discovery that she has forbidden Fanny a fire in her room all these years, and his roundabout apology for her; Fanny's honesty in acknowledging, during a visit home, that Aunt Norris, for all her faults, could manage the household better than either of her sisters. But then, that entire trip is missing from the story, and so is most of what goes on at the theatrical rehearsals and most of what discomfits Sir Thomas on his return; and in fact Sir Thomas himself, and his wife, are different from what they were. Above all, the scene in which Crawford proposes to Fanny, one of Austen's most complex, is simplified to a bare telling; missing from it is Fanny's staunch upholding of what she knows to be right, and what she knows to be very probably true, against all the distractions Crawford and anybody else can throw at her. To a male reader, now no less than when it was written, it reveals with unmatched clarity--unmatched, at any rate, as far as I know--what a woman goes through in trying to deal fairly but firmly with a man she has reason to distrust. It's a brilliant scene, in the novel; on TV it's just a scene.

And, Fanny, oh, Fanny: when will we see your like?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I agree with several of you that this film was rather boring and dull. I found myself disliking the main character and the following actors\/actresses that came in the scenes. The camera work was non pleasing itself. Random shots and shaky film scenes made me quite annoyed and I turned the film off. I will make up my time by watching the 1999 adaption and hope that it fits agreeable along with Sense and Sensibility; Emma; Becoming Jane; and Pride and Prejudice. I've only a few others to watch besides these films but I believe they were done in great taste. The music was kind of out of place with the film also, reminding me of another show I had seen this year. It was called Hex and a show from BBC. I came across it one night on the web. I rather liked the first season but the second season was dry and pulling things out of thin air that should of stayed with the clouds. I found the main male character who was Henry in this film out of place. Perhaps I just do not like his way of speaking or his stature. Well I would not recommend this film to anyone unless they were going to have it muted and they wanted to look at the fashion of the era, or the way homes were kept at the time. Again I will watch the 1999 version and hope it is a better and does Jane Austen some justice to her writing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I started to take a critical view on this adaptation within the first few minutes but as a dedicated Jane Austen fan I persevered through to the end... However, this is not a programme I would recommend to someone unfamiliar with her work as I don't think it does the book justice, nor makes particularly entertaining television in its own right. There was something about this adaptation that lacked believability - many of the costumes and even the actors did not have an authentic look and I found the acting to be, at times, poor. There is no doubt that the actors were all very good-looking, but this didn't provide enough variety to create really diverse, memorable characters. It was far too static being set entirely in the same location and missing out Fanny's return home, which is one of the most interesting parts of the story. The best actor was Blake Ritson, who captured the wholesomeness of Edmund very well, and the Crawfords were effectively cast too. I do like Billie Piper as an actress, but this role did not suit her and was much better played by Frances O'Connor in the 1999 version who gave overall a far more subtle and convincing performance. Jane Austen adaptations will always provide a love story to leave you feeling good but unfortunately, this is one of the worst I have seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a fan of nearly any period drama, and at that a huge Jane Austen fan, I was horrified by this adaption. As a fan of the 1999 version of Mansfield Park, I was constantly comparing the two and this fell far short. It felt hugely rushed and very one-dimensional so that it became boring very quickly. There seemed to be no subtly to the relationships, particularly that of Fanny and Edmund, and little atmosphere despite being set in a beautiful location. Despite having looked forward to the Jane Austen season since Christmas I turned this off after an hour and went to bed. I will be interested to watch the adaptations of Persuasion and Northanger Abbey, of which I have no much-loved version, to see if they still manage to bore me in such a manner.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a crappy movie! The main character in this movie was supposed to be born and brought up in Canada, yet he had a thicker Indian accent than his parents! Is it just me or does Uday look gay in this movie? Also, do all the chicks in Canada dress like sluts? At least that's how it is in this movie. All the females are dressed like strippers. Don't waste your time with this one! The only good thing about this movie is the setting in beautiful Vancouver. Wonder why Bollywood is going through a slump? It's because of movies like this. I miss the good old' days when Hindi movies were actually entertaining!I couldn't even finish this movie because it was so bad. I think Bollywood needs to stop trying to replicate the style of Hollywood because it's just not working out. They need to stick to their roots because that's what makes Indian movies entertaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is the worst film i have ever seen and what disappoints me the most is that this is yash raj film so at first when you see the promos you think yes thats definitely another yash raj hit But when you see the film your eyes will water with disappoint the storyline is stupid and dumb we've seen it many times boy is soon to marry and falls in love with a girl blah blah blah. if you do see this pathetic film don't go with you family there is too much exposure and kiss scene. i don even see why you would go to see it on your own. overall this is a disgraceful disgusting and anything else which is bad and starts with a d film don't go to see it you'll end up hating yash ji and yash raj films","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is definitely not worth spending either money or time. It is the same hackneyed plot of a guy and a girl meeting and falling in love. But this is with a western touch. But it fails miserably in either depicting a love story or giving it the western touch. Never do we feel that the hero and heroin are in love. There is no depth to either of their characters. Probably, with a better cast, some justice could have been brought about to the characters. Finally, it is a movie with no fun, no acting, no theme, no plot, no comedy , no action, no thrill, no romance (i associate romance to something more passionate). Definitely not a movie you would want to go with your family. Overall, if you are looking for a movie with some content, this is definitely not an option. I shall wait for the day when bollywood movies are something that i can wait to watch and i can refer to my friends as a \"must watch\" movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yash Raj films are so funny, whatever works they follow it yet they are called the best production house?

Seeing Bhatt films working they copied the formula, bikini and everything plus casting low actors like Uday and Tanishaa

The film is so horrible it makes you cringe

the jokes are so bad and horny it makes you slap them Uday resembles a gay plus a monkey

Tanishaa resembles an idiot

The director thinks we all are idiots Arjun Sablok takes the audience for granted Music is saving grace Camera-work is good

Uday Chopra hams like an idiot, Tanishaa looks like Kajol in K3g if Kajol was annoying der then Tanishaa is worse the rest are okay","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Neal N Nikki is voted on of the Worst films of the year by Planetbollywood. Its hard to believe the famous Chopra's have produced this lousy movie. It was presented as a movie for the family, but turns out to be a ridiculous sex comedy. Nor does it make you laugh, but cry of boredom and nor does it have any sexy girls to make the film look sexy. The title song is the most annoying song of the decade, I'm the Neil, I'm the man, rock star superstar. Uday Chopra is one of Bollywood's worst actors ever with no acting talent. After making many Super Flops, and not receiving any movies from a producer rather then his Family. He gives a total crap performance, that bores you to death. Tanisha, who is and will always be known for being Kajol's sister, gives a dreadful performance. Both actors have the most annoying chemistry, and are very immature for their age. It has a special appearance by the very cute Richa Pollad, in a pathetic role. The ending was so daft and stupid, I cant believe i actually paid money to rent this crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd give this film a 1\/10. This film is devoid of common cinematic substance and concentrates way too much upon the current \"skin trend\" in Bollywood movies. I'd definitely not recommend teenagers to watch this movie. What really makes me feel dejected is how could such an impressive banner like Yash Chopra Films ever succumb to such an awful production? They have perhaps forgotten to keep in view that there is a larger audience than \"adult\" audience too, which when exposed to these sort of gross movies,may wreck their growing mind set and succumb to things devoid of sense and recognition.

On the whole, films must not only be entertaining, but also must comprise of some sense as well. Certainly, this film is an immense disappointment to Yash Chopra fans, especially me myself. I am really disappointed over the plot, acting and everything else. Why can't people put in some substance that can be cherished after confronted with in the films, at least for once throughout the film? The point is clear. I'd like to put my opinion in short: \"Horrible - Disappointment - Lot of Adult Material - Lack of sensible \"substance\" - Lack of normal psyche - Worthless - Could grab a Cornetto or a Temptations chocolate instead\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I agree that this movie is about sex without any seduction or love. In fact, it makes sex seem so boring and makes me wonder why bother. I actually don't think at all this remotely speaks of how Canadian Indian second generations feel about sex. At any rate, did you know the first hotel\/drunk idea was copied from a Korean movie, Yopgijogin gunyo, made in 2001 or thereabouts? That Korean film was actually brilliant as comedy but at the same time compels the audience to reflect on the complexity of man-woman relationships and man-woman difference in experience and thinking. I mean most of the Neal N Nikki hotel\/drunk segment was emulated take by take. Can't Bollywood movie makers try to make originals only, please? Seriously, I never enjoyed a Hindi flick that is a copycat. The ones I enjoy have always spoken Indian feelings through Indian cultural means.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I did have some expectations from this film because 1. It was a Yash raj production 2. When the songs were first shown on TV, they seemed catchy 3. The star(??!) cast was new. Well, I must tell u that I just couldn't sit through this movie. Uday, (with his red lips-what were the make up artists thinking???!) tries hard to look cool but fails miserably. I won't even get started on his acting (if u can call it that). 'Cleavage queen' Tanisha with all her screaming and ranting n raving just makes you want to pull your hair out in frustration. I think Uday was slightly more tolerable than her! She seriously needs to take acting lessons from her sister. The story is pathetic...the same old tried and tested formula. Absolutely no originality. There is nothing worth watching in this movie. Makes me wonder why it was made in the first place!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh my god, WHY, did I waste my precious time on this film? It is pathetic, waaaay OTT and unrealistic, and one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. Yes, MY LIFE. I am embarrassed for Yash Raj films, the poor guys have to live with the horrible news that yes, they produced this terrible film.

This is by far, the most, trashy, sexual, eyebrow-raising movie I have ever seen by Yash Raj Films. I cringe for them, I really do. Along with the terrible acting (or NO acting, for that matter) by Uday Chopra, combined with the lack of talent of the \"Look At My Boobs\" Tanisha, Neal 'n' Nikki has not one good thing about it at all. Even the music is not upto the standard left by YRF. The director, Arjun Sablok, did an embarrassingly bad job here.

Honestly, I expected more. Much, much more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is not worth anything. I mean, if you want to watch this kind of stuff, flip to Hollywood movies! This totally is a disgrace to the Bollywood name. Neal N Nikki seriously sucked! Never watch this movie. As for the actors, it appears the acting genes skipped a generation. Tanisha couldn't have worn less and Uday Chopra obviously was just picked because he was the director's spoiled son. (All of that Halla Re was amazingly stupid) The songs are eh, and I hope the director did not spend to much money on it...... Bottom line, I hated the movie. Do not let your kids watch it, and if you have it in your house it is a stupid movie so discard it! Buy the CD, if you must. (As I said, the songs are eh.) At least it is better then the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is very modern and forward. It is about 75% in English. It is aimed at English-speaking multiplex-going young audience. Basic plot is similar to DDLJ. Acting is below average.

Unfortunately they are portraying a wrong picture and setting a bad example for the youngsters. Tanisha is shown drinking from a bottle, or taking shots of tequila about 5-6 times in the movie. The director does not even acknowledge she is an alcoholic and has a drinking problem. All through the movie she only wears bikini tops whether she is at work, at a beach or at a wedding. The heroine of the movie doing this makes the youngsters feel this behaviour is acceptable.

The less that is said about failure of Uday Chopra doing Shahrukh Khan's DDLJ role of arrogant girl-chaser, the better. The movie is about equality of sexes. But equality should not be about making the same mistakes, instead about doing the right to do the right thing. If men have been shown as chronic Casanovas in movies, does not mean women should also portray same behaviour.

Even though the movie is made in light-hearted fun spirit, it promotes so many wrong social notions in the name of being forward, that \"fun\" part of the movie makes no impact. Not even in Canada women dress like this, or guys behave like they have shown in the movie. It is certainly not a reflection of Indian society or even Canadian society. Perhaps they should have a disclaimer at the beginning stating, \"All characters and events in the movie are imaginary and do not reflect the actual culture of the cities and countries mentioned in the film.\" The only good thing about this movie is the length, 1.5 hrs, thank god.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this is film noir, then noir must be French for glacially slow. Take a cast of completely unlikeable characters, give them nothing to say, punctuate the whole thing with gratuitous ultra-violence, and you've got the formula for an aggravated Dash. Could be subtitled \"Sleazy Hollywood types attempt to make money from Chinatown rip-off\". Bruce Dern's one minute part is orders of magnitude better than anything else in this flick. By the way, I didn't like the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A special unit of four police detectives are dispensing justice in their own unique way in 1950s Los Angeles. Nick Nolte plays Max Hoover, the unit's lead officer and his partners are played by Michael Madsen, Chazz Palminteri and Chris Penn. Also starring are Melanie Griffith, Jennifer Connelly and John Malkovich among others. Quite an impressive list of names. Unfortunately that is the only thing even remotely impressive about this film.

Our story begins when young Allison Pond, played by Connelly, turns up dead in a remote area of town currently under development. Our band of four detectives is called in and it is immediately obvious that Nolte's Max Hoover is going to be taking a very personal interest in this case. We will soon find out that Allison, in addition to knowing Hoover quite well, was also involved with some rather important military and government types who may have had reason to want her dead. But who exactly was involved and why exactly would they want this seemingly harmless woman dead? Hoover and crew set out to find out. Sounds like an interesting premise but unfortunately it goes nowhere.

Despite the impressive array of names, the acting here leaves much to be desired. Nolte is overacting, Madsen seems incredibly bored, Palminteri and Malkovich come off as caricatures, Penn has hardly anything to do and Griffith is dull as can be. By far the best performance is Connelly's in all too fleeting flashback sequences. The dialogue throughout the film is forced and wooden. The sense of drama you would expect from a mystery of this type is missing altogether. Nothing dramatic really happens. In fact nothing at all seems to happen for the bulk of the picture. Instead we just slog along towards a rather ludicrous and incredibly disappointing climax. When the \"mystery\" is solved you may find yourself saying, \"Oh come on now, is that all there is?\" But it gets worse as after the mystery is solved we get a completely ridiculous and utterly unbelievable action sequence. And even then we are made to suffer further as another awful, badly acted, completely unnecessary scene is tacked on at the end. And then mercifully it is over. And not a moment too soon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The four LA cops in fedoras driving around in a big black convertible look faintly absurd, and even more ridiculous when it turns out that Nick Nolte, the dumbest-looking of the lot, is in charge. The writer never manages to create a spirit of camaraderie among the squad members, and the director fails to wring articulacy out of the man-mountain Nolte. Foprget questioning anyone. Nolte's character lights a cigaret, gets mad, and beats interviewees to a pulp. His methods get him nowhere, until at one point in the action he is wandering from tossed residence to tossed residence with his mouth open and his brain shut. He smashes up an FBI squad, and throws two military officers out of a plane in flight, with only a vague report of anger at HQ and no punishment at all. At the end of the film he is as gormless and muscle-bound as he was at the outset. How he managed to get a beautiful whore to fall deeply in love with him is a mystery, as is the eternal devotion and tragic sense of betrayal expressed by his jobless wife. Two interesting shots in the picture: one, of an atomic explosion, the other of a gigantic crater, ostensibly caused by a Bomb. It's almost as wrecked and puffy as Nolte's face.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie on the shelf at Blockbuster and thought it looked cool. The DVD case touted so many great actors and I wondered to myself, \"Why have I never heard of this movie?\" Then I turned over the case and saw the director, Lee Tamahori, and thus the answer began to explain itself.

First of all I want to defeat the idea that a great cast equals a great movie, but more importantly, I think I should explain why this movie is so terrible. Okay, the script is awful and full of one dimensional characters. This is the worst role I've ever seen Chazz Palminteri play and I'm surprised he would do something this ridiculous. However, under-appreciated yet talented actors must earn their money. Palminteri plays a one dimensional police detective who comes off about as dumb as a C-movie mob henchman. Him, along with the lead detective (the poorly directed Nolte), the great but simple Michael Madsen, and the late Chris Penn (whose role along with Madsen's was completely thrown away) make up an elite squad of LA detectives tasked to rid the city of mobsters sometime in the late 30s or 40s. The movie introduces this squad as cops who will break every law to make sure those who think they're above the law don't operate in their city. At the beginning of the film the cops rough up a local restaurant, grab an alleged mobster (William Peterson) and take him to a place they call the Mulholland Falls. They toss him off one of the cliffs on Mullholland Drive and this is supposed to demonstrate how serious these guys are about ridding the city of crime. Whatever. This was nothing more than a cheap excuse to use a crappy title that's designed to make you think of LA and its famous sites. Somewhere later on they find the dead body of Jennifer Connelly and the plot begins.

On to the direction which was nothing short of amateur and WEAK! Aside from the fact that the characters were B-movie quality, the overacting by those such as Treat Williams, the guy who plays the chief of police, and the awful Daniel Baldwin are just a few highlights that made this movie seem like it was Lee Tamhori's first film. There's not one good performance in the movie aside from maybe Melanie Griffith, who some might argue was the worst in the movie (she won a Razzie for this film). In the end, it was her character that was not that great and she really didn't have much to work with.

As with any bad movie, it all begins with the writing, and this script was no gem. Plot is formulated simply on the basis of setting up the next scene and never takes into consideration characters' motivations. The way the characters behaved was unbelievable. Cops taking the law into their own hands is believable within the right circumstances (see LA CONFIDENTIAL) but in this case it looked like these guys could get away with anything, including murder, and never bat an eye about cleaning anything up. I guess we as an audience are just supposed to assume that no one saw anything and that people won't ask questions. Everything about the story is predictable and is spoon fed so well that we understand everything that's going to happen a good while before the characters do. However, it doesn't make us feel smart, but rather makes us angry at how stupid the hero is, despite the fact that there aren't any heroes in this movie.

In the end, the best component of the movie was the great score by David Grusin. From the beginning, it invoked a since of CHINATOWN, which quickly faded when I realized how unbelievable just about everything in the film was. It didn't surprise me to learn that it made a whopping eleven million in the box office. What I will say is that this film is worth watching for a few laughs. Nick Nolte's acting is like an unsuccessfully domesticated junkyard dog and I laughed every time he tried to be serious. I also nearly fell on the floor at each of the slow motion shots used in the film (I think there are three with one during a key fight scene). When you have to use slow motion in the heat of a dramatic moment, you clearly have some problems. So, even with my negative criticism, I will recommend this movie solely for the purpose of enticing laughter, that is, if you appreciate the good movies like LA CONFIDENTIAL.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this film at the cinema on the strength of its potentially interesting subject matter, good cast, a director who had previously done the highly-rated \"Once Were Warriors\" and my liking for noir-ish films set in L.A. in the Forties and Fifties. I would argue that I am reasonably easy to please in this film category; I appreciate the classics of the genre but I will sit through and enjoy a half-decent if derivative effort as well. However, I found this film completely unbearable.

Despite a good situation in which to place the story, nobody seems to do or say anything remotely interesting or entertaining in the whole two-hours plus of this sorry mess. Good actors are wasted in endless scenes of dialogue ranging from banal to embarrassing. The narrative is slack and drags unbearably, and none of the events it depicts is handled well enough to do anything other than bore the audience to death. There is no drama, no atmosphere, no tension, absolutely no entertainment value and by the end I simply didn't care what happened because I did not believe in anything in the film.

L.A. Confidential came out a year later and regardless of whether one version of the story is more true-to-life, the latter film deservedly gets all the plaudits for its excellence in every department. Mulholland Falls by contrast fails in every department, a fact made all the more tragic by the amount of talent involved. If they ever show this on a plane I will still walk out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"William Petersen (that C.S.I guy) has a small uncredited role but it's the best part of the movie. His character comes across smart ass and tough, and it's a fun surprise to see him in this. He has a range that allows him to play just about anything. After his 5 minutes, it goes from looking cool to just nothing much. It leaves you hoping that his character will reappear in the movie but after 20 minutes you give up hope. The movie itself is pretty poor. Worth a watch on TMN or a pick up at the library but not much more. Too much of it reminds you of L.A Confidential except that where that movie starts to get complicated upon itself, this one is so loose, it steers everywhere but where it should. 2 out of 5 stars","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie, because I noticed the cover in the video rental store. I saw Nolte, Connely, Madsen, 40's time setting, and thought \"hmm, can't be too bad.\" Unfortunately, after watching it, my impression was \"not too good\".

Its kind of a Chinatown ripoff, but the worst part is that other than Nolte, the other members of the squad didn't get enough screen time. But its a decent movie to see once I guess. And Melanie's role was small enough that she wasn't given a chance to be a nuisance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was hoping this would be a good weekly vehicle for Tim Curry, one of my all-time favorite performers. Alas and alack, it is NOT. There doesn't seem to be any chemistry between anyone on the show, the dialogue is decidedly uninspired, and even the laugh track appeared to be laboring. Brutal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is absolute trash and proceeds to become even worse towards the, very protracted, end!

The plot is confused and laboured, the actors have a couldn't care less attitude (maybe they were paid in advance - bad move, or knew they weren't going to get paid), and the sets were featureless, boring and cheap.

I fell asleep twice and actually decided to not bother with the last 5 minutes as I assumed the actors would have fallen asleep themselves by then. More unrecoverable life time wasted!

If you must watch it, then take it to the bedroom and forget the sleeping pills for once. But maybe you'll need an antidepressant instead!

Sometimes it's good if celluloid degrades.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watched this months ago on Netflix Instant and left a review there.

Let me say, most of the other reviews are very accurate. This movie was bad writing, bad acting and bad directing. I too, had liked Russell and Pare \"back in the old days\" and was very hopeful for them. In my Netflix review, I mentioned that I lost interest in the film and proceeded to wash the dishes and make a sandwich, yet still watching the movie from the kitchen. When I did return to the living room, I was very confused as the last 5 minutes of the film unfolded. I even rewound it to make sure I was not missing anything. This film totally crapped out on how to do a \"twist\" ending. I suspect that the idea sounded good, maybe the script was intriguing, but the budget was so non-existent that sets were really lacking. And yes, I suppose all those \"bad sets\" were an effort to give the viewer a clue. All it told me was \"low budget.\"

Anyway, the reason I came here, was because over the weekend I saw a review of Shutter Island, and with what the reviewers were saying, or not saying, lead me to believe that Shutter Island is the same deal, only with a budget 50 to 60 times more! (Actually I have no idea how much Dark World cost, but I HOPE they didn't spend more than 1 million!)

So, that being said, I kinda thought that if someone reworked the script a bit, got a bigger budget for a better \"look\" (whether that meant a better scenic designer, or better post coloring, just someone with a vision,) they could remake Dark World into a passable product. Now it sounds like Shutter Island is doing that. Looks like they got the vision right, but the scripting could still be off. Money can't buy everything, but it should in Hollywood!

PS My 2 star rating is for Russell and Pare.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once upon a time Theresa Russell made a few halfway decent movies, so I keep hoping that one of her efforts from the past decade or two will merit a rating of at least 6 or 7 (out of 10). However, DARK WORLD is just the latest in a string of disappointments. The first 90 minutes are very hard to watch. The lines are delivered by the lead actors as if they are being read at a first rehearsal or even a casting session (in which the actors are doing it for the sake of their agents, but do not really want the parts for which they are perfunctorily reading). The sets and props seem \"off\" somehow (what kind of a police department would allow a detective to have a whole living room wall shelved full of case file holders?). The screen is constantly cluttered with meaningless time and datelines, which appear with no rhyme or reason. Now, if the scriptwriter were standing here after the lights go up from a film fest screening, they no doubt would crow about how all these shortcomings are REALLY clever clues to the plot turning topsy-turvy in this misfire's final five minutes. Well, for those audience members whose only other movie experiences are TV: THE MOVIE and SURFER, DUDE; they might be bamboozled into nodding their heads in agreement. But it is hard to believe that ANYONE who has seen 10 or more movies in their life--and is not a close friend or relative of a DARK WORLD cast or crew member--could fall for such a lame canard. Despite what the d.v.d. box might lead you to believe, this movie has about as much resemblance to SUNSET BOULEVARD (dead narrator device) or Hitchcock (schizophrenic protagonist device) as a drained Jim Beam bottle refilled with urine has to booze!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film starts out with a narration of the protagonist explaining certain crimes occurring all over the city and then we get to know that the hero is a cop who is either suspended or has probably retired. I did not have the patience or the interest to verify the above before commenting. If there is a stereotype for narrators to have a deep, sleep-inducing voice then, it is high time to put an end to it. I seriously fell asleep and did not bother to shut the movie down either. Am still trying to figure out what the movie was all about and why there were no outdoor shootings. A third rate TV Serial will have more number of sets compared to this crap of a movie and I still pity the actors and producers involved in this huge bullshit of a movie. It ought to have been produced as a normal TV serial or maybe even as a local theater drama instead of putting it out on the big screen. Total waste of time and money. The movie was supposed to be in production for a long time and it would have been better to have left it that way.With redundant sleep inducing dialogs and sets, this is the worst movie I have come across.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When George Sluizer was told he could direct an American version of the book \"Het Gouden Ei\"\/the movie \"Spoorloos\"(outside Holland, this movie has the name \"the Vanishing\" too), he was told that this would only go through if the ending was changed - He was told that 'the American Audience' wouldn't approve the original ending. Of course, the original ending is much better, and without it, the movie loses its impact. Because I have already put this in the trivia section, I won't give the original ending and keep my comment spoiler-free. If you want to know the original ending, watch \"Spoorloos\" or read the book. This movie is absolute rubbish, and the first Kiefer Sutherland movie I don't like. Watch the original Dutch movie, which is one of the best thrillers in the world.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Skip this Hollywood version, a real piece of garbage. A cheap insult to the brilliant original \"Spoorloos\", or by the English title also called \"The Vanishing\". It completely misses the mark in typical, grotesque Hollywood fashion, usually due to a bunch of talentless, corporate bean counters who haven't the vaguest idea about anything artistic, they just look for the \"successful formula\" and want it applied to everything to glean a profit. Much like the awful \"The Scarlet Letter\" made in 1995, which twisted the original story around so much to suit the MacDonaldsland crowd, that it became an aberration, not even a bastardization, but a pile of goop that has been sort of shaped similar but does not look, feel or even remotely resemble the spirit of the original. Except that movie at least had Gary Oldman, who is interesting to watch in anything he does. This dog has nothing going for it, even the usually very talented Jeff Bridges is an embarrassment. Great tragedy is not nor never should be \"the feel good movie of the year\" but rather takes one or more of the sadly much too frequent tragic events in life and allows the reader\/viewer to draw meaning and insight into the human condition.

Do yourself a great favor if you're looking for a rental and skip this grotesque garbage and pick up the original made in a Dutch\/French collaboration in 1988. That is a great film. This is a horrific mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"George Sluizer's original version of The Vanishing aka The Man Who Wanted to Know offers one of European cinema's most quietly disturbing sociopaths and one of the most memorable finales of all time (shamelessly stolen by Tarantino for Kill Bill Volume Two), but it has plenty more to offer than that. Playing around with chronology and inverting the usual clich\u00e9s of standard 'lady vanishes' plots, it also offers superb characterisation and strong, underplayed but convincing performances.

Unfortunately, I can only assume that when it came to the remake, Sluizer was so determined that no-one else was going to get the chance to ruin his film when he was perfectly capable of doing it himself, but few people could have anticipated how comprehensively he trashes his own work. His career never recovered from this disastrous misstep.

Chief culprit is an astonishing performance by Jeff Bridges that has been over thought through in every detail to a truly disastrous level. A friend who produced one of his earliest movies noted that Bridges was a great instinctive actor as long as you stopped him thinking about what he was doing, and this film is the proof of the pudding. Every movement is overly mechanical in its precision, making him look like a rusty clockwork toy, while his voice is a bizarre mixture of Tootsie, Latka Gravas from Taxi and a Dalek who have all been taking elocution lessons from Dok-tah E-ville. No banality of evil here, just a looney walking around with an invisible sign over his head saying \"Please. Let. Me. Kill. You. Thank you. For your. Consideration.' But the blame really needs to be shared out here. None of the performances are good: often, they don't even look good \u0096 Keifer Sutherland looks more like a baby hamster than a distraught man at his wits end in the hurried scenes at the gas station, Nancy Travis flounders badly and Sandra Bullock makes no impression at all as the object of his obsession. Not that they're given any help by either director or writer Todd Graff. The script is particularly weak. The chronology has been altered to put the focus firmly on Bridges at the expense of the couple at the opening of the film. Worse is the rush the film is in, draining the life and character from each scene in its race to get to the next. Rather than the high\/low mood shifts in the couple's relationship or the apparently casual but careful establishing of the feel of the location, we just get a couple of arguments that give you the impression that he's probably better off without her. As for the new and improved happy ending \u0096 standard woman chased by nutter in the woods jeopardy stuff complete with lame 'let's end on a joke like a TV cop show' moment \u0096 best not go there\u0085 which is advice that holds for this entire trainwreck of a movie. Even a shockingly bland and uninspired Jerry Goldsmith score can't do anything for this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know it's hard for you Americans to find European films on video\/DVD, particularly from the 80's but please seek out the original version of the Vanishing - title Spoorloos (1988) - and you'll see why the Hollywood version of The Vanishing screws up bigtime, particularly at the finale.

I really like Sandra Bullock, Kiefer Sutherland and particularly Jeff Bridges, but this is just so so lame compared with the original. What where they thinking? Can you imagine Seven with a happy ending with Gwyneth Paltrow running happily into the arms of Brad Pitt in the finale? The whole point the original was such a major international success was because of the shocking finale. So why do you accept this kind of shyte remake? Really, avoid this and GET THE ORIGINAL.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*spoiler alert!* it just gets to me the nerve some people have to remake (and i use the term loosely here..) good movies. in the american version of this dutch thriller, someone decided the original ending wasn't pasteurized enough for american audiences. so what do they do? they create a new one! a stupid, improbable, i-pretend-i'm-dead-but-come-to-life-again-so-the-good-guy-can-kick-my-butt- some-more kind of ending. do yourself a favor and get the original one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I had to pick the most depressing movie, try to be suspenseful I've seen it'd be this one. I know about how good the original is supposed to be, it had better be better then this one. The movie's so dark and depressing but it isn't interesting to watch either-I've seen depressing \"thriler\" type movies that were saved because of the suspense to counteratc and balence the dark quality. Vanishing didn't have that, This was so disturbing to watch to begin with and there was nothing positive to make this a classic type movie. I think another IMDb poster got it right in saying this genre has just seen thrillers done in a far superior way. I completely agree-I would recommend skipping this one-maybe I'll watch the original some day but I doubt it. I give this a 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the most frightening film ever made in Hollywood. It is a cautionary tale of how to take a European masterpiece and suck the life of of it until it is a dry husk like an insect carcass on the the windowsill. Frightening because it reveals how the world of Hollywood really works: ignorant money begetting dross. It makes me wonder how many great films could populate the corridors of my memory if the Hollywood process had not leveled them to forgettable mediocrity. Cry for the murdered children! See Spoorloos or read The Golden Egg, if you dare, because they will come back to you forever in the idle moments of your life: when you're walking along the street and you see a 'missing' poster; in ordinary-looking parking lots; when you hear the Tour De France on the radio; and, especially, when you you think \"what's the harm?\" in wearing a sock with a hole in it on a perfectly ordinary day.

If only I could give this a zero.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man, what an awful film. As with many terrible films, the structure of its awfulness lies in the script. This is such a pathetic attempt at a psychological thriller that it gives the entire genre a bad name. Okay, here's one major problem: Sandra Bullock's character is abducted by Jeff Bridges in his car at a busy convenience store in broad daylight. Somehow, her boyfriend Kiefer Sutherland doesn't find a single witness to this act and subsequently spends most of the movie completely clueless as to her whereabouts. Come on! Personally, I find this completely insulting to even the dimmest of audience members. Yet we are forced to buy into this nonsense. Of equal frustration is the poorly explained motive for Jeff Bridges's actions. His character is a bit of an eccentric academic, to be sure, but far from the sociopath who would do these things. He goes through about ten minutes, give or take, spilling his beans to Sutherland as to why he has performed his cruel actions. But the explanation itself lacks even the most elementary sense of logic. Therefore, no intelligent audience member can really believe in the possibility of his evil. And if you subtract that element from the story, the entire thing falls apart.

Also of major concern: -Jeff Bridges using a weird, pseudo-French accent for no reason.

-The entire boring subplot involving Nancy Travis, most especially her saving the day by turning the tables on Bridges.

-The crazy woman who somehow manages to remember Jeff Bridges' license plate number despite also thinking that the Lucky Charms leprechaun is real.

-Sandra Bullock's character's name, Diane Shaver, conveniently re-scrambles to form the word \"vanished\". Are you friggin' kidding me?? -The logistical impossibility of drugging, abducting, and burying (in a very remote location) a human being within the span of forty minutes (as Bridges specifically alludes to).

This is a movie that made me remember the fictional, impossibly stupid (yet very successful) Donald Kaufman character in Adaptation. Many screenwriters are brilliant, inspired artists. Some are just bozos who convince the nitwits running the studios to make their drivel. This particular script is so stunningly dimwitted that Donald Kaufman himself would have managed to sell it. Unfortunately for all of us in the real world, Todd Graff actually did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've watched this movie, after having seen the original \"Spoorloos\" a few times, in anticipation of the chilling ending.

I can't even begin to explain the anger and disappointment that I experienced when the ending came, and went, and the movie continued to have a happy ending. What a waste of time it was watching this US remake...

If you have a choice, please skip \"The Vanishing\" and watch the Dutch original \"Spoorloos\". The suspense is very well built-up. You feel the frustration of Rex, in search of any trace of what might have happened to his girlfriend Saskia, after she entered a gas-station and never returned to his car. The search takes him three years, and when he finally gets in touch with the person who knows the truth about what happened to Saskia, he must agree to undergo the same thing that Saskia has undergone. The ending leaves you speechless in your chair....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A couple are split apart during a vacation. Early scenes lead us to believe Barney, Jeff Bridges' character, has kidnapped the girl in an unexplained but premeditated abduction. The film plays out some years later where, despite a new love interest, Jeff (Kiefer Sutherland) is determined to solve her disappearance.

The storyline is definitely intriguing but there have been some really bad decisions made during the making of this film, culminating a pretty shoddy piece of work.

OK here we go. The abduction scene - aside from two major continuity errors there is a point where Sandra Bullock and Kiefer Sutherland are made to perform a little signed-pet-love-ritual that's drowned in over-sentimentality to the point of nausea. We know they're in love; the \"I do solemnly swear never to leave you\" speech only moments prior was ample thank you. Jeff Bridges' robot accent is another example. What is that for? Starman is back and it seems after a decade on the planet, he's turned nasty. The entire plot is then able to be resolved by the introduction of a needless character who, by a rather fortunate twist of fate, has quite miraculous powers of observation. The climactic sequence itself has essentially been done before only much, much better. It's riddled with further annoyances and another blinding continuity blunder. I could go on but something positive needs to be said. At a stretch, Kiefer Sutherland is the only one to save face with a fairly decent performance.

The 1988 original of the same name (changed from the Dutch title 'Spoorloos' for English speaking audiences) was recommended to me, only for an online rental company to send me this later Hollywood version by mistake. I was surprised to find both having been Directed by George Sluizer and would be interested to know his motivation for the remake. I am reliably and thankfully informed it is of a much higher quality in all areas including plot. Horah for that, but it really doesn't take much doing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A real insult to the original \"Spoorloos\", which is one of the most genuinely disturbing films (and I intend this as a compliment!) I have seen in the last years.

Where the original is chilling and brilliant, the remake is flat and even boring, especially the \"happy end\" finale takes away what little suspense there was in this film in the first place.

While such a distortion (especially grafting a \"happy end\" which wasn't there previously) is quite frequently the case in \"Hollywood\" remakes of European art-house movies and could've been expected, the biggest disappointment lies in the fact that this inane mess was created by the very same filmmaker who did the original \"Spoorloos\"...

Why Mr. Sluizer decided to ruin his masterpiece in such a fashion is beyond me.

Avoid this abomination at all cost, as it might spoil the original for you even if watched *after* that, let alone the other way round...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe this movie has 6 stars on IMDb. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen that wasn't an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The plot is predictable. I couldn't bring myself to care about any of the characters. The dialog is cheesy. Several moments in the movie actually made me groan out loud (including Kiefer Southerland's crazy neighbor and the incredibly lame joke that ends the movie). Jeff Bridges' accent is goofy - I can't tell what country he's supposed to be from. It has to be one of the least thrilling thrillers I've ever seen as well...after Sandra Bullock's character disappears, absolutely nothing happens to advance the story for a good 45 minutes. I would give this movie a negative amount of stars if I could.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are just so many things wrong with this movie.

Jeff Bridges weird accent.

Rita's ability to crack the password code

The entire script

The ending - esp the last scene when two coffees are brought to the table for Jeff and Rita and the publisher. J & R laugh and say \"We don;t drink coffee anymore\". Well, why did they order it then??? They obviously did. If they didn't and the waiter brought everyone a coffee by default there would have been three coffees.

Total Tosh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so poorly acted. What was with Jeff Bridges accent, horrible and unbelievable. Was it supposed to be French, Scandinavian?The script was lame. To have the heroine trip over the grave of her boyfriend while running from the Jeff Bridges character...are you kidding me? How convenient that Jeff brings his dirty shovel in the house after he disposes of bodies in his lawn. Do these people just not believe in calling the cops? Okay...I'll get into the car with you, why not? DUH! Why was Bridge's daughter obsessed with making her dad have an affair, is her mother that evil or just plain dull? I did not see the original, it would be hard to make myself after seeing this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"George Sluizer's remake of his own - superior - film is a complete waste of time. Why was it even attempted? Kiefer Sutherland plays Jeff Harriman, whose girlfriend (Sandra Bullock, who only has a small amount of screen time)is abducted at a service station by Barney Cousins (Jeff Bridges). Now, Barney is portrayed as the kind of guy that no one would trust in a month of Sundays - he lopes about like Frankenstein's Monster but without the sympathy, and Bridges' acting is totally awful. Sutherland comes across a little better when his character turns detective with the help of new love interest Rita Baker (Nancy Travis).

A major problem with this version of 'The Vanishing' is its obvious need to cater to Hollywood audiences by avoiding the bleak ending of the original film. Here the ending is happy which seems forced and unbelievable, and completely wrecks the story. However by this time the damage has been done as Jeff Bridges turns the bad guy into a huge laugh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most American remakes of European films are pretty poor, but this is in a league of its own. In fact this might even be the worst (Sandra Bullock) movie ever made. I daresay I might have passed it off as just another innocuously bad Hollywood thriller had I not seen the Dutch original, SPOORLOOS. The altered ending here is stupid enough (and executed with particular ineptitude), but a far worse crime than that is removing all the intelligence and depth of character that marked out the original as a classic. The real horror to be found here is in the fact that the same man who directed SPOORLOOS is responsible for this atrocity. Will the real George Sluizer please stand up?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"More suspenseful, more subtle, much, much more disturbing....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In Thailand, the Americans Connor (Colin Egglesfield) and his girlfriend Amanda (Meredith Monroe) quarrel in a Muay-Thai fight, and Amanda leaves Connor alone. She asks the direction of the hotel to a stranger, indeed the mean vampire Niran (Don Hetrakul), and she is bitten and kidnapped by his gang of evil vampires in motorcycles. Connor joins to a clan of \"good\" vampires leaded by Sang (Stephanie Chao), trying to save Amanda from the claws of Niran.

I expected that \"Vampires: The Turning\" were a good movie. The locations and the cinematography are beautiful; the very heavy music score is excellent; Stephanie Chao is gorgeous and attractive; but unfortunately, the screenplay and the director are terrible and the very loose costume of Meredith Monroe does not help her fallen breasts. The story is very short, and the unknown Marty Weiss uses long scenes with motorcycle race, fights and boring flashbacks to complete a minimum running time for film. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): \"Vampiros: A Convers\u00e3o\" (\"Vampires: The Conversion\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even though this was set up to be a showcase for some kickboxing and swordplay, \"Vampires: The Turning\" (VTT) could have aspired beyond that. Because it doesn't even aspire to be a good vampire movie, VTT fails to deliver any punch that it may have been attempting to.

Using the idea of an 800-year-old thai vampire was interesting, but the story about progeny she mistakenly brought into existence (and now must wipe out) actually reminds me of Gizmo and his plight in \"Gremlins,\" and that isn't a good thing when it come to a vampire flick.

Stephanie Chao is attractive and serves as the \"good\" vampire very well, but her lack of any accent grates when you realize that she's an 800-year-old vampire. Added to that, when she tells Connor he's \"a young soul,\" she doesn't deliver the line with much of the weight you would expect from an \"old\" soul. Attractive, but not believable.

Meredith Monroe was more believable in her role but, for a \"Dawson's Creek\" alum, you would think she would have more screen time. The question of whether Amanda succumbs and \"turns\" is the most compelling reason to continue watching this movie, and you never get it. You get a tease of it, but you never actually get any type of development out of the characters for that plot device. It's a cheap way to play your audience, folks.

If you want something that is a good vampire movie, go find Lugosi's \"Dracula,\" and if you want a sexy vampire movie, you have dozens of flicks from Hammer with a lot more strength than this one. In the end, if you want good or sexy, this isn't the place. This is just forgettable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie \"Vampires: The Turning\" isn't even really worth the 2 out of 10 I'm giving it. The movie, is very predictable from beginning, up to the very end when our hero kills the leader of the Vampire Slayers. The use of music in this movie was even bad, it kept playing as if you were to expect something significant to happen at any second, though it never did. The acting, was B-Rank at best... And the movie was just, dull. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 is because the story, had potential though it ended up unable to deliver. Oh, and did I mention the wardrobe? The wardrobe for this movie was obviously cheap to \"non-existent\" because our hero, and his girlfriend (whom he's trying to save throughout the entire movie) wear the same outfits through the entire movie. I'd suggest this film only if your really bored, and don't have a good wall with fresh paint to watch dry. ~Dave, the Horror Cowboy","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's a good story well hidden and never really used!

The film is short and overly dependent on action and thematic photography; somehow, character and story development have been forgotten. What is left is muddled and superficial.

Turn off your brain and watch\u0097you will probably find that the time goes quickly enough, but unless you are the sort of person that finds soaps deep and meaningful, you are going to get no real satisfaction from this film.

Watch only if you have nothing better to do and then only if someone else pays for the video rental.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An in-name-only sequel to John Carpenter's Vampires, this movie takes place in Thailand and involves a sect of bad vampires, who enjoy killing people, and a sect of good vampires who do not. While it's an interesting idea to set a vampire film in Thailand, the writers don't seem to do a lot with the exotic locale. This film could just as easily have been set in Los Angeles. Which brings me to my next point, which is that this seems a lot like Blade Lite. We've got the rock soundtrack, the martial art battle scenes, a dance club bloodletting and, of course, lots of sharp objects going through vampires. What we don't have is the budget and talent. Yes, the hero is a good martial arts fighter, too bad his acting wasn't as good, and there's plenty of decent wire work, and tons of revved up fight sequences, maybe too many. The problem is they just don't have the same impact as the ones in any of the Blade films. Perhaps it's just that the film has a \"been there seen that\" feel to it.

However, for me the biggest problem was that the filmmakers didn't take enough time to establish the relationship between the lead, played by the buff and bland Colin Egglesfield, and his girlfriend. She gets snatched at the very beginning of the flick after a whiny exchange with her boyfriend. We have no vested interest in her welfare at this point and no reason to believe that her boyfriend would be willing to risk his neck to save her. Now that's a major drawback when that's the major thrust of the plot.

In the end, you could do worse than waste 85 minutes of your time with this, but I can think of a lot better things to do with your time, like renting any of the Blade movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie tonight and I do need to say that it is horrible! I expected it to be great, because you know, usually we don't have many movies about Asian vampires mixed with Asian culture; but already in the beginning it started in a bad way: the introduction of the movie seemed not to have an end! The plot is so weak and if you take the fights and the soundtrack off, you really don't have anything useful at all! The director of this film doesn't look to have some important notions about how much time to spend in introduction and flashbacks for example.( not to mention some other things)

For people like me, who wants to watch a great vampire movie, I really recommend to watch ''Lost Boys'' or ''The Interview with the vampire''.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot is simple: an American couple is in vacation in Thailand. Somehow they are attacked by the 'almighty' Chinese vampires, and the girl is kidnapped by the big boss of the vampires. This is OK till now. The girl's partner is left to search for her. And now the horror begins. He comes upon a strange group of semi-vampires or something (they only drank animal blood). These vampires are in conflict with the bad guy for about...800 years. However, with the help of the 'good vampires', the guy begins to search his girlfriend.

Now the fight scenes begin, what a karate movie without fight? Another thing i have noticed is that the vampires are very ugly guys. I mean....a vampire is an old-fashion guy(he is alive since...for ever), he's got style. There are also modern vampires, but in this movie, the vampires are....weird. Like, come on, they ride a bike, they are all dressed in leather and they destroy everything in their way.

The worst thing is that you can clearly see that this movie it is an low budget one. The script is boring and the actors aren't too talented. The music is pretty good, but the effects are not that great.

To sum up the movie it is not that great, but if you have a free afternoon, watch it and tell me if i'm right or not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well I watch tons of movies and this one really sucked ... BIG TIME. I am sure we are all sick and tired of the low budget ploy to make Vampire Movies using some \"Martial Arts Teacher\" turn \"actor\" type of movies. I am also so tired of the guy knowing some form of fighting technique and then able to fight his way through a somewhat boring Movie. I forced myself to watch it and one of the main reasons were that the Lead Actress is quite Pretty (Ha-Ha) Well I hope this helped a bit and if you have time and want to give your Brain a rest Watch it!!! Well hopefully one day this type of movies will not be released but then hey where will all the Low Budget actors go :-)

The movie also contains many Bloops but that I will leave to you to find because it adds quite a bit of fun while watching and also if you a bit of a perfectionist it will bother you ;-) Cheers!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Firstly, I'll admit I haven't seen Vampires: Los Muertos, but I've seen the original Vampires film and love it. I rented this film having heard nothing about it. I didn't expect to be impressed. I wasn't.

I love the idea of shifting the action to the far east, which should have opened up a lot of new avenues for the action sequences as well as the story line, but not enough was made of this. The fight scenes and the motorbike chases were painfully boring.

There were some parts I liked, like the way the slayer team weren't shown as heroic good guys, as they were in the first movie.

I'd been hoping since I saw the old Hammer movie Legend Of The 7 Golden Vampires a few years ago that someone would one day make another good Asian-based vampire film. This was not it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is really bad. The hero can't play. You see too much that he learned his walking moves by heart. And believe me, he walks a lot. For 45 min, nothing happens. He only walks to places and gets out..... Like if the story was so short that they had to extend it by adding useless and boring \"looks-like-a-suspens\" scenes.

Dialogues are very poor. I counted around a lots of \"hello's\" and few \"hang on\" on the 1st part.

Blood is orange like the Mercurochrome you put on kid's blisters. And scenes are not following themselves. A bloody neck on a scene, a clean neck on the following.

The story could have been improved. Yeah I mean what the hell is the story?

Martial arts? Where? Is that martial arts? Watch how hesitant and slow are the moves!!!!! If giving a kick and receiving a punch is called martial arts, then I am Bruce Lee!!!!

The only good point I have found is on fight scenes : They don't play with zoom and fast switching scenes that gives you headache in most of action movies.

There are plenty of low budget movies that are great. That one was just to make money. Nothing else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Man oh man, this was a piece of dog sh#t. I read a few reviews on here after seeing the case in the local video store, and thought to myself........ Ah this seems like a half decent movie.Vampires.Swords. Thailand.How can you go wrong? Right? No,no,no way f*cking wrong. Jesus, if only I could gouge out my eyes and not remember this film, I would be happy. The lead actor had THE whiniest, gayest voice ever.Man!It really was bad....\"Amandaaaaaaaa....\",\"I gotta save my girlfriend....\" F*ck off! My buddy and I actually changed the Audio Track on the DVD to Portugese just so we didn't have to hear the guy's voice. Subtitles and all...and this IMPROVED the film. I'm serious, if your anything like me and wondered what this film was like..STOP WONDERING. I have the answer. WORST VAMPIRE MOVIE EVER! No good action, no good gore and only the smallest smattering of nudity. Just pure sh*t for 90 Mins. Don't rent this,buy it,think about it,or watch it at 3:00am. It just doesn't cut the cake......at all....in any way. F*ck this movie and watch All Anal 7: Real Deep Cover. You'd have a better time. I'm sure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched the world premiere of this on the Starz Action channel. They call it Vampires: The Turning. The plot was a little confusing. There is a voice-over in the introduction about an 800 year war, and I didn't quite understand. The movie is about a young couple somewhere in Asia (maybe in China, I don't think the movie specifies). The couple has an argument and Meredith Monroe runs off and is kidnapped by a biker gang of Vampires. The boyfriend finds a group of vampires that don't kill humans, and enters into a battle with the bikers. A human group of slayers somehow get involved, and the final fight sequence takes place during a solar eclipse. This movie is not related to either Vampires or Vampires: Los Muertos. Confusing, but decent action. Four out of 10 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"....so why on Earth would I see 'Sex Lives of the Potato Men'? Answer: Johnny vegas and Mackenzie Crook. Vegas I have seen live and thoroughly enjoyed. I think he is an intelligent and unique intellectual comic who manages to retain extreme oafishness. Crook I know only from probably the greatest comedy of the last 10 years along with 'Alan Partridge', 'The Office'. As Gareth he was simply hilarious, and I was interested in how he would convert to another character on the big screen.

OK. So me and the boyfriend went down to the multiplex last night and the film was very funny, only because the mediocre nonsense dialogue and banter Ferris and Dave had was delivered with aplomb and enthusiasm by the talent of Vegas and Crook. They are destined for better things (have done better already infact) and I even believe Vegas would make a decent straight actor. The trite scenes where he says he misses his wife came almost close to touching, although the **SPOILER** tacked on scene at the end where he is taken back by his wife needed to be lengthened, it just wasnt believable. And throughout the film Vegas only appears to miss his wife 2 or 3 times.

The film became grotesquely unfunny and plain old, well, grotesque, when sex was mentioned. Not, I add, when it was shown on screen. Tolly's gratuitous explanation of what was in his sandwiches and why was not even slightly funny, and just made me feel a little bit ill. Also totally unneccisary was the inclusion of the character of Jeremy picking his nose, before showing a close up of the bogey on his finger. Just him picking his nose would have raised a smile, he was a pathetic character and it would have just made him look as low as possible, but showing the snot close up was just not needed and was rank.

One scene I did think was hilarious involving sex was Vegas in the threesome. His blokish conversation with the second bloke just highlighted the fact that threesomes arent always endless ecstasy. Not that I'd know.....

That's about all I can say really. I will end with this, and this is actually my main critique of the film. This is supposed to revive the British film industry. It is no 'Trainspotting' that is for sure....it isn't even a 'Love Actually' (you'd have to have a heart of stone not to throw up at that one), and 3 million pounds really could have been put into a better project. 'Mike Basset England Manager' was a wonderful little known British comedy and was made for far less than 3 million. I only hope that the BFC will learn from 'Sex Lives of the Potato Men' and not get so gratuitous in future. Although the terrible reviews this film is getting are only enhancing the box office takings. :-)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sex Lives of the Potato Men is about the sex lives of several men involved in delivering potatoes. So there are no surprises there. It is, in fact, pretty much what you might expect from the title: that is, it's a quirky comedy involving sex and potato men. At times the film works. It's an edgy, sometimes uncomfortable comedy about the lives of some rather unimportant and rather average men who are having problems of various sorts with women. Where the film clearly does not work, and why it failed at the box office, is that the quirky, uncomfortable parts are perhaps just a shade too quirky and uncomfortable. Instead of laughing during the scene of a man suspended from a basement ceiling masturbating over another man while he makes love to his wife, I think most of us just kind of groan awkwardly and wonder what Andy Humphries was thinking. Well, perhaps we are shown what he was thinking all too clearly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ever watched something so awful you just have to keep watching to be sure it really is as bad as it looks? This is one of those films. It was slammed by the critics on it's release, not least for the way it was funded. I caught it on TV last night and gave in to curiosity.

In the event, it is what it says on the box, no more nor less: low level humour, crudity, very much in the 'Carry On...' vein but with 'adult' language. Indeed, it harks back to the 60s\/70s UK porn industry, cheating punters by promising real sex and not delivering (spot the nipple?) That whole tawdry era is lovingly recreated here but with modern cinematography.

It has the benefit of Mackenzie Crook (The Office, Pirates of the Caribbean and much more) and also Johnny Vegas. The chip shop girl is genuinely sexy. Beyond these unexpected positives, it does leave me wondering what happened to England. Junk food, low paid work, council estates, desperate lives. As a bonus, there are some nice shots of leafy Birmingham. Foreigners might find it informative about British attitudes and aspirations. Overall, though, I still feel disbelief that I sat through it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this film with a sort of dangerous fascination, like a hedgehog trapped in the headlights. There is no doubt that (even if you enjoyed it) it's a bad movie, but the important question is why? It has a good cast; it's lively; it's prepared to tackle sex head on, with some of the characters actually getting some of it here and there, which is unusual for a British comedy. It also has Johnny Vegas and Mackenzie Crook, Marmite performers agreed but they've have had their moments in the past.

What it's principally lacking is charm. The characters are impossibly idiotic, unbelievable and alienating, so that instead of a film of Men Behaving Badly the producers have made Game On. Any mediocre writer wanting to make a film about the sexual attitudes of dozy, sexist British men would have got hold of a few copies of Loaded, Zoo or even Viz to read Sid the Sexist and the thing would have written itself. Instead, the producers clearly tried to make up some moronic, difficult to care about, characters. Character comedy - as opposed to slapstick etc - only works if the audience can recognise some human truth to the situation. But watching this film is like being told an annoying joke that you know is not going to end up funny but you can't stop it.

Sadly, the film is also poorly made. The plot structure is weak, there's little character delineation or development, and many of the scenes aren't funny. Time after time the same lame reggae chips in to divide scenes, pointlessly and gratingly. There's a lot of needless repetition - when you've done one joke about parking outside a sex party you don't need to do it again. One wonders what the UK Film Council saw in the script.

This is a world where most men are rakes, and most women are continually up for it. The Apartment and Alfie satirised much the same world view, but the producers of this film accept it without criticism. Thus they've ended up with a kind of inferior update of Confessions of a Window Cleaner. Somebody British needs to have another go at this kind of thing, and do it properly \u0096 a good next project for Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright I think...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found myself watching Sex Lives Of The Potato men with a furrowed brow, puzzled why so many talented and witty comedians decided to be involved in a film so totally devoid of humour.

Poo and wanking jokes are funny when you're eleven. Eighteen plus and you begin to lose friends around the water cooler.

Maybe some enjoyment could be had from this movie if you're the kind of person who frequently plays practical jokes involving dog mess, brown bags and matches, or maybe partake in 'man' competitions on nights-out by imbibing companions' vomit\/urine etc when you're not back at your parent's basement punching your teenage wife.

Even then \"Sex Lives...\" it's hard to recommend. Perhaps if you're really weirdly into masochistic cranial surgery and spend your evenings happy slapping the elderly or watching toilets flush, you might think a close-up of a bogie is worthy of cinematic distribution.

I'd discuss characterisation, narrative or performances had I not zoned completely out following the lengthy tuna-paste\/vagina comparison.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Daily Mail's Christopher Tookey had some choice things to say about this film, among them \"watch it all the way through its 82 miserable minutes, and I guarantee you'll be shaking your head and asking: 'Have we really descended to this?' Yes, we have, for if ever a movie testified to the utter cynicism, tastelessness and moral corruption of those who commission and make British movies, it is this abomination\". Tookey continues \"aimed squarely at oafs with unwashed underwear, filthy minds and knuckles that graze the pavement when they walk, this sex comedy is so sordid, unfunny and malodorous that it is enough to put you off sex, and indeed films, for life\", before concluding \"Sex Lives of the Potato Men is not merely a truly vile film, it is symptomatic of a new national culture of instant self-gratification, yobbishness and sadism that is now being celebrated on screen\". Normally I don't listen too closely to the critics, but in this case, Tookey was bang on the money. This film goes beyond bad, indeed, it goes beyond being merely unfunny and enters some bizarre parallel universe where every painful minute drags on for an hour and where the definition of 'hilarious' seems to be 'saying tw*t in a Brummie accent'. It's depressing to anyone with half a brain who grew up with the Goodies, Monty Python, Spitting Image, Not the Nine O'Clock News and Fawlty Towers.

Ideally, Sex Lives Of the Potato Men would have quietly vanished after its cinema release and joined the equally dire Vix spin-off The Fat Slags (2004) and the ill-starred All Saints vehicle Honest (2000) in the celluloid graveyard, but as it seems destined for endless late night schedule-filling screenings and misguided \"best film EVER!\" raves from people who should know better, so I must apologise in advance for trying to right a wrong that the British film industry, in all its wisdom, has inflicted onto an undeserving world. Yes, I really am sorry to bring this one back from the celluloid dead, but I actually remember thinking \"It can't be as bad as the critics said it was\"...but, as God is my witness, it was WORSE.

Acting - dire from start to finish, special mention to Mackenzie 'Albert Steptoe's legs on a young man's body' Crook.

Soundtrack - cut and paste 'ladrock', mostly ska-based lager-lout-friendly pub jukebox piffle which brought back horrible memories of seeing those chirpy cockernee doin' the Lambeth Walk to a watered-down imitation of the Specials knob-shiners Madness on every single comedy \/ variety programme in the eighties...and 'Ace Of Spades' by Motorhead as the title music? What the hell...trying to evoke memories of one of the most genuinely exciting scenes ever offered by The Young Ones, indeed, ever offered by ANY comedy show?! Cheap shot, way below the belt.

Script - written by a 12 year old who's just read every single back issue of Smut and Zit in one long Red Bull-fuelled session...SURELY? C'mon, no real, proper, worldly, grown-up person could possibly set this kind of retarded hogwash on paper? And Mark Gatiss was in it...Mark Gatiss...the least annoying member of the League of Gentlemen and Goodies fan taking part in such a towering heap of fly-blown cinematic excrement? 'One of the brightest British comedy stars'? Not any more he's not! On the subject of League Of Gentlemen, somebody give me a pair of lead-lined diver's boots and Steve 'face like a collapsed rectum' Pemberton and a long weekend in a soundproofed room before I die...PLEASE...

Cinema, British or otherwise, just doesn't come much worse than this. Kent Bateman's The Headless Eyes (1971) is a new-wave masterpiece compared to this repugnant smut.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are no spoilers for this film as nothing could be written that could make it any worse! The dictionary definition of \"puerile\" should now read: \"sex lives of the potato men\"! Unless, that is, you like dog poo and mucous; in which case - this is the film to see! Johnny Vegas et all - what WERE you thinking!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes when a film is panned by the critics one just has to see it to see if it is really as bad as the claim, well in this case it was. I believe it was meant to be a sex comedy but it was neither sexy nor funny, I think I chuckled once when Johnny Vegas failed to vault a roadside fence and that was it.

The film follows the lives of four men who deliver potatoes for a living, each of them has a problem with their sex lives; Dave has left his wife and seeks out an old flame who once invited him for a threesome a few years before, Ferris is living with his mother in law who treats him as a sex object, Tolly has an obsession for involving strawberry jam in his encounters and Jeremy claims to be in a loving relationship but is in fact stalking some poor woman.

The tone of the jokes varies from tasteless to \"I don't believe that anybody could write that\" an example of the the latter being when they tell a small child his father has died in a car crash, then for the punch line when the boy asks how his mum is they tell him she is in a coma. The blame for this all lands squarely at the feet of the writers, the actors obviously made a poor choice agreeing to be in this film but I didn't think their acting was all that bad... not that it was all that good either. Surprisingly for a fairly sleazy film about sex there is no nudity and the sex is never erotic.

I certainly wouldn't recommend seeing this for any reason other than morbid curiosity although judging from other reviews this seems to be a love it or loathe it film, I suspect it would be better watched after a few beers and with your mates.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh Sex Lives of the Potato Men, what foul demon created thee? This is a film that you watch, smirk a little during the runtime and then when you mention it to others having seen it, you just cannot help but smile as you talk. But it's not that Sex Lives of the Potato Men is actually a funny film and one that inspires you to smile when talking or thinking about it, it's just that the film is so bizarre; is so insulting and is no shameless in its attempt to get across a meek laugh to do with sex and sex lives in general that you just cannot help but have your mouth break out into a grin. Do bear in mind that what follows the smirk is a sinking of the head; a consequent shake of the head and a raise of the index finger and thumb to both eyebrows as you gently rub them in an attempt to reminisce about your time watching this trash.

But that's what the film is, it's trash; it's very brave and shameless trash but trash none-the-less. Whoever came up with this idea, put it to paper and then spread it around the industry trying to get it made must either be very brave or very desperate. It's strange to have a film that is most definitely 'about' something but one that does not have, under any sort of circumstance, a decisive narrative. This follows on from that idea that most of European cinema is artistic and its stories are ambiguous and open-ended and themes take precedence over most other things. In Sex Lives of the Potato Men, the same situation and technically the same joke are replayed over and over again and that is an ideation that consists of: 'sex is a very, very funny thing.' These ideas are perhaps more suited to an American film so it's no wonder that after a while watching this film, things start to feel a little out of sorts.

The film begins and ends in the same manner, creating a feeling of a circular journey; a circular journey that has gone absolutely nowhere and absolutely nothing has been achieved. Three blokes sit around a table talking and what-not. Their boss joins them and the conversation is limited to whatever crude and disgusting stories, situations or scenarios each can possibly think of. The odd thing here, being that whenever one man says something nasty, the other grimaces but has an equally filthy story to give in return creating a contradiction in what these men find to cross the line and what they do not. The men are Dave (Vegas) and Ferris (Crook), two people joined by Tolly (Coleman) whenever the film sees fit to throw in a third face to crack some more nasty sex jokes or break some peculiar stories. They are employed by Jeremy (Gattis), a man who has deeper issues and problems but issues of which the film is more concerned with exploiting for the sake of humour rather than study.

So what's the situation in Sex Lives of the Potato Men? The three to four men are in a crisis and for the duration of the film, we will adopt the role of the hapless fly on the wall as we witness what foul play these people get up to over the period of about a week. If the humour revolving around Dave and Ferris is disgusting and repulsive, then for Jeremy things are just spooky. It all begins rather innocently and it appears there is a female he likes and one who equally likes him in return but when the essence that Jeremy is merely a stalker creeps in, that's when the jaws drop. The character of Jeremy is used and put across in a way that makes unrequited love and stalking in general merely look 'funny'. Jeremy sits in his apartment listening to classical music and writing out letters of abuse to Ruth (Davis), echoing some sort of psychotic persona more associated with Hannibal Lecter writing his letter's to Clarice in 2001's Hannibal. But whatever sympathy we might have for him at this point is rendered absolutely false when, later on, it is revealed the true origin of their relationship. Suddenly, we as an audience feel cheated into feeling a mite sorry for him earlier on and for whatever reason he did do what he did in the first place just seems cowardly and distasteful. To say what it was would ruin whatever few surprises lurk within the film.

Quite sad how, in one of Jeremy's letters, he writes about something-or-other exclaiming it to have \"No artistic vision \u0096 just one big mess\". I hate it when words said by the characters echo the film they're in. Sex Lives of the Potato Men does not explore someone's psyche or particular interest in a fetish or why they feel the need to go around having as much sex as possible, it just uses them as a front to pile on ridiculously unfunny jokes and situations. Rather than take group sex and explore what drives a person to seek it down, it makes a daft joke out of it (tickets with numbers on!?); rather than get into the mindset of a fan of Sadomasochism, the film has someone hang from a basement ceiling and warn everyone of 'incoming salt and vinegar' as he climaxes. Ferris covers his face in disgust and the camera fades to the next scene without too much of a fuss. It's a relief the film got to no audiences abroad. This is one section of British culture, indeed of the British mentality that I pray will be confined to our shores and ignored accordingly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now i like Johnny Vegas which is a good start, I also enjoy toilet humour

Such as Young Ones and Bottom etc. This however failed to bring even a

small smile to my face. The story follows Johnny around after his wife

chucks him out (how he got his good looking wife and kid i dont know)

as he attempts to shag anything that moves. Failing normally. I was looking forward to this but found it to be totally boring and a waste

of my time altogether. Unless you are stuck for something to do for 90 mins apart from wash the car then dont bother.....

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The unfunniest so called comedy I've ever seen

Not a patch on the naturalism of the hilariously dare Twin Town

Vegas I ;like normally but this script is so dire so predictable so well English in the worst way (In recent years the English films have been awful all of them) Ireland at least produced the commitments, Scotland with Braveheart and Trainspotting 2 stand out great movies and Wales had Twin Town, Zulu, Last Days of Dolwyn , Torchwood, Doctor Who and Under Milk Wood etc

The comedy is paint by numbers, the actors are dead men walking because there is no characterisation and no originality and it's just so unfunny

England is falling behind no matter how many grim up north movies they produce. It's the old class system that destroys English films. The Oxbridge graduates spewing endlessly clich\u00e9d scripts about working class people they've never lived with. It is pathetic. Monty Python wasn't funny, neither was anything from Oxbridge.

Let guys like Jonny Vegas and Peter Kay, Rob Brydon, Billy Connolly or write their own dialogue and forget the archaic failed class system let the working class people and the real talent that comes through the system properly take over the writing and the British and English film industries will rise again what next prince Edward to write a modern day Oliver Twist?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The other day I showed my boyfriend a great movie, Stand By Me, a movie I have shown to many people and they absolutely adored it, but for some odd reason he didn't like it. He lends me a movie called Backdraft and he tells me that he's shown it to many people and they loved it, instead I hated this movie. I don't think I've hated a movie so much in a while, how this movie has even a 6.6 rating is beyond me. I couldn't keep up with the five million stories here: Billy Baldwin becoming a fire man, the random sibling rivalry, the random love story(s), the who's being an arson story, the investigator, the fire who has a personality of it's own. I just have a problem that this movie can't keep up with all these stories, they didn't balance out well enough make the film interesting. I would have just preferred if this movie was about being a firefighter or the investigator and how he came to be one or what it is exactly he does and why.

The movie tells the story of a group of Chicago firefighters, two brothers. Stephen \"Bull\" McCaffrey, the elder brother, is obsessed with the beating of the fires that he fights. Brian, the younger brother quit the fire fighting academy school several years before, then embarking on a number of other unsuccessful careers before returning to become a firefighter. He is looked down on by his elder brother who expects him to fail in his newly chosen career as a fire fighter. Donald \"Shadow\" Rimgale is an arson investigator who is dedicated to his profession. He is called in because a number of fires that have occurred have somewhat similar connections. .Martin Swayzak is an alderman on the City Council. He has obvious hopes of being elected to mayor, but has had to make a number of budget cuts to the fire department. Many of the rank and file firemen believe that the cuts that he has made are endangering the lives of the firefighters. However, Swayzak is initially successful in portraying the fire department as bloated and ineffectual after firemen are repeatedly being killed in blazes.

I just couldn't get into this movie, I don't know how anyone else could, it was incredibly unrealistic and portrayed firefighters all wrong. I loved how they had every action clich\u00e9 in the book to match this action flick. I just felt also like there was great talent wasted on such mediocre roles, Donald Sutherland, great actor, but such a strange role that could have been taken by a lesser known man who had the upcoming talent at the time. I know Ron was going for great quality, but I think him casting such huge actors in small roles was a mistake for this film. I even had to joke my way through while watching this movie commenting how the doctor in the background was probably Kevin Spacey. The fire was so unrealistic and the movie was just so out there, I didn't enjoy it and honestly wouldn't recommend it to people, I'll stick to the recommendations in my relationship from this point on.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved this movie when I was a teenager. LOVED it. It hasn't grown up with me, though. Maybe that's because it's a melodramatic load of old rubbish, full of macho posturing, cheesy dialogue, overwrought slo-mo and characters saying 'Goddammit' a lot. The lumpy narrative blobs gracelessly from one character to another, one plot strand to another, without ever bringing it all together, and it doesn't help that William Baldwin's mono-expression of a performance is wet enough to put out every fire in the movie's overlong runtime. Robert DeNiro and Donald Sutherland are worth watching, but no one's really at the top of their game here, and the women folk get particularly short thrift. The only real impact comes from the impressive firefighting sequences, and Hans Zimmer's majestic score, which remains one of my all-time favourites.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If You can watch a film without worrying about the plot, or corny acting, then Backdraft is definitely the one.

However, if, like me, you like watching films that you can believe, then Backdraft has some serious flaws. It doesn't offer anything new, and there are hundreds of 90's action films that follow identical formulas, whilst not being quite as clunky.

After two firefights, i'm thinking, this has got to go somewhere else, i mean, how many big fires are there in one city? Surely firemen do other things, such as getting cats out of trees? Well I was wrong, and the repetition continues again and again, up until the end.

A good aspect of the film is the fire itself, well filmed, and I must say i felt quite hot while watching it, which suggests that two hours of watching fire without a story or acting would have been more suited to my taste.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The basic plot is good and can be engaging. The music is so great that it became the theme music for the TV show IRON CHEF (though it is WAY overused and too intrusive in the movie). So, how did this movie end up so poor?!?! Well, the plot was about 95% predictable and the characters were about as 1-dimensional as possible. And the dialog?! What person would actually allow themselves to receive credit for coming up with the STUPID macho bull-crap that purports to be dialog? You get much greater realism from most cartoons! The bottom line is that this movie has some good points but is so marred by hackneyed clich\u00e9s and rotten dialog that it quickly becomes tiresome. And, this is a shame, because firemen deserve a better tribute than this mess! If you don't believe me, look at the number of goofs listed on IMDb for this movie--WAY in excess of what you'd expect to find. They just didn't care enough to work out all the kinks and problems. So, as a result the movie seems rushed and in need of a re-write and re-editing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The man who gave us Splash, Cocoon and Parenthood gave us this incoherent muddle of cliched characters, poor plotting, you've-got-to-be-kidding dialogue and melodramatic acting? I guess everybody has a bad day at the office now and then. He's allowed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first watched this film, I thought that it would be rally good, because it featured my favourite actor of all time. He gives a sterling performance, though it is fairly obvious he didn't have to life more than half a finger to make the r\u00f3le work. He is the only good thing in it, unlesss you're into explosions and American dream-working class hero trash (which I'm not).

I don't get it. How can this film get away with being so naf. That bit with the little boy being rescued, I mean, come on! You can't tell me that he would have been rescued without the fire-guy wearing any goggles (I know for a fact that it would have been pitch black in there and you can't see for more than a couple of feet infront of you) and no breathing equipment (he'd have choked after 2 minutes!). This film was just bad, OK?

Why Robert? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY????!!!!

Sorry if this is your favourite film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Beautiful images, propaganda and history as toy. The ingredients of this film, good, interesting but with many shadows. Politicall shadows. Jefferson is more than the hero of a mythical America. He is silhouette of a vision about life and society, an extraordinary thinker, teacher of large part of North America. In film is only Superman. The delicate contour of ideas are crushed. The subtle birth of essential truth is forgotten. And Jefferson is basic instrument for create a good image of American realities. The end,triumphal and fake, romance and heroic, is gun suicide of a story who may be tall with more wisdom. And the war against \"Avatar\" is another gray stain. For one who heard nothing about Jefferson, movie is a good beginning. For the others - disillusion. It is like the precious silk of a tailor. But the tailor is fascinating about silk and the clothes are only ordinary cloth. So, a sad experience. Slices of beauty and boring lakes, patriotic lesson and the crush of expectation. A film who must impressive. And the ash of a story who could be magnificent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just got back from \"AGS\". After seeing it, I'm convinced that no matter how much it's written how he extensively researched the film, Stone NEVER has watched an NFL game in his life. Great cinematography ? Give me a break. The game montages were almost unviewable and 90% of the other shots in the film were close-ups. Was there ANYTHING in this movie that wasn't brought up in \"North Dallas Forty\" ?

Aging star player ... check. Young hot shot .... check. Painkillers .... check. Owner who doesn't \"get it\" .... check. Crazy off-field behavior .... check

Also, it's the playoffs in Dallas (i.e Dec or Jan) in an outdoor stadium, yet people sitting there in tank-tops and shorts ! And what was with those lights ? Were they playing in a Japanese Kabuki theater or a sports stadium ?

And the strategy shown in the game was laughable. It's fourth & 1 inside the \"Sharks'\" 30. Dallas leads 35-31. KICK THE FRIGGING FIELD GOAL. Not only would this had made sense football-wise, but you'd then have an even better final sequence where they could have scored and had to go for the two-point conversion. Hell, tie the game w\/ the extra point and Stone could have made it an even 3 hours with overtime.

Were the lame montages of \"old time\" football players supposed to be a tribute to the game ? Give me a break.

And the script ... ugh. More cliches than you can shake a stick at .. oops, there's another one.

\"Slapshot\" was better than this movie. By far.

1\/10.

Skips this at all costs.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have never seen a more unrealistic movie than this foul piece of dung. The acting was over the top. The direction was tacky and amateurish. The script was just a joke. The story looked penned by a person that has never been around a high school football game, much less a professional game. And why, why did Oliver Stone feel the need to place himself in this movie as an actor? He was terrible, playing the most unrealistic announcer ever. He could not even get hired to do professional wrestling contests. Then you have Jamie Foxx, who throws like a girl. But, he is a tad more athletic than the aged Dennis Quaid. Seriously, Stone wanted to direct this film at 16 year old males with ADD. That is why we hear the loud music, the quick cuts and numerous edits. It just became a bad MTV video. Shame on Al Pacino for doing this crap. Cameron Diaz? Heck, that no-talent takes any role that comes down the pike. When Lawrence Taylor is the best \"actor\" you got going, well, your movie sucks! And this one does.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another lame attempt to make a movie \"gritty\" and \"thought provoking\"- whatever the hell that means. They have Al Pacino say a lot of words like - \"Television killed football.\" Yeah whatever. This is another movie that showcases Oliver Stone's Delusions of Grandeur. If Stone is trying to show us that football will be our downfall or something, why does he insist on romanticizing the sport with his stilted camera movements and Kid Rock songs? He even throws Cameron Diaz into the fray for purely aesthetic reasons. It's a shame that Diaz and Pacino have to meet in a movie that is so bad.

Ever since \"Scent of Woman,\" writers and directors have used Pacino to romanticize their pathetic lines. His characters are nothing more than loudspeakers - their voices covering up what would normally be redundant and trite. He needs to reinvent himself, showing how he can act without yelling. He has to stop feeling sorry for hokey scripts with cheesy lessons like \"Organized football is messed up,\" and act out a good story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This noisy, dizzying football film from director Oliver Stone seems to have everyone in the cast - well, everyone except William H. Macy, who could have tackled the role played by Mr. Stone, the team doctors, or the \"fruitcake\" selling cereal. If you're a fan of the foul-mouthed, there are some great, profanity-laden knock-down, drag-out, put-down phrases you can try-out on two-faced friends and way-ward lovers. The film is sometimes good as lively background party atmosphere, especially during the first two hours; it even features some MTV-styled music video scenes.

** Any Given Sunday (12\/16\/99) Oliver Stone ~ Al Pacino, Cameron Diaz, Jamie Foxx, Dennis Quaid","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I looked forward to seeing this movie, because the trailer made it look so cool. But the fact is that this movie is boring, and totally muddled. There is no plot, and half the movie is fast flashing shots from football games. Zoomed in shots, that gives you no overview of the games. I was constantly looking at the timer, to see when the movie was over!

There's only ONE good thing about this movie. The sound!! The soundtrack is awesome! .............Don't expect anything from this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stone has tried another type of movie. Any Given Sunday falls short of a the above average The Last Boy Scout and the below average Against all Odds. Stone can be fantastic, see The Doors, Natural Born Killers or Platoon but he can also repeat himself see Nixon or Born on the Fourth of July. His real brilliance is realized in the Michael Caine perfection, The Hand.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Predictable, cliche, unbelievable, boring...what else can I say? It's only the caliber of the cast that saves any redeeming qualities of this bloated mess. Oh yeah, and the entertaining end zone antics.

But wait for the eleven o'clock highlights, 'cause the outcome is as predictable as who's going to win the Globetrotters\/Washington Generals matchup.

I was well into the second act before I figured out these were supposed to be PRO teams we were watching (all clad in vintage Padres brown). And Cameron Diaz character's imitation of a youthful Georgia Frontiere was ill-conceived on the page. (Not your fault, Cameron. Would you like to go to dinner?)

Enough of this - I'm only on a rant because I was looking forward to this film. Rent THE LONGEST YARD instead.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For a horror film, this is criminally dull. A few memorable, gruesome bits can't compensate for a really poor script. Very little coherence is achieved, and the movie relentlessly overplays its one basic idea (a killer cat), until it becomes repetitive - and things are made even worse by the constant use of shots from the cat's point-of-view. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've always found the dilettante Man Ray and his artistic efforts to be deeply pretentious, and I've never understood why his work attracts so much attention. Apart from his Rayographs (which he invented by accident, and which are merely direct-contact photo prints), his one real contribution to culture seems to be that he was the first photographer to depict female nudity in a manner that was accepted as art rather than as porn. But surely this had to happen eventually, and there's no real reason why Ray deserves the credit. The critical reaction to Man Ray reminds me of the story about the Emperor's New Clothes.

\"L'\u00c9toile de merde\" ... whoops, \"de mer\" ... features a lot of blurry photography and a recurring visual theme of a starfish, which is never explained. Starfishes have the fascinating ability to regenerate lost limbs -- and even to regenerate entire duplicate bodies -- but, if that has anything to do with this movie's theme, Ray neglects to say so. I was much more impressed by this movie's title cards, which (in French) manage to include rhymes, a pun ('Si belle, Cybele') and some portmanteaux.

As so often in Ray's work, there is indeed a beautiful young woman seen in this movie. Unfortunately, the photography is (largely) so blurred that we have little opportunity to appreciate her. I'll rate this mess one point out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A woman in love with her husband (he's suicidal) decides to have a baby to save his life. She's been to a fertility clinic - as has the lover she takes - so both know how artificial insemination works; but, instead of using the method thousands of people use every year around the world (the $5 turkey baster), they engage in coitus. We also are to believe that although the immigrant is in love with his fianc\u00e9e, he doesn't suggest the obvious alternative to intercourse. Further, even though this is a business arrangement, the first time she's with her sperm donor, she takes off all her clothes, as if it's a seduction. Plus, her husband doesn't notice when $30,000 goes missing from their bank accounts. Does all this seem to demand more willing suspension of disbelief than even most Hollywood fare? Far fetched on all counts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Admirable but weak James Bond film mainly because both the hero (Bond) and villain (Blofeld) were seriously miscast. Lazenby is too big and innocent looking to play Bond. He looks and acts more like the good-natured but dim-witted sidekick in a police action movie. The director and writer try to establish his credibility, but his saying of lines like \"Royal Baluga, North of the ...\" just aren't effective in establishing him as this worldly and suave rogue. Savalas doesn't do a bad job, but his characterization and behavior is more fitting of a mob gangster. The best portrayed characters of the movie are those of Tracy and her father. But the performances by those actors when sharing the screen with Lazenby only serve to emphasize his deficiencies as an actor. This movie is too long (140 mins.) for a Bond film and doesn't offer any excitement until Bond's mountain escape, where it begins to pick up. This film tries very hard, but falls short. Many Bondian elements are present and the climatic battle is top notch, but I always get a sense of something missing when watching this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I attended a screening of 'The Cooler' at the Toronto Film Festival this year. While the other reviews I've read seem to be generally (and mystifyingly) positive, I must tell you without any kind of axe to grind that this film is unimaginably, unspeakably bad. The very brave and candid performances by William H. Macy and Maria Bello have been horribly misspent on what is probably the least polished, most clich\u00e9d script to have received the green light in years. I don't know how bad The Brown Bunny was, but I'm certain it couldn't have attained the Dante-style depths that this one did. As courageous as their performances were, perhaps the bravest thing these otherwise brilliant actors did was to entrust themselves to such a dreadful director and abysmal screenplay.

He must pitch pretty well in the boardroom, because he should never been permitted to be within a hundred yards of a camera. The dialogue is so embarrassingly contrived and clumsy that I actually found myself blushing during the screening. I am mortified that the talents of Macy have been totally squandered in the hands of someone whose direction is as incompetent as his writing.

Watching gifted actors like Alec Baldwin labor through Kramer's appalling script and ham-fisted direction was akin to watching a baby seal get clubbed to death - I felt angered, helpless, and sickened all at the same time. Although I am always glad that there are investors and industry-people willing to take risks on quirky scripts with interesting premises, this picture was a total, utter fiasco. Kramer couldn't have been crueler to these actors if he had himself taken a steel pipe to their knees. I hope for their sakes they can all avoid similar humiliations in the future. Macy wisely ducked out the side door and didn't even stick around for the screening. Regrettably, it seems that the bad luck of main character has rubbed off on the picture in the worst possible way. Anyone accustomed to quality independents will likely find it completely unbearable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is very disappointing for one who has read the book. As written by Rafael Sabatini, this was a clean cut tale of piracy in the Caribbean, and it would have made a grand motion . Also, it would have been very simple to make. All the action takes place aboard ship and on a deserted island. Unfortunately, the screen writers took the title from Sabatini then threw the rest of the book away. Even the name of the main character was changed, and his screen personality was completely different from that of the individual described in the novel. It's a sad loss for one who loves a good sea story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a stereotype plot. A young fighter tries to enter a competition when he is not ready and is not selected to represent his fighting school. This leads to separation from the fighting school and naturally he finds a strange new master to teach him to fight.

The fights are not of high standards. They are way too \"simple\" in a way that 1+1 is simple to every adult. The fighter has trained and enters the ring, but does not do what he trained and gets an ass kicking. The coach yells do this and do that with no success. And after some more of this ridiculous beating he suddenly does what he is told and hits his opponent once. This results in a turning point in the fight, although our hero has been taking a beating of his life up until that point. Think about the Rocky movies and you'll have a good point of reference of how much beating he really takes. The fights are also shot poorly.

There final thing that screws this film up is the stupid romance. Cheesy music and awkward moments are not what I call entertainment.

These guys really could have made some quality entertainment, but the director wasn't up to the task. Or the other crew in my opinion. Maybe they had a small budget, I don't know, but what matters in the end is that this movie is bad and deserves the rating of 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This week's surprise screening at GV turned out to be the horror movie The Nun (La Monja). Seriously, I think that horror movies should try and come up with more imaginative titles, even though the story's about the character as described in the title. Who knows, soon we'll have spinoffs like The Monk, The Priest, and others belonging to various religious sects.

The basic premise goes very simply, that a ghoul dressed up in a Nun garb (so that it can lay claim to the title) goes around killing ex-convent girls. There seemed to be some sort of conspiracy involved, as the daughter of one of the victims, Eva (played by an eye candy Icelandic Anita Briem), goes on to discover, with the help of a few good friends, like a rip off of I Know What You Did Last Summer (mentioned also, by the way).

So as the body count increases, it's a race against time for our emotionally scarred (aren't they always?) heroine to uncover the truth and save the day. Delving into the sins of the mothers, the movie did the unthinkable, that with a dream sequence as the introduction. I hate dream sequences as it's a pretty cheap technique if not done correctly, and there are a couple of them in the movie.

In part, the movie played at times like Ju-On gone wrong with the plenty of Dark Water references, and they could have retitled this Unholy Water, for the circumstances and plot points in the movie. However, there are plot holes abound, so don't be looking into the storyline too deeply. You'd come to expect the standard textbook twists towards the end about the sadistic nun, and sets which look like they can rival recent Thai horror movie Dorm.

The acting's pretty forgettable, with the cast speaking in perfect heavily accented English. And since most of them are pleasing to the eye, the story must weave in a love scene in the middle of a witch-hunt. What gives? Hello, got hantu, still got mood ah? Then again, the ghoul is a pretty cheap animated\/SFX which has a built in AI of popping up every now and then, in various fashion, just to elicit screams from timid audiences. The characters also break every unwritten rule in the Do-Nots in horror lore, so you know and expect their just desserts.

Can you possibly enjoy this movie? Sure you can. Just ensure that you're watching it in a full house (should be easy, since local folks are suckers for anything remotely horrific), and laugh at those who are so jumpy they scream at every \"frightening\" scene. It's pretty fun, and adds to the atmosphere, besides what's going on the screen. Surround sound doesn't even come close.

Think of it as watching an episode of Scooby Doo without the wisecracks, and it's a pity that the gory moments in the movie had to be censored for a PG rating. Those could possibly have been the best bits, now left rotting on the censor's floor board.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would like to make it very clear that I am not at all religious. I am an atheist but I could see that Richard Dorkins was contradicting himself over and over again. I would also like to make it known that I am not the sort of person that argues against something with philosophy all the time, but I feel that when comparing science and religion we must be philosophical and be willing to question the belief in main stream science as well as questioning religious beliefs.

I wonder if Richard Dorkins ever spends any time to think philosophically about belief, anyone who thinks long and hard enough about science and religion will realise that science is indeed a religion in itself. Yes there is a fundamental difference between the way that scientific beliefs are held when compared with other religions, but at it's roots, it's faith in a particular human instinct.

Throughout this series, Richard insists that science methods are the only right way of thinking and that it makes sense to believe in something only if the evidence for it is strong enough. If you dig deep enough into how science functions you'll realise that it is just as irrational as religion and that it comes down to faith in the end, faith in the evidence, faith in our sanity, faith in our senses but more than anything else faith in our instinct to follow patterns of recurrence.

This is not easy to explain but think about how the laws of physics were decided, it was because they were and still are the most common patterns of recurrence that we are aware of. I think that human beings have an instinct that makes them believe that the longer something remains in a certain state or place of existence the more we just assume out of blind FAITH that it is more likely to stay like it. For example, we don't expect that gravity will suddenly work in reverse tomorrow, by this I mean pushing matter away as supposed to attracting it. But the only reason why we don't expect this sudden change is because we have known for so long that it has always attracted as far as we are aware. However that doesn't mean that it couldn't do exactly the reverse tomorrow or even right now. It doesn't matter how long something may stay in a certain state or change, there is no rational reason to make assumptions about it but we do out of instinct. I would ask you to consider what is a long and short amount of time? There is no such thing, I don't know exactly how long it took for these supposed wise men to decide that everything must be made out of matter, Sound, Light, etc but lets give them what they would consider to be an edge way! Lets say far longer than it really was 12,00000000000 years! Is that a long period of time? 99999999999999999 years makes 12,00000000000 years seem like an incredibly short period of time. For all we know there could be an extreme amount of change in the so called laws of science within the next trillion years. It's all about comparison, only when we compare things can we say \"that is long\" or that is short. It's the same with big and small, wide and thin, heavy and light, strong and weak and others.

I doubt that any scientist could tell me why they think that trusting this instinct makes sense. I certainly don't see why it should, but that doesn't mean that we as humanity should necessarily stop using it. With this in mind, the most hypocritical comment that Richard Dorkins made was when he said that faith is irrational, \"a process of non thinking\" he said. If what we have in this instinct that I've been describing and this instinct that we all possess on some level isn't faith then I don't know what the hell it is. Other times when he is being hypocritical is when he talks about the religions being bronze age, \"bronze age myths\" he says. I would like to point out that no matter how much scientific methods have been changed over the years due to experience, experiments and evaluating, the pure rules of science are getting older and older all the time! They could even be described as the holy bible of science. He was going on about how he is sick of the different religions being stubborn \" I am right, he is wrong\" but looking back on how rude he was to the various interviewees, he seems to be just as stubborn him self. To be fair to him, at least he doesn't try to bomb religious communities. I appreciate his hatred for certain religious beliefs that generate war, but I don't respect his arrogance in his own beliefs.

As far as I'm concerned, Richard has the right to believe in science if that is his way. I am scientifically minded as well, but I don't think he has the right to go up to religious leaders having unfriendly arguments, trying to force his opinion on to them and virtually describing them as stupid. Despite all his education, experience and discoveries he seems to fail to have the wisdom to properly question his very own system of belief. I have read what he says in defence of this argument that open minded atheists such as my self put forward, What he states suggests to me that he is totally missing the point.

Finally the title of the documentary, Root Of All Evil. This states that religion is the root of all evil, it isn't true. There are causes of evil that have nothing to do with religion.

All round the documentary series was frustrating, narrow minded, hypocritical and flat-out rubbish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a good blueprint for a study of corporate power and the dichotomoy between required public life and the need for privacy. Robert Taylor has been primed by corporate head Burl Ives as a surrogate son to replace him as head of the corporation. He sends him to England to negotiate a deal, where Taylor is both taken aback by the ethics and morality of the men he is dealing with and manages to fall in love with a refugee while he's at it. He comes back emtpy handed, having done his duty but having told the truth to the English about his motives. He attempts to marry the refugee rather than the boss's niece and so begins an attempt by Ives to discredit the refugee as a suitable wife for a corporate executive. It could have been gritter, nastier and less romantic - the amount of time spent on the romance skews the film away from the points it's trying to make about corporate ethics.

Somehow the costume design was nominated (undeservedly) for an Oscar - it's all business suits and the two women in the film dress conservatively - studio politics at work yet again, no doubt.

What is stiking however is the black and white CinemaScope cinematography which is excellent - this if anything deserved the Oscar nom. (It was MGM's first 'Scope film in B&W).

Not as good as it could have been but not terrible either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love Japanese movies--having seen at least 100-200. So it's obvious I am not afraid of Japanese films. However, sometimes there are Japanese concepts for film that just don't translate well to Westerners. They might be hits at home, but abroad they just don't seem, well,...normal. It's like the live fish my wife ate on a business meeting or odd PS2 games such as dating simulators or Katamari Damacy--things that are accepted there that confuse non-Japanese. This is probably the way others view things Americans take for granted, such as American football, fried Snicker bars and Paris Hilton! Well the king of strange Japanese films that just don't seem right to Americans might just be ATAMA-YAMA. Now the style of animation isn't the issue--it's different but nice enough. No, it's the story concept itself and the rather bizarre ending. That's what make this a truly unusual film and it goes like this: There was a stingy man who, for no apparent reason, had a tree growing out of his head. It was little at first and he simply cut it away, but again and again it grew back--so he just decided to let it go. And, after a while, people began living on his head under the shade of the tree. Oddly, while they were under the tree, they were tiny but when they left, they were full sized again. Then, after finally getting sick of it all and yanking out the tree, the man drown himself(!?) in the hole in the top of the head where the tree was! The end.

See! I told you this was very, very odd--but not in a good way like TAMPOPO or HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS--just odd. O-D-D....odd! And unless you have a very high tolerance for this sort of thing, I doubt if you'll feel bad to know that this Oscar-nominated film did not win. Frankly, that makes me happy, as I really DON'T want this film to spur on such similar films. The only reason it earns a 4 is due to nice, but not spectacular animation.

This film made my brain hurt....I hope that isn't a sign that I have a tree!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is very possible that I simply didn't give the movie a fair enough chance because it was so immediately unappealing to me (something similar happened with Triplets of Belleville), but I really should have caught on when I put the film on and my roommate, an exchange student from Japan, immediately started laughing at the movie, saying that it sounded dumb. Now, I don't agree that it is dumb, the animation is very simple but clearly very skilled. It's like classic animation with added layers that add another element of realism to them while remaining strictly in the realm of the surreal at the same time.

But the subject matter is entirely unappealing to me. It has an interesting message about stinginess and greed, but it is wrapped in such an unpleasant package that it is almost not worth learning, especially because you already knew it anyway. The sound effects while the man is loudly gobbling cherries and cherry pits, for example, are indeed repulsive.

There was a clever scene of animation as we kept diving endlessly into the hole that the man finds in his head when he pulls the sapling out of his scalp, but it goes on for so long that it seems to overshadow everything else. There is so much stock put into that one sequence that it is almost like the whole movie is about it.

As I said about Triplets of Belleville, this would have been a great thing for a late night TV program like adult swim, or its Japanese counterpart, but an Academy Award nominated film? It gives me the impression that there is not generally a long list of animated short films for the Academy to choose from.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In all the episodes, I never saw any real action or drama or comedy.

The plot is so repetitive.

****Somebody gets something old and then somebody else tells them a little bit about it and how much it's worth and who made it and where it comes from and how much it could sell for and if there was any work done to it.

Sowhile I watched about 30 of these, i realized...there is no drama....nobody ever loses a limb or life or gets divorced or hit by a car or air-plane.

There are no car chases or explosions- not even a horse race with old carriages.

All those guns and swords and nobody goes on a violent killing spree...what gives? No pshycos, no axe-murders, no-gun-totting old Englishmen in bad suits...just yap yap yap...you have an old tea set and it came from the country of Germany back in 1602 - blah blah blah...

I'm still waiting for somebody with a time machine to go on screen and ask about it, but no...it never comes to be and the only thing that happens is that some stuffy Englishman or woman serves up some crap about something old being sold in Boston or China during the Ming Dynasty - big EFFIN deal.

Can't anybody ever kidnap one of the leads and hold them for ransom? Is there no alien spacecraft that will obliterate the entire floor? Who the hell writes this stuff as a series and expects us to stay awake? This is about as entertaining as watching paint dry - only with commentary.

There's no sex, there's no comedy or romance, no action, no suspense, no action, no drama, no mystery or martial arts.

This show sucks! What ever happened to supermodels wearing thongs and spewing lasers from a futuristic weapon? Antiques Roadshow - More like grab a blanket and pillow and go to sleep show...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's about jealousy, it's about racism, it's about manipulation, but the underlying message is love. Geoffrey Sax tried to pull off Shakespeare's Othello, by bringing it to modern day context. However, the actors were not convincing enough to pull this off. There were extra bodies to help put everything in to perspective, however, John Othello, played by Eamonn Walker, over reacted a lot in this film, causing for the down fall of Keeley Hawes, Dessie Brabant, eventually ending in Dessie's death.

Ben Jago, played by Christopher Eccleston, was seen as the main character in the film. He didn't give enough evidence for Dessie to be cheating on Othello, with Michael Cass, played by Richard Coyle. Instead he just played a friend to all and gave one reason as to why she \"was\" cheating. In the play, it took a lot more convincing from Iago to make Othello even suspect anything. This change made the movie more about rage for the wrong reasons, than what the book was based off of. However, the movie did have a few good points. It turned the army scenes into more a racist group toward blacks, where Othello is the main chief of the police squad. These scenes are made believable by the raging crowds, and burning fires. You are able to sense the amount of racism in the movie, more so than you can in the book. This book plays up the modern day scenes by making it much easier to understand, than the Shakespearian times it was written in. In the play Iago (Jago) gets tortured at the end, but in the film he gets his satisfaction, and gets Othello's position. He never gets what he deserves and is never caught for telling the lie to Othello until it is too late. I saw this as a downfall in the movie, because I feel that the villain is granted his treasure of the promotion out of lying, and in the book, he is found out by Rodrigo. Overall, the movie could have done a better job based on the play than what it did. I feel that the director of the movie left out some of the most important parts of the play that were mentioned or there to make the play flow, or make it more of a tragedy. I would say that you should read the book first, in order to understand all of the events that happened in the movie, otherwise you may find yourself lost, and confused.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Othello is set to burn the eyes of the viewers of this film. The bad depiction of Shakespeare's characters, and the terrible rendition of the love that Desi & John had, made this movie the horrendous filth that it is. By far, Othello, directed by Jeffery Saks, is beyond mediocre and atrocious.

The movie Othello is a pitiful drama about the love between John and Desi. Their faithfulness to one another will be tested by the man's friend. In the opening scene of the film, it is clearly shown that the love between John and Desdemona is inseparable beyond belief. Moments later, Ben Jago, John's friend pops out into the screen scaring the viewers and showing them right away how much of a liar and power hungry person he is.

By far, this movie was much more horrid than the Shakespeare novel itself. With that being said, it does have a miniscule amount of good parts. For example, the love that was shown between John and Desi, was depicted very well and it looked that the couple was so inseparable; just as it was explained in the book. Although the love between them was shown exceptionally well, it still did not show the jealously that Othello had between Cass and Desi as well as it should.

Love, jealously, deceitfulness, this movie is based on all three of the main topics that were in the Shakespeare novel. The novel however, really explains how all of this came together much better than the movie could. For example, the conclusion of this story ends much more differently in the book than in the film. Much more detail is also put into the novel. This is why this film is such a disappointment, trust me, those who have read it will find it disappointing as well.

In conclusion, this film was by far, the most horrendous depiction of a novel that has ever been put out by mankind. By avoiding to see this film, not only will viewers save themselves an hour two of their lives, but also save themselves an eye or two from the distasteful face of Ben Jago popping out at them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It seems like an exciting prospect, a modern-dress \"Othello\" with Christopher Eccleston, who was so frighteningly good in \"Shallow Grave\" and (especially) \"Jude,\" and Eamonn Walker, who brought such intensity and introspection to his pivotal role on \"Oz.\" One would think them both natural Shakespeareans, but both performers misfire: Walker's Othello is a fairly cookie-cutter take on the part, with a whispery delivery that doesn't make much of an impact; and Eccleston hams it up appallingly as Iago, winking at the camera in almost an outrageous parody of the role. It's likely he was egged on by his director, whose florid approach might have worked better with Elizabethan language, but who seems a jarring, pretentious choice for this modernized screenplay. And the screenplay itself is less disappointing in being modern than it is in being obvious \u0096 it's as if Andrew Davies sketched out the famous plot and then just wrote whatever dialogue first popped into his head. All in all, a failure. 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"I haven't laughed this hard since granny got caught in the wringer,\" says one of the potheads in this hilarious quasi-spoof of all those Val Lewton and George A. Romero walking-dead movies we have come to love (or loath, depending on your personal taste) through the years.

In this story, a young actor pair play a ghoulish prank on the rest of their troupe after, one spooky night, they visit a cemetery island. Their artistic director, Alan, pretends to bring the dead back to life by conducting a highly stylized ritual.

Way too much screen time is misspent; the amateur dialog includes lame witticisms, melodrama and other kinds of unnecessary filler commentaries (And can't Alan stop that irritating laughter... way too much!). Once the action kicks in (which comes close to the end of this film), it's worth the wait.

I saw this one on a late-night, local station television program that ran films very much like this one... only this one scared me at the age of 13... but then again, you might laugh your way through it, until the bitter end... ...which is probably the reason, nowadays, why very few people still wear striped hip-huggers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Strange, often effective hippie zombie flick, starring the unforgettable husband\/wife team of Alan and Anya Ornsby, this movie isn't as bad as most in its genre, but is still way high on the cheese-factor. Includes several bargain-basement zombies, outrageously campy dialogue, a scene-chewing performance by Alan Ormsby, several gay\/kinky grave-robbers, and one straange soundtrack. Wife Anya puts on a performance that's so odd, one has to wonder if she's really acting at all. There are much worst pics of this kind during the era (look for any Al Adamson flic), but it's no Night of the Living Dead. Director\/Writer \"Benjamin\" Clark, is really Bob Clark, who went on to create the purile \"Porky's\" early 80's teen exploitation disasters. He has only now resurfaced after 1 inexplicably good movie (\"A Christmas Story\") to return to his dreadful ways with \"Baby Geniuses\". Weirdo Alan Ormsby later wrote the kinky Nastasia Kinski\/Malcolm McDowell version of \"Cat People\". Moocow says check this hippy horror movie out for fun, zombie frolics, and campy dialogue :=8)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd heard a lot of bad things about this film before seeing it, but thought all the negative comments were probably down to the film's low budget and poor acting - both of which I can deal with when it comes to zombie films. However, what I didn't count on is this film being really, really boring; if there's one thing you can count on from low budget zombies, its gore and entertainment - but unfortunately, this film has neither. I'm quite surprised, because the previous two horror films I've seen from director Bob Clark - Deathdream and Black Christmas - were both highly inventive and entertaining films, but Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things just doesn't cut it. The plot line follows a group of young adults that travel to a burial island in order to mess about with rituals to bring the dead back to life. However, they soon learn that playing with things they don't understand is a really stupid idea when their rituals actually bring the dead back to life and the corpses of the island return to feast on their blood!

The plots sounds like it could lead to a decent flick, but what I didn't mention is that the interesting parts don't start until the final twenty minutes; and as this is a ninety minute movie, I'm sure you can guess that this isn't a good thing. The opening hour and ten minutes are padded out with poor acting and even worse characters. I can understand setting up a situation so that the horror is more potent once it comes along; but please, if you're going to spend so long on it, you've really got to make it interesting. All of the characters in the film are over the top and annoying, and personally I just wanted the zombies to hurry up and eat them. The film is not without its merits, however, as the atmosphere is a standout. Lucio Fulci would show seven years later how an isolated island and flesh eating zombies can blend well; but Bob Clark already did it with this film. The direction isn't bad either, but it's brought down by poor make-up effects and a distinct lack of blood, which isn't likely to please fans of zombie movies. Overall, I really can't recommend this film; but if you're a hardcore zombie fanatic, you may get a kick out of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's always interesting to view a horror movie after hearing so much praise from other fans. Experience has taught me that you should never generalize fan taste within a genre. My expectations of this movie were a great deal higher than my viewed opinion.

Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things is a movie with a good intended plot that trips up too many times to carry it out. The whole idea of a band of actors staging a reanimation of dead corpses had me intrigued. However, everything degenerated into cinematic chaos. The actors,who for the most part were competent and amazingly expressive, were offered roles that fail to maintain consistent characterization. Some of these characters go from ambivalence about the whole act of defiling a cemetery, to outspoken criticism, back to ambivalence. It's one thing for characters to have a change heart in the course of the film; it's another to produce an overly dynamic, circular attitude that loops every ten minutes.

Another inconsistent element of this film is the premise. Does the main protagonist intend for the ceremony to be theatrical prank or does he actually conspire with dark spiritual forces to raise the dead? Even with the aforementioned flaws, I would recommend this movie to other horror fans, since I believe that only true horror fans will appreciate the dark atmospheric components and be able to ignore the plot's inconsistency. The scene where the dead rise out of the grave is made extremely haunting (even to a veteran zombie enthusiast) by the excellent combined use of scenery and sound, and the great choice of skilled actors chosen to play the reanimated dead. Current filmmakers should learn from CSPWDT about using the proper video and audio techniques in mood development.

All in all, if you are zombie movie completionist like me, you should take time to locate and view this movie. It's a fun watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This early film from director Bob Clark (\"Porky's\", \"Black Christmas\", \"A Christmas Story\") didn't really pump my nads like I expected. In fact, it straight up annoyed me. It's about a theater troupe who sail to a burial island, consisting of dead criminals, where they plan to conjure some evil forces and resurrect some corpses... The leader of their group, a conceited black-magic enthusiast and possible homosexual, attempts to summon Satan's help with the re-animation of an exhumed body, which fails so they take the corpse to the nearby, deserted caretaker's house and play with it... Nothing interesting happens until the last fifteen minutes or so when the undead finally spring from their graves and go after the desecrater's. The make-up effects are okay, the gore is VERY minimal (PG rating), and the extremely irritating characters are focused on way to much, which really got on my nerves. I guess having group of terrible actors bickering for an hour was suppose to equal some \"comedic\" status, yet I found no humor in it, whatsoever. The entire concept is just ridiculous - how these kids are willing to dig up and monkey around with a dead body for as long as they did. The characters are stereotypical and bland and the movie is just plain boring... Don't waste your time with it...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to give this movie a 4 because of a couple of things.

1. What I'll call the \"stupid victim syndrome\". If you have the killer on the floor and you have his gun - shoot him please. If you are a cop and you have your shotgun pointed at the killer's back - shoot him please.

2. When you are in a high stress situation and you have your finger on the trigger of a gun - your first instinct is to squeeze. This is one of the first things they teach you in handgun training and the reason that you don't put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire - ask any hunter or infantryman. If you are electrocuted, your muscles should also contract - making you squeeze your finger.

3. It's really hard to lay on the floor completely still for 8 hours without 2 other people - one of them a doctor - not noticing that you aren't dead. Even more so if you are supposedly dying of a brain tumor and were in the hospital just a few months earlier.

4. Technically, the killer did kill one of his victims - the guy he injected with poison that had to get the antidote. If you poison someone, that is murder.

5. What was Adam's lesson that he was supposed to learn? Yes, the doctor needed to be there, but what was Adam's crime? Maybe I just missed something.

Other than those things, I would have given this movie a higher grade. The plot was pretty good, and the ways the killer chose to kill his victims were very inventive. I can even forgive the terrible acting on the doctor's part - the scenes with his family were enough to make me sick. The cinematography and soundtrack were very good, but the ending seemed contrived and just didn't work for me. Thank goodness I didn't have to pay to see this or I would have demanded a refund.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(This review does not necessarily expose the plot of the movie, however it may change one's expectations of the movie and thus make for a less enjoyable experience.)

Ever rented a scary movie, expecting to be on the edge of your seat in fear, and instead ended up howling in laughter at each and every stupid turn of the plot? This movie had so many opportunities to impress and actually scare the viewer. It was cut poorly and jumped around too much; making references to the past seem more like excuses as to why the plot was heading in its particular direction. The writers must not have thought about how the potentially excellent plot should have been carried out, because the poor construction of time throughout the plot is discouraging to the viewer and makes the movie increasingly tiring to watch.

Almost worse than the writers having abused what could have been an excellent and classic thriller was the fact that it gradually relied on cheap tactics for a scare. The acting didn't make it scary, and the situations hardly made it scary, therefore it needed a few dark scenes with things jumping out at you to make it worthwhile. Even those were predictable.

Not even the gore could've saved the plot, and it rivals the gore of the successful thriller Se7en.

Speaking of Se7en, I feel like Saw tried to follow Se7en's incredibly fascinating psychological theme, but failed miserably in doing so. I was terribly disappointed in the lack of analysis and plot structure surrounding the psychology of the killer. The beginning scenes tease the viewer into thinking that this is a psychological thriller; believe me, it is far from that.

Oh, did I mention poor acting? At first, Cary Elwes seems makes a convincing performance; however, this completely deteriorates at the most crucial parts of the plot. I was left in tears of laughter at this performance, which is worthy of a Razzie. The performance of Leigh Whannell is also terrible and too played-out, although not as bad as the performance by Elwes, and the big red flag with this is that Whannell is also a writer for the movie.

The end of Saw could never make up for having lost the entire middle of it, and that is what makes it a huge failure. It was an opportunity wasted, and I have no clue as to why Monica Potter and Danny Glover chose to take roles in this movie.

I am mad at myself for wasting money on just renting it. It was definitely not worth the $4, and in the future I will definitely avoid seeing anything having to do with Elwes, Whannell or James Wan. The big tragedy in this is not that it lacked basis to its plot, it's that the great potential storyline was thrown away and poor acting added insult to injury. I'll avoid the poor puns involving the title and just conclude with this: don't watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The main problems of 'Saw' are related to the tremendous script mistakes that only a uncritical spectator will just obviate. The main question is what's is the purpose of the killer in his lying in the middle of the floor? The film tries to show that the killer's aim is to cause evil and destruction in his victims, he loves to play with the lives of other people and to feel control over their the fears and debilities. So why does he just pretend to be dead between the two main characters? A tremendous unlikelihood: can a man pretend to be dead for more than one or two hours without moving a single muscle or even without breathing in order not to be discovered by two men who are in the same room? It has not sense at all except to be the final (d)effect of the movie. The killer seems to have always the control along the plot and if it's lying like a dead body this can't be possible. Finally, it doesn't work. The right place for the killer should have been a darker and untouchable shadow behind the false shadow (the male nurse) but not the floor of the white room. The director shouldn't have showed the killer's face and maybe the site where he is hidden. Then, the film would be a quite good thriller. However, 'Saw' is just a fiasco. Hitchcock, please, come back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really tried to like \"Saw.\" The story was good, and I admire the breakneck pace of the way the film was shot. However, there were too many clich\u00e9s and elements that while they may have looked \"cool,\" they really made no sense.

First, what I liked about the film was the overall tone of the story, and I thought the premise was fantastic. The character of The Jigsaw Killer was intriguing and reminded me of vintage Dario Argento. Danny Glover was excellent in his role as an obsessed detective, and Monica Potter was good in a thankless role as a doctor's abducted wife. Shawnee Smith's scene was incredible and both Wan and Whannell should be commended for using that scene as a demo to get the backing for the film. The whole notion that the Jigsaw killer finds a way for his victims to kill themselves is an excellent notion, but once the film got going, logic began to get away.

Once they showed that Zap was the one holding Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter hostage, it was apparent that he was not the Jigsaw killer, and part of it. The scene where he puts a stethoscope over the heart of the terrified Diana while Allison screams at him through her gag was one of the most gratuitous scenes I've ever seen. It was supposed to be chilling, but establishing nothing. Also, since the Jigsaw killer finds a way for victims to kill themselves, he has no problem slicing the throat of a police officer. I guess it's a way to show that he doesn't want to get caught and will go to any means necessary to ensure that doesn't happen, but to me it just didn't make any logic, especially when he shows no remorse over the death of another detective (which I did like that setup, just would've been better if given to someone who actually deserved it).

I felt Leigh Whannell was fine as Adam. It wasn't really a showy role and he has a lot of potential as a character actor. However, I wasn't too fond of James Wan's direction. The story may have been original, but the direction sure wasn't. I guess I'm tired of quick, MTV style cuts in favor of the old approach to directing, but a lot of scenes involving the Jigsaw killer reminded me too much of \"Se7en,\" way too much of it. As the film progressed, to me it was starting to become a series of demo reels like \"Hey, look what I can do.\" Instead of being intriguing, it became very distracting. But hey, it worked. He's now directing \"Final Destination 3\" so he's on a path to a successful career, and I think he will become a top notch horror director in years to come.

What really did it in for me was the ending. Like I said, I knew that Jigsaw wasn't Zap, and I liked how Adam discovered the mini tape player after killing him. It would've had a terrific ending, except for one fatal flaw: I felt they should've left it where you didn't know who the killer was. The way it was done was only done for one reason: Boy, are we clever? Uh, no. To me, it just didn't make sense.

Some of the better horror films are made for a reason, where there is a reason for the violence we see in the story. While \"Saw\" started out very well, it started to become undone by the filmmakers' insatiable need to be \"cool\" and detract from the winning story they had. Perhaps if they weren't too insistent on making the films themselves, and relied on a more experienced horror director to helm it, I think it would've been the horror classic that it undeservedly has been given over the past four months. If this and \"Cabin Fever\" are the future of horror, I'm very scared.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a big horror film buff, particularly of the 1980's subgenres. Name one \u0096 I've probably seen it. Last year, a new little horror movie that seemed to slip under mainstream radar called \"Saw\" was about to hit theaters. I was moderately excited. Having not heard anything about it, I thought it looked quite promising judging by the previews and posters (well, except the back and white ones with the severed hands and feet...those just looked terrible!) I saw the film on opening night. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. This movie was literally mentally and psychically painful to watch. Because it was scary?...NO! Because it was one of the most awful movies I had ever had the displeasure of seeing! First off, the construction of the screenplay and editing was utterly atrocious, even by horror movie standards. Starting off a sequence in an interrogation room with a victim (Shawnee Smith) who recently survived a serial killer's attack, then showing a flashback of what she survived? NOT SCARY! It was impossible to feel any type of tension WHATSOEVER knowing that the aforementioned victim was perfectly alright. Sure, that reverse-bear-trap thing was creepy...but WHY should I feel in the least bit frightened when CLEARLY, you just showed me she survived the ordeal? Unfortunately, the entire film was constructed this way. It starts with two guys in a cellar. Then, they show flashbacks of how they were abducted...NOT SCARY! Why? Because we already know what's gonna happen to them, seeing as how we JUST SAW the result of the attack. THEY'RE FINE! Move on with the story! Even more unfortunately, the actual story was meager at best. I couldn't have cared less for these annoying, pitiful excuses for \"characters\" and the acting didn't help. Cary Elwes was solid for the most part and then suddenly towards the end he started crying like a lost infant while straining to keep his American accent in tact (it didn't work \u0096 the audience I saw this with was in stitches). This drove him to a rash and idiotic decision even the most simple-minded wouldn't attempt. He had other options. Better ones. SMARTER ONES. Even given his intense emotional state (horribly communicated through horrible acting), it was still irrational. I didn't buy it. BAD WRITING ALERT! Furthermore, even when certain sequences were played straight-through and flashback-free, they were painfully predictable. I constantly found my foot tapping impatiently waiting for the dumb sequence to end. This happened for the entire film. I saw every single \"twist\" coming. Twenty minutes into the film, I had already called the killer's identity, not to mention his connection to his \"accomplice(s)\" as SOON as they appeared on screen. Better acting might've been able to overshadow the awful script. Instead, the actors might as well have had \"RED-HERRING\" or \"ACCOMPLICE\" tattooed across their foreheads.

By the end of the movie, I was utterly outraged I had wasted even a fragment of my life on this film, and the entire theatre was laughing hysterically at the downright horrendous finale. Seriously, you'd think they were watching a Monty Python movie. I would've been laughing too, had I not been so angered at the film's total and utter failure to accomplish ANYTHING it set out to do. When we left, there was (no joke) a line to speak to the manager of the theatre to get their money back (didn't happen). I was absolutely positive the movie was going to be a box-office bomb. The following week, you couldn't have imagined my shock to find out \"Saw\" had hit number one at the box office and EVERYONE was talking about it (mostly individuals who found \"Napoleon Dynamite\" to be a thought-provoking epic tale and thought \"satire\" was some type of rubber). I am so utterly sickened to hear people praise this film that I often feel as though I'm going to vomit. It's entertainment for the most feeble and simple-minded of the human race. Those who find some weird Jigsaw clown-puppet riding on a tricycle threatening (it's a doll \u0096 knock it over and leave \u0096 what's so frightening about that?).

Don't get me wrong, I own every \"Friday the 13th\", love my splatter movies, thought \"Napoleon Dynamite\" was hilarious, can't get enough of Freddy, Michael, Pinhead, or Leatherface, have a font appreciation for unknown horror gems and rank \"Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers\" amongst my Top 10 Favorite Slashers. However, I realize these films aren't the most sophisticated American cinema has to offer \u0096 I appreciate them for what they are \u0096 quick, easy fun. \"Saw\" is cinematic garbage. The film attempts to be a smart and semi-sophisticated, nasty little thrill ride, and bogs down to an irritating, annoying waste of time, money, energy, and celluloid. Atrocious on all accounts. Every single copy should be incinerated, along with its feeble-minded fans. Shame on all of you.

Will I see \"Saw II\"? Maybe after I take a double-shot of Liquid Drano before I gouge out my own eyes and impale white-hot shish-kabob brochettes into my ears and colon. My Rating: 0\/10. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was the most unrealistic movie I ever seen.

I can't believe that the writer and director didn't see that almost all the movie looks like a SF one.

For example:

1. It is impossible for the killer to stay on cold glaze and after 10 hours to get up so quickly.

2. You can't get electrocuted trough a water pipe like in the movie.(believe me, it's my domain)

3. With a saw you can cut 10 pipes in 10 hour very easy. Let's say that the chain was made from steel but the water pipe was rusty and it was made from iron.

4. If you try to cut your foot with a saw you faint (in the best case, it's more likely to die because your hart fails) before to get to the bone(shin).

And there are more other examples.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why is it that every time I mention this movie to somebody, I have to hear 10 minutes of praise about it. I have come to the conclusion that any movie that has a twist upon a twist is deemed \"genius\" by anyone who watches it. Is that really what film has become? Or is it that any time someone says \"Wow, that is so cool\" everybody has to agree with them and has no opinion of their own? How this movie has a 7.5 rating is a disgrace to the film industry in general. It has also become yet another movie that \"needs\" two sequels for it, so I am going to have to hear about this horrible franchise for quite a while longer.

Now to the film and why it is so bad. The original concept of it is actually not that bad, as there has not been a good serial killer movie in a while. The writing for this film is horrible as well as the execution. OK, so its a low budget movie, but that should not change the story or writing. The actors could not be worse in their attempt to make us scared of this killer or just scared of this movie. So they go out and get a big name in Danny Glover, but his talents (whatever those are) are wasted because HIS CHARACTER IS WORTHLESS. Why was he even in this movie? What was his whole fight at the end turned out to be useless and misleading for what the audience believes is happening. This is of course the filmmakers intent, but couldn't there have been a better way to do this without making us watch all that garbage. And then the \"big\" twist comes (was this the third or fourth?) and the whole audience is shocked and walks out of the theater like this is some kind of masterpiece. Sure the movie gets people talking about the storyline and what not, but that was not the only flaw in this film. The direction was trying to be way too creative with what it was working with, and the flashback sequences were used merely as a shock effect.

After watching this movie, even if you enjoyed it, go back and review the film and you will soon understand why it is not worthy of the praise it is receiving. For an amazing serial killer film check out Se7en if you have not done so. That is what this film wanted to be. I have gotten into more arguments about this film than probably any others and will continue to argue against it. Please do not support this franchise for not only your sake, but mine and everybody else's sake as well. Hollywood needs to find a good horror movie to make, rather than 1,000 remakes, sequels, and \"shock\" factor films (such as this). Oh yeah the saw 2 tag line sounds real promising: \"Oh yes, there will be blood.\" Yaaayyyy!!!! Sweet!! blood, that must mean its good right? Give me a break. Sorry everybody who love this movie, but poor writing, flashy direction, and bad acting does not make a good movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There were so many things wrong with this movie i have trouble keeping them all straight. But one thing that really bothers me is that if Jigsaw was the one laying on the ground in the bathroom, what happens if Zep never shows up? What if Zep was killed by Danny Gloover before he made it to the bathroom? Does Jigsaw simply just get up and walk out? Could the guy in the middle of the bathroom not be jigsaw, but another part of Jigsaw's game? What if Zep killed the wife and kid, how does Jigsaw get him the antidote for the poison if he's lying in the middle of the bathroom? Why does the doctor wait till the last minute to finally cut off his foot? It was too late, it was after six and as far as he knew his wife and child were already shot dead, it wasn't the best time for heroics. These are just a few questions i had about the film, but i may be missing something or everything as i have only seen the movie once. Please Help!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Danny Glover and Carey Elwes obviously forgot how to act when they made this movie, the acting is absolutely atrocious. The pay-off is even worse. I feel sorry for Danny Glover, I hope he got paid well for this because it makes him look completely foolish, the same goes for Mr. Elwes.An absolute slap in the face to any horror movie fan. Despicable. This is probably the worst display of acting by veteran actors I have ever seen. I wonder if they bothered to look at the script, or if they did it must have said \"forget everything you know about acting\" because this makes the two of them look ridiculous. For two seasoned veterans to act this way is appalling, I hope the pay check was very large, I thought, at first, it was a spoof. If you can find satisfaction in this movie then more power to you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eh. This is a popcorn movie, nothing more. I watched this with a bunch of friends (and though that might NOT be the best way to view a horror movie...) and most of the dialogue and action was laughable.

It left me yearning for a real film. :)

The main problem is the lack of tension in the film. It keeps flashing back to 'explanation' scenes, which dissipates any discernible tension.

And the character relationship 'twists'? Yeah, they suck. I won't say what they are, but they just don't add anything to the film\/storyline.

(By relationship, I mean the two main characters.)

Eek. My recommendation is this: watch this movie if you can't think of anything better. Mediocre at best...Maybe not even that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are bad movies and then there are movies which are even worst. Saw is just that.

The movie is simply bad on all points. The plot, the acting, the camera work, the music and everything else is absolutely terrible and I cannot begin to comprehend how such trash made it to the big screen.

The simple fact is that Saw is riddled with plot holes. The beginning is enticing and leaves much to be expected but it does not hold up and the plot becomes absolutely ridiculous and absurd. The film is not creative and will not leave you with a single bit of credibility. People that claim that this movie is gory, violent, sadistic and scary are sissy girls who have nightmares after watching CSI because it is far from that.

So I am warning you know, do not attempt to watch this if you have any form of intellect, because you will be disappointed. A true bore and a mediocre film as can be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Hood Rat\" is absolutely terrible. This is a urban version of \"Willard\". I just can't believe this movie got made, let alone distributed. Someone in Universal Studios thought that people would watch and like this \"movie\". The only good thing in this is Ice-T as the landlord. He was funny.

The one thing I hate in movies is sped up action. Once or twice is bad enough, but the WHOLE movie is like that. Every scene transition is some fast motion special effect. The director should be banned from making movies forever.

Trust Me, Never see this movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe that Isaiah Washington and Ice-T were in this mess! The plot (and I use that term very loosely) centers around an army of rats that terrorize an urban apartment complex--at least I think that's what it was about. The script made no sense at all, I couldn't have cared less about the characters and the camera-work consisted of repeatedly showing shadow images of rats standing on their hind legs or running. Running is what I should have done. As an African American male, I often read pleas from my brothers and sisters to \"support African American films.\" I try to help out, but enough is enough. No one should watch garbage like this for any reason whatsoever. Please, brothers and sisters, don't produce any more direct to video rat turds like this. Please!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I normally am a glutton for poor movies, but this thing stunk.

Do not watch this movie.

Terrible effects and very little humour, what the hell was the point of making this movie? No gore to speak of and no acting to speak of.

I could only manage 45 minutes of this rat dropping of a movie, and that is rare for me.

Something positive to say about this drivel? cover art was OK, I am pretty sure the movie has a ending too, even tho I did not make it to it.

The rats were unorganized and blew their lines constantly,they lacked intensity and seemed just to be going through the paces for their paycheque. The actors were worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(spoiler) it could be the one the worst movie you see, you might like it like I did I really like it. Its one of those odds movie.

There is man who seen to have a had day in life. Blacks rats some how feel sorry him (which I think was a good Idea).

The killer rats become friends with man two big man come making feel unwanted so the man set the killer rat on them and floor to floor both bodies covered in big black rats not that much blood.

but think about big black rats all over body) but start to little killing people but rats are going over-bored until the rats kills his friends and girlfriends,

Ther one scene in were seating on the toilet while rats are going into the pipes leading to toilet and rat goes up his you know and come out of his mouth, (which mean the rats must off eaten everything inside in body's) I had me laughing for weeks

why did i like this movie, yes it's different of the rest, I for ONE like it when little creature takes on mankind.

if you have seen any of these movie slugs, slither, Them, spiders, snakes, tremors ,Cujo, crocodile, shark, octopus.

If you liked them and check out Hood rats,

it better then Terror toons that all I Can say! 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie wasn't the best... but it did have some good actors in it. Isiaiah Washington was pretty good as a homeless guy, Guy Torrey was good as his handicapped brother, Ice-T was humorous as the landlord and surprisingly...the actress Tami Roman was good as the Judge in the movie. I didn't even know it was her and I am a die hard Real World fan. She was totally believable. Hopefully this movie won't hinder these actors development. I know that Isiaiah has left this movie far behind with the success of Grey's Anatomy, Ice-T with his regular role on NYPD Special Unit and Tami Roman has landed a recurring role on Sex Love and Secrets (UPN's new soap opera). I wish the same for the other actors because one bad movie DOESN'T a bad actor make.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is bad, so bad that my mother who can barely stand the \"suspense\" of Disney's Snow White, was chuckling through out the entire movie. My first warning should've been that it was in the $5.50 bin at Wal-mart. But I have actually found some good movies in that bin, so i can't fault if for this debacle. The second warning should have been that when the cashier rang up the DVD, it was actually $3.88. Again I have never been one to ignore the cheapies. THis movie is definitely not for people looking for something good to watch, and it most certainly isn't for everyone that enjoys the occasional bad movie. If you need background noise while you are doing something like playing cards with some friends, then get this but if you are looking for something to actually watch don't even bother. It was really disappointing because there were a lot of good actors. I felt like i was watching a chocolate version of Willard.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't understand how some people can stand playing \"Half-Life: Counter-Strike\" when there are so many better first-person shooting games available.

\"Counter-Strike\" is a game that doesn't use any imaginative ideas in its weaponry. All the weapons in the game are real-life weapons, but there could have been at least a cheat that allowed players to have access to a \"supernatural\" weapon, like the all-powerful BFG in the Quake & Doom games.

Another problem is that the player actually has to reload the weapon manually. This can become extremely annoying, especially while in the middle of a firefight when you are so close to killing the enemy. The reloading delay also gives the feeling that the gun is slow at performing its task.

There are not many choices of characters to choose from. If I remember correctly, there are 4 types of characters each for the Terrorist and Counter-Terrorist forces. This means that many of the characters look the same as each other, which really brings down the game's realism.

The game is pretty sexist when it comes to character selections. In the early version of Counter-Strike, there was a woman available to choose (in the Terrorist force selection) which was good for the female gamers. In the latest versions, however, the female character was deleted and replaced with another male character. I wonder if the women who played the game were disappointed at the newer versions.

Finally, the maps in the game are very small. The biggest map seems to be the desert map, but it has standard detail. In fact, all the maps in the game have standard graphics. In other words, nothing new.

To sum up, I think \"Half-Life: Counter-Strike\" is the most un-imaginative first-person shooting game of all time. There are plenty of better & more imaginative shooting games to play, so why waste your time on this boring game? You're better off playing the Unreal Tournament, Quake, and Doom games. Avoid this over-rated & over-hyped game.

I give the game a 1\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Man From Utah\" opens with a singing cowboy strumming a guitar on horseback. This is how we're introduced to John Weston (John Wayne), heading into town and looking for work. When he helps Marshal Higgins (George pre-Gabby Hayes) foil a bank robbery with his fancy shooting, the marshal offers him an undercover job as a deputy to investigate the Dalton Valley Rodeo. Apparently, the annual winners of the big prize money in the rodeo are a tight knit band of bad boys in the employ of Spike Barton (Ed Peil), who also happens to head up the rodeo committee. Serious challengers to the supremacy of Barton's top henchman Cheyenne Kent (Yakima Canutt) wind up severely ill or dead.

Even back in these 1930's Lone Star Westerns John Wayne had a charismatic presence that hinted at future star quality. If for nothing else, seeing Wayne so young in these films is a real treat. The movie itself clips along at a quick fifty three minute pace, much of it taken up by stock rodeo footage of roping, bulldogging and Indian parade and dance. In the deciding rodeo event, Weston avoids disaster by discovering a poisoned needle inserted into the saddle of \"Dynamite\", a formerly unridden bronco on which he must outlast Cheyenne.

The ending is no surprise, as Barton's bad boys forsake winning the rodeo events and go for the whole thirty thousand dollar pot of prize money deposited in the local bank. But the marshal and Weston are there to foil their plans and save the day for the Dalton Valley Rodeo. And as we've seen before in films like \"Neath the Arizona Skies\" and \"Randy Rides Alone\", Wayne's character closes out the film in a clinch with a pretty young lady, this time the judge's daughter Marjorie Carter (Polly Ann Young), who pined for him throughout the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Too much stock footage (almost one third of this 53 minute film) really slows this one down. Granted that the plot is that John Weston (John Wayne) is sent by Marshall George Higgins (George Hayes) to participate in a fixed rodeo (say \"Ro-DAY-oh\"), but character development and interaction are sacrificed. The relationship between the Bad Girl (usually a Latina-- even in the great \"Duck Soup\" [1933]) and the 'heroine' Polly Ann Young, a Loretta Young look-alike (hey! it's her sister!) could have benefited from more screen time. The happy ending is too abrupt-- although this time John Wayne actually kisses the girl.

The most interesting stock footage was the lengthy rodeo parade of real Indians, squaws, and papooses. But when the best part of the movie is the stunt work by the Mighty Yak, Yakima Canutt, who gives us jumping from one horse to another and several different running leaps onto a horse, you know we're in trouble. As noted by others, the final fight with the villain is very poorly done.

My copy, from 'Platinum Disc Corporation' featured an added,sparse, ill-fitting (pseudo-classical) stereo music track that ruins the authenticity of the original film.(The DVD box had 'enhanced audio 5.1' on it.) If you're going to modernize and colorize it you should add a 'western' sounding score with acoustic guitars, 'klip-klopping' hoofbeats, harmonicas, and an accordion.

Finally, we have to say this is one of the weakest Lone Star efforts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, before I get into this, let's go ahead and get the warning out of the way: this movie is the quintessential \"cinematic\" definition of SLEAZE! There are movies out there that can definitely out-shock or out-disgust this movie that have WAY more artistic validity than can be said for this turd of a film. So what makes it so sleazy?? Let's take a closer look at \"Wet Wilderness\" for a moment......

Made in 1974 for practically nothing, this \"roughie\" has no real genuine \"plot\" to speak of other than portraying what would happen if a FAMILY went into the wilderness to relax and spend a day while being accosted by a fat dude in a ski mask wielding a machete looking for kicks.....the kind that end up with everyone being forced to have sex with each other while being systematically murdered by the masked creep. So those sensitive to themes dealing with incest are encouraged to look elsewhere. Then to really either add a level of surrealism or just demonstrate a complete ineptness for the art of film-making, the \"daughter\" of the group runs away after being forced to have sex with her brother and finds a random black dude (!) tied to a tree branch (\"...that fat sum-bitch left me here for 3 days...\") with virtually NO explanation whatsoever!! He is saved.....or is he? Of course not!! They are caught before they can escape, where our killer forces them to have sex as well while forcing the mother to join in, ending up with a dead black dude (courtesy of a hatchet through the chest) when all is said and done. Then our killer forces the daughter and mother to give him oral sex when one of the women grabs the machete........and the movie abruptly ends!!! Just like that! No warning, no tied-up loose ends.....it's simply over. Now there MIGHT be a proper ending to this film (I honestly do not know), but I have only seen the extremely crude Alpha Blue Archives version. Their version appears to have the ending either cut out completely or this is how it ends. If this was intentional, then in Film-making 101, I'm sure there is some sort of rule of thumb on HOW to end a film, but it shouldn't be done like THIS! Fans of the film \"Psycho\" should rejoice upon hearing the soundtrack music, as it's all through the film! I'd be willing to bet no rights were licensed or anything. Also, even though this is a \"violent\" film, there's not a hell of a lot of it, so gorehounds will find nothing of real use here. None of the violence is graphically shown.....only the results (one of the victims gets stabbed with a machete right above the vagina area). Also, the sex is some of the UGLIEST sex I've ever seen! The interesting thing about this film is it's too ugly a film to work as an effectively erotic porno or turn on anyone but those with a tendency to like things sleazy, nasty, and ugly, but not violent enough to garner any real notoriety with those looking for something really brutal like \"Cannibal Holocaust\" or other flicks like that. The only \"notorious\" thing about this steaming pile is that violence was added to an adult film, a fairly new concept at that time, especially when you consider than porn chic was all the rage and the grindhouses that filled 42nd Street played stuff like this to a most jaded group of porn mavens. This wasn't and isn't \"mainstream\" porn at all.

If you were in film-making school and there was a list of movie-making \"don'ts\", this film would be a shining example of that lesson! This cinematic swill demonstrates what happens when cerebrally challenged filmmakers are given a \"budget\" (in this case, probably about $142.....cuz it looks it!) and ignore all the \"don'ts\" and turn them into \"do's\".....yes, this film is that bad!! One more thing: those who get offended by racial epithets are also encouraged to watch something else. The black man in the film is constantly being verbally abused about his color and the killer is obviously racist, but there was NO political correctness in the early 70's. I'm not sure a film like this could be made today.

To be honest, this won't \"shock\" anyone or titillate anyone but those who get off on ugliness. Actually, I got bored. The sex is so ugly and mundane, it's hard to watch with any sense of eroticism, so if you chance this, you will thank God for the fast forward button! The \"acting\", if you want to call it that, is amateurish at best (I mean, it's even bad for PORNO!) with not one reason to care about anyone or anything in this!! If you JUST gotta see this anyway, then download it, as you'll really feel like a heel if you buy this. Some things are simply that worthless.....and \"Wet Wildernes\" is. The only thing more unpleasant than watching this film would be watching this film sitting in a theater and looking around at the others in attendance watching it too and suddenly feeling unsafe. Probably not society's greatest collection of thinkers and intellectuals. But if you're up for some stupid, yet SLEAZY porn garbage, give it a crack. It's 54 minutes and yet, it feels MUCH longer!! Crackheads would LOVE this! Then again, maybe there's something wrong with me for seeking this out in the first place......LOL! Caveat emptor, sleaze-lovers!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There was a time in the US that everything was possible on film, so came the roughies, movies containing horror and explicit scene's. The best known are Forced Entry and Waterpower, but of course those were made with a bit of budget. All shown on 42nd in NY, but hey, there were other grindhouses out there that showed no budget roughies. Wet Wilderness is an example of it. It circuited the underground scene after a while so copies were available but as seen on other reviews, some copies were abrupt cut at the end. But the version I watched was complete. Well i would call this one more a porn one then a roughie, there is a serial killer around but he likes more to watch others have sex instead of killing them, when he kills it's done off screen. The acting is the worst I ever seen. And I guessed that the so called actors didn't like what they are doing, for example in the beginning when we have the lesbian scene watch one girl stop performing and pulls a pubic hair out of here mouth then continues doing what was happening, or when mother is riding the black man, the daughter is sitting in the grass annoyed by ants! But it is the storyline that made this one famous, incest and racism is what this made it famous. When there is blood watch the two girls sitting there waiting for a cue to act, god this is worse but still one to have if you are into sleaze and grindhouse. Be sure that you have the full version.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A single mom,her son and daughter and their hippie chick friend are camping in the woods.A muscle bound,machete wielding maniac in a yellow ski mask appears.He starts terrorizing and sexually violating the family before murdering them with a machete.\"Wet Wilderness\" is loaded with ugly hardcore sex,forced incest and blatant racism.It's as politically incorrect as XXX roughies get.The score is stolen from seminal Hitchcock's horror classic \"Psycho\" and also \"Jaws\".The acting is hilariously awful,the editing is bad and there are some huge lapses in logic.The repetitive nature of the sex scenes grinds the movie after while so the brief running time is a blessing.The scenes of violence are quite nasty for example the hippie girl is stabbed with the machete in her groin and one can see blood on her crotch.3 out of 10 and that's being generous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

to make this short and sweet: i hope this movie will not be considered the seminal work for the \"gener-asian\" of american film making. the acting was sub-par, relying on stereotypes, raised voices, and exaggerated eye-buggery to convey its message. chris chan park does not delve very deep into the any of his characters, allowing them to remain caricatures of angry\/frustrated\/distant\/uncommunicative asians. these depictions do not make characters mysteriously appealing; it makes them confusing and unsympathetic. i like to think that us asians are more complex than that.

i came out of the movie unconvinced. unconvinced that these characters had a life long, blood-brother like connection with each other to go to the lengths they did to help their buddy out. unconvinced that the main character had anything beyond a superficial attraction to his girlfriend. unconvinced that hard working immigrant parents wouldn't pay for their son's college education. unconvinced that all of the characters were even necessary, i.e.: janet, who is put to bed in the back of the car and quickly forgotten.

the story line, which i actually think had potential, was not allowed to come into its own for two reasons: 1) flat characters for whom i had no sympathy\/affinity, 2) the plot is overshadowed by meaningless non-sequitur scenes, such as the seance\/donut shop sequence with amy hill which was simply ridiculous and unnecessary.

i commend park for his efforts, as i'm sure it took a lot of hard work to even produce the film, and i'll even give him the benefit of the doubt this time around as a rookie director\/screenwriter, but i sincerely hope that next time around he'll go a little deeper. just because the film is one of the first of its kind about the korean american experience, doesn't mean it's automatically good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In his feature film debut `Yellow,' Chris Chan Lee attempts to enlighten Hollywood's portrayal of Asian-Americans by departing from the stereotypes typically depicted in mainstream film. However, in so doing, Lee commits a far more heinous crime: he exaggerates Asian-Americans' own stereotypes of themselves to the point of incredulity. The result? Dreadfully one-dimensional characters and an outrageously shallow script triggers the cast into a frenzy of over-acting, ultimately resulting in a film that is physically painful to watch.

Don't be deceived by any of the positive reviews garnered by `Yellow'; each falls into one of two camps. In one corner (e.g., right here on imdb.com), you find Asian-Americans who are so elated that an Asian character can be depicted onscreen without thick glasses and a math book, that they somehow neglect the idiocy of Lee's final product. On the other hand, you find movie critics who have simply presumed that it'd be uncool to give `Yellow' the thorough bashing that it deserves; after all, it's an edgy Asian-American film made by an independent Asian-American filmmaker... protected territory for now.

Case example: main character Sin Lee (Michael Chung). Writer\/Director Lee accomplishes a monumental feat with Sin, by editing `Yellow' in such a way that Sin never appears onscreen unless he is either scowling or yelling. See Sin resenting his friends' support. Scowl. See Sin walk along the beach and brood. Scowl. (Yelling ensues.) See Sin closing up his father's shop. Scowl. See Sin urinating. Scowl. See Sin breathing. Scowl.

Gee, I wonder if Sin is full of Asian-American angst. Do you think? I'm not sure. Scowl. Scowl.

Just to be thorough, Lee introduces us to Sin's father, Woon Lee (Soon-tek Oh). Throughout the movie, whereas Sin simply scowls or yells, Mr. Lee scowls *and* yells. In fact, this is Woon's principal role in `Yellow': simultaneous scowling and yelling.

Gee, I wonder if Woon is an Asian father with an authority complex. Do you think? I'm not sure. Scowl. Yell.

If Lee's one-dimensional characters don't annoy you, his story line will. Meet Mina (Mary Chen) and Joey (John Cho), two characters that exist in this film solely for the purpose of spinning a tangential and entirely irrelevant love story into the film. You see, Lee learned in film school that every good movie must include some sort of love-related subtext, and these two characters allow him to fulfill the obligation. Mina and Joey's excruciatingly inane flirting dialogue consists of one-liner insults culminating in a kiss: `Nerd!'; `Stupidhead!'; (eyes meet); (understanding smile); (kissing ensues).

But rest assured, somewhere out there, Sin is scowling while this all takes place.

That neither Mina nor Joey contributes in any way whatsoever to the film's plot does not perplex me so much as Lee's insistence on the most hackneyed movie cliches to accomplish his nonsequiturs. And trust me, the flirting sequence is just the tip of the iceberg.

Towards the end of the film, we find Woon Lee attempting to explain his constant scowling and yelling to Sin's girlfriend, Teri (Mia Suh), in what I am sure Lee meant to be a poignant moment. What a surprise: as Woon invokes a metaphorical story about the homeland to illustrate his point, ripped straight out of Reader's Digest, his voice quivers in that extra-special paternal way. The camera pans into an obligatory shot of Teri's trembling hands. We feel compelled to roll our eyes, except we realize that Woon's explanation makes no sense whatsoever. But lack of substance didn't stop Lee from making the movie, so why would he cut this particularly ineffective scene? After all, the world can always use another clich\u00e9.

Well, you say, the movie may be painful, but at least it *must* be a technical masterpiece -- say, like, `What Dreams May Come.' Sorry, on a technical basis, `Yellow' disappoints as well. Lee's edits are awkward and disrupt what little rhythm exists in the film at all, but I'm sure Lee thought they would seem hip. To make matters worse, every frame is either underexposed or overexposed. Although the light meter was invented in 1932, somehow the newfangled technology didn't make it onto the `Yellow' set.

In light of the film's utter deficiency, supporting actor Burt Bolos, who plays Sin's best friend Alex, performs relatively well. Although Bolos overacts slightly, you can't really blame him when Lee's script consists solely of scowling and yelling. Bolos' castmates, on the other hand, show no restraint in their overacting whatsoever.

I have not seen a film as bad as `Yellow' in a very long time. And I truly pray that I will not see a film as bad as `Yellow' for quite some time, as well. Please do not waste see it; life is already way too short. Thank you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just realized why the colors and sets in \"Sakuran\" were so flashy and gaudy, and just painful to look at. The story is about a high-class prostitute known as an oiran in Japanese. Their kimono were always flashier and gaudier than other kimono so that the oiran would stand out. But the director, Mika Ninagawa, had to make sure that the director stood out even more than the main character, or even the story.

What Anna Tsuchiya did in the movie just gave me the creeps. You couldn't call it acting. It was nothing more than catering to her flipped-out, high-school-girl fan base. Hey Anna, good luck on that one as you get older. Yeah, right, an oiran as a crude and vulgar, prone- to-violence, biker chick. Didn't we already see you portray this character in a more appropriate movie?

The story was painfully boring and predictable. What is the story of \"Sakuran\"? An obnoxious little bitch ever remains true to her self which is just that: an obnoxious bitch. She finds that, inexplicably, men are attracted to her and that she has an unexplained ability to manipulate men and becomes a successful, high-class prostitute even though she talks and behaves like she's a member of a female biker gang. This so-called seductive ability of hers is talked about but we never see it in action, probably due to the ineptitude of the main, pretend-phony-biker chick, I mean \"actress.\"

The main character of the movie makes a wealthy and powerful man angry at her because she keeps him waiting while she services a much more lowly customer. Not very oiran-like, is it? How could such a woman ever become an oiran? Oh, because the previous oiran got herself killed and the house needed a whore that could demand a high price. Who would pay a high price for a slut so cheap? Rumors get around. How could there be no repercussions for what she did to the powerful guy? Because the screenwriters are dolts. They just made up a bunch of crap.

Then an even more wealthy and powerful guy falls for her (why?) and she throws him over for a penniless guy who is generally cold and distant toward her but respects who she really is (which doesn't make sense. How can anyone respect someone so worthless?).

Speaking of crap, it's like the director squatted down and took a huge, psychedelic-colored dump on the aesthetics, culture, and society of the Edo Period. What of such things as sabi, mono no aware, wabi, subtlety, elegance, a rigidly hierarchical society? All shat upon by a director who comes off as a senseless, nouveau-riche parvenu. The amazing thing is that so many other Japanese, in watching this movie, squatted down around the director and took steaming spoonfuls of this blazing-colored stinking crap and exclaimed how tasty it was.

Argentinean tango music with violin and bandoneon as backdrop for the Edo Period when Japan was totally isolated from the international world (except for the 3.7 acres of Dejima)? Why not just have Anna, the bad-ass-biker oiran, answer her cell phone and the rich and powerful daimyo character drive off in a hissy fit in his red Ferrari? The music we had to listen to was jarring and anachronistic (the same as the art design).

Near the ending, I liked that there were only two or three tiny flowers on the shrine cherry tree. But, earlier, the second she said she would leave the quarters when it bloomed, we all knew exactly what would happen. How boring, to telegraph the ending so clearly. But what's the point of the old tree blooming? That rich and powerful guy already made the pleasure quarters bloom in cherry blossoms like the mountains of Yoshino in spring. That didn't impress her at all? No, of course not. I already know that about whores. The guys that treat them nicely get kicked in the balls. Maybe it bugs the whores to have people idealize them when they themselves know the truth of who they are: just cheap and worthless.

Considering the director's obsession with goldfish, the second to last scene should have been of a goldfish bowl on a verandah accidentally knocked over. Two fish tumble into a stream which carries them off to escape beyond the walls of the pleasure quarters, belying how goldfish are stuck in their bowl and can't survive outside (just like the denizen's relationship with the pleasure quarters). Otherwise the talk of the fate of goldfish has no meaning.

In the final scene the cherry trees were full in bloom, but the brevity of the blooms is one thing special about cherry blossoms. I couldn't help thinking that soon enough dusk would wipe away all the soft pink color and warmth from the scene. The sky would go quickly from hints of shadow, into an ever- deepening gloom, and night would fall. It would become cold, very cold. And dark. That really wasn't a happy ending, was it? Romantic love (in the Edo Period?) could survive in the face of terrible poverty and being ostracized for about as long as those cherry trees bloomed. Maybe a few days, unless it rained sooner. But the unconsummated romantic love we see here? It's existence in this period is incomprehensible.

Anna Tsuchiya walking in the shoes of an oiran? She couldn't do it. Literally. Check out the scene of her \"promenade\" where she seems to have the correct footwear on but she has to hold on to some guy's shoulder to keep from tumbling on her ass.

I was going to give this movie two stars for the art direction but then I realized what that was all about: sick dominance on the part of the director. Those colors and sets are just the way the director has of screaming, \"I'm the most important one here! Me! It's all about me!!!!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's painfully clear that all effort in this film was directed toward cinematography and very little attention to everything else. Most obvious mistake is the miscast of the entire female cast. Many of them are very experienced and capable, but they all seemed out of place, and having an amateur director certainly didn't help. The story is a very common Geisha story, and characters behaved very inconsistently, thus making it extremely difficult for me to connect with the heroine.

This movie's theme is \"modern prostitution\", but still, it was annoying how Tsuchiya Anna's lead character kept talking like a female motorcycle gang member while everyone else spoke in old Japanese fitting for this setting. This movie has very beautiful vibrant colors, similar to Zhang Yimou's \"Hero\", but viewers can easily tell it's filmed in a cheap, elaborate set.

The two sequences with Shiina Ringo's insert songs were really nice though, in mid-section of the movie. I actually really disliked her music before, but they fit perfectly in this movie. Although Ninagawa Mika is a complete failure as a film director, she has a major potential in PV (music video) production.

I believe the story felt very plain because the director failed to focus on character development, and because Tsuchiya Anna's unconvincing acting as an Oiran. Had this film been directed by a known Jidaigeki director with any other known actress in Japan, it would've had the potential to become a masterpiece.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ridiculous film where two swinging college graduates move out to California and one becomes a movie star and the other his manager.

As 10 years pass, the star's popularity is decreasing so it is determined that there will be a television show where women will compete for his affection.

The film is obnoxious and ridiculous. The girls who vie for lover boy are made to look foolish. Only one girl seems to be the choice of the producer of the show. She is really an amateur up against some of the other women, but she is wholesome and brings good ratings to the show as well.

By the third scene you realize that the manager is falling for her.

We know that Ryan really was meant to be a bachelor. While the ending is somewhat cute, you really know where this was going.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was obscenely obvious and predictable. The scenes were poorly written and acted even worse. Following the horrible scenes was the terrible script filled with pointless and poorly thought out lines. I would never suggest this movie to anyone who would have any sense in watching decent movies. This movie was not only with the same ideas as the show the Bachelor and Bachelorette but also contained many parts in which you would know what the next move and line was going to be without ever having to watched the movie before. The casting was fine but the actors played there characters horribly with more drama then should have been used and said lines in was that wanted you to change the channel quickly. As a note please don't watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"By the mid 1990s, the career of animator-director Don Bluth had seemed to drop to its all-time low. Before, Bluth had made a series of popular animated films, many which remain beloved today such as \"The Land Before Time\" (1988), \"The Secret of NIMH\" (1982), and \"An American Tail\" (1986). But beginning with \"Thumbelina\" in 1994, his films seemed to decrease more and more in quality and popularity and one of the many unfortunate entries is 1995's box office bomb \"The Pebble and the Penguin\", a film that didn't attract audience members beyond parents and children under the age of seven. Frankly, the latter are the only audience members I can comprehend taking enjoyment out of this rather bland animated feature.

The story is absurd. The film stars a poorly-drawn, stammering, and chubby penguin named Hubie (voiced by Martin Short) who falls in love with a female penguin with a surprisingly healthy flower on her head (voice by Annie Golden). SORT OF like in real life, penguins present their bride-to-bes with a pebble as a substitute for a ring. But when Hubie is swept away by the current, he teams up with a lone rockhopper (James Belushi) with a dream of flying and they race against time to return to Antarctica before it's too late. The reasons why they could be too late is one of many underdeveloped elements of this weak story that would still be weak even if they were there.

It becomes very clear very early on why this animated children's musical does not and will not work for anybody older than say six or seven years of age. It just does not have any of the qualities that are required for a good animated feature. Number one, the film looks bad on account of a very poor drawing style. The animation in this film is very cartoony (even as far as animated films go); it's dark, gloomy, there is no vibrancy in the colors, and on top of that, the design of the film and the elements in it are universally droll and laughable. Take for instance, the penguins who star in the film. With only a few background exceptions, every single penguin looks absolutely nothing at all like a bird. Hubie, for example, looks absurdly ridiculous with wide cheeks, a stubby beak, big eyes, and that preposterous hat that he wears wherever he goes. Combined with his hand-like \"flippers\" he looks like Chris Farley in a penguin suit. Result: he's an ugly, poorly-drawn cartoon character. But the most absurd-looking and absurdly-designed character is the evil penguin, Drake, who frankly looks nothing at all like a penguin. He's a muscle-man wearing a penguin mask. He's got a chest broader than that of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and teeth larger than the teeth of the leopard seals and killer whales that serve as the film's predators. Basically, he's a two-dimensional, recycled villain. He lives in a cave shaped like a skull, he wears a cape, laughs a lot, and gets mad when people laugh with him. Result: who cares? And what's also bad, and maybe worse, is that this is an animated musical and there's not a single noteworthy or memorable song to found anywhere within its running time. The opening hymn was harmless\u0097not memorable, but harmless. But after that, the songs became duller and duller and there was one in particular that had me grimacing all the way through. It's the moment that viewers press the fast-forward button for whenever it comes up.

I felt \"The Pebble and the Penguin\" was lame all around save for the very few moments when Hubie and the rockhopper penguin Rocko are placed in peril at the jaws of leopard seals and killer whales, who were thankfully, given no dialogue and treated as animals instead of cartoon characters. But in a way, for this reason, I cannot wholeheartedly recommend this movie to children. This is the reason. The film displays killer whales are the natural predator of the penguins. My concern is that children familiar with \"Free Willy\" (1993) may be offended or downhearted by seeing their favorite denizen of the sea portrayed as a bloodthirsty carnivore. The leopard seal was a better antagonist and was more funny seeing as how his jaws opened wider than a rattlesnake's and how he appeared to smile while growling. But the point really is, these moments with the predators\u0097and there are only a few\u0097are the only interesting moments. And they're not enormously interesting, mind you.

Bottom line, I cannot recommend this to anybody below the age of seven. My advice: if you have children around that page, rent it for them. They might enjoy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hubie -- like Stanely the troll from Bluth's A Troll in Central Park -- lacks the spark of personality to be the main character that carries an entire movie. We're supposed to like him because he's nice, but that's about all he is.

His character design is unappealing. The top of his head is a sort of dome that is narrower than the pudgy bottom half of his head.

And penguins should not have teeth. I know that Iago the parrot in Aladdin had teeth, but maybe that worked because it made him look more like his voice actor, Gilbert Gottfried. Hubie, with his weenie little voice (provided by Martin Short), looks funny with that big set of chompers in his beak.

Tim Curry, who is usually delightful at being evil, does some sort of dippy surfer dude accent as the villain (might have been a good voice for a comic relief accomplice, not the supposedly menacing main villain).

The entire plot revolves around the hero and villain's love for female penguin Marina, who is just as dull as both of her suitors.

Worst of all is the pacing. We keep cutting back to the villain to watch him threaten Marina some more - this time in dialogue, this time in song...

Barry Manilow may be a great songwriter, but in animated films like this and Thumbelina, his songs feel limp and listless - especially the ballads. The only song I liked was the 1930's-ish \"Good Ship Misery\" song.

I read that the distributor made some cuts in this film against the filmmaker's wishes, and that could have caused some of the problems - though I suspect the real problem is that they didn't cut the rest of it ;).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm an animator myself and an all around buff of the medium so when I saw this movie in a $5 bin I figured it was worth a shot to add to my collection. While I never regret having a new addition to my animation library this film was definitely disappointing.

The premise has enough potential. A penguin named Hubie finds the perfect pebble to give to the girl he loves as the penguin equivalent to an engagement ring but before he can give it to her, he's cast out by an evil rival and lost at sea. He then befriends another penguin who helps him find his way home. That set up isn't great but it's enough to set up what could be a fun adventure. Unfortunately the duo's exploits never really amount to much and it all gets pretty repetitive. Most of the situations they find themselves in are really uninspired and lacking in creativity...and the bonding the two of them under go is cheesy and forced.

Animation is good but not up to Don Bluth's usual standards. This is the guy that gave us The Secret of Nimh, Land Before Time and An American Tale, all of which had an attention to detail that often surpassed Disney, the granddaddy of feature animation. This one doesn't amount to much beyond high end TV fair.

The music is alright but pretty forgettable and the voice actors are all wasted talent...Martin Short is particularly wasted here as the lead character who in spite of being spoken of as a bumbler is practically a straight man through the whole film.

In short the movie will probably appeal to very small kids but a good family film should appeal to all ages and unfortunately it doesn't got what it takes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i rented this when it came out on video cassette in 1995. After rewatching it again,my idea about it hasn't changed much.

i was an adult then and i'm still an adult now!lol

The illogical elements mentioned by other reviewers didn't bother me. This isn't a documentary,it's a fantasy story where animals can talk!

While i didn't care for much of the songs,i liked the one at the end of the picture where it's sang by barry manilow and another person.

Some people seem to make an excuse for it's primitive animation by saying that CGI wasn't used often in animated features but let's not forget that THE LION KING was released about a year earlier and that packed possibly more excellence than any animated feature that came before it!!

But i think it's pretty fair to say that THE PEBBLE AND THE PINGOIN was made on the cheap while THE LION KING wasn't....

The high points for me in 1995 as well as today is the suspense generated by the few dangerous(mostly) underwater chase scenes.

i also liked the opening scene which takes place on a music notes page and a little bit of the love story. But most of the time,the story dragged on and was boring.

Worth a look if you like animation but if you're an adult and not a risk taker,go get another Walt Disney production instead of this!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whoa. I mean, whoa. I mean, whoa whoa.

I saw this movie, waaay back when I was eight, in 1996. Back then, CGI films were a rarity; and good ones even more so. Also, back then we listened to things called CD players. But I digress. I used to like this movie a lot, way back then, and up till viewing it again, I've held reaally fond memories of it. Hey, it's Don Bluth! Anyone who hates \"All Dogs Go to Heaven\" is clearly a robot. But, again, I digress.

Then, I saw it again. This really isn't one of his best, I can say now, eleven years later. I've seen a lot more films, and I've garnered a little bit more knowledge. Now, sure, the voice acting is good, I'll give 'em that. Story's...okay. I mean, we see it all the time. A LOT. But, it works. The musical numbers are what irk me. This would've been more at home in the eighties, with these kind of musical numbers. In '96, most kids movies had epic numbers, like the Lion King (which came out a year or so previous, but whatever)or stuff like that. You get showtunes here, vaudeville style.

The animation kind of hurts, too. At times choppy, and at others completely changing style and format with the change of a shot, it's really hard not to notice.

I still like \"All Dogs Go to Heaven, but this could've been waaay better.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Would it surprise you that my ears and eyes almost bled from watching and listening to this awful movie? My eyes almost bled from watching the awful animation and insipid, plotless, empty story. My ears almost bled from listening to the songs that sounded like they were sung by a chorus of howler monkeys. Then my brain almost melted because of this film's complete lack of intelligence. It's formulaic every step of the way. Talking animals are one thing, but a penguin who can fly just to keep with the \"dreams can come true\" schtick? Show some more faith in the children's intelligence please. Next to Rock-A-Doodle, this is one of Bluth's worst.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie totally sucked!!! Don't even rent it! You'll hate it! The plot didn't make sense, the characters sucked, and why was that penguin trying to get the pebble anyway? If that girl penguin would only like him because he has a pretty pebble than the relationship would not be based on love only on money! I very much disliked this movie(Hate is such a strong word!). And penguins cant fly! Even if they believe than they can do it, they cant. p.s. I am not who you think I am!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The untold origin of the Lone Ranger. It shows who he was and how and why he became the Ranger.

Legendary bomb. The idea was not a bad one--reinvent and introduce the Lone Ranger for 1980s audiences. Right off the bat though there were problems. The studio ordered Clayton Moore (the original Ranger) to stop appearing anywhere as the Lone Ranger. It led to a nasty little battle that made headlines. I know of people who refused to see the film because of how Moore was treated. Also they hired the awesomely untalented Klinton Spilsbury to play the Ranger. Spilsbury was very handsome and muscular but had absolutely no charisma and just couldn't act. In fact his whole vocal performance was redubbed by another actor! Also his off screen antics (public drunkenness and beating people up) didn't help matters. Acting aside, the script is dull and slow. Also the Ranger himself doesn't show up until an HOUR in! There were some complaints at the time that the movie was too violent for a PG. However I don't think it was that bad.

There are a few (very few) things done right here--the photography was truly beautiful; Michael Horse was excellent as Tonto; Christopher Lloyd is lots of fun as the villain and when the Lone Ranger finally shows up (with the William Tell Overture booming from the soundtrack) it's really rousing. But, all in all, this is a boring and terrible attempt to bring back the Lone Ranger. It's easy to see why this bombed. A 4--mostly for the photography.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie contains the worst acting performance of all time. Spilsbury lacks energy to say the least. Energy is what Clayton Moore gave us in spades. I never felt once in this movie that Spilsbury was anxious for anything. Revenge, love, justice? Not in this guy's portrayal.

There is also no chemistry between Tonto and LR. If the plot did not force them to be friends, you don't get the impression they want to hang out with each other. Plus, the sidekick has the more interesting personality. Ewww.

The dialogue is predictable and boring.

The narration is stunningly bad and if you are familiar with the Dukes of Hazzard you can picture what this is like. I cannot believe the director would agree to this. It insulted me as a viewer by explaining every plot line I just witnessed.

Hey, at least the horses and locations looked good, maybe that is what happens when you hire a cinematographer to be your director.

RATING-2 You may be able to watch this one for laughs or to demonstrate to an alien what a bad movie is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I very well remember the bad press this film got because of the producers' court order against Clayton Moore using the name \"Lone Ranger\" or donning his black mask at personal appearances. Quite apart from any consideration of the film's quality, this was the absolute height of nearsighted arrogance and stupidity on the part of the producers and their attorneys. And I suspect that the lesson was well-learned after this film tanked, which was widely perceived as some sort of karma for the jerks responsible for the court order against Moore.

In more recent times it has become the custom, when reviving a legendary film or TV project, to invite the original star or stars for cameo appearances, and rightly so. Show some respect, you idiots! And even if they turn up their noses at the prospect, which has happened, at least the offer was made. This is proof positive that film producers, studio executives, and entertainment attorneys are not quite too stupid and arrogant to be taught by example.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember this bomb coming out in the early 80's. At first it sounded like a great idea. A retelling of an American classic with the help of modern movie techniques of the day. There was a bit a of a back lash over the treatment of the original \"Lone ranger\", Clayton Moore. The movie studio had threatened legal action if Moore continued portraying him self as the real lone ranger. (Moore was performing at children's hospitals as the Lone ranger for sick kids.) To many Americans Clayton Moore was just that the; the one and only lone ranger. I had always felt that the studio could have done justice to both the fans and legacy of the lone ranger if Moore had been treated better. Maybe even a cameo in the new movie. How ever this was not the case, and many of the viewing public stayed away in droves. Also the story and acting were weak. All this added up to a big box office bomb, and rightly so. I personally I'm glad the studio lost big money after the way the real Lone ranger was treated. You don't treat an American icon that way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are so many things wrong with this movie that it is hard to pick just a few. Let's start with the silly and annoying songs. Like \"Ride Little Cowboy\" which just tended to accentuate the city-slickers look of Klinton Spilsbury. The silly kiddie cowboy songs going on in the background during the movie hurt any credibility or momentum that the story had going for it.

I had seen the media hype before this movie was released, and I saw Klinton Spilsbury interviewed on various TV shows, and he had a very soft, sweet, lilting voice. His body language was not exactly what people remembered who were fans of Clayton Moore and the Lone Ranger TV series. Spilsbury did not help things by acting like a diva and talking trash about Clayton Moore after the Producers got an injunction prohibiting Moore from appearing at Conventions and other events as the original Lone Ranger. Clayton Moore was not even allowed to sign as \"Clayton Moore, The Lone Ranger.\" He could only sign as \"The Masked Man.\" The incredible amount of negative publicity that this move gave the film was only added to by the petulant attitude of Spilsbury who was very quick to tell reporters that Clayton Moore would be quickly forgotten once the movie came out!

Sadly, even after the movie was a total flop, the company that owned The Lone Ranger refused to lift their Injunction against Clayton Moore, and he was never again permitted to sign anything except as \"The Masked Man\" and he could not don his black mask at any public appearances. Between Spilsbury's diva personality and the negative publicity the movie got, it certainly did not help to make a good impression on the public. Worse yet, a few weeks before the movie was finally released, the news was leaked that Spilsbury's voice in the movie had been over-dubbed by James Keech because the Producers thought that Spilsbury did not sound very convincing as a cowboy. The ridicule and derision that this news brought on the talk shows and comedy shows of that era put the last nail into the coffin.

But then there was Merle Haggard narrating his way through the movie. Apparently, the Producers were hoping that the macho image of Haggard (one of the Outlaws of Country Music) would add credibility to Spilsbury as The Lone Ranger. The narration by Merle Haggard was just another annoyance that audiences had to deal with. At times Haggard rhymes his narration, and it sounds like some weird kiddie movie. Combine the rhyming narration with the \"Ride Little Cowboy\" songs and any credibility that Spilsbury could have mustered was destroyed by Haggard and the soundtrack.

Tonto was played by Michael Horse, and as others have pointed out, Horse had a lot more personality than Spilsbury. In fact, perhaps because of Spilsbury's allegedly combative attitude during filming, it seems like Horse was given a lot more dialogue and screen time than anyone would have expected of Tonto. Tonto takes charge and often is the leader instead of the Lone Ranger. I was expecting (or hoping) that Billy Jack would make a cameo as Tonto's brother (it would have made the movie a lot better). Horse is not only more interesting than Spilsbury, but he says more and has better scenes. Perhaps it was a case of Horse stealing the show from Spilsbury. However, since the movie was so wretched, Horse did not get much recognition. Unlike Spilsbury, Horse has had a very productive career in the film industry.

Perhaps the last negative about this movie is the Powder Blue outfit of The Lone Ranger. The material that was chosen for Spilsbury was more powdery blue than what Clayton Moore normally wore at appearances. That choice of color for the outfit just made Spilsbury look more effeminate in his role. The comic book version had shown The Lone Ranger also wearing a red shirt and black pants, and that alternative outfit would have helped Spilsbury look more convincing as The Lone Ranger.

The supporting cast mostly mailed in their performances. They all look as if they were working on a TV episode and nobody seemed very convincing. Even the villain, Cavendish lost his edge due to the people around him. Overall, I feel sorry for Spilsbury. Not only did he do a terrible acting job, but it is obvious that the production and publicity were horrible and effectively sabotaged any chance the poor guy had. Even if he had been an excellent replacement for Clayton Moore, I doubt that the movie would have done well as a result of the other factors. As it stands, this film is funny in a sad way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I guess it wasn't entirely the filmmaker's fault though. The film suffered from the unimaginably stupid decision to tell Clayton Moore (who had done the role in the 1950's and was the Lone Ranger us old folks grew up with) he couldn't wear the mask in public. Now mind you, the poor guy wasn't making all that much money doing so, and it wasn't like he was going to take anything away from this film, but the whole thing seemed... gratuitous.

The other thing the film suffered from (besides a leading man whose voice was so awful they had to overdub it) was that fact that Westerns weren't so hip in 1981. John Wayne was dead and we had just been subjected to a decade-long major liberal guilt trip about how the west was built on genocide of the Native Americans. (That and Blazing Saddles sent up the whole genre! The Campfire scene. Enough said!) Hollywood shied away from Westerns, because Science Fiction was COOL then.

The one scene that underscored it was when after rescuing the drunken President Grant (and seriously, I'd have let Grant stay with the bad guys. The country would have been better off!) Grant asks Tonto what his reward should be \"Honor your treaties with my people\". Yeah, right, like THAT was going to happen!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved this movie when it first came out(but i was just 12 years old then - and I had forgotten this film existed until one day I found a used copy for sale at a gas station. I bought it and I couldn't wait to watch this film that had I loved as a kid, and then as I saw this film again many years later,it hit me.... Why in the world did I like this film as a Kid, watching it again as an adult I realized that this film is terrible. The saddest part about this film is that they had everything in place to make the greatest western ever and they blew it!!! the costumes are perfect,good actors, there are 2 music scores the orchestrail score is wonderful, and keeps with the classic spirit of the old timey Lone Ranger alive, the second score is a series of songs by country music artest like Merle Haggerd, and The Statler Brothers and those songs like \"The Man in the Mask\" are so bad that they are funny. This movies Strongest point is that it had a Briliant Storyline, and one of the best Western plots ever, and for a while its fun to watch as John Reid is nursed back to health,after he and his fellow Rangers are ambushed.Its fun to see him grow into his new life and Identity as the Lone Ranger,as he concels his identity, and goes on a revenge run to get the gang responsible for killing his brother and all his fellow rangers to whom he rode with. But unfortunatly,as good as the storyline is, its all ruined by Merle Haggard Narrating everything as you are watching it happen(for the love of God why did they do that?) between Merle Haggard's Narration and The Statler Brothers singing corny(stupid) songs like \"Ride little cowboy\" being playing in the backgound make this movie impossible to take serious. I would Love to see a really good producer take this same script and story and re-do this film right,because at the heart of this silly film is a great western.---I would descibe this film as a beautiful woman dress in the ugliest clothing. I give it 4 stars out of 10 --if your 12 years old, and dont know better, then you might love it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whatever the producer was going for, he missed entirely. The Lone Ranger is not camp, but \"the\" icon for good-doers all over the world. And it's a total violation of the spirit of the character that the only real Lone Ranger, Mr. Clayton Moore, was forbidden to wear his mask in public appearances when this movie was released.

Whelp, long story short, the single saving grace of this gross (and poorly done) distortion was that in that year, I had the honor of meeting Mr. Clayton Moore in Columbus Ohio, as part of a tour resulting from the bad press over Mr. Moore's treatment. Needless to say, Mr. Moore's character, integrity and presence far outshined the movie.

Some things cannot be done better. There is only one Lone Ranger.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I waited quite awhile till I was able to watch this Lone Ranger movie. I finally got to see it on the Lone Star Channel today and was very disappointed in the whole movie. Clayton Moore and John Hart acted better Lone Rangers and Jay Silverheels as Tonto, than the two stars in this movie. Very poor acting was done by everyone in this movie. Even the plot was bad and far fetching. I believe the horse, portraying Silver was the best actor throughout this movie.I am glad I didn't go out and buy a copy of this movie when it first came out, as I feel it's a waste of good money. I am truly sorry the characters that Clayton Moore, John Hart and Jay Silverheels played, and brought to life on the silver screen, have been tarnished so badly. Unless in the future, they find actors worthy of portraying the characters in the same manner which Clayton, John and Jay did so well in the past, I'll not spend the money to buy the movie. I'll not watch this movie again.

Wayne Davies","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The relationship between the Lone Ranger and Tonto was always good for a snicker, but to take the joke out of the joke by building a movie around the gay appeal of the legend... oh the horror, the horror...

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the reviewers here wrote: \"Good acting, good special effects, great

location. Even better ending. \" All I can say is, \"Ugh.\" This movie was painful to watch. Let me start by saying this: I am a Christian- considered extremely conservative by many people I know. So, what I am about to say is not biased by the

\"Christian content\" of the film. I'm not gonna bash it because it's Christian. I am gonna give it a 2\/10 because it's a horrible movie. The writing is bad- over the top, WAY too preachy, and much of the \"preachy\" stuff is just plain irrelevant to the story. It just makes for bad scriptwriting. Whether I agree with the

screenwriter's beliefs is irrelevant- make a good script that flows well, stays on track, and is believable. The acting was amateurish at best. But hey, when you cast amateurs, you get

amateur performances. Dirk Been may have been on \"Survivor,\" but that show

requires ZERO acting ability. Playing on his name and reputation to sell units is in bad taste. Cast unknowns who can act and you'll have a much better film. The effects were HORRIBLE. The scene with the hail and the subsequent falling of the stars was embarrassing to watch. And what was so great about the ending? It made no sense.Yeah, I know what

Tim Chey was going for, but it missed the mark, big-time. I bought this film and expected so much more based on reviews and the

misinformation on their website. And, although I was hoping for more, I got what I always get when I watch \"Christian\" films- an under budget, poorly written, pathetically acted, badly produced piece of ka-ka. Maybe someday, someone will finally step up to the plate with an end-times film as well-written and as well-made as Gibson's \"Passion...\" was. 2\/10 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a Christian, and I have watched pretty of Christian movies, but this one is too bad. They try to make this good, but it's too hard for them I think.

- You can see the film is badly dubbed in many places. - You can almost think that the mainpersons in this film was the only ones left behind. I think there will be a lot more of them.

- The quality is poor, and the acting could have been better too. The story is not so very bad, but could've been better. The only plus I give, is to the story in this film, but totally I can't rate it more than 3\/10. Watch \"Left Behind\" instead!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...not to waste your time watching this vanity project. I've had my comment deleted twice now, for reasons that I have yet to understand, other than the suspicion that someone involved with \"Gone\" isn't happy with what I had to say. So, I've pared things down to the nitty-gritty this time with an excerpt of my original comments that can in no way be taken as a personal attack on anyone, nor unfair commentary:

\"\"Gone\" is the sort of train wreck that gives new meaning to the words. Horrible, stilted dialogue, a script that just plain flails about like a fish out of water, acting that would embarrass the most self-centered of community theater divas, cinematography inspired by the \"Survivor\" school of swooping crane shots followed by static, nostril-exploring close-ups, terrible ADR work, special visual effects that aren't, pedestrian music that totally fails to sustain any mood or emotion, terrible editing with utterly pointless freezes and fades, no art direction to speak of---the litany of badness just goes on and on...I felt genuinely cheated out of the time it took me to fast forward through most of it...time that could have been better spent staring at a wall...Under no circumstances should anyone unfortunate enough to be reading this subject themselves to this \"movie,\" because long before it's over, they will be wishing they had been \"raptured\" before they made that mistake.\"

Case closed. Amen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As an avid fan of Christian film, and a person trying to maintain a keen eye for improvements in the realm of Christian film-making, I was excited to get a chance to see this film. I was ready to see something that would make a new mark in quality movies. I was left disappointed.

The beginning scene is excellent, though a slight rip-off of Leon - The Professional on the angle, it showcases some great cinematography in the early goings... everything after that was pretty much downhill.

I was barely able to sit through this one, I was tempted multiple times just to shut it off.

The acting, while quite possibly sincere, was incredibly awful. But then again, the heart of the problem was the screenplay itself. The dialog was worse than anything I have ever seen, and even my amateurish screenplay \"The Awakening\" (soon to be an independent film) looked like a Hitchcock-thriller next to this. (Which isn't saying much.) The bright side of this film is that it was filmed on Sony's brand new High-Definition 900 cameras shooting in 24P. This film and Star Wars: Attack of the Clones were the first movies ever to use these new technology cameras that year. Unfortunately, the camera's performance seemed to be wasted with bad lighting, poor angles, and awkward handling.

The only good feeling I got coming out of watching this movie was how good my rookie indie film is going to look next to it. ; ) 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The other reviewer was completely correct about this one. The writing was awful, the acting was awful, the subject was awful. The actors looked like they were not really into the movie, like they almost *had* to be there. There were some unique camera effects, but they were not really germane to the story (or what there was of a story), and they weren't produced particularly well.

I suppose they were trying to piggyback on the success (can I say that?) of the other eschatologically influenced movies (Omega Code, Left Behind). And yes, it DOES make Christians embarrassed when these types of movies are produced. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, especially a non-Christian.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was terrible. You couldn't fast forward fast enough to get to the end of this movie. It came down to the last 20 minutes of the film and I literally hit the eject button right in the middle of the scene. It was one of the worst movies I have ever experienced. Worse than all Dean Cain films combined. To start, the acting was terrible. I realize that the main actors were from the cast of survivor, but one would think that any TV experience would have given them a little more talent. The movies other main problem was the campy visual effects and the poor film quality. In the movies defense, the theme of the show was well intentioned and the story was all right.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The back of the DVD for this movie raves, \"Chey is the Quentin Tarantino of Christian Films.\" This isn't so much an insult to Quentin as it is to Christian films. This film is poorly written, stiffly acted and edited with a purposeless intensity. The scenes play out in a confusing and unrealistic way and are interspersed with some nice time-lapse photography. Flashbacks, fades to grey, freeze frames to tell the time (unimportant in the story) are all done with out any apparent reason other than to give the movie more cinematic credibility. The camera is haphazard, some nice crane shots are cut with ridiculous montages that have no significance. Poor blocking and lighting leave the viewer wondering who is talking to who in many scenes. Oh and the audio is terrible. The special effects were decent and thankfully limited. But this is all just technical. The movie fails to engage on an emotional level. The dialogue is so fake sounding and the actors seem to have only read it a moment before the camera was rolling. The story... the things that happen in sequence have no motivation behind them. The characters are struggling to take hold of one dimensionality. And the characters have to make a stance on Christianity and faith in every single scene. Take a queue from M. Night, engaging Christian films don't have to have the characters saying the name of Jesus Christ in every scene for the movie to be Christian. Goodness! Please don't try to show this to your unsaved friends with any expectations other than laughter.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was terrible. The acting was awful. The script was awful. What was even worse were the camera shots and sound. Half the time the voices did not match up with the actors lips, and different camera angles in the same scene would be completely different hues. The worst part had to be when one of the actors was at the top of a huge cross-shaped building. The building had to have been 50 stories high, and probably 100 feet wide. However, when the actor was on top of it in another shot, they had \"recreated\" the top of the building. The building's width had been reduced to about eight feet wide. How could a building hundreds of feet high be eight feet wide? I know the film was low budget, but it is inexcusable. The movie itself just pushed ideas about a \"rapture\" then actually having a storyline or point. This reduced the script to mere rubbish, the characters seemed to be selling ideas in their lines rather than conveying emotions and moving the movie along in a direction. It was a complete waste of time watching. The movie gives Christians a bad name if it is one of the current best Christian films out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched the first show of each series just to see and what a waste of time. The girl from Emmerdale she was fat so yeah she should be in fat friend but no one every lost weigh.

Like Itv made a big mistake with this.

Bad Girls is 100times better.

I feel that the whole show was just about large people trying to loose weight but never did then they tried to have love storyline oh my god what a a waste of time and also air time. This show has not been repeated on ITV2\/3\/4 yeah thats how good it is.

I would say do not by th box sets just a waste of money.

BEWARE","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of low budget horror schlockmeister actor, John Carradine's more animated roles as a implied Nazi scientist, who is turning humans into zombies to serve the Reich. Mindless scuffling brain dead, only able to obey the most simple of orders....bit like staff in McDonalds.

Hitler isn't mentioned by name, since America wasn't at war at the time they was filmed, but it's pretty obvious who the bad guys are working for!

There seems to be two types of zombies in film, the traditional voodoo type popular in the old black & white films of the 1930's and '40's. Blank eyed and just following the commands of someone else as they stumble along. And then there is the type we know from later films like 'The Night of the Living Dead' and 'The Evil Dead.' Still roaming about but with only the intention to kill and eat the flesh and brains of their victims. Both have their moments in various movies over the years.

'Revenge' features the former zombie type, although, these are particularly goofy looking and would look more at home in an old time freak shows as geeks as they bite the heads off chickens. One black zombie named Lazarus with his wild hair, looks like a young Don King.

As to the plot, the evil doctor decides to make his wife a zombie along with the others and that's where he makes his mistake. Even though he lets her keep her strappy heels as a nice womanly touch as he turns her into one of the living dead, she's not happy about it.

It all goes horribly wrong and ends in tears, and the moral of the tale must be, never, ever, turn your wife into a zombie, it's just asking for trouble....

The film is interesting enough and it quickly rolls along to a finish, but never rises above it's poverty row origins. Not a patch on any true zombie classics but fun just the same.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is not much to say about this one except that it is probably the worst of the early spate of zombie movies (I may get to watch another one, REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES [1936], before the month is out). For all star John Carradine's intention of building an army in the service of the Third Reich with them, they are not seen to do much at all!; James Baskett (Uncle Remus from SONG OF THE SOUTH [1946]!) plays their leader, who also serves as Carradine's manservant. Black comic Mantan Moreland reprises his 'fraidy cat' chauffeur role from KING OF THE ZOMBIES (1941), as does the exotically named Madame Sul-Te-Wan as Carradine's housekeeper. Unfortunately for Carradine, his supreme achievement \u0096 the zombification of his wife \u0096 brings him all sorts of trouble: not only do her relatives turn up at his remote abode\/lab to inquire into her sudden death (which means he has to fake a funeral service!) but she actually proves disobedient and indignant, eventually 'persuading' her fellow zombies to rise against their master!! Also involved is cowboy star Bob Steele (still best-known for his bit in Howard Hawks' THE BIG SLEEP [1946]) who plays a U.S. secret agent posing as a Nazi posing as a Sheriff! Thankfully, director Sekely would have much better luck with his next genre effort, THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS (1962).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Revenge of the Zombies\" is a pretty weak and barely passable zombie effort.

**SPOILERS**

Traveling in the Bayou, Larry Adams, (Robert Lowery) and Scott Warrington, (Mauritz Hugo) are informed that a friend has deceased. Meeting with local Dr. Von Altermann, (John Carradine) he repeats the notion that they mysteriously died. While they are staying there, they realize that the help consists of zombies, reanimated dead people who are doing the bidding of their master. As the bodies pile up, he reveals that he has been making the creatures for use in various experiments and all try to stop him before it's too late.

The Good News: This here gets very little right. The opening is easily it's best, as it's got several great marks for it. From where it starts, with the creepy silhouettes walking in the dark all the way through to the revelations, this one works wonders for both it's mystery and great imagery. The big one is a really scene where the creature emerges from a coffin in a long, slow and creepy shot. These here are all done before the opening credits and is a fun sight. The scenes in the middle where the creature reawakens inside the coffin is pretty chilling and looks really great. The last big positive is the really fun ending. With the sort of ending that feels reminiscent of so many Universal attempts, this one fits in with that style. From the creepy reanimation to the real action involved near the swamp, this one is fun and really works with the others to give it's only real positives.

The Bad News: This one here only has a couple flaws, but they are major ones. The first one is the film's major boredom from inactivity. Almost nothing happens in here, mainly due to the tendency to do everything with talking rather than anything else. There's only intermittent scenes relegated to the zombies, yet there's nothing here that devotes any action to the film. This one simply doesn't have any action, and that's what hurts the film. It rarely generates a scenes that keeps the interest going, and at times this makes it feel a lot longer than it really is. The last flaw in the film are it's pathetic excuses for zombies. Those used to more modern fare will have a hard time getting any fear out of these creatures, and they really only serve several scenes. This here doesn't treat the zombies as threats, making them even less frightening. Little screen-time, nonthreatening nature and un-modern behavior from these zombies really destroys this one. These here are what really hurt the film.

The Final Verdict: With bad zombies and hardly anything worth watching, this one here is a curious effort. Those used to modern zombies will find little of interest in this one and come out the same as this one is, while only classic horror fans are advised to give it a shot.

Today's Rating-PG: Mild Violence","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Always enjoy the Classic Horror films, however, this film was really a big waste of time and if it were not for John Carradine playing the mad man doctor who is able to control human beings through his experiments. This film was made during WW II and John Carradine was a German Nazi working to find a human weapon against the entire world. Bob Steele playing in many roles as a cowboy or gangster and in this picture Bob seemed bored to death with his role in this film and acted like this was his first film. Mantan Moreland, (Jeff) gave an outstanding performance with great comedy which helped keep the audience attention. I hate to criticize a film made in 1943, but this is really a big disappointment. If you like John Carradine and the roles he played as Count Dracula throughout many films during the 1940's, you just might like to watch John doing his best.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well well, I had seen a lot of reviews on this one, and a lot of promo always showing the decapitation scene. But this flick is a tough one. And I mean it by all ways. It's hard to find a copy, because it was a low budget independent release and because MPAA was on the hunt for every copy on VHS, it came out unrated but it had to be rated for the MPAA. So copies disappeared into the underground scene. All people involved in this flick never did anything else in the biz. So it made this flick unique. VHS copies almost never pop up on ebay or other sites and if they do you will pay over a 100$ to get one. But due US connections I was able to catch a release on DVD sold worldwide. Limited but it was to be a sort of official one. Now and then there are still some screenings of this splatterfest. But is it worth all the hype surrounding it? As said earlier, it is a tough one to catch but also to sit through. There are gory killings, there is necrophilia, there is nudity but there is also a lot of talking between the coppers. And to be honest, if you would like to see the movie in 5 minutes watch the ending, it's a flashback in the killer's mind. The blood flows and indeed it's a splatterfest but not the full 80 minutes, splatter galore for 10 minutes. The quality of the movie is okay, sound okay, no hiss, colors okay, black is black and not blue as in many low budgets. It's okay to watch it but you never will be frightened but it's one to watch with your friends having a beer and a pizza I guess. 555, naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah 333.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, the horror! I've seen A LOT of gore movies in my day, but this one just makes me gag with with laughter rather than repulsiveness. This is definitely a crazy movie and is very low-budget, I might add, but if you're able to look past the cheap audio, horrible dialogue, ugly girls, the obviously fake gore scenes, and overall cheeziness of the film, then you might find some of this film to be somewhat entertaining. The story is about a copy cat killer who goes on a killing spree every \"5th day, of the 5th month, of the 5th year\" (wow, how original), and it's up to two detectives (one of whom gave a valiant effort at trying to make the crapy dialogue good) to stop the killer's bloody rampage. The killing scenes (which are done with a plastic toy knife) are pretty brutal (which is a good thing), but very annoying due to the constant repetition of an obviously recorded scream (which is very ear piercing). As for the gore, there's plenty of it but it looks very fake; especially the blood - dude, c'mon, purple blood? But, if you're a fan of gore videos, like myself, then you'll find something in this video to cherish like I did (the crap-talking detective...he's the best thing going for this film). Other than that, all you're going to find is a bunch of senseless nudity (which is also a good thing, but too bad the girls are OOOGLY) and a very idiotic hippy necrophiliac serial killer. Sorry, but this one sucks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I didn't know what to expect from 555. Matter of fact, I had never even heard of it until a few months ago. But, being a collector of just about all types of horror I figured I would go ahead and grab this obscure 80's slasher.

Basically the storyline has to do with a killer that kills every 5 years for 5 nights in a row. What the third 5 in the title means... nobody knows. Anyway, the killings start as the killer searches for young teenagers fooling around in obscure places. He decapitates the men and brutally knifes the woman to death. After this, he proceeds to rape the dead corpse. The police think they have a lead on the killings but really have no idea what is going on. How will they find the killer? Does anybody care?

This movie is filled with some of the worst actors I have ever seen. No wonder none of these actors went on to do anything else, literally. The three lead actors consist of two detectives and a \"sexy\" female reporter. I am being sarcastic when I say sexy, she is about as un-sexy as it gets. The two detectives are like watching tweedle dee and tweedle dum. One of them underacts his part and the other one may have gone to the Shatner School of Acting. The acting is so bad that it almost forces you to lose your interest in the movie, thus almost putting you to sleep.

The only thing holding this terrible movie together is a few decent gore scenes. For a movie on this budget the makers must have put all of there money into the special effects, which still aren't that great.

Unless you are like me and have to own every single horror movie out there, I would suggest steering clear of this movie. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A majority of exclusively made-for-video low-budget fright flicks from the 80's invariably stink worse than raunchy old socks. This particularly dismal and amateurish no-budget Chicago-set bargain basement \"nasty necrophiliac nutcase on the loose\" bloodbath serves as a depressing affirmation of this borderline ineluctable fact. A bearded, disheveled, long-haired, bead and flower shirt-wearing wild-eyed psycho hippie fruitcake embarks on your standard random gruesome killing spree, graphically slaughtering libidinous young couples who are engaging in strenuous coitus whenever the deranged Mansonesque lunatic attacks. (Hmm, do I detect a fairly obvious and self-righteously puritanical \"have sex and die\" message here? Gee, could be, man.) Boy, is this mentally unbalanced sicko one real way gone pup: After knifing his female victims, our certifiably crackers killer enjoys making love to their freshly slain bodies. (WARNING: Possible *SPOILER* ahead. Towards the picture's end the corpse-copulating crazy gets rudely interrupted by the cops while he's in the middle of doing the unthinkable with a nubile cadaver, thereby provoking the foul pervert to cut loose with an understandably anguished and ear-splitting cry of \"Nooo!\") Now, ain't this gonzo guy a definite sweetheart and a half?

Too bad this flick is so poorly done; if it had only been made with a modicum of flair and proficiency it could have been a sleazy little gem of a horror exploitation item. Alas, Wally Koz's ham-fisted direction, Lamar \"Larry\" Bloodworth's stubbornly static and immobile cinematography, Frankie \"Hollywood\" Rodriguez's insipid, monotonously head-banging \"hard rock\" score, the pitifully cheap and unconvincing make-up f\/x, flat, conspicuously uneasy plywood acting by a hideously all-thumbs and unappealing non-pro cast, lethargic pacing (too much screen time is tiresomely squandered on the police's drab efforts to catch the wacko), an especially lame would-be shocking \"surprise\" ending (the mystery killer's true identity is guaranteed to have you groaning in disgust), the uniformly boring, incessantly bickering and positively braindead characters, and a steady succession of dull soft-core sex scenes that are about as erotic as watching two slugs mate for 90 minutes straight all add up to one profoundly putrid and unrewarding limp, soggy noodle of a crummy clinker. However, to be fair, this film does possess one stellar virtue: The mad-dog slasher has unquestionably excellent taste in garishly tropical, louder-than-thunder day-glo Hawaiian shirts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is the worst movie in the world. the only reason i gave it a 2 was because the first 10 minutes were hysterically funny in a \"is this for real??\" sort of way. it was so cheesy and low budget...they should not have even bothered. there was nudity and violence for the pure sake of having nudity and violence, and the effects were just so so bad you would not believe it (think ketchup as blood, and cabbages for severed heads). do not rent this!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hollywood had a long love affair with bogus Arabian Nights tales but few of these products have stood the test of time. The most memorable were the Jon Hall, Maria Montez films which have long since become camp. This one is filled with dubbed songs, anachronistic slang, and slapstick. It's a truly bounteous crop of Mesopotamian corn, and pretty near intolerable today. It was nominated for its imaginative special effects which are almost unnoticeable in this day and age, consisting mainly of trick photography. The only outstanding, positive feature which survives is its beautiful color and clarity. Sad to say, of the many films made in this genre, few of them come up to Alexander Korda's original \"Thief of Baghdad\". Almost any other Arabian Nights film is superior to this one, though. It's a loser.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes,the movie is not a piece of art but the first time I watched it I was 10 years old,my parents were out and I stayed home with my two brothers.It was May 1970(I know that because I found a note about the cycle of horror movies that one network had).It's one of the most vivid memories I have with the guys.We ended all in one bed and covered up to the head! Our very first horror movie! We kept talking about it for years and laughing about the moment.Those were horror movies.Nowadays horror movies are always the same.Or was it better when we were kids enjoying without analyzing the plot and the cast and the dialogs? Most sure it was that.But for me this is a great movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love this movie. Even though I rated it a \"4\", that's because the acting, the plot and the budget were all slated to the \"B\" universe even before this movie was released. But that's OK! It is an entertaining film that has a lot to offer!

I remember what Leonard Maltin said about \"Plan 9 From Outer Space\": a film so bad that it's great! Lacking the UFO - alien plot, The Thing the Couldn't Die relies on the supernatural (divination, a buried head looking for it's body, hypnosis, etc) to tell it's story. The acting is stilted, the camera work second class and the settings are limited, but boy! what a movie! This film is available in the bootleg market. If you find a copy, buy it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While out divining for water, a young psychic woman named Jessica Burns (Carolyn Kearney) stumbles upon something else altogether. She discovers a chest that has been buried for centuries on her aunt's ranch. Instead of the treasure her aunt is hoping for, the chest contains the head of Gideon Drew, a devil worshiper who was beheaded by Sir Francis Drake. Telepathically controlling the hired-hand who opened the chest, Drew's head goes on a murderous spree in search of the rest of his body \u0096 also buried on Jessica's aunt's farm. While Jessica is certain she feels the presence of evil, can she put a stop to Drew's plans and will she be in time to prevent his becoming whole?

I thought I was fairly familiar with most of Universal's horror output prior to 1960, but this is one Universal film from the 50s that certainly gets little mention. While The Thing That Couldn't Die isn't what I would call a \"good\" movie, it does have a few things going for it. First, the film has some interesting ideas and is actually rather ambitious. Director Will Cowan, whether by luck or intention, is able to give the movie some nice atmosphere from time-to-time. And, the special effects involving the head are certainly creepy. But the whole project is undone by the acting. I'm shocked to learn that any of the supposed \"actors\" in this thing ever appeared in anything else. You would think that this was a \"one and done\" type of movie for most of those involved. Kearney is the worst offender. She's horrible. Also, The Thing That Couldn't Die may have been a bit too ambitious for its own good. Given the budget and other limitations, there was no way the movie could aspire to its more lofty ideas. Finally, the movie ends rather abruptly. Just as things are starting to get interesting, The End. What's that about?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For all its many flaws, I'm inclined to be charitable towards \"Thing\". There is the nugget of an interesting, creepy, claustrophobic Hitchcock style story here. Put this in the hands of a writer like Theodore Sturgeon or (if you prefer British perspective) Robert Bloch, or the guy who wrote \"Day Of The Triffids\", and you might have had a nasty, unsettling little spook story that was the best thing in an book anthology of horror and suspense stories.

However, someone chose to tell this story as a feature length movie, and a cheap, 2nd rate at that, and so most of the potential is wasted. A story like this really needs a voice like Sturgeon's to bring out interesting quirks of character in a better light. His classic story \"The -widget-, the -wadget-, and Boff\" is an example of how he can gather together an isolated group of \"ordinary\" characters and in the space of 40 pages can turn them into the most amusing, sympathetic and fascinating people you've ever met. A good writer can, with a few chosen words, make the reader \"see\" some of the most vivid and memorable events ever to scar his emotions.

Instead, we get a movie where some of the most irritating and unlikeable characters ever made are lumped together and made to interact in unconvincing \"Where did that come from??\" moments that just lie there. (IE the blond psychic girl declaiming that \"You're all evil and I hope you are destroyed!\"). We get leaden pacing and slow motion blocking and dull sets and stiff actors. I blame the director for the 'stiff and shallow' part. These are all 3rd rank character actors who never made the big time, but they are also 'real' actors, and a good director could have gotten better performances out of them. We get uncalled for lesbian overtones that make the viewer feel uneasy and exploited without delivering any kind of payoff. (If I'm going to have my baser instincts exploited and feel guilty about it, I want done by stuff staged better than this). And we get over an hour of creepy build-up diffused in about 35 seconds in one of the worst anti-climaxes I've ever seen.

Good things about \"Thing\"? Um, well...some of the closeup shots of the warlock's head silently mouthing its directives were pretty effective. The miserly and shrewish widow rang true to life (even if I wanted to stuff a sock in her mouth). The first scene where the big, \"simple\" ranch hand silently turns on the oily cowboy and kills him had a bit of shock value, because the plot had taken the trouble to establish the big guy as a fairly sympathetic character. And like I said earlier, the idea of an insidious force from the past turning the members of an isolated community against each other is a good one and can sustain interest far above the actual merit of a bad performance.

Which this definitely is.

But, as I said, I'm inclined to be charitable, because the director was probably working under a penurious budget, breakneck time constraints and the best actors he could find for the money. Heaven knows how future generations will judge facile crap like \"The Cave\", \"Wrong Turn\" or the remake of \"House of Wax\" 40 years from now. I hope they are charitable towards our own tastes in supporting our generations wastes of film stock.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes this movie features a gal named Jessica who says everything is evil and she causes trees to land on people too (well she only causes a tree to fall once, but she does say everything is evil). This movie is about a farm that apparently rents out rooms to people, but offers little else in the way of entertainment. Jessica can find things with a stick and she finds the head of an evil guy. Of course they don't know this until the owner of the farm's helpers open the box containing the head. The head proceeds to hypnotize everyone it can so it can get to Jessica and use her powers to find stuff to help look for his body. This movie has an interesting enough story, but it plays out very bad here. Everyone in this flick will get on your nerves at least once.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you ever visited Shenandoah Acres as a child and wondered, could there be a worse vacation spot in the world? Well, you could have watched this movie and had your answer. Flavia (a.k.a. Fistula) Macintyre's dude ranch is often frequented by business casual Gordon, at least since resident water witch, Jessica, was 13. But Jessica can find much more than fresh spring water with that divining rod \u0096 buried \"tray-shure,\" lost jewelry, dead bodies, even a talisman that will keep her from dressing like a slut and raising drinks with a phony beat and a Suzanne Pleshette look-alike while hypnotized by a disembodied head. Evil, evil evil.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jessica is a young, virginal and very innocent girl who lives with her aunt on a remote ranch. Jessica is also a powerful psychic, capable of dowsing, retro-cognition, precognition and esp. When young and handsome Gordon Hawthorne comes to visit, he is instantly skeptical of Jessica's powers...until her skills uncover a lost wristwatch and unearth an ancient treasure chest. However, the treasure chest holds the severed head of a centuries dead satanist named Gideon Drew, whose powers are far stronger than Jessica's. Despite her warnings of the evil in their midst, Drew manages to mentally enslave everyone unfortunate to make eye contact with him. But Drew wants Jessica most of all. He needs her dowsing skills to unearth his body, so that he can rise from the dead and rule over the human race. Will Jessica's powerful fleur de lis, combined with Gordon's love, ward the ancient evil off before it can destroy them all?

This isn't a very interesting movie. It certainly could have been - the basic story is interesting and imaginative, but the acting is leaden and the whole thing moves much too slowly to hold interest. Jessica is also too innocent - almost annoyingly so, and Gordon, her love interest, is wooden, stiff and totally emotionless. None of the characters are very likable, and the low budget is painfully obvious. A rushed ending also doesn't help matters. Avoid, unless it's the MST3K version.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a kid, this movie scared me green. As an adult, I couldn't stop laughing.

I have not had the pleasure of watching this movie via MST3K. I caught it, instead, on a late Saturday afternoon, when there was absolutely nothing in the theaters, and there was nothing left to do outside but rake some autumn leaves. I figured, this HAD to be better. I was wrong.

The movie has some very good elements; a water-divining mystic, a beatnik painter, couple of idiot ranch hands, an elderly history buff, and an \"evil wind.\" Um...I mean...evil head. An evil head which will, as soon as the systematic hypnotism of each and every one present is complete, be looking for its evil body.

The whole story takes place on an evil \"ranch\" which apparently neither grows crops, nor raises evil livestock.

As everything is declared by their resident mystic to be \"evil,\" you either roll your eyes horribly, or laugh til your sides split, depending on your mood. Me? I laughed until I had tears streaming down my face.

I remembered this movie fondly as one of those which really SCARED me as a kid. But some kids are afraid of Santa Claus, too..no? Anyway... if you're into 50's horror camp, then this is definitely a movie you shouldn't miss.

If you're looking for a good story line, this movie has that. It's the over the top dramatics and downright innocence of the time that makes it so horrid. The acting was just BAD, but it still had some good elements. Perhaps it rates a remake...?

It rates a 4.3\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I suppose you could say this film has a grain of potential, but nothing more, because boy did the filmmakers botch it. The plot is practically incomprehensible, the pacing is lethargic and the acting is pathetic. And what the hell is a trade rat? Worst of all, though, this movie's climax is the anticlimax of all anticlimaxes; plus the title doesn't seem even remotely accurate. The only redeeming feature of this film is the pretty dark-haired woman... well, the blond girl was pretty too, but she was annoying and not as good looking as the brunette. Anyhoo, as with a lot of movies, this is one to be seen only on MST3K.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This joins the endless line of corny, predictable 50's sci-fi shlock out there. As usual, it's pretty bad. There isn't much of a plot that I could detect and the over-exaggeration of the leads only adds to the unintentional laughs. The title is misleading also. Catching this on MST3K is probably the only way for it to be viewed, and it's better left that way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Boy Oh Boy, does this movie stink. This movie is one of the worst pieces of trash I have ever seen in my whole entire life. Please, even if your life depends on it, DO NOT, and I repeat: DO NOT under any circumstances, view this horrid piece of garbage. Only watch this thing when it comes on as a MST 3000 Episode. That was the only way I could sit through the whole thing. If I had to watch it without that show, I would've stopped watching it before it was over. It does have one use: A Cure For Insomniacs!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Directed by Diane Keaton and adapted from a book by Franz Lidz. A young mother Selma Lidz(Andie MacDowell)is battling a very serious illness and her self proclaimed inventor husband Sid(John Tururro)is a little lacking in the emotions department. Unhappy with the new home situation, their sensitive son Steven(Nathan Watt)decides he wants to stay with his two eccentric uncles Danny(Michael Richards)and Melvin(Lou Cutell)until his mom is well. Steven seems to be happier and even takes interest in his strange uncle's living habits; he even decides he wants to change his name to Franz. Set in the early 60's, this drama is a bit comedic...change that to zany. Not being a MacDowell fan, UNSTRUNG HEROES assures my attitude; albeit I enjoyed the film and it is not a total waste.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I began watching this movie on t.v. some weeks ago, but gave up after the first 10 minutes or so. At the start, the person on the witness protection scheme located in an isolated farmhouse becomes nervous about his exterior placed guards, and then asks the guard inside the house whether he can make a telephone call - only to discover the line has been cut.

Shortly afterwards, Roy Scheider as one of the witness's assassins turns up and duly executes the witness and his wife - upon which the Roy Scheider character duly picks up the wall telephone in the kitchen, dials a number, and then speaks: It is done!!!! That was it for me!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having sat and watched this film I can only wonder at the reasons for creating the film. This was without a doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen and had no redeeming features.

If it was supposed to be funny then it might have managed to be a very weak comedy but as an action thriller it was dire.

Slow, no plot, no real action, nothing approaching good dialogue and I've no idea about the characters. What else can I say. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To be honest, I did never read one of the comics and cannot remember part 2 and 3 at all. I can compare to the first part (Werner - Beinhart) and this one here is really disappointing, compared to part1 as well as compared to most other movies I watched the last weeks. The first minutes seam to be just a needless clone of the first movie intro and then it is becoming even worse. There are a few good (funny) scenes, but in total it is just another boring second-rate try of German film industry that cannot succeed (nearly as usual). One good thing: The movie is quite short (75 min.) The bad thing: It only contains story and jokes for 45 Minutes ;) -> Don't watch it","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"MASTER PLAN: have the winning team in a deadly tournament. One of several martial arts action pictures that attempted to capture the flavor of the famous \"Enter the Dragon\" from '73, this one is an effort from South Africa. The villain's stronghold is a bit different, appearing as a white castle-like fortress in the middle of the desert from a distance. The villain himself, a Baron or general, is a slightly more perverse version of the \"Dr.No\" or Han mold of master villainy, having strange flashbacks to the glory days of Nazi Germany. He does wear the full regalia Nazi uniform at some points. His main ambition in life is to hold an illegal martial arts competition\/tournament against his Japanese rival, an extension of their complicity in the 2nd World War (my army is better than your army). It sounds silly and it is, though the suggestion of madness and crazed machismo almost works. The central hero, Steve Chase (Ryan), resembles a white 'Bruce Lee' character, having a similarly lean, lithe physique, though obviously not on the same level of martial arts expertise. I thought he would be some secret government agent here but apparently not. He and his girlfriend have joined the Baron's team of fighters, but decide to quit (what did they think they were getting into?). Of course, it's not that easy. There's an odd sequence of them escaping through the desert using a wrecked car with a rigged sail - those desert winds can do wonders for travel, it seems.

The plot kind of meanders in the 2nd half, as the hero joins the team of the villain's competitor and the girlfriend is held hostage by the villain in a cell, under threat of rape by the hero's rival. The most interesting character turns out to be Chico, a dwarf who is the villain's assistant; he's loyal to the Baron but is sympathetic to the plight of the hero. Much of the fighting utilizes the ballet-like capabilities of the hero, with a lot of leaping and slow motion. The sound FX are also amped up and exaggerated in an attempt to add more impact to the blows. There are a few good fights during the tournament towards the climax, but none really stand out. If one had to pick, I suppose the best involves the brutish muscle man-henchman of the Baron, introduced late in the story (he lifts the back of a car at one point). You wonder how the hero will take him out at the end, since the brute seems to shrug off most of the punches. The acting is very mediocre, descending into camp as far as the girlfriend, who tends to laugh for no reason, as if she's high on grass, though she is very cute. Some of the training scenes are also campy, especially all those guys running over or rolling down the desert sands. And, with such a title, there's surprisingly few actual killings. Ryan, as Steve Chase, returned as a traditional agent in the sequel \"Kill and Kill Again.\" Hero:4 Villain:4 Femme Fatales:4 Henchmen:6 Fights:6 Stunts\/Chases:4 Gadgets:2 Auto:3 Locations:5 Pace:5 overall:4+","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A buddy and I went to see this movie when it came out in 1980. It was playing in a huge theater and we were the only two people in the place. It lasted two days in the theater before they stopped showing it. It was so bad that we laughed all the way through it. Since that time, we rate movies based on Kill or Be Killed as the worst movie of all time. Like other reviewers have mentioned, it is so bad that it is funny. It isn't worth a second look that's for sure. I just can't bring myself to give it more than a 1 because I don't think the makers of the movie intended for it to be so bad and I can't give credit for an accident. Sorry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"A research scientist is experimenting with human DNA in an attempt to create the perfect human being. His work has made it to the point where he can take a human fetus and accelerate its growth to that of an adult within a few days. His latest creation is a (spoiler omitted), but side effects from the process (spoiler omitted),\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

\"Embryo\" opens by promising: \"The film you are about to see is not all science fiction. It is based upon medical technology which currently exists for fetal growth outside the womb. It could be a possibility tomorrow\u0085 or today,\" according to Dr. Charles M. Brinkman III. Right. And, Dr. Joyce Brothers appears, later, at a party with Roddy McDowall.

First, we see Rock Hudson (as Dr. Paul Holliston) light a cigarette and drive recklessly (watch that speedometer!) during a storm; unfortunately, he hits a dog. Mr. Hudson takes the wounded canine home. He learns it is pregnant, and manages to save the life of one of the puppies, due to his experimental knowledge of fetal growth. What this really boils down to is that Hudson uses an experimental drug to grow the embryo, so that it can survive outside the mother's womb. The dog, \"Number One\", grows to adult-size rapidly, and is passed off as its mother.

Hudson lives with his sister-in-law Diane Ladd (as Martha Douglas); since his wife Nicole, also a doctor, died in another car accident. Ms. Ladd seems more emotionally stable about Nicole's death than Hudson, who survived the crash that killed his wife. Things begin to get creepy when Hudson's dog shows an intelligence level far above any normal dog. Then, Hudson decides to use his accelerated embryo growth on a human, Barbara Carrera (as Victoria Spencer).

Hudson and the cast try their best; but, the \"Embryo\" storyline is wretchedly absurd nonsense. If you take away her silly opening and closing scenes, Ms. Carrera's valiant characterization almost works; she might have been a bigger star, if offered better films than this. The infantile ending suggests a sequel; but, happily, the idea was aborted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First and foremost I'd like to state - for the record - that it's incredibly dumb to call your movie \"Embryo\" when the subject matter exclusively revolves on scientific research performed on fetuses (animal as well as human) aged 12-16 weeks. The embryonic stage is over at the end of the eighth pregnancy week and from that moment on the unborn critter enters the fetal phase. Okay, in all honestly, I didn't know all this, but I took the effort of looking it up and that's the also the least thing the creators of \"Embryo\" could have done. Don't worry; I'm not just stumbling over details or being exaggeratedly bitter, as there are several more reasons to state why \"Embryo\" is a huge failure. Actual science can be considered as boring and inaccessible, and thus Science Fiction is a cinematic genre created especially to make the otherwise tedious, yet educational science topics more interesting and comprehensible to larger audiences. By depicting ambitious scientific experiments that go horribly wrong, or space missions that encounter evil aliens instead of light-years of void, filmmakers usually manage to entertain people with spectacular special effects and, at the same time, teach them useful little trivia about science. In order to make a good or at least halfway-decent Science Fiction movie, writers and directors only have to comply with one basic rule: DON'T be boring! If they can't fulfill this one condition, the viewer might as well read a theoretically accurate book. Something must have gone wrong during the production of Ralph Nelson's \"Embryo\". The basic premise is potentially fascinating and even involving, as we're all sensitive about saving the lives of unborn babies. There also were some very prominent names involved in the production, like main stars Rock Hudson (\"Giant\", \"Seconds\"), Diane Ladd (\"Chinatown\", \"Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore\") and director Nelson himself was responsible for the acclaimed classics \"Soldier Blue\" and \"Charly\". Then what went wrong? Simple. The script is irredeemably boring, clich\u00e9d and the whole thing looks incredibly foolish because the lab scenery & scientific equipment is clearly too primitive to achieve any medical breakthroughs with.

Rock Hudson, in a very poor performance, plays a doctor who hasn't put any passion in his research work ever since his wife passed away. When his car hits a pregnant dog on a rainy night, his passion returns and he does everything possible to save the dying animals' fetuses. He manages to keep one fetus alive, impressively accelerates its growth process and trains it to become an extremely intelligent dog. Because his procedure is so successful, Dr. Paul Holliston convinces his friend at the hospital to repeat his tests with the human fetus taken from the womb of a pregnant teenager who committed suicide. The female subject unexpectedly keeps growing at a fast rate, however, and after only a couple of weeks she's a full-grown, ravishing and super-intelligent woman. The good doctor naturally falls in love with her, but the groundbreaking new growth treatment also begins to show horrible side effects... Absolute nothing happens during the first 45 minutes of the film, apart from a lot of implausible and overly melodramatic mumbo-jumbo and one or two deeply impressive tricks performed by the dog. That second half of the film does contain a little bit of (grotesque) action and suspense, but by then the stupidity of the dialogs and the implausible plot-twists already ruined the potentially fabulous Sci-Fi idea. There are some really cool scenes, most notably the chess-showdown between Victoria and Roddy McDowall (in a highly memorable and ultra-obnoxious supportive role). The grand finale is absurdly grotesque and literally on the verge of ridiculous, and it almost feels like Ralph Nelson put in that final disastrous shot because it was the general rule in contemporary thriller & Sci-Fi cinema. The last sequence, including the horrible freeze-frame shot at the end, certainly doesn't fit the tone of the previous 100 minutes of the film. But anyway, my sincere admiration and respect to the dog and his trainers. An animal with such intellect and talent surely deserved to demonstrate its tricks in a much better film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although Embryo could have been a potentially thought provoking examination of bioethics, it degenerates into a stereotypical Frankenstein parable, putting across the by now monotonous lesson that there were some realms man was not meant to enter or study.

Scientist Rock Hudson is experimenting with ways to prevent miscarried babies from dying. After success with a dog, he immediately jumps to humans-violating medical ethics and any sense of plausibility-with the equally unrealistic assistance of a hospital administrator. His experiment works too well, with some decidedly unpleasant side effects.

Although Barbara Carrera is reasonably good in her role, and some of the animal training is spectacular, the film suffers from being too fantastical. Even though a message at the prologue assures viewers that this represents contemporary technology, the scientific work depicted looks far fetched even for the twenty-first century, let alone the mid- 1970s. Furthermore, the scene where Carrera is able to find a cure for the side effects of bioengineering simply by typing a question into a computer is laughable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After his career as a romantic leading man ended in the late 1960s, Rock Hudson starred in lots of different projects, including TV shows and lesser films. However, I believe that \"Embryo\" is his only turn as a mad scientist, and that's probably a good thing. I guess he needed the work.

Driving along one dark and stormy night, brilliant Dr. Paul Holliston (Hudson) hits and injures a Doberman, which he brings back to his lab (that looks somewhat like a dank Midwestern basement). He then manages to raise the dog's unborn puppy outside the womb, so naturally he decides to do the same thing with a human being. He raises Victoria (the beautiful Barbara Carrera) from a fetus the same way. Victoria grows at an astonishing pace, and soon blossoms into a gorgeous young woman.

Predictably, things go very wrong. After a halcyon beginning, Holliston's sister-in-law Martha (Diane Ladd) begins to wonder where the young woman came from, and Victoria herself begins to show signs of instability and violence. The final sequence is one long car chase straight out of \"Smokey and the Bandit\", after which Victoria\u0097who has shockingly aged in just a few minutes\u0097is assaulted by a frantic Holliston, who tries in vain to destroy his malformed creation along with its unborn child. All of this is accompanied by screeching tires, roaring engines, a car fire, and lots of sirens. The limp ending\u0097a bunch of paramedics frantically working on Victoria while Holliston writhes in regret\u0097is more labored than creepy.

Although just made in 1976, this movie is very dated. The only difference between this and the many 1940s mad scientist movies is that Hudson plays the lead role rather than Boris Karloff. The sets are pretty cheap and very antiquated to today's audiences, to the extent that Hudson's reel-to-reel tape recorder is about the size of a refrigerator. Much of the action takes place in a poorly lighted laboratory. Hudson sleepwalks through his sordid role, giving the impression that he's truly a washed-up movie star, while Ladd and Carrera are much more believable. Surprisingly, Roddy McDowall pops up briefly as a chess player.

The Passport Video transfer is very substandard, looking as though it had been made from a poor VHS copy using home equipment. If you're nostalgic for 1976, watch this once just to say you did. Otherwise, watch a football game or soap opera instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rock Hudson's second venture in the science fiction genre after Seconds is Embryo a film that combines elements of the Bride of Frankenstein and Pygmalion in one rather weird film about for lack of a better word a test tube baby that grows up to be Barbara Carrera.

Hudson is scientist experimenting in organic development and gets a chance to first experiment on his own Doberman pincher when it is accidentally hit by his car.

Some pituitary secretions from the female dog are given to a prematurely born puppy and it grows remarkably into an adult. Exalted with his success, Hudson takes a fetus from a dead accident victim and gives it some of the same stuff.

What he gets is Barbara Carrera. And she develops physically and intellectually at a prodigious rate. What she doesn't do is develop emotionally. Still Hudson passes her off as his new research assistant to friends and family like sister-in-law Diane Ladd, son John Elerick, and daughter-in-law Anne Schedeen.

Embryo doesn't explore some of the real issues in this kind of science, it exploits them instead. The special effects as they are, are pretty second rate. Hudson looks like he lost interest in the project about halfway through the film.

Now what would have really been interesting is if he had gotten boy child and it grew up to be a harlequin novel hero. Now that would have been something Rock Hudson could have sunk his teeth into.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I suppose I'm supposed to take something like this with a grain of salt. These laboratory movies (and, yes, they spend a lot of time in the laboratory), always fail in one dimension: there is an understanding that single people fooling around have uncovered secrets beyond the comprehension of anyone to this time. Of course, they pay a price because their experimenting has the same shortcomings that Dr. Frankenstein's did. There is always something they didn't anticipate. There are so many things from pure science to fashion for young ladies to outrageous cover ups that don't work here. The young woman is certainly fetching and the doctor can't help himself, but he could have been a little bit discreet or even made an effort to shelter what he was doing. Things go wrong and because of this intellect, she gains tremendous power, including an understanding of how she came to be. Rock Hudson looks pretty fit here. He never quite makes it in this role, however. It wanders all over with lots of clich\u00e9s and silliness which diminishes the basic issue. Once she has her revenge a more suitable thing would be for her to wander off and allow him to seek her out and destroy her in some grand way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I sat through this on TV hoping because of the names in it that it would be worth the time...but dear Gussie, whoever thought this script was worth producing? The basic idea is excellent but the execution is appallingly bad, with a constantly illogical sequence of scenes, an ending that is almost laughably melodramatic and poor Rock Hudson wanders through this with an understandably confused look on his slightly sagging face. Looks like a bad B movie from the 40's...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Apartment Complex\" is a campy comedy full of kookie characters created in lieu of a real story which tells a young psych student (Lowe) who takes a job managing an apartment complex and becomes embroiled in a murder mystery...um, if you can call it that. This low cal watch contains no suspense, no thrills, no drama, no action, precious few funny moments, a dash of nudity, and almost no romance. \"The Apartment Complex\" is passable, forgettable junk food for only the most needy couch potatoes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I agree in many parts with the fairly thorough review already posted on the subject of the miniseries, and agree that it does have its pros, not only its cons. For example, the original film manage to truncate much of the middle and final sections of the novel into a single montage, including the discovery of Gurney Halleck and the love affair of Paul Atreides and Chani, which, on reading the novel, is a travesty, probably born of the studio cutting shenanigens of which the other reviewer writes. This was one of the great failings of the original film, and the miniseries, to its credit, does include many of the original plot lines that were cut out of the Lynch film due to the expansive nature of the Herbert novel.

However, this in itself is a double edged sword. Rather than complete a text-to-celluloid transfer of the novel, the creators of the miniseries were tempted to create their own plot lines, absent from the original novel. Similarly, although this is surely a \"fuller\" account of the storyline of Dune, it is also a break from the originals heart and soul & main vision - that of prophecy. Where are the internal monologues that characterize Herbert's writing and demonstrate what the many different characters are thinking, without the need to suddenly switch viewpoint, or expand in words or unnecessary and stilted spoken monologues? Gone. So much of the original agony of Paul's decision to choose the jihad or death, the choice to fulfill the prophecy or swing away from it, surely the most interesting aspect of the novel itself (and one which captivates people who are far from Science fiction fans) is missing.

Without prophecy, what is the point of Dune? It is simply a more educated and learned version of Farscape or Andromeda. How sad that this is all we are provided with. Lynch's film was flawed, yes. But a flawed film could lead to a correction by another film-maker, taking on some of the best points of Lynch's film-making and rejecting some of the more overblown aspects of the style whilst restoring the storyline. Now this story shall probably never be translated to film again, and this I find heartrending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This miniseries\/movie was so terrible at times that I nearly broke down and turned it off. I am a great fan of the novel, however this movie suffers from multitudes of problems. The costuming is poor, and many of the more emotionally charged scenes are blase. The departures from the novel are poorly chosen, significant nuances are missed or rewritten.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I looked forward to watching this film since I loved the David Lynch version. In my first attempt at watching it I fell asleep. Nothing was happening. The next night I tried to watch the rest, and again it was putting me to sleep! Nothing ever happened in this movie that could keep anyone's interest alive. The only time it got a bit more exciting was when I tried it on Fast Forward! The DVD came with a second disk which contained bonus material. Needless to say, I had no hard to go through the torture of watching more of Dune (2000). Here are the low points: The acting was bad, the plot moved in slow motion, the sets were and looked cheap, the direction was pathetic, and the CGI visual effects childish.

If you want to watch Dune, save your money or rent the 1984 version.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That's a weird, weird movie and doesn't deserve a better mark than David Lynch's one! The special effects are badly made, the actors are majorly bad actors and in this movie it's not about a race which is the minority of a planet and tries to fight against the dominators, but it seems to be a crazy movie, which pays homage to sect kind of organisations. That's surely not the will of Frank Herbert, the author of the six part epic! Check out David Lynch's one, that's the perfect tribute to the novels!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the \"Battlefield Earth\" of mini series. It has with a few exceptions, all the disastrous ingredients that doomed that movie and will follow it to the grave in the turkey cemetery. They are both adaptations of books with a endless amount of pages who has been turned to a complete mess by a script writer and a director (In this case they are the same person.) who clearly don't know what they are doing, they have both a messiah wannabe that don't really deliver, as a hero (Played in this case by a guy that looks like Mark Hamill but sadly the force is not with him.) and a bunch of stupid bad guys who likes to betray and mess up the life for each other, they are both containing scenes stolen from better productions and they are both cheap productions who tries to look expensive with some (often badly made) computer animation. The exceptions that actually makes the whole thing worse is the terrible work made by the lighting guy who don't even have the skills to turn on the light in his own living room, the camera work that for no reasons at all sometimes are in tilted \"Battlefield Earth\" mode but for the most of the time are flat as a pancake, the extremely cheap and to small desert set that only contents a pile of sand in the front of a backdrop painted as a desert, that turns very old very fast because it appears in almost every scene, and the bad idea by the costume designer to try to mimic \"The fifth element\"'s fashion madness with the addition of the silliest hats ever made. Silly moments to remember: 1. Every scene with the guild guys, who looks like MST3K's observer guys but with silly hats. 2. Irulan shows up at the party dressed in her butterfly dress (Why butterflys? -was the one with stuffed parrots in the cleaner?) with matching silly hat, together with a couple of guys with silly balloon hats. 3. Paul the stand-up comedian. 4. Baron Harkonnen in over acting overdrive, screaming \"I,m alive\". 5. Every Scene with the backdrop, because it newer fits the foreground 6. Every scene with the Fremen's fake religious cermonies, specially the \"water of life\" cermony. 7. The battle scenes where the same guys gets killed a couple times and the same things explodes over and over again. It is a lot more but it is a 1000 words limit on this so i better stop before i gets carried away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Drivel. Utter junk. The writers must not have read the book, or seen David Lynch's film. Not worth wasting your time.

Longer does not make better. While more in-depth then Lynch's film, it has gross in-accuracies, and down-play's key parts of the story.

\"A Night at the Roxbury\" is more worth your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can I say? After having read Herbert's books and loving Lynch's movie version, I was extremely disappointed. I felt I was watching a reject version of Buck Rogers. The sets looked like left overs from a Star Wars TV special! I felt the acting was a bit amateurish by most. The costumes were garish and over done which gave it a '60s Flash Gordon, pulp feel. The worms! They're supposed to be Sand Worms and yet they appeared to \"big stalagtites\" with a mouth at the blunt end. The effects in general were pretty second rate. I won't even start about the disgraceful \"Navigator\" effect.

This so-called \"Frank Herbert's Dune\" wasn't even faithfull to his books! It should have been called \"Frank Herbert's Dune - For Dummies\". Key plot elements were left out, names were changed and the entire \"feel\" of the story was \"sanitised\". I didn't even recognise the Harkonnens! In fact most of the characters appeared nothing like Herbert's descriptions had depicted them. I'm starting to get upset just remembering what a tragedy it was. I'm glad I couldn't stomach the second installment....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Dune miniseries opens with a \"flashforward\" montage of action sequences. The realisation quickly dawns that these are the *best* scenes out of the 265 minute running time, and they're not good. Not good at all. Oh dear.

But let us not judge a book by its cover (even though that's exactly what we're being invited to do). Let's give Dune a chance to redeem itself.

Well, here's the expected watery opening on Caladan. But who's this petulant, strangely ugly man? Paul Atreides? *This* is Paul Atreides? This generic plastic puppet? And why does he look so old? What's that? The actor's only 25? Well, he doesn't *look* it, and that's way too old anyway.

But at least he has charisma, right? Wrong. Alec Newman is a stumbling, mumbling buffoon. I'm picturing him being discovered sitting in the dark in a remedial acting class because nobody liked him enough to tell him the class was over, and he's just too dumb to realise it. When your Paul Atreides has all the screen prescence of soggy toast, and an acting range from \"petulant\" to \"blank\" your production of Dune is doomed from the start.

The other actors take pity on poor Alec though, and give uniformly insipid and incomprehensible performances so that he doesn't look too bad by comparison. At least, I *assume* that is what they are doing. Because I'm charitable, you see.

To be fair, they are clearly being given no direction at all. Random gestures, blank or inconsistent deliveries, missing their marks, it's all here. This is like a master class in how not to do it.

And sure, there are more elements of the book in this miniseries than there are in the 1984 movie, but there aren't twice as many, because of all the. Pauses. To fill. Time.

But we can forgive all this because of the small budget of $20 million, or only $5 million per hour. Nobody could be expected make quality science fiction on that sort of budget.

Except perhaps \"Stargate SG-1\" which makes do with $1.4 million per 50 minute episode, or \"Farscape\" at $2 million. And frankly I'd rather watch four episodes of either of those while being punched in the kidneys, than have to sit though the travesty that is Dune the miniseries again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a total piece of crap. It is an insult to the awesome book by Frank Herbert. They have mangled the story and characters. The acting is average to bad. The only character done right and played well is Duke Leto, played by William Hurt. Unfortunately, he dies pretty early in the story and then its all downhill from there (not that its a very tall hill to begin with).

The 1984 movie was directed by the legendary David Lynch. I was not overly impressed with the movie, but considering the technological limitations of the time, they tried their best. Amazingly, the crappy mini series makes it look so much better by comparison. It was at least somewhat true to the book, which I really love.

They had the chance to do it right this time, sadly it was not taken.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you have never read the classic science fiction novel this mini-series is based on, it may actually be good. Unfortunately, if you ARE a fan of the book, you probably won't be able to watch more than the first hour or two. All of the political intrigue has been taken out of the film, the most important scenes from the book have been taken out, characters motivations have been changed completely, and words from the wrong characters mouths. Where in the novel Paul Atredies was a teen age boy with incredible political skill and a great understanding of the way the world worked, in this film he is hot headed and and frustrated. Avoid this movie at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While the David Lynch version of Dune is choppy, awkward, and unfaithful to the novel, it is visually well designed and well acted. The best one can say about the Sci Fi channel's attempt to make Dune into a miniseries is that it's ambitious. Actually, that is virtually the only positive praise one can offer. The actors (with few exceptions) seem happy to recite their lines with the least emotion possible, and the least appropriate accents. The costumes seem to have been designed by someone with a a large surplus of Mylar fabric on hand and an unhealthy love of unflattering headwear.

In part, this miniseries suffers from living in the shadow of Lynch's already well known effort. However, it takes elements from Lynch's film which were not present in the novel and copies them nearly wholesale (i.e. the Guild Steersman's navigation sequence), and this only encourages encourages negative comparison to Lynch's film. A for effort. D for virtually everything else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Surely one of the lamest shows ever to be produced on these shores and thats saying something. Even many of the lead actors didn't stick around for the duration. The fact that it ran for eight years is a sad indictment on the average intelligence and cultural nous of the Aussie viewer. It went round and round in circles, with repetitive gags and poorly-drawn characters. Arthur MacArthur, for god's sake. did they actually pay the writers of this show? I wonder if anyone checked their qualifications. There were tired gags about rural people and second-rate farce situations that were poor imitations of a thousand English and US sitcoms that had gone before. I think that's what I hate about it so much, that it appears no one involved wanted to make it memorable, original or clever, instead opting for the lowest common denominator each time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"But even caricatures need a plausible plot line. I suppose in 1934 some part of that audience long ago would enjoy this tepid farce. It doesn't age well. It does give Nat Pendelton and Zasu Pitts experienced and expert support players a shot at leading roles. Pendelton, who is featured prominently in the Thin Man series tries his best but is over matched by witless plot. With the backdrop being a stage play with gangsters its not exactly original material. Movie's saving grace is the always excellent Edward Everett Horton in a wasted performance. But don't waste your time watching Everett in this film. I would encourage anyone to watch him in his effort in Holiday, with Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn. Same era 1936, but much better script and storyline. Better gags and needless to say star power as well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's astonishing that some people saw this as art. We saw it as a poorly filmed (shaky hand-held camera and all), (generally) badly acted, unscripted mess that seemed more like a high school film project with the kids experimenting in black & white film making. Injecting mounds of poetry in place of a story does not an art film make. When we watched this in the theatre, people were starting to have fits of the giggles (us included) at the endless stupidity of this self-indulgent, meandering mess. And believe me, it does seem endless. Had we finished our candy and popcorn, we too would have walked out of the theatre with the other two dozen people who packed up and left looking for something more interesting to do!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A terrible deception: controversial film, winner of the Teddy in Berlin 2003, Mil nubes de paz turned out to be a fiasco. The actors are all reciting (well, they are not exactly actors); the film tried to be a high bet but ends up being a doubtful bet: it stays in the superficiality of two guys kissing and a guy whose lover is gone; it has no purpose: nothing to do with the homo-sexuality presented in other films (e.g. Before Night Falls (2000) by Julian Schnabel). Technically the only thing that works is the photography; otherwise, the camera is put in strange angles (to make it more `art-film') and the whole film runs in a black and white atmosphere. The film is so pretentious that bothers. I mean, it's good to be pretentious when you have talent to support it. Or maybe it is that it's so art-cinema that it's incomprehensible. The story flows slowly, slowly, slowly. To me, more form than essence. Superb edition? It was good. Superb direction? Don't think so: the film is weak. It was an interesting project. It's a shame. It's a flaw. One star out of four.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A very, very, very slow-moving, aimless movie about a distressed, drifting young man. Not sure who was more lost - the flat characters or the audience, nearly half of whom walked out.

Attempting artiness with black & white and clever camera angles, the movie disappointed - became even more ridiculous - as the acting was poor and the plot and lines almost non-existent. Very little music or anything to speak of. The best scene in the movie was when Gerardo is trying to find a song that keeps running through his head. He goes to a used record store to buy it for his lover and has to sing the song for two sales clerks before they find the album. Cute scene gave promise, but it went downhill from there. The rest of the movie lacks art, charm, meaning... If it's about emptiness, it works I guess because it's empty. Wasted two hours.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I nearly fell asleep during a screening of this. Of a boring story that seems to go on forever, it follows several days in the life of a male prostitute who falls in love with one of his tricks. After a heated affair, the trick leaves a long letter explaining why they cannot be together and how they must go on their separate ways.

The male prostitute then goes on a downward self-destructive spiral trying to find his \"one true love\", repeatedly returning to the same places they frequented, looking for more clues or signs as to where he may locate his love.

In the meanwhile, he hooks up with one ugly guy (who I thought was also a male prostitute), a gay basher, and some guy who ends up having a \"three-second sexual intercourse session\" with him in a back alley.

It never ceases to amaze me how films STILL portray random sex acts as scenes that can take place in a brief matter of seconds, such as in this case where the trick barely has his pants unbuckled before thrusting three times and miraculously experiencing orgasm!

All of these random encounters end with the sexual partner asking him to call them, to which he discards their telephone numbers.

There is a brief side-plot involving the main character visiting his busy mother who seems to have no time for his lifestyle. There is also another brief side-plot involving some random conversation with a young woman who has noticed him several times standing on the bridge from her window. And there is also one more brief side-plot involving him showing the letter to a male acquaintance, but the audience is not advised of his relation to this person.

None of these things really connect with each other, only to show us how lost and confused this young man really is. He seems to be living life like a ghost. There was one good scene in the entire movie that involved him rummaging through a yard sale looking for a particular record with the world's saddest song on it.

Otherwise, this movie just seems to go on forever. Filmed in black and white, it may seem very dreamlike, but sitting in the theater for nearly two hours watching this drivel will resemble something more like a nightmare!

I found the ending to be confusing as I wasn't quite sure whether the young man had died and gone to heaven? That would have been a nice pay off to end the misery that both audience and the main character had to endure in this meaningless tripe. But seeing as this is an \"independent film\", movies with endings like these are supposed to encourage you to \"use your imagination\".

For those of you who are seeking out nudity, there are only brief scenes and most of them are filmed in such a way that anything suggestive are artfully concealed within the shadows. In other words, don't waste your time with this one.

My Rating - 2 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I am giving a second star is for the first half of the movie. This was a good rendition of the story. I enjoy seeing a few fictional characters added to add some color to a well known story. But the second half was horrible!!! Yes there were violent aspects of this story. But the writers of this movie chose to only include the violence and forget about the good things God did for the Israelites. Towards the end of the movie Scott looked as though he were getting messages from the big giant head instead of talking and hearing from God. This rendition had some HUGE problems with deviation from scripture. And big surprise, there are no favorable deviations! Their portrayal of Moses as this screaming naked lunatic who did all of this against his will is totally false. It showed a Moses who had to scream in order to get God to talk to him. WRONG The scripture says God spoke to Moses all the time and not just after a temper tantrum. They got the people's complaining right, but failed to show that God spoke to Moses at Sinai in an audible voice that the followers could hear and believe.(Chapter 19). They also forgot the pillar of fire and cloud which guided them in the day and night.

What was the whole Joshua thing? The righteous peace loving Jew who would not fight until Moses threatens him? WRONG (He was known as a great warrior) What about the great speech that Moses gave the army telling them God had helped them enough and now they were on their own?? WRONG (They only won through God's help as shown in their own scenes with Moses lifting his staff)And what was that sorry looking Ark of the Covenant? Instead of overlaying it with gold this movie was on a tight budget and attached little gold chips to it! Oh yeah, it was a \"molten calf\" not a straw one with little chips tacked on. Someone forgot that they came out of Egypt with a huge amount of gold tribute from the Egyptians. You wouldn't know it from this sorry looking bunch.

By the way, the part about them slaying the Israelites after the golden calf incident says \"men\" and does not mention women and children which the movie delighted in showing the viewers. Oh yeah - Manna wasn't the only thing sent from heaven - don't forget the birds for meat. Also, the Bible mentions Jethro bringing Moses his wife and children and then says Jethro went back to his own land. It does not say that Moses gave up his family.

Oh well, if you know nothing about the real story, read Exodus for yourself. If you know the real story, you will hate this version.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this series out of curiosity,wanting to see if they could possibly and with ALL this modern technology,out do Cecil B. DeMille's classic epic of 1956, starring Charleton Heston,Yul Brenner and Sir Cedric Hardwicke. Of course, I was let down. Yes, they had all the Biblical characters correct, but they didn't give us any of the spectacular theatrical scenes, that held your interest throughout the first movie. If you going to have a mini-series, you have to have some \"rivoting\" scenes, the \"Burning bush\", Parting the \"RED Sea\",drowning \"Pharohs Armies\", \"building Sethi's Pyramids\", could have been done with todays' technology on the scale of blockbuster movies such as \"Lord of the Rings\" or the Matrix. Obviously, they didn't want to leave a LASTING impression of \"faith and sacrifice\", which is much needed in these trouble times.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had high hopes for this movie I even gave up a night of watching Stargate for this movie. I found it had a rushed feel about it and a lot of the key biblical moments and facts were missing. I might be a bit jaded and spoiled for the 1956 version, as I have watched that one every year for the last 20 or so years. I doubt this one will make it to the realm of yearly classic, as the other one has. If you have not seen the 19546 version, you might like this one but, I seriously doubt it and urge you to skip this one and go rent or buy the classic one. This has some nifty special effects but that is not what I look for when telling a movie like the Ten Commandments. I was kind of looking to see how they told the story, and the writers did not do a good job with this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie deviated from the Bible and fell so below the bar of the 1956 movie. I hate that they replaced the 2006 movie over the traditionally seen 10 commandments. Moses looked like a criminal in this movie, not like the kind looking man Charelston Heston in the 1956 movie. I will not waste my time again watching this movie. They tried so hard to modernize this movie in order to keep you on the edge that it was more like a soap opera (and not a good one at that). I'm pretty sure that younger ones out there who never paid attention to the original 10 commandments may disagree with me, but to each his own. Also, it took them 10 years to make the first 10 commandments, it probably took them 2 months to make this one. The special effects were not as amazing as the first one and after all these years with so much technology, you would have thought they would have done better now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are a Christian or a Jew hoping to see an accurate Biblical (or Torah) portrayal of the events in Exodus, you will be disappointed by this movie. In typical Hollywood fashion people who are not even in the Bible have been \"created\" for supporting characters and play a large role in the movie. Jethro's role is changed completely and he becomes nothing but an untrusting father-in-law instead of a Shepherd priest who gave Moses excellent advise. God is largely removed from the movie, and instead viewers are given the impression that Moses had to figure things out for himself. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This movie is a typical Humanistic twist on Biblical things and attempts to put most of the responsibility on Moses for trying to understand what God wants and what he should do. Those who know the book of Exodus well will see not only inconsistencies in the movie, but outright glaring changes to events. Most importantly, they will see a near total absence of God's dialog with Moses, which determines everything Moses does after the burning bush. Far from being alone as portrayed in the movie, Moses is guided by God with detailed and direct communication.

Even Hallmark apparently can't acknowledge God's direct role, and without his spoken words to Moses many events make no sense. To compensate, Hallmark has actually changed some things. For instance, after the golden calf God plagues the people and they must look upon a symbol of a serpent to live. Hallmark creates a civil war instead and the Israelites pick sides, then slaughter each other. Moses side wins of course.

There may be minimal value in this movie to unbelievers since it may cause them to seek answers, but believers should stay away. The twisted events and changes make this a danger to anyone who doesn't know their Bible. Read Exodus for yourself, there is no substitute.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With a name like \"10 Commandments\" you would expect a film to be representative of the account in the Bible, specifically Exodus. Not so here. This is standard procedure with any Biblical Hallmark-made film. Remember \"Noah\"?? That was utter fiction and one of the worst films ever made. At least this film had \"some\" truth to the original story. However, Menerith, who was a major character in this movie - half-brother of Moses, is not in the original story. Other characters were absent, not to mention important events were completely eliminated. So what, you may ask? Because this should be representative of the actual story; otherwise, some might and do believe that is the way it actually happened. In today's age, people get their religion from movies instead of Church and reading the Bible. Also, it is a great error. See Revelation 22:18-19. The script is already written. Why change it? Other than the account in Exodus itself (which should be the main focus), you have the Cecil B. DeMille film to compare it to, which is clearly a far better presentation.

The night it first aired, my wife was anxious to see it. I told her not to get her hopes up because it was a Hallmark-film. She looked puzzled and said, \"Why? Hallmark makes good movies\". That might be so, but they butcher the Bible. I'm sorry to say that I was correct. Not just the story, but the acting as well. With today's technology, you should be able to make a wonderful Biblical movie. I'm still waiting...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I appreciate the effort that the filmmakers wanted to depict the story of Moses and the exodus of Israel, and that the film helps viewers to put themselves into Moses' shoes and gain understanding of the intense burden laid upon Moses' shoulders. As excited as I was to see this film, I was greatly disappointed in the storyline. (I'll leave out the videography, special effects, and artistic ability in this review.) What is most disappointing is the historical inaccuracy of this movie and how it is so far from the historical accounts from Biblical texts. One of the overarching principles from the Bible is that *God* led His people out of Egypt, and He promised that He would take them to a land that is flowing with milk and honey. Not only did He give this promise, but He led His people in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. He never left them; He always was visible to the Israelites. The movie, however, depicts a God who remains silent during the entire wandering through the desert. This movie changed the essence and theme of the Biblical text and instead depicts God as a silent, cruel, disciplinary void.

In addition, the depiction of Moses was just as wrong. Moses was known as a man of faith (why else would he be such a father-figure to Israel throughout the Old and New Testaments, even that Moses is known as a man of great faith). However, the movie depicts him as a pragmatic, angry, insecure loner who despises the calling that God placed on his life. OK, I'll allow some creative freedom for the filmmakers in the Exodus story... but this is beyond creativity -- it is heresy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I as a Christian am outraged after seeing just the first half of this picture. The film's website says they researched the movie before writing but I believe they forgot to consult the ultimate source THE BIBLE. I sat with two different versions of the Bible and could not find half of what happened or was said in this picture. It was like they made up what was not in the Bible and changed what was in the Bible to what they thought modern film viewers would want to see instead of the truth. I personally am too young to remember the 1950's Ten Commandments but it can't be any worse than this. I have written to the network and can only hope they publicly apologize for this travesty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got this movie as a buy one get one deal at troma.com with The Ruining (which isn't much better). The main reason I wanted it was to see Star Worms II: Attack of the Pleasure Pods, the DVD is a double feature with that movie. I really didn't know what Actium Maximus was at the time, and when I saw the trailer I got scared. It looked awful. But hey, what can you tell from the trailer? Well, apparently I could tell a lot. This movie honestly made no sens to me. The special effects were so terrible you cannot tell what in God's name is going on. I understand Mark HIcks had a extremely low budget, but come on. And it is sad, because in the interview he sounded like this was to be an epic film and meant more than you could see. But sadly, watching the film is one of the most boring hour and 15 minutes of anyone's life. It is so utterly painful to sit through. I really can't even explain the plot to you because I didn't understand it at all and I have sadly seen this film two times! Apparently they used some type of puppets for the \"alien dinosaurs\" like they did in Star Wars. But these special effects are awful, I can't stress it enough. And most of the time bad special effects are okay but this film needed them badly. It takes place on some futuristic planet where alien dinosaurs battle each other and bad actors in hooded sweatshirts run around, and they look like they are in the kkk. And some box with a blue light on it is the president. I know in the interview Mark Hicks said something about making this a television pilot, well, I can see why this didn't make it to CBS or NBC. There are two good things about this film. 1. the music is actually pretty good, it has an epic score that sticks in your head for days. And 2. Lloyd Kaufman's introduction is as always hilarious. Overall, don't waste your time but check out Star Worms II: Attack of the Pleasure Pods!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, what to say about Actium Maximus...

There are some bad movies that are so horribly awful they circle 'round to awesome. There are bad movies that just suck in their own right. There are good movies, and so-so movies, and movies that are just fun. Then there's Actium Maximus. You can't make a spoiler for this movie because to do that you would have to understand the action enough to comment. This particular movie is worse than Turkish Star wars one and the sequel too. Those movies are so bad they circle 'round to awesome and they make you feel drunk even if you're stone cold sober. Actium circles 'round from bad to awesome, but then it doesn't stop there, it takes another trip to badville, then 'round again to awesome, then finally it sets up a little feudal kingdom on the border of \"Bad\" and \"stock footage of paint drying while a harpy screams incoherently.\" If you are into self punishment this movie is for you. It actually will cause your brain to hurt.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a shockingly bad movie and I literally gasped the first time seeing the Blue Screen puppets. Imagine the worst Blue Screen special effects you ever saw, make it somehow far worse, and then combine this with poorly made, rubber and Play-doh puppets that look like something from a semi-retarded pre-school art class. Then add some screeching, Yngwie Malmstein-esquire, melodic-metal guitar solos stuff that is way too loud and lasts way too long. The overall film is absolutely awful and makes \"Feeders\" look like \"Rashomon.\" Its one of the worst movies I've ever seen, with every quantifiable metric spiraling dismally downward, much like a waterlogged turd in the perpetual, slow whirlpool of a broken Rest Stop toilet. Still, though, a film like \"Actium Maximus\" is not to be missed by the bad movie conesseuirs out there, even if only by looking up clips on YouTube or someplace. This movie is a bit of an eye opener, if you can stomach the ride. I think this director may be mentally ill, though, which is a bit debasing. Watching him discuss the project, you get the sense that he truly believes that he's created something wonderful. I guess he's the \"Star Wars kid\" of gonzo filmmakers. What a mess. :-)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just don't understand why anytime someone does a show about one of the largest metro areas in the country (Houston, Dallas, Austin\/San Antonio etc.), they portray the average person as someone who wears wranglers\/cowboy hat , talks with a drawl, has zero fashion sense, and drives a truck on his way to either the \"saloon\" or his next hunting trip, rodeo, skeet shooting or country music concert. I have never even seen a small town cop driving a police-truck...anywhere in Texas.

The funny thing is this is not done for artistic reasons or comedy...they are actually serious and I guess believe the average person is too stupid to know the difference. The bad scripts and equally bad acting give that away. This show makes goofy shows in the past like Knightrider look like high-brow entertainment. At least Knightrider had the talking car.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, no one with any law enforcement experience (Not ER or EMT, but real law enforcement) takes this show seriously. Walker would be drummed out of any police force in the US for his illegal and totally unprofessional tactics. On top of that, he is a comic book character---no acting ability, incredibly trite lines, no character development. The fact that Alex Cahill loves him shows just how dumb blondes really are. And Trivett is the ultimate clown in black-face. Come on---if you think Walker is a heartfelt show without bias, then explain why JT is treated as a dolt, always is the subject of Walker's jokes, never is allowed to be the one to solve the crime, and never rescues Walker, who should be dead 50 times over for the stupid things he does. While it may be true that many criminals are even dumber than the detectives who go after them (and believe me, most cops are dumber than dirt), the smart ones Walker comes up against never seem to get the point that once Walker is captured, the jerk needs to be put of his misery. But then again, Norris produced the show as well as starred in it, so how could he willingly get rid of himself or even show how stupid his tactics are. As if six guys are going to wait around to take him one at a time. What a terrible series! It is more demeaning than any of the hokey westerns like The Lone Ranger, Roy Rogers, The Cisco Kid, and Wild Bill Hickock, though I would imagine that most of you on here are far too young to remember those shows. But like those shows, in the same way as those shows, Walker TR is just as insulting and just plain silly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The fact that this cruddy series could elicit dozens of comments (much less hundreds of 'votes') speaks volumes as to the decline of Western (or at least American) civilization.

Read Proust, you morons!! Or at least Dave Barry or Calvin and Hobbes anthologies.

Chuck Norris. Wrap your brains around the fact that in order to rate or write about this series you'd have to have spent minutes..nay, HOURS...viewing this poor sod treading the boards and spewing lines with less emotional impact than the gal who used to call off the correct time on your local service.

PLEASE DON'T WATCH THIS SHOW!! SPARE YOUR FEW REMAINING BRAIN CELLS!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show is the worst show ever! Norris and his family write it, produce it, direct it, etc etc. The only reason I ever see it is because my goofy wife likes it. How many times can Norris fly though the air from plain sight to land a kick on an obviously blind villain? No trees, no building, just whoosh.....thin air. He ALWAYS solves the case or is the best at whatever skill there is. No co star ever gets the glory. Its all Norris. Its truly apparent that Norris is awful stuck on himself and will not allow anyone to one up him in any scene no matter what the content. Terrible acting, terrible script, terrible series.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This TV show is possibly the most pathetic display of crap on TV today. Horribly predictable, obscene usage of slow motion photography, cheesy story lines. Chuck Norris is an abomination who should never have been allowed to be filmed in anything. The way he chooses to make each episode into a public service announcement is really annoying. His acting sucks so bad that it makes a person cringe with embarrassment. I will give the series some credit though...it does get entertaining at times, but not enough for it make any difference. With all the negative points this series has, i still prefer it over reality TV, it can't really get any more worthless than that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Walker Texas Ranger is one of the worst shows produced in the past 10 years. The script for James 'Jimmy' Trivette, Walker's sidekick, is about as pathetically written of a part as Wesley Crusher on Star Trek TNG, and is played with about as much conviction.

On this show, people don't respond the way people respond to things in real life--everyone is polarized--everyone is either a completely good guy or a completely bad guy (unless Walker himself has a 2 minute talk with them and then they change instantly). That's not how life works, that's not how people are. This show doesn't take place in this reality.

The plot lines are about as realistic as Murder She Wrote, a show where an arrogant old lady can just walk into people's houses without them getting angry, and she can demand that police officers do what she wants and they bend over backwards for her. With Walker, everyone on the show, including the \"bad guys\", act like he's the sort of hero that myths and fairy tales are made of, and time itself bends to his whim. The lines that sometimes come out of people's mouths on this show are beyond ridiculous. It's as if the scriptwriter for the part of Wesley Crusher (for the \"serious\" parts) and the scriptwriter for Bob Saget's funniest home videos (for the \"humor\" parts) got together and wrote all the scripts for this show.

This show is for people who think that good always prevails over evil. It's for the elderly. It's for wishful thinkers. It's for people who want to be guaranteed to always have a happy ending. It's for people who want to drift away into oblivion. It's for people whose drug of choice is their television.

I cringe every time I see even a commercial for this show. My opinion is that it is THE worst show to be on television in the last 10 years.

I used to like Chuck Norris, but this show has forever tainted him in my mind. I can't even watch his older movies without thinking of this show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This series is formulaic and boring. The episodes are the same thing every week, simply with slightly varied settings. Some purely evil character does some dastardly deed, Walker goes after him, and it ends in a Karate match. The villains are super-clich\u00e9 super-stereotypical evil villains, the good guys are all pure, honest and saintly, and the story lines are simplistic and unrealistic. After about 2 episodes, the show becomes totally unwatchable by all but the least discerning fans. Certainly not Norris's best work. His other work may be clich\u00e9 but it usually does not drag on for weeks. If you enjoy formulaic,boring, repetitive clich\u00e9d snooze-fests, then this is for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd never thought that I would be caught saying this: But I think \"Dog the Bounty Hunter\" is more entertaining than this 90's era cop drama. Walker is very melodramatic and actually set a standard of the genre of \"High Octane\" cop shows such as CSI, CSI: Miami, and so forth. I'm not saying all these shows are bad, but they aren't good either. I like the karate chop action that Walker dispenses on the enemies of justice, and the diverse cast of characters as much as the science tech of the CSI series. But there are some elements that I hate in a show like this. Stereotypes\/Countertypes! That's right, Stereotypes\/Countertypes! Unfortunately, this is a show for the moderates of Red State America who refuse to part with the old prejudices of yore especially when it comes to crime. For example, there was an episode in which a kid with psychic powers ventures into Dallas where he encounters group of kids in Goth\/Punk clothing and they start harassing him. Now! This is exactly what Middle America perceives the Goth\/Punk culture. I mean come on, how often do people that dress like that rob and steal from people just minding there own business. Whenever there are Blacks and Latinos in the plot it's always about gangs in some impoverished neighborhood. Okay! Not everyone who's a minority is a desperate recruit of a gang surrounded by crime, drugs, poverty. Again, this is what Middle Red State America sees of these people. Finally, Why is the Trivette the bumbling sidekick, can't you make the sidekick an equal ass-kicker?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has got to be the worst show I have ever seen. I always liked Chuck Norris in Films, but why do we need to make these shows politically correct by adding a black side kick who is as threatening as Shirley Temple in Little Miss Marker. I also thought the show was limited because how many times can you kick a guy in the face and make it interesting. I know an African American who looks like this Trivette guy and he gets his butt kicked about once a week he is all attitude.

Chuck Norris is the man and he deserves all the kudos he gets, I think this show started great but lost steam as time went on

They should have dumped Chucks side kick","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Great acting, great production values, good direction.

But the script starts out with great pacing and interest in the first half and then falls apart in the second half. We're clear on character and motivation for the first half but then the second half leaves many questions unanswered.

The conflicts raised are compelling but the follow-through is weak. For instance, we're very clear that Rudyard Kipling is pro-war but we don't know if that philosophical stance changes through the course of the film.

This is the sort of picture that makes me want to look up the facts in history books. I don't feel I can rely on the film to get a clear idea.

The depiction of the war itself is heart-breakingly accurate, though the women's lack of enthusiasm doesn't reflect the war hysteria that swept Britain at the time. Perhaps this is historically accurate; like so much in this film, I simply don't know.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**SPOILERS** I rented \"Tesis\" (or \"Thesis\" in English) on the strength of director Alejandro Amenabar's later effort \"The Others\". Based on what a brilliantly measured and horrifyingly effective creepfest that film was, I assumed his earlier efforts would be of a similar quality and I was in the mood for some good horror. Instead I wound up with the most tedious, preposterous excuse for a lame-brained slasher movie I've seen since the German film \"Anatomie\" (which this one kinda reminded me of).

The plot has potential but it's thrown away within the first 20 minutes. It revolves around innocent-n-pretty psychology student Angela's (Ana Torrent - a Jessica Harper deadringer) thesis on the subject of violence in films. Through some far-fetched circumstances too dumb to go into here, she winds up in possession of a 'snuff' tape on which two men torture, mutilate and kill a young girl for the camera. Angela, and her horror-buff friend Chema (Fele Martinez) are both shocked yet intrigued by the tape and decide to get to the bottom of who's responsible for it.

This leads to... well, nothing.

They never really give a reason for why they want to find the girl's killers (since they resolutely refuse to contact the police throughout any of the unfolding events, even when their own lives at risk) and the mystery itself is as limp as Graham Norton in a room full of bunny girls. There is only one proper 'clue' (the type of camera the killers used is discovered) and that's a) a really weak one and b) wheeled out in the first 20 minutes. The rest of the so-called 'unravelling' just occurs through blind luck, increasingly ridiculous plot twists and a SLEW of awful, transparent and thoroughly pointless red herrings that are chucked in merely to pad out the running time.

Seriously - Amenabar might know his stuff about ghost stories but he's clearly never read a detective book in his life. The key to a good whodunnit is to have a large cluster of potential suspects and to eliminate them one by one with clever deduction and the gradual discovery of more and more evidence, before moving in for the final twist. In \"Tesis\", *POTENTIAL SPOILER AHEAD* the killer's identity is guessed correctly by the amateur 'detectives' almost instantly and then we get 100 minutes of the writer trying feebly to throw us off the scent until he runs out of ideas, throws his hands up and says \"OK, ya got me, it was him after all\"! As for any kind of logic or motive behind the crimes - no such luck. You're watching the wrong movie if that's what you're after.

The only thing that drags \"Tesis\" down further from just being a dumb, badly written thriller is the way it actually tries to make some ludicrous, muddled-up 'point' about violence in films. I have no idea what stance it's attempting to take on the subject but it seems determined to cram in a ton of misguided, confused psychobabble, in between the rest of the gibberish, and say \"look at me! I'm political!\". The final scenes, in which the \"point\" of the movie is supposedly hammered home, are so utterly absurd and puerile, one can't help but wonder if Amenabar feels embarrassed now when he watches this. If he doesn't, he certainly should. This is total 'amateur night at the slasher house' stuff.

Overall I can't believe I wasted two whole hours (it felt like at least six) on this, just hoping something might happen. The urban legend of 'snuff films' (and that is basically all they are, despite the way this film tries to suggest they're some kind of criminal phenomenon sweeping the world!) is an area that can be so tantalisingly exploited in good horror films (\"Videodrome\" anyone?) but it's so easy to step over the line into childlike 'wouldn't it be cool if!' territory with it (ie: \"My Little Eye\")... \"Tesis\" hits an all-time low for the 'snuff movie' genre. On every level, this one is better left dead and buried. I'll award it a 1 out of 10, for some nice lighting, but that's all it's getting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some years back, this film had been scheduled for broadcast on TCM UK as part of a Tod Browning retrospective \u0096 but what they actually showed was the 1937 remake!; my brother had watched it (and, in hindsight, it followed the original pretty much scene-for-scene, even down to the set design) \u0096 though no classic, he said it was a far more satisfying viewing experience than the incredibly creaky earlier version\u0085

This being the first collaboration between Browning and Bela Lugosi, I had high hopes for it \u0096 but these were quashed when it became evident after the first reel of tedious conversation that the film's main concern was to appease the still-novel sound technique, and consequently the result is stagey and extremely static. The thriller plot isn't exactly exciting either; even less appetizing is the ostensible British-Indian setting (with the characters' affected accents and upper-class demeanor \u0096 not to mention the over-use of corny idiosyncratic idioms such as \"I say\", \"rather\" and \"now look here\" \u0096 rendering the whole risible more than anything else)!

Apart from this, there are a few unintended howlers: Margaret Wycherly (as a fake medium) pleads with Police Inspector Lugosi (if anything, his undeniable screen presence is already evident) to give her some time to 'work out' who the culprit of the double-murder really is (the evidence points to her own daughter, played by Leila Hyams!) \u0096 she hears a tapping and is deluded into thinking that the spirit world has genuinely made contact with her\u0085but then Lugosi enters the room and, in his unmistakable accent, straight-facedly tells her \"I knocked twice \u0096 you didn't hear me!\", at which my brother and I almost fell to the floor in convulsions of laughter!!; the editing is really sloppy, too: during one high-angle shot of the main set, a mike is seen being rapidly pulled up out of camera range \u0096 and even worse are a couple of instances where a person walks off-screen, ostensibly into the next shot, to another part of the set\u0085but each shot is held on the other actors for an absurdly long time, so that it appears to take forever for this person to walk just a few paces!!

THE THIRTEENTH CHAIR marks the third non-horror Browning Talkie that I've watched \u0096 even if both this and MIRACLES FOR SALE (1939) deal with murder and occultism and could, therefore, still be linked to the genre. Much has been said about the director's apparent slackening with the coming of Sound: however, flawed though they may be, the 4 straight horror films he did throughout the 30s are infinitely better than the rest \u0096 which I've always found stylish and bizarre enough to suggest that Browning wasn't as much at sea during this period as has been suggested\u0085","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Early talkie feature based on a popular stage play. A murder has been committed and a bunch of people hire a medium to conduct a s\u00e9ance to see who the murderer is. While the lights are out there's ANOTHER murder...so it's someone in that room.

What follows is an obvious, dull and creaky murder mystery. Most of the cast overacts to a ridiculous degree. They act like they're on stage (where you have to overdo things) and it looks silly on screen. Most embarrassing is Bela Lugosi (two years before \"Dracula\") who REALLY overdoes it as a police inspector. Static direction by Tod Browning (who was always overrated) doesn't help.

For Browning and Lugosi completists only. I give it a 3.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, so this is horror? I get horror - but I don't get horrific. Black & white is artistic but too much black is overkill.....enough said about the lighting. The story - a serial killer ....... lot's of these around. It's been done in the past and yes, it will continue to be done.....but I hope not. My question is , when will the audience tire of reliving this maddening dilemma? I guess the director thought he would do something different - portray killing children. Well that's been done before too. SO I guess he had to go to shock value.....have them killed in the darkest of fashions. Okay ..... the audience was shocked......sickened....disgusted.....numbed. And getting up out of my seat , I felt all of these things. So was the director successful? Yes! Absolutely! These are the things he wanted me to feel and I did. Now what do I do with the feelings? And more importantly, what is the \"message\" here? With the amazing talent that Francis Xavier was \"gifted\" with.....could he ever consider applying it to making films that speak of, dare I say, coming out of the darkness? I was left in the dark after viewing this film, my soul was assaulted....is that what this craft is about? There are many such films out there - they make the bucks I'm told. So what's up with the people that want to see all these deploring visuals? What is going on in this world that people will pay to be horrifically shocked? Would I see this again.....not ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OH MY God I am lost Now I know everything this guy does is Pointless R J A wrote at August 13th, 2006 (posting no. 881): What an awful experience. It looked like a bunch of 3rd graders stole a video camera, borrowed some old editing software from 1995, and played a joke on each other. Trash RGC wrote at August 1st, 2006 (posting no. 747): This movie is a piece of @$#@#@. It sucks Calling this a movie would be misleading. This was a group of friends having a good time and videotaping one another. The storyline was very hard to follow. The attempted artistic camera angles detracted from the story and in to themselves made the entire time a dizzying experience. The acting although comical was very amateurish. The concept is OK, I guess. Perhaps next time, the producers should raise some capital and hire actual professionals and try again. I must say that I'm sick and tired of so many thinking that making a good movie is easy. It is not easy... This fact seems to be lost or ignored by many that believe that without any training\/experience and talent that they can make a good product. I guess in the end they will learn just how difficult it is I am so disgusted I HAVE NO COMMENT Chrisite wrote at August 5th, 2006 (posting no. 762):","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As much as I love trains, I couldn't stomach this movie. The premise that one could steal a locomotive and \"drive\" from Arkansas to Chicago without hitting another train along the way has to be right up there on the Impossible Plot lines hit board. Imagine two disgruntled NASA employees stealing the \"crawler\" that totes the shuttles to and fro and driving it to New York and you get the idea.

Having said all that, it's a nice try. Wilford Brimely is at his Quaker Oats best, and Levon Helm turns a good performance as his dimwitted but well-meaning sidekick. Bob Balaban is suitably wormy as the Corporate Guy, and the \"little guy takes on Goliath\" story gets another airing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would agree with another viewer who wrote that this movie recalls the offbeat Melanie Griffith\/Jeff Daniels comedy, \"Something Wild,\" in which a rather eccentric free-spirit hooks up with a conservative and very orderly young man, and the two pose as a couple and basically, her personality gradually has an effect on him. He looses up and learns to enjoy their short-lived tryst. That is exactly what happens here, except insert convenient store-robbing eccentric, Alex (Rosanna Arquette) in Melanie Griffith's role, and super-cautious teen, Lincoln (the name is no coincidence, played by Devon Gummersall) in Jeff Daniel's part. This movie even shares the same twist and abrupt genre change where the creepy, violent boyfriend suddenly shows up in the end and things end up quite badly. Only, here, instead of it being Ray Liotta playing a throwback to 1950s film goons, it's Peter Greene.

The story is about a teenage kid who is in his own little world. He has some sort of fascination with death following his brother's suicide, and his parents have disconnected, too, behaving quite strangely (the mother is convinced Christmas will be arriving shortly, despite it being August). Then, on a night out with the \"guys\" (one of whom is played by Jason Hervey of the Wonder Years) trying to buy them beer, he runs into Alex who decides to kidnap him and his friends car (with his permission of course), and they take off for mini-adventure across the deserts of the West Coast, robbing convenient stores in Robin Hood sort of fashion and of course, indulging in the routine self-discovery as each asks more about the other's life. But, Alex has left behind a partner in her trade of theft, and he isn't going away easily. Although, we're not consistently reminded of him or anything as in repetitive flashback or cutting over to his point of view. At least this much was done cleverly.

'Do Me a Favor' (aka Trading Favors), is a mostly underdeveloped story of criminal mischief and self-discovery that lags quite a bit for the first half of the film, but delivers the goods a little to late once Alex and Lincoln arrive at her home out in the middle of nowhere. By the time the filmmakers give you enough stimulation, the film is unfortunately, almost over. I would recommend that if this is the sort of story you're in the mood for, and despite Rosanna Arquette always giving a good performance (even in a poorly written film), I would still recommend catching this in its best form, \"Something Wild.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most obvious flaw...horrible, horrible script. This movie had a potentially good story, but it was ruined with bad dialogue, continuity problems, things that were never explained, gaping plotholes, sub-plots that went nowhere, and just plain stupidity. Not to mention the awful, cliched directing of Sandra Locke. Not even two great performances could've saved this movie. So it didn't matter that Devon Gummersall and Rosanna Arquette give horrific performances. The thing is, they're better actors than this movie would have you believe. The best of the Arquettes, Rosanna Arquette (Silverado, After Hours, Desperately Seeking Susan) has some fine moments - like a great scene in the beginning when she painfully pulls her handcuffs off - but gives an overall weak performance, by her standards. And Devon Gummersall (Dick, When Trumpets Fade, and the brilliant My So-Called Life) is much worse, acting with no conviction or emotion what-so-ever. But I won't lay blame on the actors, who have been good in other roles. The script is awful, and the bad direction doesn't help. Do me a favor...avoid this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Music and lyrics written and performed by Charlie Daniels\"... 'nuff said. Just don't be expecting anything along the lines of \"Devil Went Down To Georgia\", ol' Charles sorta talk-sings through one song early in about the Whiskey Mountain (duh) and that's it for lyrics. Hey though, fans of arty rape scenes will get a kick out of the Polaroid montage (my second-hand copy is classified as a FAMILY film) and who doesn't love interminable scenes of rednecks gawking at purty wimmen? The box art made the movie look a hell of a lot weirder than it was, with the promise that \"you can lose your life-- or your mind!\", but mostly it's two couples trekking through the sticks and \"acting\" natural. Love that hermit.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A less than redemptive hunka junk that is mercifully free from the ravages of competence. Some Northern idiots come to the deep South looking for some confederate rifles stashed on the legendary Whiskey Mountain. They are menaced by scary hillbillies, in a wide nod to 'Deliverance'; but it turns out that the hicks are fronting for a Northern marijuana-trafficking badass. This is brought to light so early that it doesn't even qualify as a twist. The women are locked up and raped into catatonia; rather than rescuing them, the guys run down to town to get the sheriff, who is lazy and doesn't believe them. I think if my girlfriend were being raped I'd kind of take the shortest route to the hideout anyway. It's OK though because as soon as they show up to tenderize the baddies the girls get all cheery and hop around, if only trauma were like this in real life. Also featuring a backwoods guy with a beard who cackles a lot. Not exactly bursting at the seams with ideas.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst movies ever made... If you can get through this movies without falling asleep, then you are doing pretty good, considering no matter how hard you turn up the volume you cant hear what the 'actors' (?) are saying and if you can acually see whats going on from the terrible film (I mean hell if you cant find anything that works better... use a Home movie camara... AT LEAST YOU CAN ACUALLY TELL WHATS GOING ON!)

It is beyond my imagination how people get a movie like this to slip through the cracks, and escape on video... and further more.. how do people making this not know how terrible it is... good god... (!)

After what I have just told you... If you are waiting for me to give you a summary of this piece of trash movie, there is nothing to tell... a group of campers on motorcycles get lost in the woods and a bunch of people terrorize them... or somthing to that... whats more so an action movie than a horror... this 'movie' (?) is of NO interest... if someone acually likes this I litterally feel for you....

Absolute Trash... not even one of those cheap funny flicks to watch go rent.. 'Plan 9 From Outerspace' and have a ball","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At Beaverview Cheerleading Camp, the goody-goody two shows Lucky Ducks cheerleading team must get in cahoots with the 'tough' bad girl cheerleading team of The Demons to beat the dastardly Falcon team who always seems to win at this camp I guess. This being a typical clich\u00e9d '80's teen (lame) sex comedy who do you think will win? But what the film lacks in originality it more than makes up for it sheer bloody awfulness. Oh and insanely bad dance numbers and the obligatory Japenese businessmen who want to buy the camp (on the condition that male cheerleader, Tommy Hamilton, stays with the camp of course). Simply awful, forgettable, and sadly has a surprising lack of nudity.

Where I saw it: HBO Comedy

My Grade: F (yup I did indeed give it to them)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is too stupid for words. Even if you consider it to be a parody on movie-making, if you consider it to be completely camp, even than you're wasting your time watching it - for you've seen it a hundred times before. But maybe you are a big fan of high shrieking girl voices, you're still loving Barbie and Ken and you can stand this typical '80s electric guitar background noise... Well, than you'll have a chance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Flashdance\" meets \"Meatballs III\" or maybe it should just be called \"Meatballs IV\". This is my friend Wesley's all-time favorite movie, largely because he still has a thing about J.V. cheerleaders. As someone once said: \"This is fine-more than fine-but as you get older you need to branch out. Whether you want to or not, society demands it\".

\"Gimme An F\" has cinema's greatest J.V. cheerleader Mary Ann (played by Beth Miller), who looks like a sweet-faced Alicia Silverstone from before her \"Clueless\" days. Wesley hates Miller's other film, the horrific \"Teen Wolf Too\" made three years later, where she plays a fickle southern belle much like Martha Smith's character in \"Animal House\". Personally I admire Miller's range as the two characters could not be more different and she is convincing as both.

Anyway, Mary Ann is a na\u00efve novice cheerleader from Moline (a member of \"The Lucky Ducks\" squad) who comes to Camp Beaverview for cheerleading instruction. She's befriended by Jenna (Karen Lee Kelly), the leader of the tough girl squad-appropriately named \"The Demons\". Jenna becomes protective of Mary Ann after her main rival takes an instant dislike to Mary Ann.

Later Mary Ann gets a crush on Tommy Hamilton, the head instructor. Tommy is spending his summer wrestling with the dilemma of having to grow up and move on, which is a problem as his only skills are teaching cheerleading and performing elaborate dance routines in the shower, for the enjoyment of viewers who get off on that sort of thing. Phoebe (Daphne Ashbrook) is Tommy's long-suffering girlfriend, she has a well-adjusted attitude and an experienced perspective. She even tolerates Tommy's flirtation with Mary Ann-trusting that Tommy will not actually take advantage of young Mary Ann.

While these four characters are solid and their relationships have a nice charm, the supporting cast is almost as weak as the material they have to work with. Which is a shame because had they brought some actual comic relief to the production it would have been a decent film. Jennifer Cooke plays Pam, a social climbing and terminally peppy instructor who is carrying on with camp's money-hungry owner Bucky. And there is another couple with a thing for the characters from \"Mad Max\". Since nothing is very funny you are left with only a cute semi-romance and some great dance routines.

An attempt is made to create some suspense by slowly leading up a final competition but unless this is your first movie experience the outcome is never in doubt. And there is a back-story about some Japanese businessmen Bucky wants to get money from, but it goes nowhere dramatically or comically.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I only wish there was a grade lower than F to give it! i scored it a 1 in the vote tally.I am grading this not even as a regular film,but as a T&A film,and this is the worst,lamest,crappiest and most awful movie i've seen.the acting,story and music are all terrible,not to mention there isn't even any nudity for the T&A connisuer.it's about a male cheerleader and the viewer is made to sit through many painful scenes of him doing cheers.avoid this piece of trash at all cost! this is the worst of bad 80's teen cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is on my TV right now... but only long enough for me to finish panning it in this comment. The previous comment let me know that this movie will not get any better, no matter how much I hope and pray. I will concur this movie is a colossal waste of my time, and would be of your time...it is not going to get any better! I can't believe this screenwriter is doing Atlas Shrugged! I hope he has improved a million-fold! I see some other credits on his resume that have had good reviews, but I'm still not convinced. If you are familiar with his work, please post something here, because I really want to see Atlas Shrugged, and would hate it if this guy turned it into the garbage that this movie turned out to be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Steven Seagal is back! Here with his third film released this year. Of course as a one time fan who has become increasingly disgruntled I can say it comes as no surprise that this is pretty lame. Firstly the film made headlines because of apparent problems in production due to Seagal. He would turn up late on set, change the script, crew etc and generally cause problems for the director, Don E Faun Leroy (his lack of talent his trouble enough!). This also happens in their second collaboration the upcoming Mercenary which promises to be just as bad as this garbage. This also marks a big turning point in Seagal's career because this film is the first of his to really dig out the stock footage. There was a little in Ticker but this film takes the biscuit. They borrow bits from, The Order (A Van Damme movie, Seagals biggest rival in DTV movies!) No Code Of Conduct, Undisputed, and also an entire action sequence from the little known Peter Weller starring vehicle Top Of The World. Interestingly the car chase stolen from Weller's epic, made almost 10 years ago and ironically probably cheaper than this garbage, is actually by far the best action scene of the film. I was shocked enough when Dolph Lundgren had a brief stint in the stock action video world, which thankfully he has escaped from. Seagal though is the leader of the DTV action market currently, with Van Damme and Snipes his main rivals. Seagal still manages to sell movies and for the life of me I don't know how. Surely the fans must be getting bored of this awfulness, longing for a return to the likes of Above The Law. The story here is totally lame. In fact the film has so many plot holes it doesn't bare thinking about. For example at the end of a film there's a little girl that Seagal apparently knows at an orphanage who he gives a necklace to. Why I don't know but we never see her at all in the rest of the movie, or hear her mentioned. Seagal has a girlfriend in this movie who at the beginning of the film is with a psychic and she becomes haunted by visions, which by the end of the film are never explained and mean nothing. The film is so ridiculously glued together by a series of meaningless pap that it becomes headache inducing.. This is by far Seagal's dumbest movie! Seagal himself is as wooden as ever, however to his credit he doesn't get dubbed in this one as far as I could tell. Seagal does however feel the need to talk like he is a gangsta rapper, making me long for the days he would don his Brooklyn\/Italian-American accent, in his classic early films. He also has a painfully unfunny double act with Treach, who I assume is a rapper. It is funny how producers seem to think that the combo of Seagal, plus hip-hop star seems to work, because his team up with DMX in Exit Wounds was his most successful film since Under Siege. Clearly though if no one has heard of the rapper, it won't work. This is an action film though and so the action itself must be judged. Unfortunately the action that didn't come form the NU Image back catalogue is strictly routine. There are a few small fight scenes with some classic Seagal aikido but when 90% is performed by his stunt double, who really does have a rigorous work out in this film, it really doesn't impress much. There are also some standard gun fights which really only have some nice violent and bloody squibbage going for them. All in all this is a painfully boring experience and once again I'm left giving the same verdict: Seagal has lost it! I keep asking the years old question now, \"why do people still watch his movies?\" That is all very well and good as a question but the sad bastard that I am continues to watch his films in the deluded hope he may do something good once again. Chances are slim, unlike Seagal's ever expanding waistline. *1\/2","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's been 3 months and you know what that means...A new Seagal movie. Seagal has really been on role making horrible film after horrible film. Each time every movie getting worse and worse, he's really amazing! I don't really know what to say about TYD, first it's a piece of crap, the story makes no sense at all, secondly he uses stunt men in all his fight scenes, and last but not least a lot of the footage is taken from other movies! It amazes how this guy continues to find work, he comes to the set late and leaves early and because of that his films are full of plot holes and stunt men. Why do we continue to buy his movies, why do we continue to have hope that maybe just maybe he will make a great movie?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"STAR RATING: ***** Jodie Marsh **** Michelle Marsh *** Kym Marsh ** Rodney Marsh * Hackney Marsh

Harlan Banks (Steven Seagal- not quite as bad an actor as Kevin Costner but.......aaaaahhhh, you get it) is a modern day Robin Hood (listen close, you can hear Brian Adams music playing in the background...no, not really), the kind of guy who steals ill-gotten blood money from drug dealers and uses it to keep run-down orphanages open. But now he's been approached to drive a getaway van in a heist from Las Vegas in one of those last things before retirement type jobs. But, of course, it all goes wrong and he winds up the patsy for the big guys at the top and in jail. Here he meets a guy named (although you wouldn't know it from paying attention to the movie) Ice Cool (Treach), who he forms a friendship with and ends up breaking out of jail with. Once free, he's out to prove his innocence, locate the missing money and, naturally, get even with those who framed him!

Of all Seagal's recent straight to video films, Today You Die has that look about it most of all that it belongs in a cinema, even with a rap star as his co-star like his previous cinema films Half Past Dead and Exit Wounds. Yes, it seems when he's not making films about looking after the environment he's pretending to be black and co-starring with rappers. But TYD is not a cinema film and that's a luxury The Great One is never going to be enjoying again until Under Siege 3 materializes (if ever!)

The film opens with a slick, polished look that commands attention but it all quickly goes down hill from there. Once Seagal hits prison, the plot quickly loses it's coherence. Indeed Treach's character just seems to pop up out of nowhere without any introduction as his sidekick and from there you quickly lose interest in it.

That's it. I know I've said it before but I think I mean it this time. I don't think I'm going to be giving any more of these straight to video Seagal films any time. I honestly have no enthusiasm to watching Shadow Man at all. In fact, I can honestly say that I've not really enjoyed ANY of his STV films up to this point, and Today You Die is certainly no exception, an apathetic, boring effort all round best avoided by all. *","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Poor action films are the graveyards for aging martial art stars. In such films they struggle to maintain that dangerous demeanor that made their early work successful, but they all end in failure. Seagal is too old for this type of role but he wont let go...no matter how silly he looks. Some hope his current work will somehow bring back the magic, but there is no magic left. The late '80s and early '90s belonged to Steven Seagal and his work made me a fan. I could see him fit nicely in a slot on The Sopranos where his overweight body, jowly features and sullen attitude could have found a home. I wonder what the return is on his run of direct to video films?! Since he produces them I'm assuming the $$$ is more than satisfactory. If this is the deal we will be subjected to poorly done Seagal action films well into his late 60s and 70s.....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Harlan Banks is thief at the top of his game, but, after a successful career, he has decided to settle down with his woman and retire. However, he decides to take one last routine job in Las Vegas. All he has to do is drive the car and it seems simple. Unfortunately someone tips the police and after a hectic car chase he winds up in the slam only to escape and take revenge on those who betrayed and got him there in the first place. A typical action-fest ensues.

Steven Seagal plays himself (surprise!) wearing a trench-coat and sporting his beloved Colt 1911 along with his usual bone-breaking aikido. The Colt and aikido have always been with him, but the first I recall him with the trench-coat is in 'The Foreigner.' It isn't particularly impressive, but it does add a little notch to Seagal's lethal arsenal of badassness. Or it covers up those extra pounds he is packing. Look at it however way you choose. His main buddy throughout the film is played by Treach (another new thing, a rapper in an action movie) and they both uncover a little conspiracy of bad-guys, on both sides of the law, and give each evil-doer his due.

The film's main problem is that is it painfully, and I truly mean painfully, unoriginal. Seagal just follows a clockwork plot throughout the movie and even that manages to get more and more dull as the film progresses. Then it goes from dull to utterly ridiculous in the final scene as people who seemed to be dead on killing each other suddenly, for no reason, start to talk. Groan inducing in every sense of the word. The only real positive thing here is the decent opening - a car chase in Las Vegas complete with flipping police cars and generally entertaining mayhem, but after that brief highlight you've seen it all before. 3\/10

Rated R: constant violence and profanity","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ho Hum. Just another flick with Steven Seagal pretending to be some spiritual being, but bashing heads and killing like it was nothing. He, of course, justifies it in the end by donating the money to an orphanage., How sweet. Lay the world to waste and we'll ignore it if you take care of a little girl. Jeesh! This time, he is partnered with Ice Cool (Anthony 'Treach' Criss). Gotta have someone to lay all those cringe-inducing lines on, man, and there are plenty. The dialog is pure crap.

They go after bad guys Nick Mancuso and Kevin Tighe, two people that were born to play the scumbags.

He's squeezing Mari Morrow and impressing soap star Sarah Buxton. How cute.

I guess if you gotta have some July Force excitement, this may suffice. If nothing else it will help you get your degree in Seagalology.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I ran across this movie on a local TV channel last night. Frankly, I have never heard about this movie before. Simply, I lost track of Seagual's recent movies, for each one is worst than the previous one. Here, again we have a dull Seagal as if he was insisted by his girlfriend to make this movie and he accepted forcefully. The plot is ridiculous, acting is below zero, and there is no single aspect the movie is not falling apart. I simply don't have any idea why Seagal did this movie. Man, it is even worst than \"Out for a kill\"! If you watch this movie you will start feeling sorry for Seagal. He seems to be running out of ideas, enthusiasm and money. Avoid this movie and do something worthwhile.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually spend almost as much time writing my reviews as I do watching the film, but with Today You Die, I feel that doing so would be a criminal waste of my time.

So here is a five minute rant about how bad this film is.

There was a time in the mid-80s when a single look from Steven Seagal was enough to crack your ribs; a full on scowl could knock you off your feet. If he actually got a hold of you, he would snap you like a twig.

These days, although he is still capable of doing considerable damage, he no longer looks the part. He's gone to seed and just doesn't know when to call it quits. He walks like he's dumped in his pants yet somehow still manages to look constipated, and he has put on weight. His trademark long ponytail has gone, but his hair still looks stupid. How this man keeps on working in the movie industry is beyond me.

Today you Die is the usual Seagal mix of bone crunching fights, car crashes, gun battles and pyrotechnics. Seagal mumbles his way through the dull script, delivering his lines with zero enthusiasm or believability. In this third-rate action flick, he plays Harlan Banks a thief trying to go straight, who is conned into partaking in a $20,000,000 robbery. He gets caught, goes to jail, escapes, and seeks revenge. Yawn.

There are some pretty good car chases and gun fights which intersperse the boring stuff (of which there is a lot), but reading other comments on IMDb has revealed that these were actually borrowed from other better movies. Seagal is also body-doubled an awful lot in this one.

Seagal turns in one of the most dreadful performances of his career\u0097and that's saying something, considering the lousy 'acting' in some of his recent efforts. Most hilarious is his totally embarrassing attempt at Ebonics (African American street slang). 'I da man, fo' sho'\u0097no, actually Steven, you sound like an arse! With a ridiculous script and plot lines that go nowhere, this film is a waste of time, money and effort. And the final moment, where Harlan Banks saves a Children's home from closure is enough to make you blow chunks.

Damn, I just looked at the clock. I was enjoying trashing this steaming pile of dreck so much, I went way over my five minutes. It's time to post this comment and get to watching something decent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ah yet another Seagal movie.In no less than a few mere months arrive to populate the video store shelves.As bad as Submerged?No.But that is not saying much.Like perfume on a pig.

Seagal is professional thief who wants to quit,but goes for one last job only to be double-crossed by his boss.He lands in Prison and is befriended by a Gangster who helps him to break out and seek payback.

Its good to see Seagal finally not playing an agent,cop,or what he usually plays.We actually get a USA Location in Las Vegas it seems. Then an eastern European territory as usual. There is no wire-Fu either here.Don Fauntleroy does an okay job.

However most of the action and fight scenes with Stevie are clearly doubles.Scenes from other movies,a lack of realism and logic in even tiniest situation.Seagal and Treech make a so-so team inspiring(unintentional) laughs one minute.Sighs the rest.

Several notable faces turn up to slum it.. sleepy Kevin Tighe is a long way from his emergency days.Nick Mancuso shows up in sleepwalking mode to take a check.No more rappers.Please?

At this point the action scenes and plots are more predictable and recycled generically more than ever.Its a stale scene that Seagal needs to get out of or hang it up.He should have gotten out a while ago.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is only the second time i have been moved enough to write a review. unfortunately, both times they have been for movies that can be described with several 4 lettered words that can be defined as faeces or excrement. the other movie of such calibre was masked and anonymous.

anywa, onto the review.. there are several key things wrong with this movie which i will describe below.

1) steven has lost the plot (i.e. in all his other movies, family \/ friend gets killed. steven gets angry. steven kills people. the end).

2) steven has run out of money (there was a good car chase scene at the start, but i think he blew his budget on that and couldn't afford a decent script writer or editor).

3) steven no longer appears to do his own action. instead, the (from memory) 2 fight scenes were shot neck down and from the back, so you couldn't actually see his face. most likely a stunt double. i'm guessing chuck norris.

in summary.. worst seagal movie ever. second worst movie i have seen in recent history, and i've seen a lot of bad movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Steven Seagal is a thief who specializes in robbing wealther drug dealers, giving to the poor and unfortunate..heh, Harlan, the Robin Hood. Anyway, Harlan wants to go straight for his girl, Jada(Mari Morrow), so he takes on a job as the driver of an armoured car for a Max Stevens(Kevin Tighe, wasted in an underwritten role). Max intends to have the millions for himself and his unscrupulous associates, with the intent of using his loader, Bruno(Robert Miano)to bring him the money, but Harlan has other plans. Escaping the police, hiding the money, and ditching Bruno(who had a loaded gun pointed at Harlan's head threatening to shoot him if he didn't drive)after evading capture by ramming a huge dump truck, Harlan passes out. Charged with the murder of police among other things as a result of the damage caused by the high-speed chase, Harlan is imprisoned and many wish to know where the money is. Harlan joins forces with an inmate, Ice(Treach), a leader of one of the many gangs in the prison, breaking out with the plans of finding Max and eliminating every member of his corrupt entourage. Soon DEA agent Rachel Knowles(Sarah Buxton) becomes part of this scenario thanks to her boss, Saunders(Nick Mancuso)who claims there's drugs involved. Also injected into the plot is Harlan's desire to save a children's hospital about to close and Jada has mysterious dreams regarding Max.

Seagal and Treach cut up with each other speaking in gangsta, while Buxton spends time trying to help Harlan, uncovering the possibility her boss is in cahoots with Max. Mancuso's character is an odd duck, allowing Rachel much leeway despite the threat she is to his career. Tighe shows up for five or so minutes tops, which is a shame. Seagal's Harlan escapes prison and finds each and every rich associate of Max's, inevitably discovering his whereabouts after cracking a few skulls, snapping some wrists, and breaking some bones. Treach speaks in his rapper speech and Seagal tries to answer him in kind, providing some unintentional laughs. As you'd expect, a lot of people get shot and Seagal doesn't break a sweat. It's interesting seeing Seagal in prison, among the convicts, helping Treach out when a group of \"Eses\" plan to take him out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Today You Die starts as honourable criminal Harlan banks (producer Steven Seagal) is hired by sinister businessman Max Stevens (Kevin Tighe) to drive a security vehicle with $20,000,000 of cash in the back from point 'A' a Las Vegas casino to point 'B' him, sounds simple right? Well what Max forgot to tell Harlan that the money is stolen & that he has just become the getaway driver in an armed robbery. Bummer. Things get even worse for Harlan when the local cops catch him & chuck him in prison for a long time, however Harlan managed to hide the money before he was caught & with a nice $20,000,000 at stake & unaccounted for Harlan has to watch his back as the crooks want it as do Government agents. Harlan teams up with Ice Kool (!)(Anthony 'Teach' Criss) in prison & they both manage to escape at which point Harlan goes looking for some revenge...

Photographed & directed by Don E. FauntLeRoy one has to say that the shot in Eastern Europe straight-to-video action films that Steven Seagal specialises in these days aren't getting any better & Today You Die is a good case in point. This is a terrible film, simple as that really. The script by producer Danny Lerner, Kevin Moore & Les Weldon gives Seagal a new sort of character to get his none existent acting skills around, that of a criminal rather than some Government agent\/cop\/soldier\/one man army clich\u00e9 he usually plays. In fact if you were being charitable you could say Today You Die is a rip-off of Mel Gibson's excellent thriller Payback (1998) where he too played a really nasty piece of work to such good effect. While Payback was a superb uncompromising hard edged film noir type action thriller Today You Die isn't & pales into insignificance by comparison. Unfortunately here Seagal is terrible, he has no on screen presence or menace either & the audience is never quite sure whether he is meant to be a bad guy that we hate or not. For instance initially his character's is set up like a modern day Robin Hood as he steals from the rich drug dealers & scumbags to give to the poor (as well as keeping a tidy profit for himself) which is just ludicrous in itself but then it has Seagal turn around & murder a lot of people which contradicts the likable criminal with morals that the film went to such lengths to set up in the first place. The story is full of holes, for instance Agent Knowles is contacted by the on the run Harlan & is then reprimanded by her bent superior for meeting him & it turns out that he found out by tapped her phone. In that case why didn't her boss use the information he had to catch Harlan? The story is the usual dull predictable bland fight over lots of money with surprise surprise the investigating Government agent is actually a bad guy! Wow, I didn't see that coming I must say...

Director FauntLeRoy slows everything down to a snails pace & Today You Die feels like it goes on forever, the action scenes & set-pieces are also severely lacking in entertainment value. The infrequent fight scenes aren't great, most are either shot in shadow, very quickly cut & edited or with the camera played behind Seagal's character to try & disguise the fact that most of the stunt work done here is by a double. Again Seagal looks fat & out of shape & uses long baggy overcoats to try & hide it, it doesn't. There's a pretty cool car chase through the streets of Las Vegas in this at the start & I thought that Today You Die might be alright but it seems the whole sequence was stolen from another action film called Top of the World (1997) which is about a Las Vegas casino robbery, as well as using footage from that film Today You Die also edits scenes from the Charlie Sheen action film No Code of Conduct (1998), the Jean-Claude Van Damme action film The Order (2001) & the Wesley Snipes prison based action film Undisputed (2002) so quite how much of Today You Die is original footage is anyone's guess.

Technically the film is alright, considering it's edited together from four separate films as well as it's own footage it's just about competent & consistent enough. All the footage of the US locations are obviously lifted from the films already mentioned with all the original footage shot on the cheap in Bulgaria. The rap style music that litter Today You Die is awful by the way. The acting is poor & Seagal just mumbles his way through his lines as usual.

Today You Die is a really bad film made up from other bad action films, Seagal looks old & fat, the action scenes are average at best & most of the story is fairly random & it doesn't come together at the end that well at all. One to avoid unless your a die hard Seagal fan, if such an animal even exists...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have just seen Today You Die. It is bad, almost very bad.

1) The direction and editing are awful, just awful. Almost made me turn off the movie, Fauntleroy (the director) has no idea what he is doing, he seems to be filming things at random and some scenes don't make sense at all. Also, I hate it when the same scene is used again in the same movie, in this movie some scenes were used 3 or 4 times. Pretty bad.

2) The dialogue is sometimes good, sometimes awful. I like the fact that they wanted to make Seagal's character and Treach's character seem like they were in a similar relationship to the characters in Lethal Weapon, but it did not work simply because some of the dialogue DID NOT MAKE SENSE, and I speak English very well, it's not that I did not understand the words, it was the fact that the jokes and dialogue lines had no meaning whatsoever.

3) The script is pretty bad. Why do they always try to complicate DTV action movies? Seagal's wife in the movie has psychic abilities, why? Is it useful to the movie? NO. Seagal eliminates a whole bunch of people who work for the guy who betrayed him and he knows these people without having ever met them in the movie. STUPID. The story sometimes goes off track and the jumps back without any reason. The story is messy and pointless sometimes. They should have kept it simple and it would have worked.

4) In some of the action scenes it is not Seagal, it is his stunt double. You can tell because they only film him from behind and never show his face. He also beats the guys with movie martial arts, not real ones like the aikido Steven knows. The stunt double uses cheesy kicks and punches.

5) Steven is good in the movie. 90-95% of the lines are said with his real voice. The rest is dubbing but it is not that bad. This was good. Also Steven seems to be enjoying himself in the movie and is more into the action that he was in Submerged. He likes Treach as a partner; at least he does not seem to dislike him. Also, he seems to have been in better shape than in some of his recent movies. I hate the fact that he wears clothes to hide his body, but in the same clothes that he wears on the DVD cover he looks more than OK and he should have wore those clothes for most of the movie not the stupid long leather coat.

I really think that Seagal was willing to make a good movie. The fact that he came late and took off early from the set ON TWO MOVIES directed by Fauntleroy does not look like a coincidence to me. I think he realized that the crew were amateurs or only in it for a quick buck and he did not give a damn anymore.

In the hands of a better company and crew this might have been a damn good action movie for Seagal. Something like Out for Justice or Above the Law. I honestly believe that. But the people who made the movie are not very good at their jobs or they did not have enough money to do the job properly. Too bad since I liked Steven in the movie and Treach was cool (Ice Cool ) too, but the rest was bad. Hey, at least this gives me hope for Black Dawn and Shadows of the past. I think that Mercenary might be just as badly handled. But hey, Steven seemed to be back into the same mood he was in while making his better movies and at least THAT is reason enough to watch the movie.

I liked it, but it could have been SO much better. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Today You Die was the 4th Seagal movie in a mini marathon I just held. Wow, I don't know where to start. He seems to mumble his lines more and more as time goes on, and the scenes between Seagal and Treach where they seem to improv are embarrassing. And what did his girlfriend's dreams have to do with anything else in the plot? I can't recommend this to anyone but the most die hard Seagal fan, and even then you are better off with his earlier work. Of the 4 films in my marathon (Submerged, Into the Sun, Foreigner and Today You Die) Today was the worst. A previous reviewer mentioned this but the usage of stock footage was quite obvious.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love his martial arts style, it is quick, close up and oh so fast, but it seems like his movies are becoming more and more crime based lifestyle quality and less meaning...I thought he was out to bring forth a deeper message. At least some of the movies had a hidden meaning or agenda this one had some good redeeming qualities of the character but the rest was so far off. I was very disappointed. The martial arts is also suffering. I am hoping to see a more devoted Segal in his future films. This movie also lacks in keeping the story line going, there are too many gaps so the thought is lost. Too many things are cryptic without a solution.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To start off, I love Steven Seagal, the man is a genius. But recent movies leave me to wonder, Is he trying anymore? His latest movies show almost no effort on Seagal's part. In Out of Reach, its too obvious that his lines are dubbed over. . What Seagal does in this movie is not only a slap on the face to his fans, but even more to Jean-Claude Van Damme and his fans. In the 2nd scene or so, when he prepares to zip-line into the drug dealers penthouse to steal the jewels and money, it shows him set-up the gun and hook it on a neon sign. Your might be saying to yourself, 'Yah, so what does this have to do with Van Damme?'. Well that scene was stolen from a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie called the Order. Rent both, watch both, compare both and you will lose respect for Seagal. Not only was Today You Die garbage, but it was, dare I say, an insult. Seagal's Aikido moves are still good, but why isn't he doing great movies like Marked for Death or Above the law, hes still got the moves and the attitude, I'm just left wondering 'Why Seagal, Why?'. There are such idiotic scenes in his newer movies that have nothing to do with the storyline, and such idiotic story lines on top of that. I hope the up-coming Black Dawn movie will be another Exit Wounds or Beyond Justice, because these last chain of movies he made, especially Today You Die, really made me wonder if he has the stuff to make more great action movies like Double Team. Please, don't watch this movie unless you hate Seagal, if you love his movies don't watch this, it WILL make you question his future in the action film genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"TDY is probably the single worst piece of trash to ever hit the straight to video selection. They take a scene from The Order starring Jean Claude Van Damme and this angers me because Van Damme is a personally favourite for B movie comedy. Segal has done some fine work in the past but he has dropped very low in my books and he will probably never pull out another undersiege or marked for death unless he sits down and has a very good brain storming session with himself.

It also annoys me how he didn't do many of his own stunts like he has done in previous films. In conclusion of all this if you are prepared to see a movie fit for a trash can or woodchipper, then rent today you die.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love watching steven seagal movies not because of the action of the great plot holes but just because it makes me laugh

oh it makes me laugh so hard this movie totally got no point and is ridiculous compared to this movie Pearl harbor rocks!!! and Ben affleck need no acting school at all just to give a impression how bad it is

first off all there so many goofs and bad acting its just getting worse like when steven is try to get out of jail a chopper lands at first the security notice and they led them land when they fly away all of the sudden a guard start shooting

or when he killed that guy in the car he and treach both walk away you can't see no oil on the ground behind him steven notice that there is oil without even watching treach trows a lighter and the car blows up

and there are plenty of more goofs Steven uses his basic action when someone is pointing a gun at him he grabs it and shoot him totally bullshit!!! like some gangster would let that ever happen.

the acting is also very worse at the fight scene in the jail outdoor place you can see steven clearly wait to come in action just rewind it a couple of time and you notice the bad acting

its just makes me laugh i hope one day it comes to the cinema's here in Holland then i'll go there with as many friends as possible just to laugh my self to death","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ah yet another Seagal movie.In no less than a few mere months arrive to populate the video store shelves.As bad as Submerged?No.But that is not saying much.Like perfume on a pig.

Seagal is professional thief who wants to quit,but goes for one last job only to be double-crossed by his boss.He lands in Prison and is befriended by a Gangster who helps him to break out and seek payback.

Its good to see Seagal finally not playing an agent,cop,or what he usually plays.We actually get a USA Location in Las Vegas it seems. Then an eastern European territory as usual. There is no wire-Fu either here.Don Fauntleroy does an okay job.

However most of the action and fight scenes with Stevie are clearly doubles.Scenes from other movies,a lack of realism and logic in even tiniest situation.Seagal and Treech make a so-so team inspiring(unintentional) laughs one minute.Sighs the rest.

Several notable faces turn up to slum it.. sleepy Kevin Tighe is a long way from his emergency days.Nick Mancuso shows up in sleepwalking mode to take a check.No more rappers.Please? At this point the action scenes and plots are more predictable and recycled generically more than ever.Its a stale scene that Seagal needs to get out of or hang it up.He should have gotten out a while ago.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stephen Seagal plays the role of a dude who gets talked into driving an armored car for a bank hold up and drives into everything that comes across his path. However, the police seem to appear on the scene very quickly and Seagal smells a rat who gave the police advanced notice. The story gets into many twists and turns and the money from the hold up has disappeared and nobody knows its new owner. Poor Seagal gets a bit framed into this hold up and naturally he is out looking for the person or persons who are trying to put him away for a long time. In this film, Seagal tries to be a good guy but the forces of evil are against him. Unfortunately, this is not a great film and rather boring and too long.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Really? Is this necessary? How can somebody make such a film? Disgusting!!! Seteven Seagal with funny hair and fat like an elephant. Stunts all the time, cars persecutions with an annoying soundtrack. Not to mention the Ending. Completely nonsense with the presence of the little girl.

Steven Seagal wants to be Robin Hood!!! Well, at the beginning a fortune teller answers something, nobody has asked. Seagal's wife has nightmares and she can see the future. They must be kidding. Steven Segal passes out after a car persecution, and I know he can't act. It was terrible. Nothing can save that film.

I lost 90 minutes of my life! See you","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film quickly gets to a major chase scene with ever increasing destruction. The first really bad thing is the guy hijacking Steven Seagal would have been beaten to pulp by Seagal's driving, but that probably would have ended the whole premise for the movie.

It seems like they decided to make all kinds of changes in the movie plot, so just plan to enjoy the action, and do not expect a coherent plot. Turn any sense of logic you may have, it will reduce your chance of getting a headache.

I does give me some hope that Steven Seagal is trying to move back towards the type of characters he portrayed in his more popular movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a crap that movie is. The script is simply non existent. The movie at times seems like a music video. But it cannot even be that since the soundtrack does not really match. Pathetic way of combining action and rap. One might think it being a recipe for a successful flick... here it fails miserably. Dialogues in this flick just killed me. The scene when Harlan is interrogated by some policeman is merely pitiful. Generally speaking, recent Seagals films are hardly watchable. What the hell happened to the guy? I know he's old but can't he get \"Hollywood\" to drop him a decent script or something? Is he running out of dough for his escapades to India that he takes on anything they serve him?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly, this is a very funny movie if you are looking for bad acting (Heather Graham could never live this down... it has three titles for a reason- to protect the guilty!), beautifully bad dialog (\"Do you like... ribs?\"), and a plot only a mother could approve, this is your Friday night entertainment!

My roommate rented this under the title \"Terrified\" because he liked Heather Graham, but terrified is what we felt after the final credits. Not because the movie is scary, but because somebody actually paid money to make this turd on a movie reel.

Horrible movie. There are a few no-name actors that provide some unintentional comedy, but nothing worth viewing. Heather Graham's dramatic climax also was one of the most pathetic and disturbing things I have ever witnessed. I award this movie no point, and may God have mercy on its soul.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got hold of this film on DVD with the title Evil Never Sleeps, it gives front cover billing to Carrie Ann Moss, but she plays such a minor character that I didn't really notice her in the film.

I'm afraid that I consider this one of the worst purchases I have ever made. The dialogue was stilted and the delivery wooden, I found the acting to be disconnected from the plot. Graham's performance to me was of someone who's wondering whether she's left the gas on at home.

All in all both my wife and I found this film painful to watch, and it is not a valuable addition to my collection, watch it at your peril, but spending 90 minutes having your fingernails pulled out would probably be a better way to spend your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking through TV Guide last night and saw a movie starring Heather Grahm on, who I liked in movies like Boogie Nights, and Austin Powers, so I decided to watch it. It started out ok, but you could tell the story was lacking, and at about half way through, it started to deteriorate. I do not remember this movie being in the theaters, and I'm sure if it was, it wasn't there long. The acting was stale and unconvincing, the dialogue was silly and predictable, and the story was confusing and stupid. Definately one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and I like movies like the ones this has been compared to like Fight Club, but this one doesn't come close!! Heather Grahm has done much better things since. I gave it a 2 out of 10 but thats because I clicked on the wrong number, I meant to give it a 1.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has it's heart in the right place, but unfortunately, it isn't much of a film. It is more of a documentary under the guise of a narrative. Bamako is basically a newspaper op-ed piece put on celluloid. However, your average well-researched op-ed piece is far more cogent and concise than anything presented here. The filmmaker is trying to relay to the viewer the hardships of African life, in particular the country of Mali, due to the unethical practices of the IMF, G8, and World Bank, by using the setting of a mock trial against the aforementioned. There is an extra 10 minutes dispersed throughout the film that makes a half-hearted attempt at a narrative plot, and a bizarre Hollywood Western-style shootout scene, where the director seems quite pleased with his own cleverness (hence, the frequent Godard comparisons).

Of course, as the film begins, what and who is on trial is never explained, but as we know by now, the French refuse to spoon-feed their audience.

There are many impassioned arguments made, but they are often long-winded, delivered in a shrill monotone (one that becomes quite easy to tune out after awhile), and very light on specifics. The last point is the most frustrating of all since there is a very well-reasoned specific case to be made against the institutions on trial here. Unfortunately, all we get in 2 hours is that the IMF and G8 are evil oppressors and should forgive 3rd-World debt. We are given no more than the occasional hint to the specific reasons why the organizations on trial are guilty, but never a clear case. The mock-trial arguments and the footage of the surrounding village makes the suffering of these African residents clear, but one wonders why we must sit through 2 hours of it, when a far more precise picture could be painted in a 20-minute Newsweek article, or Bill Moyers episode. In the end, there is something very important to be said on this issue, it simply isn't presented very well, or very clearly, in this pretentious, indulgent piece.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Abderrahmane Sissako may have known what he was doing when he made \"Bamako,\" but the rest of us can just sit back in mystification and confusion trying to figure out what that purpose might have been.

The nominal \"plot\" involves a young African singer who's planning on leaving her unemployed husband to find work in the city. But far more of the screen time is taken up with what the publicists for the film describe as \"a mock trial against key financial institutions\" dealing \"with the overwhelming economic hardships of Africa.\" That's all well and good, I suppose, but when the arguments and ideas are put forth in as undramatic and pedantic a way as they are here, they lose both force and impact. Put another way, if the director had found the means to actually incorporate issues such as the injurious effect of colonialism on the African people and the problem of African debt into anything even remotely resembling a compelling storyline, the film might have achieved the intellectual and emotional resonance it now so clearly lacks.

The topics the movie is dealing with may be relevant and important, but trying to pass off what amounts to two hours worth of speechifying as an actual, honest-to-God movie is not likely to garner much of an audience for one's message.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Endless repetition about the evil World Bank, IMF, Globalization, and the Americans are blamed for all of Africa's problems\u0097and the movie is long, about two hours, but it seems longer. The French actually occupied Mali, the country in which the movie takes place, for centuries, but are only peripheral bad guys.

One doesn't learn enough about any of the characters to really care what's happening to them\u0097they are completely marginal to the preaching, which goes on and on and on. There's no plot, no character development, no humor (except for a few pokes at Bush and Wolfowitz, but that's almost cheating it's so easy) and the production values are mediocre\u0097no redemption there.

It is amazing that a movie can spend two hours preaching about such a big topic and convey utterly zero real information. The Irish ballad \"I was dying, and then the famine came\" has more content.

The movie is boring, the sub-titles are tough to read, there is no real content about the subject of the film, and the propaganda is relentless.

Skip this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this film won the Lumiere Award for Best French-Language Film, then what kind of garbage is coming out of France these days??

The subject matter is an important one -- how the African economies are kept as economic hostages by the international organizations that are supposed to be helping them, namely the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. About 40% of the governmental budgets of several African nations go to payment of Western debt, while their people suffer from disease, dehydration and illiteracy.

... but the subject matter was treated in the most dry manner that could be conceived by man -- dryer than the Sahara that surrounds the country of Mali in which this film takes place. More monotone and action-lacking than any documentary I've ever seen (and I'm a fan of the genre), one \"witness\" after another comes forward in this \"trial\" that is \"captured\" on film that condemns the World Bank & IMF. Some critics may site the colorful visual asides within the film, but they were out of place and had no complementary soundtrack when they were on the screen. They belonged better in a coffee table book than in this film.

Even the characters in the film say something like \"This trial is boring\" and \"When will it be over?\" Everyone in the theater laughed. Were those people on the screen reading our minds??

Danny Glover had a brief appearance in this film. It is a televised movie within \"Bamako\" and it was set within Morocco or Mali. It was also more ridiculous than any spaghetti-Western I've ever tried to avoid. The only redeeming part of these five wasted minutes was where a Caucasian bad guy accidentally shoots an African woman carrying a baby and shows no remorse whatsoever. Perhaps it was to symbolize the insensitivity of the World Bank and how it is unintentionally killing Africans.

And one last technical parting shot, the subtitles were difficult to read with so much light colors on the screen and not enough black outline to the subtitles themselves.

I've already summarized the movie for you. Don't be fooled by the hype. No need to see this film. You'll never get these two hours back in your life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Flockhart's performance is very disappointing. It seems she is trying to make up for her lack of emotion by substituting obscenities. Why the R rating includes 'sexuality' is beyond me. There is no nudity or steamy love scenes. The plot is old and tired.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another movie from Swedish hillbilly country, which is always the Northern part. If black people were shown this way, there would be shouts about racism and for good reasons.

This is a farce and you are supposed to laugh at the \"clever\" farce clich\u00e9s. But it's mostly tiresome. A gangster comedy, with the bad Russians (as always) and the bad (and stupid) Finns. And most stupid of all is of course the Norwegian, according to Stockholm prejudice.

Andreas Wilson is the only one who tries to make a performance reminding us of reality. This is not funny. This is not even exciting. A burlesque too raw to make you interested in any way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although I rarely agree with filmkr\u00f6nikan, I have to say that this film while not awful, just didn't make me care at all... and it all just seemed to be out of place... it had its moments... three or four ones that made me snicker... but most of the time I was just sitting and wondering why? why did the characters do this? even Hot Shots characters felt more thought out and fleshed out...

If you want to see a nice norrlands-film then watch Pistvakt. There it was more than random ethnicities that just walked around shooting each other on the Swedish tundra...

I am so disappointed...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My only reason registering to this site was for the opportunity to write a comment to this movie. I felt that I had to get rid of some of my anger by writing it off me.

The movie \"Babas bilar\" must be just about the worst film I ever seen. I really do believe that the script may have seen to been able to become a pretty good movie or at least OK, but somewhere on the line something happened. What makes it even more odd is the fact that the cast appears to be quite alright on paper. Put to practice both script and the cast fails to deliver. There are to much action, it happens to much things and you can't help wonder why it happens. And then the cast, the actors make such a poor effort that you almost start to cry.

If you have to much time at hand I would say you can see it. If not - don't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hey, I know Angel isn't the kind of show that gives people a happy ending, and I know they couldn't just make everything perfect, but I couldn't believe the ending to Angel. I absolutely love the show, it's possibly the best show ever. However, I really hated this ending, as well as the whole way the 2nd half of Angel season 5 went (similar to Buffy season 7). My favorite characters deaths were pretty much pointless and did nothing for the plot. Cordelia was one of the best characters on the show, and once she and Angel were finally going to get together she turned all evil and into a demon. I wanted so badly to have her back, don't get me wrong the episode where Cordelia comes back is fantastic, but I was still really mad she was gone. Then on earth was up with Fred dying, right after she finally got with Wesley? There was no sacrifice, it was pointless, it did nothing whatsoever for the plot, and blue haired demon girl is an awful, useless character. They spent way too much of the end centered around her. Another big problem is they didn't connect the elements well enough. I know those dudes in that black thorn wanted to bring about the apocalypse, but there wasn't even a date set for when it was supposed to happen. The apocalypse should have been carried out and discovered throughout the entire season, rather than just mentioning there are some evil dudes an hour before the season ends. One of the biggest problems is every character who the audience cares about is either dead or has nothing to live for. My three favorite characters died, and Angel, Spike, and Gunn (who I'm not sure even survives) have no office, aren't even back to their helping the helpless, are in the middle of a huge battle, and have lost everyone they care about. Angel and Spike are never redeemed, they lose the girl they care about, and just about everyone's dead, and they still have to fight this weird evil army. I get the whole you never stop fighting, but it was stupid to end it right in the middle. Couldn't there have been some redemption, with knowledge that there would always be many more battles to come. I don't get why this episode is so highly rated, because I think the Buffy ending was 10 times better, and I wasn't even a giant fan of that one. Why did they have to slip at the end, season 3 and 4 and 1st half of five were so amazing, then they went and messed up the show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was a fan of Buffy and hoped it would come to a proper end when Angel got only one more season. But when the end came closer I was exited to see that. And what did we get? This episode called \"NOT FADE AWAY\" was the very last one.

I was so disappointed by this episode. This is absolutely the worst way to this series. Why couldn't it get a happy ending? Why did have a few of the main characters to die? Why did Angel not become a human and was reunited with Buffy again? No. Angel has to sign this bloddy piece of paper that he'll never become a human. How stupid.

And the end is a cliffhanger.

What could have been worse? The Buffyshow began so great, such as Angel, but the hole Universe ended so crappy. Somebody should put a spell on the man who wrote the screenplay to this episode and make sure he get's lost in hell.

So don't bother watching this, it's so bad, it hurts! Totally 1 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Any fan of Russian cinema will have great difficulty in believing the sub-par performances phoned-in by Mashkov and Bodrov Jr., and will perhaps be utterly perplexed by Bodrov Sr.'s hackneyed and confusing script, which is coupled with uncharacteristically weak direction. Most of the characters wander through the movie as though they have no idea who they are or what they are doing. It is also sad to see that Jennifer Jason Leigh's acting skills have not advanced one iota since FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, and her screen exposure is mercifully limited. This is a terrible mafia movie; so much so that it makes the GODFATHER III look like a winner in the genre. To see the key Russians at their best, check out Bodrov Sr.'s work on PRISONER OF THE MOUNTAINS (which also features Jr.), Mashkov's turn in VOR (THE THIEF), and Bodrov Jr.'s new criminal in BRAT.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie came very close to being a good flick. The direction needs to be a bit smoother to progress from one piece to the next to make it more plausible. In particular: The main character's need to escape is not explicit enough. Is he trying to kill himself? Is he trying to escape? His life does not seem to be that bad, so it makes it more difficult to swallow that he wants to leave his life so much. Also, it is not very clear how much \"in love\" he has fallen with Jennifer Jason L. If the movie was reworked with some more attention to these details, it would have been Great. On the other hand, for an indy flick, it's pretty good! Maybe if you have a couple of drinks, to dull the logical thinking, it would be more fun...

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wanted to see this movie because I liked \"Kavkazskij Plennik\" (\"Prisoner of the Mountains\") and \"Brat\" (\"Brother\") with Sergey Bodrov, Jr. and \"Vor\" (\"The Thief\") with Vladimir Mashkov. Well, unlike the other movies, \"The Quickie\" was a total waste of time. The story that makes little sense, very uneven acting (Lesley Ann Warren was especially bad), really awful dialogs, poor cinematography, what else could go wrong? I find it amusing that in practically every American-made movie, when the same-language-speaking foreigners (Russians in this case) are left alone, they prefer to communicate with each other mostly in broken English (and when they happen to speak Russian, for some reason translators feel obligated to add a lot of \"f**ks\" in the sentences, which have no profanity, literal or non-literal). At the same time, native-English-speaking actors choose to speak in broken Russian. Why is that? Getting back to the story, most of the subplots of the movie (e.g. betting the house, inviting Latin American paramilitaries, etc) either make no sense or do nothing more than confusing the viewers. It is too bad that Bodrov, Mashkov, and Leigh (all good actors in my humble opinion) got themselves involved in this disaster.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE QUICKIE (1 outta 5 stars)

Pretty poor movie... an old-as-the-hills story about a high-ranking gangster who wants to quit, passing on his empire to his inept son. Of course, it's not going to be easy for someone in that line or work to just quit... so a contract is put out on his life. After throwing a big party an exterminator (Jennifer Jason Leigh, who I guess is *never* going to act in anything other than TV movies or low budget direct-to-video trash ever again) is called to the scene. Our \"hero\" makes a pass at her... offering her big money for a \"quickie\"... she turns down his offer, even though she needs the money... but winds up staying overnight anyway... even after being brutally harassed by the overzealous son who thinks she was sent to kill his father. Ugh. The story just goes on and on... you can see every \"twist\" and \"turn\" coming a mile away. Weird soundtrack by some group called \"The Tiger Lillies\" will drive most people nuts... but I thought there was one kind of cool track towards the end. Or maybe I was just excited because I could tell that the movie was almost over? Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer... what the hell happened to you?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Quickie\" tells of a decadent Russian mob family who lives in Malibu and...well, frankly, this awful attempt at drama isn't worthy of commentary.

Jason Leigh introduces herself to Mr. Mob-guy as being from \"Pacific Exterminators\" with huge letters in plain sight on her back which say \"West Coast Exterminators\". Eventually the mob-guys get suspicious because she was exterminating in a bedroom. (duh).

In another scene Mr. Mobguy plays Russian roulette giving a hooker $4000 to bet whether he'll live or die. She has 5 chances out of 6 of keeping the money if she bets \"live\". Well, she bets \"die\". (double duh) Later she complains it wasn't fair and wants to play again. (Triple duh).

The list of flaws just goes on and on while this intelligence insulting film stinks and sinks in a quagmire of lousy music, mediocre camera work, poor direction, boring story, etc. Pass on this loser. (D)

Note - The barebones DVD which I rented had no English same language subtitles or closed captions.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This flick is so bad its beyond belief.Even for an independent low budget film...it just, well, sucks.I can't even believe even Troma would put out such crap.I have been a fan of some Troma flicks for years(Toxic Avenger,Squeeze Play,Rockabilly Vampire to name a few).But LLoyd, come on,this goes way beyond the boundaries of any taste.It features some of the worst acting imaginable.I think it would have been possible to find unemployed street people who could have been as good...oh,wait, that is what they did.I mean it,these characters have negative charisma.With any luck, the producer and director of this film will have a huge karmic debt because of this atrocity.As will the special effects people.But beyond the terrible acting and the horrid special effects,the dialogue is absolutely traumatic to the ears.The script is full of plot holes the size of Alaska, and there are severe continuity problems.The worst part however, is that it not entertaining in even the smallest way.And this is the most unforgivable sin in film making.But, don't take my word for it.Go out and waste four bucks renting it.Just don't say I didn't warn you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I vowed some time ago to never get another Joe Castro film (perhaps after \"Near Death\") but I sort of ended up with this one by accident, since it was a Troma release & I didn't read the cover carefully. Oops. Well, I watched it, and it's by no means good, but it's, I guess, sort of \"tongue in cheek\"....if it's not, it sure seemed that way. Some intrepid folks from the University of the Rio Grande set out to find if the Chupacabra exists, because of surveillance camera footage from someone's GOAT BARN that shows this weird thing hopping across the field of vision. And also because the person that this thing supposedly killed was the uncle of the leader of the expedition. There's a couple of camera men, one of whom whines the whole time, and there some ex-Marine named \"Army\" (?!), who is some kind of munitions expert or something. At any rate, the do find the Chupacabra on some guy's ranch & set out to find it, getting involved with two supposed witches along the way. The creature itself is rather ridiculous-looking, with spines on its back & a great big long tongue that Gene Simmons would die for. Eventually, after a bunch of folks done get killed, so does the Chupacabra, and they take it back to the university for an autopsy. So, is it from another planet? Is it a genetic creation from some lab in Puerto Rico? Uh, they don't tell us, really. Not exactly intriguing but not quite terrible either. Definitely not a wide audience for this one. 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The chupacabra, according to this mockumentary, is a mysterious

creature that has been killing and eating Hispanic goats in Latin

America and Mexico for years. One has crossed the border into

southern Texas, and a cute, intrepid cryptozoologist (no, I did not

make up that word) go to an isolated ranch to find one. Her uncle

was killed by the creature, and some grainy video footage of the

monster exists. She takes a badass black guy with a gun and two

cameramen (for easy-to-edit coverage), and they go ahuntin' for

chupacabras. Ten minutes into the film, they find it.

The rest of the film has the team of documentarians getting

attacked by the bloodthirsty monster, and stilted dialogue. At one

point, the team runs into a couple of hottie witches who lead them

to the chupacabra's nest...for $100. If only the FBI knew about how

cheaply Tex-Mex witches could be bought as informants. Whole

decades of mythical beast reports could be cleared up with a

blank check.

In the end, after the bloody deaths of characters you don't give a

goat's patoot about, a chupacabra is captured, killed, and

autopsied. The only point of the autopsy scene is to highlight the

makeup department's efforts in such a cheap film.

The film is shot on video, just like \"BWP,\" yet the cameraman

characters never reload their tapes or recharge their camera

batteries. The lead actress here is awful. The beauty of the

average \"BWP\" was its use of improvisation during the production.

Here, all the lines are written, and are delivered like a poorly

rehearsed Christmas pageant.

The film is tinged with racism, as well. The only African-American

here is a loudmouthed gun nut. At one point, as the crew breaks

into an abandoned house, they find a trio of illegal immigrants who

comically ask them if they are from the INS. Chortle, chortle.

The monster itself is a guy in a rubber suit, and nothing more. For

such a lumbering and awkward beast, he is able to sneak up on

the cast pretty quietly, whether they have idiotically locked

themselves in a giant cage as bait, or cannot seem to get their

only vehicle started.

The gore is gruesome, but when surrounded by this kind of

stupidity, it loses all of its effectiveness. I do not know if this was

shot before or after \"BWP,\" but I can honestly say this is the worst

film ever made in southern Texas about a mythical beast. Pray

there are not any sequels, I will start a letter writing campaign to

Troma.

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gun violence, strong

gore, and profanity.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We rented the movie and it maybe the worst movie ever. The box they had in the video store had a cool looking monster on the cover but in reality the monster was a creature from the black lagoon mask. Awful, awful, awful...you actually might have to rent it it's so bad. It feels like you are watching a bizzare-o home movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had very little good points, the special effects and acting was horrible for sure. But it was a movie made on a low budget so you dont expect much from it, it does have some laughs (I doubt they are intended though :) ). The scene where the old woman bends down and touches dung that was on the floor, then puts it to her nose and goes CHUPACABRA! in a really stupid raspy voice was priceless. All in all if you have nothing else to watch and just want to laugh at a really crappy flick trying to cash in on the Blair Witch Project's success, then grab it other then that dont bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I did here this movie was good from various people. Plus I do like Natalie Portman and Javier Bardem as well as the director Milos Forman. Yet after watching this movie I really had nothing to admire about it.

First off the acting was very much below average. The performances were just not powerful enough to really feel shocked by what the inquisition did. Javier Bardem did give a solid performance and was probably the only one who actually had as Spanish accent. It is pretty obvious why this Bardem was the only one. Natalie Portman, who I think is a very good up and coming actress did not really make me feel sorry for her being tortured. Like the movie there was nothing to admire about her performance. Stellan Skarsgaard who I do like gave a very average performance, like the other actors giving a boring performance. This movie was essentially about him since he plays Goya. Yet he did not become what he needed to be to make this movie good. What about Randy Quaid? You have just got to be kidding me. Him playing King Carlos IV. Look he is great in comedies but him playing a King that just describes the whole movie for you.

The directing was just horrible in this movie. When a movie is a mess there are usually two people to blame for that: the director and the writer. I get the feeling that Milos Forman really didn't want his actors to put a Spanish accent on. From the very few battle scenes in here they were all displayed horribly. Also as a director he needs to give you the feeling of shock of what the inquisition did. After this movie I felt like I could careless about the event. To sum it all up he poorly shot the scenes and misguided the actors.

The writing which was also done by Milos Forman was just as bad or maybe even worse than the directing. There really was nothing memorable of the movie except for one seen where Bardem does get the same treatment that Portman's character has gotten. Other then that the movie did not give you the feeling of the time period and at least it could have made up for it with a quote or two.

After finishing this movie I was just looking at the T.V. thinking OK why should I care about any of this. I do care and are very much interested in history but when movies like this come up it feels like the producers robbed you of something good that could have been taken away from the movie. When movies are this bad we highlight a lot of the technical faults in a movie than if it was good. Like the accents. I'm not sure people would have emphasized the lack of Spanish accents if this movie was good.

Thw whole point of this review is to say just don't watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Perhaps I missed something, but I found GOYA'S GHOSTS to be a tedious costume melodrama. As to the story it was trying to tell, I found that a confusing mish-mash that went off in all directions. And perhaps it should have been made by a Spanish director with the appropriate languages subtitled rather than in unconvincingly accented English. I can't judge the historical veracity of the story but it seemed to move along with a similar \"artist's model's tragic fate\" plot line as GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING. Was the movie a commentary on the religious injustices of the Inquisition, false piety, torture then and now, or what???? I never seemed to be able to figure that one out. Natalie Portman's various characters also seemed ridiculously stereotypical. And ultimately the movie was crowned with the concluding melodrama of a disheveled Bardem's head and body hanging on the edge of cart heading off into the sunset\u0085with Ines and Goya following along behind\u0085\u0085\u0085Can't Milos Forman do better than that?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With a title like that, you will be forgiven for thinking this film is about the great painter, Goya. Then after half an hour you decide it is more about the Roman Catholic Inquisition. With even more latitude, perhaps it is just a snapshot of the period. With lurid characterisation, too many axes to grind and a scant regard for fact, Milos Forman dishes up a colourful but shambolic, rambling mish-mash that fails on all three accounts.

Milos Forman (who lost his Jewish father to Nazi concentration camps), is the great director who painted the artist Mozart as a buffoon and got away with it. Won awards for it, in fact. His life in Czechoslovakia gave him a taste of diverse, repellent regimes, especially Communism. He also made the equally over-the-top but rather impressive, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. So, at the age of 74, how does he come to offer us this mess? In Goya's Ghosts, Goya is one step removed from buffoon. The main character is Brother Lorenzo, passionately acted by Javier Bardem. Natalie Portman is equally vibrant as Goya's model Ines (and later in the film, her own daughter). The tenuous connection with Goya is that he happens to paint both of them.

Lorenzo tortures (and then rapes) Ines who he suspects of being a Jew. Her father tortures Lorenzo. Napoleon dashes in to liberate Spain (briefly). Ines gets out of the dungeon the Church has left her in and searches for her child. Goya is still painting but has gone deaf. His main preoccupation seems to be helping Ines. And so on.

Historically, Goya was also a historian. As Forman had sadly relinquished the idea of a biopic of Goya the painter, this one fact could have been used to pull the whole film together \u0096 a large slice of history as seen by Goya. But the painter is too tangential to receive any weight. Similarly, a document of the terrors of the Inquisition should be done \u0096 compared to other despotic orders throughout time, the Holy See has been forgiven with barely a confession. Though one might ask if Forman is competent enough to be trusted with a factual account of anything.

\"I thought this could be the heart of a wonderful story,\" he says in the production notes. \"There were a great many parallels between the Communist society we lived under and the Spanish Inquisition.\" But the story is too tenuous to hold our attention. Against our expectations and with a background of something major (the life of a great painter, the horrors of the Inquisition, and even the French Revolution), we are instead asked to feel involved in a concocted (if kind) infatuation of Goya's. The result is that we feel cheated.

Background detail is appallingly handled. Goya went deaf in 1792 (when the film starts), not 15 years later. Napoleon is as believable as a cut-out from a cereal packet. We see the Church passing out a death sentence (when the normal procedure was for the Church to insist that the secular arm did that dirty work). Battles look overly-choreographed and stagey. A peppering of gratuitous naked bosoms hardly makes up for it.

On the positive side, the production values are mostly good. The colours are vivid, the pacing excellent (at least until we give up on finding any worthwhile storyline.) Bardem is excellent, and Portman is a joy until she goes into overdrive as a mad woman. While it doesn't say very much about Goya, what it does say is nice, even if superficial and pretty irrelevant.

I once had a late night drunken conversation where my friends and I asked each other, if you could choose a director to depict your life, who would it be? On his record, Forman would sadly have to be at the bottom of my list.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"then the second half of this movie is hard to follow. I got the first part with the Spanish Inquistion, but the film skipped many years forward with the French ruling Spain. The movie does little to fill you in on what happened, and I don't remember much about it. So, the movie gets confusing then. The movie begins when Ines, daughter of a rich merchant, is accused of Judiasm by the church, specifically Father Lorenzo. She is put to the Question and forced to confess. Even her family's wealth can not buy her out of prison. Her father forces Lorenzo to sign a confession saying he is the offspring of a chimp, in hopes of getting Ines released. All it does is give a reason for the church to condemn Lorenzo, who runs off to France.

Then, the movie skips many years, and the French Revolution is in full force. Ines is released from prison. It was very good make up work to make Natalie Portman look that tore up. She finds her family dead and seeks Goya for her help. She tells him she had a child in prison. Goya sets up a meeting between her and Lorenzo, whom is now with the French and in power. He is the father. Goya sees the daughter and tells Lorenzo, whom decides it's best to send her off to America, so no one will find out. But before his plans get carried out, the British join the Spainish, and Spain reclaims power and he is now the persecuted. That part is not well told in the film. It's like the film shows this to happen in a day.

FINAL VERDICT: The movie is good until it skips many years in time after the Inquistion, then the movie expects you to understand what is going on. It just got too confusing to me then.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had this DVD to watch, thinking that I would see a type of biography o painter Goya, but the movie was about everything but Goya. This movie is about a young woman taken away from her family by the Holy Inquisition, allegedly because she practiced Jewish rituals (only because the poor girl did not like eating pork!). The rest of the movie is about torture, humiliation, driven by a poor script (can't believe it is by JC Carri\u00e8re as I could not believe this cr** is directed by Mr Milos Forman) centered on a religious man and that young woman and that is all.

Ah, and there is Goya, I forgot, playing a completely peripheral role - that could be the role of John, Paul, Peter, Manuel, Joaquim, Jose or anyone. Very disappointing - one one these movies that will be forgotten for ever (if it has not had happened yet). Rent \"The Name of the Rose\" if you want a movie about the Holy Inquisition. And I don't know what you should rent, if you want to watch a movie about Spanish painter Goya. Maybe a director of a good caliber, not Forman, still needs to make it. PS: the Spanish painter, Goya - the title role who is lost in the plot - is portrayed by a Scandinavian actor, something that makes this film even more difficult to be taken seriously. Maybe next time we should send Javier Barden to play the biopic of Norwegian painter, Edvard Munch!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having watched this movie several times, I have come to the conclusion that Milos Forman made a very daring decision to manufacture a muse for Goya, when the artist led what most would consider a tempestuous,passionate life while the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era raged across Europe, surely one that would have sufficient drama upon which to draw. While I do understand that Mr. Forman was relating in the microcosm of the tragedy of Ines' life the devastation of the world at that time, I was left feeling that there was just so much of Goya left out, so much of his humanity. The strongest and most eloquent point this film made was that because of man's fallen nature each of us is a potential villain in the stream of life, each of us has evil within us that we must fight with the help of God. How eloquent when Goya says he should have helped Ines more, how true for all of us! We must defend and protect the innocent. The superbly ironic scene in which the once imprisoned priest sentenced to die pronounces the death sentence on Lorenzo who condemned him originally is the stuff of genius. I was left wanting something more when the credits rolled. Maybe less of the unreal coincidences, and more of the inner life of the characters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This isn't exactly a complicated story. It's not a mystery, or a plot you have to spend time re watching because you missed an intrinsic part of the dialog. Claiming a movie has to be seen multiple times for you 'to get it' may apply to a very few films, however this isn't one of them. Those type of movies have substance and are so involving it's easy to miss an important portion of dialog, or a subtle nuance to plot details you may have overlooked. With Goya's Ghosts this doesn't apply. The main flaw in this movie is an absence of detail. It jumps from one character to the next, never giving enough substance to any one set of scenes to allow the involvement of those watching. Because of that you don't connect with any of the characters. You don't get to the point where you care. Either the main actor is gone just as the movie seems it's going to redeem itself, or their actions are despicable and you're not inclined to anyway. Goya's refusal to go very far to help Ines is a good example. His refusal to commit himself further mirrors the overall tone of his part. The only characters you may momentarily feel for are Ines, when she's being questioned and then tortured. After her rape by Lorenzo any focus on her character is pretty much gone. Following that the only other in depth involvement comes from the best scenes in the movie centered around Lorenzo's invitation to supper with Ines' family, and her fathers all out attempt to force Lorenzo into signing a bogus confession and getting his daughter back. Then just as things start to be developing again, they're gone from the movie. I've read a lot of the comments here about how the movie didn't know what it wanted to be, etc. I found that basically it succeeded in not being much of anything. From Lorenzo's return and the coincidental viewing of Ines' daughter by Goya, everything seemed nothing more than contrived. Without much of a storyline, no effort to really examine the turbulent times they lived in took place. The essence of who Goya was didn't materialize, other than his actions, or lack thereof, proving him to be more self-centered than anything else. As for his art, the movie seemed intent on examining a few of the paintings he did but again frittered away another opportunity in examining the reactions to this work rather than the work itself. To sum things up best, the movie had no cohesion, it grossly lacked the substance to delve into the historical environment it covered, and upon ending, left you feeling like what you'd just seen was a series of aborted attempts to engage the viewer by switching from one thing to the next without adequately engaging the viewer in any of them. You can't watch something like this several times expecting it to improve with added examination. There's just not enough to it to waste the time. It's not a case of your missing out on something, it would just be more proof that the ingredients needed to make this movie good, just aren't there. As for best film ever made? It's not even the best film I've watched today.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm going to recommend putting this one in the \"skip it\" pile as well. I was mildly excited by the concept when my fianc\u00e9e rented it, and a bit more excited when I saw that Milos Forman directed it. Ah, well.....

The costumes were nice, sure, but they were typical. There was nothing about them that said they were from anywhere but the Period Costume department of any major Hollywood studio. There was no distinction between Spanish, British and French - everyone dressed like they were at court in Versailles. The sets somehow didn't evoke the qualities of the settings - the prison didn't feel like a prison, the mansions didn't feel like mansions, and the outside scenes looked like they were filmed on a back lot, for all that they were probably practical locations.

The score was dramatically less than it could have been. I have been a fan of film scores since my youth, noticing, appreciating and collecting them, by which I mean more than John Williams. My fianc\u00e9e is a professional film composer, an award winner who has had her works performed at Lincoln Center, and a rising star in the industry. At the start of the film, we had high hopes for it, and it did indeed start off nicely. It rapidly deteriorated, and at several points - including the scene of the release of the prisoners - it actually reached a level of annoyance. I actually reached for the remote to turn down the volume. The score was never anything more than the most obvious choice for scoring a specific tone of scene, and didn't integrate itself into the \"soul\" of the film (think of the music in Babel and you'll have an idea of what I mean). It never attained the grandeur it wanted to, but then neither did the film.

Javier Bardem, as talented as he is, was awful. For the first part of the film, his mannerisms are so distracting that it takes over his performance. During the second half, everything that was his character in the first half is gone, replaced by an entirely different set of annoying mannerisms, and he looked like the love-child of Keith Richards and Stuart Townshend's Lestat. I never got the idea that he cared about the role (which is to say, that the character cared about his life and actions), or that the character was ever drawn by the writers as anything more than an opportunist who, for whatever reason, changes his mind and decides to stick by his principles at the end.

Natalie Portman was very good, although her performance lacked the shades of increasing insanity between her release from the prison and taking Lorenzo's hand at the end that I would have needed to call it truly an effective performance. The character of Alicia was never defined enough to truly discern, and if it weren't for the superb makeup on her eyes and cheeks, someone seeing the beginning of the film and the end wouldn't know they weren't the same character. The prosthetic teeth were horrible, artificial and distracting, but that's no knock on Ms. Portman.

Stellan Skarsg\u00e5rd was fine as Goya. Not Oscar-worthy, but serviceable and generally believable. I don't know much about the life of Goya, or his deafness, but it seemed to be tacked on to the movie as a requirement of biographical information, rather than anything that was utilized in the film. I am sure it affected Goya's life much more than just requiring the need of an interpreter, but you'd never know it from watching this. For the record, words and sounds can only be correctly interpreted roughly 30% of the time through lip-reading.

Don't get me started on Randy Quaid. At least he was a minor character.

The script reads like one of the \"choose your own adventure\" books I used to read as a kid: at several moments through the film, several outcomes are possible, and none of the actions preceding them lead with any certainty to the way the film actually plays out. Ironically, the film is also predictable, especially its meager attempts at leavening the mood through small bits of humor. The joke about the hands? Maybe it's because I paint (not well) as a hobby and know what a PITA hands are to draw\/paint, but I saw the joke coming a mile away, as well as the reprise in the second half. Was the baby ever there for any other reason other than to be taken by Ines? There might as well have been a line of bread crumbs.

Disappointing.

(note: this review is a copy of a reply I made to a thread in the forum)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is just another waste of time. The plot is ridiculous, forced USA drama. The characters were all really weak, especially the uncharismatic Goya and the bad interpretation of Bardem, who only was alright in his classic interpretation, when acting as french ally.

Just another chance lost of have spent the money in a good film. I guess it was no a low budget film. Definitely not recommended. Maybe the director's should think a bit whether the film has sense or not before wasting so that money. Maybe they do not bother as they have profits before launching them in the cinema.

No more hope in cinema...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't even watch this whole movie. Now, I like 50's sci-fi movies even when they are wildly inaccurate but this one just annoyed me. For one thing, one member of the crew on the spaceship talks and acts like he might have made it into the tenth grade. He sounds like he ought to be on a bowling league, not a space ship. Out the window of the spaceship the crew is marveling at Earth and this boob says 'Can you see Brooklyn?' and another guy says 'Sure'. And the boob says 'Gee, I wonder who's pitching?' Pardon me a moment, I think my sides are splitting.

When they first get up into orbit the boob says 'The moon is just for looking at! Take me back down!' Watching the crew making stretched mouths and screaming from the G-forces of acceleration during takeoff is also not one of the better moments of the film. (Perhaps the film's best moment can be identified by a big \"THE END\" on the screen.)

We also find out that they can't open the hatch because 'the boob' greased it before they took off. Sure, a space vehicle is going to be 'greased' by a member of the crew, who we later learn has never even had a space suit on before and doesn't know anything about zero gravity. As Baby Huey the overgrown fat cartoon duck once said, \"That sounds logical!\" The no-gravity-in-space effects are so bad it's painful to watch. (Everyone knows, in the absence of gravity, everything tends to go UP.)

How this movie gets 6.3 stars out of 10, when other vastly superior films don't rate any higher, is a mystery to me. I really do like old sci-fi movies but this one is not realistic, and the lame attempts at character humor by throwing in that boob from a gas station grease pit does not work at all - it just ruins the movie. I think in retrospect it's not the whole movie I hate so much as the fact that 'the boob' is so obviously not someone who would be on a space ship - not even to 'grease the hatch.' OMG. I wonder if he checked the fan belts too. Maybe if they'd left 'the boob' off the trip it might not have been QUITE so excruciating. Even so, it's only average. What everyone else is raving about, I don't know.

You want to watch a neat 1950's space movie? 'Rocketship X-M' beats it all to heck. Maybe not so much 'realism' but a more serious story and less goofy characters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie may bear some historical importance, and it sure seems astonishing how well the facts are together, the setting, the rocket, the space suits, the surface of the moon, all scream \"a classic\" - but in the end, the result makes a pretty dull movie for todays eyes, and the 50ies tech scenes you might hope for in a movie like this are by far not enough to reward sitting through all the tacky dialog and predictable plot developments. The characters and plot may reward a scientific sociological analysis, but bear too little entertainment value many times.

Much of this movie seems like a good movie for nine-year-olds. The mature themes, the human drama and the violence are kept to a level suitale for children as well.

The images of the earth and the moon seen from space may actually be more accurate than the ones in \"2001\", but so what if their use is dramatically inefficient. Especially 2001 may seem like a stretched out meditation over themes of this movie, and, has Star Wars not somehow modelled it's space-scrolling opening titles on the opening titles of this Film? But then again - the inheritance is marginal.

If its a real groundbreaking and mega-influential mature 1950ies Sci-Fi classic you are looking for however, check out \"Forbidden Planet\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The actors are so bland that it's almost impossible to tell them apart (Pauline Kael said of this movie: \"The actors have names, but they're truly anonymous\"), and the special effects are really bad. They simulate weightlessness with people hanging on cables and by recycling the trick that let Fred Astaire dance on the ceiling in \"Royal Wedding\" (but none of these guys move well enough to make it look convincing).

The low point of the movie is when one of the characters, an airplane tycoon, is trying to convince some other \"giants of industry\" to come in with him in a moon-rocket consortium, and he shows them a Woody Woodpecker cartoon that explains how a rocket works at a 2nd grade level! (And to think that Robert Heinlein worked on the screenplay...)

The only plus is that the production design manages to communicate a sort of \"Amazing Stories\" sensibility, and even that is done much better in the producer's (George Pal) subsequent movie \"When Worlds Collide\", which has similar bad acting, but is much more entertaining. However, Pal's best sci-fi movie has to be \"The Time Machine\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Of the thousands of movies I've seen so far, this is the first one which made me think of the \"wasted talents\" expression. I had never EVER seen so many fine actors giving so dreadful performances (Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Pierrot, Elsa Zylberstein,and so on). The \"aging\" make-up is quite awful and, to make it worse, lit broadly. The use of music (e.g. love at first sight for the young aide de camp) is at times so caricatural that I could feel most spectators around me smile awkwardly. So far, Antoine de Caunes has been quite a good actor, but seeing this one and \"les morsures de l'aube\" I think he should start considering quitting. Please Antoine, give up that \"master of balantree\" project ; I doubt you deserve it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tu pa tam is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. But on the other hand is better then most of the movies from Slovenia, who are filled with depressing characters and story without any bright ideas. Tu pa tam is bright, optimistic and without any artistic moments. In many interviews director Mitja Okorn tried to tell us that his movie is top quality just because it didn't cost a lot of money. But thinking that way is wrong. Tu pa tam is for me very bad movie. The dialogs are really bad written (90% of the script is consisted of cursing), the characters are stereotypical morons, the story and its twists are very predictable and the action sequences (this movie supposed to be an action comedy) are filmed very very bad and without any style. Okorn is just thinking he's even bigger than Quentin Tarantino, so he's copying his style over all 90 minutes. The humor in the movie is very cheap and primitive (Okorn probably thinks that constant cursing is funny). In my opinion is Tu pa tam very cheap (not only by budget)movie with stupid story and very very bad acting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Police officer Michael (Tomas Arana, \"The Church\") has his hands full while investigating a serial killer who's been leaving parts of the bodies of the people that he's been murdering at the house of one recently widowed, Tracy (Joanna Pacula). Mike has to find a way to stop the bodies from piling up, while perhaps finding love in the process.

A feeling of the 'giallo' films of yore pervades this film, even though we know who the killer is from the get-go, and the film contains a few good set-pieces (a scene later in the film set in a school for the blind being particularly memorable), but it doesn't make all that much sense when all is said and done either. All in all, not nearly as good as Bava's earlier \"Macabre\" nor his first two \"Demons\" films, but enjoyable enough if you can forgive the rather outrageous plot twists towards the end of the film. A pity the Image Entertainment DVD lacked extras of any kind, as I would have been interested in some.

My Grade: C-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I consider myself to have a decent sense of humor, but this \"movie\" left me stunned in my chair.

It's so bad that it could just not have been any worse. Not once did I laugh at the sadly attempted jokes in this movie. I have watched and enjoyed several parodies of big movies, but unfortunately this one will allways be the one I remember best - in my nightmares.

The only reason anyone should want to watch this, is if they want to enter a coma for a brief period of time.

This is the worst movie ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Without a doubt, the WORST movie I have ever seen in my life. There was nothing entertaining about this film. I know it was supposed to be a comedy, but it actually made me cry at the thought of losing the $4.75 admission price.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's painfully obvious that the people who made this \"movie\" have never seen such brilliant spoofs as \"The Naked Gun\" and \"Hot Shots\". This movie is terrible, and so are the actors. They wouldn't know acting even if it hit them in the face, as I felt like doing while watching this total pile of rubbish.

The movie is stupid and has no humor in it what so ever. I'm SURE that I could make a better movie with my friends. To me it's amazing that a movie can fail this much. Not a single clever or funny line. No trace of intelligence behind it. It's a pathetic movie and I'd like to meet the person who actually likes this movie. Yuck!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've never understood this type of spoof movies. You get some serious\/semi-serious movie that everyone knows about and takes the seriousness out of it through immature fart-jokes and such. We've seen it many, many times, and it's never really been funny. It's just an easy way to laugh at something you don't understand, in my opinion. This seems to be one of the more obscure and less liked of the genre, though I honestly don't see anything in this that is much worse than that of Spy Hard or Hot Shots. This movie, as is clearly understood simply from the title, concentrates on making childish fun of Pulp Fiction. That's the main reason I decided to watch it, as I found that film to be overly indulgent of Tarantino's sick mind and powerfully overrated. I had hoped for one or two good jokes, making fun of the overly violent and pointless type of movie that Pulp Fiction was in every aspect, in my (anything but) humble opinion. I was sorely disappointed. The plot is pretty much a rip-off of Tarantino's film, with a few scenes spoofing other, often better, films, in the same childish and humorless fashion. The pacing is poor, and often you'll sit there, being able to guess the outcome of every scene, predicting every joke, often thinking of a better one at the spot, bored out of your mind. The acting is bad. The characters are clich\u00e9s and stereotypes, and are intentionally paper-thin in order to make fun of the characters they're based on... problem is, it doesn't work. It just makes the movie that much harder to sit through. The humor is juvenile and lame. The only positive thing I can say about this film is that they managed to find some actors that looked like the people they were supposed to look like. The film is an awful waste of the actual real actors involved. Possibly slightly entertaining to fans of the typical spoof movies of the same kind. I recommend this only to people who truly loathed Pulp Fiction, or fans of the Zucker parody films. Everyone else: avoid. 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now first let me say I love god awful movies. Especially horror films mainly. I watched hundreds of movies on Mystery Science Theater 3000 with no pain. But this is the absolute worst film on the planet!!! I had to turn it off it was so bad. It was unfunny and just plain unwatchable. Give me 3 back to back viewings of Manos The Hands of fate or Monster A-go-go over this any day. Avoid this film like the plauge!! Now excuse me while I go gouge out my eyes to cleanse them of the filth I had to watch to get a decent judgement for this film. Only one decent gag in the part I watched was the hitmen now are an extermination pair for Hitmen Exterminators. Even that wasn't to great of a gag.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a spin off of Pulp Fiction. I thought that it would be good for a few decent laughs. Well it turns out that this movie really was terrible. The whole plot doesn't follow on the Pulp Fiction plot. It turns to other movie like Forrest Gump and more. Some laughs came out of this movie, but all and all it totally took 90 minutes of my life away from me. If you are thinking of renting this movie, please don't it will waste 90 minutes of your life. Reconsider renting this and go on and find a movie that actually makes sense. Please if there is a Plump Fiction 2, I will definitely not go on and rent the sequel. Just giving a heads up for those out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This can hardly be called a good movie, actually it's not even close. But I have to say, that there was a few things that made me... not laugh, not giggle, but something like that. The Resovoir Dogs parody was one of them. The rest are not important enough to be remembered.

To be honest, I was a little disappointed by this movie. The plot sounded like an idea, but it quickly fell to the ground. The whole thing was just to messy and the actors where not good for the characters; most of them simply overacted. There was also a whole lot of unessecary sequences, that was a total waste of film. I do realize that it would make the movie about 20 min shorter, but it would only make it better.

Now, with the good and the bad things lined up, let's go to the conclusion: two out of six toilet seats up for this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

..this movie being one of them.

I remember, in the middle of the movie, me and my friend just

looked at each other, shaked our heads and laughed.. in despair.

See it if you wish, if you feel that you have the time to waste

and don\u00b4t mind 1.5 hrs of catatonia.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...when this movie was on.

What a bore. An attempt at humor, but really not pulling it off too well. Some good ideas were cast, and the actors makeup and wardrobe were OK.

I expected a lot more, unfortunately I couldn't sit through any more of it, I switched off halfway through the video, and ejected the tape, went to the rental store to get my money back...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worst movie ever made. If anyone asks you what is the worst movie you've ever seen - tell them Plump Fiction. Of all the movies I've ever seen this gotta be the most lame experience. Even the poorest sequels are pure masterpieces compared","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the worst movie i have ever seen. Its been a few years since I saw it and nothing has come close since then and i doubt that there ever will be a movie produced that is as bad as this. It tries to make fun of a variety of different movies, for example 'Nell' (!) and instead of funny its just pathetic. Whatever you do, don't rent or by this garbage and if someone throws it at you....turn around and run the other way!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you watched Pulp Fiction don't see this movie. This movie is NOT funny. This is the worst parody movie ever. This is a poor attempt of parody films.

The cast is bad. The film is bad. This is one of the worst pictures ever made.

I do not recommend Plump Fiction. I prefer the original Pulp Fiction by the great Quentin Tarantino. This is one of the worst parody films ever made.

Plump Fiction is not a good movie. It is not funny. It is so dumb and vulgar.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...about this film was the title song. After 30 minutes, I discontinued watching because it was so lame. Bad story, bad actors, bad movie. If you want to watch a good movie, watch Pulp Fiction instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well,this movie is really \"PLUMPED\" HAHA Get it? Thats kinda like the attitude of this movie. The plot is just a copy of Pulp Fiction,okay thats acceptable,but to make this piece if \"PLUMP\" (haha)! is really unbelievable.The storyline is so pathetic,and the whole thing only gathered a few laughs. It did try making a few jokes from various other movies,and it failed most of the times. I mean,i do have a sense of humor,but this isnt really the way to go to get a laugh. Most of the supposedly \"Funny\" moments are completely ironic. The film is quiet short running at around 75 minutes overall. They could have done a much funnier job,seeming they made fun of a blockbuster film,they were gambling,and hey! I think they lost!

In overall PLUMP Fiction,is \"PLUMPABLE\" but you wont gather much at all!

Worth watching over and over again?: No once is enough,actually its more than enough!

So is it worth the rent? Ummm..As I said,Its \"PLUMPABLE\",but you will only gather a few \"PLUMPS\" from it!

Overall out of 10: a 4 out of 10!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Gritty drama? Emotionally powerful? Blah! The BBC has lost out big time to masterful productions such as The Wire, Sopranos and Carnivale from HBO. Okay, so the budget may be a lot smaller but 'The Street' last night was badly acted, predictable, unrealistic, stereotypical, insensitive and a big fat waste of time. TV (British TV) is not as good as it used to be and is falling further and further behind the American productions.

There was no sense of brutal violence from the 'local gangster'. There was no indication that this man was 'insane' enough to beat up a man he has respected for such a long time. There was no remorse when he did it and this shouldn't be the sort of character that would back down when Bob Hoskins called his son a pansy, in a display of 'bravery'.

I wish I was more eloquent to express my disdain for this show, but I am not and although I can't prove my point well enough, believe me when I say that this was rubbish, shock TV, that provides no real inward looking perspective on life.

1\/5 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is about a gap that exists between the real world and the world of the dead. There's a lot of mumbo-jumbo about the internet (i.e., if you install a program on the computer, you see dead folks--much like if you play a videotape you'll die in RINGU). Frankly, most of this seemed rather silly and lost me. What I did find interesting is the idea that the dead live within their own separate existence--being totally alone for eternity. This was sobering and fascinating.

I love Japanese films and have seen a huge number compared to most Americans. However, one genre that has become popular in recent years that I just can't relate to very well are these horror films. I know they are super popular--especially since they seem to be remade so often in the States. I've seen both RINGU as well as THE RING, JU-ON and THE GRUDGE and was rather ambivalent despite their popularity. About the only recent horror film I really liked from Japan was SEANCE--a reworking of the great British film, SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON. And what, do I think, made SEANCE different? Well, unlike the other films as well as KAIRO, gobs and gobs of money weren't spent on special effects or trying to scare the audience--instead, the emphasis was on the story. The bottom line is that these other films are a lot like American films like HALLOWEEN or Friday 13th--with scary things jumping out just to scare the audience and plot is purely secondary (at best). For me, I want story--not cheap thrills or ghosts as the primary focus of the film.

With a relatively high rating, I know I am in the minority, but I just don't find this a very satisfying film. All too often, minor things occur that might startle someone slightly--but the characters begin screaming and crying and acting as if to say \"this is the scariest film ever made so you'd better start shaking\". Well, I think it just tries too hard and I wish it had focused more on the afterlife seen at the end of the film and plot progression--not scare tactics.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kairo, or Pulse as it's known amongst English speaking audiences, is set in Tokyo & starts as Sunny Plant Sales employee Michi Kudo (Kumiko Aso) decides to visit her friend Taguchi (Kenji Mizuhashi) to enquire about a computer disk he's been working on, when she gets to his place he gives her the disk but then rather inconsiderately commits suicide in front of her. Meanwhile a student named Ryosuke Kawashima (Haruhiko Kato) has recently hooked up to the internet & keeps getting spooky messages & images on his monitor so he ask's computer whizz Harue Karasawa (Koyuki) whats happening, she doesn't really know but it seems that the place where people's spirits go when they die is full & they need somewhere else to go & Earth is as good a place as any, right? These spirits don't like sharing either so they sort of make people commit suicide or turn them into ashes or something like that, I don't really know because the films a bit of a mess...

This Japanese production was written & directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa & right off the bat I have to say I hated Kairo, I hated everything about it & it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Asian cinema can produce something as crap as any American filmmaker. The script is an overlong mess, the thing simply doesn't make any sense with scenes which seem like they are from a different film, sequences which make no logical sense or are not explained in any way & Kairo is also the most downright boring film I've sat through this year. At two hours long this is a real chore to sit through, I really wanted to fast-forward it but I'm fair if nothing else so I stuck it out to the bitter end & frankly wished I hadn't. There are so many things wrong with Kairo, I suppose the filmmakers were going for a surreal ambiguous & deliberately incoherent feel but those are traits which I despise in a film unless they are done properly. Then there's the whole internet thing which I just couldn't relate to at all, I use the internet all day & it's not in the least bit scary to me in any way. Then there's the fact that Kairo as a film provided zero entertainment value for me, maybe I'm a Neanderthal but I kind of like the films I watch to entertain me, make some sort of sense & not bore me to death.

Director Kurosawa has made the ultimate insomnia cure as far as I'm concerned, if you have trouble getting to sleep stick this in the DVD & you be fast asleep within 10 minutes I guarantee you. I didn't think Kairo was scary in the slightest, the whole internet thing was laughable & as for scary you should see some of the penis enlargement pop-up ads I get, now that's scary! I hate this film, I hate this film, I'm sorry I just need to make that basic point again, twice. Forget about any action, tension or gore as there isn't any. If you have a very nervous disposition then there are maybe a couple of scenes which might creep you out otherwise this is kiddie friendly PG rated stuff all the way. Urgh.

The film looks so dull & boring it's untrue, the camera just sits there for very long shots & when it does move it moves very slowly, this has all the style of a Mexican soap opera. Since Kairo is sub titled it's difficult to judge the original performances so I won't bother, it's hard to care for someone when they don't even speak the same language & you don't know what they are saying.

Kairo is crap, I hated it & it's as simple & straight forward as that. Just because it's an Asian flick doesn't automatically make it any good & the mess of a story, the plot holes, the fact it makes no sense & it's an absolute bore means Kairo would rightly be torn to shreds by people if it were an American production. The worst film I've seen this year by some distance. Kairo got a Hollywood remake as Pulse (2006).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was so excited to finally watch \"Pulse\" after receiving it from Amazon, and I have to say I was utterly disappointed. I perhaps think I was too hyped up. I had expectations set by its fans that simply couldn't be met. After loving other Asian horrors, I thought I knew this would find a place in my heart.

The story was slow, painfully so. I am a diverse fan of horror. I love the brutal, bloody craziness of \"The Devil's Rejects\" and I love equally the steady, growing macabre of \"A Tale of Two Sisters\". \"Pulse\" offered little from either spectrum, sadly.

Along with the sluggishness of the plot, it was also very muddled. I hadn't a clue why characters were doing what they were doing and how what they were doing would help their problem. It seemed as if the director spouted off the plot in a sentence or two and the rest was improf from our actors. Unlike \"A Tale of Two Sisters\", which also has a rather hard-to-follow plot line, \"Pulse\" clears up very little at the end and left me feeling frustrated, confused and uninterested in the characters' endeavors. My closing statement about the plot was its inconsistency. At first it seemed as if the story was about the ghost world overflowing and their medium of escaping is the Internet. That's a damn original idea. I like that. But as the plot drones on, plot-holes and unexplained happenings rearing their heads in, it seems the director switched to some apocalyptic tale (as evident by the ending) that just hasn't been clear enough throughout to execute.

I realize the dreariness of the shots and the setting was intentional to make the viewer feel bleak and isolated, but the dullness of the movie was only intensified by the grainy, shadowy surroundings. I will admit there was a certain feel of surrealism with the movie, but that may have just been my attention waning in and out.

The actions of some of the characters are a little bit ridiculous as well, and perhaps if I was more enthralled by the story I would've been able to suspend more disbelief but as well myself being unmotivated so too were some of the characters. Like I mentioned previously, the logic behind what certain characters did were absent and contributed to the incoherence of the plot. Perhaps it was a result of the plot's incoherence that the characters do questionable things. To be honest I don't really care.

The acting was decent. Certainly nothing outstanding but nothing terrible either. No outliers to mention on either side of brilliant or plain awful.

Now I'll stop sounding so sour and mention that there were a handful of creepy moments. One towards the end especially that if there were more like it throughout, I would've enjoyed this movie (almost) wholly. I thought whenever the website was shown it was pretty unsettling, as well as some of the ghostly encounters our two main characters face. The things that went on between these ghastly run-ins were just too lackluster, baffling and \"WTF\" for me to truly appreciate.

Now for something pertaining to the DVD itself... Magnolia's release of \"Pulse\" comes with subtitles, yes, but the subtitles are off. They aren't said at the correct time of the character's speech. It may sound nit-picking but it bothered me a little and it may bother some others. I think this is the only North American release of the film though so you either have to deal or watch dubbing (NEVER WATCH DUBBING!!!) I tried to like the film, I really did. I WANTED this film to live up to the hype... but sadly, it fell flat for me. If you're looking for other creepy Asian cinema I can recommend you \"Audition\", \"Shutter\", \"A Tale of Two Sisters\", \"Strange Circus\" and \"Marebito\" -- all of which are more my palette.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie because every review I read of it said that it was one of the scariest movies of the new millennium. I really don't understand what all of the hype was about. For one thing, the dialogue in this movie was laughably bad (\"What if something strange is going on?\"...what????). The acting didn't blow my socks off either. It could have been because the script barely gave the actors anything to work with....the characters are purely 2-dimensional to me and I didn't give a hoot about them at all. Another thing is that the movie extremely boring. Extremely. Sure, there are a couple of \"jolts\" here and there, but for the movie's 112 minute length, it sure didn't use it's time up wisely. Most of the movie contains characters talking about stuff that had barely anything to do with the plot. What was the point of that??

To top it off, the movie makes no sense. Yes, I believe I understood the intentions of the ghosts, but how that fits into the events that actually occur in the movie is beyond me. Also, much of the movie is played out in little vignettes, which makes the story hard to follow at times. And don't even get me started with the ending. What exactly happened there?

I can give Kurosawa credit for placing some truly frightening images throughout the film. There are very creepy shots of ghosts and other unsettling images. If they reflected more on those images and elaborated on them, it would have made the movie much stronger. But they didn't, and instead elaborated more on social commentary, which was interesting, but again, portrayed in an extremely dull way. Yes, it's a message movie. Okay, fun. I'll just get the message of my review right out here in the open: find a better way to spend your spare time than watching this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Would be promising if it were a student film. Never seems to know where it's going next, as if they decided on each next scene as they were making the film. As a result, much repetition and a deadening pace. There's an absolutely confusing procedure by which the ghosts affect people in this world: it involves the internet, phone calls, a computer science experiment, a suspicious grad student, withdrawn behavior, red rooms, dark stains, and _then_ suicides. Good luck figuring out the connections, or when a character is a ghost yet or just acting strangely. Characters are barely sketched, which could be OK, but they're completely uninteresting. It's far too long and ends just when it reaches a promising scenario, although the conclusion is nonsensical. Weakest moment: when \"the boss\" sits down to give some incoherent advice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can appreciate movies with subtitles from foreign countries and specially the ones in which the subtitles are weak and don't really seems to follow the story or really make sense, but this movie had too many parts that didn't really make sense.

All in all, i can admit to a few scary and freaky parts, but they are repetitive, i felt like i was watching a loop trailer; seems like it was a short film shot with different actors.

In the veins of RINGU and GRUDGE but not even close the the hype...the excessive length killed the thrill.

Unless you are a die hard fan of these types of movies (wich i thought i was), don't waste your time on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do not see this film. In most cases, such as that of Ju-On and The Grudge, the Japanese film are infinitely better than the American remake. However, this movie was terrible. The ghosts, much like a trick or treater dressed as a sheet ghost moan and wheeze in an attempt to be scary in the absence of good makeup or special effects and the acting is just horrible. The story itself is inconsistent and confusing, not everything is explained leaving the film to go from bad to worse. Do not waste your time with this movie, it's not worth it and I am sure that there are more entertaining things to do - like watching paint dry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I never fell asleep during a movie. Never. This movie did the impossible.

While many people claim the superiority of Japanese horror films over their American counterparts, this movie was a lesson in over abundance. As in, the movie was 30 minutes too long. It would have helped if the movie had a little more movement in the plot and the camera work, but instead, all we got were awkward silences and a lot of slow movement. The acting was absolutely terrible, bordering on bad student film levels while everyone struggled to ad-lib something called a script. Did these people even get any direction? Were they coaxed to be boring and dull? Either therory wouldn't surprise me.

What was even worse was the rather unscary make-up involved with the creatures from the other side. Either way, they all stunk. Don't watch this film. That's all I can say (unless you're an insomniac).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Forget the lousy acting, that can be forgiven in this sort of film. Or even the terrible, unnatural dialog and illogical events (if my subtitles actually reflected what was said). Far worse is the blatant absence of a skillful or experienced director who maybe took a holiday with the editor while the film was being made? Watching the film, it feels completely out of date even though it was 'only' made 7 years ago. A computer virus as a portal to the afterlife? lol? A dial up internetconnection? Clucky ghost images photoshopped on pictures (\"He! Look over there...is that..is that a face?\" -zoom in on face- -Oops, sound breaks off- 'chop' -next scene- ), scenes and sequences are poorly edited and as a result don't flow at all. You'll be watching a girl finding a corpse still hanging from the knot in one scene and then literally 10 seconds later seeing her again at some place apparently unaffected, smiling and going about.

Apart from the many problems I have with the movie in terms of production-value, it is also painfully long and repetitive and thus utterly boring.

I recommend 'Shutter' in stead, an oriental (Thai) horror movie done well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While the design and locations and photography are strong assets in this film; it is a turgid and melodramatic affair which demonstrates the limits of cinema to convey truth.

The case is the use of the soundtrack music: a mix of Gustav Mahler and Andrew Lloyd-Webber that plays constantly and loudly, and would have made Max Steiner grimace at its over use as it instructs the audience how difficult; how ecstatic; how tortured it is to be an artist. And then it really counts the story elides the details at the end.

This heightened and kitsch exploitation of emotions was once well ridiculed by Peter Ackroyd about a Yukio Mishima book: This is not writing, this is Barbara Cartland. Precisely the same critique can be made of this film: a deceptive, mawkish vanity project.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie and thought it was a sleeper. Sometimes I can get into intellectual Romantic movies. This movie just did not move me. I felt like it was about one hour too long. Camille is portrayed as a very sympathetic sculptor, who loses just about everything. I thought the whole movie was just sad, and downcast. If you like tragedies, you MIGHT like this. I just thought it was too long, which meant it has many unnecessary scenes, which ultimately lead to about one hour of boredom. I would not recommend this movie. If you want to see a good romantic tragedy go watch Titanic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although this starts out promisingly, a woman in a car is weaving around dark roads in the middle of the night in the middle of the forest until she almost hits a man holding a lizard! This gave me the impression that we were going to see something special, something almost David Lynchian (if there is such a term), but unfortunately, the film starts to go everyplace, not having a core center, just sort of meandering story about a woman trying to solve a mystery of a small town. The character study goes all over the place, and I couldn't really care for any of the characters it seems, especially when some of the story all of a sudden goes into flashback mode. I had some hopes for this movie, but all in all, it was a bit of a letdown.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am looking at all the good reviews about this film and I start thinking to myself... Am I going crazy..? Can't I see the beauty from a film like this..? Am I just dumb enough to NOT understand the message this film is trying to point out? I don't know.. maybe one of those lizards entered in my head and ate all my brains as well. The film idea was going nowhere... I was sure it would have a foggy end, and of course... it did! Nothing exceptional... Not even the landscapes (I hopped that being placed in a mountain village at least the landscapes would be nice.. but no). Just a lame story about a crazy teacher, and of course her crazy students... now all grown up, each of them.. with his\/her own fixed ideas. And boy some of those ideas were stupid.. like the lizard story for example. At a moment I thought I was watching x files.. with the lizard entering in the ear and all. No.. from my point of view this movie is a waste of time (not to say money if U pay for the ticket) The only part that I did like was the acting of the young blue eye \"german\" kid... He played very well and convincing for his age... The rest... nothing! I read the previous review and I think the script writer and the director were both on drugs when they came up with those ideas. Well considering that there are a lot of people that enjoyed this film... I think to myself again.. Maybe I am the crazy one. Advice.. Don't waste your time with this!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Obabakoak is a bunch of short stories with an only common point: the little Vasque town of Obaba. In this film, the director tries to explain some of these stories by using a young reporter as a continuum. The result is a strange film, as it has any main character (the movie spends about 20 min. to each tale) other than the town of Obaba. Any story is really well explained and the fact is that they result very boring. It was by far the best film of the year in Spain, but, well, that's not saying too much. The only good thing of the film is the precious scenarios. It is filmed in a very precious valley and it is more enjoyable to spend the time watching the scenario rather than being aware of the story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With great expectations I went to see this film, Spain's contribution to the Oscar-race this year. Part from being completely pointless, banal, pathetic, badly written, edited, acted and directed, the movie is too long. It fails in delivering the \"message\" it tries to give, fails in its storytelling, clumsy historical settings and above all in its rhythm. There are some so extreme misfires I haven't seen in a movie in a long time (the story of Lucas whose dead sister lives in his head, the divine revelations, all that lizard nonsense). The Spanish-speaking audience around me was yawning and rapidly losing patience, and some of the commentaries I overheard was whether the members of the Spanish Academy had taken drugs before choosing the film for the Oscar contest.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lone Star Productions sure churned them out in the 1930's, and \"Star Packer\" has the feel of one of the more rushed ones. John Wayne is U.S. Marshal John Travers, investigating a crooked hoodlum known only as \"The Shadow\", responsible for stealing cattle, stage holdups and the like, and giving orders from behind the door of a phony wall safe. Yakima Canutt is Travers' trusty Indian sidekick, appropriately named as... well, \"Yak\".

Early on, we find out that Cattlemens Union head Matt Matlock (George pre-Gabby Hayes) is really The Shadow; the dead giveaway is when he offers to buy out his (supposed) niece Anita's half of the Matlock Ranch, since \"this is no place for a girl\". As Anita, Verna Hillie doesn't have much to do in the film, although in a comic moment, she gets to use a six shooter to blast the butt of one of the villains in a night time scare raid.

There are a few curiosities in the film - for one, Wayne's character alternately rides a white horse and a dark horse in the first half of the film. In what could have been a neat device, a hollowed out tree stump used by a henchman is located right in the middle of the street. And finally, the movie doesn't truly live up to it's name, as Sheriff Travers never wears a badge throughout the film, that is, a star packer without a star.

The horse chases, the runaway stage scenes, the stagecoach off the cliff (another curiosity, the horses conveniently get loose from the stage) are all pretty standard stuff. But John Wayne fans will want to see this one for the charisma he displayed early on in his career. For those more critical, the white kerchiefs worn around the forehead by the good guy posse could only mean that they all had a headache.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched the beginning twice, could NOT make sense of it, and it bothered me for the whole movie.

So, work this out with me: Wayne (the GOOD guy) jumps on the stagecoach, disarms the drivers (!), steals the money (?!), and takes off.

Disarmed, one driver is then killed and the other wounded by the bad guys. Thanks to Wayne, who disarmed them, and then watched it happen.

Then Wayne drops the money in the dirt, rescues the girl, rides into town, chuckles it up with Yak (too bad about the dead guy, I guess)...and then later says he \"found\" the money back at the scene. And everyone's okay with that.

And he's the good guy? And I'm pretty sure there weren't small, hand-held flashlights at the time. And Bell did his first phone demo in 1876... were they in houses then? Am I thinking too hard about this one? Normally, I'm happy to suspend judgment to enjoy a movie, but this one bothered me. And that's a sign the move didn't really work for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sad to say this is one of the sillier of John Wayne's series of poverty row westerns for Lone Star Productions. Here he is a United States Marshal on the trail of a bandit known only, I kid you not, as the Shadow.

No it's not Lamont Cranston, it's some dude who gives his orders through an open wall safe so his men don't see who he is. But the voice is unmistakable, you'll know within 10 minutes of the film.

And another reviewer here is quite wrong, no squeals or groans from the audience would have occurred because Gabby Hayes was still playing a variety of roles and he's clean shaven here. He had not yet found his niche as the lovable oldtimer sidekick of various movie cowboy heroes like the Duke.

Later on he does lead his men quite openly in the climax so I'm not sure what the point of the original gimmick with the wall safe was. I don't think those that wrote this one knew either.

Wayne gets Yakima Canutt as an Indian sidekick here and the relationship is just about the same as an unmasked Lone Ranger and Tonto.

It's all pretty silly if you ask me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE STAR PACKER is one of about 152,000,000 westerns that John Wayne acted in during the 1930s. Well, the number is a bit exaggerated, but it seemed almost like this many. This is because these B-movies were quickly made with very low budgets in order to be the second, or lesser, feature in a theater. Most Bs were pretty cheap and tended to cut corners to keep down costs and THE STAR PACKER is no exception. To save on costs, incidental music is not used, running times were kept to under an hour, the writing was often rather derivative and the actors are mostly lesser talents--and Wayne himself was definitely far from being a household name at this time. Some of these Wayne features are pretty good, while others, like this one, are watchable but also rather silly and inconsequential. I enjoyed this film and most of the others, but it's probably because I cut Bs a lot of slack.

Wayne stars as John Travers--a US Marshall investigating the actions of a local gang out to chase locals out and steal from the stage. This is odd, as the film was apparently set in the modern time or close to it, as they used telephones and modern machine guns--things you just wouldn't expect to find in the Old West. Such anachronisms are actually pretty common in B Westerns--as Gene Autry films (for example) abound with them. Wayne's sidekick is Yak--played by stuntman and real life friend of Wayne, Yakima Canutt.

The bad guy is an unknown figure referred to as \"The Shadow\" and he dispenses his instructions through a black screen that hides his face! This sounds exactly like a character from a movie serial--the sort of baddie that kids loved but grownups groaned at because they were so silly and at bit like Blofeld or Dr. Evil! The problem is, if you listen to his voice AND pay any attention at all, it becomes obvious early in the film that this \"Shadow\" is George Hayes. Now speaking of Hayes, this is the same guy who later in films was known as Gabby Hayes, but here and in several other of Wayne's early films, he looks and acts NOTHING like Gabby. In THE STAR PACKER, he was well dressed, articulate and clean-shaven--imagine that! In real life, apparently this was more the real George Hayes--though I doubt that he was evil! Now as you can tell from the last paragraph that there really is no mystery in this film. You are left with acting (passable and nothing more) and stunts--which were actually pretty amazing. Again and again, one amazing stunt after another occurred--such as men jumping from horse to horse and some great fight scenes--all done, by the way, by Canutt and his friends. Canutt was often John Wayne's double in films--and this went on for decades. The problem with some of the stunts, however, is that it appears that the film makers actually killed a few horses to get those great \"stumbling horses\" bits seen later in the film. Up until about 1940, film makers often strung thin metal wire and ran horses across it at full gallop! In the process, the horses' legs were usually broken and the horses were subsequently euthanized! One of the worst examples of this was the film JESSE JAMES--where several horses were brutally killed--leading to the American Humane Association insisting that a representative of the organization be on film shoots to certify that animals are NOT hurt in the production. So, since about 1940, films bear this little disclaimer. THE STAR PACKER was made well before the disclaimer and I can't see how the horses did these \"tricks\" without being killed.

Overall, this is at best a time-passer due to a poor plot, occasionally poor acting and an unbelievable cruel attitude towards the horses. I am no bleeding heart, but just can't understand this disregard for a poor old animal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't any idea how commentators could regard this as a decent B Western. Or how one commentator said the plot was more cohesive than most. Nothing could be farther from the truth! This movie is one HUGE non-sequitur! It is an affront to the noble B Western films of the '30's. I have seen many of Wayne's early Lone Star and Republic westerns, and this one is easily the worst.

The bad guy is known as The Shadow - for crying out loud! Initially, The Shadow's scheme is holding up open-sided stage coaches. Simultaneously, his gang rustles all of the cattle in the territory. Then they decide to move on to bank robbery. To do this, they need to shoot up the town with a machine gun - no explanation of why that's necessary or how he got that neato little toy!

No single scheme is revealed in enough detail to suggest a plot here. The Shadow is obviously just a generally bad guy with all kinds of generally evil schemes.

He imparts his instructions to his gang through a fake wall-safe. (Knock-knock, who's there?) He is apparently clairvoyant, because whenever his henchmen need to talk to him, they knock on the wall, the safe opens and - PRESTO - he's there. (I can just imagine that he has met them face-to-face and says,\"I have some secret, nefarious instructions to give you about our next evil deed - meet me at the wall-safe and I'll give 'em to you.\") Just why the Shadow requires the safe to communicate with his army of outlaws is, like most of the elements of this mess, never explained.

He has a nifty tunnel to the ol' hollow stump across the street from which vantage point, various of his baddies perform assassinations. He also has a hidden panel NOT in his secret lair behind the fake safe, but out in the main room.

When not behind the safe, he hangs out on his cow-less ranch, masquerading as rancher Matlock. We learn that he has murdered the true owners of the ranch - two brothers - and assumed the identity of one. The daughter of the dead brother has recently arrived from 1930's NYC (judging by her wardrobe), and she apparently never met her real uncle, because he dupes her, too!

If you thought that bad guys always wore black hats and good guys white hats, you need to see this movie. Here, the good guys all ditch their hats in favor of white head-bands that make them look like they have all suffered head wounds before any shots have been fired! It's like a game of pick-up basketball - only Wayne has them tying bandanas 'round their heads instead of just taking off their shirts.

Perhaps the weirdest of all is the ending. Immediately after subduing the Shadow and his gang, we jump far enough into the future to see Wayne and his wife (the erst-while niece) on the front porch of their home. (Never mind that there has been scant romance.) There, Yak is playing with Wayne's 3-4 year old son, dressed up in Injun garb! (Hiyoo, skookum fun!)

No thanks to this nonsense, Wayne went on to become a screen legend. Only a super-star (packer or not!) could surmount this entry in a film resume. Long live the Duke!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This proves just how awful the WB Network was in the last few years of its existence. As a homeschooler, I of course deplore this show for its ridiculous, fantasy land, obscure & unfunny stereotypes about the kids being \"weird hippies who are so smart they're alienated from the super-cool high school students\". Sorry TV writers, the world as viewed from inside your ass (containing your heads apparently when you wrote this show)is NOT the world we talented people see with our eyes as we live in a little thing called reality. As for those who actually liked this show...please, dear sweet Jesus PLEASE rethink the statement that you actually liked this crap over a very long walk. The acting is even more hollow, phony and wooden than the stereotypes the whole show was built around. Thank you WB for doing the right thing and putting this horse out of its beginning-to-end misery. This show never, ever should've even had the privilege of being made, no less having so much as eight awful episodes. I really hope that these actors eventually got a clue and stopped playing roles in garbage TV shows like this as soon as this show ended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry but I just honestly cannot see why anyone would actually like this. It's stereotypical and REAL homeschoolers are NOTHING like they were on this show!! Personally I'm glad it got canceled after the first few episodes. I mean, this kind of show would certainly be alright if everyone knew that homeschoolers weren't really like this, and the whole story was just for the show, but unfortunately not everyone is aware of this. If anyone out there that watched this actually believed this is what goes on in the life of a homeschooler, then I honestly feel sorry for them. This reminds me of the kind of portrayal they have of homeschooled kids in \"Mean Girls\". It's sad, really, that people think this way. This is complete garbage, IMHO.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have watched THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL with the avowed object of refuting this so called scientific atheist . I don't know where to start as he is such a rich source of stupidity.

He is obviously not a statistician else the odds of 2\/1 of him burning for all eternity would have pushed him towards belief in God

He regards science as religion and expects us to believe him as we do God. One has only to look at the language used in his postulations.

Regarding Faith. This commodity is used extensively in everyday behaviour. Just think about it. When he gets in an electrician be believes that it will be wired correctly and trustfully turns on the switch. When he gets in a plumber he pulls the chain in his bathroom and expects the water to flow in the right direction. Regarding faith in science When I was in chemistry class I believed and was taught that the atom was the smallest particle and the onion skin theory of electrons both of which have now been discounted. I was taught this as the atomic theory 'writ in stone' so to speak. So why should we believe any scientist especially when he goes beyond the parameters of his field? Dawkins states that religion will be the downfall of civilisation. Religion is civilisation. Can he, or any other atheist, please tell us what civilisation was founded and nurtured by atheism, barbarism or savagery please? He is now living in the last stages of a Christian based civilisation and taking all the benefits from it without any admission for its source. I found Dawkins to be arrogant, dictatorial, judgmental, an obvious believer in eugenics and a Nazi in his attitude towards the young. How dare he say what a parent can teach their child. The child is theirs, not the nation's and as the parents bequeath to it their genetics, so do they bequeath their beliefs. His dismissal of Adam as \"he never existed\" as he has no proof was an example of this same attitude. So I have no proof that Joe Blogs lives in New York but he well may do. I just haven't found the proof yet. That does not negate his existence I note his argument with the Bishop of Oxford that the prelate is selective with what he takes and believes in the Bible. Well, Dawkins also does this. Where does he draw the line between it as a historical document and a religious statement? He is also selective. I heard the lot when Dawkins came up with the ALTRUISTIC gene. What a hoot. He is desperately looking for proof for his wackiness and as the Piltdown Man was invented, so now we have this so called ALTRUISTIC gene which predisposes us to looking after our young and other members of our 'group' The trouble is that all animals do this - not just apes, and with evolution it is survival of the fittest. not the kindest and if he really thinks we are becoming kinder as a race he is not reading the same newspapers as I am I found his arrogance beyond belief in declaiming that as we only have this life, we should enjoy it to the full. So how does he equate this with his obvious position as a well off European to a destitute person in Africa who has had all her family wiped out and probably raped and is starving. Will he help her? I note that all his opposition to religion is a) that they go to war. Well G K Chesterton declared that the only war worth fighting was a war for religion b) we are against using contraception and abortion and homosexuality. All sins against the 6th commandment. Funny that.

As a Catholic I find his dismissal of Pius XII's pronouncement of the Dogma of the Assumption in 1958 to be erroneous. He , Pius, never said that it was revealed to him while he was sitting somewhere by himself. In case Dawkins does not know it, Revelation ended with the last Apostle. Pius would have taken years of advice and studied documents handed from down over the centuries to have come up with this pronouncement. Also as a Catholic I find his dismissal of all religious people as satisfied. what utter rubbish. We, everyday fight the world, the flesh and the devil. We are the Church Militant. We are also able to glory at a sunset and admire the beauties of nature even if we believe in God. The trouble with Dawkins was that he interviewed whacky zealots and extrapolated them to all of us.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whoever likened this one to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK certainly knew whereof he spoke. He might, as well, have likened it to some of the adventures of the pulp heroes that followed. \"Kay Hoog\" reminds one more than a little of both Lamont Cranston (The Shadow) and Clark Savage (Doc Savage). (The Shadow, quintessential man of mystery- and the very first \"Dark Knight\"- was also thought to be one Kent Allard. If one were to take Savage's first name first and add to it the Kent, you end up with- voila- Clark Kent. Funny, innit?) Like Indiana Jones, Hoog isn't above pilfering the artifacts of an ancient civilization (though his thefts are often more blatant and less \"charmingly roguish\" than Jones's). Unfortunately, this two-parter is a far cry from subsequent serials (from any era) in terms of overall quality. One of the first indications that something is amiss vis a vis the cinematic storytelling is a scene where desperados on horseback, quite literally breathing down his neck, simply watch as Hoog escapes their clutches in a hot air balloon. Why they don't bother to shoot down the balloon is just one of the many movie-making mysteries that plague these two films.

The second half of this two-parter is even worse than the first. Granted, this was one of the first ever serials and, as such, should be cut a bit of slack- but there are limits, even, to tolerance. (At one point, the capture of the hero is effected not on screen, but in the narration itself! Talk about cutting corners...) Fritz Lang happens to be one of the greatest filmmakers to ever make films; unfortunately for those of us who admire most of what he did, THE SPIDERS is a bitter pill indeed to swallow...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Originally, the Spiders was planned as a four-part serial, and it shows. I dislike serials; they're typically ridiculous, convoluted and banal. This one is no exception. In the first part of the Spiders, 'The Golden Lake,' a rich adventurer thwarts the plans of a gang of criminals--the Spiders--to steal gold from Incas. A silly love triangle ensues, with some Cowboys and Indians action. The sensationalism and exotica of it didn't entertain me.

One can legitimately trace themes from this two-part series to Lang's later, far superior work. And, the film-making is better than in other serials I've seen from this time, including 'Les Vampires' (1915). In the Spiders, the camera isn't as static, and this film is fast paced, thankfully. The tinting and lighting are adequate, too. None of that's remarkable, though. It's nearly unseemly, however, in how closely this series resembles Louis Feuillade's serials; the criminal gang dresses and behaves like those in 'Les Vampires'--only the names, and to a lesser extent, the situations have changed.

For the further comments on The Spiders series, see the web pages for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"During an eight-year stretch of the 1980s when Charles Bronson made nine films, only one was released by a company other than the Cannon Group: 'The Evil That Men Do,' a TriStar Films pickup from Sir Lew Grade's ITC Entertainment firm. Bronson was already in the thick of his collaborations with director J. Lee Thompson, which ran through numerous actioners until 'Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects' in 1989.

Expectations should run pretty high with Bronson and Thompson working for a better-funded outfit like ITC, but 'The Evil That Man Do' is a great disappointment on many levels. While still from the low budget, B-movie mold of the 1980s, 'Evil' has tantalizing potential for a great film. Everyone in the production department, however, took an easy way out and sold hack work undeserving of Bronson's imprint. 'The Evil That Men Do' had a concept and technical resources that could have been used to make one of Bronson and Thompson's best films, but instead will go down as one of their most average.

This 1984 political thriller\/actioner opens in brutal fashion with Clement Molloch (Joseph Maher), a British doctor, holding his special training class for political leaders in Surinam. The gray-haired, passive Molloch is an expert on torture methods who is employed by numerous political regimes. In the opening seven minutes, we witness Molloch using electrical current to inflict unbearable pain on Jorge Hidalgo (Jorge Humberto Robles), a dissident journalist. As you may expect, the scene is awful to watch and was cut from the original VHS release.

Hidalgo was none other than a friend of Holland (Bronson), a retired assassin who is enjoying life in the Cayman Islands. Holland was approached by the journalist years before to rid humanity of Molloch, but turned the offer down. A Mexican professor named Hector Lomelin (Jos\u00e9 Ferrer) visits shortly after Hidalgo's death to talk Holland into finishing the job, bringing videotapes of testimony from The Doctor's victims. While in denial at first, Holland eventually agrees to the dirty work, targeting Molloch and his doting sister Claire (Antoinette Bower) in Guatemala.

Holland enters Guatemala City with help from an adviser, Max Ortiz (Ren\u00e9 Enr\u00edquez); he poses as a tourist with Hidalgo's widow Rhiana (Theresa Saldana) and young daughter Sarah (Amanda Nicole Thomas) in tow. As with most of Bronson's later output, his character knocks off Molloch's henchmen one by one, crossing paths with a sleazy American diplomat (John Glover) and his supporting hit-man (Roger Cudney) along the way. A brutal ending takes place in the crevices of an opal mine, where The Doctor gets just deserts from several of his victims.

'The Evil That Men Do' is based on a forgotten novel by R. Lance Hill and jumps at American political dealings in Latin America during the 1980s. Indeed, 'Evil' is hard-boiled in every sense of the term, as it uses sensationalism and doses of brutality to cover up huge weaknesses in plot and character development. For every plus this film has, there are three or four minuses, resulting from shod craftsmanship.

While 'The Evil That Men Do' has a great concept, the film is never truly more than an excuse for Bronson to wipe out foreign-based scum. In the style of bad pulp fiction, 'Evil' is filled with cardboard characters that we never get to know or understand. Holland, despite being played strongly by Bronson, never talks about his inner feelings or explains what motivated him into becoming a killer for hire. Rhiana, a terribly weak part for Theresa Saldana, is disgusted by Holland for much of the way but later feels an affection for him. Where does her love come from, especially after watching Holland kill several people and wanting to go home just a few scenes before?

The most interesting characters are actually Molloch and his sister Claire, because so many questions can be asked of them. Naturally, we never find out what has brought them so close together, how and where their torture dealings started, what Claire's exact role in their business is\u0085These plot holes can go on forever, especially with the paint-by-numbers storyline that seems to make things up as it goes along. Why is Hidalgo's daughter brought into such a dangerous situation, other than for her to be conveniently taken hostage by Molloch? If Molloch's bodyguard Randolph (Raymond St. Jacques) clearly saw Holland and Rhiana in the cockfight arena, why is he so friendly with them in a bar afterwords? Is his memory that short? And what really was the purpose, other than cheap theatrics, of Holland throwing Molloch's chauffeur Cillero (Jorge Luke) off a window ledge when the murder could have been handled more discreetly in Claire's apartment?

The overall acting is decent and somehow Bronson gives one of his strongest performances. J. Lee Thompson's direction is lacking at points, but may have been compromised by limited time on site. Besides Evil's filming in Mexico, the presence of ITC is clear through better production values, cinematography, and music. Rural locations are well-used to convey the hot and dusty atmosphere of Latin America and cinematographer Xavier Cruz provides rich color and clarity. The orchestral score by Ken Thorne ('Murphy's War') is refreshing in an era of synthesized junk. Oddly enough, these positives only add to the frustration of a good movie that is screaming to come out. Peter Lee Thompson's editing is better than usual, although with more laughable continuity errors.

'The Evil Than Men Do' was perfect grindhouse material for the early 80s and I find it hard to recommend for 21st century action fans. The DVD from Columbia TriStar Entertainment is an okay presentation, offering widescreen and standard format with four-language subtitles. While the video quality is well above average, 'Evil' was originally recorded in plain mono audio. The theatrical trailer is offered and actually has a grindhouse feel, with eroded color and fuzzy sound quality.

** out of 4","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yet again, director J. Lee Thompson unites with actor Charles Bronson for a violent and uncompromising action flick. In fact, this is probably Bronson's most brutal film (quite a feat for a man who appeared in Death Wish, Ten To Midnight and Chato's Land). However, brutality doesn't on its own make for a good film, and The Evil That Men Do is ultimately a disappointment. If you were to take away its brutality the film would have precious little else of interest.

The story is about a retired hitman (Bronson) who lives a cosy life on a Caribbean island. He is persuaded to come out of retirement to track down and eliminate a sadistic torture doctor who has been plying his vile trade around various South American hell-holes. Throughout the film, especially at the beginning, we are treated to some graphic torture scenes to show us just what a nasty piece of work he is.

These themes are actually quite serious. Torture does go on in suppressive Latin American dictatorships, and everyday folk are made to suffer some despicably painful experiences simply for voicing an unpopular viewpoint. But The Evil That Men Do - for all its worthy posturing - isn't really bothered about the plight of these poor people. It is bothered purely with giving Charles Bronson an excuse to blow away some unpleasant scum-bags. It's just an exploitative actioner which hangs its coat on genuine issues. The torture sequences make you, the viewer, feel like a dirty, sick-in-the-head voyeur, rather like someone who gains pleasure from viewing \"snuff\" movies. The script is full of horrid dialogue, including some excessive descriptions of acts of torture. The Evil That Men Do fails to explore its disturbing ideas... its serves them up as entertainment and asks us to enjoy them. Sorry, but that's just wrong.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once again Bronson's talent is mostly wasted on this shock value 1984 thriller which (uncut) is far more disturbing than most of what is out even today. The fact that \"The Evil That Men Do\" is very disturbing (in its verbal and visual depictions of torture) is not the problem. It is the shameless gratuity in which it is presented. Interestingly, this film seems to symbolize that latter part of Bronson's career in which he has tortured many of his fans with the same egregiously predictable and uncreative plots. One hopes this fine actor will rise again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard to believe that there are some people out there in the world that actually think this is a worthy Charles Bronson vehicle.

Bronson is a good actor that can do more than tote a gun and knock off bad guys. He was quietly moving in the TV movie \"Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus\" and showed a lot of class and style in the Sean Penn-directed \"The Indian Runner\".

In \"The Evil That Men Do\", however, Bronson again plays a character that sees injustice and sets it right with fists, knives and, of course, guns. There's nothing here you haven't seen in the last five \"Death Wish\" flicks.

Wait, I take that back. This has to be the most sadistic and repellently violent film Bronson has ever had the dis-service of being in. Not just repellent in the scenes of torture or the descriptions of torture, but in the fact that these scenes were put in a film just to sell tickets. And Jose Ferrer! What in blue blazes was he doing here?!! I mean, he won an Oscar, for crying out loud!!!

Okay, sorry about that outburst. Let me just say that \"The Evil That Men Do\" has to be one of the worst movies I had ever seen that was based on a book. Yeah, that's right. I wonder if it was written with Bronson in mind?

No stars. Watch \"Death Wish\" instead. At least IT was topical.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Does anyone remember the alternative comedy show THE COMIC STRIP PRESENTS . One edition featured Charles Bronson ( Robbie Coltrane ) being interviewed about his new movie GLC :

\" It's about a man , an ordinary man whose wife and family gets wiped out by creeps and I have to hunt them down and kill them in a sadistic and graphic manner \"

\" And after GLC what next for Bronson ? \"

\" We're using a new angle . My family don't get wiped out but I go after creeps just the same \"

This accurately describes THE EVIL THAT MEN DO . It's a Bronson vigilante thriller where his motivation isn't down to a blood feud but this leads to credibility becoming strained

Bronson is a retired hit-man who isn't giving up his retirement for anything until someone shows him a video tape featuring interviews with the victims of \" The Doctor \" , not the legendary time traveler but a infamous expert on torture . It's never really explained why The Doctor is so infamous since any police state has a myriad of these sadists nor is it explained why The Doctor and his sister have ridiculous English accents

As you may guess it's a lazily written movie and incidents happening because the screenwriter needs things to happen to further the plot no matter how unlikely they are like one of the bad guys getting invited to a threesome so he can be killed or things being revealed like The Doctor's sister being a lesbian so some T&A can be included

In many ways it's like one of those nasty Chuck Norris vehicles that were being released at the same time , but the most disappointing thing is that the director is also the same man who made ICE COLD IN ALEX and THE GUNS OF NAVERONE two very well regarded war dramas that are often shown on Sunday afternoons . Believe me this movie won't be shown until well after the watershed","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the few movies - maybe the only - that truly haunted me for years. It was the first I had ever seen people tortured, so much that blood was flowing of their mouths from gritting their teeth and screaming, etc. It was brutal; the worst thing I had ever seen on film.

Dr. Clement Molloch, played by Joseph Mayer, is still one of the most evil characters I've ever seen on film, and I've viewed thousands. He was so sadistic that I would never watch this movie again, nor would I recommend it. He makes Hannibal Lecter look like Mr. Rogers. If seeing people tortured is not your idea of fun, then stay away from this film.

I know there are a lot of sick people out there, many of them professional film critics, who probably enjoyed this sordid, sick story. It's a \"B\" movie, anyway, with stupid dialog and some wooden acting by Charles Bronson. This is not one of his better efforts. Even if it was, there so many horrendous scenes in here you wouldn't want to watch. Trust me on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Evil That Men Do\" begins with a truly repellent torture scene, followed, a little later, by graphic verbal descriptions of equally repellent torture methods that the sadistic, heartless villain likes to use. But despite the use of such strictly-for-shock effects, the filmmakers can't really cover up the fact that this is just a dull, low-grade Bronson vehicle. Bronson himself is solid here, but he should have chosen a better script.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Evil that Men Do (1984) was one of the few non-Cannon films Charlie Bronson made during the 80's. Unlike most of the Cannon films Charlie starred in, this one wasn't fun or entertaining. Charlie basically tortures and brutalizes people for over an hour and a half. If you thought he was Mr. Emotion before, wait until you see this!

In this one, Charlie goes to an unnamed Central American country and shows the populace that whoever messes with Chuck or his people have to pay the piper. This one is no fun. It's not cheesy or campy, just brutal, sadistic and not in a good way.

I didn't like this one. I have no love for this film. No recommendations because it's not worth watching. Maybe if they didn't cut the hell out of it. Watch with precaution.

Don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bronson took the money and ran with this film; he must have house payments like me! This low budget film made in Mexico reminds me of a few of those Italians stinkers from over seas. I heard, I do not know if this is true, but companies make these films in foreign countries for tax purposes. I believe this because why else would they make this film, it sure wasn't to make money. We had a whole lot of these Canadian made stinkers, because the government gave tax breaks to create a movie industry. I wonder if it payed off in the other countries like in Canada. Anyway, back to topic this film is poorly made in every aspect, I believe they grabbed Charles Bronson in order to sell this stinker; that dead body at the end looks very phony. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Other reviews have talked about how frank this film is, especially in terms of male frontal nudity. Well, those who've seen Grande Ecole with its frequently naked actors and expect something similar are in for a big disappointment. Other than a few seconds in the judo team locker room, the two leads' side by side shower lasts a grand total of 15 seconds. The female lead has comparably brief frontal moments. A lot of this film's marketing is geared to the gay male audience, but those expecting even a hint of homoeroticism between the two male leads (best friends who have a three-way with the girlfriend of one of them) will be most disappointed. There is not even the hint of either one's being interested in the other, or even scarcely aware that the other is part of the menage a trois. As a film, Douches Froides is curiously uninvolving; the viewer gets very little sense of who these three young people are, of how they are feeling, of why they behave as they do. About one hour of the original cut was deleted; perhaps this is why the finished film seems frustratingly undeveloped. Stick with Grande Ecole, a French film which more than delivers on its promises.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I chose this movie because I was looking for a triangle friendship between a girl & two boys. As I lived this situation and get lost in it, I hope a similar story would inspire me.

My major concerns are: - Why (a) & How (b) the triangle forms ? - Why (c) & How (d) the triangle degenerates ?

(a) The movie offers a plain answer: \"because it's better !\".

(b) here, it's an open triangle: the three share things together. Mine was a closed one: every ones knows the others but never the three are together or speak about the missing one:

(c) The movie doesn't offer spoken explanations but rather prefer visual & emotional assumptions: the end comes with sensuality, sexuality coming up in the triangle, or more accurately, when for one member, deep feelings are tied with intimacy, and, as for the latter and the former, they can be divided. I agree with that.

(d) In the movie & in my story, silence is the proof that something isn't well.. And in a ironic and painful way, the tool for this sad times, is always the phone: I lived this dreadful planned phone-call: \"Call me back: I wait you\"\u0085 and when time comes, the phone is silent\u0085. A variation is also shown, when the line is connected but one refuses to speak\u0085 All those scenes were very very hard to see for me.

If the movie was a great help in that way, he got also a lot of flaws:

- I zapped on the boy's family problems

- why the shower scene on the DVD cover is cut on the movie?

- how Mickael gets finally into the hotel ?

- is Cl\u00e9ment always seeing Salom\u00e9 ? he says \"no\" but has her address; and who is the girl with him in the bar: his girlfriend ? how can she knows about the address ???

- what finally happens to Vanessa: the ring at the final shoot is a proof of engagement ??? with whom ?????","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's been a long time since I have been in the art-house theater and I went to see Douches Froides because it has gotten such great reviews in the papers.

The thing is with this movie, is that it has no head or tail, but merely a section in time about the life of the three main characters.

When it started I already knew that it was gonna be a long sit down, but sometimes things can get better, in this case not. There is no real character development or interconnection between the players. You start in the middle of a situation, all of the sudden there's a girlfriend and then there's a guy with whom he needs to be friends with in order to fulfill his sports ambitions, but the way they are put together is quite odd, since they are \"just put together\", so it seems.

And all of the sudden they have sex with each other, at least one you can see of. The feeling of guilt or jealousy with the other guy is hardly noticeable and really all I could think of during the movie was \"when are they gonna have sex again?\". And when you think of it, it's quite insane really. Because it basically means there is nothing really worth looking at, but three teens going at it and that, for me at least, makes it a very crappy movie, stay clear from it and save your money (my \u00807,50 is wasted), there are better art-house movies than this one.

I give three stars for the acting performance, one each.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is about a man who likes to blow himself up on gas containers.

He also loves his mommy. So, to keep the money coming in, he takes his act to Broadway.

SEE! CODY POWERS JARRETT BLOW HIMSELF UP ON HIS BIGGEST GAS CONTAINER YET! TONIGHT! 7.30PM!

However, one day, his mommy dies and Jarrett goes berserk. He kidnaps the audience in the theatre and makes them all stand on top of a huge gas cylinder.

Losing control further, he makes them all scream \"MADE IT MA, TOP OF THE CYLINDER!\" in unison.

The noise is so deafening that it bursts Jarrets eardrums, causing him to topple from the cylinder into a vat of acid.

This Warner Bros. movie is not all it's cracked up to be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ed (Kel Mitchell) is a teenager who lives for his job at Good Burger, a small but friendly neighborhood hamburger stand, while his buddy Dexter (Kennan Thompson) also works there, but lack Ed's single-minded devotion to his job he's there because he accidentally destroyed the car of his teacher Mr. Wheat (Sinbad) and has to raise money to pay the damages. When Mondo Burger, a mammoth fast-foot chain, opens across the street, it looks like Good Burger is history, until Ed formulates a secret sauce that brings hundreds of new customers to their door. However, the monomaniacal manager of Mondo Burger, Kurt (Jan Schweiterman), is determined to get his hands on the sauce and put Good Burger out of business. Meanwhile, Ed and Dexter must rescue Otis (Abe Vigoda), the world's oldest fast food employee, from the Demented Hills Asylum, and Ed might just find love with Monique (Shar Jackson) if he could take his mind off the burgers long enough to pay attention to her. Good Burger is a comedy directed for kids, decent story, acting, and overall a pretty harmless kids movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The cast of \"All That\" returns for good humor in the \"Good Burger\" a place similar to an old fashioned fast food restaurant. The comedy is terrific, the fun is non-stop, and though clich\u00e9, is a passer for kid and family comedy.

A movie for all ages, this movie is meant to enjoy, laugh, and pretty much a lazy movie for a rainy day, as that's what I'd save this movie for, a rainy day. USA aired it today, and since I know that the cast of \"All That\" is in it, I thought that it might be a bit of a chuckle burner, but in good fun, as Keenan Thompson and Kel Mitchell (probably one of the best young duos of that time) were terrific together, the pieces came together, and everything worked out, and it made it into good family fun together with some lazy day work to get off the bad day.

May I take your order?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Attractive husband and wife writing team Robert Wagner (as Joel Gregory) and Kate Jackson (as Donna Gregory) arrive at the spooky mansion of actress \"Lorna Love\" (actually, silent film star Harold Lloyd's house). Mr. Wagner and Ms. Jackson are contracted to write the silent movie star's biography. Wagner has a personal interest in the project, since his father was once the famed star's lover. Mysterious events unfold, and Jackson must fight to save her husband from the spirit of the beautiful blonde, who is \"perfectly preserved\" in a crypt on the estate; moreover, the evil woman seems bent on possessing her husband, and murdering Jackson!

This is very much a \"Night of Dark Shadows\" variation, co-starring genuine \"Dark Shadows\" alumni Kate Jackson, who knows and plays her part well. Robert Wagner lacks David Selby's intensity. Sylvia Sidney (as Mrs. Josephs) sidesteps Grayson Hall. Marianna Hill is not a match for Lara Parker (or Diana Millay). Bill Macy (as Oscar Payne) is good in a part that would have been played by John Karlen (in a Dan Curtis production).

There are smooth cameos by Joan Blondell, John Carradine, and Dorothy Lamour. Ms. Lamour's delivery resembles Joan Bennett, which begs the question: why didn't producer Aaron Spelling get more of the original \"Dark Shadows\" regulars?

Director E.W. Swackhamer was Bridget Hanley's husband; he worked with Ms. Blondell on \"Here Come the Brides\", and with Jackson on \"The Rookies\". \"Death at Love House\" has, arguably, a tighter storyline than the \"Night of Dark Shadows\" film; it differs in the movie star angle; and, in its \"Father Eternal Fire\" ending, it more closely resembles the TVseries' \"Laura the Phoenix\" storyline.

**** Death at Love House (9\/3\/76) E.W. Swackhamer ~ Robert Wagner, Kate Jackson, Sylvia Sidney","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The 70s were without a doubt the golden age of \"made-for-TV\" horror. This is one of those that was probably churned out as an ABC movie of the week. It's the old story of a house and\/or ghost possessing one of the new owners. The movie has promise, but it's never realized. Everything is rushed too much. Tension and suspense need time to build and grow. And there's nothing new. We've seen it all before and one better.

One final thought: I don't understand why Robert Wagner's character would fall for the long dead movie star when he's married to Kate Jackson for goodness sake!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't worry - no spoilers here, just saying there is a very predictable plot. A couple decide to live in his father's love nest so they can write a book\/article\/newsletter on his fling with a famous tragic Hollywood starlet. This whole production ran kind of like a high school troupe doing an episode of \"Murder She Wrote\". The only acting I was sold on was the old fogy's they interviewed for sources in the story. Apparently the directors thought the movie was getting too long, so towards the end they stopped pointing their camera to a kind of creepy image of the starlet and brought in plot enhancers to wrap this thing up. Don't waste your time - even the tried and true horror\/intrigue classics fail in this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Is there anything else on earth to be more enticing than to learn what expects our frail bodies after, um, death. Spanish director Ignacio Cerd\u00e0 (a soul-mate of his German colleague J\u00f6rg Buttgereit) provides blow-by-blow answer to our curiosity and invites us to an exciting journey in the world of preparation tables, scalpels, surgical saws, human entrails and warped minds.

Welcome to the autopsy room!

I don't know which facets of the film, apart of its notorious reputation, may have helped it to acquire sufficiently high rating.

Storywise it's fairly simple and straightforward - a day in the life (actually half an hour) of a troubled coroner (or, perhaps, assistant pathologist or whoever he is) that is fed up with his routine morbid duty and discharges his psychological tension in a non-traditional fashion, right at his workplace. I'm perplexed of what particular message the authors tried to deliver with this one-note plot. I suspect it may be somehow inspired by Udo Kier's character's quirky demeanor in Andy Warhol's Frankenstein.

Artistic values of the film are also questionable. It's hard to evaluate the performance of the actors that don't squeeze a single word. Their emotions are concealed behind the medical masks. There's also not enough room for great camera-work - basically, the entire action unfolds mostly within four walls.

Authenticity - effects and makeup are impressive and the setup looks very plausible, but only a handful of medical\/forensic experts can judge how truthful and anatomically correct the dissection is carried out here (if anyone cares). Honestly, I used to think that the autopsy is done to examine the condition of particular organs and to ascertain the cause of death. Now I know that dead bodies are severed, raped and humiliated, intestines are ripped apart, brains are retrieved from the head, stuffed into abdomen and mixed with guts, then the body is stitched back and washed - nothing personal. And what are these poor lads expected to write in their deceitful autopsy reports afterward?

Shock and disgust factor - it's much unlikely that an unsuspecting viewer would discover, to his horror, that the disc he was intended to watch with his wife and kids beside a Christmas tree turns out to be a graphic video manual on vivisection. This obscure item is barely available, sought by people well familiar with the subject and not easily offended. Hence it would be pointless to warn anyone to sabotage this film. They are well aware what exactly they are watching and what they want to see.

Cerd\u00e0 is really gifted and stylish director, which is clearly obvious from at least two other parts of his \"trilogy\" - preceding 'The Awakening', amazing black and white short, and 30-minute 'Genesis', visually stunning and moody piece with an off-beat and interesting concept. And I'm pretty sure that one day he will conquer the hearts of moviegoers with his new, more mainstream oriented, material. And sooner or later 'Aftermath' would become a rarity for the meticulous collectors of his \"early\" \"warm-up\" works.

But in the meantime, I'm afraid, it may be recommended strictly for medical students or specialists that study mental disorders and sexual deviations.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is not so good as I thought it would be. There is no story whatsoever, no characters and some dialog would have been nice. The gore effects are good and it gets quite bloody at times but nothing over the top. It starts with an autopsy on a man and when that is over the scene with the girl starts. The music is a classic score and fits the movie very well. They should have made a 90 minutes version in which they could have had some time for character development so we can feel sorry for the person on the autopsy table. And some more info about the morticians would have made this movie far scarier than it is. Don't expect a scary movie but a nice, gory special effects reel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK so this is about 30 minutes of gore with no story whatsoever. There is no spoken dialogue, no subtitles, not even any real characters. You see three people in the entire movie (that are alive) and two are just there for very little reason. The main guy has no emotion and just mutilates corpses for no apparent reason. That is the entire movie. I love to see very gory movies, especially since in America real gore just isn't very common in modern movies. So yeah the gore effects were pretty cool. But it just isn't really disturbing. Why does everyone think it's so disturbing? There are no characters at all, there are just 3 living people and 3 corpses. No one has any personality or back story. You see three corpses being hacked apart and you can't really identify with it unless you just identify with death itself and how this could very well happen (despite the guy losing his job and going to jail very shortly after.) To be disturbing the viewer has to care and to care they have to identify with the victim. For example in a good horror movie you should really care about the main character. Here it's just a guy and a corpse. It's as deep as a puddle made from only a single rain drop. They never give you any reason to care about anyone in the movie. All it is a guy hacking up a few bodies, then he has sex with a body. Now with the sex scene here is an odd thing about it, he makes sure to wear gloves but doesn't use a condom. So he couldn't care less about catching some weird STD from having sex with a corpse but as long as his hands don't get messy there is no problem, now that is really logical. I don't really dislike the movie, I liked that it was very gory but when it ends there is no reason to watch it again, no reason to even care, and it just isn't a very compelling movie. I say if you can find it for under 10 dollars then you might as well get it but if it's more than that it just isn't worth it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly - this short film sucks. the dummy used in the necro scene is pretty well made but still phony enough looking to ruin the viewing experience. the Unearthed DVD is crisp and clear and I haven't made up my mind if this helps or hinders it. If the film was a little grainy it might have added some \"creepiness factor\" to what was going on. I have no idea why this film has so much hype surrounding it other than the subject matter - but to be honest the necrophilia scenes in films like NEKROMANTIK and VISITOR Q among others, are more shocking than in AFTERMATH. All this talk about the film being about loneliness and all other manner of deep philosophy is bull****. This is an expensive, beautifully filmed turd. It's not that shocking, it's not that disgusting. if you insist on viewing it - rent it. I give it a 3 for the fact that not many people make explicit movies about necrophilia (there should definitely be a bigger selection for us sickos ;) - the filming is good and it does have some \"gore\" (if watching a rubbery looking doll get cut open is considered gore...) but other than that - absolutely nothing going for this over-hyped mess. On the other hand - GENESIS - Cerda's \"sequel\" to AFTERMATH (now available as a \"double feature\" released by Unearthed films) is an absolute masterpiece of a short film, really showing what a good director Cerda really is when given the right material. Although I don't care for AFTERMATH at all, GENESIS is so well made that I will forgive Cerda and Definitely keep an eye out for him in the future...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a serious marathoner, I was seriously disappointed in this film. Its target audience is clearly those who have never run a marathon, or novice marathoners. Following the stories of 2 first-time marathoners, one senior, one injured runner, and two elites as they prepare for the Chicago marathon, the film dedicates the majority of its attention to one female beginner whose story is, for lack of a better word, boring. While I did enjoy the brief glimpses into the training sessions of Deena Kastor, the brief history of the Boston marathon and marathoning in general, let me emphasize: These were brief!! Watching some Joe Runners prepare for a Saturday run with their water bottles and talking about how they view the marathon is not inspiring, and the nonstop clich\u00e9s about achievement and feel-good grinning runners will make you wish the film were about an hour shorter. If you are a first-time marathoner, this film may give you a feeling of \"I can do it.\" For anyone else, run away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie with a friend who ran a marathon with me, and we both had the same feeling about it: it wasn't terribly motivating, and didn't even broach the idea of what a training schedule would look like, so that non-marathoners could have an idea of what it would take for them to train and run one. In fact there was almost zero technical information at all. I didn't expect this to be a tech-heavy instructional video, but when that info was near zero then the film just wasn't balanced, and wasn't particularly useful to non-marathoners contemplating their first run.

There were other problems. Some of the very first images were people collapsing near death while trying to run a race. Yeah, real inspiring. The timing was also hard to follow, because it was semi chronological, but the filmmakers rarely gave you any good clues as to what point in time you were looking at. And they withheld information. You see that Kantor has an injury, and you just assume it's from all her training, but then several scenes later they finally clue you in that it's because she tripped over a pine cone in her yard.

Some parts were very good, though, like the bit about a woman defying race officials who wanted the run to be men-only, and the coverage of a Chicago race where two of the runners portrayed earlier were vying for first place.

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of other chronological documentaries, like Supersize Me, and Grass, where you always know where you are, and you feel like they told you everything you wanted to know.

In short, it wouldn't have been hard to make a better marathon film, and as it stands I can't recommend this to non-marathoners to educate and motivate them to try one, because I don't think it will have that effect.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a fan of the old SCTV show from the late 70's and early 80's and John Candy was a major reason why. He was given very funny off the wall characters and was simply hilarious. Unfortunately he could not get these roles to play in the movies. Time after time I was disappointed by the mediocre movies in which he was almost playing the \"straight\" role instead of the funny guy. \"Armed and Dangerous\" rarely tries to use John's comedic abilities, or that of Harold Ramis, for that matter. It is simply a very predictable cops and robbers type of movie. If you are a John Candy or Harold Ramis fan the movie is watchable, just don't expect to laugh much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's really too bad that John Candy wasted his skills on so many horrible films (Delirious, Wagons East, Who's Harry Crumb?, etc.. This one has maybe a few chuckles, but it's mostly just really bad one-liners and dumb physical stuff. Let's honor this comedian's memory by remembering things like Planes, Trains & Automobiles and Uncle Buck.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"John Candy and Eugene Levy star as inept security guards who chase down a big time mobster. Inept is truly the right word for this alleged comedy...a few laughs but mostly groans and thoughts to yourself like \"why am I watching this c**p?\" Yes that is Meg Ryan in this too..which i am sure she doesnt want to be reminded of..a waste of a talented cast..on a scale of one to ten ..0","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"ARMED AND DANGEROUS is not one of the greats of John Candy. This film about a fired cop who ends up working for a small security system run by the mob is very weak and not very much a comedy. There are some moments that I did enjoy, like looking at Candy in a pilot suit, but it doesn't seem to matter much. ARMED AND DANGEROUS is still a dangerously disappointing dud brought to us by the director of the equally dumb actioner COMMANDO. What a sad excuse for a comedy!

1 out of 5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i didn't hate this one. i just couldn't adapt to the story. it didn't really grab me. Michael Mann is a very good director but i have to disagree with his methods in this. i'm also a fan of Daniel Day Lewis. some projects he's been in are pretty rubbish but his acting is brilliant. my favourite Daniel Day Lewis films are There Will Be Blood and Gangs Of New York.

there is one thing i loved about this and that was the musical score, it gave the film a lot of atmosphere. thats about all i liked in it though. this film has a high vote as well which is a bit random. i can see that a fair few people will like this but not enough to make the overall rating 7.8.

i would give this film a miss if i was you but there is a lot of high votes for this so i guess you should watch it and make your own views on what you think. i didn't really like it............. 4\/10.............j.d Seaton","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Personally, I didn't really gain a whole lot from THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES. I've noticed a lot of really highly rated reviews on here for the film, and I'm kinda surprised. Maybe I missed something that other reviewers felt \"moved\" by but I found the film pretty tedious and basically pointless.

The \"action\" of the film is a bunch of autopsy footage that is filmed in an \"art-house\" style - lots of extreme close-ups, weird editing, etc...and with no sound or dialogue.

I guess THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES could be considered a study of human anatomy, or maybe (if you really wanna dig a little) some sort of comment on the fragility of humanity or whatever - but I personally found it to be a bunch of semi-interesting but ultimately dull autopsy footage. If that's your thing, then this will be a winner for you. As for me - I've seen more interesting ER footage. Not a \"bad\" film, as it isn't really a \"film\" in any traditional sense - I just found nothing really notable about it - 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eaten Alive follows a young woman (Janet Agren) who searches for her lost sister. Turns out her sister have joined a sect that has disappeared into the jungles of Borneo. With Vietnam veteran Mark at her side she sets off to find her sister.

As per usual, the acting isn't of the highest quality but you do get cannibal flick poster girl Me Me Lai spending most of the time on screen with her breast bare, female lead Janet Agren covered in gold paint and abused with a dildo dipped in snake blood among other things. Now that's gotta count for something!

But, I must say that I find it bit hard to recommend this title. If you are fan of the genre, you will most likely recognize every gore scene in the movie bar a select few. And I mean that literally. A lot of the gore scenes are lifted straight out other Cannibal movies, like MAN FROM DEEP RIVER and LAST CANNIBAL WORLD. There's probably more movies stuck in there.

Ultimately, this is one for die-hard fans to check off their list. If you haven't seen any Italian jungle movies, you'd be better off watching CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST and if you're an avid fan, you have seen most of the gore scenes in other movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One IMDb reviewer calls Eaten Alive a passable film for the \"cannibal connoisseur.\" Are there such people? I didn't know. But if you are one of them, hey, have a ball. The rest of you might find this tripe a bit hard to swallow (pun intended), even if, like me, you consider yourself a horror film connoisseur. I have been an avid horror fan for about 15 years now, although I never got around to the cannibal subgenre until a few weeks ago, and I guess I owe my short-lived interest in these groan-inducing movies, strangely enough, to China's total disregard for copyright laws. You see, I bought a two-disc DVD collection of all of Wesley Snipes' films for 20 yuan (about $2.75), which turned out to include Last Cannibal World, Mountain of the Cannibal God, Eaten Alive, Cannibal Holocaust, Next, with Nicholas Cage, and something called Voodoo Lagoon, along with Blade 1-3, in Chinese. Nice.

Being a second sequel, I immediately got a sinking feeling when the movie opened with a cannibal in street clothes wandering around major American cities, shooting unsuspecting Americans with poison darts and then scrambling away at full speed. Having run out of ways to keep movie cannibals scary, it seems that now they have made their way to the mainland. Later, you may be shocked to learn that this guy is on a \"training exercise.\" Lock up your daughters!

Before long the movie settles into the old missing sister routine, as a young blonde woman named Sheila begins her own investigation of the disappearance of her sister, who looks nothing like her in any way, but she's willing to spend most of the movie naked so I guess that doesn't matter. It seems that, after shooting one of his victims, the hapless cannibal we met early in the movie, not used to big city life, ran into the road and was struck dead by a moving van.

The brilliant police force find a mysterious bit of film on him showing Sheila's sister involved in some bizarre ritual behavior, but other than the film, the guy is a complete mystery. As the piteous police chief laments, \"we know nothing about him except that he's dead!\" Poor guy, he must be getting a headache from all this. I recommend a nap. Luckily, Sheila is the kind of girl who can throw around tens of thousands of dollars like it's nothing in the search for her sister. Perfect for hiring a plucky backwoods guide caricature, since the police are clearly going to be no help.

Obviously, nothing new is added to this miniscule sub-genre. Quite the contrary, cannibalism almost seems like a background to a completely different kind of bad movie, about the rescue of a missing person from the dangerous elements. Thickening the plot of that clothesline is not difficult, all you have to do is add in a cartoonish jungle cult of people who follow some guy who calls himself Jonas, who believes in using pain as a way to reunite man with nature, a process they call \"purification.\" Personally, I prefer just peeing outside occasionally.

One of my favorite parts of the movie is when Sheila is caught by one of the cult members - an overweight guy who looks like he took a three-day weekend from the office to appear in this movie. As he pulls out his trusty medical kit to give her an injection, he warns her, \"If you don't believe in Jonas and purification (through pain), God help you.\" He then gives her a shot and, when she winces from the tiny pinch, he politely apologizes to her. I sense a true believer in this guy!

As far as the gore, there are plenty of nasty sound effects over random shots of animals getting slaughtered and more than enough disgusting footage of women being cut up and eaten alive, so I guess right there the movie lives up to its name. The acting is astonishingly bad, as can be expected, and interestingly enough, the editing is also spectacularly botched but still strangely effective.

Unfortunately, I think you have to be able to relate to people who believe in utterly insane cults in order to relate to anyone in the movie. There are plenty of outlandish religious ceremonies that take place, which make it more and more difficult to understand why Sheila's sister decided to turn her back on normal society. I'm all for individualism and doing your own thing, but come ON.

After a while the movie descends even further into your basic, run of the mill escape movie, just before we witness the most wildly inappropriate rendition of Glory, Glory Hallelujah in film history. WOW.

Note: in this movie, a woman is raped with a severed snake. If you need any more reason never to watch it, seek professional help. Avoid this mess at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eaten Alive is a little film that opens in New York city and the arctic where tribe men shoot snake venom at a few people,then a woman enters the police precinct who's trying to find her sister that has disappeared after 6 months Sheila is from Alabama,but her accent sucks,she is teamed up with an adventurer who seems to just want her money and seems to say it a lot throughout the film.They venture through the amazon only to find a community with people and they find the sister,they're confronted by a mad man who has probably seen one too many Jim Jones preaches.He will bring them to a better place,it could be heaven but no,Mark and Sheila find out later its actually a suicide cult.

Why do I call Eaten Alive a \"little film\"? Ill tell you but when I watched it,I was floored through all the run ins with the cannibals,Robert Kerman has a different role than his professor in Cannibal Holocaust.He's a bit annoying,once we meet him at an arm wrestling match that looked like Russian roulette we know hes one tough guy.Plus the strong misogyny just makes you cringe and it looked like I saw it somewhere,oh the scenes of animals killing each other.But the whole film revolves on those scenes,its like were actually watching a images of nature with parts of a film But after watching this film I realized that most of the films scenes are taken from other cannibal films,even the demise of 2 of the characters,well..most of the film is.That's why I call this a little film,when I did found out that scenes were borrowed I felt like throwing the disc across the room,this isn't a film just a simple montage of sorts .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An Asian blowgun assassin takes out victims in Niagara Falls and New York City before getting run over by a car. Sheila Morris (former Miss Sweden Janet Agren, given a hilarious \"Southern belle\" dub to show she's from Alabama) finds a connection between these killings and the disappearance of her sister Diana (Paola Senatore) and sets out to investigate. This brings her to New Guinea where she promises a sleazy guide (Robert Kerman i.e. American porn star R. Bolla) 80,000 dollars to help locate her sister. After barely making it through a jungle full of bloodthirsty cannibals, they finally locate Diana, who's under the control of Jim Jones-type cult leader Jonas Melvyn (Ivan Rassimov). Jonas does the typical mad guru-style things, like passing out LSD, initiating group suicide, threatening to kill anyone who disobeys him and raping Agren with a giant dong dipped in cobra blood. Every once in awhile a character will look to the right or left and see a gory scene lifted directly from JUNGLE HOLOCAUST or MAN FROM DEEP RIVER (both of which were also directed by Lenzi). I'm pretty sure they also use at least two scenes from CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST as well. Here we get the expected animal slaughter scenes (gutting a gator; natives eating live snakes), plus some additional nudity and a castration. Me Me Lai shows up to give her breast implants another workout playing a widow who is gang banged by three of her brother in laws on top of the ashes of her freshly cremated husband. Mel Ferrer briefly appears as a professor and isn't given much to do.

So anyway, with MANGIATI VIVI! you pretty much get a promise fulfilled with all the nudity, gore, dead animals and bad taste you expect with one of these titles, so if you're a sleaze hound, by all means watch it. Personally, I got bored with it about midway through and just wanted it to end. The original (heavily cut) U.S. release in 1985 was titled THE EMERALD JUNGLE in order to trick people into thinking they were actually renting John Boorman's EMERALD FOREST. It was also called DOOMED TO DIE and EATEN ALIVE BY CANNIBALS!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love Umberto Lenzi's cop movies -- ROME ARMED TO THE TEETH is my favorite -- and his DESERT COMMANDOS pretty much legitimized the Italian Euro War phenomenon by managing to actually be a pretty good movie. Give him guns, machines, some guys to run around talking tough and it's hard for him to miss.

What a shame it is then to encounter his EATEN ALIVE and CANNIBAL FEROX. They could have been by anybody, really, and one watches them with a sense that he was under contract, was told what kind of films to make, was assigned a cast & crew and given a budget, deadline and script. Lenzi then went out and executed his films the same way that a guy at McDonald's fixes a batch of French Fries. Of the two, EATEN ALIVE is the more original -- which is kind of amazing considering that it features extensive footage copped from three other cannibal movies -- and easier to enjoy than CANNIBAL FEROX, though not much.

I will let others outline the plot: What fascinated me about the film is how staged it all looks, and yet what a somewhat infamous reputation this film has as some sort of all-out assault on good taste. It isn't, though the film is an exercise in bad taste, complete with a title-earning scene where two of the pretty supporting ladies are quite literally sliced up and eaten alive by cannibals which is the film's high point. The problem is that Lenzi lets us get a good, long look at the cannibal feast scene and it has the convincing ring of a 3rd season STAR TREK episode complete with a fake jungle set for the really gory close up shots. And I don't know about anyone else, but if someone was slicing off pieces of my person and eating them I wouldn't just lie there and look distressed.

My problem with the film might be that I have a lot of respect for Lenzi as a filmmaker, and again this could have been directed by anybody. All of your cannibal movie conventions are touched on but it never feels like they are filmed with any real conviction, other than to try and bully Ruggero Deodato out of the sandbox. The two directors certainly must have known each other and either had a sort of juvenile rivalry or an actual dislike for each other's work and a conscious need to upstage them. Lenzi invented the cannibal genre with MAN FROM DEEP RIVER, Deodato blew it away with JUNGLE HOLOCAUST, Lenzi fired back with EATEN ALIVE, Deodato blew him (and everyone else) away with the superior CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, and Lenzi fired a last parting salvo with CANNIBAL FEROX, which is about as realistic as that Krazy Glu commercial where the guy superglues his hardhat to a girder and hangs in midair.

This film is less desperate and a bit more hesitant to push viewers into the abyss with everything holy than FEROX, which remains as a sort of misguided attempt to upstage CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. This one is more of a mish-mash, with an interesting jungle adventure crossed with a Jim Jones like suicide cult -- the cannibals seem like they were added as an afterthought rather than the reason for making the film. I think that fans of the genre will have a better impression of the film than fans of Lenzi's films looking for something new by the formidable director. It isn't as entertaining as SLAVE OF THE CANNIBAL GOD, adventurous as his own MAN FROM DEEP RIVER and certainly lacks the wallop of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. Combine those considerations with the recycled footage, stomach churning scenes of animal violence, misogynistic scenes of sexual violence and stagy, wooden methodology of film-making and what you get ends up being an OK jungle thriller with two or three standout scenes, and Umberto Lenzi was capable of so much more.

4\/10; Gore freaks will go nuts however.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Largely forgettable tale in which mercenary Kerman & employer Agren travel into the jungle in search of Agren's missing sister.

Despite its connection to the cannibal movie family, this film is more of an extreme version of Rene Cardona's \"Guyana - Crime of the Century\". Lenzi clearly aims to exploit the (at that time) topical Jonestown massacre, by depicting a rogue, self righteous zealot with a penchant for bigamy and just a hint of megalomania (played with ruthless intensity by Ivan Rassimov) leading his motley crew flock into self inflicted oblivion. With sister in toe, Kerman & Agren attempt to stop the rot, but after several failed coups, they end up fleeing into the \"Green Inferno\", only to run afoul the locals and their notorious appetites.

One in a string of excessive gore fests that emerged in the late seventies\/early eighties, where every new addition seemed to engage in a one-upmanship contest with its predecessor, by attempting to contrive the most gory and graphic display ever brought to motion pictures. This inferior instalment employs all the motifs and gimmicks of the others, but with much less success.

Was it the so called \"Amazonian natives\" who looked like they were Bollywood rejects (this film was made on location in Sri Lanka), or the inept \"decapitation\" and \"castration\" scenes that seriously diminished the authenticity that was apparent in \"Cannibal Holocaust\"? You can decide. Without spoiling the conclusion, it appeared as though Lenzi put more emphasis in his shock and awe climax than in the basic requirement for a cohesive ending, where all loose ends are resolved. Most unsatisfying.

As with the others, where the extent of the graphic depictions of violence toward humans is limited (thankfully), the filmmakers have spared no extreme in inflicting the worst possible cruelty on hapless animals in their pursuit of the most sadistic shocks. Unfortunately, the only thing shocking about this film is that it rates a mention among others of the ilk, that deal with the subject matter more convincingly.

If there are any redeemable features at all, Kerman is an affable if somewhat one-dimensional leading man, and his bevy of scantily clad co-stars (Agren, Lai and Senatore) provide some visual respite from the relentless slayings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eaten Alive plays out like a bad rehearsal for the following year's Cannibal Ferox. The characters are universally bland, the locations are criminally under-utilized, there's no attempt to create tension or suspense, the physical effects are either laughably bad or shamelessly stolen from other movies, and the ubiquitous tribal rape scenes are barely worthy of a PG-13. Even the scenes of animal 'cruelty' are more tedious than usual. The only mildly shocking scene involves crazy Jonas, going a bit Goldfinger, wielding a blood soaked dildo; a scene that is just plain bizarre rather than graphic. My beloved wife, she of the 'Romeo and Juliet Collector's Edition', watched this movie without so much as a wince of disgust! And it calls itself a Cannibal movie! All-in-all, a pretty lame effort that thoroughly betrays the Cannibal tradition. Cannibal Ferox, Luci's follow-up, is a far superior example of the genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Eaten Alive\" goes down much easier than Ruggero Deodato's \"Cannibal Holocaust,\" but it's also a far more sillier film. I mean, at times it can be unintentionally hilarious, but the plot is so mind-numbingly idiotic that it was impossible for me not to lose all patience by the end. Tough guy Robert Kerman (Cannibal Holocaust) teams up with Janet Agren (The Gates of Hell; here with an intolerable accent) to search the jungles of New Guinea for Agren's sister, who's been brainwashed by the leader of a religious cult (Ivan Rassimov). Along the way, they fall witness to (sometimes real) animal torture and some cheesily rendered cannibalism. As directed by Umberto Lenzi, the movie is so over-the-top it's hard to take seriously, but if you enjoy trash cinema with more than a few unintentional laughs, it's not bad.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A snore gore. I saw this piece of horrible, stinking, worthless, junk at the Cameo Movie House (Now the famous Crobar Night-club)on Washington Avenue on South Beach in 1980 or 81. I was 17, and my three buddies and I laughed at this horrible, gross, piece of trash. The theater was on it's last legs and there were mostly drunks snoring and sleeping in the place. They didn't miss a darn thing. The Worst acting ever.These actors deserve the Academy Award for the worst, and I mean worst acting roles in the history of the cinema. Joke was, the theater was showing another Mi Mi Lay(A great name at least!) stinker...barf city. Enough said. If you're under 12 years old you might get a few chills. Over 12, you will be snoring after the opening credits. It's just amazing that anyone spent a cent on making this movie. And to think, it's considered a \"cult\" classic. YUK!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie contains real animals been killed, like a monkey been eaten by a snake and an crocible been cut open. I find this totally deranged and sick, and seriously question the mental health of the director of this trash.

This movie is so stupid and daft, that it has no logic at all.

There is a lot of boobs and sex in this movie, still don't bother viewing this trash for that, if you want to see boobs and sex, watch a porno instead. There is also rape scenes in this movie, which i found disgusting, like women been raped and cut up, and eaten. This movie is for sadists and those who get their kicks, seeing people been cut up and eaten.

A lot of the animals, like the monkey that appeared in this movie, there is none in the jungles of New Guinea. The local characters, most of them appeared to be Asian and none look like they come from New Guinea. It looks like, this movie was made around the grounds of a resort, which i bet it was.

Stay away from this trash, its sick and deranged.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Umberto Lenzi hits new lows with this recycled trash. Janet Agren plays a lady who is looking for her missing sister. It turns out the sister is part of a Jim Jones type religous cult in New Guinea. She hires a scruffy guide played by Robert Kerman to help her get to the cult's compound located in the jungle. This is another (!) cannibal movie, and I probably would have liked it if not for Lenzi padding this film out with scenes from his superior \"The Man from Deep River.\" I mean every cannibal scene is directly lifted from this film, which I guess makes him about as credible as Al Adamson. I felt ripped off. ***SPOILER*** 1\/2 star and that's for the dildo scene.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why is it that in the '50s and '60s, Italians made so of the best movies, and then during the '70s and '80s, made nothing but zombie and cannibal movies? Probably because art films didn't make any money. , The Cannibal Movie, unlike the Zombie Movie, which was created by Americans and `exploited' by Italians, is a purely Italian creation, designed as a mondo exploitation showcase, and to make as much money as possible (no artistic integrity getting in the way here). Eaten Alive came during the Cannibal Movie heyday. The director, Umberto Lenzi, hadn't even hit his stride yet; his genre classic, Cannibal Ferox, was still a year away.

In plotting similar to (read: ripped off from) Ruggero Deodato's seminal cannibal classic, Cannibal Holocaust, a woman (Janet Agren) receives word from the police that they've received a 8mm film from her sister. She's gone missing in Africa, and it's suspected that the tribal ritual depicted on the film may have something to do with it. Mel Ferrer, as a Professor of Somethingoranother, tells her that a man named Jonas (Ivan Rassimov) has started a Jonestown-like cult in New Guinea, and that's where the sister is. The woman hires a guide (Robert Kerman) to take her through the jungle to find the cult and her sister. And, wouldn't you know it, the jungle is full of cannibals.

One sentence should sum it up: if you've seen on Cannibal Movie, you've seen them all, mostly because these films steal shamelessly from each other (Lenzi copied Cannibal Holocaust to make this film, and retooled this to make Cannibal Ferox; Deodato copied parts of this for Hit and Run). And because they all share the same material, they all feature the same traits: awful photography, boring scenery, terrible dubbing, overacting, and exploitation, exploitation, exploitation. Genre fans will have a ball since everyone in it is a genre veteran. Rassimov and Kerman have a scenery eating contest. Agren exists solely to be naked, raped, or in peril. Plenty o' gore for all the sickos out there. The cannibals, who do actually appear to be native cannibals, eat lunch met disguised as human flesh. And, in the grand tradition of Cannibal Movies, any live animal shown onscreen is usually killed shortly thereafter. Overall, really not a good experience, but I'm sure there are psychopaths out there who find this excrement entertaining. I know I did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I recently viewed a copy of this (under the title 'Eaten Alive') Talk about dreadful! Any movie Ed Wood ever put out looks like Oscar material compared to this laughable tosh. To be fair a couple of lines from the script will live long in the memory such as \"These people (Cannibals) don't buy frozen meat from a supermarket like us, they get it fresh everyday from folk like you or me\" Classic! The mad 'Jonesville' type leader out in the jungle was the best character in the film, he really did look like a nutter. I think he was the only actor not to be dubbed in (badly), if these Italians must have American characters in their films why dont they get Americans to dub in the dialogue instead of English people trying their best to sound like Annie Oakley. I'll give this 3 out of 10, I'll give it three because it really is funnier than most comedies out these days.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Uuuuaaa! Barf! Yuk! Yuk! Disgusting! Puke City! Worst piece of junk ever made. Sick. Weird. Horrible. Enough said. Hold your nose. Don't eat. After seeing this sick, demented, garbage pail of a movie, you won't be able to eat your food for a week. But, maybe that's good. A new diet has been invented. Go to see this vomit inducing film. Get sick to your stomach. And you will be so turned off by the whole mess, that you can't eat for at least a week, and you drop about 15 pounds.

Me Me Lay! With a name like this, it's really amazing that she doesn't have a \"cult\" fan following. She rates as the worst actress ever. Her films make Ed Woods look like Gone With The Wind. This movie rates a minus 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** This movie - called EATEN ALIVE here in the UK is quite possibly the worst film ever made and is brilliant just for that. A sexy rich girl teams up with a rugged action man to search for her sister in the New Guinea jungle. What follows is an unspeakably crap mixture of cannibalism, insane cults and religious maniacs that has to be seen to be believed. The cannibalism scenes are quite horrific but are so badly staged and acted that they prove quite amusing. The cast are awful except for Janet Agren as the female lead who is excellent. Look out for the scene where she is stripped naked and covered with gold paint! My rating - 1 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I checked this film out was to see the \"early\" Kim Bassinger. That, and the fact that my TV guide said it was a \"gripping suspense\", and it was three-star rated. The rating must have come from the man who wrote this drivel because the only suspense in this movie was whether I would finish it or not. Robert Culp turns in what has to be the \"disaster\" of his career as a cop who is not even close to being believeable. At one point, EVERYBODY is a suspect, including a frail old woman. If you want to deliberately set out to watch a badly written, badly directed, badly acted movie...then go for it. It may make you appreciate fine films by comparison. I wish I had that hour and thirty six minutes back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You would think that a film that starred three of the biggest male film stars of the post World War II era would have become a classic. These three who also happen to be three favorites of mine, walk around in a daze, looking like they'd rather be any place, but there.

The sad thing is that The Way West definitely had some potential to be a classic. In these days of political correctness, a film about American pioneers and the travails of their westward migration is something not done now. It should have been better done back then.

Kirk Douglas is a former United States Senator who's heading a wagon train west to build a settlement in Oregon's Willamette Valley. Being he's an ex-politician, he rates above the hoi ploi he's leading. The script calls for him to have not only a covered wagon, but a carriage to lead the train.

You think that's ludicrous, you ought to see the whipping scene where Douglas orders his black servant, played by Roy Glenn to whip him. I won't spoil it by saying what causes Douglas to demand this of Glenn, but trust me, it's bad.

Robert Mitchum is the trail guide and of the three stars he looks the most bored. There was supposed to be considerable friction on the set between Widmark and Douglas, but Mitchum just saunters through the film above it all.

Maybe the friction helped somewhat because the movie calls for Douglas, a widower, to have an eye on Mrs. Widmark, played by Lola Albright. Now she's the best looking thing in the movie.

The film billing says introducing Sally Field. This was made in between her Gidget and her Flying Nun days. She plays a piece of white southern trash with the musical comedy name of Mercy McBee. We first see her in the movie sitting on the back of her parents wagon, legs akimbo and inviting. Of course she gets taken up on her invitation.

Her character is something like what's found in every trailer park in America and then again what was a wagon train, but one large trailer park on the move.

Despite this film, Sally Field went on to a two Oscar career. What that woman had to overcome.

Victor McLaglen's son Andrew directed this item and together with a lousy script turned this into a turgid mess. Shame on Andrew McLaglen, he's certainly done better in his career.

And so will you, unless you're a stargazer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While not truly terrible, this movie is still largely a waste of time, and paints an incredibly inaccurate and revisionist picture of Beach Boys history.

Basically, this movie would have you believe that Mike Love was the brains behind the band and Brian Wilson was just a pathetic psycho. In fact, none of the characters is developed beyond a one-dimensional parody, but this is a TV movie so what do you expect? Mike Love's foul stench is all over this turkey as he attempts to re-write history with himself in the role of band figurehead and resident genius. Yeah, as if...

On the plus side, the music is excellent. Unlike the previous Beach Boys made-for-TV bio-pic \"Summer Dreams\", this movie actually features real Beach Boys music, rather than anemic cover versions...Also, it features a surprising number of Beach Boys-related rarities and seldom-heard tracks - The Sunrays \"I Live for the Sun\" being but one example.

This movie was originally shown in two parts on American network TV. Part one is the superior of the two and documents the Boys early days and rise to the top. By the time part two rolls around, the Brian Wilson character has become a mere cartoon and the actor seems to be playing for laughs - but how could anyone take this crap seriously? If you're not a Beach Boys fan you probably won't get much out of this movie except an extremely warped and one-sided view of the band's history. But then again, why would you watch this if you weren't a fan?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another movie that makes the story of The Beach Boys worse than it is. I especially remember the scene when Brian says he's to quit touring and the other Boys calls him traitor. I didn't happen like that, and like the movie indicates in the beginning is that some scenes are over-reacted. A movie about The Beach Boys doesn't have to be that way because a lot of things happened anyway. The sad thing is that this movie gives the wrong picture about the boys to those who ain't so familiar with the group. Hard-core fans like myself knew that this isn't the entire true story and that's why i gave it a low rating 3. However it is the best movie about The Beach Boys I've seen so far, that says quite a bit about the other movies. If you want the truth I recommend the documentary Endless Harmony.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love the beach boys and their music. So, being that I am a filmmaker, I thought, wow, a Beach Boys Movie sounds great. Well, WRONG! I just actually turned off HDNET, the channel the movie was playing on, because it was so bad. Someone above mentioned about editing... well, they should have at least looked at the monitors while they were filming. I don't know if anyone else caught the mustache falling off the face of one of the guys after he kissed his wife and then he smoothed it back on with his hands. Ever heard of re-taking a scene! Acting was terrible. Direction was terrible. Make-Up was TERRIBLE!!! Possibly the worst make-up job I have ever seen. Brian Wilson's \"fat\" cheek's looked like pl-ado.

This is honestly the first time I have ever commented on IMDb, and I know it really doesn't make a difference... but come on, what the hell were the producers thinking?!?!!?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just finished watching this movie as it were playing on TV and I did'nt have anything else to do. Went right here to IMDb too look on the trivia page and happened to glance at the user comments. And what do I find? Every dumb idiot raises this movie to the sky! I would'nt even have written anything but when no one else takes the time to spread the word about this suck-ass movie I thought that I could.

The acting sucked from pretty much everyone in the cast. The worst one was the guy playing Brian Wilson (think I got the name right) as he were overacting, especially when he was high. The rest was'nt as bad as him but no one was good neither. I ain't no expert on the beach boys though so cant really complain on the story that much.... except it sucked though. No motivation for any of the characters decisions most of the time but hey, maybe they were idiots in real life to. And what I found worst was that I thought it were going to be a movie about the beach boys, but you really only got a grip about a few of the characters. I hate when they do that in movies, same thing in the doors, even though I like that movie more. Don't have any energy left to write more... it sucked! don't buy or watch it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Marked for Death (1990) spends more time on action sequences, than it does with focusing on its characters. After his first two impressive efforts, Above the Law (1988) and Hard to Kill (1989), this third Steven Seagal picture makes the idea clear: anyone who opposes him is meant to look like a fool; the bad guys are just there to make him look good.

Seagal had been steadily building an audience that seemed a bit larger than those that follow the kick-'em-up antics of Chuck Norris or Jean Claude Van Damme.

In Marked for Death, Seagal tosses aside any pretense at style and heads full throttle into exploitation. This film contains loads of graphic violence, gore and nudity that seem to be there for no reason other than to please rowdy moviegoers, who are unable to distinguish between action pictures that tell a story and those that simply pour on the thrills without rhyme or reason. And he deserves some real blame for this lapse in taste as a producer of \"Marked for Death.\"

Seagal plays John Hatcher, a retired DEA agent who comes home to Chicago, where his family is being attacked by a Jamaican street gang, who attack his sister's house, and the film proves that it isn't squeamish when Hatcher's niece (Danielle Harris) is shot in the crossfire. Hatcher gets mad, and he decides to team up with his old friend, Max (Keith David), a school gym teacher, and Charles (Tom Wright), a Jamaican cop.

Naturally, Hatcher declares war on the chief bad guy, a dread-locked Jamaican voodoo priest called Screwface (Basil Wallace), a nickname that apparently means \"outrageous overacting.\"

And it is almost unbelievable in the way Seagal picks off various members of the gang: he gouges one guy's eyeball, he breaks a guy's back, and he breaks numerous arms and limbs.

All logic for this movie is thrown out the window- -through the glass, that is. Why aren't Hatcher and friends indicted for all the property damage they cause or the body count that piles up? And how did they get their cache of automatic weapons from Illinois to Jamaica by plane without being detected?

Seagal has a Clint Eastwood stoicism about him that fans once seemed to enjoy, and despite the three different characters he's played in as many films, each dresses in Oriental black bathrobes, and wears a ponytail. One of the problems that I have with some of Seagal's movies is that the main characters never seem to be in serious jeopardy, and because he's the star, of course, no one can lay a glove on him, except for the bad guy.

Seagal's heroes are all interchangeable, as are most of the plot lines and action sequences. Regardless of whether he's masquerading as a ship's cook, a fire fighter, or an L.A. cop wearing love beads, Seagal is always Seagal, which is exactly what his fans want. In fact, the sameness of these films is such that, if I wanted to, I could take an old review, change the names, and have a reasonably accurate take on the new movie. Not that I'd ever really do that...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So Seagal plays a DEA detective named John Hatcher who lost his partner on a drug investigation into, surprise surprise, Colombia! Not to brag or anything, but my father was born and raised in Colombia (hence my last name), and now he's a doctor in California, so no matter what the movies would have you believe, there are some things other than drug dealers and cocaine that come out of Colombia!

At any rate, in a drug bust gone bad, Hatcher loses his partner and accidentally kills a naked Colombian prostitute, inspiring him to go to confession, somewhere that I have never seen him go before in any of his movies, before or since. It was actually pretty interesting. Seagal has a tendency to come off as almost asexual the way he never gets much involved with women other than as a plot device and the way the occasional seduction attempt, whether by a stripper or by a lover, never piques the slightest bit of interest from him. He's all get-the- bad-guys all the time.

But in the confession booth, he confesses to having lied, sold drugs, falsified evidence, and even slept with informants in order to get the information he needed to put the bad guys behind bars (I hope I'm not getting in trouble with God by telling you this\u0085). The priest tells him to go to his family, so he decides it's time to retire from the force.

The next third of the movie is an exercise in the paper-thin characterization characteristic of Seagal's films. Marked For Death is the story of Seagal against a band of mystic Jamaican drug dealers, and these guys have no discretions about pushing their products in broad daylight.

Hatcher goes back to visit his old high school coach, Max (a minimal effort by Keith David), and right in the middle of practice there are some of these dread-locked crackheads sitting right there in the bleachers peddling crack to some bookworm-looking high school girls.

Maybe I just had a sheltered experience in high school, but I didn't know crack dealers and crackheads hung out AT SCHOOL in the MIDDLE OF THE DAY. At any rate, it's not long before Hatcher learns how evil these guys are. They're not just peddling crack to high school kids, but the coach has been losing football players regularly to their drugs, they engage in smartass stare-downs with Max, and since that's not enough, his 13-year-old niece died in their crackhouse.

Ah, OK. We get the picture. I'm sure they also torture puppies and beat up old women, and maybe steal candy from children too, just for good measure. Is it really this hard to establish who the bad guys are? 13-year-old niece died in their crackhouse. Wow.

Anyway. Not only does the movie not know how to develop villains without resorting to what basically boils down to movie name-calling, where evil deeds are shallowly assigned to them through dialogue, but they also don't know how they should act.

The leader of the drug dealers, is named Screwface, and I suppose that alone should tell you something about the kind of movie this is. Screwface is a cartoonish Jamaican man with these bright, bizarrely green eyes, which I am guess must be an important part of his character because he spends a good majority of his screen time with his eyes half bulging out of his head. His favorite means of intimidation is to scream really loud in his wildly overblown Jamaican accent with his face quite literally less than an inch away from whoever he's yelling at. This guy likes to get so into guys' faces that he has to turn his head to the side so their noses don't touch. All I could think about was how the poor guys would deal with his breath.

Man, they do not want you to forget that these guys are Jamaican, by the way. Their accents are so exaggerated and overblown that for most of the movie it's nearly impossible to understand them. Not that it matters. It doesn't matter what they're saying, all you need to know is that everything that comes out of their mouths is some kind of evil drug-related thing, they're just the psychos that peddle drugs and kill people. The movie must have been a huge hit in Jamaica!

My biggest problem with the movie is that the theatrics, particularly of the bad guys, as I've described, are spectacularly goofy, even for a Seagal film. They are so cartoonish and weird that it's impossible to take them as anything other than a goofball b-movie creation, something slapped together to provide fodder to whom Seagal can distribute his characteristic brand of smack-down retribution.

But there is also a bizarre kind of mysticism in the movie that just makes it all come off as weird. For example, a mystic, I guess you would call her, at one point puts some kind of curse on Screwface by (if I remember correctly) spitting mouthfuls of Bacardi onto a live rooster that's hanging upside down before beheading it and dripping its blood onto a picture of Screwface. Hmm. Interesting.

Sadly, it's this same woman that warns Hatcher that his family has been \"marked for death\" by these people, meaning they've got some voodoo hex on them. Not to belittle anyone, but if I was told that my family had been cursed by people like that, I would just laugh at it. Hatcher doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to take much stock in freaky voodoo curses!

But the set-up, as you can see, is pretty standard for a Seagal film. Unique villains, I guess you could say, although not very impressive. Definitely the weirdest film of Seagal's early career\u0085","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Have you ever wondered why these guys -- Seagal, Stallone, Willis, et al -- manage to survive all those gunfights in which they're outnumbered? I think I've got it figured out. The enemies always miss, and the hero doesn't.

Here, Seagal has a pistol and outshoots a half dozen heavies firing at him from a few feet away. One of the heavies has a shotgun. Or maybe two of them have. It doesn't really matter. There could be a thousand shotguns blasting away at him and Seagal would still emerge with his ponytail intact.

And when it comes to mano a mano combat -- forget it. The evildoers may or may not be armed with swords or knives or blunt object but Seagal, with his skill in aikido or tempura or sushido or play-do or whatever it is, brushes them aside with a few dismissive blows. Not only is he a master of these outr\u00e9 skills but his physical strength is Herculean. More than once he snaps somebody's long bones as easily as we would break a toothpick. One he breaks a guy's SPINE over his knee.

I'll tell you something. (I'm getting into the spirit of the film here because Seagal uses that line, \"I'll tell you something,\" several times, along with, \"What's that supposed to mean?\") These guys are fully deserving of extinction in any good Xenophobe's handbook. They are all black, speak with unintelligible Jah-MAY-can accents, wear dreadlocks that look in dire need of a shampoo, they torture and murder with aplomb, and -- here's the worst part. They're unchristian. That's right. They practice voodoo.

Actually the voodoo element comes close to being the most interesting element of the film. They got the constituents of the ritual pretty well -- cigar smoke, rum spitting, the sacrificial chicken. They only left out the possession dance in which the spirit rides the dancer. They should have read Metraux on voodoo.

Otherwise the plot adheres to the usual conventions. What was done to Jaqueline Bissett by the voodoo-practitioners in \"The Deep\" is done here to a friend of Seagal's. What was done to John Wayne when he was stuck between trucks in \"McQ\" is done here to Seagal himself. At the movie's very opening, when Seagal makes a brief speech about having seen too much pointless violence in his DEA career so he's now happily retired, and when we are introduced to his friends and family, I tried to keep track of his affiliates to see if I could pick out which ones would be horribly murdered or maimed to generate his quest for revenge.

The acting doesn't really require much comment. But Charles, the Jamaican cop, played by Tom Wright, is really pretty good. Wright has considerable range. Here, he's an associate of dubious allegiance, rather sinister. But in \"The Pentagon Wars\" he has a comic part that he underplays perfectly.

The Jamaicans never flew as movie villains. I don't know why exactly. It's a small movie market. And if you go to Jamaica stick to Montego Bay. However, if you want to see Jamaican voodoo drug dealers as heavies, and if you're in the mood for another typical-standard action flick, this should be a satisfying view.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Escape from Hell\" is not made with enough artistry to disguise what it is: crass exploitation. The direction and writing are both sloppy: for example, the camera-work during the fight between Cintia Lodetti and Ajita Wilson is so bad that you can barely make out what's happening; also, if the alcoholic-but-kind-hearted doctor hadn't killed the warden, the guards would never have followed him and the girls after their escape - the \"fake plague\" plan had worked fine until then but he just had to ruin it. I would have given this film a 4 out of 10 (the sweaty lesbian scene is not bad and Christina Lai has an amazingly beautiful face and body), but a particularly disgusting scene of abuse forced me to cut 2 more points. Of course some sickos will take that as a recommendation. After all, one thing even more disturbing than this film is that some people actually gave it positive reviews!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK,I've seen over 100 Troma films, and some of them are pretty bad. \"Sizzle Beach U.S.A.\" was horrible, and \"I Was A Teenage TV Terrorist\" was unwatchable, but this is THE WORST FILM IN THE TROMA LIBRARY!

A bunch of women are kept in a prison and tortured as they try to escape.

This is really terrible. Even as exploitation films go. Doris Wishman and Hershall Gordon Lewis would probably kill the director if they saw this poor excuse for an cult film. Avoid this movie at all costs.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Allegedly the \"true story\" of Juana de Castilla, the eldest daughter of the Catholic Queen Isabella (yes, the same who funded Columbus's expedition), the film charts the progress and degeneration of her morbid obsession with her husband, the Archduke Philip of Austria, known as \"The Handsome\" (and played in a rather unispired manner by Italian hunk Daniele Liotti, at his most buttery and beefy here). This is a groan-inducingly familiar story of late 15th c., early 16th c. intrigue, betrayal and bodice-ripping. It drips destructive lust from start to finish. But while La Reine Margot succeeds in making cruel sensuality and ruthless, cut-throat intrigue entertaining to watch, Juana La Loca just doesn't pull off. It just ends up feeling like a big-budgeted soap opera, with below-average, lazy or over-keen acting. Liotti looks positively bored and Pilar L\u00f3pez de Ayala in the title role \u0096 though to be fair she may mature into a proper talent \u0096 just seems to be trying too hard, switching back and fourth from two-dimensional horny-looking to spoilt teenage hysterics all the way through. Some of the supporting cast are OK, with the exception of Manuela Arcuri, another Italian pin-up, voluptuous and beautiful but really no \"actress\" to speak of. I couldn't in fact bring myself to feel any concern towards any character, nor for that matter did I feel strongly in a negative way against any of the supposed villains. What a waste of a substantial film budget! This one, sadly, is just so rhetorical and deja-vu, nodding to other films in the genre rather than to its source material - history - for inspiration. It seems to me that such a fascinating and complex historic era deserved a far superior film-maker to evoke it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a great disappointment. Director Vicente Aranda has provided many interesting films throughout his long career, some of them were highlighted by strong and powerful performances by Spanish actress Victoria Abril. In JUANA LA LOCA, he relies on a gifted actress as well , newcomer Pilar Lopez de Ayala, but this is barely the sole positive element in an otherwise terrible mess of a movie. While Lopez de Ayala tries hard to portray Juana as a romantic and passionate young woman, completely obsessed by love to her handsome husband, it seems as if she weren't able to develop her character over this one-dimensional feature; Juana was an important figure in Spanish history, and politics of that time were essential in her storyline... but here she's introduced as a romantic leading lady out of a soap opera; this is a real pity, and the film a missing opportunity to show the way personal lives can influence History and vice versa. Worst of all, Italian actors Daniele Liotti and Manuela Arcuri turn out in real bad performances, which, in the case of Liotti is a real problem as he portrays Felipe el Hermoso, a pivotal role in this story. It seems a clear choice to attract young audiences, as both of them look like top-models of this era. On the other hand, talented actors such as Giuliano Gemma and Rosana Pastor are completely wasted in supporting roles clearly underdeveloped. Even if this was a big-budgeted film, little care was taken in bringing a good screenplay or creating \"period pieces\" on the screen. Costumes are particularly grotesque in some of the group scenes, as if they were taken from stock material,without regarding of a real coherence. All in all, the main problem with JUANA LA LOCA (and this is what makes the difference with far superior historical films as LA REINE MARGOT or ELIZABETH) is the lack of a director's point of view. This a strange turn in Aranda's career, as he was able to develop it in other works (LIBERTARIAS and AMANTES come to my mind), creating very personal and interesting movies, while this JUANA really is no more than a routine academic historical piece... and a not very good one at that!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Vicente Aranda has made a terrible historical movie. It shows the poor resources of the spanish cinema. In the movie, an irreal script shows Juana just as a ninphomaniac, faced to Felipe, worried only for sex...but sex with others not with her. The technical mistakes begin with the wedding ring that shows Isabel of Castilla -Nobody noticed that?-. Then, the voice in off seems as a documentary, actors and actress in the movie sometimes laughs -take a look to the sequence when Juana arrives to the council which want to keep her isolated-; the castles are almost broken when in the age of the movie they have been recently built, crowds are just \"four\" people, lights are bad placed...Compared with Amelie Poulain, the french movie for the oscars...it has no sense to speak about a bad movie like Juana la loca.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a silly movie. While it looks nice, it doesn't make a lot of sense. On the one hand, the film suggests that Juana's \"madness\" was that she was just a woman ahead of her time. On the other hand, she has an obsession that is right out of the worst Victorian novel of the wronged woman, and that does seem a sort of mental problem, like Miss Havesham in a castle. This movie is what Elizabeth would have been if Elizabeth had not been able to get past Essex's sexual attraction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even die hard John Wayne fans will have to concede that this film is a mess. Wayne's character, John Tobin is after the gang that killed his parents, led by half Apache, half white renegade Pandro Zanti (Earl Dwire), posing as a Mexican.

There are almost too many silly plot points to count, but those that stand out include Sheriff Williams (Jack Rockwell) cuffing a captured Zanti around his boot, so all Zanti has to do to get free is remove his boot! Tobin's friend Dusty (George pre-Gabby Hayes) takes a thrown knife in the back, and comes back good as new for the rest of the story. In a chase scene, Tobin rides a makeshift log flume through a drainage trough surrounded by log walls in the middle of a desert, and missing his mark, chases (actually walks after) Zanti on foot through the desert. Zanti seeks relief and drinks from a pool of water, but OOPS!, he didn't see the sign above the waterhole that states \"Don't Drink Poison\". As Zanti collapses dead, Tobin resumes his chase after the remainder of the gang, and captures the whole lot by blowing up a rock wall that seals a secret passage into Dusty's cabin - how convenient.

In the closing scene, the new Sheriff Tobin is seen on the phone talking to the new Mrs. Tobin (Sheila Terry), Dusty's daughter Ruby, who earlier in the film was a kidnap target of Zanti's gang. Apparently, the studio was intent on Wayne's getting the girl in virtually every film they made with him, as this type of ending is completely predictable for almost all of Lone Star's films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most die-hard worshippers of John Wayne will cringe when they watch The Lawless Frontier. Even for a poverty row studio, this one is one stinkeroo.

Unusual for a western we have a criminal who is a sex crime perpetrator. Earl Dwire plays a halfbreed white and Indian who for reasons that are not explained, pretends he's a Mexican, hokey accent and all. Dwire sounds like the Frito Bandito of advertising fame back in the day.

He and his gang happen upon Gabby Hayes and his daughter Sheila Terry. They really don't have anything worth robbing, but Dwire just wants an excuse to kidnap Terry and have his way with her. She hears the dastardly fate she has in store and she and Hayes flee the ranch.

Where they happen to meet John Wayne who's on the trail of the bandits. They also run into one very stupid sheriff who believes Wayne is one of the bandits. Again for reasons I can't quite fathom.

It was a tough way to earn a living grinding out horse operas like these for the Duke. Fortunately better things were on the way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While most of Wayne's B efforts are entertaining in a fun way, this film is so sloppily edited and written, it is a dud. The first ten minutes alone show Wayne and bandits in nighttime scenes intercut with stock footage obviously shot in the day. Dwire plays a half white, half Apache bandit with a heavy Mexican accent and he cannot seem to pull off any nationality! I give this a 3.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is probably Wayne's poorest movie; at least the poorest in which he had a starring role. It's just incredibly bad. The editing is especially awful; it really appears that the editor (if there was one)literally picked up pieces of film off the floor and pasted them together. The opening has to be seen to be believed. John Wayne must have cringed every time it was mentioned! I know there are \"B\" films - but are there \"H\" films? If so, this one's an example. And I say this as a devoted JW fan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What distinguishes some of the 'Lone Star' films (and many others in western and adventure films of the early thirties) was their lack of what we recognize as formulaic story telling. To be sure they had good vs. evil (the basic element of any Western), boy meets girl and some stock characters, such as the old rancher and his beautiful daughter or grand daughter, and sometimes the evil banker or other businessman, but the way the action played out was often different from film to film.

'The Lawless Frontier' features Earl Dwire in his big star turn (not) as (for some inexplicable reason) Pandro Zanti, a 'half Apache, half American posing as a Mexican who speaks the language fluently.' His biggest posing as a Mexican seemed to be his outrageous mariachi clothes. The only plot seems to be that he wants to steal Ruby, the granddaughter of \"Old Dusty\" (Gabby Hayes). When meeting her for the first time, Dwire gives her a long once over look that puts him in the big leagues with sexual predators. You'd think that because the opening scene shows Zanti killing John (Wayne) Tobin's father off camera, it would play a bigger part in the film. It doesn't. Too much chasing back and forth between heroes and villains.

We get many good stunts, though, from Yakima Canutt, including pulling Ruby up on his horse when he rides by, jumping on 'renegades' and knocking them off their horses, a horse leap off a cliff into a lake, and even the same slide down the sluice sequence that was in \"The Lucky Texan\" (1934), although this time the Mighty Yak uses a body surfing log instead of straddling a tree bough, and its inclusion is just as illogical this time too, since they are in a desert.

The high point is clearly John Wayne's measured and methodical well photographed walk across the desert after the fleeing and stumbling Zanti with those fantastic basalt cliffs of Red Rock Canyon (seen in countless serials, westerns and science fiction 'moon' movies) framed behind him. No final gun duel at fifty paces with the heroine running from the wooden steps of the bar to embrace and kiss the conquering hero in this movie! When John Wayne finally catches up with him, Zanti drinks poisoned water from a waterhole and dies.

After a couple too many chase sequences, Zantai's gang is finally captured in Dusty's cabin, emerging one by one from behind a swivel cabinet that apparently leads to a canyon, now blocked off by having been dynamited. No riding off into the sunset or obligatorily kissing the girl: The final shot is Ruby, now Mrs. John Tobin, on the telephone to the now Sheriff John Tobin, \"What would Sheriff Tobin like for dinner?\" The film also has poor lighting and editing at the beginning, the pacing is slow, some parts with the sheriff cause it to drag, and the horse chases fill up the film. So despite the different and unusual elements, it comes off as one of the weaker Lone Stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, there are many worse Wayne movies. This movie is edited poorly but it has a campy element that makes watching it enjoyable. The villain is an Anglo actor who sports ridiculous Mexican clothes and affects an over-the-top Mexican accent which is hilarious. The girl is dressed like a Jean Harlow wannabe, this is 1934 after all. At least the location shots are beautiful and enjoyable.

Watch it and laugh. Don't expect a serious western, but rather a lightweight and superficial story with poor acting but occasional flashes of camp humor. Wayne is almost ludicrously young and handsome and one can see his acting ability blossomed years after this regrettable venture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This slightly ponderous late 50's sci-fi-horror schlock isn't entirely a loser. It's about a manned space rocket that crash lands in a remote area. A bunch of scientists go to investigate and discover that the astronaut is in some kind of coma; he's being kept alive by alien embryos that have been mysteriously implanted in him. Anyway, the title alien monster soon raises it's head causing general havoc, including partial head removal.

The main problem with the film is it's pacing. It takes quite a while for the Blood Beast to appear, and he really only comes into his own in the last 20 minutes or so. He is undoubtedly a completely ridiculous creation but that's really not a problem as he provides a fair amount of comic relief. At the end of the movie where we have the final stand-off and this ludicrous creature starts talking with the voice of the doctor he killed earlier, you will be doing well not to have a giggle. So too in the brilliant x-ray scene where we see the alien embryos floating about in the astronaut's body - it's just too funny for words.

But unfortunately, the fun moments in Night of the Blood Beast come too few and far between. If you're a 50's sci-fi nut though then it's well worth checking this one out. Just don't expect too much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"An astronaut (Michael Emmet) dies while returning from a mission and his body is recovered by the military. The base where the dead astronaut is taken to becomes the scene of a bizarre invasion plan from outer space. Alien embryos inside the dead astronaut resurrect the corpse and begin a terrifying assault on the military staff in the hopes of conquering the world,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

A Roger Corman \"American International\" production. The man who fell to Earth impregnated, Mr. Emmet (as John Corcoran), does all right. Angela Greene is his pretty conflicted fianc\u00e9e. And, Ed Nelson (as Dave Randall) is featured as prominently. With a bigger budget, better opening, and a re-write for crisper characterizations, this could have been something approaching classic 1950s science fiction.

*** Night of the Blood Beast (1958) Bernard L. Kowalski, Roger Corman ~ Michael Emmet, Angela Greene, Ed Nelson","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After an astronaut dies in space, he is brought back to a military base. Inside the man are discovered alien embryos -- he is the host for what could be a terrible alien invasion! This film comes to us from director Bernard L. Kowalski, who also directed \"Attack of the Giant Leeches\" (see separate review) but may be better known for his work on \"Columbo\". Executive producer was Roger Corman, known as the creator of much better films than this one... particularly in the 1960s.

This movie is cheesy and poorly constructed. What comes across as interesting is the poor effects, not the actual film itself. One scene shows a close-up of the alien embryos and it's an embarrassing cartoon representation. Even for 1958. And then when a full-grown alien appears... you'll wonder why he is wearing shoes. Or if you're really perceptive, you'll wonder why you've seen the alien suit in other movies.

By no means is this the worst science fiction film you'll ever see. And you almost have to give it some credit -- the alien host overtaking a military base idea predates both \"The Thing\" and \"Alien\" by a number of years. I don't know if these films were inspired in any way (I doubt it), but at least it was ahead of its time. Beyond that, though, the film flops and is only great for heckling when drinking. I haven't seen the \"Mystery Science Theater\" version, but this sure is one film worthy of their insults.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"WARNING: SPOILERS Dear Roger,

During your distinguished career, you've made a wide range of entertainment, some good, some notsogood. \"Night of the Blood Beast\" falls in the latter category. It's not as unredeemingly awful as say, \"The Phantom From 10,000 Leagues\" or, maybe, \"The Dunwich Horror.\" Nonetheless, one of my greatest criticisms of this movie is that I could have made it for you faster, better and cheaper.

Let's start with the foreward and titles. Roger, the rocket sequences look like something from Disney's \"Man Into Space,\" not as good, of course. The futuristic rocketship looks like nothing in contemporary 1958. Why didn't you just use a Vanguard, Atlas, or even a Viking launch? Better still, why not dispense entirely with the launch and start with a shot of space and the capsule floating in it? That's what I would have done for you, Roger. Second, why have the spaceship crash upon reentry? Even a middle school physics student could have told you, your astronaut would have arrived on earth extra crispy and largely deboned. I would have shown your astronaut becoming \"possessed\" by the monster (maybe by using that great \"negative\/positive\" stuff you used in \"War of the Satellites\"), losing contact with earth and landing in the wilderness. That would also explain how you \"blood beast\" could impregnate your astronaut during the tremendous heat of reentry, but still be destroyed by fire. Even with these stupidities. The first half of your movie is pretty good. Had you spent some money on decent music, it would have been as good as a mediocre episode of \"Outer Limits.\" But, once again, your writer describes Ed Nelson as the designer of the landing system, then gives him some stupid dialogue regarding magnetism. The biggest problem with the second half of \"Night of the Blood Beast\" is Michael Emmet. He's terrible as the doomed astronaut. You should have fired him on the spot and replaced him with Ed Nelson. You could have combined Nelson's responsibilities with those of John Dunlap and saved yourself the cost of one actor. I don't know if you actually PAID any of these people; but, at least you would saved the cost of catering three meals a day. I'd had also ditched the \"scorched parrot\" costume and spent the extra money using makeup to have the astronaut turn into the \"blood beast\". Maybe that was a little too close to \"The Creeping Unknown\" for you, but it would have helped the pace of the second half immensely. if you are going to have a \"blood beast,\" wouldn't it be a good idea to show a little blood? Yeah, I know the title comes from the embryos in the astronaut's blood, but Kowalski could've done a LOT better job for you if he poured a little chocolate syrup around. After all, it LOOKS like blood in black and white. What've that cost you, maybe two bucks? I'd have also used some closeups. For some reason insipid dialogue and bad acting don't seem quite so bad in closeups. Look at almost 70s TV series and you'll see what I mean. Oh, in closing, Roger, a note to your writer. You can't use a fluoroscope to show some poor schmuck full of alien embryos when you DON'T HAVE ANY ELECTRICITY. Remember, you fried the generator in the first reel? Oh,and I almost forgot. Roger, couldn't you afford a fake knife? You know, the kind where the blade goes into the handle. I had one of those when I was 9, which also happens to be the year \"Night of the Blood Beast\" was made.It cost, maybe, another two bucks. I think I knew enough then to make you a better movie. I KNOW I know enough now to do so. So, Roger, if you decide to remake \"Night of the Blood Beast,\" or if you are looking for a writer\/director to work with you on SOME OTHER PROJECT, I'm your man. I'll work cheap, 'cause I'd really like to make a movie for you, Roger.

I give \"Night of the Blood Beast\" a \"3\". SPECIAL NOTE: If you like to watch kitschy movies like \"Night of the Blood Beast,\" the DVD I bought for $3.99 was very good quality. You can also get \"Night of the Blood Beast\" along with a lot of other terrible horror\/scifi movies at places like Bestbuy for about $6.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another winner from that 50s , 60s era that I love so much for the comedic value they give with each viewing these days .Corman never lets you down with these films , they take themselves seriously and they have very low budgets , a recipe for good watching for sure . Ed Nelson a very competent actor got started with Corman as well as many other favorites who show up in Superman and many of the westerns of the day . The costume is pretty bad and the sound of the alien speaking , well the reverb was a little off but thats the beauty of it . Film making for the love of it , not looking for perfection just digging the action of doing it , it comes thru . These films are a fun time ! Even better is the MST3K version !!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another gray, horrible bit of schlockiness from the family Corman. The first space capsule into outer space crash lands back on Earth(with some of the worst special effects ever), and the pilot appears to be dead. But appearances can be deceiving. He's actually more alive than the rest of the cast, including a patronizing misogynist old doctor(who'd also really, REALLY boring), a greasy guy who looks like he's cornered the market on hair oil, another guy so dull he doesn't even make much of an impression, a female scientist who never seems to be hurt or angry over the old guy's patronizing, and a female photographer with a Farah Fawcett haircut(pre-Farah, of course) and about as much liveliness as a dead duck.

What are any of these people's names? I think it was Steve. Apparently, everyone in the cast, including the women, were called Steve. Anyway, the dead pilot Steve turns out to not only be alive, but to be incubating baby aliens(or seahorses, or shrimp, or whatever) inside his torso. The Momma beast that implanted these little critters looks like a giant bald parrot with claws. Once again, I am impressed by the laugh-ability factor of the monsters created by the House of Corman. The space carrot from Venus in It Conquered the World is still officially the worst, most laughable monster I've ever seen grace the screen, but the Cormans always manage to deliver when it comes to bad, cheesy looking monsters.

They also managed to deliver on their other trademarks as well; i.e. a boring, confusing plot, long gray shots(thank God Corman did most of his films in black and white, since his color stuff still manages to look somehow gray)two or three locations max, stupid and lame props and special effects, and lots and lots of dull dialog. There's only two deaths in the film(if you don't counted the roasted parrot..err..alien blood beast being offed at the end of the film). Cheers rang out through the land, I'm sure, when the alien rips the old doctor's head off and(apparently) eats it. Now it can talk in English and has the doctor's memories. It can also move the pregnant astronaut around as though he were Pinnochio.

The monster's apparent intent is to rebuild its race using human beings as food and giant wombs. There's a confusing bit at the end(well, more confusing than usual, anyway) in which the creature tries to explain why it is doing this, but it makes no sense whatsoever. Something about how humanity is about to follow in its race's footsteps and destroy themselves by something they'll soon create. It never really said what that was. It could have been anything from toaster ovens to digital watches, who knows. Its baby minder stabs himself rather than let the alien shrimp crawl out of his body, and the oily guy(and the other guy) burn the parrot-alien to death with a Molotov cocktail. Ahh,the smell of roasting chicken..err.. alien. End of story, in which the rest of the characters wander off and leave their dead comrade laying on the ground to rot. Oh, Hell, why not save yourself the expense of a funeral? I'm sure that was what Corman was thinking, when he was trying to cut corners and make his scenes as cheaply as possible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For those viewers who thought the 1979 film \"Alien\" the first to depict a male Earthling being impregnated by a malevolent extraterrestrial, \"Night of the Blood Beast,\" made 21 years earlier, may come as something of a surprise. In this film, America's first man in space crashlands back on Earth and, after examination, is thought to be dead. He later comes to again, only with a half dozen or so alien seahorse thingies growing in his abdomen. The mama (?) alien also pops up to terrify the small band of scientists who are observing our gravid hero, and she (?) seems to have the body of a bear and the head of Yarnek, the rock creature from a 1969 \"Star Trek\" episode. Anyway, with its short, 62-minute running time, small group of scientists, and cheap-looking monster, this film suggests nothing less than a Grade Z warm-up for \"The Outer Limits\" (which would premiere four years later), but without the fine writing that that show usually boasted. Despite the lurid title, this film is decidedly sci-fi, not horror, and offers no scares, no laffs, little suspense and little food for thought afterwards. It looks as if it cost around $100 to make (but probably cost twice as much), and its musical score often seems to have no relation to the happenings (I won't use the word \"action\") on screen. By the film's end, many questions remain: Just how was our hero to give birth to these critters? Why does the alien need to decapitate people to learn our language? (To justify that title, no doubt!) Why can't the space-traveling aliens land on our planet, rather than needing to hitch rides on our ships? How was our hero impregnated to begin with? These are all matters that this little cheapie can't be bothered with. It really is for 1950s sci-fi completists only.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a travesty of movie ratings injustice - a 2.1 on the IMDb scale as I write this. Folks, this is a lot closer to a 3.0, I'll even go out on a limb and say 4.0 where I've put it. Come on - how can you have a movie about a net of static electricity surrounding the earth and alien amorphic cell structures, and not give it at least a 4.0 for creativity? Then you've got all that great dialog like - \"Dave, look at the composition of this mud.\" You know, I don't think they ever got back to that mud. No matter, this is the kind of flick that 'Z' movie diehards live for, and I can now rest easy. Actually, I saw this quite a few years ago without the proper appreciation for it, along with Corman titles like \"Attack of the Giant Leeches \" and \"The Wasp Woman\". I don't know what the fascination might be, but to quote a character from the film - \"Whatever it is, it works fast!\"

Back to that alien amorphic cell structure - I liked the idea of a third element competing against your standard red and white blood cells. When astronaut John Corcoran (Michael Emmet) returned from the dead, I had visions of a scene that might have been a precursor to 1979's \"Alien\", but that was not to be. Instead, budget restrictions limit the picture to a de-feathered Big Bird knock off, even though that concept was still almost a decade away. Who knows where one idea leaves off and picks up with another?

Look, this is not that bad. Not that good, but not that bad. Anytime you can hook up crash landing astronauts with alien beings committed to taking over the Earth, you've got a winning combination. Throw in the cheesy monster factor and you're on your way. Just remember - \"A wounded animal that large isn't good\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has a fairly decent premise - one gruesomely featured again and again in science fiction films, most spectacularly in \"Alien\" - and some decent \"he-man\" performances from the male cast. The possessed astronaut's wife, to me, is the weak link in the ensemble - she doesn't seem to know what to do with her face in a lot of her most prominent scenes, for which I blame director Corman.

Given a decent budget for props and special effects and a more focused and coherent screen play, \"Blood Beast\" might have been pretty decent. But the inherent cheapness of the production design and the continuity errors and gaffes undermine the proceedings. For instance, every time I saw the comatose astronaut laid out on an \"examination table\" the width of an ironing board, I broke into giggles, probably not the the emotion the crew wanted to invoke. And the monster's costume needed some serious work; fern covered parrots just aren't scary or convincing.

Still, the premise was strong enough that I hung on to the end just to see how the plot would resolve itself, and the alien's motives were sufficiently ambiguous at first that I could sort of think of it as an enigma. And the scene with the shot of the murdered scientist had a bit of punch to it, along with the plot development where the alien claimed to have assimilated some of the dead man's personality.

It's Corman. It's cheap, fast, and mildly watchable if you don't think too hard or expect too much. What more needs to be said?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I accept that most 50's horror aren't scary by today's standards, but what the hell is this? When you see a title like this you expect to see blood and a blood thirsty beast. Instead we get no blood at all and a beast who either wants to take over the world or live in peace on Earth....yeah which is what the people wanted.

The overall story is fine with the astronaut coming back to life and being one with the beast....but the title really kills the movie. Night of the Beast would have made the fans more happy because there really isn't any blood to speak of.

I like how the 50's movies had endings that left room for a sequel but wisely never made one. This movie isn't the worst i've ever seen but its almost up there.

2 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've been trying to write a plot summary for several minutes now and can't seem to do it. But with a movie as bad as Night of the Blood Beast the plot hardly matters. An astronaut crash lands and is believed dead. His body later reanimates, but is found to be carrying the embryos of some strange alien life-form. But how did they get there? And where's the alien that implanted the strange creatures in Maj. John Corcoran's body?

IMDb lists the runtime for Night of the Blood Beast at 62 minutes. Is that right? 62 minutes? It had to be longer than that. It felt interminable to me. Even with the MST3K commentary (which was very funny by the way), the actual movie felt much, much longer. And it's pretty much a snoozer from beginning to end. I like a lot of these alien invasion type movies of the 50s, but not this one. It failed to grab my interest on any level. The baby aliens were too silly looking to be taken seriously, the titular blood beast was pathetic, and none of the characters did anything for me. Add to that the usual low-budget Roger Corman trappings and you've got a real loser of a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had the funny chance of seeing this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, four years ago. I must admit it wasn't as badly done as some other science fiction\/horror movies of the time. The plot revolved around an astronaut that came back to earth with alien embryo's inside of him. Now the plot is quite weird, well if you can even call that a plot. (Seeing a space program run out of one building and an old pickup truck is drop-dead funny!) I'll admit it was horrible by today's standards (and 20 years ago)...but I can see myself 43 years ago watching and being charmed by this movie. It's not even close to the badness of Invasion of the Neptune Men, Manos: Hands of Fate or Future War.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a total bore. Entrapment is way better in all aspects, plot, acting, stunts, etc. Plus the soundtrack is one of the most annoying I've ever heard. I was close to muting the film just to shut it up. 3 out of 10 stars ***","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am sure I'm in the minority (I know I am among my friends), but I found this movie long, boring and gratuitous. The fact that the role played by DENIS LEARY is the most likable character (the only other time I liked him at all was in \"A Bug's Life\"!) speaks volumes. Rene Russo's character was irritating beyond belief and Thomas Crowne himself was flat and stereotypical. To say he was two-dimensional may be a little generous. (No, the scenes with his psychiatrist did NOT help make him real.)

With the exception of two wonderful scenes (both involving the museum caper and NOT involving Rene Russo), this movie made me wish I were at home watching televised golf.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Thomas Crown Affair\" is a terrible remake of a not-very-good movie, redeemable only for the topless shots of former supermodel Renee Russo.

That's it. The plot is negligible, Pierce Brosnan phoned in his part, and Dennis Leary (as usual) plays an annoying Irish cop, but I couldn't take my eyes off the beautiful Ms. Russo. There's an okay love-making scene on a stairway, a terrifically sexy ballroom dance, a topless beach scene, and a roll in the sack. Oh, and there's a painting stolen from a museum and a catamaran gets sunk.

But let's hope other directors recognize Ms. Russo's perky attributes and cast her in more, highly-visible roles.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had a bit of hope for this hour long film made up of footage from old Poverty Row movies. Certainly it had the possibility to seem like more than a home video mass marketed to the world. Unfortunately while funny this movie still feels like a home movie, but with stock footage spliced in.

The plot concerns the planned reading of a will on a liner at midnight somewhere in the tropics. The ship sinks and well...thats the movie.

The film promises Karloff, Lugosi, Chaney and others being lifted from old movies to interact with new footage. We get that alright, but mostly we get lots of new video footage made to look like scratchy black and white film, in which new actors prance about. Old footage is inter-cut mostly to set the scene, but very little of the old and new actually matches so its clearly just a put on. Its not very convincing and is very disappointing for someone like me was looking for a better constructed film.

Still if you know and love the old Poverty Row films, (its very spoofy) this might be worth a viewing. I would warn against buying this but it can be had for about five bucks, the price of a rental) so the choice is yours (Though if you can get away with not paying for it do so).

Disappointing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Take it from me as a camera man who worked for Republic Studios from 1946 to 1950 and then Warners Bros and Paramount from 1950 to 1993, this is a piece of crap. Sure it would be great to show it to your favorite friends at a house party but to try to sell this on a DVD is absolutely ridicious.

I have seen bad acting in my day but this is NO acting. The hero is almost laughable and he really thinks he is something judging from his comments on the specials. I hate to see his fan club. The old films did not jive with the action in many of the scenes. What the hell was that garden scene with three of worst actresses. I never seen a garden on a ship. They could not even emote. I would not mind it if they could have once ounce of acting but the only one was the guy with the Translvanian accent. I am sorry but this is not a clever film as some persons are stating. I would think horror film buffs would be insulted by this piece of film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This isn't \"so bad it's good\"--It's \"so bad, it violates the Geneva Convention's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment\"! Only by reading the Synopsis can you even figure out the \"plot\" of this Straight to Video disaster. It's a hodge-podge of grainy stock footage spliced together with some of the all-time worst acting you'll ever have the misfortune to see. Comparing this incompetent, turgid, humorless mess to \"Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid\" is like saying that \"Gigli\" is like \"Citizen Kane\". The talentless cast are costumed in cheap, J.C. Penney \"Goin' to Church\" clothes, and there isn't the slightest attempt at period hairstyles or make-up. If you really want to see how this sort of \"homage\" can work, check out \"The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra\"--It's clever, well-written, and best of all, performed by actual actors who aren't such agony to watch. For that matter, seek out the work of Phoenix artist Paul Wilson whose Sci-Fi short \"The Attack of the 70 foot Courtesy Lady\" leaves this film in the dust. The people in Terror In the Tropics look and sound like they were pulled off the street and given their scripts to read during the one and only take. This is an insult to Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney, and anyone else involved in the films they cannibalized to make this schlock-fest! Money isn't the problem--A lot can be accomplished with very little expense. A good script, decent actors, and above Z-Grade costumes and production design should have been a given before the so-called director created this stinky pile of cinematic offal. Let's hope the \"promise\" of a sequel doesn't come true--That was by far the scariest thing shown in the whole movie!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"being a fan of Bela Lugosi,Boris Karloff,and Lon Chaney Jr i had to see this.what tripe the only thing good about this is the clips of Lugosi,Karloff and Chaney Jr.along with all the vintage clips,that do not gel with the new black and white footage.not even close to Steve martins dead men don't wear plaid,that was done great.with all the technology we have now why was'nt this done better?if you are planning to shell out 5 bucks and some change,be warned this is really bad. but if you like Lugosi Karloff and Chaney Jr then watch their movies instead.even ed wood did better then this one.new actor mark redfield is pretty good as an imitation Bela Lugosi.the clips they use are; the ape,Mr Wong,most dangerous game,lost world,indestructible man. and devil bat.that notorious Bela Lugosi classic.i believe this production was very low budget,and it shows.1 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Problems: 1) Although billed as \"a loving tribute to Poverty Row,\" a lot of the old footage is not even from Poverty Row films-- much of it is from RKO's \"The Most Dangerous Game,\" (1932), with some from the silent (!?) version of \"The Lost World\" (1926)!

2) Much of the old footage is just used as filler (the old shipboard footage) or as silent shots (for example, of Bela walking, looking or staring) often repeated;

3) Where is the pantheon of Poverty Row Master Thespians (Bela, Boris, Lon Chaney, Jr., George Zucco, John Carradine, Buster Crabbe, Tom Neal, etc.) emoting their lines as punch lines to the 'new' characters jokes (as in Woody Allen's \"What's Up Tiger Lily?\" or Steve Martin's \"Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid\")? Even Mike Nelson's feeble commentary on the colorized \"Reefer Madness\" is funnier than this.

High Point: The long but extremely enlightening lecture by Gregory Mank which makes you give new respect to and admiration for Bela, John Carradine and George Zucco. That's worth the price of the DVD alone!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a waste of time. I got about five minutes into it and became *very* antsy, and was soon fast-forwarding a bit, and pretty soon the desire to take my thumb OFF the fast-forward button was nonexistent. Actors Mark Redfield and Barry Murphy did very capable jobs, I thought, but no one else I saw gave anything like a good performance. Again, take this review with a large grain of salt because the movie was just so unbearable I couldn't make it to the end. Heck, I couldn't make it to the MIDDLE !!

I find myself unable to submit this review because it isn't long enough. Maybe this last sentence will put it over the top.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is enjoyable if you like poverty row, public domain films from the first half of the 20th century, or are a fan of amateur film-making. The film splices together public domain thrillers together along with newly shot scenes in which the \"actors\" (With the sole exception of Redfield doing a near dead on Lugosi rip, all of the \"performers\" are simply dreadful!) attempt to interact with the stock footage. The \"New\" footage is covered with digitally added film scratches, as is some of the already substandard old footage (??!!). As near as I can figure out the plot has something to do with a bunch of strangers being brought together on an island for a will reading(?) This film, while boasting a creative premise ala 'Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid', is a technical and creative wreck. In one dreadfully over long sequence and injured sailor on a ship describes an abortive trip to 'Fog Island', whatever that is! The \"flashback\" then incoherently weaves together old footage from totally different eras, and of totally disparate film quality. Unrelated scenes from 'The Lost World' (1925), The Most Dangerous Game (1932), White Zombie (1932), Bela Lugosi Meets A Brooklyn Gorilla (1952) and some other poverty row productions. This is done over an incredibly bad voice over which seems to have too much room echo as if the audio was recorded on a cheap home video camera.

The \"filmmakers\" seem to think that they are paying homage to the great actors of yesteryear by giving characters the surnames of famous actors (Carradine, Zucco, Ouspenskaya, etc..etc..). This tactic was done cleverly, as well as subtly in 'Final Destination' here it's just obnoxious! Bizarre, and painfully unfunny, jokes about Spiderman, Dracula, and Superman abound. Even the old as dirt 'Dewey, Cheetam and Howe' lawyer reference is used here-this was old and tired when The Three Stooges used it in the 1930s.

The film stock and audio, don't match scene to scene, and dozens of different sources are used for Lugosi. The finale effect is that he seems to be getting, older, younger, older, thinner, heavier, younger and older again minute by minute. Oddly the film didn't use this as a comedy subplot and squanders a good chance for comedy.

Truth be told though, It was great fun to watch this late at night in bed. Maybe thats what they wanted to happen!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After reading the mostly glowing comments about this movie I decided to rent it despite some suspicions of TV movies. I should have followed my instincts.

I tried so hard to warm up to the movie and find merit in it but I just couldn't. The story never draws you in or rings true and the acting is perfunctory at best and laughable at worst. Everything in this production is amateurish.

Always a joy to watch, Mary McDonnell may be the only performer to escape this disaster without damaging her career or reputation. I won't even bother checking the name of the leading man - hopefully he's back doing commercials.

Even poor Vanessa Redgrave, whom I adore and respect, seemed to be channeling Katherine Hepburn all the time appearing as if she were really drugged in the home. Maybe she needed the money.

If I can save one person from wasting 100 minutes on this tripe I will feel vindicated.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Naach A more detailed review can be obtained anywhere else in the web. This one is a good portrayal, although I do not agree with it entirely. Taran is a commercial guy and hence views from his angle only.

Ram Gopal Varma (RGV, seems like a political party) has created a marvel in Rangeela, so this one seems like a pale reflection of that one in some parts... I'm not even going to compare Urmila and Anthara.. both are good! The former has better acting talent, although the latter is catching up nicely.

Anyways, I like Anthara's character. She is true to her art, not touched by any unnecessary emotion and definitely not too practical. She is a dance scientist, actually she is so sure of her theories that even comparing her to a scientist would offend her. Hey.. Donald Trump.. maybe you gotta ditch Melania, here is Anthara and you've already built a Taj Mahal... ain't this easy? Abhishek on the other hand is a practical fellow, who wants money, power, fame, etc. Hence these two albeit were struggling to get a break into the film industry, cannot get along, given their different styles and approach to life. This is very typical, but what I like about the movie is that it says what an Abhimaan would say in its total runtime, in one scene! What's new? This movie takes a different angle to the film industry and how different people get into it. There is always something different about RGV's movies, this one is different too, it is way too slow for his standards. In parts, it drags one almost to sleep.

Noticeable It is tough to notice anything other than Anthara in the first half of the movie. I think this skin show was necessary for the dance sequences involved :-) Also, looks like Anthara is a pro in Yoga, she is way too flexible, almost like a Prabhu Devi. Aby Baby is improving as an actor with every movie. I am sure his filmstar blood is paying off rich dividends. The title song was really good, the music overall was above average.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In most parts a lethally dull venture, Naach is about this dancer\/choreographer (Antara Mali) who regards herself as some kind of auteur, beyond the petty commercial compromises that people around her, including her actor beau (Abhishek Bachchan) build their careers on. Nice idea, only it turns out that she has the most howlariously bad concepts about costumes and dance movements, stuff rotten enough to make even the forces behind those ultra-cheap South Indian potboilers squirm in severe embarrassment.

The story follows a yawn-inducing predictable pattern...dancer and beau meet and have an affair (yes, sex included)...beau gets success, but she spurns his attempts to help her...beau throws attitude and they walk out on each other...dancer meets a most unlikely director who wants her 'to do what she wants'...incongruous effort bags even more incongruous popularity...beau's attempts to reach out are rebuffed until a climax where he bursts out about how he can't live without her...D-uh end.

Actually I didn't really expect this film to be much good. So why did I watch it? Because I have an Antara Mali fetish. She's an actress with IMO sufficient talent to reach grand heights provided she has the opportunity. Alas, her role in the film looks far better on paper than in actual execution, ironic for a film that's supposed to be about an uncompromising character. To give her credit she puts in a game effort, shining well in the few scenes that actually ask of her as an actress. I just wish the movie had been more worthy of her. Abhishek Bachchan also throws in a few good punches, the last scene salvaged somewhat by a simmering turn which pleasantly reminds you of his father.

Only recommended if you can sit through humongous piles of dogcrap for the return of a few grains of good moments courtesy the lead actors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ram Gopal Verma usually makes so-so cookie cutter formula fare, lifted from some Hollywood flick. His every film after Shiva is in the cookie-cutter genre. Occasionally, he makes a truly horrible movie like this one.

For the first 55 minutes, we are introduced to the only 2 characters, a struggling gymnast masquerading as a skilled dancer (go figure!) and a wannabe actor trying to strike it rich in Bollywood. They fall in love, zero becomes hero, dancer\/gymnast gets no break, gymnastics, angst, the usual heartbreak, more gymnastics, angst, song, dance, angst, some more gymnastics, more ridiculous gymnastics and before you know it, you're fast asleep. And this despite the HOT SEXY HOT HOT SEXY HOT bod of the leading lady-cum-gymnast-cum-dancer.

But hey, you're not alone!! The editor, director, photographer, in fact the whole cast and crew are asleep thru-out the entire production. Only difference being they got paid to snooze while you paid money for this crap, so you lose. Ha, joke's on you. Don't feel sorry for yourself but for our poor broke gal as she tones up daily in her high-rise penthouse in the sexiest of leotards and exercise-wear. Puh-leese, when will the poor thang get a break, she's STARR-VINNNG?!

Antara Mali cannot act. RGV's lost his marbles. Abhishek tried hard but failed. No plot. No story. Nothing. She must've paid RGV handsomely to make this all-nonsense stuff in addition to free gymnastics lessons on his casting couch. What a super deal. No need for an acting career.

Such absolute rubbish can only be \"Made in Bollywood\" of course!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Naach would have won an Razzie for the Worst Film in 2004 (may be overall too) if it were global. When it comes acting badly (aka showing attitude\/yawning\/over (not) acting) Halle Berry is no match for Antra Malli. While the catwoman had storeline, supposedly hot actress in microscopic costume, and some action sequences, Naach had nothing at all.

One of those movies which makes me wonder why IMDb does allow one to rate a movie as 0\/10. Yet again, I think that movie does not even deserve a 0. It has to be something negative or minus infinity.

OK what about the plot outline? It is a funda-giving, arrogant, full of attitude choreographer meet an useless, skill-less, loafer who aspires to be an actor tale. The story is so short that if just another sentence, IMDb might ban me for writing a spoiler. About the story-telling? Its like a bunch (sorry 2 people for the most part) of people moving in super slow motion. Don't try this movie if you have bought new DVD-player. You would end up believing that either DVD is in bad shape or DVD-player is struck. Not its fault at all.

At the end of it all, you end up giving some credits to the director. At least he realized that both Antra Malli and Abhishek Bachan (at least at that time) can't speak dialogues convincingly, so there are not too many dialogues in this movie. So, you can at least sleep your way through the movie, with some annoying noises from those Antra-malli song sequences.

Do watch this movie if you are new to Bollywood Cinema. Once you have tolerated this movie, you would be able to see any Bollywood movie and enjoy it.

There can't be worse 3 hour torture than this!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Leonard can write lyrics, but he sure can't sing. Nor has he had an original idea in his life, just a floater. From the looks of this nasty little puff piece (note that his publishers, McClelland and Stewart were involved in the production), he didn't know how to live, either. The woman he loves is only mentioned in passing and no woman is allowed to speak in this nonsensical advertisement. While Irving Layton was given a credit, the other poet interviewed, Earle Birney, was to remain nameless. I come from the generation just after Cohen, where all the boys seemed to idolize him. His lack of commitment was probably just calling to them. I hadn't realized what a disappointing poseur he was back then. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his age.

Whiny, little rich prince, and not one memorable line in his oeuvre. No dedication to social change, outside of the sexual arena.

You don't speak for my generation, Lennie, and not for my gender. Go back to the monastery and stay off the screen.

As for my local public broadcaster, I will let them know what I think of them wasting my time on this guy. Not a has-been, a never was...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film begins in Latvia just after WWI. Being a history teacher, I knew that multinational troops occupied much of Russia during this time. There was serious concern about the spread of Bolshevism and the troops were there ostensibly to protect their nations' interests. However, some times they flew missions or had armed conflicts with the Communist army, as the nations involved really wanted to see the so-called \"Whites\" win. However, the Whites were deeply factionalized--some wanting the return of a czar, some wanting a republic and some wanting something in between. Because of these mixed goals and a lack of a real commitment by the foreign armies, the whole expedition was doomed and left the USSR after only a year or two. However, what I did NOT know was that German troops were also involved. This surprised me, as they had just lost WWI and weren't in the best shape to be mounting such an expedition.

This is the backdrop for the film, but it's also about a pro-Communist rich lady and her ill-fated love for a childhood friend who is among the German troops. She throws herself at him repeatedly but in each case he rebuffs her. So, she then sublimates these desires by various affairs. While none of this sex is all that graphic, this and the underlying reason the man isn't interested make this a rather adult film and one I wouldn't show to younger audiences.

While the setting for this film is interesting, the overall film is as gray and lifeless as any I have seen. I don't recommend it unless you are an amazingly patient person or you are really into overrated German films. I especially warn away anyone who suffers with depression, as it will no doubt make it worse. The simple fact is that there are so many better German films out there waiting to be seen--such as MOSTLY MARTHA, DAS BOOT, MOTHER KUSTERS GOES TO HEAVEN, WINGS OF DESIRE or ALI, FEAR EATS THE SOUL (among others).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This fantasy was utter garbage. I thought Michael Moore cornered the market on ridiculous anti-government movies, but this one was far worse than anything he ever did. No wonder critics of the British media complain it's driven by tabloid journalism. This movie is a left-wing loony's greatest fantasy come to life on the big screen. Anyone even slightly to the right of such rabid Bush-bashers should be appalled it ever got funding to be made. I'm sure it will do well in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, though. It's hard to believe that in these days of insane Muslims blowing up innocent commuters there is anyone in the U.K. who thinks Britain should surrender in the war on terrorism. I guess it's no longer the country I admired for standing alone against the Nazis nearly 70 years ago. All hail Neville Chamberlain and the pathetic policy of appeasement!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I read a lot of high hopes from readers of the book that this would be a faithful adaptation of Nora Roberts' story. Not having read the book, I don't know if this adaptation was faithful but I do know it wasn't good. Actually, the screenplay was the best part of the movie so kudos to Nora Roberts.

I planned ahead and watched Carolina Moon because of Claire Forlani. I've never been sure if she's a good actress. She's been decent in some movies, average in others and really bad in this one. But, Forlani wasn't alone. The performances were all over the place. Oliver Hudson was wooden and boring. Josie Davis was hammy. Then, amidst all this B-rate acting, there's Jacqueline Bisset! She didn't have a lot to do other than portray bitterness but, even sleepwalking through that, she was miles ahead of the others.

Still, Forlani remains one of the most breathtaking women in movies and I was not disappointed in that capacity here. I believe Forlani can be more than eye-candy but, until she turns in a good performance in a good movie, she continues to excel at that. And, I'll continue to faithfully watch everything she participates in. Fandom is fun that way.

This movie though, Carolina Moon, was pretty bad. In addition to the bad acting (fake Southern accents are really distracting) the direction was pedestrian. It wasn't horrible. It was just the boring made-for-TV caliber you're used to seeing on Lifetime.

If you're a fan of any of the stars you can probably enjoy Carolina Moon for that reason, as I did. If you're a fan of the book you might enjoy seeing the story on the screen, albeit in a lackluster form. Otherwise, this movie is unremarkable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie for the hot guy--and even he sucked! He was the worst one--well, okay, I have to give props to that freaky police officer rapist guy too, he was even worse. The guy wasn't that cute in the end, he had the most terrible accent, and he was the most definite definition of hicksville idiot that can't stand up to his mom for the one he \"loves\" there's ever been. Overall, and if this makes any sense to you, when I go to pick up movies at the video store, I think to myself as I read the back of a movie that looks so\/so, \"Well, at least it can't be worse than Carolina Moon.\" The most terrible movie, and the most terrible writing, acting, plot--everything in it made my gag reflexes want to do back flips. It was THE most horrid movie I will ever see, with Gabriela way up there too. I hated it, and trust me, if there was any number under 1 IMDb had for rating, I'd choose that in a heartbeat.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, let me state that I have no idea who Nora Roberts is. So the book may have been great, but the movie isn't.

I have spent my entire life living in the Peidmont region of NC. I have never heard southern accents as ridiculous as the ones in this movie. I have lived in two small NC towns and Charlotte and Raleigh. On occasion, you will meet people with a strong southern accent, but I have never encountered a town where everyone talks like a bad imitation of Gone with the Wind.

In response to Gore_Won from the atheist community. Your comments reveal more about your warped psyche than it does about the movie. If we were to stretch our imaginations and pretend that there is anything realistic in this movie - which there isn't - then the truth is that bad people such as Tory's father will always find some justification for their actions. The author chose religion as a counter to Tory's supernatural abilities. Your supposition that \"the true character of the Gospels\" directs a man to beat his daughter is about the most perverse and misinformed interpretation I have ever heard. Before you start spouting off about the Gospels, maybe you should read them first.

Back to the movie. The dialog is flat, unnatural, and unbelievable most of the time. In particular, many of the things that Kade said to Tory are inappropriate and do not match the mood, context, or way they are said.

The \"exciting twist\" at the end of the movie is lame, predictable, and lacks any credibility. Some have also claimed that Jacqueline Bisset does a wonderful job in this movie, but the truth is that the bitter mother character is also a stale, predictable, one-dimensional character. Is that Bisset's fault? I don't know.

If you have a choice between watching this movie and a twenty year old rerun of the Muppet Show, I recommend the Muppet Show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story is about a psychic woman, Tory, who returns to her hometown and begins reliving her traumatic childhood past (the death of her childhood friend and abusive father). Tory discovers that her friend was just the first in a string of murders that are still occurring. Can her psychic powers help solve the crimes and stop the continuing murders?

You really don't need to find out because, Oh My God! This was so so so so bad! I know all the Nora Roberts fans will flock to this movie and give it tons of 10's. Then the rest of us will see an IMDb score of 6 and actually think this movie is worth watching. But do not be fooled. The ending was predictable, the acting TERRIBLE (don't even get me started about the southern accents *y'all*) and the story was trite. Just remember....you were warned!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother. A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother. A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't leave IMDb comments about films but this.... this film was bad. very bad. I fast forwarded through most of it, stopping where I hoped the acting had improved since the last scene, only to continue with the fast forwards. Formula plot -- once the obvious murderers were discounted, there was only the one left. And that was in the first five minutes. Scene by scene it felt as though I'd already read the script before because there were no surprises, no mystery. The Tori character... bad bad acting. A true waste of time on DVD and a definite 'let's go to bed early' option if it's the only thing on television. If you watch this film, you will find yourself realising you'll never be able to get back the time you've just wasted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Carolina Moon' is an adequate made-for-TV movie about a girl with psychic powers who returns to the town where

she grew up in and where her childhood best friend was murdered. Turns out that every year on the same date another

young girl is murdered and Tori, played by Claire Forlani, must solve the mystery before she ends up dead. Claire Forlani (Meet Joe Black, CSI New York) is the female lead and does a pretty good job of it, ably supported by the rather delicious Oliver Hudsom and a still luminous Jacqueline Bisset. The script, adapted from a Nora Roberts novel, is bog-standard and the plot

is tediously predictable. That, however, is offset again by, like I said, the rather delicious Oliver Hudson.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was nothing like the book.

Everything was mixed up or changed. Most of the movie was things that weren't even in the book.

This movie never should have been viewed. It was a great disappointment to me when I enjoyed the book so much and then to watch how this movie trashed the entire thing.

I would never recommend this movie to anyone that is a fan of Nora Roberts or J.D. Robb.

Honestly this movie is not worth watching with how off from the book is really is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This owes a great deal to the plot of CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS. Although he is quite grown up, it is partly the story of a wealthy lad who is shanghaied as a crew member aboard a cargo vessel and becomes a man in the process. Moran of the title is a boyish young woman also brought up on a vessel owned by her father. When the cargo burns, she and crew members are evacuated to our lad's ship. However, the captain has smuggling on his mind and his intentions are not honorable where Moran is concerned. The inevitable ensues - our lad falls for the mannish Moran and she for him. In the end evil is subdued and the lovers are united. Some interesting dialogue points out that Moran belongs to no man -\"and no woman.\" (A nod to Sappho here). Dorothy Dalton is appropriately sexless as Moran and not too attractive either. Valentino does well in a romantic, action role. His sexy build and physique are shown off to advantage and the role is quite a masculine one. He is very appealing. This is no great film but it passes the time. What it really showcases is Valentino's beauty and sexiness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Trekkies is really not a movie about Star Trek fandom. It's a freak show about those Star Trek fans who have no sense of reality. As a freak show, it's fine. But it is a mistake to think that this movie gives you an insight into Star Trek fans. Most Star Trek fans cringe at what this movie shows.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the worst British comedy ever, how it made it past the first episode let alone the pilot is beyond me. The acting is weak from the main character played by Ben Miller to Sarah Alexander (from the fantastic coupling)right through the cast. The plot\/story lines were unfunny and very very predictable using many worn out ideas. A very painful series to endure but sadly put in a slot between two excellent shows. describing it as Britain's answer to ' Meet the parents' does a disservice to 'meet the parents' and is as about as fresh as an old shoe that has a run around with the family dog. Britain should have learned that rip offs from other countries never work from looking at America's sad attempts at doing so.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although this was the first Hunter S. Thompson documentary I have seen it was average at best despite the involvement's of huge star appearances such as Johnny Depp, Bill Murray, Gary Busey, and a few others. I was let down by this and yet it was still a little interesting. What kept me watching was some of the old clips from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Where the Buffalo Roam. Not that good mostly because of the old guys rambling and things any fan would already know. I still think they were milking it because it could have been compressed down by at least half. Still if your a fan I would you'll like anything that has to do with hunter. best regards","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Deep Sea 3D is a stunning insight in to an underwater world only a few have had the opportunity to view first hand.

From the opening sequence when a wave rushes towards the audience momentarily engulfing us in the ocean, the filmmakers make full use of the IMAX format. A jelly fish field appears to fill the whole theatre, a shark powers towards us, predators pounce from behind rocks and devour their prey. It is a beautifully captured under sea feast for the eyes.

Our ears on the other hand, are not given the same treatment. The film is narrated by Hollywood stars Jonny Depp and Kate Winslet. Both sound so ridiculous it positively spoils the enjoyment of the visuals. Depp sounds slightly bored whilst Winslet sounds as if she is reading a bedtime story to the village idiot. I was shocked that an actress of her status could have pitched her performance so wrongly. The script is fairly silly and contains very little depth. The soundtrack is filled with strange, unrealistic sound effects which I assume are meant to be funny but in fact detract attention from the material which should have been allowed to speak for itself.

Danny Elfman has provided an excellent score which gives plenty of impact to the ups and downs of life under the sea, when it is allowed to play out without the silly bubble sounds or crayfish footfalls which pepper film.

The film is a technical marvel but with it's childish script, annoying narration and misplaced sound effects it cannot be taken seriously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly, on the subject of the death penalty, I could take it or leave it. The problem I have with this documentary lies in the fact that it is a complete love-fest for the murderer, with absolutely no sympathy for the family. The Execution of Wanda Jean, with it's completely one sided view, only reinforced my view that she should have been executed for her crimes. It tried to argue that she was mentally retarded, but nothing in the video supported that view. She seemed uneducated, but so did her entire family, but that doesn't mean they were all retarded. I can completely understand if someone is opposed to the death penalty, but to completely ignore the crime, as if it didn't happen, and try to put Wanda on some moral mountain top, is offensive in nature, and that's not the side of the issue I would be associated with.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The main portion of this lightweight musical story is located at fictional Midwick College, which Peter Kendricks (Peter Lind Hayes) attends due to the largesse of stage actress Grace Hayes, his real-life mother who fills the same role here, and who manages to supply his love interest through her secretary Mary (Healy) who is his real-life wife. Drably directed from a weak script, and additionally hampered by excessive cutting and poor editing, this film does provide some treasures among its eight songs, including the title number, and has nice turns by soprano Healy, Benny Rubin as a snack shop proprietor, and the dynamic tap dancing Roland Dupree.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having some idle time before going to work, I looked at my \"50 Movie Pack Comedy Classics\" DVD collection and picked the most obscure title in the pack: Zis Boom Bah starring a forgotten Grace Hayes. \"Classics\" is obviously the operative word here since most of the titles I've never heard of and I suspect they're all in the public domain. Anyway, this movie also stars her son Peter Lind and his wife Mary Healy (who I just found out is a New Orleans native from the state I live in, Louisiana) with Benny Rubin as a malt shop proprietor and Huntz Hall, taking a break from the East Side Kids, as Peter's buddy. The plot, about a vaudeville mother trying to turn her rich carefree son into a responsible one with him unaware of who she is, is for the birds and doesn't have many funny scenes though I did like Peter's celebrity impersonations and his dance with Hall in drag. And the songs and dances are entertaining in themselves. Rubin, however, is all over the place with his confusion of the American vernacular of the time and almost everything concerning him makes no sense whatsoever (though I did like his funny dance). Since this was only 61 minutes that I'm sure played on the lower-half of the double feature bill, I'll be charitable and give this one a 3 for the few entertaining bits that I mentioned enjoying.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh Gawd. I want to time travel back to Monogram Studios and throttle someone in their 2 room front office for this sloppy musical. It is one watt above flat-lining for 60 of its 61 minutes and then actually shows (for the one thin minute, spread in milli-second blips across the hour) that there is real life talent being badly photographed.I just don't see the point of going to some trouble to actually make this film that could easily be energetic and actually funny and allow lethargy to be the main thing on view. The weird storyline shows cranky vaudeville trouper Grace Hayes bulldozing her blowsy way into a college where her rat-bag son is rich college clown. She's gonna fix his playboy ways, no matter what.Her real life son (weird looking) Peter Hays plays her screen son. His real life wife plays her secretary. Talk about nepotism. I suspect this talent package was almost the raison d'etre for Monogram financing this back-lot musical produced by resident schlockmeister extraordinaire Sam Katzman. As with other Monogram musicals it just looks more like a reason to film recent new furniture purchases and light fittings in order to show off to other studios that Monogram Pictures are 'lavish' in their B grade ways. Have a ghastly look at SWING PARADE OF 1946 for genuine evidence of this: they just constructed this gigantic nightclub set then found an excuse to film actors and musicians running all over it. Story? None. Anyway ZIS BOOM BAH is more BAH than BOOM. Where was Gale Storm and Mantan Mooreland when Monogram really needed them? Probably standing at the boom gate of PRC Pictures wondering if it looked safe to enter there. Junior jive hepster Roland Dupree springs to life to rappety tap his teen legs around two wobbly dance numbers, especially in the 'big show' finale set in the new and expanded malt shoppe\/club set. The usual crumpled curtains are loosely hanging on the back wall, and the stage set of mis matched drapery even has one dark main rag that is yanked back and forth as each amateur sequence elbows past the previous one. The chorus girls and their very plain looking partners in this finale just look like Monogram office staff borrowed (from typing and carpentry) for the morning of filming. They have absolutely no dance talent and are so ordinary on screen... ALL the girls look like they are all called Joyce. There is even a costume calamity where they wear frilly hot-pants...on one leg only. It is all so awful and crummy...and actually annoying when one more tweak up by all concerned would result in ZIS being actually FUN. The one strangely interesting thing is the dialog delivery between Grace and her son\/daughter in law: it is so casually delivered that it actually works in spite of the script and logic. She has a very life like presence which is the only thing that allows the ridiculous story to be slightly compelling. The Dupree kid is the real star. He can actually do something...in spite of looking like a tubby Liberace tap dancing teen... You read that right.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The stage star Grace Hayes stars in this obscure little film. After years of being on the stage, she is going to visit a small college town to check up on her son who is being raised by his grandfather. The kid doesn't know who his mother is and when she sees him in a local malt shop, he's a boorish jerk. Part of the problem is that he is a college clown the other part is that he's really spoiled.

Interestingly, it turns out that Mom is really quite wealthy and has been not only funding her son's life but is a hefty contributor to the college. So, she has the idea of forcing the young man to mature. She talks to the man who's raising Peter and has his allowance cut off completely--hoping he'll rise to the occasion. It also turns out that she puts the screws to the school because she thinks all these kids need to stop playing around and be more responsible.

Now here's where it gets pretty dumb. To show that they know the value of hard work, she hires a bunch of them to sing and dance at the malt shop she just purchased. Talk about contrived!! What happens next is like a long and not particularly good talent show or perhaps a poor man's version of a Judy Garland\/Mickey Rooney musical! I'd suggest the kids try to do something else to earn money...or perhaps sing and dance until people pay them to stop! I know I would pay them.

Considering that the talent is far from talented, Peter is a bad actor and his change from lout to responsible adult is almost instantaneous, the whole thing is a bit hard to take. Not a very good film by any sane standard, this is an obscure film that should have stayed obscure!

By the way, it is interesting that Ms. Hayes' son in the film, Peter, is actually her real life son. The only problem with that is that Peter Lind Hayes is a truly awful actor. He's not handsome enough to be a leading man and he comes off as either dull and uninteresting or downright obnoxious. In particular, all the stupid impressions he does are really bad and he has the charisma of the gelatin that you scrape off Spam. Despite this terrible performance, he did go on to have a reasonably successful acting career. Who would have believed it if you'd seen him in ZIS BOOM BAH--because here, he's about as welcome as the Bubonic Plague!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This feels very stilted and patronizing to a great extent. The whole plot is extremely forced - especially the \"gallant\" effort to save the college from ruin, and the moralistic overtone (especially by the leading lady) grates a bit.

But there are one or two comic moments that do help relieve the boredom, and the dancing is quite fun (especially for alleged amateurs - ha, ha!)

The shop proprietor and the young guy doing spectacular tap dancing were particular highlights. And I liked Peter Hayes impressions of Charles Laughton and Ronald Coleman as well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will never, ever forget watching this show around the age of 13. Even at the young age I remember thinking, \"This is a Baywatch rip off show without the one thing that makes Baywatch tolerable. The girls in bathing suits.\" Nonetheless I was too small in those days to be the holder of the remote in my house. The high point of Pacific Blue was an episode in which a couple of thugged out gangsters are coming to whack someone with submachine guns ... on bikes!!! As a thirteen year old I never laughed so hard at something that was supposed to be taken seriously. Even I knew that the task of going out and acquiring Uzis (for murder) is a task that should never come before borrowing someones car for the day. That had been the defining moment of this show. Simple Crimes and situations tailor made by hack writing so they could be taken care of by the unsung hero of the crime fighting world The Bike Cop. Does not get much Dumber.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Any chance to see Katharine Hepburn in something I haven't seen or from her early movie career is a treat, and on that level the film is amusing, but she's horrible miscast as a Hill Billy. Her famous New England enunciation slips through, making lines like, \"I'd better rustle up some Vittles\" pretty ludicrous. She's so pretty and so young\u0085 it almost overcomes this major flaw. The story is an old fashioned melodrama, and there fore, a younger generation may think this pretty corny stuff, but this was the staple of American Entertainment well into the 1940's. It has its moments, but you might need to be a die-hard movie buff to appreciate it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Katharine Hepburn as a mountain woman who mixes prayer with positive thinking--and is thought by the local folk to be a witch. Kate works overly-hard trying to convince us she's a backwoods hick (named Trigger Hicks!), but you can see she doesn't even believe in this unintentionally comical scenario. Constantly-smiling Robert Young plays a foreman working on the construction of a mountain dam who becomes Trigger's first crush...but alas, he's married! No amount of white magic can resuscitate this formula, based on a play and brought to the screen by R.K.O. with too broad a hillbilly flourish. It is ungodly, and just about unwatchable. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a really silly job of miscasting--about as bad as Hepburn playing a Chinese woman in DRAGON SEED. The lead part Hepburn plays is a combination of Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies and a faith healer! This film is even worse than Bogart's Swing Your Lady, because at least Bogart didn't play a hillbilly--he was just surrounded by them. And the dialog sounds as if it comes right from a Li'l Abner strip! The problems don't really end with the outrageous casting, though, as the plot is completely muddled and the \"love story\" might make your head hurt. For no reason WHATSOEVER, married Robert Young falls for this Ozark bobcat. Was it her lovely personality that won his heart? I doubt it, as she as the fiery \"spitfire\" the movie was named after and she really seemed to like fightin' and scrappin' and hollerin'! Was it her feminine charms? With no makeup and fashions that looked like they were designed by Ma Kettle, I doubt if this was the case as well. To top this off, in the end, somehow Ralph Bellamy also fell for her, though once again, it really doesn't seem to make ANY sense.

So, here we have two city fellers fallin' for a scrappy unfeminine she-beast played by Ms. Hepburn--now THAT'S a recipe for a good film!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**** Spitfire (1934) John Cromwell ~ Katharine Hepburn, Ralph Bellamy, Robert Young

Mountain hillbilly Katharine Hepburn (as Trigger Hicks) is a religious back-woods laundry woman. \"Going on 18\", she begins to attract male attention, and responds by throwing rocks. The arrival of a dam-building construction crew triggers dreams of romance in Ms. Hepburn. She quickly attracts the attention of suave engineer Robert Young (as John Stafford), who flirtingly hides his marital status. Supervising engineer Ralph Bellamy (as George Fleetwood) is also interested in Hepburn, but for different reasons; Mr. Bellamy wants to know more about Jesus Christ, whom Hepburn worships.

After Hepburn employs the power of prayer to heal a child, neighborhood folks suspect she is a witch.

If it weren't so serious, \"Spitfire\" might be more amusing; it is an atypical and wildly inappropriate vehicle for its star, who is thoroughly unconvincing. Of the leads, Mr. Bellamy performs best. However, the best characterization is essayed by Sarah Haden (as Etta Dawson), who appeared in George Cukor's stage version, along with Louis Mason (as Bill Grayson). Will Geer (as West Fry), \"Grandpa Walton\" in the 1970s, has a small role. An unexpected ending helps.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is truly unbelievable, in every sense of the word. I couldn't believe what I was seeing, and hearing, and I didn't believe it anyhow. Hepburn is probably my favorite actress, but this was ridiculous. Being a hillbilly myself, I know what it should sound like, and it's not Kate's Back Bay accent. The only thing I found funnier was the fact that the guy who played Charlie Chan so many times, Sydney Toler, was cast as another one of the hillbillies, with accent to match. Maybe this was a practical joke, come to think of it. I can think of no other reason for such peculiar casting. Well, maybe this. I noticed that Natalie Schaefer, Lovey Howell on Gilligan's Island, appeared in this play on Broadway. Can you imagine what part she might have played?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As someone has already mentioned on this board, it's very difficult to make a fake documentary. It requires tremendous skill, pacing, patience, directorial 'distance,' a plausible premise, a narrative 'flow,' and REALLY believable acting (aka GREAT acting).

Such is not the case with 'Love Machine'. It starts to show its faux hand about the 20-minute mark (with 60 minutes left to watch), and the viewer starts to realize that he or she is being taken in. It's downhill from there.

Director Gordon Eriksen simply peaked too soon. But to be fair to Eriksen, his problems started early: as he explains in the extras, he began wanting to do a REAL doc, couldn't get funding, and settled for a cheaper way of making his film.

The premise -- people who have secret lives by posting themselves on a porn website -- was perhaps more interesting in 1997-98, when the film was made. Eriksen does a lot of tricky stuff -- a pushy 'host,' hand-held cameras, zooms, grainy blacks and whites -- all, I guess, to elicit a sense of authenticity, but it just doesn't work. The film is confusing and forced, but what ultimately brings it down is the believability of the actors and the pretty awful dialogue.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**** MILD SPOILERS _ BUT YOU PROBABLY KNOW THE PLOT ****

Woman gets raped and decides to take out her rage on all of mankind . Oh did I mention the rape victim was mute ? That`s the problem with MS 45 , Thana the rape victim decides she`s going to kill men but is there any logical explanation to any of this ? Surely the whole film would have better if we had Thana give a voice over as to why she`s bumping off any man she comes across ? There`s just not enough development to this plot

As you`d expect from a film by Ferrara it`s not a complete waste of time . it`s far better than I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and pseudo intellectuals will have a field day pointing out the irony of the woman holding a knife like a penis as Thana goes on a killing spree at the end . But the script is somewhat silly and underdeveloped and hinders any serious comment the film could have made","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sickening exploitation trash plays like a bad (and reverse) \"Death Wish\" ripoff - but the ugly and untalented Tamerlis makes Charles Bronson look like Al Pacino with her performance. As for Ferrara's \"stylish\" direction, when a film is so vile, dumb and deeply offensive, it's hard for the viewer to pay attention to such details.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A gaggle of unpleasant city dwellers descend on Le Touquet for a week's holiday. Stories intertwine, characters fight, make friends, deceive each other, have sex...

Blanc has gathered together a stellar cast for his adaptation of Connolly's book, but to little avail. What should be hilarious is instead at turns tedious and irritating. All the characters are either pathetic or unpleasant or both, and in the end, despite the farcical nature of things, this viewer was left caring little about what happens to any of them.

Credit to the always wonderful Rampling, plus Bouquet and Viard but that's it. And Dutronc looks like he's rather overdone the nips and tucks, if you ask me...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is awful, I'm SORRY. I bought this to get Star Worms, and actually expected this to be better after how disappointed I was in Star Worms. Oh just kidding, turns out this is the worst movie I've ever seen. The acting is garbage, not that there really is any, and the main character is a big stupid box who gets attacked by like, stuff or something. I can't really tell. The special effects are so bad that you can't even see the warring dinosaurs, which by the way do not war, but just stand and kind of move their mouths, or whatever those things are. The movie is a headache. It's very obvious the director is trying to establish a universe. Hahahahahahahaha... Really, this movie is just abominable, even by Troma's standards. The only good thing I can say about it is that it's got a Lloyd Kaufman intro, as he tricks us yet again into watching something that isn't fit for consumption.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In my opinion, the ending is what completely ruined the whole thing. The initial idea of having someone suddenly realize they were the son of god and the second coming was somewhat clever. People started to believe him and his friends became the new disciples. People went nutty, demons were possessing people, all kinds of fun. Of course then it all went wrong. It was bad enough that they had to take on the impossible task of looking through a vast amount of writings to find the \"third testament\" in five days, but then at the end it became this ridiculous humanist fantasy. I won't spoil it, but I'll just say it comes off as if it were written by a teenager with a very limited knowledge of theology. I hear they are making an American feature version of this story, I just hope they change the eye rolling ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film tells you to be aware and conscientious. It also destroys any and all things, the Bible claims to be true. To people like me the first episode was interesting and the second was disastrous. It has been called \"blasphemy\", and it is, if you are a believer. It is sad to hear, that many people think of it as a good sequel to the Bible. However, the film shows you a lot of things and subjects, that can be interpreted as a filmic version of the \"Revelation\". Some of us think, that such things are not to be abused. One good thing about the film is, that it strongly encourages ethical awareness and makes you consider your actions twice. The director just seems to forget, that some people act that way already solely based on the fact, that they believe and love as prescribed in the Bible... Why attempt to change that, unless you be the Devil yourself?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why I disliked the movie, apart from the sheer ugliness of the actors themselves, is that someone might actually believe such crap.

First of all, The Second Coming of Christ will be at the end of words, and when Jesus Christ will come on Judgement day he will not come as He did before, in human form. He will come in His full Glory as God and we shall be judged not only for our sins, but also for the consequences of our actions. Everyone will! Secondly, I have seen the eternal Gay pride illustrated in this movie with the all unquestionable \"I read the Bible last night and it's not written anywhere\". Well, it is. Moses cites on 3 different occasions that men who make love to other men, or women who make love to each other as if man and wife should be killed because these will never inherit the kingdom of God as they are foul! If it truly were for us to follow the Bible word for word there would be executions now, wouldn't there? But I think misinforming people does more harm than this would... That was the in the Old Testament.

There are lots of lunatics in psychiatric wards who think they are The Son of God, but to make a movie after it truly makes you think of how many idiots out there can make a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very poor quality and the acting is equally as bad. This movie is a prime example of present day england and the mindset. There is no mention of Jesus in this movie nor does the movie feature any type of scripture Christianity as most know it.

I am also very surprised because this film is a BBC program and the BBC is quit well known for their quality programing, but it looks like the BBC's attempt to rival the Hollywood psycho\/drama films are failing completely.

Poor acting, poor plot, poor culture that seems to be without religion. I would not even bother buying this, instead better to try to rent this one or buy it when it goes to the 2 dollar bin.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Something not-so-great. \"Silence of the Lambs\" remains Demme's only good film, and I'm of course including all the overrated, left-wing exercises in big-screen indulgence some of which I haven't seen - and never will.

This is a light comedy that takes a thriller turn somewhere half-way. The first half is a little hard to sit through; it's neither funny nor particularly interesting. Daniels plays an over-the-top dumb-as-dirt naive moron who is so gullible and trusting that it defies belief. His animated acting is often annoying, and barely funny. He actually lies to Griffith at the outset and tells her that he is married, with children, when in fact he is divorced! In all the history of mankind and movies any man who is married and meets a woman he likes will lie - if he lies - and say that he ISN'T married. (Later on, the not-at-all credible or believable rationale behind this was revealed: he wanted to \"protect (himself)\". What a load of crap...) The fact that his character makes all the wrong decisions and does all the dumb things in the movie made me actually look forward to Liotta pounding on him when he caught up with him in the former's apartment.

What then happens in Daniels's apartment is the classic end-of-movie fight-to-the-death which the good guy - albeit the very dumb good guy - predictably wins. Still, at least the last half-hour has some action, something going on, and Daniels isn't given any more the opportunity to be animated. The film lacks credible characters (whether main or marginal), and the feel of it is too 80s which means the movie has a rather bland look; visually ugly. Sayles yet again makes a cameo as a policeman. The film is also perhaps a bit too heavy on the coincidences side. Griffith once again plays a soft-talking dumb-sounding bimbo, but, as usual, she is convincing because she IS a soft-talking dumb-sounding bimbo. This was an earlier film, before her lip-enlargement and breast-enlargement surgery; compare the natural breasts she exposes in this film to the ready-to-explode balloons she briefly flashes years later in \"Nobody's Fool\".

If you're interested in reading my \"biographies\" of Griffith and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There needs to be a 0\/10 option for bilge like this.

It was painful to watch, but strangely compelling all the same. Compelling because it seemed unbelievable that a movie could actually suck this much. I kept thinking \"it must get better.\" It got worse. And worse.

How on earth were people conned into producing such a categorical piece of junk I'll never know. The most surprising thing of all though, is all these reviews I see of people actually loving the movie. Yes, the acting was good, but the movie was very very very bad. Worst movie ever!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie opens with Charlie (Jeff Daniels), a business man just finishing his lunch in a neighborhood deli. It appears he doesn't have enough cash to cover the check. Instead of reaching for his plastic, he furtively glances around to see if the coast is clear and ducks out of the place without paying. Unbeknownst to Charlie, \"Lulu\" (Melanie Griffith) had been observing him from the other side of the deli.

\"Lulu\" is decked out in what passed for cool back in the 1980's with a brunette page-boy cut. She follows him out to let him know that she saw what he did. He tries to deny it but can't escape her accusation. Thinking he's in it, Charlie is surprised when \"Lulu\" says she doesn't work for the deli and then offers him a ride back to work.

When she heads in the opposite direction, thus begins their cavorting across the Middle Atlantic Seaboard.

We're supposed to get titillated as thoroughly modern \"Lulu\" puts straight-laced Charlie into humiliating situations. It's all right when the two consenting adults get a little kinky in a motel room but off-putting when they wriggle out of paying the check at a family-style restaurant. Stealing the labor from hard-working people is not my idea of \"wild\". Charlie is a jerk.

\"Lulu\" is a loony jerk. She starts to pass off Charlie as her husband. First to her mom (who blithely tolerates the charade) and then at her conveniently timed 10-year high school reunion (an event used later by another too-cool-for-its-own-good movie \"Grosse Pointe Blank\").

The \"marriage\" comes as a surprise to \"Lulu\"'s real husband (Ray Liotta)who's just been recently released from prison for armed robbery. Ray gives the two a welcome comeuppance and shows them how nasty crime really is.

I can't add any irony by writing that I first watched this by sneaking in the movie theater. No, I don't do that sort of thing. I taped it off of cable TV and assure you I view it strictly in the privacy of my own home.

So I got to thinking why I taped it when I don't like it very much and conclude that 20 years ago I was on a reggae kick and the soundtrack of \"Something Wild\" does prominently feature reggae. The closing credits start with the treat of Sister Carol performing her version of \"Wild Thing\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the kind of movie that could have ruined several careers, if garbage could ruin motion picture careers these days.

Melanie Griffith took off her shirt, and in her pre-enhancement surgery days, she really should have stayed dressed.

Jeff Daniels was completely wasted, but fortunately for him and for us, he has gone on to much better things since this ... this ... this ... well, heck, piece of garbage.

Strangely, all of its major players have gone on to bigger and better things, including director Jonathan Demme. His work here was also wasted but deserving of a grudging admiration. I mean, anything not worth doing is not worth doing well. But he did it well, anyway.

Still, there was one bright, shining aspect: Ray Liotta, who is named way down the credit list, just absolutely stole everything. Liotta was magnificently mesmerizing! Hypnotic! Enthralling.

I saw this piece of garbage while it was still relatively new, in a friend's private theater. For some strange reason, my friend LOVED it. I sort of think it's because Melanie Griffith took off her shirt (and, really, honest, she shouldn't have), though he tried to claim it was other, more artistic, reasons.

Anyway, I thought even then, after his first scene, that Ray Liotta would become a major star, or at least a major, highly-respected actor.

Despite the garbagey aspects of the garbagey script, the sheer ugliness of the whole story, Liotta made it almost worth watching. In fact, it is worth seeing, once, just to see how far Ray Liotta has come. I mean, for one thing, his name is now usually listed at or near the top.

Even then, even in a pile of garbage, Ray Liotta shone like a diamond.

Just, if you do see this trash, be prepared to hold your nose. Every major character is either amoral or immoral. Terrible movie. Terrible movie idea.

Added comment: Too many people answer \"Was this comment helpful?\" with a \"no\" because they disagree with the expressed opinion. Maybe IMDb should ask that question instead: \"Do you agree with these opinions?\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first half of the movie is not that bad actually. Although there's not really too much depth in the characters, the story is somehow funny and generally OK with potential to get better, which it doesn't.

In the second half things start to turn for the worse, not only for the characters in the movie, but also for the viewer, who will be basically waiting for the story to come to its obvious end.

The previous user comment mentioned: \"It's a love story, a road movie, a thriller, a comedy of errors, an 80's movie and most of all, it's a Jonathan Demme movie.\"

Well, please allow me to rephrase that: \"It's a boy gets girl story, they happen to be driving around in cars, the thrill is gone as it is all too clear how things will evolve, there wasn't any scene in this film to which one might laugh out loud, it does have some slight 80's feeling and yes, Jonathan Demme really was the director.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After the success of Star Wars, there was a boost in interest in Sci-Fi movies. This was one of those cheap attempts to cash in quickly.

A group of survivors from a spaceship land on a planet inhabited by stop-motion dinosaurs, where half of them are systematically killed off (the people not the dinosaurs). Porn-movie level acting. Cheap special effects, even for the time, although it looks like a lot of effort was put into them.

Costumes were pure 1970's, as were the hairstyles. Ahh, the 70's. I expected a disco to break out at any minute.

Nothing to really recommend in this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now, I love bad, old skifee movies as much as most people. And I understand that a budget is a budget. That said, Planet of the Dinosaurs is as bad as a bad movie can get. The thing has no actors, and only one attractive female whom they kill off two minutes after swimming ashore. There are literally no redeeming qualities to be found in this pile of wasted celluloid. The only thing not wasted was paper...the screenplay must have been no more than four pages long. Surely no one actually WROTE dialogue this pointless. I'm constantly amazed that such movies ever got made, much less released. I'm only glad I didn't pay to see this waste of time. It's 75 minutes of my life I'll never get back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A spaceship in some unspecified future where human beings are equipped for space travel and have laser guns for weapons, crash lands on a strange young planet where dinosaurs are coincidentally also evolved and only on this world, have not gone extinct...yet. The survivors of the crash, roughly ten bland characters wearing blue, white, and yellow suits, fight for survival against the alien prehistoric monsters.

\"Planet of the Dinosaurs\" is a peculiar movie. Like I said in my summary above, the stop-motion animated dinosaurs in the film are the only colorful actors. The models are crude, but effectively animated. And they are much more fascinating and intriguing than these characters portrayed by inexperienced actors and speaking lines from a script that must have been written overnight without a single revision. Obviously, most of the budget was put into the dinosaurs, and although there is a fair share of them, there's not nearly enough to save us from our boredom. These human characters are only there to scream, run around, and mutter these poorly-written and verbose speeches about survival. And unfortunately, not nearly enough of them get eaten by the dinosaurs.

Overall, \"Planet of the Dinosaurs\" is not a film I plan on seeing again. Some people will simply love it for being so cheap and so poorly made. Sometimes, I enjoy movies like this. But this particular film is just too long, too boring, and very exhausting on the mind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1) Bad acting.

2) For a bunch of castaways on an alien planet, it sure looked like home, especially with the houses and roads you can glimpse in the background.

3) Terrible plot with stupid caracters making idiotic decisions and blithely losing precious survival equipment and clothing left, right and center.

4) Cool 70's scifi jumpsuits (possibly the only good thing about this movie)

5) Interesting ship at the beginning (this crew must have been watching Space 1999 a lot). Too bad it blows up so early. The escape ship also got sunk too fast. *sigh*

6) Anthropologists might find some aspects of the movie interesting in terms of primate group behavior.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, This movie was made in 1978. So that tells you that the movie is going to be bad anyway.But I am not saying that all old movies are bad . Second, The special effects we're terrible for even that time. Finally, The acting was so bad, Bozo The Clown could have done it better. It makes you wonder how people get the money to make movies this pathetic. This movie sucks!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I say Ben Johnson and my fellow Canadians say, \"Ben Johnson?!\" - he was a goddam MOVIE STAR guys, a COWBOY, and by 1976 he was scraping by playing a sheriff in stupid made for TV disaster movies such as this, cashing in on the DEADLY SWARMS OF KILLER BEES that everyone apparently thought were coming to get us at the time. So there's these bees, and they kill some people by flying in their mouth and going after them underwater. Eventually these idiots find the swarm and die and this woman is trapped in her car by the entire swarm. The cops are like, what do we do? Uh, bees die when it's cold. So where could we make it cold? I know - the stadium in New Orleans! So they drive this car and its attendant swarm of killer bees on and on through the streets of New Orleans, with a bullhorn saying \"GET OFF THE STREETS OR YOU WILL BE STUNG TO DEATH.\" And the future home of tens of thousands of flood victims with its broken toilets so becomes the narcotic doom of this particular buncha bees. I don't know which is the greater indignity on this great city...well I do, but this one sucks too. Most appropriately viewed on an extremely faded-to-orange 16mm print, although Betamax is a good alternative!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really enjoyed the film. It was really cheesy at times. (They destroy the villain with hair driers--but where are they plugged in?) It's a unique film though, and I enjoyed the acting of Courtney Draper and Tamara Hope. I also enjoyed Fanuel (however you write it...) liking Megan's charecter because she called him a dweeb. Besides the acting, the \"rewinding\" and showing what happened on Ariel's and then Megan's point of view was quite interesting. I saw it twice and I'd see it again","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's just a bad film.Not as bad as R.I.C.C.O. but bad.It got me hooked at the beginging then totally lost me after that.The acting was way off then on then going way way way off.Do not see this movie at all costs,TRUST ME WITH ALL MY HEART!!!!The directors who are brothers are not the next HUGHES BROTHERS,who made really great films like DEAD PRESIDENTS,FROM HELL,AMERICAN PIMP,and MENACE II SOCIETY.The only person who made me watch this was the acting of Paris Campbell,who will be a great actor one day if he makes better films than this.Christina Caparoula also did a nice job for what she got.I hope THE FITTEST is 10 times better than this piece of crap!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you pack all the clich\u00e9s about city firefighters into 105 minutes; you have Ladder 49.

It has a story but is highly clouded by all the clich\u00e9s. It turns it into movie that with every event; becomes so predictable it's not worth watching. There is no depth to the story and even the acting seems superficial.

It looked like it wanted to be a tribute to firefighters but ended up being boring and pretentious. The parallel between Jack Morrison being fatally trapped beneath an inaccessible part of a building and firefighters being trapped beneath the rubble of the Twin Towers was all too obvious.

It doesn't compare to movies like Backdraft and certainly does not set an example for future movies about fire personnel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry, perhaps this is part of the wave of praise for fireman since 911, perhaps it's an old fashioned story, perhaps it's not meant to knock your socks off but I'm sorry, this film is awful. As in the title, clich\u00e9 49, I think it has at least that many clich\u00e9s. It's a dreary story (impressive managing to be dreary when there's dangerous fires and lives being saved) about a fireman. And his dreary life, told in a pointless, 'scene from now' flashback to the past style. We begin the film with the hero in peril in a collapsing burning building. The entire film is about trying to get us to love this guy so we squeeze a few tears out when he meets his end in the finale of the scene from the start of the film. I found it hard to care and wished he'd gone up in smoke earlier. Clich\u00e9s abound such as - death of best friend, love at first site, hazing in a new job, firstborn, a worried wife with a husband with a perilous job, a father figure boss\/superior, 2.4 kids (well 2 but close enough), sacrificing your life to save others, awards for bravery....on and on. It's every fireman's life, every police officer, nurse, doctor in some way. It was lazy, if it was meant as a 'life flashing before his eyes' as he died, then God help the poor chap, I'm surprised he didn't suck in more smoke to go quicker. The flashbacks are mostly mundane and predictable, dully acted and with a soundtrack that could put The Laughing Cow out of business it was so cheesy, it actually sounded like muzak or copyright free elevator stuff!!! To be avoided at all costs unless you need something to watch with granny of a Sunday evening. Or maybe if your related to a firefighter - warning - your life will end horribly or you will be scarred for life if you are a brave fireman according to this movie. Unless your John Travolta (strange Velcro style hair in this one!!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a poor, poor movie. Full of clich\u00e9s, unrealistic moments: punching the air in celebration after putting a fire out, never mind that someone's lost their home and possessions!!, announcing a pregnancy in a bar along with all your mates before telling you in private first, walking on the roof of a burning building for no apparent reason, the stereotypical funerals and strained relationships, the very dodgy, cheesy music at the end, the unrealistic treatment of the girl who was rescued from her apartment, the very unrealistic explosion from that same apartment!! Did they have a couple of oxygen tanks in the attic or something!!? Anyone with an ounce of wit can see that this movie was a joke. It's a pity, because firefighters do an awesome job, and they deserve to have a good movie made about what they do, but not at the expense of common sense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As much as I respect firefighters for what they do. I was unimpressed and bored with this film. The acting was OK but Joaquin Phoenix was a poor casting choice to say the least.

What bothered me the most about this film was the Celtic music whining on and on and on at the worst possible time in the film. The directing and continuity was pretty bad too!

**SPOILER** For example, after Phoenix's character falls several stories and is badly injured, he can barely move to speak to his captain on the radio. Then miraculously, he manages to crawl across a huge space covered in rubble and fire to punch a man-sized opening in a double thickness brick wall using only a foot-long piece of re-bar???? And to top it all off he then gets ultra weak and busted-up again.

Did anyone also notice that throughout the film, whenever you see shots of Joaquin fighting fires and rescuing people, there is little or no smoke in the buildings. I would think the smoke should be pretty thick in a flame engulfed building.

I also got tired of hearing the search and rescue team yelling \"I need some equipment over here!!!\".

I really thought I would enjoy this film but I found it to be a weak attempt at representing the true life of a fireman. The intention was there but I honestly think that this film could have been so much better. I couldn't help but think that the producer was trying to meet a deadline with this film and had to rush to put it in theaters. More time should have been spent on editing and ensuring there was good flow to the film.

The special effects were impressive in some scenes but disappointing and almost ridiculous in others. Kind of like a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.

Call me critical but I just can't see what's so great about this movie. At least it wasn't as bad as \"The Whole Ten Yards\" which is by far the worst film I've seen in recent months.

I really hope there isn't a Ladder 50 in the making!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Is there a fire fighter clich\u00e9 that is NOT used in this film? From the opening line \"I'm getting too old for this\" through the \"antics\" of the firemen, to the \"worrisome wife\" the loss of his best friend in the firehouse, to the final funeral for the fallen brethren, this film looks and sounds like it was written by the marketing department at Disney (\"Our studies show that audiences really like it when...\" and then they stuck it in).

There is nothing original here. Any emotion we feel for these guys is brought in for our admiration and feelings for firemen.

Go watch Rescue Me if you want to see real heroes: Everyday guys with flaws that think nothing of running into a burning building to save strangers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow - Thank god I was on an airplane and could look out the window. Bad Hollywood fire scenes, predictable, terribly acted (who the hell was that awful woman who played the wife?), badly casted, awfully written. This movie was apparently made to appeal to the type of person who's willing to kneel at the alter of either firemen specifically, \"Heroes\" or gods in general, I suppose. I just don't have enough bad things to say about this film. It couldn't have been cheap, either, with all the stars that were in it plus all those special effects and fire scenes. Had to have cost a fortune, yet it still sucked worse than any movie I can even remember seeing. Funeral scene? Astonishingly bad. Courtship between fireman and aforementioned awful woman? Corny, contrived, trite. Firehouse pranks? Don't we all wish we could be both so manly and churlish at the same time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst movies ever made. Let's start with the superficial: Joaquin Phoenix is, first of all, too fat to be a rookie fireman. The NYFD does not recruit Pillsbury dough boys. John Travolta has a bad dye job, and the strange gleam in his eye throughout the movie made me think that he was on some sort of extended Scientology bender. The plot hits on all the tropes and clich\u00e9s of what the average Joe believes life as a firefighter is really like: they all get drunk, get into fights, have a hard time expressing their emotions, their wives all stay at home crying, they all have father issues, everyone has a Boston accent, et cetera. An execrable piece of schwarmerei that plays on our lingering cultural hero worship of firefighters after 9-11 -- which was, by the way, valid cultural hero worship. This film unfortunately presents no believable heroes to worship.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This really is a cringe making exercise. Dressed up as a tribute to fire fighters it contain stupid scenes of \"we're just a bunch of wacky guys\" in the midst of the \"my goodness this can be really dangerous\" parts. Mostly it is just plain dumb. You couldn't believe for a single minute that real fire fighters act like this. It is so awful I couldn't bear to watch at times. If my daughter hadn't rented it and then insisted on seeing it through to the end I would have had no option but to turn it off.

Thing is I'm a John Travolta fan. Every interview of his I've seen just raises my opinion of him. I think this was one strictly for the money. I'm sure he'll be happy when this one gets forgotten.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film basically try to portray the heroism of firefighters by making the whole movie revolve around a American dad with a good heart that puts others before himself. Now I know they try to show Jack Morrison(Joaquin Phoenix) as a typical American father that is a firefighter but like there is just nothing interesting in about him what so ever, thus when the movie gets to the climax there is just little to no emotion. This movie basically tries to make the life of a firefighter exciting but it just comes off as boring as any other jobs except you save lives or property by extinguishing the fire. John Travolta plays the captain of the fire station but anyone could have played his role and he is a dull character as the rest of the film. What could have been a good film is that the firefighter are put way up as heroes because they are firemen and turns the whole scenario into a uninteresting melodrama.

4.9\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, I'm not a firefighter, but I'm in some kind of para-firefighting unit (the guys who get called if an earthquake hits and the real firefighters need more people for SAR), so I had some training and simulation but I have no real-life experience.

But still, there are some points one notices as totally unbelievable. I can understand that they removed the mouth\/nose-pieces of the masks and that there is not enough smoke, because the public would otherwise see nothing. But some things defy logic:

- No second mask attached to the oxygen. How the hell do you want to rescue people trough the smoke without one?

- Rappelling people. No, it's not done like that. I'd be screaming too if somebody hitched a rope around me in that fashion and hung me from a building. If I could scream, that is, and not pass out from want of air because the rope squeezes my lungs. The second time when they're abseiling Jack it's better but still weird.

- \"Aim high\". No, you bloody don't. You always fight fire from as low as possible. You don't fight want to sprinkle flames, you'll want to extinguish the fire, and that's below the flames.

- No discipline. They're running around like chicken. And they shout all the time, instead of using radio, and keeping discipline.

- No tactics. Why don't they work in teams of at least two? You still can get separated, but it takes much more than if everyone just scurries around alone in search for victims.

- Do they really enter buildings without bringing water? I Europe, firefighters would never enter a burning building without.

- Firefighters on the roof. WTF do they think they're doing there without security lines or water? - Exploding rooms. Wood and brick does not \"explode suddenly\".

The better points are actually camaraderie and the other non-firefighting parts of the movie. It's a lot of kitsch, but that's alright. I'll give it a point for this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the aftermath of September 11th in New York, this drama about American firefighters was conceived as a salute and tribute to their professionalism. The story is told with a series of flashbacks, where after firefighter Jack Morrison (Joaquin Phoenix) has crashed through the floor of a burning building, and only communicating with Captain Mike Kennedy (John Travolta) via the radio. The flashbacks basically show how Jack grows from being a recruit, seeing Kennedy as a father figure, to being a firehouse legend. Of course, in the present day, Jack's fellow firefighters are trying to reach him, but they are too late, and in the end, he lets them leave him, and it forwards to his funeral, where he is praised as one of the best firefighters they have known. Also starring Jacinda Barrett as Linda Morrison, Terminator 2's Robert Patrick as Lenny Richter, Morris Chestnut as Tommy Drake, Billy Burke as Dennis Gauquin, Balthazar Getty as Ray Gauquin and Tim Guinee as Tony Corrigan. The blazes of the film are ultimately all I could pay attention to and enjoy seeing the characters tackle them, the rest is a bit too chatty for my liking. Adequate!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jeff Fahey has such alert eyes and a smudgy, insidious smile that every character he plays seems villainous; therefore, it doesn't really work to cast him as the good guy of the piece, the audience is just waiting for his character to crack and start blowing people away. Drew Barrymore, fresh off her acclaimed role as \"Poison Ivy\", must have done this film simply as a favor to director Phedon Papamichael (he was the cinematographer on \"Ivy\"); playing a character named Daisy Drew (!), she's bumped off right away, which leaves us with no one to look at but Jeff Fahey and Sean Young (who hasn't had a single subtle moment on camera since \"Blade Runner\"). This witless script, by Michael Angeli, concerns a police sketch artist who draws his own wife's face from a murder witness's testimony, and while that's not a bad idea for a plot, it would be much better suited to an hour-long TV series. This cable-made movie is short on inspiration (beginning with the casting) and shorter on surprises. * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Wagons East\" was a big disappointment for me. But the saddest thing about this movie is that it turned out to be John Candy's last film role (he died just before shooting was completed on this). There are only a few laughs throughout this western spoof, and for a comedy that doesn't cut it. If you want to see a uproarious spoof of western movies, the answer is obvious. See Mel Brooks' classic \"Blazing Saddles\". Or if you want to see Candy in much better material, see \"Summer Rental\", \"Spaceballs\", or \"Uncle Buck\" (just to name a few). These three movies (as well as others) shows us what a great comic actor he was. Unfortuneately, \"Wagons East\" does not. What a shame!

* (out of four)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"John Candy was very much a hit-or-miss comic actor. His death was a tragedy and we all miss him a lot, but WAGONS EAST, in which he plays a bumbling wagonmaster who agrees to take a group of pioneers out of the wild west, is even sadder. I don't understand why it was even released. The story is pointless and weak, and the jokes aren't there. It saddens me even further that Candy's last film would be his all-time worst movie. So let's forget all about this one and remember him in his better films such as SUMMER RENTAL, PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES and UNCLE BUCK.

0 out of 5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Wagons East\" is widely known as John Candy's last movie, as he died on the set. That's just what makes it so sad: not simply that Candy suffered a fatal heart attack, but that it was on the set of such a crummy movie. Seriously, I don't know what they were thinking when they came up with this piece of crap, but the flick has NO redeeming qualities. It's as if they took every unused script for stupid westerns and just mixed them together and filmed it. No wonder John Candy didn't want to make the movie; maybe his contractual participation was what did him in.

Anyway, the point is that Candy did much better than this throughout his career. To be certain, he had already completed Michael Moore's \"Canadian Bacon\", in which the United States declares war on Canada. Just stick with that one and you can say that Candy ended his career honorably. As for Richard Lewis - who previous had co-starred with Candy in Eugene Levy's absurd but hilarious \"Once Upon a Crime\" - he made up for this piece of crap by frequently guest appearing on \"Countdown with Keith Olbermann\" in later years.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is silly and very short of being a funny movie. Unhappy 'easterners' are not pleased with being out west; so they hire a drunk wagon master(John Candy)to lead them back east. Sight gags were just not funny enough to carry this one. And Richard Lewis gets on your nerves very quickly; but then I honestly don't like him at anything he does. Ed Lauter is hilarious as the bumbling villain.

The movie was dedicated to Candy. He died from a massive heart attack ten days before the movie was completed. A stand in and digital enhancement enabled Candy's character to be seen in the final scenes. Candy was a very good comedian and gave us some real good knee slapping, belly laughs in his career. This movie was just not the caliber of his best.

Also in the film, you will recognize: William Sanderson, Gailard Sartain, Ethan Phillips, Ellen Greene and Rodney A. Grant.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this cartoon is not right,lol I totally disagree with a lot of things it portrayed however it ended on a positive note , but as for me and mine we will not be viewing this in our household mainly because we fight against stereotypes every day and this cartoon just confirms what most white people feel black people act like

the comment one of the little black girls made on the cartoon was that her boyfriend was so conscious (he was white ) that really offended me that's not something we as black people take lightly conscious is a state of being that black people achieve when they realize their true ability","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"By far the most racist and ghettoish cartoon for children 7+. Kids who watch this cartoon will most likely try to dress, talk, and act like the characters portrayed. I am disappointed in Nickelodeon and Nick Jr. for agreeing to air this terrible program. The Wayan's Brothers may be good in movies meant for the young adult viewers. They should stick to the movies and not make any more episodes for this cartoon. Usually The young celebs start off working in movies and doing voice-overs for cartoons and then as they grow older, they move up to programs for young adults. A good example is Nick Cannon. He first started out with appearing in All-That, Later on he starred in MIB II, then Drumline, and now his TV show, Nick Cannon Presents: Wild 'N Out, where comedians compete by telling inappropriate jokes. This comment was originally for Thugaboo, but I wanted to show examples of how celebs kids watched on TV not long ago can become those who get involved with non-kid-friendly programs. It is very sad that this happens, but all celebs change and grow up. It is just the opposite with the Wayan's Brothers new cartoon. It is bad enough we have to deal with all the bad people from the ghettos, with allowing the young generation watch this program, it will just convert the kids with possibilities to the ones who don't have a chance at a good life. Just my feelings on this cartoon and my beliefs on what will happen to our children if they were to watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unlike most of the reviewers of this particular movie, I'm really not the much of a Cynthia Rothrock fan, to say the least. However when I saw that the movie had Fred Williamson and Robert Forster (both great actors), I just had to watch the film. Williamson is a Dakota Smith, an alcoholic cop who is demoted to scrubbing toilets with a toothbrush and even worse having to team up with Cynthia at the behest of the captain (Robert Forster). Forster is always watchable, it's just a crying shame that the movie itself is so damn trite and clich\u00e9d. It also features one of the least terrifying villains ever to be committed to celluloid. Williamson would return to the Dakota character in a few more films, the next one being \"Down N Dirty\"

Eye Candy: Nina Richardson shows some T&A; Mary Kapper goes topless

My Grade: D

Where I saw it: Showtime Extreme","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Fred Williamson, one of the two or three top blaxploitation stars. Cynthia Rothrock, one of the two or three top American female action stars. Imagine a film with these two together for the first time! Now imagine THE WORST film that could possibly be made with these two together for the first time. Welcome to \"Night Vision\". Of course, this movie was made in 1997 and they were both past their prime, but that doesn't mean they didn't have what it takes anymore - they just needed the help of good writing and direction. They got neither here. Rothrock does get to throw a couple of kicks near the end, but this film is so atrocious that you probably won't be awake to see them. (*)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Fred \"The Hammer\" Williamson delivers another cheaply made movie. He might have set a new standard for himself. Look for the painfully obvious special effects mortar cannon that is visible in the street during a chase scene. You don't see it just once, you see it several times. Look for the out of focus shot in one scene and the camera operator try to fix it as the scene rolls on. Watch this with a group of people and make your own Mystery Science Theater!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the only reason i bought this DVD is because cynthia rothrock is in it.now everybody knows she is the queen of martial arts b movies.the trouble is this is not a martial arts movie.cynthia rothrock has about a minute or so of fight scenes in this stupid movie.now if you were a film maker and you had cynthia rothrock in your movie would'nt you want to have a lot of martial arts action? all she does in this movie is walk around looking bored just like i was when i watched this pile of crap.i own a lot of her movies and they are all b movies but at least they had some cool fight scenes in them.if you are a martial arts fan avoid this no matter what.i'm still mad i wasted 4 dollars to buy this DVD","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Trying to catch a serial killer, did they ever think of tracking the license plate number of the black van or fingerprint the video tapes he sent? Oh brother the plot of this movie was so full of holes it was pathetic. Now I know why there are bad movies in the world. This one however was one of the worst.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What is night vision? Well according to the star (Williamson) let's see...one package store owner says to him 'it's getting dark outside' to which he replies 'it makes for better.........'night vision.' What in the hell does that mean? In fact what in the hell is this movie trying to say? It has plot holes that you could drive the killer's van through. Not to mention a cop on duty drinking, Robert Forster sleepwalking through this bizarre attempt at cashing in on the serial killer craze, and a killer who videos his murders. That's actually all I remember.

The film took place in Texas, had a few car chases, and a clich\u00e9d ending. Perhaps if one watches this film with their eyes closed - it might be good? After all, without being able to see it....it would make for better.....night vision. Did that make sense? Nope. And neither does this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"First Snow\" has an intriguing beginning. A traveling salesman has his fortune told by an old man, who's predictions turn out to be amazingly correct. From this point on the movie plays out like a bloated \"Twilight Zone\" episode. I mean nothing but car trips, phone calls and paranoia. William Fichtner gives his usual interesting performance, but Guy Pierce is anything but a sympathetic character, disregarding other people's well being for the sake of his own paranoia. The ending is especially weak, with absolutely no payoff for the long suffering audience. Do yourself a big favor and avoid this one. Not recommended. - MERK","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can I say...not much to this one at all. Pretty dull and uninteresting.

The actors performances are just OK. The only one that shines in any way is Simmons, but he only has, maybe 3 scenes. I understand that by keeping his screen time to a minimum he retains the mysterious psychic aura he has, but I can't help but feel his talent was wasted. No one else rose above mediocre.

The story itself seems like it may be intriguing at the beginning, but then just doesn't go anywhere. There wasn't a single scene in the movie that impressed me or made me feel like I had just seen something special. The cinematography was fairly bland...I mean desert in a washed out sort of sepia...not very inspiring.

The story of his childhood pal back outta prison seemed only partially thought out and didn't really add anything to the story, other than making an average 'Twilight Zone' script into a full length feature.

Drab.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film without doubt is one of the worst I have seen. It was so boring that I simply could not wait for it to end. I talked my girlfriend into watching it after this site had good reviews and after even 30 mins in she looked at me as if to say \"your nuts\" The scenery was as boring as the film with nothing but driving around in the car looking at the wind blowing bits of bush around. The acting was un-inspiring and the film was simply a waste of what have been a good idea into a waste of a dvdr.

Guy Pierce should have stuck to neighbours as at least he washed his hair. All he done was talk on his phone but yet sold nothing as a salesman. He would have been sacked weeks before. His girlfriend (once in Coyote Ugly) should have remained dancing on the bar as at least she looked hot in that.

The guy who played Vincent (those who watched know) was so annoying with his phone calls that any normal person would have drove to his house and hit him with a bit of 4 by 2.

I do not on this earth know what anyone liked about it. I actually want people to watch this to suffer the torture I went through.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I waited a long time to finally see what I thought was going to be a fun caper flick and was shocked to discover shoddy direction, awkward dialogue, a lackluster pace, unmotivated slapstick gags and an overall coarseness that permeated the film throughout. Just not funny! The sets looked cheap, the costumes by the usually excellent Donfeld are garish and distracting. Even the title song is annoying. The whole children's book characters doesn't come close to representing the married couple whose life is turned upside down when he loses his job. For a film that seems to aim a dart at the unfairness of welfare and unemployment systems, the filmmakers have no problem in being unfair themselves, allowing Hispanic, black and gay stereotypes played at such a cruel level. The look of the film resembles any episode of Love American Style. This is not a compliment. Tacky seventies fashions abound in this world of white collar theft that only lends an air of implausibility to every situation. Outside of a clever initial idea, and two capable stars in Jane Fonda and George Segal, this dated exercise in social commentary comes off as forced and mean spirited to minorities, especially to gay people. If you want a better caper film, you're better off with The Hot Rock with George Segal and Robert Redford or What's Up Doc with Ryan O'Neal and Barbra Streisand. Now that's funny!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Essentially this is a dreadful film with a few features that may or may not redeem it for you, depending on how much you want them to. In \"opening up\" \"The Red Green Show\" for the big screen, the filmmakers jettisoned the rustic charm carefully honed over a decade's worth of episodes set in and around Possum Lodge in favor of a blandly-photographed \"road movie\" with a ghastly faux-Hollywood \"big\" musical score and profoundly boring storyline that's not embellished with enough good gags to make it as entertaining as even the most mediocre episode of the TV series.

Having devised a plotline that keeps most of the members of Possum Lodge offscreen for most of the film and requires virtually everyone concerned to be despicably mean to the loveable Harold (who's the hero of the film, the usually affably crusty Red being relegated in this incarnation to nothing more than the role of head Harold abuser), the only performers who really get to shine are Patrick McKenna and Peter Keleghan as Harold and Ranger Gord, who deliver satisfyingly large-screen versions of their small-screen characters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Steve Smith has finally run a fairly weak series right into the ground with this movie. Poor actors thrashing a horrible script pretty much sums this one up. Two hours of your life you'll never get back! Go get a root canal instead - you'll enjoy it more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Hell's Angels did come out the losers in this movie. Sonny stated to the director that NOBODY does this to the Angles and gets away with it. His version was the two dudes were to be shotgunned to death, but his suggestion was ignored. They were stoops to even appear, much less be \"technical advisers\" in a stink-bomb of a movie like this. Hell's Angles on JAP bikes? C'mon! (although in Sonny's autobiography he says, \"F$#K Harley Davidson!\" and that if they was smart, they would be riding Hondas. (ST1100) Read his auto...he HATES Harleys. Can you imagine the Angels whispering into town on their sewing-machine sounding Jap bikes? Not too intimidating. They would get laughed out of town.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tom Stern and Jeremy Slate are swing bachelor's planning to hijack a casino, ala \"Ocean's 11\", and pin it on the Hell's Angels. Bad move. For a film with the words Hell's Angels AND the number 69 AND featuring actual Hell's Angels, this movie is surprisingly tame. The Hell's Angels truly deserve a better film to be centered around them. Not this snoorefest. Luckily this is one of the DVDs that features commentary by Joe Bob Briggs so the pain of having to sit through it is greatly alleviated. If you watch it any other way, let me recommend something to you. DON'T!!

My Grade: D

DVD Extras: Joe Bob Brigg's commentary; Conny Van Dyke's message to her fans (she has more than one?); Photo gallery; Theatrical Trailer; and Trailers for \"Blood Shack\", \"Hell High\", \"Samurai Cop\", and \"The Hollywood Strangler\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Something of a disappointment. Lee J. Cobb is the anti-union head of Roxton Garments in New York. His partner in the business is killed when an elevator is unleashed and plunges twenty-seven floors to the bottom of the shaft, in the scariest scene in the film.

Cobb doesn't know it, or doesn't let himself realize it, but the man behind the killing is Richard Boone, who protects the business from union organizers.

Then Cobb's son, Kerwin Mathews, returns from Europe determined to learn the business and join his father in running a clean shop. He's shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that Boone has been clobbering the union members and killing a few who have become irretrievably irritating.

Robert Loggia is one of the organizers who is killed by a couple of Boone's goons, led by Wesley Addy. Loggia leaves behind a widow, Gia Scala, with whom Mathews, understandably and decorously, takes up.

In the end, Cobb pays for his self deception, Addy and Boone get their just desserts, and Mathews winds up with the succulent Scala, after whom an opera house is named.

There isn't a sparkle in any line of dialog. A couple of lines are stolen verbatim from \"On the Waterfront\" -- \"pistoleros\", \"you'll talk yourself right into the grave.\" The plot is schematic and holds absolutely no surprises. Vincent Sherman's direction is pedestrian. The photography is flat an uninspired, though there are a couple of nice shots of New York streets.

Lee J. Cobb can act. In this case, it must have been easy for him because he replays Johnny Friendly from \"On the Waterfront,\" only this time with a soft heart. Richard Boone can act too. Joseph Wiseman, in a minor part, does a good job. Gia Scala hits her marks, says what the script demands, and does what the director tells her to. A stunning woman, her life soured early on. The director and photographer do a good job on Wesley Addy. He has white hair, a blanched face, eyes the color of a glacial lake, and he's sometimes shot through a wide-angle lens than turns his surprisingly fleshy lips into those of some kind of parasitic fish. I don't see him as a low-tier muscle man though. He and Boone should have switched roles. Harold J. Stone is his reliable self, although he's forced to be more \"Italian\", as Tony, than comes naturally to him. Nobody else in anything resembling a major part is more than mediocre, and some performers don't clear even that bar. Kerwin Mathews may be a nice guy in real life, but he's blandly sterile and belongs in domestic dramas on afternoon television.

Great title, suggestive of intrigue and shadows. Some good people in the cast. A potentially explosive expose of a business nobody knows much about but which deals in megabucks.

And it all comes out like this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went into this movie with semi-high expectations after loving the cartoon series in my childhood, and this nearly wrecked that love for me. Jason Lee, David Seville in the film, is horrifying. I understand it can't be easy to act with CGI characters who aren't actually there, but I really found his performance atrocious, along with all the other non-animated characters. The chipmunks were adorable, yet sometimes blatantly obvious at moving the plot of the story along, and therefore did not tempt me to stay in the theater for longer than half an hour into the film. If you feel you must see this film, rent it, at the most. It is NOT worth eight bucks to see it in theaters, unless you'd like a good laugh at the horrible acting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As cute and adorable as they are, the story of three singing chipmunks just doesn't seem to have enough meat to it to sustain it for an hour and a half. I thought that the first half hour or so of this movie was well worth watching. It was fun, it had a few laughs in it, it was full of energy. Then it somehow just lost that. I wouldn't even say it faded away, because it seemed quite abrupt to me. The fun was gone; the laughter disappeared. My daughter noticed it, too. She's 4 - she laughed uproariously several times in that first part of the movie, then her laughter stopped. Perhaps it took on too serious a tone - the evil movie producer working the chipmunks to death. Something happened, anyway, and it wasn't for the better.

Of course, the movie is trying to tell the story of how the chipmunks (Alvin, Simon and Theodore) began. Everyone knows the Christmas song. Here we discover how they met Dave and got their start. The movie is updated to the present time, although their real origin is noted by Dave's street address of 1958, which was the year when the animated singing rodents were first created. Jason Lee did a pretty good job as Dave and the chipmunk voices were also pretty good. David Cross as the evil Ian irritated me to be blunt, and I couldn't figure out the point of the character of Claire, played by Cameron Richardson. She added little to the movie. It's a movie you can watch with the kids - it's probably a movie you'd only want to watch with the kids, in fact. It gets a 4\/10 from me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I finally got around to seeing this film recently, it turned out to be exactly what it looked like to me at first glance... yet another Hollywood CG\/live-action rehash of an established cartoon franchise. Nothing special or memorable whatsoever. Designed in every way possible to appeal to very young children and very immature adults, making heavy use of comedic devices such as farts, poo-eating, and the size of Theodore's butt.

This film would bother me a lot less if it weren't such an obvious step down for the Chipmunks. Even their characters I found were changed for the worse for this movie. While in the past each one of them had a very distinct personality, here they all behaved like immature, smart-alecky children with ADD, constantly bouncing erratically off the walls. It especially bothered me to see Simon portrayed in this way... He's supposed to be the smart, serious nerd who acts as the \"straight man\" to Alvin's crazy antics. But here he's pretty much a carbon copy of Alvin. One joke in the film even implies that Simon only *thinks* he's smart but really isn't... and honestly if I had never heard of the Chipmunks before seeing this film, I would have agreed.

In my opinion, this film is just another obvious cash-grab, and I'm more than a little sorry it was even made. The fact that it's a \"kid's\" movie doesn't excuse its flaws... To excuse a stupid movie that degrades a classic franchise just because it's for children is insulting to children, and any kid would deserve something more intelligent than this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know the old saw about a train wreck? The one about how you can't look away? This movie isn't that good. The only reason you're still there is because you brought your kids and you can't leave them alone in the theater. You might catch a nap.

Tim Hill should never work in film again after delivering this awful piece of junk. He manages to take a decent comic actor in Jason Lee and turn him into a robotic, unsure actor in this production.

I didn't have much hope for this movie in the first place, I admit. If it weren't basically the only family film I could take my son to around Christmas, my wife and I wouldn't have gone. God, I wish we could go back in time and stop ourselves. I leaned over to my wife about 10 minutes in to tell her what a stinker I thought it was, but she beat me to the punch.

I'm not kidding. It's putrid. Only David Cross's terrific-as-usual work saves this review from being only 1 star.

The story is cloying, insulting and stupid, as might be expected for a movie in this genre (although the recent \"Curious George\" was blissfully intelligent and enjoyable). The acting is mostly poor. The decision to \"update\" the Chipmunks songs for today's audience was inadvisable at best and boneheaded at worst. It does not work.

The chipmunks of old were clever, mischievous and sly. These chipmunks are dumb, somewhat mean-spirited, obnoxious, and in a surprise, needy to the point of uselessness.

Either as a retrospect, a tribute, or as a completely new production, this film totally fails. The final straw? My son couldn't wait to leave. Spend your money renting Curious George instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm surprised to read all the positive comments on this movie. Even my 4 and 6 year old were bored. The chipmunks are cute...but the storyline is overly obvious. Not recommended for young ones with the least sophisticated tastes.

We did hear a few laughs from the audience while we were in attendance; but I wondered why.

I don't admit to ever being a 'chipmunks' fan, but I expected to be entertained. It's not even an 'escapist' movie as far as I can tell. Simply a heavy handed view of 'success too young spoils'. We've seen more than enough of that with Britney Spears, et al, haven't we?

Don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The writers missed so many opportunities and created so many plot holes.

Example: When Dave retrieved his keyboard from the rain, I was eagerly anticipating the funny sounds that were going to come out of it. Nothing! Are you kidding me? A truly witty writer would have not only had a field day with that, but it would have eliminated the major problem of the entire audience wondering how a digital keyboard can become completely soaked but then work perfectly.

There were at least 10 other similar situations. Overall, small children will enjoy this, parents will endure it without too much complaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I honestly thought this movie was going to be cheesy, even though I've liked Alvin and the Chipmunks for a LONG TIME! I was was very wrong. IT WAS GREAT!!! It has been the best movie I have seen since October! In my opinion, it's the movie everyone should see this holiday season! Enchanted (I thought anyway...)was awful, The Golden Compass was alright, but the ending was pretty crappy to His Dark Materials fans, and I Am Legend, well I haven't seen that yet (or National Treasures 2) but it looks alright.

I'm not about to give anything away, but this movie is great for anyone, especially kids!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a below average \"whodunit\" with the cliche everyone in the living room routine. Charlie Chan is a Secret Service Agent doing government work, and he must find who killed a scientist working on a bomb to defeat German U-boats in World War Two. There is little to recommend with this movie, since the neither the bomb nor the scientist nor the war have much to do with the plot. Charlie Chan fans will most likely find this movie disappointing. Who dunit? Who cares?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A true yawner and a bad film even for the Chan series. I like a good Charlie Chan film or even a reasonably good one, but this one falls way short of the mark. Charlie is enlisted to help figure out the murder of a scientist working for our government when someone in the house has stolen the plans for another power. The mystery is very pedestrian and the acting doesn't fare much better. The only saving grace for me in the film was the presence of Mantan Moreland as Birmingham Brown. He gives the film a little comedy and has some good scared faces, but after that the pickings are rather slim. Benson Fong is here as Tommy Chan and pairs up with Chan's daughter of all things. What about Sidney Toler? He is pretty decent but looks like he is straining to carry the film. What I noticed most was the way the film was shot. Chan director Phil Rosen, of whom I generally like most of his entries, uses lots of long shots with no action(like Charlie's initial walk into the house from outside). Why? The film is only 64 minutes long for crying out loud! Shots like that tell me the director had to fill time up because the script was even weaker than he was accustomed to. This probably isn't the worst Chan film ever made, but up to now it is the worst I have sat through unfortunately.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was the first Chan film made by Monogram. What a come down from Fox values and standards! I was shocked when I saw my first Monogram after seeing the great Fox films. This is boring and uninspired with wild music playing as Chan calmly walks across the street. Chan is now working for the US Secret Service rather than the Honolulu Police Department. He is assisted by Benson Fong, who plays No. 3 Son Tommy for the first time. He also has a daughter along, Iris Chan, played by Marianne Quon. Mantan Moreland also makes his debut as Birmingham Brown. He is a cab driver in Washington, DC, here, rather than the later chauffeur to Chan in the later films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Great book, poorly done movie. Cheesy performances and contrived situations make this movie a sentimental bore-fest. Flat and uninspired work from most of the actors leaves this film in the After School Special category. No doubt there is a lot of talent to be tapped in this cast and crew but something went horribly wrong The very talented Gretchen Mol attempts to pull this film out of the mire but even she can't seem to rise above the silly dialogue. Feels like everyone just phoned it in. Even the makeup (Mulrooney ages 20 years over the course of the film) looks amateurish and crude. Don't waste your time on this clunker.... go read the book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE MEMORY KEEPER'S DAUGHTER in the form of a novel by Kim Edwards was a highly successful bestseller and probably was featured in more reading groups than any other novel during its circulation. So what happened when the novel became a made-for-television movie? Perhaps it is the below mediocre screenplay (oops!, teleplay!) by John Pielmeier that consistently galumphs along in an awkward pedestrian fashion removing all sense of credibility to the story. Perhaps it is the cut and paste direction by Mick Jackson that misses the pacing and character delineation. Perhaps it suffers from the cinematography of an uncredited source or the 'liquid tears' musical score by Daniel Licht. For whatever of these (or all of these) reasons, this novel-to-film survives because it does make a good case for educating the public about the capabilities of those born with Down Syndrome. And for that it is worthy of attention.

Dr. David Henry (Dermot Mulroney), a successful orthopedic doctor, is married to the beautiful Norah (Gretchen Mol) and their lives are becoming changed by their pregnancy. On a stormy winter night in Kentucky Norah goes into labor and the Henry's rush to a nearby clinic where David delivers his wife (the doctor is caught in a snowstorm) with the assistance of his old friend, nurse Caroline Gill (Emily Watson). After the delivery of a perfect boy child (Paul) Norah continues to be in labor and (surprisingly...) delivers an unexpected (!) twin girl. David and Caroline immediately recognize that the little girl (Phoebe) is a 'mongoloid' (this is before the use of the term Down Syndrome) and David, having a history of losing a little sister because of a birth defect) decides to send Phoebe to an asylum for the mentally challenged: Caroline is to make the delivery and Norah is told the second twin died at birth.

Caroline follows instructions, sees the conditions of the 'home' where Phoebe is to be deposited, shrinks in horror, and decides to keep the child. Aided by a friendly trucker, Caroline changes her solitary existence and mothers Phoebe, finding a new life in her trucker's Pittsburgh. Norah insists on a formal funeral for Phoebe - a fact that deeply disturbs David's psyche, and the Henry's life goes on with only the one child Paul, leaving submerged pains about the lack of Phoebe's presence. Norah gifts David with a camera ('peoples lives are like a camera, that's where they live - in a room captured by a moment') and David becomes obsessed with photography. Norah grieves, drinks, and loses David's attention, while David traces Phoebe's existence with Caroline - sending money and letters to Pittsburgh. Paul (Tyler Stentiford to Jamie Spilchuk) grows up, discovers his mother's infidelities and is angered about his father's lack of communication and understanding, and decides to fulfill his goal of becoming a musician, and off to Juilliard he goes. Meanwhile Phoebe (Krystal Hope Nausbaum) has matured into a very highly adapted young girl, and the manner in which the broken marriage of the Henrys happens and the healing atmosphere of Phoebe's and Paul's lives coupled with the courage that has supported Caroline Gill's struggle to gain acceptance in the world for those born with Down Syndrome forms the conclusion of the film.

The cast of well-known actors tries hard, but only Emily Watson is able to resurrect a credible character from this squishy script. Jamie Spilchuk gives evidence of a young actor with much promise. Dermot Mulroney and Gretchen find it difficult to mold empathetic characters form the corny lines they are given to deliver. The film is a mess, but the message about acceptance of Down Syndrome children and adults is an important one. Grady Harp","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Who is minding the store here? How could any producer\/network executive\/director let a crew stick the skeeziest fakest plastic palm trees in film history in the sands of a wintry Canadian beach and try to fob it off on us as the tropics? Those trees were to real palm trees what a pink tinsel K-Mart Christmas tree is to real fir. And who let Dermot Mulroney go in front of the camera with painted-on grey hair that wouldn't have passed muster in a high school play? And didn't any of the geniuses doing quality control on this thing think to correct the (excellent) Canadian actor when he said gaz instead of gas? Everybody involved with this plodding slug of a \"movie\"--writer, director, actors--has done not just good but brilliant work elsewhere. Paced way too fast between events and deadly slow within them, devoid of any emotion except the obvious, expository and contrived--maybe this only seems like one of Lifetime's worst movie because of all the Red Carpet hype with which it was presented. And I'm saying this as somebody who love Lifetime. What gives, folks?

All of that said, a certain actress's work at a certain critical turn in the movie (and if you've seen it you'll know exactly what I'm talking about) was so brilliant that the movie would have gotten a 10 from me if that was the whole movie. Unfortunately it was only about five seconds of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Based on a fairly bland \"best seller,\" this film - like most other Lifetime movies - played out more like a reenactment than an actual movie. The only difference here was that Meredith Baxter wasn't in it. The women in this don't age even over a span of like 20 years and the acting in general is pretty bad.

The characters in this were all clich\u00e9 and one-dimensional. The story was of the cheesy nature. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's the kind of thing that people who loved the book and people who watch that network all the time will think is great. I only watched it because my girlfriend wanted to see it so she wouldn't have to read the book her sister loaned to her. It wasn't made for someone like me - my girlfriend cried a little at the end though, so she didn't think it was as terrible as I did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just saw a terrible film called The Sleeping Dictionary. One reviewer on Four Word Film Review (www.fwfr.com) got it right right when he wrote, \"From A to Zzzzzzzzz.\" The story is about an English colonialist jerk that comes to Malaysia to \"civilize the savages\" so to speak and ends up falling in love with his sleeping dictionary. A sleeping dictionary is a native Malaysian prostitute fluent in English that services Englishmen colonialists and teaches them her native language in return for ... well the movie never really makes that clear, but I can only assume he gives her money or something. Needless to say, the movie focuses a lot more on the \"sleeping\" part than on the \"dictionary\" part of the job description. Things get complicated for our young hero when the forbidden love affair gets compounded by her culture, his soap opera domestic situation, and his own boundless stupidity in every major decision he makes throughout the film.

So yes, the movie has some major flaws, but on the other hand, it delivered exactly the two things I rented it for in the first place: a beautifully photographed exotic location, and an even more beautifully photographed and exotic woman that plays the sleeping dictionary, Jessica Alba. My friend told me that this crappy movie was her at her most beautiful and damn was he right. She's not a great actress, and doesn't quite pass for Malaysian, and its pretty obvious that they use a body double for the nudity, but who cares? Jessica Alba has that rare face and figure that's more than just sexy, but also beautiful in the way that a Vivaldi violin concerto or a Rembrandt painting is.

(P.S. Sorry to all you feminists out there who discourage objectifying women, the \"male gaze,\" etc. etc., but I hope you can understand that I mean no disrespect.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, it's true that it was Jessica Alba who leads me to this movie, because without her, I should have never pick it.

But, I find it long, dull and above all, unoriginal. All along, I thought that the story was full of clich\u00e9s and the directing very boring. So it was a surprise to see that the director and writer are the one and same person. I take notice to remember to avoid all his next movies.

It's a pity because all good things were at hand: Malaysia is a beautiful jungle, it was the British Empire and the cast is wonderful: Jessica knows how to open her soul and for one time, she has found an appropriate movie for this. Bob Hoskins shows a great experience and he should have won an award for this role.

The only positive thing is that it makes me open a world-map to locate this island because if you guess it happens in south Asia, you don't know where exactly! Ah, the little plane flight with red lines in the Indiana Jones movie!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like the beauty of the jungle, Jessica Alba's gorgeous smile and sultry looks loom over the film, but alas they are the only two things worth watching this film for. When in theory we should be watching for the narrative.

The plot is thin on the ground, and hard to believe. As beautiful as Jessica Alba is, she doesn't add any of the spark that she injected into the credible 'Dark Angel' series. Since Dark Angel it seems that Alba has been reduced to mere eye candy(but what eye candy!), and is the sole reason for putting her into films.

The concept of the sleeping dictionary is daft and implausible, with little character development (or character for that matter) to make us want to undertake the 109 minutes run time with this world. Despite the films short running time, it still manages to feel to long and too laboured.

It seems a shame that such talent such as Brenda Blethyn, Emily Mortimer, Bob Hoskins are wasted on a threadbare narrative which barely raises a pulse. This film seriously misses a trick, an exotic setting, a more than capable cast, with lovely cinematography, and a chance to utilise the themes and the dualistic concepts of 'civilisation'. But there is little narrative to speak of, no drama, no sense we are watching a story of love, more a story of lust and woman happy to please men without question. Lets be honest, if Jessica Alba was freely allowing you to sleep with her, do you seriously think you'd be able to concentrate on learning a tribal language? Therein lies the great problem, both in suspension of disbelief, and also what the female characters are limited and reduced to. Take for example the fact that Jessica alba's character undergoes the mental and physical tribulation of pregnancy and birth to her forbidden love, yet all we see is her looking lovely and curvy one minute, then lovely and curvy, with a baby, the next.

It's a sorry state of affairs to see a film with promise not live up to anything near it's potential. I could write endlessly of the films flaws, but it pains me to do so. The film looks good, the premise could have been made into a lovely film, but sadly it wasn't to be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The positives: It's shot pretty well. Has some interesting peripheral characters. Likable main character (albeit weak).

The bad: Plot\/story. Editing. Characters wasted. Jessica Alba.

I'm a fan of sappy movies, but this movie is cringe-inducingly bad. I don't understand how anyone can hand over $12M to this Guy Jenkin. And before I go any further, I just want to say that I don't dislike Jessica Alba--I really wanted to like her in this film. However, Jessica Alba in her fake accent and her model poses made me miserable. She has absolutely no screen presence in this movie, and she ruins every scene she's in. Needless to say, the romance does not come off as believable(not even a tiny bit).

All I saw throughout was the actors flapping their wings, trying to get this thing off the ground with what little they were given--but sadly, all this movie does is sink. There is no emotional connection, no emotional conflict, and nothing is gained. It's a pretty empty movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This version of \"The Magic Flute\" is not only the worst production of Mozart's great opera that I have ever seen, it is also the worst video production I have seen of any opera.

I'm a big opera fan and I have more opera on DVD than movies. The sets are cheap and cheesy. Papageno doesn't even have a bird costume. He is just dressed like some guy. The sound is in mono. The color is really bad. It is saturated in orange. Most DVD's from this period have the color digitally restored, but they did not bother with this one. Also, the language has been changed to Swedish instead of the original German.

This is not a movie version of \"The Magic Flute.\" It is a filmed performance and it is not a good performance and it was not filmed very well. You can pick any other available DVD of this opera and I guarantee it will be better than this one. My preference is for the version conducted by James Levine with sets by David Hockney.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A tedious effort from not-yet great director Budd Boetticher and pretty but not-yet un-bland actress Nina Foch, this movie is, as one of the other reviewers notes, is the quintessence of a certain kind of B movie. It's just not the good kind. And a promising premise and an overactive fog machine is wasted.

Basic plot -- Nina, a nurse on leave from wartime duties on account of her nerves, has a nightmare. She meets a dashing fellow at the resort where she's giving her nerves a breather, and realizes he's in the dream, even though she's never met him before. Meanwhile, it turns out our dashing guy is working as a spy, and is about to go on an-extra secret, hush-hush mission that must not fail.

Of course, there are Nazis. And plot holes. And smart people acting in a fashion most likely to get them into entirely unnecessary scrapes, so that the running time can be spun out past an hour. At the end, the movie becomes a contest between which group of spies can act more foolishly. If the FBI and OSS had acted like this crew, we'd have lost the war in '42.

The movie itself is rather flatly shot (despite the best efforts of the fog machine) and the acting -- as it seems to be in many of the Columbia Bs TCM has been showing lately -- is curiously unengaged. It's less stylized than what one might find from a similarly budgeted Warner Bros movie, but also less fun to watch.

Boetticher's strength, of course, is a rather matter of fact style which allows the strong stories and acting in his Randolph Scott westerns to come to the fore. Maybe the problem here is that such a style is not going to work when the script is lousy and the actors tired from their five film a year schedule.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We've all got to start somewhere, it was in films like Escape In The Fog that somebody like Budd Boetticher could learn his trade before turning out good films. In fact the film was dated before it even hit the movie going public on June 25, 1945.

The war on Europe was over for almost two months, of course not even Harry Cohn could control the events of history. So I'm wondering why even back then the public didn't question why a Nazi spy ring was helping out the Japanese. Another very bad historical inaccuracy was that the FBI had nothing to do with the Pacific or Asian theater. The cloak and dagger stuff was the territory of the OSS in that part of the world.

When you're an FBI man like William Wright it sure good to have a psychic girl friend like Nina Foch. He's about to go on a mission to the Orient to deliver the names of key underground leaders to start a general uprising in China against the Japanese occupation. Germans who've been bugging Otto Kruger's house learn of this and the whole movie is spent with these guys who've already lost the war trying to help their allies. Who, by the way, they refer to as 'Japs'. When Foch is sideswiped by a speeding car and knocked unconscious she dreams about Wright's danger and sees what is about to happen to him on the Golden Gate Bridge. She goes there and foils the plot.

All the stuff you'd expect from a nice noir film is there, the foggy atmosphere of San Francisco, the dimly lit sets, Budd Boetticher tried his best as did the cast. But they just weren't convincing, probably because they didn't believe this claptrap themselves.

It's possible, but not likely that Nina Foch's dream and its psychic consequences might have been more developed and the developments were left on the cutting room floor. I think it was just a lousy screenplay.

And Budd and Harry Cohn at Columbia Pictures had the fast moving events of history going against them here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That is the answer. The question is: What is the single reason to watch this movie? I loved her in \"My Name Is Julia Ross.\" That is one of the best films noir of all time. Noir or whatever one may call it, it's a very unsettling movie.

She is fun in one of the worst major studio releases of all time, too. That would be \"The Guilt Of Janet Ames.\" This one has a spooky, promising title. It has a good cast. It has a fine director. I was expecting something dark. Maybe something a little tawdry. Instead, it's an uninspired, routine espionage movie. It's pretty much is a total bore. At least it was to me. Ms. Foch is captivating. And that is about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If any movie ever made Italians look bad, this is it.

Duke Mitchell - what an A--HOLE. Duke Mitchell, I s--t on your grave. Seeing as practically every person gunned down in this film by the cowardly Mimi is either black or of some other racial or ethnic minority, it's hard not to become convinced that the guy ultimately owes his allegiance to the Ku Klux Klan or skinheads. Awww, but he doesn't shoot the little black kid in the elevator in the opening sequence, so that means he can't be all bad, right? WRONG. Typical softheaded sentimental tripe.

While I do understand why some people might be struck by and even, to a certain extent, admire the film's audacious, totally un-PC verve (it's certainly unashamed of its own hatefulness and sense of self-involvement), but this doesn't change the fact that the main character, Mimi (and, by extension, Duke Mitchell), is thoroughly loathsome human being who earns not one iota of empathy or interest, especially given that Duke Mitchell is such a COMPLETE BORE as a performer. But what do you expect from a guy whose main claim to fame (apart from this dog t--d of a movie) was being a second rate Dean Martin imitator?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a disappointment! I've enjoyed the Jon Cleary books about Scobie Malone, but there's little resemblance between him and the cinematic Malone. In the books he's a city detective, who is devoted to his wife and doesn't get involved in fisticuffs. For the film the character has been spiced up, into an outback copper who uses his fists and isn't averse to jumping into bed with a gorgeous girl, though quite what she and the film's other sex interest see in him I don't know; Taylor was 39 at the time and his face was getting puffy.

But his character's stamina is remarkable; he flies in from Australia, apparently goes straight to the Commissioner's house (rather unwisely seeking to arrest him during a black-tie reception), saves him from assassination (getting into a fight in the process), goes to a casino with one girl, leaves with another and takes her to bed. So much for jet lag! On the way back to the Commissioner's house (showing a good knowledge of London back streets), he gets beaten up by the baddies, but is still first down to breakfast! It's also remarkable that the commissioner's limo has its windscreen and headlights miraculously repaired within minutes of the assassination attempt and that one character has a touching faith in the precise timekeeping of a clock-activated bomb.

The best thing is Joseph the Butler's disdain for the uncouth Malone. And at least the film avoids being a London travelogue, though some scenes take place during the Wimbledon tennis week.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a failure so complete as to make me angry.

All of the subtlety and structure of Reggio's early films is gone, leaving nothing but a hash of digitally smeared images whose sole purpose seems to be Whining About Bad Things Humans Do. Just how do Star Trek-like wormhole graphics, slo-mo colorized seascapes, mutiplicities of obviously fake computer icons, and shots of athletic competition that, incidentally, show that no one has ever been able to top (or even match) Leni Riefenstahl for filming bodies in motion, edited together with an overlay of video colorization that a 1980s \"Dr. Who\" producer would have rejected as \"too cheesy,\" add up to a polemic against \"civilized violence\"? There is no intellectual, emotional, or visceral connection between these images as assembled and mutated by Reggio and way too many digital effects artistes, and the cautionary tale I assume he wanted to produce. With all of the \"dramaturgical consultants\" involved, no one seems to have pulled his head out the his own feeling of Saying Something Important and considered that they might all be failing to say something new.

Only people who watch too much television could make such a film and believe that it's meaningful; this is kindergarten Stan Brakhage, and ultimately gutless in its relentless obviousness. The only irony and tension evident here (unlike in \"Koyaanisqatsi\" where the relentless beauty and strangeness of time-altered ordinary images forced you to consider their meaning) was when the DVD I was watching jammed and skipped. This is MTV for the Noam Chomsky crowd, based on reflex rather than reflection and signifying nothing. Two stars for the music, which is in Glass's best pomo-Cesar Franck style and features some passionate cello from Yo-Yo Ma. (I hope for his sake that he didn't have to record his parts to a playback of the film; there are some things you shouldn't have to do even for a paycheck.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a gigantic fan of both Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi, but this movie is just not good. The reviewer below is entirely correct that the stunning imagery of the Detroit station is the first and last memorable scene in the film. I really, really wish I had left after that, instead of continuing to hold out hope throughout the film. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I felt let down.

The score is almost completely a rehash of the previous two - not necessarily a bad thing if you're a fan, but there's only one piece that stood out to me as being fresh. It was good enough, though, that I'll still probably check out the soundtrack.

But just keep this in mind if you see this film: if you come to realize at any point that you're not enjoying it, go ahead and split - you won't miss a thing, because it won't get any better.

I'll even give the executive summary here (warning! spoilers!): lots of shots of athletes that look almost good enough for a Nike commercial, shots of smiling people, inexplicably dull frontal head shots of famous people's wax dummies (WTF were they thinking here?!?), some giggling babies (cuuuuute), some \"bitchin'\" Photoshop effects, some imagery that's meant to suggest a comparison between the flows of water, information, money and people (I think)... and then a bunch of quick unrelated scenes of mass violence... and then a bunch of stock space footage.

I could remake this movie in 10 seconds. Here's my pitch:

2 seconds of a happy daddy with a shaved head and lycra biking shorts playing with a toddler playing with a kitten playing with string; 5 seconds of that scene in \"Network\" where the guy talks about messing with the \"elemental forces of nature\" and how \"money flows in, money flows out;\" 1 second of Reginald Denny getting brained with a brick, and then 3 seconds of Alan Bean bouncing around on the moon.

There you go - that's 88 minutes and 50 seconds of your life I just saved. Of course, I'd get a copy of After Effects and apply a filter or two, so it wouldn't look as blatantly stock as it is. If Steven Soderbergh's reading this, hey, I won't even need much money for this project...

If you insist upon watching a movie about \"Life as War,\" I suggest \"Bowling for Columbine\" instead. It may not have the pseudo-intellectual veneer so fashionable among the black turtleneck crowd, but at least it's funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having enjoyed Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqatsi I was looking forward to this third part of the Qatsi trilogy and seeing what direction it had taken. Rarely has a film so spectacularly failed to live up to its predecessors and lost its way. Although it tries to represent \"civilised warfare\" in the form of sport, science, trade and other forms of competition, it lacks the global scope and even the coherently developed themes of its predecessors. War is chaos, but even wars have an aim in mind and this film had little structure and unclear goals.

Naqoyqatsi is flawed by being a chaotic melange of images that does little to develop its theme. On the plus side, it wisely avoided using some of the iconic images of last century's wars.

Naqoyqatsi is also so insular that several times I had to remind myself that I was not watching an advertisement promoting the American way of life. Perhaps this insularity reflects the ongoing \"War on Terror\". When representing \"sport as war\" the prominent team logos ensured that the USA was depicted as the winner. Hence it missed the opportunity to depict some of the many sports around the world and showing that humanity is united in its use of sport as a form of civilised warfare.

Apart from newsreel, the footage seemed to have been shot on a budget in the confines of New York and there was little recognition of \"life as war\" in the rest of the world. The gallery of faces (waxworks) gave only a nod to the existence of important personages outside of the USA. The makers missed the point that globalisation does not mean Americanisation.

The Philip Glass soundtrack sounded much like every other Philip Glass score I've heard (with the possible exception of Koyaanisqatsi) and at best can be described as \"inoffensive\" neither adding to, nor detracting from, the chaotic imagery.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen all 3 now. I just can't believe how bad Naqoyqatsi is. Not in comparison to the others, but simply on it's own merit, or lack of.

I can't understand how the average rating for this movie is over 6 out of 10. I gave the first 2 movies 8 out of 10. They were thought provoking and beautifully done. I gave this movie a rating of 1. If a 0 or negative number was available, I would have given it that rating instead. What a total waste of time it was watching this movie. I thought after the first 30 minutes that I should turn it off, but then I figured that it was just a (very) slow starting movie. I thought the same thing after 45 minutes, then 1 hour, etc. Then I realized that it wasn't going to get any better.

It's very tedious to watch and without any redeeming qualities. Don't take my word for it, watch it yourself. Be sure to see the first two movies before this one. If you see this one first, I can just about guarantee that you'll never want to see the first two, but they are definitely much, much better than this \"piece of work\".

The best part of the movie is when the credits role at the end. That's when your penance on this earth is complete and you can foregoe 89 minutes in purgatory, for the suffering that you've endured watching this \"film\". If God is truely merciful, he'll be more generous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The director Godfrey Reggio must be a very charming and persuasive man for this dreadfully botched project to have seen the light of day. Reggio's message, so powerful and resonant in his previous two Qatsi films, is hopelessly jumbled here. Athletes, equations, oceans, keypads, laughing heads, etc, mingle without purpose. The parade of banal imagery is mostly generic stock from Getty Images et al, and the heavy-handed digital manipulations are amateurish in the worst way imaginable. Surely someone involved (Steven Soderbergh, executive producer?) could have pointed out that applying a solarizing filter to nearly every frame was a VERY BAD idea? The crude looping, layering, and distorting of images recalls a freshman Photoshop class. And to make matters worse, the computer animation sequences are more artless than a 1980's Wall Street pie-chart. This is not to say that improved aesthetics alone would have salvaged this film, but some meager effort in this direction may have made it tolerable as visual fodder for the accompanying music. I feel compelled to point out that the score by Philip Glass will certainly satisfy his fans. Not a radical departure, but rather a refinement of what Glass does best with lovely violin contributions by Yo Yo Ma. If you decide to see this film be certain to focus your attention on the brief opening sequence. While you may already be familiar with Detroit's once majestic but long abandoned Michigan Central Railroad Station 89 minutes later you will find yourself remembering this image of 20th century decay as the critical point when you should have headed for the EXIT sign\/hit the STOP button, etc. You've been warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"PLEASE?! If this is about technology and what man does to kill others and ourselves, I think I missed his entire point. Because I walked out feeling like Reggio relied on cold-war-era footage of space exploration, and had NOTHING new to add to the dialogue about fears of technology. Trails of 1 and 0, denoting technology and math and science -- DONE that. Anyone out there see The Matrix? And motion studies of people in motion? Ever heard of Edward Muybridge? At least he uses exact clips of Muybridge's photographs of human motion studies.

This film was derivative, and the score is just enough Philip Glass to sound like EVERYTHING he's done in the past 10 years... Avoid this film at ALL costs!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first two movies of this series excelled for their footage of the natural world and ordinary people stuck in the midst of society. This movie doesn't have any of that natural footage, which I understand is part of the point, but it really makes the entire video component of the film seem like random images stuck together-- ones and zeroes flying around, computer models of human skeletons, and so forth. Occasionally the stock footage is put to good effect (the nationalism\/finance segment around 35:00), but usually it makes the video appear to lack any meaningful content, and demands you accept the context of the stock photographers rather than the context of the director. It's no better than the video displayed on a karaoke machine. Three stars added for the Philip Glass soundtrack.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi are both Beautiful films, but this final installment of the trilogy is a major let down. They got too carried away with stock footage and photography, so little content. The executive producer puts his own image in the film... Its just pretentious. Maybe if they had more than $3 million to spend maybe it would have been something. I actually thought Steven Soderbergh directed it because it was so bad, but Godfrey Reggio the director of Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi directed this. I'll have to assume that they just didn't have the budget to make a decent film. You would think that Francis Ford Coppola would have wanted to be a part of this film and help get more money together.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The peace and beauty of Koyaanisqatsi was a powerful affirmation of the natural world. In Naqoyqatsi, we are assaulted by images of the synthetic, the competitive, the violent, and the digital -- the destructive constructs of our culture.

Some liberties are taken with the images, with posterization, distressing, and much slow motion. The connections between the sequences are inscrutable, if there are any. Naqoyqatsi is defined at the film's end, a missed opportunity to place the images in context.

The film is difficult to watch, the quality of the archival footage uneven, and it's most redeeming qualities are its theme and the hypnotic score of Philip Glass.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was very disappointed in this film. The director has shown some talent in his other endeavors, but this just seemed to be filler. There may have been a deep meaning behind it, but it seems to me to be nothing but a director who has access to some toys.

I would highly recommend his other works to people, but certainly not this one. As I watched it, I kept on thinking it would pick up after an initial slow period, but it never did. At the end of the movie I was neither entertained nor moved nor thought of things in a new way. I could only say to myself, \"What was that?\"

There were a few really striking parts of the film, but not enough to warrant sitting through it again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There seems to be a spectrum of cinema. On the left, there are movies made mostly for entertainment and\/or commercial purposes. In the middle, there are movies that are both entertaining and artistic. On the right are movies that are not as commercial, but are focused more on cinema as art than cinema as product.

I'm not here to say any one part of the spectrum is better than any other, but that when a movie goes too far to either end, it's rarely good. Such is the case with Naqoyqatsi.

I had no idea what to expect when I saw it advertised. A few friends were going and asked if I wanted to come along. None of us knew what to expect, and by the end, none of us were pleased.

Yes, there are breathtaking images. Yes, I'm amazed at the lengths the filmmakers went to in searching through archival footage. Yes, the soundtrack is enjoyable to listen to, and probably the best part of the experience. The thing is, this goes so far to the right side of the spectrum I mentioned that I can't say anything nice about the movie as a whole.

It's preachy. It's a jumble of symbolism and obvious morality. It's not saying anything new or forcing the viewer to examine life in a new way. It's just telling us things we already know (that is, if we can even figure out what it's saying).

This movie is simply art for art's sake. An attempt to say \"Look at how deep and thought-provoking we can be by using montage!\" When a film becomes more about how clever or intelligent its creators are than about its subject, it ceases to be a film and simply becomes celluloid self-gratification.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What I hoped for (or even expected) was the well known \"stop motion\" imagery and extreme slow motions, extreme zooms and all embracing fish eye takes. In short: The art of a) finding interesting Visual Events and b) capturing them in a way the human eye is not capable of, to be replayed so that the human eye can see. The stuff that made the other Qatsi's hits.

I just wondered how the creation of the whole would fit the title.

Having watched the movie I got the feeling that the focus in this third part was on the message and not on the wrapping. That's fine, especially since the message is so valid. But I already knew the message, and it appeared there was nothing else left for me. More then half the film was solarized or colorized or posterized or transformed through some other filter. It looked a lot like the effects your video camera does but you never use. A lot of the images would have been prettier without the filters, like the giraffe and zebra chase. You could say that 'technology or whatever human based malicious source disfigured our beautiful nature' but why use these seventies effects to symbolize that? At the point that there had been more than 10 minutes in a row of this cheap looking effect I was ready to leave. The hope that the rest just couldn't BE that bad made me stay. But then there was the slow motion: slow motion is good because it gives you time to analyze the moving picture. But if there are no more than 24 or maybe 50 or 60 frames a second, then there's just not enough motion to slow down. Please, record the motion-to-be-slowed faster, like was done with the beautiful shots of the foaming and splashing water (some of) the laughing people and the drill song singing soldiers. I acknowledge that archive pictures can't be redone, but I had already seen a lot of that footage anyway, it could have done without it. It must have been a lot of work to search through the archive footage, and the effects can't have been that easy to apply and arrange as well. On top of that, a lot of the work was mixed with each other. It shows that the creator wasn't out to lengthen the movie or to spare himself. But I didn't like the mixed stuff one bit... The idea behind it was sometimes nice or even clever, but the implementation was insufficient. The computer generated images didn't bother me that much, however out of date. The 'bits' streaming along circuits (in the first part of the film) looked more recent and were nice. Mandelbrot is always fun, the fractal-mountain was less. I was pleased to hear a cello playing a major role in the music. A little less vibrato at certain moments would have been appropriate with Glass' music, but that's a matter of taste. As is all of the above, of course. I do hope that there will be another Qatsi story to tell soon, where computer imagery will have a less significant role and that will inspire somebody to get into the field again.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dear reader, Watch out! This movie is not really a movie, though its creators have the impertinence to call it so. If you have not been warned about its content, here it goes: the film is simply a sequence of imagines which flow continually and are trying to transmit a certain feeling, concept. They could be called, therefore, symbols. The images are accompanied by a soundtrack, it's purpose being to create atmosphere as well. However, the images the director has chosen can only transmit feelings to an American audience, because they are, in an overwhelming number, American icons. Though the film is intended to express the idea of \"civilized warfare\", it fails to do so not only because of the general chaos, but also because it is far too long and tiresome, and I strongly felt that a lot of the scenes have not to do with \"war\", in whichever conception. To conclude, I was greatly disappointed by a documentary which is not a documentary, a movie which is not a movie, a \"something\" whose only strong point is the extraordinary use of technology in image processing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Koyaanisquatsi is simply the best film I've ever seen. It's a masterpiece where everything is at the right place. Some scenes are not \"nice\" or \"beautiful\", but the camera never peeks or intrudes. This is exactly what's happening here. The camera is used to intrude, to disgrace and to ridicule. There is no magic flow here, no sense of greatness or respect. Instead some scenes are cobbled together without greater purpose or plan. The music is disturbing. Just as I rated Koyaanisquatsi the best film ever made, this one is the worst. It's a \"pure\" movie, too, but this is the negative form, exactly that which should *not* be done.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The trouble with this sort of lyrical film-making is that you either make a masterpiece, or a lemon: there's little middle ground. Putting it gently, this is not \"Berlin - symphony of a city\" or \"Man with a Movie Camera\". Unfortunately, it's not much to look at, either.

The problem with this one is that it's glib and half-baked, as if Michael Moore had come on board. It doesn't really have anything to say, or rather, to show us with pictures and sounds. Koyanisqatsi uses images cumulatively to propound a thesis. This is just a patchwork in search of a point. (Though, quite inadvertently, the movie tells us more about the mind of Uncle Sam than it intends. There is something profoundly paradoxical about an anti-technology, anti-civilisation, anti-media movie that is so profoundly souped up with technology. 'Do as I say, and not as I do'. You just gotta love the Yanks, eh.) Tonally, there's something sour and misanthropic about this episode. Both the prior episodes had moments of lyricism and exhilaration; this time the tone is consistently glum. It simply doesn't work over this duration, as Gustav Mahler will tell you.

Stylistically, Naqoyqatsi is a mess. The whizzy digital stuff is particularly misguided. It gives the whole thing a totally fussy, overprocessed look, and it also undermines the 'realist' nature of the analogue 'found footage'. (I mean, I pity the guys. Part of the joy of Koyanisqaatsi was that it was a homage to the use of optical film. But now optical film's an historical artifact, they have to 'take on board' the digital domain; but I don't think they bring it off. The digital stuff often looks like video links from CNN or BBC World.) And with the \"found footage\", well, the digital manipulation is often ugly, and usually just silly, and the false colour and solarisation kept me thinking of...

...ahem...

James Bond title sequences.

Ahem. Odd as it may seem, there is also the possibility that the movie has been simply stolen by Yo Yo Ma's performance; it's about as unobtrusive as a Lawrence Olivier voice-over. The images would have to be jolly compelling to stack up against all that charisma.

Philip Glass himself is on odd form; never expected him to knock off the Verdi requiem! (Made me laugh, which, of course, is not the desired response to any part of this movie). There's even one piece of music that sounds like Brahms. (?) Perhaps they've changed his pills.

From our 'idle questions' department: is Geoffrey Reggio actually a Hopi Indian at all? Or did he just do a sweatlodge in Hollywood Hills? Oh, and are the various snippets bits of footage from earlier 'episodes' in the trilogy a commentary on the way these movies, too, are part of the global media slushy?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The final frames of the original \"American Graffiti\" provide one-line summaries of the fates of the film's four central male characters. While somewhat sexist in omitting the female characters, the ending of the original film provided all the information about those people that even the most ardent fan of the movie would want. However, someone felt that mega-bucks could be made by detailing the dreary lives of these characters after the original film ended. Bad move. Making an insurance salesman and his wife, a nerdy private in Vietnam, a drag race driver, and a overgrown hippie into interesting characters in interesting situations was far beyond the talents of those who wrote this nearly unwatchable movie. While most of the original cast is back, with only Richard Dreyfuss having the good sense to stay away, \"More American Graffiti\" is a mess of silly situations that involve protests, car races, country singers, and the Vietnam war. The use of split screens, once thought innovative and daring, is overused here to the point of distraction and adds confusion to the already confused goings one. This is a sequel that demonstrates nearly everything that can go wrong with a sequel. Perhaps it should be screened in film schools as a lesson. Even the use of period music, which was a delight in the original, is poorly done here. If you want more \"American Graffiti,\" see the original twice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As with many sequels, this one just doesn't have the quality or the impact of the original. The first one belongs up there with the rest of the greats. This one just doesn't cut it. The first film had a magical \"good time\" feeling about it that is totally missing from this film. We became enamored of all these characters (minus Richard Dreyfuss) in an age of innocence. Now, a few years later, they have changed so much that they are largely different people. While this is what happens in real life, we don't expect this to happen to our favorite film characters! The film doesn't have the humor that the original had, and we were expecting to laugh. What little humor is there is dark. The first film also featured what is probably the greatest soundtrack ever, while this one is good but not even close to the original's. This film is so totally different from the original that it isn't even actually a sequel. I gave it a 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like a lot of people, I loved the original; \"American Graffiti\" was one of the great movies of the 70s. The sequel, \"More American Graffiti\" is a horrible, depressing mess of a movie. It wasn't funny, the wide-eyed, likable characters had become cynical and jaded, and the stories were contrived (such as \"Laurie's\" character having another brother because Richard Dreyfuss didn't do the sequel and \"Terry the Toad\" and \"Pharaoh Joe\" somehow managing to serve together in Vietnam). They even have a police officer by the name of \"Falfa\" (Harrison Ford's character in the original) who makes a \"cameo\". He doesn't even look like Harrison Ford, who was way too big a star by 1979 to even bother with this garbage.

The operative word here is \"funny\". This movie isn't even amusing. Debbie (Candy Clark) is a stripper mixed in with a bunch of dope spoking hippies and trying to bail her dealer boyfriend out of jail; Steve and Laurie (Ron Howard and Cindy Williams), the lovebirds in the original, have two kids and have become an annoying, bickering couple; Adorable little tomboy Carol (MacKenzie Phillips) has become \"Rainbow\", yet another hippie child. John Milner (Paul LeMat) is a loser race car driver whose fortune was foretold at the end of the original. Even Wolfman Jack, whose voice was such an integral part of the original, and gave it such a great flow, only is heard sporadically.

Perhaps it was different writers, a different director and the complete lack of a cohesive story line that makes this movie such a dismal failure.

The episodic charm and authentic nostalgia of the original is nowhere to be found in the sequel. It was a movie that didn't need to be made and its best just to remember what a great movie \"American Graffiti\" was and avoid the movie with \"More\" in the title.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really don't think producer George Lucas didn't really set out to make such a horrible sequel as \"More American Graffiti\" turned out to be. But in retrospect it was the first crack in his then-seemingly impenetrable armor. Coming straight off the huge success of \"American Graffiti\" and produced basically at the same time as \"Star Wars\", this film was the first that Lucas successfully took away from Coppola without having to bother directing it himself. The result is typical Lucas -- far more interesting in terms of its structure and the way it's edited than the actual material. The writer\/director Bill Norton has been allowed to use a variety of different screen ratios and split screens to produce odd associations in the images. While it's interesting to see ironic juxtapositions of the 4 story lines, the style ultimately only epitomizes the fractured nature of the film itself.

Lucas' brilliant original film was all about a group of friends on the archetypical \"last big night\" before school ends and Kurt (Ron Dreyfuss) and Steve (Ron Howard) are supposed to go off to college. One thing that made that film work, despite the fact that it's very episodic, is that you had the core characters together at the beginning and they come back together at the end. There's a disposition of time, like in Nick Ray's \"Rebel Without a Cause\" where a certain period of time becomes very elastic and takes on more meaning than such a specific time really would in actual life, but everything takes place in a static space. \"More American Graffiti\" is basically the opposite -- the space is very dynamic, with Toad (Charles Martin Smith) off in Vietnam, his former girlfriend Debbie (Candy Clark) partying with hippies in San Francisco, Steve and Laurie (Cindy Williams) involved in student protests in Berkeley, and John Miler (Paul Le Mat) drag racing on the semi-pro circuit. In a contrived meeting early in the film all the principles are brought together to watch John race, but after that the threads don't come back together and weave apart the way they do in the original. Instead they split off and we follow the characters through about 3 years' of time, just seeing various events on New Years Eve in what seems to be 1967, 68 and 69. It's easy for the audience to become confused, and I think it's fair to say that we do. While the original film seemed to condense important events and rites of passages into unreal theatrical time that produced an experience of nostalgia even for those who never experienced those events, this sequel drags and stretches the few plot points from the epilogue of the original and attempts to make them into a coherent film.

The best parts of the movie to me are the ones with Candy Clark in SF and Charles Martin Smith in Nam. Some of the jokes do fall flat but the style of those sections is interesting and they form a neat contrast with each other. A good movie could maybe have been made if these parts were just a bit better, and if the other parts weren't such a drag. Speaking of drag racing, the whole plot with Milner talking to a foreign exchange student was really lame, unfunny, and throwing in Mackenzie Phillips for a cameo didn't help at all. It was just another contrived moment, like when they briefly explain why Curt isn't in the movie because he's already in Canada. Instead Laurie just has another brother who is basically identical to Curt but has a different name and is now played by a very boring actor. There's a black kind of satire to some of the Vietnam stuff, very similar to what I would imagine Lucas and John Milius' original idea for \"Apocalypse Now\" would have been like. And there's some of that manic fun in the San Francisco scenes that made the first movie fun. But still along with that fun stuff, you have the rest of the movie dragging it down, as if anyone wants to see Steve and Laurie argue in their horrible suburban abode as if they were auditioning for a Spielberg movie about divorce and child abandonment. I think even if those parts of the movie weren't so painful, it still wouldn't really be comparable to the first movie because there's no closure and no sense of coming back together or of anybody having learned anything. It just sort of ends at the point when they ran out of money or something, a cheap freeze frame imitation of \"Two-Lane Blacktop\" and so many better films.

Like the original however, this film has a great soundtrack of period hits that is probably worth owning for its own sake and almost makes the movie itself palatable. The performances by Country Joe and the Fish are great, and Scott Glenn all duded up as a hippie in love with Candy Clark is a sight to see -- I wonder if even back then he had to use a wig? I couldn't possibly recommend this movie, and yet it has some small affection in my heart because I love the original so much. Every couple of decades I guess I have to give this movie a try just to make sure that it's really as worthless as I remember it being. It's a party killer but it's something that every fan of \"American Graffiti\" or George Lucas in general will want to see at least once or twice. It shows how a lot of effort can go into something and it can still turn out pretty half baked. It makes you reflect on how much of a miracle it is that Lucas actually made such a good movie as \"American Graffiti\" in the first place, as if all the elements were in place and all the appropriate gods had been placated. Unfortunately such was not the case for this film or for Bill Norton.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The gang is back for more! Ron Howard and Cindy Williams are now married! Her brother is demonstrating against the draft and Charles Martin Smith is doing everything he can in Vietnam to get sent home.

The issues of the 60's are brought to light here, but it's all over the place, beginning with New Year's Eve 1963, then three minutes later, it's New Year's Eve 1964, then three minutes later, it's New Year's Eve 1965, then three minutes later, it's back to 1963 again. Martin Smith is talking about his friend dying in a drag race a year ago, and a couple of scenes later, this friend is winning his next heat in a drag race and to top it all off, the drug scene and the flower children enter the picture (or pictures, in some cases, as many as three different camera shots are shown on the screen at the same time).

If you want to watch this film, you have to WATCH this film, but I'd advise you to stick to the original and leave it there. Wolfman Jack is heard in the beginning of the film before almost every song played in the background, but where'd he go? Maybe HE couldn't keep up with this film, either, and quit! 2 out of 10 stars!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved the first \"American Graffiti\" with all my heart and soul that I considered it to be the best movie about rock n' roll along with being the best teenager flick I've ever seen. The first film spawned the careers of George Lucas who would later do the blockbuster epic \"Star Wars\" before doing the prequels two decades later while making Richard Dreyfuss a star in Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and other films as well.

Somehow without those two, the magic died off.

\"More American Graffiti\" shows audiences what happened to the rest of the characters later on in the sixties where Steve (Ron Howard) and Laurie (Cindy Williams) are protesting against the Vietnam War while their friend Terry \"The Toad\" Fields (Charles Martin Smith) is in the war himself and trying to get out. John Milner (Paul Le Mat) is still the hot drag racer in California where he never quite left home. The rest of the supporting actors in the film from Candy Clark's Debbie (Terry's Girlfriend), to the Pharaoh's gang members, along with Harrison Ford and others really don't do much. The original film showed teenagers cruising the streets without any bloodshed with the early music of rock n' roll from Buddy Holly, The Fleetwoods, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Bill Haley and the Comets, Buddy Knox and more that brought back the nostalgia bug in classic music. The soundtrack for \"More American Graffiti\" is a mixture of rock, soul, country, hippie music, and whatever fitted the mood during the late 60's of protesting, drugs, sacrifices and more.

After watching \"More American Graffiti\" it looked like it wanted to show audience members what happened after the title epilogue of the four main characters in the first film (with the exception of Dreyfuss's character) where it wasn't necessary. This film wasn't necessary either as I was glad to see that neither Lucas or Dreyfuss moved on to bigger and better projects.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I suggest if you have already seen the original American Graffiti, do not see this movie. If you haven't seen the original, I still don't recommend this, but it will be a lot less painful to watch. The characters from the first film are great, and by the end you fell a connection to them. This movie sets out to show how bad their lives have become. It's a chore to watch!

Set on New year's eve in 1964, '65, '66 and '67, we have four stories about the characters from the first film. In '64, we have John Milner (Paul Le Mat) who is now a professional drag racer. He meets a foreign girl Eva, and though his plot really goes nowhere, it's the best of the four. In 1965, we have Toad (Charles Martin Smith) who is stuck in Vietnam, and more than anything, he wants out. He tries to find ways to hurt himself or do stupid things to get out. In '66, we have Debbie (Candy Clark), the girl who Toad picked up in the first movie. Now she is a pot smoking hippie, and really I'm not sure what her plot was about. It was her going to a concert...not much of anything happened. Finally, in 1967, Steve Bolander (Ron Howard) and Laurie Bolander (Cindy Williams) are having marriage problems that end in a anti-war rally and police action.

None of these stories are very good. The script in some parts features very, very bad dialogue. These poor characters who I enjoyed so much in the first film, ended up where they are here...why? Why was this sequel made? I guess if a sequel was made, it had to feature the Vietnam war, and hippies and police action, but the real thing is that this movie shouldn't have been made.

The direction was stylish, but it just amounts in a huge headache. Each story has a different style. Milner's is just a regular (depending on how you watch it) wide screen, and is filmed how the rest of the movie should be. Toad's plot was shot in 16mm, and what it amounts to is a poor looking picture, which is the size of a small box in the middle of the screen. Debbie's plot is shot in multi-screen. At one point there might have been one screen, but for the good majority, it's anywhere from two to twenty screens up at once. Don't bother trying to follow the screens, since there's nothing going on anyways. Steve and Laurie's plot has the weirdest filming style. It's style really doesn't mean anything, and is dumb and pointless. Instead of just a full widescreen, it's a condensed widescreen that looks like a full screen version of widescreen. Though I don't like the others, at least I understand what they were going for, this one just doesn't make sense.

The music is this movie's saving grace, not that it could save this! Bob Dylan, Simon and Grafunkel, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye and dozens of others have nice songs featured here. They don't save the feature, they just make it a little better than it is. It's still bad!

Overall, this is a pointless sequel. Any fan of the original should avoid this lackluster sequel!

My rating: * 1\/2 out of ****. 110 mins. PG for language, drug use and violence","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Were it not for the fact that this came as a 2-dvd set paired with the original American Graffiti; were it not for the fact that I've been here in Iraq for several months and, at this point, will watch pretty much anything, I would have tossed this movie in the garbage after the first ten minutes. This movie was appallingly bad on so many levels I just don't know where to start. Poorly acted, shot, directed, written, scored, edited. My 9-year old daughter's first forays into film-making are superior to this - and she was filming the dog sleeping. (Come to think of it, I give that piece of cinematography 9 stars. But I'm biased.) If you have even the slightest appreciation for quality film-making, then avoid this piece of garbage at all costs. No character in this movie has a single redeeming quality save for the Icelandic girl who doesn't even have a single line in English. I'll not waste more of my time describing what a bad movie this is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"American Graffiti is one of the best movies ever made. I've seen it at least 30 times and am emotionally affected by it each time I see it. (I graduated from high school in 1962.)

However, More American Graffiti is one of the worst movies ever made.

It is hard to believe than anyone associated with the great original movie was involved with this terrible sequel. The part of the movie set in Vietnam was extremely inaccurate. (I served 18 months in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne Division.)

The whole movie had nothing worthwhile in any part of it.

If anyone ever wants to make a case against making sequels to great movies, More American Graffiti would be the prime example of what can go wrong.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The critics were like \"a movie that will break your heart\" etc. So a friend of mine and I had great expectations when we decided to watch this movie.

I'll make it short and leave it up to others to write about its content. This movie tries to touch you, to reach your heart. But it fails. At least for me. And for my friend, too.

Everything that happened happened only on the screen. It was always THERE, not HERE, where I am. I thought most of the time \"hmm, something's happening on the screen, but it's only on the screen. It's not real.\"

Movies which succeeded MUCH better in touching me: East of Eden (1955), Terms of Endearment (1983), Jerry Maguire (1996), Babe (1995), Mies vailla menneisyytt\u00e4 (2002)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Personally I've watched it because of Lea Thompson's appearance and I didn't really expect to enjoy the movie as such, but surprisingly I kept watching it until the end.

Let's face it - it just one of the saga-like stories and isn't particularly original or entertaining, but strangely it just keeps you by the TV. My opinion about Will of Their Own would be much better if there wouldn't be one point that I just don't get.

There is lovely and really touchy scene in which Lea Thompson's character is running on the street holding baby in her arms, the snow is falling, she is cold, scared, and has no place to stay, she doesn't know what to do next. And then about 10-12 years later, when things are better for her, she just leaves the same kid without any warning to take up the career she was dreaming about.

I just don't get it - I don't see how is it possible that she would do such thing, it was the opposite action to all that she done so far in her life when all that she was doing was aimed on that child survival. After this character flip I just couldn't enjoy rest of the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The setup for \"Nature of the Beast\" is ingeniously simple, and fraught with limitless potential for suspense: harried salesman Jack (a very domesticated Lance Henriksen) picks up trouble in the form of hitchhiker Adrian (Eric Roberts), who seems to be in possession of incriminating information against Jack. Oh, and over a million dollars has been stolen from a casino and someone dubbed 'Hatchet Man' is dismembering people in the desert. Sounds great, right? Sort of like \"The Hitcher\" meets \"Psycho.\" One or both of these men has a secret, and nothing is as it seems! Well, unfortunately, writer-director Victor Salva (of \"Jeepers Creepers\" and \"Powder\" fame) doesn't have enough ideas to keep the movie going, the scenario arouses no tension or suspense (poison for what is supposedly a 'thriller'), and the inclusion of an underlying homo-erotic tone seems out-of-place. Henriksen evokes an unusual, not-quite-earthbound Everyman (even sporting an ample gut), but Roberts is about as threatening and scary as an extra in \"Death Wish 3\"; we're never sucked in to the point where we actually CARE about what's happening, and the conclusion slides into improbable territory (I kept thinking it was going to be \"Fight Club\" all over again, but I was mistaken). Too bad. \"Nature of the Beast\" could have been something else...instead of nothing else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had a bad feeling ten seconds into the film as a pair of overworked tumbleweeds (probably left over from a bad western) blew across the scene. The bad feeling grew ten seconds later when the obligatory opening stranger-turned-human-sacrifice for no apparent reason lowered his rear view mirror to see a shadow in the back seat. For the next five minutes over the opening credits we are treated to an overhead shot of the car rocking back and forth and only the dramatic made-for-TV-movie music informs us a killing is taking place, not a make-out session. For the next 27 or so hours we are treated to two idiotic psychotics who for some reason seem compelled to drive through the desert Southwest together, going after each other like a demented Abbot & Costello. Even with the \"shocking\" twists at the end, we are merely left to shake our heads and wonder if the producers and director\/writer feel as ashamed and embarrassed as they should for creating this inconsistent, incoherent nonsense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love most movies and I'm a big fan of Sean Bean so I thought that I would at least LIKE this movie. Also, I'm Canadian and this is a mostly-Canadian movie so I was prepared to cut it some serious slack. Nothing could have prepared me for the garbage that is \"Airborne\". Steve Guttenberg as an action hero? Give me a break. The acting throughout the movie was so bad I am going to have trouble sleeping tonight. I now have only two wishes in my life.

1. I hope that you never have to sit through this movie. 2. I wish I could get those 6 hours back. Oh wait, the movie's under 2 hours - it only seemed like 6 hours...

Don't watch this. Seriously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film suffers horrendously from its direction \"Julian Grant\" , and its incompetent lead, Steve Guttenberg, who's putting a solid effort to win a Bruce Willis look-alike contest! The writing is reckless Hollywood action thriller; Sean Bean --whose one of my favorites-- David Fraser, and Kim Coates give a decent performance. The film is definitely below average. 3 out of 10! I wonder what Hollywood studios thought, actually giving the go ahead, to weak director such as Grant. And I'd say to Sean Bean \"what were you thinking even considering participating in a film like this, after such great films like GoldenEye, Ronin, and Patriot Games!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*****I reveal two 'twists' at the end of the film. Do not read if you want to watch this movie for some reason*****

Oh my, this is bad. And for some reason, Sean Bean, one of the greatest present day actors, has sold his soul and appears in it. The only consolation is that the scriptwriters must have realised that someone as ultimately pathetic as Steve Guttenberg could never in his life aspire to kill someone as cool as Sean Bean. Instead, he is killed in what must have seemed like a marvellous twist at the end, by the good guy who was meant to be be killed by Bean, but was actually his boss and faked his own death. Don't worry. I haven't ruined anything for you. The acting itself is spectacularly apalling, with Guttenberg's patented \"Hey-look-I-can-pull-a-Chuck-Norris-face\" hard man stare dominating most of the two hours of hell on earth. Added to a plot that I could have written whilst being tortured and hung upside down with both hands cut off, there is also a completely nonsensical critical error in the fact that one moment the virus will escape if they so much as look at it wrong, while another moment, Steve Guttenberg is bravely running around with it, throwing, catching bashing and generally abusing this 'virus' which has the distinct look of a collection of those little balls of soap you put in your bath. My final word? If you are suicidally depressed and feel like you want to laugh manically at something that should be a bad comedy but even worse isn't, tape it next time it's on channel 5 at midnight, then burn it when you realise that I am indeed telling the truth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A cut above from the usual straight to video actioneer, Airborne has enough in the tank to keep it going for the full 90 minutes, although you can't help but think of how low former '80's comedy golden boy Steve Guttenburg has stooped to be in such a cheap production (and playing a hard man too!). The plot is simple, the baddies have stolen a deadly virus and Guttenburg and the rest of his goodie pals are sent to retrieve it, Not bad of its kind but not in the same league (obviously) as the films it is compared too on the cover such as AIR FORCE ONE and CON AIR. The cast is good though, with Sean Bean reprising his Brit.-bad guy character which we have had a glimpse of in such box office smashes as GOLDENEYE and PATRIOT GAMES.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**Might contain spoilers**

Ok, lets conclude this movie in one word: bad. Two words? Really bad. Now why do I think that? Let me explain.

Guttenberg leads a special-ops team consisting of four persons that get assigned to retake an lethal virus after some arms-dealer stole it from a lab. They do this by attacking the arm-dealers in mid-flight and somehow gets back the virus after some fighting. However, suspicions arise about Guttenberg because one of the terrorist knew his name. After debriefing the team-members get attacked by unknown persons and everyone starts to suspect everyone else is involved. After deciding they cant trust their bosses, they decide to, once again, steal the virus and try to lure out the possible attackers.

In theory this is a plot that could have worked in a low-budget movie that just aims to be aired on TV. However, the plot is compromised and the movie ruined in several accounts. Firstly, the plot is totally predictable and it is not fun to know how the movie is going to end after three minutes. Second. The acting is really bad, or the actors are directed to act as dummys. There aren't many emotions, change of facial expressions at all etc. I was especially disappointed in Guttenberg that I believe can do so much more, but fails completely in an attempt to be a rough action-hero. In addition, though I am not by any means any expert on the subject, I totally believe I could assemble a better covert-ops team by picking up five strangers and train them for a week. This seems to be a theme in the movie to do things as stupid and unprofessionally as possible. This go for good guys, bad guys and bystanders as well. Then I sincerely doubt the scientific and technical consultants, if any, of the film. For example, I have poured liquid nitrogen over my hand and I didn't break instantly.

Don't know how to conclude this really, but lets say that this movie has a predictable plot, bad acting and they seem to be amateurs in whatever the do. Sorry, can't be any nicer than that. Do not watch this movie, it is not even so bad it is funny. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is so bad it will be my contribution to the next bad movie party I go to. It is clear from the start that Steve Gutenburg was taking this role seriously.... the other principles were walking through their lines. I think they got a whiff of how much it stank early on and they were going through the motions for their paychecks. Sean Bean \"acted\" as usual but was spared sharing space on screen with any of the principles till the final scene where it was like an actor walking onto a high school stage that is how defined the contrast was. Some actors do not look good scruffy. Some actors should not bulk up for a part. Those two statements apply to \"Police Academy\" Steve. His scruffy look translates to bum and indigent and his bulking up makes him look potato lumpy not buff. Pair that with one of the worst scripted dialogues in Hollywood history and you have BAD movie. I can only guess that all of the principles really really needed the money for remodeling or something or their agents signed them before the script was written by the monkeys that must of typed it out. I would love to know the back story to this disaster.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow... this is the kind of movie that makes you wonder who's idea this was and what soup kitchen are they eating at now. To say this was bad is an insult to the bad movies we all know and love.

When I saw Guttenberg's name in the TV guide I figured it would be a spoof... maybe it should have been. Could have made for a better movie.

Look for the scene where they are in an airplane in mid flight with the door open and there is no wind what so ever. They could have sprung for a fan at least.

Look for several Canadian & c-list actors in the movie. This is the kind of movie that litters the b-rate cable stations you never watch except on a rainy Sunday.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seriously, this film is not. Steve Guttenburg is constantly forcing his tough-guy dialogue and then giving everyone the evil-eye all the time. He just wasn't believable, he seems like he's trying to be a badass and he sucks at it. I just remember him as the millionaire dad with the Olsen twins in It Takes Two...so, this is a BIG change. I rented this film for Sean Bean, and he dies (as usual). Only this time he didn't get impaled on a boat anchor (Patriot Games), smashed by a giant satellite dish (Goldeneye), or get run over by cows(The Field). He just got shot, real quick-like and civil, and that was all I got from this film that they didn't kill him off in an extremely grotesque and morbid way. How sad is that? I was only watching it for the 3 seconds that Sean was in it, and then the rest was rubbish. I actually tried to watch and understand the plot, but there really wasn't one. Seemed a little like Mission Impossible with the hole,\"Oooooo! There's a mole! It's the leader of the group, and NO ONE EXPECTED IT! Let's trap him! Let's frame the underdog good-guy so we can get away with it!\" Cliched and tired, this movie was a waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It sounded so promising in the Rental Store, the premise sounded great and I couldnt wait to get home and watch it. It was Apalling the Diologue is Dreadful, The Action is Extremely badly Scripted and the Plot takes a nosedive from the beginning. Gutenberg puts in a pathetic performance, Sean Bean tries his best but with a script this bad there wasnt much he could do.

This isnt even worth watching, even if you can get it for free (borrow it off a friend for instance) Dont as you will regret it and waste 90 Minuites of your life.

0\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was bad on so many levels. The writing was horrible so even the best actors could not have made this movie watchable. It's a shame because they did have some good actors in this movie. I mean if anyone has seen any of the Police Academy movies, you would know that Steve Guttenberg was good. His Character in this movie was very serious, which was a big difference from Characters i have seen him play before, so that was a plus. And I did think that Steve Guttenberg was extremely hot in this movie. With or without the shirt you can not deny that he has a GREAT body! Sexy face too. Loved the 5 o'clock shadow look, it made him look dangerous. At one part in the movie he is lying in bed without his shirt and i have to say, I would have gladly jumped in there and tried to take his mind off of his problems! So honestly i would watch this movie again just to fantasize!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"all i can say about this film is to read the back of the video case and then put it back on he shelf and pick anything else, i mean anything, a blank video, would be better than watching this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My friends and I rented this movie mistaking it for another one about skateboarding. Watchin Steve Guttenberg as an action hero is hilarious. The movie is so incredibly predictable and over the top that it ended up being a laugh fest. Even though I gave it a 1\/10 this movie should be seen especially if u manage to catch it on TV anywhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film tries very hard to be an \"action\" film, but it fails miserably.

Steve Guttenberg plays the head of an elite counter-terrorist team that fails (?) in attempt to keep a mysterious group from stealing a deadly nerve agent.

The story...the acting...the special effects...ALL FALL FLAT!!!

Definitely A MUST AVOID!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alain Resnais directs three parallel stories that have to do with fantasy and imagination in the adult world. In one of them is a sort of Operatic bordello story where a rejected architect attempts to manipulate a group of people into throes of happiness--only his attempt misses it's only real target, the woman that he pines after. In the same unfinished ch\u00e2teau he built, a group of teachers search for love in a more modern story, as one woman believes ineffably in the role of romance and the cynical anthropoligist tries to teach her a lesson by setting her up with the biggest jerk in the group. Meanwhile, a bunch of kids fantasize a George Melies-like adventure of a prince that saves a girl in distress from swamp creatures and then kills the evil king, bringing upon the kingdom of love. The two primary themes? Life is a fairy tale, and Life isn't a fairy tale.

Which sounds better than the movie actually is. Resnais is the type of director where oftentimes the concept is good or bad, but the exposition is what matters; here, the concept is great but the movie is downright painful to watch. Horridly off-tune songs, bubbly characters without an ounce of dimension, backdrops of sickening pastel--instead of giving your inner child an ice cream cone, Resnais drowns it in a bucket of cake frosting. Add some French philosophy and you get a weird witches brew, one that doesn't bubble bubble toil and trouble, but just kinda sits wrong in your stomach until you want to regurgitate it.

Resnais is a risk-taking director, and even in his worst you can see he's trying something that might not work with full clarity of action. In I Want to Go Home, he manages to pull past annoying characters and ditzy set-pieces by showing some real change and having a moment few moments of quiet to catch his breath. Here he submerges directly into a fantasy that doesn't really reflect fantasy, only its baby's room wallpaper reference. The biggest problem is that he somehow managed to make a movie more flamboyant than an 80s pop video, and more kitsch than Golden Era Hollywood musicals. The fantasies are beyond childish and naive, but the movie (with nudity and profanity) is definitely aimed for adults, a target he decidedly missed.

However, he sticks closely to his theme and never backpedals. If anything, this movie is impressive simply because its unapologetic.

--PolarisDiB","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watching the first few moments, you realize it's going to be a parody - and certainly it *is* a parody, but I'm not sure of what (a fairy tale? an opera? a Hollywoodian C-movie? - if there was something like that), and I can assure you it's not worth watching. It's simply a pointless film (cf. a good parody is everything but pointless), with pretentious, shallow speeches of extremely sketchy characters. It's like a commedia dell'arte. Or better, it's like a botched commedia dell'arte. And the score... sung in an intentionally incompetent way (something Greenaway will use much more efficiently), it *is* painful to listen to (unless one wears some sate-of-the-art earplugs, haha). Go for quality movies (e.g. A. Mitta's How Czar Peter the Great Married Off His Moor, 1976) and steer clear of this mistake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember seeing a clip of this movie on HBO when I was a kid and it scared the ever living crap out of me. When I found it, I watched it. I wish I hadn't. The movie wasn't scary.

The plot revolves around an old woman running the castle. She feeds this horribly disfigured person in the cellar of a 12 century castle. She continuously beats the poor guy every day and feeds him. Well, that day, she dies. Then, a few months later, a family moves in. A father, a mother, and their blind daughter. The father was involved in a horrific car accident that got their son killed and left their daughter blind.

Later through the film, the daughter hears sounds, things break, etc. and everybody is not concerned about anything at all. That is until a few people turn up dead. Apparently, the creature in the cellar has broken free and is killing people. How this thing survived for the past few months without food or water is impossible! Every time I saw the creature, it gave me the creeps. The creature goes on a gory killing spree and the police blame the father for the deaths.

It was a pretty bad film.

I give this film 3 stars out of 10. Creepy not scary!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has some pretty gorey parts like a boob getting bit off and a other big bites. Castle Freak himself is a good monster. I would be scared to pieces if he was coming after me. However, the movie had some dumb parts about it.

A husband goes drunk driving and kills his 3 year old son and blinds his teenage daughter. I suppose death is a greater damage than blindness, but you'd never know that the parents actually feel bad about their daughter being blind. All they care about is that \"J.J.'s dead!\" While their teenage daughter walks around running into things and talking about how she'll never be able to drive a car. The parents are like - \"honey, stop walking around without a guide, you know better than that,\" and then they cry and don't ever stop being depressed because JJ's dead. Sounds like favortism to me.

The lines of dialogue are not very realistic or well done. For example, when a giant crash is heard in the castle, everybody runs down into the basement to see what it was. It was a huge mirror that crashed to the ground and shattered. The husband runs to the broken mirror in horror and plainly says, \"The mirror broke.\" I don't know, I would say a little more than that if a giant mirror mysteriously crashed to the ground in my castle.

The husband and wife have some major relationship problems and it's funny to watch how dumb they are with each other. No one ever believes the blind girl. Advice: If a blind girl says she hears things, believe her and don't tell her to shut up. I think this is the moral of the story. Listen to people when they tell you things or else you might end up killing yourself to prove your point.

Lastly, I thought the best character was the main police officer. He was the best actor and character. Everyone else (besides Castle Freak) was pretty run of the mill. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Gordon goes over the top in typical Full Moon fashion, but that's to be expected. Combs is surprisingly low-key, keeping his performance at a more realistic level than we are used to seeing. Also gone is the usual Stuart Gordon 'tongue-in-cheek' black humor.

The film is quite effective in showing Combs' break down and his final heroic act to save his wife & daughter. You actually feel sympathy for his character, despite his short-comings.

Personally, I was more surprised at the nudity and borderline porno sex scene, than I was shocked by the graphic violence & gore.

Not classic Gordon, but certainly something you might enjoy if you've seen his more famous films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a candidate for worst films I've ever seen. It wanted to be as shocking as \"Silence of the Lambs,\" but has neither the style nor the wit of the aforementioned. The make-up is excellent, the acting is pretty good, but the story seems to drag on for years and the murders are so gruesome that they're more disturbing than entertaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A chilling and gory tale of a couple inheriting a 150 room Italian castle while still grieving the loss of their young son. The couples marriage seems to be on the rocks due to the car accident that took the life of their son and left their daughter blind. Upon taking inventory of the castle for a future sale a hideous, tortured and misshapen creature breaks lose from the bowels of the 12th century castle. Pretty gory with great horror atmosphere and some sexual overtones. Starring Jeffrey Combs, Barbara Crampton, Jessica Dollarhide and Elisabeth Kaza .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really couldn't get into this movie. The plot is some old woman has been torturing someone so long that he is deformed. She dies and he is left in the basement to starve. Months must pass and a family moves in. The daughter is blind because of an accident caused by the father. Well anyway this guy in the basement, who for all rights should be long dead is still around. He eats a cat and now is superhuman. He now wants to eat people and have sex. And when a hooker dies father gets the blame. I always dislike movies where someone else is blamed for the killings because you always here the typical lines \"I didn't do it\", \"I could never do such a thing\", blah blah blah. And the family storyline could be a lifetime movie storyline.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a disappointment. The story is essentially The Shining with a castle (or a very cheap set masquerading as a castle, to be specific) substituting as the hotel and a monster instead of the ghosts. The budget is the same you'd see from a Cinemax softcore porn, as is the photography, sets, lighting, and video it was shot on. The story is a failed attempt at sincerity: there's no easier way to make your audience feel sympathetic for your characters than to show them experiencing emotional trauma. And the trauma in this movie is pretty trite. Want an example? A blind girl listening to a language tape teaching the Italian words for colors begins to cry at what she will never see.

This movie had a few things going for it, however: the monster is actually pretty cool, pretty scary-looking. And there is a pretty decent amount of nudity from Raffaella Offidani, herself a star of Italian \"erotic\" films. The gore, however, leaves much to be desired, as does the acting, even from the experienced Jeffrey Combs.

Other than this I've only seen two other Stuart Gordon films: Re-Animator and From Beyond, both of which were outstanding. But I won't let this little footnote in his career keep me from watching many more of his movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was rather disappointed. The first Tetsuo made me an INSTANT Tsukamoto fan, from the first 5 mins of the film. It was fresh, innovative, and just.....different. I rather enjoy having a movie be in your face and push all those \"make you squirm\" buttons. Tetsuo did just that where for me, few movies can.

For those of us who enjoy getting a breath of fresh air, those that appreciate those offbeat styles used that make indie films so worthwhile, Testuo II will likely be a disspointment. If your looking for that visceral \"HYPER-KINETIC\" feel of the first movie, skip this one, as thats all been stripped away. Tetsuo II is for some odd reason, just a typical Hollywood style action flick. I was rather confused. However, it's still worthwhile in my opinion for any die-hard Tsukamoto fan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was reading in a Stuff Magazine about some of the goriest, bloodiest films that Asia had to offer and I immediately jumped to Netflix to quench my thirst. Boy what a mistake I made. This movie is one of the worst films I have seen. First and foremost no plot, what I expected to be the plot (see: \"Revenge\") turned into a series of events just happening in a effort to spend their special effects budget of $14.89 and waste studio time. They should have kept their money and not wasted their time nor yours.

When a major plot twist occurs, Tetsuo II: Body Hammer is given a new identity and I wasn't buying it. A flashback is given that should answer our questions, but seemed to me like I turned on Showtime at 3:47 am and dropped ACID. The movie continues and spirals out of control with cheesy graphics and special (olympic) effects.

Do I seem bitter about this film? Yes. Did I see Iron Man? No. Was there a plot? No. Was it so symbolic that I didn't understand? NO. Was there a Body Hammer? Beats the Hell out of ME. So take my advice and STAY away!!!!!!

(I must admit though I have had so much fun writing this and laughing to myself about this film that if you want to laugh, WATCH IT!!!)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is strictly for Pryor fans. Just because he was a great, funny guy doesn't mean this is more than a B-Movie. The script is awful, it just meanders around constantly ridiculing crime and prisoners of war. It balances between comedy and melodrama and keeps falling on its face doing justice to neither.

First there are 30 minutes of rather unrealistic, uninspired Vietnam prisoner of war time \u0096 the guy is playing basketball at one point... How more can you pander to your audience?... That prison time is boring, unconvincing and already can easily put one to sleep.

Back in the U.S. the guy for no real reason at all is considered a \"war hero\". Yet he is of course quickly forgotten by the public and seems to be stumbling into all kinds of wacky mishaps. Or are they really? We will soon find out. Yawn. There are annoying clich\u00e9s: his sick mother, his little daughter he never meets, a high end whore falling in love with the hero etc. It is very odd how this movie constantly switches from tragedy to slapstick in one instant. Doesn't work at all.

Overall this in fact is just a bad comedy and does a disservice to prisoners of war. Just because this guy was a great stand-up comedian, played in a few good movies and died of MS is no reason not to be annoyed by this silly, unconvincing, unfunny comedy. But if you like Richard Pryor you will probably be thrilled by him reading 3 hours of Dadaist poetry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, well... Even if you're a fervent admirer of Lang's silent films, this early one - the first part of a two-part unfinished four-part serial(!) - will leave you in doubt about Fritz's narrative skills. (His directorial skills aren't that evident either, but here and there one senses his talent for building up atmosphere.)

The pic's just pure juvenile nonsense, which wouldn't be half as bad, were it not for the long ponderous stretches in between the childish action scenes.

But the whole affair almost gets by on its amiable innocence.

4 out of 10 Inca treasures","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't understand the exaggerated good critics about this film, except that a lot of people from Venezuela are understandably very excited, based on that the Venezuelan cinema is really a bit behind of what other countries are in the region.

The movie first of all is too repetitive, a lot of scenes are almost identical from each of the both leading roles, so you get the impression that it's a time filler. A time filler is also a good point, as this movie is definitely too long with 105 minutes, you will start to get tired after a while and watch on the clock.

All actors are quite bad, by exception of the venezuelan guy Edgar Ramirez, who brings in a bit of slapstick and plays the role of the venezuelan recruit \"Pedro\".

By the way, this is not a representative movie about the people of the region (caribean zone), it tends to ridicules them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll not comment a lot, what's to??? Stereotype characters, absolute ignorance about Colombia's reality, awful mise en scene, poor color choice, NOT funny (it supposed to be a comedy and they expect that you will laugh because some distend music it's beside the nonsense scenes), Very poor actors direction (if you see somewhere those people, I mean the interpreters, you'll know they are at least good, but seeing this so call film, it is impossible to guess it), you get tired of the music... this \"comedy\" has no rhythm, the only good rhythm in it, it's the rap sing in the final credits....pathetic, doesn't it? etc...etc... It has been a long time I haven't seen a movie so bad!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I grew up in the 90s; therefore, you must understand that i witnessed firsthand the premiers of the greatest DCOMs. I was there when Brink! appeared, Zenon, Halloweentown, Johnny Tsunami, etc, These movies constitute my childhood. When these movies came on, not only myself but whoever I was watching them with would stand completely in awe for 1h30, talk about it for the week to come and catch it again the next weekend. I don't think words could express the amount of excitement Zoog Disney brought.

Even when I watch them now, the dialog doesn't seem that bad (so effective in fact, that I actually remember parts of conversations literally word per word, from movies I saw over ten years ago). The characters are believable, funny, granted a little stereotypical but that's what makes Disney's charm...

I sat my little brother down in front of the Disney channel to try and convey and make him understand my feelings for DCOMs. Enter Stuck in the Suburbs... my brother looked at me slightly puzzled, asking me if I had always been gay. I feel more disappointed and betrayed now than, what could I compare this to?, when Han Solo found out Lando sold him out to Vader...

Half the movie, and I'm not exaggerating, is flashbacks. There is no talent in these young actors (some of which are older than I am) whatsoever. The plot is ridiculous; it feels like a bunch of old rotting corporate people over at Disney sat around a table and asked themselves \"How can we seem hip to these youngsters?\" OK, maybe all the DCOMs were like that, but they at least made a little effort to not let us realize they think we're complete idiots.

And apparently this type of movie works... Stuck in the Suburbs is rated almost as much as Zenon or Airborne. How is this possible? DCOMs got even cheesier and people prefer them now? (though apparently the lack of curse words is enough to give it 10\/10 for some people) Christ, it's a completely different generation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i found the film a bit predictable and boring but i am 14.

i was really annoyed with my little cousin as she was very hyper that day so i saw a film on the Disney channel and put it on and told her to watch it.

she is 6 and she loved the film, some bits she didn't get like the ending but i didn't get that either y was Eddie the star of the video shoot i thought it was Jordan's video?! but she did enjoy it.

i noticed the mistakes such as at the end Jordan was not actually playing the guitar, but she never.

it is definitely a film for if you are seriously bored or 10 and under.

it calmed my cousin down well.

although all she did was sing for the rest of the day then.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...if only Disney had stayed away from it. See, I think that this movie has some potential. Well, the main character's situation does, at least. Take out the whole Jordan Cahill thing, and you've got the beginnings of a decent movie! Of course, you also lose more than half of the film, but, oh well. Not that much of a loss.

So, here it goes: you take a typical, preppy, suburban teenage girl (Danielle Panabaker, who's actually a decent actress) whose best friends screech a lot, mostly over a \"pop sensation\" (I'm assuming it's a direct quote from the movie; movie's like this almost always involve that particular phrase) named Jordan Cahill. Except, of course, TPSTG wants more out of life. Enter Brenda Song's character, a sophisticated individual who is just what TPSTG needs (honestly, I don't care what the character's real name is, I like the acronym better). The two new friends go to see Jordan Cahill (one to drool, one to make fun of the droolers), and they come out of it with his cell phone. Hijinks ensue, and everything turns out alright in the end.

If only Disney, or any major film studio for that matter, didn't have such a low opinion of 8 to 14 year olds. Or maybe if 8 to 14 year olds expected a little more out of the movies targeted at them. It's sugar-coated crap like this that make me more than a little unsure who to be more disgusted with (a little film called 'High School Musical' comes to mind...)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In short this movie was awful.

I understand it's a Disney movie, which are generally shallow movies with mediocre plots and bad acting. HOWEVER, i must say this is the worst of all Disney movies, with bad acting, LOTS OF IRRITATING SHRIEKING TEEN GIRLS(my god), and an extremely unrealistic plot. Even as a 12 year old there is no way i would have liked this movie. The only way this movie could have been any worse is if they attempted to put it in theaters or tried to sell it in a local video store.

Do yourself a favor and change the channel before watching this, no matter how bored you are on a Sunday afternoon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Right this moment I am watching this movie on TV here in Tokyo. Beautiful scenery, beautiful sets of biblical proportions, beautiful costumes, beautiful color, beautiful Gina. Great climactic scene when God destroys the Sheban idol and a lot more with de Millean thunderbolts at the moment when Yul and Gina are about to consummate their love. Yul does a halfway decent job of delivering his lines, though he sounds a lot like Yul delivering his lines as Ramses or Taras Bulba. George Sanders sounds like George Sanders playing George Sanders. Given the limited range of acting she is asked to display in this role, Gina does a good job, though by the time the movie ends, she is completely converted into a demure remorseful lass and looks likes she might be playing in a biography of Mother Teresa. I guess thunderbolts will do that to you, but it is almost breathtaking how quickly she jettisons her own beliefs for her new religion. The supporting players are mostly awful, lacking credible emotion and timing. The usual big battle scenes, what passed for lascivious dances in 1959, and an orchestra blasting out plenty of trumpet calls behind a huge chorus singing lots of \"Ah's\", but none of it quite of topnotch Hollywood quality. The final swordfight between Brynner and Sanders is at the laughingly low skill level of a junior high school play. The film is one big piece of eye candy but not much more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Solomon and Sheba has come down in Hollywood lore not for the quality of the film, but for the fact that Tyrone Power died while making it. I was in the 5th grade and well remember the huge news for days when that tragedy happened. I didn't know who Tyrone Power was then, but I learned and learned to appreciate the body of his work.

I often wonder if Ty had a sense about this film and what a dud it proved. He was the unnamed producer of this as well. Maybe he just didn't want to face the critics. Good thing Power actually went out with Witness for the Prosecution although you can see him in long shots if you look close.

What we have here is a biblical stew that probably would baffle the great Solomon himself. Several incidents described in the Bible that the Bible treats separately are woven together into one plot with a few additions tossed in by Hollywood.

The actual story about the Queen of Sheba is that she went on a trade mission to the Kingdom of Israel, chatted Solomon up a bit, came back with a lot of trade goods and that was that. The story of a romance between her and Solomon is of legend. The ancient kingdom of Sheba is about where Yemen is now and her people purportedly moved to the African continent which is how Ethiopia was founded.

The Queen never witnessed Solomon's famous case involving the two women with separate claims for a baby, nor was she involved with the building of the First Temple. Nor was she around for the destruction of same. For that matter neither was Solomon.

And she was not involved in the dispute over the succession when Solomon's brother Adonijah put in a counterclaim. That is the heart of this film. Adonijah upon hearing the news that King David is dying declares himself king. Of course David rallies temporarily and says that God came to him and said Solomon should succeed him. When David hears about what Adonijah did, he says that's what got God all bent out of shape, Adonijah being greedy. After that Adonijah gets to plotting.

Things seem to come full circle in that Ty Power collapsed on the set while dueling with George Sanders as Adonijah. Sanders and Power were rivals in many films, most particularly in Lloyds of London which was Power's breakthrough role. If Sanders is not quite the jaded sophisticate he was in Samson and Delilah, he's still Sanders the biblical cad.

When Power died Yul Brynner was brought in to play Solomon and given a wig so that existing footage of Power in long shot could be salvaged. Brynner invests the dialog with the proper dignity, but I think he probably regretted doing the pinch hitting.

Gina Lollobrigida is the Queen of Sheba and she is alluring as a biblical temptress in the Cecil B. DeMille tradition. She seems not to have any real conviction and my guess is she was shocked at Power's sudden demise and having to do it all over again. Marisa Pavan as Abishag may give the best performance in the film.

The real story with Adonijah is not as elaborate as this film. He disputed with Solomon for the succession and gathered around a group of some of King David's court as supporters. Solomon pardoned them once and then Adonijah asked for Abishag in marriage. Abishag in the Bible and here was an adopted daughter of King David in his old age. When Solomon hears that, he decides Adonijah is getting greedy again and has him killed. The Bible mentions someone named Berniah who was going around basically doing contract hits on Adonijah's supporters.

What we have in the film is a spectacular climax involving a miracle that I searched for and couldn't find. It came from the fertile imagination of director King Vidor who ended a long and distinguished career on a sour note. It was a question of Vidor trying to out do Cecil B. DeMille in biblical spectacle.

He didn't make it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It wasn't until I looked at the trivia section that I found out that the original producer\/star of this movie Tyrone Power died during its making . This no doubt explains why everyone on screen seems to have their minds on other things , a symptom of which appears in a very early scene involving a battle that can only be described as pathetic . You know when you've been painting a wall until you're completely bored ? Well that's the sort of expression the combatants have on their face when they're swinging their swords in a highly unconvincing manner

The plot centres on Soloman the King of Israel having an affair with the Queen of Sheeba and his people not being happy about it . You can't really blame them since there's few things more beautiful in the world than those Israeli moteks , though the Israeli women here all seem to look like Cherie Blair ! Modern day Israel is also very cosmopolitan with the majority of Israelis being born outside the country but would this have been true a couple of thousand years ago where everyone speaks in European and American accents

After much talking and a dance sequence that has to be seen to be believed ( And no that's not praise ) we have a climax where the heavily outnumbered Israelis have to defend themselves against a massed Egyptian army who can't read a map otherwise they would have known there was a canyon in front of them . This is what I don't get - Even though their blinded by the sun the Egyptians spend ten minutes charging towards the Israelis never ever realising they're charging towards a gaping ravine ! Isn't this somewhat illogical ? It's also something of a revealing error since the horses , chariots and men falling into the canyon are obviously miniature figures

Anyway the film ends with Soloman killing his treacherous brother and praising God for his victory . But who needs Moshe Dayan , Arik Sharon or God when you've got an idiotic enemy who can't see a ravine in front of him or waves a sword like he paints a wall ?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie and several other movies from the 1950s with a religious overtone, such as The Robe, Quo Vadis, and Samson and Delilah, unfortunately depict all pagans or anybody who isn't a Jew or Christian as morally depraved and decadent. The focus is only on biblical-related stories that ignore the world outside the Bible. As far as they are concerned, nothing good came from pagan Egypt, Greece or Rome.

Any movie that preaches about the \"one true god\" gives a short shift to freedom of religion. The movies ignore the fact that ancient Judea's lack of religious freedom made it a fertile ground for religious extremism. Most 1950s religious movies also overlook the loss of freedom the occurred after Christians assumed political power in the 4th century.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Solomon and Sheba\" was the kind of film that you just had to go and see back in the late 50's when I was a kid: a biblical epic spectacular with well known performers, unusual costumes, lots of extras and battle sequences. So I went to see it; but I remember that back then \"Solomon and Sheba\" didn't impress me at all, which was a strange thing since I had enjoyed a lot \"The Ten Commandments\", \"Quo Vadis\", \"Helen of Troy\" and others. The point is that when you are a kid you disregard things in pictures that adults don't (bad acting, for instance) and you are easier to please with warriors in their armors, battles, sword duels and action, so if your'e not impressed then something is wrong with a product of this genre.

This film, though it has some of such features, is definitely standard and average. Yul Brynner's wooden performance as the Hebrew king doesn't even light when he has voluptuous and half naked Gina Lollobrigida dancing around him provocatively. She is better and renders an acceptable acting. George Sanders doesn't look interested in what he is doing, and Marisa Pavan (Pier Angeli's twin sister) doesn't add at all as a sort of Brynner's conscience.

The final sword duel between Brynner and Sanders is just for the plot and lacks interest and intensity (it had to filmed, that's all).

Not a good farewell for director King Vidor, Solomon and Sheba will probably be remembered as Ty Power's last unfinished picture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mostly uninvolving biblical mumbo-jumbo that drags on for well over two hours. The only thing that saves this film from God's wreath (and there is only one God, remember) is the unintentionally funny dialog, and a good battle scene which comes far too late in the movie. For most of the two hours until the action scenes there is too much talking; the dialog is so inept that the movie just begs to be spoofed by MST3K.

George Sanders is absolutely awful; one of the most animated, overly-theatrical performances I've ever seen. Brynner isn't much better; his stiff, wooden acting, combined with the horrendous fortune-cookie wisdom utterings make for a rather boring and silly Solomon. It seems that every time Brynner opens his mouth something oh-so wise and ridiculously high-and-mighty comes out. To an extent it's not Sanders's and Brynner's fault, because of the crappy, comical dialog and the typically biblical one-dimensional characterization, but they made little effort otherwise. Brynner's accent even reminds a bit of Schwarzenegger's; this is not a plus. Only Lollobrigida manages to avoid embarrassing herself, by playing the role with more conviction and in an appropriate way which befits a role in such a silly film. To describe these biblical characters as one-dimensional would be too give them undeserved credit; the characterization is half-dimensional.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tyrone Power was cast in the lead as Solomon. However, part-way through the film he died unexpectedly. The studio chose to cast Yul Brynner in the lead and re-shoot the scenes that Power had done. In hindsight, considering how awful this film was, Power was lucky--as this would have been a horrible way to end his lovely film career!!!

Of all the Biblical epics I have seen, this one is by far the worst--and that's saying a lot because Hollywood has made many dull Biblical tales--so many you wonder if the creation of these films was an Atheist conspiracy!! In fact, the film was so dull that it deservedly was included in Harry Medved's brilliant book \"The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time\". There are so many reasons to hate the film but the worst is how incredibly ponderous the whole thing was! Sure, casting people with Italian, Eastern European, Scottish and English accents to play Egyptians and Israelis was pretty bad--but at least this made the film oddly humorous. Having bosomy Gina Lollobrigida playing the role of a woman reputed to have come from a place around Ethiopia was also just awful, but at least she was beautiful even if she couldn't act. Having an overweight and post-middle aged George Sanders play such a young role was also pretty bad, but at least he had a pretty voice. Creating an orgy scene that was choreographed and revoltingly dull was pretty bad, but at least you got to see in the credits a mention of a person as the \"orgy choreographer\"! No, the worse thing about this movie is that almost two and a half hours, it seemed like nine it was so poorly paced and insipid! Considering that the only mention of this Queen of Sheba and Solomon is only in a few measly verses in the Old Testament, it's amazing the film just went on and on and on. THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD was a bit longer, but that movie was based on four gospels--not a dozen or so verses!

The bottom line is that the film is wretched in practically every way (except for Gina's cleavage). Even for devoted Christians and Jews, this is a must-avoid film because it plays so fast and loose with the truth as well as injects an amazing amount of sex into a Biblical film!!! Terrible in almost every way, it is truly a blessing for Tyrone Power that he's not remembered for starring in this bloated turkey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How does a movie become a Biblical epic? Simply by quoting a couple of Scriptures & using some names out of the Bible for your characters? The only thing that was Biblical about this epic was the names of the characters. Oh, I almost forgot the 3 kingdoms, Israel, Egypt & Sheba were also used. Where did King Vidor get the rest of his story from? It surely wasn't from the Bible. It was complete & utter nonsense. If you want to read about Solomon's reign as King in Israel then read 1 Kings 1-11 & 2 Chronicles 1-9. You will even come across Adonijah in 1 Kings 1 & 2. The Queen of Sheba, (who doesn't show up until King Solomon has been king for about 20 years or so, which by the way, is long after Adonijah & Joab had been dead) can be found in 1 Kings 10 & 2 Chronicles 9. One of the first thing Solomon does is make an affinity with Pharoah by taking his daughter.

Yes, King Solomon did get involved with the worshipping of false gods & this is why the Kingdom was split after his death, not the Temple being destroyed by lightning. Also, I think Solomon was too busy marrying & providing temples to the false gods of his 700 wives & tending to his 300 concubines to be fighting Egypt, let alone a dead brother.

Like I said this movie was utter nonsense. If you aren't gonna use the story in the Bible then call it something else. This could've just as easily been called Romeo & Juliet or Sid & Nancy.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was childish in its writing and laughable in its visual effects. Scenes where Father Merrin is tossing in his bed and his glimpses of a gimpy native are signs of bad acting and poor imagination. Nothing seems to fit. The story jumps from scene to scene. The elementary writing leaves no fact to the imagination and leaves no room for suspense. The lady doctor at one point states that she thinks the town is going to \"explode soon\" from all the crazy happenings. There was, in fact, nothing in the movie to make that line relevant. From the terrible job the movie had done, I would have never known that there were any tensions in the village. If you are into cheesy movies go ahead and rent this, but if you want to see this done right check out Exorcist:The Beginning","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, after seeing \"Beginning\" I thought why the hell they burned Schraders Version and did that poor one. But now, after seeing \"Dominion\" I deeply understand this decision. Even they got it not much better.

Sorry, but this movie is really crap. Some good moments, but a really boring story-telling and some major plot-holes are killing this movie.

I thing the Exorcist-story has a lot and in a prequel on this you can built on a lot and give references the audience will like to see. But there is so much little of it in the movie. The effects are really bad - not even TV-standard.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hate to admit it, but they were right to sack Schrader. The opportunity is here to build an atmosphere, to draw an audience into a movie. It wasn't done. The characters are weak. The story was weak. The directing was very poor. Schrader was out of his depth and it shows. I've watched it several times now in the hope that there will be at least one redeeming feature. But no, nothing. The next stage will probably be a remake of the original or hopefully it will be left well alone. Anyone wanting to know what the best sequel to The Exorcist was should read 'Legion', penned by Blatty it has to be the best follow up to an original piece to be committed to print. Sadly, it did not translate to to screen very well and I doubt if it ever could be. As for Dominion, Beginning. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once again, I've been duped by seemingly intelligent reviews making seemingly intelligent comments about an obviously crappy movie. I actually put my shoes on, got in my car, burned expensive gasoline and drove to the nearest rental place AFTER reading said reviews and paid the requisite 4 dollars and change to rent this thing. I'm telling you, this one's not worth the minuscule kilo-calories spent on lifting one's index finger to switch channels on a TV remote.

I even gave it a few more minutes after seeing all the tell-tale signs of a pedigree dog-pile. These presented as clinical symptoms of a director who is a. going senile or, b. is only marginally interested in the film he\/she is obligated to create. I saw similar deterioration with John Carpenter's string of ridiculous caricature's over the past number of years.

Here are a couple of scenes as incriminating evidence. The priest is having a disturbing dream...supposedly a harbinger of nastiness to come since he seems hell bent on opening the archaeological feature which houses the demon. The dream is a goofy collage of disjointed images right out of the Twilight Zone's stock footage. A ticking clock careens through the dream scape's blackness implying, what?, the unfathomable mystery of Time?....big deal! A disembodied head, painted in demon features with convenience store quality Halloween make-up, flickers back and forth in a convulsive frenzy. Every time I see this effect, a big fat rip-off from Jacob's Ladder, it pisses me off. This, in itself, almost instantly discredits a film.

The whole build-up of the archaeological dig itself is laughable. Everything is so obvious...so tired and over-wrought...the only possible response is boredom. At one point in the dig, the priest comments on finding the statues of Angels surrounding a sarcophagus...they're all pointing down toward the crypt with their weapons. He queries \"Look at these surrounding statues....It's as if they are holding..something..down!\" This is supposed to build tension...critical mass..but it doesn't even come close! How can there be suspense if you treat the audience like a bunch of morons having to EXPLAIN the suspense as you go along. The imagery is over-done in the first place but the added comments only add insult to injury in my opinion. Soon thereafter, the tomb is \"decorated\" with the remains of the soldiers placed there to guard the main atrium (another shameless rip-off of The Keep, btw). Who, for crying out loud, did the make-up effects for this film??! The blood actually had that pinkish quality one might see in 70's Tromaville flicks. At this point I became almost convinced that they simply forgot the make-up and had to go to Wal-Mart in the interest of time and money.

DON'T listen to glowing comments on this one! I'll be keeping a suspicious eye on Schrader too. Looks like it might be time to hang up his gloves. Perhaps a close friend will offer a gentle admonition to quit while there's still dignity in memory of films gone by.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Absolutely one of the worst movies I've ever seen! \"The Beginning\" was not the greatest either but better than this one. This is not a good way to lead up to the original movie. It's just simply awful! The CGI hyenas were so fake looking in both movies! Why not use real animals? I enjoyed the old Sinbad movies better than this. I was royally disappointed! The only good thing I can say about this waste of film is the cinematography and clothes which really captured that era well. I understand why this movie was redone as \"The Beginning\". It's just that bad, in my opinion. where does the money come from to waste like this? Give me a multi-million dollar budget and I'll show you how it should be done!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found Dominion to be a lousy attempt to continue the success of the story. The original movie was a story about evil, and how it can infiltrate our lives.

Schrader's version is lacking in evil. Viewers do not get an overwhelming sense of dread, fear, or even foreboding. Harlin's version offers evident evil, shows violations of the church's sanctity, and builds a convincing story that is plausible, given Father Merrin's background. Schrader's story leaves one wondering exactly what happened. Dominion does not evoke the emotions of the viewers to empathize with Father Merrin, and leaves the viewer wondering exactly why he was troubled in the first place.

Anyone interested in seeing a sequel which lives up to the original should see Exorcist: The Beginning.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have nothing at all against Paul Schrader. In fact, HARDCORE (1979) is one of my very favorite films. But some horror movie fans were in a premature uproar when his original version of the EXORCIST prequel (DOMINION; this one you're reading about right now, as it turns out) was scrapped by Warners, and when Renny Harlin was substituted to spruce things up and make a new version that was \"more scary\". In my opinion, some viewers were prejudiced and became automatically juiced up for hating Renny Harlin's take on the subject (EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING) before the first frame of film was ever even unspooled for them to judge. And I ought to know; because I myself went into the theatrical premiere of BEGINNING with stubborn arms folded, and prepared for the absolute worst, which I was sure had to come. Imagine my surprise when I found Harlin's BEGINNING to be much more serious than I ever could have conceived, with a good performance from Stellan Skarsgard as a young version of Father Merrin, who was struggling with his faith in God. It wasn't a great film by any means, but it was nowhere near the garbage I had prepared myself for, well in advance, sight unseen.

Well, now I finally HAVE seen the true garbage version - and it's Paul Schrader's DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST. It was relentlessly talky, uninteresting, and insipid. Stellan Skarsgard's troubled priest was nowhere near as interesting as he had been for me in Harlin's film, and the actor himself not as good in the part. For all those who pointed out the obvious CGI effects in BEGINNING, guess what? They're here in DOMINION as well. Remember the silly ending in Harlin's rendition (which I'll also agree tainted the rest of that movie)? Well, you're going to find that this ending from Schrader isn't a hell of a lot less lame.

Let me also say that I resent the nonsense that's been presented by those who appreciate this film better than Harlin's, by saying that we're \"retards\" or \"cannot appreciate subtle film-making\". As a person who despises Stephen Sommers' MTV-fashioned MUMMY of '99, and being a true fan of the very suggestive and discreet old horror films of the '30s and '40s, I can assure you this is not the case with me. At least there was \"some\" degree of terror and Exorcist-type goings on in Harlin's BEGINNING; this one here is just a real exercise in tedium and a great challenge even for the most certified of insomniacs. It's going to be quite interesting to hear horror fans try to convince themselves that DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST was as good as they'd already made their minds up for it to be in advance; just as they were already pre-disposed to lambasting Harlin's BEGINNING the second they learned Paul Schrader's name was getting soaked with the White-Out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't get me wrong, I love most of Paul Schrader's movies, so it was with sheer excitement I was able to attend at the \"Rolling Thunder\" screening at the Parisian french cinemath\u00e8que with surprise movie on the 17th Dec 2004. Of course the surprise movie was The Exorcist and most people were there for that (I was too). The film was then finished but the score, so P Schrader used excerpts from The Return of the King and some other movie I forget (Was it Conan?). Anyways, apart from that the movie was finalized. The happy few there (maybe 200 people) were told to please not write about the film on the internet or magazines since it may have jeopardized its chance of getting selected to the Cannes Film Festival. Then came the film, then came the realization that the film might not get selected for the Festival because of its quality : Never in my life had I experienced such a feeling of awkwardness in the audience as people went from being skeptical to plainly laughing out loud at the pity-full spectacle. I couldn't believe how low the author of Light Sleeper, Mishima, Blue Collar and Affliction had sunk.

Forced over-the-top acting thorough, stupid ending, black and white moral, awful FXs, worst take on Christianity from Schrader ever, not even suspenseful, just boring as hell (no pun intended) and unsurprising at all! Some good locations but sadly miss-used or at least not fulfilling the initial hopes! In the end I was 100 times more satisfied by the Schrader penned Rolling Thunder and wished my 2 hours back.

Don't believe the hype, even the John Boorman movie is more exciting and original. Oh, and the Billy Crawford casting, the poor guy does his best, but what where you expecting? He's now part of the small club of worst casting mistakes ever! I give the movie a 1\/5 just because I didn't leave the room, but I should have.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me begin by saying that I had been eagerly anticipating this film's release for awhile. After finally getting the chance to see it last night, I'm sorry to say that I was incredibly disappointed. It's hard to imagine a film that could make last fall's \"Exorcist: The Beginning\" look good, but \"Dominion\" does just that. No wait...it makes it look like a GREAT film.

Perhaps I got myself too excited about this movie, and that contributed to the let down. After all, the idea that Warner Bros. was releasing two versions of what is essentially the same film within six months of each other was an exciting attraction. Plus, I'm a huge fan of Stellan Skarsgard, and in true fashion he gives a great performance, despite the often ridiculous content of the film. On the other hand, the supporting cast in this film is abysmal. Clara Bellar seems to be capable of only one expression - blank stare, and delivers all of her lines with the same monotonous tone, while Gabrielle Mann's Father Frances is just ridiculous. The effects in this film are laughable at best and the sheer cheesiness of it all is enough to rob the film of any chance of being taken seriously. This movie brought about more stifled giggling than anything else, and with the exception of one really chilling shot that lasted about three-seconds and made my friend cover her eyes and whimper, it neglected to offer anything in the scare department either. I could go into more detail and possibly give away some spoilers, but frankly I'm too exhausted from thinking about how bad this film was to write all the things I'd love to say.

The saddest part about the whole thing is that the basic idea that both versions of the film tried to give...a story about a priest who has lost his faith and then regains it after coming to terms with his troubled past...had huge potential, especially with Skarsgard as leading man. Unfortunately for us, that potential was wasted. Go and see this film only if you're really curious about how it differs from the Harlin version, but don't expect to see a good film or you'll regret wasting your money and two hours of your life. Otherwise, be content with the version first released and move on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know about you but i go to horror films to be scared and this was anything but scary, the movie had several chances to be truly scary and failed miserably EVERY TIME! Several of these supposedly suspenseful moments were haunted by some of the worst cg you will see this year, perhaps decade! I mean when i say the cg looks like daytime TV, I'm giving daytime TV a bad name, I've seen better stuff on the sci-fi channel. Who i really feel sorry for is the actors,(that they have their names attached to this film) they did a good job, i cared about most of the characters and i felt that their performances were quite good, but that was not enough to bring this movie out of the gutter. Whats really amusing is the reuse of some of the sets, if you have seen \"exorcist: the beginning\" it will be easy to spot the reuse of some of the buildings. However what i thought was the worst thing about this film, even above the cg problems was the main demon, he was just not scary in anyway, his form, the way he talked, he was extremely bland. all in all this movie was a horrible experience and i would have walked out of the theater if it weren't for my wife wanting to see the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I remember when the studio sacked Schrader and hired Harlin to do reshoots to this film, they were quite right to do so.

Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist is simply a bad movie, it's boring, really it is.

It would be nice to think that the studio put aside a psychological masterpiece and that all those who in such big words condemned Harlin's version and praised Schraders, even if no one had ever seen it, would have been right.

But they weren't.

To put it in a nutshell : Schrader has no idea what a horror film should be, and it shows in a big way.

Droll, boring, unintentionally funny in all the wrong places and bad supporting cast.

Save your cash and your nerves, don't see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, last night I saw the world premiere of Paul Schrader's The Exorcist: The Beginning at the Brussels International Festival of Fantasy Films. With all the commotion around the film it was highly anticipated.

The director was there and so were most of the stars (except Skarsgard).

Unfortunately the movie sucked big time. It was a real disappointment for me because I'm a huge fan of both Shrader and Friedkin's (RIP) original 1973 film.

What was wrong with it? Most of it actually. The FX (you would think that the Matrix and LOTR digital revolution never happened: it was so badly rendered!), the editing (no real pace or rhythm), the acting (only Skarsgard at times could convince). The script was a, IMO, set up to explain the African scenes in the original film. So the movie had the feel of a set up scene only it contributed nothing.

The only thing that I did like was Vittorio Storaro's cinematography although I've seen better from him (Apocalyps Now).

All of the time I was thinking this was just a rough cut, a work in progress. And that, given the (well known) circumstances, is probably what it is. But that doesn't change the obvious problems with the script.

I had the chance to meet Schrader (very briefly) but I didn't have the guts to tell him what I thought of the film and I was so nervous (this is the guy who wrote Taxi Driver for Christ sake!!) that I forgot to ask him to sign my copy of his Taxi Driver script...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Help! Once again, Paul Schrader has sabotaged his own intentions with dull, pedantic storytelling. I rearranged a vacation so that I could see this \"world premiere.\" What a mistake! Why did Schrader even want to make an Exorcist film? Lofty intentions are fine, but if I wanted 2 hours of theological babble, I would visit my nephew's Sunday school. Father Merrin's struggle with his faith, as presented in his younger days, is a potentially interesting subject. But an Exorcist movie needs more! The relentlessly draggy presentation, along with ridiculous special effects, makes for a strange production. Who is this movie for? I didn't bother seeing the Harlin version, but at least they apparently tried to deliver some sort of visceral thrills.

The Exorcist series has been quite strange. The first film was excellent, but every sequel has been unloved and pointless. Why do they keep making them? I suppose Schrader made it so that he could get a lot of money. But why should we go?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As long as you go into this movie with the understanding that it's not going to contain any historical fact whatsoever, it's not bad.

It's on par with Sam Raimi's \"Hercules: The Legendary Journeys\", as far as plot, acting, humour, and production values are concerned. You'll see the similarities at several points. Most of the fight scenes are not as good however and the film suffers from that.

Jack Palance commands the screen as well as ever, and at no time do you have the impression he's giving anything less than his level best. Same for Oliver Reed. The problem is that their strong performances make square-jawed Don Diamont's less-than-stellar acting skills seem even more awkward. Perennial bit player Cas Anvar was very good as well, playing a character much like Salmonius in the aforementioned Hercules.

If you enjoyed the low budget swords-and-sorcery movies of the early 80s, you're probably going to enjoy this show as well. It's actually a shame they attached the Marco Polo name to it. It really has nothing to do with Marco's life, contrary to the expectations of most of the people who will want to watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Historical movies always take liberties -- conversations are concocted where no one could actually know what was said, customs are adjusted to be comprehensible to modern audiences, etc. However, historical films about actual historical personages should make at least a minimal nod to history. This film does not. The only scene I actually remember is when our hero surprises an assassin who creeps into his chamber at night. He confronts the dangerous intruder with, \"I don't remember sending for room service\". The main entertainment value is in its badness; I recommended my local video story put it on the \"Turkeys\" shelf.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can be said of this independent effort beyond the fact that it was shot with television cameras, and whether that was by conceit or budget constraints doesn't make the watching of this variation on a theme by Romero any easier. I was constantly reminded that I was watching somebody's school project, at best derivative, at worst cheap.

Writer\/director Georg Koszulinski (who also appears in the film) does some interesting things with stock footage, but that says more about his editing style than his directing style, which consists of in-your-face close-ups with TV cameras which made me think I was watching public-access television instead of an actual, honest-to-goodness film.

The story copies and pastes bits and pieces from various sources, including the aforementioned Romero's DEAD trilogy, THE ROAD WARRIOR (dig that stock footage of a \"future\" that looks like the past) and THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.

What results is an hour-and-nothing's worth of zombies tracking down and eating humans. (Okay, the \"humans\" in this case are clones, but that doesn't change anything. It's the same menu.)

The year is 2031, and the first strand of people who were cloned nineteen years before have started to malfunction, particularly in the dietary area. Of course, when clones go bad, the first thing they have a taste for is human flesh (or, in this case, cloned human flesh). It's not safe to be indoors, it's not safe to be outdoors. It's just a matter of time before the flesh-eating ghouls devour our heroes. Have you seen this before?

I don't mind people ripping off Romero, if it's done well, but no new territory is covered in this film. It's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD meets THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, shot with television cameras. What is particularly disappointing is that the DVD cover makes it look like it was shot, at the very least, with 8mm film. This wouldn't have been a problem with me if the story had not been equally cheap. The film offers a bleak vision of the future in which technology has evolved to the point where human cloning is possible. Must we continue to clone our favourite movies?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A young man falls in love with a princess but then has to go to battle to save her father's kingdom. While away, he accidentally kills an enchanted animal which brings a curse upon him. He becomes a beast and begins to kill even his own comrades. When nobody returns to the kingdom from the battle, the king renders the land of battle cursed and forbids anyone from going there. One day, a rebel who wishes to marry the princess decides that it's time they ventured into the cursed land to claim it for the king and the king agrees, when they reach the land the king is captured by the beast and the rebel returns home to lie to the kingdom that the king has been captured and killed. He assumes the throne and prepares to marry the princess but the night before her wedding, the princess escapes to the land to go and battle the beast herself. It is only when she gets to the cursed land that she begins to realise that her father is still alive and that the beast may not even be that evil after all. Sadly, her discoveries lead her to pay the ultimate price in their revelation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most awful casting I've ever seen. Clark Kent as a crack head, a very feminine looking woman as a trans and on and on.............

Stupid ass violence just for the sake of being violent. No content, no meaning. This person has never been on the streets. It's a joke!

The only thing dumber than this movie is the fact that I finished watching it. I just kept thinking it couldn't get any worse but it did to the very end.

Trying way to hard to be an off the hook movie. Trying to be freaky. So stupid! I really have no more to say but can't leave a comment unless I write more.

Please take this advice and DO NOT BOTHER WATCHING THIS MOVIE!!!!! AWFUL!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I feel dumber after watching the first 20 min,luckily i walked out and saved the rest of my brain, people should watch better films and take notes on why they are rated highly,not because of the budget of the film or the special effects, just simply good acting and getting simple things right,and MOst importantly--not being LAME--, but i guess this was produced for those Sheeple without taste and not a clue of what is ''A good Movie''don't be scared of rating films low,save your under-appreciated high scores for ''once in a life time movies''. Keep in mind that many use IMDb for trusted reviews and opinions,don't spoil the broth by sugarcoating turds Peace & love","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot stress how bad this movie is. This director took every cheap little unintelligent shot at making these people look so \"distressed\". Why are their clothes so dirty? Why on earth would you get the new clark kent to play a crack head? You should be banned from motion pictures for the rest of your life Buddy Giovinazzo.

I take serious offense to this fool wanting to cast real actors as thugs and lowlifes as some kind of clever joke. Why would you ask Clark Kent to play a crackhead? Why are they yelling so much? Why is everyone so mean? Why are those kids so filthy? No one would want to be so filthy? Not even a crackhead child.

You need to grow up and not make any movies ever again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a poor movie. The plot was poor and the comedy they \"tried\" to deliver came out poorly. The accidents seem contrived and predictable. I thought the actors tried to some extent but with this movie, it was so lame it can only go so far.One of the worst films I have seen and don't recommend it to anyone. The only accident to Mr. Accident was it's release.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yahoo Serious is like a $3 bottle of wine - had no substance to begin with and just gets worse with age. This film proves he is completely toxic. We can only hope that this is his final film and that its serious lack of success will diminish his chances of obtaining finance for any future ventures. It is right up there with \"Lightning Jack\" and \"Les Patterson Saves the World\" as the most abysmal example of Australian comedy imaginable. How tragic it is that with so many infinitely superior comedic talents in Australia Yahoo is given such vehicles to express his brand of puerile school yard comedy. And to think - he had 7 years to come up with the script. True genius!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mr. Accident is a deliberate series of non-stop disasters and near death experiences reminiscent of Saturday Morning's Warner Brothers Cartoons. Like the coyote who falls off the cliff 5 times per episode, the \"leading man\" (more like an over grown klutzy child) always manages to postpone his meeting with the Grimm Reaper.

This Australian \"surprise\" is offensively unfunny, and at times even depressing. The 2 (out of ten) are is for the visual stunts (some never attempted by anyone since Daffy Duck) and the use of vivid colors (like in those high class national laundry detergent commercials).

There may be an age bracket where this \"comedy\" finds a following. I have definitely passed that age long ago. Calling all preteens: Here's a \"ha-ha\" for ya!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It pains me to say this about an Australian film but Mr. Accident ranks with the worst of the worst films I have ever seen. What's even more tragic is that it doesn't fit into the 'it's so bad it's good' category. What annoys me the most about this film is the fairly large amount of money that has been frittered away on a pointless, unfunny, underdeveloped, inept screenplay. Dumb performances (What are Garry McDonald and Elisabeth Gore aka Elle McFeast doing in this trash?), inadequate direction, no plot and a general sense of meanness totally take away from the interesting production design and leave you with a truly horrible taste in your mouth. Comedy! Ha! Do yourself a favour and stay away!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know everyone said this movie was utter crap and I agree with them. I spent a few years after seeing it telling other people it was crap. I recommended they not see it. But when it came on TV, we saw the ad. I turned to family and said: \"I know this is sad, but I'm thinking of watching it\". My sister turned to me and said: \"Yeah, me too.\" And you know what? It was funny.

By no means is this a good movie. It's absolutely a waste of time. But it's a good waste of time. You may still think it's crap and fair enough, but I thought it was a really funny slapstick comedy. I didn't like a couple of bits, like when the fish got hit by the car, but apart from that I thought it was good. I loved sitting there and picking out all the famous Australian faces: Flacco, Elle McFeast, Garry McDonald etc.

So, if you like to waste your time, watch this movie. Otherwise, see a drama or something.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst movie of all-time, no doubt, and Schindler's List, did in fact have more laughs. This, not only, tells you how unfunny this movie is and how great SL is, considering it's heartbreaking and contains 1 laugh. I wish I could meet \"Yahoo Serious\" so I could personally throttle him, for this and all the other very, very, very bad movies he's ever been in. There is also very few things to say about Australia, seeing as they like this stupid fruit. Don't get me wrong people (Mel Gibson) from Australia are great, they brought us Mad Max. It makes me very nauseous that people like this garbage, (A review I just read said it was, \"very funny,\" sickening, isn't it). I, personally will be boycotting this movie and will start a petition online to ban and burn all Yahoo Serious' movies for being so, and I emphasize this, so RETARDED.

These are just my personal thoughts, no doubting they are shared by everybody who has seen this movie.

Note: If you are forced to watch this movie, Clockwork Orange style, call me to commit euthanasia on you for free.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The book is great. It's one of my favorite books ever. The film, on the other hand, is amazingly insipid and bad! When I heard Damon would play Ripley, I knew this production was doomed. But I didn't expect it to be this bad. The actors go around and act very showy. Except for Law (and even he is guilty of some showy acting), all the actors here are near amateurish. Speaking Italian and moving one's arms or hair about shouldn't be considered as acting. Damon is miscast. He's way too stiff for a character that's supposed to be a chameleon. Paltrow is forgettable and Hoffman plays yet another effeminate slimy character. Talk about typecasting.

What's really unforgivable about the script (written by the overrated director) is that it completely forgoes every subtle details from the book and comes up with many of its own, and none of them work! The addition of the Jazz music stuff is totally WRONG! I guess Minghella's idea of Italy in the late 50s, early 60s is clouded with images of Chet Baker roaming the Italian countryside and spreading amore. Yep, Minghella is a true visionary. The film is so bleeding obvious. That silly scene when Ripley drives through the narrow street full of mirrors. Very laughable. Yes, we get the point!!! Every point or detail comes across a mile away, so much so that the film might give the audience the false impression that they have psychic powers. We know, for example, that the Blanchett character, introduced at the beginning of the movie, will return later on only complicate things. And the soundtrack, at times, is totally inappropriate. Whimsical when it shouldn't be. The film goes on for too long and in all sorts of pointless directions. There are too many boring characters populating the landscape (many that weren't in the book). This film is bad! Really bad!

Apparently, Minghella's son told his father that the Ripley novel was his favorite. Mr. Minghella then proceeded to direct it as a favor of sorts to his son. Well, the director did achieve what he set out to do: Talented Mr. Ripley, with its Hitchcock aspirations, is a film strictly made for 12 year olds!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As the title suggests there is a philosophical, meritocratic thread running through this film: if a man has the talent and looks to find his way into society and money what might be the outcome if he is denied it for failing to have the X factor? This question is unsatisfactorily dealt with in this adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's book and left me rather cold along the way.

Matt Damon is the Ripley of the title and apart from blagging his way on a funded jaunt to Europe falls under the spell of his commissioned target, Dickie Greenleaf (Law). Homoeroticism and social insecurity get all tangled up in a violent conflagration which escalated and complicate themselves for the rest of the movie. Law, Damon and the damningly pleasant Paltrow as Dickie's girlfriend are OK. I liked Philip Seymour Hoffman's cameo-ish Freddie Miles, the bluff society friend that Ripley can never be. The problem is that the story is lumpen without arc - or redemption, for that matter - which makes it rather difficult to swallow. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie stars Ben Kingsley as Frank, a hit man for some Russian mobsters based out of Buffalo. He is also a raging alcoholic, and this has caused his job performance to decline. After he falls asleep in his car during a would-be hit, his mob boss uncle sends him to San Francisco, where he is to attend AA meetings and get a job as a mortician's assistant. If you're thinking that this makes absolutely no sense, you're not alone.

It gets worse. Well, it actually gets better, but not before getting much, much worse. Frank suddenly becomes a master mortician in spite of a complete lack of training, but his reactions with the people in the funeral home and the AA meetings are interesting. The viewer starts to root for him as they notice positive changes in his life. Luke Wilson is a welcome addition as Frank's sponsor, although he is given almost nothing to do (his character does tell us he is gay, but this ends up having no significance whatsoever). The movie plunges headlong into idiocy with the introduction of the Tea Leoni character. She is completely unrealistic, and her role as a love interest to Frank flounders, as the two actors have no chemistry together. Around the time she comes into the picture, Frank becomes much less engrossing as a character. His characterization is seemingly random; there is no consistency in his behavior. The comedy is low-key and only intermittently funny, especially disappointing considering the comedic pedigree of the cast.

Problems abound in this one. Kingsley's accent is terrible and inconsistent. It alternates between Italian, Russian, and Hispanic. Throughout the course of the movie, Frank tells numerous people he is a hit man (including an entire AA group), but nobody seems to care, or wants to do anything about it. The movie relies on clich\u00e9 scenes to carry it through its final act, most notably when Leoni's insufferable character chases Frank down at the airport, just when he is about to board a flight back to Buffalo.

Though it has a strong premise and an interesting first half-hour, the movie quickly becomes a total disaster and devolves into complete nonsense. At the end of the film, Frank celebrates one year of sobriety. I hope to celebrate many, many years of not having seen \"You Kill Me\".

My Grade: D+","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Frank Falenczyk: It isn't that I'm sorry I killed them; it's that I'm sorry I killed them badly.

Wow! Talk about a swing and a miss. You have a great cast and a great plot with endless possibilties...how do you f_ck that up?! Well, apparently John Dahl has found a way. With an atrocious screenplay featuring jokes about as funny as a malaria epidemic and dialogue so painfully dry it makes none of the characters likable, 'You Kill Me' might be the biggest cinematic failure of 2007. On a positive note, Ben Kinglsey provides another great performance as the alcoholic Polish hit man trying to get clean but the material he has to work with is crap. Tea Leoni is good as well as is Luke Wilson, Dennis Farina, Bill Pullman, Philip Baker Hall and the rest of the cast. I guess the best way to describe 'You Kill Me' is a terrible movie with good performances. Grade: D+","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to this film full of hope. With so many capable and humorous actors headed up by Sir Ben I thought this is going to be a little treat.

Oh how I felt like gouging my eyes out as the credits rolled. That I had wasted 93mins of my life this film that was clearly DOA. There are some real problems with this film and it will probably be easier to list them; 1. No jokes, I am not particularly hard to please comedically - high or low brow - but there really is not one laugh in this film.

2. Sir Ben mumbles through every single line whether he is supposed to be drunk or not?!? 3. There is no effort to to begin let alone develop the relationship between the love interests in this. 2 people bumping into each other randomly in the street would instantly have more rapport.

4. All the acting talent that is assembled is completely wasted. Don't be fooled into watching this because of the names.

5. For a cold ass hit-man he rubbed out more people in Gandhi than this flaccid waste of time (a by the way dyed beards look really creepy) I was hoping that this was a slow burner but in the end the only thing that could inject any life - and justice - into this is Frank pulling out his 9 and offing the whole cast starting with Tea and ending with himself - sorry it was that bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love Ben Kingsley and Tea Leoni. However, this is easily the worst movie I have seen in 10 years, and I see my share of movies. A stinker. This is a bad idea for a movie, poorly executed. Nothing about it is funny, credible or interesting. I was looking for wit, irony and genuine humor. Instead, this looked like most of the cast members wandered on to the set to do Tea Leoni a favor. It's too bad such acting talent was wasted on such hollowness. Don't bother. I have to wonder what opinion the makers of this movie have of their audience to subject them to the idea of Polish gangsters in Buffalo, NY sending a contract murderer to San Francisco to become a mortuary assistant while attending AA meetings. Bill Pullman should begin reading scripts before he agrees to be in a movie. Sad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Comedy? What's so funny about watching an ugly deadbeat alcoholic attending 6 sessions (by the time I turned it off) of alchoholics anonymous? Set off by a woeful script of grunts and mumbles and drunken slurrings. Served up with lashings of Hollywood's religious \"God will Save you\" redemption drivel Another Reviewer mentioned the \"Sassy dialogue\" of Tea Leone - well I managed to watch nearly an hour of this boring film and I still haven't seen any sassy yet - in fact my 80 year old grandmother has more amusing comebacks than Tea's character in this rubbish. Tea is more stony faced and shows less emotion than Keanu - in fact one wonders if she too isn't addicted to something - maybe botox her face is so wooden? Save yourself from being killed with boredom from this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is possibly one of the worst movies I have had the dis-pleasure of watching in my entire life. The plot is ridiculous and the characters are horrible people. I watched this film with 3 friends and we all agreed to turn it off 30 minutes before the end. Ben Kingsley's character is just plain stupid but not funny at all. It is a wonder why an actor of his talent would be involved in such tripe. Tea Leoni does a fine Hillary Clinton impression throughout to portray the very cold and uninteresting female lead who has all the endearing qualities of a broom handle. Throw in a pointless and unexplained sub-plot and a horribly cringe worthy montage, and you end up with a waste of 93 minutes (60 in my case). Avoid this film at all costs!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"****Contains Spoilers****

As a fan of Rachael Leigh Cook, I watched for this show to finally come on so that I could see it. I taped it so I could watch it several times, and there is something about this show that really bothers me!

I recognize that this was a made-for-TV movie. Not only that, but it was made for Lifetime, which is a channel that I despise. Because it was made for TV, I can ignore the huge plot holes. I can ignore the massive lack of character development in Ally Sheedy's character. I can overlook the fact that George C. Scott and Rachael Leigh Cook, both of whom are very talented actors, were definately not reaching the best of their abilities. I can look past the fact that Don Diamont's character was so cliche'd, that you knew when you saw him he was the villain. I can even pass over the obvious mistake in the timeline (She's raped during her winter break, and then over a year later she has the baby from it.)

The major thing that I can't get over is this: There are two trials for the custody of the child. In the first trial, custody is awarded to the child's father because he is \"better educated, has a degree from a community college, and has a full time job.\" In the second trial the judgement is reversed because the Judge feels that there is lack of evidence that Emma (RLC's character)is an unfit mother, and custody shouldn't be taken from the primary caretaker and given to someone with no previous interaction with the child.

The problem is this: Nowhere during the course of these trials is the fact that a thirtysomthing year old man raped a 15 year old girl and got her pregnant taken into consideration! Whether it was a rape or not, he had sex with a minor! Wouldn't that be taken into consideration when the judge is choosing him for custody because he's a \"mature adult?\" Mature adults don't have sex with minors!

It's not the worst cable movie that you would ever see, but it's not a great show either. ** out of ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A very sensitive topic--15 y\/o girl abandoned by mother as a baby and who goes to visit her, continues to be ignored, is raped by her mom's boyfriend, becomes pregnant. There was not enough depth displayed of this situation. Too much of time is taken up on the chase with the truckers transporting the baby. (Interesting, this baby with asthma--you never see him cry-- except once--, be fed, have is diaper changed during the whole truck transport ordeal.) I would have liked to have seen more of the interrelationships, more focus on the fact that this girl was a minor--this should have stood up in court immediately.

And this was a true story! It deserved a better telling than that!!

If it weren't for the subject matter, I would have given this closer to a 0 rating. I rented this from the library. Only later I found out it was a made for TV movie.

oh well","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An ex- informant of the East Germany finishes in Mexico like spy of a student group in 1971 in where she falls in love with one of the activists. This is the first co-production of Mexico with Germany, and although it is a good picture of the ideals that marked, and continue marking (at least to the CGH), youth, as much finishes being something insipid since to the internal dilemmas that it faces Dark brown (Noethem) like the passion by his ideals that Adela feels (Campomanes), as soon as they glimpse, in the case of him, I want to suppose, by the barrier of the language; and in the case of her by its lack of experience. Reason why in the end a concrete identification with any of them does not exist, which causes that what could have been films that even served as document like Red Dawn, finished being one more a film; although I want to clarify that in the room many of the assistants were excited in the conversation with the director, which says to me that no longer they are so young or my ideals have changed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You may be interested to know that BARRICADE was viewed as a failure by the studio and shelved for a year before ALICE FAYE's popularity reached such a high that the studio decided to release the film despite the fact that it was never fully completed. It fared modestly OK at the box-office.

Faye refers to a murder during her nightclub stint in New York City--and this scene was actually in the script and was the way the film was to start. Instead, it is entirely missing and what could have been an exciting sequence (including a complete song number by Faye) was never filmed. However, the rest of the story is pretty much intact and made release of the film possible at a running time of 71 minutes.

A tired looking WARNER BAXTER is too old to be believable as Faye's romantic interest and is merely perfunctory as the broken down reporter. Audiences today would be offended by the depiction of Chinese using fractured English phrases like \"Me likey make noisy\". Key Luke is one of the Chinese loyalists but plays his role in a low-key, straightforward way. Arthur Treacher is all but invisible and yet gets fourth billing on screen due to editing changes in the story. Originally, Joseph Schildkraut had a role in the film but his part was eventually edited out.

A mishmash of a film that will serve as entertainment only for the most die-hard Alice Faye fans who will get a chance to see her in a dramatic role--albeit a weak one. Charles Winninger is totally wasted as a kindly man running the American consulate.

Despite all the weaknesses, there are a couple of scenes involving narrow escapes that are effectively played and Karl Freund's B&W photography is top notch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Barricade finds Alice Faye without any songs as a refugee trying to flee China and without passport. She's in a heap of trouble, I won't say what exactly, and even American extraterritoriality won't help her out.

I mention that because one of the grievances that the Chinese including the bandits who attack the American mission in this story set deep in the Chinese interior was that particular institution whereby American citizens who committed crimes were tried by American courts set up by our consulates. We were far from the only country doing that however.

Anyway the story opens with her on a train for Shanghai trying to use a hokey Russian accent. The accent intrigues Warner Baxter who's pretty plastered.

Bandits however interrupt the journey and the two of them seek refuge in the American consulate presided over by Charles Winninger. He's the best one in the film and I only wish that a better story was given because I liked his character. He's a widower and a proud member of the consular service, appointed in 1900 by William McKinley. He requested a transfer ten years later and that's the last he was heard from. As Assistant Secretary of State Jonathan Hale aptly put it, he's the real forgotten man.

Baxter does all right in a role that someone like Clark Gable would have done in his sleep at MGM. The heroics would have come more natural to Gable than to Baxter as the mission is barricaded and defended against the bandits.

Alice Faye did have one number to sing. Why Alice's song was cut out, God and Zanuck only know. One thing I'm still trying to figure out is when the mission inhabitants take final refuge in the cellar with a trap door, just who was left upstairs to pull the rug over the cellar door?

Barricade had the potential to be a lot better than it was. But sloppy editing and lost faith in the project made 20th Century Fox release a project unfulfilled. Watching Barricade is like eating a badly cooked meal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To paraphrase the previous reviewer's comments, if you're a Stooges fan, avoid this one at all costs! My basic question is, being the experienced troopers of comedy that Moe and Larry were, why did they insist on attempting to continue the act when it was so obvious that their home studio, Columbia, was so clearly not interested in giving them serious writers and veteran comedy directors? This movie plays like someone who's giving a pale imitation of the trio and you can see how very hard Moe and Larry are working to make every little bit of slapstick relevant. Joe De Rita, despite his background in vaudeville is just not up to the job as a replacement for Curly, Shemp, or even Joe Besser. If that's who Moe and Larry had left to pick from, they should have just closed up shop and enjoy their retirement years. Leaving us fans with better memories of far better films they had done earlier. Always leave them laughing is the motto for comedy and always quit while you're on top. Hence Seinfeld's leaving the sitcom while right up there, instead of sticking around for the inevitable decline.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Martin Lawrence could be considered a talented man, but those days are long gone. Runteldat shows a man who at once tries to play the sympathy card to his plight yet takes responsibility for it whenever he thinks it'll benefit his ego. The sad truth is that at this point in his life, his best days were behind him: his half-funny show was dead in the water after his co-star left and to today he faces a career of voice acting and god awful action films.

One gets the impression that this concert film wasn't made to give Lawrence's career another boost after his humiliation but rather a childish attempt to clear the air by both trying to pathetically salvage what remained of his life and somehow twist it into something to be proud of, some defining moment in which he showed himself to have 'earned' his fame. Sadly, the concert is nothing but a gravelly-voiced Martin incoherently trying to be funny, invoke pathos, and then claim he doesn't care about it at all because hardcore. The sad truth is that this is the real public embarrassment for Lawrence: the way he rambles on invoking sad pity laughter makes you wish that he would just strip down to his underwear on stage, wave a gun around, and just reenact it all over again. There is no real insight to his performance at all. Much like the childish title states, Martin is trying to make his ultimate moment of truth his own in his way and fails miserably. He would have been better off waiting for the E! True Hollywood Story instead of running on a stage and making an idiot out of himself for the second time.

Perhaps the saddest thing about this concert film--or rather, career eulogy--is that Martin didn't put any thought into this. What was this film supposed to prove? Sadly, that his fame was fleeting, he was a flash in the pan before the underwear incident, and now that the only way he can get work is piggybacking Will Smith or a Pixar production. They might as well called this concert 'Tombstone' because that's what it is. Martin Lawrence just dies on stage here, and with it goes what could have been an interesting career. Now? Just a pathetic side note in history.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is not uncommon for a celebrity to be faced with the proverbial \"wake-up call\". And, should they survive this event, they come to a deeper understanding and appreciation of their particular good fortune. However, in the case of comedian's, they are rarely as funny after their epiphany as they were prior to it. Such is the case with Martin Lawrence. Frankly, I pay little attention to celebrities as I have much better things to do with my life than to spend it monitoring others'. So, I was unaware of the majority of what Lawrence had gone through prior to this film. It was interesting but, unfortunately, all to common. I was left with the larger impression that this guy's stand-up act just wasn't very funny. Save the big life messages for a book, just be funny on stage. If you want to see a funny Martin Lawrence, go rent some of the old Def Jams for which he hosted. Don't rent Runteldat.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually really like Lawrence and being in Australia I haven't seen much of his stand up, so when I saw this at my video shop I thought, yeah I'll have a look. I wish I hadn't seen it now. Obviously Lawrence had a profound experience that opened up his mind, and I guess he wants to share this with others but this was neither the time nor the place.

This whole experience seemed like a motivational speech in hell, it really did. I believe the catch phrase of the night was \"ride it until the wheels fall off\" which he intermingled with just plain lewd jokes revolving around sex and sexual organs.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind crude humor, but Lawrence lacks the gift of classing it up in the fashion of Eddie Murphy, Richard Prior or Robin Williams. Lawrence was just plain lewd, the only time I laughed was when he relived his experience with the law and his recovery in the hospital. If there were minus points, i would give them....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's the single unfunniest thing I ever watched. It's sad how he tries so hard to come up with a good joke and all he does is curse and thinks his disgusting vulgarity is funny. He is the most bitter person I ever saw. His whole act he is trying to show how much he doesn't care, and by that only showing how much he's angry at the critics and the people with any taste and sense of humor who'd rather go through immense torture than go watch his \"show\". There are good comedians, there are bad ones and there are horrible ones. But this guy is in a league of his own. I feel sorry for him and even more for the people who find him funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this late at night on a minor channel and I put it on expecting a laugh or two. Martin Lawrence is a good comic actor and I reckoned he might be a good stand-up comedian\/actor in the style of Richard Pryor.

I couldn't have been more wrong. This concert was awful. It was full of racist comments directed at white people, Muslims and people from India (Muslims and Indians are the same thing in Lawrence's narrow mind) and rambling, clich\u00e9d cod-philosophy (Lawrence, like many black comics and directors, can't resist the urge to preach when given a platform. Do we really need a lecture on Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights struggle during a stand-up comedy show?). Then there were his fawning comments designed to ingratiate him with women, it made my skin crawl listening to him.

Worst of all, the show simply wasn't funny and I found it boring. I turned over halfway through and flipped back to find him either still preaching or going on and on and on about the birth of his child (there was no humour in the story of the birth of his child and it was self-indulgent on his part to bore us with the details. He clearly didn't have very much to say or he would have cut this section of the show out).

This show was rubbish: Runteldat!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Martin Lawrence is not a funny man i Runteldat. He just has too much on his mind and he is too mad which trips his puns pretty early in the game. He tries to make fun of critics, which boils down to \"f*** them\". Then he goes on to rather primitive sexual jokes on smokers with throat cancer and it just goes downhill from there. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anthony Wong stars in both this and the original (far superior) Untold Story, but the similarities stop there. Wong doesn't reprise his role obviously, and instead plays a bumbling policeman who gets involved with a rather suspicious female, Fung (1994's Miss Singapore, Paulyn Sun) who's a repressed nut-job, sure. But her tame jealous \"wanna be with a guy who's with a girl\" killer is no where near as compelling as what Wong played in the first one. The movie itself seems tired and by the numbers. Yeung Fan as the physcho's love interest's unfaithful girl tries to keep one from total boredom by stripping down whenever possible, and Sun does have a nice ass, but even that can't save this dud.

My Grade: D

Mei Ah DVD Extras: Sub-titled interviews with Cheung Kam Ching & Paulyn Sun; Anthony Wong filmography; a very brief synopsis; Theatrical trailer for the film; & trailers for \"Chinese Erotic Ghost Story\" and \"Twenty Something\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie with big expectations. The blurb on the back indicated that this was going to be a nasty one. But it was pretty tame and a little unsatisfying. The violence was nothing I haven't seen a thousand times before, the gore level was only average (mind you there was probably more than what has been seen in Hollywood in the last 5 years - perhaps more), and at no stage was I even feeling uneasy let along frightened. Again a CAT 3 movie with big wraps, has not lived up to its hype.

Sure hire this movie, but don't go in with any expectations. I am so keen to get into the whole Asian horror scene, but am continuously disappointed. I did love Ichi, and Audition, but then again, Miike stands alone at the moment.

Please inspire me..... there is a large cluster of jaded genre fans who are starved of quality horror!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was one of the shows that I wanted to follow-up on. But, I'd just couldn't bring myself on devoting my time to this show. To have a show that centers on the topic of politics, you really need a strong plot with twists and turns to enhance the mood of the show, something like \"The West Wing\" or \"Commander-in-Chief.\" Rob Lowe was OK, but actors like Kyle Chandler just couldn't act (he was awful in \"Early Edition\"). It was a pain to sit through this show. With its lack of suspense, urgency, and characters who can actually act, I just had to give up on this show and am glad it was canceled so I would have nothing more to miss.

Grade D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The 3rd and last big screen spin off from the very popular ITV sitcom of the early 1970's,HOLIDAY ON THE BUSES is every bit as resistible and crude as the previous two efforts,and observing from a standpoint three and a half decades later,it is truly mind boggling that even one film was produced in this franchise.

What constitutes the plot surrounds the adventures of Stan Butler (Reg Varney),his conductor Jack (Bob Grant) and their bumblingly autocratic Inspector Blake (Stephen Lewis) after their sackings from their regular jobs at the bus depot.They all find work in similar positions at a holiday camp with Stan's family (Doris Hare,Anna Karen,Michael Robbins) following therewith.

British cinema had a deserved and considerable reputation for high quality in the 1960's,but much of this was due to American financial support and guidance which sadly drew to a close as the 1970's dawned.Thereafter,notable homegrown titles (GET CARTER being the among these very few exceptions) became as rare as Mick Jagger in a stable marriage,and UK cinema went down the road of cheap budgets,sleazy and witless sex comedies (The CONFESSIONS series,COME PLAY WITH ME) and flabby,elongated celluloid versions of various TV shows,mostly sitcoms (this being one of many hideous examples).Only DAD'S ARMY and PORRIDGE came off fairly respectably in this regard;the quirky success of the first ON THE BUSES film (it was the biggest box-office hit of it's year in 1971,nonsensical to think now!) led to two further sequels.

To be fair,the TV series itself had a cheerful,ripe,non-PC vulgarity about it which was reasonably tolerable in half-hour sitcom form,but stretched to three times that length it taxes the patience beyond belief.It's ironical that HAMMER FILMS produced this effort as it virtually resembles a horror film in the literal sense,with ancient puns,hackneyed,poorly-timed slapstick and awful,seedy production values.

A chance to send up the cheesiness of the British holiday camp is totally wasted here in favour of the above elements,and it is most bizarre,if not gruesome,to see the obviously 50-something Varney and the beaky-nosed,long-toothed Grant managing to instantly charm young women barely in their early twenties,while constantly laughing at their own bravado and lame jokes.The presence of Wilfrid Brambell (from STEPTOE AND SON) romancing the aged Miss Hare does not help matters either,and even though the film lasts about 1 and a half hours,it drags on to an interminably depressing degree.

Thankfully,this was the last film in this most dire of film trilogies,and the TV series itself came to an end around the same time,with a sequel (DON'T DRINK THE WATER,which was roundly savaged by the critics and ignored by audiences) following in 1975.Most of the leading actors involved were not seen much afterwards,but the worst affected was Bob Grant.Afflicted with depression and other mental problems for many years,he committed suicide in 2003.A sad coda to a sitcom that was the most popular of it's era (it has not aged too well either),and should have remained that way,rather than the three financially successful but artistically hopeless big screen hybrids which diluted the happy memories and occasional merits of it's TV counterpart.

RATING:2 and a half out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a window on the world of Britain in 1973 - a world of holiday camps, fags and birds. I was actually at Pontins Prestatyn while this was being filmed, so it's fascinating to see where I holidayed as a kid, and what a world we have left behind. The 'plot', such as it is, concerns Stan and Jack's attempts to turn a job at a holiday camp(25 quid a week!) into an opportunity for chasing young women and winding up Blakey. They are joined by the rest of Stan's family and some laughs are to be had from Arthur (Michael Robbins) and Olive's (Anna Karen) persistent chuntering, as well as the sheer oddness of Blakey, but the idea that young women would see anything desirable in brilliantined Stan (Reg Varney) or lecherous Jack (Bob Grant) is just risible. Harmless enough in its time, now it's just a curio from a bygone age.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has got to be the most appalling abuse of the word comedy ever witnessed.It is simply not funny and the scriptwriters have obviously just tried to use the name of the TV series in order to make a few quid at the box office. This film makes a carry on seem subtle as far as sexual innuendo goes ( no mean feat), and has all the charisma of a corpse with rigamortis. A complete washout I'm afraid!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The problem this film has is the same problem the TV series had and that`s the laddish Stan and Jack . There`s nothing wrong with laddish characters but Stan and Jack are played by actors who seem to be in their late 40s\/ early 50s ! And there`s something objectionable - not to mention crediblity defying - as they cop off with girls young enough to be their daughters

As for the rest of HOLIDAY ON THE BUSES , I found it instantly forgettable . It`s basically a 30 minute episode spun out to 90 minutes with having all the action take place at a holiday camp instead of a bus station

Amazingly almost a third of voters on this site have given it a 10 ! Come on guys , this film doesn`t deserve more than a 5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The final entry in the On The Buses trilogy sees the usual wasters go about their business in Wales. I feel sure the franchise could have continued, but Harold Pinter complained that the screenplays made him look bad in comparison, and so no more were made.

It's actually less than two minutes before we get our first dollop of sexism - a woman running for the bus finds her breasts fall out of her dress for no reason whatsoever. Still, it does at least make Stan (Reg Varney) laugh - but then what doesn't? He and Jack (Bob Grant) spend the entire movie laughing uproariously with little or no provocation. You get the impression that they'd wet themselves watching paint dry.

As before, the only funny element is the genuinely amusing Stephen Lewis, hilarious as Blakey. He's on his own, though, with a cheesy, dated script that even wastes first-rate talent like Wilfrid Brambell and Henry McGee. Yet it seems as if only Lewis understands how to time the shaky material, wringing laughs out of even the weakest lines. Describing how her daughter fell in a river, Stan's mum laments \"I hope it's not polluted.\" \"Well it will be now\" Blakey quips.

The plot - if indeed there is one - sees Stan lusting after a young girl, but being continually thwarted by her domineering mother. It's a recipe for side splitting hilarity I'm sure you'll agree, and whether it's on a storm-lashed boat or the swimming baths, Stan and Mavis's exploits always produce the same result... abject boredom. Later conquests include Maria, an Italian stereotype, and a staff co-worker. Even Stan's mum gets a one-night stand, with Stan considerately reminding her to \"put your tin drawers on.\"

When one of the comic \"highpoints\" is Arthur Mullard overhearing Olive trying to locate a light switch in the dark (\"I can't find it\") and thinking she's talking about sex, then you can see why this work reaches the upper levels of literary sophistication. In fact, why it didn't get in the BFI's Top 100 movies is beyond me.

Other rib-tickling shenanigans involve Olive (Anna Karen) breaking her glasses. I don't know what's more surprising, the lame predictability of the set-up, or the underdeveloped pay-off. The short sighted Olive follows a man in a kilt into the gents, thinking he's a woman in a skirt. The next shot sees her marched out by Blakey and redirected to the ladies. And that's it. Next, she ends up in another man's bed, and is ordered out by his wife. And... no, that's all there is to that scene, too.

When Holiday on the Buses was last screened on British television there was a breakdown in transmission. It actually came as blessed relief.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this TV movie version of 'Troilus and Cressida' out of my library last thursday, and simply could not believe my eyes. Where should I begin? no effort was made to make the play look remotely like it was about the Trojan war, all the actors were wearing Elizabethan dress. Moreover, most of the actors were too old and horribly miscast - Aeneas (with his white beard) looked older than Nestor, Troilus was at least 30, Hector looked like a Spanish pirate, Ajax was badly played anyway and Thersites was a transvestite.

Likewise the action is poor, the duel between Ajax and Hector is short and amateurish, the camera angle focuses more on Nestor's face, so we can only see what is going on in the background which is frustrating in itself. Nor is the 'battle' at the end given it's due respect. We do not see Troilus and Diomedes fight, nor anyone else for that matter, Paris and Menelaus just seem to mud wrestle in front of Thersites. Even Patroclus death was omitted. All this was a major disappointment considering I waded through a very dull 2 and a half hours of BBC costume drama to get to that point.

Nonetheless, it wasn't all bad. I thought the Incredible Orlando as Thersites and John Shrapnel as Hector were well played, even if they didn't look quite right. I'd say the same about Kenneth Haigh as Achilles, since he didn't have the striking countenance and was a bit dry at times. SPOILER: The climax at the end - the death of Hector - was perhaps the best part of the film, Achilles' dialogue here is excellent and sums up the attitude of a cold, seasoned murderer. However, the gruesomeness of the scene (when Achilles stamps on what was Hector's head)sets it apart anyway.

Charles Gray as Pandarus was delightful as a sleazy old pervert and I thought the actress playing Cressida did an OK job. The war-mongering Troilus, however, was annoying and I think that the play would have been better perhaps if he had been murdered by Achilles instead of a peacenik like Hector.

Conclusion? OK, but could have been better if it had had a younger cast and costumes that at least attempted to look Ancient Grecian, not to mention the lack of action. 5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie has a good story line, the action is good in some parts, but not all of them. Some of the parts, I just felt like the bad guys wouldn't have dosed off yet, from my experience from taking Martial arts. Some are the actions are long, like always mostly for the boss, but for the least important ones, they were killed or dosed off with a few hits, but some where quite unrealistic or could have done a better job at.

The least important actors or stunt people were the right picks for the movie, my girlfriend started to have a crush on them that she started to watch the movie more than she spends her time with me.

The movie is good, that is all I can say.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was touted as a sequel to Crash Dive, which was a very good film in the low budget category. I assumed this movie would be good also, but boy was I wrong. First, this movie has nothing to do with Crash Dive other than they both take place on submarines. Secondly, the plot can be slow, tedious, and in some cases, totally preposterous.

This movie will not hold most people's attention. (I remember reading a book during the slow, boring scenes.) There will be scenes that are supposed to be used for dramatic effect that will make the viewer laugh out loud. The corkscrew scene is definitely one. After I got over my initial shock that anyone would slip this in and not know people would not only disbelieve it but laugh at the sheer silliness of it, I was able to find humor in it.

If you want to see MD in a good sub flick, watch Crash Dive and leave this lame film on the shelf.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Story of an ex-Navy Seal who is now a combat medical officer assigned to a state of the art Russian sub with a nurse. This is to answer a call for help set off by a dying member of the original crew. The sub has been overtaken by terrorists who are bent on destruction. So we see the duo try and gain control back. And this happens with the fear of the US Naval Forces is about to unleashing everything it has got on the terrorist sub to prevent it from launching its arsenal. Be careful of the early explicit sexual scene in the first quarter of the movie. A couple of unexplained scenes towards the end. Watch it when you have the time. Nothing to miss out even if you let the show run while you go get yourself a cup of coffee: slow moving.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cates is insipid and unconvincing, Kline over-acts as always, as does Lithgow while butchering an English accent (at least, I assume that's what he's attempting), and the tone staggers uneasily between farcical and maudlin. As with most pet projects showcasing a celebrity couple, it's a relief when this shoddy piece grinds to it's forced and jarring conclusion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a very strange film, with a no-name cast and virtually nothing known about it on the web. It uses an approach familiar to those who have watched the likes of Creepshow in that it introduces a trilogy of so-called \"horror\" shorts and blends them together into a connecting narrative of the people who are involved in the segments getting off a bus. There is a narrator who prattles on about relationships, but his talking adds absolutely nothing to the mix at all and just adds to the confusion. As for the stories themselves, well.. I swear I have not got a clue why this movie got an 18 certificate in the UK, which would bring it into line with the likes of Nightmare On Elm Street and The Exorcist. Nothing here is even remotely scary.. there is no gore, sex, nudity or even a swear word to liven things up, this is the kind of thing you could put out on Children's TV and no-one would bat an eyelid. I can only think if it had got the rating it truly deserved (a PG) no serious horror fan would be seen dead with it, so the distributor probably buffeted the BBFC until they relented. Anyway, here are the 3 tales in summary: 1. A man becomes dangerously obsessed with his telekinetic car to the point of alienating his fiancee. 2. A man who lives in a filthy apartment is understandably freaked out when a living organism evolved from his six-month old tuna casserole. 3. A woman thinks she has found the perfect man through a computer dating service.. that is until he starts to act weird.. And there you have it. Some of them are pretty amusing due to their outlandish premises (my favourite being number 2) but you get the feeling they were meant to be a) frightening and b) morality plays, unfortunately they fail miserably on both counts. To sum up then, this flick is an obscure curiosity.. for very good reasons.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Its hard to decide where to begin.I bought this for a few quid and its the worst few quid Iv ever wasted. The back of the DVD had no pictures and a few lines plot summary, this should have warned me, but I usually like bad movies for a laugh so decided to give it a go. The movie is made up of three short stories,each revolving around someone who was on a particular bus at one point.(its never made clear what the significance of the bus is, or what city its set in)

POSSIBLE SPOILERS(as if there is anything to be spoiled) The first story is about a man who is persuaded, by a car, to purcahse it, against his wife's wishes.The car is sort of like a demonic Brum and takes over his life.

The second is about a slob of a man who never cleans his fridge and a monster bacteria man grows out of it.

The third about a woman who goes to a dating agency, only to discover her date isnt all that normal.

Inbetween these, we are treated to shots of the bus(or A bus anyway) while a narrator whittles on a load of garbage about relationships(really,its like he is on commission for saying 'relationships')

The movie actually has no redeeming features whatsoever.The acting, the costumes and the little Spfx are all disgusting.There arent even any attractive female cast members to admire.Simply put, this movie is a debacle.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is perhaps the most ridiculous crap I have ever watched. Three unconnected stories about completely stupid and random things are occasionally interrupted by a bus and a boring monologue about relationships by a stupid man. Christ knows why so many people got involved in this. Highlights: Green fridge man reading Jean-Paul Sartre, the slob mans dinner guest and her horse-manure hair products, a RIDICULOUSLY unreasonable woman in the third short, who suspected a man of foul play just for taking an interest in her generic activities, Blowers.

I need to use up a few more lines apparently, so may as well mention some more stupid things about the film. The first film involves a man driving a talking car around and obeying its unreasonable demands for absolutely no apparent reason. The only way you would watch this film is if you were blind and had other debilitating defects in your personality and brain. It is kind of funny in an ironic way, but also extremely wearying, like being forced to chew for a very long time on a stained rug.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With a cheap pound shop having just opened,i thought that it was worth looking to see if their were any cheap DVDs that looked good.and while the back of the cover made this sound like a Jeepers Creepers type of film,it is actually an anthology film! and thought one or two of the stories feel very familiar.Its still a fun light horror\/comedy. The plots:

Story one:The classic.

A young couple feel the it is time that they should try to in prove their financial life by picking up a $1500 car.But,when the guy goes to pick a car,a car starts to talk to him.The car (called Banns) says that to get everything that he has ever wanted in life,that he must buy Baans for $5000.So while the guys relationship crumbles,Baans does everything he can to show who really is in charge.

Story two:Kitchen culture.

A guy that might get thrown out by his land lord,due to how messy his flat is,discovers that due to keeping a tuna pasta in his fridge for six months,the it has now moulded and evolved into a green mouldy version of himself!.And while they start off as friends,they end up having a big falling out,the leads to a final battle to see if the real guy or his fridge clone will survive.

Story three:Too good to be true.

A girl signs up with a dating agency and she gets matched with a guy the is perfect for her.But she is unsure that the guy is too perfect,and when she thinks that she sees him 'shut down' she starts to get spooked. View on the film:

The first thing that i have to mention is the rating for the film in england,where it has been given an eighteen rating,even thought it has no nudity,swearing or blood at all.And the other odd thing about all the stories is that they all have happy endings,where the goodies win!.And while the first story is too close to the Stephen King classic Christine,the second story is easily the highlight of the film,with director Tom Parkinson making the nuttiness of the story feel like a low-budget Muppets episode!.

Final view on the film

While it does have a bit of a 'remake; feel,their is enough wackiness to make this a good horror 'comedy'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My grandad gave me this DVD. With friends like these. The front cover looked quite scary thought i'd watch it. What a bloody mistake.

Basically the film follows three people on a bus and what happens to them involving friends.

The first one is about a guy who buys a car that talks to him. The second is a about a guy who wakes up to find a cassarole clone in his fridge. And the third is about a woman who does online dating but it turns out he has a robotic arm.

The DVD case rated this film 18 but even a 5 year old can watch this and not be scard or entertained. The film should be rated 12 for slight scares and the swear word bloody.

All in all this film is utter shite don't go near it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I acquired this film a couple of years ago and on trying to find some info about it I found that even the mighty IMDb didn't have it listed. That should have been all I needed to know.

With Friends Like These is an anthology that plays like a collection of second rate Twilight Zone \/ Outer Limits episodes all linked together by a bus journey that never really seems to tie in with the rest of the film. Of the three stories, the only one that I gleaned any entertainment value from was the second episode in which a man (of sorts) grows out of the bacteria in a guys fridge. This episode wins points for a few spots of humour and it's bizarre premise. Other than that there is an episode with a talking car (bland and directionless) and an episode where a girl visits a very unique dating agency (my dog guessed the ending of this one).

As has been mentioned in other comments, the 18 rating is entirely unwarranted. There is nothing to offend here. If you're after a good horror anthology check out Asylum or the Creepshow films instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, after the hype surrounding the film and after Surya labeling the film as PATH-BREAKING, I went into the theatre expecting something big. Boy was I disappointed.

First of all, the characterizations in the film are SO weird! Which wife would do what Kundhavi (Jyothika) did? An idiotic, coo-coo one? And what was the point of her standing in the rain with her child (Baby Shreya) after she and her husband had a fight? What was the purpose of that scene anyway? To start a vulgarly shot \"Maaja Maaja\"? Not only was the song not canned aesthetically, it was just not needed in the screenplay. NOT NEEDED AT ALL! Secondly, the first half of the had practically NO STORY. The entire first half was a FREAKING drag. Every scene in the first half of the film had no significance what so ever to the real story of the film. And also, how did Aishwarya (Bhoomika Chawla) change so radically all of a sudden? And how did Gautham (Surya) and Kundhavi lead a happy live together after six years even though they were SO unhappy about marrying each other? And if Gautham did love Aishwarya like he claimed he did, why DID he even marry Kundhavi even if it was his uncle's death wish? WHY? That's the question you keep asking whilst watching the film! And how fair is the ending to Aishwarya? After all, she was Gautham's first wife? Krishna, the director of the film, claimed he worked on the script of this film for two years, but his script is filled with flaws and leaves the audience utterly irritated! Thirdly, Krishna's un-imaginative picturizations of Rahman's awesome is just disappointing. Surprisingly, Anthony's editing (usually superb) for the \"New York Nagaram\" song just sucks! The whole song looked like it was a slide show made on Microsoft Power Point! \"Munbe Vaa\" Rangoli chorus was wasted showing Gautham PLAYING FOOTBALL!!! Who wants to see the freaking dude playing football during such a beautiful chorus?!? Whats more, the whole movie only needed TWO songs. Munbe Vaa and Kummi Adi. The rest of the songs inclusive of \"Machakari\", \"Maaja Maaja\", \"New York\" and \"Jillunu Oru Kaadhal\" are just not needed. Rahman's fine efforts are simply wasted on a stupid film directed by an amateur director! Fans of Rahman, you ask why Rahman keeps moving to Bollywood. After looking at the way his songs are picturised in Kollywood, why would he want to stay here? What's more irritating is that after Krishna decided to include Machakari into the film, the song was cut by half which truly, truly annoyes.

Surya looks handsome in his new get ups save the ones during the college scenes and packs in a so-and-so performance. His expressions during all the songs he was featured in really do not fit the way the singer sings the songs. Was Jyothika even acting in the film? All she did was CRY! Would you call all that crying acting? One of her worst performances ever! What's more, her new hairstyle does not suit her. She looked way better in Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu. Her costumes during the \"New York Nagaram\" song are way off. Bhoomika Chawla is just gorgeous during the film and does justice to her role. Vadivelu's comedy is ANNOYING. When one is watching him, one wishes they could slap him on the face. It is Santhanam who is the show stealer during the comedy scenes. And why the heck did Sukanya even agree to do such a minuscule role which could have done by just anyone? And why is her make up so heavy when she has perfect complexion? Music by A.R. Rahman is just awesome. \"Machakari\", \"Munbe Vaa\", \"New York\" and \"Jillunu Oru Kaadhal\" deserve special mention. R.D. Rajasekhar's cinematography is OK and isn't as good as his previous films though the scenery during the \"Kummi Adi\" song deserve special mention. Anthony's editing is really really disappointing. The film is just so freaking draggy and could be trimmed severely.

Krishna's direction just sucks. Dialogues (A.C. Durai and Krishna) are just too corny to digest especially the part where Bhoomika professes her love for Surya. The screenplay and script (Krishna) are horibble. The film moves in the more un-interesting pace ever. And Krishna's script is just filled with unexplained sub plots.

And for goodness sakes, why was there so much advertising in the film? Pepsi, Maggi, Suzuki, you name it. Was the producer of the film (K.E. Gnanavel) low on budget or was he just desperate? Overall, Jillunu Oru Kaadhal is a damp squib. With a title like that, one would expect a heart warming and cooling love story but what you end up is a painfully botched up love story. Really, really disappointing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film's a big bore. It has a plenty of Predictable plots & endless sentiments from the start. It starts good with a classy number but seems lost midway.

Surya & Jyothika's on screen chemistry works out really good & a good part by Bhoomika. Why include Vadivelu in it? He disappears totally after a good half an hour!. Santhanam proves his wit again by timing comedy.

AR's tunes sure will last for sometime. But he could have done better. What ever be the drawbacks still it's worth watching once if you feel alone at home or looking for a good time-pass.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Extremely slow movie.There are fine performances from all actors which is why above 5 score.Surya and Jyo are supposed to be this ideal husband and wife and we are shown this till it gets to a point you start asking is there a story.Then one day Jyo discovers Surya's diary to find his failed college love story .The college love story is totally unconvincing as Surya is an arrogant Senior who is always picking on Bhoomika, beats up her friend, yells at her in public and despite being terrified of him she falls in love for him.Even after that he continues to dominate her using crude language.I certainly could not appreciate the meek character played by Bhoomika, I don't think any self respecting woman will fall for such jerks in real life.So Jyo decides to bring them together and what happens after that is the climax. The story is extremely weak in its characters.A extremely arrogant Surya to Bhoomika is the exact opposite with Jyo( and there is no reason given for the sudden change in character).Again a extremely meek Bhoomika becomes a big extrovert when she returns.Wonder, if she had turned so super confident why didn't she try to find her love as she no longer feared anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this movie for 99 cents at K-mart several years back (along with \"Hawken's Breed\") figuring anything with Gabriel Byrne and Amanda Donahoe is surely worth that much. It wasn't. \"Dark Obsession\" (the title I bought it under) was a slight cut above \"Hawken's Breed\" (IMBD rated at 2.4), but not enough to allow me to even keep it in the house. I threw both movies in the trash.

This thing fails on so many levels it's hard to narrow it down, but let's just say it's tawdry, incredible, boring, hedonistic, confusing and even at 100 minutes, way too long.

I love Byrne as an actor, but this schlock really looks bad on his resume.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seven pioneer kids strive independently across many miles of Indian territory and harsh weather to reach Oregon.

According to history, young'uns who traveled by themselves through long distances of land - such as with the 'Children's Crusade' - were manipulated and exploited by being abused and sold into slavery, but these kids are pretty tough and they try their best to prevail in accomplishing their goal of making a homestead out west. Film is a little too syrupy at times, but OK for fans of 'The Waltons' and 'Little House on the Prairie'.

Dean Smith gives a cool performance as 'Kit Carson'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Take a bad script, some lousy acting and throw in a politically incorrect morality tale and what do you get? Something that is supposed to pass for quality family viewing.

Seven Alone is the story of a family in the 19th century who travel across America in a wagon train, hoping for a new life in Oregon. There are seven children (three boys, three girls and a baby whose sex I'm not quite sure of) hence the title of the film.

The story opens up with the family living a seemingly normal 19th century life on a farm in the middle of nowhere. Eldest son John is a precocious teenager, 'lazy and good for nothing' as his father constantly reminds him. We see right off the bat that he has a penchant for practical jokes when he ties string to the hair of his sleeping sisters and connects it to a nearby mule. When the mule is moved of course the poor girls are jolted out of bed. John is caught by his father and is immediately punished with a strap.

That same day a wagon train passes through. Pa is tempted to join up as it promises a new life in the wild, wild west. So the family hitches up their belongings and head off.

From the very beginning the film seems weak and amateurish. The acting is below grade, as if from one of those films shown in school about the pioneers. I can't blame the actors, however, because the lines in this film are silly and just too sickeningly sweet and optimistic.

I must tell you that I caught this film while flipping channels one boring Saturday afternoon on a Christian television station. Not of a religious mind myself, I watched in horror as Seven Alone offered up moral statements that were not only outdated, but downright offensive! If I were a good Christian I would hope that I would have had the good sense to complain to the television station for airing such trash. However, because I am a cynical, non-believer with a wicked sense of humor, I chose to sit back and laugh myself silly.

In one of the opening scenes, the role of the father as the stern ruler of the house is established when he proposes the idea of heading off for Oregon to his wife. Her response is a heated \"Over my dead body.\" We are expected to laugh, I suppose, as the film cuts to the next scene with Pa and Ma smiling as he steers the wagon along through the prairies. Oh I suppose even the most staunch feminist would have to admit that this 'Father-knows-best' attitude was the norm in those days, and one could argue the need for such dictatorial rule when living conditions were difficult, but I somehow got the feeling that this film supported that notion, even for today. Lovely message coming from a Christian television station.

Anyway, things get worse for the family, and the films moral integrity is further diminished. An Indian (or Native American) robs John as he lay sleeping in a field. Like a common savage, the Indian takes Johns clothes and belongings. Thankfully Pa, with the help of passerby Kit Carson, is able to kill the Indian, as well as a couple of his delinquent friends. Kit Carson tells John that his father is a true hero.

The family is accompanied by the wagon train's resident doctor, Dr. Dutch (played by Aldo Ray). He shares Pa's sentiments about John, stating that he is a useless brat. Perhaps so, but he also the best thing about this film. Aldo Ray's doctor is buffoon, who seems unable to tie his own shoes, let alone treat one of the girls for a broken leg. Thankfully the young child didn't cry when the wagon ran over and snapped her leg in two, because Dr. Dutch didn't seem to have the appropriate bedside manner. We know the drawbacks of constantly belittling a child. Here's a film that promotes that behavior.

Later on Pa develops food poisoning, or something, I wasn't paying much attention, and he dies. His death bed scene is the stuff great acting is made of. Frankly, the man didn't even look sick.

Soon after, Ma dies too. The children are left to fend for themselves. And that's when the real adventure begins. Slugging it through the rapids, encountering more Indians (these ones are nice though) and venturing through snowy terrain, these children do it all. And I was left thinking, \"What a bunch of garbage!\"

Sorry, but there was nothing redeeming about this film. This low-budget Little House on the Prairie is a shameful waste of time and an insult to 'families' everywhere. I'm surprised that in 1975, at the tail end of the feminist movement, and at a time when treatment of Native Americans was coming into focus, that something like this could actually be made.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Staten Island filmmaker Andy Milligan is well known in the horror community for being an even worse director than Ed Wood. And with this as a dim example of his output I'm apt to agree with them. In \"The Ghastly Ones\" we basically have three bickering couples traveling to their childhood home (located on a conveniently secluded island) to collect an inheritance. There they are killed off one by one and the events unfold in murder\/mystery fashion with a scarred retard hunchback butler added to throw you for a loop. The film is in such bad shape that it looks like someone just ran it through a dishwasher, the sound is terrible, the dialog is otherworldly bad, there's some primitive mannequin gore (plus some dismemberments and guts) and it's technically inept in every possible way it can be inept. But is it enjoyable in a bad movie kind of way? Sort of. It's excruciating to watch but oddly entertaining in a train wreck fashion. Approach with caution. If you're not a fan of horrible movies better deep six this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was released in the UK under the name Blood Rites. It was banned outright and never submitted again for release.

As The Ghastly Ones, it was supposedly a hit with the horror hungry denizens of New York City's famed 42nd Street Grindhouse circuit. If you are looking for some bloody horror, then you will find it in this film.

Unfortunately to see the developmentally disabled Colin (Hal Borske) chomp down on a live rabbit, you have to put up with shaky 16mm camera work that makes Ed Wood look positively marvelous.

Three sisters are to spend three days in the family homestead with their husbands before the old man's money is disbursed. Naturally, in such a situation, people start dropping dead. Family secrets are exposed and lots of blood is spilled, especially during a gruesome dismemberment.

Maybe it was the bunny bit that the Brits objected to, I know I did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Out of all the films I could have chosen, it had to be this. When I was last in New York I went into a Times Square store and out of the hundreds of DVD's they had I chose Joel M. Reeds Bloodsucking Freaks (1976) and this, on a double feature DVD that also included Seeds of Sin (1968), did I regret it? Read on to find out. The film opens on an island (near Milligan's Staten Island home) where two lovers are walking along with a massive parasol seemingly made from paper, at one point he gives her the top of a weed as a gift. Out of nowhere Colin (Hal Borske) a retarded hunchback pops up and kills both of them for no reason at all. After the opening credits which are joined by some of the worst headache inducing music I have ever heard, at least it got me used to it as it's used constantly throughout the film, we are introduced to three couples. The wives are all sisters, Vicky (Ann Linden) and Ricard (Fib LaBlaque), Veronica (Eileen Hayes) and Bill (Don Williams) plus Elizabeth (Carol Vogel) and Donald (Richard Ramos). They each receive a letter from a lawyer, H. Dobbs (Neil Flanagan) that request a meeting so he can read their late father's will. Dobbs informs them that they must spend three days in their childhood home 'Crenshaw House' and fill it with 'sexual harmony and marital love' that it had never known because of the strained relationship between their father and mother. He informs the couples that the will is highly irregular but legal. After three days the inheritance will be settled. The couples are also told about the servants, Martha (Veronica Radburn), Hattie (Maggie Rodgers) and the retarded Colin, who welcomes the couples by killing and biting chunks out of a rabbit in front of them. Later on that night whats left of the dead rabbit is found in one of the couples beds with a note that says 'blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit'. This starts a series of events which end in gruesome murder and reveals dark family secrets.

Co-written, photographed and directed by the talentless Andy Milligan. This is an absolutely horrible film in every way possible. Lets go through just some of it's faults. The music, it's awful and headache inducing. Sound, you can barely hear what characters are saying and certain scenes don't have any sound effects plus at certain points you can hear Milligan shouting out orders to his actors, oh and there's a constant hiss on the soundtrack throughout as well. The acting, probably among the worst I have ever witnessed. The very un-special effects, Colin pokes someones eye out in the opening sequence, it's the size of a tennis ball, the part where someone is tied down and has his stomach opened up with a saw looks really awful as are the various hands and legs that are chopped off. Photography, Milligan has absolutely no idea how to stage or film a scene, he regularly cuts the top, bottom or sides of peoples heads and faces off the screen and his camera jerks and shakes around like it's operated by someone who is constantly tripping over. There is also at least one scene so badly thought out and filmed that a crew member is seen. The film is often so dark you can't see whats happening, too. Editing, again some of the worst I've ever sat through, he seems to cut scenes before they've finished, cutting away while characters are in the middle of a sentence. The script, if there was one, credited to both Milligan and Hal Sherwood (It took two people to write this!?) is all over the place and is incredibly stupid. There is one unbelievably bad sequence where the killer follows a victim down into the basement, the killer walks right behind him, at one point the potential victim turns around. What does the killer do to avoid being spotted? They duck down right in from of him, the killers close enough to give the guy oral sex yet he doesn't notice them, right in front of him. You have to see this sequence to believe it, I still can't believe what I saw. Bizarre sub plots just happen and then totally disappear, check the scene out when Richard has to borrow money from his brother Walter (producer and co-writer Hal Sherwood), who turns out to be a gay priest who has had an incestuous relationship with his brother before he was married! A strange scene that's there for no reason at all. Martha the housekeepers reaction to the first murder, she's more bothered by the fact that it's thrown her dinner schedule out! There's load of insane dialogue as well, Patty and Martha discuss Colin, Patty says \"if only I didn't beat him so hard\" Martha sympathetically replies \"you have to Patty, you have to!\", delivered totally straight faced. And don't start me on how ugly the wallpaper looks throughout the house! The only good thing I can think of saying is that the costumes look reasonable, for the time period it's meant to be set in. I could probably go on all day about how amateurish this is, but I think you get the idea. One to avoid unless your a serious masochist! I didn't regret buying or watching it for a second, though!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well well, at last a view of this underrated flick. But you can't find a good copy of it, terrible copy full with green drops, the editing isn't syncronized, the sound do has sometimes that terrible hiss and sometimes you even can hear the camera recording. Overall it's too dark, a waist of time you should say but it isn't. It's a bit slow, the first half part of the movie it's all talking and making love to each other. It is even still weird that the girls in movies from the 60's never wear any bra's. When they enter the sleeping room it's full glory. Anyway, banned in the UK since 84 and still on the video nasties list. The reason is simple, it's gory for their time being. It really has some nasty dismemberement's and it's creepy in some way due the fact that it is filmed handycam way. So every shot the image is moving, things they do these days with the steadycam. The Ghastly Ones could have been better if the quality of the film was better but still better then other films of the time like Schoolgirls In Chains.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film purely based on the fact that it was on the DPP Video Nasty list, and while I'm glad I saw it because it's now 'another Video Nasty down' - on its own merits, Andy Milligan's film really isn't worth bothering with. There are, of course, far worse films on the infamous list; but that doesn't make the pain of viewing this one any easier. The film was obviously shot on an extremely low budget, and that has translated into the script; as Blood Rites works on an idea often seen in horror cinema, and doesn't do anything new with it. Basically, the plot centres on three couples who find themselves at a house awaiting the results of a will. It's not long before they start getting picked off...blah blah blah. For most of the film, nothing happens; and then when we finally get down to the scenes that justify the movie being banned, they're so amateurish and silly that they're impossible to take seriously on any level. It's a very good thing that this movie doesn't have a very long running time as otherwise it could have been used as a particularly nasty method of torture. It all boils down to a fittingly tedious ending, which also succeeds in being a non-event of epic proportions. Apparently, this movie is still banned here in the UK; but somehow I doubt it's because of its shock value. Basically, Blood Rites isn't worth seeing and I personally can see no reason to recommend it. Unless, of course, you've made it your business to see everything on the Video Nasty list...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lord David Cecil wrote an interesting book in the 1930s EARLY VICTORIAN NOVELISTS, where he looked at the works of Dickens, Thackeray, Eliot, Trollope, Mrs. Gaskell, Charlotte Bronte, and Emily Bronte. He selected these writers as the popular favorites of the first half of the Victorian period, and he explained their strengths and weaknesses (as he saw them) to the reading public. Some of his comments are quite relevant to this day, but like all criticism it gives an idea of the spirit of the times of the critic's life as well.

Cecil thought highly of George Eliot (Mary Ann Cross), who wrote about seven or eight books (including sketches and poetry). But for most modern readers, they are usually acquainted with her shortest book, SILAS MARNER, which is still read in some high school curriculum. The other books, FELIX HOLT THE RADICAL, DANIEL DERONDA, MIDDLEMARCH, THE MILL ON THE FLOSS, ADAM BEDE, ROMOLA, SCENES OF CLERICAL LIFE, are still in print (Penguin, for example, has most of them in print), but are mostly unread. The one of most interest today is her last novel, DERONDA, where she discusses the Jews in English society, and an incipient, pre-Hertzl type of Zionism. ROMOLA is her sole attempt at a historic novel (about Savanarola's experiment of a religiously pure republic in Florence in the 1490s). Her meatiest novel is MIDDLEMARCH, which is concerned with English society in the provinces in 1832, the year of the great Reform Bill of Lord Grey. I had to read MIDDLEMARCH in college for a literature course. It certainly is a thoughtful book (Virginia Woolf called it the most grown-up book in the English language). But it suffers (like all of Eliot's novels) from one defect - she cannot write livable, exciting prose. While Dickens is overly exuberant at times, and Thackeray can become pompous and prolix, and Trollope can become (as Lord Cecil says) very ordinary in his discussion, and Charlotte Bronte can fail to explain certain relationships well, and Mrs. Gaskell seems best dealing with female characters, all of them (and Emily Bronte in her single novel) hold the reader's interest. Reading most of Eliot's novels is like trying to chisel sentences out of blocks of marble with a toothpick!

To date I have read about fifty pages of MILL OF THE FLOSS. I notice that one of the other reviewers never finished the novel too. But I have read a synopsis of what it is about. The Tullivers (Maggie and her brother Tom) are the central figures - they own the mill in the title. Although close at the start of the story, Maggie falls in love with the son of a neighbor whose father is involved in legal difficulties with Mr. Tulliver Sr. Tom takes a dim view of this relationship, and the tragedy of the story is regarding the split between the siblings, culminating in their demise at the conclusion (Maggie runs back to the mill to rescue Tom during a heavy flood, and they die together). It must have been a success with Victorian readers, but it is very gloomy and depressing to modern audiences.

The movie changed the ending a little - Maggie (Geraldine Fitzgerald) does die at the end with her lover, and Tom (James Mason) notes their deaths at the conclusion in his record book. The story is totally rewritten, except for a double death in the flood at the conclusion. It doesn't really help matters. Although Fitzgerald and Mason do pretty well with their parts, they can't really pull the film up by their work alone. The end result is a fairly minor film, that fortunately did not hurt the lead's careers. The only other thing to note is that the boyfriend was played by Frank Lawton, who two years earlier played David Copperfield as a grown up opposite W.C.Fields, Lionel Barrymore, and Maureen O'Sullivan. But then, Lawton never really had a major film career - he just happened to always be around in pictures, some good, some mediocre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'The Mill on the Floss' was one of the lesser novels by Mary Ann Evans, who wrote under the male pseudonym George Eliot. I tried to read this dull and very turgid novel years ago, but was unable to finish it. I'll review this film version solely on its own merits, as I don't know how faithfully it follows the original novel.

The film's opening credits are printed in an Old English typeface that suggests the mediaeval period, and so it's a very poor choice for a film with a 19th-century setting. (On the other hand, about halfway into the film, we see a close-up shot of a handbill advertising an estate auction. This handbill is set in authentic Victorian type fonts, and looks *very* convincing.) Most of this film is extremely convincing in its depiction of the architecture and clothing of early 19th-century England. The precise location of this film's story is never disclosed, but - judging by the actors' accents - I'd place it as somewhere in the Cotswolds, perhaps Warwickshire.

The plot, what there is of it, involves a mill that changes hands a couple of times (over a couple of decades) between two rival families, one wealthy and one working-class. I disagree with another IMDb reviewer who claims that James Mason has only a small role in this film. Mason has the largest and most central role in this drama, as the scion of the wealthier family. As the spoilt and petulant Tom Tulliver, Mason is darkly brooding and impetuous. His performance here belongs in a better film: it made me want to see 'Wuthering Heights' recast with Mason as Heathcliff.

As this is a multi-generational saga (something which George Eliot did much better in 'Middlemarch'), several of the main roles in this film are split among two actors apiece: child actors in the prologue, adults in the main narrative. The prologue of this film features a very well-written scene, establishing Tom Tulliver as wilful and bully-ragging from an early age, and young Philip Wakeham as decent and thoughtful. Through hard labour, Philip has earned a halfpenny: Tom tries to bully it away from him, but is unwilling to take the coin by brute force: he wants Philip to *give* it to him. All the child actors in this movie, male and female, are talented and attractive. Unfortunately, all of the children speak their dialogue in posh plummy-voiced accents that are utterly unlike the accents of the actors and actresses who play those same roles as adults. This discrepancy calls attention to the staginess of the material. Regrettably, none of the later scenes are as good as this prologue.

The climax features a crowd of labourers in a rainstorm, much better paced and photographed than the earlier scenes. But modern viewers (in Britain, at least) can no longer take this sort of material seriously. By now, practically every British comedian has done a \"trouble at t' mill, squire\" comedy routine, parodying precisely this subject matter, so I had difficulty watching this movie with a straight face.

The character actress Martita Hunt is good in a small role, but the opening credits (in that Old English typeface) misspell her forename as 'Marita'. I'll rate this dull movie 3 points out of 10: one point apiece for James Mason's performance, the early scene with the children, and the authentic Victorian typesetting in that auctioneer's handbill.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was shown on a premium channel, so I didn't realise it was made for TV. Even so, I like some of the movies on lifetime (Lifestyle here in UK), but this was awful. The family were so cheesy, \"Love you mum\" \"Love you even more honey\" Then after they were broken into for the second time, 10 mins later, they were at it again, \"Love you mum\" big cheesy smiles etc... She phones her husband, and tells him not to bother coming home. They were only broken into by a guy that wanted them dead, have a nutter living next door, who needs help? She has her teenage daughter and a cat (not for long) to look after her.

However, as a comedy, I'd give it a good 7. I might even show it to my friends next time I have them round. Could be great fun after a bottle of Vodka or 10!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So bad as good - not only the script is obvious, but the acting is not just poor, but pathetic. The worst of all is the definition of the characters: unrealistic ingenuity, affected reactions, camera forcing to watch superficial aspects, which are introduced as keys to the plot.

Can't prevent laughing when, at the end, main character says to second something like 'your daughter plays no soccer and knows no cooking'. Such offense to female intelligence defines the level of this film.

Is the film about the psychological behaviour of the second character?, about its impact on the main character?, or just a sequence of events set in order to heat for the obvious ending?

Pls, make more of these - I had a good time guessing what next would go wrong...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The acting is awkward and creepy, and not in a good way...at all. The writing, the dialogue, and the chemistry between the actors is horrible. Nothing makes sense and every close-up of an actor's expression or reaction lasts 3 or 4 seconds too long, making it seem like a Mexican Soap Opera (telenovela). Everything about the writing is unrealistic, and all of the actors involved make it that much worse with their campy interpretations of the script. Am I the only one who sees this??? To use the word cheesy to describe this Canadian disaster would be the understatement of the century. Did the director even watch the final cut before it was put on the air???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... or should I say unintentionally hilarious? Either way, this is one of the best comedies I've seen in a long time. I was laughing throughout at the antics of some of the dumbest fictional characters this side of Homer Simpson. It's just one forehead-slapping, painfully stupid scene after another as the clownish, dim-witted cardboard cutouts substituting for actual humanoid characters push, pull, and drag the \"plot\" to its inevitable and obvious conclusion.

If I had to describe this movie to someone, I'd call it a mutated hybrid of Fatal Attraction, Dumb and Dumber, and the Three Stooges, with a \"climax\" uncannily similar to the episode of Family Guy in which the whole family gets into a knock-down fistfight in the living room.

Advice to Benson family: next time you get a new pet, do the poor animal a favor and DON'T name it Fred!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can name only a few movies that I have seen which were this bad. This movie has terrible everything: The dialog is corny and clich\u00e9', the acting is poor for the most part with a few exceptions, the cinematography is nothing to cheer about, and the plot is silly (A fat woman stalks a suburban family because her daughter didn't make the soccer team). This is so bad, it's funny to watch. If you can catch this on lifetime, I'd recommend it highly as a comedy. As for being a serious movie, I'm afraid i'll have to rate this a 2.

Don't watch this film if you are a serious movie fan and looking for an interesting and challenging storyline, or good acting. There is none to be found.

Edit: Hmmm... I think a group of people who work for lifetime must have written some phony reviews and voted all the negative ones down. Don't believe them. This is a really crappy movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Too fractured to be enjoyable, too loose to be interesting and too clumsily photographed to be tolerable MR LONELY is an interesting idea ruined by really bad film making. Like a Ken Russell film at its worst, or DAY OF THE LOCUST remade by amateurs, MR LONELY might have seemed like a good idea on a few scraps of paper (no script, you see) and a free holiday to somewhere, but in the end we have a widescreen film that seems as if it was made by film students whose parents told them that EVERYTHING they did was a brilliant creation. Or did I get the film maker right? MR LONELY is a waste of resources, trying to be (gawd!) quirky and deliberately off kilter. It ends up being annoying and indulgent.. and pointless. What's the point of going to a commune in Scotland? What a stupid idea in this film about Hollywood delusion. Maybe Korine wanted to remake GODSPELL ... well the result is GOD-AWFUL. Oh and there is some subplot like leftover footage from FITZCARRALDO including Werner Herzog, nuns and a plane. Add slo-mo drifting and violin music all wistful and melancholy, add James Fox who seems to hope he might be seen as daring (like in PERFORMANCE) and the result is amphetamine fantasy alphabet soup in widescreen. It might have been fun to film but the result on the screen is a mess. Imagine American PIE BAND CAMP with food poisoning.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why would anyone make a film like this? Why would anybody invest in a film like this? Why would anybody in the film business work on a film like this? Why would any theatre show a film like this? Why would any TV channel program a film like this? Why would any critic bother to review a film like this? Why would anybody watch a film like this? Why would mental examinations not be made of the writers\/producers\/directors of a film like this? Sometimes there are movies that are so bad they're good. This is a movie that is so ghastly that it's horrible. IMDb really must institute a \"0\" or even a minus scale to embrace works of this appallingly pretentious awfulness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Korine's established himself, by now, as a talented and impressive image-maker. The promotional posters for Mister Lonely all include the film's most impressive compositions (though there's one in particular I've yet to see in promo material: that of a blue-clad nun teasing a dog with a stick, surrounded by green forest with torrential rain pouring down). The opening images of this film, of Michael Jackson lookalike (Diego Luna) riding a small motorbike round a track, is strangely compelling and beautiful: Roy Orbison's \"Mister Lonely\" plays on the soundtrack, and the images unfold in slow-motion. There's also a funny and terrific sequence in which the same character mimes a dance, without music (though a radio sits like a silent dog next to him), in the middle of a Paris street; Korine splices in sound effects and jump-cuts that evoke both a feeling of futility and dogged liberation in the character's dance routine.

The first instance of the segment dealing with the nuns is also strangely poignant; Father Umbrillo (Werner Herzog) is an autocratic priest about to fly with some nuns over, and drop food into, impoverished areas nearby. In a scene that is both light-hearted and affecting, Herzog must deal with a stubbornly enthusiastic local who wishes to make the plane trip with them in order to see his wife in San Francisco. As the exchange develops, Herzog draws out of the man a confession: he has sinned, and his frequent infidelity is the cause of his wife having left him in the first place. This scene, short and sweet, gains particular weight after one learns its improvised origins: the sinner is played by a non-actor who was on set when Korine and co. were filming - and his adulterous ways had given him, in real life, a lasting, overwhelming guilt.

Henceforth, the film is hit-and-miss; a succession of intrinsically interesting moments that add to a frivolous, muddled narrative. Whereas Gummo and Julien Donkey-Boy maintain their aesthetic and emotional weight via coherent structural frameworks, Mister Lonely feels like a victim of editing room ruthlessness. A few scenes were cut from the film, which would have otherwise painted fuller pictures of certain characters, due to continuity errors in costume - a result, no doubt, due to the absence of a shooting script and Korine's tendency for improvisation. One deleted scene in particular - in which 'Charlie Chaplin' (Denis Lavant) and 'Madonna' (Melita Morgan) have sex - would have added much more emotional conflict to a scene later on in the film (I won't spoil it, but it's there to deflate any feeling of warmth or celebration, and, as it is, only half-succeeds).

The two strands of the narrative, unconnected literally, are best approached as two entirely different stories with the same allegorical meaning; one compliments the other and vice versa. (It's something to do with the conflict between one's ambitions and the reality of the current situation.) But there's not enough of the Herzog scenes to merit their place in the film, and so any connection between these two allegorically-connected threads is inevitably strained - and the inclusion is, in retrospect, tedious.

This is an ambitious step forward from Julien Donkey-Boy that suffers mostly, at least in the lookalike segments, from having far too many characters for the film's running length, a flaw that would have been even worse had big star names played everyone (as was originally planned).

With many of the imagery's self-contained beauty, and moments of real, genuine connection with the soundtrack, this feels like it'd be much more suited to an art installation or photo exhibition. As an exploration of mimesis and the nature of impersonation, it'd lose none of its power - indeed, for me, it would perhaps be more impressive. The loneliness attached to iconic performativity (such as that encountered by both the icons themselves and those who aspire to be like them) is well-captured in images such as that wherein 'Marilyn Monroe' (a gorgeous Samantha Morton) seduces the camera with a Seven Year Itch pose in the middle of a forest, or when 'Sammy Davis, Jr.' (Jason Pennycooke) settles, post-dance rehearsal, with his back to the camera overlooking an incredible, tranquil lake.

As it is, moments like these, and all those where the titles of randomly-chosen Michael Jackson songs crawl across the scene, are married to one another in a film narrative far less affecting than it should be.

(For those who see it, I lost all faith during the egg-singing scene, late on. You'll know which scene I mean because it sticks out like a sore thumb, as some sort of gimmicky attempt at the new cinematic language for which Korine has previously been hailed.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Harmony Korine. I'm not sure what he was trying to do with this film. If it was to turn my good day feeling into a night of disturbing memories than I guess he succeeded.

I know that there were big questions raised in this movie like, who are we really, what are we here for, is there really a God. All great questions, But I really don't think that is funny when you have the questions along side such tragedy. I'm all for real life being portrayed but come on. It's never funny when a wife is being raped, someone killing themselves (and family and friends find the body) and people die for unexplained and unnecessary reasons.

The only good thing about this movie was the location it was filmed. There is a lot of beautiful places.

I'm not a film student or even know all that much on the subject I admit this, but I do know that when I leave the theater with a feeling of disgust, then it was not a film I would recommend to anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie and all I can say is this...I am not a film student, nor am I some artsy intellect who tries to look for a deeper meaning into everything that I don't understand. However, IF I were to do that with this film, my thoughts would be...

Yep! He's on drugs and I can picture it now...he was tripping one night and sat around with his buddies laughing and saying stuff like, hey...wouldn't it be funny if nuns really could fly? Like what if one just fell out of a plane and free fell for a while, bounced to the ground and got up and walked away? *cackles* or if buckwheat gave the pope a bath? oh my god, I'm cracking up just thinking about it! Dude! We gotta make a movie about it! And then he says to his friend as he's laughing...Oh and wouldn't it be hilarious if people loved it and called me a genius for it? So to me, this is what happens when some guy does one too many drugs and writes a script and produces a movie. Should I have been doing LSD to understand what this guy was thinking so I could have had a laugh too? Because I have to tell you, I wasn't laughing. I was yawning and checking the time.

I think everyone who is trying their hardest to find a deeper meaning is hysterical. I had never heard of this director until I came to read the reviews, which I did because I was mad that I lost that last 2 hrs, or how ever long it was, (it felt like 12 hrs of my life) and I can't ever get it back, anyway...I have read that this guy is a heroine addict and he wanted to die for art?? what the heck is that? So my point is sort of proved. This guy is not all there, he's a drug addict, and his movie is evidence of such...So please quit trying to find a deeper meaning to it. If one really wants to understand everything in this movie, go drop some LSD and sit back and relax, then it might actually make sense.

It reminded me of the time I watched Gus Van Sant's Last Days, another movie I was mad about watching. I cannot help but wonder what the ratings would be for that movie, if the same people reviewed it who reviewed this one. It seems like, if the movie's director is totally off his rocker, or if it's a french movie with sex and subtitles, or if it's a cartoon, it is going to get great reviews, hands down, anything else is boring and has already been done. BLAH, bring on the boring please!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Harmony Korrine - hate him or hate him? On this evidence, loathe might be a better word. Not him of course, just everything he does. But it could've been so different because the first ten minutes of this film promises so much including a fantastic idea of a Michael Jackson impersonator falling in love with a Marilyn Monroe impersonator. Fantastic. And set in Paris! This could be great. But unfortunately, Korrine may spark the odd decent idea but because he is an awful writer, the story fails on every level and the audience walkout I witnessed about an hour in is proof positive that he is the most boring and pretentious film-making out there. Apparently the walk-out rate at its premiere in last years Cannes festival was quite shocking. Instead of focusing on the two protagonists, he switches the story stupidly to the confines of a ch\u00e2teau to introduce a bunch of other impersonators making the whole experience tedious and narratively barren. When will the independent cinema stop funding this upstart?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just watched this yesterday and wanted to read other peoples scathing comments but found some high marks.

WHAT??? This was probably the worst Asian horror movie I've seen.

*spoilers* There were just so many fundamental problems with the story. A lot of Asian horror has the twist of spirits trying to help but just looking scary (with notable exceptions: ringu and Ju-on). This is the case here except they aren't scary. A pretty Asian woman who looks a little pale isn't scary at all. The \"monk\" character straight up explains everything as being a perfectly natural cycle of life; nothing scary there either. But the woman just doesn't get it, she would rather kill herself and her baby then let this poor ghost be reincarnated. My friend and I were just laughing when she jumped off the building twice and the ghost waits until after the second time to tell her why she's been following her around. That information would have been nice to know before she started jumping but whatever.

*That said I did like a couple of parts right in the middle. First she rides a taxi with a ghost (ghosts ride taxis?) that has a whole lot of extra hair which inexplicably IS creepy. Right after that at the bus stop, well you need to see it as it's pretty messed up.

All in all this movie is a total bomb, I gave it an extra point just for those two scenes above. This is a poor quality Asian horror that manages to make ghosts flying into women's wombs almost beautiful while trying to scare you with the same images.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(The beginning might be a spoiler...)

\"The Eye 2\" is the sequel to \"The Eye\". It's about a pregnant woman who is able to see ghosts and spirits after an incident happened to her.

The sound effects scared the hell out of me though momentarily but that's the only scary thing. Some of the scenes from the prequel are comparatively similar and repeated so the chilling effects certainly have chilled.

\"The Eye\" has quite a frightening and indelible impression whereas \"The Eye 2\" is a forgettable horror-cum-drama film. Omit watching this. Watching \"The Eye\" is good enough.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"****Probably will contain spoilers****

After a successful attempt to get attention (I would not call making sure that you get help before you die a \"failed suicide attempt\"), Joey finds out that she is pregnant and starts seeing images of spirits.

Overall the movie was a little slow going, but entertaining enough to watch the whole thing. For a horror movie, there were only a few minor creeps and thrills. Halfway through, however, was a really good scary scene (I wont give it away though) :) I watched this movie because I really liked the preceding movie, The Eye.

I was a little confused, however to determine that, other than being a \"supernatural suspense\" movie from the same creators, The Eye 2 had NO relation to The Eye, *whatsoever*; different cast, different story. The Eye2 does not even have anything to do with eyes :\\

The movie had a few questionable scenes: Joey attempts suicide 3 times (4 times, if you count the time when witnesses say they saw Joey trying to jump in front of the train), she is associated with brutally defacing an attacker, she freaks out in a restaurant and witnesses say she was \"attacking\" people and yet she is allowed to go about her business freely, without even so much as a psyche evaluation or put in the hospital (for reasons other than her pregnancy).

The movie was not the greatest horror movie, the story was rather far-fetched (even for a fiction movie :P ), the spooks were either few and\/or nothing we have not seen before. However, it was an \"interesting\" story and once you know what the \"truth\" is behind the spooks, it was an interesting twist on the \"ghost\" story.

I rate the movie 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This for one has nothing to do with the absolutely fantastic first flick. And of course us Americans just have to remake everything successful into English, because man reading subtitles is SOOOOO Hard isn't it! From what I've see in the new trailers with the adorable now pregnant Jessica Alba (well that sure ruins every teenage boys fantasy everywhere doesn't it!) It looks EXACTLY the same but probably w\/double the budget. I thought the original was one of the best horror\/suspense\/mystery flicks I have seen in any language in quite a long while. I would recommend watching that one and skipping this one all together, there is no reason to watch this as there is no reason this even called \"The Eye 2\" except to capitalize on the excellence that was the first flick. Do yourself a favor watch \"The Eye\" with the volume turned up and get ready for some probable jumping. I watched it w\/headphones on and was pleasantly surprised on the excellence that was the direction of the Pang brothers. If \"The Eye\" remake does well which I'm hoping it does for the sake of the Pang Brothers movie careers, but at the same time it seems a shame that people won't\/can't see the original, because very often\/almost always the remake isn't as good as the original. Watch this one if one wants to be mildly kinda of boring flick, but the original is no comparison to this sequel in name only flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Altioklar's populist approach manifests itself in all his titles, from the worst to the best. He doesn't care (or has no clue) about art, all he cares is to make people think they've got a kick in the groin by watching his movies. The problem is, the effort is way too evident, and as events unfold with all the senseless exaggeration kneaded into them, the effort fails badly.

On this \"Turkish\" movie (who knows where the original or originals were made, since it felt extremely Hollywoodish to me), Altioklar is trying to be some sort of Tarantino. (Mr. Tarantino, if you're reading this, please watch the movie for the best comedy of your life!) He doesn't use subtle moves to do that, all he does is to use extreme stuff, and it gets unbearably absurd and laughable.

Levent \u00dcz\u00fcmc\u00fc as the forensic guy with the cow-licked hair is just hilarious. I'm hoping to meet him in person and ask how he felt about this movie himself. Because I really found the role insulting for him. Demet Evgar groping her genitalia was also uncalled for, and did nothing other than making everything look fake. Another specifically idiotic aspect of this movie was the 100% faulty pace setting. When things need to be taken slowly, scenes flow abruptly. And at other times, it makes you sleepy to watch the slow ridicule going on.

If Altioklar is so deeply in love with lame Hollywood superficiality, he should use Michael Sixarrows as his name instead. Even such a move wouldn't be half as ludicrous as what he has done on this movie. He should first learn not to imitate directors whose levels he'll never approach, then realize he's not in Hollywood, and then take private lessons from Zeki Demirkubuz or Reha Erdem on how to lay the flow of ideas out in the plot. This useless movie couldn't be saved even by those, but perhaps he can make watchable movies in the future by taking these steps.

By the way I've seen some infamous failures such as Propaganda and Otostop, and I still can't divert from saying this one was the worst Turkish movie ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Persuaded by the 7.0 points in IMDb, which is pretty good, i decided to watch this movie. However, i found this movie quiet boring (about 2 hours) and full of clich\u00e9s, A little girl getting multiple personalities after a childhood trauma etc. Tamer KAradagli is quiet funny in this movie, dialogs motions etc, you will have to see it, he is kinda the tough cop you see on American movies, perhaps copied too much. I would describe this movie as ordinary American thriller with a little bit of Turkish touch, Unfortunately yet again I'm convinced that comedies and dramas are the only genres worth watching in Turkish cinema Anyways i gave this movie a 4, its too boring and full of clich\u00e9s","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Altioklar: Master of the thieves.

Watch some movie, steal some parts of them, write a script... It must be very easy to be a director in Turkey. I think Altioklar watched \"Identity (2003)\", \"Saw (2004)\", a few series which is about crime, murder etc. then he said \"Eureka, eureka\"(i have found it!) after that he wrote the script of the movie.

You can guess the murderer at the beginning of the movie. It took only 10 minutes for me. He shouted \"I'm the murderer, i'm the murderer.\". There is no mystery.

Tamer Karadagli is same(sux). Exaggerated mimics, funny macho man.

There is only one good thing in the movie. The performance of Demet Evgar is very good. You may see the movie just for that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I understand the purpose of the director to tell stories that aren't stories, but the way he tried to show time passing by (the couple of joggers, who first appear jogging together, than jogging with a stroller (sic!), than the man alone...) and to link the \"adventures\" of the characters (the final scene, with the maid climbing a mountain seeing the big black guy on another cliff, and then seeing the boat with her former employer and saying \"Oh, a boat!\") were awful. At the same time, I liked the way he portrayed the middle-high class, even in an excessive way. I think it is a lousy movie. If you want to watch it, do it as a film school student, trying to see technical aspects and issues. It will help a lot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While I agree with the previous post that the cinematography is good, I totally disagree with the rest: This is nothing more than a porno movie disguised as an artsy film. Showing little boys naked is not art and amounts to child porn. Steer clear of this dud. Stupid is what this film is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is sad that some find this film worth watching. I am Russian, and I am disgusted. There is nothing in this film that deserves praise, except cinematography. However, I am not one of those who find beauty in death or perversion. I think this film is poorly designed and directed. There is nothing more irritating and even enraging than shameless speculation in art (if you can call this garbage art). Balabanov wanted to shock the viewers by pervasive evil, and he succeeded in creating a hopelessly dark film. But the biggest shock is Balabanov's primitive directorial work. I would never advise any of my friends to watch it. Huge disappointment!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"People call a 976 \"party line\" to talk dirty to strangers, and perhaps meet up for a sexual liason. A deranged, somewhat incestuous sister and occasional transvestite brother use the line to find people to kill, usually married men, but they don't discriminate! A pair of sixteen year old girls also call the line for fun, pretending to be older, of course. One of them works as a babysitter for a married man who's hot for her (or anyone).

Meanwhile, a vice cop is borrowed by homicide when he's the first to discover one of the siblings' victims. He's teamed with a female assistant of the District Attorney.

Nothing too special here. Richard Roundtree has little more than a cameo as the police chief. One of the dirty-talking sixteen year olds is played by an actress who also voiced Peanuts character Peppermint Patty! According to the IMDb, the other died quite young, just several years after this movie: sad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yep, it's me again! Mr 'I sit through crap so you don't have to'.

What do you think this is about? Could it possibly be about a woman who call a sex line and arrange to meet bachelors in a secluded area? Then her cross-dressing boyfriend comes along and slits their throat with razor, before they make off together with his cash? Wow, what a guess! And if I tell you that the cop who is put on the case is forced to team up with a sexy assistant DA to nail these suckers, what conclusion will you come to? Do you reckon the sexy DA will go undercover wearing a flimsy red dress to an attempt to meet the drag queen, but then end up being kidnapped and having to be rescued by the maverick officer? (who has already handed in his gun and badge) ZING! You get 10 points!

Frankly, this film bored me to tears. Why do people insist on making this kind of rubbish? Its a waste of our time, their time and yet they still carry on regardless.. filming a movie that no-one gives an iota about. If it has any redeeming features, there's the fact that it has some of the prettiest ladies I've seen in a motion picture for a while. I hope they spent what meagre wages they earned on plenty of botox and colonic irrigation. They'd look great on the cover of Vogue, or perched on the top of a car in a bikini. They should just leave acting to the professionals (like Shannon Tweed).

Talking about future careers, I ran into the director the other day. He sure does whip up a tasty chicken burger meal. I must say too, that the uniform really does suit him. I asked him about 'Party Line', and his eyes went to the floor before he mumbled something about extra fries. Oh well, guess it didn't quite work out. Never mind, they're letting him take over the drive-thru tomorrow!! Hurray!! 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thats what this movie really takes. A big piece of cheeze. This movie is about a sister and brother Bonnie and Clyde type of duo that creates their own party line in order to lure their victims in and trap them and kill them. But for what reason? Just for the fun of getting away with it? In comes Richard Hatch who comes across as a wishy washy ladies man. A real BAD version of a ladies man. And he gets involved with finding who's behind all the killings across LA. He finally meets a teenager who helps him find the killer and rest is for your fun and amusement. But there are parts in this film that really get me going like the scene with Lief Garret dressed in his mothers wedding gown acting like a sissy in front of his sister telling her that he needs her and can't live without her and watching as she slaps him across the face dominateing him. I can't believe that was Lief!!! Well, I guess I could. But it's worth watching but only to see one of Garrets worst films that he ever did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Terror in the Jungle is a real find. If you saw it, you're one of the few lucky ones. It's hilarious!

The story is about an airplane crashing in the middle of the south american jungle. The crash scene has to be seen to be believed. Everyone dies in the crash or they're subsequently eaten alive by crocodiles. Only a young blonde boy survives. A nearby tribes brings the kid to their village and they (all males) venerate him because of his golden hair! I kid you NOT! At the end, there's a lot of wrestling between the natives and the man on the search for any survivors of the downed airplane. All the while, the kid sits on a throne and his blond hair is surrounded by a golden halo and he cries nonstop!! It's a hoot!!!

Very obscure and contains very questionable subtexts. A must if you're into obscure, it's-so-bad-it's-good movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If the following sounds tempting, then by all means rush down to your local Blockbuster and rent this movie post-haste:

1. Awful 60's hairstyles, from pathetic perms to dodgy ducktails.

2. The worst child actor in the world ever, who does nothing but cry and say DADDY in the most annoying voice imaginable.

3. Lots of stock footage of alligators and monkeys that doesn't mesh with the film. At all.

4. Stereotypical Indians who use blowpipes and talk gobbledegook. Oh, and it goes without saying they whoop around a campfire.

5. Hilariously fake plane crash mechanics where the cast actually throw themselves into the corners of the cardboard set.

6. The exterior shots of 5, which look suspiciously like a toy jet on a string being led around a studio lit with blue light.

7. Terrible special effects which make the ones used in the first Star Trek series look cutting edge by comparison. ( Special mention: The little boy's blond hair glowing. Oh dear..)

8. Laughable editing and continuity, where background items move between scenes, the soundtrack changes completely without any warning etc.

9. Not got enough money to hire a professional dancer? Get any lady from off the street to prance about like an idiot! No-one will notice the difference! Er..

10. A 'thrilling' climax involving quicksand, snakes (more stuff from the archives) and a ton of fake blood. Don't forget to put in a stupid 'tribal' sounding song either!

The more sensible among you however, will wait for it's inevitable appearance on MST3K when this classic TV show is resurrected and then you can watch it in the spirit it was intended. Any other kind of enjoyment to be derived from this crap is unthinkable.. not to mention unworkable. So don't even try it. 0\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If there's anything worse than this movie I don't want to see it. I remember so many amazing things--a nun dropped out of a coffin to make a raft for a little blond boy; the little blond boy himself adored as a god; lots of stock footage of Peru as an ideal vacation spot. Shining Path and Alberto Fujimori should blast away any notion that Peru is a vacation paradise. The whole thing is so awful that Plan 9 or even Robot Monster is an aesthetic treat by comparison. This film should be bombed and strafed and bombed again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is indeed a spectacularly bad film, but it is the rare kind of badness that is endlessly, jaw-droppingly entertaining! I want to add to the other comments on this film.

The \"rock band\" on the plane look like three skinny drunks from casual labor wearing bad wigs.

Watch for the severe continuity problem with the kid's stuffed tiger: it turns into a lion, a leopard and back again; it's filthy or clean depending on the shot.

*SPOILER! The stuffed tiger turns into a real animal to save the kid (and the writers)!

The sight of little Jimmy floating down the Amazon in a coffin, clutching his stuffed tiger and squalling away will stick permanently in your memory.

Listen for one of the most inept sound effects ever: late in the story when the priest is setting out to find Jimmy, the guide demands his monk's robes as payment-the priest drops on one knee in a moment of resigned contemplation and there is the sound of a bell, not the deep \"BONNNNG\" of a church bell, but the \"ding\" of a bell from a boxing match!

This is an absolute hoot to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An unbelievable plot, laughable characters, and obvious errors (in one scene where several grass huts are supposed to be burning, a gas torch can be seen repeatedly trying to ignite one of the huts), this film is a real dog.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie that would be included if Mystery Science Theater 3000 had a home game version! The source material for tacky comments in this movie are endless. I found the video of Terror in the Jungle at a garage sale. What a find!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a silly movie with much singing and dancing. Acting is average, but writing leaves something to be desired. There are rememberable performances by Buddy Epsen, with a short but outstanding performance by Gypsy Rose as the bitter wife of a rich playboy. A totally unbelievable portrayal of college life which ends with a superb ice skating exibition of Alice in Wonderland. Many parts are worth watching, but do not be afraid to fast forward through parts of the movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILER

It's not a terribly objective review but I just found this movie horribly depressing. Like a lot of Russell T. Davies'

work, it asks more questions than it can answer. His best work (Bob & Rose, Doctor Who) revels in hope against the odds and perseverance even after apparent defeat. These uplifting themes seemed strangely absent here. I suppose the fact that I'm still thinking about it days after viewing is a testament to the quality of the program but the resolution was just too bleak for my tastes.

I would, however, disagree with the reviews I've read complaining that the end feels \"tacked on.\" I think each conclusion follows logically from its premise and the ending represented a sound personal belief that neatly resolved the primary theme of the show. While I never really questioned the progression of events, I felt like there was much that could have been expanded upon. I've also read that it was originally conceived as a four part series instead of two, and it's possible that the truncation has done some harm to the completed piece. However, these flaws appear throughout, in sequences and themes that sometimes feel rough or sketched in.

To his credit Davies is totally unafraid to write big, and you have to admire the sheer audacity and scope of this project. The premise he tackles here is the stuff of movies or novels \u0096 it is a brave and ambitious thing to tackle it in the medium of television. Strong points include Christopher Eccleston, who is positively mesmeric in the lead. For me, he was and remains the best reason to watch. The depiction of the Messiah's humanity was brilliant, thought provoking and engaging and a real credit to both Davies' writing and Eccleston's acting. I also thought the depiction of the modern world's reaction to the second coming rang true.

So, two stars simply because I personally want my entertainment to be entertaining. I would rather be uplifted or, at least, distracted by my fiction. I have a whole big real world around me \u0096 as filtered through CNN or the newspapers -- if I choose to be horribly depressed. There are definitely less subjective reasons by which to judge this piece but I'm afraid my judgment in this matter is clouded by my emotional response.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I don't have a TV, and had never heard of this mini-series, I didn't know what to expect from The Second Coming and hired it purely on the strength of its plot synopsis, which sounded interesting.

Dear God! (Every pun intended.) If someone told me that this had been written by a class of thirteen year olds who had been given the project of turning the second coming into a school play I wouldn't have been surprised.

Why, oh why did they decide to portray Jesus mark II as what amounted to an idiot savant? Is there anything in any of the gospels to suggest this? Okay, an ordinary bloke, but a Great Northern Moron. I don't think so.

Apparently all Jesus did to impress people was his miracles, because according to this take his preaching sure as hell never impressed anyone. Certainly without the night into day stunt Mr Jesus Eccleston would have been floundering without a canoe, a paddle or any kind of following at all.

And the odd little gay polemics put in willy-nilly, without rhyme or reason. Other than, of course, Russell waving to his QAF fan base. Jesus turns up in the pub to recruit 'disciples' (more gormless Northern losers and, of course, the gay writer's standby - the harpy woman, nag, nag, nagging away). Gay rights are rammed down his throat to no real purpose, almost like Russell thought he 'owed it to the lads' to put Jesus on the spot.

I can't really see the real Jesus coming out with \"Well, I've nothing against it personally, mate.\" Only someone truly middle class and woolly could imagine Jesus to be quite this wet.

And don't start me on the ending. 'Please come in and eat rat poison because the only way we can be truly free is if God dies'.

It was like an Eddie Izzard sketch of God as Bill Gates. \"Hello, I'm Bill Gates, and now you've pointed out to me that my global domination is cramping your style I'm going to give it all to you, my customers.\" And eat the rat poison, of course.

I'm often mystified by the ratings on IMDb, but the high rating on this one takes the biscuit.

Never mind Jesus for the new millennium - this is Jesus for brainless MTV lads.

God help us all indeed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One should have the right to expect from people who make a film about the Second Coming and the Third Testament, that they had read the other two, or at least knew a little more about them than miracles and Judgement Day. This film contains absolutely nothing of relevance for viewers who are interested in Jesus, religion or philosophy -- there is only the standard British social realism with guttural dialects and plump characters in pubs.

Actually, good candidates for a real Third Testament have been published several times - like \"A Course in Miracles\" or \"Conversations with God\". They all have thought-provoking new twists and angles for Christian faith and theology.

The most interesting information in IMDb's rating is not the number of stars, but how many people who have bothered to vote. In four years, only 387 people have bothered to vote for this film. As usual, the enthusiasts are the most eager. For comparison, have a look at \"Jesus Christ, Superstar\" - original version from 1973.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went into this movie hoping for an imaginative twist on the Second Coming. Boy, was I ever wrong. BBC are dullards at pacing a movie, total idiots at creating suspense, fools at building intensity. And this movie is no exception to the rule of how much BBC sucks.

Ugh, the pacing and time-wasting laborious dialogue was just painful to sit through. The first 30 minutes felt like 2 hours. I kept looking down at my watch wondering when the pointless, monotonous drivel would end. They wasted a perfectly good actor in the lead role, because the material is so lazy, and sloppily, written. Everything that happens is just to kill time.

Out of 155 minutes, only 15 minutes are interesting (the controversial ending). What a shame. Reading the plot summary is more interesting than watching the movie. The preaching, the \"am I God\" endless blah blah blah-ing, the dumb as doornails boring miracles... UGH.

DO NOT WATCH THIS CRAP.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember seeing this years ago, It had a reasonably promising start, with an interesting premise, but then it degenerated into nonsense quite quickly. Uninteresting characters, failed attempts to add drama and tension, and a bit of simplistic philosophy thrown in too, all culminating in a terrible ending.

Simply, it's trash.

Before I saw this TV film, I didn't think I would ever have any film that I thought was the \"worst\" I had seen, but after I finished watching this, I knew that from then on, if anyone asked me what the worst film I had ever seen was, I could say without hesitation - \"The Second Coming\".

Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was definitely on the boring side. The acting was decent and the film looks pretty nice, the soundtrack is definitely for fans of Kenny G and Michael Bolton. Speaking of the soundtrack, I found it very ironic that a film about telling the truth and not stealing decided to use a song in it's titles that was a BLATANT RIPOFF of Paul Simon's \"You Can Call Me Al\" - except that they don't acknowledge it at all. Isn't there something a little hypocritical there? The scene that the main kid was in where he was mimicking a game show host was my favorite. 10 lines? I have to write ten lines about this movie to be included? What a ripoff, I don't think it's too fair to FORCE people to write more than they would just to get it included!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Telly Savalas hams it up as the Mexican revolutionary (though he's matched by Chuck Connors as a military martinet) in this jokey yet rather boring pastiche on the famous historical figure's life and times. An earlier attempt, VILLA RIDES! (1968) with Yul Brynner in the role and co-starring Robert Mitchcum, dealt with these events more soberly and on a grander scale. As such, PANCHO VILLA is an all-too typical European venture and an undistinguished one at that, despite its credentials; the end result is more often silly rather than amusing - though a few moments, most notably the action set-pieces and a scene involving a brawl inside a church, offer some mild pleasure. Oh, and Savalas even gets to sing over the end titles!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Telly Savalas put on a passable (but no better than that) performance as Pancho Villa, the notorious Mexican bandit\/revolutionary in this account of Villa's raid on the town of Columbus, New Mexico in 1916. Villa is not really a historical figure who I'm overly familiar with, so I won't say much about the historical details of the film. As a movie, this isn't great, although it has a smattering here and there of both action and humour. Chuck Connors' performance as Colonel Wilcox, commander of the U.S. Army base near Columbus struck me as a bit over the top, and Clint Walker as Villa's Gringo sidekick Scotty didn't really do very much for me. The movie is obviously a pretty low budget effort of limited technical quality. For a movie with a runtime of only slightly over an hour and a half I have to say that this movie dragged in places, particularly in the last 20 minutes or so. Villa's raid into the United States was an interesting (if, in the overall scheme of things, not especially important) historical sidebar, and probably deserved better treatment than this. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A couple of clarifying comments are in order. Herschell Gordon Lewis contributed a brief introduction to the video release of DOCTOR GORE (aka THE BODY SHOP), wherein he touched upon his collaborative efforts with J.G. \"Pat\" Patterson, director and star of DOCTOR GORE. Patterson concocted the \"gore effects\" for THE GRUESOME TWOSOME and a few other Lewis movies in the late 60s. Lewis remarks that whereas 2,000 MANIACS was a \"five gallon\" film (referring to the amount of stage blood required), the Lewis-Patterson productions were \"fifteen gallon\" pictures. Lewis does not describe DOCTOR GORE as a \"fifteen gallon\" film -- he's only talking about the films he & Patterson made together. Lewis has confessed (elsewhere) that his introduction to DOCTOR GORE was improvised before he'd even seen Patterson's film! So take it with a grain of salt.

This may be an \"unfinished\" film, but like some unfinished novels it does have an \"ending.\" It's just missing some connective tissue.

Patterson has definite stage presence & a dry sense of humor, helping to make this simplistic show somewhat more watchable than it should be. There's an extremely bare-bones plot -- even BLOOD FEAST is more complex -- and a gratingly repetitive musical score by William Girdler. A bit of nudity & lots of skin. The entire middle section of the film involves the construction of a \"perfect woman;\" this is concentrated gore for the bloodthirsty, and laughable.

Patterson the director is in way over his head, but he tries hard to tell his story creatively, if it's possible to use Frankenstein clich\u00e9s creatively. But the best reason to see this film (on Something Weird's DVD, if possible) is that it features a perfect Nashville weeper, Bill Hicks' \"A Heart Dies Every Minute.\" Ain't it the truth!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The lines in the title of this review are the first lines in this film's theme song, a wonderfully demented parody of the (in my opinion horrible) song \"My favorite things\" from \"The Sound of Music\". And this fun little detail isn't the only aspect that makes \"The Body Shop\" aka. \"Doctor Gore\" (1973) recommendable to my fellow Gore\/Trash fans. The film, which was created almost entirely by J.G. Patterson Jr., who served as producer, writer, director and leading man as the eponymous Dr. Gore, is crap, no doubt, but it is also beyond doubt that it is amusing, and that everyone involved, probably Patterson especially, was aware that they were not exactly making a masterpiece.

Dr. Brandon (Patterson) a famous but totally insane plastic surgeon, looses his beloved wife Anitra, a model, in an accident. Along with his hunchbacked assistant Greg (Roy Mehaffey), he henceforth kidnaps beautiful young women in order to build himself a new, perfect wife out of their body-parts...

\"Doctor Gore\" is doubtlessly a film of the 'so bad it's good kind', but it is also has qualities beyond the usual ridiculous trashiness. Mad science has always been one of my absolute favorite Horror topics, and, as a matter of fact, it is also one of the coolest topics for ridiculous Gore Trash flicks. Obviously shot on a minimal budget, \"Doctor Gore\" pays some homage to the \"Frankenstein\" films, especially James Whale's masterpiece \"Bride of Frankenstein\" (1935), and resembles the look of the early Troma \/ Herschell Gordon Lewis Gore flicks such as \"Blood Feast\" (1963) - only that this looks a lot cheaper and crappier. Obviously J.G. Patterson's motive was not merely to make a fun gore flick: Being a rather ugly, weird-looking fellow, his role of Dr. Brandon gave Patterson the opportunity to make out with a couple of hot, scarcely dressed young women (who would later end up as body-part donors in Dr. Brandon's laboratory).

Most of the gore is actually pretty well-made regarding the obviously tiny budget. The dialogue includes some extremely hilarious lines (\"Get that, it might be the door... and put a coat on so they don't see you're a hunchback.\"). Besides the aforementioned theme song, \"Doctor Gore\" also includes a wonderfully crappy appearance by a country band called 'Bill Hicks and the Rainbows' - my new favorite band, NOT. For the rest of the film, I kept wondering whether Bill Hicks and Roy Mehaffey, who plays the hunchbacked assistant, are twins or even the same person - the two look exactly the same, and having two unrelated obese, red-bearded guys looking this weird in one film would be a huge coincidence. Other than J.G. Patterson, most of the cast members never did any other films. This is the first film I've seen out of the few by Patterson. Sadly, the man died of cancer in 1975.

Overall, \"Doctor Gore\" is a film that certainly isn't for everyone. As a matter of fact, it is total crap. But it is also amusing, and recommendable to my fellow fans of weirdness and cheap camp stuff. Dictionaries should show a screenshot from this film under 'trash flick'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My friends and I have watched this so many time I have lost count. This is worth seeing for those in the right frame of mind, meaning that this is not so much a good horror film as a film to lampoon for its funny quotes and bad effects. This film is best watched with other like minded individuals so you have someone to laugh with.

You'll laugh as Greg leaps and shuffles around the lab, petting his pet rabbit, while his hunchback shifts from right to left on his back. \"Greg, stop clowning!\", scolds Dr. Brandon. You'll laugh as J.G. Patterson gives hand signals to direct Greg to the other side of the operating table, while his hand is in the shot. And you'll probably chuckle when you realize that the final woman has none of the features he used to construct her with.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After the wife of a plastic surgeon dies, he gets his hunchbacked assistant to help him bring her back to life with various parts of other nubile, young, girls. This film wants to be a Hersel Gordon Lewis-type romp, but fails miserably. The acting is beyond bad, the gore effects atrocious (no, not in the good way), the plot almost none-existent and no fun to be had. Skip it. You want to know how incompetent it is? At one point you can actually see a movie slateboard quite obviously.

Eye Candy: Candy Furr gets topless and again in a flashback

My Grade: F

DVD Extras: Commentary with Jeffrey Hogue and Cynthia Soroka, A second feature \"How to make a Doll\"; Alternate Title sequence with Hershel Gordon Lewis intro; 2 shorts (\"Quest of the Perfect Woman\" and \"Maniac Hospital\"); Cover art gallery with music by the Dead Elvi; Trailers for \"Dr. Black Mr. Hyde\", \"Boots and the Preacher\"; \"The Doctor and the Playgirls\", \"the Gruesome Twosome\"; \"Wizard of Gore\"; \"Awful Dr Orlof\"; \"Wacky world of Doctor Morgus\"; \"Proffessor Lust\", \"Monstrosity\"; \"Fanny Hill meets Dr. Erotico\"; and \"I, Marquis DeSade\"

Easter Eggs: Theatrical Trailer; a scene from \"Just for the Hell of It\"; and a trailer for \"Axe\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe I even tried to watch this filth. As an avid B-Horror movie fan, I was more than riveted at the prospect of this film by popular budget horror filmmaker Herschell Gordon Lewis. Unfortunately, right from the opening of the film, I could not, for the life of me, think of a worse movie than this. Well, maybe Gigli, but I firmly believe Dr. Gore (The Body Shop) is worse when I think about it. A horrible plot that moves incredibly slow, the movie drags on with no real horror to speak of. However, I will admit to the pure hilarity of a couple scenes when Dr. Gore is mesmorizing his soon-to-be victims. The camera zooms in on his overly large, bulbous eyes, while the whole time there is this purely putrid soundtrack to add to the amusement. I laughed for the better part of 10 minutes. After he erects his \"miracle woman\", the movie wastes away nearly 20 minutes just showing him and his \"girlfriend\" as he is teaching her to speak, then they talk, frolic among marigolds, have picnics, etc. Unfortunately, there is only music playing during this whole fandango with no speech whatsoever. This portion of the movie will leave you wishing you had slit your wrists with the dull edge of a butter knife. I almost want to puke at the very thought of this movie. If you like movies that are bad, watch this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know this movie is a low-budget horror movie intended for those in favor of shocks and \"inexpensive\" gore, but even considering that, this movie is just too dull, filled with an incoherent plot, along with awful music, and obvious signs that this movie was never finished.

Without giving any spoilers, I'll just say that by the final reel, things are wrapped up with no explantion at all, either by film or narration. The girl Anitra is real attractive, but yet that is not a good enough reason to enjoy this movie.

If you are a fan of those gore movies from the 60's and 70's, then you should watch it, but be warned that it does not even reach to the usual plateau of these kinds of movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**Spoiler* It gives away the very irrelevant ending**

At the beginning of this movie, there was a brief intro to the world of gore by the master of gore movies, H.G. Lewis. He talked about how this movie was lost, and then found years after the director's death. He also talked about how gore movies were measured by the amount of stage blood used in it. Blood Feast was a 2 galloner, 10,000 Maniacs was a 5 galloner. But, then he goes and claims that Dr. Gore was a 15 galloner. I want to know where half of the 15 gallons went. Watching the movie, I saw very little near 15 gallons. Agreed, there was a fairly large amount of blood, but no where near 15 gallons. Some of the dismemberment scenes were definitely pretty gory and realistic, strings of flesh and all, but I wouldn't say 15 gallons.

\"END!!! ENNNNNNNNNDDDDDD!!!\" Does that sound familiar? That's what you should have been saying near the last half of this movie. After the Igor character was tossed into the acid bath, the movie slowed to a painful crawl. There was no coherent end, as it didn't fit into anything the 90 minutes before it provided. She drove off in a van with a total stranger, BIG DEAL! That's what happens when you keep an individual (I won't say person, because she doesn't qualify as a person) very innocent about the world around her. The doctor teaches the girl that a man is to be loved, so every man she meets, she loves.

Even though H.G. Lewis told us at the beginning of the movie that we may not like the acting, the directing, or even the gore... I will go with choices A and B. BOTH WERE TERRIBLE!! It was enough to give me bad dreams of cut editing and people with shifty eyes as they talk to one person. But, I made it through the movie, and came out stronger. Too bad I couldn't say the same after finishing ROBO C.H.I.C.

This was a BAD movie. I can usually take my doses of vinegar in good stride, but every once in a while, you get a movie that bites back. I think this movie took off an arm or a leg (haha... *sigh*) Admitted, I did enjoy the stare down scenes, where the good doctor stared at his future victims and opened his eyes REALLY wide and just stared. It was VERY similar to Fuad Ramseys in Blood Feast when he stared at that lady in his catering shop, and did not use his power after that. I guess this movie picks up where Fuad's powers left off.

*Final Judgement* The movie should have stayed lost. Good day

-Scott-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the commenter's is wrong. This is not the only Pat Patterson film and he didn't die two years after this was made. He shot a film called the \"Electric Chair\" in Pineville, NC. He shot this a few years after Doctor Gore. Patterson died in the late 70's. I know this because he used my house and he left a cat there!! It sucked also. This was a big deal when the movie came out. No independent horror films were being made in NC. This movie didn't help matters. Patterson used to do gore effects for H. G. Lewis. He was also good at magic. His gore scenes in Body shop were actually well done. The film was shot in a building that also housed a 7\/11. You can actually see the tops of the walls in some scenes. The budget was less that $20,000 and the script looked like a child wrote it. Only Patterson could understand it. Still...it's entertainment and it's a classic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before I saw this movie I believed there were two kinds of bad cinema. (1) Your average, completely uninspired fare (i.e. \"Constantine\"), and (2) the work that is charmingly bad, or so-bad-it's good (a la \"Manos The Hands of Fate\"). Now that I've seen \"Dr. Gore\" I know there is a third kind of bad movie: the utter crap sandwich. That will be irrevocably tattooed on your memory. A work that is mind-bendingly execrable. Anathema.

I have hated certain films before, but I've never hated a film so much that my loathing reached its thresh-hold and became SELF loathing! Have you seen a movie that not only makes you regret losing the hour you spent watching it, but makes you grieve for another hour after that? Mystery Science Theatre disciples beware, this is soul-sucking cinema. Go Rent \"Circle of Iron\" or \"The Killer Shrews\" instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I own this movie. And it is terribly hard to find. It is a unique low budget little gore flick about a doctor seeking the perfect companion. It has the really humourous low budget feel to it, and the gore is suprisingly good for what appears to be a $500 budget. The director is claimed to be the master of gore. I wouldn't go that far, but maybe in his time he was. Overall 6\/10 on the gore chart.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ah yes, it's yet another retelling of the classic, \"sociopathic murderous doctor creates female Frankenstein and falls in love\".

From the same director who brought you such timeless classics as \"10,000 Maniacs\" (no, not the group) and \"Blood Feast\", this \"unfinished\" film virtually cries out for the MST3K treatment. The doctor's assistant even has overtones of Torgo from the classic \"Manos: The Hands Of Fate\". I don't know if the graphic, if fake-looking violence or the frequent stretches of dialogue-free tedium could have scared the crew off, though.

The main reasons to bother sitting through this movie are for the hysterical 'hypnosis' scene, the laughably serious ending and the rock-bottom production values. I actually watched all of the credits after this movie, for the same reasons you're inclined to slow down your car when you pass a serious traffic accident. That and the sheer genius of the end theme that sounds like a watered down \"My Favorite Things\" played on a toy piano. Goblin this ain't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nothing but the director's juvenile fantasy come to life. This 'movie' is nothing more than an excuse for the director\/actor to play kissy face with an attractive young woman who would otherwise never give him the time of day.

The plot is simple, the direction is nonexistent and the movie drags while the actor\/director\/writer\/narrator narrates. Don't be fooled by the 'X' rating, there is no nudity and minimal gore.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ouch!! What a mess we have here. Not so much of a mess as a painfully dull, half-assed excuse for exploitation. Brought to you by the one and only, J. G. \"Pat\" Patterson, yeah, the same one from Moonshine Mountain. Doctor Gore, formerly known as The Body Shop, is, I guess, somewhat inspired by Frankenstein, and God knows what else. The Late Mr. Patterson also stars in this joke, as a heartbroken scientist\/plastic surgeon, who has recently lost his wife in a car accident, and is driven insane from grief, to the point that it becomes clear that the next step is to slaughter countless females, then maybe rob a few graves for body parts, in order to \"put together\" the perfect mate. It won't be easy, but thank goodness his pal Gregg the hunchback is available to lend a hand, and to offer moral support.

If proof was ever needed that some peoples goals are not meant to be accomplished, here it is, gang. This Patterson hayseed obviously never had any business directing anything, much less, following in the footsteps of good ol' H. G. as a master of gore. I've never seen a gore movie that just flat-out refuses to give the viewer a single reason to keep watching. Even the gore is boring. Almost remotely humorous at times, but impossible to tell whether it's intentional or not. I pick \"not\".

Shot in Charolotte, North Carolina (home of the California Axe Massacre), on, most likely, a 3-digit budget, by a guy, as untalented as he may have been, who probably had an appreciation for drive-in trash, so, maybe we should give good ol' J. G. a break, I mean, he tried (I assume) which is more that can be said for most, and this movie is better than any of the big-budget super-hero garbage the theaters put out these days, although, I realize that isn't saying much. Besides, Doctor Gore is quite the improvement over Patterson's previous failure, The Electic Chair, so it's slightly possible he would have improved his craft in time, had he not died, so maybe it's not all that terrible, especially compared to the other movie on the DVD, How To Make A Doll, so what the hell, check it out. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bought for \u00a31, Project Vampire is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Wooden acting,lame effects and a terrible storyline all add up to be a movie you have no reason to even want to see. PV is one of those movies that don't even have the good grace to be bad in an enjoyable way, instead this bile seems to try to make itself as offensively dull,stupid and crap as humanly possible.

A vampire has created a serum he sells to old people as a life-enhancer, and those who take it fall under his control. A former lab intern teams up with a nurse to try and stop him. Someone should have stopped the makers of this rubbish.

No one has any reason to see this movie, and I am actually appalled at the human race on the grounds that at time of writing 2 people have given this atrocity 10 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How poor is this movie? Well, I got it less than two months ago and can hardly remember what it was about...

I also paid a \u00a31 for this on DVD, the old story of 'put-a-new-cover-on-the-box-and-some-fool-will-buy-it' syndrome. All I really recall it that the cast ran around a lot, use of cars must have been too above the budget and that a vampire was involved. Then again, guess you could know that from the film's title.

Straight to video rubbish or straight to cheap-jack DVD as it is now. This stuff will be in the bargain bins at rental shops, supermarkets and charity shops until the death of the sun. Only cockroaches will rule the earth but this trash will still be around. God bless the dawn of the DVD age....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A friend of mine loves tacky horror films so I often get to see low budget stuff like this. This is, however the first time I have been compelled to write a review of one...

Put simply this is probably the worst film I have ever seen! Even worse then Boggy Creek II!

The entire budget for the film seems to have been spent on a brief scene in the middle when Dr. Klaus stands in this chamber thing & turns all vampire-ish.

The only good thing to say about it is that it was hilarious after a few beers (but for all the wrong reasons).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A really terrible movie, really low-budget, with terrible acting, a convoluted and inane plot, a modest reworking of the vampire tales mixed with modern science.

The result is a total mess, without meaning for most parts, with very limited and cheap effects. It is not even fun, like several of the low budget independent movies of this kind

A waste of time","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is seriously the worst movie I have ever seen, right from the start the movie goes straight down hill with its cheesy music score, poor acting, and total lack or real story or plot. Even for a B movie this is down right awful. After reading some of the good reviews i thought i'd keep an open mind and watch it. But all the bad reviews were so right. I totally can't understand how anyone could have enjoyed it. I'm a huge Sci-fi fan and this was way more than i could swallow. Definlty do yourself a favor a move on to a different movie. They are many other better movies that deal with this subject matter. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dreamland started out moderately interesting but never went anywhere except Tedium city. A low rent affair with no name actors and laughable effects, not recommended for any reason. The best thing that could be said is it looks like they really filmed it on location in the Nevada desert. That's it, I can't think of one thing good besides that about this stinker. The finale is supposed to be some kind of revelation but falls flat like the rest. Oh, I thought of one other good point about this cheese, it clocks in at just over an hour although it still wears out its welcome long before then. When the girl starts walking around in the desert at night it seems to last forever and just keeps getting worse from there. The attempts at horror aren't effective in the least. The story is an attempt at a twilight zone style feel but fails badly. Check out \"Retroactive\" for a good science fiction B-movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this because of the description and cover art and yet again was deceived.I am getting sick of all these new stupid straight to DVD horror movies.Once in a blue moon 1 will be OK. It started out with a confusing scene and then jumped 30 years and showed a couple one night during a thunderstorm which was OK because I like storms and it set a nice mood.Then it turned into a cool road trip where they ended up at a diner encountering bizarre people.The rest got weird and then got confusing.I did watch it til the end but was even more confused when it ended so badly.I had higher hopes for this movie but it was more like a science fiction then horror and something that should have been made for TV.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watch a TON of movies and enjoy the occasional B movie but this movie was awful. Aside from the \"homemade\" quality of the film it was very slow and seemed to make no point. I'm only commenting b\/c of another comment I saw here that said it was great! WOW! Maybe OK to watch on a rainy day when nothing else is available.

The characters were disjointed and didn't fit any discernible pattern of reality. The dialog between characters was forced and at times very confusing.

I guess if you were very into the whole area 51 and understood some of the nuances other comments reference, it may be good - but for me - the Average Joe - I don't get it!?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The lives of Megan(Jackie Kresler)and Dylan(Shane Elliott)change in the Nevada desert between Reno and Las Vegas. They stop to eat at a small greasy spoon where they reluctantly learn about the infamous Area 51 by the caf\u00e9 proprietor(Jonathan Breck). After getting back on the road in their forty year old Lincoln, the radio gets a little crazy broadcasting Hitler's speech at the 1836 Olympics and then later a 1958 news bulletin of Elvis Presley being drafted into the military. The car slowly breaks down and the two are in for the scare of their lives as mysterious unexplainable things happen in the lonely radiation-poisoned desert; remnants of nuclear testing. Megan meets a lost little girl(Channing Nichols)and a wounded WWII soldier. The nightmarish journey doesn't end there. Kresler is impressive to a degree and writer\/director James Lay makes good use of Patsy Cline tunes. All in all, moderately interesting Sci-Fi.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I never comment on a film, but I have to say that this was one of the worst films that I have ever seen. I feel it was made by a beginner film student and not to put down talented film students, but this was horrible! I did not buy the lead actress and felt I was in acting class with her while she was on film. Her decisions were very safe and I feel she was mimicking other actresses in films and not acting and making her own decisions. The direction was very confusing and the sound was louder than the actors themselves. The end may have made a little more sense if there was someone narrating the events and not a song. I love Patsy Cline but she her songs appear quite frequently in films. Maybe the song selection could have been a little more original. The song \"crazy\" was such a clich\u00e9. As I said before I never comment on films and have seen my share of good and bad, but this was the worst. Sorry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to say this is the worst movie that I have ever watched in my life, I cannot believe that I wasted $10 at blockbuster ; this movie should be burned and who ever thought of it has issues. Who ever actually spent money to make this movie was insane =D This movie has TERRIBLE actors and some of the scenes make absolutely no sense. Well, the whole movie doesn't make sense. Also the part where those \"men\" come into the diner ( department of national securities )that happened to be the worst part of the film. How dare they say Frank Sinatra's name in vain? Also, what is up with those glasses? When the guy and girl are in the car and she \"drinks\" water, you can totally tell that she isn't even drinking! Also, what is up with the freaky dinner guy. And everyone knows that you don't stab tires, you slash them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ed Wood, perhaps the worst film maker of all time left us gems that are SO bad, they delight, being unintentionally funny and therefore charming and innocent.

James Lay, and his financial backers (Mom and Dad, it seems from the credits) have created in 'Dreamland' a film just as poorly made as any Ed Wood film, but lacking any charm or innocence. Dreamland simply stinks, and about the only good thing about this 90 minute waste of time is the certain knowledge that James Lay and his fellow perps will never make another picture again.

I must mention some of the dramatic lengths some of the crew took to avoid being associated with this horrible picture. I'm sure the production controller, once seeing the completed film, demanded to have his or her name changed in the credits to 'Donna Snartlebutt' and the accounting done by 'Brutus'. One can imagine 'Brutus' with his roll of 5 dollar bills paying the crew at the end of a shooting day.

I wont mention the many technical problems with this pathetic little videotape, but I must mention a few commentaries that compare this slag to the work of David Lynch. You know you have turned out a real stinker when you have your mom log into IMDb and post such astonishing BS - no one , save violent mental patients, could -ever- mistake 'dreamland' with -anything- produced by Lynch. What a horrific slight against Mr. Lynch and his work.

Go back to film school, Mr Lay.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe James P. Lay knows what do to in the sound department if a director supervises him.

In 'Dreamland (2007)' however, he cannot accomplish anything as a writer or as a director.

There is absolutely nothing in this film, no story, no character building, no events, no atmosphere, no plot, no twists, no acting that deserves that name.

In any of those departments this movie is billions of light years behind any short film that has some actual thinking in it, even a one minute one.

It has nothing to do with any of David Lynch's works!

I actually think it could be used as mental torture or as negative propaganda material against the West.

Recommend it only to your worst enemies!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot BELIEVE anyone is giving this film a good rating. In addition to the terrible acting, thin (nonexistent?) plot line and slooooooooow pace, this would be the movie to watch if you were really TRYING to fall asleep. The writer's and director's brains must have been fried eggs to ever have concocted something as abominable as this. Based on the plot summary on the DVD case, the premise really sounded promising. But within the first ten minutes I knew it was a lost cause. If you want to see a REALLY creep take on the Area 51 idea, check out the remake of \"The Hills Have Eyes\". Dreamland will soon fade away as all pathetic films of its ilk do. NEXT!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has absolutely no redeeming features. It's not even worthy of being in the 'so bad it's good' category - it's simply bad. Badly acted, badly shot, badly written, badly directed, terrible sound recording and the whole thing is just incredibly amateur. Quite how this got a release is beyond me.

Oh, and could someone PLEASE tell the lead actress that if you're playing 'mad' that does not mean that you should constantly fiddle with your hair - in a film that was generally irritating, this was probably one of the most irritating things of all.

On the plus side, I think this is the only film ever to feature a Nazi carjacker ...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...I can't believe there are actually people here who recommend this movie... This is such a slow POS going absolutely nowhere. Oh yeah OK it goes somewhere, but you see that coming from miles away. Acting: Really really bad, maybe the bartender was kind of OK. Editing: BAD! I suppose the editor was told \"we need at least 90 minutes\", cause half of all the scenes could have gone in the bin. Music: don't get me started on that, the lousiest score I've ever heard. Who is that singing in the last scene for crying out loud?? Directing: oh my, IMNSHO David Lynch sucks, but someone trying to copy him sucks even harder. Skip this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was utterly horrible. Stupid premise, and horrible acting by all. Whoever wrote this trash should be hanged. Reminds me of a hack student film, BUT WORSE. Who ever produced this should give up now. I know opinions are subjective and all, and some may think this \"fantastic\" as some think \"Dune (1984)\" was fantastic, well get off your horse and watch some real films. OK, the acting was tolerable, and with better direction could have been far better, but it didn't so it suffers. I don't know how much more I can say about this waste of film, other than to totally trash it. Anyways it was horrible and I recommend to avoid it like the plague, if you come anywhere near \"dreamland\", rent the movie beside it instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know this film was shown on local TV when I was a kid, but I can't remember whether I watched it or not; seeing it now, considering how utterly forgettable it is, I still don't know \u0096 so I counted it as a first viewing! There have been several films featuring the title character, a creation of visionary French author Jules Verne; these include: 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA (1954; with James Mason in the role), MASTER OF THE WORLD (1961; Vincent Price), MYSTERIOUS ISLAND (1961; Herbert Lom), CAPTAIN NEMO AND THE UNDERWATER CITY (1969; Robert Ryan) and THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND OF CAPTAIN NEMO (1973; Omar Sharif).

This version stars Academy Award winner Jose' Ferrer. However, even if the premise itself isn't half-bad \u0096 awakened from suspended animation in his submarine, \"The Nautilus\", and finding himself in modern times, Nemo adopts all his ingenuity to aid the U.S. Navy in defeating megalomaniac scientist Burgess Meredith \u0096 it emerges as easily his most infantile adventure yet! For instance: five seconds into the film, Meredith's assistant \u0096 donning a steel mask \u0096 rants that \"The World Shall Be Ours!\"); equally hilarious are the zealous gesticulations of the similarly decked-out midget, whose task it is to fire The Professor's all-important \"Delta Beam\" - and how about those android-type minions aboard Meredith's vessel who never seem to do much of anything?!

Ferrer manages to maintain his dignity throughout, but Meredith is an embarrassment (in what is virtually a retread of his Penguin characterization from the 1960s BATMAN TV series and film) where the budget was so tight \u0096 mostly invested in bland production design and shoddy special effects, no doubt, and both evidently influenced by STAR WARS (1977) \u0096 that, apparently, they couldn't even afford him a decent costume (he looks positively idiotic wearing a tie in a sub)! The supporting cast includes Mel Ferrer (playing a saboteur in the vein of Joan Fontaine from another Irwin Allen production, VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA [1961], and who engages in a swashbuckling routine with his namesake inside the engine-room of \"The Nautilus\"), Lynda Day George (unsurprisingly, she's the only female character around) and Horst Buchholz (as the King Of Atlantis \u0096 for whatever reason, Nemo is obsessed with locating the famed Lost Continent).

By the way, having been reduced from a three-part mini-series for theatrical exhibition, the film obviously feels choppy \u0096 though one is still able to discern where one episode ended and another began.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to rate as one of the cheesiest of TV shows in a long time.

Jose Ferrer played the title character, Nemo. He did the part justice and certainly looked the part. But nowadays, it strikes me that the Nemo he was made up to be bore more than a passing resemblance to Captain Bird's Eye, from the TV commercials. Or maybe it's the other way around.

His nemesis, Professor Cunningham, was overacted brilliantly by Burgess Meredith. He never seemed to get over his \"Penguin\" days from Batman. Although he doesn't do his Penguin \"quack\" here, he is without parallel as the maniacal Professor. Only John Colicos, of Battlestar Galactica fame, chewed up the scenery better as a maniacal despot.

I never can recall what the grudge was between Nemo and Cunningham, but it must have been severe, since the Prof. never missed a chance to try and scupper Nemo, and vice-versa.

The effects were nothing special, though Prof. Cunningham's submarine was way better looking than Nemo's. It also had a crew of strange, fish-like amphibians that served Cunningham and did his every bidding.

However, the most memorable aspect of the whole show was Prof. Cunningham's secret weapon. The Delta Beam! He was forever saying \"Fire Delta Beam!\", whereupon, a fishy crewman would horribly overract the motion of firing the weapon by use of a full shoulder shrug. Truly priceless! They don't make them like this anymore, and perhaps just as well. But like other series of this era, for those who remember it, it will always have an affectionate, if cheddar-covered, place in our hearts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You'll feel like you've experienced a vacation in Hell after you have sat down and watched this horrible TV movie. This movie is an exercise in over-acting (very bad over-acting) to situations that made out to be more than what they are. I won't give away the plot, but once you realize why the people in this film are running from the native man in the film you will demand the two wasted hours of your life back. The only plus is seeing Marcia Brady running around in a bikini!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is easy to tell early in this movie exactly what will happen, and who will die. It is about 4 women and a man who on a vacation. This was made during the end of the ultra Nazi seventies, when blonde women were supposedly ultra American survivors and brunettes were all deserving of death.

This movie, like the others of that era, contrives to bring this about, and the viewer knows this. There is no mystery or suspense. The people squabble, but everything is so predictable for the prejudices of the time, it is laughable.

The five people happen upon two savage young characters, and go nuts. Everyone is nuts, so that the director-writer team can justify their Nazi propaganda.

For some reason, the guy is attracted to the blonde, who is really not much to look at, and ignores a super hot looking brunette that any heterosexual man would go nuts over. One must remember that in the seventies, movies were meant to appeal to women and not men.

Totally crap and totally depressing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Can there be a worst film? Even Ed Wood at his horrific worst couldn't come up with something this bad. Cheesy, stupid, long-winded, preposterous...and those are the good points. I saw this trash back in the early 80's when I was incredibly bored to begin with, and actually sat through the entire thing without blowing my brains out, although that probably would have been a more pleasant experience. I actually remembered it because it was so bad. It makes me sad in a way because some of the best directors got their start by making TV movies (ie Spielberg) and it was a wonderful way for them to get their initial material before the public, but crap like this just totally killed the entire process.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Meet Cosmo (Jason Priestley), a nerdy young bookie content with his boring life crunching numbers for the mob and living in a stark basement apartment at a senior citizens center. His only recreation is watching TV and the occasional tryst with his quirky prostitute pal, Honey (Janeane Garofalo). But one day all this changes, when the mob boss is killed and the well-regarded Cosmo is selected by the smooth and persuasive new chief, Gordon (Robert Loggia), to become a full-fledged hit man. It's an offer the reluctant Cosmo cannot-repeat, cannot-refuse, and he quickly trades in his mundane, solitary existence for a crash course in revenge under the tutelage of veteran mobster Steve (Peter Riegert), a relaxed, suburban bon vivant who relishes the job's maximum pay and minimum hours. In no time, Cosmo surprises both himself and mentor Steve by displaying an absolutely uncanny aptitude for the work. Though he's never touched a gun before, Cosmo proves to be both a crack marksman and, after an initial wave of moral hesitancy, a cool, detached killer. Soon, Cosmo is dispatching deadbeat clients with speed and style and his natural flair with a gun quickly establishes him as an invaluable addition to Gordon's mob.

Reality gets in the way though, when one night, while being massaged by Honey, Cosmo admits feeling a bit uptight and she recommends he try yoga to relax. Cosmo takes her advice and joins a nearby yoga class taught by a beautiful young woman named Jasmine (Kimberly Williams). Cosmo is instantly taken with the kind and gentle Jasmine, who soon becomes drawn to Cosmo. Now if she can just get rid of her pesky, abusive boyfriend, Randy (Josh Charles), maybe she and Cosmo can actually start something. Cosmo, using some of the \"skills\" of his new trade, eventually persuades Randy to disappear and his relationship with Jasmine takes off.

Writer\/director M. Wallace Wolodarksy, a two-time Emmy Award-winner for his work on \"The Tracy Ullman Show\" and \"The Simpsons\", has fashioned a script fusing his three genre loves: \"I like comedies, gangster movies and romances,\" explained Wolodarsky, \"so I essentially smashed together all three to create this film.\" But what he's come up with is a film so disjointed and improbable that it looks just like a very long sketch on Saturday Night Live. It's monotonous tone doesn't so much match it's droll sense of humor, as underline the fact that a lot of money was spent on a vehicle for Jason Priestly to blithely shatter his nice guy image, which doesn't even fully succeed because he plays his character not as a nerd, but as a laconic zombie. A nerd may be naive, but a nerd has passion. Passion for inwardly directed things. But Priestly plays his character as mentally deficient, almost the anti-Forrest Gump. Unfortunately, \"Coldblooded\" doesn't have the sense of scope to actually BE the anti-Forrest Gump.

Peter Riegert (Local Hero, Animal House) turns in a fine performance as usual, and Kimberly Williams does her best with what she has to work with, but Janeane Garofalo (HBO's Larry Sanders Show) is practically wasted in her role as Cosmo's friend. Probably not for long, though. Garofalo has all the enthusiasm and charm of an apple waiting to be picked and it's just a matter of time before she'll be given a meaty role, hopefully doing a tag team thing with Marisa Tomei.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A wonderful semi-humorous homage to Expressionistic black and white films of folks like FW Murnau, Fritz Lang, Carl Dreyer, Marcel Carn\u00e9 and others. Allen plays a character caught in a Kafkaesque nightmare, at first thinking he is part of a vigilante group trying to catch a killer and slowly realizing that he might be a suspect. The writing is a little forced (this is, after all, Woody Allen trying to be a coy Kafka), but the point is made, and no harm done. The cinematography is interesting, about 100 shades of gray, but make sure you watch in a very dark room with a good screen, or details will get swallowed in the fog. This is an amusing little movie with a few laughs that are actually snorts of \"uh-huh\". The acting is fine, considering the odd vehicle, and it's worth watching if you are big Woody Allen fan. Also of interest to those knowledgeable about Expressionistic films. I'd give this a 6.5 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Shadows and Fog\" is surely one of Woody Allen's weakest films, right up there with \"September\" and \"Hollywood Ending\" (though nothing Allen has done equals the awfulness of \"Anything Else\").

\"Shadows and Fog\" is Allen's homage to the German Expressionist style of film-making, all stark and stylized light and shadow and...you guessed it.....lots of fog. But you can tell Allen got caught up in the technique and the parody and forgot to make a movie that anyone would care about.

Luckily, he made \"Husbands and Wives\" the same year, so things weren't a total wash for him.

Grade: D","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It may be, although there are still two or three I've missed. This film constructs an interesting nocturnal cityscape, reminiscent of so many foggy scenes from Sherlock Holmes movies, and populates it with sinister, Kafka-esque characters. Into their midst, the movie drops Mia Farrow, who sounds like she's still playing Hannah, and Woody Allen, who seems to be reprising his nebbish role from Play It Again Sam. Are we supposed to laugh at his stammering and hand-wringing? I suppose I would, if the rest of the movie were clearly a comedy, but it's not. At least I don't think it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If good intentions made a film great, then this film might be one of the greatest films ever made. The film has great actors, a master director, a significant theme--at least a would-be significant theme, undertone of fifties existential world-weariness, aerial scenes that ought to have thrilled both senses and imagination, and characters about which one might deeply care. It is about patriotism and about patriotism in a healthy way.

Not quite ten years after the film, I knew Air Force officers who taught my R.O.T.C. classes at university. They were intellectuals. They thought deeply about their work. They has senses of humor. One had been a crew member on the first plane to drop a hydrogen bomb. I have wondered if any one of them died in Vietnam. I imagine that they flew missions there.

Regrettably, the film fails. The movie lacks visual interest, drama, expression of feeling, and celebration of the very patriotism that underlines the narrative. No actress has been worse used that June Allison in this movie. Her Susan Holland is a woman that one would flee, not embrace. Col. James Stewart (who as then a colonel) makes a good stab at this role as Lt. Col(and later Col.) Dutch Holland. But the most interesting thing he does in the role is bite into a sandwich. I'm not kidding. Stewart was good as biting in sandwiches as he did in The Spirit of Saint Louis.

One might think of Ted Williams, but I don't when I watch Mr. Steward in the role. I do think of William Holden as Lt. Harry Brubaker in The Bridges at Toko-Ri . The comparison is not good for Mr. Stewart, who seems wasted in this film.

Footage shot from a B-36 looks like outtakes from commercials for an airline. Though beautiful, the aerial shots are mundane. For the time, they might have impressed viewers. The crash in Greenland involves unexciting modeling You expect the outcome to be good.

The undertone--the subtext-- for the film voices the tedium that Air Force flight crews must have felt during their long missions and the banality that the Air Force used to make its business--well business like any other business. One imagines how a La Nouvelle Vague director might explore this theme and then one begins to think about how someone with imagination might have filmed this movie. Little moments are missed.When crews returned from long missions, the members of the crew got a shot of scotch and a massage before debriefing the mission. Showing that might have helped.

Banality was the image the Air Force wanted and Mr. Mann accommodated the brass. Maybe, in that sense, the film works, but not for me.

I mourn when I watch the movie, because I think all of us, director, actors, crew, viewers, and members of the armed services might have enjoyed giving and getting much more than we get here.

I don't think that this movie had to be Dr. Strangelove or 2001, both of which it presages, but it had potential never realized. Yet, I enjoy watching it. I think of the airmen on their long missions and the ground crews in isolated places. There is a certain sense of honor celebrated here and I celebrate that honor.

I certainly understand why people who praise this movie here and other places appreciate it. If there were no intentional fallacy, it would get a 10 from me.

.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film reeks of production line planning. It appears like the filmmakers looked at recent hit movies, and threw spaghetti on the screen - Jimmy Stewart! June Allyson! Anthony Mann! Baseball! War! Baby! Airplane! - ROLL 'EM! - The film does address the age of the Stewart\/Allyson performers; though, I'm certain we are still supposed to think they are much younger.

There are messages in \"Strategic Air Command\" I found curiously shocking and offensive, but I'll stick with one truly wretched element: The happily married couple is challenged when Mr. Stewart's character makes an important decision without consulting his wife. In the film's most dramatic scene, she calls him on it. It ends completely unresolved - Allyson is crying her heart out on their bed, and Stewart walks out on her. NO discussion; he simply says he is correct, and walks out on his devastated wife. For all he knows, she could slit her wrists.

Later, Allyson apologizes for questioning her husband's decision.

Unbelievable!

Stick with Stewart-Allyson in \"The Stratton Story\" (1949).

** Strategic Air Command (3\/25\/55) Anthony Mann ~ James Stewart, June Allyson, Frank Lovejoy","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An anonymous film which could have been directed by anyone at all.Where is Anthony Mann,the director of such classics as \"El Cid\" \" the naked spur\" or \"the man from Laramie\"?

There are marvelous shots of planes in the clouds,lovingly filmed.The story is very trite ,and almost completely devoid of dramatization.The couple lives an almost routine life and the user who complains about June Allyson's choice for the wife ,IMHO,totally misses the point.With her less-than-attractive look,her hoarse voice,she was the perfect housewife the screenplay needed.At the time,women were barefoot and pregnant:there 's not one single woman among the base staff,even in the desk jobs -.All they had to do was worrying about their hubbies ,who were fighting for democracy and against an Enemy whose name we never hear ,but in 1955,it was not hard to guess it.

One wonders why a young person who has never seen a Mann movie should choose this one among all the great movies he made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a low grade cold war propaganda film crossed with a soapie. It may have some long-term significance as a snapshot of 1950s US thinking, but there is little else to commend in the mawkish storyline, wooden acting and grating style. There are some interesting photos of long-gone aircraft, but that was not enough for even this aircraft enthusiast to leave it on the screen for the full length.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Firstly, let me make it clear that I love aircraft, and usually any film with them in is worth watching - and I've sat through some shocking ones. However, the same is not true of this film. James Stewart is an excellent actor, but he is wasted in this Strategic Air Command promotional film. The acting is mediocre, and the direction is weak. I had to stop watching this awful rubbish about half way through. This was despite some really good, maybe even the best, aerial photography. The trouble is, even for an aviation nut like me, making something out of the shocking aircraft featured (B-36 and B-47) just grates on the nerves too much. It's a shame that the film wasn't made when the B-52 appeared, then the superlatives used for the aircraft in this film would have been valid. Then I might have been able to sit through it. Perhaps I'm missing the point of the film, which may be the angst suffered by loved ones while their beloved are on active duties. In any case, it could have been done much better. Recommendation? Well worth missing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a load of crap. It's quite disturbing to see that anyone is able to say that this is one of the best films of the year. What can I say? Bad acting, bad action scenes which becomes really comical in the end. Pardon me if this was a comedy, then I didn't understand it. If it was I regret laughing of the tent scenes! Do yourself a favor - go to bed instead of watching this! Good night!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was told about this film from a friend who saw it late night during the week He told me it was so bad that I had to see it! So I went on an auction site and bought the film. This is probably the worst film I have EVER seen. It makes you laugh when it really shouldn't. Terrible acting and terrible storyline. Plus he looks nothing like Michael Jackson?!

I still recommend buying this film as its one of the funniest things you will ever see. Van Peebles is a joke in this film.

Robots cant bluff... PSYCHE!

I have to say though the special effects are actually amazing... PSYCHE! DVDs were probably even out when this film came out but if I had my way it would be a straight to VHS release yes people it is THAT bad!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Solo is an action movie about a Terminator-like android that is constructed and trained for the military. When a flaw is discovered, he is issued to be deprogrammed. Rather than face death, he chooses to flee into the jungles of Central America, where he takes refuge in a village. The military chases him into there, leading into a big action feast.

Mario Van Peebles does a decent performance the android. His movements and gestures look mechanical enough to get the job done. Actual scientific realism is abandoned in order to make a good action hero. And it works out; the action scenes aren't that spectacular, but they aren't all too bad either. The acting from the other characters is pretty bad, but I was not expecting anything too good. The special effects were decent as well.

Solo is decent as an action flick, but very forgettable. It lacks the substance that most movies possess. But if you just want to pass a couple hours without much thinking, this will get the job done.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The novel WEAPON which serves as the basis for this atrocious piece of garbage is one of the best techno-thrillers to come down the pike in a long time.The character of SOLO, who is NOT supposed to look like a human, is a wonderful creation and it was simply awful to see him reduced to just another Terminator-clone with Mario Van Peebles horrendously trying to \"act\" like a robot. There is NOTHING worthwhile about this film.

Why does Hollywood insist on snapping up the rights to excellent novels and then butchering them? There are so many things wrong with SOLO that listing them seems as unfair as inviting a man with no legs to a brisk game of Hopscotch. Avoid this awful film and seek out the 2 novels by ROBERT MASON that feature the awesome character of SOLO. The books are WEAPON and an excellent sequel SOLO.But don't pay any attention to this awful dreck of a film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Solo starts as a team of US soldiers go into Soth America to blow up a rebel airstrip, joining them is a robot named Solo (Mario Van Peebles) who can use any weapon ever made, is fifteen times stronger & ten times faster than any human being. Something goes wrong though & Solo refuses to kill innocent civilians which Colonel Frank Madden (William Sadler) isn't happy about, back at base & General Haynes (Barry Corbin) orders Solo to be shut down & reprogrammed. One of Solo's main directives is self preservation so decides to escape back into the South American jungles where Colonel Madden & his men are sent in to recapture it...

This Mexican American co-production was directed by Norberto Barba & one has to say Solo is awful. The script by David Corley was based on the novel 'Weapon' by Robert Mason & is one clich\u00e9 after another, robots were popular at the time Solo was made in Hollywood & at the box-office so Solo rip-offs the likes of Robocop (1987), Universal Soldier (1992) & the two Terminator flicks as well as having the same setting & basic story as Predator (1987). This is the usual rubbish about an emotionless robot who grows a sense of humanity while being around people, at first he doesn't know what a joke is or why one person would care for another but by the end he develops emotions & starts to befriend people, sounds like Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) to me. The character's are poor & Colonel Madden in particular is given absolutely no motivation for hating Solo at all & why he would kill other US soldiers & disobey orders to destroy it. You know I saw this on cable telly last night for free (thank god I didn't spend any money on it) & I looked it up in the TV guide & do you know what it said? My TV guide described Solo as a 'dire sci-fi action starring Mario Van Peebels' which when I think about it is a perfect description of Solo. In less than ten words my TV guide has hit the nail on the head, I mean it's a sci-fi action film, it certainly stars Mario Van Peebles & it's definitely dire. Enough said really.

Director Barba doesn't do anything particularly special here & the action scenes lack any real excitement & the sci-fi elements are virtually none existent apart from the fact Solo is a robot. So the military lose Solo & Colonel Madden is sent in to recapture it right? I'm not being funny but wouldn't the military have put a 'self destruct' mechanism inside Solo in case something like that happened? Surely at the very least Solo would have had a tracking device inside it so the military would at least know where it was at any given time? I'm not being funny but these people can come up with a walking talking robotic soldier but they are not clever enough to realise that a tracking or self destruct device might be useful if anything went wrong? The violence is mild, there are a few OK fight scenes but this is pretty weak stuff really.

Technically the film looks alright & is competently made, it was actually shot in Mexico. The makers of the Dolph Lundgren action flick Agent Red (2000) edited footage from Solo into that film. The acting is poor, Van Peebles was the perfect choice to play an emotionless robot... William Sadler deserves better than this, it was only a few years prior he was staring in the fantastic Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990).

Solo is a really bad sci-fi action flick which is basically a huge rip-off of big budget Hollywood sci-fi action films like Robocop, Universal Soldier & the Terminator films. Not recommend & I'm going to start & pay more attention to my TV guide when it comes to choosing films to watch...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had the dubious opportunity to view this movie on TV. It's the perfect example of how to take a terrible script and turn it into one of the worst films ever made. Not only is the acting bad and the effects terrible, the movie has more logical holes than ten pounds of imported swiss cheese.

I would highly recommend this film as an example of how NOT to make a movie and what director not to use in one of yours.

I turned off the TV during the last ten hideous minutes of the show. Calling it \"pathetic\" is a gross understatement.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When you see Barry Corbin in the cast of a movie, you can never be sure if it will be a classic or trash. Guess which category SOLO falls into. Apparently derived from a popular sci-fi novel, WEAPON, SOLO stars Mario Van Peebles as a human-looking robot who decides to think for himself and is thus targeted for elimination. He hides out in a Mexican village, obviously to save money on locations and extras. Paying in pesos is cheaper than paying in dollars, I suspect. William Sadler is along for the ride, as one of the robots and soldiers sent to destroy Van Peebles. Van Peebles manages to beat them all with ease, of course, while Corbin watches all this with bemusement from afar. The movie is a horrible ripoff of the THE TERMINATOR and CYBORG series, and apparently has little to do with its source material. It is horribly written and acted, and the big fight at the end if downright comical. Van Peebles, a decent actor elsewhere, is a scream as he pretends to be a robot covered in synthetic flesh. He looks like he is doing the Robot Dance most of the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Solo is a poor film - that cannot be ignored. The acting for the most part is very wooden (the only exception is Adrien Brody's performance as Solo's creator Bill) and the story is slight enough that you would probably forget it WHILST you where watching the film. That said, such films are more about the action than the plot\/acting and, as such, live or die by the action set pieces - that after all is the point of such films - to give 14 year-olds something to smile at whilst the adults watch films of actual substance. And even on this Solo fails to deliver - what little action there is is poorly done, dull and uninspired. After seeing the trailer for this on television I was hoping for something along the lines of Predator with a robot replacing the Predaot. Instead I got a fairly lifeless action film with a poorly constructed attempt at depth by taking on message that robots can feel too. Watch Terminator II or Predator instead.. both classics that this film desperately wants to be except it lacks the inspiration or, to be fair, the budget.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mario Van Peebles tries to go the Jean-Claude Van Damme route and play a renegade robotic soldier who goes AWOL to preserve himself, however the government isn't going to take this lying down, so among the simplistic plot Van Peebles protects villagers from the rebel forces and defeats a improved version of himself in this disappointing film. This blatant rip off of Universal Soldier (Which is far more fun then this) simply goes nowhere. The main problem is that the movie is so unbelievably inert. Van Peebles just waits around and there just isn't enough ass-kicking to justify a viewing. On the other hand the movie does sort of resemble a competent version of R.O.T.O.R although where as that abysmal bad movie was hilarious, this one only yields occasional laughter in its laughably unconvincing action sequences. Also like R.O.T.O.R it makes no sense in its narrative and basically the movie is awesomely boring. Plus the villains are disappointingly weak and basically the movie needs an actual action scenario to work, because the material is too dull. In all regards Solo is a very weak film.

*1\/2 out of 4-(Poor)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know I only watched 15 minutes of this film, so I can't really describe how great it is. I mean the concept alone is so original and intriguing it just did not let me go. Then there is the mass of academy award winning people involved here plus the academy award nominated director. YOU JUST CAN'T miss. I mean imagine it is the middle of the night and you're not sleepy yet. This film comes on. You watch it and are shocked. It is so brilliant, so original it is so GREAT. It will feel to you that half an hour later you've turned off the screen, but as you go to your bed you see it's only 15 minutes after midnight. ENJOY!!!

3 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't have much high hopes for this one. Before seeing it, the story yelled \"stereotype\" at me.

I mean... come on! It's so stupid the plot line about the innocent android that realizes that the people who created him are immoral, then decides to change everything.

I had to see it three times. The first two times I fell asleep because I was so incredibly bored by it. It's very rare that movies bore me so much I fall asleep during them. The third time I forced myself to watch it, simply to be able to warn people about it.

I got the distinct impression that the people responsible for this mess had tried to take all the cool\/neat things from other scifi\/action movies, and put them together to make a kick-ass movie! They took the android\/robot, lots of action, thin story, stereotype characters, and a big fight in the end and threw it together. Unfortunately, the movie sucks. The acting is so wooden you could build a house out of it, the storyline\/plot is absolutely laughable, the camerawork and editing is horrid, the direction is non-existent, and to top it all off, everything is so cliche and ridiculous that it just annoys the hell out of you.

I was left with the feeling that I could've spent the time watching this one doing something much more creative, like trimming my fingernails, or watching the grass grow.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am usually a big fan of Pacino (Scarface, Serpico, Devils advocate) but since Scent of a woman he pretty much plays the same role and shouts a lot. This movie had no endearing characters to warm to. Brandon played by Bongo McConnahey is the least likable of the bunch. He nowhere even approached a real human being. Pacino was hopelessly unlikeable and my goodness how old is Renee Russo? The only high light of this wretched mess was the hot hooker with the perfect lipstick and she has like 10 lines total. Even the usually reliable Jeremy Piven was utterly unlikeable.

Note to writers of movies, they do not usually work unless one of the main characters is at least a bit likable (noteable exception Scarface). As the movie closes and old Brandon is at the airport my only thought was, please let a plane crash into the airport and kill Brandon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went into this movie determined to like it. I usually enjoy dramas like Wall Street, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Boiler Room, etc...I went into this movie thinking I would be on the edge of my seat. Plus, I am a big Pacino fan.

What a piece of garbage. Quite possibly the worst movie I have seen in five years. This makes Pacino's debacle in Any Given Sunday actually look good. First, half the movie is watching Matthew McConaughey lift weights. OK, we get it. You are in shape Matt. We don't need to see every other scene with you pumping iron, shirtless.

Secondly, how many plot holes are in this movie? Why introduce the phone call from Brandon's long lost Dad and never address it again? What was the point of his Mom hanging up on him - why even have her call to say he is sending her too much money - what was the point of that? The guy from Puerto Rico who lost 30 million? Also, since sports betting is illegal in NY, and its acknowledged its illegal, how can they possibly guarantee everyone's bet at the end?

This was simply a very poorly written script. It had potential, but it was devoid of a coherent plot. I thought Pacino learned his lesson about script selection after Any Given Sunday, but apparently not. My Gosh, this is the same actor that starred in the Godfather!

Don't waste your money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very poor script and acting. I was very surprised that the director was able to convince his cast with his empty story that tells us nothing new. All is in the clich\u00e9 of the \"mentor\" and the \"talented immature pupil\". The characters aren't' even interesting nor sympathetic. Artistically it is as empty and insignificant. The colours are very impersonal and light. Only the poster may be appealing. Al Pacino tries very hard to give depth to his character with no success. Too bad because the sport betting can be a really interesting subject to which many could relate. But I can't have a complete comment on this movie any way as i got out from the theatre 20 minutes before ending. Everything was so predictable that it was a waist of time...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was utterly and unequivocally terrible. The plot was so predictable and boring and the script so corny and pretentious that by the end I wanted to stab my eyes with the nearest pen.

Normally I don't write reviews, but I was astonished by the number of positive reviews it got. While I admit that the acting was okay at some parts, the script's deficiencies more than outweighed the decent acting. The only reason I watched this was because a few of my friends were watching it, introducing it as most likely the worst movie ever made, judging by the trailer. We were not disappointed in the least. Its only saving grace is that it contained my new favorite pickup line:

BRANDON: I just want to get to know you.

GIRL: You just want to get into my pants.

BRANDON: I want to get into your mind, your heart, your soul. I don't see you wearing any pants in this equation.

Overall, I would rate this movie as the worst movie I ever saw that took itself seriously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For all the cast and crew who worked on this excuse for a movie, another payday in L.A. For any audience hoping for a fair return for the price of admission, a huge waste of time and money. The saddest aspect of this ugly exercise (to me) is that we are watching an extremely talented actor, Pacino, seemingly playing a parody of himself. That's what remained with me as a total mystery. I can fully understand the need for movie industry people to work and thus make a living. What I fail to comprehend is an artist of Al Pacino's talent prostituting and embarrassing himself with this level of mindless junk. Hopefully he'll choose projects of better value in the future...and for value, save your time and hard earned money. Skip this!! Let's send Hollywood and Al a message.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Al Pacino was once an actor capable of making a role work without resorting to constant use of profanity. In other words when he could act, he didn't have to talk like some street junkie. McConaughey must have been impressed by Pacino because he became a promoter of the \"F\" word also. This might be the kind of society that they actually live in, but most of us have the common decency to watch what we say in mixed company. I don't recall the exact words that a professor used in explaining the constant use of profanity, but it was something like this. \"It shows a lack of intelligence, poor language skills and disrespect for all those that have to listen.\" Maybe it is time that Al takes some acting courses again to sharpen his talent. Oh yes, the movie... Probably the worse thing that McConaughey has played in. Hopefully his next role will be in the company of more talented people. Rene Russo as always was hot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will leave it to my bettors, uhh, betters here to gape and gawk at this wonderful wonderawful movie, and just say that I thought it stunk. The great thing about this site is you always get a variety of views, and seek them out, by all means. No telling what you will come out of the film with. For me, the ones who saw through the simplicities and shenanigans of it have my money. There was one, dead on perfect when he pointed out the two grand moments of the thing, which belong to Pacino. The meeting and the airport. Other than that, well, what a waste of time. Utterly. Pacino is just doing the same thing over and over and over, he would have been better served by taking the performance down about five notches at about the level of his prot\u00e9g\u00e9. Everybody always says, but this movie could have been so much better. Sure they all could have been. But really most of them just should never have been made. Including this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another entry in the Pacino-As-Mentor sub-genre. You know the drill: young hotshot with hubristic flaw (in this case, Matthew McConaughey, trying to jump-start a flagging career by latching onto Pacino's coattails -- hey, it worked for Keanu and Colin, didn't it?) is discovered by glamorous and delightfully corrupt father figure (Pacino, natch). Young Hotshot learns from Father Figure all the ins-and-outs of a lucrative yet degrading career (this time, it's football handicapping). Father Figure plies Young Hotshot with money and hookers and power, but we all know that this decadent state of affairs is on a collision course with dissolution and despair . . . that is, until the Young Hotshot finds his moral center by rejecting the Father Figure and all, or almost all, that he stands for. (Clearly, Stone's *Wall Street* pretty much set the ground rules for the Pacino-As-Mentor sub-genre.)

We are also meant to take these latter-day Pacino films as a parallel to reality. Again, you know the drill: Living-Legend Actor demonstrates his unquestioned superiority as compared to an Inferior Young Actor. The latter may bear and grin through the process, but he must recognize that he isn't going to get any of the good lines, much less get a chance to chew major scenery before the denouement. Now it must be said that there are actually two good movies in the Pacino-As-Mentor canon: *Scent of a Woman* and *Donnie Brasco*. In the former case, it was a one-man show, anyway; in the latter case, Pacino had met his match as a scene-stealer in the person of Johnny Depp. However, those two movies were serious-minded, not merely an exercise in showboating for showboating's sake. Pacino has made damn certain that his younger co-stars in the films since *Brasco* are nowhere near as charismatic as Depp. By the way, none of this speaks very well about the Living-Legend Actor. Like his contemporary De Niro, Pacino has spent the last 10 or 15 years resting on his laurels. *Two for the Money* is the worst example yet, worse even than *Devil's Advocate*, which at least had the virtues of featuring a naked Connie Nielsen and being chronologically prior to this movie. Well, this is what happens when you're crowned King too damn early -- just ask Marlon Brando. Frankly, I've seen one too many Al Pacino films with the same plot -- and the same overacting from the star -- to be charitable any longer. Did I say \"none of this speaks well\"? Actually, it's humiliating for everyone involved, including the paying audience. No one's going to accuse Matthew McConaughey of being a Shakespearean actor, but even he doesn't deserve the role of second-fiddle to this intolerable old show-off, with the added implication that he, McConaughey, will never measure up to the Greatness That Is Al.

I've not wasted space on the plot particulars. If you want a synopsis, IMDb provides a no-nonsense summary, though I think I laid out a fairly comprehensive summary in my opening paragraph. Basically, you've seen this movie before. Many times. The particular milieu in *Two for the Money* is the seedy world (underworld, really) of sports handicapping. Pacino runs an office of \"bet advisers\" -- that is, middlemen between you and your bookie -- and even has a cable TV handicapping show, co-hosted with several of his top guys. One thing the movie got right was the sleaziness of these type of shows . . . but one detail they got dead wrong was the constant use of the words \"gamble\" and \"gambling\". If you've ever seen ProLine or other shows of similar ilk, you'll NEVER, NEVER hear Jim Feist and his cohorts say the word \"gamble\". They ask you to call their 1-900 number to get their picks . . . but if you were from, say, Mars, you'd have no idea what you were supposed to do with those picks. \"Gamble\" is the F-word on sports-handicapping TV shows -- strictly verboten.

Gambling is against the law, you know.

1 star out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just finished watching 2FTM. The trailers intrigued me so much I actually went to see it on opening weekend, something I never do. Needless to say I was very disappointed. The story has so much potential and it's frustrating to see it get screwed up. I really feel the problem with the movie was the directing and Matthew McConaughey. First off I am not a MM hater, I thought he was awesome in both Reign of Fire and Lone Star. I enjoyed his performance in those movies without having to see him with his shirt off 3-4 times. Yes we all get it that he a good-looking guy with a nice body, but I think most people knew this 10 years ago when he came on the scene in A Time to Kill. Showing him with his shirt off pumping iron like a sweaty madman 3-4 times in the movie is totally unnecessary. I think one time would have been sufficient. It wouldn't surprise me if they threw those unnecessary scenes in so girlfriends and wives would be willing to tag along with their significant other, no woman wants to see a movie about sports gambling, unless......Enough about that, let's get into his role. I feel his acting was very forced and he didn't seem very comfortable. I know his character was supposed to be this charming southerner, but his lines were corny and cheesy. It was almost like he was referencing Days and Confused lines a few times! In short, I didn't like his character even though I was supposed to. The accent, his shirt off, corny pick up lines, weak sales pitches. His character was just too much of a tool, as Brandon or Jonathan. Pacino and Assante were great, but that' no surprise. Piven is fun to watch as Arie....oooops I mean Jerry. I just feel this movie was very commercial and put together poorly. It's insulting that they could take a great story, and throw in crap ingredients to try and make it a box office success. 1. Cool story that appeals to the male man 2. Hunky Hollywood actor for female women (make sure he has numerous scenes with shirt off lifting weights) 3. Al Pacino with 4 great speech scenes, and 25 great one liners 3. Every character shall be dressed in thousand dollars suites and have an extremely dark tan 4. Jeremy Piven to play the same character he did in Entourage and Old School 4. Throw in Armand Assante to seal the deal 5. Plot, good writing, character development, and intelligent casting are unnecessary

This will be good enough for most people, but not me! Anybody who disagrees with me, ask your self this. Would this movie be much better if: A. Directed by Sodeberg B. DeCaprio or Ed Norton as Brandon instead of MM

I will probably be part of the minority in thinking this movie sucks. I realized this when the woman next to me started crying during the ridiculous ending scene of Pacino shedding a fake tear while embracing Russo. The financial success of this movie will ensure one thing. The movie going public gets what the movie going public wants, big budget crapola.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pacino, and Maconadump really hit the mark with this stinker. I swear, I am an avid movie goer and fan. I have been a fan of most of the people in this abortion at one time or another. Until now. The story-crap The acting- crap(Rene Ruso-Major League was good) The plot-crap The subplot-garbage The teenage attempts to relate to sports betting-junk

I have vowed to watch Romy and Michelle's High School reunion 2 times a day for the next seven days as my punishment for not turning this colostomy bag of a movie off after 10 minutes. I was out of town for a seminar, and this pile of mung cost me $9.99, and 2 hours. I have been cheated. This director should be in jail for fraud.

Get with me if you have other review questions. I am always right.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far probably the worst film Al Pacino could have starred in. The movie had no real plot. It kind of careens into 24 different directions. It seems that the target audience for this film are people from gambler's anonymous.Mat Mcconaughey's character is not believable enough to be Pacino's prot\u00e9g\u00e9'. So he won a few bets for some degenerate clients as a sideline to a shitty job recording on a 900 service. Does that automatically supposed to convince an audience of his skills? It was just plain stupid to think of. The trailer did promise to show us how he makes his sure-shot picks but after going through the whole film I have yet to see what skill if any he ever had. If you want skill try looking at Robert de Niro's character in Casino now that is showmanship. At some point in the film, Mat's character picks his winning bets at a flip of a coin. Anybody could do that. Al Pacino seems to talk a lot and I mean blabber mouth in your face dialog. I think that style started with Scent of a Woman and worked for him because he finally won an Oscar but now I think its just irritating. He seems to be always sermonizing. He does do a mean act of portraying a man having unstable angina (that's an impending heart attack) its typically reminiscent of his acting in Godather part 3 which he plays the aging,diabetic mafia don corleone but other than that Pacino's talent is wasted on this film. Rene Russo is just plain eye candy for this film. She's kept in shape and shows it off in the tight clothes she wears throughout. This film is plain crap. Do not waste your money on it. It is much worse than the gambling picks of Mats character in the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Please do not go see this. I did have several laughs throughout this movie, but they were all due to unintentional comedy.

There were only three characters in this movie, so it was amazing how bad the character development was. Pacino played Pacino again and was aggravating most of the time. The scenes in this movie seem like they were put together from 20 other bad movies by a really poor editor. There is no continuity and I found myself wondering why I didn't leave 15 minutes into this.

I would suggest never seeing a movie directed by D.J. Caruso. This really was awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well to do American divorc\u00e9e with more money than brains buys a rundown villa in Tuscany. (Much more money; whilst having to dicker over the price, she subsequently manages to cook sumptuous buffets for her workmen and wander around Italy indefinitely with no job or apparent means of support.) Interminable boredom and the inevitable Italian lover ensue; this is a chick flick in the most pejorative sense of the term. Lane acts like an unskilled clueless teenage ing\u00e9nue throughout - which dynamically clashes with her seriously fading looks - along the way smashing into a variety of (mostly Italian) cardboard stereotypes, dykes, divas, senile contessas and gigolos among them. Bloated with unnecessary scenes, the most ridiculous being a clumsily inserted and pointless recreation of the fountain scene in 'La Dolce Vita'. (A similar conceit was used in an effective and appropriate narrative context in 'Only You', Norman Jewison's vastly superior ode to Italy and romance). 'Tuscan Sun' may be the most vacant piece of cinema of the last decade, despite its admittedly well-lensed panoramas of Italy. Bonus negative point for the extraneous lover parachuted in at the last minute to provide requisite Hollywood ending for its targeted audience of Oprah-brainwashed housewives. Avoid at all costs, unless, of course, you view Oprah and Dr. Phil as pinnacles of intelligent discourse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes i really found this film distasteful.

I didn't like the Sandra Oh character, she really annoyed me. It is unlikely she would be accepted into rural Italian life due to the fact she is non-white. this was a bit of PC nonsense.

the film is also offensive to Italian men. For instance, the one man she (Diane Lane) has an affair is turns out to be a caddish cheat. But guess what: at the end your typically plasticky American brick-head turns up, all cheesy white smile and tan, and she finally finds what she wants all along: a real American man, and now she has colonized another part of the world.

In fact, this film is quite racist in its depiction of Italians and the way it subjugates them as either smarmy lotharios or backward peasants.

the photography was good but the film and its attitude were trash.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ridiculous, nauseating doggerel with terrible acting; ineptly, superficially, and condescendingly trawling all the most banal clich\u00e9s about Tuscany and Italy, divorce and midlife. The main actor nervously grimaces her way through the film, struggling to portray the appropriate level of smug, self-congratulatory self-pity the worthless character and script call for. I'm sure the book was bad, but it can't have been this bad! The camera is permanently fitted with a vomit-yellow \"Tuscan\" lense filter (perhaps the Tuscan sun wasn't Tuscan enough?), which they forgot to remove when the scene shifts to Rome and (how imaginative!) the Amalfi coast. You've never seen the white marble of Rome's Vittorio Emmanuelle monument looking so yellow... I mean Tuscan. One of the worst movies ever, and therefore quite worth a look.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Diane Lane is beautiful and sexy, and Tuscany is gorgeous but this film is no better than mediocre and that's being generous. The story line is grafted onto a travelogue and remains thoroughly uninvolving.

Set in (let's say) a suburb of Newark, the plot would be deemed ridiculous. All that saves the movie are the Tuscan countryside and occasional scenes set in Florence and Positano, and a film of the while-the-sun-sinks-slowly-in-the-west variety would have served better to show what it certainly one of the loveliest locales in all the world.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie had no excitement and does not have anything to hold your interest. The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! How can a movie be romantic if the girl never gets a the right guy until the last seen in the movie, than the movie ends??? Maybe part II will be romantic, but somebody else will have to risk wasting their money! I have nothing else to say other than do not waste your time!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was supposedly based on a non-fiction book. I'm not sure what book the script writer(s) read to write their adaptation but it has absolutely nothing to do with the true life adventures of Frances Mayes in Italy. Instead, it is an uninteresting tale that takes liberties at every juncture to bash men. Note the following examples:

********************************************************************

SPOILER DETAILS

********************************************************************

Bash Number One : Lane's husband cheats on her and her marriage ends in a divorce.

Bash Number Two : Lane ventures into a local Italian town and is promptly solicited by every male on the street.

Bash Number Three : Lane is saved from the horny town folk men by a charming gentlemen. She falls for him after consummating an afternoon of love making. She later finds out that he's already attached and cheating with her.

Bash Number Four : You have to broaden your horizon for this one because the reference is definitely is in the movie. Her lesbian couple friends decide to have a baby by invetro (SP?) fertilization. I am told that in most lesbian relationships, you have one person assuming the female role and another assuming the male role. In the movie, after the female has been made pregnant, the \"male\" lesbian decides to run out on the relationship because she can not handle it.

In conclusion, this movie has nothing to do with the book that it was supposedly based on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was thoroughly unwholesome, unsettling and unsatisfying. Apart from a few nice shots of Italy, there's nothing to recommend this movie. As usual, Hollywood draws the wrong conclusion from a fractured existence--the _next_ guy you meet, whom you sleep with after knowing for a few hours, _he_ must be Mr. Right. As for humor, there is some in the movie, but I can't see how anyone could possibly label this a romantic _comedy_ since about three-quarters of the movie is totally depressing! My recommendation? Skip it in the theaters, wait till it comes out on DVD, then skip it there also. I want someone to give me back the two hours I wasted watching this dreck, drivel, dross.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is just another one of those \"American finds romance with charming foreigner in exotic European locale.\" This genre has been cinematically bankrupt since the 1950s, yet they continue to churn them out. I let my girlfriend talk me into seeing this - bad idea, we both hated it. If all you want to see is Tuscany, try watching \"Stealing Beauty\" with Liv Tyler - a marginally better movie.

This types of genre movies are very Hallmark Greeting Card-ish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you're a North American 'TOURIST' looking for a 'TRAP' here it is. Was this \"Trading Spaces visits TUSCANY?\" There were way too many stereotypes. Little attention was given to character and plot development. YAWN. Highlight of the film: the flag throwing. Poor guy! I thought he was going to loose an eye!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you feel like wasting 86 minutes on a film that makes no sense, is badly written ,with a bad plot and bad acting then this little gem is for you. Recommended for those who are about to fall asleep. Major annoyance will be felt by the awake viewer. Do not pay to see this movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Got to confess right up front that I didn't watch this entire movie. I missed the first hour during a Sci Fi Channel broadcast. Or was I spared the first hour? The other reviewers sum this one up nicely. It was badly conceived. Badly scripted. Badly acted.

But the worst thing for me was the ADR. The entire film, which appeared to have been dubbed, sounded like it was done in somebody's garage. There was a voluminous echo to the words, which just served to make the bad dialog hang. And hang. And hang. Even a made for TV movie should have recognized this.

And the idea that alternate dimensions are differentiated by color saturation went out in the 80s, folks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Bermuda Triangle ,we are told in this waste of celluloid, is the portal to another time and dimension and can be crossed using cheap special effects by bad actors spouting inane dialogue

I simply was unable to decide who the makers of this excresence thought would be its target audience as it seems impossible anybody could derive even a modicum of pleasure from the outcome Avoid-its not even bad enough to be good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst movie that I have ever seen. At first i thought that it was going to be good because I'm interested in the bermuda triangle, but instead it was terrible. All it did was offer a bunch of lame explinations that didn't make sense (if time moves differently there how come the woman didn't age, and her son aged rapidly), and have a horrible sappy ending. Next time the guys who made this go to Bermuda they should take all copies of this movie with them. Please everyone vote for this movie so it can get on the worst movie list.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On the positive, I'll say it's pretty enough to be watchable. On the negative, it's insipid enough to cause regret for another 2 hours of life wasted in front of the screen. Long, whiny and pointless. And I'm not saying this to be mean, I really wanted to like this film, it seemed to have everything going for it, had the so called \"buzz\", and was a hassle to track down besides. Had a little more effort gone into it on the story side, I believe this would've been amazing. And I expect the team behind it will produce wonderful work in the future, they clearly have the ability. But I recommend waiting for their future efforts, let this one go.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With NBC's \"Thank God You're Here\", the network may be trying to replicate the successes of ABC's improv sitcom, \"Who's Line Is It Anyway?\" in which host Drew Carey would judge the performances of a handful of cast regulars asked to improvise scenes of some kind. In the NBC show, Dave Foley and co-host Dave Alan Grier oversee a handful of notable comedians who must improvise their way through various scenes which all begin with \"Thank God You're Here.\" It takes itself far too seriously (why must viewers be repeatedly reminded that the actors have never seen the sets before), both co-hosts seem less then enthused. After watching the continuously sub-par, unfunny attempts by the actors to solicit some laughs, I am left wondering whether the live audience is genuinely laughing at what transpires, or whether they, too, are improvising. Expect this time slot filler to be a very short-lived one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show is terrible. I cannot get over the complete waste of great talent this show contains. This is not entertaining improvisational acting, it's just a cheap attempt to throw someone famous comedic actors onto a stage and have them perform a poorly improved scene. I have actually done improv work as an actor, and this show is not improv.

What the audience is actually laughing at (if they're actually laughing at this show at all, it looks quite fake) is the embarrassment of the guest star being lost like a deer in headlights. The dumb, completely unrelated things they come up with are what people laugh at. And if it's not part of the scene, the actors will tell them that it's wrong! I find this show is disgrace to the art, and makes me cry for shows like Whose Line is it Anyway, which had great talent, great improv games, and on top of everything else, didn't make me want to change the channel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THANK GOD YOU'RE HERE is painful, positively painful. The title is apt, in a sense, if aimed at the large studio audience paid to laugh like they were watching the second coming of the Marx Brothers. And trust me, they are paid.

As creatively barren as the entertainment industry has become, I refuse to believe that NBC brass really have faith in this turkey. Rather, I think THANK GOD YOU'RE HERE is what all of you get who didn't watch, or didn't appreciate STUDIO 60, which previously graced the peacock network's Monday night lineup. You want to turn your nose up at caviar, fine. Here's some lovely Alpo direct from Menu Foods for you to slop around in.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Talk about creepy. If you really want to sit down and watch this episode where the girl who was in Firefly later on gets kidnapped there's entertainment for you, but only if you like this sort of thing. I don't so I thought, to be frank, this episode was appalling. Thankfully it's one of a few duff episodes in Season 3, and the only Charles Grant Craig episode, so you don't get much of this sort of thing in Season 3. So, overall verdict? Just read the summary at the top. This is a strong contender (Hell Money says hi!) for worst episode of Season 3. To be honest though, I hadn't really expected much. I wish I could Oubliette this episode altogether. That's one thing they got right: the title.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When Jan Svankmajer lets his imagination run wild, get ready. You're in for dark, harrowing films like \"Alice\" and \"Little Otik,\" or short gems such as \"Down to the Cellar\" and \"Jabberwocky.\" All of those are excellent films that represent disturbing, surrealistic film-making at its best.

On the other hand, when Svankmajer attempts to make a political statement of any kind, you're advised to leave the room in a hurry. Svankmajer's films in this vein tend to be both adolescent and preachy, presenting straw-man caricatures in repetitious fashion to express his pseudo-brilliant insights.

\"Lunacy,\" unfortunately, is very much this latter type of movie. Cartoonish ideas and characters are stretched paper-thin for an appalling two hours. There are a few moments that briefly hold interest, but these few oases are separated by vast deserts of boredom.

If you found Svankmajer's dreadful, monotonous short film \"Et Cetera\" brilliant and hilarious, you'll probably love \"Lunacy.\" If you've never seen a Svankmajer film before, please start elsewhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It starts quite good, but after a while you start to expect more from this film than you are actually getting. Everything becomes unclear and unclear it stays. Czech filmmakers were good 20 or more years ago. But after they transfered to Capitalistic country, here it is, Czech unofficial but well known mentality ... COPYING ... COPYING ... COPYING of everything they consider good, when they see it in another movies or countries or elsewhere. I think that this is a good example of making \"art\" and \"politics\" and \"horror\" and \"humor\" and \"film\" and money. And it remains me of the \/One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest\/, which can not be compared to this film in the way of ART and ACTORS and STORY and POLITICS. I think this film is boring. It could be done better. At least, they tried. Sorry guys. :-( CANOT NOT Recommend","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although allegedly autobiographical, this movie demonstrates very little insight both into the protagonist's psychology (resulting in a flat, fragmented characterization) as well as into larger-scale historical processes, and my hope of either learning something new or improving my understanding of contemporary Iran remained unfulfilled. Instead, I found my sensibilities somewhat dulled as a succession of bearded Islamic villains replaced each other taunting, torturing or killing the wantonly victimized prototypical middle-class Iranian whose Western cultural sympathies were patent (and whose exoneration the movie quite blatantly seeks.) The deeper understanding the movie does seem to demonstrate is that of the mass-media market, as it serves to nourish prevalent occidental folk-ideologies (i.e. a \"crowd pleaser\").

What redeemed the movie from being outright boring was its creative animation - genuinely minimalistic imagery which, nevertheless, always kept the screen rich, expressive and unambiguous - no small fete for which I do give it some stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only good thing about Persepolis is the shadows created in the German Expressionism-style of animation and a hint of history. This movie bored me. It was about a woman dissatisfied with her culture who tries everything else and then goes back to her roots. Here she finds great discontentment once again and finally leaves for final to let everyone else in her country figure out the situation and what they will do now that she is not there to support them. It comes to no conclusion and leaves us with a feeling that this woman has no loyalties. Mind you, she is torn between cultures and doesn't have enough of a background it seems to figure what is important and real. She is listening to ever-so-many voices and will most likely end up a world citizen of some kind than one with any ties to her native culture of Iran. The only thing I received from this movie was angst.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i will be honest and say i gave up on watching it somewhere mid-way and then fast forward with a few breaks. then i came back here and read many of the reviews already made....

maybe is just me, and i can not help it, but this cartoon to north American society seems to have a purpose of \"lets save them from themselves\" and iraq comes to mind right away. it seems to me that this is a justification, or part of, for another invasion with \"good intentions\".

the lady to me seems a self indulged person and i frankly got annoyed at her portrait of trying to raise pity and \"feel\" for her. well in this case this could never happen because, just like a history teacher has already mentioned here, i NEED to know how come her family was so wealthy above average, manage to keep that ( were they playing both sides maybe?)and send her to Paris!? now, if this would have been made after a poor girl's biography i could see myself having certain emotions. but as it stands + its release timing this is just pure propaganda movie; even worse, since its cartoon, it overplays the \"soft\" side of tings too well for its own good , in order to possibly be taken serious.

besides there are those clich\u00e9s regarding gays. well, a woman that fights toward winning her rights should not have at least some compassion for the underdogs of society just like her??? the message is obviously self indulgent from the view of a ruling class member.

i only give it 2 stars because its production and related stuff. a propaganda movie obviously has interests in convincing-manipulating my thoughts and therefore generally is well done appealing to certain visual emotions that i can not deny i might have as well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"25 August 2003 League of Extraordinary Gentlemen:

Sean Connery is one of the all time greats and I have been a fan of his since the 1950's. I went to this movie because Sean Connery was the main actor. I had not read reviews or had any prior knowledge of the movie. The movie surprised me quite a bit. The scenery and sights were spectacular, but the plot was unreal to the point of being ridiculous. In my mind this was not one of his better movies it could be the worst. Why he chose to be in this movie is a mystery. For me, going to this movie was a waste of my time. I will continue to go to his movies and add his movies to my video collection. But I can't see wasting money to put this movie in my collection","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the only movie that I can think of where after it ended, I was seething with anger at the waste of money and time on the part of myself and everyone involved in making it. No wonder Alan Moore refused to have anything to do with V for Vendetta (a phenomenal film) after this debacle.

It's not bad in an entertaining way, like Showgirls. It's bad in a way that makes you want to claw your eyes out. Plot holes the size of planets. The worst script in memory. Horrible acting by decent actors. Visuals that should be great, but somehow flop.

It could have been so good...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"De Dominee\" is based on the life of a real dutch gangster,Klaas Bruinsma! In the movie he is called Klaas Donkers! I have my doubts that events presented in the movie have something to do with what really happened! But that doesn't really matter! Because it failed to grab my attention! This movie bored the crap out of me! It lacks substance and style! The substance part could have been forgiven if the acting was any good and if the director tried to do something original! Without the substance you at least have to bring some style or decent action! Don't we need to be entertained? It would have helped if the director had seen more gangster movies! It is obvious that he didn't! Otherwise he wouldn't have made this the way he did! This movie got a lot of publicity because of a little scandal surrounding Klaas Bruinsma and a member of the Dutch Royal family! This scandal has nothing to do with the movie what so ever! Without it \"De Dominee\" never would have been successful! I am sure of it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To begin with, I have to admit I've never been a big fan of the Dutch movie-genre. Unfortunately watching De Dominee hasn't made me change my mind. It shares some common flaws, like having a plot that's too predictable and linear for my taste.

Worse however is that the cast has their dialogues as if they were stage-actors in a play. Unfortunately this is common too in many Dutch movies and, at least to me, makes it impossible to feel any kind of involvement with the main characters.

The actor that plays Adri (I'm sorry, I forgot his name at the moment) is at least delivering a decent performance, and is one of the reasons I don't rate this movie even worse.Another reason is the fact that at least it seems to have had some budget, and the production seems professional.

Ironically the fact that the acting is often too articulated might not be so much of a problem if you don't speak Dutch,although I already warned you that the plot isn't spectacular either, but at least it might make it an acceptable movie to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After some quite OK Dutch action flicks, like Lek and Van God Los, Gerrard Verhage wants to make a movie about the life of a Dutch mobster. Well, mobster is a big word for Klaas Bruinsma. He isn't a real international big guy like George Jung (Blow) or Pablo Escobar. He is just an Amsterdam lowlife who made some money by selling soft-drugs. Things are often blown up in the Netherlands, and this movie is just an other example. But even then, the movie could be very nice if the story was okay told. Now there are major jumps in time: one day KLaas is just an ordinary drug-boy, the next shot he seems to be a big player in the drug-scene. Nobody knows how's that possible (except for those who read the book). The acting is really bad, the non-Dutch movie-watchers get to see one of the worst actresses in the Netherlands: Chantal Janzen. When you think she finally gets naked, then you are watching a stand in model. So: bad acting + bad montage + crap story = De Dominee.

Please don't watch it, even if other people say it's good, because it isn't. I've warned you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The brands in this film, like Suit Supply, take away from the story, cause it's supposed to be set in the eighties. It's not a very thrilling film. Also, the single from Intwine on the soundtrack is very bad, it has a chorus that is repeated numerous times', like \"I'm a cruel man, I take it all away, I'm a cruel man I'm here to stay..\" Jeeez couldn't those asswipes have come up with something better than that? I guess they wrote it in a couple of minutes..

It's really annoying, just like the product placement in this filmproduct,that cashes in on the controversy and publicity around a criminal who should not be a celebrity like he is now made out to be, but should be forgotten like rats ought to be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eliza Dushku is a very talented and beautiful actress. She manages to be the rock-steady centre of \"Tru Calling\" but that's not enough to rescue her TV series from mediocrity. It's a real shame that a woman as attractive and talented as Dushku should go from a meaty supporting role in \"Buffy the Vampire Slayer\" to this clunker.

Unoriginal and desperately trying to be hip, \"Tru Calling\" fails to excite on any level above hormonal. The eponymous heroine spends a lot of her time running hither and yon across what must be a very small city, in order to avert the deaths of good-looking corpses-to-be that she's already met in the mortuary where she works. Despite all the running she does, she always arrives looking like she's just stepped out of a portable air-conditioned dressing room.

In every episode, Eliza Dushku and the rest of the cast struggle to breath life into the bland, characterless screenplays but it's a pointless exercise. \"Tru Calling\" just lies on the slab, gazing lifelessly at the ceiling.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tru Calling was good but it could have been great. The concept was intriguing and allowed for seriously strange and frightening story lines that might have been explored in future. Unfortunately the writing and an actor let the show down.

The writing wasn't too bad but there were holes. In episode 13, \"Drop Dead Gorgeous\", an incredibly toxic poison was supposedly used to kill the victim. This was so toxic and killed so quickly the victim had no time to run or even scream for help. Yet there was no plausible explanation for how the killer obtained such a powerful poison.

In episode 15, \"The Getaway\", the off-duty policeman responded unrealistically. In the second diner scene he (meekly) tells the robber to drop the gun and when she doesn't follow the order, and in fact turns the gun in his direction, he allows it to turn into a standoff and then escalate into a hostage situation \u0096 the very situation he'd been warned about. His response should (would) have been to shoot the robber when she failed to follow his order and upon her turning the gun on him. There are other faults in the stories but I'll leave it with these two examples. In spite of the writing faults I did like the show.

The other problem I had was that I just could not accept Eliza Dushku in this roll. In my opinion she is too inexperienced and lightweight to carry this part. She never walked anywhere, she marched; and far too often she came to an abrupt stop on her mark.

She also lacked any really emotional facial expression or intonation. She either has a pensive look or a cute smile; rarely are other emotions apparent. When she tries to appear dramatic she begins her line looking away and 'then' turns her eyes to her fellow actor. Or alternatively she begins her line looking at her opposite and then looks away. Both are annoying when done as a replacement for true emotion. An example of her lack of intonation is in episode 20, \"Two Weddings and a Funeral\", during her second wedding speech is devoid of emotion (eg. hearts in our hearts).

I liked all of the other actors in their respective parts and they were all believable. With improved writing and a lead change Tru Calling might have made it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only thing it has to offer is the interesting opposites of Tru and Jack, their choices and viewpoints, and the philosophical questions that it raises. Tru feels that she is helping people who aren't supposed to die, and Jack feels that they are supposed to die, and she is messing with fate's plan, or the universe's plan, or such-whatnot.

But she is obviously able to change things, so there is obviously no such thing as fate in the series' metaphysics. Jack has no basis for believing that there is. And very conveniently, Tru never asks him the right questions. Nobody does. Which obviously proves that the makers of the series don't have an answer.

There simply is no plot!

Instead, they leave it murky in order for the series to be able to continue with it's boring girl stuff, only occasionally interrupted by Tru and Jack's racing against each other towards ends that are unknown...

It turns out that there is nothing to any of it. A teenage pop series with that pretends to be something else.

Your time will be better spent sleeping.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually don't write reviews for shows unless I've seen them in full. However, there were so many positive views of this show on here I felt it was necessary to balance it out with a bit of realism.

This show is hysterically bad. I don't think it was meant to be, but it is. I see that there's lots of praise being showered upon the show, and I honestly can't understand why--- this show is so poorly acted, the dialogue is so awful, and the plots are thin around their holes.

I think that this show is interesting in that it is a definite litmus test of your standards. Some elements of the show work, and perhaps those elements are just more important to some people than those that don't work, which make the show nearly unwatchable to people like me.

If you enjoy making fun of a show as you watch it, anticipating clich\u00e9d lines and such, this can be an enjoyable show to ridicule, if you have that sort of time on your hands.

The pilot is a pretty fair example of the whole show. If the nonsense saccharin clich\u00e9 ending doesn't leave you in a dumb shock, then this may be a show for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Or anyone else have noticed the fact that first bunch of episodes are inspired too much by 90's flicks?

I mean seriously wife who is trying get someone else to murder his rich husband so she can claim his assets. Med students who are temporarily stopping their hearts to reach memories that are lost; Flatliners. Bunch of college bodies getting together again to reminisce on the old days but are not fully comfortable because they did something in the past, Very Bad Things? Groundhog day is one of my all time favorite movies. Sadly enough the writing staff behind his turd is bunch of lazy bastards who can not come up with their original scripts.

Noble idea totally fubarred in it's execution.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I awarded this presentation 4 stars. They are all for the script, which has been butchered beyond recognition in places. What can possibly be said? They took one of the finest plays written in the last century and methodically robbed it of its heart, humor and humanity. I don't really blame the actors, who are probably doing their best with shoddy direction and incomplete characters (because the very complete characters of the stage version have had their insides -- and insights -- ripped out). I do very much blame the director, who seems to strain to find ways to undermine the script. There are so many awkward pauses, awkwardly re-staged moments and awkwardly re-imagined line readings in this TV movie that at times, I forgot ever loving the play. I'm not one of these people who thinks that genius plays are automatically inferior on film (quite the contrary), but this particular genius play has been tremendously under-served by this outing. Now I hope they'll make a *real* film of this play. The world deserves it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the start this film drags and drags. Clumsy overdubs explaining the history, monochrome acting, boring sets, total lack of any humanity, verve or style. The actors look as if they are drugged. Potentially an interesting story completely wasted. Surely somebody realised how bad it was at some point in producing it?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I simply cannot understand how any Who fan, or just plain anyone could find this awful, lazy, poorly written abomination even remotely funny. It is so embarrassingly below par that it qualifies as a genuine tragedy. The potential for this was huge, it could have been great. What a shame that all that acting talent, the sets, the props, the goodwill of everyone involved was so pathetically wasted by a script that should have been burned.

There is an obvious lack of any rigorous production and quality control here. Like those hammy Hollywood movies (mad mad mad world, casino royale) where the stars are just mugging for each other and 'having a great time' which basically means picking up a cheque for doing nothing.

I could have written a better Who send-up in my sleep. In fact I have, while awake though. I did it in Year 10 in high school and performed it with a bunch of classmates. It was better, I look at it now and the gags are funnier. Steven Moffat YOU ARE A NO TALENT BUM! What a waste, what a wasted opportunity. Makes me want to cry....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tonight's film course film was The Legend of the Suram Fortress and during its 87 minute running time it managed to quickly jump into my top five most difficult films of all time. That's difficult to watch; films so different to everything else that you're seeing something totally alien. A brief synopsis would be: a group of Georgians are trying to build a fortress to defend themselves from invaders, but every time they are about to put on the finishing touches, for no readily apparent reasons it collapses. So they go and see a fortune teller who advises them that if they want to get the fortress to stay standing, they need to find a youth, a tall blonde blue eyed boy to be buried into one of the walls during the construction and his presence will ensure that the construction job will be completed smoothly. And sure enough in those closing moments there he is gladly being smeared in cement and eggs, giggling as he's buried alive, with only his mother to grieve.

It actually a fairly simple story. But the director, Sergo Paradjanov, working in Soviet Georgia in 1984, not too long after leaving a fifteen year jail term, doesn't follow any of the film making rules we are used to. There are very few close ups. Very often the action we need to be following is hidden in the bottom left hand corner of a landscape shot, extra-ordinarily easy to miss. There are very few close ups and at times its hard to tell whose doing what to whom and why. Every now and then the film goes off on digressions which have no relevance to the main plot and generally serve to confuse the viewer. The music is utterly mad, with found sounds, on screen instruments and church organ dropped in seemingly at random. At times when nothing seems to be happening, someone will break into a jig, almost playing time until the next scene comes along. But infuriatingly there is an obvious cinematic voice behind it all so you're compelled to try and understand the message whatever it is. One of those times when your eyes are glued to the screen simply because you can't believe what you're seeing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

I understand that people have different expectations of low-budget, arthouse movies. I also know that John Sayles has a sort of glow about him, that earthy, intellectual anti-hollywood vibe, a la Tim Robbins, the Coen brothers and Atom Egoyan, that makes him a darling with the critics from the get-go.

But this is not a good movie. I'm sorry, it just isn't.

It meanders. It has too many characters. Its tone is uneven, its point of view is muddled, the acting is all over the board, from naturalistic to over the top. It lingers for long moments with minor characters we don't care about and cuts away from tense scenes just when things are getting good.

It misses the mark.

The worst flaw in the movie is that the two closest things to a protagonist, Edie Falco's Marly and Angela Bassett's Desiree, are straight-jacketed in characters that have no drive. Marly is an apathetic drunk, steeped in her life's own inertia. Desiree is a woman trapped in her own repressed pain. When your two main characters' world-views can be summed up with the phrases \"I don't care\" and \"I want to leave here,\" why should the audience give a rat's patootie?

I'll be plain: Sayles writes funny dialogue. He's very adept at crafting a scene. The problem is, these scenes don't go anywhere. There's no spine to the movie. No drive. The movie doesn't create rooting interest in any of the characters. In my opinion, he's also too preachy about big bad corporate America gobbling up the little guy.

If you want to see a quality \"small\" movie, see David Lynch's \"Straight Story.\" Pass this one up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a movie from Toilet Pictures. If the name of the production company is any indication how stinky a movie is, then this would be it. I think I'm not really a fan of horror movies, not that I'm chicken, but rather this year alone, I haven't been genuinely spooked by what's on offer so far, be it from the West, or from Asia. 9:56 is no different, great premise, but poor execution, relying on clich\u00e9d techniques (I think these are the only tools of the trade available?) to try and elicit some heart thumping moments.

Se-jin (Ko So-young) is a lonely career woman, who one day notices that some apartments in the block of flats opposite hers, undergo blackouts simultaneously at precisely 9:56pm everyday. No, she's no voyeur, but a series of unexplained deaths in the neighbourhood, including one which she encounters herself on a subway, start to draw her deeper and deeper into the mystery surrounding these deaths.

With horror movies, there's always a pseudo-logical explanation within the movie about how the spooks come about. That's just about the most interesting thing that happens in the film, the unravelling of the \"Truth\", although it won't take seasoned film lovers to guess the plot halfway through. Which of course makes it a very unsatisfying experience watching this movie.

There's a myriad of characters like the wheelchair bound girl, and the neighbours who take turns to care for her, as well as a schoolgirl, detective, a mentally challenged boy and a spooky train commuter. But following genre formula, these folks are there usually as fodder for deaths, or in this case, pointless red herring characters whose sole aim by the filmmakers is to mislead the audience, nevermind if they convolute, or add little to forward the plot.

And don't get me started on the techniques employed here. Quick cuts, sudden appearances, long hair ghouls (ahhhhhhh, so passe!) who can't move properly, copious amount of blood like it flows down a mountain for free, and the list goes on. But credit to the sound engineers for creating some ear piercing bone crunching sounds used each time the spooks move, though it seems like a one trick pony.

Don't waste time on this, even if you're a horror fan. It's a complete waste of a promising premise, and in the end, you feel like you've just be taken on a ride. A very long and painful one to endure. It's high time for some innovation in this genre, otherwise one film will easily look like another, with ugly long haired monsters moving funny but with the ability to make sudden appearances accompanied by loud sounds. Oh, and can someone oil those doors while they're at it as well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A woman finds herself caught up in an apparently inexplicable rash of suicides. Then again, are these really suicides? It seems as though there's a ghost on the loose. Guess what? The ghost has long black hair that hides its face, and it moves about with its head or arms twisted this way or that, making for a very weird looking specter. Recurrent theme music plays from unexpected locations to announce the arrival of the ghost, and bizarre sound effects--which resemble the sound of small twigs being snapped--always accompany this hapless spirit. Does any of this sound familiar? Well, if you've seen a few Asian horror movies in the last 10 years, it should. Borrowing heavily and unabashedly from \"The Ring\", \"One Last Call\" and a few other recent horror hits, this film tries to carry an uninteresting and worn-out plot to a climax, but we've seen it all before. Avoid it unless you're desperate or haven't seen any other Asian horror movies in the last 10 years.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have no respect for IMDb ratings anymore. I think a bunch of Mormons flooded the website and voted for this. This is not an artistic movie, it is Mormon propaganda. Nothing wrong with that, but the plot outline and the way it is described is totally misleading. If you are a bible thumping Christian or a Mormon, watch this movie, you'll love it and think it is truly amazing. For anyone else, don't bother, the story is so contrived, random stuff happens that really doesn't follow in a coherent way. This guy tries to commit suicide cause he sleeps with his neighbor. Are you kidding? What a pussy! Anyways, this is an awful movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had heard good things about \"States of Grace\" and came in with an open mind. I thought that \"God's Army\" was okay, and I thought that maybe Dutcher had improved and matured as a filmmaker. The film began with some shaky acting, and I thought, \"well, maybe it will get better.\" Unfortunately, it never did. The picture starts out by introducing two elders -- Mormon missionaries -- and it seems that the audience will get to know them and grow to care about them. Instead, the story degenerates into a highly improbable series of unfortunate events highlighting blatant disobedience by the missionaries (something that undeniably exists, but rarely on the level that Dutcher portrays) and it becomes almost laughable.

Dutcher's only success in this movie is his successful alienation of his target audience. By unrealistically and inaccurately portraying the lives of Mormon missionaries, Dutcher accomplishes nothing more than angering his predominantly Mormon audience. The film in no way reflects reality. Missions are nothing like what Dutcher shows (having served a Mormon mission myself I can attest to this fact) and gang life in California certainly contains much more explicit language than the occasional mild vulgarity.

The conclusion, which I'm assuming was supposed to touch the audience and inspire them to believe that forgiveness is available to all, was both unbelievable (c'mon, the entire mission gathers to see this elder sent home -- and the mom and the girl are standing right next to each other!) and cheesy. Next time, Dutcher, try making a movie that SOMEONE can identify with.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This very finely crafted film commits the unforgivable (which is ironic, given the film's theme). No one coming into this film knows what they are in for. Worse than that, 3\/4 of the way into the film, no one still has any clue of what they're in for because everything up to that \"moment\" is a different movie.

As a front-row fan of Dutcher's first two films, easily competing for the Best 2 Mormon films to date (competing with Saints and Soldiers and, now, New York Doll--saw that at a screening), Dutcher had me wanting to see his film for a very long time. I was there. I wanted to believe, believe that I'd see the next great Mormon movie, one that would hold the Numero Uno spot for a very long time. But no. Three-fourths in the film took the sharpest of left turns and dragged me through something that I never wanted to go through. He takes on the Mt. Everest of all moral issues, yea, both of them, with little time or emotional capacity left to adequately address them, but instead waves them both off with a nod towards Jesus as if that will make all things well, instantly. (True it is that Jesus saves. Don't accuse me of not believing that. That's not Dutcher's problem.)

Is the film shot well? Indeed. Do the actors act? They acted their pants off. Was the music appropriate? All but whatever was over the closing credits. Everything about this film was superb, except the story, which was so dank and wrong, that all else doesn't matter. (I learned \"dank\" from New York Doll, very decent show, by the way.) The third act of the film was neither desirable nor pleasant nor faith affirming. I know Dutcher was bending over backwards to make it so, but I was so far shoved out of the movie at that point that nothing, no thing, could have brought me back. The preposterous unbelievability of dozens of details in the final minutes didn't help. Anyone who's been on a mission knows what I'm talking about, especially anyone who\u0097Spoiler Alert\u0097is familiar with events surrounding someone being sent home from a mission early for moral and\/or psychological reasons. It's as if a parallel universe suddenly sprung up where normal rules or behaviors suddenly don't apply.

There are a million things good about this film, but they were created and beautified only to be trampled upon and thrown away in a knee-jerk fit of \"ooh, this will really get them\" elitism. Hence, unforgivable. I can only hope that when Dutcher puts the finishing touches on his next film (\"Falling\", apparently), that he remembers that film critics can only buy so many tickets and that it's the fans that pay the bills. That's why the first God's Army was such an unqualified success.

Dutcher's shock and awe approach proves that when it comes to the Big Issues he is in way over his head, having neither the spiritual nor creative maturity nor business sense necessary to take them on. I pray\u0097pray!\u0097he learns his lesson and that years from now he and we all look back, with a chagrin, and rejoice that he pulled his head out of where the Light doesn't shine and really, successfully, takes on those and other issues and changes the world forever because of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was sorely disappointed in this movie. Twice I was temped to walk out because segments of the movie were so demoralizing and depressing. The movie has elements that allude to all the seamy things in life (pornography, murder, suicide, fornication, hatred, gang warfare). The graphic nature of the violence in this movie was particularly disturbing.

And Richard Dutcher does a great disservice to the LDS Church in portraying missionary attitudes, commitment, spirituality, and obedience as unfocused and lackadaisical.

My biggest objection to this movie, however, was that it is the exact opposite of a feel-good movie.

Dutcher's God's Army One was okay. His Brigham City was quite good. This movie, in terms of casting, acting, and drama was his best. But in terms of being inspiring or uplifting it was as awful as it could be. In fact, this movie so demoralized me that I am sorry I went. I have lost interest in ever again supporting Dutcher in an LDS-themed movie with a ticket purchase.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe some of the comments here in the reviews. The film is dated of course, and from our comfortable viewpoint in the age of CGG a lot of the special effects are deeply unconvincing now. But even allowing for this, Helen of Troy is so bad that it is almost laughable.

The scripting is awful, just awful, with no characterisation at all. The performances suffer as a result, you can see the likes of Hardwicke and Andrews writhing in an agony of embarrassment as they deliver the most ridiculous shallow trite codswallop lines. The writers seem to feel the need to explain almost everything in a dreadful didactic screenplay that allows the viewer to decide nothing for him\/herself at all. The beginning of the movie spells out the historical background as if no one had ever heard of ancient Greece; I know they had American audiences to take into consideration, but the patronising way we are told everything twice to make sure we understood the action is really awful.

I honestly can't believe the comments above describing this movie as a great epic film. Even allowing for the comparatively primitive cinematography and the relative sophistication of today's audience, this movie truly stinks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Go up to any film fan and ask them the title of the film which was directed by Robert Wise, with second-unit direction by Yakima Canutt and Sergio Leone, was designed by Ken Adam and scored by Max Steiner, starred Sir Stanley Baker, Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Brigitte Bardot, was filmed in colour, scope and stereo, at Cinecitta in 1955, with a thousand extras - and they'll tell you to go away and stop being silly.

They'll tell you that no such film EXISTS. That the names you've quoted NEVER worked together - they weren't even contemporaneous. And that you've just picked the names out of a movie publication at random and are attempting to befuddle them.

At which point you can direct them to IMDb and show them the cast and crew of \"Helen Of Troy\". They'll be amazed! This lesser-known sword-and-sandal epic has ALL these names and more - Niall MacGinnis, Janette Scott and good old Harry Andrews.

And it is certainly an oddity. After the war, 1,000 Italian extras cost about $25 a day and toga dramas were a staple of Italian cinema. The orgy scenes were shot twice - one with tops, the other without (you can guess which version Britain and America got). I believe even La Sophia is an extra in this one.

Either way, the names STAGGER the mind. But it's really just a coincidence. All of said names were either just reaching the ends of their careers (Canutt, Steiner) or beginning them (everybody else).

Only Robert Wise and Niall MacGinnis were in the middle of their careers.

For the record, Leone was uncredited and learning his trade - Adam still had to invent the descending circle in the ceiling of sets (a trademark he'd go on to put into all the early Bonds) - Baker had yet to star in and help produce the likes of \"Zulu\" and \"Robbery\" - and go on to direct a Welsh TV company called Harlech - then die tragically young.

While Harry Andrews would go on to become one of Britain's favourite character actors - Janette Scott (Thora Hird's daughter) would never make the really big time, but who can forget her in \"Day Of The Triffids\" (even though her bit was added later - for padding and a happy ending) or \"Crack In The World\"?

Sir Cedric was theatre, but knew how to mug on film - and Bardot... was BARDOT, for gawdsake!

But what were these stellar people DOING in this camp old nonsense? Don't ask me. The two main stars were no-name Italians - Helen had a moustache and Paris was pretty - while the Brits were only there for support.

To summarise, I think you can just mark this one up as a major FLUKE. In stereo. To be honest, if I hadn't seen it - I wouldn't believe it EITHER!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Helen of Troy' follows the story of Helen and the outbreak of the Trojan War. This is more of a love story between Helen and Paris, who is shipwrecked and falls in love with Helen without knowing she is queen. The film portrays the couple as lovesick and wanting nothing more than to be together. (Other films and books have different portrayals of the characters, but in this one, they are simply hopelessly in love.) The film is pretty slow-moving in some places, but the battles and the detail to the scenery are done pretty well. There are also some good performances. I thought that the slave girl did a particularly good job, and she was one of the most well-liked characters.

Overall, this is a good adaption if you can look beyond the slow-moving story in places and look beyond some of the cheesy romance and dialogue. In my opinion, a perfect Iliad film version has not yet been created, but this one is entertaining and does have some good bits.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie in 1956 and again on Cable a few days ago. The movie hasn't improved with age. Quite the opposite. It's a true spaghetti epic.

The Trojans are heroic and likable; the Greeks are nasty, petty and sneaky.

So what if Paris ran off with the King's wife? Hey...love is love.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Awful Star Wars knock-off with a slightly more comic tinge. Robert Urich stars as the leader of a group of ice pirates, who steal ice because water is the most valuable substance in the universe now (how all the poor people stay alive is a mystery). He hooks up with Mary Crosby (Bing's daughter, around 25 and a total cutie), a princess looking for her missing father. Also in the cast are an embarrassed-looking Anjelica Huston in some hilarious sci-fi get-ups and a pudgy, short-ish Ron Perlman (whom I thought was seven feet tall from his other roles!). And John Carradine, who looks days from death and Hollywood Squares funnyman (relative term) Bruce Vilanch. If you ever wanted to see Bruce Vilanch get decapitated, here's your film. But, then again, even that's not worth seeing, as it doesn't shut him up at all (think he might have been a robot, but I nodded off a couple of times).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away (sound familiar), water has become the most precious commodity (this has got to sound familiar) and a small minority control its distribution (what a surprise, just have a heart attack and die from that surprise). A group of ice pirates (water renegades?\u0085wet bandits?...oh wait, that last one's been used) try to discover the route to a fabled unlimited supply of water with a lovely but spoiled (Druish?) princess en tow and a group of idiots\u0085er\u0085despicable villains in pursuit.

This movie has the potential to be a really great comedic parody (\"Star Wars,\" David Lynch's \"Dune\") but was just not handled correctly. It goes for, I believe the term is, \"low brow\" humor. It doesn't really succeed in being all that funny which is a shame since it has Angelica Houston, Ron Perlman and Robert Urich, (hence the three stars) who aren't exactly slackers in the acting department.

Definitely a rental and definitely have a drink straight up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't knock this film too terribly, because it's obvious midway through the the watching of it that they were trying to make it bad, or 'campy' if you prefer. Anyway, many of the parts they tried to make funny actually are, but often simply for the cheese factor. Watch the 'space invaders' game, actually played as real-life! Scratch your head at the bumbling robots...oh, the wackyness! And watch the whole thing go way over the top near the end with the 'time warp'! And the sexual innuendoes just keep on flying...I'm actually surprised this got away with a PG. Oh well. A fun way to waste a couple hours, but Star Wars\/Trek this ain't, folks. 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like the \"Star Wars\" series. I like a good, cheapo sci-fi flick every once in a while, too. Heck, I even like the Roger Corman-produced nickel-and-dime jobbies.

I do NOT like \"The Ice Pirates\", though.

For one, it just looks too cheap, you know? For a movie that's supposed to take place in outer space, it feels cramped and closed-in like it's being filmed in the front seat of someone's Mazda. And the special effects, while appropriately cheesy, look more than anything like foam rubber painted metallic gray.

Usually, I don't let things like that bother me, especially if the story and the characters are worthwhile.

They ain't.

The whole storyline, about these ne'er-do-well space pirates who decide to find a planet loaded with ice they can melt down and sell as water (a hot commodity in the future, I guess) is about as original as the jokes, which is not a compliment.

The humor comes in at about crotch-level (like that castrating machine you'll see early on), and everyone seems to have a cranky attitude. And who told John Matuzak that he was funny? Whoever did, shame on them. Good old Robert Urich tries, but he's a reliable actor on board a badly sinking ship (or starship, in this case).

I watched this one about three times and ended up feeling the same way every time - shanghaied.

No stars. In spite of of the presence of Huston (one year prior to \"Prizzi's Honor\") and Carradine (at the tail end of a once-lofty career), these \"Pirates\" should walk the plank.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow. The storyline to this was just incredibly stupid. I realize that this movie was supposed to be of a comedic genre. But still, even nonsense is supposed to make at least some vague sort of sense.

Water has become incredibly rare substance?

Well, that's strange, considering that hydrogenated oxygen (or oxidized hydrogen) is one of the most plentiful substances there is in the universe. And pretty easy to make. Glomp together hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and voil\u00e0, water.

Instead of water, the rarity of dilithium crystals or some such thingamajig should have been used as a plot device as something the pirates would go after. Water as a plot device was just dumb, dumb, dumb.

The \"comedy\" seemed labored and contrived and forced. The comedy in the TV series \"Red Dwarf\" was labored and contrived and forced, but, it was actually amusing. Here instead, i felt like saying, \"Ha ha, that was just so funny, i forgot to laugh...\"

Sigh... all that money put into sets, costumes, actors... what a waste...

Rather than just whimper and whine and complain at it's lameness, my recommendations to make it better: 1) Use a believable plot device. 2) Get rid of the \"comedy\". None of the actors were really any good at it. The movie would work better as a \"serious\" action adventure.

The obvious intention of the writers was to do a spoofy comedy, but they didn't quite pull it off. It's not likely i'll ever watch this again. It's too much a total hack job.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After missing out on this innumerable times on TCM UK, I decided to check it out given its sci-fi\/adventure\/camp pedigree: I knew I\u2019d be in for a thoroughly silly ride \u2013 but it was also astoundingly bad! Anyway, perhaps appropriately given the characters involved, the script rips off many sci-fi titles then of recent vintage \u2013 SOYLENT GREEN (1973), ZARDOZ (1974), LOGAN\u2019S RUN (1976; to the extent that it was filmed on some of the self-same sets!), STAR WARS (1977), ALIEN (1979) and MAD MAX 2: THE ROAD WARRIOR (1981)!

The plot is simple but not exactly engaging: from the title one can deduce that water has become scarce on the planet where all of this takes place \u2013 so our ragtag buccaneer heroes take it upon themselves to steal ice blocks from the tyrannical Templar(!) rulers. Also involved is a beautiful princess (Mary Crosby, daughter of Bing!) in search of her father, the deposed king; by the way, the cast includes another famous offspring: Anjelica Huston (daughter of John) as one of the pirate band \u2013 thankfully, the actress\u2019 mistake in accepting such a role would soon be forgotten in the wake of her winning an Oscar (under her father\u2019s guidance, no less) for PRIZZI\u2019S HONOR (1985). Since STAR WARS had Peter Cushing as the \u201cSupreme Commander\u201d, the film-makers opted to have a screen legend of their own \u2013 78-year old John Carradine (who\u2019s seen strapped to a sort of operating table during his one brief scene!).

The most notable bits (for all the wrong reasons) are: the alien using the toilet; the castration machine; the clumsy antics (including karate-style combat!) of the inevitable robot companions; the goofy slave\/eunuch make-up worn at one point by the heroes; the recurring attacks by the \u201cspace herpies\u201d (whatever that is); the climax in which the characters are made to age when going through a time-warp (Crosby becomes pregnant, gives birth, and sees her son grow up in the space of 30 seconds, while leading man Robert Urich himself is replaced by John Ford stalwart Hank Worden for this scene!) \u2013 incidentally, the jump-cuts adopted here (intending to denote the rapid passage of time) are not only unsuccessful but downright irritating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh man, this movie was toe-cringing bad. Bad look, awful story...the list of good things is shorter than the list of bad things about this movie.

Yes sure it's supposed to be a comedy and all but something tells me that this movie was supposed to be the real deal. The movie most certainly does not start of as a comedy but more as an adventurous movie with fun elements put in it. You can especially tells they were serious with this by the acting, that was in a serious and non-comical way, with the exception of a couple of over-the-top sequences obviously. It seemed to be me that at first they tried to make a real and serious adventurous science-fiction movie, perhaps even a franchise but soon began to noticed how bad it all was and simply decided to insert some more and deliberately overdone comical sequence, to make the movie seem more like a comedy and prevent it from turning into a complete disastrous mess.

The movie is a weird attempt to mix adventurous swashbuckling pirate movies with serious science-fiction action. The movie was obviously inspired by the \"Star Wars\" movies and its success. The movie isn't even too ashamed to copy entire sequences and even the way the story progresses, sets, characters and robots show similarities. They tried to hide this by putting in some obviously spoofing sequences but I'm not falling for it. So the movie is not even original on its own, despite its original concept. You can say that this movie is a poor man's \"Spaceballs\", without even really being fully a spoof.

The movie is bad looking, with some video games special effects (in some sequences even literally), awful looking costumes (coat of mail and swords in outer space?). The sound is at times even laughable. Seems like they shot some sequences without sound and then forgot to add all of the required sounds later again in post-production. the mixing is also really bad. They tried to conceal this by putting the sound down to a minimum at times and by tuning up the Bruce Broughton musical score.

At times the movie is so busy trying to make the movie look humorous that it totally forgets to tell the story. It makes the story of the movie seems extremely messy and poorly written, with an almost completely undeveloped main plot. It also doesn't help to make the movie really ever flow. Lots of thing don't get explained and some are even dropped after a while. The movie begins as a 'pirate' movie, who constantly are looking and steal water, since its scarcely and there is only one planet in the entire galaxy remaining with water on it (yeah right!). However this plot line gets soon abandoned, especially in the middle part of the movie, in which the movie seems to become a totally different one, with different motivations. It's just like the one weird and bad, silly sequence after the other, without really making a click. It also keeps the characters way too shallow and uninteresting to care about.

Sad to see that actors like John Carradine, Anjelica Huston and a still young and unknown Ron Perlman were attached to this disastrous movie.

OK I admit that I liked some of the moments, especially the ending when they go through the time-warp was original and fun but really, non of this all was enough to save the movie.

I didn't even liked the movie in a campy kind of way.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only redeeming scene in this movie is when the robots are sent out to fight 'karate style', there was one good spinning side-kick... and that is the best 3 seconds of the movie. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie has very little to recommend it -- there are better spoofs out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You want to know what the writers of this movie consider funny? A robot child sees his robot parents killed (beheaded, as I recall), and then moves between their bodies calling their names. Yeah--what a comic moment. This is the worst movie I ever paid to see.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All right, let me start by saying I love the original RS for the 64. The graphics were new, the ships were really fast and cool. The missions were a challenge, but you had a strategy to come up with. The computer didn't tell you every step of your mission, you could wander and explore.

That's the first thing that's wrong with RL, everything you do is under a timetable and controlled by other people. I mean, shouldn't you, as the leader, be telling people how to handle each and every mission?

And speaking of missions, why do they intersperse the original trilogy with completely made up crap? Never mind.

I was so waiting for this game when I heard they were going to allow you fly through the asteroid field from Empire Strikes Back. I think anyone who is a fan of the films wanted to do this. So, they give it to you. It's the stupidest level in the game. You start by flying through the asteroid field with ties chasing after you, and your whole objective is to get farther into the field while shooting the ties. You have to kill them all to get ahead. Hey, remember how many Han killed when he was in the field? None, they all had poor piloting skills compared to him. I just wanted to be able to dodge the asteroids as they came at me, but instead I have to use my automatic aim guns to kill ties behind me.

That was the biggest disappointment, you have no control over your flying, everything is sluggish. All except for the A-Wing, probably the fastest and most maneuverable ship in the entire fleet. But, oh yeah, didn't Han say the Falcon was? Anyway...

You finally get to the Battle of Endor. Here is the ultimate level, you get to destroy the death star, everyone's first instinct is to pick the Falcon and be the leader. But, of course, you get there and have to do stupid pre-chosen strategies like finding (not to mention deciphering the difference between) the tie-bombers. This is impossible in the falcon, by the time you have spotted one group the frigate gets destroyed. The only way to get passed this part is to pick the A-Wing. After this you have to attack the star destroyers and that's a real stupid chore. This game makes you feel like you're the only one defending the rebel alliance.

After you frustratingly get through that 'fun' fight, you get to the death star. And here, you might think 'yay! I get to destroy the death star', and again, like in the Asteroid field, you have to do some tedious thing while narrowly getting passed the tunnels of impending doom. Your mission is to protect the ship in front of you, remember that from the Return of the Jedi? It's so moronic because if you pick the falcon, you'll die because you're not maneuverable enough, but if you pick the x-wing, you have to keep locking and unlocking your s-foils. So it's a choice to either kill the bad guys, or try to catch up to Lando, who apparently doesn't know how to maneuver. Thus dying in the process.

The bonus stages aren't even worth aiming for as each level just gets more and more frustrating. It makes me feel the way I did when I saw the new three films, upset and in need of killing something. Lucky for me, Smash Bros Melee exists.

I hope with the Wii they come up with something a lot better and have the original trilogy levels to full capacity. I'm going to sell this game the first chance I get.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An unintentionally hilarious early talkie melodrama with Kay Francis as the Countess Balakireff chasing everything in pants. At the beginning of the film she \"throws back\" the stableboy for being too young before setting off for the chauffeur! The high-toned English set she moves in is such a clich\u00e9d bunch of harummpf-ers that it's ridiculous. But the topper is Basil Rathbone as an Italian violinist with a Chico Marx accent! \"My violeen! How weel I ever play eet again!\" \"Patreecia, my meelk is cold!\" It's campy beyond belief.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although many Billie Dove fans are delighted with her work here, I have to pass. As a socially prominent member of the British smart set, her British accent is basically non-existent and her line readings sound just like, well, line readings and her emoting seems trance-like and ponderous. Basil Rathbone, usually a fine actor, seems off-kilter throughout and also speaks with a weird sort-of-accent - in his case something like Italian, though we cannot be sure. The script manages to keep his precise ethnicity a secret. He is further hampered by the script which gives him one of those old movie diseases, something to do with nerves, which requires surgery. The only real entertainment is provided by the illustrious Kay Francis sporting a lacquered bob with side curls in her role as a depraved countess who shamelessly devours men, including Rathbone, and then spits them out. She pulls it off with her unique aplomb. She is the only living thing in this dead sea of a film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bog Creatures shows exactly what can happen when very enthusiastic people get together with a little cash, some knowledge of movie making, a mixed bag of aspiring actors, and a lot of determination, yet all without the necessary knowledge and skills to pull off anything more than a fairly poor looking After School Special (in a bad way, not a nostalgic good way). I mean this is so-so quality home movie \/ student film stuff if you want to pass it around to family and friends for free. Thankfully, I found it in a discount bin somewhere. Sure, there may be some sort of market out there for this kind of thing, but it is a market that seems to only exist by default because there are so many poor B movies out there. Even more so now in this day and age.

The only people I would recommend this move to is aspiring guerrilla filmmakers. First, I would recommend that they watch the special feature MAKING OF thing included on the disc. See the film crews enthusiasm, their hard work, joy, and very high opinions of their own product. THEN watch the movie. Within a few frames you will hopefully understand what went wrong. Bored, I went through the whole thing and clearly the director and cinematographer tried, but just don't know enough about what they are doing. They knew enough to have fun, but in the long run, without necessary skills, this interprets to: They knew enough to be dangerous. This is like a bad Nickelodeon movie (as apposed to a more decent one I guess). A couple of the actors did ok, and the cool stoner looking dude with the tattoo (real or fake tattoo I know not) was probably the best and most natural and I hope he makes it. But their natural acting talent was what was coming through despite the bad movie, bad script, and so-so directing principles. If the director had spent more time helping these aspiring actors to develop their characters, studying successfully proven camera techniques and lighting principles to direct his crew better, and if the script had been actually worked on instead of written in a week or so (according to the very indulgent documentary) then maybe this could have been more of a film. Instead, it's a film that has a feeling of some potential, and has a few moments in it (due more to the genre than the film itself), but ends up showing nearly every frame, WHAT NOT TO DO. If you want to see what a decent low budget horror movie can really look like, watch Phantasm or even Laserblast. If you want a glorified home movie (no joke), get Bog Creatures.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie yesterday on a public service channel. They had advertised it as an awful movie, and so I was drawn to see it, and I was not let down.

A group of 18-19 year old go to an excavation site at an old viking castle in Denmark, to try to uncover the myth of the Berserker vikings. Strange things happens: something is in the forest, and people start disappearing.

The main thing about this movie that really bothers me, is that the story is supposed to take place in Denmark, where I happen to live. There were so many places in the movie where the Hollywood-style overlapped danish reality. It really made the acting and drama look ridiculous in my eyes.

You never see the characters interact with any of their surroundings. Its feels like a mini-Hollywood in Denmark, and it takes away the credibility of the movie. When at one point you hear someone speak \"old danish\", it sounds exactly like modern day Swedish. Really bad research, considering the director is from Denmark.

The characters in the movie used GPS and maps, and that's really funny, since Denmark is about the size of your backyard. Nomatter where you are, there is never more than 50 km to the sea, and 500 meters to civilization. And if you are at a castle, there are going to be tourists everywhere. We see a lot of overviews of forests in the movie, and sometimes, we see what appears to be North American vegetation(?) The story did not exactly appeal to me, maybe because the acting was so bad. When the characters see the bog creatures for the first time, they are not even scared. I guess their acting skills were insufficient to display realistic emotions. At the end, there is an unexpected twist, but it didn't impress me, since I didn't really care.

The bog creatures are cheap, but they had the potential to be scary. Unfortunately, they fail, since we get a good look at them standing in the forest when the characters arrive at the castle. Also, there are no really scary scenes, since the Bog Creatures are mostly just standing around.

Anyway, conclusion: Disregarding the facts, the movie is your typical B-horror flick. I guess people from other countries can enjoy it more. As long as you are unaware of reality, it doesn't matter. Just like I think of USA as one big action movie set, everyone else can think of Denmark as a forest with a castle.. and some living-dead people in a bog..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"********SPOILER ALERT************** Wasted 85 minutes of my life watching this \"film\". first of all, we think it is hilarious that the producer cameoed in the film as the autopsy doctor with a horrible unbelieveably unbelievable accent -- what the hell was that anyway, romanian? And how is it that in Denmark no one speaks danish except the bog creatures? (Note, the scottish camp director...). ? And who does the shopping for the bog creatures? Their pants looked like they were purchased at Banana Republic. Very nicely dressed for being 1200 years old. This one was worse than Scarecrow Slayer (we didn't think that was even POSSIBLE). We basically fast forwarded through 75% of the movie looking for any gore\/death\/scary moments. None found. Do rent the DVD just to watch the 2 hour \"Behind the Scenes of Bog Creatures\" featurette. Who are these people? Are they serious? And the filmmakers are like 60 years old. I think this is their holy grail and that's pathetic enough in and of itself.

BEST LINE from the movie, hands down: \"Not bad for a girl who never even went to graduate school....\" My blind grandma who has alzheimers could make a better movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Laughed my ass off but probably because I was stoned. That aside ... this is in no way a horror movie, there is no horror whatsoever in this entire movie and the plot holes are so huge that even a below average IQ person would think it was stupid. On top of that, I am living in Denmark and have been for all my life and can assure you that Denmark is way too small a country that you need GPSS and maps to find your way back if you got lost. I would estimate that unless you really put an effort into it you could never be farther away from town or other people than maximum 3 hours on foot. Secondly I don't think any part of the movie, apart from two shots from Copenhagen where none of the actors were in, were actually taped in Denmark. The bog woman is talking Swedish not Danish. The helmet on the first bog body is brand new. The girl they find in the forest is hiding under a type of rock that does not exist in Denmark. This is just stupid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film holds 7.0 rating on IMDb, so even I sensed something rotten in it's synopsis I decided to try it out. What a waste of 100 minutes. First of all, the 80's were not a good decade for crime and thriller genre. Most of these, in those days were badly done with silly plot (if they had any), so there are very few that can stand out, and even if they were good they are still not very good. The Hit, however suffers from everything that made silly crime pictures silly. It has poor character development, improbable plot and wasn't written or directed in a decent manner, and when you have such shortcomings the acting doesn't help. Stephen Frears often tried to emulate French new wave in English style film making and the two don't match.

First of all Terence Stamp is 10 years in hiding because he testified against some of his former partners in crime. He hides in Spain, of all places. He is finally caught up with, and than first kidnapped by a group of silly looking Spanish thugs, just do be driven away some distance to the two hit man that are supposed to deal with him. These two are John Hurt, who is supposed to be hard boiled, stone cold killer, and Tim Roth (in his first role) as the devil's apprentice. They don't kill Stamp right away, they first dispose of the \"three Amigos\", they shouldn't have hired in the first place, and then, they are driving Stamp to Paris, because one of the buddies he testified against wants to confront him. OK that's possible. But even with Stamp being such a dangerous figure that they had to hire four guys to overpower him, they don't tie him down, don't incapacitate him in any way, and drive around with him, like he's one of the buddies. Stamp doesn't object and is happily going to Paris to be shot, not using any of a half a dozen chances, these \"professionals\" offer for him to escape. Than it appears that Tim Roth is just a school boy bully, making the idea of big crime boss teaming him up with a hard core hit man like John Hurt, even more improbable, especially on an important job like that. But than John Hurt is not so hard core himself, he spends twenty minutes of the movie, killing or not killing the totally surplus Australian, played by Bill Hunter, whose only purpose in this film is to introduce the lovely Laura Del Sol, his mistress (who he says is 15, but she looks more like 25), and whose role in the story and acting capabilities suggest that she was offered the role, solely on the basis of being the director's or producer's mistress at the time. After much deliberation, Hurt kills the Australian but takes along his mistress for no apparent reason. Than he wants to kill her but Roth with his \"subtle ways\" convince him not to, so even she kicks him, bites him and scratches him through the entire movie, he stays true to that deeply buried human side of him.

Than you have plain idiotic scenes, like when Hurt and Roth lock the car from the outside, trying to prevent the people inside from getting out?!?! Anyway the movie drags on. Tim Roth falls asleep, guarding Terence Stamp with his gun on his chest, and Stamp just waits there watching the waterfall. Than the whole shamble of a plot comes to the point where everything we've seen in the last hour and 20 minutes just goes out through the window. Let's recapitulate, the whole point in not killing Stamp right away (except for having a movie) is to take him to Paris, so his former partner is to have a last word with him. And the whole point in him not running away is that he is prepared to die, saying \"It's just a moment. We're here. Then we're not here. We're somewhere else... maybe. And it's as natural as breathing. Why should we be scared?\" But my friends, here is where the plot twists, Hurt kills the man while still in Spain, and we ask why bother and drive around for days, he could have done it in the first 15 minutes, and than contrary to his philosophy Stamp is very afraid of being killed, so we ask again why didn't he run, and he had plenty chance. Roth gets killed too, but he shouldn't be in the movie at all, and Del Sol, well she's promised a role in this film purely for romantic (read sexual) reasons, so she stays alive again, even she attacked Hurt for the 15th time in the movie. He killed all the others, but not her, she must have maximum screen appearance. The movie was made on a shoe string budget and it shows, but when you have no story and card board characterizations, it shows even more.And yes Fernando Ray appears and goes through the movie as the guest star, having a single audible line of dialog. Awful","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A potentially good idea gets completely let down by a weak script which throws all credibility out the window leaving the actors very little to work with. Roth covers it up as best he can by being all mouth; Hurt has about as much menace as a fluffy bunny and Stamp can't seem to decide whether he's playing an ex-London crook or some toff straight off the playing fields at Eton. As for poor Laura del Sol she does what she can but her character is no more than every northern European's idea of the stereotypical Latino woman who's all pouts and hot temperament. If you're a fan of any of the main actors don't disappoint yourself or fool yourself (as I suspect many of the other reviewer's here have done). Watch it by all means but stay critical; you know these guys can do better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When King Kong stripped her of her top in the 1976 remake, I was breathless. I don't know how many times I went back to see that movies hoping to see more. Jessica Lange was not a great actress then (She became one), but she was so hot! I went to see \"Sweet Dreams\" when it came out because, by that time, Ms. Lange had become a great actress. It looked like a wonderful story. And she's always exciting to see.

I never walked out of a movie faster. My wife concurred.

When we got into the car, I turned to her, and said, \"If you had told me I would get bored watching Jessica Lange take her clothes off, I would have said your crazy. I just got bored watching Jessice Lange take her clothes off!\" How bad is that?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director and playwright Richard Day adapted his own stage material for the screen, clearly inspired by Rock Hudson's real-life dilemma from the 1950s: what to do with a screen idol who is secretly homosexual? Marry him off to an unsuspecting woman in order to quell the gossips (and keep him working). Wispy-thin idea given some energy by the good cast and retro production design which amusingly resembles a greeting card by Shag. The dialogue isn't very clever, and there's some slapstick goofing around near the beginning which fails to work (spitting out food, etc.). Still, when a serious tone comes over the final act, it is handled with great taste--and is far more welcomed by the viewer than all the klutzy silliness. Matt Letscher does good work as movie hero\/male whore Guy Stone, but are his experiences here enough to strengthen his character, or would he be right back at the bar the next night? The movie seems not to know--or care. Day wants to get off a few one-liners and one carefully written pro-gay speech--a plea for tolerance--but he has no other agenda. For audiences who invest their time and interest in these people, the sentimental bow on this thing can look like nothing more than a prank. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film tries to skewer the studio era in Hollywood and the morals of the 1950s. Guy Stone is intended to be a Rock Hudson type, but both the script and actor Matt Letscher end up channeling a smarmy, cruel, baritone-voiced version of George Hamilton instead, which makes for an unpleasant character.

Guy Stone is such a reprehensible human being that the audience has trouble liking this waste of human skin. Unlike Hudson, who was sweetly promiscuous, Stone is a hateful person who knowingly uses and then throws away the sweet, handsome young men who share his bed every few hours.

Veronica Cartwright is Jerry, Stone's celibate lesbian manager. Cartwright is very good, but the director doesn't quite know what to do with her. The fault lies in the dialogue, which is a bit clumsy, and the film suffers for it.

Carrie Preston's Sally owes more to Ellen Greene in \"The Little Shop of Horrors\". As written, Preston's Sally is good for a laugh but little else. Newcomer Adam Greer is lost in this movie. He cannot act, and seems to have been cast for his hot body and good looks.

Like many recent films, \"Straight-Jacket\" is a \"dramedy\" -- a comedy film which switches messily to a drama about two-thirds of the way through the film. And, like almost all dramedies, \"Straight-Jacket\" fails miserably.

Despite the expensive services of Skywalker Sound, the sound quality of the film leaves a lot of be desired. The over-use of the musical soundtrack creates a distracting amount of cues as well.

The film really doesn't managed to satirize anything about the 1950s. Unlike \"Singin' in the Rain,\" which perfectly captures Hollywood's ambivalence about the advent of sound as well as the studio mentality about formula films, \"Straight-Jacket\" doesn't manage to depict Hollywood in the 1950s at all well. The dialogue, sets and behavior of the key characters are nondescript rather than dead-on stereotypes of the 1950s Hollywood. The same can be said for the lampooning of the general mores, social trends and fads of the 1950s as a whole. Compare the transformation of Guy's home to the dead-on satire of the 1950s home in \"Little Shop of Horrors\". There is no comparison; \"Little Shop\" hits the nail on the head, while \"Straight-Jacket\" doesn't even know there is a nail.

Motivations, too, seem haphazard. Rick Foster is supposed to be a principled liberal, yet he falls almost immediately for a materialistic schmuck like Guy Stone. Rick is fine with Guy's closeted status for many months. But when it comes time to go to Italy, he becomes conflicted for reasons that are completely unclear. And even though Sally appears to fall in love with Freddie during the party, this plot point simply disappears a few minutes later without comment. Rick comes off like a gay man from the 1990s, not a gay author of the 1950s. Indeed, modern morality suffuses this film -- which it shouldn't, if it were really a satirical look at homophobia in 1950s Hollywood.

Plot holes in this ragtag film also abound. Saul repeatedly says that he's going to turn Freddie Stevens over to the feds, but never does so -- allowing Freddie to out Guy. Jerry and Saul's plot to \"in\" Guy never makes any sense, nor does Sally's sudden decision to take the blame. And although Guy has admitted he is a homosexual, apparently it doesn't matter and he ends up a famous star and playwright anyway.

Unfortunately, none of the production values manage to save this film. The cinematography by Michael Pinkey is pedestrian. At times, the film almost looks like a filmed play rather than a motion picture (especially the scenes in Saul's office). Everything is restricted to medium shots, and the film has an incredibly static. The editing by Chris Conlee doesn't do the film any help, either. Long scenes which would benefit from the insertion of close-ups or shifts in point of view remain uncut. Whether this is due to lack of coverage or bad editing is not clear, but the overall effect is to create a sense of lethargy.

The film relies heavily on CGI effects of Guy's home, created by visual effect designer Thomas Dickens. But the CGI looks clumsy and hokey, and it is very noticeably amateurish.

My overall impression of this film is that the jokes are cheap and easy, the plot muddled, the characterizations wildly inconsistent and way off the mark, the satire nonexistent, the performances overbroad and off the mark, and the comic timing off. It's almost an amateurish film. It is as if someone took a high school production and threw $10 million at it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... why watch a TV drama (billed as a comedy) in which none of the characters are likable or even interesting people ? I can sort of see what the writer David Renwick was trying to achieve: the misdirections and bad-taste surprises that he put into \"One foot in the grave\", etc. I admit that the script made a bit more of an effort than most on British TV at the moment. But really ... who cares about these people ? They are cold bores.

Another poster mentioned the scene in which the woman sits down to watch a video of herself and her deceased ex-boyfriend shagging. That was the moment when I switched OFF this programme, never to return.

P.S. It's interesting to note that the posters who didn't like this series are all British, whereas those who praise it are mostly in other countries. This reflects the fact that when the BBC broadcast this series it was ignored by viewers and sank like a stone.

P.P.S. Good news for those who liked it ! There will be a second series in Autumn 2007 - though without the male lead. It sounds like the BBC have decided to turn it into a more conventional 30 minute sitcom.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you live in the suburbs, are relatively well off financially, and do not really have much contact with the city life of england, then this is the comedy for you. Not something a mass audience would go for, but if you're like these characters they show you'll love it to pieces. Overall this is a comedy that the snobs at the BBC will sit back and laugh at for their pleasure and only a select few of the publics. Comparing it to BBC Comedys like Only Fools and Horses, Fawlty Towers, Black Adder, and other classics, this series tends to drift away from the BBC's regular product to the audience and deliver to somewhat of a folk culture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst exercise in middle class pretentiousness yet to hit our television screens. I unfortunately did not see it when it was first shown but paid for the joy of watching six hours of excruciating drivel - and I'm still waiting for the laughs to arrive. I love Tasmin Greig having been a big fan of both Black Books and Green Wing and therefore know that she is capable of the very best of comedy parts. However, she played this part as well as she was able considering the lack of any decent comedy material provided. Please broadcasters bear in mind that the Trades Descriptions Act may well be invoked if you continue to bill as comedy material which is at best pseudo psychological romanticism and at worst a drama which poses as a quirky comedy to hide the fact that is neither fish nor fowl.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a crummy film, a pretender to a genre of surprise ending movies. And a genre that has been done so much better before. The plot limps along, with a predictable ending. (Yawn) The characters are unlikeable, and some are so unlikeable they are almost unwatchable. Matt Dillon, a fine, intense actor is totally miscast here and is stiff and mannered. The others are forgettable. Much of the dialog is sophomoric, again a pretender trying to be witty. I wouldn't hire the screenwriter to write my grocery list. Yes, it's that bad, veering from misogynistic to just plain gross, as in beyond frat-house gross. With so much real talent out there, I'm really surprised this movie ever got made. It shows the total lack of imagination of the office suits...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seems like a pretty innocent choice at first- the name \"employee of the month\" might ring bells with \"Office Space,\" and the show \"Office Clerk.\" I think not. This isn't even a dark comedy. The director of this movie, whoever the guy's name, was a complete jerk, and has a sick, perverse mind. There is no pleasure in being lured into feeling sorry for a complete loser who cheats on his wife, steals from his top-notch job, and lies through his teeth 24\/7. The second I walk in to the room when my family are watching it (and believe me, they were only watching it more because they were praying that there would be at least some relief, perhaps even some fable in the end, sending a warm message of good justice done and when the good guys look good). All the good guys were killed so long ago that they had no time to look good. No memorial was made.

This movie has borderline insanity. It disrespects the elderly, the dead and women- and the director tries to make people to like it.

I gave this movie a two only because the soundtrack was good. But not even that was all that memorable. If you were lucky enough to not see this in theaters, definitaly my friends- do not do this at home.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe the amount of reviewers who praise this as realistic. I'm a million miles from being an expert, and I'm never going to climb a mountain; but even the very basic knowledge attained from reading Into Thin Air, and watching Everest Beyond The Limit and a few other Everest docs meant that this film just got more and more ridiculous as it went on. There is some good climbing footage at the start; and when the billionaire mission leader asks early in the film \"How much experience above 8000 metres do you have?\", I was encouraged to hope that this might be a gritty and accurate man-vs-nature odyssey. Instead you have a bunch of climbers zooming up a mountain with no acclimatisation; climbing with goggles off in full sun, and they are barely ever out of breath performing miraculous feats of endurance. Only near the summit is a little fatigue suggested, to dramatically accentuate the physical feat of climbing such a monstrous peak, almost as an afterthought. If you have no knowledge of mountaineering, give it a look: be prepared for some clich\u00e9d heroics (although no more clich\u00e9d than a hundred other passably diverting flicks), and a clich\u00e9d outcome. I've been developing a minor fascination with high mountains and was looking forward to watching K2; but other than some amazingly beautiful scenery, it was a let down because it was so far removed from reality. I can imagine some experts being employed in the making of this movie, but then being conveniently ignored in the pursuit of the heroic, and sadly fantastical storyline. Also, you would sound like a bit of a tit if you said \"welcome to the death zone\" at 200000 feet.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mount Godwin-Austin (otherwise known as K2) is the world's second highest mountain, and if the evidence presented in this film is to be believed is the hardest mountain to climb successfully without getting yourself killed. \"K2\" is basically a buddy flick set in the breathtakingly dangerous world of mountaineering. While the outdoor photography takes in some truly awesome scenery, the characters standing in front of all those glorious landscapes are a crashing bore - and therein lies the fault with the whole film.

Cocksure lawyer Taylor Brooks (Michael Biehn) and his quiet married friend Harold Jamieson (Matt Craven) spend their free time rock climbing. During one of their trips, they meet up with another bunch of climbers funded by wealthy mountain enthusiast Philip Claibourne (Raymond J. Barry). Claibourne's team are in training for a forthcoming shot at the infamous K2, a mountain that Taylor and Harold would both love to tackle but could never afford to do so. During their training run, however, two of Claibourne's team get themselves killed in an avalanche. Taylor and Harold put themselves forward as potential replacements. Despite initial reluctance, Claibourne gives them the nod of approval and the pair find themselves joining his team in the Himalayas. Harold's wife Cindy (Julia Nickson-Soul) is distraught that her husband is going to take on such a dangerous climb, especially since he has recently become a father. Tensions in the climbing team mount as Taylor repeatedly clashes with another member of the group, the equally brash and arrogant Dallas Woolf (Luca Bercovici). Meanwhile, Claibourne himself grows increasingly ill as altitude sickness takes its toll on his body. Will the guys reach the peak of K2, or is their quest destined to end in disappointment, or even death?

\"K2\" spends an inordinately long time introducing its somewhat dislikeable characters. Biehn as a foul-mouthed, pushy, adventurous type is especially hard to like, as is Barry as the hard-nosed mountaineering millionaire. But on the other side of the coin, Craven is so dull that it becomes difficult to believe his wife could possibly give a damn about him going off to climb K2 - heck, she'd be better off if he never came back!! Rounding off the main characters is Bercovici, whose characterisation as Dallas Woolf is as campy and over-the-top as every other role he's ever played. The story itself is totally tame and disposable \u0096 just a straightforward yarn about guys trying to reach the top of a mountain. There's a bit of male bonding thrown in, but the whole subplot about Harold and his wife amounts to nil, and the personality clashes between Taylor and Dallas ring totally false. \"K2\" scores its few merits solely from the stunning cinematography by Gabriel Berastain \u0096 during the Himalayan sequences, the scale and awe of the mountains is quite nicely captured. I'm completely with critic Kim Newman on this one, who hilariously stated in Empire magazine: \"On this evidence, climbing K2 can't be any harder than sitting through it!\" Quite true, Kim, quite true!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought the DVD out of a big bin for $4.99, thinking I'd lucked into some documentary pearl that would actually show extensive footage of the Karakoram mountains, and K2 in particular. Fast-forwarding through the film, I reached the climactic scene in which the climbers catch their first sight of ---- Mount Waddington, towering to all of 13,260 ft, in Canada's Coastal Range. At least one of the several bozos geared up to climb K2 clearly has no idea what the real mountain actually looks like -- he has to be assured by his friend and climbing partner that he wouldn't have been brought by said partner to an ugly mountain. Given that one of the film's premises is that 27 or so people have lost their lives on K2, you might think that the jerk in question might have taken a minute or two to bone up on a few basic facts, but the clown seems to think that preparations on this scale, while good enough for the likes of Reinhold Messner, are beneath him. To be honest, I haven't watched the whole thing. What I've seen makes me cringe. They say that you get what you pay for. At $4.99, I've been ripped off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know why I even watched this film. I think it was because I liked the idea of the scenery and was hoping the film would be as good. Very boring and pointless.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"They call this film \"euro trash horror\".

Well, it's not horror. The film takes place in Europe, so yes, it's \"euro\". Trash? Ah yes, it's trash all right.

You know you're in for a great movie when, right at the beginning, the DVD gives you text on the screen apologizing for the quality of the print you're about to watch. Expect crackles, odd jarring cuts, and for the movie not to fit the screen. Plus there's the sound -- at first I thought I was watching a dubbed film. Then, watching the lips carefully, I realized that, no, it's that the sound quality is embarrassingly bad and out of synch.

The plot itself is fairly goofy -- an old, disfigured woman named Dr Bannister kills a scientist for his youth formula. I'm not giving much away because when you see the \"old woman\" it's pretty obvious she's under a layer of thick, badly applied make-up. Anyone with a lick of sense, seeing the fake old age, knows what's coming next.

Yes, the \"old crone\" is miraculously transformed into a beautiful young woman -- complete with face make-up and a long wig of hair! Zounds!

When I say the old woman is disfigured, I mean she has cornflakes glued to her face. The film makes no attempt to explain how the cornflakes got there. For that matter, there is no attempt to explain anything at all relating to any of the characters. They're never developed beyond the level of finger puppets.

The two policemen pursuing our anti-heroine just wander about, apparently baffled by the simplest clues. The murdered scientist was working on a youth serum, the old woman has disappeared, and we keep running into a young woman -- how do these pieces fit together?! What does it all mean?! One of the cops sweats a lot and pats his face with a cloth. The other smokes a pipe. That's pretty much all we get, character-wise.

Dr Bannister (the crone, now a beauty) goes around wearing odd costumes and then taking them off so we can see her flesh. She has affairs with men. She gets in a catfight with a young woman in a nightgown. She goes to Geneva so we can see the lake there. She water- skis a bit, then takes off her wet suit to reveal a strange bead-curtain bikini. She takes off her clothes again in a strange ninja costume striptease.

The ending? Well, without giving anything away, it's just a bizarre, tacked on conclusion that makes about as little sense as the rest of the picture. It's the sort of thing a writer comes up with when the director wakes him up at 4 AM and says, \"Quick! We need an ending for our movie! What happens next?\"

The writer mumbles something half awake, and the director runs with it.

What's good about this movie? Some of the music is campy and fun. That classic 60s organ music that's so corny it's enough to make you laugh out loud. There are some odd seduction scenes, bizarre dialogue, goofy moments.

It's very close to being so bad it's good. I did manage to watch it from start to finish without gouging out my eyes or sobbing. I guess that's praise, of sorts.'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This Spanish-Italian co-production tells an interesting and weird story about Dr. Bannister, a woman that not only has the best years behind her, but also has a scarred face that makes her look like a freak. But in Madrid, a professor she knows has conducted some experiments on animals with a substance which regenerates cells. The experiments were successful, but the animals became aggressive. Because the professor won't allow Dr. Bannister to be the first human guinea pig, she kills him and consumes the substance. She becomes a beautiful young woman, but also a vicious killer when it comes to keep her secret a secret.

The plot of the film is great fun, but Piero Vivarelli had not enough skills and money to make a cool movie out of it. Also, the film becomes boring after a good start and doesn't manage to regain a fast pace even though the film's running time doesn't exceed 83 minutes. And as the setting changes to Swiss city Geneva for the last third of the film, it sometimes even looks like a vacation movie as we see how beautiful Geneva is (which it is indeed - but it doesn't help to push the plot forward...). So, with a more talented director, better actors and a bigger budget, \"Satanik\" could have become an obscure Italian classic. But, as it is, it's just a lacklustre and boring crime film that isn't really worth looking for. Rating: 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Deformed, aged female scientist kills fellow scientist in order to steal formulae for rejuvenating cells and reversing the aging process. She takes it and turns into the beautiful, evil Satanik (Magda Konopka) who goes around, seducing and murdering wealthy businessmen.

She dresses very stylishly in late-60s mod clothes and manipulates those around her, looking a lot like the late Marisa Mell from the DIABOLIK film. Coincidence??

However, in spite of all this, it's amateurish and sloppy without the James Bond pop-art gadgetry that DIABOLIK had had. Even the Madrid and Lake Geneva filming locations don't make up for this.

The soundtrack is by Manuel Parada & Roberto Pregadio and it isn't bad at all, consisting of lush orchestration with a little fuzz guitar used as an embellishment. Perfect for one of those European Loungecore CDs that came out in the 90s.

The Retromedia DVD also uses a substandard grainy color print that's in poor shape, with an explanation at the beginning saying that this was due to the age of the film. Bull ! They either didn't bother looking for a better source or they couldn't find one at all. There are only a few stills of Magda and that's it.

Sloppy & poor all around, this one gets a 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dr. Marnie Bannister (Magda Konopka) is a horribly disfigured woman. When one of her colleagues discovers a rejuvenation formula, Marnie sees it as her opportunity to become beautiful. When she's denied the drug because of possible side effects, she kills her colleague to get what she wants. The drug works and she becomes beautiful. But the formula brings out the worst in her and it's not long before she's left a string of bodies behind her.

Have you ever heard the expression \"as exciting as watching paint dry\"? That pretty much sums up Satanik. During the film, one of the characters utters the line, \"Something so horrible, it's inconceivable.\" I wasn't sure if he was talking about something in movie or the movie itself. I'm really disappointed because I had high hopes for this one. Satanik had possibilities, but they're never realized. At every opportunity, the plot has Marnie do the dullest things imaginable. The writing is horrible. And part of the problem is Magda Konopka. She's not that appealing and cannot carry the film on her own.

Another big problem with Satanik is the direction and editing. It's a mess. We see things and places that have no bearing on anything in the movie. The camera lingers on shots too long after the scene is over. I can't think of a single shot that would call anything but unoriginal. This group of filmmakers exhibits little in the way of imagination or talent.

I may not be familiar with the Italian comic on which Satanik is supposedly based, but I'm sure it's got to be better than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Old bat transforms to younger OK looking girl after drinking a potion. This movie was dreadful. The acting atrocious. The camera work made me head spin. And it features the longest, most excruciatingly boring strip-tease ever put to film. Piero Vivarelli should be ashamed for directing this. Eduardo Manzanos Brochero should'voe been blacklisted just for writing something so awful.Don't rent this movie, the only exception I can this of is maybe If you're dying and only have less then 90 minutes to live, watch this film cause it will feel like an eternity and you'll be begging the Grip Reaper come a little early.

My Grade: F","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I write this in November 2005 I've become aware that the great British boom of cinema has come to an end and while people will claim much of this is down to the British government not giving film makers tax breaks I think the cause is much simpler - A lack of diversity on the part of producers over the last few years . Let's have a look at what the Brits were producing 1995-2005:

Funky gangster thrillers . LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRALES was a truly great and thoroughly entertaining film and people went out of their way to ape Guy Ritchie's style with usually disappointing results

Romantic comedies . Yeah okay I do realise FOUR WEDDINGS , NOTTING HILL etc were produced by American studios but they're still vaguely \" British films \" . Unfortunately because they're guaranteed to make a profit for the studios they have to follow a winning formula which usually involved Hugh Grant playing Hugh Grant for the umpteenth time

Black Comedies . Can anyone explain what a black comedy actually is ? In the British context it's usually a rambling film with often contemporary political statements made and which often resembles Mike Leigh's NAKED

Jasmin Disdar's BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE is a good example of the third type of British movie . Filmed in 1999 but set in 1993 it opens with two men having a fight on a bus and it's later revealed that one's a Serb and one's a Croat so we get a bite sized rundown of what was happening in the Balkans at that time , though what's the odds of two former enemies in the Balkans bumping into each other on a London bus ? This sums up one of the major flaws of the movie - Irony takes precedence over likely situations , you can appreciate the final irony of the subplots but is the outcome likely ? Perhaps the greatest irony is the title of the film . It's called BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE but certainly this audience member found them clich\u00e9d stereotypical people that I couldn't believe in as three dimensional characters","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had to lower my rating of this movie to a 4 due to the terrible sound track. I'm pretty sure it was not a problem with me or the tape, because some actors and the sound track sounded great. But most of the actors voices were distorted or garbled beyond recognition, especially for non-brits.

There are plenty of cute little twists that would make this an enjoyable movie - ending up in Bosnia by mistake is great - but much of the humor was lost in the sound.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This very forced attempt to fuse Robert Altman and Quentin Tarantino (who is wildly overrated himself) is neither informative nor entertaining. The character development is arbitrary and unbelievable -- especially in the final scene of the thugs and the little boy, as other reviewers have noted. Also, a couple of humorous moments aside, the film is not as funny (black humor or otherwise) as the director seems to think it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What I miss most of all in this film is that it lets no place for imagination, everything is said. It is like a documentary film, but not as good as a documentary, because it is no documentary. A patchwork film without a continuous story. Very superficial, nothing to think about, because the film tells you already what you are supposed to think. Too many different problems are touched but none is worked out in order to make you think. I do not even know if it is a funny film that wants to be serious or a serious film that wants to be funny. Many scenes are very unrealistic, and the acting is quite poor. The film is quite boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I saw this movie during the last San Sebastian Film Festival. The reaction to it was...let's say as funny as the movie unintetionally is. It happened that they showed a copy with terribly wrong spanish subtitles. They seemed to be a translation from chinese to english and then to spanish. It was all confusing, the genders were switched (girls appeared as boys and boys as girls), and my friends and I remember great lines... but because they were so absurd. All in all not a good movie, but if they ever show it on tv, and you have nothing to do, and if you want to laugh (again, not so much with the movie) then go ahead, \"Visible secret\" is your film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before I begin, let me get something off my chest: I'm a huge fan of John Eyres' first film PROJECT: SHADOWCHASER. The film, a B-grade cross of both THE TERMINATOR & DIE HARD, may not be the work of a cinematic genius, but is a hugely entertaining action film that became a cult hit (& spawned two sequels & a spin off).

Judge and Jury begins with Joseph Meeker, a convicted killer who was sent to Death Row following his capture after the so-called \"Bloody Shootout\" (which seems like a poor name for a killing spree \u0096 Meeker kills three people while trying to rob a convenience store), being led to the electric chair. There is an amusing scene where Meeker talks to the priest about living for sex but meeting his one true love (who was killed during the shootout), expressing his revenge for the person who killed her \u0096 Michael Silvano, a washed-up football star who spends his days watching his son Alex practicing football with his high school team (and ends up harassing his son's coach). But once executed, Meeker returns as a revenant (or as Kelly Perine calls \"a hamburger without the fries\"), whose sole aim is to get his revenge, which basically means making Silvano's life a misery.

Let me point out the fact that Judge and Jury is not a true horror film. It is a supernatural action film, with Meeker chasing Silvano, using his ability to change form (which amounts to David Keith dressing up as everything from an Elvis impersonator, a French chef (with an accent as bad as his moustache), a drag queen, a clown & a stand-up comedian), a shotgun which fires explosive rounds & an invulnerability to death (although that doesn't stop Martin Kove from shooting Keith with a Desert Eagle), to pay Silvano back for killing Meeker's wife.

Director John Eyres does not seem interested in characterisations, instead focusing solely on action scenes, which the film has plenty of. But that is the film's main flaw, since there's nothing to connect the action scenes together. The acting is surprisingly good, with Keith delivering the best performance, supported ably by Kove, as well as Paul Koslo, who plays the washed-up cop quite well. Kelly Perine is annoying as the cabbie who tries to help but makes the situation worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this is not heavily featured on every list of \"what not to watch\", it should only be because those keeping that particular list are not aware of its existence, which, as long as that remains so, is the acceptable alternative. I'm not kidding you, this is a *bad* \"movie\". Joseph Meeker returns from the dead, with various vague, undefined supernatural powers, the most employed of which would seem to be appearing in new, increasingly comical-looking and ridiculous(and never scary or creepy... in general, when this goes for the latter of those, it winds up just being bizarre, and attempts at the former just don't work, period) outfits and stereotypes\/archetypes, and he is portrayed by David Keith(whom I respect in... well, at least Daredevil), doing a more often than not terribly inconsistent(which could also have to do with script) and often over the top performance. A character or two have personalities so unbelievably irritating that they're painful to watch. The editing thinks it's considerably more clever than it really is(and what on Earth was with the red tint for the flashbacks?). Cinematography... oh, dear. Framing, coverage, effective use of angle(that one could be attributed some to editing, too, perhaps), please, guys, stop me when I say something you've ever heard about the existence of. As far as the technical side goes, this is a pretty lousy excuse for something more worthwhile to put in the projector than unexposed film. But why stop there? The plot is just poor. The basic idea's been done, and it's been done so much better than this(The Crow would be one). The way it's told is gimmicky, and while there is some explanation behind the flashbacks, it still doesn't satisfy. Pacing is about non-existent. The lead is distinctly unlikeable, and there's more personality in a barn door, not to mention that those are also considerably less wooden. Kelly Perine and Thomas Ian Nicholas? What in the name of all that is good and just(pun intended) are you doing in this? Perine, you were already funny before this, on The Drew Carey Show, Nicholas, well, I haven't seen you in anything preceding American Pie, but if nothing else, you *were* funny later on, and in those productions, the amusement was intentional. Dialog is... the less said, the better. Language is unrestrained, and tends to be stupid. The violence is shoddily done, and they don't even seem to care to try to hide it(hinting at it might have been the smarter strategy). Characters, don't get me started. Why spend so much energy on portraying unexciting, at times utterly illogical, events? The more you think about this, the worse it gets. It's not even passable as a \"bad horror flick\", or a B movie(it may very well pass through the rest of the alphabet, and go further still), it couldn't scare you on the scariest day of your life if it had an electrified scaring machine. I recommend this only to people who want to disprove how bad this is, and don't say I didn't warn ya. 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So much for JUDGE AND JURY, which lives up to its nonsense title. What good is there? The lighting is terribly foggy! Another horror movie you ask? Well, that's perfectly explainable. David Keith actually does pretty good at disguising clowns, chefs, and other shenanigans while being the killer who escaped death row. But overall, despite some new twists, it's reasonably stupid. Unapix has been putting out some ludicrous productions recently, and this one only means so much. We, the jury, find this film guilty for its indecent exposure to many of us sitting around believing it's a total waste of our time!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this thinking it would be pretty good just by the cover of the movie case. Judge and Jury started out pretty good killer chasing the man who killed his wife on a bike with a cool gun, but this movie got progressively stupider as it went on. David Keith is awesome actor especially when he plays a role like this too bad the movie was a piece of crap it really wasted his talent. Judge and Jury was well plain dumb I gave it a 3 should have gave it a 2, I gave it an extra star just because David Keith's gun was cool.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It`s funny how instinct warns you of something . For example as soon as the company credits read Nu Image I knew instinctively I`d seen a really crap film by them somewhere before but couldn`t remember where . Nevertheless I just knew JUDGE AND JURY was going to be crap and it was . Maybe I`m psychic ?

!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!

The opening is rather violent with several people getting blown away for no more reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time . I don`t know about you but I`m geting slightly fed up with exploitive violence onscreen nowadays along with bad language , especially if it`s spouted by actors as bad as the ones in this movie . Anyway the plot revolves around the bad dude getting executed and coming back to reek revenge on the man who shot his wife . Oh did I mention the bad dude and his wife murdered a couple of people on their wedding night ? Yeah he`s a serious badass mofo . In fact he`s so bad ( And I don`t mean the acting - I`ll get to that in a moment ) that he`s impossible to take seriously and this is before he`s executed only to return as Elton John , Elvis , a French chef etc . I wonder if Keith David got paid for this ? because he looks lke he`s having so much fun on screen that`s the only reason he`s playing the role . What a pity this reviewer didn`t have any fun whatsoever watching JUDGE AND JURY . Hey maybe the producers could send me Keith`s fee ? Gawd only knows I deserve it.

I disliked this movie a lot as if you hadn`t guessed and my main beef isn`t with the stupid plot or the cheap production values but with its attitude to violence . If like me you`ve had a wine bottle cracked over your head or been kicked in the ribs very hard several times you`ll know violence is an obscene painful thing , but JUDGE AND JURY will have you believe that if you`re thrown through a window , crash through some bannisters and fall twenty odd feet onto a table not only will you be unhurt but you`ll be able to outrun a couple of rabid devil dogs . It could of course be argued that any film starring Sly , Arnie or Bruce also suffers from this same dishonest showing of violence but with JUDGE AND JURY it yanked my chain","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It goes without saying that a modicum of allowances has to be made when a true story is being adapted for the big screen. But if you shoot a fairy tale that has next to nothing to do with what actually happened - why call it Bugsy and make the audience believe this was a halfway true story? The Godfather trilogy processes many real characters and events, Once Upon A Time In America does it, too, but they don't claim to be telling true stories.

* SPOILER*

In the movie, Benny has this grand vision of a gambler's Eldorado; in real life Lansky had to argue him into going to Nevada. Benny deemed the notion of a counterpart to Monte Carlo idiotic, and he'd have preferred to continue his life as a playboy in L.A. Not until much later Benny warmed to the idea. But of course he's the hero of the movie, so naturally the idea had to be his.

In the movie, Benny wants to use Count diFrasso to get close to Mussolini in order to assassinate him because he was Hitler's partner, and Hitler killed jews in gas chambers, after all. Obviously we're supposed to like Benny, so the screenwriters invented this nonsense. In real life, at that time nobody knew about the gas chambers, least of all Benny who was completely uninterested in politics. In fact he did use the countess' connection and he did visit Mussolini, but not to kill him, but to sell explosives to him. He even met Goebbels and Goering during his sojourn in Italy.

The whole Greenberg subplot was nonsense. Greenberg didn't turn stool pigeon, he didn't seek refuge with Benny, Benny didn't kill him (that was up to Albert Tannenbaum)... at least they got the name right.

I guess it was supposed to be very romantic to have Virginia return to Benny, offering him the money she had stolen. The movie even goes so far to tell us via text panels that she ruefully returned the money to Lansky after Benny's assassination. Let me just say, revisionism just doesn't get more impudent than this.

This list is by no means exhaustive - there's the issue with Benny's family not living in L.A, the way Benny deals with Dragna and Adonis, the portrayal of Costello (a disagreeable corporate type), Lansky (a lovable teddy bear), Benny himself (an aging windbag who wouldn't have reached age 12 if he had regularly gone \"bugsy\" in situations like those in the movie, and what's more, who neither has the good looks nor the charisma of Benny Siegel) and many others. Apart from a few hard facts nothing's right in this flick.

* SPOILERS END HERE*

All in all, this is the one mafia movie that manages to be even more ridiculously bad than Harlem, NY. But honor where honor is due: This is a feat in itself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The reality of the mafia environment is absolutely dog-eat-dog where a gangster will be killed for showing any sign of weakness because they become a liability. I've got no problem with the human side of gansters' being portrayed but Bugsy steers too far in the direction of soft, comical, men. The film is enjoyable but is only light entertainment and not a biopic of a man who, though exciting, was extremely dangerous and fearsome.

The acting's all good and the direction very solid. The locations and era are very well represented and the themes very interesting. Did Bugsy really want to kill Mussoulini?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not as bad as \"Billy Bathgate\" but close. Try as he might, Warren Beatty just could not be believed as Bugsy. Whenever he flipped out, instead of being shocked by the violence, I found it pretty embarrassing because it was so phony. The other actors don't fare as well either. Annette Bening just doesn't have what it takes to play seductive women, she is better off with safe characters. As many have noted, Joe Mantegna would have fared better if the script had him as a more believable George Raft. Only Harvey Keitel emerged unscathed, but then again this guy can do these movies in his sleep. And Robert Beltran, with just one line, steals one of the big Beatty, Bening scenes. With these films, I'm never sure if the director is intent on making the mobsters seem like normal businessmen or if it just comes out that way. Either way, I don't like it. These guys were killers and no matter how much Las Vegas is indebted to Bugsy Siegel, I don't think that a movie should be made glorifying the guy, especially one with a big studio backing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A tedious gangster film that leaves you wishing someone had edited it farce more ruthlessly. I would have thought that the story of the creation of Las Vegas would prove interesting but it fails at almost every turn. Warren Beatty's performance as the stupid and unlikeable Bugsy Seigel leaves you wishing you were watching someone else. Once or twice he flashes through the fog of his performance to deliver an interesting scene but most of the time you just can't care about him. Annette Benning gives a skilled turn as his untrustworthy lover but even she's only faintly more savoury than he is.

I really wouldn't bother with this turgid drama unless you're a Benning devotee.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bugsy Siegel was 31 when he went out to the West Coast. In addition to his dreams about Las Vegas, he toyed with the idea of acting. He was a good looking guy and about 7 years younger than his pal George Raft, so it wasn't such a crazy idea.

Warren Beatty was 54 when he made this movie and despite the hair dye, he's too old for this part. Beatty was miscast; Bugsy should have been played by someone like Alec Baldwin. Bugsy was a tough guy feared by his contemporaries; Beatty just doesn't radiate menace.

This was a vanity project for Beatty, who hasn't come to terms with the fact that he's no longer a leading man.

The other big annoying miscast is Mantegna as George Raft. Raft had a distinctive voice and mannerisms, none of which Mantegna even attempts to match. You never once believe that Mantegna came from the streets.

Warren Beatty and Robert Redford have both been pretending to be younger for years by massive use of hair dye, and now it;ll be a shock to suddenly go gray and play character parts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My girlfriend wanted to see this (lol this is the case a lot)...so I rented it. Then I saw how acclaimed this was nominated for 10 Oscars. GREAT! this should be good ol' drama. This movie had a lot of potential...the direction and the way everything was paced was very well. But once the movie ended, I couldn't help but ask myself if this story was really worth making a film for. Virginia Hill (Annette Bening) was EXTREMELY annoying, I just couldn't tolerate her character at all. Warren Beatty was excellent in the film acting-wise, but again I just found it hard to have sympathy for his character....he just came off essentially as a idiotic, hotheaded loser of a gangster..who had no place in 'the life' in the first place. How'd he get in with the likes of Meyer Lansky and Lucky Luciano anyway??? This film just left me with a bland but uneasy feeling...what was the big deal with this movie? I just didn't feel a completeness with Bugsy. Beatty's antics, although acted quite well, just seemed too random and illogical. I'm guessing that's how Siegel really was....but it was just too much of that. There just didn't seem to be much of a real story here. My basic assessment of it would be

\"a hot-headed, playboy, underachieving gangster falls in love with a loser of a woman, comes up with the idea of 'Las Vegas'....but his failed attempt at the casino he builds, along with having no regard for his mob bosses' money gets him killed.\"

What else is there besides that? I just didn't see the big deal with this, and it was a big disappointment. There must've not been many movies to come out in 1991, how this was nominated for 10 Oscars is beyond me (although the two it won is justifiable). 1.5\/4 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie was supposed to release in 2002 and was much awaited due to the promos but it finally released in 2003 after the producer died

The movie is good in parts but overall isn't great

The scenes between Rani and Ajay are okay but the other scenes are not well handled

The film is too similar to BOLLYWOOD Hollywood and though this was planned before that got released first so originality is lost

Milan Luthria disappoints overall after KACHCHE DAAGE

Music is good but too many songs

Ajay Devgan looks jaded and his appearance gives away that the film was delayed and his acting looks boring too Rani is good Sonali is good too rest are okay","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was on a British Airways flight from London to New York when I saw this movie. I wish I could have fallen asleep. The story line was very thin and the editing crew did their best to stretch it out as long as they did.

Gary, played by Andy Garcia, was such an unlikable character that I found it hard to be supportive of him. Andy's acting ability is good but not good enough to make up for the poor writing in this movie.

Andie MacDowell did a fine job with her portrayal of Linda, Gary's romantic interest. I can not say anything bad about Andie, I always enjoy her acting. The problem here is that the romance between Andy and Andie is so far fetched and unbelievable. The two do not make a good pair on the big screen.

The end of the movie was almost as much of a let down as the movie itself. A nod from the Pope and all is forgiven, come on. The event that allows this movie to have a some what happy ending and that the writers would expect us to accept it is pathetic. Gary does not change and only by the death of a dear friend does his situation get better.

There are tons of great movies that should be seen before this one. Don't waste your time.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A trite fish-out-of-water story about two friends from the midwest who move to the big city to seek their fortune. They become Playboy bunnies, and nothing particularly surprising happens after that. The final 15 minutes are especially cheesy. But at least the Bunnies looked good...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What's the point of this film? It's totally forgettable. Unless you have a serious bunny fetish, look elsewhere. So the bunnies had a merit\/demerit list. No chewing gum in front of the customers. Are we supposed to find that interesting?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Boston Blackie movies have some strengths -- mostly in that the pacing is swift and the hero is cheerfully unfazed in even the worst circumstances. But the plotting is frequently atrocious, and the unrelenting comic bits often kill the pacing (if the plot happens to be atypically good) or are just unfunny and inappropriate.

This one involves Blackie chasing an escapee from the asylum (Steve Cochran in a really poor performance) who has become fixated on beautiful Nina Foch (who puts in a nice, rather subtle acting job). Inspector Farraday, of course, believes Blackie has gone homicidal maniac (he at least has some evidence in this one for that), and is incompetently trying to jail him as Blackie goes after the real killer. The plot has possibilities, but any time any real tension gets going, we a get a not funny comedy routine. It doesn't seem like anyone at Columbia understood that, in a movie about a pursuit of a really dangerous maniac, cute little comedy scenes about hiding an inconvenient body from the inspector disrupt any willing suspension of disbelief. (One just concludes our clever hero is an idiot -- deadly for a film like this.)

This one is not worth the time. For a well plotted episode of this series, see Alias Boston Blackie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just saw this early this morning on the Fox channel quite by accident (my dog woke me up) - I had seen it years ago and thought I remembered it fairly well. As a kid, I had enjoyed it. But now? As another poster commented, several of the reels were out of order, and while it was disorienting at first, and bizarre, it seemed to fit the production - what was just awful became surreal and amusing. Musical numbers for what I think was the \"big\" fundraiser show(\"you're in show business, I'm in show business, most of the kids are in show business, let's put on a show\")come out of nowhere BEFORE all the talk about putting on a show, and then fade without applause to totally unrelated \"straight\" scenes. The leading man's girlfriend shows up, spits out lines and lines of dialogue, then disappears. I was half awake, and loved every insane minute of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one for the Golden Turkey book. It's another of those \"putting on a show\" flicks. The dialogue is turgid. The music is terrible. The costumes may be the worst ever. And the Nick Castle choreography is hilariously dreadful. Check it out, oh ye who love bad flicks. Only Perry Como is tolerable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILER ALERT

A clich\u00e9-riddled film that somehow makes an anti-death with dignity statement, though it attempts to do the opposite. Washington is a paralyzed forensics officer who has been suffering and wanting to die for the past four years (apparently he wrote his huge selling book only a year ago though, so it hasn't all be despair). He arranges for an assisted suicide with his doctor who will return in a week.

In the meantime, he helps out on a serial killer case. He recruits the gutsy, I don't wanna do it, but I'm just so good at it, cop Jolie, and they track down impossible clue jumping to highly unlikely conclusions in matters of moments. Hey, that old bolt means that the killer has the millionaire's wife in a steam tunnel by the old Woolworth building. Shyeah, right. It's laughable. Yet no is smart enough to figure out that doctor who's going to assist him is the killer.

When he comes to Washington to murder him (ahead of schedule), he has a change of heart and struggles unbelievably for his life. Cut to the obligatory bad guy about to shoot the good guy scene when BANG the gun goes off--- but the bad guy didn't fire! No the woman steps out of the corner, she has just shot him in the back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The storyline has too many flaws and illogical sequences to be worthwhile. Jolie's acting is pretty flat and poor, Washington's is OK, the rest of the cast are cardboard cutouts. Somehow almost everything about this film oozes mediocrity. The plot is lame. The only thing I liked more or less about this film are the fairly original methods the perpetrator uses to end his victims. Technical details are worse than the most far-stretched CSI 'knowledge' and gizmos and halfway the movie one wonders if the director even cared about detail credibility. (Some Spoilers hereafter!) I mean, an EKG machine with a pure sinus wave reflecting a man's heartbeat, a quadriplegic with full body muscle spasms and one working index finger, sure. A killer gutting a man's bowels whilst keeping him alive to allow the rats to feast on him followed by a rat aiming for the guy's FACE! What's with all that stupidity? Then there are quite a few continuity goofs, but you can find those elsewhere here on IMDb Honestly I found it a bit of an insult even to my limited intelligence.

Waste of time. Still 4 out of 10 to keep my girlfriend from kicking me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*Criticism does mention spoilers*

I rarely make user comments, but this is one movie I have no problem slandering. This movie stinks, and its mediocre of rating of 6 and a half stars is probably too high for such pulp. The Bone Collector is not at all the same calibre of film that Silence of the Lambs or Seven were, despite what its ad claims. This is a perfect example of how not to make a thriller. The pace of this movie was extremely slow- I actually left for about 10 minutes half-way through and came back at the exact scene with the exact same character with absolutely no progression (I refer to you the part where Angelina Jolie's character debates Denzel about cutting off a corpse' hands). The movie is not at all scary, but tries to compensate this with a love-subplot albeit sexy Angelina Jolie's character and Denzel Washington's. Of course, what you get is something comparable to that of the mentor-student relationship as seen in the brillian epic Silence of the Lambs with Hannibal Lecter and Starling, however, even this lacks all effectiveness and I was personally routing for the villain to kill Denzel off so as to avoid hackneyed giggles between the two. With such a crappy movie, I was half-expecting a plot-twist or some sort of spectacular situation to occur at the end to give the movie some credit- things that mediocre movies like Arlington Road and Scream pulled off. Anybody with a 4th grade education can see the ending how will be resolved ( a situation which mimicks Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window). The cliche of having the killer explain his motives was uninspired enough, but the reason was so ridiculous and stupid it had me spewing latte over the screen. Esoterically speaking, I even think the murderer's intention was completely lost as Denzel happily recovers from his loss over the proverbial 'chess game' and gets with his pet project, Angelina.

If you are a fan of movies with original ideas and genuinely dynamic concepts (like I am), you will not appreciate this film. If you have not attended a single movie in your life and would like to catch-up on every single Hollywood cliche ever borne (the late-night knock on the window from somebody else but the murderer, the ridiculous serial-killer to prime investigator relationship, the horrible 'woman trying to get by in an all-male dominated workforce aka SOTL) , see this movie....but even then its too slow-paced and you'd be bored.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can envision the writers of this story thinking up this script:

1.Let's make a serial killer movie like Se7en, Knight Moves, Copycat, and Silence of the Lambs. People like serial killer stuff. It'll sell... 2.The killer needs to adopt some sort of pattern. I know; he'll copy it out of a serial killer mystery novel. That hasn't been done yet, at least not exactly like that. 3.Now, we need some kind of way to make this movie unique; of course, the good guy can be bedridden like in Rear Window. 4.Lastly, we need a twist ending that will give this movie the success of The Sixth Sense and The Usual Suspects.

Okay, now that you know these things, you know the whole movie, so don't waste your money. One thing I really hate about moviemakers is that they take a perfectly good concept for movies and completely run them into the ground. I wrote better stories than this when I was in Junior High. I just kept checking my watch every five minutes. When the twist ending finally came, I wasn't shocked, I just said, \"Oh. Who cares?!\" The characters are two-dimensional. They have your typical movie personalities. This movie is just proof that stealing the elements of other successful movies is no excuse for a bad script. I give this movie 1 out of 10. Normally, it would earn at least 2 or 3, but I'm so sick of the unoriginality. When will they learn? 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Bone Collector is set in New York City & starts as one of the world's foremost criminologist's & crime scene experts Lincoln Rhyme (Denzel Washington) is involved in an accident which leaves him a bedridden quadriplegic. Jump forward four years & Alan (Gary Swanson) & his wife Lindsay Rubin (Olivia Birkelund) are kidnapped, soon after New York cop Amelia Donaghy (Angelina Jolie) is called to a crime scene & finds the buried & mutilated body of Alan. Amelia notices some unusual crime scene evidence & makes a note of it which impresses Rhyme when he is asked to work on the case, he quickly realises the evidence are in fact cryptic clues to the whereabouts of Lindsay. Having cracked the clues the cops get there too late to save her but this is just the beginning as a sadistic serial killer continues to kill & leave forensic clues for Rhyme & the police...

Directed by Phillip Noyce I watched The Bone Collector last night & I have to say it's one of the worst big budget post The Silence of the Lambs (1991) & Se7en (1995) serial killer thrillers I have seen, in fact it makes Friday the 13th (1980) look sophisticated & realistic! The script by Jeremy Iacone was based on the book by Jeffery Deaver & is so poor on so many levels I hardly know where to begin. For a start it takes itself deadly seriously & that makes all the other flaws seem twice as bad. The character's are truly awful & I didn't believe any of them were actual human beings. First we have Lincoln Rhyme who is paralysed from the neck down & there's just not a lot the script can do with him, in fact he quite literally can't do anything but lie in bed for the whole film. He is seemingly impressed with Amelia because she stopped a train & thought a fresh footprint near a murdered person might be of relevance, I'm not being funny here but wouldn't any cop realise a footprint near a murder victim might be of some relevance? Why is he so impressed with her? Then there's Capatin Cheney who is not only unlikable & shouts at everyone for no apparent reason but is so incompetent that he failed to connect several murders committed in a short space of time where each victim had sections of flesh & skin surgically removed from their bodies, how exactly did this guy get to be a police Captain? Then there's the killer whose motives are less than plausible, are you trying to tell me they devised an intricate plan to murder at least seven people because they spent six years in jail for something they actually did? If they wanted revenge on Rhyme why did they kill all those other people who had no connection to anything, I could maybe just about buy someone wanting revenge against the guy who put them away but not to kill several other people who have no connection to themselves, the intended target Rhyme anything else. Also after devising an intricate plan to kill these people & get away with it they suddenly turn into the most stupid person in history as despite holding a large knife & being able to walk & use their arms they are actually defeated & nearly killed by a quadriplegic who has no movement in his body below his neck! How did that happen? I should also mention Amelia who is a terrible character, she actually buys her own camera to take crime scene photo's & shoots rats for no apparent reason.

Besides some of the worst written character's ever the story & plot isn't much better We never find out why the killer is using The Bone Collector book as inspiration We never find out why the killer was taking strips of flesh from his victims. It's never explained why a rookie cop like Amelia is allowed to enter crime scenes even before the proper forensic teams. There is no reason given for why the killer chooses his victims. Also the killers clues are a little obscure aren't they? I mean a bloody animal bone & shaved rat hair? Logically how does someone go from a bone & rat hair to the exact pinpoint location of the next victim & has the whole of New York to choose from? There's some nonsense about a bird that sits on Rhymes window ledge which is just totally random & at almost two hours The Bone Collector is really slow going. There is so much wrong with The Bone Collector & it all comes down to one of the worst scripts ever, it's atrocious on all levels & has zero credibility. Apparently Angelina Jolie has stated that she shot nude scenes for this film but they were cut because they were felt to be too distracting.

With a supposed budget of about $48,000,000 The Bone Collector is well made with good production values & that Hollywood gloss about it. I also must add right now that I think Angelina Jolie gives one of the worst performances I have ever seen, I think she is absolutely terrible in this. Denzel Washington just sort of lies there really, Queen Latifah is awful & even Michael Rooker can't do much as he is stuck with a clich\u00e9d & one dimensional character.

The Bone Collector has to be one of the worst Hollywood films I have seen in a while, I saw it for free on telly last night & I still feel cheated & ripped-off. There are just so many things to poke holes at it's silly, embarrassingly awful or should that be awfully embarrassing? Works either way to be honest...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Am I the only person who thinks that the entire Forensics and Scenes Of Crime community in the USA must detest this almighty slap in their faces. A rookie cop is first to a crime scene where her back up is so slow to respond that she has time to send the kid who found the body to the local store to buy a disposable camera. By the time he returns (still no senior cops, SOCOs or other assistance for the lovely Jolie - this is New York isn't it??) it has started raining and she gets to work photographing the evidence, only after she'd stood in front of an Amtrak to stop it disturbing the scene.

I want to know the name of that camera as the photographs were so incredibly detailed that no amount of zooming in distorted the images!! The horror continues:- not in the film itself (pretty ordinary I'm afraid) but in the Lincoln Rhyme character as played by Mr Washington. This man is a highly dedicated Forensic Crime Scene Examiner with years of experience who, instead of the highly trained but invisible local Crime Scene Examiners, entrusts the work to an untrained cop, a rookie cop, who proceeds to find the very obviously placed clues and move them before photographing them thus contaminating every item and making DNA profiling well nigh impossible. Now that was a bright idea eh? I know one should be able to suspend disbelief to a degree but those who say this film is intelligent must have entirely disengaged their ability to think in order to find this film believable.

I have given this film 4\/10 for the superb acting of Denzel Washington and for Miss Jolie's lips which are the only items requiring my disbelief to be suspended!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wouldn't recommend this to anyone, except cinema-goers who like to laugh at a film, not with it.

Quite a promising premise and set of actors get progressively worse over a film which ends with perhaps the worst ending ever seen in a film. I won't spoil it, but basically the most over-used set of movie cliches get done badly and half heartedly for the most disappointing last five minutes to any film, ever.

The movie also includes the most cringe inducing scene ever, the attempt at on-screen chemistry between the two lead roles when we're presented with a close up of Angela Jolie stroking Denzel Washington's finger lovingly. It may be the only thing he could move, but quite why the viewer is treated to a zoom of Washington's finger getting stroked amidst the kind of dimmed lights and music appropriate for a sex scene is beyond me. I laughed out loud and shook my head.

The direction of the storyline borrows heavily from Se7en, but here it is executed far more simplistically, and far too obviously. To call it a poor-mans Se7en would be an understatement, this really is nothing more than a made for TV movie and even Jolie and Washington's best efforts can't convince that this is a box office film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A formulaic story with all the tired cliches. I was shocked that the horrible script became a movie! What a waste! How many ORIGINAL scripts are scattered around without being produced?

At the climax I could predict what will happen in every single shot.

Oh, and don't even get me started about the idiotic sexual tension between the gorgeous female cop and the paralyzed cop who can barely move a finger. YEAH RIGHT. I CAN BUY THAT. What next? Fingers porn?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow -- this movie was really bad! You talk about formulaic, typical movie plot? Watching this movie was like hitting my head repeatedly against a brick wall. The transitions kept trying to be cool but failed. The plot twist at the end, where we find out who the bad guy is was unexpected, but doesn't make much sense until his monologue. Even then... The amount of gore in this movie doesn't help either. Are all of those images necessary? My last complaint is about the plausibility of chunks of the movie. Would the PD really send a lone officer into an unlit warehouse, subway tunnel, or wherever to find a body, when the location of the perp is unknown? And why does the romance at the end just kind of happen all of a sudden? It's like the writer was trying to fit in every Hollywood cliche he could. Don't waste your time seeing this piece of... something.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If a copy of this movie fell into the wrong hands, the world would be in grave danger. I am a huge fan of \"B\" movies, and I have seen my share of bad ones, but there is not a letter in the alphabet that could adequately describe this rancid piece of solidified puke. This movie even surpasses the \"so bad it's good\" phase and goes straight on to the \"so bad your world will seem a little less meaningful for having watched it\" phase.

It is hard to say what is more disturbing: .1. The fact that the people who wrote this thought their political satire (I use the term very, very, very loosely) was witty enough to film .2. They were able to find so many other people who agreed with them enough to work on this garbage for obviously little or no money .3. That someone actually thought it would be a good idea to pick this crap up for distribution on a horror anthology DVD.

Were I a weaker man, I most likely would have jammed grapefruit spoons into my eyes and then blindly flung myself to my death in oncoming traffic after watching this. As it stands though, I live ,but I am forever scarred by the experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Move over Manos. Back off Boogens. It doesn't take a Baby Genius to know that Malibu Beach Vampires (MBV for the rest of this tome) is now and always will be (unless someone makes a sequel to Zarkorr The Invader) the worst film ever. The only horror in this thing is watching it. I wonder if this was an attempt for someone to meet babes by casting a movie. If this was the case, the babes ain't babes just like this ain't a movie. It's dreck. No wait. I dishonor the word dreck by calling it dreck. Ulli Lommel (of Boogey Man fame) would call it \"uber dreck\" or Schei\u00dfe. It should be used to torture prisoners. If you find it on a shelf in a video store, back away from it quietly and notify the authorities.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"....is where I'm assuming this movie came from. I mean, I've watched plenty of B movies over the course of my young life so far, and I wouldn't even classify this as a B movie. I remember seeing films in my high school mass media class that surpass this one.

So the premise is...a bunch of dancing numbers and goofy crap happens. Women in bikinis, who aren't even that great looking to begin with, dance in the beginning and sing. Guys with hairy chests show up and girls with fangs who are out in the sunlight. I mean, I can barely put together a cohesive sentence just thinking about this movie. According to most people on this site, Manos the Hands of Fate and Pod People are the worst movies (MST3K classics :-D)...I used to be one of them. Then I saw this movie. Usually I don't try to trash a movie too much, but the people who made this really do deserve it. It is THAT bad and THAT unbearable, and I'm assuming the director or an actor in the movie is the only person who rated this a ten.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK - say some college in southern California has an movie making class. And some dudes were enrolled just to film girls, and they gave them a camera. And then they were drunk\/stoned\/ or just to plain stupid to actually use a camera, and they turned this in for their grade. AND FAILED.

That is my only explanation for this, this, thing. Good God they left the date and time counter on during some of it. The picture started in new scene way before the sound, and forget about a plot. Well apparently there was one and they had to tell you all about it once the 3 hour introduction sequence was finished. But I am glad they did because I never would have gotten it by watching this.

STAY AWAY from this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like bad films, but this thing is a steaming heap. From the shaky cameramen to the horrible sound and devastating acting, don't waste a second on this pile. Fifth graders could have made a better film and first graders could have written a better script. Want a real synopsis? Ugly chicks in neon bikinis dancing for way too long. A disjointed plot made worse by hideous acting. The on-location sets weren't even passable. The church scenes take place in a dance studio, and oh yeah - what's with the two tap-dance numbers that come up out of the blue?

Oh, and the total number of naked breasts, which couldn't have even saved this film - 0. Add this one to the trash heap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow! After the first five minutes of watching this \"film\", I was quite tempted to put a bullet in my brain, and end my life. It's really hard to describe what exactly this film is about. I honestly don't know what kind of human being would even finance a piece of excrement. The film looks to have either been shot on video or 16mm. I normally don't have a problem with SOV movies, are shoddily made 16mm films, but this was just so awful. And where did they find these \"actresses\"? I have seen some bad acting, but this takes the cake. Watch the first 5 minutes and you'll see what I mean. BCI Entertainment should be boycotted for distributing this god awful sludge. This has to be the worst film I have ever had the displeasure of viewing. I want my 74 minutes back! If you are able to sit through the first 5 minutes, without either shooting your TV or committing mass homicide, then give a shot. After all, what have you got to lose?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE OTHER is a supposed \"horror\" movie made during the 1970s. It is not to be confused with the similarly titled THE OTHERS, which starred Nicole Kidman.

The plot is as follows - a woman with strange supernatural powers teaches her twin grandsons something referred to simply as \"the game\". One of these twin boys - Niles - is supposed to be \"good\". The other one - Holland - is supposed to be evil.

The idea sounds interesting enough as an abstract concept and the movie was adapted from a novel. I can only hope the novel was interesting as the movie was incredibly boring from beginning to end.

The execution of this movie is very much like a TV movie of the kind UK residents might see on Channel 5. In fact, this movie looks like it was made to be the daytime afternoon movie for this TV channel. A slight trimming to one or two scenes and this would be a U-rated movie of the kind Disney produce. But even the youngest of children are more likely to be bored than scared by THE OTHER.

You don't need to check out the director's CV to realise horror is not his forte.

Mr. Mulligan relies heavily upon the characters to drive the story. This is obvious from the get-go. I haven't seen any of his other movies but TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a highly regarded crime movie on this site. Unfortunately in THE OTHER, the characters are given too little to do and the plodding script ensures the movie never really takes off in the way one might expect.

The direction is as bland as you could possibly find. Almost every single scene takes place in the daytime! Think about this - a scene shot in the open landscape in rural America during daytime with the camera focusing on vast area. Does it sound scary or atmospheric? Believe me, it isn't. It comes across as something more akin to an episode of LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE than a horror movie. And yes, both the aforementioned TV series and THE OTHER were shot in California.

There is a noticeable absence of danger or malice that makes the whole exercise seem rather pointless.

The ending was clearly meant to be highly disturbing and perhaps influenced that of another movie from this time period. I won't reveal which movie but I'll give 2 clues - a young boy was a main character and the movie is well-known. And I'll add that the concept was used to much greater effect in the latter movie.

The acting is actually quite good and is the only reason why I have awarded 2 stars. The actors playing the twin boys, along with the actress playing the grandmother, all try hard with the poor material they are given.

Diana Muldaur is completely wasted in a thankless role as the mother of the twin boys. Do not be fooled by her high billing on the cast list. She gets very little screen time and her presence just comes across as a ploy to cash-in on her long established TV career in order to help attract TV viewers.

I paid careful attention to the blurb on the back of the DVD cover (of the Region 2 version in the UK). Comparisons were made to THE EXORCIST, which I thought was a complete insult to that movie. There is no comparison. THE EXORCIST had everything this movie should contain but does not - suspense, tension, tongue-in-cheek humour, highly disturbing content, great acting, superb characterisation and viewer involvement. Ironically, THE EXORCIST was made only a year later but in terms of style and execution seems like decades ahead of the bland drama known as THE OTHER. THE OTHER comes across as a work that would have seemed tame in the 1950s let alone the 1970s!

The 1970s was a great era for horror movies with classics such as THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE, THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, SALEM'S LOT to name just a few being produced. For this reason, THE OTHER proves an even greater disappointment.

If anyone finds the synopsis of THE OTHER interesting, they might want to read the book or do a little more research on what the book was about. I would advice everyone to skip the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a waste of talent -- although it appears that Crudup in real life is a lot more like the vapid, self- absorbed, character-less character he portrays in this disappointing movie.

In art, sometimes the empty spaces reveal more than the painted or created content. What this movie reveals is the unconsciousness and the contradictory\/competing, unresolved impulses\/consciousness of the film's director\/writer. It unintentionally shows the LACK of awareness that a truly evolved, deeply aware character should have and be tormented about in order to deserve audience empathy or sympathy OR the lack of which is used to serve as a cautionary tale to the audience. But this film fails on either level in that regard.

The fact that Cal, the main character (very much an ANTagonist, not a protagonist in the true sense of the word), has no empathy for anyone, especially those most deserving of it (which does NOT include him) and that he has such overblown, entitled, self-pitying, whiney sympathy only for himself, combined with the hallmark lack of remorse and no sense of guilt or awareness of his impact on others -- all converge in this film to make him the epitome of the self-involved, developmentally arrested, narcissistic sociopath -- somehow this is now the gold standard for males on film and in the world at this point and time.

One of his counterpoints (James LeGros) states with a laser-true flash: \"I bet you haven't done one good thing in life -- and I bet you won't\". It captures the absolute essence of the Cal character. Something the other characters he bulldozes over in the film seem to realize fairly quickly despite the director having stacked the deck to manipulate sympathy for Cal. That is a testament to the supporting cast's talent and skills.

Cal's eventual 'return' has nothing to do with character development, transformation or evolution of consciousness. It has only to do with the ultimate capitulation that until something better comes along, he may as well be back in his comfy cozy status quo of entitled enablement where the living is easy and no one will demand that he grow up--something of which he is willfully incapable and uninterested in doing.

The film could have been pointed and intentional about showing the traps and tragedies -- the devastating effects of this kind of lack of conscience\/ consciousness, but it excuses and glorifies it instead -- in fact, it wallows in self-pity right along with the arrogant, selfish, emotionally stunted main character.

(and it sure sent chills up my spine when thinking of the recent revelations about convicted murderer Scott Peterson).

If you want to see Crudup at his most nuanced and full of an exciting potential that has never been truly realized in my opinion, see the underrated 'Inventing the Abbotts' ....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was so unfocused, rambling and uneven that it was an effort to watch the whole thing. (I actually thought some interesting plot elements might develop.) This was nothing more than a \"coming-of-age\" film for the thirty-something generation. Total crap and I have no idea what Julianne Moore was doing in this since it was the only reason I picked it off the shelf at the rental store.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those road movies that would like to tell you a lotta things about women,the universe,the better life,the terrible solitude of the brilliant architect from Manhattan who severs all links with everyone,including his three years old child -which may seem irresponsible to some-Actually the hero wins hands down when it comes to selfishness and the scene with his old school pal ,which begins as some kind of good old days conversation and ends on a threatening note is the oasis in a desert movie.

The scene with-the-father-who-left-home-when -I-was-a child has been told and told and TOLD.Of course it did not prevent the offspring from making his way of life.And when you see the hero's wife's attitude ,you may think she must never have heard about woman's lib.

The best is the soundtrack which includes superb songs by Willie Nelson,Tom Waits or Bonnie Raitt...But you can enjoy them without this tedious pretentious work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am one of those people that respect every film-maker as having achieved, each film I watch I usually respect(although I admit I select carefully) and appriciate for what it is. Not any more. This is truly one of the worst scripts I have seen produced as a film...so much so I felt compelled to warn others off it. The dialogue was truly unbelievable, the main protaganist was about the last person I would be interested in finding out more about. A scene were an old school friend 'tells it like it is' made me laugh only because it was a pathetic attempt to reveal the subtext of an already concluded plot. The direction is glib at best and at worst film-making by numbers. To compare this film to the atmospheric majesty of a film like Five Easy Pieces is a travesty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The reviewer in Variety said this was \"overwritten and overlong\", and I kind of agree with it. It has some events that seem forced and unlikely, like when Cal (Crudup once again as the 'lost, vacant, and kind of dull' male) and Julianne Moore find a map of the US in kind of an unbelievable place. The story is one of those 1970's \"guy must find meaning in his life\" stories, and I found myself imagining Jack Nicholson in his prime playing the role of Cal. The whole \"hitting the road to find meaning in life\" theme is still kind of interesting though. Does it all really lead back to family? I wasn't so sure. The acting is okay, I particularly liked Karen Allen and James LeGross, who unfortunately only have supporting roles. I'd give it a 'five'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worst movie I've seen in a long time. This whole thing rings false, and the Billy Crudup character especially so. The potential for a good story is there, but this movie never comes close to delivering. Every plot element just drifts away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lois Weber's film \"Hypocrites\" was and still kind of is a very bold and daring film. I enjoyed it and was very impressed by the filming and story of it. The priest sees the hypocrisy of the people in his church and tries to show them the \"naked\" truth. The people are appalled when he reveals the naked statue portraying truth, after failing to lead them to it and the few that did, help along the way. The people do not want to face the truth that they are doing anything wrong, but it shows them putting things before God, going to beach parties acting inappropriate, their materialistic ways, and other things in which the people of our world do that tend to not be morally right. In the end, failing to gain any followers, he must enter into the gates of heaven alone. This film seems to me to be very bold, in the fact that a naked woman is shown throughout it, especially considering the time period in which this film was made. The imagery and symbolism portrayed in this movie I found incredible. The way they made the naked woman translucent and using a naked woman to symbolize the naked truth shows a lot of creativity and art. Showing the different sins of the people as they walked down the road and refused to follow along the path, each with different excuses, setbacks, and\/or higher priorities, was a great way of representing the people of today. This film does a very good job of getting the moral message across to its audience. Lois Weber has a tremendous way of capturing her spectators' attention with her creativity, symbolism, visuals, and through auditory. Even the music of the piano throughout this film is very beautiful and fitting with the whole theme.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story, as I understand, is \"based on real events.\" That can be either good or bad, depending on what sort of license is taken with those real events and how they are rendered.

In this case, the results are enough to gag a maggot. I wasn't expecting much going in -- anticipating a story of rich high-school kids taking an ocean cruise under a stern skipper. That is, what I figured was a coming-of-age movie along the lines of something about boot camp or basic training, the kind in which the drill sergeant says, \"My duty is to snap you out of your winsome civilian ways.\" Well, it IS that, in a way. The kids start out as kids and end up as an organic group. But this is far hokier than any boot-camp movie I've ever seen, outside of a deliberate comedy. Who WROTE this thing? The air is filled with slogans that belong, not in high school, but in the third grade. The dialog offends the ear.

Jeff Bridges usually does a better-than-average job but in this case his performance is mediocre. He brings nothing extra to the part, although given his lines, it's hard to know how he could do much with them. The rest of the cast is undistinguished and a few of the kids are painfully inadequate. There's a lot of tearing up, and considerable crying. The best scene involves a dolphin.

The immature clich\u00e9s continue to the very end. The Coast Guard is cast in the role of the hard-hearted court at the hearing that follows the disaster. The interrogator does nothing but hit Bridges over the head with his misinterpretations and misconstruction of events. \"You let the crew drink alcohol, didn't you?\" (A couple of harmless drinks.) \"And you didn't punish them, though you punished them for killing a fish.\" (The dolphin business.) The technical details surrounding the sinking are left murky. What is a \"white squall\" anyway? And if it's as dangerous as Bridges claims, why weren't the whole crew alerted and wearing life vests? But why go on? If \"The Albatross\" were a Dreadnaught, it would still be torpedoed and sunk by the ludicrous comic-book script.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a person who knows the filmed ship and some other ships, too, I cannot see the movie as a movie, only. As a movie is has some great, wonderful shots of the ship, most of them done on an existing vessel - apart of the ones in the disaster scenes, of course, and a certain room under deck. But regarding the story and dialogs I only can call it big crap. Nothing of that would happen like this on a real sailing vessel. No wonder, the film had bad impact on the existing ship - if I didn't know better, I wasn't tempted to do a sailing voyage for sure. Definitely, for Europeans I recommend to switch off once the ship ran aground. After that, the over-emotional, very American part begins which I couldn't bear. The pics are really, really great, no wonder in a Ridley Scott film, but if you can avoid listening to the text, it will become much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Duncan Roy's writing and direction is really, and regularly, below par. Actually it sort of stinks. AKA is almost as bad as his recent (horrible, self-serving) remake of Dorian Gray - absurd, contorted dialogue among the 'upper class' characters, at once idiotic and pretentious, amateurish, stilted to its core. Characterisiation and script - and sometimes the acting - is creaky like a school play...but worse, there's a sort of peacock self-certainty about the direction which is just soul destroying when the director clearly hasn't grasped...he's just no good. Diana Quick must be cringing with embarrassment. DR you should just get out of film...seriously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"AKA

Aspect ratio: 3 x 1.78:1 within 2.39:1 frame (Triptych)

Sound format: Dolby Digital

1978: A working class teenager (Matthew Leitch) assumes a false identity and gatecrashes high society, where he learns harsh lessons about the divisions between Rich and Poor.

Autobiographical feature by director Duncan Roy (JACKSON: MY LIFE... YOUR FAULT), an expos\u00e9 of the pre-Thatcherite aristocracy, as seen through the eyes of a low-rent 'commoner' whose world view is transformed by his adventures amongst the Upper Classes. Unfortunately, Roy's screenplay says very little we didn't already know about the excesses of the idle rich, and the narrative is only briefly ignited by Leitch's relationship with a handsome but self-destructive rent boy (Peter Youngblood Hills) who turns out to be no less hypocritical than the very people he seeks to emulate. Also starring Diana Quick (as an outrageous snob who believes working class people are \"embarrassed to be alive\"!), Bill Nighy as the black sheep of a wealthy family, Lindsay Coulson (\"EastEnders\"), Blake Ritson (DIFFERENT FOR GIRLS) and Georgina Hale in a typically flamboyant cameo, flashing her boobs at all and sundry, without a care in the world!

Unfortunately, much of the film's impact is diluted by Roy's insistence on using a Triptych effect (three separate 1.78:1 images are letterboxed within the 2.39:1 frame, each one providing a different viewpoint of individual scenes), which shrinks the image and distances viewers from events on-screen. A long, pointless film, too personal for wide appeal, and hampered throughout by a cinematic process which fails to reconcile the story at hand. A single-image version is also available (framed theatrically at 1.85:1), with the on-screen title AKA: LIES ARE LIKE WISHES.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unlike one of the reviewers below, I don't think that a great and glittering career should lie ahead for the director of this inept and tedious piece of navel-gazing. Whereas it is good to see a British director attempting to break out of the confines of convention, AKA's only claim for innovative fame rests on the novelty of the triple screen. At first you think that this might prove to be an interesting device, but its only real contribution to the film is to test your eyesight and patience. Seeing the same character from 3 different angles in a 2-dimensional movie does not make it more revealing or complex. If you can forget the triple screen (which, granted, is very hard to do), you then have to deal with the unintentionally hilarious script. The audience is beaten into submission by chiche upon chiche about the British class system. The film has the political and emotional sophistication of an episode of Upstairs and Downstairs. To sum up: the Emperor's New Clothes. And a rather poor outfit, too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a bit spooked by some of these reviews praising A.K.A. Not only do they sound as if they were written by the same person, but they contain all kinds of insider information that surely you could only find by reading the press book from cover to cover. Please don't tell me that the director is writing his own reviews as that would just be too sad to contemplate.

Afraid I'm another one of those who hated the film and was surprised by its unapologetic amateurism. Great idea, shame about the execution. And it was most disconcerting to watch so many good actors (as well as some very bad ones including the leaden lead) all apparently thinking that they were appearing in a series of very different films.

I wish that A.K.A. had been audacious, innovative or just simply interesting. Sadly it was like watching an unintentionally hysterical home video with arty aspirations. A missed opportunity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was very interested in seeing this movie despite the article I read about the director in Tattler Magazine. I don't judge movies by what the director may or may not have done. This debut feature was very difficult to watch. I found the split screens to be a distraction to the drama in the film, some of the supporting characters gave bad performances, and the film to be a copy of several other films I have seen. There really wasn't anything fresh about this","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a self-indulgent mess! Duncan Roy's film is apparently autobiographical, however it's impossible to find any glimmer of emotional truth in this chaotic, badly acted and woefully amateurish fiasco.

In a way, you have to admire the balls of a man who through grim determination and a very generous benefactor manages to make a film about his own rise and fall - from abused, working class lad to criminal English lord. However, the tone is either so self-pitying or so arch, that it's impossible to engage with either characters or plot. The raw material is potentially great stuff, however Roy seems unable to tease out the kind of tale that should grab you by the throat, then move you to tears. And it's a complete mystery why it was ever made to be screened as a triptych of images - presumably because a single image would have been too tedious to watch.

It's also interesting to see so many otherwise good actors - Bill Nighy, Diana Quick, Lindsay Coulson - giving career-worst performances.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can I say about this movie, it really is one of the worst gay themed movies, ever to come out of the UK. I can only imagine the likes of Diana Quick and Georgina Hale, needed the money. What story there is, is such a rambling mess that you loose interest pretty quickly. It's supposed to be based on real life events. Well, all I can say to that one, is that it's an insult to the real life characters. The DVD is out at the moment in the UK. It's available in either the split screen format, which must make it even worse that the full screen version I watch. Gay cinema can be so much better than this, and we deserve more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was so looking forward to seeing this at the film festival in Sydney. I left the theater, like many others, before the end credits because I couldn't sit through it any longer. It was badly shot, the sound sucks, and the acting was worse than an episode of The Love Boat. Now I know why this film hasn't been able to find an American distribution company to release it in the United States. This screams of a low budget high school production.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film without knowing much about it at all. The split screen device was immediately irritating, and things didn't improve for me after the title sequence had finished. The plot, characters and dialogue were all extremely cliched - poor guy from abusive family gets thrown out of home, wants to get out of his 'lot', reinvents himself, changes his voice, dresses in others' clothes, is adopted by a gay man who he proceeds to disgard on his way up to becoming part of an international set of drug taking British aristocrats.

The estate of Patricia Highsmith (talented mr ripley) should be suing the makers of this film. The triple screen to me, together with the over 120 min duration, emphasises the almost non existent editing. Can't decide which image works and is the most powerful, why not show three and hope you get it right with one of them. This gimmick removed any connection or interest I had with any of the characters. Important dialogue was repeated 3 times across each screen, as if to say 'this is an important \/ moving \/ deep moment, ok!'.

Don't waste your time.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so frustrating to watch. The split screens don't allow you to get very involved in the emotions of the actors. I was constantly going back and forth watching all these tiny images that I found myself with wiplash by the end. This is basically a rip off of \"The Talented Mr. Ripley\" and \"Timecode\" I was very let down with this film makers attempt to be cool. I wish I had walked out like so many other people did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I voted my \"1\" for this film I noticed that 75 people voted the same out of 146 total votes. That means that half the people that voted for this film feel it's truly terrible. I saw this not long ago at a film festival and I was really unimpressed by it's poor execution. The cinematography is unwatchable, the sound is bad, the story is cut and pasted from many other movies, and the acting is dreadful. This movie is basically a poor rip-off of three other films. NO WONDER THIS WAS NEVER RELEASED IN THE USA.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's so depressing when film makers try to be cool and it's so obvious here. This has below average acting, laughable dialogue, split screens that are difficult to watch, and many goofs in it's attempt to be a period film and autobiographical. This film should be avoided at all costs. I was told not to go and see this film. I wish I had listened.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the worst version of William Shakespeare's tragic masterpiece I have ever seen. It seems the filmmakers didn't actually read Shakespeare's text. No, they just took what they wanted from the Lawerence Olivier movie. The plot is out of order and slimmed down to its bare necessity, yet there is time for the non-canon Olivier created incest hint between Hamlet and Queen Gertrude. Could we have had the \"Something rotten in the state of Denmark\" bit instead? Casting is another issue. I understand that the far superior Branagh movie had its weak bits (Robin Williams and Charlton Heston come to mind), but this one has very few good moments. I do like Laertes and Polonius, but the rest of the cast is stale. Mel Gibson's creepy stubble is irritating, and one often wonders if he has any idea what he is saying. Many of the actors seem to have just memorized the part--they know less about what is being said than sophomores in high school.

If you want a version of Hamlet, check out Kenneth Branagh's or even Lawerence Olivier. To be frank, even Disney's Hamlet is better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, to each his own, but I thought Gibson's Hamlet was the most god-awful rendition I had ever witnessed... as subtly nuanced as a paper bag, and as inspired as a telemarketing call. The only reason I watched the movie through to the end was that I held out hope that either it would get better or become unintentionally funny. No luck.

No disrespect for the supporting cast or for Zefferelli's staging, but nothing can make up for the bungling of the main character. I have seen Hamlet well-portrayed as an African prince, as an animated lion, as a rough-and-tumble warrior, as a romantic poet, etc. etc. etc. . But IMHO this portrayal was just a plentiful lack of wit together with most weak hams.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is one of the joys of Shakespeare that there can be no definitive performances - no single performance can be \u0091right', but some can be wrong, and this one is. There are at least two things about Hamlet which cannot be dispensed with: 1. His indecisiveness and inability to take any kind of action. For God's sake that is what makes the play last as long as it does. If you had Othello there instead of Hamlet, Claudius would be dead by the end of Act One. Any production has to try to explain why Hamlet delays, why he is incapable of action. 2. His sexual disgust. His total revulsion at the thought of what his mother and uncle get up to in bed fill him with an utter disgust for all things sexual and this means that any kind of relationship with Ophelia is impossible. At the slightest hint of sex, Hamlet throws up. So, what does Mel Gibson give us? Lusty action-man. You could not get further from the character of Hamlet if you tried. There are lots of ways Hamlet can be played, but this isn't one of them! What I don't understand is since they managed to get such good actors for the other parts - Claudius, Polonius and so on, why couldn't they find one to play Hamlet as well. Mark Rylance in the part would have made this a great film. This \u0091Mel Gibson', whoever he is, completely let down the rest of the cast. And lets face it, Hamlet without the prince really doesn't work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Franco Zeffirelli's (\"The Taming Of The Shrew,\" \"Romeo And Juliet,\" \"Jesus Of Nazareth,\" \"Othello\") third stab at transferring Shakespeare to the screen works very well, with the casting of Mel Gibson (\"Mad Max,\" \"Lethal Weapon\" and pre-\"The Passion Of The Christ\" notoriety) in the role formerly owned by Sir Laurence Olivier (and rightly so; see my review on his \"Hamlet,\" arguably the best interpretation of one of the Bard's timeless (and most quoted) tragedies) and redone 5 years later by Kenneth Branagh as a full-bloodied treatment, explaining its 3 hour 22 minute running time, combined with a dream cast (and a lot of little additions, which were well-chosen and expertly done by the contemporary master of William Shakespeare, Kenneth Branagh, the director of \"Henry V\" and \"Dead Again.\" Joining the \"Lethal Weapon\" star are Glenn Close (\"The Big Chill\"), Paul Scofield (\"A Man For All Seasons\"), Alan Bates, Ian Holm, Michael Maloney (who would be cast as Roderigo opposite Kenneth Branagh and Laurence Fishburne in Oliver Parker's \"Othello\" (see my review of Olivier's \"stage\" version of the tragedy, though he only starred in it) and who Branagh would cast as Laertes in HIS 3-hour version of \"Hamlet\" (a proper homage to Sir Laurence Olivier and his classic version of the play; see my review on that one as well) 5 years later), Nathaniel Parker (who would be cast as Cassio in his brother's version of \"Othello\" 4 years later) and Helena Bonham-Carter, who would be cast in \"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein\" 4 years later.

Zeffirelli intended this movie as a homage to Sir Laurence Olivier (who had died 2 years prior to this movie) and it works pretty well, for the most part. What I was slightly uncomfortable with was Zeffirelli's misplacing a lot of lines and in one scene, he gives one of Hamlet's lines to the Ghost. Also, Helena Bonham-Carter DID NOT convince me as Ophelia. She was too dull and unreal, whereas Jean Simmons (who had immortalized the role in Olivier's version) and Kate Winslet (who did an acceptable job in Kenneth Branagh's uncut, epic revisionist reworking of \"Hamlet\") were good in the role, with Jean Simmons being the BEST Ophelia ever, that's why she was nominated for Best Actress in 1948 (she didn't win-what a shame). Ian Holm said his lines too quickly, not slowly as I expected him to, in a scene with him, Laertes and Ophelia. But then again, I'm more used to Felix Aylmer and Richard Briers' interpretations of the role and I think that they did better jobs than Holm in their respective versions of \"Hamlet\" (both done by great directors, actors, text-editors, producers AND stars of all their versions of the Bard's work) as Polonius.

The rest of the cast, however, was excellent. The scene where Hamlet confronts his mother was very well done, but Olivier and Branagh heightened the scene to better lengths to create even more emotional intensity and suspense that the scene required.

I recommend this version just to pass the time, but it's ideal as a teaching tool for 12th-grade English teachers (I recommend showing Olivier's version first, then Branagh's and finally this version). Despite the film's \"PG\" rating, there was really nothing objectionable in the movie. Only what the play called for.

The Best Versions Of \"Hamlet\" Are:

#1 Sir Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh. Both were so good that I can't decide which one was the best. See my reviews on these versions for more information.

#2 Franco Zeffirelli. This one was alright. It started out alright with a scene not in the play, but should've then progressed to the actual beginning of the play, where a guard cries out \"Who's there?\" \"Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself!!\" That scene scares the hell out of you because you're sitting quietly and then-bam!!, you almost jump out of your skin. In short, that scene sets the tone for the rest of the play. HUGE blunder on Zeffirelli's part to omit that scene. It also misplaced a lot of lines (and cut others that I think should've been put in), such as the line where Hamlet says to Ophelia \"Get thee to a nunnery, why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?\"; that line was supposed to have occurred in THAT scene, NOT where it was placed in the film (after the \"To Be Or Not To Be\" soliloquy. This version struggles between cutting out too much or too little from an excellent piece of literature. Kenneth Branagh would remedy that 5 years later with his uncut version of the tragedy, making HIS version a more fitting homage to Sir Laurence Olivier, as several of the actors (aside from him) had performed \"Hamlet\" on stage\/or on film many times on different occasions. However, Zeffirelli's take on \"Hamlet\" IS faithful to the play and THAT's what I was looking for. The setup for the final act duel was the same as in Olivier and Branagh's versions, only that the denouement in Branagh's version was more violent than the denouement of the previous two faithful versions (more in line with the play; Olivier toned it down...and it worked equally well) and stuck more closely to the play, with Branagh throwing in a few harmless touches of his own...to very good effect.

This version is Not Rated.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Admittedly, the only reason I watched this film -- since it's been about a decade since it was released -- was because of Ian Holm; I was intrigued to see his portrayal of my second-favorite character in this play. At any rate, this film is as gritty as anything the Old Zeff has produced since \"Jesus of Nazareth.\" But some of the best parts of the play have been left out. I understand the directing\/editing choices, but I don't think that it really does justice to the play. Perhaps I'm too much a purist. I would have to direct people (who have read this far) toward Branagh's version, if it weren't that I despise his tendency toward over-dramatization. All the same, he plays a better Hamlet than Gibson. But then, weren't we all waiting for Gibson to prove himself as an actor? Now, all he's done is to prove that he wants to make films in extinct languages.

...Perhaps the only Shakespearean-worthy acting here is Scofield as The Ghost.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

The play has been heavily edited and the order of the scenes has been completely mixed up. The acting is appalling (especially by Helena Bonham Carter) and the cinematography poor.

The result is a slow, confused, boring film which will put those new to Shakespeare off Shakespeare instantly!

If you can't see a stage play then at least see the Olivier version (1948) instead of this drivel!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(This is a review of the later English release by Disney, featuring Alison Lohman, Patrick Stewart, and co.)

I really wanted this film to be good. Really, really. I'm a huge fan of Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away, and after seeing all the glowing reviews on this earlier Miyazaki film, I was eager to see it. But I was shocked, shocked I say, at the quality of this film. Those later films boast well-crafted plots, 3-dimensional characters, and the best film music since...well...ever. This film just doesn't come close.

Might as well start w\/ the positive aspects, though. Like all Miyazaki films, this one is still very imaginative, with a bizarre fantasy\/sci-fi setting, in a post-apocalyptic world where insects are the dominant species. Nausicaa can also boast some far superior animation to other films from its time. (though not as beautiful and fluid as Miyazaki's later films) And the English voice acting is quite well done.

But this film...just...isn't...good... The characters are all cardboard - from saccharine sweet little Nausicaa, to the ruthlessly evil Tolmekians, to everyone in between. Once you've seen each of them for 30 seconds, you've seen all there is. And the fact that the plot just ambles along doesn't help.

Then there's the music... Now, Hisaichi is hands down my favorite film composer, but Nausicaa doesn't do him justice. Half the music is 80's keyboards on overdrive, and it usually enters and leaves so abruptly that it distracts the visuals rather than helping them. I highly suspect that Hisaichi was told to compose a lot of the music before he even saw the picture.

But wait! There's a great message with this film, right?! Let's all save the environment! Too bad that this film hits you over the head with it like a sledgehammer. There is a scene in which Nausicaa hugs a tree. No, really. I ain't kidding.

It makes me a little sad to talk about how lame this film is. But for some reason all the other reviews on IMDb seem to adore it. And when the characters have to talk to themselves in extended sentences to tell you what's going on, that's lame.

If you're the kind of person who worships anime, enjoys 80's music, and plants a tree every Arbor day, you will probably like this film. Otherwise, save your money for his later films, because they rock big time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am partly a fan of Miyazaki's work. I say \"partly\" because most of his films fall into two categories: brilliant, and boring. Sadly this film falls into the later category.

This film suffers from the same fundamental problems as Miyazaki's recent film \"Howl's Moving Castle\". An intriguing premise is set up, but then immediately reduced to little more than a backdrop for some unfathomable events that only serve to confuse the plot rather than explain it.

The first third of the film reveals the post-apocalyptic world the story is set in, and actually looks like an very interesting story is about to unfold. From then on things go down hill. The middle part of the film is mostly made up of thinly-veiled eco-propaganda, and the ending is heavily marred by the reliance on the kind of impenetrable spiritualism which ruins a large number of Japanese animated films.

Overall the film feels as though someone ripped out every other page from the script before passing it on the the animators. What is left is something which is visually stunning (although sadly the version I saw was an Nth-generation copy, with poor colour - which gives rise to the common myth that Nausicaa shows her bare bottom when flying), but which makes little sense and ultimately left me confused.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is very difficult to understand, why do the couple want to divorce ? No reason is given, we don't know anything about their life in Lisbon, and even nothing about Marie's job. We may only understand that a certain bore appeared in this life. We don't even know who took the initiative of asking the divorce.

The way of filming is kind of special : I didn't know the director's name before the end of the movie, when I read it on the screen, I understood why it was so slow, only 42 shots in a hundred minutes (I counted them) ! It reminded me of some Japanese movies I saw in the 90's, in fact we must accept that this is the expression of another culture even if the set is occidental. I don't know if this story would have suited a Japanese couple.

One can see the logic of the scenes but the result is a bore, anyway I decided to watch it to the end because I wanted to get the spirit and the meaning of it all. In fact, I only understood that the story of these two beings may not be over yet since the train leaves the station without Marie. This is few for such a long time ! I can't recommend this work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually much prefer French movies over American ones, with explosions and car chases, but this movie was very disappointing. There is no way to write a spoiler because nothing really happens. This French couple has been living in Lisbon for years, and they return to Paris for a friend's wedding. They announce to another friend they are having dinner with that they are going to split. Then nothing much happens, they don't seem to know whether they want to separate or not. I don't necessarily think that their hesitations make for a bad movie, it is very human to hesitate before making such a decision for good, but this could be treated in an interesting manner, giving some flesh to their desires and their relationship, but that does not happen. One gets out of the theater unsure of why these two got together or want to split. The only piece I enjoyed was the conversation with the drunk. That was true to life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought this is an unbelievable boring movie! i heard the director can't speak french and so he left his actors tell what they wanted... Well, Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi is great, as usual but I can't say the same of other actors. They have nothing to say, especially Bruno Todeschini.

They all seem very tired, this being one of the movie plot : tired of being together, of living abroad, of their live in general; so they spend half the movie sleeping in a hotel room. After a while i felt sleepy myself...

I gave 4, because of some very beautiful scenes, including the last one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(Only light spoilers in here)

Stealing Sinatra is a half-slapstick comedy about dimwit kidnappers, dimwit victims, and a few other side-stories thrown in to eat up some time.

You will see some poor performances all around in this movie. The drama is forced, and the humor makes no sense. Whether you're watching the kidnappers threaten the victim who won't shut up, or a victim's father responding to the criminal's death threat with \"Care for some tea?\", none of it is believable. This quite comfortably fits into the \"wannabe movie\" category.

You will also be listening to a repetitive goofy music track throughout pretty much the entire movie. It's quite unprofessional, and adds nothing. It's really just a sad attempt at making an achingly unfunny movie seem somewhat witty.

However, if you're able to look past all of this and suspend a lot of disbelief, you might be entertained by the adequate storyline.

I voted 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Underwoods goofy story about a young man(Arquette) who convinces his friends that they should kidnap Frank Sinatra Jr. (Nicholas). The film is written ridiculously, direction is odd, dialogues are out of place and scrambled, the actors didn't do it much justice either, Arquette is annoying throughout, Ian Nicholas was nonexistent, Macy was decent, but only because hes a pretty good actor and probably just tried his best not to come out of this project with a totally embarrassing performance, he was at least tolerable. This is a stupid film in my eyes, boring at times, not entertaining, just a film that i wouldn't recommend to anybody. IMDb Rating: 5.5, my rating: 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yah. I know. It has the name \"Sinatra\" in the title, so how bad can it be? Well, it's bad, trust me! I rented this thinking it was some movie I missed in the theaters. It's not. It's some garbage \"movie\" made by the folks at Showtime (cable station). Geez, these cable stations make a few bucks they think they can make whatever garbage movies they want! It's not good. I am as big a Sinatra fan as any sane man, but this movie was just dumb. Boring. Dull. Unfunny. Uninteresting. The only redeeming quality is that (assuming they did stick to the facts) you do learn about what happened to the captors of Frank Jr. Otherwise it's just a stupid film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know where to begin. Perhaps the whole idea of this movie was just a disaster waiting to happen. There is nothing slightly humorous about a kidnapping. I don't know what was more offensive--the subject matter or David Arquette's \"performance\". It was like watching a bull get it's penis cut off, although I think the bull felt better afterwards. The filmmakers should find something about Sinatra other than his son's kidnapping to show (like, I don't know, his TALENT AS A SINGER!!!!). His family shouldn't have to relive that horror. Thank GOD it was just shown on HBO and not released in theaters. Please don't watch this if you have any self respect.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Except for the glossy look, this show had little to recommend it. The writing was patronizing and convoluted. Without exception the characters were shallow and unsympathetic. The female characters came off the worst... reduced to spoiled, selfish airheads whose soul ambition was to run around in slip dresses and stilettos, and try to bag a man. This aspect of the show is all the more curious as the series was produced by two women! The acting for the most part was dull and humourless with the cast playing one dimensional characters attacking every scene on the same note. This is not entirely the actors fault. Had they spent more time developing the characters and the storyline, adding a little injection of style and humour, MVP might have been a hit. What we're left with is something flat and vaguely unpleasant.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love Ustinov's distinctive, literate narration. And the photography is quiet nice. We put the film on for our 3.5 year old who sort of wandered in and out of the room. So for our first viewing, we only saw about 1\/3 of the movie and were quite charmed. When we re-watched, sitting down for family time,we were all mortified at the violence and life-threatening situations the poor otter got into. About halfway through the movie, there's a rack of dead, bloody furry animals. Lots of blood, not just a little. Then at the end, there's a wild struggle with a dog, then blood clouds the water. You'd think, given the G rating, that's all you'll see...that they will IMPLY one of the animals died. Nope. They drag the carcass out of the water and show it plainly for several traumatizing seconds. Personally, as an adult I love horror movies and am fine with violent movies ala Scorsese, Cronenberg, Tarantino. Heck, I love the ultra violent Battle Royale. But those aren't kid movies and don't advertise themselves as such. If you are deliberately raising your young ones to see the harsh realities of life for cute animals, then this is the movie for you. If you are like me and my wife though, you might want to spare your child nightmares and avoid this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have never felt the need to add a review to this website until now, but having just sat through the film I felt it necessary to warn parents who may be thinking of showing it to their children. Please don't! This is no Disney film. This film tells us 'life is cruel' and if you show it to your children, in my opinion, you are too.

The video box describes the film as a 'delight for all ages' and the IMDb plot outline describes it as a 'family film'. I just had to find a definition of 'family film' and came across the following: \"Usually consisting of comedies or adventures, these films are often based on children's literature and can involve any number of helpful animals, friendly supernatural beings and fantasy worlds, all geared to stimulate and appeal to the imagination. Whatever the situation, there is little or no offensive material and generally a lesson is learned on the way.\" Not an apt description of Tarka The Otter, which contains some thoroughly unpleasant scenes, totally unsuitable for young children, and an ending that qualifies the film as a 'feel bad' movie. The lesson learned? As I said: life is cruel. Family entertainment? I don't think so. Unless you hate your family, that is.

Another review, more revealing than this but worth reading, can be found by following the 'external reviews' link.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really don't know much about the Marquis de Sade, not having read any of his book, but I never imagined him as a flaming queen. Carson Kressley of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy, or Jack from Will and Grace would have fit easily into the role that Nick Mancuso gave us.

The movie itself was rather thin and seemed more of a parody - or an excuse to show the Paris whorehouse several times with men and women having a good time on the couches in the parlor. What? They can't afford a room? I did find it cute that the Madame (Irina Malysheva) felt she was doing her patriotic duty taking care of the soldier's needs.

The movie was just an excuse to show a lot of breasts - and I mean a lot! Fans of Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) might be interested in seeing him in a different role as Inspector Marais.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The revisionist history -- making the evil Marquis de Sade a semi-heroic romantic -- is mind-boggling enough. But the atrocious acting, amateurish cinematography and terrible dubbing make this film achingly bad. The only reason to keep watching is that almost all the women in the film are gorgeous. And, amazingly, being tortured for days, with hands bound overhead, apparently doesn't detract from a woman's beauty, hairstyle and makeup. My guess is that the producers filmed mostly in Russia, choosing women for their looks -- and willingness to work cheap -- rather than acting ability. If you decide to watch this because you have nothing better to do, or are a film student looking for bad examples, fast-forward through every scene not involving nudity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is not very bad tjough. But one cannot find anything new about the personality of Marquis de Sade from this movie. The movie tries to stay on the borderline between erotic and insightful and it cannot succeed at either. The cinematography is really bad (straigh-to video quality)

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Douglas Sirk's inaugural \"women's-picture\" weepy for Universal, based on a preachy, dogmatic, didactic novel by the intolerable Lloyd C. Douglas (author of that other beloved piece of crap, *The Robe*). Rock Hudson, in the role that catapulted him to stardom, plays Bob Merrick, a drunken playboy worth untold millions who is more interested in chasing skirts and racing speedboats than in finishing his medical degree. In the first scene, he wrecks his boat on a sumptuously photographed lake. The accident nearly kills Merrick, and thus he requires a rather mysterious \"resuscitator machine\" to keep him alive . . . meanwhile, across town, beloved surgeon Dr. Phillips finally drops dead from a heart condition. Since the local hospital can maintain only one resuscitator at a time, Phillips dies so that the louse may live. When Merrick learns of this, he tries to make apologetic overtures to Phillips' family, especially to the widow (Jane Wyman, coiffed and clothed in matronly hauteur), but indeed anyone and everyone who knew the surgeon spits at Merrick like a brace of cobras. One doctor on the hospital staff even calls it \"a total waste\" that the playboy lived instead of the Christ-like surgeon. Hippocrates might have had something to say about that!

These early scenes are where you'll find the typical Sirkian iconoclasm: the director rubs our faces so much in the unpleasantness of middle-class, mid-century America, that one finds oneself rooting for the wastrel playboy to put whoopee-cushions under the ramrod fannies of these moral hypocrites. But, alas, no: the risible plot of the novel must proceed, and Merrick soon finds himself getting converted by God, in the guise of pipe-puffing Otto Kruger, an artist who claims that Phillips made him a better man and even a better painter. (Why don't we see any of this amazing art?) We learn that the intolerably ubiquitous Dr. Phillips would often refuse payment for medical services rendered (though who exactly qualified for these \"magnificent exemptions\" is never made clear). This is supposed to provide our hero with a whole new outlook on life and an example of personal conduct. Kruger even tries to make it all sound very illicitly exciting: \"Once you start this thing, there's no way out of it! It's an obsession . . . a MAGNIFICENT obsession!\" So Merrick tries it out by AGAIN pestering the widow with apologetic overtures, but he somehow causes her to get hit by a car. She loses her eyesight. Apparently, Merrick will have several more stations-of-the-cross to trudge past before he can be accounted a decent fellow.

But Sirk continues to sneak in his revenges even as the movie grows more and more preachy. The most obvious bit has to be the presence of Agnes Moorehead as the head hospital nurse and Wyman's friend and unrequited lesbian lover. Note the disappointment on Moorehead's face when Merrick, finally redeemed as a doctor, shows up to save Wyman's life near the end. Hudson's own homosexuality, an open secret in Hollywood at the time, is also used to great ironic effect. He and Wyman -- dowdy and fifteen years older -- generate absolutely zero erotic heat in their scenes together, which, by the way, are purposefully few, presumably because any more scenes between the stars would hopelessly expose this whole enterprise. (One thing we feel certain of: if Rock Hudson was obsessed by anything, it certainly wasn't Jane Wyman.) It's a chronic case of *Tea and Sympathy*. Sirk seemed to enjoy tweaking everyone's noses by having this gay actor -- who was attractive to the innocent ladies of the era -- coolly drift through these exquisitely-colored \"women's pictures\". In fact, the director worked with Hudson 6 or 7 more times, to best effect in the follow-up to this film, *All That Heaven Allows*, which re-teamed Hudson with Wyman but was also accompanied by a realistic plot. In *Obsession*, meanwhile, we must endure God\/Kruger gazing beneficently down from an observation-window onto Merrick and his medical team as they prepare to save Wyman's life, in tandem with a musical score of swelling vocals from a cheesy Hollywood choir.

But to see why Sirk is considered an auteur, check out the scene wherein Wyman explains to her grown daughter that she can in fact tell the difference from night and day. The entire frame is blackened, here: the daughter is barely visible, and Wyman's face is faintly silhouetted against a faint light. She goes on to say that she hates the night because \"I know that Dawn will never come again\". A great, chilling moment that deserves a much better movie than *Magnificent Obsession*.

4 stars out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would like to know the real name of the Lodge where scenes from the movie were filmed. It is truly beautiful and hearkens back to 20's and 30's architecture like the Hotel Del Coronado. I know it was on either Big Bear Lake or Lake Arrowhead and would like to hear if it is still in existence. As for the movie itself, it is truly amazing that Jane Wyman was even nominated for an Academy Award. This must have been a period when she was well liked by her Academy peers. It really would have been interesting to get a true impression from Wyman and the other actors in this movie regarding the script. The script of this movie, like the recent Kevin Costner movie with a message in a bottle, is so unbelievable that it it limits the credibility that the actors can bring to their parts. Rock Hudson can be forgiven. He was never a great actor, was able to get by mostly on his looks and didn't get credible roles until later in his career (Pretty Maids is the exception). But Wyman must have been forced to take this movie through contractual requirements or the studio system.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Daft potboilers don't come much dafter than this, but it's a Douglas Sirk movie which makes everything alright. Except in this case it doesn't. Based on a sanctimonious novel by the sanctimonious Lloyd C Douglas, (he wrote \"The Robe\"), and already filmed in 1935 with Irene Dunne and Robert Taylor, it's got more uplift than a cantilever bra.

Rock Hudson is the arrogant playboy who not only feels responsible for making Jane Wyman a widow but later is directly responsible for the accident in which she loses her sight. To make amends he takes up medicine, becomes a great eye surgeon and restores it. (No, it sin't quite that daft; he had planned to become a doctor before becoming an arrogant playboy). In between times, they fall in love.

Try as I might I can't quite find the redeeming social commentary and critique of American mores that are supposed to lie just below the surface of Sirk's films, (this one isn't too deep). On the plus side Rock Hudson isn't half bad, (I think I am rediscovering him), and, of course, it looks great, (in Sirk's films people live in rooms the size of cathedrals). Nothing in this film matches the best of his later work and even in soap-opera terms this is definitely daytime TV.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this at my in-laws' house one night when it popped up on TV and my mother-in-law said it was one of her favorite movies. Well, she can have it.

Look, I can enjoy a chick flick now and then, as long as it's good. But this one's extra-sappy, unrealistic, and just plain predictable, despite some decent performances from Rock Hudson and Jane Wyman. It's uncanny how quickly a woman can accept having her eyesight taken away from her. Oh well, they say love is blind...

The neat and tidy happy little ending nearly made me gag, too. And how often did we need Otto Kruger repeating the title? It happened not once, not twice, but THREE times!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the more prominent\/popular episodes, but clearly one of the worst. A red-shirt female falls for Khan (instead of dropping dead - for a change) and then proceeds to betray Kirk and the Enterprise as if loyalty were a non-existent character trait on the ship. Makes one wonder what kind of psychology tests this supposedly brilliant Starfleet uses to test people when hiring. We have the same kind of absurd lack of loyalty in \"Wink Of An Eye\", when a red-shirt male takes the enemy's side just because he falls in love! Same as in SS. (However, in that episode the betrayal plays a tiny role in the overall plot.) This is very silly because it once again makes Kirk's crew seem like a bunch of soft-headed, easy-to-impress morons, who - once they fall in love with the enemy - are capable of doing just about anything. The fact that McGivers switches back to Kirk's side doesn't ameliorate the illogic in any way. Lord McGiveth and the Lord McTaketh...

Why is Khan kept behind a regular door when they know he has superior strength? That's one of several ST plot-devices that undermine Kirk's intelligence. Why does Khan hold a knife against McCoy's throat? If Khan is of such superior intelligence then one would expect him to be more wily with the way he carries himself. And what's with a Sikh being played with a Latino accent? Montalban should have been provided with a vocal coach. I was half-expecting to hear \"the plaaain! the plaaaain!\" in the background at any moment. Why the hell would Kirk (or any ship captain) provide limitless use of the ship's library concerning the innermost technical details of the Enterprise to ANYONE? Is the Starfleet an institution solely consisting of idiots?

SS is a very cartoonish, silly episode, so no wonder Trekkies love it. It doesn't have too many sci-fi elements in it, which is what Trekkies hate the most. It also figures that the ST franchise chose to revive this dull character for the second movie, that way pleasing rabid Trekkies, who were so very disappointed with the first movie which - you guessed it - had far too much sci-fi for the average tiny Trekkie brain.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen this movie and I did not care for this movie anyhow. I would not think about going to Paris because I do not like this country and its national capital. I do not like to learn french anyhow because I do not understand their language. Why would I go to France when I rather go to Germany or the United Kingdom? Germany and the United Kingdom are the nations I tolerate. Apparently the Olsen Twins do not understand the French language just like me. Therefore I will not bother the France trip no matter what. I might as well stick to the United Kingdom and meet single women and play video games if there is a video arcade. That is all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was alright. Mary-Kate and Ashley play twin sisters (sorry for stating the obvious) who against their will are sent to Paris to spend the week with their rich uncle or something like that.

Right away two French boys (who looked slightly inbred) start talking to them and taking interest. Blah blah blah. It's an Olsen twin movie - we already know what's going to happen between them. Anyway, along with that, the twins meet a FABULOUS French model because they're in Paris, the fashion capital of the world. They make bffs with the model and spend a fun montage of shopping in the city of lights. Yep.

Plotwise, I frankly can't remember what happened. I guess that could say something, but hey, it's an Olsen movie. \"Olsen movie\" seems to be synonymous with \"light entertainment\".

Overall, this movie was annoying. I mean, can I really identify at all with two girls who are devastated upon hearing that they're going to Paris? Really? Also, the jokes really weren't that funny. However, I watched the whole movie. So it had to be somewhat entertaining. The fact that it was set in Paris was what probably kept me watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was once a big Olsen fan. I received this movie when I was six and watched it almost nonstop until I was nine. Then it lay on my shelf gathering dust until yesterday. I was left speechless.

Mary-Kate and Ashley play Allie and Mel, two twelve year olds who are sent to spend Spring Break in Paris with their ambassador grandfather. Along the way, they meet, as one might expect, two cute French boys who show them the more fun side to Paris. I guess the two boys were okay, fake French accents aside.

The plot is predictable and the humour is shallow and corny. Mary-Kate and Ashley play two shallow girls with too much make up on their face.

Don't watch this movie if you're not into the Olsen twins or family movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A stupid movie, with a stupid plot. Feels like they threw every imaginable clich\u00e9 in a blender. I especially \"Liked\" the part, where two teenage girls gets the french president to clean the water. Because we all know how dedicated America is to conservation of the environment. Kyoto, anyone?? And the french chef, who has apparently never seen or tasted a hamburger... This is why people think Americans have no culture. That, and the fact that we meet your kids when they come to Europe to \"see the world\" (i.e. eat at McDonalds in foreign capitals) They are not as dumb as the two ditsy preteens in this movie, but they have just about the same amount of cultural enlightenment and good manners.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the boys were the most appealing things in the entire movie. the girls were lame and pathetic, i mean, how can they own their own clothing line, dolls, movies, producing studios, and not smell this bomb from far away? in order to gain some sort of responsibility, which i dont really see the sense in the punishment..., they are sent to paris, far far far away from home to live with the so-called strict grandfather who holds an important standing with paris. i cant really remember what he was, so who really cares? the detail doesnt help, the girls are sent to paris to learn something.. so what exactly do they learn when they meet two french boys and are able to manipulate the guy that supposed to watch them so they can meet these guys on scooters? the typical pre-teen movie, having all pre-teens wishing to misbehave and be able to afford the trip to paris or some far away country away from parents? i dont really like the olsens anyways, they never could really shake off the image of michelle, on full house... in case you didnt see that, then you were lucky from the start. (F F-)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK I watched this movie. Someone needs to kick me. WHY must the Olsen twins insist on subjecting the world to this putrid torture? This was another movie of watching the Olsen twins travel to an exotic location, meet some cute guys,look pretty and have everyone drooling over them.the direction,the plot development,ugh the acting. i don't know about the U.S., but in my country it is considered extremely stupid to hop onto the bike of a guy u met like,10 minutes back. though i'm now convinced that these girls will never learn to act, i really hope that one day we'll get to watch a movie with an original,even slightly plausible plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is pretty predictable nuff said....from the delayed kissing scene to the inevitable coming around of grandpa...this is a great movie for the 10-12 age group but beyond that it has no market..i give it 4\/10 only because it achieved exactly what it set out to do and nothing more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh yes, I admit I have made myself guilty of the crime of seeing this piece of trash. I can't say I was forced by aliens who pointed a gun at my head, tied me to a chair and made it impossible for me to close my eyes and then turned this awful excuse for a movie on. No I did it with free will. I deliberately tortured myself. Let's go through the fact here folks. - The acting is an insult to humanity. - The plot (if it exists) is ridiculous. - The character development is horrendous - The characters that appear in the movie are so clich\u00e9d you would

recognize them in your average comic book. - The editing is sloppy and unimaginative. - The camera-work is low key. - The dialogue is simply the worst in cinematic history. - The directing: well let's say, I bet it wasn't Hitchcock.

Then to add to these facts, there was absolutely no talent involved wath so ever. The director must be smoking crack now to forgive himself for inflicting this poison to the world.

Bottom line: Passport to Paris is one of the worst movies ever made. PERMANENT!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie sucks so bad. Its funny to see what a poor story this has, where two pea-brained American twins who know about nothing outside their school can come to another continent, and do unimaginable things there. Its just so stupid and so bizarre. How can they just find two French guys, hit on them and in the end kiss them, not knowing anything about them? More realistic would have been having the guys take them away and rape them, which could have easily happened in such a situation. As for the bit where they make the French President drink 'bad water', that was just lame. I don't think he would have been too pleased in real life. Everything worked out too easily for the girls, and they could have been in real trouble many times in the movie, if it at all depicted real life.

My Rating : 0 \/ 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just what the world needed-another superficial cookie-cutter Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen movie. This movie gives out horrible messages to girls everywhere, complete with stereotypical \"junior high\" experience. They make learning anything at all seem completely taboo. I can't stand the fake French accents, or those guys on the mopeds racing around who eventually \"fall\" for the twins. Why am I putting everything in parenthesis? Because its all stereotyped. The twins even complain about not having a stereotypical grandfather. They should be happy they even have a grandfather at all. How does this fit the Mary-Kate\/Ashley mold? This one has them fixing up a single guy who (gasp!!) ISN'T THEIR FATHER!!!!! Yes, folks, they actually have a mother who appears for all of five seconds. I haven't even sat through thirty minutes of this and I can already tell how it will end up. This movie is so pitiful, it makes Miss USA seem like an academic bowl. Really.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is horrible film. it is past dumb. first, the only thing the twins care about is how they look and what boys like them. they are in 7th grade. not to say i am a prude or anything but it sends the wrong message to girls of all ages. being pretty and popular is not everything. but that is what the twins make it out to be. The plot is even worse. the girl's grandpa just happens to be the ambasitor(sp?) to France. He has a co-worker take the girls around paris and they meet two \"cute french boys\" with motorcycles. they sneek out to meet the boys start to really like them ETC.....they meet a supermodel in process and go around paris with total strangers they think are cute. need i say more? this movie may be cute to 8&9 year olds. the twins play ditsy losers that want boyfriends. it makes sends the wrong idea to girls. the film itself is not great either. i don't recomend this to anyone. i give passport to paris 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now, I watched this when I was hungover one Sunday and my auntie and uncle were visiting one day with my 2 cousins (one was 11, the other 9). We stuck on the TV and Passport To Paris had just started. My cousins both had said that they watch Two Of A Kind sometimes and I said they could watch the film if they liked. Since I was in no fit state to get up, I just stayed in the living room with them and ended up watching the film! I have to say, as a person who has no interest in those kinds of TV shows or films, I actually enjoyed it... it must have been the alcohol lol but I do admit, it would probably only appeal more to girls aged between 6 and 13, but it was a movie to pass the time. There's always a movie or a show that you don't think you'll like, but for a laugh, you enjoyed it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, first off, the twins are exactly the same. there is no one is girly and one is tomboy (Ashley is taller than Mary-Kate though) and their boyfriends aren't even French, so that is bad because they are faking the accents. Lamo. It is also not that bad, not their best. I am A big Mary-Kate and Ashley fan, don't get me wrong. the storyline is OK and it is funny to watch. it is not the type of movie that you would watch over and over again. But hey, when they made this movie they were still new at the whole making their own movie thing. The girls also act like they are older then 13. but if you are a young viewer this is a good movie. Not so good if you are older than 13 unless you are a parent watching a movie with your kids. then it's OK. Good luck MK+A with your future movies!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Firstly let me get this of my chest I hate Octopussy with an absolute passion. What is so frustrating is that it had so much potential and had a very good opening sequence, unfortunately post the opening sequence it all goes downhill. Firstly there was absolutely no plot to begin with, just an excuse for Moore to tell his corny jokes. Next there are several sequences that would make a Bond fan cringe,for instance the sequence in which Bond turns up to diffuse a bomb dressed as a clown. The villains are pretty poor, Louis Jordon fails to make an impact as Kamal Khan and Bollywood veteran Kabir Bedi is equally poor as his henchman. It's funny that when people debate over what the worst Bond movie is and Octopussy gets overlooked when it can easily give them a run for their money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw Roger Moore huffing it on the scenes that required running or exercise. He was a James Bond who would be most comfortable sitting at a bar telling stories with his fellow British Knights. Nothing against the elderly in age-appropriate roles, but how realistic is it for a frail-looking 58 year old man to be fighting on the wings of planes, hanging off the side of a train, swimming in a swamp with crocodiles, etc.? Aside from the fact that OCTOPUSSY was incredibly silly, vapid, and moronic, the fact that a frail oldster engaged in many death-defying stunts just made it so much easier to laugh at James Bond. By 1983 Roger Moore was clearly looking his age, and he was long past the time when he looked like he could fight with younger men. I saw this movie in the Theater, and the howls of laughter were many and very often. Any credibility that James Bond had built up was gone after OCTOPUSSY.

The only thing missing from OCTOPUSSY was Benny Hill and his supporting cast. Another low point was that the incredibly lame Louis Jordan was one half of the Axis of Evil. Jordan helped to make the whole concept even more laughable. And the Russian General was a total goof. OCTOPUSSY works better as a comedy spoof similar to SPIES LIKE US.

Even the fight scene on the train was just a bad copy of the same train scenes done in many other films by better actors. Take EMPEROR OF THE NORTH (1972) where Lee Marvin & Ernest Borgnine fought all over the top & bottom of the train and made it look exciting and real.

Roger Moore had a thin, frail body in 1983 and yet his stunt double was clearly a younger, taller, athletic & muscular man. Even the hair color did not match. This only made his fight scenes more comedic. The Moore stunts looked like those old low-budget Chop-Socky Kung-Fu movies, especially with the bad editing. The Director seemed to try to make the bad acting and bad stunts better by providing several views of the same stunt. This only accentuated the differences between Moore and his stunt double. The fact that the Train scenes with Moore were shot inside a studio could be noticed from the lighting when Moore was in the shot versus the exterior shots of the stunt double on a real train. Though many of the Bond Movies have to be the worst ever when it comes to editing their stunt-fights. You can usually clearly see that the Bond actor is not actually fighting. Overall OCTOPUSSY has to rank as one of the worst movies ever made, and easily the worst of the worst Bond movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An aging Roger Moore is back yet again as Bond, this time trying to find out why Agent 009 was killed, and why he had a forgery of a Faberge egg with him, and where it came from. He ends up in New Delhi India, then in East Germany after finding out about a Russian general trying to detonate a nuclear bomb at a circus, hoping NATO will push for complete disarmament, so he can take control of Western Europe, then the rest of the world.

Despite the way it sounds, this is really more of a romance, I think, between Bond and Octopussy than an action movie, and longish, but still somewhat fun. But there are way too many attempts at humour in this one; at times it seems like it was intended to be a comedy. Also, Timothy Dalton would have been better than Roger Moore in this, so there wouldn't have been so much of an age difference between Bond and Octopussy.

Useless trivia: the small plane used by Bond in the pre credits sequence is now hanging up in a Quaker Steak and Lube restaurant in Clearwater\/ Largo area Florida, USA.

**1\/2 out of ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I feel very generous giving this movie a 2 out of 10. Okay, noted that the special effects are, 'okay' and Renny Harlin did make one my favorite genetically-altered-sharks-attack-a-research-station movie, that of which you may know as Deep Blue Sea. Also, the opening credits are done fairly well with a remix of WhiteZombie's \"more human then human' and it does go fairly well with what is in the context of this 'movie'. But enough praise, lets get to the reason why this movie sucks so much.

Not since Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark did i ever feel that the special effects in a movie were totally wasted. Okay, our story starts with four guys who are descendants of four different families, each of which possess a never fully explained power from a never fully explained family background that did a never fully explained art of witch craft. Oh and for some reason, these descendants are all 17, all go to the same school, are all on the swim team and all, for some reason or another, sit in bed with their shirts off, sweating and talking to each other on the phone. I have nothing against gays, Gothic or thirteen year old's, but that is what this movie is aimed at...13 year old goth who question their sexuality. Yeah there's girls in it who sit on their beds in their panties or whatever, but how come they don't take their shirts off? hey its only fair.

Anyways, the characters in this movie are told that when they turn 18, they will ascend and be granted new profound, almost god-like powers. But before i go any further, i forgot to mention that when they use their powers, they age slowly and they grow more addicted to it. That explains why they got people in their late 20's to play 17 year old's. Oh and if something needs explaining, don't worry, someone will explain it all in one large piece of dialog. God this movie sucks...where was I? oh yeah, the ascension part.

Okay, apparently there was a super-secret-alpha-one family that the others forgot about or some s#*t like that, i don't know, i was dozing off at this point. But they were written out some how and the new kid at school who is befriending the group is 'secretly' one of these descendants from the fifth family. And I say 'secretly' because anyone who has seen any of the previews of this movie knows that this new guy is the bad guy. He has greater power then the others because he's older i think. Anyways, Bob Loblaw (say it out loud) things happen and we get to the final fight in the movie.

To be honest, I was all game for a witch battle. You know like Saurmon vs. Gandalf or anything along the lines with magic battle, because you know, this is about witches and stuff. Now, when these two witches throw down, its more of like...how can i put it...a very, very crappy version of a Dragonball Z type battle. They throw stuff at each other, talk, throw stuff, talk, throw stuff, talk etc. When i say 'throw stuff' i only say that because i have no clue what the F#%k their throwing at each other. It looks like big gobs of slimy water. God this movie sucks, anyways, when our main witch 'ascends' he doesn't get very powerful at all. He just throws bigger gobs of slimy water. Things happen and it ends in a way that you as the viewer know its gonna end. The good witch wins bad witch loses.

You know how shitty a movie is when the bad guy says something so incredibly stupid as, 'I'm gonna make you my Wiotch' Thats where i wanted to punch myself in the face for sitting through this whole...thing.

Yes, i admit, the thought of witches doing battle, using powers in the modern day does sound kinda cool, but when the execution is this bad, i really wished they didn't make THIS movie. Maybe if it was R-rated, had tit's and threw in more deaths with a dash of gore, it might have worked...might have worked.

If your interested in watching this, don't buy it or even rent it. Wait for it to come on TV or borrow it from your sucker of a friend who bought it. Just don't waste your time with this hack of a movie. If you spend any money on it, there's a good chance your putting an effort towards a sequel to be made by Uwe Boll called, The Covenant 2: Alone in the dark with the house of the dead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I were to pitch this movie idea to some Hollywood bigwigs, I'm sure it would sound like this:

ME: \"Four boys at a private high school are good friends, AND they are witches.\"

Hollywood: \"That sounds like \"The Craft.\"

ME: \"No, no, I said four boys, not four girls.\"

Hollywood: \"That still sounds like \"The Craft\", just with boys instead of girls.\"

ME: \"OK, but there is this fifth unknown boy that comes into the picture and he wants more power.\"

Hollywood: \"Still not much difference, because one of the girls in \"The Craft\" also wanted more power.

ME: \"OK, OK... I'll make these boys part of the \"in crowd\", they'll be rich, AND the school is on the east coast.

Hollywood: \"Now that sounds original. That is nothing like \"The Craft\", here's a billion dollars.\"

This movie was so clich\u00e9 and uninspiring. Even the manufactured drama between Chase and the brothers of Ipswich was very blas\u00e9. A bunch of rich kids, with their biggest problem being what color Bentley they want for their 18th birthday (and 18th car), don't interest me at all, even if they have powers. Every single kid in this movie looked like they stepped out of a magazine, and of course there had to be the gratuitous male nudity and female 80% nudity just to drive home how out of shape you are. I wanted to rename this movie \"The Witches of O.C.\". Oooh, rich kids and their problems... let me pretend to care.

This film was completely unimaginative and predictable. The final fight was lame and dragged out and the ending was very anti-climatic. This was a movie best left on the cutting room floor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the beginning of this film,with it's \"The Lost boys\" rip off opening sequence, to the bad wire work and even worse dialog ending, this movie slimed along at a snail's pace. \"The Covenant\" came highly recommended from some of my co-workers, who I am thoroughly convinced were playing a practical joke on me. At least I hope that was the intention and their taste isn't that bad! This movie was not much longer than an hour and a half, yet felt much much longer then that. The story was so basic that it could have been summed up in about 15 minutes, maximum. They could have at least filled the rest of the movie with some entertaining magic or fight scenes, however someone decided,(maybe the director, but I don't know if anyone really \"directed\" this movie) that it was going to be filled with some poorly executed \"artsy\" camera shots, and nonsensical scenes of the \"boys\" swimming and getting into bar fights. About half way through this film I thought that maybe bashing my head against a wall would be more entertaining, and partially to rid myself of this horrible dirty feeling I had for continuing to watch it. . So I did bash my head against a wall, and I did enjoy it more then the movie! I watched it all the way to the bitter end, hoping it would eventually offer me more enjoyment. Nope,my efforts were rewarded with \"How about I make you my Whee-aytch!\" I vomited, and then just felt embarrassment for the screen writer and pity for the poor actor who had to deliver this drivel. The acting really wasn't as bad as other reviewers seemed to think, but even the most talented thespian could not saved this work, and work it did, on my nerves! I give movies a chance, even bad ones because they usually offer some form of enjoyment, and this actually wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen. After it was over I did feel like watching the movie \"Stealth\" again and WOW it was so much better this time around! Oh yeah Case in point, don't bother with this movie, really, don't. Watch a few episodes of \"Charmed\", and watch \"The Lost boys\" after having a fair amount of alcohol, and you will be a much better person. If you do fall into the same trap that I did and watch \"The Covenant\", make sure to keep all sharp objects far, far away from yourself, you'll thank me for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anyone who rates this movie above a 3 has a very distorted view of movies, anyone who rated this piece of sh!t 7 or higher, i have absolutely no respect for their taste in movies, and doubt they have ever seen a good one. I am always up for giving any movie a shot and i did with this one, i tried to pay attention, i tried not to let my money go 2 waste but 15 minutes in my friends were laughing at me cause i was listenin 2 my iPod, 25 minutes later i couldn't even watch the overacting that was occurring within the film, so i up and left, i have never ever ever walked out of a movie, until this garbage, Anyone who said they enjoyed it is a liar, or they should be banned from this site. I get so angry when i see a person rate this an 8 when the Godfathers overall rating is a 9.1 its like saying that that movie was close which it isn't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most of the critiques on this flick have been pretty damn accurate. It is an hour and half waste of time, following a bunch of very pretty high schoolers whine and cry about life. There is about twenty minutes of magic, and absolutely no scary or thrilling moments. Our actress are treated like pieces of ass, and seem to be perfectly happy with their position. The lead characters, these sons of ipsmith are walking poster boys for any pop culture clothing store. You can't relate with them, hell you barely can understand them. The story steps all over itself and when it finally gets to the final battle, its no more than a volleyball match that doesn't last long enough to make up with this trashed script raped from the O.C.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The TV ads for this movie showed the warlocks hitting a truck head-on, then getting smashed to bits and reforming on the other side of the truck. I thought the special effects were good, but the general style of the movie was wimpy. This is the \"Charmed\" TV series with three boys instead of three girls.

The big surprise for the three teens who are about to become adults is that there is an unknown fourth member of the clan who is out to get them and consolidate all their power. Besides driving into trucks, these kids can fly up the sides of houses, climb out of windows, push each other into stacks of garbage, and make the veins in their necks pop out. But if they use their powers too often, they become prematurely old and feeble. The father of one of the boys is evidence of this, as he sits in an attic made up to look like a mummy but he is only 45 years old.

The three good warlocks are each filthy rich in his own right, completely spoiled, obnoxious, and annoying. In any public school, these kids would be beaten up every day. Their glares and facial ticks would not cut any mustard with the boys from the hood. Unfortunately for all good people, these Charmed boys were sent to Hogwart's Reform School for the warlocks that couldn't get into Harry Potter's class.

So what was the movie all about? Three teenagers acting out with each other and their girlfriends. One other teenager who envies their power and money and happens to be a lost relative. After a few scenes where the Charmed boys show off their powers and have sex with their girlfriends; the movie gets around to the unknown warlock teen's revenge plot. The predictable stuff happens. The bad warlock ambushes various friends of the other warlocks, and eventually starts attacking them too. The final confrontation happens, and that is about it.

The special effects are not bad, but nothing special. If you like to see fireballs, spiders, and blue veins, then this is a good movie to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I feel really bad for reviewing this movie because I wish that I had only watched it as a concept production. The Covenant looked like it could have been a really original piece, but sadly they lose the great idea in the translation to the screen.

The story follows four (five) teens that are the descendants of the families that started the town of Ipswitch a survivors of the Salem witch trials. They also happen to be a part of the secret sect called \"The Covenant\". Their power must be used sparingly as it drains their life-force in small amounts and is highly addictive. In theory this would make a pretty good action sci-fi movie\u0085or at least an interesting teeny flick.

But there were just too many glaring downfalls that don't allow this movie to reach its plot's full potential. That acting wasn't good, the sound track was mediocre and we found a lot of unnecessary sync issues. For sure the biggest issue is the poor editing job. The movie has little to no coherent flow and makes one fight to keep a mental timeline or any feel of pacing.

The movie has it's moments, but overall was a little disappointing.

A witchy 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story was disjointed, the acting was not of any callibre you can catagorise. More of a serial pilot than an actual movie. I wanted to like this movie but just could not find anything to like about it. Whatever it was that made The Lost boys so likable was obviously absent here. Altho it tried hard. Plot hooks were clumsily placed amidst what could have been an episode of dawsons creek with dark clothes, and the story arc was going nowhere soon. Very disappointing for me. The end scenes were special effects driven convenience and how the villain of the story planned his whole scheme.. who was he (or she) trying to kid, talk about naive. Stick with films of this kind of genre from the eighties, when they had more of an idea.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK...before I even start the more or less constructive criticism of the movie I'd like to say a few words which come from the heart... THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!!! DON'T GO TO SEE IT UNLESS YOU REALLY LIKE SWEATY BOY-BANDS AND WOODEN-ACTING, NO-PLOT STORIES.. So, let's go to why I think the movie is so bad: 1. There is not story line. There is no plot. The director tried to create a mystery it the feeling just wasn't there. 2. The whole thing looks like a big, hour and a half promotion for some kind of goth-wanna-be-but-still-looking-like-\"BSB\"-band... All guys in school have perfect abs, no fat or ugly young people... there is no good looking girl in the movie as well, not one. The main character is either wet in the swimming pool, or all sweaty in his bed... poor guy. Must be awful to go on a date sweating like that. 3. Can those guys do something good with their powers? Anything good? Like put off the fire in that old barn or help his friend who got into the accident instead of just running around breaking things and showing of in front of each other. 4. Wooden acting. The main character only has two expressions on his face. Expression number one: sad. Expression number two: trying to look seductive but still seems sad... In that boy band there are 4 guys: The main characted, his best friend who got into the accident, the blondy, and the fourth one... what was the name of the fourth one? I think he only spoke twice throughout the whole film: once in the beginning ( he said the jumping from the cliff using \"the power\" won't kill them) and second time at the end when he and the blondy lost the girl... the movie could have been done without him and no one would notice... Anyways, my verdict: 1 is the perfect score for this film. Guys - do not go to see it. There is very little action, no suspense, no hot girls. Girls - a least the actors are good looking... What I would advise you people is to get a soundtreck of this movie - that's the only thing I liked about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Think 'Charmed' with testosterone instead of estrogen and you get the general idea for this picture. A very lame story with mediocre effects and an anti-climax ending to let the door open for a part 2. Let's hope someone has the sense to spend their money wiser. I'd suggest a 'Charmed - the movie' because compared to this 'Charmed' kicked ass and I only watched that show to please my girlfriend!!!! Wait and watch it on DVD on a rainy Sunday when you've got nothing better to do. Or better yet download it so you don't waste your money. The first 15 minutes were alright. But the funniest line from the movie and also the only highlight of this movie is when Reid says : \"Kiss my ass Harry Potter\", while driving of a cliff. Although they are not worthy to kiss Potter's ass, because Potter is way cooler and at least his movies have a story. The Goblet of fire was even scarier than this!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of four young men, attending a prestigious private school, belong to an old covenant that was formed by their ancestors during the time of the witch hunts of the late 1600s. They each possess a power that ages them whenever they use it and they suspect that a new kid at the academy might be from a family that was thought to have perished long ago. This new guy wants everyone's power for himself.

This not a horror movie as it tries to present itself as. Yes, there is magic and all that supernatural stuff, but this is really just an action movie. A very mediocre action movie. Focusing almost solely on being cool and slick and paying only minimal attention to the plot, which has plenty of sadly unused room for interesting twists. But none were put in and even before the movie is half over you'll know what is being played and by whom.

There are a few good scenes here and there, most notably an exploding car that is magically reconstructed after colliding with a big rig, but that's about it. What's worse is that director Renny Harlin, who has some very entertaining if not smart movies to his credit, relies heavily on blasting metal music and overly sexy leads to carry that film and that makes it quite possibly the silliest \"horror\" movie since the disastrous \"Alone in the Dark.\" It is not as bad as \"Alone in the Dark\" since the few slick scenes are actually slick and not ridiculously incompetent, but in the end, the highest this film can hope for is a nice and cozy home on late night cable. 3\/10

Rated PG-13: violent action","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was Flippin Awful....I wanted those hours of my life back. For god's sake, -stay far away from this awful crumb ball movie at all costs. Its not worth mentioning the title, but the ratings on this movie are pretty generous for a vomit scum movie like this. And where do I begin? The dumb A** kids in the movie.....The zero plot or story?...the garden-variety college\/frat boy-esquire scenes of towel slapping? Or the VERY bad acted, teen angst innuendo? $$$#@%@! My god, It NEVER ended!.....I remember thinking I would have rather kissed the movie theater floor, then sit through this one again.

But what do you expect? Most people with the brain power to look up reviews, are not going to be the target audience here at all- so GO SEE Pirites 2 again, or the Jet Lee one, -If your debating to yourself. Look, This movie will just cost you your soul, your money, your energy, and your brain cells. HEED THE WARNING.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Too bad Mike Meyers picked this for his dramatic debut. This film looks like it was put together by a committee that couldn't decide if it was a comedy, drama, suspense, or sci-fi. It starts out sort of playful, then quickly gets darker, and then at the end, apparently shortly after one of the main characters has been killed, the whole family is standing in the backyard laughing about something. It's totally weird and impossible to string together. The acting is extremely uneven, with the older professionals engaging your attention, and then the younger and less experienced actors looking like they are in a high school play. This movie showed me that it's probably harder to make a good movie than is evident from the truly professional fare we see in the first-run and art houses. This would be a good film for a film class to analyze. Plot, character, theme, consistency - they are all either faulty or missing from this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason for me for watching this little known Irish film was the question could Mike Myers have played a normal, dramatic character. Well, he could and his acting was pretty good but unfortunately that was probably the only good thing that I can say about this film. In the beginning film follows life of twelve years old orphan Mickey who lives with his brother and sister with their somewhat eccentric grandma. Despite some strong language it looks like a family film but after a while it becomes clearly that Pete's Meteor is a hardly suitable for young audience drama. And the worst is that it is a drama with so much ridiculous and even totally implausible plot. One preposterous story line turns into another and all the time there is no much sense in the events on screen. I suppose when a life drama needs a meteor or what is more something that looks like even more ridiculous spiritual content that's a really bad sign. The characters are not much better than a story. Despite all his troubles young Mickey by no means is not a likable character but it's clearly was somehow we were supposed to care about him and even feel strong sympathy to him. It doesn't work. The same thing with other characters. They are mostly as ridiculous as the story itself with the title character (although he wasn't the main character) as the only bright spot. Towards the end of the movie I still had a strong hope that there is something behind of all that improbability and absurdity. Unfortunately even if the writer of the story had such intentions (and I'm sure he had) in the film they are hidden and practically imperceptible under such a weird script.

Grade: 3 out of 10. Those of you who are interested in seeing Mike Myers as a drama actor can watch Pete's Meteor for that reason but the rest of viewers most likely will be bitterly disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pete's Meteor. I seen this referred to as \"authentic\" and a \"gem.\" I caught this movie on a Saturday afternoon. I kinda wished that I didn't.

Apparently this was noted as being Mike Myers' first dramatic role. Unfortunately it had to be this movie. The first thing you'll notice that Pete's Meteor suffers from is a complete lack of plot. Or rather, a bunch of little subplots that aren't really connected and don't go anywhere. Young orphan Mickey lives with his younger brother and sister with their grandmother. A meteorite lands in their garden and is eventually collected by a scientist named Hugh. Despite the title of the movie, Mickey is the one who lays claim to the meteor, and the \"storyline\" actually has little to do with the meteor in any shape or form. From here on out, several other characters and subplots are introduced. But like I said before, they don't really go anywhere.

Things go from cute family movie to dark thriller pretty fast, when Pete (Mike Myers) is introduced and starts to play a role. Micky blames him for the death of his parents, though we're never really told what happened or why. Hugh has romance problems because his girlfriend can't get past his cosmic fascination. And Pete's drug-related past starts to catch up with him and temporarily draws his own girlfriend and the rest of the cast into the mix when shady characters start trying to kill him. This would seem to be the main plot, until you realize it doesn't even have a role until halfway through the film, making everything else feel like pointless filler. Hugh's girl problems, Mickey's bad behavior, the meteor...what on EARTH do they have to do with this? Not much.

So the 'plot' is disjointed and half of it is pointless. But a good cast of characters can save it, right? Keyword: good. The majority of characters are terribly unlikable people, most of which you'd like to see die horribly. At least, I know I would. Despite the title, Mickey seems to be the main character, which is a really bad move once you see him in action. He is one of the WORST little kids I've seen in a movie, with an extremely bad attitude problem. He 'borrows' a car, harasses and talks trash to Hugh (an adult) for taking the meteor, actually attempts burn the man's house down when he doesn't get his way, and even tries to stab Pete with a knife. You'd think a kid like this is on his way to the jail house. Unfortunately, one of the worst things about this movie is that Mickey never gets what's coming to him. I'm not sure at what point you're supposed to be sympathizing with his character, because he's always a nasty little brat. He's the ringleader for his brother and sister, so they predictably end up taking and backseat and just following whatever he does. Amazingly, they're pushed back so far that I can't even remember their names. They might as well not even be there.

Their grandmother is pretty much a borderline alcoholic. She tends to be just as nasty to Hugh as Mickey, and likes to push people out of her house and give them evil glares when she's not chugging down liquor bottles and drinking herself silly. Pretty ridiculous when you take into account that she's supposed to be taking care of three children. Her issues with alcohol are never really addressed, though she does collapse from time to time in the movie.

Hugh is one of the few likable characters in the movie, but that's only because he's the punching bag for the majority of characters and takes their mess without giving it back. The kids treat him nastily but he always comes back and tries to teach them and do nice things with them. He's got a taxi driver girlfriend who seems to take every aspect of his life as a scientist as a personal offense, attempting to leave him several times in the movie when he goes off into his cosmic lingo or does something to prove that he isn't exactly on the same wavelength as the rest of the characters (thankfully).

Then there's Mike Myers as Pete. Pete, despite having the only solid purpose and plot in the movie, is extremely underused and doesn't play any kind of role until the second half. It's unfortunate that Myers got stuck in such a position for a dramatic role. Even when Pete is getting screen time, half of it is just Myers running through dark alleys and hiding in small corners. And even though he was the only real point to this movie, when his plot line brings the movie to a close, it's a strange, unfulfilling conclusion that has all the characters laughing on a good note with a quick and strange explanation behind the title of the movie, making you wonder if they were just performing in the movie you were just watching.

The only thing worth seeing in Pete's meteor is Mike Myers' role as Pete, and that's if you can wade through this disjointed mess long enough without lashing out at another human being due to the extremely unlikable characters and nonexistent plot line. No sir, I didn't like this one at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As was mentioned by others, could there be any other reason to see this film other than to see former \"Wayne's World\" star Mike Myers play a serious role? The story line is interesting but lacks development and is sabotaged by loose ends and bad characters. If there was any good scenic shots of Ireland then it would give it another reason to see it. But instead it focuses on a little normal village that is obviously surrounded by the 'green pastures' of the Emerald-Isle that are often shown in Irish films. If there was any cultural 'spice' to admire the \"Irish personality\" it would be worth seeing, however this could have almost been shot in England. Too bad for Myers, but this one fails to please or satisfy the heart of anybody who ever wanted to visit the land of Guiness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is probably the worst film I have ever seen. Mike Myers tries to be a dramatic actor and fails miserably. The children, who have the major roles, are almost impossible to understand and are really unpleasant characters. It was not even worth the price of the rental.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is simply bad. First of all the story is just weird and it's not good written. It leaves you with questions when you're finished. Sometimes that's OK, but not in this case.

The acting is nothing to write home about. The adults does a OK job, but the kids, taken in consideration they are kids, does not a good job. I thought the lead role, Ian Costello as Mickey, was worst. Well, to be honest I'm not sure that was the lead role. Never quite figured who this movie was about. Mickey or Pete.

There were some shots that stood out, but over all there were nothing exiting about the cinematography. The sound, however, was better. There was a nice score. A little adventure kind of score, though this didn't look like an adventure film to me. It had some elements of an adventure film, but it was more of a drama. However, it was hard to tell who this film was meant for. Children? Hardly. There is too much language and violence for that. Adults? I don't know. It had to many elements of a children's movie in it. It was like a adult movie in a children movie wrapping.

The story was just weird. I don't have much of an idea of what it really was about. You was thrown right in to it without knowing anything, but there were all the time references to something you felt you should know. The fact that the children's parents were dead for instance and that Mickey blamed Pete for it. You expected to get to know what happened , but you never got.

All together this movie was bad and a waste of time. There was no drive in it. Nothing to really move the story forward. This is not what you spend your Saturday night on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is one of the worst adaptations of Pride and Prejudice ever filmed and if Jane Austen were alive, she would demand that her name be removed from the film. Austen's novel is only superficially a story of the development of true love between Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy. It is also a commentary on the class structure of Regency Britain. This film focuses only on the love story, thereby disappointing viewers who hoped it would do justice to the novel.

There are numerous problems with the historical accuracy of the film. In the film, the dance at which Darcy snubs Elizabeth is not the refined dancing done by the gentry, to which the Bennet, Lucas, Bingley, and Darcy families belong, but is rather the dancing of the lower classes. The gentry would not have been dancing as if they were at a peasant barn dance. There are costume and hair problems, too. The custom of the period required married women to wear white cloth hats to cover their hair and for women to wear bonnets when outdoors. Women of the Regency period were not so liberated as to forego the bonnet requirements in public. The worst historical inaccuracy is the early morning meeting of Elizabeth (in her nightgown and coat) and Mr. Darcy (sans cravat and vest) at which they admit their love for each other. This is an unforgivable liberty with the novel. No respectable young woman or gentleman would venture out of doors in such a state of undress or seek to meet someone of the opposite sex at such an early hour.

But the worst thing of all with this film is the mangling of Austen's dialogue and the atrocious modern dialogue. Austen's dialogue needs no assistance from a writer who thinks he\/she can write like Austen. The writer of the non-Austen dialogue not only lacks Austen's talent but also has no feel for Austen's style. The juxtaposition of the two styles is jarring.

As for the acting, the best is done by Judi Dench, who clearly understands the imperiousness of the aristocracy. Brenda Blethyn takes some liberties in making Mrs. Bennet less awful than Austen's portrayal. Her portrayal is interesting and seems to work. Donald Sutherland is miscast. His affected British accent is terrible and he portrays Mr. Bennet too much as a father of the 20th century and not a father of the late 18th century. Matthew MacFadeyn's portrayal of Darcy is flat. I can't imagine anyone falling in love with his Mr. Darcy. Keira Knightly is a pretty Elizabeth, but her portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet is far too modern. Knightly focuses on the Elizabeth's forthrightness, but her portrayal completely lacks an understanding of the social mores and conventions of the time. She would have done well to actually read the novel before attempting to portray Elizabeth and to do research on the behavior of women of the period.

If one is making a period movie, one must be true to the period. This film needed an historical adviser who actually knows something about the Regency period. It also needed a writer who has a better appreciation and understanding of Austen's text. I can only hope Emma Thompson decides to do a film of Pride and Prejudice in the near future to erase this abomination from our minds.

The best thing that can be said about this film is that it contains many pretty scenes of the English countryside. Chatsworth is well used as Pemberly (as it was in the 1995 BBC adaptation). But pretty scenery and pretty actors cannot save this film. True fans of Austen will rush home to watch their DVDs of the far superior 1995 BBC production with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth or to read Austen's text in order to wipe this version from their minds.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well Wright may have made a gritty depiction of life around 1800 - as he so repeatedly and anally goes on about because of when it was written as opposed to published - but it is HIS not Austen's and shouldn't claim to be an adaptation.

Mrs Bennett looks like a rural washerwoman. This is a pampered woman - they have servants (remember the book scene with the servant dressing the hair, etc)? But Wright portrays her with rough reddened skin all down her chest, rough hands and working in the kitchen. And the pigs wandering through! If he wants bucolic, he should try Tess.

Mr Bennett - the script makes too cuddly and modern and ignored the weakness in him. The scene where he stops Mary playing is supposed to make you cringe - not pass in seconds. If it doesn't - don't include it.

MacFadyen is very weak in the part and seems to be doing some kind of Pride by numbers acting. The first proposal he looks like a nervous schoolboy rather than a man overcoming his pride to make a proposal beneath his station. Most of his lines, he could as well be reading a shopping list.

Lydia is awful. Completely over the top with excessive shrieking and skipping. Indeed, Knightley plays Elizabeth more like the giggling inane character Lydia actually is in the book, at times.

And Elizabeth. Half the time Knightley is, clearly, mimicking Ehle's voice and intonation - close your eyes to see what a copy it is. And in her role you see Wright's major error - there is NO PREJUDICE.

From the first encounter with Darcy she clearly fancies him. When he comments to Bingley on the attractiveness of the women in the hall she initially looks hurt - not shocked and affronted. The latter should set up the prejudice side of things. And when she and 'caroline' are prancing round the room she comes across like a tease, obviously all over him. And by virtually cutting out Wickham you don't get Elizabeth invested enough there to set up the prejudicial aspects falling out of that relationship.

And apparently it is Caroline not Miss Bingley. And Mr Bingley happily wanders into Jane's bedroom. And and and - Wright can boast about how great he is with period all he wants. But a few panorama shots of rural life (which show the preference for Hardy) don't excuse him the glaring blunders all over the place.

The cinematographer - who clearly wants awards - should have been reined in. He veered between Bronte and Hardy throughout the film - and wasn't the last proposal shots\/lighting from Tess? The need to see Darcy walk along through the 'scape with unkempt shirt was just dumb. But most importantly - when going between those 2 very different landscapes they forget the most important one - Austen. (She'd have laughed out loud at the Elizabeth = sad, therefore = rain, running through to picturesque folly, wet Darcy rubbish).

I admit I found it impossible the watch the film without using the book as context. I was prepared to give it some leeway as it had to provide the story in a short space of time. But to forget fully one half of the core of the book in prejudice and Darcy to continually look more constipated than prideful, made it almost unwatchable. I could only see it as a mess with generally poor performances (when Knightley wasn't aping Ehle she was gurning or skipping or both and only calmed down a couple of times to indicate she does have some promise - but faffing about on swings to convey emotion isn't a substitute for a poor script and poor direction) - although for some it was simply a case of bad script.

Tom Holland alone would escape censure. While he toned down the comic aspects of Collins, he did turn in a very interesting approach. Dench does superbly the schtick she can do in her sleep whether it be here or in Oscar Wilde - but this was supposed to be Lady Catherine De Bourgh NOT Lady Bracknell. She was just a little too sane.

The shortened length could have been handled by a competent screenwriter, surely? Not characters filling in story gaps and helping along the audience all over the place. Elizabeth couldn't have come up with the \u00a310k figure. And while they wanted to cut time with her learning of Darcy's involvement in Wickhams marriage the lines didn't fit with Lydia. It was the worst case of incongruous exposition in the piece.

It really is appalling stuff. Anyone who reviews it saying it works well in the context of the book is someone I frankly don't believe has read or understood the characterisations in the thing. Wright seems to think his characters are in the 1990s not the 1709s from their behaviour. I'm not convinced he has read the book - he certainly doesn't understand it. He doesn't understand Austen's acerbic wit or lightness of touch - he certainly made a dull plodding film out of it.

What is possibly worse was the sad pathetic need of the chick lit lovers to need the 'I love you, I love yous' all over the place so they can sigh and get off on it. The fact that it has no place in a work by Austen is apparently irrelevant.

Anyone who reviews it as a film alone? Well, more difficult for me except I would note the poor acting, the weak Darcy, and the gurning skipping inane irritation of the whole thing. If you are going to adapt you can change a lot - but if it loses the spirit and key motivations, then don't insult the book by taking it's title.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you have never heard of Jane Austen, seen the original movie or the 1995 BBC adaptation, or even seen a pop up version of the book, then this farcical attempt to show this classic love story may be considered vaguely endurable.

From the opening scene, this film must be remembered for its awful acting, abominable miscasting and complete lack of the classic wit of Jane Austen.

Whoever decided to cast actors (with the exception of the excellent Judi Dench) who have obviously never heard of Jane Austen, let alone read her, should be punished! Keira Knightley grimaces and grins through every scene, and came across as being so obnoxious that no-one would want to marry her! Darcy looked as if he was trying to remember his lines throughout the whole film and the rest of the Bennet girls were interchangeable in their lack of portraying their characters as they were originally written.

This version failed to show the proper Pride and Prejudice that both Darcy and Elizabeth suffered from and, at the end of the longest two hours of my life, who cared whether they got together or not! Absolutely abysmal - even the too few minutes of Judi Dench cannot save this rubbish. I cannot think of anything good to say about this film apart from that it eventually ended!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see suspecting I would hate it, I did. Everything about it was wrong; it was like they were filming a different book. Granted the locations and houses very lovely (if not a little miscast-yes even the house were wrong for their parts) Keira was too modern, dull and frankly I found it unpleasant to watch her. Were everyone else sees Darcy as a sex god the writer of this saw him as sexually frustrated and inadequate. Bingley was stupid and dippy (he isn't meant to be) and the Bennett's were shown to be destitute and for some unknown reason farmers, this is incorrect and ludicrous. The very idea that Mr Bennett would answer the door in his night gear with the rest of the family dressed in their underwear to in the middle of the night is stupid. They had servants. Mr Collins was not repulsive and greasy merely stupid and obnoxious, Georgina Darcy was ugly and old and Miss Bingley wore a sleeveless dress, what! As if! It is Historically inaccurate and even the ending is unsatisfying. I could go on for days. I hated it so much as not only was it nothing like the book but I fear that for many people it will be their fist experience of this great novel and it will give them the worst possible idea of it. The BBC version is so superior it's not even funny and everything about this version is an insult to its memory. In short if you must see it be sure you have read the book first or seen the BBC version other wise you will be lead done the deluded road that this is what it's like, which its not!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry to say but was disappointed in the film. It was very very rushed, as I suppose you can understand a movie length version of Pride & Prejudice would be and I felt that a lot of the major scenes were glossed over just to get through the story. As the movie is so rushed, unfortunately you don't get to really know about and feel for each of the characters much at all.

Not only that, this movie is Boring. I say that with a capital B. 1\/3 of the way through I started yawning and couldn't wait for the movie to be over. As I have read the book and watch the BBC version, I knew how many scenes had to go, before I could finally leave the cinema. Mr Darcy whoever he is in this movie, definitely can't act. He looks also too young to play Mr Darcy. Every word that comes out of his mouth is rushed like he needs to get through the script or something. Where is the build up? At first, he seems confused with everything. He is just bizarre! It all looks put on.

Was trying not to compare to the Colin Firth version but if you love that version, you will most likely be disappointed anyway.

The costumes are absolutely shocking. Where are the corsets? I know Elizabeth is poor, but I think she still knows how to dress as some sort of ladylike fashion, and hasn't been brought up in a squaller. Her dresses indicates she might be the poorest peasant in all of England.

I didn't agree with a couple of scenes in the movie in the fact, that I don't think it would be considered proper in that society for men to do such things, honestly Mr Bingley who has wealth should know better. There is some things that are said that sound too modern for the period this movie is set in, and not at all like Jane Austen. Bingley's character is shockingly donee, to me he behaves like a simpleton, not a character to like and respect. What about that laugh of his!!! I Wickham hardly has a presence and Mr & Mrs Hurst and a couple of other characters have no presence at all. Keira did okay, but it just ain't the same.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe if you've never read any English literature or only ever watched the Hollywood version of any book you might find merit in this awful film. It has the directorial and scripting skill of Shoreditch. The BBC 1995 adaptation is both very enjoyable and close to the book and captures the atmosphere between Elisabeth and Darcy very well.

The characters in this production are badly miscast, Sutherland as Bennet seems a total buffoon. Bingley likewise acts the fool and it is imcomrepnsible that he my be a friend of Darcy. I can't imagine how Judi Dench could have accepted the role, maybe she thought it was a surreal comedy version.

Quotes from the book are thrown in out of context. Huge chunks are missing, the important episode with Wickham is glossed over.

Mr Collins is however very good, and towers above the other members of the cast.

The only good thing is we didn't pay to see it. Wait for the DVD and use to keep a table from wobbling.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the film's first shot - Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet wandering reading through a field at dawn, thus invoking all the clich\u00e9s cinema has developed to address the phenomenon of the strong-minded rebellious female character in period drama - I knew I was in for something to make me want to kill myself.

Joe Wright seemed not only to have not read the book, but to be under the regrettable misapprehension that what he was filming was not in fact Jane Austen's subtle, nuanced comedy of manners conducted through sparkling, delicate social interaction in eighteenth century English drawing-rooms, but a sort of U-certificate Wuthering Heights. Thus we were treated to every scene between Elizabeth and Darcy taking place outside for no apparent reason, in inappropriately rugged scenery and often in the pouring rain. Not to mention that Jane Austen, and in particular P & P, is not about passion, sexual tension or love. It's about different strategies of negotiating the stultification of eighteenth century society. Which was completely ignored, so that the Bennets' house was a rambunctious, chaotic place where everybody shouts at once, runs around, leaves their underwear on chairs, and pigs wander happily through the house; the society balls become rowdy country dances one step away from a Matrix Reloaded style dance-orgy; and everybody says exactly what they think without the slightest regard for propriety.

The genius of Jane Austen lies in exploring the void created by a society in which nobody says what they think or mean because of an overwhelming regard for propriety, and the tragic predicaments of her characters arise from misunderstandings and miscommunications enabled by that speechless gap. So both the brilliance of Jane Austen and the very factor that allows her plots - particularly in this film - to function was completely erased. Subtlety in general was nowhere int his film, sacrificed in favour of an overwrought drama which jarred entirely with the material and the performances.

It was so obviously trying to be a *serious* film. The humour - which IS Pride & Prejudice, both Austen's methodology and her appeal - was almost entirely suppressed in favour of all this po-faced melodrama, and when it was allowed in, was handled so clumsily. Pride & Prejudice is a serious narrative which makes serious points, yes, but those serious points and weightier themes are not just intertwined with the humour, they are embedded in it. You can't lose Jane Austen's technique, leaving only the bare bones of the story, and expect the themes to remain. Not even when you replace her techniques with your own heavy-handed mystical-numinous fauxbrow cinematography.

Elizabeth Bennett is supposed to be a woman, an adult, mature and sensible and clear-sighted. Keira Knightley played the first half of the film like an empty-headed giggling schoolgirl, and the second half like an empty-headed schoolgirl who thinks she is a tragic heroine. Elizabeth's wit, her combative verbal exchanges, her quintessential characteristic of being able to see and laugh at everybody's follies including her own, her strength and composure, and her fantastic clear-sightedness were completely lost and replaced with ... what? A lot of giggling and staring into the distance? Rather than being able to keep her head when all about her were losing theirs, she started to cry and scream at the slightest provocation - and not genuinely raging, either; no, these were petulant hissy fits. And where the great strength of Austen's Elizabeth (at least in Austen's eyes) was her ability to retain integrity and observance while remaining within the boundaries of society and sustaining impeachable propriety, Knightley's Elizabeth had no regard whatsoever for convention. Furthermore, she seemed to think that wandering around barefoot in the mud in the eighteenth century version of overalls established her beyond doubt as spirited and strong-minded, and therefore nothing in the character as written or the performance had to sustain it. An astonishingly unsubtle and bland performance. In which quest for blandness and weakness, she was ably matched by Matthew Macfayden.

Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennet seemed weak, ineffectual and permanently befuddled without the wicked sense of humour and ironic detachment at the expense of human relationships that makes Mr Bennet so fascinating and tragic. His special bond with Lizzie, as the only two sensible people in a world of fools, was completely lost, not least because both of them were fools in a world of fools, and that completely deprived the end of the film of emotional impact. Mr Bingley was no longer amiable and well-meaning to the point of folly, but was played as a complete retard for cheap laughs, and the woman who was playing Jane was so wildly inconsistent that she may as well not have tried to do anything with the character at all. The script veered wildly between verbatim chunks of Jane Austen - delivered with remarkable clumsiness - and totally contemporaneous language which would not be out of place in a modern day romantic comedy.

Just get the BBC adaptation on DVD and save yourself the heartache.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think it is saying something that the Bollywood \"Bride and PRejudice\" stayed more faithful to the source material than this 2005 Hollywood version did. I also laughed more at the Bollywood version. (Mr. Kholi? Priceless!) If you have read the book or seen the 1995 BBC version (and liked them), you will be in for a nasty surprise going in to this film then. My friend however, who had seen neither, was mildly amused by the film. If you are a JAne Austen purist though, or even a film-goer who dislikes historical inaccuracies, it will be painful to sit through this.

Ugh, the script. The script was the biggest problem. I imagine the actors wouldn't have fared half so badly if they'd had a decent script, perhaps penned by somebody who actually loved Austen's work.

What travesties were committed? Well, you'll be forced to endure such incredulous lines as \"Don't you dare judge me, Lizzy!\" and \"Leave me alone for once in your lives!\". Not only are such lines far from anything that could come from Jane Austen's eloquent pen, but can anyone honestly believe words like that spilling from the mouth of a genteel young lady from the Regency era? The usage of modern colloquialisms is one of the many irritating ways that the screenwriter butchers the book. The writer also decided to give characters lines that, in the book, were said by a completely different characters and all for no apparent purpose. Worse of all, when they do try to stick a bit closer to the book's writing, the screenwriter has a nasty and unnecessary habit of rearranging Austen's phrases and substituting awkward synonyms for her already perfect words. It was as if the screenwriter sat down with the book in one hand and a thesaurus in the other when writing the script. Stick to Austen's words; she did it better than you! I assume all of this was done in a \"revisionist\" spirit and in an effort to distance this film from the iconic 1995 BBC version. However, for me, it also made a travesty of the true spirit of Austen's most beloved work.

The casting did have potential, though it was quickly dashed away once the script kicked in. But Keira, giggling excessively and baring your crooked teeth does not equal charm and vivacity! And I think Mr. McFayden, though I find him tolerably handsome enough, misread his script and was under the impression he was playing Heathcliff and not the formidable Mr. Darcy. I really did enjoy Brenda Blethyn, Kelly Reilly and the actor who played Mr. Collins. Their interpretations were really rather refreshing.

Oh, but Donald Sutherland! Somebody described his performance as seeming like a hobo who had accidentally wandered onto the movie set and I must say it is an apt description. And can somebody tell me why they fashioned Wickham after Legolas? Though he was in the movie for under two minutes, I daresay, and without his impressive archery skills to perk up the movie.

On a wardrobe note, I would kill for Miss Bingley's dresses because they were sumptuous and would fit in more with the modern century. (A sleeveless Regency evening gown? Please! More Versace than Austen, that is sure) And poor Keira, all of the budget went to her salary and not her wardrobe! Oh, and I'm sure they eventually caught the bastard who stole the one hairbrush from the movie set. Unfortunately, they didn't catch him soon enough to comb the actresses' tresses before filming rolled.

In short, with this new Hollywood version, bid adieu to Austen's eloquence, subtlety and wit because you'll be getting the complete opposite.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me begin by saying that I adore the book and loved the A&E miniseries. I was hoping to love this film, and I was absolutely willing to allow it a moderate degree of artistic license in interpreting and abbreviating the actual story. However, this film scarcely resembles the original book. If only \"the names had been changed to protect the innocent,\" I would have possibly enjoyed the movie as simply an entertaining, if inaccurate, period piece.

Unfortunately, putting the name \"Mr. Darcy\" on a character who is emotional and weak, giving the name \"Elizabeth Bennett\" to a reckless, snippy, often teary-eyed hoyden who cares nothing for the rules of society, and making \"Mr. Bingley\" a wide-eyed dimwit absolutely destroyed the idea that the director had ever read Jane Austen's original story.

There are some really stellar moments in this movie -- perhaps a total of 10 minutes are truly excellent. Charlotte's explanation of why she accepted Mr. Collins' proposal begins beautifully. She is 27 years old (quite near the hopeless-spinster age in those times), she is becoming a burden on her family, and she is not romantic. She only wants \"a comfortable home.\" However, the beautiful dialogue is ruined when she blubbers, \"Don't you judge me, Elizabeth. Don't you dare judge me!\" and runs off in tears. Later, you see Charlotte kowtow to Lady Catherine de Bourgh, which was not at all in her character as described in the book.

Another good moment is when Darcy catches Elizabeth in his home while she is touring the area with her aunt and uncle. It was well done in the A&E series, but the film version with Keira Knightley made the audience feel acutely how very humiliating that moment must have been for Elizabeth. Very nice.

The ending also illustrated a level of affection between Elizabeth and Darcy that was not shown as obviously in the miniseries. I actually appreciated that scene, simply because I like to see a happy ending, rather than just know that it took place.

Altogether, though, this movie eliminated the subtlety that was such an integral part of Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The characters speak in a jarring combination of Austen's dialogue verbatim and modern phrases and colloquialisms. Information that was only alluded to or suggested in the original work is blatantly stated in this version. Yes, time was a concern. It's only a short movie, yada yada. But turning a complex, beautiful book into a superficial love story is ridiculous.

Some have commented that they loved the moment when Darcy first sees Elizabeth, because it is so obviously a case of \"love at first sight.\" Love at first sight? Huh? One of the best aspects of the book is that Elizabeth is not supposed to be a traditional beauty, and Darcy comes to love her for her wit and liveliness ... he literally \"loves her for her mind.\"

This version also had a moment (during Darcy's first proposal) when the two are yelling furiously at each other, while leaning closer ... and closer ... and almost kissing ... but they suddenly step apart. Ugh! What a sad clich\u00e9. They're angry and disgusted with each other, but so attracted that it doesn't matter that (at the time) they don't even like each other? Ridiculous!

The characterizations were all so far removed from those described in the book that it really was like a different story. Mr. Bennet was dour, Elizabeth usually acted just as silly as her younger sisters, Charlotte was emotional, somewhat unintelligent and desperate for a home of her own -- unlike the intelligent, slightly scheming woman with an abundance of common sense who is portrayed in the novel. Jane and Elizabeth's relationship is merely topical, instead of the deep-rooted love and admiration they are supposed to have for each other.

All this I could have accepted as merely poor interpretations of the novel, but I refused to accept all that in addition to the many, many historical inaccuracies. Miss Bingley walked around scarcely clothed (her dress looked like what the others would wear as tight undergarments). Elizabeth walked to Netherfield with her hair down and allowed to fly all over. The family lazed about one morning, though mornings were supposed to be reserved for calling on acquaintances (or being called on at your own home). Elizabeth walked outside barefoot in her nightgown. And in a really appalling scene, Bingley walked into Jane's bedroom and conversed with her (and sounded like an idiot) when she was ill.

Most people would feel these are minor points, but I simply wanted either A.) an historically accurate film, or B.)an accurate representation of the characters in the novel.

The director\/writer\/whoever sacrificed accuracy, subtlety and a good story for a trite tale of love at first sight. I can concede that those who have not read the book or who are not familiar with the social conventions of the time could very easily like this movie, and there is nothing wrong with that. I simply couldn't overcome my desire to see a film that involved more than just two pretty faces.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While the new Pride & Prejudice film is gorgeous to view, and the soundtrack is lovely, we are not seeing Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The film is for some reason set back in the early 1790's, rather than the Regency period where the novel is set, as scholars have long shown. The Bennets' Longbourn estate is ram-shackled and looks like Cold Comfort Farm. Yet the Bennets in the novel are gentry class; they own a farm, but the pig does not walk through the house, nor is the farmyard of manure and chicken droppings contiguous to the home. Scenes are re-set from the novel,and lest we forget, Jane Austen placed scenes in certain locations for a reason. For example, the film puts the big Darcy proposal scene outside in a storm in front of a Neoclassical temple, as opposed to inside the Collins' parsonage: Why did Jane Austen put it in the parsonage? Because while Lizzy and Darcy speak with total, if brutal honesty to each other in this scene, the Collinses have never shared an honest word. Why the rain and the outdoor proposal? It looks like Jane Eyre meeting Rochester! And when Elizabeth walks across a windy field to stand on a cliff and view the panorama, one expects her to cry, \"Heathcliffe\" at any minute! Austen has been Bronteized! Judy Dench is a GREAT actress, but Lady Catherine is supposed to be tall and striking. The petite Tom Hollander is a brilliant actor: but Mr. Collins is described in the novel as tall and heavy-looking, which suggests that his terrible dancing with poor Lizzy is elephantine. Matthew MacFayden is another favorite of mine from MI-5 on A&E; in P&P, however, he is more the young Heathcliffe, never smiling--though Austen observes in the novel that Darcy smiles at Lizzy quite a bit, and she realizes this when she sees his wonderful smiling portrait at Pemberley--a portrait that in this movie is for some reason replaced by a sculptured marble bust.And much of Austen's dialogue is changed to modern speech. Mr. Bingley has been turned into such a clown that one wonders why Darcy would have him as a friend and why Jane Bennet would love him. The bottom line is that while this is a great movie to watch and hear, it deviates from Jane Austen's novel so much that any student who watched it, thinking she could substitute viewing for reading, would fail!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've spent quite a while going through all the reviews for this film. I'm in total agreement with almost every reviewer in saying that Noah's Ark is crap, crap, crap, crap, crap! Don't the executives at NBC have any class? I feel sick to my stomach for actually watching both parts of this mini-series. The script is so dumb, so pointless, and yes, TOTALLY INACCURATE! I can understand making a few changes for dramatic purposes, but this film changed just about everything in the story. God himself is going to go through the trouble to kill off the entire Earth's population, but he somehow misses one guy that's sailing around trying to sell stuff to Noah. Give me a break! And what was up with Noah's sons acting like Indiana Jones, saving girls in distress? If all that isn't bad enough, there's the part where God apologizes to Noah and says \"I'm sorry Noah, I was wrong\". Newsflash NBC, GOD CAN NOT BE WRONG! This film is the most tasteless and disgraceful Biblical film ever made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"NBC had a chance to make a powerful religious epic along the lines of \"The Ten Commandments\" and \"The Greatest Story Ever Told,\" and instead they chose to make some halfhearted cartoon that was more like \"Waterworld\" than anything else. I don't recall a Bible passage where Lot turns into a pirate and attacks the ark, nor do I remember one where Noah's son develops a serious friendship with an orange, nor do I remember Noah being some crazy old loon who suddenly acts like he's commanding a naval fleet and runs around shouting nautical terms like \"hoist the mainstay!\" This was possibly the worst marketing decision in history. Obviously the majority of people watching this were going to be Jewish and Christian parents with their kids, so why on earth make the movie so offensive to those people? If they were intentionally trying to offend, why not advertise it that way and at least reel in the right audience?? I hope they make a REAL Noah movie someday, one done seriously and thoughtfully, one that actually appeals to people and makes money. Until then, don't waste your time with this trash.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie could have been an impressing epic, but the makers seem to have done their utmost to make it appear foolish. Even God Himself is not spared in this movie, in that His words are drenched with childish jokes. The result is blasphemous and annoying. Only people who don't care to see a cheap parody on the biblical story may perhaps watch this film without embarrassment. The makers of this tasteless production should see 'Il Vangelo secondo Matteo' (The Gospel according to Mathew), a film of Pier Paolo Pasolini, who shows that it is unnecessary to pervert the words of the Bible to make a good story; the most impressing result is obtained by a sincere rendering of the plain text itself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll dispense with the obvious review of factual inaccuracies. They are too numerous to name. A much shorter list would be what they got right. 1. Dude named Noah. 2. Ark with animals on it.

If you want a much more accurate portrayal of Noah's Ark and the destruction of Sodom, go rent \"The Bible\" (1966). It depicts the story of creation through Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son Isaac. It's a much better movie, and it may be that the abomination called \"Noah's Ark\" (1999) drove you to seek just such a film. http:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0060164\/

I really couldn't stomach watching the whole movie. From reading other comments, I can see that even the atheists found it grossly inaccurate. As a Christian, it was intolerable to me. Possibly the worst movie ever made. No real point to this movie either, except maybe to showcase their sub-par computer animation.

Was it a complete waste? Maybe not. God can use evil to work good.

Romans 8:28 says, [28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Genesis 50 says, [20] But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

In the second example, Joseph's brothers meant to kill him, but God turned their evil into a very great good. He may have done the same thing with this movie.

People were so astonished by its lack of Biblical foundation, that they probably broke out the dusty old Bible and read the story for themselves. To find out about Lot and Sodom, they would have to go the whole way up to Genesis 19 before God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah. By then, they have read almost half of Genesis, so they might want to finish. The next book is Exodus, which the movie \"The Ten Commandments\" was based on (and much more accurately). If they have seen that movie, then Exodus becomes an easy read. So now they have read at least two whole books of the Bible, just because they watched a pathetic movie about Noah's Ark. I'm sure this actually happened to someone out there.

God works in mysterious ways.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst mini-series I have ever seen on TV. I sat through the first half hoping it would improve but it only went from bad to worse. Needless to say I could not bring myself to sit through the torture of a second nights viewing. What was Jon Voight thinking when he made this?????","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry about that. But if you have seen this \"epic\", you will obviously know of the utter disregard for the actual text of the Bible. Now, I'm not exactly the next in line for sainthood, but I do know the basics. And the basics were this. God wanted to wipe everyone of the face of the Earth because he believed they have been corrupted to the point of no return. He chose Noah, the diamond in the rough, and his family to be spared due to their uncorrupted ways. Noah builds an ark as instructed by God to house he, his family, and two of every creature while he floods the rest of the planet. Those are the basics. In this movie, you have other people roaming around the seas such as peddlers and pirates. But I thought that EVERYONE was wiped out. I guess the executives at NBC have never been to church. There are other inaccuracies, I'm told, but being the average Joe, I have no idea what they are. Sorry. Back to the movie, it was inaccurate, as stated before, the acting stunk, but some of the effects were good, I'll give it that. But as a whole, I've seen a better and more tasteful rendition of the story done as a little scene on The Simpsons. God help the NBC executives come judgement day. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dramatic ? Yes......Historically accurate ? Not Quite !.... This movie twists the Bibles details of the deluge by placing Lot meeting Noah during the building of the Ark. Fascinating time travel for Lot made in part by NBC !....being Lot had not been born until 2136 BCE, 234 years AFTER the floodwater's (2370BCE)....Thats like having George Bush meet with William Shakepeare ! And whats with this guy floating around selling items & nicknack's to Noah ?

You can make a movie based on historical facts dramatic, but don't twist it around placing people where they weren't....especially when it comes to Gods Word.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I could not believe what i saw...(once) brilliant actors appearing in this dire effort that should never of been made. The plots are dreadful and the dialogue appauling (at first i thought it was a spoof), and the acting abysmal. Everything about it is bad, from the cheap sets to the phony backdrops, a bunch of paintings enlarged. Respectable filmakers struggle to get their vision realised, yet this blasphemous, pathetic attempt at a mini-series makes it to our television's, with 3 oscar winners making appearances. I can only guess everyone involved somehow hurt the writer and director and were forced (maybe at gunpoint)to star in this worthless T.V. trash.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the most inaccurate and disgraceful biblical film i have ever has the misfortune to watch. I would like to know why anybody on earth could enjoy viewing this. I am so surprised that a big name like Jon Voight would agree to act in this disgraceful piece of garbage. Many people who may not have read the bible will now be mislead by believing this film was accurate and the thought of that really bothers me. I think the makers have a lot to answer for. The worst thing is that, i believe nobody could make such obvious mistakes with a biblical film, since they can research the bible for the truth, so i believe the makers deliberately twisted what the bible says, and that is something nobody has the right to do and i find that very offensive. There are no words strong enough to describe exactly how i feel about this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are going to make a movie from any book, be sure that the characters are consistant with that book. This movie not only defied the Biblical story that has been told for thousands upon thousands of years to children one way or another, but it clearly took liberties that no adaptation would probably ever try. At least the Lord of the Rings is close enough to the books that people understand the story more if they read the books than this \"Noah's Ark\" tried to.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This move is terrible. They took Gods word and made a mockery of it. The acting was terrible too. Why bother doing a story on something from the bible when your not even going to tell it correctly. There were not just a few changes but the whole thing was wrong. Do not see this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just wanted to say that I was very disappointed after seeing this movie! I was expecting a Biblical story visualized with great special fx, etc. but during the film I found out that this was an absolute disaster... it wasn't biblical at all... only the boat and the animals were similar to the story... if you want a visual 'translation' of the Bible version of Noah then DON'T go watch this movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How can so many blundering decisions can be made. All that waste of resources!Its an idiotic story to begin with but theres no need to make it worse.A loose interpretation? Are you kidding! it diminishes my regard for Voight and Coburn.I hope they were paid well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Who wrote the script for this movie, the staff at Disney Studios?! This is the most inacurrate adaptation of any story ever! I wanted to laugh at a few scenes and cry at others, and that was only because of how pitiful it was. I'll have to hand it credit, it did have a few funny scenes, but I could've spent better time with my evening. Very seldom do I turn off a movie after only a quarter of the way through.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even though I have great interest in Biblical movies, I was bored to death every minute of the movie. Everything is bad. The movie is too long, the acting is most of the time a Joke and the script is horrible. I did not get the point in mixing the story about Abraham and Noah together. So if you value your time and sanity stay away from this horror.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How offensive! Those who liked this movie have probably never opened a bible. I can imagine those at NBC saying, \"OK. Let's make a movie to appease those pesky Christians, but they'll never know the difference if we don't have anything factual or in the correct chronological order.\" Well, they were wrong. Anybody associated with this atrocity needs to find a church and repent for their involvement in this blasphemous atrocity. I only gave this movie a 1 because I couldn't give it a 0.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh boy. Where do I begin on this piece of slime? This is one of the few real high-budget films on my list that I've actually seen fit to give a 1 rating, and that's not for the production values, which are pretty high. This movie has absolutely no respect for the account in the bible, and treats the whole story as laughable fantasy. I could not recommend it to anyone, except to see how low as a society we have become...

For the first thing, Noah was absolutely not friends with Lot. Anyone who actually read Genesis could tell you that Abram was who they were thinking of. The writers were just trying to pad out the story with the whole Sodom\/Gommorah subplot, and it seems out of place because it is. Noah is treated as a prudish goofball (\"You were kissing! You were kissing!\") but at least it's a step up from Voight's hilarious overacting in Anaconda.

However, these offenses pale in comparison to the heretical treatment of God in this movie. God is portrayed as a petty, incomprehesible being who changes his mind at the slightest whim. (\"I'm one eternal perfect, but I can be wrong\") What? Where are they getting this from? This kind of God...no one should ever pay any attention to, much less worship, praise, or love. What the director's saying in this, I do not claim to know. I just know that a responsible treatment of Noah's Ark should not take such an easy way out. Shame on these people.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This rendition of \"Noah's Ark\" has set Hallmark's (and Turner's) reputation back about 100 years. However, the production has it's bright side...a learning experience for neophyte movie entrepreneurs in \"how not to make a movie\"

Where in the annals of Biblical literature and common sense can one find these quotes and situations:

\"Ok, boys, let's saddle up.\" \"It's too bad that God created the sun to shine only during the day when we really needed it at night.\" \"We're not kissing...we're only whispering in each others' mouths.\"

Lumber for building the Ark with \"Georgia Pacific\" stamped on it. Metal nails. Kids flying kites. A peddler (how can James Coburn sleep after this) selling Chinese hats. Pirates attacking a wooden Ark, which they wished to capture, with flaming tar balls of fire shot from catapults. Glass bottles of wine (Noah was in a continual state of inibriation. It was a miracle that he could see the Ark let alone build it.) Lady Godiva (Mary Steenberg in a blond wig tromping around the Ark on a white horse...still rated G) Warding off Biblical pirates with an iron (teflon-lined?) frying pan. Landing on Mount Ararat after having passed through the Straights of Hercules.

etc., etc., etc.

Special effects...you've got to see them in order not to believe them.

The list goes on. This movie must not be missed; but if you want the full TV version, you must call NBC for the screen version...but only if you agree to absolve NBC of all responsibility of ever having aired the thing in the first place. Only the expurgated version exists in video stores (no pirates, etc.)...that is, those video stores that dare to stock it.

Marvin Cohn

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a completely inaccurate depiction of the real story of Noah's Ark. The producers probably did not even read the Bible. This is the worst movie I have EVER seen! Noah's wife was never mentioned by name in the Bible, but the writers of the film \"gave\" her the name Naamah. This movie depicts the destruction of Sodom a good 1000 years before it happened, and what about Gamorrah? It too was destroyed at the same time Sodom was. (Maybe the producers thought that not including Gamorrah in the story and showing the city of \"Sodom\" as in you-know-what would raise more eyebrows.) This film is utter filth and mocks God and the Bible. It is a wonder that any true Christian would want to participate in the production of this abysmal, hideous, reprobated mockery of the Bible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think Hollywood should seriously consider NEVER doing another \"Biblical\" film again, if Noah's Ark is going to be the norm. Aside from the horrible, completely uninspired acting from the whole cast (Voight and Steenburgen undoubtedly rue the day the agreed to do this film), the time line has been completely rearranged. I also missed the part in Genesis about the pirate fight on the deck of the ark or the traveling salesman coming by on his paddle boat. Hello? EVERYONE else was dead except for Noah and his family according to scripture. God stacked lumber and added plans to build the ark when Noah questioned how?? I also don't remember reading anything about Noah's wife constantly nagging him during the 40 days, or Noah wandering around glassy-eyed and dazed all the time. The script writer obviously had very little knowledge of the book of Genesis, or just didn't care that his abomination of a story completely mocked it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen some Bible-based trash. This one tops it all. To make matters worse, it lasts about three hours. A horrible waste of time, unless you want to match your kid's biblical knowledge against the innumerable aberrations. Do yourself a favor - take a walk in the Sahara instead. Since I am required to give you a ten line statement of why not to watch this movie, let me just say there is absolutely no redeemable quality to it. God's conversations with Noah are ridiculous. The whole thing has a stench of \"let's make the Biblical account look retarded.\" The basic logic goes, if they spent the money on a biblical film, why not make it worthwhile? Since the basic logic is not met, something is amiss. The movie starts with a disclaimer about Poetic Licenses taken...that is the understatement of the century. Poetic rape. But then, poetic would be an unmerited favor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Recently I borrowed a copy of this mess of a movie, which took me three sessions over three days to get through. That's another comment in the making.

But what I wanted to comment on first was the carelessness on the special features of the DVD. It included a game of memory, which asks the player\/viewer to match up pairs of animals in order for them to board the ark. However, every time it reveals the chosen animal, the screen prompts the player to find (or congratulates the player on finding)\"it's mate.\" This is a spelling error since it should be \"its mate\" as possessive pronoun, not a contraction for \"it is.\" It is an annoying error to keep repeating 16 or more times to finish a game. Of course, it's a kid's activity really, but teaches kids incorrect spelling.

And, oh yeah, the game never changes. It is the same game with the same locations of the same animals each time. Plus it doesn't keep score, like the number of moves it took to solve the game. So there is no lasting value or challenge to it. It's just a feature to list on the packaging.

Simply put, there could have been more thought and care put into this \"special\" feature, just like there could have been more thought and care put into this muddled film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How this film could be classified as Drama, I have no idea. If I were John Voight and Mary Steenburgen, I would be trying to erase this from my CV. It was as historically accurate as Xena and Hercules. Abraham and Moses got melded into Noah. Lot, Abraham's nephew, Lot, turns up thousands of years before he would have been born. Canaanites wandered the earth...really? What were the scriptwriters thinking? Was it just ignorance (\"I remember something about Noah and animals, and Lot and Canaanites and all that stuff from Sunday School\") or were they trying to offend the maximum number of people on the planet as possible- from Christians, Jews and Muslims, to historians, archaeologists, geologists, psychologists, linguists ...as a matter of fact, did anyone not get offended? Anyone who had even a modicum of taste would have winced at this one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"NBC should be ashamed. I wouldn't allow my children to see this. I definitely would tell my church to stay away. This movie is proof as to why NBC has always been a 3rd rate network The producers, actors, and writers should get on their knees and beg God's forgiveness for making this work of fiction. There were no pirates. Noah's wife didn't parade around on the deck of the ark. The ark had NO deck. Lot wasn't even born when this event took place. Did anyone attached to this project try reading the Bible? There were more than two animals of each type taken. Read the story in Genesis. How could anyone bring this to any screen, small or large!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was so excited to see the cast in this movie that I was completely surprised at how completely WRONG this movie was. I love John Voight but I have no idea what possessed him to be a part of this travesty. The Biblical accuracy was completely non-existent and I honestly could not stomach watching the movie with my children. My kids stood astonished because even THEY know that Lot was not even thought of when Noah was building the ark. I think that NBC should be ashamed of themselves for allowing producers to make a mockery of the Word and cause even more confusion in a world that barely knows the truth as it is... PLEASE DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE!!! I have considered burning my copy but I have every intentions on writing the producers and sending them the scripture references that they SHOULD HAVE read before making this movie!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is pure CRAP, and probably the worst Biblical theme film ever... Absolutely inaccurate, I mean, they've put Sodom and Gomora BEFORE the great flood. They've described Lot as a friend of Noah although he lived after Noah. To make things worse, later Lot became a pirate and attacks Noah's Ark during the flood!!!??? And what's with the merchant who comes along on a boat which is moved over the water with a bicycle mechanism??? And exchanges alcohol for a food and water, and then Noah is portrayed as alcoholic!? Mockery, and continuous blasphemies one after another, and it goes on and on, and on... Film maker and all participants surely secured themselves the front row in hell with this garbage...

Please stay off this crap, because you will save yourself nearly three hours of your life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have wanted to say this since I first saw the movie, I still will not allow any of my children or grandchildren to watch this. At least not until I tell them and they understand that it is completely fiction. The only thing that I saw that was correct was that animals went onto the Ark, everything else was false. Lot and Noah fighting on the ocean like a pirate movie. Make sure you tell your kids the real story before you allow them to watch it, but really, until they are old enough to understand that it is not real they may have a messed up vision of the Bible. This was the worst Bible movie I have ever seen. Bruce and Evan Almighty were much better and had more to teach. Let your children watch those","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just when I thought nothing could be as offensive and\/or irritating as a Billy Mays infomercial, I had the intellectually shattering experience of renting this piece of garbage. Peter Barnes and John Irvin should be brought up on criminal charges for smuggling this script into the public venue. The actors need to be charged as accomplices, serving no less than a lifetime away from the public eye.

This production offers the disclaimer, \"For dramatic effect, we have taken poetic license with certain facts\", or some such inadequate statement to fully brace you for the absolute repugnant rewrite of a Bible story which needed no drama added. What they did add was enough to make your I.Q. drop three full points for every five minutes of viewing time.

The \"poetic license\" taken, invents characters so bizarre, you'll recognize nothing but the names of a few, and, of course, the ark.

For some reason, Noah and Lot are both living in Sodom, so maybe Abram was vacationing in Switzerland on a skiing trip. Lot's wife, played by Carol Kane, is a harpy, and when she's turned to a pillar of salt, Lot breaks off her finger and carries it around in what appears to be an empty baby food jar. If that's \"poetic\", I'm a kumquat.

When Noah - who has now begun drinking wine in quantities that could help float the ark - whines about the tough job of the building project, he awakens one morning to find that God has delivered enough precut lumber to lighten his burden. At least I think it was God. It looked like a delivery from 84 Lumber, neatly stacked and bundled. Maybe 84 Lumber is really an agent for God????? Rather than bore you with the cargo being loaded, I'll regale you with the account of the pirate attack on the ark. Incongruous, you think? This movie is filled with such insulting nonsense. After an untold time on the waters, Noah spies a pirate ship heading right for them. And who might the salty sea-captain be? Well, duh, it's Lot, of course! My only surprise was that his uncle Abram wasn't aboard. If you're going to slaughter a plot line, slaughter all of it. The piracy attempt is unsuccessful, and the swashbuckling was pathetic, not poetic. I think it was around this mark that my nausea prevented me from punishing myself anymore.

An ugly, senseless, moronic distortion of anything remotely resembling a Bible account. On a scale of 1 - 10, this movie is premeditated mind abuse. Stupid and insulting, you'll be more entertained by reading the Yellow Pages.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Disney-like entertainment with some un-Disney-like moments of graphic violence and sexual references. Lousy comedy alongside clich\u00e9-ridden moralizing. Noah as Abraham, Lot as his wicked buddy. Laughable special effects. Overdone acting with bad timing. Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed before the Flood? Strange twists and too many sub-plots the Bible doesn't mention. God as a doubting father who just needs to be entertained by whistling before deciding the world has to be saved from disaster.

B-movie wannabee director John Irvin adds another failure to his worthless list of poorly-directed movies that seriously lack plot and direction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After seeing Shootfighter 1, and the buckets of blood they shed, I was ready for another rousing jaunt of open handed heart massage, and chiropractics in a cage. But nooooooo, this was like the Barney version of the first movie, with that lamer from the Karate kid. At least Bolo Yeung still kicks booty, although he needs to do more movies like Bloodsport and Caddyshack.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A bad bad movie... terrible plot, hinges on Bolo Yeung's charater, but he speaks maybe 20 words in the entire movie and only has one fight scene - still in great shape considering he was also in the kung fu classic \"Enter The Dragon\" Interesting to see William Zabka (\"Johnny\" from The Karate Kid) in another martial-arts role.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Visually, this film is interesting. Light is literally thrown in a way, together with cinematography and an alluring introduction before the titles, that had my hopes up at the start, but then - a b-movie is a b-movie is a b-movie, no matter how much spectacle is seen. This film surrounds the life of Albert Fish, one of the most well-known serial-killers in the world. Active around the start of the 20th century, Fish's life is hastily and blurry dealt with before before he started killing children at an old age. This film is based upon two tracks: Fish's life and that of William F. King, lead investigator of the case. What saves this film from becoming a Hallmark spectacle and debacle of the usual sort, whenever films about serial killers are concerned, is the direction, which is a double-edged sword; director Scott L. Flynn sheds focus enough upon the b-actors not to let their flaws shine through too much, but at the same times created a truly dull and stereotypical view of the American police through the King-angle. Sure enough he dealt quite thoroughly with Fish's meet with Grace Budd, the 10-year-old girl that he killed, even though I'm not really sure if her mother was the media-crazed person that Flynn really tries to emphasise that she was. I miss more psychological diving into Fish, not to mention the very little time which was spent on Fish's post-capture. All in all, interesting for those who are into serial-killers, but mostly a let-down; however, if the director will make another film about another serial-killer, I'd definitely see it in hopes that holes were patched-up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's something strange about the antisocial sentiment you can find in some Cheech And Chong material. One of the songs in Up In Smoke, well, I often wish more songs these days began that way. But in this excuse for a video, the stoner duo are showing us the videos for four songs from their album of the moment, also titled Get Out Of My Room. You hear a voice-over during the opening credits in which some anonymous producer describes the record as being a novelty recording that will just take up room on the charts. Unfortunately, this opening voice-over hits the nail right on the head.

Most music recordings endorsed by the RIAA seem to keep to a rule of putting the best material early in the album. Often, when one gets past that first song, the discerning listener notices that the recording has little, if anything, to hold their attention. Bands that defied mainstream convention, on the other hand, often saved their best material for last, or at least spread it evenly throughout the disc. In this case, Cheech And Chong appear to have decided to hedge their bets. The opening piece, Get Out Of My Room, is a hilariously-themed song with an incredibly bad video. Many a viewer of a 1980s music video will find the sloppy direction somewhat nostalgic. Cheech's conception of British punk is also incredibly funny.

Where it all goes downhill is the second number, I'm Not Home Right Now. Nothing kills interest in a song quite like repetition, and it's tough to get more repetitive than this aural turd. Honestly, one feels the urge to slap Cheech in the face and tell him that we get the idea, he isn't home right now, so please move on. The next song, along the theme of love being a strange thing, is the absolute rock bottom not only for this collection, but for Cheech And Chong in general. It's almost as if this song was made for the sole reason of padding out the album's running time.

Fortunately, the stoner duo saved the best for last, but it is also curious to note that Chong is completely absent from this cut. Born In East L.A. is a simple number based upon the old Bruce Springsteen number that mocks Reagan's view of multiculturalism. As one is regaled by Cheech's tale, one has to wonder how many poor schleps who couldn't speak a word of Spanish were deported to Mexico simply because their skin wasn't bedsheet-white. Racism was an integral part of America's culture in 1985, and it remains so today. If anything, it has gotten worse, so one has to wonder what Born In East L.A. would be like if it were written in the current era.

Unfortunately, two cuts does not an album make, especially when there is so much boring filler between them. The interviews before Get Out Of My Room, for example, are quite funny. Not side-splitting like much of Up In Smoke, but funny enough to justify their existence. Unfortunately, the two middle songs are reflected in their making-of footage. Boring song makes boring filler. If you cut out the middle half-hour of material from this video, you'd have something substantially better.

I gave Get Out Of My Room a three out of ten. They are earned by the first and last video. I'm pretty certain that the stars look at material like this today and wonder what they were thinking.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got this for my birthday in a box set under the name Broke Skull. Well, after watching one on the DVD and being pleasantly surprised, I popped this sucker in. It was worse than I had expected, and I didn't expect much. This movie is basically a convoluted story about a guy who dies and comes back to life with the mob, and other bull crap. There was some interesting ideas in this that were never followed up on. Now everybody has been saying there was a lot of gore, can somebody tell me were? I saw a bad effect of a head being crushed, brain tissue (or something...), and blood coming from the penis area two times. I have to say the the part were the guy gets his man hood bitten off made me squirm, that was the only good thing about this movie. And that gay sex scene was just thrown in there for no reason. The acting in this was Atrocious, really, it blew. That Asian chick was annoying, then the annoying Mexican boyfriend who comes in to just be killed. I say if you get this in a box set, that is fine, but don't spend any money on it, at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We picked this up as a part of a Brentwood set, under the title \"The Broken Skull.\" Shot directly onto video, with widely varying sound and lighting quality, this movie winds up with a hyperactive quality that may inspire the viewer to feelings of nervousness, confusion and irritability - and not in a good, \"Evil Dead\" kind of way.

Without going into spoilers, what appears at first to be a simple revenge ghost story becomes increasingly convoluted and bizarre. While there are some interesting ideas here, the overall effect is likely to leave you scratching your head and saying \"hunh?\"

This is a very, very gory movie. The gore effects range all the way from full bloody head appliances to a silly Video Toaster effect that has to be freeze-framed to be (dis)believed. The \"Fangoria\" level of gross-out effects in this film is really amazing and should likely please the gore-hounds while making anyone with a weak constitution feel a bit on the queasy side.

The Broken Skull is also an extremely noisy movie. It features not only ambient noises (captured by mikes and not replaced in post), but there is a lot of shrieking. No, no, I mean a LOT. A lot, a lot! Characters scream, wail, howl and yell, chitter and laugh maniacally. Turn down the volume if you value your eardrums and your nerves! But you can't fault the cast for their enthusiasm, they really eat up the scenery and sometimes the effect is rather entertaining. In particular, the actress playing a certain Vietnamese immigrant delivers all of the above with a remarkable amount of gusto.

In fact, very few of the actors were wooden. Some of them may have overacted a bit (oh, just a wee smidgen!), but most of them are certainly fun to watch go off. The cast is ethnically diverse and kudos to the filmmakers for that. The two middle-aged white women, however, are two of the most spiteful, exasperated characters since the shopkeeper in the MST3k classic \"the Brute Man.\" Just watch them seethe at all the other characters, it's fun!

In closing, the Headcrusher may not become a horror icon on a par with Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers or Freddy Kruger (or even the Leprechaun), but we can definitely say this ... this was a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't think it really matters too much what the plot of this movie is about, the main thing you'll notice is the extreme amateurishness of the entire production. The acting is what you'd get if you chose people at random off the street. The sound is really annoying - a medicine cabinet closes with all the gusto of a gunshot going off in your ear, while at the same time the dialog is perhaps one-fifth as loud. Miscellaneous on-set noises dominate the soundtrack to a huge degree, with dialog taking a distant back seat. The theme music sounds as if it was about a quarter done when the movie was released, as large portions of the film don't have any music at all. Camera-work can best be described as a gnarled mess, with close-up shots where a medium angle would be much better, cameramen walking around and jostling the camera every which way, absolutely no attention paid to framing any scene, they just shot everything from whatever position it was most convenient for the cameraman to stand. If the cameraman was a foot taller than the actors and you end up looking at the tops of everyone's heads, well, so be it. Editing is just a butcher job; Everything is tossed together in the most abrupt manner possible, nothing flows or transitions in any sense of the word. I don't know if this was shot on video or perhaps a rented camcorder, I tend to think it was the latter.

I only made it about three-quarters of the way through this thing before I turned it off, I just got so annoyed at the low quality of the production I couldn't take it anymore. It's like a ninth grade audio-visual class project.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I admit - I was lured to this one from the hype - and I didn't stop to consider the sources. \"one of the best indie exploitation flicks of the year (1999)\", shocking\", and \" a must have \".

Well - I wasted my money. But not all was bad in this movie. THey at least got the gore right, as well as some of the most unique methods of murder seen in a long time. There is even a storyline (kinda) and that is about it.

But for an exploitation film there is a surprising amount of content - but no exploiting. We get gay sex - sorta. We have 3 inter-racial babes - maybe. We have a psychotic Vietnamese hooker - nice back, oral sex (ok that made me wince) and some female version of Gene Simmons (I don't get that part). We have an honest to goodness Capone - rates among the best of the actors in this film - that is not a compliment. And finally we have a government conspiracy thrown in to - I don't know - try to connect the vengeance\/random\/theme killing by Jimmy boy to make the Vietnamese psycho seem sane??????? If nothing else this movie proves that the Italians and the Americans do not have a lock on this type of movie. The Latinos can make crap as well as the rest of them. Kudos goes to anyone involved in this accomplishment that overcame it and made a career for themselves.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Calu-what now? Yeah, I thought it was a stupid name as well. Chris Carter remains blissfully unaware of the scum in his writing staff. Starting off with the usual cheery X-Files teaser (a baby getting run over by a train) this episode... well I can't really say it goes downhill because to be honest it was never going uphill.

Poorly written, with us feeling no pathos for any of the characters (except maybe that baby at the start) the writer makes us hate characters before brutally killing them off, it's the worst technique ever. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the characters of hate them? Don't ask me.

Not only is it boring and un-scary, but it's like watching a really bad Omen sequel with overblown and disgusting death sequences and rotten special effects (although to be brutally honest, that's the least of my worries).

Sara B. Charno began her X-Files career with a whimper and thankfully ended it with one as well.

Verdict:

In the words of my maths teacher Mr. Laverack: \"Horrible, Awful...\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"wow, this movie sucked.

This movie was a embarrassment to the original sandlot.

Everything about this movie was awful.

The acting was horrendous. Every part except the part of the 'mexican' sandlot manager was terrible.

Luke Perry, though only bit parts was absolutely awful. This was is worst role ever. Even the kid actor playing him as a kid was someone you'd want to punch, even in the end, lol.

This movie reminded me of those kid movies that go that extra mile making a part goofy way beyond the funny stage. The humor was for 6 year olds.

If your over 12 and want something worthwhile to watch, skip this movie and watch a sitcom instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just in case the title didn't give it away - this movie is garbage.

Short review? Yeah.

I decided to spend as much time writing this review as Hollywood probably decided to put into the script. I doubt it'll be published considering how poorly I worded everything but if this is and anyone reads it -- stick to cherishing the first Sandlot movie. It completely surpasses its predecessors in every single way. The sequels aren't ever worth buying or seeing and everyone involved in making them should be ashamed for ruining what has to be one of the most classic, original films of our childhood.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, this movie is not near complete, my guess is that someone actually bothered to steal every other page of the script.

The movie contains bizarre time-travels without notice, inconsistent dialogs, misplaced details all over, the music isn't very bad at all, other then misplaced tracks, and besides the fact that the volume goes up and down between the different tracks. The cutting-room did a descent job actually, and that says a lot. Missplaced sound effects ruin the tension, though.

Luke Perry does what he does best, just looking worried, and occasionally coughing up punchlines from hell.

I seriously rate this movie as the worst of 2007, and i've seen a few bad ones. Do not spend money on this one, it's not so bad it's a laugh, it's worse. Ratings above 1 star, should render a blacklist at IMDb, because it's a damn lie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was absolutely terrible. The only explanation I can think of for the good reviews it received from some here is that they were written by people in the cast. It was actually painful to watch this movie. Even my grandchildren (ages 6-13) could not bear to watch it. As far as I know, this movie never made it to theaters and for good reason. It's as if some people were sitting around having a beer and said, \"Hey! Let's make a movie. Who wants to be in it?\" It's that bad. Besides Luke Perry, who is only in a small part of the movie, I did not recognize a single other actor. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it is in this case. I liked Sandlot (I) and I generally like stupid and silly movies but this movie doesn't have a single redeeming quality. The people who wrote it don't have the slightest clue as to how children think, talk, or act and the movie is a disjointed mess of terribly corny lines and stupid jokes. I rarely write negative reviews but this is the worst movie I have seen since Man's Best Friend and it's definitely one of the ten worst movies I have ever seen in my life. If you rent it, remember that I warned you. The fact that some people actually rated this movie as being good is a sad commentary on their taste and intelligence. I'm not exaggerating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I find it amazing, that so many people (probably Poles) have voted for this movie, giving it such grades (mostly tens). OK, the movie was fine, funny, but it was nothing special on the other hand. The only good thing about Kiler is the dialogues, rather not comprehensive for non-Poles. Screenplay is primitive, the acting (except for Jerzy Stuhr as Ryba) - awful. It's too much ado about nothing - fortunately it's not included in the top 250. P.S. The sequel \"Kilerow 2-och\" (\"2 Kilers\") is on the way and it's just the same story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can see what this film was intending to do. Unfortunately it just never quite completes the deal. The \"reality crime\" aspect works fine and the shots are all first rate. In fact quite a few of the scenes are incredibly evocative in a moody sort of way. Notably the silhouette of the detective talking to the beat up woman, the scene of the detectives going through the garbage, and the father tying flies. On occasion s few scenes bog down in too much dialog. Instead of showing the viewer the writer treats it too much like a book. But the real problem lies in the editing. The story does not flow. It fails to make a whole out of the sum of the parts. In the end you are confused as to what is actually happening. Those who like this sort of detective movie like to follow along, piecing together the puzzle at the same time the lead characters do. With such poor editing it is difficult if not nearly impossible to do this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie certainly is a weird one to say the least. The basic plot is 3 old business associates invite 2 strangers into their home for returning a lost wallet with 10 bucks in it. The two whom show up fall in love. The 3 older business men die and come back as ghosts to try to help the two younger guests out. Okay so that may make sense but then we have 3 old guys whom apparently have some bread living together..slightly weird here...Harry Carey plays his part way off base you can't tell if he is a nice guy or really a prick. I mean really, make up my mind I can handle it. Then there is Richard Carlson playing James Houston from Texas....hmmmmm, He sounds way more like a southern gentleman from Kentucky than a person from Texas. This one isn't even close.. Then we take the 3 ghosts whom would stand a better chance of helping the New Orleans Saints win a play off game than actually helping out...In fact they are really no help at all and why they are even in the film is beyond any scope of knowledge.. Silly film in which a cast of characters act totally out of character..You can avoid this one..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this because it was $1.99 and Harry Carey was in it and a friend of mine was in it, and for $1.99, how bad could it be? Then I read some comments here on the film and began to get excited -- maybe this really was a lost gem, one of those terrific little B-movies everyone had forgotten about but which deserved to be resurrected. WRONG! I'm not sure how anyone else can give this thing the praise it got from some quarters here, but I found it one of the most tedious and blatantly bathos-filled movies I've ever seen. And I'm not talking about Richard Carlson's hokey Texas accent (straight from the Georgia part of Texas, I guess). It's just dumb. No one in the film behaves like a real human being. No one. And no one does anything believable or interesting. It's not even a clich\u00e9-fest. It's just 80-something minutes of frames going by. It even managed to make Harry Carey, Maria Ouspenskaya, and C. Aubrey Smith boring. Now THAT'S unbelievable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, let me say that I am in no way denying the importance of the subject - quite the opposite. I am Polish and I have been aware of the Katyn massacre for quite a long time (in fact, two of my family members died there), so I was looking forward to this film. Unfortunately, I was disappointed.

I think the main problem lies with the script, which encompasses too many subplots and characters, none of which are properly developed. The characters are painfully one-dimensional; their stories are intertwined, but lack overall meaning. In my opinion the cast doesn't really have a chance to show their ability. The exception is Andrzej Chyra, portraying Jerzy - the only interesting character. I wish the story was more focused on him.

As a result, the film lacks emotion. Before seeing it I thought I would be moved, if only for sentimental reasons - but in fact I was watching it with an odd sense of detachment throughout, except for the final execution scene. It is done well and its placing is interesting and provides a climactic ending, although the idea of the Lord's Prayer being recited in unison by the executed officers seems a bit far-fetched.

To conclude, I suppose the film may have some educational value for those who are not familiar with the portrayed historical events, but in my opinion it fails as a work of cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh what a disappointment this movie is. I can't believe it was directed by Wajda. There's practically no plot and 90% of the movie consists of various people walking in and out of the screen, weakly trying to interact with each other while talking about the Katyn massacre. The most interesting part comes right at the end, but by that time I simply stopped caring while trying to suppress my yawns.

Almost the entire movie is filmed with a hand-held camera, which is supposed to convey the feeling of \"personal immediacy\" but there's nothing personal or immediate about most of the movie. Instead, the constant jerking of the camera made me seasick. To be fair, there are some great shots too (no pun intended), but nothing that makes you go \"Wow!\".

If you're not familiar with the Katyn massacre, the movie will leave you scratching your head. If you are familiar, you'll be scratching your head too, although maybe for different reasons. Basically, the movie states and restates over and over again that it was the Soviets who murdered thousands of Polish soldiers in 1940. This point is hammered repeatedly as though someone in the audience needed to be convinced of this basic historical fact. However, the movie never tries to explain as to WHY they were killed. After all, tens of thousands of Polish soldiers in the other Soviet POW camps were not harmed and were released in 1941. It is also never explained adequately HOW MANY people perished, although the figure 20,000 is thrown in a couple of times.

The acting is adequate with only Komorowska (old woman) and Chyra (Lt. Jerzy) giving noticeable performances, but they get to act for maybe 10-15 minutes in total. Certainly not enough to carry the whole movie. Many other actors seem to have been chosen more for their matin\u00e9e looks rather than their acting abilities, but I won't mention their names. Suffice to say that they are definitely NOT the Oscar material, so any claims that this movie was \"robbed\" of the Academy Award are simply laughable.

The tone of movie is wrong as well. On one hand it tries to be an accurate historical drama, on the other it resorts to cheap anti-Soviet propaganda such as showing a Russian soldier tear up the Polish flag and using it to clean his boots. Then there are some puzzling scenes which have absolutely no bearing on the plot, such as a couple climbing on a roof or the liquidation of the Krakow University.

There are many missed opportunities to make this movie more interesting, such as adding a political angle to the story, or showing the German discovery of the graves, or even portraying Anna's trip from the Soviet occupied part to the German occupied Krakow. All of these aspects could have been the major part of the movie, but instead they're reduced to a couple of minutes. In the end, we get a collection of loosely fitting, confusing, boring scenes about the reaction of Poles to one of their greatest tragedies of WWII. Not very compelling and not worthy of Wajda at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm guessing that the movie was based on a hefty book. Given the number of characters and subplots during Katyn, I thought that the movie creators, perhaps the writer or director, intended to create an epic movie. But really there wasn't enough time to properly spend on developing characters or story. Aggravatingly, there were many unrelated side-stories that could have been edited out.

In relating the events leading up to the mass-murder of all these intellectuals and officers, I don't think the movie explained any reasons why murder was necessary. Was it political? Philosophical? Revenge? The interesting part of historical movies are seeing personal motivations or emotions. Instead, the murderers of Katyn seemed like automatons, controlled entirely by Stalin, who's appears occasionally framed as a charcoal sketch. The portrayal of the Russians and Germans seemed entirely one-dimensional. (Are Polish people just that angry at the Russians?) Besides being badly edited and biased or at least unrealistic, choices of music and cinematography felt mismatched to each other and to the movie itself. I don't think you can really shoot an epic war film or war event on hand-held camera. (But if the director went with a character-driven story, perhaps by focusing on a single family, maybe the handy-cam approach would have worked better.) And if you use really dramatic music, it needs to be better balanced to the type of shots made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a shame especially considering Andrzej Wajda is not an amateur, but professional director. However this movie fails to deliver anything you could expect.

First of all -- I am Polish, so I can tell all the background story, because I read books. But how can you tell there is even a war from this movie -- bunch of people are going back and forth, some soldiers are shouting... This is really The Second World War or soldiers are on vacations?

Acting and dialogs -- poor, miserably poor. A.\u017bmijewski, D.Stenka, M.Komorowska, W.Kowalski, A.Chyra fit in their roles, the rest of (Polish) cast is out of the place (most notably M.Ostaszewska, one of the leading characters, what an unfortunate choice). 99% of the dialogs are not spoken, they are just put there, actors had difficulties to perform and it is no surprise considering what odd things they had to say.

And this leads us to the most disappointing issue -- you can't feel it. Everything is so theatrical, artificial. There is no real life, there is no feeling in it. There are a lot of original footage from the WWII and, guess what, the material is much more powerful, dramatic, than what A.Wajda did.

I can see only one positive -- despite historical mistakes (like acronym ZSRR; it was made for post-1945 propaganda purposes, to please Polish that ZSRS was gone, and now there was ZSRR, but in 1940 there was no ZSRR!), luckily it is undoubtedly shown killing in Katyn was done by Soviets (yes, it is a fact, not some controversial gossip). Great, two hours for 5-10 minutes scene.

Anyway -- time and potential wasted. This is tragedy of epic proportions, will to fight in 1939 (barely shown), not declaring war against Soviet Union by Polish authorities (sic! not shown here), imprisonment of soldiers shortly after, living in the outrageous conditions (not shown here), hope and fear what will come next (barely shown) , and then... extermination. Hand to hand with Germans -- Soviets were exterminating Polish nation, aimed at people who constituted the backbone of Poland. Unfortunately they succeed, and the results are still visible to this very day.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First let me say I'm not someone who usually cringe at the fact of having to think while seeing movies, I love Tarkowsky movies for example, Berghman is also a favorite.....but this? The positive points can be summed up easily: the photography is splendid, and the music is perfect....does it make a good movie? I used to think so, but this one is a perfect example of one that (for me) doesn't make it.... maybe it's because I'm too dumb? possible, but I don't think so.... Tarkwosky for example also used very long shots, but what he never did was filming 5 minutes of the exact same image of two people walking (and I mean just their heads, because in this movie there are a lot of those shots, but sometimes it IS effective), the general result is plainly boring, even with the intelligent undertones (which are done in a way that, while intelligent, is above all very pedantic)

you also always feel that the director is making some of the long shots not for the aesthetic, or symbolic effect, but just to spare on budget....

I'm very disappointed in this film, because I really liked the first 30 minutes or so, but it just went on and on, without even keeping the same level as in the first scenes....

While reading the very praising comments on this page, I also get the feeling some people just try to see much more in the movie than there is to it...when a movie is slow and arty, it doesn't necessarily mean it is very profound....yes it is an allegory on musical theory placed in the context of a small town, which is quite interesting on itself, but it does NOT make a profound movie....except for people who absolutely want to make some sort of intellectual masturbation out of it, but then it's not what you find in the movie, but what you find in yourself....an exercise that, in my opinion can be made much more effectively while watching \"Stalker\" or \"Solyaris\" than Werckmeister Harmonies, that owes much to Tarkowsky, but cab never equal it's level....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This self-important, confusing b+w \"film\" watches like an infant on a very bad acid trip. You're dealing with something that reminds you of a piece of rotting lettuce that accidentally fell out of the back of a garbage truck: no one cares to touch it because it will probably be washed away on its own down the storm drain. There's no room for plot when you've got \"visceral imagery\" and \"subtle\" allegory. To me, it seems like the director tries to make the next great art movie while begging for intellectual accolades. I didn't bring my beret either. Watching this, I felt almost insulted since the \"film\" does such an effective job of distancing itself from you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a drawn out painful experience.

That's over two hours of my life I will never get back.

This Film Festival Director's delight - is awash with overuse of the long slow shot....however - that's not the only thing that makes a script.

Avoid this movie at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I generally LIKE Sion Sono's work, but this movie was completely retarded. But sadly, not retarded enough to make it entertainingly retarded. I just sat, mouth agape, wondering when it would end. The plot makes only a whisper of sense. I think it was intended to be campy. I mean, haunted hair extensions - how could it not be? But the humor, such as it was, fell flat. Not funny. Not scary. Not gory. I would say perhaps Sono was a hired hand on this project, but he appears to have written this boring trash as well. I still need to fill a couple more lines, what else is there to say? I suppose I could finish by saying: Better luck next time, Sono-san.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The threesome of Bill Boyd, Robert Armstrong, and James Gleason play Coney Island carnys vying for the hand of Ginger Rogers, a working gal who sells salt water taffy. With the outbreak of World War I, the threesome enlist and pursue Ginger from afar. The first half of this RKO Pathe production is hard going, with the three male leads chewing up the scenery with overcooked one-liners and 'snappy' dialogue that quickly grows tiresome. The second half concentrates on action sequences as the US Navy pursues both a German merchant cruiser and a U-boat. These sequences are lively and well-filmed, but overall this is an overlong and unsatisfying comedy-drama with a flat ending. For fans of the stars only.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...at least during its first half. If it had started out with the three buddies in the navy and concentrated on the naval action scenes, it would have been a much better and tighter film. The second half of the film is worth it, especially for the action sequences and close up shots of early 20th century ships, but it's like a dull toothache getting there. Also, don't watch this film just because Ginger Rogers is in it. She has an important role, but it's a small one.

The film starts out showing three New York City buddies working the tourist trade and also in good-natured competition for the hand of Sally (Ginger Rogers), a singing candy salesgirl along the avenue. World War I breaks out, the three buddies seem completely indifferent to the struggle, yet enlist in the navy anyways. The one of the three with the least industry as a civilian (Bill Boyd as Baltimore) winds up the commanding officer to the other two (Robert Armstrong as Dutch and James Gleason as Skeets). To make matters more complex, Sally has fallen in love with one of the three, but doesn't have the chance to tell him before the three sail off to war.

The film is a little more interesting on board ship, mainly because of the close shots we have of the ship itself, and also because the chemistry among the three buddies is believable. However, James Gleason at age 49 looks a bit long in the tooth to be a swabby, especially when the sign at the enlistment office said you had to be between 17 and 35 to be eligible.

One real obvious flaw in the film that made me believe that everything outside the naval scenes was slapped together with minimum care is the costume design, or, I should say, the lack of it. In the scenes in New York just prior to WWI we have everyone dressed in the fashions of 1931 and everyone driving the cars of 1931 - no effort was taken to bring this film into period.

In conclusion, if you watch the few scenes with Ginger Rogers in them and the last 45 minutes involving the naval suicide mission, you've seen everything here worth seeing. The rest is padding.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story isn't very strong. Don't expect a \"Bourne identity\" kind of movie. It started of strong, Tara speaking Russian and it even sounded credible. (Not that I'm the Russian language expert.) Moscow had that darkish depressing look what gave this movie potential, I still believed in it. To bad it only took about half an hour to see they really missed the spot with this one. Acting was poor, maybe because the story itself was not very strong. There is this part in the movie where Gordon Patrick (Nick Moran) is having a conversation on the phone with the C.I.A., like you're listening to a Chinese synchronizer. W.T.F!? Too bad, the writer didn't even take little effort to give the main characters depth. Also, bit of a cheap and easy ending.

Plus point is almost every scene where Tara Reid is in. Not that she's acting that well, in fact, she doesn't. But she really looks great in this movie. Overall, it was a bit of a disappointment. Rental material\u0085.maybe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Over acted, heavy handed, full of speeches, preachy, on the nose, and over stylized in a way only MTV could be guilty of, Stop-Loss is agit-prop garbage. I expected a lot more with talented young actors such as Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Ryan Philippe, but Screenwriter\/Director Kimberly Peirce does a hatchet job of portraying the ill effects of war on American youth. I'm sure she did some work researching the Iraq war and the young men fighting in it, but you'd never guess it from watching Stop-Loss. In many ways this mess reminded me of Catherine Hardwicke's Lords of Dogtown, an equally inept, overly stylized, TV movie-like waste of solid subject matter.

http:\/\/eattheblinds.blogspot.com\/","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My mistake for thinking this was a serious war-is-hell movie prior to seeing it. That all ended seconds into the film when the \"MTV\" logo appeared. It might as well been called \"National Lampoon's Sexy-N-Loose.\" And it did play to the \"MTV\" crowd; the movie that followed those comical first few seconds played like the music videos they used to play 40+ years ago. At least Disney was smart enough to ship its Rated R stuff over to Touchtone and allowed us to take it seriously. Okay, I'm being harsh; it wasn't that bad of a film. However, it definitely has its share of overacting and the film is extremely biased\/one-sided. Admittedly, I'm not a war movie buff. I can't watch 'Platoon,' 'Full Metal Jacket' or 'Saving Private Ryan' more than once. Sure they were good movies, but they're not my forte and they all seem to blend in after awhile to where I wouldn't be able to distinguish one from the next. Following a tour in Iraq, Phillippe plans life after the war but is drawn back in due to a clause in his contract. Or, at least, that's the military's plan until he goes AWOL and the characters speed cross-country on a few bucks amazingly never caught. No, I haven't been in any war, nor to Iraq, nor do I agree with it. I also don't have all the knowledge when it comes to recruitment or signing their contracts. I can say this: though I am sorry they're drawn back into this conflict, I can't feel too much for someone so dumb not to read the fine print. It's like someone on their deathbed leaning over to finally read the Surgeon General's warning on their box of cigarettes and say, \"Oh, they're what? Deadly? I'll sue them!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I find it terribly ironic that \"left wing\" Hollywood continues to hedge its bets, making these awful lukewarm movies that neither condemn the war on terror nor embrace it.

If you're a Sixties survivor and a committed pacifist, and you're hoping for an all-out condemnation of war like BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY or ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, this movie will really feel like a rip off. None of these soldiers actually question this war, or any war, or the idea of war. They just gripe about having to do another tour.

On the other hand, if you're a patriotic American who wants to see a story of courage and honor, this movie will really feel like a rip off. None of these soldiers loves America, or even loves the service. The way they pout and sulk makes them come across more like suburban teenagers than blue collar tough guys. It's not WE WERE SOLDIERS, and it's not SANDS OF IWO JIMA. It's not even mindless action, and the war scenes are less RAMBO and more BUFFY.

Ryan Philippe so completely cannot carry this kind of movie. Though he's devastatingly sexy, in a rough trade, men's room, bisexual sort of way, it's hard to picture him as a slow-talking' Texas boy who wants to stand up and be counted. This is no Sgt. Croft in Mailer's THE NAKED AND THE DEAD. He's more like Joel in Truman Capote's OTHER VOICES, OTHER ROOMS. He can't sell you on the idea that he's been in combat and done his bit, OR that he wants his woman and wants her right now. He fizzles on the battlefield and in the bedroom scenes, looking as if he would much prefer to bend over and take a good stiff attack from the rear.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is unfortunate that between this film, In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, and Home of the Brave seem to all be based upon common stereotypes about veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The boozing, the fighting, the short-fuses, the broken marriages, guys freaking out and digging a foxhole in their front yard when they're drunk, etc etc etc.

Does it happen - yes, but not as often as one would think after having watched any of these movies. I think that it is unfortunate that these directors\/producers\/writers choose to grind their axe against the political establishment by portraying soldiers in such an atypical way. In this particular film, Kimberly Peirce didn't even throw us a bone, like showing the new children that were born while a family member was deployed, or the kid who grew up in some ghetto who can now afford college thanks to the GI Bill, or the couple who can afford a house, or start a new business, earn their citizenship, etc etc etc. Instead, we are treated to the stereotypes because the people who made this film only want to show you the bad side.

A couple of issues with the film itself: 1) somebody screwed up by putting Phillippe in for a Bronze Star with V after he led his squad down a tight alleyway after having been baited by a gunman in a taxi. Pretty stupid, but yes, it happens. 2) the humvees didn't have any turret armor, so we are supposed to believe it is a near the beginning of the war, yet every soldier and their brother has an ACOG and every possible attachment for their M4? sorry, don't think so 3) Timothy Olyphant as a Lieutenant Colonel? It's hard to believe, but I just checked an he turned 40 in May, so the timing isn't too off. 4) He strikes two soldiers to escape being sent to jail after saying that he wouldn't return to Iraq (upon having learned that he had been stop-lossed). So he's a fugitive. Then, when he finally turns himself in at the end, and they take him back, he keeps his rank and deploys with the same unit? Sorry don't think so.

I can only describe it as one giant stereotype of the Army and the Infantry. Do some of the events portrayed in this movie happen to some soldiers, yes. However, in this film you get practically every stereotype in the space of about 100 minutes, and really things just aren't like that for most soldiers returning. I wish the director had made a point of doing a little better research instead of starting off with her agenda and then making a film.

Of the movies I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the best one is probably Lions for Lambs, which is more a commentary on the sad state of Generation Y+ than it is about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or the Bush Administration. If you really want to see this film wait for cable or Netflix it, don't pay cash directly to rent it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those so-called \"Hollywood Social Commentary\" films that wants to have it both ways. And believe me, in this film, both ways are clich\u00e9d and stereotypical. STOP-LOSS is a 21st Century John Wayne Film dealing with some anti-war sentiment but clearly ending on the note that \"If you are a MAN in today's society, you get your act together and march off to war with your buddies.\" In many ways the film was a great sequel to TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE as it portrayed a military equally as insane and out of control, a quasi FRAT PARTY\/ANIMAL HOUSE extravaganza mixed in with a Texas Red Neck world of repressed homo-erotic proofs of masculinity. This movie had it all in one scene after another of clich\u00e9d imagery. And then rebellious military deserter Ryan Phillippe goes on a \"Road Trip\" with best friend's girlfriend, an artificial storyline manipulation to visit families of dead servicemen, maimed soldiers in military hospitals, etc. and finally to broach the issue of fleeing to Canada or Mexico. But male honor and patriotism win out in the end, as all freshly scrubbed and handsome, he rides off into the sunset on a bus with his buddies back to Iraq and a world that a few minutes before he assured everyone he could never again tolerate. FULL METAL JACKET meets SANDS OF IWO JIMA . But in the end, John Wayne rides again! And a Hollywood Blockbuster ultimately gets to keep both sides of its audience in the palm of its hand\u0085\u0085.at least it would like to think so. As far as I was\/am concerned, just take me back to the more convincing reality of IN THE GARDEN OF ELAH.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After watching Stop-Loss, I find myself against disappointed in Hollywood for making such a stinker. Gone are the days of glory of the films of the 1940's that made one proud to be an American, fighting the evilness that desires conquest abroad and death at home. What we are left with is dribble frothing at the mouth of rabid anti-Bush radicals. The story tells of three young men who return home from the war. One descends into out-of-control madness, culminating in his death. The main protagonist deserts his country at a time of war, and destroys his best friends relationship with his fianc\u00e9 at the same time. The third truly is the hero of the story, electing to continue the fight that was brought to our shores nearly eight years ago. What makes this movie bad, is not the acting, but the premise behind it. We are lead to believe that decorated soldiers are in fact haters of our country. Desertion is akin to treason in a time of war, and the main protagonist flirts with it throughout the movie. This paradox is designed to weaken the audience's reaction to the central act of the movie. We are not supposed to find fault with King, since he wears medals, but his actions don't just merit it, but cry out for it. He is not an anti-hero. In order to accept the movie, the audience must accept the correctness of desertion because the story paints King as nothing else short of a hero. I cannot accept that, since it is like asking me to call the sky yellow on a clear blue day. Furthermore, derision for the real hero is heaped upon, the man who re-enlists and continues to serve his country. I would only recommend this stinker to someone who needs convincing of the decay of Hollywood, as it is a clear example of it. No wonder it fared poorly in the box office.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the kind of movie which is loved by 50-year old schoolteachers and people who consider themselves aware in social issues - but really haven\u00b4t got a clue. The actors - I think all of them are amateurs - do their best, but the script is so full of cliches and stupidities that they can\u00b4t save it.

Worst of all though is the scool cabaret that the kids are working on - brings back all your worst memories from acting classes in school. The lyric to one of the songs goes something like this in a fast-translation 2.30 in the morning: \"I\u00b4m the dwarf of society, an emotionally crippled individual.\"

Please!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This representation of the popular children's story on film is pretty pathetic to watch. I know it is one of the earliest efforts at moviemaking, but this 15-minute picture is unimaginative and poorly shot. \"The Great Train Robbery\" (1903), which I also commented on, is much more creative and exciting to watch.

We see little long-haired Jack trade a cow (2 men in a cow-suit) for a hatful of beans from a merchant and later a beanstalk grows from where his mom throws them in the yard (I guess poor Jack attained the wrong kind). Jack dreams of a goose (actually it seems to be a chicken) and golden egg and the next day climbs the stalk into heaven.

There is no effort made to be creative in this film. The stalk looks like a rope with leaves on it, the giant is just a tall bearded guy in a home with nothing abnormally large in comparison to Jack and the climax to the film where Jack makes his escape with the goose-chicken and its golden egg is miserable as a stuffed dummy falls from out of screenshot in place of the giant and then the actor takes its place - rising up on his feet in a exaggerated death dance like in most early films. The beanstalk (leaf-covered rope) comes trailing down from above and coils neatly on the giants forehead.

Watch something else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"HANDS OF THE RIPPER

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Mono

An Edwardian doctor (Eric Porter) uses newfangled Freudian analysis on a young girl (Angharad Rees) who turns out to be the daughter of Jack the Ripper, and just as deadly...

Unlikely Hammer horror, in which a respectable society figure takes charge of a beautiful young waif without attracting so much as a whiff of scandal, even when she takes to murdering all and sundry with a variety of lethal implements (broken mirrors, hat-pins, etc.)! L.W. Davidson's screenplay wanders aimlessly from one murder to another, sacrificing the material's inherent subtext (Porter's obvious attraction to Rees) in favor of commercial melodrama, and the tone remains subdued throughout. Some of the gore scenes are surprisingly vivid, even for Hammer, and these were clipped from the original US release (despite an R rating from the MPAA), though the complete version is now available on home video. Porter and Rees give excellent performances, and the climax in St. Paul's cathedral is a definite highlight, but the rest of the film is strangely hollow and unaffecting. Directed by Peter Sasdy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Strained and humorless (especially in light of its rather dubious psychology), but well-paced and comfortably lurid, this genteel body count movie highlights the unusually hypnotic presence of Angharad Rees as a young woman periodically possessed by Jack the Ripper, thus allowing for some nasty gore effects amidst the Edwardian propriety. It's all pretty standard stuff for Hammer, but is handled with a good deal of visual elan, even if the central relationship, between psychoanalyst Porter and Rees, drives the narrative without ever being satisfactorily explained.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've watched this film a few times and I never really liked it. I'm not a fan so termed \"nu horror\", so I can't be dismissed on that account. I found it a little sleazy, I think the thing that irks me about Hammers is the sexploitation aspect, not sex mind you, but Sexploitation. I'm surprised at how many people have rated this film so highly, so I'll have another look at it. But for me, it wasn't creepy, it had no atmosphere, just a bit of \"omigod, look at those bad\/stupid London prostitute women and that little innocent Anna about to get raped by yet another nasty man, ooherh!\" I suppose ultimately for me, the film had no depth whatsoever, just a bunch of nasty priggish men and women only there for the titillation value. This no doubt was to some degree what Victorian England was like, but the sets are even too clunky and dull impart a sense of Victorian menace. Roger Corman's horrors on the other hand, now that's style, atmosphere and elegant horror. For me, this was just exploitative, flat footed trash.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"By 1971 it was becoming more and more obvious that Hammer film studios were on the way out . HANDS OF THE RIPPER is a case in point where even the idea smacks of desperation - The spirit of Jack The Ripper posses his own daughter ! Yeah okay no one was expecting a documentary but this plot seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for stupid premise and you do find yourself questioning why on earth the producers brought Jack The Ripper into the story . Was this to give the movie a snappy title ?

The production values are unimpressive and the cinematography gives the whole movie a cheap TVM feel but you know you're not going to be watching a classic Hammer horror as soon as the title starts because the music is laughably inappropriate . I think the composer was trying to make the theme tune haunting and touching but the music resembles something out of a soppy romantic movie . I will give the cast some credit as they do take their roles seriously in what's a far from serious movie

I didn't enjoy this film much and it instantly reminded me of the Phantom Raspberry Blower Of London Town from The Two Ronnies which I'd been laughing at in the weeks before I saw this","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are no saving graces in this dreadful, stagey, boring snooze-fest, which brings to mind \"The Ransom Of Red Chief\"!

Even though there are some big stars in this film, the acting is almost uniformly terrible.

Glenn Ford, normally a laid-back kind of guy, hams it up with forced emotion.

Donna Reed is so over-the-top as to prove laughable.

Leslie Nielson is woefully miscast and is terrible.

The son is such a repulsive little brat, I found myself rooting for the kidnappers.

The only decent performance in this mish-mash is the relatively minor role of the butler.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh on the actors, after all, all they did were to read the lines given them in the script. Ah, the script, that turgid piece of contrived dreck that would like to tug on your heart strings but merely turns your stomach.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So many people loved this movie, yet there are a few of us IMDb reviewers who found Mirrormask excruciatingly uncomfortable to watch and arse-clenchingly boring. I fall into the latter of these two camps, and I will try to explain what it was that made my toenails curl so unpleasantly.

Firstly, to set the record straight - I like Neil Gaiman's books. I sometimes find his knowing, sarcastic, 'wry asides' humour a little geeky, and I actually prefer his work when he is playing it straight and leaving the jokes alone - but, even with his occasional lapses into crap 'dad' gags, I find his creativity and imagination to be something a bit special.

Interestingly, one of Gaiman's strongest works is Coraline, a Gothic fairy story for kids that is very low on jokes and high on tension and creepiness. His latest novel (Anansi Boys) overdoes the funnies, and tends to read at times like Terry Pratchett does the Sisters of Mercy (not the nuns but the band). Mirrormask inhabits similar territory to Coraline, and when I saw the stunning visuals in the trailer, I got a bit excited that somebody had managed to transfer Gaiman's spectacular vision and imagination to the screen.

In praise of the film, some sequences do look stunning. However, the visual effects are occasionally ruined by CGI animation that looks like a Media Studies student project. Backgrounds and scenery are often incredible, but some of the character animation looks clumsy, amateur and cheap. In an early dream sequence, the spider is animated beautifully, but the book-eating cat-beast looks poorly rendered and very 'computer generated'. Compared with the standard of animation found in productions such as 'The Corpse Bride', Mirrormask occasionally looks very amateur indeed. However, in Mirrormask's defence, the budget was tiny for such a grand vision, and a few creaks in the effects can be understood and forgiven.

What cannot be forgiven is the stilted, stagy, cringeworthy and pretentious dialogue. The actors struggle desperately with the dialogue - and there is so much of it that they are constantly hampered and stumbling over it. Conversation is rendered completely unnatural, the jokes fall flat time and time again, and the turgid speeches appear to be the writer's only method of plot exposition. Combined with the fact that the actors are working against a blue screen (which always adds an element of 'Phantom Menace') - this renders the film almost unwatchable. In such an unreal setting the actors need to work twice as hard to be believed, and in the main they fail terribly. The girl who plays the lead role puts in a valiant struggle against the impossible stage-school dialogue, and occasionally shows real promise, but it is never enough. The god-awful cod-'Oirish' of the Valentine character (with whom she is forced to spend an inordinate amount of screen time) puts paid to any chance of this young actress rising above the material. It appears to be Valentine's job to explain the plot to younger viewers, and to add a bit of light relief. Personally, I wouldn't want him anywhere near my 15 year old daughter.

What else is wrong with this film? Answer....Rob Brydon. What's annoying (for us Brits, anyway) is we know Rob Brydon can act! We've seen him hold the screen for half-an-hour on his own (doing those 'Marion & Geoff' monologues), and in the first 'real world' bit of the film he is fine. However, stick him in front of a blue screen and he loses all sense of character and turns into the worst am-dram-ham I've seen in years. A real shame.

What else is wrong? Answer... the wanky slap-bassing, sub-Courtney Pine saxing and unlistenable, too-high-in-the-mix soundtrack that never shuts up. God, the music is incessant, loud, distracting, irrelevant and, if that isn't enough, has wanky slap bass wanking all over it. It makes the dialogue very hard to hear, but that could be a blessing in disguise.

What else is wrong with it? Answer.... The whistling mime artist. In modern society there should be no place for mime, apart from certain secret places in France. Every moment the camera lingers on the gurning, whistling, moss-juggling, yogurt-weaving idiot, I understand why the Edinburgh locals get a bit anxious and fractious when Festival time comes round again.

My final criticism is that the film is pretty dull. Surrealism often is dull \u0096 it either requires its audience to slip into a dreamlike, Zen, accepting state, or for the audience be constantly wowed by bigger and grander surprises. A story with a bit of pace involving characters that we could believe in and care about would have gone a long way to giving this film the emotional centre that it sadly lacked, whilst stopping the eyelids from drooping.

Finally, apologies to all those who found depth, meaning and wonder in this film. You have managed to suspend your disbelief, you have seen past the creaky CGI, ignored the crappy dialogue and the abysmal performances that resulted, and understood the maker's grand, imaginative vision. I wanted to, but I couldn't see past the real-world failings that dragged it down.

I hope Neil Gaiman gets it right next time, if he gets (or even wants) the opportunity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't really HATE Mirrormask. I just really wanted more from a movie than pretty visuals. The movie begins with a young girl named Helana who works in a circus. But while other children (supposedly) want to run away to the circus she only wants to run away FROM the circus. During a heated argument with her mother, Helana wishes she would drop dead. Bad move. The mother gets ill with...something (presumably cancer) and needs surgery. On the night before surgery she dreams she travels to a wonderful world composed of her her dreams and nightmares where she \"finds herself\". Personally the movie got crap for me as soon as she started dreaming. The early scenes show the weird and wonderful world of the circus and then contrast it with the bleakness of the hospital and the filth of an apartment block. But a soon as she dreams the whole films shifts to CGI land where nearly everything is a computer image. The problem is that this dream world has none of the mystery and wonder it should have. while films like the Wizard of Oz seemed enticing to explore Mirrormask shoves images in our faces and then snatches them away to give us another image. There's little rhyme or reason to the design in this film and even though some things are very pretty (the librarian is a masterpiece) they just disappear so quickly that they're soon forgotten. Helana and her sidekick Valentine are annoying at best and unbearable at worst. Overall Mirrormask is like a pretty stake that you bite and find out is actually ash. Stick to the real world kids.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw \"Mirrormask\" last night and it was an unsatisfactory experience.

It is a film that is visually rich but with slow direction, poor plot line and 2-dimensional characterisation.

I did, however, know this when I went in. I was willing to trust the two gentleman that I went with (knowledgable comic buffs) that the visuals would be out of the ordinary and so they were. Unfortunately, inexperience of direction meant that scene after scene passed with little in the way of dramatic tension or conflict. Though, this is a comment that could be made of many artists whose work is transferred to screen and who are given charge of direction. The pace of the story is lost as the camera lovingly dwells on the pretty pictures.

I would not have gone at all without that reassurance that the style of the film would be worth seeing. I have tried with Neil Gaiman's work but am always left with the \"emperor's new clothes\" feeling. I live in hope but last night was no exception.

I do not think I can continue with an analysis of Gaiman's work without losing the will to live. Read the rest of the comments and all his faults are eloquently described. I cannot comprehend, however, how he imagined that he had any understanding of the mind of a fifteen year old girl, Nor that what he had to say added anything to the sum total of human knowledge on growing up and assuming adult responsibility, or the changing relationship that a girl might have with her mother. These are the central themes of the film and they are handled ineptly, stereotypically and with no depth of imagination. All the pretty pictures in the world cannot make up for a piece of work that is flawed at the core.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, what exciting visual effects. I also loved the costumes and artwork, the circus and ethereal feel to the film was sublime. It just required the need for the viewer to worry about the fate of our protagonist. As she is trapped in her imagination, there is never a sense of peril unlike, say, David Lynch's films which haunt every time. This also draws attention to which age group this film is aimed at. Who would this engage?

Mirrormask is obviously going to draw comparisons with Labyrinth with the teen- angst\/ fantasy theme, but unfortunately it doesn't really come close to delivering the same Henson essence. The ill mother theme is never fully explained and certainly not something that you care about while lapping up the eye candy.

Not agonisingly awful a la The Cell, nor as engagingly dreamlike as Labyrinth - a forgettable but good-looking fantasy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, that was sure a waste of Dave McKean's talents, wasn't it? Don't get me wrong: when it comes to graphic design, Dave McKean may be the best in the world right now. The layered, textured look he can accomplish with just a few pencil lines on rough paper make the efforts of people like Peter Greenaway and David Fincher look like what they are: hackwork. McKean has been the godfather of a revolution in the look of comics, film, even magazine ads which borrow the distinctive collage effect he has pioneered.

But this movie? It's junk. Complete junk. The story, from Neil Gaiman, is, unfortunately, exactly what Gaiman has been giving us ever since he ripped off Clive Barker for the first time: a pseudo-mythic, overblown dreamscape, populated by characters which have Titles in All Capital Letters rather than names. Everything is allegory, to the point that it is impossible to get any human drama, emotion, or empathy from anyone involved. People make pithy postulations, speaking in riddles which bring to mind what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead might have sounded like if Tom Stoppard had suffered a debilitating stroke halfway through its composition. Really, Gaiman, get over yourself. You're not a prophet. You're a poser.

McKean's directing doesn't help - his pacing is poor, taking fully half an hour to actually rev himself up for the main picaresque plot, and then simply providing a disconnected sequence of events, none of them given any weight. The monsters don't menace because they're not foreshadowed, simply thrown at the screen. The plot doesn't engage because we don't really care about the rancid little protagonists. Half the dialogue, muttered into into shirt fronts and ubiquitous masks, is unintelligible.

Some of the visuals are pretty, and I'm sure the fanboys will lick it up. Pity. Think of the amount of really good work McKean could have produced if he hadn't been stuck with this lame project.

Grade: D\/D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is really really bad, it is not very well done and is a lack lustre attempt at something but I am not sure what. I watched it and was very disappointed. It promised a lot, but delivered nothing at all. The characters are shallow and wooden, and the music, if you can call it that, is dreadful. There are of course all the creatures and animated beings, but they are so poorly done that it does not come across as anything other than a third rate movie. It is a real shame that more attention could not have been spent to the special effects, not the be all and end all of a movie I agree, but in a movie that is based around them, it's a very important factor. For me, a very sad attempt, and should be avoided.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having enjoyed Neil Gaiman's writing (especially his collaboration with Yoshitaka Amano in \"The Dream Hunters\") in the past, I figured Mirrormask to be a sure thing and was very disappointed. The beginning, live-action section of the movie was intriguing enough. The relationships between the characters was believable and easy to empathize with, and I loved the sets, the costuming, and Helena's artwork. The subsequent computer-generated scenes, however, were excruciating. The dialogue was awkward and pretentious, the interaction between the live actors and the CGI horrifying. Events occurred for the flimsiest reasons, and most events seemed superfluous to whatever plot may have existed. I only watched the first twenty or thirty minutes of the movie, so I'm not exactly an authority, but I strongly recommend that you don't watch any of it at all and stick with Gaiman's strong written work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm trying to understand what people liked about MirrorMask. I am an avid film viewer and hobbyist film maker. As I was telling friends during my lunch hour, MirrorMask may well be my biggest movie disappointment of the year. Just like the short Moongirl, the film missed its marks. Several times during the movie it made attempts at humor. It sets you up for the laugh. Instead of making you laugh, it leaves you feeling empty. The jokes reminded one of the recent Star Wars films. They weren't funny unless you were five. And the acting felt similarly terrible. I've seen actors actually act in front of a blue screen. And I've believed it. But not in this film. Not for a second.

This film takes a formula and tries to apply it with pretty artwork\u0085 And though the script is totally workable and the special effects quite beautiful, it has no heart to it and fails miserably. I left the film shaking my head and considered leaving the theater. I felt hallow and miserable and still haven't gotten the sour taste out of my mouth from it. I love independent film. I encourage people to view independent films to support them. But not this film. This film shouldn't have been made. At least, not like this. Why did the director miss the marks so clearly? They were clearly setup\u0085 Not just the humor. But the emotions. The drama. Even the lines were poorly timed and delivered. It was like the film walked on three legs instead of four. Its steps are awkward and miss timed. And it could fall over with the slightest push\u0085 Don't see this film. I don't care who you are. It isn't worth your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"MirrorMask\" was a terribly disappointing film for me. I had expected much from a Jim Henson production and had found favourable reviews comparing it to \"The Labyrinth\" and \"Alice In Wonderland\". Unfortunately, the film ended up in one of those \"style over substance\" pile of movies.

Whereas most kids dream about running away from home to join a circus, Helena is a kid who has grown up in a circus (child labour, anyone?) who wishes to run away to join Real Life. Helena wishes that her mother drop dead, which is a bad move for a spoiled brat with a princess complex in a kid's fantasy movie. Next thing you know, Helena's mother flops over, and for some reason, she is suddenly transported to another world.

Meanwhile, I felt as if I was transported to the Museum of Contemporary Art with a pair of foggy sepia-tinted glasses.

The showcase of CGI-generated creatures and backdrop was interesting at first, and I liked the Orbiting Giants. It got a little too tiresome after a few minutes though, and I felt my mind wandering ...

With no sense of narrative and MTV-style clips and soundtrack (the sphinxes reminded me of Basement Jaxx's \"Where's Your Head At\"), I did not feel involved in the plight of the protagonist and also frustrated, as we waited for the film to lead us wherever it wanted, hopefully towards the \"Exit\" signs of the theatre ...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film when it premiered in LA. I think I laughed 2 or three times. The rest of the time I was in shock at how ridiculous\/poorly shot and poorly written it was. Kirby is in fact the only saving grace in the film. I was disappointed at the performance of Larry Bagby , whom I usually find entertaining. If you enjoy watching your friend's crappy homemade short films that they shot on their mom's 8mm video camera then there's a slight chance you might enjoy this film. Then again part of what makes those movies enjoyable is that it's your buddies playing all the parts. You don't know these people so you'll probably find it as dull and stupid as I did. Dear Mr. Nelson, go back to film school, intern for a while as a PA or a grip or some low level job so you can see how things are properly done in film . Then look for as long as you must to find a Director of Photography who knows what f. stop means, make sure he has ND filter on hand. Then try again. Repeat as many times as needed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The old man mouse in this cartoon would have you believe that all men are created equally EVIL............so if we have to kill men in order to stop Hitler..........we are just as bad as Hitler was killing the Jews........ Well.....I don't buy it Mr. Mouse............but I guess it paints a pretty picture and makes a cute cartoon.......but it wasn't the reality then and it ain't reality now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The DVD version released by Crash Cinema was very poorly done. The mastering engineer must have been either drunk, asleep or not even in the room while it was being done. It looks like it was mastered from about a tenth generation copy and about halfway through the film, the audio synchronization disappears. The dialog is about 10 or 15 seconds behind the audio. If you're thinking about purchasing this DVD, please save your money. I remember seeing this film at the theater back in 1973. Also, the VHS copy of this film under the title of \"When Taekwondo Strikes\" looks better than the DVD, but the remaining several minutes of the movie are \"missing\". Where is the original camera negative?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I won't waste your time by describing the plot for this, the other reviewer already did this quite well. I will however give you my opinion of this movie. This movie is basically anti japanese propoganda. The japanese are portrayed as incredably evil b**tards who have respect for nothing, as well as having very poor martial arts skills (groups of japanese men get there asses kicked by single women on more than one occasion.) The fact that the japanese fighters lose almost every (if not every) fight in the movie kind of takes away the suspense. The plot is actually quite solid and perfect for a kung fu movie though. The problem lies in the fact that there's not much fighting. When there are fights some of the fighting is quite good, but other scenes are choreographed badly. One scene angela mao takes on six japanese in a church and kicks all their asses. The problem is they show her fighting them one by one when they're all supposed to be attacking at the same time. I gather this movie was incredably cheap considering how cheap some of the sets are. They use the same village set for when they are in korea and when they are in china without changing it at all. Some scenes are filmed at real locations though, and they look good. Overall the only real problem with the movie is it's slow moving and uninteresting plot. Since there are few fight scenes we have to rely on the plot for entertainment and, well, I wasn't entertained.

one and a half stars out of four","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** What's going on here ?

Barbara Hershey, looking decidedly unsexy - as if she'd stolen her granny's spare wig - puts in an unconvincing performance as a woman who kills the wife of a man she has had an affair with 'in self defence' after hitting her forty odd times with an axe.

Like Lizzy Borden, she is acquitted but after the most unconvincing argument ever presented to a jury by the representative of a supposedly 'innocent' defendant I have ever seen.

Lizzy Borden took an axe and gave her father forty whacks When she saw what she'd done - she pleaded self defence

I don't think so

I find the defendants guilty of screening an unconvincing portrayal and have no alternative but to award this film a sentence of 4 out of 10 (which would have been lower but for the previous good behaviour of some of those involved)

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh dear - quite how Alfred Hitchcock (North by Northwest, Spellbound, the 39 Steps) could turn out this nasty, cheapjack shocker is beyond me. Don't bother looking for hidden depths or deep meanings - there aren't any. This is just horrid, seedy and cheap. The one redeeming feature is the home-life of the inspector who leads the investigation - his wife fancies herself as a gourmet cook and constantly serves up her revolting culinary experiments to her poor husband. This is amusing, and just about saved me putting the film in the 'awful' bracket, but the film as a whole is one of the most unpleasant I've ever seen. I believe this was Hitchcock's next-to-last film - perhaps someone was trying to tell him something.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not even 'lesser' Hitch, but simply a bad movie. The cinematic equivalent of a dirty-old-man. Ugly in every way: unimaginative script, static point of view, putrid clothing, ghastly hair, unlikable actors, and one truly gratuitous rape-and-strangulation scene. The director's perverse sense of humor is present, but it is not applied consistently; the movie comes alive only in its cruelty. The women fare especially badly; 'Frenzy' could be used as proof the director was a misogynist, though a better explanation to me is that perhaps beginning with his TV series and 'Psycho'- which he himself described as an exercise in thrift, an experiment to see if a television crew could shoot a passable feature -Alfred Hitchcock had pretty much abandoned art and settled for commerce. In 'Frenzy' the great master seems to be bowing to convention, trying to go with the times and give audiences what he thinks they want- in the form of unappealing nudity, nudge-nudge winks, and general nastiness. I don't begrudge an old man his rest, but I don't want to remember him tired and lazy and pandering- time to watch 'Vertigo' again!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Greeted with derision by most critics when it first appeared, 'Frenzy' has recently done the rounds of UK TV. I remember seeing it on its original release, and thinking then that if Hitchcock wanted to parade some kind of screen confession about his ingrained misogynism, he couldn't have found a nastier little vehicle to do so.

But Time alters perspective, and so what was nauseatingly bad in 1972 might, all these years later, be worthy of upward re-evaluation.

Might. . . but not. 'Frenzy' is dross. The dross of an ageing director who desperately wanted to exploit the artistic freedom of 70s movie making without seeming to realise that freedom imposes its own obligations -- notably, the need to bring integrity to one's work.

There's none here. And not much evidence of the earlier directorial brilliance, either -- the switch from spine-tingling implicit to odious explicit is neither shocking nor, for a supreme stylist, stylish: it's just banal (the prolonged murder scene is precisely that: prolonged, without pace, without reason, without purpose other than the cheapest of directorial desires to appear as contemporary an artiste as, say, that other acclaimed practitioner of cheap sleaze, Michael Winner).

And it goes from bad to worse, with dialog that defies any human provenance (not least in the ludicrous diversion into the Home Life of Our Dear Wooden Inspector, and his wife's cooking).

Perhaps the scene that best sums up 'Frenzy' (and endures as the most explicit indictment of Hitchcock's persona) is the clunking exchange between two lawyers in a bar, where they discuss the serial killings and then agree that at least the women had a good time first by being raped.

I remember my revulsion at that scene back in '72, and it's still undimmed, because this wasn't Hitchcock being clever, or sardonic, or trying to make some universal point (big themes, big truths, were not Hitchcock's forte, nor personal preference.) It was just Hitchcock, allowing a reflection of his own distorted mirror on life to shine through the texture of the movie.

Calling 'Frenzy' Hitchcock's last great masterpiece is to betray little if any understanding of just what Hitchcock actually achieved in the way of cinematic trickery, cinematic thrills, and dazzling cinematic mastery.

'Frenzy' is therefore now what it always was: a cheap, nasty, and ham-fisted movie that did no service to any of those involved, or to the memory of a film-maker who really was, in his Hollywood days, one of the greatest there has ever been.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I won't be too hard on this show because I enjoyed the first season, but then, things got worse. The concept is nothing special, just about a girl named Casey who is trying to cope with a new step-brother, Derek, and his loud, crude family, while she gradually forces her princess standards onto each of them.

In season 1, the story was actually interesting. I liked Casey back then because she was smart, strong, independent, and conservative. She was well-mannered and deep. I felt bad when she was being harassed at her new school by her new step-brother. She was a perfectionist, but not as annoying as the later episodes. Oh, and she dated a nice guy, who is now currently portrayed as one of Derek's idiot friends. The season grasped the true tension the title of the show was trying to capture.

Now, I can't say the show has really gone downhill because the story is sometimes interesting, but I root for Derek now instead of Casey. Now, there is little, if any interaction, between the two siblings. If they interact, it's only briefly. Oh, and I don't want any Dasey fans in my face. People, that's called INCEST, even if they are step-siblings. My tolerance can only go so far, but that's not the point.

It's strange. Derek, as the antagonist, has gotten more sensitive over time, while Casey, the supposed protagonist, is more neurotic and unlikeable than before. I like how the younger kids get more airtime, but the parents are even more clueless than before. But that's not the biggest problem...

Unfortunately, we are forced to see everything from Casey's point of view, with lame, nauseating background music. She has gotten stupider and more shallow over time. In one episode, she got whiny and wanted her boyfriend to be more chivalrous, so she purposely dumped food on herself and blamed Derek. Now, what happened to being a strong, independent feminist? I haven't watched much of the fourth season, but I hear she is dating a guy named Truman, who is a jackass and is arrogant. Oh, I remember that fencing episode. She constantly reminds him she doesn't like him, freaks out over being \"goosed\" by a sword, and in the end, hooks up with him because she can \"handle\" him? What the hell? Why go with a guy like that in the first place. The 1st season Casey would have just punched him in his...never mind. Or, maybe that would have been my reaction. Oh, and she's a cheerleader. Not that that's a bad thing, but I think she fell on her head at one of her practices. And in a prom episode, she cried because she couldn't find the \"dress in her dreams,\" and wasn't completely satisfied until she became prom queen. One thing I've noticed is that no matter how bad Casey tries to tell us her life is, thing's almost always go her way in the end (she gets the guy she wants, Derek gets some kind of revenge, people all love her, etc.) Derek is still quite immature, but I see that he really has matured. I don't see why many people hate Sally. She seems nice, and it's good to see Derek in a serious relationship with someone he cares about rather than \"playing the field.\" He is also treating Edwin slightly better, and is a good brother to Marti.

Really, the show is so-so, and I rated it low because despite some character development, the character I once admired has now become like any \"fashionable teen queen\" you can see anywhere on TV. But it was good while it lasted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What ever happened to shows with united parental figures? The parents in this show are nearly as irresponsible as the children. Instead of punishing the youngest child for being manipulative, they let her get away with murder. They can't ever agree on a course of action when it comes to dealing with the children, and instead they do nothing. Yeah, great plan. Just ignore their behavior because they're \"cute.\" This show tells the already manipulative preteens that watch it that the \"divide and conquer\" technique is the best way to get their parents to \"cave.\" The oldest children are constantly running amok and getting themselves into all sorts of impossible situations, but there are no consequences for their actions. Yeah, great television all right.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Based on what little i have seen of this show I don't think I will ever watch it again. Its not even remotely believable and frankly the Derek character just makes me angry.

Sorry but seeing such a spoiled brat get his way time and again? Why would i want to watch that?!? No thanks, there are plenty of other shows that involve devious characters (Phil of the Future's Pim for example) where the evil one doesn't win or if they do not in the way they though.

Not to mention that I think this is a terrible picture to paint about living with step-siblings. Yes life isn't rosy but one could attempt to portray a character that wasn't outright evil and wins.

My suggestion is that you watch this only if you like seeing the villain win.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is so much not to like about this show it's hard to know where to start. Unlikeable characters, horrible plot lines, terrible writing, AND terrible acting. Don't even get me started on the obnoxious theme music.

On top of all that the show is out of touch with U.S. audiences due to the heavy Canadian references all throughout it. \"Oh say Derek, will you be going to Queens College in the Fall! How have you bean? We should go oot.\"

Granted, other shows are filmed in Canada for financial reasons like Stargate: Atlantis, but while those shows may have suffered from some annoyances (like Rodney calling a Z-P-M a \"Zed-P-M\") the show didn't focus on life in Canada.

MTV is running Degrassi (another show based on the experiences of the Canadian teenager) during daytime hours when no one is watching to fill time (most teens are at school when it airs). I'd wager it's for the same reason. Shows that focus on teenage life in Canada don't translate well to a U.S. audience.

This show should be canceled and the remaining masters burned in a furnace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is really a shame that IMDb doesn't let you give negative votes. This is the most hideously awful show ever foisted on the American public by our usually-likable neighbors to the north. The parents are a troglodyte and a neurotic hag. He is as charming as a well-used fire hydrant, with the same hygiene standards. She is a wax museum mannequin programmed with more neuroses than the entire cast of THE VIEW. The kids are non-entities if female and repulsive beyond belief if male, especially the title character. The boy is a serious contender for most insanely smug, self-satisfied, arrogant, and vain male character on Disney, which is saying something. This show was obviously conceived as the anti-BRADY BUNCH, but it comes off as the anti-Christ. And why is the photography so dark?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a parent of two girls(14 and 11) I have grave doubts about this show and all the shows aimed at tweens. First, I am always amazed that the living conditions of Drake\/Josh, Zac\/Cody, Hanna, Carly, Derek, Sunny etc. always make most houses look tiny and cramped. Most people work hard all day to pay for living quarters less than half the size yet on these shows nobody is going or coming from work, paying utility,rent, mortgage or insurance bills, mopping, sweeping, changing lightbulbs, fixing toilets,etc. Just walking in and out(and down the ubiquitous wide stairs that only exist on TV sets) cracking jokes(most of which involve lying and the hilarious results) and shirking work. I think kids watching these will have unrealistic expectations on how hard they will work and how luxurious their lives will be. Second, there is never an intact family, always a Mom or Dad but never both, who are always going on sexless dates but never seem to have any of the downside of divorce(alimony, support, arguments). Again, kids may get the impression that if mom\/dad get divorced there will be fun fun fun(actually mom or dad are often not around if that helps the plot). Needless to say there is no mention of spirituality(forget specific religion). Finally there is a theme that troubles me. There are \"nerds\" that are good in school, \"jocks\" good in sports, \"goody two shoes\" as well. The protagonists are not good at school, sports, or charitable but make wisecracks about those who are. The message is don't be good at anything, just be one of the \"nothings\" who blend in cracking jokes. Needless to say I give all these shows a zero and turn them off all the time and am just short of forbidding them in my house.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I tried to give this show a chance, but it really doesn't sit well with me. Although the performances are good, the writing isn't. The two oldest step-siblings, Derek and Casey, are equally annoying; I get the impression that we're supposed to side with Casey, given that she's the protagonist, but I don't find her at all likable. The parents are continually portrayed as utterly clueless. The three younger children are the most watchable things on the show; Lizzie and Edwin are sweet the way they team up, and Marti is adorable. The plot lines are a bit far-fetched and the whole premise is mostly hard to swallow -- blended families are common, yes, but this family isn't really trying all that hard to blend. On the whole, I think it grades thumbs-down.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Normally I don't bother wasting my time writing comments for junk like this that I forget almost as soon as I see it, but since I saw this movie just yesterday on one of the comcast Showtime channels (346, I think) I decided to make an exception.

Besides the fact that I enjoyed watching Carol Alt, I can't give any rational reason why I watched this movie through to the end. I'm always amazed that good-looking women are willing to appear in awful movies like this, but I suppose she thought this movie would lead to something better. I hope she was right, for her sake.

Otherwise, this is an all-too-typical straight-to-video laugh riot, or just a piece of garbage, depending on your point of view. While there are a few decent moments of action in this movie, they don't really connect well with the story, such as it is.

The setup, as I recall, involved Carol Alt as a depressed housewife who believes her husband, a cop, is cheating on her. There was also something about their child dying in an accident, and she blaming him for it, but before that storyline went anywhere she shot and killed him.

On the same fateful night, a wounded stranger comes to her door and she tends to him, and almost immediately her house is under siege by government stooges and mercenaries intent on capturing the stranger, who appears to have almost superhuman fighting skills.

This same kind of material has yielded decent entertainment plenty of times before, most notably in Matt Damon's The Bourne Identity, and could have done so this time as well but this particular movie was let down by poor production values and a lousy script.

This movie really falls apart at the end, when the mysterious stranger turns out to be a cyborg (!) who was programmed to be a policeman, and after discovering that Carol Alt killed her husband he tries to kill her! The movie wasn't particularly good up until this point, but the ending really ruins it by trying to turn a modest action-thriller into a lumpy Terminator\/Robocop wannabe.

I also thought that the violence in the movie was a bit excessive at the end, with the demented cyborg gouging out poor Carol Alt's eye before it finally bit the dust. What was the point of that? For that matter, what was the point of anything in this movie? It held my attention and entertained me for about an hour, until the end, when it reminded me that I wasn't watching a first-rate movie. It wasn't even really a second-rate movie, for that matter.

The final scenes seem to hint at a sequel, which I don't think ever happened, although I haven't carefully checked the web for it. Needless to say that I'm not in any hurry to see any sequel to this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alright! A sci-fi\/horror\/action B-hybrid directed by Jim Wynorski and in the final scenes we get to see a cyborg with a defleshed metal head killing off multiple people! As with any Wynorski-flick, he throws in a whole bunch of crazy ideas and subplots that mostly don't lead to anywhere. But \"Storm Trooper\" is more like a two-movies-for-the-price-of-one kind of deal. On the one hand we got the drama\/thriller part (as such the film opens) with Carol Alt killing her incredibly annoying & ungrateful husband (a plot that simply leads to nowhere). And on the other hand we got the 'escaped cyborg on a rampage' part, \"Night of the Living Dead\"-style. With Carol and the Cyborg being the ones trapped inside the house and a bunch of special OPs\/bounty hunters playing the role of the zombies, trying to break into the house. Needless to say this flick is not up there with the greatest. Zach Galligan (of \"Gremlins\"-fame) especially is painfully bad and Corey Feldman (in a small supporting roll) is once again completely wasted on this movie. Wynorski even rips off one of his own movies here, since I am 99% sure he used some stock footage of his previous film \"976 EVIL II\" (the scene with the exploding truck and the motorcycle). Yes, it's so not good and so much fun. This is strictly for Wynorski-fans only. And I am one of them, in case you didn't know already.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Normally for movie reviews, I try to be constructive and objective, but there is only one word for this, uh, \"film\" : SUCKS!!!!!!! The dialogue, acting, special effects, plot, set, and characters all seem as if they were made up by, well, my potted plants. Don't see this, for the sake of all that is good and right in this world! :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think this is the worst movie I have seen since \"Mortal Kombat 2\". The action (including the effects) is like in a cheap Glen A. Larson TV show, the acting is terrible and the dialogs are even more stupid than in MK2. Avoid at all cost.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anyone who thinks Kool Moe Dee, Carol Alt, and Corey Feldman comprise a list of good actors must be smoking something I'd love to try sometime. Where to begin: lousy soundtrack, hammy acting, \"action\" in places. This is the typical amateurishly written hack fodder that washed-up has-been and never-was's love to star in. I actually felt embarrassed for the \"stars\" in this \"film\". The only thespian missing to top this turd was Gary Coleman, who if he would have been in the movie, would have made it at least somewhat howlingly bad, rather than just plain bad.

There was one part in the film where Carol Alt screamed, \"DO YOU THINK I'M AN IDIOT?!?\" Yes, Carol, I do, your agent does, and PLEASE for the love of all that is decent and holy... GO AWAY and stop degrading yourself like this! This film is something Anna Nicole Smith would take part in.

I would tell you what the plot was, but that would be one more sentence fragment to this article, plus my mind drifted many times during the movie anyway, so I barely paid attention.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a lover of bad movies. I own \"R.O.T.O.R.\" and \"Boa vs. Python\" and am working to build up my collection to such great titles as \"Troll 2\" and \"What's up Superdoc?\" But \"Storm Trooper\" is not even bad enough to make it to the list of wonderfully terrible movies. It's just lame. The guy who said he's had better dialogue with his potted plants has it right. Everything about this movie is stupid. When the robot guy runs into the car it seems almost as if he knew it was going to blow up, there was just no reason he would ever run in that direction. \"Judge, Jury, and Executioner,\" \"The perfect cop...but they went too far,\" I mean, come on, why do people bother making these movies anymore? R.O.T.O.R. makes it because it is hysterically awful, but Storm Trooper is just a waste of cinema because it isn't even bad enough to be so bad it's worth watching. This belongs in someone's home movies collection, something they can be sort of proud of, but that is all. I am p*ssed off it was on an HBO channel (with only 1-star, which is why I watched it) because it didn't belong there. Even if you love bad movies, do not watch this movie. It is shameful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In watching Enterprise for the first time, as we all no doubt do with all shows, I went into it with an open mind, enjoying about half of the past Star Trek efforts and disliking the other half.

Enterprise has fallen short, but this episode \"A Night In Sickbay\" made me seriously question why I bother tivoing the shows from Monday night on Sci Fi.

Masking some idea that it is one of those 'A Day In The Life' episodes, in which we learn about what makes certain characters operate as humanoids, the writers seemed to forget that this was supposed to be a starship vessel, not the Ricardoes and the Mertzes.

A planet, especially one whose people had been offended previously by the Enterprise crew (for eating in public), was no place for a dog. As an animal lover myself, I would have never taken one of my pets into an environment that had proved in the past to be tense.

But what made this episode even more ridiculous was the endless problem with all of these ST shows, constantly depicting things that are sacred and insulting to other cultures, as tho they are offering some insight into American religious zealots.

The aliens were now offended when the dog urinated on a sacred tree, yet the aliens were quite capable of taking the dog urinating as an insult.

Strange how the dog's urinating wasn't regarded as some form of worship. I wonder how that one got by the show's writers.

From there, we are subjected to a captain who was misguided by his duties. In watching the episode, I found it very easy to forget that Bakula was supposed to be the ship's captain.

He chose to sleep in sickbay and from there we are given more inanities of behavior (sigh) that we aren't supposed to understand and that causes us to furrow brows.

The doctor non-chalantly clips long, hairy toenails and feeds them to hungry caged animals. Ewwwwww! Then a white bat creature escapes.

Oh, how is anyone supposed to sleep with all of this going on! Toenail clipping, for crying out loud! I was waiting for something that feeds on vomit to be presented.

Then we were inexplicably given some idea that the captain was in love with T'pol, and that perhaps he was masking those feelings with his concern over the dog.

Endless amounts of rubbish.

\"your dog is ill, so go have sex. You'll feel better.\" And of course, the captain had to apologize and we humans had to regard his apology as completely ridiculous, because we are so (everyone smile very sarcastically) narrow-minded! Saw depictions such as this endlessly droned out on TNG.

Oddly enough, the only thing missing from this awful episode was that Trip person offering his smirks and downhome boyisms, tho Bakula seemed to be covering all of that with the silly dog.

Oh, the dog survived, so now go play fetch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought this series was going to be another fun, action series with some dynamic plots and great performances. I was wrong. While I like Jamie Denton, this show is hardly worth watching at all, unless you enjoy watching some people brutalized and the actions of the agents supposedly warranted under the theme of \"national security.\" The show is great propaganda for the current government, and spews out jingoism as though we talk that way every day. After a couple of episodes, it was boring the hell out of me, and I started watching reruns of House Invaders on BBCAmerica instead. Rather watch CSI and Without a Trace, without a doubt.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now we were chosen to be tortured with this disgusting piece of blatant American propaganda. It came no wonder for me that this is admired by most American viewers and hated by Europeans. This show is made for Americans - it is too stupid and full with hatred and clich\u00e9s to be admitted elsewhere. Almost everyone involved must be return to school, acting is utterly predictable and bad, script is pile of garbage all round. operator work is ground zero etc. etc.

You have been warned. It doesn't even have \"guilty pleasure\" entertainment for those brainwashed iq=0 human beings.

I wish I could enter negative values, admins? Anyone?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The TV show was slow moving and the 'offbeat' characters were sometimes irritating. Only through the miracle of fast forward was I able to make it through the first 2 hours.

The write-up indicates that it's some kind of comedy\/mystery but I didn't see much of either.

If it really picks up after the first 2 hours, please let me know, because I doubt that I will watch the rest without a recommendation.

This review is supposed to be without spoilers so I will continue in a vague, non-spoiler, fashion. I found the two main characters uninteresting and unsympathetic. I found myself asking 'Would a normal adult do that?' The man with the hedge trimmer looking out the window was irritating and when the male lead interacted with him, he looked pathetic. Would a normal adult put up with someone as irritating as him?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ah, the classic genre of 80s sex comedies. This is set on two beaches; one a nude beach featuring myriad (fully) unclothed women. The plot? Something about a bunch of dimwits attempting to get laid. The usual. Fans of gratuitous T&A (and P) should hunt this one down.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of a rarity of movies, where instead of a bowl of popcorn one should watch it with a bottle of vodka. To be completely honest we are a group of people who actually know the man, Mo Ogrodnik, and decided to drink ourselves stupid to this film.

The cinematic aspect of Wolfgang Something's photography seems to have left out both close-ups and breasts. Mo and Wolfgang's collaborative effort revealed the passion of the two actresses, plastic peens holding passion. There's also beetle banging. As Violet would have put it: \"This (plastic peen) goes up your butt\". The rat porn and subsequent rat smashing is awesome.

Alright. So if you are still reading, let us explain who we are. Mo Ogrodnik teaches at NYU and we are a group of her students, who, finishing a film class with her, decided to get poop- faced and watch here directorial debut. She also wrote Uptown Girls. I can't tell you how much that's been hammered into our skulls. So this movie is quite the experience. At the very bottom of this post will be a drinking game we created for this movie.

About 13 minutes into this game, none of us could see straight. The sheer amount of Dido's in the first thirty minutes created enough reasons to drink to pacify an elephant.There was something secretly pleasurable about seeing two underage girls hit on a Kurt Cobain lookalike with absolutely no context, save for his mysterious scene at the convenience store where he was oh-so-naturally reading a local newspaper. Because that's what we all do. The heart-shaped glasses were delightfully derivative of Lolita. And something about that provocative scene of the nude chin-up boy suggests the director's history of homosexual pornographic experiments. We wish we were kidding.

Enough intellectual contemplation. ON TO THE DRINKING GAME! This will ensure that the viewing experience is a positive one. It's very simple, and very likely to send at least one member of your party to immediate care.

The Mo Ogrodnik\/Ripe Drinking Game: 1. Every time you see anything related to pornography, take a drink. 2. Every time you see auteur Mo Ogrodnik's name appear, take a drink. 3. Sex. 4. (plastic peen) require two drinks. 5. Any time somebody points a gun at another character, take a drink. -At this point you will probably need to refill\/pee pee any remaining sobriety from your body.- 6. Any time there is blood (INCLUDING \"LADY BLOOD\"), please take a sip! 7. The underused hula-hoop girl requires one drink per second. 8. Gratuitous use of the \"magic black man\" requires one drink. 9. If you can't figure out the through-line, KEEP DRINKING, Beyotch. 10. Whenever you are able to predict a line, take a drink. Trust us. It's easy.

That's it, internet! Keep drinking, and try not to get riped.

-Hawaiian Smirnoff Punch, Jr.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are so many things wrong with this movie I don't even know where to begin. The story is not cohesive AT ALL. I guarantee that five minutes into the movie the average viewer will be scratching his\/her head in confusion.

Here's what I remember of the movie before I was bored into unconsciousness: A quasi-abusive dad chases some pre-teen sisters through a house but turns out to be not that abusive after all. In the next scene, the girls are about 15. They're driving with their parents and hit a deer. The deer must have been explosive because their car blows up, one sister drags the other from the burning wreckage. Then, the girls are drifting in a boat on a lake and make a huge plan to go to Kentucky (??) and start a new life. In the very next scene, the girls are hitchhiking toward a military base. And what a military base it is. Actually, it's more like a hog farm converted to look like a military base with plenty of confused extras playing \"soldiers.\" The base commander's office is particularly awesome because there are random things like an AK-47 hanging on the wall and a drill sergeant hat mounted to a plaque (????) so the audience is sure to know that this is a military guy's office. Then some random dude pushing a motorcycle shows up and the base commander orders him to go \"into town\" to buy some porn mags, and to make sure the soldiers don't think that he's on the \"pink team.\" So our character takes a pickup converted to look like an army truck \"to town\" and loads up a box from a nondescript \"book store\" with a blowup doll by the front door. The girls hide in the guy's truck when he stops to gas up, and look through the porn stash to find items inside like the \"anal invader.\" I guess that's enough of the plot to scare most people away. Plot aside, the sound quality is terrible and the movie is full of cheesy attempts at symbolism, like a radio preacher talking about forbidden fruit during the scene where the \"slutty\" sister meets the main character for the first time, or how the camera lingers way too long on certain shots to try to convey a \"message\".

If you ever see this for sale or rent or whatever, stay away. It's not worth the money in either case.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thinly-cloaked retelling of the Garden-of-Eden story -- nothing new, nothing shocking, although I feel that that is what the filmmakers were going for. The idea is trite. Strong performance from Daisy Eagan, that's about it. I believed she was 13, and I was interested in her character. The rest left me cold.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie did attempt to capture the naive idealism that many young teenaged girls have for fun, friendship, escape, danger, sex, maturity, etc. The problem was that it failed to establish these things on every single level; which is why it failed to build a decent story around them. I couldn't follow the point of any part of this story, nor any reason why I should care.

This movie is not an exploration into pedophilia at all. It's basically about a girl being in love with her sister, and her sister being in love with the idea of \"men\". While the latter tries out her love of men, the former tries to win her sister back by \"getting even\".

The plot is weak, the characters are weak, and the reality of it all was similar to an amateur porn filmmaker (without the sexual substance).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was, in one word, terrible. It was boring, predictable, and downright creepy. I kept waiting for it to end and when it did, I was horrified. The ending left a bad taste in my mouth, to say the least. My advice to anyone interested in movies about budding female sexuality: stay away from this movie. Movies like this give classics like Lolita a bad name.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Ripe\" is one of those awful indies which manages to get into circulation and give indies a bad name. Telling a stupidly incongruous tale of pubescent twin sisters who crawl from a firey car crash which kills their parents and then hit the road while happily shoplifting, making goo-goo eyes at some guy, and ending up on an Army post so dilapidated no Army would want it (yeah, right!). An apparent attempt at a coming of age flick, \"Ripe\" is an almost complete loser which wanders aimlessly as the players drift in and out of character finally ending clumsily with nary a shred of credibility to be found anywhere. Not recommended for anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Uninspired, pretty much all around. The only exceptions were a couple emotional scenes with Keena (Violet), with whose performance I was pleasantly surprised and occasionally moved. Beyond that, it ended up being little more than a bad COA flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this movie had been directed by a man, he would have been jailed. While Adrian Lyne was shackled with a lawyer in the editing room to oversee the gutting of a classic piece of literature to appease the censors, and to avoid running afoul of the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996, a woman dumps Ripe on us and everyone applauds. Did I miss a meeting? In addition to the blatant pedophilia, this movie is utterly preposterous. Has this woman never set foot on an active military base? Has she never met a soldier? Whose army is this? The uniforms must have come from Uniforms-R-Us. Just throw on some patches, who cares? Just make sure each and every one of them has a Big Red One. There is a slight inside joke here that no doubt went over the auteur's head, but might possibly have been slipped in by whoever furnished the military vehicles. Certainly there were no military advisors. The U.S. Army does not operate slums. Temporary base camps in jungle war zones are cleaner than this. The U.S. Army does not put 14-year-old girls to work on military bases, nor allow them to use the firing ranges or training courses. There is much drama to be mined in the sexual coming-of-age of teenage girls. This movie has absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is terrible. Not only is the story unbelievable, the situations the characters put themselves in are so silly, to the point where it isn't shocking. I find it sad that Daisy Eagan, star of Broadway's The Secret Garden, decided that this would be a career step. The idea is interesting, two young girls coming of age very quickly. But the sex isn't even arousing. The film is silly, the story is silly, the performances are silly, and the whole concept while interesting falls flat. I'm sure all 14 year old girls make out with guys after they've had their first period and tried to flush their panties down the toilet. Better Luck next time guys. My Scale * T-Scale *","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Stick Around\" is one of the brief series of films that paired Bobby Ray with Oliver 'Babe' Hardy before Hardy's immortal teaming with Stan Laurel. Several critics have suggested that Ray and Hardy -- the gormless little man and the overbearing big man -- were a prototype for Laurel and Hardy, but that simply isn't true. Ray and Hardy play off each other well, but really aren't a team; in each of these films, Ray has more footage and is clearly meant to be the hero, while Hardy bullies him in a manner very much unlike his later \"Ollie\" character's treatment of \"Stanley\". It's very clear that the relationship between little Bobby and big Babe was inspired by earlier Chaplin films, in which the Little Tramp was bullied by huge Mack Swain or burly Eric Campbell.

However, in \"Stick Around\", Hardy sports a bowler hat that's identical to his later \"Ollie\" titfer (although with a fuller moustache), and he and Bobby -- after spending most of this movie as adversaries -- end up as drunken comrades.

Bobby is a paperhanger for the firm of Matz and Blatz, with Hardy as his boss. When the tardy Bobby tries to pretend he showed up promptly, there's some clever physical business between the two men that reminds me of a routine performed by Roscoe Arbuckle and Buster Keaton in 'The Garage'. A bit later, Bobby Ray -- whose brief acting career never firmly developed a screen persona -- performs an \"impossible\" gag that would have been inappropriate for Stan Laurel, when he pulls a long stepladder out of a much smaller toolkit.

The paperhangers go to work in a sanitarium, and there are the usual unrealistic depictions of mental illness: one resident insists on sitting on a piece of toast because he thinks he's a poached egg! There are also some howlingly racist (and tastelessly unfunny) gags involving a black man who obligingly lets the inmates crack open walnuts on top of his head. When he sees a *picture* of a lion -- not even a photograph, mind you -- he goes all cowardly as if it were an actual wild animal.

\"Stick Around\" is fairly dire. Most of the pantomime and acting is much broader than it needs to be for a slapstick comedy; even Hardy, already a very subtle actor by 1925, pongs badly with his over-acting here. There are several bad examples of shot-matching. I was impressed with one unusual camera set-up, when a fat pedestrian's face is dirtied and we see a close-up of his reflection in a hand mirror, rather than his actual face.

SPOILERS COMING. During their brief pairing, Hardy typically played Ray's boss or adversary or both; here, for once, they end up as pals. It's a nice ending, but it doesn't make up for what's really a poor film. My rating for this one is only 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Nicodemus\" is almost a copy of \"Red\" in the odd behavior sense, but this episode focuses on other people in Clark Kent's unpredictable life. When a poisonous flower finds it's way into Smallville Jonathan Kent is the first to be effected by it. the flower causes people to reverse their behavior and when it effects Jonathan, he becomes short tempered and violent, however Clark manages to stop him from doing anything rash until his father finally passes out. okay. so far, so good. next up is Lana. the Episode was good up to that point, for the flower causes her to attempt seducing Clark. at the last moment, he refuses her but the damage has already been done. this episode causes the wrong impressions and isn't suitable for people under the age of twenty, due to it's adult content. the first part was good, the last part (focusing on the effect the flower has on Pete) was good, but the middle that was all about Lana's alternate personality, was most defiantly not, and that ruined what could have been a brilliant Episode. I give this Episode two.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is a shame that a movie with such a good cinematography as this one had no plot to be supported by the work of Sarah Cawley (cinematography) and Adam Lichtenstein (Film Editing), and above all, no sense of what goes on in Mexico City. The movie tries to be a very realistic depiction of life in city, but it is unable to do it. It is a shame, a lot of film wasted. An American woman tries to find her brother who has been kidnaped. The first account of the story is powerful and interesting, very realistic, but it seems that there was no effort to come with a better narrative of the ordeal, especially when it comes to the issue of the attitudes of the US embassy personnel in Mexico City, when dealing with an issue like this one. Compare, as an example, with Frantic(1988), which deals with a similar issue. Something similar can be said of the role of local authorities. Compare, as an example, with Todo el Poder (1999). The movie is worth watching if you want to get a sense of the looks of the City itself, paying little or no attention to the rather weak \"plot\" and the many twists that require a rather extensive suspension of disbelief. Who is going to believe that a Mexican patrol from Mexico City is going to go all the way to catch the main characters to the Mexico-US border? And that this policeman is going to be able to use its radio from the border to Mexico City! Only the producers of this movie. It is worth mentioning that unlike Frida and other movies about Mexico at least in these one Mexicans talk Spanish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here is a movie that was so pedestrian for 90% of it that it had no right to become so challenging and frustrating at the end. Did the director decide to become auteur suddenly, 80% through the making of this movie? Yeesh. SPOILER ALERT Thing start out typically enough for 50's youth-gone-wild; there are drifters, good girls, bad girls, gangs, the kindly old diner manager, and the town creep. Things follow the expected path until about 15 minutes before the end, when the only likable character is killed off and the anti-hero is blamed (this would not be so unexpected if this were the main plot of the movie... but all this stuff starts happening and unravelling during the final reel! Major curve ball). Then things get weird; the kindly old codger forms a mob and beats the hero to a bloody pulp. The mere presence of the hero's friend somehow drags a confession out of the real killer - the leering, creepy town nut (which in any real universe, he'd have been the prime suspect to begin with, even if the anti-hero was found with her body).

We're left with a somewhat feeble \"happy\" ending, which is about as out of character with the rest of the movie as the events of the 10 minutes preceding it.

Even more odd is this film's insistence on playing homosexual innuendo to the hilt, but constantly presenting the two male leads as straight. Maybe this was on purpose - perhaps Bix's resistance to settling down with the girl was more because of his sexuality (which in the 50s would have to be kept quite repressed, and thus not discussed or even admitted by him) than his need to be a \"drifter\". If the director's intent was to spin this as a sexual yarn - that the drifter drifts because he feels he's an outcast sexually; that his paternal regard towards Danny is not, in fact, paternal but spousal; that his inability to remain with Carrie is rooted in a sexual revulsion that even he does not quite understand - it could have been made more clear. Instead, we get this very bizarre alchemy of homoeroticism and behavior that is completely heterosexual.

These young men sleep next to each other even when they can get some room to spread out. When Danny is propositioned (and once even in bed with a woman), Bix flips out and takes him away. Danny pays Bix's way (sure, there is another explanation for it, but it still strikes a chord every time you see Danny buy Bix's lunch). They end up living together at the end. Not since Hitchcock's \"Rope\" has homosexuality been so blatant but denied.

MST3K did the right thing by taking this one on. Aside from Jack Elam, there is little to commend the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This one is one of those classic B movie following the exploits of 2 hobos. It's done really cheesily and Big Stupid running off one-liners like a cardboard cassanova. But Jack Elam steals every scene he's in as the creepazoid Jesse (now Jerome!). My favorite scene is the lynch mob and the dad's voice going up 10 octaves (\"You loved her?\"). Danny, Big Stupid's protege, is surprisingly stupider, but not as loathsome as our lead star. There's also a quaint scene of a guy pimping at the diner. Joyce Meadows is the sweet, naive nice gal and probably the least annoying. And those yellow ruffles (RAWR!). Oh, and booze is evil according to Mr. Stupid.

This movie's a hoot. Watch the MST cover of this and Crow's terrific Elam homage!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A young man, named Danny, has run away from home and meets a drifter, named Bix, who agrees to tag along with Danny and watch out for him... and his money. They end up in a small town where they meet Carrie - a shy, naive girl working in her father's diner. Bix starts seeing Carrie but he plans on leaving soon (because he's a drifter, see? He's no good! Understand?). Meanwhile, the town creep, Jesse (played by a perfectly casted Jack Elam), keeps showing up at the diner and bothering Carrie. Danny keeps inadvertently picking up whores left and right (because he's loaded with money \u0096 he has almost a hundred dollars!) whom Bix has to constantly chase away (there are a lot of ambiguously gay overtones between Danny and Bix in this flick). Eventually, Bix and Danny decide to leave town but trouble is a-brewing, due to Jesse the creep.

My review of the movie itself: a terrible, dated \"Troubled Youth\" flick from the '50s.

My review of the MST3K version of the movie: I've got to say that this is one of the best episodes of MST3K ever. The riffing is dead-on, all the time. Except for the somewhat downbeat ending, this movie is easy material for Joel and the Bots, especially Danny's constant screw-ups that Bix has to rescue him from. The host segments are pretty good too, especially the segment with the `Train Song.' Hopefully, Rhino releases this episode to home video one day.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Girl in Lovers Lane is one strange little low-budget film. On its surface, the movie tells the story of a tough drifter named Bix (Brett Halsey) who spends his time looking out for a young kid named Danny (Lowell Brown) and the girl, Carrie (Joyce Meadows), that Bix meets who would like to look out for him. Nothing overly interesting happens (Bix goes out with Carrie, Bix gets Danny out of trouble, Carrie's father drinks a lot, etc.) until about 10 minutes to go in the movie when Carrie is murdered. Her father blames Bix, pulls him out of a jail cell, and just about beats him to death. Now their roles are reversed and Danny has to save Bix.

Until I read the reviews on IMDb, I thought that maybe it was just me reading more into Bix and Danny's relationship than was really there, but I see now that I'm not alone. It was quite obvious to me early on that Bix and Danny had more of a relationship than you usually see in a movie from 1959. The homosexual nature of their relationship, while never openly expressed, is still quite obvious. Their living and sleeping arrangements, Bix's reaction to finding Danny in bed with a prostitute, Bix's inability to commit to Carrie, and that phone call at the end when Danny tells his parents he's \"brining home a friend are a few examples of moments that lead to the inevitable conclusion that there's more to their relationship than initially meets the eye. I'm sure they exist, but I can't think of any movies I've seen from the 50s that scream homosexual quite as loudly as this one.

As for the movie, I don't know any other way to put this \u0096 it's boring. As I wrote earlier, nothing much at all happens for 90% of the run time. The characters are dull and the actors aren't good enough to give The Girl in Lovers Lane much of a spark. The lone exception is Jack Elam. His crazy Jesse is the one character interesting enough to be worth watching. Elam had creepy down pat! But I guess the biggest problem I had with the movie was with character motivation and logic. Carrie is killed and Bix is immediately blamed? What about crazy Jesse who has been stalking Carrie for probably her whole life? Anyone think to ask Jesse where he was that night? Her father has seen him bother Carrie at the diner, yet he never considers that the leering Jesse might have something to do with his daughter's death? Not a lot of logic there. And what about Jesse's confession? Danny grabs Jesse by the lapel and this is all it takes to force a confession out of Jesse? Real tough guy, huh? Why would he confess so easily? And after he confesses, no one thinks to grab him? It's awfully nice of Jesse just to stay put and not run off. In any other reality, he would have never spilled his guts and would have run like a rabbit if he had been fingered for the murder. The fact that The Girl in Lovers Lane asks me to accept these ridiculous actions on the part of the characters is something I'm not willing to do. Overall, I'm giving The Girl in Lovers Lane a 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay... for the most part, and all its cheesiness, this movie was actually pretty good for an MST3K flick... but then they decided to ruin what little goodness it had about fifteen minutes before the ending. *SPOILER ALERT* The film is very basic... a rich mama's boy named Danny meets a bum named Bix, and the two of them travel to a small town, where Bix meets a pretty girl named Carrie (who is so very.) Now, this film's basic premise seemed promising enough. All they needed to do was follow the simple chemistry of any romance movie... Carrie loves Bix... Bix loves Carrie... a creepy guy in town lusts for Carrie... Now, I know what you're thinking... Bix fights the creep and ultimately decides to settle down with Carrie, and Danny returns home, and they all live happily ever after... right? WRONG!! Because Carrie gets murdered by the town creep, because Bix is too gay to commit. (There are so many homosexual undertones between Danny and Bix.) And then, the whole town decides to lynch Bix, even though the town creep would've easily been the prime suspect. Then, the town creep confesses to killing Carrie without much hesitation... (must've felt bad, the poor dope.) Then, Danny brings Bix home with him... that's the film's \"happily ever after.\" Sad, huh? All I can say is, thank God for Joel and the Bots. Because they turned this horse hockey into one of my favorite MST3K episodes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have noticed that a lot of films that have been featured on \"Mystery Science Theater\" have received a tons of low ratings on IMDb. However, a few of the films featured on the films weren't that bad and it's not fair to rate a film that's been given the \"MST\" treatment--with the hosts making funny comments during the film. Now I am NOT saying that \"The Girl in Lover's Lane\" is a great film, but it's not nearly bad enough to merit its current IMDb score of 2.1.

The film begins with Bix and Danny meeting. Bix is a veteran drifter and Danny a younger guy who seems to have no particular reason to be wandering about the country. Once they blow into a small town, Bix needs to rescue Danny again and again because Danny is quite naive--a nice way of saying he has the intellect of a tomato.

Along the way, something happens to the self-assured Bix--he finds a nice young lady and finds the lure of staying put pulling at him. And, in an odd subplot, Jack Elam plays a super-creepy sicko who wanders the town scaring the crap out of everyone--yet oddly, the police don't seem to take much notice nor does anyone on their own do anything about him. Ultimately, however, when Elam puts the moves on a girl who Bix is falling for, things come to a full boil.

Overall, while not at all a great film, there were many interesting plot elements in this film--enough to merit a score higher than 2.1. The biggest negatives are a simplistic conclusion to the mystery that occurs near the end as well as the total stupidity of Danny one time too often. Considering the minuscule budget, however, it's a watchable little film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Girl in Lovers' Lane: 3 out of 10: Homoerotic subtext in the movies is a well known phenomenon. Plenty of dissertations have come out of film schools about the hidden subtexts in such films as Top Gun and Spartacus. The Girl in Lover\u2019s Lane certainly fits the homoerotic trope. In fact, it is so blatant and over the top even MST3K, whom rarely notes such things in their riffing, simply cannot avoid it.

The film is about two drifters. One a rich kid (Lowell Brown) running away from home with a hundred dollars and no street smarts, the other is a professional hobo (Brett Halsey). The hobo saves the kid from a gang of thugs and they end up in a small town consisting of a diner, a pool hall and a whorehouse. Our drifter scholar gets a second look from the diner\u2019s waitress (Joyce Meadows as the titular Girl in Lovers Lane) who clearly is past the age of being choosy and whose only other prospect is creepy Jack Elam doing a Steve Buscemi impression.

On the surface, this seems like a strange film for the MST3K treatment. While the cast are to old for the characters they are playing, the acting is actually pretty good with both Brett Halsey and Jack Elam giving solid performances. The story is slight, but hardly The Robot vs. Aztec Mummy material and the production values are cheap back lot, but relatively competent.

It is the strange Batman and his ward homosexual undercurrents that make this film both awful and hilarious. Halsey\u2019s over the top objections to the kids attempts to get laid in the whorehouse are hilarious, his inability to commit to the waitress (or at the least get past first base) are telling, and the dozens of glances between him and the kid; a hand on shoulder, the sleeping arrangements, blowing off dates with the girl so he and the kid can shave each other. You don\u2019t have to be Freud to figure out this undercurrent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know if I hate this movie as much as I did when I watched it two weeks ago, but if you're expecting the events described on the box, forget it... that would have been a good movie. The great descent described on the box is nothing compared to the descent into utter dispair that I took viewing this movie. If you've seen HBO's Taxi Cab Confessions, this is the same thing, only fictional, and not even remotely as interesting. If you really want to see something interesting about a cab driver, check out the 20 minute short they run on Encore from time to time... it is actually worth watching. I have never, ever asked for my money back for a movie until I saw this ... thing. Boring, Boring, Boring. It does offer one unique trait, which is this: It leaves you to decide what happens to each of the passengers, letting your imagination fill in the gaps. Which would be great, if you actually cared about any of these people. Instead I found myself yelling at the screen, weeping like a child, praying for either the end of the movie or my own death. The cab driver himself (though well played, considering) runs through emotions seemingly at random, from sarcastic to sympathetic to raging lunatic to apathetic. Sometimes it is appropriate, most of the time it's just a display for it's own sake. \"Dammit, I learned all these emotions in acting class, and I'm gonna use them!\" Now that I've been thinking about it again, I do hate this movie as much as I did!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you have ever wanted to know more about cab drivers, then this is an excellent movie to watch, for informational purposes only. I can just hear it now, \"Wait, just wait a second! Why don't we follow a cab driver through his entire day! Cabbies are funny, and so are the people they meet, and they only talk to each other for just a couple of minutes, so the other actors should be cheap! Harry, you take care of production, Joan, you've got materials, Brian, you go round up some actors and we'll all meet back here tomorrow to start filming!\"

The first 90% of the movie could not have been any worse had that very thing happened. At least with no planning whatsoever, there is always the element of surprise to be found. Some of Jim Carrey's movies have stuff added as they go along and they always do well at the box offices. The problem here is that the first 90% is pretty well scripted out, and it pretty much sucks. Paul Dillon plays the cab driver in Chicago who is working all day. We pretty much see what he sees. People get in and out of his car and he drives all around town. He talks to those people for a few seconds and then we get some more people.

I'll admit, there were a couple of funny bits here and there. A religious family tries to talk the cab driver into going to church with them, he takes a pregnant lady and her husband to the hospital, breaks up a rich businessman from his girlfriend, a poor girlfriend from her boyfriend and takes a rape victim home. I guess the moral of the movie is that a Cab Driver is more than a Cab Driver and has a larger sphere of influence over the lives of his passengers than you might originally think. For some people, he's just a means of getting from here to there, but for others, his very ordinary words help change the direction of their lives.

The last passenger of the day is used to try make sense of the rest of the movie, and to a small extent it succeeds. It had a bit of that deathbed repentance feel to it where the good majority of the movie sucks and then at the very end, it tries to make it all better in just one or two changes. I wasn't too impressed with the movie as a whole, but there were a few bits and pieces worth watching again. As far as the actors go, Paul Dillon is it. John Cusack, Gillian Anderson and Julianne Moore are all in this, for about 30 seconds each, but don't watch this for any of them or you will most certainly be disappointed. I will give the other people invovled some credit that it's not your ordinary movie they have produced here, but it wasn't a very good one either. There just wasn't enough material to keep you going for an hour and a half. It was a decent effort, but it failed none the same.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A day in the life of a dimwitted cab driver sometime around Christmas: The cab driver picks up a fare...they have a 'really insightful' interlude...he drops off the fare...he picks up another fare...another interlude...and so it goes on like this for 90 friggin' minutes...none of it convincing (or interesting) for even one minute...SKIP IT!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The lavish production values that you generally find in a Merchant\/Ivory film are all here, but this is an exceedingly dull take on what could have been a very lively affair. I agree with an earlier poster that it makes no sense for the story to be unfolding through the eyes of an African American family and yet their own ancestor, Sally Hemmings, has barely a role to play in the proceedings. There is not much clarity to be found in helping the audience understand the motivations of any of these historical figures. And I was very bothered by the accents of a number of the characters. Nancy Marchand sounded very British for what one assumes is a French nun. And both Gwyneth Paltrow and Greta Scacchi seemed to be trying out different accents in various scenes. In fact, Gwyneth is very poorly served in this biopic. Her role as Thomas Jefferson's daughter, Martha, is written in such a manner that we never get a handle on who she really is. One moment she is slapping a slave, and another moment, she's deploring the whole system of slavery. Nick Nolte performs the role well enough but doesn't ever make us truly care for Jefferson or any of his exploits. Very disappointing all in all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Jefferson in Paris\" is a truly confounding film. It presents Thomas Jefferson (Nick Nolte) in the most unflattering light possible, painting him as a liar, racist and pedophile, yet offers not a shred of condemnation for those sins. This is the way he was, the film seems to say. End of sentence, end of movie, the door's behind you.

After arriving in Paris with his daughter Patsy (Gwenyth Paltrow), Jefferson proceeds to win the heart of Maria Cosway (Greta Scacchi), the wife of a homosexual English painter (the criminally underused Simon Callow). A turn of events sends Maria to England, however, and Jefferson proceeds to forget her with astonishing speed for a man who, mere minutes of screen time before, was asking her to live with him in America.

He's been bewitched, you see, by Sally Hemmings (Thandie Newton), one of his slaves just arrived from America. Just why he's bewitched is hard to tell--although Sally is undeniably beautiful, she acts like a simple-minded child in front of Jefferson. When she isn't telling ghost stories in exaggerated \"darky\" speech patterns, she's slinking around his bedroom, practically oozing lust for her distinguished massa.

If her behavior is an attempt to excuse Jefferson's, it doesn't work. Jefferson damns himself further when Maria, tired of waiting for his letters, travels from England to see him. I've not changed toward you, he insists, offering weak excuses for not writing. To her credit, Maria sees through his brazen lies immediately. When Sally appears, and she and Jefferson flirt openly (and cruelly, to my mind) in Maria's very presence, the illusion falls apart completely.

No one today believes that Jefferson, Washington and the rest were utter paragons of virtue and morality. Yet, are we supposed to believe that the learned, distinguished Jefferson would be attracted to Sally, a woman whose most intelligent conversation is about how \"massa's Frenchie friends don' unnastan' aw corn\" and who rubs herself against his front as she passes, right before Maria's eyes?

Even if we let that slide, it's followed by the horrifying revelation that Sally was only 15 when this affair took place (Jefferson was 41). Strangely, this fact comes out only toward the very end, when Sally's brother James is understandbly furious at her blase announcement that she is carrying Jefferson's child.

Jefferson is equally blase when told that Sally is carrying his child, and patronizingly tells her that she'd be far better off under his protection than free and living in France with her brother. But, he promises, I'll free her when I die and our children (including any more that come, Jefferson says, in a chilling declaration of Sally as *his*) when they reach 21. Oh thank you, massa, you feel like telling the screen. Big deal.

The worst scene is still to come, however, involving Jefferson's daughter Patsy. She is already angry at him, first for breaking his vow, made to her mother on her deathbed, not to marry again. (Obviously the woman wasn't just talking about matrimony.) Jefferson has also refused to allow Patsy to become a nun as she wishes, despite earlier moralizing about freedom of religion (that seems to mean freedom to agree with him).

Having promised Sally and her brother their freedom, Jefferson calls in Patsy to witness the bargain and promise to fulfill it should anything happen to him. Sally's brother blurts out the impending birth of the child, and Jefferson asks, \"do you swear?\" Paltrow's performance in this scene is brilliant, although she has almost nothing to say. Her face nearly contorts in agonizing pain at this revelation, yet she controls her grief and whispers yes.

If anything, and the filmmakers could have had something if they'd emphasized this point more, \"Jefferson in Paris\" is an indication of the status of woman in the late 18th century, viewed even by men like Jefferson as attractive property, pleasing but without true intellect or souls. We see Jefferson shed a few tears over a letter from Maria, obviously telling him where to get off, but he's soon laughing away at a wild dance from Sally, complete with tossed hair and heaving bosom.

I don't know whether this is an accurate portrait of Jefferson or not. I don't care to watch it, however, just for the sake of watching it. This Jefferson is no hero or even an anti-hero. He's a selfish, lying child-molestor--and one who gets away with it--not the kind of man I want to see a movie about.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I looked forward to spending part of my Independence Day weekend watching a good film about Jefferson. This film was not it. It was rather long, drawn out, dull and unbalanced. Too much time was spent exploring Jefferson's relationship with Cosway and not enough time was spent on his relationship with Sally Hemmings. The lady who played Sally, Thandie Newton, was absolutely awful. Her acting was so bad it was like watching an A1 airhead trying to recite Shakespeare. Her constant whining voice grated the nerves! Nolte's accent made Jefferson sound like an ignorant man, rather than a genius. Jefferson's relationship with his daughters and their feelings on slavery was also underdeveloped, yet his eldest daughter's rebellion (Patsy)is a key event late in the film. The film was too long and the script lacked energy and excitement. On the positive side, the costumes were quite beautiful, and Greta Scacchi played the part of Cosway well. If you want to watch a film about the revolutionary era and\/or Jefferson, then watch 1776, it's much better than Jefferson in Paris.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even though this film's trailer and poster imply that Sally Hemmings was an important character, I might not have been as shocked to discover she was just a minor (and I do mean Minor) character if this movie was suppose to being told by Sally's very own family! I mean if you are going to tell the story of a member of your family that has been ignored by history, would you really tell it with the man who relegated her to obscurity at the main character? His other lover (who happens to be white) as the actual love interest? I know I wouldn't! I am as pale as they come and normally a big fan of Merchent~Ivory flicks, but I couldn't stomach this film's treatment of poor Sally Hemmings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We sought out this hard-to-find VHS after watching two excellent Merchant-Ivory pictures back to back. Knowing it was an instant box office failure, a failure as a rental, I thought it might be worth seeing anyway based on M-I's reputation. Too bad! Nine years ago, it was very much a Liberal Agenda objective to trash the Founding Fathers and indeed they had some success in eradicating the Founding Fathers from many American classrooms including, for example, New Jersey; whose eradication of our great founders quickly ended when the Washington Times shone the spotlight of truth into the NJ School Board and their subversive deed. A small part of this was headlining the alleged Sally Hemmings-Thomas Jefferson connection, disregarding the inconvenient DNA findings which failed to support the wacky left's agenda. Never mind! They got James Ellis, an author of dubious reputation, to put it in a book, and Columbia University sealed the deal by giving Ellis a Pulitzer.

As to Jefferson in Paris, the Liberal Agenda spin begins in the opening scene wherein James Earl Jones is claiming to be the son of Jefferson. The spin simply continues in flashback mode to Paris. The unmistakable truth is that even if a person assumes the lie is true the Hemmings allegation would be an insignificant detail into the larger matter of Jefferson's prolonged and vital diplomatic mission to Paris (as well as to the Netherlands where he secured crucial financial backing for America when our infant nation was without funds).

Besides the Liberal Spin Job, there is nothing else of interest in this drab and tortuously dull movie. Some of the other history is indeed accurate --- adding credence to frame the lie --- but this movie takes one of the most interesting moments in American history and reduces it to a remedy for insomnia.

Please do not ask me why Liberals set out to trash the Founding Fathers, because I don't waste time explaining the acts of such people. Don't ask them either; they usually respond to such questions with the same answer: \"SHUT UP!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hellboy revolves around classic comic book\/action\/superhero genre story lines. Essentially Hellboy is a kind of demon who has found his way on earth. He is brought up from a child by a priest and within a government society and has chosen to protect the people of earth from the supernatural, rather then be a menace (the normal career route for a demon).

The set up of the story involves creative uses of history, combining Nazi experiments with the occult. It's preposterous, but so is the whole idea of a demon roaming the streets. I find the explanations of the characters, who they are and how they came to be very well handled. The sequences are to the point and very entertaining. In fact the opening is the best part of the film, therein lays the problem\u0085.

Essentially Del Toro who both writes and directs this piece bottles it. The film is absent of all tension or any major conflict. Hellboy is essentially established as invincible within the first act and so the rest of the film comprises of scenes in which any conflict is automatically rather crass because we know inevitably Hellboy will be OK and the bad guy will die. I hear you cry that this is the case for any action\/hero film. Well yes it is, but once we are drawn into a well made action film we can't help but feel the hero may die. Die Hard works because John Mclane looks likely to die at all parts. He escapes death by the slimmest of margins. The stakes are raised as his wife is also in danger etc etc\u0085 Terminator and Terminator two work because in both cases the villain is far superior than the hero. The threat and tension is constant.

Some of the other major weaknesses are: Del Toro is also guilty of employing deus ex machina. Characters generally disappear and reappear as their skills are needed within the story. The villain is featured in maybe three scenes. He has no motives. Turns up unexpectedly and inexplicably. In the one scene Hellboy looks to be up against a real threat (groups of monsters) a character unleashes her abilities - the screen fades to white and inexplicably the monsters are dead but everybody else lives. A minor character established in an irritating and undeveloped love story becomes the key to the conclusion of the film. Her character is so thin, the relationship so undeveloped. It is clear she is nothing more than a prop of sorts to push the plot along and to make it all make sense. I don't want to ruin the ending of the film but essentially a character that is dead is miraculously and unbelievably brought back to life\u0085.

The film suffers from poor dialogue and one liners that just aren't smart or funny. After a while it all starts to grate.

What's more Del Toro blows the action scenes with some uninspired visuals. And whoever made the creative decision to make hellboy's primary weapon a gun instead of his clunking arm should be fired. Essentially the use of the gun weakens the concept of the film, degrading the fights to nothing more than a one sided shoot out

The few positives include: The cinematography is very good. At all times a sense of mood is established by the dark lighting and the darker colour palette. As well as the use of interesting locations. Yet perhaps it is all a bit samey as well.

The use of cgi and Fx is well done. Never do we get an over load. When effects are used they are used well and the sense of realism is kept. Rather similar to how Nolan used FX in batman. I much prefer this method to the overtop effects we often see.

All in all this is a pretty poor film. The real shame is that (despite not reading the comics) I found the film wasted a lot of potential. Hellboy as a character has a lot of instantly apparent fascinating dimensions which are completely unexplored. The film has watch-ability, in the sense that if it comes on TV and nothing else is on it might be worth a viewing. But in any other situation I wouldn't bother with it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where do we start with an offering like this? I nearly said film but that would be going a step too far. The only thing hellish about this film is that it is certainly a marriage made in hell, between nothing and nonsense, baloney and balderdash. These films should carry a physiological health warning so as not to damage one's spirit to the point where one might believe that all good film makers have left the planet and their resources have been handed to the dunderheads who have make this classic piece of trite garbage just like it's sister in arms \"League of Extraordinary Twaddle\". They are neither science fiction nor fact, entertaining nor thought provoking, humorous nor weighty but lay in a twilight zone devoid of any and all accoutrements that entice people to give up their valuable time, sit in a darkened room and generally be more enlightened, enlivened or happy at the end of it. If we could award \"Turkey\" points for films like this, this would be a turnip, as we would gone through the turkey, ham, potatoes, sprouts, gravy and all other embellishments before reaching rock bottom.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Book gets 10 out of 10 stars...

PROBABLY CONTAINS SPOILERS OF BOTH THE BOOK AND THE MOVIE!!!

If you've never read Geoffrey Household's Rogue Male, the source material for Man Hunt, you'll likely enjoy Fritz Lang's treatment of the story. On the other hand, if you're in my camp and have practically memorized the book, the movie will be a crashing disappointment. I'll assume you've already read a synopsis of the story, and proceed to my complaints. Household's little novel is one of the all-time great suspense classics, taut and spare, with only a bare handful of characters to propel the action. Fritz Lang and his screen writer Dudley Nichols feel the need to throw in the protagonist's brother and a sympathetic floozy, the latter of which reduces the depth of the story by injecting an extrinsic motivation into the screenplay where the novel needed none. In fact, the true climax of the book was not the nameless narrator's escape from his underground lair, but rather his self-acceptance of his true motive for going on his hunt in the first place. And that's another thing: if David Fincher and Quentin Tarantino can get us all the way through Fight Club and Kill Bill 1 without revealing the names of their respective protagonists, why can't Lang? \"Thorndyke?\" What hat did they pull that out of? Which brings me to my bitterest complaint: Household's hunter is so quintessentially British,he would bleed a Union Jack if you cut him. But Walter Pigeon, who plays him, is Canadian! He can barely sustain the accent, which is only slightly deeper and more convincing that Kevin Costner's in Robin Hood. He looked about right in the role, and was a fine actor for the 1940s,but as Rogue Male's reluctant hero? Let's look to the Sceptered Isle itself for a more convincing version. Remake soon with subtlety and with, please! I'll direct it for free\u0085","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am assuming that the rave reviews on this page were from people who have never read the book - Unfortunately for those of us who love the text, Hollywood outdid itself on destroying this one.

I am not sure where on earth the woman love-interest came from, except that she replaced the cat, nor why our Rogue Male acquired a helpful family back in Blighty - In fact the vast majority of the book has been cut out and replaced with your standard cruddy love story. The ambiguity about which world leader was in his sights was removed completely and our Rogue was given a name (neither of these appeared until the second book).

I gave it a 2 rather than a 1 simply because of the wonderfully bad cockney accents. Joan Bennett outdoes Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins by miles and this goes a tiny way towards saving it.

Ah well - Brits should probably avoid this. Trust me :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Disappointing film with Walter Pidgeon as a hunter who goes to Germany to assassinate Hitler. When he is discovered, he is coerced into signing a document stating that he acted on orders from England. His refusal to sign the document brings us to the plot of the film.

Pidgeon is pursued back to England by the evil George Sanders and his cohort, John Carradine, who speaks little, but is again as always, the embodiment of wickedness personified.

Along the way of being pursued, Pidgeon meets up with Joan Bennett, the latter displaying a wonderful cockney accent.

The story gets bogged down somewhat as love develops between the two, but again as we approach World War 11, realism becomes the object of the day.

The near-ending scene in the cave between Sanders and Pidgeon is nicely realized but we know where that arrow is going to go to.

Very interesting that while Pidgeon is fleeing Nazi Germany, he meets up again with a young Roddy McDowall, one of Pidgeon's many co-stars that same year in the memorable \"How Green Was My Valley.\" How green was \"Man Hunt?\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Essentially a undistinguished B-movie that mysteriously is directed by one of the golden era's major talents, Fritz Lang. Even with the stellar names of Lang, Walter Pidgeon, Joan Bennett and George Sanders, be prepared for a ludicrous storyline, bad acting, patently phony sets and miscasting. For transparency sake, I have to admit I am an ardent non-admirer of Walter Pidgeon, who was lucky to have found a niche at the artificial dream-factory of MGM, and somehow worked in secondary roles, supporting Greer Garson and others. He is wildly miscast, acting in a chipper, '30s-Ray Milland madcap comedy tone, in a role where his life is in danger, and he is in hiding. Joan Bennett's cockney accent is excessive, but her lacquered hair, perfect makeup and classy outfit belies a street-wise Cockney slum-girl. George Sanders is incapable of bad acting, but disappears after the preposterous opening finds Pidgeon somehow pretending to shoot Adolph Hitler. Surprising for Fritz Lang is the unevenness of tone. I found the film wavered uneasily between occasional moments of suspense-thriller surrounded by light-hearted comedic interplay. Hitchcock totally reversed the ratio, using comic relief to occasionally pace the suspense. There is a reason this film is unknown. It didn't serve or propel anybody's career or reputation, and is forgotten because it's a surprisingly bad film from such a pedigreed group.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Preposterous twaddle executed in a bewilderingly amateurish and inept way -- or perhaps several since the incredible lack of continuity, tone, realism, plausibility, suspense, and much more combine with Walter Pidgeon's bovine attempts at charm to produce a cinema curiosity to rank with some of Fritz Lang's other stupendous failures. (I thought the German ambassador was actually played by Lang but apparently not -- they could have been twins.) If you cannot predict the ending from several timezones away, you are not actually alive.

I was eagerly awaiting this DVD and was totally surprised and disappointed by such dire crap (even with George Sanders and John Carradine -- maybe I can wash my mind out by watching Viaggio in Italia instead and for the umpteenth time).

Anyone want a DVD used once? (There may be a movie to be made about the making of this atrocious film and how so many talented people could be wasted so completely.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A pig-tailed Linnea Quigley drinks milk, strips and kills her sister and her sister's boyfriend after they have sex. She goes to an asylum, makes a best friend out of Amy (Karen Russell) and the two blackmail their way out of a mental institution by sleeping with their psychologists (one is played by \"Carol Burnett Show\" regular Lyle Waggoner). On the outside, these two man-hating mafia princesses (!) stop taking their medication and invite six slimeball ex-boyfriends over to their large country home for a party where they're systematically slaughtered in very gory ways by a gloved, leather-clad mystery killer.

The hideous David Barton FX are so bloody, but so unrealistic that they take on a sort-of surrealistic quality. Same goes for the movie. The dialogue is so strange and stilted, the film so ineptly paced and edited and the acting so other-worldly, you'll start to doubt your own sanity. This film actually attempts to have a plot and three-dimensional characters, but it's all so poorly handled it's almost like what would happen if Ed Wood did a rewrite of an Ingmar Bergman script! And like any good Bergman film, this has a mature moral to abide by--Any good party needs a proper guy\/girl \"ratio,\" so there will be enough chicks to \"tickle your lizard.\" See it for yourself... or don't!

Linnea (the only reason I was even interested in watching this to begin with) is very amusing in this one, has a lot more dialogue than usual and has several eye-popping nude scenes. Unfortunately, she also completely disappears from the final third of this film and the movie suffers because of it.

Score: 3 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a bad movie. But after watching an endless series of bad horror movies, I can say that it is a little different from many I have seen. Not in the plot, which is a fairly regular slasher story, but more the way the scenes are cut. Murder Weapon gives us a lot of inane dialogue scenes, but they go on for a lot longer than in most movies of this type. Because of this some of the victims seem slightly less like cardboard cut-outs. Just slightly. I had a difficult time figuring out exactly what was happening at the beginning and kept wondering if certain events were dream sequences. My favorite scene is when two guys are on the run from the killer and take refuge in a car. In the glove compartment, they find a handgun. \"Thank you, God!\" one of them happily exclaims. That guy's head suddenly looks like a mannequin's head, and it went on for just enough time for me to wonder, \"What is that? Where is that mannequin in relation to the two guys in the car?\" Then BOOM! The head explodes and I figured out that it was supposed to be one of the guys in the car getting his head shot off with a shotgun. I love that scene, but the movie is a very bad movie. 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie years about 8 years ago when it first came out, and the only memories that I have about it are : 1. That it was awful. 2. That in one scene Linnea Quigley applies suntan lotion to her arms and legs repeatedly for about 15 minutes straight (it seemed that long anyways). 3. One scene where a character gets a sledgehammer rammed into his head. In this scene, when the hammer connects, the head smashes like glass. It's quite bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anyone who knows anything about evolution wouldn't even need to see the film to say \"fake\". \"it's never been disproved\" also is a weak argument. Saying the universe was created by a giant hippo cannot be disproved. Although, to be fair, it does seem like the only people who do believe are the same people who open email attachments from people they don't know or give their bank details to a dude in Zambia. No bones of any primates are have been found in the United States or Canada. There is also a good reason why legitimate scientists don't bother studying this. The same argument goes for the Loch Ness monster, ghosts and god.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hilariously inept - like \"She Wore A Yellow Ribbon\" remade by five-year-olds.

Spoilers ahead: Despite its title, and the high bodycount, \"Slaughter Trail\" is in fact a musical with Injun battles instead of dance numbers.

If you ever wondered what Ed Wood might have done with a B-movie budget, this film should answer your question. Some decisions may have been bad only in retrospect, such as filming in the short-lived Cinecolor process, which resulted in faces changing hue within the same shot. But there was definitely some ill-advised skimping on the film's main set, a cavalry fort that seems to be partly a Norman castle.

Terry Gilkyson, who later wrote the 'The Bare Necessities' for Disney's \"The Jungle Book\", supplies a score full of original ditties which would have been wonderful for a cartoon but which fit Western action like a fuzzy slipper stuck in a stirrup. One song tells how \"horse hooves pound, and their melody sounds, like the hoofbeat serenade\"...during a dead-serious scene of a cavalry patrol. Other songs literally narrate the story shot by shot, introducing characters, describing their moods and gestures - as they happen on screen - and even stop to advertise the Cinecolor process(!)

The script sends ferocious Navajos on the warpath to avenge the killing of two of their band by an outlaw trio. By the end of the film, what looks like a hundred Navajos and cavalrymen have bitten the dust (thanks to repeated footage of the same characters dying over and over.) But the chief is satisfied once he sees the trio of badguys have been slain. As the singer helpfully informs those of us who weren't paying attention, the Navajos ride away, their battle called off. The cavalry captain, surrounded by the corpses of his fallen comrades, cheerily waves his appreciation.

The direction could most charitably be described as wooden, or more to the point, Wood-en. Navajos are consistently shot off their horses in pairs -- never just one. Virtually every red man on foot dies by throwing his hands in the air and keeling over. The film also employs the most cautious stuntmen in Hollywood, who crouch before dropping off a one-story roof (and still fail to stick the landing) or turn to look behind them as they slide, \"dead\", down a rocky slope.

The star is Brian Donlevy, who surely deserves an Oscar for not blushing. After the endless final battle scene -- \"climax\" is scarcely the word -- he scans a list of the dozens of his troopers killed, and shrugs, \"It could've been a LOT worse.\" Trooper Andy Devine gets to sing and robber\/murderer Gig Young laughs at Andy's antics...which leads a character who had been held up by masked bandits to rat Gig out: \"I'd know that laugh anywhere!\"

And lest anyone forget just what a nasty piece of work Howard Hughes could be, recall that as head of RKO, Hughes was first in line to blacklist original star Howard Da Silva when HUAC denounced him. It would take Hughes another six years to finish running that once-celebrated studio into the ground, but it didn't help things when he insisted on reshooting Da Silva's every scene for this film, substituting Donlevy.

It was nearly a decade before Da Silva was able to work in Hollywood again. But all things considered, for getting him out of \"Slaughter Trail\", he should have sent Hughes a thank-you note.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Slaughter Trail is a B western with some grand pretensions. But it's come down in Hollywood history for a most ignominious reason.

Watching this film with it's musical score which can only be described as overbearing, I have a feeling what Howard Hughes was trying to do is recruit a singing cowboy for RKO films. They already had Tim Holt who was as reliable a B picture cowboy hero there ever was, but he was not a singer. I guess Hughes saw what money Herbert J. Yates was raking in with Roy Rogers over at Republic and decided he'd get one as well.

So Terry Gilkyson who was a very good performer and much better song writer got recruited and sang some of his material which was not his best and worse, looked like they were shoehorned into the picture. But worse than that, there's this annoying chorus which sang a lot of the story and frankly overwhelmed the actors, extras, even the horses. Needless to say Terry never got to be a singing cowboy. But he did write such classics as The Bare Necessities and Dean Martin's great hit, Memories are Made of This.

The plot concerns an inside woman on a stagecoach jewel robbery. That's right, the outlaws who are Gig Young, Myron Healey, and Ken Koutnik plant Virginia Grey in the coach as a passenger which they receive word is carrying some valuable jewels.

It's a great act Grey and Young pull off. Young takes her away from the coach to presumably a fate worse than death and they do properly act out the scene within earshot of the passengers, but what he does is slip her the swag. Last place the authorities might look, if she doesn't run off with it.

But when they flee the robbery it's on tired horses so they stop at a cabin to take some replacement mounts and shoot three Navajos who object. That puts the Navajos back on the warpath, didn't help that one of the casualties was Chief Ric Roman's brother.

That's the situation that Captain Brian Donlevy at the fort has to deal with when the coach and the outlaws arrive there for protection. How it all works out is predictable, but in a gaudy sort of overproduced way.

In fact that's the problem with Slaughter Trail. It's a simple no frills B western that got souped up into something almost grotesque.

But the real reason Slaughter Trail entered into history is that this film apparently marks the official beginning of the blacklist. Originally Howard DaSilva was to play Donlevy's part and may have in fact completed his scenes, when Howard Hughes officially fired him for Communist sympathies. His scenes were completely re-shot with Brian Donlevy in the lead.

Considering what a fiasco this film turned into, I'm not sure whether Donlevy or DaSilva ought to have thanked Hughes or kicked him in his private preserve.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Intriguing premise should have been a 20 minute short. That's how long it would take his biological parents to think, \"Hmm, we lost one son (and never found him) who is about his age, and he looks like our remaining son. Oh, yes, and he's a runaway. Hmm.\" But no, this is the most clueless family in history. And the conclusion, while trying to jerk tears, manages only to induce more groans of disbelief.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretty twisted Horror film, that has a few good moments here and there, with some creepy Blood transfusion scenes, however it's just too dull for it's own good. All the characters are OK, and the story while had a lot of potential is rather dull, however the blood transfusion scenes looked frighteningly real, and as a result they were extremely disturbing. It's well made and decently written, and it started out really interesting, but it just couldn't keep up the pace, plus I found the ending to be disappointing. Linnea Quigley has no more then a very small role in this so, I was also disappointed about that, and Stephen Knight does a good job as the lead, as he was pretty twisted, plus I got this in a DVD Horror set called A Taste Of Evil, along with a bunch of other Horror films. There is lots of blood,however it's not all that gory, and for it's low budget it was pretty well done, however as I said it just couldn't sustain it's interest. This is a pretty twisted Horror film, that has a few good moments here and there, with some creepy blood transfusion scenes, however it's just too dull for it's own good, I would pass,but I guess it's worth a watch if you have nothing better to do. The Direction is OK. Elly Kenner&Norman Thaddeus Vane do an OK job here with decent camera work, and doing a good job on it's low budget, however the pace is too inconsistent for my liking. The Acting is actually alright. Stephen Knight is great as the lead, he was creepy, twisted, sick, and gave a very creepy performance, the most creepy thing about it though was he seemed like a normal person. Linnea Quigley did well in her small role. Christopher McDonald is OK I guess sin his short time. Rest of the cast are OK as well. Overall I would pass, but I guess it's worth a watch if you have nothing absolutely better to do. *1\/2 out of 5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"During filming, was Vanessa Redgrave taking mogadon? It was like she was reading from an autocue. I've seen more life in a wooden spoon. Or perhaps that was all part of the character? whatever, it was very very annoying, I kept wanting to shake the screen to hurry her up. I read the book a long time ago & didn't like much about it except that Septimus's descent into madness was very well done - but I don't think Rupert Graves showed this very well, his acting was all on the surface. The connection between his life and Clarissa's is not very well done either but I suspect the attempt is to show the sacrifice soldiers made to enable people like Clarissa to continue their vapid lives. The film is very bitty and has no real unity to it. Hated it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the most boring,pointless movies I have ever seen. The title character is self-centered, self-absorbed and wholly distasteful. The secondary plot line is incomprehensible and its relation to the primary plot line is mystifying. Hated it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually like period films but this one just seemed to drag and drag. I'd perk up during Rupert Graves' scenes, but Vanessa Redgrave just put me to sleep.

I was disappointed in the film. It lacked a little \"punch\" at the end that I'd hoped it would have.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Can you say \"Boring\" with a capital B! It's slower than watching grass grow! It's more boring than watching paint dry! You'll sleep right through it.....we all did.....don't do it...you'll regret it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I couldn't believe this was the same director as Antonia's Line.

This film has it all, a boring plot, disjointed flashbacks, a subplot that has nothing to do with the main plot what so ever, and totally uninteresting characters. It was painful to watch. Soooo, painful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I kept waiting for the film to move me, inspire me, shock me, sadden me in some way but it stirred none of my emotions. It just meandered along to the end. None of the characters seemed very unique or complex, they just seemed like actors reciting their lines. I think it could have been a better movie if the characters expressed more emotion. The only one who did and was believable was the veteran and he probably committed suicide just to get out of the movie as soon as he could. It was a waste of talent, film, their time, and mine. If there is a message or meaning or genius in this story, it certainly is well-hidden or I am very dense, which I doubt.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Since I was just finishing the book, `Mrs. Dalloway' by Virginia Woolf, I was excited to see that it was on one of the movie channels last weekend. What I encountered, however, is a film that was boring, incomprehensible and non-sensical. One cannot entirely blame the film, it tried the best it could with the material it had, but when the source material is Virginia Woolf, and is almost entirely written in stream-of-conscience style with extended periods of internalizing and little actual dialogue, one would certainly think that there shouldn't be a film made from it just because a film can be made from it.

Vanessa Redgrave, who plays the title character, does not deserve any blame for the failure of this film, nor do any of the other actors. It is just simply a film that could not intelligibly be made from the story that Woolfe wrote, and should not have even been attempted. Don't watch the movie, read the book.

--Shelly","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the 1940s, Veronica Lake made a meteoric rise to film stardom, thanks to her sultry beauty and, her highly exploited \"peekaboo\" hairstyle. She starred opposite big names like Alan Ladd and Fredric March, scoring screen successes in films like \"This Gun For Hire\" and \"I Married A Witch\". She held her own with female stars as well, and she surprised even her detractors with her performance as a bitter navy nurse in \"So Proudly We Hail\". But changing times and her own failings caught up with her, and by the end of the decade, her heyday was over. With two unsuccessful marriages behind her (and two more in her future) Veronica headed for New York City, where she made occasional television and summer stock appearances before dropping completely out of sight. It was briefly big news when she was found working as a barmaid in a second rate hotel in the early sixties. But by now, her longtime alcoholism and years of hard living had robbed her of her looks. Without them, public interest in her soon faded again. She did return to the stage in assorted vehicles, but her success was minimal. Eventually, she relocated to Miami, Florida, where she lived in relative obscurity. In 1966 she went to Canada for a part in an obscure movie called \"Footsteps In The Snow\" which had no U.S. release. The following year, she was discovered by some industrial filmmakers who had long wanted to produce a commercial feature. They approached her to star in their film \"Time Is Terror\" and convinced her to invest in the project. As one author put it, \"If ever a movie queen suffered a terminal comedown, this was it\". Surrounded by amateur performers and pathetic production values, she failed even to rise to a minimal level in this Miami, Florida shot quickie. Looking utterly ordinary in long shots, and luridly aged in close-ups, poor Veronica didn't act so much as walk through her part. As a deranged doctor, who has hit upon a successful youth restoration formula, using flesh-eating maggots!, she looks both bored and confused, her most unintentionally hilarious moment coming when she is forced to ad-lib while she struggles gamefully to don a pair of rubber gloves. The supporting cast is no help at all, merely advancing the plot by talking it to death. Director Brad Grinter apparently only required the actors to move while the camera was pointed at them, no need for anything resembling entertainment (There is, admittedly, one unintentionally hilarious scene involving a Private Detective\/Nurse and a corpse in a wheelchair that predates ''Weekend At Bernie's'' by almost 20 years.) According to Veronica herself, the film was shelved for three years because no master shots were filmed. But in 1970, the production company scraped it together, changed the title to \"Flesh Feast\", and released it to cash in on Lake's just published biography. And, because former leading ladies such as Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Olivia De Havilland had unexpectedly revived their careers in horror movies, this travesty was promoted as Veronica's \"comeback film\". This seems a strange course of action for the filmmakers to pursue, though, because it's unlikely that the (young) audience for a horror film of this quality either knew or cared who Veronica Lake was. As expected, it did nothing for Veronica's career, and she died in poverty, three years later. A previous reviewer cites a scene in which the female detective working undercover as a nurse in the doctor's laboratory (overseeing the theft of bodies from a nearby morgue) enlists the help of a multi-talented chauffeur to cut up the body parts. \"Poor Mrs. Lustig,\" she sighs, \"I hope she doesn't mind leaving her body to science.\" \"Try not to think about it,\" advises the chauffeur, sawing away. \"I guess you are right, Hans.\" concludes the detective\/nurse, \"What is done is done.\" What a sad end to the career of a still fondly remembered star.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once upon a time, way back in the 1940's, there lived an actress named Veronica Lake. A beautiful, talented young woman who was once in high demand for many big-budget, Hollywood pictures. Fast Forward to the late 1960's, age, alcoholism, and all-around bad luck has tarnished everyones favorite actress. Now a hasbeen, Miss Lake decides the time has come to follow in the foot steps of her peers(?), Joan Crawford, and Bette Davis, and fall back on good ol' reliable Horror. But Flesh Feast? Really? She couldn't have possibly been that washed up. To put it delicately, Flesh Feast is a lifeless pile garbage, possibly one of the top 5 worst films I've ever seen, and I've seen them all. Lake plays a scientist, who is plotting, with Nazi's, to bring Hitler back to life, with youth restoration experiments involving maggots, that's right, maggots. Unless you're a huge fan of Heather Hughes, run away and never look back!!

I know very little about this Veronica Lake person, as well as 40's flicks, but to think that such a successful career actually became that dismal, is actually pretty sad. Flesh Feast is almost impossible to get through, and by almost, I mean absolutely. Directed by Brad Grinter, director of Nudist Camp pictures, and the man who, coincidentally brought us the greatest B-movie ever made, Blood Freak, just a couple years later. One has to wonder, is this what Blood Freak would have been like if Grinter hadn't co-directed with Steve Hawkes? If so, then God bless Steve Hawkes. You wouldn't think that a Religious, dope-blood craving, Turkey Monster could be THAT much better than experiments involving Maggots and Hitler, but it really, really is. So forget you ever heard of this one and go find Blood Freak, it's just waiting to entertain you. Fast Forward a couple years later, Veronica Lake dies of Hepititas, broke, and forgotten. The End. I hate you, Flesh Feast. 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Flesh Feast starts at Miami Airport, ace reporter Dan Carter (Harry Kerwin, he is also credited as production designer) phones his mate Ed Casey (Phil Philbin) to let him know that he has just returned from South America where he has been investigating Carl Schuman (Doug Foster) & that he was onto a big story but while still talking on the phone he is stabbed in the back & killed. Schuman meets Dr. Elaine Frederick (Veronica Lake, she also executive produced) who has recently been released from a mental institution, together they discuss their grisly plans. The news of Cater's death has reached Casey & he decides to take the story up himself & do some investigating, well actually he gets his secretary Viginia Day (Marth Mischon) to do most of the investigating & just report back to him, lazy bugger. Virginia informs Casey that they have someone on the inside named Kristine (Heather Hughes) since Dr. Frederick rents her spare rooms out to nurses, Kristine reports back to Casey about Schuman & Dr. Frederick's grotesque youth restoration experiments involving human flesh & specially cultivated maggots...

Co written, co-produced & directed by Brad F. Grinter Flesh Feast is a pretty poor film on all accounts. First lets start with the script by Grinter & Thomas Casey who was also responsible for the cinematography (you get the feeling that most of the cast & crew had more than one job), basically it's terrible. The character's are one dimensional idiots & have no personality, I didn't like anyone in this film. For what it's worth I quite like some of the ideas here, the flesh-eating maggots, the basement laboratory, stealing bodies from a hospital & that unforgettable 'twist' ending that's almost worth sitting through the rest of the film for on it's own. Unfortunately the dialogue is so badly written, stiff & unnatural sounding it's untrue, I mean there is one scene in which a nurse says that they \"won't let us out of the house\" which is fine except for the fact that she is speaking OUTSIDE in the garden to someone. No thought has been put into the story as no explanation is ever given for why flesh-eating maggots are able to restore youth, in fact at one point near the end when questioned about this very thing Dr. Frederick claims there is no time to explain at that point which to me sounds like the people who wrote this didn't have a clue either! Even at an extremely short 68 minutes long Flesh Feast is very slow & dull, the poor editing doesn't help with scenes & shots lasting for far too long, for example there is a scene in which an Ambulance pulls up outside a Hospital, drives up to the doors, the guy gets out, he walks to the back doors & opens them etc. etc. did we really need to see every single detail? There is also another sequence in which Dr. Frederick enters room & puts some gloves on, then she takes them off walks into the opposite room & puts another pair on! I personally think that Grinter probably didn't shoot enough material so he stretches every scene out as much as he can to make the run time up. I do like that bizarre ending though, I really do. Technically Flesh feast is complete crap, I'm not sure what the budget was on this but it must have been small, very small. Just about the entire film takes place in one house, Dr. Frederick's laboratory consists of a table, some plastic beakers & test tubes, some ancient looking electronic medical equipment & a strange screen with funny colours on it (don't ask). The cinematography is poor, the music sucks & the entire film looks dubbed, badly dubbed too. The exploitation elements are also disappointing, there are a few maggot shots but they don't actually do anything other than wriggle a bit, there is a brief scene where a dead body has it's leg sawn off & a OK looking dismembered corpse & limbs hanging on hooks. The acting is awful from everyone concerned, & I mean really bad which makes the rubbishy dialogue even worse. Do yourself a favour & avoid Flesh Feast, yes there are one or two unintentionally funny moments & that ending is, well unique to say the least but for the most part this is real amateur film-making that quickly becomes painful to watch. I doubt most people will make it through this is one sitting, I can tolerate just about anything but even I considered switching it off. Definitely one to avoid, you'll be pleased you did & if you really have to see it don't say you weren't warned!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***BIG SPOILERS!*** \"Flesh Feast\" of 1970 is a more than unworthy conclusion to the great Veronica Lake's career. This has the wide reputation of being an awful stinker, and rightly so, I must say. As a huge fan of low-budget Horror\/Exploitation, especially from the 70s, I nonetheless chose to watch this, mainly due to the cool camp-looking picture on this site, but after watching it I had to recognize that the picture actually has nothing to do with the film. The picture here on this site is the cover of a DVD collection entitled 'Flesh Feast' containing four films, including Sergio Martino's \"Mountain Of The Cannibal God\" and Dal Tenney's \"I Eat Your Skin\". What the collection does not include, however, is this boring turkey. \"Flesh Feast\" is not only camp and ridiculous, but mostly quite tedious, which is even more pathetic regarding that the film is only 70 minutes long. Also, don't get fooled by the title, the film is not gory at all. Yet it is watchable, if only for its trashiness and, especially, the extremely stupid, but therefore somewhat entertaining ending. The film follows a ridiculous plot about Dr. Elaine Frederick (Veronica Lake), an ingenious female scientist who can somehow rebuild youth with the help of flesh-eating maggots (don't ask how). A bunch of criminals (or terrorists, or whatever), who are paid by a radical political group assign the doctor to restore the youth of a 'mysterious' commander. After an endless hour of nonsensical drivel, it turns out that the mysterious commander is actually Hitler himself. It was quite obvious before, but I still had to burst out laughing because the film's finale was so unbelievably silly and unintentionally hilarious... This is a film that is very inadequate as the last film of a great actress and former beauty queen like Veronika Lake. Except for lake, the performances are ridiculously bad, even for a zero-budget production like this. Bad performances, however, are something I can easily forgive in films like this one. What I can not forgive, though, is extreme boredom. The final five minutes make this watchable for hardcore fans of camp stuff, but I would still recommend to skip it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot here is simple. Country boy, Lem (Farrell) goes to the city to sell the wheat crop, falls in love with a waitress, Kate (Duncan) and marries her, bringing her home to a hostile father and a group of woman-hungry reapers. There are shades of THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WANTED and MICE AND MEN here. The courtship, taking place in two lengthy sequences set in the restaurant, consume the first half hour and are lethargically paced. Lem is so weak he allows his father to mistreat his wife, who is propositioned by Mac (Richard Alexander) , one of the reapers, to come away with him. Duncan and Alexander are the only good things in this tedious potboiler, which lacks the insights and the cinematic beauty we expect from Murnau. Farrell's character has no backbone so we wind up rooting for a \"real man\" (Mac) to take Kate away from it all. With audience sympathy skewed, the film loses its narrative progression. The father's conversion at film's end is unrealistic and unbelievable, making for a contrived denouement. This film is for fans of the stars and the director only - general audiences need not bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...and I Bought A Vampire Motorcycle staggers all over that line like a drunk with his shoelaces tied together. Some 'bad' films are quite enjoyable (like Norman J.Warren's Inseminoid), some 'bad' films are just bad (like Kent Bateman's Headless Eyes), but 'bad' films that try and do the post-modernist thing of being knowingly bad should always be approached with extreme caution. A lot of people think Troma's Terror Firmer is a bad-taste masterpiece, for example, but I'm guessing anyone over the age of nineteen will shrug it off as worthless dreck. Then there's John Carpenter's Dark Star. Yes, it's quaint, and certainly a product of its time, but as a film it's only two notches above worthless. This no-budget British black comedy-horror outing tries to achieve a satirical tone, with its endless references to its fellow shoestring splatter flicks (among them Psychomania, Horror Hospital and pretty much anything by Pete Walker), but due to dismal performances by second-string TV actors (the leading lady looks like Amy Winehouse), a script that appears to have been written on the back of a peeled beermat by two 'lads' with no understanding of how film comedy works, Dean Friedman's (intentionally?) dire elevator-rock soundtrack and production values never rising above mediocre, the net result is a film that can only be laughed AT, rather than WITH. If your idea of whoopee is anthropomorphic turds, Chinese takeaways called Fu King and references to long-forgotten TV ads, you'll enjoy this one, but don't expect too much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dreadful! A friend of mine (who obviously thought I had an abysmal sense of humour) recommended this.

It's bobbins. I almost switched it off. It is only my anal desire to not leave things unfinished that prevented me doing so.

This was evidently a British attempt to make a movie with a bunch of also ran TV actors using some lame script from their mate in the business. I struggle to think of anything even approaching the paucity of this movie. Less funny than global warming.

I'm not normally so vehement, but I watched this well over ten years ago and thought that I wasted an hour or so of my life on it is destructive.

Puerile, plot less, useless tosh.

I'd rather eat my feet than watch it again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After his widower father dies in a horsing accident, young Tom Burlinson (as Jim Craig) is left to manage his Australian \"Snowy River\" farm, with only wizened, peg-legged prospector Kirk Douglas (as Spur) to help. Times are hard, so Mr. Burlinson goes to work for Mr. Douglas' wealthy, silver-haired brother rancher \"Mr. Harrison\" (also played by Kirk Douglas). When a big job comes up, the silver-haired (older?) Douglas feels Burlinson is too young and inexperienced to go along; so, Burlinson stays behind, and falls in love with the boss' daughter, Sigrid Thornton (as Jessica Harrison).

The least satisfactory aspect of director George Miller's \"The Man from Snowy River\" is a weak storyline. Observe, for example, the \"Jessica is lost\" sequence of events. The damsel gets lost in one of those \"freak\" storms, while running away. Her worried father rounds up a posses of drunk men to find her, after predicting bad weather. Damsel \"Jessica\" rolls herself on to the edge of a conveniently appearing cliff. Father and the suddenly sober men don't check Burlinson's farm. Hero Burlinson discovers the damsel. After building a fire, he decides to kiss her.

The \"romance\" is played too innocently for as obvious an attracted man and woman as Burlinson and Ms. Thornton. To make matters worse, the Douglas brothers have a \"dark history\" which is revealed before any mystery is built up regarding the matter. The main attraction, herein, is the Australian scenery.

**** The Man from Snowy River (1982) George Miller ~ Tom Burlinson, Kirk Douglas, Sigrid Thornton","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A tedious yawn of a film that retains nothing of the zing and raciness of its predecessor, \"Gold Diggers of 1933.\" The Production Code was firmly in place by the time of this film's release, so the humour is all of the hokey, wocka-wocka variety and gone are the dry one-liners that sounded so cosmopolitan dripping off the lips of the gorgeous dames from the first film. A cast of second-tier stars and character actors go through the motions here, and the \"puttin' on a show\" motif seems awfully forced; instead of the make or break world of Broadway, the show here is a charity event hosted by a swanky hotel. Who really cares whether or not the show goes on? The score here is bland too. Of course the movie's big number is \"Lullaby of Broadway,\" which accompanies a long fantasy dance number about a New York socialite's eventual demise from too much partying--doesn't exactly have the same effect as the searing \"Forgotten Man\" number used as the finale in '33. Busby Berkeley directs as well as choreographs this film, and whatever promise is built up in the film's fluid opening scenes quickly deteriorates. Unfortunately, no one learned any lessons from this, and there was yet another Gold Diggers movie two years later.

Grade: C-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's impossible to make a film based on such a book as the \"Brothers Karamzov\" by F.M. Dostojevsky.

Richard Brooks is a great director, but that film is on a very low level.

The worst part of the film was the ending. Well, let's think of the book. In the end we have the \"guilty\" Dimitrij Karamazov. Afterwards they sent him to Siberia. In the end, the famous epilogues of Dostojevsky, the friends and family making a plan to save him. But that's it ... a nd now the film takes two steps more and shows us an illusion ending of the escape of Dimitry and Gruschenka(I think). just from the moral point I'm sure that Dostojevsky would finish the book with an open end because one the one hand he is not guilty(Smerdjakov is the real murderer) and so he have to be a free man. But on the other hand he goes to his father to kill him, so he has decided to commit the crime... that's a moral dilemma and so the following point is an open end...well, for real ,it's just not full open.

William Shatner as Aljoscha Karamazov... I'm sorry! --> NO!!!

The others characters playing in a good performance as we have to expect it from such great actors ... In front of course a superb performance of Yul Breynner as Dimitrij. I think that there are not many actors who can play this part in a better way.

But as I said in the beginning: This book is unadaptable. It never should be film in two hours that's impossible. I think that there are some 'longer films, so maybe they could do the right thing... But I just keep the opinion that this book can't be adapted.

So - 3 points:

A point for the great director Richard Brooks

A point for a superb performance of Yul Brynner

Finally: A point for one of the greatest writers of all time: Dostojevsky","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Apparently SHRUNKEN HEADS was the last movie that Julius Harris had a role in. I have not seen all of his movies, but Julius Harris was in many good movies, and I remember him best from \"Live and Let Die\" where he played Tee-Hee and which was full of Voodoo references, something that is common here in South Florida! I always thought LIVE AND LET DIE was a great movie because it had some atmosphere and mystique, unlike most of the 007 movies. In SHRUNKEN HEADS, Julius Harris is back in his Voodoo persona! He has a great style for mystery and the occult, and his part in this movie is excellent. Sadly, the rest of the movie is something of a comedy. SPOILERS: Three kids who look like they were fired from the cast of THE LITTLE RASCALS get killed by a neighborhood hoodlum who looks like he got fired from the cast of FAME! or as a dancer on DICK CLARK'S AMERICAN BANDSTAND. In other words, these kids give LOW BUDGET another dimension. Julius Harris goes to the mortuary-Funeral Home, cuts off the three kids' heads (and nobody notices) and then takes them to his Condominium Unit where he has a giant cauldron of boiling liquids. The three heads get tossed in, along with some herbs, spices, and Voodoo items. At some point Mr. Harris has the ugly little heads on a table and he spills his blood on them, and they come to life as talking heads! They can fly, make jokes, roll their eyes, and exact vengeance from the Evil-Doers. They usually look pretty funny flying around, but the effects are not bad. For some reason, one of the kids always has a switch-blade in his mouth, and he uses it to slice people's necks and to cut holes into tires. This movie is weird and funny, but only the first time you see it. Meg Foster is in this movie and she looks fatter than Rosie O'Donnell and Meg plays a masculine leader of the local gangsters. Strange movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one odd film. It seems to be aimed at a younger audience, but is filled with sexual innuendos. The whole premise is rather absurd, not just the idea of some shrunken heads of three dead kids doing some crime fighting, but the same said kids taking on a gang of tough older guys is a little far-fetched, but then again, the parents are mainly absent in the film and there is a lack of authority figures to keep the kids in line.

The cast are good though, Meg Foster plays a very butch mafia-like leader, with the handsome A.J. Damato as the leader of the bullies. Aerky Egan and Rebecca Herbst are well cast as the young lovers, though for a comic actress of her talent, Leigh Allyn Baker is notoriously wasted in this film.

Overall, the film is unusual, but I don't think that is enough to make up for the poor quality and bumbling execution. The scenery is all rather dull and the \"special effects\" quite dismal. Sit this one out, unless your in the mood.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. I would think you could get that from the title. Also, there is a particular love scene that could be the strangest in the history of film. I can't even remember why I saw this film or when. Only that is an absolutely horrible movie-viewing experience. On the other hand, if you are looking for the absolute weirdest movie to waste two hours of your time, then by all means rent it. Good luck finding it at your local store though. I doubt this movie is in a very wide-distribution. And please do not show this to children by any means as it may warp their impressionable minds forever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a former MST3k watcher, even I found this movie unwatchable. The awful attempts at humor-heck the awful attempts at acting. Nobody needs to read a harangue on this piece of junk.

I just like how all the positive reviews were clearly written by cast members or family friends. Just click on their other reviews and wow--they are all reviewing Modern Vampires. Give me a couple of bucks and I can make a movie better than this. One of the most incompetent pieces of film-making I've ever seen and that's saying something. Watch at your own risk.

Rating: 0\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am appalled to see that so many people have given positive reviews for this \"film\". This movie has no redeeming factors. The music is not good, the acting is pathetic, I have a difficult time understanding how someone could enjoy this movie, let alone sing its \"praises\". The idea is horrible, certain scenes linked to the plot (such as the continued love story even though the male romantic interest is a SHRUNKEN HEAD) are so bad that I wanted to do myself bodily harm while watching them. The fact that there is scene in which a shrunken head flies under a girls' shirt so he can \"feel her up\" AND she likes it is reason enough for everyone associated with this film to perish. The link to West Side Story can only be a mockery, since to reference such a great movie in such a horrible one is grounds alone to destroy all copies of this movie. To make a long story short, this film is horrible in every way. And if I had my way, everyone who likes it should go straight to hell....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nine out of nine people who watched this have declared themselves to be mentally scarred for life. No-one should ever have to see this abomination. The English Language is poorly equipped to express how utterly, dreadfully atrocious this \"film\" is. It's really not worth the plastic it's made of. No greater crime has been committed by the human race in the entire history of creation; never is there likely to be anything worse.

It was agreed unanimously that the scene involving the shrunken head of Tommy and the young girl's blouse was unbelievably sick and twisted; in fact many of us have not yet recovered from the ordeal and are currently sitting in the corner of the room rocking, sucking our thumbs and whimpering.

The fundamental question on everyone's lips, however, has to be \"Why???\". How is it possible for anyone to create such a monstrosity and then subject it to so many innocent people? After viewing the trailer we thought that this film might be a laugh: how wrong we were.

Please sign the petition to rid the world of \"Shrunken Heads\" so that no other poor civilians be exposed to it. Please, for the good of humanity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This may just be the worst movie ever produced. Worst plot, worst acting, worst special effects...be prepared if you want to watch this. The only way to get enjoyment out of it is to light a match and burn the tape of it, knowing it will never fall into the hands of any sane person again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My jaw fell so many times watching this flick, I have bruises. Okay, granted, I really wasn't expecting the quality of, say, The Others or even Thirteen Ghosts (the new one, which was just dreadful and is still head and shoulders above this insanity). Someone else noted the thin characters...I wouldn't call them \"thin\". \"Thin\" implies there might be something to them. How about almost non-existent? In no particular order we have: The Girl Who Will Scream; The American Who Will Figure It All Out; The Macho Guy Who Will Just Bull Through Everything Until He Gets Killed: The Wise Black Man Who Will Die Early; The Extra Guy Who Is There To Die First; The Extra Woman Who Is There To Play Tough. That's it. That's your character list and that is what they are and what they remain from beginning to end. If they were \"thin\" they might, at least, change a little bit from beginning to end. But they don't. Well, okay, the American guy decides he's going to stay with the fieldwork at the end and the Screaming Girl goes back to wherever she came from. That's the change. Other than that, they all act according to their assigned roles and rarely betray any real emotion when they finally meet up with the menace.

Now, the producers get props for an original menace, I will say. I had understood the story was going to be \"Tremors\" but with ants instead of giant worms. I give the writer credit: these are very cool, very scary ants and what they do with bones is excellent. (The first time the \"bone snatcher\" appear, I admit I jumped a few feet.)Unfortunately, the very cool concept becomes Alien in the Desert very quickly. We get a lot of commentary on ants that may or may not be true, but we don't get much of the mythology on which the menace is based. And we get every monster movie clich\u00e9 ever made. People go into places they know they shouldn't and when they have no compelling reason to. Moronic characters try to hinder our heroes and die for it. One character does double duty as \"scientist who doesn't want to kill the monster but study it\". A Very Cool Gadget is introduced only so the American can tell everyone something about ants that, gee, I hope everyone knows anyway. Then the gadget is broken. Our heroes run out of the one thing that can keep the menace at bay. And then there is that final, annoying moment when we know the menace is still with us--and wonder exactly what and how the hey the hero or heroine came by it. It completely renders everything that went before as useless and false.

Three stars for the cool use of ants and bones. Nothing at all for clich\u00e9s, clunky dialogue and dim bulb characters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Bone Snatcher\" starts out extremely promising, with the introduction of a new and original type of unseen evil as well as with the use of the sublimely isolated filming location of the African desert. Whilst checking pipelines out in the desert, three miners are attacked and killed by a seemingly unworldly creature that devours their flesh and only leaves a pile of half-eaten bones. The expedition crew sent to rescue them discovers that the monster is a superiorly mutated ant-queen, and pretty soon they find themselves trapped in the uncanny desert as well. Director Jason Wulfsohn sustains a respectable level of tension just until the nature of the monster is identified. Immediately after that, the film rapidly turns into an ordinary creature-feature with all the characters dropping out of the survival-race one by one. The second half of \"The Bone Snatcher\" is unendurably boring; with the inevitable love-story clich\u00e9s as well as a complete absence of gory murder set pieces. The characters all are insufferable stereotypes that act and say exactly what you predict several minutes in advance. There's the rookie who has to prove himself, the female with brain-capacity apart from her hot looks, the obnoxious experienced guy who redeems himself at the end through self-sacrifice and \u0096 last but not least \u0096 who could forget the wise black guy who refers to the monster using all kind of voodoo names. Wulfsohn tries too hard to make his monster look like the outer space menaces of \"Alien\" and \"Predator\". The ant-creature has infrared-vision and crumbles when shot at, yawn! The movie actually just benefits from its unique setting and the handful of nasty images of decomposed bodies. This could have been a modest gem, but instead it's less than mediocre. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This horror movie starts out promisingly enough and there is a moment where I thought to myself \"this is going to be really good\". However, it gets rather boring rather quick at the end. The acting is fairly good, as is the location and the story starts out rather well too. The problem, not enough kills on screen and an ending where you have the monster basically turning tail and running. I wanted to see more, especially after a very good sleeping bag scene where I thought the movie was picking up and going to be a winner. Unfortunately after that the movie showed the monster very little and the back of the DVD lied as it told me that the desert beneath the people literally came alive and was capable of devouring their flesh...now that would have been some movie, a nearly inescapable situation. Granted that would have made viewers uncomfortable and it might of ramped up the tension, but that is what horror movies are supposed to do! Instead we have very few shots of the creature or creatures as it were and when we do see it, it is mainly on the defensive. Still it wasn't all bad, it just needed more horror less hunting and more chomping.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Bone Snatcher is about a group miners who go on a search for a missing crew of miners in the Namib Desert. When the find them, they are nothing more than bones stripped clean and they could not have been dead for more than six hours. The story keeps you interested as to what exactly caused this. The characters are well enough, and the acting is pretty good.

About an hour and ten minutes in when you find out what is causing the bones to be stripped clean, you sigh \"oh, that is really stupid.\" The movie is ruined by bad writing and a non-exciting ending. Up until that point, the movie was pretty good, and it is a shame that it took such a bad turn. So I cannot recommend this movie. I gave it a 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is another Alien imitation and not a very good one at that.Replace outer space with the South African desert,throw in the same ingredients,a group of people stranded in an inhospitable landscape, have them hunted down by an alien creature and you have the same old story of a very ordinary film trying to ape a classic film. A group of miners and scientists go on a hunt for some missing colleagues and find their bones in the desert stripped clean of flesh.Their vehicle breaks down and they head for civilisation while being stalked by the monster. The African location is pretty enough but that is basically all this film has going for it. There is a vain attempt to build up the tension but I found this didn't really work and made the film rather boring.The creature didn't appear much and when it did it didn't really install a feeling of horror.There is one scene where someone gets the flesh ripped from his arm but that was basically it on the gore front. In conclusion i found this film about as exciting as watching paint dry.I give this film 4\/10 and that is only because of the interesting location which alone isn't enough to save this movie from being a total snooze-fest","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I gave this movie 2 instead of 1 just just because I am a polite person. This movie made me loose 90 minutes of my life in which I could have done something useful for the human kind or just me.

The dialog is poor, the actors never look scared! Even if it's supposed to be a horror movie. For example the scene in which Kurt collects the bones of his former colleague. He should be frightened, but he looks quite normal. The chick of the movie is such a clich\u00e9. The one thing I liked about her is the dress she wore in the final scene.And, by the way, the end was extremely predictable with the cocoon blinking pinkly in the box. As a matter of fact, I was thinking more of an ant walking around on the back seat of the car. But it still didn't surprise me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wasted 5 dollars renting this complete piece of crap. Dr. Zack is the most unlovable lead character i have ever seen. The movie was full of EVERY cliche you could ever think of and contained not a single OUNCE of originality. There was the typical sexism portrayed by rugged foreigners, all the guys had those 'too-proud to take advice' attitudes that are as stale as grandma's christmas fruitcake. The concept and deaths were really cool, but they lose all novelty once the monster is revealed. (read the SPOILER at the end) Nothing else is really revealed though, the ending is the biggest cop-out you've ever seen. I predicted everything before it happened, including who would die and how. The dialogue is lacking, and that's an understatement by far. There's mostly just random yelling, thoughtful staring, and chunky sentences. The actors are just GOD AWFUL! I don't want to talk about this movie anymore, it's making me angry. I just wonder if the director even watched it when it was done.

(SPOILER ALERT!!!! SAVE 5 DOLLARS!) the monster is just a bunch of ants that \"evolved\" so now they need bones so they can move around, (nevermind the fact that this serves no evolutionary advantage whatsoever, and that the ants just killed whoever was available, though the movie acts like they kill out of necessity. This movie made me dumber.) The end consists of the lead idiot killing the mother ant (a big blob thing) which destroys all the other ants. Pretty cliche eh? He almost wusses out at the end because of a sudden emotional attachment to the mother-thing that overcomes him. Give me a break.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I saw the poster at the theater, I thought that it is a \"new line\" of a horror story without a famous cast worth giving a try. But, after I went in, I wanted to leave after 20 minutes. There was a lot of non-sense and logical flaws. To me, it is a movie that is not worth putting in theaters. It is not even worth seeing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Some bunch of Afrikkaner-Hillbilly types are out in the desert looking for Diamonds when they find a hard mound in the middle of a sandy desert area. Spoilers: The dumbest one starts hitting the mound with a pick, and cracks it open. Then he looks into the hole and sticks his head in and SURPRISE! something eats him. The other two dimwits are not seen alive again. Scott Bairstow looks like a Pizza Delivery boy but he plays some kind of expert scientist with a medical degree (which means he should be about 35 years old, minimum). Bairstow is supposed to join Camp C and help them find diamonds. The truck that picks up Bairstow to take him to Camp C has a handful of the kind of weirdoes that usually populate movies like \"PITCH BLACK\" \"THE THING\" etc. The truck happens to drive across the first truck and they decide to investigate (how come that truck did not see the other truck when they were driving to pick up Bairstow, since they were travelling the same road??). So they find the eaten bodies, and there are some decent special effects relating to bones with little bits of flesh on them. The main lunatic in the group, Karl, decides that they must find the killer. So the truck drives around in the desert following some tracks, and eventually it has an electrical short and the crew is stuck in the desert. The dumbest guy in this group had picked up a bunch of bones using his jacket to carry them around. When he takes a nap (wearing the same jacket) the creatures eat him alive, and another guy runs over and sticks his arm into the goo and that dummy loses his arm too. Sounds exciting so far, except that a few minutes later, Dr. Bairstow realizes that the creature is really hundreds of thousands of ants who are using the bones to hold each other together so they can travel to a new hive (because the miners cracked open the old hive). Now, last time I checked, ants could move around on their own, without having to kill people in order to use the bones for structure. If all they need was something hard, they could have put a bunch of sticks together and used those to create a form. The whole story is really, really dumb, and the ant explanation is the only one given. The rest of the movie is just about the group getting killed off until they find the new ant-nest, and kill the ant-brain (sort-of), and the hundreds of thousands of ants then walk away on their own itty-bitty feet. There is a spare ant-brain found (off-camera) and sent back for analysis thus creating a reason for a sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This horror tale takes place in the Namib Desert of Africa. A Canadian systems analyst, Zach Straker(Scott Bairstow)is sent on an assignment for a diamond mining company. Although he hates field work, he finds himself in a truck with a rescue unit in the open desert fighting sand flies and whipping, blowing sand. Four diamond prospectors are found...well whats left of their scattered bones are discovered. During a long cold desert night a shape-shifting monster makes its appearance. Zach and his colleagues are terrified when their truck is stranded and members of the unit are dying horribly one by one. There is no character development; let alone dialogue to speak of. The desert set in its own way is beautiful and without giving anything away... the creature is as old as the desert sands. Also in the cast are: Rachel Shelley, Warrick Grier and Patrick Shai.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"no really, im not kidding around here folks, and i so cant believe how many people here have given it really really positive reviews! oh wait, its the IMDB comments section, silly me. its interesting to note that at this date, there have not been enough votes to give this film a rating out of ten, yet there are dozens of comments that rave about the film. what does this mean i wonder? anyway, the script IS terrible. character change their personality and motivation and actions every scene, in order to keep the movie running along at something that vaguely resembled a pace. it wasnt even dumb behaviour, that was there too, but the pure idiocy of the script transcended any dumbness the characters displayed. for instance: karl is disobeying an order because there are two dead bodies in the desert and \"the killer is out here somewhere\" so he forces everyone to travel 40kms in order to find the killer, disobeying orders and p*ssing everyone off. when the hero spots something nasty in the darkness and warns karl, karl tells our hero to stop being an idiot and that there's nothing out there so they are all going home. next scene, he is refusing to let it go and must hunt down whatever it is. it is just a joke. yes, the monster is very impressive, but the crap that the humans say about it just tries to cancel out its interesting aspects, and the predator and alien rip off moments were very tedious. and the ending...the ending!?!?! jesus....the worst film i saw the year, and i saw bug buster!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The name of this film and the clips that I saw caused me to believe that this film would have excitement and interesting moments. I was disappointed. The desert sands were interesting but this film inched along at a snails pace. It started fine with an underground cave and something coming out but then tried to involve us with the lives of some very unlikeable human beings. As they found dead bodies, or should I say, skeletons with some flesh on them, they began a search for the reason why? At times it became somewhat different as something was following them in the desert. Some type of black ooze or something that would begin to eat the flesh of humans. As the flesh was munched upon, a bag of bones began to creep after the remaining humans. The reason for this black ooze as we find out was pretty bad, ants? Unbelieveable! Then the ending made no sense. I guess the motto of this film will be, when you have an itch and see an ant, quickly kill it before the ant's friends smell your flesh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think the \"Bone Snatcher\" should go after anyone associated with this movie. Watching this will seem like the longest 90 minutes or so of your entire life. The plot is boring and stupid. There were no scenes that were horrifying, even remotely. If you manage to endure this fine piece of cinema art all the way to the end, you're either going to be highly disappointed or die laughing hysterically. I bought this movie based on some other reviews I'd read. I wish I had my money back. What a skunker. If you're looking for a horror movie that will hold your interest, watch \"U Turn\". It may be based on a kooky plot, but it's full of those creepy scenes that keep you jumping from beginning to end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Such pain! Pain in the shape that it had promise in its central idea, but it never fully recognised it and goes on to blow a lot sand in your face. I wouldn't say this straight-to-video South African\/Canadian\/UK horror flick is awful, but its just too bland, predictable and there's just very little memorable about it. It's a guarantee you'll forget it, not too long after watching it. I tried watching it last night, but had to finish it during the morning, as I couldn't keep my eyes open. Even then I couldn't remember where I got up to, which left me watching it from the beginning again. The only thing that hit a chord was Andreas Poulsson's sharp cinematography of the vast, harsh and eerie desert locations. A nice glossy chic creates a striking visual sense, which can't save the film from that overall empty feeling. Everything else is below-par and almost comes off grating. Like the head-scratching revelation of the beast. Huh. The computer-generated special effects of the ominous monster are tolerable, and there are some grisly flashes of stripped flesh and bones. But there's too little, as there's no hiding the fact that the clich\u00e9d script wants to ponder on the generic character conflict to build tension and uncertainty. That would be fine if the wilted script was more than just basic, shallow fluff, because it never generated any strong, lasting suspense, but makes it uninterestingly labour on. The lead characters are superficial and the token support fall in the dispensable basket. It's your stereotypical bunch. Scott Bairstow and Warrick Grier's performances are colourless, and the beautiful Rachel Shelley tries but looks rather weary.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I's a big struggle. As a story that is surreal, this movie could've been great (as great as it is rated by some here), but mixed with the acting (director and relatives playing major roles, due to financial reasons I reckon) found in here ... although calling this acting, is not only a stretch of that word, it's giving it a new meaning! A whole new meaning!

If you are into surreal movies (there are some that I do like actually, see the Japanese Strange Circus for example), you might be able to overlook the flaws (see above) and enjoy this more. There are great ideas here, after all! Many great metaphors and ambiguous scenes, but while watching this (with a group of friends) almost all of us, just couldn't stop laughing ... not the intention of the director of course! Again, everyone has their own liking, as one can see by the high rating of this movie, but I could only recommend the movie if you're aware of the work that Alejandro Jodorowsky has done and\/or are a fan of his!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm going to be generous here and give it a 3 only because I live in Huntsville and it was great to see how well the city was filmed. That said, this movie was pretty bad. It's like they started off with hardly any script and the director just told the actors to stare at each other meaningfully with a lot of music playing over it. And Billy D. Williams looked like he'd rather be anywhere but in this movie. It's just a mess. I think I could write a script better than the dislodge for this film, and I'm no writer.

There is one thing I've seen mentioned throughout the reviews and message boards--everyone is under the impression that the movie begins around World War 2 and actually it seemed more like it was supposed to start out in the late 1950's\/early 1960's. While the military was not segregated by then, I'm pretty sure that any troops waiting to board a train would still be segregated in a place like Huntsville, Al. If the beginning of film was supposed to be the 1940's, then Billy D, Lesley Ann & Rae Dawn would have to have been in the 70's and 80's instead of their mid 50's or early 60's.

Don't waste your time unless you really, really like the actors because the story isn't very interesting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is absolutely horrible! I thought because it had good actors in it like Gabrielle Union, Hill Harper, and of course the infamous Billy D. Williams. The movie is long, and drags on with a documentary style of showing Gabrielle Union, who has died in the movie, talking about her family; which by the way is a confusing family because you never know who's who, and who's related to who. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, and I wish I could take it back where I got it from. I fell asleep from time to time because of the boredom. Do not waste your time or money on this movie. It could had been more true to life with more drama, and less boredom.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film wasn't good at all. I was able to catch it at a film festival and didn't appreciate the content I was forced to watch. It's a well shot film about family looking to reconnect after the death of the family's cornerstone (Gabrielle Union) dies. the film stars Billy Dee Williams as Gabrielle's Union's brother. Well, actually, Gabrielle Union portrayed the woman in her early years, which should help explain why the woman was Billy Dee Williams older sister. This had to be Billy Dee William's worst performance in his career, ever. He looked as if he didn't remember his lines in a few scenes. He was an unlikable, hardly ever empathetic character, who fathered a daughter while married to a white woman whom he already had a daughter with as well. The two daughters are older now and while the daughter he had with the white woman (Lucy) was trying to connect with him, his other daughter didn't want anything to do with him. Billy Dee's character was so pathetic that the only way they can get him to fly in from Paris for his sister's funeral was by telling him that the funeral had already passed and his late sister left him with the responsibility of handling her paperwork. Why they had to fool him? Because he didn't like attending funerals. I know. You're asking, \"but he didn't want to attend his own sister's funeral too?\" Yes! He claims he didn't like being around the forced feelings of emotions that is shared amongst the people paying their respects. He didn't want anything to do with that. Now we're suppose to empathize with that a**hole? The rest of the performances in the film were flat with equally flat characters. The director and editor didn't care to consider the pacing of the film. The flashbacks were painful to watch. It was a bad film. However, it seems to be the favorite at black film festivals; a film that glorifies African-Americans dependence on Caucasians to find a love that they can settle down with, even if it is a healthy relationship. When lame love stories like this win best of festivals at the black film festivals, it makes me question the judgment of black people on film. In these same festivals, the only films that win awards are educational films about African American culture and black films directed by Caucasian directors. I'm not saying that anything is wrong with a white person directing stories written for people of color. The problems with these films is that they never argue from both point of views, which are usually the films that actually speaks to the masses. These films are often one-sided forms of didacticism. These films fail at executing the powers of both sides of the argument that the film is revolved around. The writers and directors never compose the scenes and sequences that contradict your final statement with as much truth and energy as those that reinforce it. These films always slant the argument. What I am saying is, are the people running these black film festivals judging a film off of pure content, which to me means directing, acting, writing cinematography, editing, etc., or are they judging films off of strictly the message being delivered about African American culture? Are we suppose to expect a film like Constellation to have a shot in the world against films like \"Million Dollar Baby\" and \"Sideways?\" What happened to film being entertaining? When I mean entertainment, I mean the ritual of sitting in the dark, staring at the screen, investing tremendous concentration and energy into what one hopes will be satisfying, meaningful emotional experience. Why can't these festivals appreciate films that get their messages across without preaching? Why can't these black film festivals acknowledge films that are well told pieces of work that are brutally honest, telling the truth? \"I believe we have no responsibility to cure social ills or renew faith in humanity, to uplift the spirits of society or even express our inner being. We have only one responsibility: to tell the truth.\"--Robert McKee. Now that's something I totally agree with. These same black film festivals put down \"Hustle and Flo\" as if it is that awful film stereotyping blacks. However, it's an honest film about a pimp with a dream. A pimp can't dream? I recall the last time I saw a real pimp he was a human being. And aren't they, pimps and prostitution a harsh reality in our society at large, not just in the black community but all over? The powers that be in \"black Hollywood\" believe that films like this are making Afro-Americans look bad in the eyes of others, as if others don't know that there are pimps in the hood. The truth is, until African American people in film can accept the truth about themselves and dare to share it with the world, then our films will never have a chance in the world. This film was awful. The best thing was the cinematography and Zoe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't care what anyone says, this movie is hilarious! It combines the bleak seriousness of Threads with an anarchic blend of alternative comedy, and the results are a severely dark, but outrageously funny satire on the brinkmanship policies of both the Western and Eastern blocs at the time. You gotta give the filmmakers credit for even attempting to top the real life lunacy of \"Duck and cover\" or \"Protect and survive\"!

Imagine someone made a movie based on the Dead Kennedys track 'Kinky Sex Makes The World Go Round', and you're pretty close to Whoops! Apocalypse. Add Rik Mayall on top form as an insanely OTT SAS commander and you've got it exactly. A worthy companion piece to Dr Strangelove, and that's saying something.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What an utter disappointment. Forget this abysmal film and get hold of the TV series instead. What on earth were they doing making the American president relatively sane? ALL the politicians should have been bumbling buffoons (Peter Cook is good as the British PM). It lacks the biting satire of the original, going instead for \"lowest common denominator\" slapstick. 1 out of 10 if I'm being generous! This is unfortunately yet another example of a remake which totally misses the point of the original, the difference with this one being that they were both written by the same people.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Since THE MAGUS is a confusing puzzle that really has no solution, one should sit back and enjoy the scenery. Set on a \"remote Greek island,\" it stars a very uptight Michael Caine as a teacher working at a school for boys who gets caught up in mind games with local wacko\/mystery man Anthony Quinn and his daffy girlfriend Candice Bergen. Quinn, looking like Pablo Picasso with white hair and striped sailor shirt, is actually pretty good but Caine looks like he's ready to explode. Bergen, although stunning, should NOT put on a British accent EVER. She's not very good at that type of thing. Guy Green's direction is fine, but unless you have infinite patience with the circular logic of the film, you will not enjoy it. A real sour note is the casting of the effervescent Anna Karina in the completely joyless role of Caine's girlfriend. After seeing her in the likes of A WOMAN IS A WOMAN and A BAND APART, her presence here is quite jarring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved the gorgeous Greek scenery but the story, which is not something you can follow anyway, was even harder to follow in the movie. I cannot imagine how anyone watching the movie can get any kind of grip on it if they have not read the book, and then, like me, they would probably wonder why Australian Allison turned into French Anne, and many other seemingly pointless changes in the story. The mysteries in the book seemed to be chopped up or left out in the movie. I saw it when it first came out and had the same problems with it then, since I had read the book several times. I recently watched it with my granddaughter (very intelligent at 20 and usually into movies I like) who was mostly amazed at how young Michael Caine and Candace Bergen were in it, but otherwise could not imagine why one would watch it except for the scenery.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have always wanted to see the movie because I loved the novel, but was warned away because I'd heard that the movie was a stinker. It is. Fowles wrote the script and I could follow it fine, despite the fact that I read the novel over thirty years ago.

The soundtrack is execrable--jarring, jangling, and utterly inappropriate--breaking any attempt at mystery or mood in the movie. I suspect that the director must take a lot of the blame as even Michael Caine is terrible in it and he was already doing excellent work in ALFIE a couple of years earlier.

The \"Mysteries\" evoked by the book are not well-translated onto the screen. I'd love to see someone remake this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't be taken in because the premise of this film is a good one. It is, but that, does not a good film, make.

Comedies require a well-honed script and masterful direction. Sadly, this poorly executed film has neither. Leconte, a good director in other genres, does not deliver in his comedic farces (Les Bronzes series being another example).

The comedic timing is terrible. Some jokes are telegraphed. Some are re-hashed from other movies. Others just sit there as if they were giving you time to laugh. The plot has messy subplots (the allergic daughter, the lesbian co-owner) and just does not develop or envelope the viewer. It isn't funny and it isn't believable for a second.

Compare this to any comedy by Billy Wilder (Some Like it Hot, A Foreign Afair, etc.) or by Leconte's compatriot, Francis Veber, a true GENIUS at French comedy (Le Diner de Cons, Le Placard, Les Comperes, La Chevre, La Grande Blonde, etc.) and you'll see the difference in their tight scripts, great comedic acting and timing, with each joke leading to the next one.

Watching Mon Meilleur Ami twice would be cruel and unusual punishment, not a good sign for a comedy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Writer-director Patrice Leconte takes a universal and potentially bottomless subject - friendship - and turns it into a flat and meaningless farce, despite A-list actors, fine cinematography and elegant production design. It's all in the plot, and the plot is laughable. \"Teach me how to be likable\", art dealer Fran\u00e7ois Coste (Daniel Auteuil) tells a random stranger (Dany Boon), and that about sums it up. We learn next to nothing about friendship, and Daniel Auteuil may be a fine actor, but not one minute do we believe he could be the cut-throat egoist the script depends on him to be. Just as we hope the travesty is over, Leconte pulls one of his usual cathartic third acts, fast-forwarding from damage to disaster. Like Fran\u00e7ois's treasured Greek vase, everyone and everything in this movie is a fake. Leconte's only asset is Julie Gayet in the part of Coste's business partner Catherine, looking swell and sexy despite a major mishap of a haircut.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was horrible and corny. James Agee is rolling in his grave.This movie was nothing at all like the book and made a mockery of it. No one should see this movie unless they want to gag.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I watched this movie, I felt as if a plastic bag was slowly closing in around my head. The acting was horribly stifling, and it was Bad Acting. The most brilliant piece of acting in the entire film was the guy who had to play laid-out-in-state-in-a-coffin. I felt nothing but relief when it was finally over. I was expecting that this film was going to be some real tragedy, with some deep psychological intrigue in the aftermath. All around it was stupid, no beginning, no climax, no ending, just rambling on and on, and the plastic bag kept getting worse. Let's get real here. This is an awful movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Teenage Exorcist is one of those God-awful films to video that makes the viewer give up any expectations of decent entertainment for low brow sexual antics, adolescent humour, and empty writing. This film delivers exactly what its was trying to deliver. It is about a girl moving into a house where a Baron de Sade(hmmm) once lived and finally being drawn to him through her own inner demon. Her sister and brother-in-law, along with an Irish priest, her boyfriend, and a pizza delivery boy, try to save her and exorcise her demon. Well, not much here in way of horror or suspense. In fact, one line from the film pretty much sums up what to expect. Mike(the girl's brother-in-law) has tied her(the name is Diane by the way and she is played by Brinke Stevens) up after trying to chainsaw her sister. He removes a gag from her mouth and says something like, \"This won't be the last gag we see tonight.\" Indeed, it was not. The special effects are cheesy and poorly crafted, and the film makes use of this by playing on its comedic appeal. Some of the lines and situations are funny. Robert Quarry, old Count Yorga himself, really steals his scenes as an Irish priest. He hams it up wailing Biblical verses and crooning Irish songs. You know you are in trouble, however, when Eddie Deezen gets top billing. Deezen does his schtick and has a couple nice moments as well, but the material is just too threadbare than to be anything more than teenage sophomoric time filler. Michael Berryman, from The Hills Have Eyes, also has a brief but interesting cameo in the film. As for the other thespians, well, they are all pretty good at being pretty mediocre. Stevens is lovely in fishnet stockings and French-cut panties, but beyond that don't expect too much more from her. Her sister is played by Elena Sahagun, and she shows a bit more than Brinke(a very lovely young lady by the way) and out acts Brinke by miles. Her husband, played by Jay Richardson shows off his ability to act and be funny amidst mediocrity. Again, not a bad film to waste a little time that involves NO thinking on. If you are a Robert Quarry fan, watch it for his performance at the very least.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Going into the movie with the right expectations, I somewhat liked this movie. Like most reviewers who have seen this movie, I fully agree that the plot was razor thin, clich\u00e9d, and I could predict every plot twist from the very beginning of the movie. But, the dancing sequences were VERY well done, and I really enjoyed the fusion of classical and hip-hop dance (both which I enjoy watching). The music\/soundtrack of the movie was also very good, which made the \"drama\" scenes more bearable. The leads (Jenna Dewan and Channing Tatum) were OK as actors, but their dancing throughout the movie was impressive and mesmerizing.

All in all, a movie worth watching if you like to watch good dance sequences, and this movie is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than \"You Got Served\" in terms of the plot and drama. Then again, that doesn't say much, does it? =P","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Step Up is a fair dance film about some kids that get their big performance break. The film is average in every way with little more for the viewer. A jock fights external prejudices to become a dancer with an accomplished partner and a teach who sees something special. The acting was fine, but the dialog and directing had little to add to overcoming a predictable story. None the less you still feel quite good about the outcome of the film. There were some dark scenes and some typical generalizations about dancers that went a little overboard. This is a class B+ film with moderate continuity errors and dialog mishaps. The scenery was good and the characters held true to life. It is worth the watch if you like that kind of film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wasn't really interested in seeing Step Up, but my friend just kept bugging and bugging me to see this film, especially since she is so in love with Channing Tatum, I tease her constantly about it saying how that's the only reason why she loved the movie. But she somehow convinced me that it was a movie worth seeing, that if I loved movies like Dirty Dancing, Take the Lead, and Save the Last Dance, that I should love Step Up, eh, what the heck? I guess every movie in some way has it's right to a view.

Well, you know those movies I just mentioned up top? Dirty Dancing, Take the Lead, and Save the Last Dance? Well, put them in a blender with some gangsta love in it and that's what you have. Not to mention if you've seen those movies, well, frankly, you have seen Step Up. Because Channing is lower class with street smarts who just naturally feels the music while that snobby up class girl must follow step by step, how will they ever fall in love if they are so different? After all, this is their chance to \"step up\" to the passion, the mystery, and the lust of the dance!

OK, that was a silly plot explanation, but like I said, as long as you've seen those movies I mentioned, or even if you just saw the plot, you get the movie. I don't understand how it actually has a 5.5 rating, I bet it's those Channing lovers! LOL! I'm kidding with you guys, but it's all good, I guess I just didn't get what others did with the passion, the mystery that is the dance! Oh, Antonio Bandares, where are you when we need you?!

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the actors cannot act. all dialoague was plagued with bad accents and loss of character. Channing Tatum never moves his lips or changes his facial expression... EVER.

the story is nothing new at all. some kid from the street gets involved in a professional world of dance and it turns his life around. that coupled with the whole incident involving the little kid is taken straight from You Got Served and Save the Last Dance (I'm not saying that those movies were any good either, but that is to say that this movie brought nothing new to the table).

and the dancing... THERE WERE ONLY 3 DANCE SEQUENCES IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE AND 2 OF THEM WERE TAKEN STRAIGHT FROM THE COMMERCIAL. perhaps i'm being overly critical because i am a dancer, but maybe thats what needs to be heard. Channing Tatum is NOT by any means a b-boy. his little solo in the parking lot had little style, technique, or any wow factor, all of which are part of a street dancer's criteria. All of the jazz and ballet in the movie had nothing to offer except bad technique and a few acceptable twirls, but nothing more. the grande finale left me thinking \"... OK, now they're gonna get serious\" all the way through the end when i realized it never was going to happen.

i'll admit that im sure it is difficult to make a good dance movie, but Step up is no exception to the rule. You Got Served, with the exception of its inconsistencies with street dance culture at least had the dance aspect. Save the Last Dance was garbage, and so was just about any musical from the past 10 years (although i was impressed with Moulin Rouge)... look to Center Stage for Ballet, look to Beat Street for Hip-Hop","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Take Fame' and 'You've Got Served' and roughly jam them together and what do you got? This God awful movie custom made for dull-normal adolescents. The plot very closely follows 'You've Got Served.' Three ghetto afro-teeners, this time living in John Water's Baltimore\u0097not far from 'Peckers' home\u0097spend their time getting failing grades in high school and dancing in dilapidated 100-year-old buildings with hoochy-mamas. To finance their expensive baggy hip-hop clothing tastes, they steal cars and deliver them to the local chop shop\u0097not unlike John (Tony Manaro) Travolta who worked in a Brooklyn paint store so he could purchase his polyester disco clothes.

Tyler Gage, one of the black three musketeers, gets caught trashing the local Fame High School and is forced to perform janitorial duties. He meets Nora Clark, a 26-year-old white high school student and discovers he's Irish-American, much to the chagrin of his black buddies Mac and Skinny.

As in 'You've Got Served' crime doesn't pay and Skinny, the youngest member of the trio gets shot by a Bad Bad Leroy Brown type\u0097but that doesn't stop the music\u0097and heart-stopping finale.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seriously I don't get why people are all like \"Oh my God Step Up is the best movie ever!!!\" It's a bunch of junk! The acting, first of all, is ridiculous, and let's not even begin to talk about the dialogue because it was terrible...Movies are supposed to be entertaining, and this, let me be the first to say, was *not* entertainment. I was actually laughing because I was so embarrassed watching it. The music and dancing didn't do anything for me as well. And what's with the Channing Tatum \"hotness\" that all the girls talk about? Whatever. The movie was pathetic. Don't waste your time - or your money. Unless you're a dancing movie freak, but movies like that are *not* movies...they're jokes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just saw this movie. I liked the soundtrack.I saw first the trailer and was magnificent, like all Hollywood movies, they know how to sell.But the movie is almost awful, first 30 minutes are interesting, but then.... like almost all new movies they blow it up. I don't get the idea, why that kid died??Is a clich\u00e9, every nigga' movie must have a kid to be killed, and everybody must become good after his death.LOL.I don't understand what is the connection with the movie... And is so predictable, you know the end from the very first minutes.Nothing new in this movie. I saw 'You got served' same idea but also... something new... this is something like 'Honey', but is not a little bit difference between them.If you have no other option watch this movie, but be sure is the last option you take. And the choreography is worst than everything before. This is NOT a must see for sure...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is probably the only film I've seen where the IMDb reviews on both sides of the spectrum are 100% accurate. \"The Stupids\" is an atrocious, dim-witted film with absolutely no artistic merit whatsoever, and is a denigration to a director like John Landis. And that's what makes it great.

In order to appreciate \"The Stupids\", you have to keep in mind a little-known, but very true maxim spoken by director Abo Kyrou: \"I urge you to learn to look at bad films, they are so often sublime.\" In order for any film to work, the film must establish and follow it's own logic, and if it does so convincingly and sincerely, then it's actually possible for the film to work. For example, when you watch \"Freddy Got Fingered\" as a traditional gross-out comedy, it's complete and utter garbage; when you watch it with the understanding that it's actually a neo-surrealist comedy, it's brilliant.

It works with good movies too. If \"Jaws\" hadn't accepted the reality it created, the air-tank explosion ending wouldn't have worked. But, a lot of people think \"Jaws\" is vastly overrated for this type of reason, and they aren't wrong. But it has it's strengths, doesn't it? The point being that a movie like this makes sense if you look at it with the right perspective. Some people, like me, get it right away, while others never will no matter how often it's explained. Jim Jarmusch made a compelling defense of \"Showgirls\" once, and even afterwards I still can't see it from his P.O.V. Doesn't mean he's wrong though. If you have the right frame of mind when you watch this movie (and NO I DO NOT MEAN STONED, I'm gonna put that to bed right now), you can actually enjoy the movie for the dumb, cheap, pointless slapstick late-80s\/early-90s-style farce that it is.

The defenders and haters of this film are right: It's STUPID, and that's the point. The movie accepts the stupidity of the characters much in the same way \"The Jerk\" accepted Navin Johnson's idiocy. And because it takes that and runs with it, the movie focuses exclusively on using that to forward the plot and to define the characters. A \"bad\" movie would actually do this and fail to use that logic properly; bad movie are bad because they make it up as they go along, whereas movies like \"The Stupids\" knows where it's going, what it's doing and why from the beginning.

I can't defend the film from an artistic standpoint, which is why I give it such a low rating. The acting is mostly bad, the jokes very superficial, and the live-action quality probably ruins what would have worked as a cartoon. But I can't deny that it IS entertaining in its own way, and that's why I defend it. I got it right away, and I pity those who don't.

I'll admit I was drawn to this movie because of Christopher Lee's delicious cameo appearance (hearing him say \"Release the drive bee!\" would have been worth the rental price even if I hated this film), but was amazed to find that, aside from the TV Studio Applause Sign segment with Jenny McCarthy, I was never bored, and never disappointed. In fact, many of the jokes, because of their cartoonish context, were hilarious (in particular the airbag-cigarette explosion). They were dumb, but they were funny. And the movie doesn't pretend to be anything else: a STUPID comedy about STUPID characters and instead of apologizing for it, it enjoys itself.

And that's exactly why it works.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is beyond a shadow of a doubt the absolute worst movie I have ever seen. It's been a long time since I've seen it, but the jokes are NOT funny, the plot is painfully forseeable, calling the main characters stupid is to vastly upgrade their intelligence...uggh! I just wanted to punch Tom Arnold and make him cry because he wasted two hours of my life when I was done watching this piece of cinematic filth. I don't even know why I ever wanted to watch it, but remember if you see this movie: DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU.

PS Tom Arnold's character sings a song in this movie called \"I'm My Own Grandfather.\" Nuff said.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Would it be too trite of me to create a review of just me saying the word \"STUPID\" over and over again? Probably.

This is arguably the worst movie I've ever seen. Seriously. There are better movies on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I saw this movie for the first time at a friend's birthday party when it was still in theaters. Even though it was actually *with friends* and at one of their *birthday parties,* I had to leave. I actually had to leave. I just excused myself and walked out. Fortunately, some of the parents were doing the same thing, so I didn't look like a total jerk... Anyway, this film is awful. There is nothing to like about it. It's painfully (as in actually causing physical pain) slow, and sickeningly (literally does induce vomiting) unfunny. You almost feel sorry for Tom Arnold, but then you don't because you remember he was actually IN the movie. It really does pain me to even THINK about it.

It was on TV a few months ago, and I decided I had to watch it all the way through, just once. I remembered then why I walked out in the first place, and felt guilty for boosting its ratings by even one viewer. The gags aren't funny, the characters arn't interesting. it's just a senseless mess of pratfalls and stupidity.

There is a small crowd of then-eight-year-old kids who watched the movie when it came out and considered it \"brilliant.\" If you think that having your face removed piece by pece with an ice cream scoop is brilliant, then by all means, go rent it. But if you have any dignity whatsoever avoid this big STUPID mess altogether. SCORE: 0\/10 ... maybe a negative 1, actually.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was chosen, quite frankly as a pig in a poke from our local Video store. It turned out to be quite a pig. The plot line-such as it is-was disjointed, inconsistent and predictable. The actors constantly looked embarrassed to be mouthing the poorly written lines. The only funny moment in the entire film revolved around the dangers of smoking and the inadvertant deployment of an airbag. The remainder of the film lacked the punch to amuse either of my young daughters (aged less than ten years), myself, my wife, my mother-in-law, or even the cat or the dog. My advice, if you are tempted to borrow this turkey, is to save your money and your time. Look for something else...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't care what anyone else says, this movie is the worst piece of trash committed on film. What was John Landis thinking?

I know it's based on a series of children's books, but c'mon! Even kids hate this movie. It's pointless and boring. Tom Arnold once again amply demonstrates that his only talent is wasting production money.

I think the only reason The Stupids hasn't appeared on the 100 worst films of all time is that only 20 or so people will admit to watching this garbage. At least Hobgoblins made it on MST3K.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I couldn't even sit through the whole thing! This movie was a piece of crap! I had more fun watching \"Dont' Tell Mom The Babysitter's Dead\"! It was just too painful to watch. Say, besides \"Austin Powers\", has Tom Arnold ever been in a hit movie?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I vaguely remember this film. I do remember it for the one solid reason that it is the only film that I have ever walked out on!! and since then I have never seen it available to rent ANYWHERE!! I can't spoil it for anyone cos I can barely remember it!! To think, looking at the cast, it seemed a winner, with John Landis directing, but good god, they must have been paid a whole lot for this drivel!! All I can seem to recall is that the dad goes missing and the family try to search for him, by trying to put an actual photograph into the disc drive of a computer. I walked out after about half an hour of this. I must confess though, I'd love to see if I can get a copy, just to see if it really was that bad!!

It wouldn't surprise me if this was on every actor's black list! I mean Christopher Lee was in this?? The legend of all bad guys, who'd been in Star Wars and Lord of the Rings?? As I said - black listed movie, The Stupids!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How this character ever got hired by the post office is far beyond me. The test that postal workers take is so difficult. There is no way that a guy this stupid can work at the post office. Everyone in this movie is just stupid and that is probably the point of the movie. How they could go their entire lives and not see an elevator is also puzzling. I didn't take this movie too seriously but it was so stupid. Then he tries to start the car without his keys? Lots of horrible scenes and horrible acting and this movie is not funny at all. It's just a sad stupid mess. I liked the moms dress though.

Send it back to sender as soon as possible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stanley Stupid (Tom Arnold) and his wife, Joan, like to sleep in bed with their heads under the covers and their feet on the pillows. They have two equally challenged children, Buster and Petunia. One day, Mr. Stupid notices their garbage is gone again....there must be someone stealing it from the curb. He goes off in roller blades after the garbage truck. When he finally gets to the dump, he is startled to learn not only that \"other folks garbage\" has been stolen, too, but that there is a secret organization meeting at the landfill. He is determined to defeat the garbage nappers of the world, it seems. Meanwhile, Petunia and Buster visit the police station and a Chinese restaurant in search of their parents, for Joan comes up missing, too. Will they bumble their way through their problems? This is just a stupid, stupid movie, with the culprit being the terrible script. The books by Allard and Marshall are hysterical and only a couple of situations from the books ends up in this film. Arnold is actually quite nice as Mr. Stupid and the other cast members try very, very hard to make the film work. The production values are very high, with the dog and cat belonging to the Stupids adding a little oomph to the film. But, it is all for naught, as the plot is wandering and weak. Perhaps, someday, someone will take another stab at translating the very funny Allard books to the big screen. Therefore, if you love to laugh, rent something else while you await a new production and, by all means, go get the books, too. But, stay away from being stupid yourself, as anyone who watches this movie to the end could hardly be called intelligent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a stupid movie. When I saw it in a movie theater more than half the audience left before it was half over. I stayed to the bitter end. To show fortitude? I caught it again on television and it was much funnier. Still by no means a classic, or even consistently hilarious but the family kinda grew on me. I love Jessica Lundy anyway. If you've nothing better to do and it's free on t.v. you could do worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most of you out there really disliked this movie... you were right. A small minority of you really loved the movie... can't say you' re wrong. For me, this movie was too stupid. I have seen many dumb, silly comedies but this one surpasses every one of them. As I was watching I couldn't stop rubbing my eyes, not believing what I was seeing and trying to decide if I should laugh or cry, as *REALLY STUPID* stuff were going on on the screen, and people were leaving the theater.

According to the leading characters, time travel is accomplished, just enter any museum and you will actually travel to the past. Plus, if you are seeking an after death experience, just go to the nearest planetarium, there you shall meet Lord - sorry, Loydd and be given important commands... All te above doesn' t really make sense, right? Well, go ahead, watch the movie (I almost never regret the movies I watch), you probably won't like it, but you will be intrigued by the writer's ability in producing the ultimately STUPID script...

I' m giving it a 3 out of 10, not good, far from being the worse...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Perhaps it's just me, but this movie seemed more like sequel or follow-up than the separate project. Why? When it was filmed (just few years after the war) most of the viewers probably knew why Rommel was so famous, why his death was so important to Allied, why he was Hitler's favorite general, but now, 50 years later, it isn't so obvious anymore.

\"Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel\" is a decent war movie, but it's just isn't in any way explained how Rommel did get his nickname, what was he doing that Allied considered him as their best general, why their soldiers were so afraid of Afrika Korps? That's what is missing in this movie - we see his fame, his character, his way to treat soldiers and enemies, but f.e. we also see that Hitler was complaining about his achievements in Africa, calling him coward, etc. So, we're missing the big picture here - it is \"The Story of Rommel\", but unfortunately the \"Desert Fox\" part is missing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For me this movie was a disappointment. Somehow I expected that it would explain the reason for General Rommel's popularity and his success as a military strategist in WW II. But there is none of that, it deals with the last year or two of his life and tries, in a way, to whitewash him. So I just have to suppose that Rommel was primarily an amoral and apolitical technocrat in the conquering and killing business, without any particular charm or notoriety in behaviour. Such real life people just do not make good movie material. I almost feel sorry for James Mason, really one of my favorite actors, who had to impersonate a pretty wooden character. Actually, a good director and a lot of great acting talent was wasted on this movie \u0096 with the exception of Luther Adler who gives a really memorable and weirdly naturalistic portrayal of Adolf Hitler.

There might also be a cultural problem for people like me who are part of the German speaking world. Famous British actors impersonating Germans are just not credible. Rommel, for example, is perceived here not just as a German but as a typical \u0084Southerner\" from Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg. You immediately think of a certain dialect, a certain kind of wit, a certain way of seeing the world (the total opposite of eg a Prussian \u0084junker\"). I also think that there are now mixed feelings about the assassination attempt of July 20th, many of those who were in on the conspiracy were not democrats and just wanted the German troops to join the Western Allies against the advancing Bolsheviks (thus prolonging the war forever).

The best movie portrayal of an intellectual, intelligent military mind is in my opinion still Patton (1970). Incidentally, General Patton can be glimpsed for a short moment in the ample documentary footing used for this movie, a low angle shot while he is inspecting passing vehicles. The open holster and the revolver with the mother of pearl grips are clearly visible!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite the fact that he worked for the worst government of the 20th century, Erwin Rommel is generally well-regarded by historians and World War II buffs as a gentleman, a soldier's soldier, and a brilliant tactician in the field of mechanized warfare. If only Hitler had given him the troops and materiel he had desired in Africa, the argument goes, things would have gone very differently. And that's probably true. Rommel was, in fact, a military genius, and by all accounts an upstanding, honest man.

But this film goes out of its way to portray him as a near-saint. He does his job, trying to win the war for Hitler, but constantly the Fuhrer interferes and gives him ridiculous orders, which Rommel (James Mason) expresses amazement with but rarely actually questions and never, ever disobeys. Only when it's patently obvious that Hitler is leading Germany to ruin does Rommel think of treason against him; this dilemma plays out as the main theme of the film, a good man in bad circumstances trying to do the right thing.

Mason is fine as Rommel, but it's hardly a memorable performance along the lines of, say, George C. Scott as Patton. Of course, Rommel wasn't as colorful as Patton, but this film is so intent on making him look like a decent human being that it forgets to make him interesting. He occasionally lapses into some warmth when with his wife Lucie (a young Jessica Tandy, well-cast), but usually Mason is called upon to give a stiff British performance \u0096 as if the Brits were trying to claim Rommel for themselves (though in all fairness all the Nazis have English accents except Hitler).

Done on the cheap, with any battle scenes swiping stock footage, and the beaches of southern California doubling for Tunisia, there's nothing to particularly recommend this film. A remake could be interesting (I'd pick Ed Harris only because of a slight physical resemblance and, well, Harris can act) were it spiced up a little, but this movie mostly demonstrated to me how much more demanding we as viewers have become in the last fifty years; a biography this bland would never cut it any more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hoped to learn something from this movie, but I was disappointed. It is all about Rommel and lauds him as a great general, but at no time in this entire movie did we ever get an idea of why he was great. What made him so successful? Was it his drive, his unwillingness to accept defeat, his discipline with his men? I was looking for a Patton-like rendition that really gets into the character, but this fell way flat. Most of the dialog is contrived and sensationalized, and feels stale and artificial. There is some good action here and there, but not much. The tail end of the story, which discusses his involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler, was the most informative part and probably the most interesting. But as a history lesson on Germany's greatest general, this was a failure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh boy. Films like this really bother me. If this movie is supposed to close to truth, then I assume that Rommel knew Hitler for a time before WWII started. In the movie, Rommel mentions how Hitler had changed from before. Well I can't imagine that Rommel wouldn't have known something about Hitler's government policies so Rommel must share some guilt for the German atrocities. With that in mind, I have a problem with a movie that makes Rommel's life at the end a tragic one. He made his choices and we have to feel bad for him? I can't do it. I also can't buy the theory that if the more competent generals were allowed to fight the war, the allies would have had more trouble winning it. If more competent people were in charge, WWII may never have started in the first place. From a movie watching aspect, the film jumps from place to place and most of the time seems like a history special with big name actors playing the historical roles. Leo G. Carroll has a couple of good scenes with James Mason and I liked the fact that everyone spoke English without the ridiculous accents. But other than that not very essential.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Basic summary: Ipswitch used to be a community of witches and escaped the Salem witch hunts by forming a covenant of secrecy. The first born males descended from these families have supernatural powers, and must come to terms with the seductive, addictive nature of using those powers.

Well, I usually give movies the benefit of the doubt and start from a 5, going from there:

Production: -1 for very obvious audio out of sync, +1 for nicely done special effects, the darkling actually gave me chills, +0.5 for nice colorization (I like the dull blue), -0.5 for the stupid sound track, +0.5 for the opening sequence -- I'm a sucker for stylish compositing and flashy title design.

Story \/ Script: +1 for decent main idea, -0.5 for DBZ\/Matrix\/Street Fighter ripoff\/pastiche, -1 for not explaining some plot threads very well (spiders, darkling), -1 for boring, predictable ending, -1 for gratuitous exposition, both as words on the screen and as bland monologuing

Acting \/ Characterization: -0.5 for bad bad acting, although it gets a little better as the film progresses, -1 for lack of character development, especially among all the females

Other: +1 for gratuitous male and female nudity, which is fun to watch, and +0.5 for no sex scenes, which for this genre are usually done very badly and end up being boring rather than hot, +1 for hitting its target audience, teenage sci-fi\/horror\/thriller fans, even though this movie is not exclusively any of those genres.

Conclusion: This is not a \"film,\" this is a MOVIE. There's really nothing to analyze, it's just good, (relatively) clean fun. Lots of really attractive actors and actresses. Lots of boys fighting in the style of DBZ and Street Fighter. If you like cute actors and actresses, supernatural special effects, and\/or mindlessly fun plots, this movie is for you. If you prefer Oscar-worthy, exquisitely-produced film masterpieces with tons of multi-layered, allegorical plot threads and groundbreaking visualization techniques, you probably won't like this film.

Using my twisted logic, this movie gets a 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It seems whenever a mainstream film company wants to make a movies for teens it concentrates on only one thing: sex. Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude but the fact that these people seem to think getting my rocks off is all I'm interested in is highly offensive. Take The Convenant, a film that relies so heavily on you finding the main characters attractive it thinks it can get away without a plot and\/or a script that wasn't written by a six year old. This is essentially The Craft with (supposedly) hot guys. And, yeah, that's it. It bored me to tears. Even my friend, who usually laps us crap films, hated it. It is really stunningly bad, to the extent where it can actually be funny. I would have laughed if it wasn't for the fact that several other females in cinema attendance seemed to be enjoying it. They were accompanied by several shifty looking guys who positively curled up and died when the (really clich\u00e9) boy on boy kiss happened towards the end. Watching them squirm really was the highlight of the film. I don't think mainstream, Hollywood cinema will ever put out good films for teenagers (or, indeed, for anyone) so I think I'll give up. Unless you're a teen who likes The Pussycat Dolls, thinks Paris Hilton is \"hot\" and watches MTV it's like some sort of wasteland. Life's hard when you're a fifteen year old who likes art house. :( P.S. Someone should have told the Director that not all teenage girls find would be boy band members \"totally HAWT LOL!!!111!!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"let me say first off I didn't go in expecting much, and watching it at prime-time on opening night should have helped. I believe it would have, had there been more than 20 people in the theater.

It sucked so hard. the acting was robotic at best and nothing was really explained until the last 30 minutes of the movie. I guess that was their way of twisting the plot; keep everyone in the dark on crucial info to understand the movies direction until the end and THEN explain things and hope it feels like a twist of plot.

Unknowns until the end of the movie: -What the Eff is a dark-ling? the CG was cool but I want to understand! -why cant powers be willed? especially if mass murder is the ultimatum. -why is willing away powers so bad? your just normal after, right? -who farted?

roughly 50% of the minutes with just men on screen, were shots of them in wife beaters, sleeveless t's and then a gut wrenching pool scene of all teenage men in the skimpiest low riding speedos knowing to ever have been manufactured. I swear you could see the start of the one guys.... well, it was close to soft-core. And of course there was a shower scene, and to mix it up it was of the DUDES. Butt cracks were abundant, a sausage fest in progress. But there was a single girl shower scene in which nothing was seen and she ambles around the best looking dorm bathroom for around 12 minutes. Then there was a girl talk PJ party. the other thing I couldn't get over was the amount of driving that Caleb did in his SUPER COOL ford mustang GT. it was a ford commercial for around 1\/4th of the movie.

Don't see it. or go see it with a friend who likes to make fun of bad movies. then it could be worth it. but don't expect anything breathtaking.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I saw on the voting panel that some people had given this film a score of 10 I assumed they were unaware that the score wasn't out of 100. This is a disaster movie in the real meaning of that term. Poorly written and weakly directed with so-called actors unable to act, but able to grimace when ordered to. For the first 60 minutes the story appears to be going in one direction, then it changes tack and gets involved in a power fight, with extremely poor special effects. Unable to work out an intelligent way for the hero with limited powers to beat the villain with super powers, the \"writer\" cheats. It is obvious that the father was added to the so-called story-line because it was easier than working out an acceptable denouement. Not that the write would even know the word \"denouement.\" Some movies go directly to DVD. This one should have gone directly to the dustbin.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow! I just don't even know where to begin with what made this movie so awful. Maybe I should start by just saying that during a \"heated confrontation\" between the antagonist and protagonist, I had to leave the theater because I was laughing so hard. Yeah. The acting really was that bad. The acting was not even the worst part though. The plot was almost entirely shown in the previews. The characters are all grossly underdeveloped. The dialogue and \"dramatic moments\" are ridiculous. The bad guy is a caricature of an out of control, power drunk, sadist.

But hey the actors are pretty, so guess that was supposed to make it all better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"No one really knows how the Power came to be. Not even the Book of Damnation recorded its beginning, but those who mastered it have always been hunted\u0085 The families of Ipswich formed a Covenant of Silence\u0085 bla bla bla\" After this intro, we suddenly see Take That. Or was it N'Synch? The Backstreet Boys, perhaps? Well, I don't know which of these they belong to, but one thing's for sure: the descendants of Salem are a boy-band. Can you tell them apart? I couldn't. If you can tell me which is which, I'd very much appreciate it. These boy-band boys looks so damn alike\u0085! Seriously now. Is this a horror movie or a film for teenie-boppers? It's sad that the (anyway weak) horror genre has been kidnapped by teens. And this is one of the teeniest I've seen so far. The movie is visually solid, but the cast is so bland, the acting so awful, that it was a trial finishing the movie. As bad as the cast was (after all, boy-bands and fashion models are rarely good actors) the absolute \"stand-out\" in this regard was the guy playing the villain, Sebastian Stan. This guy's overacting is right up there with the worst in the history of film. I have rarely seen someone make such annoying and silly grimaces in such a short space of time. What's worse, he has the most baby-face of all the boy-band baby-faces in the entire cast. I mean, it's a joke.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"210 minute version (extremely hardcore, or so I hear) or the R-rated version released into theaters? Both are terribly awful, of course. Peter O'Toole and Malcolm McDowell have both claimed they wish they had never made this film (the latter of the two men reported this in an IMDb interview!), and I can see why. Nothing but a nonsensical mess of softcore porn and a half-hearted attempt at a plot.

Not much of anything here, other than cheap tricks and stupid scenes. I liked what McDowell himself said about the film: \"It was like one moment I'd be staring, admiring my mule or something, and the next scene would be two lesbians going at it.\"

How true.

What an awful movie.

1\/5 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a semi-film buff, I had heard of this infamous movie a long time ago. I had heard that it was basically a 15 million dollar film about the tyrannical rule of the Roman emperor Caligula, complete with hard-core pornography. What struck me was that it was a porno movie yet it had great thespians like Peter O'Toole, John Geilgud, Malcolm McDowell and Hellen Mirren in it!!?? A week ago I saw a documentary about Caligula on the History channel and this film came back into my head and finally my curiousity got the best of me, I foolishly rented the DVD and even more foolishly watched it.

Within the first 30 minutes I was seeing acts of sex and especially violence that would earn an NC-17 even by todays standards. Was it really necessary to have a scene of a man having his urinary track closed and then have gallons of wine poured into him and then have his stomach cut with a sword (all in very graphic detail). And a scene where a guy gets his d*** cut off and fed to dogs (again in very graphic detail)....and this just scratches the surface. The argument for this movie from those who like it seems that it is the only film that honestly portrays pagan Rome and it's excesses. When in fact what this movie really is, is sheer exploitation. From beginning to end you see nothing but endless torture, and decapitations and every kind of violence and crude behavior imaginable (sadomasochism, rape, necrophelia, it just never stopped). There is no insight into Caligula himself, what might have propelled him to go mad, the horrible childhood he had that molded him into a sadist as an adult. This is not a historic film, it is sleaze. Even the porn in this movie stinks, and through much of this when I wasn't gagging I was just incredibly bored. By the time it was over I was depressed, didn't feel much like eating and this movie does the impossible, it actually can turn you off of sex.

What were these great actors thinking when they got into this. I did read that the porn segments were filmed after the principal shooting was completed (which explains why none of the main actors are in any of these scenes and why the quality of these scenes is so poor). But still and all these actors must have known what they were getting into. Right at the opening credits it says \"Penthouse Magazine and Bob Gucionne Presents\". And the scenes that the famous actors actually take part in are completely repulsive in and of themselves. Apparently director Tinto Brass wanted his name removed from the completed film entirely, as did the screenwriter (Gore Vidal of all people). Even John Geilgud and Peter O'toole were begging people not to see this when it opened at the Cannes film festival.

For the amount of money the producers spent on this, the movie's quality is terrible. Everything is underlit and murky as if the film was dropped in a swamp prior to being developed, and that's when you're lucky enough to view a scene that's actually in-focus. The sound is poorly dubbed, much of the music is awkward and the editing is god awful.

Anyway, I brought this movie on myself. My advice...don't watch this, don't watch this, don't watch this......as for myself tomorrow night I am going to watch something lighter....like DAWN OF THE DEAD!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Who really wants to see that? Disgusting violence, disgusting sex, for such a long time. I do not want to, but I always stayed true to my philosophy to watch any movie as bad as it may be. This was the hardest (right after \"Next Friday\").

It's basically just crap. How can you possibly call it anything else? The story of a Roman emperor as an excuse for gore and T&A. Yeah, yeah, \"Hey, it's realistic, they have been like this.\" Fine, but why bother us with it? I don't care if it has been like this (and there are a lot of scenes where I truly doubt it). The point is, why should anyone wanna see it? Problem is, there is only one reason you could like the film and that would be that you like violence. There's nothing special about it, just cruelty. You can say \"Cool!\" as you'd say in splatter-slasher-movie. But horror movies with violence at least can give you chills and excitement, maybe characters you care about. But here everything is dark, dull and boring. Every character is mad. \"The story of an emperor who can't deal with his power\". What? In the very first scene he runs naked through the woods with his sister! I have no problem saying that we saw a madman for 2 1\/2 hours.

But maybe you get turned on by seeing Helen Mirren, being pregnant and dancing. Or 5 minutes of hardcore scenes that some people see as the message of the movie. Or castration, yeah right, that was fun! Real birth scenes, how hilarious! Humans, animals, who cares, let's just treat them as toys.

I don't care what anyone says, this is no movie, this is just 2 1\/2 hours of blood and sex, degrading and disgusting. Go watch a porn movie if you want sex or watch a horror flick if you want violence. At least those movies don't pretend to be some artistic masterpiece. And they are shorter.

[0\/10] [6 (1+ - 6-)] [0\/4]","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Probably not the same version as most of the other reviewers because there`s no real hard core sex . What do people mean by hard core sex ? The sort of explicit hard core sex seen in films starring Traci Lords and \" Big \" John Holmes ? Well anyway this is really poor film , I doubt if I`ve ever seen so many big name actors wasted in a film . The script is really poor and plotless , the directing and cinematography is awful and the editing is non existant . It truly is an absolutely awful film. You could watch this ten times and still not understand what the hell it`s about . The only memorable scene is the one where people are buried up to their necks and a giant lawnmower comes along and decapitates them . Yes you read that right , a film set in Roman times has a scene with a head chopping giant lawnmower !

Trivia point. Many years ago a pirate copy of THE THING ( 1982 version ) was doing the rental rounds on my Island and it been copied onto a rental tape of CALIGULA meaning the pirate version of THE THING starts with the first few seconds of CALIGULA of the man and woman walking through the forest then the title sequence of THE THING starts . This led people who`d seen the pirate tape to believe the forest scene was the opening of John Carpenter`s 1982 film and were very confused as to what it meant. Well that`s what you get for renting pirate videos . But having seen the whole of CALIGULA I don`t know what it meant either","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Caligula\" shares many of the same attributes as the 1970 \"Fellini Satyricon\" with bizarre sights, freakishness, and depictions of sexual excesses all set in the \"glory\" of ancient Rome. But Fellini it ain't... First of all it is not as entertaining. Far too much screen time is devoted to bug-eyed, rubber-faced McDowell in the titular role. His performance is far too fey and campy to be convincing. The portrayals by Jay Robinson in \"The Robe\" (1953) and David Cain-Haughton in \"Emperor Caligula\" (1983) are far more persuasive and believable, with the latter being the most nuanced. Relief could have been judiciously provided by developing the surrounding characters more fully. As it is, they are little more than cyphers. One example is the role of Macro, played by Guido Mannari who has tremendous screen presence in an important role, but is mostly left in the background. The only positive features to credit are the adroit use of some Prokofiev and Stravinsky themes in the music score and the inclusion of some of the distasteful but nevertheless accurate actions of the despot. These two factors are far less than what is needed to relieve the prevailing tedium, however.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rated this movie a 3 and that was generous. The scenery is ponderous and gaudy, the acting for the most part is terrible. I do think Peter O'Toole did a good job of acting (Tiberius), but he must have been mortified when he saw the final cut of the movie. John Gielgud, howsoever brief his appearance in the movie, still seemed to be playing a role from Hamlet. The hard core pornography parts were neither erotic nor did they do much to further the story. Okay Malcolm McDowell had a nice butt and the guy who played Macro was handsome. The guy who played Claudius, looked more like the traditional depictions of Nero and was certainly at odds with Robert Graves' picture of Claudius. The climactic (?) assassination of Caligula, wife and child is inaccurate in that it shows him after death lying on stairs in an open-air area, when in fact he was assassinated in the underground passage on the palatine hill which ran along the front of the Domus Flaviana that still exists today. There are places in this movie where virtually anything drew my attention away from it--merciful distractions. If you want history, read Suetonius or Tacitus, if you want pornography and sadism, watch Passolini's \"Salo\", but by all means stay away from this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm almost embarrassed to admit to seeing CALIGULA twice. The problems with the production are almost too numerous to mention. The script is sub-standard (it's easy to see why Vidal tried to disown it). The direction is worse. Most of the movie consists of long shots inter cut with close-ups interspersed with cross cuts of mostly un-erotic porn (more prevalent obviously in the \"uncut\" version). The cinematography is especially sub par, giving the whole production a cheap washed-out look that undermines some of the elaborate set designs. The movie should've looked a whole lot better. The overall concept of placing name actors in what would've easily been an X-rated movie (Guccione called it \"paganography\") wears thin after the first hour after Peter O'Toole and John Guilgud exit. Bob Guccione obviously lavished a lot of bucks on this but it all seems like a big waste. If you want a far better understanding of the Roman Empire in the 1st Century watch the mid-79's BBC production of I, CLAUDIUS instead... and if you want porn, jeeze-Louise, look somewhere else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Fellow Giallo-fanatics: beware and\/or proceed with caution \u0085 for this movie isn't exactly what it appears to be. It surely looks like a Giallo, with its juicy VHS cover (showing a busty naked girl and a big bloodied knife), rhythmic title and the names of two veteran Italian actors in the cast (John Phillip & Fernando Rey), but it's basically just an erotic thriller without much of a plot. The version I watched is presumably harshly censored \u0096 with a running time of barely 77 minutes \u0096 but then still there's a severe lack of suspense, character development and most of all sadistic (and typically Giallo) carnage. \"Eyes Behind the Wall\" can briefly be summarized as the gathering of a bunch of perverted characters and the extended depiction of their sexuality issues. It's an interesting effort notwithstanding, because writer\/director Giuliano Petrelli (his only film) clearly attempted to do something special, but the overall result is unsatisfying and regrettably tame. Inspired by Hitchcock's \"Rear Window\", the main character is a frustrated elderly and wheelchair-bound writer. He and his much younger lover get their sexual kicks from spying on the single male tenant living across the road. The tenant, respectively, likes to perform gym exercises around the house whilst being naked and clearly has bisexual desires. Wheelchair guy sends his wife over and they have sex. Then, there's also Ottavio the butler who repeatedly rapes schoolgirls. Are there any normal characters in the story? Well no, of course not! The film benefices from a continuously ominous atmosphere, with a moody soundtrack and nifty photography, but none of it ever leads anywhere so it's all just sleaze & sex without significance. There's a truly bizarre twist\/revelation at the end of the story, but it comes too late and too randomly to boost up the overall quality. Not recommended to fans of Italian horror\/cult cinema, but maybe it is great viewing for psychology students, to analyze the characters Freud-style.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was expecting \"Born to Kill\" to be an exciting, high-tension film noir. Instead, it's got two good action set-pieces (one at the beginning and one at the end) and some marvelously atmospheric cinematography by Robert de Grasse (usually a \"glamor\" cameraman and a surprising credit for a noir), but the rest of the film is pretty boring. Lawrence Tierney goes through his psycho kick but it's a strictly by-the-numbers performance, mechanically churning out what the audience expected from him after \"Dillinger\" (an overrated movie but at least better than this). Claire Trevor's character is too stupid and unmotivated to have any audience appeal, and the action (such as it is) stays so resolutely inside that damned house in San Francisco the film becomes claustrophobic instead of genuinely thrilling. It's one of those movies in which the supporting players -- notably Elisha Cook, Jr. (whose character's homoerotic itch for Tierney's is one of the few subtleties in an otherwise pretty obvious script) and Isabel Jewell -- out-act the leads. It also doesn't help that, nearly half a century after Alfred Hitchcock and Anthony Perkins revolutionized the depiction of psycho killers on the screen in \"Psycho,\" Tierney's is so gross and obvious he might as well have \"PSYCHO\" tattooed on his forehead. Also, there's no indication in the film as it stands as to why the source novel was called \"Deadlier than the Male\" -- but perhaps James Gunn made the female characters stronger and more interesting than they are in the film. \"Born to Kill\" is a real disappointment from Robert Wise, who already had some quality movies under his belt and would go on to a stellar career.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This HBO original is pretty straightforward and pretty dumb. Armand Assante, once again doing a poor Stallone imitation, is Ray Wellman a ex-con just out on parole. All he wants is his old girlfriend Lacy, played by a young Marcia Gay Harden, back. Unfortunately for Ray, Lacy has hooked up with stalwart Elliot, played by Sam Neill. Further complicating matters is that Ray's old Cell buddies want some favors and they kidnap Lacy to make sure they happen. Ray and Elliot team up, despite mutual dislike.

What follows is violent and slow, but Marcia Gay Harden shows us why she would win Oscar in the future, she's not as polished here, but her raw emotion, sincerity and some rather explicit nude scenes almost make this worth watching. Almost.

Rent \"Fever\" (no the title doesn't fit the film) if your a fan of hers, otherwise skip it and be grateful it's stars went on to better things.

Note-this is a hard \"R\" flick for language, violence and nudity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking forward to watching this film and was therefore extremely disappointed when I found it to be complete and utter rubbish. Akerman's direction is both heavy handed and cliched (how much more cliched can you get than Paris at night?). The male cast seems to have been chosen entirely for their resemberlance to Egon Schiele's angst ridden self portraits. Yet the themes of jealousy and betrayal which should have been the primary focus of a film of this type are left virtually unexplored. What is left is a turgid melodrama which takes an age to get started and even longer to finish. The only advantage with this sort of film is that it makes you realise how good Goddard and Truffaut really are.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is about a woman falling in love with a friend of her boyfriend. From then on, she has to divide her time for the two boyfriends: Jack during the day and Joseph during the night.

This film feels like as if it was made with minimum budget. The majority of the film is set in a flat with minimal furniture. There are only three main actors, all the other actors listed in the credits make only momentary appearances. The wardrobe designer doesn't seem to have much to do, as the actors wear very down to earth clothes, and actually most of the time they are naked anyway.

The film is very dialog heavy, which should have made up for the shortcomings described above. However, the dialogs sound too composed and awkward. In the beginning of the film, most of the dialog is a person saying a very long sentence, and then the person says 'Me too'. After the frenzy of agreement, the dialog descends into a mess of disjointed and confused word salad.

The only merit of this film I can think of is that it serves as a feminist outlet which conveys that it is not just men who can be unfaithful.

This film is a great disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the most boring movies I've ever seen. Three immature young people have sex and talk about very little except their \"love\" of each other. They don't seem to be interested in much but each other, and only passively so. I was left feeling shut out. Most of the exterior scenes take place at night, so one can't even enjoy well-lit sights of Paris! I gave up after an hour and ten minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Strikes me as routine, as far as TV movies go. I can believe that it's based on a true story because the plot seems too clumsy to have been written by anyone with storytelling skills.

For instance, good old John Ritter (now a rather bulky and bearded villain) poisons his wife enough to make her ill, then accuses her of being psychosomatic and leaves to marry another young woman immediately. Fourteen years pass before the story picks up again. Why fourteen years? I would guess that though the narrative doesn't demand it, history does.

Some of the particular scenes, however, are so cinematically apt that they were almost certainly dreamed up by a writer. Pawing through her attic, Helgenberger, Ritter's first wife, stumbles across an old electrical appliance and has one of those black-and-white flashbacks with stings on the score -- suddenly she recalls when, fourteen years ago, she discovered Ritter shaving selenium filings from a rectifier, carefully collecting them, and putting them in her shampoo and her eyelash liner (or whatever it's called). Later it develops that he was putting it into her coffee as well.

Frankly, I don't believe it. I don't believe either that she had that particular epiphany in the attic or that Ritter put selenium shavings into her shampoo or eyeliner. Selenium is referred to in the movie as a \"toxic metal\" and I suppose it is, in sufficient quantity, but it's also an anti-oxidant that's sold over the counter in drug stores and swallowed. Someone will have to demonstrate -- as no one does in this movie -- that it is a topical poison. Many people have tried the nicotine patch and failed. So how come some selenium in her shampoo gives Marg Helgenberger immediate and drastic headaches? And her eyes become as painful as boils when she applies makeup? I think the anthropologist E. B. Tylor called this simple-minded idea \"sympathetic magic,\" but I'm not sure.

Mais je divage. Anyway Ritter evidently tries the same stunt with his second wife fourteen years later, although no evidence of trickery is ever produced when she becomes ill with the same symptoms. Wife Number Two is taken to Mexico and apparently cured but suddenly drops dead shortly after her return. Circumstantial evidence piles up against Ritter, who plays the villain with all the stops out -- when his first trial is dismissed he SMIRKS at Helgenberger, who has prompted the investigation.

You see, Helgenberger was good friends with Ritter's second wife and was terribly disturbed at her demise and its manner. (I'll bet.) And she wants to prevent the same thing from happening to the wealthy young woman who seems lined up for third place in Ritter's marital schedule. (Sure.) The best performance is given by the guy who plays Detective Mauser -- Lawrence Dane? Everyone else acts by the numbers. They project emotions and thoughts with the subtlety of a warning at a railroad crossing. But Dane does little things that are original. \"I'm told you want to report a murder. (Long pause while he sits down and waits), then abruptly thrusts his face towards Helgeberger and inquires in a reasonable and curious voice, \"So who was murdered\"? I suppose except for the bare bones of the historical events, nothing prevented characters or their actions from being drawn differently than they were in real life. I mean, what the heck, Ritter is still in jail convicted of murder and Helgenberger's character is dead, so who is to object? I wish the forensic stuff had been made clearer. Ritter seems to have used so many poisons and toxic metals -- let me see, selenium, cyanide, a massive dose of chlorine, and maybe something else -- that I was confused by it all. Not that I was rooting for Ritter. Here's a mathematician with a Ph.D. who insists people call him \"doctor.\" He even corrects people who address him merely as \"professor.\" Most Ph.D.s get that narcissistic problem behind them very quickly. \"Jes' call me Whitey, even though I know how to get a standard deviation and you don't.\" Average TV fare.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, last night, August 18th, 2004, I had the distinct displeasure of meeting Mr. Van Bebble at a showing of the film The Manson Family at the Three Penny in Chicago as part of the Chicago Underground Film Festival. Here's what I have to say about it. First of all, the film is an obvious rip off of every Kenneth Anger, Roman Polanski, Oliver Stone and Terry Gilliam movie I've ever seen. Second of all, in a short Q & A session after the show Mr. Van Bebble immediately stated that he never made any contact with the actual Manson Family members or Charlie himself, calling them liars and saying he wanted nothing to do with them, that the film was based on his (Van Bebble's) take on the trial having seen it all from his living room on TV and in the news (and I'm assuming from the Autobiography and the book Helter Skelter which were directly mimicked through the narrative). So I had second dibs on questions, I asked if he was trying to present the outsider, Mtv, sex drugs and rock 'n roll version and not necessarily the true story. This question obviously pissed off the by now sloshed director who started shouting \"f*** you, shut the f*** up, this is the truth! All those other movies are bullsh**!\"

Well anyway, I didn't even think about how ridiculous this was until the next day when I read the tagline for the film, \"You've heard the laws side of the story...now hear the story as it is told by the Manson Family.\" Excuse me, if this guy has never even spoken to the family and considers them to be liars that he doesn't want to have anything to do with, how in God's name can he tell the story for them!? This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard! The film was obviously catered to the sex drugs and rock 'n roll audience that it had no trouble in attracting to the small, dimly lit theatre, and was even more obviously spawned by the sex drugs and rock 'n roll mind of a man who couldn't even watch his own film without getting up every ten minutes to go get more beer or to shout some sort of Rocky Horroresque call line to the actors on screen. This film accomplishes little more than warping the public's image of actual events (which helped shape the state of America and much of the world today) into some sort of Slasher\/Comic Book\/Porno\/Rape fantasy dreamed up by an obviously shallow individual.

The film was definitely very impressive to look at. The soundtrack was refreshing as it contained actual samples of Charlie's work with the Family off of his Lie album. The editing was nice and choppy to simulate the nauseating uncertainty of most modern music videos. All in all this film would have made a much better addition to the catalogues at Mtv than to the Underground Film Festival or for that matter the minds of any intellectual observers. I felt like I was at a midnight Rocky Horror viewing the way the audience was dressed and behaving (probably the best part of the experience). The cast was very good with the exception of Charlie who resembled some sort of stoned Dungeons and Dragons enthusiast more than the actual role he was portraying. The descriptions the film gave of him as full of energy, throwing ten things at you and being very physical about it all the while did not match at all the slow, lethargic, and chubby representation that was actually presented.

All in all the film basically explains itself as Sadie (or maybe it was Linda) declares at the end, \"You can write a bunch of bullsh** books or make a bunch of bullsh** movies...etc. etc.\" Case in point. Even the disclaimer \"Based on a True Story\" is a dead giveaway, signalling that somewhere beneath this psychedelic garbage heap lay the foundation of an actual story with content that will make and has made a difference in the world. All you have to do is a little bit of alchemy to separate the truth from the the crap, or actually, maybe you could just avoid it all together and go read a book instead.

All I can say is this, when the film ended I got a free beer so I'm glad I went, but not so glad I spent fifteen dollars on my ticket to be told to shut the f*** up for asking the director a question. Peace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only thing of interest about this movie is its subject matter. Taking a look at the Manson \"family\" from the point of view of the family members themselves is a great idea. However, trying to make sense of the uncomprehensible is something that can really only be accomplished in a masterwork -- and this ain't it.

Presumably because there was so much information to squeeze into a screenplay, this film was done in a faux documentary style, with reenactments thrown in. Trouble is, the writing and directing make it impossible to establish those things that make a movie watchable, like character, story, theme and so on.

Worse, there's an incredibly weak sub-plot thrown in that follows a little band of latter-day Mansonites as they go after a reporter who's working on a story on the anniversary of the killings. It's dumb and pointless, and a complete waste of time.

All in all, this movie is one big wasted opportunity. The one ray of sunshine is the acting of Marc Pitman, who plays Tex, who in real life did most of the actual killing. Whereas the female characters come off as giggly airheads in the 60s flashbacks, Pitman manages to convey real feeling.

In short, don't bother with this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got encouraged to watch this film because I've heard good word of it: it was supposed to be this thrilling true crime milestone, disturbing, shocking... all that jazz. Well, I am disturbed because I spent money on it, and I am shocked that something so God-awful actually got released. That's about it.

This is a supposed \"new look\" at Charles Manson's family of insane loser junkies and their murders. But if this is a \"new look\" then it's probably \"new\" as in \"fresh and totally inept\": just watching it gave me a headache and I had to give up trying to make any sense of it or even understand just what the director intended it to be.

I suppose I should say something about the plot but fact is, it was so stupid and incoherent that I barely remember if there even WAS a plot at all. There was something about a \"Manson tape\" delivered to a radio DJ (or a TV producer?), then an hour of pointless random footage of \"the family\" in '69, then the Polanski murders (looking like a bad school play) and finally some idiotic part about a bunch of skinheads getting drunk and beating the hell out of one another in an alley (I kid you not), and then it ended (thank God) (Don't ask me to make any sense of that, I'm just recalling what I saw!) The performances were terrible, too. And how difficult is it to make a convincing \"Manson\"? Get a short skinny scrawny bloke, put a dirty wig and a shaggy beard on him. There's your Manson. But this \"Manson\" doesn't even look right. He just looks like, uh, a bloke in a cheap wig and a glued on Santa beard painted black.

Or maybe that's what this film is actually about: Manson's family didn't make any sense, so this film doesn't make any sense, either. It's symbolic! (Yeah, right) I'm still so angry at spending money on this I stopped my normal lurking on this site and registered just to vote 1 for this film and post this warning that will hopefully prevent others from spending their money on this garbage. Stay away from it, it's not even worth renting.

PS. The recent US TV production \"Helter Skelter\" got bad reviews here but I saw it last month (I saw the 1976 original too) and let me tell you, compared to \"Manson Family\", that new Helter Skelter is BRILLIANT and FLAWLESS. And I was disappointed in it! That's how bad \"Manson Family\" is: it makes a flawed and mostly disappointing TV movie look perfect.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I heard legends about this \"film\" (quotes used so as not to insult films) for a while, so when I finally got the DVD with it, I impatiently started watching it. By the end, I *had* to fast forward through just a few of the most moronic, ineptly made, nonsensical scenes of this pointless childish mess to make it end quicker.

This may be the worst film I've even \"touched\" - and I used to be associated with Troma for a while. \"Manson Family\" makes the bottom of Troma's entries look like daring and groundbreaking art-house filmwork. I could go on and talk about the syphilitic skeleton of a \"plot\" it has, the revoltingly bad \"acting\", the painful, inept \"directing\", the sets and props with their \"dollar ninety nine\" look (I especially \"loved\" the plastic toy guns used in the Tate murder scene!) or the nauseating look and feel of this whole bag of garbage (I think it was supposed to represent a drug-induced hallucination; I have absolutely no idea how a drug-induced hallucination looks or feels, nor do I want to find out - but I guess drug junkies with burned out \"brains\" will love this \"film\" (they seem to be the ones who made it) I've seen many films from various \"Worst 50\" lists, traditionally opened by Eddie Wood's ones - and Eddie Wood would be appalled by the sheer ineptitude and talentless of van Webber (or whatever his name is; I certainly don't want to remember it) I've never seen \"Superbabies\" or its sequel, but I strongly wish that \"Manson\" joined them on IMDb's rating. Fortunately, this obscure garbage probably won't be seen by enough viewers to warrant it sufficiently many \"1\" votes - and so much the better!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has got to be the most god-awful piece of cinematic crap I have ever watched. It makes Mel Brooks movies Oscar-worthy by comparison. Jim VanBebber needs to be publicly slapped for trying to pass this off as ANY form of entertainment.

While some may say that this movie is true to the low budget genre of such classics as \"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre\" or \"Night of the Living Dead\", the production value is not in question. It is VanBebber's ability to cast and present a plausible story line. The casting is deplorable. For the role of Charlie he must have picked the first actor he saw with a beard and long hair. Never mind that this actor's hair came halfway down his back, (Manson's never went much past his shoulders) this actor spoke in a dreadful monotone without so much as a fraction of the personality that Steve Railsback or even Jeremy Davies lent to their portrayals of Manson. The actor chosen to play \"Tex\" Watson had curly blond hair instead of straight dark hair, a fact that anyone who has shown even the most remote interest in the Manson case knows. He looks like a Minnesota farmer on \"Little House on the Prairie\" The actress playing Susan Atkins has a butt wider than Oprah's, While those familiar with the Family members know that \"Clem\" was considered somewhat retarded, the actor portraying him did so in such a campy, Chaplinesque way it was like watching an old Vaudevile act. Instead of Sharon Tate looking like a beautiful pregnant woman, the actress looked like bloated, alcoholic trailer trash. VanBebber speeds up the filming in some places for artistic effect yet this technique hasn't proved remotely useful since \"The Munsters\". The end credits list every known family member yet we are never introduced to the majority of them and those we are introduced to we aren't sure who they are sometimes.

Facts are destroyed in this movie as well. \"Lotsapoppa\" did not die in real life, Steven Parent was shot four times, not twice, Abagail Folger did not have her throat slit, Where were Mary Brunner and Bruce Davis during the Himnan Murder? Patricia Krenwinkel never sported a \"Dorothy Hamill\" hair style.

The most baffling aspect of this movie is what the modern day \"freaks\" had to do with this movie? Why was the girl wearing a rubber mask with a dildo attached? What was their problem with the journalist? What was the meaning or purpose of the final confrontation? Why were they included, period? The viewer never knows!

Holy mackerel, I could go on and on but space prevents it. Don't try to eat popcorn during this garbage because your hand will be too busy scratching your head while you repeatedly say \"What the f---?\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A paranoid scientist creates a wolfman by transfusing wolf blood into a meek, quiet, but very large gardener, in order to prove an hypothesis. So the gardener begins nightly rampages and the scientist tries to use him to reclaim his credentials, but is rebuffed by his former colleagues for tampering with nature. Island of Dr Moreau, Frankenstein and various wolfman films all blended together into a terribly dated, goofy, morality play.

Though the subject matter is pedantic and unoriginal at best, this film is not too poorly made, and interesting to watch as a representative of horror film making of its time. Like most mad scientist films, this is a weak warning against fooling around with Mother Nature. It doesn't have the power or intellectual challenges of Frankenstein, but it doesn't ever extend its reach anyway. The acting is passable, as is the cinematography, and the film moves along at an entertaining clip. Some of the dialog is utterly ludicrous, but hey... it's just a movie - and a B minus one at that. There are also a few nice shots of a wolf, and a smattering of humor tossed-in to prevent the film from appearing to take itself too seriously - always a plus for this genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm working my way through the Horror Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and THE MAD MONSTER is one of the movies in the set.

I am sure that George Zucco was a good actor; but, this was only the second film in which I saw him, the first being DEAD MEN WALK, in which he played two parts. However, even good acting couldn't save THE MAD MONSTER.

Zucco plays a mad scientist, Dr. Cameron (who was banned from academia because of his unethical and inhumane experiments). He believes that he can control evolution by bringing out the characteristics of one animal into another.

In this case, like so many others of its ilk, it is a transfusion of (I assume) wolf's blood into humans. His goal is to create an invincible army, which he can control through the antidote. The subject of his experiments is his hired hand, a retarded gardener, whose dialogue slows down this snail-paced classic to almost a full-stop.

Beyond his experiments, Dr. Cameron also plots revenge on those who discredited him, using his transformed gardener. However, he loses control of his subject, who begins to transform without the transfusion -- yikes!

The werewolf transformations are classic Hollywood stop-action \/ makeup effects. No doubt these were groundbreaking techniques of the time; but, in today's digital age it's hard to imagine audiences being scared by this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"George Zucco was like Boris Karloff in the fact no matter how poor the film he appeared in was, he would always maintain a sense of dignity and turn in a fine performance. \"The Mad Monster\" is no exception to that rule. It is by all standards a poor (if entertaining) film. The filmmakers obviously didn't know how to make the most of their low budget and the script seems as if it was turned out in one or two days. Still, Zucco is fine and believable as the mad scientist.

The film itself is enjoyable on a camp level. Normal horror movie fans for the most part won't take a liking to PRC films. However, these \"Poverty Row\" productions have a small but loyal cult following. Occasionally they would rise above their limitations with \"Detour\" being the best example of this. Usually they looked like this. For all its technically poor qualities, \"The Mad Monster\" is an amusing enough way to kill a rainy afternoon. The DVD from Retromedia is recommended, as it pairs this with another PRC production \"The Black Raven\", the original theatrical trailer, and best of all an interview with Glenn Strange talking about his role in this movie. (4\/10)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A scientist (George Zucco) wants to create wolf men out of American soldiers to fight the Nazis, but is branded as mad. He uses a simpleton gardener (Glenn Strange) to experiment on by mixing his blood with the blood of a wolf. Strange, constantly embedding his dialogue with the tones of Lon Chaney Jr. in \"Of Mice and Men\", has no idea what's going on, only that he sleepwalks. The victims begin to pile up (including a little girl, which modern viewers might find rather disturbing, and two of Zucco's rivals). There is some good dialogue on how man should not mess with nature (still prevalent today) and play God. Zucco's motives may be honorable, but his methods are most questionable. And then there is his daughter, Anne Nagel, who is sympathetically nice to Strange, yet has no idea of her father's deeds. Johnny Downs is a reporter who gets on Zucco's bad side by questioning him, but wins Nagel's heart, thus creating the usual and always dull romantic subplot in classic horror films. At 77 minutes, this is about 15 minutes longer than usual for a horror film of the early 40's (particularly one out of PRC, who released this one), so the romantic story could have been trimmed for costs and to speed things up a bit. Zucco, fortunately, is never hammy; He left that to Bela Lugosi (who always hammed in a deliciously theatrical manner which endeared him to audiences) and England's Todd Slaughter. But try not to think of \"Bride of the Monster's\" laboratory while looking at the one Zucco works in, or some of Lugosi's dialogue in that now classic cult film. \"Mad Monster\" lacks a cult following more because it is not delightfully bad, just has dull pacing in more than a few spots. For PRC and Monogram lovers, I would recommend \"The Corpse Vanishes\" or \"Fog Island\" higher than this","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, this movie seems to have been pretty well covered by earlier comments, but there are a couple of items I wish to add. The mad scientist is producing a serum from the blood of a caged animal in order to turn a man into a werewolf. If we suspend our disbelief enough to buy into that, fine. But the animal in the cage is a coyote. That would make a werecoyote. Did audiences in 1942 not know the difference between a wolf and a coyote? They're easy to tell apart. That's weak.

Secondly, this movie was covered in the third episode of MST3k (on the Comedy Channel). It took Joel and the bots a number of episodes to get up to full riffing steam, and they weren't up there quite yet on this one. They DID add enough to this snoozer to keep you awake until the end, but it was not one of their better episodes. They never even mentioned the glaring omission of an actual wolf, and THAT joke was just hanging in the air waiting to be smacked.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, I've now seen George Zucco in at least four separate horror\/suspense films recently as I worked my way through various 50 pack collections, and I have to say, the guy had a limited range, but he was good at what he did. He wasn't Karloff, but PRC was lucky to have him.

But the poor guy was stuck in a kind of back-water ghetto of horror films, and he wasn't good enough to take them to the next level of interest....not with the thread-bare screenplays and direction and budgets he worked under. That's the case here.

This movie is, well, slow, stodgy and unexciting for the most part. The \"heroine\" seems to be doomed to be a rent-a-center version of Judy Garland, the \"hero\" is bland as white rice, and the poor guy playing the monster doesn't even get a good transformation scene out of the deal. His make up effects aren't scary at all - he looks like a slightly more shaggy version of a farm hand, is all.

It's not a total waste. Zucco looks good on camera, he chews the scenery while managing to deliver some terribly affected and contrived set speeches without flinching or losing the flow. There are some moody B&W shots here and there that don't completely suck.

So all in all...this movie helped some \"C\" through \"Z\" level actors pay their rent for another month, and it never sinks below a certain hacked out level of quality. Watch it once if you like George Zucco, or just feel the need to see every wolfman-themed movie ever made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thankfully you don't need a lot of \"book learnin\" to understand where this thing's going... Obviously a poverty row cash-in on Universal's big hit THE WOLF MAN (which was made just one year earlier), this finds the always-watchable George Zucco in another of his patented \"mad doctor\" roles as brilliant, vengeance-minded scientist Lorenzo Cameron. Cameron, who has set up shop deep in the swamp lands of what I'm presuming is the Louisiana bayou, is plotting revenge against four of his former peers who both humiliated him and forced him to resign from his previous job. You see, they scoffed at his claims of being able to mix man with beast to create an unstoppable army of wolfman creatures that would come in handy during war-time. Thankfully Cameron has found the ideal test subject for his wolf blood injections - a hulking, child-like half-wit named Petro (Glenn Strange). Petro is pretty clueless as to what's going on, doesn't ask too many question and lets the doc strap him down to a table and shoot him up with whatever happens to be in his syringe. This results in a time-lapse change of man turning into a werewolf. Cameron lets him out of the mansion using a secret passageway, so you basically get a big guy (Strange was 6'5\") dressed in overalls with a bushy beard, hairy paws and a set of over-sized plastic teeth, running around in the woods the majority of the time. After an eyewitness sees the beast and a little girl is killed, the locals grab their rifles and organize a posse to hunt it down. Dr. Cameron, who can control the beast with a whip and also has a handy antidote to reverse the effect, also drags Petro along to the big city to try to track down the professors who had made a mockery of his original theories and destroyed his reputation in the process. Also hanging around the house is Cameron's daughter Lenora (Anne Nagel), as well as Lenora's nosy reporter boyfriend Tom (Johnny Downs), whose first inclination is that they're dealing with an upright-walking prehistoric creature (!)

Though a typically chintzy PRC flick in many ways, with unimpressive sets, cinematography and make-ups, as well as a fairly bland supporting cast, it remains watchable thanks to the histrionics of star George Zucco. I have no clue why Downs received top billing; he shows up half-an-hour in and really doesn't have a whole lot to do, nor is he all that impressive doing it. This is Zucco's show all the way and he's great ranting and raving, talking to himself while fantasizing that he's talking to his peers (\"I'm not interested in your imbecilic mouthings!\") and temporarily sliding in and out of sanity. Strange seems to have patterned his performance as the hilariously naive and slow-talking semi-retarded country bumpkin around the entire oeuvre of Lon Chaney Jr., from his turn as Lenny in OF MICE AND MEN, to his performance as the aforementioned WOLF MAN. In any case, Strange and Zucco do a fairly good job playing off one another. My favorite part is when Zucco calls him his \"guinea pig\" in front of a colleague while Petro just sits there grinning and staring at a doorknob. Some of the foggy swamp scenes are pretty atmospheric, too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Dr. Cameron, a discredited scientist succeeds with his experiment in creating serum the transforms men into wolf-like creatures. Originally developing this formula to help the world, the scientist decides to use his newly created subject to exact revenge upon the scientists who were responsible for his ouster from the scientific community. The scientist's daughter Lenora grows wary of her father's actions and shares her suspicions with a newspaper reporter. When the scientist loses control of his creature, it falls upon the scientist's daughter and the reporter to stop it,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Mad scientist George Zucco (as Lorenzo Cameron) creates his formula rather unimaginatively, by mixing human and wolf blood. This brings the beast out in hulking Glenn Strange (as Petro aka Pedro), who is directed to act like Lon Chaney Jr. in \"Of Mice and Men\". Johnny Downs (as Tom Gregory) and Anna Nagel (as Lenora Cameron) are a likable werewolf hunter and damsel in distress. Certainly, \"The Mad Monster\" is no substitute for \"The Wolf Man\"; but, it's a serviceable addendum. The grainy black-and-white photography enhances the foggy, cow-webbed atmosphere. \"God\" (uncredited) strikes up a well-done ending, too. Like Blaine (Robert Strange) said, \"Mingling the blood of man and beast is downright sacrilege!\"

**** The Mad Monster (1942) Sam Newfield ~ George Zucco, Johnny Downs, Anna Nagel","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, I have to say that I am not generally a big fan of werewolf movies in general. It's not that I don't like them, just that I don't like them a lot. There are some that I have enjoyed...Werewolf of London (1935, Stuart Walker), An American Werewolf in London (1981, John Landis)...and some that I have thought were okay but nothing special...The Wolf Man (1941, George Waggner), The Howling (1981, Joe Dante), Dog Soldiers (2002, Neil Marshall) are some examples...but overall, the werewolf sub-genre is not my favorite. But I had this one on one of those 50 movie sets so I thought I'd give it a watch and see how it was.

Spoilers follow...

The Mad Monster is a werewolf tale, but the werewolf is primarily used as a vehicle for revenge by a mad scientist, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco). Dr. Cameron has discovered a way to transform human beings into beasts, specifically wolves, but was ridiculed and ostracized by the greater scientific community. Forced out of a prestigious position, he goes mad and plots revenge on those who mocked him in an old country mansion, where he lives with his daughter Lenora (the lovely Anne Nagel) and his assistant Petro (Glenn Strange) of limited mental abilities. Using his serum, Dr. Cameron transforms Petro into a werewolf and sends him off to kill his old rivals. Eventually, though, the werewolf Petro gets out of control and both the mad doctor and his creation are killed.

The movie also plays out somewhat as a murder\/crime drama, with Lenora's journalist suitor (Johnny Downs) investigating the doctor's strange behavior and the rash of murders. The story seems to borrow many elements from other big pictures that came before it. There are reminders of Frankenstein (1931, James Whale) in the creation of a monster which runs amok, and the creature killing an innocent child. Visions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931, Rouben Mamoulian or the 1941, Victor Fleming version) and The Wolf Man (1941, George Waggner) also come to mind. And that is one of the problems with this movie in my view-it comes across as a mediocre melding of some great films. It doesn't add much to the genre.

True, there are some redeeming qualities. George Zucco's performance was convincing, and the scene showing Dr. Lorenzo talking to his visions\/hallucinations of his tormentors works well for me in showing his insanity. There is some reasonable character build up, at least in the case of his character. But Glenn Strange's character is not at all convincing, and seems to have this comedic quality-whether intentional or not, I'm not sure-that just doesn't fit into the movie as a whole.

I seemed to like it more than most IMDb users based on my rating of 4\/10, but it was still a below average film. Perhaps worth a view if you are a fan of early werewolf movies or a big fan of the 1930's and 1940's horror films, but unlikely to appeal to you if you are not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are so many holes in the plot, it makes you wonder if they knew they had an audience for this and just threw it together. I don't know much about George Zucco, but I've seen him in two movies. Obviously, he has been cast as the loving father, mad scientist, vampire guy. He looks so ordinary. I'm surprised that he ended up in the genre. This is the typical, \"I will create monsters that can be used to fight as an army.\" By transferring wolf blood (or is it coyote) to his hired hand, he turns him into a werewolf. Glen Strange, who was one of Karloff's successor's as the Frankenstein monster, plays the kindly, lovable hired man who is victimized because he trusts the mad doctor. At first the scientist is able to control when Petro (his name) can be transformed. But, like the invisible man, suddenly he starts morphing on his own and becomes a liability. There is a little love story of the daughter and a reporter with kind of a high pitched voice (Golly Miss Brooks). She wants to leave but her father, the doctor, won't allow that. He is also driven by a group of his peers who mocked his research before and now he is going to have satisfaction. The way he plot to embarrass or kill them is pretty far fetched and depends a lot on Petro and the guys sitting around waiting to be attacked. It's not a very good movie. The strong point is atmosphere of the woods as people and monsters lurk around the Spanish moss. Once again, the townsfolk are a bunch of morons, who look like they escaped from a bad western. One thing that stayed with me was that a little girl is the first victim and that seems unusual for a film of this era. There's also a pipe smoking old lady who knows about werewolves but nobody listens to her.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pretty bad PRC cheapie which I rarely bother to watch over again, and it's no wonder -- it's slow and creaky and dull as a butter knife. Mad doctor George Zucco is at it again, turning a dimwitted farmhand in overalls (Glenn Strange) into a wolf-man. Unfortunately, the makeup is virtually non-existent, consisting only of a beard and dimestore fangs for the most part. If it were not for Zucco and Strange's presence, along with the cute Anne Nagel, this would be completely unwatchable. Strange, who would go on to play Frankenstein's monster for Unuiversal in two years, does a Lenny impression from \"Of Mice and Men\", it seems.

*1\/2 (of Four)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For reasons I cannot begin to fathom, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco) begins injecting wolf's blood into his dim-witted handyman, Petro (Glenn Strange). The result \u0096 Petro is transformed into a hideous (as hideous as someone with a bad wig and pointy teeth can be) killer beast. Dr. Cameron uses Petro to get his revenge against those in the scientific community who scoffed at and ridiculed his ideas (and why wouldn't they, Dr. Cameron's nuttier than a fruitcake).

Overall, The Mad Monster is one dull and poorly made Poverty Row thriller. There's really only one positive I can come up with to write about in The Mad Monster. George Zucco can be fun to watch as he plays the mad scientist about as well as anyone. His Dr. Cameron is a regular loony. He has no qualms about killing; he has entire conversations with people who aren't there; and, as with most mad scientists, he messes in \"God's domain\" (actually, I'm not sure anyone accuses him of this, but it fits). But beyond Zucco, there's nothing here to recommend. Everything else from the monster effects to the supporting cast to the music is plain old bad. There are far better examples of Poverty Row horror from the 1940s than The Mad Monster.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"George Zucco was a fine actor, often playing gimlet-eyed villains with a lascivious intensity. However even he couldn't save this dull and flat-footed B flick.

Zucco plays the usual mad scientist, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron, who believes that wolf's blood, injected into humans, can create an invincible army of wolf men who can win the World War II (go figure!) Experimenting on Pedro the handyman(Glenn Strange) Zucco creates a werewolf that looks rather like the ones Dave Allen used to play in his comedy sketches! Pedro is obviously based on Lennie from Of Mice And Men, and you almost keep expecting him to say \"Duh, okay, George!\" There's one startling moment when the werewolf kills a child by reaching in through the window and grabbing it, but for the most part this is a routine and pedestrian - very pedestrian - 77 minute tread through all the old clich\u00e9s that are done far better in other movies.We also get the revenge motif from the Devil Bat worked in, in itself a borrowing from Son Of Frankenstein!

Zucco is wasted, and you only have to see him in films such as Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes, The Mummy's Hand and Dr. Renault's Secret to see how wasted. A few atmospheric swamp scenes are all it has to offer, really. And the scene where Zucco demonstrates his wolf-man technique to those who doubted him (again shades of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde) is unintentionally hilarious.

Not one of the better 40s B movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not to be confused with the 1943 George Zucco movie \"The Mad Ghoul,\" \"The Mad Monster\" is a film that Zucco appeared in the year before. In this fairly paint-by-numbers affair, Zucco perfects a way to turn his dim-witted handyman, Petro, into a wolf\/man hybrid by means of wolf's blood injections, and then wastes little time in sending the transformed doofus to slay the former colleagues who had scoffed at his experiments. It is a very simple plot, really, and an extremely low-budget production. Glenn Strange, who plays the man\/wolf here, would soon achieve greater fame playing the Franky monster in films such as \"House of Frankenstein\" (1944) and \"Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein\" (1948). The makeup job on him here is pretty lame, and only succeeds in making him look like a hippy with bad teeth (like the one in 1957's \"Teenage Monster\"). The sets in this film, in addition, are fairly nonexistent, and the denouement is abrupt and unconvincing. I have given the movie a very generous 4 stars, in part because I have an abiding love for 1940s horror films, but truth to tell, most objective viewers would probably deem it laughable crap, and I suppose it is. It's certainly no well-crafted Universal affair or Val Lewton masterpiece, that's for sure! Still, Zucco is always fun to watch, even in undemanding piffle such as this. If you can spare 72 minutes of your life, I suppose you could do worse than \"The Mad Monster\" (not TOO much worse, of course!). Oh...one other thing. This DVD is from Alpha Video, and you know what that means: fuzzy images, lousy sound (indeed, the worst sound of any Alpha Video DVD I've encountered so far) and no extras. You've been warned!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Mad Monster starts in Dr. Lorenzo Cameron's (George Zucco) laboratory as he perfects his discovery of how to turn a human being into a vicious wolf like monster by injecting animal blood into a human subject who happens to be his dim-witted servant Petro (Glenn Strange), apparently he plans to put the serum at the disposal of the war department who will use it to create an unstoppable army of these monsters, the ultimate soldier! However, first things first as Dr. Cameron has his sights set on some sweet revenge on the people who dismissed his experiments, forced him to resign & subjected him to public ridicule. Dr. Cameron puts his plan into action & uses his monstrous creation to murder Professor Blaine (Robert Strange), in an unfortunate turn of events Dr. Cameron is unable to control the beast & is spotted by a local farmer Jed Harper (Eddie Holden) who spreads the news like wildfire, in another unfortunate coincidence a reporter named Tom Gregory (Johnny Downs) gets wind of the story & starts to investigate, he starts to suspect Dr. Cameron & since Gregory is going out with his daughter Lenora (Ann Nagel) he has plenty of opportunity to sniff around...

Directed by Sam Newfield this is really low budget stuff from the 40's, even worse it's dull unoriginal low budget stuff. The script by Fred Myton drags the extremely thin premise out to almost 77 minutes which is far too long, there is no variety in the story & it's basically the same thing over & over. The character's are dull clich\u00e9s, the mad scientist who conducts pointless experiments that create a monster, the fragile pretty daughter, the reporter who plays the hero & by pure coincidence happens to both be investigating the mysterious deaths said mad scientist is responsible for & is romantically involved with his daughter, the dumb servant, stupid idiotic police & stereotypical shotgun wielding farmers who are always accused of being drunk. This was probably clich\u00e9d even back in 1942! The film plods along at a fairly slow pace & director Newfield never manages to maintain or generate much in the way of excitement or atmosphere which is a bad thing. Technically the film isn't great, obviously the budget was minuscule & the mad monster itself looks lame resembling an old homeless wino who hasn't shaved for a few weeks & has had a pair of plastic joke shop fangs placed in his mouth. The black and white cinematography is basic & static like most films from this period while the good Dr. Cameron's laboratory consists of a couch & a table with a few sorry pieces of scientific equipment on top. The acting is stiff & wooden with Petro looking like he's on dope throughout the entire film, Zucco as the mad scientist doesn't convince & is forgettable. The Mad Monster is a pretty lame horror film, there is very little here to entertain although at least I made it through to the end in a single sitting which when I think about it is a bit of an achievement in itself!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I sit and think about Poison for the Fairies, I realize that I may not being fair with the film. My rating of 3\/10 may have more to do with my disappointment with the film than its actual quality or entertainment value. Based on the plot description, reviews on IMDb, and the 7.6 IMDb rating, I would sure that I had stumbled on a little known gem. Sadly, it just didn't do much for me. For whatever reason, Poison for the Fairies all but put me to sleep.

Poison for the Fairies is the story of two young girls in 1965 Mexico City. One of the girls, Veronica, is a compulsive liar and tells her friend that she, Veronica, is a witch. The other girl, Flavia, is so gullible that she believes and is frightened by everything her friend tells her. That's really about it. In reality, nothing much happens and the film drags on and on as Veronica attempts to terrorize and dominate Flavia. One commenter on IMDb described it as \"the scariest film in 80's Mexican cinema\". My comment \u0096 if that's the case, there must not have been many horror films made in Mexico in the 80s. Another commenter wrote, \"Watch it if you wanna get scared.\" My comment \u0096 are you sure we're talking about the same movie? My opinion is diametrically opposed to these examples I've given. To me, it was dull, uninspired, and poorly acted. The scene framing is especially annoying as director Carlos Enrique Taboada doesn't ever show the faces of any of the other characters. Veronica and Flavia carry-on long, drawn-out conversations with members of their families and their teacher, but we never actually see these peoples' faces. It's an annoying gimmick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two little girls strike a friendship. One tries to convince the other she's a witch. The other is a pushover who bends to the would be witch's will. On and on the movie drags with the pointless interaction between the two little girls, with many a dramatic cut away as they pose \"shocking\" questions. You know, the kind sweet little children shouldn't ask, such as, \"How do you make a deal with the devil\"? Oooh... creepy.

In the end, the pushover is sick of being controlled by her witchy friend. Her belief that her friend is a witch leads to a tragic end. But by the time it comes, you won't care in the least.

I can imagine this film may have been frightening to a very religious 1960s Mexican moviegoer, but it doesn't even hold up as a charming relic. It merely drags on. It is boring. It is pointless. It is not to be watched.

There are many here who have a lot of good things to say about it, based on their knowledge of the director's other works and, of course, that common denominator everyone says about pointless films: \"Ah, the cinematography is wonderful!\" Those reviewers probably have a point. But for the ones who found this movie with no prior knowledge, who don't care about its \"photography,\" its \"atmosphere\" or its...whatever else it has -- for these viewers, then, who just want a *good* movie that will entertain them for an hour and a half, do yourselves a favour, folks:

Skip it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seymour Cassel gives a great performance, a tour de force. His acting as supposed washed up beach stud Duke Slusarski will always have a place in my heart. The film is centered around a nerd who just came to the beach in hopes of honoring his dead brother's dreams. What he gets is lame surf hijinks. Guys cheating, guys fighting, and guys getting drunk going to watch surf documentaries with the whole town of LA on a Friday night. Duke takes the nerd in and tries to teach him how playing volleyball is like touching a woman. Next time my woman talks back I will pretend I'm spiking the ball.

Back to Seymour Cassel. The end of the movie turns into a good drama, since the first half of the film really had no point. Duke plays a wonderful game of volleyball, the best he's played in over ten years. The way the scene is shot is beautiful. You can feel the heart this man has for the game and the love of being on the beach. Those five minutes will go down as one of my favorites of all time. 3\/10 Bad to Fair, the rest of the movie was lame.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As Jennifer Denuccio used to say on Square Pegs, \"Gag me out the door.\" I would definitely vote this movie on IMDB's Worst movie list.

Dennis Christopher plays T.T., a guy from Chicago who goes to California peddling his brother's jazz records. He is supposed to be a barney placed in the locals-only surfing community. But he acts more like he is new to civilization (just try to get through his sex scene without squirming). There are also the on-going adventures of the rest of the local population that the viewer must endure. That of Duke (Seymour Cassell), the volleyball expert who tries to get T.T. to act like a normal human being, the obnoxious drunk surfers who cheat on their girlfriends, and the guy who makes a bet with another that he can live in car for sixth months.

California Dreaming is just a big old mess. It starts out like a typical seventies romp, complete with bad 70s music (even though this movie came out one year shy of the 80s). And Dennis Christopher comes off as the most irritable loser, it makes the movie hard to watch (keep your finger on the fast forward button). Even if this movie was supposed to be about the surfer culture, the surf scenes are almost total garbage. The people at the surf contest look as though they can't keep from falling asleep.

I guess the only cool thing is seeing Tanya Roberts outside of her role as Midge on the sitcom \"That's 70s show.\" And Cassell wasn't bad, he was just in a bad movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i've heard a lot about the inventive camera-work and direction in this movie. i thought both were a mess

also some truly terrible acting. the main 'heroine' in the movie is irritating beyond belief and has absolutely nothing useful to contribute in any situation. everything she does or says is stupid, and she generally just seems to mess peoples lives up. if she could fight, i might forgive her

overall all the women in this movie are stereotypical 'broads' in need of a man to save them. and all the men in this movie are muscle bound dim wits capable of saving no one

this is a poor movie, and i urge you to avoid it. watch something like 'the sword of doom' instead, i hear its much better than this confusing mess of a film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It's supposed to be a remake or update of \"The One-armed Swordsman\", by Chang Cheh. The ham-fisted direction and crappy fight choreography mean that the fight scenes aren't even worth watching. The script tries desperately hard to seem serious, but is full of cliches like, \"And I knew then that nothing would ever be the same again...\" or \"If only I'd known what a heavy price I would have to pay.\" Ugh! And who is that girl who plays Sing? Someone find her and have her eliminated!! She's awful. If you like Chinese martial arts movies, you'd be better off with Lau Gar Leung. This stinks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've watched hundreds of kung fu movies and I've heard some good thing about this movie, so I decided to give it a try. What I saw was one of the worst displays of movie making I've ever seen.

I can't help but feel like the director want to have every muscle guy in Hong Kong in this movie. Everyone overacts to the point of stupidity. Even Conan the Barbarian had some civility. This movie just has half-evolved men screaming in every scene and stupid women who has no self-respect. The narrator's character should've be killed for sucking so much...she really didn't deserve to live til the end. The entire movie was a melodramatic mess, with horrible acting, bad directing and bad action. They should've just rename this movie to 'The Stupid One-Armed Caveman with a Blade\" Here's a question...why do some director use quick cuts for some action movies? Answer: To can hide the deficiencies of the actors. Nearly every scene was close up and quickly cut without any kind of flow. The movie tried so hard to show intensity, but it became almost laughable. Please stay away from this movie it you have any kind of taste in kung-fu movies...or any taste in movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is among one of many USA attempts of remaking a old classic British TV show, that's more famous than this one. From what I see none of you haven't mentioned or even acknowledged that you knew there was a TV 50's-60's called \"Secret Agent Man\" The original Secret Agent Man starred the great Patrick McGoohan (The Prisoner,Braveheart,Ice Station Zebra,The Phantom, etc) a man who was tapped to be the first James Bond, but he turned it down because McGoohan was a very devout man and he considered James Bond's bed hopping and violent ways to be against his values.

This show was done in black and white, and it's a pity for those who haven't seen it,you are missing out on a lot. The character Mr. McGoohan played in \"Secret Agent Man\" was named Drake, and after he finished with that show he went on to the do the very popular though at times bizarre and controversial TV series called \"The Prisoner\". The character he played in \"The Prisoner\" was that of a agent who's identity is not revealed is kidnapped and transported to a island where he does not know where he is or who it was that is responsible for kidnapping him. What he does know is that his captors want to know the reasons behind his resignation from the British Secret Service, and on this island the populace don't have names but they are referred to by numbers and Patricks character is assigned a number which is \"6\" It was argued that his Prisoner character was in fact the same character he played in Secret Agent Man but McGoohan himself disputed this.

Ofourse there is the unmistakable famous theme song that the original Secret Agent Man spawned. It was written by Johnny Rivers a famous 50's and 60's pop musician and from what I read some of you are actually think that the song comes from THIS version of the show. You're very wrong about that. It was Johnny's and it comes from the original TV series so let me help to set the facts straight. To those of you who complained about the name of the show being stupid, well in England, it was actually called \"Danger Man\" and in the US it was retitled \"Secret Agent Man\" For such a supposedly stupid name the show did well enough when it was first aired.

Granted this current show has little to do with the original, no such main character named Drake in this one, and I guess they did their best to make this show their version of \"Secret Agent Man\". But it does use the redone version of the original theme song so that does tell you that this show was indeed meant to be a redone albeit however inferior redone version of the original series.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have read several reviews that ask the question, \"Why was this film made\"? I myself found that question looming in my mind as the hour and twenty minute feature seemed to drag near the middle, only to give off the sensation that it was picking up steam at the end, when in actuality it was doing nothing of the sort. So, \"Why was this film made\"? I think that is a great question for those watching Heftig og begeistret to ask themselves. This reviewer is proud of director Knut Erik Jensen for giving us this powerful image of hope, brotherhood, and inspiration with this all male choir, but I do not think that Jensen did enough to bring a gripping story to the table. Let me pose this question to you, \"Do audience members need more in a documentary than just a straight forward story to maintain interest\"? My answer is yes, and this is where Jensen failed. Heftig og begeistret was a good documentary, but it was far from great. Jensen did a horrible job with the story and dedication of the subjects. It was great to hear the songs, but over time, those songs seemed dull, overwhelming, and a bit precocious. From the opening scene where our men are singing their hearts out in a blinding snow, I knew that I was hooked, but as the film developed I lost interest. Why? Jensen never took us, the audience members, to the next level. He kept the playing field level and ultimately hurt the overall tone of the film. Was this a movie about the music or about the men in the choir? The world may never know.

Again, I would like to state that Jensen did a phenomenal job of finding an interesting story about this group of men who have definitely seen hard times and how they coped with that through music, but it was as if the all male choir were a bunch of the most boring men ever created. Jensen gave us the music superbly, but it was the characters, the subjects, that I knew nothing about by the end of the film. In the mix we had a 97 year old man who still had his driver's license, we had a large man in a tub singing classic American songs, we had old men who were once heartthrobs in their youth, we had some tension between the youth of the choir and the veteran singers, and we even had an ex-drug addict that had only been clean for eleven years. Did Jensen develop these interesting stories at all? Nope, he left them on the table. It was obvious that these singers were willing to talk further about it (see the political man who missed his political days), but Jensen seemed to clear away from those heartfelt moments and head straight back into interesting places that he could have the choir sing. To me, the music was defined at the beginning of the film, I wanted to be introduced and hear the stories of these individual men. They were all captivating, yet Jensen seemed to ignore them completely.

By ignoring the major subjects of this documentary, Jensen became unsuccessful in creating any sort of tension towards the end. Without giving the ending away, I felt like Jensen was coloring in the lines. Instead of being bold outside the lines, he chose to create no moment of sympathy, emotion, nervousness, or sadness. Jensen took our subjects from point A to point B to point C without asking us to become involved in any way shape or form. I can see how national sentiment had made this film into a huge success in Norway, but for everyone else watching (i.e. ME) more was necessarily needed. I wanted to feel for these guys. I wanted to know if they were going to do well as they traveled, or just find themselves loved in their own city. There was no story, mostly in part to no development of the subjects. When you watch modern documentaries (oddly, this film was made in 2001), you want it to play out similar to any Hollywood feature film. You want suspense, realism, and drama, alas, with Heftig og begeistret you get nothing of the sort.

Overall, I must ask the question again, \"Why was this film made\"? My final answer Alex, is that Jensen wanted to show how troubling times and a changing economy can still produce happiness in even the coldest places of Earth. I think that Jensen wanted to show human dedication and how something as simple as singing can unite a population. With that said, Jensen demonstrated that perfectly in this film, but he did not create a good documentary. When you make a film of this nature, I feel that you must look within the group, examine the choir participants and hear each one of their stories to bring about an ending that will grip your heart. The only thing that this film gripped was my attention span as it attempted to leave the room at rocket speed. Again, I do not want to sound negative about this film because the music was excellent and the men singing did bring about a feeling of honesty, but I needed more. With documentaries becoming a bigger staple of the film community, one expects a bit more than what Heftig og begeistret handed to us. I want to see reality and people, not just another song and dance routine!

Grade: ** out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Heftig og Begeistret (Intense and Enthusiastic) is a documentary-like story of a male choir up in Berlev\u00e5g in the very northern part of Norway, where the weather is cold and hostile, the days are dark during the winter and the towns are faced with young people moving to the more populated parts in the south of Norway, where the climate is warmer and there are more opportunities.

The most beautiful part of this movie is the humans themselves. The people in the choir, who are aged from 30 to 95, all have unique, colorful lives and are very enjoyable beings. They are characterised by the harsh climate and the recession of the North and have adapted to the way of living required. Throughout the movie, we learn a bit about many people in the choir and we follow them through songs, some events in a church and on the harbour, and in the end, a trip to Murmansk.

The outside environment filmed in the movie is very beautiful and characterised by the Norwegian nature. The scenography is also natural and taken directly from the choir and from the peoples lives that we meet. Thei r livingrooms, the bathroom, the kettle on the oven; there is nothing artificial about this movie, not the people, not the environment, not their music and not their feelings. Everything is as real as can be.

It all loses out though when it comes to giving a story. It is very beautiful and real, but why do we see it? Is it because of the songs? Is it because of the nature? Or is it simply just to see a story about Berlev\u00e5g Mens-Choir, about their life and some of the trips they have. The message, if there is any, is that this small society copes with life through such social events like the choir. The choir have kept the people together for many many years.

It is all nice, but being as popular as it has been, seen by almost 200.000 in Norway, there is something wrong. There is no beginning or end to it. Nobody gains or loses anything, nobody reveals any message or tries to convince the audience of that this is good or that life up there is great. Why was this movie made?

I am sorry. It is a nice movie about good people, but compared to the average European, Scandinavian or Norwegian movie - this does not deserve a 9 out of 10. It is closer to 4 out of 10, and that is what I will give it.

If you see this movie in a theater, you should expect the average age on the audience to be around 55-60. It has reported to be consistently high in all theaters. Maybe this is also the reason for it receiving such very high praise in the news and good grades also on the IMDB: It is a movie about elders, for elders. It is a movie of \"I regret nothing in my life\", and a story saying that living in a small town like Berlev\u00e5g, might be a nice life too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Creepy facemasks and slasher movies have gone together like cheese and chives throughout the lengthy lifespan of the cycle. People often assume that it was John Carpenter that started the trend, but as is the case with many of the genre's clich\u00e9s - the Italians did it first. Movies like Eyeball, Torso and Blood and Black Lace were the originators of a hooded maniac in a murder mystery. There were also a couple of American pre-Halloween slashers that warrant a mention. Classroom Massacre, Keep my Grave Open and Savage Weekend clearly pre-date 1978, whilst The Town that Dreaded Sundown is widely regarded as one of the first teen-kill movies.

Carpenter's seminal flick may not have been the maiden masked nightmare, but it certainly started the competitive race between directors to unveil the spookiest disguise for their bogeymen. Over the years we've seen some memorable contenders, but my favourites would have to be: My Bloody Valentine's maniacal miner, The Prowler's sadistic soldier and Wicked Games' copper-faced assassin. I'm also keen on many of the killer clowns that have made an appearance throughout the category. The final scene in The House on Sorority Row has to be listed as one of the best and The Clown of Midnight also ranks highly amongst the greatest madmen's costumes.

A leather mask was probably the last type to be used in a slasher movie, probably because they are widely linked with sexual perversion, which of course doesn't exactly make for a scary disguise. But in later years both Blackout and this obscurity decided that fear could certainly be incorporated with a gimp suit. Here's how the later of the two fared\u0085

The screen lights up with the rush of blue sirens, as cops race to the scene of a hostage situation. It seems that a stressed-out gentleman has possibly had enough of being cast as an extra in cruddy low-brow turkeys, so he's decided to hold his wife and kid at gunpoint. Detective Shine (David Clover) manages to wrestle with the gunman, but unluckily for him he looses the fight to grab a loose pistol and it looks like it's the end of the road for the grey haired officer. Fortunately he is saved in the nick of time by some precision marksmanship from Lisa Ryder (Donna Adams), the California Police Department's hottest female law-enforcer.

Her heroic encounter earns the brunette a promotion to Detective first class, and its a feat that is heavily envied by her male counterparts. Meanwhile a leather-clad maniac is jollying around town slaughtering hookers and dumping their bloody corpses on street corners. Ryder and Shine are put on the case of the murderous gimp and their first call of questioning is a sleazy back street photographer called Michael Walker (John Mandell). Lisa is such a top notch inspector that normal Police regulation doesn't seem to apply to her, so before long she's dating the cameraman even though he's suspect numero uno. When the bodies continue to pile up around the city, she decides to go undercover in an attempt to flush out the S & M madman\u0085

If anything, Zipperface effortlessly sums up all that went wrong with the slasher genre towards the end of its rein. What started as a great stepping-stone for up and coming filmmakers and thespians had been reduced to a sewer of cinema faeces by movies with flat direction, zero suspense or shocks and talentless mediocre actors. The boom years of early eighties splatter flicks managed to conceal their lack of strong dramatic line-ups with gooey special effects and exciting directorial flourishes. Unfortunately, by this point in the cycle titles like Rush Week, Deadly Dreams and The Majorettes had seemed to be produced in a conspiracy to put the category where many of the aforementioned feature's characters ended up. In an early grave.

Donna Adams doesn't even vaguely convince as an officer of the law and her inexplicably idiotic behaviour - which includes doing a striptease for a top suspect in a nationwide murder investigation - is more mind numbingly pathetic than you might ever expect it to be. Mansour Pourmand couldn't direct traffic and the wide majority of the cast members would struggle to get a second reading for a radio commercial. I searched and searched, but found nothing here of merit or note.

On the plus side, if you manage to keep the TV turned on until the end then you may be fairly surprised by the killer's identity. To be honest though, I doubt that by that time you'll even care. And another plus point? Well, erm.... the disc is perfectly symmetrical, which means that you could use it as a matt to place your cup of tea upon?? Aside from that there's really no other reason to go out and buy Zipperface. Bad bad bad and not in a good way, this is 90 minutes of my life that I could have spent more constructively by plucking my chest-hair. Abysmal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow! This is the movie that should be shown on TV at Two in the morning on Cinemax for all those insomniacs (lord knows they'd probably pass out from boredom watching this movie) Terrible acting, the killer is quite far from scary, I've seen clowns at carnivals that were scarier. Lot's of unnecessary 'skin' in this film, pseudo-porn scenes which are just horrible in more ways than a million, a gawdy soap opera style script which really hurt the movie and the director really had no flair for whatever genre he was trying to create with this film. I could see a group of teenagers with their parents camcorders doing better work than this. I don't think there is a part of me that could recommend this film to anyone...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first thing you should know about \"Zipperface\" is that it was shot on video, so it has that peculiar \"home-video-ish\" look that is terribly distracting and makes it hard to take this seriously as a \"real\" film. And \"Zipperface\" indeed looks as if a bunch of amateurs got together for an attempt at a \"real\" serial-killer thriller. It's not quite that, but it's not as bad as it looks, either. Having a woman as one of the two detectives on the case puts a spin on the exploitation genre. Dona Adams gives an appealingly amateurish performance in the role - her obvious inexperience in front of the camera somehow works for her. Plus, she puts up a GREAT fight against the killer at the end. The red herrings appear ludicrous at first, but ultimately they work - I guessed the killer INcorrectly. And you have to wonder if perhaps Tarantino had seen the Zipperface guy when he came up with the idea of \"The Gimp\" for \"Pulp Fiction\". (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Zipperface is the kind of experience one waits an entire lifetime to avoid! Mansour Pormand ranks as one of the worst film directors of all time! If, however, you love bad films, see this at all costs!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The series does not start as it means to go on. Although it's first two seasons are crammed with incredibly average episodes, as well as numerous duds, afterwards the pace picks up and one of the finest space operas is born. The first ever episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation is remarkable for two things: it's hugely enjoyable introductions to all of the main cast, and Marina Sirtis' peculiar accent which would later disappear. Seeing how it all began is very satisfying, and viewed in mind of the rest of the series, rather moving actually. Otherwise it is a very mediocre episode featuring Q, and some giant jellyfish. That's right.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have been a rabid Star Trek fan since 1966. Still am. One thing I learned from Star Trek is that the special effects are secondary to the characters. Encounter At Farpoint fails in its mission.

Superbly produced.

POORLY directed, written, acted. D.C. Fontana really blew this one. This episode is so embarrassing the master tape should be burned.

The first half of the first season didn't fare much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, even IMDb is slacking with this movie, as the list of cast is VERY \"gappy\". Even main characters are missing from it like Buddy for example.

Now back to the movie. I love watching movies, but this one tortured me throughout the whole 82 or however many minutes. It was HORRID. Probably the worst movie I have ever seen. And the reason why it bothers me so much, is because I was quite excited about seeing it beforehand.

The plot line itself is good. It could have been a great film if done properly and with careful casting. Golden Brooks was a HUGE disappointment. I now see that the only role she can be good in is the loud, fun-loving, energetic sexy chick she plays on Girlfriends. Melodramatic roles are not for her at all. She basically killed her character, Rachel.

I love some of the cast, like Deborah Cox, Mel Jackson and Darrin Dewitt Henson, but even they couldn't save this catastrophic movie. Of course it is only my personal opinion that I can not stand Hill Harper as a man, and he didn't help me get to like him more here either.

Golden Brooks' voice bothered me so much that I actually had to force myself to finish watching the movie. It seemed like she whispered throughout the whole joint. The director I won't even waste board-space on, he did such a bad job. The editing, photography\/camera focus and just about everything about this movie was SAD. Not to mention the dialogs! Absolutely unreal and many times straight hilarious (when it was supposed to make you cry and search deep within yourself).

As I said, it could have been a very nice movie, but it was seriously messed up. I would NOT recommend it to anyone, unless they are cinematography major and want to see a 'What not to do' example for their future work.

Have a great day, Everyone!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I caught this on HBO under its category of \"Guilty Pleasures\", and I would agree that I felt guilty (and pleasured) watching it. One, it's trash, and really raunchy trash. Two, the plot is slow and predictable and once you learn \"who did it\", you think, \"So what?\". However, I must admit to being enough of a male chauvinist pig to want to sit through what is obviously a poor movie, if for no other reason than to see Peta Wilson get completely naked a number of times. Do I feel dirty for having watched it? Yes. Am I sorry I watched it? No. So, there's the contradiction between being a lover of good movies and a lover of the female anatomy, even when in a poor movie. Sigh!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have read the 28 most recent comments by various people regarding this movie and was surprised that no one mentioned the fact that the first victim, shown on the bed with the \"missing eyelids\", as the camera pans up and away from her face, blinks! Yes, BLINKS! I recorded it as it came on HBO this past weekend and when I saw this I literally had to replay it several times, focusing on one eye at a time to make sure that I was not seeing things! Of course, after that, it was hard to take the movie seriously although there were a few interesting and intense scenes with Julian Sands. Very disappointed and give it a 4 mostly due to the fact that the 1st victim blinks in one of the last frames as the camera pulls away from the body\/face. Too bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film tried, but ultimately it was a waste of talent. It tried to hard to be \"sexy.\" I'm not putting down the works of such actresses as Ellen Barkin and Peta Wilson (who will find something besides TV's \"Le Femme Nikita\" worthy of her talents.) I just didn't find, even in Ms. Wilson's so-called near-seduction scene with Mrs. Barkin any real emotion, even though I know the thespians tried very hard to make the scene work. If the sexual elements of Wilson's disturbed sex victim didn't touch our heart (which it didn't even by an ending it didn't deserve), neither did the murder element of the plot. Perhaps it was the script or perhaps the direction, but I didn't feel for anyone in this movie, and without this feeling, a movie doesn't work for me. If you are interested in a movie about lesbianism, there are a least two films on either side of the specturum to check out: 1.) The gulity pleasure of \"Bound\" which works well in a noir setting; and 2.) The more honest, and touching story of a lesbian growing up in Hell's Kitchen called \"All Over Me.\" It's a well-defined indie from the mid-90's that handles that coming-of-age issue with feeling, not forced sexuality. Both would be a better rental than \"Mercy\" which has next to nothing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got about halfway through this movie and was very disappointed. It was just flat out boring and completely unrealistic. I can get past being unrealistic in a lot of movies, but not when it's supposed to be a crime drama thing. The evidence collection and interview processes were just plain oddball. I started fast forwarding to see how it ended. And then got bored with that and just turned it off and returned it. The main character, played by Ellen Barkin, just wasn't believable at all. Peta Wilson acted very well in this film, but her character was way out there and there wasn't anyone for her acting talents to play off of that made it work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...than you easily spot the biggest fault of the movie. What was the motive? The details of the murders were used, but never explained. I guess the team got too much into the atmosphere, which is great, but the story is definitely lacking. There is no thread to follow. I guess if that was done properly, the movie would've lasted a bit longer, but it would've been worth it, at least for me.

Casting is very good, I loved Wilson as the vulnerable Vicky.

Not much more to say, really. But I really wish they've concentrated a bit more on the less obvious.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mercy the movie, actually starts out as a somewhat decent film, and ellen barkin does give a strong performance. But if you have read the book and actually got to know the characters and cared who done it the movie just does not compare. It is always hard to brink a book onto film and unfortunatley this one ends up failing...... 3 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This one is a bit more stylish than the average erotic thriller and Peta Wilson is a very sexy presence but it plays like they lost a few pages of script somewhere. Subplots come in and out of nowhere, the connections between some of the characters are murky and the killer's motivation is unclear to say the least. Maybe they could get away with this in a porn version, but here some more clarification is needed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As much as I love Ellen Barkin (who is really underrated) I have to boo this movie. If you can't tell who did it AND why in the first half hour you obviously have never seen a psycho-sexual thriller or have never watched 20\/20. It's like the filmmakers and actors didn't care that they way they were shooting it and they way they were playing the characters would be a dead giveaway.

Overall, this movie serves to turn-on the dirty perverts who like to mix violence and sex. Not a fun movie to sit through, although if you like Ellen Barkin it's nice to see her place a tough lady.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This contains some spoiler information, but the movie is not worth watching anyway...

Why Ellen Barkin and Peta Wilson agreed to be a part of this debacle by writer-director Damian Harris is beyond me. The story is full of unrealistic police investigating techniques, which includes going to a party with a suspect and inviting that suspect over to your house and getting intimate with them. The tale also features a male psychiatrist who seems to have nothing but female clients - and he sleeps with them all.

Even more over-the-top is the notion that the female victims to a horrendous S\/M crime belong to a large, yet secret, group of S\/M lesbian executives.

Full of bad editing and continuity errors, the film is sterile in all of its ritzy locations - including Barkin's detective salary apartment. And the lame dialogue is fit to put one to sleep.

Damian is a bad writer and a bad director. He tried and failed miserably to create a noiresque atmosphere at times. Furthermore, he couldn't get Ellen Barkin to give 110%. I firmly believe she realized the film was pathetic and gave up trying.

Standouts were Peta Wilson, who wasted time studying with a Dominatrix for the part. The highly under-rated character actor, Marshall Bell gave his absolute best as always.

And since Damian couldn't deliver on any level, it was hard to feel emotion for any of the characters.

Most importantly, he doesn't know much about the real world of BDSM and chose to create the typical \"Hollywood Reality\" of gorgeous men and women who are perverted and dangerous.

Save your time, money and braincells and pass this one by.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

Very slow, plodding movie with a confusing story line. The movie's only hope of keeping the audience interested is the gratuitous nudity thrown in at regular intervals. Ellen Barkin is miscast and her looks do not hold up when she is on screen with the much-younger Peta Wilson. Not sure what this movie was about.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's get right to the heart of the matter...This is a terrible movie. The story is confusing, the supporting cast is laughable and the lead Actors look like they were forced to be in it. The story asks us to believe there is a underground lesbian sex cult where members are being murdered by their psychiatrist who just happens to be a transvestite. Ellen Barkin investigates the crimes and develops a crush on Peta Wilson whose job it seems is to be the cult recruiter. The sex scenes are equivalent to bad porn and when Barkin and Wilson kiss, Poor Ellen looks like she's in pain. Barkin's Talent is totally wasted in this B-grade sexploitation piece of junk and I hope she gave her agent the pink slip after landing her in this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a sordid and dreary mess. I needed a shower when it was over. It goes something like this- some socialites are murdered and a woman homicide detective is assigned to the case. She discovers that the victims belonged to an underground lesbian society, and she befriends an associate of the group who may have relevant information. Since the detective is an attractive woman, of course she is horny and intrigued (which reveals much about Hollywood and its psychosis about women). What's surprising is that none of this is very sexy or interesting, just depressing and yucky. Ellen Barkin gives a respectable performance as the lead detective, and Julian Sands provides unintentional laughs as a cross-dressing psychiatrist, which is why it escapes a one-star rating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The James Dean Story\" is introduced as \"A different kind of motion picture,\" explaining, \"The presence of the leading character in this film has been made possible by the use of existing motion picture material, tape recordings of his voice and by means of a new technique - dynamic exploration of the still photograph.\" The only \"tape recordings of his voice\" noteworthy is one short recording Mr. Dean make while visiting his family in Indiana; he wanted to record any family recollections of his great-grandfather Cal Dean, intrigued because he played a similarly named \"Cal\" in \"East of Eden\". Dean asks if Cal Dean was interested in art, and learns the relative was an auctioneer. James Dean was interested in art and had warm relationship with his family, obviously. That's the only 100% accurate revelation in this documentary. James Dean was interested in art and had warm relationship with his family.

An amazing \"screen test\"\/\"outtake\" from \"East of Eden\" appears near the film's end. It's a black and white scene between Dean (as Cal Trask) and co-star Richard Davalos (as Aron Trask). Dean is at his mesmerizing best. If this scene appeared only here, and no \"East of Eden\" film was completed, this documentary would be an essential, high rated film. But the scene, a perfect \"10\" in isolation, should be considered an \"East of Eden\" extra. Dean's \"Traffic Safety Film\" is also worth seeing.

There are the expected interviews with family and friends. My favorites were the guy (Lew Bracker) going through a box of stuff Dean left with him, and Dean's family. There wasn't enough from Aunt Ortense and the letter from Dean to his little cousin was very nice. More reading of Dean's letters would have been welcome. Dean's unidentified writer friend seemed to have a better thesis for the film; filmmakers might have considered developing it as a main focus.

Robert Altman's direction of Martin Gabel's reading of Stewart Stern's script is dreadful. What were they thinking? Perhaps, filmmakers can be forgiven due to the closeness of Dean's passing. Don't expect \"The James Dean Story\" at all. This movie is more about Dean's effect on people (both the fans and filmmakers) than the man. It is very clearly an early piece of the James Dean myth-making \"legend\". Tommy Sands sings \"Let Me Be Loved\". The narrative refers to Dean as \"He\" with a god-like air. The shots of Dean's family seeming to \"know\" the moment he dies are truly wretched.

** The James Dean Story (8\/13\/57) Robert Altman ~ James Dean, Martin Gabel, Richard Davalos","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A coming-of-age story about a teenager rebelling against the church and her minister father in a small Norwegian village. The countryside setting is picturesque but the story is rather pretentious and plodding, with much of the film devoted to quoting scriptures. It's like watching a religious propaganda movie. Theisen, who has made only one other movie, is pretty good as the sensitive young protagonist, as are Sundquist as her strict father and Riise as a woman that Theisen is fascinated with. The film aims to be fresh and charming but feels rather stale and tired. Director and co-writer Nesheim, who has worked mostly in TV, is not up to the task.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Without doubt, one of the worst films ever made. Sluggish and without structure, tension or story, the film coasts on the thin premise of \"putting together a show\". Conflicts are resolved within two or three seconds of their inception and dialogue is random and incidental. Everything is put together in a slapdash order and often \"Stepping Out\" feels more like a deleted scenes reel than an actual movie. The film seems to exist merely as a showcase for gaudy and totally random Liza musical numbers. Shelly Winters can be seen in the far superior octo-epic \"Tentacles\", and the REAL Liza can be found in the Showtime release of \"Queer Duck: The Movie\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was sitting at home and flipping channels when I ran across what potentially sounded like an interesting film. I like Destruction type movies and decided to watch it. I don't know why but I ended up watching it the whole 2 hours. We have seen this type of movie I don't know how many times.

Back in 1998 - 2000 there were dozen of films that dealt with global destruction of some sort. The best one on my list so far is Deep Impact which was more believable than this one. Here are my problems with this film: 1) cheap special effects, like something out of the old computer. 2) no background information or explanation on weather patterns. If you are going to make a movie about weather, at least have some decency to entertain the viewer with technical details. 3) How come only 2 or 3 people figure out that the storm is converging on Chicago... no more experts left in the field? 4) where are some interesting characters? I truly don't care for anyone except maybe the pregnant woman. I felt that there was no character development. 5) no thought provoking moment what so ever and factually incorrect theme. And this is only the first part of the film. I bet the conclusion will show us few destruction scenes and a search and rescue operation just like it has been done many times before. And judging by the special effects in the first part of the movie, I can only imagine what we are to expect. Of course, at the end, the main characters will survive and life will go on... how original","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hope that Matt Dorff's original script for this was much better (there are signs of it - dialogue that should happen well before big f\/x scenes (to introduce characters) that would make sense much earlier, is jammed in later in the time-line; perhaps the original script was for a longer running-time. But maybe not -- in any case, this reeks. Every character is uninteresting, and *everybody* speaks expository passages as if they are speaking the word of god. There are characters that are entirely expository -- Dianne Wiest's \"Secretary Abbot\" is just awful, explaining things to her assistant (and incidentally us), in endless speeches that NO ONE would say to anyone, ever, in real life (when she isn't explaining things to her assistant that she already knows, her assistant explains things to HER that SHE already knows._ There are characters who are entirely one-dimensional -- the evil power company guy; the pilot who will just NOT SHUT UP about his personal life and concentrate on his job. The \"well-meaning\" power-company superdooperuber hacker-guy who can crash

*everything* in Chicago (including the phones) -- and then gives the oh-no-what-have-I- done speech (but not leave himself a back door?). The crusading reporter who abandons her principles at the drop of a hat? The power-company shift supervisor who ABANDONS HIS POST in the middle of the worst crisis in Chicago since the Fire -- with no consequences? Hospitals ABANDONED by the doctors and nurses during the crisis (I'm not kidding, that's in the movie.)

Oh yeah, and it's filled with Hollywood morality clich\u00e9s -- generally women are good, men are evil, unless influenced by a woman (the ultimate is the punk with the gun -- deprived of a woman's influence, he literally goes insane); an evil stupid act (like what the reporter did with hacker-bozo) is all right, so long as you 'mean well'. Evil men die, capitalist evil men die as horribly as possible, everybody else lives (well, except Randy Quaid). And did I hear someone say that the nuclear electrical power generating stations had to shut down because there wasn't electricity to run the safety systems (think about that one)?

There is one ray of sunshine (if you'll pardon the expression) -- Randy Quaid basically plays his character from \"Independence Day\" (you know -- \"Hello boys - I'm baaaack!\") -- this time as a storm chaser with an infinite-range SUV and superdooper batteries for his camcorders. Nevertheless, they kill him -- mostly, it seems, so that the audience will appreciate that tornados are pretty dangerous things (kinda shallow, that.)

Give this one a pass.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A wasted effort. On the surface it's a typical disaster movie: we're involved in the lives of a few people who get caught up in the Big Event. However, the script is so awful and there's so much explaining of the characters' background within the dialogue that we feel we're being treated like morons. Even Sesame Street didn't explain the origins of Mr Snuffleupagus or how Mr Hooper died: we can work it out. Someone thought that entering 'Enron' into the script would give it currency when discussing power companies. The acting is by and large bland, with the exception of the older performers (Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy), and after the first hour, I couldn't care less about who the storms took out.

But maybe there are the special effects to watch. Sadly, no. Even on a 20-year-old TV set I could see one tractor and trailer were computer-generated\u0097badly. Maybe there are budgetary limitations, so I can forgive that one. Footage of a plane trying to land looked pretty real, but I kept telling myself I had seen that before. This site confirms it: it was from an earlier film, Nowhere to Land.

So in summary, the only good bits are from another film, and when you see the best action sequences compressed into a 30-second network promo, it makes Category 6 look quite good. My advice: rely on your network to do some good 30-second clips, watch them, and save yourself two nights.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you thought Day after tomorrow was implausible, wait till you see this.

Okay so the premise of most disaster films is usually a 1 in billion event occurring, compounded by other circumstances. In this case, the even is the joining of two huge storm systems. Fair enough so far. Oh but hold up, no, the \"event\" is the sabotage and subsequent destruction of the power grid.

Next throw in loads of human interest elements - in this case a cheating husband, a psychotic gun-wielding boyfriend, a rebellious daughter, a hacker with a point to prove, a senator trying to push an agenda, a reporter trying to stand up against \"the man\", and a pregnant women stuck in an elevator.

Finally add a handful of taster events to add excitement.

Jeez if the director tried to fit in any more meaningless plot lines, there would have been no time less for the actual disaster, which, given the pitiful state of the computer graphics, was almost certainly the intention.

Jeez, if you can't even model a truck convincingly, you really should not be taking on twisters, exploding power stations, Las Vegas getting ripped apart, or destroyed oil stations.

In case you didn't already gather how appalling this movie is, let me just add that all three bad guys get killed in separate, and wholly ungratifying, implausible manners, that stunk more of moralising that good film-making.

I'm have no problem with first month film students writing jaded, hackneyed, clich\u00e9-soaked scripts, but for god's sake, that doesn't mean anyone has to make them into movies!

It manages to make the abysmally implausible 10.0 Apocalypse look not quite so dreadful. Avoid them both.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Anyone who complains about Peter Jackson making movies too long should sit through this CBS \"event\". There's about 45 minutes of story padded by 2 hours of unnecessary subplots, featuring bland by-the-book TV drama clich\u00e9s. Bad science is a staple for crappy weather disaster movies, so I'm not going to complain about that. Silly science can be fun to watch if it's executed in an amusing fashion. What kills this movie is it's 10 subplots... all of which could be excised without destroying what is supposed to be the central plot. The one character that is entertaining to watch in Category 6 is Tornado Tommy, despite being a very annoying stereotype.

Note that I also didn't bother commenting on special effects. Their quality should come as no surprise.

Not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I expected this movie was originally supposed to show before the election. CBS's last shot at throwing a dig at Bush. This movie was just awful yet I'm still watching it. **Minor Spoiler** I think CBS got the same people who \"provided\" the memo's to do the semi cut in half sequence. What is with the bad boyfriend storyline? Can the acting be more contrived or the dialog more like a Ed Wood movie. Who ever came up with this script please do us a favor stop writing. If you want to see decent B grade disaster movies then see Earthquake, Flood etc. Avoid this mess of a movie. Hint to CBS avoid showing us this crap. Give us re-runs of CSI instead. Better acting and more believable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is something horrible. I was laughing all the time. I was forced to stop in some scenes because my mom thought it's not polite to laugh when people are dying, but in this movie, even death looks ridiculous. Especially when Tornado Tommy is sucked into one tornado.

Explosions of cars thrown onto buildings by the forces of wind look like ones from the old school side scroller game called R-Type. Dialogues are very bad and I am interested how they managed to persuade some of the actors to play in this movie. It is simply amazing how such bad movie can make it into the TV.

Only real reason to watch this movie is to have some fun of nonsense and absurdity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has to be the worst film I have seen. There is a reason it was made to be a MOW (Movie of the week). The continuity was all wrong (palm trees in a Chicago setting even though it was filmed in Toronto, Canada), the effects were left to be desired for the year of 2004. HELLO. \"Lord of the Rings\" had better CGI than that. But I guess they also had the money for it. The budget will for sure affect the outcome but anyone that calls this MOW more than a 2 needs to go back to Film and TV school. Next time remember that care and time make a classic not rushing for a tornado box office or TV smash hit.

Also, I know networks can reuse footage from old networks or affiliates but using 80's footage for 2004? I have a hard time buying that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Contains Major Spoilers, on the off chance you would actually care about the story line.

OK, we have storms that destroy a city and a computer hacker who clobbers the power grid.

Predictable schlock from the start, and if that weren't enough, the 5 second action bumps between the movie and the commercials kill what little suspense there might have been. For example: will they make it to the airport in time? Things look dim as we go to a commercial\u0085and the action shot before the ad shows them bouncing around inside the plane! Well, I guess they're gonna make it after all\u0085but then again, they had to because they're good guys.

The acting wasn't any too impressive (exception and welcome relief: Randy Quaid as Tornado Tommy) , the effects were kinda lame, the bad guys got it, and the good guys came through. The real disaster of this movie was the script, especially the ending. Not only did they wrap things up happily as quickly as a soap opera given 24 hours notice of a cancellation, but they glorified the hacker as well-intentioned. So he caused a bazillion deaths\u0085he meant well. And, of course, an uplifting final TV report about people coming together. Barf. It was everything I expected from the commercials, and I'm glad I wasted my time watching it. It will make great conversation at the lunch table tomorrow.

Is CBS insulting us by making this? Sure\u0085but we watched it, didn't we? Did you count many ads there were for home backup generators during this pig?

Here's hoping for the next Plan 9 from Outer Space (which gets better with each viewing). This isn't it.

1 star.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What i hate most in this garbage is the arrogant attitude of the film makers and network execs who foist this nonsense on the public because they really think the audience is so stupid, so undeserving, so tasteless as to deserve these kind of cons. There is an inherent entertainment is seeing disaster movies and with the magic of today's CGI effects artists are given powerful tools to explore what before was denied them. With that allure we sat down to watch some mayhem and destruction. Well, guess what, the only mayhem we saw was in the ads touting next Wednesday's episode. What a let down! But wait, there was even a bigger one. The script itself was the bigger disaster! And then there was the direction and the flaccid acting by everyone involved in this turkey. But we knew this before right?! We knew that effects alone do not an entertainment make, but yet the network bozos who Okayed this TV movie didn't care about that because in their mantra is the everlasting line \"never underestimate how stupid the audience are\". These guys must actually live by this motto, and I am so fed up of it. No wonder the audience has abandoned US drama in droves and pitched their camp in reality shows. at least in those programs no one is trying to make it look like anything different from what it is: intellectual pornography. Well, Category 6 is worse than that because it assumes to be different and \"original\". Yes this was a disaster movie alright but the disasters are not what they advertised!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I know this film exists is because I wanted to see what Nancy McKeon had been up to since The Facts of Life ended. When I searched her name, up came this relatively new TV movie. After much investigation I managed to locate a copy & was thoroughly disappointed with what I viewed. D Grade acting, poor script, terrible FX - it was like watching a toned down, more stupefied version of Day After Tomorrow that went for 3 hours. Despite the long running time the characters remain fairly under-developed, we do not care about them in the slightest & in most cases are longing for their demise. Combine that with terrible lighting & cinematography & you have a real disaster of a film. How they con-viced so many \"name\" actors (i.e Dianne Weist, Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy) to appear in such trash is mind-blowing. In summary - I want those 3 hours of my life back!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This one was truly awful. Watching with fascinated horror, I kept on asking \"why have they done this?\" That is, taken all the scenarios out of \"The Day after Tomorrow\", \"The Perfect Storm\" and \"Twister\" and remixing them in a three-hour miniseries, directed by long-time junk TV director Dick Lowry, with every disaster movie clich\u00e9 known to man and not an ounce of real suspense. Many of the cast were unknown Canadians and location filming was done in Canada, Winnepeg doubling for Chicago, so no doubt tax breaks had something to do with it. Although some ambitious special effects were attempted, the execution is so poor no decent spectacle is achieved. The actors may be a competent lot; the script is so bad no-one had a chance to show it, except perhaps for Randy Quaid as Tommy the Tornado chaser, who went right over the top and was quite amusing.

Believe it or not, the producers have since made another one of these Canadian disaster turkeys called \"Category 7 \u0096 the End of the World\" which was very tastefully shown on CBS in the US a few weeks after Hurricane Katrina. How could the network of Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite do such a thing? In prime time? PT Barnum \"nobody ever went broke underestimating public taste\" is proved right once more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first two hours of the televised version are full of character and plot exposition -- after an early brief sequence of Las Vegas being hit by tornadoes, the action doesn't really start until the second two hours. Still, some character relationships don't become clear until the second part. The actors turn in competent performances, but nothing special (however, better than those in \"Aftershock: Earthquake in New York\"). An exception is Randy Quaid, whose character is superfluous and incredibly annoying. The plot is a pretty standard mix of parts of \"Independence Day\", \"Speed\", \"The Day After Tomorrow\", \"Earthquake\", \"The Towering Inferno\" and several other films. You can predict what will happen next, and come close to predicting the dialog, word for word. The special effects are unbelievably bad. Despite the effects in \"Twister\", the tornadoes in this film seem less realistic than the one in \"The Wizard of Oz\" and other effects were obviously done for less money than such series as \"CSI\" and \"Cold Case\" spend on the totality of a single episode. If you have to see a made-for-TV disaster film, see \"The Day After\", \"Asteroid\", or \"Special Bulletin\" instead -- you'll get better plots, acting, and effects.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What is this!! its so bad. The animation looks so terrible , it looks like a ps1 type game. The actors are awful, they just cannot act to save their lives. I sat through all of this film an then at the end I was annoyed when I realised I had wasted 3 hours of my life. I've not heard of this film, did it ever actually come out in the cinema or did it go straight to DVD? A girl got shot?! What is up with that, it was just a stupid film. They totally copied 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Its got to be one of the worst films i have ever seen. I would definitely recommend to people to not waste their time with this. You could spend your time watching 'The Day After Tomorrow', its a lot better. Well thats what I think of the film. Actually why have I wasted my time writing about it, ah dam!! Its really annoying me, its wasted 3 hours and 10 minutes now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think \"category 6: day of destruction\" was very unrealistic. The digital effects where like a children's cartoon.

The actors didn't act realistically, for example, when the girl was shot she acted like she got tomato sauce splatted on her.

The movie was boring but I watched it because it was on.

The only interesting character was Tornado Tommy, he was funny!

Please keep the special effects real.

I liked the comment: \"What did we do to p.i.s.s-off Mother Nature?\"

I don't know what else to write to fill up the 10 lines. What else can I say the movie is so boring, I think my comment will be equally boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe I actually spent almost three hours of my life watching this. This must be one of the most unbelievable, predictable and cheesy television movies I have seen in a long time. I was hoping for some good special effects and action, instead I spent the entire time rolling my eyes and yelling \"OH COME ON!!!\", at the screen. The dialog is shallow and obvious, the acting strained at times and as the story moves along, isn't it just funny how EVERYTHING happens at the same time... Not to mention the obvious and nauseating ending... Now I've seen more than my share of disaster movies, I am a big fan actually, and think that often they can pull off completely unrealistic stuff as long as it's done in a fun way, but this is definitely not it. This is just an insult to intelligent viewers everywhere. What were they thinking when they made this movie?????","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a mess--and I'm not referring to the \"destruction\" in the title. I could go on about the hackneyed plot, the lousy effects, the (actually notable) cast grimacing as they deliver the worst lines of their careers, etc. I'll just say there weren't any palm trees in Chicago the last time I checked, and leave it at that.

Hmmm...need ten lines to get this posted on IMDb.. OK, well, I think a DVD release with outtakes could be interesting. Maybe Dennehy will reveal what favor got called in for him to appear in this thing. Maybe Dianne Weist will show us the bag of money it must have taken to get her involved. Maybe CBS execs will apologize...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This made for TV film is about every clich\u00e9 you can come up with for a disaster movie. The only problem is it isn't very well done.

My brain is still insulted from the scenes in which Brian Dennehy is supposedly looking at a computer monitor looking for weather pattern data and showing on that monitor are stock footage scenes of weather turmoil ala The Weather Channels commercials. Why would watching local news footage of a washed out side-street give insight to global weather patterns? You got me.

Also interspersed through out the first two hours are some of the worst CGI effects known to man. Watch for the semi truck and the airplane that look like they were rendered on a Commodore 64.

All the foreshadowing in this \"movie\" is done with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, the dialog is forced and I can't think of a likable character that I want to survive the second half.

The character I hate the most is the stupid wife who's husband is cheating. Maybe if she lifted a finger at anytime during the show instead of being a helpless woman who stands in the the same 10 square feet of the kitchen all day her husband wouldn't be sleeping with the PR rep for a rival energy company. She is so helpless, in fact, I want to put her out of her and my misery. I hope everyone in this \"movie\" dies in the second half.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There have been some great television movies in that past. Epics such as \"Roots\" and \"Lonesome Dove\" come to mind. Category 6: Day of Destruction will not be remembered for advancing the cause of made-for-TV movies. A laughably bad story, surpassed only by the horrible screenplay, Cat6DD, as I like to call it, inspires more sympathy for the actors involved than terror in nature that the movie was supposed to bring out. That sound you hear during the movie is supposed to be the sound of wind, but instead it's actually the careers of Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy, and Thomas Gibson (Greg, of the Dharma & Greg duo) plummeting faster than houses and trucks and cows can fly away from one of the 15 tornadoes we see in the first 5 minutes of the movie. The movie was advertised as \"nature gone amok,\" instead we get a lame story about how 15 different weather systems conspire to produce 150 degree days in Chicago, then a blizzard the next day from a hurricane that was in the Gulf of Mexico that combined with a storm system from Canada but actually had it's origins in a jet stream changed by global warming.... ENOUGH!! It didn't matter what the story was, the acting was terrible, the words the actors said were dumb, and 13 scientists throughout the country had coronaries after hearing the dribble that came out of the movie. I didn't care what happened to any of the characters, the special effects were sub-par, even for made-for-TV standards, and the story lines were pointless. All in all, I really really dislikes this \"TV event.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wish I had read the comments on IMDb before I saw this movie. The first 1 hour was OK, though it did make me wonder why everything was centered at Chicago and why no one reported any weather anomaly from outside US. Isolated acts of nature (of this magnitude) are unthinkable. But beyond the first 60 minutes, the movie just drags on like a never-ending story. The screenplay is horrible. As for the actors, very poor choice. Only the people hired to run in panic stick to their roles. But I do have to agree that this movie has got some good 'special effects'. If you rented it on a DVD and would want to watch the movie, despite the reviews, then play it on maximum speed your player would allow!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well to start off I was like, wow this is new, so when is the film starting, and out of this in between stuff. But it never ended. The film is just one big in between! And after 10 minutes of waiting for something to actually happen, apart from water splashing around, I just started getting angry! There is nothing in this documentry and nothing will be learned. Completely BORING and RUBBISH!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"CRYSTAL VOYAGER is a strange documentary about an eccentric surfer living in Australia. An American by birth George Greenough has surfed and photographed himself, friends and recently, dolphins, in Australia for 35 years, all using various re invented cameras which he either straps on his back, board or boat. In the mid 70s he teamed up with Surf Mag editor and budding film maker David Elfick to create this visually interesting tale about this life and photography. The 75 minute feature CRYSTAL VOYAGER is the result. Even in the 70s audiences were a bit puzzled by this film, neither surf-ing movie nor surf movie, because George swims about on a children's zippy board, not a real surfboard.... it offset the tedious droning of George (occasionally so dry or droll that it was actually funny.. like almost setting himself on fire or falling over something) with a spectacular 'you are there' power glide through a wave that ran for 23 minutes all set to Pink Floyd music. In 1974 when the Sydney Opera house opened, it also contained a cinema. Crystal Voyager was booked in there as an arty-sporty OZ pic and by default became a hit: as the 'opera house tickets' cost far more than a movie ticket, audiences flocked to see this film as an excuse to 'have been to the Sydney Opera House'...so the film did record business as a low budget attraction to locals and tourists who wanted to tell neighbors that they had seen a show 'there'. This created this myth that the film was a huge crowd puller and the reputation spread. As a result it was teamed with the fantasy cartoon FANTASTIC PLANET and had a trippy run through the UK and Europe as a double feature. I ran it at a coastal cinema in the 70s and the crowd was rather nonplussed about it all. Recently George has re emerged Lord Of The Flies style with another well photographed sea adventure called DOLPHIN GLIDE that offers viewers a dive and swim with the wild dolphins of Byron Bay. It is an eccentric 20 min short with an even more eccentric 20 min 'how George did it' short. Each were met with a collective yawn by both the media and the pubic in January 2005.... all of which makes CRYSTAL VOYAGER a 'you had to have been there' fluke all those years ago. However at a special Oz Surf night at an outdoor cinema last year 2000 people turned up....but then 2000 turn up every night to see anything there during this summer season of films.....so the damned thing fluked another box office binge. How many actually enjoyed it is very much open to debate. Again they were more than likely just plain puzzled by this mad film with an astonishing reputation. Elfick however, since 1975, has gone onto a stellar career as a major producer and director of many lauded Australian and international films. Look up NO WORRIES or STARSTRUCK or UNDERCOVER or RABBIT PROOF FENCE or LOVE IN LIMBO for clear and present applause at his achievements. George, however, is still floating around out there somewhere droning away and looking for something else to film, or drop a camera on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although it's been hailed as a comedy-drama I found \"Crooklyn\" to be mostly depressing. It's hard to imagine how Spike Lee could look back affectionately on so much chaos, petty cruelty, irresponsibility and mean-spiritedness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Texas Revolution of 1835 to 1836, including the periods preceding and immediately following, is depicted in this mediocre 3-hour made-for-television film, whose only redeeming value is bringing light and paying homage to Stephen F. Austin, the so-called \"Father of Texas\" whose life story had long been overshadowed by that of the legendary Sam Houston. The rest of the film is simply the usual \"Santa Anna is a tyrant\" storyline and with a weak attempt to show the Mexican perspective with a fictional Hispanic character displaying stereotypical Latin machismo. Combined with short low-budget battle scenes, such as the Alamao and San Jacinto, this film is recommended only for real history buffs who who do not come from Mexico. To its credit, the Mexican uniforms look accurate and the romantic subplot (another love triangle) doesn't take up too much screen time. Overall, this movie depicts the violent secession movement by Texas' Anglo-Saxon racial minority to be a positive and just revolution against Mexican tyranny as personified by the general Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the so-called \"Napoleon of the West\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie to get an easy, entertained view of the history of Texas. I got a headache instead. The depiction of history in this movie is so comical that even mad TV would not have done a better job.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I should have realized that any two-video set being sold for only $6 would be bad. I even read the reviews before watching this film, and that still didn't sway me. I loved the book, and I knew it couldn't be as bad as people said.

Yeah, it is.

A patchwork of film, video, and what appears to be stock footage combine to make a three-hour tour of one chapter of James A. Michener's epic novel. Well, the time period covered was one chapter, but I don't remember many of the situations actually occurring in the book. The packaging on my copy of the movie gives Maria Conchita Alonso top billing - though it turns out that she is only in one speaking scene. On the second tape.

The actors are to be commended for playing their roles well, despite a smarmy, overwrought script. They are to be insulted, though, for accepting the roles in the first place.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This junk bore as much resemblance to the novel as a pickle slice does to a cucumber. The film makers took the Alamo section out of the book, made it into a movie, and said it was based on the book. Hah! Wonder what they did to induce Mr. Michener to endorse this piece of fluff? It was just another Davy Crockett, flintlock rifle, Santa Ana, 13 days of glory collection of poppycock. I almost started rooting for the mexicans, just to get the damn thing to end. And what was that scene where Stacey Keach was trying to get James Bowie to let him look at the knife? The sexual innuendos he used were juvenile and unnecessary. They could have used the film they wasted on that silliness to put in some real dialogue. This show was an embarrassment to Hollywood. Or can those clowns be embarrassed?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is supposed to take place in Milford NJ. I know the house that it is based on as well as the person. As you see at the end of themovie, she was killed in the world trade center incident. I know that, because I was one of the police officers that helped with the identification of her remains. (She was the only one in our area lost). The nudity in the movie went a bit far. I am not a prude but the actors could have filmed the scene with the two woman without actually showing the whole thing. This movie is in poor taste and I cannot see how her family would give there blessing to it. This is an insult to the person whom it is based on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This straight to video cheap flick is based on a true story. I don't doubt it. Doesn't mean it's particularly interesting (unless you are one of the main characters who actually lived though this experience). A young woman named Angela buys a great, big old country home really really cheap. Well, as we all know from watching Horror movies, when you buy a big house cheap it usually means it's haunted in some way, shape or form. In fact, the second the house is being handed over to Angela the wise guy kid who lived in the house up to now takes a moment to \"introduce\" Angela to one of the ghosts! Nice guy, huh? Angela gets in touch with a psychic and a paranormal expert and tells them that her house is haunted and invites them to come over and see the ghosts for themselves. They come to a party and sure enough there are ghosts walking around, sitting on the couch, hanging in the garage and trying to seduce people in the bathroom. A few friends sleep over the night of the party, see the ghosts and vow never to come back in the house again. (Check out the girl who deadpans \"I'm so scared. I'm so scared.\" totally emotionless. If she was so scared why didn't she get up, turn the knob and leave?!) The ghosts don't really do anything menacing aside from show up (And there is no blurriness or aura about them. They look just like regular people). They steal celery from the kitchen, move chairs around a la POLTERGEIST and one bisexual female ghost seduces Angela, who, get this, doesn't seem to mind! This scene plays like the kind of soft-core porn you see on the SPICE channel. (Ummm...not that I'd KNOW! Hahaha). The actresses aren't your typical porn stars though. They should hit the beach and the gym more. When Angela'ss NOT making love to the dead she gets mad at them and stands alone in a room screaming \"Why won't you leave?! This is MY house! Get out!\" They don't leave. I couldn't help but think of all the times I've heard psychic Sylvia Brown on TV saying that if you have a ghost in your house you should calmly rationalize with the ghost and say \"Look, you're dead. It's time to cross over to the other side. In other words, get out!\" According to Sylvia Brown, as long as your not hostile and nasty about it, they'll leave! This movie looks like it cost about $50 to make. It has a really cheap feel, and bad acting. I could have made this movie with 5 friends and a camcorder.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think the best way for me to review this title is to split it into its pros and cons.

PROS: ~ they turn into wolves rather than plastic\/cartoony monsters. ~ the chase of the wolves through the forest ~ \"Cash Machine\" by Hard-Fi being played

CONS: ~ some parts of the script makes you cringe (for example the terrible part where the woman escapes the 'games' of the \"Fortunate Five\" boys, and there's about half an hour of \"Dear cousin\" and a round robin of \"Yes, see, we know Gabriel's law\") ~ the diving transformation is ridiculous ~ the obvious and ridiculous ending ~ Aiden being told thousands of times to leave, and then goes \"if you cared about me you would have left me\" ~ the obvious characters ~ the unnecessary parcour ~ the completely unnecessary slashing of the arm by Aiden ~ cringey speeches by Gabriel

You see what I mean.

I adore werewolf films, and I tried watching this a few times to see if I'd like it better but it just made it worse. I think I'll just read the book and see how I get on.

Don't bother with this unless you have a 12 year old brother or sister into spooky things. Anyone over that age may suffer and want their hour and a half back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I read the book after seeing the movie and didn't care for it, finding it somewhat trashy; but trashy books often make good movies, and this one certainly could have. The story of a teen girl's exploration of her attractive power over boys, which she finds as irresistibly stimulating as it is doubtfully controllable, and which has an even tighter grip on her than it would on a normal girl because it affects her through her werewolfry--this story would have an obvious appeal to the young audience for which movies are made: an appeal of one kind to girls, and of another kind to boys: and I don't understand how the movie makers could be blind to that and turn the story into one with little appeal to anybody.

To begin with, take the title (which is the best thing about the book): it's drawn from a Hesse quotation, also used as an epigraph, about a person running in fear and tasting both blood and chocolate in his mouth, one tasting as bad as the other. This is a wonderful metaphor for the heroine's state: torn between her human and wolf sides, savoring each but equally fearful of both. The movie dispenses with the epigraph, and instead introduces the character working in her aunt's chocolate shop! I can understand how the book's title might have suggested to the movie makers the erotically charged chocolates of \"Like Water for Chocolate,\" and led them to want to link the same symbol to werewolves. But they didn't; so why is it in the movie? In the book the characters are in high school--or in and out, as with the Five, a teen gang who favor black jeans and T-shirts, and fall somewhere between being the heroine's nemeses and her pet peeves. In the movie they've become decadent twenty-something clubgoers. In the book the heroine is 16, just of an age to be discovering how her sexuality operates on the boy she wants, as well as on herself; she's the one who initiates the contact, then steps back, re-initiates, and so on. In the movie she's no longer a girl but a woman, and the guy is no longer a high school poet on the fringe of campus life but a fugitive from the law (and a comic book artist, to boot), it's he who comes on to her, in a manner as unattractive as that of her wormy cousin. She initially puts him off, but then gives in, as he's confident she will: hey, you know you want it. I would have thought a female director would have taken the chance the book offered to show a female protagonist in an uncompliant, proactive role; but no.

In the book the heroine's clan is driven from their home because of the Five's delinquent behavior; in the movie it's because she went for a run(!). She's a great runner, prone to kicking off from building walls, and both she and her clanmates scale buildings in a trice; very like heroes of martial arts movies and very unlike wolves, or anything resembling them. In the book they don't turn into actual wolves, but things bigger than wolves; in the movie they're just ordinary wolves. In the book they metamorphose in \"Howling\" style, with crunching of spines; this is one of the things that make the heroine aware of the pain her body brings her, as well as the pleasure. In the movie the werewolves have become magical acrobats, taking great swan dives and transforming in mid-air, shimmering yellow like Tinker-Bell; it looks cool, means nothing.

In the book the clan is a slightly white-trashy family that has relocated from West Virginia to Maryland. In the movie they live in Bucharest but all talk in different accents, none Romanian. In the book nearly the whole pack want to lead normal lives and agree that to insure that--and indeed, their survival--one necessity is to keep their true nature secret from humans. And so the characters keep saying in the movie; yet the head of the clan is some kind of underground boss--but apparently not a crime boss, since he despises criminals--and has a standing deal with the police, who supply him with \"meat\" for the pack. This seems a big exception to the rule of keeping humans from knowing; but maybe the police are considered safe because of their known tolerance for eccentricity and cult murder.

At the end of the book the heroine learns she can't be something she's not when, in her effort to live a divided life, she gets stuck between the human and animal states, unable to be all one thing or the other. Her boyfriend isn't sure or strong enough to accept her for what she is, the pack can't risk having him around, and the two are forced to separate. In the movie she rescues him like Lassie, and they drive off to Paris (why Paris?), in an ending that's smiley-faced but not really happy, since the conflicts between their natures--between _her_ natures--remain unresolved.

But the difference in the movie that hampers enjoyment the most is that whereas the book characters behave conventionally, within the realm of young adult novels, those in the movie for some reason have been made as annoying as possible. Every other line is a threat or some other kind of oneupsmanship: you'll be sorry; you don't belong here; you won't get rid of me; I gave you your chance; etc. I prefer to steer clear of people who deal in that way.

There have been many good vampire movies, never a good werewolf movie. Had this one stuck to the book, it might have been the first.

But no.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie blood and chocolate is NOTHING like the book. The plot has totally changed and whoever chose the cast needed to read the book. First the girl is not an introvert Aden is. Vivian was the one that chased Aden. Her mother was to have survived and be the one after Gabriel. Astrid was the one that did all the murders along with Ralf an ex of Vivian's. Gabriel is not old. He is old looking. And Aden DID NOT get Vivian in the end, Gabriel did. The title came from Vivian comparing kisses from Aden (sweet like chocolate) and Gabriel(delicious like blood). She picked blood because it promised more and he understood her more. That reminds me, Gabriel is not against humans like in the movie. He just avoids intimacy with them because they hurt him in the past. Really the book is sooooooo much better than the movie. But if you want o see running, a dating montage, and a lot of jumping. Then this is the movie to see.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The best thing about this movie for me was that Bryan Dick played Rafe and made me -melt-. Rafe and all his gorgeousness made the movie worth sitting through, even though I itched to get up and scream. I have never seen a hotter man.

-ahem- But that's not the point.

The title? That is indeed what it is. They took the beautiful story written by Annette Curtis Klause and threw it out. I will, in all my anal-retentive glory, point out what was missing, what has changed, and all else wrong with the movie.

Sit tight and here goes:

-Apparently, RAFE is son of ASTRID and GABRIEL, and apparently, ULF is no longer ASTRID'S child, like in the book. AND, as I recall from the book, RAFE and ASTRID were LOVERS.

-ASTRID is apparently BLOND, as opposed to the notably RED HAIR described in the book. I believe the book said that she looked more like a FOX than a WOLF. And the movie also shows that ASTRID is VIVIAN'S aunt.

-WHERE DID AXEL GO?

-VIVIAN is 19. In the book she was 16.

-VIVIAN and AIDEN meet IN HIGH SCHOOL which they both attend in the book. VIVIAN goes to see AIDEN because of his poem 'Wolf Change'. But, according to the movie, AIDEN beat up his dad, escaped, and now lives in Romania, and draws Graphic Novels. This made me go 'What the F**K.'

-There is no 'Kelly' in the movie. WHERE WAS THE KELLY IN THE MOVIE. The KELLY in the book, however, hated VIVIAN. And she also dated AIDEN after they broke up. Vivian even gets tipsy in the book and trashed her room.

-GABRIEL bears a striking resemblance to a Columbian Drug Lord in the movie. And he sort of sounds like one too. His acting was very good, but his appearance threw me off.

-VIVIAN had NO parents in the movie. Her father and mother and 2 other siblings died in the movie. Yet in the book, when she comes home one night, her MOTHER, ESME is sitting on the couch, after fighting with ASTRID over GABRIEL. And VIVIAN has no siblings. Only her father died in the book.

-AIDEN accepts VIVAN for what she is. This REALLY got me. He kills RAFE in the creepy church, confronts VIVIAN, and she saves him from the others wolves, except AIDEN shoots her, so they saunter off to find medicine, and then they try to leave the city together. WTF?! In the book, AIDEN freaks out when she turns into a wolf, and cries like a chick, throws stuff at her, and so she panics, and jumps out the window. Then he makes up a story that he tried to break up with her, and she threw a chair out of the window. That doesn't sound accepting to me.

-AIDEN wants her to runaway with him. In the book, he wants nothing to do with VIVAN after she turns for him. Nor does he lovingly hold her face and say she can control it. He cries like a woman because he is SCARED of her.

And the final indignation...the one that nearly gave my three best friends and I HEART ATTACKS IN OUR SEATS:

-In the movie, AIDEN and VIVIAN run away together, and VIVAN has killed GABRIEL. As in she SHOOTS him. GABRIEL dies. In the *BOOK* not only does VIVIAN not kill GABRIEL, I do believe they END UP TOGETHER. As in, she doesn't end up with AIDEN, she ends up with GABRIEL. WHAT THE HELL.

Small things were noticed too: Ulf's red hair which he gets from Astrid has been changed to brown in the movie, and Vivian works at a chocolate shop.

A horrible shock; I am ashamed. The book really wasn't hard to follow. If Disney can use a random H!School, why couldn't the directer have found a random H!School?

*sigh* I was really looking forward to this movie, I loved the book, it's sad that it didn't follow it one bit. I give it a 2, only because (as the top of this review states) Rafe (played by Bryan Dick) was dead sexy, and Agnes Bruckner did a wonderful job. AND, they kept the poem from Steppenwolf

With love,

Caitlin","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was boring. Very much like Underworld, only even less interesting. It's not much of a werewolf movie and no where near a horror film. The lead couple were boring. I totally didn't care about Vivian and Aiden. And there was so little character development that I didn't care about any character in the film. The plot was paper thin. The transformations were basically nil. I did like the wolves themselves, might as well have have done a wolf documentary, I would have liked that better. I wouldn't recommend this movie. I didn't find it fun or interesting. It just drags and everyone in it is a boring drag. This movie could win an award for how not to make a werewolf film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There were only two redeeming features about this movie; the beauty of Bucharest and its architecture, and the way they depicted the transformation from human form to wolf form. Forget about the plot or storyline from the book - they're completely absent from this movie. In fact, about the only things carried over from the book are the names of the main players. Even then you'll barely recognize the characterizations. If the film makers had made a good movie, even though unrelated to the book, I wouldn't have been so disappointed. Unfortunately, they did not. The plot and storyline are typical of low budget horror flicks, the acting is wooden, and the directorial efforts mundane. Oh yes, the way the loup garou bow to their leader is pure hoke. I suppose a nod of recognition is due for the animal handlers. The wolves were beautiful animals and well managed in their roles.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason i didn't delete this movie after 20 min is because we already wasted 20 minutes on it...

the only and i repeat the ONLY effect that they used is a weird kapoera (from India?) jump on a half meter wall\/trash cans, i mean, effects doesn't make a movie but... sheesh.... me and my friend hoped the entire movie for some real effect (a huge wolf?! something!?>!?!) but noooooooooooooooo... all we got is a jump! on a 0.5 meter wall + they used pharmacy's ..... and they found guns?! in the pharmacy?! i mean what the hell? oh i forgot, there was another effect- contact lances as green eyes! every 10 min we shouted \"the only thing that can save the movie from the disgrace is a giant wolf who kills them all!!! besides that the script was so awful that you don't know who you would like to die first. you actually pray (and i mean PRAY!) that the \"good?!\" guy will die, hopefully in the beginning.

make yourself a favour and send letters to delete the movie from every archives in the world.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My first impression when I read the synopsis for the upcoming movie was that it was going to be very, very different from the book. The movie trailer said that the movie is supposed to take place when Vivian is 19 years old after her parents were killed in a fire in America. She meets Aiden, an aspiring graphic novelist. Working in a chocolate shop in the day, she must accept that she will never be normal, because every full moon, she becomes a loup-garou--a thought-to-be mythical creature that can be closely compared to a werewolf.

Most of the little changes didn't sound too bad to me, even though I am a fan of the book with the shared titled by Annette Curtis Klause. I knew it would be different, but I wanted to see it to support the book, thinking that an age change, a setting change, and a few little occupation changes wouldn't impact the storyline as a whole enough to make me want to tear my eyes out of their sockets and leave myself bleeding on the movie theatre ground.

The movie unnecessarily killed off many important characters, one being Esme, Vivan's mother, right off the bat in the fire that was supposed to have killed her father. I pushed that aside and ventured forth into the movie, weary and slightly annoyed. Running through Romania, the camera angles were decent, the scenery was beautiful, and the music was... interesting... but it left me with the impression of, \"Why does Vivian look like that, and why is she wearing a hoodie?\" Jumping to later parts of the movie, I must say that I am surprised that the screenplay writers seemed to support incest in a way and rather than sticking to the character relationship from the book between Vivian and Rafe, the leader of The Five now became her cousin through her (surprise!) Aunt Astrid, who, in the novel, was the bitter and hated rival of Vivan's mother, and, might I add, no way related to either of them.

To top off character distortions, Gabriel had somehow become the leader of the pack and obsessed over Vivian being his mate so they could fulfill some nonexistent prophecy. Not only did his physical appearance take a complete 180 from the description in the book, he was, apparently, also the father of Rafe. Yes, that's right, it's a nice little incestuous knot of wolfies all bundled up tight.

Little things that irked me were scenes like the forest hunts. There was a red-head that stood out from the rest of the crowd, the one who \"kissed their enemy\" before their prey was set free to run and be hunted. Why was she there? Why did she look like Astrid? I suppose my mind is not vast enough to understand why such a character had to exist in the movie without any explanation as to WHY she existed other than to kiss pretty victims.

I loved how the Amoeba was completely cut out of the movie. I loved how legally entwined Aiden's past was, what between the supposedly dramatic scene where he was telling Vivian about how his father wanted him to learn self-defense, and then beat his father up \"in self-defense\" to make him seem like such a tragic character.

Character 180s are a lot of fun when they are completely unnecessary. At the end of the movie, I felt as if some person skimmed over the novel, scribbled down half the list of character names, drew a few connections here and there, mentioned that Gabriel was a bit of a jerk, Vivian fell in love with Aiden, he fears her when he finds out she is a loup-garou of the legends, and \"somebody\" is \"killed by a silver bullet\" and there is some sort of happy ending because Vivian finally feels accepted by somebody who loves her for who she is.

I gave this movie a 2\/10 because the camera shots were relatively decent, and the casting could have been worse, but as far as directing goes, why do the loup-garous leap into the air in human form as if they want to fly (with their arched backs and penchant to leap from high places), shimmer briefly, and then fall onto the ground as wolves? The only aspects of this movie that even had me watch it through to the very-sordid, sorry ending were the wolves, the beautiful scenery, and the eye-candy boys.

All-together, I must say that in order to enjoy this film at all, one must be ready for misconceptions, strange happenings that are not always explained, incestuous innuendos, and have either not liked the book, or have not read the book.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, to start with, this movie was not at all like the book. I read the book when I was 13 and since then it has always been my favorite. When I'm waiting for a different book to come out, this is the book I turn to to fill in the time. I have 3 copies for god's sake. anyways, I knew this was not going to be anything like the book but come on! They could have done a little better than this. I mean seriously if I wanted to watch American werewolf in Paris or London than I would watch those movies. They took a perfectly good story and twisted it around into a copy of a story that has been told over and over again and quite frankly I'm tired of watching it. I mean hello the best part of the whole f*****g (sorry) story is she ends up with Gabriel. He doesn't die. What was that about? And he's old in this movie. Gabriel is supposed to be only 24 not 44 da** it. Awww. And Astrid who the he** came up with the idea of Astrid being Vivian's Aunt no no no no. Astrid and Vivian hate each other. Awwww. Anyways yeah that was my little rant seriously pi**ed off. hope this helped.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the makers of Underworld, we have, by far, the worst werewolf movie I have ever seen. It is basically a reconstructed version of Underworld, yet lacking vampires (not a big deal), cool effects (a BIG deal), and generally just about everything that can possibly be done right to produce a decent film dealing with lycanthropy (the biggest deal of them all!). A twenty-something lycanthrope chocolate maker named Vivian is currently residing in Romania ever since her family was hunted down and executed in front of her years ago in America for being werewolves. There, she belongs to a small society (or pack) of werewolves and is apparently chosen to unwillingly wed the pack leader, Gabriel, whose son - some toad with a British accent - takes it upon himself to hunt outside of the pack. They have apparently been discovered in other countries prior and want to remain settled in Romania by avoiding negative attention, so of course, such activity is considered forbidden. Vivian ends up falling in love with an American artist who is oblivious to her involvement with the group of blood-thirsty predators. When they end up discovering the secret relationship, things get messy when someone is killed and the human is forced to participate in a deadly tradition in which he is set loose in the woods and is hunted - giving the pack a chance to transform into their \"wolfy\" selves. All this really consists of is a big leap before they light up and land as a wolf. Very cheezy effects. The entire movie is like a tamed down Underworld with some drippy, romantic montages and very little action. Watching this in the theater, I could not wait for it to end. A devastatingly boring disappointment. Avoid!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS****

I was super excited to go see Blood and Chocolate with my friends. I couldn't wait because the book is one of my favorites. But as soon as the movie started, I couldn't believe how different it was. At first I was like, okay, so both of her parents are dead...maybe it'll be okay. But then came the rest of the movie. By the time it was over I was furious. Nothing was correct but their names and the fact that Vivian fell in love with Aiden. By the end of the book, Gabriel was my all time favorite...and then the movie goes and turns him into a complete heartless idiot?! The movie also showed the shifters, or werewolves, as these vile, evil creatures were as the book shows them as just wanting to fit in and keep their pack safe. They would never kill humans for the fun of it.

If they wanted to make a movie like they did, they should have given it a different title and named the characters different. Because then I would go out and watch it again and buy it, but when I think about it all I can see is the bad. You couldn't pay me to go see it again or buy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm going to talk about this movie from two different perspectives here. First is from the view of if someone sees the movie and never read (and may not ever read) the book. The second is from someone who has.

(Movie without book) From a movie standpoint, it was an okay movie. Nowhere near as good as either of the Underworlds but much better than UltraViolet. And I'm not just talking plot line either. The visual effects were iffy in many of the parts, though the wolf transformation was very nice. The characters has very little development and Vivian didn't even seem to truly care that her \"love\" was killing off what was left of her species. Some of the other characters could have had more air-time, like The Five. The plot was way to similar to Underworld for my tastes.

(Movie WITH book) As many have stated, other than the title, character names and a few minor parts, the movie and the book are nothing alike. In the movie, Gabriel was a lot older and was the father of Rafe (thus Astrid was once his mate). In the book, Gab was about 24, never mated with anyone since wolves mate for life (Astrid is trying to win his affection) and Astrid was the mother of Ulf, not Rafe. Another important thing is the location. The book took place in Riverview, Maryland. Also, why they moved from West Virginia is very different. The movie has it being Vivian's fault and her entire family was killed due to it. In the book, the original leader of The Five, named Axel, killed a girl from their school. Hunters tracked down the wolves and killed many of them (Viv's father included), forcing them to move. Also, Viv's mom, Esme was a major character.

One thing from the book that would have made the movie better would have been the \"bitch's dance\". For those who don't know, it's the ordeal where all the bitches (females of the pack) fight to see who is the one to be the mate of the new leader (since earlier there was a fight for the males). Vivian won it, trying to save her mother from Astrid (who is a horrid evil woman in the book) and thus was supposed to mate with Gab. There was no prophecy! Anyway, if you've read the book and you liked the book, I highly suggest NOT seeing this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I never read the book. Now I don't really want to. I had no clue what this movie was about when I walked into the theatre. I still don't really know what point it was supposed to get across, but I do know that a good two hours was wasted from my life. Two precious hours I can never get back.

The storyline was so predictable, it's laughable. Werewolves...or something...a very Romeo and Juliet type plot. I predicted the endig within five minutes into the movie. And I was correct.

The acting isn't horrible. The only two cool characters in the movie were the British cousin guy and the Rambo-graphic-novel duder. The other characters are too...the dialogue is very bland and predictable.

The absolute WORST part of the movie is the transformations between the \"humans\" and the \"wolves.\" If you wanted something kick-ass like Van Helsings, you're gonna be really upset. Imagine ballerina's, a bright light, then a wolf. Yep...that's about it.

Just avoid this movie. Period. Especially if you've read the book, because you'll just wanna punch babies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When HULK hit theaters in 2003, it wasn't long before DVDs of the old Incredible Hulk TV show popped up in an attempt to cash in on the craze. We saw a similar occurrence a year prior when Spider-Man cartoons appeared on DVD to coincide with that hero's big screen debut. Companies leap at the opportunity to ride on the financial coattails of a hot brand.

So the fact that this picture never surfaced on the shelves of Wal-Mart as its featured heroes clobbered the box office in the summer of 2005 says a lot. I guess everyone involved would just rather forget. To be fair, THE FANTASTIC FOUR is not as bad as everyone says. Let me rephrase that. It's not as unentertaining as all of its negative reviews might suggest.

Veteran television actor Alex Hyde-White (no, you don't remember any of his roles) leads the way as Reed Richards, the brilliant scientist who, along with his crew, gains bizarre powers after an outer space mishap. He's left with the ability to stretch and contort his body to outrageous lengths. His future wife, Sue Storm (Rebecca Staab), can suddenly turn invisible, while her brother, Johnny (Jay Underwood), may now ignite himself at will. Then there's poor Ben Grimm (Michael Bailey Smith), the lovable lug whose body morphs into a mass of craggy, orange rock.

Just as the friends are becoming accustomed to all of this, they are called upon to rescue the world from certain chaos. It seems Reed's old colleague Victor von Doom (Joseph Culp) is living up to his name, and that villainous Jeweler (Ian Trigger) isn't exactly helping old ladies cross the street, either. Can our heroes save the day? Of course they can; like any superhero movie, it's just a question of how and when.

What's striking about THE FANTASTIC FOUR is how amateurish it is in virtually every aspect. The dialog is so lame and tired it sounds like it was written by a junior high drama class. The acting is so unpolished it makes a third-rate afternoon soap opera look like Shakespeare. The special effects are surprisingly good considering the minuscule budget, but there are still some positively embarrassing moments. When The Human Torch fully ignites his body, for instance, the entire movie briefly turns into a cartoon. I can just hear that production meeting. \"Oh, no one will notice. They'll be too intrigued by the action!\" I mean really, a cartoon? At least give me a mannequin on fire held up by a string! Prior to that, the scene in which the foursome come to on earth after their spaceship crashes is pure teens-in-the-backyard fare. The crew simply found a field and lit a vaguely-spaceship-like object on fire. That's the only remnant of such a major disaster?

Of course there wasn't a whole lot to work with in the script. There is a fairly coherent story here, but it's all so simplified. When Reed and Ben decide to go into outer space, they simply drop by the Storms' house and ask if they'd care to join them. Is it really that easy? Don't these sort of things require, oh, I don't know, years of training and expertise? Not in the world of these writers, who seemed to be inspired by the underrated genius on display in FULL HOUSE reruns. But as bad as that may be, nothing can compare to how painfully clich\u00e9d Dr. Doom is. He was pulled right out of those awful superhero cartoons from the 1960s, right down to the evil laugh and slamming his clenched fist down on the table to punctuate his remarks. No comic book, least of all Fantastic Four, has ever featured a villain so obscenely one dimensional.

Ultimately, THE FANTASTIC FOUR is saved from being a complete turkey because it's just so damn innocent. You can tell the people involved, as little talent or experience as they had, really tried. They didn't know the final result would be so embarrassing. They were under the impression that this was their big break, that people would flock to the theaters. It bears repeating that they had virtually no money to work with (and I'm sure half of that was eaten up by the cool Thing costume). All things considered, they did well, and for its many flaws, the finished product is a fair amount of fun for comic book fans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am almost a two decade old human who's been reading comics most of my life. I'm not a huge fan of the Fantastic Four, but I'm fairly familiar with them. In 1994, Roger Corman (B-movie legend) produced the first, I think, feature length Fantastic Four film. The result was such pure schlock that it was never given a release. Still, copies exist, mostly on the net and at conventions. If you're looking for a laugh and can find a copy do yourself a favor and check this thing out.

The film basically retells the FF's origin and an encounter with Doctor Doom and a villain named The Jeweler, essentially the Mole Man with a penchant for petty larceny. As is the case with these comic book movies, everything has to tie into everything, so the FF play a vital role in Dr. Doom's creation, and he and the Jeweler play a vital role in theirs.

First, I'd just like to mention that despite everything that went bad in this movie, I actually sort of liked the guy that played Doom. He doesn't get many decent lines, but when he does he hits them. The armor looks pretty good too.

As for the rest...it's a dirty, dirty mess. Bad plots, bad acting, bad effects, bad everything basically. Boos especially to Jay Underwood, bringing new meaning to the word overacting as Johnny Storm. He's not overacting, he's ultracting.

As for the FF, well they all sort of look right, and Sue's played by a very attractive actress, but they just don't seem like a real team. For one thing they have no reason for Sue and Johnny to go into space. In an early section Ben and Reed go to visit the two, Johnny's like 8 and Sue's about 12. It only stands to make their eventual romantic pairing a helluva lot creepier. The Thing costume looks more reptilian than anything else, not very rocky, and the only time the Human Torch is really a Human Torch he looks like the Silver Surfer tinted red.

I could type for hours, but I think the scene that best sums it up is a climactic encounter featuring the aforementioned not-so-Human Torch. He's racing a laser beam, and he eventually destroys it with a punch. Yes, a punch. A laser beam. With a punch. Then he flies around and goes \"Yippeee!\" a whole lot, whereupon the camera tilts down and he flies back TOWARD EARTH. Evidently Reed the intellectual forgot to inform Johnny that fire doesn't exist in the vacuum of space. This and many other scenes operate like Looney Toones, if the character doesn't know they are over a cliff, they don't fall.

I laughed, I cried, I was glad it was never released.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I gave this a 2, and it only avoided a 1 because of the occasional unintentional laugh. The film is excruciatingly boring, and incredibly cheap. It's even worse if you know anything at all about the Fantastic Four.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Admittedly, when the chance to see this horribly infamous legend of a movie, my expectations were pretty low. They weren't low enough. Scholckmaster Roger Corman somehow came into ownership of the rights to produce the Marvel comic book characters sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, and handed it off to Oley Sassone, whose directorial work has largely been in campy TV series such as 'Hercules' and 'Viper'. With a supposed total budget of 1.5 million dollars, it was produced, shot and briefly released on video and then sent to the wasteland of forgotten film. There it should have remained. However, like a banana peel in a vaudeville act, this \"Fantastic Four\" sits out in the ether waiting to cause a pratfall for those rare people unlucky and foolish enough to step on it.

If you have ever heard of these comic book characters, you know what to expect. The people who made this were very true to the source material, and that is the only thing for which they deserve any credit in this fiasco. This presents the origins of the heroic group that develop superhuman powers when the shielding on their experimental spacecraft fails to protect them from cosmic radiation. Reed Richards (Alex Hyde-White) develops the ability to stretch his body and becomes 'Mr. Fantastic'. His girlfriend, Sue Storm (Rebecca Staab) can become invisible, and her brother, Johnny (Jay Underwood) can spontaneously cause fire to erupt from his body. Finally, Ben Grimm ('credited' to both Michael Bailey-Smith and Carl Ciafarlio) receives superhuman strength when his skin mutates to a rock-like hyde and is then referred to as The Thing. There is a prologue that sets up a former classmate of Reed's, Victor von Doom (Joseph Culp) to become their enemy, Dr. Doom, who orchestrates the sabotage of the Fantastic Four's space flight as an act of revenge for injuries he blames on Reed. There is the set-up, then the discovery of the powers, the revelation of the villain and ultimately a climactic fight. There are more details to the poorly-written script, but they are negligible.

This is a movie that was made simply because the creators (I use that in the technical sense of the word. There isn't a whole lot of creative imagination at work here.) had the legal rights to do so. The plot will be undoubtedly mirrored in the anticipated big-budget release set to be directed by Tim Story in 2005, but tackling a massive special effects project like this without a comparable budget or qualified actors qualifies as an act of cinematic insanity. What special effects exist are mostly hand drawn or simple camera tricks that have existed since the days of the original 'The Great Train Robbery'. When half of the climactic fight reverts to full-on hand animation, you're almost relieved to be watching a cartoon instead of the poor actors who were damned to be in this project. There is very little consistency of style in this mess as well. Most scenes are either shot flat in available light or wild primary colors, and the only dressed sets are the obvious sci-fi pieces. There is camera-work, but it is mostly just keeping the characters centered on the screen and minimal information flowing to the audience. Editing includes leaving in extra lines and using obvious wipes (at one point there is even a transition using the center of a number 4). Editing spins are even used to supplement the poor special effects when The Thing transforms. The one scene where morphing technology was put to use was shocking only because it was such a positive jump up in quality.

Limited camera work is not unforgivable. In 'Clerks', only the most basic camera movements are used and there is almost no style. It worked for that film because it was about people whose lives had no style, and it was consistent. Kevin Smith never let his reach exceed his grasp. 'The Blair Witch Project' caused some audiences to suffer motion sickness from the jerky hand-held stuff that put that pseudo-documentary together. When all was said and done, it was an effective work about the terror of getting lost and being consumed by a frightening situation. There is no sense of story or theme here on either a spoken or visual level. With this 'Fantastic Four', you never get more than an accidental laugh at the fact that the film makers and performers seem to be actually trying to rival other comic book movies with this poorly budgeted entry.

Any film involves a great deal of time and work. It just so sad that so much of both was poured into a project like this. If you're one of the people who were involved with this, it was most likely done as a stepping stone on the road of a (hopefully improved) film career. Everyone knows about taking jobs to make the most of what appears to be an opportunity. For those who are curious about watching this movie, my advice is to only do so with a group of friends (so you can all point and say \"you watched it, too\") who have been forewarned about the experience (so nobody gets hurt from the shock), and maybe you can come up with a drinking game to ease the pain between the accidental laughs.

1 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whether or not this adaptation of the Marvel comic was made \u0096 and shelved \u0096 so its production company could retain the copyright to the characters, it doesn't change the fact that it's utter rubbish. The Dr. Doom and (especially) Thing costumes are surprisingly good, but everything else suffers from a deficit of either cash or talent. Director Oley Sassone can't even point a camera at stuff without including such howlers as a blind woman's POV, the dialogue is absolutely dismal, the team's costumes don't fit properly, and the effects are appalling: the Human Torch seems to be drawn onto the film with felt tip pens, while Mr. Fantastic's powers are brought to life using a bendy blue stick with a glove on the end. Joseph Culp compensates for having to wear a mask by wildly waving his arms about, Jay Underwood is incredibly annoying, the rest of the cast hit various levels of terrible, and while it's hard not to feel sorry for all these guys who thought this movie would get a release, it's equally difficult to imagine any of them believing it was actually any good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is the worst movie i have ever seen in my entire life .period.this movie goes beyond ridiculous,it is like the director wants to get his ass sued by the actors for wrongfully misrepresenting their roles as the fantastic four,i believe the movie should have been released in comic book stores in order for the only how u should say it,desperate geeks who cant get enough cheesiness and want to see more and more crap movies.in conclusion to my paradox statements and thesis,i do believe this movie has had great disadvantages to the futures of the cast's contributors,with the exception of jay underwood's character,in which i do believe it was his best performance,considering roles such as the not quite human movies in which the story is told in a way that he has no character.he cant act,and people have made good decisions to not go see his movies,this is why he is most likely not going to be any huge roles,unless he sparks his career in a most rare,but interesting way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have always loved bad creations, rhetorical criticism and my film professor validated that for me in college. This is not as bad as The Star Wars Holiday Special, there is nothing bottom of the lunchbox than that mistake. This The Fantastic Four film, complete with the I-have-no-idea-why-hes-excessively-tweaking-his-fingers Doctor Doom, is high on the list of colossal mistakes. Doom's dialogue \"Kill him!...Let him go!\" is classic as it is staggering in its hilarity. The editing is good, and the director of photography isn't half-bad...those are the up-sides. I cannot, however, subject all my friends to watch in its entirety, but if I can get the chance I show them the \"can Jonny and Sue come to outer space with us!\" scene I do. I also include the final scene scene, where Redd Richards in his FF outfit for some reason, alongside his bride Sue in her wedding dress, get into the limo...the payoff is the extendo arm in farewell as they drive away. Most people are in complete disbelief that something like this exists.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Without a doubt this is the WORSE comicbook movie every made. PERIOD!! Yes, it's worse then Dolph Lundgren's (1989) Punisher. Yup.. worse then the 1979 & 1991 Captain America movies. Oh yeah, it's even WORSE then Christopher Reed scripted Superman IV: Quest for Peace movie. Sheeshh.. that movie was so bad that the guy who played Nuclear Man only starred in one other film and it was only on T.V. =oP

This movie is \"D\" quality. I had a chance to watch it on the SciFi channel back in 1997. I had heard it was pretty bad, but had nothing else to do that night so I figured I check it out. What a waste of an hour and a half. I would have been better off watching reruns of Different Strokes. Besides having the lamest special effects and worse acting I've ever seen, the whole script was just awful and not well directed at all. Thankfully a NEW Fantastic Four movie is being done and hopefully this version will do the heroes justice. I was hoping for a New SPAWN movie in the future, but it has yet to materialize.

Do not rent this movie. If you happen to see it being televised on cable, check it out. Be warned though, you'll most like be flipping the channel after the first 15 mins.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is truly awful, the feeblest attempt at a comics adaptation ever committed to film. Every possible thing about this movie that could be bad, is. Music, acting, lighting, sets, \"special\" effects... about the only positives I can find are that Sue looks cute in her blue tights and that the Thing make-up is almost passable (face only). That's it. Zip. Don't bother tracking down that bootleg copy; it's really not worth your time. Even the aborted \"Captain America\" movie from the early 90's is far less excruciating than squirming in your seat while you try to endure this mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Drifting around on bootlegs, sometimes thought an urban comic book legend, the first FF movie is pretty much as bad as everyone fears. I guess Marvel Comics now pretends it doesn't exist, what with the 2005 version out in theaters earlier this year. But it's out there, a reminder and the last of the first wave of bad, low budget Marvel super-hero adaptations (Captain America, Punisher, most of the TV movies). 'Low budget' is too easy a description for this FF pic. Due to basically no funds, showing the powers of the super foursome was limited to very quick shots (Mr.Fantastic), quasi-animation (Torch), and fades (Invisible Girl-the easiest to do). The Thing suit was not bad and probably half the budget; the face part was especially almost convincing. The acting? Alex Hyde-White as Reed is pretty good; the other 3 are OK, tho Jay as Johnny acts like a spaz at times to sort of show off his 'fiery' temper. The dialog is comic-book style, and it's the supporting cast which ends up floundering trying to make it work. Dr.Doom is way over melodramatic and unintentionally comical, and his two main henchmen are a case study of how not to act or write dialog.

The plot? Not too good. It was quite faithful to the origin story of the FF (more so than the later big budget version), and even though the non-budget, again, restricted showing, for example, the actual crash landing, it kept the essential ingredients of how they discovered their powers in an isolated area - it's the best part of the picture, tho you have to wait a full half-hour for it. I also found the music odd in places; when the 4 are bathed in those cosmic rays, a kind of church choir is heard, as if it's a religious experience. The rest of it, however, is hopeless. Even with no budget, the story could have done without the Jeweler character (resembling the Mole Man villain of the books); it spends way too much time with him and his underground gang, as well as the blind Alicia. These sections are a waste of celluloid and very boring. The climactic struggle with Doom & his men starts fine, but degenerates into an awful mess as the Torch races a laser beam (cool animation but belonging in a cartoon). Fans can have a laugh at the bad FF FX and witless storyline, if they don't get depressed & outraged first.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes! this movie was just bad in every way in things like cast,effects,boredom,excitement,and of course,being fantastic and we all know the four heroes in this one were a bit more colourful compared to the new ones but it still has to go,A fantastic bore like this really was just silly trash which i knew nobody would like when i saw it,i mean surely with that budget about 3 or 4 GOOD movies could have been made but no. I am just glad that the new version made this year totally showed everyone how the fantastic four should have been made with good story,great cast like Jessica Alba one of my favourite actresses otherwise it would have been totally forgotten but thankfully no. The new one was excellent when i saw it with my mates at the cinema but this old fantastic bore has gotta go.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As long as you keep in mind that the production of this movie was a copyright ploy, and not intended as a serious release, it is actually surprising how not absolutely horrible it is. I even liked the theme music.

And if ever a flick cried out for a treatment by Joel (or Mike) and the MST3K Bots, this is it! Watch this with a bunch of smart-ass wise-crackers, and you're in for a good time. Have a brew, butter up some large pretzels, and enjoy.

Of course, obtaining a copy requires buying a bootleg or downloading it as shareware, but if you're here on the IMDb, then you're most likely savvy enough to do so. Good luck.

And look for my favorite part....where Dr. Doom informs the FF that they have 12 hours to comply with his wishes....and he actually gestures the number \"12\" with his finger while doing so....it's like \"Evil Sesame Street\"....hoo boy.

...and of course Mrs. Storm declaring \"Just look at you....the Fanstastic Four\" is just so heartwarming....you'll laugh, you'll cry.....

So if you love schlocky Sci-Fi, this one's Fantastic For you!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a chess player and I wanted to like this film. Trouble is, the content could have been fitted in a 30-minute documentary.

There were lots of shots of corridors being walked down and Kasparov gazing out in the hall where he won the World Championship. There were other shots of Kasparov being walked round the site of the 1997 match and being told where he sat and where Deep Blue was located. This just looked like filler.

Also, I didn't find it interesting to see in detail where Deep Blue was now and seeing an IBM techie trying, unsuccessfully to 'open' it. What would we have seen of interest inside anyway - a little grandmaster?

Also, the recent match against Karpov. I no longer follow professional chess enough to know when and where this was. It would have been nice to have been told: was this a one-off 'just for the money'? Was it part of the world championship cycle? What was the final score? The nub of the film was the play in game two. Could\/would IBM let Kasparov see 'inside' the machine? That's where the focus should have been.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm writing this note as a chess player as well as as a movie viewer. I watched the 1997 Kasparov-Deep Blue games on the Internet. I know something about the issues that were raised. Other chess players will come along and want to know whether this movie is worth seeing\/buying, and I'm talking largely to them. However, I'll try not to ignore those who aren't \"into chess\".

This movie is about the 1997 match between Garry Kasparov and the custom-built computer \"Deep Blue\". However, the first image you see in the movie is not of Kasparov, or of the computer, but of \"THE TURK\". This is an \"automaton\" which was built in Europe at the turn of the 18th-19th century and played winning chess against all comers. I put the word \"automaton\" in quotes because it was, as everyone now knows, a fake. There was a man inside it.

If you don't like seeing \"THE TURK\", then you won't be able to stand the movie, because \"THE TURK\" has as much screen time as Kasparov, maybe more, both in modern footage and in b\/w footage from some old movie. The reappearance of \"THE TURK\" every few seconds underscores Kasparov's charge that \"Deep Blue\" had human assistance - that it was (to some degree) a fake computer, that IBM cheated, that there was \"a man inside it\" working behind the scenes to help it win. Not only does Kasparov believe this, but the filmmakers seem to believe it too. And so this is not really much of a movie about chess games or about programming chess computers. It is a propaganda piece about a big corporation supposedly misusing a helpless grandmaster. Really it is a lot like a \"negative campaign ad\", as it is chock full of ominous music and evocative camera work and spooky sound effects and innuendos (\"we never found out what was behind that locked door\") and the ever-present \"TURK\".

Now, most people in the chess community are pretty much convinced that IBM did not cheat and that this was Garry's paranoia at work. To start with, in order for a human to help \"Deep Blue\" beat Kasparov, it would seem that you would need a human who was better than \"Deep Blue\" AND better than Kasparov. Since there was no such person, the whole idea is a bit suspect from the start. Furthermore, by the time this movie was made, there were computer programs that could run on your PC that could beat strong grandmasters. Today, much more than in 1997, we take it for granted that a computer can do things you might not expect. And we are less likely to take it as a monumental human tragedy that a computer beat a guy in chess. (And in fact, the bottom line is that Kasparov beat himself with two bad mistakes, including resigning game 2 in a drawn position.)

As for the chess games, you actually see very little of them. There are a few comments from masters and commentators that tell briefly how they went, but really you don't get to see hardly any of the strategy or tactics at all. Naturally as a chess player I take this as a major shortcoming, but I think that non-players are being cheated too. Imagine a baseball movie, for example, where you don't hardly get to see any of the game - just a commentator telling you that \"in Game Four, the White Sox defeated the Astros with such and such a score.\" Nobody would make a movie like that. But here, for example, we are told that Kasparov made a bad blunder in the opening of the decisive game 6, but we aren't shown the position on the screen, or told why it was a blunder, or what he should have done instead, or anything. We just see a few seconds of Kasparov holding his head in his hands, and then more atmospheric sound effects and camera work.

(Since I saw this on DVD, let me warn chess players about the DVD as well. The jacket promises you that the Extras include the games \"with analysis\". Is this grandmaster analysis, which people like us might find interesting? NO! It is the automated computer voice synthesizer analysis from some version of Chessmaster, that tells you when a piece is attacked and a pawn gets isolated and that you are in the \"Caro-Kann Defense, Main Line\". Blahhhh.)

Someone might then come along and say, \"Well, clearly this movie is meant to dramatize the match for the non-player, and so it's unfair to be impatient with it.\" But actually it doesn't do a very good job of reaching out to the non-player either - it skates over some points that a true novice would really want to have explained. For example it says that Kasparov could have gotten \"perpetual check\" in the second game, but it doesn't explain what that is (or show what it would have looked like on the board, which would have been interesting). It flashes back to the Kasparov-Karpov matches but doesn't explain why there were two of them or who organized them etc. I didn't need this information myself, but I'm familiar with it. If you don't already have chess experience, there are places where you are going to be confused, and this is just a defect in the film.

Ultimately I can't recommend the movie, which, like \"THE TURK\" itself, is not what it purports to be (a documentary) but more of a stage illusion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine does best is to delve into Garry Kasparov's psyche during the 1997 competition against IBM's Deep Blue. You see him becoming more and more paranoid, and increasingly unravelled, all because in the second game, Deep Blue made a move that seemed too human for his preconceived notion of chess computers. Kasparov thought then, and still does, that IBM cheated.

Game Over tries to seem unbiased, but it is clear that the director thinks that IBM cheated. However, they give no real evidence to support the cheating claim, only intimations that IBM's security surrounding the computer room was because IBM really had grandmasters hidden in there overriding the computer on certain key occasions, and Kasparov's assertion that the computer didn't play like a computer usually does at one point in game two. In game two, Kasparov played a game that was designed to trick the computer, attempting to sacrifice a pawn in a situation where previous computer chess programs would have taken the pawn, leading to the computer's eventual loss. Deep Blue didn't take the bait, and Kasparov was so rattled because the computer seemed to play like a human that he didn't even see that he could have played Deep Blue to a draw and ended up resigning. That game psyched him out so much that he was unable to recover, and after playing games 3,4, and 5 to draws, lost game 6 horribly.

The question of whether IBM cheated all comes down to that single move in game two, where the Deep Blue made the move that any human would make but that had, up to that point, tripped up computers. Joel Benjamin, a chess grandmaster on IBM's programming team explained in the documentary that they knew that chess computers always got tripped up in that situation, and consequently spent a lot of time and effort programming Deep Blue so that it wouldn't make the mistake that other computers do. If you believe Benjamin's assertion, then the case is clear, IBM did not cheat. Unfortunately, the director quickly moved on and never mentioned IBM's explanation for the rest of the movie, preferring to cut between shots of the chess playing hoax of the 19th century, The Turk, and shots of Deep Blue, hinting that Deep Blue was really controlled by a human as well. As someone who has an understanding of programming, the explanation by IBM makes perfect sense--if you knew what you were doing, it would not be terribly difficult to put something in the code so that, if thus and so conditions are reached, then do thus and so--in other words, tell the computer what to do if a situation like the one that Kasparov created in game 2 ever happened. This isn't cheating, it's doing a good job of programming a chess computer.

In the end, it's eminently clear that the director thinks that IBM cheated, and the repeated comments about IBM's stock rising 15% the day that Deep Blue won suggest the idea that IBM cheated to pump its stock price (Kasparov even compares IBM and Deep Blue to Enron). However, there is plenty of outside opinion, within both the chess and computer science communities, that Deep Blue won fair and square and that Kasparov lost because he simply couldn't get past his view of computers as \"dumb machines\" and got psyched out by a machine that didn't seem so dumb after all. I just wish that the director had let us see the alternative opinion.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i was disappointed in this documentary.i thought it would be about the second chess match between Grandmaster Garry Kasporov and Deep Blue the supercomputer designed by IBM computer experts to beat any human chess player.Kasparov was and still is,considered the greatest chess player ever.the movie takes us back to 1997 where Kasporov had agreed to have a rematch with \"deep Blue\" after defeating it 1 year earlier.but instead of focusing on the game,it focuses more on what happens before and after.there are snippets of the game,but not very many.much of the film centers around Kasporov's paranoid obsession that the match was rigged as part of some conspiracy theory and that he lost the match unfairly.the movie also includes interviews with people who are not interesting in any way.they even chat with the manager of the building where the match took place.who cares?i also found it very dry and slow.ultimately this movie was unsatisfying.this is just my opinion,of course.if you like conspiracy theories,this movie might interest you.for people not into chess or conspiracy theories,this movie would probably have no value.i am a chess fan,and i only stuck it out because of that.i give\"Game Over:Kasparov and the Machine\" 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being an admitted chess addict, I was excited to see a documentary about the 1997 rematch between Garry Kasparov and IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer. I was hoping to see an in depth look at the match and a lot of what Kasparov had to say. Boy was I wrong and misguided by a mile. This documentary is a lot like many modern documentaries - there is a lot of flash but no real substance. After watching it, I am sad to say, I felt like I wasted my time. One of the most annoying aspects about the documentary is that it does not stay at one place for a decent period of time. It has the typical MTV type editing, where the camera shows different images and quick sound bites from people every five seconds. It is very sad that film-making has been watered down to the attention span of a 10-year old child.

I understand it is difficult to make a film about chess, but that does not mean one should make it flashy. 'Game Over' did have a couple of interesting ideas though. It brought up the idea whether computers can think like human beings or not; whether computers have advanced to a unique new level. This is what Kasparov thought after the match, but this film does not go deep enough with this idea. Also, this film tries to bring in a bizarre theory. It tries to imply the paranoid that a human being was making the moves along with the help of the computer. Kasparov had suspicions about this, but still to this day there is no evidence. Towards the end of the film, it tries to imply the bizarre that maybe Anatoly Karpov might have been the human being who was secretly making the moves with the aid of Deep Blue. Interesting to think about, but I don't know how plausible or realistic it is. I still would not recommend this movie though, not even for chess addicts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This documentary was neither professionally nor objectively made. The whole thing played out like a conspiracy theory by IBM to win the match in question just to make some money. Garry Kasparov has an ego problem. He was puffed up before the match and when he lost, he didn't like it. I remember playing chess against computers back in the 80s and it wasn't too difficult to win. As time went on, I started to lose and didn't like it. Today, I simply don't play against computers anymore because they're just too good. Not only that, the games are uninteresting and lack the appeal of human games, where both sides are more likely to err and open the game to exciting possibilities. This documentary keeps showing us images of The Turk which is an ancient chess playing automaton that was really controlled by a human being. From the start until the end we are lead to believe that IBM short of literally hid a human GM in the back of their cupboard-sized computer. I'm a computer scientist and take offense at the notion that just because Garry lost, IBM must have cheated. I know how computers play chess. It's not magic and it's no mystery. They can be trained, have huge amounts of chess knowledge and they most certainly see positions and possibilities in unprecedented detail compared to humans. It's really no surprise that Deep Blue won. Perhaps at the time it was. If it happened today, given the ever-increasing processing power of machines; people would hardly blink. If a machine couldn't at least draw with a GM today, people would think the program was weak.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kasparov vs. Deep Blue is no doubt a fascinating story, but I don't think you'd know it by watching this movie. I think it focuses too much on the conspiracy theory that IBM cheated...and what does this theory hinge upon? The idea that at one point the computer made a move that \"looked human\". I am not a chess grandmaster or a computer scientist. And while I don't doubt that the move looked human, to me it doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that the most powerful chess-playing computer ever created could make a surprising move...or that such a machine could beat even a genius like Kasparov. The movie gets way too much mileage out of this theory, and not enough out of the personalities of the people involved...that could have made it a much more interesting story. The direction also relies way too much on the conceits of a pointlessly whispered narration, and the imagery of an 18th century chess-playing machine that looks like one of those animatronic gypsy fortunetellers you see at the carnival. Also the story was slowed down by many empty shots of Kasparov revisiting \"the scene of the crime\". I don't doubt that Kasparov and the chess community found IBM's behavior vexing, but I don't think it's any different than you would find from any other big corporation. At the end of the movie, you are left with the feeling that Kasparov is a huge crybaby and the Deep Blue programmers are either victims or cheats. I think if the filmmaker wanted the viewer to believe the conspiracy theory (which he almost certainly did), he should have presented a lot more evidence. In fact, more evidence would have been a good idea in the first place. The whole thing left me with a sour taste in my mouth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This episode sucks.

Over the past few years I have watched all episodes of \"Next Generation\" and \"Voyager\" and am now watching \"Enterprise\".

I am thoroughly enjoying this series. Until this episode. I stared at the screen in horror at the destruction of character and entertainment. It is more like an attempt at slapstick.

It does not build the characters but throws them out on a limb - and leaves the audience gasping. It does little to build the series.

Why this was ever allowed to go to air amazes me. Was it the writing? Was it the directing? Was it the producer? We'll probably never know.

But one bad apple isn't bad I suppose. I say that hoping it is only one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where on earth do I start with the mess that is Darkhunters? Firstly the script is one of the worst to ever find its way onto a cinema or TV screen and can only be described as a poorly judged Stephen King rip-off. At one point the supposedly fearsome darkhunter Jack claims that Carol, the girl who is helping the man he is pursuing, is as annoying as \"a gherkin in a burger\". I would be laughing if I was making it up-BUT I'M NOT! Just as ludicrous is how Carol originally came to have the power to see how people die. A cat gave it to her when she was holding it during an auto accident she had as a kid. WHAT????????

Secondly, for a horror movie, it has no sense of tension or threat whatsoever. This may not be helped by the fact that all the action happens during stark, broad daylight. Not very atmospheric at all.

Thirdly the acting is truly awful, Pinion proves again that he needs to be speaking in his native tongue to be even remotely believable. Jeff Fahey is obviously on auto-pilot but how can blame him as he runs through a woe-ful Humphry Bogart impersonation as Barlow (Marlowe-Barlow? We get the joke it just isn't funny). Credit should go to Susan Paterno, an actress I was not aware of, she does her best with the awful part she has and puts the other, more experienced actors to shame.

At no point is it even explained how the HUMAN character can understand what Van Husen's character is saying to her. She obviously has some sort of degree in screwy alien languages.

On the plus side one moment is well done, the car crash involving Susan. The sfx are throughly believable and if it weren't for the hilarious storyline reason for this to occur it would have been applauded.

All I can say about darkhunters is that British horror will never recover from its interminable slump if movies like this continue to be made and shown. Avoid this movie like the plague, although the plague would be a lot more scary.

Darkhunters 0\/5

p.s. the insinuations in other reviews that the film remains too intelligent for some are honestly hilarious. It is a weak defence when some claim \"you didn't like it because you didn't understand it\". The letters after my name make a fool of you not me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has got to be one of the worst films I have ever seen! The cast is an international one - Australian-pretending-to-be-British, stage American and a character with an English name sporting an unrecognizable \"European\" accent. What passable efforts in acting from this motley crew are totally undermined by a plot and script of especial inanity. So short were the shoestrings of this film's budget and the overall production values are so low that it would have no trouble winning a cinematic limbo competition. In the last twenty or so years we have seen horror films and stalk'n slash thrillers of extraordinary (though not necessarily \"high\") quality which have been made on no budget at all. Recent examples include the poorly made but totally scary \"Blair Witch Project\" and of course - the most recent - that low-budget winner, SAW, featuring practically unknown leads (Gary Elwes is just someone you don't remember even if you have seen him before). In DARKHUNTERS, it is shocking to find a known character actor, Dominique Pinon and Hollywood has-been Jeff Fahey struggling valiantly to save the film. It is embarrassing to see the once handsome leading man (Fahey) in corny makeup uttering bizarrely bad lines. I would have rated this film 0 out of 10 had that been possible!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I'll begin with this: I love horror-movies, not even the worst plot or the most insanely terrible acting will ruin the experience as long as there is a certain amount of gore and suspense present. Second; this is the worst movie of all times. It even beats Mean Guns, and the attack of the killer tomatoes. And for that I pay it homage.

However, the involuntary humor was only funny until half the movie had passed, after which point everything was so so sad. To my great surprise, the reviews where somewhat divided; and you guys who rated this piece of C-movie-crap from 7 and up; I KNOW YOU'RE JOKING! GOOD ONE!! HAHAHA! Because if there is any reason in the world, and we have just an tiny bit of the same notion of what quality is; you can't be for real.

Everything worth to be mentioned about the contents has already been summed pretty good up, so I'll leave it.

MINOR SPOILER ALERT

But the scene where the cloaked rubber mask guy drags the woman back and forth through the dog-kennel for ten minutes, with o so terrible music score and the mind blowing dialog between the two, really does it for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

Spoilers

I'm going to be as kind as I can about this film (some people, including directors!, can get quite upset when reviewers speak their mind) so...

There is a nice car accident and the opening credits look good and... that's it; everything else bites the big one. All the acting is appalling, the script is embarrassing, the special effects look like they were done by school children on cheap computers. All in all this film has serious bowling shoe tendencies.

As a horror film it's not very scary and if it supposed to a \"thinking man's\" horror film well it succeeded on some level, I kept thinking that the end of this film is an awfully long way away. It may actually be an ironic look at bad horror films and I'm missing the point but I somehow doubt it.

This is a complete car phone warehouse of a film and I could not recommend it to anyone, and it does pain me to say this as I eagerly await the resurrection of British Horror.

If you don't agree with this review, that fine, it's just my own opinion, and I'm sure someone out there will love it (the director's Mum for instance).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, it was a \"risky\" move to rent this flick, but I thought I had nothing to lose.Well, I was wrong. This is, next to \"Bloodsurf\", the worst \"horrormovie\" I have ever seen. Crappy actors, crappy technical output, crappy story and so on. The soundtrack though, isn't to bad. That is why I give it a 2 on the vote and not just a 1. And of course the cats are a positive surprise. By far the superior actors in this movie..... Do not rent or buy it. Stay away from it and hope that this horrible, horrible film will vanish to some obscure existence and not become a \"cult classic\". It most definitely do not deserve any recognition.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the dire special effects onwards I was absolutely gob smacked at how bad anyone can make a film. Lets put it this way, I have absolutely no directing experience whatsoever and for the first time ever when watching a film I thought 'I can do better than that! whilst sat watching this pap. The acting in this film was terrible, I suppose the best actor was the guy from Lawnmower Man but the French guy from Aliens3 was so wooden I wondered how he got the former job in the first place. The storyline was mediocre and I suppose, like most films, If the rest had been done well it would have stood up. I don't usually write reviews here but after seeing a couple of people gave this film a good rating (must be cast\/crew) I felt I had to say my piece to save anyone from accidentally hiring it or wasting their money on buying this cack.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK the box look interesting, the opening have great music and its kinda original, to that its all OK. But when the movie start...well its not my first videoville movie, i watched Ghost Lake, and its very similar of this movie except its ever worse here. The story at first sounded interesting but the whole movie look like a movie shot by a bunch of university student, with specials effect that me laugh, the blood look like a mix of red and white paint, the fire effect on the demon face look like it was done with a program i could buy at my local computer shop. All the movie is shot in day(very great for a movie supposed to be horror) and there like no gore(1 scene only and it look so home-made and not credible) and near no blood(it can be considered a great thing considering the look of the blood show) and 1 demon for the whole movie. The story is going nowhere , it give you the impression that it never start, there so much useless scene done only to give the movie the average duration time(when the demon search the guy in the dogs thing for about 4 minutes...) Way too much slow-mo things. Well lets just say this movie is a Z-series one and a very poor one. All cool idea lost themselves and you get a cheesy movie. It bored my all long and I'm not the guy who get bored very easily with horror movie, man i even like house of the dead and alone in the dark from Uwe Boll and you probably know the name for being one of the worst director but here it look too much like some guys wanting to make a movie for fun. Plus for us french speaker(tough i understand English i prefer to watch movie in my native language) there the usual videoville bad translation. In normal movie you can barely see its not the actor speaking(you have to check on lips etc) here you just have to listen to it and you know it. Very cheesy","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is truly pathetic in every conceivable department. awful, awful, awful. It's only around eighty minutes long, but believe me you'll feel like you're watching an Andy Warhol film (then again twenty hours in the life of the empire state building would surely be far more interesting).

Where to start... the putrid script, the disgusting cinematography, the so bad its bad acting, the spectacularly dismal effects, dreadful music, or just the wafer thin plot that thouroughly resembles a sieve. This film is an incoherent shambles

A particularly noteworthy scene takes place outside a cafe when Dominic Pinon decides to shoot a cat, cue the waitress watching through the cafe window who comments with an average English accent \"God damn\". To right that woman. God damn this horrendous monstrosity.

Everyone involved should be thouroughly ashamed of themselves. Let us hope that the director never finds the funding to work again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Horrible acting with the worst special f\/x I've ever bore witness too. It's bad enough I wasted $3 to watch this crummy pile of crap, but it's the hour and a half time I lost that I could've been doing anything else like getting a root canal or volunteering for jury duty. Getting drunk couldn't even help this video.

To put it bluntly, I sincerely believe I actually lost a few IQ points during the course of watching this idiotic piece of mind-numbing \"work\"! Perhaps I should have followed my own advice this time. Never expect a decent film if it's written, directed and produced by the same person, and never EVER expect anything of value from Jeff Fahey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just watched this today on TV. It was on ABC's Sunday Afternoon Movie.

This wasn't a very good movie, but for a low budget independent film like this, it was okay. There is some suspense in it, but there are so many bad qualities that really bring the movie down. The script is pretty lame, and the plot elements aren't very realistic, such as the way a 911 operator would laugh and hang up when someone is reporting a murder. I don't know what the writer was thinking when they came up with that idea, but it isn't very realistic.

I thought this movie was going to be a good suspense thriller, because there were a few scenes that seemed like they would lead to something good, but unfortunately, they never did. There were a few plot elements that have been used in other movies similar to this, and in the end, didn't prove to be very creative.

If there is something good about this movie, it is the cast. Every actor in this movie did good with what they had to work with. The terribly underrated actress Elizabeth Pena was great in this movie. She is very sexy, and has an incredibly sexy voice. However, if you want to see a movie of hers that is really good, watch the excellent animated movie The Incredibles. In that movie, she put her sexy voice to good use.

What can I say, this movie isn't really worth your time, but the actors were good. Unfortunately, they were all wasted on this movie, which is a real shame. This movie tried to be a good suspense thriller, but in the end, it fell flat. If you want to see a good movie that is similar to this, but much better, see The Hitcher. If you want to see something with the cast members of this movie, watch any of their other movies. You can real easily pass on this movie if you ever get the chance to see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first half of this film held some promise as it seemed like the film was going to be a low-key character psychodrama like THE MINUS MAN but then the whole thing collapses into cliche and the viewer slowly loses all interest. There's a decent cast here but the film is lifeless and the talent completely wasted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When the Legends Die is a powerful, moving story of an orphaned Ute Indian who goes on to become Tom Black Bull, a champion bronc rider. Raised in the old ways, Tom is given a white man's name and must adopt the language and ways of the white man to live in that world. Bitter about the role he has been forced into, Tom finds fulfillment doing one thing, busting horses, riding them to death, in the rodeo. The movie has Richard Widmark in the role of Red, the man who befriends Tom and acts as his manager. Red is a drunk who eventually dies in the story, which is about where the movie ends. The real story is completely ignored, the dark side of Tom Black Bull who develops a reputation as a killer of horses in the rodeo arenas. Oh well, you should read the book, this movie doesn't come close to doing the story justice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Enjoy the opening credits. They're the best thing about this second-rate but inoffensive time-killer which features passable performances from the likes of Eric Roberts and Martin Kove. The main part, however, goes to newcomer Tommy Lee Thomas who looks a bit diminutive for this kind of action but who, nevertheless, occasionally manages to project a banty-rooster kind of belligerence. The first time we see him he's bare-chested, sweaty, and engaged in that favorite \"beefcake\" activity -- chopping wood. After this he has seven more scenes without his shirt including one in which he's hanged by his wrists and zapped with electricity a la Mel Gibson in \"Lethal Weapon.\" He could use a better script, however, since the manner in which he exposes the truth about corruption and violence inside the prison is never very convincing. There's also talk about millions of dollars which apparently is tied in with this investigation but which is never explained. There are a few pluses, though. Sending \"John Woodrow\" undercover as \"John Wilson\" is an amusing play on a presidential name, and co-star Jody (Ross) Nolan shows promise as an inmate who, early in the proceedings, is shown hanged by his wrists and getting punched by a burly guard. One final note: the movie's low budget is painfully responsible for the lack of \"extras.\" Despite the impressive size of the prison, it only seems to hold about 12 inmates! (Note: the cast credits at the end aren't too helpful. For the record, the burly, bald-headed guard who uses Jody Nolan as a punching bag is played by Bill Fishback, and the young, fair-haired guard who administers electric shocks to Tommy Lee Thomas is played by Marc Chenail.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"2001 wasn't perhaps Eric Roberts best year. Both Raptor and this came out. Watched Raptor a while ago and really thought it sucked and being Erics worst. But that had it\u00b4s share moment of fun and D-standard. This one doesn't have a thing.

Tommy Lee Thomas is the name of the probably worst actor in these days. The story lacks any punch and the whole thing feels even slower than a snail breaking in curves.

The two thing that stands out are Martin Kove and Eric Roberts. You could argue about their effort being good or what but compared to the rest they are above all criticism.

I say thank you Roberts see you next time (and hopefully a better one).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eric Roberts \"stars\" in this Tommy Lee Thomas debut prison film. He plays the leader of a corrupt ring of guards. Though evil by most people's standards, his character is the kind of guy who is nice enough to give you supporting wires while you hang chained to the ceiling as he tortures you with \"Lethal Weapon\" electric prods.

The movie has an intricate plot about prison corruption that makes absolutely no sense. Thomas has Clint Eastwood's squinter eyes, Dolph Lundgren's one-liners, the acting abilities of JCVD and the body of the tiniest guy you knew in school who took steroids after graduation.

Martin \"Cobra Kai\" Kove's career shares this low point with Roberts, in the film it is difficult to tell if Kove's character is supposed to be drunk for the entire movie or if Kove just came that way. I couldn't blame him if he did.

Fortunately for all involved, this movie has a \"so bad that it's good\" quality that can be fun IF YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BETTER TO DO.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Worst movie ever seen. Worst acting too. I cannot imagine a movie worse then this. Nothing to see. No acting at all.T hey (actors) should look for another job. I cant't understand who was stupid enough to actually put money into this movie.

I'm sorry for Eric Roberts. Must be tough...I cannot imagine how HUUUGE his mortgage must be to justify taking the job!

The ladies in the movie...perhaps they better stick to XXX.

As for the LEADING MAN...what a lead! He better be put on a lead and stay there! I can see him being more successful at barking rather than acting.

Overall rating: Do NOt rent...DO NOT BUY!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"In the sweltering summer of 1958, the Deuces, a gang of Brooklyn toughs, find their turf threatened when the leader of a rival gang, the Vipers, is released from prison. Leon (Stephen Dorff), the Deuces' leader, tries to guide his boys through bloody brawls to keep the Vipers out. But when his brother (Brad Renfro) falls into a sultry - and dangerous - relationship with Annie (Fairuza Balk), the sister of a Viper, and his own girlfriend is brutally attacked, Leon and his gang are plunged into an all-out war to save his brother, his girl - and his neighborhood!\" according to the DVD sleeve description. This is definitely no \"Basketball Diaries\".

Think of it as \"West Side Story\" getting hit over the head with baseball bats and steel pipes, stickball having left Brooklyn with the Dodgers. \"Deuces Wild\" has some cool Hollywood sets, 1950s cars and soundtrack songs; and, much of it is nicely photographed by John A. Alonzo. The story and direction never get beyond these strengths, which enables the film to peak during its opening minutes, and proceed downhill. The cast looks good when you read the credits, but translates into an ageing, flabby mess of phony pompadours, blood, and Brylcreem\u0085 and one fright wig. A sense of sadness and regret permeates the production.

*** Deuces Wild (5\/3\/02) Scott Kalvert ~ Stephen Dorff, Brad Renfro, Fairuza Balk, Frankie Muniz","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In a nutshell the movie is about a gang war in the 1950's. Leon, the leader of the Deuces, starts the gang after his brother OD's on \"junk\". He vows to protect the neighborhood. The leader of the rival gang is just getting out of prison and wants revenge.

The movie didn't really do it for me. The \"Good Guys\" weren't any more good than the \"Bad Guys\". Very little was shown to suggest that the Deuces really cared for the community. I suppose the writers were going for realism here, but I just didn't care which side won. None of the characters were likable, or even capable of drawing my sympathy.

On the plus side the courtship between Annie and Bobby had some snappy dialog, and the acting overall was well done.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Worst pile of drivel to date! Everyone involved with this production should be ashamed of themselves. Not one single element of the movie was anything slightly like an original idea. A first grader telling you a story about nap time is more entertaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, I was really disappointed. I wasn't really planning on seeing this movie in the theater, and I wish I stuck to that plan. It really should be a made-for-tv movie. I was kind of excited to see it, as I'm a big fan of Fairuza Balk, but this movie didn't do her justice. Infact I'm a little disappointed with the acting all around. What a horrible cover up of Fairuza Balk's tattoos, it bothered me every time I saw her shoulder.

There was no flow to the movie, it was very hard to get into it. One scene we get angry, hyped up, we want blood, the anticipation rises, just then the director takes us to another scene to show the love between Annie and Bobby. It would have been more enjoyable to follow if it was broken up into three sectional sunday paper comic strip.

There was also little logic behind the characters chosen to play some parts. The gangster leaders were scrawny guys, not very believable. Matt Dillon head of a mobster organization? Come on, give me a break. There was just no intimidation there.

The soundtrack.. wow. I think this is one of the worst musical scores I've ever heard. What awful guitar solos, my god. The sound of my teeth grinding was more pleasing to my friends, I'm sure.

Anyhow, there is one positive comment I'd like to make about the movie. The settings were nicely done. I liked the colours, a good job conveying that time period.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe it was the fact that I saw Spider-man the day before I saw Duces Wild, but I do not think that there can be any excuse for this movie being as bad as it was. The cast was there to do it, but it seemed as if once they found them selves with a decent cast they had to try and make them fit into the movie. The only problem was that they did not fit. I did not like any of the characters and the story was sketchy at best. I left wondering why i spent my money on this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Imagine every stereotypical, overacted cliche from every movie and TV show set on the streets of Brooklyn between 1930 and 1980. Populate it with a cast of interchangeable caricatures instead of actual characters. Throw in a mix of \"period\" music and wailing electric guitars during the \"rumble\" scenes. Then pass the time trying to figure out (or care) which of the Deuces is going to be killed in the (anti)climactic final rumble.

I'll give this movie points for not being just another romantic comedy, teen slasher, explosive action movie, teen sex comedy, kiddie musical, or Oscar-nomination vehicle. But bringing something new or interesting to the street-gang tragedy genre might've been nice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow! i think they made this movie to torture people. there are no words for how much i hated this film. I could have been cleaning my room instead. i love bad melodrama as much as the next person but....come on!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was awful plain and simple. What was their message? Where was the movie going with this? It has all the ingredients of a sub-B grade movie. From plotless storyline the bad acting to the cheesey slow-mo cinematography. I'd sooner watch a movie I've already seen like Goodfellas, A Bronx Tale, even Grease. There are NO likeable characters. In the end you just want everyone to die already. Save 2 hours of your life and skip this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the most vapid, idiotic, insanely stupid show that has EVER been on the air, and this is coming from someone who remembers \"San Pedro Beach Bums\".

My wife loves watching reality shows--and there was one episode of this drivel where the wannabes had to develop a \"walk\". The end result was straight out of Monty Python's \"Ministry of Silly Walks\" sketch. I couldn't laugh hard enough.

And then there's the ubiquitous Ms. Banks (as in laughing all the way to the...). She has to be the most annoying self-important woman on TV since Rosie O'Donnell left \"The View\". As if modeling was doing great things for mankind. Please. I've never found her attractive, and I don't find her intelligent now that she has the temerity to open her mouth.

Someone needs to tell these human clothes hangers to eat a healthy diet and actually look like real women.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tyra Banks needs to teach these girls that it's not all about being beautiful on the outside. The inside counts for something too. A lot of the past winners have looked semi decent but are horribly cruel and starting trouble for the other girls. I see Tyra less involved with the girls in every season. About the only thing worth watching Top Model for is Mr. Jay Manuel. Recently, Tyra had a contestant who was a pre-op transsexual. I felt that she should have done more to encourage her. It was obvious that she had insecurities about her original anatomy showing through her feminine look. Tyra should have given her tips or perhaps she could have sent resident Trannie Ms. Jay to help the girl out. Instead, the contestant was met with harsh criticism and not enough positive criticism. It's a shame because I truly enjoyed the first 3 seasons. There's a reason why Project Runway has all 4 seasons out on DVD and Top Model only has 1 season on DVD. It's called taste. Top Model seriously needs a lot of revamping an some more humanity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In watching this off and on for a few seasons, two things come to mind: One - wondering what kind of girl wants to be a \"model\" and two - run to the nearest ice cream store and have a low fat sundae.

I tried to be a fan because I liked the idea of this reality show competition. No other \"famous\" model thought of this, and it is very admirable for Tyra Banks to do so. But as the series goes on and on I've come to the conclusion that this is a sorry lot of folks trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Women shouldn't watch this, teens should stay clear of it unless they're doing book reports on the subject.

Many women try out for slots to compete for \"Americas Next Top Model\". They live together, cat fight together, cry together, get put through pointless modeling shoots with pointless modeling people and fashionatas and get eliminated and almost all of them claim, \"You will see me again\". Heck, I'm trying to see what happened to the ones that DID win, actually.

This is the dream of some girls, and good for them. In watching this I hope the other girls that see this and run like Hades the other way - like to college.

I just happened to watch more of this recent season because of the \"ploy\" of full figured models joining the group. That even made me think more of this as a sorry lot of folks. The \"full figured models\" were no more than average sized ladies competing with what I think is the thinnest group of models they ever chose - so of course that would make them look even fatter - a \"ploy\" fashionatas use all the time. Bad, bad, Tyra and crew.

But to be fair, \"Americas Next Top Model\" is not about \"full figured\" models, it's about projecting an imagined image a beauty that can be mass marketed and sold as the ultimate in beauty - and this show is just looking for the next fresh piece of meat to add to the mix. Hence the name of the show. Hence the sorry lot of judges, photographers, associations. Hence Tyra and her consistent \"this was me\" plugs every camera angle you can get. But then again, that IS the one thing I like about this show - the ex-model giving others who wouldn't have the chance -- a chance to enter the doors. But after that...everything else is status quo for that industry which is why there are no surprises or week to week interest in the program.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tyra & the rest of the modeling world needs to know that real women like myself and my daughter don't care to see all the ridiculous modeling to sell something. Weird locations, too much makeup & too much skin is not necessary. Sex does not always sell when you are selling to women. The same goes for the horse stomping runway walk that looks unnatural. People come in all shapes & sizes & they need to have that on the show. My daughter has a 36\" inseam, is tall & slender & a size 5, I am more average at a size 12. We would like to see both- I can not picture how something would look on me when a size 2 is wearing it, it will not fit the same way on me. I do not buy magazines anymore because they are one sided on this matter. We would really love the show to consider women of all sizes. Thank you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would like to comment on how the girls are chosen. why is that their are always more white women chosen then their are black women. every episode their is always more white women then black one's. as if to say white women are better looking then black women. I would like for once see more black women then white. and it not just your show it's like that in a lot of shows always more white's. but i would have thought since you as the head honcho of the show you would see this yourself and have more black women on your show. but you are just like the rest trying to act like you are so fair and nice. you are just a big fony hypocrite.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How could anyone who liked the previous JP movies even stand to sit through this 1 hour of drivel? There are so many stupid things about this film it's mind boggling!! I remember when i went to see JP as a kid it was my favorite movie and franchise, the acting, the SFX the Music, the direction! all fantastic, JP2 in my opinion was OK pretty much the same apart from some really stupid moments (like the gymnast girl kicking a raptor..please!) but on a whole a watchable and reasonable cinematic experience.

But the the third one has no point!! It's supposed to be a sequel that Carry's on from JP2 and yet it magically includes brand new things to the franchise that would have been impossible to miss on the previous 2 films! for example: 1) The \"new\" mega Spinosaurus - Seriously, what the hell!! This thing follows them everywhere they go, they cannot escape it's presence and yet in The lost world (the same island) do you see it once? do you hear it? does anyone even MENTION it? NO! Its ridiculous!. The star character in the previous 2 movies was, and always will be the T-Rex so what does the d(urr)irector \"Joe Johnston\" go and do? Kill it off! as soon as you see the huge T-Rex in all its awesome roaring glory it gets killed and you never see it again - a new Dino on the town is the excuse.. where did it come from!!?? not a single explanation! and don't get me started on the whole satellite-phone-in-the-Dino-belly thing! 2)Just when you start to get over how stupid the Spinosaurus is you see the Raptors, Aside from their new \"Punk\" Haircuts they seem pretty credible! *Phew* they will make this movie watchable right?... WRONG! now they speak to each other!! and the excuse for them speaking in this film and not in the First and second are...wait for it... Evolution! - yes the process of millions of years in just a few months from when the second movie ended, amazing! surly they should have grown opposable thumbs and created tools by now!! OK i am not going to say anymore about the plot because it's getting up my nose, so i will close on this: Jurassic Park is a classic, JP3 is a lousy sucker punch to any of the original fans of the series, my favorite franchise was well and truly dead after watching this Monstrosity (no pun intended) Avoid this movie like the plague","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When i went to see this i thought, i liked the first two and thought that they were very suspenseful so this one should be good also. WRONG! There was NO suspense and they don't explain about the new dinosaurs! When i was done watching this i had lost all respect for Steven Spielberg and Michael Crichton but then it turned out that it wasn't directed by Spielberg or written by Michael Crichton! This movie was going through \"the motions.\" i thought that this movie had absolutely no plot and i thought that no one should waste their money to see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You could have put the characters on the island for any reason at all and had the same movie. The first one had an original story, the second stole one from King Kong, and in the end (I hope) of this trilogy the story seemed to have been bypassed altogether. Drop some people on an island full of dinosaurs and watch them run for their lives. That was about all there was to it. The special effects were decent but not worth 8 dollars. If you have a discount theatre in your local area, wait and see it for a buck. I wouldn't even bother renting it. That would be too much money for this unthrilling thriller.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This would probably be a good film to see....provided you've already seen every other film in existence, and thoroughly explored the bellybuttons of yourself and those around you. God, this movie was unbelievably insipid, with some of the worst (or is it nonexistent) writing ever captured on film. There is no saving grace to this film; even the animatronics are kind of lame, and it's just a complete waste of time and money.

Run. Fast. It's beyond horrible.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's clear that for this film they wanted to have the story line driven by the characters. But immediately the story line causes you to dislike the new main characters. The fly-over of the island and dinosaurs below lacked any impact at all and almost looked like a cartoon. The all action entrance to the island is merely a rehash of parts from JP 1 and 2. The story-line is predictable to the point of annoyance and it's entirely unsatisfying end left me feeling cheated. This gave me with no option but to award the film 3\/10!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(A possible minor spoiler) The first \"Jurassic Park\" was an effective, but silly film that did it's job and was actually pretty good. The sequel \"The Lost World\" had a few decent moments, but those were ruined by the lame end portion of the film which had a T-Rex running amok in San Diego. Now in \"Jurassic Park III,\" what little story there was in the first one and the sequel, has been thrown out the window and replaced by a mere 90 minutes of basically non-stop action, which would have worked had the film not been so poorly done.

Sam Neill is back as Dr. Grant, who is given a proposition by a couple (William H. Macy & Tea Leoni) to come with them to an island to help them find their son, who's been lost for over 2 months. But of course this island just happens to be populated by dinosaurs and of course the plane the are on just happens to crash leaving them stranded with a bunch of dinos after them.

This one was obviously intended as a thrill ride, with no real story whatsoever, but even on that level the movie doesn't deliver. Director Joe Johnston (\"Jumanji\") somehow managed to take what little magic was left in the \"Jurassic\" movies and squeeze the life right out of it.

The dinos look okay, though by now they're just standard fair and not very scary. The bottom line is it's not a very good film, even as a thrill ride. * out of 4 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To summarize, my group of friends and I spent about 45 minutes outside the theater sharing our favorites gaffes, plot inconsistencies, untied loose ends, and other ridiculous aspects of this movie. I found the story trite to the point of inconsequential and the plot lines as underdeveloped as the dino embryos still locked in the shaving cream canister from Jurassic Park 1. The editing was poor and none of the characters engendered any sort of sympathy or feeling. In short, this movie lacked any of the suspense and thrill that the first movie provided from a story standpoint

Even the new dinosaurs were few and far between (although I really enjoyed the pterodactyls.) We got several brief shots of the new species and only 2 really were involved in the action.

As a scientist and former childhood paleontologist, the lack of any real scientific content (not that it had to be realistic, but logically formed i.e. how they built the dinos in #1 and malcom's chaos ramblings) was disappointing as well.

In short, the movie seemed to be nothing more than an excuse to trot dinos back on the scene to make some money. I hope that movie-goers don't fall for this trap again (although I did apparently)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had been looking forward to this movie since Lost World came out. It didn't bother me that Lost World wasn't as intellectual as the original, and here, I was just hoping for a good monster movie. It was all about \"Dinosaurs eat people.\" However, it was disappointing even on that level.

For starters, there were not enough people to eat, and while I'll keep it a secret how many people get eaten, it was not enough. Also, while there was no shortage of variety in the dinosaur community, there were not nearly \"enough\" dinosaurs. And many dinosaurs, like the spikey-back-and-has-a-club-on-its-tail-osaurus, just made cameos and didn't do much considering how cool they are.

(START SPOILERS) Then there were the Pterodactyls. The figures I've read put their body weight at about 15 pounds, while the movie made them look closer to 300. Worse, they didn't get to eat anybody, or even splatter them on the rocks by dropping them from high up. There was no ending to the movie, either, it was just, all of the sudden, credits. (END SPOILERS) I'm left wondering if the edition I saw was missing 40 minutes of film.

My only conclusion can be that they taught the Pterodactyls to stick their long beaks stealthily into your pockets and get your $7. Go rent the Carnosaur series; at least you won't be disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Number 1 was really great summer popcorn fun. It was the modern Jaws.

Number 2 is best summed up by Jeff Goldblum in the movie about being the stupidest idea in the history of stupid ideas (or something like that).

Number 3 is the obituary notice...JP has achieved all it ever will.

Once they realized they had no fresh ideas they should have just let sleeping dinos lie.

That said. Movie is ok if you don't mind knowing you already have seen it before.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How sad it is when a film as wonderful as \"Jurassic Park\" slowly nosedives into hackneyed and mediocre territory throughout its franchise. The newest sequel, Jurassic Park III, has given no thought to characters, a story, or pretty much a script, and instead relies on non-stop dinosaur action, which is neither thrilling nor very interesting to watch. The dinosaurs seemed to look incredibly fake compared to the 1993 technology, after 7 years of CGI advancements, it only gives you more of the feeling that the film was pumped out for the summer relying only on its name. The introduction of a pterodactyl does not a great movie make.

Go see \"Shrek\" again.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was perhaps the biggest waste of 2 hours of my life. From the opening 10 minutes, I was ready to leave. The cliches there slapping you in the face, and the plot was not only predictably stupid, but full of more holes than swiss cheese. I am considering suing for that lost 2 hours, and $6.25 along with the fact that I am now stupider for watching this waste of film. The T-Rex's must be flipping in their graves, so to speak.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Did people expect \"Jurassic Park 3\" to be full of surprises? Not one moment of it is worth it. Many elements could easily scare people out of the movies...and it's not the dinos! Tea Leoni...I think she's a great actress, but I'm sorry to say that this time she reached the bottom line. I wonder if she happened to strain a vocal chord while shooting the movie....Laura Dern...she's ok, but why not be more noticeable in the movie, maybe exchange smart dialogs with Sam Neil. Alessandro Nivola - \"have you ever heard of something called facial expression? Fellings, emotions...\"..he's got to work harder on that! Sam Neil, no big deal. The soundtrack...got to change that record, or you get tired of it. My applause goes to William H. Macy, a talented actor who I've never seen playing a bad role....unfortunately he can't save the movie, nor can the well computer-created dinosaurs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"JP3 lacks the Spielberg touch. It's an all-out assault on the senses featuring \"in your face\" dinosaurs. Watching this film was a bit like a roller coaster ride from hell.

The script is lame; it simultaneously asks and then leaves too many questions unanswered. Also, we don't really get to appreciate the humans in the film for all they're worth. For example, William H. Macy is too great a talent to have to compete with dino-thugs for our attention. And Laura Dern was especially sympathetic in JP1; in this film, she's barely a blip on the radar screen.

The whole JP3 experience was t o o m u c h. Too much noise, too many surprises, too many characters dying off, too much predictable, gratuitous violence.

Word to the wise: vote yourself off this island.

(I rated it a 3 for special effects; I took off the other 7 points for having absolutely no originality.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

JURASSIC PARK III *___ Adventure

Sam Nell (The Dish), William Macy (Happy Texas, Fargo), TZ(a Leoni (Family Man)

A better title would be: ESCAPE FROM THE ISLAND OF REALLY MEAN DINOSAURS. But then no one would need to see the film. In this sequel, a rag-tag group pays a visit to the island of dinosaurs to rescue the teenage victim of a hang-gliding accident.

ACCESS HOLLYWOOD reports JP3 began filming without a completed script. That explains why the film seems to have little or no purpose other than to demonstrate state-of-the-art special effects. Sure, there are a few clever scenes and some moderately funny bits, but no meaningful plot line to tie them together. The dinosaur puppets and animation in JP3 are very good to excellent, and more numerous than ever. But the overall film experience can not hold a candle to the original JURASSIC PARK or even JP2.

JP3 is a mercifully short 90 minutes -- the last 10 minutes of which is credits. Even at that, I found myself frequently checking my wristwatch. The audience I saw it with left the theater in silence.

A better bet: see the movie LEGALLY BLONDE.

Dave","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although coming after three Star Wars, Krull & countless others, this movie would look outdated in the 1950s... 1 SFX mostly consist of 1970s videogames effects such as bolts etc; annoying after a short while. You also get a SFX creature that looks like a poor man's version of some tier-IV Harryhausen monster.

2 sets are mainly ruins in the countryside, with papier-mache temples and miniature cities or abodes that makes 1950s Japanese monster movies look like flawless perfection.

3 Plot is paper extra-thin...Hercules must find Zeus' seven golden thunderbolts stolen by conspiring gods & zombie tyrants.

4 action mainly consists in retarded, muscled-up Hercules ( check the variety of facial expressions ) wrestling cheap 1970s videogames effects.

5 acting award goes to Milly Carlucci (third Carlucci show-biz sister with Anna & Gabriella ), which says all.

6 SFX make other tier-II Italian salad bowl movies such as L'UMANOIDE & STAR CRASH look like masterpieces.

Well, considering that Ferrigno's main acting exploit consisted in impersonating a retarded green monster, wearing a whig and green espadrillas, we ought to be lenient.

Watch it & forget about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the fertile imagination which brought you the irresistible HERCULES (1983), comes its even more preposterous (read goofier) sequel: right off the bat, we get another unwieldy \"beginning of time\" prologue which even contrives to completely contradict these same events as set up in the first film!; a condensed montage of highlights from same is soon followed by a SUPERMAN-like scrolling credits sequence. Narrative-wise, here we have four rebellious gods who steal Zeus' seven all-important (but poorly animated) thunderbolts \u0096 a crime which, for one thing, sets the moon careening on a collision course with Planet Earth! Faster than you can say \"nepotism\", Zeus (once again played as a white-haired bearded man by the relatively young Claudio Cassinelli) sends his champion \u0096 who has now rightfully taken his place among the elite thanks to, one presumes, the almighty tasks performed in the first film \u0096 to find his blooming thunderbolts and avert the calamities in store.

No sooner has Hercules (Lou Ferrigno \u0096 as if you didn't know) touched the earthly surface that he comes in contact with two attractive damsels (Milly Carlucci and Sonia Viviani) in need of his getting them out of distress!; the former (who would go on to become an Italian TV personality) seemingly has the ability to talk with the Little People(!) \u0096 which look uncannily like the tiny sisters from GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA (1964)!! Just so they can swindle as much unutilzed footage from the first film as is humanly possible, the divine quartet of villains resurrect good ol' King Minos (William Berger again) from his skeletal slumber and pit him once more against his eternal enemy. Typically, Hercules is made to encounter a number of potentially deadly foes including a Gorgon \u0096 an awfully underproduced sequence which ought to have led to a surefire plagiarism suit had the film-makers behind the much superior CLASH OF THE TITANS (1981) bothered to watch this flick (complete with the same \"reflection in a shield\" come-uppance and preceded by the muscleman letting the audience in on his tactics before executing them as if to show us how clever he is)!! And just to make it crystal clear that he wears his influences on his sleeve, Cozzi has Hercules and Minos turn into a cosmic version of \"King Kong vs. Godzilla\" for one of their battles and later still, King Kong gets to grips with a large snake, an encounter lifted straight out of the classic 1933 original. I swear it: this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

As had been the case with the first film, the cast is full of old reliables like the afore-mentioned Berger, Cassinelli and Venantino Venantini (as a sorcerer with a truly bad hair day) and up-and-coming starlets \u0096 not just Carlucci but also Maria Rosaria Omaggio (as a younger Hera!), Serena Grandi, Pamela Prati and, once again, Eva Robbins (whose costume here easily outcamps her appearance in the first film); for what it's worth, Pino Donaggio's score for this one is recycled from musical cues featured in his soundtrack for the previous film. If you have stuck with this review so far, you must have realized by now that this is one of those movies that is so unbelievably bad that a reviewer is forced to choose which course to take: either dismiss it in one unflattering sentence or spend an undeserving amount of time dissecting its flaws. I'm sure I've left out some of its ineptitudes but I wouldn't forgive myself if I failed to mention the single greatest laugh-out loud instance in the whole movie which almost made me fall off my chair (yes, it even surpassed the afore-mentioned animated titanic duel for me), namely the d\u00e9cor of the rebellious gods' lair which is in the shape of a giant marble\u0085kettle!!

At this stage, one might well wonder why I gave this film (and its predecessor) a rating instead of a (not entirely unjustified) BOMB; in the past, I've had various protracted online discussions on whether one's star rating of any particular film should reflect the overall artistic quality or its sheer entertainment value\u0085 but these are two instances where I deemed it necessary to be consciously influenced by the latter in settling on my final rating. I don't know: maybe it's because I'm in a \"sword-and-sandal\" state-of-mind at the moment (with some 10 more respectable examples scheduled for the coming days!) but, after all, uncharacteristically for me, I decided to add these two films to my DVD collection simply based on the fun I had with them in this recent revisit \u0096 and that alone must count for something, no?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Looking for a REAL super bad movie? If you wanna have great fun, don't hesitate and check this one!

Ferrigno is incredibly bad but is also the best of this mediocrity.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Adventures of Hercules has to be one of the lamest excuses for a movie I've yet run across. You would have to look far and wide to find anything that approaches the level of ineptness on display in this movie. Acting \u0096 Bad. Editing \u0096 Bad. Direction \u0096 Bad. Special Effects \u0096 Bad and Laughable. Plot \u0096 Bad. Lighting \u0096 Bad. Cinematography \u0096 Bad. Costume Design \u0096 Bad and Silly. Everything Else \u0096 Bad. Watching The Adventures of Hercules is about as enjoyable as a root canal. Even for a fan of bad movies, it's a real endurance test. This is one for either masochists or Lou Ferrigno completists (if any exist).

Eight things I learned from watching The Adventures of Hercules:

1. If you don't have the budget for real special effects, rotoscope a scene from the previous movie. It will look great - trust me.

2. When on a quest to recover Zeus' thunderbolts, take time for frequent stops to oil-up you body. It worked for Ferrigno and his two Amazon companions.

3. Any sword fight, use of magic, and just about all other day to day activities in ancient Greece created a sound very similar to a game of Pac Man or Asteroids.

4. Some of the ancient Greek gods dressed like extras from Star Wars.

5. If you need to pad your crappy movie's runtime, extend the title sequence by adding Star Trek style credits and throw in some overly grandiose music. It also helps if you've got a previous movie to pull scenes from.

6. Fight scenes move along much smoother if the bad guys attack Hercules one at a time.

7. William Berger did anything for money.

8. I didn't think it was possible, but The Adventures of Hercules makes the first film, Hercules (1983), look like an Academy Award winner.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Aya! If you are looking for special effects that are 10-20 years before its time, this is it. The glowing lightning bolts, fireballs, etc. look like they came from a cheesy 70's sci-fi flick. And yes, Hercules really grows; he's not being pushed on a cart closer to the camera!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Producers Golan and Globus should have been ashamed to release this piece of trash publicly. I know this is gonna sound cliched, but compared to this, the first \"Hercules\" of 1983 looks like a mature and exciting epic! This \"sequel\" is moronic, cheap, unredeemable, childish, phony, inept and BADLY ACTED. A landmark in bad cinema, and one of the few, few movies I've seen that REALLY deserve the lowest possible rating: no stars!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When at the very start of the film Paleontologist Donald Sutherland arrives at the Argyle family's house and it comes out he is the undeniable alibi for one of the members executed for murdering his mother two years ago your sensation is that you are about to watch a top thriller; an innocent man has been convicted and a killer is still around. But as the film runs along your disappointment increases inevitably.

\"Ordeal by Innocence\" is a dull and at times even boring film that doesn't raise at any moment. Nothing interesting happens all along and even the final revealing of the facts lacks surprise and intensity (wether you guessed or not).

Donald Sutherland, Cristopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway and Sarah Miles (far from her good performance in \"Ryan's Daughter\") just pass through their roles and not very enthusiastically either.

You won't miss much if you skip this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is indeed one of the weakest films based on Agatha Christie's work, a lifeless, muddled mystery that clearly lacks the grace (and the budget!) of its predecessors (\"Death On The Nile\", \"Evil Under The Sun\") and Donald Sutherland is a pale shadow of Peter Ustinov as far as screen detectives go (of course, he is playing a character much less interesting than Poirot). The film manages to coast as far as it does on the strength of Christie's plot alone (all her plots have a certain amount of inherent interest), but the direction is hopelessly flat. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is on my list of worst movies ever made. The story is disconnected and it is difficult to understand what is going on or the reason for the characters' actions. All films need to have an inner logic, and this film just doesn't have it - the story doesn't make any sense.

To see Faye Dunaway, Christopher Plummer and Diana Quick wasting their talents in this movie is a crime. Faye Dunaway is the lucky one, because she plays the victim and gets killed early in the film. On the other hand, Donald Sutherland must be an amazing actor because he manages to look good in spite of bad directing and bad writing; his performance is believable and he manages to stay in character in spite of everything.

If Dame Agatha Christie were alive she would die laughing! The movie is that bad!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have never seen so much talent and money used to produce anything so bad in my entire life! As stated in other commentaries, a who's who of talent, such as, Christopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway, Donald Sutherland, and many more were thrown together in a film that is not recognizable as an Agatha Christie story. I keep thinking of how it could be with the same cast, done the right way.

The film has even less intimacy than the Christopher Reeves 'Superman' movies. The large cast makes the slick production even less effective than in those films, because there is not enough time to get to know anyone. Dave Brubeck's progressive jazz soundtrack had me wondering if the wrong video was in the the case from the rental store. The music became more and more offensive as the plot progressed. It's hard to say whether the soundtrack or the annoying technique of repeating information from earlier scenes, was more offensive. From someone who has seen most Christie films (that's what attracted me to this, it was one of the few I hadn't seen) miss this one. It is not an Agatha Christie movie. Golan-Globus are better suited to producing flicks about big time wrestling, rather than the snug atmosphere of English mystery.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Donald Sutherland, an American paleontologist visiting England, picks up a hitch hiker one evening. Two years later, having discovered the man's address book in his car, he returns the book to the man's opulent home, only to find that the man's been hanged for murder. Nobody in or out of the family seems to care that the hitch hiker could not have committed the murder (of his own stepmother) because he was in Sutherland's car at the time of the crime.

Sutherland is the man's alibi but he's turned up too late. Out of a sense of guilt, he tracks down the real murderer.

Agatha Christie's mysteries usually involve a number of diverse people, all of them with one or another motive for the crime, all of them suspect, and a puzzle that depends on the construction of a strict time line. There is often, not always, a sidekick with whom the investigator can talk things over.

Because of the anfractuosity of the situation, due care must be taken to explain each element of the mystery to the reader or viewer. Redundancy is perfectly okay. We have to keep the characters and the time lines straight. Christie's movies are of the rare kind in which the use of famous faces in subordinate characters is actually useful. (Jacqueline de Bellefort? Oh, yes, that's Mia Farrow.) But this version of \"Ordeal by Innocence\" is a Golan-Globus production, with all that implies in the way of production values, a thoughtfully prepared script, and skill behind the camera.

The first few minutes, in which Sutherland discovers that an innocent man has been hanged, are fine. After that, everything is flung at the viewer in disjointed scraps, often in sudden flashbacks or in confusing voiceovers that tell us nothing. The script has a slapdash quality, as if thrown together by two hacks overnight. Few of the faces are familiar and that doesn't help at all. Everyone drops remarks about everyone else and the names become a hopeless jumble. The musical score consists of four instruments doing irritating atonal jazz riffs. Some nudity is thrown in to wake up the dozers in the audience. If Dame Agatha were alive, she'd be among the viewers who needed to be shaken awake.

Dullsville.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nightkill stars Robert Mitchum as a world-weary private eye probing the case of a missing industrialist (Mike Connors). He is hired by Jaclyn Smith, the anxious wife of the missing man. What Jaclyn fails to inform Mitchum is that she knows full well her husband's whereabouts. After all, she was the one who helped her lover James Franciscus dispose of her wealthy hubby.

What more would expect from a rotten slasher film with Robert Mitchum? Mannix goes western, monkeys are abused, models lean against classic cars, and Smith is constantly upstaged by Sybil Danning until a giallo style wrap-up brings the whole sorry mess to a bitter end. This is BAD cinema. And this movie is sooooo poor. It makes it look like Halloween mixed up with Trick Or Treats. Avoid this.

Rated R for Graphic Violence, Nudity and Sexual Situations.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Filmed in Arizona by a mostly-foreign crew, \"Nightkill\" is one of the clumsiest crime dramas I have ever seen. Robert Mitchum (in a cowboy hat) trails recently-widowed Jaclyn Smith around, hoping to figure out if she had a hand in her husband's death. Jaclyn's wardrobe is of the Dale Evans variety and her dog is named \"Cowboy\"...seems as if somebody sure bought into the American myth that all westerners talk and dress like descendants of John Wayne! Screenplay by Joan Andre and John Case may have worked better if approached as parody; this mystery thriller just plays tame, with director Ted Post asleep at the controls. Don't be drawn in by the video box art of Jaclyn screaming while taking a shower. She does indeed take a shower in this film, but it is not revealing (nor does it further the murky plot one iota). NO STARS from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Veteran TV director Ted Post treats us to a plodding, confused and ultimately pointless story lifted from Column B of the Harold Robbins Big Book Of Plots. Set against a smoggy Phoenix skyline, post-Charlies Angles Jaclyn Smith takes a star turn as \"the woman whose eyes are mysteriously shadowed at all times\" while JFK impersonator James Franciscus lounges around the fringes.

Mannix goes western, monkeys are abused, models lean against classic cars, and Smith is constantly upstaged by Sybil Danning until a giallo style wrap-up brings the whole sorry mess to a bitter end.

Oh yeah, and Bob Mitchum is in there too. Somewhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Bridge At Remagen contains some of the most preposterous war time screenplay I've ever seen. Aside from the acting, which is wooden, no tank commander attacks with his tanks parked in nice neat rows, up the middle of roads, and with troops bunched all together with their arms not at the ready. The constant suicidal behavior set off my \"tilt switch\" so often I found it impossible to enjoy the movie. Apparently the screen writers and director have never been through actual warfare and never bothered to bring in an expert who had. This movie is the very antithesis of the excellent detail in Saving Private Ryan. Unless you are under 7 years old, I recommend watching something else.

GB","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"CAUTION SPOILER: At the end of the movie it is announced that the bridge collapsed just a few days after it was captured. The impression is that the attack was all for nothing. In reality, taking the bridge at Remagen was the last important victory for the Western Allies. It was the crossing of the Rhine that the Allies had been trying to achieve for six months. Because the Remagen Bridge was taken, the war ended in just a few weeks.

The bridge only need to last for a day after it was captured. This was enough time for the Americans to send combat engineers and a large protective force to the other side, and they could then start building a series of pontoon bridges. The taking of the bridge was a complete success, and meant the that the end of the war was near, and would not last through the summer. Contrary to the cynical nature of the film, the victory was heralded with elation by the troops who did it. They knew how vital the battle was.

This film has little to do with real history. It was more a reflection of the cynical nature of the time in which it was produced.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a family movie that was broadcast on my local ITV station at 1.00 am a couple of nights ago . This might be a strange decision on the part of the schedulers but THE REAL HOWARD SPITZ is a rather strange film , strange in the way it doesn't want to upset its audience . Come on there's nothing kids like more than sadism and that's why Roald Dahl was such a popular author for children . It also explains why DOCTOR WHO was such a successful show across the world . In this screenplay you're just dying for pulp fiction author to do something nasty to the kids but this doesn't happen . I'm not advocating child abuse but to see Howard Spitz lose his rag at the little ones would have made the movie rather better . Can you imagine how much worse KINDERGARTEN COP would have been if the producers had gone all PC ? I mean if you're making a movie centered around a children's author who hates children shouldn't the story show and not tell ?

Much of the problem lies with director Vadim Jean and you do get the feeling he doesn't know how to handle the material which is bad news for the movie . As someone previously noted the soundtrack is haphazard and Kelsey Grammar is very wooden . I guess he was trying to play it dead pan just like in that show he's famous for but it fails to work here and there's many scenes with quiet ridiculous camera angles which seem unintentional but which are very distracting . But at the end of the day the main problem remains that the potential is ruined because no one wanted to offend the audiences sensibilities","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had to see this on the British Airways plane. It was terribly bad acting and a dumb story. Not even a kid would enjoy this. Something to switch off if possible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From time to time it's very advisable for the aristocracy to watch some silent film about the harsh life of the common people in order to remind themselves of the privileges and the comfortable life that they have enjoyed since the beginning of mankind or even before\u0085 in comparison with the complicated and hard work that common people have to endure everyday since the aristocrats rule the world.

And that's what happens in \"The Love Light\", the first film directed by Dame France Marion who will be famous afterwards in the silent and talkie world thanks overall to her work as a screenwriter; better for her, certainly, because her career as a film director doesn't impress this German count.

The film tells the story of Dame Angela Carlotti ( Dame Mary Pickford ) a merry Italian girl who lives surrounded by a \"picturesque squalor\" ( an important difference of opinion between upper and low classes; aristocrats prefers to live surrounded by \"picturesque luxury\"\u0085 ); she has two brothers and a secret admirer but all she gives him in return is indifference. Destiny begins to work hard and pretty soon war is declared and Dame Angela's two brothers enlist and in the next reel both are dead. But destiny is even crueller and Dame Angela meanwhile falls in love with\u0085 a German!! And to make things worse, she doesn't know that her Teutonic sweetie is a spy and that the light signals that she sends to him every night from the lighthouse she maintains thinking that is a love signal, don't mean \"Ich Liebe Dich\" but \"Sink Any Damn Italian Boat At Sea\"\u0085

Fortunately for Dame Angela, pretty soon her sweetie German spy will be found by the neighbours in her house in which she was hiding him ( a not strange fact, indeed, because it is not an easy task for a German to go unnoticed\u0085 ) but the German spy will prefer to die before being captured by those Italians.

From that German love, a half-Teutonic baby will born ( the wicked Destiny at full speed\u0085 ) but a greedy neighbour who has a particular idea of motherhood will carry away her son with the consent of a Catholic nun who has taken the Council of Trent to extremes\u0085 a fact that will put Dame Angela at the verge of insanity.

But meanwhile Dame Angela's secret admirer has returned from the war and you can think that finally Dame Angela's sorrowful life will improve; a tremendous mistake because Destiny has in store for her that the returned soldier is blind. But as they say in Germany, it may be a blessing in disguise and finally Dame Angela will recover her son and will start a new life with her blind sweetie in a poor Italian village in what it is supposed to be a happy ending for the common people.

As this German count said before, it was much better for Dame Frances Marion that she continued her career as a screenwriter, because as can be seen in \"The Love Light\", she had a lot of imagination to invent incredible stories, ja wohl!\u0085 but a completely different subject is to direct films and her silent debut lacks emotion and rhythm in spite of the effort of Dame Pickford to involve the audience with her many disgraces. The nonexistent film narrative causes indifference in the spectator making this the kind of film where only Dame Pickford herself provides the interest and not her circumstances.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must send Morse signals from the Schloss north tower to one of his Teutonic rich heiress.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What if someone made a horror movie that was completely devoid of plot?

Well, I think it would probably end up a little bit like this one. I don't think I've ever seen a move was so steady it its slide from hackneyed (at the beginning) to complete crap (by the end). I only stuck with it, because I kept thinking it couldn't possibly get worse. Well, up until the very end, \"Necrophagus\"\/\"Graveyard of Horror\" proved me wrong.

Who would have suspected that a movie with an undead lizard-man, evil grave-robbing cultists, and mad scientists tossed in for no discernible reason could suck this bad? One would think there'd at least be some humor value... but not here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The English translation of the title on the DVD version of this film is \"Graveyard of Horrors,\" but I think that must be an error. It should have been called \"Graveyard of Horribles.\" Horrible acting, horrible editing, horrible story, and horrible music all make this a horrible film best left in a horrible graveyard.

Horrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This failed exercise in satire or commentary on the human condition easily earned a place as one of the 10 worst movies I've ever seen. I'm seriously considering buying a copy, if I can find one dirt cheap, to chase away unwanted company. It's honestly that bad. I view it as some kind of anti-personnel weapon. If you're the kind of person who just has to see a train wreck to witness the carnage, then this movie is a gem. Just to be fair, Kelsey Grammar's character has 1 line that almost works, but doesn't quite. Other than that everything in this movie strives to be insightful, but misses the mark by approximately the distance between earth and the nearest pair of colliding galaxies. I usually can appreciate a book or movie where the protagonist suffers from some sort of existential angst, but the angst presented here is so unbelievable and over the top, and the movie doesn't even address the nonsense it presents in any valuable way. If you are familiar with the term \"word vomit\" then you may get some picture of the cinematrocity. Oh, and the narrative structure is ill conceived, pretentious and amateurish. It has failed on both style and substance. If you really hate someone, invite them over for a double feature of this movie and \"The Terror of Tiny Town,\" an all midget western from the 1930's and put them in restraints with their eyes forced open \"A Clockwork Orange\" style. But that probably violates some provision in the Geneva Conventions.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those strange, self-important, self-indulgent movies which tries too hard to be profound. It isn't. Instead, it spouts cliches that try to pass for Profundity. Typical is the scene where Peter (Kelsey Grammer) explains to protagonist and best friend Adam (Dwier Brown) how man starts life breast feeding, then moves on to sucking the breast of his girlfriend, and finally his wife, thus concluding ultimately that life sucks. So deep. We are treated to a variety of characters who offer their perspective of life, the universe, etc. during Adam's travels through the Mojave Desert on foot. (He abruptly leaves L.A. the day of his wedding and his family, friends, and fiance assume he's dead when his car was found in a military test range smashed by a rocket.) Some characters are more entertaining than others. The best by far is an escapee from a mental hospital who only speaks through the voices of others. The actor, James Kevin Ward, does some great impressions, including Nicholson, Popeye, and several characters from the original Star Trek. But once the interesting characters leave the screen, we're stuck with Adam again and his pursuit of the profound. It's a long trip, which drags in many places. In fact, it's the longest hour and a half movie I've ever seen. And the finale hardly makes it seem worth while, at all.

I discovered this movie playing on HBO one day by waking up too early and clicking on the TV. That'll learn me. Next time I'll try harder to sleep in.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie yesterday and thought it was awful; it was pointless and just plain stupid. the supposed plot concerned a prospective bridegroom too caught up in the problems of the world to relate to his bride and the other people in his life. He disappears on his wedding day (in a tux no less) and hooks up with an assortment of weirdos.

We saw it with a bus-load of people on the way down to Atlantic City and everyone agreed that it was a terrible movie. It was trying to be profound but it wasn't; it was stupid and offensive. If I wasn't on a bus I would have walked out on the movie. Anyone considering seeing the movie or renting or buying the video you have been forewarned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you took all the stock elements of a Shrek movie (grumpy ogre, annoying donkey, cute kitty, obligatory dance number, etc.), put them in a blender and condensed it to 20 minutes, you'd have this mess. Painful to watch; I may have laughed once. The story and dialogue are rushed beyond comprehension, with the voice actors sounding like they phoned in their lines. The final reworked rendition of \"The Christmas Story\" poem felt like it was written by a committee in five minutes. And boy, a little Eddie Murphy goes a long way. With its desperate attempt to be hip and current, this show will be long outdated and forgotten while classics like \"The Grinch\u0085\" will remain timeless. A sad waste of effort by all involved, a veritable \"jumping of the shark\" for the Shrek franchise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While the premise of the film sounded unique and intriguing after watching the first 5 minutes of the film I could have stopped there and gone on with my life. She does get some interesting comments and reactions from her subjects, but not really enough to add to the validity of the film.

I also felt she went a bit overboard with many things. If a guy said a filthy comment, grabbed her, or made some disgusting gesture to her, I would say go for it, bring him down, he's a pig. What bothered me though is she would walk around in revealing clothes and be surprised when guys would look at her and give them hell about it.

I think somehow she forgot that being attracted to other people is a part of human sexuality and a big part of who we all are. Guys will look at beautiful women, especially when they dress provocatively, just like women will look at men when they are wearing a tight tank or no shirt at all.

Some women may hate me for this, but I hope not. I have much respect for women. I was raised by one. I also come from a Spanish family and we are very matriarchal. My grandmother was the center of my family for years, but I don't really feel this did anything to help women's rights and from what the filmmaker even said herself, some women were offended by her project.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love ghost stories and I will sit through a movie til it's end, even if I'm not really enjoying it. I rarely feel like I wasted my time... BUT, this adaptation of the Bell Witch story was horrible!

It wasn't scary in the least bit. What is with the comic relief moments? The dialog was tedious. Acting inconsistent The movie was WAY too long and some scenes were unnecessarily drawn out in my open. (Like the birthday party)

The only good think I can think about mentioning is the costumes and props were well done.

I am curious about other adaptation, but until then, I will stick to reading about the story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"BELL WITCH HAUNTING (aka THE HAUNT) is an American horror movie supposedly based on real events that took place during the period 1817 to 1821.

This is not to be confused with BELL WITCH: THE MOVIE, a movie starring Betsy Palmer based on the same events. However, I can say that I wish I had seen this other movie instead of the one I saw! I enjoyed Betsy Palmer's chilling performance in Friday THE 13TH. As such, I believe that even on a bad day, she'd pull off a better performance than anyone involved in the travesty known as THE HAUNT.

With regard to my heading, this movie is not painful to watch because the content is disturbing. It is painful to watch because it is just downright boring.

Reading the positive reviews for this movie, I could only identify three possibilities. The first possibility - these authors were involved in the production in some way. The second possibility - the authors whilst not directly involved were paid to write positive reviews after production was completed. The final possibility - none of these authors has seen a sufficient number of horror movies and therefore is inexperienced with the concepts that successful attempts utilise.

The setting for the plot is Robertson County, Tennessee. James Johnston receives a visit from two journalists eager to hear the story of the Bell Witch. The story is told as a series of flashbacks. A series of supernatural events begin happening at the home of John Bell and his family. It soon transpires that a vengeful spirit is behind it all.

On the surface the plot appears to be a standard poltergeist affair, albeit one based on real events.

Where execution of the brilliant concept is concerned however, just about everything that could go wrong does go wrong. And then some!

First, the acting. The acting is almost uniformly terrible right across the board. This factor does the most damage to the production, undermining any possible credibility of belief or interest on the part of the viewer. The voice of the vengeful spirit sounds more like a teenage girl experiencing teenage angst rather than a powerful demonic force expressing malevolent intent. I almost laughed when I heard some of her lines. Unfortunately, this voice began to become very annoying very quickly! I may not have been alive in the 1800s, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that any young woman alive at that time would speak in the way that this \"ghost\" does!

Second, the direction. The direction is haphazard and very uneven. Some scenes show promise but potential is squandered by the clearly inexperienced director. Nothing is done with the camera, with sound or with lighting to add intensity to the scenes intended to be scary. The atmosphere is equally flat. A vengeful spirit is supposedly behind supernatural occurrences. Yet the effects are so incredibly inept that no one who has seen a proper horror movie would buy into them. I'll give one example. In one scene, the spirit attacks someone. See the scene for yourself. It's almost funny - almost.

Third, the script. Whilst it may be the case that the events shown are faithful to accounts of real occurrences, it cannot be denied that most scenes are incredibly flat and boring. Scenes as short as two minutes feel much longer thanks to the poor dialogue - dialogue that fails to add depth to the characters or story. This movie is far too reliant on conversations to advance the story. Whilst this style was also the case with British movies from the British horror heyday of the 1960s and 1970s, it cannot be denied that the dialogue exchanges were always interesting to watch in these more professional earlier works. Peter Cushing for example could read a telephone directory and still hold attention of the viewers. The same cannot be said of the actors in THE HAUNT.

Finally, the humour. The ill-guided attempts at humour in this movie are excruciating. An obese boy is the butt of many jokes. One particularly awful scene sees the said boy going to the outside toilet. This scene should never have been included - but it is and complete with sound effects in case you fail to understand what he is doing!

The only positive points about the movie are the location and the costumes. The decision to shoot the picture near the original location helped add some authenticity. The costumes were also well chosen.

Overall, THE HAUNT is an appalling movie. It is not even in the \"so bad it's good\" league. It is instead just boring. I advise everyone to save their money and avoid this movie like the plague. Don't even bother seeing it for free!

I have never seen the other movie about the Bell Witch. But it really couldn't be any worse than THE HAUNT. Could it? I'll give this other movie a chance if I can track it down.

In the meantime, I would advise everyone on here to check out some proper horror movies about ghosts and haunting. THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING, RINGU, THE GRUDGE (Japanese original) and ONE MISSED CALL (Japanese original) are good places to start.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The filmmaker stayed true to the most accurate account of the story published in 1894 which includes an 1846 manuscript by Richard Williams Bell (son of John and Lucy Bell and younger brother of Betsy Bell) titled \"Our Family Trouble.\" To knowledge this is the only eyewitness account ever penned. The filmmaker should be credited for accuracy but there is little to say about the production and acting quality. The acting was theatrical and the sound and picture quality was extremely poor. It appears that the filmmaker simply shot scenes of the reported events that took place without incorporating or weaving them into a flowing plot or story line. If you must know the story, read about it, its much more gripping and conclusive.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am not understanding why people are praising this movie. I didn't like it at all. I watch it with several people. None of them cared for it either. First of all. It is just plain that another low budget studio is trying to cash in on a big name story. The actual filming looks like a live TV interview. The makeup is bad. When you watch the movie along with the DVD extras. You will see there is a lot of enthusiasm from the people who participated in it. There is no talent. There are facts that do appear in the book. The facts are distorted by the invention of comedy and skits added to it. I have read several books and have watched several shows on this story. What I have always caught from all the material on this is that it was a serious horror story. I really wish someone could really do a good film on this one. It has always fascinated me. The bad acting really ruined the story. The little boys situation really hammed it up even more. When you watch this movie. The little boy and his problem is the thing you and your friends will remember and laugh about. It didn't make any sense why his brothers were laughing at what had happened to him. It was like the witch was supposed to be so threatening but it was OK to throw baby brother to her. It is a whopping tale with him and his little problem. I can't still get over the little girl saying \"Mom said tobacco will rot your teeth.\" Frank Fox's statement and facial expression is so bad. The scene out in the yard with him getting food is pretty stupid to. The sound from parts of it seems to be from the movie psycho. Also, The girl hovering over the bed and her little \"Bladder control problem\" are from The Exorcist. This movie is lacking from the talent of creativity. We put the movie in for a couple of minutes and knew right away it was a bummer. I also noticed that their was defects in the film quality. Parts of it looked like what a person might film on a Home video camera. I noticed a lot of the people in the credits had many multiple jobs. This is probably how this movie was put together. Someone said I like this story. I will get all my friends and make a movie about with a video camera and a computer. Doesn't matter if we don't know how to act. As long as we get it on film and say it is good. We got the family together and prepared food. Then sat down and watched this failed attempt to make a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wanted to like this movie. I really, really did. I was so excited when I saw the preview, which scared the hell out of me. But when I saw the actual film, I was disappointed. The acting is stilted, and the attempts at comedy are woefully out of place and forced. And I'm sorry, but a boy being chased by a turd in a bedpan is not funny or scary, it's just stupid. I grew up on the Bell Witch legend, so I know quite a bit about it. A lot of facts in the movie are right on target, but this film should have been much better. The entire birthday party scene, for example, lasts about fifteen minutes, adds nothing to the plot or the story, and should have been left on the cutting room floor. A more heavy-handed editor might have been able to get a decent film out of this mess.

Please understand, I'm not in any way, shape or form involved with the other Bell Witch movie, and I'm not trying to \"attack\" this IMDb listing. I'm just telling it like it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In addition to the fact that this is just an abysmally made film (imagine giving a camcorder to the average high school drama club) the people who think that there is anything \"real\" about this legend need to grow up. This is the 21st century. Guess what: ghosts don't exist. Most people learn that from their mother when they're about 5 years old. You guys seriously need to grow up.

The fact that a fraud was perpetrated nearly 2 centuries ago does not make it any less a fraud. The fact that a large number of inbred hillbillies from Tennessee believe it doesn't do it either. Go to college. Or at least finish high school.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Are you kidding me? This is quite possibly the worst, amateur movie I've ever seen. The casting was horrible, the acting was worse than horrible and I'm sorry, the guy at the picnic speed loading his plate full of food was somewhere near pointless and the demonic turd and chamber pot chasing Drew around was nothing more than comical. When I herd about the Bell Witch, I wanted to believe. I read some literature on it and thought it sounded like it was possible a plausible story. But this movie just destroyed that. Ric White (Director, Writer, Lead Actor, etc) takes himself a bit too seriously and I think he gives himself a little more credit than he deserves....Do yourself a favor....skip this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If anyone tells you this picture is just terrific they probably have something to do with either making it or profiting from it. This film is a real loser and it copies situations from big budget horror movies and not to mention soundtracks to. I wouldn't recommend this one to my worst enemy. It is a low budget movie with amateur actors. It looks like it was filmed for a film contest. The acting is terrible and it wouldn't surprise me if the script was written by a Hee Haw script writer. My family laughed at it. A Grade ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ all the way. You won't be scared by this one. Here is one little taste of the terrible elements of this film. When the guy gets his toe stomped by Ric White's stupid portrayal of the Reverend James Johnston walking cane. The guys reactions are like if he had an amputation with no pain killer. Watch the DVD extras after you watch the movie. When you see Ric White and others talk so seriously about the movie you will laugh till your stomach hurts. How people will stretch the truth and what they will do to earn a dishonest buck. Don't get fooled like we did and buy this failure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie with my girlfriend. It was a total disaster. You can really see it was cheaply made. Badly scripted and with very bad acting. I have read several versions of the book by different authors and also listened to one version on audio book. We couldn't take the movie seriously because of the lacking elements it should have contained. The experience of watching this was like The Blair Witch visits Green Acres. Then there were parts that were vulgar. They show this little boy using a bed pan and they actually show the contents of it. The witch throws the contents of it on the boy and the whole family laughs. I thought it was nasty and very strange. I really can't understand why someone would think that would be entertaining. It shows another scene where Dr. Mize arrives and Betsy Bell is urinating in her dress on the steps of their house in front of her mother and brothers. Instead of the mother leading her off it is the brother. How sick? The little boy in the first scene of the many scenes dealing with how your body disposes of wastes begs for toilet paper and goes to the out house and makes these sickening faces of joy with sound effects. I think they should have left all of that out. The makeup on the Reverend James Johnston as a older man didn't really make you assume he was older. It made you think he was dipped in fish batter. The blood on Joshua Gardner when he falls from the ladder is even worse. The John Bell death scene looks like they got out flour and tried to do something with it to make him look as a serious sick man. To me to much sickening comedy with bathroom problems and inexperienced people involved was the downfall of this picture. These people would do better if they film commercials for local TV Stations for bathroom products. They chose a good subject and were unable to produce it in a correct manner. I rate this film Capital F minus.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thank God I didn't buy this movie myself! I borrowed it from a friend who bought it out of sheer curiosity and of course after viewing it feel they should be reimbursed! This has got to be one of THE worse movies I've EVER seen! I do realize they couldn't have had much of a budget but I swear I could make a better movie than this staring my pets! The acting was horrible, so was the editing, the dialogue, EVERYTHING! It was so bad that it was seriously making me angry as I watched it! I'm looking forward to the REAL movie about this story coming out soon so that people curious about it don't have to stoop to watch this joke!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I walked into a book store in Brentwood, Tennessee. I am not going to say the name because I am a dedicated customer. I have been satisfied with every item I purchased there before this one. On display in the front of the store was The Bell Witch Haunting. (Might I mention this is the only store I have seen it for sale in.) I had heard about the story somewhere and remembered it was supposed to have really happened for real. I was very excited and couldn't wait to watch it. I had great expectations for it. I couldn't believe what I seen when I viewed it. It didn't look like a real movie. It looked like a home video. I was under the impression it was suppose to be a horror movie. I mean the movie was suppose to be about a witch haunting you know. This is no horror movie. You will not jump out of your seat watching this movie. I gave the movie all the chances in the world to get better as it went along. I swear I did. It never did get any better. There were several scenes of this little kid getting poop and pee thrown on him. I didn't find that entertaining at all. I watched the whole movie with disbelief that the store would actually sell this to me. I guess that is how bad this economy has got. I have this to say to the cast and crew. Do not show this film as material to get other film jobs. Don't do it. I mean that sincerely. I commend you for trying. For people who have bought this. I say this. Don't sell your copy to someone. They could get very upset. Have a nice day everyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All the criticisms of this movie are quite valid! It is pretty boring, and filled with all kinds of pointless ridiculous stuff. A couple exchanging nods over their \"good grub.\" A medium shot of a desk as a phone rings until someone finally comes, sits down, and answers it at a pretty leisurely pace. Quadruple-takes or more when people look at things. Solitary banjo-tuning and playing, taking a break for a beer. Telling a joke to a fawn, about a big-mouthed frog trying to learn what to feed its babies, complete with many big-mouthed expressions (which are needed for the weak punchline). The sharing of cucumber and cream cheese sandwiches on oatmeal bread, which to the squeamish become unpalatable when there's talk of people burned in a fire. Lots of seemingly stock-footage close-up shots of animals, birds, insects, and spiders in the woods.

The movie starts with a forest fire, then at least a couple decades later some people in those same woods get killed by an axe. The killer evidently wasn't too satisfied by the axe he stole, and kills other people with other weapons of opportunity or his bare hands.

If it's true that the movie in the version available on the out-of-print videotape is cut, perhaps if there's a lot of footage that was cut, it deserves another look on DVD. Otherwise, it's simply not very interesting, and would probably try the patience of even the most hardcore outdoors-slasher fan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The prey has an interesting history, unless you remember the ads for it in newspapers in June of 1984 you might have caught it on the Movie channel back in summer 85, but little else is remembered. The plot is your basic killer in the woods again. But ironically this was filmed before Friday the 13th. The prey was actually shot sometime in 1978 according to one of the actors in an interview years later. But released for about a week at some drive ins, (yes Jim, namans drive in showed this in June of 84). But it has a dated look to it. Maybe they released it so later on to cash in on all the other terror films the market was flooded with by 1984. Now on the story, it has some kind of back story, a forest fire back in the 1940's leaves a lot of Gypsies burned to death. But one of their children survive (our monster) so flash forward to present day which would be 1978, we have an older middle age couple camping only to be dispatched by the Monster. The tag line for this picture claims ITS NOT HUMAN, AND ITS GOT AN AXE, but an Axe was only used in these first two killings. Now we have a bunch of teenagers who look like they in their mid 20's camping. We all know they are the Prey, and the monster knocks them of one by one. For an 80 minute movie it seems longer. We also have a lot of wildlife footage to fill in voids for the 80 mins. Overall for being out into an 80-'s horror movie it looks way more 70's than ever. Hey the Prey had potential to be a good horror killer in the woods movie but falls a little short.. It does however feature a pretty scary cool looking monster at the end, and we have to wait till the last 2 minutes to see him. Side note, the monster has gone on to star in the Addams family movies in the 1990's..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rented 3 bad movies to watch with my friends in my dorm room.

Leprechaun 4, Jack Frost and The Prey.

I picked up Jack and Lep 4 because they are well known bad movies I have never seen.

I picked this movie out because it matched the \"How to find a bad movie\" guide on badmovies.org, No real description, no pics of the movie on the back, and I had never heard of it, had to be a winner :)

(SPOILERS, but this movie is so awful it doesn't matter :P)

This is a TRUE bad movie, Lep 4 and Jack Frost are dumb on purpose, this is dumb despite the best efforts of the cast and crew.

This \"movie\" starts out much like Evil Dead, even the actors look similar and have the same style of dress. Unlike Evil Dead it never gains any speed at all. For a \"slasher\" movie it is pretty bland, in 80 minutes 6 people get killed, but these are spread apart so far it becomes quickly boring.

The director threw in a lot of boring shots on animals hunting, obviously to go along with the whole \"Prey\" theme but they do nothing to advance the story and are quite boring. The gore is horrible. All these extra shots were to make up for lack of a script and story.

The last 5 minutes of the movie are shot mostly in slow motion, yet another way to add length to this. The \"climax\" is such a total joke, its hard to laugh at it is so bad. The back of the box says \"The ending will shock and haunt you.\" Yes it will, it will shock you that someone could put such a bad \"plot twist\" on film and \"haunt\" you because you won't believe you paid to watch this crap.

Also the tagline is \"Its not human, and it's got an axe!\" One person is killed with an axe in the whole movie and it is off screen.

A true 1 out of 10. I LOVE laughing at bad movies, but this one is so bad that it even lacks campy qualities. No bad movie night is compete without a true character building flick :P","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Foolish hikers go camping in the Utah mountains only to run into a murderous, disfigured gypsy.

The Prey is a pretty run of the mill slasher film, that mostly suffers from a lack of imagination. The victim characters are all-too-familiar idiot teens which means one doesn't really care about them, we just wonder when they will die! Not to mention it has one too many cheesy moments and is padded with endless, unnecessary nature footage. However it does have a few moments of interest to slasher fans, the occasional touch of spooky atmosphere, and a decent music score by Don Peake. Still, it's business as usual for dead-camper movies.

There are much better films in this vein, but over all The Prey may be watchable enough for die-hard slasher fans. Although one might be more rewarded to watch Just Before Dawn (1981), Wrong Turn (2003), or even The Final Terror (1983) again.

* 1\/2 out of ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even by the lowered standards of '80s slasher movies, this one stinks. The usual gaggle of oversexed teens heads for a \"forbidden\" part of forest, which burned in the 1940s and apparently left a sole angry survivor. Fast forward (actually, you'll want to fast-forward through much of this mess) to the present day, where a couple of campers are butchered; the teens follow in their wake, while a semi-concerned park ranger (a sleepwalking Jackie Coogan) and his healthier cohort (who spins a lot of time tuning his banjo) succeed partially in steering our attention from yards of run-of-the-mill nature-footage padding. Finally, more killings--but nothing you haven't seen a zillion times before. If you want to see the kids butchered, opt for SLEEPAWAY CAMP or the first FRIDAY THE 13TH over this","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Supercraptastic slasher fare, which feels overly long at 80 minutes. Years ago, a bunch of \"gypsies\" who lived in the caves of a mountain, were burned up in a forest fire. Years later, campers are going missing from the area of the fire. A bunch of horny kids are, of course, en route to this area for a debaucherous camping trip of there own. Despite an ominous welcome from the forest ranger (Jackson Bostwick) the kids troop up to the mountain any way. Before long, the kids start to get picked off by the monster, who remains unseen to the very end of the movie, probably because the makeup was so embarrassingly bad. No surprises to speak of: they get killed in the exact order that the formula for these movies dictates, leaving the \"final girl\" to fend for herself, although in a refreshingly downbeat denouement, the final girl ends up imprisoned and impregnated by the monster.

The story itself couldn't hold the weight of feature length, so it was padded out by seemingly endless shots of wildlife and insects, which were obviously shot for another film and inserted here haphazardously as a means of making the movie long enough for a video release. On the plus side, the wildlife footage is rather nice. Also among the highlights are Bostwick talking to a baby deer, a decent rock-climbing death sequence, OK gore, and the Great Jackie Coogan in his final film role, as the bumbling local sheriff. This is a far cry from Charlie Chaplin, but it was still nice to see him. This is for slasher completists only.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh yeah, this one is definitely a strong contender to win the questionable award of \"worst 80's slasher ever made\". \"The Prey\" has got everything you usually want to avoid in a horror flick: a routine, derivative plot that you've seen a thousand times before (and better), insufferable characters and terrible performances, a complete lack of gore and suspense, fuzzy photography and unoriginal locations and \u0096 most irritating of all \u0096 the largest amount of pointless padding footage you've ever encountered in your life (and that's not an exaggeration but a guarantee!). Apart from the seemingly endless amount of National Geographic stock footage, which I'll expand upon later, this film is shameless enough to include a complete banjo interlude (!) and two occasions where characters tell dillydally jokes that aren't even remotely funny! The set-up is as rudimentary as it gets, with the intro showing images of a devastating forest fire with OTT voice-over human screams. Fast forward nearly forty years later, when an elderly couple out camping in that same area get axe-whacked by something that breathes heavily off-screen. This ought to be enough information for you to derive that someone survived the fire all these years ago and remained prowling around ever since. Enter three intolerable twenty something couples heading up to the danger zone with exclusively sex on their minds, unaware of course they are sitting ducks for the stalking and panting killer. \"The Prey\" is an irredeemable boring film. Apparently it was shot in 1978 already, but nobody wanted to distribute it up until 1984 and it isn't too hard to see why. In case you would filter out all the content that is actually relevant, this would only be a short movie with a running time of 30 minutes; possibly even less. There's an unimaginably large of nature and wildlife footage, sometimes of animals that I think don't even live in that type of area, and they seem to go on forever. The only thing missing, in fact, is the typical National Geographic narration providing educational information regarding the animals' habits. Animals in their own natural biotope are undeniably nice to look at, but not in a supposedly vile and cheesy 80's slasher movie, for crying out loud. The last fifteen minutes are finally somewhat worthwhile, with some potent killing sequences and fine make-up effects on the monster (who turns out to be Lurch from \"The Addams Family\" movies), but still silliness overrules \u0096 the scene with the vultures is too stupid \u0096 and the final shot is just laugh-out-loud retarded. As mentioned above, \"The Prey\" easily makes my own personal list of worst 80's slashers, alongside \"Appointment with Fear\", \"Berserker\", \"Deadly Games\", \"Don't Go in the Woods\", \"Hollow Gate\", \"The Stay Awake\" and \"Curfew\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Uhhh ... so, did they even have writers for this? Maybe I'm picky, but I like a little dialog with my movies. And, as far as slasher films go, just a sliver of character development will suffice.

Unfortunately, The Prey provides neither\u0097and if you think I'm being hyperbolic, you'll just have to see it for yourself. Scene after scene, we just get actors standing around, looking forlorn and awkward, abandoned by any sense of a script. Outside of calling out each other's names when they get separated in the woods (natch), the only instances where these people say something substantive is when one character explains the constellation Orion (clearly plagiarized from Funk & Wagnalls; scintillating slasher fare, no?) and another rehashes an old campfire tale that doesn't even have anything to do with the plot (wait, what IS the plot?) At other times, The Prey actually has the gall to film its characters with the boom mic just far away enough so that we can't exactly hear what they're saying. So we get entire scenes wherein the actors are murmuring! Deliberately! Seriously, I've seen more dialog in a silent film. It's as if the filmmakers sat down at a bar somewhere in Rancho Cucamonga in the heyday of the '80s slasher craze and one looked at the other and said, \"Hey, I gotta really sweet idea for a gory decapitation gag. Let's somehow pad an entire feature around it.\" And ... well, they did.

To be fair, The Prey probably had some sort of writer on board. I mean, somebody had to jot down the scene sequence and label the dailies. However, I am fully convinced that this film did not have an editor of any kind whatsoever. There are glaring pauses, boring tableaux, and zero sense of pacing throughout. The filmmakers don't have anything else in the \"script\" to film, so they fill out the running time with exhaustive taxonomies of the flora and fauna that inhabit the forest in which our wild and crazy teens are getting sliced and diced. These critters are all filmed in straightforward, noontime daylight in a completely reserved fashion and with no attempt at atmospheric photography. If it feels like a science film, that's because it is. I'm pretty sure this is all nature show stock footage\u0097all that's missing is a stuffy narration from some National Geographic alderman.

More exciting footage that was graciously spared from the cutting room floor: a scene in which two men discuss cucumber and cream cheese sandwiches, and another scene wherein a supporting character strums away on a banjo for what feels like an entire minute-and-a- half! A minute-and-a-half! That's a lot of banjoing to commit to celluloid to begin with, let alone insert into the final cut of the film! Way to go, guys! Brevity and concision are the real victims of this slaughterfest.

Admittedly, the film picks up quite a bit of steam (comparatively) in the last 25 minutes, into which much of the carnage is condensed and where a rip-off of B\u00e9la Bart\u00f3k's \"Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta\" cuts in. Vaudeville great Jackie Coogan makes a fun appearance as a tubby, bumbly park ranger (this was his last role, if you can believe it). And there are some nice gory moments, including a splattery neck tearing and the aforementioned decapitation. The make-up used for the killer (Carel Struycken, aka \"Lurch\" from the Addams Family movies) is also quite effective, and makes him look like a strange hybrid of young Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger. Plus, if you love wacky, straight-outta-left-field endings, you need to check out how they wrap this puppy up. You'll do a spit take, I promise.

Usually, I love films that are on this level of ineptitude, but the first three-quarters of The Prey are just so interminably boring that they pretty much spoil the rest. Overall, this is a largely pallid and tedious affair, and, while it ain't all bad, it should really only be seen by debilitated slasher completists. Why do we do this to ourselves, anyway?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everything everyone has said already pretty much rings true when it comes to 'The Prey'. Endless nature footage, bad acting - Aside from these elements, this is a watchable film for slasher fans that in some cases, is considered a cult classic.

Jackson Bostwick and Jackie Coogan play pretty well off each other. There's also a three minute banjo solo that shows off Bostwick's skill behind the instrument. Not too bad if I do say so myself.

The last ten minutes of the 'film' are its saving grace. The ending still haunts me to this day. This can also sport a short lived plus in that an early John Carl Bucheler does the special effects. Some may know him from films like 'Troll' and 'Friday the 13th part 7 - He directed both these films) All in all, this isn't a movie everyone will find something redeeming in. In fact, on a Hollywood level, this can rank right up there with one of the businesses most amateurish efforts, but for that handful (yet very loyal) of slasher movie fans in the world, even the bad acting and atrocious nature footage can be forgiven.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1980 was certainly a year for bad backwoods slasher movies. \"Friday The 13th\" and \"The Burning\" may have been the best ones but there were like always a couple of stinkers not far behind like \"Don't Go Into The Woods Alone\" and this one. But in all fairness \"The Prey\" is nowhere near as bad as \"Don't Go Into The Woods\" but it's still not great either. One thing is that it's just boring and acting isn't very good but much better than \"DGITW\" and this movie actually has some attractive looking females to look at, all three of the female leads were stunning. One thing what is up with all that pointless wildlife footage it just seemed pointless and it looked as the director used that to just used that to fill up some time space.

So, what was there to like about this movie? Well, there were a few laugh out loud cheese moments- I couldn't contain a fit of giggles when the final girl did a bizarre type of backwards moon-walk to get away from the kille and there were a few good kill scenes- my favourites being the girl suffocated to death with the sleeping bag; and the phoney looking.

All in all The Prey is dumb, boring and the killer I didn't find scary at all, this movie could have been a whole lot better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think that would have been a more appropriate title for this film, since it is padded to hell and back with stock footage of various bugs and animals. I recently found The Prey in its original VHS 'big box' form and was very excited. I just LOVE finding old slasher films on VHS because the cover artwork is fantastic. Usually though, it turns out that the film itself is less than fantastic. The Prey is one of those films.

To be fair, it started off OK, with the killer stalking the clich\u00e9 teenagers in the woods. The heartbeat sounds used are a great effect that make you tense as you watch. This film is basically a big fat clich\u00e9, and when the \"campfire stories\" section rolls in, the film takes a new direction and spends almost half of the running time on the back-story of the killer. I actually thought this was quite an original idea. However, the back-story ends abruptly and shows us some stock-footage of a burning woodland (the lack of budget really starts to show now). After this, we are returned to the dumb teenagers being picked off in the woods. The killer himself isn't shown until the end, which is a shame because he actually makes an effective looking killer. Sort of like Cropsy from The Burning, but better. As for gore, there isn't too much, although there's an OK face squishing moment at the end.

Overall, I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone other than slasher completists - it really is a big mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sure, most of the slasher films of the 1980's were not worth the

celluloid they were filmed on, but this video nightmare may well be

the dullest produced.

Six horny pot smoking students decide to go camping. Of course,

and you know this already, they begin getting killed one by one by a

mysterious stranger. The climax has a hunky forest ranger trying to

get to the teens in time before the last cute girl becomes buzzard

bait.

John Carl Buechler, my least favorite B-movie guy, did the lousy

makeup effects here. The cast features Carel Struycken, of \"The

Witches of Eastwick\" and the Addams family movies. Sadly, he

does not pop up until the very end of the film, and is covered in

burn makeup, rendering him unrecognizable. Steve Bond (anyone

remember him?) is here in an early role as a victim.

Brown's direction, and the script he cowrote, both smell like the

presents brown bears leave in the woods. He pads the film with

so much stock wilderness footage, I thought I accidentally rented a

special episode of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. Much of the

cast sits around the campfire and eats, then walk, and sit and eat

again. The forest ranger is involved in the strangest scene ever put

in a slasher film: he tells a joke about a wide mouthed frog to a

baby deer. Jackie Coogan, who must have forgot he once worked

with the legends of silent cinema, has two scenes, and is involved

in the second strangest scene ever put in a slasher film: he and

the hunky forest ranger have a conversation about cucumber and

cream cheese sandwiches on oatmeal bread...yeah.

There is not one minute of suspense here. The killer, a forest fire

survivor looking for a mate, watches the students from behind

trees. We know it is the killer because the film makers have

dubbed in a heart beat sound effect that helpfully serves to wake

the viewer up every few minutes. Skip this pile of pine sap and rent

\"Halloween,\" instead.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, mild gun violence, gore,

some profanity, brief female nudity, mild sexual content, sexual

references, and drug abuse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is truly, without exaggerating, one of the worst Slasher movies ever made. I know, it came out in the 80's following a tendency started by \"Friday the 13th\". \"The Prey\" copies the fore-mentioned movie in many aspects. The woods setting, the killer, the dumb teens, the gore, etc.

But \"The Prey\" is as bad as you might expect. I didn't even remember about it if it wasn't for coincidence.

Well, the killer is in fact human so don't expect a supernatural killer in the likes of Jason. The situations rather boring and lack of tension, gore, violence, etc. It just does not works for a slasher flick.

The acting is simply horrid. The score is horrible! a combination of boring instruments with cheesy 80's tunes?! I won't even mention the technical aspects of the movie because believe me, it seems that it cost only 20 dollars.

Please avoid this one like the plague. It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and that's something to say. Thank God it seems to have vanished from earth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The best thing about \"The Prey\" is the tag line...\"It's not human and it's got an axe\"! The movie itself is a padded stinkaroo....endless insect and wildlife shots make the viewer wanna die! No slasher fan will like this garbage.....Watch \"Friday the 13th\" again and burn any copy of this film you find!

It also rates as one of the 25 worst films ever made!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"New York family is the last in their neighborhood to get a television set, which nearly ruins David Niven's marriage to Mitzi Gaynor. Bedroom comedy that rarely ventures into the bedroom(and nothing sexy happens there anyway). Gaynor as an actress has about as much range as an oven--she turns on, she turns off. Film's sole compensation is a supporting performance by perky Patty Duke, pre-\"Miracle Worker\", as Niven's daughter. She's delightful; \"Happy Anniversary\" is not. * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Many people are standing in front of the house n some women are crying... Men standing in close groups and speaking in hushed up tone... a couple of guys come in and they are discussing how sexy the daughter might look today... soon u will know someone in the house has died... The dead person's wife is worried about preparing food for so many people, her friend sitting beside her gives an idea of making the matters easy by preparing simple roti sabji... One of the dead person's son is speaking with someone over the mobile, Daughter is busy with her makeup... her mother suggests her to wear salwar kameej, but the daughter is more interested in looking good when so many people will be visiting their house and hence prefers jeans and T shirt over salwar kameez... another son asks her mom to finish all the kriyas and also indicates to her that he should not be expected to come early from the office... Then the camera slowly focuses on the dead person... the white cloth covering the face is displaced slightly due to the wind, revealing the face ... Its Anupam Kher... suddenly alarm rings and he gets up from the bed... Is it his dream or a flash back? U won't get an answer until the end of the movie...Well, This is wat comedy is for the director Dibakar Banerjee!!!!! Later u find out this scene has nothing to do with the actual movie and hence making everything obvious that the still described earlier was a dream. Is this a film comedy? Well it is supposed to belong to that category... But it actually does not!!! there is nothing that can be remotely associated with comedy in the movie!!! More over the director gives the message that no one will get justice from Police!!! so everyone must cheat the cheats!!!! or forget about Justice!!!! Music by Bapi-Tutul & Dhruv Dhalla is OK... Nothing much to tell about other sectors... Bad script destroys everything... not even Anupam Kher's performance succeeds in making it at least a paisa vasool...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Earth has been destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. Well, parts of the Earth, because somewhere in Italy, a band of purebred survivors--those without radioactive contamination--are holed up in a massive mansion surrounded by lush grounds, waiting for the next opportunity to go hunting for those with polluted blood. The Final Executioner is the story of one of their would be victims, Alan (William Mang, who looks, not surprisingly, a lot like Kurt Russell), and his efforts to take down the legally sanctioned hunters, who are led by Edra (Marina Costa) and Erasmus (Harrison Muller Jr. ). Alan has been trained to kill by former NYPD cop Sam (Woody Strode) who mostly hangs around giving his pupil moral support and mooching for tinned meat. Strode is by far the best thing about the film, though he doesn't look at all well and only appears for about a third of the running time. As for the story, it's a blending of elements from better films and stories, including Ten Little Indians, The Most Dangerous Game, and Escape From New York. The Final Executioner moves along at a fair pace and provides reasonable entertainment for less discriminate action fans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At the bottom end of the apocalypse movie scale is this piece of pish called 'The Final Executioner'.. at least where I come from. A bloke is trained by an ex-cop to seek vengeance on those that killed his woman and friends in cold blood.. and that's about it. Lots of fake explosions and repetitive shootings ensue. Has one of the weirdest array of costumes I've seen in a film for a while, and a massive fortress which is apparently only run by 7 people. GREAT job on the dubbing too guys(!) Best moment: when our hero loses a swordfight and is about to be skewered through the neck, he just gets out his gun and BANG! Why not do that earlier? It's a mystery. As is why anyone would want to sit through this in the first place. I'm still puzzling over that one myself now.. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here's a decidedly average Italian post apocalyptic take on the hunting\/killing humans for sport theme ala The Most Dangerous Game, Turkey Shoot, Gymkata and The Running Man.

Certainly the film reviewed here is nowhere near as much fun as the other listed entries and is furthermore dragged down by poor voice over work, generally bland action sequences, a number of entirely tasteless scenes such as a prolonged rape sequence and some truly stupid and illogical points throughout.

Take for example towards the end of the film, when our hero manages to infiltrate the compound of the villains. He initially kills a sentry and leaves him in his jeep. Upon discovery of the said corpse, the villains response? (bearing in mind that our hero has come to brutally murder them all) \u0096 They resolve to wait until the next morning to look for the culprit (!!!!!!!!!!)

However, I suppose to be fair the film remains nonetheless about watchable if you can suspend your disbelief during such stupid scenes and does benefit immensely by the presence of the always excellent Woody Strode (even if his screen time is very limited)

Not a classic by any stretch of the imagination but still just about worthy of a watch for Italian B-Movie enthusiasts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is absolutely appalling and awful. It's not low budget, it's a no budget film that makes Ed Wood's movies look like art. The acting is abysmal but sets and props are worse then anything I have ever seen. An ordinary subway train is used to transport people to the evil zone of killer mutants, Woddy Strode has one bullet and the fight scenes are shot in a disused gravel pit. There is sadism as you would expect from an 80s Italian video nasty. No talent was used to make this film. And the female love interest has a huge bhind- Italian taste maybe. Even for 80s Italian standards this film is pretty damn awful but I guess it came out at a time when there weren't so many films available on video or viewers weren't really discerning. This piece of crap has no entertainment value whatsoever and it's not even funny, just boring and extremely cheap. It's actually and insult to the most stupid audience. I just wonder how on earth an actor like Woody Strode ended up ia a turkey like this?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A big disappointment for what was touted as an incredible film. Incredibly bad. Very pretentious. It would be nice if just once someone would create a high profile role for a young woman that was not a prostitute.

We don't really learn anything about this character, except that he seems to be a hopeless alcoholic. We don't know why. Nicholas Cage turns in an excellent performance as usual, but I feel that this role and this script let him down. And how, after not being able to perform for the whole film, can he have an erection on his deathbed? Really terrible and I felt like I needed a bath.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So tell me - what serious boozer drinks Budweiser? How many suicidally-obsessed drinkers house a fully stocked and barely touched range of drinks in their lonely motel room that a millionaire playboy's bachelor-pad bar would be proud to boast? And what kind of an alcoholic tends to drink with the bottle held about 8 inches from his hungry mouth so that the contents generally spill all over his face? Not to mention wasting good whisky by dousing your girlfriend's tits with it, just so the cinema audience can get a good eyeful of Elisabeth Shue's assets.

Cage seems to be portraying the most attention-seeking look-at-me alcoholic ever to have graced the screen while Shue looks more like a Berkely preppy slumming it for a summer than some seasoned street-walker. She is humiliated and subjugated as often as possible in this revolting movie with beatings, skin lacerations, anal rape and graphic verbal abuse - all of it completely implausible and included apparently only to convey a sense of her horribly demeaned state and offer the male viewers an astonishingly clich\u00e9d sentimental sexual fantasy of the 'tart-with-a-heart'.

Still - I did watch it to the end, by which time I was actually laughing out loud as Shue's tough street hooker chopped carrots in the kitchen wanly, pathetically smiling while Cage - all eyes popping and shaking like like a man operating a road drill in an earthquake - grimaced and mugged his way through the final half-hour...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cage plays a drunk and gets high critically praise. Elizabeth Shue Actually has to do a love seen with the most unattractive and overrated piece of dung flesh in Hollywood. I literally vomited while watching this film. Of course I had the flu, but that does not mean this film did not contribute to the vomit in the kamode.

Why can't Nick Cage play something he can really pull off like a bad actor. Nick Cage who be brilliant in a role as a bad actor. Heck nobody could do it better.

The search begins for Nick's contract with Lucifer or was it Lou Cipher from \"Night Train To Terror\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wealthy horse ranchers in Buenos Aires have a long-standing no-trading policy with the Crawfords of Manhattan, but what happens when the mustachioed Latin son falls for a certain Crawford with bright eyes, blonde hair, and some perky moves on the dance floor? 20th Century-Fox musical has a glossy veneer yet seems a bit tatty around the edges. It is very heavy on the frenetic, gymnastic-like dancing, exceedingly thin on story. Betty Grable (an eleventh hour replacement for Alice Faye) gives it a boost, even though she's paired with leaden Don Ameche (in tan make-up and slick hair). Also good: Charlotte Greenwood as Betty's pithy aunt, a limousine driver who's constantly asleep on the job, and Carmen Miranda playing herself (who else?). The stock shots of Argentina far outclass the action filmed on the Fox backlot, and some of the supporting performances are quite awful. By the time of the big horserace finale, most viewers will have had enough. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Tokyo Eyes\" tells of a 17 year old Japanese girl who falls in like with a man being hunted by her big bro who is a cop. This lame flick is about 50% filler and 50% talk, talk, and more talk. You'll get to see the less than stellar cast of three as they talk on the bus, talk and play video games, talk and get a haircut, talk and walk and walk and talk, talk on cell phones, hang out and talk, etc. as you read subtitles waiting for something to happen. The thin wisp of a story is not sufficient to support a film with low end production value, a meager cast, and no action, no romance, no sex or nudity, no heavy drama...just incessant yadayadayada'ing. (C-)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a long-time fan of Japanese film, I expected more than this. I can't really be bothered to write to much, as this movie is just so poor. The story might be the cutest romantic little something ever, pity I couldn't stand the awful acting, the mess they called pacing, and the standard \"quirky\" Japanese story. If you've noticed how many Japanese movies use characters, plots and twists that seem too \"different\", forcedly so, then steer clear of this movie. Seriously, a 12-year old could have told you how this movie was going to move along, and that's not a good thing in my book.

Fans of \"Beat\" Takeshi: his part in this movie is not really more than a cameo, and unless you're a rabid fan, you don't need to suffer through this waste of film.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This German horror film has to be one of the weirdest I have seen.

I was not aware of any connection between child abuse and vampirism, but this is supposed based upon a true character.

Our hero is deaf and mute as a result of repeated beatings at the hands of his father. he also has a doll fetish, but I cannot figure out where that came from. His co-workers find out and tease him terribly.

During the day a mild-manner accountant, and at night he breaks into cemeteries and funeral homes and drinks the blood of dead girls. They are all attractive, of course, else we wouldn't care about the fact that he usually tears their clothing down to the waist. He graduates eventually to actually killing, and that is what gets him caught.

Like I said, a very strange movie that is dark and very slow as Werner Pochath never talks and just spends his time drinking blood.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A funny thing happened to me while watching \"Mosquito\": on the one hand, the hero is a deaf-mute and the director is totally unable to make us understand why he does what he does (mutilating mannequins...er, excuse me, corpses) through his images. On the other hand, the English version at least is very badly dubbed. So I found myself wishing there had been both more AND less dialogue at the same time! This film is stupid (funny how this guy has access to every graveyard and mortuary in his town) and lurid (where would we be in a 70s exploitationer without our gratuitous lesbian scene?). Not to mention the \"romantic\" aspect (oh, how sweet!)...Miss it. (*)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Brass pictures (movies is not a fitting word for them) really are somewhat brassy. Their alluring visual qualities are reminiscent of expensive high class TV commercials. But unfortunately Brass pictures are feature films with the pretense of wanting to entertain viewers for over two hours! In this they fail miserably, their undeniable, but rather soft and flabby than steamy, erotic qualities non withstanding.

Senso '45 is a remake of a film by Luchino Visconti with the same title and Alida Valli and Farley Granger in the lead. The original tells a story of senseless love and lust in and around Venice during the Italian wars of independence. Brass moved the action from the 19th into the 20th century, 1945 to be exact, so there are Mussolini murals, men in black shirts, German uniforms or the tattered garb of the partisans. But it is just window dressing, the historic context is completely negligible.

Anna Galiena plays the attractive aristocratic woman who falls for the amoral SS guy who always puts on too much lipstick. She is an attractive, versatile, well trained Italian actress and clearly above the material. Her wide range of facial expressions (signalling boredom, loathing, delight, fear, hate ... and ecstasy) are the best reason to watch this picture and worth two stars. She endures this basically trashy stuff with an astonishing amount of dignity. I wish some really good parts come along for her. She really deserves it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not even the Beatles could write songs everyone liked, and although Walter Hill is no mop-top he's second to none when it comes to thought provoking action movies. The nineties came and social platforms were changing in music and film, the emergence of the Rapper turned movie star was in full swing, the acting took a back seat to each man's overpowering regional accent and transparent acting. This was one of the many ice-t movies i saw as a kid and loved, only to watch them later and cringe. Bill Paxton and William Sadler are firemen with basic lives until a burning building tenant about to go up in flames hands over a map with gold implications. I hand it to Walter for quickly and neatly setting up the main characters and location. But i fault everyone involved for turning out Lame-o performances. Ice-t and cube must have been red hot at this time, and while I've enjoyed both their careers as rappers, in my opinion they fell flat in this movie. It's about ninety minutes of one guy ridiculously turning his back on the other guy to the point you find yourself locked in multiple states of disbelief. Now this is a movie, its not a documentary so i wont waste my time recounting all the stupid plot twists in this movie, but there were many, and they led nowhere. I got the feeling watching this that everyone on set was sord of confused and just playing things off the cuff. There are two things i still enjoy about it, one involves a scene with a needle and the other is Sadler's huge 45 pistol. Bottom line this movie is like domino's pizza. Yeah ill eat it if I'm hungry and i don't feel like cooking, But I'm well aware it tastes like crap. 3 stars, meh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all I hate those moronic rappers, who could'nt act if they had a gun pressed against their foreheads. All they do is curse and shoot each other and acting like clich\u00e9'e version of gangsters.

The movie doesn't take more than five minutes to explain what is going on before we're already at the warehouse There is not a single sympathetic character in this movie, except for the homeless guy, who is also the only one with half a brain.

Bill Paxton and William Sadler are both hill billies and Sadlers character is just as much a villain as the gangsters. I did'nt like him right from the start.

The movie is filled with pointless violence and Walter Hills specialty: people falling through windows with glass flying everywhere. There is pretty much no plot and it is a big problem when you root for no-one. Everybody dies, except from Paxton and the homeless guy and everybody get what they deserve.

The only two black people that can act is the homeless guy and the junkie but they're actors by profession, not annoying ugly brain dead rappers.

Stay away from this crap and watch 48 hours 1 and 2 instead. At lest they have characters you care about, a sense of humor and nothing but real actors in the cast.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an example of why the majority of action films are the same. Generic and boring, there's really nothing worth watching here. A complete waste of the then barely-tapped talents of Ice-T and Ice Cube, who've each proven many times over that they are capable of acting, and acting well. Don't bother with this one, go see New Jack City, Ricochet or watch New York Undercover for Ice-T, or Boyz n the Hood, Higher Learning or Friday for Ice Cube and see the real deal. Ice-T's horribly cliched dialogue alone makes this film grate at the teeth, and I'm still wondering what the heck Bill Paxton was doing in this film? And why the heck does he always play the exact same character? From Aliens onward, every film I've seen with Bill Paxton has him playing the exact same irritating character, and at least in Aliens his character died, which made it somewhat gratifying...

Overall, this is second-rate action trash. There are countless better films to see, and if you really want to see this one, watch Judgement Night, which is practically a carbon copy but has better acting and a better script. The only thing that made this at all worth watching was a decent hand on the camera - the cinematography was almost refreshing, which comes close to making up for the horrible film itself - but not quite. 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When all we have anymore is pretty much reality TV shows with people making fools of themselves for whatever reason be it too fat or can't sing or cook worth a damn than I know Hollywood has run out of original ideas. I can not recall a time when anything original or intelligent came out on TV in the last 15 years. What is our obsession with watching bums make fools of themselves? I would have thought these types of programs would have run full circle but every year they come up with something new that is more strange then the one before. OK so people in this one need to lose weight...most Americans need to lose weight. I just think we all to some degree enjoy watching people humiliated. Maybe it makes us feel better when we see someone else looking like a jerk. I don't know but I just wish something intelligent would come out that did not insult your intelligence.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I occasionally let my kids watch this garbage so they will understand just how pathetic the show's \"contestants\" are. They are pathetic not because they are fat, but because they whore their dignity for a few minutes of fame and fortune.

For anyone to appear on National TV and blubber, sniffle, and whine about being fat (entirely their own fault) is nauseating. What does this say about us as a nation? Does it suggest that your lifestyle choices, and the consequences of them, aren't our responsibility?

\"The Biggest Loser\" is an appropriate title, but it has nothing to do with one's weight.

Absolute trash.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Awful, awful, awful times a hundred still doesn't begin to describe how crappy \"Biggest Loser\" is. Picture this: take two fat couples with nothing interesting to say, humiliate them, and let them work to lose weight, all on prime time television. Am I the only one who thinks that this isn't something people with IQs in the 3-digit area WANT TO WATCH? Everything drags on forever, with the lumps of lard whining on about how losing weight is going to mean so much for them and their lives. Does anyone care? Do they think we care? Do they care if we care? Probably not. I think I'll videotape myself doing crunches and sell it to some major television corporation. If this passes for television, then so can my workouts!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one dreary, inert, self-important bore. When the only thing that suddenly gives a film life is a hanging, you know the venture is botched. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Truman Capote as a narcissistic, tic-ridden, self-indulgent, cartoon-voiced, insect-like caricature. Why he is this way is never explained and we get scant background information. The script focuses on Capote's writing of 'In Cold Blood' and his attachment to the damaged brothers who murdered a family of four. The acclaimed writer of 'To Kill A Mockingbird', Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), accompanies Capote in his initial inquires into the crime, and her presence immediately suggests a far more interesting subject for a biopic. Unfortunately, Lee is quickly sidelined in favor of endless scenes of Capote bemoaning his pained existence. Watching him is like watching Dr. Smith from 'Lost in Space' complain about his \"delicate back\" to anybody who will listen for two hours. The difference, however, is that Smith was fun to watch while Capote is not. The film's precious self-importance kills it, as does director Bennett Miller's reluctance to add any kind of shading. Like the morose piano score, the film is a one note wonder, providing no contrast, no emotional coloring, and no intimate drama. If Capote really was this irritating, why make a film about him and expect audiences to watch it? Though the supporting roles are well performed (Chris Cooper is his usual stalwart self), they serve such little dramatic purpose because, ultimately, it's all about Capote(!) Director Bennett and screenwriter Dan Futterman fail to emotionally engage their intended audience because they were clearly overwhelmed by the cultural baggage of Capote's \"legend\". Their product is stillborn Oscar bait...and is more evidence that one great genre pic has more \"truth\" in it than a dozen piles of oh-so-sincere crap like this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"many people said this was a great movie with Hoffman delivering a great performance. i went from suspended disbelief, to fidgety boredom, to almost walking out. there is no there there.

Hoffman does go all out. he is committed to the performance. but sometimes him playing an affected man looks just like affected actor chewing on the scenery.

no characters in the movie other than capote are much more than placeholders - nell, jack, perry, shawn, the sheriff are all one-dimensional.

yes the film shows the manipulative, preening, dishonest sides of capote. it shows them so many times i started to wonder why -- do the filmmakers think we need to have everything spelled out? and again? and again? it refers often to capote's genius but does not show it. it shows him surrounded by fans and flatterers but never convinces us why.

but my goal is not to deconstruct the film. i am sure others will have other interpretations. for me, this was a two-hour movie that felt like five.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In this film, we're invited to observe the descent into a moral and emotional funk of someone who isn't likable to start with. What was the point of making the film, then? To show that it would have been better not to have had IN COLD BLOOD - a book I admire, incidentally - in order to have kept our hero's integrity intact? Hardly. He behaves at the party at the start of the film exactly in the same way he behaves after his triumphant reading from the book, so his degradation is a matter of degree. Are we supposed to care enough about Capote to take seriously his claim that he and murderer Perry Smith are kindred spirits, with the former having had all the breaks while the latter had none? Mr Capote's plight didn't touch me at all, I'm afraid, so if that was the central idea it was wasted on me. But even if I could fathom why the filmmakers visited this pointless project on us, the clunky storytelling would still have bored me as it did. Hoffman gives a bravura performance to no emotional effect, while Keener and Cooper are so warm and interesting that I was yearning for more of them. Dreary beyond belief.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I read the script on-line, I thought \"Capote\" needed a trim. Having just seen it on PPV, I can tell you it wasn't trimmed, it was butchered like that poor family! Example: in the script, Truman dubs Shawn \"Adorable One\"; here, he is \"Mr. Shawn\".

Bad enough the amateurs behind this movie de-flame Capote and bash his circle (are we to really believe they thought so little of Nelle, they mangled her little opus like an obnoxious in-joke?), they turn Perry Smith into this oh-so-sensitive victim, even as he's shown dispatching the Clutters. It's one thing to fudge the facts, it's another to drop the ball: the executions were carried out between 12:45-1:19 AM, April 14; Truman is shown at the prison 22 HOURS LATER!

I was totally underwhelmed by the \"acting\". Keener doesn't even try to sound like an Alabama native. The way Cooper kept shouting \"Alvin!\", I was waiting for the Chimpmunks to show up! Hoffman gives us not the charming gadfly, but a pathetic suck-up who sees an horrific act as his ticket to the big time. When Hoffman whines about being \"tortured\" by the endless appeals, I wanted to give him a shotgun so he could do us both a favor and blow his brains out!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some describe CALIGULIA as \"the\" most controversial film of its era. While this is debatable, it is certainly one of the most embarrassing: virtually every big name associated with the film made an effort to distance themselves from it. Author Gore Vidal actually sued (with mixed results) to have his name removed from the film, and when the stars saw the film their reactions varied from loudly voiced disgust to strategic silence. What they wanted, of course, was for it to go away.

For a while it looked like it might. CALIGULA was a major box-office and critical flop (producer Guccione had to rent theatres in order to get it screened at all), and although the film was released on VHS to the home market so many censorship issues were raised that it was re-edited, and the edited version was the only one widely available for more than a decade. But now CALIGULIA is on DVD, available in both edited \"R\" and original \"Unrated\" versions. And no doubt John Gielgud is glad he didn't live to see it happen.

The only way to describe CALIGULIA is to say it is something like DEEP THROAT meets David Lynch's DUNE by way of Fellini having an off day. Vidal's script fell into the hands of Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione, who used Vidal's reputation to bankroll the project and lure the big name stars--and then threw out most of Vidal's script and brought in soft-porn director Tinto Brass. Then, when Guccione felt Brass' work wasn't explicit enough, he and Giancarlo Lui photographed hardcore material on the sly.

Viewers watching the edited version may wonder what all the fuss is about, but those viewing the original cut will quickly realize that it leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination. There is a tremendous amount of nudity, and that remains in the edited version, but the original comes complete with XXX scenes: there is very explicit gay, lesbian, and straight sex, kinky sex, and a grand orgy complete with dancing Roman guards thrown in for good measure. The film is also incredibly violent and bloody, with rape, torture, and mutilation the order of the day. In one particularly disturbing scene, a man is slowly stabbed to death, a woman urinates on his corpse, and his genitals are cut off and thrown to the dogs.

In a documentary that accompanies the DVD release, Guccione states he wanted the film to reflect the reality of pagan Rome. If so, he missed the mark. We know very little about Caligula--and what little we know is questionable at best. That aside, orgies and casual sex were not a commonplace of Roman society, where adultery was an offense punishable by death. And certainly ancient Rome NEVER looked like the strange, slightly Oriental, oddly space-age sets and costumes offered by the designers.

On the plus side, those sets and costumes are often fantastically beautiful, and although the cinematography is commonplace it at least does them justice; the score is also very, very good. The most successful member of the cast is Helen Mirren, who manages to engage our interests and sympathies as the Empress Caesonia; Gielgud and O'Toole also escape in reasonably good form. The same cannot be said for McDowell, but in justice to him he doesn't have much to work with.

The movie does possess a dark fascination, but ultimately it is an oddity, more interesting for its design and flat-out weirdness than for content. Some of the bodies on display (including McDowell's and Mirren's) are extremely beautiful, and some of the sex scenes work very well as pornography... but then again, some of them are so distasteful they might drive you to abstinence, and the bloody and grotesque nature of the film undercuts its eroticism. If you're up to it, it is worth seeing once, but once is likely to be enough.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's rare to see film that strikes out in every aspect but \"Caligula\" surely must hold this title. I'm not sure what is more horrendous; the violence, the sexual perverseness, the acting or the plot (or severe lack thereof).

The two and a half hours basically follows the ascension of the infamous Roman Caesar \"Caligula\" to to throne in 37AD and shows the atrocities and perverseness he supposedly committed whilst in power. The acting is lifeless and dull - but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Obviously knowing that this film was severely lacking of anything legitimately interesting, the directors decided to throw in as much nudity and orgy scenes as was conceivably possible. But don't be fooled, these scenes don't ease or take focus away from the hideousness of this film. The camera work is shoddy, dialog is laughable in fact you'd have to congratulate Malcolm McDowell (playing Caligula) for keeping a straight face through such farcical lines. And then there's the violence....

If you are about to see the film be prepared. Some atrocities are committed in the film (not just through the writing) but through disgusting violent acts which are of little point or purpose other than to repulse the viewer. This is only objective this movie achieved. One must wonder how the makers of this film thought that bestiality, necrophilia and castration (just to name a few) would be appealing to anyone. When it belatedly ends after two and a half hours you take nothing from this film other than some disturbing images and the knowledge that you may have witnessed the worst film ever.

You've been warned","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film at the tender age of 18 with a group of friends. Its reputation had preceded it, and though all my friends were also of legal age, I alone had the courage to enter the video store and actually rent it. We gathered at a house where the parents had left town for the weekend. Though we sat in close proximity to each other, we did not speak or otherwise acknowledge each other's presence. As it turned out, the film both merited and did not merit the anticipatory shame we felt. It did not disappoint in terms of sheer gratuitous content, but it disappointed in every other way.

Caligula attempts to transcend genres by combining a historical epic with a brazen porn flick. It fails miserably in its ambition, subjecting the audience to the worst of both worlds. The film's obvious selling point is its pornographic aspect, and it does indeed provide far more than its share of real, graphic sex. But in setting this sex in the context of Caligula's depraved reign, it dignifies the act even less than the average adult movie. Sex without context might at least be physically pleasurable for the consenting adults involved, but pleasure and perhaps even consent are largely absent from the world of Caligula. In it, sex at best serves as an idle pastime and at worst as an instrument of sadistic domination. In the present day, it is somewhat common to hear words like \"sin\" and \"depravity\" used facetiously to describe acts which are enjoyable yet considered taboo according to certain moral or religious perspectives. Caligula takes the viewer beyond the facetiousness by depicting true depravity and demonstrating that no joy or pleasure comes from it.

The historical portions not only fail to meaningfully contextualize the sex, they fail to entertain, enlighten, intrigue, or interest the viewer in any way. They only provide lengthy stretches of unremitting tedium. Rarely has a film proved so boring. The sex, after the initial shock and astonishment fades, only contributes to the overall monotony of the picture.

Rarely do discussions of this film involve its violence. While many films more violent than Caligula have been made, few can rival it in terms of the shock value of its violence. Apparenly, unrelenting barbarity as well as hyper-depraved sexuality characterized Caligula's emperorship. The violence is even less for the faint of heart than the sex.

A review like this will likely generate as much curiosity as it quells. I understand why someone would want to see this film; after all, I myself succumbed to the same curiosity. I simply hope that my review, by plainly describing its lack of redeeming value, will at least give potential viewers the knowledge to make an informed decision about whether to see it or not. My high school criminal justice teacher described police work as \"hours of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror.\" This statement perfectly describes Caligula. You have been warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a rare sensation to come across a film so embarrassing that you feel an urge to turn away from the screen. But when you see a noble actor like Sir John Gielgud surrounded by naked, copulating couples that's just what you'll want to do. Add to that Peter O'Toole as syphilis-ridden emperor Tiberius and Malcolm McDowell sticking his finger up a male victim's anus, and you begin to appreciate that Caligula is solely of interest to addicts of sick\/outrageous films.

The film charts the life of notorious Roman emperor Caligula (McDowell), a highly disturbed individual whose story is told through a series of sexual encounters, decapitations, betrayals, murders, incestuous relationships and lesbian sex scenes.

Although Caligula was totally mad in real life, and probably did succumb to his base instincts more often than not, the film is still inexcusable filth. The sex in the film isn't used as one aspect in a multi-layered story - the sex IS the story. After a while, all the nudity, hip thrusting and nipple sucking becomes tedious due to sheer repetition. The performances are totally undisciplined, particularly McDowell who throws caution to the wind and gives a performance that is all wild-eyed posturing. O'Toole seems to be treating the script with the contempt it deserves (surely he's in it purely for the money?!). Rumours abound that additional pornographic scenes were added without the director's consent during post production, but in truth there isn't a single minute in Caligula that is dignified or well-made. It is doubtful that this amount of time, talent and money will ever be thrown at a porno film again, so in that sense Caligula is a one-of-a-kind experience... on the other hand, it's so monumentally awful that perhaps the fact it is \"one-of-a-kind\" is a blessing in disguise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm currently slogging through Gibbon's 'Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire , so I've had all things Roman on my mind. I'm not very far into it yet, maybe two hundred plus pages, but it is amazing just how many of these Roman emperors were killed. I believe I've read through maybe 15 emperors so far and only Antonius, Trajan, and Hadrian haven't been killed or at least suspected of having been killed. I have also been fascinated by the mad excesses of many of these princes of Rome. Not the least practitioner of these was Caligula. This brings me to reviewing this film. I'm thinking of the film on a historical basis as far as I understand it from Gibbon's explanation of Rome,as well as other research from some good web sites and some fiction novels dealings with the period.

My point is I do not think that this film is what it is thought to be by many of it's proponents. I do not think the depravity shown with the sex and horrendous violence of this film qualify it as accurate. The general ideas of the film seem accurate. Caligula is raised on an island ,exiled with his family and in content fear of being murdered by the increasingly mad, suspicious and strange emperor Tiberius. He grows up paranoid and afraid and can never shake the cutesy nickname given him by his guards, Little Boots, this helps him grow up feeling abused and powerless. He is handed the empire after Tiberius dies, the senate hoping he will steer away from the informer squads which brought death by whim of the former delusionally paranoid tyrant, and lead Rome away from the madness that dictator had settled it into. Caligula begins as a decent if hands-off emperor, but gets sick, almost dies, and comes back from the brink of feverous death a true monster. His perversities with his sisters do begin here, if not before. He does have Macro killed and many others who were his originally supporters. The acts of madness seemed not to be the murders of Caligula as much as his new thinking of himself as a living God. Him seen talking to the statue of Jupiter as an equal doomed him. His violent mad excesses would have doomed him anyway, and three years seems to have been quite a decent run for the successors of Tiberius. Well the film basically sticks to these lines while it manages to be coherent, which is not common through it's entirety, it does so while trying to shock the audience at all turns, in every single scene the film begs you to be disgusted by the depravity of ancient Rome. The shocking scenes are what this film is built entirely upon and where it entirely fails. It is just too much to see successive rulers have man after man murdered, raped, tortured for no reason but fancy. The depictions of the violence are possibly, but not probably, accurate. Murder certainly was the order of the day in Imperial Rome, torture beforehand was rote. But the director's visions of these deaths and the bored amusement of their protagonists, while the bystanders watch with nonchalance, I just don't see it having gone down exactly like that. The death machine, the beheader, is certainly something like you've never seen in movies, and something once seen you shall probably never forget, even as I, you wish you could. The wine drinking while the penis is roped off is the same, once you've seen this shame it is yours forever. These things strike me the director's and that porn magnate's fantasies. They sprung from their sick imaginations and not from any proved record.

The acting is pretty good. I actually think Mcdowell is the weakest link here. Mirren is always something to behold, and here in her youthful years she is formidable and beautiful. The portrayals of Nerva and Tiberius are done very well by their respected actors. The film could have done so much better story telling, it is such a failure that way its just a whole other layer of what a shame this thing was. For example it could have given opinion on how and why Caligula went mad, or shown that he was mad, paranoid before his illness and that fever then broke the mental restraint he had possessed previously. It could have shown the weakness of Claudius and the miracle it was he survived Caligula. It could have these and many other things but it stuck to it's sad nightmares.

Finally about the sex. It is porn. It shows these sex acts being done all over the palaces by many people. Male on male, female on female, male on female. It is passionless, disgusting sex. Sex that if your point is to get off on it, I seriously doubt you could. Both Tiberius and Caligula may have been sex addicts, and orgies may have been common enough but the visions in this film seem to recall more a Greek time than a Roman. I don't think that kind of acceptance of homosexuality or orgies right out in the open were common until the the strange, depraved reign of Elgabalus, and he was killed for it.

This film should probably never be watched, if your curious about it , let it go. It is something, as I said earlier, if you do watch this you will unfortunately retain it's sick visions in your minds eye for years to come. I don't think its an accurate historical picture in particular, even if it is historical in whole.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Incomprehensibly dreadful mishmash of the probably most notorious of all Roman emperors who went insane, leaving infamous party orgies and ruthless killings in his path... I know there are several versions of this, and this is based on the 102 min' one that I watched - but I can't fathom how that possibly can make any difference to lift the rest of this movie out of the muck!

I'd heard for long about the alleged \"shocking\" content of sex\/nudity (which honestly there isn't much of here at all - and boring when there is) and blood, but beware - it's the technical production amateurishness that well and truly shocks here: Everything looks plain and simply like a junior film school flunk project! Camera-work is hopelessly inept, full of strange zooms, failed framing and confusing pans (to and from what mostly looks like a huge theater stage!) complete with a grainy, cheapish photo quality. Lighting and color schemes are terrible and uneven - is it day or night? Are they in- or outside? Have they changed scenes? Who is, or is meant to be in the shot? Editing is the final sin here, making a confusing mess of everything with randomly jumpy cutaways, continuity flaws and random transitions that destroy any chance of momentum, story progression - and involvement. There is potentially interesting dialog and an equally interesting true historical story... but these faults distract so much it's tragic.

A story with SO many possibilities to be great is just one gargantuan, burnt (and Fellini-like) turkey that's only good for a few gobble-laughs and Peter O'Toole, who makes a most memorable Tiberius. Oh yes, which brings us to the big-name actors. I'd like to line them all up one by one and just ask: Who did you get free access to bonk in the orgies to be a part of this? There, I've wasted enough lines on one of the truly worst films of all time - period!

1 out of 10 from Ozjeppe","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As an ancient movie fan, I had heard much about the controversial movie CALIGULA assessed ambiguously as one of the most realistic epics by some and as one of the most disgusting porn movies by others. I decided to see it in the entire uncut version to evaluate it myself hoping to find something positive that would make justice to the many accusations towards the film. I sat down in my chair one autumn evening and started to watch. The beginning quotation from the New Testament shocked me a bit and raised the first controversy in me...why to entail a sentence from the Gospel by Mark in the movie about pagan Rome? But the prelude pastoral scene with a young half naked couple (Caligula and Drusilla) running hopelessly through meadows seemed quite sentimental. The music which sounded memorably whilst the credits also provoked me in the positive sense. Yet, the negative feelings raised in me quite soon, particularly at the death of Tiberius. The cruelty seemed very intense and sexuality exaggerated. However, it was not that horrific to the middle. During the second half of the film, I felt as if I watched no historical epic but an extremely disgusting porn. In the end, I said to myself \"This is one of the movies that one may really hate\" ... I am aware that a movie may be controversial but I had never expected that CALIGULA would go that far in removing all limits of taste. I hate this film due to many reasons, but particularly one.

CALIGULA does not serve a purpose of an ancient epic (which it claims to be), but Bob Guccione, the director and the founder of Penthouse pornographic magazine, aims at combining film art with porn. That is, I think, the most serious matter the film may be accused of. Movie is an art that should be reigned by taste, by message, by some feeling of epic grandeur whereas this movie kills all limits of good taste. CALIGULA shows the most bestial side of human being in the most wicked, decadent manner. Some scenes are so disgusting that I don't think there are any people whose psyches will not be affected by them. Some say that the Rome under Caligula's reign was so brutal. Yes, it is true. Corruption bloomed at that time, various sexual deviances were preferable to Roman citizens. Yet, I do not think that it is right to focus on these deviations so strictly and make it constitute an emphasis of an ancient epic. I believe that it rather proves the bizarre psyches of the producers and their strange tendencies...

HUGE HISTORICAL MISTAKES: The screenplay by Gore Vidal is notorious for inaccuracies. It is noticeable, for instance, with the figure of Proculus (Donato Placido), a historic Roman senator. Yet, the film shows him as a simple soldier on whom Caligula forces his most decadent ways of tortures and rapes. Moreover, Livia was not Proculus wife raped by Caesar on her wedding. What lies behind changing the stories of historical characters into the stories filled with unbelievable vulgarity and violence? Another example of historical travesty is the figure of Caesonia portrayed by Helen Mirren. She is presented as Caligula's wife together with Drusilla, his sister. In fact, Caligula married Caesonia long after the death of his sister. The sexual abuse on his new wife in the temple is a hilarious scene with no historical bases. I also hated the moment with the killing machine - a pure imagination of the director that has nothing to do with historical facts.

TECHNICAL ASPECT AND CAST: From the technical point of view, the film is nothing special. The cinematography cannot boast to be exceptionally fine and the sets together with costumes are as well nothing outstanding. Yet, the only strong point of the movie are the performances, particularly the one by Malcolm McDowall as Caligula. He does a perfect job in the main role portraying madness and cruelty of the emperor. McDowall raises the value of the film. If everything bothers you in CALIGULA, you may at least admire his performance. I also fancied Helen Mirren as Caesonia and Teresa Ann Savoy as Drusilla (yet the film is based on a gossip by Suetonius that Caligula made love to his sister). Sir John Gielgud as Nerva and Peter O'Toole as old Tiberius are also memorable. O'Toole does his finest piece of acting in the Capri Grotto sequence portraying the decadence and the exhaust of the old emperor. Yes, I admit that THE ONLY THING I like about CALIGULA are the performances. Therefore, I don't rate the movie 1\/10.

LAME CONTINUITY: The historical inaccuracy of the film also goes in pairs with poor continuity. Let us analyze just the beginning: Caligula comes to Capri Grotto where he sees the awful pleasures of old Tiberius. Then, after about 15 minutes, the action moves to Rome where a black bird near Drusilla and Caligula's bed constitutes a bad omen. And immediately the characters are again in Capri where Nerva (John Gielgud) is dying...?

All in all, I don't recommend to see CALIGULA to anyone. If you want to know the story, read Robert Graves' gorgeous novel I, CLAUDIUS and CLAUDIUS THE GOD or watch Herbert Wise's mini series with the magnificent performance by Derek Jacobi. CALIGULA is a sick film the most serious crime of which is the destruction of art. It is, in its most part, a porn movie that should never be called an epic.

There are movies that are truly artistic and sharpen people's taste of beauty,

there are movies that are average entertainment; yet they have something to offer,

there are movies that show extreme violence; yet they still convey some moral,

there are, however, movies that show sickness and decadence for their own sake and consequently harm people's minds,

CALIGULA unfortunately belongs to the latest group","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found the movie at my local video store and I was surprised to see it on DVD. I had heard about the explicit sex scenes, gruesome violence, and the notorious debauchery. I sat and watched and I began laughing! The set decorations and art direction was cheap and fake; the nudity was sardonic and incredibly unsexy; the story was poorly written and it was just a parade of incredibly beautiful and talented actors being held hostage to quote the worst dialogue ever written! The incestuous relationship between Caligola (Malcolm McDowell) and his serenely beautiful sister Drusilla (Theresa Ann Savoy, a vulnerable beauty) can't be taken seriously...it's not even shocking or repulsive! Peter O'Toole and John Geilgud were obviously held hostage during the making of this film luckily they die in the first thirty minutes of the film. The cinematography was a joke and I was even more amused when they used a quote from the Bible! The book of Mark no less. If you are looking for shock value, this movie will disappoint you. If you are looking for camp cult value, you will be even more disappointed. I know I was. I have seen shocking and this is two hours of your life you will never have back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although its plot is taken from the history of ancient Rome, 'Caligula' is not made in the style of sword-and-sandal epics like 'Spartacus' or 'Gladiator'. (That style of movie-making was out of favour in the late seventies). Rather, it more closely resembles a cross between a soft-core porn movie and a video nasty. At least, the shortened 150 minute version does. I have never seen the full 210 minute version, but to judge from the descriptions of it on this page, it would seem closer to a cross between a hard-core porn movie and a video nasty.

As one would expect from a film produced by the publisher of 'Penthouse', there is much naked flesh to be seen, and the film lovingly catalogues Caligula's sexual perversions, including his incestuous affair with his sister Drusilla. What is perhaps unexpected from the publisher of a magazine so closely associated with the heterosexual male lifestyle is that there is as much male flesh as female on display and distinctly homoerotic overtones to many scenes. The obsession with sex is balanced by an equal obsession with violence, as though Bob Guccione, Gore Vidal and Tinto Brass were trying to kill two taboos with one stone. (It is a remarkable coincidence that the director of such a brazen film should be called 'Brass' and the scriptwriter of such a gory one should be called 'Gore'). Characters are put to death or mutilated in a variety of sadistic ways, and there is a charming scene of homosexual rape.

The Emperor Caligula and his predecessor Tiberius were certainly known for their debauched lifestyles, so the film's concentration on sex and violence is not necessarily historically inaccurate. I do, however, question whether such a concentration is necessary to help us understand this period in Roman history. Both 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' and 'Gladiator' were set during the reign of Commodus, an Emperor quite as cruel and licentious as Caligula. In neither case did the filmmakers find it necessary to turn their film into a mixture of 'Up Pompeii!', 'Emmanuelle' and 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', and both those films are artistically far better than 'Caligula'.

The acting in the film is not particularly bad, with a few exceptions such as the horribly wooden Teresa Ann Savoy as Drusilla. Malcolm McDowell makes a suitably insane Caligula. (Suitable, that is, in the context of this film. The real Caligula was doubtless both cruel and eccentric, but historians have debated whether he was actually mentally ill). The great mystery is exactly why so many distinguished British actors should have agreed to take part in such a trashy production. In the case of Helen Mirren (the only Dame of the British Empire with a past as a porn star) it was probably connected to her rather regrettable tendency to alternate between the highbrow and the sleazy, but heaven alone knows what Peter O'Toole and John Gielgud thought they were doing. Unlike some other famous stage actors, such as Laurence Olivier and Richard Burton, Gielgud did not always look completely at home in the cinema, but here he gives a dignified interpretation of the role of Nerva, a decent and honourable Senator of the old school. Unfortunately, in the context of this film any attempt at dignity is as out of place as a pearl on a dunghill.

Guccione clearly succeeded in his ambition for this film to become something of a cult classic of decadence. (Whether Brass and Vidal had quite the same ambition for the film is open to question). The film does not, however, succeed upon any other level, either as art cinema or as a study of the politics of dictatorship. Even seen as erotica it is second-rate. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen several stage and film adaptations of Alice in Wonderland and this one has to take the cake as the absolute worst. My family bought the DVD unsuspectingly and couldn't even make it through the first half. I later went back and forced myself to watch the whole thing (it had been a Christmas gift to me) and was just appalled.

The only redeeming factor (and it's hardly redeeming enough to save the whole show) is Mark Lin-Baker playing the Mock Turtle with a Yiddish accent. It's one of the few moments in the piece that has some real charm and can be taken somewhat seriously. Other than that, the songs are half-songs, the melodies are half-melodies and even Meryl Streep cannot make this direction look good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sammi Cheng & Andy Lau are coupled yet again in their 3rd film -- YESTERDAY ONCE MORE -- directed by HK's actioneer Johnnie To...fans of To's action films will be disappointed to find not a single gun was used in the filming...furthermore, fans of Cheng & Lau's previous films, NEEDING YOU & LOVE ON A DIET, will also be disappointed to find that YESTERDAY is no where near as funny or endearing...

Mr. & Mrs. To (Lau & Cheng) are a divorced couple...both affluent HK citizens...both incredibly mischievous...both just happened to be professional thieves -- 'two birds of the same feather'....A couple years earlier, they divorced over an inability to find middle ground on splitting the loot...Now she's remarrying...to the son of a rich heiress -- a total momma's boy (Carl Ng) through & through...The soon-to-be mother-in-law (Jenny Woo) is suspicious of Mrs. To's past & thinks she's only marrying her son for the family jewels -- the heiress' priceless ruby necklace...

The necklace is stolen...is it Mrs. To's materialistic eye that gets the best of her?... or is it her ex-husband, Mr. To's way of sabotaging the marriage to steal the jewels for himself?...

This is not a movie about two pple falling in love or rekindling a love...its about two pple who have always been in love but have somehow been to foolish to realize it...they let pride & greed overwhelm them...

Overall: YESTERDAY is one part caper\/heist film & one part homage to classic Hollywood glamour from its golden years -- i.e. Cary Grant & Grace Kelly's TO CATCH A THIEF...Johnnie To is riding too heavily on Cheng\/Lau's chemistry from their previous films...hoping Cheng\/Lau's immense popularity & fan base will be enough justification for this third film....I think Sammi Cheng is one of the most likable\/charming entertainers working t'day...& Lau is definitely the Tom Cruise of Asian cinema...

I really enjoyed their first two films & consider the Cheng\/Lau pairing comparable to those classic Hollywood couples of the 40's & 50's...but YESTERDAY falls very short of expectations...terrible writing, ridiculous situations, product placements galore, & all the subplots & supporting characters were unnecessary...come to think of it...this film was unnecessary...unless you just love celebrity watching...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Racketeer\" stars Carol (deprived of the \"e\" that usually appeared at the end of her first name) Lombard as a woman thrown out of society because she left her husband for a concert violinist (Roland Drew) who has since become a down-and-out alcoholic, and torn between her love for him and the interest of New York crime kingpin Robert Armstrong (top-billed). It's virtually a compendium of what was wrong with the earliest talkies: stiff direction, immobile cameras, stagy acting and ridiculously slow-paced delivery of lines. At the time the sound crews were telling the directors to have their actors speak every line s-l-o-w-l-y and not to start speaking their own line until after the previous actor had finished theirs. Done about five years later, this could have been an interesting movie, but director Howard Higgin faithfully follows his sound recorder's dictates and systematically undercuts the talents we know Lombard and Armstrong had from watching their later movies. \"The Racketeer\" was made in 1929, a year that despite the transition problems from silent to sound nonetheless gave us some legitimate masterpieces \u0097 Vidor's \"Hallelujah!,\" Mamoulian's \"Applause,\" Wyler's \"Hell's Heroes,\" Capra's \"Ladies of Leisure\" \u0097 all from directors with strong enough wills to tell the soundboard dictators to get stuffed and let their actors talk and act naturalistically. Too bad Howard Higgin wasn't that strong; as it is, watching a naturally rapid-paced actor like Armstrong slog through the part in the ridiculous way he's been told to speak, one can't help but wonder where that 50-foot gorilla is when Armstrong needs him.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Time has not been kind to this film from the transition days of sound from silent. The plot has a gangster falling for a socialite who wants to help the down on his luck violinist she loves. There are of course complications. The problem with the film for me is that it hasn't aged well. Performances are all over the place with some emotional scenes seeming so over the top as to be laughable. One late exchange where Carol Lombard throws someone out of her room had me howling with its sing song delivery. There are other times when the film becomes static, a sign of the limitations of the microphones. Its not a bad film, its just that the technical limitations of the film get in the way of real enjoyment. Normally I'm forgiving, but this time out I just couldn't go with the flow (Then again the copy I saw was absolutely horrible). Worth a shot in a forgiving mood (and to be reminded that Robert Armstrong actually did more than play Carl Denham in King Kong)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Carole Lombard stars in this transition period film. This film is a typical example of a very early \"talkie\" (First practical sound film was \"The Jazz Singer\", 1927). Overall, the acting in this film tends to be extremely broad and very melodramatic.

The viewer may easily note that the actors are still \"acting\" for a silent film, and this combined with the overly pronounced, overly earnest dialog (It seems most likely a diction-elocution-drama coach was employed extensively to teach the \"silent\" actors to speak lines), creates some rather comical scenes which were not at all intended to be comical.

Carole Lombard's later great acting ability is all but unrecognizable underneath all the broad gestures, melodrama, and eager earnestness.

Mainly interesting as an historical curiosity of the period, and for it's completely unintended comedy-camp value.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, was this version of THE RACKETEER tough to watch! While none of the other reviews have mentioned this, the public domain version I watched was seriously flawed. The sound track was off by about 10 seconds--meaning the dialog and action never came close to matching. So, you'd hear something occur well before you saw it--a very confusing proposition! The worst is where you hear a gun shot and only later doe the guy get hit and slump to his death in a taxi.

While this seriously marred the film, it also made concentrating on the dialog easier--and showed the serious shortcomings of it as well. The dialog was simply awful--often delivered with almost no inflection or feeling. As one review said, it was like watching a high school play. Part of this is understandable, as sound was a new medium, but this film's dialog was bad even compared to other 1929 films--really bad. And, like many of these early sound films, the film was just too talky--with sappy and overly melodramatic language and just not much action. And you'd THINK with a title like \"The Racketeer\" that there would be some action!! However, it's really a sappy romance--with very little action.

The film finds Carol Lombard straddled with an alcoholic musician. She herself ends up stealing to try to take care of him--and the crook, Robert Armstrong, comes to her assistance. When Armstrong catches her cheating at cards, he covers for her and then helps the drunk brother to get on his feet--and naturally he falls for her in the process. The problem is that once the drunk sobers up, he, too, wants Lombard and she needs to choose between them. Wow...a recovering drunk or a mobster...talk about a couple great prospects! Overall, it's a bit hard to rate considering the lousy print I saw. However, even if you ignore this, the film has a lot of problems due to its poor use of dialog and excessively talky nature. And...it was sappy too boot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think my summary says it all. This MTV-ish answer to the classic Candid Camera TV show features a Gen X (or is that Gen Y) type putting in false choppers and wearing various hats and wigs and glasses, and setting people up in fairly outlandish although often not very interesting situations. Example: Kennedy has a guy invite his parents to his \"wedding.\" Kennedy is the bride, done up in a full bridal gown and long wig. The \"joke\" is that the parents immediately understand their son is marrying a man who claims to no longer have his \"bits and pieces.\" Problem is, this schtick goes on way too long, obviously to fill out time. And Kennedy is about as funny as a dead cod lying in the sun. Candid Camera would have run three or four scenarios in the time it took Kennedy to get through this one, running around, constantly asking \"Do I look fat?\" I recognize the show was not made for me. It was made for 12-year-old pinheads who think JACKASS is the height of comedy today. So let them laugh. Thank God the show was short-lived.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am the sort of person who never, ever watches animated movies, but I make an exception for Thumbelina and the Swan Princess. Being absolutely in love with the first installment of the series, I bought this and sat down to watch it with a very biased mind, determined to love it because I'd spent money buying it. I finished the movie, and all I can think is THE HORROR!!! I wanted to like it, I really did. I tried very, VERY hard to like it. But I couldn't enjoy a second of this grueling film. The songs made me feel like ripping my ears out of my head. The dialogue was so lame I felt myself twitching with frustration and irritation every time someone opened his or her mouth. The villain was laughable and I felt myself wanting Derek and Odette to die in the end... and I was absolutely in love with them from the first film.

I am going to try repress the memory of this movie, because it almost destroyed the first one for me. There is one song in the movie in which there are a series of flashbacks to the first film. The difference in animation between the two is made very obvious, and I began yearning for the first one and wishing I'd never set eyes on the third.

Do yourself and favor and don't waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had to rent a couple of movies for my little cousin for New Year's and she picked out The Swan Princess: The Mystery of the Enchanted Kingdom and The Little Mermaid 2 and we just watched both films, while she's sleeping, I figured I could get a couple comments in. :) While this is a very cheesy cartoon, it really wasn't that bad. You have to admit that for children, these plots are new to them and it could be a great introduction of these stories to them.

Odette finds out that Derek has been secretly keeping the magic secrets of Rosthoe and she tells Derek to destroy them immediately, but him being a guy, typically he does not do so and tells her that no on could achieve the magics without his help. When a witch named Zelda gets her hands on them, she finds out that Derek tore off the last words of a spell she wants to use to destroy everything, and she kidnaps Odette in order to retrieve this information.

The Swan Princess: The Mystery of the Enchanted Kingdom is silly and predictable, but for the kids I would honestly say it's a go. It's so rare we have these clean cut cartoons now a days, so I'm going to cut the film some slack. It was just weird seeing all the voices change all of a sudden, I grew up with the first one, so I guess it was just stuck in my head.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved the first movie, the second one was okay, disappointed John Cleese wasn't jean bob anymore as hes my favorite character. But the third one...what happened to the animation??? it looks low budget like a sat morning cartoon! except for the flashback which was taken from the first movie. They really should have stopped after number 2, this just makes the rest look bad!! Derek's voice has changed but its not as recognizable as jean bob..Rogers also looks very strange. I also don't understand where Rothbart came from. I thought he died! This movie made me want to turn it off, as much as i love the first one, i was very disappointed with this installment. They will never beat the original!:)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Also titled--> The Magical Castle--> This one is a stretch. Why bother? Why create another rockbart and then add another story line that has nearly nothing to do with the play nor swan lake. Only some girlfriend of rockbart, the stolen book of forbidden arts and the original characters (not voices remain). Stripped to to its bares this is a continuation by a thread. Next thing you know some bird will have memorized the \"forbidden arts\" and Swan Princess 4: the magical bird will be born. Thankfully though the chapters are supposedly closed and this will beginning but bad ended trilogy will come to a close.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"HOW MANY MOVIES ARE THERE GOING TO BE IN WHICH AGAINST ALL ODDS, A RAGTAG TEAM BEATS THE BIG GUYS WITH ALL THE MONEY?!!!!!!!! There's nothing new in \"The Big Green\". If anything, you want them to lose. Steve Guttenberg used to have such a good resume (\"The Boys from Brazil\", \"Police Academy\", \"Cocoon\"). Why, OH WHY, did he have to do these sorts of movies during the 1990s and beyond?! So, just avoid this movie. There are plenty of good movies out there, so there's no reason to waste your time and money on this junk. Obviously, the \"green\" on their minds was money, because there's no creativity here. At least in recent years, Disney has produced some clever movies with Pixar.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the most unoriginal, cliche-ridden movies I have ever seen. Even if you didn't like this film's antecedents, 'The Bad News Bears' and 'The Mighty Ducks,' they are bound to have done a better job than this one. From the moment the new teacher greets her class and they tell her, \"Don't bother with us, we're all losers,\" you can see everything that's coming twenty miles away for the rest of the film.

All the usual suspects are here. Besides the spunky teacher, we have a group of what are supposed to be endearingly bratty kids (they're brats, yes, but no so endearing), a slow-witted small town sheriff that they love to torment, an arrogant head coach of the winning rival team, etc., ad nauseum. Only Olivia d'Abo as the new teacher displays any likabilty. I never cared much for Steve Guttenberg before and his performance as the sheriff doesn't change things. Jay O. Sanders is a capable actor but his character, the rival coach, leaves him nothing to work with. Let's hope that writer\/director Holly Goldberg Sloan comes up with something better next time out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nothing more than a soccer knock-off of The Mighty Ducks, this film proved to be annoying in most aspects. This was one of those times where you're parents ask you to take your younger siblings just so they don't have to deal with them for a few hours. To say the least, my younger sisters liked it, but it proved to be too much like the far superior Mighty Ducks. Oh well, at least Olivia d'Abo was hot and Steve Guttenberg still had a job at that point in time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Take a clich\u00e9 story and insert Steve Guttenberg.Need i say anymore?This truly is as bad as you would expect. Sheriff Tom Palmer(Guttenberg)and Anna Montgormery attempt to transform a group of useless,inept kids into a winning soccer team.Lacking originality and direction from the offset it's quite a struggle to maintain any form of interest in this film. Despite my reservations about Guttenbergs acting ability i can safely say that the acting of the rival teams coach is actually worse than Guttenbergs.Previously unimaginable i thought. This type of story of underdogs battling all the way to the top has been done before and better every time than this so called 'film'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie appears to have made for the sole purpose of annoying me. Everything I hate about films is present: fake sentimentality, extreme corniness, bad child actors and more feature abundantly. That's ignoring the fact that it depicts the extreme ignorance of American sports fans, with many of the cast professing that a football is shaped like a lemon. What?! That's a Rugby ball. The story follows a group of no hopers that get a new teacher that they like (who, coincidently, teaches the class in a short skirt) and gets them interested in football. Naturally, they're all rubbish (don't forget, they're no hopers) except for one kid who has moved from El Paso. Blah Blah, etc etc and the kids still don't become good footballers, but good heart ensues and the no hopers are turned into a bunch of well-rounded kids. Hell, even the adults start to come round; drunks are turned into caring parents, illegal immigrants are let off the hook...groan.

This movie stars Steve Guttenberg. Now, before you go rushing off down your local video store to grab yourself a copy, hold up a minute. Guttenberg is rubbish. No, no; come on let's face it, how did this guy ever get to be in a movie? I have absolutely no idea, and there is nothing in this movie to give me an idea. Olivia d'Abo stars along side Steve and doesn't impress either. She merely seems to be going through the motions and looking nice while doing it. Although I have no problems with the latter part; her performance does the movie no credit. The child actors that make up the rest of the cast are just as bad as you would expect from a movie like this. Most of them are disgusting and\/or annoying and it doesn't make for pleasant viewing at all. There's a goat in the film who plays the mascot and he does a good job; but you wouldn't see a movie for a goat, so don't bother seeing this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Walt was particularly fond of quality. So how come the producers at Disney would release such a terribly edited, roughly acted (even for family fare!) mess of a movie? THE BIG GREEN had a good concept. And, since it is Disney, you know how the movie is going to turn out obviously. But THE BIG GREEN is horrible. The jokes are lame. And Steve Guttenburg, still alive, pulls in another terrible performance on his resume.

Kids with too much time on their hands in small town Elma are offered an opportunity by their new teacher to play soccer. The kids don't know a thing though. And, gracious for us, we get to see Steve Guttenburg try to hit on the teacher from beginning to end.

The speed up camera work does not work. THE BIG GREEN is full of speeding the pace of characters to move the movie along. Kids are not idiots. They will catch on if you give them enough of a hint without showing all that garbage. Guttenburg, for once in his life, should have turned down an offer to join this movie. Also the pretty Olivia d'Abo should have called this one off too. THE BIG GREEN can be known as 'The Big Bomb.'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now I'm a big animation fan -- love Svankmeyer and usually am into all applications of stop motion so I had high hopes for this one. Then I came on IMDb and paused --- I'm always real suspicious of films with a bimodal distribution of votes on IMDb. Here we've got another --- a bunch of 10s (shill anyone) and then some real low ones. I'm also suspicious of 10s with the word \"visionary\" in them.

Sure there are visionaries but this character isn't one of them. Despite my misgivings, I saw this film and have to side with the ones. The stop motion animation was okay but the plots were banal and overall it seemed amateurish. Treat yourself to the real deal get some Svankmeyer and leave this also ran on the shelf.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found the first bit of stop motion animation intriguing and the mostly live action short with the girl going about in whatever country it was kept my interest, but the other 11 odd shorts really didn't pique my interest or make me think of anything at all. The music and 8mm footage all seemed to be so random that it all just seemed random. I would not recommend this to any one unless you get to see it free.

As for the music being so in step that didn't come across either. I rented the DVD because I thought it was all stop motion animation or SMA mixed with live action and only the first short was SMA, the second had a little stop motion mixed with mostly live action. There was paper cut-out stuff in one, and the rest was outdoor shots from an 8mm camera with the music bed. Just didn't have any meaning to it I could see.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Over the GW is a near failure of a debut feature, and not because it's not without trying...Actually, it is. It's a shamble all the more because it's writer\/director\/technical everyman Nick Gaglia went through the same rehab cult that he depicts in the film. Sometimes a first time filmmaker, full of the vigor that comes with getting a thumbs up or two from fellow film students, goes headlong into style that is way too disjointed, unsure, and dramatically frustrating that the personal side of the story, the extremely personal side, gets smudged in the purpose of telling a good story. Gaglia, who was 13 when put into a horrid program that basically tortured and brainwashed their \"patients\" with crazy group scare tactics, psychological mind-f*** sessions that could go on for days, and attitudes from the rehab leaders that would make most Nazis cringe, escaped finally when he was 15. I'm glad he got out, though it might help if he now goes into a real rehab for his film-making skills, if only for a couple of days, to learn things like, say, structure, proper lighting, fluid camera movement, subtlety with actors, and other basics that are perpetually lost here.

It's all the more frustrating because Gaglia is dealing with a subject that should be shown more to the public (there was recently a Newsweek article referring to a similar AA cult-rehab). Many times one wonders if certain personal character studies might work better as documentaries as opposed to narrative dramas. This is an ever-nagging sensation throughout Over the GW, where it almost feels like Gaglia wants to tell the truth but doesn't know how to communicate it properly through his characters. The character that one would think is closest to him, Bronx teen Tony Serra (Gallagher), who is taken by his mother to a rehab in New Jersey, would be closest to Gaglia, is actually much more of a one-dimensional being, where there is very little back-story (we see a brief freak-out, in black and white, in his old home) and little connection to his mother (Moriarty), who has more potential that is never tapped aside from a cold stone who passes her kids off to another. But there is a story to go with his two-year crisis, I guess.

Right off the bat things get rough (a nude cavity search in the first five minutes), and soon it's clear that instead of medical care it's more like a cross between anger management and some bizarre religious sect, where the head doctor Hiller (Insinnia) is a total over-controlling loon. But soon Tony's sister Sofia (Donohue) gets thrown in to the program, and as opposed to Tony's repeated moments of outrage and supposed non-compliance, she goes head-on through the whacked-out three step program and once released becoming a runaway. At times there are bits in this fractured nightmare, where there's one woman, a 22 year old mother who has been in the program a year and a half finds she's become a prisoner not allowed to leave, and when the father of the main siblings comes and pays an enraged visit to Hiller when Sofia finally returns to them, that do contain some raw power, very brief glimpses of Gaglia being able to at least garner some leverage in pure melodrama.

But these are moments few and far between. It's not just the unsuccessful characters, who are mostly reduced to stereotypes that veer into being like hysterical D.A.R.E. rip-offs (maybe some of them, like an angry black youth, the passive-aggressive counselors, or even Serra's older sister who is ratted out by the siblings as having taken a hit off a joint and almost thrown into the program, would resonate more if there was more time given to develop any of them). It's that Gaglia is so unfocused in his multiple roles on his tiny $30,000 budget that not one side of whatever potential talent he has can come through. He over-uses tints, mostly with a shade that looks urine-coated), he jiggles his hand-held DVX camera as if it's supposed to be intense ala City of God, occasionally a character will just shoot into frame randomly, his choices of music are like the worst selections possible from pseudo-indie soft-rockers, and there's even inane fake interview scenes with Nicholas Serra (inspiration ?) and Krakowsky that feel about as false as possible.

Could Gaglia just not get any interviews with the real victims he was with and resort to would-be artistically cathartic plan B? Bottom line, no matter how much from-the-heart true life stories may appeal to you, don't bother seeing it in the theater, or even on rental, unless you love a final scene with two kids staring off into the digital-hued Hudson river sunset with the final words reading: Dedicated to the Kids. Oy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"By Randolph Scott standards of the 1950s, this is a disappointing and heavy-handed star western. Two or three of the characters could be dispensed with, while two or three other characters could be given more prominence. (The humour needs to be completely rewritten.) De Toth handles the action well - as always - but his grasp of the overall narrative is weak.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This formulaic film (hero's girlfriend marries the villain) just didn't move along fast enough given some of the circumstances of the story. Scott seems too old in this one, and too many times his character turns away from decisive action, deflating the scenes. He responds to the deaths of some of his hands weakly; he escapes from Knox's gang by hiding in a full rain barrel; his escape to the high country and pursuit by John Russell seem superfluous, as does much of the film. The plot could have been tightened.

High points of the film: seeing \"Tennessee\" Ernie Ford without a mustache singing \"Man in the Saddle\"; Alfonso Bedoya's too brief scenes as a cook; the color photography of the high country, and the fight scene there with John Russell.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"ALERT: This review contains major SPOILERS. Do not read on if you plan to see this film.

Judging from the amount of votes this got (my vote was the fifth one) very few people know or care who Mimi Lesseos is. Well, back in the late 1980s, professional wrestling was pretty decent. An all-woman's federation called the Ladies Professional Wrestling Association opened. It was a great league, and Mimi Lesseos was one of the names on the roster. I always thought she was one of the best people the LPWA had in terms of ring skill and acting ability. Unfortunately, the LPWA closed down in the early 90s, so it only seemed natural for someone with as much talent as Mimi to start an acting career, right? But surely there was an alternative to stuff like this? This movie is really bad. As it was going along, I kept comparing it to an underrated movie called `Survivor Quest,' only this film lacks everything that made `Survivor Quest' enjoyable.

As I started the tape, I went to fast forward through the preview to get to the meat of the tape. At first, I wasn't paying much attention, but then I realized that the preview was for a movie starring Mimi Lesseos. `Oh,' I thought, `here's another movie featuring Mimi to look for.' But as the preview dragged on, I became aware that is was a preview for\u0085.'Beyond Fear!' You know you're in trouble when the only preview at the beginning features the movie you are about to watch! The plot of this thing is pretty standard. Lesseos plays an ex-kickboxer that is living with the guilt of injuring an opponent\/friend, so she focuses herself on her second career which she shares with her friend Sammy: being a wilderness guide. On this particular occasion, she gets a troop of three couples. Two of the couples are just there to take up space. You think that one couple, a Caucasian husband and a Korean wife, will be explored, as an issue appears between them halfway through the film, but it is ignored in favor of repeated jokes about bears in the woods, which consistently scares the Korean wife. The joke is funny the first time you hear it, but it certainly isn't by the ninth time they do it. The third couple is just painful to watch: it consists of Mr. and Mrs. Page. They trade insults back and forth, and Mr. Page uses his video camera for the art of voyeurism when he's not busy playing cruel jokes on his portly wife\u0085.just like your typical American couple! Before the hike, Mr. Page is spying on two stupid guys and their prostitute. One of them accidentally kills the prostitute and finds out Mr. Page taped it. So begins the peril, as the two guys track the group on their trip, and we wait\u0085.and wait\u0085.and wait\u0085.and wait for them to finally do something. When they do, it's a fiasco.

You can't blame the cast. They try as hard as they can with the material they have to work with. The main culprit is director Robert F. Lyons, who needs to go back to playing bit parts and stay out of the director's chair. Lyons starts and stops scenes in such a sloppy, sudden matter that you start to think he was suffering from dyspepsia throughout the entire shoot. There's even one incompetent moment when a broad daylight scene with the thugs is slipped between some nighttime scenes. Then there is the sound department. The music and background noise completely overpower the dialogue so that you have to move your ear right next to your television's speaker. Don't bump your head on the screen! It isn't worth it to hear the poorly written lines. Speaking of poor writing, Lesseos gets some of the credit there as co-writer. The few interesting developments between characters are often abandoned for shots of the thugs or bad practical jokes. Early on, Lesseos knocks out a thug with a switchblade knife, so not once do you think they are in any danger from the two stupid thugs. When the crooks finally get their rear ends kicked by Lesseos in a well done and long fight, our cast all have a huge laugh together, despite the fact that one of them has been shot and is bleeding everywhere. Yes, everyone is happy in the end. Everyone except the poor souls witnessing the film, wishing for the good old glory days when Mimi performed in the wrestling ring. Zantara's score: 4 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really should give this stinker more credit that 1 star, because the film has so many eye-rolling lines that it's almost worth the price of the rental.

The acting, if you want to call it that, is so stilted and contrived that it makes Ed Wood's actors appear life like. \"Sammy,\" the lone black character, must be Mimi's husband in real life because he appears in her other films, but he has zero acting ability. His lines are priceless due to his absurd delivery, though I suspect the intention was to create a sympathetic character. His old man make up in her other turkey (\"Pushed To The Limit\") is no-budget, junior high school quality, with cotton ball eyebrows and white spray painted hair.

I cannot fathom anyone actually buying this video, unless people like to throw their own Mystery Science Theater parties and need a copy of something like this on hand. It really is Beyond Fear-- it's actually Beyond Funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mind you, it's not supposed to be, but it is. As a wee tot, I watched this movie in the theatre (Being a huge wrestling and Hulk Hogan fan). All I remember from the night is we were the only ones in the theater, and that I didn't really like it very much. I blacked the rest out, and for good reason.

A poor film on par with the greats like \"Gymkata\" and \"The Pumaman,\" \"No Holds Barred\" is a movie set in the high stakes world of pro wrestling. Well maybe the stakes aren't all that high...and quite frankly I feel dirty just calling these people \"professionals\" at anything. And really, except for the first scene, there's no wrestling to speak of. So I guess movie is about the marginally low stakes world of amateurish beating-the-c***-out-of-people. Sounds good, right?

Hulk Hogan plays Rip, the champion of the WWF (Never let it be said that Hulk Hogan was typecast, this and movies like Thunder in Paradise showed how he challenged himself with deep roles that really pushed the limits of his talents). Essentially he's playing himself, but with a wardrobe that's more black and blue than the Hulkster's red and yellow. He also has this hand gesture he does. It's kinda like the ozzy devil sign people make at rock concerts, except you stick your thumb in the air, and you curl your index finger in. My friend claimed that it was supposed to look like an \"R.\" Try and see for yourself. If that looks like an \"R,\" well, then, Mars needs women. But anyway.

Kurt Fuller, with his overacting detector obviously on the fritz, plays a TV exec with his slightly homoerotic heart set on getting Rip, who's evidentally bigger than Elvis, on his network. He won't have any of it (And exits the office with a triumphant hand gesture to no one but the camera), and so the movie follows Fuller trying to boost ratings and get back at Rip. He does so when he creates his brilliantly titled \"Battle of the Tough Guys.\" Marketing genius, this guy.

From the numerous hand gestures, to the rather idiotic fight scenes (All played as if wrestling is very real and deadly serious) to the overacting, to the far too frequent shots of Hulk in nothing but undies, this movie has everything you'd ever want in a dumb movie. It's frivolous, not too taxing on the mind, violent, and includes the phrase \"What's that smell?\" \"DOOKIE!\" \"Dookie?\"

A classic for all time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A new wrestling show paves way for the most feared wrestler ever imaginable, the giant Zeus. Network President Brell does everything in his power to draw WWF champion Rip into the squared circle to face off against Zeus for the championship of the 'Battle of the Tough Guys'. But Zeus is unlike any competitor Rip has ever faced.

Normally I would give Hogan some leeway as a wrestler crossing over into a movie role, however this film didn't ask the Hulkster to make very much of a stretch, it simply asked Hogan to play himself, which he failed at miserably. 'Tiny' Lister made a good effort as the mighty Zeus, but even his work left the film lacking something, namely acting!

Watch this movie, if you so desire, with a grain of salt and a sense of humor, otherwise you will probably have to turn it off a little over ten minutes in.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hulk Hogan stars as a champion wrestler (A real acting stretch...) named Rip, who is forced to defend his honor, his title and his girlfriend from a greedy corporation that wanted him to sign for their network (Because wrestling sells!) however when Rip declines, the network gets a circuit fighting championship called (and i'm totally serious) \"Battle of the tough guys\" who's champion Zeus (Played by Tiny Lister Jr) maybe the deadliest man alive. Rip refuses to fight, until his brother is attacked and put in a hospital. No Holds Barred is pretty much what I expected from Vince McMahon production starring the least versatile actor in the action genre (Hogan) it is basically lots of unintentional humor, tons of awkward sequences, a couple okay action sequences and tons of stupidity. In other words it's not unlike wrestling itself, so I give it a fair rating mainly because anyone renting this knows what they're getting. The movie is cheap but well made enough for what it is and really wrestling fans will probably enjoy this. I myself found this to be ultimately hilarious. They're are moments of such absurdity that you only chuckle to yourself. (Such as the way Hogan jumps 20 feet in the air after being stuck in a limo, how he forces a guy to crap himself and of course the way Hogan recites from his cuecard. (I.E:\"I'm not going to be around when this check clears!\") No Holds Barred is a lot of fun, true, though it's mainly because of how ridiculous it is. Fans of camp should really enjoy this clever clinker.

* * out of 4-(Fair)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a wrestling fan, movies about wrestling generally suck (Backyard Dogs, Bodyslam, Jesse Ventura story) but this one isn't the worst I've ever seen. Yes its bad but its better than some of the others I've mentioned.

Hulk Hogan stars as basically himself and for some reason, a rival network wants to beat him up because he doesn't want to be on that network. Let me explain it so everyone can understand....picture USA Network having Rip...and TNT will go to any lengths to get him.

Does this make sense...no? Well don't feel bad because it doesn't make sense. Nor does it make sense to have a legit ex con have a REAL fight with Rip at the end of the movie.

None of this movie makes much sense but compared to other wrestling movies and later Hogan films its not so bad.

4 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In 1989 here in NZ wrestling was somewhat of a mega-hype phenom, and who was steering starship at the pinnacle was the orange goblin himself, HULK HOGAN (one of my uber-heroes at this time), so it seems obvious to me now why I adored this movie in 1989-90 when it came out here. HULK HOGAN A.K.A Terry Bollea is a shockingly bad actor and Zeus A.K.A Tiny Lister is worse!!! The story line follows a standard WWE (then WWF) circa 88-91 story line culminating in the standard good guy beat down, hulk up and then get beaten down again story line only to follow that the good guy calls on all his inner strength( gained from eating vitamins, saying prayers etc etc ) to mount the epic come back..... Pretty standard formula here. Worth watching if only for reminiscing your youth!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ignoring Rocky 3, this is easily Hulk Hogan's best film, and it still rates as one of the worst films ever. Hulk Hogan essentially plays Hulk Hogan, bringing his wrestling buddies in for a film, with all the cliches to go along with it - the crooked promoter, the unstoppable monster, the injured kid, the sexy woman and... \"dookie\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No Holds Barred is a movie that should in no way ever be taken seriously. It sucks hardcore as a serious movie. Look at it more in the way that you should Plan 9 From Outer Space. They are one in the same in that they are both so bad they are funny. The funny moments in No Holds Barred are usually the ones that aren't supposed to be. When Rip (played by Hulk Hogan as only he can play them) grabs the limo driver out of the front after his first meeting with Brell (Kurt Fuller) hilarity ensues and it is one part of the movie that every person should see. It might be the funniest scene ever, I swear.

Anyway, how someone thought this movie would make money I'll never know and that person should probably be beaten into submission. I hope they at least got fired. This movie earns a 1 out of 5 on my scale and that one is just for the unintentionally funny parts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I worked on this atrocity ten years ago. Luckily for me, no one knows it because I didn't make the final cut. And when I saw the movie in the theaters, I was glad! My agents were driven nuts by the (apparently first-time) filmmakers, rewriting the script daily and changing their arrangements with the agencies just as often. They later told me that, once back in California (we shot in Atlanta), these \"professionals\" had 4 1\/2 hours worth of footage! Even edited down to 90 minutes, it's at least twice as long as it needs to be. I found Hulk Hogan surprisingly charming, but otherwise -- what a waste of film!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember when they made a big deal about this when it was coming out. They showed clips every week on WWF TV and everyone was excited. It debuted opening weekend at number two behind Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Then it did a nosedive. Critics HATED this film. I don't remember seeing one good review. Everyone agreed it was bad and sometimes grotesque. I didn't know they meant back then but now I do since the movie makes references to gay bars, women getting slapped hard and nearly raped and a disgusting looking bar restroom with overflowing urinals lol. When I was younger, I didnt care for that. It was Hulkamania, brother!!!

Now I find this pretty bad, but still fun to watch once in a while when its paired with Bodyslam (which has a better storyline). First off, Hulk Hogan's acting skills just aren't great. he is one dimensional like the character he plays in the wrestling ring. And actually, Rip and Hulk are not to far off from each other. Kurt Fuller is a good actor, but he is not good at playing the bad guy. He is better at comedy and nervous drama characters. He is just not believable as Brell. There isn't much character development in this film and the ones that suffer are the characters of Randy, Rip's brother and Charlie the trainer (In wrestling its unheard of a trainer escourting a wrestler to the ring lol). Tiny Lister plays Zeus the way its supposed to be played, so there isnt any problem there. Joan Severence is passable and for all you softcore hounds, she does have a lingerie scene lol. By the end, you figure, what's the point?

For this one (as with other wrestling films or films that feature wrestlers as the main star), turn your brain off. You'll enjoy it more if you do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No Holds Barred is that movie that when you were nine or ten was the coolest movie this side of arnold schwarzenegger. But then when you grow up and watch it you feel embarrassed that you were so gullible to have liked it. You feel cheated, embarrassed, and stupid. If you have a little brother and you show him this and he tells you it's gay, give him a high five and take him to the strip bar for his eleventh birthday.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A thinly veiled attempt to push Hulkamania to the film going non-wrestling fan. What could be worse than Hogan in the movies? Bad actors in the wrestling ring, and this film produced both, as Tiny Lester made his way to the WWE that summer in the mother of all promotional blunders. See the dictionary under Oops. As a card carrying member of the stupid kids of the world paid to see this in theaters and when I came out I immediately checked into H.A. - Hulkamaniacs Annoynimous. I am proud to say I have been off the Hulk for 17 years now and have never had a craving since. Since this was made to bring in more fans to the juggernaut that was the WWE in Hogans hey day one has to wonder if there weren't more fans like me who turned to other past times that did not poison ones mind like this offense to celluloid did, such as huffing gas or Russian Roulette.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hulk Hogan plays Rip a professional wrestler who has a big heart but is pushed to the limit when his girlfriend(Joan Severence) is kidnapped by thugs who are forcing him to take on another wrestler(Tiny Lister Jr.)Bottom of the barrel actioner is such a failure that even Hogan looks ashamed to be in it, and with the evidence portrayed, he should be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hulk Hogan and Zeus are horrible wrestlers and horrible actors. Hogan for some reason was popular enough to get a movie deal I'll never know why. If not for vince Mcmahon's money this stupid film would have never been made. Maybe someday someone will make a good movie about pro wrestling. No Holds Barred is not that movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... in search of the cheesiest \"so bad it's good\" movie, I've repeatedly laughed at the first fifteen minutes of various films, only to be left disappointed and bored at the end. Not this time!!! My eyes teared up, my belly and my cheeks ached from laughing so hard throughout the movie. Sure, Hulk Hogan is a subpar actor and the plot is utterly predictable, but everyone dives into this movie knowing all this - all anyone wants to see when renting this is Hogan breaking out a can of whoopass, with a bunch of \"YEAH BROTHER\"s and \"WHATCHUGONNADO\"s flying from his infamously goateed mouth. And while the Hulkster on the screen pales a bit in comparison to the Hulkster in the ring, seekers of the ultimate cheese will certainly not be disappointed by this backhand gem of a flick. A laugh riot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie changed my life! Hogan's performance was nothing short of incredible, and I still haven't recovered from his exclusion from the 1990 Oscar nominations. And as brightly as the Hulkster shines in this movie, you can't discount the brilliant writing and direction that vaults this masterpiece in to the highest strata of achievement in film. If you haven't seen this movie, drop what your doing right now and get yourself a copy. I guarantee it will blow your mind. And if you don't like it, then I just have one question for you.... Watcha gonna do when the 24 inch pythons and Hulkamania runs wild on you!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched Gomeda on movie theater at my city. My friend took away me and I was really curious what would be it looked like. Well, I must say This movie was not a horror,may be we can say that is 'Fantsastic experimentation'...OK here I go anyway... But there was a lot of shooting,acting,dramatic,theatrical and storytelling problems.I can understand because of director is very young and Gomeda is his first feature film.OK Directing of this film was not pretty bad,I see.Unfortunately, due to the restraints placed on the film by its extremely low budget, the visuals are often as murky as the storyline.And there is no powerful Gothic scenes.As a horror movie it really fails, no scares at all and it is quite muddled and boring. Some people say 'Gomeda' is an art movie, but I could not see a laughable,terrible and breoken off art movie like that.So, how can we say it is an art movie!Just funny!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst films I have ever seen! After watching it i walk out like, what happened? I am confused to this day, can someone explain that movie to me please? both the acting and picture quality are so bad ,you'll think you're watching someone's school project made with a home camcorder. First,I can not believe that how some people could give 10 star to this movie.Because,.it's unbelievably bad movie! This movie isn't scary at all! There is even no Typical horror clich\u00e9s,too. The plot and acting of This movie was terrible. It's not,fantastic,surrealistic or horror,It's just hideously bad Turkish feature film.And finally there were a lot of unnecessary scenes and unnecessary characters. When I watch 'Gomeda' I fell into so hopeless,so sad for young Turkish movie maker.Please,please don't make 'cinema' like this!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unfortunately, I went to this movie for entertainment purposes based on the limited information I had seen on Fandango. Since I am a sci-fi buff the notion of a movie about UFOs interested me.

Instead, this movie quickly revealed itself as an evangelical Christian propaganda flick. Appropriate for an audience of like-minded individuals but very un-Christian like to exploit the movie mall scene and preach to an unsuspecting audience, especially considering the costs of tickets and concessions. Shame on you! At least the Da Vinci Code did not hold back its wild-eyed craziness.

So, this B-grade movie (and I am being kind) production will be appreciated in those churches with similar beliefs, probably shown to Wednesday and Sunday evening youth groups. But if you are a mainline Christian or non-Christian you will not be comfortable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Calling this a \"Sunday School\" movie might be generous, because, even as a Christian, I found the religious message so one-dimensional that I wouldn't want to see it at my church. The message is, \"Read your Bible, go to church and sign up for fire insurance, so you won't get left behind at the rapture.\" There was no love. I guess when you get right down to it, I don't believe in the god portrayed in this film. The guy who was supposed to have all of the spiritual answers came across like Count Dracula.

Aside from the spiritual\/religious element, the script was tedious--saying the same thing over and over. That might have been to make up for some of the acting, which was unable to deliver a convincing line the first time, so they just said the same thing over and over.

I did enjoy the final scenes. I thought it made a point without hitting someone over the head or stooping to a Sunday School formula. The movie wasn't all bad, just most of it.

I am in favor of more clean movies that are well-done and that present truth in a non-preachy way. This wasn't one of those, I am sorry to say. I took my family to this film, wanting to support that kind of movie. Now I'd like my money back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was terrible. It is not something that people should have to pay to see. It looks like some Christian group made it to convert people. I don't understand why it was released to theaters and not to TV.

It started out like an old fashioned B movie sci-fi film from the 50s, but quickly changed. About 30 minutes into the movie the characters start talking about \"God\" and \"Do you believe in Jesus?\" It quickly moves into pure religion territory.

I thought I was going to a Sci-Fi movie. The film has poor acting; bad camera angles and is amateurish.

AVOID IT!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How awful is it? Let me count the ways: 1) It is a bait-and-switch movie that starts out being about a UFO investigation, then turns into a high-pressure sales job for Christianity. C'mon! If the makers of this movie felt so strongly about their message, why disguise it? It annoys non-believers and pushes fence-sitters in the opposite direction. 2) It's not even a good sales pitch! If the characters in this flick asked me to go to church with them, I'd run like Hell in the opposite direction. They're scary! 3) The acting is terrible. They all behave as if they were in an educational film about etiquette in the workplace. 4) The cinematography is home-movie bad. Wait, actually its not even that good. 5) Script bad, bad, bad. All dialogue, no action. Like a tennis match, they bounce back and forth between the \"talking head\" close ups. 6) Direction... what direction? Oh, there must have been a director there somewhere. I challenge you to figure out where.

Believe it or not, I have some positive comments about this movie. The editing seemed professional, but couldn't make a difference. A good edit of bad material is still a bad movie. The opening theme music was actually very good! Very scary and UFO-ish. Too bad the movie wasn't about UFOs.

If you can't tell already, here's the bottom line. I wasted my money seeing this movie, and it made me angry. If they had not disguised what this movie was really about, I could say it was my fault.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was poorly conceived, poorly written and poorly acted. All of the characters were two-dimensional. It was a real amateur attempt. The movie was fundamentalist Christian propaganda. The Christian characters are holier-than-thou and they are without a shred of compassion for the skeptic or the undecided characters. The movie was a real \"gotcha\" for both the skeptic character and myself as a viewer, putting us in a very uncomfortable situation. I complained to the theater management and was given a free pass to another movie. I remember another movie on a similar subject, \"The Rapture,\" starring Mimi Rogers, that was much better and professionally done. I think I'll watch \"The Rapture\" again. If you attend \"Unidentified\" and don't like it, don't say I haven't warned you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie should have come with a disclaimer that it was akin to the Left Behind series. I did not know it would be a Bible-thumping movie. I expected it to truly be a movie about UFOs and alien abduction for entertainment's sake. As previous reviewer comments, it would be fine to show at a church, but not at a public theater, at least not without the consumer's prior knowledge of what the premise of the movie is about. I felt deceived out of my $$ spent for this movie, as nothing in the summary refers to its religious overtones. If you go to church, it'll probably be shown there for free some time. Other than the cover-up of its true subject matter, the movie was fine as far as acting and script were concerned. But I have to say I walked out an hour into the movie when I saw what direction it was headed and that I was not going to be entertained, but preached to.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Christian Propaganda...Lots of fear mongering...

This is not SciFi, this is ChriFi (Christian fiction).The movie started out OK but took a sharp Christian right turn. From then on it was all about god, jc, the holy bible and the devil . The ufo's are really just demonic deception to fool people in to believing that there is other intelligent life in the universe. Satan's idea is to trick you in to thinking that there could be more to life than what is in the bible.

The abductions could be used to explain away the rapture. The people left behind would believe it was a mass alien abduction, instead of god taking all the Christians to heaven. No reason to repent if its aliens. The deeper message in the movie is that if you don't believe in god and have jc in your life than you believe in nothing and your life has no purpose.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just happened to stumble to this film and checked IMDb for more information: Score 6,7, well... not so bad. Genre: scifi...good I like scifi. So I got the movie and I was looking forward to have a relaxing Sunday evening watching it. But but...NO.

As in summary, this isn't a movie at all. It is a religious advertisement, including: preatching about Jesus, god, devil, end of the world etc. Movie starts with a epic abduction story: Driving at night, car stops, bright light and so on... Well, actually that was the film. Last of this ..ummm... frankly I don't know what to call it...was dialogue about end of the world and last judgement. Quite a same stuff what these TV-preachers tell you, but they are \"good\" at it.

Honestly, if you wan't to see a scifi movie or something with UFOs, please stay far away from this \"thing\". It has nothing to do with them. If you want to hear some cuckoo head's opinion what the bible has to say and what you should do. Then go ahead and watch this \"thing\", but I still prefer going to the church at Sunday.

This is complete bull. (and evangelical Christian propaganda, as another users said= Well... I should have red another users comments before I got the movie.

(27% of voters have rated this \"thing\" as 10. Yeah, right. Please, go somewhere else to do your propaganda)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought I was going to see a UFO movie. Instead, I saw a movie that was trying to make the audience (me) make the decision to accept Christ in my life, or risk going to Hell. The whole UFO thing was one big red herring!!! The acting in it was pretty pathetic. In fact, it looked as though some people from an Evangelic Church just got got together and decided they wanted to make a movie. All the characters talked as though they were in church conversing with other church members. It wasn't real-life dialog at all. I wish I had read some reviews before seeing this movie so I wouldn't have wasted my money on it. If, on the other hand, you are into the whole church scene in a big way, and want to see a demonstration of how to push your views (no matter how limiting) onto other people, then by all means, go see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After a good start, it turned out to be the worst piece of holier than thou propaganda i've ever seen. This movie is an open insult designed to make you feel bad about not reading the \"holy bible\".

To resume the...OK let's call it a plot... Basically alien don't abduct people (that we already know..). No, in fact its demonic forces abducting people which are in new age stuff or witchcraft, or read porno magazine (as one protagonist does).

It's complete with the little emotional piano music when the lead character realize he must blindly follow Christ to be saved.

a quote sums it all , imagine a subtle piano music in the background : \"You can't let others, even those you love, stop you from following the Lord..\"

and we are supposed to live in an enlightened age...still work to do. Boycott this piece of crap","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was a major bait and switch. I rented it because of Rebecca St. James, a popular Christian singer. I have met her and wondered what she would be doing in a UFO movie. Well.......

I think that she starred in this movie to help out a friend, or a friend of a friend. My first clue that this movie wasn't what it was supposed to be was when I witnessed the special effects of the UFO encounters. Cheesy! As the movie progressed, I noticed how plastic the actors were. It was funny how almost everyone in the movie wore solid colors. (There are a few exceptions).

Rebecca was verrryyy disappointing. She is always found in the house and doesn't show the realistic facial expressions of one whose husband has return to the fold. Doesn't she ever leave the house?

I had to turn off the movie several times in order to finish it. I hope that Rebecca doesn't believe the message of this movie - believe in what we believe or suffer and go to hell. Jesus spread a message of love and hope. His message inspired others to change OUT OF LOVE, NOT FEAR.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst movie I have seen to date. 85 minutes of utterly bad acting,(half the cast seem to be suffering from Asperger's syndrome) ghastly wigs, strange make-up (including tide lines around wig areas) and holier than thou characters with holier than thou dialogue that makes you want to puke. One comical aspect of this film, if you have the patience to watch it, is the sheer overwhelming number of costume changes the unfortunate cast appear in from scene to scene - was this film backed by a catalogue manufacturer of desperately dodgy pastel casual wear? Were the cast paid in clothes for their efforts? They certainly did not deserve paying with anything else! This appalling effort of a film delivers a rambling plot in the first half, blending into an equally confused arch Christian biblefest in the latter. The entire cast and production team should be burnt at the stake, or at the very least crucified!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Im warning you people out there, this is just a waste of your time. I am being honest when I'm saying that this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Its just a move about Christian propaganda! Don't throw away your life, don't see it!

I think they made the movie so more people will believe in Jesus or something, but it works in the opposite way. The actors are all newbies, the story is just fuzzy!

I think this movie is a work of the devil.

This movie is just not worth seeing, so please take my advice and don't!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My mom and I, rented this movie. I mean, we love those type of Sci-Fi flicks, whether they be big Hollywood flicks or Indy flicks.

But oh, we were fooled!! Two journalists are investigating a UFO abduction in a small city in Texas. Halfway through, all the sudden things get all christain on us. My mom and I believe in god and Jesus and the Devil, but the way this movie was preaching it, made it annoying. All I really have to say, is that we are Christian, but even we like to have fun. So don't blame christians as a whole, just blame the christians who need to suck the fun out of this movie.

In fact you can clearly understand the directors stance on UFO's, and that is that he believes it is all demonic. Now, i could say some words, but I will not. All I will say is, that DO NOT WATCH this movie, unless you feel like being preached. In fact many times it states that we must be perfect in order to enter heaven. Well, last time I checked, the only perfect person died on a cross.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Movies about U.F.O.'s are always a nice way to kill some time, so on a rainy Sunday evening I picked up this flick, expecting what can be expected from a direct-to-DVD U.F.O. mystery.

Boy, was I wrong! At about halfway in the movie it becomes very apparent that the U.F.O. theme is just a deceptive way of attracting unsuspecting viewers to this Christian propaganda. And this is not just a Christan movie from an average Christian. No, this is Christianity of the extremist fundamentalist kind. The scary kind.

In the end of this movie, the non-believing lead is tricked by their colleagues using a practical joke in thinking that the Rapture has started (which is believed by Christians to be the happening in the end of time where true believers are going to heaven and non-believers are left behind).

When the joke is explained, it is suggested that it is always better to become a true believer, 'just in case we Christians are right'. Now that's a lamest excuse ever to become a Christian if you ask me!

This movie still tries to convert non-believers using scare tactics. \"Believe in God or you will go to Hell!\" is the message here. Simple, but quite offensive, really. Especially because this movie is being sold as something completely different.

Now let's assume you're a Christian fundamentalist yourself and you're not likely to be offended by the themes in this movie, is this a good movie? I'm afraid it isn't. No actually I'm lying: I'm GLAD it isn't! The acting is horrible, the pacing is horrible, the plot is horrible, especially the ending is laughably bad. As soon as the movie starts, you immediately sense that this is going to be worse than you expected, and you will be right.

In the first half hour, it seems to at least attempt to set up a passable U.F.O. mystery, but then suddenly they bring in this Count Dracula look-alike that starts babbling about the devil. At first you just think this dude is just a crazy maniac, but as it turns out, he actually represents the real views of the makers of this movie. As soon as you start realizing this, you know how this is going to end up. But actually it ends up worse.

Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I happened across this movie while channel-surfing and it seemed to be yet another poorly- made Christian film about The End Times (which I find rather entertaining because they take themselves so seriously). To be fair, I only saw the last 30 minutes, so I missed the part about UFOs and the Sci-Fi stuff. But it was long enough for me to categorize it as an embarrassing and appalling representation of the Christian faith, as well as a rather pathetic film in any artistic sense.

As a film, the script was terrible, the acting was mediocre, and the pacing was poor. The cinematography and direction were sub-par: no interesting visuals, no layered plot line, no creativity. Don't just blame it on the budget- films can still be interesting without special effects. This wasn't. Christian films cannot excuse their mediocrity and unoriginality in the artistic sphere just because of their message. And the message here was hardly \"Christian.\"

**Disclaimer: The rest of this comment is targeted towards Christians**

First off, it is unethical in any business to bait-and-switch your customers. I don't like being told I can win a free iPod only to realize I have to spend $300 at participating stores first. Nonchristians don't like being told they're watching a Sci-Fi film and then get bombarded with Christian propaganda that has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Hidden agendas don't win you any friends, much less converts.

Secondly, you should not use overt threats to convince people your beliefs are true. The actors who represented Christians came off as callous, smug bullies when dealing with the skeptical \"unbeliever\"-- they even go so far as to stage the rapture in order to scare him into believing. Representational dialogue: \"Turn to Jesus- OR GO TO HELL!\" \"Fine, don't believe me- BUT YOU'LL BE SORRY!\" \"The day you die, I can guarantee you'll wish you paid more attention to this Jesus stuff- WHEN YOU LAND IN THE BELLY OF HELL!\" OK, I may be exaggerating, but it certainly came off in the same manner. If you think this is a \"clear message for Christ,\" you're wrong. I don't recall Jesus using threats and coercion. And I don't think people can make an authentic decision to believe in him out of fear. So Christians, please don't use this as a \"witnessing tool\" for your \"unsaved\" friends. It is heavy-handed, offensive, and inaccurate in portraying a true Christian message.

Thirdly, the theology was bad. Apart from characterizing Jesus as a means of hell-insurance, it gave no room for debate or discussion and didn't attempt to engage the issue of whether UFOs or alien life could exist. Instead, it offered one pat answer: \"UFOs are the devil's scheme to deceive people when the rapture happens,\" which is neither biblical nor widely-accepted by most Christians. As the Bible doesn't mention UFOs or aliens, you can't use it as a source to draw conclusions one way or the other. The rapture isn't necessarily even a widely-accepted, sound biblical concept, though nowadays most evangelical Christians seem to believe it because of a popular book series. If you do your research (as so many of the supportive reviewers are suggesting), the idea of two comings of Christ (the first as the rapture) is a relatively new phenomena in Church tradition, popularized by some traveling evangelists around the turn of the 20th century. The majority of orthodox Christians will probably find this film's message to be a pretty big stretch that rests on a lot of unsupported presuppositions.

Basically, this film misses the mark both as a worthwhile piece of entertainment and as an accurate representation of Christianity and its beliefs. I wouldn't recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow... just... wow. There are a lot of reviews on this movie already but I wanted to add some comments of my own. I agree with most reviewers who have said this movie has terrible acting, writing, and directing - whoo boy does it ever. However, I think there is some other problems here.

1. Why is Christian belief and the allowance for extraterrestrial life mutually exclusive? The film acts as though you just can't be a Christian and also allow for the possibility? Why? They ever-so-briefly touch on this in the film (i.e. \"The Bible doesn't say there is aliens.\" \"Well, the Bible doesn't say there isn't.), but the actual rebuttal is never answered. The Bible really doesn't say there isn't. So how about dealing with the question instead of dismissing it out of hand? Or better yet, acknowledge that this is an infinite universe we live in and if we believe in an infinite God there is the possibility that he made some other life somewhere and has his own plans for them.

2. How come the ONLY two explanations for the abductions that are valid are demons and hoax? What about sleep paralysis and night terrors which have been linked to abduction experiences? What if it's something else entirely? Too bad the film makers already have their minds made up.

3. The film makers claim that all who have had abduction experiences have had ties to the occult. That's a pretty big claim to make without any factual evidence to present. I'm not necessarily arguing that they don't, but if you're going to say something so asinine you'd better have the facts to back it up.

4. Why does the other reporter (not the Greasy Haired Blonde Guy, the other one) always have his hands in his pockets? It's hard to take someone seriously when they're constantly playing pocket pool.

I WISH this had been an exploration of Christian faith and UFO phenomena, but unfortunately the film makers were too concerned with their \"Faith Message\" to care much about make a thought provoking movie. As a Christian myself, this saddens me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I gave this movie a 2 and not a 1 was because for some reason I felt compelled to finish it out! Basically, I wanted to see if there were going to be any aliens, any UFO's, anything at all suggested by the title of the movie, the cover of the movie and the beginning of the movie! I was very disappointed to see religion being thrown into the mix the way that it was. This could have been used to the movie's advantage, but I felt, instead, that the movie was trying to send subliminal messages to me! Finally, how big was this cast's wardrobe!? I became so distracted by the number of different, and extremely bright, shirts each character had on in every new scene that I began to wonder if this movie wasn't really supposed to be classified under \"poor comedy\".

toe thumbs down!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the third movie in a month I have watched that did not go the way I expected. The first two being The Black Dahlia and Hollywoodland, neither of which gave any new ideas of who committed the crimes.

I have always had a fascination with UFOs and was so excited to see a new movie on the subject of UFO investigation that was not a comedy. But after about 30 minutes, it all went horribly wrong.

I could have stood for the acting, the camera angles, the stereotypes if only there was a good story about chasing UFOs, but none here. I am not saying there was anything wrong with the subject matter, but Netflix pushed this movie as a UFO skeptic and a UFO believer investigating multiple sitings.

I stopped watching about half way thru. Can't believe I wasted that much time with this one. Please don't make the same mistake I did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Supposedly, a movie about a magazine sending journalists to investigate reports of UFOs with one being more or less tolerant or agnostic about the whole affair and the other an Aussie, a hardened skeptic who laughs at the UFO nonsense. It's all a crock, some kind of money making racket.

Turns out this movie is actually a deceit, and a trap to actually promulgate Christian teachings and the Christian explanation of UFOs, one I've heard before. This is an ad hoc explanation that is itself not at all biblical but invented by certain modern theologians who can fit anything and everything into their mythology. The paranormal? It's real, just demonic, unless it takes place in a Christian context, then of course, it is of God. Simple, if it isn't of God, it's the of the Devil, stupid! So I suppose since Beethoven's 9th symphony wasn't inspired by God, it must have been written under demonic influence. Or so would the logic lead ad absurdum.

We are informed that since the Bible does not tell of life on other planets in the Universe, therefore there is none (a version of the Ad Ignorantium fallacy) and that God created the Universe so huge, so grand to show us his almighty power. I think of Carl Sagan's remark that if God created such a huge Universe and stuck life only on Earth it'd have been a tremendous waste of space.

So what are UFOs? They are Demonic activity and concern the soon to be earthshaking Christian event, the rupture...I mean Rapture. Before the tribulation, the true Christians will disappear from the face of the earth en masse causing mass panic, confusion, car and plane crashes...whatever. Therefore Satan knowing this is sending his demons to basically create an illusion of alien spacecraft and alien abduction which can then be used to explain away this otherwise inexplicable event. All part of Satan's plan which will of course keep people from looking to God or Jesus and fall for the lies of the AntiChrist.

This ad hoc explanation also typifies theological mishmash by explaining away one mystery with another, in opposition to the scientific method of explaining the unknown, the strange, and the mysterious in as much as possible, first by the known, if not solely by the known.

It's like jumping straight to an alien abduction whenever a child is missing and unaccounted for. I think I'd look first at more mundane explanations like the child has run away, gotten lost, or been kidnapped for ransom or abducted by a predatory pedophile before invoking aliens, or the supernatural or Satan or some such.

This kind of deceit or trap on the part of fundamentalists is nothing new, as young people are often lured to Free Rock Concerts, that may start out with something innocuous then suddenly switch to overt Christian music, followed by a sermon and an altar call. This kind of blatant deception one might think would be more Satan's ballgame. But maybe because the Christian faith is soon to be in its death throes, these guys feel that anything goes, any deception or trickery or scare tactics are acceptable to try to keep the faith alive, which is facing serious opposition from both secularists as well as competing faiths like Islam, the world's fastest growing religion which may well replace Christianity, as Islam is far more cohesive and unified, and logically more tenable than Christian fundamentalism. Although this should offer little advantage to mankind, as it would be replacing one intolerant thought system with another.

And of course the movie ends more or less with a variant of Pascal's wager. The atheistic Aussie who is skeptical about just about everything is told. Well, if you are right about there being no afterlife and death is nothing but rotting in the grave, no worry...but what if you're wrong?

Basically, statements implying that reality is going to conform to nothing but an atheistic viewpoint or Christian fantasy, is a false dilemma or Black and White fallacy. Even if the atheists are wrong would not necessarily make Christianity correct by default, nor if Christianity turns out to be full of holes in its theology, that the materialistic atheists are therefore correct by default.

For all we know, Native American spirituality might turn out to be the best description of ultimate reality and we might all of use have wished we treated the Earth and its creatures a wee bit better.

This movie should be stamped right on the box: Caution: Contains religious Propaganda and not meant for informative or entertainment purposes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, i have nothing against Christianity. i believe, every person has the right to believe what he or she chooses. But i cannot imagine how dumb a person has to be to believe this! What a waste of believers' money. They'd better use it to feed some starving families in the third world countries. I don't want to talk about talk acting or plot of this \"movie\", because I couldn't find any of those in this. Story's simple - two reporters, one (A) is atheist, the other (B) for some sake has abandoned religion. B regains his confidence in religion and teaches A a lesson - believe in Christ or go to hell. This message appears after like ten minutes and keeps repeating to the end of the movie. People, do not believe the rating of this \"movie\", read reviews first. I didn't and wasted an hour of my life :( PS: Why is it classified as sci-fi? Because of those few weird sounds and a bit of bright light from the sky? PPS: U.F.O. = Satan's evil doings? That's a new one :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife spotted this film on the aisle at a local video store. From the cover it looked like a science-fiction film, but upon turning it over my wife saw Rebecca St. James was in the film, realized it was a Christian movie, and suggested we watch it. We are conservative evangelicals but we also know that \"Christian\" films have a poor reputation in the mainstream. Nevertheless, we decided to give it a screening.

To be fair, there were a few things I liked about the film. The musical score - much of which was orchestrated - was quite good. The cinematography was also pretty good considering it was a lower-budget movie.

Unfortunately, any virtue in this film's production work was lost on a regrettable script. The film begins with an interesting premise - UFO abductions - but by midway through the feature the storyline veers wildly into an evangelistic crusade spearheaded by the movie's two main characters... which then veers wildly into a treatise on the Rapture. At least the Frank Peretti-inspired \"The Visitation\" (which was itself a deeply flawed film) had an endgame that tied together the movie's premise. \"Unidentified\" ends nowhere even close to where it started, which is a huge letdown.

As for the acting? The supporting acting ranges from decent to awful. (Rebecca St. James plays a bit part and is passable.) For their part, a few of the main characters are manned capably enough. Sadly, their talents are wasted on characters so one-dimensional in their personalities so as to be unbelievable. The \"protagonists\" are anything but; you know it's bad when two Christian viewers find the most vocal Christian character in the film to be the most annoying.

A final note on the evangelistic tone of this movie, which will be of more interest to Christian than non-Christian readers. In a word, it is embarrassing. Other Christian films like Carmen's \"The Champion\" and Peretti's \"The Hangman's Curse\" have managed to communicate a genuinely uncompromising portrait of the Christian faith without sounding preachy or oppressive. This film, by contrast, is a sledgehammer that feels so heavy-handed and lacking in tact that a non-Christian would have a hard time taking it seriously.

I do believe that the filmmaker's heart is in the right place, and I applaud efforts to create good Christian film. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. If your church is looking for a screening of a good Christian film, consider \"Mercy Streets,\" the aforementioned \"The Champion,\" or (if you're Pentecostal) Robert Duvall's provocative \"The Apostle.\"

As for \"Unidentified?\" Rent it if you must, but screen it before you show it to a non-Christian or a larger audience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie starts really good.

After half of the movie it wraps to a religious Christian crap.

Some really Christian with psycho problems are talking about good and believe in Christ - or you go to hell.

Don't watch it - it's pure propaganda and its pure wrong ...

This movie starts really good.

After half of the movie it wraps to a religious Christian crap.

Some really Christian with psycho problems are talking about good and believe in Christ - or you go to hell.

Don't watch it - it's pure propaganda and its pure wrong ...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is nothing more than Christian propaganda. It started off like a good sci-fi movie and then works a syrupy sweet Christian theme into the story which is totally unrelated. I had to turn it off half way through because I felt tricked into renting it. The catholic church has officially announced that aliens do NOT contradict belief in God.

The movie is slightly entertaining despite this but the dialog is unbelievable, writing and acting is mostly rubbish and all in all, this movie is mostly a stinker to be avoided.

There was obviously some research done into the phenomenon by the filmmakers, but then you quickly realize that it is only for the purpose to debunk and inject their own paranoid religious views into a valid interesting subject. If you are a zealous religious fanatic who believes in demons and angels , you will love this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, this movie, was the worst display I have seen in years. The actors weren't to bad (I figured it was a b-movie so they were doing b-movie acting). Anyways, I watched this movie, thinking, OH COOL a UFO Sci-Fi movie. WRONG. It was just an excuse for radical Christians to push a message onto people. The last scene was extremely messed up. That is a horrible thing to do to a person to make them believe in something. What someone believe in is a matter of opinion. This movie just shows how corrupted religion is, especially Christianity.

If you want to watch a b-movie, this ain't. If you want to watch a movie that is TRYING to brainwash the masses. Well this is the pick of the litter. go right for it. If you are going to convey a message, do it, don't force it. Ridiculous, that people would abuse the media to such a degree. Especially, Christians.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As you can read the only good comment about this movie is made by someone who actually watch it AT HIS CHURCH !

Anyway, movie had a good B movie sci-fi beginning, everything was there to make a good entertaining , easy to watch movie, then everything felt in this religious Jesus-will-save-everyone brainwashing mode.

story start with 2 main characters, 2 reporters but it fast give the first role to that Jesus freak who is there to save everyone's soul with this con-descendant attitude.

In a few words: this movie goes from entertaining to brainwashing in about 30 minutes

Waste of time, waste of money... AVOID IT","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was the biggest piece of garbage I've seen in a long time.

It's marketed as as Sci-Fi when in fact it's nothing more than a Christian recruiting tool.

It tells you quite a bit about the state of the Christian church, when they have to resort to deception just to get you to listen to their sales pitch. But then again what do you expect from an organization that would go through such great lengths to help protect such an enormous amount of child molesters in their organization.

Religion is full of nothing but sexual deviants, hypocrites, and war mongers. Let's not forget, our bumbling former President actually came out and said that \"God told him\" to invade Iraq. And nobody questioned if he was hearing voices, or seeing things?

Anyway, going of the subject here. No this movie has nothing to do with UFOs whatsoever, it's nothing more than a religious production.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like a lot of the comments above me, also I though this was the average scifi movie, but unfortunately it was not. I found it rather patronizing, and indeed, preaching.

But that is not the only comment. The scenes are very 'artificial' (not as in scifi, as I will explain a in a few moments). (The next sentence is a small spoiler.) The movie more or less represents a discussion between two groups. The physical setting of a discussion typically involves two or three men standing next to each other, the middle one typically speaking. In the worst case, the other party is represented by one person.

Also the interviews the reporters have are very artificial, sometimes even unprofessional. For example sometimes the discussion is between the reporters (I mean, from a point of the interviewed, 'akward'). Moreover the interview persons always stay calm, they say everything without normal emotions. I.e. you cannot tell whether they lie or not, are mad or not. They show almost nothing.

This is also very unprofessional, the 'Christian' reporters always believe everything they are told by the people they interview.

Bottom line:

All conversations contain:

- facts

- pro\/con arguments

There are no lies. Nobody lies. (The next sentence is a spoiler, ignore if you still plan to see the movie) The only lie happening is to demonstrate how 'bad' non-believers are.

This makes me conclude that the movie is a B-movie. It is very similar to 'Plan 9 from Outer Space' (from the 50's), but this movie also has an annoying, wrong set discussion about aliens and Christian belief.

NOTE: I have no intention to insult Christians, people who believe in aliens or whomever else. This is a thought I have about the movie, not about people.

Moreover I would like to note that I don't know whether the actors are bad or were just given terrible scripts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is without doubt the worst movie i have ever seen. And believe me, I have seen a lot of movies. The unbelievable twist the movie makes - going from an extremely bad \"Alien lifeforms inhabit earth\" movie with sickening bad acting, to a film that tries to spread an Archchristian \"Judgement day is at hand, seek Jesus or though shall burn for all eternity in the fiery debts of hell\" message - left me stunned after being tormented for 85 minutes. Even religious Christians must be ashamed or furious by watching their beliefs being posted like this. I didn't know what to do with myself when I watched the horrible acting that could have been performed by 7-year-olds. Simply disgusting. I am not a Christian nor very religious. But if I had been, I would no longer be afraid of Hell. Rich Christiano has shown be something much, much worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A antique shop-owner in NYC, played by Joanne Whalley(Valerie Alston)gets put on a US District Court jury, on a trial of a known Mafioso Armand Asante(Rusty Pirone), and most of this very slow-paced film revolves around attempts of Pirone attempting to get Whalley to acquit him of murder, by threatening to kill her son, and herself. Much action ensues, involving gruesome mob-rub outs, interspread with Willam Hurt as the go-between. Much of this silly, disjointed mess surrounds Hurt and Asante's obsession with Whalley, courtroom scenes that we've all seen time and again, and an ending that is unbelievable. 3\/10 is probably going easy on this waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two years after this movie was made, \"The Juror\" came out. Don't waste your time on this one. See \"The Juror\" instead. \"The Juror\" is essentially the same story as \"Trial By Jury,\" with better acting, better directing and a far more gripping aura about it. William Hurt was not believable as a cop-gone-bad, and Armand Assante couldn't be more unlike a mob boss if they had dressed him in a clown outfit. You didn't become involved enough with Joann Whalley's character to be that upset by what was happening to her. Also, the way in which she interacted with the jury wasn't compelling or interesting in any way. Kathleen Quinlan's role as a hooker\/killer wasn't fleshed out enough and quite frankly was unnecessary for to the plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It\u00b4s long time that I and my wife didn\u00b4t see such a boring thriller. It\u00b4s definitively NOT a gripping story and it is paced so slowly that we nearly fell asleep. This could be instead a very low budget TV crime series. There are some ridiculous scenes like the one where mafia boss Pirano wants to see the jury lady in a red clothes or another mafioso cannot stop to think about her and so on. Okay perhaps this should have been a romantic thriller but believe me you really don\u00b4t miss anything. We gave 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This review is for the UK DVD three-disc box set. Disc one is called Caught in the Act and contains Model Behavior, Chasing Jamie and Fast and Curious. Disc two is called Bedroom Fantasies and contains Blue Plate Special, Falling in Lust Again and Love Potion No. 10. The final disc is called Anything Goes and contains Chatroom, She's the Boss and Legally Yours. Why the other four episodes in the series are not included is a mystery because there is surely enough room on the discs for a lot more material.

Each episode opens with the hotel manager Chloe (Lauren Hayes) reading a letter from a satisfied customer. We then get to see the story unfolding as the guests check into the hotel. Blue Plate Special is the exception because this story is from a waitress. The writers should be given credit for coming up with a good variety of story lines. For instance, Model Behavior is about two models vying for the attention of the photo crew; Falling in Lust Again is about a man and woman who parted and rekindle their love when they meet up again at the hotel; She's the Boss is about a put-upon male secretary\/dogsbody who shows that he is more of a man than his female boss realised - much to her pleasure. All the episodes lead up to lots of nudity and sex.

It should come as no surprise that all the characters in this hotel are beautiful women and handsome hunks. Even the geeky secretaries get transformed when they remove their spectacles and let their hair down. The sex action is plentiful but to me seems too frantic and false. The camera work could also have done with a bit of moderation, spending too much time close up and so moving about to capture everything, and as usual we get loud music during the sex action. Finally, the end credits mention the Palm Canopy Hotel, Singer Island, Florida although my map of Florida shows no Singer Island. The scenery certainly looks more like Florida than Utah or Las Vegas that some people have mentioned. This is quite a good effort and it is a pity that the second series is still awaiting a UK DVD release. 4 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watching this film today I got the feeling this thing was missing about 10 to 15 minutes or so from the beginning of the story. John Wayne rides up on this trading post\/saloon out in the middle of nowhere to meet with the owner about some robberies. All he sees is the signs of a massacre, some dead bodies, signs of a fight and no one alive in sight. That's because the owner's daughter is hidden in a secret room, the kind you find in old English murder mysteries.

The reason you find those hidden rooms in those kind of stories is that they were formerly priestholes. Catholic families clinging to the old faith in 16th century England built these things to hide those on the run from royal authorities because of their faith. Not something you see in westerns, but a good gimmick.

Unfortunately because of bad editing or writing or both we never know exactly what brought Wayne to this place exactly. But this was a B western and not even a good one at that.

Gabby Hayes is in this and he's clean shaven and playing a mute part of the time. An unusual circumstance for the garrulous Gabby.

If you want to bother and find out what happens and see a whiskerless Gabby Hayes then see this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Randy Bowers (John Wayne) comes upon the Half Way House at just the right time to take a break from the trail, and discovers a slew of dead bodies inside, among them a man he was supposed to deliver a message to - Ed Rogers, proprietor of the establishment. He's observed by the dead man's niece Sally (Alberta Vaughn), from behind a hidden room, where she remained unobserved during the carnage.

\"Randy Rides Alone\" was directed by Harry Fraser. He uses a filming technique here as in other of his films, where he fast forwards the action from one location to another, usually involving a rider on a horse. It's pretty well done and appears quite innovative in these 1930's era Lone Star Westerns.

Pre-Gabby George Hayes is on hand, sans whiskers, and this is the first time I've seen him as a villain. In fact it took a few scenes to realize it was him in a dual role, first as hunchbacked businessman \"Matt the Mute\", communicating via pencil and paper, only to turn into Marvin Black, leader of a gang of outlaws. Black's gang was responsible for the murders at Half Way House, in an attempt to coerce Sally into selling out to Matt\/Marvin. Another staple player is here as well, Yakima Canutt as a Black henchman named Spike. Interestingly, Yakima portrayed a villain named Sam Black in another Fraser\/Wayne oater, \"Neath the Arizona Skies\".

There's a fair amount of time-killing horseback riding back and forth between Black's Gang and the Sheriff's posse, as John Wayne's character maneuvers to expose the bad guys. In the end, he saves the day by securing Sally Rogers' thirty thousand dollars, at the expense of destroying the Half Way House, where he exchanges some sticks of dynamite for the loot in a safe. Greedy Marvin Black attempts to open it with his six-shooter, and the explosion is a fitting end for the villain. In his best \"Aw shucks\" attitude, John Wayne falls under the spell of the pretty Sally Rogers, and alas, Randy rides alone no more!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"John Wayne is without a doubt one of the most popular and loved actors of all time. His career stretched over forty years, and within that time he starred in films such as \"Angel and the Badman\", \"The Green Berets\", \"Sands of Iwo Jima\", \"Rio Bravo\", \"North to Alaska\", and \"The Undefeated\".

The film's listed above are hailed as some of his best, unlike this 1934 effort \"Randy Rides Alone\", which has been pretty much forgotten about as time's gone on, which is unsurprising, as it's nothing memorable apart from its very short running time of just 53 minutes.

A young John Wayne plays Randy Bowers, who for reasons never really explained, arrives at a saloon in the middle of nowhere and finds that everyone inside has been killed. While looking around, a posse arrives and finds Randy there and they arrest him, accusing him of being a gang member and demand to know where the rest of his gang is. He is put in jail accused of the murders. Sally Rogers, whose uncle owned the saloon and was murdered, arrives at the jail to see Randy in order to clarify that he was one of the gang members ( She was hiding in a secret room when the shooting took place ). Sally doesn't believe that Randy is a killer, and doesn't recognise him, so while the sheriff is out, she slips him the keys and Randy escapes. While running away from the sheriff and his posse, Randy conveniently stumbles into the gang's hideout in a cave who were responsible for the murders. Randy sets out to clear his name, and also to bring the gang to justice.

\"Randy Rides Alone\" can be a fun film to watch, especially if you're a John Wayne fan. But at the same time it has far too many flaws that are impossible to ignore. The film is also extremely dated, as you would expect; we have the terrible camera shooting which makes everyone look like they are moving in super-fast motion, and the dialogue is terrible. The acting isn't great either, and Wayne's character is very wooden and he, along with the rest of the cast, look like wooden puppets who are being conducted by someone ( In this case it's by director Harry Fraser ). Harry Fraser is at the helm, and does a good enough job but the story is paper-thin. One can't help but feel that about ten minutes is missing from the start of the film as Randy just arrives out of nowhere at the saloon and is looking to meet someone. An explanation on why Randy was there is giving later on, which turns out to be something like he is a P.I who was sent to investigate the claims that someone is trying to take over the town. To be honest I didn't really pick it up, most of the time I was hoping for the movie to end.

But that being said, I didn't find this film to be completely terrible. I enjoyed some of it and found it to be quite fun at times. But it really isn't a great film, and isn't really worth watching or tracking down.

Overall, \"Randy Rides Alone\" is incredibly dated and is a tiresome Western with very few redeeming qualities. Can be fun but overall it isn't a great movie and is certainly one of Wayne's weaker outings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There were many 'spooky' westerns made in the 30s and early 40s, and although this has a strong beginning, it isn't one. Randy Bowers (John Wayne) stopping at a 'Halfway House' saloon, finds it to be full of dead bodies, the bartender's corpse draped over the bar holding a gun, eyes watching Randy from behind holes cut through eyes in a picture, and a player piano playing \"The Loveliest Night of the Year.\"

It was the result of a robbery by the Marvin Black gang, to get Ed Rogers' $30,000. Randy is an investigator who \"works alone,\" who wastes little time in getting arrested, escaping (with Ed's daughter Sally's help) and literally landing in the midst of the Black gang's hideout behind a waterfall. It all moves along fairly quickly. Only one too many chases after Randy slow it down.

We even get George Hayes, clean shaven and playing two parts-- Marvin Black, the vilest villain, as well as the Good Citizen, Matt the Mute, who communicates via handwritten messages. Having him play two opposite roles was a good idea, but the writing down of messages thing gets old real fast, even for him, as he finally gives up doing it near the end saying to Sally, \"Ah, I'm fed up with this!\" You can find George playing a vile, vile, double crossing villain in the serial \"The Lost City\" (1934).

I think this is the only 'Lone Star' film in which the title relates to, or is mentioned in the film! Sally offers her hand to Randy and says, \"He's not alone anymore!\" Then cut to their arms around each other as they look out facing a lake. Sally's running off with Randy seems too abrupt and not sufficiently prepared for. Too much time spent on horseback escaping the sheriff.

Not that bad considering everything, but not that great either. I'd really give it a 4 and a half.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most of Wayne's B westerns are kind of fun in a naive way, but this one really stinks. The editing is terrible, and the direction and pacing is completely lethargic. Most of the cast stands around waiting for the mute guy to write down his thoughts on a pad of paper, and I was bored. Sorry, Duke, but this gets a 1.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had seen this movie when I was a boy (Before WWII) and was surprised that the local library had a copy. Saw it again after some sixty years and forgot how bad it was. This is an example of a movie that was not a \"A\" movie. No editing, poor script, weak acting and not much directing. Should not even be as high as a \"B\" Had a laugh at how jaded I've become over the years. Seems to me I thought it was good when I originally saw it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, now I know where all those boring cop\/homicide TV shows came from. I do believe they can be traced back to this movie. \"Scene Of The Crime\" feels more like a TV episode, or an episode of a serial. Complete with stock characters and situations - the hotshot cop who clashes with his superiors... the aging cop who doesn't want a desk job, despite failing eyesight... the reckless rookie... the double-crossing dame, etc.

I like many of the actors here, and they do a good job, but overall I found this movie dull as I'm not a fan of the genre. I kept tuning out when they were discussing the case ...something about bookies and informers. And oh yeah, there was a stripper, played by the previously wholesome Gloria DeHaven. What I want to know is: Why did she keep calling Van Johnson \"Uncle Wiggly\"? Wasn't Uncle Wiggly a rabbit? A character from a children's book? What the heck does that have to do with anything? I guess I just don't get tough-guy Film Noir-ish kinda jargon.

In fact, much of the dialogue made me mutter \"nobody talks like that!\" However, I could relate to one scene where the cop's wife (Arlene Dahl), who worries every time he goes to work, realizes that maybe she shouldn't have made her husband the center of her life. Yeah, I know that feeling of loving someone so much, being so dependent on them, that there's a constant fear for their safety. So there are moments of truth in this film, underneath the stylized dialogue and atmosphere which is trying so self-consciously to be gritty and REAL, that it actually seems unreal to me.

A little background: this movie was made when Dore Schary took over MGM from Louis B. Mayer, and began to put an end to the wholesome musicals that made MGM so great. Dore Schary was determined to bring more \"realism\" to movies. I kinda hate Dore Schary. Maybe we can blame him for all the pretentious, bleak movies being made today, wallowing in the ugly \"truths\" about life, focusing on (and, in my opinion, helping to perpetuate) the worst of humanity rather than the best. No longer uplifting us the way classic movies were designed to do - providing a necessary distraction during the Great Depression and World War II.

Well, damn it, we still need that kind of distraction today! There's still plenty of depression and plenty of war. And what are people turning to nowadays when they want to escape? Trashy, brain-deadening Reality TV. Thanks a lot, Dore!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This one's a doozy. Dating from 1949, Scene of the Crime often plays more like a Coen Bros. movie set in the 1940's and filmed in black and white, except that the writer's ear for pastiche here isn't quite so well-tuned -- maybe this can be seen instead as the forerunner to Oscar-baiting schlock like Road to Perdition. Frankly, it's a wonder that this film isn't considered a classic by film professors and critics everywhere, considering how much it offers in term of overly articulated mannerist thrills cloaked in false significance ( much like the grandaddy of all such \"fake art\" films, Citizen Kane, or anything by Murnau. )

MGM is usually a studio that can do no wrong in my eyes, and I think any story, any atmosphere, even \"gritty realism,\" can only benefit from grotesque overaestheticization. You could say I'm a disciple of the Minnelli school. But it takes a certain light touch to write mannered tough-guy dialogue of the Dashiell Hammett stripe, a willingness, perhaps, to let maybe one or two scenes pass without a line like \"Careful, Mr. Wiggly, or you'll have thirteen fish to fry and no little wormies to catch them with.\" I made most of that up -- \"Mr. Wiggly,\" unfortunately, made the cut -- but believe me, the dialogue is just that loonily inflated and riddled with non sequiturs. Even the lead cop's wife played by Arlene Dahl speaks like she has a moon-shaped scar under one eye and the Christian name Rocco. By the time Van Johnson turns in his badge with the line, \"I'm sick to death of death and homicide,\" you'll wonder how the writer's fixation with ornate literary devices -- in this case, zeugma -- could ever have been misconstrued as \"street.\"

For those who have outgrown The Naked Gun series, this is the funniest cops-n-robbers film going.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are a whole lot of movies, primarily from the 80s, that are so terrible that you can't help but love them. The Last Slumber Party is one of those. I hate this movie so much, but it still remains one of the most watched movies in my collection. I have watched it countless times and get a huge laugh out of it every time. It is the prime example of how in the 80s, ANY movie could get released.

Our killers name is Maniac Randles. (Scary, huh?) Randles is an escaped psychopathic killer running around in doctor's scrubs and a doctor's jacket hacking off people with a scalpel as he goes along. He ends up coming across a house of girls that are having a slumber party. One of the girls is the daughter of the doctor that tried to operate on Randle's, and Randle's ended up pulling him down in some kind of sexual position. (lol just watch the movie to know what I am talking about.) Now I know what you must be thinking at this point: This must be another cheesy low budget hack and slash flick like Slumber Party Massacre, or Valentine's Day Massacre, right? NO! This movie is HORRIBLE! First off, the quality of the film changes off and on throughout the film. Sometimes it will look like it could have been filmed this year, but other times it is so grainy and blurry that it isn't even watchable. The funny thing is that certain specific camera angles will be blurry and grainy, and other specific camera angles will be clear and perfect, which is absolutely ridiculous and proves that they did not care at all.

The director played the killer (as if that wasn't funny enough) but because of the fact that he wasn't talented enough to act and direct at the same time, he just filmed one shot of him walking toward the camera with his scalpel, and then just replayed that clip over and over every time someone is killed.

The characters in this movie are completely ridiculous and unlikable, and these people who are suppose to be ages 16-18 look more like they are 25-45. I know that slasher films commonly use adults as teenagers, but I have never seen a movie where it was THIS obvious. My guess is that the reason none of them are still in the film industry today is because they have all died of old age... Or maybe it was just because this movie was so horrible that they never wanted to show their faces again, and that is a good thing because I highly doubt that they could have gotten into any more movies even if they tried. All I can do is hope that Tyler will one day make THE LAST SLUMBER PARTY 2: THE FINAL CONFLICT and have all of the original actors return. I'm sure everyone would love that.

The movie was directed by Stephen Tyler, (No, not the singer) who never went on to direct again, and it was released by B&S (which I am sure stands for bull and ****) Productions. Bull&S only released one more film, \"Forever Evil,\" which was pretty awful, but not near as bad as Last Slumber Party.

A horrible, horrible, horrible film... Highly recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"oh well... its funny. should have been a sadistic comedy, a lot of horror movies lack common sense,but i think a retarded caveman would weasel his way around this situation. Don't really expect Hitchcock or anything close to this. this is a good one for friends,but i wouldn't recommend it for anything else.this movie lacks all the substance of a true horror movie,the suspense,the shock,and good characters. the killer failed to be the unstoppable force that i expected him to be,and he seemed to be the average angry \"D\" student able to outsmart only stupid people. and the really funny thing is the horrible acting and the lack of emotion of the so called \"victims\"

3\/10 just expect this one in the daily funnies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"O boy, was this really bad.

I saw this on videotape.

In scenes that had soundtrack music, it was hard to hear the dialog. When people were on the telephone, it was hard to hear the person on the other end. It appeared that at least two different kinds of film or video stock were used, because the colors and focus sometimes shifted drastically between edits. And there were a lot of out of focus shots that didn't seem intentional.

One indicator of the budget (one of many) was when a news report comes on TV. There is just a \"news flash\" title card badly superimposed with a video effect onto a TV screen, and a voice-over by a newscaster. They couldn't shoot footage of a newscaster, and then actually show it on the TV?

The movie starts off with a killer wearing surgical scrubs and mask, wielding a scalpel. Supposedly he's a paranoid schizophrenic who escapes from the hospital to avoid having a lobotomy performed on him.

Students are let out of school for a break, and three young women decide to have a slumber party. Three guys decide to crash the party, and a geek named Science decides to crash it too. The slumber party is pretty boring, and the guys just keep showing up randomly wearing masks, taking the masks off, and then disappearing. The mother and father (the surgeon who was to do the lobotomy) of one of the girls keep showing up too. The killer knocks slices people's throats without anyone really noticing. The apparent lead of the movie more or less sleepwalks through the movie. Perhaps that was bad acting, or maybe it was intentional, since much of the movie is a nightmare, and some of it a nightmare within a nightmare.

The ending is really horrible too.

The best thing about the movie is the cheesy United Home Video VHS box art, which was revived for the DVD release (a double feature with Terror at Tenkiller). I honestly can't tell if it is a photo, or a painting, or a combination of both. The women pictured on the cover are not in the movie, and the clothing they're wearing is way more revealing than anything the women in the movie wore. The throat slicing on the cover is scarier than the ones in the movie - where people tend to affect a goofy pop-eyed look. For that matter, that's what the killer has most of the time: head cocked, and eyes bugging out, mugging for the camera. Frequently the scalpel was held up close to the camera in focus, while the killer's mask-covered face was in close-up but out of focus in the background.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"my friend and i rented this one a few nights ago. and, i must say, this is the single best movie i have ever seen. i mean, woah! \"dude, we better get some brew before this joint closes\" and \"dude, linda's not wearin' a bra again.\" what poetry! woah! and it's such a wonderfuly original movie, too. i mean, you don't usually find a slasher film where every single murder is exactly the same. i mean, exactly! now that's originality. and almost all the transitions between scenes are these great close-ups of the psycho in the ER scrubs. how cool! the acting is so wonderful to. the dad was just brilliant. must have studied REAL DADS before filming. and how many movies do you find that just don't make any sense? not many. but this is one of those gems. i mean, how cool is it that one guy waited outside for like six hours to pull a prank, while his friends were both inside? that's really cool. overall i'd say this is the single greatest film of the genre, nay, in the world! *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got this on a double feature DVD called \"Scream Theater\" and it's no doubt one of the most terrible movies I've ever seen. And I've seen some really bad ones. School's out, and of three girls (who if they're teenagers I'd eat my hat) are talking about \"non-stop party\", so of course they all go to the house of the girl whose parents are the most strict for a slumber party. Meanwhile, a psychotic has escaped the local bug-house where one girl's father works & is on the loose with sharp objects and wearing green scrubs, and sporting wide-open eyes...I guess that's to show he's bonkers. Of course since he has a bone to pick with that particular doctor off he goes to his house, the location of which is apparently common knowledge. In the meantime, some dumb-jock types are slamming down beers and out to scare the girls, and of course the loony shows up too and starts cutting throats. And that's about it, as the heavy metal music chugs along in the background. Or, maybe that's not it, but really, that's all you need to know. Unless you spend your time perpetually stoned or drunk, you'll find little of interest here, and even if you are wasted most of the time, you'll still probably find your intelligence insulted. 1 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not even going to comment on what piece of trash this film is since that has already been established. However, watching this with my friends we all laughed out loud when the lead girl made a Shelley Hack reference while on the phone. We sat there trying to figure out why the writer would throw her into the mix. We can only assume he had a Charlie's Angels fixation at one time. Based on that reference, we assumed this film must have been made around her Charlie's Angels run in 1979 or 1980, but from what I've read here it was made around 1987. You sure couldn't tell that from the poor production values. It seems as though it was made by a college student for a film class. And while by no means would I expect a low-budget trash fest like this to be politically correct, the rednecks in this film sure did like to direct derogatory gay remarks to each other. Even so I'd still only rank this as the 2nd worst horror film ever made, second only to \"Nail Gun Massacre.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love cheesy horror movies, I think dead alive and bad taste are great and I think slumber party massacre II (not even related to this movie) are hilarious. But this movie absolutely stank, I didn't laugh, I didn't even enjoy it.. you can see all kinds of mistakes that aren't even campy. The best take of the scene where the woman leans out the window is the one where she smacks her head on the sill? Give me a break.

Don't rent this thinking it's related to the slumber party massacre series. It's awful and I don't even have a clue how it got any distribution. Rent it with a fake name and burn it, do everyone else the favor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So one day I was in the video store looking for a movie. I came across this and rented it because it was a film I hadn't seen or even heard of.

Now I like slasher movies in general, but this is just abysmal, not even good for laughs. Besides being ultra ultra cheap and containing all slasher film cliches and terrible acting it has the most incompetent and inept direction I have ever come across. Now sometimes the aforementioned traits can be present in a film and some enjoyment can still be had, but not here. Painful example of home-made horror.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought Godzilla 2000 was the worst movie ever until I saw this monstrosity. My friends and I went to our local blockbuster and spent about an hour and a half looking for a movie. We could not find one since we have seen almost every movie created. We decided to look in the low budget horror section. We looked for the most attractive cover featuring scantily clad women. We finally decided on Last Slumber Party, THE. Whoops, we made a mistake. It seems as though this movie was filmed with the cheapest camera that could be found in K-Mart. The actors were picked up at a Salvation Army, and as for Steven Tyler. We will just leave that to the imagination. The plot of this movie was ridiculous. SPOILER ALERT While watching the movie there is absolutely no closure at all. Then come to find out all the events were just a dream. This movie should also have been about 30 minutes. If all the camera zooms on still shots, and scans of walls were taken out, it would have been much shorter. All I can say is I'm glad there wasnt a sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would most definitely have to say that this is the most terrible movie I have ever seen. It's not just the actors that are bad, but also the fact that the camera person taped the wall and the clocks for about 5 minutes at a time. Anyone that likes this must be crazy! THIS MOVIE IS A WASTE OF TIME","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now I've seen it all. Just when I thought it couldn't get any more pathetic and cheesy than \"Woodchipper Massacre,\" just when I thought dialogue and acting couldn't get worse than \"Nail Gun Massacre,\" just when I thought \"Don't Go In The Woods\" would retain its title as Lousiest Slasher Film Ever, along comes \"THE LAST SLUMBER PARTY!\" Somehow, this cheap, wretched manure manages to avoid lewdness, but it remains terrible! I couldn't believe my eyes--for once I can't complain about excessive (or in this case, any) nudity in a slasher film, but it still managed to make me crimson with embarrassment for renting it. Never before have I seen such horrible acting, dialect, direction, writing,....I could go on forever with this list! Here's a quick run-down:

A mental patient somehow escapes from the loony bin, dresses up like a surgeon, somehow finds out where his doctor lives, and breaks in while the doctor's daughter is having friends over for the night. Then begins the most stupid killing spree (ripped off from other movies such as \"Slumber Party Massacre\" and Halloween\") this side of the universe. The characters have negative IQs, which suggests they are not human. Then again, I guess they are not, since they have the tendency to bleed Kool-Aid when they get cut, as the slasher likes to show use when he holds up his scapel to the camera in WAY too many scenes. It is only 80 minutes...how many times must we look at that scapel like that before it consumes the whole movie?...which I suppose wouldn't be all that bad of an idea in this case! There is one moment where I thought maybe, just maybe, the director would make it interesting (a second killer was added), but alas! It was not to be! And then to insult even further, there is a stupid super cop-out sub-ending and an even stupider final conclusion. That probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I would hate to give away the dumbest few scenes in movie history to those two or three fools (like me) dumb enough to rent this sewage.

I sure hope that, by writing this, I have saved 80 minutes of someone's life. I get on my hands and knees to beg anyone still thinking about renting this: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T! This is a fan of the slasher genre talking; I know what is good for you! The only real victims in this rattlebrained, asinine nonsense are the poor morons that have sat through the whole toilet tank! Zanatos's score...since there is no negative point scale, I have to give it a 1, but a below-average 1 at that. Avoid it at all costs....please!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In my opinion of this movie the entire video portion of this movie was absolute trash!!!! However the soundtrack that was used contained the music of a great heavy metal rock band, I recognized the music as being a band called Firstryke and the album was \"Just a Nightmare\" and it was very well written!! and I am curious to see what the rest of you movie buffs out there think of it, if can remember back that far I would appreciate the feed back, I collect old movie, and obscure movie sound tracks. It is a very time consuming hobby but is very rewarding. I have seen this bands music being sold in Germany on the net for around fifty dollars per album. Not to bad Hugh?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While it would be easy and accurate to go into why 'Reba' is at its heart indicative of many 'family-oriented sitcoms' in the way it rips off from other better sitcoms, the real truth is that the show is repetitive, full of stereotypes from funnier and more groundbreaking shows, and the lead star is completely out of her element. While I'm sure Ms. McIntire can sing and has a fan base that supports that, being in a sitcom shooting out zingers and calling her the next Lucille Ball is far, far removed from reality.

Reba herself has no presence which is needed here to establish the fact that she is cast as the put-upon woman of which her entire family is centered. Yet after watching a few episodes there is no real connection to the character. I could care less about her adventures because her whole character seems to be MIA. Reba McIntire has no screen presence, and to make a show around her seems very short-sighted and indicative of most 'family-oriented' programming: to push a sitcom full of men-stupid\/women-do-everything stereotypes that appeal to nobody but those who can't afford cable.

The show is a waste of time. The only good thing is that it at least has better production values than your standard PAX ripoff....just.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show is made for persons with IQ lower than 80. The jokes in the show are so lame. If you are on a deserted island and you do not have anything to do you will be better than to watch this garbage.... You will hate their accent their behavior and all the stupid jokes and pranks they try to perform...It really pisses me of that viewers gave Reba 6.7 on their voting...Sure i knew there are some people with IQ lower than 80 but what i did not know that there are so many of them! So people if you got to read this I hope that you will never ever download or buy this peace of garbage... I know it is not the place for his but i wish to recommend one much better mini-series 'Scrubs'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Does anyone else think that \"Reba\" is basically a ripoff of \"Roseanne\"? Just look at the characters from the two families, Connors (Roseanne) and Harts (Reba) ; the blonde bombshell elder daughter (Becky Connor and Cheyenne Hart) who's married to a moron (Mark Healy and Van Montgomery), the sarcastic brunette younger daughter (Darlene Connor and Kyra Hart), the little brother (DJ Connor and Jake Hart), and the quirky relative (Jackie Connor and Barbara-Jean Booker Hart).

And then, of course, there is the biggest similarity, Reba Hart and Roseanne Connor. \"Reba\" tried to copy the sarcastic and tough-love style mom without giving her the same lovable qualities as Roseanne had. Or, perhaps, they made her *too* lovable, for Reba Hart seems to waver between being mean and scary (hence Van's line to his wife Cheyenne \"I'm not afraid of you, I'm afraid of your mother!\") and being sweet and caring with little transition in between. Roseanne at least managed to get it across that she was being cruel to be kind, since she was always mean and sarcastic and, whenever she tried to open up, it was hard for her. As inconsistent as Reba's character is, it's hard for her to be believable.

But even if the characters weren't completely ripped off of \"Roseanne\", nothing could've saved the show from being sub-par in the plot area. The writers try to give the show substance but they really can't lay off the corny jokes long enough to give any impact. And you'd better believe the jokes are corny; it's as if they were written by a twelve-year-old who thinks that any joke is hilarious. While occasionally they come out with something that's funny (I don't pretend that I didn't laugh at a few episodes) these gems are too few and far between to make \"Reba\" witty.

Overall, \"Reba\" is a very mediocre show with obvious ripoffs of \"Roseanne\", sub-par plots and sub-sub-par humor, and (let's face it) terrible acting. The show might be a bit better, actually, if they replaced all the actors, especially Reba herself, who is more community- theater quality than prime-time sitcom quality.

I give it a 3 out of 10 just to be fair to the good jokes that make it in.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I pretty much liked every character on this show from the start except Reba herself. She comes off as an holier than thou type and quite frankly a big Bully. And that stinks because she is in every scene and every episode. In the later seasons Van becomes unlikeable too,like a spoof of his former self. and Kyra walks around sneering and being miserable.The first 3 to 4 seasons are pretty good if you overlook Reba. Towards the end its pretty bleak.. In basically every episode Barbara jean Is walking around being dumb,Reba is being mean to her,but poor Ole Barbara jean desperately wants Reba to like her which results in Barabara jean telling Reba how awesome she is in every episode. I think it is pretty clear to see Reba has self esteem issues and wants to be seen as this all forgiving saint. Its really a shame too because other than her the show had such potential.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this really is an \"okay\" series.. everyone in it is pretty good. but i just can't take Reba. she's trying to be funny but she just isn't and then she got a stupid accent!! if they took her out of the show i would love to see it every day..

i have been watching the show in 10 min now and as i said before, Reba IS destroying the show. however the 20 year old guy (dont know his name) but he's soooo funny, and he's really saving it all..

so here's the recipe to get a great show. kick Reba of it and then put the 20 year old guy into the lead role.

i really hope someone out there agrees with me and thinks (like me) that they should kick Reba of the show and put someone else in the lead role","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Reba sucks. It sucks hard. It's about this awful country singer attempting comedy. They might as well call this show \"Generic\", because that's what it is. It's dumb and generic. Reba, you're not funny, and I'm glad your retarded show was cancelled because you suck, and so does Brock, Barbra Jean, the red-headed teenager, that jockey guy, and the 12 year old who got knocked up. You all suck, and none of you are funny. Oh, and I heard a rumor that Reba is actually a gay devil-worshipper who idolizes Hitler and tortures animals. And she puts subliminal messages on her show and in her \"music\" in hopes to make children kill their parents and kill themselves! But it was just a rumor. Anyway, this is the worst show ever, Reba is gay, I do not like her, I think The Office is better than this show, and this show sucks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Reba is , without a doubt , one of the worst \"comedy\" series ever. I wonder how come there are people writing good comments on \"Reba\" ... You watch \"Friends\" , \"Married Wtih Children\" , \"Fraizer\" if you laugh at that , you can never laugh at the stupid jokes and the ridiculous accent of the singer who is trying to make her way in comedy and obviously having no chance whatsoever. The actors\/actresses beside Reba are OK so I feel bad for them stucking in a so-called comedy show with the least funnies person in the world (Reba).To sum up , I suggest this TV Show to see how low comedy can get and appreciate the ones that can make you laugh","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Reba is a very dumb show. You can predict pretty much anything that's about to happen. Barbra Jean is just too stupid. It's like she's not even a character. A show like this should at least have SOMEONE who resembles a real-life person. I guess Barbra Jean represents a retarded person. Keira or whatever her name is, Reba, Brock, they're all stupid! Keira is like the smartest person on the show, and she's still stupid. EVERYONE IS STUPID! That's my opinion on Reba. Since I have said all I can say about this show, I'll just take up the next few lines of text by saying what I am currently saying right now and do it until there's 10 lines. There. Reba gets 2\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My parents may enjoy this show, but I fail to find the humor in it. What is so funny about a dentist husband impregnating his hygienist assistant and the oldest daughter getting impregnated by the captain of the high school football team? Absolutely nothing! It's a shock to me sometimes what people think constitutes humor nowadays. Blame that on shows like \"The Dating Game\" and \"The Newlywed Game\" bringing the issue of sex to the forefront in the mid-1960s. Sure, the series has its touching moments, still that's no excuse for the content that otherwise went into this series. This is nothing like the family-oriented days of \"I Love Lucy\" some five decades before.

An answer I would have to why this series plays on the Lifetime cable channel is because that channel's brass think women can relate to Reba's character! I absolutely dislike the character of Reba Hart's daughter, Kyra. She is best described as a ditsy and bitter teenager! Funny, I wonder if the actress who played Kyra; Scarlett Pomers, is like that in real life away from acting. Who plays the blockhead ex-husband dentist, Christopher Rich, is not much better. Barbara Jean, played by Melissa Peterman, is ditsy in herself! The characters of Van and Cheyenne are also very annoying.

Something else that baffles me is why the dingbat-of-a-series creator, Allison M. Gibson, decided to set the series in where I live 25 miles away from; Houston, Texas! Reba McEntire isn't even from this state, she's an Oklahoman! Why is it during one season or more they decided to make the incidental music sound like a pig snorting? What I mean by that is where we hear this baritone saxophone being played with drums accompanying it, but the melodies are basically tuneless!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh f*cking hell, where should I start... First of all; this show is just another stupid American non-funny so called comedy which has pathetic acting and very very poor humor. The American way of laughing-track business makes the whole thing even worse. How come I can hear laughter, yet there's nothing funny happening? Pretty stupid, eh? This show is only for those American people who haven't ever heard that there are far more funnier, better and wittier comedies - not only in Great Brittain, but also in America (The Simpsons for example). I simply can't understand what is so good about \"Reba\" that it has lasted for long a while in television. It has nothing new to offer, it underestimates the (possible) viewers in so many ways and it simply isn't funny at all. I could have lived with the fact that there are so bad shows as \"Reba\", but why the hell they had to run it here in Finland. If I see few seconds of this horrible show the rest of the day is ruined for me. Take my word and believe me - this show sucks ass even more than these kind of American \"comedies\" usually does. This is simply horrible. Do yourself a favor; don't ever watch this peace of sh*t.

Well I leave the commenting for those who now this language better. Thanks for your (possible) interest.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ik know it is impossible to keep all details of a book in a movie. But this movie has changed nearly everything without any reason. Furthermore many changes have made the story illogical. A few examples: 1) in the movie \"Paul Renauld\" really meets Poriot before he dies (in the book Poirot only gets a letter), telling him he is afraid to be killed. This is completely stupid because if Renaulds plan would have succeeded, Poirot would have known that the dead man would not have been Renauld.(Poirot was in the morgue when Mrs Renauld identified the victim). 2) The movie has \"combined\" two persons into one! \"Cinderella\" has been removed by the movie. The girl Hastings falls in love with and the ex-girlfriend of Jack Renauld are one person in the movie! Why for god's sake? 3)Hastings finds the victims cause he is such a bad golf player. Totally unfunny and stupid. 4) The movie tells secrets much too early (for example at the very beginning). So you know things you shouldn't know. 5) The murderer gets shot at the end by a person who doesn't exists in the book. Perhaps because the person (\"cinderella\") who stops the murderer does not exists in the movie. 6)The book is very complex. The movie takes only about 90 minutes. Sure it is difficult to include all the necessary details but it is impossible if you include stupid things which were not in the book and have no meaning (e.g. bicycle race).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Imagine yourself trapped inside a museum of the dark middle Ages and a resurrected vampire and his maniacal sidekick are chasing you. Where is the absolute last place you want to hide? I'd say inside the uncanny Virgin of Nuremberg torture device, because there's a good risk you'll get brutally spiked to death. And yet, the elderly lady in this film stupidly runs into her spiked coffin. \"The Vampire's Coffin\" is a rather disappointing sequel, as director Fernando M\u00e9ndez doesn't re-create the Gothic atmosphere of the 1957-original but puts the emphasis on comical situations and dialogs. No more ominous castles with eerie cobwebs and dark vaults, but confused doctors and clumsy assistants that provoke laughs instead of frights. The story opens inside Count de Lavud's final resting place, where an eminent doctor and a hired assistant steal the coffin in order to examine the corpse at a private clinic. Naturally the wooden stake gets removed from his heart, and the vampire count comes to live again, immediately enslaving the petty thief to do his dirty work. The vampire has his eye on a beautiful female patient at the clinic, and it's up to Dr. Enrique Sald\u00edvar to rescue her soul and to destroy the bloodsucker. \"The Vampire's Coffin\" uses a limited amount of locations and there's very little action. The whole film would actually be pretty boring if it weren't for a handful of memorable sequences and decent acting performances. The photography is amazing, though, with the sublime use of shadows and darkness. This is most notably during the scene in which Count de Lavud stalks a young woman through the deserted streets of little town at night. It's the only truly worthwhile scene of the whole film, the rest is fairly mediocre and d\u00e9j\u00e0-vu.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Describing this film is a difficult task. On the one hand, it's an over-the-top vampire spookfest, complete with cobwebs, eerie music, a hypnotic medallion, and of course a coffin with a creaky lid.

On the other hand, this is one of the silliest scripts this side of Edward D. Wood, Jr. Produced by the same people who gave us \"The Bloody Vampire,\" \"Invasion of the Vampires,\" and this film's predecessor, the modestly-titled \"The Vampire,\" the movie sticks close to the lack of logic that characterizes the other films.

As I mentioned, this film is a sequel to \"The Vampire,\" which I have not seen. But no matter...it's real easy to imagine what happened. Dr. Enrique, played by Abel \"The Brainiac\" Salazar, is befuddled when the well-intentioned but misguided Dr. Marion brings back the staked body of his vampiric enemy, Count Karol de Lavud (I suppose there is a rule somewhere that all vampires must be Counts of some sort). Dr. Marion complains that all important doctors throughout history have had to resort to some sort of grave robbing in order to advance their medical studies, and he hopes to use the vampire's corpse to study such phenomena as the vampire's lack of a normal reflection (at which point he holds a mirror up to the vampire and instead of no reflection, we see the vampire's skeleton. ???).

Enrique is not pleased, and seems determined to pass off the events of the first film as mere fantasy and superstition. \"This man was no vampire...I'll admit that he liked to drink a little blood, but that's all!\" he states. Also confusing matters is the fragile Martha, a part-time nurse and part-time showgirl (!) who happens to be Enrique's object of affection. Martha narrowly escaped de Lavud's clutches in the first film, and apparently Enrique has spent a great deal of time \"healing her mind\" and getting her to think that everything that she experienced was not real.

OK, so if you were the scriptwriter for this film, you would need a way to get someone dumb enough to pull the stake out of the vampire, right? Well, how about the greedy con man who helped Marion steal the coffin? After getting a glimpse de Lavud's body, he sets his sights on the expensive-looking brooch that the Count is wearing, and he conveniently returns to steal it when the doctors aren't looking. But darn it...he can't remove the brooch because of the stake, so...you guessed it. De Lavud is on the loose again, this time with the shady con as his human henchman.

OK, so of course the vampire is after Martha again, and meanwhile the doctors are really confused about what they believe. At first they are determined to prove that there is no such thing as a real vampire, then by the end of the film they are trying to get the police to put an all-points bulletin out for \"a man who is dead but still alive!\".

You can probably imagine the rest of the plot from here, but the filmmakers do throw in a few pleasing twists. One of the sets for the movie is a spooky wax museum (is there any other kind in these types of films?), complete with a fully-equipped torture chamber...with REAL torture and execution equipment. The movie has a very keen sense of style, and not just in the campy cobwebs. One effectively creepy sequence has de Lavud chasing a victim down a seemingly endless series of streets and alleyways, following their progress alongside vague buildings with no doors while lighting the scene like a German expressionist nightmare (\"The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari\" seems to be an influence).

But the rest of the film is juvenile, particularly in the film's climax. The special effects are quite crude, even for the year that this was made, and the climactic fight with de Lavud in bat form is laughable enough...but the director feels the need to ask us to believe that Martha would faint and collapse directly over top of a guillotine, positioned so that her head was in the perfect location to be chopped off by the blade, which is in danger of falling because the restraining rope has suddenly begun to fray RIGHT AT THAT VERY MINUTE! What an unfortunate coincidence! To make matters worse, he cuts away from the fraying rope to scenes of Enrique trying to dodge the swooping rubber bat, basically standing still and waving his arms around. It's definitely an Ed Wood moment if ever there was one, especially when Martha seems to revive on her own and rises groggily to her feet just as the blade slams down. Whew! What a relief! In terms of kookiness, \"The Vampire's Coffin\" does not have the lunacy factor of \"The Bloody Vampire\" or \"Invasion of the Vampires\", but fans of these types of old horror films will appreciate the atmospheric photography, and the fact that the director manages to wring some real chills from this material has to \"Count\" for something (haw haw).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Natalie Wood portrays Courtney Patterson, a polio disabled songwriter who attempts to avoid being victimized as a result of involvement in her first love affair, with her partner being attorney Marcus Simon, played tepidly by Wood's real-life husband, Robert Wagner. The film is cut heavily, but the majority of the remaining scenes shows a very weak hand from the director who permits Wagner to consistently somnambulate, laying waste to a solid and nuanced performance from Wood, who also proffers a fine soprano. The script is somewhat trite but the persistent nature of Wagner's dramatic shortcoming is unfortunately in place throughout, as he is given a free hand to impose his desultory stare at Wood, which must be discouraging to an actress. The progression of their relationship is erratically presented and this, coupled with choppy editing, leads the viewer to be less than assured as to what is transpiring, motivation being almost completely ignored in the writing. Although largely undistinguished, the cinematography shines during one brief scene when Wood is placed in a patio and, following the sound of a closing door, remains at the center while the camera's eye steadily pulls away demonstrating her helplessness and frailty. More controlled direction would have allowed the performers, even the limp Wagner, to scale their acting along the lines of an engaging relationship; as it was released, there is, for the most part, an immense lack of commitment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE AFFAIR is a very bad TV movie from the 1970s starring the then-husband-wife team of Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood as hesitant lovers. She has polio and leads a reclusive existence as a pop song writer. He's an ambitious lawyer who is very outgoing and absolutely smitten with her. Their affair, such as it is, is doomed from the start, and she knows it, but goes along with it anyway. Two things to watch for if you are trapped into watching this: Wood's Jane Fonda hairdo that is never mussed, no matter what, and a tune she sings early in this dreadful flick. She sings it for four or five or six minutes, so you know it's classic padding between commercials. It also is one of the worst songs ever written, and the woman doing Wood's singing voice should have been shot and put out of her misery. Also, keep an eye out for all the peasant tops and dresses. By comparison, Wagner looks relatively timeless, with close-cropped hair and sporting a series of classic suits.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is what Disney Channel shows to kids who are dumber than posts. It suits them well. It's not funny, the acting is the worst I've seen in many years, there are more stereotypes than there are actors, and everything about this show makes you groan and roll your eyes. Wanna know why? Not only is this show a waste of airtime, the lead \"actress\" Selena Gomez looks like a pig. Jake T. Austin's character needs some Ritalin. David Henrie's character needs to visit a strip club and get wasted. Also, the writer of the show is inconsistent. In one episode, the security guard is called \"sir\" by one character and referred to as a woman by all else.

Hello? It's called proofreading and editing. Do it sometime, Disney.

Has anyone seen the promo for the new \"four part bloodsucking saga\"? Disney wanted their own version of the Twilight vs. Harry Potter thing. Except a million times lamer. The Wizards of Waverly Place Movie?? Think about it for a minute. Family goes away on vacation and 16 year old daughter wants independence from parents. SAME PLOT from The Proud Family Movie etc...

What's worse is all the Emmies and ALMA'S it got. And most of the audience are some-what age's 4-13 (And no life teenagers). how many more years? before selena gomez is showing her tits?

and Disney shows are all crap..hack writers..hack shows..destroying the minds and wallets of today's youth..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have no idea why people are so crazy about the show. It is so boring. The jokes are not even close to what we usually say funny. It's like, Alex say something that is not funny nor interesting and then suddenly there's a laughing sound background. My friend and I just looked at each other with blank look as if we asked each other, \"What's so funny?!!\". Seriously, every time we watched that show, you wouldn't hear any laughing or coughing. Just a blank look. So we stop watching it. I am personally a fan of sitcoms, so I tried to watch the show. But the show us such a disappointment. This show might be one of the worst comedy sitcom ever...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you wondered whether Disney could broadcast a show with a character more spoiled than Paris, more shallow than Britney, more vapid than Jessica and more narcissistic than THE GIRLS NEXT DOOR, wonder no more. The amazing thing is Selena Gomez is, apparently, supposed to be the heroine. She's also supposed to be an outcast from the spoiled, shallow, vapid, narcissistic \"popular\" girls at school, which is no more believable here than it was for Hilary Duff in LIZZIE McGUIRE. Plots range from recycled BEWITCHED & I DREAM OF JEANNIE to \"parodies\" of HARRY POTTER. The older boy alternates between being a magical genius and being unable to master the complexities of his own shoelaces. The younger boy is just another of the smart-mouth \"wisecracking\" brats who have multiplied on TV like cockroaches in New York (and with the same appeal). The dad is the stereotypical dumb TV dad, and the mom... well, she's not totally awful. But all pales beside the hideous, loathsome, and yet horribly fascinating (like a bad car accident) spectacle of Ms. Lopez' smug, self-satisfied, snotty performance . And, again, she's the HEROINE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You might think that a show about regular teens with superpowers would be interesting, but it's far from that. Take the concept for example: the main character(s) have a big secret that they hide from they're peers. It's just like Hannah Montana and That's So Raven. Next, the acting is just average. Selena Gomez seems to be half asleep through many scenes. Lastly, the jokes are either clich\u00e9 or boring. If they're not using they're colorful, yet strange dialog to make us \"laugh\", they are throwing various props around the room. I really wish this show would use more original and entertaining material. In conclusion, Wisards of Waverly Place is a disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For a series that was inspired by Kolchak, it's ironic that The X Files first attempt at a vampire episode should land squarely on it's ass. 3 has always puzzled me and - at the risk of sounding like the dreadful Hans Keller - I've often wondered if I'm missing the point. The story feels like a jigsaw that has pieces that don't match the box, and the result is you spending a cosy evening by the fire trying to match sky that is really sea. This incomplete feeling remains no matter how many times you revisit the episode and no matter how much attention you give it. I know that this review puts me in danger of being dragged to Whitby by teenage vampires who'll drink my blood while listening to Busted, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. I've always been a werewolf man myself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I enjoyed the prequels, and found the relationship between Tucker and Chan previously hilarious. RH3, however, was a re-hash of the first two without the charm or humor. I think I may have laughed once - and it was during the NGs. Tucker was exceedingly annoying in this film, and his character didn't seem to have any purpose other than to bungle everything up in the most irritating way possible. Chan is always likable, but he seemed tired in this film. I was able to predict EVERYTHING - who the villain was, who the girl was, (SPOILER ALERT) who the good-guy-turned-bad-guy was, etc. I hope to see more movies from Tucker and Chan in their separate endeavors, but not in any more Rush Hour sequels. It's just too tired. I recommend a rental, but not a purchase.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When na\u00efve young Eddie Hatch, a window dresser at Savory's Department Store, falls for a statue of Venus and gives her a chaste kiss, Venus steps off her pedestal and gives Eddie more than he bargained for. This creaking example of what Hollywood can do to a Broadway musical manages to emphasize the inane story and eliminate most of the first-rate songs. The purpose was to make a safe, popular movie without too much investment while capitalizing on Ava Gardner's upward mobility to super stardom. Robert Walker as Eddie gets lost in a thankless role. Eddie's not just naive, but dithering and hapless. Gardner is gorgeous, but the only things that give the movie any life are Olga San Juan as Eddie's loving but jealous girl friend, Tom Conway as the suave owner of Savory's and Eve Arden as Savory's long time, wise cracking secretary. It's a role Arden could play in her sleep, and she's good at it.

The musical opened on Broadway in 1943 and made Mary Martin a big-time star. The only point of a musical, however, is to have music. Since One Touch of Venus was intended to be a social satire of sorts, Kurt Weill, composing, and Ogden Nash writing the lyrics, came up with a series of stylish, witty songs and one masterpiece. Without the satire, or the clever songs or Martin (or an equivalent showstopper), the movie becomes just a weak comedy fantasy where much of the comedy is predictable and the fantasy is worked to death.

Not only did the producers of the movie toss out almost all the Weill\/Nash songs, they brought in the movie's music director, Ann Ronell, to write new lyrics for one of the songs that survived, turning sharp observation into lovey-dovey romance. Ronell was no hack; she wrote Willow Weep for Me. Wonder what she thought about while she replaced or tweaked Ogden Nash's clever work.

The one bright spot in the movie is that Weill\/Nash masterpiece. \"Speak Low\" is as great a love song as anyone ever wrote. It's given one of those ultra-professional and lifeless treatments by Eileen Wilson dubbing Gardner. Dick Haymes contributes a chorus.

As for Ann Ronell, she was one of the few women in Hollywood to become a major music director, as well as composer and lyric writer. Yours for a Song: The Women of Tin Pan Alley is a fascinating documentary of some of the women who made it in the business, including Ronell, Kay Swift, Dorothy Fields and Dana Suess. And for those who would like to hear what little of the Weill\/Nash score was recorded by the original Broadway cast, you might be able to track down the CD, One Touch Of Venus (1943 Original Cast) \/ Lute Song (1946 Original Cast). The music is paired with Lute Song, another Broadway show that starred Martin.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll never understand why when a studio like Universal buys a musical it then butchers it when bringing it to screen. My first thought when seeing Ava Gardner and Robert Walker were starring I would be seeing something from MGM which did musicals best at that time. Boy was I wrong and disappointed.

One Touch Of Venus which starred Mary Martin, Kenny Baker, and John Boles on Broadway ran for 567 performances in the 1943-1945 season and Gardner, Walker, and Tom Conway play the roles that Martin, Baker, and Boles did on stage. The Kurt Weill-Ogden Nash musical with book by Nash and S.J. Perelman was a comeback vehicle for Mary Martin who reestablished herself as the Queen of Broadway after a disappointing venture in Hollywood.

Look at the names that went into this show. Given who was responsible for the book I expected to see some sparkling wit in this production. Instead I got a rather pedestrian screenplay, it was like all the wit was drained out of it. Doing her best to make up for it is Eve Arden playing her usual girl Friday role with Tom Conway, but it's even too much for Eve.

The story concerns department store window dresser Robert Walker who kisses a very valuable statue of Venus who springs to life in the person of Ava Gardner. Of course when the statue goes missing, Conway yells for the law and is suspicious of Walker, the last person to be with the statue.

The rest of the film is Walker dealing with Gardner and what will happen to both of them. For reasons I don't understand, Ava was of course dubbed by Eileen Wilson and Walker sings only a couple of lines. The singing is carried by Dick Haymes and Olga San Juan playing Walker's friends and coworkers. Of course on Broadway the songs were done by singers Mary Martin and Kenny Baker. You would kind of think that Haymes would be playing Walker's role at least. It was awkward to say the least.

Only three songs survived from the score, Don't Look Now, But My Heart Is Showing, That's Him, and the incomparable Speak Low. Haymes's silken baritone is shown to best advantage in Speak Low which was sung as a duet by Martin and Baker on Broadway. For some reason the lyrics of one of the greatest men of verse of the last century, Ogden Nash, were done over by Ann Ronnell. I suspect the infamous Code was at work here.

In Lee Server's biography of Ava Gardner he makes mention of a brief fling Ava had with Robert Walker when she had had a spat with her current man, Howard Duff. When Duff and Gardner reunited, Walker took it badly and didn't speak at all to Gardner off camera. I'm sure the fact that both of them were not in their best work didn't help matters either.

Hopefully some repertoire company will do One Touch Of Venus and you'll get to see it the way, Weill, Nash, and Perelman wrote it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is, arguably, the worst of the major Ava Gardner films. Yes, she is gorgeous. But that can wear thin over time, especially after the corny and predictable movie ending.

In this turkey, Robert Walker has to pretend that he's Eddie Bracken (which surely embarrassed him). Olga San Juan plays the Jane Powell (golly, gee) part. Dick Haymes plays a sort of dim sidekick (!), and Eve Arden plays Helen Broderick (and a host of other wise-cracking female semi-comedians). Yes, the film contains a major popular song, \"Speak Low.\" But check out the other, entirely forgettable, pieces. Dick Haymes sings very well, of course, and so does the uncredited vocalist dubbing for Ava.

The sets are cheap, the script is filled with clich\u00e9s and failed humor, and Tom Conway looks as though he has been battling with liquor (as indeed he was). In short, if you want to see Ava in her prime, buy a photo and stay well clear of this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...

Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...

p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy

I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...

Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...

p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie really is that bad, and I'm normally a sucker for bad movies, but this was too much. Seeing this is like OD'ing on pure SUCK. Now, you may think you've seen the bottom of the barrel. You may have waded through every title from Full Moon and Troma, all the movies of Edward D. Wood Jr, Uwe Boll, Albert Pyun and direct to DVD-flicks from faded men-of-action. You may even have seen Death Tunnel, Ghost Lake and a vast array of the movies that MST3K covered, but in their original form. But you do not know truly awful film-making until you have seen Darkhunters. And if you haven't, you shouldn't. Don't bother. Not only is this movie amazingly poorly written, directed, shot, edited, acted and splattered in crude, cheap aftereffects. First of all, it's a pretentious mess. But not good, Greenaway or Lynch-style pretentious or hilariously messy in an Ittenbach or early Waters sort of fashion. It's the kind of pretentiousness that comes when someone incredibly stupid thinks they've come up with something incredibly smart. Sort of like M. Night Shaymalan (sp?), only that man seems like a freakin' messiah when compared to this trainwreck (and this coming from a rampant Shaymalan hater). It's also boring. Not heavy going-type boring, which is okay, if the movie awards your patience. Darkhunters does no such thing. It's boring in a \"Oh my fu(king God, if I see another shot of a cat set to an obnoxious audio cue I am going to fu(king kill myself!\"-kind of way.

Btw. anyone who claims to like this film is a boldfaced liar and anyone who claims this film is complex or deep knows what their mother is like in bed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, I really can't understand how some people \"enjoyed\" this movie. It's the worst thing I have ever seen. Even the actors seem to be bored...and I think that says it all!

However, I have to give my applause to the opening credits creators - that team seems to have a really good future. That's why I recommend the big studios to watch ONLY the opening credits, and one or two special effects sequences (if they're watched outside this movie, it almost looks like a good movie).

Better luck (or judgment) next time for the producers of this, this... this \"thing!\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hm. Where do I start? I usually ignore whatever rating IMDb has when looking up a movie because I think I might like it anyway or whatever and I should at least give it a chance, but this time I wish I'd paid attention.

I know some people liked it, and I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't. It was semi-amusing at some parts. But if you're like me and you don't like watching cats prancing around in the undergrowth for 20 minutes, random fast motion cloud scenes, dogs barking in cages for another 20 minutes set to 'thrilling' music, and close-ups of faces while people are speaking, then you might want to avoid this movie. The actors were either positively wooden or way over the top, and the film quality was awful, fuzzy and grainy and bland and not in an artistic way at all. And I know that we were supposed to think that Carol was not just a crazy maniac with a gun shooting innocent people with this weird religious psychosis going on, but... well, she doesn't really convince me otherwise. In fact, I ended up really disliking her crazy character. And what was up with the souls in space? I understand this is a fantasy movie, but come on.

I will say, the angel at the end was freaking creepy. It was the creepiest thing in the whole movie, WAY more creepy than the Darth Maul lava-face demon. I give them props for that scene, it was good. But not good enough to actually see the movie. And the opening credits were great, but don't be fooled! I would've rather they used whatever money went into those credits to make the movie better.

Bah. I wish I hadn't bought this for even the $2 that I paid for it, I could have bought a candy bar instead. :\/","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is truly one of the most awful movies of all time. It's dull, ponderous, badly acted, and teeth crawlingly pretentious.

I watched for about an hour waiting for some kind of drama to unfold, before realising there wasn't any. The shot on a shoe string budget was particularly painful. These have to be the worst day for night shots since Plan Nine from Outer Space.

The only barely redeeming feature is the ludicrous 'demons' wandering around the countryside with a plastic cat basket. How scary is that? And I did like the moggys used as extras, I suppose they are least cheap. Though it did seem a bit obvious that they had been enticed into camera by the careful placement of some tuna.

This film is so dreadful, it should have a public health warning. There was a queue at my local video store when I took it back, of people demanding their money back. I kid you not!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard and I didn't expect it... But it's really the worst film, me and my wife saw. Awful dialogs that extend incomprehensibly through time without any apparent reason except to fill time. The storytelling doesn't follow a comprehensive intelligibly way\u0085 everything is a mess. The action and the dialogs appear at jumps. The thing that disappointed me most was to see Dominique Pinon one of my French favorite actors involved in this\u0085 uh\u0085 I don't even know how to describe it without being polite\u0085 The rest of the actors where at the most poor. Susan Paterno made a terrible interpretation of her character, making a flat inexpressive performance. Poor special effects. I don't think that it was a complete waste of film but it's close to\u0085 If I'm to say I would advise everyone not to see this movie. I think it would be a complete waste of time. Sincerely I never though I would say something like that about a movie but\u0085 there's always a first time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At what point does a film become so bad it's good? Compelling in it's awfulness, Darkhunters stands out as a shining example of c**p cinematography and for that alone, probably deserves some kind of award.

The plot revolves around the age old battle of Heaven and Hell for the unclaimed souls of the recently dead. In the case of Darkhunters, the representatives of good and evil manifest themselves variously as a herd of cats, a hooded Grim Reaper figure with a face of flickering flames similar to a coal effect electric fire, a Philip Marlowe-a-like with a seriously bad manicure and a female psychologist who appears to be on day-release from Kwik-Save.

The protagonists are competing for the soul of a newly dead teacher who spends most of the film running around a foggy field and bizarrely, a boarding kennels in an attempt to evade his pursuers.

The plot is spread thinner than a dieter's sandwich with no character development or attempt to build suspense. The acting is laughable, comparable to a school play - although that would be an insult to many educational establishments. And the dialogue .......... oh, how my sides ached! With the unclaimed souls of the dead being described as \"life's unwanted gherkins\" by the flame-glow demon, you wonder whether Hell really is a McDonalds.

But is is bizarrely compelling, you find yourself watching just to see how bad it can get - at just over 80 minutes, it's worth the time spent for the unintentional giggles.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a shame. There's an interesting idea here, but it gets completely lost in a confusion of Commodore 64 style computer effects and bad storytelling. The plot, such as it is, concerns a bounty hunter of souls. It should be a fairly straightforward hunter\/hunted kind of story, but the director and\/or the writer seem like they forgot what the movie was supposed to be when they were about three days into shooting. Things aren't helped by the fact that the main baddie looks like he's wearing a cheap Darth Maul mask, which they tried to disguise with flowing CG colors. Not much to recommend here, even the title seems to propel it into obscurity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't even understand what they tried to accomplish with this movie, i mean really. You got this guy running from a bunch of cats, because he's dead, but in order to be really dead this girl has to shoot them? And they leave a corpse even though normal people can't see them because their dead? The script already has a hole in it the size of Nebraska, then you have the main character played by Susan Paterno who just drones up her lines in a monotone, boring voice and with so little emotion on her face she might as well have starred as a female terminator robot. It's absolutely horrendous and I don't even understand how I managed to see it all the way to the end of the movie. The end being just as stupid as the entire movie mind you, and with absolutely no reward in it for the viewer what so ever. They might as well have called this movie \"the little movie that could choo-choo ka-choo.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hey guys and girls! Don't ever rent, or may God forbid, buy this piece of garbage. I have rarely seen a film in any genre as bad as this one. The acting is actually worse than me and my friends did when we were 7 and in the 1.grade had to act in front of all parents and siblings. In fact, we would have been taken up to evaluation for the Oscars, if we were to be compared to the actors in Darkhunters. The story is terrible, the makeup is terrible, the filming is terrible, the set is terrible, the directing is terrible, etc. I can't actually find ANYTHING worth the money spent to see this film.. Maybe except all the cats, which my girlfriend thought were kind of cute. Please, use your money on other things than on this film.... I couldn't even see the last 15-20 minutes of the film, it was that terrible.. If anyone really liked this film, I would REALLY like to hear from you, and I will try to see if I can get you some counseling at a psychiatrist's office near you..

0 out of 10, actually below if possible.. Not worth the DVD or tape it is on..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This one and the one prior \"Toulon's Revenge\" and the next one seem to be completely different from the first two movies where the puppets were not so nice. It is basically choose your series, the first two go together and paint the puppets as killers, while the next three are a series of them being the good guys. This one plays out to much like some cheesy television series episode to be as good as part three was and I never really had the urge to try and watch part five of the series. Basically, a kid gets the puppets while some strange dark lord or something sends his evil puppets out to kill, this dark lord looks like some sort of enemy from one of those live action Japanese shows like Ultraman. The movie is over before you know it though so it has to get credit for not inflicting you with a very painful to watch movie. Just to many plot holes and things in it for it to be considered an okay movie. You do get to see the guy who played Toulon in the last movie though then you have a very anti-climatic battle and wham the movie is over before it really begins.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has some flaws, and most of those flaws are a lack of anything happening. Possibly the greatest film to show the direness within Fly-Over Country, \"Rolling Kansas\" is a film in which nothing happens and you don't care about anybody. Like life, it starts, it moves, and then it ends. A few attempts at humor are made, but everything falls very flat. The occasional cameo just reminds the viewer that they could be wasting their life doing something besides watching this movie and the one rock song they bought and used at every single instance.

Do yourself a favor and go see a good movie. This is free and repeatedly frequently on Comedy Central because nobody went to see it, nobody wants to see it, and it's marginally better than dead air. Not to damn with faint praise, but the movie's one rock song is worth listening to. Too bad the movie isn't worth watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is retarded a cheap movie that tries to be a stoner movie because the characters are looking for pot but none of them are smokers just a bunch of garbage Thomas Hayden church should not direct anymore especially this movie which is a waste of film. People who liked this movie gave good comments but from all the people on here some are just retarded and don't watch movies so they think that any bad movie is good the actors suck and the movie sucks balls.

I think that many people are going to be upset because this movie tries to make itself look like the ultimate weed movie when it is just the worst movie about weed that I have ever seen I hope that people will stop the director from directing crap like this even weed cannot make this movie funny or entertaining .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Every time I see a film like this I get sick to my stomach. When I watch a movie I like to see what I see in everyday life. As I go through my day I see blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos etc...How do you cast a film and don't even think of the possibility that other ethnic groups will walk past you? I'm sure they didn't do it on purpose but pay attention. I don't care if it takes place in Kansas or South Central. All I saw was one token black. This was typical in the 80's. Hey! it's 2007, with all the rappers, singers and athletes working as actors Thomas Haden Church could have paid more attention to his cast. Aren't actors supposed to be more liberal?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...Or better yet, watch Fandango if you want to see a really intelligent and funny male college age road flick. Rolling Kansas sounded promising (in fact the program guide gave it 2.5 out of 4 stars which usually means it's fairly watchable) but I pretty much fast-forwarded through it. Usually road trip movies have great music, but I can't even recall whether there was music. The only high point was a small role with Rip Torn as a wise old hitchhiker\/guru. Otherwise the jokes and timing missed all along the way. The four main characters are unknown actors and I don't remember seeing any of them in another movie. (Oh, yeah, I see that Thos. Hayden Church was in it, but he's in everything, good, bad or indifferent). This movie is about as funny as watching someone else stoned when you're not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was extremely disappointing, I thought it would be another 'marijuana comedy' but don't be mislead, it's not at all. There are barely any weed-related jokes that come to mind, I don't even think they smoke any weed in this movie. The marijuana field is merely a plot device.

My impression after seeing this film was that four friends were bored one summer and decided to write up a script full of (their idea of) witty dialog and make a movie. The product is bland dialog supported by mediocre acting, to say this movie has no 'hook' is a huge understatement. Don't waste your time or money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I mean, nothing happens, 5 dumb kids go to Oklahoma to find a magical forest of marijuana... this could've been fun, if it hadn't been for the 5 worst actors in the world. And the dialogs weren't even half an inch of fun. The only thing that I almost showed my teeth of, was when the dumb cops stopped the teenagers in either Oklahoma or Kansas... The plot could have been fun, had it not been for abysmal interpretation. If you even think about watching this piece-of-crap movie, don't. How dumb is it, that the guy gets away from the cops by telling them he's gay, like his friend did (just that he wasn't pretending...) and there's that dumb hick joke about the several meanings to the word \"gay\". I'm laughing my hair off.......NOT....... Anyway... WORST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, I admire the independent spirit of it all, but it's like Road Trip with a bad cast and no budget.

I chuckle when I watch American comedies, I don't laugh. This movie made me laugh, but only because of the abundantly obvious attempts to simulate high-budget American high school\/pot-flicks.

If you want good independent American comedy with pot-references, go watch Kevin Smith or Richard Linklater flicks or something. Don't waste your time on this piece of sh't movie.

I mean, how can you take these comments seriously when most people are complaining about the characters not smoking pot!

And by the way: in Norway it's called \"Dude, Where's My Pot\"!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've read the positive comments on this movie. I assume people who were in this movie must've come to this site to give it some good press because this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I always watch the whole film despite the quality or lack there of which explains why I watched this whole movie, but I don't think I laughed even once during the duration of this film. The jokes were mostly very bad, but when the jokes had some promise, the delivery was off. If you liked it, maybe you should lay off the buds because you need to preserve the 5 or 6 brain cells you have left. This movie had a poor script, bad acting, poor directing, weak plot... nothing of virtue and was not entertaining. If you haven't seen this movie, don't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cruddy, innocent..no smoking, drinking or bikers, but Jeremy Slate (good actor) and Jocelyn Lane (good actress) make this moronically feasible for a bad biker flick, post-biker (exploit) time. They knew it, we knew it...Adam Roarke and Slate are wasted..but they lived on.

A 3 out of 10. Best performance = Jocelyn Lane. Lane is the ONLY really to catch the final exploit biker film after RUN, ANGEL, RUN (which also has good actors - like Don Stroud, etc.). It was over. They knew it. They were trying to make a living. But, Jocelyn Lane (from two Elvis bad flicks, TICKLE ME and something bad one) in yellow and leather is the modern hot chick with J. Slate fighting for honor. It's worth seeing, but it sucks. But check it out. Well worth non-biker, non-smoker, non-boozing, \"biker\" types with hot chicks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some people say this show was good in it's early years! I disagree with all of 'em. The show is just plain stupid and pathetic. My mum hates it, I hate it, my dad hates it, I don't know about my sister but oh well. Here some reasons why:

1. THE CHARACTERS: Babies being used as grown up style characters are stupid. The babies are just precocious and annoying. The grown ups and adults are dumb and unappealing. The worst character is that Angelica Pickles (she really does it in for your ear drums when you had a long, hard and miserable day at the office) and also that Kimi Finster who appears later on; she is too over optimistic and a pain in the butt. She can't decided whither she is French or Japanese: it doesn't matter know; you are a American Citizen know and that's that! Oh, what am I talking about, all the characters from this show suck!

2. THE STORIES: The stories are unoriginal and dumb. The make it like the babies go off on a great adventure, yeah to the back yard shed. In one episode, that little goofy brat, Tommy Pickles the Leader broke in to a television's control room and literally almost destroyed it. Don't give kids any idea to smash up normal T.V Station's control rooms (they pay a awful lot of money for them in real life). I can imagine what the broadcasters must of felt like airing this episode, they will probably start staring at their machines throughout the day scared that a baby will brake in. Sad!

3. OVER RATED!: The show has been dragging on for years now and people are still making up stories and new series and spin-offs for this. Get off! The Simpsons have been going for nearly the same amount of time as this but they are much better and funnier than babies. The show is just plain over rated! People, where is your common sense!

Anyway, I surprised T.V Stations across the world want to air this series even off today. The show is utter junk and should have never been produced. The two movies for this cartoons sucked just the same! 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a fan of this generally excellent though sometimes rather dull show but Season 3 has taken some terrible plot directions. The episode HERO is an example of what I mean.

The story as it eventually unravels is that the Cylons deliberately allow Bulldog - a pilot captured several years earlier during a black ops mission - to escape, steal a Cylon ship and get back to Galactica. The plan is that when Bulldog gets back he will figure out that Adama left him to his fate and be so enraged that he will kill Adama, which he very nearly does.

Now the problem is this - the Cylons set it up so that Bulldog thinks he has escaped by himself. This means that Bulldog gets off the Cylon ship with no assistance. So he kills a Cylon and walks out of his holding cell - that much we see. Then, we must suppose that he walks to the flight hangar, manages to get into a Cylon fighter ship and learn how to operate it, takes off and flies back to Galactica. Just like that.

Now Starbuck managed to get one of them working in Season One, which was barely believable in itself, but she only had to fly it visually out of orbit before making contact with Galactica. Bulldog has to programme his ship so that it makes several jumps through hyperspace and manages to catch up with Galactica somewhere thousands of light years away, in an unknown direction. How does he manage to programme a ship that contains completely alien technology? Cylons connect to their computers by touch, there are no visual consoles or keyboards. And having managed that miraculous feat, how does he then know where Galactica is, bearing in mind that Galactica took off some 3 years before and is trying ever since to evade the Cylons - it does not leave beacons behind? Even allowing for the suspension of disbelief that must apply to any sci-fi show, this episode still absolutely no sense whatsoever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is something about this show that keeps me watching and hoping for the future of it. In the writing, the jokes are few and far between, and the story lines are a bore, so I figure it must be the physical comedy and the visuals.

I do enjoy the camera movement, set dressing, and wardrobe. It's amusingly highly contrasted against the dullness that reigns. And I'm pretty sure every time I have laughed it was because of John or Molly's physical comedy. The two of them make a sickeningly cute couple that make me laugh and want to puke at the same time.

So here I go ready to sit down to Kath & Kim one more time tonight to see what path this production will go down (or up as the case may be, looking forward positively).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Me being from Australia and loving the series, I wasn't expecting much from the American version of Kath and Kim but I thought I'd watch the first episode to see if it was really that bad.

Well,whats there to say. Its nothing special.Selma Blair is OK as Kim and actually had a few good lines, Molly Shannon is not a good Kath though. The good thing about Jane Turner's Kath is that when she speaks with all her funny accents (such as when she says Yumor or Noice) it sounds like its just the natural way that she speaks, but when Shannon has a go at the accent, its clear that she is acting and trying to be the same as Turner. And the show really misses Sharon or some one else to give us something to laugh about, because the Kal and Craig characters in this version are really not funny.

So far only the first episode has aired and it is clearly not up to the standards of the Aussie version, although if it was a stand alone television show with a different name, not being compared to the Aussie version it would perhaps be viewed as being a little bit better. But if there is nothing else to do on a Sunday night (or Thursday night in America) then you cant do much harm in watching it, or better put on some of the Aussie version if you've got it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched the first episode and I found it to be a very wooden performance.

I have watched the original from it's early days on Big Girls Blouse to the last series on Channel seven. Kath and Kim was a great Mocumentary and it's humor is something that most people get.

However in this American version I found it to be dull, Molly Shannon is to fashionable to be Kath Day, Kath's wardrobe is supposed to be stuck in the 80s with her frizzy perm. While Selma Blair's figure hugging clothes isn't as good as what the original Kimmy wore. I also found that Selma seemed to be puffing her belly out a lot, she is obviously a (Australian) size 12 where Kim should be (Australian) a size 16\/18.

The exchanges from Molly and Selma is obviously so scripted and there is pauses where there shouldn't be pauses or the pauses are a bit long, as someone suggested there could be a laughter track in there during those pauses. It's like Molly and Shannon are not used to each other, there is no Mother\/Daughter chemistry.

Phil was okay he had the eccentric air around him like Kel. However Craig was to handsome and not the sweet plain humble Brett from the Aussie version.

I found watching this was like watching a very bad stage play. The acting was pretty much wooden and the exaggeration of Selma's expressions wore the funny off after ten minutes. Especially her sulking scenes.

To sum up, I find this show to be a waste of time, the script obviously has been dumbed down for Americans which most on the board say they prefer the original. If NBC wanted to show Kath and Kim why not pay the producers the money to screen the original.

All I can add is Magda you are one smart cookie for not letting the producers use your character of Sharon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The best thing I can say about the American version is that Jane Turner and Gina Reilly must be raking in the money for this crap. Yes, the American rip-off was shown for about two episodes in Australia but didn't rate; probably by curious viewers who were wondering how bad it would be. Answer: DEPLORABLE, a complete waste of time. The actors are relatively unknown and they don't take readily to the nuances of the Australian-written script. Bad luck for them as they are doomed to plummet with this turkey. My advice to USA viewers is DON'T.

Americans should be best advised to find DVD's of the ORIGINAL VERSION on eBay, but be aware that some DVDs are in a different 'zone format' to those issued in the USA. Otherwise, some DVD players will operate discs from both\/all zones.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It isn't TOO bad, but ultimately it lacks the quality that the Australian series has.

The jokes are few and far between, the actors are attractive (they shouldn't be), the film makers think far too much about the cinematography (it's supposed to look like a home video) and it's just like a serious version of Kath and Kim... it's stupid.

It's too normal to be Kath and Kim. Kath and Kim are supposed to be two curvy, middle-aged women who think they are hot and wear ridiculous clothes. There are no \"Look at me Kimmy!\" jokes. The fat friend of Kim is not fat at all and she's not even slightly stupid. She's a stereotypical black\/Latino chick.

It's just not as stupid or funny as the Australian series. It doesn't compare. Nothing is the same. I admit, this show is pretty funny at times, but it is NOT anything like the Aussie series. I was looking forward to an American take on a bogan family. They failed. It's supposed to be REALLY stupid and hilarious, but the actors don't act stupid! To me, this is just a typical American TV show. It's a let down if you want it to be anything like the Aussie show.

2 Stars because it is an OKAY show, just nothing like what it should be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The original Australian Kath & Kim is brilliant. Why do American producers need to remake & ruin yet another classic show? Remember the original version of \"The Office\" with Ricky Gervais, It was an absolute masterpiece, and there was no need to remake it. The producers said that the British humour from \"The Office\" and the Australian humour from \"Kath & Kim\" would not translate to an American audience......... WHAT??? So basically they are saying that Americans are too dumb and stupid to understand the jokes, so they need to remake the shows with over-the-top childish gags, so that the Americans can understand the humour. The original Australian version of Kath & Kim is fantastic and very funny. Avoid the American version like the plague!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've tried watching it twice, though I haven't been able to make through either episode. For me, it's basically just not funny. I can tell where I'm suppose to laugh, but I can't. I've never seen the original, so I'm not comparing. I also love comedies, including off-the-wall comedies like Married...With Children and Family Guy, but this show just doesn't' do it for me. The jokes are lame and flat, and the acting is mostly annoying. The commercials made it look interesting, but it isn't. They're trying too hard to be different, and tying to force the humor. That style usually doesn't work too well. I don't think this show finishes the season. Of course, I could be wrong.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Need I say more? The reason the GOOD Australian version of Kath and Kim was, as mentioned, good, was because of it's hilariously funny originality. The reason this new American-ised version is so terrible is because a lot of it is taken straight from the original. Not to mention the unfaithfulness to the characters. Kath is meant to be a dag. Kim is meant to be fat. Kel (or Phil as they have dubbed him) is meant to be pathetic. Brett (or Craig) is meant to be a loser, not a person who acts like he's on heroin and finishes every sentence with 'dude'. Thank God Szubanski didn't sell her rights to Sharon, she'd probably end up being a tall thin blonde who Kim likes.

Kath and Kim are MOTHER AND DAUGHTER. They are not meant to look 2 years apart. And they are not meant to giggle like school girls. This show is a disgrace to even share the same title as the Australian version. America: get your own television shows.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hard to believe - but it is! I shouldn't be surprised. Commercials try to show how unique and \"funny\" a show can be. Yet not only didn't the commercials announcing this new show have the slightest iota of humor to me, I've not spoken with anyone who found the commercials amusing, either.

I don't recall ever seeing a pilot so devoid of cleverness, cuteness or humor. The characters were insufferable for the most part. Especially Selma Blair's (which is astonishing she would agree to be in a fecal sample of a show like this). The few moments where the characters were slightly redeemable were considerably hackneyed and trite.

Rare is the show with no redeemable qualities at all. And this is not one of them. Kath and Kim has exactly ONE redeeming quality - and that's Selma Blair. Despite wearing repugnant outfits and acting like a pitiful, whiny stupid excuse for a young woman who seems like a cross between Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, Selma is still nice to look at.

But if you want to look at Selma, go rent Hellboy. You'll at least maintain a modicum of respect for her instead of searing this abominable character into your brain to associate with her.

All in all, Kath and Kim is a waste and truly epitomizes the worst that TV is or ever has been. It sets a new low.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this film mistakenly thinking that it was that other radio station zombie flick. The shonky production values and low-rent cast soon gave away that this was another one of the those cheap sci-fi channel style knock offs.

The central performance from Bill Moseley is initially quite engaging as the dubious radio shock jock but as the film goes on becomes less and less convincing as he is actually required to act. The rest of the cast have little to do other than look concerned and have no depth whatsoever.

The cinematography is dull, flat and completely uninspired, like so many of these kind of films. It doesn't even manage a decent bit of convincing gore, the zombie make up is literally pathetic apart from one notable exception towards the end of the film.

The film tries to inject originality and a message into it's concoction of half baked and ripped off ideas by somehow equating this outbreak with intolerance towards Islam and the war on terror. This is woefully handled with all the intellectual clout of a 6 year old. As the characters and seemingly the writers are unable to distinguish the difference between race and religion - describing all people of a certain skin colour as \"muslims.\" Most notably one character is revealed to be Muslim by skin colour alone. At the same time the \"muslim\" terrorists who cause the outbreak are the usual psychopathic stereotype.

Presumably the far far superior Pontypool had a similar budget as Dead Air yet shines everywhere where this film fails miserably.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The idea behind Dead Silence is great: zombie outbreak takes place during an edgy paranoia radio talk show. There was so much going for this film. Unfortunately, as soon as the zombies made their appearance, all was lost.

The film is ridiculous and only those with a passion for cheesy, b-flick horror will enjoy it. The zombies were soooo stupid! They ran around flailing their arms. They looked like a bunch of people putting on a haunted house for elementary students.

I know this is a brief review, but I just don't see the need to invest much into this. It's a dumb movie. You've been warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Corben Bernsen directed horror film about a chemical weapon being released in a sporting event and turning everyone in to insane monsters. We watch as the staff at a radio station takes reports.

Its has moments but mostly it plays like a Lifetime horror movie with breasts and blood. There are some really good ideas here, but they just don't work. Actually the film's ideas are better handled in a film called Pontypool which pretty much works all the way through and builds tension by not showing us anything. This shows us stuff and it just seems cheap. Given the choice I'd watch Pontypool again rather than watch this film again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stealing is a crime, and these guys, Kenny Yakkel and Corbin Bernsen look like their going to get away with it. I haven't even seen this film, but not only do i know it sucks, but the fact that it steals the story of another film, or 2 films for that matter, is such bull crap (and if IMDb would allow profanity much more than just bull crap) that I become filled with rage and feel as though I should just throw myself out the window and just end it all. O.k that's a little much but stealing is worse.

Ever seen Pontypool? It was this awesome little zombie film made in 2008, this radio host goes into work, and then this zombie attack happens. We only see what's going on inside the radio station, and the only guess we have on what's happening on the outside are the occasional calls from their eye in the sky Ken Loney (easily the funniest moment in the film in my mind) and the BBC calling in for an update on the situation. From all the reviews I've read, and from the conversation I had with my friend (who has seen this film and Pontypool) this film was exactly like it in the story, with minor tweaks here and there. So throw originality and creativity out the window. As for the Zombies, or the infected, whatever you want to call them. They are the exact same thing, just because they got infected does not change the fact that they walk around mindlessly, and have a never ending quench for flesh. They are Zombies. ZOMBIES!!

ZOMBIES!!! Okay one to many, but back to this crappy movie. The Zombies from what I've heard are a lot like the ones in 28 Days Later, another better movie, with their insane rage and even more insane quench of flesh. This is where Zombie movies define themselves, story does not matter in a zombie movie (as long as your not taking the idea of another film). Sure a zombie movie can be enhanced by the story, as is the case with Pontypool, but the zombies have to be, in a way, original. 28 Days Later started the insane raging Zombie. Pontypool I can't even begin to explain those guys without ruining the film. The Evil Dead, I think all i have to do is just type the name again because, come on it's The Evil Dead. Romero is the master, and he went through all different types of zombies, from the painted face zombies in Dawn of the Dead to raging zombies in Diary of the Dead, and he did each one with his own unique style.

So, after talking about other great zombie movies, I think it's about time I explain why I hate this movie without even seeing it. This movie down right steals the original story outline to Pontypool which i think is called plagiarism and is illegal in this country and many people get kicked out of school for doing this very thing, yet in Hollywood it's allowed, and apparently approved of. This is not the only film that takes the outline of another movie, and just tries to tell it differently. The 90's is like the worst period for movies ever, sure it had some gems but what decade doesn't, and it's because all the movies were the exact same. My favorite, the crime movie with a twist so big that you'll never guess it till the very end. They force feed you one suspect, make it seem impossible that it's not anybody else but him, then, bam, all this time it was this guy, you just had to look at the scenes where he wasn't there and then when he would mysteriously show up out of the blue, say \"hey guys, what did i miss?\" OH! DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING DID YA! Well, I'll leave a clich\u00e9 as my closing statement. This is one film you'll surely want to miss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Far from combining the best bits of Pontypool and 28 days this managed to ignore them. Whilst shamelessly copying them. (if that makes sense?) Pontypool was different and got progressively tenser, this just stinks. The Radio DJ, \"we must stay on air\" spends effectively no time on air. He sits on his bottom and watches the TV for news. This is by far the worst excuse for a zombie movie ever. Is there a single person in the USA or indeed the world who doesn't know what a zombie is? Or ever heard of the word \"zombie\"? Well, by the 50th minute this bunch of misfits are still calling the zombies, \"the infected ones\" or the ones with \"rabies'. The word \"Zombie\" might make a guest appearance later, I could care less. Maybe there's a copyright where you have to pay to use certain words? Like the Bluetooth earphone is called \"the ear-thingy\" I kid you not! To finish, no plot + no acting = no-one cares. A waste of time, a shameless, poorly executed rip-off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I attended a screening of this movie. It was wrought with clich\u00e9s and very unfunny jokes and set ups. I think the other comments were by people who must've worked on the movie or been family members of the cast. I'm amazed this movie cost $3-$4 million without any real stars. Where did the budget go? It obviously didn't go to writers for re-writes. Nice thought to bank on the success of Big Fat Greek Wedding, but a major miss. There was little or any spark between the main characters and the inciting incident was a bit flimsy at best. The direction was uninspired and looked like a student film.

I don't even know what it means Everybody Wants to Italian. Is that a real saying. I've never heard it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am currently 22 years old, and remember seeing this movie in the theatres when it first came out. You heard me right, I was 5 years old, and yet I can still distinctly remember what I saw that afternoon so many years ago. Was it a mystical trip through the fantastic world of Mark Twain's creativity?... No, on the other hand, it was a quite creepy film about Mark Twain's dark, depressed, and in fact suicidal side. One scene that still bothers me was a particularly strange scene in which Mark Twain is playing the organ at his own funeral.

Would an adult enjoy this film? Well, this movie quite possibly features some interesting viewpoints that a person with a working knowledge of Mark Twain's writing might enjoy; but trust me on this, \"Adventures\" is NOT the film you want to use to introduce your young children to Mark Twain.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite a small handful of nicely executed scenes, this entry (the fourth) feels tired. Toshiharu Ikeda, who directed the superb MERMAID LEGEND and the seminal Japanese splatter film, EVIL DEAD TRAP, shows little enthusiasm for the stale premise.

A miscreant becomes obsessed with an outwardly conservative woman who reluctantly appeared in a porno photo shoot. Predictable stalking, harassing, assault and rape ensues.

The staple of roman porno is sex. And sex mixed with violence. Both potentially exciting subjects, to be sure, but not when so little effort is made to make them fresh. A masturbation scene in which a woman forces pencils up her opening (via condom) is too little kink to late.

The series' rain motif continues and the film's final scene brings relief.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This forth film in the \"Angel Guts\" saga, which at only a few minutes above an hour (it just feels much longer) , is also the shortest, which is perhaps just as well as it's also the most uninvolving of the series.Nami, a department store clerk, is interested in another part time job. Her fellow worker at the department store introduces her to modeling for a porn mag called 'red porno'. But when her other employers found out about her naughty pictures they decide to fire her. And she gets some unwanted admirer. Oh yea and she likes to masturbate ..ALOT. Using various household items. The wall to wall sexcapades masks a lack of discernible plot and pushes this one far too much into exploitation territory, not unsurprising though given that the Director of this one is Toshiharu Ikeda (\"Evil Dead Trap\", \"Beautiful Prey\"). Perhaps his sensibilities just weren't suited for an Angel Guts film.

My Grade: D

DVD Extras: Commentary by Jasper Sharp; Bio\/Filmographies; a 36 minute interview with Toshiharu Ikeda; Original Sleeve art; and Trailers for this and 4 other Angel Guts Films (High School Co Ed, Red Classroom, Red Vertigo, & Red Porno) all available in Artsmagik's Box-set, but for some reason the 6th film \"Angel Guts: Red Flash\" is not in the set","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hafta watch crap like this all the way through to see if there are any redeemable qualities whatsoever to justify including it in my clients' video libraries. Don't you watch this, not even a minute of it, unless someone has a gun to your head. You will, as I did, moan & groan at least 500 times, and pray that one of the one- dimensional characters, all played by really bad actors, would turn and shoot you dead.

Even if you are the biggest Sandra Bullock fan in the world, it is not worth even watching the two or three short scenes in which she appears.

I want to kick the asses of the sleazy marketing people who put Sandra's huge picture on the face of this DVD box and have them thrown in jail for mugging me or something like that. I really wish I had the chance to read a review of this film before I bought it.

Please, give me a call, and I will pay you $10 to remove this movie immediately from my inventory before it stinks up the whole place! (just kidding--please don't call)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I won't go into detail about why this movie deserves an awful rating, plenty of other people have already done that. Suffice it to say that out of the over 400 movies that I've owned on DVD, this is the ONLY one that I got rid of- it was so worthless that I couldn't see ever wanting to watch ANY of it again.

However, I do have a comment on the ridiculously high average rating of 2.9 (as of 3-15-06). While skimming through the 4 pages of reviews I saw no rating higher than 3 stars. Looking at the voting history, 78% of users rated the movie as 4 stars or less. It looks to me like a few people are stuffing the ballot box to keep this movie off of the IMDb \"bottom 100\" list. It would be interesting to see how many of the 30 users who rated this movie as 10 stars (none of who wrote a review of the movie) are actual active users.

Don't be fooled, this movie isn't worth your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you have ever shopped at Wal-Mart, then you probably know about the $5 DVD bin that sits by the electronics department. Well, that is where I found this movie. However, I was tricked! You see, the cover of this particular DVD had a big picture of Sandy Bullock on it and even listed her name as a \"headliner\". I picked it up thinking, \"Wow, I didn't know Sandra Bullock did this movie?!?!\" So I was pumped to go home and watch a cool Sandra Bullock movie. Much to my surprise, Ms. Bullock had a small role.....very small role. She plays the girlfriend of the son of the CIA agent. Talk about supporting actress. She may have had no more than 2 lines in the movie. Besides being deceived of this being a Bullock flick, I looked past that and I continued to watch an \"action-packed\" film. Negative! At one point, for special effects, a gun was taped to the camera. You gotta watch it to laugh at what horrible really is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"But certainly a serious contender for one of the worst 10 of all time.

I got this DVD cheap, with Sandra Bullock as headliner on the case. This is false advertising - she's on-screen for almost 10 minutes of the movie.

On the other hand, there was no other selling point for this movie - the dialog was horrible, the editing was apparently done by someone who was strung out on Quaaludes, the directing was ... well, let's just say that my 14-yo daughter could do better, but I hope she never sees such faint praise from me. It's possible that the family cat could have done better.

Sandra does a creditable job for a first film, in the short time she's on-screen - and that's the only redeeming quality of this film. Stupid story, poorly written, and transferred to film as only a 7th-grade Media class should be able to do.

In short, this is dreck.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is from the 80s, but it looks like it was made in the stone age. The effects are way too cheesy. My copy has Sandra Bullock on the cover, which was why I bought the movie. She was in the movie for about 5 minutes of total screentime. She would most likely deny all involvement.

In short, there is no part of this movie worth seeing, except to laugh at how bad it sucks. Rent this to see the worst film ever made, bar none.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had a bad feeling when I saw the cheap title work. It only took a couple of scenes to confirm that this movie is a real stinker! The only enjoyment I got out of this was to laugh at the technical flaws (example - the background \"car sounds\" audio just disappears during the scene with Danny and Dog in Dog's car). Production shows a total lack of imagination (example - slow motion machine gun fire repeats many times). Sandra Bullock plays essentially a bit part, completely unnecessary to the plot. To say that this movie actually HAS a plot is doing more justice to the writing than it deserves. The antique computer hardware is kind of interesting. This film was released in 1982 (not 1987 as the IMDb database indicates) and then current \"high tech\" was an amber screen on a 4.8 MHz IBM PC with floppy drives. Maybe the PC was the real star of the movie... at least it was interesting.

We got this on DVD for a couple of bucks in the bargain bin at WalMart. As the other reviewer notes, we paid too much!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Notable only as the acting debut of future big-time Hollywood starlet, Sandra Bullock, this ludicrous action flick is so full of holes that one might easily suspect termite infestation. The storyline is incomprehensible and very poorly thought out. The production values stink of cheese. In fact, a total LACK of production values would have been better...at least the film might have seemed grittier that way. The ADR is laughably bad and omni-present in the film. It's debatable as to whether or not ANY of the dialogue tracks from the actual shoot were used.

The performances are, for the most part, horrible, though there are a few exceptions. In those exceptions, however, the performances are undermined by the fact that the director was obviously giving the actors poor direction and making them act completely out of character at times. (i.e. characters going from passive to panicked in the blink of an eye. Bad Direction.) Also, the constant \"weapon sound effects\" (magazines being loaded, slides being cocked, etc.) are completely overused and, more often than not, totally out of sync with the on-screen actions. Add to this cheesy \"Bad Guy\" vocal distortion for the lead villain (mainly so that you KNOW he's the villain in this incomprehensible mess of a film), and you have a recipe for disaster.

The situations in the film go well beyond standard \"suspension of disbelief\" and become downright laughable. One lead character spends a good portion of the film tied to a chair before he DECIDES to use the butterfly knife tucked in his sock in order to free himself. So, my questions are...why didn't he do this sooner, and why does he even HAVE the butterfly knife. He wasn't searched? RIGHT. This is one of a hundred examples of completely ludicrous situations which have somehow been crammed into this 90-minute package.

In whole, \"The Hangmen\" plays like an unbearably bad R-rated TV movie from the '80s. If not for the subsequent success of Sandra Bullock, this would have NEVER found its way to DVD. But it has, so my only advice is to steer clear. Watching this film may actually impair your IQ.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sandra Bullock is my favorite actress..... But this movie was so horrible, I couldn't help but chuckle throughout the movie in disbelief that I was actually watching something so crappy. Ha ha. The audio editing is horrible, They try too hard to come up with creative camera angles. Because they're just weird and stupid. The script sucked. Acting was horrible, storyline not very good. Very unrealistic, even for a movie. But it is a 20 year old movie..... so I'll give it a bonus point for that. And yeah, the music was terrible. But we all got to start somewhere. And submitting these things is such a hassle..... 10 line minimum... bother. Well now I know why I couldn't find this movie in the movie store.... I had to purchase it offline to see it... good thing it was only $.58 cents.... even though shipping was $2.59. Oh well.... I don't recommend anyone wasting their time and money seeing this film...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is #1 in the list of worst movies I have ever seen, with \"Lessons for an Assassin\" on the #2 spot.

The acting is lousy (sorry, Sandra Bullock, but even your performance was horrible!), the music score could have come from a bad x-rated movie and the story was downright ridiculous. It had this in common with a typical action movie: the dialogues were short and consisted mainly of one-syllable words. But contrary to the average action movie, there was no real action in this one. Boring.

The only reason I continued watching it was in the hopes that at one point, there would be at least one interesting scene in this movie ...

Thumbs down on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can I say after I say the one line summary. Sandra does a credible job but what with the bad direction and story line it can't save it. Way too much pre occupation with guns. How can the Hollywood types rant about the need for gun control in our society and spend so much time and film footage focused on guns?? It's just worse than expected.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is soo bad that I've wasted way to much time already talking about it. Soo bad...really... ...BAD... and I'm not even that critical... ..I'm almost ashamed to admit to having seen it... Sandra's few minutes show you how far she's really made it... I mean really anything next to this is really Oscar worthy for her... I suppose the only way for her to look at it is there's no way but up after this one...I suppose she had to start somewhere... but really...soo bad... ...awful really... bad is too good a word for this s**t ....but I don't want to get mean now... but really how can u not after wasting 90 minutes... 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back... 90 minutes I could have spent doing something better...like sitting on my butt and staring into space..that would have been time better spent... (walks away shaking head)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I LOVE Sandra Bullock-She's one of my all-time favorite actresses-but this is a movie that she should have paid a long time ago to be trash-canned. I realize that it's almost 20 years old-but my dead grandmother can act better than these people did. Beware-it's not even worth the $ 5.50 WalMart rack...You know that when the acting stinks this bad that it's not even worth a couple of bucks-the sound quality is horrendous-there's no closed captioning to even hear the hideous dialog, and it looks as if it were filmed on a $ 1.98 budget. I thought that I'd like to see Sandra in an early role to see how she evolved as an actress-but YIKES is too kind a word to use...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I give it a 2 - I reserve a 1 rating for Guy Ritchie and Woody Allen films. We don't even remember what this movie was about. The only thing we recall is one gunshot scene where the actors drop to the ground, roll to the other side of a hallway or something and then get back up shooting. It was like watching 80-year-olds with 2 broken legs trying to perform the 'stunts'. Also, when the characters were driving in a truck, the engine noise (or radio? can't recall) would vanish entirely when the actors were talking.

And, like others, we bought it because of the Sandra Bullock front cover. very sad, very bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I walked into Blockbuster, itchin' to watch some good old fashion action movies. So i browsed around the action section until this movie caught my attention because the cover had in big bold letter SANDRA BULLOCK. An action movie with Sandra Bullock in it and it's rated R!? YAY! Although I will admit i prefer her in a comedy but if this is anything like 'Speed' then i was sold. Sadly Sandra really is not in this movie, her role is minor: \"Panicky kidnapped girlfriend\" (She is in fifth place on the actors listing for Jeebus shakes!) Apparently this was her first movie role (and after watching this movie, i figured as much) Sandra is the only living human in this movie, everyone else might as well be a Zombie in a B-Horror Flick. This movie deceived me saying Sandra was the lead . . . i fell for it like Biff from 'Back to the Future' when Marty yells \"WHAT'S THAT . . .!!!\" God, i wish i watched that instead of this.

Sandra is the only bright side of this movie, every time she is on camera it is like she is picking up shock paddles and yelling \"CLEAR!\" to get this movies going but it flat lines no matter how hard she tries. More on Sandra later . . .

The Movie is dull. Very Dull. Think of the Dullest moment in your life then imagine living through that moment for 110 minutes (for me, it is this movie). This movie even somehow makes Gun Fights and Bullet time effects boring, so boring that Elephant Tranquilizers are put to shame. And this movie's idea of Bullet Time is a close up of an AK in slow motion which mocks you as the caps spitting out of it represent each second of your life as it slowly ticks away. And I knew i was watching a bad movie because i found myself fast forwarding \"THROUGH-THE-ACTION!\" The plot? . . . there was a plot? Music? . . . even by 80s muck standards is Bad but at least it's the one thing that kept me awake. Acting? Sandra Bullock was good and . . . ummm . . . moving on. Is it any good since it IS rated R? No, unless R stands for Ridicules-snooze-fest.

And it is really 80s Clich\u00e9 when a movie opens with an overhead view of a city (rocking guitar licks or power ballet) and ends with a gun fight in a grim factory complete with steel walkways and assorted pipes. Both of which this movie satisfies. At least this movie establishes what era it's from which was unnecessary since Sandra's hair was screaming \"1980s!!!!\" And a movie gets really ham fisted when you watch an assassin stripper kill a nerd in the bathroom and stuff his body in a box, which you respond to sadly saying: \"that is probably the most action that poor sap ever got.\" Another Hammy moment is at the beginning when some-Secret-Agent-Dude caps a crowd of people and apparently this movie thinks people jump into the air and fall to the ground when they die. All that scene needed was the Mario death ditty or maybe Contra sound effects but Nintendo might have sued.

And it is sad when the main action hero of this movie rips off other BETTER movie icons. Before the big gun scene, Da hero is found standing in a boxing ring ('Rocky' anyone?), sporting a leather fedora (not 'Indiana Jones' too) with an ominous spotlights behind him (Terminator the 2nd before owning T-1000) What is really REALLY sad is that people on Youtube or Dailymotion can film better quality videos (with a crappy webcam no less) then this movie. I'm serious, most Rant videos recorded with bad audio and blurry picture are more entertaining then this movie. I cannot even call this movie by it's given name for it's very name bring back horrid memories of watching this cruel and unusual punishment (a freaking violation against human rights!) The only bright speck in this dark abysmal abyss is Sandra's career started taking off thanks to this movie. But oh Sandra . . . why did you have to be in such a nightmare? The paycheck better been worth it. The DVD also graces you with a little back story on Sandra as an extra, seen how she is the only one from this movie who end up being a house hold name. Which explains why this movie uses her name as bait for unsuspecting movie buffs, Crafty little critter.

I don't have much experience with bad films but i know BAD when i see it. I could bounce back from 'Mazes and Monsters' with a good old campy Bruce Willis Comedy. But not even Bruce could cheer me up after this movie. I have yet to see any Ed Wood or Uwe Boll but I think I'm amped for them now. For i can't even fathom a movie worse then . . . \"GAG\" . . . 'Hangmen' . . .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"WAIT until you've watched most of all other films ever released, wait a year, then watch this when you're ready for something with such low production values it that will not challenge anybody's imagination.

I agree that whoever rated this movie as a ten-star production has to be doing it to skew the data. Anything above 8 would be odd.

Nice to see the very young Sandy Bullock in her poofy hair for the short time she was featured, though she overdid the New Yorker accent but other times her southern (Virginia & NC) accent did sneak through. Ancient history for this accomplished actress who has grown so much since this film.

The DVD I rented had two bonus features, a mini-bio section that only featured Sandra's bio - taken verbatim from IMDb. It also had a Trivia Quiz as a bonus - 3 questions. Hope you get them all right!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The DVD version we bought had Sandra Bullock on the cover, but we've discovered it was a picture of her from another movie. Unfortunately, she is in this movie very little. You can, however, see how far she has come.

The one other bright spot in the movie, besides her very small part, were a few of the location scenes, shot in NYC and New Jersey in the 1980s.

The sound is terrible. Sometimes the background noise is so loud that the dialog is difficult to hear. Sometimes the dialog has been redone without any background noises at all, which is disconcerting. For example, sometimes when they are in the car, the noises from the car are too loud, and then suddenly there is absolutely no extra noise at all. The director is fond of close-ups on faces, and then it's clear that the movie has been over-dubbed because the words don't match the lip movements. Through most of the movie, the voices sound like the people are speaking into a tin can.

Background music, when there is music, is distracting instead of adding to the movie.

The direction is laughable. Goofy camera angles and sound effects make the movie look like a joke, especially during times when there is supposed to be tension, like in the middle of gun battles. The writing is terrible. There are some subplots that make no sense, and most of the characters come off looking very stupid because there is no explanation at all to their motivations. The writer\/director tries to explain some of the relationships between the men that were together in Vietnam, but none of it makes sense. These top assassins and former soldiers don't seem to be able to see other people's shadows or hear other people moving. The actors go from calm to panic and back to calm again without any warning. It's simply a combination of bad directing and bad writing.

The production values are so bad that at first, we thought we had stumbled on someone's student film that just happened to have Sandra Bullock in it. If you like laughing at really poorly done student films, then this movie is for you. Otherwise, avoid this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I checked this out for free at the library, and I still feel ripped off. Yes, Sandra Bullock is actually in it, but only in five scenes totaling up to barely 5 minutes, and even those are fairly painful to watch. The rest of the movie is so bad that you'll spend most of the time hoping it will end soon, but only if you're one of those people who have to finish a movie once they start it. Everyone else will just turn it off. Don't worry, you aren't going to miss anything. Bullock's lines (assuming that you were tricked into watching this because her name is plastered on the case) are essentially just parroting of other characters lines, like this dialog:

Lisa (Bullock) - \"Danny, please tell me what is going on.\"

Danny - \"I don't know.\"

Lisa - \"Whaddaya mean you don't know?\"

Danny - \"I don't know - it's something to do with my Dad.\"

Lisa - \"Whaddaya mean your Dad?\"

Danny - \"I don't know - he ****ed up or something.\"

Lisa - \"Why am I here?\"

Danny - \"I'm sorry Lisa. I don't know.\"

(moments later) Danny - \"Some army buddies of my Dad . . . \"

Lisa - \"Whaddaya mean army buddies?\"

See what I mean?

Bottom line - Just say no.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this one remastered on DVD. It had a big picture of Sandra on it and said \"Starring Sandra....\" and made it seem like she had a big part in it. Not so. She's barely in it. She does what she can with the script, but that's not much.

The sound was awful. By that I mean things didn't go together. Shots would be fired and the number of shots didn't correspond to the sound. People talking in a car while it's moving and the shot is from outside the windshield but there's no motor noise, road noise, or any other sound. Kind of weird.

Score was awful. It sounded like the same few notes over and over. Dialog really awful.

Acting was awful, I couldn't believe any of it. Fight scenes were like a Batman comic without the \"BIFF\", and \"BAM\". They were really lame. The shooting scenes, I mean with firearms, were laughable, literally. I fast-forwarded through a lot of this movie. Even then, it was too long.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched 5% of this movie tonight and you may tell me that I need to see the whole movie to understand it, but frankly I don't think so.

What the hell is the story in this movie? I saw a lot of people running around in a factory, shooting at everything around them.

Where to start? Okay..

1) They were shooting around the place as if it was the Terminator or something they were trying to kill. The entire place is made of metal, but not a single bullet sparked on the metallic surfaces.

2) No ricochet. Metal vs metal is bound to cause ricochets, but apparently no one got hit by a stray bullet.

3) Magic bullets? In one scene a bad-guy is standing right in front of a good-guy when another good-guy pops out behind the bad-guy and pumps him full of metal. You see the bullets exit his chest as it explodes in a bloody mist, but the good-guy right in front of him doesn't get hurt at all! 4) After having just splattered a human being all over the wall, the two good-guys tell each other some jokes and they laugh and look like teenagers playing with soft-guns.

5) Sound? At one point the good-guys cut a wire and an alarm goes off (who the hell cuts a wire just to set off an alarm?). The lady screams out \"Alarm in sector blah blah\" and the bad-guy boss says \"Okay.. this.. is.. not.. a.. drill.. blah blah\" in a very, very amateur kinda way. Ooh, we're getting ambushed by terrorists, this isn't a drill, but I'm gonna sound like I don't give crap.

6) Focus!! First you see the bad-guys load up on weapons. For some reason the same guy gets the same Uzi twice. Deja vu or loop of scenes? You literally see every single bad-guy receive the same kind of weapon and they lock and load the same way. The weapons dealer pops in the clip and the bad-guy extra no. XX locks and loads. When they started opening fire you HAD to see the barrel flashes. Boooring!! 7) Actors or dummies? One of the presumed good-guys throw down a smoke grenade for some reason and of course the bad-guys are suddenly inside the smoke because they're smoke-blind or something so they don't see it coming. They cough and moan as if it was Anthrax in the grenade. Then a semi-boss bad-guy arrives and he doesn't even cough when he enters the smoke, he just pushes the other bad-guys away and they suddenly realize that the smoke isn't Anthrax anyway.

8) B flick? I think yeah! A guy sliding down a metal pipe wielding a Uzi in his right hand shooting away at someone in his eye height apparently. I'd like to see a guy fire a Uzi with one hand and I'd like to see him go get his hand afterwards. Extra bloody gore mess in a B flick kinda way. Small *pops* and a red hole with a torn shirt indicates that this guy is dead. Though the first bullet hit his heart the good-guy who is a super trained green berets still feel the urge to empty his clip into the dead guy.

9) One of these mentioned trained soldiers jump out from his hide with an empty clip! How stupid can you be!? Always check your clip before facing an unknown amount of enemies! 10) Boring scenes. Like the barrel flash scenes and the lock and load scenes, the movie is filled with time wasting scenes of people running around in an apparently empty building. Cut to the action if you're going for a B flick movie, please.

My two cents on this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know how this DVD made its way into my collection - my wife suggested it was one of these \"3 for \u00a320\" deals at a high street store. The thing isn't worth 66p, let alone \u00a36.66! Having invested heavily in it, I felt duty-bound to watch it to the end, just to make sure it was equally bad all the way through - and it was.

The dialog was awful, the story line was impenetrable (I still don't understand what the hell was going on, despite having read the synopsis), the camera work was disjointed and hopeless, the acting was wooden (not helped by the dialogue).

In fact there were no redeeming features - no, not even the lovely Sandra Bullock, on whose glittering subsequent career this pile of dross has probably been sold. She should get her agent to buy up all the rights to it and then bury it ASAP.

As a final amusing example of the director's ineptitude, there was a scene where the young lead is conversing with his father's ex-army sidekick while driving. This was the clearest bit of dialogue in the film - no engine noise whatsoever! I look forward to the engine-damping technology eventually making its way across the pond into British cars!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My first warning should have been that this dvd was on sale for $5.00. But since it featured Sandra Bullock, who I generally like, I bought it. My disappointment with the film began almost immediately. The dialogues are slow and stiff. The color is distorted. I kept adjusting the volume to hear the conversations. The acting is amateurish. Even the killing scenes are a failure. Twice, dead people moved their legs. When my cash-deficient daughter offered me a dollar to turn off the movie, I immediately and joyfully complied. This is an amazingly bad movie. Tomorrow I am giving this dvd away at the company white elephant Christmas party.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I broke my own rule buying this movie from the $5.88 bin at Walmart. Basically, if a movie has a big star in it, and you've never heard of it before, it's usually for a reason. Well in the case of this movie, the reason is because it SUCKED! They plaster Sandra Bullock's photo and name all over the cover of the DVD as bait, and it reeled this little fishie right on in. I was thinking of donating the disc to charity, or giving it to the library, but I don't think I would want to subject anyone else in the world to this movie. Worst lines: \"What do you mean army buddies?\" \"What do you mean your dad?\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film stinks more than limburger cheese! If you find this at a garage sale, LEAVE IT THERE! I love Sandra Bullock and yet HATE THIS MOVIE... Although ashamed, I do own a copy, and the studio has changed the cover to play on the fact that Sandra Bullock is in this at all. They play it up to be \"A Sandra Bullock Movie\". She only has a small part in the whole movie and she does her best with that, but she is young and had not learned her talent yet. Well everyone has to start somewhere...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The DVD release of this movie hopes you will buy this movie on the name and face of Sandra Bullock. Her picture (from years after this film) basically is the cover art... and the back cover art... and the inside cover art... the same picture. Her name is prominently shown on the front cover, all 4 edges and the disk itself. She is the first name in the list of stars. Her biography is printed inside the case. This film must revolve around her character, right? WRONG! It is her first movie and she plays a minor role. After watching the movie, every role seems like a minor role. The character Dog actually displays some personality. Less than an hour after watching it, I don't even remember the names of many characters.

Maybe if I watched it several more times, I could actually figure out the plot, but I don't think it would be worth the effort.

Oh, wait, I just remembered a funny bit! Shoot-em-up video game fans will get a kick out of the \"Doom-cam\". Looks just like a first-person shooter game. Hands and gun pointing out in front of the camera.

I am generally not a person to be critical of movies, but this may be the worst movie I have ever seen. I kept expecting some silhouettes to walk across the screen, sit down and start making fun of it.

I'm just glad that the money we spent on this (used) went to charity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We also found this movie on the discount rack and made the mistake of purchasing it because Sandra Bullock was featured on the cover. The cinematography was terrible and the back of the DVD box told more about the plot than the movie itself. Oh and I love the Uzi cam....NOT.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Found this film in a DVD discount rack for $10. It wasn't worth it. Some of the camera work and dialog look and sound as if it were done by a film student. Sandra's performance was somewhat credible, but the film was predictable and the action was spotty and dragged.

One thing that I will give them, however. Unlike most action films, people in this film actually ran out of ammo and scavanged dead bodies for new weapons and ammunition.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The prior comments are way to generous. This movie is a waste of electricity and plastic. On the other hand, I have had a great deal of fun giving it to friends to watch and describing it beforehand as \"beyond belief!\" \"no words can express how I feel about this\" \"This movie will move you\" As expected, the friends took these nondescript comments as enthusiastic endorsements. They were wrong. The sadistic pleasure I had foisting this on people was well worth the $5 I paid for the movie. On the other hand, one (former) friend says I owe him 90 minutes of his life back. I particularly enjoyed the \"gun's eye view\" of parts of the movie. Truly awesome in it's absurdity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh boy! Oh boy! On the cover of worn out VHS has a picture of Sandra Bullock and her name written on top. I think only reason they had chance to sell the movie in nineties, was because of Sandra Bullock's name. Bullock's fans don't have to disappoint. Sandra is only thing to watch in this movie and her performance is the only you can call acting. Rest of the movie\u0085 It's fun to watch in first fifteen minutes because it's bad but after that it's going worse. Much worse. Directing is awful. Acting is awful. Script is awful. Dialog is awful. Action is awful. Music is quite good actually. Typical score for eighties action movies. This movie is so bad that it goes close to anything Andy Sidaris has ever produced. It's so bad that there isn't proper word to describe this poor attempt to be a movie. But still, there was Sandra Bullock. And super cool (sarcasm) Jake LaMotta who tried to be Marlon Brando.

I think they can now bring the film out on DVD. It could be cool! And they should write on the cover: ACADEMY AWARD WINNER SANDRA BULLOCk IN HANGMEN

1 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't worry when looking at the cover of the DVD, Sandra Bullock only appears at most 5 minutes in total in this cult classic. The entertainment value here is very high.

To name but a few of the many highlights that should be paid attention to:

- The doubled evil voices of the chief bad guys - The special gun cam - The weird masks and outfits of the hit killers - The showy ways to catch a bullet and hit the ground - The abundance of bottom-up shots - The spacey scene in which Bullock falls unconscious on the street - The over-clich\u00e9 Italian mob guy Moe (LaMotta) - The cheap synthesizer background music - The mesmerizing overdone gun fetishism

And last but not least: the super corny fist-fight scenes. Wish there would have been more of those...

Extra point for the successful attempt at making me laugh out loud.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, there are no words to describe how bad this movie truly is. I usually pride myself on being able to enjoy any movie no matter how bad, but this was just too much. I would only suggest watching this movie as a torture device. If you can get past the terrible plot and dialogue by watching it on mute, the even more terrible camera work and shoddy special effects make this movie a real horror. If your thinking about watching this because your a Sandra Bullock fan, don't even bother as she has less than ten minutes of screen time, and her acting is absolutely atrocious. Not to mention the rest of the cast, which could be replaced with baboons who would do a better job, at least then we wouldn't have to listen to the terrible dialogue.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love this show. I watched every episode last year. I bought the DVDs. And I tune into to watch tonight and I see for some reason you have retooled this great show. And you have taken what made it work and ruined it. You took one of the best aspects of the show away which was the 4 friends. Sam, Sully, Lizzy and Piper. I love the other characters as well, but they are good in small dozes like Derek, Darcy and even Sully. It is like the show lost some of its family and everyone else is trying to hard to fill in. It is overdose. While things are funny in small dozes when you are exposed to it all the time it goes from funny to annoying. I was so looking forward to the return of this show. So please bring back the charm. Even if you could not fit Piper into the show at least bring Lizzy back. But I loved those girls. They brought the fun. The show was about Sam trying to live his business life and handle his personal life and friends as well. That was the charm. And that great dog as well.

I hope the network (FOX) forced the writers to do this and the writers did not willingly do this to the show. I will give the show a couple more episodes before I give up, but tonight's episodes were bad. I made a big deal out of the show returning tonight and had people over and I felt like a fool, because no one was laughing except 2-3 times. I apologized to them and said I don't know what happened. And about 10 minutes into the episode I realized they were not going to show Piper or Lizzy and this was no longer a must see TV comedy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am very open minded. I watch all kinds of programs to the end...good or bad...just to give them a chance and learn from the good aspects and bad ones. This show had potential to be good. But my god, what were the writers, casting director, and director thinking? The cast of actors are terrible...with the slightest exception of Meryl (Mimi Rogers), and Darcy (Joy Osmanski) being given occasional good lines with the best execution of the lot.

The rest of the cast kill the show. It is the same story line in every episode. Sam has plans to do something. His boss disrupts these plans by assigning him ridiculous work projects. Then the foolish ways Sam tries to accommodate both in a manner that is primarily stupid and lacks any real intelligent humor. This is EVERY episode. It gets very tiring.

Season 2, they ditch the eye candy. The 2 \"hot\" girls in the show get written out (yet the brother stays? explain that casting cut to me please). I can see why they wrote them out...they had no substantial role...but they didn't add anyone better to replace them.

The cocky Derek Tricolli character is given a continuous appearance in season 2. His acting (along with everyone else's) resembles many poor sitcoms from the 80's...might have been funny then...but painful now.

the show could have been so much better with a few good writers and some people who had any talent to execute them. This show lacks everything. Production quality is the only good aspect of the show. It is great in that regard...unfortunately the content is painfully sad.

My god. FOX, was there really nothing better to choose from? I'm sticking with shows like \"It's always Sunny in Philadelphia\" or \"30 Rock\" for now. The bar should be set by programs like these that actually assume the audience are intelligent and aren't continually drooling on themselves using all their brain power on continuing to breathe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first season was great - good mix of the job and the brother and friends at home. it was actually a pretty funny show.

Now it shows up again and the brother and the two hot chicks are gone -- and the whole thing revolves around the airline company. Even the old man who runs the company has gone downhill - way too over the top, where before it was perfect.

That and no more Sarah Mason - one of the best looking girls in Hollywood.

This is what happens when you let some execs get their hands on a show. You can almost see the meeting \"the old man is funny, lets focus on him, make him way over the top and make it all about the airline.. it'll be a nutty version of the office!\" Anyhow, no hot chicks, no watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Fox is pretty lame. They cancel the wrong shows. It's bizarre that they would cancel a well-written program like \"Arrested Development\" and yet they keep this show and \"War at Home\". I feel that Fox loved that they broke barriers with the then-edgy \"Married with Children\", but now it's just getting ridiculous. \"The Loop\" is a pointless and boring watch, and their edgy jokes just fall flat. In order for edgy comedy to work you have to keep the jokes coming. \"Family Guy\" and \"The Simpons\" work because there is a constant flow of jokes. Fox needs to pull their heads out of their rectal cavities and quit letting their relatives write this mediocre tripe. I mean, if you're going to invest money into making something entertaining, make it entertaining. Also, stop using \"no-named\" actors. It's great to have up-and-comers, but you need to anchor a show with a noted celebrity. Duh, Fox.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Upon a recommendation from a friend and my admiration of Philip Baker Hall I rented the first season disc of the Loop.It's a typical TV comedy with all the clich\u00e9s that the genre employs with the \"wacky\" scheming brother (Sully), \"ditzy\" blonde (Lizzy), token unrequited love interest (Piper), sarcastic Asian helper (Darcy, which reminded me of Arliss, as if ANYone needed to be reminded of THAT show). The plot deals with various bad luck (usually by Sully) that befalls Sam that puts his job at the airplane in jeopardy, only to have him save the day, with 'hilarious hijinks' ensuing in the middle. I didn't descibe a certain episode. I described them ALL to a T. Therein lies the problem as what seems like it might even be passable entertainment at first just gets uselessly stale when watching episodes in a row and growing bored beyond belief at the endless repetition. Sully will do something 'wacky', Mimi Rogers will say something overtly sexual, Russ will tell about his gay son, Darcy will do her impersonation of Sandra Oh on Arliss blah blah blah blah blah. The only positive is the lack of an annoying laugh track. But don't let that fool you into thinking it's any good. Go watch a far better comedy. Arrested Development, Always Sunny in Phillidelphia, two name two off the top of my head. Surprised that this one is still on the air. OH that's right Fox only cancels the good shows, i forgot. Needless to say I don't trust my friend's taste in shows anymore.

My Grade: D+","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie starts off on the wrong foot and never really gets it going. The first scene shows a Life Flight helicopter landing and just outside the window you can distinctly see mountains in the background. For those of you who might not ever have been to Houston there is no elevation change. The city sits just above sea level and a 5 ft. incline is considered a big hill. To go along with that scenery, any shots outside of the hospital immediately tell the viewer that they are not in Houston. The trees are all missing leaves or are pine trees, neither of which Houston has very much of. Even the hospital itself, on the outside, is very unbelievable. Memorial Hermann Hospital is one of the top hospitals in the United States and sits smack dab in the middle of the Medical District just miles from downtown Houston, yet every outside shot of the hospital makes it appear that the hospital is out in the suburbs or even the countryside.

It is obvious that whoever was in charge of the actual tropical storm part of the movie skimped out because the numerous shots of radar are all wrong. The first radar image in the movie is that of Hurrican Hugo hitting South Carolina. We later see Kris Kristofferson leaving his job and one of his assistants tells him that Alison is moving back south across Houston yet the radar image he shows has Alison clearly moving north off of the Gulf of Mexico into Houston...probably the initial landfall of Alison.

As for the acting, it isn't all that bad. JoBeth Williams, Kris Kristofferson and Rick Schroder all do a decent job considering that this is a straight-to-TV movie. The plot of the story is decent and the fact that it is based on a true story makes it a bit more entertaining. My one problem with the acting is the portrayal of Houstonians with big thick Southern accents...the actors all sound like they are from Birmingham, Alabama and not Houston, Texas.

The movie gets its point across and to the general audience it does exactly what it is meant to: entertain. If you are looking for a factual account of what happened to the city of Houston in June of 2001 then you will be disappointed. One thing to keep in mind before viewing this movie is that it is based solely on the evacuation of Memorial Hermann Hospital and not on Tropical Storm Alison and the impact on Houston metro itself. If you are looking for a factual account of Tropical Storm Alison's impact on Houston metro might I suggest watching The Weather Channel's Storm Stories for Tropical Storm Alison.

*1\/2 out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I work at Memorial Hermann Hospital (TMC) and was also working at Texas Children's Hospital, Women's Hospital, and West Houston, during Allison. First the shots of the hospital are sadly suburban. The Texas Medical Center has a daytime population density similar to Wall Street!! There are huge skyscraper professional buildings and hospitals. TCH was the largest Children's Hospital before it doubled in size, TWICE! Methodist, with its 1500 beds is one of the largest hospital in world. The Texas Medical Center skyline is bigger than that of Memphis. Yet, the best pics Hollywood could muster are that of some dinky hospital in the middle of nowhere (besides the real pic of the hospital taken decades ago). Also, they combined several real-life characters and portrayed them all in one (super-nurse). I actually know the Medical Technologist(s) working in the blood bank. Two where actually working at the time but the movie shows only one pregnant MT. There was a pregnant MT, and another MT that took the precious patient antibody rolodex (research \"alloantibodies\" for more info). I will not mention their names (privacy). There was no nurse in the real life lab scene. Hollywood combined these two techs (most likely to save time and money). In the movie, military helicopters (true) had to transfer the our babies (NICU and PICU) to UTMB all the way to Galveston! Why you may ask, when we have the largest children's hospital just down the street? Because Texas Children's Hospital refused to take them. You read right, they REFUSED!!! Being employed by them, I was ashamed. Needless-to-say, I'm no longer affiliated with that facility. Any other comments would be repetitive to the ones already posted by the people that who actually live here, or lived through the experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the European TV industry, movies like this one are called \"stickers\". TV stations buy them and air them because when they wanted to buy broadcast rights to, let's say, Titanic, some not-really-blockbusters were a part of the deal.

14 Hours is a story of a hospital, its employees and patients who have to face the worst flood slash storm ever. Unfortunately almost from every scene or shot one can tell that is was a low-budget film.

Newborn babies are very obviously not real, there is no background action and probably the worst thing is the doctor-acting. The actors are not believable in their roles: their lines, when spoken, sound way too memorized, as if this was a read-out camera test.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Without a doubt, the biggest waste of film of the year. This movie is poorly structured, sadistic, cruel and filled with unlikable characters. On top of that, and maybe the worst crime, it's uninteresting and vastly predictable. As soon as Bill Pullman's character doodled on the photo changing the word from \"evidence\" to \"violence,\" I had the entire plot figured out. There are no surprises and there is no compelling reason to watch this trash. The only redeeming feature for me is that I saw this thing for free on my HDNet cable and didn't waste any money. I would truly be angry if I had paid to see it in a theatre.

Anyone that labels this thing a thriller really needs to get out more. An awful, awful film in every way that matters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I do not know what today's movie goers expect, but after 68 years of movie watching.. (Well maybe I didn't watch many movies in the first 9 - 10 years, so make that 58 years of movie watching) I expect to be entertained, not bored to tears, assaulted by continuous profanity (every other word) and idiotic scenes of violence that are presented in with no other purpose in mind but to show blood splattering and body parts being mangled. Surveillance is one of those movies that was made by people who have NO imagination, little if any talent, a total inability to tie scenes together and an unreasonable trait of letting a scene go on and on, long after the purpose for it has elapsed. That anyone would ever think that this was a worthwhile movie, when it is nothing more that Hollywood garbage is beyond me. As a combat veteran I have seen violence, blood and gore, in many forms, and movies like We were soldiers is about as violent as a movie can get, but it has redeeming value. Surveillance must have been dreamed up by persons in a drug induced stupor, with no writing ability, no directorial training, no experience in film editing, and a total lack of contact with reality. Just a stupid movie of two serial killers posing as FBI agents, setting up a scenario to kill some stupid foul mouth cops, etc.. A high priced piece of garbage that only an idiot could like...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This must be the worst thriller I have seen in a long long time. The directing, the acting and the adaptation of the story leave what could probably have been a good plot into a meaningless waste of time. Within a few minutes of watching the film it was easy to figure out the whole plot and then there are more obvious clues very early on leaving no mystery. I guessed this within the first few minutes and I kept hoping I was wrong and much to my dismay I was not.

The film starts off with two FBI agents who drive to a remote town to investigate a murderous spree which has left three witnesses, a young girl, a drug addict and a cop. They are interviewed under surveillance cameras separately and each tells their account of the day. Each has something to hide about themselves and the day unfolds as they tell their accounts. This part is probably the saving grace and if developed could have made this film better.

Spoiler: The whole story ends in the FBI agents being the actual killers and the young girl is the only one who has figured this out and so left unhurt by them.

Why do they go through the whole charade of interviewing three witnesses and bonding with the young girl if their idea had been to kill them in the first place? How did they get away with pretending to be FBI agents (when you discover that real FBI agents had been killed and their badges were found on them)? How did they know how to set up and use the surveillance cameras?

Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond are so unconvincing from the beginning to the end. Maybe the idea is to develop their characters for the revelation at the end. Come on, they both look ridiculous, stupid and not sinister in the least. The character of the young girl is also wasted potential. There is no meaning to her actions and no meaning to whom she prefers to bond with in her ordeal. She does not appear distressed, but rather detached which again is not explained.

Awful film on the whole.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry for all you guys that are not family with the Lynches.

My sister in law asked me how you can make just a disturbing movie. I told her that if the daughter and her father would not do these movie, they would have instead to go around and kill and cut people in pieces.

After every Lnych movie I tell myself, again one and a half hour lost of my life. But next time I will check the director's or producers name.

So, you don't want to be angry at yourself and loose time, don't watch it. But if you think that you need to kill someone, watch it, this is probably a better medicine than to spend your whole life in a prison for mentally insane.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film's executive producer is none other than that messenger of peace thru transcendental meditation, David Lynch, the director's father. I wonder what David's guru, His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, would have thought of this production. The hypocrisy here is as repugnant as is the film itself. It's a safe bet that Samuel L. Dieteman, Phoenix serial killer and devotee of recreational violence, would have loved every minute of it.

I doubt if many would fault this film for its cinematic craft; on that level it's quite good. But on a moral level, it's the most disheartening movie I've ever seen.

SPOILER COMING

I guess it's the phoniness of the thing that saddens me the most. Morally-numb Generation Xers learn a craft and a little post-modern aesthetic theory at art school or film school and then get involved in the arts-and-entertainment industry; and here's the result: a film which wallows in human suffering, injustice and carnage, much of which is witnessed by a nine-year old who sees her entire family brutally murdered by a couple of recreational-violence killers who, at the end, ride off into the sunset.

NO MORE SPOILERS COMING

For whom are films like this produced? Narurally, sadists are going to adore this - why wouldn't they? But who else? As I noted above, there's some really good film craft here, but good craft can be applied to any subject matter. Why apply it to stuff like this? Also, the movie is very suspenseful, but that's not because of the graphicness & grossness of the violence; it's suspenseful because it's well-directed & well-acted. I'm sure the ghost of Alfred Hitchcock could explain this much better than I can.

So what has been put before us here? And above all, why?

Yes, our world can be an ugly, dirty, even evil place, but shouldn't we dissent when an \"artist\" makes it her\/his business to rub our faces in it? Or worse still, to stick it in the faces of those nine-year olds who will, one way or another, end up seeing this on home DVD?

I hope that people will see to it that this film is not seen by their kids. Yeah, I know - dream on, bernon...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must say, when I saw this film at a 6.5 on this site, I figured it was well worth a view. I was sorely disappointed. From nearly the opening scene, it is obvious the two supposed FBI agents are, in fact, the killers. Could they have made it any more obvious? If that is the intended \"twist\" in this film, that's pretty sad. While Pullman and Ormond are excellent actors, even their talent is no match for a reprehensibly bad script. Pullman adeptly acts the part of a sociopathic killer... and that's the problem. There is no switch from \"I'm playing FBI guy!\" to \"I just killed 12 people and boy, are my arms tired.\" You can't blame the actors... the story fails in far more ways than one.

From the onset of the film, however, I was certain I was wrong, that no director\/writer would ever be so blatantly obvious about a plot \"twist.\" Ormond and Pullman must just be acting strangely in order to divert the viewer's attention from the real killers, I thought... which gave the film's makers far too much credit. I should have followed my instincts and turned off the movie before it even made it past the 15-minute mark.

To Lynch's credit, she did manage to interject many things that make a good film: sex, violence, humor, and well-trained actors. Too bad they were in the wrong configuration. Hopefully Pell James can recover from this role... I found her performance particularly impressive, as the stunning drug addict-turned would-be savior. She should have rewritten the role so the \"crack whore\" would win.

Those people who have compared this film to Natural Born Killers, take note: Tarantino made the characters of Mickey and Mallory reprehensible, yet sympathetic. The artistry of that film far overpowers the gore, and this is not seen once in Surveillance. Surveillance only wishes it were Natural Born Killers... in fact, it has wet dreams about being even a fraction of what that film was. Folks who haven't seen Surveillance... stick to something with a little more intelligence. Like Camp Rock.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to the cinema to watch a preview of this film without knowing anything about it. Recognizing Jennifer Lynch's name and seeing the 18 certificate I realised it might be disturbing. In actuality I found the film a farce. I found myself giggling in disbelief through parts of it. The acting is atrocious- Bill Pullman and his ridiculous twitching face. I do almost pity the actors though as the script offers them no chance of any believable character interaction. After some shocking incident, (there is plenty to \"try\" and shock the viewer in this film), 2 characters are seen sharing a beer and talking about the weather. Everything was overstated, or thought it was being clever when really it was obvious! The performance from the little girl character named Stephanie was the best thing about the film. Quiet and intense. I really could not recommend this film to anyone. Its violent without point, ridiculous characters, bad acting, bad script and plain silly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Significant Spoilers!

This is a sick, disturbing movie... just like the sick, twisted director, Jennifer Chambers Lynch who also wrote it. I don't even know why I gave this movie a rating of 2. It is not the fault of the actors for sure. The cast certainly portrayed their roles well. It is the way this movie was written and the way the characters were written which was the benchmark of a truly sick mind.

I do know that I will never, ever watch another movie which has been written or directed by Jennifer Chambers Lynch. She is a sick, twisted, foul-mouthed, foul-thinking deviant. She looks, speaks and sounds like some biker chick with her brain fried on drugs, who spent 20 years doing hard time. You can clearly see what kind of person she is by watching her on the DVD special features section of \"Surveillance: The Watched are Watching.\" You can see and hear her for yourself. She was every bit as bad as I had envisioned from the writing of this movie.

I'm not shocked by bad language, although this director certainly talks like a sailor. This goes far beyond simple bad language; worse than any p0rn film. The level of implied sado-violence and perversion she incorporates into every character she writes are of the genre which is even illegal by p0rn standards. This perverse, disturbing thinking is clearly apparent in her own personality and things she says. Another reviewer found the description I was seeking. This is a snuff film.

Be sure to listen to her narration on the deleted scenes and alternate ending. This director\/writer is truly a sick person. I can't believe anyone would put her in charge of a movie, much less pay her for it. You can be assured that I will never, ever watch another movie she has been affiliated with. In the thousands of movies I have watched and collected, there are only a couple directors and writers which have merited this kind of boycott. She is offensive beyond anyone I have ever seen connected with filming a movie before. There have been some bad directors and writers, but none could compare to her sick, twisted mind.

When I saw this movie, which was just one murder rampage after another. Once it got past the hotel murder... then the sick cops shooting at and brutalizing drivers for kicks... the vacation family with the bad parents (who had no business being in the presence of children)... followed by the drug addicts.... the movie then proceeded to the (even more) twisted, deviant serial killers.

As I saw the serial killers reveal themselves, I began to wonder what kind of truly sick mind wrote this movie. Those were my actual thoughts as I watched this movie. I fully intended to find out what writer had such a sick mind... because that writer seriously needs to be committed for long-term psychiatric treatment. To my surprise, it turned out to be the director. When I saw and heard what she had to say on the DVD, I realized my assessment of the writer was right on the nose. On the DVD, she was indeed the sick, twisted person I had envisioned writing such a disturbing film.

While the little girl, (Stephanie) Ryan Simpkins, truly stole the show... I can't believe that her real-life parents would have tolerated this sick, foul-mouthed, director to be anywhere near their daughter.

This movie is disturbing, sick, offensive, twisted and the director-writer needs some serious treatment in a mental facility.

As far as the ending of the movie goes... the alternate ending, should have been the outcome of this horrific ordeal. There was no point and no benefit to the film or the story or the flow of the film by the death of the other character. I'm stunned that any studio actually distributed the movie. The trailer was completely misleading. The only reason the movie got the audience it did was due to the clever wordsmithing and creative depiction on the trailer. That trailer is not representative of the movie you will see.

Other than the child... every character in this movie was a sick, murderous, twisted, perverse, violent sex freak and their characters are mirrored the mind of the writer-director who created them. But if you watch it carefully, even the parents of the vacationing family; the sick cops taking pot shots; the serial killers posing in alternate roles; cops in the station; and even the station dispatcher... every single one of these character roles incorporated a sexually, twisted, violent pervert. I'm not too sure about some of the actors after watching them talk about the filming of the movie and the Canadian town in the Special Features section of the DVD.

This writer-director has such a personal mental deviation that no matter what she writes, every character role contains those same carbon copy stamps. The only character which did not have these deviant tendencies was the child. Watch closely and you will see this in every character. Then listen to the director-writer talk on the DVD Special Features section and you will understand what I'm telling you about her mental state and psychological issues. She wouldn't be tolerated in too many decent homes if she were not from a Hollywood film making family.

Fortunately, Jennifer Chambers Lynch does not have much of a filmography... less than a handful of things. Since she carbon copies those disturbing traits in all of her character roles, I don't think we'll have to see many movies written or directed by her unless her dad, director David Lynch helps her out. I'd recommend staying away from any movie she is involved with... and I'm not too sure her dad's films would be any better.

Do yourself a favor. Avoid anything written or directed by Jennifer Chambers Lynch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was *good* relatively during the first parts of it.

We have a story, from 3 points of view. So let's find some clues and complete the story.

Oh wait...none of that stuff matters because the FBI guys are the bad guys! Though that was a great twist...it was almost a terrible twist. I immediately downgraded the film from a 7 maybe 8 to 3 based on the last 10-15 minutes of it.

Does anyone else not see why the twist is so bad? Yes, it's a good shock. But it is bad because it has absolutely nothing to do with the preceding hour and twenty minutes. There's no connection to the killers.

The killers are in about all of 5 minutes of this movie (as killers) and the two FBI agents are only in 15 minutes of the previous hour and twenty.

We get it...surveillance...Oh, the Killers are voyeurs. WHICH MAKES NO SENSE, because they were only described in limited terms as just being psychopaths. And the hour and twenty minutes of surveillance we are watching of the 3 stories goes out the window as everyone is dead in 5 minutes.

All of this makes the ending even more ridiculous. Oh, they killed a bunch of FBI agents in the beginning...what FBI agents sleep together? All in the same room. To be found and murdered by amateurs and then impersonated by people who know nothing about being FBI agents? A cop 3 feet away apparently can't hit either one with a standard police issue pistol that can shoot several shots. I hate movies that try to make you feel like this could be real when they make absurd leaps they think we will believe.

The other thing is the movie ends about 10-15 minutes after they are revealed as the killers with a girl standing in the field somewhere...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am not sure who recommended Surveillance to me, but I think I have an idea: one of the \"Fat Guys At the Movies.\" The person said they were astonished by how great it was and said it was one of the goriest\/disturbing movies. (I'm paraphrasing and doing this only by memory, so forgive me if I misquoted.) At any rate, I made the decision to watch it. So I take full blame for my own miscalculation in watching one of the most horrible, predictable and STUPID movies I've ever seen. Strange, I doubt I've ever called a movie \"stupid\" but that was the first word that came to mind about one-third in and stayed in my mind until the end.

Where to begin? Unbelievable premise and reactions, incredibly brain-dead characters (could blame the writing or the actors, or I'll just blame both) and enormously bad acting. I'd sooner believe Bill Pullman as President of the USA than a FBI agent here. (Of course, there's a reason for that, and I'll partially go into that.) And to top it off, if you can't figure the so-called shocking \"twist\" in the first 5 minutes, then you must have arrived late to the theatre or came into the room to watch it late. Don't worry, they'll tell you the \"twist\" every five minutes thereafter.

There's been some serial killer(s) on the loose in the most depressing town in the county, or world. But there's more to the story! Some dumbass and corrupt cops like to blow out tires for their own amusement. Could there possibly be more? Oh, yeah, there's a family, well maybe not, but there are four humans, one boy, one girl and an adult couple. The girl says she sees things with much less conviction than Cole sees dead people in The Sixth Sense. There's gotta be more to this than what I mentioned! That's what makes a movie interesting! Adding as many subplots that may\/may not be developed is the way to go! Okay, then I'll continue. We have goofy FBI agents that made me laugh. A pair of giggling druggies who's shocked at first their dealer OD's but then resorts to robbery. A gosh-tooting great-guy cop who must've been put in for comic relief who's always battling an angry\/suspicious cop. And finally, (poor, poor) Michael Ironside who didn't just phone his performance in, he barely text it in.

None of these work. They're all told in various forms of presence tense or flashbacks, and believe me, you'll lose all sense of caring after the first of many subplots begin. In addition, the reaction some of these characters are the most shocking of all. I guess I'm referring mostly to the cops, but mainly the girl who did or did not just lose her family and barely blinks.

This stupid, stupid movie stinks. It's barely gory as the person that recommended it said it was, unless his exposure has been limited to Goosebumps stories. And what's with the title? Surveillance? Oh, I get it; it's because it was used in 1\/50 subplots just to film interviews. Since that's so random, it might as well been called COP CAR, BULLET or COFFEE. Just stay away from this horrid mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a snuff movie. I'm shocked it is even considered to be in the IMDb library. And, Bill, Julia, and all other \"professional\" actors involved should be ashamed to be part of this sick flick. I thought I was going to view a somewhat classic horror film with a creative end that writers like to invent....that usually make no sense when writing a horror film, but as a viewer, we try to rationalize and understand. This ending was not creative. It was sick and has all the earmarks of a snuff movie. I am shocked it was edited to this ending, and more shocked that it will be out for distribution by the end of June 2009. It should not be shown in a theater. It is harmful to innocent minds on many levels....watch the movie, the ending, and you will understand this statement. Plus, included in the plot is a sweet little girl \"not yet 9\" her character says. She is not in the snuff ending, but she is an integral part of the movie. Why do directors feel they need to shock with a sick flick in order to get recognition? The director is in the wrong line of work if she thinks this is an art film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After a very scary, crude opening which gives you that creepy \"Chainsaw massacre\"-feeling, everything falls apart.

SPOILER ALERT: As soon as the two FBI-officers start jabbing, you know they are the real killers. Anyone who have seen enough of these \"fooled-ya\"-movies can figure this out.

This movie is mader with one thing in mind: To depict brutal murders. Why, then, is not the little girl tortured and murdered as well? Will this be next for us movie-goers? The torture and abuse of children? Whats wrong with you people? Lynch is truly has a disgusting, ugly mind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This P.of S. was highly recommended to me by two friends that have great

(similar to mine) taste in films and have seen more than anyone I know.

I have no idea what they saw in this movie. Sadistic,cruel and repulsive is fine in an entertaining movie,but this is a windbag effort trying to pass itself off as highbrow lowbrow movie making.Or is it lowbrow highbrow?

The ancient generation gap clich\u00e9 \"no redeeming social value\" comes to mind. Bill Pullman is trying,maybe a little to hard,and except for the kid the rest of the acting seems self-conscious and kinda lame.

Save yourself from this and watch a double feature of \"In Cold Blood\" and \"The Hitcher\".

As somebody said, this would never have been made if Jennifer Lynch was not the overrated David Lynch's daughter.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you find the depiction of violent murders and wanton police brutality expressed in a plot less film with glacial pacing entertaining, then you're bound to enjoy Surveillance. This film was garbage for both the mind and spirit. The notion that this is a \"thriller\" is comical; that would imply some kind of tension and twists. You kept waiting for the story to actually finish \"starting\". It never rises above a glorification of weak-minded violent criminals and individuals from all walks of life. Picture all of the violence of \"No Country for Old Men\" without any kind of chase or sympathetic characters. Thrill-killers run amok. The acting is good, mostly, but the script is a pile. Don't bother, and tell your friends to don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is a growing trend in the media to vilify and ridicule men. One sees it in television adverts and program plots. Cheaters is a prime example, they could find plenty of female cheaters yet the vast majority shown are men, why? The prime threat to any government's power resides in the male population, they're less likely to abide by authority and are more of a physical combat threat. A way to reduce the threat is to emasculate men in society via the media. Other examples of psychological propaganda are crime dramas full of self righteous cops including big-jawed aggressive women accusing everyone they question trampling their rights and making those men feel like scum. In Australia many top male sports stars have been arrested recently for dubious assaults and drinking charges, another example of the government controlling the male populous by arresting their heroes and asserting dominance. Cheaters, aside from the political machinations is an invasion of privacy and a violation of rights, furthermore most of these women assault the men! If it were round the other way the men would be in jail!! If it were an honest show they would be finding women cheaters, because they don't normally get caught due to the fact that their male lovers are quite happy to get in no strings attached and get out without rocking the boat. Men's mistresses want the men to themselves and want to own and control the men and thus get the men caught anyway.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not bothered by the sleazy hosts, nor am I bothered by the cynical, self-righteous stance the makers of this crap take.

What I AM bothered about is that the vast majority of the episodes are fake. I wouldn't even be surprised if ALL of the episodes were staged. Hence this isn't a reality show but something far worse even than Oprah: garbage television with zero comma zero appeal. Like daily TV soap opera but with more action and fighting and less plot.

The premise would have turned out great - if only it had been executed without cheating the viewer. If only this idea were free of all the legal complications\/trappings that would most certainly ensue due to what would happen with real people, and what is eventually aired. Hence the only way to create this \"\"\"reality show\"\"\" was to get some rather desperate actors and make them improvise (and what pitiful and unconvincing improvisation it is most of the time!). Shouldn't this be obvious to anyone who finished grade school? Most reviews I read here don't even mention that any of this is fake, let alone that all of it might be. Wishful thinking or just boundless naivety?

The actors hired in this pathetic show are the kind of bottom-of-the-barrel unemployed actors who are miserably waiting on tables, waiting eagerly for a call from a talk show (or this crap), which is when they finally get a chance to make several hundred bucks. I even recognized one actress (in the role of \"cheater\") that I saw years earlier in \"The Jerry Springer Show\". And I only saw 6-7 episodes of \"Cheaters\". How many more of these loser actors are there that appeared in Springer and \"Cheaters\" that I don't even know about?

However, to compare \"Cheaters\" with Springer isn't fair to the latter. The Springer show is not all fake; a bulk of the episodes are unstaged - hence often highly entertaining. There is no value to be found in \"Cheaters\", unless you're a struggling actor and want to get tips on how NOT to act in front of the camera.

The producers use various (very cheap, transparent) tricks to create the illusion of realness, to give their footage that elusive documentary feel. But it's all in vein. In the end, the more intelligent train-wreck-seeking viewer is left with absolutely squat. \"Professional wrestling\" has more credibility than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think cheaters needs to be off the air and end the reality show once and for all i don't care what anyone says you can attack me or agree with me but its times like this that the show is just spewing out propaganda and the host of Cheaters Joey Greco is a little bastard who wants to think that showing people on camera is effective and unawares no it just will show disgusting he is also the wiretapping and following of people by \"cheaters spy's\" is illegal and a federal offense we are living in a police state like the Soviet union and Nazi Germany rolled into one i am happy that there is poor reviews on this trash this needs to end soon or we are going to lose our liberties as a nation no wonder our country is going to hell its because of this and other filth shows i liked the older shows better from the 1950s-1980s i hope you all agree with me on that thank you infowarrior","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The show is at least partially Faked (So is not reality, just pretending to be reality), which makes me believe at least anyone without face blurred out is a Fake episode.

Proof in the episode where he pretends to be stabbed There is already camera crew on the boat, before he gets there, can been seen as his boat approaches.

The actors playing \"ambulance officers\" didn't remove his shirt or expose the wound in anyway so they work on it, which would never happen in reality.

They also parked the ambulance in the car park and did not drive up to the Emergency entrance (Which does not make any sense, unless its fake and they would not be allowed to go there)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First Off, I am a huge fan of Robert Blake, always have been.

This movie came on Movieplex last night 10\/13, and the title interested me & of course the star. But after watching it I was left more confused than I was before it started.... There are some good scenes, and I thought they would lead somewhere, but they didn't, it turned out to be an \"anti-cop\" \"anti-buddy\" \"anti-hippie\", pretty much \"anti-everything movie\", with an extremely confusing plot that also went nowhere.

Robert Blake is great as the lead, well as great as someone could be with this bad movie, I am still a huge fan of Mr. Blake and love his acting even in crap like this...But this drug induced 70's tripe, well... better stay away from this one...And, that ending, what a pisser.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I always wanted to see ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE for a very long time. I've always been intrigued by the title, the star and the desert but for some (now pretty clear) reason, this film is never shown on TV or I've happen to miss it if it's ever shown. Well, after watching the DVD, I now know why the movie is rarely shown: it's because it's not that good. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much of a mess.

ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE was made by a first time director and it shows. The film is mainly a series of vignettes with absolutely nothing holding it together. More like a collection of short movies haphazardly strung together. The movie can be boiled down to this: intro (murder); cop and girlfriend together; intro credits; cops going to work; crazy guy tells story; cop finds dead body; cop and chief and girlfriend at bar; chase scene; etc. The scenes just don't flow together. They're very distinctively independent from each other and because of this the characterization is weak, borderline amateurish. The scene at the bar with the girlfriend, the scene at the farm with the hippies, the scene with Big John and the Chief yelling at each other were cringe worthy. I almost stopped the film during those (awful) moments.

The film-maker's lack of experience is in evidence throughout the film. The style, like the 1970s, is all over the map. The intro credit scene makes the movie look like a commercial for law enforcement. Then it tries to be a buddy film (Big John and Zipper) then a murder mystery; then a melodramatic love story; etc. A film doesn't have to have one particular style in order to be successful but I'm afraid the style in ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE was confused. You can clearly see that the director had no idea what he was doing or where he was going with it.

The film is not a complete disaster. While the content of ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE is almost amateurish, the look of it is extremely (and deceptively) professional. The cinematography is stunning. Every frame is worthy of an exhibition at an art gallery. Or, because the first (and last) time director was involved in the music business, worthy of an album cover. The beautiful look of the film gives more credence to the finish product than it really deserves. And thanks to Robert Blake's acting (of a really badly written character), the film maintains a certain level of realism, even though nothing else makes much sense. What's remarkable about the look and composition of the film is that it's been copied and duplicated a million times over. The intro credits reminded me of something like TOP GUN, which was made 13 years later. Scenes of Johnny dressing up, with his clothes on the bed, reminded me of American Gigolo. Strangely enough, ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE has a very contemporary feel to it, due to the stunning visuals, even if the story and the philosophy behind it are hopelessly outdated.

So, ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE is, on one hand, a remarkably underrated and overlooked film because it obviously influenced a lot of future filmmakers out there when it comes to the look and composition. Very few films can claim to have achieved this and legendary cinematographer Conrad Hall should take full credit. But, on the other hand, EGIB is also deservedly forgotten because the poor characters, confusing story, and muddled direction, none of which are worth of remembering.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Electra Glide in Blue\" is a slow moving B-flick in which Blake plays a desert motorcycle cop who wants to be a homicide detective and becomes embroiled in a murder investigation. A mediocre film at best, \"EG in B\" features some members of the band Chicago, a whiff of action, some philosophizing, and lots and lots of boring dramatic filler. Not worth the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie a couple of weeks ago and must say: I was not impressed, not at all. I do side with the other posters when it comes to the fine performances, but some good performances do not make a good movie.

On the discussion board, I found a review by an anonymous poster that captured some of the main points. It says: \"'Deed Poll' is a movie that raises many questions but hardly answers even a few; a movie that is disturbing and above every attempt at categorizing; an experiment and a very conventional sexual drama despite some shocking scenes. The brilliant acting of Barbara Kowa and Andr\u00e9 Schneider, the partly very impressive editing and the good camera work (Steffen Ritter) make up for gross plot holes and some technical slips (especially in sound). However, the boredom the audiences have to deal with for 40 minutes remains.\" Unfortunately, this is true. I wasn't intrigued by the story at all. The protagonists are cold, ambition-less people. They do a lot of drugs and have a lot of (incestuous) sex. So what? For many times, the direction seemed to be virtually non-existent, not to mention the technical aspect: the poor sound quality was enormously disturbing.

What's the point of the movie? What's the message behind it all? The anonymous reviewer said: \"Somehow Biermann failed to make a clear point and so the movie remains hanging in mid-air without a message. Thus the boredom I blame on the movie. The movie is reserved and emotionless, cold, almost neutral and it doesn't take long to see the flaws: for long stretches the characters of Sean and Ivy are not credible (they clearly have difficulties with the English pronunciation), the character of the mute brother is not developed very well. Some moments are very promising though - in the scene where the call boy is skinned (the one and only true love scene) an intensity is reached that one would love to see the whole movie long. As a spectator one has to regret the chances given away.\" Again, I must agree. I did like the final scene, especially because of the beautifully captured faces of Gianni Meurer and Andr\u00e9 Schneider, but it was nothing compared to the boredom I had to suffer for the first thirty minutes. (The sex scenes, though, were aesthetically staged and perfectly edited.)

All in all, \"Deed Poll\" was not my cup of tea - a good, controversial idea wasted -, but it was a interesting to see how a movie can be made with practically no money. Maybe if they had a bigger budget and a more experienced director, this would have become a better movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"it's hard to make a negative statement here after all this raving about how great deed poll is, how wonderful the actors did and so on and so on. i did not like the film. it's crappy!

there are orgies, they have taboo sex (gay sex, bi sex, oral sex, rape, anal sex, masturbation, brother-sister-sex, brother-brother-sex, sex on drugs, sex without drugs, sex, sex, sex seems to rule their world. i guess the director is desperately in need of a getting laid.) the story is just dirty and shameful. i wonder what made those people get up with this story. and above all: who cares?

the technical stuff didn't satisfy me as well. the sound is poor, so is the editing and the \"direction\" is absent. the actors are admittedly fine, but guess what! it's their job! their job is to act! no need to jump off your seats if an actor did a decent job. do you applause when a bus driver brings you home safely? see?

i gave it 2\/10 because after all this thing had something that i can't put in words. b movie charm? camp fun? nudity? i don't know.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not even Emeril Lagasse cooking can save this disjointed, overheaded idiotic nonsense, starring emeril lagasse as a TV chef from the food channel,who with help of the crew to try to make the show better, poor plot and stupid script throw this show down the drain, Robert Urich wasted in the poorly supporting role and sadly this was his last one ever(R.I.P.),

This is the worst show of 2001 and it will be on the list of the worst shows of this decade.

I Feel Very Sorry for Emeril Lagasse for making this sitcom, he even said himself it stunk.

It's hard to believe that they are the same producers of designing women that did this mess.

TV Review: 1 Star","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know my summary sounds very harsh, but this film has very limited appeal. The average Joe out there would have a hard time sticking with this film. The entire film consists of animated loggers doing their jobs and dancing on floating logs. This is all done with very splashy and artsy colors and the film might be great to show to patrons in an art museum. However, unless you really love this sort of art or are a Canadian who loves films about your native land, then this is probably going to be next to impossible to finish. I have a rather high tolerance for this sort of thing and even I had to force myself to watch after a couple minutes. I can respect the work that went into it, but it's just not compelling.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We found this movie nearly impossible to watch. With such a super cast, it's a shame that the writing and direction were so awful. The excruciating pace at which the story was told was maddening. The flash-backs were clumsy. The characters were one-dimensional. The heavy-handed metaphors -- the river, the cat -- were repeated way too often.

The movie Nobody's Fool, based on another novel by Russo, was infinitely better, probably because it was more tightly written and directed.

The photography in Empire Falls was lovely. Too bad it wasn't a travelogue.

I read the novel and enjoyed the writing style but had some quibbles with the novel itself. I would give the novel 4 out of 5 stars. Perhaps the screenwriters and director were so awed by the novel's reputation they felt they had to include every darn thing in their movie. This was supposed to be a television movie, guys, not Books on Tape.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm relieved the later reviews have turned sour - reading all the positive feedback, I was starting to worry that my understanding of movies (and life) was completely different than everyone else's in the world. Everything in this movie rang false to me...the characters, the dialogue, the manipulative soundtrack, the corny narration, all of it. As each scene unfolded I kept thinking, \"People don't act like this.\" It's relentlessly heavy-handed and maudlin. In a way I think the movie bullies you into liking it, or pretending to like it, because it's Serious and about Real People and confronts Issues. But man, it really did not work for me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Put simply, this mini-series was terrible. Let me count the ways. 1. Absurd plotting. 2. Over-acting. 3. Scattershot approach to characters. 4. Annoying narration. 5. Inability to create viewer interest.

This film can't even pass the \"Soap Opera for Dummies\" test. I'm sorry I have not read this award-winning novel, so I am judging it only as a film, but it really stinks. Imagine going to a party where they show you dozens of appetizers. You look at the wide variety and want to taste them, but suddenly they are withdrawn, and you wonder where they went. That's like this film, with way too many characters introduced and never drawn out. There are enough stories and characters in this film to create a 20 episode series, yet we are given less than four hours to digest it all.

There are more facial expressions and reaction shots of Ed Harris than you'll find on 10,000 monkeys. The pace is extraordinarily slow.

Dennis Farina and Helen Hunt are so far over-the-top that their characters are not believable. Joanne Woodward's character is one-dimensional.

The persistent river metaphor becomes trite.

And, probably the most absurd part of the film--the cat. This evil and vengeful cat who follows the hero around to scratch him and his seat covers--well, come on now---it's not even good Stephen King!

Probably the most interesting character in the film, and one who is not drawn well, is John Voss, the disturbed boy whose final act of desperation accounts for the only plot device that works in this film.

Just about everyone in this film is unbelievable.

To sum up, there's little here to inspire. The drama is poor melodrama. It's just a terrible effort.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow. What can I say? I was born in 1960. I love bad TV movies. Love them. I get involved. The works. I want to get involved. I'm spending time watching the thing. I watched the emmys last night on TV. How in the infinite world was the Empire Falls (excellent name)TV movie up for any awards? It truly had wonderful talent. Of course. And they tried admirably. But how can ANYONE pretend that was an OK (tv for goodness sakes) screenplay? OK direction? You know, I wish everyone the best. Really. But I thought it was totally mind-bending that Hollywood was placing this very very bad film up for so many honors. Awards? For me it was sort of a wake-up call that Hollywood is such a small insular community. Being cynical is not really my thing. But wow. --xptyngi","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite the all-star cast, this attempt at epic fails. It comes across as a set of flat cartoon stereotypes strung together by an all too, too clever social commentary.

It's as if with every bit of dialogue and introduction to a new character the writer peeks out and says \"Isn't that clever? Am I not smart? Isn't that biting social commentary?\" And,sadly, the answer is always \"Ummmm...no.\" Wearying self-absorbing stuff that is more like soap opera (in the worst sense of the term) than a movie...and an obvious attempt at television immortality. Thankfully, it died young. Empire Falls falls flat.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Typically elaborately crafted HBO production with a first-rate cast, a rich small-town atmosphere and some nice narrative vignettes, graced by above average production values.

But, and that's a huge 'but', the various subplots, peopled with some likable, mostly annoying caricatures, are paper-thin and go and and on in dull stretches for over three long hours.

The often silly story veers uneasily between melodrama, without being entertaining enough, and personal drama, without being profound at all.

A shame, because some scenes really shine. Two or three, that is.

4 out of 10 grubby Paul Newmans","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everything that made the original so much fun seems to absent here. This is simply a \"run of the mill demons on the loose wrecking havoc\" slasher, but without the passion that graced the original.

There's nothing new in the story, in fact it seems like they ignore the first one altogether. Here, the demons run loose in a high security apartment building and, naturally, kill most of the residents in grisly fashion. The makeup effects actually seem less convincing here than the first time around. Although the actors weren't exactly brilliant in Demons, in Demons 2 they're actually a lot worse. You don't care about these characters, AT ALL. The plot is nonexistent, the music poor (apart from one Simon Boswell song), it's not scary in the least; it's just not that good.

Easily the worst film Dario Argento has been involved with and Lamberto Bava's also (Bava has a cameo in this film, not a very funny one).

Maybe 3 is too high a rating, but at least I could watch it all and didn't think of stopping midway. My advice; Stick to the original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When the word \"presents\" finds its way into a title, preceded by a famous name, the work is usually immediately dismissible. For some reason, people who are capable of creating good art don't seem to be able to see it in others. However, I've always been willing to give the second installment of the Demons trilogy a try. For one thing, the soundtracks are absolutely to die for. Most American directors would have sacrificed small animals to line up the kind of talent on the soundtrack of Demons 2. For another, well, two words: Asia Argento. (Of course, she was eleven when this film was made, and a number of years away from her seeming decision that she would style her acting after early Helen Mirren: steamy looks and little clothing.) As well, Lamberto Bava comes from one of Italy's finest dynasties in that odd horror sub genre known as Giallo (he's the son of Mario Bava, who may well have invented the genre in the sixties). And the original Demons is an absolute must-see for fans of eighties B-horror films. So how bad can this be, right? Well, bad. The demons continue their assault on Italian media, as the movie opens in a modern Italian high-rise where many people going about their lives have their televisions on in the background. They're all watching a kind of combination news report\/mater video of some investigative reporter types trying to get proof of the events of the first film (which would seem to put the time frame of this one no more than a few days after the first film). Through the usual horror-film extra inability to concentrate, the reporters manage to bring a demon back to life, and he comes through the TV screen to start the plague anew.

Yeah. It's that bad. About the only thing good one can say about the film is that the soundtrack (when you're not being buffeted about by the likes of The Smiths, The Cult, Gene Loves Jezebel, etc.) is stunning. It comes from the keyboard of Simon Boswell, who got his start as a part of the Argento Dynasty and has since gone on to score such films as Lord of Illusions and Hackers.

Makes a half-decent free rental if you're planning on drinking heavily, but it's certainly nowhere near the fun the original was. Cronenberg's wonderfully funny high-rise-nasty-creature romp, Shivers (aka They Came From Within), is a whole lot better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Please, why on Earth did Bava had to add insult to injury making this pathetic piece of follow up crap?

To begin with we, \"the viewers\" at home are treated to a narration from some unknown ding-bat informing us of the aftermath events of the previous episode indicating mankind's triumph over the demons, (yeah right).

I can tell you \"right now\" that this doesn't in anyway what-so-ever have anything to do with Demons as this is a completely new story with a different backdrop altogether. Bava as usual, makes a casual appearance that doesn't even seem to fit into the main context of the story at all. Acting in this one beyond appalling and the whole concept about the demons appearing through a TV set, Oh God I'm not going to go on. Go see for yourself.

As usual you'll be treated to laughable dubbing, crap scenarios that don't make any sense and above all un-answered questions. How typical of a sequel that dished out the first batch of crap.

Overall if you're one of those DVD Argentophile collector's, then maybe you'll wanna give this a go otherwise avoid like the plague, it's no way near the first, so you may wanna avoid like the plague.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(Spoilers more than likely... nothing really important you couldn't have figured out yourselves) Yeah, it's really weird. I rented it at a Blockbuster for the reason it had absolutely NO description of the movie on the back of the box, only a list of the bands that had songs in it. But after that, I had a dikens of a time finding it, even here on IMDB. I kept confusing it with \"Night of the Demons,\" but, you know, they're basically the same thing.

The parts I loved most about this movie was the whole thing in the garage. That black gym guy was hilarious the way he screamed ALL the time. Even when screaming wasn't really necessary, he'd let out a \"LISTEN UP NOW!! BLOCK THE DOOR WITH CARS!!!!\" and so, they'd run cars head on into other cars. But, then he got balls and shafted by a zombie with a broom stick I believe it was. The other part that kinda caught my attention was the part with the crash outside the building with the guys that they girl didn't want to come over... To what significant aspect of the movie did that give us? What was it? Why was it there? Why did the movie end with a guy breaking the TV's in a studio? I saw that there was a zombie running towards the screen, but he was kinda far away. I mean, he could have just turned the TV off. Yes, this movie was shot on a whim and yes, I hated it. Good day...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film SUCKS!! It looks like they just chose to place scenes together at random. Good gore, but little plot. Sally whines and complains about everything till she becomes a demon. I figured that she had PMS. It sure seemed that way. The dubbing in this film is horrible. One scene the woman was talking and a few seconds before we hear any audio. I knew at that moment my suspicions were correct that it was not from the US. I tried to follow along but got lost about half way through it and found it very hard to believe, even for a horror film. Some good characters, but not many. Not worth wasting one's time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The films use of blue-black and vibrant skin tones to create a noir-ish feel to this movie unfortunately do not work. In fact its quite irritating as it obscures the demon characters and reduces them to one dimensional beings.

At least the original had an hysterical energy and the gore set-pieces were quite stunning. Black gore is hardly frightening, nor is the main female demon at all frightening in her attempts to snarl and growl at the screen in her best camp Lugosi style.

The narrative is grossly disjointed and if you could imagine 'Naked Lunch' directed by Russ Meyer you may appreciate the attempt to be William Burroughs-esque. Otherwise give this film a wide girth. Bava and Argento fans - once again - are bitterly disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Saw this last night and being a fan of the first Demons, I had hoped that the sequel would have the same fun, spooky spirit of it's predecessor. This is unfortunately not the case. The set-up is similar as the first, in which a horde of flesh-eating demons burst forth into reality by being released from a horror movie being played... (The first had been a movie theater, this one takes place in an apartment building and on TV.) Once the demons are released, madness and mass carnage ensues. That's pretty much it as far as plot development goes. It worked nicely in the first part because of the ghoulish make-up FX, fast pace and unpredictability. The sequel, however, doesn't cut it. The first problem seems to be that there are way too many characters who we don't really care about one way or another. If they were annoying or idiots, then there would at least be some kind of gratification when they are inevitably butchered\/demonized\/eaten alive...but these people are just kind of there waiting to be slaughtered. Plus, the fact that most of the characters are in different parts of the apartment building (and out of it), they are constantly cutting back and forth between them, which kept pulling me out of the story. There are some amusing bits, courtesy of the splatter FX and campiness. Such as a constant flow of dripping blood eating through one floor's construction after another as if it were alien acid... The first demon possession of a crabby birthday girl leads to the destruction of her entire party, and a creepy demon child clawing his way into the room of a tenant who is pregnant with child. However, that sequence parlays into a ridiculous-looking rubber demon baby puppet thing that bursts from the chest of the human child that constantly flies across the room at its intended victim. I got a couple of chuckles out of that scene, but I don't think that was Bava's intention. The scene probably would've worked better if they just kept the child demon around to attack the woman, but hey... Other little things like the over-zealous acting of most of the characters and the bad dubbing don't help matters. In summation, I managed to see the unrated version on DVD, and can't imagine having to sit all the way through the previously only available R rated version, because the make-up FX and gore were the only thing I got out of it. Also notable is an early role of producer Argento's future hottie daughter, Asia. In fact, she probably gives the best performance of the whole cast and she's barely on screen. Argento\/Bava fan's might want to check it out just to see it, but will probably find themselves looking at their watch, like I did. Gore fans might get a kick out of some of the fx, but will be laughing themselves out of their chairs at the most goofy-looking evil baby puppet since Little Selwyn from Dead\/Alive. You could do worse, but it certainly doesn't live up to the original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everything about this movie was bad, the acting was bad and the plot was bad. And were is all the blood and gore that was in \"Demons\" which is a good movie and it was not scary at all. My Brother said that this movie was bad but I had to give it a chance since the first movie was very good. When the movie was over I understand why my brother thought this movie was bad. The only plus in this movie was the music by \"The Smiths\" and \"The Cult\", but this is a movie and the music soundtrack is not the most important thing. And I saw that it has been released four sequels after this film, I haven't seen none of them but can they be as awful as this one, I have no plans to see them but maybe I will see them some time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before I really slag this film off, I just want to say I absolutely loved it.

Firstly, how many times in the film did the characters use the phrase \"You're Right.\"? I'm sure i was counting in the hundreds before I gave up and started watching the film again.

Secondly, what the hell is with those blue monkey things? OK, so the Dansen family led very private lives and had one brown eye one blue eye, but since when does that transform people into subterranean carnivorous blue zombie-creatures?

and finally, 'Old faithful here will protect me' hahaha :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just finished up this unofficial adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's \"The Lurking Fear\" that was shot in Louisiana. Outside of a few changes (names, setting), this follows the short story point by point for the first 70 minutes but then tries to inject its own \"twist\" ending that you could see coming from a mile away. Either way, it is a much better adaptation than Full Moon's THE LURKING FEAR. Too bad it is a terrible film. Director David McCormick shoots the thing with all the flair of an industrial short. I swear I counted maybe two camera movements. The creature design is cheap (we're talking store bought masks here) but shot in a dark manner (intentional or not) where they are somewhat creepy. The most impressive thing in the picture is the abandoned mansion but McCormick fails to exploit that as well. File this one under good adaptation, poor execution.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is probably the worst film I have ever seen; it makes Plan 9 from Outer Space look wonderful. The acting is wooden, the plot silly and the SFX non-existent. The only good thing about it is the fact that it is not a long film. The scenery is sometimes quite pretty, assuming you like trees, if that helps any!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The girls might be prettier if you're their accompanist or a $#!+-faced onlooker. What I'm sayin' is that it'll take special circumstances for a non-whince reaction to this effort. The delivery of many lines appears to be distractingly unnatural for some actors. Lighting seems to be a problem, too, although failing eyesight may have accounted for my frequent squinting. And if you view this film, be open-minded enough to accept elements that no zoo or circus would reject: They are the above and below-ground creatures who feasted on dozens of campers near an empty Louisiana mansion. That's the discovery of a trio who is dispatched from their printed media to investigate the deaths. Then, two of THEM disappear, and the survivor is part of another threesome who take up the hunt. Eureka! I just realized what one of those aforementioned \"special circumstances\" would be - unconsciousness.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film before two weeks. It's kitsch, boring and totally unintelligible for people, that haven't read the original book. There are many fact mistakes too... actors plays rather poor, you must laugh even in the sad moments. It was a totally waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't really know why so many persons love this movie: maybe it's funny, OK, but it has totally ruined one of the best novels ever written. As the author himself said, this movie has betrayed the book: not only the story is violently cut to about 1\/3, but all the symbols, all the complexity, everything is lost in a very 80's-fashioned fantasy\/adventure film for kids. Today we have effects, directors, a new attention to books: I hope that someone (Tim Burton, Peter Jackson, Hayao Miyazaki...) someday will direct the REAL Neverending story. A great dead writer, a wonderful book and many literature lovers deserve it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Way back at the dawn of human civilization cavemen sat around and made lame jokes, hit each other over the heads with what ever they could grab, and women were never seen and apparently at one time had tails. These cavemen lived in a geographically diverse region with a cockatoo, a camel, a monkey - but no women. This film tells of the \"hilarious\" misadventures of seven(or so) cavemen - having burned their land with the new discovery of fire - moving on by water to a new land where they find this woman with the extra appendage. Along the way we get such \"great\" moments of comedy like a fat cavemen swallowing a frog that keeps croaking in his stomach. A monkey throwing rocks at their heads. A man swallowing a mouse to get the frog in his stomach. The obligatory \"gay\" caveman. The list could go on and on. This movie is the very definition of cinematic dreck. I was bored from the onset and it only got worse as the cavemen bobbled around hitting each other, making poor jokes such as puns on the word perch, hitting each other, and mauling poor Seta Berger who looks like she lost a bet to a producer to appear in this nonsense. She is indeed one of two bright spots in this film. She isn't much of an actress so you have to guess why she is an ass-et? The other \"bright\" spot is the music. As soon as I heard the score, I said to myself that it sounded very familiar. I had never heard the actual score but the music was unmistakably that of Ennio Morricone. It's a nice score and the best thing in an otherwise crude, boring, lewd, unimaginative, and ridiculous film essentially about a group of Moes finding a woman for the first time and, first wanting to eat her like some animal, being taught what she could do. Awwwwh! Sorry, I'm stifling a yawn as I relive the plot! The end of the film has some 100 or so mostly naked women on screen with all the erotic feel of pulling a scab off your knee. This movie was painful to sit through and offers nothing of any real merit whatsoever. The fact that it spawned a sequel doesn't surprise me as it offers that one thing which will prick viewer interest - tail.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I readily admit that I watch a lot of really bad movies. But there are very few that I can think of that are quite as bad as When Women Had Tails. It's a stinker of epic proportions. What should have been a sexy comedy about a group of cavemen discovering a woman for the first time is instead a dull, lifeless affair without a single laugh to be had. The comedy is extremely weak. I suppose if you think bashing someone in the head is funny, you might find a laugh or two. The guys in this movie make the Three Stooges look like high art. And there's just not enough of a plot to hold the thing together. It seems to drag on and on and on.

Well, you may be asking yourself, \"If it's as bad as you say, why haven't you rated it lower than a 3\/10?\" Good question! And I've got two answers. First, the movie is not without its curiosity value. I do find a bit of interest in an Italian spoof of movies like One Million Years B.C. with Raquel Welch. I'll give When Women Had Tails a point for its historic \"value\". The other two points are for the mere presence of Senta Berger. I know it's not much of an explanation or reasoning for a rating, but what are you going to do? It's the best I can come up with.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Is it possible for a movie to get any worse than this? There's a bunch of apes wandering about, mumbling b******, acting supposedly silly and we are supposed to laugh? There is no plot here to keep you going in the first place. Even when the women finally show up, there is no sign of improvement; the most expected things happen and by the time the film is over, you might be far asleep. Beware: this is not a trashy cult movie, this is trash -period! I can't believe there's even a sequel to this!

1","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yesterday I watched this tv production, and I was very disappointed.

I didn't have big expectations when it was a tv production, but the complete movie was pain with no ending. I felt it lasted for 3 hours, but it was just me who was bored to death. Every minute was a long struggle and I really fought hard to stay away from the \"turn off\"-switch.

The movie is about a doctor (Dr. Verghese) who gets a lot of AIDS-patients, and most of them die during the movie. It is hard for Verghese to live with, so his family gets punished with his frustrations. However this movie has problems showing both sides, it mostly focuses on his conversations with the patients, and sometimes we see flicks from his home, but we don't get much. The difficulties to show more than one part of Verghese's life doesn't get any better with the poor acting from Naveen Andrews, a man I (hopefully) can't see in any good future movies.

I believe it got 7,6 because of the subject (taboo?), but I'm sure that there are better movies about this subject on the market. Stay away from this movie, it does not deserve more than 3\/10.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dorothy Stratten is the only reason to watch this unfunny sci-fi spoof, and her appearance is a disappointment. Though she has the title role, her screentime is limited, and she only speaks a few lines of dialogue. If you're not a Stratten fan, pass this one up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... what a porn movie would look like if you took out the sex and just left in the bad dialog, cheap sets and bad acting, you would have Galaxina.

This film came out when the Original Star Wars proved there was a market for Science Fiction. This in turn lead to some gems such as Alien and a revitalized Star Trek. Unfortunately, it also led to some bad movies, and this was obviously one of them. (I say obviously, because I hadn't even heard of this film until a few days ago.I missed it when it came out in 1980.)

Here's the underlying problem. Dorothy Stratton couldn't act, so for most of the movie, they didn't even let her try. I understand her tragic death has given this film an undeserved cult status, but for the life of me I can't understand why.

Clearly, the movie tried to Spoof Star Wars, Star Trek and Aliens, but they clearly don't understand than when you spoof something, it has to be FUNNY! This movie wasn't, or at least, the comic timing on jokes that could have been funny weren't. Science Fiction is ripe for parody, as Spaceballs and Galaxy Quest proved. This movie, however, did it poorly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For connoisseurs of bad movies, Galaxina is a true gem. With truly horrid dialog, acting, and directing, it's no choice for people seeking a proper movie. But as one of the most unintentionally hilarious movies of its genre, it's priceless for a good laugh. In particular, the scenes involving the Harley Davidson-worshiping motorcycle cult are especially good, and many other scenes present an opportunity for a cheap laugh.

Sadly, the scenes with Dorothy Stratten really fail to deliver, but since she's playing an android, I suppose one can excuse her for wooden acting.

Bad movie-lovers, don't pass this one up!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This picture hit the movie screens on June 6th 1980, starring Stephen Macht as Sergeant Thor, Avery Schreiber as Captain Comelius Butt, J.D. Hinton as Buzz and starring Playmate of the year Dorothy Stratton. The picture starts with the police infinity roaming space looking for I guess criminals. There ship is suddenly attacked by an unknown space ship. Enters Sergeant Thor and his partner Buzz as they try to figure out who the unknown ship belongs to. When failing they call on Captain Comelius who instructs his crew to fight back. Enters the gorgeous Dorothy Stratton, who plays the role of Galaxina who is man made robot. An now a few thoughts on this picture. This movie was plan stupid and it's one of the reasons that I don't get into Sci-Fi. If you're into Sci-Fi you would have notice that the laser sound effects were borrowed from an early Sci-fi movie titled Battlestar Galactica which aired in theaters in 1978. Many of the door sounds that you hear in this movie came from another Sci-Fi movie that aired back in 1966 titled Star Trek. Now for the reason that I bought this movie, Dorothy Stratton. She is gorgeous in her one piece suit. I think her talents were wasted in this picture and she should have never been involved in such garbage. Connie Sellecca was also considered for the role and her talents would have been wasted also. On the picture alone I give this movie 1 weasel star and on Dorothy Stratton I give her 10 weasel stars even though she didn't deserve to be put into a trash movie like this. If you like pictures like this you can get the DVD version on Amazon.com","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have yet to watch STARCRASH (1979) - that notoriously cheesy Italian take on STAR WARS (1977) - but it can't be much worse than this misbegotten piece of junk which, suffice it to say, makes Mel Brooks' so-so SPACEBALLS (1987) look like a veritable work of art! In fact, the main reason why GALAXINA is remembered at all nowadays is because of the tragic fate which befell its leading lady - Playboy centerfold Dorothy Stratten who was killed by her insanely jealous estranged husband - before the film had even had its official premiere!

Although Statten (who subsequently had two biopics made about her wherein she was portrayed by Jamie Lee Curtis and Mariel Hemingway) plays the title role, for the first half of the film she is reduced to being propped up in a chair ostensibly driving a spaceship on a 27-year journey to some planet or other; in fact, Galaxina is an all-purpose android who also serves the wacky crew their snacks, gets them all hot under the collar and even goes scouting for the Blue Star (cue choral music) once they land! Having said that, Statten certainly looks luminous in her white attire and, even if her role hardly demands much exertion of any acting talent she might possess, it's not exactly demeaning either.

Still, it's ironic that for a film which bears her name, she is overshadowed by the campy and would-be zany antics of her fellow crew members, especially the annoying Captain Cornelius Butt (which gives you the idea of the level of comedy on display here), a long-eared, wing-sporting colored guy, a pot-smoking, proverb-quoting old Chinaman and, best of all (relatively speaking) a foul-mouthed, rock-eating, hairy alien creature they hold prisoner. The villain of the piece is a metal-clad non-entity who does, however, have the best laugh in the film when, upon hearing the choral music following his every mention of the Blue Star, exclaims, \"What is this s**t?\" There is little point in listing the sci-fi classics which are mauled by this stinker in its ludicrous attempts at spoofing the genre since they are not only lame but obvious; incredibly enough, a chest-busting but ultimately benign alien is apparently played by diminutive Hollywood veteran, Angelo Rossitto!

For what it's worth, then, the scenes shot on the planet they visit (which looks more like a Western set than a planetary landscape) have a yellowish, sun-like hue and its inhabitants are 'human gourmets' (delicacies on their menu include Skin and Tonic, Scotsman on the Rocks, Thigh Pies, Baked Alaskan, etc), not to mention a motorcycle gang who serve their own particular deity (the Harley Davidson) and when our heroes escape on the back of it, they dare not shoot at them for fear of hitting their \"Lord\". God(awful) indeed...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen worse films. This is bad but at least doesn't try to be good so it deserves a brief round of applause. It rest firmly in the realms of the low-budget B-movie sci-fi genre.

It is a rubbish film but in a nice way and is certainly worth buying if it's in the bargain bin at your local supermarket. Awfully charming rather than just plain awful.

The highlight for me is when Galaxina's lover goes to rescue her. Upon turning up she exclaims \"Bunnyfluff!\" which draws sniggers from his co-pilot.

Sit back, get drunk, enjoy!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not a movie snob. I've liked lots of movies that critics hate, and I've hated movies that critics love. However, I have to agree with critics here--\"Galaxina\" is just substandard. Clearly intended to be a comedy, it only has a few scattered laughs. \"Galaxina\" has poor photography; it has poor special effects; it has some pretty poor acting; and the production values...well, the sets might as well have been made of cardboard.

\"Galaxina\" tells the story of a spaceship whose crew is looking for a magical object called \"The Blue Star\". After a long voyage (and some very unconvincing space battles), the crew arrives at its destination, a sort of wild west alien world. There's a painfully unfunny cantina scene (clearly designed to be a spoof of the famous \"Star Wars\" scene), a chase involving space bikers, and a final getaway.

The cast tries, but can't breathe life into this turkey. Stephen Macht and Avery Schreiber have done better work in other movies. James David Hinton is pretty good as a member of the spaceship's crew. The late Dorothy Stratten stars as the robot of title, and while she looks great, her role doesn't give her much of a chance to act.

You might catch this film to see Dorothy Stratten. However, if you're looking for a good movie, you'll probably want to skip this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is not the worst movie I've ever seen. I did not feel like I wanted to remove my eyeballs forcibly after watching Galaxina. It just is not good. The jokes are almost funny, but fall short. All of them. The few gags that come close are beat back down by repeating them over and over. The production values are, well, non-existent. The sound is bad, the lighting is bad, ... it just seems cheaply made; overly so. The dialog ... well, often it is missing - many awkward silences; they are all just standing around, and it seems like someone should be saying something. The film even seems ambivalent about what it wants to be - it is not always clear that it was intended as a comedy - like maybe that developed after shooting started. It feels like someone's film project that they threw together the night before it was due, and if they had put two weeks into it, it could have been good.

And I'm easy to please. I thought \"Mom and Dad Save the World\" was a hoot. I like \"Pluto Nash\". \"Mystery Men\" is one of my favorite movies. \"Spaced Invaders\" is well nigh unto a classic. This turkey just doesn't do it. \"Space Truckers\" was more believable.

Avery Schreiber, who can be very funny, tries too hard. His part calls for a straightman, and he plays it leaning toward sitcom. Dorothy Stratten is OK in her role, but not particularly noteworthy.

Oh, yeah, the \"My watch is always slow.\" line was funny. I'll give this movie all the kudos it can get, it needs it.

The space vehicle models are not bad, but they are few and are not used effectively. The space scenes are vague. No sweeping passes, no close up detailed fly-bys, not even appropriate action scenes when they dock. (The Infinity does crash land very oddly at one point.) The flight dynamics are terrible; worse than anything you've seen, they're jerky, not smooth. The initial battle is stilted and static; even though the two ships have just shown that they can maneuver in their jerky fashion, they trade (slow) shots at close range in a manner that is more reminiscent of a 16th century sea battle, except not as exciting.

The aliens - imagine if all of Star Wars was the cantina scene. That many rubber masks could get dull rather rapidly, no? A few are used as sight gags that work OK the first time, but not the fifth.

Mercifully, if you attempt to watch Galaxina, you are likely to fall asleep. (I got busy doing something else and missed the last ten minutes, and did not feel like it was worth replaying it. If that doesn't say \"It sucked\", I don't know what does.) Sadly, there is a lot of potential, and this could easily have been a good movie. It would be easy to remake this and have a decent film.

MadKaugh","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The odd thing about Galaxina is not that it is supremely bad, although it is. The odd thing is that in spite of being supremely bad, it is not funny. Supremely bad movies have their own particular brand of unintended humor--the secret of their success, you might say. But Galaxina is quite uniquely different--it is MST3K's worst nightmare, a bad movie in which the intentional *and* the unintentional humor alike fall flat.

It is easy enough to figure out why the intentional jokes fail--and the reasons are quite varied. Sometimes it's a timing question; sometimes it's a good idea badly worked out (the human restaurant *could* have been hilarious, but it wasn't); sometimes it feels like there was some mixup in the cutting room, with the punchline ending up on the floor; and sometimes the jokes are just bad jokes. Bad movies get their laughs from such unintentional snafus. It's harder to figure out why Galaxina doesn't get any laughs on that count. Something is subtly wrong with the unintentional humor in this movie, just as something is wrong (not at all subtly) with the intentional humor. It is a supremely bad movie whose very badness is not the redeeming quality it usually is. It's absolutely unique in my experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If ever there was a film that can be considered a missed opportunity then that film is Galaxina. What could possibly be wrong in basing a sci-fi film around a sexy statuesque female android? Surely such a film could never be a complete waste of time? Well, sadly this movie is pretty close to useless. There are a number of faults with this production it has to be said, however, there are two basic problems that entirely destroy the whole enterprise. Firstly, this is a comedy with no funny bits at all, or at the very least a film where the potentially amusing aspects are presented in an incredibly unamusing way. Secondly, the title character is woefully underused. This may be because Dorothy Stratten was not really an actress but if so it was a terrible decision as she is still easily the best thing about the film. I don't think she really needed to be a great thespian to pull off the role of a sexy android to be perfectly honest. Anyway, what we are left with is a whole lot of mind-numbing comedy relief, which often is made up of hopeless spoof-type gags of the big sci-fi hits of the time such as Alien, Star Wars and 2001. It's badly written and not funny at all, and it doesn't even really have a plot to propel things along. The story basically is about a police space-cruiser that is sent to get a rock. That's it! Steven Spielberg once said that a high-concept movie was one whose plot line could be described in one sentence. What he didn't define was what you call a movie that can be described in less than a sentence - pointless maybe?

This seemed like a sure-fire winner to me but it failed miserably. It seems to have been an attempt to spoof Star Wars and combine it with adult comedy situations. All it does actually achieve is to leave you cold and a little irritated that it wasn't close to what it should've been. A Barbarella for the 80's this ain't.

Shortly after this film was finished Dorothy Stratten was murdered in an appallingly violent and horrific way. And for that reason Galaxina has derived a considerable amount of it's cult interest. I just think it's a great shame that Dorothy didn't have a better film left to immortalise her.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How can ANYBODY give this anything higher than a '1'?

I thought \"Manos, the Hands of Fate\" would forever be the worst movie ever to impinge itself upon my optic nerve. Indeed, I didn't think anything COULD be worse.

I was wrong. \"Galaxina\" is that rare movie where EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT of it is achingly, agonizingly, blindingly bad. How often have you watched a movie and commented, \"Who the hell LIT this thing?\" From lighting to soundtrack to effects to script to acting to cinematography to . . . well, EVERYTHING, this movie is absolutely unendurable. It's so bad, I couldn't even tell for some time if it was the worst comedy or the worst drama I'd ever seen.

It's too bad even to be laughable. I'd sooner eat a platefull of broken glass than sit through it again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am giving this movie Vampire Assassins a \"2\" rating mainly because it had no sex or nudity. Other than that, I am not sure why it was ever made. It was more like a training exercise in how to make a movie with a very limited budget. The characters Derek and Slovak were the best actors. They were followed closely by the \"biker-Dude\" with the Pleather pants and silver belt. He was OK too. Most of the movie was filmed in some kind of distribution warehouse. If you got tired of watching the kung-fu kick boxing stunts, you can check out the packages of Scott tissue, Windex and other cleaning products. You will have a lot of time to do this, trust me. I almost started to make a list. The dialogue and kung-fu stunts were extremely slow. They talked slow, fought slow, etc. I don't know why. At least with the extra-slow delivery of the actors lines, you could hear everything very distinctly. I am trying hard to find good stuff to say about this movie. We watched it all the way to the end to see if got any better, but it didn't. We never could decide if the actors really knew martial arts or were just acting like they knew martial arts. You can watch yourself and decide. My favorite line was something like (vampire speaking:) \"what are you looking at?\" other man responding: \"your bad dental work.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When the budget doesn't allow for a Cadillac or Packard or Lincoln or Imperial hearse we are talking cheep cheep. That's bird language for cheap cheap.

What is in the hair of the forty year old teen boy? The guy who looks like a cement head who tries a couple of times to run over John Agar and provides the only scare in the movie by how close he comes. His hair looks like a shoe. A patent leather shoe. He is a shoe head.

The nurse woman needs immediate emergency hair washing. She has lacquer in her blond locks that would ignite if the production company had been able to afford lights.

The monster? The music was scarier. I would try to run from the music. The monster probably had better hair than the rest of the cast. Put some lipstick on that monster and you've got Divine's older sister.

The camera work and editing and plot provided a buffer to prepare the audience for the bad music throughout.

Hello Mr. Agar? We're thinking of doing a sequel to Night Fright and... Mr. Agar? Agar? Tom Willett","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mixing small town sheriffs, high-school students, fake rock music, and some weirdo who kills for, well, no reason in particular, this film is essentially a re-make of \"The Giant Gila Monster\" - except without the gila monster, of course.

Now, anyone who has actually seen \"Giant Gila Monster\", knows that it is one of the worst made films of all time, frequently so slow, it's not even funny. And I can't believe that by 1967, \"Giant Gila Monster\" had earned such a reputation that young directors were just dying to get to work on a sequel, let alone a remake. So will someone please explain to me why this film was made?! The dance sequence, by the way, is historically interesting, although about three years out of date; but even that's spoiled, since it goes on... and on... and... on....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Imagine what it must have been like for John Agar. One of Hollywood's handsome leading men. Married to Shirley Temple for five years. He finds himself doing movies like this. I remember him in \"Tarantula\" where he wasn't half bad. Unfortunately, there is nothing to recommend this film. The monster is dumb uninteresting and incompetent. The police are boring. The teenagers are boring. The plot is stupid. People run around. There are events that do nothing to advance the plot. There's dancing that goes on and on, and then there is no attack. There is some idiotic love triangle that no one could care the least about. It isn't even campy or outrageous. It's just no worth anything. Agar might as well have been a post. He's given nothing to do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is one adjective that describes everything about this film - acting, plot, effects, continuity, etc. - and that word is poor. The government wants to asses the effects of space travel on certain organisms but the capsule crashes and a mutant something-or-other (looks like a guy in an ape suit with the top of a football helmet over his face) wreaks havoc around the accident scene, which includes a favorite place for the window-fogging, partying set. Therefore, some young people - as well as a law enforcement officer - are among the creature's victims. You gotta be extremely unparticular about how you spend your time - or rich, if you spend any money - to view this epic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This one isn't even lively enough to be fun. Something is out there, ripping people off (off-screen) after a spaceship crash (off-screen) while government executives investigates (off-screen) and bad actors says stupid lines (on-screen), including a guy who looks like Jim Carrey with a hangover. The \"monster\", when it finally is shown, looks like an extra from \"Robot Monster\", but there ain't enough monster fu anyway.

Fortunately, it's pretty short. Skip it, unless you want to get bored out of your skull by this","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a fan of bad horror films of the 1950s and 60s--films so ridiculous and silly that they are good for a laugh. So, because of this it's natural that I'd choose this film--especially because with John Agar in it, it was practically guaranteed to be bad. Sadly, while it was a bad film, it was the worst type of bad film--dull beyond belief and unfunny. At least with stupid and over-the-top bad films, you can laugh at the atrocious monsters and terrible direction and acting. Here, you never really see that much of the monster (mostly due to the darkness of the print) and the acting, while bad, is more low energy bad...listless and dull.

The film begins with some young adults going to Satan's Hollow to neck. Well, considering the name of the place, it's not surprising when they are later found chewed to pieces! Duh...don't go necking at Satan's Hollow!! Well, there are reports of some sort of crashing object from the sky, so what do the teens go? Yep, throw a dance party--a very, very, very slow dance party where the kids almost dance in slow motion. So it's up to the Sheriff (Agar) and his men to ensure that the teens can dance in peace without fear of mastication.

As for the monster, it's some guy in a gorilla suit with a silly mask--a bit like the monster in ROBOT MONSTER. Not exactly original and not exactly high tech. To make it worse, it makes snorting noises and moves very, very slowly--so slow that even the most corpulent teen could easily outrun it! How it manages to kill repeatedly is beyond me.

Overall, too dull to like--even if you are a fan of lousy cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay it is terribly, and I mean terribly, easy to pick apart this film. C'mmon what do you expect with the title, synopsis, and actors in leads such as Carol Gilley, Ralph Baker Jr., Dorothy Davis, Bill Thurman, and, my personal favourite, Roger Ready. Yes, B star John Agar is here as a sheriff out to rid the Texan landscape of a robot-like ape from a NASA experiment gone awry. The movie has dreadful performances, dreadful scenery, dreadful special effects, and dreadful lighting. I really cannot find much good to say about it other than as bad films go you could do a lot worse as far as finding something dreadful to sit through. It is bearably short and has many moments of unintended humor. Missed cues, lighting faux pas, off-screen terror, an unbelievably inane score, and of course John Agar trying his level best to be the core of the film with an earnest performance amidst this muck. The beginning is the hardest part to sit through as it seems like it takes forever for these two teens to get their comeuppance for traveling in the woods down the Texas back roads where great ape soon will reek his vengeance in his own terrible way...Yeah right! Night Fright! Bah!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What? - that was it? The town sheriff (John Agar) blows up the mutant gorilla with a stick of dynamite hidden in a mannequin? Did I just write that? Did I just see that?

With instrumentals by The Wildcats, \"Night Fright\" is one flick that never deserved to be made as late as 1967. The heyday of the gorilla was well over, and anyone other than Ray Corrigan in an ape suit is just asking for trouble. Remake this in black and white and set the story about thirty years earlier and you'd have at least a 4.0 rating on the IMDb. But sadly, this one never should have stood a chance of seeing the light of day. Oops, there's another quirk - you can never tell if it's day or night in the story, since they seem interchangeable with one another.

I'll give you this though, a couple of the early malt shop scenes looked like they could have gone on the air as Coke commercials. Thinking about it now, those were probably the best looking and best lit scenes of the picture; Coca Cola must have paid for them. Had they seen the completed movie, they might have been better served to prevent it's release.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was painfully awful. Most of the movie consisted of people running in the woods, walking thru the woods, or dancing in the woods. More than half, at least. Then two kids who discover two 'horribly mutilated bodies' in the woods, return to the woods the very next night for a romantic walk. ????? There is no time continuity. its day, its night, its day, its really really night, its dusk, its pitch black, its day. All the woods scenes go on like this until you think you will lose your mind. really bad. The sheriff discovers a five foot claw print embedded in the dirt of the woods and theorizes that a super large alligator may have learned to walk upright. Really a silly movie with no real motivation written in for the characters. Might be entertaining for young kids, as an alternative to really graphic stuff.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This cheap and rubbish film is about a NASA test rocket that is sent into space with a cargo of animals. It vanishes for a while then unexpectedly returns, crash landing in a forest, unleashing a vicious mutant creature.

Like many films of this type, Night Fright, features dumb teenagers boogieing on down to 60's surf music before being killed. None of the murders, however, are even remotely memorable, as we don't really see anything. One thing we do see, however, is that one of the teenagers appears to be about 40 years old and sports a quite impressively silly haircut.

For a creature feature to work, it really has to present its monster to the viewer properly. In this film, however, we only get the briefest glimpses of the monster. It seems to sort of resemble the alien from Robot Monster. But I'm not sure; as the photography was so dark I simply couldn't make out what the hell was going on a lot of the time. Although, my gut feeling was that I probably wasn't missing very much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When a rocket from a government experiment on the effects of cosmic rays on animals crashes in a small Texas town, people start to die. The county sheriff tries to investigate but is hampered in his efforts by other government officials. It turns out that there is a mutant space gorilla on the loose killing teenagers in the woods.

I like low budget science fiction and horror movies. I like monster movies. So I thought that there would be a good chance that I would like this movie. Sadly, I didn't.

I don't mind the bad acting, the corny dialog, the atrocious musical score or the giant plot holes that this movie has. There are a lot of movies that have the same problems that I have seen and enjoyed in a so bad it's good kind of way.

But where others of that type and Night Fright differ is that Night Fright just has terrible pacing. And it drags on because of that. There are scenes that just go on and on without anything happening-the searching the woods for clues is just people walking in the forest for a long time; there are several seemingly endless dancing teens at a party in the woods...but nothing interesting is going on. If these scenes were shorter, the movie might not have been as boring (though I don't think simply cutting those scenes would save this one).

I have now given this movie three viewings to make sure that I gave it a chance before slamming it in this review. Sadly, it has gotten worse with each watch. There won't be a fourth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"A Texas community is beset with a rash of mysterious killings involving some of the students from the local college. The sheriff investigating the death discovers the startling identity of the killer responsible for the murders. A NASA experiment involving cosmic rays has mutated an ape and turned it into an unstoppable killing machine with a thirst for blood,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Or, could the creature really be a mutated alligator returning from a space-bound \"Noah's Ark\"?

A long opening, with laughably straight 1960s couple Ralph Baker Jr. (as Chris) and Dorothy Davis (as Judy), suggests \"Night Fright\" might be a joyously bad movie; but, don't get your hopes up. After some innocent cavorting, the attractive collegiates discover another couple has encountered a monster; naturally, the creature is hell-bent on terrorizing young romantics. Sheriff John Agar (as Clint Crawford) isn't trusted by the younger set; but, he really wants to help.

Mr. Agar was a friend of my aunt; he spoke about very few movies, and this wasn't one of them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, When I bought this flick I though this gotta be the ultimate b-movie, space monkey landing to the Earth and starts right away to kill people!

Well, It was almost everything what I expected, typical low-budget scifi movie from the 60's. Acting has to be the worst I've ever seen, especially the girl playing the lead role and the girl that played the waitress made me laughing my ass off.

So why 'Night Fright' doesn't fall in to category 'so bad that it's good'? Reason why is that some of the scenes were just too long and boring. For example the scene were the police officers are searching clues in the woods it was just minutes of walking without purpose. And then the grand finale, the people's waiting for the monster about 5 minutes and when the space monkey appears it get wack'd in 20 second, end of film.

Yeah, 'Night Fright' is boring, but it got couple of funny moments. I can recommend this movie to all who liked films like 'Zontar, the Thing from Venus' or 'Curse of the Swamp Creature'.

I give 'Night Fright' 4 Space Monkey slaps out of 10..

-Rob Gruesome-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rivalry between brothers leads to main story line. Navy Commander Chuck Prescott(Marshall Thompson)has developed the Y12 aircraft to test how far man can go up in the atmosphere. His brother, Lt. Dan Prescott(Bill Edwards), seems to be the best test pilot around and is chosen to go up in the Y12. Dan of course has a problem with taking orders and is also an over confident dare devil.

On Dan's second flight, he hits over the 300 miles up comfort zone and his craft passes through a meteor dust storm. Returning to earth, Dan becomes a monster that resembles 200 pounds of bad asphalt. He also has a demanding craving for blood, whether it be from farm animals or fellow human beings.

Short runtime of an hour and seventeen minutes; black & white with near stoic acting...typical of low budget sci-fi.

Rounding out the cast is Marla Landi, Robert Ayers and Carl Jaffe. Noteworthy trivia: about two months after this film was released; the Russians put the real first man in space.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lame rip-off of THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT (1955): the first half is deadly dull, even dreary - but the latter stages improve considerably with the scenes involving the rampaging 'monster'. In the accompanying featurette (a rather dry affair at a mere 9 minutes, when compared to the ones created for the other titles in Criterion's \"Monsters & Madmen\" set), director Day - who admits to not being a fan of the sci-fi genre - tries to justify the film's shortcomings by saying that he had a zero-budget to work with (where all the outer space scenes were composed of stock footage!)...and I'd have been inclined to be more lenient with the film had I not recently watched CALTIKI, THE IMMORTAL MONSTER (1959) - a similar (and similarly threadbare) but far more stylish venture from Italy!

Bill Edwards as the cocky but unlucky astronaut - obsessed with achieving the titular feat - is positively boring at first, but he eventually manages to garner audience sympathy when his physical features are deformed and the character develops a taste for blood! Marshall Thompson as his commanding officer and elder brother is O.K. as a leaner Glenn Ford type; he had previously starred in FIEND WITHOUT A FACE (1958), another (and more successful) Richard Gordon-produced sci-fi which, incidentally, is also available on DVD through Criterion. Italian starlet Marla Landi, struggling with the English language, makes for an inadequate female lead; even her input in the featurette proves to be of little lasting value!

The Audio Commentary is yet another enjoyable Tom Weaver\/Richard Gordon track where, among many things, the fact that FIRST MAN INTO SPACE was intended as a double-feature with CORRIDORS OF BLOOD (1958) is brought up - but it was eventually put out as a standalone release, so as to exploit the topical news value of the current space race; it's also mentioned that the monster dialogue was actually dubbed by Bonar Colleano (who, tragically, died in a traffic accident prior to the film's release!). Weaver even recalls a couple of anecdotes from the time when he was involved in the production of the DVD featurette shot by, of all people, ex-cult-ish film-maker Norman J. Warren: Landi, who by then had become a lady of title, was still ready to help out in carrying the equipment necessary to film the interview down several flights of stairs!; Edwards was supposed to have contributed to the featurette but, once in London, he proved reluctant to co-operate with Weaver - eventually, the latter learned that the actor had been recently diagnosed with cancer and, in fact, he died in 2002!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sheltered young woman, home-schooled and possibly quite gifted, harbors a disturbed, overly-emotional side which comes to the surface after her absentee father pays her mother a visit, asking for a divorce. Directed by celebrated cinematographer William A. Fraker, this ill-titled psychological thriller falls into the trap that most films helmed by directors of photography find themselves in: each shot is composed for the utmost style, but at the sacrifice of fluid pacing and a tight, gripping narrative. Fraker (and his cinematographer, L\u00e1szl\u00f3 Kov\u00e1cs) are very fond of gauzy whites and golden tones, giving the picture a burnished, tableaux feel. The mansion at the center of the action looks like a funeral parlor, and Fraker paces the wheezing yarn just like a funeral. Robert Shaw and Sally Kellerman (as Shaw's fianc\u00e9e), two of the most interesting actors of the 1970s, manage to cut through the plastic overlay and are quite compelling despite the jagged editing (which turns their scenes into little bits of half-realized business). Sondra Locke, another interesting screen personality, seems cast for her resemblance to Catherine Deneuve in \"Repulsion\". Pale and saucer-eyed, with imposingly thick and long hair, Locke is a curious human puzzle, and she's initially quite intimidating and dangerous; however, this role is so old-hat that Locke can find nothing fresh to bring out of the deep freeze, and she flounders. Fraker allows Locke's freak-out scenes to go on and on, while Shaw (looking terrifically debonair) is put in the impossible position of playing touchy-feely daddy to her. All of this nonsense might be worth slogging through if the screenplay had been peppered with a modicum of tangibility (or, at the very least, some dry wit or humorous relief). As it is, Lewis John Carlino and Edward Hume's limp script, adapted from Stanton Forbes' novel \"Go To Thy Deathbed\", strands the viewer early on, and only the charisma of the players gets us to the finish line. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First I must confess that A Separate Peace is my favorite book. So of course, I have some bias against any attempt at adapting it for a feature film or television movie. But as I began to watch this film, I was more than willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. The original version from the early 1970s, though shot at Phillips Exeter Academy where the book's author attended school, and though it stayed as faithful as it could to the book, lacked any real depth of feeling and failed to capture the essence of the characters. The original seemed to simply go through the motions. Reading the trivia about the movie, you discover that it was cast mostly with non-actors. Thus, the original has an amateurish feel to it and it ultimately fails.

This new version, though I will grant that it captures the look of the period better than the original, seems to have thrown the book out all together. Scenes are rearranged, characters imposed where they don't belong, characters created that were not in the book, and no attempt was made to delve into the deeper conflicts that make the book so compelling. And the cardinal sin of all: the tree is not treated as the vital, almost central character it is in the book. This is an inexcusable oversight on the part of the film makers. How could they downplay the role of the tree? Why was it not introduced immediately? Why the Dead Poet-esque beginning? And what in God's name was up with Gene's accent? This film is, to be blunt, garbage. A Separate Peace should not be a difficult book to adapt for the stage or screen. John Knowles wrote it in a perfectly fine, linear style. The film makers should have trusted the story as it was already written; make changes, sure; embellish here and there, sure; take some mild dramatic license, sure. But destroy one of the pearls of American literature in the process? What were they thinking? In their corruption of the story line, they cut any possibility of suspense or drama. The whole movie falls flat and fails miserably.

If you are a high school or college student assigned to read this book and you are thinking of skimping and just watching the movie...don't even think about it. This film will be of no help to you.

Alas, we shall have to wait even longer before a version of this story comes to the screen that truly does it justice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this DVD on sale and bought it without a second thought, despite not even having known it was out since this is one of my favorite books of all time. As soon as I got home I raced to watch it only to find myself utterly disappointed. While it is true that this film is somewhat based on the book, the similarities end there. The characters are changed (ie Finny seems more a pompous jerk than anything else whereas Gene seems to be somewhat of a hillbilly), scenes are misplaced or altogether changed (ie. Lepper), many characters are missing and famous lines\/thought are missing. The movie does attempt to portray some feeling that the previous one lacked but it is done in a lackluster way that makes for a flat boring movie. It is the depth of character and feeling that makes the book such a classic and this movie takes those things and utterly destroys them in its rewriting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"John Knowles modern masterpiece, A Separate Peace, are one of many subtle, and subtly is the watch word, themes of love, hate, jealously, denial and regret. The 1972 version does attempt to address this style and what the book is - A love story with war looming in the background.

The 2004 version does not use subtly at all but overtness in the portrayal of the story. What is staring you in the face when you read the novel - is a love story, and yes maybe it is arguable, a gay love story. In the novel and 1972 film version there are sexual undertones everywhere in the writings and dialog.In the 2004 Showtime film version these tensions were omitted and the actors were in there late twenties playing teenagers which caused for mature acting taking away from any tenderness or hesitation of innocence in youth.

I did not like this remake for more reasons. The hair that broke the camels' back was that Phineas was given a surname on the letters he received from the draft boards! Finny is a character that does not have nor needs a last name. John Knowles did that intentionally.

Though I accept the 1972 version the acting was at times a little amateurish, so what, it attempted to be sincere to the novel by shooting on location at Phillips Exeter Academy that The Devon Acedemy was based on; which also the writer John Knowles attended as a student.

The directors and producers took all teenage Exeter students, with exception of Parker Stevenson whom attended The Brooks School, to play in a Paramount Film! Class act by preppies compared to this Canadian College shot, played with adult actors, politically correct, platonic version. No - Veto on this sham try again. The 1972 film version with John Heyl and Parker Stevenson was the real deal for A Separate Peace on the screen. The Showtime 2004 film made for cable version was not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was not very well directed. they almost totally disregarded the book.I guess they were trying 2 save time. the only upside 2 me was that the actor who played finny was cute. Some of the dialog between the main characters appeared a little gay which was not the case in the book. Major parts of the book were once again chopped out.You lost the over all effect it was not as haunting as the book and left me lacking severely. Also the strong language although it was brief was very unnecessary. Also i was surprised ( not pleasantly) by a new character that was no where in the book.One of my favorite characters (leper) was poorly interpreted and portrayed. He seemed more sinister in the movie than the real leper was in the book. Over all disappointing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this film courtesy of Netflix, thinking I would receive the 1972 version. I sat clueless, watching this new version, thinking: Gee, the production values were spectacular! I was convinced the soundtrack had a slightly 70s' sound to it. I was even more convinced that this was a 70s film when it occurred to me (almost every five seconds) that the one thing that was missing between Gene and Finney was an intense hug, a loaded stare, a passionate kiss.

I'm sorry, although John Knowles himself has indicated that this was not a homosexual relationship, it is painfully obvious that yes, that's exactly what it was. When people (usually adolescents) of the same sex have \"intense\" friendships, it means that those longings for love, togetherness, the desire to express oneself sexually, are all spilling over. These boys needed to connect, but they were never allowed to.

Also, despite a spirited performance by Toby Moore, I never felt any of the emotions were real. I never connected to either of the boys, for the very reason their relationship was not truly honest.

People want to live in a fantasy and think that because this took place in the 1940s that these boys couldn't have had these sexual feelings for each other. But I say they did -- at least in the book they did, and in this movie, Finney had them, almost painfully, for Gene. The \"intensity\" that John Knowles suggests existed between them was a closet homosexuality, a hero worship, an idolatry -- that would, under normal circumstances, be expressed in a sexual way. Even if these boys were repressing it, it should have been crystal clear, but this movie doesn't even really hint at it.

Lastly, there is an unbelievably bizarre moment when Finney, who has broken his leg, is playfully jumped on by all the other boys during a ball game. Unless they were just a bunch of nincompoops, they would know they could not possibly throw their bodies against him. Obviously this bone-shattering moment was lost on both the director and the producer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really don't know if this was supposed to be science fiction or horror. It was confusing to say the least. What really upset me, however, was the lack of story development between the characters.

The Sheriff's (Bruce Boxleitner) 17-year-old daughter (Clara Bryant) is stuck with him for the summer, and they don't spend 30 seconds on screen together at any one time.

The hot Native American (Jennifer Lee Wiggins) apparently has the hots for the Sheriff, but they don't spend any time together either.

The hot secretary (Kristen Honey) ends up dead and she had more acting ability than the other two put together.

The bad developer vs. the Native Americans is an overused story, but I personally like evil developers getting theirs as I live in Florida.

The only reason I stayed with this was the creature. It was original. I have never seen anything like it and I am a sucker for new creatures.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In Sweet Water, the ambitious entrepreneur Dick Krantz (Jim Storm) is constructing a resort in the middle of the desert under the protest of the Katonahs. When three workers find some Indian relics and bones in a ditch in the site, they accidentally release the giant skeleton like creature known as Bone Eater and their bones are devoured by the monster. The half-breed Sheriff Steve Evans (Bruce Boxleitner) a.k.a. Running Wolf is in charge of the investigation of the disappearance of the workers, being pressed by Krantz to arrest the protesters. But the Bone Eater attacks and kills other locals, while Chief Storm Cloud (Michael Horse) seeks an ancient Tomahawk capable of destroying the evil creature.

\"Bone Eater\" is a lame and silly movie, with one of the most ridiculous screenplay I have ever seen. The characters and situation are not well-developed and things happen without any further consequences. The conclusion is probably the worse part in this flick, with the typical white North American Bruce Boxleitner dressed like an Indian (in the story, his grandfather was an Indian), cutting his own wrist (why? And where is the blood later?) and clumsily throwing the axe in the chest of the Bone Eater, destroying the monster and my last hope of any improvement in the story. My last question: if the Bone Eater eats bones, what happens to the flesh and clothes of his victims? My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): \"O Devorador de Ossos\" (\"The Bone Eater\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"....OK, small-town, clueless sheriff? Check. Sheriff's hot daughter? Check? Ne'er-do-well boyfriend of sheriff's hot daughter, whom sheriff hates? Check. Corporate land developer who greedily puts profit over people? Check. Developer's rank-and-file accidentally unleashing a primordial monster, then being pressured to cover it up? Check. Natives warning of mass death and destruction if things are not returned back to the way they were? Check. Amateurish CGI special effects that could have been produced by a Commodore 64 computer? Check. Seriously, virtually all the clich\u00e9s of your typical Sci-Fi Original movie have been lumped into a classic, so-bad-it's-good movie. The only one that's missing is the scientist\/expert trying to impart his knowledge; there is a paleontologist with three students who get ambushed my The Bone Eater fairly early in the movie, but they are basically extras in the movie. And I can honestly say that I predicted virtually all of this; right down to who survives and who doesn't (though I have to say I got the actual death time of one of the characters wrong by about an hour). I swear I could have done this movie myself if they gave me all the characters. Despite all this, the movie is fun to watch, if for no other reason than to play MST3K with your friends. If you're up for some mindless fun, it's a great movie to watch, which is why I give this movie a surprisingly respectable 4, even though for all intents and purposes it deserves a much, much lower rating. But then again you wouldn't tune in to a SciFi Original movie if you were looking for a movie with an actual plot, substantive characters or good special effects, would you?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bone Eater is set in a small desert town in Alabama where property developer Dick Krantz (Jim Storm) is financing the building of a huge resort. Late one night three of his workers Riley (Timothy Starks), Hansen (Adrian Alvarado) & Miller (Paul Rae) are digging foundations in the desert when they unearth what looks like a tomahawk axe, unfortunately for them an ancient Native American demon called the bone eater comes along & kills them. Local Sheriff Steve Evans (Bruce Boxleitner) soon has Krantz breathing down his neck as the construction of his resort grinds to a halt, Sheriff Evans also has to deal with the bone eater demon as it kills anyone it comes across...

You know I consider myself a fairly big fan of the horror & sci-fi genre, I certainly don't think my opinion is worth more than anyone else's (unlike many here on the IMDb...) but please believe me when I say that Bone Eater is the worst Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' I have ever seen & it's up against some damned strong competition. As a horror & sci-fi fan there are two names that when involved with a film send shudders down my spine in anticipation of how bad it will turn out, those names are Jesus 'I have no talent' Franco who had nothing to do with Bone Eater & Jim Wynorski who directed the absolute disaster that is Bone Eater. In fact Bone Eater is so bad Wynorski hid under the pseudonym Bob Robertson, when a director as bad as Wynorski hides under a pseudonym you know the film must be bad. Where do I even start? Bone Eater is quite simply the worst film I have seen this year & is so bad it's untrue, the story is awful, the script is sloppy (at one point Sheriff Evans tells Kia to meet him at the hospital but when they meet there later he acts surprised & says 'what are you doing here?', at one point Sheriff Evans triumphantly claims that we are in the twentieth century & that ancient Native American demons are nonsense although actually we are in the twenty first century now, there's a part when a woman tells in flashback the story where three men awaken the Bone Eater & it kills them but since it killed all three of them how did anyone else know about it for it to be passed down in legend?) & at times it gets more than a little bit embarrassing. The character's are horrible clich\u00e9s, the small town Sheriff who saves the day, his daughter becomes involved which adds some personal motivation & as for the Native Americans there's an old wise man, a young hot head who hates 'white man' & a young woman who is the voice of reason between the two who have names like Storm Cloud & Black Hawk. The film is as boring as hell, nothing happens, the story is awful, it's full of plot holes & lapses in any sort of logic, the set-pieces are terrible, there's no horror or gore or suspense or mystery & Bone Eater is just the sort of film that makes you lose the will to live.

Bone Eater has some of the worst CGI computer effects I've seen in a while, from the daft looking stiff moving bone eater creature itself which is just a selection of bones magically held together to a motorbike jumping a large gap to an awful CGI truck crashing over the edge of a cliff to a van being tossed to one side by the bone eater. Whenever the bone eater needs to get some speed up he causes a large horse to form from the sand & dust & rides it! In principal this is actually quite a neat idea but it looks awful & the scenes even have cheesy cowboy music on the soundtrack! There is one pointless scene at the end when Sheriff Evans cuts his own arm (why?) & it bleeds but apart from that there isn't a single drop of blood in the thing, whenever the bone eater kills someone they usually just disappear in a cloud of dust, boring. The hilariously goofy climatic showdown between Sheriff Evans & the bone eater has to be seen to be believed, Sheriff Evans goes native on horseback complete with tribal war paint on his face while the bone eater also rides his dust horse & they have a sort of jousting contest which is just to bad to describe properly.

With a supposed budget of about $700,000 Bone Eater is filmed in a very bland, forgettable & flat way, there's no sense of style here at all. The majority of the film takes place in bright sunlight & if you watch it on a decent telly then the desert scenery is quite nice on occasion. There are several veteran 'known' actors really slumming it here, Boxleitner plays exactly the same role as in the similarly themed but much better 'Creature Feature' Snakehead Terror (2004), William Katt will obviously put his name to any crap as long as he gets paid while ex Star Trek man Walter Koenig must be really desperate to agree to appear in this.

Bone Eater is a truly atrocious 'Creature Feature', there's really not much more you can say about it other than to steer well clear of it. The worst film ever to appear on the Sci-Fi Channel & that's saying something, isn't it?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, thats that i felt after i completed watching this movie. The acting is below-average and the special effects are horrible. In fact, the worst i have ever seen. It is a very low budget movie. There is no way this movie will can scare you, it has no creepy or scary moments. Mr. bone eater was more of a funny creature for me. It could have been much better but oh well they didn't had a big budget. The movie fails to convince you that you are watching a horror movie, lol. I would name this movie The Time Eater (waster). I am sure you would have a lot of better movies\/etc to watch. Still watch it if: 1. you have nothing else to watch. 2. you get to watch it for free. Not worth renting at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With the exception of the fine rack on Clara Evans...this show was pretty bad...so why did I watch it? Too much coffee, and had to relax before hitting the sack. Watching BB change into his lamest Big Chief outfit, was amusing at best, downright laughable at worst.

I could have made a better Skeltor and special effects on my Dell.

Boxlietner has seen better days, this guy is a year younger than me, and he's looking more and more like the Scarecrow from his TV series days back in the early 1980....the women eye candy need to go back to acting school, although Evans size 40 and playing a 17 year old(she's in her early 20s was a stretch)....the Sci-Fi Channel has done better that this...but for us folks that don't get out to the bars much anymore, I guess we have to take what we can get...after all anything that gets you away form CNN, MSNBC, and Fox coverage of Election 2008 these day is a good thing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now before I tell you the synopsis this is a non-spoiler review. Bone Eater hits its mark for being the worst movie of the year. I don't know how these movies even get onto DVD. If I saw this in theaters I would get extremely upset. Bone Eater is about these people who dig up an ancient burial ground and find some bones. It's the 'Bone eater' and the more bones he eats the more powerful he gets.

First of all I thought okay well the DVD artwork looks creepy and it sounds creepy. When I rented it and looked at the DVD label it looked scary. But then when I played it in I could agree on one thing- the title 'Bone Eater' is better than the movie itself. Tell me what's more stupid? A bone eater that just attacks by throwing a bone ate you and you disappear? Don't worry that's not a spoiler you see that happen in the first 5 minutes. Or is it more stupid that 'Bone Eater' has a horse? You know what I think is the stupidest? The whole movie.

The CGI is awful. Yeah I thought the idea of 'Bone eater' was creepy but once you see the actual thing you think this is some kind of action movie or just a cruel, mean joke. The film felt longer than Titanic and this was half an hour. Once the film actually has its moments of suspense it just stops. I admit the acting was not the best but actually decent and that the violence wasn't over-the-top but everything else is a stinker.

Overall Bone eater is a film you can skip. If you like interesting movies with great creatures, great CGI, and suspense 'Bone Eater' is a film to skip. If you like bad movies no matter how cheesy they are then 'Bone Eater' will satisfy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another Indian legend you never heard of before is let loose. As the name implies, this is a vengeful wraith who likes to absorb the skeletons of people while they're still using them. As usual, ancient burial grounds (can you say, \"Poltergeist?\") have been disturbed by clich\u00e9d greedy land developers building stuff.

The CGI, if it had been better, might have made the effect more treacherous looking, but they skimped on the budget, and it shows--to comical effect. The unleashed creature probably should have been kept off stage during its first several killings-that might have added some mystery or impending doom atmosphere-but the inept director decided to show us in the first five minutes what it looks like, and it wasn't impressive. The deaths are just poorly done, again with shoddy CGI. I guess ancient spirits always kill by using cheap special effects. As for the \"victims,\" they look they're going to laugh any moment while they do goofy screams. It's always obvious who's going to get it: a character with only a few lines shows up, strange noises are heard, CGI dots fly, exit character. Repeat (several times).

Still, there's a few chase scenes featuring the monster that actually made this thing watchable. Unfortunately, the director seems to be using these as a device to fall back on (so it's used too often) when he can't think of anything else for his characters to do. Overall, it's pretty silly, but I've seen worse. This flick is cheap, but it's oddly fun to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All I can do is laugh. Wow. I like Jim Wynorski's movies, I really do. I mean, Chopping Mall is a classic. But this, what happened to this guy? He used to make funny horror movies, that tried to be good. But this was hardly even funny...I mean, I guess it was, because I laughed. The villain is incredible. I mean, horrible CGI. It looks...terrible. And the movie has no gore, and no nudity as redeeming qualities. It is rated PG-13. A movie named \"Bone Eater\" you know won't be a blockbuster movie, you know it probably won't have a smart script. A movie like this may rely on gore...but no. It doesn't rely on anything really, it's just...crap. Check it out if you want to laugh, though. But don't expect a good movie. I hope Jim Wynorski goes back to movies like Chopping Mall and Ghoulies IV, because this and Komodo Vs. Cobra ain't cutting it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"well I'd probably agree with all the bad comments about this movie cos honestly i thought it was such a piece of crap i mean the actors had done a terrible acting job and the script was all terrible. Although the special effects wasn't a bit bad but i think the should have thought a lot harder than that. I mean how did Clara Bryant get successfully put into this film i mean she'd do a lot better if she looked a bit further and that goes the same with Kristen honey, i mean her character dies and she doesn't bother to try and defend herself i mean it's gotta be a total joke. She should at least do a lot better than what she an do like become a soldier or more of a heroine or something along the lines of bravery. But the point is the actors did a complete soulless lousy job and so did the director and the writer who made this film. they should've went into film school to think up some better ideas and i hope everyone agrees with my methods cos they are probably thinking the same thing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad, bad, and did I mention bad? Aside from the comical monster terrorizing the workers the funniest part of the movie was when surveyors are in the desert and one comments that they have an hour of daylight left, but you can clearly see by their shadows, and the bright sky, that it's probably only 2 or 2:30 in the afternoon. Talk about consistency. READ THE SCRIPT director!

The only cool part of this movie, besides the rack on Clara Bryant of course (as another reviewer mentioned), is the phantom skeleton horse that the Bone Eater rides on. That thing was pretty cool as it chased the surveyors on their motorcycles.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Construction workers disrupt the Native American burial ground of a large, hulking skeletal monster which disintegrates it's victims with it's touch, breath, or bone sword! The head honcho over the resort project, Krantz(Jim Storm)orders his construction crew to keep their skeletal findings secret for much would halt the continuing development if the nearby Katona tribe caught wind that remains were being dug up and disturbed. An aging Bruce Boxleitner, likable as always, stars as half-breed Sheriff Evans trying to keep peace between the Katonas and Krantz's crew. The peace was strained, at best, but with that skeletal monster running rampant making it's victims vanish without a trace, soon Krantz wants answers to why members of his crew are missing..Evans begins losing citizens as well. Evans is warned by Katona Chief Storm Cloud(Michael Horse)that an ancient demon, the Bone Eater, has been loosened and can only be stopped with a sacred war axe(..the axe was removed by a worker who found it's remains with the weapon lunged inside)now in the back seat of his daughter Kelly's(Clara Bryant, who wears tight jeans and shirts to reveal how daddy's girl has grown into quite a striking lady)boyfriend's truck. Evans must somehow defeat the demon if the killing will stop..and this must occur before the Eclipse or it's power will become too strong for anyone to vanquish.

A solid cast, floundering in an embarrassing horror outing. The CGI, isn't very good, although the monster could've been quite threatening if done with a better budget. It rides a horse made from dust chasing after it's prey, for Petesake! Some cameo appearances include BUCK ROGERS Gil Gerard as Evan's deputy Big Jim, STAR TREK's Walter Koenig as a coroner, & HOUSE's William Katt, as a Country Doctor attending to the wounds of Evan's deputy. None of these cameos last longer than one minute or so..sad, really. Adoni Maropis, impresses in an underwritten role as a brooding Katona, Johnny Black Hawk, who wishes to use the Bone Eater to drive the white man off his tribe's land. Jennifer Lee Wiggins portrays Kaya, a tasty dish of a Katona female whose against Black Hawk's hatred for the white man and wishes for Evans to follow his Indian blood regarding putting an end to the Bone Eating monster. This might be worth sitting through if just to see Boxleitner dressed in war paint and Indian garb. I felt for the actor, to be honest, as Bruce tries to keep a straight-face in such a terrible movie. In yet another over-worked and tiresome clich\u00e9, Bruce's sheriff has an estranged relationship with his daughter, whose 17, hot, and wanting to date the \"bad boy\"..although this winds up being an underwritten sub-plot as is most of the plot concerning the killing skeleton and many of the poorly developed characters.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I agree with all the comments posted so far: This movie was a waste of time and energy, for viewers as well as those who made it. Terrible CGI, awful script, stupid plot and hey, the setting is Alabama but it looks like California. But the worst thing has got to be the Native American angle on this, which pulls in every stereotype you can think of, from the chief surrounded by smoke, the angry warrior, people speaking without using contractions (\"Do not do this thing!\"), Native American pipes playing in thin air, etc. It just shows such a lack of respect and understanding that I was tearing out my hair. A Native American with any ounce of self-respect would have tossed their TV out the window at this trash. So in closing, I'd say this movie is pretty much an offense to everyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While trying to build a major mall or complex or something like that, a wealthy landowner ignores ancient Native American artifacts buried on the land, and unleashes the Bone Eater...a creature who goes around and kills people in search of his fallen friends or something like that.

Indeed this movie had to be a Sci-Fi Channel original. If it wasn't, then the director should never direct anything again. The effects in the film is laughable at best, and the Bone Eater monster is nothing but a CGI-animated being added into the frames at a later date. The actors don't even look all that frightened when they see the thing (probably because they really don't, and they're just terrible actors). It's a great comedy, though, even if it's supposed to be pure horror.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As other posters have commented this was a very very bad movie (keeping it kid friendly) FX was low class, they should of spent the $1 on a coke. As is typical with these D movies most victims die and leave a mystery except for one lucky soul and of course the lead. Hope the money was worth it for Boxleitner, really really big step down from Babylon 5. Nice to see what happened to Buck Rogers but damn this was low even for him. ' It was so bad and on the older actors you could even seem to tell that they thought it was bad also. Don't Watch.

*****Warning Spoiler Below****

This thing chased down everyone it was after and yet Boxlietner got away... that was pure BS. And the ending? How in the hell did the kids end up right there with him? That was just too much stupidity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A great cast, a fantastic CGI monster and a brilliant script. If this film had had any of those things then it might not have been amongst the worst films I've ever wasted an hour and a half on. Infinite chimpanzees with infinite typewriters have not yet written the complete works of Shakespeare but along the way this has appeared in their waste-paper bin and somehow it got made into a movie. You can tell the the actors regret signing those contracts with every word they mutter directly into camera. The CGI is amateurish in the extreme and they might have created more tension of the cast had been attacked with the Sinclair Spectrum it was created on. I wanted to like this film, it has nice cameo appearances by Gil Gerard and Walter Koenig so I expected a fun horror movie that didn't take itself too seriously. It actually does try to take itself seriously but is about as much fun as trip to the dentist. Do yourself a favour. Don't watch this movie, you'll only encourage them to make more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you're like me and you occasionally enjoy watching terrible movies (I guess it's kind of like slowing down at a car crash), you can't do better than this! The plot is inane, the special effects are hilarious and the acting is some of the worst you'll ever see! 4 THUMBS DOWN! WOOOHOOOOOOOO!!! Seriously, I have no idea how the director and the \"actors\" can sleep at night! It's painful, and yet hysterically funny, to watch and I highly recommend it for those who want to punish themselves for something. If you can watch this crap without wincing, you're a better man than I'll ever be! I wonder if the producer of this garbage had any idea what he was getting himself (and his money) into!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I used to think that it couldn't get worse that \"Army of the Dead\" but this load of crap makes the afore mentioned movie look like \"The Godfather\"!! The special effects are HORRIBLE (Makes the original Nintendo graphics look like HDTV). When it comes the acting, put it this way, I went to a play with my 6 year old niece in it and she gave an Oscar worthy performance, when compared to these D-List (and that's being kind about it) actors and actresses. So basically, if I had a gun to my head and head to chose between watching this movie again or chopping my own arm off with a dull knife, that's a tough choice!! You know what, who needs two arms anyways??","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was beyond awful, it was a pimple on the a*s of the movie industry. I know that every movie can't be a hit or for that matter even average, but the responsible parties that got together for this epic dud, should have been able to see that they had a ticking time bomb on their hands. I can't help but think that the cast would get together in between scenes and console each other for being in such a massive heap of dung. I can hear it now, \"You getting' paid?\" \"Nope, you?\" I understand that this flick was more than likely made on a shoe string budget but even with that taken into account, it still could've been better. You wait for the appearance of a monster\/creature and when you finally see it, it's a big yawn.I'm so mad at myself for spending a 1.07 on this stinker!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I knew five minutes after the monster made his appearance where his was going. But when I saw the beginning credits, I said \"oh my god, Bruce Boxlightner, Walter Koenig (from Star Trek). Gil Gerard (from Buck Rogers, and he's almost unrecognizable), then I saw John Callahan who used to star on my favorite Soap, All My Childen. Put on a few pounds but he can still act. Then there was Veronica Hamill. too bad I didn't sick around to see her in the film. I bailed out 20 minutes into he film. It was THAT bad. Never did see William Katt (from Perry Mason, and The Greates American Hero).

All these stars and one lousy film. I hope hey got their paycheck.

Bad Bad Bad","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sorry, after watching the credits, I thought this would at least be a decent homage to retiring SF actors.

Boy was I wrong.

The direction and story telling in this POS are terrible. I have never been so insulted by a production.

I have great respect and love for many of the actors in this \"film\" but have to say they were conned.

If you haven't seen this debacle yet, do yourself a favor and stay away. These are not only two hours you won't get back, but they will also ruin your respect for some actors you may once have enjoyed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sci-Fi channel thinks this IS Sci-Fi; it's a shame. Big Bugs, Snakes, Mythical Beasties, on and on, they persist.

Some one at Universal had the brains to include BattleStar Galactica (the new, good one) and Firefly for a brief moment in their line up. I know they know they difference between total garbage and extremely high quality sci-fi.

A few years back they were on about how they were going all high and mighty, making productions that were not just for us mere, lame-o Trekkies. Thanks so much, Sci-Fi! You know, you make movies so bad, even Trekkies won't watch them, so you achieved your goal! Fire Serpent, Ice Spiders, Manticore, Larva etc.and a vast unrelenting crap-storm later, and they're still churning out just faster than the latest flu virus! How they do it is beyond my ken. Why they do it, I just don't know. How they can ignore these reviews, comments, blogs and e-mails, I don't know either, but it's clear they don't think much of their audience or care about our opinions! They seem to think this is what sci-fi fans want! You would think one or two good productions with some sense would creep through when whoever green lights this junk is on vacation. At least they're employing the collection of Misfit Toys; many of the sci-fi movie of the week actors were in Science Fiction shows once and now need the cash. Love you folks, and hope you get some better work!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought i could see something good but... I am tired after seeing this movie, i don't know what i hated the most: the script, the acting, the FX or the music. Try to picture the worst Power Rangers episode and would still be to kind. I've seen better FX in FPS Games( The touch with the bone sword or his breath that is making the people disappear in a green smoke is touch of genius) and the music seems to come from a spaghetti western. I did liked how the women in the car was screaming, when the \"monster\" was walking around the car (even if she's looking in the wrong way). So give your self a break and don't watch this thing, at least call somebody up to see a horror movie with you, trust me you will end up playing monopoly for some kicks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not really sure where to begin. From start to finish, bad, stinky bad, like stepping into a port-a-john on a 100 degree day. If you force yourself to watch this as I did, keep some Vicodin handy for the pain. I will never understand how flicks this bad make it past the cutting room without the entire reel ending up on the floor. The movie is a cross between Gumby rides Pokey, meets the terminator, meets Wally Beaver playing cowboys and Indians without the cowboys. I've seen better animation in the original cut of the Blob. You will get more entertainment from watching Gone with the Wind while suffering from the puke and poops. Bad acting and hokey lines will have you squirming and wishing you had rented Peewee's big Top or watched every episode of Gilligan's Island back to back. UGH..I'm going to go slit my wrist now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the plot of this movie revolves around this submarine builder who's a real bastard and he wants to launch his new sub that can travel thousands of feet deep. unfortunately, he can't. oh yeah, and he's haunted by the memories of his mom and dad getting eaten by a megalodon when he was a child. the guy meets some scientist whos pretty hot, and they and this crew of about a hundred people set out on the main character's submarine to kill the same megalodon that killed his parents.now, the shark in this movie is a really fake looking CGI shark. basically this is sorta like Shark Attack 3, except more depressing. if you don't get what i mean, listen. the film's opening credits show \"home movies\" of the main character when he was a child with his parents before they got killed, and there's really sad and depressing piano music playing in the background. you would expect to see a shark or something, and you do. a brief shadow of the CGI shark floats around every few seconds but that's just it. also, i don't remember one happy facial expression at all throughout the film's entire runtime, a majority of the film takes place in the dark depths of the abyss, where the story gets even more dull, and all the characters (the shark too) die in the end. I was thinking Sabato would manage to kill the shark and manage to save himself and the girl, but no, they all die, and the film ends with the shark, all blown up, and the submarine (with Sabato's crushed and burned body in it) sinking into the abyss. if you're a happy person and you don't enjoy being depressed, then avoid this movie. if you're the opposite, then congratulations, you found your movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At last, a film to rival 'El Padrino' and 'Darkness Falls' in terms of sheer and utter dullness. This is actually the first film I've ever given 1 out of 10 for on IMDb, and with good reason.

For one, the cast is nothing special. That's usually not a problem for me except that the only character that's in anyways interesting or different from all the rest is Grand L. Bush's Harrington. Secondly, the production values a substandard - television sci-fi such as 'Stargate' has more convincing sets, and all of the underwater scenes NOT handled by the SFX teams are filmed on dry sets with 'falling particles' that aren't very convincing. This film is literally 'drydocked'. The worst part though is that this film is BORING. For the first 45 minutes, I felt as if we were going round and round in circles: \"It's a prehistoric shark.\" \"Bullsh*t.\" \"No really.\" \"Bullsh*t.\" \"I'm not making this up.\" \"Bullsh*t.\" \"There it is now!\" \"I didn't see anything.\" \"Let me guess?\" \"Yup. Bullsh*t.\" After then it picks up ever so slightly for about twenty minutes or so. Then we're back to the dialog run-around. Dialog is not a bad thing, but that's all this film has. Characters talking. That too, is not a bad thing, except this film isn't very good at it. The dialog is often contrived and clich\u00e9d, and is not very interesting to listen to. I don't see any point slandering the special effects; this film has worse qualities.

The sets are small and unrealistic. The acting is sub-par. The script - oh Lord, the script - is worse than a garbage of sci-fi television has to dredge up. It makes you wonder where the budget of this film is or was.

Yet another awful, awful addition to the 'Megaloadon' (there's about four) series of films. Bring on Steve Alten, please...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was enticed into watching Shark Hunter by the comments posted on IMDB. The movie was bad but the shark was cool blah blah blah. So I rented it. Bad idea. This movie was bad on so many levels that I'm glad that I had the option to fast forward. The shark itself is ok. It's appearance is decent and it is the only thing saving this movie from getting a 1, (I gave it a 2). The acting is incredibly bad and the dialogue is just as deplorable. I wasn't expecting much but I was continually surprised by this suckfest. Antonio Sabato Jr. is some kind of biologist or scientist or something, I wasn't really paying attention. He goes down with the expendable crew of this submarine to find out what happened to this underwater station that the shark took out of course. By the way, all the scenes that show someone working underwater are not underwater. First of all, if they are just going down to find out what happened to this station, what's with all the huge tranquilizer darts and the harpoons and stuff. Are these things that you normally carry with you when investigating a accident. The shark theory was advanced by Antonio while on the way so it not like they went in knowing what they were up against. Antonio and this young college student, horrible actress by the way, just jump to the controls of the sub when the sub is in trouble. What is with that? Unless everyone is getting some kind of sub training before leaving high school I find this a little silly. The director seems to think that if crew members are working in the background then it is a good idea to put someone welding in the background. Metal crafting is very important when your on a sub I guess. Anyway I could go on but I've said too much already. Bottom Line: Go to your local video store, rent this video and then destroy it. Then send email asking IMDB to remove all record of this movie from their site. All memory and evidence of this movie must be destroyed. We can do it if we work together.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hey what a great idea to open a film - show someone`s home movie . Drama schools must be full of idiots ! , there they are taking drama lessons hoping to become the next big thing in Hollywood when all you have to do is send a home movie to a studio . Hey I think I`ll send in the video of my wedding and call it THE GREATEST ROMANCE EVER SEEN or send in a tape of my honeymoon and call it THE GREATEST SEX EVER SEEN . Oh hold on I`m not married and I`ve never been on honeymoon ! Not to worry I`ll send in a video of someone elses wedding\/honeymoon

!!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!!

You`d think with an opening like that SHARK HUNTER could only improve wouldn`t you ? As shocking as it may seem the home movie is the best directed , best written and best acted part of the film , alas it`s all downhill from here as the family go to sea ( In reality a fog shrouded swimming pool ) in a three foot yacht where mom and dad get eaten by a CGI fin and their son Spencer swears revenge against the fin . Cut forward to the present day and the French are using an underwater research base for oil exploration . Only thing is - And it`s so obvious you can`t fail to notice this - it`s not filmed underwater !!! , the director hasn`t made any attempt whatsoever to even use the unconvincing technique of shooting the scene through a fish tank . The underwater research base is blown up by the shark ( Maybe it`s hired by Greenpeace ? ) killing everyone inside and Spencer now a grown man is hired to hunt down the shark that killed his parents and a bunch of Frenchmen . What else happens ? No idea because I decided to watch something else

No hard feelings if any of the cast and crew are reading this and I do hope Matt Codd becomes a big fish in Hollywood . You think you know about sharks Matt ? You ain`t seen nothing yet","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"a really awful movie about a 30 meters long shark. bad story bad discussions bad characters bad plot even a confusing ending a complete. a waist of time in my point of view I thought it was a TV movie, but then I saw it was not I cant imagine having paid to see this load of crap please avoid this movie at any cost. even if u liked jaws, which I averagely did, don't see it even if you have interests in paleontology, don't see it even if you like corny movies with corny actors, corny plots during corny TV time, do humanity a favor and do not, I repeat, DO NOT pollute your mind with this ridiculous excuse for a sci-fi animal thriller still, some people gave it a ten ranting... don't know if they were serious or not (but sincerely expect they weren't)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is one of the worst movies ever There is a scene where they are supposed to be underwater and they are literally walking on land and they added bubbles! The shark is boring and is just this big slow computer generated silly thing. Antonio Sabato is horrible, I mean even worse than normal. How does this guy work? The directing is the worst and there is nothing redeemable in the entire films. I love shark movies and this one just disappoints. I've seen this studios movies before and everything they do has some star on their way down doing bad work. I'd rather see an unknown actor who cares about making a good story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this could have been good,but sadly,its too inplausible,anthony sabato jr has a grudge...PLEASE!I wanted to like it,love shark movies ,someone should have asked my opinion before they wrote this.ha!ha! the shark is cool but the story lacks...alot!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now out of all the shark movies I've seen, this one takes the cake! The plot of the movie was good, but the excitement factor sort of took a nosedive afterwards. Antonio Sobato, Jr. does an excellent role as a son who seeks the shark who killed his father. A megaldon is one of the biggest sharks of all and the most dangerous one as well. The view of the shark was indeed scary in some angles, but the effects were a blur, and the scenes were a little weak in some places. With the mini-sub's weapons there, that would take out a whole school of sharks there. It was great that the son would get the exact revenge on that monstrosity, although it would indeed cost him his life as well. Like they say revenge has it's price, but was it worth it? That answer could go on and on, and this movie was a major letdown. The beginning was fine, and at the end, it went like the Titanic. 1 OUT OF 5 STARS!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The recent release of \"Mad Dog Morgan\" on Troma DVD is disappointing.This appears to be a censored print for television viewing. Some of the more violent scenes have been edited and portions of the colorful language have been removed. Anyone who viewed the film uncut will be mad as hell at this toxic DVD version. \"Mad Dog Morgan\" deserves to be released on DVD in the original theatrical cut. However, even as released on DVD, the film is still one of the better depictions of bushranger life in nineteenth century Australia. After having toured the Old Melbourne Gaol, with death masks of convicts on display, it is \"Mad Dog Morgan\" that comes to mind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is not a shred of historical accuracy, in fact reality is reversed. Just one example: Morgan preyed on the few ethnic Chinese he encountered. The acting is over the top, the script is a poorly written lie. I have never seen worse fake beards.

Hopper arrived in Australia and reportedly only would make the film if the script was totally rewritten so he could be a hero. Since the script was ten made up on the fly, the may explain how bad it is and how disjointed the movie is.

Any movie about Ned Kelly is a lot better than this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the mid 1800s, Irishman Dennis Hopper (as Daniel Morgan) emigrates to Australia, seeking a share of the continent's gold. Instead, Mr. Hopper finds himself branded, and thrown in a torturous prison; there, he is gang-raped. Upon release, Hopper hooks up with aborigine David Gulpilil (as Billy), with whom he seeks revenge upon sadistic Bill Hunter (as Sergeant Smith), Jack Thompson (as Detective Mainwaring), and others. Eventually, vengeance becomes heroism; Hopper is admired and assisted by the common people, and hunted by corrupt and powerful authorities. Hopper's \"scarcely human\" performance certainly fits the disjointed feel of the film. Mr. Gulpilil heads up a strong supporting cast. The personnel involved in \"Mad Dog Morgan\" make it not only worth a look, but also a huge disappointment.

*** Mad Dog Morgan (1976) Philippe Mora ~ Dennis Hopper, David Gulpilil, Bill Hunter","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Similar story line, done many times before, and this was no improvement.

15 minutes into this, and you should pretty much be able to turn it off - the ending was deja vu all over again.

The only morals I could see out of this are: - stupidity + criminals do not equal success - if he screwed you before, he's gonna do it again","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Have you ever read a book, then seen the movie, and wonder-How did they screw it up so bad? This is one of those. The book by Huffaker, \"Nobody Likes a Drunken Indian\" was great, riotously funny...this movie is not. It seems as though nobody cared enough to move the direction along so we CARED about the characters. This movie, which touches on some real concerns about Indians, makes you wonder why we haven't seen more comedies about the holocaust, or slavery. Not well done.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The recent DVD release of Good Humor Man labels the film as comedy. It's hardly a comedy, rather a dull indie film about a group of losers. Supposedly set in the 70s, there is scant attention paid to period details, with overly muted color correction taking its place. The monotonous soundtrack only serves to accentuate the repetitiveness of the film (perhaps that is the point, but it does not add to the enjoyment of the viewing experience.) Apprarently the clique of losers only like to hang out at one location, the bleachers. It seems like the packaging of the film as a comedy is meant to deceive people into renting or buying this film, which is a complete waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The acting made you feel like you were watching a kindergarten play. The story is full of holes and gaps and skips around so you have no idea as to what just happened. Half the scenes are pointless. There is not an inkling of character development. The score\/soundtrack consists of about three songs one in particular is played in about 70% of the scenes. I'm glad I only rented the movie yet I still feel cheated. Avoid this movie at all costs unless you want to see some decent actors give horrible performances. It seems like the bulk of the budget was spent on putting a few name brand actors in this less than bad film. This movie is equivalent to visiting a strip club, it tries to get you excited and interested but just as you think something is going to happen your thrown into some unrelated scene and left trying to figure out how you arrived there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I disagree in calling this a stoner movie just because weed also makes an appearance. I can't imagine this as even approaching \"stoner classic.\" That would be like calling Singles a \"grunge film.\" The movie definitely plods along with a murky plot. At times I wondered if the script had either been dropped and shuffled or if they lost it entirely and just tried to wing it. Watching this movie reminded me of watching children play-acting and making the story up as they go along.

The characters are wooden, the dialog is taxed, and the whole story seems to be completely disconnected. Who got killed? When? What? And this is how you act when your friend overdoses? Complete lack of emotion and utter disconnect from reality.

As for the droning guitar soundtrack that accompanies each scene: enough! It was like watching the opening menu screen where the same track loops endlessly in the background, neither moving forward or back.

I kept watching and hoping that the plot would somehow fall in to order, the acting and dialog would improve or something, somehow would focus this mess in to a coherent movie. After 112 minutes, it never happened.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I think of a 1970s-period film, this is not what I think of. I don't want a monotonous, one-song Robin Trower soundtrack; I want a soundtrack punctuated with the top-40 bubblegum songs of the day that epitomized the '70s. The generic karaoke-style disco music during the prom scene was especially annoying. The acting (if you can call it that) was very wooden, and seemed just read from script in monotone. The film quality and camera work was horrid; the dialog murky, the script seemed thrown together without much thought and the plot was thin if not nonexistent. I can't believe people are giving it the high ratings I've read here. Basically a forgettable, poor attempt at recreating a beloved era of the past. Two stars is all I can come up with. Sorry, guys.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this on a screener DVD a couple months before it was released.

I liked the main characters and the overall story but some scenes are pretty sloppy and confusing. The sets were fitting but a few just looked like left overs from Freaks & Geeks or reminded me of a cell phone commercial shot in a middle class home. Definitely not what the DVD cover claims, \"Destined to be the next stoner classic\", hardly.

Wardrobe and hairstyles are done well and yes, there are some really pretty girls in this, always nice to see a good looking cast.

Almost every scene contained guitar that just droned on and on. Sound design was a bit poor. I think less would have been best.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Plodding, maybe that should have been the title. Bad dialogue delivered at a snail's pace. All the characters are single dimension with the exception of one. Unfortunately, that character has some of the worst lines and does not seem to fit into this clich\u00e9 ridden two- hour drag. Having grown up in the seventies, this film is seriously lacking in detail, atmosphere and authenticity. Surprisingly, this was produced by Kelsey Grammar, someone who should recognize sharp dialogue and a consistent narrative in a script. Cameron Richardson is about the only element that lights up this film. Robin Trower's music is also a welcomed addition.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After seeing the DVD release of the Blues Brothers, and their mention of \"Wired\" on Belushi's bio, my boyfriend and I were hungry for more information on John Belushi. I had heard of \"Wired\" but didn't know too much about it and found it way in the back of the local rental store. I understand that Dan Akroyd was really p***ed over this movie and I thought it was because it didn't portray them in a good light. But that had nothing to do with it.

The movie starts out okay, until they wheel in John's body to the morgue. When he wakes up on the autopsy table, and decides to run for it, then begins the utter tastelessness of this movie. John is subjected to viewing his life and all of the turmoil he created with \"Angel,\" a Puerto Rican cab driver with a wicked sense of humor -- subjecting him to criticism and attempting to try to get him to cross over.

The two actors who portray John and Dan look nothing even remotely close to the real actors, (let alone anyone else related for that matter, i.e., Lorne Michaels,) making it difficult to really try to concentrate on them and how they were in real life... but that is the tip of the iceberg.

I believe this was supposed to be an \"artsy\" film -- John constantly being tormented by drugs (i.e., the powdered soap in the bathroom being cocaine,) in such a way that was also difficult to follow. The flashbacks are choppy, also making it difficult to understand.

Probably the most tasteless scene was when John is (literally,) forced to undergo his autopsy and is in pain while they remove his heart to weigh it, saying that it was abnormally large due to drug use, obesity, yeah, we get the point without the grotesque portrayal.

There are very few other actors we know of in the movie, (where's Carrie Fisher for instance? They were incredibly close. And Jim Belushi would have been a great person to show,) it looks VERY cheaply made, (we felt it looked as if the graphics were from the early 80s or late 70s,) it felt as if it was filmed in about a week and all in all, didn't show the side to John at all. I felt I knew a little bit more about him from watching episodes of Saturday Night Live.

On one last note, Bob Woodward comes across narcissistic by placing himself in the movie, arguing with John about writing his life story. For someone who was supposed to be very highbrow, concerning the bust on Nixon, his calibur of person could match any writer in the National Enquirer, and therefore losing my interest in any of his work from this point forward.

SKIP THIS MOVIE. If you want to see more on John, watch his movies, see clips of Dan Akroyd talking about him or hope someone has the taste to make another movie on John that goes along the lines of \"Man on the Moon,\" which is ultimately what we were expecting. I guess this was a \"moral\" kind of movie -- you know, don't do drugs, but I guess the creators of this film didn't understand that his death made a number of people (like Carrie Fisher,) stop doing drugs altogether for that reason.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Any film school student could made a film 1,000 times better than piece of garbage. As someone who had read the book, I expected even a straight re-telling of the book would make this a fair film. There was a chance that a talented director could go beyond Woodward's narrative and make a great film.

Well the director did go beyond Woodward's narrative. He added a hip Hispanic angel named Velasquez that was not in the book. He had Bob Woodward interview the dead Belushi in an exchange in the morgue. The film had all the insight of someone stoned on PCP staring at his navel.

If this is a spoiler to you, you will thank me for it because it is absolutely the worst movie ever made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Journalist Bob Woodward's blistering, scattershot and sometimes suspect account of actor John Belushi's rise and fall becomes a wholly misjudged movie, a nebulous \"fantasy\" directed by Larry Peerce as if he were doing something edgy and vital. Michael Chiklis (years before his breakthrough on \"The Shield\") is put in the unenviable position of portraying Belushi, taking a post-mortem trip through his life, recreating those \"Saturday Night Live\" skits which are now part of TV history. It's like watching someone try to out-Lucy Lucille Ball--it can't be done. The reason why there was such sorrow at Belushi's death was because he was one of a kind. Chiklis makes a commendable attempt at looking the part, and he's funny in an early scene trying to escape from the morgue. Still, it's an uphill venture and no actor--no matter how talented--could have saved it. * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"and I have seen a lot of films. I saw this in the theatre in 1989 and to this day I remember the sickening urge to walk out. If you like John Belushi, respect his talent, or even the sanctity of the cinema-- this film has nothing to offer you. It is mostly a pathetic showcase for the writer of Belushi's biography, Bob Woodward. As we see the progression of Belushi's life pass on the screen, Woodward actually shows up in the film like a ghost character. The most offensive scene occurs when Belushi is dying, looks up from his deathbed to see the author standing above him and he weakly utters \"Breathe for me, Woodward.\" There are too many terrible things to mention them all, the least of which is the opening that has Belushi jumping out of his body bag in the morgue and getting into a taxi driven by a guy named \"Angel.\" I'll leave it at that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie narrate the story of John Belushi,based of his biography `Wired' , wrote by Bob Woodward.All of movie is narrate on flashback without a chronological order , where after the death of John Belushi we see one angel accompany Belushi during few points of his life.Michael Chicklis in the character of John Belushi is enough credible , but entirely devoid of the devastate force of Belushi ,and his play stay only a pale animation.The director,on more,not succeed to give continuate on the story , that for who not knows the book is very confused. But the worse is that they have featured Bob Woodward that spoke with Belushi before he died. For this negative points the movie is only a would-be attempt to narrate the controversial story of John Belushi. My rate is 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Wired\" would have to rate as one of the ten worst films I have ever seen. The writing and direction show a stunning lack of imagination and I'm sure that most of the actors still cringe whenever anyone mentions this film.

It fails to work either as a tribute to Belushi's unique talent, or as an accurate account of his short life.

A pointless mess with no redeeming features.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This could have been a good biopic, but what a mess! I had this film when I was a theater manager. When I put the film together, and watched it, I thought I had some reels out of order. As it turned out I didn't, and if I did, nobody would have noticed. I couldn't figure out what's going on! Everybody who walked out pretty much felt the same way!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film in the movie theater. I was taking classes at the Second City Chicago and of course the buzz of this movie was intense. It is a Woodward film about one of Second City's Native sons.

Everyone knew about Johns history. Everyone knew how he died. Some even knew that the lore did not make him out to be particularly friendly towards women in improv or comedy.

But hey. the man led his life and he was loved intensely by the people who were in his world, and lore also states that he treated all of his close friends with love and respect.

This movie. Well. Forget the idea of poor Michael Chilklis (who is a really great actor) being in a really astonishingly bad film, and really only relegated to doing an impersonation of the man.

Forget the idea that they could not get the rights to any of Belushi's work...and all the SNL scenes never happened that they portrayed in the movie.

Screw the idea that half of the historical information in the film did not even follow Bob Woodwards work. Kinda saying \"Okay...we are about to mess with Belushi...now lets go after Woodward too...\" They also decided to take the premise of It's a Wonderful Life and turn it into It's a Horrible Life on Crack.

Is he a guardian angel or the devil? Is the pinball machine the devil's assistant electronic device...how many different endings can you tack onto to a movie? It is one of those movies after it is over...you look at the person you are with and in stunned disbelief go \"What the hell was that?!\" In some circles this movie has become a kinda cult classic. But for good reason.

A good cult classic you sit around the screen and make fun of (or throw out snappy one liners) to the screen. A cult film is never good. And most people would never watch them in any serious context.

If you want to watch some classic bad late 80's fair stoned? Rent Wired. If you want to know about John Belushi...you can get more information off of the walls of Second City Chicago than this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's reassuring to see that other IMDb reviewers have had the good sense to pan this disappointing film, at the risk of blaspheming against the great Vadim, Malle and Fellini.

These directors may be talented & artistic in their own right; however in attempting to pass off this hodgepodge of attempted eroticism and 60s chic as *in any way* related to Edgar Allen Poe's stories, they exposed themselves as frauds. Either (A) they didn't bother to read the Poe stories, or (B) they read them but were so transfixed by their own egotistical agenda that they didn't pay Poe any mind.

Imagine if Metallica plugged in their guitars, cranked the amps up to 11 and moshed out 3 chords claiming it to be Beethoven's 9th Symphony. That's the feeling you'll get after sitting through this film. If you're a Vadim\/Malle\/Fellini fan (Metallica), you'll dig it. If you're a Beethoven fan (Poe), you'll puke.

METZERGENSTEIN...

Here we begin with a bizarre porno version of Poe. OK, \"porno\" may be a bit extreme haha, but at the very least you have to call it a Barbarella version (including, I don't doubt, some of Jane's outfits coming directly from the set of that scifi romp). Vadim falls into old clich\u00e9s of his own: the girl lying on a bed being pleasured by some man whilst from the pillow-cam we see the apathy in her eyes; the general lassitude and ennui of a woman who finds no satisfaction in hedonism. Cute stuff, but \"Metzergenstein\" ain't the place for it. And in addition to the Barbarella outfits and irrelevant erotic themes, Jane Fonda's awful American accent and unconvincing performance as a European countess made this the worst casting since Julia Roberts in that lousy version of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde.

WILLIAM Wilson...

Here's a great Poe story about the madness that claims a man when he realizes that he is no longer unique in the world. If you really want to see a fantastic visual interpretation of this theme, go watch Star Trek episode #27 \"The Alternative Factor\". But here, Malle glazes over that central theme and instead focuses on... any guesses...? yup, eroticism, sadism and debauchery. Ho hum. Brigitte Bardot's role is a complete fabrication to accomplish that end, and once again the director distorts a classic Poe story into a masturbatory catharsis of his own unrequited sexual issues. Do it on your own time, Malle. I thought we're here on Poe's dime.

TOBY DAMMIT....

The absolute worst of the three and possibly the worst film I've seen since \"Staying Alive\". At least Fellini showed some tact in changing the title, but his departure from the original plot, theme and humour of the story is so vast, I wonder if he just picked this reel out of his private collection of home movies, stamped \"Edgar Allen Poe story\" on it and submitted it to this collection. I strained very hard to find any thread of familiarity with Poe's works, but there was absolutely none.

The original Poe story (\"Never Bet the Devil Your Head\") is a short and hilarious dark fable about a man who constantly exclaims \"I'll bet the devil my head...\" On a foggy morning, the devil takes him up on his offer. The result is the sickest and silliest thing you've ever read. This was Poe, the comedian, at his finest (yes, Poe wrote many comedies. Also check out \"A Predicament\" and \"Devil in the Belfry\" if you want a taste of his witty, satirical works).

This Fellini version? It's bland, soulless, and not funny at all (unless you consider it funny to see a drunk stumbling over himself for 45 minutes). Here Fellini's egotistical rant is about an artist struggling with the hypocrisy, pretense and mediocrity of cinema. Most of it is set at an awards ceremony where Fellini beats us over the head with sarcasm, cynicism and that classic \"sour grapes\" attitude that we find in all Fellini films dealing with cinema. Note the sarcastic jabs at \"the critics\", a recurring theme in Fellini's films. For someone who considered himself above the critics, Fellini sure spent a lot of time talking about them. At any rate, I feel like Fellini just took some outtakes from 8 1\/2, spliced them together and sold it as a Poe story. Worst \"adaptation\" ever.

I think I put more effort into typing this review than any of the three directors put into making a Poe movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What is it about the French? First, they (apparently) like Jerry Lewis a lot more than the US does. Second, they (seem) to like Edgar Allan Poe's work more than just about anyone else does. It's got to be the \"Beaudelaire effect\".

Don't get me wrong...I'm a Poe fan myself. But this trilogy manages to make three of Poe's below-average stories into...well, I'm not sure what they're made into.

\"Toby Dammit\" is a fine Fellini film, but it has nothing to do with Poe's story, at least in terms of theme. It's enjoyable on the first viewing. Terence Stamp does a good job with an interesting role. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Poe or spirits of the dead.

\"Metzergenstein\" is a big mess. How did Vadim's films get produced? It's just awful...not even up to amateur film school standards. Depending on the DVD menu you have, try to skip it and save your time.

\"William Wilson\" is actually the segment that is most faithful to Poe's work. It does not have much style, though, even if it includes the strangest snowball fight I think that I have ever seen on film. (It looks like the boys are throwing tissues, or maybe handkerchiefs, that have been rolled up into balls.)

My advice is to skip \"Metzergenstein\", watch \"William Wilson\", and then, if you're a Fellini fan (I'm not) keep \"Toby Dammit\" on while you cook dinner or make a snack.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm pretty sure Poe would have considered this a travesty. The first two stories are decent, nothing spectacular. And then there's Toby Dammit. What on earth was Fellini thinking? It's a rambling, random, dull piece, with little to recommend it. One should feel frustrated at the lack of backstory or conclusion, but there's only relief that it's over.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Yesterday\" as a movie, is hard to rate. The cinematography is excellent and deserves a 9\/10. The story is gritty and real and does not compromise. But the translation of the story to the screen through the actors did not match the camera work.

As a person who was born and raised in Central Africa, I appreciated the authenticity of the film's look and the honest depiction of daily life for the Zulu. But this and the camera work are not enough to recommend the average viewer should see this film. It takes an appreciation of true cinema and not just a love of movies to see the purpose and strength of \"Yesterday\".

Unlike the 1980 film \"The Gods Must be Crazy\", which was a comic look at one African culture encountering modern technology, \"Yesterday\" has no intention of appealing to any crossover audience. The movie simply is not fit for the common western mind - and I doubt it was intended for the western mind. The scenes are long and slow, the editing is not paced for a 60mph+ instant gratification world. The dialog is not cleaver or witty, it is real. Movies about health crises do not make the best entertainment and this movie is not entertainment, it is education.

This movie is best viewed by those who know, appreciate and love the way of life and the culture in sub-Sarah Africa. If you lack a broad enough world-view to understand other cultures, especially African cultures, should skip this film. Do not waste you time with it. Go see \"Talladega Nights\" or \"Larry the Cable Guy\" instead for your cross culture viewing.

I give it a 4 for most who might want to see the movie but have no accurate understanding of African cultures. For the viewers with an appreciation for films about the human experience anywhere in the world, I would give it a 7.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am sitting here writing this review and the movie's not even over yet. In fact, I just checked, and there are 45 more minutes to go. But no matter, there's no need to see it through to the end. I'll just write this review and laugh as the film plays in the background and stumbles onward to some kind of presumably horrible conclusion which I don't care to ever see or know.

What accounts for my hostility to this movie? The characters are not believable. The plot is not believable. The pretentiousness of the movie is sickening. Basically, every element of the movie rings false. Buscemi obviously thought he had something to add to the dozens of movies which have already explored the well-worn themes of dysfunctional families and the apparent meaninglessness of life. However, Buscemi was badly mistaken, because this movie contains nothing new. It tries very hard to be depressing, but fortunately no one can really be depressed by it, because it's obvious that no people like this exist in the entire world.

What IS depressing however is the knowledge that somehow this film was voted several undeserved awards. Disgusting!!!! Bottom line: stay away from this worthless film at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like Steve Buscemi. I like his work very much, both as an actor and a director. You could say that I am -into- Steve Buscemi. A Steve Buscemi freak. I lurv Steve Buscemi.

I remember when I first saw Buscemi's full length directorial debut, \"Trees Lounge.\" I enjoyed the movie, although it wasn't as good as it could have been. It was -almost- there. It -almost- scratched that itch, the itch of wanting to see \"small\" movies about \"small\" people in \"small\" bars that are in \"small\" towns. It was close enough to where I would say that it was a very good movie - one that with a few tweaks could have been great. But that's OK. I like the movie and I've watched it more than once.

But this review is not about Trees Lounge. It's about \"Lonesome Jim.\" When I saw the description of the movie and then I saw who's movie it was, I was excited at the prospect of finally seeing the movie that I knew that Trees Lounge could have been. But what I actually experienced was not unlike that of leaving one of those smalltown bars with a belly full of cheap whiskey and an armful of cheap floozy, heading back to your apartment with a mushy brain full of exciting prospects that inevitably disintegrate into the reality of alcohol-induced impotence and headspinning regurgitation.

In other words, this movie left me flat and unrequited and sorry that I wasted the time and the money that it took me to get to that state - the film equivalent of waking up next to that cheap floozy the next morning, or if you happen to be the floozy, waking up next to that stinking and farting and unshaven imbecile. The film had all of the substance of a stale white bread sandwich (with store brand white bread, no less) and the emotion of a cadaver. I am not sure what the point of this film was, and since it was supposed to have some sort of a point and was not an exercise in abstract surrealism that can get by without one then this lack of a point is a sin of omission. Sorta like those new cars that don't come with ashtrays anymore although there are millions of people who smoke and buy new cars (I'm not one of them, but hey, I can sympathize). Overall it was a boring film about boring people doing boring things and had none of the grit and believability that can carry and save such a film. I mean, Trees Lounge was about boring people doing boring things, but it was interesting.

I blame a lot of this on Affleck. Why do people keep casting these Affleck turds? They suck the life out of anything that they are connected with. One Affleck was in one decent film (and wasn't even the reason why the film was decent) and all of the sudden every butthole named Affleck is stinking up as many films as they possibly can. And Liv Tyler is no better. Being the daughter of a rock star does not necessarily make an actress. She is as lifeless as Affleck. These people simply do not rise from the flat page of the script. People pay to see films and they deserve to see actors and actresses with a bit of charisma - these two duds together don't have the spark of the old guy who hands out shopping carts at Wal Mart. I always thought that Steve Buscemi was the type of guy who would rise above this type of pablum, but oh Steve you let us down. This film makes me want to stuff you into another wood chipper.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whilst this is most definitely a well crafted piece of film-making, it's thoroughly without any entertainment value whatsoever.

If you're depressed already, this film will send you over the edge.

If you're feeling somewhat depressed, this film will be just one more thing in your life to feel bitter about. You'll feel that it's just your luck to have chosen to watch a movie that turns out to be a complete waste of time.

Otherwise you might be able to make it through this film unscathed (I didn't, BTW), safe in the knowledge that your life is so much better than Jim's. Then again you might consider that you have been fooling yourself, and that are in fact in a much worse situation than you'd previously realized. You might feel a bit annoyed at Jim for bringing this to your attention. You may want to slap him around a bit with a wet fish.

The sad truth is, much as I wanted to like this movie... I hated it. It took rather a long miserable road down the path of oblivion and then suddenly, for no reason whatsoever, looked back at itself and then stopped.

Jim does not have an epiphany, at least not one that is conveyed on screen. Jim has a miserable life and a miserable set of options. He discovers nothing that one can relate to and fails to make any significant progress on his journey of self-discovery.

Of course no-one alive could write a happy ending to this movie. As others have said it's no Hollywood tale, it's gritty and it's real. It's well made. Life is quite a struggle at times. If anyone were to know \"the answer\", they do well to shout it from the rooftops.

Still, I feel cheated because this movie pretends to have something to say. You feel that it's going to say something, that if you just suffer through a little more of it, it'll have something to say. It'll make you stop and think.

It doesn't.

Again, I do submit that this is a well crafted film. And therefore may be of value to a film student with a penchant for e.g. lighting techniques of the use of colour palettes.

For the rest of us, it's utterly miss-able.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only time I seem to trawl through IMDb comments is when I've seen a duff film. I guess I'm looking to find reassurance that it's not just me. For me, then, Lonesome Jim was a duff film packed with unbelievable characters in unbelievable situations which limped on lamely and boringly towards a cop-out hackneyed conclusion. So I check out what other people have to say and feel a bit like Jim, out on a limb, alienated, as page after page of multiple star ratings and plaudits leave me doubting my critical faculties. Yet maybe I should check the settings for the comments presentation, since after a while the gushing dies down and I'm relieved to see appreciations that mirror my own. I feel vindicated. It IS a rubbish film, it DOESN'T hang together and it DOES constitute a wasted evening sitting through it. Praise be to kindred spirits.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was attracted to this film by its offbeat, low-key, 'real life' story line. That is, a twenty-something guy flops in the Big Apple and comes back home to live with his parents and even more floppy brother. It just might have worked but there's a problem. And that problem's name is Casey Affleck.

Casey Affleck is nearly catatonic in this film. His acting mantra must be \"exert as little effort as possible at all times\". Or \"why speak when you can mutter?\" Or maybe \"put yourself into a coma as soon as the camera rolls\". Lips moving when speaking? Barely. Facial expressions? None. Muscles in face? Atrophied. Something? Nothing. ANYthing? Zip.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lonesome Jim is kind of like a romantic dark comedy about a dysfunctional family whose two boys are total losers. Both boys around 30, living at home, with absolutely nothing going for them. I live in the Midwest and I can't name one family like this. I picked it up because I kind of like Buscemi acting humor. Now I realize I need to have a counteracting agent to that humor to make it work. The acting and camera work and editing was fine. The first 15 minutes got you set, and the last 15 minutes helped prevent the film from being totally depressing Jerry Springer trailer trash type of story. The female members of my family were begging me to turn it off, but I prevailed under the premise that there had to be a turning point near the end, and we watched the entire movie. The male family members, as expected, simply walked out after the first 30 minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Olivia D'Abo in a wet T-shirt is the only thing this movie has going for it. Other than that, this Canadian production about a man taking out a vicious band of hillbillies is not worth anybody's time. The writing is bad, the acting is poor and the direction is sub-standard.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A family (A teenage boy, his mother and a stepdad), sick of city life, decides to move to the mountains to get away from it all and have a fresh start. However, their idyll is shattered by three brothers and their domineering father, who don't take kindly to newcomers on their patch. While having objects thrown through their window and being threatened in the street is just the start, the youth decides to make things even worse by having a relationship with the terrible trio's sister. With the law unwilling to do anything about it and the violence escalating rapidly, the lad decides to take matters into his own hands..

Veering wildly between hilarity and nastiness, this is one of the oddest exploitation movies ever made. At first, you can have a chuckle at some of the hammy acting and ludicrous dialogue given to the characters, especially the overwrought bad guys. But then, you get completely unnecessary scenes like a mother being raped while her son is forced to watch, or the thug's sister getting herself beaten up by her siblings for daring to sleep with our young hero. In fact, the whole view of women in the movie, which seems to be that they're pathetic creatures who scream a lot and can't defend themselves, is pretty despicable. But of course, there's the obligatory nude scene, which this time involves a young lady diving into a pool bra-less under a very thin T-shirt. Who cares about plot consistency when you have some willing young starlets ready to shed her togs. Right?!

The climax centres on the teenager, who up until now hasn't been able to sneeze without jumping, suddenly morphing into a Rambo clone and blowing off his assailants left, right and centre to save his stepfather who is being held hostage by the gang. It's completely implausible but hey, so is everything else in this film.. so at least you can't accuse it of not being consistent. So, rather than attempting to find logic in a place where the word doesn't exist, check out the IMDb pages for Janet Laine Green, Dehl Berti, Stephen Hunter, Jonathan Crombie.. etc. Notice a pattern emerging here? Their careers all hit dead ends. Why? Sit through this, and all will become clear. Remember kids, if you want to get ahead in this business, hire a decent agent and ALWAYS read the scripts they offer you. Please.. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Are you kidding me? The music was SO LOUD in this show I could often not even hear the dialog. And the music was nothing great. Anyone know what Jake's mother said when he walked in the door??? And the mushroom cloud looked pretty close to have so little instant devastation. Anyone research the effects of nuclear fallout before writing this one. I felt like a bunch of sit com actors were sent on location and didn't know what to do with dramatic dialog. And what does a Kansas teen know about shopping in Soho....couldn't we have had a better line here? Was bored to tears and only kept awake by the jarring blare of the over-mixed way to loud music.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a slick little movie well worth your time to find and see.

It really speaks to all those mundane choices we all make every day and (like an H.G. Welles Story I can't quite recall) may live to want back.

Keep in mind that this is a SHORT (very short). It starts out slowly but just as you begin to think it has become boring =bang= it's over. And, believe me, the 'punch line' is one you will remember.

I'm not sure if the producers are going to make it available for purchase - or available on the web but either way you'd be happy you took the time to get hold of a copy - of that I am sure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"whomever thought of having sequels to Iron Eagle must be shot. In this case once was enough. Iron Eagle was a good movie to watch. Even though it is unrealistic, it is still entertaining. Iron Eagle II has a senseless plot and can be used to as a cure to insomnia. I didn't even bother to watch Iron Eagle III, but from looking at the R rating, I assume it's more violent than the past 2 movies. Well, Iron Eagle IV is probably the most inane sequel. Lou Gossett Jr. returns as the always delightful \"Chappy\" Sinclair. Another Jason returns to fill the role of Doug Masters (Canadian Jason Cadieux, who looks just like Jason Gedrick from the first Iron Eagle). But wait(Here comes a possible spoiler).....Wasn't Doug killed in Iron Eagle II? The writers must've been desprate for a story so they revived Doug Masters by saying he was a prisoner of the Russians. This movie was the cheapest done of all the Iron Eagle films. Why do movie makers find it neccessary to make sequels to unappealing movies? (ex. Police Academy movies). I have always liked Gossett Jr.'s work in these films. He was the only one holding this turkey together. Let's hope this was the last of the Iron Eagle sequels. let it rest in peace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Louis Gossett Jr returns to the well one more time as Chappy Sinclair who goes to Doug Masters (Played by Jason Cadieux who is in for Jason Gedrick who wisely declined) to teach a new band of recruits however this time they discover corrupt air force pilots who deal in toxic waste. This is a series that just keeps getting worse with each subsequent entry, this one however doesn't have any of the zip or even the action to make this even worth seeing on cable. Iron Eagle IV is directed with such indifference that the dogfights come off as if we were watching a playstation 2 game played by two lobotomized teenagers. It is horrendous to watch and Gossett Jr who has made his share of turkeys seems to have bottomed out here. And I saw Cover-Up, Firewalker, Aces:Iron Eagle III, Toy Soldiers and Jaws 3D. What is mysterious about Louis Gossett Jr is that he seems to be like Christopher Walken in his quest to do anything as long as he's working. As I look at his post Oscar win. Some of his better movies include Iron Eagle, The Punisher and The Principal. Considering that the latter two movies have him co-starring with Dolph Lundgren and James Belushi it is indeed something to say that three guilty pleasure action flicks are in the running for his better work. Of course Enemy Mine and Diggstown remain his best post-Oscar win work.

* out of 4-(Bad)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And obviously I didn't see it!

But looking at the cast and seeing that Doug Masters is back from the dead, I know now to avoid this like the plague! I hate it when Hollywood, producers, writers, directors or all of the above think that audiences are stupid that they're not going to catch continuity errors. A supposedly dead Doug Masters returning is a big giant one, won't you say?

And I can't believe that someone like Louis Gossett, Jr. would return for something like that.

Did Jason Gedrick really decline this? Well, I hate to say it, but even if he took the role again, it would have still had that same continuity error. I bet (if he really turned it down), he must have been incredulous seeing that his character died in the second film.

I'll probably catch it by accident on a late night air on some channel, but no way am I going to rent this or buy the DVD!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's another variation on the oft-told tale of two people getting married and having to share their brood of kids. WITH SIX YOU GET EGG ROLL is directed by Howard Morris (from television) and it shows, because it's the kind of tale that plays like a half-hour situation comedy padded out to feature film length--but with a scarcity of laughs, or to put it differently, only the number of laughs that would have been possible within the half-hour limits of a TV show.

DORIS DAY decided to call it quits after this film--and it's rather easy to see why. Even the presence of some fairly reliable actors in the cast doesn't help. BRIAN KEITH, BARBARA HERSHEY, PAT CARROLL and ALICE GHOSTLEY do their best, but the script is the real problem and should have been left untouched for the big screen.

Nothing much can be said in favor of it. Skip it and see Miss Day in any number of her more worthwhile films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This sickly sweet and laboriously paced 5-reeler is definitely not among Harold Lloyd's better films. Gags are sparse and mostly uninspired. Saccharine melodrama is abundant. The setup takes forever, as Lloyd, the unconventional, but impossibly kindly, country doctor makes his rounds, bringing a little sunshine into the lives of children, the elderly, and puppies. It's like a 1922 version of Patch Adams. Ugh. 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stanley Kubrick, a director who I hold in the highest of esteems for his masterpieces (Clockwork Orange, 2001, The Killing, the Shining, Dr. Strangelove, etc) took the film out of circulation, leaving it to be found by only the hardcore fans and completists. After seeing the film for myself, I could see why. At the age of 24, Kubrick had already honed his craft of still photography for LOOK magazine, and had done a few short documentaries. Like many first-time filmmakers that came in the decades after him, his ambition for Fear and Desire was, in short, to just go and make a film, cheaply, more than likely to see if he could do it. On that level, he was successful. However, the film itself definitely is not.

I can't really say that the film is a failure because there was something I did like about it throughout. Even as the film's story went on the wayside, and the actors (whom Kubrick didn't have any idea how to direct, not being a man of the theater), his knack for producing and capturing some great images gets its seeds in this film. At times, there are some shots of close-ups and quick-shots in suspense\/action scenes that are eye-catching. Unfortunately, this is all the good I can really say of the film. Although there are a couple of 'name' actors in the film (Frank Slivera, who also appeared in Killer's Kiss, and Paul Mazursky, a director in his own right), the performances overall are dull and very routine.

In fact, that is the film's main demise for me; whenever I watch any Kubrick film, even his early film noirs Killer's Kiss and the Killing, I can tell who made it, as his style by then became distinct, which would continue as he evolved as an artist. It wasn't 'artsy' like I might have pictured (which is usually the case with first-time directors like Scorsese and Spielberg), but watching this film not only did it feel like it wasn't Kubrick, it felt like a lot of the time I was watching some B (or even C) grade movie by a director that time forgot- not quite 'Ed Wood' bad, but close. The music is as standard as can be, the fades are pedestrian, and the plot seems to not really hold that much attention.

In short, as others have said and which I can agree, this is a \"doodle pad\" of a future ground-breaker, who shows some shots and a few edits that grab some attention (the best scene overall being when the soldiers take the dumb girl hostage), but not enough to really recommend except to those, like myself, who end up seeing everything by Kubrick (or, perhaps, have to see every ultra-low budget war film ever made), if only out of curiosity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Fear and Desire is of interest mainly to Kubrick obsessives, who can plumb this pretentious clap trap for signs of his still-to-come greatness. Kubrick was right in seeking to ensure that the film was not screened or available on legitimate video. He considered it embarrassing and amateurish, and he was correct in his evaluation. This is a weak and tedious film--at 68 minutes it still seems longer than \"Barry Lyndon\"!--it nevertheless is of historical interest, and has its genuine absorbing moments. It's a difficult film to find (only \"unofficial\" copies are in circulation), though perhaps this may change if Kubrick's estate relents and has it released on video. Recommended only for Kubrick enthusiasts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Kubrick may have been the greatest director of all times. He may have made more classics than anyone else. He may have been a perfectionist. But man, was his first attempt ever bad!

Kubrick had good reason to try to make this film dissappear from the map: it looks like an Ed Wood film. It has strange narration, cheap shots, bad dialogue, ominous music reminiscent of your 50s sci-fi\/horror flick, and what looks like relatives of the cast of \"Reefer Madness\" going insane for no reason.

Sure, you can see an undeveloped Kubrick in there. It is a psychological\/horror study of war. The characters became dehumanized and insane. There are people playing more than one role. There are constant shots of the faces and particular facial expressions of different people. And there are a few interesting shots around there. But really, this is a mess.

Of course, I am not discouraging you from watching it. If you get a hold of it, you are joining a select group of myself and a few thousand people world wide who have had access to it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of young filmmakers with virtually no budget set out to make something clever and original -- and while there is a bit of originality and some skilled drawing in this slacker puppet show take on \"Dante's Inferno,\" there is nothing especially clever. Dante's \"Divine Comedy\" was a brilliant piece of social commentary. This film is a vaguely moralistic student film with pretensions to High Art.

I suspect those who loved this film were those readily amused by the sophomoric pokes at some icons of the political and\/or religious right, and that those who hated it took offense at seeing their favored icons poked. Be that as it may, few of those pokes actually rose to the level of satire.

The high point of the movie is a sudden outbreak of \"Schoolhouse Rock\" on the subject of lobbying and the \"revolving door.\" It's really a shame that the entire film couldn't have been a musical. That would have stripped away a great deal of the annoying film school pretentiousness and added a far stronger element of fun.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was surprised to discover Michael Moore or Bill Maher wasn't involved with this \"movie\". An American leftist laundry list of axes to grind, with a distinct sparseness of democrats in Hell. Mao Zedong and Karl Marx didn't make an appearance in Hell, but Ronald Reagan is in the same room with Hitler? Perhaps we'll have to wait for these California spin doctors to butcher Paradiso for them to show all of their pet ideologue political figures.

Cheap shots at religion, right-wing politicians, corporations and their lobbyists, Fox News, even SUVs. All the radical leftist talking points were too completely covered - while conspicuously omitting references to wrongdoing from the \"other side of the aisle\" - to not have been a conscious effort. The singular exception I noticed, in the hour and a half, is JFK has to have sex with Marilyn Monroe for eternity: The token inclusion in these propaganda pieces in a pathetic attempt at appearing non-partisan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This demented left-wing wipe-out trivializes Dante's great work, distorts the genius of the author out of all recognition, inserts hateful ideology, incompetent satire and moronic political commentary in every imaginable place, and itself deserves a place in the Eighth Circle, Tenth Bolgia with the rest of the falsifiers. Sandow Birk has reserved himself a spot next to it.

Stocking Hell with Republican political figures, Fox News helicopters and Christian conservatives is a work of literary sacrilege, to say nothing of extreme liberal bias. It is, however, unoriginal, tedious and trite. Nothing in Birk's unworthy and heretical revision is in the least relevant to the original text or is in any way entertaining, humorous or enlightening, despite his smug pretension to the contrary.

I could have eaten a reel of video tape and PUKED a better movie. I regret the two hours of my life that I lost watching this insult to the very concept of poetry. Calliope will weep forever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dante would of been mortified, if he knew that his masterpiece was being ACTED OUT PUPPETS!!! Also the actors who played the puppets are sell outs. Due to the fact that playing a puppet is not acting it is just basically doing nothing. No one really will care who the puppet was. people only care who played a major role in like an actual movie. this is just annoying how you could mock such an amazing man and his belief, by this dumb little movie. This should be a crime and.... I cant believe you would ruin a book like that. I thought the movie was absolutely ridiculous and should be destroyed!!!! It totally ruins what your suppose to be getting from reading it. Your just making it a big joke.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Documentaries about fans are always mishmashes, and never worth seeing through, but I found this one, made by some of the fans themselves, more than usually unenlightening. As a veteran of the original Tolkien craze, forty years ago, I'd hoped for more than the obvious--which doesn't always equate to the true. If there's anyone living who doesn't already know the nature of a fandom, any fandom, from having been or known a fan, he won't discover it here. Between irrelevancies, platitudes (to which the actors from the films are particularly prone), and acting out (by fans making the most--if not the best--of their one shot at fame), I could glean little of the special appeal of LOTR, the special emotional responses it evokes, and the range of the special creative forms those responses can take. In addition, the film is rather lazy: it slights some facts that could have been got across with little effort, e.g. what the exact legal loophole was (the wording of a copyright notice) that permitted the books' unauthorized publication in the U.S. (Speaking of which: I take strong exception to the film's dismissal of the covers on that edition as \"irrelevant\" and \"psychedelic,\" which they were not. They were the work of Jack Gaughan, a very able sf illustrator of the period, and some fans, including me, found them more apt, and more attractive, than the covers on the rival set.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just rented Blackwater Valley Exorcism because the cover and pictures looked terrifying, and I don't normally watch movies that are automatically released onto DVD, but this looked so interesting and scary! I was very much in the mood for a good scary film and to me, possession is one of the scariest subjects to watch or learn about. Just look at The Exorcist or The Exorcism of Emily Rose, both terrific movies that made break-throughs not only horror wise, but story as well.

Blackwater Valley Exorcism is about a girl, Isabelle, who from the get go is automatically possessed, so we can't even tell what kind of a person she was to begin with. But a former wife beater turned priest is on the case with a gardener...? I know... I know. Then they go into several other stories with the priest and Isabella's sister, and the priest hit the sister and messed around with Isabelle? I'm not sure, then we get into a story with Isabelle's dad and his questioning of his wife's faithfulness to him.

I mean, the story just goes into too many directions and wasn't well developed at all. Not to mention that the exorcism didn't seem authentic at all and more of a just scare your pants off type of a film, which I didn't like at all because I couldn't take it seriously. Whoever directed and wrote this clearly had no idea where to go or how to direct the story well, so I wouldn't really recommend this.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie started very well..so far Isabelle's exorcism could be believed....but later, gosh!!! I didn't know if it was a horror movie, a drama one or a Must Not See one! The possessed creature attacking the sheriff had no connection at all with the movie....the make up!! well it looked pretty real at beginning, but at the end, last part of movie, the make up (especially teeth and eyes) was very exaggerated. If you want a good \"EXorcism\" movie watch \"The Exorcism of Emily Rose\".

Together with \"Hard Candy\" (Totally boring, pathetic plot and ending), these two movies are the worst I've seen from Lionsgate!! But well the movie company has given horror movie fans excellent films, but with this one, you will wish you never rent it!! Exorcism movie fans, just stay with two \"The Exorcist\" and \"Emily Rose's Exorcism\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not sure if this is a comedy or not, but I found it pretty comical. Isobel is possessed by the devil. Somehow a perverted priest and the gardener are gonna' fix that. Part exorcism and part soap opera, you'll at least get some laughs. There's the paranoid jealous dad, satanic sister, Valley of the Dolls mother, and then the cowboy boyfriend; all there to help the skirt chasing priest fight the demons from dear Isobel. It sometimes felt like a Jerry Springer episode, but I actually paid to see this. Instead of the cool head-twisting, sailor cursing, and crucifix humping that Regan did in The Exorcist; you get a lot of Isobel bouncing on her bed like it's a trampoline, hiding in her closet, and jumping from a hay-loft. Yeah, it's Chuck E. Cheese gone wild. So, if you want to watch a quote unquote horror film that is worth a few laughs while you wait for the predictable ending ... this is your movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was probably one of the worst movies I've seen in a very long time. A friend of mine grabbed it off the shelf at the video rental store, and all but forced me to watch it, an action we both deeply regret. Ehh... Where to start? The writing, the acting, the quality? All of it, sucked.

Quite possibly some of the worst writing ever displayed in a movie. The dialog was worse than I thought it could ever be in the movies. Blatant dialog, such as \"how ya doing?\"...\"not that great, doc\" (directly after an attempted exorcism of a man's daughter and then his wife's attempted suicide. Of course he's not that great.) was, at some points, kind of funny. If not horribly written, planned out, and obvious. The general plot of the movie, the writing and the way it worked, HORRIBLE. It was like the writers could come up with nothing better to do then write a bunch of crappy dialog and throw in as many sex and nudity scenes as they randomly could. The only almost good sex scene (between the preacher and the tattooed & Peirced girl) was filmed with such poor quality that it looked more like a cheap porno than a feature film. Oh yeah, and they never actually got the deed done.

The acting? Horrible. x100. I think the only good actor was the short Spanish guy who played Miguel, Del Zamora. And his part was written horribly. The worst acting? Arguably Paul Kappellas, whose acting combined with shitty music, a gun, and a half naked bluish white girl running around in the woods made the movie almost unbearable to sit through. He even screwed up his own death scene, one that should have been easy to nail. Although, most everybody else's acting was horrible as well.

The lack of characters also added to the overall suck level of the movie. There were just enough characters so that almost half of the characters died, that same amount of people became possessed at one point, and then the remaining characters couldn't be counted on one hand. Like... 50 thumbs down.

P.S. What IS it with the climax of exorcism movies happening in a stable, anyways?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A girl named Isobel becomes possessed by a demon. The local priest (who formerly dated Isobel's sister) must try to save her, but the bigger problems are with the family's suspicions of each other rather than the demon in their daughter.

This film is directed by Ethan Wiley, the writer of \"House\" and the writer\/director of \"House II\". I loved the first film and liked the second one even better, so you would think this would be a winner. Alas, this one looks like it was thrown together by first-year film students. Dawson Leery could have done better. I have thought about blaming new writer Ellary Eddy, especially because the idea is hardly original (are they trying to cash in on the fans of \"The Exorcism of Emily Rose\"?), but Wiley should have been able to do his magic.

Also, you'd like to think veteran horror stars Jeffrey Combs and James Russo would help this film. Russo (playing the bishop) barely shows up, and Combs has a great role as a sheriff... for the five minutes he's on screen (but I love the mustache). So, no help here.

After seeing \"The Exorcist\", all other exorcism films must be compared to the classic by default, no? And the demonic possession in this film was not scary in the least. No head-spinning or paranormal activity at all. Just a girl with a deep voice and runny makeup. All the \"demonic\" stuff was centered around the father accusing everyone of sleeping with his wife. As another reviewer wrote, \"you get a lot of Isobel bouncing on her bed like it's a trampoline, hiding in her closet, and jumping from a hay-loft. Yeah, it's Chuck E. Cheese gone wild.\" That sadly sums up the extent of the \"evil\" in this movie.

If you want to watch a movie about family members who invent accusations and yell at each other while the possessed daughter sits in another room off-camera, this is the movie for you. But, if you don't mind my saying so, you have a horrible taste in film if this is what you're seeking.

The plot seems to focus on the father accusing a cowboy of sleeping with his wife (who didn't, but did sleep with his daughter) and of the veterinarian of sleeping with his wife (who might have, but denies it). And then you have a gardener who attacks the possessed girl with a crucifix and tells the family to call an exorcist, but once the priest arrives the gardener declares he does not believe in God. What was all the Bible-quoting you were doing five minutes ago?

A horrible exorcism movie. Horribler examples of what Combs and Russo are capable of. And such a sad display of directing after the \"House\" series of films became classic. I would like to pretend Wiley had no part in making this shamefully derivative and unoriginal, uninspired film. The power of Christ compels you to avoid this movie as if viewing it were a cardinal sin.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, I normally don't add comments on movies, but I finally watched a movie that was so utterly full of bullsh*t and riddled with incompetence that I just had to warn people about. Blackwater Valley Exorcist is loosely about a wife-beating\/pederast\/priest and this podunk family of horse freaks, and to make a long story short the youngest daughter who was molested by the priest but in love with the hillbilly ranch hand gets possessed. Along with a heroic god shunning Mexican gardener who once participated in a exorcism, the wife-beating\/ pederast\/priest manage to save the day, but not before the possessing demon is able to jump over to a hooker who the town sheriff made blow him. All in all this movie is the biggest pile of useless (I could get very descriptive with this part but why waste my energy on this movie)sh*t I've ever seen. Any and all persons associated with the making of this movie should be sterilized so that they cannot pollute the earth with their useless spawn.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even worse then the incredibly boring \"the Exorcism of Emily Rose\". It started off decently, and right up until the mom said to the dad, \"See I knew she was possessed\", in an I told you so voice. It was a terrible line, spoken badly and it foreshadowed the rapid demise of this amazingly bad movie. Every family member has an issue from the past with the priest. The dad starts to accuse everyone of either liking his wife, or actually having an affair with her, culminating with him killing his buddy, then himself in the obvious instant lucidity after he realizes his friend hadn't slept with his wife after all. People are dying, others are coming under possession, and by this point most viewers don't even care anymore. Except for their employee Miguel, none of the characters in this movie was actually likable, making it hard to care, about any of them. The acting was terrible and the writing even worse. Glad I saw it for free; although I feel that for a movie this bad someone owes me money for the time I lost.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to agree with the previous reviewer. Although the Kristin Erikson did a great job of playing the possessed girl, I seriously don't think that Isabelle, the character she was playing, was possessed. I have seen people have psychotic breaks due to sexual abuse, and they never made it clear whether or not the father had actually abused her or not. I also had to watch some parts of it over again, to make it clear as to what the letter said, what the characters' names were, and I'm still not clear on a few things that happened, whether they were real or not. I'm trying to find the \"original\" story that it was based on, to compare facts, but I can't seem to find anything about it online.

It wasn't a bad movie, but some of the dialogue was incredibly cheesy. Special effects wise, the movie wasn't bad for a Grade B, pretty much, and those possession scenes made it all worth while... that is, if you have nothing better to do. LOL","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had very few moments of real drama. After the opening minutes the film descended in a spiral that didn't quite take us to hell and back - viewing was pure purgatory to say the least. The acting was more horrendous than the subject matter of the film and at times I couldn't stop laughing. The continuity between some of the scenes was dire - characters disappeared from scenes without explanation only to be replaced by other characters who minutes earlier had been some where else. Surely this was a spoof of The Exorcist. The collection plate at the church must have been full of copper the day Mr Russo signed up for this one. Do I speak Latin? Et tu Brutus.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Blackwater Valley Exorcism is set on a small town ranch where teenager Isabelle (Kristin Erickson) is found wandering around covered in dog's blood. Her parents Ely (Randy Colton) & Blanche (Leslie Fleming-Mitchell) own the ranch & are deeply worried about their daughter, recently she has not been herself & is considered a danger to herself & other's. Ranch hand & ex-priest Miguel (Del Zamora) recognises Isabelle's symptoms as a possible case of possession & when she starts to speak ancient Latin in a strange voice he becomes convinced of it. Blanche calls priest Jacob (Cameron Daddo) who is her other daughter Claire's (Madison Taylor) ex husband to see Isabelle, he confirms Miguel's suspicions & accepts the job of performing the exorcism that will hopefully banish the demon inside Isabelle & an innocent girl free...

Directed by Ethan Wiley I was sat there in my house in front of my telly watching Blackwater Valley Exorcism & I kept asking the same question over & over again, why do I do it. Why do I keep sitting through all these awful low budget horror films that look like they were shot on a camcorder? Right lets honest about this, Blackwater Valley Exorcism is a complete total & utter unashamed rip-off of The Exorcist (1973) & you literally tick off the major plot points that the two share. There's the possessed teenage girl who starts to get very horny & suggest inappropriate things, the demon that uses past misdemeanour's against other's, the worried parents, the way that the possessed girl is shunned by doctor's, the priest with a troubled past & the possessed girl is tied to her bed amongst other things. I suppose where Blackwater Valley Exorcism is different (other than it's total crap) is that it tries to give all the character's some screen time & tries to get across how the situation is affecting them but it's so badly written & acted it just ends up being boring. The film starts with Isabelle already possessed so we never knew what she was like as a normal person so we never really care about her or what is happening to her either, the rest of the character's are poorly written & fleshed out. At times I wondered whether Blackwater Valley exorcism was a spoof, there's a silly scene in which a vet tries to sedate the possessed Isabelle with horse tranquilisers & after he states that she needs a 'little prick' he enters her room with a huge needle hidden behind his back! There are a few scenes in which people are punched accompanied by a silly comedy sound effect. The film has an uneven tone as a result as it goes between silly spoof & serious horror drama, or it did in my opinion at least.

According to some text before the opening credits Blackwater Valley Exorcism was based on 'Actual Events', yeah right actual events from 1973 that happened in a film called The Exorcist... This piece of text also states that the exorcism scenes were supervised by a real priest. There isn't even any decent gore or exploitation to liven things up, there's a scene of a cut arm, there's a dead dog, someone is stabbed with a crucifix & that's about it. There's surprisingly no bad language in it either despite the demon trying to be offencive. I would imagine the only reason Blackwater Valley Exorcism has an adult rating is because of one very brief scene in which a pair of breast's are seen. One pair of naked female breast's is not worth the time watching this or the money you might spend on it. There is zero scares, no atmosphere & a really amateurish feel to the whole film too.

With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 I must say that I am wondering where all the money went, the film looks ugly & cheap throughout. There are no special effects to speak of & the production values are rock bottom. The acting is very poor from all involved, genre favourite Jeffrey Combs gets near top billing during the opening credits but has nothing more than a cameo in what amounts to about five minutes of screen time. Even he must have feared how bad this was going to be has he hides behind a moustache & a terrible accent, he is better than this.

Blackwater Valley Exorcism is a complete rip-off of The Exorcist without anything that made that film such a classic & the makers are thirty five years too late anyway. A total turkey from start to finish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As the metaphoric flies fled this steaming watery stool of a film i found myself longing to join them.

From the opening sentences, you quickly gather that the actors are talentless. The script editor was probably dead and the director should be. To be honest I didn't manage to finish this film because about twenty dismal minutes in the sight of the main actress scuttling across the floor like a Shetland pony that has been shot in the ass was too much for me to stomach.

I have never, and I mean never, seen a film as sweaty as this one and I watch tons of crap films.

Turd.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While watching BLACKWATER VALLEY EXORCISM, I encountered scenarios and dialog so incredibly bad that I was convinced that this was supposed to be a comedy. A few choice bits of dialog worthy of a belly laugh: \"I ate a rabbit.\" \"I TOLD you she was possessed!\" \"Are you telling me the Devil is in my daughter?!\"

There are many, many more, but you must discover these for yourself - if you dare.

The story goes off into all sorts of directions and things happen that probably shouldn't and everyone seems to be a perv or psycho of some sort (even the Priest). And I haven't even gotten to the bad acting. Most notable in this area is the fellow playing Isabelle's father. The director must have just told him to act like he's got a stick up his @$$ because that's the general impression one gets.

I don't really want to steer anyone away from BLACKWATER VALLEY EXORCISM because there is entertainment value to be had...for all the wrong reasons, but if you're looking for a decent horror movie that makes sense and is actually scary...well, run don't walk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me tell you something...this movie exceeds all of the Troma laugh and gore movies hands down as it ACTUALLY TRIES TO COME ACROSS AS A SERIOUS MOVIE. From the terrible acting... \"I knew it, I knew she was possessed!\"...to the priest accepting sexual favors and getting into showers with naked teenagers...this piece of dung takes the cake. I am at a loss trying to compare this to another movie equally as bad. This may just be in a class all its own. The kicker is that supposedly some Cardinal oversaw production to make sure it was true to the actual situation. I did not know that people from Backwoods USA act like utter imbeciles. I am not sure if I am upset for renting it or have stumbled across a jewel of comedy. This was a very guilty pleasure...so awful that I watched with hands over my eyes half the time (while I wasn't laughing so hard I was crying). The ending simply made no sense whatsoever, pulling the whole thing together perfectly. If you want to watch something so awful its funny, here is your movie. If you want a scary movie on exorcism....move on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie just seemed to lack direction. The plot developed so many twists in such a short amount of time that it seemed to lose any semblance of what the true storyline was. There was a lot of wasted dialogue and just seemed like the writing was rushed and a little too wandering. The exorcism scenes and possession story began to take a back seat to the character's back stories (which were a little weak to begin with).

All in all, I would say skip it unless you have rented out the rest of the horror section at your local video store and you have a jones for a movie you haven't seen before. You're much better off just watching The Exorcist or The Exorcism of Emily Rose.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Blackwater Valley Exorcism is a movie about a possessed young girl. Do I need to describe any more of the plot to you? The Exorcist and The Exorcism of Emily Rose are two terrific terrifying movies. Classics (IMO). Blackwater Valley Exorcism (BVE) is not. Not by a long shot. It's certainly not as terrible as a low budget copy of The Exorcist could have been. From start to finish it has the feel of a \"made for Sci-Fi channel\" production. It's one of those movies that will probably be spoofed and ridiculed on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (or a similar show).

The make up and effects were absolutely laughable. The acting was horrendously bad. There was not a single performance that didn't lead to me rolling my eyes or giggling. Oh, except maybe for Jeffery (Re-Animator) Combs as the sheriff. The script wasn't THAT terrible but it certainly wasn't anything special.

It seems like through most of the movie everyone is more focused on who is sleeping with who than they are with the demon possessed girl in the other room. Oh, there was something I learned from this movie. Apparently if your teenage daughter is possessed by a demon then all you have to do is lock them in the room. C'mon. And if your daughter is possessed don't worry too much because all it does it make them talk in funny voices, eat rabbits, try to stare you down, and put fog machines in their bed. Other than that there is nothing to worry about. Apparently she was possessed with a low budget D-List demon.

There was none of the ghastly deeds done by A-List demons like crucifix intercourse, painful body distortions, or even projectile vomiting.

Totally laughable movie. Not worth even a discount rental.

2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While this movie did have a few scary moments (great use of music and film angles to build suspense), it's obvious director Ethan Wiley and scriptwriter Ellary Eddy didn't waste any time researching their subject matter; which also makes me question their claim that the exorcism scenes were overseen by a genuine Catholic bishop.

Amongst the many inconsistencies:

* Jacob the Roman Catholic priest, when we first meet him outside the church, is wearing an academic robe over his clericals rather than the typical alb, chasuble or surplice. Academic robes are commonly worn by Protestant ministers in liturgical denominations, not Roman Catholic priests.

* Jacob the priest quotes some obscure and disturbing scripture about the angels taking up weapons. He attributes it to St. Paul. This verse is not from St. Paul's writings, neither is it in the Bible. I can't even find it in the Gnostic scriptures.

* Jacob tells his bishop he doesn't believe in demon possession and turns down the request to study exorcism but does a complete 180 (later that same day?) within minutes of talking to possessed Isabelle. Sure, it's possible; but a little unrealistic. See Father Damien as a priest\/psychologist in the original THE EXORCIST for a bit more realistic portrayal of a skeptic-turned-believer.

* Miguel, the former priest turned farmhand, is the first to try an exorcism on Isabelle. He quotes scripture, and she quotes back. He says \"I see you know Psalm 65\" - she corrects him \"that's Psalm 67\" - they're both wrong.

* Miguel, the former priest who just got done performing an exorcism - making the sign of the cross, calling on the name of Christ, applying holy water, etc. - tells Jacob he doesn't believe in church and he doesn't believe in God. (Maybe he's just conflicted?) Jacob enlists him to put on home-made vestments and have another go at it anyway.

* Miguel, the former ROMAN CATHOLIC priest, crosses himself backwards (or Eastern Orthodox-style). As an Hispanic Roman Catholic who USED to be a priest, he should've crossed himself forehead to sternum, left-side to right side of chest.

I had to read into the little side stories to get the notion Satan was messing with the whole family, not just Isabelle; but even in the end it was hard to say for sure if anyone was really guilty of the images in their heads or if it was all demonic trickery (except for the sheriff - it's pretty clear he was guilty).

On the positive side: Isabelle was CREEPY - in my opinion she was the best part of the whole movie and I liked the plot twist with Claire.

I'm just not sure if the movie was meant to be serious or a spoof.

Listening to the running commentary with Cameron Daddo and Ethan Wiley, I'm inclined to believe it was a joke.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A by-the-numbers exorcism exercise with a disappointing non-allegiance and usage of the term 'blackwater.' The cinematography appears right out of basic cable MOW land which removes any semblance of swampy, murky atmosphere from the proceedings. In addition, there's not nearly enough gore, sex or attractive young things to satiate the majority of the film's targeted viewers. That being said, the lead actress who plays the possessed has a sexy olive-skinned presence. What else needs to be said about this non-winner? Don't rent unless you've got a thing for middle-aged adults bemoaning their past and rants with clich\u00e9d priests, shrinks, hispanic stablemen all regretting their past actions.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Is the Cannes controversy-meter remarkably esoteric, or is that we Americans are so callous and cynical that we never bother to read between the lines anymore? Be that as it may, with plenty of careful analyzing, \"Falscher Bekenner\" at no point seems to live up to the hyped controversy it supposedly brought to Cannes in 2005, a puzzlingly drab and aimless movie that rather lives up to it's glum American re-title (\"Low Profile\").

Building on familiar themes of Bourgeoise angst and subsequent sexual liberation (kind of), admittedly it's a film not without it's surface-level interests. It starts out with a grabber, as a haunting shot of a desolate off-the-highway road focuses in on a teenage drifter, who ultimately walks by a totaled car, where supposedly a brutal hit-and-run has left the driver dead in a gory mess. Stunned, he does nothing but pick up a scrap of the remaining engine.

Just out of school, the drifter turns out to be Armin Steebe, a product of the German suburbs with minimal ambition. Persisentily pressured by his caring but somewhat nagging parents to find a good job, he endures interview after interview with every haughty interviewer along with it, every one with the same fruitless outcome. Getting mighty sick of it, his aforementioned highway encounter soon provokes his first act of rebellion: claiming responsibility for the crime which he did not commit.

Pretending to fill out more applications and going to more and more bizarre job interviews by sunrise, he partakes in roadside sexual fantasies and petty vandalism way after sundown. As the days get shorter and the nights get much hotter, as he goes on living in his suburban neighborhood as if he's doing nothing out of the ordinary.

If you seem confused about what exactly is going on, don't worry about being the only one: this is about as far and coherent as the story gets. The plot seems simple enough, and perhaps due to it's seemingly direct purposes that's why \"Falscher Bekenner\" becomes pointlessly convoluted, becoming enamored with endless false conclusions, dreamlike situations and graphic sex scenes to try and enlighten a story lacking clear logic to an already vague argument (supposedly the soul-numbing effects of the modern suburban wasteland, or something about youth's fascination with crime. Hey, it could even be a coming-out movie.) at hand. It spends a lot of time creating numerous symbols, both tangible and surrealistically allegorical, but they don't seem to be really symbolizing anything of interest.

The most fatal flaw, however, is how the filmmakers paint all it's characters in a rough shade of vanilla. There's hardly any distinguishable traits to help understand their purpose, and how the secondary characters (especially the confused relationship between Armin and his rather normal- perhaps too normal- family) catalyze the already under-developed lead character's \"plight\" never comes into focus. How are we supposed to identify with this young almost-adult's rebellion, with little sense of the world he's living in or the prominent figures around him that help comprise it?

Many people drop in and out of the movie (including Armin's sort-of girlfriend Katja, and a strange, affluent visitor who for some reason finds pleasure in watching the protagonist eat brownies) and seem to exist for no reason whatsoever. They ultimately just seem like prolonged padding to an already thin story with pointless subplots that continue to prove the movie is drawing a total blank about where to go next.

And even a movie that supposedly toys with reality (especially with Armin's nightly exploits), it ends with a literal, almost moralizing head-scratcher that seems to halt questions to a \"story\" that does little but put it's viewer in a state of pointlessly exhausted perplexion.

Without any color, it's impossible to shade anything vital in.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to differ from the other comments posted. Amid sporadic funny moments, there are a lot of actors trying too hard to be funny. The strain shows. I watched this with two friends on another friend's recommendation- none of us were thrilled.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Formulaic to the max. Neither title reflects the serial's actual content, \"Fighting Nazis in Morocco,\" (actually, the Iverson ranch). The plot is just to fill in the lulls between fistfights. The packaging claims over 40 'fistic encounters' in 15 chapters. That's at least three a chapter! Aside from seeing Duncan Renaldo cast as a Spanish accented Frenchman, watching how much furniture is overturned, smashed, thrown, burned or blown up is what this serial is really all about. When the protagonists start fighting, you can bet that everything in the room will be in it, too. So, kudos to the fight choreographer, who is the real star of this serial!

Two positive notes: the characters do sometimes lose their hats during the fights, and best of all, we have the girl side kick (often a journalist, as she is here) actually participating in the mayhem, mostly by shooting and killing the bad guys. Yet to come is Linda Stirling killing the main villain in \"Manhunt of Mystery Island\" (1945). On the negative side, there are just too many jump out of the way escapes-- before the slab falls, before the car goes over the cliff, before the speedboat explodes, before the building explodes, before the truck hits you, etc. etc.

It is claimed that this serial partially 'inspired' George Lucas to make the first Indiana Jones film, but that is more by implied concept than because of the actual story or the serial's development.

Rod Cameron 'shines' as a moving rock, a role he played in all his films. Other than watching all the furniture getting smashed, there's nothing really going on here, compared to other serials that have fewer fights, more story, better actors and more developed characters.

I give it a 3 for all the furniture smashing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just saw this at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco and had trouble staying awake during this incredibly repetitive, unenlightening little film. It is a 75 minutes film that felt like 175 minutes and has about 20 minutes of modestly engaging material. It's not bad in any offensive way, it just repeats things that have been said many, many times over and more interestingly and provocatively. With only a couple of exceptions, the interviews drone on and on and on, making little emotional contact or context to the whole topic. It's more like a \"how to\" guide for something that can't be done anymore. I was alive during the era but felt little connection or nostalgia for what was presented.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie should be retitled: Sex in the 70s In a Part of New York City called Greenwich Village and Chelsea.

This movie does little to talk about sex in the 70s except focus on the hypersexual environments of public and private sex spaces in New York City. I doubt that the Manhole bar was symbolic of actual sex in the 70s and that kind of sex is much more prevalent in the film.

Don't get me wrong, the time period looks like a blast. And it's rather important to document the scene to which the film refers. But as far as calling this film Sex in the 70s, the title is a bit misleading. Technically it's no Oscar Nominee, but the rawness of it feels appropriate for the subject.

Overall, an \"eh.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a gay man who lived through the time period examined in this tedious documentary, I was eager to see how the subject matter was handled. Unfortunately, the film makers wasted what could have been an energetic and insightful opportunity to shed some light on our collective gay history. This film only concerns itself with the period within New York City, ignoring the rest of the country. While I spent a fair amount of time in NYC at that time, I can assure you that there was a gay life outside Manhattan! The men interviewed here are the same \"A-list\" queens who thought they were better than anyone else during the 70s, and here they are again, waxing nostalgic and still throwing attitude. The film should have at least tried to cover larger topics, such as race, ageism, the burgeoning gay \"caste system\" based on wealth, body image, and the rise of the \"clones\", discrimination of sub-groups within the community, and the ability to grow a decent mustache (which was very important in the 70s!). Alas, we have none of this presented, and the recollections of those interviewed are no different than my own memories. If you were there in that decade, you'll enjoy the archival photos and grainy home-movies of the bars and discos we haunted. If you weren't there, this film will undoubtedly seem dull. It should have been so much more, but sadly, it's not. Two stars for jogging my memory...I still miss going to the Anvil!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I absolutely love the first three movies, they were great! I once caught Part 5 on VHS 10 years ago, and I was disappointed. But perhaps that was because I never saw the fourth one, because they were shot back-to-back. but after finally viewing a copy today, I have to say it was no way better than number 5. My expectations weren't high to begin with, but this is cheap direct-to-video stuff, not even a horror movie, it's PG-13. The acting was not convincing, the story was rather dumb without any excitement and there were not many effects. But the main problem is that there were no kills or any gore (the annoying kid who gets killed in his car was supposed to be the highlight, but come on..)

Surprisingly, both Parts 4 and 5 were directed by Sequel-director Jeff Burr who gave us the excellent Stepfather II and Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. I liked Puppet Master: The Legacy, even if it was nothing else than a tribute with the best scenes from all movies.

Overall, Puppet Master is very much like the Hellraiser Series: A great trilogy but forget the rest..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***SLIGHT SPOILERS*** This installment of the Full Moon franchise changes the storyline a bit and implements some new elements. First off a new puppet master is established. Secondly, the puppets turn good in this sequel. Finally, It introduces some scifi\/fantasy elements as well.

A new tenant of the infamous hotel by the bay, his girlfriend, her psychic friend, and that psychics boyfriend, stumble upon Andre Toulon's puppet trunk. They also learn about some demon from another dimension that holds Toulon responsible for stealing the secret to animating the unliving. So Sutekh (the demon) sends the totems, a bunch of craven little creatures that look like ear-less gremlins. Then it's up to the puppet troupe to take care of the inter-dimensional threat that's trying to kill there new friends.

Like most low budget movies this film is rife with continuity problems. How did the puppets get put back in the trunk? How come nobody remembers the last rasche of killngs in the hotel? Who bought the hotel? Why would a contractor by a building with a history of mass murders? All this and many more questions, will not be answered...ever.

The real suprise of this movie is the acting. It's actually pretty good. The actors take it with a enthusiasm unusual especially for a bunch of Full Moon nonames. Teresa Hill was especially impressive as the shy, nervous, psychic Lauren. Chandra West (Susie) was also a pleasant suprise also. Gordon Hill was a tolerable protagonist. But Cameron was far too annoying to stomach. Thank the norse god he dies before halfway through.

The puppets are there usual animated selves. With some improvements as well. There emotions (especially Jester's) are much more human due to the sounds that have been given to them. Blade's hisses, Pinhead's grunts, and Six-Shooter's snicker have all been improved and sound much better. The stop-motion animation is only average at best, especially the totems. They just don't seem to move as fluidly as the previous installment in the series. Also the Sutekh costume is absolutely awefull. How are we supposed to afraid of a creature so humorous looking.

The story seems a bit juvinile for the series. I think Charlie Band was looking to focus in on a younger demographic. The violence being toned down in this movie also seems to speak the same. Gore fans will be disappointed.

I think the above is the main problem this movie can't really stick with many people. It doesn't have the violence for gorewhores. The language is a little cleaner. Yet it's too violent and harsh for the wee ones. Which is why the movie gets low ratings. I have to say that the common reviews are mostly fair.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a big fan of the demonic puppets. Looking at the surface of this one, it looks pretty good! You've got Decapitron, the puppets, and a new villain in THE TOTEM! Unfortunately, the little punk that's doing this project to animate, inanimate objects, can't act. He stinks! His girlfriend is worse. If they were left out, it would probably be cool, BLADE VS. THE TOTEM. I'd watch that for 2 hours. But instead, the puppets role is down played, and the whole movie suffered because of it. The mystical Skull guy who created the totem is corny at best, and Decapitrons appearance is long awaited, short, and really quite disappointing. You'd be better off watching the first one again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A severe backwards step for the puppets in this mainly dull and tedious outing. Guy Rolfe, so fantastic as Andre Toulon in part three barely features this time and Richard Band's fantastical them tune appears with the puppets a fair few minutes in to the film. For the start of the movie we are introduced to the caretaker of Bodega Bay Inn (Gordon Currie) and some youth friends of his (many of the cast are Canadian and are all very good in unfortunately rather undemanding roles - Teresa Hill is quite yummy). Totems, minions of the Egyptian God Sutek want the secret of animation life back and the puppets (when they surface) act with a previously unseen cleverness to attempt to destroy the ugly and very computer game looking Totems. The Totems merely complicate the series and distract from the things that previously made the series so unique - they don't share the weird beauty of the puppets and thus don't really fit in. Top scene is Pinhead using a rag to clean blood from Tunnelers drill bit, classic and about the goriest this film goes. The fifth film was filmed concurrently with this one so expect similar sections of mediocre and a Toulon performance that seems to have been filmed in a different era (or even galaxy). Guy Rolfe deserved better and series fans certainly do. Grrrrrrr.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So I decided to watch the entire Puppet Master series, and had just watched parts 1-3, which I thought were ALL excellent. They had a unique charm to them, and a certain intelligence that I really appreciated. About a year ago, I even saw Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys, which of course was bad, but still a terrific guilty pleasure and fun to watch.

From the very beginning of this film, I knew it was in trouble. The cheesy Power Rangers-style Egyptian skull villain who watches the Puppets 'Rita Repulsa-style' through his pyramid glass came straight out of left field! All of the additions to this franchise in this story were completely absurd! Suddenly we have a grand assortment of all kinds of new and random characters and plots that are a far cry from the first three films. I seriously doubt that when the first Puppet Master was being penned, the writers had visions of someday seeing an Egyptian Power Rangers villain, totem monsters, annoying twenty-somethings who seriously can't act (and are supposed to be brilliant scientists but never say anything intelligent), and a lame \"Decapitron\" puppet who's head can morph into the ghost of Toulon.

Another thing that greatly disappointed me in this film was that it completely ignores what happened in the last entry (Part II, since III was a prequel). Suddenly, the puppets are back at Bodega Bay Inn, back in their case (minus Blade), and Toulon for some reason is willing to help his puppets again (he betrays them in part II for his love of Elsa). This isn't explained AT ALL...and so with that, and all of this other junk thrown in, I was no longer amused.

I'm a huge fan of ridiculous B movies, a connoisseur if you will. I even collect laser discs of rare B movies you can't find on DVD, and so it takes a lot for me to say that this was one of the most absurd movies I have ever seen in my life. I still love those puppets, the original ones, Blade, Tunneler, Pinhead, Jester and the rest, and if they had only stuck with what they had rather than trying to fix something that wasn't broken, well, the series might still be alive and in good health. That being said, even though the reviews aren't so great, I'm really interested in checking out Puppet Master Retro, sounds like an interesting one that pays great tribute to the original themes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I borrowed this movie, I wasn't expecting a high-quality performance, but this was just sad.

Most of the acting was so unbelievably bad that you couldn't easily get into this movie if you tried. There's nothing quite like seeing a kid announce things like \"Oh no! My Dad is invisible!\" or \"I wonder what this does?\" in the same monotone that one might announce traffic advisories over the radio with. There are some good actors, but they are wasted on smaller parts.

The story is decent, though it would be fairly easy to guess, considering that there aren't too many real plot changes. Lots of holes, too. For example, the Dad is invisible, and the inventor figures out what part is needed to make him visible again. So the boy goes and steals the part from an electronics store. Couldn't he just ask his Dad for the cash?

This shows up in the Comedy category, but most of the comedy in this movie was fairly dumb, like the Invisible Dad taking off his clothes while invisible and then almost reappearing naked during a meeting, or walking around with his head covered at all times. Funny at first, but it gets old.

2\/5, because it is watchable, and it's one of those movies that are funny in their own way... like the monotone recitation of lines.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie made me want to bang my head against the wall. It is hard to compare such badness as this to anything, but some say that watching this movie is similar to bleeding from under your fingernails. And that comment comes from the writer's cousin. This movie was so flipping bad, it made \"Hulk\" (The second worst movie ever) look like \"The Departed\" (One of the greatest movies in cinematic history). If you like boring family movies with predictable plot lines, then you will absolutely love this movie. If you have a brain, then you definitely will not. When I rented this movie, I actually fell asleep while watching it. The next day, I finished it from where I left off, and it was the worst decision of my life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well the name in the summary should tell you everything. FRED OLEN RAY - the modern King of low budget flicks, be it for TV or direct to video (I doubt he produces for the silver screen anymore - with the death of drive-in B-movie double features and all).

Creator of such cult(?) classics, like Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers and Dinosaur Island....

Well I kind of like this guys stuff. Its mostly entertaining (in a distinctly cheesy, campy and especially cheap kind of way) and if he's one thing, he's a pro - something you can't say for all guys in the movie biz.

But this one flick here is among the weaker ones in his oevre. Insipid acting, an uninspired script and lame jokes conspire to make your brain go numb in a matter of minutes. If you are out for real F.O.R. goodness (or rather badness), look out for the above mentioned ones, and generally his stuff from the 70s and 80s (I think he lost a bit of his edge lately).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes you get exactly what you expect. A film produced and by and as a vehicle for a rock band in the middle of a comeback is not to be expected to rank high in artistic merit- and in this case it certainly doesn't. In fact, as expected, the soundtrack is a much better investment than the movie itself, which like the 70's rock and roll lifestyle it attempts to portray, is characterized by excess, drugs, and over-the-top antics, but unfortunately is not nearly as much fun. Utilizing a script by Carl Dupre horrible enough to make a fellow screenwriter cringe, and wasting the talents of Edward Furlong, the sole highlight of this rock and roll period piece gone wrong is the music, most notably the elaborate recreating of a 1978 KISS concert.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now this is a bad movie if I've ever seen one. In one of film's greatest years, 1999, Detroit Rock City contends with Runaway Bride and Wild Wild West for the bottom spot in a barrel of junkies. The plot is masterful. Four scrawny high school youngsters finally have their chance at seeing the hard rock theatrics of KISS for\u0085the third year in a row. So when their tickets are toiled by an ultra-religious, chain-smoking mom, the pals scramble themselves in getting to Detroit, and I'm sure you can figure out the rest.

Well, not exactly; the movie does go to extreme measures in explaining how the four band members (no, not Gene, Paul, Ace and Peter) go about getting these tickets: losing your virginity in a confessional; saving a smoked-out bimbo and your mom's Volvo (from the Soprano's Steve Schirripa, nonetheless); preventing a robbery in the midst of botching one for a 12-year-old's debt; and of course, stripping down to your bare essentials for MC Ron Jeremy after shuttling a full blender with bourbon-leftovers. Sounds funny, doesn't it? Perhaps Detroit Rock City does have a point with all this tomfoolery in how extreme sometimes these fans can go. And we do understand this movie is a comedy; it is supposed to be filled with slapstick. But does Detroit Rock City aim to the proper audience? It is rated R, meaning the only way prepubescent adolescents-the audience as I see it, to which many will eventually hail this one a classic-will voyeur is through illegal terms.

Detroit Rock City also fails at giving itself the late-1970's touch. The camera's texture quality is way too clear and way too bright, missing the necessary flair from films like This is Spinal Tap and Sid & Nancy. This would've allowed audiences to feel `more at home' with the times. Simply costuming kids into pre-90's grunge-wear and settling others into `disco infernos' does not do the trick. Environment does mean something you know; I doubt Detroit looked this glamorous in '78. If there's anything positive coming from this movie it's the kick-ass soundtrack of hard late-70 to early-80's rock. Van Halen, AC\/DC, you name it, it's all here. Of course we can't forget KISS, the band aptly subjected throughout.

What the film noticeably fails to manage are questions concerning why the Knights of Satin's Service (it's really just KISS) were so frowned upon by moms around the nation. Sure, the loud rock and devilish makeup might be a part of that; encouragements for youth to explore themselves and have a good time might be fair reasons as well. But, what is KISS saying in the music we hear throughout the film towards this highly rebellious group? What separates these anthems of `rock[ing] and roll[ing] all night and partying everyday' from the rest of the music? Most likely, these questions will remain in a music communication class and not in the films that should answer them, simply because it is KISS and they rock and we must do everything in our God-forgiven power to see them.

1.5\/5 stars","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I picked this movie up because it sounded like a pretty decent flick, and I've always been a fan of Foreign films. However, for someone who likes movies, I was surprised at how much I hate, hate, HATED this movie.

Although it does aim to expose the lives of young, lowerclass men in Lima, and to an extent it does succeeed, the characters are hopelessly shallow and the audience winds up having absolutely no feelings whatsoever for them.

Although the story chiefly revolves around M, he rarely ever speaks, and his dialouge is, at best, amazingly dry and dull.

*** Warning: Some small spoilers ***

Basically, the story revolves around a young man named M who has been searching for jobs, but without success (He does gain employment twice, but quits because they're \"not for him\", when you're poor, the last option you have is to be picky). Some amount of time is spent with his friends, who's idea of \"fun\" is to rape a little 14 year old, steal crappy tires off a piece of shit car for a dime sack of weed, and several other slightly retarded activities.

M's friend comesup with a plan to make $25,000 a piece and move to the US by running Cocaine to Miami. When the drug lord gives them a job, we're treated to an extremely lame scene of the three friends buying clothes at the mall with some music playing in the background. We see them trying different clothes on like little girls given $200 to shop, get there hair cut, and then strutting off looking like slick gangsters (one character, Carlos, will from this point on wear sunglasses ALWAYS... even at night).The day before they leave, the leader of the group leaves to speak with the drug lord, leaving M and his friend to be dumb. They party up, take several samples of the drugs they're suppose to run, and break into thier old school, acting like animals and smashing everything in sight.

The movie ends when M tries calling his girlfriend, who hangs up on him. The friends then proceed to set the pay phone on fire, which brings out a bunch of kids and some old man with gun. M and Carlos' friend in charge of the drug run shows up on his motorcycle and wants them to leave with him now. Then he takes off by himself, and gets shot by that old man. The police show up and arrest M and his friends (but not the man who shot the guy) and cover thier dead friend up with newspapers as music plays and it fades to credits.

**** End Spoiler ****

I even watched this movie a second time, hoping to see some subtle, redeeming factor for it, but I did not. A complete waste of 102 minutes. Although I must give it credit for being straightforward and not shying away from disturbing elements, the casting, acting, and overall direction still leaves much, much, much to be desired.

IMHO, if you're interested in a movie that explores the issues this one was suppose to, go rent City of God (Cidade de Deus) instead. Avoid this trash at all costs! You have been warned!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie which I really thought had a promising beginning but then it just led me to feel disappointed in the end. The problem I think with this film was that the director was trying a bit to hard to make this film weird and original. There were too many flashbacks and too many bad \"effects\" which got me annoyed through the film. I love Debbie Harry and Isaac Hayes but they disappointed me in this film, they could of done much better. This film seemed promising in the beginning, dragging in the middle and then disappointing in the end. The film could never beat Stanley Kubrick's geniousness when it comes to controversial matters, weirdness and originality in movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worst movie i've seen in years (and i've seen a lot of movies). Acting is terrible, there is no plot whatsoever, there is no point whatsoever, i felt robbed after i rented this movie. they recommended it to me mind you! a disgrace for terrible movies! stay away from this terrible piece of c**p. save your money !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are movies that are leaders, and movies that are followers.

\"Meatballs\" was a leader. And here's one of its followers.

\"Party Camp\" is about as interchangeable as any of its brethern who plumbed the depths that \"Meatballs\" (the original) had so successfully mined. Of course, that one had Bill Murray. So, what does \"Party Camp\" have?

I'm glad you asked that question.

Jewel Sheperd has made these flicks her bread and butter, and what a side dish SHE provides! Even as an innocent (wink, wink) girlfriend to a rich twerp (Cribb), she provides that sultry steam she gives to all her parts. And yes, guys, she shows (if you know what I mean and I think you do). My gosh, that smile of hers could melt through titanium.

What? Oh yeah, the movie. Nothing special as I said; every cheap joke is aimed for and hit (at about crotch-level). And eternal teen Jayne is good for a laugh or two. But instead of a sense of humor there's just nudity, lame sex jokes, more, nudity, a soft-core dream sequence, a sex symbol nurse simply for (CLOTHED!) leering purposes, even more nudity....

Hmmm... Maybe it's a good idea Bill Murray WASN'T in this.

Two stars. For Jewel, naturally. Plenty of \"Camp\", but not much of a \"Party\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love these awful 80's summer camp movies. The best part about \"Party Camp\" is the fact that it literally has no plot. It simply drops a weak batch of \"characters\" into a location and then things occasionally happen. The cliches here are limitless (SPOILERS): the nerds vs. the jocks, the secret camera in the girls locker room, the hikers happening upon a nudist colony, the contest at the conclusion, the secretly horny camp administrators, and the embarrassingly foolish sexual innuendo littered throughout. The only cliche missing is the presence of Corey Feldman. This movie will make you laugh, but never intentionally. I repeat, NEVER. A final note, be prepared to bust a gut watching the nonsense that is the \"dramatic\" scene where Jerry Riviera and D.A. share a beer late at night, spilling their guts to each other. The dialogue literally makes no sense, and the acting belongs on a high-school stage. It's a classic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Young writers, young auteur, young cast, busload of producers, what could go wrong? Everything. Even lame is too good a description, that suggests that three of four legs were functioning, when actually, none of them were. Barely enough recycled plotline for a 48 and a half minute television hour, gratingly stretched to ninety minutes. The audience was talking back to the screen, so bad was the story. Dirty cops steal drugs from the evidence locker. How many thousands of times has this been done on television? Bad cops frame good cops. Again, how many times? There was not an original shred in this entire concoction. Giovanni Ribisi made a valiant effort to prop up the lack of script, drawing the only laughs of the entire movie. And the thought of he and Claire Danes working from a real script with a grown-up director and photographed by an actual cinematographer intrigues me. Note to screenwriters: Buy one of those story generators. It can't possibly be as bad as ripping off bad television. Note to auteur: There are shots available to you other than closeups. Even the lovely and interesting face of Claire Danes eventually grows tiresome in closeup. Note to cinematographer: Apprentice yourself to a professional for a few years--you have much to learn. Note to color timer at the lab: At least try to persuade the auteur and the cinematographer that they don't know what they're talking about. Note to Claire: I hope this paid for your new condo. It's time to get some professional management and start actually reading the scripts before signing on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not one of those folks who bemoans everytime a film based on an old TV show comes out. Rather, I usually run out and see it (If I had watched the show) and try to get nostalgic. But if anyone feels like running down films based on old shows, this is exhibit A (So you can actually say something more than just \"McHale's Navy\"). \"Mod Squad\" is dreary, tiring, and lethargic. At least the original series was angst riddled long before anyone knew teens could be so glum, making it groundbreaking. This is just tedious. Claire Danes is nice to look at, but does nothing else but mood swing and sneak around spying on the baddies. Giovanni Ribisi's acting extent in this flick is that Droopy the Dog look for an hour and forty five minutes. And Omar Epps looks like he wants to flee the set, but the script's chlostraphobia has trapped him. Sure, the production is nice, with the now seemingly obligitory \"rave\" nightclub opening action sequence and shootouts galore. Oh, and the kids yell and get mad at each other and their superiors a lot too. It's kind of like deciding to use the Scooby Doo Mystery Machine to go on a family vacation to Hollywood with your teenage kids who you and your spouse know need heavy therapy and prescription drugs. I really wanted to like this movie, and there were promising moments, but the next scene would suck the life out of it. You can knock another Spelling remake, \"Charlie's Angels\", all you want, but at least that film knew it wanted to have fun with itself. \"The Mod Squad\" makes you wonder where the inspiration from the original series went.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must preface this comment with a sort of admission: I suppose I just have a soft spot for the original 60s-70s TV series. I think the filmmakers here blew it from the get-go as far as casting: in a supposed remake, audiences would look for reflections of the hip, athletic Linc (Clarence Williams III), or the cool, with-it Michael Cole, and so forth. Instead, we get Giovanni Ribisi as a poor-little-white rich boy who comes off as just pathetic, like he is in all his roles (in the office I used to work in, I amused myself once by creating a fake movie poster, casting various actors as members of the office staff; guess who I cast as the dorky son of the company President?). Danes does OK as the new Julie, but none of the characters have much to do, as the story just sort of sits there, mired in conventionality. So it's quite forgettable, besides. What was I talking about?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The mod squad gets started 'after' the formation of the 'Mod Squad' without even bothering to develop any of the characters or show us why anyone is doing what they are doing.

Moreover, most of the events in the movie seem ancillary to the plot. Without even a smack of character development, the plot meanders from Gen-X club scenes to action scenes and back again.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So, it's Friday night and you want to go watch a movie...all you want is something entertaining, not too artsy, or anything that might require a long night of philosophical discussions. So, you pay $10 to watch the Mod Squad. The trailer to this movie should have tipped me off, but come on...it's three of Hollywood's most beautiful people--eye candy. But that's about it...a string of moving Prada ads. And what did Hollywood producers forget? A plot. Why are these kids running around the streets after some unknown enemy? Where are they? But, don't worry, after a while, you'll just stop caring. I was on the verge of walking out of this movie, because I thought sitting in my room and staring at the wall might have been more productive (and free), but by that time, it was over (90 minutes--it's only saving grace). So, still willing to waste $10? Go, get yourself a nice hot meal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This may just be the worst movie of all time. Never have I seen such horrible film making before in my life. Its so bad I think I want to go watch Barney instead. I advise everyone who reads this to write a petition to get this movie off of our film history so we can never hear from it again. I give it 1 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pure crap, decent cinematography... I liked some of colors. Other than that, this was one of the worst movies I ever saw. Boring, lifeless, not once did I find myself interested in any of the characters. I kept waiting for a real plot to form and the movie to pick up the pace. Nothing ever happened! I think they spent too much time working on hair and wardrobe that they forgot there was a movie being made at the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a fan of the series I thought, how bad can the movie be? Well I got my answer. Some movies should never be made. Why call it a remake of the series when the only similarities are that there are three main characters. The Pete character in the series wasn't a whiney little baby as portrayed in the movie. The only good thing in this movie besides the music and that Clare Danes is pretty was that it was short. What's with that dance scene??? The only reason I didn't walk out of this film was because it was so bad it got funny. Maybe that was the plan! It's really bad when a cheap 60's TV show is better then a 90's 20 million dollar film. El Mariachi cost only $7000 and is a much better film. Don't even waste your money when it comes out on tape, it's not even worth renting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, Number one-this \"film\" is a \"90's\" version of a crappy show from the 70's that no one remembers! Number two-As soon as the movie started, I was confused, it was like I walked in halfway through the movie! There was no plot! it was very annoying! Horrible wardrobe! Call me crazy, but It's just not believable to me that little skinny Omar Epps can chase down a big grown man, without a gun, and scare him into talking! It's a ridiculous \"plot\". I'm sorry, but to me, kids these days can't even put their pants on one leg at a time, let alone catch some \"evil, underground, killers\". I walked out of the theater and demanded and got my money back! I do not reccomend this movie to anyone over 12 years old!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an astonishingly bad action film. I'd say its primary flaw is that it's BORING. Arghh! Funky wardrobes, retro chic set design, and decent cinematography cannot prevent this flick from being a snoozer. Mod Squad's second (major) flaw is its lack of character development--underscored by the actors' lack of talent. I tend to like Claire Danes's work so I was quite surprised by her non-existent performance in this film. Giovanni Ribisi is woefully miscast: how could his cotton-mouthed, bumbling acting style possibly fit into an ACTION flick? As for Omar Epps, well, he needs to take a few acting lesson to learn how to emote. The man had the same facial expression for the entire film! My suggestion is to save yourself a few bucks and wait to see this turkey on cable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to like this movie, but I just couldn't. It had the potential to be a really cool, hip remake of a cool show, but that's where it fell apart. It was too hip, too cool. First of all, all the cool lines and scenes were showcased in the preview trailers, which I'd seen lots of times. And the editing was very disjointed, so that the scenes didn't seem to flow together and they all seemed out of place. Claire Danes, who I love as an actress failed to make this her break through to the beyond high school acting roles. The only bright spot was Giovanni Ribisi as Pete. His slightly stupid, yet actually smart style was funny and refreshing. Overall though, I'd recommend just watching the previews instead of seeing the movie and wishing it was more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought this movie was horrible. I was bored and had to use all the self control I have to not scream at the screen. Mod Squad was beyond cheesy, beyond cliche, and utterly predictable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**Possible Spoilers** Three young people on the wrong side of the law are given a chance to turn their lives around and become useful members of society by becoming undercover cops in `The Mod Squad,' a resurrection of the hit television series of the \u009160's, directed by Scott Silver. Given their less than stellar backgrounds, and because of who they are and the people they know, Julie Barnes (Claire Danes), Pete Cochran (Giovanni Ribisi) and Lincoln Hayes (Omar Epps) can go places other cops can't, so they are tapped by Captain Adam Greer (Dennis Farina) to infiltrate a seedy night spot suspected of being a front for a prostitution ring. For a start, Julie gets a job there as a waitress, while Pete and Linc just `hang out' to find out what they may. Julie quickly becomes reacquainted with an old boyfriend, Billy Waites (Josh Brolin), who turns out to be involved with drugs, which are tied in to the shady dealings going down at the bar. Before it's over, the `squad' is in it up to their necks, while also running afoul of a bunch of wrong cops who are also involved with the drugs, and consequently tied in with their investigation. From the beginning of the movie, there is a sense that you are coming in late; as if it's presupposed that you know what's going on as far as the origin and workings of the squad. All you get here are brief mug-shot bios of the three that give you nothing more than a glimpse into their past; there's nothing about how this all actually came about. The thinking was probably that by doing it this way it would lead into the story quicker, get things moving along. While this is true to a certain extent, some added background would have made the texture of the story a bit more interesting; the way it was done here merely depreciates the credibility of the entire proceedings. The plot is marginal to begin with, and any time spent on character development would have been well worth the while. What's delivered, and quite unimaginatively at that, is a less than compelling story filled with one dimensional characters. The performances are satisfactory, but the actors get no help from the script, nor apparently from Silver; Danes, Ribisi and Epps come close to fleshing out Julie, Pete and Linc, but given the time allotted them, combined with the lack of support, they still fall way short of giving these people life. Farina, a good actor who deserves better than what he gets here, comes off as nothing more than a caricature of the `good cop.' There's a feeling that everything was given the once-over in this film; some detail and nuance would have driven the stock up considerably on this one. The supporting cast includes Richard Jenkins (Detective Mothershed), Steve Harris (Briggs), Larry Brandenburg (Eckford), Lionel Mark Smith (Lanier) and Sam McMurray (Tricky). It's a shame to see the acting talent involved here wasted like this; a lot more thought and planning should have gone into the making of this movie. As it is, it comes across as ill-conceived and poorly executed. Danes, Ribisi and Epps are like Major Leaguers who got stuck playing for all the marbles at the local sandlot; instead of getting a shot at the title, they all got hung out to dry. Like Terry says in `On The Waterfront,' `You was my brother, Charlie, you shoulda been looking out for me.' Well, it's obvious that there was no Charlie to look out for them here, and after `The Mod Squad,' they can all just hope for something better to come along the next time. I rate this one 1\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had great production values, good lighting, costumes, set, cinematography and acting. But someone, somewhere, took the script, and replaced all the dialogue with grade-school level barely literate writing. I felt my IQ dropping points any time any character spoke.

Did they do this on purpose? Was this just an accident of Brain Dead Studio Executives? At this point, we don't know.

All I know is, this movie was one great mistake from beginning to end. We don't even get to see how the Squad became cops, so instead of any character development, we get what feels like a bad TV-movie leftover from the 60's. Or whenever.

Find the screenwriters, beat them with a sock full of quarters. Everyone else, nice work, but read your scripts next time.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I heard what people were saying, but I ignored them. Being rushed at Blockbuster I grabbed copy of this movie and ran out.

45 minutes into I was fighting to stay awake. There is some attempt to keep the film interesting, but it was just bad. A chase of some sort takes place, but it was long and drawn out - the perfect time to make a snack. By the time this movie was over I didn't care how ended, I just wanted it to end. Walking in and out of my room checking to see if it was over.

The entire movie is a cliche', the characters and their relationships. The plot twists are predictable, as well as the ending. The actors made the best out of really terrible roles. All can say is: their clothes were nice, but the movie, it was just bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was actually looking forward to this movie. The commercials made it look real cool and action packed. And I heard that Claire Daines' character was arrested for assault so I thought that maybe she would kick a lot of ass and that would be cool. BUT NOOOOOOOO!!. Their was hardly any action at all and the character were all kinda bland. The only saving grace was Omar Epps and even he didn't help this movie much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is nothing at all redeeming about this film. It is very bad and not in such a way that it is even remotely funny. Horrible plot, acting, and writing and incredibly cheap production values to boot. This film makes \"The Jackal\" look like a work of art.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The DVD sleeve explains the premise: \"Three problem teens are headed for jail,\" and are \"set to do time until Captain Greer offers them a deal to work for him - undercover.\" The film opens with definitions of the words \"Mod\" and \"Squad\", so you won't have to look them up in the dictionary. For a visual definition of \"Cool\", search for photographs of the original threesome: Michael Cole (as Pete Cochran), Clarence Williams III (as Linc Hayes), and Peggy Lipton (as Julie Barnes).

One black. One white. One blonde. Once they defined cool.

The three who make up Scott Silver's version of Aaron Spelling's \"The Mod Squad\" are twentysomethings: Claire Danes (as Julie Barnes), Giovanni Ribisi (as Pete Cochran), and Omar Epps (as Linc Hayes). They aren't able to do much with the material given. Mr. Ribisi's portrayal is the most \"far out\", meaning he digresses most from the original characterization. Ms. Danes romances Josh Brolin (as Billy Waites), who looks like he could be in a re-make of \"Marcus Welby, MD\". You won't believe hefty Michael Lerner dancing with Mr. Epps' \"Linc\". He explains, \"I'm not a fairy, I just like to dance!\" and requests, \"Spin me!\"

*** The Mod Squad (1999) Scott Silver ~ Claire Danes, Giovanni Ribisi, Omar Epps","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie for the first time the other day and was bored to tears. I guess I just was looking for some flashback to the wonderful series that I remembered. I watched The Mod Squad television show religiously back in the day and it was fantastic. It was action packed and the relationship the 3 had with Greer was endearing. There wasn't any of that here. When Greer was murdered you get the idea that these 3 could have cared less. The actor who portrayed Pete is a really good actor but they wrote his part like he was mentally challenged. Pete in the television series was quiet and serious but had a funny side also. They had this guy acting like he was either on drugs on the time, drunk or just plain ignorant. I wouldn't recommend this movie at all. Especially if you were a fan of the TV series. It will be a complete letdown.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie was slow, the dialogue between actors\/actresses felt \"flat\" and basically there was no development of the characters in the story.

Omar Epps skulks around with a mad look on his face the entire time, pouting and basically looking annoyed with everybody. Danes has no on-screen magic, and Ribisi's character is a goober that nobody would want to hang out with even if they were paid to do so.

Throw in the weird scene where Epps has to dance with an old man, and you have what quite possibly COULD BE the worst movie in cinema history.

I watched it on satellite (thank goodness I didn't pay for it), and wished I hadn't.

Do yourself a favor and go sort your underwear and socks drawer if you need something to do but are tempted to watch this movie when\/if it comes on your TV. Awful movie if you ask me, and I generally have something good to say about just about any movie out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was not old enough to really appreciate the original Mod Squad, but I knew everyone thought it was cool. I have some of the \"books\" that were written based on the series in my screen-to-print collection, and they're pretty light duty, so I didn't expect much from the movie. That's a good thing, because this movie was bad on a long leash.

I admire the risk in creating a movie that is so completely true to the 1960's hit. The movie audience, though, has gained sophistication in 30 years. At least, I think so. I certainly expect something more than an hour and a half of the original Mod Squad concept, with (now old) car chases, (now considered poor) camera work, (tinny sounding) soundtrack and (poor) script and all, on the big screen. In the 1960s, we didn't care as much because we had minimal expectations. An integrated police team of young people wearing something besides suits was enough. It was that, another thrilling episode of \"Ironsides\" or \"Password.\"

Rating this \"episode\" against usual theatre releases, the story was...well, I'm not sure I should even say because I'm not sure there was one. Drugs are bad? Whatever. The script was silly. When the characters are exchanging dialog and advancing the plot with lines like \"I overheard him say so on the phone,\" and \"I think I got a plan,\" we really are in trouble. No wonder the acting was dreadful: no one knew how to say such idiotic lines.

If I were Claire Danes, I'd be going after my agent with a flame-thrower right now. (Actually, I think everyone in and watching the film has a right to seek retribution.)

And where was the Mod in that Squad? I realize these kids just got out of juvenile hall, but no one had a velvet suit? \"Mod\" only meant young and integrated? What happened to white go-go boots? Perhaps the costume department was going for gritty, but all they got was dirty and dingy.

Since the movie was completely true to the original series, and required special behavior from the actors, cameramen, stunt men, etc., we should appreciate it more. Unfortunately, I still don't like it. If I wanted to watch 60's crime drama, I'd buy DVDs. No thanks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Mod Squad isn't a movie, it's a void. That's the most fascinating thing about it and the thing that kept me watching \u0096 I'd never seen a film that offered absolutely nothing before. It's a film without any reason to exist whatsoever, seemingly consciously designed to appeal to no-one as if made purely as a contractual obligation to someone the studio really dislike. There is no plot, there is no characterisation, there are no set piece action scenes, there aren't even any scenes as such, just a progression of increasingly empty shots projected at 24 frames per second. I'm not talking about empty as in dumb summer blockbuster but empty as in \"We haven't got the pages yet so just point the camera at something and stop when you've got 90 minutes worth.\" It makes you appreciate the 'artistic achievements' of Charlie's Angels and S.W.A.T. that much more. What it does offer is far too much of Giovanni Ribisi at his most tediously execrable doing his bastard son of a thousand morons impersonating Marlon Brando method acting routine, Michael Lerner dancing with Omar Epps and\u0085 no, that's it. Oh, Clare Danes has a nice smile in one shot. And Dennis Farina has the sense to get killed off early. Genuinely the most utterly pointless film ever made, it's like L'Humanite without the jokes but, you know, for kids.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had the misfortune to watch this last night on the BBC, I expect I may have been the only viewer. From the beginning there was something quite wrong about the movie, after a few minutes of viewing i managed to work out what it was. THE MOVIE WAS BAD! Not bad in a good way like Wolfpack or a Seagal film just plain old shoddy bad.

Why was this made into a movie? I've seen a few episodes of the TV series and thought it was alright but I only saw repeats of that because they made this.

I spent most of the film trying to work out what the story was and by the end I was none the wiser. I seem to remember at some point a character, maybe Farina's mentions that the Mod Squad can get in to places regular cops can't. The 'place' turns out to be a 'club', one of the toughest places to get into, maybe it was student night? I lost track of the plot at this point or maybe there was no plot and the movie was just chopped together from various leftovers from other TV series remakes.

Was it an action comedy? I don't remember any laughs.

Overall this movie lacked the real scene stealing power of someone like Seymour Hoffman as the bad guy. With him Ribisi would have had somebody to bounce off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the most boring films I've ever seen. The three main cast members just didn't seem to click well. Giovanni Ribisi's character was quite annoying. For some reason, he seems to like repeating what he says. If he was the \"Rain Man\", it would've been fine, but he's not.

3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This one is a poor attempt at spinning the old \"cons turn good\" yarn, which we have seen so many times before. It actually reminded me of the American series 'The Players', although nowhere near as good. Omar Epps is totally unconvincing as the hard man of the bunch, as is Ribisi, who's attempt at being the funny guy gets lost along the way. Danes performance was decent though, and you can see from this performance, why she was cast in Terminator 4.

The MOD Squad is a film which lies in a kind of grey area between serious thriller and comedy. At times it takes itself serious but other times it tries to be humorous but fails miserably. The film has a kind of half-finished feel about - as if it was stretched to the 90 minute mark.

You'l be disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"one day someone said lets redo the mod squad we can make it hip cool and all that YO!it'll make a mint then they actually made it and as you are watching it you can hear your spleen cringe in agony as it twists and binds into a knot from the pure horror of it all any movie ever made has something on this id rather meet wayne newton and sing karaoke with him in a gay bar in idaho and drink a virgin bloody mary than ever watch this again may god have mercy on my soul","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i expected this movie to be absolutely god awful. Like \"What Dreams May Come\" or \"The Truman Show\" or something. Well they were selling it off for \u00a33.99 in my local HMV and it had Giovanni Ribisi on the cover, you know you cant help but love him, and so my friends dared me to buy it. and i was sure it was going to be trash. maybe thats the only reason i could sit through this movie, because my standards were never that high.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's not unusual that Hollywood likes to pump out crappy films. Occasionally, a handful of good films come out of them while the majority just sucks major ass. It's also not surprising that those bad films are retreads of old TV series'. Occasionally a surprise pops up with \"The Fugitive\" (who saw that Best Picture oscar nom coming?), but for every \"Fugitive\", there's a McHale's Navy or some other wholly unoriginal film devoid of any plot or interest. The Mod Squad, in my opinion, goes into my top ten of truly lousy films, in which Hollywood should get it's sorry ass beaten for producing what could've been a good movie. We're shifted right dab smack in the middle of a story that just doesn't seem to make sense, it wastes the talent, and the dialogue is just bad. We don't actually know who the hell these characters are, and we could give a flying f**k about what they are. Instead, you're expected to automatically know who they are and what they're going to do. There's one particularly bad riff, about the \"I'm too old for this s**t\" line, that's just plain stupid. Something my friend verbally noted when we were clamoring for the movie to just end. It's just an insult to Hollywood cinema. Grade: F-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When a loser teen is bitten by an insect, he becomes the superhero Dragonfly...

Superhero Movie is the latest spoof movie to hit the screens. Sadly however, despite the presence of David Zucker (who was involved with Airplane!, Top Secret and The Naked Gun movies) it still suffers from the fault most recent spoofs have...mainly it's more dumb than fun! The fault mainly lies with the gags. It's simply not funny enough. Some of the jokes do work, such as the nail gun scene, but other parts simply fall flat. The X-men spoof for example, or the whole farting sequence. Blazing Saddles this isn't! One of the key things about the best spoof movies, like Airplane is that although the dialog is extremely funny, the cast for the most part play is completely straight. This makes it even funnier. Even when there is simple dialog in the foreground, there may well be funny things happening behind the cast. Again funny. The other key thing is that they all have a plot of sorts, to hang the gags on.

The recent trend seems to be to take scenes from various movies, THEN try and spoof them. As a result the so-called plot of these movies very rarely exist. Another flaw these movies have, is that some of the scenes were actually funny in the original versions, and in most cases even funnier than the spoof scene! The cast try to get into the spirit required, but with a lot of unfunny dialog and scenes, it's hard to get worked up about it.

As recent spoof movies go, it's not as bad as Epic Movie, Date Movie, or the awful Meet The Spartans, but considering that some people involved here have made good, funny movies in the past, it's nowhere near good enough.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's not fair. I was really expecting this to be a hilarious, entertaining movie. I mean, I like Drake Bell from Drake and Josh, and Leslie Neilson is nothing to be sneezed at since his earliest classics, Airplane and the Naked Gun. However, After seeing Superhero movie, I'm glad I didn't even have to pay for it. It just wouldn't have been anywhere near the 9$ per ticket. More like a dollar and a few pennies. Because that would sum up for the hour and a few minutes. And as disappointing as this film was I'm glad the running time was that short, if not shorter. I just cant believe how incredibly vulgar, unnecessary, and above all, STUPID, some of the scenes were! And above that, I've seen better acting from a wooden dummy(without the ventriloquist). It's as if Craig Mazin purposefully wanted to make a film that deserves its 3.7, if not lower, and even try to be worse than \"Meet the Spartans\". Very disappointing indeed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie starts with a Spiderman spoof which is your introduction to Rick Riker (played by Drake Bell of \"Drake & Josh\" fame, personally I'd have given the movie to Josh who is much funnier) and the \"Rick Punchers\" joke is lifted right out of Airplane so the writers were obviously already scraping the barrel for ideas for this film. Rick's class is on a science trip to The Amalgamated Genetics lab and this is where we get to meet the 1st star name in the film, Brent Spiner (Data in Star Trek TNG) playing Dr Strom. Rick is bitten by a genetically modified dragonfly which is where his powers come from.

We meet our next big star names at Rick's home, his Aunt Lucille (Marion Ross of Happy Days fame) & Uncle Albert (Leslie Nielson of Airplane, Police Squad & Naked Gun fame). And we're introduced to Carlson on the Amalgamated Board of Directors (Dan Castellaneta from The Simpsons) who is then very promptly killed. We're told Rick has slept for 5 days & get some cheap, crappy sexually orientated scenes designed to get the teen male audience paying attention. The Stephen Hawking lookalike's scene is painful to watch and is really a bad idea that doesn't work and isn't remotely funny.

We get another Spiderman spoof (Rick catching the girl and all the planets) but the movie should end right there as Jill was hit in the head by a falling bowling ball which would have broken her skull and killed her stone dead. You get to see Rick's 1st powers emerge (gripping ability & speed) then his 1st rescue which goes very wrong. We also get an incest reference which is in very poor taste indeed. We get a flashback and a Batman spoof in which we discover Rick is solely responsible for the death of his parents. Spoofing Spiderman again Ricks Uncle is shot with Jeffrey Tambor (from Hellboy) playing the Hospital Doctor. We then get an X-men spoof (done very badly as Patrick Stewart is about as white as they come), Barry Bonds is played by yet another lookalike.

We meet Invisible Girl (played by Pamela Anderson looking stunning in her costume!). Ricks 1st outing in his costume (once he fixes his ability to see & breath through it) is another Batman spoof. The Tom Cruise Youtube interview clip is played by yet another lookalike (and not a very good one at that). There are lots of modern references like Youtube, Facebook & Wikipedia all showing that the movie is set in modern day. There's a very weak gay joke (never a good idea to do those either) when Jill is helping Aunt Lucille make Thanksgiving dinner and the pissing scene isn't very funny, just infantile.

The Aunt farting scene isn't particularly funny, just incredibly childish. Anyone finding it funny must have a mental age of about 12. She's killed and then we have a really bad necrophilia joke (is there no topic these people won't try to use to get a cheap laugh out of?) at her funeral, and the even worse cremation joke.

We get the 2 worst lookalikes in the whole movie (Prince Charles & Nelson Mandela) at the awards ceremony and if you didn't already know how infantile or stupidly lowbrow this movie is Landers wins the \"Douchebag Of The Year\" award. Landers is revealed as The Hourglass (in a really bad scene where the same girl manages to run past Jill twice in the same direction).

Obviously The Hourglass is foiled, Jill is rescued from certain death and the only funny scene in the whole movie is the final one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Superhero Movie (2008) is the most recent in the long line over \"parody\" movie movies which I despise so much. I wish this movie could be the death of the genre, but I know that it isn't awful enough to put the final nail in the coffin.

If Meet the Spartans is considered the bottom of the barrel as far as Hollywood movies go, than Superhero Movie is probably near the top. Unfortunately Meet the Spartans was actually miles below the barrel, and this movie just barely makes it in.

Superhero Movie has a decent cast of C-list celebs. It's got Drake Bell (the kid from Disney's Drake and Josh), Leslie Nielson (Airplane!), Tracy Morgan (SNL and 30 Rock), and a few others scattered throughout. Although it has the star power to light a 40-watt bulb, the movie fails to utilize any humor.

This movie is about 80 minutes long, most of which is dedicated to following the Spiderman plot, and not one single joke is funny. I didn't laugh or chuckle or smirk the entire time.

Don't see this movie. Don't even think about it. For the love of cinema, just skip it and maybe they wont come out with another one.

...oh, who am I kidding? They'll probably come out with another one by fall.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Here's a spoof that's guaranteed to entertain folks in the IQ range of Homer Simpson. It's a cheap shot at every great Superhero, notably Spiderman and Batman. But it doesn't end there; it gets progressively worse until it disintegrates into a pathetic ensemble of slapstick trollop by the truckload.

For those interested in the plot, you've only to watch Spiderman while under the influence of some heavy narcotic. What you get is Dragonfly Man \u0096 a boy wonder, who loves the girl next door, suddenly inheriting some stupendous super-powers.

The rest of the script is as predictable as waking up in the morning and brushing your teeth, but don't' take my word for it! For kids, this is somewhat amusing; for adults it's a great film to drop the kids off for.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I happened to rent this movie with my sister in hopes of watching a great entertaining movie, that was humorous, however my expectations were let down. This movie was beyond disgusting and revolting for a PG-13 movie, this should have been rated R for the many mature references that went on in this movie. I wouldn't recommend allowing a 13 year old teen see this.

Even if no one under the age of 17 is watching this movie, beware of a truly stupid movie, there's no humor in the movie, just a bunch of disgusting sexual references including a small touch of pedophilia, something that shouldn't even be joked about.

I would like to know what happened to PG-13 movies, that were actually safe for actual a 13 year old? This is beyond a deplorable movie and should be re-rated.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Scary Movie 1-4, Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, Not another Teen Movie and Another Gay Movie. Making \"Superhero Movie\" the eleventh in a series that single handily ruined the parody genre. Now I'll admit it I have a soft spot for classics such as Airplane and The Naked Gun but you know you've milked a franchise so bad when you can see the gags a mile off. In fact the only thing that might really temp you into going to see this disaster is the incredibly funny but massive sell-out Leslie Neilson.

You can tell he needs the money, wither that or he intends to go down with the ship like a good Capitan would. In no way is he bringing down this genre but hell he's not helping it. But if I feel sorry for anybody in this film its decent actor Drake Bell who is put through an immense amount of embarrassment. The people who are put through the largest amount of torture by far however is the audience forced to sit through 90 minutes of laughless bile no funnier than herpes.

After spoofing disaster films in Airplane!, police shows in The Naked Gun, and Hollywood horrors in Scary Movie 3 and 4, producer David Zucker sets his satirical sights on the superhero genre with this anarchic comedy lampooning everything from Spider-Man to X-Men and Superman Returns.

Shortly after being bitten by a genetically altered dragonfly, high-school outcast Rick Riker (Drake Bell) begins to experience a startling transformation. Now Rick's skin is as strong as steel, and he possesses the strength of ten men. Determined to use his newfound powers to fight crime, Rick creates a special costume and assumes the identity of The Dragonfly -- a fearless crime fighter dedicated to keeping the streets safe for law-abiding citizens.

But every superhero needs a nemesis, and after Lou Landers (Christopher McDonald) is caught in the middle of an experiment gone horribly awry, he develops the power to leech the life force out of anyone he meets and becomes the villainous Hourglass. Intent on achieving immortality, the Hourglass attempts to gather as much life force as possible as the noble Dragonfly sets out to take down his archenemy and realize his destiny as a true hero. Craig Mazin writes and directs this low-flying spoof.

featuring Tracy Morgan, Pamela Anderson, Leslie Nielsen, Marion Ross, Jeffrey Tambor, and Regina Hall.

Hell Superhero Movie may earn some merit in the fact that it's a hell of a lot better than Meet the Spartans and Epic Movie. But with great responsibility comes one of the worst outings of 2008 to date. Laughless but a little less irritating than Meet the Spartans. And in the same sense much more forgettable than meet the Spartans. But maybe that's a good reason. There are still some of us trying to scrape away the stain that was Meet the Spartans from our memory.

My final verdict? Avoid, unless you're one of thoses people who enjoy such car crash cinema. As bad as Date Movie and Scary Movie 2 but not quite as bad as Meet the Spartans or Epic Movie. Super Villain.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this movie with my boyfriend last night. I'm 20 years old and this movie was way too much for ME. I couldn't imagine taking a teenager, preteen, or (especially) a child to this movie. It was crude and offensive. I was totally misled by its PG-13 rating and the previews that I had seen for it. I had originally seen previews for it on Nickelodeon, and I thought that it looked pretty cute (maybe I just don't remember the preview correctly) . Plus, Drake Bell (the movie's main character) stars on a Nickelodeon television show that targets preteens and young teenagers. I really didn't think that the movie's content would be as risky as it was. I should have done more research about it before I went. However, I'm hoping that parents will read up on this movie before they take their kids to see it just because it has Drake Bell in it.

Seriously, do NOT take your kids or teenagers to see this movie. The rating should have been R. There are tons of sexual references, drug references, and disturbing events throughout the movie. Examples: Drake Bell gets attacked by sexually charged animals, several scenes that involve men grabbing women's breasts, lots of profanity, Drake Bell uses a bong to smoke vanilla frosting (or something like that), people get stabbed, hit, and hurt in the movie, and an elderly lady and her dog get shredded. There are tons of other offensive and disgusting scenes throughout the movie. It was really demeaning to women in general. The movie is by the people that made the Scary Movie series, so that should tell you something right there. Please remember that seeing movies like this can give kids and teenagers all kinds of wrong ideas about sex, drugs, and violence. Most children and teenagers can't decipher between spoofs or comedy and reality.

I do have a sense of humor. I also know that the humor that was in this film is typical of its genre. But I find the possibility of children and teenagers going to see this movie HORRIFYING.

As for the overall quality of the movie, I didn't think it was that original or funny. It dragged in parts and some of the humor was just forced and painful. The acting wasn't TOO bad, considering how bad the script was. If you're an adult or older teen looking for a funny movie, skip this one or rent it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was the worst film I have ever seen. It was a complete waste of money. If I had not been in the cinema was my two young cousins (who also thought it was disappointing, but not as terrible as I thought), I would have left the cinema. There were two points in the film that I almost laughed, but the rest of it was either boring, ridiculous or painful. I thought it would be a spoof on all superhero movies (which I love), but in fact it was mainly based on Spiderman, with a few oblique references to other superhero movies such as Fantastic Four and Batman. I really cannot think of one good thing to say about this film. Do not waste your money with this film-there are many other better films out there!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I took my 14 year old to see this movie. We left after 15 or 20 minutes. It was absolutely awful! This movie should be rated R at the least. I am not that strict with movies but, this was just too much. It was a waste of money. I thought it would contain some comedy and I knew the comedy would probably be crude but, this was WAY beyond crude. I was sitting there watching and reading (a certain subtitle at the beginning of the movie was what really got me) and I could not believe how crudely sexual it was. I could not believe that it would be OK for a 13 year old to read and see this content. I don't understand how the rating system works.??","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was the stupidest movie I have ever seen in my life. It is a complete waste of money and time. I went to see this movie with my friends and when the movie was over not a single person in the movie theater- not that there was a lot of people there to see this terrible movie- said \"wow what a good movie.\" Someone actually walked out! It was absolutely terrible! It was disgusting and I hated every minute of it. My friend was putting her head in my shoulder towards the end because after the scene with Rick on the ceiling peeing, she had had enough. It was not funny at all. Believe me I went with 11 other girls and not one of my friends liked it. It was ridiculous! I've seen many movies but this was absolutely the worst! I mean a scene in the movie is with an old man making out with a dead person in a coffin. I just can't make up these things.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And so it started with \"Shreik\" a send up of horror films, then we had Scary Movie, a genuinely good attempt at a new kind of genre, the illustrious send up. however....now we have: Scary Movie* Scary Movie 2 Scary Movie 3 Scary Movie 4* Date Movie Meet The Spartans Not Another Team movie* plus many more (genuinely funny movies marked with *)

and.....Super hero movie.... it seems the people that make these movies cannot yet grasp what makes the send-ups funny. using the rip-offs from other movies in a funny way is all well and good if done properly, but not many producers seem to know how to do that. Scary movie(1) did it well, the following sequels were then horrendous as the tried to over play the franchise, but it was redeemed by Scary Movie 4. Not another teen movie was good because it used the spoofs well...and to its credit i am sick of teen movies. however, this movie plays like a bad version of all of these. it relies on slap stick the would make even the 3 stooges cringe, violating the image of Stephen hawking, and then when people begin to get bored (and the producers knew when this would be) we are treated to Pamela Anderson in a skin tight suit. to conclude, spoofs should be about making a homage-like mock-up of an original movie with an original storyline, not plastering random take offs of legitimate film onto the storyline of a real film.

...i shudder at the thought of \"SCI-FI MOVIE\" and get my seppuku knife ready","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought this would be funny. I did. I don't know what happened. But I think a lot of the problem unfortunately falls with the casting. I don't know who this kid is, he could be a very nice person but he wasn't right for this movie. And the supporting cast was great which only makes it more obvious. For example there would be a scene with him and his love interest and your mind just starts to wander off but then Keith David starts speaking, or Leslie Nielsen, or Marion Ross, and it's like someone turned a light on and suddenly you can pay attention again and you think it might not be that bad. But when they get back to the main characters the lights go out again.

The spoofing material available in the superhero genre is plentiful so the fact that most of the jokes were basically a fart, makes you wonder who wrote this thing. I mean it had a couple of funny bits, as I do remember laughing a couple of times, but right now I don't remember why and it was only a few days ago.

Really I'm giving it a take it or leave it rating but I think most people should just leave it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Went with some friends and one of my friends mom, thinking it would be a good way to start off the spring break, but the movie turned out awful. We all agree it shouldn't have been PG-13. More like R material. Lots of sexual dialog, cussing and referring to boy and girl parts (below the waist). Not worth the time or money. Strongly urge you not to go, or rent it when it comes out. If you do end up going, don't take smaller children. Not the type of movie to see with the family! If curious about the content, check out the content advisory section on the Superhero Movie page on IMDb. Most of the content that was meant to be funny was extremely crude. Especially when they make fun of Steven Hawking.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is funny if you're the gentleman who was sitting about three rows behind me (repeating every punchline, laughing when there were no gags on-screen, and issuing a gravelly \"haaaa\" at every scene involving a computer or mobile device).

For everyone else, it's a mean-spirited, bungled \"comedy.\" The movie strictly follows the formula of the later \"Scary Movie\" films, as well as \"Epic Movie\" and \"Meet the Spartans,\" though without the flood of heartless pop culture references that made the latter two so irritating. Still, the lampooning of intellectual and peacemaking figures the world over makes it clear that the film knows its audience: people who envy brainpower. \"Superhero Movie\" is particularly and consistently nasty to Stephen Hawking, introducing him as a sex-starved druggie and using his disability as a vehicle for slapstick.

The plot is based on \"Spider-Man,\" with \"Batman Begins\" and \"X-Men\" thrown in just to deliver some physical comedy. Much of the movie is slapstick, but not in any invigorating or interesting way. The longest-running gag is a fart joke, and early on the scriptwriters seem to believe that having the main character get thrown in conspicuous piles of fake animal poo automatically enlivens an otherwise uninspired rehash of the spider bite scene from \"Spider-Man.\" Perhaps the only redeeming feature of this feature is the energy in it, notably absent in other recent parodies. The filmmakers act as though they're doing something new, and the audience can feel the influence in the way the actors bounce around the screen. An extremely abbreviated length (about an hour and fifteen minutes) and the zest of the presentation makes \"Superhero Movie\" tolerable rather than horrifying.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is somehow showing 6.2 stars, It seems inconceivable that the director has that many relations. I am at a loss to explain this.

Avoid this movie at all costs. You have only a certain number of hours on the Earth, don't waste 1&1\/2 of them on this retarded steaming heap of Guano!!!

There is no story as apparently the director \"wrote\" (and I'm guessing with a blunt orange crayon) the next day's script at the completion of the day's shooting. The \"story\" has been called whimsical, no it is aimless, there is maybe enough \"story\" to fill a commercial. Don't you hate ads?

Now while both leads can act they obviously decided not to here. And similarly the writer\/director can actually both write and direct as evidenced by his next work \"Toy Love\"

So to recap, even if you get this movie for free, even if you're paid to watch it avoid it.

To paraphrase Monty Python's Search for the holy Grail, \"Run flee!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is terrible! It is like somebody gave a kid a faulty video camera and $30 and told them to make a film. Even then you'd get a better and more professional film than this. The story is so dumb you can say there isn't one. I don't think the guy who made this knew what to do at all -- watching foreign art movies all day long isn't enough to make somebody an instant director. The acting is very bad, really kindergarten level and the writing is just plain awful. The only scene I didn't hate was the one with the caravan accident but even that only means it was just slightly less horrible than the rest of the film. How do people get finance for this stuff? I don't mind alternative films but shouldn't they at least not be a big steaming pile of cow manure? I would call 'Price of Milk' amateurish if it wasn't an insult to amateurs. This would not even be a good film if you were drunk or drugged!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was more entertained by watching my wife almost pull her hair out in frustration through most of this movie. I thought something that would tie it all together would be just around the corner of the dairy barn any minute. So I cheated, grabbed the remote, and was relieved to find out it was ending in merely 20 minutes. I should have turned the channel. Cute, it had potential, but yuck!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From hardly alien sounding lasers, to an elementary school style shuttle crash, \"Nightbeast\" is better classified as a farcical mix of fake blood and bare chest. The almost pornographic style of the film seems to be a failed attempt to recover from a lack of cohesive or effective story. The acting however is not nearly as beastly, many of the young, aspiring, actors admirably showcase a hidden talent. Particularly Don Leifert and Jamie Zemarel, who shed a well needed shard of light on this otherwise terrible film. Nightbeast would have never shown up on set had he known the terrible movie making talent of this small Maryland town.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An hulking alien beastie crash-lands on Earth and soon wrecks havoc upon the populace first using his laser ray gun to dissolve into dust almost every human he catches sight off (that is when his aim isn't terribly off) and later his bare claws with which he likes to rip out and eat human spleen!

All in all, it's pretty silly stuff. I do have to give it some points for being somewhat fun at times. I actually enjoyed the mindless ray gun battle at the beginning and some of the later over the top gore effects. However it doesn't help when the monster provides the movie's only truly entertaining moments and he isn't on screen for a large portion of the film's running time. The acting throughout this is just plain awful and amateurish and our lead hero Sheriff Cinder is much too unattractive to be bagging the film's hottest chick. I also have to take off points for blatantly copying THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951) on several occasions. When the monster isn't on a rampage, NIGHTBEAST is far too dull and eventually his attacks become so repetitive and predictable even they become less fun. Watch this one back to back with the 1951 THING and see the difference characterization, attention to plot and detail and creating suspense makes to a monster on the loose movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After the opening credits over a black sheet of paper with spots of white paint sprayed onto it, oh OK I'll be generous and call it a star field, we witness an alien spacecraft crashing into a meteorite and being forced to land on earth. A terrible looking model spacecraft lands on a terrible looking model field. Three nearby campers investigate. From the burning spacecraft a reptile like looking alien, the 'Nightbeast' emerges, OK so I lied it's a guy in a dodgy rubber monster mask and silver spacesuit. The campers are quickly killed by the Nighbeast's laser gun which shoots awful special effects at people. The towns Sheriff Jack Cinder (Tom Griffith) is informed. He alerts his deputy Lisa Kent (Karin Kardian) and gathers a posse of men together to investigate. Meanwhile the Nightbeast has killed an unlucky motorist who stopped on the side of the road for a leak. His two annoying kids run for help. They approach a house, inside two young people are kissing, the girl says \"someones running towards the house\". The guy gets up to take a look and is attacked and gutted by the Nightbeast, it kills the girl as well. Then it manages to kill the two kids with his laser, maybe the Nightbeast ain't so bad after all. Once the Sheriff and his men arrive at the scene they have a gun\/laser battle with the Nightbeast. After possibly the most unexciting gun fight in film history only the Sheriff, his deputy and a local man Jamie Lambert (Jamie Zemarel) survive. But the Nightbeast is still alive, bullets seem to have no effect on it. The next day the Sheriff visits the towns Mayor, Bert Wicker (Richard Dyszel) and his girlfriend Mary Jane (Eleanor Herman) to get permission to evacuate everyone in the town. He refuses saying a party he is holding for the Governor (Richard Ruxton) cannot be cancelled, and that he doesn't want to create a panic situation. The Sheriff evacuates the town anyway. Two doctors, Steven Price (George Stover) and Ruth Sherman (Anne Firth) are attacked by the Nightbeast before they can leave. However, they manage to scare the Nightbeast away and survive. Together with the Sheriff his deputy and Jamie they decide to stay behind and fight the alien. Written and directed by Don Dohler this has to be an amateur film, made with family and friends, look at the credits and see how many Dohler's are involved. For that reason I should probably cut it some slack but that still doesn't stop it, or excuse it from being a throughly awful film in every department. It has no story or purpose, things just happen to waste time, whats with Drago (Don Leifert) strangling his ex girlfriend Suzie (Monica Neff)? This and many more scenes add nothing to the film. The script has no logic either, why does the Nightbeast stick around the town once it's been supposedly evacuated? The special effects are embarrassingly bad, just look at the effect when the Nightbeast shoots someone with his laser, a computer effect an 80's spectrum would be ashamed of. There's not really much blood or gore in it, a ripped open stomach, a severed arm and a decapitation but they all look predictably poor. Credit where it's due, the Nightbeast itself looks alright for the most part. There's a sex scene between the Sheriff and his deputy which has to be seen to be believed, music that even a porno would be embarrassed about and two really ugly naked people make this a difficult sequence to watch. Less than stellar acting, photography, music, lighting and editing make it a real chore to sit through. And the worse thing about this film? It commits the mortal sin of being boring and not fun in the slightest. Sorry Don mate, but don't give up the day job! Definitely one to avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, when I say \"wow,\" I mean, \"Jesus, please help me.\" I have an old VHS copy that was printed before Troma got a copy of the title. The movie is about an alien crash landing on Earth to terrorize us with a gun that blasts people into oblivion. WATCH OUT!!! And by that, I mean watch out for those special effects. There is an amazing number of mistakes. The acting is terrible, but I'd say the only one putting forth any effort would be the Sheriff. The film itself is really grainy and poorly lighted. In one particular scene, it is day outside and then the shot shows the Night Beast shooting his gun with night behind him. Then it shows day again. *Shakes head* I usually like low-budget horror films, but I had to force myself to finish it because I never watch a movie without finishing it. The only accomplishment this film achieved was an alien that wasn't stereotypical. So for that, and ONLY for that... I give it a 3 out of 10.

Don't watch this movie if you've had a bad day. You'll be even more depressed at the failed attempt this movie makes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you want to truly experience the magic (?) of Don Dohler, then check out \"Alien Factor\" or maybe \"Fiend\", but not this. Alien Factor is actually rather imaginative considering the low budget and it's fairly creepy, but \"Nightbeast\", which I guess is sort of an updating of Alien Factor, is just plain dumb. Actors sleepwalk through their roles, especially Mr. Monotone sheriff, and the monster is some dumb Halloween-mask kind of thing instead of the wildly imaginative (but kind of stupid) looking critters from Alien Factor. A spaceship crashes on Earth and there's a critter inside, of course, who runs around vaporizing people. And ripping off arms, etc. And he has a cool ray gun that he uses to vaporize people too, until it gets shot out of his hand. And that's really about it. \"Alien Factor\" beats this mess hands down, if you really want to see a good Don Dohler movie, check that out instead. And RIP Don Dohler, 12\/2\/06.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have been an avid Jane Austen fan for many years. I had never seen this adaptation, so when I had heard of it, I came here and read all the excellent reviews. On that basis I eagerly ordered it from Netflix. What a cruel disappointment! They have taken one of the most subtle and bright comic novels and made it dull. Each character seems to have been dealt a single facial expression, a single tone upon which to base their flat characters. Although this adaptation seems to have used every word that Jane Austen wrote, they appear to have been passed around to characters in a random fashion. Even though it was done as a miniseries, this adaptation manages to confuse and feel as rushed as if it had been done as a movie of the week.

Mr. Bennett too harsh, Mrs. Bennet just a chattering chipmunk, Mr. Darcy as lifeless as a nutcracker, the Bennett girls almost indistinguishable and Mr. Wickham a man who no one would look twice at - hardly the appealing cad! I'm quite put out!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Perhaps if only to laugh at the way my favorite of Jane Austen's works has been portrayed. Perhaps I am too severe on this adaptation, but I'm afraid I am biased to the A&E version. I have a hard time imagining Mr. Darcy portrayed by anyone other than Colin Firth.

The characters seemed shallow, and often dialogue forced. Lizzy seemed to lack the real feeling that is so evident in the book. Her fancy for Wickham was overplayed, and then her sudden like for Darcy was not believable.

Darcy was portrayed tolerably well, I will grant him. He managed to maintain the aloofness that is required, but I felt he did not project the feeling and inner struggle that makes his character so delightful, especially in the proposal scene.

Mr. and Mrs. Bennet were also played well, but seemed lacking in many ways. The mean temper of Mrs. Bennet was not completely captured in her performance.

Mr. Collins' was a good portrayal. Very much in line with the book.

I will refrain from commenting on Lady Catherine except to say that she is possibly the worst portrayal in the entire film.

Other problems I saw were the few liberties they took with the order of events such as Darcy being present at the first meeting with Lady C., and also that Miss Lucas and Sir William did not join Lizzy on her visit to the Collins'.

The choreography was dreadful during the dancing scenes. The scene where Lizzy and Darcy dance loses much of its intensity because one cannot get past the feeling that they look akward on the ballroom floor. At least this BBC version left out the dialogue between Lizzy, Darcy and Sir William when he commends the two on their dancing, as they performed very ill indeed.

There were occasional moments that it kept me interested, but overall I find this version to be a disappointment. I would not advise this film unless you're like me, and you are excessively diverted by such follies.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a professional poker dealer for over 25 years I found this movie very hard to watch. Too unreal. It seems the producers of this movie either had done little or no research or just didn't care. The card tricks are something you never would see performed in a real poker game. Common sense right? Plus it was full of film cuts and such during the tricks. Who couldn't do that? The cheating was amateur stuff. Palming, marked cards, etc. Would you sit in a high limit game where they use opened deck cards? Would you sit in a game where the players push their chips into the middle of a pot (constantly), mixing them in then just verbalizing how much they bet? C'MON ! I gave it a 4 because the twists and turns might be interesting to some people but for those who know how to play the game it will be pretty painful. Next time they should use real players and get some insight on how to do it right. OUCH!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Shade\" tries hard to be another \"Sting\", substituting poker for horse racing as the means by which to bring down an enemy, but it fails miserably.

I watched the whole thing and still never could quite understand why the young kid wanted to double-cross his partner. Was it because his partner stole his girl? Is there a woman in the world who is worth going to that much trouble over? If there is, it certainly wasn't this shrew. She had no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and really now, did she actually have a special room set up so that a surgeon could remove the kidney from whoever tried to pick her up in a bar? Dina Merrill makes a short appearance as a rich woman who hosts, of all things, pay-the-rent poker parties at her palatial home. And then the players say things like, \"I'll see your thousand and raise you another five thousand.\" Give me a break. You can't call (\"see\") and raise, you do one or the other. Any kid playing for nickels and dimes at the kitchen table knows this; you'd think grown men playing for stakes this high -- or at least the knuckleheads who wrote the script -- would know it too.

One of the other posters mentioned how no high-limit poker game would allow players to actually deal their own cards and I agree. You don't allow two of the best-known car cheats into a game where the buy-in is $250,000 and then let them deal to each other. That's not poker; that's just seeing which one can cheat better. And I'd like to know what person in his right mind would buy in to a game in which two of the best-known card cheats are playing and expect that he might have a chance at winning? And most of all, what Mafia boss would run such a game? Every time Melanie Griffith came on the screen I was so mesmerized by those gigantic fluorescent red lips of hers that I completely lost the storyline, and seeing her and Stallone together was more like a public service announcement for plastic surgery gone wrong than a love connection. Stallone mentions that she used to be a grifter before she bought the restaurant she now runs, but we don't know what kind of grifter she was and we never see her working with Stallone in their younger days so we are left to wonder, if we even care that much.

Jamie Foxx is the best character in the whole movie, but he gets killed off right off the bat and we're left with cardboard cut-outs who all sound like they're reading their lines off a teleprompter just off-camera.

The ending makes no sense either. The kid gets his cut from the game and just walks down the street with a briefcase full of money and his partner is nowhere to be seen? The Mafia isn't watching every move he makes? Everyone else just shrugs their shoulders and quietly accepts the loss of millions of dollars without trying to recoup any of it? I don't think so.

Most of all, this movie does a great injustice to professional poker players all over the world, insinuating that the only way to win is by palming cards and playing with \"juiced\" decks. And why is it they're always palming kings and aces? Sometimes you need a three or a nine to fill a straight or full house.

The best parts of the whole film are the sleight-of-hand tricks during the beginning and ending credits; everything in between is ridiculous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a cast...and what a waste of it. Seriously, when a movie has Gabriel Byrne, Jamie Foxx, Thandie Newton, Stuart Townsend, Hal Holbrook, Melanie Griffith and Sylvester Stallone in it you would expect some quality. The movie is however one big mess with a unlikely story that can't seem to stop putting twist and turns in it. Yeah, I think that they thought they were really being clever with all of it.

The story is not only messy and unlikely, it also isn't exactly terribly original. It uses elements from earlier and much better poker game based movies. But to me it were really the many pointless twist and turns in the movie that did it. It made the story such an unlikely one to watch. On top of that the script remains filled with a lot of holes silly poker game errors and things that just don't make an awful lot of sense. Why would any one above all things want to play against a card player that is known as the best cheater in the game. This is what the movie is about and builds up to but just didn't ever made a lot of sense to me.

Despite that the movie has a great cast, it still feels as if most actors were miscast in their roles. I don't know what it is about Stuart Townsend. He is a good actor but in most roles he plays he always feels out of place. Perhaps it are his looks, I don't known. This basically also was the reason why he got replaced in \"The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring\". Also Thandie Newton isn't much good and actually quite annoying in her 'strong' female role. And what was the point of having Melanie Griffith in this? Oh, I guess I could go on about the movie its casting and could complaining even some more about the way too limited screen time the Jamie Foxx character gets but I guess you get my point by now.

Damian Nieman just isn't much of an original writer\/director and on top of that he also doesn't handle his own material very well. Scenes often feel disjointed, it tries to put in way too many characters and everything about the movie is shallow and in a way predictable. On top of that the movie features some bad editing at times, which also doesn't help to make this movie look like one seamless whole. The movie was also one major box office bomb and no wonder that Damian Nieman hasn't made a movie ever since.

A too big mess to make you enjoy this movie.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How did so many talented or at least charismatic actors wind up in this baloney? Nothing is very good about this movie but the worst things probably are the screenplay and the directing.

Apparently this is director Damian Niemans heart-piece as he's both written and directed it (and acted in as well). He's a card magician himself and seems to have named characters in homage of other famous magicians. This was his first feature film as far as I know, and chances are it's his last.

It's hard to point to exactly what makes it so poor \u0096 but I'd say the story and character's are not believable (the screenplay) and the directing doesn't give it any boost (the director). Plus \u0096 the poker scenes are bad in the worst Hollywood manner (super-hands, Hollywood rules)! The supposed twists in the movie are either totally predictable or totally unbelievable. They just end up tying a knot to a story that at best can be described as \"a few decent scenes\"!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a fan of C.J.'s earlier movie, Latter Days, I really wanted to like this film.

The nicest thing I can say, however, is that it's NOT an awful film. There are some good performances, and a few funny scenes. In particular, Tori Spelling has a couple of great scenes where she's talking to her fianc\u00e9's ex-boyfriend.

Overall, though, it's pretty week. The script falls back on weird coincidences and clich\u00e9d movie moments way too often. (The main character went to Stanford on a golf scholarship, and his high school buddy doesn't even know that he plays the game?)

Most of the time, this movie had no idea where it was going or what it was trying to say. There are a lot of scenes that are mildly cute, but ultimately turn out to be a waste of time. And you could easily cut half the characters from the film without losing anything.

Still, for all it's faults, I would have to say that this is one of the better gay films of recent years. Which says a lot about how bad most gay films are.

I'm hoping C.J.'s next film will be better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an oft-used line, but it really sums up this movie...\"If this is the current state of gay cinema, then we're in real trouble\". I saw this film at SIFF because of the high IMDb rating (7.6) and if there was ever a case of vote stacking on IMDb, then this is it. Just watch the number fall over the release weeks of the film.

Easy plot...Boy finds out his high school ex (boyfriend) is getting married to a female friend of theirs so he goes back to his old hometown (still carrying a 10 year old torch) to see what happened.

First off, I liked \"Latter Days\", the director's last feature, despite its cookie cutter characters and plot contrivances, but you're supposed to become a better director with each subsequent release. I don't know how you get horrible supporting performances out of so many TV veterans (Robert Foxworth, Joanna Cassidy, Tori Spelling), but somehow he managed to. The writing was Lifetime Network quality (way back when they were REALLY bad) and the situations were unbelievable AND uncomfortably hard to watch. I kept reaching for a non-existent remote control to fast forward, but ultimately made myself stay to the end, hoping for a decent ending. Ugh...no. Even the gratuitous male nudity that popped up during the movie was so blatantly gratuitous that it seemed to be there to keep people in their seats.

To be fair...the 2 leads, especially in the gratuitous nude scenes, were gorgeous. There was also a real sweetness between them during their rekindling friendship as they uncovered how they went separate ways. And the film looked great...good quality and color saturation for an independent film.

How is it that network TV can give week after week of great, entertaining weekly episodes (Like \"Ugly Betty\", \"Desp. Housewives\", etc.), but so many feature releases in similar genres can be as bad as this?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, Kiss the Bride wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that good either. It sure was no \"Later Day Saints.\" The movie sags in the center...perhaps cutting out about 30 minutes would have made a more enjoyable film. But the film gets bogged down again and again by annoying subplots and throw away scenes - the whole gold outing sequence comes to mind.

Even though \"Kiss\" was made for theatrical release, it looks and sounds more like a made for TV movie. Every scene is lighted like a department store. So many characters are so throw away.

And dear Tori is actually a pleasant surprise. She steals every scene she appears in.

One scene really annoyed me. It was the rehearsal dinner in this larger room with scores of tables - all decorated. But only 5 or 6 people in a room for 250! Where did everyone go.

Gay cinema has sunk to a new low...but not as low as the horrible films being produced and shown on the Here! Channel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can I say? This was one awful movie to watch. I am normally not very critical of gay cinema in general, due to the fact that most are usually low-budget, but this really pushed me up the wall. I mean, is this was has happened to gay cinema? Haven't gay producers and directors learned anything from Gus Van Saints and Ang Lee's films?. Just having to sit through the entire movie was like being in a dentist's chair and having my wisdom teeth extracted. I kept on praying for moments where I would feel any sort of connection with any of the characters, but that never happened. Most of the characters performances were just not very convincing. It was like watching one of those badly produced made-for-TV movie specials on a local access TV stations. I cannot tell u how greatly disappointed It was seeing this film after being a big fan of Tori Spellings other works and the directors last work on \"Latter day saints.\" It was definitely not worth the wait. Definitely, a few hours of my life I will never get back and will certainly not be purchasing it on DVD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There were nice characters in here, played by pleasant-looking actors and actresses, plus it had a famous band and some famous dancers.....yet the film just didn't work. By the time this was almost over, I was bored to death. The dialog was dumb, the humor (mainly Milton Berle's) was downright stupid and the music was just not up my alley.

I've never been a big-band fan, anyway, and if I hear \"In The Mood\" one more time I'll puke.

This was my first look at famous skater-actor Sonja Henie and I have no complaints about her. Almost part of the problem, at least with the humor, is that it's so dated it isn't funny anymore. Berle, Phil Silvers, Bob Hope, Red Skeleton, Abbot & Costello, etc. etc. were hilarious to the crowds in the 40s and 50s but humor changes, and what was funny back then is not today.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This series and Elon Gold were being HYPED as \"the next big thing\" in sitcoms for NBC. Well, they weren't. Dennis Farina was terribly miscast as the father in-law. He just seemed so uncomfortable and out of place here. The term, \"Private 'convo' time!\" was supposed to become the \"Dyno-mite!\" catch phrase of the 21st Century. Well, it wasn't. People were asking then, as they still are today (When his name comes up.), \"Who the hell is Elon Gold?\" I saw him on an episode of \"The Mentalist\" this evening. I mentioned his name, and my girlfriend asked, \"Who?\" Not funny. Total waste of airtime. NBC had really HIGH hopes for this show, but it just fell flat.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I knew this was headed for disaster after looking at the clock within 7 minutes of air time. The story line: Two people get married. They move into the wife's parents home. And husband doesn't get along with father-in-law-and if you haven't seen this plot before you probably have not watched TV for the last 15 years or so.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Toxic Avenger, Part II starts with the startling revelation that after the Toxic Aveneger (John Altamura who was apparently fired during production & replaced with Ron Fazio) had rid his home town Tromaville of evil it actually became a nice place to live. This meant that Toxie had no use as a superhero anymore & now suffers from depression & a feeling of utter uselessness (just like directors Lloyd Kaufman & Michael Herz should feel like after producing this), Toxie now works as a concierge at the 'Tromaville centre for the blind'. It's not long before trouble rears it's ugly head though, an evil chemical producing company called Apocalypse Inc. plans to take over Tromaville for some stupid insignificant reason or other but to do so they need to get rid of Toxie. After the evil chairman's (Rick Collins) first plan fails he bribes Toxie's psychiatrist (Erika Schickel) to tell him to go to Japan & see his Father. Leaving his girlfriend Claire (Phoebe Legere), his Mother (Jessica Dublin) & his home behind Toxie heads for Tokyo, Japan. Once there Toxie sets about finding his Father & a woman named Masami (Mayako Katsuragi) helps him in his quest. Meanwhile back in Tromaville Apocalypse Inc. move in for the kill & without Toxie the citizens are powerless to defend themselves. Toxie eventually finds Big Mac Bunko (Rikiya Yasuoka) whom he has been lead to believe is his Father, however Big Mac is all part of Apocalypse Inc. plans to destroy Toxie once & for all...

Produced & directed by Lloyd Kaufman & Michael Herz this follow up to the successful The Toxic Avenger (1985) basically proves the first film was a complete fluke, a lucky accident to combine the right blend of bad taste comedy, outrageous violence & so-bad-it's-good film-making, The Toxic Avenger, Part II is a load of crap in comparison. The script by by Kaufman, Phil Rivio & Gay Partington Terry with a load of 'additional material' credits does not contain one single funny moment during it's entire 102 (uncut director's cut) duration. The visual gags are terrible, Toxie walking through Tokyo with a wig & glasses to blend in for instance, or a scene where he heats up a bath with a bad guy in it & as he cooks Toxie throws in a load of vegetable's & spaghetti, a scene where he sticks electrical wires up a woman's nose, sticks an antenna in her head & a microphone in her mouth to which a Japanese radio announcer talks into, a bit where a Japanese bad guy has his nose burnt into the shape of a fish, a bit where Toxie grabs a swordfish head & uses it as a weapon, or the embarrassingly bad overacting & stupid idiotic facial expressions, a guy who literary has a fish for a head & gets turned literary into sushi, the awful comedy music & sound effects & the whole film in general is a pale imitation of what made the original mildly amusing & memorable. The bad taste gags aren't there this time round & the silly childish juvenile humour of the first is also missing, it just feels like a real step back from the original & lets not forget this is Troma here so that is most definitely a bad thing. There are a few gory fights & some serious gore & violence, at least in the supposedly uncut 102 minute version I saw, crushed heads with the bodies spurting out blood, smashed faces, intestines, roses poked in someones eyes & thorns wrapped around their throat, ripped off ears, severed arms & a very graphic & gory scene of a man being chopped to pieces. Unfortunately the special effects by Pericles Lewnes aren't particularly convincing & come mostly within the first twenty or so minutes. The acting is of embarrassing proportions as I've already mentioned. Action wise there is an ultra cheap looking car chase at the end & a few unexciting, lacklustre fights utilising cardboard ninja throwing stars at one point. Horror wise there is nothing a few gory set pieces apart. Comedy wise this is very unfunny. In fact The Toxic Avenger, Part II sucks on all levels really & to top it all off it's atrociously made as well, most of the cast appear to be people plucked from the nearest street corner, continuity is none existent, cinematography is basic point & shoot & the special effects are anything but. One or two gory scenes apart this is total crap plain & simple, do yourself a favour watch the original again instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Toxic Avenger...

The idea of this movie is that a person that the common population would call this person a looser and then after being thrown into a barrel of toxic waste, mutated into a superhero that is completely disfigured sounded OK even for 1985. This movie is listed as a horror... I even have read of a cult following with this series....

Now this movie even given when it was made was so bad that I couldn't stop watching... the acting is horrible even for an independent film that I think was to be the horror part of this movie...

drug dealing, sumo, Godzilla entrance.... I'm all for movies that promote anti-drugs... heck I even like Godzilla and well sumo... I'm not into it but even still I think that the heights of sumo would love to give this movie the 1000 hand slap and ground salt into the eyes of the people that made this movie...

Personally I am almost ready to write to the film company that made this and ask them for the 87mins or so of my life back.

To me 1 out of 10 is too high it's too bad that there isn't a 0 (zero) or even negative integers to place on a movie here.

In other words this movie is J-U-N-K...... would rather watch paint dry and deal with explosive diarrhea then have to watch this movie ever again... I would be the first person that would use not only the packaging of this movie as kindling but I would be up for a good'ol movie and script burning.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst of the toxie series by far. The acting in Tokyo is horrible and you can understand them about half the time. The major problem with this film is all the sudden changes from the original. Like there's a different girl friend of toxie's in this one or it might be the same character just with a different name and played by a different chick. Why is this film made like a Disney movie. After about fifteen minutes it starts getting good with the gore and all. There's 2 awesome killings then the movie goes straight to poop. After the films 20 minutes are up the film is bearly entertainment. H*LL IT'S BEARLY WATCHABLE. Well unless your drunk then don't watch this film. YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Gone is the wonderful campiness of the original. In place is a c-grade action no-brainer, wich is not all bad, but pales in comparison to the original. All the meaningless sex and violence is gone, and replaced with crappy jokes and unexplained plot pointers. See it, but don't expect the thrills of the first.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the first toxie film was dark, gory, and hillarious. This film is un-gory battles to cheezy jazz music, no real gore at all, and the worst toxie mask I have ever seen! His deep voice is now a light, happy voice, characters from part 1 reappear by actors that look NOTHING like them (Claire, Mom Junko), characters names change (Claire or Sara?). It is lacking all the brutal violence, dark humor, and political incorrectness of the first film. If it weren't for nudity, this movie could have been rated PG. Really lame. I am a HUGE fan of part 1 though, just cant stand this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Toxic Avenger, hideously deformed creature of super-human size and strength is back in this sequel that gets mostly everything wrong. Toxie goes to Japan to find his father at the suggestion of his psychiatrist, whom is in cahoots with an evil corporation who just want the avenger gone to get a stranglehold on Tromaville in his absence. With new actors for Toxie and his girlfriend, who has a different name in this one, a much less grim, much more comical tone, and a plot line that can't hold a candle to the original. Even with the totally uncut version that one can only get if you buy the Tox Box DVD set, the gore is the only thing going for this one. And if you happen upon ANY other version forget about getting any enjoyment from this one at all. While the first one is a low budget classic, this simply is not.

My Grade: D+

Eye Candy: Erika Schickel has a very quick nip slip; Phoebe Legere goes topless; one villianess gets fully nude; and a few extras in a bath house scene show various amounts of skin

Tox Box unrated director's cut DVD Extras: Intro and Commentary by director Lloyd Kaufman; Second commentary with director Lloyd Kaufman, Troma editors Gabriel Friedman and Brian McNulty; Toxie on Japenese TV; Interview with Fangoria managing editor Michael Gingold; Interview by Videohound's Mike Mayo; the same damn Radiation March that's on EVERY Troma DVD; Clip from Lisa Gaye; \"Toxie 15 Years Later\" mockumentary; 2 PSAs; Troma Intelligence Test; Troma Studio Building Tour; Ad for Lloyd Kaufman's autobiography; Stills gallery; Theatrical trailer; and trailers for: \"Toxic Avenger\", \"Toxic Avenger 3\", \"Def by Temptation\", \"Class of Nuke 'Em High\", \"Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D.\", \"Tromeo and Juliet\", \"Bloodsucking Freaks\", & \"Surf Nazis Must Die\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I enjoyed the first \"Toxic Avenger,\" but the sequel just didn't work. There are some funny gags in the opening, involving members of the home for the blind, but past that point I was simply bored. The sequel is also filled with much quirky, low-brow humor. Only this time it's not funny! Much of the gags revolve around crusty Japanese stereotypes. Almost every Japanese character seems to be chopping fish. Does everyone in Japan chop fish? The Troma films are known for being more than a little irreverent, but if you're gonna use humor involving racial stereotypes, at least make it funny. I can't laugh if I'm handed the same crap I've seen a million times before! One thing I have to give credit for is the gratuitous nudity. There's even more gratuitous nudity than in the first. But altogether I was very disappointed, and the film ends with a tedious chase scene which had me huffing and puffing, dying for the movie to fade to black. At least there's one hilarious line from the film which had me bawling with laughter. After the villain says a line from Shakespeare to one of the local citizens, the citizen (an elderly woman) responds by saying, \"F**k you--that's from David Mamet.\"

My score: 3 (out of 10)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh dear! What can I say about Half Past Dead? I was really disappointed in it. I was thinking....A Steven Seagal movie! Cool! We'll get to see him kick people and flip people and break bones. We might even get to see him have a stick fight with somebody! Excellent!

However, I was in for a rude awakening. This film can be summed up as follows:

Take an episode of the A-Team, remove the lovable and roguish characters such as Murdoch, Hannibal, Mr T and Face. Then get a writer\/director to pen a plot even Ed Wood would be ashamed of and who's too big a fan of The Matrix and John Woo movies for his own good. Throw in a bunch of people with really bad acting ability and who don't have real names. Finally, add in a main star who's getting saggy around the midriff and doesn't appear to be able to do his own stunts anymore.

The result? Half Past Dead. An action movie so ridiculous that it at least made me smile right the way through. The plot holes are stupendously, glaringly large - for example, prisoners who, when the jail is invaded, fight the invaders rather than attempting to escape. Or how about the prison itself, which has an armoury that contains heavy machineguns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers? You also have a helicopter (bearing a striking resemblance to a Huey) with some kind of video game machinegun mounted in the nose.

Then there's Seagal himself. I like the guy. He CAN fight. He's even witty in a way that Jean-Claude Van Damme will never be. But all through the movie I kept hoping for that one great, defining fight scene. Never happened. Instead we got people firing guns a lot and not hitting a whole Hell of a lot. I mean, when someone runs down a narrow corridor and you fire a sub-machinegun at them, there isn't a whole lot of places the bullets can go other than down the corridor and into the target. Yet somehow they miss? Even the A-Team would cringe at this foolishness. And then when it gets to any kind of one-on-one physical stuff, we get treated to a shabby Matrix rip-off, without the benefit of bullet-time. People getting kicked twenty feet through the air and sundry other ludicrous acrobatic nonsense.

C'mon Steven, you're better than this. Your career can't be over. Say it ain't so!

This is instantly forgettable (except I'm forcing myself to remember for the purposes of this review) and if you watch it, try to find it amusing in an A-Team kind of way. But I doubt it'll be high on anyone's \"re-watchable\" list. Out for Justice this ain't. More like Out to Lunch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yeah, a long time ago it turned into a tourist attraction. Now it's a prison again. Kind of. Well, it's more like an airport mixed together with a junior high school but there are lots of guys running around wearing orange jumpsuits, so I guess in that way it's like a prison. Not really though. When Sasha, Steven Seagal's character, is being admitted into prison, he's standing shackled in line and wanders over to a different line so he can talk to his friend, like he's in line for the security check at the airport. Then before too long he and his friend are throwing punches, smacking around a couple of security guards.

Let me tell you something. You assault a corrections officer in a federal prison, they'll shoot you on the spot. Ja Rule would have been shot about 30 times before he threw his second punch. Oh, and there are guys wearing beanies and bandanas and whatnot. In prison. Federal prison.

You can't dress like that at most high schools in America.

Speaking of Ja Rule, I have to say that the person who probably enjoyed his performance more than anyone else on earth, including Ja Rule himself, had to have been 50 Cent. Just before I watched this movie I saw one of those shows on TV about the greatest celebrity feuds ever, and like number 7 or 8 was this rivalry between 50 Cent, who had lived the thug life for real, and Ja Rule. Who had not. Every time I saw Ja Rule on screen the only thing I could picture was 50 Cent laughing his ass off. Ja Rule looks like a rowdy 9-year-old every time he appears on screen.

Anyway, getting back to the plot. It's funny. Sasha is an FBI agent working undercover and he agrees to let himself be sentenced to prison so he can get behind the criminal organization. He's sentenced to five years, and that old line between determination and stupidity instantly vanishes. Nothing else in the movie matters after that, it becomes a meaningless string of action sequences, most of which aren't even well choreographed.

Oh, how about this, a helicopter crashes through the roof of \"New Alcatraz\" at one point, accidentally freeing all of the inmates. And what do they do? They all run out of their cells and play basketball in the middle of the cell block. Without so much as a basket. They had a ball, but it doesn't matter. The scene is so stupid they might as well have been playing hopscotch.

So some guy is being sentenced to be the first person ever to be executed in Alcatraz's state of the art execution chamber, evidently not for stealing $200 million dollars in gold, but for not telling where it was hidden once he was caught.

Hey, good thinking, people. If you can't get information out of someone, kill them. That's a great way to learn the truth! So some gang breaks into the prison planning to stop the execution and get the location of the $200 million for themselves.

Oh and the $200 million is in gold bricks. I doubt they thought ahead to how difficult it would be to turn that into exchangeable currency.

There's also the issue of the warden at the prison. He's some tough-talking vato who thinks he's a hardcore chollo from the barrio, which reminds me of a joke. I saw this comedian once talking about people in California who talk all tough calling each other ese and homes and all kinds of other such nonsense. These people go to Mexico, the comedian says, and they're like, \"Oh my god! People LIVE there? That's like, a total shack!\"

The best is when the United States Supreme Court Justice arrives and this guy tells her that her men can't carry their guns inside his prison, \"I don't care if she IS a United States Supreme Court Justice!\"

This woman could squish him like a grape and he thinks he's in charge. Ha.

And by the way, the Supreme Court Justice that gets taken as a hostage in the movie tells the bad guy that she is 53. That's a year younger than Steven Seagal. I just thought that was funny.

The only good scene in the movie is the one in the prison where Ja Rule is getting slapped around the prison like a sack of cotton balls by this little Asian woman. That was the funniest thing I've seen in a movie in a long, long time.

You know, I work for the company that produced this film (which I why I watched it), and I still don't have a single positive thing to say about it, except, of course, for that one scene with Ja Rule getting spanked by that Asian woman.

So read my review of Malena and you will see how strongly I sometimes disagree with professional film critics like Roger Ebert, but in his review of this movie Ebert wrote something that I agreed with as much as anything else he's ever written:

\"I imagine the flywheels at the MPAA congratulating each other on a good day's work as they rated 'Half Past Dead' PG-13, after giving the anti-gun movie 'Bowling for Columbine' an R.\"

Way to go, guys.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The best thing about the movie is the name, as it both describes the plot and the acting. At least they cannot say they didn't warn you... Kind of like the button labeled, \"Don't push this\".

Segal must have run out of things that move like planes, trains, and ships but the plot remains the same. Under cover guy who fights slowly, but still beats like 40 mercenary types and doesn't even blink when doing so. What amazes me is that Segal is now as big as a barn and the bad guys still cannot hit him in a hallway with a machine gun and 50 clips of ammo. Where do all these bullets actually go to? The only redeeming feature of this movie is watching Nia Peeples pound Ja Rule (real name Jeffrey Atkins doesn't quite sound so punk) into the floor. I could spend days watching that woman kick her foot over her shoulder like that... especially wearing an outfit like that! It was just a bonus watching Jeffy get is *ss kicked, and fun hoping one of those kicks actually landed. Sorry, it's just time we get stupid wannabe tough guy can't act rappers out of the movies. PLEEEEEASE! Who came up with idea anyway? I'd lay odds it was the person who decided that Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore would pass as witty athletic Angels.

The only surprising twist in this movie is that they don't do the politically correct thing and have Jeffy come in and save the day. No doubt if Snoop (otherwise known by his momma as Calvin Broadus which again doesn't sound so cool when you refer to him as Cal) had been in the movie, he'd throw some signs down on her and probably saved Segal's life or something.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As if the world needed another Seagal movie. Add a bunch of actors who, well... are not really actors, a bunch of heavy metal music to compliment the rap and of course, a hot looking crazy chick in leather with no hips, and we prevent ourselves from being half past budget. Why, oh why do people sabotage themselves by participating in such films?

FBI capture two buddies and send them to \"New Alcatraz,\" where the prison's first inmate to be executed has unexpected guests.

First rate acting all around, particularly any scene involving tragedy for the good guys. Seriously though, the director did try, and pulled a modern, hard edge for the movie the best he could. Be he went to the well too often and HALF PAST DEAD gets boring too soon. What else can you do when the inmates just hang around talking while the hostages continually ask what makes the main bad guy motivated? A mindless action flick that amounts to little, if not \"a-ight.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My Take: Steven Seagal is obviously too boring to be a lead in an action thriller, even a totally dull one.

Remember Steven Seagal? You don't? Don't worry, there's not much to catch up on. After starring in admittedly enjoyable crowd-pleasing films like UNDER SIEGE and EXECUTIVE DECISION, Seagal hits the low grounds of the bad movie abyss. Now, he stars in low-budgeted B-level action vehicles, some of which are made-for-TV \"Movie of the Week\" entries that lost their way to the big screen. HALF PAST DEAD is among these, shall we say, dead action movies. A loud and lousy action film, sloppily directed and lazily written (and worse, badly acted). This is one of those bad movies that I don't need to watch until the ending to know it's bad. I didn't have the guts to have all my braincells die while wasting my time with this. It it this kind of bad films in which you realize, those other films you hate are not bad after all.

The plot (and the locale) is completely lifted from a similar picture, Michael Bay's THE ROCK, although similar may not be the word to describe it. Both movies are summer movies, and not meant to be taken so seriously. But in comparison, even THE ROCK (which isn't much in the writing department as much as the lights and sounds) has better characters, a more compelling plot, better action sequences and overall, a more entertaining atmosphere. Although there are action scenes in HALF PAST DEAD, none of them are exciting. All of which are sometimes tedious and predictable.

Although predictability seemed to be a welcome asset in summer action films, predictability has never tasted more sour in ones that aren't fun, and HALF PAST DEAD is never really fun, a lot of times it's just a pain in the head (hearing the bad rap music repeat over and over again throughout this film makes me yearn for an aspirin every second I hear them). The acting is horrendously mediocre, the plot is derivative, with no compelling or appealing characters whatsoever. Seagal's character, an undercover agent sent to Alcatraz to stop a criminal mastermind (Morris Chestnut), a very boring villain, is nothing to get excited about. Seagal's character is also provided with a sidekick (played by rap star Ja Rule) and a bunch of amigo inmates, and there's no chemistry going on here.

If starring in a series of other forgotten action vehicles (what were those films again?) killed of Seagal's career for good, HALF PAST DEAD is overkill. And audiences be warned: you're invited to feel the pain. Advice: avoid it at all costs.

Rating: 0 out of 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is, for different reasons, a very very bad action movie. First of all, Seagal is terribly out of shape. He looks old and fat, plays like he has to fulfill an annoying obligation and his fight scenes require creative editing or plain replacement. Secondly, his opponent is a very weak villain. This is about a smart and mean masterbrain and Chestnut does not deliver. So what about the action ? Well, the two parties permanently shoot at each other in different locations of the Alcatraz jail. They shoot wild and bad, because compared to the amount of required ammunition, the bodycount is rather low. There is nothing to save this movie. There is not a single good line and not a single good joke. The little psychological interlude with 49er One and judge McPherson is ridiculous. So what does it have? Well, the usual Bell helicopters, silhouettes moving in blue light and slow motion, doors riddled with bullets and 1000 Watt lights shining through the holes, characters jumping through the air while shooting, loads of weapons coming from nowhere, a long black coat containing a bold black guy and a thin wooden box containing 25 tons of gold. The pain continues to the very last take, a hopeless approach to lighten up the closing credits. Californian beachboy Don Michael Paul was writing and directing. At least this mountain of boredom comes from just one simple mind.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(spoiler warning) I seem to keep giving this guy his last chance. Strange how an action hero who once was keeps attracting an audience. Anyway, this movie is about a character (Seagal) being kind of a mysterious rough-neck hero. That's it.

Next.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie yesterday, and like most allrdy wrote \"i also expected a Steven movie\", god i love this guy just because his fighting style is unique and very humerous. In had a little doubts cause i read that \"Ja Rule\" was playing in it, but i thought hopefully they give him a smal role, so i don't get irritations by watching him. And offcourse the opposite happend, goooooooooooooooooooood steven what the heck were you thinking going to join a sry *** crew like this. Steven was broke and needed cash? bah =( what a big dissapointment. If you like Steven movie, pleaseee skip this one its pure drama, you only get a few special effects that made me vote 3\/10. But the \"acting?\" of ja rule screws up the whole movie aswel for his buddy kurupt with his irritating hood talk.

My beer went from tasting fresh to water we do the dishes in. The story didn't had any \"good\" about it. To me it felt like a 3 year old produced it.

Hopefully Steven makes me happy again in a future movie. People this isn't even worth renting simpel as that.

To bad and pitty :-)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Steven Segal's movie career is a tribute to horrible cinema. I have been tragically bored with every one of them as soon as I realized that they were even more unrealistic than Jean Claude VanDamme's. Has anyone else ever noticed that he never gets hit?! I mean, give me something to root for...a hard fought battle with a bad guy who's scary. TWENTY YEARS and he's still filming the same fight scenes. Fight scenes can often distract you from the fact that your hero cannot act. The boring choreography of a Segal film places his painful lack of acting skill in sharp relief. Worse yet, he's woefully out of shape. Just what we need, a fat stiff who THINKS he's a leading man. There's not one iota of redeeming cinematic value in all this movies ninety or so minutes. Do NOT watch this unless you feel like throwing away an hour and a half of your life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Half Past Dead was unlike any Steven Segal film I've ever seen. Very little of Segal, himself in action and I agree with the last review I read, Nia Peeples steals the show.

I saw nothing really new here, just the same old stuff from other flicks changed around a little. The best action scenes were Nia's as she once again kicked butt. It was interesting seeing her as the bad guy after watching her for two seasons on Walker, Texas Ranger, still kicking butt, but for the good guys.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Every now and then some amateur will come out with a tired piece of action film making. this one is just so wrong I don't think i even need to comment about the plot, acting, script, camera work. because it have none!! If putting a muscle guy in cool leather jacket walking in slow-mo and throw in a funky rap song is the main ingredient of making a great action movie, then sayonara action movie!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Steven Segal has done some awful films, but this is probably one of the best since his career took a dive about ten years ago. The cast is better than usual, and while the story and the plot are a total joke, at least most of the action scenes look pretty good.

The plot is probably one of the worst in film history. Someone is being executed because he stole some money? Some Mercenary types kidnap a Supreme Court Justice? Their goal is to exchange the Judge for the prisoner so they can find out where he has the money? Meanwhile the Execution chamber is full of trap doors and false floors and looks like a set from one of the Cirque Du Soleil Circus Shows.

Then there is the issue of the prison. Here, the Warden is a Homie, played by Tony Plana. The prisoners all have their gang colors and signs, and the guards are there to serve the meals and keep the prison clean. Nothing like a bunch of prisoners fighting and beating up some guards while the Warden is watching. What happens? The Warden gives them a stern talking to. He might punish them next time.

There are a lot of moments in this movie that are good for laughs. However, Nia Peeples looks pretty good, and Ja Rule tries to be an action hero. Lots of fun watching the prisoners all \"do the right thing\" and get armed so that they can free the Supreme Court Justice from her captors. Regardless of how bad Half Past Dead may be, when you watch it keep in mind that it is easily the best movie that Steven Segal has starred in since Under Siege in 1992.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seagal fans beware- He does no action scenes until almost an hour into this mess. Instead, Seagal RUNS AWAY from numerous fights, letting Ja Rule convincingly lose every battle. Actually, Ja Rule could be an up and coming action star, but Hollywood needs to let him at least hit puberty (which should happen in a few more years...) Also, what sort of commando\/terrorist wears a bare-midriff outfit? The chick in this atrocity looks like a backup singer for Christina Aguilera.Back to Seagal- When he finally does cut loose, it's his stunt double (HEAVILY PADDED to resemble the bloated Seagal) doing a lot of the work & taking the falls. I don't remember any aikido, either. It's just your standard kicks & punches you'd see in any straight-to-video martial arts turkey. Not even \"so-bad-it's-funny\", either. Just plain dull...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really tried to like this film about a doctor who has the possibility of a new life with a young woman if he can comes to terms with the death of his wife. I suppose this was to play like a quirky light romantic comedy but the theme is a little uncomfortable for me.

But putting that aside, I found the dialog was too much like a stage play despite being based on a novel and also,the mediocre acting was embarrassing to watch especially by the young lead Vincent Spano.

I have been sort of trying to catch up on all the eighties movies I missed during that decade. It has been my pet peeve that eighties nostalgia buffs seem to focus on the same core canon of films usually featuring the brat pack actors and actresses and neglecting the other films like Creator that have fallen through the cracks. But in the case of this feature I have to say I can understand it. Not all of these eighties films were magical and Creator is proof of this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is at times a wild 80s college sex comedy, others a sweet romantic one... Then it has moments of serious drama and then sprinkles in dashes of science fiction... It is so uneven its almost ridiculous.

But I would hardly rank it as one of the worst films I've ever seen except of course for the fact that they casted Peter O'Toole.

There is absolutely nothing for him to work with here. Poor dialog, poor performances to work off of, poor everything... And yet he's fantastic... There is not one good thing about his part and yet he makes it work if only on pure charm alone.

The fact that he was so able to achieve so much with so little shines a spotlight on how greatly everyone else in this film failed, making it seem even worse than I suppose it actually is...

If any other actor was in O'Toole's role, I would have forgotten this movie as crap and never thought of it again, but a fine performance by Peter O'Toole despite all odds ensures that I'll remember this film for a long time to come... If only as a film that, maybe, could have been good if anyone involved in it was nearly half as good as Peter O'Toole.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was disappointing. After 15 years, when it was brought back to mind from reviewing some info about Mariel Hemingway, all the regrets I felt about the movie came rolling back. While I remember Peter O'Toole, I was entirely oblivious to the fact that the female \"lead\" (okay, - she was little more than an object for discussion in the storyline) was Ms. Hemingway. I saw this movie back in the days when I wrote movie reviews, and warned people off it, as the stories just didn't work, and fifteen years of my subconscious trying to sort things out still hasn't made sense of the flow of the ideas.

Part of this may have to do with the fact that it looked like, after the original movie (whatever it was about) was filmed, an editor came in and tried to piece together something out of it. I don't know if this had been a project of a previous studio boss, and so was sabotaged to discredit him or her by the successor, or this was a disaster from the original screenplay that attempts to salvage were unsuccessful. The theatrical version just didn't work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought the this film had an interesting name and just might have proved thought provoking, but was I wrong. This film was boring, especially in the beginning and the middle parts. I cannot comment on the ending because I just couldn't stand watching the whole film. The premise of signing a student researcher just because he walks into your lab makes no sense. This student had an interesting type of moving robot in his apartment and sadly enough this non living thing is more interesting than the characters in this film. So if you are having trouble with sleep then I recommend that you rent this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What I wouldn't do to give this film a re-write. Extra disappointing due to the great beginning, Solo Dios Sabe degenerates into a mess of superstitious bull after the halfway point and ends on a note so ludicrous, soppy and melodramatic I couldn't believe I was watching the same movie I started with. The film had numerous elements in its favor, such as chemistry between Diego Luna and Alice Braga so palpable I thought the screen would start sparking, a great soundtrack, and beautiful locations. Instead of ending with the heavy-handed religious mumbo jumbo, the film should have kept the focus on being a frothy road movie with maybe some undertones about fate and superstition vs. logic peppered through. I understand the director's entire intent with the film was to make it about religion, but the fact is that it just didn't work, and he threw away so much great stuff from the beginning by doing so.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE worst movie I've ever seen, and I've seen allot. Acting is horrible, plot is awful, idea is terrible, and no research was done what's so ever! Ok, I admit, `Air Bud' was a pretty good movie, but not `Soccer Dog'. This \"dog\" is smaller than my cat! How can he possibly play soccer? Even for 10 years old kids it won't be a problem to kick the ball hard enough to brake the stupid dog in half! It's horrible, don't watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, we were going along with the stereotypical bad orphanage experience and explaining to our son, adopted from Russia, that this was over-the-top acting and dramatization, so we could get to the dog playing soccer (since he plays soccer). But the last scene, in which the dog goes back to his original owner put my son over the edge and he cried for 15-20 minutes, \"he's been replaced!!!!\" This from an elementary child. I DO NOT recommend this movie to any family that has an adopted child; it displays adoption, orphanages and adults badly--and in the end, even though they win the game--the dog that the boy bonded with has to leave--and this is too much. PLEASE be wary if you have any adopted children, and beware families with biological children, because the impression of children who are adopted is not positive and paints a stereotype that is unhealthy and nasty. (The dog is cute, but not enough to save our family's reaction to this movie....)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even my five year old was bored.

Very predictable, and overacted. This movie couldn't make up it's mind as to whether it was slapstick, or wry commentary on the state of \"pee -wee\" sports.

Characters were underdeveloped, could have done more with the connection between father and son both coming from an orphanage.

Did not like the reference regarding the goalie slipping the laxative to his teammate...very mean spirited for a kid's movie.

Typical \"Mafia\" behavior was boring and stereotypical.

The dog, however, was so darn cute!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This stinker is in mystifyingly frequent rotation on one channel here, and I've found myself watching in horror again and again. The script is like something one would come up with friends over several too many drinks, and the production values match admirably.

It's meant to be a children's movie, but features a grotesque (and poorly explained) kidnapping scene; the star dog has a lack of star quality equaled only by the other actors; and it in general has the look of being filmed in someone's backyard (the climactic soccer game features no more than three dozen extras sadly cheering in the background).

It even all wraps up with a budget-ran-out voice-over sequence when the story, to one's relief, simply stops. The high-raters here must be either the producers - or the majority of the extras from the soccer game!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A blatant rip-off of \"Air Bud\", this movie is REALLY about parents worrying too much about parenting. All the foibles of the characters (eg; adult coaches who dont know the game) are taken to the extreme- so much so that they are totally unbelievable, not funny.

There is no semblance of reality here, folks and you'll not develop sympathy for ANY of the characters.

The best thing about the movie is the good looking kits (uniforms) of the opposing team in the first game the dog plays. Perhaps chosen because the setting is supposedly near Arlington Heights, IL, the home of the Columbus Crew's franchise player, Brian McBride.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can be said about a movie about a cross dressing gangster? Not that much. With the average indie style film-making, this film has the timing all wrong. Editing is just awful. As far as the gangster story, it might have been pulled off if the gangsters didn't lack character. Everyone just seemed to be there for some sort of punch line. None of which were funny. The usual suspects in this film are the hooker with the heart of gold, the dying mafia father that wishes his son would make his business legit, the best friend with the \"zany\" one-liners. But the main character, the gangster that likes to dress up like a girl. Only his motivation for dressing up like a girl is that he got mugged by a woman? Weird. The ending of the movie had to be the nail in the coffin. It was anti-climatic to say the least. I mean I understand how indie filmmakers don't have the equipment for a proper shot out, but they might as well been using water guns. Overall, I would say the hype leading up to it, (red carpet premiere in Vancouver), it was a disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are some great Canadian films. There are some crappy ones. Last night, I watched one of the crappy ones. It wasn't the typical Canadian film where it tried to be so different by being arty. This film tried to be some type of Hollywood gangster movie. It was terrible.

From the beginning I had a sense that it would be a bad movie. It had some of the cheesiest dialouge a movie can have. There was this voice over for one scene and then it never returned. That always bugs me, when filmmakers just use voice over when they can't think of another creative way to tell a story.

I know being in the Canadian film industry, I should support my fellow brothers, but this movie is junk. The premise is something like a Soprano's episode only not realistic. Some banker's mafia boss dad is on his death bed and orders the son to make the business legit. Not so original. And the workers complain about it, but they just take the fact that they will soon be out of jobs like nothing. To make it legit they use extortion. Irony. But not the good kind. Then some freak show girl who had an awful Elvis wig and birthmark that covered half of her face robs the main character and kinda rapes him. Anyways, this guy for whatever reason now likes to dress up as girls. Then this banker hooks up with a hooker, when he has a beautiful future wife at home. But he falls for the hooker because the hooker dresses like a man and puts make-up on him. She blackmails him with some photos of him wearing bra and panties. Yet, he still loves her. He also has no reason to leave his fianc\u00e9, but he does in order to be with the hooker.

For a movie about organize crime and sexual fetish, there was neither action nor sex. It was like a late night Cinemax porn movie without the good stuff. The would-be sex scenes weren't hot or sexy. It was all too amateurish. The movie had nothing going for it, just the lame plot.

I don't think it was the actor's fault. I think they had a terrible script to work with. What stuck out the most was the ridiculous characters. The bad guy's name was Uncle Bunny or something. But the name wasn't important. It was they all were clich\u00e9. The dialouge was laughable throughout the movie, and fellow movie-goers laughed aloud at some of the movies \"serious\" moments. Then, the worst of it all. It had to be the cheapest ending. If you can ever remember playing shoot out as a kid with either imaginary guns or toy guns. That was basically the ending of the movie. But I was more than happy it ended, and I had to warn my fellow Canadians to not waste time or money watching this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everyone knows that late night movies aren't Oscar contenders. Fine. I mean I'll admit that I was a bit tipsy and bored and figured I'd get to some skin-a-max. It's pretty bad when the info on the TV guide channel makes fun of the movie in the description. It even gave it half a star. To be fair, I did sit throw the whole thing cause man it was soooooooooo bad. I couldn't stop laughing. I mean the words coming out of these people mouth and how they were trying to be serious. Most of the time I think the people on the screen were trying their hardest to not to laugh. In fact I think in one scene they did laugh. Anyways the movie didn't make sense. It was like that one Sopranos episode with the fat gay guy. Only the Sopranos is great show. But it was terrible, I mean, no nudity, just sex scenes out of the 90's. You know the kind that use shadows and silhouettes instead of flesh. I gave it a two cause this flick makes for a good drinking game movie. I mean with all the cheese, it helps to get the wine out. If its late at night, and all that is on TV is this and that Tony Little guy and his exercise bike, then I suggest Tony Little.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In a world full of films -- like \"You Got Served\" -- that blow your mind with its vast amounts of errors, you'd never figure that there would be worse films... until now. Ron Hall's \"Vampire Assassins\" does more than cheese you off. It KNOWS that you are mad at it. First: there are no assassins in this movie. In fact, there's only one good guy fighting in the whole movie. Second: The location... is basically one location: some jackass's house (or basement. It's up to you.). Third: The special effects (bluntly stated) can kiss my ass. Fourth: The acting beats \"Plan 9 from Outer Space\" in the worst-acting-ever category. Ron Hall can't act to save his life. Finally (and definitely not the smallest problem): THE EDITING. The person who edited this film better hope that I never find him. The cuts and shots are HORRENDOUS!!!! Other issues: Lighting (virtually none), the fact that the guy on the cover isn't even in the movie, and the fact that this film exists.

To sum this film up, let us just say that I tortured the DVD copy before taking it back to Hollywood Video (don't worry! I used the MVP membership, so it was free!). NEVER SEE THIS FILM!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ron Hall pulls a triple threat as he writes, directs and stars in 'Vampire Assassins'. Derek Washington (Hall) is your clich\u00e9d cop-on-a-mission who finds himself up to his neck in some nasty vampire action. Tossing away his badge he searches for the last vampire slayer (no not Buffy!) to take back the streets and vanquish the bloodsuckers back to the grave.

'Vampire Assassins' is a horrible film. It rips off so many other films (can you say Blade?) that it never even attempts to establish it's own identity. The script is non existent. The action is horrible. Who says a micro-budget stimulates creativity? There is nothing even remotely interesting here. You will get nothing out of this except a headache. Stay away at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've spent a year deployed in Iraq, and amongst the hundreds of movies I've seen here was this little gem called Vampire Assassin. Judging from the cover (African-American with corn-rows with a curved blade, leather coat and the demeanor of a badass), I expected a Blade rip-off. Fair enough.

So I pop it in and observed a borderlined overweight African-American with no blade, no cornrows and, well, nothing at all really except...I don't know. If you've read any of these other reviews, you get the gist of the flick. It sucks. Bad. Really bad.

I don't know if it was the Highlander-esquire lightning after killing an immortal vampire, or the karate-kick sound effects for camera zooms, or the twenty dollar budget on props, or the \"ok, we have 90 minutes to film this before we're caught filming in a Johnson & Johnson parking lot,\" or the martial arts that is as exciting and fast-paced as two old people having sex, or the 7th grade acting talent, or the eccentric Asian Master who's either senial or on acid, or what, but the movie manages to force you to question your existence. And that's awesome.

Not many movies can be so bad that your head will explode like Scanners. If you heckle (or MST3K) with your friends, this is the flick for you. I've seen it three times already, and I think it might've caused permanent damage on my psyche. If you STILL don't have any clue as to the quality of the film, people were trying to give it away for free and no one would take it. Not even by force.

Long story short, watch it. Either as masochistic pleasure or punishment. It will rock your skull (and for the most part, for all the wrong reasons).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A dark, yet humorous tale involving a cop who has a first hand experience with vampires and decides he must quit his job to pursue these evil beings.Most of the film contained questionable acting,plot, props, and filming. The fight scenes were as hokey as a middle schooler's rendition of a WWII battle. The lines delivered were spoken as if the actors had no motivation for being there. The props were bad because they did not even look like they could function in the slightest amount. the majority of the film appeared to be shot in someones basement (in some scenes you could see the rafters overhead in a scene that was not supposed to look like that of a basement). The plot had no motivation to move forward or go backwards, it just appeared to stand still at times with no reason for some characters actions. I felt at times the sounds effects were out of place for this horror type genre and more of a cartoon series. It is similar to the movie Blade, in that he is an African American vampire hunter. However, that is where all similarities end, and the movie looks closer to a Saturday Night Live spoof.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie expecting it to suck, and it didn't let me down. I rented it with some friends as a joke. But, what we got was worse than anyone could ever imagine.

It starts off sucking before you even take it out of the box. It looks like a Blade rip-off and the guy on the cover is nowhere to be found in the movie. Its called vampire Assassin, but isn't an assassin someone who kills for hire? Well this guy kills the of his own volition, so that doesn't make him an assassin.

Then, when you actually put the disk in it gets worst. First off the menu animation is lame. But, when you actually start the movie every thing from the set design to the lighting (or lack thereof) is terrible. You know a movie is bad when the credits even suck. The acting is Laughable. The action is childish. The writing is elementary. And the directing is the worst>","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's 2005, my friends...a time of amazing special effects and an age of technology. So, why can't we see a movie that's a little more thought out than this cheesy low-budget film. I've seen a lot of low-budget movies that rock my socks off, but this one...it's almost as if it's trying to be horrible. Just...don't...watch it. I can look past lack of special effects and computer generated scenes if the acting itself was at least good. I feel like a small child produced this entire movie. There's not even an original plot line. Vampire Assassins, in itself is one big plot hole with an attempt to mock itself. Can someone tell me if, perhaps, this was designed as a comedy movie and I just didn't know it? It makes me wonder, what does the sequel have in store for us who so loved the first installment?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i don't really know where to start here.just imagine a movie that is so bad in every way from the acting to the props to the story that it makes you angry. This is one of the worst movies that i have ever seen and that is saying a lot because i have seen some bad ones. when i saw this movie i knew it was a blade knock off, but i thought that hey its got kung fu and vampires, a combination that i thought could not fail. That is until i popped this into my DVD player. How Ron hall managed to mess up something as cool as vampires and martial arts is beyond me. first the acting. i didn't expect to much here to begin with because its an action movie and a B one at that, but the acting here is so bad i couldn't help but be bothered by it. expressions and vocal tones were way out of place, there was absolutely no emotion in almost the entire film and when there was it was so laughable it thought i was watching Mad TV.for example that girly man scream Derek lets out when he has to kill master kao who should have never been born in the first place. all in all I've seen better acting at elementary school plays.then there is the action. not even sub par compared to the things that have been done in action cinema as of late. but still the action was not a total let down as Ron hall does seem to posses some martial arts skills. but even the skill he does have is over shadowed by the stupid things he does, for instance the part of the movie where he starts spinning and then the camera changes. i almost ripped a pillow in half.and the fight scene where his prison buddy fights off vampires by swinging his arms at them. WOW.OR how about the part in the jail where Derek all of a sudden knows magic and can preform chants that make tap water holy water. and as far as the props go. the guns look like walmart toys, the teeth were stolen from Halloween costumes, and words cant describe how bad the CG graphics are. i could go on for hours about all the things wrong with this movie and trust me this is just the tip of the iceberg. its only getting a 2 because it made me laugh. even though i was laughing at how badly the movie was done, a laugh is a laugh. i would say steer clear of vampire assassin unless you want to laugh at a horrible movie or are planning on getting tortured for long periods of time and want to practice","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie actually almost made me cry.

For starters the fake teeth. Then you spot a nice plastic or drawn set. To make it even more boring all the action is followed by a bright light flash. Then the talking: sound levels are so different, sometimes too hard, then too soft, never exactly good like in good movies. Also, it echoes so much that i think they had one microphone on the entire set. And to make matters worse, EVER heard of stereo? If the camera switches, the sound always stays centered. The actors talk like they are reading from a board staged behind the camera. And the zooming into another scene, how terrible childish.

The music is so badly chosen that it never adds something. It only destroys any accidentally created excitement.

To finish it up, the fighting scenes... my 3 year old niece would make a better fighting scene.

This movie is not even good for a laugh, it's just that bad...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do NOT avoid this movie. Simply because it is so bad that it is absolutely hilarious. It possibly is the worst movie I have ever seen but it was so bad that my friends and I were able to laugh at every single moment of this film. At times we actually debated whether it was this bad on purpose but we're pretty sure that it is not. Characters appear out of nowhere as if they have already been established, the scenery changes mid scene to this warehouse constantly, and the Vampire Assassin ends up having around 6 climactic fights with enemies before finally getting to the head vampire. You will also be able to enjoy the one and only face of the Vampire Assassin as he never changes his expression despite his obvious attempts to. So if you want to watch a movie that will make you laugh histerically then I suggest this one as long as you go in with an open mind. Don't expect a good movie, expect the worst... and it will be even worse than that. I seriously want to buy this movie and place it atop my comedy movie selection. Right next to Anchorman.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I said, sometimes low budget is good. You get to see a good movie without a lot of the extra BS that can hide an otherwise piece of crap. Well...this was that piece of crap. If anything, I thought it had humor, unfortunately the humor was unintentional. The only half-witted acting came from Bill Smith and his part was cut out (that's a joke). There was never a Bill Smith, nor was there anyone cast who could act. Even Gerald Okamura sucked, and he's been cast in nearly 40 movies. The fight scenes were comical and made me feel like I could kick all their $%#@#$. The sound was horrible, as if all sound was recorded on the set. My 10 year old could have written a better script...BTW, my 10 year old fell asleep...no kidding. I give a B+ to editing for cutting the movie to only 90 minutes...60 minutes would have been an A+.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hope the people who made this movies read these comments. The choreography was horrid, the plot was nill, and the actors where so low budget power rangers appears 5 star to this junk.

The fight scenes where so slow you could actually see the actors waiting for each other to perform the next move. Camera cut-aways and poor lighting could not cover up the cheap effects. The lightning was just plain stupid. The weapons looked like something out of a final fantasy game, and the dual bow and arrow was just dull as anything I have ever seen.

Next movie you decide to make try investing in some wireless mics, better script and try actually spending some time on your stunts.

Honestly there are shows on t.v. that play ever night and are thrown together in a few hours that look better than this one.

Stick to martial arts (unless its as poor as your acting) then take up quilting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has got to go down in the history of bad movies as the worst one I've ever seen. It wasn't even a bad b movie...I would have rated it at as a z. The special effects were ridiculous...err if you could even call them special effects. I think the reviewer before hit the nail on the head...it was the box that sold the movie, while the cover art was great and the synopsis intriguing (which both is why I rented it) it was a waste of not only time but money as well. I didn't last long. I took it back to the store and switched it out for another movie I believe my local video store took it off the shelf because they had SOOOO many complaints about this horrible movie. My 6 year old could have done a better job filming it\/writing the script!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was pathetically awful. The sound was terrible, the action was ridiculous and the effects were nauseating. If you have a life don't see this movie, cause you will want to kill yourself. This movie totally rips off Blade (which is undoubtedly a really good movie...or trilogy I should say).

I don't care who the actors are, this movie is just horrible. I watched 10 minutes of it and had to come to my computer and comment on how absolutely just bad this movie is. I actually don't know why my family is still watching it...oh wait, yes I do. They are laughing almost non-stop at the stupid action, dialogue and acting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, normally I am fascinated by Z movies. Some of the actors, directors, writers, etc. in those movies have a shred of talent. They want to get that talent out so unfortunately for them, they have to associate with crappy people to make their films. But some Z films do have at least one thing that may be noteworthy about them.

Not here.

As soon as I saw it I thought...'Wow, a Blade knock-off.' Believe me, if this movie could have lived up to that label that would have made it a better movie.

Instead I was subjected to some of the most horrible acting I have ever seen in my life. Master Kao was bad, so bad that I believe some of my neurons in my brain exploded trying to comprehend his acting. I am still trying to make sense of his enunciation and why he would raise his voice in speaking certain words...to add dramatic effect I'm sure...but it was for no apparent reason. Simply mind boggling.

Oh and then there is the black guy in the purple cape near the end of the movie. Purple cape guy fights the hero for about 30 seconds, but he is so bad that it actually looked like he was scared of fighting.

The main hero and the main villain did decent jobs. The main hero (Derek Washington) seemed like he actually knew martial arts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you came here, it's because you've already seen this film and were curious what others had to say about it.

I feel for you, I *really* do. And I profusely apologize as a Canadian (because that's what we do) that this film ever had to cross your eyes, if only for a moment. I hear there is no cure for the retinal bleeding reported out of every dozen cases.

I, like everyone else, rented this movie believing it to be some stupid B-movie ripoff of Blade. I thought, \"sure I could use a good laugh at a stupid movie.\" I'll give the creators of this film ONE positive comment about their 'creation': Thanks for removing the REC XX\/XX\/XX from the bottom right-hand corner of the screen. I can see how that would have been a distraction from seeing this movie.

And for the record, I *saw* the movie, but did not watch it. The dialogue was incoherent and most of the scenes took place in my grandmother's trailer, I swear to God.

You know what? I'm not writing anymore about this. It's just too painful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So, this is the WORST movie you will probably ever see. It's up there with \"Crossbones\" and \"Southern Comfort\", but if your a bad movie fan like I am, this atrocity of a film will be the most fun you've had in years. WHY does the camera make old-school kung fu noises when it zooms? WHY does that random guy stuff a nascar commemorative plate in his bag? And who is he anyway? WHY do the vampires shoot lightning after they die? What is this? Highlander? Dracula McCloud? Who cares! Just laugh at it. This movie has no continuity, no plot, no anything, really. Ron Hall's range of emotions are always off. He looks happy when he should be sad, angry when he should be confused. The rest of the cast couldn't act their way out of a paper bag. The special (\"Short bus\" kinda special) effects are randomly placed, and never needed. Most scenes are lit with a desk lamp, if they are lit at all. Mel Novak has the AUDACITY to look off-camera for his line, and it's not even edited out. They just keep on filming. In fact, half of this movie isn't even on film at all. It's 1\/2 film, 1\/2 sony hand-cam. For most of the film it seems that they left their boom mike at home. This movie doesn't just have a few plot holes, it's a mine field of confusion and mental pain! But OH do I love it! Thank you Ron Hall, for this cinematic abomination. I went out and bought it, cause it's just so damn funny. ($1.99 on Amazon, and I had it rush delivered!)

\"I have weapons! I have weapons! I have WEAPONS!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't normally give movies a \"1.\" Although I am a HEARTLESS critic, I try to find anything that makes the movie worthwhile (that is to say, watchable). The main thing I look for is a coherent plot. If it has that alone, I can watch it! Let me start by saying, this doesn't even deserve to be called a movie, this is more like an elementary school project...gone horribly wrong! And I've seen every Sci-Fi movie special that was ever made.

Many times I've read professional critic reviews that say crap like \"This played like a Made-for-TV...(etc, etc)\" and I kept saying \"Oh come on, I wish they'd think of a REAL criticism.\" Well this is worse...much worse! This is truly the worst \"thing\" I've seen that's lasted the length of a movie (if I DID consider it a movie it would be my new worst movie of all time), and I've seen every movie Uwe Boll made! This movie makes Uwe Boll look like Francis Ford Coppola! :) I'd rather watch Jaws the Revenge all day then see this one more time...even 5 minutes of it...there was one good scene and it was the END! ;-P OK enough bashing the works of Ron Hall, now for the serious criticism.

The script is poorly written, the dialog is delivered in a wooden manner, the effects are cheesier than those in a Power Rangers show, and don't even get me started on the screen zoom-in transitions (ugh). Someone actually watched this thing, edited it, and then said, \"ok release it\"? I would have rather burned this than release it! In closing all I can say is \"Thank goodness DVD and VHS players have a Stop and Eject feature!\" My advice...don't rent it, if you do, you'll be glad you have stop and eject too! :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A friend of mine showed me this film yesterday, and I was really amazed that someone could make a movie this terrible!

Mix the most awful, clich\u00e9d dialog, with the most wooden acting you've ever seen, with the cheesiest special effects know to man, and you get this magnificent beast!

'Vampire Assassins' is funnier than most comedies I've seen, it really is awful!

I was in stitches during the scene where the ex cop\/vampire assassin character is having coffee with the internet journalist. Just watch it and you'll see what I mean!

I honestly can't believe that someone made this with serious intentions.

Tragic, but a really good laugh. It has to be seen to be believed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wasn't able to last ten minutes on the this terrible film. In and age of DV cameras, it looks to have been shot on VHS without aid of any color correction or microphone.

As a filmmaker myself, I know the constraints of indy film-making and, even keeping those things in mind, I'm amazed films can be made this poorly.

The only praise I can offer is that this film got distribution as I've seen considerably better films still seeking modest domestic or international release. I'm guessing the box is what sold it...it does have good box art, but it all goes downhill from there.

Side note: It seems the director has 11 friends since no one on the this planet would give this film a \"10\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Incredibly, \"Vampire Assassin\" is significantly worse than such atrocities as \"Tequila Body Shots\" and \"Zombie Nation\" - and those movies are TERRIBLE. Writer\/director\/star Ron Hall is devoid of both charisma and acting ability, and is also clearly incapable of the most basic directorial concepts. Possibly the worst camera-work, editing, lighting, sound, visual effects, music and fight choreography I have ever seen in a movie. Rarely do two shots cut together, nor can you see much in the beyond-dim lighting. The terrible dialogue is spoken extremely slowly by a supremely untalented cast, stretching the movie to a near-deadly 87 minutes. This is a truly laughable embarrassment for everyone involved. Obviously, aficionados of terrible film-making will want to see this, but it's very hard to sit through no matter how experienced a bad-movie viewer you are. The fact that Ron Hall thought this was actually releasable is astounding. If you are a movie director, and you actually think it's OK for the opening credits of your movie to include a few frames of the words SLUG before the title appears, left over from your rough edit - and you apparently can't muster the energy to edit those frames out - then your standards are obviously so low as to be insulting. I am astounded that Lions Gate\/Maple agreed to release this movie on DVD. In spite of Rudy Ray Moore's very brief cameo, this movie is a work of supreme self-indulgence on Ron Hall's part - he clearly thinks he is a formidable actor, and must also believe he possesses superior writing and directing skills - but the movie is so unbelievably inept that it's hard to believe he'd actually want people to see it for fear of being brutally excoriated like I'm doing right now. A jaw-dropping, insanely terrible movie. I'm not kidding.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this as part of a vampire movie marathon with research intent, otherwise there is no way I'd have watched it all the way through. The first scene wherein a bunch of vampires in very bad wigs seemingly get electrocuted by various slow moving weapons wielded by an even slower moving Van Helsing wannabe... in black and white... with a voice over, sets the pace for the entire rest of the film. The fight scenes look ridiculous, the dialouge would be funny if the acting wasn't so bad, what passes for plot doesn't make sense, and the production values bite (from the pleather knock off of Spike's coat worn by the hero to the cheesy cheap magician's cape their lead vamp swooshes around).

I've seen some bad movies (check out The Magic Sword with B. Rathbone, or the Raven with a very young Jack N.), but this one gets my vote for worst of all times.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Low-budget murder mystery about a Public Defender trying to clear his client of a murder the man had been convicted of 12 years previously. Complicating things is the fact that he escaped custody after his conviction, but the PD believes the man to be innocent of the murder and works to find the real killer. Gig Young as the PD is okay, and James Anderson as the convicted killer is actually pretty good, but the picture as a whole just rambles along with little suspense, and despite some good character actors in the cast, the performances are generally below par. Director George Archainbaud was apparently more at home making westerns--he was churning out Gene Autry's TV series at Columbia at around this time--but even if he had tried to inject any liveliness into this picture, the hack script would have defeated his attempts. Average at best, the film climaxes with a courtroom scene that's straight out of an episode of \"Perry Mason\" and is just as predictable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some people thought this was funny because they loved the political issues discussed in this piece. I, however, am so tired of the state of the two party system in our country that I can't stomach propaganda from either side. I was hoping for a horror show, but got \"cute\" zombies and partisan bull crap. I watch my horror films to be scared. This didn't even attempt to be scary. Also, this doesn't have the wit of Romero in his political\/cultural satire laced in his movies...this was a blatant, no-imagination story that was hard for me to stomach (for the wrong reasons). On the bright side, if you hate Bush...you'll love this (I'm not condoning hate or Bush with this statement)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I disagree 100% with the reviewer who disagreed 100% with the reviewer who gave this short movie an \"F\" grade. Cashing in heavily on political propaganda only obscures Joe Dante's lack of ability to pull another Howling out of his bag of tricks. The Masters of Horror series was a phenomenal collection of truly horrifying tales, save for this episode.

Despite gaining acclaim from those who wish to promote it's political slant, \"Homecoming\" is the least effective episode of MOH season one. Unlike the rest of the series, Dante's entry is a parody of the genre, falling short of both horror and humor in it's ham-fisted delivery of a hackneyed political point.

Dante can really only be blamed for pulling this stinker off the shelf, as it wasn't his creation. The zombie sub-genre is very popular this decade, and among the crop of predictable George Romero tributes and vacuous fantasies are a number of works designed to push political or (ir)religeous messages. Such works are not written by or intended for true horror fans. Maybe Dante really isn't a a Master of Horror, either. What has he been up to since The Howling, after all?

If you want a lame anti-war zombie flick with a few pop culture references passed off as humor, Homecoming may be just your thing. If you are a horror fan looking for something Masterful, pick up... most any other episode of the series. My personal favorite was Dario Argento's \"Jenifer,\" based loosely on a classic comic short by the team of Bruce Jones and Berni Wrightson -- truly creepy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are places for political commentary in film, but \"Masters of Horror\" is not one of them. I get enough of this stuff from Newsweek and every other editorial in the newspaper. Now I've got to watch this in horror movies? C'mon! All I wanted was a good zombie schlock film, not another \"Bush is bad!\" rant. If Joe Dante wants to express his politics, let him go on Air America. And if you must insist on making a \"message\" film, be a little more sly about it. This had all the insinuation of being slapped in the face with a dead fish.

By the way Joe, do you really want the left-wing voting block to be associated with brain-dead zombies? Might want to think about that before making another political horror movie (God help us).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The last sentence of this review is a major spoiler.

I have enjoyed Joe Dante's work since Piranha. He's done a great deal of different genre parodies that were both funny and honest.

But this is pure crap. This is the kind of satire - in line with Thank You For Smoking - that is so literal and direct that it leaves nothing a) to be laughed at and b) to leave the audience to think about.

It's a shame, because the plot and the material is so rich, timely and ripe for intelligent commentary.

By the way, there is absolutely no reason for the main character to shoot the Ann Coulter character at the end of the film. It's just flat out ridiculous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking forward to Dante's contribution to this excellent horror anthology series from Showtime, but this was easily the worst of the bunch. It's really too bad. Part of this may be due to the poor, if odd, choice of source materials. Why Joe didn't just write an original, I have no idea. Instead, we get this soapbox episode where the \"message\" overwhelms the script, the characters, the staging, everything, and by the end I was just wondering whether it could get any worse, and I won't spoil it...but it ended up getting worse. What a stinker by such a talented creative team. Skip this one and buy the John Carpenter one instead. It manages to balance all of the elements: horror, humor, character, vision, and it's fun. Homecoming is about as fun as having a bear take a dump on you while you sleep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dear Mr Dante,

Dude, seriously... the title of the show is \"Masters of Horror\". And be that as it may, it is supposed to be an opportunity to show of your horror chops, to show the world why you deserve to be called a \"master\" of the genre. Appearantly you misunderstood the exercise. Appearantly you thought it was your opportunity (or worse, your duty) to educate the American public on your political beliefs. And your attempt comes off as disgusting, overbearing, and above all preachy.

The only reason ANYONE marked your short as a high score is because their political views match yours and they are the type of people that don't mind having that sort of politics shoved down their throat.

I, on the other hand, don't give a damn what you believe, they believe, or I believe... I just want such obvious (not subtle) and unfunny (not satire) messages out of my horror. And while there were certainly other \"Masters of Horror\" that were big time disappointments or where I was just generally confused why that director (william malone?) would be considered a genre \"master\"... yours fails far beyond the rest for just missing the entire point of the series.

So next time... can you please just keep your preachy politics to yourself?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can appreciate satire that goes against my own views but it must be witty and well-placed. This film is...how can I possibly explain it. It does not make the slightest attempt at subtlety, much less intelligence. In fact, it's hardly even horror. Dead soldiers come to life but they're not interested in brains, only in voting booths. Why? Cue a never-ending stream of the most idiotic, banal, bloated windbag ravings of \"bad president, bad conservatives, bad Republicans.\" What a self-indulgent, schmaltzy, cornball piece of hog manure this was.

Even if they agree with the episode's \"points,\" only the stupidest of liberals would say they enjoyed watching it. Then again, assigning a degree of stupidity to the crazed, angry, hostile, anti-social and anti-anything-halfway-normal liberal spectrum is a tall task in itself.

Avoid like a liberal convention.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had enjoyed the Masters of Horror Series until I came upon this infantile dung heap.

This anti-Bush propaganda piece masquerading as a horror film comes off like an episode of the original Batman done by Michael Moore. Political satire should be clever, this however, pulls a ten on the simpleton scale with all the style and credibility of an L. Ron Hubbard film.

In its campy, inane way, it accuses the Republicans of stealing elections, going to war for absolutely no reason and treating servicemen and women as mere cannon fodder. It even takes a swipe at the Second Amendment and religion. All that was missing was Caesar Romero as the President cackling in glee about how he orchestrated 9\/11.

I guess the ending was supposed to be the \"we support our troops\" moment, but I think they would be more offended than pleased with the entire endeavor.

I'm sure the Hollywood elites are sitting in their Malbu mansions patting each other on the backs for this \"pithy\" work while the misinformed anti-war drones hail it as genius.

Time to get fitted with new tinfoil hats kids.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"---------SPOILER ALERT----------------------------

This was the worst of the series, it is horror disguised as political satire and it is as subtle as a sledge hammer, not very scary and not very insightful. Did Micheal Moore have anything to do with this piece of Garbage.?

I'm really sick of Hollywood using entertainment as a political campaign against George Bush and constantly repeating the same talking points over and over again. This movie wants to be DeathDream, but unlike that movie which subtly poignantly tackled the problems soldiers who came back from Vietnam by clever making the main character come back as a blood craving zombie and slowly built on this theme: it was a true horror film that was also good social commentary, because it didn't get sanctimonious, exploitave and preachy.

I guess Joe Dante, thought this was trying to make a horror film to scare Republicans, conservatives and Libertarians and me being the last in that list found this film to be totally ridiculous, manipulative and exploitave all at the same time and I don't mean the good type of exploitative, that you often find in the \" drive-in\" type movies, I mean exploitative in the most sickening and vile manner: using the deaths of our soldiers as a manipulative political statement disguised as a horror film.

This film assumes that all the soldiers who died in Iraq, would vote against a conservative president if they would come back to life as zombies, which is a flawed premise, because as I recall for the most part and going by George Romero's rules; zombies are mindless, flesh eating creatures, operating on pure impulse and even though the zombie Andy, in DeathDream could talk, he couldn't really hold a conversation and he was driven by his addiction to human blood. Okay, zombies are mindless creatures driven by impulse and not intellect and obviously they are dead, so why would dead people be allowed to vote in the first place? My interpretation of this film is that the only war a liberal democrat could win is by having mindless, dead people vote for him, I guess they meant to say the people that vote for presidents like George Bush are the mindless zombies, while the real mindless zombies, are actually the ones making the intellectually sounds decisions. Yeah, whatever. Dawn of the Dead tackled this idea much better, but user the idea of mindless consumerism. This film isn't Dawn of the Dead by any stretched of the imagination.

The film addresses the issue while the soldiers are alive that a majority of them voted for a Bush like president, but after they die they would vote for a liberal anti-war democrat after they are zombies, who are normally considered brain dead creatures and laughably has them destruct after they vote.

If you are gonna make a zombie movie Mr. Dante and invoke George Romero's name in it, you better have mindless zombies that like ripping people apart and eating their intestines, not zombies that vote. I also like how the zombies just go \"evil\" conservatives who support the war.

If you want a good movie with social commentary skip this poorly made, preachy piece of junk and watch DeathDream instead.

The worst of the Master of Horror Series hands down.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I disagree with Dante portraying the Democrat-supporting zombies as creatures with an average IQ of 23. I do believe their behaviour should reflect a lower IQ than that, something in the order of a Pelosi IQ... A single-digit figure, please.

The MOH series is quite uneven, and this is the very worst episode. Dante, yet another mindless Hollywood liberal (or an apolitical nerd who sucks up to the Leftist establishment in order to re-kindle his pitiful career?), must have finally realized that his directorial pursuits had been stuck in a low gear for nearly two decades now, hence came up with this cringe-inducing, unsubtle, left-wing \"satire\" of the Bush administration, Republicans, and capitalism. Perhaps he felt he hadn't been overtly political before. He wouldn't exactly be the first no-talent to use asinine political propaganda to further his career, when all else fails. The maker of turds such as \"Piranha\", \"The Howling\", and \"Matinee\", Dante has been as useful a contributor to the horror genre as Adolf Hitler had been to world peace.

TH uses lowest-common-denominator humour, cheap and predictable gags which even the bluest of all blue-collar union members wouldn't have trouble understanding. Or have you ever seen a clever, subtle, intelligent liberal satire? Populist manure has the basest of all messages, hence the language and manner in which this message is communicated has to be as simple and basic as Sean Penn's name. And what better people to send this message to the popcorn-munching sheep than a couple of cocaine-sniffing Tinseltown losers who've all fallen so low that they're forced to write for TV...

I don't want political propaganda, either Left or Right, in any type of movie. But placing it in horror - of all genres - is a testament to the endless stupidity that reigns so supreme among Hollywood's anti-intelligentsia. So vapid was Dante that he even failed to notice the hilarious suggestion that zombies would vote Democrat... (That's what you get for finishing a movie school: not a source of wisdom or useful knowledge by any stretch of the imagination.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Homecoming; what a HUGE disappointment!! After reading the plot summary (the dead coming back to vote - AGAINST George W. Bush!!!!!) I couldn't wait to see this. It started off interesting and it immediately caught my attention. Unfortunately, though, it slowly descended into a boring political satire that I didn't need to see (I can just watch some good old Aussie comedy for that!). There was pretty much only one or two scenes of horror and they weren't even that scary. I couldn't believe this came from Joe Dante, who could easily have pulled it off with an equal balance of thrills and satire.

The worst episode so far.

2\/5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I gave this episode of \"Masters of Horror\" a 2 instead of a 1 is because the two lead actors are good, and it wasn't shot on VHS. The story, the dialog, and the plot are ridiculous.

Talking \/ Driving zombies who come back to vote and sway the political tide against the war! Give me a break! What next, zombies who come back to go skydiving? Maybe zombies who come back to host QVC shows?

I never supported the Iraq war, but I do support the courage and sacrifice of the men and women of our armed forces; and \"Homecoming\" was disrespectful in that it mocks the TRUE horror of war.

With zombies being mass produced in today's market... this is the SPAM of zombie-related entertainment. How \"Homecoming\" made it onto \"Masters of Horror\" is beyond me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, it features one lovely blink-and-you-miss-it-joke (when the dead are rising from their tombs, the names of the old time \"horror\" directors like Jacques Tournier and Jean Yarborough are featured in the tombstones) and the smashing of morally bankrupt Repu\/con\/rightist villains is on-target: whorish skanks preaching morals etc. But why these soldiers are anti-Republicans? Because they have gone to the war, most of them should be Republicans, right? Why they don't go to killing the enemies who killed them or something? Why they ALL want to vote against the Republicans? Why this story has made of a movie? Questions never answered...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just a few words: it's a good thing George A Romero is still among us cause if he were dead, he would be forced to rise from grave to vote against the people who made this 'political satire' And the saddest thing of all is that I actually agree with these people's sentiments. Yeah there's zombies in it and they do have a good reason to come back from beyond the grave: to vote. Oh, and one of them finishes off The Doctor from Startrek Voyager. That's about as scary as it will get, people. If you are looking for a horror-movie I suggest you keep on looking. And if you are looking for a witty political satire you're also in the wrong place and not just because this series is called Masters of Horror. But don't let me hold you back: maybe you see something I've missed. Though chances are you'll be wasting your time with it just as I have. Let's just say I prefer my Zombie-movies with the zombies standing in fr\u00f3nt of the camera.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think this movie lacks so much of substance, it is even not worth a discussion.

In the first, the package is really disgusting. Especially the stereotype filming and photographing. Surely, Joe Dante's cinematic stile was appropriate and interesting in \"Gremlins\" and \"Small Soldiers\", I mean the imaginative and visual pretty story telling of a Spielberg-wunderkind (I really loved these movies), but in \"Homecoming\" it was a completely failure. Attacks of toy soldiers and hairy creatures is simply not comparable with zombie-invasions (dead, stinky, rotten beings trying to kill the living - without any logical reason, just because they hate them).

Zombie flicks are characteristic in plain, direct, unconventional and brutal cinematography. Nothing to be seen in Joe Dante's debut. Another point is the annoying content: really stupid dialogs between the two main characters, a gruesome exploitation of the \"elder brother dies and leaves the younger traumatized\" and bad acting. And, by the way \"Homecoming\" is neither scary, nor gory - and even less entertaining. You see, it is even not a horror movie.

Zombie movies in the decade of their birth - it the end of 60s\/ start of the 70s - used to be revolutionary, provocative (espicially through its gruesome, explicit content) and of subtle social critic. THE ORIGINAL Zombie film was actually a midnight-movie named \"Night of the Living Dead\" (1968). This one was a low budget movie that covered so many controversial themes, it's hard to name them all: a visual style of Hitchcock\/Raimi, the American lifestyle of the 70s, political aloofness, the upcoming breakthrough of the human rights of black people and the even more upcoming racism as a result on the side of the conservative Americans (remember the shooting of the black main character in the end of the movie).

If you are interested in the creativity of midnight movies and want to learn more about the most important ones, I recommend you \"Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream \".

So steer clear of \"Homecoming\" and even so of Romero's \"Land of the Dead\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can get over the political parody; even if this was SUPPOSE to be a \"Masters of Horror\" flick.

But, what I can't get over is the blatant usage of our war heroes (and their sacrifice) as pawns in some washed up horror maker's political statement.

To me it was purely insulting to desecrate Arlington, and our heroes. I have family at Arlington. The idea that this guy (Dante) would even portray the Arlington graves being disturbed just makes me want to puke.

I'm done with Dante, and done with MOH.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\" While sporadically engrossing (including a few effectively tender moments) and humorous, the sledgehammer-obvious satire 'Homecoming' hinges on comes off as forced and ultimately unfulfilling. With material like this, timing is everything (Michael Moore knew to release \"Fahrenheit 9\/11\" before the 2004 elections), and the real tragedy of Dante's film is that it didn't come out 2 years ago, when its message would have carried an energy that would have energized the dissidents further. In 2006, mockery of the well-settled Bush Administration hardly seems as controversially compelling (or imperiled) as it did then.\"

frankly anyone that could be convinced of anything by a ham fisted zombie flick has questionable intelligence.

and if you didn't notice, michael moore didn't exactly help to defeat bush.

there was nothing engrossing about this film. i just felt disgust at how blatant and frankly stupid the film was, it was painful to watch. if you are going to do something like this you need a bit of wit. sadly this has none. a poorly done satire actually has the opposite of its intended effect. as they say, with friends like these who needs enemies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Detective Sergent Vince De Carlo (James Luisi) and company are on the case of a vicious Serial Killer\/Rapist. Can Psychologist Carol (Susan Sullivan) help, or will she become the killer's next victim? And what is with the killer's hilarious White Dude Afro?

Inspired by the case of serial killer Ted Bundy, \"Killer's Delight\" aka \"The Dark Ride\" is a rather dull Serial Killer tale from 1978 that doesn't offer much. If anything, it's more of a police procedural flick than a horror movie, as much of the violence occurs off camera. Sure, we get mutilated bodies, but we don't get a whole lot in the exploitation department-especially considering that they are from the aftermath, and not during the crime. Those hoping for the likes of \"The Toolbox Murders\" or \"Maniac\" will be very disappointed.

Fortunately, there is an impressive scene involving a woman trying to escape the killer that get's the tone right, and is quite suspenseful to boot. Also, John Karlen is quite effective as the killer, though his hilarious hairstyle (white guys with Afros are always worth a chuckle) is more than a bit distracting.

\"The Dark Ride\" is too routine and mediocre to really warrant a recommendation, as it lacks the proper exploitation elements, and is dated even by the standards of the time. Those looking for a better example should probably turn to \"Don't Go In The House\" and a few others instead, as this just doesn't cut it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A killer (John Karlen) with a penchant for really bad disguises (afro wig on a white dude?) cruises around in his van looking for victims. Detective DeCarlo (James Luisi) is on the case and finds the killer rather easily by just hanging out by the local pool and looking for anyone looking weird (again, the afro wig comes into play). Tracking the killer to his home, DeCarlo decides to set up a risky sting involving a female police psychologist.

Inspired by the crimes of Ted Bundy before he was caught, KILLER'S DELIGHT is a pretty predictable and cheap serial killer flick. Director Jeremy Hoenack has no idea how to pace a film or even make it suspenseful. He does know how to show lots of close ups of the killer wringing his hands though! The only thing this really has going for it is the captured 70s atmosphere (look out for the bathroom wallpaper). Well, that and a downbeat ending. The Media Blasters\/Shriek Show DVD has lots of nice stuff though including an audio commentary by Hoenack and Karlen, plus video interviews, trailers and an alternate opening.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this film out of the local video store one day, you know, the kind of movie with box art that just reaches out and tells you to 'rent me'. Well, if you see this dull film in your video store, walk on by. Fight the urge, rent a porno, because this film is BOOOoooorrrring. Despite the interesting opening, the film lapses into repetitive murders and a hardboiled cop stumbling around, dealing with the usual problems (wife, bastard of a boss, etc). Wondering if the fast forward function on your VCR works? Rent this film and put your concerns to the test.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is no \"fun\" poking fun at the desperate plight of illegal immigrants! Or the desperate plight of head-shop owners, for that matter! That the richer-than-God Brian Glazer didn't see the irony of having the \"heroes\" do exactly what the villain does - rob honest, hardworking people of their life savings - doesn't surprise me! Hell, how do you think he got to be richer than God?!

In this alleged satire about greed, these mental midgets reveal their own hypocrisy: the McMansions, the McToys, the McChildren, the McIllegals who are paid peanuts to take care of the McMansions, the McToys, and the McChildren! But the main problem (aside from the revolting bigotry) is the premise: as the former executive of a now-infamous company, Dick would be the Big Scalp for every corporate headhunter in the country! No soup kitchens for him! And, raking in high six-figures, you'd think he wouldn't be caught dead around a Gore\/Lieberman poster!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dick and Jane Harper (Jim Carrey, T\u00e9a Leoni) wind up on the unemployment line when the corporation Dick works for is caught in a corruption scandal, and after desperately and unsuccessfully trying to find jobs, the duo turns to crime in order to get them out of poverty.

I've always been a fan of Jim Carrey. It's been awhile since he has made a straight up comedy. The last one was Bruce Almighty which was pretty good. He has proved that he can do serious dramas but comedy is his real element. Fun with Dick and Jane proves that he still has it. Even though the film was funny, it was still kind of disappointing. It wasn't as funny as I thought it would be. It's worth watching once though unlike most of Carrey's movies, it doesn't have a good repeat value. Part of the problem is the script. I was surprised the script was weak since this is the same guy that made The Forty Year Old Virgin. Some of the jokes just fall flat and other times they seem to be trying too hard. If Jim Carrey wasn't in it, than the film would have been a lot worse.

Next to Jim Carrey is T\u00e9a Leoni. She's an okay actress but she just isn't very funny. She doesn't match up well with Carrey and she seemed to be phoning in her performance. They should have gone with someone else. The supporting cast includes Alec Baldwin, Richard Jenkins and Aaron Michael Jenkins. The latter plays Billy Harper and he actually gives a decent performance. He wasn't as annoying as most child stars are. Alec Baldwin was okay and Richard Jenkins tried too hard to be funny. To be honest, I'm a little bias here. The film altogether was pretty average but I liked it more because of Jim Carrey's performance. Fans of Jim Carrey should enjoy it but that's about it. In the end, Fun with Dick and Jane is a fun way to spend 90 minutes but its not very memorable. Rating 6\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"See Dick work.

See Jane work.

Dick and Jane are married.

They are successful.

They have a son.

They have a nice house.

They have a Latino housekeeper.

The housekeeper teaches Spanish to the son.

The son speaks Spanish.

Ha-ha.

See Dick get promoted.

The pompous CEO is a crook.

See Dick take the fall for the pompous CEO.

Jane quits her job.

Oops.

See Dick and Jane out of work.

Dick & Jane turn to crime.

As a plot device, they decide to rob the CEO.

See the robbery get botched.

See Dick & Jane fund the company's pension plan with the money from the robbery.

Yay. See the end credits.

Okay, so you've got the plot. Beyond that, Dick and Jane careens from one scene to the next. One barely connecting with the last one or the next one. The whole thing is terribly episodic in nature.

Jim Carrey didn't bother to bring his \"A\" material, he just seems bored and slightly ashamed of the whole thing. But heck, when you're getting paid $20 million plus, why bother. Tea Leoni is frantic. I guess I would be frantic not to get blamed for this flop.

There's just something sort of off about Dick & Jane. Carrey and Leoni aren't funny and have little chemistry. The script isn't funny. And it's not well-plotted.

But it may be bigger than that. The reality of Dick and Jane is, perhaps, a little too real. Maybe it's just not funny for people to lose their jobs in an Enron-like situation, when real-life still lacks a happy ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jim Carrey is a particular brand of humour and I personally think he's a great actor (Eternal Sunshine, for example).

However, this movie is presumably intended to be nothing more than a Jim Carrey vehicle, so be aware straight off that if you don't think his style of comedy is funny, you will sit stony-faced throughout this film, as it has NOTHING else to recommend it.

Even if you do like Carrey's comedy, I am not sure you will find this film amusing. I went to see it on a Saturday night at 10:30pm and the audience was definitely ready to laugh. They giggled throughout the trailers, which weren't particularly funny, but when it came to the film, stony silence. I think it raised about five genuine laughs.

The problem with the movie is it doesn't know what it wants to be. It can't make up its mind whether it's going for slapstick or serious. If it were stupid throughout it could be forgiven but (I'm guessing) it's also trying to make a point about the relationship between the two central characters.

The strong point of the film is the hold-ups, and there was plenty of potential here. But these didn't start until about halfway through and remained largely undeveloped. Meanwhile, you have to sit through the first excruciating 40 minutes as the couple's life deteriorates.

Four separate groups walked out of this film while I was there, and if my flatmate hadn't asked me to keep away from the house (his girlfriend having just returned from a month-long vacation!), I would have done the same. And in my entire 25 years of movie going, I have done that just once before.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh my lord, what were they thinking about with this one. It not only is frantically unfunny, but worse, a very good original was trashed in the bargain. Jane Fonda, believe it or not, actually turned in the performance of her life in that one. Even better than where she plays the whore in the other so called performance of her life. Maybe she is just flat good as a crook. Any other time, wow, what a waste of time. But she and Segal team up beautifully, so if you even remotely got a glimpse of anything funny in this baby, catch the anvil upon which it got beaten into a pulp from.

Because very very very little of that one remains, to this ones horror. Nothing in this baby is remotely funny except for maybe a couple of moments when Dick and Jane are bulging lipped up as lepers and cant kiss..... and uhh........oh my lord, that's it? Well, looks like it.

It truly is that bad a film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A satire about greed and money, what? There is more greed in the intentions behind this fiasco than in any of the themes they pathetically try to make fun of. Jim Carrey's reign was certainly short lived. He is an unbearable presence on the screen. The insincerity of his portrayal is nothing short of creepy. He produced this, this \"masterpiece\" as well, so he can't blame anyone here. \"The number one comedy in America\" shout the desperate TV adds. Of course, Jim Carrey was suppose to guarantee full houses but the game is over. If I sound angry is because I am. I spent a sunny afternoon in California, plus, between tickets, parking, flat Cokes etc, almost 45 bucks on this thing, starring and produced by Mr Carry. Not anymore, do you hear? Not anymore.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a terrible misfire. Not only the title but the idea is the same as that Jane Fonda, George Segal vehicle of a few decades ago. Why? I wonder, someone with the clout of Jim Carrey will, not only star, but also produce this tired, ugly, pointless excuse for a comedy. He could be taking comedy to a whole new level, instead, he goes for what he may assume is safe territory. Money, money, grosses, Christmas. But I'm sure this uncomfortable mess will have very short legs. I call it uncomfortable because that's how I felt. Aware as I was of the desperate attempts tried out on the screen to be funny. And failing, miserably. It could have been an outrageous, politically incorrect, mirror comedy of the post Enron days but no, that would be pointing too high, too risky. What a shame!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought the movie was sub-par. The acting was good but not great, the story was funny but did not come out that way. The director dropped the ball on this movie. It was not James (jim) or Tea. IMHO it was the music that killed it. There is a scene where things go down hill and Jonny Cash music is playing - man was that depressing (not funny) killed my mood. After that the movie could not recover. The deportation scene had potential funny situation, good acting good set up - I even smirked but the music again was unsuited to the scene. The music kept me from being pulled in to the movie.

I say it had potential but was poorly done, i would even say rushed into final production. Kind of reminiscent of the prequel to the exorcist: the beginning. The theater release was good, I though so after watching it, but the movie release exorcist:dominion was a helluva lot better. Same story just different director. Same should be done here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Part of the movie's low rating is the emphasis on unemployment and the suffering we have to endure. While this is good for drama, in comedy, we know the pains it need not be emphasized. As a result Fun with Dick and Jane is not an appropriate title and I was just plain disappointed failing to see any fun with Dick and Jane. It is true that this is a copy from the movie of the same name, but it fails on the execution and the title was not appropriate for the story line.

However, if the movie was retitled to be \"The Art of the Steal\" and the emphasis on bungling slapstick comedy more takes on the robbery and the plans to steal (stupidly of course) would have given the movie a major boost. While, at the same time the movie should show the CEO at least in the beginning to be a crook, so it will be easier to project the pains to someone responsible early on and just leave it at that. The movie suffers a viewpoint issue and with that in mind, a comedy cannot work if the viewpoint is not done properly. A scheming husband character who is that of a Wile E. Coyote on the Road Runner would be more funny, including the slapstick comedy. But in this case, a steal instead of the capture of the bird with complicate contraptions would be extremely funny here. I mean you can make many of these and put them in the movie. But since the viewpoint was done wrongly, the robbery part had to be limited.

You will enjoy the movie the first 15 minutes (during Jim Carrey's great rise), but to make the problems they had to faced to be more comical since it is a comedy, that is the part that needs a major overhaul. It can be funnier, if problems were faced more like John Travolta's Civil Action during the downfall. That movie was a serious one but the problems they faced were somewhat comical.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a big Jim Carey fan I took my seat in the cinema with optimism. After all, Fun With Dick And Jane appeared to have all the raw materials to make this another Carey success. After the opening five minutes of good humour it seemed that this film would provide but it went wrong as soon as the plot kicked in. The idea that a charming, charismatic, top V.I.P employee could suddenly find himself turning up to work in his nearest supermarket is just so hard to believe and then to get your head round the fact that this guy has also become a master criminal is virtually impossible. The actors seem confused with the situation as well. Of course, the stereotypical, rich, uncaring head of the operation doesn't struggle one bit to pull off his one dimensional character but for Carey and others around him the job is a whole lot harder. One minute Dick is seen as a cocky office pro, obsessed with possessions, the next minute he's a bumbling mess who can barely string two words together, and ultimately he becomes a petty thief who is able, quite happily, to put a gun to another man's head. Jane is equally confused with her role and her character never really gets going.

The idea behind the story is such a good one and it is a shame that this film has not managed to make it work. The odd moment of laugh out loud comedy can be found but it is usually more physical humour than anything witty or clever. Carey tries his best in parts to save a sinking ship but his comic talent can never flourish in a character that has so many gaping holes to his personality. Carey shines when he is presented with a strong, daring character (Man on the Moon, The Truman Show, Ace Ventura) which this film never presented him with, despite its best efforts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unfortunately this is not as good as any of the other films that Jim Carrey (producing and starring) and Brian Grazer have worked on together, but bits of it are definitely worth a look for laughs. Basically Dick Harper (Carrey) thinks he is being promoted to a better job. That's until the company of Dynocorpe sinks and closes down. Now Dick and his wife Jane (T\u00e9a Leoni), and their son of course, are in trouble with money. No matter what they try, they can't raise the kind of money they really want. So they start robbing a few places. And then they decide to rob the guy that set Dick up, his ex-boss Jack McAllister (Alec Baldwin). I think the most laughable bits are when Carrey's in the elevator singing \"I Believe I Can Fly\" and the bit when he ties up someone in a robbery, and is speaking with a voice changer (he sounds like a crap robot). Okay!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was, perhaps, one of the most unoriginal and unfunny films I've seen in a long, long while. To be fair, I was not expecting some revolutionary comic formula, but I was anticipating to at least be entertained. With such low expectations, how could I manage to be disappointed?

Jim Carrey, possibly my favorite actor (not sarcasm), did little more than tread water in this film. He seems to have temporarily returned to his funny-face-making roots and created a character no different from his Fletcher Reede from Liar Liar. This new character, Dick Harper (a.k.a. Fletcher 2.0) is a poorly rendered and miserably written whelp. If you find yourself smiling while watching this pitiful and essentially boring character, it is most likely because Carrey is trying so hard to bring a third dimension to him. Carrey's outlandish posing becomes humorously awkward--and, ultimately, sad.

Tea Leoni as Jane does little more than provide the Abbott to Carrey's Costello. I typically find Tea Leoni refreshing and underused, but not in this case. Jane Harper could have been easily played by any actress from age thirty to forty-five, and it is in that non-specificity that the character of Jane becomes uninteresting to watch. She simply has no defining trait other than her following of the movie's general theme, which seems to be that... Wait, no, this movie has no theme. Unless you count \"Big Business Is Evil\" as a theme. I thought that was more of a given.

Richard Jenkins and Alec Baldwin both deliver believable (though tired) supporting performances, but neither man seems truly invested in the role they're playing. It's very clear that Alec Baldwin was putting about as much effort into playing his role as the sinister C.E.O. as he puts into eating a sandwich (which he seems to be doing a lot of lately).

Slight tangent, but has Alec Baldwin played any roles in the past few years that hasn't required him to be a powerful jerk in a suit?

Anyway, take my advice if you haven't already witnessed the horror for yourself: save your money. This is the one to catch on HBO in a few months. Dick and Jane are present, but there's no fun to be had.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would give this a zero if they had that rating. Fun was no fun at all. I grew tired of the movie about ten minutes into but endured to the end thinking it had to get better - it did not. The others I watched this movie with also agreed. The acting was annoying. I am tired of Jim Carey's over the top ham acting. The supporting cast was no better. While this movie was a statement of corporate greed and the plight of the worker who gets stepped on when a large company goes under, the vehicle for this would have been better served another way. I actually disliked the leading characters (Dick and Jane) so much that their antics were never funny but pathetic. I am trying to recall one scene where I or anyone I was with laughed and cannot. A worthless movie and a total waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking forward to seeing this movie, unfortunately I should have listened to my daughters advice. This should have been a spoof, but it took on a realism that corporations had a lot to answer for.

Jim Carrey after all the work he has done is still Jim Carrey and his comedy does not get any better, his co star was not able to back him up. Their son in the movie was invisible.

The life of crime was a blink, and that was the missing link of the movie. The film showed 2 or 3 robberies and they were richer than before, that where it lost it for me.

I did laugh in some parts butthrough the whole not good enough, AlecBaldwin I felt was there to add some weight to the film. His character was not strong enough. There were just too many gaps to make this a smart and tight movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Can't liberals like Alec Baldwin get it through their heads that they lost the elections of 2000 and 2004? The ridiculous. lame swipes at WalMart, non-union workers, George W Bush and the stock market not to mention the intentional GWB accent that Balwin's character uses in the film just makes him look silly and bitter on screen. As the credits roll the sour grapes continue as \"Special Thanks\" are given to Ken Lay, and other CEOs from Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and IMClone. Let me clue you in to something - if you put all your money into one company's stock YOU'RE AN IDIOT. We don't need this excuse for a movie to tell us that. What a waste of Jim Carrey's talent - from the trailer I expected a completely different movie - what I got was a 90 minute DNC commercial on how to scare people into not investing for their own future, keep them stupid, and keep them dependent on government. No wonder Hollywood is in trouble and can't make a decent movie anymore - maybe you guys could get an original idea and put it on screen for once...although I shouldn't be surprised since Jane Fonda was cast in the original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Fun With Dick and Jane failed to entertain on so many levels. There were loose ends with the writing, for example, it seems as though one of the major conflicts was the indictment of Jim Carrey's character DIck Harper, but the writers never follow up that particular conflict. Basically the story is weak and mostly unfunny, but Carrey saves a few scenes with his physical humor, but honestly, Jim Carrey wasn't very funny in this movie, and Tea Leone might as well have been there just for her appearance because she wasn't funny either. This is just another example of Hollywood banking off franchise actors with a lousy unoriginal story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe it's just that it was made in 1997, or maybe whoever managed to get this up to a 7 has a soft spot for kids with AIDS. But really people, the maniacal laughter & mayhem during the withdrawal scene? Did you not see that coming? I'm surprised there was no baby crawling across the ceiling and sickboy addressing the camera. The acting was fine, sure. But to me this is just one example of a movie from a time when situations and subject matter could pass for cinematic language. Things happen, but that's it. There's no glue or motive that can be detected on screen, allowing the subject matter to use pre-existing emotional connections to furthur the plot, without the script doing it like it's supposed to.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For three quarters of an hour, the story gradually develops towards a pivotal point of some sort. Although it is overburdened with scenes that just seem to be intended to dull the viewer and lure him away from the actual plot, there is something happening. It is not much and it certainly is not obvious. The combination of palace impressions and story-driving scenes do not add any depth or insight to the whole cast of characters. In fact, they keep them sterile as there is no character development at all. Everybody just remains spinning and centered around their own clich\u00e9 and role - the cute, kinda headstrong girl; the fighting \u00fcberwoman, the snobby aristocrat. The male lead does not seem to have any distinction at all, he is a shallow presence, which, actually, doesn't even matter as he is only there because the storyboard required him to - it seemed like he was on vacation and got caught up. When the point comes of turning the corner in terms of what happening, the movie first snaps completely blank for a couple of minutes and then becomes ridiculous. It solves - or better, dissolves - itself with a by-the-book Deus Ex Machina, more clich\u00e9s and some of the most crude plot devices and choices I have ever seen. It's history, alright. First the movie's a drama though it's supposed to be comedic, and then it turns into a farce. The protagonists do what they are expected to do, and there are no surprises. The first set of somewhat serious antagonists however gets replaced by a couple that literally was just bored. Maybe that was some kind of nod towards the audience.

This movie does not get any bonus from me for underlying philosophical meaning (since there is none) nor for its technical realization. The animation and editing is fair and so's the sound mixing; but it is by no means outstanding or even above the average Japanese productions of the late 1980's. In fact, the visual treats seem static, un-inspired and un-original.

Worst of all - it totally fails to entertain, even if you don't bother with characters and all that stuff. There's too little going on here, and the rest is corny at best. Get a real Ghibli instead, have a feast with it and keep your fingers off this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to be one of the worst movies ever to come out of the Sci-Fi Channel. Here is how the movie starts, Women are the only humans on this planet due to the fact that in the not to distant future chemical warfare is A OK as long as it only targets soldiers (In case your wondering, Men) However the virus back fires (Big shock)and all the men on earth slowly die. Then all of male kind is condemned to die when the madam president is shot and killed by a man. now we are taken around 60 to 70 years from now, two female scientists are working on cloning a female baby and one of them says \"Hey, why don't we bring men back?\" The other one says no the world is not ready for that, but promptly ignores her and thus a man walks the Eath again.

First off, this movie assumes that all men who are not genetically altered are blood thirsty monsters. Secondly, the writer forgot to mention that present day soldiers are a good mix of Male and Female officers so there is no real reason to have a virus like that. This is the biggest waist of time you can find. This movie managed to insult my intellect not only by the bad story, but with the Lifetime style acting. Avoid this movie at all costs.

I give this a 1 out of 10 but only because I could go no lower.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The makers ask for a huge suspension of disbelief, you grant them it in the hope that given a little time they'll convince you it's possible. Alas, with TV movies it seems as though they specifically set out to make cheap Cosmo questionnaire films. With a small budget and big claims you should spend every penny on the details to convince the audience. Not here though. The film gets a few points for the good performance the two leading ladies give against the odds, but unfortunately it's not enough to save the day. oh, and the less said about the ending the better. Happy Film-Viewing Everyone !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Warning: This could spoil your movie. Watch it, see if you agree.

To think that we as humans can not learn from the past. The futuristic society portrayed glamorized what Hitler believed, obliterate a race of people (in this case men) for the benefit of society. It made me sick to my stomach. Also the plausibility of a Y bomb is insane. Even in war our instinct for self-preservation will prevent the extinction of humanity. We made mistakes in the past ie: Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in '45 but because of that we avoided a bigger mistake in '63 during the Cuban Missile Crisis","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a male bashing bonanza. I saw this on Sci-Fi a while ago, and the idea seemed interesting. It could have been a good movie, and the plot itself I don't see as male bashing, but certain specific references to men get really annoying. I might still watch the movie again though because it does at least try to redeem itself by hinting that maybe the women in the movie aren't really as non-violent as they claim, but it still doesn't compensate for the really tiring male-bashing. I mean, I can understand a little, it's part of the movie's plot, but come on, it gets really tiring after awhile. Not only that, but to assume that the majority of women in the world would accept becoming homosexual that easily and that the few remaining heterosexuals would be such a minority as to go \"in the closet\". It's just too unbelievable. There are far too many women out there with cultural or religious restrictions that would balk at this it is totally implausible. I mean I know its sci-fi, and I love sci-fi, but the best sci-fi has at least a hint of it being possible, and this is too implausible. The phrase \"Truth is stranger than fiction\" came about because fiction has to at least seem plausible to be welcomed, but truth isn't always. This movie is not that. Other than that, the movie does have some good acting and the eventual morals of the story, that something like what happened was wrong, do redeem it a little, but not enough.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is awful beyond belief. It's a low-budget, badly written, piece of pointless garbage. But the Saturday afternoon I stumbled across it on TV still sticks in my mind as one of the most entertaining I've ever spent in front of the television. The badness of this movie is epic -- maybe not Ed Wood epic, but close. The premise is hysterical (men are banned for being too dangerous and imprisoned in -- haw! -- football stadiums), the pseudo-dyke culture is laughably bizarre (there's an underground sex trade with women who dress up like men to service \"deviants\") and the \"last man\" of the title is a pitiful reincarnation of Rocky from Rocky Horror Picture Show. I didn't get to see the end of it, which I have to assume was so dripping with syrupy \"what have we all learned from this?\" nonsense it would bring on an urge to brush the teeth, but everything in the first two-thirds was so memorably bad, even if the last third turned out to be a pale imitation of the rest, it's still worthwhile for anyone who gets a kick out of campy, stupid, brainless sci-fi B-flicks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... but had to see just how bad it could get. The plotline was thin to begin with, but it just kept getting worse. A female genetic engineering grad student uses her research on accelerated mitosis to artificially create a male, because a biological weapon used in WW3 killed off 97% of the worldwide male population. The surviving men are either high prices gigolos in back alley clubs, or crazed lunatics in run down football stadiums plotting to overthrow the 'Lesbian Conspiracy'. The entire process resembled the microwaving of a large bowl of jello. Press a few buttons and ding you get a baby. Not only that, but he will age to mid 20's in a month, and then begin to age normally (how convenient). Eventually poor Adam gets bored with the secluded cabin in the woods where his creator had raised him and steals her car to 'see the city'.

This begins 90 minutes of unlikely chases, convenient plot twists, and several subplots that we never see resolved. As Adam quickly learns, what men did survive are treated as outcasts\/criminals, because they are dangerous beasts that cannot help there genetic predisposition to violence. The propaganda machines have been in full swing, scaring women into believing all men are rapists and murderers. This has led to lesbianism being the norm, the fall of Christianity, female only reproduction via cloning, and oh yeah world peace among other implied results. All of which seem unlikely given that only ~30 years had elapsed since the war. Adam stumbles from one bad situation to the next, all the while being genetically programmed to be non-violent and unable to really do much on his own behalf. With the FBI on his trail, madams looking for fresh meat, and his creator trying to recapture him (for herself it seems), he learns that violence is not limited to the male species after all.

All in all, I would not recommend this movie.

I did however enjoy Veronica Cartwrights portrayal of the 'love to hate her' Director of the FBI, and Julie Bowen didn't do bad as Hope the 'closet hetero' geneticist either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"They used footage of some real protest spliced with some woman talking about a society with no men to make it seem like these people were cheering for the 'gendercide' of men. The funny thing is, you can see a man cheering on his own death in the background.

OK, the plot. Some lady says there should be a society with no men, and the crowd in front of her (which contains some men) think its a great idea. So then all the men are killed or something. So there are no more.

Then this blonde scientist creates a man, but removes some chromosomes so he can't be violent. The male grows very quickly and soon is a full grown man. Not long after, he takes the blonde's' Volkswagen beetle and drives into the city where he's discovered. Now you would think the lone man in a city full of lesbians would be the happiest guy ever but no way. The police chase him.

I didn't watch the rest but it probably ends up that they've got to race against the clock and some people, or something bad will probably happen. Somehow the man ends up in a stadium with some other men who want him to lead the rebellion. These brave warriors hiding in a stadium might have had some sort of plan which laid out the details of how they'd single handedly get rid of a planet full of women, but I didn't watch. And neither should you.

If you're up late and channel surfing and this happens to come on, don't watch. Watch anything but this. You'll find those ads for Bowflex or the ones with women in bathing suits asking you to 'pick up the phone to meet women just like these' in your area will be more satisfying entertainment.

(Oh yeah, there's this funny thing when they're pulling in with their cars. I don't know what they did, it looks like they drove in real slow and careful but then tried to speed up the film to compensate but it just looks really weird.)

The blonde girl was kind of cute and I'm feeling generous, so... 2\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot - in the future when nearly all men have been killed by a Y-chromosome-targeting virus, a (hot) female genetic engineer 'creates' a man in a chem lab - is intriguing. Despite the somewhat promising premise, the movie falls flat in nearly every regard. The dialogue is laughable. The characters are paper thin. The exploration of a single-gender world is shallow. The worst part of the entire movie is the Asian detective who delivers lines so cheesy and contrived that you'll want to vomit.

I can't imagine how on earth this trash got produced. Most of the movie is male bashing. \"All men are violent.\" \"All men rape women.\" \"Men are only animals.\" All of the women - even the 'closet hetero cases' - seem to display anger toward-, fear of-, and hatred for men. If you want to see a sci-fi film something along the lines of this movie's premise, you'd do best to look elsewhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't think this can legally qualify as \"film.\" The plot was so flimsy, the dialogue so shallow, and the lines so terrible that I couldn't believe that someone actually wrote the lines down, said, \"Holy sh*t! This is a masterpiece\" and then actually pitched it to a producer. I, for one, am still dumbfounded and will forever remember this film as the mark of the degeneracy of intelligence in America -- that, and \"Crossroads,\" of course.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pure schlock from beginning to end. The average 12 year old might find that it has an interesting take on discrimination. Otherwise, it's a pure camp-fest endurance test. Like one of those so-so episodes of Star Trek The Next Generation that thinks it has Something Important To Say.

You'll see every plot twist a mile off in this by-the-numbers romp. However, it's worth seeing for its portrayal of drag-king prostitutes, a brothel where young women pay old men to have sex with them (how's that for role reversal), and lesbian soap operas. The ghost of Valerie Solanis lives!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All I ever heard while being raised was equality of the sexes, and here we have a film that not only exemplifies imbalance, but continues through with a whole concept that one sex is better. All the while watching I was hoping for that redeeming quality to make the viewer feel as though there is hope for the future, and there wasn't. I'll admit to not finishing the film, I had to turn it off at the part where the old man whore told the genetic man Adam that it was ok to be a whore and get, and I quote, \"More tail than any man in the past time.\" I know not finishing it is a bad review on myself, but it is the responsibility of the writer and crew to develope a story that will keep a viewer interested, and they failed. This film betrays all true female nature qualities of the mother figure and the need for balance. Instead it exemplifies what America ran by lesbian natzis would be like,and I'm not against lesbians. Thank you Mr. Director! Someone please give me a redeeming quality... wait I have it! There's no sequel!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie stunk. There is not much more to it. The final fight looked like Walker taking on my grandmother, not some supernatural demon with the strength of ten men. I found the commercials more interesting. The plot twists and jokes could be seen coming a mile away. The only redeeming quality of this film was that it ended. Avoid this at all costs...unless you enjoy bad Chuck Norris movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a god awful Norris film, with one of the most annoying performances ever in Calvin Levels and a weak script. The characters were terrible, and it has hardly any action,plus even Chuck Norris stinks in this!. Christopher Neame is very weak as the main villain, and the story was not very interesting plus Norris seemed bored with the whole thing and i don't blame him as i was too!. Calvin levels gives one of the most annoying performances in a movie ever, i couldn't stand as i was tempted to rip the tape out of my VCR, plus Norris and Levels had no chemistry together!. If your looking for some great martial art moves from Norris don't go near this, however if you want a movie with an uninteresting story, hardly any action and bad acting look further!. This is a god awful Norris film, with one of the most annoying performances ever from Calvin levels, Avoid it like the plague!. The Direction is incredibly bad. Aaron Norris does an incredibly bad job here, with no suspense or thrills bland camera work, and keeping the film at a dull pace!. There is a little bit of blood and violence. We get 2 gory impaling's,ripped out heart, exploding body and a few gunshot wounds. The Acting is really bad. Chuck Norris is not AMAZING as he usually is here and seemed very bored here, his one liners are flat, and his acting wasn't that great and i am a huge Norris Fan, this is his absolute worst! (Norris still Rules!).Calvin Levels is INCREDIBLY annoying here, his whiny wimpy performance severely grated me, i was so hoping for him to get it good!, but sadly he didn't. Christopher Neame is pretty weak as the main villain, his voice was cool, but he over acted big time!. Sheree J. Wilson is beautiful and did okay with what she had to do. Rest of the cast are terrible. Overall Please avoid this it's not worth the torture, even if you are a huge Norris fan (like me). BOMB out of 5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For the most part, I considered this movie unworthy of a comment, but the last 10 minutes prompted me to write one. You see, right then we learn (SPOILERS...if they can be called that) that the Devil's emissary has no chance of properly preparing the domination of the world by his master, because he is not skilled at martial arts! \"Prosatanos\" has been lying in a hole for centuries, waiting for \"human greed\" to release him, only to be defeated in a simple one-on-one match against 54-year-old former karate champion Chuck Norris! Imagine what would have happened to him if he had taken on Jackie Chan... (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Norris plays a Chicago cop who stumbles upon a devil's apprentice? who wants to, well, create Armegeddon. He eventually kills the creature by, get this, throwing a solid gold 24 inch spike, not very sharp, about twenty feet, hard enough to penetrate the chest. Unlikely? So is the rest of the movie. Much of it consists of CN and his sidekick driving cars and talking nonsense. The Israeli (or Arab) kid is there ostensibly to humanize CN. OK. Doesn't work, makes no sense, and advances the plot, so-called, not one bit. Also, no cops ever every get invited out of the country to be interviewed by other cops. It is ridiculous as a premise. The whole thing is bad. Unfortunately, it's not so bad as to be entertainingly bad or campy. Just plain bad. But--one can see how Norris was trying to find his way to the successful Walker: Texas Ranger series.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This piece of Crap is actually the BOMB, as in Bottom of the Barrel. I can't figure out which is worst; Norris' dull portrayal of anonymity (not a great trait in an action protagonist) or Christopher Neame's hysterical overacting. This film doesn't deliver on any level what so ever. The action sequences are tame, the plot is paper thin, and the scenes that are supposed to be horrific look like a clich\u00e9 from the fifties. You can't just fill a room with smoke and men in rubber suits, and expect the audience to scream in terror.

Visually the film does nothing for me. It actually looks like an unfortunate mix between a cheap porn flick and a Miami Vice rip-off with a little sprinkling of hell-spawn. No, wait. That should have been hell-yawn.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I concur with the other users comment. Hard to believe that this movie actually came out in 1994 because it screams mid 80's. I think it is dubbed because the sound and the picture don't always match up. If anyone can truly say this is a good movie, they need to be locked up. It is so sad how money has so much power over people that they will do anything to get it. I feel I lost intelligence from watching this. I used to have a little respect for Chuck Norris before I watched this but now I just feel bad. I bought this as part of a 3 movie pack for $9.99 and I can honestly say I would have been better off literally throwing the money away. Forgive me Jesus.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst film I have ever seen, so bad it is astonishing. I am glad that I have never seen that black sidekick in any other film: OK, it wasn't his fault that someone gave him those lines, but he could have refused the role, and tried to learn how to act instead. How did anyone get the money to put this film together. Is there some corporation in Hollywood that deals with trash for male college students with no brain? \"Oh yeah, they will love this one: it's got no believable plot, some kungfu movements, Chuck Norris, a black sidekick with bad corny lines, a sweet little Israeli (or is he an Arab, or does anyone care?) boy pickpocket, and the devil.\" Brilliant, and many thanks to all concerned for enriching the human race.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is bad. Not so bad it is good. Just bad. It is however hilariously bad. I watched it out of some morbid curiosity and never intend to watch it nor any other Chuck Norris film ever again. If you have to choose between this film and death, you should happily choose this film, however, as it is is a masterclass in terrible film making (hence the hilarity).

It is a constant depression to me, as I grind away at my desk job, that some people get to be involved in movie-making and decided to produce things such as this.

1 out of 10. Still better than \"Starship Troopers\" however.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Odious Chuck Norris decided to put one final nail in the coffin

containing his film career before going to the safe world of CBS

Saturday night carnage with this hysterically bad supernatural

actioner.

For such a dumb movie this thing sure is plotty. Norris is Chicago

cop Frank Shatter. First off, what kind of last name is \"Shatter\"?

Have you ever met any Shatters? Genforum.com has no listing for

the last name Shatter, which opens up any half clever viewer to

replace the \"a\" in Shatter with an \"i.\" He and his partner, Calvin

Jackson, do the same old buddy cop routine you have seen

before: make funny with the pimps, and make their captain mad.

Jackson, looking like the theoretical love child of Whoopi Goldberg

and Rick James, quickly wears on the nerves with his constant

complaining and Eddie Murphy-patented facial expressions.

Shatter and Calvin become involved with an emissary of Satan,

whom we are introduced to in the too long opening scenes.

Prosatano is a demon who is locked in a crypt by King Richard the

Lionhearted. The demon's scepter, from which he gets his power,

is busted into nine pieces and hid in nine different parts of the

world by holy men. In 1951, some grave robbers accidentally let

Prosatano out and he begins collecting the nine pieces. He

disguises himself as an antiquities professor named Lockley and

always happens to be giving a lecture where a holy man is killed

and a piece of the scepter is taken.

Norris brings in his \"Walker: Texas Blunder\" cohort Sheree Wilson,

who plays Lockley's assistant. She helps Norris with his

investigation, they make goo goo eyes at each other, and our

intrepid investigators travel to Israel after a rabbi is killed in

Chicago. While in Israel, Calvin is given even more to complain

about: the heat, the lack of restaurant accomodations, the lousy

drivers, and the fact that he is missing the Chicago Bulls playoff

games. Norris even manages to work a cute Israeli kid into this

nightmare. Bezi steals Calvin's wallet, and hangs around the men,

leading them around Israel and not arousing any sort of

appropriate suspicion.

Eventually, Lockley (Prosatano) assembles all of the scepter

pieces, but needs the blood of royalty to complete the ceremony

and call up the devil. Where to find royal blood? Well, Sheree's

father is a duke! She has an American accent but she is the

screenwriters' convenient method of forcing this monstrosity

toward its inevitable conclusion. Sure, this minion of Satan may

have killed countless hundreds over the years, but how is he

gonna do against a good old fashioned American butt kickin'?

After Prosatano has been vanquished, killed by his own scepter (I

envied him, he did not have to watch Bezi steal Calvin's wallet

again), we are treated to an awful coda involving a bearded man

who has been watching Shutter, I mean Shatter, and Calvin on

their quest. You see, it was foretold...somewhere...that two

warriors from the west would defeat Prosatano. The silent

bearded man who watched over the couple was none other than

Jesus...I kid you not. He is listed as \"Prophet\" in the end credits,

but you and even your pets will recognize the subtle Christian

reference the film makers are trying to exhibit here.

Like in \"I Use a Walker: Texas Ranger,\" Norris is aging and cannot

get into his fight scenes too much anymore. He kicks a lot, and

people fly over furniture in slow motion, and then Norris gives all of

his line readings in that monotone voice of his. Oh, what a real

director might be able to fashion out of him! His brother, Aaron,

who has directed him in other films as well, has no sense of story

or momentum. Scenes are thrown in for ego's sake, not to

entertain. The scenes when the dynamic duo first meet Bezi drag

on and on, and then Bezi is not all that important to the rest of the

film.

The film was shot on location in Israel, which means the

Americans could insult the Israelis in person. There is not one

likeable Israeli character here. The Israeli police captain is a jerk.

The cops' driver does not know English, and Calvin convinces him

that the word \"sh*tty\" is a compliment. Nothing funnier than

mocking those stupid foreigners on their home turf, especially

when all this racist humor is coming from an American minority

who would have been more than offended if the tables were turned

and the Israeli cop was mocking the African-American cop in

Chicago.

This film is badly written, badly acted, and badly directed. It does

not work as action, cop drama, or even horror. It just shows that

the now defunct Cannon Studios was willing to throw their money

into anything, no matter how badly it was planned. \"Hellbound\" is

surely a most adequate title. I disliked this movie intensely.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, gun violence, strong

profanity, some sexual references, and some adult situations.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was so looking forward to watching the documentary self-immolation of the mastermind behind Boondock Saints, one of the most aggravating and pointless movies I've ever seen. But the makers of \"Overnight\" - buddies (ex?) of the mastermind in question - also need to learn how to make a movie. Various unsavoury remarks, yelling obscenities into the phone, and enjoying his alcohol do indeed make Mr. Duffy look like a putz. But it doesn't shed any insight into why the guy got a contract in the first place, what his creative process or vision is - what's Boondock Saints even about? How hard is it to meet Patrick Swayze? What are these strange institutional machinations in which our disgusting heroes are caught? Because the film doesn't try to answer these questions in any coherent way, it doesn't end up having dippity-doo to say about Hollywood either. So who cares?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"never before have i seen such a tale of such talentless hangers on been so ungrateful that their golden goose has failed to lay. these spunk monkeys are parasites and bad examples of friends. i felt sorry for troy as he tried to hook up all of his friends with Hollywood gigs, but as soon as things turned sour, they all left troy hanging. overnight was a contrived effort of self indulgent retribution on a man who was going up against the forces of Hollywood to retain story integrity. The simple premise of Overnight is to try an communicate the message, \"look at this guy, he blew it all\", when in fact he has a strong underground following, dealt with harsh blows from friends and executives all in the name of getting a project done in the way he envisioned it. Quite frankly the only productive par that any of these guys played in the overall execution of the Boondock Saints shoot culminated as nothing more than extra bodies in the first bar room scene, after that all they did was whine why they weren't a bigger deal based on the clambering of their rancid efforts on top of troys shoulders. (the 2nd half of this was written by Adam j farina)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"my friends and i watched this movie last night. it was pretty incredible. by all means, this was probably the worst movie i have ever seen. at first, it was tolerable. it stunk of BAD IMPROV but it was pretty friggin hilarious, despite the scenes being too long & drawn out and the terrible quality (i read $400 budget above... sounds about right) of the film itself.

the biggest problem came from the lack of a script; with a background in improv, i know how hard it can be to keep scenes short & efficient. what happened in this film was that the actors were left to improvise the scenes and they didn't know when to stop, they just kept going for ages on stupid topics. at first i thought this was because the movie was short and they needed long, useless scenes to flesh it out. as the movie progressed, i realized it was just a really bad movie.

there were a lot of parts where i could see that the film maker had a really good idea for a shot but not the resources (or talent!?) to pull it off effectively. a lot of the scenes were taken from a single shot (cause, you know, improv) for what felt like a really long time. so boring! if you can stand to put up with and hour and a half of terrible improv, watch it. it's really funny at parts but also really stupid and annoying. the acting ranges from alright to absolutely terrible. it seemed like the only good parts were the parts that really had nothing to do with the main plot; the ballsy kid who swore lots, the barbershop, etc etc.

but yeah. painfully bad. like, i was literally hurting. after an hour or so, my friends and i just got bored and left.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Given the budget and the inexperience of everyone involved, Livin' tha Life could have been worse. Jamal wants to be Chris Tucker (whom I've always found very annoying), as a previous commentator has noted, but Peanut (Edward D. Smith), while some of his (over)reactions go on way too long (a director's problem), has some comparatively subtle and funny moments, such as when he is trying to instruct Jamal on the proper method of smoking a joint with a buddy. Throughout, he is usually more poised and self-possessed than Jamal, which could have been the germ of a nice exploration of the contrasts in the relationship but wasn't developed very far.

But the inexperience of the writer\/director\/cinematographer\/etc. is no excuse for his inattention. Has he ever seen a movie? Faces are important! Has he ever heard of a closeup? Even Ed Wood could do a closeup. I don't think it's much of a budget issue. I could only give a general description of what any of the actors look like, and not just because of no closeups, but the lighting ...! Lights for outdoor shooting may cost too much, but you can make a reflector with pieces of paper! That would have required moving the camera closer to keep the reflector out of the shot, helping to solve the closeup problem at the same time. If that's too technical you can turn the actors around so they are not in shadow, or you can expose for the shadows, and if it hadn't been shot in L.A. I'd say take advantage of cloudy days. It goes without saying that the movies this one steals from are all, with the possible exception of Weekend at Bernie's, better than this one, but Livin' tha Life would have left a much better impression if it hadn't made the viewer squint all the way through just to catch a glimpse of whatever the human element might have been.

P.S. The scene in the barbershop is just stupid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have NEVER EVER seen such a bad movie before. The scene where they shoot some guy.. The pistol don`t even shoot. Damn that is baad. The scene with the boy is even not that good. no script, not any good sound, not anything good to say about this movie..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If, like me, you actively seek out the rarest and weirdest (and often most awful) that world cinema has to offer, then you should look no further than the supernatural horror output of Hong Kong in the early 80s. Often mixing bizarre black magic with kung fu and silly comedy, and usually packed with plenty of creepy crawlies (snakes, worms, eels, centipedes etc.), these movies are about as bizarre as it gets.

Succubare is definitely a case in point: featuring a mountain tribe whose women keep their men from straying by casting nasty spells over them (that, should they leave, cause them to fill up with writhing creatures and die an agonising death), some so-so martial arts, and lots of real life animal killing (much of which is perpetrated by a geek who has absolutely no bearing on the story), this film is just plain strange.

A prolonged scene in which the tribeswomen hunt for snakes and insects, casually throwing the creatures into the baskets on their backs, is quite fascinating; a tribal feast that sees a poor ox bashed on the head and then torn apart is totally disgusting; and the moments that show worms crawling in open wounds and being vomited onto the floor will have the squeamish losing their appetite for a while.

However, it's the live animal munching that really qualifies Succubare for legendary status amongst fans of out-there movie-making. It's thoroughly vile to watch and yet strangely compelling: the geek chomps on a snake, woofs down a fat, juicy toad (nasty!), and hungrily devours a mouse (biting off its head and then shoving the rest in afterwards).

Not a great movie (hell, it's not really even a mediocre movie), Succubare is recommended only to people who think they've seen it all. This one gets 4 out of 10 from me, which is probably more than it deserves, but I begrudgingly respect it for being able to make me feel slightly ill.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The animal-eating (geek) scenes were not as bad as you would think. After having watched Mondo Cane and Mondo Magic, these scenes are average. The grossest one was when the guy ate the head off the mouse. But they were so fast and few that they didn't bother me.

Otherwise, the film was just sort of interesting. I always like hearing the silly voice-overs. They never sound like what you think the actor\/actress would sound like in real life. I liked the bright colors worn by the princesses. The shots of weird looking bugs were cool too. The youngest princess looked REALLY young, almost 14 or something. The fight scenes were not as long and boring as most fight scenes, so that was good.

3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was permanently scarred by this terrible film.

The main action of the movie is nothing special. It seems there's a tribe of snake-worshipping people in a remote mountain region of Northern China, where women rather than men are the leaders and decision makers. I suppose among some men, this is enough to make \"Succubare\" a horror movie... Anyway, occasionally Chinese men would wander into the village, take a fancy to the local girls, seduce them and then abandon them. Unfortunately for the men, the women had put them under a spell, derived from snake venom, which would make them die horribly in 100 days -- their bellies swollen like a pregnant woman's with live worms and snakes -- if they did not return.

Forget the cover of the US video. This has nothing to do with vampires, though there is one inept blood-drinking scene. The title itself is only marginally appropriate: \"Succubare\" is the Latin verb meaning \"to lie beneath\", and it's the root of the word Succubus, a female demon who would seduce men in their sleep. Actually, it's the MEN who are the seducers here.

But it's not the main action of this ludicrous film that's so objectionable. It's the little side-incidents. I'll overlook the slaughter and butchery of an ox that's performed on-screen. The participants seem very experienced, as though this is an unpleasant duty they actually do in real life; and I'm sure they really ate the animal afterwards... though I resent having the act thrust in my face as \"entertainment\".

What I WISH I could overlook (or HAD overlooked) are the numerous, totally extraneous shots of an unidentified man, who from time to time interrupts the story by eating living animals. He starts the movie by tearing apart a live snake with his teeth. In the course of the movie, he devours a bug, a lizard, a toad (I had to leave the room after this), and a whole mouse (I stopped watching at this point, and lost my appetite for days). Let me stress that this was totally unexpected, and had nothing to do with the movie... unless it's a cynical reference to love as it's portrayed in the film: a blind, selfish, predatory survival mechanism that tears apart the helpless... but then again, I'm probably just rationalizing to get the vileness out of my head...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Following a 19th century gun dual that goes awry, a charming young woman becomes a vampire. Not only does she become one of the undead, she uses her goth, temptress persona to sustain her talents as a cold blooded assassin. This is a low grade B feature that should have went straight to video. The violence is vicious and gory, but actually quite mild. The story line is so weak and dialogue so haphazard it is hard to work up much interest. Eileen Daly is the lead character Lilith Silver. Also in the cast are Mark Caven, Kevin Howarth, and Isabel Brook.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was all ready to hate this but it turned out to be surprisingly tolerable - though the MTV-style of film-making (shot on DV, to boot) is quite an eye-sore! I liked the script's self-mocking style, as well as its central idea of having the female vampire lead doubling as a contract killer. As to the cast, Eileen Daly (best known as the 'star' of those horrid \"Redemption\" intros) has an undeniable screen presence - and is quite sensual, despite her age; however, Christopher Adamson's hammy chief villain is obnoxious. David Warbeck has a brief role as a doctor (dubbed \"The Horror-Movie Man\"!) who conducts the autopsy on one of the vampire's victims; the film seems to have taken quite a long time to shoot as Warbeck died in 1997! There's plenty of nudity and violence on hand, but not much sense alas (especially since its subplot involving a secret society of vampires infiltrating the power structures is barely developed); the film is also overlong for its purpose, and eventually slips into tedium during the last half-hour.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie Razor Blade Smile has an interesting title as well as leading role. Now most may not like this movie for the plot and acting was a little cheap, but that is the appeal of a movie like Razor Blade Smile. In a way it was suppose to be bad movie.

However, if you watch this movie all the way through the end you'll see it is as I said a cheap vampire flick with a little humor. (Also how they manipulated colours in a few scenes is very interesting.)

So in conclusion this movie is a type you rent and laugh at with your friends and enjoy it for what it is. For no movie is throughly bad.

As Lilith Silver says: \"Humans just don't smile enough...\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sure it is a new take on vampires. Who cares. I would rather the old take if it is entertaining. This was not entertaining. It was a dull story, poorly acted, with annoying cinematography. Save your money, don't even watch it on video.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As main \"character\" Lillith Silver likes to point out - \"you know f**k all about vampires\". It is evident that this statement was aimed at the cast and crew, who create an exceedingly bad image of everyone's favourite bloodsucking undead. According to the misguided director, Vampires are all caked in white foundation and crammed into latex similar to a piece of meat in shrink wrap. With fangs resembling Bannana's and a bad case of asthma our main character Lillith creates a slapstick caricature of the \"modern day\" Vampire.

The plot consists of a 9 year old boys' playstation collection jotted down on a piece of paper, then blended together to concoct this horrible tale. Lillith our pale protagonist is a Vampire Bounty hunter who makes a living from snubbing out members of everyone's favourite cult, the Illuminati! Rather than incorporate the classic assassin methodology of stealth and precision however, Lillith waltzes in through an open window and then proceeds to chomp her targets necks before shooting them point blank with a handgun (that apparently doesn't leave bullet holes thanks to the shoddy continuity). PC Plod is then assigned to solve the murders, he comes to the grizzly, yet strikingly obvious conclusion that Lillith is actually a Vampire and proceeds to hunt her down armed with the usual vampire dispatching tools including a cross, garlic and a sharpened piece of wood. Meanwhile, Lillith, who has gotten into the habit of bonking her boss, is distraught when an old nemesis kidknaps him and demands a Ransom to be delivered personally. As you may imagine, this doesn't go according to plan. I'm not going to put myself through the pain of the following scenes however, so I'll skip to the end. Lillith and her \"nemesis\" have a showdown, and after Lillith obtains victory it is then revealed, with all the extravagance of someone being told they have cancer, that the two are century old lovers and the whole plot was some kind of twisted game. Yes, that kick in the balls was the actual ending of the film. In my eyes, this joke of a conclusion is the icing on the latex clad cake, and seals this film in the \"Never ever watch this\" vault.

As far as cinematic techniques go, the film merely doesn't bother creating any style. The director tries to rescue his disasterpiece from the brink, by throwing in some close ups and a few multi-angular shots, this however is not the saving grace the film needed.

You may be screaming \"but this is a B movie, its meant to be crap!\". I however do not take pity. I have seen some cracking B movies, such as evil dead 2, and Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, and therefore this disgrace cannot hide behind excuses. The budget was low, This is obvious by the lack of location and good actors. Maybe however if the director was more creative and spent less money on paying for makeup and fake blood, he could have done something decent with this sickening attempt. The seedy sex scenes are not beneficial in any way and merely served to give me a few chuckles at the obscene acting skills throughout. Half the budget must have been paid to the female cast merely for getting their tops off for lesbian romps. If I wanted to watch a vampire porno, I would have bought Muffy The Vampire Layer.

The cast are bad, the story is worse and the effects are cripplingly fake. This film had some potential, however its seedy undertone and embarrassing portrayal of a classic horror character merely served to be its downfall.

If you want a laugh with a few friends, I recommend you watch this mockery. If you are looking for a more serious Vampire action flick, try Blade or Underworld to sooth your raging bloodlust.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just as the whole cast and crew knows f*** all about film making.

This film concerns the adventures and predicaments of a modern day cockney vampire assassin, and an age old spat with her seemingly jaded vampire lover. That plot in itself reeks of clich\u00e9s and promises of boredom when on as small a scale a film as this, and that's exactly what you get.

First off let me say that I by no means dismiss films because they are B movies, in fact some of my favourite films are B movies such as Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter, but this one misses the mark by a mile.

Anyone with any knowledge of small budget films will know that the acting is rarely gripping and emotional, but Razor Blade Smile creates a whole new dimension of hamming it up on screen. Some of the so called acting is just indescribably bad, with characters spewing cheesy one liners that fall flat, and discourse expressing about as much emotion and conviction as the terminator after a couple of horse tranquillisers.

A vast portion of the film is also taken up by the vampiric characters, the protagonist in particular, unnecessarily flapping their mouths, showing off their ridiculously large vampire teeth and exhaling very loudly. It literally must happen in almost every scene at least once, and quickly became annoying and pointless, as if that many looks of slack jawed supposedly scary vampire faces were used to merely fill a little bit of time and pad out the rest of this turd sandwich of a film.

Contrary to what some of the other reviewers believe on here, I feel this film (the director in particular) is really trying to take this film seriously in many parts. The sheer number of overly dramatic action shots and extreme close-ups seems to indicate to me that the director really wanted people to feel this film and make it legitimate to its genre and not spoof it, and he fails miserably. The attempts at supposedly tasteful sex scenes come out as comic and silly and the action sequences are sometimes just plain stupid.

Also the ending of this film was one of the weakest and most pathetic conclusions I have seen to a film, B movie or not. When films such as this force you to sit through hours of themselves only to be rewarded with a \"oh it was all a game\" ending it is actually sickening. It the conclusion to the \"plot\" feels like an afterthought of the director that he figured out on the last day of shooting because they had run to the end of their shoestring budget.

But I have not rated this film as one star despite the overwhelming crappiness, and this is because of the only plus point I can really give this film. Intentionally or not, it was funny. I am fairly sure the parts I found humorous were not intended to be, and I found most of the efforts at genuine gags to be fruitless, but when watched with friends it is a good film to take the mickey out of.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will not even make any more comments about this movie. Instead I will make a recommendation for all you Euro-horror fans: If you want to see an enjoyable low-budget Vampire flick, check out Nattens engel (1998). It has everything Razor Blade Smile lacks: acting, nice locations, terrific score, and less hissing vampires...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had no expectations when seeing the movie because I was seeing it with a bunch of friends and had no idea what it was. Some parts were silly and some parts were lame, but overall the movie was worth watching. I like goth looking women; this movie has plenty of it. The fangs do look really lame though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

12 Grand is the cost of a new car. A new car that Jake West now needs to escape the hordes of angry villagers desperate for his blood. Some may say this film could attract \"So bad it's good\" status. In my Opinion it is the proud owner of the \"So bad it's Bad\" label.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I laughed at the movie! The script, the acting please don't we deserve better? But now the filming, some of the camera angles were interesting. I did enjoy the film, but it's not to be taken seriously though. I liked it. If it had a new cast and scriptwritter it would be better than all right. It's worth a look!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, some people might go to see this to watch a trashy rubber and pvc clad bisexual vampire assassin kicking some ass. If that's what you want, and you wear a cloak, file your teeth to points and think that the name Lilith Silver is cool, you'll see a fine film.

If, like most people, an assassin dressed in gleaming, creaking rubber with HUGE cleavage, thick makeup and bad fangs makes you laugh, then this is one of the best comedies you'll see. I laughed so hard I nearly cried. Ridiculous acting, dialogue and plotting help to make this a better spoof than Dracula, Dead and Loving It could be...

It tries to be cool and goth, and all it succeeds in doing is making each scene hilarious. Even the tacked-on lesbian scene is funny (how *did* she get those boots off that quickly? They were laced up to *here*...)

Don't see it if you like good films. See it if you like terrible films and want to laugh until you fall over.... It isn't good, it's just bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Frank Tashlin's 'Censored' is a so-so Private Snafu short which aims to teach the importance of the Censor in stopping military secrets from leaking out. Snafu attempts to get word out to his girlfriend that he's to be stationed in the South Pacific but the Censor foils each attempt he makes to send the letter. These early scenes are the best, with the unseen Censor plucking the letter out of the sky with long mechanical arms, nets and even a specially employed eagle! The second half of the cartoon, in which Snafu manages to send the letter with the aid of Technical Fairy, First Class (who is actually teaching him a lesson), is less funny and climaxes with a disappointing only-a-dream finale. The main point of interest in this part of the cartoon is the appearance of Snafu's extremely scantily clad girlfriend who is even seen bare-breasted, albeit with strategically placed limbs at all times! Aimed at the military, the Snafu shorts were often characterised by a heightened bawdiness but these scenes, crowbarred in as they may be, are by far the most erotic I've come across in any of these shorts thus far. Despite all this, I prefer the Snafu shorts that go for the jugular a little more, usually resulting in the death of the main character. For great examples of this, seek out Tashlin's 'The Goldbrick' or Chuck Jones's 'Spies'. 'Censored' is fairly weak by comparison.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ego. Seems it's the only reason this movie was made. This movie is so wrong in so many ways that it's below one's dignity to write much about it. Every character was only good at self praise and lead actors (i use this term liberally as has the director) emote in the likeness of stone. the little story, if that, fails on the basic aspects such as logic, feeling and drama. Direction leaves much to be desired. blatant flaws are all over the place (character motives aren't defined, prospective husbands are found overnight, broken car windows mend themselves among other things)

Let's face it, Himesh can't act. neither, it seems, can Hansika Motwani. In her defense, she's still a chubby child who looks older than she is thanks to tonnes of make-up. Raj Babbar Overacts and makes his little presence as fake as possible. Darshan Jariwala laughs a bit too much. The actor who plays Himesh's friend is the only natural.

a few questions do come to mind: how can such a film cost Rs.500,000,000?? where did the money go??? granted that one chase sequence was moderately well shot and Mallika Sherawat was paid an obscene Rs.15,000,000 for her 15 minute appearance and 2 songs. but the sheer stupidity of the film boggles the mind. (including 3 Mumbai auto rickshaws that show up and jump on a police car)

the good: Himesh shows courage by allowing the film to make fun of his nasal voice and trademark \"topi.\" Let's give the Devil his due: Himesh, as usual gives good music.

The bad: Direction, Story, Himesh's singing is still hard to ignore

The Ugly: Dialogs and everything else!!!

Final Word: Painful in every sense of the word! watch this movie only if you loved Subhash Ghai's \"Yaadein\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to hold my hand up and say that I was one of the first (and probably the last!!!) to see this film. Where do I start, it's a complete mess. The main attraction of course was the soundtrack. Which goes without saying is brilliant - it's what Himesh does best. But as they say, don't give up your day job - HR definitely shouldn't.

HR's acting is plain and simply awful. Even if the film had a plot, the thing that baffles you most is why this man is up on screen and what the hell is doing there. Two words of advice to HR - give up acting and secondly, use chapstick.

HR has no screen presence, no acting skills and the female lead looks just a little too young for him. As for Malika Sherawat - just the same old Bollywood vamp crap.

You can package the product as much as you want, but if there's no substance it won't hold. Don't waste your money...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First things first, how can someone with his creativity on the right side believe in a movie like this. I saw this movie and after end of couple of hours was left scratching my head, what exactly is director trying to say.

If its a thriller, there are no thrills, if its action, there is no action barring a chase sequence, there is no Drama, and the much touted love story, it actually never takes off. No passion, emotion nothing is there.

Actually I never expected wonders from the movie, however after the bumper opening it took, I thought of giving it a chance. I have no problems with Himesh Reshamiya whatsoever, and I am not one of the guys who will bash him at every given opportunity. I went in with an Open mind and came out with a closed one.

Let's not put the blame of Himesh Reshamiya, he is just a Debutant Actor. But direction, screenplay, writing, makeup, everything has gone for a toss.

Himesh is very stiff and would take a lot of time to come up the curve. He can do the don kind of roles. Hansika is just a kid, and it shows on screen with her baby fat and the way she walks.

The only actor who was good was the friend of Himesh in the movie, I don't know his name, but he looks promising.

Watch it at your own risk, not even good to watch it for a time pass viewing.

** Strongly recommend to avoid this Movie.**","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"one of the most awaited movie!i thought himesh will do a bit of acting but Alas all my hope went wrong..given that the heroine is 15 yrs old!!!!omg!!what did they thought before considering the actress..may be its because no boby wants to work with HR(as he is called in the film,(human resource as many people wrote in mazagines!)nevertheless it was a disappointment.i hope the producer doesn't make himself bankrupt by making a part 2 of this as this news is roaming around...the story was predictable one with himesh showing his generosity character throughout the movie which i doubt very well.

anyways..the movie is good from those people's angle who thinks himesh cant do anything wrong. >>4 out of 10<<","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you feel Reshammiya as the singer is too much of a pain to watch on TV, try watching him in the movie for 2 hours straight. His face is bland all throughout the movie, and it is very comical to see him act the demanding and intense scenes. This is way far from a real love story (Get the spelling right, Reshammiya - it is not luv or reeal), and is complete with him doing a Mithun da dance, auto rickshaw fight scenes, Himesh getting imprisoned, Himesh accused of murder, he fleeing from prison etc ... If you want a good laugh, there is nothing like this one, especially the scenes where he howls in Mehbooba. If you despise the nasal twangs, and want to know out of curiosity what two hours of Reshammiya can do to you, then don't miss this movie.

I couldn't stop laughing from the beginning till the very end. The only saving grace that this movie has are the cinematography, locations, and a couple of the songs. Even then, until you are a die hard Reshammiya fan, avoid this movie at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whoever filled this stupid idea of acting and producing a movie in Himesh's head, which is always hidden under a cap, covering almost half of his face all the time ? Only hope this is first and the last as well, for God's sake ! From Assalam Valekum to Gayatri Mantra, Himesh has tried every thing, to create an aura of his so-called singing talent, which is nothing but atrocious pronunciations of words like Tanhaiyya, which completely kill the beauty of the terms, so commonly used for love songs. Why does Himesh not smile ? Simple, because he does not use close Up toothpaste ! Now there this friend of his, tailing him around every where, and this number one lawyer in the town, who has to herself sexily wiggle and try to seduce Himesh, of all the handsome German people she might have met earlier, perhaps the male lawyers on this part of the world might be cursing their fate, for destined to deal with the stiff, unattractive lot, every day ! The action scenes are so funnily shot, like the event planner attacked by the thief, autos riding over the cars, so on and so forth. The father of the bride seems to be in a great hurry to get rid of his daughter by marrying her off, that he flies to and fro around. Most hypocrite, he praises HR for distributing love among people of the world, as if they were sweets , and on his back, coolly gives a lecture to his daughter on these show business men. when Himesh is proved innocent, he again unceremoniously dumps the other guy, as if it's a game of musical chair ! i didn't get to se the poor guy's face even, did you ? Hansika in the role of Ria, looks as if she is in need of an eye check up, for strain in her eyes ! The fellow in the role of a friend is good, who has acted quite naturally, and should be in better movies, like Sharman Joshi, for example. Child artist in Trishu's brief appearance is sweet, but wasted. It seems today's young generation has gone nuts , since they prefer this kind of mockery of lyrics and musical scores , and associate gossip with it, for example, if you sing ek bar aaja, the ghost would come. this is a weird taste in music, and rather funny. i am surprised, how such classic lyricists like Gulzar , have opted for Himesh of all the people, to give music. There is story in Panchtantra , that a crow attach\u00e9s so many feathers of a peacock, to look beautiful, and appeal to the birds; but the feathers fall off ultimately, and the real dark crow is revealed ! Hope Himesh takes a hint, and refrains from manufacturing such meaningless stuff, and wasting precious money, which he has earned by taxing his short nose so much ! His friend does tell him, if your nose is cut, how will you sing ? Thanks for showing us Germany, Himesh, at a reasonable cost of renting the DVD ! and correct those spelling mistakes, will you ? an extra e in movie, and no e in love ! There is also a famous number from the old film Sholey, Mehbooba, on which Mallika Sherawat wiggles, once again, but this time with Himesh, winking at her, and conveniently, Ria , his so-called real love, and his new bride is not around ! Now that was very clever, Himesh ! At least one thing in this movie which you have done smartly, to justify Sherawat's presence . But doesn't she look a bit washed down ?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have been watching movies from i think last 10 years , and I must say that i never felt that bad, which I felt after watching this extra large bore movie, it was bad, very Bad. There were songs & songs. Nobody should watch this movie. The director has shown Germans speaking English which is so rubbish. Germans does not speak English. & in one scene there was a white girl who asked Himesh for autograph. (Obv that he must have gave some money to her) In the promo they have shown prepare for Laughing riot. But i could say there was only one scene where that Himesh was laughing for no reason may be he thinks he's funny. Hansika is very good. she is like an angel. But too young only 16 yrs old. If you have plenty of time and don't know what to do then you should watch this movie or else its waste of money","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Agreed this movie is well shot,but it just makes no sense and no use as to how they made 2 hours seem like 3 just over a small love story,

this could have been an episode of the bold and the beautiful or the o.c,in short please don't watch this movie because there is a song every 5 minutes just to wake you up from you're sleep,i gave this movie 1\/10 cause that was the lowest,and no this is not based completely on a true story,more than half of it is made up.I repeat the direction of photography is 7 or 8 out of 10,but the movie is just a little too much,the actor's nasal voice just makes me want to go blow my nose.Unless you are a real him mesh fan this movie is a huge no-no.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In Bollywood it isn't rare that worthless films become hits, good films flopping and good actors not making it big

AKS is such a movie

Himesh after a music director and singer tried acting Hell man, just because his songs became a hit that means next he becomes an actor

The producers were sure the film will work perhaps, the songs were a hit too and of course Himesh did his cheap publicity as usual

The film tells such a poor story, such poor direction, such poor acting it makes you cringe

Indian rickshaws in Germany, Stunts by Himesh and lot of stupidity Himesh's cap is intact even when he is in the car which somersaults

Direction is poor Music is saving grace though most songs sound the same

Himesh tries hard but sadly his emotive scenes are a joke, lacks expressions, he is best suited for his music director and some singing He cuts a sorry picture Hansika is awful Malika is okay Sachin Khedekar is okay, Darshan Jhariwala hams","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a nice anecdote to one of the above comments: In was in Mumbai about two weeks before the release of this movie, I was approached -being white- to dub some of the lines of this movie in a recording studio.

While I speak German as well, i was kindly asked to do all dubbing scenes in English, otherwise it would be too confusing for the Indian audience... So therefore, all Germans in this movie actually speak English! funny enough i did multiple characters, so if you would want to actually spoil some time by watching the movie again, listen carefully;

all non-Indian characters are only done by 4 voices! . . . .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"( HR is what Himesh is called in the movie, I think he likes it too. ) It's amazing how intelligent people, talented even fall in to the same trap.

I really like Reshamiya. It's amazing what he has done. No one in recent years has come back from the wilderness and made a mark for himself.

And I truly expected a great film ( What with the budget of 50 Cr and the cute actress ). As intense as Reshamiya is I thought, he would excel at a sentimental and an emotional role. Ironically he is depicted the same but for what care? Sheer incompetence, carelessness, awful acting, banal background music, insensitive direction make it a real pain.

Blunders rule. ( Ex. How can German Police issue public instructions on a loud speaker in English? They communicate among themselves in English!) Unfortunately this incompetence has become the standard in main line Bollywood. There are some excellent directors but many a bad ones too. The worse thing is that the majority just doesn't care.

Songs are the only saving grace...

Please don't repeat this HR and find yourself a good director ( low budget.. No problem).

The villain should really have shaved his head instead of the wig you know... after all it's a 50Cr movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has to be the worst film of 2007, it was just really bad and i don't think i have ever seen a film that is just so bad, i mean the don't make really bad Hollywood films do they?? Hamish really should stick to singing instead of acting cause he just can't act at all, god he was just so bad, i mean he was that bad in the film that he made Mallika Sherawat look like a better actress than him, as for her performance, she plays the same role in every movie, god it is just so boring watching her, i mean what do men see in this woman?, yeah she has a god body but where is that talent???? i have not seen it yet and at this rate i don't think that i ever will.

Anyway Hamish falls in love with Ria now this 15 year old girl can act, my god she was the best actor in the film and she does not look 15 at all, to me she looks about 21, but her performance was brilliant in the film. bless her she was really good, i hope to see more of her in the future. So Ria falls in love with Himash, but her father wants her to marry someone else, a typical bollywood film anyways there is a hiccup (can only happen in a bollywood film) and the both get married in the end.

Well i would give th music 10\/10 it was superb, that made the movie a hit, the songs were truly amazing and brilliant. anyways the only thing that i can say is to go and buy the music and not watch the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I do not like Himesh Reshamiya. I do not like his singing too. But his songs are a craze in India, especially among commoners. Now when he ventured to become an actor \u0096 that was a big joke! What guts he has to reap as much as he can in his prime time. I did never want to see this movie. But one thing changed it. The movie becoming a super-duper hit! After 2 weeks, Aap Ka Saroor has raked box office collection of 14 crores \u0096 compared to Apne that has collected 7 crores in the same 2 weeks. If I can sit through Apne and Rajnikant's absurd Sivaji \u0096 I should give this movie also a try to understand what stuff this movie has got that made it such a big hit? The story is about the real life singer Himesh Reshamiya (HR) who has gone to Germany for a concert and falls in love with Riya (Hansika Motwani). A German lawyer Ruby (Mallika Sherawat) loves Himesh. Now Himesh is arrested for a murder. The mission of Himesh (in last 40 minutes) after he runs away from jail is to prove himself innocent and find the real murderer.

Let me say that Himesh has nothing in him to become a hero. He tries hard but fails miserably. He is pathetic. I was thinking what could have made the movie click so much? Let me find something positive.

First, the saving grace of the movie is the script till the point Himesh runs away from the jail. (But after that the movie nose dives into unbearable stupid limits) Second, the songs of the movie are good, catchy, crowd puller numbers. Third, Mallika Sherawat \u0096 she looks gorgeous and acts well too, as the second lady. I can imagine fans of Mallika coming to see the movie just for her. Fourth, the cinematography of the movie is pleasing \u0096 especially the German locales, are a treat to watch for the eye. Fifth, the major portion of the story is a love story between Himesh and Riya \u0096 with clich\u00e9d dialogues that would probably connect to young crowd. Sixth, the Director Prashant Chadha has done a decent job in covering the pathetic acting skills of Himesh as much as possible with shots that don't need Himesh to act much.

The heroine Hansika Motwani looks like a small budget film heroine. Raj Babbar is wasted in a small role. Overall the movie is a below average.

I was thinking throughout the movie \u0096 what if the same movie script was done with Salmaan as the main lead. I think it would have had been a much better affair. May be then I would have given the movie 6 out of 10. But now\u0085 (Stars 4.5 out of 10)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The pace of this movie is quite slow. It takes about 70 minutes to get Katie to China (which we know that she will) and leaves 30 minutes to wrap things up. The storyline is so predictable that you know everything after about 5 minutes. Nothing surprises you. I guess that the movie is a coming of age movie but the movie is full of stereotypes that are quite over the top:

Katie - A beauty that realizes that looks, boys and shopping isn't everything. She realizes that she can \"feel\" and \"see the real world\". Touching.

The mother - high strung, nervous, screaming mother (wow very innovative) that need taking care of by a strong man.

The father - patient and always understanding and takes care of the incapable woman.

The boyfriend that only wants to get into her pants.

The comedian clown Chinese guy that doesn't know how to speak English properly and made a laughing stock. Thought Hollywood dropped those characters in the mid fifties.

The nurse that at times knows everything how to get around in China that in the next moment is a carbon copy of The mother i.e. a woman who cant handle the situation or knows anything.

The deformed Chinese girl that with the help of us westerns get help and become a beautiful girl. Because in China (a third world country according to the film) don't have anything and hence needs our charity. Gah, wake up and smell what you are shoveling.

Sure that there are some poverty in China but the portrayal of the aid from western countries (read USA) is so shallow and happy ending-ish that it is sad and revolting. Shanghai (where the movie is set) is the most expanding and evolving city in the world at the moment.

The Chinese father that is so nice and goodhearted that in the end has one wish ... to be a cowboy with a white hat ...

The teacher (Sean Astin) that has this really heart ripping story (not) that he tells without feel. Why Sean? WHY!?

Etc etc. It is difficult to actually finding a \"real\" person in the entire movie.

This is nothing but a feel good movie for Americans below age 15. If you want to learn anything about the world watch e.g. Hotel Rwanda instead. For a better life story or coming of age movie I suggest you watch the Italian \"Cinema Paradiso\" that won the best foreign film academy reward some years back.

The only nice thing in the movie were the small town sceneries that truly capture some (not all) of the beautiful Chinese country side. I have been there and seen some of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two redeeming qualities of this film were the cinemaphotography and a storyline that was hard to resist. However, the script, the direction, and some scenes, were just awful. I kept asking myself why such a good cast would have produced such a bad movie. My only conclusion was that these actors must believe in the charity which underlies the plot of the movie, but knew the movie was filled with flaws.

This film could have been so much better, and reached a larger audience accordingly. What makes me think this is that with all of the problems of the film, some scenes being painfully bad to watch, I still wanted to see how the obvious conclusion would resolve itself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...without anything to walk away with. This movie starts with scenes in China with the finding of a newborn. While this is not a new concept, I wasn't going to give up right there. Then there is a flash forward to adolescence. The man's wife and biological child are fed up with the father who has neglected them. While this did not seem culturally accurate, and the movie made no move to develop these characters or the purpose for the adopted father's devotion, I pressed on.

Next, we're in Malibu where we are bombarded by poorly constructed classroom interaction and terribly low-budget (fill in the blank: acting\/camera work\/lighting).

I won't give away any more of the plot, because I suppose the synopsis is accurate: the movie is meant to show how a Malibu girl who (though she seems to innately have the compassion and interest to help others when she immediately asks her teacher about the trip to China) is spoiled and inconsiderate, finds herself as being a healer and helper of both body and spirit.

Lame. LAME, LAME, LAME.

Now I, admittedly, am a harsh critic, so maybe take one of those LAME's away and you'll be on the mark.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The story line of a man's love for an innocent baby he finds with a malformed face and on the opposite side of the world a shallow self centered \"valley girl\" who shares a birth date with her and ends up making a big difference in both of there lives. What a great and worthy story line. But in this telling the screen writing and\/or directing and\/or editing is so poor as to take most of the joy out of the story. Linda Hamilton's character goes from understanding mom to wicked witch and back faster than a speeding bullet, and for what purpose? Conflict, conflict, conflict, at the drop of a hat. Katie (The California Girl) and her boyfriend, Katie's Mom and everybody, including the poor lady at the airport check-in counter, Lin's adopted father, who is the nicest, most considerate man alive, and his wife and biological son, all in constant conflict. I really wanted to enjoy a heartwarming story, but the only thing that made me SMILE was when all the hate and fighting were over. There were too many unexplained or illogical events, many of which don't add to the story. My wife and I kept looking at each other and asking ourselves how such a good cast and what should be a great story, could be crapped up so badly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The characterization in this movie is among the worst I've ever encountered. The dialogue is trite and clich\u00e9 to the point of extreme distraction. None of the issues the characters face are developed at all--they're merely surface details intended to get a point across without having to actually come up with believable dialogue to support said point. Also, the depiction of the Chinese characters leaves a bit to be desired--I find it hard to believe that the Chinese father learns flawless English from a book(or so it is implied in one scene) so he can teach it to his daughter. Etc.

The Smile Train is a great organization and it's a nice idea, to make a heartstring-tugging film about the impact a program like this can have on kids' lives, but overall, I found this movie to be more frustrating than anything.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is terrible, it was so difficult to believe that Katie became a heartfelt teenager with the power to save the pity Chinese people, the movie didn't show any convincing argument to prove that. And the rest of the plot didn't make any effort to show us more than a cheap common sense...

The plot is ridiculous and the only thing we can extract from it is that it demonstrate how arrogant a human can be. Katie must have inherited her arrogance from her mother, the most annoying character I have seen for a long time.

The acting and scenery were OK, but the plot ruins everything, full of cheap clich\u00e9s and hypocritical scenes, I expect not to see this movie again in my life. Skip this one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not to be confused with Michael Ritchie's nasty 1975 beauty pageant spoof, this \"Smile\" is a down-turned example of those good intentions paving the road to hell.

The film parallels two stories: an impoverished Chinese father sacrifices his wife and son to raise a facially-deformed orphan named Ling (Yi Ding), and a TV-spawned Malibu family act out \"Gidget Get Birth Control.\" Katie (Mika Booram, the third Olsen twin) plays a spoiled, self-absorbed high schooler distanced from reality. Her teacher (Sean Astin) paves the way for a school trip to China aimed at showing students how to work with deformed children.

The film uses deformity as a means of suspense by treating Ling like the Frankenstein monster. Kramer continually masks her deformity through hats, hoods and camera placement. This approach exploits the freak show quality inherent in the material. She may be uncomfortable with the way society views her and Kramer's answer is to cover her up until the big reveal. Why disturb your audience with such unpleasantness? We see her face briefly at the end and only minutes before closing-credit snapshots of her after surgery disclose a swan beneath the harelip. It is not good enough to give the girl a reason to live; what is imperative is Ling being equally as hot and popular as Katie.

Funding for the film came from a trust established by the late Roy Rogers and Dale Evans. They envisioned a heritage of quality family films. Give me \"Son of Paleface\" any day.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just purchased this movie because I love to donate to Operation Smile, the charity on which the movie was based...but I found the writing of the movie to be very strange. It t does not really focus so much on Operation Smile or similar organizations like The Smile Train and their Herculean efforts to relieve the suffering of children born with facial deformities in third world countries. No, it concentrates on an American teenage volunteer, Katie, whose \"over-privileged\" life in Malibu, California, includes a mother who brings her to a doctor so that she'll have birth control pills in her before she sleeps with her boyfriend. What is this birth control nonsense supposed to do, titillate the audience? It's 2005. I'd be more surprised if in 2005 a Malibu teen wasn't on birth control, and even if she is, so what and who cares? Contrasting Katie is the character of Lin in China, a girl with a facial deformity who missed last year's chance to get an operation and this year does not want to have one. Neither character is written in such a way that the audience can really identify with, let alone understand the motivations of, either girl. On the other hand, the actors do an adequate job of trying to play the bad hand they were dealt by whoever wrote this ridiculous script. The best performance was by the gentleman playing Lin's father although much of his dialogue is in Chinese and subtitled. Operation Smile deserved to be honored by a much better movie than this!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Never mind the serious logic gaps, never mind the achingly cliche character portrayals, never mind the haphazard writing, and you might like this movie. The main character Alyssa was supposed to be endearing, the heroine who you root for to be saved,(or in this case, save herself) But instead she merely grates, and makes one wonder, are all pro ballerinas really that stupid? Her busybody mother was obviously only necessary to further propagate the illusion that ballet companies are evil monsters ready to snatch your poor, innocent, young girl from your grasp, with an ever present, biting artistic director\/villain. And the cliche's! Not only does she become anorexic, bulemic, an over the counter junkie, and a pathological liar, but all in the course of a few months. It's like the writer read every horror story he could dig up about ballet and decided to see how much he could cram into two hours, (with commercials).

Believe it or not, but I am a dancer. This \"uprising\" or \"resurgence\" of anorexia and bulemia that is happening is nonexistent at all of the dance schools I have attended. In fact, the teachers are so scared to even suggest that a girl might stand a better chance a few pounds lighter, most of the dancers in my classes would be actually considered minorly overweight. I'm not saying eating disorders never occur, but not to the extent as it was portrayed in the movie.

Another annoying problem this movie had was the means-to-an-end writing style. Her on again off again boyfriend probably had all of half an hour total screen time, all in the first half. The other supporting characters were merely props, decorations to further the story. Given the right dialogue, this would have been a very intricate mind study of a psycological problem. As it is, it turns into a one woman show, and Kimberly McCullough doesn't have the chutzpah to pull it off.

To a non dancer, this movie would be a supposed \"insight\" into what really goes one behind closed doors at a ballet company. To a dancer, this is a very insulting movie, which portrays ballerinas as stupid and parents as pushy and ill informed. Those adjectives more correctly describe the people who got this on the air in the first place. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rarely seen a movie that deviates so much from the original premise and still remains (more or less) acceptable\u0085Bloodline is a rather short (which is a good thing in this case) escapade that focuses on the mysterious Hellraiser box. Who wanted it to be made and how it cast a spell on the entire bloodline of the man who eventually created it. We're introduced to 3 generations of the Merchant family (all played by Bruce Ramsey); one in 18th century Paris, one in the present day and the last one in a future galaxy far, far away\u0085 Opinions on this storyline may differ a lot\u0085either you think it's very idiotic and far-fetched or\u0085original and dared. The initial atmosphere and setting by Clive Barker has completely vanished, yet the morbid surrounding remains and several sequences are still very creepy and unsettling. Hellraiser: Bloodline contains quite a lot of exquisite slaughtering and the charismatic presence of Pinhead (Doug Bradley) still is an extra horror-value. Pinhead \u0096 accompanied by a pet puppy this time \u0096 still knows how to kill\u0085too bad he talks too much and his vicious speeches tend to get boring quickly. Best aspects in this production are the newly introduced `cenobites' and the occult Parisian portrait. Giant turn-offs are the weak script, the absence of the typical macabre humor and the lack of references to Barker's initial masterpiece.

Although not highly memorable itself, Bloodline stands as the last watchable Hellraiser film. After this sequel, the series went downhill completely. So far, 2 more sequels came out (2 more are still in process) and neither of those is worth seeing. Hellraiser:Bloodline suffered from a lot of production difficulties and the director eventually preferred to be credited as Alan Smithee\u0085Meaning he doesn't want to be remembered as the director of it. Who could blame him?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Joe Cool Review - Hellraiser: Bloodline

Starring: Bruce Ramsay as Phillip L'Merchant\/John Merchant\/Dr. Paul Merchant, Valentina Vargas as Angelique and Doug Bradley as Pinhead

Plot: This follows a timeline of the lineage of the Merchant bloodline, which started with Phillip L'Merchant, who created the box that opens the doorway to Hell. Starting with the 18th century to present time when Pinhead first meets Merchant and tries to sever the bloodline..(he's the only one who can stop Pinhead, you see) and finally in the future, in space, where Paul Merchant has finally figured out how to send Pinhead to hell for good.

Openers: This is a movie hated so much by the people who made it, they declared fictional director Alan Smithee would be the credited director. They only pull Smithee out of the woodwork when they really think they've made a terrible movie, such as classics as The Birds II: Land's End or Bloodsucking Pharaohs in Pittsburgh. No I didn't make that up. How did I like it? You're reading this so I'm sure that's what you want to know.

The Good: This movie isn't as bad as you've been led to believe. Oh I'm not going to sugar-coat it. This movie was filled with so much potential and ended up being a disaster, but it does have some positives. Cooler cenobites this time around for starters, such as the twins and the demon Angelique. Pinhead is still in a main role, and still has good lines(\"Pain has a face, allow me to show it to you\") and it's somewhat entertaining throughout. Gorehounds will love the movie because of it's endless supply. There is also some continuity with the rest of the series, although you'll have to look hard to see it. The Chatterer Dog is awesome.

The Bad: But for a story about Hell vs the cursed Merchant bloodline that could close the gateway forever, it was really complicated and held together with duct tape. Nothing was really explored to it's full potential and there were some really stupid things included. Pinhead kidnaps a kid and holds him for ransom! Random deaths just to feature more blood(not always a bad thing, but not for the sake of the story). Pinhead is at his worst here, he rants and rants and rants even when he's about to die! For the very smart demon that he used to be, he's been reduced to nothing more than a Bond villain, at best. If Hellraiser fans ever needed a reason why he was moved back into a cameo like role, this is it. Bloodline ruined it for us all.

The Ugly: Gore is always mentioned here. This one has skin ripping, drilling, hook impaling, beheadings, and more goodies. The Chatterer Dog, while awesome, reeks of bad special effects during the chase scenes.

Final Verdict: This movie had the potential for something great, even Hellbound levels of greatness. But all of that was wasted. Who knows exactly what went down to produce this crap, but we can only blame Alan Smithee.

Compared to the rest: This movie is the worst of the Hellraiser series. For completists only.

Rating: 1\/2* of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After the failure of \"Hellraiser III: Hell On Earth,\" the chapter that served as a kind of 'death blow' to the franchise, another embarrassing cheapo cash-in did not come as a surprise. An abysmal attempt to explain every single mystery of Pinhead and the puzzle box, covering literally centuries of history, in a film that runs UNDER 90 minutes... On display is sub-par to wretched acting, sup-par to wretched B-movie special effects, and a ludicrous and insulting attempt at dark humour, while STILL attempting to keep the whole project completely serious. I'm wondering, how many freaking directors did this thing have? Poor Pinhead has SO MUCH screen time, that every bit of mystery and menace that this iconic character possessed, is completely lost. After an hour of hearing long-winded speeches and dramatic posturing, we simply want to tell the guy to shut up! mildly entertaining in spots, especially in the first segment, this mess begins to look and feel like a cheap, ugly made for TV splatter flick after a while, and ends in the most ridiculous way imaginable: Pinhead, along with his pet Cenobite dog, killing a bunch of idiots... in outer space! I'm sorry, but any true fan of the first two films in the series, that gave this abortion of a film more than 3 stars, should be ashamed. On a side note, the film that follows; \"Hellraiser: Inferno\" is actually a surprisingly intelligent, and stylishly-made film-noir piece, that brilliantly reinstates 'Pinhead' as a master of illusion and cruelty, and brings back the concept of the inherent evil in human kind, that was the centerpiece of the original film, and the whole point of the story. For any serious horror fan, see Hellraiser I & II, skip the lousy III & this one, and continue with 'Inferno.' You won't miss a thing by skipping this garbage...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"By the time the Hellraiser franchise was reaching it's forth film the premise was wearing a bit thin. Dr. Paul Merchant (Bruce Ramsey) is a scientist in the future, whom while prisoner regales his captor of the story of how his ancestors (all played by Ramsey) had first built the evil Lament Configuration puzzle-box that sets evil upon the world and how his bloodline had subsequent dealing with said box. The film is a awash with lack of continuity in regards to the other films and lack of coherency in this one. Yes, this could be due to a combination of rewrites, massive cuts in the original version of the film, or what have you. But I'm reviewing the film as is, and not what it was or could have been. And as it is now it's a mess. Sure the franchise will go on indefinitely with direct to DVD sequels, but this one was pretty much a death-nail to it's chances of getting a new one released theatrically ever again.

My Grade: D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the XXII century an architect by the name of Merchant (Bruce Ramsay) commandeers a space station, which he personally designed. As can be predicted a special force is sent to retake the expensive station and put Merchant into custody. Upon arrival they find him partaking in a weird ritual with the use of a mysterious cubical. During interrogation he reveals that they must let him finish, what he has started or else the hell he has released will bathe in blood... In order to convince the officers holding him captive he reminisces about his heritage, about the toymaker who built the box and about the reasons as to why he is here in space...

The movie that is essentially the same to Hellraiser, that The Quickening was to Highlander. Something to be ignored and forgotten, as so it won't influence the lore of Hellraiser to much. By far the most trashy of the franchise with a much more low-grade feel to it than its predecessors (who let's face it were B or C class films).

Acting at times seems to be influenced by a mid-budget porn-flick with wooden unbelievable performances, that actually have you thinking: So when are they going to undress and start with the intercourse? Surprisingly not much sex in the movie, albeit the introduction of the seductress-demon Angelique (a totally superfluous character that unnecessarily messes with what we know of the world of Hellraiser) offers ample opportunities for the love-making.

Basically the movie consists of three abruptly pasted together separate short stories (one in the future, one in the present and one in the past) which lack focus and are rushed along in amateurish fashion. The end result is extremely poor, basically underlined by the fact you have no interest into what happens to any of the characters in the film.

Some decent gore in the flick, but apart from that an utter failure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's lots of ketchup but not a whole lot of sense in the supposedly explanatory third sequel, which piles on the naff visuals to no effect. Good old Alan Smithee directed this one, in which various members of the same family (all played, poorly, by Bruce Ramsay) are terrorised by Pinhead (Doug Bradley, wheeled out of mothballs for the umpteenth time). Peter Atkins tries to imbue his script with poetic touches but doesn't seem to realise that his dialogue is as deep and meaningful as a plate of sick. The incoherent plot fails to adequately fill the movie's meagre running time, although this may have more to do with studio interference than anything the filmmakers intended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hellraiser: Bloodline is only a so-so film. I believe it's the fourth installment in the Hellraiser series.

I missed the beginning, and all I remember from there was some topless women and a box-shape thing on a computer screen. But, using my wit and intelligence, (and the Info Button) I soon found out that the villain (Pinhead) was released from Pandora's Box, which, I believe is a gateway straight to Hell.

So, anyways, Pinhead somehow comes out of the box and terrorizes the \"Toymaker's\" family. And, that's about it. Oh, and not to mention the random tortures of various people that cross his path. Yawn.

What mainly happens in this film is that Pinhead captures the kid, and then unleashes the dog on his wife, and then kills a random person. Then he husband comes along, blah, blah, blah. Who cares? Why it fails is because Hellraiser: Bloodline is too corny to be scary. Look at Pinhead's minion of creatures: a cheesy dog that looks like it's been turned inside out, two men whose heads and bodies are connected together, (Siamese twins in a horror film?) and some person who is supposed to be a princess of some sort. (I haven't seen the previous films.) Now look at the main villain. His name is Pinhead. Isn't that the name you call somebody when they're stupid? He has pins in his head and hooks coming out of his fingers, and he has blue skin. I suppose he would make a decent villain if he didn't have such a corny name, and a corny speech. Somewhere in the film, two cops approach him and say \"Don't make us put some pain on you!\" Pinhead replies \"Pain? How dare you use that word! I AM pain\u0085\" blah, blah, blah, blah blah. It sounds a bit clich\u00e9 if you ask me.

Don't forget the final half of the movie. The characters (and audience) get to experience more torture when Pinhead attacks some futuristic asylum. Some person who we don't recognize (Maybe he was in the previous films. I don't remember him in the beginning of the movie.) This scene is basically one thing played over and over again:

A guard goes to inspect a mysterious noise.

Some other guard: \"Oh no! He's down. I will go check on him\u0085by myself!\"

After he dies the same thing happens again.

(SPOILERS) Here's the thing I didn't get. In the film Pinhead is supposedly sent to Oblivion at the end. So, how does he come back for another four films? Are they prequels? Why hasn't he died in the previous ones? Geez. The makers need to come up with an idea for a different series. (END OF SPOILERS) Hellraiser: Bloodline is gory and full of torture scenes, but has little thrill or scare value. Just forget it. Bad special effects with bad\u0085everything else make this more of a snooze-fest than a good horror.

Good: Well\u0085some people may enjoy the topless women in the beginning. Plus, Pinhead's voice is pretty cool. I suppose if you like ultra-violence, you might like this too.

Bad: None of the reasons above make this a very good film. The corniness and repetitiveness are pretty bad. And, who names their villain Pinhead?

Feel free to send me a Private Message regarding this comment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some sort of accolades must be given to `Hellraiser: Bloodline'. It's actually out Full-Mooned Full Moon. It bears all the marks of, say, your `Demonic Toys' or `Puppet Master' series, without their dopey, uh, charm? Full Moon can get away with silly product because they know it's silly. These Hellraiser things, man, do they ever take themselves seriously. This increasingly stupid franchise (though not nearly as stupid as I am for having watched it) once made up for its low budgets by being stylish. Now it's just ish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hellraiser: Bloodline is where the sequel mediocrity of the Hellraiser series well and truly sets in. Gone is the imagination and invention of the first two movies. Gone is the ethos of Pinhead and his minions. Gone are the sick desires of humans. In fact everything that once made Hellraiser so original has been trashed by this mess of a picture.

All that is left is that basic premise of Christian mythology that there is a Hell with evil Demons. What happened to the evil that men do? This watered down excuse for a Hellraiser movie is padded out with endless Psycho Babble, so that Pinhead becomes a nonsense spouting philosopher and not the harbinger of doom as he is meant to be.

The film uses the most basic of film formulas with characters separating and getting individually killed. Pinhead is not Alien. The link between the box and the 'demons' or 'Hell' is never established it just arrives at a sacrifice and sits on a sideboard.

The lead female Character is called 'Rimmer' and the producers obviously think it really funny because everyone keep saying her name. Really the film should have been retitled to give it that characters name.

Shame on you Kevin Yagher and Alan Smithee.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's true, no one really expects anything from sequels. But even by that low standard this is a terrible film.

Essentially an anthology movie, this fourth installment in the Hellraiser saga tries to be an origins story and a wind-up to the entire series at the same time. An ambitious idea. But none of the cast is given enough screen time to do anything with their characters and rookie director Yagher abandoned the film rather than give in to studio meddling. The result is a steaming pile of mediocrity that even fanboys have trouble defending. Unless you're an \"Alan Smithee\" fan, avoid this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***SPOILERS!*** I sometimes wonder what makes sequel-makers think that they have to explain (and therefore destroy) the mysteries behind iconic Horror films. The original \"Hellraiser\" of 1987 was an absolute masterpiece and probably one of the scariest films ever made. The 1988 sequel \"Hellbound\" was also a fantastic Horror film, though I personally didn't like how the viewer got background information on the Cenobites, some of the all-time creepiest Horror-villains in the original. The third part, \"Hell on Earth\" (1992) was already quite a mess, whose makers obviously thought it necessary to add a dose of humor to the formerly incomparably creepy lead-cenobite Pinhead (a typical 90s stupidity) and therefore destroyed most of his scariness. This fourth part \"Hellraiser: Bloodline\" (1996) is slightly more atmospheric than the third one, but it lowers this quality by inventing even more silly and completely unnecessary 'background information' about the cenobites and the opening of the gates to hell.

Seriously - did we need to know how the mysterious puzzle boxes that open the gates to hell are being made? I think not, and that is not the only mystery about the cenobites that is stupidly destroyed in this film. The setting of \"Bloodline\" goes back and forth in three different periods. The film begins in a 22nd century space-station, when scientist Dr. Merchant (Bruce Ramsay) attempts to close the gates to hell forever. When government soldiers disrupt his mission he has to explain his reasons. In 18th century Paris, Merchant's ancestor was a toymaker assigned to build a puzzle box by an aristocrat obsessed with the occult. An evoked demon, the princess of hell, took over the body of the beautiful Angelique (Valentina Vargas). Since the only person capable of destroying the gateway to hell is the one who built it, the bloodline of the toymaker would be cursed and his ancestors infested by cenobites throughout the ages... The film, which takes place in the 18th century, the present, and the 22nd century, really is quite a mess. I admit that the part set in the 18th century has a creepy atmosphere and is by far the best part of the film, but its also its smallest part. The parts set in the present and in the future are quite weak, and filled with stupid and unworthy elements. The film's undoubtedly strong points are the terrific make-up and gore-effects, the absolutely ravishing Valentina Varagas as the she-demon, and Pinhead (Doug Bradley), who, in spite of having lost some of his creepiness, still is a menacing villain. It is an almost offensive idea for \"Hellraiser\" fans, however, that Pinhead is supposed be defeated by a ridiculous light-show. Overall, \"Bloodline\" is not a complete disaster, but it sure is an unworthy sequel to a series that began so brilliantly. Even director Kevin Yagher was obviously embarrassed about it, as he preferred to be credited as Alan Smithee. Overall, this is only recommendable to hardcore Pinhead-fanatics, and most of them are probably going to be angered by another diminution of their favorite demon's creepiness. All others are well-advised to stick with the brilliant first, and excellent second part of the \"Hellraiser\" franchise and skip all the others. The makeup effects in \"Bloodline\" are creepy as hell, but almost everything else is disappointing. My rating: 3.5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this fourth installment of the series is the last to get a theatrical release,though it feels like a direct to video movie.it's OK,i guess,but nothing special.the acting is the worst of seen in the series up to this point.and like the third movie,there isn't much in the way of imagination.also,the sentence \"directed by Alan Smithee\" is never a good thing.Smithee is the pseudonym directors use when they want nothing to do with the movie.anyway,its an acceptable movie in the Hellraiser series,but not much more than that.it's a slight drop in quality from number three,and a huge drop from the first two.for me,Hellraiser IV:Bloodline is a 4.5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie is so bad and Hellraiser part 1 to 3 are so great. Nothing is good Bloodline... a lot of gore but without meaning and the majority of time without originality. the movie is about the past, the present (1996) and the future of the puzzle box. The creator of the box and his offspring fight against some demon but nothing link up seriously the 3 stories. Pinhead is in the movie...but it isn't Pinhead, he is just a boring bad guy who kidnap kids and kill bird, and the worse...he talk too much. A thing that I really didn't understand is why the dog from hell????? He can't be a cenobites because he had nothing human. Why the dog can be killed by the pressure if the other creature from hell can receive bullets without problems????? Bloodline is incoherent with the movie series in many ways. For example Pinhead and Angelique are old friend in this movie but it's impossible that Pinhead met Angelique because Pinhead is just a soldier from the First World War and Angelique is an old demon and she live in Paris since sometimes like 200 years.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first saw this movie in the theater I was so angry. It completely blew in my opinion. I didn't see it for a decade then decided what the hell, let's see. I'm watching all hellraiser movies now to see where it went wrong. My guess is it was with sequel 5 that was the first to implement the whole \"i am in a dream omg i see weird stuff, oh noes what is happening, oh its a dream, oh its not a dream, oh wait i see something spooky, oh never mind\"-sucky storyline. Those sequels don't even require the box to be opened, or stick to the rules from the first 4 movies that if you saw pinhead you are pretty much screwed and dead. The first 3 hellraisers sticked to this storyline which made it so scary in the first place. Nothing fantasy, nothing weird, the box got opened boom they came. Kirstey was the only one that could bargain her way out of it, first because of uncle Frank. Then because she had information about the cenobites. This movie at least attempts to stick to all that, even though it was a bad story it was still somewhat hellraiser. No I'm pretty sure part 5 was the first part to completely and utterly destroy the hellraiser series. Now they are remaking 1, and I don't even think I will watch it. Oh who am I kidding I probably will and probably will be disappointed.... again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just saw this on TCM tonight and was shocked at the over-acting by Jean Arthur. Her bugging her eyes out in surprise and just generally over-doing everything was not in the same style as Dietrich and Art Lund. Dietrich was marvelous in her restraint and comic timing. She being the best thing in this movie. The Wilder gags were flat and frankly more like something a freshman in college would write trying to \"get away\" w\/being wicked,witty and dirty, but just sounded boring and not funny at all. It seemed the humor was being pushed too hard to be funny. The ending was totally contrived.

SPOILER AHEAD: Never for a moment did I believe that Art Lund suddenly fell outta love w\/Dietrich and then was suddenly madly in love w\/Arthur. Oh, Billy. Get real! 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How could a film dealing with illegal Mexican immigrants being robbed and beaten over the border be dull? Well, \"Border Incident\" is.

No wonder that song and dance man George Murphy's career ended not long after this terrible film came out. Politics was certainly a way out for this future senator who dies a horrible death in this slowly paced film. The film stereotypes the typical Mexican migrant farmer worker as dimwitted and awfully dull.

The film only picks up in intensity once the identities of Murphy and Ricardo Montalban have been discovered as federal agents for the U.S. and Mexico respectively.

Disappointing at best, we see similar problems in our very own society today.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Great subject matter, director, and cast somehow adds up to a truly abysmal film, told in that flat, semi-documentary style that was so popular around the time this film was made. (And hello, this is NOT a film-noir!) The lackluster, overly complicated, over-populated story has no arc, no focus point, little excitement, and staggers from one scene to the next with no discernible purpose, other than as a valentine to the supposed and highly doubtful cooperation between the American and Mexican governments on the issue of illegal immigration.

The scene that made me HATE this film is when Montalban and Mitchell make a daring escape from their captors, race to presumably save Montalban's injured partner from being murdered by a goon with a gun driving a piece of farm machinery, Montalban says something like, \"quick - we must try to save him,\" but instead of doing so they lie on their stomachs and watch in agony for about 5 (!) minutes of screen time as the machine bears down on Murphy and FINALLY runs him over (or so we assume - the machine simply stops, another goon detects the presence of the two \"rescuers\" and shoots at them as they run off again.) Scene over. The whole thing is so horribly filmed and utterly anticlimatic. There's nothing worse than a protagonist (ostensibly, Montalban, though he's off screen for over half the film) who doesn't even try. Jeez, Ricardo, do SOMETHING!

I know it's Anthony Mann, but hell, not ALL of his films are classics, people. How bad does an old movie have to be around here to get anything lower than a 6 rating?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this film because I thought it would be a classic Amy Adams movie. Wow, this movie is so bad on so many levels it staggers the imagination. It is poorly constructed for one, also the script and the acting is just awful. But hey even Johnny Depp has a slew of bad films under his belt. The upside of this movie would be Amy singing, and even on that score I believe better songs could have been chosen. Amy is of course beautiful to see and if you are a die-hard fan of hers you will probably watch this title no matter what, just don't expect too much. I wish I could have found more to like but it was just painful to watch. I recommend Sunshine Cleaning or Doubt.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would say this is a background movie. Play it the background as your tending to busy work (laundry, checking email, etc). I thought this was a film that was done before Amy Adams became successful after Enchanted. Wrong! It was done in 2009! The screenplay\/script is pretty awful. I love musicals but the singing is just average and doesn't move the plot along. Ughh. It almost seems like it's a made for TV movie based on the cinematography. Am I watching a TV show?

Even the secretary breaks out into song. What the f@#$ is going on?! Actually she seemed to have the best voice. Amy Adams was so great in Enchanted. Lead actor is average. Disappointed for sure. This movie would have been good for lifetime, but that's about it. :(","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having endured this film last night, I turned off the DVD player with a sense of deserving a medal for having the stamina to see it through to the end. Throughout the film I felt that I was watching the storyline fillers that you get in a high budget porn movie. the acting was stiff and taut, camera work appalling, and the locations and sets were so poor it felt like they had borrowed them from the local High School \"Amateur Dramatic's Society\".

The only saving grace for this movie was that it had Amy Adams and Harriet Sansom Harris in its credits, other than that it was pure dribble.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a huge Amy Adams fan and have been for many years. I am also a big fan of musicals. With that said this is not a good movie on any level. It is quite dull and the acting overall is very very poor. Amy Adams is awkward to watch act with Scott G. Anderson due to the fact that she is in another league when it comes to acting. All the performances come off as very amateur. The music performances are pleasant, but nothing special.

Scott G. Anderson is just an bad actor! I assumed he was put in this movie because he has a great voice, but it's just not the case. He has an average voice and sings on key, but that's about it.

I guess I can see why Amy Adams did this movie with the singing element I just wish she had not. I could rant about other poor elements of this movie, but I'll leave it at that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie because it supposedly takes place in a jazz club -- you know, those hip, cool places you might stumble upon late on a Saturday night. Well, there's not one ounce of \"cool\" in this ridiculous movie. The score is goofy, the original songs are awful, both lead actors' singing is continually off-key (to be kind) and unprofessional at best, the plot is no more complex than \"boy meets girl,\" the acting is laughable, and the only decent cinematic moments are the stock footage scenes. The jazz club scenes feature sophomoric dialog smothered by overly-busy organ music. This Joey de Francesco should keep his day job (unless his day job is helping with movie scores). Is it possible to not only get my four dollars back, but have my therapy sessions paid for as well? This movie, interestingly enough, is so bad, you might want to watch it. Sort of like driving by a bad accident -- you just have to look at least once. Just get the ear plugs ready!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"About the movie itself, there are ample comments.

I just wanted to say something about the German version, which I have seen recently on TV. It is heavily cut. From 103 to 76 minutes! It is usual that the most bloody scenes are cut for German TV. I understand the reasons for that, but this movie was something else. They did not only cut \"gore-shots\" - they have cut entire sequences, sparing only glimpses. Like: \"WE have to attack THEM\" - one 5 second shot of explosions in the camp - protagonist running away.

When the assault on the island begins, it isn't even possible anymore to follow the storyline. All the cuts create something that amounts to a string of erratic, disconnected scenes that don't make any sense anymore.

I could not stand to watch the end after spending 60 minutes on this nonsense.

I think I would have given the original 7\/10 The German version is worth only 1\/10

Get it on DVD (and check the runtime first) or forget about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In what attempts to be a positive story, Dolph Lundgren leads a group of mercenaries to take over a tropical island that looks a lot like paradise so that the men who hired his team can mine it for...bird droppings. Actually, the nitrogen gas that exudes from the muck on this island is what they are after.

There was only one good thing about this movie -- the island location in which it was filmed was beautiful. Otherwise, the story drowns itself leaving the actors with nothing to work with. Result: A lot of violence, a lot of language, lots of blood, and a few shots of women topless. If you want pointless violence (sorry, the storyline can't even give the violence a point, though it tries) then this is the movie for you.

Parents: be warned that this movie is full of violence and blood, driving the R rating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Big spoiler right here: this film is B!A!D! But enjoy, it's good bad.

Bugged is the kind of film you can't believe exists, with dialog, plotting, and direction so ineptly handled that Uncle Ned's Carlsbad Cavern home video looks like an IMAX experience. Since it's a Troma flick, there's plenty of gross-out gore on tap, but its even sillier than usual.

Most of the production money seems to have gone into buying soda and sandwiches for cast and crew. The brilliant dialog is best summed up in the immortal, \"%@#$! What was that?\" which is second only to the oft screamed, \"Now what?\"

Any knowledge of how people act in a desperate situation is alien to Ronald Armstrong, the writer\/director. When one of the friends is found being eaten alive by a grasshopper\/termite\/chiapet thing, Armstrong has the survivors immediately making time with cute, but dumb-as-a-doorknob, \"Divine.\" While she's being hit on, Divine is cooking up a big steaming pot of a rat-poison\/oatmeal mixture on the stove, stirring, smiling, stirring, smiling, never falling over dead from the fumes!

The killer bugs are as frightening as pi\u00f1atas, which they too closely resemble. The effects used to move them include dragging them across tile floors real fast with their legs dragging behind.

The highlight for the film would probably have been the house blowing up, but they were either out of cash or never had any, so instead of seeing even a miniature go up in flames, they simply let the screen go black (eat you heart out ILM).

The cast is virtually all black. How can the NAACP consistently censor something truly funny like Amos and Andy (which depicts characters certainly no less similiar than those on 99% of all white comedy shows), but says nary a peep about something like Bugged. Oh well, it's best they don't know about how demeaning this film is to all involved (as it would be if it were played by any single ethnic group, frankly). Before they put the kabosh on Bugged, get some friends together and get ready for the Plan 9 of Bug Exterminator movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I received this movie as a birthday gift because all of my friends know I'm a big fan of low budget Horror flicks. Kaufman Studios have always made the cheesy gory flicks that delivered. I loved to watch their films at home on rainy nights with my family...until I saw Bugged...WHAT HAPPENED?

This Movie started out with a pretty good concept about mutating bugs and even added some slick comedy but overall the writing is just bad and that was mistake number one. Ronald K. Armstrong should learn to first be a better writer before becoming a filmmaker. After reading the Credits we discover he gave himself the most important role in the film!?! two words Mr. Director \"Acting Lessons\" OK? Mr. Armstrong joins the ranks of other writer\/directors who cast themselves in their own movies and that's mistake number two.

The only thing that I believed saved this film was the artistic camera work and the musical score, (let's hear it for the crew!) The cast of other actors who in the beginning of this production seemed a bit cold, really warmed up toward the middle and end of this production. Everyone pulled together and helped to pull this film off. Ronald Armstrong may lack the talent to ever become a decent Director or Actor but, I'll say this of him-He seems to know how to organize people to get them all to come together and pull his productions off.

This film, I have to say can be an inspiration to any young filmmaker who dreams of making their own movie because if Mr. Armstrong was able to pull this off, Any one else can too. If you get a chance to see this film, watch it for the sake of getting inspired to do \"Better\" in the future. Hollywood needs bigger and better Horror Flicks to keep this genre coming back from it's grave.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, it's a movie for children, and it's not one of those movies that adults will enjoy as well. However, there are some unintentionally funny moments, most of them involving holes in the story. For example, the kid needs a computer part to bring his dad back to normal, and he doesn't have the money. So, does he ask his father for the dough? Nope, he STEALS IT and gets caught. Kids, if I'm ever turned invisible, I'll advance your allowance, ok? Also, while this kid is at the police station (no doubt about to be charged with criminally lame acting), his beautiful blond teacher comes in, announces who she is and where she works, then BUSTS THE CHILD OUT OF THE SLAM IN FRONT OF THE COPS! To make matters worse, instead of making a quick getaway, they then SIT IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE POLICE STATION AND LAUGH ABOUT THEIR ACHIEVEMENT. You know, I hate to pick, but the kid DID steal something and ought to face the consequences, but maybe being in this movie is punishment enough. Y'all avoid it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, just let me say this... Ghost Story....hello!?!

If any of the other people who trashed this movie from beginning to end realized this fact, their reviews would have been very different. The fact that characters kept disappearing whenever the protagonist turned back to look, should have been a dead giveaway. This movie was not billed as a ghost story when you went to rent it in the video store, not even a hint, and that is the BIGGEST mistake that was made by the studio who marketed it. It was deliberate on their part not to market it as a ghost story in order to confuse you like the main character is confused as you try to make sense of it. The problem in this is that they lost too many viewers; the ghosts appeared \"too human and real\" without any of the usual telltale signs, imagery or special effects that Hollywood usually uses to let you know you are now seeing a ghost...and that, is what they were trying to do. The main character does not know she is seeing ghosts and neither does the viewer. Now do you get it? As long as you understand that the main character is seeing ghosts, then you'll understand the movie and not be so irritated by what is perceived as major oversights in continuity or plot flaws.

I admit, this being said, it still was not a good movie, just not as bad a just about everyone else made it out to be. Just understand, if you plan on watching this movie, everything you see, \"ain't\" always what what you think it is. 4 out of 10 for acting, 3 for originality, 5 for plot and 5 for scare factor, though there was some gore and spooky moments. Still not a good movie, just way misunderstood.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Definitely the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. I can't find anything positive to say about this movie (if this production is even worthy of that word).

This production is not even the standard of a low budget porn-movie!

My question is simply: why did someone look at the script and think \"Hey I'm gonna make a movie out of this\"?

At the end of the movie I wasn't even hoping that \"Nicole\" was going to make it\u0085. She was really that annoying!

So for your own sake, do not watch this movie... unless you want to waste 85 minutes of your life...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Quentin Tarantino once said that to succeed in the film industry you had to make your own Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs. Writer\/actor\/director Larry Bishop seems to have taken that advice a little too literally with Hell Ride and concocted a messy homage that borrows much too heavily in its visuals, music, camera-work, and time-altering storytelling. But to properly mimic a Tarantino film, one has to have a knack for constructing creative conversations; unfortunately Hell Ride's primary derailing element is its atrocious ramblings and vulgar monologues that only work to disgust and confuse the audience while simultaneously invoking pity for the actors just for being involved.

The anti-hero protagonist biker gang, The Victors, consists of several weathered vigilantes who bring their own brand of bloodthirsty justice to the lawless roads. The leader, Pistolero (Larry Bishop), is hell-bent on revenge and putting out fires. The Gent (Michael Madsen) just tries to balance his chaotic, psychotic symphony of life with putting lead into anyone who crosses his boss, and Comanche (Eric Balfour) follows with a fierce loyalty and a mysterious past.

On the villainous front, Deuce (David Carradine) is the mastermind who orchestrates from afar, though not quite far enough, and Billy Wings (Vinnie Jones) spits venom and lewd explanations for his tattoos while toting a harpoon gun and a general disdain for life. While these characters might sound interesting on paper, once they're forced to rant horrendously ill-conceived dialogue all traces of cool disappear faster than the funding should for Bishop's next film.

While Hell Ride is riddled with imperfections and missed opportunities, the main facet of its undoing lies in the poorly devised conversations. And because Bishop's main influences are the talky films of Tarantino, there are a lot of them. The first twenty minutes of the movie are nearly unintelligible and would probably make as much sense muted. By the time Pistolero's main squeeze is introduced and certain phrases are overused to the point of nausea, you'll pray for both death and the ability to turn the sound off. Even Dennis Hopper has trouble remaining cool while spouting off such goofy dialogue.

Have you ever repeated a word or phrase to yourself so many times that it just doesn't sound right or even make sense anymore? Bishop starts there and then keeps the madness going until you envy the characters on screen getting their heads cut off. And when the dialogue finally takes a break, we're treated to interspersed shots of nude female oil wrestling and throats being slashed. I'm not sure what effect Bishop hoped to attain, but I doubt he found it.

Hell Ride wants to pay homage to Quentin Tarantino films, Robert Rodriguez films, and every movie that idolizes the violent and devil-may-care attitudes of bikers. But while its intentions may be noble, the horrendously cringe-worthy dialogue and the hyper-stylized timeline-mangling editing prevents the audience from becoming invested with the generic tough-guy characters. By the time we figure out the mystery behind the characters' motives (and it may be awhile before you even realize there's a mystery to be solved), it's just too hard to care anymore. And while everyone on screen is clearly having fun, they've entirely neglected to translate any of that entertainment to the audience.

- Joel Massie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Or that's what the filmmakers would like you to believe, anyway.

This movie tries sooo hard to be cool it's ridiculous. Everything, from the look of the film, the cinematography, the editing, the dialogue and the acting, is geared in super cool mode from the get go. Just to make sure that no one misses how cool this film is, there's a soundtrack of really cool rock n roll tunes and a twangy western-surf-tex mex guitar playing constantly throughout the film. As a final reminder of how frickin cool this movie is, all the actors have been instructed to speak in a hoarse voice, because, as we all know, that's badass.

The plot (if there indeed is one) seems pretty straightforward. But as someone else already pointed out, the director and star of the film, seems fiercely determined not to tell that story, instead focusing on a plethora of naked babes and dialogue that's supposed to be badass, but grows tired surprisingly quick (did they have an contest to see how many times they could cram the words \"pussy\" and \"f*ck\" and its derivatives in an 80 minute film?).

This movie was absolutely horrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tarentino should be ashamed to be involved with this awful film. The acting, directing and script are all third-rate - with the entire film playing out like an excuse for writer\/director\/star Larry Bishop to get laid. The only reason it was made at all is most likely due to his association with QT. The plot of the film is pretty flimsy, and basically tries to survive on not-so-obscure references to older B-movies and some cameos from guys like David Carradine, Dennis Hopper, and Vinnie Jones. Each one is listless in their performance, particularly Hopper who is in full-on paycheck mode at this point in his career. The saving grace, if there is one, is that the script is so laughably bad that it can be entertaining. Bishop tries so hard to get that trademark Tarentino banter and just fails miserably, which can be pretty humorous at times and grating at others. I'd only check this one out if you love bad movies...or if you're really into biker films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Because that's what Hell Ride pretty much is. Larry Bishop and Tarantino partying on the Weinstein's money with the promise to deliver a movie sometime down the line. I'm all for fake boobage and booze as much as the next guy but did we really need the movie? Really there's nothing worse than the reheated second-hand leftovers of an old trend. And I'm not even talking about 70's grindhouse cinema because Hell Ride has none of the raw and unpolished feel of the era it purports to pay homage to. No, this is slick and glossy MTV Hollywood through and through. The old trend I'm talking about is the self-consciously pseudo-hip quirky cinematic world where Tarantino meets Guy Ritchie and Robert Rodriguez. All three guys were at least talented and found success for a reason. Hell Ride is just a second-hand copy, fickle and uninspired, polished to the max when it should be raw, the \"supercool\" aspect coming off forced and silly.

There's no reason for example why such a simple and utterly inane story has to be told in convoluted, back-and-forth in time fashion. It's just a post-Tarantino quirk. There's also no reason why the dialogues have to be so mind-numbingly pointless, people flapping their gums while saying NOTHING: at least when Travolta was talking about cheeseburgers in Pulp Fiction it felt fresh. Dialogues here amount to little more than pseudo-macho posturing. There's also no reason why a grating rock'n'roll guitar has to twangle aimlessly over the entire movie. Perhaps the lowest Hell Ride hits is when it tries to be quasi-existential. There's a hilarious dream\/illusion scene in the desert where Bishop eats peyote and sees colours. I was half-expecting an old Indian to come out and offer nuggets of wisdom.

The only saving grace of this abysmal turd is the boobage and Vinnie Jones' monologue about his wings tattooes (and maybe some of the desert exterior shots). Lots of boobage and hot scantily clad babes. Now that's something I can get behind but a movie they don't make. Everything else is just an empty shell, an imitation of other infinitely more talented imitators.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director\/lead Larry Bishop tried way, way too hard with Hell Ride. The movie wants to be edgy, witty, provocative, outlandish, biting all of this, seemingly in a Quentin Tarantino\/Rob Zombie style. But it's not edgy. The references seem forced. The dialog tries to be clever and fails. The humor is never funny. Nice try setting a gritty tone but we'd have to care about the characters or the story for it to remotely succeed.

What you're left with are cool Harleys and pretty girls surrounding a bunch of tired, old and out of shape \"bad boys\" in what looks like an attempt to do a modernized Sergio Leone western. If this movie can make newer generations interested in 60s and 70s films, kudos for it. But on its own, it is rather boring and irrelevant. I do believe there is a place for style over substance. But this movie is not it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have had more boring stretches of 80 minutes in my life, but none are coming to mind right now. Hell Ride is based on the retro cult 70s theme that Tarantino brought back, and did right, in movies like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. The problem with Hell Ride is, unlike PF and RD, the story is garbage and so is character development. How many movies does Bishop think he can blatantly steal from? The brief case in Pulp Fiction, the air gun in No Country, etc. etc. Speaking of Bishop what the hell is he doing acting in this movie? I couldn't help but laugh at those scenes where he's standing with his pelvis trusted out, desperately trying to seem like some hardened biker. Nothing in this movie is believable. And why Dennis Hopper? Did they really need the Easy Rider motif too? I blame Larry Bishop, for his horrible plot and dialogue, not to mention his failed attempt at the leading role. Don't bother watching this movie, it's a waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Larry Bishop directs, writes, and leads this soft core porn, plot less biker movie about nothing to do with anything. To call this one of the worst movies of 2008 is being kind to the garbage that I spent money on while in theaters. Its one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I felt sorry for the girls mostly, who probably think they're in the making of a feature film, when in all reality they're making a porno. They walk on the set for four days, say some sexual lines to disgusting old men -- thirty years older than them -- then take off their cloths, and run around naked for the four days they're on set. I can only assume this was Larry Bishops only way to get laid. You see shot after shot directly on a girls asses. Shot after shot of Bishop walking up to some random chick and grabbing her most intimate parts, as if he were shaking her hand. How this crap was even funded is beyond me. Why Tarantino has his name on it is beyond me, but he's been slowly fading away since 1994, so I can't say I was surprised.

After 15 minutes, you get that awful feeling that only horrible (and I mean horrible) movies give you. When you see it in theaters, the pain you feel is amplified. After 15 minutes, I wanted to cry for being so stupid, and wasting, not only my time, but my hard earned ten dollars. There isn't one redeeming quality, or one moment in the movie that creates any kind of reaction or shows any kind of inclination that these people had any idea of what they are doing. If you don't see naked women all that often, then I guess this movie would be for you. If you're eleven-years-old, you will probably like it. You can't even laugh at it, because every idiot making it was laughing about the crap they were making. The acting is awful, the writing is awful, the production is awful, and the directing is awful. It's not even worth your time renting it to see the car crash. Stay away, stay very far away. You shouldn't even be reading these reviews. I shouldn't even be writing one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is so bad it's hilarious. I watched Hell Ride half thinking it was a comedy, although I couldn't quite work out if they were actually taking the p*ss, or if this really was a serious attempt at making something decent. I notice it isn't listed here as a comedy so they must be serious! It's basically seems to be about a gang of pensioners who ride round on motorcycles shooting at each other and exchanging the most hilariously bad dialogue you can imagine. One scene inexplicably has two characters smashing bottles over each others heads, then showing each other 'get out of jail free' cards that they've made! Also check out Vinnie Jones' accent, where the hell is he meant to be from?!? Oh and there's a load of naked girls in it too, who for some unfathomable reason seem to want nothing more than to have none stop sex with these leathery skinned b*stards! The guy who wrote and directed it - a Pee Wee Herman lookalike with a Greeshan 2000'd beard and an orange sunbed tan - has for some reason cast himself in the lead role, maybe this is part of the joke, I don't know. Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm sure this film is a p*ss take. It's produced by Quentin Tarantino and it's possible he's released this in humour as a bit of a laugh. It is a total rip off of Tarantino's style, but just done really really badly. It is very amusing though, and I guess either way it could go down as a cult classic, either from being an amusing parody of the Tarantino\/Rodriguez style, or something that is very very unintentionally funny. Has to be seen to be believed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When a movie called Hell Ride comes out you expect a certain amount of biker clich\u00e9. With character names like \"Pistolero\", \"Comanche\" and \"The Gent\" I braced myself for the worse and was punch in the face by just that. The dialogue, soundtrack and shooting style are standard for biker movies. Dusty desert blurred from the heat as bikes coming tearing down the road while \"CC Rider\" plays and they talk about sex and violence. Yawn! The three leads were just ridiculous and unbelievable. Seeing old men like Bishop and Madsen (in a freaking ruffled shirt) riding down a dusty strip of desert highway reminded me of two men trying desperately to relive their youth. Poor Eric Balfour tried his best but with such poor material it got lost. Even an appearance by Dennis Hopper in full Easy Rider swing, couldn't save it. And let's talk about the store bought tans shall we? Many have compared this to Tarantino's work. It is not even close. What makes Tarantino's work so brilliant is he knows it's over the top so he just goes balls out and takes it as far over the top as possible. Bishop took this film so seriously that it became nothing more than a poor copy of the exploitation genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That's what I kept asking myself while watching this film. I mean the amount of nudity and sex was one thing but another part of the movie which gave its genre to the adult industry was its lack of storyline. Really I just wanted to get up and leave during the whole movie, but I persisted. I persisted in the hope that maybe the storyline would get better, that there might be a good twist at the end. However I couldn't have been more wrong. In the end I persisted because I figured I could write a bad review for it if anything after watching it.

I mean don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with beautiful, sexy and vibrant women, but when the director only shows that along with a shitty story thinking it's what the viewer wants to see, it insults us all. To think we are all so shallow to only want to see burlesque from rep ratable, big movie industry players is preposterous. My advice: hire a different movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worse film i have every seen. Like the other honest reviewers, it is just an excuse for getting naked birds with their juggs out. Don't get wrong, naked women isn't a bad thing but there is another film genre for that.

Boyfriends beware. I sold this to my girlfriend as a classic bike gang fest (due to reviews) to be greeted with every other scene full of naked women gyrating about the place. Slap in the chops for me.

What makes me laugh the most is all the dogey bike dives they went to in the film were full of models with the works cosmetically - what biker bars have these? They are usually slightly haggard with tattoos and far saggier juggs! Completely unrealistic.The acting is terrible, loads of pointless swearing and a complete waste of time storyline.

Did anyone check out Vinnie Jones's attempt at an American accent? Its as embarrassing as his football skills.

Avoid like the plague. The only reason you would watch this film is if you are a young lad who cant access p@rn and have nicked it from their parents movie collection for a few pervy kicks!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Larry Bishop is 60-years old, dirty and not good-looking YET in this movie he's like a drug towards the women in their twenty's.

A lot of movies have been claimed to be sexist but if any movie deserves that title it's this one.

I can't even count how many boobs there were shown in this movie, probably more then hours Larry Bishop spend writing the script.

The script is ridiculous, Bishop and his gang argue, bike, party, have sex, kill people and the next day they argue, bike, party, have sex, kill people and the third day, well you get the idea.

I like ERIC BALFOUR and considering what he had to work with, he did pretty good as Comanche.

Unfortunately this movie is about Larry Bishop's character Pistolero who is so one-dimensional it's not even funny.

He's also a horrible actor, and apparently he never intended to do the lead himself but everybody he asked said no so what was he to do? Once he realized he was gonna do the lead himself, he probably did a re-write of the script so that he could touch up more ladies.

Although visually it's kind of good-looking, at least the biker-scenes and Eric Balfour isn't half-bad this movie is just a big mess.

I hope to never see Larry Bishop in front of the camera again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, so writer\/director Larry Bishop obviously has some important connections and knows the right people in Hollywood in order to produce his own film and fill up the cast with eye-catching names. Good for him! Now what he really still needs is inspiration and talent in order to come up with an actually worthwhile scenario rather than the overly pretentious and wannabe convoluted crap he penned down here. \"Hell Ride\" isn't a movie; it's a hectic and hopelessly inept fan-boy endeavor to bring homage to the notorious biker-flicks of the 60's and to the recently revived Grindhouse cinema formula in general. With \"Hell Ride\", Larry Bishop embarrassingly fails in his set-up and there are many obvious reasons for this. He hasn't got a story to tell \u0096 or at least not a very interesting one \u0096 but gravely tries to cover this up through numerous redundant plot twists, loads of gratuitous and very women-unfriendly sleaze, overlong and piteous dialogs aspiring to be cool and giant amounts of senseless violence. The plot looks complex but can actually be summarized in one sentence. The ancient vendetta between two rivaling biker gangs flares up again with the arrival of a new member; a boy who may or not be the long lost son of a double-crossing wench that got executed back in 1976. That's it, seriously! All the rest, going from betraying gang members over to the recruitment of old timer members over to toying with his nymphomaniac informant girl, is all completely pointless and confusing padding material. Another major problem in \"Hell Ride\" is Larry Bishop's very own tremendous and seemingly insatiable ego. He definitely shouldn't have rewarded himself with the role of tough and relentless gang leader, as that only comes across as incredibly pretentious and narrow-minded; especially when there are so many other and more experienced stars in the movie. Granted, Bishop starred in a couple of genuine 60's biker exploitation movies (like \"The Savage Seven\" and \"Angel Unchained\"), but that was a long time ago and he honestly isn't any good as an actor. Maybe it simply was Bishop's life-long dream to play a character that always outsmarts his enemies and for which every hot babe sexually craves, and just wrote a whole screenplay around it. The veterans in the cast, like Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen, don't really bother to leave a plausible impression and I can't say I blame them. This whole production is lame and pathetic and I can't bring myself to recommending it to anyone, regardless of many beautiful babes parade around with bare breasts and naked butts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is easily one of the worst movies I've seen in a long long time (and I've recently seen Starship Troopers 2!!!). I could find nothing to redeem this film. The acting, which is probably the best aspect of the film, is fair at best. Michael Madsen hams it up in his standard character persona. Denis Hopper doesn't seem to know what he's supposed to be. Vinnie Jones accent is bizarre. One positive thing is that Leonor Valera looks fantastic. Her acting is pretty poor but I doubt that's why shes there.

The dialogue is truly appalling. It is quite simply rubbish. I don't know who signed off on this but they really need to get professional help next time round.

This film is the reason IMDBs rating system should be able to include zero stars out of ten. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie makes \"Glitter\" look like \"Schindler's List.\" Tarantino and the Weinsteins really need to consider more carefully before putting their names on a product. Green-lighting a P.O.S. like this, regardless of the friendships involved, is just bad business. Larry Bishop needs to be kept away from a movie camera at all costs. Writer\/director\/producer\/actor Bishop shows that his skills are inadequate for any of those jobs. A vanity project gone south, \"Hell Ride\" allows usually good actors to chew the scenery... at least when the camera isn't centered on Bishop's feeble attempts to steal every scene he's in. (Which is virtually EVERY SCENE!) My final three words on \"Hell Ride\" are STINK, STANK, STUNK.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film Oh my god this film is so poor , I'm amazed I managed to watch it all ..

First off Id like to say that Vinny Jones should only play a London thug period that's it end of story ..

Pisttolero is so unconvincing its almost comedy.. Banging in Dennis hopper and David Carradine did not save this film .. in fact I think its a total comedy and as a comedy it deserves its 1 star..

Avoid at all costs .. Vinny Oh my god I thought I saw it all when he played that Irish Tinker :P

I think the average viewer will realize that this film is maybe just a never will be type of film.. I cant see how anybody could actually fall this crap","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is my first \"awful\" rating ever on IMDb and I couldn't think of a more deserving film to honor it with. I hoped for entertaining trash and found trash of the saddest, dullest kind. I found a film which no one can possibly have cared a bit about, including its creator.

\"Hell Ride\", directed, written by and starring Larry \"Friend of QT\" Bishop, has a simple plot about a hidden treasure and a trio of keys, two bands of bikers and a gruesome murder in 1976 which has yet to be avenged. Larry seems fiercely determined not to tell this story, focusing instead of putting his swaying, strangely grimacing main character into situations where he can fondle women who pretend to like it. He also has a dialog containing enough horrible fire puns\/metaphors to put one off the word \"fire\" for life.

Dennis Hopper escapes complete humiliation, others are not so lucky. Sometimes they hit the road on their bikes, making one feel even more sorry for Michael Madsen, since his high handles seems to add insult to the injury of having to appear in this film. There is plenty of silicon-enhanced nudity, but fairly little action and no humor whatsoever, making one wonder just what kind of an audience they had in mind.

My guess is that most people who watch this film, including fans of trashy 60s biker movies, will feel cheated. Do yourself a favor and revisit the real stuff instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once upon a time Quentin Tarantino was a relatively successful filmmaker.

Now, unfortunately, he not only makes terrible films, but puts his names to ones like this.

A supposedly cool retro flashback to biker movies of the 60s and 70s, this plumbs new depths.

Believe you me, I enjoy it when a blouse falls off in a film more than the next man but even I felt kind of sleazy watching this. To use a word I never thought I would, its msysoginistic (you see, I can't even spell it.) The plot (in the vaguest sense of the term) is as incomprehensible as Vinnie Jones' accent, the fact his terrible acting does not stand our particularly is as damning a testament as one can think of.

This is just terrible. Shocking. It almost made me cry. In horror.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would not recommend it whatsoever. It was like getting stuck in the middle row of a theater, so I couldn't leave, and watching a part porn movie (except they didn't take their clothes off - it was the body language and definitely the language). I have to say I was embarrassed. Filming was very low budget, no good dialogue. Yuck. Actors stunk except The two best characters who got killed off (?) and they were David Carradine and Dennis Hopper. It did smack of Kill Bill and that old movie with the two guys who ride the dessert on their chopppers. You know what I mean. blablabla. The filming was grainy and just a very low quality. There was nobody in that theater that liked this movie, and the people around me were younger and tattooed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Larry Bishop, the Writer\/Actor\/Director, focuses too heavily on the camera, music, and visuals. The film resorts to meaningless ramblings and vulgar monologues, which seem to have no purpose other than boring and irritating the audience. The actors experience a bumpy ride, from the film's start to finish, and are caught in one terrible smoke screen. The hell with the ride. The film is a bomb.

The Victors are presented as weathered vigilantes, who seek their own form of justice for what they see as lawlessness. They are bikers, anti-heroes, and protagonists. Pistolero, played by Larry Bishop, is the revengeful leader of the pack. The Gent (Michael Madsen) is trapped in his own crossfire of chaos and psychosis.

Comanche (Eric Balfour) is loyal, but mysterious. Deuce, performed by David Carradine, should have passed on the ride, and so should the ticket-buyers (if you decide to see the film, you'll be sorry, but you'll find out why). Billy Wings (Vinnie Jones) is a lewd and venomous character, completely filled with disdain.

What puzzles me is how this film, with all of its continual ramblings and vulgarity, ever got anybody to invest in a ride that absolutely goes nowhere. Ticket-buyers, take my advice: don't pay for the ride. Please don't make the same mistake as the investors.

The first fifteen minutes, or so, of the movie is confusing and unintelligible. The dialog, which rapidly turn into meaningless monologues, doesn't make any sense. The entire film is hell bent on going nowhere. Poor Dennis Hopper is caught in the middle of a real mess. He, too, should have passed on the ride. There are decapitated heads, slashed throats, and nude females wrestling. It is clear that Bishop doesn't know where he is going with the film. He gets entirely lost. But, by the end of the ride, you just won't give a damn. Mama Mia! Stay home. And, by all means, don't take the ride. I rate this film a 1 out of 10, but this movie is so awful it deserves a zero.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is juxtaposition of various super bad tough guy biker characters, loosely connected but with no real storyline. Some of the scenes are nicely filmed. If they took the same cast and crew, and made a movie called the Gent who was the coolest character in the film and came up with an interesting and continuous story maybe it could be decent. As it is, prepare for a lame series of tough guy character intros, all of whom do nothing but ride bikes around the desert all day and cause trouble while all staying never getting sunburned and keeping their hair and clothes perfect and never needing to look for a home or money, etc. There was a sort of background story about the characters pasts various people that were killed and a treasure that was probably supposed to be the plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are a lot of 'bad' films out there. Tune in to Channel 5 every night of the week and you might just be treated to a daily, shocking effort from one filmmaker or another. There are possibly films that have caused me more pain - were harder to sit through - than this, but in terms of writing, acting, direction, cinematography and the bare basics of cinema Inbetweeners is a truly, truly appalling effort and should be avoided at all costs. The only laugh it gave me was in the behind the scenes documentary on the DVD, in which the film's geeky director Darren Fisher explains how it was his script that attracted the 'talent' to the project! Never underestimate the power of self-delusion.

Darren Fisher - Britain's answer to Edward D. Wood Jr.!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is possibility the worst and most disappointing film I have ever seen. I've spent four years at two universities and know that there must be a good film to be made about the experience. This isn't it. The \"acting\" is god awful and the plot non-existent.

Here are a few incidents from my one year in halls of residence.

1) A posh lad that unknowingly got off with a transvestite. 2) The best friend pairing of two girls - one with huge breasts and the other with the nickname \"the brick\". 3) A couple that shag too loudly. 4) The lad who gets all the girls 5) The lad from Northern Ireland who is very difficult to understand. 6) McDonalds in bed 7) Curry every night for a week 8) Student bashing, couple of my mates ended up in hospital 9) The discarded joint that started a fire. 10) The flood 11) The lad who wakes up on his floor to find that every item of furniture has be taken from his room.

And if I can come up with that list in 5 minutes and from real life, I'm sure a couple of script writers can do better, a lot better.

And for a film named after a Sleeper song, where is the Britpop soundtrack?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I have been to a British University, in fact I went to the one in this very film, and it was nothing like that. This is a horrible, badly made and acted film. Worst thing is, it could have been really good, if they bothered to spend more that 12p on it, in fact if it really wanted to represent true British Students it should off acted like one and took out a 15 thousand pound loan. It says nothing about Uni life, where was the bush diving, the tea drinking till 4am, the endless chats about group dynamics??? Where was the diversity and fun? Maybe I'm just being romantic, but I don't remember Fresher's Week being that awful, and I'm teetotal. And in the end the question still remains...a bed or a wardrobe?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A very bad film, an amalgam of clich\u00e9s and historical inaccuracies. A few examples: in an early scene Soviet infantry are attacked by the Germans; instead of staying in their trenches to shoot at them, they advance into open ground to fight them,contrary to all infantry tactics; Kate, one of the central characters, is supposedly the daughter of a White Russian and obsessed with her Russianness, yet she does not speak Russian; a guilt-stricken German airman attacks an anti-aircraft gun- the gun, however, does not fire shrapnel shells but scores a direct hit on his 'plane, which doesn't look much like a German 'plane of WWII. In fairness, when they could escape the preposterous plot and the consequent absurdities there are some genuinely powerful moments- the depiction of people slowly starving to death is convincingly done and moving, but these only show up the rest of it even more. A film to be avoided.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hi! I'm Sheena, an African (yet white!) jungle tribal princess who possesses the incredible ability to transform into the cheapest, unscariest monster in the world (think 60s Star Trek aliens) by rolling seductively in mud! When I first found myself in this horrible position, I took the only logical action: I made myself a torn-apart jungle bikini in which to perform my badly-acted antics. I enjoy romance novels and tearing apart the occasional unimpressive African warlord. And I would be remiss if I did not mention my (white, of course) sidekick Mr. Cutter, an American ex-military man who seems to have fled the U.S. after his divorce. Can you say \"ducking alimony\"? Anyway, he provides the occasional distraction from my difficult life. I mean, how many idiot blonds do you know who are also an endangered species of flesh-rending monster? Despite my many hardships (acting is so hard! *whine*), I haven't given up, and after much soul-searching, I have finally discovered my role in life: to terrorize insomniatic late-night television viewers who are so unfortunate as to not have cable or satellite.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Publicity for this film suggests that it is shocking and sensational. Well, we opera lovers see some strange sights in opera houses so we are not shocked by the Duke of Mantua urinating during his reprise of La Donna \u00e8 Mobile, nor is it sensational to see Gilda sing Caro Nome in the bath. It is just crass and boring. What stands out about this film is its lack of imagination. Director Corina Van Eijk sets the Duke's palace in a seedy swimming pool. In fact, he is not the Duke, he is just a character named Duka, so it's difficult to see why he has lots of hangers-on and his own jester, Rigoletto. Rigoletto lives in a council flat that is furnished with the orange sofa and decorated in the spotted wallpaper that is de rigeur among avant-garde directors.The Duke's, sorry Duka's heavies ride around on motor scooters (Yawn).

Concepts imposed on an opera like this can produce unexpected, and unintentional humour. What can we make of the fact that Gilda has a maid, even though she lives in a council flat.? When the call goes out that Monterone is being taken to prison we see him being marched out of the swimming pool by two attendants in pink shorts. One imagines that he is going to be charged with urinating in a public swimming pool.

It was common for opera films to be lip-synced 20 years ago but there is just no excuse for it today. A dubbed opera is like soft porn. You don't believe in what is happening because the performers are not making enough effort. The actress in Gilda's role does not seem to have learned her lines properly. She barely moves her lips when she is supposed to be singing. When she sings Caro Nome in the bath she lies back with her legs slightly parted. It is difficult to tell which orifice the sound is supposed to be emanating from. The Duke, later caps this by singing while engaging in cunnilingus with Maddalena, giving a new meaning to the phrase yodelling in the canyon.

The ambiance of the sound never seems right with the orchestra sometimes sounding as though it is being played through a transistor radio. Fairly slow, rumpity-tumpity tempi are preferred so that the overall effect is of a karaoke in your local pub.

This is a film of a production by Opera Spanga. Spanga is a village in Friesland in the Netherlands. They normally perform in a tent in a field. If I had been watching this performance in a tent in a field in Friesland I would have been fairly indulgent. By filming this production and giving it a worldwide audience, the villagers also hold themselves open to worldwide ridicule.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rigoletto is Verdi's masterpiece, full of drama, emotion and powerful, memorable music. The maestro must have rolled in his grave when this bawdy travesty of his work was released with its needless frontal nudity and cheap copulating and its portrayal of the naive but principalled Gilda as a horny ditz. Opera certainly can be adapted to cinema --- look at Zeferelli's magnificent La Traviata --- but when a work is as superb as Rigoletto, it doesn't need cheap gimmicks. It might even have been acceptable if the dubbed in music had been good but it is a mediocre rendering of the libretto with second rate sound quality at that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I mentioned in other comments, I became a real big fan of David Bradley ever since I saw him in \"American Ninja 3\". The guy is great doing martial arts, has some kind of charisma and is a cool looking dude on screen. Sadfully, he went to the DTV department ever since his debut and has remained as one of the king of TV movies until 2001 where he apparently stopped making movies. Now, one thing is watching Cyborg Cop or Hard Justice which are crappy clich\u00e9d movies but real fun to watch (coz they're entertainingly bad if that has any sort of meaning) but another thing is watching a tasteless piece of boredom like Total Reality. I mean, this and Crisis are the two biggest pieces of horse-dung this guy ever did. I wouldn't recommend this not even to the biggest Bradly hardcore fans. If I had known this and Crisis were going to be so f*****g crap, I wouldn't have spent the 3 or 4 euros they cost me. Total Reality is just as boring as Crisis although funnily, it starts promising. A group of military prisoners in the future are given a chance to stop some kind of disaster in the past (I'm sorry, I didn't really pay much attention to this atrociousness) and they only have 24 hours to get back or something like that. If they don't, they're stranded there forever. The poor director who oversaw this, \"tries\" some humorous (?) clich\u00e9s like the convicts arriving on Earth and not knowing what a truck is for example (wow, hilarious...). The movie follows up with David Bradley teaming up with some Earth girl for the rest of the flick. This bored me so much that I had to force myself to watch it in like 3 or 4 installments to at least make use of the 4 or 5 euros it cost me. That's coz every time I tried, I fell asleep. And if you get a movie with David Bradley with just one crappy 10-second fight scene in it, then that's the final touch which would contribute to you throwing it off a hundred foot cliff so as never to see it again. I wish I could meet the \"director\" of this pile of poo on the street and I swear to God I'd ask him back for mi 5 euros. I'd also love to meet David Bradley to ask him why in God's name did he choose to star in this poor excuse for a movie. Don't even bother with this film, I mean it from the bottom of my heart, not renting borrowing it and specially not buying it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"don't buy this film for comedy value like I did, I didnt find it one bit funny, but so f****** miserable and lame it's unbelievable. I gave it to a friend for christmas which was pretty funny (on my side) I recently heard that he watched it and told me what an a**ehole I am!

There is nothing more frustrating than watching an over-lit, over dramatic, poorly scored scene in which the camera is sat there on a tripod and doesn't move... the film work is truely pathetic, and I can only say DONT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is no reason to watch this film.

Why? Many reasons. First up, the acting is awful. There is hardly a line that isn't misread - but that is hardly surprising given the banality, stupidity, and repetitiveness of the dialogue the actors are asked to mouth. It is awfully written. One of the most annoying things about the script is that the writers only seem to know one way of keeping their characters talking after a certain point and that is to have them repeat the most important words of the previous character's line.

\"Repeat?\"

\"Yes, they repeat it. For the whole movie.\"

\"The whole movie?\"

\"Yes, the whole movie.\"

Etc.

In movies like this you generally know who the bad guys are and what they are after. (All the good guys usually have to do is stop the bad guys. Setting up a good \"Mwahahaha! with X in my grasp I will rule the Universe!\" villain is the first stop in any cheapo SF plot) but in this turkey? - you tell me.

As I understand it our \"heros\" are a bunch of mass murderers sent into the past on a Dirty Dozen type mission. They are sent by a fascistic totalitarian state to stop some other mass murderers from altering the course of history. The new history would not include the rise of totalitarianism, and a war that kills 30 billion people and leaves the Earth a dead planet (we know all this because this movie has one of those handy long on-screen situation reports just before the action starts, telling you who is who and what is what. It's an indication of who the producers think their target audience will be, that it is narrated as well as appearing on screen - just to save the audience from taxing their brains too much by doing a lot of reading.) So just who are we supposed to be rooting for here? I guess we are asked to believe our hero undertakes some sort of journey from totalitarianism to love, peace, and understanding while shooting loads of people - but that doesn't work as an arc because we are shown he is a decent(ish) human being right at the start when he tries to rescue all the civilians aboard the rebel station.

I guess the makers were aiming at some sort of deeper than normal complexity in this film but they just ended up with an unholy mess with more plot holes and logical inconsistencies than a dozen or so of your average crap SF movies.

The opening credits were nice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is striking only in its banality and use of cliches. Sadly it was obvious throughout up until the ending. But don't be mistaken into thinking that it ended strongly. Only a little unexpectedly, though nothing worth watching the thing through for.

From the taciturn and wronged hero, to the Germanic baddy, to the expendable team, the characters were entirely wooden and obvious. The two FBI agents Smith and Wesson (geddit?) gave some hope of humour, but that came to nothing.

I am a big science fiction fan but it is hard to find any redeeming quality in this film. A turkey!

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie for about $1.50 - the most complete waste of money (and time) I have ever spent. It's LAME! I couldn't believe how they could come up with something like this.

The plot... there is no plot. Everything you'd expect to happen, it does, only in a worse way. The acting was horrible. My dog could've done better. The special effects have no effect whatsoever - except inducing complete disbelief. And the cheesy lines.... I mean, why even bother?

The only credit I can give this piece of sh*t are the opening scenes. They were actually quite pretty. And one of the reasons why I decided to rent this. The graphics shown there are probably the best and most realistic CG of the entire film.

Total Reality gets 1 out of 10 for not being able to mark it lower.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a strong recommendation to anyone who reads this review who has never seen the film Total Reality, don't waste your time and money renting this poor excuse for a film. This is, without peer, the single worst movie that I have ever seen in my life. I had nightmares of this movie ever since I saw it. The acting was terrible, and any amateur film maker could make a more decent film. The film blatently rips off far superior sci-fi films, such as TimeCop or Total Recall (where the title seems to have been derived from). I'm sorry, but I just think that there is more entertainment value in watching the side of a cardboard box for two hours. If you already have seen this movie, I feel sorry for you for going through what I did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ben Affleck, about to be married, is shaken up by a plane accident and gets involved with one of the other passengers (Sandra Bullock, forcing herself to act insane). Who is to blame for this inept, ugly morass? It is so badly edited, when I looked in the credits it wasn't to read the editor's name--it was to see if the person actually took the credit! Rife with clich\u00e9s, contrivances, and Sandra Bullock in raccoon eye-makeup, the movie doesn't even concern itself with creating chemistry between the two main characters. Laughs are non-existent: the scene in the gay bar with Affleck might have gotten a big laugh if it weren't so stupid (the bar patrons--a big rowdy bunch of them!--shout for Affleck to strip and start digging out their cash). It's not supposed to have any significance other than getting Ben to loosen up a little, but the direction of the whole scene is wrong-headed, and the outcome is unseen because the idiot editor cuts away...or was that all the film he had? It's a small moment but it's typical of this film, an amateurish piece of pop-goods that wants to be an edgy modern comedy but doesn't have any guts. It is tailor-made for the bottom shelf at your video store. * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie seems as if someone had a cute idea for a movie, thought of two or three funny possibilities, hired a good cast, then turned the whole thing over to a really bad screenwriter and even worse director. The director filmed a screwball romantic comedy as if it were a dark, artsy film---weird camera angles, blue filtered shots, lingering, close up looks at raindrops. Steve Zahn was good, as always. Ben Affleck was charming, sweet, almost shy; he was perfect for a romantic comedy. Sandra Bullock struggled along valiantly with a character who was supposed to be zany, but whose wackiness consisted of things like madly kissing a husband she hated, abandoning her child, going on carnival rides, offering to strip for money, and bumming a ride with a fellow airline passenger. The script had very few funny lines; there was no physical comedy; it was boring. It introduced potentially funny situations, then cut them off before they could develop. To top it all off, the \"twist\" at the end was a slap in the face to anyone expecting a fun romantic comedy. If you saw the trailer for the movie and liked it, as I did, my advice is: don't go to the movie. It will only spoil a nice trailer.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst Sandra Bullock movie since Speed 2 But not quite that bad. I really lost it with those out of the blue not so \"special effect\". Guys, If you're an insomniac go with your girl to see this movie. I give it three sleepies!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There were some decent moments in this film, and a couple of times where it was pretty funny. However, this didn't make up for the fact that overall, this was a tremendously boring movie. There was NO chemistry between Ben Affleck and Sandra Bullock in this film, and I couldn't understand why he would consider even leaving his wife-to-be for this chick that he supposedly was knocked out by. There was better chemistry between him and Liv Tyler in Armageddon. Hell, there was better chemistry between Sly and Sandra in Demolition Man.

There were several moments in the movie that just didn't need to be there and were excruciatingly slow moving.

This was a poor remake of \"My Best Friends Wedding\". Wait until it's been out for a year and a half on video and rent it in the .49 cent bin if you've got nothing else to do on a rainy Sunday afternoon, and you can't think of any better movies to rent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It seems on the surface to be a romantic _planes, trains and automobiles_ but at times tried for something more, where it failed miserably. Some may like the nontraditional ending, but the attempts at \"deep insight\" into the world of marriage flopped around not really going anywhere.

But if you were interested by the story, the movie tried other methods to distract you. The unnecessary special effects, of which the falling rain was the most obvious, served to do nothing but annoy. The camera-work is erratic at best.

One note of caution, however. My movie experience as a whole was less than satisfying, sitting in the first row with a group of young'uns around...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was by far one of the worst movies Sandra Bullock has starred in. Ben Affleck should stay behind the camera and continue writing scripts. This is definitely his forte and acting is not. I actually lasted 54 minutes into this movie before I was so bored with it I felt compelled to leave the theater. It's a bore from beginning to, well 54 minutes into the film anyway. The premise of \"Guess what happened to me on the way to the ....\" has been done over and over to death. Somehow there just doesn't seem to be anything funny, or romantic about people cheating on each other. Parents should be aware that this may not be a suitable film for your teenage children especially impressionable ones that may view Sandra as a hero. There is a scene where the writers\/producers\/directors thought it would be nice to show how \"acceptable\" it is to smoke a joint .... while driving .... and then have no consequences at all when caught. I'm no prude, and I smoked my share when I was younger but I guarantee you I won't take my teenagers to see it and they're solid A & B students. If you want to see a good Sandra Bullock movie, rent \"The Net\" or \"Hope Floats\" which I believe are two of her best works.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Pathetic in almost every way.

I threw the DVD straight in the bin - I didn't even think it was fair to give it to the local thrift shop.

The effects are beyond a joke. The dam control room looks like cardboard. The water looks way out of scale with the backgrounds - nothing works.

Then there is the limp plot - about as much depth as a Scooby Doo cartoon.

I couldn't wait for them all to drown.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Killer Flood: The Day the Damn Broke: 1\/10: Finally a movie whose title is spoiler proof. Even by the low standards of disaster movies, excuse me allow me to correct myself, even by the low standards of made for TV disaster movies this is truly awful. Where do I begin?

The dam modeler may have once seen a photo of a dam but I doubt it. Most dams, especially large ones that generate electricity have oh I don't know a power plant nearby, some sluice gates for water to run through, heck even a high tension electrical wire or two.

The dam is also somewhat understaffed. Two, count them, two employees staff the entire dam, all three shifts. And the employees were apparently imported from a clich\u00e9d ridden world war two film, as they heroically and rather needlessly have long eulogized death scenes complete with photos of grandchildrenn floating by. Heck one of them manages to get shot by the dam itself in a way that defies description.

The special effects consist of flowing water superimposed on photo's of the town in a method that makes a sixties Godzilla film look like the Matrix. A three-year-old drawing with a blue crayon on the film stock would have yielded better results. Since the disaster money shots are worthless how is the rest of the film?

Needless to say the script and acting follow the special effects lead. This is no diamond in the rough. This is the rough. So is it a guilty pleasure? Killer Flood is awful enough to generate some laughs and the film itself has that earnest incompetence that makes a good cult classic, but bad disaster films need to age like a fine wine. (Avalanche, The Swarm, Meteor) It is also doubtful that Michelle Green hiding from the flood in a dumpster with a golden retriever will ever match the great Henry Fonda being pelted by raisins that are supposed to be killer bees. Check back with me in 2024.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a dreadful movie. The effects were poor, especially by todays standards, but that was forgivable. What was unforgivable was the terrible rehashing of every flood\/dam breaks disaster movie ever made into this piece of trash. The acting was awful and I mean AWFUL. The point in the story where Michelle Green stops to rescue a dog from the approaching torrent was hilarious. They see the water approaching and run for their lives. (By the way they had to find a very old fat dog so as to not make Ms Green look to unfit). They manage to outpace the water for some time before taking refuge. What speed! Later, a speeding car is not fast enough to escape the torrent. God, she and that dog did run fast! If you want to watch a good movie about a dam breaking - this isn't it. Porchlight Entertainment turn out some good family films but this time they just missed the mark.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those made-for-TV B movies that is so awful it kind of endears.

Bad acting, predictable script and cheesy special effects that were pretty much some of the cheapest tat seen make you have to keep watching to see if it gets any better.

It doesn't!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even a awful 1 is to much for this film, everything form start to finish made you cringe. I don't think it would be possible to cram more overly clich\u00e9d moments, into one piece of mind numbingly numbingly waste of film.

Prisoner cell block H meets Thunderbirds, hell even Virgil's expressions were more life like than his son.

I haven't even finished watching this and I'm on here now.... Oh no, the cheesy clapping of 3 actors and a backdrop done by a child with adobe premiere. This truly is the end of my \"I've started so I'll finish watching it\" phase.

Oh joy, the credits have come to rescue me. (and relax)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the director of this movie must have been mentally ill or even high ... when he accepted to direct this movie... ... i'd rather stare at my ceiling for 5 hours straight instead of being ... punished to watch that stupid movie ... my parents make me watch it as punishment...... ... Don't WATCH IT !!! the director of this movie must have been mentally ill or even high ... when he accepted to direct this movie... ... i'd rather stare at my ceiling for 5 hours straight instead of being ... punished to watch that stupid movie ... my parents make me watch it as punishment...... ... Don't WATCH IT !!! the director of this movie must have been mentally ill or even high ... when he accepted to direct this movie... ... i'd rather stare at my ceiling for 5 hours straight instead of being ... punished to watch that stupid movie ... my parents make me watch it as punishment...... ... Don't WATCH IT !!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"when i first saw this movie i was literally rolling around on the floor laughing (especially when they were getting chased by the water, and when the guy drove through peoples gardens, i mean would it hurt to drive around the washing line?) the special effects! this movie clearly didn't have a big budget. either that or the guy left his toddler in charge of the controls. the water coming out of the damn looked like a close up of a can of beer that had fizzed up. what were the actors thinking? did they actually believe that it was a good movie? or did they just really need the money? not that they would've earned a lot. when i first saw this, i was like 'god, how old is this?' when i looked on the info about it and saw that it was made in 2003, i thought my TV was broken.

this really is a disaster movie, in more ways than one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie doesn't even have the saving grace of being so bad that its good. It is truly appalling. Its closer to a tongue-in-cheek parody than a disaster movie, but alas they were serious. Made for TV, but not worthy of even that. It contains every clich\u00e9 and cheesy plot moment you can imagine. Oh will he save the town from the flood? Will his wife admit that she still loves him? Will they escape before the flood drowns them? I cant explain how bad this is. Awful predictable plot that makes you wince it is so cheesy. Bad Effects (although to be fair I have seen worse super-imposed bubbling water). Bad script. Woeful acting. Hideous. So bad in fact that you probably should get drunk and watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why can't there be better TV movies made I was at a loose end today and watched this film on a satellite channel in the UK. What a terrible waste of my time it was . Poor sets, Poor acting & Oh my god what a terrible flood . Blimey that woman can even outrun a torrent of water too!.

I really wish that people would make TV movies using better effects, better or at least more believable plots & far better acting. Killer Flood is well up there with poor acting. A few bits of ham couldn't act any worse.

1 final thing I really agree with the comment about the dog, but I believe it would of already scarpered in real life!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Right... so you have a dam, tons of water (that seems to flow really really slowly) and a small town that happens to be right underneath the dams path of destruction. Throw in a profiteering glutton, an apparently mentally unstable and disgruntled architect and his son, and then to spice things up you add a weak plot and bad acting. All in all, when you have a look at this film from a paying customers point of view... I would feel extremely peeved off if this was a pay-per-view film. If you want a laugh... then you really need to watch this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i though this film was okay.i din't think it was great.it was a bit too slow for my taste.lots of drama,but not very much action until close to the end of the film.this movie was basically a dramatic film,with the payoff,if you can call it that,not until near the end.to me,the scenes of the dam bursting and the water flooding the town,were okay,but much too brief.the film itself is done okay,the acting is decent,but it just didn't do it for me,in the long run.think it had something to do with the fact that there was very little suspense or tension built through the whole movie.at least that's what i think.the other factor is that i had just recently watched '10.5' and its sequel '10.5:Apocalypse'.these are 2 big budget \"event movies,which,in my opinion, are a very hard act to follow,in terms of special effects and scenes of destruction.as a result,i have to rate Killer Flood:the Day the Damn Broke at 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this movie to kill some time. I remember Cole Hauser in \"Tigerland\", and although his acting is wooden, he does portray a tough \"leader\" character. Same here. This movie was about a bunch of young, hot scientists and divers exploring a cave in Romania that one has to dive to see. The beginning scene was very interesting, with a bunch of Romanian or Russian men exploring the cave in search of booty. Flash forward 30 years, and we have a team of divers called in by some scientist and his crew to explore some cave for some unknown scientific purpose.

There is a lot of clich\u00e9d, useless talk. The women are too hot for their jobs, let's face it. I hate to watch the lips of these women talk about the guys while drinking beer at the pre-cave exploration party. I mean it was like we were at some bar with frat and sorority types talking about the opposite sex--not a group of scientists and divers. Every character had ZERO personality, with perhaps exception of the scientist, who at least wasn't one of the young and beautiful people. So, the acting, although workmanlike, was not inspiring.

The dialog was pretty bad. At one point in the movie, Cole Hauser (\"Jack\"), the lead diver--his irises morph into the Cingular wireless symbol, and stay like that. We are led to believe that, since he was scratched by one of these monsters, that he is turning into one of them. Fair enough. But first of all, nobody says the obvious thing to him: \"What is up with your EYES, dude??\" No. Everybody just talked about how he's \"changed\" and that he should not be the leader of the group anymore. And then this guy says, \"you see how he's not HUMAN\". Huh? If they really believed he was a friggin' monster, then why not act like it? Instead, the group splits in two--those who go with Jack, and those who go their separate ways, I guess thinking him to be a monster. It makes no sense.

The best scene in the movie was this blonde diver woman crawls up a cave wall, and gets attacked by this goblin. Her scream really sucked--but she fought like hell to dispatch the goblin.

The photography was fine when the camera was STILL. But any action sequences, the director found it useful to confuse the hell out of us by flashing bubbles, flashlights, dark space, god knows what. I wish they would just show us a scene straight once in awhile. Just because you move the camera all over the place doesn't make the movie any SCARIER, folks.

This movie could have been a lot better if the following changes had been made:

1. every actor was replaced by someone who looked real. Let Cole Hauser be the lead, it's OK to let him be the good-looking one. I'm getting tired of seeing 20-something supermodel scientists. Give me a break, people!

2. The cinematographer was fired, and replaced by one who just pointed the camera and sat still. This could be the director's fault, I don't know. Jumpy camera (as in Constant Gardener) is getting old, folks.

3. We got to see the goblins actually devour the people. How bout some gore? There's not much else in this movie. We barely got to see the creatures--I felt a little ripped off about that.

4. The ending was pretty lame. During the denouement, the sexy British scientist has a secret...guess what that is? It's a bit canned. The ending would have been better if they all died instead of the Black guy (Morris Chestnut), who seemed to breathe a little sympathy into his character just by his worried expressions. All the other actors had NO expression.

I gave it a 4 out of 10, because after all, the acting was without noticeable errors, and the concept was fairly original. I'd like to see Cole do more military roles--he's good at it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The scariest thing about this horror movie is that the end alludes to a sequel. 'The Cave' is really a disappointing action movie. A team of cave and undersea researchers go to Romania (one of these inexpensive places to make a movie, for now at least) and following a destroyed church enter in a cave that proves to be a realm of underground monsters. Or are they daemons? The movie never decides if it wants to be action, science fiction, or horror, it is a mix of all without salt or fun, and acted in a wooden manner. The best thing about the movie is the cinematography, but even the dark landscape of the cave becomes soon boring, because the film lacks pace and the characters are simply not interesting. Waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How unfortunate, yet also fortunate, that two films about pot-holing -The Cave and The Descent - should arrive at much the same time. Sadly for The Descent its release in the UK on 7th of July coincided with the very day of the London underground tube\/metro terrorist atrocity that killed almost 60 and injured hundreds - not a particularly good night\/weekend to pop out to the cinema, especially to see a scary-as-sheesh film about likable women being trapped in a deep, dark, claustrophobic underground caving system. The two movies have virtually the same elements - a half dozen or so characters, lost in a previously unexplored caving system, with no-one outside aware they are trapped down there. Lots of water, caverns, danger... then ultimately some vicious human-like or human-derived creatures determined to prey upon them. Where the two are so different is that The Cave is unreal, entirely unbelievable, more Alien-esquire sci-fi fantasy adventure than horror, or drama. The comparatively minuscule-budgeted British film (filmed in southern England though set in the Appalachians) is five-pair-of-pants terrifying, a heart-stopping shocker so stomach turning that people walk out of screenings early in shock. It knocks off the girls in any old order - you genuinely have no idea what to expect next - surely not her! The Descent is also lit in naturalistic manner, making it all the more scary, unlike the laughably lit Cave which resembles a giant magical Christmas Santa's grotto, with cathedral-sized room after room dazzling in gloriously blue light from... who knows where, while the cavers torches are employed exclusively in artistically lighting up the granite-jawed heroes (each more puppet-like than any Team America \/ Gerry Anderson \/ Thunderbirds creation). Fantastic amounts of equipment are carried too, yet despite this the impossibly deep-voiced actors clearly forgot to pack any sense of impending danger, drama, or anything worthy of a horror film - it's strictly PG rated. And in this instance the actors peg out in exactly the order that everyone expects them to - i quickly wrote a list after being introduced to each character, only getting Piper Perabo out of sequence. The Cave script is entirely by-numbers, unlike Shakespeare a room full of chimpanzees would eventually write it in under a week... Take a typical exchange between the 'good buddy' white and black leads that goes; \"how many times have we been in this situation before bud?\" - \"too many\" (replies Morris Chesnut). I swear, you could hear my suburban London audience gasp at the obviousness. The scariest thing about The Cave is that at the end there's a clear opening for 'the sequel' - 'The Cave 2: Overground' or whatever. Be afraid, be very afraid... Or instead catch The Descent and be truly afraid, very very very afraid. RR","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this film from Blockbust because of the Cover and Title! Sounded intriguing!! This movie suffered because of the writing, it needed more suspense. The \"monsters\" needed more face time. We needed them to have some sort of special power and definitely more \"Oh Sh--\" moments. The photography didn't bother me except for the scene where a re-breather blows up. There were too many close ups. But other than that the movie seemed to drag and the heroes didn't really work for their freedom. Overall, I would say everyone put in a lot of time even the writers. But this movie is definitely a below average rent.

There are definitely better picks. I would recommend Anacondas 1 or 2 over this pick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mixed group of \"experts\" (explorers, divers and scientists) venture a mile underground and go another 2.4 miles underwater to a spot even more remote, where they find salamanders, giant albino moles (??) and some big, razor-fanged, winged, computer generated creatures lurking about. The cave is sealed off by a rockslide and then the monsters attack and start killing everyone off as they search for an exit. And that's all she wrote with this low-aiming effort that even fails to combine action, science fiction and horror on the most elementary of levels. Imagine if someone gave the folks at the Sci-Fi Channel 30 million dollars to make a monster movie. That's precisely what THE CAVE is like; almost startling in its ineptitude at times, full of clich\u00e9s and almost entirely dependent on the special effects to entertain. The only difference is they had more money to build sets, more money to polish up the monsters and more money to hire supposedly professional actors who give awful performances anyway. Otherwise, it's business as usual. Some of these movies are still fun to watch. This one is not and there are loads of reasons why:

1.) It takes itself far too seriously and has no sense of humor whatsoever. So you get a completely unoriginal and predictable movie that doesn't even recognize how unoriginal and predictable it is.

2.) The opening sequence serves no purpose whatsoever other than killing a few minutes and adding to the redundancy.

3.) Unoriginal looking CGI creatures are not impressing anyone in this day and age.

4.) Utilizing shakycam and quick-cut editing for your horror scenes is simply lazy, unimaginative film-making. And why further obscure the action by making things too dark AND adding annoying distractions, such as fire and explosion of bubbles? It makes these scenes not only difficult to see, but also impossible to enjoy even on a no-brainer action level.

5.) Even though it wants you take to it seriously, the script is full of clich\u00e9s, the dialogue is awful and there's no attempt whatsoever at characterization. Casting 25-year-old-looking model types in roles as brilliant scientists and gruff veteran explorers might provide some eye candy but it completely kills the credibility of a movie that otherwise plays out completely straight. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

6.) There were two exceptions to the model rule, as they did decide to cast an old guy and an average looking Joe. These were the first two characters killed off.

7.) For a little diversity, they also squeezed in a black guy and a Chinese guy. Strangely, neither are given much of a voice in this film and basically stand in the background as whitey discusses what their next move will be. Insulting.

8.) Furthermore, how many movies have to be made where a black character sacrifices his life at the very end just to ensure Hot White Female Lead and Hot White Male Lead end up together at the end? Ugh. Give me a break already.

9.) Much of the acting was HORRIBLE. Cole Hauser's performance was completely laughable. The other male lead looked like he just walked off the set of a Soap Opera and coasted by using the patented dimpled-smile-makes-all-the-ladies-swoon technique, which is the PG-13 gender-switch equivalent to my-large-breasts-make-all-the-guys-swoon technique often used by ladies in R-rated films. Either way, his performance was completely phoned in. Daniel Dae Kim (from the TV series \"Lost\") and Piper Perabo also stunk up the room with their stilted and monotone line delivery.

10.) Was the ending a joke? Absolutely terrible. Please God, we do not need a sequel to this garbage.

So basically I wouldn't bother with this one, unless you've never seen a monster movie before or if you're just really desperate and the only other thing on is \"The Simple Life.\" The sets were good, the blue-tinted photography is OK and a few of the actors (Lena Headey, Marcel Iures...) tried their best, so I decided to boost the rating up one notch to a \"2.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think that most people would agree with me if I were to say that the movie Alien pretty much set the bar for atmosphere. I've seen quite a few movies match that bar but none have ever exceeded Alien's eerie tunnels and darkened halls. The Cave is a film that tries very hard to reset the bar. I believe the trailer even mentioned something about being as scary as Alien yet not once throughout the movie did I ever feel even the slightest bit scared, or thrilled for that matter.

So now that we got the ball of negativity rolling I might as well explain why the Cave's main hook (the atmosphere in case you weren't paying attention) fizzled into a waste of my time. I'll say right now that most of the sets were gorgeous and nicely lit but what we hear and what we know is there tend to ruin what we see. The music for one is terrible. We either get corny rock music or over exaggerated haunted house music. Okay maybe that's pushing it a bit but I couldn't bear it. The many underwater scenes were bad enough (it's a well-known fact that underwater scenes are always boring as hell) I didn't need rock music blaring in my ears while they were simply swimming through a cave. This actually produced a lot of unintentional laughter that was then amplified by the following watercraft crash scene.

Anyway as I already mentioned, it wasn't just the music that killed the atmosphere, heck no. The creatures hiding amongst the darkness are supposed to invoke horror. I'm supposed to be worried that they are going to appear and merely a glimpse of them is supposed to make my blood turn cold. The Cave does wisely take a page from the alien handbook by not showing the entire creature for very long and leading up to the reveal with only glimpses but it just doesn't work because the creatures are so lame. I guess it would be rude to spoil the specifics but they are basically the aliens with wings.

I guess you get the point by now. Atmosphere ruined. Yet I know plenty of people who will still see a movie if it's exciting. I'd like to say that about the Cave but I'd be lying. This movie is slow to get to the action and once we get there we sort of wonder when the thing is going to finally call it a day. We've seen all this done better before with the exception of a few neat scenes (the guy impaled on stalactites, the eel and the rapids) so you really don't get any thrills from watching people running from uninspired alien knockoffs in endless tunnels.

Ah but no the pain doesn't end there. We must also take the characters and acting into account. Well I can't remember a single line of dialogue other than \"run!\" and the only character's name I can remember is Jack but that's only because it's placed in almost every other line near the end of the movie. Perhaps the actors were capable but the script didn't allow them to do anything other then run and argue. They had almost no background and whenever somebody died they simply shrugged it off. It's pretty sad when you consider that the CGI eel puts on the best performance in the film.

Speaking of CGI; there's plenty of it, most of which is terrible. I do commend them on using suits (at least I THINK they were suits) but nothing truly meshes with the environment and as a result most of the effects end up looking pretty hokey.

So I guess to wrap it up, the Cave is bad and has very little going for it. Had the film been a SciFi channel premiere movie or low budget direct to video release I might have a bit more love for it but this film was a theatrical release. With more wit and talent this might have been a frighteningly fun movie but as it stands this film is about as scary as going into the basement and that's not very good.

My review from Frider Waves: http:\/\/friderwaves.com\/index.php?page=cave","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The mission to see the movie \"The Cave\" was a dream of a friend of mine after witnessing the highly dramatic trailer, full of flashes of a creature lurking in a cave, some young cave divers, and not much else. It's too bad that the movie didn't change much more than the trailer did.

The immediate allure of a movie like this is the creature. What's he going to look like? Why does he live in a cave? How is this one supposed to be different from the other creatures we've been shown in movies like Alien and Predator and the Relic? The cave \"demons\" do not look far from the skeletal creature in Alien: Resurrection and even has the sight of Predator. Shame that's a total ripoff...

Well, let's look at the plot: very confusing and jumps to more and more totally improbable twists as a team of cave divers is sent to find a cave and its dwellers in the Carpathian Mountains. The casting was very much clear that we want young, hip, tough chicks, chiseled guys, and the girls who have brains also have to be hot. We also have to have one of every racial background in case the audience thinks that the film-makers are biased to a certain viewpoint. Totally been done, and I'm totally tired of it.

The other main problem was the ending, as if to say there might be a sequel. Plase shoot me if there is one. The tagged on ending made me wretch.

I gave this movie 3\/10 stars. The points that it did get were more or less appreciation points towards the creature-builders for their high-quality job spent on the costuming and design for the monsters who dwell within, even when they looked totally ripped off. And there's an interesting (yet labored) documentary on the DVD on underwater cave diving. Go check it out only if you love new creations of monsters and creatures, but be warned that you've probably seen this movie before, and it was better the first time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dire! Dismal! Awful! Laughable! Disappointing!

Right, your trapped in \"The Cave\" with several \"hard\" Men and a Woman or two, your being systematically killed by \"Something\" and you STILL don't get to hear ANY naughty Grown Up words!!! A 15 Cert' here in England, and you could tell!

The Egos of the \"Macho Men\" was just too much, pass the bucket I'm going to be sick.

This movie should never be exposed to daylight and ironically, be kept in the darkest, deepest hole in the ground and be forgotten forever. I have a feeling that this description isn't the first time to pop its his head from a hole in the ground.

Just like the film The Cube, it looked like a good concept but was just let down at the last post by, well its self.

This Comment contains Spoilers alright, its called The Cave.

Thanks Bruce.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Its perhaps unfair of me to comment on this film , because , for the first time ever , I switched off a movie because it was so bad. I can watch anything , but this movie was so very boring. I was bored before I put on the DVD and thought this might be a laughable action horror\/ action movie to lighten the mood. It is not even that , it is a device which increases the level of boredom by the power of 100. Had to switch it off after 45 minutes because all that had happened in that time was some people had been scuba diving , and a big mole had been discovered. Seriously , this movie is not worth the time, even if you can enjoy a bad movie like i can , avoid this film like the plague.Worst thing I have seen in years.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some sciencey people go down in a cave for some reason and there's some sort of creature that's killing them.

I usually give a more detailed plot, but I wasn't paying too much attention to this. Overall, it was dull and the only time you'll be really paying attention is during the action scenes, which the director did wonderful on.

The acting is alright, but the characters are so dull and forgettable they blend in your mind. You'll forget who lived and who died for 2 reasons: 1. The kills are boring 2. The characters are boring.

The ending might have shocked me more if I knew who was who.

So you're looking for a creatures-in-cave movie? Check out The Descent instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Cave\" got released more or less simultaneously with the English film \"The Descent\", directed by Neil Marshall. Both movies share a similar premise; only \"The Cave\" is dreadfully unoriginal, unexciting and incompetent compared to the splendid horror adventure that is \"The Descent\". It feels like Neil Marshall realized that the basic story was too poor and instantly added ingenious ideas, depth and a personalized style, whereas \"The Cave\"-director Bruce Hunt simply went for the most rudimentary elaboration of the screenplay that was thrown on his desk. The result is an unbelievably mediocre film that features every single horror clich\u00e9 you can think of and in which most of the violence happens off-screen. And we all hate that, don't we? The story introduces a clique of insufferable cave-divers that become trapped in a completely undiscovered Romanian underground ecosystem. Hideous winged creatures, that also happen to be parasites, soon attack them and escape seems impossible due to a landslide. The first half hour is still mildly entertaining if you keep yourself busy with spotting all the clich\u00e9s and listening to the cheesy textbook dialogs, but the whole thing just gets too dire. None of the events are even slightly plausible and it looks like the entire cast is competing with each other to deliver the WORST performance. I've seen better special effects in anonymous B-movies already, the filming locations aren't used to the fullest and the ending downright sucks! Very much NOT recommended!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't help but forget that incredible scene in Alien, when the extra terrestrial burst out of one of the men's chest. Or even in Predator when the invisible monster snuck upon the bewildered soldiers and cut them to pieces. Both these movies expressed fascinating ideas on the run-of-the-mill creature feature. Back track to the era of cheesy B-movies and watch big men in phony suits parading around killing people in small towns. Now recognize that the two movies above revolutionized this genre. The Cave does nothing to improve on it. It tries nothing new, and worst of all, The Cave doesn't even have good gore. Shame on them, shame on them all.

Parading around in sexy spandex are the one-dimensional characters of The Cave. All of which seem to not care when they witness the death of their colleagues. They just stroll along, unbeknownst to the evil creature lurking in the darkness. The plot is very easy to understand. So you got the two brothers, the black guy and the sexy female scientist. The rest (by the rest I mean all of those meet grisly demises) are even more unexciting then the others. We have the Korean assistant, the risky outdoor chick, a Russian scientist and two divers, both lacking a sense of emotion and are stupid enough to wander off by themselves. This movie exceeds to be extremely clich\u00e9d, since everybody but the black guy, one of the brothers and the female scientist meet an end. It also seems only Americans can survive the terror, since the Russian and the Korean die. Don't be offended if I give away details. There's no real surprise anyway.

To be straight forward they find this cave. They go in the cave. They get stuck in the cave. They start dying in the cave. One of them gets infected in the cave. More die in the cave. They get out of the cave; only to discover that one of them has a parasite that will turn them into a ghastly monster, which really doesn't seem to bother them. That's the simplicity of the lackluster plot. It doesn't even try to be original. It even has the part where they decide their leader isn't capable and split up. We have just seen this way to many times before.

I know in a movie like this, people don't care about the performances but it's worth mentioning how bad they were. Everyone is just so dreary. Cole Hauser was especially unsophisticated and don't get me started on Eddie Cibrian, who is frequently a lot better. Morris Chestnut is hands down the best thing in the movie. His performance is actually decent. He portrays the guy who calms everybody down. All the other actors are average at best. In a show like this, that's really not a bad thing.

Now to the reason we go to this genre of film; the action, of course. Well, to my regret, the action was dull. The death scenes are all boring, hell the whole movie was. There is barely any blood at all. It's either they disappear and found later or they are attack and die without a bruise. Seeing the Koreans man's death was the only exciting action I could find.

It's pretty amazing. The bad things over shadow most of the things that are good. A good example is to say the special effects were well done, which they were. The only thing wrong is that since everything takes place in a cave, it's going to be dark. I found it extremely hard to distinguish between the cave walls and the monsters. So it was pretty hard to even see the creatures. Although I liked the special effects, there was nothing original about the monsters. They all resembled each other and they weren't frightening at all.

The Cave marks the directorial debut for Bruce Hunt. I don't see what he was trying to accomplish by making this film. He obviously made a huge mistake. Almost everything about this movie stunk like a stink bomb. A stink bomb is probably even more pleasurable than watching this mess again. Only the most forgiving moviegoer will find this forgivable. I gave up all hope in the middle of the film when I heard the phrase \"what the hell was that\", for the third time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie \"The Cave\" has got to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There was no plot, no story-line, and the lighting was terrible. For most of the movie, I was unable to make sense of the scenery as it was being highlighted by flashlights. The persistent 'grey' spaces throughout the movie were irksome. The only scene that really came through clearly was in the cavern lit by what appeared to be a bad simulation of the conditions to be found in Hell. All in all, the movie was not really worth watching. If the producers cannot come up with something better than this, they should find another occupation. The underwater scenes were particularly awful, being mostly made up of bubbles and flashlights, with the occasional look at the actors. In summation, a really awful movie with bad lighting, extraneous flashes throughout.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I totally agree. This is \"Pitch Black underground\" and a well worn plot. The best scenes I thought were the divers exploring the caves, going through impossible subterranean passageways, some of them were heart pounding. The scenery was great. Had they dispensed with the staple \"alien\" toothy CGI badboys entirely the movie would have been much better. All they would have had to do is never show any monsters at all but have everyone wondering, and follow Jack's descent into madness, and this might have been a top rate hitchcock-style thriller, maybe award material. The acting isn't bad. But those rubber bats just reduce it to standard fare.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Take your video camera, turn out all the lights in your house and film people running around with flashlights for an hour and a half and you've got the basic idea of what this film looks like. It is very irritating to watch this kind of movie. To be fair, there are scenes of daylight at the very beginning and very end of the movie. I like scary movies and creature features but this one just didn't do a thing for me. So sorry. I really tried to like it. There didn't seem to be much of a plot other than we've got to find a way out of here. Didn't learn too much about any of the characters so it didn't matter if we lost one or two along the way. This isn't the worst movie in the world. \"Open Water\" holds that title for now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That's how I was when I walked (staggered) out of this \"film\". I couldn't leave, because it was at a film festival and the cinema was full of people. I was stuck in the middle. Trapped.

The tiny fragment of original footage which attempted to bind this film together features some of the worst acting ever to grace the big screen. The daughter was a stand out performance - stand out in the bad sense.

Thge cinematography was hideous, consisting of disjointed framing and some of the oddest lighting I've witnessed.

As for the stock footage... well at first one...

Wait.

Why am I reviewing this film? Why do I acknowledge its existence? Please, don't watch it. Do something useful with two hours of your life and go watch some paint dry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, I saw this film through Mystery Science Theater 3000, but I did see the movie, so I figured I would leave a comment on it. I just love once again how Joe gets stuck with the crummy roles while his brother and nephew's are just getting the Oscar winning roles left and right. Soultaker is technically what you would call the movie that was meant to be good. It seemed like the director and actors just took this movie extremely seriously and had very cheesy effects, a story that didn't make much sense, and not to mention pretty crummy acting abilities. This is one of my favorite MST3K episodes, simple because a lot of what they mention is what we are thinking throughout the film and I'll explain why in a moment.

Natalie and Zach are a couple who broke up and are now trying to work things over. But since Zach is in upper lower class and Natalie is in middle class, it just ain't gonna work. But on the way home, they and Zach's friends get into a car accident and now the angel of death\/Soultaker is after them to meet his quota of soultaking. But also it seems like he's had some kind of other life relationship with Natalie and just can't seem to move on. So now Natalie and Zach must race against the ever appearing five million times a minute clock to save their souls and lives.

Well, I guess Zeppelin was wrong when he sang that there was a stairway to Heaven, I wonder if Black Sabbith was wrong too, lol. Basically there are a lot of plot holes in this movies, like no one can see the characters and they can't be killed, yet somehow they can still press buttons and open doors? The Angel of Death had a very strange face and was a bit distracting from the story itself. Soultaker was just a lousy film that was rushed and makes you just feel so bad for Joe, the under-appreciated Sheen\/Estovez brother.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, I read the director's comment about this movie (featured as the 'frontmost comment'), and I have to admit that I can identify with his position.

Micheal, I hope your career recovered from this particular setback and you went on to other, better things. I've seen this movie in the MST3K form. Even with all the chopped continuity and snotty remarks being tossed out by the robots, I saw a potentially decent movie with an ambitious set of ideas trying to struggle out from under the limited budget and limited actors available to it. And this is one of those films (\"Mitchell\" is another) where the MST3K crew took a lot of cheap shots at the lead character even when she actually deserved better. You know they had some unfair fun at the actress' expense because it made for a livelier episode.

IMO, the fact that the movie actually tried to be ABOUT something, and had a few decent, effective moments here and there, should keep it out of the 'Bottom 100' (\"Tangents\/Time Chasers\" is another movie with a plot and a heart that doesn't deserve to be there either).

But it is still not a very good movie. I don't blame the writer\/lead actress for being who she is. It's just that her acting and writing skills needed a few more years to mature before she could pull off a vanity project such as this or carry a feature film. The writing and characterization is amateurish and slapdash, and the dialog is often barely up to ABC Afterschool Special standards. The cast sincerely gives it their best effort, and the acting in general is definitely head-and-shoulders above abortions like \"Future War\" or \"Space Mutiny\", but there aren't any really professional level performances here, with the exception of 'Big Joe' Estevez, who is hammy but suitably intense. I never saw the full original cut, but MST's sampling of \"Soultaker\" was representative enough to make these facts plain.

Oh, and the film has Robert Z'Dar in it. That is, IMO, a real 'Kiss Of Death' for any movie that hopes to be taken seriously. Yes, he's big and scary looking in his role, but I just hate the guy as an actor. (In real life, I wish him well and hope he is financially comfortable).

There were little things I liked about the film. For instance, the camaraderie between the male lead and his dead buddy added some warmth and humor to the movie and made it a lot more watchable. The idea of an elevator in the hospital that opened its doors to the Afterlife was an inspired way to invoke some spooky vibes without springing for special effects, and I respected whoever worked that into the script in attempt to keep the budget manageable. It didn't really work, but it might have with just a little more tweaking.

So anyway, Mr. Rissi, better luck with your other projects - your involvement with this misfire wouldn't keep me from watching something else you did if the 'buzz' was good. And Ms. Miller has nothing to be ashamed of - she was young and ambitious, and the movie wasn't THAT bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, to be fair this movie did have an interesting concept. Given a few script rewrites, some decent actors and a budget, this might have been a fairly decent cult flick instead of the MST3K fodder it turned out to be.

Still, it was better than \"Armageddon.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now I did watch this when it first came out on VHS, and all my friends and I thought it was a pretty good movie, but then again, we were teenagers. But honestly, not that good of a movie in retrospect. Sort of a hair metal, Dokken version of Carnival of Souls. But a bad movie does not exactly mean it is unwatchable; however, this one seems to lack the charm a lot of the regular Mst3k fodder usually contains. But if it was on cable, and I was bored and drinking beer--sure, I'd watch it again. But then again, I've watched Howling VII about five times now, so maybe you really shouldn't be listening to me.

Anyone else think it kind of sad that the director supposedly commented on his own movie? And why did he feel the urge to use caps lock so much?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When a movie's claim to fame is that Martin Sheen's younger, less known brother stars in it, you know it's not gonna' be a real good one. \"Soultaker\" is a low budget, silly film about a group of 20-something year olds being pursued by an angel of death. It's a stupid movie, but it is pretty entertaining, and even somehow slightly likable in it's stupidity.

The plot in the film is very small, and it's stretched about as far as it possibly can be. Joe Estevez isn't much of an actor, so luckily for the audience, he has very few lines and his role in mostly just him walking. This movie really feels like it was trying to be a horror\/fantasy franchise, considering it has the same plot layout as a slasher. 4 characters, each dies one at a time...will any live? Who really cares. Though it sounds like I hated this, I didn't. I just didn't like it very well, but I was interested through most of it, so I guess that counts for something.

My rating: * 1\/2 out of ****. 90 mins. PG-13 for language, violence and nudity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film Soultaker is essentially an older form Final Destination in which several car wrecked teens have their souls separated from their bodies and must cheat death who is chasing them... The film has its moments, and its concepts, the idea of disoriented souls being separated from their bodies is a pretty nifty idea... If this movie were remade with a few good actors\/actresses and some awesome special effects it could turn out to be extremely awesome... As for the actual film, I recommend watching the MST3K version, the pure version might be too boring to sit through, unless you love bad movies staring Martin Sheen's brother...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Soultaker was written by and starred Vivian Schilling. It also starred Joe Estevez, Gregg Thomsen, and Robert D'Zar as the Angel of Death.

The story begins with introduction to Soultaker, played by Joe Estevez. We quickly learn what Soultaker's role will be in this movie.

Next the college aged young people are getting ready for a summer festival, aptly named \"Summerfest\". In this film, the battle of the classes is omni-present throughout the film. The girls come from a wealthy class, and the guys come from roughly middle or lower class. The class roles seem to play a role in the film for some reason which isn't really clear or pertinent to the story.

At Summerfest we learn more about the apparent class struggles of why Zach isn't encouraged to date Natalie. Soultaker makes an appearance as well, with apparently his boss the Angel of Death. Here D'Zar's character points out who is to die and who's souls are to be taken. It's revealed as well, that Soultaker will have a character conflict regarding Natalie, and how he deals with her because of someone in his past.

Meanwhile Natalie is ditched by her ride to Summerfest, and Zach convinces her to ride home with them. During the ride home, Soultaker takes an active role causing them to wreck horribly at high speeds.

The rest of the story surrounds the Soultaker collecting the souls of the dead passengers, and Zach and Natalie trying to outwit him to return to their bodies so they can continue to live. The class and character conflicts lay in the story, but are really never brought to the forefront or resolved.

There's an attempt towards the end to drag out some of the drama, there's a lot of chasing and running which does tend to be really boring. It's not really acceptable, and it would've been nice had this been dealt with differently, somehow to maybe increase the drama but not bore the audience.

The story and acting are decent. The soundtrack is OK, and even the production values are good.

Robert D'Zar in his brief on screen appearances does a nice job as the Angel of Death. Joe Estevez does OK, however sometimes his role acting a bit flat. Vivian is pretty and does a decent job as Natalie, although perhaps over acting a bit in a few scenes.

This may sound odd, but this movie definitely could've benefited from some pointless nudity. Vivian teases us a bit but that wasn't enough.

In my opinion this was a pretty serious attempt at making a movie. The results, it's worth watching. Just don't expect a perfect production.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot of this movie is dangerously thin and the only \"star power\" if we can call it that consists of Joe Estevez. I don't know what is more shocking. The fact that this movie was made or the fact that some people actually gave good comments about it. If you ever see the cover of the video you'll be able to read them. Someone even went as far as saying that the actress\/writer could be the leading lady of the 90's. Yeah! And Joe Estevez could have more money than his brother Martin. If you want to check it out anyways I highly recommend watching the MTS version of it. At least you'll laugh a lot without going insane.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"But at least this movie got what it deserved - to be sent to the Satellite of Love to be ridiculed on by Mike, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot from Pearl Forrester on \"Mystery Science Theater 3000!\" \"Soultaker\" is one of those long lost, forgotten movies that are so bad you'll be guaranteed to have nightmares or depression later on in life. Even though the movie is not that old, it's still a very forgotten type of movie. If it had never been for the intelligent minds at \"Mystery Science Theater 3000,\" the movie would not only seem like it was never made, but the movie wouldn't be very enjoyable by us moviegoers.

In real life: this movie is really bad. In the Satellite of Love: this movie is excellent!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's the Sooooouullltakaaaa!

Wow. What a skin peeling bad movie. Honestly, this is one of my favorite episodes of MST3K.... Just some things to point out...

1) The incestuous lesbian mother-daughter exchange was weird. I do need counseling now.

2) There is no God, there is just Dude.. I love that quote from Crow.

3) Whatever did happen to the Nuns that took the bus home, will we ever know? I have a horrible emptiness in my stomach.

4) Lastly, don't watch this movie un-MSTied... It has Joe Estevez as the main star.. Yikes..

1\/10 for un-MSTied 8\/10 for MSTied.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This crock of doodoo won a award? They must have been desperate for giving out an award for something. This movie reeks of teeny bopper stuff and it made me sick. Thankfully I watched it alongside MST3K's Mike and the bots so it made it bearable. Horrid acting, unsettling mother\/daughter moment, silly premise, if you want a bad movie here it is. Be warned though watch it with Mike and the bots or you will suffer.

1 out of 10. I still can't believe it won an award, and the director is defending this *&&^$$#$^&& piece of ^%^%$^$#%@$#@ movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, I've read the comments by the director further down and I'd like to thank him for offering his opinion. I've always wondered what the makers of the films lambasted on MST3K felt about their works being shredded (not to mention how Best Brains acquired the rights). Rissi's comments make me curious, however, as to how much Sci-Fi could have cut the film to make it seem different (now I'm thinking I might rent it from NetFlix). Of course, I've never seen the uncut, non-MST3K version of this film but even having seen it on MST3K, I never thought of it as a bad film or something unwatchable (though I did think it was a pretty funny MST3K episode); certainly not, as Pearl describes it, \"skin-peelinging awful\"; not after seeing the likes of \"Future War\" and \"Hobgoblins.\"

As far as cutting the film, it's been done before on MST3K, at least once. Case in point: the Joe Don Baker flick, Mitchell, in which the subplot involving John Saxon's character is cut in the MST3K version, yet Joel and the Bots comment on Saxon's absence after his appearance in the beginning of the movie. If I may submit a criticism of MST3K, if you need to cut the film for time considerations, fine, but be fair to the film being cut (even if it is a film as lousy as Mitchell). Of course, such criticism is rather pointless what with the show being over, but I think that aspect of the show was kind of unfair. But anyway, if it's the case with Soultaker, it gets my sympathies.

Still, I maintain that it's an enjoyable MST3K episode though the movie itself, even the version that's been \"hacked\" in MST3K, is no where near terrible.

As a final note, in a weird coincidence or perhaps a case of Synchronicity, I happened to watch The Hudsucker Proxy the day Soultaker aired and wouldn't you know it, the guy who played Vivian Schelling's father had a bit part in that movie; one of his three other credited roles, actually. I thought that was kind of weird.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"that got destroyed quickly by the poor quality acting, cinematography, numerous pointless scenes and a terrible villain. Well let's see Joe Estevez is bad (as usual) but he isn't the only casting problem, writer Vivian Schilling is no great actress, in fact, well she sucks. Her script isn't so bad, it's just bad directed. In fact if the direction had been better and if better actors had been cast, this could have been a really good film.

But alas, with all of these problems \"Soultaker\" fails to be even kind of passable as a horror movie, plus the pacing is just awful too.

The MST crew had some fun with this one but it definitely wasn't one of their better efforts. 5 for that, nothing for the original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seems to me that Joe Estevez spends most of his time hidden under the shadow of his rather successful brother and appearing in really bad movies. Joe spends most his time walking around dressed in black and looking quite moody. He takes orders from a puffy faced angel of death, who you might recognize as the puffy faced villain from Tango & Cash and as the puffy faced cyborg from Future War. Well, Joe and Puffy have a job to do and it involves taking some souls of some kids in a big car being driven by a dumb galloot who questions Led Zeppelin. Well, the car crashes and the chase is on. The lucky kids to escape Joe look like Tonya Harding and Rick Springfield. They're chased around town, break things and Tonya gets leered at by her mom while she's undressing for a bath. The action winds up at a hospital where we learn that heaven is an elevator ride away. In the end, some green lights flash, Joe shouts and Puffy vanishes without a trace. Wish I could say the same for this movie. Watch it from the relative safety of MST.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, since I'm one of the people who never saw the MST3K chopped up version of this movie, I can't comment on that.

However, I DID see the original version of this movie on the Sci-Fi Channel and I thought it was just as good as anything else on that Channel. In fact, I thought it was one of their better offerings.

I've noticed in perusing the comments here that the people who write in detail about SOULTAKER with a modicum of intelligence, thoughtfulness and maturity tend to like at least a FEW things about this movie and rightly so. In it's original cut, most reasonable people I think would probably rate it at least 4 or 5 stars out of 10. Five is average to me and I think this movie is about average for a Sci Fi pic.

In contrast to the above, I've also noticed that the reviewers who seem immature, dull and flip and as a result come off as boneheads from where I stand, are the same ones who can't find anything good about this movie and basically trash it without cause based MOSTLY on seeing it chopped up and fricasseed on MST3K. Or if they have seen both cuts it seems they were greatly prejudiced by the MST3K viewing to begin with.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen both the MST3K version and the uncut version. I rather enjoyed it. Either way, it wasn't that bad of a movie. Sure it moved a bit slow at times. I liked it.

As far as MST3K goes, they only did the movies they could get the rights for. Not all the movies they ripped apart where bad movies, it was just so easy to make fun of them. Take SoulTaker for example.

Joe Estevez and Robert Z'Dar's characters where so inanimate and boringly silly I couldn't help but laugh. I couldn't take them seriously. It really created a unique feeling though.

Vivian Schilling did an excellent job with the script. A world better than 95% of the garbage in the theatres today. Her role was played well. Not too screamy not to masculine but just right. The camera really likes her in this movie. I would have casted her in that role after ready the script.

Anyways, this movie deserves a bit more credit than it is given. Please watch the uncut version if you see the MST3K. It deserves that much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Camals Are Coming is a rather disappointing British comedy from 1934. I purchased this because I like desert adventures and states on the box that it is a drama. It certainly isn't.

It is about a couple who head for Egypt to capture some desert drug smugglers.

This would have been much better if it had been done as a drama instead of a comedy, which lets it down a lot. It is quite silly in parts. Depsite this, there are some good action and location scenes.

The cast is lead by Jack Hulbert with Anna Lee as the love interest.

One viewing is enough for this movie. Overall, a disappointment.

Rating: 2 stars out of 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Abysmal pulp adventure exploitation in the jungle woman genre. Lousy audio thankfully obscures the dumb dialog. And it's awfully talky for a movie about people who don't speak English. There's no adventure to be found here; it's a jungle adventure with cliffhangers and one wild animal attack that happens in flashback.

Three pale-face dopes wander the African wilderness and encounter warring man-hungry tribes of Amazons. These wild women have advanced out of the Stone Age only so far as to invent makeup, shoes, and underarm hair removal technology. Despite their desperation for \"hus-bahnd,\" the ladies insist that they will fight the men and burn the weaker ones.

The only thing of interest, as if there were any question, is the assortment of young women clad in animal skins cleverly designed like the bathing suits of 1951. Plenty of wrestling and bad dancing mixed with stripless 1950s stripper moves. No nudity or appreciable violence. On the other hand, you may be humming the catchy native song for days.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot has something about white hunters captured by a tribe of white women in the African jungle\/ plains.Its a turkey and the some. What it really is is wildly mismatched footage from early sound and silent films mixed with badly shot recent(to the release) footage of men on a safari. There are scenes of a man in a gorilla suit, south seas natives at sea (used to represent people in the middle of Africa), women in bikini's, horrible narration and a guy in a loin cloth with make up all over his body (racially insensitive I think so). This is a movie to sit and make fun of- but only with lots of alcoholic drinks and witty friends. At any other time this is going to be a chore to get through. Its a bad bad bad movie. Beyond that I'm speechless","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This story is about a safari in Africa that meets some guy named Trent--who convinces them to look for a tribe of white babes. Naturally, they turn out to be amazon warriors and capture the men. The rest is pretty predictable.

This movie has everything you'd expect in a bargain basement movie about Africa--the substantial use of often irrelevant stock footage, film of animals that are NOT native to the continent (such as Orangutans, Moose, Coatamundis and Ground Hogs),a white actor in dark makeup playing a native, bad acting (particularly from Trent--a handsome man with the personality of balsa wood), comic relief (sounding like Chico Marx), a guy dressed up in a gorilla suit and bikini-clad white women with perms who are supposedly fierce jungle warriors--like a tribe of angry female Tarzans. By the look of it, my assumption is that the movie was made for under $49.95--including developing costs and paying for rental of the gorilla suit! But, what I didn't expect was an IMDb score of 4.9. This is poor, but not that poor considering that this is a schlock production in every possible sense and there is no conceivable reason why the film is rated that high! Now I am NOT saying the film isn't worth seeing--it's campy and stupid enough to make enjoyable viewing--particularly with friends. Just don't expect anything resembling a professionally made or competent film.

Finally, here's a smattering of the dialog from this jungle classic:

\"Oolama like strong white man. Oolama want strong white man...\"

\"oonga-bunga\"

\"me-te-tonga....no,....keeel ('kill') man\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie, although well shot and superbly acted, was awful. I felt as if I was watching a car accident--sure I kept watching but I really wanted to turn my head. The plot leaves little to be desired, was extremely disjointed, and the ending was abysmal. Although, it did fit the tone of the movie, I was hoping for something to improve this movie. I still don't understand what the references to rabies and the child get bit by the fox at the beginning of the movie. Fifteen minutes of plot that really didn't do much. It's really sad to see a movie with fine actors and a beautiful set wasted on such an awful, awful, story. There's not much more to say about this movie. Save yourself the time and watch c-span. It'll be more uplifting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll have to admit that I'm at a disadvantage here; when I learn more about a film from other reviewers than from watching it myself, then that's a problem. Although the plot of \"The Man Who Knew Too Much\" seems generally straightforward, the movie allows too many cryptic elements to get in the way of what could have been a satisfying mystery. By the time we get to the scene where a witchy looking woman establishes the secrecy of \"the first degree of the seven fold ray\", I didn't know whether to laugh or rewind to see if I missed something.

In retrospect, the cryptic note retrieved by Mr. Lawrence (Leslie Banks) from the handle of a shaving brush was a craftily written message, leading to a dentist named Barbor, and eventually to the Albert Hall, a place, not a person as indicated by \"A. Hall\". But for all the intrigue, it's never made clear why the assassination target was being eliminated. Okay, so Louis Bernard was killed because he knew of a plot to assassinate a diplomat named Ropa, but why was Ropa a target? Come to think of it, why was the note even written and secured in the shaving brush? Did Bernard have to refer to it every now and then to remind himself what was going to happen?

With it's disjointed scenes, \"The Man Who Knew Too Much\" is hard to follow and a bit disorienting, however I'll give Alfred Hitchcock credit for this early effort. For perspective, I'll have to watch some of his other work of the same era, though this movie certainly can't hold a candle to his later works like \"Psycho\" or \"North by Northwest\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All through his career Hitchcock did great films; this was not one of them.

A man knows too much, his daughter is kidnapped to secure his silence, and in the denouement all is resolved to the accompaniment of gunfire and rooftop drama.

Anyone who has seen 1930s Fritz Lang films- 'M' comes to mind- will know how far this urban narrative of crime and conscience falls short of what had already been done in that genre at that time. There is an altogether amateurish air about much of the staging and acting which subverts any sense of menace, darkness, and depravity that Hitchcock might have been seeking to instil.

What it is worth watching out for, however, is the sequence associated with the shooting at the Albert Hall. Once that kicks off it is as if the film has been given a blood transfusion. The camerawork is lively, the cuts are interesting, and the way that everything combines to a climax is masterly. Here you can see the future master: Hitchcock effortlessly orchestrate all the resources to impressive and memorable effect: when the scream comes you really feel as well as hear it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think the manuscript of this movie was written on the piece of toilet-paper. No respect whatsoever to many important details which intrinsically make the movie. For example, the names of some Serbian terrorists (that I remember) are Caradan Maldic, Ivanic Loyvek and Leo Hasse. What kind of names are that? Certainly not Serbian! By the way, Caradan Maldic!!! What a name, I laughed for days thinking about it. Probably an implication on Karadzic and Mladic. Secondly, there have never been any cases of terrorism done by Serbians. A journalist like the main character ought to have known that. Thirdly, the actors playing Serbian terrorists are not even Serbs nor do they speak Serbo-croatian. All this aside, this movie is solidly acted but the story is paper-thin and full of holes. At times it makes no sense whatsoever!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jeremy Irons and Forrest Whitaker are good actors. But this movie was badly written. First of all, during the hijack scene, Irons sits too comfortably in his chair...he appears to be READING something, and rather calmly too! Perhaps the director shot the actor in between takes? Also, the violence at the hijacking was a big letdown. Slow-mo, bullets flying--how his wife and daughter get killed is just not that interesting and the tension is lost. His grieving afterward wasted another 10 minutes. Then he decided to \"get revenge\" and talk to all his industry journalist friends and ambassadors (he's a journalist for the stuffy Economist rag) and lo and behold, they actually give him tips on where to find the bad guys! How do they know? But what really made me turn the movie off halfway through was when Irons finds his way into a warehouse where baddies are hanging out--BUT NOT THE BADDIES WHO KILLED HIS WIFE--and blows them away anyway. so he's just a murderer. he gets away and, well...I shut it off. I mean I couldn't figure out how his friends knew anything, and also I thought he was after the remaining 2 guys in custody who were the original hijackers. Instead he's going after their friends, I guess, or anyone who hangs out in warehouses and leaves automatic weapons laying around. The suspense was just totally conventional and the dialog was lame (\"it's OK son, crying helps,\" he says to his son. Son says \"no it doesn't\" and father says \"You're right..it doesn't.\")Irons takes on questionable roles--like that one dragon movie he did. He was excellent in Brideshead Revisited, which is a completely different animal than this lukewarm thriller.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe some of the scores this film is getting on the IMDb website! Have I been issued with the Special Edition naff version? Edited by Dewhurst, produced by Bernard Matthews, this film should be housed in Battersea. I'm sorry for all the UK-centric references but if you're elsewhere and you've got no toenails to cut or you haven't got a beer mat collection to catalogue then this film might just be worth 90 mins of your remaining lifespan (as long as you haven't got any paint to watch drying). The plot has more holes than a pair of fishnet stockings and the direction and editing is astonishingly ham fisted. What on earth is Irons doing in this film?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The bearings of western-style Feminism on the various subcultures of India have hitherto remained largely non-existent, the two entities belonging to alien realms and threatening (in the name of tradition) never to coincide. Art imitates life (or so the claim goes) and popular Hindi cinema is no exception, reflecting an underlying misogyny which, regrettably, forms the foundation of much of the collective Indian culture. But why? What is it about the female gender that has rendered it so hateful to the culture that women are routinely subject to the most unimaginable horrors, including rape, murder, infanticide, imposed illiteracy, infidelity, and the subjugation of spirit that goes under the name of 'dowry'? Rajkumar Santoshi's latest offering, \"Lajja\", asks the same plaintive question, linking the atrocities committed against women through three separate chapters\/episodes which comprise the journey of shame endured by its protagonist, Vaidehi (Manisha Koirala).

Direction on Santoshi's part is not up to par with the level the story demands. He fails to achieve the necessary sensitivity in depicting the saga of sadness and confronts the issue of misogyny from the side, instead of head-on. Santoshi has recently said that he did not make the film for an international film festival, but rather for the masses of his country. Regrettably, the tackiness shows, and the film too often delves into the action-blood-gore genre that Santoshi specializes in. The film suffers from its jerky, episodic pace and its ending is rather too contrived.

The female cast is given much kinder and more rounded characterizations than their male counterparts. The protagonist is played sensitively by the luminescently beautiful Manisha Koirala who proves in Lajja that she is one of our time's more competent leading ladies, and given a proper role and set up, emerges with a truly commendable performance. One wonders how brilliantly she may have shone had the film been made by a director with the appropriate creative intention and appreciation of the issue at hand. Mahima Choudhary puts in a laudable performance and continues to show that she is an untapped talent. Cast as Janki, Madhuri Dixit performs with a never-before-seen fervor and felicity for what truly deserves the name of 'acting.' The role of a street smart performer who finds solace in alcohol and the promise of an unborn child stands as the greatest risk in her cannon of song-n-dance roles which have maintained her marquee status over the past decade. Which leaves the final and most disturbing performance in this would-be feminist saga, that of the ceaselessly talented Rekha. Lajja is Manisha Koirala's film, there can be no doubt about that, but it is Rekha who dominates the proceedings in a performance that digs into your bones and sends echoes of terror through the vestibules of your heart. Rekha dazzles as Ramdulari, foregoing vanity and complacency to deliver a performance that is so replete with authenticity and ingenuity that emotional nudity becomes the mantra of this portion of the film. Comparisons are indeed odious, especially when rendered opposite one of the world's great leading ladies, but in the gracious presence of this reigning screen legend the others fade in her shadow.

\"Lajja\" has none of the sophistication of proto-feminist dramas like \"Zubeidaa\", \"Pinjar\", or even the Hell-Queen celebration \"Laadla\": it fulfills its feministic goals in two early moments:the loud tirade in which Mahima berates her in-laws for their abuse of her father who has committed no other crime than given birth to a girl. She erupts, leaving the wedding procession in shambles. Seeing her father devastated, she begins to weep, blaming herself for the chaotic destruction in front of her. She bemoans, \"Why did I say anything? I have ruined everything! It is all my fault!\" Her grandmother, witnessing silently the abuse she bore, comforts her by saying, \"Why are you crying? There is no reason for you to be crying. You are not at fault for anything. The fault is mine. The fault is of every woman who came before you, because if we had had the courage to say in our day what you have said today, there would have been no need for you to say anything today.\" In this scene the importance of the Feminist Legacy is laid plainly in sight through words.

The other, more subtle moment comes very early in the film when Vaidehi (Manisha) has fled from her abusive husband to the refuge of her parents' home in India. To viewers of western societies, it may seem perfectly reasonable (indeed, natural) that any abused woman would seek the protective guardianship of her parents; this, however, is a societal taboo in many eastern cultures, India among them. Once a woman has been married, the identity she assumes is that of her husband and his personal assets (family, business, children, etc.) For her to turn her back on these responsibilities is a grave social sin, one which truly has no equivalent for the western woman. She is thereafter regarded as tainted and as 'damaged goods', one whose value has been nullified entirely by her own actions and her refusal to submit to the role she has been given. She is not so much an individual as she is an emblem of familial honor. Her father rebukes her for her actions, concerned that his familial honor will be tarnished irreparably by the daughter he had already transferred to another man. His primary concern is that of the impending marriage of Vaidehi's younger sister, a prospect made far less likely with a divorced elder daughter in the same household. He tells her in no uncertain that she must return to the man to whom she lawfully belongs, however violent and sadistic he may be. He levies against her the age old adage that, \"The honor of every home lies in the hands of its daughter.\" Quietly and pensively, she replies, \"Yes, the honor of every home lies in the hands of its daughter. But there is no honor for the daughter herself.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The core message is strong, the cast has given it their best shot, the packaging is excellent, but the screenplay is seriously over-dramatized and every cliche in the book on women's suffering in India has been over-used to the max.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In case you dear readers never heard, this movie was the main inspiration for last year's Samuel L. Jackson-Eugene Levy clunker The Man. This 80s-drenched buddy action-comedy pairs short 'n stubbly Billy Crystal and the late Ethiopian Shim-Shammer Gregory Hines together as some witty Chi-town cops who don't play by the rules. That's pretty much the extent of the movie. Interest is somewhat peaked by Hines' line delivery that is spookily similar to Will Smith's and by cameos of now-more-famous actors like Memento's Joe Pantoliano and \"NYPD Blue's\" Jimmy Smits. My favorite scene is, I dunno, the car chase on the tracks, I guess. Basically, I just view this movie as a major helping hand in the demolition of action buddy flicks. Well, this and Lethal Weapon 4... and Rush Hour 2... and The Man...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes there's a film so bad that you just keep watching in awe. This is one of those films. Of course I can't help that I'm biased. I'm from Chicago so I watched the scenes closely for accuracy and I don't find Billy Crystal funny at all. And I can't stand all that English style photography(Tony Scott etc) with the smoke machine working overtime and all the flourecent, soft lighting. I suppose we're supposed to believe that Billy Crystal is really from Chicago because he wears a Cubs jersey. Oh and the plot. If you really think about it, these guys should be locked up, not the bad guys, since they're more dangerous. And of course there's the clich\u00e9 of the cops on the verge of retiring. But the funniest scene is the climax where the good and bad guys machine gun other to death in The Thompson Center(A state building!) Of course it's a cool building, but it's the equivalent of making a huge drug deal at the White house.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are home on a weekend, very bored and lack the will to move, with absolutely nothing better to do with your life for the next couple of hours you could enjoy making fun of this movie. The acting and script and general movie making of this film isn't actually all that bad, which is why it makes it possible to actually sit through this. This is defitnly a movie they would show in high school health class to teach the dangers of pre-marital sex. Or they could also show it to teach the dangers of very lame music - that 'rock' band Brian Austin Green is in is really terrible, I think thats a much greater threat to society than unwed parents.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie because the cover was cool looking, the first 15 minutes of the movie are okay and somehow interesting, but once the young woman and her little sister go on their trip everything goes to hell and the movie becomes boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yawn, that is my reaction to this film. I was really hoping this would have been a good modern day slasher but it doesn't even fall into the category of slashers. Instead, it tries to be something it isn't, which is a psychological thriller, and it fails so miserably at this. Even the title \"Freak\" suggests that this might be interesting. Match this with the cover art on the DVD and you think \"OK, maybe I will give this one a try\". Not worth the time.

The story actually starts up a bit interesting with a poor deformed child with bandages wrapped around his head being chained up by his fat Mother. She yells at him and probably beats him since in one scene we see her actually slap him for no reason. After all this, he decides he has had enough and smashes her face in with (I believe) a rock. Present day, he is now in insane asylum and is being transfered. On his way he breaks out of the van he is in and escapes. Introduce also the 2 leads characters, a little girl and her older sister. They are moving and hit the road. So most of the movie is them riding around in the car talking amongst themselves. But, the bandaged \"Freak\" is now on the loose and is about go on a rampage of grueling murder! (This is me being totally sarcastic)

I can't believe how boring this movie turned out to be. The budget was on the smallest ever with absolutely no special effects and the dialog I could just care less about. This is one of those movie where the packaging is better then the flick itself. And to compare this to Halloween?! Rubbish! I am not even a fan of the the Halloween series (except the 3rd one) but Halloween is far superior than this. At least with Halloween we have a great score and some genuinely creepy moments. With this, there is virtually no music except some piano here and there and there is nothing creepy about this movie. Maybe this movie would have fared better if it had a solid score because even the worst of movies are tolerable if the music is good.

Well, that is just my opinion on the movie. I thought it was just a complete waist of time and money. But, since the movie has over a 4\/10 rating on IMDb, there must be people that like this movie. I am not one of those people. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The title, although singular, will undoubtedly remind real horror fans of Tod Browning's immortal classic about a troop of circus freaks and how they were misunderstood by the outside world. I can assure you, however, that this \"thing\" has absolutely nothing to do with \"Freaks\" or even with the art of professional film-making in general. This movie was recommended to me, supposedly because it's raw, disturbing and thought provoking despite the low budget production values. Yeah right\u0085 The person who recommended it to me may now consider himself to be my personal foe! The low budget factor is correct, but that about sums it up. \"Freak\" is dreadfully slow, poorly made and every character that gets introduced is downright insufferable\u0085and that includes the freak too. Two siblings on their way to a new life encounter a deformed mental patient who escaped from the transport truck to another hospital and heads back to the house where he killed his mother at age 9. This could have been an interesting slasher with good isolated filming locations but, instead, Tyler Sharpe decided to make it boring and pointless family drama. The lead actress' attempts to look emotionally devastated are pretty laughable and the total lack of suspense and action can hardly be blamed to the limited budget. Total failure!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I seem to be disagreeing with a lot of folks here. but I really did not find this movie as scintillating as the reviews I read claimed. It was no doubt a touching story and the partition background provided the scope for an epic. but, the movie was a let down. specially for neone who has seen 'gadar'. inspite of the lead being played by sunny deol and the incessant songs, I must say gadar is the better of the two. the story being virtually the same. partition failed to create any depth in its characters as well as the scenes that were supposed to hav an impact. over looking kristin kruek's accent and the smallvile image, which in itself wasn't an easy job. the characters just did not seem too real. not that I am criticizing the acting by any of the lead. it just did not work. the atmosphere was well drawn up, but the movie really lacked in substance. not that I am die hard rambo fan, but some action cud have seen the movie through, or some character development. it all seemed like a rush to the finish. and the ending only added to the viewers dissatisfaction.

nonetheles, I must say that it was at least a good effort in seemingly unfamiliar territory by the director. and if U haven't seen gadar, then u mite even like it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As we are well aware, movies are not set out to be a direct incorporation of history, but it is a disgrace when a movie is made which has absolutely little to no correlation. I wish the director and\/or the screen writer had done his\/her research in this topic. All this movie does is create a forum for hate between people, while causing a rift that should not be there. This movie portrayed the Sikhs and Muslims in a very negative manor, while making the third group (Hindus) look as if they were non existent in the brutal killings of the people of both nations. The inaccuracies, coupled with the sear disregard for one's faith as portrayed by 'Gian Singh' was a disgrace to the highest format. Though on a more positive note, the actors did a great job in acting in their roles. Both Kristen K and Neve C played their rolls exceptionally. I hope those that watch this movie do not see or use it as a template for the actual historical event.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I tried watching this movie, but I didn't make it past the first 15 minutes. It's a terrible disappointment, considering the cast, but I can't look past the fact that the dialogue is in English and some of the actors pretending to be Indian are not even close (read: Kristin Kreuk). Considering that India alone has 1\/6th of the world's population and one of the biggest movie industries, I don't think it would have been hard for the film-makers to have found an excellent Indian actress to play the part. And I don't say so because of some blind patriotism, but because it's absolutely and totally absurd for a non-Indian to play the role of an Indian\/Pakistani. Now some people say that 'as long as she's convincing who cares?' but my point is exactly that she's NOT convincing and never can be - not due to her acting skills, but due to her ethnicity. For example, however good an actor Tom Hanks may be, he'll never be able to play an Australian Aborigine!

But that is still minor to the biggest faux pas the film-makers made: having the dialogue in English. It totally destroys the mood, as well as any semblance of authenticity. Had the same movie been made in native languages (Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi) with English subtitles, this may have been an excellent movie. Unfortunately, as things stand, I would not recommend anyone seeing it, apart from film students who want to study \"What not to do\" in movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am not quite sure I agree with the director of this version of The Scarlet Pimpernel. I imagined Sir Percy Blakeney a very calm, seemingly lazy aristocrat. This particular Sir Percy Blakeney appears to be teeming with overwhelming energy and volatility. I did not appreciate the Houdini, James Bond, Mission Impossible style escapes that Sir Percy engineered either. In the previous versions, wit was the tool for escape, not technology. Neither were the characters of Marguerite and Chauvelin adequately portrayed. There seemed to be little energy or chemistry in the interaction between the characters.

I do not wish to assign any blame, for perhaps the reason for my dislike of this movie might simply be a matter of difference in interpretation. Had the director's interpretation coincided with mine, perhaps I might not have been irritated by what seemed to me bad character portrayals.

I much preferred the version from 1982. Anthony Andrews was quite efficient as the imperturbable, calm fop. So were Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen. In my opinion, the style of this period piece seems to have been lost with this latest adaption. I recommend sticking with the previous versions, either the one from 1934 or the one from 1982.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having read the books and seen the 1982 Anthony Andrews\/Jane

Seymour version, I have to say that this is not good at all.

According to the books, Percy is supposed to be a seemingly

foppish aristocrat when he's being Percy, and witty and clever

when he's being the Pimpernel, but here he just looks bored as

Percy and mean as the Pimpernel. Marguerite is supposed to be

the most beautiful woman in Europe, not a tired and frumpy-looking matron (she looks middle-aged, probably due to

bad make-up). Richard E. Grant has done much better things, and

Elizabeth McGovern's acting is uninspired and flat. The wit and

dash of the books and the Andrews\/Seymour film is here replaced

by brawn and flashy editing that just don't make the cut.

I might add that to a person who hasn't seen any previous version

or read the book, it would probably look ok.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before I start to tear apart this movie, mark you--I LOVE THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL. That story is one of the best romantic adventures ever written. The movie staring Jane Grey is very good and the musical on Broadway is the hottest thing there. So, I thought when I heard that this film was coming out that it would be great since it was a BBC film.

To my surprise, it was a weak, totally stupid story that UTTERLY failed in capturing the gorgeous tale.

There were no exciting escapes with daring disguises. There was no deep love that made your heart flutter as Percy left the room and Marguerite sighed as her husband was leaving her again.

All it had was a confusing plot and a lot of out-of-the-blue sex and violence.

Sink me! What a horrible movie!

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know why they even kept the name. How they could call the series 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' after they deviated from the novels so much, I wouldn't have a clue. The character names are the only things they kept, and even then they changed a few of those, and mixed them up, and changed Percy's relationships with them. Admittedly, I only watched about two hours at the most of it, but that was enough for me to realize that the series was nothing like Baroness Orzcy had portrayed her characters, and probably would have been rolling around in her grave when it was filming and airing. Poor lady. I hope that when the next person wants to make a movie\/series of the book they don't ruin it as completely as this series did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have read almost all the books by now, and have seen the musical production in two different languages. I absolutely adored everything that I have been acquainted previously. But lately I've been running out of resources to sustain my fancy. I still have couple of books left, but they are either in transit or they are the sequels which I am not in a hurry to read. So an idea dawned on me - Sink me! There are movies which I have not watched! Thus, I must watch them immediately.

The first five minutes of these series were... acceptable. In fact, I quite enjoyed the variation of the reason for the denunciation, however different it had seemed. It went all downhill from there, though. Chauvelin was too... foppish? And, I daresay, too old for this role. Not nearly that dark and dashing figure with his dreadful either-or. (And what was that with random bed scene featuring him? It was way too creepy - wasn't his only love the Madame Guillotine, and his only interest - his job, and his only obsession - Sir Percy?) Marguerite... Prettiest woman in France? Cleverest woman in Europe? I think not. Although, whatever compelled her to break into the study of Sir Percy I haven't the faintest idea. And whatever my Lord Tony has done to deserve this death? Yes, every member of the League did pledge his life to Sir Percy, but he would have never endangered any of them nor would have run away like a coward when his dear friend faces mortal danger. And if by any means he had to mourn his companion, he would have done that, mourn, not just move on as if nothing had happened. Which brings me to another point, Sir Percy. His portrayal was most dreadful. He was neither a lazy fop, nor a gallant and elusive hero who is a master of transformations. Nor did he care too much about cravats (his pronunciation of that word alone made my ears bleed) And with his own hands he had never killed anyone. So what was that with him randomly walking around and slaughtering people?

The costumes were just too flashy for that time period as well. This is post-revolutionary France we are talking about! Not pre-revolutionary. People in dresses like that stand out in a crowd quite easily. It was all just... gah!

Although, I must admit, after I watched other parts my opinion did change slightly. Watching it as a separate work, independent of Scarlet Pimpernel series, it was tolerable. Just your other average hero in the mask. But for what they tried to pass it, it is still miserable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The screen writers for this mini-series should have been sentenced to the guillotine themselves. They butchered a very fun story and squandered the talents of Richard E. Grant. The only thing the writers kept from the original books was the name. All of the characters were totally altered and the story was not the same. I strongly suggest watching another version of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Any other version is better than this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have read each and every one of Baroness Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel books. Counting this one, I have seen 3 pimpernel movies. The one with Jane Seymour and Anthony Andrews i preferred greatly to this. It goes out of its way for violence and action, occasionally completely violating the spirit of the book. I don't expect movies to stick directly to plots, i gave up being that idealistic long ago, but if an excellent movie of a book has already been made, don't remake it with a tv movie that includes excellent actors and nice costumes, but a barely decent script. Sticking with the 80's version....Rahne","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As someone who has read all of Baroness Orczy's books and seen most of the movies based on them, I must say that the 1980's version, with Anthony Andrews and Jane Seymour, was better than this. It was better written and stuck more to the spirit of the story than this one, which seemed to go out of its way to involve people getting shot. This new adaptation is less light-hearted, yet does not have as much depth, either. Although there is some good acting, the actors did not have much to work with. Nice costumes, though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is by far the most repulsive and atrocious version of The Scarlet Pimpernel ever to be devised. As a Pimpernel fan, I was sincerely offended by what they did to the characters--but this atrocity is not worth watching, even if you aren't familiar with the story.

Percy Blakeney, for example, would never stab people in the back just to get down a hallway. Chauvelin would never have a string of women in his bed. Marguerite never had an affair with Chauvelin, nor Armand with Minette, whoever the heck she is. Chauvelin would not randomly shoot Tony in the head. Chauvelin's name is not, nor has it ever been, Paul. They have completely eradicated any reference to the Pimpernel's disguises, replacing them instead with James Bond-esque gadgets and gizmos.

As to the film itself... The makeup is horrifying. The women look like clowns. Elizabeth McGovern's beauty mark wanders around her face at random. The poor, pitiable actors have no script to work with, so it's not really their fault that their characters are as thin as wet tissue paper. The dialogue... oh, the dialogue. The dialogue is unbearable. And whoever is responsible for all those little captions at the bottom of the screen should be forced to watch this movie as penance. (I counted 13 location captions in the first half-hour before I gave up. As if we can't figure out that the body of water between England and France is the English Channel.)

The film--if I can bring myself to call it that, since it's really just videotape with a filter--is absolutely without redeeming value. Do not waste your time and brain cells on this rancid drivel--instead, go watch the 1982 Anthony Andrews\/Jane Seymour version, or the 1934 Leslie Howard film, or indeed ANYTHING but this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Back in college I studied marketing and, even though I missed a whole lot of classes and never really paid any attention, I will always remember the main and most essential principle of marketing, namely: it's not what you sell; it's HOW you sell it! This principle fully applies to \"The Devil's Triangle\", as it's basically a beautifully wrapped and enticing yet empty package. Writer\/director Richard Winer knew exactly that he had to divert the viewer's attention away from the major inaccuracies, so he threw in some elements that never fail when it comes to providing a creepy atmosphere, like the sinister voice of narrator Vincent Price and the oddball music of King Crimson. And I'm guessing Richard Winer's dirty little tricks worked very efficiently, as there was a huge Bermuda Triangle hype going on during the mid-70's and literally every movie production \u0096 whether it was an inaccurate documentary or a sleazy exploitation flick \u0096 covering the topic earned big money at the box office. \"The Devil's Triangle\" overwhelms you with data that is unstructured and often irrelevant, but the severe dramatization of the facts and of course the intimidating stark voice of the almighty Vincent Price generates an ambiance of fright and creepiness. The narration constantly jumps back and forward in time and covers a massive amount of \"strange occurrences\" and \"mysterious vanishings\" of ships and airplanes in the Bermuda Triangle throughout a period of nearly one whole century, but the reports remain extremely vague at all times and the eloquent Mr. Price invariably ends every chapter with the sinister words \"\u0085 just another unsolved mystery of the Devil's Triangle\u0085\". After a couple of cases the whole formula simply becomes laughable and almost pathetic, but I guess it caused genuine mass hysteria back in 1974. The documentary expands a little more on the most notorious Bermuda Triangle mysteries, like the five planes of military Flight 19 that inexplicably disappeared all at once and the peculiar case of the vessel USS Cyclops, but still even in these chapters only a minimum of serviceable information is given. The cameras never at one point go underwater to explore the depths of the Bermuda area, for example, and the testimonies of the supposedly real-life witnesses of the dramas suspiciously look like staged acting scenes. If you're looking for an informative and objective documentary on the Bermuda Triangle, I certainly wouldn't recommend this movie, but in case you want to sit back and listen to Vincent Price's hypnotizing voice for nearly a full hour, this is your chance!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this turkey in the theater, but I had a good time. The special effects aren't worthy of a grade school production. A toy boat, representing a freighter, moving at speedboat velocity on flat waters while wind driven fog blows in the opposite direction. The red and blue flood lamps add that extra dramatic touch. Whatever cache Vincent Price was supposed to bring as narrator is completely overshadowed by dreadful production work. Calling this a documentary is like calling Britney Spears a musician. About 20 minutes into this, something struck me as very funny. Maybe it was Price's overly dramatic intonation of the oft-used line \"They vanished into the Devil's Triangle! [cut to black; next story] Once I started laughing, my friends joined in. Next time Vinny said the crucial line, someone in the back yelled out: \"Good!\" After that, it got almost as many laughs as a Marx Brothers film. Nobody stayed for the dreadfully serious second feature \"Chariots of the Gods.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Though it's better than most made-for-TV movies, \"Buried Alive\" is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill revenge tale. There are so many plot holes in this one, it makes you wonder why the screenwriters didn't go through a series of re-writes. The ending has a nice twist to it, but it's hardly believable.

The acting by Jennifer Jason Leigh is terrific, as always, but Tim Matheson hams it up with cheesy one-liners that reminds one of Jack Nicholson in \"The Shining\". Don't bother with this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It beats me how anyone can rate this film very highly. It is no understatement to call it far fetched. How the guy managed in such a short space of time to construct a wooden maze of underground rooms is quite ridiculous or maybe he was the greatest carpenter since Jesus. The obese sheriff played by Hoyt Axton looked like a refugee from the Jerry Springer show and I found the blonde female lead Jennifer Jason Leigh rather plain. We have an expression here in the U.K. 'mutton done up as lamb' which suits her perfectly. It wasn't all bad however, I enjoyed it immensely when the end credits rolled and 'The End' came up was quite brilliant for this hotch potch of a T.V. movie which if it had been a cinematic release would have been put on video and in discount stores in no time at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Filmmaker Bryan Forbes, who once displayed a light, sardonic touch with beguiling material such as \"Whistle Down the Wind\" and the original \"Stepford Wives\", completely bottoms out here. Not only is his direction inept, he also sloppily adapted Sidney Sheldon's early novel; the results are atrocious. Roger Moore plays a psychiatrist framed for the murder of one of his patients; Rod Steiger, chewing the scenery, is a hot-under-the-collar cop (it's easily his most embarrassing performance). The only actor here to exhibit some life is Elliott Gould, who knows a thing or two about enlivening a bum script. Bland, choppy, and produced on the cheap. NO STARS from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although this series and the mini film in particular were very important at the time of release, I feel that the series as a whole was actually fairly poorly written with a weak cast. The issues at heart are extremely well portrayed yet it is difficult to relate and understand the problems within the film when the acting and script isn't convincing enough (especially when looking at the mini film).

I also don't believe that this mini film or series has stood the test of time as now many of the scenes are quite laughable. The issues are still crucial but Boys From The Blackstuff cannot fully aid the cause of understanding the problems in Britain in the 1980s.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How anyone can praise this crude film version after seeing the marvelous WATERLOO BRIDGE with Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor, is beyond comprehension.

MAE CLARKE's Myra is a far cry from the role as played by VIVIEN LEIGH in the remake. She plays a common American girl with a Brooklyn accent and the \"Yeah\" responses are a bit jarring when one is expecting a less coarse character. DOUGLASS MONTGOMERY (billed in final credits as KENT DOUGLASS) is wildly improbable as a soldier smitten with her no matter how many times she lets him down. BETTE DAVIS has a nothing role in a bit part.

Their melodramatic confrontations during the last twenty minutes of the film are beyond belief (extravagant bits of overacting)--even given the fact that this is a cruder version of the story when sound was only a few years old and silent acting was still the rage.

Just awful. And it ends abruptly with Clarke losing her life during a bombing on the bridge. The End.

It has none of the beautifully shaded performances in the MGM remake of 1940, including a sterling supporting cast. Instead, this one is mounted with low-budget production values (and I mean a shoe-string budget) with no subtlety at all. And there's no pre-code braveness in the scene where Myra tells the aristocratic lady why she must not marry her son, Roy. She simply says, \"I picked him up on Waterloo Bridge.\" Explanation over. Nothing bold there.

Summing up: For once, the original is not the best version by any means. VIVIEN LEIGH and ROBERT TAYLOR have never been surpassed as Myra and Roy in the tender, exquisitely acted 1940 film classic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Without saying how it ended, it is sufficient to say that the whole thing degenerates from about five minutes before the end. If the standard had been maintained throughout, the movie would be worth a seven.

One wonders in a way why a woman was added to the cast. (Well - not really!) The premise is a good one The situation the victims find themselves in is pretty terrifying and it's rather well done, but you get the impression the makers of the film lost interest towards the end, or as a previous contributor said, they changed writers and handed over to someone else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Opposing Force [1986]\" wasn't as good as \"Dr. Strangelove\" and it wasn't as good as \"The Bridge on the River Kwai\". Heck, it wasn't even as good as \"G.I. Jane\", which is pretty sad.

The film revolves around a basic ethical problem: In a simulated prisoner-of-war situation, how far can you go before you start breaking the law? What exactly IS the law in such a situation? How can you simulate the torture of someone without actually torturing someone? Can you intentionally inflict pain? How about breaking bones? Mock executions? Sexual abuse? Severe blood loss? Real guns with bullets? Death? Somewhere between these is a really fuzzy line dividing \"acceptable\" from \"atrocious\".

Now, what could you do if you found yourself in such a training program and the lines between simulation and reality begin to vanish? What could you do? This movie attempts to portray this dilemma.

I found it interesting to see the types of tactics used in \"resistance training\". I have a brother who went through the USAF's POW training program. According to him, it was pretty close to the mark technically.

The film has a fairly good premise, but it doesn't have a particularly good story. I wondered if it might be based on some actual event, but it became pretty apparent that it wasn't when the explosions started. They must have changed scriptwriters three quarters into the film, because it takes a real extreme turn and devolves into a somewhat pointless shoot-em-up with lots of distracting explosions.

I found it to have a rather unsatisfying ending; again, kind of pointless. I'm left wondering what the point of the whole thing was - I'm beginning to suspect there simply wasn't one. It could have been much better with just a little more story to go along with the fireworks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What we know of Caravaggio suggests a strutting brawler with a healthy sense of entitlement who lived amongst whores and thieves and hustlers and put them on canvas. His works' themes were sex, death, redemption, above all, finding the sacred within the profane. He lived at a time where homosexuality carried a death sentence and political intrigue normally involved fatalities in a society defined by the maxim \"strangling the boy for the purity of his scream\".

You can't fault Derek Jarman for his cinematography, nor his recreations of Caravaggio's paintings and you certainly can't accuse the man of shying away from the homosexuality. But frankly, Jarman never strays beyond 80s caricature. Italian patronage becomes the 80s London art scene complete with pretty waiters and calculators. Sean Bean is a sexy bit of Northern rough oiling his motorbike. Tilda Swinton performs a transformation worthy of a Mills and Boons (\"Why, Miss Lena, without that gypsy headscarf, you're beautiful...\"). Jarman provides Caravaggio with a particularly trite motive for the murder which left him exiled.

This could have been a visually stunning treatment of a man whose life was dangerous, exciting, violent and decadent but who nonetheless elevated the lives of ordinary people to the status of Renaissance masterpieces, looked on by Emperors and Kings. Instead, what you get is Pierre et Gilles do Italy. The pretty bodies of young boys are shown to perfection, but never the men who inhabit them. Jarman appears to satirise the London art scene, showing it shallow and pretentious. To use Caravaggio and Renaissance Italy to make the point is to use a silk purse to make a pig's ear. In fairness, this film remains visually stunning, but ultimately as two dimensional as the paintings it describes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this film last night at the National Film Theatre in London, as a birthday treat. It was the the first time I've seen it, and I think it has now overtaken the dreadful \"Twister\" as the worst film I have ever seen. Disjointed for no reason, self indulgent and full of imagery that oscillates from the crass and obvious to the obscure and unintelligible, not particularly beautifully or grimily shot, I really don't understand why this is considered classic, gay or otherwise. I normally enjoy films that push boundaries or even films that are hard to watch because of their length or unusual cinematography. But this was truly, truly awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this film completely and utterly incomprehensible. I knew some of he facts about Caravagggio, but here they were twisted and puzzling. The images were weirdly interesting but I was looking more for a biographical and\/or critical accounting of Caravaggio's life and works, not an LSD type drug trip. The dialogue was very confusing and jumping back and forth in time via the use of trains, calculators, typewriters and cigarettes was extremely distracting. Had it been labelled an \"artsy film\" I wouldn't have purchased the DVD; now I have a DVD that I'll never watch again and who would buy it? I prefer mainstream films not those that require translation or elucidation. Thumbs down on this one for me!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One reviewer says of those who might not like this film that \"it will only be appreciated by film goers who weary of film as diversion\". This, I feel, is rather unfair to those of us who find it boring.

I have not become weary or disillusioned with film or with film makers, but found this tedious and self indulgent. But then, it's true, I'm not too big into deep meaningfulness. I feel that it may have great meaning for those in the know, you know.

It is very slow and it spends a long time in trying to make its individual points, using imagery, indeed, to do so. But in such days as these, it seems possible that a film like this might be the kind of thing that you'd come across in one of those dark and daunting booths in modern art galleries, rather than on the screen of a popular cinema setting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"John Madden's cinematic interpretation of Edith Wharton's Ethan Frome falls short of doing justice to a great literary piece. While the story is maintained the elements that give the novella its soul are skewered and all in all lost in the film. Madden fails to convey the innocence, and overall tragedy of Ethan and Mattie's relationship instead transforming it into a morality tale. The mark is missed and the point lost in added details and poor dialog. Zeena (Zenobia) in the book is almost completely the antagonist, the books least sympathetic figure, where in the movie she can be almost pitied though it's a stretch you kind of feel bad for this sick woman who is being cheated on. The book more accurately describes Zeena's tyrannical control of the house and of Ethan. The movie just ticked me off. The addition of the fox was pointless, as well as the scene with Mattie trying to kill herself. It was just poorly interpreted and done. Film mistakes: Ethan's elusiveness in the church dance scene, interactions with Denis Eady, addition of love scene, fox scene, store scene, saying his plans allowed, lack of displays of Ethan's inner emotions and thoughts, introduction of the priest instead of nameless engineer, let on to much that Zeena knows about the growing relationship where in novel reader never knows what Zeena is thinking or aware of. Just too many flaws and poor directing decisions.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director John Madden, of Shakespeare in Love fame, gives us another pretty bad film in Ethan Frome. The plot centers around a new reverend coming into the town of Starkfield where he learns the story of the local crippled man Ethan Frome's sick wife and one-time romantic tryst with the maid. Adapted by Richard Nelson from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edith Wharton's novel, this film isn't interesting in the least thanks to an abysmally weak script and poor direction that turns scenes that are supposed to be poignant into laughable schmaltz. Still, there are other aspects apart of the film that work - the cinematography is well done, Rachel Portman contributes a lovely score, and while no one is at their best, Liam Neeson, Joan Allen, Patricia Arquette, and Tate Donovan work well in their roles. But overall, Ethan Frome is only marginally worthwhile and is easily forgotten.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went into this movie with an open mind. I had been too lazy to go to the video store to pick out a movie, and my friend returned with this. I promised him I wouldn't laugh at his choice, but within the first five minutes I told him I would have to take back my promise. We kept watching, just hoping it would get better, but no; a continual mind-rape followed.

This \"movie\" was probably one of the worse ever committed to film, and surely deserves a place on the IMDb Bottom 100. I really don't know how this got distributed. The lighting was poor. I have seen better acting in elementary school plays. There is really nothing positive to say about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, it's a SBIF (So Bad It's Funny) classic. With a budget running into the tens of dollars, some of the most abysmal acting you have ever seen, and absolutely NO even remotely frightening moments - not even a nanosecond! Camera work was at the elementary school level - one still shot outside a house was obviously hand-held and jiggled crazily. Blood looked like watered-down cherry Koolaid, someone made a trip to the local butcher shop for the \"human\" bones, and Miss Witch had the cheapest mask Wal-Mart could provide.

Did ANYONE involved look at the final cut and realize what a mess this was? Most of the names in the credits HAVE to be pseudonyms, it would be career suicide to have THIS on your resume. Do yourself a favor and watch Ebert's video of his colonoscopy instead!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is terrible - honestly. The acting is terrible, the script made me cringe, the effects are completely lousy (which I usually don't mind for older films, but this was made just two years ago), and everything about it just annoys me. A few friends go out on Halloween into the woods and meet a witch and her cannibal son. Of course, before that it has the clich\u00e9 \"You really believe that? Ha ha ha, it's just a story\" routine dragged out for a while. The witch's cannibal son was made a retard (I don't know if it was for comedy or to make it creepy, but this film failed at both). It has minimal gore and no nudity, which made a bad film even worse. Heck, the only good thing about this film is the leg eating scene, and even that could of been better.

Honestly, don't even waste your time watching it on cable, and certainly don't consider buying or renting this, else you'll be kicking yourself for wasting time which could of been spent doing something more constructive or entertaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Fanglys is set in a small Texan town called Layton on the eve of Halloween as the townspeople treat it like the second coming of Christ or something, I mean Halloween isn't that important is it? Anyway, Sheriff Pete (Burton Gilliam) has been called out to yet another murder as local boy Ned (co-associate producer John William Galt) has discovered a body in the local woods. Could it be the Fang Lady (Justin Hamilton)? The central character involved in a local legend about a witch who kills teenagers, who knows? Being the fun sort of guy he is Mark (asisstant director & producer Robert Harvey) convinces his missus Kelly (Laurie Reeves) to ride out to a cemetery that his mate Steven (Josh Gobin) found the night before for a Halloween party. The idea of spending the night in a cemetery in the middle of the woods obviously appeals to Kelly & she agrees, along with Steven & a girl he picked up named Camille (Natalie Woods) & their nerdy friend Jerry (Tim Boswell) they all set out for a night of fun, well as much fun as you can expect to have in an isolated cemetery. However they soon discover that the legend of the Fang Lady is far from the bedtime story many make out...

Edited, executive produced, written & directed by Christopher Abram The Fanglys is a pretty rubbish attempt at a horror film. The script is very predictable, dull & doesn't deliver any sort of entertainment value whatsoever, in the right hands & with a decent budget The Fanglys could have been an effective horror film but as it is it isn't. It moves along at a fair pace but the on-screen 'action' is so poor that it doesn't matter, I don't quite know what else to say other than The Fanglys is a really bad film & I can't see anyone getting any sort of enjoyment out of it. The dialogue is basic, the character's are clich\u00e9d & lifeless while as a whole the film seems a lot longer than the 90 minutes running time. There are a few lame attempts at humour which don't sit that well along side the horror elements & what was that retard keeping in that cage? I'd imagine the budget didn't allow the filmmakers to show it. Oh, if you want to know what happens to Jerry at the end then you'll have too keep watching past the end credits as the lame truth is revealed, assuming you can actually make it that far of course (believe me it takes some doing).

Director Abram doesn't do anything special. Abram thinks bathing scenes in neon light is stylish, I can tell him that it isn't when your film is supposed to be set in the woods. There's no atmosphere, scares, tension, excitement or any of the elements that makes a good horror film good. Forget about decent gore, there's a bit when someone eats some skin off an arm & a pitchfork stuck through someones throat.

Apparently The Fanglys had a filming budget of $2,837 which makes it one of the lowest budget films ever to have a commercial release, & to be brutally honest it shows. What about the retarded guy & his false joke shop teeth that look ridiculous? The terrible special effects, the camcorder cinematography & the terrible acting from everyone involved that makes it even more of a pain to sit through.

The Fanglys is straight-to-video crap, it has no redeeming features whatsoever & it's low IMDb user rating score is fully justified, it's one of those films that within half an hour I was looking at the clock & wishing the thing would just finish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had to suffer through this movie three times while I was a zombie extra in the director's new movie After Sundown. The first time that I saw this movie the director was standing next to me and a clearly fake and cheesy looking hand popped out of nowhere and grabbed one of the characters. I could not take it any more I busted out laughing right in front of the guy. The movie has no direction whatsoever and the one thing that could make this movie decent (Female Nudity) was nowhere to be found. I am a fan of low budget horror movies, but this was just too much for me. The worst part was that I had to watch it so many times. Also do not expect the new movie to be any better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the most stupid and worthless movies ever. It really does not qualify for movie status. It is VERY cheap (apparently shot on videotape), horribly acted, and just plain rotten. I could not believe how cheap and inept this piece of crap was. It looked like a home video! I mean I believe a guy I know a few houses down must have dug out his video camera and made this crap in 2 or 3 hours. It is that bad. I noticed the name from whence this came\u0085Asylum\u0085and I will NEVER rent anything with that name on it again!!! When you rent a flick, check to see if it is from this \"company.\" One thing is true though--if you like horribly acted, amateur movies, then you might like this loser. It is absolutely boring and terrible!!! You have been warned!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Susan inadvertently stumbles onto a drug smuggling ring while her realtor gets a flat tire while driving her to see a house. The leader of said drug ring, Mongo (whom only has one week until retirement) thinking she knows much more than this bubbly blond actually does seeks to make sure she won't tell anyone anything and thus begins one of the more bone headed films that I've sat through.

All the actors in this film can't really act in the least. Susan makes a pretty ineffectual hero for most of the movie (she'd never escape multiple times if not for the fact that seemingly every one in the movie wants to have sex with her) and she doesn't take the offensive until the last 20 minutes of the flick. When she does she spouts some generic \"I have had enough\" line, preach on sister, that very thought ran through my mind multiple times when I was watching this

My Grade: D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you like really shocking movies this is for you. The acting is the worst I've ever seen and the story line goes no-where. If you come across this film in your video shop don't even consider borrowing it. The chick on the front cover isn't even the one in the movie.I gave this movie 1\/10 only because I couldn't vote 0. Avoid it at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this on cable. Someone had to lose their job for greenlighting this one for air. Just because a movie is made does not mean it has to be shown! Savage Instinct should be shown in ALL film classes. It is the perfect template for how to not make a movie. The editing alone is so jumbled you'll think it was assembled by a team of trained (poorly) monkeys, traveling across unpaved canyon road in the back of a jeep, blindfolded and drunk. The audio is often not legible. Acting? I can't call anything I saw here acting. Reciting? Hmmm. Can't call it that either. Failing? That works. All that being said...IT IS HILARIOUS! I cannot stress enough that there is not one redeemable factor in this \"film\" other than the hilarity derived from it's own incredible ineptness. Fun, in a strictly masochistic sort of way. Watch it...if you dare.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad editing, bad production values, bad continuity, implausible, bad dialogue... this movies is bad, bad, bad. However, if you want a movie to poke fun at (a la MST3000), this is your movie. I wouldn't suggest spending much money on it, but if you do see this movie, make sure it's with plenty of witty, like-minded buddies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie really sucks. This is my second review because its so bad. The girl on the cover is hot but the girl in the movie is not. I cant believe it was rated R there is basiaclly no violence, no sex, no nudity, no swearing nothing. Really crap film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It seems to be a common thing in the 90's to play with cliches. Some manage to do so with great talent. Herv\u00e9 Hadmar doesn't. On the paper, the movie looked interesting though: the weak plot could have been saved by great moments of comedy, dark humour, and a very \"d\u00e9cal\u00e9\" style. Director Hadmar, unfortunately, kills his direction with his camera angles and his absolute lack of rhythm. Every joke is embarassing as no one reacts in the theater. The movie is incredibly slow, and the actors seem to be wondering what the hell they're doing in this ridiculous mascarade. What could have been a stylish funny mindless comedy ends up being a cathedral of boredom.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst movie I have seen in 2009 so far: The story hesitates between a silly thriller or a dumb comedy.

As nothings happens, the void is filled with long, boring dialogs that don't make any sense!

The cast is famous but doesn't bring any emotions except to fast-forward the play!

And it happens in a plush seaside hotel that looks really gloomy. In comparison, the one of the \"Shining\" is funfair!

NB: a lot of users think that it is located in the French Riviera! They are wrong! It isn't the south of France (Nice, Cannes) but totally the opposite: Cabourg & Normandy, to be simple the beaches of the D-Day! That's why the sea is as grey as the sky and there isn't sun!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know, this is one of those \"Emperor's New Clothes\" films. It's like, so off the wall and strange that you're SUPPOSED to like it if you're really into film. Well, I think that's a bunch of bologna. Films like this which hide under the cloak of Dada or surrealism make me nuts. Some person has this bad dream, perhaps brought on by eating the aforementioned bologna right before going to bed, remembers most of it (unfortunately) and then puts it on film and we're all supposed to marvel at their creative genius. I have bizarre dreams too, sometimes, that make absolutely no sense but I don't feel the need to put them on film, expose everybody else to them and call it art. Weirdness does not, in of itself, mean something is interesting. True Dada or surrealistic expression has SOME intent and intellectual thought behind it. If other people don't get it, that doesn't make it profound, it just makes it incomprehensible. Bizarreness for bizarreness sake, for me, is not good, let alone great, art. And comparing \"Tuvalu\" to \"Delicatesen\" is like comparing \"The Godfather I & II\" to \"The Godfather III\"---same genre, NOT in the same league.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like the other comments says, this might be surprise to those who haven't seen the work of Jeunet & Caro or Emir Kusturica. But have you already seen Delicatessen, there is nothing new it this film. I thought Delicatessen was great when it came out, but this film just arrive too late to be of any interest. I don't think it's a worse film than Delicatessen but it's a bore to see it now, like it probably would be to watch Delicatessen again. There is really no point to the film, nothing that really matter or stays with you. There may be a distant similarity to the films of Kusturica, but he's really in a different league, so you should rather go see his films than waste your time on Tuvalu.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had a different experience with this movie - it never got charming, or delightful, or funny for me. one big clue that this was not your typical movie was that the label gave no indication of the Ianguage(s) spoken in the film. another was the lack of choices re subtitles.

I found the lack of dialogue annoying, especially when accompanied by exaggerated facial expressions as it almost always was. The wildly inconsistent development of the feeble plot was puzzling. Were there characters, or only vague gestures? was there even a plot?

on a separate matter, I'm getting prompted to correct the spelling of \"dialogue\", with the suggested substitute of \"dialogue\". maybe this movie in its entirety, including the IMDb portion, is designed to puzzle, or amaze, but I'm getting more irked than amused.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I always say, \"there's nothing like a good movie\". And I must say, this was nothing like a good movie! Drab, dull and tedious. It was like one of those bad dreams that never seem to end, no matter how hard you try to wake up. I don't mind the concept of a film without words, (ie: entering a fantasy or dream world), but there has to be something there to capture your imagination, not just empty images, which is what this film is. There seemed to be no character development and it jumped so fast from scene to scene that it was hard to discern any story. (Was there even a story?) You could tell the actors were trying their best, but unfortunately, poor direction sabotaged all the actors' work. It really seemed like a type of cinematic masturbation...only existing to pleasure the director and nobody else. Big waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I will commend it in only one respect.. it was innovative. Innovative doesn't mean it's a good film, it means that it can give you an idea of what you can take and implement in your own films.

The simple plot is.. well.. simple. I got to the point where I didn't care if they destroy the building or not. If I had to hear that girl's annoying giggle one more time, I swear I would hurl the DVD out the window. And there's also the protagonist. They try to make him lovable, but he's a freakin pervert! Sniffing the girls bra, sneaking peeks at her when she's naked, putting her bra over his eyes when he sleeps, putting her bra on a blow up sex doll (which she takes her panties off while hes asleep and slips them on his doll.. umm)

What irritates me even moreso is that crappy tinting. In the photo gallery on the DVD, you can see what the film looked liek before they greyscaled it and put in a color tint (digitally too).. The film looked a LOT better without the effect.. so they sacrificed it being a good film just to be artsy... bah. I could understand using gimmicks like that if the film quality was crap..

I think most people who liked this film just liked it because the chick was naked for a good 5 - 10 minutes. This doesn't compare to Delicatessen ( like so many are tryign to do). Delicatessen has characters you can get into and like.. these people here just grunt and giggle.

Lastly, I would also liek to point out that this was also tryign to be like a German Impressionistic film liek the old silents. One of the problems with most foreign, especially artsy, films is that thety focus on making an artsy composition and forget about the 'space' of the scene. It results in the audience not really understanding what;s going on because they don't get a sense of the space of the surroundings.

Anyway, it's rubbish. The short film on the DVD, Surprise, was a heckuva lot better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hated it. I hate self-aware pretentious inanity that masquerades as art. This film is either stupidly inane or inanely stupid. After the first half hour, I fastfowarded through the DVD version, and saw the same juvenile shennanigans over and over and over. I became angered that I had spent hard-earned money for sophomoric clap-trap. Tinting drivel in sepia or blue does not make something a movie, let alone art.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst film I've seen in a looooong time. It reminded me of a Cirque du Soleil show I saw in Vegas six years ago -- without the athleticisme. By that I mean a few striking, artsy, images appear randomly, without any sustaining framework. The fake sepia tinted film is really tacky. This device is almost never justified and certainly is not in _Tuvalu_. With apologies to Abe Lincoln: you can fool some of the people some of the time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A few years ago I saw The Scent of Green Papayas by the same director. My feelings about both films are in fact the same: beautifully shot, but terribly slow and boring. I saw this film in a Sneak Preview, and left after half an Hour. Couldn't stand it anymore. How can one make an interesting film about people who are constantly telling each other how happy they are, and how perfect their lives are.........? I had a fantasy about a forgotten American G.I., still wandering around in the Vietnamese jungle, who was not aware the war had ended. How he would suddenly pop up in the film, and would start emptying his M16 at the characters in the movie. The red of their blood would make a beautiful contrast with all the green plants in the film........... So I was not very much gripped by this film! Time to leave!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's some nice scenery to look at here,if you can keep your eyes open long enough to see any of it.I'm a big fan of slice-of-life movies,but these people are just plain bland.Although there's nothing political here,the entire film can be looked at as a political statement,in that it shows how Communism destroys the individual,making everyone the same bland animal that just spends its life sleeping,eating,and occasionally making love.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This woman is a terrible comedian. She can't crack a joke. She has no real character. This is another example of typical American rubbish, that people laugh at, because they have no idea how to react, so they say to themselves, \"well, it's a comedy show,\" so I'll laugh, I guess.

I cannot stand this miserable woman, and her pi$$ poor excuse for comedy. She does not deserve anything but booing.

Why can't America dump this kind of turdish delight, and go for something that actually contains humour.

She is not funny. Not at all. Why oh why does even ONE person like this idiot?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's awful.

Pretty succinct review I know, but it has been a long time since a film has left me in such a bewildered state - wondering how the hell a film like that gets made.

The last time it happened was last years turkey 'Mission to Mars'.

Salvatore Coco is an ex-con - trying to better himself through self help videos, endless seminars and betterment courses. He lives by the catchphrases these courses expound.

He stumbles across a washed up nightclub singer, played by Nikki Bennett, and has an epiphany; his new career is going to be that of a talent agent - with the singer as his one and only client.

Financed by his gospel singing, paraplegic girlfriend, played by Sasha Horler - he sets up shop and tries to relaunch Nikki's career, with disastarous results.

'Walk the Talk' is the reason why Australians are so contemptuous of Australian cinema. It is poorly constructed, lame and way wayyy too long (111 minutes for a comedy that should barely have scraped the 80 minute mark).

Every scene is too long, and are very repetitive. The audience is not given a character to empathise with; a vital ingredient in a film like this supposedly about an 'underdog' giving it a go.

The downbeat and frankly poor ending comes at the end of 30 minutes of the most mind numbing dialogue and scenes that have you crying out for a power failure.

This film is a failure on all levels - made worse for Queensland audiences by its liberal and innacurate use of various Gold Coast\/Palm Beach location; and its laughable use of Brisbane suburb names like Norman Park and Caboolture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Time line of the film: * Laugh * Laugh * Laugh * Smirk * Smirk * Yawn * Look at watch * walk out * remember funny parts at the beginning * smirk

Unfortunately, this movie has a good concept that it grinds to the ground.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, so this film is well acted. It has good direction but the simple fact is that it undermines what all gay and lesbian people have been fighting for all these years. The straight man \"deciding to be gay\" and the gay man \"Deciding to be straight\" I did enjoy it up until the last 20 minutes, after that i got really offended. As what usually happens in these films the straight actors play the main parts and the out gay actors play the secondary straight roles. The leads are played by handsome men but don't let that distract you from the fact that this is a a film that leaves you feeling unfulfilled. All the romance and relationships you hope would happen do not. Unless you are a priest that is in which case god bless straight woman who cure our homos.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie starts at A and never quite reaches B. Its title promises far more than the film delivers. It's superficial and filled with the usual cliches of a story in which a guy questions his sexuality. The people are agreeable, even the obligatory flamboyant type. The lead (Kevin McKidd) overacts insofar as there's a reason for him to act at all. Simon Callow, playing a horny straight, is always worth watching, and he's by far the only reason to stay with the movie. However, the rubbish about his men's group \"meditations\" or whatever they are grows extremely tiresome in short order. They seem to have been thrown into the movie's mild mix in a misguided effort to vary the setting and non-stop inaction. The same comment applies to a really odd and unconvincing camping trip. Don't worry about pausing the tape so you can get a snack. Let the thing run; you won't miss anything. Hugo Weaving's character is superfluous. He appears in a sequence with one of the lesser leads and doesn't even meet the rest at all. The outcome of that sequence isn't explained, and Hugo's real estate dealings have nothing to do with the story. The movie is a total disappointment at the end, because there is no resolution. The thing simply fades out and we're sent to the closing credits. This is an interlude with no structure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found it hard to care about these characters, who were either annoying or insipid, all living their fabulously hilariously urban lives.

The dialogue was excruiciating at times, and at other times the narrative seemed hard to follow - was it me or were entire scenes deleted?

It felt like a poor sitcom somehow turned into a film. The stereotypes and jokes about \"men's groups\" would perhaps have been funny in the early 90s. As it is, this is where much of the humour of the film comes from - and boy, does it get old fast.

Apart from the attractive Irish man - this film was a dud. And not even in a \"so bad it's good way\". The last 20 minutes were particularly painful. Perhaps if you've never met any gay people or never thought about homosexuality before, then this film might have something meaningful to say. Otherwise - darlings, you'd still be better off renting The Boys in The Band or Beautiful Thing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Go Fish\" garnered Rose Troche rightly or wrongly the reputation of a film maker with much promise.

Its then hard to understand how she could turn out a movie made up of stereotypes that one associates with inferior sitcoms. The entire film rings hollow. I cringed the whole way through.

Its supposed to be a look into nineties human sexuality. Well not much more here to be learned than from \"In and Out\". By now most of us actually do know, that there are men who are sexually attracted to women and there men who are sexually attracted to men and there are even men sexually attracted to both sexes.

Seldom has this revelation been portrayed on the screen with so little wit and style.

Pathetic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The daytime TV of films. Seldom have I felt so little attachment to characters. Seldom have I been made to cringe by such dire dialogue. Nauseous London thirty-somethings mincing round lurid BBC sets spouting platitudinous mulch. Avoid this film as if it were your grandmother's clunge.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this video on a throw-out table at the video store expecting a good cast in what was touted as an award-winning Brit sex comedy. I guess I should have read the finer print. I rarely write a panning review, but here goes.

These actors in gay roles really play games with your memories of a lot of far more worthy films. This comedy was a very cruel joke at the expense of the actors, the theatre-going public and of all the nice films that have contributed to their reputations.

I repeat: is the joke about trashing the actors' other highly respectable on-screen personae with this scurrilously trashy flick? Can the reference to the Austen classics 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' be anything else? How much of a political statement was it to produce this melodrama using these stars? Are we meant to simply take it as a lay-down misere that all actors are gay and thus letting their on-screen roleplay affect our lifestyles is accepting their private homosexual dealings in our faces, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I say NO to this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One wonders how FLYNN could have failed so badly as a cinema release in 1997 with Guy Pearce aptly in the lead role. It is not often that the casting of someone so famous is so exactly right. FLYNN was a stumbler at the box office and did not end up on cinema screens in Australia...even after LA CONFIDENTIAL...! From a dazzling nude scene in the first few minutes (presumably by Guy Pearce) FLYNN gets off to a fairly robust and interesting start. Sadly, FLYNN runs out of steam after about the first 35 minutes and with the entrance of hammy Steven Berkoff in a detour to New Guinea, (looking and acting like he wanted the Klaus Kinski role in FITZCARRALDO) the film starts to resemble a tele movie rather than a major cinema biography. Believe it or not, by about the 70 minute make, it is boring and you are glad to see it over. But such promise! Pearce IS Flynn! But the movie caused a mutiny at the box office and unlike The Bounty, sank without trace.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Guy Pearce almost looks like Flynn, and this resemblance is the only one this film can claim. Nowhere in Flynn's autobiography is the Klaus Reicher character mention, the homosexual encounter is speculative fiction, and the movie's claims that Flynn treated native labor badly are groundless. Director Frank Howson hasn't made any memorable films, and I find it lame for him to groundlessly slander Flynn to further his unremarkable career.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can only think of one reason this movie was released. To capitalize off the upcoming fame of Guy Pearce. This movie has no merit at all and needlessly trashes Errol Flynn's memory. The homosexual encounter was pure speculation. The disdain shown for Flynn in this movie is palpable. An easy way to slander an actor who died years ago. Horrible and embarrassing. Very disappointing. Don't waste your time on this utter trash. Watch My Wicked wicked ways if you want to learn about this fine actor or read his autobiography. This movie is NOT the way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film takes a lot of liberties with the known historical facts.Even little things like Flynn licking one stamp after another, when he almost certainly would have used a moistened sponge, is one of the annoying things. Flynn was never tried of manslaughter or murder. He is not known to have caught his mother making love to another man, and is not known to have had an homosexual relationship with anybody, and he did not end up on skid row in Sydney. He did not get his twopenny-halfpenny role in In the Wake of the Bounty by imposture and this role did not turn him into a well-dressed film star.

This is just a mediocre film where the name of Errol Flynn has been tacked on just to sell more tickets and more videos.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even though he only made his debut film in Australia and left for Great Britain and then America to continue his career, Australians will tell you that the greatest film star they ever produced was Errol Flynn. I'm not sure he ever even went back to Australia after his breakout success in Captain Blood. Still I attribute this film to the well known Aussie irreverence for trashing the reputation of one of their own.

Part of the problem in telling Errol Flynn's life story was that he told enough tall tales in his life right up to the very end in his memoir, My Wicked Wicked Ways. I could see that a lot of the film was based on that and upon reading between the lines of that book.

His mother's infidelity to his father was not written, but could have been inferred in reading My Wicked Wicked Ways. He didn't particularly like the woman, that is clear from a few sources.

I wish the film had dealt more with his New Guinea adventures, that to me was the most interesting part of My Wicked Wicked Ways. As for his street fighting in the Depression, I tend to disbelieve that. Even if he had been successful at it, I guarantee that enough of that would have ruined his looks and he would never have had a career as a leading man.

Still the folks down under seem to think the atmosphere of Sydney during the Depression was captured well and Guy Pearce is a charismatic Errol Flynn. American audiences know him best as the uptight, but honest Lieutenant Exley in LA Confidential which came out the same year as Flynn.

But LA Confidential was a far better film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have no idea how accurate the portrayal of Flynn appears in this film but even as a work of fiction it is one of the worst films I have ever seen.

The script is all over the place and leaves you wondering how he got from one scene to the next - you are just not given the minimum information needed to keep some continuity and understand his present situation, and it is difficult to understand Flynn's and other characters' motives behind some of their behaviour.

Add to that a series of silly and implausible situations and you have film that comes across as one of your dreams that seems to make sense while you are asleep, but when you wake up and you try to remember it, it is just strange, disjointed and totally unrealistic.

There are many long, boring musical sections of the film that to me are either bad direction or a bad director trying and failing to be artistic.

None of the characters are even likable and the Flynn character comes across as a self serving liar, thug, thief, robber, murderer, bear fist fighter, gigolo and impostor who will do anything and step on anyone to further his own dreams, and somehow, despite all that, great opportunities just seem to miraculously fall into his lap.

This film is not entertaining nor satisfying in any way and by all accounts not even historically accurate, so why even watch it? To rub salt into the wound, the DVD had one of the worst transfers I have ever seen, it wasn't even in wide-screen or Dolby 5.1, it had terrible telecine wobble and many, many artifacts from what looked like a film reel that had been gathering dust and scratches somewhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Looking at the ratings you would assume this is a classic, but yet again its just another example of poor independent film makers trying to drum up interest in their movie. They aren't even being smart about it 10\/10 in the votes? I guess that to buck the curve and offset all the 1\/10's it will get. Is this better than any decent zombie movie? No.

Acting, corny and rubbish.

Sound effects, cheap and nasty, if it wasn't for where the actors looked you wouldn't know where it was coming from.

Cinematography. These people act like they have borrowed their dads camera right after watching the matrix. Less is more, but more from this team is absolutely pap.

Zombies are rubbish as well. I don't doubt most of these people will never be heard from again, and it will be for good reason. I hope zombies eat their eyes as this was 90 minutes of pap that I wont get back.

And falsifying ratings just makes it a million times worse.

One reviewer said it was one of the best horror movies he has seen in the last 30 years? I can only assume that his recent cornea transplant was a success then.

Watch the trailer as thats a warning as to how bad this film is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One look at the rating ought to tell you this movie was voted on by shills, in an attempt to artificially boost this film's ratings.

This film brings nothing new to the zombie genre. In fact, it is laughably bad (in acting and cinematography) and derivative in its plot. The make-up looks horrible and the zombies look even worse when shot. Lines are stiffly delivered and badly timed, with the exception of the female bounty hunter, who is the only good actor in this mess of a film. The worst offenders are the Italian guy (Hans), Ryn the protagonist, and the lead bad guy. I've seen better delivery from pizza truck with a flat tire.

This is a self-proclaimed \"zombie western\", but about the only thing that makes this a \"zombie western\" is the fact that people wear cowboy hats and the lead actor's real name is Clint. The protagonist isn't cool and mysterious like a traditional Eastwood hero, and as an anti-hero, he doesn't have the wise-cracking attitude to pull it off either.

Don't be fooled by the fake glowing reviews. This is just another B-grade zombie movie that's competently made for the budget it had (it does have some decent lighting), but it reeks of low-budget, first-time directing and bad acting. There are a LOT OF REALLY stupid scenes that make this look really amateurish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The trailer for this film promised a new twist on the zombie genre: setting it in the Old West. Except it's not the real Old West, of course. It's some sort of Future West, in a world where some apocalypse has, as apocalypses are known to do, killed people and subsequently turned them into zombies. It's zombie virus time again, folks, and you know what that means? Get bitten and become one of them.

So, into this dusty and dead-filled world comes a hero. He's a bounty-hunter, getting paid for taking care of zombies. It's not exactly clear who is providing the funds, but it seems a little cottage industry of zombie-hunting has emerged. But, as the trailer tells us, there's a problem. They are running out of zombies. The only way to keep on earning is to infect new towns and cities with the virus.

I think that's not a bad idea for a film. But unfortunately it takes a lot more than a good idea and a crowd of people pawing at windows to make a good zombie film. What we actually get is a Clint Eastwood clone (the actor's even called Clint, for crying out loud) and his \"hilarious\" sidekick, trying to bag zombies while trailing some still-living bad guys to get some big reward. The whole subplot about infecting other towns is only mentioned in passing, over half-way through the film. Instead, there's a lot of western movie clich\u00e9s, poor zombie make-up and some world-class bad acting. Really bad. The sort that wouldn't even make it onto Hollyoaks. Both hero and villain chomp on cigars, quips are thrown, people get bitten. As the movie lurches to a conclusion, the only thing worth wondering is whether it's going to end with the clich\u00e9 of the hero being the only man alive, having killed the one he loves, or the clich\u00e9 of him turning into a zombie in the final frame. (It's the first one, by the way) This film was written and directed by Gerald Nott. It's the only thing he has done and, hopefully, it will be his last. At the start of the film there is a caption that reads \"Nott Entertainment\". At least they got one thing right.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Produced by Nott Entertainment, this movie is \"nott\" very good at all. I sat through the first 15 minutes of the film before judging that the acting is bad, the casting is bad and camera work is bad. As I hear that there is a download of this film floating around on the internet, it is \"nott\" even worth the bandwidth.

Up until the time I wrote this review, the average vote for this movie was an 8.5, which prompted me to view it and there was an average high majority of 10's for it, obviously voted on by liars and shills. This movie is \"nott\" for everyone. Or parents, if you want to punish your kids with this awful film, have them sit through this one for Halloween.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot of the movie is pretty simple : a viral outbreak turned the population into flesh-eating zombies. Those who left became \"hunters\".

Well, first of all, this IS NOT the worst zombie movie there is. Among the worst are \"Zombiez\" and the infamous \"Zombie Lake\".

In fact i think, the idea for \"Quick and the Undead\" was very good, just executed poorly. Considering the budget they had to work with, this movie looks very good. I wasn't bored at all while watching it. Special Effects were solid, although they did use CGI once (fat zombie getting shot in the head), but everything else (gore, guts) was rather good. Acting is awful however. Our main guy looks like young Clint Eastwood, other \"actors\" are not even worth mentioning. As far as the plot goes, they didn't work enough on the development of the story.

Bad : acting, low-budget. Good : special effects, idea for the movie.

Overall, this flick deserves 4\/10 from me. It's not as bad as people say. Imagine a ZOMBIE WESTERN, then watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Quick and the Undead is, finally, the first movie to actually render its own storyline null and void. It is, essentially, one gigantic plot hole.

Aside from that, the acting was quite bad, character motivations nonexistent or unbelievable and there wasn't a single character worth hanging our hat on. The most interesting cast member (who had great potential to be a dark horse protagonist) got snuffed halfway through the proceedings.

What the Quick and the Undead DOES serve as is an excellent example of how to do good color-timing. It looked excellent, when you take into account budget considerations.

Unfortunately, it plays out like a guy got his hands on a hundred grand and watched a few westerns (most notably The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) and then just threw a bunch of elements haphazardly into a movie... \"you know, they have movies where characters do THIS! Does it fit here? No, but who cares! They do it in other movies so I should do it here!\"

Maybe a good view for burgeoning cinematographers and colorists (first-year film-schoolers). Otherwise, a must-miss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was awful, especially considering the work that must have gone into its production. Though it's not as bad as Ax 'Em, it is quite awful. Take into account the obvious rip-offs from Gladiator and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and what do you get? This smorgasbord of awful make-up and wooden acting.

The movie starts as most zombie movies nowadays do. A montage of interesting jump-cuts and a radio broadcast of the outbreak at hand. We see our hero (Ryn, quite possibly the worst 'zombie hunter' in modern era; counted about four or five times where he either scratched his head with the barrel of his pistol or looked down the barrel while blowing) cutting off fingers of zombies. We later learn that these fingers are collected for bounties.

Well, Ryn seems to be a rebel in his ways of dispensing of zombies; going so far as to purchase chum *gasp* from his French buddy Hans (who isn't really French, speaks with an odd Middle-Eastern accent). As Ryn uses the chum to collect a plentiful bounty from Lost Hills, all hell breaks loose.

And cue the awfulness of the movie. The zombies are put together quite poorly. I've seen comments praising their make-up, but it was quite amateur in my opinion. Obvious Halloween adhesives were used to make the zombies' faces and there were points at which one girl looked as if she were donning a clown mask instead of a freshly peeled face. Oy Vey.

To sum the next sixty minutes up in a few lines: Ryn is back stabbed by Hans (who made a deal with some other zombie hunters, Blythe being the ringleader), gives him a second chance, gets back stabbed again by Hans, then shoots Hans and gets to Union City where he finds Blythe is poisoning the cities for profit.

That's it really in regards to plot. When Ryn reaches Union City all the baddies are gathered around in a house that evidently is so massive it takes Ryn hours to reach the top floor. People die, Ryn lives, and the movie ends with one of those cynical \"is he going to kill himself?\" scenes.

*END SPOILERS* I'm going to have to blame most of this mess on Nott. The direction was awful. EVERY character featured a scowl other than Hans, who was easily the best 'actor' in this group of MacBeth rejects. When they reach Union City, a hoard of zombies attacks the crew and the zombies were obviously given no tips or ideas about how to walk as if your appendages were rotten. One woman is swaying as if she's swimming in mid-air on a Sunday stroll.

Some movies are awful. This movie is one of them simply on the grounds of how logic seemed to be abandoned in order to keep a story flowing. Works occasionally, but in this regard (where the story was already in shambles), it doesn't.

Avoid it unless you want a decent laugh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, here we have a zombie movie that perhaps isn't even being much of a zombie movie. The entire movie is set in a zombie-plagued near future but yet the movie does very little with this concept. Instead it focuses on a zombie hunter who is trying to get revenge and his money back from a group of other bounty hunters. What good is money anyway when almost the entire world has gone to hell and towns are mostly desolate. And why pay money to people for killing zombies in the first place. As if people would not go on to kill this dangerous threatening monsters when they are not getting paid.

Needless to say that the story for \"The Quick and the Undead\" is far from a tight one. It of course also isn't being filled with the most logical and interesting moments, characters or dialog.

Still it's not a completely horrible movie. It certainly ain't as bad as some people try to make you believe it is. It's a rather good looking one, or rather said the movie at least doesn't have a cheap look over it. It's effects may be a bit overused but nevertheless they are quite good looking, as are the make-up effects as well.

Still the movie was not what I hoped of it. Its title might suggest that the movie is set in the wild, wild west, during the days of the cowboys but its title is just a misleading one, no doubt picked to cash in on it. I fell for it, expecting this movie to be a combination of a western and a gory zombie-horror-flick.

For the fans of the zombie movies this movie will mostly be a disappointment to watch. It of course adds nothing new to the genre but it also doesn't has enough of the genre itself in it to be considered a good one to watch.

Not totally unwatchable but also far from a recommendable one.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm no director or writer or anything related to a movie. But watching more than 1 movie everyday has given me the idea of what is a good movie or not. So here it is: The quick and the undead is a rip-off of the Quick and the Dead. I was thinking that it could be a little bit of a parody of a cool movie with lots of starts in it. But oh no, I was really in for an very big disappointment.

To put it simply the movie sucks. I'm a big fan of gore movies but this one just gives you gore here and there but they are not that consistent.

But I have to give them credit in creating gruesome characters which has given me a little bit of squirm.

If you're a big fan of zombies, watch this. If you're not...better look for other rob zombie films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie a couple months ago when it first showed up on the shelves of Blockbuster. It is officially the only movie that I've wanted to undo watching. Let me start off by saying that I like \"B\" Movies. I consider \"Ice Pirates\" One of the best comedies EVER. I'll also note that I'm a writer and that I've met the director\/writer of this cinematic marvel.

Evaluating the acting: If I was going to pick a bright spot I'd have to point out that Dion Day had an admirable acting debut with his role in this. For those who don't know, Dion is a boxer not an actor so we'll forgive him his lame death sequence. Why doesn't he fire the shotgun he's holding once? Budget? To highlight the bad acting would take pages so I'll stick to The egotistical lead, Ryn Baskin. Ryn (Which seems like a name chosen from a comic book because it sounded cool) has maximum face time in this movie, probably because he was a producer. His looks are completely fine, but his delivery evokes memories of SNL ripping on soap-operas. I suppose he could only do so much with what was written for him, but part of the blame is definitely his.

Special Effects: Not my specialty, but for a low-budget flick I suppose the makeup and gun play was acceptable. It didn't bother me, but it also didn't impress.

Writing\/Directing: Oscar for best screenplay is not something I can foresee Gerald Nott ever winning. Not only is the plot rudimentary, but the dialog is flat and stilted. I understand stylized hokee-ness, but this was just bad writing. The thing that bothered me most was the theft. Nott stole scenes, shots, and Viggo's facial hair from a slew of other movies. The scene where Russel Crow is walking through the wheat field in Gladiator, Entire sequences from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, that sort of thing just doesn't cut it with me. I'll choose not to comment on the shooting because I don't know what it takes to establish a good shot etc...

Conclusion: Don't rent this movie, don't even pirate it. It's far too bad to waste any time on. The good reviews may be entirely bogus, after meeting Gerry It seems more then likely that he is posting them himself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"New rule. Nobody is allowed to make any more Zombie movies unless they actually come up with an original idea.

Sadly, this movie doesn't. They have the premise that Bounty hunters go out and kill Zombies and prove it by cutting off their fingers. Well, problems with that. Most people have ten fingers, why not just collect ten bounties for one Zombie? Why not just kill a regular person and pass that off as a Zombie finger?

Not to mention the utter silliness of hunting zombies with a bolt action rifle.

I sometimes think films like this are resume fillers for makeup and FX guys. \"Hey, this is what I did with ten dollars and some recylced bottles deposit. Imagine what I could do if you gave me a BUDGET!\" Do you think anyone goes to drama school or cinema school to star in a Zombie movie? \"I went to the School of the Arts. Check me out as the \"Tunnel Zombie\" in \"Quick and the Undead\".\" His mother must be so proud.

These had to be the wimpiest Zombies ever, as a whole crowed of them apparently couldn't push down a wooden door or even break a glass window. No, they had to wait for the bounty hunter to open the door for them...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unreal !!!!!!!!. After reading the initial reviews posted by alleged reviewers ,I was shocked to find that almost all of the initial reviews, 38 , all rated this film a 10. Upon comparison with other great films, these reviewers felt that the Quick and the Undead is a better film than,The 6th Sense(8.2), Saving Private Ryan(8.4), Lord of the Rings( 8.7),Godfather(9.5), Gladiator(8.1) and Dawn of the Dead ( 7.8) to name a few. Hopefully these shills utilize their next discounted lasik procedure, that they hear of, because it is completely obvious that these reviews have been falsified.

I was led to believe that this film featured a unique concept in the genre of Zombie film making. Sadly upon watching the Quick and the Undead , It is obvious that these reviews were generated by people who either were involved in the production, or have a vested interest in the films marketability \/ financial success. Nothing cements this in my mind more than hearing that a portion of this film was shot in Texas, were, coincidentally allot of the early posting praising the film are from. The Zombie film \/ Horror B movie culture on a whole is a forgiving group, but this film is sadly beyond any redemption. The characters are recycled,and the plot poor.The film quality was not bad enough to be labeled camcorder,and at least they used a film quality camera . The acting is horrible, the star trying unsuccessfully to come off as a Clint Eastwood wanna be clone. Christ on a Bike !!!!!! Even the lead actor's name is Clint. He was just terrible. The only resemblance to Clint Eastwood, is that the lead is using the \"wood\" from Eastwood's name in his style of acting. The Zombie makeup was above Halloween party quality , but not applied completely to the full undead cast members. Allot of zombies were not made up on their hands. The plot was so hokey that it had me hoping for a power outage, a blemish on the DVD disk, or that the zombies would turn their attention on the director. Maybe the film has worth to some viewers, but not for my hard earned dollar. Luckily I used my free rental coupon to check out this DVD. Maybe this film will be rescued by Nott entertainment ( aptly named) releasing a special collectors DVD, which will tie up loose flaws, and deliver the promised goods??? Some how , I think NOTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets just hope that their next release , The Flesh Keeper is truly a \"keeper\" of a film ..and not a 5th generation recycled version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Fingers crossed here folks...but only if you care.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a entertaingly bad b-movie. Actually it really is much better quality than a lot of b movies. It had a consistent script, decent direction, cinematogrpahy, and I have seen worse acting. The zombies were great, clearly these were Romero zombies, and was really a interesting zombie story. Obviously not Oscar material, and if your not into zombie movies, or b-movies you probably wont enjoy this, but if you are you'll like this movie.

The main clint eastwood knockoff western character guy is pretty good, although they never really clearly explain how he can heal himself from gunshots and zombie bites. But if he has more than a line of dialogue that where his bad acting is really evident.

It was a good ending to, at least I thought so. Romero should be flattered if he ever saw this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The production company for this film calls itself 'Nott Entertainment', and that is a surprisingly apt name. This very is very 'Nott' entertaining from start to finish, which is a shame because a mix of zombie movie and western could have been interesting. Every time a low budget zombie movie is released, it will tend to be \"for the fans by the fans\". I do actually consider myself a fan of zombie movies, but too many more like this one and I'll be re-evaluating my opinion! The film seems to be a rip-off of the half-decent Aussie zombie flick 'Undead', expect instead of just having the lead in a cowboy hat; everyone is wearing one; but this doesn't make a lot of sense because the film is apparently set in modern times. The credits sequence at the start of the movie fools us into believing that we're going to be in for an atmospheric film, but when the movie starts properly; it soon becomes apparent what we're actually in for. Naturally, there's a fair amount of gore and it is actually fairly well done, though the good things I have to say about the film pretty much end there. There's a twist half way through which might have been interesting if the rest of the film was. Overall, this is just another zombie movie in a world with far too many zombie movies. I don't recommend it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie baffled me. I could not get a grip on it. Thought I might be missing something. Glad to see that most of you agree with me. This isn't always the case (see my recent review of RE: Extinction).

To expound upon the faults of this film any further would be a glorious waste of time...so I will...

They're dressed like cowboys, but it's modern times, right? No? I don't get it??? When I picked up the box, I thought: ZOMBIE WESTERN! COOL! That's how it was presented. Haven't seen that yet. Hope they did a good job.

They DIDN'T! They tried to create an iconic character that would spawn a series. They didn't.

They tried to make an Aussie indie zombie flick on the caliber (and perhaps riding on the coat tails) of the very well done \"UNDEAD\". They didn't.

Okay, maybe they just wanted to make a confusing, disjointed, mess of film salad that might ultimately be edited into something watchable. They DIDN'T! This is the new number 2 on my list of Worst Zombie Movies Ever. There are really just the two so far, \"DAY OF THE DEAD: CONTAGIUM\" being the first (not to be confused with \"DAY OF THE DEAD\", which is one of my favorite zombie movies of all time). If you're gonna make a zombie movie (and I'm not a zombie movie maker, I'm just a connoisseur) make a good one. Flight of the Living Dead is a good example of decent recent zombie filmaking. FYI.

If you're really forgiving, you might think, well, didn't they at least throw in something to make us feel like we didn't want our money back? Guess what...THEY DIDN'T!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Down at the Movie Gallery, I saw a flick I just had to see. It looked like a fun low-budget horror\/action\/western that I could get into. Yeah, I knew it would suck, but I rented it anyway hoping for laughs. Only a few laughs were to be found. This was an extremely stupid movie. It begins with a bounty hunter, our protagonist, who is possibly the weakest main character in the history of film. He looks\/acts like he could take on Chuck Norris, but he can't. His dialogue sucks too. Anyway, he goes into a village, shoots some zombies. You could tell they tried to make this longer by putting in these boring scenes where he takes 3-5 minutes to reload or watch some zombies. At least the zombies look cool. So anyway, some people get shot, some zombies die, and in the end, everyone is dead except our main character, who should have died at the beginning when he was shot down by four people.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, I was told this would be a B movie worth watching. I feel that I was misled after seeing this preview event. The plot is a twisted make of several films at best. Even the title is a take on another film if you can give the movie that much credit. I am sorry to say that I was taken to the cleaners. I wouldn't waste your time on this one. This movie appears to be a bunch of wannabes who got together and made a poor idea of a movie on a weekend with a borrowed camera. Being in the entertainment business, I can judge a decent film and this one deserves to be shelved or discarded. My advice, stick to a classic like the 1979 Dawn of the Dead. On a scale of 1 to 10 even a 1 is being nice to producers because this movie BLOWS. (Below Limit Of What Sucks) The producers need to stay with their daytime jobs. If you do view the movie please be honest in your posting, this one seems to have been hyped up and inflated by a few. There are a few who have seen this for what it is and posted correctly. Sorry, but, I have to say this is one to be skipped.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Firstly, I am a huge fan of crap films. B grade is always good for a laugh. Unfortunately this film is just plain bad. I dressed up as a Zombie for a party and my make up looked better than the ones in this film. Especially the big guy at the beginning, it just looked like a kid had drawn on his face with crayons.

The acting is so bad I need not comment on why. The effect are also extremely amateurish, with obvious blood tubes firing a straight jet of blood out the back of zombies heads when they get shot.

It also seems many people commenting on this movie are trying to boost the rating. Nobody without their finger in the pie would rate this film above a 5\/10. Frankly it is disgraceful that people who worked on this film are boosting their own ratings.

I suggest everyone avoid this movie, it isn't worth wasting the 90 minutes of your life.

Absolutely awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After watching this movie on a boring Saturday afternoon, I couldn't quite figure out why so many people liked it. It wasn't \"heartwarming\" or \"clever\"; it was merely an amalgam of every other \"mismatched people coming together during a holiday and despite their ideological differences learning something about each other\" movie ever made.

The characters are a stereotype bouillabaisse -- We have the Blacks, the Hispanics, The Jews, The Asians, and the Homosexuals -- and they never do anything except what everyone expects characters in a movie like this to do. The black mother declares that it's \"all right, then\" when it's mentioned that another black character is at church instead of helping prepare dinner (because all blacks love church), the Hispanics seem only capable of speaking Spanish when the greet each other or make exclamations, the lesbians do nothing but cuddle and kiss (and one of them wears a bandanna. Because all lesbians dress like Ani DiFranco), and the Vietnamese family owns a video store. In L.A. Imagine that.

Oh, and the movie is called \"What's Cooking\" because each ethnic family cooks a different version of what they think Thanksgiving dinner should be! The Black mother wants cornbread and macaroni and cheese, the Hispanics are shown rolling tortillas, the Vietnamese family is deep frying spring rolls; I'm surprised there wasn't a bottle of Manischewitz on the Jewish table. This is all shown via the time-honored tradition of the \"musical-montage\", where they play the Surfari's \"Wipeout\", rapidly switching the instruments used in the melody to reflect the respective cultures. Isn't that cute? Anyway, once the director is finished establishing how different everyone is, he attempts to show the inner humanity that we, as all people of every race, religion and culture share, by inventing implausible and overly dramatic conflicts for each of the families to deal with. It would be a plot-killer to mention what each of these conflicts are, but rest assured that they are indeed surprises, that is if you have been sleeping for the first half of the movie. The theme of \"disgracing the family\" runs pretty strong throughout.

All in all, if you're the type of person who enjoys those new-fangled movies that revolve around the stories of unlikely characters intertwining, well, you still won't like this movie. If you like extended montages of food being passed around a table, then you need to put this in your Netflix queue. But if stereotypes and clich\u00e9s are endearing to you, then make sure you ask for this for Christmas. Or Hanukkah. Or Kwanzaa.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The concept: show 4 families of diverse ethnicities in the Fairfax District of L.A. preparing for the family get-together at Thanksgiving. I loved Soul Food and How to Make an American Quilt {I think there's a law that Alfre Woodard has to be in all these movies) which similarly offered a pastiche of family traditions, and was prepared for a treat. Instead, I felt tricked. They trot out about 40+ characters, and all but two are one-note cliches with no finesse whatsoever. The writers and director should spend a few more years learning about life and learn how loving people of different generations actually do relate. Instead, you have a bunch of a**holes getting together on Turkey Day to act like extra-obnoxious a**holes. Now, to an extent, this is what Thanksgiving is all about. But, not this misguidedly. And why bother having Julianne Marguiles, then giving her absolutely nothing to do. This was a chore to get through, and Mercedes Ruehl is a standout, but I give it a 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Great premise, poor execution. Cast of great actors is watered down into a poorly written, poorly directed, poorly edited, waste of film. Only redeeming quality is the numerous shots of the food.

Joan Chen, Mercedes Ruehl, Kyra Sedgwick, and Alfre Woodard should fire their agents.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film was half over before I managed to figure out what was going on. It's a dog's breakfast of a movie about four family Thanksgiving dinners. The cliches and stereotypes tumble over each other. When it's all over ten hours later --- well, it seems like ten hours --- you're puzzling over what it was all about. I don't want to see a movie about dinner table squabbling. There is enough of it in my own family. The turkeys looked pretty good. The rest gave me indigestion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is one of the worst movie i have ever seen in my life! i waste my time on this. I watched this movie completely as i took it a punishment for me. I wonder how Suneel Darshan could make such a movie? it doesn't have any continutity. It feels he just shoot scenes and then joined them in some editing software!!! Music is of course good but the film doesn't need so many unwanted songs. Kangana Ranaut looks fake and I wonder what role does Celina Jaietly has in the movie? Bobby deol is good. at least he can act! Upen Patel needs to take some acting lessons rather than taking off his shirts in almost all the scenes! The end was the most pathetic!

I watched Shakalaka Boom Boom after watching \"300\" (the movie), you guys can really imagine what i felt about this bollywood movie.

I really respect bollywood but please directors and producers, get real, not everything is fantasy!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now, I like the Bollywood films and I'm very glad they have recently gained success in the UK. However, Suneel Darshan's latest effort is a deeply flawed film from start to finish.

The idea of a modern-Bollywood take on Amadeus was quite an exciting one, that is until the two supposed 'musicians' appear on the scene looking as if they have never touched a piece of manuscript in their lives. Upen Patel is a very good looking man, and the film plays to his narcissistic sensibilities, but he is never once believable as a modern Mozart. In terms of acting, all he can do is stand there and pout. His expressions, hair and clothes all look the same throughout, including the scene where he is supposedly 'dying', when in fact he appears to have nothing but a slight sniffle. Bobby Deol, playing the Salieri role, does his best to liven up what little wooden script there is but, alas, just comes across as a little bit angry when he is supposed to be fuming with jealousy.

Bollywood films are widely renowned for their stunning set-pieces and colour schemes, but Shaklaka looks like a drab BBC drama reproduction. In fact, the closest thing Shakalaka comes to is Hollyoaks, as it blatantly hides a really bad script behind beautiful people looking, well, beautiful. \"He has yet to reach mediocrity\" - the same could be said for the totally forgetful songs.

In short, Darshan's latest offering has no boom, bang, wallop or twang. Instead it merely plods along with its head held low hoping to catch your attention with a soft tap on the shoulder. And that is not good enough at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most people get the luxury of typing in the title of a film, and finding out about the film before watching it but unfortunately I've just never been one of those kind of people. I wouldn't even read the synopsis for fear of spoilers but there are two sides to that because if you ignore such warnings and even give a film a chance after it has flopped in theatres, you're entering at your own risk and might just end up with a bad taste in your mouth which is exactly how I feel about this stupid movie.

Honestly, the only thing good about Shakalaka-Crap-Crap are some of it songs (and seriously excluding the title track). Even the ever promising Kangana Renaut's talent (Metro, Gangster, Woh Lamhe) is seriously wasted here as she plays Ruhi, the woman who has captured the attention of both the leading male characters played by Bobby Deol (who plays A.J. a rootless music producer) and Upen Patel (who plays Reggi, an upcoming artist who crosses A.J.'s path). Celina Jaitley provides the right amount of OOMPH required of a socialite who gets jilted by Reggi (whom she helped get his foot in the record industry's door). This doesn't sound like a mix or movie that should include Anupam Kher right? Well, you're wrong because he's in it as Reggi's father (another wasted talent).

The film might not have been so bad had their not over-killed the writing behind Deol's character. The moral message was too preachy (revenge had a deadly dark side) and the ending was way too overblown that it will make you wonder why you sat down to such a foolish movie in the first place. Truly, this is the epitome of crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie lacks in everything. Except Bobby deol, who in his own standards is mediocre, no one in this movie has come close to act in a single scene. Kangana is complete fake in her acting.

The great Anupam Kher has a guest appearance and is better in those 2 minutes than bobby in the whole movie. The music does'nt compliment the movie

that well. The contrast in Music between Bobby and Upen is not highlighted that well. Great concept gone completely wrong. The movie does'nt have a proper ending. Please don't waste your time as i did on this movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Shakalaka Boom Boom is a rip off from the movie Amadeus. I personally rate Amadeus as one of my favorites not only because it is about music, which is my favorite subject, but also because it tells us the real story of a musical genius who is not only remembered for the voluminous works of beautiful music he produced during his life-time, but for his own self-destructive nature and his tragic death at a young age of 35, being virtually uncelebrated during his life time because of the politics played by some people, particularly Saliere, the Italian composer, who was jealous of him.

Personally, I was shocked to see Shakalaka.., as the director has invariably cut-pasted most of the scenes from the movie Amadeus. I see the worst kind of plagiarism in this movie and am skeptic about the kind of movies Bollywood keeps on churning day by day. The movie is a disaster, the two musicians in the movie don't give you any feeling of being realistic, the film is tasteless, meaningless and total failure on every count. The only person who makes an impact is Bobby Deol, who at least knows how to act. Otherwise, the whole cast looks like a bunch of amateurs.

The irony is that while watching the movie, the first screen in the movie says that all characters in this movie are fictitious and that any resemblance with anyone is purely coincidental which is a blatant lie, because all resemblances are very much clear and they are very much intended. I wish I could take Darshan and Co. to court not only for Copyright Infringement, but also for mutilating a beautiful work of art.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, my goodness. I would have never thought it was possible for me to see a thriller worse than Domestic Disturbance this soon, but here it is. Armed with rotten plot, terrible editing, stilted acting, and headache-inducing 'style' (sorry, I have no other words for it), Sanctimony is the kind of movie that almost forces you to re-evaluate an entire genre; that is, this film is so bad that even the thrillers I condemned as complete failures now seem a little better.

Now, not only Sanctimony is a terrible film in itself, it also succeeds in the difficult task of ripping off better movies and do a pathetic job with it. Right from the main titles -- nothing but a blatant attempt to reproduce the ones from Se7en -- I was under the impression that something didn't smell quite right. As soon as the movie started with a series of corny, wanna-be hip quick-cuts full of gory images and bombastic colors, I knew where that smell was coming from.

It turns out that two policemen, or rather policeman Jim Renart (Michael Par\u00e9) and policewoman Dorothy Smith (Jennifer Rubin), are investigating on a murder spree in Vancouver. A serial killer, known as \"Monkey Killer\" (what a menacing, chilling nickname, uh?) for his working methods, has killed quite a lot of people. You see, this nut apparently works following the proverb \"see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil\" and cuts eyes, ears, and tongues out of his victims. So far, six eyes, six ears, and three tongues. In very ingenious fashion, Renart and Smith figure out that the Monkey Killer is probably going to kill other three people... well, because he probably wants to complete the number 666. So suddenly the film focuses on Tom Gerrick (Casper Van Dien), a young, successful, good-looking businessman, with a dreadful temper. And that's where the rip-off of American Psycho kicks in.

So we follow the life of the two police officers and the young psychopath, none of which is interesting in the least, until they finally meet. Along the way to that, a disco where Renart barely misses Gerrick unintentionally offers us one of the funniest scenes in recent memory: Renart goes in the back of the disco club, because... well, just because the script tells us it's a suspect place; then, with one single punch in the stomach, Renard gets rid of a big guard who blocks the path, and the guard is never heard of again? Does this scene strike anyone else as completely unrealistic?

Anyway, after another murder, Gerrick turns in as a witness, but Smith and especially Renart immediately suspect he might be the killer. In typical Basic Instinct fashion, Smith gets some dates with the young businessman, under the assumption that she might discover his true identity.

I won't spoil the ending but it is, quite simply, an embarrassment; there are contradictions, some plot holes, issues that never get resolved, and especially there is one last scene where a brutal mass murder, supposed to be shocking and sad, comes off as such laughably overdone and nonsensical that I frankly can't imagine how anyone could not laugh at it.

At 87 minutes, Sanctimony is really pushing it. You never care about one single character, because they are all so flat (not to mention boring) that you know exactly who is who the first time you meet them. You are never pulled into the story, because the scenes are connected through weak plot devices when not downright unnecessary and out of place. The acting ranges from average (Van Dien) to downright atrocious (Rubin, and most of the supporting cast); the music is abysmal generic techno, and the photography is one of the worst I have ever seen. Of course, like every fiasco of the genre, we are provided with a little bit of gratuitous nudity.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My friend & I rented this movie and within the first 5 mins we had no idea what was going on. It felt like it should have been over within the first 15 mins. It was a terrible movie, my little brother could have been a better actor than some of the ones in the movie, and the plot (if you can call it that) was full of holes. Never would I recommend this movie to my worst enemy, yet anybody I actually like.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You may not believe this, but when the credits to this movie rolled, I looked for the director's name. When I saw it, I burned it into my memory and I never forgot it. This movie is beyond terrible. It makes Ed Wood's films look like Orsen Welles. At least B movies are entertaining, this was a soul deadening experience. The quality was so bad, I began to wonder who allowed this to happen.

I hear Uwe Boll runs fourteen miles a day. This is because wherever his movies are viewed, the people must run him out of town with flame and pitchfork. The script was terrible, the lighting was like that of a high school football game, and the cinematography was just above the quality of Roger Patterson's Bigfoot video. The acting was executed by people too ashamed of the production to say their lines with any credibility. In the end was a film Alan Smithee wouldn't have put his name on. I learned that day to avoid any movie by this man despite the circumstances. From what I hear, this is not a bad thing to do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, my. Oh, this is a *really* bad movie. The acting is absolutely atrocious, the script is god-awful, and the photography is simply dreadful.

What does make this movie stand out, however, is that you never once care about a single soul-- good guy or bad guy, living, dying or dead-- in the entire 87 minutes. \"Oh, s\/he died? Huh... Figured they would\" was the best reaction I could muster after each murder. Characters are so black-or-white that with the volume turned off, you could still figure out who was who. While the cast's voices had an odd monotone quality throughout, their faces give the impression that you're looking at an old silent movie with a lot of eyebrow waggling, exaggerated frowns and \"pensive looks\". Each character is a humorless, passionless, one-dimensional one-trick pony; once they fulfill whatever their particular role in this fiasco demanded their creation, they are summarily dismissed.

It vaguely made me think of what would happen if Thomas Borch Nielsen (director\/writer of \"Skyggen\", American title: \"Webmaster\") decided to do a low-budget version of \"American Psycho\" and got kind of distracted along the way.

This isn't a particularly gruesome movie; the cold, passionless cast ensures that. It isn't an offensive movie; the director plays it so safe that no one could possibly find it so. It is, simply and after all, a bad movie.

Avoid it. We were not so fortunate and actually paid to watch this bomb on Pay-per-View. As part of my penance, I'm writing this review.

Enough said.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Did Uwe Boll seriously just rip off the basic idea and dialogue from Se7en?! Why is it so fekking difficult for this douchebag to be original?! He even mentioned in an interview with Gametrailers that he chooses stuff like games to make into movies because the characters, plots, backstories and so on are already there and ready for him to screw with.

Guess it isn't too much of a stretch for him to rip off another movie entirely...

I mean, seriously, what the hell...? Here's something I made in Uwe's 'honor'...

http:\/\/zuucka.deviantart.com\/art\/Uwe-Boll-is-a-Douchebag-70369862","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went into this movie with low expectations, knowing Uwe Boll's legacy as a film director, and screenplay writer, and I was still disappointed. Uwe Boll finds a way to make each and every movie he is involved in worse and worse. The overall concept wasn't a bad one, a man bored with his life as a stock broker becomes a serial killer. But the problem with the movie is there is no in between, he goes straight from stock broker to serial killer. The film has no-name actors, and I can see why, after watching the movie, I can't see why any actor with a career would want to even be involved in this movie. Anyone who turned it down did their careers a favor. And if you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and don't.

I give Sanctimony a 3 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Astounding that something like this could find its way to be viewed by the public. I knew it was by Uwe Boll, & I found it in the bargain bin at a store for $2 (still pretty steep, considering) but morbid curiosity led me to view this, and:

1). I am fairly sure this is a rip-off of Seven, Silence of the Lambs, and American Psycho, all rolled into one, with dialog that may have been written by preteens.

2). Casper Van Dien plays the main character, and he's so absolutely bizarre and creepy that just about anyone would KNOW he must be the crazed serial killer.

3). Jennifer Rubin plays the \"good cop\" that invites a serial killer to her apartment for a home cooked dinner, and what does she get for her trouble? I'll let you guess.

4). Michael Pare plays an \"intense\" cop, who drives a VW Bug, new-style, that is, with a siren on it. A VW Bug...that'll strike fear into criminal's hearts when they see THAT coming.

5). Van Dien breaks up with his fianc\u00e9, but she still has an \"not engaged\" party, complete with \"not a wedding cake\". Imagine everyone's surprise he shows up (he was, of course, invited) and they all get shot.

6). Actually, this should have been #1, really. The killer in this is known as \"The Monkey Maker\". This is, without a doubt, the stupidest killer name anyone could have come up with in a million years. Presumably it has something to do with the \"see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil\" saying, complete with monkeys. It's possible that monkeys had something to do with the script, too.

7). Oh yeah, and there's a club that Van Dien visits near the beginning of the film. There's bad disco music, I mean, really bad, and a chain-link fenced cage with, uh, gang members beating the crap out of each other with baseball bats? That's what it looked like. And of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg, the really cool stuff (?!) goes on in the basement, where some questionable \"actor\" talks some woman into signing a confession before she gets shot, this being, I guess, a snuff movie? Not quite sure how this fits in with the rest of the film, and Boll probably wasn't either, so if he wasn't worried, then I won't worry.

An incredible piece of non-entertainment that will make you feel like you're watching something from a parallel universe. A parallel universe that's KIND of like ours, but where things are just enough off where they don't seem right. You have entered \"The Boll Zone\". Exit as quickly as possible, & don't look back.

2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I watched this is because of its stars, CASPAR Van Dien, Micheal Pare & Eric Roberts & catherine Oxenburg * & Jeniffer Rubin, All capable actors & have given good performances in the past,. NOT THIS TIME,, a weak serial killer story, You can guess who the killer is in the first scene. Very contrived in all aspects there is nothing to recommend in this disaster, my rating is *1\/2 POOR","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My husband wanted to watch this film because the review in the paper said that it was better than Fatal Attraction. Well, not liking either Michael Douglas or Glenn Close, I would have to agree. Not for conventional reasons though.

This is one of those films that needs to be watched late at night when you don't want to watch something that really requires thought but don't want to go to bed yet.

Yancy Butler is a really enjoyable bad-guy. She is not the best of actresses, in fact she isn't even good but she is perfect for this role in this film. Everyone else in it varies from pine to oak, including the slightly disturbing boy who comes across as a warped Pinocchio.

SPOILER: The ending goes a step or two too far, complete with the clich\u00e9 not quite dead, up with a roar, still gonna get you moment and then there's a shot of Pinocchio with his frozen wooden smirk which makes you wonder if they were going for chilling or just forgot there was botox in the make-up.

Regardless, it's a hilarious eighty odd minutes and despite being a bad film, you would have to be lacking the humour gene to not enjoy it somewhat. Don't pay for it but if you're in that kind of apathetic telly mood then this is just right.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The material is poor....the script's dreadful....the acting mediocre at best and the music telegraphs what the scene is supposed to be communicating like a kick in the head.

Give this one a miss....even Yancy Butlers not hot enough even in the semi nude scenes to save this tripe.

I'm amazed people rave about Yancy Butler.....given what I've seen here and in the couple of other things I've seen her in she hasn't got the depth or presence to be a star...and her off screen behaviour would tend to indicate she knows that as well.

Last thing is where was this shot? I don't recognise the externals.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Totally forgettable and almost unwatchable. If you enjoy bad acting, thin plots and predictably weak outcomes, pull up a chair. Of passing interest to see Bridget Fonda look-a-like Suzy Amis.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is by far the worst film I have ever seen in my life. A woman \"The EX\" pretends to be a number of people in order to gain access to her ex-husband. Killing people for no- reason in baths to achieve her goal. The women I don't think ever went to acting college. She just spends the whole film making stupid expressions, and she looks like she is trying her absolute hardest to avoid looking into the camera. Failing on most occasions. She makes friends with her Ex Husband's wife and son, she does this to use them against her husband. At first when you watch this film, you think that the \"Ex\" wants to kill her ex-husband, maybe because he has treated her in a bad way. But in fact the women is obsessed with the man and wants him back. The two of them used to enjoy rough entertainment (using whips of course). My advice to the general public is do not buy this film, do not rent this film and do not watch it like I did (at 1.15am on FOX)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a pretty simplistic romance. Girl finds boy, girl loves boy, girl loses boy, girl finds boy. Colleen Moore is the outstanding ingredient in this recipe, delivering a wonderfully varied dramatic\/romantic performance, well deserving of an Oscar nom. Equally fine are the aerial combat special effects.

Moore plays a French girl whose mother has turned over their field to a British aerial squadron during WWI. She is the \"daughter of the regiment\", loved as a little sister. Into this mix comes a fill-in for a downed flyer, Gary Cooper. At first they hate each other, then they love each other, then the entire squadron is sent out on a suicide mission. Cooper returns but crashes in the village and a red cross unit removes him. Moore searches for him, is told at a hospital he is dead, then wanders the streets until he calls from a hospital window and they are reunited.

It's a nice little romance, but hardly more than that. Recommended for fans of Ms. Moore and Mr. Cooper","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It looks like people involved with this movie are stuffing the ballot box to boost its ratings. The good news that apparently only 18 people have seen it. I suppose that makes me the 19th. I have no involvement with the flick and don't know anyone who did and I'm a long-time IMDb user (check my vote record and reviews over the past seven years), so I promise I'm giving an honest and unbiased opinion. It's coming to you from a 30-year horror fan who has also appeared in a couple of low-budget flicks himself.

Aside from a couple of interesting video effects, \"Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare\" is incoherent, boring, and technically flawed beyond all reason. It was apparently shot on silent stock and the audio then dubbed in; most of it sounds like it was recorded with a tin can and a piece of string, anyhow. More than three quarters of the dialog is inaudible.

I watched this from beginning to end and have no idea of what the story was, or even if there was one. It seems like the director is mostly impressing himself with long, panning shots of the corners of table and dead black spaces that do nothing but pad the film out. That would be a problem if one were actually developing a plot and making a film that had some sense of pacing. In this case, though, the rule doesn't apply. It doesn't matter how scenes are shot because they don't add up to a story.

Watching this video is an exercise in futility at every level. Whatever people who worked on it are writing and however they're trying to influence the ratings here on IMDb, this is just bad, tedious stuff.

That's the honest truth. If you're thinking of spending your money or time on this one, think again. It's easy to find something better because you won't find much worse.

And that's the unbiased, unvarnished truth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This conglomeration fails so miserably on every level that it is difficult to decide what to say. It doesn't merit one line, much less ten, but to adhere to the rules of IMDb, here goes and I probably won't succeed the first time around and have to type some more to make up for this submission to be accepted. LOL

If I had seen this schlock during the '70s while I was going through my mushroom phase,I would have still considered it unimaginative and shallow. The most exciting shot for me was the long shot when the elevator door opened and closed.I was on the edge of my seat.

One person on here wrote that he had met the creator of this mess, as if that were a red letter day in his life. One can only pray that something far more exciting occurs in that posters life.Get a grip, amigo.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the commentators on the subject of Lil' Pimp (dbborroughs of Glen Cove), got it right when he\/she stated that the movie is really bad but I take exception when he\/she commented on the animation.

The animation wasn't bad because of Macromedia Flash. It was bad animation because it was directed wrong. Flash is just a tool. In the right hands, an artist can create animation as full and fluid as any Disney film and, in the wrong hands, it can look as bad as the stuff on the internet, which is where Lil' Pimp originated and should've stayed there.

Studios such as Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney, and Warner Bros., create wonderful animation using Flash (i.e., Puffy Ami Yumi, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Mucha Lucha, etc.).

Lil' Pimp was an ill conceived piece of tripe that was made because Revolution Studios bought Media Tripp and Lil' Pimp was one of the properties included. Roth and company thought they'd make a quick buck exploiting a turd like Lil' Pimp and the sham was perpetuated by it's producer, Amy Pell. The reason for this third trimester abortion of an animated film is that none of the executives at Revolution Studios had the pragmatic brains to sideline Mark Brooks and Peter Gilstrap (they really tried their best but were way in over their heads), and hire real writers, directors and at least a semi-competent producer. They did one thing correctly though, they hired some of the best storyboarders, designers, and animators in LA, but as Lil' Pimp demonstrates, one can buy the best sports car on the floor but if you're a moron, you'll wreck it for sure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I mean really, really, REALLY high and this movie has a shot at entertainment. I don't mean regular high, i mean the high where reading the phonebook would have you in stitches. otherwise save the time out of your life and go do something more constructive with it, like hitting your head on a brick wall and insulting your own intelligence. A complete waste of talent in some cases (Bernie Mac, John C. McGinley, Tom Kenny, and the master of hams Shatner) and exactly the kind of crap they deserve to make (the myriad of rappers who insist on making movies). Not without it's laughs (again chemical aid is crucial) and certainly not without offending the politically over-sensitive (which I'm always in favor of) but ultimately not worth the time out of your life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lil Pimp is the story of a little boy who becomes a pimp. The animation and voice acting were perfect for this type of film.

I laughed out loud for the first 20 minutes or so of this movie; mostly at the concept. After that, the joke wore thin. As a 15-20 minute animated short, Lil Pimp would have been a classic. Instead, this movie consists entirely of one joke that lasts far too long.

Weathers, voiced by Ludicrous, does have several crude and funny one-liners. Unfortunately, that is all the boy's pet rat is good for as he contributes nothing else to the story. Eventually, I grew as bored with his remarks as I did the rest of this movie.

I am a big fan of South Park, and other animation aimed at adults. I also play several online pimp games, so I am partial to stories about pimps. The transition from little boy to lil pimp was brilliant; but after that, both the story and dialog became redundant and predictable.

I give this movie a five. It is worth watching for the great concept and voice acting. Just do not expect much else or you will be quite disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First things first, I am by no means a picky movie watcher. I'm not one of those people who gets movies just to pick apart the flaws and criticize, I, like most other people, watch to be entertained. I'll basically watch any type of movie of, no matter how bad anyone says it is (sometimes a movie's so terribly made and written that it invokes a sort of pity humor which i get a kick out of). With all that aside, lil pimp was simply pathetic. I saw it on TV and just didn't know what I was watching. It was too poorly written and cheesy to be an adult movie, and had way too much sex, innuendo and swearing to be a kid's movie, in fact, I doubt even kids would be amused by it. The humor (pretty generous even calling it that) was so pretentious and campy, I couldn't see how anyone with half a mind could even find it funny. The only thing that made me laugh was how people like Bernie mac and ludicrous could put their name and time onto\/into something so hurting. Luda's character was such a cheap ploy for laughs, which fell extremely short of its goal. The plot didn't make any sense whatsoever, the storyline has got to be the worst sequence of events ever put together on screen. I could keep going on, but I want to see what people think of my reaction before I start discussing specific instances of pathetic scenes. All I have to say is it really has to make ya wonder how much time these writers spent on their knees trying ta get it made.

J","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was extremely boring. I only laughed a few times. I decided to rent it when I noticed William Shatner's name on the cover. It's all about this little kid who gets picked on all the time by his classmates. When wandering the streets looking for old ladies to assist, he meets a prostitute. She takes him to a club called the Playground, where he befriends several pimps. When mayor Tony Gold (Shatner) decides to take over the pimp business, Lil' Pimp must lay down for his homies.

The animation isn't very good in this. It looks like it was made with Macromedia, which I'm sure it was. It doesn't suck, it's just the sort of choppy flash animation that people have gotten used to over recent years. The humor in this is not very good, I didn't think any of it was funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although Charlie Chaplin made some great short comedies in the late 1910's, others don't quite make it. Examples like His New Job and Shanghaied come to mind, and I would also The Floorwalker in this category.

Charlie gets mistaken for a manager of a department store (and vice versa). This manager tries to steal money from the cash register and make a run for it, and Charlie is just an honest costumer but getting blamed for some missing objects, stolen by other costumers.

There aren't many laughs in it, except for the last couple of minutes or so with some great scenes on the escalator. For the rest, quite disappointing.

4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why, oh why, is this trash considered a classic? I've seen higher body counts on episodes of The Simpsons. Virtually nothing happens in this film and much of it's running time is filled with nearly unbearable melodrama straight out of a low-rent soap opera.

The Trenton family are going through tough times and when dad is away mommy and little boy go to get the car fixed. But when they get to the ranch they discover that the guard dog has gone mad. The rest of the film is just them sitting in the car while the slobbering St. Bernard circles them over and over.

Regarding the kid, I have never, ever seen a more annoying child in a film in my life. And obviously he's completely Aryan since blonde-haired and blue-eyed kids, such as the one prominently featured on packets of Kinder chocolate, are apparently more sympathetic than people with brown eyes and dark hair, like me. All he does is cry and whine. Same goes for mommy. She gets out the car, she gets in the car, she gets out the car, she gets in the car.

I know this was made in 1983 but I just sick to death of horror films where the characters make stupid, illogical decisions. If mommy just used some common sense she'd be able to get away from the icky dog.

It's very poorly written and there's zero tension. If you want to see a good \"bad dog\" movie then check out John Lafia's Man's Best Friend. It's funny, inventive, has a better dog, a higher body count and a more involving story. Leave this garbage be.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am writing this with 10 minutes left before the film finishes. I feel comfortable writing it now, because unfortunately I know exactly how this film is going to end.

The premise is simple enough, rabid dog on the loose in a small town, kills people. Great - simple plot for a good fun camp 80s horror.

Uhh ..no.

The main problem is this is based on a book (Stephen King) and you can tell that is should not have really been adapted to film, at least not with the same plot. Why? Cuz its boring! The first 45 minutes tries to build depth to its main characters and create suspense. It however lasts too long (half the film!) - the characters are unlikeable and we never care for them anyway, and it just about creates zero suspense. The easiest film (according to plot and time) to compare this to it the classic Jaws. Everything that Jaws does right, Cujo does wrong. Jaws created good characters and a genuine feeling of dread. Cujo does neither. Jaws effectively creates a scary, creepy villain in its shark. Cujo has a dirty St Bernard running about growling and jumping, and not a lot else. Jaws is exciting and unpredictable. Cujo is a tireless bore that remains predictable right to the end.

Also confusing is the plethora of subplots that just act as boring red herrings to the films main plot.

If this film was rewritten for the big screen and had a better director this could have been good. But it wasn't. It was a waste of 90 minutes of my life.

People on here are saying this is one of the best King adaptations - Im sorry you could not be more wrong. The Mist is a hundred times better, Thinner is 10 times better and even the one with the cats is twice as good! This in my opinion is one of the worst! The only good thing was the action scenes with the dog looked real, even though they were dull.

Films ended now, and it didn't get any better. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"CUJO is a movie adaptation of a novel of the same name written by Stephen King.

I've never read the novel but just scanning the comments page has given me some insight. I noticed a reference to the change in the ending.

The plot of the movie is as follows - a St. Bernard dog gets bitten by a rabid bat and goes on a killing spree.

The plot sounds quite worn now, having been done in various movies. However it might have been something new when King wrote the novel. Or perhaps King's novel put a twist on the story that was never shown in the movie.

Anyway, the first 40 minutes of this movie have nothing at all worth mentioning other than the dog being bitten. Nothing else happens - nothing scary, nothing funny, nothing to add depth to the characters and nothing interesting in any other respect. I found this section difficult to sit through and was constantly shouting at the TV, \"come on, get started!\". The events that I was seeing on the screen were reminiscent of a TV movie of the drama genre or an extended episode of a TV soap opera. Unfortunately, there was only one family in the movie given any focus so it couldn't even work on a soap opera level. The dog was the best character in the movie, but it didn't get enough screen time in this section. There was nothing to indicate why this dog would go on a killing spree later.

After the 40 minute mark point, something finally happened. The dog suddenly transformed from a lovable pet into a vicious killing machine. It began attacking some people. There was also an interesting cat-and-mouse chase when two characters became trapped in a car, unable to leave because the dog would attack them. Even in this overly long second half, the suspense would build up well before dying again. It was just a stop-go situation repeated over and over again until the movie reached its conclusion.

Without giving the ending away, I can tell you it was very formulaic and unworthy of a Stephen King story.

The suspense scenes when they are on the screen are exciting to watch. Some great camera angles add menace to the dog's vicious nature when he attacks people. This is particularly important because as others have mentioned a St. Bernard dog is nowhere near as scary as, say, a Rottweiler. Unfortunately, the movie fails to utilise suspenseful music to support the images on the screen. The music is far too melodramatic rather than suspenseful. This may fit a TV movie but it looks incredibly out of place in what should be a dark-toned movie presenting a living nightmare to the viewer.

This brings me on to a wider problem with this movie - the photography. The camera-work and especially the choice of colours make this seem like a very cheap TV movie one would expect to see as the daytime movie on Channel 5 here in the UK where I am writing this comment from.

The top two actors deliver good acting performances that help to breathe life into the movie's dull segments. Dee Wallace and Danny Pintauro should be given credit for doing a great job with the poor material they are given. I could forgive a few brief moments of overacting by paying closer attention to the dialogue, which could not have allowed any other interpretation in my opinion. I won't pass judgement on the other actors because they are given virtually nothing to do.

As someone who is a fan of SALEM'S LOT and STEPHEN KING'S IT, both movie adaptations of famous Stephen King novels, I had high expectations for this movie. But it turned out to be a massive disappointment.

Overall, I do not recommend fans of Stephen King or horror movies in general to watch CUJO. This is one of those moments where I have to recommend the book rather than the movie. Hopefully it brings the story to life in a way that the movie failed to do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It takes an eternity for this typically over-simplistic and idiotic Stephen King-based film to finally get out of the starting blocks. About half-an-hour is spent on needless introductions to various boring characters and their irrelevant little personal problems that might excite bored housewives and apathetic pensioners in soapy dramas, but this is supposed to be the horror genre (or so I naively thought). The mutt fails to look all that fearsome, which Leonard Maltin, the notoriously clueless\/hopeless and always grinning film critic, would disagree with: he considers Cujo to be \"genuinely frightening\". (I often do have to wonder if Maltin is genuinely thick - or merely likes to do favors for his Hollywood friends...) It's both illogical and inconsistent the way Wallace survives an attack with only a leg injury. And, naturally, her car breaks down just when she needs it to save her life: this is one of the oldest horror-film clich\u00e9s; trust King to use it to minimum effect. The premise is imbecilic, too banal, even for a horror film: a rabid mutt attacks a family. Is that it? This sort of thing barely constitutes a 3-minute sub-sub-plot in your average zombie film. I think even Cujo must have sensed that he was starring in a turkey. Mutts have terrible agents... But what I really don't understand is how people can actually throw themselves at the \"Cujo\" book and read it from cover to cover? These SK fans must be immortal: that's the only explanation, i.e. why they treat time as such a meaningless commodity.

Bodycount: 3.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1983 was a bumper year for Stephen King books making it to the big screen. Christine, The Dead Zone and Cujo were all released within a few months of each other. While The Dead Zone was easily the pick of the bunch, Christine and Cujo were both pretty bad, and it's a close-run thing as to which is the lesser of the two. If pushed for an answer I'd say Cujo - marginally - is the weakest.

Donna Trenton (Dee Wallace, fresh from success as Elliot's mom in \"E.T - The Extra Terrestrial\") is a mother whose marriage to husband Vic (Daniel Hugh-Kelly) is hanging by a thread. She's been having an affair with a local worker, and is now dwelling on whether or not to leave her husband. Dragged into the marital heartache is young Tad Trenton (Danny Pintauro), son of Donna and Vic, and a pretty messed-up kid with a chronic phobia of the dark which often leads to severe panic attacks. Donna and Tad take the family car to a nearby mechanics' yard for repairs, but as they arrive their car splutters to a halt. Things get a heck of a lot worse when they discover that the mechanic, Joe Camber (Ed Lauter), isn't there (he has been savagely killed by his pet dog Cujo, a gigantic St. Bernard which was recently bitten and infected by a rabid bat.) Soon, the dog has them trapped in their car and is trying everything to get inside the vehicle to tear apart these two hapless victims. The weather is swelteringly hot; not a living soul knows they're there; the car won't start; and the dog seriously wants their blood......

Cujo has potential to be a genuinely taut siege thriller, but it never really clicks into gear. I've read the book and it is quite disappointing - certainly for King - so it's hardly surprising that the film version amounts to so little. On the printed page, King was at least able to generate a degree of tension, but the film is critically hampered by the fact that a St. Bernard simply isn't very scary. The \"visualness\" of the film medium serves as a constant reminder that Cujo IS a St. Bernard. In the book, it was possible to forget this. In the book, Cujo sometimes almost seemed to assume the guise of a monster. Even with the relatively short running-time of an hour-and-a-half, Cujo becomes a tedious and patience-straining experience, occasionally unintentionally funny and certainly never as suspenseful as it would like to be. They've even omitted the book's cruelly downbeat ending and replaced it with an \"all's well that ends well\" conclusion so that audiences can go home in a cheerful mood!!! Chalk this one down as yet another inferior King adaptation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't get me wrong, I love Stephen King! And this is a pretty good movie over all. The rabid Cujo is very scary and the movie is suspenseful. But after the first few minutes that poor Donna and her little son Tad were held captive in their Pinto by the rabid St. Bernard, I began to wonder why she didn't do something to help herself.

She could have stuck her foot out the door and pushed the car backwards (I mean, it was a Pinto for Pete's sake and they were on a downhill incline) and rolled to safety, but then it would have been a very short movie. When she got the car started, did she pop it into reverse and hope that she could get at least get part way down the driveway? No, she tries to make a three point turn in a car with a bad alternator. She did manage to get out of the car and look around for 45 seconds or so at one point to try and get to a baseball bat that was lying on the ground nearby--what a waste of time! I mean, if you're going to make a run for the bat, do it and at least you'll have something to hit the dog with. But, forget the bat. Were there no tools in the car, like a tire iron or something? I didn't see her looking in the spare tire well of the car. Really, why wait until you're bitten and weak from dehydration and your son is having seizures before you make a stand against the animal?

At the end of the movie she was battered and torn, but by God she was still wearing high heels!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

Man, I just cant believe this movie. I have watched it entirely (believe me, I have done this !) and the best part was the traillers on the beginning (and I hate traillers!!!!).

No plot, no acting, no nothing. I was watching the movie and thinking, \"When this is going to start\" ? It never started. How people can spend money and time to make such a crap ?

The \"plot\": A Dog gets bitten by a bat and get rabies - Okay, until now no problem, nothing special but OK. Now the rest of the movie will be - the Dog will chase people!!! thats it, nothing else!!! Now add to this some of the worse actings\/actors I have ever seem, some completely irrealistic scenes (and some others really idiotic, like the child cant breath and the mother gives him a big and strong hug to see if he gets better), and a very lame ending, thats it, here you have CRAP... ops!.... CUJO.

Do your self a favor and make something more worthy, like hiting your head against the wall or play chess with yourself.

ZERO out of 10.

Gabriel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not me.. If it came down to it, I could kick a dog's ass, and that's why this movie doesn't work for me. If it was me against the Alien, or Jason.. Or.. Hell, I dunno.. ANY OTHER HORROR MOVIE ANTAGONIST, then there'd be no contest and I'd have my ass handed to me barring divine intervention. A horror movie works because it puts people in a situation with a creature, person, being, entity, whatever, that is more powerful or resourceful or intelligent than they are, and then people think 'well what if that happened to me', and they get scared - and that's why this is a horrible idea for a story. I can't imagine myself being terrorized by a dog, so I'm not scared.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cujo is a giant, lovable, gentle and affectionate St. Bernard owned by the Camber family, during the opening sequence Cujo chases a rabbit over fields and through a local wood somewhere in Castle Rock, Maine. The rabbit disappears into a burrow and Cujo sticks his head into the entrance hole. The rabbit vanishes from Cujo's sight, angry Cujo starts to bark and in doing so inadvertently wakes up and annoy a colony of bats, one of which bites him on the nose. Donna Trenton (Dee Wallace-Stone as Dee Wallace) is having an affair with Steve Kemp (Christopher Stone, Dee Wallace's real life husband) which her husband Vic (Daniel Hugh Kelly) who works in advertising, discovers. Obviously their relationship becomes strained. Happily oblivious to all of this is their young son Tad (Danny Pintauro). Joe Camber (Ed Lauter) fixes cars for a living out of his barn on his farmhouse. Joe is planning a guys weekend with one of his friends Gary Pervier (Mills Watson) when his wife Charity (Kaiulani Lee) wins $5,000 on the lottery and decides to take their young boy Brett (Billy Jayne as Billy Jacoby) with her on a trip to see her parents. Arriving at Gary's house to pick him up Joe finds him dead on the floor, he goes into the kitchen to call for help and his dog Cujo who is now rabid attacks and kills him. Donna and Tad drive to the Camber's farmhouse to try and get her car repaired. The place is deserted except for Cujo who is now completely rabid, foaming at the mouth, his fur stained red with blood and maddened by pain. Cujo attacks the car to try and get at Donna and Tad, luckily for them the windows hold firm, at least for the time being anyway. Donna tries to start the car but it has completely broken down, they are both trapped with nothing but the hope that someone will come and rescue them. Cujo lies in wait, ready to attack and kill anyone who crosses his path. Directed by Lewis Teague I thought the film was a bit slow for my tastes. The first half plods along, the second half builds up a head of steam but I still felt it was a little underwhelming and unexciting. The acting is fine by everyone involved, I've no complaints there. Technically the film is OK, photography, music, special effects, editing and it's generally well made. The big problem is the script by Don Carlos Dunaway and Lauren Currier and in particular it's first half, most of which appears to be padding to stretch the run time out. Clocking in at just under the 90 minute mark it felt longer. It's also a little predictable as well. Cujo as a monster never really scared me either, I just don't find slobbering overweight St. Bernards scary I guess. I suppose there's nothing really wrong with it, but I don't think I'd be in a hurry to see it again. Average, not too bad if you can find a copy going cheap or catch it on T.V. for free.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"and totally non-scary film. The characters doesn't interest at all, and most of the time is spent in a car. The dog is at best ugly, never really scary. To interest, a more threatening menace would have been needed, at least a few people you care for and evokes some emotions in you. And, not the least, something interesting must happen. Something unexpected. As it is, this film just drags on and on, in what seems like forever. Maybe a Saint Bernhard was not that smart to choose as the Terrible Threat to life and society?

In most scary movies\/thrillers\/mystery, just whatever genre, there must be characters that sparks interest and makes you want to know what happens. Here you really don't care, you just wait for it all to stop, and wondering if it wouldn't be better to see something else. One of the weakest King adaptations.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Certain filmmakers can do no wrong in the eyes of national critics, which is one reason you should never pay attention to them. This film is a perfect example. The critics like director Eric Rohmer.

This movie is a boring soap opera about a woman and a teenager (\"Pauline\") she's taking care of for the summer, and the relationships they have with a few men. It's talk, talk, talk and more talk.

For those looking at the cover and hoping to be titillated, there are a few quick nude shots and a couple of swear words but otherwise this is a harmless French morality play. A friend of mine loaned me this tape. He thought he was getting some sexy French film, and was disappointed. I was just as disappointed because it also was so boring.

How this gets such great reviews is almost unfathomable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a huge fan of Conte d'ete ( http:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0115940\/ ) I was expecting to be wowed by another French beach romance with a lot of honesty, realism, and humor. Same director, same actress- what could go wrong? Unfortunately, Pauline a la plange is a huge disappointment. It's very slow and talkative which would be fine if the dialog conveyed insights into the characters, was meaningful, or original. But it comes across as a typical soap opera alternating between irrelevant pillow talk and jealous accusations. The only thing that saves this movie from being a complete disaster is a small amount of character development or at least \"character change\" with regards to Pauline. The source material is standard fare (sexual awakening during a beach vacation) but it could have been a decent film nevertheless if any of the characters were sufficiently interesting. Unfortunately that's not the case. Event though there are other shortcomings with Rohmer's season cycle, most of his later films are definitely leagues above this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another first: this French movie is my introduction to the world Eric Rohmer. Perhaps I'm a bit hasty when I say that this is probably my last Rohmer movie but I was immediately turned off by the way Rohmer relies on monotonous philosophical conversations that never get to the point. There is a scene in the movie where the characters discuss love that I thought was never going to end. Honestly, no matter how much I tried, I couldn't understand why Rohmer is so highly regarded among cinephiles. He struck me as being one of those obnoxiously petulant people who are filled with hot air. If this is a sample of what his movies are about, I'm not interested. I don't care much for French cinema (usually reflective and speculative to a fault), so maybe I'm biased.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nothing about this movie is any good. It's a formulaic predictable \"romantic comedy\" geared to make females force their significant others to watch. In other words, it's a predictable chic flick that is neither comedic or romantic and is extraordinarily forgettable. If you like watching the same thing over and over then this movie will fit just perfect. I was also forced to watch this with my g\/f at the time and it's no surprise we are no longer together. I enjoy great movies that are wonderful to watch, while she just wants to see the same thing over and over again just with different actors. Nothing good to say about this movie. The title says it all. 1\/10 (one b\/c I can't give it a zero.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The cookie-cutter gets to work overtime in this obvious and unoriginal love story. The plot, such as it is, has been done before a trillion times so there is no need to recount any of it. Suffice to say that all 12 year old girls will love this movie while the rest of us will be forced to make a face. Even the soundtrack is awful! Its not that I dislike figure skating, although I don't, its that I dislike cliched, bad movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I do not write reviews here often but I can not stand by and let other people suffer through this movie without a least trying to warn them. This movie is horrible and it is not because \"I do not know what the director was trying to convey\" or \"I am too stupid to understand the plot\"; this movie is horrible because of poor direction, screen writing and acting. This is the \"trifecta\" of bad move making and the reason the film was direct to video. It tries to be something like \"High Tension\", \"Hostel\" and \"TCSM\" with the lifting of some of those ideas but it just does not work. I did not have high expectations or even medium ones going into the film but was still very disappointed. It had potential to be very good with a nice setting and good idea for a film but it was wasted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If only he hadn't bowed to clich\u00e9, Mr Shiban could have actually made a good film from this story. It was just different enough to keep you interested, so for the same amount of time, energy and money as was spent on this stinker, we might have had something good instead of eye-rolling.

Production-wise, it is as good as one could really expect from a hand-held camcorder, so he gets good marks there. It's really the script that's at fault, as the acting wasn't all that bad, either, considering what the actors had to work with.

I thought the days were long gone when we would see someone, finding a radio transceiver they desperately wish to operate, first turn every knob on the thing from end to end, bash it on top 6 or 7 times, and then expect it to work. This story is ruined by a continuous string of stupid moves by all the characters except the bad guy. It's as though we are thought to be too shallow to grasp all the plot devices, so they are all spoon-fed to us to make sure we get them.

I don't know about you, but that doesn't work on me. My attention ends up being occupied by the plot holes and over-dramatizations, not the story.

So, since I found this to be not so bad in the technical sense, I think Mr. Shiban should try again, only with a proper script next time; then he might give us something worth watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I won't spoil it for you. Although you probably could care less if it was spoiled (you'll know what I mean after you watch it) Poor story. B-rated movie quality. Typical horror -stupid situations- rare timing. I should of known, when they try to push a lot of hype in their advertising or even add \"quotes\". Just tells me that the movie bombed big time. And they are trying to pull in everyone just so they can break even with to cost of making this bomb. I wish I could take back the time I spent watching this. I was stupid and thought that there just had to be something great around the corner. But I kept getting let down. I don't usually waste my time adding comments to any movie. In fact, this is my second post. I just felt maybe I could spare a few of you from wasting money on something that had a bunch of hype on it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Apparently, in the eyes of some - there aren't enough horror films these days involving young people being chased across a desert by a mysterious, bloodthirsty madman in a truck. I mean, all we have so far is Joy Ride, Wolf Creek, Jeepers Creepers, Monster Man - among others. REST STOP may very well be the worst out of those. It is about a girl and her boyfriend who leave their lives behind to start over together in California. Along the way, they stop at a grimy lavatory so the young lady can relieve herself, but when she returns - she finds that her boyfriend and his car are gone. From there, she learns that the culprit is a guy driving a yellow pickup who proceeds to stalk and terrorize her as she hides in the restrooms. This movie is so unoriginal that it is flat out boring. The acting is annoying, the gore is mild, and the killer, whose identity is not revealed throughout the entire movie, is anything but memorable. Terrible - terrible film...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Young couple on the road, minding their own business and having casual sex in their car during broad daylight. Yet, suddenly, they're being menaced and terrorized by a deranged psychopath in an old and rusty pick-up truck. Hmm, where have I seen this premise before? Oh yeah, now I remember, we've seen this a THOUSAND times before already, and approximately nine hundred and ninety-nine of the other cases were much better than \"Rest Stop\"! This weak and pitiable new movie is insulting even to the intellect of the most undemanding horror fans, as it doesn't feature a single original twist or memorable gimmick. It's very sadistic and nasty, but every teenkill-slasher flick is sadistic and nasty nowadays, so that's no real surprise anymore, neither. The absolute main problem with this production is the incredibly large amount of dumb plot holes and meaningless sub plots. Writer\/director John Shiban damn well realized that the ultra-thin basic storyline nearly wasn't enough to fill a whole movie with, and thus he stuffs up his film like a Thanksgiving turkey with imbecile and nonsensical padding material. Nicole's boyfriend vanishes at an abandoned and filthy rest stop in California. Killing off her character right away wouldn't result in a very long movie and thus she subsequently encounters a motor home family of freaks, suffers from visions (?) in which she talks to the deranged killer's previous victims and she has deeply emotional (and boring) conversations with a police officer who just won't die even though a truck ran over him...twice! The dumb sub plots never lead anywhere and they're definitely the most pathetic and desperate attempts to stretch a movie's length I've ever seen. Instead of all the pointless padding, Shiban should have paid more attention to building up tension and make his lead characters a little more likable. Jaimie Alexander's character Nicole is an annoying and brainless girl, and you won't really care whether she'll survive the ordeal or not. Her boyfriend Jesse as well as the cop are both whining losers and their brutal deaths still weren't painful enough, if you ask me. I counted exactly three sequences, all including torture and gratuitous mutilation, that were gory and exciting enough to bring a sadist smile on my face. That's still way too few for a nowadays horror movie. Basically, \"Rest Stop\" is simply a miserable attempt to cash in on the success of such films like \"Wolf Creek\" and \"Hostel\", but you're better off watching the originals. This was the first film of the new production company called 'Raw Feed'. They're promoting themselves as the new name in great horror, but they'll have to come up with something much better than \"Rest Stop\" if they want us to believe that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"But it's not. The plot isn't all that bad, the actors aren't all terrible so it should be decent. Instead though despite a good starting point the plot just drags on and suffers from a lot of those \"I can't believe he\/she is so dumb\" moments so often used in horror movies to keep things going. It frustrated me at times watching some of the decision made by the lead character. Also it took way too long to get to the good part of the movie. Anticipation is great but you can't spend over half the movie building it up. A shame too since it got decent exposure upon release and hit right before the big Halloween season. Even so I have a feeling this is going to get at least one sequel, if not more so maybe they'll be able to build on the strong general plot to eventually release something decent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you just want gore, and nothing but gore and torture, you've come to the right movie. If you want a at least a sliver of good acting, logic, story, consistencies, or even a good guy ending, go elsewhere.

I couldn't help but to think to myself, \"Jeeeez, are those people mentally challenged?\" Example, after being chased around and seeing other people mutilated, the main actress meets a police officer and spills out her story to the cop with tears and everything and told him about the psychopath that drives in a yellow truck. THe yellow truck pulls up and the officer just walks to it, talks to the guy and the truck drives off without any trouble. The actress comes out and says why didn't you arrest him? And then the truck runs over the police officer... after being rammed the truck stops on the road about 20 feet way just standing there while the actress tries to drag the cop away but he's too heavy. (At the time) At that time the truck backs up and runs over the cops leg twice. The truck then drives off. Why didn't the actress get the gun is beyond me. (WHich later she shoots the cop in the head twice because the psychopath was about to burn him alive) Once through the mouth, which didn't kill him (Duuuumb) and twice to finish the job. *Roll eyes* Right after that, she turns away to escape the bathroom which was going to explode and when she climbs near the roof, she turns around and the cop isn't there anymore... OK...

Another example, The main actress meets a trapped woman in the bathroom, she spits out like a gallon of blood on the floor, covering about 1\/3s of the room. (Probably more) After the main actress goes outside to grab a towel, she comes back in and everything is gone. :\/ They don't explain why everyone keeps disappearing either. Dumb dumb dumb.

I like horror\/thriller\/gore movies, but this one was just way too dumb. I lost brain cells watching this dribble and you shouldn't too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've never made one of these before, but this movie was literally so bad I had to say something about it.

I'm all for independent film-making as the past year has seen of the worst (in my opinion) of Hollywood's showings, the mainstream just seems to have lost touch with what making good films is all about. That being said movies like this really give independent film a bad reputation.

The characters are boring and too stupid to empathize with. The direction is horrible, the plotting is horrible, the plot itself is horrible, stay away, far away. Only one brief scene featuring a female's nude breasts, and even that wasn't worth a second look.

The scariest thing about this movie is the idea of ever having to watch it again. I gave it a 2 and not a 1 simply because the actors were visible and the sound was audible - it earns one point for each of those traits.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A young woman, Nicole Carrow (Jaimie Alexander), and her boyfriend, Jess (Joey Mendicino) become targets for a deranged serial killer after stopping for a 'comfort break' at a remote road-side rest-stop.

What might have been an effectively scary chiller in more competent hands, turns out to be a confusing, ill-considered mess under the sloppy direction of John Shiban (who also wrote the screenplay). There is a good deal of juicy violence, a brief smattering of nudity, and confident performances from the cast, but the silly script leaves the viewer with so many unanswered questions one cannot help but feel disappointed.

On the surface, the film plays out like a standard clich\u00e9-ridden 'killer-on-the-loose' movie, but Shiban (an ex-writer for the X-files) throws in some subtle supernatural elements which suggest that his aim was something else entirely: a ghost story, with the rest stop acting as home to a vengeful spectre out to punish sinners.

By reading up on the film, checking out viewers' theories here on IMDb, and watching the extras on the DVD, certain plot elements begin to make a little more sense (although, even with the advantage of extra information, there are still many questions left unanswered). In my opinion, any film that requires this much investigation to make itself (only partially) understood is not particularly a good one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's something going on in this film directed by X-Files scribe John Shiban that has eluded me. You get that feeling as the film moves that everything is not what it seems, yet I feel the movie fails at giving you enough to go on to truly care afterward. It's about perception. There are characters the heroine Nicole(Jaimie Alexander)meets in the film that she talks to that up and vanish. This might seem like a spoiler, but it's something that really only inherits a wee bit of focus on the filmmakers' part. They seem to be poking fun at us as we watch curious at whether we should trust what Nicole is seeing or not. It never gets a proper answer and I for one was a bit clueless at the point. There comes a time in a film when ambiguity can just be frustrating because the viewer is led on a wild goose chase that ends at a dead end with little explanation at what we just saw..it ultimately feels like an exhausting exercise instead of a thrilling psycho-drama. Now there's nothing wrong with ambiguity itself, but give us something to latch onto or you will evade us. That's how I felt as I watched \"Rest Stop.\" This film is supposedly about a young woman named Nicole who decides to run off to California with lover Jesse(Joey Mendicino)to make it big in Hollywood. They make what is supposed to be a slight detour at a rest stop so that Nicole can pee, but it descends into terror for her when she finds that her Jesse is completely missing. Someone in a crusty, dusty yellow truck is a nut job who seems to be causing a lot of trouble to Nicole and we soon realize that he is behind Jesse's disappearance when things start to occur, signs provided to her if you will, she will have to find a way out of a very difficult situation. Nicole is far from any existing town and with limited resources to defend herself against a maniac who provides her with some strong evidence of how evil he can be.

That's the easy part. When a female character comes into play, the film makes a really bizarre leap from logic as we are not sure where she ever came from, how she got there, and more importantly where she goes once Nicole tries to break her free from her supposed prison in the restroom's utilities' cabinet. She meets another, a Police officer in the area(Joey Lawrence), who might seem like her savior, but when he too is a victim of the truck driver startling things occur again that questions if he was ever actually even there to begin with. The truck driver commits torturous acts to Nicole(like holing her up in the restroom and as she tries to untie a wire that the killer has wrapped around the door lock, she receives a nasty bite from him). He then sets fire to the restroom leaving her without a lasting place of refuge from the beast.

It's the timing of the truck driver's attacks that has me listless. Perhaps he just likes tormenting her, but he appropriately appears in certain situations where Nicole has time to flee or prepare. It doesn't make much sense, his motives, which propel the film into an illogical idea. Why does he make himself so obvious? Why does he allow her to prepare? It seems, I'm going out on a limb here, that he likes having his quarry believe they can find a way of escape only to stomp that hope out when he comes up with his next grisly attack. Yet, why does Shiban decide to play with the viewer by having Nicole experience odd meetings with people that don't exist? What is Shiban and the writing team trying to say? And, to cap off the film's unhinged weirdness is a family in a RV. They play a small part in the scheme of things as religious bigots themselves, but the film doesn't do enough for the viewer to explain why they should be in this film at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has got to be the biggest disappointment I've ever experienced with a film. The acting is horrific, the suspense build up minimal, and the plot overall is ridiculous. I found myself rooting for the victim to just hurry up and become a victim, because she obviously needed to be put out of her misery. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of how the world works will immediately be disgusted at the leaps we're asked to make in logic, and the so-called suspenseful buildup would be lucky to get a 3 year old to be mildly worried. I'm dismayed that a sequel is planned, because it means they'll be asking us to once again swallow a sub par plot line. If this is an example of Raw Feed's work, I think I'll be avoiding any and all future films by them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is about a young couple running away to start a new life in LA, who end up being stalked by a psycho at a deserted rest stop. Actually, it's really just about the girl (Nicole), since her boyfriend literally disappears within a few minutes. The movie gets going extremely fast, and early on you wonder how it could possibly stretch its story out to feature length. It isn't long before you realize that the movie does this by simply wasting time with unnecessary scenes that go nowhere.

The story is not only paper-thin, but unstructured, stupid, and incoherent. Minutes after the disappearance of her boyfriend and car, Nicole finds a mobile home at the rest stop. She sees the flashing of a camera, and KNOWS that people are inside, but she easily gives up on trying to get their help when no one answers her door knocks. After she is informed by the killer that her boyfriend is in danger, she walks around the rest stop, doing all sorts of stupid and unnecessary things. This includes turning on a TV (and even looking amused when she thinks she's stumbled onto a porno movie, even in this dire situation), sitting around, wandering, and drinking from a bottle of liquor for hours on end. She does all this KNOWING that her boyfriend has been abducted, that the killer is still on the loose and stalking her, and without taking any actions to ensure her immediate safety (she doesn't bother to lock the doors or remain alert). Oh yeah, she tries using a radio to call for help, but why even bother when there's a mobile home with people inside RIGHT THERE at the rest stop? It really seems like the script writer forgot about this important fact while writing this part of the story.

There's no sense of entrapment or ever-present danger in this story. The heroine freely wanders in and around the various buildings at the rest stop, and the killer only drives in occasionally to scare her, before driving off again. There's NOTHING stopping Nicole from simply taking off (even if the rest stop is a long way from anywhere else, that's better than sitting around), but she chooses to stay anyway. At one point in the movie, the main character even ACKNOWLEDGES that she can run off, but doesn't.

The story doesn't go anywhere, and instead just jumps from pointless segment to pointless segment. Nicole finally gets inside the mobile home, and it turns out that the inhabitants are a family of sheltered, presumably inbred or psychotic religious fanatics. They seem willfully ignorant or uncaring about the killer's actions (but there's no indication that they're connected to him in any way), and then kick Nicole out after several minutes.

In the next irrelevant segment, the main character wanders into the bathroom building. She discovers one of the killer's previous victims (a young woman named Tracy), who is still alive and locked in a closet. For some strange reason, Tracy starts vomiting ridiculous amounts of blood. Nicole goes off to fetch a crowbar to pry open the closet door, and when she returns a minute later, both Tracy and her pool of blood have disappeared without any explanation. What was the point? Nicole finds a bulletin board showing many missing persons, and sees that Tracy had disappeared in 1971. So, was Tracy a ghost or something? The writer never bothers explaining.

Next, a cop shows up in the middle of the night to man the police office at the rest stop, which had been conveniently left unattended for the entire day so far. Nicole tells him all about what's been going on, and when the killer drives up in his truck outside the office, the cop goes outside to confront him. What does the police officer do, knowing that something is seriously wrong? He goes up and calmly talks to the killer (who Nicole had even pointed out to be the guy who was stalking her), and buys into the killer's lie that he was simply driving through and needed directions. Seriously. The cop then talks to Nicole outside, totally unaware as the pickup truck turns around and runs him over.

The cop quickly starts telling Nicole that he's a goner who's \"lucky to be breathing\" still, yet he strangely doesn't die for quite a while. The two of them do some more pointless talking, and the all-important fact that he has a gun is annoyingly not even mentioned for too long a time. When the two of them finally try to use the gun, Nicole stupidly wastes most of her bullets blindly shooting at a door when the killer was possibly behind it. With two bullets left, the policeman tells Nicole to use one to euthanize him. She fires one into his mouth, and he lays still for a few moments, with a chunk blown out of his head. Then, he suddenly and inexplicably yells out \"You missed!\" and she has to shoot him again. Completely cheap attempt at shock.

Nicole finally confronts the killer\u0085and fails. The movie ends with a scene taking place not long from then, with a woman arriving at the now strangely much more active rest stop. In the bathroom building, she hears Nicole crying for help in the closet (locked in like Tracy was). She gets a policeman to go inside and check it, but he finds an apparently normal and clean closet. The cop leaves, thinking he's been tricked. A battered Nicole is seen coming out from behind some boxes in the closet (she would have been easily spotted if the cop had spent all of 10 seconds looking), apparently too stupid to have said or done anything when the policeman was there. WOW.

This movie is apparently the first in a new line of \"quality\" direct-to-DVD movies, marketed as being too extreme for theaters. In reality, it's just more clich\u00e9, B-Movie garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A young couple decides to runaway to sunny California. They never reach their destination as they decide to pull over at the Rest Stop.

After a fight with her boyfriend, Nicole Carrow insists on pulling in to a rest stop. When she is ready to leave, she exits the bathroom to find her boyfriend has disappeared with their car, leaving her trapped on the back roads of Texas with only an abandoned camper van to keep her company.

Rest Stop is one of those cheap and tacky horror movies that could become a cult classic. Will Rest Stop become a cult classic you may ask? Well the three elements that you need to become a cult classic are gore, sex and artistic merit. Rest stop has bucket loads of gore, and while I do not want to give too much away, it contains oodles of blood-soaked nastiness. This movie has everything from the bad guy running over a cop's legs with his car several times to him making use of a pneumatic drill on a girl's leg. At times, it can be about as bloody as a film can get. It also has a gratuitous and yet somehow quite intimate love scene in the opening minutes of the film. Therefore, the sex is covered. Now the hard one \u0096 does it have any artistic merit? You never get to see the bad guy's face \u0096 you see glimpses, profiles, shadowy silhouettes. He is a faceless, relentless, monster, which alone scores highly on the artistic merit scale. The movie has very few characters in it apart from the main protagonist \u0096 Nicole Carrow (Jaimie Alexander). Since she spends a large part of the film on her own, she cannot reveal her thoughts in the course of a conversation, but must speak them aloud so that we, the audience, know what she is thinking. At times, this can be slightly irritating; however, it is a brave step by the writer (John Shiban) and it does work for the majority of the film. As an audience knows, being completely alone and isolated from civilisation is frightening enough even when you are not being chased by psychotic killers.

So, will Rest Stop become a cult classic? It probably will because along the gore, sex and arguable artistic merit, it also has plenty of chills, an interesting and inventive plot and gives rise to a lot of shouting at the screen as the main character does plenty of things you should definitely not do when running from a psychotic killer. (What fun are horror movies if you cannot complain about the stupidity of the victims?)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As horror films go, \"Rest Stop\", could have been better in many levels. Director\/writer John Shiban shows he probably had the best intentions when he started it. Unfortunately, either he was not sure as to what to do with the material, or maybe, he was under pressure to deliver a different movie from what he intended, either by the studio, or the backers. Several endings have been included in the DVD, but unfortunately, the one chosen for the finished product is probably not the best.

The idea of a psycho roaming the back roads of a remote part of California presents many possibilities at first. After the disappearance of Jess in the spooky rest stop, things get out of hand. Poor Nicole is left alone to fend for herself all the weirdos she finds along the way.

It was clear when one started to hear \"Amazing Grace\" in the background that there were forces trying to avenge the ways in which Nicole an Jess desecrate their neck of the woods by engaging in careless sex that is not well appreciated by the natives.

Watch it at your own risk. There's a lot of gore for the aficionados of the genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are movies that are so bad, they're good. Then there's movies like Rest Stop that should just never have been made because they are just plain dreadful.

Bad acting, unlikable characters, predictable plot and a supposedly supernatural twist that adds nothing to the story are all key failures. Some half decent special effects are about the only thing worthy of note.

I can't even bring myself to write a plot outline because all I really want to do here is warn you not to waste your time and money on this movie. Do yourself a favour and don't even bother with this film at all. It's 1.5 hours of your life that you will never get back.

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I only comment on really very good films and on utter rubbish. My aim is to help people who want to see great films to spend their time - and money - wisely.

I also want to stop people wasting their time on garbage, and want to publicize the fact that the director\/producer of these garbage films can't get away with it for very long. We will find out who you are and will vote with out feet - and wallets.

This film clearly falls into the garbage category.

The director and writer is John Shiban. It's always a bad sign when the writer is also the director. Maybe he wants two pay cheques. He shouldn't get any. So remember the name - John SHIBAN. And if you see anything else by him, forget it.

I won't say anything about the plot - others have already. I am a little worried by how much the director likes to zoom in to the poor girl's face when she is crying and screaming. These long duration shots are a little worrying and may say something about the state of mind of Mr. Shiban. Maybe he should get psychiatric help.

Enough already. It's crap - don't waste your time on it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This Movie Is Not A Horror Movie. There Is Nothing Scary About It It's More Of A Torture Flick. And It Doesn't Make Sense To Me, There Is A Few Scene's With Disappearing Bodies. For Instance he Woman In The Beginning Of The Movie. That Get Pulled Away Returns For A Scene In The Restroom With Nicole And She And She Completely Disappears. Then She Kills The Police Officer To Put Him Out Of His Misery And He Disappears PLUS Had To Shoot Him In The Head Twice To Kill Him I Don't Think So Especially When You Can See His Head Half Blown Off And Didn't Kill Him? The At The End She Sets The Killer's Truck On Fire. That But He's Not In It. He Is Standing Behind Her. Then It Cuts To The Rest Stop Has Been Completely Remodeled And Some People Are At The Rest Area And A New Girl Comes In And Nicole In Asking For Help Like The First Girl Totally No Sense In This Movie. Save Yourself Some Money And Skip This Movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has to rank with \"Welcome to the Jungle\" and \"The Hitcher\" and \"Dream Catcher\" for sheer god-awfulness. You've got the most irritating heroine in gore history who spends most of her time sobbing and wailing and shrieking--all the time in the most horrendous rest stop toilet ever put on film. Why she spends so much time in this ghastly bathroom from hell is never explained. Even when the usual killer truck driver is trying to murder her, she refuses to leave the crapper. When a motorcycle cop comes to her rescue, the killer truck driver runs over the cop's legs while the heroine just looks on. Instead of grabbing his gun for protection, she drags the poor slob into the crapper and locks the door. Then the cop orders her to blow his brains out because of the pain. She does so--while wailing and sobbing and keening--and blows the back of his head off. Then--the cop, still alive, beg her to shoot him again because he's still in pain. He says this while the entire back of his head is all over the floor. The sobbing, wailing heroine shoots him again. The movie goes on and on like this, none of it making any sense. The heroine is so dislikable you really want the killer to off her early on. I saw this flick on the Sci-Fi channel so it didn't cost me anything to watch, but still I did watch, out of sheer fascination as to how a movie could end up so terribly bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILER Wolfcreek meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre....if you've seen those, don't waste your time with this one. Typical slasher movie, nothing new here except for the SPOILER \"visions\" which just add fluff to an already weak plot. I would recommend this movie if you have absolutely nothing to watch and it's either see this movie or stare at a bare wall for 1.5 hrs. The only semi-interesting part SPOILER is when the chick starts drinking in the empty sheriff's office, I say it's interesting because at least she made good use of that liquor instead of stereotypically using it to start a fire to kill the bad guy, although she did go that route towards the end. All in all, lame, bad, and not worth effort.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cant put it any simpler than that, this is a terrible film. I've worked in the industry and made several (short) films myself, so okay my standard is pretty high but seriously, i absolutely hate this film. I haven't made a comment on IMDb before but i hated this film so much i literally had to come and warn others. It is a piece of sh*t. The writer\/director is an idiot who just has no idea how to make\/write a good film and has the writing skills of an adolescent teenager. The characters are unrealistic (The lead woman doesn't think of taking the policeman's pistol yet is resourceful enough to improvise a Molotov cocktail? please...) and not even likable, hell i hated her and cheered when she died. I don't understand what the director was trying to do with his demon redneck idea, but it just looked like sloppy writing and convenient bullsh*t with no real thought behind it to me. This is officially the worst movie I've seen ALL YEAR. Congratulations Shiban, you now rank up there with such greats as Micheal Bay in the prestigious \"shouldnt be allowed to waste millions of dollars on making a film\" club. I hope you read this, i really do. And to the 163 idiots that rated this film 10 out of 10 BWAHHAHAHAHAh oh my god I hope a redneck demon appears conveniently behind you and tortures you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only good thing about this movie is, that I now have a movie on the worst ever list. Rest Stop being on the end of the spectrum where I can compare all terrible movies to. Really, this movie is the worst plot, worst directed, throughout the whole movie all I wanted to do is pull out my hair and kick the writer's and anybody who made this movie possible's ass. I am a deployed soldier, and when I spend my precious downtime watching movies like this. These people should feel terrible, they had to of watch this before it came out, and must have been to freaking lazy to redo , after they noticed it freaking sucked. I am so amazed that this great country of ours is letting them make another. Honestly, this is the first time I have ever commented on a movie, I had to let the world know, not to waste their time. Delete this movie from the face of this planet. It makes us humans look retarded.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen a lot of movies. In fact I love B horror movies, they are one of my favorite genres. However this \"Garbage\" (I refuse to acknowledge that this was given the honor of film) was the worst piece of crap I have ever had the torture of watching. I actually signed up on IMDb purely for the fact that I needed a way to at least voice how awful this \"Garbage\" was. I have watched \"Films\" (They at least deserve the honor) done in basements by High School students that were better written and directed. I have nothing but pity for the poor actors in this \"Garbage\" because they were just trying to earn a pay check. They will now and forever have this stain on their records like a virgin who was raped and given Herpes! If Writer\/Director John Shiban has any dignity left at all, after obviously fellating countless people to get this made, he should never allow himself near a camera again and try applying his so called \"Gifts\" to something more suited for him....Like mopping the floor of a Peep Show!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seriously, folks...I was getting ready to actually write the Razzie Council and recommend this movie as Razzie Champ for 2007...until I got on IMDb.com and realized its copyright date was 2006 and not 2007. Seriously, though, this movie could have easily been a Razzie Champ. This movie sucked! How in the world this piece of crap was overlooked even for a Razzie nomination in 2006 is beyond me, because it easily could have competed with Basically, It Stinks, Too for the 2006 Razzie Championship.

I rented this movie on the recommendation of a female neighbor of mine who told me, \"Oh My God, after seeing this movie, it's going to be a long, long time before I ever stop at a rest stop ever again!\" I couldn't believe how not scary and awful this movie was! Possible spoilers below, not that you'll be missing out on anything.

OK, first of all...the problem...the rest stop itself. Obviously the director of this piece of crap doesn't know the first thing about women. The toilets in that rest stop were on the same level as the one in the movie Trainspotting. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about women, but one thing I do know is that women, for the most part, are total and complete hygiene\/neat freaks. Given the choice between taking a crap on either of those toilets and possibly catching something or squatting in the woods, a woman is going to opt for squatting in the woods. I know, because I've gone camping with them before, and they have no problem squatting in the woods. So right there...major plot hole and untruth.

Second of all...she comes out of the rest stop, and her boyfriend who drove the car is nowhere to be found, not him nor his car. He just left. She starts screaming his name, wondering where he is. Ummm...hello? You're standing on wet mud...did it ever occur to you to look down for some tire tracks? I mean, his car is gone...it didn't just get up and fly away. And actually, that makes me think...I actually was looking down at her feet, and there weren't any tread marks in the mud. How...exactly...did that happen?

Third...the Bible thumping mobile home family with the freak midget in the back taking Polaroid pictures...Wtf!?!?!?? They made absolutely no sense at all, and it's as if the director just threw them in to be weird for the sake of being weird. They made no sense at all and had no place even being in the movie.

Fourth...Oh My God, this...I mean, finally...near the end of the movie...she finally sees the escape hatch on the ceiling inside the rest stop. I'm like, \"You...dumb...bi**h. You've been locked up in this rest stop for all this time...and you just..now...see...the escape hatch on the ceiling?\" I mean...it's like they threw that in just because the killer tossed gasoline on the floor through the window and was getting ready to light a match. So she needs to get to higher ground to avoid being burned, and...oh, look! A perfect reason for her to get to higher ground! An escape hatch on the ceiling! It's like...Why didn't she go through that before? Most people in that situation would have seen that from the moment they were locked in that rest stop and gotten the f**k out of Dodge. When they showed that escape hatch at the end of the movie, I was like, \"You have got to be kidding me.\"

Fifth...what was the deal with all the of people she encountered continuing to just disappear? The girl in the broom closet in the rest stop? The dumb cop? Her at the end of the movie when she ended up in the broom closet herself? It was never explained. Personally, when they did this, I thought to myself, \"Oh, Christ on a cracker, it's her. She's the killer. Wonderful. She killed all of those people, doesn't remember doing it, and the writers of this movie just ripped off a certain French horror flick that I can't mention on IMDb.com or I'll be blacklisted for giving away the ending (that movie sucked, by the way, too, people).\" But it wasn't. She wasn't the killer, and the whole deal with the dead people disappearing was never, ever explained. Oh, for the love of God, people, stay away from this movie! This movie sucked balls, and I have now got a serious bone to pick with my neighbor. It's on the 2 for $1 rack at Family Video, don't even rent it if someone gives it to you for free!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Obviously Raw Feed Video is smarter than all of us who wasted our money renting this flick! They will make millions from video rentals and their low budget investment is going to pay off big, which will finance \"Rest Stop II\" (unfortunately). I figure they spent a maximum of a few hundred thousand dollars American to hire the actors, rent the rest stop locale and burn a truck and drag a motorcycle along behind the truck for a bit plus pay for the technical stuff. That's it. We should all be as smart as these guys, I won't knock them for having the genius to promote a stinker into good monetary returns. Premise of the movie was good, and it could have been a really adequate horror movie, but it failed by not delivering a clear story line. I am always looking for a gem from the upstart film companies, but I didn't find it here and neither will you. I'm only sorry I wasted $3.99 plus tax to find out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Continuing in the string of \"stalker\/slasher\" flicks in the vein of \"Wolf Creek,\" \"Hostel,\" \"Joy Ride,\" etc., comes \"Rest Stop.\" The most unoriginal and useless one of them all.

We start, reasonably promising, with the violent death of a pretty young girl in a filthy restroom.

This is where our interest is lost. We, then, move to the clich\u00e9 road trip couple, on their way to LA with their eyes on acting stardom. . . which, doing movies like this, they'll never achieve.

From the sexual romp in the park, the couple drives, arguing all the way, to a deserted and disgusting rest area for the girl to use the bathroom. Harmless enough until she exits and finds her boyfriend missing and realizes she's being stalked by a lame version of \"Joy Ride\"'s Rusty Nail. . . only driving around in Mater from \"Cars\".

Honestly, if this had been directed\/written\/produced\/acted by anyone else, it might've been fairly good. But no.

Because then comes the ghost story. Yup. . . you guessed it. Plenty of \"oh, i'll help you, but wait, you're dead\" to \"wait is this stalker a person, monster, or ghost?\".

But wait? Who comes to the rescue to save the girl's life and possibly the movie? That one Lawerence brother. Excellent. We're saved. (sarcasm) Oh wait, no we're not.

You know. . . if you want to laugh off a pretty bad, or if you get free rentals like I do, give it a try.

If anything, you'll learn how NOT to make a movie.

-AP3-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Under no circumstances watch this film. It is terrible for a number of reasons:

No plot No structure No direction No acting to speak of No visual style No tension

In a word - no.

Best thing about it the box and the fact it eventually ends. Who would have thought 85mins could feel so long.

Once again: Under no circumstances watch this film. It is terrible.

No plot No structure No direction No acting to speak of No visual style No tension

In a word - no.

Best thing about it the box and the fact it eventually ends. Who would have thought 85mins could feel so long.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

It wasn't the worst movie that I have ever seen. However, that is only if I get to count home movies made by 8 year olds. This movie was horrible from start to finish. Nothing about it made it worth watching unless you wanted to show new filmmakers how not to make a film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, so I'am chilling in my room when mom knocks on the door. I open the door and what do I see in her hands? \"SLEEPY HOLLOW HIGH\". I thinking it has to be an older horror movie, because there's noway anyone could be stupid enough to name a movie that after The blockbuster hit \"Sleepy Hollow\" starring Johnny Depp. But to my surprise the movie is at least two years older then the original. That alone should have stopped me from putting it into the V.C.R. But no I had to take a chance, I had to believe that this movie could have one small ray of hope. Little did I know that the rays where no where to be seen.

Number one, the story line is so ridiculous that it's probably true in some country bumpkin town. Two, the actors seem more like people real life people who just happen to wonder on the set when the director yell cut. Three, just about any movie starring the director is always awful. But the funny thing is that this is yet another movie directed by Kevin Summerfield. I've become to rely on his movie to bring me to the floor with side splitting laughter.

Where to start on this movie? I know, let's start with the jogger in the woods. The camera lighting was so bad that I lead to believe that the jogger was standing still and the camera man was running. I love how the woman's stop to eat a candy bar. I mean it's just about dark, or just about light, who could tell with the camera lighting. And she stops running to eat a candy bar, I mean a CANDY BAR WHAT THE HELL. So she ends up being the first victim because of stupidity, and already I'am ready to break the tape, find the director, burn his little hands.

Then out of nowhere some guys like trying to fix a car that probably been broken for some years now. Then in come the fake Mack 10 and a very real prostitute, who happen to be part of our main charter cast.

The some of the movie is about a group of kids who all get into trouble. And are given the choice to pick up trash in the Sleepy Hollow park or face suspension forever. There sent in the woods with one of the teachers(Mr.E or a.k.a Kevin Summfield) who suppose to watch over them and make sure that all goes accordingly. The funniest thing is how undeveloped the charters really are. I mean what is with the fake Mack 10 dude and who's ever heard of Hacker trying to kill themselves. And some how one of the students has had an affair with the teacher Mr. E, before all of this community service crap had even came up. Yet the school still thought it was a cool idea for them to let him go. Also there's one student named J who purpose in the movie is to keep annoyingly popping up out of no where trying to make the audience jump, when all he really does is add to the cheapness of the film. The sound was so horrible in this movie. I mean there was one seen when two guys are fighting, and the guy punches the other guy in the stomach, and out of the T.V. comes this sound effect that sounds like someone punching a stale wooden box. It began horribly and ended dangerously stupid, even my taste. I will say this though, the music in the back ground made the scenes look some what tolerable. But not that much tolerable. My conclusion is this, if you want to left at yet another movie that Kevin Summfield took serious buy \"Sleepy Hollow High.

P.S I'am still thinking about shooting myself to remove those images of the fake Mack 10. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whoa, this is one of the WORST movies I have EVER seen! The packaging for the film is better than the film itself. My girlfriend and I watched it this past weekend, and we only continued to watch it in the hopes that it would get better...it didn't...

The picture quality is poor; it looks like it was shot on video and transferred to film. The lighting is not great, which makes it harder to read the actors' facial expressions. The acting itself was cheesy, but I guess it's acceptable for \"yet another\" teenage horror flick. The sound was a huge problem: sometimes you have to rewind the video because the sound is unclear and\/or muffled.

It holds no real merit of it's own; trying to ride on the coattails of \"Sleepy Hollow.\" Don't bother with this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Great concept, perfect characterizations and voices, but a complete waste of time. A real shame since had it aimed higher, it would probably not have been the bomb it was (is); way too dependent upon scatological humor, for starters. I'm amazed by comments from \"educated\" reviewers referring to the \"good science\" behind this piece of puerile trash. Unlike \"Finding Nemo,\" where (with a bit of suspension of disbelief) attention to detail was staggering and the science was as good as the context would allow, \"Osmosis Jones\" was utter nonsense; don't kid yourself about the science. Humor aimed at eight-year-olds but subject matter suitable more for some unsophisticated teens.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie just was not very funny. There's not much else to say, other than that it was kind of embarrassing for Laurence Fishburne and David Hyde Pierce, both of whom deserve much better than this. Also, I don't understand why, after this movie completely and utterly bombed, WB insisted on making it into a TV show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a total lump of poopoo this was! You've got to be kidding people! Any positive reviews of this movie are plants or insiders from the movie makers themselves! yuuck! disgusting movie!, not gross digusting but just plain awful!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a boring movie. While it did have humorous parts, it was just plain boring and lengthy (for a 90 minute movie). I believe that the cause was a lack of action.

When I rented this movie, I expected to see white blood cells combat the evil viruses, but no such luck. It was more that the virus was thwarted than defeated.

The movie had promise, but since made for little kiddies in mind, it did not meet its potential, in my opinion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I was driving home after work, I bought some movies for my four year old twins. I had bought this movie my kids would enjoy. I watched this with my children. My 10 and 17 year old were about to throw up. In this movie ,the dad acts like a tard. My little ones would watch it every day.One day, they threw away all our movies.I SOLD THE Omosis Jones movie on Ebay. My Grade: F++++++++++++++++ I rather be seen on the worst dress list.

My kids now hate this dumb movie. If gives the idea that germs can talk to each other. I wonder how the dumb movie sounds in Japenese. I broke the CD in half when I got irritated of seeing it over and over again. No offence but, Brandy & Elena's acting was the best","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, if you are a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and love to mock movies, then you will have a lot of fun with this. Otherwise, it may really be TOO painful to see.

Plot: Obsessed cryptozoologist sneaks a huge crate containing a Chupacabra onto a cruise ship (apparently not having to declare it at customs, or even mention that he's bringing aboard a live animal -\"no really, it's research equipment, the air holes are just an accident\"). Some dipsticks he hired to lade it open the crate, figuring he paid bunches of money, maybe there's something to steal. Once the WOOD CRATE is open, the Chupacabra breaks through the STEEL BARS inside and goes on a killing rampage.

Yeah, whatever.

By a stroke of sheer coincidence, a Marshall (I assume a U.S. Marshall, since he was in the gulf war, not just some guy named Marshall) is on board, investigating some money that went missing from the ship's safe. He's posing as an insurance salesman (\"Lady, I'm the best insurance you've got...\"). Other scintillating characters include the captain (John Rhys-Davies, and sadly his dignity is the first victim of the film), his tae-bo instructor daughter (snicker - Tae-bo), an annoying old stuck-up lady with a tiny dog which should be fed to a cat (guess WHAT eats it...?) and an incredibly unpleasant gigolo who might have been believable in a movie made in 1964, not in anything more recent. Much of the acting was really bad, and the characters were just there so that you can laugh hysterically when they died.

Overall - SCREAMINGLY bad. Bad on many levels. BAD BAD BAD. What??? Bullets don't even make Chupacabra flinch, but the Tae-bo bimbo can punch him and scare him away???? Hey Sci-fi Channel, you desperate for scripts or what?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A Cryptozoologist captures a mythical chupacabra on a Caribbean island.To get it back to civilization he bribes his way onto the cargo bay of a large luxury cruise ship with funny and I think the script intended disastrous results.

Lets start with the one thing I really did not like about this movie.... The monster really just looked like a guy in a rubber suit.The CGI scenes looked like a different movie. OK thats off my chest now onto all the enjoyable bits about this B movie.

The best thing was John Rhys-Davies(his daughter the eye candy a close second.)John was intermittently funny and suave and no matter what the writers made him say, he said it well.Good job given what he had to work with.The Cyptozoologist was over the top and fun to watch too,he had some funny bits.The marines all were OK and make good cannon fodder for the monster as did some of the crew and guests.There are a few pretty funny lines in this movie,and a pretty amusing sub plot involving a thief.

The special effects are generally med to low and I swear they reused the same blood spray on the wall scene in about four different parts of the movie. I did like the gore of the legless man.Really since this movie was not scary at all I feel a bit more gore would have gone along way in improving the watch ability of this movie.

All in all if you like B monsters this one is worth a visit.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, and foremost, I take issue to the title of this movie. 'Chupacabra' is not a Spanish word. The name to which they are referring is 'Chupacabras'. I imagine they dropped the 's' because it sounds plural that way, but I assure you, it is singular in Spanish.

Next, I thought this movie had been done years ago. It came off as one of those B horror flicks I watched when I was an early teenager at home when my stepdad was out of town. Then it would have been kind of scary.

Let's talk about the special effects. The most important 'effect' is the costume used for the Chupacabras. Given that it is the main character, you would think some serious money would have been put into it, but that isn't so. The shape, color, and texture were all goofy like some stupid haunted house at Disney World.

There were times when the Chupacabras was walking where no man could walk. His movement were jerky and strange at these times, but moving around on the floor looked like any normal man.

Another thing I take issue to is that there is no animal in the world that goes around slaughtering everything it sees with no regard to actually eating it. The Chupacrabas would kill one, then the next, but it never seemed to actually eat the victim. You say, \"It's just a movie,\" and I agree. But the idea is so far out there that it's stupid.

What country is Dr. Pena from? He sounds sort of Jamaincan\/Hawaiian\/British\/Something-Else, but I think he's supposed to be Latino. The problem is, his accent is so bad that even a Russian could tell he wasn't Latino.

The soldiers fired round after round at this thing, and weren't making a dent, yet the continued to fire. I'm no military man, but don't soldiers, especially the special tactical forces such as this, have to have some wit about them to perform their duties? Wouldn't they figure out that it was a waste of time to shoot and try something new? They didn't. They just kept firing away while the Chupacabras continued to slaughter, and not eat, them.

Did they have to kill the little dog? :) Anyway, my vote was 3 for this flick, because it was bad. Why did I watch the whole thing? I'm sure you've done the same on occasion, so don't give me an flack. ;)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito), a \"crypto-zoologist\" (fancy term for one of those self-deluded losers who likes to study extremely rare - read: nonexistent - animals) and his crew of hunters manage to trap a Chupacabra, a big, scaly, elusive fast-moving beast. To get it to the mainland, they smuggle it on a Grecian cruise ship and some idiots open up the crate containing it despite being told specifically not to. I guess the strange growling noises coming from inside weren't a good enough deterrent either. The monster then does the monster thang; running around biting chunks out of various passengers until the ship's captain (John Rhys-Davies), a square-jawed special agent pretending to be an insurance salesman for some reason (Dylan Neal), a squeaky-voiced blonde Tai Bo instructor (Chelan Simmons), a bunch of guys with machine guns and others try to stop it. The main victims (who I think are supposed to be the comic relief but it's hard to tell) are an old rich bitch (Paula Shaw) with a yippy terrier and a snobby effete gold-digger (David Millbern). Apparently the monster can be knocked out with a single tranquilizer dart, but can live through dozens of bullet hits. The Chupacabra design is acceptable (though unoriginal) but the rest of the movie is devoid of suspense, surprise or interest. A boring Sci-Fi Channel \"original\" movie; they've made dozens of movies just like this with nearly interchangeable characters and plots, but with slight alterations on the creature. Enough already!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Chupacabra: Dark Waters has to rank as one of the most insipidly moronic movies ever made. I had expected at least some passable entertainment because John Rhys Davies was involved, and after seeing this movie, I can honestly say I lowered my opinion of Mr. Davies substantially.

Why? The acting is incredibly poor. An excellent actor like Davies should have demanded more from the cast and the director. It was painfully obvious that Mr. Davies was just clock-watching and hoping the check would not bounce. To say that he just showed up would be an understatement. But at least he did show up. The rest of the cast looks like they mailed it in from their respective jobs at the various Los Angeles restaurants where they work as waiters. Talk about a cast of unknowns! This is the kind of cast that never appears in movies again. They act as if they were auditioned while waiting at the unemployment office.

What about the special effects? Store bought firecrackers, Styrofoam, a cheap rubber suit and CGI effects that look like they came from my 1980 Atari Game. I have seen some horrible special effects used on Sci-Fi Channel movies, but this stuff looked like cut-and-paste done at the kindergarten by someones' child. I expected Mr. Crabs and Sponge-Bob would show up at the end to battle the Chupacabra. Not to mention that all the accounts of the creature describe it as a small gremlin-like critter. It would have been a good film for a Leprechaun-like character. Instead, we get a gigantic hulking creature that is shown walking with stop-action speeded-up effects that are laughable. The chupacabra is in one place and then it shuffles at super-speed down the hall and it is worth a few laughs just to see this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, the Sci-Fi channel keeps churning these turkeys out... and they seem to get worse every time. When normally good actors like John Rhys-Davies and Giancarlo Espositto come off as rank amateurs, you can imagine how abysmal the REST of the cast in this waste-of-your-time effort is. The only halfway decent thing is the rubber outfit of the creature(which is glimpsed in such quick flashes that you don't really have time to see how phony it really is). The dialogue...the plot...if this \"movie\"(and I use the term loosely) was food, Jack-In-The-Box would be a gourmet meal compared to this. Watch a re-run of \"The Munsters\" for the 372nd viewing- your time would be better spent(and a lot scarier as well)!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In general, I prefer horror movies that creep me out so much I'm afraid of everything for the next day or so, not the ones where people act stupid and get killed by an indestructible monster. This is one of those movies. The chupacabra of legend is a dog-faced lizard-skin greenish-gray monster that hops like a kangaroo, has fangs and claws, has a row of sharp spines sticking out from its back, and sucks the blood of livestock. As in many horror movies, good and bad, this movie takes liberty with the legend. It not only attacks humans, but it eats their intestines and has a bulletproof, nearly indestructible constitution. So tell me, how can a hypodermic needle penetrate its skin when bullets can't? And why, when the marines figure out that armor-piercing bullets can hurt it, do they split up so the chupacabra can pick them off one by one? John Rhys-Davies gives a performance that rises above the bad movie, and Chelan Simmons and Dylan Neal deserve credit for their performances, too. Otherwise, the rest of the acting was poor to bad, just like the rest of the movie. My rating is based on Rhys-Davies, Simmons and Neal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Apparently in early 2005, SciFi Channel threatened to release the incriminating photos they have of John Rhys-Davies and said, \"We need you to star in another SciFi Original.\" The scary thing is, he's actually pretty damn good in this movie. That's really saying something since this is a silly SciFi creature feature; you've gotta put some feeling into it in order to be well-acted. Unfortunately, nobody else does. It's your stereotypical \"moster-run-amok\" movie on a cruise ship. The cryptozoologist wants to keep the creature alive, the Navy SEALs think they have everything under control but they don't know what they're dealing with and they all end up dead, a girl jumps into the \"movie sexpot\" role as Rhys-Davies' daughter and the creature mauls about 100 or so shipmates. What this movie has going for it is, it's VERY fast-paced and lively; you're never bored or waiting for another kill. Other than that, though, it does nothing to distinguish itself, and it's silly that this thing crawls all over the ceilings and can't be wounded by Navy SEAL machine guns, but can be karate-kicked into submission by Rhys-Davies' daughter. Kinda went back and forth on giving this bad boy a 5, but for the above silliness I'm giving it a 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this movie to be a big disappointment, especially considering the cast. The characters are not believable, as are the ridiculous circumstances in which they find themselves. The only part of the film I enjoyed was when the most annoying characters finally get killed. The special effects consist mostly of scenes of gory dead or dying bodies. A typical unimaginative slasher flick.

It's hard to believe, make that impossible to believe that a reclusive creature that sneaks up on goats in the middle of the night could be captured by a group of clumsy, noisy idiots. Equally impossible to believe is how they knew exactly were to find it, in spite of the fact the creature has evaded capture, or even photographing.

The man that pulls off the impossible in capturing the Chupacabra alive is our one dimensional Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito). The only thing Dr. Pena is more obsessed with than the creature is his dart gun. A dart gun that works were mere bullets fail.

The captain of the ship (John Rhys-Davies) is introduced as a 'war veteran'. He employs his military prowess by having his men shoot at the creature, regardless of were on the ship they happen to be. The Navy Seals that show up from nowhere repeat the pattern of shooting at everything.

Dylan Neal plays an insurance investigator brought on board the cruise ship to catch a thief. He spends most of the movie tagging along with whomever is trying to kill the creature at the moment.

The creature doesn't even closely resemble a Chupacabra. It doesn't behave like one either. Instead of a small, shy, secretive animal that hunts by stealth at night, we get a bulletproof Freddy Kruger, killing everything in sight. A simple search on Google would have been very helpful to the writers and the special effects crew.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Without John Rhys-Davies, I have to admit that this would never even register on my movie-meter. But in spite of that single fact, this is not a bad little thriller, considering the low budget, the low quality effects, the stiff acting and the Sci Fi Channel aspects. The blood effects are very convincing, and the Chupacabra actually looks realistic... regardless of what you think a Chupacabra looks like this is one good-looking Chupacabra.

Aside from the positives, this runs kind of like Kolchak: The Night Stalker (Darren McGavin, remember?) meets the Love Boat, but in spite of the ultimate cheese of this work, it still holds something resembling a plot, and actually attempts to gain your respect while making you laugh and roll your eyes.

As conflicted as this work is, I still managed to find some enjoyment herein. Maybe you will, too.

It rates a 5.2\/10 on the Made 4 TV Scale.

It rates a 4.1\/10 on the Movie Scale from...

the Fiend :.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In case you're wondering the buffoonish Loren C*****n of (Cryptozoology Inafame) is a living idiot and any information he's provided is to be tossed out with the trash. The guy simply is a news paper clipper.

As for the story line it was was a predictable train wreck, the actors were mechanical, the lighting was awful, and the props\/clothing was cheap.

Bobcat Goldwait should have starred over the clowns in this film. I was physically ill after seeing ten minutes of it.

There are insane\/retarded monkeys still in charge of films I see.

Dan","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't like this movie for so many reasons I can't even say then all.I thought it was poorly made just because of the whole story line. I mean who is gonna believe that they captured the chupacabra and it broke loose on a cruise liner. LAME!!! It was all right for a lame straight to video movie,but not worth spending money on it. I can't believe someone actually gave this movie a ten. But I guess there are people that like this movie. I gave this movie a 2 instead of a 1 just because it was about the chupacabra and it had the guy off of lord of the rings. If you want to see this movie I would stay home and wait till it comes on sci-fi channel. DON'T waste your money on seeing this movie. Believe me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Chupacabra Terror\" is saved from a '1\" by the presence of Canadian cutie Chelan Simmons as the heroine. She is a delight to watch, from the front, back and side. Otherwise, what you have here is your standard monster movie, playing like a low-budget, shipboard version of THE RELIC. John Rhys-Davies plays the captain of the ship on which the monster is being transported. And the very nonscary monster is simply a man in a suit. He does commit about 100 senseless, gory killings, at least, so the body count in this one is pretty awesome. Formulaic, to say the least. I love the moment when Simmons ominously tells someone what chupacabra stands for: Goat eater! Oooohhh...scary!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie knowing that it would be awful, but damned if it didn't break new and revolutionary ground in the field of making fecal matter acceptable as entertainment. The plot is Deep Rising with cruddy effects and HORRID acting. The lines in this...well...wow there really is no way to put this movie down because i think the words have yet to be created in the English language. The sad part is that the filmmakers thought they were actually making something good. You won't believe your eyes when you see how many movies they ripped off without even trying to hide it. There are scenes\/plot devices straight out of Deep Rising, Alien, Jurassic Park, Predator, Jeepers Creepers, and the list could go on forever. However, unlike any of those movies this one just falls short of celluloid stool. The most incredulous thing about this film, aside from the way it tries to be competent but fails, is that Gimli him-freakin'-self is in it. How the hell can they afford John Rhys-Davies but not decent effects, writing, actors, or sets. Really awful...and not the type of bad that's good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just been on sci-fi channel UK, 5th July, its was ****. Shame on JRD! May be he was bored one week ! He cant be skint after LOTR. I suppose he wasn't to blame. Mr Sheppird was. I turned off after 50 minutes, couldn't bear it. The cgi ship was bad and the creature looked like a large 5 foot bat. Who funded this project? I think the whole thing must have cost $250 bucks. Avoid at all costs, don't think about buying the DVD if they release one, I cant imagine they would spend dollars on producing one. Lets hope someone makes a decent Chupra film and a decent BIGFOOT movie. Sasquatch was okay, poor Lance. Its a shame a big studio and direct wont risk it, no more super hero films please!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Chupacabra Terror: 2\/10: It was the Navy Seal team that tipped the balance from bad cheesy movie to just bad. Up till then there was a lot of bad movie baggage but the Seals\u0085 They are wearing bicycle helmets painted black. You know the ones with air holes that make every adult who wears them look like a complete tool. Of course the bass fishing boat they took to greet the cruise ship might have been another clue (it wouldn't make it across Tampa Bay let alone an ocean)\u0085 and their tactics wouldn't pass muster on an 3rd rate XBOX game.

Does director John Shepphird have photos of John Rhys-Davies in a compromising position with a Hobbit? Because I can't think of any other reason he would be in this movie. The other actors have a great excuse. They are talentless unattractive hacks that couldn't get hired for an infomercial. The plot is that two men try to smuggle the mythical Chupacabra (Love saying that name) aboard a cruise ship and it gets loose.

The sets consist of horrible cruise ship fakery (complete with airshafts the size of a small apartment), the monster killings are bottom of the barrel, there is no nudity, and a lot of really bad actors refuse to finish their death scenes. Of particular annoyance is a gigolo character from a 60's Doris Day movie.

The cast bleeds ketchup while the Chupacabra bleeds day green glow in the dark blood. (Why a goat eating Mexican mammal would bleed anything but red is beyond me.)

Every B movie has a tipping point that makes it a fun time (Hey it's a lesbian shower scene, OMG that guy just ate is own eyeballs) or not so fun (Did they just call those forty something overweight guys wearing coveralls and bicycle helmets Navy Seals?) Chupacabra falls into the not so fun B movie side with a thud.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh my God... where to begin? \"Chupacabra Terror\" is one of the worst B-Horror movies ever made. This crap makes \"Demon Slayer\" look like \"The Exorcist\". Special note: A Horror B-movie needs to have at least one sex scene. Don't expect even a hot girl in this one. With that inexcusable mistake, I should begin with the complete bash.

First of all, if you're going to make a Horror monster movie, you should spend big part of the budget in creating a \"cool\" monster outfit. The monster in this movie looks like a $10 Halloween costume. There is no way the Chupacabras (yes, this is how it is spelled) looks menacing in the movie. It's an actor in a Halloween outfit please!! it looks so cheap it makes me mad.

Second, the gore effects are the spinal cord of any direct to video monster Horror movie. Again, the producers decided not to spend for decent gore effects. The blood looks damn fake! Please take a close look at the guy that gets chopped in two. That's probably the best scene in the movie and it lasts for about ten seconds. The ending is a very poor scene that won't leave you satisfied.

The acting is the last thing you should expect to have quality in these kind of movies; but in this movie it's beyond terrible. A cast of nobodies with no acting experience make the fool out of themselves for about 85 minutes. Special mention deserves a blonde guy with curly hair that tries to convince SWAT members that he is sick. The coughing he fakes is beyond laughable. He's probably the worst actor ever in a B-Horror movie, no kidding. Also, Captain Pe\u00f1a delivers a terrible performance in the first ten minutes of the flick.

The TRUE story behind the Chupacabras is not even told. All you get to know is that the monster sucks goat's blood. Why bother with this piece of crap? Plesae, do not even watch it even if you have the chance. Not even if it airs on cable.

I usually support low budget Horror movies because the people involved in them at least try to do something \"different\" than Hollywood but that doesn't means that Horror fans like me should accept this kind of garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Excerpt from TV GUIDE:

This week on THE LOVE BOAT, Captain Stubing has his hands full when a cryptozoologist gets on board with an unexpected cargo! Join the Captain, Isaac, Gopher and Julie in a fun-filled Halloween Special. Guest starring a guy in a really bad lizard suit as the Chupacabra.

This is typical, lame Sci-Fi Channel cut-rate fare. The Captain of a cruise ship, played by the once respectable John Rhys-Davies, is in charge of a Carnival cruise along the coast of Mexico. His daughter is along for the ride, and she's earning her keep by being the ship's kickboxing instructor. Pay attention, everyone, that kickboxing will come in handy later! It should be noted that the Captain's daughter is pretty uncoordinated and painful to watch. It would have been good if she might have taken a couple of kickboxing classes before trying to play an instructor in a movie.

Captain Stupid and his daughter join Mrs. Thurston Howell from Gilligan's Island, a kooky cryptozoologist and a dark, mysterious stranger on this 90- minute ride into boredom.

That's right, I said cryptozoologist. He keeps mentioning that he brought some precious cargo on board that he needs to check out. Needless to say, the box contains a Chupacabra that somebody decides to let out. From this point on, a man in the rubber Chupacabra suit runs around the ship, killing people. Captain Stupid is powerless to stop it. He decides to call in the Marines but telling them that there are a bunch of terrorists on his ship.

The Marines respond. They say all that Marine-speak stuff like \"Hooya\" and \"Get Some\". But those silly Marines are no match for a Chupacabra. They don't really tell anyone where they're going either, so there's no help in sight. I guess no one will really miss some lame battalion of lost Marines. But don't forget... Captain Stupid's daughter is, thankfully, a Kickboxing instructor. Yay for Little Stupid! She comes in right in the nick of time, she beats up the bloodthirsty Goat Sucker and saves the day. Chupacabra means Goat Sucker. Therefore, Chupacabras suck. But there's no way that Chupacabras suck anywhere near as much as this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the most horrible 'scary' movies I've seen for awhile. I had to wonder if John Ryhs-Davies was just bored and wanted a distraction to do this movie. Th Chupacabra looked like a cross between the Sleetaks from Land of the Lost and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Additionally they should have used someone who was a bit smaller as the Chupacabra of legend is much smaller. All in all however the movie was soo bad it was funny. Why couldn't bullets and electrocution stop the Chupacabra but the captain's kick-boxing daughter do OK?? Watch if you are sick at home or feeling down and need a good laugh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is another Sci-Fi channel original movie staring Rhys Davies where its hard to decide whats worse, the acting, or the writing\/directing\/producing (John Sheppherd helms all three.)Basic story: obsessed exobiologist captures chubacabra monster,smuggles it in a cargo container aboard a cruise ship it escapes and the blood bath begins. Clich\u00e9d sci fi cast of the sturdy captain with the beautiful daughter, handsome hero and mad scientist. Captian calls in a terrorist alert for the ship (since of course wouldn't believe a monster story.)No dramatic Helicopter drop of the Navy Seals here. Budget only allowed for entire force force of eight seals to arrive in a fiberglass fishing boat and ride a ships wench aboard. Puleeze. Also cheesy computer animation of the ship you could do better on your computer. I also loved when the Seal commander looking thru standard binoculars from ten miles away was able to see three people jump of the ship. If the Sci-Fi channel is going to continue original movies I hope they realize there audience is not kindergarten level and purchase better scripts and directors. If this were direct to video you would find it in the 99 cent bin.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off let me say that this movie is nothing spectacular. The cast is like the saved by the bell reunion, the monster is a guy in a bad outfit and like always; the military is useless. It would seem that the more training you have and the bigger your gun, the more likely it is that you will die if you're in a cheesy low budget horror movie. Apparently the people in the movie business have little respect for the navy seals, the marines and ninjas, who get it the worst. The plot is thin, a nutcase cryptozoologist by the name of Dr. Pe\u00f1a traps the Chupacabra. He then smuggles it aboard a cruise ship where two members of the crew let it loose. You can do your taxes and watch this movie and not miss a beat. The most noteworthy part that really makes it all worthwhile revolves around the captains daughter. Toward the end she goes all martial arts on the monster and kicks his butt. Let me get this straight, the monster wipes out the entire navy seals unit, while they are using ARMOR PIERCING ammunition!! OK, its a movie it can happen right? But here comes the captains daughter who can't be older than 19 and kicks the crap out of the chupacabra with front and side kicks. It was hilarious. They should get a medal for coming up with that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Horrible Script, which was apparently directed by...no one? The Marines can't fend off the monster with machine guns, however it backs off when a 15 year old girl karate kicks it in the face a few times. It's supposed to be a luxury liner, but the Fancy Dining Room looks like a Cafeteria in a hospital. It appears that they rented a High School for the summer, and pulled out chairs and stuff to decorate the set with. In the end shot, they are pulled from the water and into a boat and less than 3 seconds later they are apparently about two miles from the ship as it sinks.How do movies like this get made? I guess anyone can be in a film these days. Aaron James, NYC","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seriously, Sci-Fi needs to stop making movies. They're all horrible. And this one had John Rhys-Davies in it, and he couldn't help the movie. Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito) captures the legendary goat eater of Mexico, the chupacabra, and brings it aboard a cruise ship captained by Captain Rudolf (John Rhys-Davies). The creature then escapes and starts killing crew and passengers. Captain Rudolf and the crew then go after the creature, guns ablazin'. But they can't stop it. So they call in the navy. They can't stop it either. Then the thing kills all 5 (or however many of them there are). Then the captain and his daughter along with some other guy, figure out how to kill it. Stay away from this movie. The chupacabra looks incredibly cheesy, the navy men shoot at the slightest movement,throw grenades on the ship, and the acting is horrible. 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It\u00b4s all my fault. They all told me I should avoid seeing this movie because I\u00b4m a huge fan of the old TV-series. They were right. While production values are good and the actors themselves (including \"don\u00b4t look now\") Julie Christie aren\u00b4t that bad, the whole film displays a cheekiness and self-conciousness that clearly is without any justification. A comparison between the Karloff \"Mummy\" and \"The Mummy Returns 2000\" comes to my mind. In fact Belphegore 2000 owes much more to the new Mummy films than to the old series. But then, scripting is terrible, speed there is none and sometimes the film is full of unintentional jokes (The first scene in the tomb looks plain stupid), with cats clearly being thrown when they\u00b4re supposed to jump (landing with their backfeet first). Belphegore moves around like a statue on wheels neither impressive nor scary and the psychological drama that unfolded in the old tv series when the heroine had to learn that she\u00b4s a villain is completely neglected. This movie is so WASTED (wasted money, wasted actors, wasted blueprint) that it hurts. It\u00b4s a below-par Mummy-rip off that\u00b4s only good for some laughs but has nothing at all to do with the Greco classic (She has a small role in this movie too - on the graveyard).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie only because Sophie Marceau. However, her acting abilities it's no enough to salve this movie. Almost all cast don't play their character well, exception for Sophie and Frederic. The plot could give a rise a better movie if the right pieces was in the right places. I saw several good french movies but this one i don't like.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My blurred childhood memories have kept the echo of the cult serie of Belph\u00e9gor in the French 60's... so I was eager to see the big screen adaptation. I should have kept my money and gone for a stroll in the Louvre.

The idea of the scenario is still very apt and interesting (the fantom of Le Louvre) but the adaptation is ridiculous. The dialogues hesitate permanently between French irony and serious \"American business\" without achieving neither but not without sounding asinine.

Acting leaves somehow to be desired and special effects are meager compared to what one could expect (low budget ?).

What is left of all that. Not much outside a few good shots of Paris ... which is seldom a disappointment.

Belph\u00e9gor was worth more than that.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After putting a mummy in a local museum goes through the cat-scan, a metal object in it's brain reacts adversely to the procedure, thus freeing the spirit,or phantom if you will, of the mummy, Belphegor. Due to convenient circumstances, Lisa, who lives close to the museum finds herself possessed by the evil spirit. Soon enough she's stealing the museum's Egyptian treasures out from under their nose. Detective Verlac comes out of retirement to catch the supernatural thief.

This is a serviceable enough, if you haven't seen any other incarnations of \"Belph\u00e9gor\" before. If you have, I recommend skipping this particular version as it can't help but pale in comparison to the others despite the nice locals and scenery.It plays out like a (slightly) higher budgeted Sci-Fi Original film, and I don't really mean that as a compliment.

Eye Candy: Sophie Marceau shows ass & side boob

My Grade: C-

DVD Extras: none","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a pretty dull movie, actually. I think the problem with a French horror film, is that the French must be easy to scare or something, because this movie wasn't just that frightening. The special effects with the mummy's ghost looked like they didn't even belong in the film, as though someone put them in during post-production to spice them up, because the actors barely react to them.

The plot just kind of meanders, which is the opposite of real storytelling. I guess this was based on a French TV series, where they had to distill it down to a two-hour movie.

The plot is that a mummy is brought out of storage in the Louvre, which apparently has such weak security that this girl and her boyfriend can break into it multiple times. (So THAT'S how people keep stealing the Mona Lisa!) The boyfriend and the police officer from the 1960's version of this film get together and try to exorcise the demon.

So I'm not sure if this mummy was supposed to be a bad guy or not. He kills two guards during the course of the movie, but he just wants to get to the afterlife.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie is apparently based on a popular French horror novel, by Arthur Bern\u00e8de, from 1927. Not that I had ever heard about it before but Belph\u00e9gor has been a popular subject before for movies and mini-series. The first movie got released way back in 1927, simultaneously with the novel. Arthur Bern\u00e8de was a part of a group of writers who wrote and produced films and novels simultaneously. The character Belph\u00e9gor is one of his best known creations.

Once upon a time Sophie Marceau was a promising new European actress who would conquer Hollywood. She has now however dropped back again to movies like this one. Nothing wrong with playing in French quality movies, since it's the country she originates from but this movie is just ridicules.

Problem is mostly that the movie relies on its special effects, to make the movie good and scary. Well, horror and special effects never really have been a good combination though, with some exceptions here and there. It's not like the special effects are bad in this one. Especially for an European movie it is simply good but it;s just misplaced, since the movie gave the feeling it could had easily done without its effect. It would had actually made the movie a better and scarier one to watch, no doubt about that really.

The movie is just not ever tense or engaging to watch, also since the movie seems to have difficulties picking the right approach. At times the movie picks a light and just less serious approach, while at others it clearly attempts to be a good scary horror movie. This is mostly the reason why the movie just doesn't work out on any level. You can say that the movie is even a bit boring. It all also definitely gets worse toward the ending. After a while you just stop caring about this movie and its story and you start wishing you had decided to watch something else instead.

The editing seems totally off. It uses too fast cuts, without much style, while the fast editing was obviously intended to give the movie a good, modern style. Also the time-line is just plain messed up at times, as if some sequences got edited in the wrong order.

The musical score is also really annoying and at times doesn't even sounds to fit the movie, as if it all long got scored before the movie finished shooting. I can't believe composer Bruno Coulais is an Oscar nominated composer. The musical score is almost just as annoying as the movie its sound effects.

The movie is filled with many characters, which you however just couldn't care less about. It also just seems very unlikely that a woman like Sophie Marceau would ever fall for a man such as Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Diefenthal. The movie also features Julie Christie, which is nice but just doesn't add much to the movie.

A horrible watch.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, I admit that I still associate Sophie Marceau with La Boum. That was the main reason I went to see this film. But it was so boring, that I nearly felt asleep. Sorry, but her talents as actress are not very convincing. Furthermore, this film was presented as having outstanding special effects and CGI. Yeah, for a B-Movie it is not that bad. After having seen her in \"Marquise\" some years ago (also a very crappy film), I thought that she would play more convincingly. But La Boum (and may be the James Bond \"the world is not enough\") seem to be the only good films with her. Is it her \"talent\", does she have a bad taste when choosing her films or simply bad luck ?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A confusing, senseless script with plot holes the size of the Eiffell Tower. Terrible acting by all involved - no exception! Laughable and cheesy dialogue. Lame attempts at humor and romance. Extremely cheap special effects. All this makes for a giant mess of a film, you'd best avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you thought this is the french The Mummy and if you're hoping for another \"Vidocq\"...well look elsewhere. It does have the same kind of story like The Mummy concerning this book of the dead and a soul that needs to find 7 missing pieces that are scattered in the Louvre. I found the movie to be slightly entertaining, boring for the most part. The special effects aren't bad, but it's nothing spectacular as I was expecting big explosions and perhaps the eiffel tower crumbling down until I realized that those kind of scenes were in The Mummy and this is Belhpegor. Apparently based on a french cult tv series, Belphegor could have been so much better. I voted this film a 4\/10 only for the beautiful Sophie Marceau...she must be almost 40 and she looks breathtaking!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"An evil spirit takes over a girl and diffuses panic in the Louvre museum\" that's all I think, the summary of the movie and the movie itself ! Which I think it's one of the worst French or non French movies ever made in the history of cinema !

Nothing good in here except the music (of the credits only !), some tender moments of (Sophie Marceau), and of course the movie's finale shot.. Not because it ends ages of what seemed to be a countless years we had in watching THAT CRAP but also for being so perfect as one magical C.G.I work that was too good to be true in here !

By the way I want to change the plot summary to be like this \"An evil spirit takes over some cinema artists to make lousy movies\".. Just like this one for sure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even Sophie Marceau's presence and the few (very few) good French gags are unable to save this otherwise slow and boring movie! A disappointment. The story is weak and so is acting. This movie was advertised as the French version of The Mummy, but the Mummy has at least spectacular and enjoyable effects...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With all the potential for a good movie in its gorgeous settings, cast, and cinematography, this film's lacklustre script, leaden pace, and wooden performances produced only a major disappointment. With decent direction, editing, and musical score, this could have been a good movie, perhaps a dark version of Blake Edward's '10', instead of a weepy version of Ron Howard's 'Splash'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I usually don't categorize a moving as boring. I am not big on action flicks and my senses do not need to be stimulated during a movie. In fact I enjoy a good rational logical dialogue and story line. Unfortunately, this movie has none of those characteristics. Diane Lane is the only saving grace in this movie and even her beauty cannot save it. Terrible overbearing music equals the moronic dialogue and acting. None of the actors actually connect with each other and as a result the movie does not connect with the audience. I guess the scenes where the townspeople are marching somewhere were suppose to add to the story but it seems that they were inserted just to fill space. The scenes appeared choppy and incoherent. There were some nice shots of the ocean and the beach which were beautiful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen soap operas more intelligent than this movie. Bad characters, bad story and bad acting. It would be a love story between a man and a mermaid. Really awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Julie Delpy stars in this horrific film about a sadistic relationship between a father and a daughter in France of the 14th Century. The film attempts to shatter the romantic chivalry image of the heroic medieval knight, by showing a rather dreary image of the period, defined by psychological dysfunction, and violence.

The movie opens with a child, Fran\u00e7ois, growing up in the shadow of the Hundred Years' War, told by his father to keep his mother safe and to wait for his return. Fran\u00e7ois takes action when he discovers his mother with a lover in bed. Fran\u00e7ois murders him in the name of defending his father's honour. Like father like son, Fran\u00e7ois grows up, and leaves his family, also to go to the same war. This setting is somewhat of an explanation for the events to come, as on his way home, we already notice that something is wrong with Fran\u00e7ois. The war has not done well with him, he has changed.

The daughter, B\u00e9atrice de Cortemart (Delpy), awaits her beloved father, to return from captivity of the English. She is pure of heart and she was left to take care of the estate while her father was gone. In her father's absence, B\u00e9atrice needs to deal with financial difficulties, which strengthens B\u00e9atrice's hope that her father will return to save her. But, upon his return, she notices that he lost the will to enjoy life, and he tortures and humiliates everything around him, even his own daughter. From this points the film depicts various ways how Fran\u00e7ois torments his family. Starting with humiliating his own son, and ending with the rape of his own daughter, B\u00e9atrice.

Setting the film in the Middle Ages supposed to soften the blow, as the viewer may tell himself, that these kind of violent acts were held in difficult times. And indeed, many films on the topic of Incest, such as Tim Roth's \"The War Zone (1999)\" which are contemporary were more shocking because of that.

Delpy appears in this film in several daring nude scenes. Indeed she appears to be angelic and beautiful.

I was annoyed when I saw some animal torture scenes. I believe, and this is not confirmed, that some birds were killed for the making of this film, which really upsets me. The quality of a film drops when real violence is used towards animals. I would hope that this movie will be re-released without those cruelty scenes. Those scenes do not contribute much to the film storyline.

Overall, the movie is too long. The script is problematic. We don't get to see Fran\u00e7ois and B\u00e9atrice before the war, we don't really get the answer why is he changed to such extreme. I would have pass on this film, however, I have to mention a few scenes that made this film worth watching:

* Scenes of a young child being able to murder in cold blood is truly shocking. I saw it first time on \"City of God (2002)\". Here, Fran\u00e7ois, murders his mother's lover, while his father away at war. Excellent scene and very graphic. * The scenes from B\u00e9atrice being raped by her father till she finds out she is pregnant from him are truly shocking and interesting. The scene after the rape, where Delpy burns her cloths and cleans herself. She asks her brother to kick her in the stomach with hopes to have a miscarriage.

* The brother humiliation scenes where the father dumps his son's head into the food - humiliating him then ranting about the war. Later, dressing his son with women's cloths.

The film won the C\u00e9sar (French Oscar) for Best Costume Design, I agree, the costumes here really make the film look authentic for the time period. The movie location is Ch\u00e2teau de Puivert, a real 12th century castle and a historical monument, located in Aude, South-Central France. Beautiful castle and mountain view, really helps you set into the period of this film. The film also nominated for 3 more C\u00e9sar awards, but they were all snatched to the widely successful French film \"Au revoir, les enfants\" (\"Goodbye, Children\", 1998).

--- Released as \"Beatrice\" in New York City, March 1987. Only to be screened in France on November 2007. Watched it on YES3 on 3 May 2007, 17:45, at work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Very odd, this seems like a very average movie to me, if not slightly less. It is brilliantly shot but, together with the performance of R. Lee Ermey, that's about the only redeeming aspect I found in the movie which consists of two separate parts.

The first part covers the basic marine-training which, watching it in 2007, comes off like something I've see a zillion times before in dozens of other movies and series and it's not particularly gripping. After 30 minutes I got the idea and wished they could just get on with it. The drill sergeant is about the only believable character while everyone else seem to be just cardboard cut-outs. The general acting is staggeringly haggard and the screenplay is devoid of anything interesting and consists of little more than the Sergeant shouting. The boys make it through their training and end up in Vietnam. Oh, and the fat weirdo shoots the sergeant (what a surprise..), probably in the mistaken belief that it was actually the scriptwriter.

So, one hour passed and nothing worthy of note happened. Nothing...

Then we have the Vietnam-part.

It opens with a bunk-scene where reporters of Stars and Stripes are bored and are making small talk to pass the time. At first I thought they were re-enacting some movie scenes from old films, it sounded pretty bad. But no, they were actually muttering their script lines. Then the camp is besieged. Some 20 Vietcong enter the camp through the main gate. Too bad for them they are being dropped like flies because they simply walk into several manned gun posts with no means of cover. Is that normal behaviour? Were the Vietnamese all suicidal? If so, how come the US didn't win this war during the first two months of engagement? The rest of the movie continues with even more completely illogical war scenes.

Furthermore, the whole plot is altogether pointless. None of the characters inspire much sympathy and the story is frankly rather uneventful. It shows little more other than some war-reporters hooking up with a platoon with some guys getting shot because they are disobedient morons and who also seem to think that somehow a gaping hole in a wall will protect you from bullets.

What was the message of this movie..that people died in Vietnam? That people are animals in war situations? That if you want to dispose of really dumb people, you send them to a war zone? Or that somehow in Vietnam concrete can actually burn?

I'm sorry, but if this movie deserves an 8.3, then Apocalypse Now deserves a 38.3

5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard to write 10 lines of copy about this so-so film noir. There just isn't a lot to say about it. It is not memorable enough to add to your collection, and I have a considerable amount of noirs.

Paul Henreid plays a tough guy in here. He's not one I would think of to play this kind of role, but he's fine with it. He's a fine actor, anyway.

Everything, including the cinematography, is okay-but-not memorable. One thing that stood out: the abrupt ending. That was a surprise. It was also a surprise to see this under the heading \"Hollow Triumph.\" I've never seen the film called that. It's always been called \"Scar.\"

If you read about a \"tense film noir,\" etc., don't believe it. \"Tense\" is not an accurate adjective for this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me start off by saying I love Japanese cinema, literature and culture generally. I've seen many Japanese movies and enjoyed them, but \"Portrait of Hell\" (aka Jigokuhen) makes itself ridiculous. The two characters who dominate the action -- the \"evil lord\" in his privileged bubble and the \"stubborn, crazy artist\" are pure types with zero subtlety or nuance, and all their actions emanate from cartoonish extremes. The film wants to show horrible scenes of violence and raw emotion but many of these scenes are so over the top they actually become laughable and the overall feeling is that of a made-for-TV movie that went off the rails. If this rarely screened movie falls in your hands or comes to your town, spare yourself and give it a pass.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So you have the spoiler warning---but I would argue that you cannot spoil what is already rotten. I assume they changed the name to \"The Cavern\" just in case \"WIthIn\"s reputation had preceded it.

After paying the cable rental for this movie, I considered saving my household garbage for a month and mailing it to the writer\/director. He had his garbage delivered to my home, so I thought it only fair that I return the favor.

The movie opens with a suggestion that the scene is in the desert of Kazakhstan. I'm not sure why they picked Kazakhstan; maybe the writer is a fan of the Ali G Show. But they should have just started inside the cave, because the outside was obviously not Kazakhstan. It was the first clue that I was going to hate the movie.

The movie has no redeeming qualities, save one: it's consistent. Everything is terrible. The writing, the directing, the acting, the cinematography---every aspect of this film is just bad. And I like bad films, goofy films, B-horror films . . . but this was just plain bad. And stupid. And hackneyed. And predictable. And boring.

To get a feel for the film, go into your laundry room with 5 of your friends, and turn off the lights. Put a flashlight (turned on) into your dryer and start it tumbling. Now all of you start screaming and yelling at the top of your lungs. That's it.

For a complete re-enactment, have 5 of the 6 people in the laundry room play dead on the floor. Toss Karo syrup on them. Turn the lights back on (stop the dryer). Now have a guy in a gorilla costume enter the room and rape the last person standing.

FIN

ADDENDUM: Reading through the other comments, many find it remarkable this movie was made on a low budget. That's not remarkable. Making a crap movie on a HUGE budget is remarkable (Waterworld). Making a good movie on a low budget is remarkable (like Blair Witch, which I thoroughly enjoyed). Making a crap movie on a low budget isn't a bit surprising, and you can expect more of the same if these people are still making movies, because I can't imagine anybody would hand them a pile of cash after watching this.

Is the low budget an excuse for a terrible film? No, and it's certainly no reason to watch it. Would you eat a dog-dung sandwich just because it was cheap to make?

The IMDb rating for this film over time will be interesting to watch. It should trend farther downward, but only if the number of unsuspecting innocent viewers can outpace the movie makers' ability to beg their personal friends to give it 10 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My first post at the IMDb has to (unfortunately) be to warn others not to waste their time with The Cavern! There is no story, no character development, no scares, and no good lighting. It doesn't make any sense. If you enjoy bad acting, people running through small portions of caves, bouncing cameras posed at bad angles, and people screaming while the screen is in complete darkness, you'll love this movie. I could shut the lights off in my house and scream too, and I wouldn't have to pay for the rental. The only thing that scared me was that someone actually made a movie this awful.

... one of the worst movies I've ever rented.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie goes something like this: Run around, run around, someone killed, lots of freaking out and then one of the group yells to \"Pull it together\" or \"Just calm down!\" Repeat this as many times as their are characters left. In between these things, you get to enjoy blank, black screen. These are not quick but rather several seconds long. I kept thinking what a waste of film every time it happened - yes, it does happen more than once if you can believe it.

I notice other mentioned \"Blair Witch: and it did remind me of that in the way the camera was bouncy. However, this movie takes that to the extreme. Every single time the characters move the camera is bouncing. Sometimes so much that you can't make heads or tales as to what you are looking at. That brings us to lighting. Way too dark in some areas. I get that they are trying to make us feel like we are in a cave, but Helllloo... I'm watching a movie here, it would be nice to be able to see.

Then there is the ending. I actually blurted out loud, \"Are you kidding me?!\" (I was watching alone too). Dumb, dumb. I think the ending was purely the effort of the people who made this disaster to shock us after so much time of boredom with a so called \"twist\". At this point of the movie you could have seen the \"monster\" picking his nose and it would be considered a \"twist\". Truly horrible. You have been warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Possibly the worst movie I ever saw. The person who shot this movie probably never learned not to film directly into a shining light. You can't see anything in this movie. It is way to dark. The parts where you can see something the camera is directed straight at a light source so you get big lens flares. So you still can't see. This movie should have been a radio play or something. Some parts of the movie are actually edited upside-down for some kind of crap effect. Low budget movies can be done so much better then this. And low budget is no excuse for this. An editor should have said something when he started editing and saw that you couldn't see anything. Maybe the makers should have spend some of their low budget on a preview monitor so they could see what they shot. The only good thing about this movie being so dark is that you can't see the awful acting. It also covers up the crappy sfx. People at beginner film schools make better movies then this. Movies shot with handy cams look better then this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Cavern: 2 out of 10: Blair Witch meets The Cave and gives me a headache.

I have something to ask all film schools, could you please teach future directors how to hold a camera steady. Flailing the camera around like Aunt Betty with 12 drinks is headache inducing.

Also film is primarily a visual medium directors may want to point their camera's in the general direction of the action. Film also requires light to work. Perhaps a light source should be employed so one can see the action on the screen. I know it is a cave movie but there is absolutely nothing frightening about watching pitch blackness for minutes at a time.

For that matter showing the film upside down doesn't indicate confusion on screen it indicates confusion in the editing booth.

A last note to the director I'm sure there was a good reason to have a horribly fake CGI campfire. I honestly can't for the life of me think of one.

Now on to the screenwriter. Try to make at least one character likable. I'd prefer two or more but one decent person I can root for or care about might help. Also if you are going to have flashbacks make them relevant to the story.

If you are going to have a surprise ending it is probably best if it doesn't contradict every single thing that comes before it. And try adding some fancy spelunking terms to a cave movie. You might have wanted to start with spelunking.

The Cavern is a pretty bad film, poorly shot with a confusing, improbable and anticlimactic ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I checked out the review for this film after I'd watched it, I was surprised that there were people giving it good ratings.

This is a film of bad camera-work. Everything 'frightening' happens off screen, usually accompanied with a closeup of someone yelling \"Did you see\/hear that?\" Well, no, we didn't see that! We can't! And when there weren't any close-ups, the camera was doing something weird like rotating upside down, or shaking back and forth really, really quickly, to either convey action or to make us physically sick.

The characters were unlikeable because every two minutes, they started screaming the same thing over and over again. I don't care if that's what it would 'really' be like, I did not rent a scary movie to see reasonable things! I expect unreasonable things, like aliens, demons, or good acting! They were stupid, too- Let's go have intimate relations in a cave! With all of our clothes on! Speaking of which, the ending somewhat contradicts what Domingo said immediately before he died. This bugged me a bit, though not nearly as much as the fact that the ending resulted in a... serious invasion of one girl's privacy.

No plot, no climax, no good acting, terrible camera-work. What's left? Oh, right. The ending may have had a 'twist' but generally with horror movies, the twist at the end actually has understandable relevance to what occurred during the film. Sixth Sense does- it explains a lot. Hide and Seek did, too. But the Cavern had a lame twist that served as an 'explanation', if you could call it that as it doesn't. Explain. Anything.

Don't see it. Please.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes you ignore that little voice in your head that says \"stay away from this movie\". We should all pay more attention to that little voice. This may be the worst movie I've ever had the non-pleasure of sitting through, or it may be the best reason to remember that your DVD player has a fast-forward button. Made on a budget somewhere in the vicinity of $1.99, \"The Cavern\" is obviously a quick cheapie made to piggyback on the current bunch of scary cave-lots of darkness-claustrophobic spelunkers-unknown menace flicks like \"The Cave\" and \"The Descent\". A few years back there was similar rash of look-alike movies that used sea-going vessels instead of caves. All had scary boats\/submarines-lots of darkness-claustrophobic adventurers-unknown menaces...same old same old. \"The Cavern\" is really \"The Blair Witch Project\" only this time we're lost under the earth and not lost on top of it. Throw in a flashlight with failing batteries, a cow skull with fangs glued on it for a monster, and one of the stupidest \"twist\" climaxes ever put on film. That being said, let me urge you to listen to me, the little voice in your head. I'm your friend. I want you to have a happy life. Stay away from this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of cavers with a sad history take an author on a 'hairy' adventure through an uncharted cave in Kazakhstan. In these times of remakes and sequels and film companies trying to cash in on any winning combination of cinematic components, The Cavern has only one relatively different twist on the previous eight cave movies over the last few years, and that twist seems to be taken from an X-File. I like to give every film the benefit of the doubt, but there were just too many little annoyances for me here. The camera work can give you a headache as they seem to constantly confuse which way is up. Not being a caver, it doesn't really matter to me whether the filming was realistic. There is entirely too much unnecessary PANNICK from supposedly experienced cavers, by the last half you're saying out loud one of two things \u0096 oh just shut up and concentrate on saving yourselves, or I hope you all die by the end. It must have been very tiring for these decent actors to make this film. A moderate amount of gore and nothing special in the dialog or characters. While you're pretty confident you know what's going on by the end, the last five minutes explain all the details. But I would have had a better opinion of the movie if they would have left the last minute on the cutting room floor. It just wasn't necessary. I suggest you hit eject immediately after your suspicions are confirmed and save yourself the setup for the sequel. I've long thought that the film industry should share a modified restaurant industry's checkout scheme. You pay for the materials to make the film before you go in, but any profits for the film come from the tips you give when you leave the cinema. I can't blame what I don't like about this film on its low budget.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First let me say that those of you that voted it \"10\" are only kidding yourselves and trying to get the votes to a respectable level... something that this movie doesn't deserve. (The only movies deserving a 10 IMO are the classics... Godfather, Shawshank, etc. Look at the top rated films of all time for the complete list.) I also noticed that many people gave this a positive vote for being so realistic as far as what it's like inside a cave. Though I would have to agree with them on the surroundings, they simply aren't rating the movie as a whole... they are infatuated by the surroundings but miss the overall review. That would be like me voting a 10 for the movie \"From Justin to Kelly\" because I think that the beach scenes remind me of what it's like in the Florida Keys... though that may be true, it does not merit the film getting a 10 because the movie as a whole was rancid.

I wish I could tell you that something saved this movie, as usually if one thing stinks in a horror flick, something else picks up or makes up for the weakness. (Ex. - Bad actors are overshadowed by a great plot and\/or great camera work and scenery.) We started the DVD and it all started out fairly normal. We jokingly started to pick out who would be the first to die... after a brief bit of driving and hiking, they set up camp for the night. At that moment, I keyed in on some things which really made me tune out the rest of the film. Two main problems I had: Bad effects and an even worse story line. The first thing that we all noticed was that the campfires weren't real... you can plainly see the \"cgi\" or fake flames that they were all sitting at. For a horror film to have such a blatant effect flaw should have told me what I was in for the next hour.

Only minutes later, I was shown how poorly written this film was. I don't remember exactly how they arrived at the point, but basically, we find out that the \"token Nerd\" is writing a book about exploring caves, etc. Another guy in the group wants to tell a story about an experience, but hesitates stating \"I don't want this story in your book.\" The author convinces and coaxes the other that he will not put the story in his book and that he can trust him. (A direct quote: \"If I tell you the story, you will definitely want it in your book.\") At this point, I was fully expecting a nice 5+ minute story, complete with flashbacks and heartfelt acting. What I got was a short, poorly told (and acted) statement. I say statement because what he ended up telling was about 10 seconds and 5 sentences. I don't remember the exact quotes, but basically he says: \"We were in a cave, the cave flooded, a girl died as our friend watched her drown.\" You may think I am over exaggerating and being really critical, but that isn't far off from a direct quote, line for line, from the movie scene.

Over the next 50 minutes or so, the film takes place in the cave and though the lighting is what I would imagine to be like in a cave, I could have really done without the really fuzzy\/hazy look to the film, and the camera shaking is just one that I didn't go for. (I have really good vision, and after watching the main parts of the film, I felt like I was legally blind.) I was emotionally detached from this movie, therefore the parts that probably should have been scary weren't. Maybe had I been able to overlook the very slow and poorly acted start to this film, I would have at least been scared, but I don't remember anyone in the dark room even twitching at any of the \"action\" scenes.

The last scene was probably one I will never forget, and that isn't a good thing. Basically, two women are trapped in a room naked. The \"monster\" comes in to attack\/kill the women... he is stopped when he sees a picture of a little boy. A flashback occurs where we find out that the \"monster\" was injured as a little boy, and spent his entire life in the cave. Cut back to present time, and he takes his \"mask\" (a large skeleton with what appears to be a deerskin shirt). He glances at the picture and the two women appear to have found the caveman's weakness\/soft spot. At that point, he stabs and kills one girl, then proceeds to rape the other woman, rather graphically. After about 30 seconds of watching the camera jiggle and shake as he rapes her, roll the credits, movie's over.

Honestly, if I had to do it all over and I wasted money on renting this movie, I could have saved myself an hour and watch the first scene and last scene of this film and still left with the same thoughts about it that I have now.

Those of you comparing this to Blair Witch are way off... if any of you had read up on how the director and writer ran the filming of Blair would realize how revolutionary it was... handing each cast member a script the day\/night of filming without the other cast members knowing what the other actor was doing is genius.

If IMDb would let me, it would get a negative score... I don't understand how anyone in their right mind can recommend this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't say if \"The Cavern\" is a ripoff of \"The Cave\" because I haven't seen that. I've seen \"The Descent\" and that's not terrible but it is very hard to watch and so is this one. Hard to watch, as in, there's very little light and lots of fast motion so you're hard pressed to say what you're looking at. There are times when I guess, you're supposed to be scared, judging from the music, but scared of what? Bad camera work? Poor lighting? If that's the case than this should be the scariest movie made. The story is that a bunch of cave explorers go to a cave in Kazakhstan (home of Borat) and make their descent, but something is (of course) in there with them. And what is it? One guy says it's a wolf\/bear hybrid, that is, just before he gets ripped apart, but whatever it is, you can't see it. And just when you think (or hope) the film is ending, since the screen goes dark for a bit, you see the two remaining cavers (the two women) wake up somewhere in Betty and Wilma attire and start trying to find their way out of wherever they are. They do drink some water and start eating SOMETHING until they figure out what it is and start puking....and then the mystery of what's in the cave appears, and you'll just be astounded. Maybe, maybe not. Dumb dumb dumb....I think I'm pretty well done with cave movies at this point, 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Horror films are a curious thing, sometimes they manage to stumble across a formula that works very well, sometimes they try valiantly to tell a worthy story despite time and budget problems, sometimes they're so bad they're actually kinda fun...and sometimes they're \"The Cavern\".

A good horror\/suspense film should contain vagaries that keep you guessing, they should allow you to be interested in the characters and their motivations so that you actually have some sort of reaction when they die. However, The Cavern chooses instead to introduce elements that work at first, only to be negated by it's own lackluster storytelling.

All the characters are completely forgettable and any actual back story that might make any of them even remotely interesting is blurted out within a 30 second monologue, making it impossible to do anything more than laugh as characters are picked off almost at random and on more than one occasion in the least possibly frightening way.

(To spoil a scene a bit, one victim is taken during a complete blackout which might have been a little frightening if the sound effect used to indicate his killing wasn't reminiscent of stirring a pot of too thick Macaroni and Cheese) Add to this formula the camera that work makes me think the director saw one too many Nine Inch Nails videos and an ending which in an attempt to be shocking serves almost no purpose but to annoy and confuse the viewer and you have an almost completely unwatchable horror film that fails on every level.

I'll be honest with you, if you want a claustrophobic caving horror movie go watch \"The Descent\", and I feel weird saying that because I didn't particularly enjoy that movie either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love movies...and rarely do I see a movie that I hate...but this was the worst movie I have ever seen, or at least close to it. Any movie that ends with a rape scene is awful. Hands down... I cant believe I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this movie. I'm really mad, I want my money back and my time back. AWFUL! Do not go to see it, the cinematography is awful, the plot is awful, the ending is awful. I didn't know what was going on during half the movie cause I could not see it(and I was watching on a very nice, and big, TV) Rent saw, the hills have eyes, or house of wax...any of those are better if u want something scary.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The person who wrote the summary and rave review for this film is either an idiot or an avid fan of shitty movies. From the beginning, this just spoke of cheap-ass ripoff of \"The Descent\", a far superior film that definitely does NOT start off slow.

From the very first moments of \"The Cavern\", I was amazed at how bad it was, how uninspired and unoriginal it was, how badly written, badly acted and badly directed it was. This is without a doubt one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life, and that's saying a lot, considering I recently suffered through \"Pulse\". I can't believe this piece of garbage actually won awards, which just goes to show the quality of marijuana and other illegal drugs is much better in Australia and other countries than in the U.S.

The scenes where the group is running from the \"creature\" are badly directed, especially the retarded \"upside-down-camera\", intended to show disorientation, but only coming off as a cheap effect which a first-year film student would be suitably berated for by their teacher.

Sadly, this \"director\" will probably go on to make other movies, more than likely of the same low quality as this \"film\", since I'm sure he hasn't learned from his mistakes, which on this picture were excessive.

If I had my way, the entire cast and crew would be sent up the river for life without parole. This film is a crime against humanity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If it is true that the movie only cost 150K to make, it explains a lot. But, it doesn't explain why it has no real plot. Midway through the movie I honestly didn't care if they made it out or not. I just wanted to finish the movie and go to bed. The ending was really dumb and made me wish I would have just shut the movie off and gone to bed early. Pretty good acting considering there wasn't much to go with. If you enjoy really bad movies with horrible lighting (even for a cave)and bad camera work (even for a cave)... then you'll really like this movie. By the way, if the boy's plane crashed in 1980 when he was about 10 years old or so, how could he have forgotten how to speak, and built up so much anger?? Wouldn't he have wanted to get help from the first people he had seen even if it was 14 years later?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a shocker. For starters, I couldn't stand the constant screaming and noisy panicking all the time. It didn't make me scared, horrified, or make me sympathetic towards the characters; it was simply annoying. The jerky camera movements were also annoying. The plot was the same as pretty much every other cheap horror. There was a few pathetic attempts to give the characters some depth, but it didn't really work into the rest of the plot. And then there's the ending. I'm still not really sure what to make of it. I guess it was supposed to be clever twist, then shed some light on the situation, but it was just stupid.

The case had a couple of those little award winner\/nominations symbols on it, so I figured it couldn't be too bad. I was wrong. If you see it, you should probably just leave it on the shelf.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I consented to watching this movie with a group of friends despite my extreme dislike for horror movies. However, it was not the shock of a monster that turned me off this movie, it was the horrendous acting and absolutely disgusting ending. Within, or the Cavern, has no redeeming qualities- it is poorly made, laughably scripted, sickeningly bloody and the inclusion of the gratuitous final scene repulses me. No, it is not my dislike for horror movies that makes me hate this film-I've seen such wonderful teen horrors as \"House of Wax\", its the fact that the film leaves you with the awful understanding that by renting the video, you are supporting the creators of Within","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I could give this excuse for a film a 0 or negative rating I would. I was stupid enough to pick this DVD up in the shop, read the blurb and think, that sounds quite good, I'll spend \u00a310 and buy it. all I got at the end of it was a \u00a310 coaster. Absolutely awful, I don't even know where to begin. I have no idea why anyone has given this more than 2 stars because I can't think of one good thing to say about it.

The plot is basically, 7 people go into an unexplored cave, one of them is a reporter. no-one else knows they are there. When they get in the cave, they can't get out and they get killed off one by one by a monster. There turns out to be no reason for the reporter. One of the characters has some past demons where his ex girlfriend drowns in a cave 2 years ago... there seems to be no relevance or reason for that either, just a rubbish attempt at character building I assume? Anyway, The monster turns out to be a guy that wandered into the cave as a normal little kid and has lived in there all his life. This for no reason makes him superhuman, able to glow, see in the dark, take bullets, breathe underwater, be in 2 places at once and have insane strength (able to move boulders, carry grown men as dead weight, etc).

In the end scene there are 2 women left alive, they wake up naked, just covered in some bit of rug or something. They then find a picture of a kid. The Monster then bursts in the door, wrapped in a carpet with some sort of animal skull over his head (says in the directors commentary it was a crow's skull, if so that would be the frekin biggest crow I have seen in my life) and quite literally goes \"Raaahhh\" like a kiddie on Halloween. I was watching it with my boyfriend and at that point he literally burst out laughing. The guy then sees a picture of himself as a kid and has a flashback to him sitting under a tree with his face all burnt and then getting up and wandering into the cave. That is the extent of the back story to why he mutilates people and it leaves you feeling a bit cheated for a story. The monster then kills one of the women and brutally rapes the other one, cut to end credits. I know the rape scene was designed to be shocking, but as a woman it just made me feel quite ill and was the thing that affected me the most in the whole film. He could have killed her and cut her into pieces and ate her and it would have been less horrific than the rape scene.

There are so many things that are left unanswered at the end. Aside from all this, the scenes where there was minutes at a time of just black and nothing else was annoying and the constant nauseating camera angles where it's all upside down and you can't see what's going on wound me up so much at one point I almost turned it off. An absolutely terrible film. You might as well get the money you were going to spend on it and set fire to it, it would be money better spent, as like some clever person posting above me said, once you've watched it, you can't un watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have recently seen a string of caving movies and this film managed to cobble together all the worst aspects of this kind of film. You get very little appreciation for the caving surrounds or the monster that they face, while the characters are clich\u00e9d (spiritual guy, leader with tragedy in recent past etc) and the ending was just weak. It really annoyed me that the director kept shaking the camera or showing almost total darkness to create atmosphere. I have read that this movie gave a real representation of caving and yeah, I imagine that caves are dark. Showing near total blackness for half the film really brought that home. I quite enjoyed \"the descent\" which, for my money had better acting, showed more tight caving situations, better monsters and had a good ending.

****spoiler******

The monster turns out to be some guy whose plane crashed and parents were killed, leaving him to grow up in the caves. He seems to have developed super strength and speed, but why is never addressed - maybe the same force that drained their torch batteries caused this but during the film whenever someone is killed you get the impression of something large with claws that tears up each victim (see how much blood splatters the walls!) but in the end its just some dude with a fur draped over him and a mask? I would be willing to overlook this if great heights of suspense were reached but this was hardly the case. Then he starts raping the last remaining caver and roll credits... Almost absurdly bad I thought. Sometimes a film is soo bad you can appreciate it and maybe have a laugh, but this films fails to take itself lightly as well.

You watched it, you can't unwatch it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am an avid movie watcher and I enjoy a wide variety of films. However, I found NO enjoyment in this movie. It is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. I do not feel that it had much of a storyline, the characters were not likable and the relationship between the characters was dysfunctional at best, and the ending only made me dislike the movie more. It is definitely not in the same category as \"The Cave\" which was, in my opinion, the best cave movie ever made. Even \"The Descent\" was better than this movie.

It was a waste of the $3.79 rental fee and of my time to watch this. Do yourself a favor and steer clear of this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't laughed this much in a long time - or seen a film so ineptly made! Talk about so bad it made me laugh!

Firstly, I estimate that for about 40 percent of the film's length, I couldn't tell what was happening, or indeed even what I was seeing. I can only describe the camera work as frenetic meets LSD. There are whole segments, minutes long, where all you can see are blurred flashes and fragments of cave wall, people and various other unidentifiable stuff. I spent half the film asking my teenage daughters what was happening, but they couldn't follow it any better than me.

Then there are the \"black\" moments, when in an effort to scare us (woooooooo) everyone's lights go out and the screen turns pitch black - and I don't just mean for a few seconds. I think the longest lasted almost two minutes. I guess blank film is one way to keep costs down...

I suspect the \"director\" had recently read a book on all the \"must-do's\" to make a scary movie, and decided to throw them all in - about 20 times each.

There are three good things about this film: 1\/ It's short at 90 minutes (though still an hour and a half too long!) 2\/ All the characters die (after all, it's impossible to care about any of them). 3\/ There was one genuinely good scene - when the group are looking up the shaft they came down, after discovering their rope fallen to the bottom (saw THAT coming), a large boulder is pushed across the opening, sealing them in. I WASN'T expecting that, and it was genuinely chilling.

And what's with the early campfire scenes with the shot, after shot, after shot panning from behind the camp lights. I swear the director used almost the same shot about 20 times in 5 minutes.

And I'm positive that after the first kill, the EXACT same footage of blood on the cave floor is used twice in about 90 seconds.

All in all, a CRAP piece of film making. I'll watch almost anything, but this is close to where I'd draw the line.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Monday, October 02, 2006 So I got together with my dad as I always do. We ordered some Japanese take-out, turned off the lights and pushed play. I'm an avid fan of horror movies. However, The Cavern released on DVD this October was most certainly a let down. It seemed promising, meeting all the standard requirements of any horror movie machine: drawn out beginning with antagonistic character present, a cannot be omitted sex scene, and the all too familiar pre-spook (when they spook you unexpectedly but it turns out to be the idiot buddy). Then finally when it got down to the nitty gritty, I was ready for some real gore action. The director, I admit was keen. Of course you would have to be to fill in an entire 81 minutes with people running back and forth in a space about 10ft wide. It all begins when some college bound \"cavers\" get together for yet another cave dive. They all seem like seasoned pros, very serious and spiritual about the whole cave experience. This time they bring a new-by along, some annoying photographer too blinded by his National Geographic cover to understand the full dangers of cave diving. As they descend deep into what they call \"Hell Pit\" they soon realize that they are not alone in the chasm of death. I will politely leave out any spoilers if you are naive enough to not heed my advice and avoid wasting your time. Although the atmosphere and background music was spooky; and there was sure a lot of blood and gore, when the moments approached to witness some actual dismemberment it was more like watching porn without the full frontal. The camera work was purposefully dark and sketchy. I guess the director used it for effect. I suppose the thing I like most about the movie were the moving characters. They deserved Acadamy Awards for those touching bickering scenes. I almost shed a tear when they finally \"got it\"... A tear for joy! If you like dry horror, soft porn, and you hated Braveheart. Then this is the right movie for your next Saturday night.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There seems to have been some money behind this film, but it would be impossible to imagine a film this badly planned and executed if I hadn't actually started watching it.

To begin with, once we are in the cavern with the characters (the usual young adult stereotypes we've been meeting in horror films since the early '80s), the film is shot almost entirely in close-up. Since the actors are wearing helmet lights, this means all we see are glaring lights alternating with utter darkness - we never get to see what the characters see; so when they shout out \"Look there!\" we are left to beg \"What?! Where?!\". Ultimately the film has a nauseating, confusing strobe-light effect, with no sense to it until we get to the end.

And I won't tell you what 'the end' means - but you will recognize it if you've ever seen the old early '60s Arch Hall laugh fest\"Eegah!\" with Richard Kiel.

But what crazy person would ever want to make a variation on a theme like \"Eegah!\"'s, long remembered as one of the worst films ever made?! But that's what we have here, folks. Except that, unlike \"Eegah!\", \"The Cavern\" is not anyone's idea of goofy fun. It is unwatchable. (I ran it at x2 the normal speed, just to get it over with, hoping I would actually be able to see something by the end of the film; but when I did, it was just stupid.) This film did provide me with one satisfying moment, though; since it only cost a couple bucks, after I got it out of the DVD player, I was able to smash it with my own hands - what a relief!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"when i sat down to watch this movie i thought that it might be slightly good. but no. it was a OK film, not good, but not bad for most of it but then you get to the ending and it losses all credibility. they should have just left then dead. they did not leave the last bit it did not make any sense. if they had something at they beginning about a plane crash yeah but we didn't so it didn't work. the first bit is OK and i give them credit for that but the rest is just plane bad and unnecessary if you are thinking about going and watching this movie DON\"T it is awful go and rent something that is actually worth watching. i give it 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This must be one of the worse movies that I have ever seen. On a par with Blair Witch and just as annoying. The flashing helmet lights made things difficult to see and I think that epileptics should take heed as there are moments with strobing that makes this movie even more annoying. I think if they had been quieter they might have found a way out. Then when you think the geek might come up trumps even he resorts to a nervous breakdown. Oh and when is the guy who is having sex realise that when the girl says she can hear something. She Can Really Hear Something. One of these guys must have at least seen Scream (where they draw your attention to such things) It is also a big let-down when a premise offers so much promise and then someone writes the script. So sorry folks I got this on weekly at the video shop and I would still like my money back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A virtual carbon copy of The Cave save for a fewer lower budget effects and a slightly different plot. I knew the movie was going downhill when I saw the fake campfire flikering lights clearly reflected in a facial close up of one of the actors. The conflicts between characters and subplots seemed to serve no purpose whatsoever, and added nothing to the film except fewer moments of silence. The acting wasn't as bad as the typical B movie, and there was some believability in their fear, but as professional cavers, they seem to be too psychologically unstable for their chosen profession. Overall not worth wasting $4.50 to rent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are a bit masochistic and like to waste some time you should try this one. I wasted enough time myself watching it, so I will waste no more explaining why it is so awful. Be warned!!! Oh, I see that I have to fill 10 lines or more. Here we go: every year or so some people think it is fun to start shooting a low budget film about the scary monsters of the underground, that hopefully will prove to be some sort of a hit. The Cavern is one of those. I didn't have high expectations about this one but the acting is so bad and the production so poor that I'm seriously thinking of asking for a refund. Phewww ... one more line about a useless movie ... Oh, I'm done.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a shocker. For starters, I couldn't stand the constant screaming and noisy panicking all the time. It didn't make me scared, horrified, or make me sympathetic towards the characters; it was simply annoying. The jerky camera movements were also annoying. The plot was the same as pretty much every other cheap horror. There was a few pathetic attempts to give the characters some depth, but it didn't really work into the rest of the plot. And then there's the ending. I'm still not really sure what to make of it. I guess it was supposed to be clever twist, then shed some light on the situation, but it was just stupid.

The case had a couple of those little award winner\/nominations symbols on it, so I figured it couldn't be too bad. I was wrong. If you see it, you should probably just leave it on the shelf.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Audio:

Seriously I've never seen a movie with worse audio. There are scenes where people are walking through the grass, and you can hardly hear them over their footsteps. They must be miking their feet.

You know how in some movies they forget a line, so they have to dub it in on a shot of the back of someone's head. Here the editors were not that clever. There is actually a scene where Shannon Tweed's character says her line without moving her lips at all!

I'm pretty sure for their background sound they played effects loops live while shooting, because in a lot of scenes the sound effects will either be different or be absent whenever the camera changes angles.

I could write a lot more on how bad the audio is in this movie.

Other Nuggets:

In this movie they probably consider the opening credits to be special effects because they seemed so challenging to produce. The main title and the first few names in the opening credits are in white text over a white sky, and they wobble as if they were carefully hand painted on each frame.

The reuse of extras in this movie is incredible. There are about 15 rebels in the cast, and yet in any given battle thirty or more of them will be killed. If only the film were high enough quality to distinguish which ones were dying over and over.

It's also interesting to note that the rebels are usually killed by explosions that are always between 30 and 200 feet away. There is one scene one scene when some of the rebels are running out of their huts in the rebel base, and one huts shakes as the rebel exits the door. It makes you wonder if the hut will last long enough to encounter the inevitable explosion.

There is a blue helicopter that looks as menacing as a pair of running shorts, but somehow is equipped with an infinite supply of missiles. When they show the missiles being shot out of the helicopter's missile bays, the often shoot of in unpredictable directions very closely resembling large bottle rockets. They still manage to hit their targets with ease, which as noted above is always a very safe distance away from the rebels they kill. Note the recycled footage of the pilot pressing the LIVE button to fire the missiles (because it's printed vertically, the first few times we saw it, we read it as the \"EVIL\" button).

Notice how the grenade launcher they use, produces identical explosions to those that are created by the helicopter missiles. It's also fun in many scenes how the actor in the foreground is shooting in a completely different direction than the group of enemy soldiers that he is killing. And frequently, characters shoot a disproportionate number of bullets to the soldiers who are killed (like when a short burst fire kills a large group of enemies).

Yes this movie is very very very bad. The plot was thought out almost as well as a 5 year old's soccer game, and the editing is the worst I've ever seen. But honestly, sometimes it's fun spend 90 minutes laughing at a group of adults who sincerely took part in such a terrible movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In yet another case of misleading marketing, this film is included in a 10-movie DVD set called \"Women Who Kick Butt\", but even in its original cover it seems to promise Shannon Tweed in an action role. Actually, during most of the movie Tweed plays the typical whiny and prissy female character who has to be rescued by the male lead, and even when she's trained in jungle warfare she still has to be dragged around by him! There is one female rebel who is a stronger character, but she's mostly kept in the margins of the movie. The male lead is Reb Brown, and he does have some (unintentionally, I think) funny moments (like when he gets electrocuted). The action scenes are badly directed and poorly acted: some of the stuntmen needed a few lessons on \"how to get shot and die convincingly\". I suppose if you're in the right mood you can find some things in \"Firing Line\" to laugh at (at one point, we can hear Tweed speaking but her lips are not moving!), but mostly I was just bored. (*)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Found this film for one dollar ($1.00) and the film was a complete waste of time. Reb Brown,(Mark Hardin), played a military adviser in South America and was successful in capturing the leader of rebel soldiers operating out of the dense jungles. However, Mark joins the opposite side after some horrible tortures were inflicted or women and men. In one scene as Mark is having a drink in a hotel bar, his eyes catch the glimpse of sexy long legs Sandra Spencer (Shannon Tweed),\"Dead Sexy\",01. Mark and Sandra have the extreme hots for each other and even make passionate love on some very hard rocks, with no time for the comforts of a bed. This is a horrible film and not worth wasting the time to even look at IT.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bottom-of-the-barrel stinker is so bad it's beyond funny. The \"plot\" is about an American mercenary, played by Reb Brown (in the film he's called a \"military adviser\" but it's not really clear if he's in the American military or not), helping the army of a Latin-American country fight guerrillas who winds up joining the guerrillas when the government turns on him, imprisons and tortures him. Shannon Tweed is a \"sports equipment saleswoman\" he picks up in a bar who gets caught up in all the intrigue. That description actually makes the movie sound better than it is, because it's really a stinker of almost Biblical proportions. How bad is it? Well, Shannon Tweed turns in the movie's most professional acting job. If that isn't an indication of just what a 12th-rate piece of junk this turkey is, nothing is From mismatched sound effects to a music score that sounds like it's from a 1940s \"Z\"-grade horror flick (and may very well be) to the same footage (i.e., armored personnel carriers going down the same jungle trail) reused constantly to some of the most ineptly staged \"action\" scenes in recent memory, this laugh-a-minute sludgefest has to be seen to be disbelieved. Tweed looks bored, Brown looks hung over, and by the time this thing is finished--if you can last that long; I couldn't--you'll know just how they feel.

Although there are a lot of explosions and gunfights, this can't be considered an \"action\" picture by any stretch of the imagination. It's boring (there's a scene in the back of a truck where everybody just stares at each other for three or four minutes), repetitive (the same \"rebels\" and \"soldiers\" being killed over and over), illogical (when a group of rebels is caught in an open field by a government helicopter gunship, instead of breaking for cover they just stand there staring up at it), inept (soldiers and rebels falling \"dead\" when no gunshots are heard, a gun battle inside a house where combatants standing against walls are machine-gunned but miraculously the walls escape undamaged) predictable (when the \"Governor\" says to offer a reward for Brown's capture because \"someone\" might turn him in, you know exactly who that \"someone\" will be, and it turns out to be exactly who you thought it was) and just downright stupid (pretty much everything else in the picture). Inept, brainless and stupid beyond belief. Don't waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE SCREAMING is a very low budget horror movie that was shot on video. It features passable acting, poor lighting, a weak story, and some of the worst monster effects I've ever seen. The plot has a college student being pressured to join a cult by his attractive landlord. The cult is a parody of Scientology with a book similar to Dianetics. This would have been a funny shot at that group were it not for a dumb script and the cheapness of the production. The monster effects look awful and the picture quality makes it feel like you're watching a home video or a public-service announcement. I think anyone who sees this will agree that movies should be shot on film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jeff Leroy wanted to makes fun of Scientology so built a horror movie around a cult similar to it. The twist is that instead of frail old L. Ron Hubbard as the cult leader, there's a centuries old space monster who turns his followers into vampires. Our hero is a dirty living college student who is doing research into the occult. His landlord is an attractive blonde who tries to get him to clean up his life with the help of the cult. It doesn't take him long to figure out that she's only after one thing: his blood. \"The Screaming\" was shot very cheaply on video and I just plain ugly. The space monster (which looks like a giant winged cat that looks perpetually mad and has no skin) is alternately a clay-mation miniature and a large scale animatronics puppet, both of which look awful. The acting and writing are both terrible and the director doesn't even try to disguise the fact that this movie was made for nothing. Avoid this non-scary, pitiful little excuse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This digital horror film brings us into the Micro-budget film genre where the more blood and chicks in distress the better. The story is weak, the acting is respectable and the special effects, well, they're special alright. A quality horror film for the fans that already know what to expect.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Fortunately, I haven't seen this film in a movie, big screen, just on a small screen on video. I doubt that I would have been able to sit through the film in a cinema and watch all the violence present in the film. After watching the first 30 minutes, I became both disappointed and curious.

Disappointed because of the hard to follow story line, the hardly understandable screens, the huge amount of aggression - I still don't know why I had been shown the Daesu (main character) pulling out raw the teeth of another person, his beastliness on women, him cutting out his tongue. And also curious, to see what will the film say as a conclusion, what is the ending summary of all this brutality.

Unfortunately, though the movie was not boring, I didn't get any answer to all these cruelty that I had to watch from the beginning to the end. To my opinion, if you want blood and want to laugh, there is Kill Bill 1-2, if you want blood with more meaning, you can take any recent war movie, and if you want an Eastern movie, there are much better titles out there. Afterwards I will take the ratings from the Cannes film festival with more precaution, as while Oldboy got a lot of praise from the jury, it had not much to say to me and had only 4\/10 on my scale.

I am hungry to see something beautiful, harmonious, with true feelings and a clear message.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"By Jove, what an unholy mess! Revenge, incestuous love, mechanical games-like fighting, ceaseless and utterly unnecessary violence, some primitive \"music\" hammering away at the bewildered victims, big \"surprises\" (which actually tend to be about as \"revelatory\" as The National Enquirer's headlines). Add some shoddy camera movements pretending to be stylish and creative and you've already impressed the crowds. This movie's totally undeserved popularity powerfully indicates the very low level pop sub-culture has succeeded not only in achieving in the last decades, but also in imposing as dominant taste on an impotent audience. (For by far deeper insights into human sufferance under mental sickness, without \"Oldboy\"s vulgar excesses, I recommend an older Dutch\/French movie, \"The Vanishing\".)

Well, don't believe there's absolutely nothing good to say about this movie. In fact there is. The (in)famous scene in which the hero (is really a \"hero\", an abject father who sleeps with his daughter and then attempts to obtain forgetfulness rather than redemption?) eats a live octopus benefits greatly from the vivid presence of the best actor in the entire cast: the octopus itself. Too bad the poor beast, having been eaten, couldn't survive its one and only act in order to obtain yet another worthless diploma, for the \"best actor\", at the Cannes festival.

Which festival, by the way, between Moore's propaganda nonsense and this epitome of worthless if somewhat exotic weirdness, became a festival of the vapid and of the ludicrous.

Sic transit gloria mundi!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was awful, plain and simple. It will probably be revered by those who only see \"films\" and not \"movies\" and will therefore feel sorry for me for having such a limited understanding of the theatrical brilliance of this film, but I am secure enough in my intellect to say that this boring, self-aggrandizing and painfully drawn-out movie was a waste of two hours and nine dollars.

I was suckered into seeing this by the inexplicable good reviews it had been receiving and came out of the theater thinking that those reviews had to have been written by over-excited film students and the aforementioned group of individuals who shun regular movies, perhaps for fear that they may actually enjoy one someday.

The storyline is quite a promising one - a man is imprisoned for 15 years, never knowing his captor nor his crime. He is then abruptly released and given just five days to discover the identity and reason of the man who imprisoned him. However, the great concept soon disintegrates into a pathetic joke as Oh Dae-Su runs around beating people up, trying to have sex with a young girl who is attempting to use the toilet and eating a live, writhing squid (presumably for dramatic effect, as there is absolutely no other reason for it). All the while he is trying to figure out this horrible thing he did to earn himself fifteen years in jail, and when he finally finds out it is both ridiculous and a major letdown. His nemesis, a man who supposedly went to school with him when he was a young man, looks like a Banana Republic model twenty years younger than him. Hey, I know prison has been hard on Oh Dae-Su, but is it too much to ask to find an actor that looks a bit closer to his age? Of all the things wrong with this movie, this one seems like the easiest one to fix.

And the big secret - the one that kept me in my seat for 90 minutes when I could have been out doing something productive - is some joke of a plot line involving incest and a rumor started in high school. Come on! Throw us a bone here - was that really the best they could do? I sat through stupid dialogue, over-acting, gloomy sets and gratuitous violence for this? (By the way - I'm not at all against violence in a film if it seems to fit the story, but in this case it seems I was forced to watch our hero knock out someone's front teeth and cut off his own tongue with a pair of scissors in order to distract me from figuring out I was wasting my afternoon watching a pretentious piece of garbage).

Take my advice - do something else with your time and money. Or take your nine dollars and go see a lowly \"movie\" - one that you might actually enjoy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This comment is meant mainly as a warning to the people who might be attracted to the title by its (temporarily)high user rating which I find frankly puzzling. The reasons why I didn't like this title are following:

1. The directer must have had some doubts whether to make a Jackie-Chan-type of a flick or a dark Oedipian tragedy. As a result, in terms of genre, the film falls between two stools, as the tragic and comic elements clash and cancel out each other rather than make a harmonious whole.

2. The characters' motives and behaviors are incoherent and unconvincing. Psychological truth and logic are sadly missing.

3. Absurd casting. I don't blame the actors, for it is a hard thing to create a convincing character by acting alone, if there is scarce logic in the script. However, why is there an apparent age difference of about 15 years between the leading two actors, whose ages in the film can't differ by more than 3-4?

4. To me the film was poor entertainment primarily because of point 2. If you can't find a character you could sympathize with it is hard to follow the story with interest. When you finally learn the reason of what happened to the main protagonist, it turns out to make no sense.

5. Some films apart from being entertaining are also thought-provoking. Having seen this film, I began to wonder whether the thought the director tried to provoke was not that incestuous relationships could be perfectly wholesome and delightful. I cannot put any other construction on the ending.

6. The film is rife with totally unnecessary violence. Violence in a film (and elsewhere) is a good thing, if it serves an important and worthy purpose. Purposes can be different and I don't want to enter into this broad subject. Let me just say I don't object to violence in such films as \"Saving Private Ryan\", \"The Passion of the Christ\" or \"The Pulp Fiction\". In \"Oldboy\" the scenes of torture and suffering are prolonged and graphic (or aural). What for? I do not know. Personally, I don't derive any satisfaction from watching teeth being extracted with a hammer or hear a man cut off his tongue with scissors and then see him choking on his own blood etc. etc.

7. The film reminds me a little of Japanese porno mangas in its fixation on incest and young Asian girls' panties, urinating and the like. It appears there is a minority who actually enjoy this kind of thing. If you're one of them, you might find this film enjoyable.

In short, I do not recommend this film either as entertainment or \"food for thought\". Where it isn't silly, it is disgusting. Don't waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am sorry to rain on everybody's parade. Just a little background about me: I like and know a lot about Asian cinema, especially Japanese, Chinese and Indian. Admittedly I am a novice when it comes to South-Korean cinema but, if this is the best of the best, sorry. I just want you to know that I am not at all narrow-minded when it comes to appreciating foreign movies and I do not fit the stereotype of the \"dumb American\" . . . well, not perfectly.

I cannot believe the high praise this piece of nothing is bestowed upon. This is a disgusting *and* ludicrous movie. Hammy acting - everything is badly done and overdone, like begging for the uneducated viewer's attention. Horrible camera-work, with an insistence on meaningless close-ups derived from the MTV aesthetics.

The plot is more full of holes than a gigantic piece of Swiss cheese. Nobody expects a thriller to be 100% realistic, and for the sake of entertainment I'd be happy to close my eyes to small unfitting details. But, excuse me, what's happening here that *can* stand even summary scrutiny? This story of an unbelievably intricate and contrite act of revenge is worse than the worst tabloid story one can read in a line at the supermarket. (Don't want to spoil your \"enjoyment\", if that's the word, so won't go into details of the plot.) The fighting scenes are violent, unbelievable, downright stupid (the main \"hero\" taking on dozens and dozens of opponents in the same time, after he ONLY trained while imprisoned, punching a wall ! ) The truly \"outstanding\" features of this movie are two: the lurid and incestuous sex (brother on sister and father on daughter, well, we've evolved since Oedipus, didn't we?) and the graphic violence. The cut off body parts - hands, teeth, tongues - together with industrial quantities of spilled blood (how many tens of thousands of tomatoes had to die for this movie to be made?) have no esthetical function\/motivation whatsoever.

A feast for the S & M inclined, admittedly, but, even for those, a feast of no merit nor subtlety. Heavens, even Mel Gibson's recent and much-discussed work on an almost similar theme wasn't THAT bad.

The invariably good press this pretentious, overblown, overlong piece of gratuitous gore coming from Korean shores obtains makes me wonder what's happening. I don't think of myself as being the ultimate paragon of taste and often I am ready to accept that a movie I didn't enjoy may be better than I was able to perceive. However, I have no scruples whatsoever in calling this one as I see it: bad, bad, bad. No redeeming qualities. My 2c? Find something better to do with your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It seems that some viewers assume that the only thing which can make the viewer dislike this movie is the graphic violence. In fact violence, both disturbing and cartoonish, is the last of \"Oldboy\"'s deep flaws. The characters are unidimensional, underdeveloped, primitive. The \"intensity\", an obsession and a goal in itself with this director, is served up with the cheapest of means. Let's not confuse a mindless shot of adrenaline with artistic worth. By the end of the movie, it seems that all the cards were exhausted so the script becomes almost inadvertently funny in its efforts to find new levels of \"horror\", to continue to \"shock\" an audience which is already numbed by the plethora of dumb soap-opera \"revelations\" already served up in big bunches. It would be hard to imagine anybody even vaguely familiar with the masterpieces of the last fifty years of Asian cinema being enthralled by this pompous piece of trash. Imagine Homer Simpson hesitating in front of the cinema theater: \"should I go in or should I buy five cones of ice-cream for the same money?\" Be smart, Homer, go for the ice-cream.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unbelievable. \"Philosophy\". \"Depth\". \"Genius\". \"Masterpiece\". People must have seen another \"Oldboy\" because the one I've seen was a badly written, poorly conceived, over-the-top-acted, sordid piece of \"Kraapola\" which, even ignoring for a moment the ludicrously violent scenes which makes it unsuitable for the eyes of a child, could barely satisfy the imagination and the thirst for plot consistency of a seven years old.

The \"depth\" of this sorry concoction was exhausted in one little piece of wisdom, \"Laugh and the whole world will laugh with you, weep and you'll find yourself alone\", the type of boring fortune cookie saying which a great author, be him Shakespeare or, more to the point of IMDb, Kurosawa, would have thrown in the garbage can with no second thoughts. Where this movie should have landed too, if we wouldn't live in an era in which the cheaply shocking and the perversely disgusting are confused with what used to be named once \"great art\". In short, yuck.

2 out of 100. It's not 1 out of 1000 only because of some occasionally expert camera-work. In no way enough to save this infantile failure from worthlessness, though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Please do not blame Korea for this bad movie. I am in Korea (please excuse bad English). It sadden me to see these movies which make Korea look like obsessed with blood and sex. It sadden me even more to see animal killings and hear Americans say that is how Korea is. We do not eat live animals!! So please stop excusing movie for its crime by saying it is the culture! There is scenes with the man eating live animals and non Koreans think it is normal. No it is disgusting to us too. The director is a misfit, sick individual who has obsession with killing and sex with family members. I wish America and France will stop glorifying this bad man who is laughable in his own country. Please watch ANY OTHER movie from Korea, that will give you ideas of how artistic we really are. This movie is rubbish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was one of the longest movie watching experiences of my life. While I like how the director, Chan-wook Park, handled the revenge, the move as a whole was TERRIBLE. Oldboy is only billed at 1 hour and 55 minutes long but it feels like it takes at least 3 and a half hours to tell this story. I will say that the English dubbing was done very well and the movie was easily understandable. I felt that some of the scenes were unnecessarily long and a lot of the dialogue repeated itself. Also, if you have an aversion to annoying voices, then avoid hearing Hye-jeong Kang (she plays Mi-do) speak. If you are looking for a movie to kill time and make you feel morally superior to others, then watch away. If you don't want to watch a movie filled with incest, bad dialogue, unnecessary fight scenes, gross torture scenes and confusing flashbacks, then this is not the movie for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oldboy is set in Korea & starts as a drunken Dae-su Oh (Min-Sik Choi) is bailed out of the police station by his friend only to be abducted, Dae-su wakes up & finds himself in a small room which he will be imprisoned in for the next fifteen years. Dae-su is fed & looked after by his unknown captors but is never allowed out of the room, Dae-su begins to train himself to avenge himself after he gets out which he intends to do by scrapping away the cement from the brickwork with a chopstick. However before Dae-su finishes he is gassed & rendered unconscious, when he wakes up Dae-su finds himself free on the roof of a tall building dressed & all moneyed up. Dae-su instantly sets about trying to find out who imprisoned him, after meeting the pretty Mido (Hye-jeong Kang) the two fall in love & together with her help Dae-su finally finds what he is looking for but the truth comes at a price...

This South Korean production was co-written & directed by Chan-wook Park & has gotten any number of glowing reviews (the sort that distributors can pick quotes out & plaster them on the video box) & even won the Grand Prize of the Jury at Cannes while it was also nominated for the Golden Palm so surely Oldboy is a true classic? Well not for me it isn't since as I can't understand why it's so liked & I would go as far as to say I pretty much hated it apart from one or two isolated moments. For a start I couldn't get into the story at all, I just didn't like it as I thought it was slow & boring & while many out there would have you believe Oldboy has the bestest most shocking twist ever I thought it was rather plain & not very well executed either. The ending in which Dae-su goes to the New Zealand Alps to be hypnotised feels tagged on as well almost as if the makers wanted some sort of happy ending. At almost two hours I almost fell asleep I was so bored, the violence is tame & it's the thought of what's happening that I would imagine most people have a problem with rather than what is actually shown. In fact Oldboy has a very low body count of about seven & one mild sex scene, it's really not that graphic or memorable. I didn't warm to any of the character's & while I accept Oldboy has an alright concept & premise it fails to deliver & it's one film that I will never understand why so many people seem to like.

Based on a Japanese Manga of the same name Oldboy the film looks alright, there's one or two nice visual moments here although while everyone raves about the hallway fight that takes place in one continuous shot I was pretty unimpressed & thought the fight choreography was quite dull. The actual on-screen gore violence amounts to very little, Dae-su eats a live Octopus which is apparently quite normal in Korea anyway, there are some fight scenes, a severed hand, someones teeth are pulled out & there's a bit of blood at the end.

The budget was supposedly around the $4,000,000 mark which is actually a fair bit, filmed in South Korea & New Zealand. The acting looks alright but it's hard to tell when actors are speaking a different language.

Oldboy is a film that I found an absolute chore to sit through, I don't mind subtitled films or foreign films or paying attention to the plot as I followed the thing perfectly but I just didn't like any of it & it's as simple & straightforward as that. Apparently the second in director Choi-wook Park's revenge trilogy which also includes Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002) & Lady Vengeance (2005).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's a thin line between being theatrical and being just plain forced. Forced acting. Forced takes. Forced plot. Even forced photography. There's people who say \"the movie develops that way because it's from Asia\" but I don't see any kind of forced elements on Seven Samurai or Sonatine. There's a thin line between being fiction (and every work of art it is, in it's way, fiction) and being just unlikely.In a more personal way, I just don't feel anything with the movie, it doesn't take me anywhere, and I just can't believe in the fictional world it is proposed. It just doesn't feel right, there's something in it or through that just doesn't click.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*****Classic ****Excellent ***Good **Fair *Tragic

Review:

Oldboy is not for everyone. It's pervasive violence, its live octopus eating and it's unimaginary story.

The film focuses around a man who's been kidnapped and is imprisoned for 15 years, Oh Dae-Su is released, only to find that he must find his captor in 5 days. Now the story though may seem gripping to start with but once watching this bloated and un-original blood fest it develops into a mash of bitter blood and a forceful film.

It's directing is on par of average and by no means the standards of what a South Korean thriller should be. Oldboys acting scenes are paralleled with dull humour and a poorly writtern script.

Oldboy is occasionlly presented with thin straw performances that one could only feel shameful about.

Verdict:

Not for everyone but it's scope and vision isn't clear enough to see further than the grey abyss of fog.

*Tragic","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When one of my friends recommended this to me, raving about how well it was filmed, the underlying themes and the general greatness of the film, I obviously expected an amazing, at least entertaining film.

The two hours I spent watching this turned out to be a huge disappointing waste of my time.

I understand that this movie is meant to be surreal, but even in surreal movies, there is something which anchors it down, even if it is only in the slightest. This movie, on the other hand, felt forced and fake. A lot of the shots were unnecessary and watching it made me think the director was trying to hard to be artistic.

The acting was poor, and the relationships between characters were not nearly developed enough. Maybe that's just me missing something that others could see but I hadn't even realised there was any sort of attraction between Dae su and Migo before they started getting at it like rabbits randomly half way through the film. Then again, maybe this film was just bad.

I am not against violence in movies, but in this one, almost all of it was just unnecessary. Throughout all the fight scenes I felt myself cringing at how painfully clich\u00e9 it all was.

And the plot? The word laughable comes to mind. I would be amused if I hadn't wasted two hours of my life following this poorly thought out and ridiculous plot. Despite all the movie's flaws, by the end of it, I was expecting something interesting to conclude it. I won't discuss the ending, because I wouldn't want to \"spoil\" the movie for those who haven't seen it. Just that the metaphor \"Be it a rock or a grain of sand, in water they sink as the same.\" cannot be used as an explanation for everything.

This entire movie was made for shock value and shock value only. I just hope sooner or later people will stop being so pretentious and recognise a bad movie for what it is. I've seen many other great Korean films and it depresses me that people have hailed Oldboy as the best.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... So some people might argue that this can't possible be the worst movie ever made, and no it's not. I have seen movies with weaker plots, worse acting and so on.

So why do I hate this movie \u00fcber alles? Well, it's basically about a man, who gets kidnapped for many years, and when he comes out, he tries to find out who did it and why, to get revenge. The problem I have with this movie has nothing to do with gore or horror, but

***MAJOR SPOILERS STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW***

our main character basically gets tricked into having sex with his own daughter, and he wants to cut out his own tongue so his enemy won't tell her, because she didn't know. It is so humiliating as he crawls on his knees like a dog in total submission. And why did he deserve this? Because many years ago, he saw a brother and a sister have a tender moment - in the wrong way. He went on and told some people, and as a result she commits suicide. And viola, it's the brother who put our main character through all this just for that. I have wondered: Maybe I hate this movie so much because I think his punishment is way too harsh. Maybe because I feel this movie doesn't condemn incest, but somehow confuses it with love. Maybe it's because I expected something else.

***END OF SPOILERS***

Believe me, nobody deserves what happens to our main character in the end, and I'm very serious; you know how some movies just go under your skin and stay there? Well, I felt goddamn dirty after watching this movie, and I REALLY wish I'd never seen it. It stayed with me for days, and some might ask: well, isn't that the purpose of a good movie? The ability to affect us in such ways? Yes, it can be, but this movie not only made me sick, it made me feel violated.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me get this out of the way before I trash this film: I love Park Chan-Wook's work as a director. While I disagree with the masses saying he's is the best director working in our time, I can't deny that he understands how to use a camera very effectively. I really liked one of his other films, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. Also, Min-sik Choi's acting was the only thing that allowed me to take this film seriously . . . for 1\/5 of the runtime, that is.

Now the bad: The plot is simply the oldest clich\u00e9 used in cinema\/literature. I'll never understand how critics can trash a Hollywood blockbuster for being clich\u00e9, then hail movies like Oldboy which are just as unoriginal and clich\u00e9d if not even more so. Regardless, Oldboy is flat-out one of the most generic, unoriginal movies ever conceived. *Spoilers* Man is held captive, man seeks revenge, man finds out he had sex with a family member, man's life is over. *End spoilers* Simply put, this plot line has been used in everything from Greek plays to modern melodramatic soap operas and countless movies\/books in between. It is so melodramatic and unoriginal when the major reveal happens, I laughed out loud. Does that mean I'm a desensitized freak without emotions as some reviews of this film say about people like me? No. What it means overdone plots make people laugh. The Scary Movie franchise proved that, and Oldboy proved it as well. Why can't people think of something that is truly disturbing instead of just spewing out tried clich\u00e9s masked with fancy camera-work and classical music? That brings up the issue of blood\/gore. Simply put, it isn't there. The director is too timid to even point the camera at the screen when something \"gory\" happens, as if we're watching a children's movie or something. Maybe we were. Anyway, I've heard Oldboy called the \"most brutal movie of all time\" and \"the most disturbing movie ever\" but when I watched it I failed to see ANYTHING even remotely gory or disturbing. All the \"gore\" is off-screen, and even then the violence level is nothing you haven't seen in PG-13 movies like The Dark Knight or Casino Royale before. Why this even got an R-rating confuses me, much less \"the most brutal movie of all time\". Seriously, I've seen movies that just make Oldboy look cute on every level when it comes to violence\/gore.

The other huge glaring, cheesy flaw is the main villain. The majority of his screen time he's showing his bare butt off for the audience in comedic American Pie-style, but I'm supposed to think he's oh-so-evil? When he's wearing clothes, his hair is slicked back like a bad Asian mix of the cheesiest James Bond villain mixed with something out of Austin Powers. He talks like a brain-dead teenager recovering from an acid overdose, and his dialogue is so bad it had me laughing yet again. Seriously, Oldboy had me laughing more than any comedy this year . . .

In the end, Oldboy is for those of you who sip fine wine, have no sense of humor, and talk about how boring your lives are at dinner parties. It's for those people who are so stuck up in their own ego they forgot how unoriginal they are, and consequently forgot how unoriginal and boring the \"films\" (never \"movies\") they enjoy are.

To those people all I can say is this: I like \"films\" and also like \"movies\". I like thoughtful dramas that actually say something about the human condition, and I also like pointless action movies that thrill me into a coma. But the thing is, for me to like both \"films\" and \"movies\", they have to be original. They have to be something I haven't seen so many times I lost count of the number of times the plot has been used. When something isn't original, it's expendable. If it does exactly what everyone else does, it's forgettable and boring. Before you give Oldboy yet another perfect rating because it \"touched\" you, maybe you should think about something: wouldn't a movie equally as touching, but at the same time original make you think more? I just wish someone other than me would understand this.

Overall: Oldboy is forgettable and cheesy.

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have been reading comments on IMDb for some time now. An 8.3 average for this movie just plain gets on my nerves. I don't mean to pull one of those \"I just signed up for an account so I can post on this movie\" bits..... but, i just did. The only theme you will come away with from this movie is that incest does not deserve to be ridiculed.

Now, I realize many 'hoity-toity' film people love this movie; nevertheless, it is crap. The thing that REALLY gets to me is the fact that the director expects you to have sympathy for the 'villain' in the movie. If you do have sexual relations with your sister, you should probably be an outcast from society. Just my personal feelings I guess. Yet, I sat through 2 hours of this *expletive* expecting some really deep reasoning behind Dae-Soo's imprisonment.

I tend to like a lot of foreign movies, but this is my first encounter with a Korean flick and it has put them last in line in my book. Oh... i feel better already after a little venting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A pretentious but - to varying degrees - watchable collection of mostly pointless \"stories\".

But let's start from the top.

Kaurismaki: If one ever wondered what Finnish love\/romance was like, perhaps this dull little oddity is some indication. Subdued feelings, non-emotions, apathetic faces and a very depressing prospect of moving from Finland to Siberia! I guess the sequel to this story will be \"For Our Honeymoon We Move From Siberia to Greenland\". Aki obviously had no clue what to write for this little movie, so he just made up some half-assed non-\"story\" centering around a band he particularly likes (or maybe they're his friends) because we get to watch them and listen to their music more than the two principal characters.

Erice: First off, I've never heard of this guy before \u0096 and now I know why. Nice black&white photography and pretty much nothing else - unless being bored silly can be considered an asset. But you'd be surprised how many movie-critics and film students love boredom in movies so I hotly recommend Erice's 10-minute snooze-fest to those two groups of humanoids.

Herzog: Not a movie but probably a slice out of his documentaries about tribes in South America. This isn't a short film but a report, but considering how dull the first two entries were, Herzog's bit is almost refreshing and does have some interesting moments, and if nothing else fits into the movie's pretentious \"time\" concept very neatly.

Jarmusch: As was to be almost expected, this once-interesting film-maker (with the brain of a peanut; a talented idiot savant) serves us yet another doze of pointlessness. He has become lazy and can't be bothered to write anything interesting, either for his own movies or a collection such as TMO. The only bright side in watching how a dumb veggie actress spends 10 minutes in a trailer is that she is played by the lovely Chloe Sevigny. Otherwise, skip this nonsense. Oh, and btw: I don't believe that any young actress listens to classical music; was Jarmusch trying to be surreal by making Chloe listen to that kind of music? Does Lindsey Lohan perhaps listen to opera? Maybe Drew Barrymore is a jazz fan? Who am I to say they aren't?!

Jim Jarmusch is a moron. Oh, right... I already mentioned that...

Wenders: Here is the actual shock of the whole movie: Wenders can actually make something good!!!!!? Everything else I've seen from this overrated charlatan has so far been dull and pointless. However, this short little story is done with style(! \u0096 atypical) and is the best part of the movie. It leaves one wanting to see more of it, even though the story has a resolution.

Spike Lee: Oh, dear Lord\u0085 What can I say here? Lee makes anyone seem talented by comparison. Like Herzog, he chooses not a story but submits a report \u0096 and a left-wing political propaganda report at that! CNN, but in black and white, and one-sided, of course. Naturally, \"We Wuz Robbed\", the retarded title of this little sleep-inducer, is about how the poor, gullible and infinitely idealistic Democrats WUZ ROBBED by Bush and his EVIL EVIL team of THIEVES. This is by far the dumbest and dullest entry in this movie, and I had to utilize the fast-forward button so as not to doze off. Spike Lee truly is a product of Affirmative Action. God knows how many really talented (black) directors never had a chance to make movies because this pretentious and talentless little runt keeps getting opportunity after opportunity to make them. And he gets it wrong EVERY TIME! Now that does take some kind of talent, right?

Kaige: The Chinese story has a solid premise. It's okay, nothing more.

All in all, there are many and far better movies to spend your time on, but if your time isn't that valuable (as is apparently the case with my own) you can check this little film out.

\"Ten minutes sure can be an eternity in the hands of anti-masters of cinema. Time is precious. Waste it on better movies.\" - Fedor Miklowitz, 1588","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watched this film with an audience of....5 in total! Had a choice between Lakshya and Asambhav...(realized then I should have gone for Lakshya). A typical plot...India v Pakistan..but just isn't cricket as you have Kashmir in the middle. An Indian super hero goes on a mission to save the President of India from some Pakistani rebels who are involved in a mass drug smuggling racket. I left the film half way as it was simply boring and the plot was confusing and all over the place. The songs were also awful, the film tries to hide the flaws with its special effects but unfortunately they are outdated too.

Overall...avoid it if you can, has to be the worst film I've seen this year.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What has Rajiv Rai done to himself? Once a hit director of films like Tridev and Vishwatama is now making one bad film after another. I was initially excited at the thought of Rajiv Rai returning to the action genre but that soon fizzled out. As a Rajiv Rai fan I thought I should at least give it a go but I left after an hour. One reason for me leaving the film so early so the amount of Paki- bashing in the film, this was not in Rai's previous venture.

A lot of directors have tried Paki- bashing but I did not expect it from Rajiv Rai Another letdown was the music. Rajiv Rai's have always had good music until now. There is only one good song and that is Tere dekh dekh Ladgayan. The performances are not upto scratch, not even from Rai Loyalist Naseer-Uddin- Shah. Avoidable fare from once my favourite director.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Avoid this film if you are looking for entertainment.

It is filled with wannabes trying to be something that they are not and Emraan is just wasted in the role of a tour guide who falls for a newcomer who needs to go to acting school. Seriously, where to they get these people from? Just because you're pretty doesn't mean you can act or should be an actress.

Asmit Patel needs to send an apology letter to everyone who accidentally watches him makes a fool of himself in this poor excuse for a film. He plays an insipid wannabe gangster who drugs girls and forces them to fall in love with him and sells them off to the highest bidder.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Taran Adarsh a reputed critic praised such a dubba movie

The film has a weird story wherein a lover sells his love to a brothel cos he wants money to save his mother and then also gets forgived for it LOL

The movie is crap

the entire first half has it's focus on romance, comedy which fails to work The twist shocks but the entire second half is a mess and the climax is clich\u00e9d

Direction by Aditya Datt is bad Music is typical Himesh

Emraan does his serious role well but his wardrobe, his way of walking through songs.etc is similar to his previous films Geeta Bhasra annoys Ashmith Patel fails to convince this actor was good in MURDER only so far and then a downhill Mithun some screen time and he is okay but his breaking down into a song is forced Ranjeet is okay","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is an example of small budget,ineffective star cast,weak storyline and poor entertainment. This kind of movies are made for commercial breaks and not for any entertainment of die-hard fans of bollywood movies. I went to this movie because i thought the earlier one gangster was tolerable so this is also. Only thing I appreciate the way new actress put herself in the movie in a very bold way, she very much resembles bollywood actress nandita das. she is good ,sexy and acting well. she definitely go up in her career. our mithunda was all time good at his work .atleast he has some good to the movie. I didn't like imraan for his role must advise him to improve himself now as he has done many movies as new actor and he has been seen as established actor This movie has nothing except the bold scene done by new actress Never try this movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"James Stewart plays Johnny Mason, lawyer. Carole Lombard is Jane Mason, wife. Lucile Watson the mother-in-law Harriet Mason. Johnny sees Jane and quickly marries her. Mother is disappointed. Mother lives with them. Many troubles are ahead. Jane can't cook. Can't set the table. Can't do many things according to mother. The interaction between daughter-in-law and mother are the highlights of this film. Stewart and Lombard are married but just don't have any real magic on screen. Stewart is Stewart. He is good as a timid husband and son but this doesn't carry the film. Can baby Mason build bridges between Jane and Harriet? A believable film for those that are married.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film doesn't have a very clear picture of what it is or wants to be. There are some good bits when Stewart is on screen and they give him some lines to work with. It works best early on as romantic comedy, but the story keeps heading for more dramatic territory and gets itself lost in the process. By the last fifteen minutes or so, the plot twists are just a series dramatic clich\u00e9s.

The part with the airplane feels like some leftover footage from another film spliced in.

The main reason I can think of to watch it is if you want be able to say you've seen all of Jimmy Stewart's films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I bought 4 DVDs for \u00a35.oo in a local shop it should have been warning enough that this movie was not up to the usual standard of David Selznick Productions. With a cast containing such names as James Stewart and Carole Lombard I was looking forward to a real treat. As many other commentators have said it is an odd mixture of plot and scenes that doesn't quite convince. HOWEVER, I am so glad that I did view this film as I now have the memorable saying 'Never let the seeds stop you from enjoying the watermelon.' to live by. This should sum up everyone's life. Pick out those seeds or spit them out or swallow them - and then enjoy the watermelon - life itself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Carole Lombard and James Stewart gamely try to inject some life and meaning into this bizarrely constructed film about the tribulations of a newlywed couple. The scenes play as if they were parceled out among various directors, each with a different goal. Some are Capra-cute, some screwball, some melodramatic, and some surprisingly noir. There's even an extended adventure sequence, when the plot suddenly focuses on a small plane flying through a blizzard. It's hard to say which scenes are the most incongruous, when the film as a whole is so erratic in tone, and the storyline not exactly believable. Only worth watching for film students or fans of the actors--some smaller parts, such as Judge Doolittle and the intrepid pilot, are also very well played.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Extremely formulaic with cosmic-sized logic holes and a pretense at comedy. Aw, poor NYC lawyer! He's just scraping by, and when he gets a reduction in pay he doesn't go out to find another job, though he's one of the most respected lawyers in the area. We see him arguing in court so that others come up and congratulate him on his fiery, winning delivery, but he can't stand up to anyone in his firm. At home, problems are ignored until people storm out of the house.

The only character you want to root for is the final maid, who seems an actual human being who uses logic and communication to survive in the world. How laughable that the maid should bring the lawyer and his wife a chicken and wine on New Year's Eve because she feels sorry for them! (The bit's not played for laughs.)

Sorry, just too unbelievable and with a **SPOILER** pat, everyone-turns-180-degrees ending. How'd they get top-notch stars for this? If I'd been at the studio I'd have sent this one back for a complete rewrite.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I decided to watch this movie because I'd not seen Carol Lombard before in any movie. I'm sorry it had to be this one because, quite frankly, this is a dog \u0096 and even with Jimmy Stewart and Charles Coburn, both of whom were great actors.

The problem with the film is simple: it tries to put too much, too quickly, in to a story about a young lawyer (John Manson played by Stewart) who marries Jane (played by Lombard) within an hour of meeting her. What's that clich\u00e9? Marry in haste, repent at leisure...

In short, the story is a series of episodes that show the couples' worsening financial status, their troubles with John's live-in mother, their struggles to pay the bills, John's diminished status at the office, the arrival of their baby son, John Jnr (unexpected and causing additional friction at home with mother), the couples' angst about their marriage, the baby's sickness which worsens, thus necessitating an heroic flight by a lone pilot (in a fierce storm) to bring a special serum to save the child, and finally John being accepted as a junior partner at the law firm.

How many more clich\u00e9d situations could the writers include? Maybe Mother dying soon after? There wasn't much comedy; the drama was lacklustre, at best; the dialog was painful to hear. Only the acting of the four main players was adequate.

This was the period at the end of the Great Depression with the USA coming out of its long downturn \u0096 during which many people experienced all of the events portrayed in the movie.

So, it made sense for Selznick to reaffirm good ol' home spun American values of family, relationships, heroism, perseverance, and initiative \u0096 all against the backdrop of the \"average\" American family. Who better to use than Jimmy Stewart and Carol Lombard?

And, it should be noted that the film was released in early 1939; so, it was planned in 1938 \u0096 soon after the USA began to get production going for the coming World War II. Hence, this sort of film was a great booster for the general public, at that time, many of who would soon have to join England in war. As many here would know, Hollywood and Washington formed an uneasy alliance before, during and after the war.

However, I'm glad I saw it \u0096 as a piece of disguised socio-political propaganda. But, I'll have to see other Lombard films to gain a better appreciation of her acting range.

As another reviewer noted: see this one just to say that you've seen all of Stewart's movies; otherwise, don't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ineffectual, molly-coddled, self-pitying, lousy provider Jimmy Stewart is having a bad marriage to Carole Lombard. After falling on hard times, he endures a demeaning job, a fault-finding, passive-aggressive, over-bearing live-in mother who is in dire need of an epic smackdown, and an endlessly-crying baby. The movie trowels on failure and squalor to no discernible end. Do you want to watch a couple bicker with his mom for ninety minutes? Many scenes feature a shrieking baby. The movie fails to elucidate why we would want to endure the mother from hell, or why Jimmy Stewart can't grow a pair. Who wanted to see this? Who wanted to see Stewart and Lombard without laughs or charm?

It's absolutely depressing and unendurable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Since I'd bought the DVD, I watched as much of this as I did out of a sense of obligation to my wallet.

The plot has Kirk Douglas as a successful first novelist who hired Laraine Day as a secretary, falls in love, and marries her. Complications ensue.

Douglas is usually thought of as an intense actor, given to heavily dramatic roles, sometimes hero, sometimes rat. He's not bad in this thoroughly comic part. The problem is that the part isn't particularly comic and neither is anything else.

The plot rambles on. A dozen \"quirky\" characters come and go -- most prominently Keenan Wynn as Douglas's friend who does nothing but make wry comments. Thelma Ritter was better at this sort of thing.

Well, if the plot is weak it could still have been rescued by some sparkle in the dialog but there is none to speak of. Some gags are silly. Others don't clear that bar. Here's what I thought of as an amusing line. Douglas has just hired Day and wants to get her down to the beach house and seduce her. Day is disturbed and remarks that she's never heard of a writer working in a beach house. Wynn asks if she liked Douglas's previous book, \"Last Year's Love.\" Yes, of course she did. \"Well, most of 'Last Year's Love' was done in the beach house.\" Ha ha.

Nice cast, including support, but a failed comedy. There have been better sitcoms on television.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm starting to wonder, after reading some of the opinions here, if I watched the same film as the other reviewers but after checking my facts I am forced to the sad conclusion that I have.

This witless wannabee screwball comedy has to be one of the the longest 94 minutes I have spent, and one of the most unfunny things I have seen, for ages. Now don't get me wrong, I love screwball comedies, but this boring, set-bound drivel falls so far short of the dizzy heights of Preston Sturges and Howards Hawks that it doesn't deserve (to mix my metaphors) to be thought of in the same breath as those greats. Writer \/ Director Charles Martin's dialogue is neither witty, subtle or interesting - and there's so much of it. He doesn't know how to end a scene either, with some ruthless cutting, especially of people exiting rooms and saying goodbye to each other, the pace of film would have been lifted and then the fact that the limited number of characters are doing stupid and motiveless things for no other reason than this is supposed to be a comedy would have been a little less obvious. Characters in this movie fall in and out of love with each other, and move in and out of apartments, at a moment's notice only to move what little plot there is forward. One moment people are desperately yearning for one person, the next they are getting married to someone else - having wooed and been wooed off screen so we know nothing about it until one of the characters tells us - \"Oh, they're getting married!\" (usually after someone has made a faux-pas or jumped to the wrong conclusion). If we had known that these two characters were in love or supposed to be engaged before hand we, the audience, might have enjoyed the experience of watching someone making a fool of themselves in front of them. As it is the characters just come over looking like selfish, petulant idiots and we have no sympathy for any of them.

The sets are limited and the action confined to them in a way that makes the whole thing look like a badly filmed stage play. The only moments of relief from the tedium are Keenan Wynn who looks like he has wandered in from a different movie and has decided to hang around and be slightly funnier than all the unfunny stuff going on around him.

Highly avoidable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... BREAKER MORANT and ROMPER STOMPER . It has also given us watchable films such as BOOTMEN and THE ODD ANGRY SHOT . Unfortunately for everyone involved in this debacle THE WOG BOY won't be joining appearing in either list .

I was looking forward to seeing this movie simply because of the politically incorrect title , so politically incorrect that when it was broadcast on BBC 2 late at night the announcer didn't even mention the movie's name so I was expecting something so offensively anachronistic that my jaw was going to drop in disbelief . It did drop in disbelief , I found myself not being able to believe that the financiers thought this was going to be a major international hit

The problem lies with the cast and the script . I do know that Australia with its small population doesn't have a large pool of actors so I'll be forgiving for the most part , but this doesn't stop my criticism of Nick Giannopoulos as Steve . For this type of comedy to work you must be impressed with the comic skills of the lead actor and I'm sorry to say but Nick G just doesn't have the skills . I'd never heard of him and seen nothing else he's been in so perhaps he's much better at other performances . Here however he's just plain irritating , unconvincing and I lost count at the number of times he mugged for the camera . The jokes themselves are very flat and predictable and getting back to the script it seems very under developed , I mean who thought a running gag about a female Minster Of Work who's having it off in the back of a limousine was funny to begin with ? You do get the feeling that someone in the production should have been more honest and said \" Look mate , this screenplay's not nearly good enough . Go and make it more subtle and structured \"

I've been harsh and harshness has been called for in this review . I gave the movie four out of ten and it would have only got three if it wasn't for the one genuinely funny sequence where Steve is watching a current affairs show only for himself flashing up on screen and labelled a \" Dole blodger \" . This shows that the screenwriters were aware of comic timing and social comment . Such a pity that they didn't come with a much better written movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After seeing the TV commercials for this film I marched to my local cinema expecting a lot of laughs. In the end it was one of the longest 90mins I have ever spent. The Wog Boy really did fail to provide a story line with enough substance to hold my interest and predictable and sometimes tasteless jokes didn't fill this void.

A scene where the two 'Wog Boys' dominate the dancefloor of their local nightclub was the only one that impressed me at all. The only character that was worth watching was 'Nathan', played by The Castle's Stephen Curry, his struggle with the opposite sex providing most of the few laughs.

A word for this flic is boring. Save yourself the time and just watch the TV commercial as the only laughs are shown on it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the first movie I have watched in ages where I actually ended up fast forwarding through the tedious bits which there are plenty of. Very ordinary movie. I'm glad I missed it at the movies & got a 2 for 1 video deal which included this movie instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This totally UNfunny movie is so over the top and pathetic and unrealistic that throughout the whole 90 minutes of utter torture I probably looked at my watch about 70000 times! Lucy Bell is so much higher than this crap and for her to sink this low is quite depressing. I have to admit that the whole audience I was in was laughing hysterically but the majority were Greek or Italian so I guess that this humour will probably make them laugh but not me. All this movie does is make you sick watching all these slackers make excuses for their stupid actions for 90 minutes. God, and I can never get that 90 minutes back!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to like this film however after an amusing opening few minutes I hardly cracked a smile. I agree there was no chemistry at all between the two leads and the other characters were cliche ridden. The script totally wasted the talents of Bud Tingwell and Kim Gyngell.

It must be said however that there was plenty of laughter around me and even a smattering of applause at the end. Perhaps I just couldn't relate to it enough. I'm just glad I went on cheap tickets.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm glad I didn't pay to see 'The Wog Boy'.

I sat there hopefully waiting for something original and\/or funny to happen.

It reminded me very much of those predictable English comedies of the 1970s.

I won't bother with a synopsis of the plot, I suggest you do something else for 90 minutes

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Humour is a very individual thing and the audience at the sneak preview of The Wog Boy seemed to enjoy it more than I did. I found it an anachronistic affair, more representative of the old fashioned racial humour of the Australian cinema of the 1960s and 1970s. The boy meets girl plot never takes off because of a lack of chemistry between Lucy Bell and Nick Giannopoulos while I found laughs thin on the ground. If you want to spend your money on this, wait until it's on video.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is another of those films I can remember from when I was a kid and I recently managed to acquire it off ebay - 20 years on, it's nowhere near as good as I remember it being.

The story is 'vaguely' kick started, by a 'cosmic event' (there's another extra film-crew member in the credits for 'weak story development') which makes collective ants become super intelligent. Ant species who used to war with each other have ceased rivalries and are now working together. The thing I wanted to know throughout was, TO DO WHAT EXACTLY? You never find out what they want. Nigel Davenport and his sidekick travel out to the desert where bizarre ant activity has been noted, and begin to study the ants from an impregnable igloo shaped laboratory. Probably the most chilling scene in my opinion was when the two scientists visit the giant square in the crops (like a square version of a crop circle) a result of the ants chomping away.

This film was not very scary quite simply because you don't know whether to fear the ants or like them. All you know is that the ants want people to leave the area so they can get on with their hijinks - but you don't find out whether they are really baddies. It ain't a sci-fi because the 'cosmic event' explanation is too vague to be properly taken into account. It is deffo more of a chiller. TBH the flares, daft hairstyles, tight shirts with big collars and Nigel Davenports unnaturally big facial hair-do freaked me out more than the ants! Did you notice that there are only six actors listed in the credits? Yup, that right - SIX, and you won't see any other human beings in this film at all. Not even in the distance! This is a plainly obviously low budget film which is a bit watchable because you probably won't have seen one like it. I can't think of any anyway. The filming of the ants is pretty good, they must have done months and months of filming before they had the shots they needed to stick in the film. You may well say to yourself 'how the Hell do they get the ants to do that?' over and over, but it is all quite simple. You will also notice that the film makers sacrificed millions of innocent lickle ants to make the film too, so animal rights peeps STAY AWAY! Good for novelty value, but you may not watch it more than once.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you really really REALLY enjoy movies featuring ants building dirt-mirrors, eating non-ants, and conquering the world with a voice-over narrative, then this is the movie for you. Basically, a couple of scientists working out of a bio-dome communicate with highly intelligent ants (the most intelligent actors in this film) in an attempt to try to thwart their plans of conquest and extermination. Throughout the movie the two scientists (and a girl they rescued from the ants) use everything at their disposal (computers, green dye, and horrid acting), but to no avail. I guess they just couldn't afford any pesticides because the movie would be over too quickly.

The title of the movie \"Phase IV\" is something of a mystery. This is not a spoiler, but \"Phase I\" starts right after the opening credits whereas you don't reach \"Phase IV\" until the end credits roll. Apparently the director knew the movie would be tedious to get through and so placed Phases 1 - 3 throughout the movie as a kind of progress report: \"Hang in there buddy! Only 1 more phase until final credits!\" As a MST3K episode, this one wasn't very good for two reasons: 1) This one is from the Season 0 on KTMA when they were first starting out so the riffing is not as good as in later seasons; and 2) This movie is so bad not even J&TB can lighten it up. There are one or two Gamera references as they had just finished riffing 5 Gamera movies.

The movie does have a trick\/surprise ending, but I was so glad to reach the end the effect was lost on me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ants are shown in cartoons as being able to carry away chicken legs, watermellons, people, etc. This may be an admirable characteristic because ants carry the film Phase IV. This is not because they want to, but because they have to.

The movie opens with a narrator cryptically explaining that some cosmic event has come over the earth, and that a fellow scientist has been working on the effect this disturbance has on the ant population. The movie is broken up in segments; the first part after the cosmic event is Phase I, and so on until the end of the movie, which is Phase IV.

What is Phase IV? Who knows? We don't get to see that part; presumably it has something to do with the bonding of one of the scientists studying the ants and a girl who lived in the area. The girl, who looks like a cross between Alicia Silverstone and Liv Tyler, is mad at the ants because they killed her horse, but except for one angry outburst, goes around the biodome with a blank (\"Clueless\"?) look.

These ants are pretty smart; or the scientists are rather dumb. I'll give credit to the ants. Why? Anything that usually ruins my picnics that can then build reflecting towers, blow up trucks, and adapts to poison with the greatest of ease gets my vote for being the smarter species, at least in this movie.

Sterno says stomp on this anthill.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To me, this movie was just plain confusing, slow, and uninteresting. Why did the aliens choose to communicate through ants? It makes no sense. The ending was muddled and made no sense whatsoever. In the end, I was hoping that the ants would kill everyone.

Avoid this one at all costs. Not even MST3K could save it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd heard this Japanese flick is edgy, creatively interesting, a \"cool new thang\" on the Asian movie-making scene ... maybe even something as innovative as Hideo Nakata's \"Ringu\" or Chan-wook Park's \"Oldboy\", especially the latter.

You can imagine my disappointment when, instead, I found the movie disjointed both narratively and cinematically (though not in a way that a film aficionado appreciates), clich\u00e9-ridden, even sadly silly instead of funny --- on the whole, a very bad knock- off of the \"Pulp Fiction\" style.

I stopped watching after 30 minutes, when I gave up on it becoming something more than it is.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me first state that I REALLY REALLY wanted to like this film. For the most part the actors and actresses looked their parts, and did fairly well in their roles, but the movie lacked any real plot. It seemed so wraped up in seeming 'wacky' that no interesting story ever shone through. Also, the camera work was often sloppy, attempting snatchlike camera work and failing miserably. Most of the time, shots meant to look cool ended up being confusing. Perhaps something was lost during translation, but some of the characters were just... stupid. The crazy pretty boy who sniffs people like a dog? Uhhhhhhh. OK. Overall, a fat stinking 1\/10. Not worth your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although I found the acting excellent, and the cinematography beautiful, I was extremely disappointed with the adaptation.

One of the significant portions of the novella is the fact that Ethan and Mattie decide to kill themselves, rather than go on. This is never presented in the movie, they show it as if it were a sledding accident.

The character changes in Mattie and Zenna are almost non-existent. While in the novella they almost change places, at the end of this adaptation it appears as if they are both invalids.

Lastly that Mattie and Ethan consummate their relationship fully nearly destroys the power and poignancy of the finale.

The change of the narrator being a preacher was one effective change.

Neeson and Arquette are superb in their portrayals. Joan Allen was also wonderful, however her character was much watered down from Whartons novella.

I do not expect films to faithfully portray novels, but this one went to far and in the process nearly destroyed the story.

Overall, I would not recommend watching this film unless you have read the book as you will come away confused and disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is bad movie. There is no denying it as much as I'd like to. Tommy Lee Jones is about as good as he possible can be with the script they gave him, and he had a couple of decent action sequences that felt really out of place due to their acceptable quality.

Somewhere along the line someone figured that all of the shortcomings of script could be counteracted if they were to hire every single workhorse actor in the business, unfortunately even truly, deeply talented actors like Goodman, Beatty, Sarsgaard, Gammon, Steenburgen, MacDonald, Pruitt Taylor Vince, and lest we forget Mr. Jones himself can't fix the wooden dialogue, and plot progression that went absolutely nowhere.

In fact at one point I looked up, sure that the movie had been running for the past 2 hours only to find that I was 51 minutes into it.

Perhaps the most painful point of the movie was the subplot about the ghost confederate soldiers that seem to be of little to no help to the story. Other than slightly detracting from the confusing business at the end with the picture. *if you haven't seen this movie disregard this past statement which may seem tantalizing and know that it is not, you will not understand it any better after having watched the movie.

The most interesting thing about this movie may be that it is actually a sequel to the movie \"Heaven's Prisoners\" starring Alec Baldwin in the same role carried by Tommy Lee Jones in this movie. I may have to watch it now, first to see if it is as bad as In the Electric Mist, and second because I can't seem to (no matter how hard I try) break my man crush on Alec Baldwin.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have read and enjoyed many of James Lee Burke's Robicheaux mysteries. When I read 'In The Electric Mist With The Confederate Dead' was being filmed and Tommy Lee Jones was playing the lead, I was thrilled. After watching it last night, I ending up turning it off with about twenty minutes left, not wanting to see any more people shot or beaten up. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind blood and gore-I love 'The Untouchables' and 'The Godfather Trilogy'. Perhaps it was just that I had previously seen 'Birth' and 'What Just Happened' before watching this. I know that Burke's books are violent, lyrical, and especially in the case of 'In The Electric Mist', can be like the Cajun swamps he writes about, full of things that are never fully explained. In a book, that's fine. In a film, that's confusing. Many of the previous reviewers are also ardent admirers of Dave Robicheaux, which makes it more understandable that they really liked the movie. Or they are admirers of Bernard Tavernier or both. Even as a fan of all the actors (and especially Vince), I felt it was such a waste of their talents overall-they gave good performances in a film that didn't hold together. Now, I say this, having only seen the USA DVD and hoping that Tavernier's cut will make a huge difference. On the plus side: The soundtrack was wonderful. The scenes at Robicheaux's place were perfect-just as I imagined the bait shop to look like. Mary Steenburgen was excellent as Bootsie, as was Walter Breaux as Batist. If you read the books, you know why Robicheaux is an even-tempered person in the beginning of the film, and then starts whacking people with various instruments. Overall, I wish that they had filmed more of the 'Electric Mist and the Confederate Dead' and left out large portions of Robicheaux's methods of interrogation, explaining Elrod's gifts and his bond to Dave, as well as Dave's to the General. Then I wouldn't be feeling today as I did last night when I turned it off, \"What just happened?\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've read all the Dave Robicheaux novels and consider James Lee Burke to be my favorite contemporary fiction writer. I've also visited New Iberia and much of Acadiana to be able to better visualize the setting in most of these books. Needless to say, I greatly anticipated seeing \"In the Electric Mist,\" especially since I thought Tommy Lee Jones would be terrific as Robicheaux.

I was greatly disappointed. The story was very choppy; the interplay with the \"ghosts of Confederate dead\" was shallow and lost the impact and nobility it added to the book; and Tommy Lee Jones was doleful, expressionless and difficult to understand as DR. The best way to describe this forgettable film is to add my \"ditto\" to an earlier user comment that this movie was like one of those old made-for-TV movies. I expected Jill St. John or Cameron Mitchell to show up at any time.

The location settings were accurate, and the photography at times captured the essence of the steamy bayous, smoky juke joints and eerie above-ground graveyards of South Louisiana. Too bad the story's disjointed presentation and Tommy Lee's sub-par performance interfered with the unique mood and spicy zest of the region.

Next to final comment: In the novels, Dave Robicheaux's nickname is \"Streak,\" because of the distinct streak of silver-gray hair on one side of his head. (Similar to how the Sopranos' Paulie Walnuts would appear if he were seen only in profile.) Tommy Lee had no such streak in this film, probably because the editors are James Lee Burke fans and they airbrushed the streak out after witnessing Mr. Jones's poor imitation of Dave Robicheaux.

Final comment: While I generally find Alec Baldwin to be pompous and obnoxious in most roles, he was by far a better Robicheaux in \"Heaven's Prisoners\" than Tommy Lee was in \"In the Electric Mist.\" Also, Heaven's Prisoners is much more interesting and exciting, with uniformly believable performances and more evocative atmosphere than this new movie.

\"In the Electric Mist\" is okay to watch when one feels like \"veging out\" and there's nothing better on TV. But then, so are infomercials.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a disappointing adaptation of the James Lee Burke novel \"In the Electric Mist of the Confederate Dead\". It is rather poorly acted mainly due to the miscasting of the principal players. Tommy Lee Jones, a normally fine actor, just doesn't capture Burke's \"Dave Robicheaux\". As Robicheaux's main nemesis, John Goodman does a sloppy job as the \"heavy\". The guy who plays Robicheaux's actor-buddy doesn't look like a former \"A\" lister leading man. The rest of the movie is mainly cast with no-name locals who just don't do justice to a big-time novel.

The movie and Jones' performance is way too hurried for one thing. Robicheaux in Burke's series of novels, gives one the feeling that he fits well into his environment most of the time, being laid back and slow-moving. This is just like the deep south and southern Louisiana. Then at times Robicheaux is nearly manic in his exertions. Jones just moves at a fast pace through the whole movie. He doesn't vary. Ned Beatty is wasted. Mary Steenburgen is out of place. About the only good thing about this is the setting. On the whole the movie gives one the impression of a TV movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you've ever listened to any of the James Lee Burke books on tape or CD and the reader was Will Patton you may agree with me that Will is the personification of Dave R.

Tommy Lee Jones is a native Texan (or so I've heard) and no one portrays a Texan better IMHO, but he's not a Cajun. His delivery is all wrong. I lived in the state for several years and I can still hear the strange patois that a Louisiana accent contains. TLJ doesn't have anything like that.

I thought Marry Steenbergen was a good choice for Bootsy, but I missed seeing Cletus (who will be cast in this role? The Rock? Mickey Rourke? whoever, he'll have to be big).

Overall, I thought the movie was only a 4 - the plot flopped around like a fish out of water and didn't have the normal interesting, yet non-linear continuity that the book typically has.

Hopefully, Hollywood will try another JLB book, \"Last Car to Elysican Fields\" would be a good choice. We'd get to see some of the best villains from JLB ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to be honest and admit that this movie did basically nothing for me except baffle me completely. It's burdened with a plot that revolves around the mysterious murders of several young women, which then gets linked to the discovery of a body over 40 years old. The story never really seems to make much sense, especially when Robicheaux (played by Tommy Lee Jones) starts having his conversations with Confederate General John Bell Hood (I never really did figure that out.) Jones was OK in his role, although I thought he was really starting to show his age here. Horribly miscast was John Goodman as Julie \"Baby Feet\" Balboni, who I guess is supposed to be some sort of local mob figure. I simply didn't think Goodman worked in this role, although I'll admit that just could be because I'm not much of a John Goodman fan. Somewhere in the mix appeared Justina Machado as an FBI agent, although I never really did understand what the FBI was involved in, which could mean simply that my attention kept wandering from the screen. If it was explained, though, I missed it completely. Fortunately, this is a fairly short movie, so you won't waste too much of your life on it. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie last night at the Berlinale as part of the competition. It was billed as the \"world premiere\" of the movie by the host (though it seems that people here have seen it previously). I have to say, I still don't really know what to make of the movie. I am unfamiliar with the book, purchased the ticket only two hours beforehand and had only limited knowledge of the plot. Not enough, as it seems, as I had problems getting into the movie. The movie is sometimes being narrated by Jones' character but somehow that perspective did not fit for me. And I really cannot say if some of the laughs the movie got were calculated or not. The cuts were abrupt and disruptive, the scenes seemed somehow slapped together and the storytelling did not always make sense right away (even leaving out the supernatural parts) - the actors were really good but could not really save the movie somehow. It was entertaining but sometimes only in the sense that I sat there thinking about technical details of movie making and what went wrong with this one. I still do not know what kind of mood the director intended the movie to have. It was a strange mix of light, dark, supernatural. It sadly did not draw me in at all and I rather watched it with a technical eye. But thinking about what is wrong with a movie while watching it is the best sign that a movie somehow has failed. I would have definitely expected something else with these actors involved...too bad!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Detective Dave Robicheaux is trying to link the murder of a local hooker to New Orleans mobster Julie Balboni. But during his investigation Robicheaux is led into a series of surreal encounters with a troop of Confederate soldiers??, What a awful plot and it was worser than i had expected. it was real slow and had minimal skill in the acting i could not watch through it it was waste of my time. Another FLOP, i would give it under 1 if i could please people don't waste your time its 1:42m of wast-full time. Actor Elrod Sykes and his girlfriend driving under the influence. As Dave takes Elod to the station the actor tells Dave he found some skeletal remains while on the set of a movie he is filming","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a tedious movie. The real villains are the clunky adaptation (it's embarrassingly easy to tell that the source material was a novel) and witless screenplay.

On the credit side, considering the budget was tight due to wartime austerity, the look of the film isn't at all bad. And the performances are, by and large, OK, except for Phyllis Calvert, who is terrific - a miracle considering the potential for winsomeness, a pit into which she most definitely does not fall. Ms Calvert, with a lot less to go on, is as accomplished as Olivia de Havilland in Gone With The Wind.

The one absolutely unbearable aspect of The Man in Grey is the dreadfully conceived depiction of a black serving boy. No matter that he's meant to be a sympathetic character. Played badly by a white boy in black-face make-up, it is impossible to by-pass this example of condescending racism.

Grim.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Conquerer of Shamballa shows what happens when creators of an Anime fail to understand what their fans want. I as a fan did not want a 1920's Evil Nazi movie. What I would have liked to see is a real final showdown between Ed and Dante, as we don't REALLY know what became of her. I also would have liked to get Ed back to his world much sooner and have him stay there, to finally get a chance to be normal. You know, raise a family with a certain blonde mechanic, that sort of thing. No, instead I got a convoluted plot involving Nazi mystics, Fritz Lang and about ten minutes of Al, a joke of a Cameo by Roy Mustang and only one Armstrong joke, one short joke and no Winry hitting Ed with a wrench. Above all, it just didn't feel like Fullmetal Alchemist to me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, I am critical of this movie because I really had high hopes and instead, this movie sucked.

*possible spoilers* (if you haven't seen the TV series) Where to begin??? Well, let's start at the quality. The movie was barely better than the original TV series and the two fight scenes were very nicely crafted. However the CGI was horrid.

Then there is the plot holes and questions that still remain after the whole movie is all said and done. This movie does not close off as a successful conclusion to a very broad universe known as FMA and only returns to expand the universe more before leaving us with nothing but our imaginations to decipher what would happen in the future.

And then there is the stories biggest fault. Adding WWII and Hitler... WHY ?? The series was perfect... and didn't need Hitler. It didn't even need Germany.

Overall the entire movie was sorely lacing in what a true FMA movie could have been and if I were the directors, I'd scrap CoS and make a new, more \"ending\", ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie came as a huge disappointment. The anime series ended with a relatively stupid plot twist and the rushed introduction of a pretty lame villain, but I expected Shamballa to tie up all the loose ends. Unfortunately, it didn't. It added more plot holes than it resolved, and confused more than it clarified. The animation and voice acting were great, but with an idiotic plot, dull setting (most of the movie doesn't even take place in dull WWII Earth rather than the Alchemy world), and disappointing ending (Ed is useless for the rest of his days in a world with no alchemy, and he ditches Winry?), it was altogether pretty lackluster. Do yourself a favor-- disregard the last half of the anime as well as this movie, and read the manga.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot involves a new, hipper franchise barbershop that is moving across the street from Calvin's barbershop. So, he feels like he has to change and improve his shop by getting newer stuff and such. Sounds real exciting huh. As for the rest of the film, a lot of it involves the same material from the first film. The people that work at Calvin's stand around, talk loud, and mouth off to each other and the customers. Once again Cedric the Entertainer was mildly funny, but it is more like he's doing a stand-up routine than anything to do with the movie. And Calvin is faced with another moral issue involving taking a large sum of money. He's already shown that he will do the right thing in the end.

FINAL VERDICT: Nothing new. I don't recommend it unless you thought the first Barbershop was the best thing since sliced bread.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first movie of this series was well written and original. This show drags on, poorly written gags, boring flashbacks, not the comedy that I expected. Even the young folks found it boring. There are certainly bright moments, historical elements and some good acting, but overall I can only recommend this for DVD\/tape at home.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Barbershop 2: Back in Business wasn't as good as it's original but was just as funny. The movie itself lacked little things which the original held which made it much more enjoyable. Back in Business seemed to be just another worthless sequel made to bring in money with a very thin plot. Cedric the Entertainer's terrible excuses for flashbacks ruined the movie and seemed to be a bad way to try and get the audience to adapt more with the character. Overall Barbershop 2: Back in Business was a sequel not needed, without the originals charm, soul & spark.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was completely stale and uninspired. The central premise of this movie was basically a bunch of stereotypical black people sitting around a barbershop exchanging painfully unfunny repartee. I did not laugh one time during the entire movie. I could have sat in any barbershop in America and have heard this banal banter, and maybe have even come out with a decent haircut. I cannot understand why this mess got any favourable reviews, much less why so many people have wasted money on this. None of the characters here were funny or worth caring about. I really didn't care whether the rival barbershop across the street would cause Nappy Cutz to go out of business. Don't waste your money on this one, folks, as that is the only way to get Hollywood to stop churning out these shambolic pieces of rubbish. 1* out of 5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first film was quite hip and had amusing moments, this film doesn't exactly have the same standard. Calvin Palmer (Ice Cube) is still trying to keep his barbershop going, but this isn't just against stylist Gina (Queen Latifah) with a beauty shop next door, but soon enough a big barbershop chain called Nappy Cutz opening across the street. Calvin, along with co-workers and friends Eddie (Cedric the Entertainer), Jimmy (Sean Patrick Thomas), Terri (Eve) and Isaac Rosenberg (Troy Garity), they are doing everything they can to keep regular customers coming, and ultimately their business running against the competition. Also starring Michael Ealy as Ricky Nash, Leonard Earl Howze as Dinka, Harry Lennix as Quentin Leroux, Robert Wisdom as Alderman Brown, Jazsmin Lewis as Jennifer, Kenan Thompson as Kenard and Bad Company's Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon as Loretta. I didn't like this film as much as the first because of the unnecessary flashbacks about Eddie, and it isn't as witty, I just got bored of it. Okay!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...this one just isn't worth the cost of a movie ticket. What these filmmakers have done cannot properly be called filmmaking; rather, they just chose sixteen students of some diversity (though not quite as much diversity as the reviews have suggested) and set them loose. The results are, to be brutally frank, far more often boring, self-indulgent, overwrought and off-puttingly grainy than truly insightful.

There are, of course, moments of recognition and identification of the sort only possible in documentary film, but overall there's not much more truth here than in \"Bully\" or, for that matter, a decent TV documentary of the same sort. Though full of talk about sex and sexual diversity and racism, the film brings nothing to the table that will be of use to anyone who has thought about any of these issues with any seriousness. And while certain segments serve absolutely no purpose other than to inject a bit of (admittedly welcome) comic relief, most often the five-minute limit keeps up from becoming emotionally involved with any of the students. An interesting idea, but thumbs down for CHAIN CAMERA.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As one of the victims of the whole Enron scandal, my mother forced me to watch this movie with her. How many times can I say awful? The script was so weak, using cliche after cliche. It seems as though the writers pieced this story together with a few articles on Enron. Watching the movie, we honestly were able to complete about half of the one-dimensional characters' lines and thoughts. I realize this was supposedly adapted from a book, but was the book this bad? I don't know what to say. Just terrible. The best thing about the movie? Shannon Elizabeth actually kept her clothes on. Other than that, this movie gets a big fat F.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just watched this movie last night. Within 30 minutes of the start, I was hoping it would end.

It had a promising beginning; the first 10 minutes. The premise of this movie (friendship that goes nowhere after they've spent days (and Years) together in \"Separate\" beds in hotel rooms) is just not believable. He does kiss her somewhere along the way, and she feels Ohh, so terrible about it.

Very little substance to grab your interest. The acting just does not hold up. He is very passive. Regardless of how much of the movie is shown, the viewer never develops any type of a caring connection with the characters on the screen. You learn that her next utterance will be as boring as her previous one. (\"Do you have a cigarette ?\", He doesn't smoke, He wants her to stop smoking, Doesn't she know this by now.)

She calls him in the middle of the night to visit him after a year's absence, she comes in through the door, they don't even hug or kiss or express any type of emotional connection. He doesn't even lean forward to lift her suitcase to help her in. That is not how real people behave, This is not how best pals behave.

When he receives her phone call in the middle of the night (she is in town for one day), he shows little interest to see her face, acts more like she will be a burden for the night. At this point they've known each other for two years and he hasn't seen her for a year. Not Believable, not real.

Supposedly, he has written a book on Entropy and Enthalpy, yet we never see him write or read or discuss any of his interests in Physics with her, not that she would be able to handle the discussion. We learn that a watermelon in L.A. costs $50, (It wasn't the Silicon Type mind you) he has no problem affording that Fruit. We also learn that the airport shuts down when a few really really fake snow flakes fall off the sky. I'm Sorry but was that in L.A. too?

We never see how these two characters survive, we never see them at work. We never see them struggle, They are always on vacation. They have infinite time, they have no worries whatsoever.

Nice life. Unreal life. Unreal Characters. Bad Title. Bad Movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When this show began it was fairly interesting: we got to see what crab boat fisherman had to go through during the crab-catching season. Soon after, however, it lost focus on the fishing and focused almost entirely on the drama in the lives of the fisherman. Episodes became nothing more than 'the captain doesn't like the new greenhorn' (this one happens way too often), 'someone is injured or sick', 'a fisherman gets word of some problem at home and is frustrated that he is stuck on a boat', repeat. I don't know how people can find the newest seasons watchable, as every episode seems to be essentially the same as those before and after it. This show should be moved to a different channel and renamed to \"Crab Boat Drama\", or, even better, it would have made a perfect one-time segment on Dirtiest Jobs.

Shouldn't the Discovery Channel have learned their lesson after American Choppers?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was wondering if there was a place or a link that someone can send me or post for me so i can watch this show . it seems to be a missing show i have been looking for years now its about oz and a girl who has to help save it . it was really good . but i found a good oz type thing on the web but i cant find it again or seem to remember a lot of it due to being years and was thinking that this one maybe it and from reading all this it sounds good and maybe the missing show that i really liked please someone help me thanks so much so please anyone that can help me or give me a link that would be so helpful again thank you so much....or if anyone has an oz based good videos please post as well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first time I saw this was when I was with a date, and she thought it was an awesome movie. I didn't.

The second time I saw this was last night on TV. It still sucks.

As a love story this sucks. As having Julia portray a street hooker, this is repulsive. To me she was a librarian with a miniskirt and heels. She had no tough shell to her. She wasn't tortured, anguished, enraged, starving or anything else. Her \"HOOKER\" character was so flawed, like comparing a cubic zircon to a diamond. The two simply don't fit, no matter what they look like.

The ONLY cast I felt was worth watching was the 2 bitchy saleswomen, whom were excellently cast. They did such a fine job that I hated them for the few seconds that they were on screen. They had real definition, for the minor roles. OK, so the movie wasn't entirely trash...the two ignorant saleswomen saved the film.

Aside from those two women sales people, the rest of the cast...including the big names was just crap. Either everybody was an ass-kisser or had absolutely no reason to fill any dialog in the movie aside from just complimenting Julia Roberts or kissing ass to Richard Gere.

This was a movie about how when you walk around in high-heels and a tight skirt in Beverly Hills, people leer at you and guys who work in hotels gawk as if they just had a baseball bat struck to their face.

While in reality, the women who are dressed to the nines in Beverly Hills are hookers and prostitutes to a higher degree, but since they aren't wearing the gaudy Madonna looking jewelry or the patent boots, they can look down on the others who do.

The hotel cast was sickeningly sad to watch, and anybody who had any real character had less than a minute of screen time.

This is an insult to romantic movies, comedies, dramas and even to prostitutes who face wealthy customers on a daily basis with hopes of having their lives work out perfect.

The story is about Julia Roberts being PIMPED (yes PIMPED) by a multimillionaire in a business suit and limousine.

She is still owned, still told how to act, how to move, what to wear, what to say, where to go and what to do. He is more controlling than a street pimp, but the folks at Disney\/buena vista butter it up to make it easier to swallow.

Had Richard Gere been a black man with a gold tooth and an AK-47 at his side instead of an attach\u00e9 case, this movie would be about how a woman has to struggle to get away from the harshness of prostitution. Same story, different characters will make a very different outlook.

Oh yeah, change the white man for a black man or Asian or Spanish, have the land business deal be changed to a deal of weapons or narcotics and the entire concept of romantic comedy is thrown away.

As far as I'm concerned, Pretty Woman is still trash, dressed with ribbons and bows.

I didn't like it 15 years ago, when I didn't understand it and was led by the Hollywood hype. I hate it now that i can see past the pretty decorations that is called \"love\".

This movie is NOT a romantic comedy. It's a story on how to control a woman as long as you have the means and income to do so.

This is an insult to strong women, weak women and women in general, as well as to my television screen.

Do I hate it? Yes. Does it suck? Yes Would I recommend it to you? NO...well maybe if I really hated you.

Will this review get posted? We'll see.

Anywayz, that's all for now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have just given a 10 for Thieves Highway, I mention this for two reasons one to prove I'm not a git who only gives bad reviews but 2 because the theme of the film has the same thread namely the falling in love with a woman of the night.

We all know pretty Woman is a chick flick but you can't avoid them all, they'll eventually get you. Pretty Woman for me does two things, two terrible horrible ghastly things, firstly it portrays prostitution as a career more akin to that of a dancer, you know with absolutely great friends, leg warmers lots of giggling, borrowing each others make up. You see in the reality of Pretty Woman the prostitute and this is a street walker Prostitute we're talking about here, has a great life, she's healthy happy with only the occasional whimper to explain her predicament. My feeling is this 'happy Hooker' type protagonist is a lot more palatable than an even nearly realistic character, which for me begs the question if you make a movie about a type of person but are too chicken scared to adorn that player with the characteristics familiar to that role then why do it? If I make a film about a chef but don't want him to cook or talk about food or wear a white hat then why make a film about a chef in the first place? By bailing out and turning the hooker into a respectable dancer type the story misses the point completely and consequently never indulges in any of the moral or social questions that it could have, what a cop out, really really lame.

Secondly, 'Pretty Woman' insults romance itself, Edward Lewis played by Richard Gere has no clue how to seduce or romance this 'lady' that is without his plastic friend, yep don't leave home without it, especially if you are a moron in a suit who has no imagination. 8 out of 10 of his romantic moments involve splashing cash in one way or another, even when he first meets her it's the Lotus Esprit turbo that does all the work, necklaces here diamonds there limos over there, money money money, where's the charm? where's the charisma, don't mention that attempt at the piano please.

Girls who like this film will also be girls who like shopping more than most. Guys who like this film will not even have realized that old Eddy has less charm than a calculator, as they probably don't either so it wont have registered. More importantly anyone who likes this film will hate 'Thieves Highway' a wonderful story of which part is based on the same subject.

I'll finish on a song:

Pretty woman hangin round the street Pretty woman, the kind I like to treat Pretty woman, I don't believe you You're not the truth No one could spend as much as you Mercy

Pretty woman, wont you pardon me Pretty woman, I couldn't help but see Pretty woman, and you look lovely as can be do you lack imagination just like me

Pretty woman, shop a while Pretty woman, talk a while Pretty woman, sell your smile to me Pretty woman, yeah, yeah, yeah Pretty woman, look my way Pretty woman, say you'll stay with me..and I'll pay you..I'll treat you right","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If a movie can't hold your interest in the first 25 minutes, it's over as far as I'm concerned. This concept that you have to simply deal with a slow first third of a movie and be rewarded later is nonsense. A good movie has to start and end strong. It all seem interesting and some decent shots and lots of promise, but ultimately muddled and irrelevant. There are so many other movies from Asia to watch, many of which I am sure most of you have not seen, that I would really skip this one and look elsewhere. Why exactly does IMDb require a 10 line minimum for reviews? I said my piece and I hope this helps a few of you move on to the next film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In London, the Venetian Carla Borin (Yuliya Mayarchuk) is searching an apartment to share with her beloved boyfriend Matteo (Jarno Berardi). She meets the lesbian real estate agent Moira (Francesca Nunzi) and rents a large apartment. When the jealous Matteo finds some pictures and letters from her former lover Bernard (Mauro Lorenz) in Venice, he hangs up the phone and the upset and amoral Carla has a brief affair with Moira and intercourse with an acquaintance in a party. When Matteo comes to London, he concludes that his lust for Carla is more important than his jealousy and her behavior.

\"Transgredire\" is another \"soft porn\" of the sick director Tinto Brass with a shallow and ridiculous story where every situation is a motive to expose the intimate parts of the women in the cast. The amateurish camera exposes the body of the beautiful Yuliya Mayarchuk in every possible angle and her character is abused, touched and licked in every part of her nice body, but without showing explicit penetration. This flick is only recommended to fans of this director and as a voyeur experience seeing Yuliya Mayarchuk naked in erotic situations. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): \"A Pervertida\" (\"The Pervert\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have just caught this Movie on TCM, and can understand why George Murphy went into Politics if this was the best MGM could serve up to him. It is so slow-moving that the attempt to make it a real film-noir effort does not come off. It featured two of my favourite

players in Eve Arden (completely wasted) and Dean Stockwell(the best actor in the Film), but what really hit me was that the leading lady Frances Gifford went through some 90 minutes (it seemed longer!) without changing the expression on her face--her fainting scene was comical. John Hodiak played his role OK, but the script let him, and the rest of the cast, down very badly. I gave it 4 stars mainly because of the photography. It would have been on the first half of the Program when double features were the go.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had to watch this movie for a film class, I suffered the whole time through. I am not Asian but was still greatly offended by this film. The film's basis is racialism, overall minorities (Rex Harrison isn't even Asian!) are depicted in narrow-minded manner. The banning of the film in Thailand illustrates the degree inaccuracy and subjective portrayal of Asians. In addition, there has been critical attention given to Biography of Anna. Many critics argue that Anna added many fictitious events to her story to project herself in a good manner. Some critics of the film and biography have even stated that Anna made up the whole story. An awful film but good for discussion of BioPics as form of meta-narrative fiction rather than a work of non-fiction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So when Bob and Marion Boxletter see a guy at a hotel, Marion believes it is her long lost brother Brian, but when she approaches him he appears to be someone else just with the exact same face. Marion manages to get his fingerprints and takes it to the police and when the identity is confirmed that it was in fact her brother Brian she and Bob leave for New York after tracing his whereabouts. They get a hold of Brian, but still he doesn't know what they are talking about, but all the couple really want to know is where Brian has their 8 maybe 9 year old son Joey... and even when they see Joey he doesn't know them either. The plot thickens and they find themselves one day thinking that they are someone else as well. Experiments made out on people only to make the perfect assassins yet the question of why they would bother putting Bob and Marion in the same building as each other is beyond me. Personally Gregory Harrison played his 2 parts great, but I have no clue what was wrong with the other actors, they seemed bored and lost. 3 out of 10, a little suspense yes but that's it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"A lot of the films I've made probably could have worked just as well 50 years ago, and that's just because I have a lot of old-fashion values.\" - Steven Spielberg

Some points..

1. Though this film is a loose remake of \"A Guy Named Joe\", it also borrows heavily from \"A Matter of Life and Death\" and \"Wings of Desire\".

2. This was Spielberg's second attempt at being Frank Capra.

3. Spielberg has often said that he wishes to make a \"Frank Capra movie\" in the vein of \"It's A Wonderful Life\" and \"Mrs Smith Goes To Washington\". Judging from his recent attempts to get a \"Harvey\" remake off the ground, it seems as though Spielberg still holds this dream, the director rightfully not satisfied with his last 3 ventures into Capracorn.

4. Critics at the time bashed \"Always\", stating that the elaborate action sequences distracted from the film's romance, but that's really not the problem at all. The problem is that \"Always\" needs a lot more special effects to distract us from the fact that Spielberg can't film any line of dialogue that doesn't end in an exclamation point.

5. The film is filled with comedy that just doesn't work. Spielberg's comedic tastes aren't very sophisticated, and seem to be ripped right out of 1950's screwballs and Looney Tune cartoons. These exaggerated antics may work in a cartoon universe, but in a film it just seems like an odd marriage.

6. The film's lead couple come across as brother and sister, not lovers. Spielberg's films have always being apprehensive toward sex and intimacy, but this film goes to extreme lengths: she's a wisecracking tomboy and he's a wisecracking old man. They're more irritating than endearing.

7. The film contains one good scene, in which John Goodman argues with Holly Hunter, but for the most part the film's characters are too annoying. There's no subtlety, every emotion overplayed, every joke over designed, every sequence filled with unnecessary busyness.

8. \"Always\" and \"Hook\" taught Spielberg how to con audiences. After their failure (and the twin financial failures of \"The Color Purple\" and \"Empire of the Sun\") Spielberg dumped the goofy colour cinematography of \"Color Purple\" and \"Empire of the Sun\" in favour for the more desaturated \"black and white\" worlds of \"Schindler's List\", \"Munich\", \"Minority Report\" and \"Saving Private Ryan\". From here on, \"less light\" and \"dark cinematography\" became equated with \"serious topics\".

9. After the financial success of each \"dark film\" Spielberg reverts back to his colour cinematography, and falls flat on his face once again. \"Amistad\" followed \"Schindler's List\", \"AI\" followed \"Ryan\" and \"Lincoln\" will follow \"Munich\". These \"colour\" films are always bashed for being too tacky, sentimental, corny and hokey, but the truth is, if you removed the desaturation, all these \"serious\" films would feel the same way.

10. Since the 70s, Spielberg has tried to differentiate himself from the other brat pack directors (Scorsese, De Palma, Coppola etc), by pretending to be an \"optimist\" and \"humanist\". He would himself state this repeatedly during many interviews in the late 70s. The reality, though, is that he is probably the biggest sadist of all these directors, the very form of his films often undermining their content, their very box office performances always proportionate to their dazzling displays of carnage.

11. The failure of Spielberg to connect with any of the characters in \"Always\", and the relish he shows, instead, for filming forest fires, air-planes crashing etc, perfectly encapsulates the rest of his filmography. People running from dinosaurs, sharks, Nazis, tripods, rocks etc...this is what Spielberg delights in. The moment his characters stop to speak, however, everything self-destructs. A film like \"Amistad\" failed, in other words, because not enough blacks died and too many whites talked.

12. The film's flying scenes aren't up to the standard's set several years earlier in the mega-hit \"Top Gun\". Of course, when your \"enemy\" is a forest fire, it's hard to make things cinematic.

13. Failures like \"1941\", \"Hook\", \"Always\" etc are often more illuminating that Spielberg's more successful films. They reveal the steel skeleton beneath the technique. They show what the amusement park ride looks like when its not working, revealing the vacuum beneath the broken machinery.

5\/10 \u0096 There's one good sequence here (two actors in a room, simply improvising), but this is mostly an annoying picture with a predictable script.

Worth one viewing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is replete with sentimentality, unprofessional flying that makes a pilot like me cringe, and irrelevant material. Why introduce Rachel, for instance? She has absolutely nothing to do with the film except to permit her \"Follow Me\" truck to run wild and crash into Dorinda's fence. That has got to be one of the stupider sequences among many in the film. Another is at the end when the aircraft (was it a B-26 or an A-26? --both designations are used in the film) is left with props whirling and no chocks in place. That serves the plot, of course, but to reveal it would be to commit a dreaded spoiler. As it is, the aircraft would have begun to taxi sans control. The ending (again, avoiding spoilers) involves much too much talk -- as at the beginning of sound films in the 30s with all those final speeches. Here, Dreyfuss just babbles on and on. The ending also incorporates other radical violations of aircraft protocol and a couple of improbabilities\/impossibilities that I won't describe. What a dull and disjointed effort!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worst part of all is the poor scripting, leading to superficial acting.

Dreyfuss' character is intensely repetitive and annoying, and Dreyfuss himself has the annoying face to match.

Holly Hunter's character is exaggeratedly self-centered, and Hunter herself indulges in serious overacting, as usual.

Brad Johnson was wooden. John Goodman made the best of it.

Furthermore, the whole death \/ ghost thing has since been somewhat overdone, and now appears rather lame.

Barely watchable only if you like old aeroplanes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A few yrs ago, I remember reading an essay by a feminist film theorist who briefly mentioned Rosalind Russell. This theorist wrote that the 'strength' of the 'strong women' that Rozzie R. played lay partly in their ability to stand by their man (even when he wasn't worth it).

I thought of this essay after watching 'Crimes of Passion'.

Kathleen Turner exudes the same strength and style as Russell in her portrayal of prostitute China Blue. She's the object of affection for two men: the loony priest played by Anthony Perkins, and a bland whitebread boy who's marriage is slowly fading. And she won't let either of them have a piece of her until ...

I won't give away the ending - but I will say that this is ultimately Bland Whitebread Boy's fantasy. No matter how hard Ken Russell tries, he can't disguise the fact that this movie is basically a 1940s melodrama for the MTV generation. Except its retrogressive class and gender politics make those old black-and-white films look revolutionary by comparison.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ken Russell directed this weird ( Not very ) erotic thriller and if I hadn't known that I would have staked my life that the director was Brian DePalma . Absolutely everything about CRIMES OF PASSION screams DePalma , from the gaudy cinematography that is lit a little too brightly , to the domestic storyline that turns into a stalk and slash plot , to even the title this screams \" Depalma , DePalma , Depalma \"

Unfortunately since Brian DePalma is increasingly seen as a poor mans Hitchcock over the years Russell should have tried emulating a style of his own . Sure an erotic thriller in the style of TOMMY or BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN would have been bizarre with a capital B but at least it would have been a unique cinematic experience . Stories about prostitutes living a dangerous double life and being stalked by a religious maniac were an all too common sight in the 1980s video market . Oh and Anthony Perkins plays the same role he played in almost every movie he made in the 1980s . Yawn

The only thing of any real note to CRIMES OF PASSION is the controversy it caused . I guess the studio were the happiest people to hear this since no publicity is bad publicity , but as for the controversial sex scenes ... What controversial sex scenes ? There aren't any and the only controversy I can think of is of China Blue dominating an on duty policeman with a truncheon . Needless to say he didn't come quietly HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you're in the mood to laugh at a truly bad movie (bad in the way only Ken Russell at his worst can be), you must try this one. It succeeds in making you feel like you just landed in a .25 porn-booth, and you can just about smell the urine on the floor. Kathleen Turner struts around in a blond wig, getting her kicks from \"pretending\" to be a two-bit hooker (she really has a good solid job in the clothing industry and has been hurt so badly by men that this is the only way she can connect), and Tony Perkins plays a hysterical \"priest\" who is out to maybe murderer her (yet another movie that ends with Tony Perkins in drag). Annie Potts shows up and is not allowed to provide an ounce of her usual wit, which is reason enough to hate this movie. The kinky will love the sex scenes, so rent the UNrated version in the RED box so you can see Turner give a cop a taste of his billy club (I had to pause the VCR until we stopped laughing).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Crimes of Passion\" is a film that is disappointing on most counts. Where should I start from? The plot? It is despairingly simplistic and full of gaps. The direction? Reminds a cheap B-movie. The acting? John Laughlin is utterly terrible in his role as \"well-intentioned-husband-of-a-frozen-wife\" Bobby, Annie Pots is unconvincing as \"frozen-wife\" Amy, and it is only Kathleen Turner (above average), and Antony Perkins (excellent) which get passable acting marks. More specifically, Antony Perkins gives a great performance as the pervert reverend Peter Shayne, while Turner manages to portray the roles of sexy China Blue and frail Joanna Crane satisfactorily.

Unfortunately, the performances of Turner and Perkins alone are insufficient to help get the film a grade higher than 4\/10. Watch it if you want to see Turner in some sensational scenes (although even on this count the film can be easily matched by its competition-\"Basic Instinct\" for example), otherwise avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen worse, which is a backhanded way of saying how crummy this film was. The plot is ridiculous: a student shoots a police officer and five more take him hostage? In a dimly-lit, smoky New York school -- and somehow this clich\u00e9d hostage situation takes 24 hours to resolve? Are you serious? A day-long hostage situation -- with a wounded NYPD officer no less, takes all day? I realize this film was made pre-9\/11, but still. I looked at the clock and wondered how they could possibly drag this overdone plot on for another hour and 10 minutes.

The acting was mediocre at best all-around, and the characters were seemingly thought up by 7th graders. The child-abuse kid, the pregnant scared girl, the violent gang wannabe, a confused unfortunate victim, the wise-cracking white guy. Please.

Trying to make this hostage situation into a mission for \"more textbooks\" and better school conditions? Please -- this is a weak attempt to justify writing a movie about a kid who shoots a cop. They're confused, ignorant idiots who get involved in a dumb -- far-fetched -- situation. Don't try and paint them, suddenly, as noble, The most laughable is Ziggy, who lives in the school's attic and admires Michaelangelo so much so that he paints these striking scenes on the walls. You've got to be kidding me.

The \"no racism\" signs in the protesting crowd? A black kid shoots a black cop and a black negotiator tries to patch it all up. This is a random message.

I understand the overall message, which was poorly portrayed, albeit by some actors who have gone on to respectable careers.

This was a joke though the red sniper lasers on the roof? The worst scene was the kid, fake snow falling, dying in the arms of his buddy on the roof, \"promise me\" etc. How original.

The epilogue of \"I went to prison but now I'm pre-law at XYZ University\" ... a fitting way to end a joke of a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I guess they reward idiocy today because whoever came up with the concept for this movie was not shot on sight.

This is a morons delight. The worst stereo-types of every ghetto and high school movie is dragged out twisted around and made even more unbearable. Every character in this movie has a sob story beyond sympathy. Lets pray for a remake where the whole school gets nuked.

***Spoiler*** how does a school so run down have the internet in the first place?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this movie to be preachy and unrealistic. It tries to be a movie showing kids fighting against the system, but it doesn't even present a positive solution. I guess I didn't feel really for the kids. I totally can understand what their gripes were and I know how poor the state of schools are, but I found their solution and the way the outside dealt with it to be a big bunch of phooey. If this comes on TV, don't waste your time. Watch Short Circuit again for the 235th time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What are Forest Whitaker and Clifton Collins Jr. doing in this? Light It Up is a ridiculously melodramatic piece on problems in low income area schools. While the topic is one that needs to be addressed, the film uses every cliche in the genre and comes off as a textbook popcorn flick. The characters are cutouts from the inner city version of The Breakfast Club or even The Faculty. Watch this with your children when they turn 13 or 14. With them, it could be an outlet for a lesson on current social problems. For anyone older, it will be nothing more than something to watch and spit on at 4 in the morning, as I did recently on Bravo. Matter of fact, what was this doing on Bravo?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This Movie Was In My Opinion Very Ignorant! There Is Only Foolishness As The Motivation Of The Caracters. The Police Procedure Was Unrealistic. The Caracters Generated No Sympathy From Me,The Story Must Have Been Written As The Movie Was Filmed. Unless You Like Police Bashing Stories Don`t Waste Your Time.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is an obvious rip-off of Underworld USA starring Cliff Robertson. You owe it to yourself to invest a couple of hours and watch the original. I found this one to be disjointed and hard to follow, with a lot of scenes that didn't make much sense. I'm not opposed to violence in movies but this whole thing seemed to be nothing more than an excuse to blow away one person after another, many of whom were only marginally connected with the storyline. With everyone else getting killed, all through the movie I wondered why Frank didn't just blow Johnny's brains out. He certainly could have and Johnny sure didn't act like someone that could be trusted. Another thing that bothers me is the sex scenes; why do these people have sex with their clothes on? Is that supposed to turn us on? Surely they didn't think they had a shot at a PG rating. Nothing in this movie seemed to play out naturally. as if one were watching people in real life, instead it was done in a heavy-handed and shallow manner.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I share the same opinion regarding Underworld as the previous comment.

I sat through the 1.5 hours of this movie wondering what this story was all about and more importantly why the author and\/or director had made certain decisions for the plot. On the whole I found the movie to be unbalanced, consisting of strange sub-plots which (IMHO) actually had nothing to do with the movie. Furthermore, when writing a thriller I'd say you want your viewers to wonder about the story and not about the way the story is filmed...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so bad, they wouldn't buy it back at my local used CD\/DVD store. I only own it because it came in a box set which I bought for the masterpiece \"Deadfall\". The store bought back the other two movies I was selling from the four disc set, but they wouldn't buy back Underworld, and those other two movies redefined rank, so what does that say about this movie? So I tried to sell it back to another store, that even bought back budget DVDs that you could buy for a dollar at a local store, but they wouldn't buy back Underworld either. This movie is bad on every level, and is one of those that came out in the post-Tarantino-clone glut of the mid 90's. The only slightly redeemable element is Dennis Leary telling Joe Montegna, that he's a \"stinky friend\" and calls him \"Mister Stinky Friend\". That line is so delightfully horrible, that I can't help but quote it at least once a week when describing a stinky friend. But now that I've enlightened you with that quote, you don't have to go thru the pain of watching this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although the movie was only so so the closed captioning was by far the best I have ever seen! Most of the time the spelling is terrible and the captioning out of sync. I use the closed captioning even though I can hear well but find a lot of actors mumble. Also many times the sound track overrides the dialogue. Thanks!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are actually some good reasons, why a person should take the risk of going totally insane by watching this show. The breasts are nice, even though some of them aren't that real, but they usually come in pairs, which is good. Watching the beach on your screen is also a very relaxing experience, as it is an ideal place for just taking it easy and not worrying too much about getting eaten by a rubber shark. It's always good to remember, that David Hasselhoff is a god. Not the god, but a god. It's not so much about his acting skills, since there are none, but his chesthair does a lot of talking. Also, there's no KITT hanging out in this series, which is good, since Mr Hasselhoff told in an interview, that he always thought KITT was gay. Naturally that might make him to look like an idiot, but considering the other statements he has made lately, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

In a nutshell, this is the kind of show, that is totally harmless to people. It gives us a lot to stare at and a lot to laugh at, which is something many intentionally humoristic shows really don't give us. I have to say, it's no wonder that Borat fell in love with Pamela Anderson. I enjoy watching the show. No, it's not a great show, actually it's quite horrible, but I enjoy watching it. It's basically like a B-movie stretched to last for a decade.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the first porn I've ever tried to review. It demands a different approach than usual, since the allegory will not reward dissection. \"I'm American. I'm a prudish virgin.\" \"We are European. We are cultured and sex-mad.\" \"It is nice when we all screw each other.\" Lots to talk about! Well, there kind of is in fact, relative to your average 60s topless volleyball number anyway. And the enervating patina of 'class' at least delivers clean, detailed compositions. But what the hell kind of thing is that to say about a porn? OK then: the only scene I really (rhetorically) got off on was the first time Brigitte Maier steps in. There are efforts to toss in a nice variety of race and age while letting no two men anywhere near each other; the one black guy suffers a premature bout of editorial coitus interruptus. And multiple takes or not, one perhaps undescribable-on-IMDb act does look like it was partially simulated by a surgical hose. Still, I stayed awake, and it was eight in the morning...but what does the last shot mean?!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Young Michael Dudikoff like young Lord Greystoke was abandoned in the jungle on a Pacific island as an infant. But instead of being raised by the apes, he fell into the hands of a Japanese soldier who was still living there because he hadn't heard the war was over. And like young Luke Skywalker it turns out he fell into the hands and learned the fighting skills of a Ninja.

Good thing because they were separated and the young kid came down with a case of amnesia, but those fighting skills didn't go away. The orphaned kid, now named Joe Armstrong enlists in the Army and gets himself stationed in the Phillipines. Meanwhile his Obi Wan Kenobe played by John Fujioka gets rescued himself and goes to work as a gardener on the estate of planter and terrorist go between Don Stewart using a cheesy accent that seems to vary between French and Spanish.

As these things happen everybody meets and Dudikoff both solves the mystery of part of his past and saves the commanding officer's daughter from the bad guys in this Golan-Globus Production. Charles Bronson was getting a bit long in the tooth now and Golan-Globus needed a new star for their action flicks. Michael Dudikoff filled the bill quite nicely and made quite a few films for them including several American Ninja sequels.

This film is all action and Dudikoff dispatches bad guys at a record pace. What he doesn't do, Steve James does doing his best Rambo imitation and showing his considerable martial arts skills.

The film has enough holes in the plot to drive one of those army vehicles through you see in the story. But that's what the ticket buying public doesn't care about. Dudikoff certainly looks magnificent stripped to his fighting clothes. No wonder so many sequels were made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen cheesy kung fu fight films. Living in Taiwan they come on in lieu of sitcoms in America. I have seen movies make fun of themselves, but this film belongs in the sad category of fight films that try too hard with awful actors, awful props, and awful music to be taken seriously. I seriously felt pity for the person who composed the music for this movie. How sad it must be to be a composer who has to churn out crap like what I thought should have been titled \"Generic Ninja Fight Scene, Op. 1\" or \"Variations on A Bad Guy Pointing a Gun at a Girl's Head When Backed into a Corner\" or the daring \"Flight of the Helicopter\". Then the fight scenes were over and the credits rolled. Those actually had me in tears laughing. If the \"special effects\" weren't proof enough that this was low-budget, the fact that only two or three of the crew members, presumably locals which although good for the much-needed Phillipino economy was probably done solely to save money, have ever done anything since this series of movies. They rented equipment, despite making sequels to this movie. That was pretty funny too. The thing that really had me going though, was not the music (which left me half expecting an animated Sargeant Slaughter from G.I. Joe to pop up), but the ending...I suppose this would be a spoiler if there was really a plot to spoil, but when the American Ninja drops the girl into Jackson's arms and then takes off his mask, I wanted to see him jump off the roof and Jackson drop the girl to catch him.

I think that would have been the perfect punchline for this joke of a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This review contains a SPOILER---

The movie is an American Ninja mysteriously trained in the martial arts. He falls for the Colonel's daughter and turns from the most hated grunt on the post to the \"People's hero\" at the end of the film. This film is extremely cheesy and very poorly researched. It is good for folks who do not care about plot development or reality. Good for kids under 14. The military errors in this film is comical. I remember during my three years in the military, us privates were not required to salute or call NCO's \"Sir\", the film does this in various spots. The colonel's hair is way too long on the ears. The Master Sergent's moustache was against military protocol in length. On the post, the Colonel was the only officer around. Not one other officer was shown walking around the post. You had idiot ninjas brandshing swords against troops with m-16's, rather poorly made.

Folks this filmed reeked. Michael Dudikoff is not really that bad of an actor he just has lousy scripts. The ninjas were more hilarious than dangerous. Avoid this film","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I couldn't stop laughing, I caught this again on late night TV. \"I suppose you think you're some kind of hero for bringing my daughter back alive\" \"No\" \"Good\"

haha.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Michael Dudikoff stars as Joe Armstrong a martial artist who fights ninjas who are stealing weapons from the U.S Army, in this entertaining yet admittedly brainless martial arts actioner, which is hampered by too many long pauses without action, but helped by some high energy action setpieces as well as Steve James' performance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot is very basic, but acceptable: A young US soldier, having studied Asian martial arts, puts this to good use in defence of the general's daughter and falls in love with her. Unfortunately, the three main acting parties' (soldier, girl, rebels) combined IQ amounts to 3: One point for the soldier, one for the girl, a large number of Ninja fighters have to share the third point among them to be able to lose against the former two.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a great movie for first time ninjas who are dating. If you're trying to impress some cute little ninjette I would highly recommend playing this masterpiece. Its one of those special movies that allows you to miss large sections of it without interfering with the plot.

Also I was wondering, where does a Teal ninja hide? Are ninjas color coded like this? Is this normal? If I were attacked by one of these yellow or orange ninjas I would die of laughter before succumbing to his sword.

And I finished my black star ninja test the other day, it was multiple choice, It went pretty good. I found there were a lot of questions on how to \"sneak\" around and look evil. Its all about the eyebrows and the attitude.

Basically, the movie could have been better if: 1. There was no color coded ninjas (or the color coded ninjas could combine into a super ninja). 2. Joe died in the first two minutes and Patricia had to avenge him 3. Miscellaneous monkeys were scattered throughout the file 4. Patricia didn't talk and Patricia was replaced with another character 6. The French guy was also a black star ninja 7. Chris Tucker, Whoopi Golderg, and Chris Rock were added as \"comic\" relief 8. Ninja strengths came from miticlorians.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ask a thousand people what the greatest unintentional comedy of all time is, and they will almost invariably tell you Battlefield Earth or Plan 9 From Outer Space. They're wrong. American Ninja has those two turkeys beat down for a number of reasons, not the least of which being a script that was quite clearly not thought through. While I fully support the B picture industry for keeping slobs like Michael Dudikoff in work, a little work on the product would have gone a long way.

For those who give a rat's posterior, my next few paragraphs will give away significant parts of the plot.

First of all, when we are given some background information on the titular hero, we are told his date of birth, next of kin, parents, and so forth, are all unknown. I don't know about you, but I expect the US army to take fact-finding about its personnel a little more seriously. They also manage to screw up the continuity of dates quite effectively, although I don't remember quite which dates were screwed up and when. This is actually one of American Ninja's less obvious flaws.

It has been pointed out before, but a common failing of many martial arts films is that when our heroes are confronted by large numbers of antagonists, said antagonists attack one at a time. More recent films such as The Matrix Reloaded defy this convention, but just about every film from the 1980s has the audience screaming, \"hey, why don't you attack all at once???\". Martial arts films tend to be a lot more impressive when the fights are more extensive than one-on-one.

The central premise was originally a joke, but in light of recent events where the US army cannot crush a mob of insurgents simply because they won't delegate to the specialists, it seems strangely ironic. Phillipino renegades are stealing weapons from the US army's local division for sale to wealthy clients. Never mind that such a theft would prompt the army to give the local businessmen responsible, or even believed responsible, an aerial rectal exam, this is a cheesy 1980s action film, after all.

By far the funniest part of the film is the climactic battle, however. As Joe and Jackson turn combining posing and fighting into an art form, evil Ninjas start to explode for no readily apparent reason. I agree with one previous commentator in that this film should have been called Ninja Holocaust, because I'm willing to bet a total of at least three hundred evil Ninjas bite it during the film's running time. On top of that, the Black Star Ninja starts fighting with rocket launchers, laser beams, and all sorts of ridiculous implements that are not only poorly thought out, they're flat-out poorly executed. You'll never see a laser beam effect that looks cheaper.

What tops it all off is that the film takes itself so damned seriously. During the scene when Joe is meeting up again with his old mentor, I dare the viewer not to laugh at the hideous dialogue. Not that I know any modern practioners of Ninjitsu, but the logical part of my imagination has a hard time believing that they have spoken like this at any time in their history. During this mentoring scene, I half expect the old guy to tell Joe he must prove his manhood by cutting his own head off with a blunt plastic spoon.

In all, I gave American Ninja a 1. This is a special score in my system in that it is reserved for the worst, most appalling, most offensive films I've ever seen, or films that make me laugh without even bothering to try. American Ninja is definitely an example of the latter.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For many year I saw this movie as a real movie of ninjas but after study more about this culture I can only think this is just another karate film. A black shinobi and some weapons doesn't make a ninja, it's much more than that. The ninja are the most dangerous warrior of the japan because they are trained in every aspect of life to survive to anything, killing whatever try to stop them. This movie is not a about a ninja warrior just about a clown trying to be something he cannot even understand.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What crack are you smoking? This movie, while gloriously entertaining, is awful!

The action scenes are so obviously fake it's kind of sad. The colonel's daughter is painfully irritating. The ninja training camp is so hilarious it is almost not worth mentioning. And when Joe puts the bucket over his head and beat up the other army guy, I just about peed myself. I could go on...

Entertaining, arguably so. Good, no. Well made, certainly not.

As a commentary on America as empire, it's actually pretty good. Joe as a typical white conqueror isn't all that surprising, especially in the context of mid-1980s American cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This could have been a really good movie if someone would just have known how to finish the film.

The story was going along just fine and heading towards that point in every movie like this where the \"gray\" characters turn \"good\" and the \"bad\" guys get their just desserts and *boom* ... it's like they ran out of script and the cast just started to make things up.

Which wouldn't have been so bad ... if the cast had just continued with the character development they had already put in place. But such is not the case and the movie soon becomes a goofy mess.

My advice is to watch this movie up to about the last 30 minutes ... and then shut it off. At this point, imagine how you think the next 30 minutes will look based on what you have seen so far.

Believe me, the ending you come up with will look far better than how this film actually ends. Trust me on this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Look, this film is terrible... the \"plot\" involves twins who are neglected by their self-absorbed parents, and left in the care of a succession of nannies and babysitters, all of whom the children drive away by being completely obnoxious. Eventually the kids engineer ex-convict Beverly D'Angelo to be their new nanny, do you care why? And D'Angelo watches a TV talk show about selling children and decides she will try to sell the twins... and, well, oh, you don't want to know. It's all very unpleasant, and not at all funny. In fact the announcer slated this film before it came on the TV channel I was watching! Just don't bother wasting a single moment of your life on this pile of complete trash, y'hear?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Gordon Scott made some good Tarzan movies, but this is not one of them.

As I watched it, wincing at the bad, obviously interior sets and the hollow wooden \"clonking\" sounds as they walked across supposedly dirt trails, and cringing at the bad dialog and worse acting among the supporting cast, I kept thinking, \"Sheesh! This is TV show level!\" Then I find out it was, indeed, three TV show pilot episodes woven seam-fully into one.

It's nice to see Scott get outside (alone), away from the lame sets, in a few of the scenes; and the fights do have some pretty nice moves... but oh, ow, and ouch as to the dialog. And did I mention the acting? Heck, Cheetah (or \"Cheta,\" in this version) was a better actor than most of the humans.

And that's not saying much.

It is kind of a stitch to see a younger Sherman (i.e. Scatman) Carothers acting as a native. But probably not worth the overall time-investment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tarzan, the environmental awareness leader, faces four trappers who by most unorthodox means abduct animals to get them to Zoos. Tarzan has a bland but sexy enough wife with an impeccable hairdo, and a kid. No one should fault Tarzan for being grieved by the vicious actions of the hunters.

This Gordon Scott Tarzan flick is one of the silliest, completely and unnecessarily silly; for one reason or another, the team did not find anything charming to sustain the movie, and so it's just some silly rubbish. Tarzan and his family are threatened by a group of evil trappers ,because Tarzan's environmental awareness brought him into open conflict with the evildoers. The kid and the chimpanzee, both belonging to Tarzan, are kidnapped by the malevolent trappers; so Tarzan summons the unleashed animal forces of the jungle to release the kid and the chimp\u0097with Tarzan leading the attack. TARZAN AND THE TRAPPERS is silly, unappealing, quite uninteresting. Maybe as a kid I would have liked it? Now one has to be too mean\u0097as viciously mean as those pathetic trappers punished by Tarzan\u0097to ask a Tarzan flick not to be silly; this I concede. But one is also truly entitled to ask these Tarzan flicks, however silly, to have and to show some gusto\u0097a bit of gusto\u0097even a tiny bit of gusto. Some kick, some excitement, some fun. Now the Gordon Scott Tarzan failure is too silly exactly in the sense of not having any gusto at all, of lacking all excitement. (Yes, I liked the sequence of the jungle beast eating a snake. What beast? Watch the movie, kiddos, now here I just gave you one excuse to do so.) For one reason or another, the villains look somewhat pathetic and elicit mercy rather than virtuous anger.

The books leave the impression that Tarzan seemed quite bright in his own way; and if finding a decent bodybuilder or another sportsman to look clever enough for the role might prove a too demanding, next to impossible task, Gordon Scott was anyway too far from meeting that ideal.

The wife chides Tarzan for disliking books.

The script suggests Tarzan was uneducated, almost illiterate, and adverse to learning; but the book says otherwise, and we know that Tarzan studied much, by himself, using the books of his gone family, before even meeting white people.

And I did not like that yell.

(It's supposed, dear kiddos, to be a genuine wild yell, not a missed yodeler.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Gordon Scott with his well coiffed hair, hourglass figure and weird pidgin English has to be the worst of all the Tarzans. As for the other actors in this mess, they're on a par with any 4th grade elementary school drama class. I've seen Used Car Dealers in TV commercials who can act better. They make Clayton Moore look like Laurence Olivier! And where does Jane (the dull Eve Brent) get her lipstick and eyebrow pencils in the jungle? I realize these were made for kids but Wow! The plot line seemed OK but the director should have required more from his actors. I realize even the Weissmuller films have a few flaws but this one seemed so \"low budget\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Has this ever happened to you? I go into my local video store and see a few new arrivals in the \"film noir\" section. I spy a copy of a new arrival of a film I have never seen called NAKED ALIBI. Its from one of those mail order video companies that offers (mostly) \"dupey\" looking copies of hard to find titles. The description on the box sounds good. The film has players I like (Sterling Hayden, Gloria Grahame, and Gene Barry). So I take it home and watch it. About ten minutes into this film I started having second thoughts. About half way through this film I started to dislike it. By the time the film ended, I not only disliked it, I despised it. The film opens with cops questioning Al Willis on suspicion of robbery. Other than being drunk, the police have nothing on him. When he pushes a cop and demands to be allowed to go home, the cops beat him up. Detective Conroy arrives, lets the cops finish the beating and then announces Willis is in the clear. Willis swears he will get revenge. Later one of the police officers is shot dead. With no evidence other that Willis is \"sore\" about the beating, Conroy make Willis his sole suspect, despite the fact that his boss names a pair of mobsters as suspects. Conroy arrests him, but for lack evidence Willis is released. The next day two more cops are killed by a bomb. This time Conroy goes to the Bakery that Willis owns and tries to beat a confession out of him. Conroy doesn't know it but a local newsman whose paper has been accusing Conroys department of police brutality snaps a picture of Conroy trying strangle Willis and Conroy is fired. But Conroy continues his pursuit and Willis flees to Mexico where Willis has a mistress. Conroy manages to convince his mistress (who Willis treats rather rough) to help him prove Willis is a killer. What this film lacks is a convincing script. The script looks as if only a rough draft was written and shooting began before a finished script was completed. Things happen, characters personalities change, plot twists occur for no real reason other than that script calls for it. Other than the fact that Willis likes to tip a glass now and than, there is nothing in the early part of the film to make us think that he is a crazy killer that cheats on his wife. He treats his wife, his kid and employees well. Early in the film, one gets the impression that its Conroy is the one whose is a loose cannon. He seems to casually approve of police brutality. Conroy, for no reason is convinced from the very start Willis has criminal past. He seems to operate on the motto of the old Communist Bulgarian secret police; \"Everyone is guilty of something, we just have not found out about it yet.\" Later Conroy shows kindness to Al's mistress and young son, now we are supposed to like him. Sorry! The early impression I got of Conroy stuck with me too long. And he is also a dumb cop. Only after he is fired and goes to Mexico does he run a background check on Willis and discovers that a warrant is out for him issued in Maryland. Why didn't he think of this before? Because this film hadn't used up enough running time. The cast is good. Gene Barry does well considering how poorly conceived his role of Al Willis is. I'm big fan of 40's and 50's crime thrillers but not only did I not think this film was good, it left a bad taste in my mouth (something many modern films do, but older films rarely do).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went out of my way to get this film, and was fortunate to get it on VHS. Being a big Gloria Grahame fan, it was an excellent addition to my collection. Other than that, I really cannot say a lot to recommend this picture. The plot is predictable (and weak) and the only interesting aspect of the film is watching Sterling Hayden get into deeper trouble with his own department. Ms. Grahame is always fun to watch (if you like her, as I do), but the dubbing of her singing hurts this picture a lot. She works in a dive, so let her use her own voice. It can only lend to the atmosphere. I must agree with an earlier reviewer; the ending borrows heavily from THE BIG HEAT. To the point of detracting from the ending. I have seen worse films with Ms. Grahame (MACAO), but I will never pass the opportunity to see her on screen. If you are having a movie night and looking for a second feature film, this is your movie. Enjoy the picture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this on the strength of Albert Finney alone. He's one of my favorite actors and he rarely fails to deliver. I'm not sure if the plot is interesting or just silly: it's about a little boy who is about to be born, but as his mother goes into labor, he refuses to come out! This sends God and the whole human being factory into a crisis and Albert Finney is called out of purgatory to try and convince the boy to change his mind and decide to want to be born. So Finney takes the unborn boy for an adventure in the Big Apple in hopes of showing him all the reasons he should want to live.

Despite the ridiculousness of the plot, I could have accepted it if the director had not tried to turn this into your typical Hollywood sentimental moralistic message film. Directorially, the film was rendered unbearable by a horrible soundtrack of the stock sentimental music that Hollywood directors seem incapable of resisting.

He further butchered the somewhat unconventional story by giving away its hand at every moment. Whatever twists and turns were in store in the plot were completely given away by the way the story unraveled. It was as if the director assumed the audience is just a bunch of idiots who cannot see the obvious hints coming from a mile away.

Even Finney in his performance, though satisfactory, seemed a bit awkward and out of place; and the little boy with curly locks, though he was supposed to be cute, was in fact rather dull. Bridget Fonda seemed intent on trying to duplicate Demi Moore's performance in 'Ghost', shedding tears at a moment's notice.

I understand that the film has been unsuccessful thus far at getting distribution in the U.S., which surprises me as I think it has the box office potential to be a modest hit, appealing to both kids and sentimental adults. As far as the quality goes, it's not an awful film, it's just not very good. (4 out of 10)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to Crooked Earth to see a piece of New Zealand. What I found was a badly scripted and badly acted echo of the people I know.

Great moments between characters \u0096 including many of Temuera Morrison and Lawrences Makoares scenes together \u0096 were often ruined by long and wordy monologues that the actors were forced to stumble through. Beautiful and ill-fitting phrases rattled away from Lawrence in particular as if he were the new Maori Messiah at his pulpit of beer crates.

When watching any film with Maori actors, I've found that I can always pick a half dozen characters that remind me of someone in my life. With Crooked Earth I struggled to find one key character that rung true for the entire two hours. Most \u0096 including Wiremu and Peka \u0096 wound up saying or doing things that I didn't understand and couldn't connect with. By the end of the movie the writer had succeeded in alienating the audience where the Maori weren't able to relate to it and the Pakeha were therefore given license to dismiss it. My feeling is that the movies message \u0096 or at least the main one of several that was being lobbed at the audience \u0096 is important enough to avoid using character extremities. Unfortunately, no one who read the script before it was filmed thought to pass this piece of advice on.

The soundtrack was invasive, and, as irritating as that horrible `bing-bong' noise that they laced through `Eyes Wide Shut'. The audience was not so subtly auto-cued to laugh, cry or be angry when the music changed. It reminded me of Darth Vader's entrance music in Star Wars: obvious and mildly amusing.

I think that there are some people out there that might enjoy this film. It's funny in parts, has a fair amount of action and has some really powerful scenes. Calvin Tuteao and Quentin Hita did bang up jobs as well. As a whole though, I didn't enjoy the experience as much as I know I should have. Barb Wire, Speed 2, The Island of Dr Moreau and Crooked Earth look like they're going to be Tem's quartet of crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I mean, come on! This movie had such nice potential but it's like they ran out of money to finish the script and just telegraphed the whole damn rest of the movie about 2\/3rds of the way through. Characters start spouting this movies whole reason for existence to other characters who didn't ask for the information on extremely flimsy premises. They also fall into some stereotypical behavior because that must be what's expected in this genre of movie. It's really pretty sad because this movie could have been so much more.

I was really hoping this would be a good movie. There was some good acting. Mark Hamill does an excellent job until the movie falls apart, so does Sally Struthers. It was fun to see them working and succeeding at their craft. Majandra Delfino was pretty good for awhile until her lines just became untenable. I felt sad for her that she had to say these lines that just shot the whole movies credibility for any thinking movie goers. Brad Hunt does an excellent job. He really has a surprising range of talent judging from another of his movies I recently saw, Lucky 13. (which was a piece of crap). This guy could be a star if he could pick the right scripts and get lucky with the right director.

Almost forgot! The music was so heavy handed you might think this project was handed to some minor film school to be scored. I call this kind of music \"Teller Music\" because you can just tell what's coming next based on the music. Less is more sometimes.

Cut half of the music from this movie, get a good film editor, a small rewrite or two and this would be a very good movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The summary was promising but watching the movie was a huge disappointment. Nothing happens in this movie. Plot is linear and without surprise. Normal characters stay normal until end of the film, weird characters stay weird until end of the film. There is even not a single tentative to foul the viewer into thinking that the bad guy is someone else than the most obvious candidate. On the positive side, actors play quite well, and there is a tiny bit of atmosphere in the movie, but much too little to be any significant.

People who vote 10 for this movie either didn't see it, or are member of the movie production team ! 4 is well paid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This show started out okay, but then it turned into a nightmare. The worst part about it was the contestants. Most of them were weirdos. They did stupid things for a living and they also did strange hobbies. In the second season, one guy said he that he talked to his pants. That is sick and repulsive. Also, no one cared about winning money. All they ever wanted to do was make alliances like it was \"Survivor\" or something. The men were always afraid that the women were going to team up together. The women were the same also. I just couldn't take it anymore. I had to stop watching it. It was truly one of the worst shows ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"(This review will have some very obvious spoilers, so beware.)

A friend brought this over, and we made it through 45 minutes of the movie before we decided that Fast Forward 8x Speed was the only way that this film should be watched. There were points when we were watching the movie at normal speed where I would leave, prepare part of lunch, and return, to find that literally nothing had happened. 2 lines of meaningless dialogue were exchanged. Nothing happened the background, no important facial gestures were made, nothing but mind-numbing awkward silence.

This is NOT how to make a thoughtful film, especially when the movie's plot follows all the same basic Hollywood movie tropes. If I told you that Disney was making a film about 4 girls starting a band, and the singer was a French exchange student, what you would expect to be the \"conflicts\" that arise?

The lead singer has to overcome stage fright? Someone has an unspoken crush? The band is late for their performance, and a side-character has to buy them time?

*SPOILER ALERT*

All of those things happen in this movie.

At no point in this film do you have even the slightest fraction of concern that these girls won't be able to accomplish their goal.

*THIS ENDS THE SECTION OF SPOILERS*

I like Japanese films. I've spent a lot of time in Japan. I work for a Japanese company. Heck, I even know all the bands referenced in the record collections and MDs that they're going through, and I've sung along to the title track with friends at karaoke.

This is probably the worst film from Japan I've ever seen. Do not be confused. Though the characters will have points in the movie where they do typical Japanese high school things, this is not a \"typical day in the life of\" movie. This is \"a day in the life of 4 extremely random, heavily-conflicted, awkward Japanese students.\"

There are noticeable problems with the DVD, as well. Viz decided that a great extra would be a producer reading aloud the Wikipedia entry about the Blue Hearts. What a value! In addition, they care so little about the subtitling that the band's name in the subtitles, \"Paran Maum\" is different than it is in the chapter selection menu, \"Paran Marum\". In the final auditorium scene, there is a VERY visible reflection\/ghosting effect on everything, but this seems to be the fault of the original film.

2\/10, do NOT view if you do not absolutely love awkward silences.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First separate the story from the film. The story about a second continuing war in heaven is good, very good. Religious themed films aren't the main choice for a lot of people but angels at war is. I really loved the story, and some of the imagery provided to back it up like the field of angels on spikes....awesome imagery. The actual film though was just poor, i can't find any reason for the main character - the priest-cum-cop being in there at all. The lead female also...no reason to be there, the main characters dialogue was just empty, it had no substance, the story could have been told well without them. Now, some sterling performances did feature, Walken, Stoltz and Mortensen pulled off some wingers, though their scenes were mostly with the lifeless leads.

One other thing i am not getting from this film is why it features native American rituals to purge the dark soul. The child that carries it is clearly of native American origin but apart from the end scenario there is nothing that connects here with that heritage. The plot concerning the dark soul itself it barely told, odd considering that the dark soul is the driver for the whole premise of the film. The back story of its original owner (the colonel) is briefly touched but not enough to allow understanding as to why its his soul that is the special one.

I cannot find a justification for the scrolling scenery shots in this film either, several of the plains around 'chimney rock'. I get the feeling they had a helicopter and wanted to make the most of it as none of the shots have any relevance, nor are they in keeping with the mood -> Horror. The film falls into the sci-fi category more than it does horror. There was no real shock or scare scenes, some mild gore and blood but no fear element.

So, aside from 3 roles played damn well this film is a big ole' dud. Unfortunately the dud factor outweighs the good acting factor, just too many weekend actors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you'd like a great April Fool's joke, then please by all means show this film to someone. However, it is important that you in no way criticize the film but instead talk about what an artistic triumph it is and how \"they just don't make great films like this any more\". As your victim watches many disconnected and nonsensical scenes (such as a cute dog getting punted for no apparent reason, a cow standing on the bed, a woman licking a statue's feet or Jesus apparently raping a woman), make lots of comments using words like \"brilliance\", \"juxtaposed\" or \"transcendent\"--all the while acting as if the film actually makes perfect sense and isn't a complete waste of an hour of your life. Also be sure to keep a straight face and feign shock when (and if) they say that they either didn't understand it or thought it had all the artistry of a cow patty. Then, to further mess with them, show them all the comments on IMDb, as nearly all (except for a few trouble-makers like almagz and rooprect) talk glowingly about what genius and artistry this film is! By the time you are done with this little charade, they'll most likely think they are idiots and will make an appointment with a psychologist.

This, to me, is the ONLY possible reason to watch this horrid mess of a film!!! That, or you could show it to the prisoners at Guantanamo in order to get them to talk!

If you ask me, the famous painting of dogs playing poker or a velvet Elvis painting are superior artistically.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some movies you'll watch because they touch your soul or challenge you in ways that grow.

Some you'll watch because you want to be exposed to adventure or shock outside your experience; these won't directly feed you, but they'll help you situate yourself in a larger world than you otherwise would have. And after all, the hard parts of life are in what you choose not to accept.

And then there are movies that do neither of these things, that you will watch out of obligation, or because you have a need for historical context. These are pretty worthless experiences in terms of building a life.

The problem is of course that often you don't know which of the three a film will be, going in. You might get some indication from people you trust, but because a life in film is so personal, you really won't know until you go on the blind date.

For me, this was pretty worthless. Yes, yes, I know for many Bunuel is the epitome of the sublime and rich. And you should know (if you don't) that among my greatest film experiences are some very strange films, very strange indeed.

It isn't that this isn't cinematic, or symbolically deep, or apolitically\/politically friendly to the way I think. Its how it gets there that is off base. Its the deviance from real deviance that annoys me.

Part of the problem is that this is successful alternative art, which means that it is successful commercial art. Which in turn means that it can be simply explained and the explanation is not only widely acceptable but simply coded in shorthand. Surely all this is true.

When the term \"surreal\" is used, generally it is used incorrectly to denote any film image or world that differs from reality or seems strange. But when it is used correctly, meaning according to consensus theory, it always revolves around Bunuel, and in particular this film and the one he genuinely did with Dali. So because they invented surreal cinema, they define and control the term. That by itself chafes me, and I have my own alternative definition that doesn't come from their philosophy.

Its because the philosophy is wholly contrary. It isn't a philosophy at all but a rejection of philosophy, an anti-order. Its packaged anarchy, carefully selecting the things that they use and the things they oppose without clearly differentiating them.

So okay: against linearity, against narrative, against history, against religion (an easy one), against deliberate love. But for an illinear linear narrative, for establishing its own history (celebrated by countless film school professors; what else can they do?); for a sort of transcendent \"accidental\" love.

It is its own enemy. If there were a Bunuel alive today as he sold his image, the first thing he would do is attack the church or the surreal.

My regular readers know that in nearly all matters cinematic, I cleave to the Spanish and avoid the French. But in the matter of the surreal, I'd like to you consider the reverse: get your surrealism from Alfred Jarry, not Bunuel.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A man kicks a dog 2' in the air.

A woman kicks a cow out of her bed.

A man kicks a violin down the sidewalk.

A woman sucks on a statue's toe for 15 seconds.

A man kicks a blind man in the stomach.

Jesus rapes a young girl.

There you have it. I just saved you an hour of your life. Surely there are those to whom this \"shocking vanguard of cinematic expression\" would appeal. But I found it no different from the puerile, disconnected videos I used to shoot with my friends in the 9th grade. Except we never had a real cow.

Having heard endless sermons from beard-stroking art connaisseurs of how this is such an important film, I thought it would be worth my time. Make no mistake, this is crap. If I hear one more person call Bu\u00f1uel the \"father of cinematic Surrealism\", I think I'm going to punch someone. If anything, he issued a major step backward from the Surrealist beginnings pioneered by his seniors Fritz Lang (Metropolis), F.W. Murnau (Faust) and Robert Weine (Caligari) 10 years earlier. This made a joke out of the whole thing, as if Bu\u00f1uel didn't have the confidence to truly embrace the art sans sarcasm, sans l'absurdit\u00e9. It would take Bu\u00f1uel another 40 years before he would refine his style into something admirable. Skip the early stuff and hop straight to 1970 if you want to be more impressed by his work.

I'm sure he would agree. In 1977, Bu\u00f1uel himself stated that he would happily burn all the prints of his old movies. In this case I would be happy to pour the lighter fluid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a big fan of surrealist art, but this film by Bunuel (with some ideas from Dali) left me cold. Bunuel had a life-long grudge against the Catholic church and delighted in trying to offend Catholics in fairly silly ways. This is one of the silliest; almost like what you'd expect from a smart-aleck 18-year-old in film class. The last few minutes of the movie, which have nothing to do with anything else, are a final nose-thumbing at religion.

If you read the \"scholars\" regarding this slow-paced, occasionally amusing film, it's all about how the church and society are guilty of sexual repression. If that is indeed the point, then Bunuel expresses it in the most roundabout fashion possible. The central male character is a nasty brute who loves kicking dogs and knocking blind men down in the street, and who mentally turns billboard ads into strange sexual fantasies. Is this behavior the church's fault (for interrupting his lovemaking), or is he just a jerk? I vote for the latter. I think Bunuel must have had a lot of personal hangups and chose the Catholics as the ones to blame.

There are a few moments where you might cry, \"Aha! surrealism!\": a cow in a bed, a giraffe falling out a window (a poor model), a man shredding a feather pillow, a woman flushing a toilet while we watch pictures of seething lava (or a mud pit...hard to tell in B\/W). The rest is forgettable self-indulgence. Unfortunately, Bunuel was still chasing the same bogey-men through the rest of his career (Viridiana, Discreet Charm...). If you're interested in seeing surrealism on the screen, check out Jean Cocteau's early work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Man (Gaston Modot) and the Young Girl (Lya Lys) go through the film consumed by passion for each other. They long to be together but their moments together are constantly interrupted. The film is strewn together with imagery and comes to a halt after an hour.........do the lovers find happiness....?..

The film starts interestingly with footage of scorpions but you soon realize that its all a pretentious piece of nonsense. It's made as a silent film with occasional dialogue and it has a non-stop soundtrack playing that at one point is so irritating that you will turn the sound down and want to watch it as a silent film. The continuous drum rolls must have driven cinema audiences mad. There are some genuinely funny moments, eg, when the Man kicks a dog and when he knocks over a blind man. Unfortunately, this humour is carried out in the name of art so its just pseudo nonsense. The film is crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When something can be anything you want it to be or mean, it's bound to register with someone as being rather special. But just as the shape of a cloud in the sky may appear to one of us or remind us of a battleship, and to another of his aunt's rear, and yet to another absolutely nothing other than a cloud, this does not make this cloud meaningful except for the viewers' interpretation. Anyone who might find throwing a stuffed giraffe out of a window brilliant, or worthwhile for that matter, without relating it in some context, is possibly merely trying to impress us with his or her intellectuality.

Submitting to this movie as the dreams of a madman does quite nicely, especially since there is no standard or expectation for what said dreams would be like, and even if we were mad ourselves, this would hardly give us sane reference points for comparison. A love affair with this movie entails the same risk as seriously interpreting Nostradamus. Whatever real meaning was being conveyed at the time might be buried in the private jokes, musings, or provincial minutiae of its day, and to a select few radical intellectuals at that! I did spot a bit of an agenda even with my limited capacity though.

The movie is definitely anti-Fascist and to some extent anti-Italian. I noted that although the years 1929-30 were years of great public works and urban renewal in Italy, any indication of this seemed avoided. Furthermore, (avant-guarde academic spinners take note of this for your next class) the very short cropped haired man with the mustache in the party segment near the end is a caricature of Victor Emmanuel III and his tall female companion none other than Queen Helen, formerly Princess of Montenegro. Without an understanding of potential historical relevance, even the apparent irrelevance is beyond the competence of academic or other intellectual poseurs who would bask in irrelevance to impress us.

I gladly add my own paint buckets to the defacement of this cinematic joke. But in an adaptation of the famous mot by the little boy; The movie really has no face (to deface). Paint would help it burn though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, it's a piece of historical film making that caused an uproar, shocked people, and was banned. I'll give it that, which is why I gave it a 3 rather than a 1. It may have been ahead of the times, but it's certainly way behind the times now. I am a BIG fan of Salvador Dali and I loved Un Chien Andalou. That short was captivating with one creative scene after another. L'age d'Or was way too long and dull - just a self-indulgent piece of pompous film making created simply as a feeble attempt to try to out-do Un Chien Andalou by creating a full- length movie (and shamelessly leverage Dali's name and fame even though he had little to do with it). Total junk except for a (very) few shots of \"shocking scenes\" separated by long stretches of boring non-action. A waste of time and money. Both of my thumbs are down, way down. It'll go onto my shelf never to be watched again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How do I describe the horrors?!!! First, some points: First, this review should be taken with a grain of salt -- I saw this over 20 years ago, when I was a boy, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

Secondly, I am giving away some scenes and plot points. However, it does not have much of a plot.

Finally, I don't enjoy these type of art films anyway.

This film was directed by proto-auteur Luis Bunuel. He was a surrealist and dadaist. These were modernist themes or movements popular critically in the 1920's and early 1930's. Surealism was the school of art that made things hyper-real, yet often had Freudian symbolism. Dadaism is based on what is supposedly the first word made by an infant -- Dada, or father.

Made in black and white, it was also made by a band of communists (or as they preferred the term, socialists). Bunuel and his group of fellow film-makers and artistes had been working on a number of symbolic ideas and issues in Spain and France between the world wars.

Dadaism and surrealism influenced a lot of artists -- The Police (Doo doo doo da), poet Arthur Rambaud, Edvard Munch (The Scream), Rene Magritte (floating hats in space), Salvador Dali (melting clocks), and even Hitchcock (Psycho). No Norman Rockwell.

Here's what I recall most about this film: a girl meets up with a cow; her eye gets slashed by a razor; clownish men cavort in a meadow. There is not, as I said, much of a plot, but then again, that must be the point.

This was attacked as porn back then, and would be again today. One of the trade-marks of surrealism is a significant anti-feminism.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The price of a dream - and some dreams can be \"too\" expensive.

Only having viewed the English-translated version, it is perhaps the reason for a low rating from this viewer.

It made the overall film poorer than the story material hinted at...

...and other comments seem to suggest the subtitled version would be better.

But some plot elements remained unexplained, leaving an unfinished feel.

It also leaves the thought \"is there a series to follow?\".

A pity there was no more (at this stage at least, anyway).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Fred Astaire is reteamed with Rita Hayworth one year after their big hit for Columbia, \"You'll Never Get Rich\". That was the movie which put Hayworth on the Hollywood map, yet her performance in this wan romantic musical hardly gives a suggestion why she was so suddenly popular. Down Buenos Aires way, a tyrannical hotel owner demands that his four daughters marry in order of age; one may think film takes place in the 18th century, but no, it's modern-day 1942. Astaire is an ex-hoofer-turned-gambler who goes back to dancing to earn some money, getting mixed up in impersonating a letter-writing admirer to Hayworth's stone-cold society beauty. Fred gazes at Rita with a brotherly smile, but she's so mannequin-like (lip-synching to her songs like a wide-eyed wind-up doll) that all romantic sparks quickly sputter. They do dance together quite comfortably, however, and the Jerome Kern score is unmemorable but not too bad. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On the pure theatrical side, Last Stand was great, as the reenactments and soundtrack are very entertaining, but there are better accounts of this battle found elsewhere that, while not as long or as flashy, are far more historically comprehensive.

Certain little details, such as the misuse of the word \"hoplon\" for the Greek hoplite shield and the mispronounciations of various names and words, really ate at me.

My guess would be, that because \"Last Stand of the 300\" was aired the eve of the theatrical release of \"300\", the History Channel was only trying to ride the coattails of the movie's hype.

If you're looking for a depiction that's historically accurate in all respects possible, you'd have better luck elsewhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The thesis of Father Brown is that a good dose of Roman Catholicism will solve all of life's problems. A little proselytizing I don't mind, but this gets a bit ridiculous at times.

Some fine actors have played Father Brown over the years, Kenneth More and Barnard Hughes are two good examples. Alec Guinness plays him in this film and does all right by him, but you didn't see any great demand for future Father Brown films.

I suppose if you are a committed Roman Catholic it all makes perfectly good sense. It's far more important to catch the thief and convert him to your religion than see he's brought to justice.

But that's what were asked to accept here. In fact there is a preliminary story before the main action of the film. Guinness in clerical garb is caught trying to put back stolen articles that one of his parishioners Sidney James had heisted during a robbery.

That's the story he gives the local cops and of course this is something that James has confided in him so he can't break the confessional.

Now on to bigger game. Master thief Flambeau, played by Peter Finch has stolen a cross that is entrusted to Father Brown and was said to belong to St. Augustine back in the day. But Father Brown is more interested in getting Flambeau to go back to his faith than seeing him brought to justice. So he misleads the cops so he can accomplish his mission.

I'm sorry but this whole thing was just too much for me to swallow. Father Brown I'd hate to say it was guilty of obstruction and ought to have been arrested. And he was under no obligation not to reveal anything he knew about Flambeau, the man had not come to him as a penitent seeking absolution and spiritual advice.

Author G.K. Chesterton, a very noted Catholic lay person in his day, finds all this very reasonable. Carried to his logical conclusion we should replace all police forces with an army of priests.

Guinness borrows from his own Reverend Ascoyne D'Ascoyne from Kind Hearts and Coronets and from Barry Fitzgerald in Going My Way to create Father Brown. Granted though Brown is a lot shrewder than the other two. There's also a bit of Colonel Nicholson in this portrayal. In The Bridge on the River Kwai, Guinness also was playing a character who's rather weird interpretation of the rules caused him to lose sight of what was important in the situation Nicholson was in.

Father Brown's an entertaining fellow when he's solving mysteries and making the authorities look foolish. We've enjoyed Brother Cadfael do it in a medieval setting and American audiences liked Father Dowling played by Tom Bosley a few years back.

This film should have stuck to being entertaining.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are so very few films where just the title tells you all you need to know about the film. Such a film is I Was A Communist For The FBI. Another example would be I Married A Monster From Outer Space.

The really interesting thing about this film is how in heaven's name did this get nominated for an Oscar in the documentary category? It is not a documentary in any sense of the word, it's not even in that hybrid category of docudrama. It's just a rather exploitive film about the work of an FBI undercover agent named Matt Cvetic who infiltrated the Communist Party in Pittsburgh and got active in trying to take over the Steelworker's Union for the Communists and reporting on said activities to his handlers in the FBI.

A documentary of that work might have been interesting, but what we got was a film to fit those paranoid times. I found it fascinating that when Cvetic finally broke his cover it was to the House Un-American Activities Committee rather than the trial in New York of the Communist Party leaders. There was a moment in the film where head Communist James Millican tells his followers to start spreading the word that the House Un American Activities Committee was composed of a bunch of right wing yahoos looking to get their names in front of the camera. Now what could have given him that idea? Anyway just connect the dots and no doubt the word their came from J. Edgar Hoover trying to give some credence to HUAC by having an effective undercover come out there rather than at an actual trial. Little thing there called cross examination.

Warner Brothers who produced I Was A Communist For The FBI later produced Big Jim McLain which starred John Wayne about a HUAC investigator in Hawaii. HUAC did grab on to credit for the work done by the Honolulu PD in breaking up a Communist spy ring there among the dockworkers. But at least in John Wayne's film nobody claimed it was a documentary.

Frank Lovejoy is in the title role as Cvetic and his FBI handlers are Richard Webb and Philip Carey. Dorothy Hart plays a Pittsburgh school teacher who says that there are 30 or so like here in that school system indoctrinating the young among whom is Ron Hagerthy, Lovejoy's son. She has a change of heart about the Communists and Lovejoy has to save her from a homicidal fate planned by his superiors. Ironically Hart left the movies and went to work for all places, the United Nations which as we know has been accused often of being a Communist nest in the USA.

Over half a century later and we really have very few objective works on film or in print about the Communist Party of the USA. They were in fact a very active bunch in the labor movement. The real heroes in stopping them were labor organizers like Walter Reuther in the UAW or David Dubinsky in the ILGWU. But since they were people of the left they just don't have the following on the right to be suitable propaganda material.

Anyway I Was A Communist For The FBI is an exploitive work based on a real life character and a testament to those paranoid times.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Matt Cvetic is a loyal communist in a Pittsburgh steel mill who works to recruit workers into the party, even though this isolates himself from his son, family, and neighbors. What makes this even more difficult is that Cvetic is actually an FBI agent posing as a Communist in order to obtain information about party activities. The party is trying to create a strike at the mill, whereby the pro-strike movement will lead the workers into a wave of propaganda. Cvetic also has to contend with beautiful Eve Merrick, a party member and teacher at his son's school who finds the fact that Cvetic is a double agent. When Eve learns the ugly truth about the party's real motives, the reds decide she must be liquidated and Cvetic must aid her without endangering himself. The film should have plenty of suspense and double crossing but there is very little in this film but (by today's standards) very cheesy propaganda and little action or thrills. Lovejoy is very good in the main role, but even he and the rest of the cast seem listless. Few surprises here and how did this film receive a Oscar nod for best documentary? Rating, 4.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most disturbing thing about this film is not that it's a load of hogwash (the CPUSA was never really as much an espionage threat as the movie makes out). The troubling aspect is the way that it whitewashes the wholly unsavory tactics of the FBI and the UnAmerican Activities Committee. Secret informants, gossip turned into accusations, warrantless searches - these are the kind of things secret police thugs like the KGB did, and presumably, what the good patriotic Americans were fighting. Yet the FBI did them and didn't bat an eye. That's the only realistic part of this movie, and they present it with no sense of shame at all. Add to this undermining the Constitution itself by having only Communists invoke the Bill of Rights. The film also makes thinly veiled accusations that the black civil rights movement was communist-inspired, another pack of lies. It's extremely difficult in this day to excuse such outrageous propaganda, even understanding the paranoia of the times, when one realizes how damaging it was to real people then.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A stunningly beautiful Charlotte Lewis stars as a woman who is terrorized by a ghosts who torment her on the phone.Driven to the edge in terror Charlotte is forced to confront this chilling mystery in order to save her sanity and her life.I can't believe that Ruggero Deodato,the director behind \"Ultimo Mondo Cannibale\",\"Cannibal Holocaust\" and \"House on the Edge of the Park\" directed this absurd piece of trash.Admittedly the music by Goblin front man Claudio Simonetti is pretty good,but the story is painfully stupid.The script by Franco Ferrini is ridiculous and it makes no sense,the acting is bad and there is absolutely no suspense.The scene in which a prospective rapist of Charlotte Lewis is killed by coins ejected from a subway telephone is more than laughable.Don't waste your time with this piece of crap.There are far better Italian horror movies out there!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I admit, I was taken in by the provocative stills of Charlotte Lewis from this film, as well as a comment on the IMDb message board devoted to her, calling this picture a \"great underrated film\". And so I got, with great difficulty, my own copy of \"Dial Help\".

What a waste.

Nothing but a cheaply-made blood and gore movie with a ridiculous premise which I'm not even going to repeat, with several telegraphed sequences (for instance, when we see Lewis lovingly feeding her fish, we know right away what's going to happen to them later). Not even Lewis, with her beautiful raven hair, large and luminous brown eyes, full and pouty lips, and stunning figure, can save this film. Lewis fans would be better off with \"Bare Essentials\", \"Sketch Artist\", or even \"Golden Child\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ring! Ring! Have-been horror directors hotline, how may we help you? Um\u0085yeah\u0085Pronto! I mean hello, my name is Rugge\u0085 err, call me by my initials R.D! Okay Mr. R.D, what seems to be the problem? Well the reviews on my latest movie \"Dial: Help\" were all negative and harsh and, frankly, I myself feel like my career has seen better days as well. Okay Mr. R.D, and why do you suppose that is? Well, I gained fame and a well-deserved cult status thanks to my controversial and shocking movie about savage tribes of cannibals devouring a film crew and another one about relentless thugs terrorizing wealthy people in a house at the edge of the park, for which I borrowed the idea from Wes Craven, but \"Dial: Help\" revolves on \u0085 err\u0085 never mind! No no, Mr. R.D, go ahead and tell me what the film is about. Um, it's about a spiritually possessed phone line stalking a sexy model and killing the people surrounding her. Ah, I see. That premise does indeed sound a little silly and not as petrifying as cannibals or rapists, but I suppose there are deeper themes in your film, right? Oh yeah, sure\u0085 Um, what do you mean by that? Well, isn't the phone line symbolism for another kind of terror? Or perhaps it's all just happening in the mind of your female heroine? Um, nope\u0085 It's just about a phone going berserk and murdering people with the cord, vibrations, electricity or even ordinary coins. Interesting, Mr. R.D, but how do you explain all this supernatural stuff to the viewer at the end of the movie? You see, I figured the slowly unraveling phone-mystery plot wouldn't be that important or relevant, so I just concentrated on processing all possible phone-gimmicks I could think of. Phone gimmicks? What do you mean? You know, like wind blowing through the horn, mind-penetrating dial tones, and turn-tables catapulting into the air! Very original, Mr. R.D, but not exactly horrific and as an experienced director you must know that, in the end, people expect a reasonable clarification of all these events. Oh, but there is! It all has to do with negative and unreleased energy, if I remember correctly! It's all a bit fuzzy, I admit. Hmm\u0085 I see. Oh well, as they always say, a good motion picture relies on more elements than just the story. Did you at least process some of your regular trademarks into the film, so that your fans at least recognize your style? I tried! Lord knows I tried, but the murders and bloodshed are simply not shocking anyone! That's a pity indeed, Mr. R.D, but what about sex? Everyone likes a good portion of sleaze and nudity in their horror films and you said yourself the film centered on a sexy fashion model in peril! Yes, but \u0085 But what, Mr. R.D? Well, to tell you the truth, we kind of promoted \"Dial: Help\" as an erotic thriller with revealing shots of Charlotte Lewis on the cover, but in reality there's no sex in the film and Charlotte even refused to go topless. Mr. R.D! Now I'm really disappointed, that's just shamelessly ripping people off and lure them with false promises! I know, I know, and I'm ashamed, but I just wanted everybody to rent \"Dial: Help\" and love it! Well, to round up I can comfort you by saying that every major director is entitled to a few erroneous decisions without it affecting his\/her career immediately, but be more cautious next time and do some research first, okay Mr. R.D? I will; thank you! You're welcome. Tell me, have you got any ideas for upcoming movies already? Yeah, as a matter a fact, I do! I was thinking about making a Giallo with a murderous washing machine! Doesn't that sound fascinating? Hello? Hello?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I was hoping I'd heard wrong about this film as I'm a big fan of Ruggero Deodato and really didn't want to see him slip up; but unfortunately, this Giallo-styled supernatural load of nonsense is just as bad as I'd been lead to believe it would be - and that's pretty terrible! The plot doesn't work at all, as the film attempts to blend murders and a supernatural theme through a telephone and it all feels very forced and silly. Furthermore, the plot doesn't make much sense at all, and you have to ask yourself \"what's the point\" numerous times throughout the movie. The plot focuses on a young woman living in an apartment block and being terrorised by a telephone. The best thing about the movie is undoubtedly the presence of the beautiful English actress Charlotte Lewis, and unfortunately the good points pretty much stop there. There are a handful of deaths scenes, some of which are gory; but all of which are incredibly stupid, the one that sees someone get killed by coins sticks out especially in that respect. Overall, I really can't recommend this to anyone; non-Deodato fans are unlikely to impressed, and Deodato fans are likely to find the film depressing. Avoid!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is only the fourth effort I\u2019ve watched from this director (whom I met and found quite genial at the 2004 Venice Film Festival Italian B-movie retrospective) and also, possibly, the worst. As was the case with THE BRONX EXECUTIONER (1989), which preceded it, this is a prime example from the tail end of the Euro-Cult era \u2013 prime because it shows the depths to which the previously invigorating style had fallen by this time!

Here, in fact, we get a plot revolving around \u2013 I\u2019m not kidding, folks \u2013 a killer phone! Pretty but bland Charlotte Lewis \u2013 in her third film after PIRATES (1986) and THE GOLDEN CHILD (1986) \u2013 is a model who, apparently, has just ended an affair; she keeps expecting her architect lover to call her back but, every time the phone rings, all she gets is static accompanied by voices from the beyond (or some such crap). She befriends a new tenant at her apartment block who, conveniently, knows of an authority on paranormal activity (William Berger) \u2013 who, hilariously, explains that the negative energy which is unleashed, say, during family arguments can manifest itself via home appliances into a deadly force (I swear I ain\u2019t making this up)!

Among the highlights...er...lowpoints of the film are: the grumpy bartender from whose dingy place the heroine calls a couple of times (it seems that the chain-of-events can only be broken by having Lewis go through her paces again, EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962)-style!), the sheer variety of preposterous-looking phones on display, the apparatus of the heroine\u2019s photographer friend sneaking up on her before the kill, the sarcastic cop who greets Lewis on reporting the strange occurrences (\u201cAnd what\u2019s the toaster up to, I wonder?\u201d), the would-be rapist killed by a barrage of coins shooting out from a telephone booth, and Berger\u2019s own bloody demise (with the phone affecting the pacemaker he\u2019s fitted with and causing the doctor\u2019s heart to explode)!

The film\u2019s climax is rather confusing and, apparently, finally sees all the \u2018lost souls\u2019 inhabiting a flock of doves and flying out the window of the \u2018possessed\u2019 office (a lonelyhearts service!). For what it\u2019s worth, the score \u2013 by ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti no less \u2013 is effective enough, despite the inclusion of dated heavy-metal numbers on the soundtrack.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't be fooled by the plot out-line as it is described on the cover (at least the Swedish version). The story on this seems rather interesting, with speculative hints. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is the absolute most sad movie experience I've ever had... It is plain and right AWFUL and should not be sold or rented to anyone. If you still think the plot seems intriguing, reflect on this: telephones can move, run and kill people as can also any other electric appliance. It can throw things at you, haunt you and run after you. PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE it is a disgrace for the horror genre...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is truly saddening to see a once-great director such as Deodato delivering such a second-rate giallo such as this. This movie was so terrible it effectively put an end to his movie career. The box lies, this is no \"erotic thriller\", hell during the film's 97 minute running time, Charlotte Lewis barely shows us one nipple! I thought it would pick up once William Burger showed up (in one of his last roles), but his character is killed off rather abruptly and lamely. This movie fails in pretty much every way. Claudio Simonetti's music is little more than noise, and the plot made very little sense at all. For some reason, Lewis is terrorized by ghosts which attack using phones. (?) By the end, the characters all seem to have forgotten the previous 90 minutes of hell they went through, and casually laugh as they sick the evil spirits on someone else, Lewis's ex-boyfriend. What?!? This movie did little for me besides anger me.... and bore me half to death. For genuine 80's Deodato fun, watch THE BARBARIANS or THE ATLANTIS INTERCEPTORS, let this one rot on the video store shelf. Argento could make a better giallo than this!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Robert Aldrich's brutal, quasi-black comedy \"The Grissom Gang\", a reworking of the 1948 British film \"No Orchids For Miss Blandish\", has 1920s heiress Kim Darby kidnapped by a pack of clumsy thieves; soon, that gang is dispatched and poor Kim is then transferred into the clutches of another crooked bunch--third-rate gangster brothers with sweaty, pasty faces and a mother who looks like Buddy Ebsen in drag. At first, Darby (not very plucky, and not very smart) attempts to escape this drooling brood, but they're onto her. Eventually she just gives up trying, and therein lies the trouble with the story. Are we in the audience supposed to sympathize with her? Is her growing concern for the family half-wit supposed to be heartwarming? These are disgusting, cretinous characters, and I wanted to see as little of them as possible. But since the side-stories (the progress of the cops on the case and another one involving floozy-singer Connie Stevens) are rather dull, the director has no choice but to keep foisting those sweaty faces on us. Pretty soon, nervous Darby starts sweating too, although her scene up in the hayloft is sensitively performed and Aldrich's climactic moments are thought-provoking, if disorganized. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"These days, Asian horror films are among the best in the world, noted for their atmosphere and reflection of contemporary society. This is not one of those films! Instead, \"The Record\" is a mediocre slasher movie highly derivative of American movies like \"I Know What You Did Last Summer\" and \"Scream\". The plot is familiar - 5 teenagers accidently commit a terrible crime, but cover it up swearing to secrecy. One year later, they're being stalked by a knife-wielding maniac (with the decidely unscary disguise of a hospital sterile mask and an orange jumpsuit). It doesn't help that the teenagers are a generally unlikable group (this is one of those movies where the killer's motives seem pretty reasonable) and there are numerous stupid plot setups to keep the story going. The direction of the movie is unsubtle, more influenced by MTV than by current Asian horror films (like \"The Ring\"). The last third of the movie isn't too bad though, delivering some decent suspense scenes, though there is probably one \"twist\" too many in the end. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stay FAR AWAY from this film. The fact that you're reading reviews tells me you may have already been tainted by the awfulness it carrys. This is a truely horrid movie... so let's get down to the problems. Writing and Direction: It wouldnt surprise me if these were handled by a group of overactive gradeschoolers that watched 'scream' and 'I know what you did last summer' a few too many times. GIANT GAPING plot holes abound; while I can't congratulate them for this movie, its nice knowing they're finally potty trained. Actors(or lack thereof): Only the finest for this film... the finest extras ever to grace a screen, now starring in their speaking role debut! As a disclaimer, I have to note that I am capable of watching and enjoying just about anything. I recognize a good movie when I see it, but I can still giggle and smirk during Bubble Boy (yes folks, its true); so when I say to avoid something, you KNOW I'm not kidding.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a rip-off of already crappy hollywood movies like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer. The story is classic, some high-school students tries a prank on the class' asthmatic misfit but something goes wrong. Terribly wrong. When you watch the movie you know what'll happen before it happens all the time, not good if a movie tries to be scary. The actors are quite ok and the girls are cute (after all, they're asian) so i'll give it two out of five on the mojave'o'meter.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Korea's answer to \"I Know What You Did Last Summer\" follows a similar story route to its American counterpart: one year after a group of high school friends accidentally kill a classmate, a masked killer begins to pick them off one by one. Who could have possibly seen them that night - or was their 'victim' still alive when they dumped him into the sea?

Originality cannot be expected from the teen slasher genre anymore but an effort can still be made to ensure films of this ilke are entertaining and scary. RECORD is neither, churning out badly rehashed scenes from \"I Know...\", \"The House On Sorority Row\" and \"The Faculty\" (among many others) and failing to deliver one decent shock throughout the 95 minutes.

Acting is decent from the cast who, as seems to be the norm in Korean cinema, approach an uninspiring script with gusto and an undeserved enthusiasm. Direction is mediocre at best, however; a strange choice of camera angles and the worst killer's costume *EVER* contributing to RECORD's downfall. Most disappointing is the film's ending, where the two 'surprise twists' are that obvious you've earlier dismissed them as being too blatant!

RECORD's only saving grace is its bright start - the first act is actually excellent and shows the American counterparts how character development and setting the mood are supposed to be done - but, other than that, this is a very poor movie. Not recommended.

** \/ *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have recently found this film on one of my husband's VHS tapes (the blank variety which he uses to record stuff from the telly). The film looks as if it was last shown in the eighties and I don't remember having seen it since. It has not (to my knowledge) been released on DVD or VHS although I shall browse around for a copy.

The film tells the story of three young people: two girls, one on the edge of puberty and the other much younger, and a young boy who go to live with their mother's brother and his young, mute Irish wife. His wife also has two brothers who live with them. The children's uncle is an unpleasant control freak who forces his young wife to wear a silver collar whilst she watches a marionette show put on by him and her brothers in his toyshop.

The eldest girl and one of the Irishmen (the younger) develop a love for each other whilst they live in the same house. The girl helps her aunt out in the shop whilst her brother helps his uncle to make things in the workshop.

There are a lot of very disturbing elements to the film. There is the uncle's treatment of his wife as some kind of dumb (literally) possession (illustrated by the collar) whilst the Irish indulge dancing, drinking and somewhat forbidden love. Interestingly, though, I have seen far more explicit themes played out in other movies made in Hollywood today.

Makes you wonder whether the British film industry and the BBC have some kind of hidden agenda going on.

Still, despite it not being a children's movie, there are a lot of playful, magic moments in it and the one Irishman does some beautiful paintings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know which was worse, the viewer's made dopes of, or the stars in this movie who look like dopes. Am I to believe that this woman raised this child for seven years, and never noticed the child was a bit dark ? Am I to believe her mother, her father, and her husband never once said, hmmm this child looks a bit dark ? Am I to believe when the courts ordered the mother to view the adopted parents records, that Lisa Hartman had this wow look on her face, when she told her mother, Christopher is half black ! What ! Was that for real,gee do you think so. So not only did the grandmother, and grandfather look dopey and stupid never once mentioning this, but i guess we were supposed to look surprised and say...hmmmmm omg he is half black ! Totally stupid movie, almost an embarrassment even to watch this !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It purports to be the life of Paul the apostle. It opens with him involved in a loin-cloth wrestling match with a priest. The Pharisees were called that because they \"separated\" themselves from the Hellenism being forced upon the Jews by their Gentile rulers. The point is that Saul would never have been involved in Greco-Roman wrestling. PERIOD.

Then we have the two men (Saul and the Priest, Reuben - a totally extra-biblical fictitious character) shown being washed down in the nude in a Roman style bath house. Again, the Torah, which Saul adhered to religiously, condemned in the strongest possible terms looking upon the nakedness of another man.

Reuben is shown being the one that pushes Saul into destroying the church. Again, the text of scripture doesn't matter, for their it is PAUL that says that he laid waste of the church and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the church.

The movie shows Barnabas \"sprinkling\" Paul - not baptizing (immersing) him, when the Text of Scripture says it was Ananias that did it.

Their is no mention of Mark or his turning back so the writers of the script are forced to have Paul and Barnabas argue over Paul's desire to preach in Rome as the basis of their separation.

No Silas on Paul's Second and Third Missions; No Timothy... EVER. No Titus; No Apollos... No, NO, NOOOO!!! James is said to have \"known Jesus for a long time\" rather than it saying, as the Text of Scripture does, that he is Jesus' brother.

Why not just call the movie \"Frank, the fictitious Apostle?!?!\" At least that would be closer to the text of scripture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Love the TPB's but this was a lame episode. Didn't have the same feel that the series or the movie has. Looked like it was put together in a hurry. I didn't enjoy it at all. The so-called acting was awful. The cast appeared like they knew this was a money-grab of an episode to get to market quickly. I hope we don't have an easter special next because that will be it for me. The writing of this episode was definitely Mike Clattenburg's worst in the history of this show. The direction left a lot to be desired and I almost felt bad for the cast and crew of this weak attempt at a Christmas special. Like I said, I love the TPB's but this one goes to the trash bin.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The whole set-up of this contrived Disney family film (ad-exec gets his teenage daughter a horse because she \"wants one more than anything else in the world\") is just an excuse to film the big climactic horse-show at the end. All the other ingredients (the ad campaign for the stomach pill, Kurt Russell as a potential boyfriend for the youngster, Lloyd Bochner as a potential rival for Dean Jones over the affections of Diane Baker) are shelved near the end simply to showcase the horse. Over half the picture is padding, and worse: it is whiny and obnoxious. The kid is the ninny-sort who cries on the couch with a dog in her arms, and as usual she gets her way. * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Arnold fans will holler in joy, fans of brainless action will holler in astonishment, and Catholics will just holler.

Illogically written by Andrew W. Marlowe and ham-handedly directed by Peter Hyams, *End of Days* gets The Terminator out of his open-backed hospital gown (Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his heart operation), whilst blowing things up in Mysterious Ways and blaspheming Biblical verse to give Catholics something more to whine about.

It is 1999 and doom-sayers the world over live in trepidation of their computers going fritz and losing their downloaded porn. Even as the technological stank of Y2K muttons the New York streets, ex-cop turned alcoholic security guard, Jericho Cane (Schwarzenegger, with the perfunctory \"dead-wife-and-kid\" back-story for Loose Cannon effect), must brave theological waters to save 20-year-old virgin Christine (Robin Tunney) from being conscripted as \u0096 wait for it \u0096 The Bride of Satan. Dun dah daaaarrrh! Stupidity ensues.

For every anti-hero, there is his anti-Christ. Gabriel Byrne is the devil here \u0096 and he's out to party like it's 1999, on a mission to impregnate Christine with the Anti-Christ between 11 pm and 12 midnight, December 31, 1999 \u0096 ironically, in the hour that all porn will be lost \u0096 thereby bringing about the End of Days. Being able to read minds, conjure hallucinations and employ limitless magic, it doesn't occur to Satan to expedite the impregnation process by appearing months in advance and courting Christine as a teen model and then closing the panty raid easily at the appointed time; instead, he appears on December 28th like a Keyser Soze Terminator and wonders why she doesn't welcome him with open thighs\u0085 (See above comment re: stupidity.) Here is a movie where nothing makes sense the moment it is uttered, let alone after contemplating its veracity or mythology. A priest (Rod Steiger) tells Jericho that '666' is really '999' upside down with a '1' in front of it. So wait - *Prince* is the Anti-Christ?

Satan Soze pursues Jericho and Christine (J and C \u0096 get it?) around town, at no point doing anything which would actually precipitate their capture. In one scene, Satan recreates Jericho's wife and child to tempt him into revealing where he hid Christine. But if he can see so deeply into Jericho's mind in recreating his family with enough nuance to inspire nostalgia, why can't he see where Jericho hid Christine not ten minutes ago?

Satan can make an assassin talk without a tongue, yet he can't make that assassin unjam a semi-automatic weapon. And when Jericho shoots Satan at point blank range, Satan is courteous enough to open his shirt to reveal the wounds closing, so Jericho won't worry unduly about Satan's health - not sanitary to go about with open bullet wounds\u0085 Matter of fact, instead of simply possessing Jericho himself to get close to Christine and rape her, Satan expends so much unnecessary energy on side-projects (crucifying the tongue-less guy, blowing up Jericho's partner (Kevin Pollak) and then saving him, and then blowing him up again, ridiculously battling Jericho when he could snuff him out with the effort of thought) that we wonder whether a more efficient assassin\/lover shouldn't be put on the case \u0096 say, Antonio Banderas.

What I find most precious about *End of Days* is Arnold's valiant attempts at The Method: \"sad\" means scrunching up his eyes and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent; \"depressed\" means raising a bottle to his lips and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent; \"deathly scared\" means widening his eyes and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent. There's definitely a pattern here, if we could only decipher it.

In the end, the devil is dispatched not by the holy men whom Catholics pray to for deliverance from apocalypses such as these, but from the atheist Jericho. While the timid men of an impotent god exhort \"faith\" and quiver in their cells doing nothing about Satan actually walking amongst them, the Prince of Darkness is thwarted by a nullifidian with a big gun and a foreign accent. Which clearly says something that Catholics blindly refuse to hear: that even if the Devil were to exist, those who have been indoctrinated to unconditionally and irrationally fear him would be unable to conjure a belief in his downfall, let alone act towards it. Further, they might not truly WANT him defeated, for only through his contrary polarity does their god's existence become tenable.

For it is written in the Book of Revelations: \"And the Prince of Darkness shall descendeth upon the Earth without any solid game plan, and impregnate a virgin on a date which won't have any significance until the Gregorian Calendar of the 1500s adopts the day numbering which will put it in sync with the equinoxes and the Anno Domine syntax which will annoy sensible people for millennia, by which time, Christians will have forgotten Christ's actual birth date and appropriated the pagan Saturnalia festival in its stead. And the Prince shall effect a Revolution through tight purple pants and ambiguously-lesbian band members\u0085\" I can believe the people being drained of blood and crucified, and the alcoholic built like a Mr. Universe; I can believe that a giant, supernatural monster can't kill a guy armed only with a foreign accent; I can even believe that the devil needs to perform some hokey thirteenth century Celtic Druid ritual as foreplay - but what I cannot believe is the 20-year-old virgin in New York City in 1999.

Especially around Prince...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's summarize how dumb this movie is with two details : Arnold to Antichrist : \"Let's see who is meanest\" said with a straight face. And you can tell they were not trying to be funny.

How do you think Arnold will battle the evil of all evils?

Blessed Water, A crucifix, a priest..nooo! with a bazooka, yes not even Satan expected it they're so clever.

After an engaging beginning (which reminds you of Devil's Advocate) it goes nowhere. Somebody get me those two hours of my life back. Don't ever watch it, rent it, lest buy it.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"End of Days is one of the worst big-budget action movies I've ever seen. Muddling direction, meandering script loaded with lame dialogues and gaping plot holes, rapid-fire MTV-style editing and poor acting all the way.

That's not to say End of Days isn't watchable. The movie kept me interested because I found Ah-nuld's latest action flick laughably stupid for being so inept and silly when it comes to logic. Without the sense of logic the movie dies quicker, which is why End of Days deserved a huge drop of box office reception in its second week after the opening in the U.S.

I won't go into the details explaining why End of Days violates the law of movie logic, but here are several problems with this movie:

(SPOILER)

After the Devil walks out, the restaurant explodes without any trace as to how he did it. No snapping finger, no tampered energy gas to ignite the fire, nothing. How could this happen?

Arnold and his annoying sidekick Kevin Pollack somehow magically comes up with the name \"Christine York\" after examining the phrase \"Christ in New York\" carved on a victim's body, runs the database on the computer and, viola, Christine York, the only person with the exact name in all of New York City! Beyond my suspension of disbelief.

How did the characters who have come in contact with Arnold's character turn against him later in the movie? I laughed out loud when I recognized the good-stepmother-turned-evil-stepmother is the same actress who played a nanny in William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. Her ironic transition from that film to this was absolutely hilarious if you can imagine.

All the mindlessly huge explosions and gunfires. What did you expect in the Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle?

The Devil took a man's body comprising of flesh and blood, yet he's invisible to bullets and explosions by healing through that body. Logically, this is impossible.

As the Devil demostrates the illusion in the apartment, Arnold's character runs into the solid Christmas tree that supposedly is an illusion and *falls on it* physically.

The Devil is capable of punching the person's brains out and twisting a victim's head 180 degree, yet he could not kill Arnold's character as he always intends to.

How the Devil's object of desire's parents died and why evil New Yorkers run after Arnold and the object of desire were never explained at all.

In the sequence that's a rip-off of Speed, Arnold and the Devil's object of desire manage to escape the subway train wreck by the short distance inside unscathed. This is beyond my comprehension, since the force would be enough to throw Arnold and the object of desire around violently and die from fatal wounds seconds after impact.

Arnold suffers the brutal beating from the mob sanctioned by the Devil and put him on the cross to hang against the wall, yet the Devil forgot to take the time and opportunity to kill him for convenience's sake.

At the beginning of the movie, after the Devil took over a man's body, all of a sudden Arnold is his bodyguard??? Is this a coincidence or just an example of bad editing?

Arnold's recital of cringe-inducing dialogues in the particularly laughable scenes like \"YOU ARE A CHOIRBOY COMPARED TO ME!\" are the perfect fodder for MST3K, just as Eraser did with the classic line \"You're the luggage!\".

The whole theory about 666\/1999 is downright ludicrous. So are the pseudo-religious babble about the Christian theology involving the end of the world at precisely midnight and the fanatic killers who know the location of the Devil's object of desire.

(END SPOILERS)

It is highly ironic that End of Days uses the scattered profanities abusing the deity while rambling about Christian theories. The level of violence in the film is excessive and gruesome, and is therefore unnecessary to serve the plot. The director's indulgence of excess is a factor here. He surely doesn't know how to make a coherent action movie from the screenwriter of Air Force One who was only obliged to write the script just for a big sum of money.

Hence, End of Days is a worthless film with no redeeming value except for campiness -- Arnold's worst since Hercules in New York.









","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Throughout watching \"End of Days\", I got the sense that the film makers were perhaps trying to make this unique to the average Hollywood action film. They failed, of course, but you have to give them credit for trying. Peter Hyams actually tried directing this time, instead of just churning out another flat action film. He attempted to inject atmosphere into the movie by darkening the lights and adding tons of blood. This method can work if used correctly (see \"Se7en\") but here it just feels like a cheap trick to try and scare us. Hyams is a decent action director, and offers nothing more here than basic shoot outs and fight scenes, except for the lackluster, sub par f\/x end \"battle\". As a photographer, Hyams demonstrates actual ability, displaying some good frame work and movement, but it is nothing above solid work.

Screenwriter Andrew Marlowe is the film's greatest enemy. At parts, the script actually shows the makings of good religious thriller, and at times it even shows some quasi-intellectual thought (the Temptation scene between Arnold and Gabriel Byrne), but these small pluses are choked out by a river of negatives. Generic dialogue\/characters, gapping plot holes, and convenient plot points that just happen to point all the characters in the right direction are just a few of the standard Hollywood black holes Marlowe's screenplay falls into. The shadow of the good movie it could have been faded very quickly.

The film surprisingly has a good cast. Arnold, still possessing that larger than life attitude, tries to play a depressed, on the edge cop with no more than average results. Stick to be the invincible hero Arnie, it's what your good at. Gabriel Byrne is the strong point of the ensemble, bringing a nice air of cynicism to the role of Satan. In a villainous role ripe for overacting, Byrne restrains himself and it adds a bit more menace to the character. Kevin Pollak, as normal, is able to bring at least a few chuckles to the movie, but he's done better. Also look for a stellar small role from Rod Steiger.

Hyams looked like he was trying to separate this from the faceless mass of Hollywood action films. He was heading in the right direction, but had neither the script or originality to take it there.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"End of Days, starts off pretty well, Arnie plays a down and out cop (a very similar character to Riggs in Lethal weapon) and the story looks like a kind of serial killer action thriller that will be good entertainment.

Sadly it fails to deliver, Arnie is as good as we we have come to expect, but as for Gabriel Byrne i expect him to chose his roles more carefully than this. cast as the devil; this is probably the weakest portrayal of the lord of darkness ever.

This movie gets a little too daft for me, and the end sequence, aside from being very weak, is visually one of the worst i've seen in recent years, CGI is have been better than this since the early nineties.

Quite simply not good enough. 4\/10 (Watch it if you have too, but don't expect too much, cause it won't deliver)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really don't know why I'm writting this. I think most people agree that this movie is bad. Well, let me say this:

When I first get done watching some movies, I like them. Then as time goes on, my opinion changes about the movie. this happened with End of Days. I liked it the first time I saw it. I thought it was entertaining. But, a few weeks later, my opinion has changed. So, to resolve this, I watched it again at a friends house. Well, it's bad.

I'm a logic person. If I see a logic hole in a movie, I try to ignore it. If I see two, then I start to get annoyed. More than two and I'm p***ed off. End of Days made me p***ed off after my second viewing.

First off, the movie is a bit depressing. Everything about it is sad. Everything from Arnold's acting to the movie's colors. But dark looking movies don't bother me, but some thing else did...

If Satan can regenerate his wounds, how can you possible kill him in his mortal form? If you shoot him, his skin grows back. If you cut off his head, a new one should pop back up. So question: what's the point of even trying to kill him? I'll tell you why: because this is a stupid movie that has a recycled villain. This isn't the devil my friends. This is a human being reminescent of those Bond villains who give away there entire scheme to the hero.

Like I said it's worth a look, but don't see it twice, because it's crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What does this movie have? Lots of gunfire and expensive effects. Nothing makes sense on any other level.

Watching Arnold cry is seeing acting so bad that it is laughable. The plot is ludicrous.

If you think the Devil will be impressed by a bad actor with a machine gun, well, this movie is for you!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I never thought I would absolutly hate an Arnold Schwartzeneggar film, BUT this is is dreadful from the get go. there isnt one redeemable scene in the entire 123 long minutes. an absolute waste of time

thank yu

Jay harris","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was waiting to welcome Arnold Schwarzeneger's return to action after the dismal movies he'd made after \"Eraser.\" \"End of Days,\" however, can be added to the dismal films he's had the misfortune of appearing in.

\"End of Days\" starts well with a gripping action sequence, yet quickly becomes a bore, taking the focus off action and suspense and instead concentrating on the investigation of demonic happenings and the quickly approaching millenium (read \"Doomsday\").

Performances are stale, special effects so-so, and gore plentiful. Considering myself a die-hard Schwarzenegger fan, I couldn't believe I didn't like this film, but with such an awful, lame script, what could Arnie have done, besides passed on this turkey?

3 out of 10

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like Arnold, and I love the subject matter, but this was a very disappointing movie. When I first saw the previews, they were dark and ominous, and Arnold's name wasn't even mentioned. But I recognized him, which led me to believe that he was making a movie that had more of a serious, suspenseful mood. That it wasn't just another Schwarzenegger action vehicle (though I admit, most of his are pretty good!). He had, thus far, avoided movies with any real religious theme. And I was excited. I was wrong. This is just another action, explosion, gun fire movie. And it's a pretty bad one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To sum it all up, skip End of Days and watch rent Roman Polanski's The Ninth Gate instead. This movie is the perfect stereotypical American movie vs Ninth Gate being the perfect stereotypical European movie.

Ninth Gate: Noir-ish, intelligent, nicely scored, atmospheric, excellent acting (Johnny Depp, esp), beautiful scenery, good cinematography, funny one-liners, intellectual, minimal foul language, thought-provoking. The only fault is it that a few people didn't understand the open-ended ending and said the movie was \"crappy\" because of that and there were a couple of questionable scenes.

End of Days: Overly violent, liberal use of foul language, NO musical score except for a poor attempt at a commercial soundtrack that was only heard when Gabriel Byrne stalked around NYC as Satan (but all you could pick out was Korn's Jonathan Davis unintelligible screaming), sex that had nothing to do with the plot, violence, incredibly predictable, violence, and did I mention lots more violence? I guess some of the special effects were good but that's about it.

Well, maybe I'm wrong but I thought Ninth Gate was far more interesting, quirky, original, and intelligent. But maybe Americans don't need need that. *dripping with cynicism* Even though I am an American, sometimes I wonder.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst Arnold movies I've seen. Special effects were terrible. Script was horrible. Hopefully his next movie will be much better like T2, Total Recall, True Lies and Eraser(not as good as the rest). Watch Stigmata if you want to see an apocalyptic future movie. It's much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I felt that the film was rushed, and the acting was full of holes. Arnold was good, but the main girl was stupid, and the guy who played the devil was awful. The story was confusing and idiotic. The film had no point, and was unbelievable. The movie is not the worst movie, but is not too far away from it. Overall I was awfully disappointed, it could have been alot better. My score is a 3 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot of this boils down to Ah-nuld versus Satan, and what I remember most about the movie is a lot of explosions, gunfire, blood, noise, and let's not forget that flammable satanic urine. The story is nonsensical, utterly predictable, and so full of holes I couldn't take a bit of it seriously. Stick to \"Rosemary's Baby\" or \"The Exorcist\" if you want to see a really good devil movie and....um, well, I can't think of any good \"Action\" movies at the moment (probably because they're so far-and-few-between), so you're on your own in that category. This flick does get a 3 out of 10 rating from me for its camp value, and for a pretty-good performance by Gabriel Byrne as that old debbil Satan!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this film sucks a big one. so many holes in the plot. if the devil is invincible, why does he require the protection of arnies bodyguards? I couldn't fathom why arnie didn't turn up for work for several days and then suddenly appears, takes their entire armoury and disappears again!! Nice work if you can get it. It's sad that the last 1\/2 hour has to result in the standard arnie 'uzi 9mm' finale. Arnies interpretation of a depressed cop is to bow his head and sniff. i thought he had a bad cold for most of the film. Dreadfully scripted, Arnie is called 'buddy', 'dude' etc for 95% of the film and then suddenly we hear him being called by his real name of Jericho Cane (where do they get these names from??). The ending is so twee you'd better get the barf bag ready. Shame that Gladiator pulled off the same ending with 100% more class.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All the hype! All the adds! I was bummed that I missed this on the big screen. Where this film worked was in the little details. In EVERYTHING else it failed. Arnold has done so many better performances in the past few years. I thought the days of Commando and Last Action Hero were gone from our lives. Sadly this film panders to the lowest common denominator and reduces Arnold to a bellowing, grunting, face contorting muscle that just knows how to shoot guns and blow things up. In a cliche last moment (and at one other time), that was predictable from the start, we see a glimmer of the actor that has proven he is more than what he got paid for early in his career. I was unimpressed with the film as it never broke new ground or went anywhere but where you expected it to.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The core issues at play (God & Satan \/ Good & Evil) can be & should be tremendously compelling (as demonstrated through thousands of works of art\/music\/literature\/film). End of Days, unfortunately, is nothing but a 2Dimensional Cartoon. Byrne's acting ability stands so obviously in sharp contrast to Arnold's corresponding lack of ability and is further underlined by a plot filled with nothing but stereotypes.

The single compelling scene occurs at the very beginning with the transformation of the Gabriel Byrne character and his subsequent interaction with his wife? girlfriend? It is both erotically charged & repellent -- modernizing the vampirish themes, the seductive power of evil.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Quite liked Flesh and looking forward to Heat but couldn't help but feel Morrissey grossly exploited most of the \"performers\" featured here. Stumbling around naked in a narcotic stupor seems to be all Dallesandro was capable of in this feature--a huge and heartbreaking contrast from Flesh. His semi-erection in a few scenes is the only indication that he might be acting; mostly it looks like something he did to buy drugs. Woodlawn is a revelation all right--she is the embodiment of the Lower East Side. But hers is a one woman show--she rarely engages the other performers though, it has to be said, her sex scene with a beer bottle definitely leaves Halle Berry in the shade when it comes to cinematic displays of raw passion. When she pounces on a young, would-be lover it is with the ferocity of a vampire. Two of the female performers, Andrea and Jane, have such annoying voices you'll have to mute the sound to get through their scenes. The fact that several of these performers committed suicide or were murdered a few years after only adds to the air of exploitation. But they were probably desperate to get in front of Morrissey's camera anyway. There probably isn't a worse way to spend a Saturday night but at least it brings a specific time and place vividly to life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like underground films when they have something to say, or show, for that matter. I tried hard to like \"Trash\". I tried to see some artistic achievement, or some interesting representation of New York City life in the early 70's. Or at least being entertained by it? But the movie stinks and can't be called either art or entertainment.

\"Trash\" is basically an excuse to expose Joe Dallesandro's nude body for 2 hours, while he meets other uninteresting, annoying figures (I agree, that's a gorgeous body, but no excuse for a whole movie about it, right?). Holly Woodlawn, as Joe's girlfriend, provides a few good laughs by the end, but then it's too late to save those wasted couple of hours. Lou Reed's classic song \"Walk on the Wild Side\" is a better portrayal of those people and that time, even if it's more fascinating than they actually were. 1.5\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is absolute drivel, designed to shock and titillate the 60's mindset. The acting is completely wooden, consisting mainly of ad-libbing, which results in the sub standard actors dribbling the first thing they can think of, repetitively.

The end result is of a badly written play being read by people who have no idea and couldn't care. The one exception to this is the lead character \"Joe\" (played by Joe Dallesandro) who spends a lot of the film in a naked stupor (either stoned, or the only one in the piece who can act!) Please don't think I don't \"get\" Warhol - this is plainly and simply a Stinker that should never have made it out of a film class.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, it's pure trash. It might be interesting for every guy who likes experimental cinema (like me) to see lowlifes babbling and doing nothing for almost two hours, but it gets very painful when you realize you have actually paid for this. Probably, this is one of those films you love to watch for its complete emptiness and nihilism. I accept it though for its shock value, decades before Trainspotting and Pulp Fiction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the portrayals of Andy Warhol in the films I Shot Andy Warhol and Basquiat, this is the type of movie I would predict Andy Warhol might make--airy, illogical, snobbish, amoral. The movie's (almost non-existent) plot which is sometimes increduously unbelievable is offset by the movie's rough, real-looking cinematography. The film has a way of being unreal, yet dictating reality to the viewer. The only worthwhile part of the movie is the development of the relationship between Joe and Holly and every thing in it should be viewed as a characterization device. There are a couple of comical scenes that I do admit are funny, but Trash is really just about a character study of unengaging people that is mildly enjoyable if you do not mind watching nudity and i.v. drug use.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think Trash really sucks. I watched it a couple of weeks ago and I haven't seen that kind of c**p at the cinema since Female Trouble by John Waters and that was even worse. The dialogues, the acting; it really stank, it was so bad it made me want to leave the cinema and ask for my money back. But actually I am glad I saw it, because then I could tell my honest opinion on it. One should see this film, even though it stinks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was obviously the worst movie ever made...ketchup was the starring role in this movie and would be the only nominee for an award..cause the plot, actors, and anything related to this farce was absolutely horrible and ridiculous. I could have made a better horror flick in my backyard within two hours with a hand-held camera using grass stuffed dummies as the actors, atleast the acting would have been better! Don't waste your time or money on this one...it's extremely cheesy and horrible!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I HATE MOVIES THAT END LIKE THIS!!!!

This 16mm disaster is full of clich\u00e9s, stereotypical characters, a generic, over done \"plot\" and terrible dialog.

In this \"Movie\" we have the Aggressive Black Guy, The Black Guys Girlfriend, The Blonde Bitch, The Possible Lesbian \"hacker chick\", the Pedophilic teacher...Blah, Blah, Blah....And then the Pumpkin Man.

\"Do you think someone is taking the legend too far?\" This question is asked towards the end of the film. Taking the Tagline of Scream 2 too far.

SPOILERS*****Typically I don't go into spoilers but I have to rant....

A dream? The whole thing was a Dream!!!!! This is the most sissified way to end a movie. \"I don't know how to explain all of this, and we don't have any more money...Let's make the whole thing a dream.\" This is what the director\/producer\/actor\/FX guy must have been thinking. Yes, the director is the character of Mr. E He did almost everything on this garbage movie. This is such a cope out ending....And what of the principal, okay, so he has been doing all the kidnapping! What did that have to do with the movie? Of course the Black people are killed, the bitchy girl is killed, the teacher that has a past of sexual harassment with students gets killed ( he is main suspect)....YUCK YUCK YUCK!!! This movie gave me heart burn.

Pointless, senseless, and made with parents Visa and Mastercards (which tells me it is probably still being paid off), this movie is dumb, boring and just plain stupid....

The only thing I liked was the credits. The way they presented the names, etc, in the beginning and at the end. It had a creepy feel to it. Too bad the movie didn't!

1 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a horrific re-make of the French movie Ma Vie en Rose (http:\/\/imdb.com\/title\/tt0119590\/). The only scenario that I can imagine in which anyone (Sinise?! Bates?! Butler?! What WERE they thinking!?!) agreed to be associated with it is MacLaine seeing the original, being rightly impressed, and enlisting a friend (with no writing credits -- or talent! -- to his name) to translate the themes for American audiences -- whom they both agreed are stupid, stupid, stupid. Then she enlisted other friends to sign up, and they did so as friends -- certainly not on the merits of this pathetically contrived, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink script.

I'm not a knee-jerk fan of French film, but Ma Vie en Rose is a subtle, thoughtful, and thought provoking treatment of sensitive cultural issues. I would love to see it get wider exposure among English-speaking audiences -- and if that means an American re-make, so be it. But puh-leeze! a little respect for the issues AND the intelligence of the audience -- and better direction for the actors, who couldn't seem to decide if they were working for Tennessee Williams or Jerry Lewis!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Brainy, cross-dressing little boy finds success on the Spelling Bee circuit despite an unconventional and dysfunctional upbringing. Shirley MacLaine directed and stars as the child's grandmother, and it is always fascinating to see long-time actors getting their chance at directing a film, the material that they're drawn to and the actors they choose to work with. Here, the only person well-cast in \"Bruno\" is MacLaine. The child actors seem to have been picked for their twinkle and cuteness, and squishy-hearted MacLaine holds their close-ups for excruciatingly long periods; nothing about these cherubs seems natural, not the lines that fall without consciousness out of their mouths or the interaction they have with adults or even each other. As the boy's disgruntled father, poor Gary Sinise hovers around the edges, in mock shame, always with a pained look on his face. Towards the end of the film, MacLaine turns the whole thing into a passel of hugging scenes, and even concludes with the kid hugging the Pope in Rome! Another ungodly treatise from a talented actress-turned-director who, much like Sally Field and her film \"Beautiful\", cannot seem to stop winking at and nudging the audience. Shirley uses ethnicity for shtick, and childhood innocence as a punchline. The children in this cast roll their eyes, crack wise with mature comments, use big words--but when one mealy-mouthed boy calls our pint-sized hero \"gay\", MacLaine's granny instructs him to go over and punch the kid out (in front the media!). How's that for progression? * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*****Spoiler or two, not that is matters******

Two things stand out about this movie. First is it's been titled both \"Bruno\" and \"The Dress Code,\" and if you've seen this movie you'll catch the irony in that.

Second is it's addressing issues completely off the wall. The adventures of a grade school cross dresser isn't something that there was a crying need for a movie about, nor a topic that I think most people would be interested in. Shirley MacLaine manages to walk around the issues of gender by tying Bruno's desire to wear a dress to religion, which probably opens up an even thornier can of worms--what was she thinking?

Yes, there's some humor and it's not directly offensive, but the kind of unsettling feeling in the beginning just keeps on growing. It doesn't do much except repeat the liberal mantra that \"different\" people should be accepted (or maybe excepted?) no matter what.

Which is fine----but in order for people to live in a society everyone has to give a little to get along. Bruno doesn't just want to wear a dress, he wants to show up looking like a miniature Gladys Knight on awards night, and his final costume makes him resemble a Cabbage Patch Cowgirl Doll. Yet all the other kids dress and behave, well, like regular kids. So what gives? If it came down to it we all could declare ourselves special or different and behave any way we felt like, and the result would be total chaos.

This accepting of people who are \"different\" is also pretty narrowly defined, I doubt we will ever see a movie about a kid finding his true self and wanting to wear overalls, hunt geese, and go to tractor pulls, and demanding everyone else just accept him as he is. \"Bruno\" is one stupid movie, and a complete waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was terrible. The plot was terrible and unbelievable. I cannot recommend this movie. Where did this movie come from? This movie was not funny and wasted the talent of some great actors and actresses including: Gary Sinise, Kathy Bates, Joey Lauren Adams, and Jennifer Tilly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First the premise stinks...little boy likes to dress in girls clothes. It reminded me of Norman Bates in PSYCHO or Ed Wood in ED WOOD. The jokes are lame and old, You've seen 'em in a dozen 50's & 60's films. The whole cast is wasted. I bet people signed on just to be in a Shirley MacLaine vehicle. Please, Would somebody tell Shirley she did her best comedy in TWO MULES FOR SISTER SARA. See it...if there's no reruns of Andy Griffith on.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Somehow, this documentary about Miles manages to include very little music and no complete tunes. Though Miles appears in the film, 95% of the interviews are other folks, not Miles. There are huge chronological gaps, many aspects of his life (his childhood prodigy, his drug addiction) are skipped or glossed over, and you'll learn little about what made the man and his contribution to music so groundbreaking. Skip it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stunning blonde Natasha Henstridge is the young, not-so-grieving widow in the mansion on the hill, telling her story to a TV reporter in Monroeville, Virginia. And among the community's well-heeled horsey-set, she's suspected of involvement in the death of her older husband. That's James Brolin, trusting as a babe-in-arms. Flashback teledrama made in Canada, based on an article that appeared in Vanity Fair magazine. It must be true! Whatever, it's far more romance than mystery, and a very familiar tale. Leggy Species star Henstridge as a gold-digging hospice nurse? It could happen, I guess. And it's good to see Brolin in a sizeable role after his titchy turn in Antwone Fisher, even if he doesn't make it to the end of the picture. The end of the picture? He doesn't even make it to the beginning of the picture. Which is why flashbacks were invented, of course.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To start this movie was sick. Here your wife is dying and you go strutting around town with this blond chic by your side. Then your wife dies and within 2 months you are together with this chic. Hank (James Brolin) is definitely moving fast throughout this movie. I called him Fast Hank. Fast Hank marries this beautiful lady and before you know it she is having sex with his best friends. The part that gets me is when she is \"doing it\" in the barn with Kevin and gets caught by another one of Hanks friends. Kevin gets up and leaves, she drops her robe and BAM!! Right into the arms of this other guy and they start \"doing it\" right then and there. I guess he is finishing up what Kevin started. HOW GROSS!!!! I am like this is lifetime movie??? Its a typical OLD MAN YOUNG WOMAN movie that says you can have my body if I get your money...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I started off being interested somewhat in the movie. It appeared it might be serious drama, dealing with death, grief, and healing, with some realistic human conflict thrown in. Alas, it didn't hold up.

I need a movie with somewhat consistent and believable characters. Too many characters in this movie were portrayed as extremely gullible and inconsistent. Look, I know this was not supposed to be Shakespeare, but come on, I need some quality in script and characterization.

The acting was alright, the writing not so much. At one point, James Brolin's character is berated for showing up at a picnic under-dressed. He states that ordering him around will not work. His new wife says that if he goes home and changes she will rip his clothes off later. That is a howler. This movie had a few unintentionally funny lines.

It was hard to care about Jame's Brolin's character. When he so readily gave his first wife's things to his new wife, even allowing his daughter to be snubbed, I lost most of my sympathy. Who really cares what happens to him. I must confess that I did not finish the movie. If it did a 180 in quality in the last 45 minutes, let me know. It was just unpleasant to watch and so predictable I felt there was no need to finish it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alas, it seems that the golden times of stylish Italian cinema have sunk into oblivion. And the recent brainchild of celebrated filmmaker Lamberto Bava is yet another obvious proof to that assumption.

I felt lucky to watch many films from this prolific director (like Body Puzzle, Delerium, Macabre and both Demons). Albeit not entirely satisfying they have never been that dull.

A suspicion that this new entry to my DVD collection was money thrown to the winds arose shortly in the aftermath of the car crash scene exhibiting an awkward and unlikely position of the body under the flip-over car.

And the sense of shallowness grew up in the course of the ponderously narrated chain of events that followed.

Dumb dialogs, suspenseless script and a total waste of talents from the international cast. The only character that provided more or less passable performance was the mischievous Mark's son juicing up the entire boredom.

Unfortunately, Mario's son job on all accounts could hardly be hailed.

I look forward to seeing his Murder House hopefully expected to be an improvement.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Ghost Son\" is Lamberto Bava's best film and, at the same time, also his worst. I suppose that statement requires some slight clarification. It's his best because it's well directed, ambitious, accessible and very stylish, but his worst because it's a dull, unoriginal movie and undeniably a huge letdown to all the real fans of Bava's past efforts. Let's face it: many fans, myself certainly included, wouldn't have been interested in this film judging by the plot, the famous names attached to it and even the boring sounding title. The only motivation here was Lamberto Bava, who brought us large amounts of convoluted Gialli and fun splatter films in the past. \"Ghost Son\" is a bit of his comeback film, alongside \"The Torturer\", and although the latter definitely isn't a good film, it at least lives up to his fans' lines of expectations, with excessive amounts of sleaze, blood and sadism. \"Ghost Son\" is a weak and intolerably soft horror film, even talking in terms of mainstream ghost stories. The emphasis lies too much on sentimentality, and this badly affects the already limited number of horrific & creepily atmospheric moments. The basic premise might feature one or two potentially good ideas, but the film is overall dull and far too clich\u00e9d. John Hannah and Laura Harring star as a happy couple, living on a remote ranch in South Africa and breeding horses for a living. The joy and happiness couldn't possibly improve, so naturally something tragic is bound to happen, and it does. Mark dies in a car accident, but the inconsolable Stacey remains at the ranch where she's in constant contact with Mark's spirit. She even gets pregnant with his child, but shortly after baby Martin's birth mysterious events begin to occur. It seems as if Mark's restless and selfish ghost 'possessed' the baby and uses him to encourage Stacy into committing suicide. With all the focus on the couple's relationship, many of the events and sub plots are underdeveloped and\/or remains unexplained, like the whole background of the youthful maid Thandi. There's too little action and the only real fright-moments are too obviously borrowed from classic films such as \"The Exorcist\" and \"Rosemary's Baby\" (vomiting green goo, self moving furniture\u0085). Purely talking in terms of horrific entertainment \"Ghost Son\" is a painful misfire, but it has to be said, it's a beautiful and enchanting looking failure. The cinematography is extremely elegant and many camera angles are truly inventive and suggestive. The moody score sometimes even manages to create an ominous atmosphere even though there's nothing of any significance happening on screen. There are several beautiful images of the South African wildlife to admire but, if that interests you, I suppose you're better off watching National Geographic instead. Not much to recommend here. Fans of atmosphere-driven ghost stories have much better options to choose from and die-hard Bava fanatics are advised to (re-)watch \"Demons\", \"Macabre\" or \"Blade in the Dark\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, I personally adore Demons and Demons 2, I saw them although it was hard to find good horrors without good official movie distributing here in Russia when I was a kid, and that is an unchangeable part of my boyhood. Then I heard nothing about Mr Bava. Then I saw his Ghost Son. Well, it is certainly not a good coming back! Why was the leading character, whom we never really knew to at least like him, in accident in the middle of an empty road? Why do African servants say so dumb and stupid things about human soul? Why is the plot so primitive? Haven't we seen enough ghosts for 100 years of movie production? It is clear that Lamberto Bava has nothing to show us so far. It is a shame.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i just get exited when the movie start(because i saw Juliette lewis name on the screen).the script seemed very complicated first but as the movie continued, it became understandably clear.i concentrated well on it but the result was disappointing.because the object of sex used too much on the film unnecessarily and it seemed to me that the director ignore ones who has tendency upon opposite sex.in my opinion the well prepared script couldn't be embodied.as we look at the cast,the movie promises something in the beginning or i just expected too much... and finally the end...the end is so so much mediocre that i wouldn't expect.the main character Cassandra wants to give message about having baby and how a baby can change a life,in my opinion that scene is the real disaster for the film. all in all the characters are funny and acted beautifully.but only cast can't save a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In a farcical key, Gaud\u00ed Afternoons can be taken as a mediocre exercise. Marcia Gay Harden and Judy Davis pivoted a good cast (Juliette Lewis' new-age freaky character has been incredibly taken from reality, I know an American young lady who squawks like her!!) but GA does not show much beyond its overtoned plot.

Even though movie-making is all about make believe, there were certain noticeable screenplay inconsistencies. Two samples: you pay 14 euro to enter the chapel where Cassandra and Frankie met, NEVER at 7 am, and you cannot leave a terrace without paying the bill (they'll charge you on the spot if they don't know you) or get off a taxi THAT quickly (you Americans always tip cabbies even though they don't expect to, but the sequences portrayed in the movie were ridiculous). Don't believe me, reader: come over and see for yourself.

If you've never been here before you might not care about all this, but good movies should be believable disregarding of your origin. Nobody knows about GA here, and I will make sure that does not change in the future.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was hoping to like this movie, to settle in for an evening of goofy fun. I like Judy Davis and Juliette Lewis, and the premise seemed off the wall enough to be entertaining.

Unfortunately, I found myself dozing over and over again. Judy Davis gave a fine performance, but had very little to work with. Juliette Lewis was fabulous as expected, but had very little to do. The plot was full of \"twists\" that were just plain silly, and as so often happens in movies of this type, nobody acted the way a real human being would act. And, personally, I thought Marcia Gay Harden was totally miscast.

The movie also seemed to shift about midway from a black comedy with touches of farce to a total farce with touches of black comedy. One reviewer here notes that other reviews seem to want this movie to be something different, and therefore decried it. All I can say is that I would have settled for the movie being *something* and sticking with it. This one feels like the director had some grandiose ideas but wasn't able to pull them all off. I give it a 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Comparing this movie to anything by Almodovar is an insult to Almodovar. The best thing I can say about it is it tries desperately to be like an Almodovar movie and fails miserably. The script is dreadful, the characters are one-dimensional, and the performances are the quality of high-school drama (except Marcia Gay Harden's, which is pretty good, given the material she has to work with). Furthermore, the cinematography does absolutely nothing to convey the whimsical beauty of Gaudi's architecture or the infectious charm of Barcelona. If you enjoy the grit, pathos and dark, quirky comedy of Almodovar's movies, you'll find none of them here. Spend your money on something other than this waste of celluloid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"some funny lines are all what makes this movie bearable. the camera tv-movie-like, the acting poor (julie davis is more than disapointing) and the directing amateurish and \/ or loveless. but i can understand that no one had fun to realise the overconstructed and trivial script.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whatever Committee of PC Enforcers is responsible for this movie has achieved something that I never thought possible: to take some truly gifted actors (Davis, Hardin and Taylor) and make you want to insure you never encounter them in an enclosed space, ever. The sentiments that underlie the screenplay are so jejeune and idiotic that it is impossible to understand or imagine what audience would find this picture appealing, much less funny. Architecture students perhaps?

Only one scene is visually clever: Marcia Gay Hardin sashaying, all wriggles and rhythm, into a bar manages to exude more style and energy in ten seconds than the whole of the rest of the film added up and multiplied to the tenth power. As for the other members of the cast, they probably won't want to put this one on their resumes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I gave it a rating of 3 out of 10.

And what's sad is, I made a point of looking up the movie schedule for that channel so I wouldn't miss seeing it. I wanted to watch this film because it is based on a book by one of my favorite authors, Barbara Wilson. As a lesbian, I expected to love this film.

I don't know how Ms. Wilson felt about the film, but I found it a major disappointment.

It should have been intriguing - it was a mystery - set in Spain, and the main character, Cassandra, is a language translator who gets contacted by a mysterious, beautiful woman who offers Cassandra a great deal of money to locate her ex-husband, Ben.

There are secrets galore revealed, but for some reason it just didn't matter. It was like, oh, so what. I could not get involved with these characters or come to care about them, or feel for them. I couldn't even identify with these characters.

I think a large part of the film's failure was the actress playing the main character. She looked old, tired, worn out, and as dull as dishwater. Her hair was a perpetual mess, her baggy clothes were boring, and she just was not appealing or interesting.

The best part of the film was getting to hear a Dean Martin recording, but even that was ruined by the weird make-up worn by the man who was dancing and lip-synching to the song. Believe me - it was nothing like getting to see the suavely handsome Mr. Martin performing it.

The ending is so syrupy you'll wish you had some pancakes to go with the syrup.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was not all that bad as the story went but the camera work is what makes it difficult to watch. I just don't like that so-called \"realistic\" camera work that is being done nowadays; you know the type- jumping off center, panning around, etc. What got me particularly irritated about this film though was the new thing that they threw into the mix by shooting a few frames in black and white in each scene. I believe that the film would have been much better if the camera work was shot in the much more conventional way because as it was I couldn't concentrate on it and found myself analyzing the camera work instead. Maybe if more people express dissatisfaction with camera work like this the filmmakers will finally get the hint.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While not as bad as some movies (like the horrible \"Atomic Twister\"), \"Meltdown\" still relies upon common misconceptions and inaccuracies about the nuclear power industry to advance its plot. I am currently studying Nuclear Engineering in the pursuit of a Masters Degree, and it was easy to point out flaws that would be obvious to anyone involved with the industry.

Riding the false fear that a Chernobyl style meltdown could happen in an American plant, the movie states that any meltdown (even partial, according to one of the guest commentators in the movie) would mean disaster for the area. In fact, a partial meltdown in an American plant, while destroying the core, would not pose any risk to the surrounding area. Three Mile Island experienced a partial meltdown and no radioactive material was released into the environment at all, thanks to the natural stability of the fuel and core design used in this country paired with substantial containment.

The security steps shown in the movie were perhaps the part of the movie furthest from the truth. At any important strategic location -- be it power plant, chemical plant, military base, anything -- you will never see personnel responding to an alarm by milling around talking as if it were an unannounced drill. This is especially true at a nuclear plant, where, upon the sounding of the alarm, the reactors would be SCRAMed immediately, shutting them off. SCRAMing can be done with the push of a button in the control room (you do not need to put the core in \"shutdown mode\" like depicted in the movie), and the chemistry of nuclear fission prevents a core from being brought back up to power within about 9 hours of a SCRAM. So if this scenario played out in real life, the assailants would not be able to cause a significant meltdown. In theory, they could still cause a partial one due to residual heat if they exposed the core immediately, but that would be almost impossible given the numerous backup systems present in a plant -- there are many more than the single backup pumps they speak of in the movie.

As for the spent fuel pools, it may be possible to turn the pools into a dirty bomb by blowing them up, but this is far more difficult than simply parking a truck full of explosives near the pools. The fuel is under (approximately) 18 feet of highly purified water. The water cannot become radioactive (no radioactive steam like they speak of in the movie). Particles dissolved in water can, but the water itself cannot; thus the reason for very thorough purification. So the only way to turn a fuel pool into a dirty bomb is to get the fuel out of the water. This is no easy task as water is very heavy, and the pools are below ground with very thick concrete walls. The explosives would have to be in the pool below the fuel (which is securely fastened). And there would have to be a heck of a lot of explosives, as water is *very* hard to move through an explosion. Even if this were to occur, spent fuel is not extremely radioactive, and the explosion would not cause nearly as high a death toll as mentioned in the movie, especially given the small amount of radioactive material that would be spread.

From a basic movie standpoint, I grew somewhat tired of the style used. The constant fading in and out, use of gritty black and white, and fast tracking and panning looked amateurish. The characters were one-dimensional, especially those in the US government. I have some problems with the twist thrown in the movie, but will not discuss it as it would be a major spoiler.

Overall, 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director Jeremiah Checheck who brought us big budget debacles like \"The Avengers\" and the remake of \"Diabolique\" has directed this ripoff of the Die Hard concept, done on - what looks like - a Blair Witch budget.

A California nuclear reactor is overtaken by Arab terrorists. But - are you ready? - the terrorists aren't Arab; they're really disgruntled American soldiers masquerading as Arabs! We find out that they don't really intend to blow up the reactor just make a statement. We're not sure what the statement is but never mind. So there's really no threat. But then one of the terrorists decides to go it alone and actually blow up the plant because he's kind of crazy. So maybe there is a threat after all. But the army goes in and all the bad guys are killed. So there was no threat. Oh, and a good guy is killed too. Let that be a lesson to everybody.

If all of this sounds muddled and kinda of a waste of time then you got the idea of what watching Meltdown is all about.

The script never bothers to introduce the characters or to even give any personal details that might flesh them out or emotionally involve the audience. So we're left with one dimensional characters: the-expert-that-nobody-will-listen-to; the-trigger-happy-sergeant; the-slimy-politicians; the-dweeby-Engineers. The story skips from one clich\u00e9 incident to the next in a formula composite of practically every action movie you've ever seen. But at nearly every turn, just when we think something may be at stake the script flinches and we find out there's actually nothing to worry about.

Like Die Hard, there's an police officer who's on the inside, unbenownst to the bad guys. The big twist is that the cop here is....A WOMAN! Oh and she's injured too. But not that bad, just enough to make her wince a couple times. Oh and instead of the walkie talkie that Bruce Willis had this cop has a magic cell phone that works everywhere...even underground! When he's not yelling at everybody else Bruce Greenwood - his jaw made out of granite - tries to soothe her over the walkie talkie. He even makes a joke once but we're afraid his face might crack. After all, this is serious business.

But mostly it's scene after scene of people arguing: the Military expert is arguing to wait it out (his reasoning doesn't seem particularly sound but he's supposed to be the smart guy in this movie so okaaaay); the people at the White House argue with him; the army sergeant argues with him too; the nice Pakistani Nuclear Engineer argues with the main terrorist. The dialogue is absolutely B Movie all the way and lines like, \"stop the broadcast! STOP THE BROADCAST!!!\" may have you in rolling off your sofa as you wonder if the characters are actually referring to this silliness.

Maybe to compensate for the lack of production quality the camera-work is kept jittery in that faux documentary 21 Grams style that's supposed to lend immediacy and energy to the scenes but the way it's indiscriminately and amateurishly applied here it's downright annoying; even pretentious. Further attempts to ratchet up the tempo are made with the inclusion of nonsensical black and white footage that's randomly intercut with the main action. But this, too, is pretentious and annoying in that Blair Witch kinda way. In short, the stylistic attempts look very amateurish.

The music lives up to the visuals - it's synthy and cheap sounding. Sort of like a porn movie but with less melody and lots more heart beat sounds. The graphic treatment is howlingly bad too: cheesy graphics in huge red font scream out to us \"9:28 pm\" as though the timeclock actually makes some kind of difference.

Meltdown may work as a marketing concept but it's clear that the script was a second thought. FX - part of Fox - put this cheesy production together and dropped several million dollars on it. Now THAT'S what I call a meltdown!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you thought NBC's 10.5 was stupid, you'll be happy to hear that FX reached into the bowels of made-for-TV hell and squished it's fingers into this pseudo post-9\/11 poop. Not only was the plot stupid, it was a complete ripoff of 24 and a bad ripoff at that. The filming style was the now overused \"docu-action\" look, complete with cuts to grainy B&W \"rawcore\" footage. I'm not quite sure what that means, but it sure sounds like something the DP said to the director before filming. I don't know what they were going for here but it reminded me of the guy at the office who thinks Powerpoint presentations with \"fly-ins\" and \"animations\" are \"cool.\"

The story is that 6 \"terrorists\" take over a nuclear power plant in southern CA. That's right, nuclear power plants, where hundreds of people work, where there's security precautions up the ying-yang. For the sake of reality, they put 2 off-duty CHiPpies in the mix. Because, they'd be able to stop 6 people, right? Six. I mean, even Bruce Willis had to deal with more terrorists over at that stupid Nakatomi building.

Leslie Hope (TV's Teri Bauer) plays a CHP officer who has problems talking on the phone after she's shot in her bullet-proof vest. Her voice sounds like a Sally Struther's TV ad, whiny and monotonous. Her character is only a plot device, and after she performs her one small duty, she is promptly disposed of. Yes, Teri Bauer is died!

Bruce Greenwood stars as FBI S.A.C. Tom Shea, who continually points out how he punches foreign diplomats in the face. His boss is out, so nobody over at the Dept. of Homeland Security believes his prognosis of the situation. He's the sensible one out of a group of paranoid public officials afraid of taking blame for any type of catastrophe. He's calm, he's strong, he's BORING.

There is absolutely nothing redeeming or entertaining about Meltdown - OK, well maybe Teri Bauer getting died was pretty unnecessary and funny - other than that, nothing redeeming.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was the worst TV movie I had ever seen. The visuals were so dang choppy it made me dizzy. I hated the constant zoom in and zoom out, and the frequent Black and White to Color switch. I also thought that The story didn't make any sense what so ever, and it was another clich\u00e9d Action Movie, with a hero a bad guy, and a few hostages. I could make a better movie than that with my own camera, why? I can hold it steady, something the director couldn't do. Over all truly the worst I have ever seen, you thought Disney was bad? I didn't even bother to watch the whole thing because I'm sure I could guess the outcome, and the visual were the worst I have ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I actually liked certain things about this game. I loved the first person perspective and wish we had had that choice in the first three games. There's nothing like seeing the monsters up close, in your face. The graphics really weren't bad, but I would have liked more things to interact with even though it was just a shooter. The music was fine. The things I hated were: The movement kind of sucked and aiming was a total pain. The story was too lame for words and too much of the same old thing with no originality. The inability to save was awful!!! Some of us do have a life and would like to save to finish the game later. I thought the weapons kind of sucked, too. This game is fun for awhile, but it's nothing like the first three and only good if you just want to shoot stuff. I'd recommend it for the novelty of playing in the first person, but that's about it. Play it at your own risk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not much to say other than plenty of Wire-fu and supposed Sholin monks ego-tripping about Kung-fu and caricature Japanese plotting to take over China. All of this would not be so bad if not for the utterly fake Japanese sword fighting. If you watched a Samurai movie or two you can tell that the \"Japanese\" fighting in the movie is simply the same \"Kung-fu\" (Really circus acrobats) stunt men doing the same things except with a Japanese sword. However, there are a couple of fun moments such as when a Japanese woman Ninja tears off her clothes in mid-flight to disarm a monk and captures him with a fishing net. Storywise, there seems to be a bit of schizophrenia as far as whether the Japanese should be shown as completely despicable or if there could be exceptions. The \"Japanese\" protagonist is shown as largely honourable but not beyond unwarranted cruelty such as when he murders a sedated monk so that he may have his duel. Quite disappointing with a very silly ending. Does not for a moment evoke even the semblance of the idea of an epic battle.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so over-the-top as to be a borderline comedy. Laws of physics are broken. Things explode for no good reason. Great movie to sit down with a six-pack and enjoy. Do not - I repeat DO NOT see this movie sober. You will die horrible death!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An obvious cash-in on the *Insert Monster Here* On A Plane gimmick, Flight Of The Living Dead is about what you'd expect it to be.

The film has little or no plot, which is what you'd expect from a film of this type. Although, it is fun in parts, I must say. The Zombie-action is particularly entertaining. Once the film picks up, it never stops; the pacing is solid.

The practical special effects are pretty good, but the CGI is terrible and distracting.

The ending seems to leave the film open to a sequel. Let's hope that doesn't come to fruition.

If you're a die-hard fan of the zombie sub-genre of horror films, I'd recommend it to you; it's worth at least one watch. However, if you're just an avid fan of the genre, leave it on the shelf.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to be the worst movie i've seen this year.. and i watch a lot of cable. The plot is just ridiculous, the scenes are just thrown at you with no action, no start or ending of any scene.. it's just random idiots with make-up that scream in some plane.. The \"special effects\" ( Spielberg would laugh his ass off ) are horrible, the yellow eye contact lenses are cute though.. I have to admin that i couldn't bear to watch it to the end. The scene where the great scientist Bennett was holding for dear life by the engine body was too much for me.. I'm sorry for my bad English.. i am from Romania ( and this is my first post ). I had to sign up just to make a comment on this movie because i just can't believe that this is a movie released in 2007.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's one of the imponderables of low-budget independent film-making that so many with so little in the way of real talent fancy themselves frightmeisters. The paucity of talent evinced by these wonky wannabees is there for all the world to see. Case in point: FLIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (or, as I quickly came to know it, SHITE OF THE LIVING DEAD). There's nothing wrong with paying homage to one's heroes. I've done it many times over the years, myself, in many different ways. In fact, in the xlibris book THE NIGHT RIDERS, co-written with M. Kelley, I dedicate it, in part, to \"the six writers whose work inspires me still: Richard Matheson, Harlan Ellison, Shirley Jackson, Edgar Allen Poe, H.P. Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard.\" Had it been a motion picture, I would've dedicated it to the directors whose films have inspired me over the years. Very high up on that list would've been George Romero. It's nothing less than a crying shame that the makers of this film weren't truly as inspired by Romero as their title suggests.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't understand why some of you (or many) have given this film upward of 8 stars out of 10. Do you understand that there are lower ratings for a reason? Sure, this may be a zombie flick with some splatter, but thats it. I'm not a hater on zombie films, but this was awful. Really, actually, I should call it more like a zombie-soap, because thats how the acting is. Production is... well, okay. Barely an attempt at plot development, awful acting, silly effects, clich\u00e9s, and an abrupt ending. Go ahead and like zombie movies, but don't ever give this above a 5.0. Honestly though, the only reason you should want to watch this movie is to laugh. Seriously.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...\"Flight of the Living Dead\" sports production values that belie the substandard script from director Scott \"I'm a producer, can'tcha tell?\" Thomas and two hacks who shall remain nameless because I feel sorry for them having to attach those no-names to this turkey. Apparently actually shot on film, this direct-to-DVD release has almost nothing going for it that you haven't seen or heard a hundred times already.

Despite the presence of a number of recognizable character actors like Richard \"Three O'Clock High\" Tyson, Erick \"Stargate\" Avari, and Raymond J. \"Little Children\" Barry, and a slew of others not so recognizable, \"FoLD\" is predominantly populated with cardboard, most of which ends up soaked in unconvincing fake blood. There are a few (precious few) gags that work (the umbrella and the zombie trapped in his seat both come to mind), but most of the scripting is pedestrian and comic-book stupid, and I am here to assure you that we're talking pedestrian and stupid. You'll never for a second believe that \"FoLD\" is anything but a cheap cash-in movie with pretensions of cool. God forbid it ever spawn the sequel its idiotic ending promises.

Strictly freebie viewing, depending on how impecunious your local library is, and otherwise suitable for insomniacs and the indiscriminate only.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is really bad, trying to create scientific explanations for zombies always ends up taking away credibility from the history of the movie. There are so many things i could point about the movie that i could almost write a book on how much the movie sucks. For instance, there were like 50 people on the plane, they killed like 100 and they kept coming, apparently the \"virus\" gives hepatic complications because everybody had yellow eyes, also the virus makes people roar like lions or something, and the virus not only regenerates tissue as it also gives superhuman strength, not to mention that this virus messes up peoples hair. It's also important to notice that if you shoot someone with a pistol (probably only happens on planes) that person is kicked back in the air. Remember that if you are escorting a prisoner on a plane and you loose him, always look inside the drawers and cabinets the size of a bottle, you never know where those bastards are going to hide. And if by any chance you can land a plane full of zombies against a mountain and survive (happens all the time), after watching dozens of people being killed, just walk away from the plane, watching the sunrise and making jokes about dating the flight attendant. :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a huge fan of zombie movies and this is just a pathetic attempt at one. I find the best features of zombie flicks to be the sense of solidarity and a need to survive. This movie focused more on a \"let's just make it gory\" view.

The movie was full of bad acting and even worse special effects. When the zombies emerge from the floor and take the guy down, there is blood just spraying out of the hole. I wasn't aware that holes in airplane floors bleed so extensively. And the original zombie lady, Kelly or something, displayed the worst acting I have ever seen when she woke up and began feeling sick. I laughed quite hard when she died. Deserved it in every way.

I was a little confused as to why Dr. Kelly could talk after becoming a zombie, but then there wasn't anything uttered by another zombie because annoying screams and shrieks. And they seemed to be killing the zombies pretty efficiently by shooting them in the abdomen, yet when Dr. Bennett is expelled from the airplane and into the engine, removing most of his lower half, he is still able to live at the end.

I kinda felt that they altered things to make a \"good\" scene. When one of the bitchy girlfriends (I didn't take the time to learn their names. They played a pointless role) was in the bathroom, she was attacked by a zombie behind the mirror. Was it a two-way mirror to watch Mile-High Clubbers? I've never broken a mirror on an airplane (bad luck and all that) but I doubt there is that much room behind there, with the insanely confined space of the actually bathroom and all.

The few redeeming qualities were too little too late, sadly. One thing the movie had going for it was the smoking hot flight attendants, yet they felt the need to kill all but one off. And I will admit that I laughed pretty damn hard when the old lady chomps down on Frank's arm and he says \"She's gumming me to death\" or something to that degree.

Honestly, I'm sad I wasted my nine dollars on this movie. The fact that I bought it underage kinda redeems that but still... It failed on so many levels. Stick with Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you want to waste a small portion of your life sit in front of this predictable zombie film. It fails at the first post by not being scary OR funny. It is a dull grey movie that I guess went straight to video. Hammy and tongue in cheek acting leave a sour taste in the mouth. If you want to watch a poor but still watchable recent zombie film watch Diary of the Dead. Poor special effects, school level script. Zombie films work if they have a moral point or even a political point . This movie has nothing, there is no worthy point that zombification underscores. This is as thrilling and convincing as a Republican Convention, no sorry watching the Republican Convention would be a better example of a Zombie movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This review contains spoilers.

I was searching through horror movie DVDs on Amazon when I came across Flight Of The Living Dead. I already knew from the name that it was going to be abysmally naff and most probably a rip-off of Snakes On A Plane, but it was selling brand new for 69p so I figured I didn't really have much to lose.

The music played over the opening credits didn't fit at all, although I did like the song itself a pop-rock song isn't really suitable to appear on the soundtrack of a zombie horror movie. It started off surprisingly well, the opening scenes weren't too bad, some of the acting was a little cringe-worthy but not as bad as I initially thought it would be.

It all goes well until Laura Cayouette (Rocket from Kill Bill: Vol. 2) enters the picture. She is supposed to be playing a scientist. If she is, she's not a very bright one. Luckily she's polished off pretty quickly.

I actually physically laughed out loud when the camera panned over the passengers of the plane during some turbulence. There was a nun. Have you ever been on a plane with a nun!? I was surprised she wasn't clutching a crucifix.

Finally, after 35 minutes, we get to some zombie action, and use the word 'action' loosely. The special effects are pretty below standard, but that's to be expected from a movie with this budget. Being covered in blood and having yellow contact lenses does not make you look like a zombie though, it makes you look pretty amusing. Using slow motion doesn't work particularly well either. I think this movie is probably guilty of trying to add too much story. Trying to pass off the problem as a variant of the \"malaria virus\" wasn't an especially good move either considering malaria isn't a virus.

The rest of the movie pretty much plays out like any other zombie movie. Most of the characters are killed off and it eventually ends up with a handful of people fighting to stay alive. Possibly the worst part of Flight Of The Living Dead is the utterly inconceivable ending. I know it's a movie about people who come back to life and feast on the living, but the ending was just ridiculous. Rating: \u2605\u2605","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I never really thought about watching this film. I kept seeing it perched on the horror movie shelf in my local video rental shop and never thought much about it. Just your run of the mill, bland zombie flick with a bit of gore and a sex scene. Nothing special, might as well watch Python...oh no wait, that's a terrible film.

I only decided to watch it when some of my friends saw it on TV and said it was an awful piece of trash. So, I decided to verify these tales, and only then did I realise how terrible the film hiding behind the bland and uninteresting DVD box cover was.

Not that the idea is bad in itself. A plane is a confined area, and would be a real death trap for the people on board should zombies make their appearance...a good premise for a zombie film. But this film took a good setting and crapped all over it with poor acting, unsteady camera work, annoying characters and a terrible score.

The characters all have different levels of hatefulness. There are two young couples who are basically friends going on a vacation in France. One couple is composed of a jock and his annoying bitchy girlfriend who is having an affair with Mr Jock's best friend, who came along with his girlfriend who is a blonde psycho. There is also a policeman escorting a con-man (an effeminate and highly annoying con-man). The policeman is probably one of the least irritating characters of the lot. Then there is a bunch of air hostesses who mostly end up as zombie chow...no I didn't watch the whole film, it was just too painful an experience to carry through, almost as bad as watching Cannibal Holocaust. Oh and there's also a golfer on holiday with his wife, some strange air marshal who really does not appear to be important until he's summoned to help deal with the zombie escapees, a trio of scientists who all fall victim to the undead and a couple of pilots. The camera work is often shaky, and although many people don't seem to mind, it can really get on your nerves after a while, like having a small fly buzz constantly around your head. It's small but it's there and it's annoying.

The adulterous couple are genuinely annoying. All they do is have sex in the plane's toilets while their spouses aren't looking...in fact all the young adults in this film are insanely annoying. They whine, bitch, argue and have some of the most inane and mind-buggeringly boring dialogue in the movie...yes, it makes you glad to see them die.

The score is atrocious. It is so generic and uninspired it kills any kind of suspense a scene could have generated and replaces it with the feeling that someone is scraping a blackboard with their nails and laughing at you. In fact, it sounds like the score from...Python! That film will never stop haunting me.

There is also a character that the film makers seemed incredibly intent on having in as many shots as possible. A nun, sitting near the young adults and clutching her Bible who is included in so many shots you start to wonder if she plays any major part in the film...but no she doesn't, so why have her in so many scenes? Was it because the film's creator's original project was a nun porn flick? Nobody will ever know.

The zombies look pretty good. Their makeup is good and they are probably far better actors than the living characters, they are far more convincing and likable! The guard responsible for keeping an eye on the scientist's illegal cargo was quite funny. A large crate appears to fall on him, and the camera briefly shows the audience that his leg has been pierced with some kind of sharp object...yet he doesn't scream, wince or moan in pain. He just grunts and squirms in an attempt to get the thing out of his leg...in fact he sounds more like an overweight man trying to scratch his back than a man in pain.

Ah well, all in all I give it 1 for the interesting setting and 1 for the zombies.

Watch this movie only if you like young adults bickering and throwing things at each other, and sadly, there really isn't anything funny about the whole thing so watching for a laugh would probably fail, unless you're high on some kind of psychoactive drug.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking forward to this based on the reviews on this and the fairly good rating. This was a big disappointment. This doesn't hold a candle to contemporary zombie flicks like Shaun of the dead,day of the dead, land of the dead etc. Horror flicks sometimes take a while to get going, you have to build up the characters so when they snuff it,you feel some empathy etc but even so, there's a full 45 minutes to sit through here even before you sniff a corpse, up to that point,its like watching a bad soap opera, nothing of any interest or relevance happens and if you are going to watch this for the first time,you can honestly start watching after 45 minutes, you won't miss anything plot- wise. When things do get going, its all very sub-par stuff. Some of the kills and make up are done well, others are done very poorly, consistency is lacking here and there are some really shocking continuity errors and some of the most wooden acting i've ever seen.

This could all be passable if you really believed this was all taking place on a plane but with guns being fired, firebombs being let off,no pilots in the cockpit in a violent storm yet the plane stays in the air, c'mon, we're not all simpletons.

Oh, and does it really take a whole minute for a fighter jet's missile to hit a plane that is a few hundred yards away. I know its a zombie film and you have to stretch things but this film along with the other main defects listed above had zero credibility. One to miss.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Marar\u00eda\" really disappointed me. I can't consider it as a bad movie, but the development just seemed too rushed and non-believable for it to evoke any emotions. Dr. Ferm\u00edn displays some unprecedented bizarre behaviour out of a passion that one can't really understand where it was born from. I mean, how many times does he ever have a conversation with Marar\u00eda?? Maybe once? Also, Marar\u00eda never appeared to be a real character, instead more like a film stereotype that just needed to be in the movie (...or else another title was needed?). Some of the best acting came from a role that wasn't really important to the story, that of Marcial, the sub-intelligent yet humble drunkard. Of course, the scenery, the cultural tidbits of the Canary Islands, and other \"wow\" moments were interesting, but the movie fell short of a documentary (in case this was its real intention), and most importantly, as a solid drama.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"You can survive anything\". Anything except a dumb horror flick. The director couldn't even decide whether he wanted a demon or just a plain ol' backwoods serial killer. You can't have both. It's like Michael Moore trying to have his cake and eat it too (or in his case 1500 cakes) by making his particular charlatan brand of \"docu-comedies\": they're supposed to be oh-so hilarious and zany, and yet you're also meant to treat them as truth-based, earth-shattering, hard-hitting documentaries. Some genres cannot be mixed.

\"Anything can happen to anyone, any time, any place.\" (Translation: this is the horror genre, so we can do any kind of nonsense we want.) This sounds not so much like something \"wise\" found on a paper of a Chinese fortune cookie, but more like the credo of every bad horror film director. We get this baloney of a statement served to us early on, sort of as a preparation\/justification of the absurd buffoonery to come.

\"My phone isn't working!\" Well, of course it isn't. There is a far greater chance that Sean Penn's brain starts working (after decades of catatonic apathy) than that a horror-film cell-phone does. The single most dreary and predictable horror clich\u00e9 of the past decade. Why even say it? We KNOW help will never come via a phone-call, so ye horror-making dimwits might as well just not even mention it. The last 50 horror films I saw use this plot device. It's becoming embarrassing.

\"You always have to expect the unexpected.\" The final twist was rather surprising, I'll give them that much... However, plenty of nonsense on the way there.

Check out the elaborate traps the heroine sets up with the speed of a drugged-up lab rat - in the cold, wet, and almost totally dark conditions. I just love horror-film realism...

When a blood-thirsty demon starts trying to be funny (by \"shshshing\" his victims) then you know your horror-viewing pleasure is in doubt. The less said about the old geezer \"cracking wise\", the better... Another stupid clich\u00e9 served by a tired, lazy, uninspired director.

What are the odds of being attacked by your husband and then by an eye-hating demon - on the same day? \"Expect the unexpected\". They might as well have squeezed in an event in which she survives a plane crash, and then another in which she encounters aliens who tried to anal-probe her...

The fast-forward button needs a temple or a shrine built in its image.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Incident on and off a Mountain Road is Don Coscarelli's entry in Mick Garris' Masters of Horror series. Coscarelli is famous for being the man behind such cult gems as the Phantasm series and the irresistibly weird Bubba Ho-Tep; but he brings none of the qualities that made those films great to this TV episode. The plot is a run of the mill one that follows the routine idea of an innocent being chased by a madman. This time, it's a young woman driving down a mountain road. After a head on crash, she finds herself being stalked by a white faced maniac. The whole chase sequence is really ridiculous, with the young lady stopping every so often to set traps; only for the maniac to show up seconds later, and this is cut with scenes showing her with her husband - who just happens to have a wealth of information on how escape insane killers; with lines such as \"expect the unexpected\". The only real highlight for me was the presence of Phantasm's Tall Man, Angus Scrimm. Coscarelli tries his best to implement as much horror imagery as possible; with things such as a rotted corpse of a dead baby - but because it's all so silly on the whole, it's difficult to take this piece seriously. This is the first episode in the series, and the first that I've seen; I really hope they get better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One Chinese gang attacks and wipes out another gang in the beginning of the film. Unfortunately, the patriarch of the winning family is killed in the process. Oddly, and without any discernible reason, the gang solicits a volunteer to blame the massacre on and he leaves until the police decide to stop investigating. Now how ONE MAN ALONE is the one responsible for about 50 deaths is beyond me, so sending this one guy away just seemed silly, but that's the plot. Later, when this man comes home, betrayals and scheming have occurred--leading to almost one hour and fifteen minutes of non-stop killing.

If you are looking for a Chinese martial arts film with much of a plot, then you should probably skip this movie, as its practically non-stop action and practically no plot or character development--even when compared to other martial arts films. I would estimate that 80-90% of the film are fight scenes--endless and reasonably well made fight scenes using knives. Again and again and again, fight scenes! If you want a film with a body count perhaps running into the hundreds as people are slashed, kicked, and slashed, then this is the film for you. The problem was by the end of the film there are literally no people left to kill and the film really lost my interest!! Deep it ain't, but if you want to see excitement and action ONLY, then this film is for you!

By the way, this movie is set in contemporary times and no one thinks of shooting the hero until just near the end. And, when they FINALLY do the logical thing, it's too late and the effort is really, really lame! Logical errors like this and the lady's suicide (why???) make this a \"turn off your brain\" type of film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Any of Law & Order's, CSI (take your choice of city), and Homicide: Life on the Street's weakest episodes is superior to the strongest episode of Bones.

David Boreanaz is stuck in crappy Angel mode, and Emily Deschanel portrays \"Bones\" too... unrealistically. The actors as a whole have terrible scenes together, be it with forced acting, or just awful lines.

The murders become predictable after a while, as the foreshadowing and clues are just too obvious.

Music is okay, though really unnecessary at times.

All in all, Bones is hardly the show I'd recommend watching during the weekdays as it is a carbon-copy of better shows with unreal characters and ever-dulling stories.

Skip this if you can.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just finished watching one episode(S1-#5 A boy in a bush), so maybe my review is not very fair.

But based on that episode, this is a very poor version of CSI, the acting is crap. The main character, Dr whatever her name is, is so fake it actually hurts. I wouldn't cast her to do an add for dog food!

The other hurtful thing is David Boreanaz of the \"Angel\" fame, a good actor, does a great job, but wasted coz of the idiotic acting of that woman.

Supporting cast is OK, but all is ruined due to this stupid acting of Emily Deschanel .

Very disappointing version of CSI, very sorry to see it appear on the filmography of some of the potential talents involved in it.

That woman is really sh#t, at least in that episode. But based on this one view, I will not even invest watching it even if it was shown on an elevator screen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first season of Bones is playing in Finland and I can't believe the amount of bullshit that this show puts on - the characters are shallow, poorly directed and clumsy.

It's a poor mans' CSI. Or actually, CSI without coherent plot. Although Bones has potential, it fails due to the lacking of the director who hasn't been able to extract the essence of the show from the actors. It's actually sad to see a show throw it all away when it could had been a descent show with just a pinch more thought. From the start you get the feeling how awkward the acting is.

Long story short - don't waste your time on Bones.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is so bad I don't know where to begin.

The lead role is a good starting point. It is a supreme Mary Sue character that has few things in common with the original one from the book, who was (a bit) more credible. No, this one is invincible, infallible, indomitable, and insipid even beyond the overinflated standards that this \"chicks with swords\" era that our medias are spinning out of late. She is a twenty-something top-model, thin as a match yet rich, already a leader in her academic field, a kung-fu master, a natural sniper and seems to have enough authority to naturally trump anyone official like puny FBI agents. She is God.

To balance it out, she is supposed to be socially awkward (due to her typically harsh upbringing that transformed her into a \"Spock\") which gives us some delighted moments where she wonders what is \"Star Wars\", or \"American Idol\", but yet when it's really important she can conveniently reveal herself as a top negotiator and diplomat, because she is so superior, ya know. To top it out, she is played by a wooden actress.

The more talented Boreanaz serves as a faire-valoir token for this construct, acting as a bumbling comic-relief and house \"Watson\". In fact, everything in there is a pop-parody of better works like Sherlock Holmes, CSI and X-Files, from which it tries to emulate the sexual tension between main protagonists. It is however cheaper, as this is delivered with all the subtlety of an elbow poke in the ribs, but a million million poor factory girls will doubtlessly buy into it, hence the crazy rating this turkey gets.

In fact, the lowest common denominator goes a long way in this sad puppy, resulting in titillating sex details from the legion of sidekicks that aim to pass it out as daring and trendy, while the overall tone of the show carries an obvious neo-conservative view on things.

Story-wise, there's not much here to feast upon, as crimes (that always start out with some gruesome remains) are resolved using non-existent technology while the \"squints\", lovable but so wrong (the women less than the guys) goes on varied theories, all of them futile as the main character has it all from the start, and once it is established she goes out and then punch the guy, typically a real tough hombre, with a spin kick here and a slapper there. The end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dude...I liked Buffy and Angel as much as the next sci-fi freak...but this is too much. The worst lead actress EVER!! Not even David \"Hot Pants\" Boreanaz is able to save this crap. No wonder I NEVER watch Fox \u0097 it blows!! We totally gave it a chance, and it continued to suck. We watched four or five painful, agonizing episodes. I want to kill the execs at the network SO BAD! Why is money being spent on this drivel?!?! I don't get it and I don't support it and you should NEVER waste your time watching this show...unless you LIKE it when your EYES BLEED FROM THEIR SOCKETS!

Crap. Crap. Crap.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a regular reader of Kathy Reichs' Temperance Brennan novels. As such I am extremely surprised she even consulted on this show.

It is HORRIBLE by comparison to the books. The Temperance Brennan character is, in the books, a down to earth recovering alcoholic and divorced mom of a college aged daughter. In 'Bones', she is an arrogant (rhymes with rich), who, in typical P C fashion, is not a mother. The emphasis on her assisting staff, complete with lurid details of who has had how many sexual exploits, is totally in contrast with the books.

In total deference to the P C movement, she portrays the enemies of the U S as peace lovers (!). Some of the information isn't even correct, for example, having a character from Afghanistan as an active member of an Arab-American friendship group. Since when is an Afghan an Arab?! I'm sure if negative references were made to 'disadvantaged minorities', or women, or GLBT's, the show's producers\/writers\/directors would have to issue an apology. However, in typical far left fashion, all of the racial slurs go to the highest achieving minority group--Asians, as David Boreanaz' Agent Booth continually refers to Angela Montenegro as a 'squint'.

Forget that stuff, and forget this show. After 'The Man in the SUV' episode, I thought I'd try a second episode to see if it got any better. It only got worse! I don't even care if the teenager in question was murdered or committed suicide, and I won't be watching the show ever again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ladies and Gentlemen.. Be sad (or be glad !).. We are in the disgusting forensic T.V Series-ERA !! Now count with me and anathematize our Luck :

\"CSI: Crime Scene Investigation\", \"CSI: Miami\", \"CSI: NY\", \"NCIS\", \"Crossing Jordan\", \"Da Vinci's Inquest\", EVEN \"The Cosby Mysteries\" !..Didn't we Already Have ENOUGH ?!

From the late 1990 till the late 2000s we've got almost the same sick series about the genius criminologist with a partner (or a team) who go to solve crimes by scrutiny the autopsy ..and what a nauseating mission to do. So you will have for sure lots and lots of repellent scenes where we see clearly, accurately and awfully the most horrific shots in the history of T.V.

OH GOD.. Once we had the great days; the good cop (or detective)ERA such as Columbo, Kojak, Magnum, and Simon & Simon. Or the good old Sci-Fi ERA, like The Six Million Dollar Man, The Bionic Woman, Knight Rider. And oh boy we've got also the hot & sexy such :cover up, The Love Boat, Baywatch, even a flop as Thunder in Paradise.

All of those were unforgettable, original, had good..real good thoughts, action, women ..Till THE X FILES came.. And then it was the beginning of the misfortune or to be exact : The Catastrophe!

X Files Undoubtedly was one of the greatest, but there was a few slight disadvantages, we had have agent Dana Scully (medical doctor and FBI agent) at every episode doing an autopsy ..,and of course her lap (as the series succeed) became part of our living room, so the thirsty-for-money producers loved it with all the physical terror + the exciting hunt for the truth.. Therefore they tried to repeat it in another not too far classification : The Forensic !

But it became so ugly, full of deformation, and very cruddy just like BONES. Plus the unsexy present of Emily Deschanel, and bleeder as David Boreanaz (he was much better in angel), and all of these corpses .. To the extent that every time i've watched it I found my self screaming AAAAHHHHHH !! What a terrible gross !!..

Cancel it please.. You've canceled before real good shows such as (The Lone Gunmen) or (A Man Called Hawk). Here it's a bad one.. So please.. Little Mercy and enough with the Bones-ERA !!!.. or we'll drop dead ourselves of Nausea and Monotony !!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thunder Alley finds Fabian banned from NASCAR tracks after causing the death of another driver. Stanley Adams might want to put him on his team of racers, but the other drivers aren't for having him around.

Desperate for employment Fabian hooks up with an auto stunt show owner Jan Murray who's paying him peanuts and trying to capitalize on Fabian's bad rep. He's got to take it, but Annette Funicello who's Murray's daughter provides another reason to stick around.

The rest of the film is Fabian's struggle to get back to the NASCAR circuit while at the same time juggling both Annette and his current girl friend Diane McBain. Personally, I would have taken McBain, she has it all over Annette.

Thunder Alley is helped by location shooting at the southern NASCAR tracks and good film footage of NASCAR racing. Not helped by a rather silly story which delves into the real reason for Fabian's problems and his rather unrealistic recovery from same.

Still fans of NASCAR might go for this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Racing enthusiast Fabian (as Tommy Callahan) smokes, drinks, and suffers blackouts while juggling feelings for alluring brunette Annette Funicello (as Francie Madsen) and blonde mainstay Diane McBain (as Annie Blaine). Complicating matters are Ms. Funicello's boozy race car boyfriend Warren Berlinger (as Eddie Sands), and her father Jan Murray (as Pete Madsen), who encourages the reckless drivers. Funicello's cow-eyed performance is sometimes enjoyable; however, her drunken driving scene is unnerving. \"Thunder Alley\" provides marginally more NASCAR excitement than its predecessor, \"Fireball 500\" (1966) *; be warned, it isn't much. A wild party scene, featuring some mild strip tease, is the film's low highlight.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As much as I hated the movie that this series follows I can at least says that Zangief was amusing. The animated series is quite possibly one of the worst things ever produced. The animation is quite often inconsistent, although it does stay consistently bad. The shape of a characters face is even capable of drastically changing in the same shot. The script and voice acting also leave something to be desired since most of the cast seems about as talented as the cast of a third grade drama play. Characters like Cammy and DJ are so forced into stereotypes of their nationalities that episodes containing them are almost physically painful to watch, not that the series isn't painful on a regular basis anyway. Episode plots seem to strive to reach new levels of lame with every turn and are so full of plot holes it amazes me they had time to show commercials. Truthfully, it amazes me anyone wold pay to advertise during the show. In addition to being a bad series it is an even worse adaptation of Street Fighter. Many of the characters maintain the failed adaptations from the movie. Examples include Ken and Ryu being idiot con men (even though Ken is supposed to be rich), Blanka being Guiles friend Charlie, and Chun Li being a reporter. It takes talent to take something as bad as the movie and make it worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stumbled over this film on Amazon.com. Had never heard of its release but the three reviews gave it five stars and rave reviews so being a lover of German movies I bought a copy...

Have to say that I was not impressed. The production values are cheap, the story is derivative, the characters are less than engaging and for a comedy it is surprisingly short on laughs.

I wanted to like this but I just found it lackluster and dull. Or maybe I expected more of independent German cinema than a gay spin on The Full Monty and a cast of stereotypes.

There are bits in the film that make no sense at all, like one of the Leather Bear's trying to get Ecki in a sling --like he'd even look at him twice? Or the vengeful ex-wife turning up at the match but ending up cheering for her estranged gay husband? Bunkum is not the word! Well, at least it explains the movies UK title, I suppose...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I went to see this movie it was already a forced choice, as my original intent was sold out. what ensuited then was sheer terror, this movie is so bad i could hardly bear it. the story is not worth mention, a gay goalkeeper forms a gay soccer team to play against his old straight team who - on discovering his sexual orientation - gave him a hard time. loaded with unbearably old and overused clich\u00e9s of gays, the thin plot matches perfectly the inane dialogues... it is absolutely astonishing that actors as dietmar b\u00e4r or charly h\u00fcbner waste their talent and time on such nonsense. 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You thought after \"Traumschiff Surprise\" that German comedy can't get worse? It can. This comedy is yet another attempt at perpetuating stereotypes of gay men masked as a nice comedy. The initial concept (openly gay men in soccer sports) would have been a great opportunity to erase some stereotypes, but... The real intended message of the movie seems to be in what way gay men are oh-so-different from straight men. Absolutely silly, of course. Even gay sex is treated as being of less value than straight sex. This movie only tries to serve straight audiences wanting to laugh about stereotypical gay men. Well, don't waste your time on German comedy movies!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This series, made for Televisi\u00f3n Espa\u00f1ola (TVE) is basically a series of chapters in the life of an ordinary family in 1968, primarily as seen through the eyes of the youngest son.

Based on a background of historical events, such as the May 1968 student uprising in France, the decaying Franco regime, the war in Viet-Nam, the rise of imperialism, and others specifically related to Spanish life at that particular moment, one might regard this series as a simple compilation of characteristic foibles which make themselves so apparent in this kind of entertainment.

Generally treated in a lightweight vein though not lacking in certain moments which might be called dramatic, the series would seem to be aimed at people of around fifty who can rember those times, as, it should be stated, anyone younger either chooses to ignore such happenings or is busily occupied in other things.

The best thing that can be said of this series is Ana Duato's r\u00f4le as mother of three children: she plays the part of the total housewife of the times really well, manifesting that peculiar Spanish penchant, especially noticeable among women, of letting all her thinking and her doings be carried forward by the impetus of her heart, without any resorting to the use of the brain. As we say in Spain, common sense is one of the least common senses. Imanol Arias offers very little, apart from not being his usual stereotyped hard policeman as in other television series. Indeed, as an actor, he should not be trusted in anything which is not a TV series. His resources are too limited; however, his part as father of the working-class household is not at all bad.

Not really recommendable for other audiences, even Spanish-speakers in Latin America: the themes are all too parochially related to a specific spot in contemporary Spanish history, such that if the viewer was not living here at that time he will miss most of the references. It is even probable that certain situations which cause a few Spanish smiles would not mean anything to other viewers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has possibly, the worst title for a stooge short ever dreamed up. Somewhat fitting, given the actual fifteen minute content.

I can do without any of the \"Shemp A.D.\" stuff, but I will admit to having a few LOL moments from the two-man comedy offered by Moe and Larry in some of the new footage (and kudos to those guys for trying to give it their all, considering the position they were forced into in even making these dogs).

Another bright spot to this and the last A.D. debacle \"Commotion on the Ocean\" is the decided lack of screen time for Joe Palma and the back of his head. No attempts to have him speak or flap his arms like a chicken(see \"Hot Stuff\"), may be worth an extra rating point.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"!!! Spoiler alert!!!

The point is, though, that I didn't think this film had an ending TO spoil... I only started watching it in the middle, after Matt had gotten into Sarah's body, but then I became fascinated by the bizarreness of the plot, even for a Channel 5 movie... and couldn't possibly see how Matt wld end up happy. What about his fiancee? At one stage looked like he was gonna get with his best friend, surely icky and wrong... and then the whole 'oggi oggi oggi' thing does NOT WORK as a touching buddy-buddy catchphrase, tis just ridiculous... so was going 'surely he can't just come back to life? and yet how can he live as a woman?' and then the film just got over that by ending and not explaining anything at all!!!!! What's that about??? I was so cross, wasted a whole hour of my life for no reason at all!!! :) but was one of the funniest films I've ever seen, so, swings and roundabouts","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I fail to understand why anyone would allow a sub-par director to put drivel like this onto celluloid. This movie has already been made at least two other times that were better than this (\"Here Comes Mr. Jordan\" - 1941, and \"Heaven Can Wait\" - 1978). The only saving factor for figure skating fans might have been some nice ice skating done by a professional cast of skaters, but this just does not happen. The closest thing the audience sees to good skating is when Tara Lipinski's character takes a turn on the ice for a just a moment. Others like Nancy Kerrigan and Elvis Stojko are hidden in the background and do not do any figure skating at all. There is not much real emotion shown, and there is not really any reason to tune in to this obviously Made-For-TV Movie. My advice: rent the original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nice movie and Nicholle Tom does a fantastic job playing the \"guy in the girl's body\", she really does it well.

A sort of teen version of many other movies, but well done.

Well casted, from \"Matt\" to \"Matt2\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"it's hard to tell the actors from the non-actors. Bad American movies can be spotted by all the youngsters prefacing every single line of dialog with \"You know what?\" Bad Canadian movies can be spotted by all the youngsters ending every single line of dialog with \"Eh?\" Have we learned nothing in a century of filmmaking? Cannot the entire weight of millions of wannabes descending on Hollywood with scripts and reels in hand rescue us from these horrible TV-movies-made-to-order?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A Mexican outlaw (Tomas Milian) steals gold from a stagecoach along with some other Mexicans and Americans. The Americans double-cross the Mexicans and leave them all for dead. The one outlaw survives and looks for revenge in this film that has jack-all to do with the original Django (the distributors only named it \"Django Kill...\" to squeeze a few more bucks out of more gullible people. What we have here is a slightly below standard western that's too surreal to be that enjoyable. and as such I can't really recommend it to all but the most hardcore Spahetti Western fan.

My Grade: D+

Blue Underground DVD Extras: Part of BU's Spaghetti Western Collection. Uncut; \"Django Tell\" (20 minute documentary); Poster & Stills gallery; Talent Bios for Guilo Questi & Tomas Milian; Theatrical Trailer

3 Easter Eggs: Highlight the hidden gun on the extras page for Trailers for \"Django\", \"Run, Man, Run\", and \"A Man Called Blade\"; Highlight the hand on the main menu to get interviews on the formation of a rock group; and a hidden gun in the Language\/Subtitles menu leads to the story of how Tomas Milian almost got killed for being anti-communist","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have only seen this movie once, when I was about 14 years old, but I was thrilled that they made a movie about the 45th Division. Being from Oklahoma and especially now that both of my sons are members of the 45th, I would like to see it released on a DVD. I may sound a little bias but the 45th Division sometimes does not get the recognition it deserves today. The History channel always talks about the other infantry divisions when it talks about WW2 and Korea but you rarely hear it mention the 45th. One of the scene that really stood out for me was when the had the Indian Code Talkers at work and the puzzled look on the German soldiers faces when they could not understand this language. I am glad that all of the Native American Code Talkers are getting the recognition they deserve.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard to believe that a movie this bad could actually be released. The dialog was unnatural. Especially poor was the portrayal of the relationship between the boy and his future step-father. I guess you could say that they succeeded in producing awkward dialog, but what was said seemed false and artificial. The suspense just wasn't there. The music was about as bad as it gets. The only reason I watched this movie was because I live in the Death Valley area and was curious about what locations would show up on the screen. Fortunately the movie was on TV and so I didn't waste any money renting this sorry excuse for a film! I honestly believe that most amateurs could put together a more captivating plot than was presented here. It's too bad that the time of an entire film crew was wasted on such trash! I guess the only positive thing I can say about the movie is that some of the scenery was good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's boring.

It's slow.

Where are the nasty and brutal murders? Where is the tension that is supposed to scare us? This is like watching Sesame Street without the funny characters of Ernie and Bert or Grover.

It's really lame.

Maybe it was the writing...maybe the direction...maybe the acting, maybe the editing, maybe the cinematography, maybe the special effects, maybe the makeup.

Maybe all of the above brought this to something barely able to keep your eyes focused on.

I wanted to get scared...not bored.

This didn't scare me...it didn't even interest me...I had more fun watching the time on the microwave instead of watching this film.

Don't bother to buy it..and if you see it on television by some freak chance, there is no need to tuck the kids asleep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Years ago, I used to watch bad movies deliberately. Somehow I missed this one. No gesture rings true. No facial expression fits the scene or the action. I've never heard such inappropriate music for a film. At the final scene, I was rooting for the car to run over that ridiculous kid - one of the worst child actors ever.

Only one name in it I ever heard of - Wilford Brimley. He must've been very hungry to take this part.

DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":". . . and that is only if you like the sight of beautiful woman with nice, bouncy jugs running around the so called African jungle. So no problems there for most males out there.

I watched it as one of those bundled together package. Forget about the plot which is essentially just a flimsy storyline to get our heroine flashing her jugs on screen at every opportunity possible. Just to give you a sense, our heroine swings from vine to vine and climb on top animals at every chance possible for no good reason at all just to let you see her jugs at all angles. Again, no complaints.

The \"fight scenes\" are laughable and borderline on the pornographic. Our heroine got caught by the baddies at least five times in the movie. On occasions when she has to fight, the \"fighting\" involves rolling around in the dirt, grunting unconvincingly and basically fighting like kittens. I am surprised no hair pulling is involved. It get so bad that the chief baddie had to remind the \"combatants\" that \"I said, the one that draw first blood wins!\" in order to avoid watching anymore stupid fighting.

The witch doctor Kuku was a bloody blast. From being a big, cuddly bear in the beginning, he became manic depressive when captured and then, outright psycho. He spent the whole movie muttering lines with no irrelevance.

Beside Liana (our heroine)bouncing around topless, you also get to see plenty of other Amazonians as well as one woman who decided to jump naked into the lake to take a swim for no good reasons. Yeah, it is that kind of movie.

Watch the beautiful Liane in her bouncy glory. Despite the movie being more than 20 years old, the allure of watching blond women flashing their nice jugs on screen never gets old.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, I swear this has never happened to me before\u0085. I only watched \"Golden Temple Amazons\" yesterday and already I haven't got the slightest recollection of anything that happened in this film. That's how brilliant this movie is, I guess! By now I only remember being lured into watching it because of the incredibly attractive DVD cover art, showing a torrid drawing of a voluptuous Amazon preparing her bow to fire at an unspecified target. I often get fooled by appealing DVD covers \u0096 especially Jess Franco ones \u0096 and I still haven't learned to resist even after literally hundreds of awful experiences. Oh well\u0085 After reading the other user-comments, some parts of my memory returned although I still suspect to confuse this film with another Jess Franco masterpiece I watched the day before, namely \"Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro\" (and, yes, that one had an awesome DVD cover as well).

\"Golden Temple Amazons\" opens with a posse of hot white African Amazons \u0096 I am aware of the contradiction but don't blame me \u0096 slaughtering the parents of a fragile young girl because they were trespassing the turf with the intention of stealing the golden treasures from the temple. Several years and hormonal changes later, the girl returns to the jungle to get her revenge. She's accompanied by a bunch of sleazy adventurers who are less interested in the act of vengeance but wouldn't mind taking some gold back home. The rudimentary premise is obviously secondary to all the showcasing of ravishing female nudity and gratuitous sleaze. Anal\u00eda Ivars, Eva L\u00e9on and the other nameless Amazons are all regular Franco choices and willingly walk around with their breasts proudly exposed. You better enjoy gazing at all these perfect female curves, as the rest of \"Golden Temple Amazons\" is a boring and incompetent mess. There's hardly any violence or action and no less than half of the film is pure filler, bits and pieces of National Geographic documentaries edited into the story and that sort of stuff. The awesome DVD cover would definitely be a great addition to your collection, but opening the box is utter pointless.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Trite and tiring, the one-liners almost made me cry. My 4 year old left the room and ended up doing a puzzle. I don't know what age group this was written for, but the writer himself\/herself didn't even want credit. As for the song, it's mildly amusing. At least it was a decade ago. There are many Christmas movies to watch. Although I've seen some many more times than this, they are still enjoyable. Whenever this comes on, I try to encourage my child to watch something else. One positive note, that allowed a vote of 2 instead of 1, is that it encourages good moral values. That would have been encouraging, if anyone were watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If we really want to get serious and find Osama Bin Laden, then we should take this stinker down to Gitmo and force the detainees to watch it. They'll be singing within minutes. Of course, I'm sure that making them watch this god-awful dreck violates the Geneva Convention in several ways.

Look, my 5 year old daughter isn't allowed to watch TV at home. So take her to her grandparents or cousins and she's a little TV zombie. She got up and walked away after about ten minutes. That's how bad this is.

You know, when the person responsible for this garbage was a young writer, I bet he or she had dreams of the great American novel. Now they have to look in the mirror every morning with the realization that they wrote what is possibly the worst hour of television in the history of the medium.

And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like a good novelty song. No, I take that back. I love a good novelty song. I absolutely despise GGROBAR on the other hand, and have from the first note I ever heard. When I found out someone had made a cartoon based on it, my head almost exploded. Now that I have seen it because my kids begged me, I wish my head had exploded. It would have saved me from the excruciating misery that was this cr@pfest. First of all, making an hour long show based on a three minute novelty song is a ridiculous idea. To stretch a song like this, which had to pad like crazy just to be that long, into an entire hour, is even more ludicrous. This was poorly written, cheaply animated, poorly acted...the list goes on and on. Dear God, is this ever bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Never I have seen a movie so terrible that i've gone insane. It was a HUGE waste of time seeing this crappy film. There are a lot of things i hate about this movie: The songs is so terrible (yet a little bit catchy) i hit my head on the wall(especially from the song 'Grandpa is gonna sue the pants out of Santa' which i hit 10 Times *shrugs*), the character design, and that evil, greedy, and Bitchy cousin Mel.

I cannot stand her for one second, she has got to be one of the most bitchiest person i've seen. Even though i kinda like her southern voice.

The only bright-side is that Austin Bucks is played by the person who is the voice of Liquid Snake from Metal Gear Solid.

I would not recommended to people to watch for the holidays as it was a HUGE disgrace for x-mas.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is supposedly a story in which a GROWN MAN tells a story about his youth. Yet, you see things like personal computers, e-mails, faxes, etc, which are items used in the late 20th Century and early 21st.

So when is this guy supposed to be telling this story - in 2020. Gee, I wonder how advanced we are then. How about telling us that.

Also, there are several legal issues which also make no sense. In the courtroom scene, the story falls into the usual pratfalls of surprise evidence, which is inadmissible in any real court of law in this country. Also, Grandma would have to be missing at least seven years in most states before to be declared officially dead.

Congratulations Elmo Shropshire. You are now officially a SELLOUT.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lame, ridiculous and absurd. My 6 year old son talked us into watching this rubbish. Tripe stereotypes and themes not appropriate for children. The antithesis of the commercialism of Christmas is not socialism it's Jesus.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i saw this with my with my kids they love it but i don't she did not get run overfed by a reindeer in the song, but what the heck in this crappy movie she got hit by the sleigh, it's like what the heck why why, when my kids heard the sinked they thought it was good but we they watched this they were like this \"daddy why did Granny\" thats how my kids say grandma, any way my kids said this \"daddy why did grandma get hit by a sleigh\" i told them that the movie was crappy they agreed, it's sad why would any one name there dog \"Doofas\" that's just dumb & when every one dressed in black that looked so so i mean Daphne looked like a dang emo goth girl every one looked like Goths & in the song they found grandma on the ground i think she died in the song, but in this weird crappy movie she was gone i think they should take this show off OK every one would love this i give this a 1 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Leslie Nielsen is usually someone whose movies I really like (even critically panned flicks like \"Dracula: Dead and Loving It\" and \"Wrongfully Accused\"). So the fact that I'm slamming \"Mr. Magoo\" should show that it's a piece of junk. It casts Nielsen as the myopic title character, something gets planted on him, and he makes a mess of everything. It seems like the combo of Nielsen and director Stanley Tong (behind two of Jackie Chan's movies) would make this one hilarious movie, but it doesn't; it seems like they just have people to do anything, and there's no real humor here.

So, the original cartoon with Jim Backus providing the voice was worth seeing, so avoid this movie. Leslie Nielsen has also done much better, so there's no reason to waste your time on this. Also starring Kelly Lynch, Stephen Tobolowsky, Ernie Hudson, Malcolm McDowell and Miguel Ferrer; they probably don't wish to emphasize this hunk of junk in their careers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Give director Stanley Tong of Jackie Chan's Super Cop and Rumble in the Bronx, and what do you get? You receive a series of kung fu fights and a lack of Magoo-like madness.

The limited plot has Magoo (Leslie Nielsen) put into an international plot, where he steals a world-renowned gem. Of course he has no idea what he is doing. In fact, he has no idea that he had the gem.

Within thirty minutes you could get very bored watching this. There are some very funny moments though like when he is cooking the chicken. You will wish that you were as nearsighted as Magoo. Its a fun movie to watch but its quite a disaster! You have to love Leslie Nielson because he was made some very funny movies. This isn't his best, but he does a good job playing Magoo. I thought it was a funny film, and it should be recommended to young children because they will probably think that its very funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Leslie Nielsen hits rock bottom with this absolutely horrible comedy that is the worst mainstream film that I have ever seen. There is nothing to like about this film, as it is essentially a one-joke film, and the joke isn't all that funny. How many times are we supposed to laugh at an almost blind man making a fool out of himself? That's not funny, that's just pitiful. Nielsen seriously needs to start refusing some of these pathetic scripts, and Stanley Tong needs to stick to making Jackie Chan films, because it doesn't get much worse than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This morning, I found myself unexpectedly remembering that this movie existed. I found myself thinking, \"Oh yeah, there was a Mr. Magoo movie, wasn't there?\" This is more surprising because I remember following the controversy surrounding this movie (advocacy group for the visually impaired said that this movie was demeaning). I even went to see this movie on the day it opened, because I am a fan of both Mr. Magoo, and Mr. Nielson, and thought he would be an excellent choice to play Mr. Magoo. I even remember the opening animated credits, because I thought that they were pretty amusing.

After that, though, its all a complete blank. I think its a pretty sad statement about any movie that it is so lame, so bland, and so utterly without merit that you can't remember ANYTHING from it. I understand that Leslie Nielson isn't always known for appearing in first class comedies, but I saw him in \"Spy Hard,\" in \"Scary Movie 4,\" and \"Police Squad 3\" and none of these were great movies, but I came away at least remembering *something*. Mr. Magoo, though, is a complete blank.

I find myself wondering now if all the controversy surrounding the film wasn't actually generated by the studio that produced it, in the hopes of generating at least some small amount of interest in an otherwise totally worthless movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had terrible acting, terrible plot, and terrible choice of actors. (Leslie Nielsen...COME ON!!!) The one part I considered slightly funny was the battling FBI\/CIA agents, but because the audience was mainly kids they didn't understand that theme.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I left the theater, and I was only 10 years old. That's how bad it sucked. The plot was horrid and the acting was worse. Leslie Nielson should be ashamed of himself and so should the person who made this movie. I was only 10 years old when I went to see this catastrophe with a friend and even at that young, innocent age I did not laugh once at the movie. We (me and my friend) still laugh about how bad the movie was. We ended up going into the 'R' movie my parents were in. Bottom line -- this flick was fricking bad. Mr. Magoo -- more like Mr. Ma-who? This movie could have scarred me for life had I watched the popular cartoon on television as a child but luckily I had never seen it, so i was spared the agony but I will never get back those precious minutes of my life that I wasted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Only one word can describe MR MAGOO - slapstick. Unfortunately this isn't no AIRPLANE. Looks can decieve, and that's exactly what MR MAGOO does. Based on the old cartoon, Leslie Nielson plays Magoo, a bumbling near blind man whop stumbles upon a pair of jewel thieves. Now he must hunt them down using...blindness basically. And that's all this film plays off. The blindness of MR MAGOO. Now maybe if they had some funny jokes involving this, but pretty much it's just one of those \" droopy dumb grin on your face because you're too ashamed to admit you payed to see this\" films.

But MR MAGOO isn't as bad as it's hacked up to be. It's at least got some funny jokes, and it's good wholesome fun for the whole family (Nielson tried to make a \"NAKED GUN\" for families in MAGOO, but it's no where near as good as that). So see it once, you might hate it, you might love it, whatever. I personally didn't hate it, but I sure didn't like it, or even rate it \"okay.\" 2\/5 stars for MR MAGOO-

JOHN ULMER","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After seeing this film I felt sick to my stomach and if I had seen one more minute I would have had to rush to the bathroom and vomit til dawn. A sick film that was NOT funny and was NOT worth the money, any money at all. If anybody ever wants to see this movie don't! Your kids will never forgive you and will claim sickness for a week. So if you value your child's education and want to stimulate your child's mind please don't see this movie. I beg of you, DON'T!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has got to be the worst movie I haver ever seen Nielson in. This movie just does not have what he needs to be funny. I think the reasons that the Naked Gun and the like movies is that they did not require Nielson to be funny. He just played the roles as straight as he could while all of the comedy that went on was mostly visual. But when you put him in a movie where he has to be funny, he isn't. The movie had only one good part, and this may be considered a spoiler by some, and that the beginning credits were animated. If the whole movie had been animated, it might have been good. I had no intention of seeing this movie when I saw the ads for it, and the only reason I did see it was because the tickets were given to me by someone who won them in a radio contest. This is the first and probably only movie I have ever walked out on. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a score of -100.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Horrible Horrible movie, i still can't believe my friend talked me into seeing this! No plot, bad acting, unfunny scenes, and very very stupid dialogue. All i have to say is that this movie is the worst movie i have seen and it's worse than Halloween III which i gave 0 stars too. So i give it 0 stars and a 0 out of 10, well on here a 1, but you get the point.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I enjoyed the Mr. Magoo cartoons I saw while growing up. And I enjoy Leslie Nielson's comic skills. So, I thought, this marriage must produce a funny child.

I couldn't have been more wrong.

This movie was just awful. I don't recall a single funny moment. This is one of the two or three times (in hundreds of films over the years) I've wanted my money back. You will leave this film dejected because you won't ever have that time back to use in a better way. In a comedy, the plot must draw in the viewer and serve as a framework for gags. This plot does neither. It just kinda lies there, gasping like a beached fish.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know it's rather unfair to comment on a movie without seeing the complete piece - but I am going to anyway! I waited for a laugh, I tried to give it time. I think 20 minutes is long enough to wait in a comedy for a laugh. My laugh never came, so I gave up.

It's stupid humour, not so stupid that you have to laugh, though. It isn't anywhere near that high grade. Let me correct that, it's just *stupid* - not stupid humour. They may have intended for certain scenes to be funny, but they weren't. I suppose, if you were really bored you could somehow blend the movie with a hallucination and end up with a mildly entertaining experience.

A very pathetic effort.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do not see \"Mr. Magoo.\" It is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Leslie Nielson was not funny in it. He has not been funny since the Naked Gun movies. Well it won't take long to figure out that this is not a Naked Gun movie! The movie's plot is ridiculously foolish. Nothing in the entire movie was funny. The first few minutes of the film were animated to look like the old Magoo cartoons. I wish the movie would have stayed that way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Leslie Nielson is a very talented actor, who made a huge mistake by doing this film. It doesn't even come close to being funny. The best word to describe it is STUPID!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A typical old b&w film. The dialogues are sometimes good, but too often - especially in the second half - they get naive, sometimes awfully naive, occasionally close to the point where they are unintentionally comical. The first third, with its background information on Ladd's Gatsby shown with a series of interesting flashbacks, is the best part of the movie. But once Gatsby moves into his new villa and makes his moves on Betty Field, the film gets overly melodramatic. The ending is yet another cop-out ending; I don't know whether the novel itself contains this dumb, clich\u00e9d ending or whether the movie's producer made some changes to it, but I've always considered car-accidents to be a poor way to add drama to the conclusion of a story. I've seen this plot-device a million times (or if it's not a car, then it's a fall from a horse); the writer doesn't know how to end the story but he knows that he wants it to be dramatic, so he adds in a car-accident. Lame. And to make things worse, the accident is outrageously coincidental and preposterous, both plot-wise and time-wise; plot-wise because Field's husband's mistress (Winters) gets killed by Field, and the fact that Winters sort of rushes out from the gas-station into the street as though she'd never noticed in the years that she had lived in it that there was a dangerous road right across her house - and, of course, at the very moment that she comes out she sees Ladd's car and mistakes it for Field's husband's car and then shouts \"Over here! I'm here! Run me over and make the ending tragic that way!\"; time-wise because Ladd and Field get involved in an accident at the very day when they are preparing to tell Field's husband about their affair. Basically, there is just too much forced and artificial irony in this accident. It also doesn't exactly help this movie how Winters's husband, Da Silva, goes on a revenge mission to kill the guy who ran over his wife; he basically does this by walking around like a zombie, going from car to car looking for scratches, and acting very badly indeed. Both Da Silva's acting and his character's behaviour throughout the film are awful and confusing, respectively.

Scott Fitzgerald was upset on a couple of occasions how his novels were adapted for the screen by Hollywood's screenwriters, and - although he was dead long before this movie was done - he might have been right to complain, judging by this film's naive script. Or, maybe his novels are even sillier and more naive than this film, and were actually improved upon by the screen adaptations. Or, the films are pretty much like the novels. I could, of course, read this particular novel to find out, but I just can't be bothered. Fitzgerald's name doesn't exactly inspire me to read any of his books (and I don't mean the way his name sounds.) He was certainly no Heller, Clavell, or Twain. More like Hemingway \u0096 a lot of noise about nothing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hollywood has churned out yet another garbage that's wildly overhyped and underwhelming on a first-time viewing basis. Hannibal is bad, terrible, inept, lame, droll, idiotic, contrived, laughable and utterly atrocious (no pun intended). Minor spoilers follow...

This movie has huge logic holes - more than any Bruckheimer\/Bay movie - or for that matter - any movie that exemplify the indulgence of Hollywood exaggeration. It's a slick Hollywood production designed to cash in on Hannibal Lector mania, directed by \"so-somber-he-takes-this-way-too-seriously\" hack director Ridley Scott and produced by a hack Italian producer with an inflated ego whose credo is \"doesn't matter whether film is s**t, money is good\".

I can't get over the fact that acclaimed screenwriters David Mamet and Steven Zaillian wrote this tripe adapted from a lame and pretentious book by a good-novelist-turned-hack-author Thomas Harris. David and Steven - well-known and immensely talented screenwriters - wasted their effort on a poor screenplay in exchange for fat paychecks. Another factor in the disappointment of this film.

There are too many ludicrous scenes to list that are laughable in clunky execution and poor logic e.g. Starling\/Pazzi cell-phone in the midst of Lecter pursuit that turns up Inspector Pazzi as the victim. Not to mention laughably bad dialogues delivered by Tony Hopkins with a smirk and Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta and others who cannot act with the straight face. Hopkins gives the true meaning of \"scenery-chewing\" along with hammy acting by Gary Oldman as a deformed psychopath bent on exacting revenge against Lecter.

The gore effect is good, but only serves to repulse rather than provide suspense which is notably absent from Hannibal. The predecessor - Silence of the Lambs - is more believable with tension and suspense. Suspense is what made Silence of the Lamb work as a spectacular mix of psychological horror and thriller, not to mention superbly written and tensely directed. The \"brain dinner\" sequence is so laughably fake it borders on self-parody.

The ending is kinda blatant and idiotic - are we supposed to believe that Lecter is still a menace to society with the last shot establishing his glittering eye glaring at you? Ooh, scary...

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have witnessed some atrocities of cinema. In the past couple of years, it seems producers and directors are bent on making films that drive me closer and closer to insanity. Hannibal was not an exception. I wasn't expecting much, when I went in to see the movie. The book was ridiculous, and the saying, \"The Book is always better than the movie\" did not assure me at all that this movie would be anything but trash. But what I came to see was a movie that made all other bad movies seem better in comparison.

Usually, when I see a terrible movie, I find myself more amused than anything else. Sadly though, I could not even laugh at the sad excuse for a film that Hannibal is. The movie was filmed with promise, I guess. It had Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, and Gary Oldman. And for directing, there was Ridley Scott. There have been movies with significantly less talent that have been tremendously better. There was so much I would have cut from this film that I doubt anything would have remained. It was pathetic. The storyline was so ludicrous that it seemed like a complete idiot had written it. What's worse is that the book was even crazier, and there were some scenes that were too extreme to be included, which is sad in the case of a movie where

***SPOILER AHEAD***

Ray Liotta's brain was being cooked in pieces. That scene more than any other made me want to cry, because it tarnished its predecessor to such a monumental level. Silence of the Lambs was one of my favorite films of all time. But Hannibal was a two hour plus joke. This movie should only be watched, if people want to learn how not to write a good movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Synopsis: the sequel to the acclaimed Silence Of The Lambs, Hannibal is a big budget production that totally fails to deliver; not only is it not as clever as its predecessor, it is not even a splatter or suspense or horror movie, just a totally boring time waster. Do not be fooled by the media hype, and particularly the stories about people throwing up in cinema and being mentally scarred for the rest of their lifes because of the brain - eating scene: in the movie it just comes across as laughably bad SFX. Why so many people in this forum are claiming that H is \"not all bad\" and \"worth watching on the big screen\", etc., is beyond me; and it is not \"so bad it's good\" either, it is just plain boring. I normally respect other people's opinion, but in this case I have to say that they clearly can not tell **** from Shine - Ola. Maybe they have fallen prey to the media hype, maybe they have never seen a Ridley Scott movie before and were impressed by his excessive use of back lighting, smoke and the ubiquitous AC fans. H is totally devoid of suspense; instead we get endless scenes of Lecter swanning through an English - speaking Firenze, a totally unconvincing and uninvolving plot with more holes than a fishing net (after seeing H, I actually lay awake half of the night trying to find all the holes in the plot, and when I wrote them down I quickly filled 6 pages in small type before forcing myself to stop). Rather than wasting your time and money on seeing it on the big screen, I would advise you to wait until it comes on TV in a couple of years; and then to go to bed early.

1 \/ 10.

Below are a couple of extra bones I have to pick with Hannibal:

- H _is_ the sequel to SOTL, despite what some people in this forum are claiming. And even though SOTL was a very tough act to follow, there are sequels which _are_ en par with their predecessors (SOTL itself was the sequel to Michael Mann's \"Manhunter\", based on Thomas Harris' \"Red Dragon\", and even though the first episode was a very enjoyable film, SOTL was even better; another example would be the Alien series initiated by H's director Ridley Scott -- so much for the theory of diminishing sequels). In any case, being a sequel is no excuse for a film being utter crap.

- This movie has a renowned director, it is based on a novel by the same author as SOTL, the cast is strictly A - list, great cinematography, big budget, first - rate script writers, yadda, yadda, yadda, and the end result is simply a fart in the church. So what went wrong? I think a lot of the blame has to go to the film's producer, Dino DeLaurentiis. Here is my interpretation: DDL produced \"Manhunter\", which, despite of all its qualities, was a commercial flop. Disappointed, he gave the rights for the Hannibal Lecter character to Orion -- for free, allowing Jonathan Demme to make SOTL, and the rest is cinema history. DDL then had to wait for ten more years (he is now 81) until Thomas Harris finally came up with the sequel novel. I think at this point DDL had lost all interest in making a good movie and was desperate to finally get his slice of the the cake before he pops his cork.

- Another aspect that I find thoroughly annoying about this flick is that it is being given so much undeserved hype in the media; I mean, it is boring, yet one of the highest - grossing productions ever, so there is no need to give it free publicity. And while most reviewers harp on about how Dantesque the scenes in Firenze are and why Jodie Foster did not participate, the simple fact that this movie is an utter, utter, UTTER flop goes unmentioned. But there is more: not only is Hannibal being hyped through the roof, it is also being used as a media agenda setter for a plethora of \"documentaries\" (usually the left - overs from similar productions in the wake of SOTL) about serial killers, cannibalism and profiling. However, not only does H not even pretend to be realistic; Lecter has also ceased to be a serial killer (he now only kills out of necessity, or to help Clarice Starling), profiling is not even mentioned (because we already know HL, so there is no need to create a profile) and there is also no cannibalism: Lecter feeds the drugged - up Paul Krendler his own brain, so that makes it (erm) unaware vivo - auto - cannibalism. Try making a documentary out of that.

- Much has been said about the acting: mainly whether Julianne Moore can replace Jodie Foster, and Anthony Hopkins (who plays the lead Hannibal Lecter) is usually given a lot of praise. I think all of these discussions are moot. There are several of my favourite actors in this movie (namely Liotta, Oldman and Moore) but the script simply does not give them anything to work with. Same for Hopkins: there is no development in his character, and he is not being challenged in any way. And by the way, he plays nearly identical characters in all of his movies, only that in H he has to do the odd bit of murder and is getting paid the tidy sum of $ 11 Million to do it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hannibal must be the most God-awful movie I have seen in a long time. In fact, I want my money back. What a waste of time. No plot, minimal character development, questionable motives, poor dialogue, sub-standard acting. What else can I say? If you haven't seen it don't bother. I wouldn't even hire out the video and if you happen to come by it on TV... change the channel. The only reason anyone might have to see this movie would be to see whether the gratuitous violence lived up to all the hype (which quite frankly is why they added it). If you want to see some gug eating his own brain, then fast forward to that bit.

What was the purpose of this movie? Its like someone just asked 'I wonder what Hannibal is up to these days' and we just went along for the ride. He is free in the beginning and he's free at the end. In between is a lot of self-indulgence on the part of Anthony Hopkins and the film makers. Julianne Moore tries valiantly to inject some life into her Clarice, but they gave her a sub-standard script and as far as I'm concerned she was set up to fail.

In my opinion this is just a very very bad story in every sense of the word. The only reason it made so much money was because of the senseless violence they added, which at the end of the day leaves you more with a feeling of contempt than the horror you are supposed to feel.

I give it a big fat RASPBERRY!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*Hannibal SPOILERS* Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) is back... for a travesty of a movie! Now he's in Italy, appreciating our food (including people, such as Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini)), but comes back to the States for Clarice (Julianne Moore) and to even the score with a former victim, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman).

Let me tell you, this movie does not deserve to be spoken of along with Silence Of The Lambs and Manhunter, because it's truly, completely, absolutely, totally BAD.

I mean, the scene near the end with Ray Liotta's cranium being opened and him forced to eat part of his brain saut\u00e9ed? WTF? Then, why the HELL was everybody so annoying (including Clarice)? And why did the story keep going nowhere? I suppose that this is the 'teen' chapter of the Hannibal series; terrible, stupid, gory for gore's sake and totally embarrassing.

Don't watch it, especially if you love any other of the Hannibal movies (SOTL, Manhunter, Red Dragon, Hannibal Rising).

Hannibal: 1\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst theatrical movies of the year, if not all time. Anthony Hopkins belittles himself by even appearing in this joke. I can't believe David Mamet and Ridley Scott's name appear on this travesty. The best career move Jody Foster ever made was turning this one down. Julianne Moore was as emotionless throughout as a female Keanu Reeves. Gary Oldman was of course, his brilliant self. He is a crippled victim of Hannibal and the make-up is so good, I didn't know it was Gary until the final credits. but eaten by trained boars??? Give me a break! Rumor has it that he didn't want his name even mentioned in the credits. And frying and feeding his own brain to Ray Liotta...I was laughing at the absurdity, no make that stupidity of this flick at this point. I haven't seen so many people walk out of a movie since Who's That Girl.

Pay someone else to go for you if you must, but miss this one AT ALL COST!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a big fan of Thomas Harris,I read all his novels at least 5 times and Hannibal's the book I really love the most.Therefore the movie was my biggest disappointment and I really don't get it why some folks here give it a nine or even a ten.Either their demands are very low or they haven't read the book or both.Even if I hadn't read the book I'd still consider the movie as absolute average and I'd give it a five. The creepy,mysterious atmosphere from the novel doesn't appear one single time in the movie,when I saw it first in the cinema I even fell asleep.Why was Margot Verger, a very important character, totally omitted? Why was Barney shown as a dumb ignorant whose only ambition is to earn money? And most of all, why was the psychological process Starling went through in the end,caused by the drugs Lecter applied to her,descended? Not to speak about the fact that the ending was omitted,too,and totally changed? Well, the reasons why Jodie Foster refused to play Starling again are well known and I accepted it,although like surely many others I'm very disappointed 'cause I identified Starling with her.For stories like Red Dragon,The silence of the lambs or Hannibal that possess such psychological depth, it is very important to identify with a character when they're adapted for the screen,but as the Germans say, that's \"snow of yesterday\". Ridley Scott did some incredibly good movies but with this one he doesn't live up to his name. Jonathan Demme had exactly the right feeling for the plot, the characters and their relationships towards each other in The silence of the lambs, he should have done Hannibal,too.My only comfort is that I've seen the movie only two times,it's long ago and thank god for that reason I'm able not to see the scenes from the movie when I read the novel. I'm so sorry but I really can't recommend it to anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I completely understand WHY this movie was made. Silence of the Lambs was an incredible film - a gruesome thriller with a superb story and high jump-factor....

What I don't understand is why THIS movie was made... and why Anthony Hopkins agreed to reprise his role as Hannibal the Cannibal in this terrible and dissatisfying film.

There's no possible way to spoil the movie any further than going to see it could, but for those of you who prefer to waste your money, DON't READ ON. The film is absolutely horrible. It's so bad that the transition from Jodie Foster to Julianne Moore becomes a non-issue.

The only way to truly enjoy the film is to set your watch and leave the theatre exactly two hours into the film, because up until that point, it's quite an interesting thriller. The reparte between Moore and Hopkins is comparable to Hopkins and Foster, and the performances by the other characters are pretty good. But literally at the two hour mark, the film degrades into nothing but a cheesy D-grade horror flick...it's sick, and it's stupid and almost like the crew ran out of filming time, and threw together an ending in one day of filming.

Initial buzz over the Thomas Harris' book's unsatisfying and bizarre ending led director Ridley Scott to order a re-write... and, honestly, having seen the film AND read the book's finale, I don't know which is worse.

Please - don't waste your money OR time on this film, unless you're prepared to leave EXACTLY at the two hour point, because that's the ONLY way you'll feel satisfied about the saga of Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter... continuing the mystery that made the first film, and the wait for this one, so great.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, 1st off I haven't seen \"Silence of the Lambs\" yet.... but, I think that I would have become sick if I would have seen it before this piece. Not from the gruesome violence but, from the lack of everything else. Anthony Hopkins was very good as Hannibal and I really believed that he was as psychotic as he played himself off to be but, from the reaction of the audience around me, the film was filled with cliches from \"Silence\" which left me lost at points where others were laughing at what was on the screen.

Now, I heard that the movie would be very gruesome and if the director wanted to gross folks out... he did it... but, only in 2 sequences? I mean, if you want it to be gruesome and I mean, so gruesome that you're going to play the film off of that... you need more than 2 sequences.. I always see it as a film has to either become that cinematic jewel which will ultimatley take you to another place and time or either go over the top (which most of the time is done in bad taste). But, this film left me sitting in my chair and falling asleep at times.

Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore are the stars of the movie, right? Well, with the exception of Hopkins, I didn't feel that way.. Who cared about the stupid Italian police officer? I definatley didn't. So, really the film is left with a big hole talking about a guy who dies anyway. I mean, come on.. who cares?

In a nutshell, the movie is good if you want to see Lector and Starling once again but, if you're going for a really good thriller... you'll jump once and be grossed out maybe twice. Depends on your level.

Thinking about how much money this movie will bring in... there will probably be another \"Hannibal\" made and this movie probably won't be on video until the fall. If you must see it.. wait and save the $3.50 - $4.00 and get it on video. Don't spend the big bucks on this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason I didn't fall asleep during this movie is because the seats were not that comfortable. Hannibal is BORING>BORING> BORING and BORING!!! This film is just dreadful, not because of any violence or graphic mutilations. It's actually quite tame in that regard. The story moves at the speed of a lazy snail. I have the feeling that director Ridley Scott just phoned this one in. The actors are all fine they just needed some direction. The music score is also very annoying. It's especially noticeable since so little is going on in the film. It does look good but that's not enough reason to see it. By the way did I mention that it's BORING?

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With a little dressing up, this movie could be served for Thanksgiving dinner. Not only is is boring, implausible, historically inaccurate and poorly directed, the best actors were the bit players (mainly because they had so few lines to say). A waste of time, even for war fanatics.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to admit I was deceived by the title and the summary on the back of the box. So I popped it in the vcr and kept waiting... and waiting... and waiting for something good to happen. But of course, it never does. The makers of this film should be tied to a chair and made to watch \"Saving Private Ryan\". Maybe they would learn something.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ty Cobb is, by far, the most interesting and belligerently insane athlete to ever live. His baseball career was unparalleled in absurd statistics, brilliant strategy, and pure unadulterated violence. Every game he played in was a spectacle in human ability and cruelty. So of course, the film about him deals with none of that, instead focusing on the writing of his biography by author Al Stump. Now this isn't such a horrible idea in theory, as Cobb himself slid even further into paranoid dementia as years progressed and the stories of his crazed outbursts even as a senior are shocking even by today's desensitized standards. But instead of focusing on these events, which I guess was simply too interesting, the film is a pseudo fictionalized road film with clich\u00e9d a clich\u00e9d plot that will cause any knowledgeable Cobb fan to cry vinegar tears.

Tommy Lee Jones does quite well as a crotchety Cobb, but somehow manages to overplay his cartoon supervillainy. Most stories about Cobb are barely believable, but to make him even crazier seems both impossible and unnecessary. Robert Wuhl, portraying the writer Al Stump, is a dark vortex of nonexistent talent. He sucks the life out of every scene, trying to make this film his own Nagasaki. There is a reason we never see him as a leading man anymore (Arliss doesn't count. It's barely a show). Even the played out, inevitable \"role reversal\" of Cobb and Stump by the end is made even worse by his pure inability to utter words that don't sound like a poor book on tape narration voice.

For all the awful writing and bland film-making on display, there is one sequence which stands out as so far superior to the rest of this failure that accepting it's from the same film is near impossible. A hyper stylized flashback sequence displaying Cobb's overpowering psychology and brutal athleticism while actually playing the game of baseball is pure brilliance. The camera moves in bizarre fashion and the whole event seems like a dream due to the unique playing style of the monster Cobb. Every slide, hit, and tackle are rendered even more forceful due to enhanced sound, and Tommy Lee Jones OWNS the intensity of the master player. It makes the viewer drool over the possibilities of a true biopic of Cobb in his prime with the same actor. It's worth watching the film for this incredible few minutes alone, just to see what could have been.

I may be slightly unfair to this film due to my own knowledge of Ty Cobb and wanting it to be something it isn't, but to make such boring, neutered movie about this maniac is nonsensical. I'm glad Ron Shelton's career has slid ever since.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Over all, it was a real good movie. Though all the actors, besides Jones, sucked. By the time I was half was through it I was really getting tired of seeing 'Al'. Only change I would have made to it would to have more flash backs, possibly with the real Cobb.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know about the real Cobb but I got the distinct impression that the filmmakers' aim was to try to soften his jagged edges and reputation, not give us a true portrait of the man himself. In the movie, besides a few racist remarks, he's shown to be just another hard-nosed, cantakerous old coot (he's so full of life!) with a heart of gold(more or less). This is also the worst acting I've seen T.L.Jones do(he brings nothing new or subtle to his stereotyped character). He just doesn't flesh out Cobb in a way that pulls me into the movie. Not for one minute did I forget that it was Tommy Lee Jones on the screen pretending to be Ty Cobb. Robert Wuhl didnt impress either. The \"comedic\" elements in this movie were just distracting and didnt ring true at all. A bloody waste of time, it is","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cobb. It sucked. I learned nothing about the man I had not heard before. The performances were over the top. A scene where Cobb and Al are driving down a snowy road in search of women in Reno has to be one of the worst conceived scenes in recent memory. It's just plain STUPID and unentertaining. The flashback sequences were terrible. And they used the same sequences OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. If I saw the same shot of Cobb fighting with someone at a base one more time, I would have become physically ill. By watching this 'movie', we get to learn NOTHING of what it was like in Cobb's era. We learn nothing about his relationship with his players, nothing about his days as a manager, nothing about his relationship with his family members, other than that `they don't like him'. I thought when I sat down to view this film I would learn SOMETHING about the era of baseball in which Cobb played. Instead, all I got to see was a retread of how Cobb hated everything and everyone, and how they hated him. Boy, what a great movie (sarcasm intended). Cobb is portrayed as a constant liar in the film, so which one of his stories is supposed to be accurate? Who knows? Who cares? No one will after viewing this piece of crap. If you decide to rent this film, make sure the fast forward button on your VCR is working, as you will be tempted to use it repeatedly. Hopefully someday someone will make a GOOD film about Ty Cobb. I liked this film about as much as the people in it liked Cobb, which is to say - I HATED IT. Now I know why I found it in the RENT ONE GET ONE FREE section of the video store. I think I will ask for my fifty cents back from the video clerk, since I can't get back the time I wasted watching this trash. Oh well, what could I have possibly been thinking about a movie that would feature Robert Wuhl.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As someone who loves baseball history, especially the early 20th century in which Cobb was a main figure, along with a ton of colorful characters, I was looking forward to seeing this baseball film. Well, it wasn't a baseball film, which was disappointing. No, it was just a sportswriter's account of being with Cobb in the ballplayer's later years while the two collaborated on a book. Even at that, this could have been a more appealing movie than they made it.

Granted Cobb was anything but a nice guy, an extremely talented player but brutal in that he would do anything to beat you....and he was viscous, intimidating and had a lot of demons to fight. He was so hated his own teammates tried to hinder his chances of winning a batting title one year. Nonetheless, this an over-the-top portrayal of the man. It makes him into something almost cartoon-like.

Watching and listening to an old man rant, rave and profane for two hours is entertainment? No, it isn't. Some day, I'd love to see a real biopic of Cobb showing him in his ballplaying days and if they want to portray him as an evil guy, so be it, but the way they did it here with just a bitter, blasphemous old man making an ass of himself in front of a reporter is not fun to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to admit that in spite of all media promotion and being nominee for Oscar, my expectation from the film was not so high before watching it. And I really found what I expected; a film trying to be likable for both for conservatives and liberals in Turkey, trying being authentic for foreign spectators and enough funny for all. But it should be understood that it is not possible to be favorable for everybody, therefore film stays as average for all.

Whole movie is telling a story occurred within 24 hours. To fit the short story in a full movie length, some scenes are added without a connection with the main story. These are mostly the ice-cream selling scenes to the eccentric local people (i.e. goat herdsman, old women etc.), and each of these selling scenes are tried to be interesting to the spectators by skits with comic dialogs. The subject is mentioned as a universal problem: Struggle of a local producer-tradesman against holding companies and monopoly, but this was the interesting subject of twenty years before. Most of the readers will remember the \"Hero grocer against supermarket\" from Ferhan Sensoy in 1980's. This was the correct story at correct time. Shortly the story is not strong enough and worth to be a movie as by now.

Except some gibbers due to local accent, the performance of cast is so successful. The leading role is played by Turan Ozdemir with excessive body language but anyway he is successful too.

On the other hand against limited budget, appreciable efforts of director and players are obviously giving a good mood to the film. But this is not resulting a film well enough either to compare with Italian neo-realists or worth to be Oscar nominee.

Note: In the real life, normally the Ice-cream seller would stop his own production and be the dealer of one of the competitors of Manda brand.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although promoted as one of the most sincere Turkish films with an amateur cast, Ice-cream, I Scream is more like a caricature of sincerity.

The plot opens with the dream of Ali, a traveling ice-cream salesman in a Western Anatolia town, in which he sees himself becoming successful using the same marketing methods of big ice-cream companies. He dreams of playing in his product's TV commercial with beautiful models in bikinis, dancing around him. As his dream turns into a nightmare, he wakes up with a big erection next to his gargantuan wife, who rejects to make sex with him for 6 years with no apparent reason. Is it because he is not successful in his job? Apparently, because he says he was selling better in the old days when there was no pressure from global ice-cream companies. But this is what he says; we actually don't see him suffer that much: he still sells good, traveling the neighboring villages while his apprentice stays at the shop, selling ice-cream to the people in the town. Ali blames big companies for using sweetening and coloring agents while he is using real \"sahlep\" (powdered roots of mountain orchids). Ali buys a motorbike with a bank loan to be a traveling vendor, and gives ads to a local TV channel which prefers to broadcast even the news bulletin in local dialect. His wife is not fond of his ways of doing business, they always quarrel, and Ali threatens her that he may do very bad things in a moment of frenzy.

In a very successful day, his lousy bike is stolen by the misbehaving little boys of the town. In search of his stolen bike, Ali goes to the police, blames the big companies for the theft, but, of course, nobody takes him seriously. Annoyed by the nagging of his wife, Ali goes to a tavern and becomes drunk. One of his friends at his table, a wannabe socialist of the town, gives a didactic speech and criticizes globalism, and with no real connection, jumps to the subject of global freezing. Ali returns home and decides to kill himself with poison. His wife wakes up and prevents him. An old neighbor takes him to a night walk and advises him about life. According to him, Ali can even sell hot sahlep drink if the world faces with global freezing. When he returns home, suddenly we see that his wife understood his value, treating him like a hero and praising his manhood. Meanwhile, the thief boys got sick eating too much ice-cream. They confess to the doctor that they stole Ali's bike. Ali forgives them and there comes the happy end.

Although the plot may look promising in a way, it's the story-telling which makes this film insincere and cheesy. First, the director doesn't show much of an effort to tell the story visually; everything is based on dialogs. And the dialogs never stop to show us that cinema is actually a visual art. Even Ali's troubles are not convincing because we don't see it, we just understand it from his words. The director markets his film as a righteous fight of Ali against big ice-cream companies, but there is nothing in the film about big companies. We don't see their pressure enough. The film actually ridicules Ali for believing that big companies are behind the theft. And when his motorbike is found, it solves every problem: Ali becomes a happy and powerful husband. Not a real criticism of globalism.

Second, the film is cheesy because of the crude humor. Maybe the people of that part of Turkey is cursing so much and making so many vulgar jokes in their daily life, but vulgar language and crude humor are not enough to make a film funny. I may have accepted it if they were both vulgar and \"clever\" but they are not clever jokes at all, they are just cheesy. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe American people may like oriental version of American Pie style humor. But American Pie never had any claim to be a nominee for the Oscars, or to have a political message! If you think that you can laugh by just seeing a man's big erection in his shorts (and we had to endure this joke twice!) or an old villager woman saying \"f**k you,\" then you may find this film funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I walk out of very few movie screenings and this movie managed to become one of those that I couldn't bear to watch any longer. As far as the awards it won goes, the ones awarded by Turkish festivals are not credible in my opinion. My only explanation for the Queens festival award was to think that somehow a layer of comedy was \"gained in translation\" as the subtitles helped distract attention from the horrendous performances.

At the beginning of the screening I attended, the presenter briefly talked about the history of Turkish cinema and at one point mentioned that early Turkish cinema was appropriately named \"stage cinema\" since many of the filmmakers and actors involved were people from the theater scene.

Ironically, this movie falls right into that category. English speakers reading subtitles may think that Turkish is a naturally loud language and attribute all the yelling in the movie to that, but observant native commentators will immediately notice that all the actors are performing with exaggerated loud voices. You could attribute this to the amateur nature of all actors, but the biggest source of \"yelled-out-dialog\" is the main character, played by the only professional actor in the movie. Not surprisingly his background is in theater. My guess is that in response to his loud delivery of lines, all other amateur actors raised their voices as well, hence turning the whole movie into a series of unnatural performances.

Put on top of all of this a storyline that develops at a snail's pace, you get an extremely boring movie.

I have to say I also have a personal problem with Turkish movies that depict entirely rural life with shallow uneducated characters. Ever since \"Zugurt Aga\", one of the best Turkish movies ever made, Turkish filmmakers seem to be not able to avoid the appeal of the rural part of the country. This is only interesting in small doses and if it is as beautifully orchestrated with excellent writing and directing as in Zugurt Aga. Most often, however, it is extremely boring and frankly somewhat embarrassing to native \"urban\" Turks. Rural communities make up a neglected, undereducated part of the country, and while this provides good material for comedy, it comes at a huge cost to Turkey's image.

A western audience member whose only exposure to Turkey is this movie will undoubtedly think that Turkey is like Afghanistan. I wish filmmakers would realize this and let go of their passion for the stories of the \"rural man\" and stay loyal to the majority of the country, who live in cities that put metropolitan areas in Europe to shame.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This very loose retelling of Carmen begins on a high note with a smoldering, sexually-frank dance between Senaglese prisoner \"Karmen\" and her female prison warden, but the vibrant opening minutes never ignite into any coherent film. One minute Karmen is all sexual predator, the next she is dancing in protest to her unfair government, and then suddenly she is a smuggler on the high seas... Although the film deserves kudos for postulating the first carnivorously bisexual \"Karmen,\" the broad strokes it paints are so vignette-like and unsupported by any narrative coherence that the film comes off as a schizophrenic, undisciplined melange of \"Basic-Instinct\" meets \"Bound\" meets an African version of a Bollywood musical.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I gave this 2 stars out of a possible 10.

I went into this not realizing what it was - and discovered it is apparently some kind of African musical - since people break into song every few minutes.

None of the songs rhyme, most of them aren't really saying anything sensible, and they all have the same non-existent tune - if you could call it a \"tune.\"

Karmen is a tall, spectacularly built young woman, with the longest braids I've ever seen. [The actress looks as if she has probably done some modeling.]

The film opens in a women's prison, although not like any prison I've ever seen or heard of -- the inmates wear whatever they wish - and seem to be having a party.

Karmen does some frantic dancing, and the woman warden of the prison, Angelique,[a magnificently handsome woman]is definitely erotically interested. She and Karmen dance together. Later Karmen visits the warden's room and they make love - unfortunately the scene is not detailed, and is very short, although there is some nudity.

Karmen then escapes from the prison and next we see her dancing in front of another group where a man, named Lamine, maybe a Colonel - it was never really clear who he was, watches her. He is with a young woman who dislikes Karmen's seductive dancing and there is a dance-off between the two women.

After that the story [such as it is] becomes even more muddled.

With Lamine in jail, out of jail, and who knows where.

Karmen may be involved with a group of smugglers or thieves.

There is more singing. More dancing, and a scene of Angelique obviously suffering from heartbreak.

The film muddles its way to a finish, and I heaved a sigh of relief that it had ended.



","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For a film made in Senegal, based, I guess loosely on Carmen, the book, by Prosper Merimee, this film doesn't achieve a mere resemblance of the story that has been made famous as an opera and as other films.

Ms. Gai as the Karmen of the title is very good to look at. Her fiery dancing smolders the screen, as is the case with her torrid love scene at the beginning of the film.

This is a Karmen that aims to please to all genders, but a real Carmen, she is not!

We would like to see Ms. Gai in other films in which her talent is better used than here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For this movie, based off of a TV show, and a serious finale. I thought that it was a lousy way to end off a serious. 'M*A*S*H Goodbye, farewell, and Amen' was pretty good, but not this one. Unless you really love the series (Like myself) skip this movie.

I was a loyal fan of the show Even Stevens, but the plot was too gimmicky, and Dave Coulier, man, that guy hasn't done anything good...well, ever. They shouldn't have used Tim Meadows, he's a great actor, but he was too good for the script.

I thought the movie was pure cheese. I would give it a 4.5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A previous IMDb reviewer has stated that 'Rafter Romance' is a 'rip-off' (that's the other reviewer's term) of a German musical called 'Me By Day, You By Night'. Apparently that reviewer is unaware that *both* of these films have borrowed their premise from 'Box and Cox', an English play written by John Maddison Morton in 1847. This play deals with two tradesmen who rent the same room from an unscrupulous landlady, each man believing himself the sole tenant. Because the two men have different work schedules, the ruse is not discovered straight away. This play was once so popular in Britain that 'to Box and Cox it' became a common term for an arrangement in which two people willingly shared accommodations meant for only one person.

The innovation of 'Rafter Romance' (and its predecessor) is that the two tenants are now a man and a woman, who inevitably develop a romance. As is usual in these cornball movies, the guy and the gal detest each other until they fall into each other's arms. Hoo boy.

The landlord in this film is played by George Sidney, a character actor who specialised in playing Jewish stereotypes that were meant to be sympathetic. George Sidney was never as annoying as the odious Harry Green (the Jewish equivalent of Stepin Fetchit) but Sidney's depictions of Jewish characters are still exaggerated and embarrassing to watch.

The single most notable thing about 'Rafter Romance' is that, to my knowledge, this is the earliest Hollywood film to make reference to Hitler and the rise of Nazism. At one point in this movie, landlord Eckbaum (Sidney) discovers his teenage son Julius engaged in chalking swastikas on the walls. Eckbaum and his son are clearly meant to be Jewish. Admittedly, nobody in Hollywood in 1933 had any real idea of what Hitler was planning for the Jews in Europe ... still, it's surprising to see a film depicting a Jewish teenager who thinks that swastikas are a joke. His father is, quite properly, angered by this display of the Nazi symbol.

A very shameful aspect of Hollywood history is the documented fact that all of the major Hollywood studios continued to do business with the Third Reich as late as 1939. Hollywood's leading ladies were medically documented as 'Aryan' so that their films could be distributed in Nazi Germany and Austria. For the same reason, Hollywood's leading men were documented as 'Aryan and uncircumcised'. Except for Darryl Zanuck at Twentieth Century-Fox, all the Hollywood studio executives who colluded in this policy were Jewish ... but clearly had no objection to doing business with Hitler. I'm surprised that 'Rafter Romance' contains a scene depicting swastikas unfavourably, as this sequence would have rendered the film Verboten in Germany and Austria. (Maybe the scene was cut out for German release: it isn't crucial to the movie's plot.) Apart from this, the movie contains nothing notable. Robert Benchley does his usual unfunny befuddled characterisation: I've never understood the appeal of this man. I'll rate 'Rafter Romance' 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When watching this movie, with it's deterministic cause and effect, wall-to-wall clich\u00e9s and hackneyed sentiment, can anyone be so naive as to think that this is actually how Barrie's life played out? You watch it in a posture of disagreement. Hollywood biopics aren't based on the individual lives anymore, they're just rewrites of previously successful biopics. If Hollywood made a movie about your life it would be filled with such perfect synchronization that you'd barely recognize your own story. Any personal complexity would be obliterated by some all-explaining, simplistic backstory. Your story would resemble \"Rocky\" because it's the only life-arc Hollywood knows how to produce anymore. We couldn't leave the audience pondering anything left open-ended as they exit. This movie doesn't trust an audience to figure things out without being led to them. I perceived the captain hook\/mother reference eons before the movie literalized it for me. I could see the 25 kids twist coming for days.

This is a completely average movie. Not horrible but not great. Hence it's likely to be showered with a few Oscars next year. There's nothing the Academy likes better than congratulating itself for finally noticing patterns put in place over the previous thirty years.

From the New Yorker article \"Lost Boys\" by ANTHONY LANE:

\"Arthur Llewelyn Davies, also adored his boys, and it may be unfair of \"Finding Neverland\" to omit him, for streamlining purposes, from the scene; by the time that Johnny Depp meets Kate Winslet, she is already a widow, whereas Arthur was very much alive when Barrie first entered the consciousness\u0097and, little by little, the home\u0097of the Llewellyn Davies family.

\"Finding Neverland\" is a weepie. From the moment that Barrie met George and Jack, and started to ponder the means by which they might be rendered immortal, the story is sad, but the reality is even more dismal: 1907\u0097Arthur Llewellyn Davies dies from cancer of the jaw. 1910\u0097Sylvia dies of lung cancer. The five boys are orphaned; Barrie is made their guardian. 1915\u0097George is killed in the First World War, fighting with his regiment in Flanders. 1921\u0097Michael, an undergraduate at Oxford, is drowned while swimming with a friend. The two bodies, when recovered, are found clinging together.

On April 5, 1960, Peter Llewellyn Davies, by then an esteemed publisher, threw himself under a subway train in London. We should not presume to read a mind in torment, but we may note in passing that, if he had lived another month, he would have reached the centenary of Barrie's birth and thus, one imagines, a fresh flurry of interest in \"Peter Pan\"\u0097\"that terrible masterpiece,\" in the words of Peter Llewellyn Davies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With some films it is really hard to tell for whom they were made. Huevos de oro seems to aim at the well educated Spanish middle class. There must be many inside jokes in this movie which you will not understand if you are an outsider. This can be pretty annoying.

Symbols and references to art and popular culture abound, the movie alludes to the work of Salvador Dal\u00ed, Luis Bu\u00f1uel and the Surrealists in general, a certain infatuation with bidet baths seems to point to Duchamp's ready mades. What's more, the main character has also a knack for karaoke tapes with songs of Julio Iglesias. But why all this is mixed together in a rather pretty but also gratuitous way simply eludes me. I can only guess that it all serves to highlight the vital, impetuous, boorish vulgarity of the main character who the director seems to admire and despise at the same time. How all the really pretty women run after him (the main character, I mean) is slightly disconcerting.

The movie has three parts. It starts in the Spanish enclave of Melilla in Africa, where Benito, the main character, does his military service, apparently in the corps of engineers. Then it moves on to the resort town of Benidorm in Spanin where Benito just wants to build the highest skyscraper of the place and become a vulgarized Howard Roark. For the last part a defeated Benito moves to Miami, Florida, presumably in order to start a \u0084new life\". But the change of places is not really explained satisfactorily. It is also somehow irritating that there is no character development and that the movie descends into a soap opera modus without being convincingly ironic. It must be said that Javier Bardem acquits himself very well playing the young stud who grows limp and deflated.

I purchased this movie because I am interested in townscapes. And Benidorm is a kind of a special place, townscapewise. In this aspect Huevos de oro satisfied me only partially. In Jess Franco's She Killed In Ecstasy (1970) this specific location was used in a more rewarding way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Thank God I have fast-forward. I think this is a movie about a guy who rises and falls. Whatever: It's a stupid clich\u00e9. It doesn't make any difference. There's this guy, javier Bardem, who constructs buildings or something. It doesn't matter. He is handsome, this Javier Bardem. Who cares? I think there is a car wreck but I watched this in fast-forward, so ...who cares? Car wrecks and handsome heroes who struggle back from them smells like a melodrama to me. Javier likes someone , but he marries Maria de Madeiros instead.She is magnificently, poetically beautiful, with a heart-shaped face. Then Javier has an oral-interface with Maribel Verdu, who washes her vulva, beforehand, for some reason. You would think Maribel Verdu, with her hand-washed vulva would be sexy. No, she is not. This is a tedious story about a bunch of people who don't interest me. Javier, Maribel, and Maria have a threesome: How boring. This film is annoying. I think this might be a minor THEME of (some) Spanish-language movies: The rise and predictable fall of a little guy who succeeds against the odds. Let me just clear this up: this is a high-class melodrama or perhaps soap opera. It is not worth your time, except for a laugh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A bit too much Mediterrenean machismo for me. The cast was beautiful, lovely to watch in all of the romantic scenes. The locale was beautiful with azure skies and azure water. It just was not convincing to me that such an egomaniac crud bent on nothing but his building, could attract so many beautiful, vulnerable, women. Only in the Mediterranean I guess. Certainly in no world I am familiar with. The macho men were really obnoxious, and I found it difficult to believe that the female characters could have anything to to with them for so long. The screenplay, cinematography, directing, etc. was set up to deliver a Class B film, the central effort being on showing scenes of beautiful exposed female breasts. It was aesthetically nice for a while but it could not sustain a very mediocre film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In this film, there is a loose plot of a man (Bardem) who wishes to obtain financing for his construction business, and marries a woman he does not love (the wide-eyed Maria de Medieros) in the process. He maintains his passionate relationship with his first and true love, and ultimately gets entangled in his own romantic web. He never gives up his juggling act, until the three main characters come face to face. The film results boring, with lots of free sex (well, both girls are really good), all the reactions in the film are absurd, incoherent and of course, too much stupid. None of the characters are believable, which makes the movie a little annoying. Anyway, the acting is surprisingly good for such a bad directed film, which makes it a little interesting, but, if you can, watch another film please!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director Kinji Fukasaku is perhaps best known, in his homeland at least, for his Japanese gangster films, a series with which this movie shares a number of characteristics. Violence and political intrigue are themes throughout both Shogun's Samurai and Battles Without Honor and Humanity, and both feature a lead character who finds his loyalties challenged by betrayals. Both films also feature a large number of characters who seem to have little purpose but to die, and since so little is done to develop them, their deaths have little impact when they do come. This film has other flaws as well. The makeup, costumes and sound design are distractingly poor, and the battle scenes were substandard as well, inferior to other samurai films of earlier years (Seven Samurai comes to mind).

Sonny Chiba plays the Sonny Chiba character in Shogun's Samurai, the no-nonsense master swordsman who strides through the film, scowling menacingly. What a guy; he even gets to wear an eye patch. If you were expecting to see the legendary Toshiro Mifune, you may be disappointed; his appearance amounts to little more than a cameo, and just when it appears that his character might do something interesting, he disappears for good.

Overall, the strengths of the film are its story, which is infinitely more comprehensible than those gangster films, and the challenges posed to traditional concepts of good and evil. Two brothers are challenging for the throne of their recently departed father, who may have had some help on his way out. Early on, it looks as if we will be faced with a couple of characters who couldn't be more clearly good and evil; after all, the older brother stammers and has a birthmark, the sure sign of a villain. Eventually, however, it becomes clear that in a winner-takes-all struggle for power, there are no heroes and villains, only winners and losers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen nearly all the films of Kurosawa and dozens of other Japanese films as well. Compared to these other films, this is a rather average to poor film. The plot features two warring brothers--neither one of which I cared much for--and it is very confusing keeping up with who is allied with who. The music and cinematography is pretty good, but the special effects, at times, are terrible--rubber heads flying off with about the same realism as the average high school play! On top of these complaints, the ending of the movie completely DESTROYS and UNDERMINES the entire picture. It turns out that the end isn't true but was completely \"fudged\". What's the point of this, then? If you HAVE seen this film, understand that there are MANY better films out there, so don't give up!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Yagyu ichizoku no inbo\" (let's just say \"The Shogun's Samurai\") is somewhere between horrifically boring and mind-bogglingly painful to watch. As an historical epic, it could have had so many more chances to be a rich saga... but it's really no more than just another cheap '70s action flick with a based-on-real-events story and an eyepatch-sporting Sonny Chiba. Before this movie's halfway point, I was even tempted to commit seppuku! The music is like a thousand dogs in heat wailing in your ears to a tune composed by Ennio Morricone (that's not an insult towards Morricone). The use of zoom lens cinematography is more nauseating than fascinating. And in terms of action, it's really nothing more than a series of brutal attacks and oh-no-they-didn't shocks. What a terrible movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you're in the mood for a really bad porno with no good porn combined with a really bad horror movie, this movie is perfect for you. However, if you breathe air, make sure you spend your time watching anything but this. The acting is crappy. The \"plot\" is crappy. They try too hard, and the whole time I was waiting for the one good redeeming scene that might make the movie worth watching. Nope. Stick with the scrambled cable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I see that C. Thomas Howell has appeared in many movies since his heyday in the 80s as an accomplished young actor.

I bought this DVD because it was cheap and in part for the internet-related plot and to see how much older C. Thomas Howell is; I do not recall seeing him in any movies since the 1980s.

In just a few words: what a very big disappointment. I give some low budget movies a chance, but this one started out lame. Within the first 15 minutes of the movie, this elusive woman is chatting with an Asian guy in a chatroom. They basically stimulate themselves to their own chat, she then insists on meeting the participant in person. She meets him, has sex, ties him up and then murders him in cold blood. The plot then deteriorates further.

The plot is thin and flimsy and the acting is very stiff. Do not bother renting it much less purchasing it, even if it is in the $1 DVD bin. I plan to take my copy of the DVD to Goodwill. I am truly amazed that any of the prior reviewers here gave this movie a bad rating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I see that C. Thomas Howell has appeared in many movies since his heyday in the 80s as an accomplished young actor.

I bought this DVD because it was cheap and in part for the internet-related plot and to see how much older C. Thomas Howell is; I do not recall seeing him in any movies since the 1980s.

In just a few words: what a very big disappointment. I give some low budget movies a chance, but this one started out lame. Within the first 15 minutes of the movie, this elusive woman is chatting with an Asian guy in a chatroom. They basically stimulate themselves to their own chat, she then insists on meeting the participant in person. She meets him, has sex, ties him up and then murders him in cold blood. The plot then deteriorates further.

The plot is thin and flimsy and the acting is very stiff. Do not bother renting it much less purchasing it, even if it is in the $1 DVD bin. I plan to take my copy of the DVD to Goodwill. I am truly amazed that any of the prior reviewers here gave this movie a bad rating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I see that C. Thomas Howell has appeared in many movies since his heyday in the 80s as an accomplished young actor.

I bought this DVD because it was cheap and in part for the internet-related plot and to see how much older C. Thomas Howell is; I do not recall seeing him in any movies since the 1980s.

In just a few words: what a very big disappointment. I give some low budget movies a chance, but this one started out lame. Within the first 15 minutes of the movie, this elusive woman is chatting with an Asian guy in a chatroom. They basically stimulate themselves to their own chat, she then insists on meeting the participant in person. She meets him, has sex, ties him up and then murders him in cold blood. The plot then deteriorates further.

The plot is thin and flimsy and the acting is very stiff. Do not bother renting it much less purchasing it, even if it is in the $1 DVD bin. I plan to take my copy of the DVD to Goodwill. I am truly amazed that any of the prior reviewers here gave this movie a bad rating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have seen this movie last week during the Berlin Film Festival and had medium-high expectations. - The director is Bertrand Tavernier and I was familiar with some of his previous work in French cinema. I actually enjoyed some of his earlier movies. -The cast: Tommy Lee Jones, John Goodman, Peter Sarsgard, Mary Steenburgen... I was looking forward to see all this talent on screen. -I wasn't familiar with the book it's based upon and I hadn't read anything about the movie beforehand but I was told that it was an investigation movie set in the Deep South (we've seen a lot of those in the past, maybe this one's gonna be as good as the others...)

2 hours later, the end titles appear: THANK GOD IT WAS OVER!!!! - The plot is beyond comprehension. If you've read the book, you have a significant advantage. There were too many minor characters and there were a lot of useless plot arcs. We didn't understand a thing! - The accents. My God! Tommy Lee Jones' accent is decent but I still have nightmares from Mary Steenburgen's Cajun-French singing... - Poor casting in my opinion. I can't believe old man Tommy Lee Jones can beat the crap out of a linebacker-built goon... And I'm not afraid of John Goodman. - Who were these people?!? We barely understand who all these characters are and what they do. There's a bait shop? Tommy Lee Jones has a girl from Guatemala? Bl\u00f6rg! - The comedic attempts were pathetic. The funniest thing about the movie was probably its \"action\" and \"suspense\" scenes. They were horrible. No thrills. Bad acting (Can Tommy Lee Jones make different faces or is he like Derek Zoolander?)... - And then there's the sci-fi stuff. No spoilers but it gets ridiculously and annoyingly weird.

I usually don't write any comments on IMDb but I thought the movie was so bad and disappointing that I felt compelled to share my opinion. But that's just me...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being one of the founding fathers of my regions monkey movie club(this also includes apes\/chimps and orangutans) I am reviewing this film from a monkey movie standpoint. Afterall it is a whole summer of monkeys, 100+ days for monkeys to do what they do best, cause mischief, shenanigans, hyjinx, solve human problems and teach us about ourselves.

The story is simple enough. In short poor boy needs money for stuff he wants. Luckily there's a few monkeys(chimpanzees) that have a bounty on their head that would get Boba Fett or Dog's(Duane Chapman) blood flowing. As the boy tries to catch the monkeys he learns about himself, his family, his grandpa, the local weirdo, flirts with a girl twice his age and learns the beast way to deal with bullies is to have someone point a shotgun at them.

There within lies the problem. So much focus is put on the boy that the chimps just don't get the screen time they deserve. The chimps are not as talented as the chimp(s) that play Jack from the M_P trilogy or the legendary orangutans that play Dunstin or Clyde(1 or 2). So don't watch this movie expecting to find the next big thing in the Chimp genre. The chimps hit some sweet flips which is what the film needed more of. There is an epic scene of the chimps breaking into the poor families house and destroys all the things they worked so hard for. Serious monkey movie enthusiasts will want to rent the film for this scene alone.

So in closing this movie is not for the serious monkey movie enthusiast. I wouldn't recommend this movie to families as it encourages a childs rebellion against their parents. I can only recommend this film as a rental for hardcore monkey loving adults and well supervised children.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am in a movie club at my school and I was forced to sit and watch this utterly dismal film. The film's story is not dismal, but the entire movie itself is exceedingly dismal. The acting was absolutely dreadful. The children were overly whiny. A metal pole could have done a better job. I wanted desperately to fall asleep, but because the television was so loud, I was kept from peace. The monkey's are neither cute, nor are they funny. The drama is laugh-worthy. I cannot remember when I saw a more dreadful film. The story is weak, thin, predictable, and completely fake. The adults try to be good actors, but they just can't seem to break through stereotypes. The girl even appears to want to leave the film via falling off a hill during the movie in order to leave it, I don't blame her. Micheal Anderson should publicly apologize for this film. Not just to me, but to everyone else who was forced to sit through this awful film. In fact, I apologize to you. Even if I had nothing to do with this project, I apologize for this film, because this means at least someone will. This film even surpasses the dismalness of films that of Rob Schneider and the Cheetah Girls. I would even go as far to say that it is even worse that Hilary Duff's collection of films, but that's pushing it. Just please don't see this film, or else you'll be pushed to write a review similar to this one on how awful this film is. I'm very sorry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I saw this movie three years ago, I thought it exemplified a lot of the traits found in Singapore art-house movies: slow-moving, with a minimal of plot and dialogue, depending on film composition to make it work.

During then, amongst local cineastes, the inability to appreciate \"Be With Me\" is tantamount to panning \"Citizen Kane\" or any of Ozu's late films. I've no idea how \"Be With Me\" reached such hallowed heights in Singapore's cinematic consciousness, but I always felt that Khoo's \"12 Storeys\" is a better film, even though the latter film does not boast as good a cinematographer as Adrian Tan, Khoo's DP for \"Be With Me\". \"12 Storeys\" has a story that better relates to most Singaporeans and has bite too, something that \"Be With Me\"'s threadbare wistfulness doesn't have.

\"Be With Me\" is basically a barely interlinked trio of narratives strung together into a film by Khoo and his screenwriter Wong Kim Hoh. It deals with a security guard who falls in love with a girl whom he only sees in the distance; two girls in a horoerotic relationship; and the story of deaf-and-blind Teresa Chan.

\"Be With Me\" is very well filmed by Tan, using a Varicam camera. The film compositions are masterful. The film, almost entirely silent, has next to no dialogue. Characters move around, not in a realistic manner, but almost as if they are models under the instruction of a director, almost always looking into the screen and emoting: either loneliness or sadness. Unfortunately the characters don't act against each other. This kind of film has been seen before many times: in Tsai Ming-liang's films, in Khoo's prot\u00e9g\u00e9 Royston Tan's \"4:30\" and elsewhere. Sadly, its ultra-slowness (essentially plot less) and use of a lento piano soundtrack simply doesn't appeal to me.

To criticize \"Be With Me\" seems almost to negate the inspirational story behind it, that of Teresa Chan, who is blind and deaf and yet lives a fulfilling life despite all this, yet I'm afraid this film doesn't do anything much to me. I'm willing to applaud Chan's steadfast and courageous march in life and Tan's striking cinematography, but for a better take on the same subject-matter with more meat (without the two other tedious and distracting subplots), try Werner Herzog's \"Land of Silence and Darkness\" (1971).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'Be With Me' is almost the ultimate wallpaper movie. Just leave it running in the background. chat amongst yourselves and return to it whenever you like and at some point it'll end.

Alas, as I watched it alone, and so I felt like I almost watched the world's worst, longest and most drippingly sentimental beer commercial by the time I just about managed to keep my eyes open as the end credits rolled; and I then managed (just a) a few more moments of wakefulness to witness a 'Thank you' to the movie's sponsors - which included Asia Pacific Breweries. Aha! Methought: How surprising is *that* - given all the shots of Tiger beer interspersed throughout this most forgettable washout of a movie?

Meanwhile, dialogue spurts between individuals with occasional stabs at depth, but all too usually nothing of any particular advancement to the movie's overall story is said or witnessed. It's as if one could switch off at any moment and return at any later point and you'd really have missed nothing which would have been an unmissable contingency, or part of its plot, as far as the movie's overall progression was concerned. Thus the ultimate \"wallpaper movie\"!

Well I wonder... What movie were those who positively reviewed this one watching? I wonder and continue to wonder... It certainly couldn't have been this arty to the point of artless Singaporean excuse for a camera's rolling. Allegedly, 'Be With Me' is supposed to be woven around the themes of \"love, tragedy and redemption\". But all I witnessed was boredom, a half baked screenplay with a smattering of gormless text messages, and the only redemption was that which occurred when this utterly useless movie ended. What a wistful waste of time, it ended up being! It was also said that the characters in this movie were fictitious except for Theresa Chan who is a \"remarkable woman who has triumphed over adversities...\" Well, no disrespect to Ms Chan, but given that she was such a marvellous & amazing character, why at all did the screenplay have to involve the stories of other characters without the most tenuous attempt to connect their lives together? Yet it still proved to be an almost insufferably boring movie whose highlights included the credits rolling. Rather than tying in the fates of all characters, I really felt that the movie ended up attempting the near impossible and evidently fell between stools as far as any viewer engagement could be concerned.

I am generally an art-house movie fan and don't usually object to slow pacing (of which here there is no shortage, believe you me!!). I hate such movies as 300, Transformers, Fight Club, but consider, e.g., Eric Rohmer as a great film maker. So I hope that puts my criticism into some perspective. Nonetheless, there was no redeemable feature whatsoever in the entire movie's conception and delivery which could prevent one's eyelids slowly drooping downwards as each minute of 'Be With Me' dripped by. Watch this movie if you need to feel like wasting time. Otherwise your life would be none the richer for having missed it. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I literally ran to watch it, expecting a film that will make me cry, or touch my heart.

What I found was not heart-rending, but a lame exploitation of 1 strong human character.

Interwined between a pair of young lesbians and an obese man.

In a setting that is substantially devoid of sound not to mention acting of the most common.

It was not entirely BAD, as I have seen worst - and I left the cinema $10 poorer but wiser - that a FILM well advertised is not the same as a FILM WELL-MADE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is about 3 stories put together revolving around 3 separate individuals. One of the worst movie that is available and even better if it is not available.

The Good : 2 pretty lesbians actress 1 true and touching story about Theresa Chan

The Bad :The main story that revolves around the blind and dear woman Theresa Chan does not need to be told in a movie format and more appropriate in a documentary format. No linkage between the 3 story lines. Minimum DIALOGUE in the film, substituted by SMSs and CHAT programs on PC. No cultural insight by the movie and it makes you forget even before you step out of the cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With actors like Depardieu and Richard it is really a hard task to make a dull movie. But Weber is a master in setting a slow pace and making supposedly funny scenes without any wits and depth. This movie is high on story but low on character. You never get to know any of the characters except for superficial slapstick. Unfortunately Weber has no idea what slapstick is all about. His style could be described at hit and miss. Of course some people laugh when they see someone slip on a banana peel. Weber directs his humor at this lot. It is a shame how bad he uses good talent. Many good french comedians have been wasted away by mediocre directors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For those of us who are part of the real world of ballet - this film is completely ridiculous. Ivan Kirov was basically a gymnast, not a ballet dancer. Viola Essen at the time was with Ballet Theater, now American Ballet Theater, and a reasonably good dancer, but except for Dame Judith Anderson, the acting is amateurish and Checkov is completely over the top .... embarrassingly so! I saw this film at age 14 and at that time, never having seen a ballet, I was very impressed. However, later in life, long after I had completed my own career as a dancer - I purchased the video tape of it, curious as to what it was like after so many years. I couldn't believe how naive Hollywood could be about the world of ballet. But it was made in the mid 40s, before The Red Shoes or The Turning Point, the latter giving a true picture of the ballet world. The entire cast of Spectre have now passed away ... Ivan Kirov (not his real name)dying at age 79. It was his one and only film, thereafter being kept by a Chicago business man .. so the rumor goes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I do not find this show at all funny. I actually think it is much worse than any of the other terrible Disney channel sit-coms right now. Charlotte Arnold is an interesting choice to play Sadie, because she can't act. The jokes on this show are terribly unfunny, and it makes it even worse when the only cast member that has a little bit (and I mean little bit) of acting talent is Justin Bradley as Sadie's brother Hal. Jasmine Richards and Michael D'Ascenzo portray Sadie's friends. There both really stupid and just terrible actors. Two words that can really describe this show is terribly corny. It's corny humor that only little girls find funny because their brains have not developed yet. Now I've explained my hatred for the acting and the horrible humor, what's next? The whole premise of the show is a stupid idea. She changed again (not so sciencey an Ben-loving) and suddenly nobody recognizes her? It's moronic. In summation, I hate this show, however little girls who do not have a concept of funny will enjoy it, so I guess that's what they're going for over quality. Although i can say as much as, the first season is clearly better than the second.

BOTTOM LINE: JUST DON'T WATCH ANY OF IT.

My rating: Awful show. TV G. 30 mins.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first time I saw a commercial for this show was when my sisters were watching the Kim Possible movie. The commercial showed Sadie and her friend discussing the meaning of the word nothing.It is one of the stupidest commercials I've ever seen. Basically, they go back and forth with lines like \"Nothing is a thing, so technically nothing is something,\". When I saw that, I figured it would be yet another lame Lizzie Maguire knockoff by Disney. But I had no idea how bad.

Fast forward about 3 weeks, when my sister turns on the T.V. Naturally Sadie happened to be on. What I saw had to be one of the most unintentionally funny shows I've ever seen. How'd it go? Something like this:

Sadie, a vegetarian tree hugger, has an incredibly unhealthy,obsessive crush on the very monotone and poorly acted acted out Owen. For some reason, her friend Margret decides that Owen needs to be \"tested\" to see if he is as good as he seems. What exactly do these tests involve? Well, one thing they do is put a cockroach on her notebook. Why? So that she can be squeamish and ask her monotone knight in shining armor to get it off.How is this a test? Because if he squishes it, he's mean and uncaring and doesn't believe that bugs, as Sadie puts it, \"are innocent animals too,\". THEY SPREAD DISEASE AND PESTILANCE! THEY DESERVE TO BE SQUISHED! But of course, Owen just brushes it out the window, and Sadie is still in love. But that's not all! Margret says he needs to be challenged one more time, on something that \"no guy can pass\". This one involves shoving scarves down their pants( yes, you read that right)and walking buy him to see if he notices their large butts. Predictably, he doesn't notice, and we see Sadie in her bizarre and strange notebook world. Sadie decides that she wants to be with Owen forever,raise a family with him, and as she puts it, \"live like wood ducks with their brood,\". That's just plain wrong.

Bottom line: This is the strangest, most insane show I've watched. For those who like to make fun of dumb stuff, you'll love it. For anyone else, skip this show.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Naturally Sadie sucks big time, I have no idea what the people were thinking about when they wrote this garbage. This is not funny, its not cute in any way shape or form, its just disturbing and a waste of money. Sadie is such a bad actor. I lost all my brain cells watching this show, it honestly seemed that this show is forced, it was such a huge over hyped pile of crap.

This show sucks.

Its a waste of time, and money, don't bother watching this garbage. The characters are so stupid and ridiculous. In the first season its just dumb and stupid then when i saw the second season i just couldn't take anymore, it made me want to kill Charlotte Arnold. The second season is juts absolutely a disgrace to Disney This show is also a racist piece of sh**","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Every time I by pass this show on TV, I absolutely and truthfully want to claw my eyes out, and rip my ears off.It's so unbelievably horrible.The jokes aren't funny, the acting is completely terrible, and the whole entire show is one major disappointment.I hate Charlotte Arnold's guts, and I just want to punch her in the face or stab her with a knife every time I hear her talk. She is a no talent, low IQ, big waste on society, and I think she would be doing the world a favor if she just shuts the f*ck up and went away for a long time. Please, I say this with all my heart, DO NOT EVEN WATCH ONE EPISODE OF THIS SHOW!!!!!!It's not even worth 30 minutes of your life, and there are thousands of better things to do, including killing yourself, than watch this show for half an hour.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OMG what has Disney done lately..most of their new shows really suck. Suite life of Zach and Cody are pretty good but other shows like Cory in the house, Wizards of Waverly Place suck and are unwatchable.

Naturally Sadie is just beyond stupid and dumb. Its about a teenager named Sadie who likes science and grows up and goes through her everyday life. There are her friends Margaret and Rain and her older annoying brother Hal. There all annoying and stupid. Especially Margaret who thinks she's the most popular girl in school and thinks she's soo pretty...its just beyond awful. I hate all the seasons of this show, its just terrible in every way (the first season was better though).

If you value your life, you wouldn't watch this crap, its painful and stupid","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"when this show first came to Disney, i love it started watching all the time. It quickly became one of my favorite Disney shows ever but this show somehow transformed into something that is disturbing and disappointing.

I do now find any of the second and third season fun, they seem like a re-watch of some teens shows. I hat that garbage. The first season was very unique because it showed Sadie who loved science and animals and creatures. The first season was very entertaining. I mostly don't like the second season because of Ben. He annoys me and pisses the crap outta me. The plot in the second season also sucks and is just awful","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Naturally Sadie is by far the worst show i have ever seen, it is such a piece of sh** and loaded with complete bullsh**. I didn't find any of the gags to be funny or somewhat clever, it was all awful jokes.

The acting sucks, many of the characters sucked at acting, Charlotte Arnold (Sadie) is such a terrible actor, the other characters suck too (Magaret, Rain, Hal).

The plot isn't unique and creative at all and the show is soo very much predictable. This is one of the worst shows made of all time, it shouldn't have even been made, the idiots who are responsible of writing this garbage should get fired (if they already didn't) The fist season was actually watchable but the second season was just a disaster, its too hard to watch this show, it is beyond awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first saw this show i thought to my self \" What is this!!!!!?\" Its one of those shows where there is a perfect fake high school world with stupid problems that are considered \"huge\". Then there's Sadie. This complete misfit for her friends and well her family. Shes completely obsessed with nature not that thats a bad thing but she compares high school students to animals! like what is that!? also they made her another Lizzie Miguire clone ( yeah because the world definitely needs another one of those!) shes also very perfect like most TV girls are which makes me sick! So please this is a stupid show it makes no sense just skip it unless you liked Lizzie McGuire or any other shows like that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i think that it was just like Lizzie McGuire except that it was a lot worse than the original. the only thing that is different is that she likes animals and science and all of that geeky stuff. everything else is the same. she likes a guy that she is too nervous to ask out. and later she finds a guy that does like her and she has no clue. i think that people need to quit making that same kind of shows. and another thing that is the same is that it is always thaw the friends are two girls and one guy. don't people think that these things get old and tired and these ideas keep being used over and over and yet they keep using these ideas. but i do know people who watch this show and i know that they like them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this show is pretty alright and fun to watch, its a great Disney channel shows and sometimes entertaining.

I really enjoyed the first season but i hated the second and third seasons. This show has completely changed around. In the first season it was more about science and animals, all that is gone now in the season and third season. Its more about her life and dating. Ever since that gay kid (Ben) came along, this show has sucked. The writers took a perfectly good kid show and changed it to a crappy teen comedy. Disney took a turn for the worse. I cant stand to watch the newest episodes anymore, they're all garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is an alright show to watch, its not the best nor the worst. I've watched it for a long time and i don't like any of the new stuff. This show has changed into some teen trash and is living much differently. I dislike that crap..i have no IQ why they completely changed the theme of this show. The first season was really enjoyable to watch and is was partly amusing. The 2nd season is just out of this world dumb. I seriously don't know why the writers\/directors changed this show up. many more people liked the 1st season better than the 2nd and 3rd. I will only watch the first season of this show from now on, whenever i see a new episode, ill change the f*ckin channel...ya heard me! It gets a 3\/10 because i somewhat enjoyed the 1st season but hated the 2nd and 3rd","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Ollie is recovering from a broken leg in hospital, and with nothing else to do, Stan decides to visit him, and take him some boiled eggs and nuts, instead of candy. Chaos begins with Stan curiously pulling Ollie's leg cast string, and manages to push The Doctor (Billy Gilbert) out the window, clinging on to it, getting Ollie strung up to the ceiling. When the situation calms down, Stan gets Ollie's clothes, as the Doctor wants them both to leave, and he also manages to sit on a syringe, accidentally left by the nurse, filled with a sleeping drug, which comes into effect while he is driving (which you can tell is done with a car in front of a large screen. Filled with some likable slapstick and not too bad (although repetitive and a little predictable) classic comedy, it isn't great, but it's a black and white film worth looking at. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Okay!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Frederick Forsyth's books are always so intricately plotted, with twists and turns, and usually a great surprise ending. This adaptation had none of that.

So much of what was great in the book (the history of Monk and the betrayed agents; the plot to influence the outcome of the Russian election) were completely missing in this adaptation. Instead, there's this completely new plot about bio-weapons that was a yawner.

Forsyth's protagonists always operated in the shadows, forever just slightly beyond the reach of the antagonists. The joys of his books have always been the machinations of carrying out their mission. This film resigned itself to gunfights and car chases early on.

Swayze's Monk might as well have hung a sign around his neck saying \"I AM A SECRET AGENT\" for all the attention that he called to himself during the film. And with all of that attention, the amount of time that it took the bad guys to catch up to him was surprising.

Granted there was some energy to this film, which is why I'm giving it a \"3\" instead of a \"1\". It was also great to see some underutilized pros like Patrick Bergin, Ben Cross, Michael York, and Barry Morse.

I hope that someday, someone will once again do justice to a Forsyth film adaptation like \"Day of the Jackal\" did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had just finished reading the book, and was really looking forward to seeing this TV adaptation which was broadcast on the Hallmark Channel on Monday night (5\/30\/05). The key to the whole book was the manifesto which was stolen by the man with steel teeth, but I watched for an hour (out of 3 1\/2) and I saw the man with the steel teeth but I never saw him steal a manifesto. I saw someone steal some virus but what did that have to do with the book? It's too bad because this film had great production values and a good cast, but isn't the idea of turning a book into a movie (TV or film) to get the people who read the book to be part of the audience. They only kept me for an hour. I thought the premise of the book was great and what did they do but throw out the whole premise. This book had a great McGuffin (to paraphrase Hitchcock) but they ignored it. And it said in the titles that Forsyth was involved in the production. They sure must have paid him a LOT of money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Such a BS movie. It's just some stupid anti-Russian propaganda, with a completely BS plot, not in any way related to the book.

It looks like the production team got more money from the people who ordered the movie, than they will ever be able to get from selling the movie. The plot of the movie includes references to some of the real recent events in Russian and other parts of Eastern Europe, but puts them in such way that has nothing to do with reality. It looks like the movie is a brainwashing instrument, which helps to portray Russia as a place populated by evil people that always dream about killing someone.

An of course there are hundreds of stupid mistakes like using the map of USSR instead of Russia when running news reports, showing a crowd with Ukrainian flags and commenting that it's Russian elections, etc.

Also there are many bizarre episodes (i.e. a character runs though the Red Square in Moscow and in a second he is in downtown Sophia, Bulgaria).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I recently rented this promising mini series, I didn't even know they had adapted it for television. I was really looking forward to it since the book Icon is one of the best spy thrillers I have ever read. What a disappointment it was. The plot only loosely resembles the one in the book, the characters are completely miscast and there's some appalling acting. A shame really. The story behind Icon is perfect for the silver screen, but I think television budgets just aren't big enough for a decent adaptation of this spectacular book.

Forsyth deserves much, much better than this. Avoid and stick to the book, which is a must-read.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just have watched Icon on DVD and despite being a great book, the movie is a weak substrate from it. Those responsible for the writing should be banished to Siberia. Why they maul the great story with all kind of C-film subploys which are totally irrelevant to the story is totally beyond me.

Yet the filmmakers and cast do there best to make something out of it, but at the end the film was not satisfying at all.

Can someone please make a decent movie out of this to show how it is done. I'm sure that the crowds will rally for such a masterpiece novel turned into a book, not into a cheap C-movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just finished reading Forsyth's novel 'Icon'. I thought it was one of the most in depth, detailed, and page-turning books I ever read, definitely in my top 10. I acquired a DVD version of the book starring Mr. Swayze. OK, let me first point out that to fit a decent adaptation of the novel into 2.5 hours film time would of been impossible, so I understand the teams reason to sway from the book version and differ. However, when I say \"differ\" what I really should say is \"take the characters from the book, add a few, leave a few out, take away the book's plot, add a modern new plot, add Frederick Forsyth's name in there somewhere\". Im not saying this was a bad picture, far from it, some of the effects were top notch and the acting wasn't half bad. The story sucked and didn't rely on logic or reality. Forsyth's novel was so good and real and altered the facts of reality instead of exaggerating them.. This could of been so much more if it had taken its time and been made into say a 10 part series. If you haven't read the book then expect a decent TV movie with a good acting cast, if you have read the book then try and forget it when watching this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the perfect example of how a great book is turned into a poor film. The direction just gives the impression that the film was made up as they went along and Patrick Swaze is so wooden you can almost see the puppet strings on his body.

Spy Vs Spy films are not - or should not - be about car chases and shootings, the bad guys in this movies are really bad shots and miss the main characters even when at point blank range.

Even the action shots are just a clich\u00e9 with the usual mounting sidewalks and crashing through tables and chairs - yawn.

I got half way through and switched off - completely bored.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the movie is complete disaster. i don't know who write scripts for movies like this one, but i would definitely love to meet one of them and talk to him a little bit. perhaps script writers really don't know sh*t about situation in foreign countries in present or recent past? or they just don't give a damn and write everything that they think it's interesting.

a great and everlasting formula with mad dictator + 1 lonely hero (an American of course) might seem like a good idea, but come on?! we had such a tyrant in serbia (milosevic) who did a lot of bad things to it's people, but i simply can't imagine him yelling \"shoot them, shoot them\" with such a barbaric passion, like in medieval times. maybe they wanted to show how evil he was, but it was a stupid idea. much better impression would be if he just did it in cold blood, like the real monsters do.

the list of nonsense is too long, but the funniest thing is: no matter how many national TV stations there are in Russia, Russian president watch American SNN (CNN) news?? OMFG!

give me a break!

burn this piece of rubish please!

AWFUL!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"FREDDY FORSYTH has come up with a storyline which will suit the mood of the West's suspicions about Putin's Russia. Forsyth installs a nasty guy as the Ruski president who wants to return the country - not so much to Stalin's Communism but more to Hitlerian Fascism. In fact, his Political Manifesto could have come straight out of Mein Kampf rather than Marx. And, the loon has the latest weapons of biological destruction to achieve the ethnic cleansing pogrom of the Russian Federation. American mercenaries connive with the Russian Prez to realise his fanatical, genocidal dream, but then enter Dirty Dancing's Pat Swayze...and,yep,things get really down and dirty. He's a former US operative-turned-drifter,Jason Monk, who is enlisted by the British Government to see what the Russians are up to. As a corny sidebar, Swayze's character who is no Monk (!)has sired a Russian beauty Elena (played by the gorgeous Marta Kondova) on his previous missions to the former Commie state. Hardman Swayze does a passable job in setting out to defeat the evil Russians. But young unknown actress Marta Kondova steals the flick as his nubile, 18-year-old Russian daughter Elena who helps dad root out the terror threatening her beloved Mother Russia.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have not seen and heard the original version.

I am no Russian, but I am learning right now.

I also have no preferences for Russia, Bulgaia, the US etc.

But what I have to mention is:

In the German synchronisation in the whole film all Russians speak with Russian accent. Americans talk \"Hochdeutsch\" (without accent)! I have never heard such a stupidity! Besides, this is boring.

I hope the original is better.

The rest is a simple thriller, not really good ideas. Like a cheap version of a James Bond film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I saw that Icon was on TV, I was surprised. I know that the first clue of where it was headed was the fact that it was on the Hallmark Channel - Has to be said - sorry!! I was hopeful when I saw that FF himself was the Exec Producer but very quickly saw that the only real way that the TV movie and the book were similar were in the name and the character names only. The TV plot was a ho-hum to say the least but I concur that in and of itself, the action was worth a 3 stars. In my personal opinion, Mr. Swayze could have portrayed a valid Monk, however I think that in order to do the movie justice, it would have been a far longer movie, and I don't think Hollywood itself would have gone for the plot of discreditation by subterfuge. A case in point is the terrible film version of The Sum of All Fears - need I say more?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would like to say something different about this movie. I saw comments how beautiful is Russia and the views from Russia have been great. Hey guys this is not Russia it's Bulgaria more specific the capital Sofia. So this is not Russia it's my country. About the movie - well in Bulgaria, maybe except the Grey Zone - all movies from American directors are in one word awful like this one of course. It's a shame that Patrick Swayze has to play in such a low budget movies. Most of the actors are Bulgarians but really this movie has no plot twist has no energy what can i say-weak and boring movie a clich\u00e9 not more. Hey people remember it's not Russia in reality it's Bulgaria.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Its gonna be hard to make this fill 10 lines.... But ill give it a try (just to prevent others from making the same mistake as i did - to watch this (awful and boring) movie.

I like Patrick swayze - he did a excellent performance in films like Ghost - Dirty Dancing - Point Break - North & South (TV series), but in this movie..... ARGH....This movie is so booooooring, the acting is awful - the script sucks - well.. i cant even find ONE good thing, nothing, absolutely NOTHING. I was watching it with 2 other friends and we all agreed that this was one of the most boring films we had ever seen, and the fact that it lasts for more then 3 hours (which we didn't know) - when part 1 was over and it said \"to be continued\", we almost cried \"nooooooooooooo, do we have to watch 90 minutes more of this movie!!!!\".

Its painful to see this movie: At no time do you get the impression that the actors are Russians, the action scenes are extremely bad. The ONLY good scene is when the truck explodes in the beginning of the movie! The rest is CRAP! GO clean your toilet, instead of watching this movie (and don't come running, crying if you do see this movie - you were pre warned!) Personally i would recommend Patrick Swayze to call his agent and have them recall this movie - its that bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"along the history of cinema, there's been a few films that deceived the viewer, such as hitchcock's \"stage fright\", alejandro amen\u00e1bar's \"abre los ojos\", David fincher's \"the game\" and this one \"ausentes\" (\"absent\"). to begin with, i don't like this kind of films, i feel like somebody is trying to pull my leg.

furthermore, after seeing this film one doesn't know what happened, is such a confusing film. kubrick's \"the shining\" may be a better or a worse movie, but definitely is more honest than this load of pretentious and dubious situations.

technically is fine -nice photography, fair performance and so on, but the script is so poor i wonder what did the producers see to carry on and shoot this crap.

and this film remarks the 3 guys that wrote the script (calparsoro, loriga and quiroga) are lost in cinema trying to make a masterpiece -or trying to do something to fulfill their stomachs, awaiting for more personal projects.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'The Shining' has wit, visual flair and an iconic performance by Jack Nicholson. 'Ausentes,' however, has none of these things; although it does borrow from its classic forebear; to wit, a man hacking through a door and a woman running around shrieking while clutching a huge kitchen knife. Unlike Stanley Kubrick's great psychological horror film, 'Ausentes' is a work which resonates with a singular lack of genius. It is magnificently, comically awful; it makes the Spice Girls movie look like a work of vital art. 'Ausentes' is the tale of a family that moves to a gated community in the suburbs. All is to be well with the world. They will live in peace and tranquillity; they will calmly go about their business away from those mean old city streets. But no. Ariadna Gill's character Julia starts getting spooked by those things that insist on going bump in the night, by empty supermarkets and doors that close themselves; and her husband Samuel, played by Jordi Molla, switches in an instant from laid-back family man to wild-eyed permanently unshaven nutter, injecting Julia with a drug to keep her under his sudden cosh. Molla, much respected as an actor, is absolutely dreadful in this. Comic rather than menacing, he simply cannot pull off a threatening expression. He just come across as a barroom slime ball who's had one drink too many. So is there anything to redeem this film? No. The script is clunky, the plot non-existent and the cast without merit. Completely without tension and full of be scared now moments, 'Ausentes' is an exercise in how not to make a psychological thriller. It is ridiculous and overblown, but as one of the most unintentionally hilarious films of recent years it's well worth a watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first saw the trailer for this film, I really wanted to see it. I thought some of the director's other works were quite good, but I must say I was disappointed. The plot involves a young woman, who lives with a widowed father and two his two sons. They move into a well-guarded community, yet all is not as it seems; a sort of Twin Peaks. The woman begins to see, or not see, things an people. During the first reel, I had a hypothesis, and thought, \"this can't be the whole reason?\" Well, the ending lived up, or better DOWN, and gave us what I felt was a truly weak final act. The sound mixing and quality is excellent. Saw it in a THX Certified Theatre, and was impressed.. by the audio, and only the audio. The picture is missing substance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't know why all the previous comments are approval of this movie. IT IS , well not by far but...,THE SUCKIEST MOVIE I'VE SEEN LATELY, full of clich\u00e9s, bad acting, actually no...very bad acting and has a silly plot...If I would have seen it in a cinema I would have walked out after the first 20 minutes. I f you hate somebody , make him\/her watch this movie...that's how bad it is. A girl who has an imaginary boy\/friend that gives up a relationship with a real one because her imagination is jealous....but i think it figures...she takes after her parents who also have some mental issues...plus the character who is supposed to be I think the laughing stock of it, the thing that should make you laugh, cal's room mate is a serious nut case and just makes me feel sorry for him...and the whole movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I expected a lot more out of this film. The preview looked interesting so I decided to check it out. Bottom line is that \"The Adventures of Sebastian Cole\" only had one decent thing: Adrian Grenier.

I really like Grenier and found his performance to be very pleasing. The character is designed well, but everything else sort of just drifts along through the duration of the movie. Clark Gregg is really good, but I don't think that his character was explained too well. I mean there's not too much to explain; he wants to become a woman. Still, something was missing.

The obvious low budget of the film was nice to see. I enjoyed that the movie was filmed on just a script (a bad one at that) and just a few actors. It was a nice change.

While the main idea of the film was actually okay, it became disappointing to see a lot of scenes that had nothing to do with it just thrown in here and there. Like I said, the script looked promising and I must say that I was interested where director Tod Williams was headed, but it was basically a very slow movie with not too good of dialogue.

\"Sebastian\" started to look good towards the end, but again, it fell right back down into a hole. The acting was mostly good, the writing is in need of some work, yet the budget of the film helped it out in the long run.

I would recommend this to someone if they wanted to watch a quiet movie with a strong lead character, but other than that I would stay away. Personally, I wouldn't watch it twice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Adventures of Sebastian Cole is about a boy named Sebastian (Adrian Grenier) who fancies himself becoming a writer at some point, given he actually puts effort into it. This movie is presumably the years where he gets his material for writing, the adventure years, hence the title and the previous quote. In it we experience the very typical coming of age stories and warnings of loves, drugs, and sex...changes. Yeah, there's a slight twist here that is very interesting, and that is that Sebastian's step dad (Clark Gregg) very early on makes a rough decision to get a sex-change that has a huge impact on Sebastian's family and his relationship with his step-dad.

Clark Gregg plays Hank\/Henrietta, Sebastian's step-father and is very good in the part, very believable without being over the top, which is a route this film could've taken rather easily. Thankfully they didn't. Adrien Grenier, who I'm only familiar with from Entourage, is also very good in his part as Sebastian, and together, he and Gregg have a great relationship on screen. It's always quite engaging to watch these guys (?) relationship as it develops and is genuinely heartbreaking at times.

And that's the best of what this film has to offer. Unfortunately, it brings with it some mediocre camera work, direction, and cinematography. It's not bad, but it's a far cry from being good, or memorable in the slightest. The characters are also thinly written, and it's clear from the get go how most of the arcs will pan out. The only truly fascinating character through and through is Clark Gregg's Hank\/Henrietta. I've already said Grenier did well acting-wise, but the character of Sebastian is not only not engaging, but is completely unlikeable. I don't honestly see why anyone in the audience would route for his character in anything he does. He mopes, whines, cheats, lies, and lacks any aspirations other than to be a complete slacker. It'd be different if he was maybe a side-character or comic relief, but to have him as the main focus and to be asked to take the character seriously? Come on.

And I don't really hold it against this film, but I just want to say...pick a different song in all these films, Hollywood! No more \"Where Is My Mind\" by the Pixies, we all know it's a good song, stop using it in every other film!

I feel like I could just keep tearing more and more of this film apart, but in all honesty I didn't hate it. I just didn't really care for it, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The Adventures of Sebastian Cole isn't a bad or boring film, it's just not a very good or engaging one either. It's very uneven and the script could've used quite a bit of work. I guess the point of the film is to be a loose sort of look at the life of a writer before he made it, and it worked...if that writer put out pieces of fiction that I wouldn't want to read.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This should be re-named \"Everybody Loves Sebastian\". The 1983 rural go-nowhere town high school junior (or senior? - they seemed to flip flop on that one) with weird hair and \"Leo-like\" good looks has a big plate full of issues. His step-dad announces definite plans to have a sex-change operation, upon which his mom calls the marriage quits; Sebastian is called the \"f\" word by everyone and their mother, all-the-while \"kissing around\" with various girls, getting high on Ready-Whip at a supermarket, and saving a \"strawberry\" prostitute from the clutches of her ruthless pimp.

Sebastian's \"buddies\" make Eddie Haskal look like a choir boy; bad association doesn't get much worse. Sebastian seems to go for \"Harold's\" suicide attempts record (although he won't admit suicidal tendanccies). For no apparent reason the genius level SAT scoring Sebastian MUST graduate a year early, although he has no clue about the future, nor does he want to attend college (what gives with this nonsense?).

This film is a look into a few weeks in the life of someone who is PRETTY MESSED UP. The final scene suggests that things will be alright, although the HOW is left entirely up to the viewer.

The makers of this film seem to bank solely on the undisputed appeal of the very attractive male lead. The \"story\" leaves a lot to be desired. Looking for \"what will this gorgeous kid do next...?\" doesn't exactly satisfy. The lackluster production values just don't measure up to other films, independent or otherwise. A low budget and weak story need more than a pretty face to carry it through. The \"results\" of this project are forgettable and an insult to intelligent cinema fans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love comedies and I love independent films, but this was much too slow and the humor was extremely regional. I guess It would have been better if the main characters were likeable, but they were just typical gen-x slacker types, just like the people that have been causing trouble in high schools for forty years... I can understand High Praise for a young indie film-maker when it is deserving, but this is an extremely average film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie when it first came to the theaters in 1988 and though I knew it wasn't of award winning caliber...I kinda liked it. It tales the tale of 5 former cub scouts reuniting to take on the one task they never got to finish as kids - which is to climb Mt. Whitehead. Of course now the cub scouts are all grown up and have developed their personalities in a variety of ways, but none too differently than they were as children. Richard Lewis is still neurotic, Richard Belzer is still a playboy, Franklyn Ajaye is still sort of the Dear Abby of the group, and Tim Thomerson is still the surfer dude of the group. Of course the top billed star is Louie Anderson, a \"true believer\" in everything Cub Scout related. He still lives in the same house with his mother, still goes over the Cub Scout manual daily, is brave, reverent and clean, and is the one who reunites the others for one more grand adventure in Scouting. Compounding their task, however, is the Grunski brothers, two bullies drummed out of the Cub Scouts by the above mentioned. By coincidence they run into their old den and decide to harass them a bit, albeit harmlessly. Not so harmlessly is three escaped convicts, who think Pack 7 is from the FBI and are intent on wiping them out. All in all, the movie still has bits of charm. Observe Richard Lewis trying to get comfortable on a folding cot, for example, and you have a really funny bit going for you. Upon further review, the entire film needed more of that type of observational humor. It doesn't hold up well after all these years but still remains a guilty pleasure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is absolutely the worst comedy I have ever seen. It's hard to explain though, because (unless you've seen this) I bet you've never seen a comedy that was not good or bad; it's just there (That's the original part-not good or bad, just there)!

Let me say that I have seen every comedian appearing in a main role, and like them all. That's what makes this such a mystery. The supporting leads are actually acting (although the dialog is bad). The only character that is fairly good is the one played by John Goodman. He does a pretty good job with what little dialog he has, and actually has one funny line (I won't spoil the only funny line in the movie, in case you decide to watch anyway. It involves a pancake.) The big mysteries are the main leads. I won't call them characters, because no characters have been developed. This script is so juvenile that they don't even bother to give the leads fictional names. They all just use their own. They don't even seem to be trying to act. It's as though they are all reading out loud to each other from scripts that the local junior high sent to them. I actually wrote a paper like this for my English class when I was thirteen-it wasn't funny either.

Bottom line, just don't bother to rent this. It isn't funny. It doesn't even have the kind of bad dialog you can groan to. I just sat there and stared through the whole thing. It was so boring I couldn't even work up any irritation at how bad it was. I can't imagine how this is even getting a rating of 4 here.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Five guys who were in the cub scouts together reunite years later to go camping. Were they run into their childhood nemeses as well as escaped convicts in this supreme unfunny supposed comedy. Most of the cast are content to simply phone it in, and don't really seem to care about the film in the least. The writers were so lazy that the names of the characters are, for the most part, the name of the actors that respectively play them. Richard Lewis's shtick gets really old REALLY quick. Even the late great character actor, Brion James can't save this stinker. (Even though he's one of the few actors in the film that doesn't totally embarrass himself) I hardly cracked a smile, much less had anything that would reasonably be even misconstrued as a laugh. Awful.

My Grade:F","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is not one of those films so bad you get annoyed and mad because it seems to be so up its own arse and yet it completely not funny. It's just that there is nothing of interest in this film. There are no real jokes that make you amused, you just watch for 80 minutes, then turn it off. I bought this on very budget DVD and I'm glad because it's not worth much. This isn't even one of those films that's so bad you can watch it with friends when getting drunk\/high and have a good giggle. I didn't hate it like I hate some films, but it is rather boring, and not worth investing any time in.

The only people who voted 10 on the votes for this film must have been connected to it somehow because I cannot imagine anyone actually liking this film other than small children passing time","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad, bad, bad. How do movies like this get made? Badly written, poorly acted; I could go on, but why bother? As an aside, note that the characters' first names are the same as the actors playing them : this is a dead giveaway that no one on the set is even interested enough in their role to bother learning someone else's characters names!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had heard that this film was stylish and intriguing, but I just found it annoying. It's been a while since I've seen it (and hopefully I won't find out all my memories are wrong and I'm unjustly condemning this movie), but my memory is that the filmmakers tried to portray Leopold and Loeb as victimized by an anti-gay society, and that this somehow caused their horrible crime. I totally disagree with this point of view, and think it's unfair both to homosexuals and to Bobby Franks, the real victim of the story. I can't imagine why anyone would want to claim those two as martyrs. I also thought L&L were portrayed as a bit more sophisticated than they actually were--after all, they were teenagers who lived at home. The film places them in a kind of fantasy world that seems like it should be scored by Morrissey.

I just read an interview with one of the filmmakers that implied the film's anachronisms, such as the push-button phones that characters used, were meant \"to add Brechtian distance\". They certainly do that, but I happened to find it highly irksome.

Apparently a number of people found this movie interesting, but I would have preferred a less \"stylish\" and more realistic examination of the part homosexuality may have played in the Leopold & Loeb case.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watched the director's cut last night...glad it was free rental, even a dollar would have been too much for me to pay to watch this attempt at \"film noir\". The anachronisms (modern telephones) were annoying to me, not clever, seeming more like budget constraints than anything else. The \"non-traditional\" casting I also found distracting. If I have to stop following the story to wonder \"what the heck is the black chick\/drag queen doing there?\" then the storyteller has failed me. Again, not clever in my opinion but annoying and irritating, and very film school final project-ish. And for pete's sake if you are going to shoot in black and white at least use some of the techniques used in old films that take full advantage of not having color. There was no use of nuance in the lighting, no shades of gray, no depth, no texture...just black and just white...boring!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Swoon focuses on Leopold and Loeb's homosexual relationship - a facet of the case that has been mostly (and unjustly) ignored since their trial, even by Leopold himself in his autobiography. But, even in its treatment of this Swoon over does it by far. Worse, it twists, combines, and straight out alters the details of the case which will irritate anyone who knows much about it while at the same time managing to confuse those who are not familiar with it. While it is an interestingly made film, Swoon stinks.

1 out of 10 - awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm desperately trying to stay awake while watching the movie Solomon Kane. I have about a 20 minutes to go. If it gets any better, I will come back here and let you know, but somehow I doubt that will happen. Solomon Kane looks like it is based on the video game Dark Watch, and it sounds like it is based on the video game Legacy of Kane, but unfortunately neither is true. I hear it is based on some comic book or graphic novel or pulp fiction or something else that I have never heard of, but whatever it is based on, there is nothing original in this excruciatingly boring movie. The atmosphere is stolen from the movie 300, which wasn't that great in the first place. The tedious overacting takes itself so seriously that it's nearly hypnotic, and to be clear I mean that in a bad way. The plot is practically non-existent: violent guy trying to be nonviolent meets friendly family, friendly family is murdered, violent guy becomes violent again. All the characters are stereotypes taken from Waterworld or Book of Eli or The Hills Have Eyes or, whatever, just choose another apocalyptic slash fantasy slash wizardry movie that you have seen and there you have it. Someone, somewhere, said, this is how to make a movie: use a blue filter to make everything look mysterious, add plenty of slow motion shots of horse hooves splashing in murky puddles, add snowflakes hovering around while two boring characters are speaking to each other, and oh yes rain pouring down dramatically to distract from the fact that nothing is really happening, and don't forget the black silhouettes walking toward us with fire blazing behind them, and lots of torches burning, and of course blurry fight scenes during which it's not clear what is actually happening because we don't have the budget for the gory special effects so just throw in the sound of metal clanking, and, oh, by the way, don't let any character live long enough for the audience to understand them, relate to them or sympathize with them, and cross fingers, hope that fans of sword and sorcery films will eat it up, even though it is complete doo doo, and go straight to video, do not pass GO . . .","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a big fan of most modern fantasy movies, I was really looking forward to this. I was not familiar with the character, although after hearing some general stories about the style of the comic and good reviews of the movie, I thought I was in for a real treat...

From the moment that the lead character started to talk in his forced husky voice, I could tell straight away that I was not going to enjoy this movie. I found the story weak and predictable, the acting poor, the effects were very good for a small budget film, but did nothing for the overall plot.

Maybe as a fan of the Comics you may get something more from this, otherwise I would suggest that you skip it and not waste you cinema fare on this boring adventure.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking forward to this flick. Being an old Robert E Howard fan, mainly from a Conan stand-point.

I was not expecting a great deal and thought they could not mess it up too much.... Oh dear - how wrong was I....

The main flaw was it was fairly dull. It needed to zip along with a nice helping of supernatural goings-on, sword-fights and the like.

You got some gore, but everything else was just pretty life-less. The middle section just seemed to involve 40 minutes in a muddy forest with slow plodding horse-drawn carts and even slower dialogue and character development!

On the plus side = Costumes and effects were fine, but not enough to keep your interest.

I think it would have been better to tone down the gore, up the tempo, and go for a 12A rating. As a Ten Year old boy, I may have liked this movie. Probably about the age I was first reading the Conan stories funny enough. Perhaps that says a lot about my anticipation of the film?

Or....... Go really \"Art-House\" with tone, direction, etc. But that's fairly high-risk as far as Box Office is concerned.

Oh well.... Perhaps the next Conan movie will make up for it?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just went to see this movie with a friend. I quickly looked and read a short synopsis and thought it sounded interesting. We came out the movies not feeling very sure if we liked it not.

The acting was good enough and connection with characters was OK. The main character I thought acted a lot like someone like Van Helsing. Yes it was pretty entertaining.

But the plot I felt like it was used from other movies. The script was a bit weak, I'm not sure why every time something bad happens, the main character says \"Oh my god\" every time.

The special effects worked well, but (sorry for this spoiler) the main monster at the main climax reminded me a lot of the Balrok out of Lord of the Rings.

Overall, the movie was OK but I felt like it's been done already. Go and see buy all means but don't expect too much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Michael Bassett's film 'Solomon Kane' (based on the character of the same name created by Robert E. Howard) is a disappointing Fantasy Action-Adventure film, that despite having a few scenes of genius falls flat with its awkward pacing, poor characterisation and general dullness. Solomon Kane (James Purefoy) is a mercenary of Queen Elizabeth's army fighting in Africa, where he comes face-to-face with the Devil's Reaper \u0096 a demon who collects the Devil's debts i.e. souls \u0096 refusing to go to hell just yet, he evades the Reaper and starts a new life in an English monastery. With this new life, Solomon has left-behind his culture of violence and bloodshed and instead now embraces the values of peace and non-values. But once he is expelled from the monastery due to the fear of the Devil's Reaper returning, he must travel back to his home in Devon and along the way he befriends a travelling family of puritans heading to the New World. On their journey through the British counties, the family is attacked, and their daughter Meredith (Rachel Hurd-Wood) is abducted by the evil sorcerer Malachi's army, which is lead on the front lines by the mysterious Masked Rider. Now a man of peace, Solomon must go back to his former life as a man of unrepentant violence and destruction to save Meredith.

Despite having great source material to work from, and build upon to create potentially an exciting and enduring medieval action-adventure film, the film fails in three key areas. The pacing of this film is terrible, which may have a lot to do with its incredibly short run time of only one hour and forty minutes (and this is most likely a consequence of the fact that they wish to turn this film into a trilogy). Constantly jumping between of drama and self-characterisation to that of action and muddy bloodshed, somewhat kills the excitement of the action sequences. Instead of keeping the audience on the edge of their seats frothing with the eagle-eyed anticipation, the film instead feels incredibly subdued and, this follows on the next piece of criticism, dull. Despite being touted as an 'action-adventure' film or in some circles an 'action-epic', 'Solomon Kane' is almost most certainly not. The action is mundane and dull, and is generally finished before you have the chance to admire the beauty of a decapitation. Finally, aside from Solomon himself, there is very little characterisation within this film. For example we know little and because of this, care little, about the young woman that Soloman sets out on his journey to save. And I imagine again the filmmaker would refer this criticism to the fact that there is most likely going to be a second film which will hopefully touch upon these aspects that this film surely missed.

It isn't an entirely terrible film however. James Purefoy is gives a fantastic performance as Solomon, the mercenary who must decide whether or not to fall back on his conscience or his blade, and how his decisions will impact not just upon himself, but those around him as well. While respect, admiration, and acknowledgement must also go to Bassett and his crew as well, for creating vivid locations that beautifully reflects the period in which they are filming. At times, it is hard not to get carried away with admiring the beauty of the locations, shot composition and mise-en-scene at show here. Which certainly shows that a lot of time and effort has been placed into this film, unfortunately however that is not to say the same for the story and characters at hand. 'Solomon Kane' certainly had the potential to be something more than simply an 'action-epic,' however it seems that once again the lack of any real depth in the story and characters has resulted in Michael Bassett creating nothing more than a one-dimensional look at swordplay during the Medieval period.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just saw this at the cinema. I haven't read the books. There is nothing new about this film at all.

the bad guys seem to die with a couple of slashes no matter how many times our hero has been stabbed with a big sword he keeps on going looking the same (ish)! There are several action scenes but they are very fake. filmmakers seem to be under the impression that whenever they cant be bothered to choreograph a fight scene they just move the camera up close, move fast and turn the music up......... This leaves me feeling conned yet again.

I admire them for attempting to tackle a dark storyline without the normal Hollywood cheese but I'm sorry to say the filmmakers have failed miserably. The characters are 2 dimensional. We hardly get to know them or feel for them at all. The lead has a charming farmers accent oo arrr..... though it seems he hasn't got much to say...

Don't bother watching this unless you are bored and got it half price from blockbusters....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is called \"Solomon Kane\". Which it isn't. The main character wears a hat, but that's all he has in common with Robert Howard's character Solomon Kane as known from early pulp magazines and lots of publications ever since these days. It is a fantasy movie, not really that bad and it might easily have passed with a rather good review - if it hadn't been called Solomon Kane. The hero is a newly invented character who definitely is not SK. The story is not Robert Howard, neither.

As a fantasy movie it is one more movie following the traditions of the genre: simple story, poor CGI, poor actors, poor directing. Yet it can be fun, you know: 'the cheaper they are, the better they are'. But since it is called Solomon Kane, I cannot accept it. Imagine a Lord-of-the-Rings movie with a hero Bilbo who fights the black sorcerer Saugalf with the help of his dwarf friend Aragorn and the beautiful heroine Shadowfax. And with a final fight where the three use a magical ring to kill the evil sorcerer who has transformed into the dragon Gondorian. Imagine that. This is exactly what this movie has done with Robert Howard's character Solomon Kane.

I'd give it a 4 stars review if it was just another horror movie, but since it is called Solomon Kane, I can only rate it 3 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I realize most people don't know who Solomon Kane is and that the film is pitched at that much larger audience. But then why bother to call it \"Solomon Kane\" in the first place when the name has no marketable value? The characters certainly has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the R.E. Howard character. Except he has a big hat. That's where the resemblance ends.

It's always a bad sign when any superhero\/fantasy\/sci-fi movie lingers over an origin story, but when you invent one whole cloth like this for a character who didn't have one at all, you've already missed the point completely. Kane is no longer even the fanatical Christian warrior of the stories, but rather a formerly bad guy who is trying to save his soul (this part is in the opening scene).

With the most basic character elements changed or simply ignored, the use of the name Solomon Kane is simply perplexing. Is it just so they can say \"From the creator of Conan\" and hope to plug into a budding franchise if the new \"Conan\" movie gets off the ground? Ignoring the complete departure from the stories, the movie is competent if utterly generic for the first half but then devolves into sheer stupidity in the climactic scene which involves multiple super baddies (think three \"boss levels\" at the same time), none of whom is the least bit interesting or menacing.

If I wasn't a Kane fan who was disappointed that they completely ignored the source material, I'd probably give the film a 3 or 4 instead of a 1. Even for the (majority of) viewers who will come into this knowing nothing about Kane, it's pretty thin gruel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Is it really possible that so many people in this film believe that the girl is a witch? Just because she has dark hair and wears dark make up she is supposed to be a witch? And I got the impression that the film tries to present her as someone who is \"different\", someone nobody understands... She is just a teenager and some dumb girl in her high school says she is a witch and everyone believes her. Besides, Brandi is either portrayed very badly or the character itself is made to be so... Fake. She didn't convince me that she is not a witch, not that I would believe it in the first place. Everyone accuses her of being a witch and she acts like she is not entirely sure whether she is a witch or not. And the way they dressed her for the court - I see old ladies every day who wouldn't wear that even if it was the last outfit in the world! Brandi's brother also wasn't very convincing... But, you see, the important thing is, that \"she put that bad, bad girl back on to the ground at the end of the film\". \"She has won the battle, proved to everyone she is different\".

This is probably one of the worst films I've watched in may life, way too shallow. I only watched it because there was nothing else on the TV at the moment, so I was condemned to this trash. Please, do not waste your time watching this film. When I saw the 7-star rating, I nearly fainted... It doesn't deserve it, compared to some other films which are also rated with 7 stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This sequel to the above - and the final entry in the \"Kharis\" series - is slightly more enjoyable on the whole but it's also more contrived (hell, we even get a singing barmaid\/hostess!): Peter Coe is easily the least charismatic of the various Egyptian high priests we've seen during the course of these films, and Martin Kosleck as his henchman seems uninterested in the proceedings; Kurt Katch, then, is saddled with a ridiculous accent as the man who discovers the newly reincarnated Princess Ananka: the latter, in the form of Virginia Christine (later a much-used character actress) gets her most substantial 'role' and, indeed, the sequence of her resurrection from the swamps is a highlight not only of this film but the entire series. Unfortunately, here too, Chaney has precious little to do as once again the emphasis is on Ananka, as I've said; his Mummy (to which he returned most often at Universal - apart, naturally, from his signature role of The Wolf Man!) remains, without a doubt, his least memorable monster for the studio.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unfortunately, this film is typical of the watering down of a good film by numerous sequels. Universal made several serial monster films in the 1940s, which were pale imitations of the original. The intelligent Egyptologist Imhotep has been replaced by a leg-dragging Frankenstein in mummy wrappings, who exhibits no signs of intelligent life. This film is entertaining in spots but if you have seen The Mummy (1932), you will be disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Mummy's Curse is the last in the series of the Kharis mummy films, and it seems that creativity had run somewhat dry by the time they made this one. Kharis and his mate Ananka both end up in the bayous of Louisiana, and on his resurrection, he searches out his beloved princess. How they end up in Louisiana isn't made entirely clear, but with various people trying to find them, the viewer can be assured of some mummy murders.

The Mummy's Curse was watchable, but it really wasn't anything special. I had the feeling throughout the movie that I'd seen this before. Quite frankly, apart from the original The Mummy with Boris Karloff, the Mummy movies are not my favorites among the old Universal horrors. They're not bad, but they do get a bit repetitive.

There are some great scenes in the movie (the scene with Ananka coming to life in the swamp for instance) but overall this didn't do much for me.

It's worth seeing if you want to be completest and see all of the mummy movies, but otherwise you might want to pass on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm glad this was the last of the '40's Universal Mummy movies. The movies were all of variating qualities and this movie was definitely one of the lesser ones.

Problem is that it's a very slow moving movie, in which basically nothing interesting or exciting is ever happening. Perhaps it would had all been better if the mummy had made his entrance earlier on in the movie. Instead now the movie once again spends its first 20 minutes explaining what had all happened in the previous mummy movies, by also once again using archive footage from this time \"The Mummy\" from 1932 again, to which this movie is the fourth mummy movie following the 1932 mummy story. The movie just never knows to find the right pace and even though the movie is barely over an hour long, it still feels a bit like a drag.

It of course also doesn't help that the movie has a rather simplistic and actually very little interesting story. The movie also feels quite disjointed. The first and second half of the movie don't really connect to each other and they seemed like two separate movies on their own.

At least Lon Chaney Jr. is still in it. He once more reprises the role of the mummy Kharis, for the third time. Too bad that he has such limited screen time this time. He gets unfortunately very little interesting to do, which is also a big waste of the mummy character itself. The movie is further more filled with dozens of silly actors who are playing around with silly accents. It seemed so totally unnecessary to me that most of the characters had to speak with such an accent and it actually gets quite distracting and annoying at points.

The mummy movies that's least worth seeing.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not all films made in 1931 are this creaky, and the fact that this was \"Best Picture\" must have given even greater impetus to the development of television.

Typical of all Ferber novels, it isn't possible to bring the entire story to the screen, to say nothing of developing character. Dix -- so stolid in the first third of the movie -- does an about face, but no one knows why and it makes no sense. And what is there about Dunne that makes makes her so stoical? Edna May Oliver's scenes are priceless, as usual.

This film has a role to play in the history of cinema, but it is long and boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is dated in so many ways, it's sensational. You can either laugh at it or shake your fists in rage.

This movie deals with many problems of American history, but with the typical white-male-Christian-American paternalism: The main character is one of those I-can-do-it-all-and-you've-got-to-love-me-for-it-kind-of-guy. He is so pompous and not to be taken serious at any time. What a horrid creature! His wife is a weak little woman for the first part of the movie and a still very weepy, but stronger character in the end. Too bad she still forgives his cocky ways after he's left her for the second time. It's just sad that the character didn't really change at all. Even though she is supposed to portray a strong and independent woman in the end, she is consumed by worry about her adventure-seeking husband. So 2 out of 10 points from the feminists among us (and those are only for the good intentions...)! The problem of Indian suppression is dealt with quite nicely, but there is that patronizing story-telling again. And the fact that all African-American characters are the typical stereotypes makes the movie even more hypocritical. I was so enraged most of the time! So one point (for trying) from the civil rights movement.

I know, that the movie was done at a different time. I love old movies and I have a lot of patience with some of those dated point of views. But this was just disgusting!

What saves this movie are the parts without the main character. Mr Dix's acting is way over the top and smug. Maybe that's why his character is so disagreeable... I liked Mrs Dunne's performance, even though her character enraged me at times.

But I must say the famous land rush scene was incredibly done. And the way that the Oklahoma settlement was portrayed made the movie worthwhile. It's just amazing how civilization rose out of the dirt and dust of the 19th century. And I don't understand the problem some have with that church scene. I thought it was quite funny and amusing. Maybe it wasn't supposed to be, but I liked it. So 9 points for those scenes and the impressive storytelling of the development of the Oklahoma state. That makes about 4 points altogether!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cimarron was painful to sit through. Although Irene Dunn does a good job with the heavy-handed script, Richard Dix' pompous and overacted role is brutal. The passage of time has not treated the character of Isaiah, as well as other racial and religious notions, well, although the movie is somewhat progressive on the roles of women and the mistreatment of Native Americans. The editing is especially weak. This is, without a doubt, the worst of all the \"best\" pictures.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like a lot of films from the early sounds days, Cimarron must be viewed more for historical interest than as compelling entertainment. The hammy acting of lead Richard Dix, nominated for best actor, can be excused as a relic of the silent-film school of acting. However, even giving benefits of the doubt, Cimarron is a badly shaped piece of drama -- a bloated film that moves from unrelated sequence to unrelated sequence with little dramatic impact. Offically, the film is two hours and four minutes; it feels like four hours when you're watching it. There is no reason to waste your time on it unless you want to see every Best Picture winner or have a keen interest in the early sound days. In my opinion, Cimarron is the worst choice for best picture in Academy history and the award should have gone to City Lights or Little Ceasar. Cimarron is barely remembered today, and would have be remembered at all if not for its Oscar win.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The selection of the bloated, boring, and racist \"Cimarron\" ranks as the worst choice for Best Picture in Oscar history. Poorly acted (particularly by the justly forgotten Richard Dix, whose performance as the self-centered and irresponsible Yancey Cravat ranks as one of the most narcissistic characterizations in screen history) and leadenly paced, the film is truly shocking today because of the racist slant towards its one black character, who is introduced by being shown sleeping in a chandelier.

Other comments by IMDb reviewers have dismissed the attitude towards this character as being merely dated, but many films that appeared during this period did NOT depict blacks as shuffling, lazy mental deficients in the manner that this behemoth takes great delight in; so that argument seems weak to say the least. But whether you regard this demeaning characterization as in shockingly bad taste for anyone at any time or merely the forgivable ignorance of a less-educated era, it is very painful to watch with 21st century eyes.

But even this might not matter if the film weren't the overlong bore that it is. Voted the Best Picture Oscar at the 1930\/31 Academy Awards when such enduring classics as \"City Lights,\" \"The Public Enemy,\" \"Dracula,\" \"The Dawn Patrol\" and \"The Blue Angel\" failed to be nominated, \"Cimarron\" is by far the worst selection to join the Oscar pantheon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was, of the 67 of 71 best pictures I have seen, by far the worst. First of all, I found the plot line somewhat absurd - the absent husband for 25 years\/ still in love\/ not even a letter! Give me a break. And why was the guy who was absent for so long coincidentally working on an oil rig next door to the congress-woman's party? This film also exhibited some of the worst stereotyping of African-Americans that I have ever seen. It makes Gone With the Wind (see Prissy) look downright progressive! I have scarcely seen a movie that I disliked this much. UGH!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** There's not much that can be said about this early-talkie era flick. (I'm hesitant to call \"Cimarron\" a \"film\", because I feel that the word is too esoteric.) But what can be said about it...mainly speaks against it.

Take, for example, the overuse of portraying Indians as bad folk. In one scene, the little boy of the flick's lead character--an overbearing and over-ambitious family man who wants to set up a newspaper business-- is playing just outside of his father's office. An Indian kneels down in front of the child. \"Hello,\" the boy says to the Indian, in a very polite manner. The Indian gives him a feather, stands up and walks off.

Yancy Cravat, Jr. excitedly runs inside the office. \"Mommy! Mommy!\" he shouts, holding up the Indian's gift. \"Look what an Indian gave me!\"

\"How many times do I have to tell you!\" she snaps at the boy. \"You aren't ever to talk to those filthy Indians!\"

Yancy Yates, Sr. (Richard Dix) comes across as a man who speaks with a forked tongue. At the start of the story, he seems to have a definite plan for giving his family a better life. But, we soon enough discover, he's no great over achiever--much less a totally good-moral minded man. His slave child, Isaiah (Eugene Jackson) is one tell-tale sign of this.

Upon his family's first trek to a Sunday morning church service--one

at which, curiously enough, Cravat is to give the sermon--Isaiah tries to come along, dressed up like Cravat, long-tail suit, holster, gun and all. Cravat tells him to go home. \"Ya' all doesn't want me to come with ya' ta church?\" Isaiah says with a pout.

\"No!\" Cravat corrects him, patting him on the shoulder. \"You don't understand! I want you to stay and guard the house. And if anyone at all comes along... you shoot him dead!\"

The characters--not to mention the actors--in \"Cimarron\" couldn't

act their way out of burlap sacks, despite their obvious efforts. And nothing in the script was any too commendable, either. (Granted: the incomparable Edna May Oliver--notorious for playing the Red Queen in Alice In Wonderland, also released in 1931--actually manages to look good, pulling off her portrayal of a pompous old woman, which is what she's also been best-known for.) But, aside from that, well...

Yancy Yates isn't popular in town from the first week he arrives,

and one of the outlaws decides to shoot Cravat's white hat off as he and his wife (Irene Dunne) are casually walking by. Despite her anger with the man who fired the bullet, Cravat just takes it completely in stride.

Not only was this story not \"shooting for realism\", but it was very

lacking in several key areas: e.g., Cravat's newspaper isn't ever really seen. (Bulletins and posters, yes--but not any newspaper.)

Perhaps strangest of all, though: this is set in a small town in

Kansas. Yet, for some reason or other, Yancy Cravat is dead-set on

calling his paper \"The Oklahoma Wig-Wam.\"

Really good westerns have always been very few and far between--the only exceptions being Clint Eastwood's so-called \"spaghetti westerns\" of the late '60s to early '70s. Cliche westerns, on the other hand, are a dime-a-dozen.

If you like cliche westerns, \"Cimarron\" will do you proud--but, as for me... it did me embarrassment.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must have been in a good mood to give this shameful, predictable, embarrassing movie even a 3. What's wrong with it? Let's start with the gratuitous sex although I admit the rotational style of bonking was something I had not seen (nor experienced) before. And I guess they also saved a few bucks by showing the same sex scene three times. Then there are the inconsistencies. The \"Oakville Tribune\" seems to be in a green part of whatever town it was supposed to be. (Hamilton Ontario???) Yet in the scenes on the roof, it appears to be in an industrial area with a steel mill belching smoke and flames. Also, the inside of the building --- the newsroom --- the stairways --- seem much bigger than the outside. SPOILERS HERE Then, when our intrepid reporter finally gets fired, she comes back to the building several times, once after hours. Hardly likely. The ending is also pitifully predictable...the classic bait and switch caper in which the good guy turns out to be the bad guy. But my major objection is the fact this is yet another movie financed with Canadian and Ontario tax credits which is ashamed to set itself in Canada, yet again proving that the Canadian film industry is craven and opportunistic. A country's movies must do more than just provide jobs. They should reflect the culture. It's bad enough that the American studios use Toronto as a stand in for New York. But it is embarrassing and infuriating when Canadian producers (in this case, CanWest Global) do it with help from the federal and provincial governments. In a word... BAH!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The subject matter was good, direction was OK. Mohanlal was efficient in his role as a Major. The acting of the supporting actors was amateurish at best. The casting director and director should be held responsible for this debacle. Hawaldar Jai was terrible, he stood out like a sore thumb with his poor histrionics. He did not look the part nor did he move like a soldier. There was a scene where a satellite feed was required of the skirmish with the militants and they were showing it from a camera angle. Satellite is located hundred of miles in the sky so the only angle is from above.It was quite an embarrassing moment. Audience these days are matured and they recognize when one is trying to pull wool over their eyes. The Director is a Major so the story could be out of his personal experiences. No problem there, but the movie is only as good as its actors and Director. So if Major Ravi is going for any other projects he should pay more attention to the casting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen this movie n I can say that this is really a bad movie. The director's gone nuts... of course.. he does know a lot about the army, but then he certainly is a cheap guy. There are a lotta technical flaws in the movies as well...

Okay... here's my doubt- in the end when they rescue the family (including a girl who was just raped)... why do they leave them there outside their place? I didn't see any ambulance around! There are a lot of aspects in the movie that are real... but then I just wish the Major had narrated\/helped\/assisted some other good director n made the movie.

Mohanlal surely does deserve a better director!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Aaran is one of the movies where you find the loop holes in Indian Cinema. Here is one good example to show how excellent writers, directors and actors succumb to the producers. Here is one of the most wonderful actors, Mohanlal, acting in a movie about a real story in Kashmir. The seriousness of the film is slaughtered with sub standard comic scenes and songs. There is this character, Havaldar Jaykumar, who in reality, is the son of the producer of the film. Hence, he doesn't have a hair cut despite his officer asking him to do so. This kid doesn't know what is acting and he is the \"hero\" of the movie. God Help Indian Cinema with such producers.

This movie is a pathetic display of what happens in Kashmir. A sensible viewer can intuitively understand the constraints of such wonderful writers, actors and directors who want to share their real life experiences. But the unfortunate part is that a movie about the highest ranks in Indian Militia turns out to be a pathetic display that only makes one think that the movie was stupid.

We should oust such producers in the film industry and pave way for good cinema.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie really left me thinking ... but not about the plot, the direction, the characters, an underlying message, or a clever script. Far from it. I was left wondering what in Sam Hill went wrong behind the scenes. Clearly, something was badly amiss from the beginning.

I'm amazed at the positive comments for the movie and for Jodie Foster's performance. From the get-go it was clear that Foster had phoned this one in. One earlier comment even made a favorable mention of her facial expressions. I must have been watching a different movie since Ms Foster (usually a personal favorite) seemed to be totally disinterested.

In one of his first scenes with Foster, Fred Ward looks as though he, also, is distracted by her lack of energy and he struggles to deliver his own lines with any enthusiasm. By the time he's called upon to take part in a supposedly desperate search for runaway Foster, Ward also seems to have become embarrassingly half-hearted about the project.

In my opinion, Dennis Hopper has always been a uni-dimensional performer, so I wasn't expecting much from him ... and he delivered.

Yes, this one left me thinking long after it ended. The fact that Joe Pesci and Charlie Sheen refused to have their names attached to the project suggests that this was a real stinker for everyone involved. But to then learn that the Director preferred to hide behind a pseudonym speaks volumes.

But why listen to me? I always think Foster looks ridiculous in a dress, yet she's sensational in lacy underwear.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A young woman, Jodie Foster, is witnessing a mafia murder, reports the killing to the local police, and becomes herself a hit target by the mob operatives. A professional killer, Dennis Hopper, hired by mafia, is stalking her to prepare for the hit, but eventually he falls for her. Then, as a parody of the Stockholm Syndrome that defines a case when an abducted hostage begins to like and cooperate with the kidnapper, Jodie Foster falls for her abductor too, make love, and both prepare for a getaway.

Denis Hopper, the actor, tries to align himself with the creative ambitions of Dennis Hopper, the director. The result is disappointing, and fails to keep pace with the artistic level of a great performer as Dennis Hopper is. There is no real thrill and the script is sometimes naive and predictable. The film is saved to some extent by the performance of Jodie Foster who is not at her best, but still shines with her talent, beauty and gift. Of historical interest is the short appearance of Vincent Price, and, in a small act, of Charlie Sawn known from his great part in \"Wall Street\".

If you decide to spend the 116 minutes to see the film, it is not a complete loss; this movie offers easy entertainment, but we would expect much more from the director of \"Easy Rider\", and the actress who gave us the character of Sarah Tobias in \"The Accused\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has it all: it is a thriller, a chase movie, a romance story, a mob tale, a comedy, a road movie... well, in fact it's none of this at all.

All the time you are waiting for something interesting to happen, but no, you are still watching the same dull, uninspiring and superficial clich\u00e9 of a movie with a very bad soundtrack. Even the star cast acting is lacking in credibility. A hit man with his quirks, a girl who's playing hard to get, mob guys acting tough and incapable cops, yawn...

I'd recommend not to watch Backtrack. If you want to see a good movie directed by a famous actor, go and see 'The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada' by Tommy Lee Jones. Now, that's what I call worth watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie recently mainly because I am a Huge fan of Jodie Foster's. I saw this movie was made right between her 2 Oscar award winning performances, so my expectations were fairly high. Unfortunately, I thought the movie was terrible and I'm still left wondering how she was ever persuaded to make this movie. The script is really weak. The story itself may have been somewhat believable if someone like Mel Gibson had played the role of the hit-man. The idea of Jodie running off with Dennis Hopper and his irritating accent was impossible for me to buy into. I did think that Jodie looked great throughout the movie, which was probably the only reason I watched the entire thing. Maybe parading Jodie around with as few clothes on as possible was the only reason the movie was made. I saw a TV biography of Jodie where basically all of her movies were commented on in chronological order, and this movie was the only one never mentioned. After seeing it, I can now see why.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Catchfire\" or \"Backtrack\" as it is sometimes called, is not very good. That is, it's bad. Jodie Foster had already won an Oscar at this point. Why did she agree to do this? I don't know.

The hostage\/kidnapper relationship is not believable, even if it is a common psychological phenomenon in real life.

Worst of all, this film features a scene where Hopper and Foster ride a boat under the Fremont Bridge (a bridge in Seattle) which means that traffic had to stop so that the bridge could open. I've had to wait for that bridge to go down many times, almost all of them on the bus. It's not a pleasant wait. This film caused unnecessary bridge-waiting and the world is a worse place for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not as bad as 1992's \"Nails\" (where Hopper plays an \"unstable\" cop) but pretty bad. How can a movie with such a great cast go so wrong? This film manages to find a way. The story was pretty stupid and Hopper's direction seemed like he had never directed before. All of the long shots in the beginning were bothersome. Lots of meaningless scenes with a lot of meaningless dialogue.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"WOW, I'd hate to sound opinionated, but anyone that rated this movie any higher than I just have must have an I.Q. that reaches unimaginably low depths which reach out beyond time and space and connect at planet \"Hopper-is-a-retard-for-making-this-movie\". WOW this movie STANK. Fred Ward's haircut looks SSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPIIIDDD! I actually considered mailing Fred Ward some money in compensation for that miserable haircut he owned in this awful film. Jodie Foster, of course didn't have much to work with but still manages a terrible performance throughout. Joe Pesci, oh my...Joe Pesci (who mysteriously is not cast) plays THE ULTIMATE stereotypical Joe Pesci movie character, complete with mob killing and constant use of the F word. You won't believe your eyes. Dean Stockwell, watching him in this mess made me feel bad for him because I actually thought he was either intoxicated or temporarily retarded throughout the course of the film. Jon Turturro must have been intoxicated himself when he agreed to be in this, along with Vincent Price, Bob Dylan, and Charlie Sheen. I know what you're thinking, GREAT CAST! I know, and it was the WORST great cast film I've ever seen. Dennis Hopper directs and stars, and does equally bad in both areas. How the man could have directed EASY RIDER and then this is FAR beyond my excellent imagination. His OUTRAGEOUSLY bad hit-man character accent is beyond the realms of horrendous, and only is equaled by the hilariously bad ending. They (Hopper and Foster) are the most uninteresting couple I believe that I have ever come across in my exposure to the world of cinema, and you will be cheering for them to lose and then be grandly maddened by the ending. What exactly are the two of them WEARING at that action filled conclusion? I don't know, but I do know that if I ever meet Dennis Hopper, I will make immensely make fun of him for being responsible for this waste of celluloid. Join me! IAN","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A rather mild horror movie; if not for a couple of sex scenes, it could easily have been a TV movie. Plot holes abound (one example: why would there be a secret passage from the 18th century leading from the upper floor of a house that was burned to the ground and a new building put ther 200 years later?), cardboard acting, characters doing things that anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size wouldn't do...

It's got a few fun moments, but overall it's a sub-par film that managed to get Roy Scheider because his bills were due. If you're looking for an extremely formulaic, predictable film that might provide a few laughs, it might be worth watching. If not, then this one's not for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was bad and the movies about how some college students stay at a house to get money by renovating it and then they find out that the house has a woman Deamon in it and that there is a portal to hell.In this movie there are heaps of stupid scenes like at the start of the movie how they are cleaning the house and they start to dancing to a cheesy song and some of the Demons at the end of the movie are just some guys in bad costumes trying to make scary sounds and there are some good gore scenes like when the Professor gets his face ripped of.I only hired this movie because i am a big fan of horror movies and its only worth watching if u are a fan of horror movies.The acting in this movie is really bad the only good actor is Roy Scheider from the great movie Jaws and over all this movie has heaps of flaws and my rating is 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the lamest, crappiest, idiotic, stupid movies i ever saw in my entire life... I can't believe there are directors who make these kinds of movies... this movie is a disgrace to horror genre... acting ??? Oh! no !!! i couldn't bear... it's full of anguish... don't ever watch this movie... you'll feel like u are being tortured to eternity... please, save yourself from the horrible fate of watching this movie... if you really want to live, don't watch it... there are very good horror movies...

this movie doesn't deserve tat single vote too... but, i hate to vote if I want to post my comments...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't figure out what Jon Voight could POSSIBLY have been thinking when he got involved in this tenth-rate, incoherent, pretentious, mind-numbing slop. He helped to write the alleged \"script\" himself, and he should be damn well ashamed of it. The film (I can't call it a \"movie\" because it barely moves at all) is rambling, embarrassingly pretentious drivel--sort of like a really bad Oprah Winfrey show, but worse. It meanders senselessly back and forth from medieval times to modern-day Los Angeles, with Voight as a television producer who thinks he is the reincarnation of a medieval prince who must save the kingdom from the machinations of his evil brother, and somehow this gets transferred to modern times where Voight has to save the country from the evil machinations of an oil company executive. If the bizarre casting (Wilfrid Brimley, Frankie Valli (!), Kaye Ballard and Armand Assante, among others) isn't enough to kill it, the stupefyingly inept direction, the washed-out photography (it looks like it was shot with a really cheap 16mm camera), the almost complete lack of editing (scenes either go on and on endlessly or are chopped off in the middle of a sentence), and Voight's embarrassing, apparently stream-of-consciousness \"acting\" are enough to bury it, which is exactly what should have been done with it. A jaw-dropping experience. Avoid this dog at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was told Jon was for awhile on spiritual experiences. I guessed the film will be interesting.In fact isn't at all. Not so much profound for a such subject. \"eternity\" never-ending life. Experiences after death and \"dejavu\". The film is not as a comedy but isn't funny at all, at least not express yet. It's so naive. Charming film but naive film. A must to avoid. The Middle ages sequences seems coming directly from fairy tales and it's not the matter at all. Eileen Davidson is so charming and Voight is doing his best. Normal is a co producer and screenwriter of this movie. The film was launched straight on video so i discovered it on a video store. It's a pity 'cause I well know Voight was seriously involved with spirituality and the film isn't so much profound about it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is so bad it's almost good. Bad story, bad acting, bad music, you name it. O.K., who are the jokers that gave this flick a '10'?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In my opinion, a good documentary - especially one dealing with controversial political issues - should be informative and as unbiased as possible. The point should be revealing the truth. This means, in particular, having among the interviewees experts on the subject and representatives of all sides. This film is a failure in this regard. Most of the interviews included in this film consist of \"men off the street\" expounding on the question of peace in the Holy Land. The wall itself, the supposed subject of the film, is given no serious treatment at all. For most of the interviews, the interviewer simply waits to be approached and asks general questions such as \"what do you think of the wall?\" - she does not approach random people near the wall and ask them how they have been directly affected by it. Outside of one interviewee, the Israeli general in charge of the wall's construction, we have no \"experts\" on the subject to provide us with the wall's context (e.g. how and when the project began, whether it has been successful, which groups are for and which against the project, etc.)

Outside of the interviews, a very large portion of the film consists of extended shots of uneventful scenes, such as head-on shots of the wall, construction of the wall, and people getting off a bus. These shots take up far too much time, in my opinion. It's nice to see what the wall looks like, but the 20-30 minutes of head-on filming of the wall (and only the wall) are excessive. Clearly, these shots (accompanied by Arabic music that conveys a sense of mourning) are included for the sole purpose of arousing in viewers feelings of loathing for the wall.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The film-makers went well out of their way to find ONLY the following demographics: Palestinians that have the appearance of peace-loving, solution-seeking good will, Palestinians (particularly older women and families with children) who are especially inconvenienced by the security fence, and Israelis that don't believe in the security fence, sympathize heavily with its alleged effect on Palestinians, and consider it unnecessarily divisive and\/or a waste of money. Oh yes, they do put in one member of the Israeli government that does support the fence, but they do what they can to portray him as inhumane and uncaring, and ask him very leading questions that are really statements (e.g. \"The wall is bad for the environment...it is destroying everything\").

I have no problem with any (well, most) of this being presented in the movie. However much I may disagree with the people they interview, their opinions are valid enough for a documentary. HOWEVER: there are at least two sides to the issue of Israel's security fence, and despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Israelis (and many others) support the construction of the fence and believe it is having an overall positive influence, this \"documentary\" does not present the opinion of even ONE such person. They even go so far as to interview an Israeli Jew who claims that \"all Israelis support the fence\" and are thus insane, and then stubbornly refuse to interview even one such \"crazy\" Israeli. Oh, and to top all this off, they set the tone for the film by interviewing a couple of young Israeli children (truly exceptions to the rule -- I've been there) that are laughing at\/about their Arab neighbors from across the fence.

A \"documentary\" is a film that explores an issue and presents a full array of facts, opinions, and perspectives. Unfortunately, this is not a documentary. This is an unabashed PROPAGANDA FILM that very clearly, very pointedly offers a battery of support for only one side of a heavily disputed, emotionally and politically charged issue. It is no more of a documentary than, say, Fahrenheit 9\/11.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With a humor that would appeal to an exclusive, small audience, the average viewer will find it pointless and monotonous. When Cartoon Network advertised this show, it was made to look as if it was a major drama or event, complete with a real rain scene and government officials trying to catch the Sheep.

When it came out on the air, I was disappointed at how all the characters were so one-dimensional and a totally bland animation. The only thing that put it to anything close to humor were the names of the characters like \"Private Public\" and \"General Specific\", a few vague references to cultural aspects, and how Lady Richington pummeled Sheep with her steel wig.

Slightly off topic, but I don't see why would Sheep fall in love with that ball of dirty cotton balls called \"Swanky.\" It was hideous!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Irvine Welsh's follow up to Trainspotting hits the screen as three short stories set in Edinburgh, all with a few of Welsh's trade marks, drug culture, depression, the working class and Hibernian football club. Uneasy to watch in places, it is no less than very well written, 2 of the stories having a darkly comic twist to them while the 2nd story a serious (and shockingly realistic) plot to it. Will not appeal to most, including myself to a point, but will no doubt adopt a cult following.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ah, here it is! A movie, which is said by people to remind me of the epic \"Trainspotting\". OUCH, was I a fool to believe that, and OUCH, how my buttocks hurt after having forced myself to watch this c**p from beginning to end. After the first 10-15 minutes I just wanted it all to end, or at least they could've put some nudity or action or cool acid house music into it to make it worth the time... But no, when I was through with it, i put it into my CD shelf and I hope I will never have to pick it out again just to show it to some friend who is so anxious to see it that he\/she don't want to listen to my warnings.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The stories were pretty weird, not really funny and not really cunning. I'm not sure what the point of the stories was .. The first story was actually mostly sick, the second was just really really pathetic and the third was only weird (the fake baby was actually quite badly made).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is really one of the worst movies i have seen in a while. It's not funny at all. It simply portrays a lower class Northern British setting. I find it a very sad film at parts, at others cuts are where they shouldn't be. One thing that really annoyed me was the close ups of pointless objects it really slowed down the pace of the movie. I only made it through the movie because i fast forwarded certain sequences towards the end.

This movie completely loses the attention of the audience. It's main problem is that it makes multiple reasons for one action, which in turn tends to weaken that action. However if there is one reason for one action it makes it more passionate. All in all this movie is all over the place. I didn't learn enough about the characters to care about them because of the shifting plot lines and stories where as i would have maybe enjoyed exploring the life of one character.

For example at the beginning when the guy meets God in the bar, God seems like a cool guy. The movie could've elaborated on that moment and I think it would've been a lot funnier.

Anyway, enough if's. Watch it if you want, but I'm warning you this film is crap. I respect the makers for trying to pull it off with such a low budget but they could've done a much better job. I guess it all lies in the camera movement and editing, the acting was decent. But then again, that's just my opinion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Because I would have never ever seen this movie through to the end. Although there are some, but not many, funny moments in this movie I couldn't understand more than about 15%(the fancy English couple in the 3rd story included) of what people were saying. Three short stories, none with a real point, with just some of the most miserable and lifeless people I could have imagined and a load of foul language. Didn't find it funny, didn't find it amusing, didn't find any sense in it. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Fairly appalling enterprise suggests Welsh to be an infantile artist, helplessly drawn to the violent milieu he knows best, but unable to resist vacuous elaborations rooted in banal fantasy. The first story is a ham-fisted, meaningless trudge with a B-movie sci-fi premise. The second achieves some poignancy, but only via the outrage-inducing surplus of humiliation visited on its central character. The third and most risible seems to aspire to being a dislocated sequel to Child's Play. The direction is consistently clueless - all whirling sound and fury, a slave to the extreme unpleasantness of the environment; suffocating in an ill-chosen music score and in indifferently flashy acting. This is sheer stupidity masquerading as a guerilla sensibility - as arbitrary and hollow as the abstract images that link the three sections.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I, like many this evening braved the frigid winter and long lines to see what I had anticipated to be one of the best movies of this year. However, I was left sadly wanting in many ways after the credits rolled. But to be fair, there were redeemable qualities (although very few). Let's start with what worked. First, the Lycans: on point in every way \u0096 from their terrifying physicality to their sheer ferocity. The action: sublimely visceral \u0096 when it did occur. Nighy\/Victor and Sheen\/Lucian: Perfect. Now, what did not (and there is plenty). This was less a movie and more a collage of sequences (and do not expect to see any supporting characters from the other movies except Raze and Tannis). Profoundly missing was a well written storyline and anything of real substance to bring these pieces of film together. The story seemed to start right in the middle \u0096 at the cusp where Lucian had made up his mind to rebel. Therefore, there was no context; no tension; no sense of betrayal \u0096 the devices needed to make everything else work. Moreover, it ended at where the climax should have begun (which needed to be after the feud had simmered for a bit). Oh and it was way too short. Purist will also find offense in some liberties taken to certain facts previously revealed in the first two movies\u0085but judge that for yourself. In the end, this movie lingered to long on what should have been brief \"background\" scenes (e.g. various council scenes), and as a consequence we never really got to know or care about the principal players...or the movie (ouch). -D","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First I must say that I enjoyed the first Underworld movie. I was intrigued and curious to learn about Vampires and Lycans and so forth. In this last part (hopefully) of the series I just feel sorry for how pathetic the vampires are. At least in the first part you had the tight leather clothes... now vampires seem like besieged victims of bad pest control problem. They look and act like haughty white pasty humans.

Some ideas were neat... the whole thing with human nobles was interesting. Pity the acting was abysmal. The slave thingy too was feasible.

Other things just hit me as pathetic. Spoilers now. Castle walls that can be jumped over in a few steps ? Enemies that don't attack during the day ? Big bad ancient vampires that take ages to join combat and then run away from a fledgling lycan leader after a minute or so ? Werewolves that den close to their enemies ? Lycans that raid armouries... for what ? They don't use axes and swords or armor ! A vampire leader so inept he manages to have just about everyone against him ? The romance is so unconvincing its sad.

So I don't recommend this film unless you get it online or buy a very cheap movie ticket. Some of the action is good to OK. Certainly the vampires armor and weapons are interesting. Otherwise a very weak script that was badly put together and uses all sorts of inane plot twists.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe this movie is getting the rating that it is here on IMDb. Of course, I've come to conclude that IMDb is somewhat worthless for actually finding out if a movie is good or not as 99% of films are rated from 6 to 7. It's the conclusion and failure of crowd-sourcing on the internet. For this purpose an average is taken of most people, and unfortunately, most people are simple minded easily entertained fast food lifestyle morons. But I digress. The movie. I really don't want to waste my time writing about it. Let's just say I found it to be tailor made for seemingly two groups of people, young teens, at the age where violent action movies of any sort just hit the spot, and goth types that just love to choke down whatever Gothic vampire fantasy they can get their hands on. If you aren't in one of those categories, you will find this movie absurd. I did enjoy the first Underworld. It was fresh at the time and held a sort of edgy quality. The second was a bit trying in plot, but I did enjoy the direction and cinematography at times. But this whole movie felt like a sci-fi channel production or even a TV series. I found the actors to be over-directed. Their body language stiffened into un-natural idealistic poses that seemed contrived. Lines were spit out like young actors would spit out lines of Shakespeare, reveling in their own egoistic glory at being in such a role, but in doing so, crudely bludgeoning the role. The plot was dry and predictable right from the start. I found myself wishing things to just \"move along\" as it was so easy to tell what was going to happen. I tried to care at first, but my brain was forced to shut off. By the end climax, I actually caught myself falling asleep. There were so many parts that were inconsistent and didn't make sense that it's not even worth listing them all. If you're a pimple faced teen or a chronic goth, sure, have at it. For the rest of us, forget it, like I'm about to do right now.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There wasn't much thought put into the story line on many fronts. This is a good action movie but that's about it.

- The movie states that the lycans were kept to protect the vampires during the day. Yet they are kept in cages and have collars on their necks. So they can't turn into their wolf form or do anything any other slave can't do. How does this protect the vampires during the day? Who are they protecting the vampires from? The uncontrollable lycans? The slaves in human form are nothing more than peasants.

- My understanding is that vampires are immortals and don't age. Yet Sonya ages from child to adult. Do they just stop aging at a certain age? I understand that Viktor is old because he was turned (as explained in the second movie). But vampire babies age? Strange.

- I didn't realize that vampires needed torches to see at night. Yet we see them carrying torches throughout the movie.

- Silver was the only thing that was supposedly able to harm lycan. Yet wooden steaks fired from the huge crossbows kill the lycan too.

These are just some of the things that show just a lack of thought put into the story telling.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are rumours that a fourth Underworld is going to happen. If so, than the third part, which is also a prequel, would be in the middle of the franchise. With prequels that succeed the original movies, you always ask yourself in what order should you watch the movies, so that it makes sense ...

In this case, I guess it doesn't matter that much. The third Underworld movie isn't up to par with the other two. They had their obvious flaws too, but this one lacks a few things and it feels like a cash in. It seems like it's not going full throttle, which is a shame, because the actors sure could've used better material to work with.

The story is OK, but it's nothing special. A nice movie, but Rhona Mitra couldn't fill the shoes of Beckinsale (yes she plays another character, I mean the void, that Kate B. left) ...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Other than it reassembled the characters from the first film and gave them more backstory. Essentially, Lucian the Lycan (werewolf) fell in love with Sonia the Vampire, a Romeo and Juliet scenario you know is going to end badly if you've seen the first movie. So with absolutely no suspense, we blunder forward with two hours of unremitting CGI and actors with little or no screen presence. All shot in that monotone color that the first movie had because nothing was shot in daylight.

Worth your time.. probably not. In fact, the quality has gone down, even the CGI looks like it was done on the cheap, you don't buy for a minute that these are real werewolves.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My mother forced me to watch this movie with her. She apparently will watch anything with a vampire counsel in it. I was bored throughout.

At different points, Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans is reminiscent of Spartacus, Battle For The Planet Of The Apes, The Passion Of The Christ, and Mandingo! What it reminds me most of are those Italian sword and sandal pictures of the nineteen-sixties (not the good ones) that spend an inordinate amount of time showing Greek or Roman despots in robes talking and plotting incessantly while you wait impatiently for the muscle man hero and his lover, usually the despots daughter, to do something.

This film was in desperate need of some color and suspense. The characters were pretty two-dimensional.

The sets looked as if they were constructed entirely of pewter! I wonder how many Civil War Chess Sets were melted down to make this movie.

All those wearing fishnet stockings on your arms and black lipstick, feel free to click NO.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To put it simply, this was a pompous piece of canine poopie. Overly stagey and everyone being the total melodramatic drama queen at every single moment. After a while, i was starting to wish that every character in the movie wasn't such a stuffed-up anal retentive.

And, this movie has another one of those truly annoying things that has recently come into vogue and shouldn't have: all the scenes are in a sort of washed-out, blue-steel-greyishness. Hmmm, the last time i checked, candles and torches are quite capable of putting a fairly wide spectrum of colors. In fact, the light they put out tends to be more in the warmish, yellowish-orange range of the spectrum. So where's all the blue-steel-grey light coming from?

This movie has fancy sets and glitzy cgi fx, but it's still dreck. It's pathetic junk put out for today's movie-goers who are easily placated by pathetic junk.

I very much enjoy vampires and werewolves as movie plot devices, but this was a total hack job.

Universal Studios' 1941 \"The Wolfman\" is infinitely superior to this even though its fx is pretty primitive compared to what could be done nowadays.

I'm done with this franchise. The first movie was reasonably decent. The second still somewhat entertaining. But this one i couldn't even finish all the way to the end because it was so boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Quit while your ahead\" is a phrase they never learn. Typical Hollywood sequel scenario: if the first film was only shocking, the second wasn't, expect the third to be the worst thing to hit the screen this year. Even worse are the prequels, events of which were already explained in detail. If you haven't seen to first two films you will not like this one. It's like starting to watch Lord of the rings or Star Wars with the last trilogy movie. So \"stand alone\" this film is not.

Remember in the first movie about Lucians revenge? Remember the second about the long lost savage brother? Well if you saw those two 5 min moments and paste them together you would get\u0085 a 5 min prequel. But the creators ether thought these 5 min were vital historical events or just wanted to give a job to some actors, cast and crew and maybe make some money in the process. \"I have a loot of money, I make movies for a living and I'm bored. What will I do? I know! I'll make a movie.\" So anyway you get this 5 min prequel and you stretch it for 90 min \u0096 that's this movie. And you know what will happen to the main \"immortal\" characters, so there is little suspense. By the way, all the drama of the movie is in those 5 min. The only thing that made my eyebrow rise was mom killing in the begging of the movie. Sick. The rest was Braveheart remix. If you want a comedy, see Braveheart first then this movie.

Now I'm going to rant a bit \u0096 the movie put me in the mood. Who invented the concept of \"vampire vs. werewolf\" in the first place? It's older than I am and got old just as fast. And why do vampires look like Goth girls in heat, while werewolves look like psycho bears? Hiding bad films behind cleavage fails. Isn't it about time we got some sane slimmer werewolves with an upright posture? How can their unchangeable werewolves even breed if they rip everybody into shreds? And why with all their powers the vampires didn't rule the world? Blaa, blaa, blaa\u0085 What a waste.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The key scene in Rodrigo Garcia's \"Nine Lives\" comes when Sissy Spacek, hidden away in a hotel room where she is carrying on an affair with Aiden Quinn, find a nature documentary on television, at which point Quinn notes the contrivance of such things--disparate footage is edited into one scene, predators and preys are thrown together in order to capture the moment--all to force connections where none actually exist. Characters in the nine shorts that make up this film occasionally spill over into each others stories, but none of them ever seem to really connect. A woman preparing for a violent confrontation with her abusive father is later seen working in a hospital room where another woman is preparing for a mastectomy. A man who runs into an old girlfriend in a supermarket and sees how his life should have been later hosts, with his current wife, a dinner party for an unhappy couple. Garcia arranges some of his characters in front of each other, but none of the subsequent stories ever really build on what came before.

Garcia's first film, the wonderful, overlooked \"Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her,\" also had a short-story structure and overlapping characters, but there were fewer of them and they had a lot more room to breathe and grow. The gimmicky premise of \"Nine Lives,\" that each of its nine stories is told in a single, unbroken take in real time, never allows the film to build up any real dramatic tension or momentum. It's also a fairly visually ugly movie. Interior shots are often murky and hard to watch, while other scenes--particularly one where a girl walks back and forth between rooms to talk to her uncommunicative parents--are rendered annoying by the camera-work. Given that this is Garcia's third film and that he has a respectable history of directing for television, the direction in this film is rather surprisingly amateurish. Like fellow filmmaker-child-of-a-great-writer Rebecca Miller, Garcia (son of Gabriel Garcia Marquez) is focused on the writing and character aspects of his films often to the detriment of the film-making ones.

Individual scenes are touching and even affecting. I did like Jason Issacs kissing Robin Wright Penn's pregnant belly. And Joe Mantegna whispering lovingly to his wife as she slips into pre-surgery sedation. And Sissy Spacek stealing a few happy moments away from her life with Aiden Quinn before brought back to it with a phone call from her daughter. But the film (unlike \"Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her\") feels more like an exercise than actual drama. We are just watching people act.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm really surprised seeing all these positive reviews for this movie. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like 'these kind of movies'.

While I very well can enjoy a good mindless Hollywood action blockbuster like Die Hard 4.0, I like the 'dogma' kind of movies, or 'real-life-as-it-is'-movies just as much, IF they are well made.

A good example is Festen (1998): no music, no dramatic camera angles, no special fx, no fancy locations. Just a good story combined with excellent acting and the result is an excellent movie.

Is Nine Lives devoid of dramatic camera angles, special fx and fancy locations? Yes. Is it a good movie? I'm glad you asked.

The answer is: Absolutely not.

First of all, everyone is raving about the acting performances. I'm terribly sorry, but you can act all you want, but if the story and the dialogue is not believable, the acting falls on its behind immediately. And that is exactly the case with Nine Lives.

Not once did I have the feeling while watching 'Nine Lives' that I was watching real people having a real conversation. I had the feeling I was watching actors trying to come across as 'real characters' while they were were saying things a 'real person' would never say under the circumstances.

You can hardly call it a SPOILER, but there are some dialogue excerpts below. If you think that reading ten lines of (ridiculous) dialogue will ruin your movie experience STOP READING HERE. If you want a good laugh, continue reading.

The dialogue was often so ridiculous that it was tragical. You want examples? Plenty of those in 'Nine Lives'.

EXAMPLE1:

Picture this. Couple visits their filthy rich friends in their new mansion. Woman sees this castle of a house and says to her husband:

Woman: I could get used to this (meaning the expensive house). Man: Don't. Woman: Why not? It could be. Man: No. They are who they are and we are who we are. Woman: I like the sound of that -- we are who we are.

She likes the sound of that? Her man is acting like a jerk, but she likes the sound of that. Then an elderly couple walks past them holding hands. This is what the woman comes up with:

Woman: Look! They are like children after school. They lived through so much. Shared everything. I love you.

They are like children after school? And then the most overused clich\u00e9 lines you ever heard? Finishing with 'I love you'? She says this while her man is being a jerk to her? Yes, very logical, very realistic, NOT. If anything, this kind of dialogue made me wanna strangle some of the characters in the movie for saying these horrible, horrible things.

EXAMPLE 2:

Elderly mom, dad and younger daughter at a funeral. Dad: I didn't realize Andrew was religious. Mom: It's for comfort. Daughter: It's for strength. Mom: Life is fleeting. Dad and daughter BURST OUT LAUGHING.

Yeah, this one-liner cracks me up any time, especially at a funeral! Sorry, I must have missed the joke here.

And it goes on and on and on....

How about the camera work? Don't even go there. 'Boring' would be a compliment. It supposed to come across as 'realistic'; instead, you miss half of the actors facial expressions (the only thing left to watch in this movie), while half the time the camera is aimed at someone's back or side instead of the face.

Conclusion? Well, don't say I didn't warn you! It's a good movie to rent if you want to make out with your date or something during the movie, because you won't even care whether the movie is playing or not after the first five minutes.

Overrated and more boring than watching grass grow kinda sums it up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As embarrassing as it is to admit, I was listed as production manager on this film... my very first! As a matter of fact, it was the first feature film for almost everyone who participated. Watch carefully, and you even get to see me in one of the opening scenes, as a soon-to-be-murdered asylum attendant named... \"Cely\" (my own last name).

Originally titled \"Hostages\" this picture was changed to \"Another Son of Sam\" by the Producer-Director who wanted to cash in on the serial killer in the news at the time. Nothing could have helped. I don't even think this picture was good enough to be shown on \"MST 3K!\"

The film was shot primarily with a collection of old Mitchell cameras and early Arriflex hand held cameras. Matter of fact, the shot of the helicopter during the hostage siege was filmed with my own WWII era Arri. The picture was filmed entirely in Charlotte and Belmont, North Carolina in the mid seventies. Most of the \"Stars\" were local TV newscasters, and the rest of the crew were just inexperienced enough or gullible enough to believe former stuntman and Producer-Director, Dave A, Adams' delusions of adequacy.

If you enjoy watching this kind of picture, you might love the work of another North Carolinian, the legendary Earl Owensby.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another Son of Sam is definitely not an Oscar winner. Technically, it's horrible. The acting is not too good either. But there is something about it that makes you want to watch more (sort of like a car wreck). The ridiculous close-ups of the killers eyes are more funny than anything. If you are looking for a scare...this ain't the flick for you. It's very obscure and nearly impossible to find. I'm sure there's a reason for that. For a while, it was titled HOSTAGE. It don't matter what you call it, it's still a poor choice for entertainment. It might be good for a MST3000 party or something. Can you believe they would use such a title as ANOTHER SON OF SAM? If that don't have exploitation written all over it, I'll eat my hat. I remember when this was shot in Belmont, NC. A lot of local personalities were used as talent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow. I just saw Demon Wind a little while ago, and I don't think I'll ever be the same. It has the power to inspire nightmares, but for all the wrong reasons, actually.

Never before has humanity seen such a gratuitous change in make-up, for no damn reason. Or, similarly, so much bad zombie (?) makeup that makes you hungry for those Halloween green marshmallows.

Or so much naked old lady, for that matter. But then, there was \"The Shining.\"

The plot here is so amateurish that it actually almost holds a little bit of charm, as does the dialog. The last shot of the film is just so silly that its beyond description. It's like some drunk college student got together with some pals and decided to throw Bruce Willis type dialog together with (I guess?) teenybopper dialog from some Elm Street film. The result is jarring, and it'd be truly funny if it was intended that way.

Ah, what the hey. I'll laugh anyway.

Hell, get together with your friends and watch this. But make absolutely sure you're drunk first. Or, you may go insane. Particularly if you're a college film student.

Cheers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen this movie about 6 or 7 times, and it truly gets funnier every time. Perhaps what I enjoy most is the tired character paradigms that the movie offers us: the somber all-American male protagonist, his blonde girlfriend, the theater nerd with glasses, a brunette girl, the antagonistic jock, and brunette girl #2. However, we're then presented with two magician martial arts experts with mullets driving a convertible. If anyone can explain that, please contact me. Among other highlights are Bobby Johnston's portrayal of the jock character, Dell, and his trademark line, \"That's why I keep her around.\" In watching Johnston's performance, it comes as no surprise that his career quickly descended into the realm of soft-core porn. (SPOILER) Also, after multiple viewings, I STILL have absolutely no idea what that big demon at the end says at any point; it's just electronically muffled noises. Oh well, that's probably for the better. And lastly, why are all the demons so slippery? Is wet skin scarier? It certainly didn't help in this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In another of the dreadful horror films I seem so masochistically attracted to, we have a bunch of friends stuck in a haunted house slowly being killed one by one thanks to a horde of zombies that spurt yellow blood and have very bad dental problems. The first 45 minutes is all talk however, and considering the young thespians cannot act their way out of a paper bag and are given the most banal dialogue ever to dispassionately recite, this is especially painful to sit through. If you manage to stay awake through that nonsense, things don't get any better.. with bad make-up galore and cheesy, bargain basement (not-so-special) effects. As for the conclusion.. well, what's the betting that the old-timer who warned them against going to the spooky mansion in the first place will turn up and save the day for the last two survivors (a boy and a girl, of course) with his mystical powers? Please.. life is too short for these kind of movies. Donate the time you would otherwise have spent watching this tripe helping out the community, do a couple of shifts in a soup kitchen or something. You'll feel you've actually done something productive with your life, and you won't have put money into the pockets of studios who churn out irredeemable rubbish such as this.

Unfortunately, it's already too late for me.. now, where did I put that copy of 'Pumpkinhead'? 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I truly love horror films & try to give every one I see as much credit (or sometimes more) as possible, but this is really pushing the ticket...most of the cast were very like-able but hardly any of them could act at all - but then again think about the writing\/dialogue of this mess...some good make-up but absolutely ridiculous special fx. All in all I give it 3 out of 10 - & am having second thoughts about that!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I swear I didn't mean to! I picked this out only since it looked good on the back! This movie wasn't scary at all and actually was very confusing. The demon wind was only actually used a couple of times and people were killed off pretty cheesily. The one major bright spot was seeing Sherri Bendorf from Slaughterhouse play in it. Seeing what happened to her, however, made up my mind for this little turkey of a film. A 3 out of 10. NEXT!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Demon Wind is about as much fun as breaking your legs. It is definitely an awful example of a film. So awful in fact that I don't even consider it a movie. I describe it more as a thing ... a monstrous thing. A thing that must be stopped at all costs. My friends and I first discovered this ... thing buried under a big box of video tapes at my friend's house. It was a late night and we had nothing better to do so we decided to watch some cheesy horror movies (we unfortunately picked this one.) Well, during the 90 minutes that this thing played we ended up laughing so hard that we almost threw up. The thing is literally pointless in every sense of the word. It's just a cheap, poorly done rip-off of Evil Dead. The whole \"story\" seems to be nothing more than some guy wanting to knock off his friends by inviting them to an abandoned house and letting demons rip them to pieces. I have a bet that the writers were actually writing the story while it was being filmed. I've seen bad horror movies before (Manos, Troll 2, HOBGOBLINS!!!) (shudder) I would have to say that Demon Wind could definitely contend with any and all of these films on terms of sheer stupidity. Watch it only if you enjoy laughing at stupid films.

Fun fact: This film is like a cockroach on steroids! Much like the ouija board, every time we try to get rid of it, it always seems to mysteriously reappear. Kind of scary huh?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You can generally ask two questions concerning 80's low-budget horror films. and this `Demon Wind' in particular. 1. Is it a good film? No.. 2. Is it a fun film?? You bet! Demon Wind is a gruesomely filthy and nauseating tale, filled with cheesy make-up effects and nasty violence. The story is pretty much non-existent and involves a group of young people revealing the horrible secrets of one of the groups' ancestors. Apparently, his grandparents used to live in a devil-worshiping neighborhood, and evil (in the form of demons and fog) still dwells around there. But, I got to hand it to this film.from start to finish, it breathes morbidity! The diabolical undertones, the playful gore and the (relatively) decent acting all together make this film raise high above the mainstream, uninspired 80's slashers for sure. It shows some creativity and guts (literally) where other productions from this decade fall into routine and oblivion more easily. This creators clearly got inspired by the success of `the Evil Dead', and perhaps even Lamberto Bava's `Demons, but what the heck! It's fun and made with lots of enthusiasm. Although.this film does have a pretty high `what the f***'- standard at times. Especially near the end, when flashbacks and laser shows are happily being mixed. And what the hell is the story on those two wannabe magicians? Nonetheless, `Demon Wind' gets my recommendation if your likes aren't too high concerning crap horror!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From 2002 on Dutch cinema finally got better again. This movie is still part- and a schoolbook example of the bad period of Dutch cinema.

The story is needlessly told in flashback style. All of the 'present' sequences set in France are completely redundant and add nothing to the story, emotions or power. For some reason European filmmakers often find it necessary to tell the story not chronological. I never understood why, or what the appeal of it is.

The story self also isn't exactly the greatest. It isn't always clear were the movie is trying to go to and what it tries to tell. The story of a young unexperienced boy falling in love with a wild young girl, who later turns out to be quite psychotic might sound good enough on paper and even shows some parallels to Paul Verhoeven's \"Turks fruit\", to which this movie often was compared to before and at the time of its release. However the end result is far from comparable. The story fails to capture the right emotions, which is also due to the unimaginative performances from the actors. The way the story is told also makes the movie far from always interesting or compelling. I lost interest for this movie at about 40 minutes through the movie.

At the time this movie was made, both Antonie Kamerling and Angela Schijf were promising rising stars, with great potential and ambitions but both their careers have pretty much dried up by now. Angela Schijf seems to give her family more attention than her career (that is not a bad thing of course), while Antonie Kamerling tried to start a career in Hollywood. He never got any further than playing some small bit parts in 2 Renny Harlin flops. To be honest I'm not surprised. It's not that he is a bad actor and he certainly has got the right looks but his English just isn't good enough, to put it mildly. Just listen to him speaking English in the beginning of this movie and you'll understand what I mean. They are really not bad actors but for some reason it doesn't show in this movie. It's probably also due to the poor dialog. I still kind of liked Beau van Erven Dorens. He's been criticized a lot but his acting seems very natural. He always keeps the characters close to who he self is.

It by no means is one of the worst movies ever made but it's not exactly one I would recommend either. Bad and uninteresting storytelling makes this a bad movie.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yesterday was one of those days we decided to go to the movies. We picked \"Ik ook van Jou\" more or less at random, but we were interested to see the state of current Dutch filmmaking.

The film is based on a book by Ronald Giphart, and I must confess straight away that he is not exactly one of my favorites. The film features actors that are best known in the netherlands for their appearances in soap-operas and\/or afternoon talk shows. At least one of them (Kamerling) has done some fairly decent stuff after leaving the soap world. So we decided to give this movie the benefit of the doubt.

And what a mistake that was. This movie fails on all fronts. Bad acting (the best performance is actually by a guinea pig, which very convincingly pretends to be dead). Flat, uninteresting story with unexplained and uninteresting sidelines (Why france? Why tell the story to a girl from Uganda?) Mistakes (black people dont have to use sunscreen, as far as I know, and heating systems in the Netherlands do not produce clouds of steam like in New York, even if this looks great on film, people do not wear T-shirts outside on new years eve in northern Europe). There's one funny moment which involves two little dogs, and that's it.

So that's what I think, but more importantly, it seemed that none of the people leaving the movie theater afterwards had enjoyed it. I overheard one of them saying that he was extremely disappointed, because he liked the book so much. I did not read the book, but my advice would have to be: read the book, don't see the film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the movies i just DIDN'T want to see. I got it in the sneak-preview, but damn, the acting was very bad! At the end of the movie (i still am surprised i watched the whole movie..) i wondered why i watched the movie.

Also here in the netherlands, the writer of this movie (it's filmed from a book of Giphart) thought it was very bad, and was disappointed that his movie came out like this. Next time he wants a role in choosing people for the cast.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a while. The acting was just soooo bad. Anthonie Kamerling is usually a fairly good actor, but in this film, he sounded like he was reading his text from a piece of paper. Especially his voice over was extremely wooden. Beau van Erven Dorens was completely over the top as frat boy Fraser, although this probably had more to do with the crappy dialogue. 'Ik ook van jou' is an adaptation of a book, and it seem like the makers of the film forgot that film dialogue follows different rules than literary dialogue. It all sounded way to bookish.

Some of the situations were very badly visualized. Example: somewhere at the beginning of the film there is a scene where a canoe goes over in a rapid. This bit is just too incredible to be true. You see an obviously rather shallow bit of river, with a lot of rocks right beneath the surface (hence the rapid). We hear some suspenseful music to warn us that there's danger ahead. A canoe with to girls goes over in that rather shallow rapid. Our hero then dives several meters below the surface to rescue one of the girl. Girl swoons in his arms and utters the words 'You saved me...' Vomit!

It actually was so bad, that it became funny. This is sad, because it really wasn't intended. At the intermission I overheard some guy behind me say 'O god, there's another part!' My feelings exactly. What scares me is that the end credits of 'Ik ook van jou' were in English. Does this mean that it will be released abroad? Just when the Netherlands were starting to get a good reputation after films like 'Antonia' (Antonia's line) and 'Karakter' (Character)...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a fan of author Gipharts lightheaded and humorous books (of which Ik Ook van Jou is not the best one), I was looking forward to see this film. I didn't catch it in cinema though, and after seeing it on to tv I'm terribly happy I resisted buying it on video. Out of a good book, they managed to make one of the worst movies in Dutch film history. All the good parts have been left out, the story is changed, not to its benefits. All humour has been cut out. What's left is a bad-acted, over dramatic, non-consistent film that I do not want to watch again ever.

I condolate Giphart with this result, and am happy that Robbert Jan Westdijk did a hell of a better job on Giphart's topper Phileine zegt Sorry. Go see that one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this was the best dutch cinema had to offer these years, my worst fears have come true. I have NEVER, even in dutch movies, seen worse acting. I couldn't get myself to watch it for more than 40 minutes, so if that's the cause of me missing the genius, so be it.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Actually I'm still in doubt if there's anything about this movie I like. As for the story: unrealistic and very exaggerated. The acting was too bad in my opinion. Not very likely that Antonie Kamerling will get a Rutger Hauer status. Some folks will expect it anyway. First let him work on his English pronunciation. If you watch the 'trip' to Paris of these actors (DVD-extra) you will most likely want to trow up. Advice to Beau Dorens: stop your acting career, you'll never get there... To the 2 main 'actors': grow up, please. Being generous, I'd give it 4 out of 10.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"They said it would be a film greater than Turks Fruit. How dare

they? It's not even 10% of this classic. Bad acting. The only character i felt sympathy for was the one

played by Angela Schijf. Her acting was the best in the whole film. The story could've been interesting, but it wasn't. Some scenes were very beautiful filmed (lights and camera), (the

opening scene for example), but the bad acting made the magic

disappear.

I really don't understand why so many people voted this film so

good.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you read Errol Flynn's autobiography, My Wicked, Wicked Ways, you will see that this film is full of poetic licence. Not that that makes much of a difference, because Errol Flynn was pretty generous with poetic licence in the autobiography anyway. No need to worry about spoilers, since there is nothing there to spoil.

To me it would seem more sensible to use the story about a fictitious Hollywood actor; then you could go out and find a better actor than Duncan Regehr to play him, and you wouldn't have to worry about the audience saying things like: \"But he didn't have a moustaches in Captain Blood.\" Another failing of this film is that it shows Flynn as a two-dimensional character. Flynn was an intelligent man, well educated, well read. This film only concentrates on his funster image.

Regehr is a disaster. The rest of the cast struggle with their scripts. Hal Linden is OK as Warner, and Barbara Hershey makes a believable Damita, although Lili Damita herself did not think so.

The best thing to do with this film is to forget about it and let it gently slip away to oblivion. So what I am writing this for, I can't imagine.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After watching this film, I thought to myself, they really glossed up Errol Flynn's life! The movie is really nice eye candy. They really got the 1930s and 1940s atmosphere of Hollywood just right. The costumes were great. All the women looked glamorous and all the men looked handsome and debonair.

Is this a serious film about Errol Flynn's life? Nah! It's a fun movie based on all the scandalous stuff he did in his life.

Why am I critiquing this film? This is a film that had a lot of promise but failed to deliver. Duncan Reagher was really good as Errol Flynn. He was not as good looking as the original, but he made you believe that Flynn was not just a handsome playboy who did not take himself seriously, but as a man who, although gifted with great talent, was kind of disturbed and unhappy inside. Flynn's love life was a disaster considering he had so many failed marriages. He also lost a lot of good friends during his life. He also suffered from unrequited love for the elegant Olivia DeHavilland. The last scene of the film showed Errol kind of begging for Olivia to stay with him and instead she walks away. He is shown in his tux, looking really empty and slowly walking around the pool as he pours his drink into the pool. It was a sad way to end the film but kind of fitting because everyone knows by now how he eventually fell apart from his alcoholism and his dissipated lifestyle.

This film could've had much more depth, could've been better well-written. Sure they showed all the scandals but they never showed Errol Flynn's human center. Surprisingly, Duncan Reagher was able to put some emotional depth into the character of Errol Flynn even though the film writing didn't put any depth there.

I'll probably never see this film again but I can still remember after viewing this film, \"Gosh, this could've been so much more.....!\" I give this film a D+.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The recent documentary \"The Adventures of Errol Flynn\" is an in-depth look at the Ultimate Hollywood Hero. Bogart,Cagney, Wayne and the like were basically blue collar types in their screen images but Flynn was an aristocrat in his style and manner, the younger son out to carve out his own fiefdom for a sword,thunder and romance analogy that ironically he found himself trapped in. If he hadn't been under contract to Warner Bros. he would've of been perfect in the Cary Grant role in Suspicion: the good looking charmer whose 1000 watt smile blinds one to the fact that he's a predator. And he could've starred with his best leading ladies sister Joan Fontaine. That was Flynn's trouble he was the Ultimate Screen Hero until his own habits and bad timing caught up with him. Grant and Flynn in a way are similar but Flynn was the more macho of the two;it is possible to see Grant as Captain Blood but Flynn in The Philadelphia Story Mr. Blanding Builds his Dream House,or Monkey Business,or Operation Petticoat would've turned those roles on their collective ears because he's too damn sure on his feet and the sexual tension he would've brought naturally would've made the story lines wobbly. But this wobbly biography is just a plasticized view of Flynn and his era. There are times when I half expected a laugh track or an audience to go \"Ahhh\" at some point. It doesn't go deeply into Flynn's life just the screen magazine view. It also doesn't delve into his struggle to be considered more than a derring-doer. Like the cleaned up biographies of Lon Chaney( the father,not the Wolfman,or Lenny\"Of Mice and Men) and Buster Keaton done in the '50's this is just a time killing piece of fluff","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was disturbing, not because of the subject matter but because of the way it was handled. The extremely overweight mother (Angela) did not even make it on the cover of the video case when most of the rest of the cast did. This is not fair but is a statement in itself. I also notice her picture is missing from IMDb (maybe her own choice) and it looks like this is her only film ever? The language in this movie was crude beyond necessity. Watched with my 10yr old son because it was rated PG in Canada and the language coming out of their mouths was shameful & disgusting. Never did appreciate Shirley Maclain like so many others seem to.

LOVE Kathy Bates and always will. Sinese's part was annoying.

The little boy Alex is a great little actor. I'll have to see what else he's been up to lately..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This odd little film starts out with the story of Bruno (Alex Linz) in a catholic school who has no friends and gets beat up everyday. He likes to wear dresses and his obese mother Angela who is a dressmaker doesn't think their is anything wrong with what her son likes. Angela complains to Mother Superior (Kathy Bates) but gets ignored and as the two of them walk back to they're car they are harassed by the other kids and are pelted with eggs. Bruno's father Dino (Gary Sinise) is divorced from Angela and is totally disgusted by his son being a sissy and practically disowns him. Bruno meets a new student at school named Shawniqua (Kiami Davael) who is a free spirit and dresses like Annie Oakley with cap pistols. Angela has a heart attack and Bruno's grandmother steps in to take care of him when Dino refuses.

The film starts out with a very hard and unsympathetic look at all the characters involved. Angela has a great deal to do with Bruno wearing dresses as she practically encourages him. Dino was told when he was a young boy by his mother that he was a sissy because he liked opera and now he refuses to help Bruno when he needs it. The catholic school that Bruno attends is very unruly and all the kids run rampant and even call Shawniqua the \"N\" word. Once Shirley MacLaine steps in the film shifts and becomes more family oriented (So to speak). ****SPOILER ALERT**** The ending after the spelling bee is incredibly contrived and \"feel good\". Hugs and cheers for Bruno as reporters follow him and take his picture for their papers. All the while Shirley MacLaine is acting like the \"tough old broad\" who snaps at everyone. There is one thing about MacLaine's character in the film that no one has mention in these comments and it has to do with the masculine nature of her. I think the character of Helen might be a lesbian! She's very tough and strong and at one point in the film she shares a shot of whiskey with Bruno and smokes a cigar at the same time. I don't remember anyone in the film mentioning who her husband was or if she was ever married at all! This is why I think her character might be gay. Lots of other good actors appear in the film as well. Joey Lauren Adams, Jennifer Tilly, Brett Butler, Gwen Verdon and Lainie Kazan all should have taken a better look at the script before they signed on. I guess when they heard that MacLaine was directing that it would be an honor to be part of it. Very difficult to feel any remorse or understanding towards any of the characters and the subject matter is probably impossible for most to relate to. The actors are not bad but what exactly was MacLaine aiming for? Tolerance towards a young boy who wants to wear dresses and freedom of expression? We get that in the first 10 minutes, the rest of the time I was trying not to cringe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What was I thinking when I rented this one? What did the distributor think when he copied the tape and shipped it all the way to Holland? That anyone really wanted to see this s***?!?

It's about some astronauts getting into trouble outer space (Apollo 13 flashback, but never even in the shadow of this fine film) and they want to return to home. If you act in such a film, you should be glad that you're gonna drift away from earth as far as possible!

This one wants to surf on the small wave of space movies in 1998 (Deep Impact and Armageddon), and this one fails everywhere. Deep Impact and Armageddon weren't perfect either (far from it), but they were at least worth watching once (and maybe one more time when we're all old). They gave some fun. Max Q doesn't. It gives irritation. Okay, okay. It's a TV movie, but does that mean you're allowed to come up with such a mess?

If you haven't choked in your own vomit by the end (by all the cheap drama and worthless dialogue) you've must have bored yourself to death with this waste of time.

It gets at its worst at the end when the space shuttle lands on... No, I can't 'spoil' this one (IMDb guidelines forbid it). So you have to see for yourself. NO! DON'T SEE IT (sorry), but rent a movie which is worth renting (like Battlefield Earth... just kidding!)

Probably the worst one I have ever seen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Stay away from this movie! It is terrible in every way. Bad acting, a thin recycled plot and the worst ending in film history. Seldom do I watch a movie that makes my adrenaline pump from irritation, in fact the only other movie that immediately springs to mind is another \"people in an aircraft in trouble\" movie (Airspeed). Please, please don't watch this one as it is utterly and totally pathetic from beginning to end. Helge Iversen","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An old high school teacher of mine used to brag that he'd seen every movie EVER made, so one day a friend of mine and I decided to make up a movie called \"Pacific Inferno\". Later, we got into an argument whether the lead role was played by Carl Weathers or Billy Dee Williams. Our teacher found the argument interesting, so he came up to us and informed us that the lead role in \"Pacific Inferno\" was played by Jim Brown. We thought he was trapped in a lie, that was until we went to the library and discovered that \"Pacific Inferno\" was in fact a real movie. This incident forced me to rent the movie... it's horrible. Our made up movie had a better plot than this piece. Weathers and Billy Dee would have been much better in the picture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jim Brown stars and produces a tale set in the Philippines just after the Japanese invasion. The story has the Japanese taking several navy men prisoner including some divers, who they use to retrieve the gold that MacArthur had dumped into the Manila bay.

It's a messy movie aiming to make a statement about war and racism (The film uses Edwin McCain's War in a not so subtle montage). The performances are just adequate at best. Jim Brown is okay, but he doesn't really show any sort of range in a performance that just has him standing there looking annoyed. The sets are serviceable but seem rather cheap. The film suffers from the outset due to a great deal of stock footage including many of the best known shots from the Japanese attack in Tora! Tora! Tora!. The use of such big budget sequence effectively makes the rest of the film look positively anemic; it also reminds one that there are better films out there one could be watching. For me the film seems to have half a real plot, the retrieval of the silver, and half a plot that is there just to fill time. None of it is particularly exciting even with the explosive finale.

Given the choice I'd take a pass.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The best thing about this flick is that it seems like they used a lot of stuff left over from the Pearl Harbor attack in Tora Tora Tora. My favorite was the shot of the P-40 crashing into the row of parked P-40s but filmed from the top of a hangar or crane. Unfortunately it just gets worse from there.

There's two black guys and two white guys as American POWs, as well as some Filipinos POWs and Japanese guards. The ranking POW of the Americans is a white naval Lieutenant, which is of course an O-3 in the navy. At any rate, he's in need of a haircut, badly, distractingly badly. Hockey hair does not belong in a WWII movie. Oh, and he's a racist. He doesn't want to share quarters with the 'negros'. Of course in real life, he wouldn't want to share quarters with the white enlisted guy either. I think the Geneva Convention has a clause about officers quarters and enlisted but that wasn't the point here. Oh well, I think plot is secondary to other issues in this flick. He gets put in his place and pretty much spends the rest of the movie as a look out and running the air pump for the divers.

But once you get going, it's not a bad story line. The japs want the divers to raise the silver thrown out by the Americans before Corrigador fell. The Filipino resistance wants them to take their time. And the POWs do their best to help. A potentially good story and not that badly done I guess. A bit unbelievable when the POWs use camp made re-breathers to swim between the POW camp and the Filipino village, every night. Maybe I'm not that picky when I know going in that this is not a blockbuster film. I guess that's why it comes on a 20-pack DVD war movie collection for five bucks.

The 70s music did not belong in this movie or any WWII movie. It's quite distracting to say the least. The acting was not that bad. Probably better than I could do.

Not being a fan of football, at least I found out that Jim Brown is a real person and not somebody Richard Pryor made up. That in itself was worth the 25\u00a2 I paid for this movie.

Worth watching on TCM or paying a quarter for.

One star for being a war movie, another for being WWII and one more because I'm feeling generous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are in to bad movies for the entertainment of witnessing bad movies, bad acting, bad production etc..aka Mystery Science Theater 3000 quality....you will love Pacific Inferno. Jim Brown will be forever remembered as one of the greatest football players to ever play the game...as an actor he will forever be remembered as one of the greatest football players to ever play the game... I am not sure who Rolf Bayer was...but I am hoping he was 15 or 16 years old when he directed this, perhaps he may have been the next Spielberg in the making...because if he was a grown man directing this...a 15 or 16 year old could have done better.... The basis or plot for the movie probably had some historical merit and maybe even truthfully accurate...but the actual film may be one of worst movies made in American film history...I kept waiting for Lee Marvin, William Holden or Charles Bronson to pop in to somehow save whatever \"face\" was left of this film. I would have loved to have been at the red carpet, black tie gala for the Hollywood opening when this movie previewed...as this movie had to have many a viewer laughing and cringing under their breath... it is on the dime DVD racks now....look for it for entertainment value...this movie is so bad it is too good to pass up...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why are there no good reviews? Because this film is hysterically bad.

Set in a Japanese prison camp in World War II, we have Jim Brown as the hero who puts up with a hysterically unbelievable racist officer, and just as hysterical is the way the Japanese officers brown nose Jim Brown's character.

This is probably the worst film any of these actors ever did. Stereotypes not only abound, but they dominate this film. The sixties-seventies music may be the best thing about the film, maybe because it has nothing to do with the film.

This is even difficult to sit back and enjoy as mindless fun. This film is even more racist than the message of racism it tries to deliver. And believe me, I was alive in the seventies, and we thought crap like this was just as stupid then. It was never popular.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Our story: Two U.S. Navy deep sea divers search for silver coins hidden beneath the ocean off the Filipino coast. Our proof: Extremely dull entertainment at its best, with no plot in sight. Jim Brown is completely wasted, provided his help in producing this 70s war turkey. Richard Jaeckel is in his usual form. Don Cornelius and Richard Pryor are among those who gave special thanks in their contributions! BOMBS AWAY!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A man in blackface lands in a spaceship and meets a girl who lives in some sort of shack with a monkey. He hooks her up with a telephone, and she teaches him how to Charleston. Then they fly off in the spaceship, leaving the monkey behind. Cringe-inducing blackface aside, this short film makes no sense. I think that's the plot, but I'm not sure by a long shot. You can't tell that this is Renoir at work, despite his characteristic humanism. Good use of slow-motion, though. Can be found on the NY Film Annex's series of Experimental Film videos, No. 18, I believe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Made with film stock left over from the production of Nana, 1927's Sur un Air de Charleston is described as a holiday film for all concerned, and that's the best way to view it. Jean Renoir seems never to have thought enough of it to even edit the footage together. The plot is a simple reversion of racial stereotypes \u0096 in 2028 a black explorer travels to a post-holocaust Paris where a white native girl teaches him the Charleston (naturally he assumes she's a savage whose dancing is a prelude to her eating him before giving in to the seductive beat of 'White Aborigine' music). There are plenty of surreal touches, be it the pet gorilla eating the flowers in Catherine Hessling's hair, the angels the girl telephones (Renoir and producer Pierre Braunberger among them) or the fact that black performer Johnny Huggins plays his part in minstrel blackface while Hessling's dancing ability is almost completely nonexistent, and there are some interesting occasional experiments with slow motion, but there's not really enough to sustain it for two reels. An additional air of surrealism is provided by the fact that this silent musical has absolutely no score at all on Lions Gate's new DVD\u0085","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I enjoy science-fiction just as much as the next man\u0085 but what the hell was that? Apparently shot over just three days using excess film stock left over from his previous film, 'Nana (1926),' this Jean Renoir short is a bewildering futuristic satire, produced on a budget that couldn't have been much more than zero. In the year 2028, following a great war, Africa has become the most civilised region on Earth, and what was formerly Europe has been designated \"Terres Inconnues (Unknown Land).\" An African explorer \u0096 played by Johnny Huggins, a Black man dressed up as a White man dressed up as a Black man, if you follow me \u0096 travels to the ruins of Paris in his spherical aircraft, and lands outside the lair of a Parisian savage (Catherine Hessling, then the director's wife) and her primate companion, perhaps the creepiest ape-man costume I've ever seen. The savage, as part of some bizarre sexual initiation ritual, starts showing the explorer the Charleston dance, which he is delighted to learn himself.

It doesn't help the film that Hessling, who was wonderful the following year in Renoir's 'The Little Match Girl (1928),' isn't much of a dancer, though the extensive use of slow-motion adds a touch of surrealism to the ceremony. Furthermore, I'm quite shocked that Renoir would exploit his own wife as such a blatant sexual object \u0096 it doesn't come as a surprise to learn of their divorce just three years later! On the plus side, I did like the general sci-fi concept behind the film, and the slyly satiric touch of the reversing the racial roles usually typical in such stories as this. However, why Renoir decided to dress up his Black actor as a minstrel will remain a mystery for all of time. Silly, crude and quite pointless, 'Charleston Parade (1927)' is a cinematic oddity from one of cinema's most respected directors, and is perhaps an effort that he would have liked to forget. The DVD version came without a musical soundtrack, but I compromised with a selection of pieces from Dmitri Shostakovich.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie didn't do it for me, an avid SNL fan for the past 14 years. Jamie Gertz' portrayal was OK, but there was something so off-putting about the movie itself. The facts presented in the movie are totally skewed. But Merv Griffin produced it, so that would explain a lot. He was never on SNL, nor had anything to do with it. The points in her life when she was on SNL are backwards. When we first see her on SNL, walking through the studio with Lorne Michaels, the logo on the wall is circa 1988-1989, not 1975. And let's talk about the cast -- who are these people?? I have never heard of a one of them. Truly dissatisfying. This movie shows why TV movies are just that, TV movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1st watched 7\/29\/2001 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Mark Dindal): Fast-paced, frantic animation effort by Ted Turner's feature animation group plays a lot like tv cartoons and leaves a lot to be desired in the area of likeable characters, but definetly has extremely unlikeable villains. I'm not even sure why the kids would like this movie because there are so many references to old movie stars that kids know very little or nothing about. Mediocre effort at best despite raves on the box comparing it to Disney efforts like Aladdin and Lion King. Don't let this fool you -- there is no comparison in story or quality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Two years after leaving the small town of Grover's Bend due to encountering the Krites, Brad Brown returns to spend time with his grandmother in time for Easter. Meanwhile the Krite eggs begin to hatch. As they cause trouble in the town, Brown & the townsfolk, as well as the alien bounty hunters who have returned to finish the creatures must fight the bloodthirsty furballs before they wipe out the town.

The original Critters was a minor attempt to rip-off the family-horror flick \"Gremlins\". It became a cult favourite on the video shelves & was successful enough to warrant a sequel. This sequel plays down the horror & makes its entire focus comedy instead. Unfortunately the comedy part is extremely clumsy, as well as childish. The acting is on par with the rest of the film. It is just that the film suffers from a weak script. The visual effects are fairly well done.

Grade: D+ Review by M. K. Geist.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a terrible sequel. The reason I give this film two stars instead of zero because it's a movie that has violence and gore and critters, yet it is planned out poorly. And this god-awful sequel was done by none other than BUM-BUM-BUM-BUM!!!!!!!!! Mick Garris! The bonehead that brought you the remake of The Shining which nearly got Kubrick to nearly roll in his grave when he discovered it was actually made. Garris is also the man that brought you the sad sequel of THE FLY, THE FLY, which was a wonderful movie, but Garris's movie nearly ruined John Getz career. Anyway, if you really want to see the crappy critters trilogy in order, don't. That's the mistake I made, rent the first one or the third one or better yet DON'T STOOP TO THAT LEVEL AT ALL! This movie sucked so bad that I can't believe it, please avoid this crap. Shame on you, Mick!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some changes for the better (the special effects are more elaborate), some for the worse (Scott Grimes, a likable kid in the original, has turned into an awkward teenager), but generally this sequel is about on a par with the original - which doesn't say much. The PG-13 rating is questionable; although the film is not scary at all, there is some brief but quite explicit gore, and some out-of-place nudity. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OH MY GOD! After having such a promising start, Critters 2 reiterated the Karmic rule of what goes around comes around. Clearly, very few things were thought out when this movie was made, and what was up with Scott Grimes wearing an earing! This should have been the last expedition into the Critters saga, but more garbage was on its way. This was the big reason why I didn't watch Critters 3, and why is every bad film series has to have an episode in space? (Critters, Friday the 13th, Leprechaun in Space, Hellraiser, etc.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mickey Rourke is enjoying a renaissance at the moment... and fair play to him. I always liked his image and his acting ability in such fare as Angel Heart and Johnny Handsome. You know what you are going to get with Rourke - mean, moody, dirty. But this film gives you much more - and you don't want most of it.

First and foremost - this whole thing just doesn't make sense. Rourke is a hardened IRA killer who after killing a bus-load of schoolchildren flees Ireland for London. He is on the run from the cops and from his own Army comrades. He has also vowed to never kill again. It looks like the bus full of kids finally did it for him.

However, when he gets to London he is tracked down by a local mobster (Bates - looking like his eyebrows and hair came straight off a Burton's dummy) to kill his main competitor in turn for \u00a350,000 and a boat trip to the US. Rourke reluctantly agrees to do it but is seen by a priest (Hoskins) and confesses the crime to him in the confessional in order to keep the priest's mouth shut. He figures it is better than killing him.

A wealth of things arise here which just don't add up :

1. Why pick Rourke to off your competition? As is illustrated by a scene whereby an employee is pinned to a wall by a couple of heavies with what look like awls - these London guys are tough enough anyway to do their own killing.

2. Not only that but the Mobster gets a guy to follow Rourke and witness the killing with his own eyes. Why didn't that guy simply kill the competitor and save all the hassle of dealing with Rourke?

3.Hoskins sees the murder take place and the police let him go off - without protection, I may add - to take confession? No way.

4. Rourke hangs around the church (right next to where he carried out the murder ) immediately after the crime takes place to go to confession. Why aren't the cops checking the place out?

5. Rourke hangs around the church and Hoskin's blind niece in particular, for days afterward without anybody bothering him. What? He's on the run and he stays put by the very place where he committed another murder? Stupid.

6. The cops actually meet Rourke in the church \"fixing\" the organ and have no idea who he is. Do they not know he is on the run for the school bus bombing? They don't even check up on him?

7. Why get Rourke to kill for you, and then tell him to wait around for a few days to get on the boat? You'd think you'd want to get rid of him immediately. Or kill him. One or the other?

8. Why does Bates' brother suddenly decide to rape the blind niece in the midst of all the waiting? Could he not restrain himself for a few days? At least until Rourke has been safely offed to the States? Ridiculous.

9. Rourke suddenly has inner turmoil after all his years of killing and wins over the blind niece immediately - even after she knows he is a killer, she still loves him? Again - utterly ludicrous. And besides - she falls in \"love\" with him in record time - a few days !!!!

10. The whole bomb thing at the end is just plain silly from Bates' point of view.

11. Things happen in parts of this film that just do not make sense or are simply in there to help the storyline (and I say that in jest) along. Bates' houses Rourke in a whorehouse until the boat is ready to sail and Rourke suddenly displays a moral high ground to respect the whore in the house - but yet will bed a blind girl.

12. Rourke asks a henchman on the boat where Bates is - and the henchman practically spurts out the entire movements of his boss in less than 10 seconds. It was embarrassing - the guy was telling Rourke far more than he even asked.

13. Hoskin's priest is an ex-army guy and we see him beat up three henchmen behind a pub. Totally uncalled-for and yet another cringe-worthy scene.

I'm gonna stop there at unlucky 13 without mentioning Rourke's hair (so falsely red it is laughable), his accent (which to be fair is not too bad sometimes but deteriorates to a barely heard mumble at other times), his clothes, walk, looks to the heavens etc. Nor will I mention the music and the choppy editing style.

Oooppps - I have just mentioned them.

Overall - a disaster of a film with some obvious religious imagery thrown in (Rourke on the cross, preaching from a pulpit) which would embarrass a first year film student never mind a top star and director.

4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's get things straight. I was raised Catholic, and in a very religious family, and spent as much time at church and talking to priests as at home. That was useful for two things: to make a convinced Atheist out of me, and to give me deep, insightful knowledge about the Church and its dogmas. And I say: if a Catholic priest witnesses a murder, and clearly sees the face of the killer, he CAN report it to the police, even if the murderer has confessed to him afterwards. He can not reveal what he's told in confession, but he CAN talk about anything he sees outside that, and confession is useless to keep his mouth shut. So, here we have a movie entirely sustained on a lie. And another lie is there's no absolution for murder. According to the Catholic Church, there's absolution for any sin as long as there's sincere repentance. So far, the biggest plot holes in this weak thriller.

As people frequently say, this movie would have improved if Bob Hoskins and Alan Bates had switched roles. Hoskins is naturally suitable to play gangsters (I will never lament enough that he lost Al Capone in favor of one of De Niro's weakest performances in \"The Untouchables\") and Bates' features would have been perfect as the priest with a gray past. But above that, I think the film would have been much better had real-life Ulster native Liam Neeson (back then mostly unknown to big audiences) played Mickey Rourke's part. Not only his face is perfect to play tormented characters, but he'd make us believe the character as real, something Rourke just can't. Back in the 80s, Rourke was not a bad actor (afterwards he seemed to lose his talent along with his looks), but he was one of those performers, like Brad Dourif, who's as good as the director he works with. And as a former IRA terrorist, Rourke's acting comes across more like a pimp. Sad to think that, had this movie been made just some three to six years later (when Neeson achieved moderate celebrity status in 1990 with Sam Raimi's enjoyable \"Darkman\", and superstardom in 1993 with \"Schindler's List\", while Rourke became pretty much of a forgotten has-been), Liam and Mickey could have switched parts to greater benefit (Rourke would have been effective in the supporting role of Docherty, but just can't carry this movie along as the lead). Yet another missed opportunity, and yet another film with the potential of being a classic, that became instantly forgettable fare.

Ironically enough, the often criticized score (by underrated composer Bill Conti) worked for me. I didn't find it overly-melodramatic, but suitably gritty and beautiful. It reminded me of Howard Shore's score for \"The Silence of the Lambs\". Here's to Mike Hodges' talent, who made \"Get Carter\", yes, but don't forget he's the mastermind behind \"Flash Gordon\" as well...

It seems the film was massacred in the cutting room (it shows, as some parts are really choppy and confusing, and others just don't glue) and a Director's Cut is waiting to see the light. OK, but I seriously doubt that will make it a great movie, as we'll still have the bad casting and the false premise there. 4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Higgins' straightforward thriller about a guilt-ridden IRA bomber forced into \"one last job\" (where have I heard that plot before?) gets a snarky treatment from cult director Mike Hodges. Mickey Rourke, with alarming red hair, confesses all to the priest (Bob Hoskins, of all people) who accidentally witnessed the shooting. The rules of the church keep Father Bob from talking, but then Rourke goes and falls in love with the priest's blind niece. They bond at the church organ. What? Really, that's the plot. Alan Bates is around as the top dog mobster who's calling the shots (literally) and he seems to be the only actor who's on to the jokey tone Hodges is aiming at. Bates is all set to do a sort of U.K. PRIZZI'S HONOR, but no one else, including an effortlessly charismatic Liam Neeson in a supporting role, has been informed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mickey Rourke is enjoying a renaissance at the moment... and fair play to him. I always liked his image and his acting ability in such fare as Angel Heart and Johnny Handsome. You know what you are going to get with Rourke - mean, moody, dirty. But this film gives you much more - and you don't want most of it.

First and foremost - this whole thing just doesn't make sense. Rourke is a hardened IRA killer who after killing a bus-load of schoolchildren flees Ireland for London. He is on the run from the cops and from his own Army comrades. He has also vowed to never kill again. It looks like the bus full of kids finally did it for him.

However, when he gets to London he is tracked down by a local mobster (Bates - looking like his eyebrows and hair came straight off a Burton's dummy) to kill his main competitor in turn for \u00a350,000 and a boat trip to the US. Rourke reluctantly agrees to do it but is seen by a priest (Hoskins) and confesses the crime to him in the confessional in order to keep the priest's mouth shut. He figures it is better than killing him.

A wealth of things arise here which just don't add up : 1. Why pick Rourke to off your competition? As is illustrated by a scene whereby an employee is pinned to a wall by a couple of heavies with what look like awls - these London guys are tough enough anyway to do their own killing. 2. Not only that but the Mobster gets a guy to follow Rourke and witness the killing with his own eyes. Why didn't that guy simply kill the competitor and save all the hassle of dealing with Rourke? 3. Hoskins sees the murder take place and the police let him go off - without protection, I may add - to take confession? No way. 4. Rourke hangs around the church (right next to where he carried out the murder ) immediately after the crime takes place to go to confession. Why aren't the cops checking the place out? 5. Rourke hangs around the church and Hoskin's blind niece in particular, for days afterwards without anybody bothering him. What? He's on the run and he stays put by the very place where he committed another murder? Stupid. 6. The cops actually meet Rourke in the church \"fixing\" the organ and have no idea who he is. Do they not know he is on the run for the school bus bombing? They don't even check up on him? 7. Why get Rourke to kill for you, and then tell him to wait around for a few days to get on the boat? You'd think you'd want to get rid of him immediately. Or kill him. One or the other? 8. Why does Bates' brother suddenly decide to rape the blind niece in the midst of all the waiting? Could he not restrain himself for a few days? At least until Rourke has been safely offed to the States? Ridiculous. 9. Rourke suddenly has inner turmoil after all his years of killing and wins over the blind niece immediately - even after she knows he is a killer, she still loves him? Again - utterly ludicrous. And besides - she falls in \"love\" with him in record time - a few days !!!! 10. The whole bomb thing at the end is just plain silly from Bates point of view. 11. Things happen in parts of this film that just do not make sense or are simply in there to help the storyline (and I say that in jest) along. Bates' houses Rourke in a whorehouse until the boat is ready to sail and Rourke suddenly displays a moral high ground to respect the whore in the house - but yet will bed a blind girl. 12. Rourke asks a henchman on the boat where Bates is - and the henchman practically spurts out the entire movements of his boss in less than 10 seconds. It was embarrassing - the guy was telling Rourke far more than he even asked. 13. Hoskin's priest is an ex-army guy and we see him beat up three henchmen behind a pub. Totally uncalled-for and yet another cringe-worthy scene.

I'm gonna stop there at unlucky 13 without mentioning Rourke's hair (so falsely red it is laughable), his accent (which to be fair is not too bad sometimes but deteriorates to a barely heard mumble at other times), his clothes, walk, looks to the heavens etc. Nor will I mention the music and the choppy editing style.

Oooppps - I have just mentioned them.

Overall - a disaster of a film with some obvious religious imagery thrown in (Rourke on the cross, preaching from a pulpit) which would embarrass a first year film student never mind a top star and director.

4\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mickey Rourke ( who was once a famous movie star ) plays Martin Fallon an IRA terrorist who accidentally blows up a school bus full of children who is so disgusted by his actions decides to leave the IRA and goes on the run in London

!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!

The movie's opening is rather disturbing as the lives of little children are ended in a fireball . Things like this happened throughout the 1970s and 1980s and into the 1990s in Northern Ireland which gives A PRAYER FOR THE DYING a stark realism . However as soon as Fallon decides he's going to give up violence ( What ? He's a terrorist and he's never blown up innocent passerbys before ? ) realism disappears and clich\u00e9s and ridiculous plot twists take place . Martin is employed by the London underworld ( Don't they have their own hit men ? )to commit a hit while he wears an IRA \" uniform \" ( Never knew the provos wore uniforms ) at a cemetery in broad daylight ( Wouldn't an IRA man use a bomb placed under a car ? ) where he's spotted by a priest who recognises him while he was in the SAS . Hands up who thinks I'm lying ? I'm not and we're half way through the running time and there's still several clich\u00e9s to come

This all sounds very silly and it is but what do you expect from a novel by Jack Higgins ? Everything is clich\u00e9d , contrived and stereotypical and the bits that aren't are just plain bizarre . The critics slaughtered this movie when it came out , most notably they stated that it might have some potential if the movie had Bob Hoskins playing gangster Jack Meehan and Alan Bates playing the SAS soldier turned priest and for once the critics would have been right . They should also noted the film might have been less dire if Fallon was played by someone who was capable of doing an Irish accent . Rourke might be hunky and macho ( Oh gawd another movie with an IRA uberhunk ) but accents aren't his strong point any more than character acting is . To give you an idea how disappointing PRAYER FOR THE DYING IS the director ended up disowning it which is always a bad sign

As a footnote the original release of PRAYER FOR THE DYING in Britain was delayed for several months because of \" The Enniskillen bombing \" . In November 1987 the Provisional IRA exploded a bomb in the centre of Enniskillen where a Remembrance Day parade which commemorates Britain's war dead was being held . Eleven ( 11 ) people were killed and scores more injured . It wasn't an accident and no one left the IRA because of it","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I was a little girl, I absolutely adored The Swan Princess, it was reliving the same fairy tales of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella, the princess and her prince who saves the day is always a timeless story that will never die, well, hopefully. But I figured that I would check out the sequels for The Swan Princess to see what they were like and unfortunately, this is the typical cartoon sequel that just disappoints more than entertains. The only character I found still very amusing was the Queen, she was very funny in this movie and had the best part. But with the voice changes, they were noticeable and also bothered me quite a bit, I don't mean to be picky, just it was too weird for me. The story also was just more or less borrowed from the first Swan Princess, just the villain in this movie is following Rothbart's footsteps.

Odette and Derek are about to celebrate their one year anniversary, but Derek has been too preoccupied with fighting for his kingdom to keep it safe. With his mother's birthday also coming up, he forgets about that since there is a new villain in town, Clavious, who is hoping to go above and beyond where Rothbart's powers went and kidnaps the Queen on her birthday. But Odette must change back into her swan self in order to help Derek fight him and save his mother.

The Swan Princess 2 is of course more than alright for the kids, that I never mind, it's good clean fun for them. The reason why these sequels are disappointing though is because it is usually just for the kids, that is the audience they aim for, but it's more enjoyable when the jokes and story can be enjoyed by everyone. Now there are a few laughs and giggles here and there, but this wasn't as clever in my opinion to the first Swan Princess. I would recommend it for the little one's, but if you're looking for a fun cartoon movie, I'd recommend staying with the first Swan Princess.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was disappointed with the sequel to the Swan Princess. I can see what they were trying to do with the story, show how married life was going for Odette and Derek but the story wasn't interesting enough to hold my attention and it seemed to cover the same bases as the original.

It isn't funny. The only bit I found humorous was when Jean-Bob was turned into a prince and then back into a frog and no-one saw it happen and he was trying to convince them that it really did.

The villain is rubbish and the animation isn't as impressive as the first film.

The Queen is a very irritating character and instead of cheering with Derek to rescue his mother, you're hoping that the villain puts a spell on her voice box to stop her talking.

It is a shame because I really liked the first movie but it didn't live up to my expectations.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the worst sequel I've ever seen. really awful songs which is upsetting considering how fantastic the first films score and story is! also, which ruins the film for me is the fact there is no John Cleese so jean bob might as well not even be in it and the new villains are dreadful. it is really annoying how that old woman type thing cant string a simple sentence together properly without repeating her words over and over and over again. but to be fair Uberta not shutting up is a little bit funny. but the fact it was her 50th birthday: why do they draw her looking like an 80 year old? i was going to give this a 1 but now i think... i might give it a 2. but still the story line is no where near as good as the first film . it is similar without the humour from certain characters. Overall i disliked this film entirely because of the disappointing music, the severe lack of voice talent: having changed the voice of prince Derek and jean bob, the new villains, disappointing storyline the annoying habits of some characters, and the very simple animation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot outline of this movie is similar to the original. Someone gets kidnapped, the prince is incest with saving her, Odet turns into a Swan, the turtle\/frog\/puffin first the \"bad\" magician as best they can, and in the end.... Anyways, there is not much new here. With the exception of a lack of well known voice talent. Sorry, no Palance nor Cleese and thus Jean-Bob was a disapointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really enjoyed BG Seasons 1-3 and really couldn't understand those who didn't like it. But I can't defend this nonsense. Spoilers follow.

The first problem is that the characters are now doing inexplicably stupid things on a regular basis:

So if Starbuck thinks she knows where Earth is why not send her out in a Raptor? Would the Admiral accept the resignation of his third most experienced officer? Would the Quorum elect their newest member, the non-elected Adama Junior? He has about three weeks political experience under his belt, and is the son of a man they distrust. Would Adama send Gaeta AND Halo along with Starbuck leaving himself short of senior officers? Would Adama put a man into having sex with cylon prisoners in charge of the fleet?

I just don't buy any of this.

Secondly, while I accept there have been miracles and references to god up to the end of season 3, it's now all totally over the top. I started watching BG because I thought it was Sci Fi, not some biblical epic. I expected the characters to continue to behave reasonably intelligently, and wanted some satisfying explanations regarding some of the odder developments in the series.

Baltar was the best character in the show, but he now seems to be totally insane. Not illogical considering what he's been through, but very unsatisfying.

All the characters appear to be just puppets dancing to an unknown third party's behest (some godlike entity). This isn't good drama, it's annoying and a writing cop out.

OK, so what are the good points? Nice battle at the start of 4.1. Some good dramatic scenes (well acted) when viewed in isolation. A good final scene, a nice cliffhanging curve ball of a development.

But this isn't Sci Fi, it's turned into Fantasy. I can't imagine how the writers can recover this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's only 2 reasons I watch this show...I invested the time already in previous episodes and Col Tigh. For all you supposed Sci-Fi fans out there who love the new BSG, give me a break! Go read some classic Sci-Fi novels by the true greats or watch some of the milestone films and TV shows from days gone by and you'll see what hacks these BSG writers are. Their only gimmick is \"who is the fifth cylon\". Poor writing and really, truly no sense of character development. If Adama resigns or tries to take power or cries again or discovers the inner father he should have been one more time...ahhhhh! And Roslin is as annoying a character that's ever been put aboard a starship. Out the airlock with her. I could care less if it's six more months before they conclude. These wannabe writers were out of tricks in season one. If you don't know that, you just don't know writing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe this terrible film was made by the same people who made Lepa Sela Lepo Gore. Watch that and skip this. The plot is muddled and the characters are mostly two-dimensional stereotypes. I suspect the editor went on vacation halfway through the film because quick, choppy cuts start to appear that only confuse matters rather than elucidate them. The ending doesn't make sense either.

This is predominantly a propaganda film made so Serbs can feel sorry for themselves and vilify America for the NATO bombings of 1999. They do this by perpetuating lies about Serbs being our allies during WWII, claiming the whole world is unjustly against them, and completely ignoring everything said and done by Slobodan Milosevic, like waging war on three neighboring countries. They seem intent on making a political film but only show a few seconds of Milosevic on a TV screen with no sound. A nationalist agenda obviously superseded any consideration of art which was not the case with Lepa Sela.

Regrettably, I recommended this film to a teacher when it played last week at the Seattle International Film Festival. He also cited the bad editing and confusing plot, and I had to apologize for the bad advice. You've been warned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Uh, oh! I just said the this \"classic\" film has a plot that STINKS! Well, it's true,...so get over it! This film was a vanity project for Joseph P. Kennedy in which his mistress starred and money flowed to make her an even bigger star. Today, only a fragmentary copy exists--one that was retored a few years back. However, even if the film had been in perfect shape, it STILL would have stunk for many reasons. And, without further ado, here are some of my reasons:

First, Gloria Swanson, aged 31 plays a girl in a convent school--perhaps aged 16 or 18! Come on--she looks old enough to be the mother of many of the kids.

Second, the movie all hinges on the stupid concept of \"love at first sight\". While some people believe it this, it is ridiculous to believe that a prince would throw away EVERYTHING on a woman he didn't even know! What a lot of hooey!

Third, the movie is histrionic and the plot is nuts! After leaving the school, Kelly goes off to East Africa and then becomes \"Queen of the Whores\"--and later, after the evil queen back in Europe dies (that's convenient), the prince is able to get out of prison, actually finds Kelly and marries her and she then becomes queen of a real honest-to-goodness country! Gimme a break--this is RIDICULOUS, even in the days of silent film this plot was a groaner!

So, in summary, this is a poor film with great production values (mistresses need to LOOK good) that is parading around as a classic! There are so many BETTER silent films out there--see them first and avoid this tripe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow! I truly regret watching this picture... Funny, I agreed to see it just for my wife, who endured the torture of seeing it about a half an hour before retiring, while I stayed in front of the TV, but only to feed the the masochistic in me and I because I wanted to know if this movie was so bad in its entirety or if there were some redeemable aspects which might alleviate the feeling I had of being a stupid for watching this **** called Two Girls and a guy...

Everything in this picture is wrong, totally wrong... since the initial, absurd, premise of two women stupid enough to stay with their common boyfriend, until the awful, but merciful, end, not forgetting the horrible acting of the three actors... Don't believe the rumors, the junkie's acting is bad and I don't see how Graham has made herself a known name within the movie industry...

I wonder why, after the producers saved some bucks with just three actors and an only location, they didn't hire a person to write the script instead of putting a monkey to do it with his ***...

At least, I felt a little fine when I destroyed the DVD and threw it to the trash... Anyway, I liked somehow (and just a little) the brunette actress, Natasha something, but that was not enough to beat the incredibly stupid and crazy premise of Face-off (changing faces), so Two Girls and a Guy to the bottom goes...

Stay away from this ****!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

The author tried to make a Kevin Smith\u00b4s style movie , but he definitely failed. The result is a boring film that cannot sustain itself using only the dialogues. Fortunately I had my remote control and could see the tape using the 2X speed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most self-indulgent movie I have every had the misfortune to

rent. Unwatchable. Much of the movie is obviously improvised,

and not well. It looks like Toback took the first take of

everything. The movie gets good for a couple of minutes when

Robert Downey Jr. shows up, then goes to hell again real

quickly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After an intriguing start, this little drama quickly descends into the ranks of sheer mediocrity. The start of the movie sees two women (Heather Graham and Natasha Gregson Wagner) meet each other while waiting for their boyfriends to get home from their holidays. Natasha Gregson Wagner is a lovely looking actress, and she plays Louise; a cute girl whose beloved boyfriend is an all round entertainer; music, movies you name it, he does it. While she's telling the other girl, Carla (Heather Graham) all about her wonderful boyfriend, it soon becomes apparent that the similarities between their two male friends are too much.... and it's obvious that the two girls are dating the same guy. Oh Dear. Enter Robert Downey Jnr, the sleaze-bag that has two girlfriends while some poor guy somewhere has to go without one. Downey plays the sort of guy that the ladies like, but men find repulsively annoying; he is, basically, a mummy's boy. The worst kind too; on the phone ringing mother all the time, continually showering his girlfriends with ambitious (albeit empty) promises etc. It's enough to make a normal guy sick.

The film knowingly rips off superior three-way love triangle films such as Jules et Jim. This film doesn't work though; mostly due to the fact that it's story is so unbelievable. Seriously, if two women had just found that they were dating the same guy...they wouldn't stick around to talk about it. Another reason why it falls down is that it's just so turgid. There's no end of possibilities for the outcome of the situation that this movie presents, especially with the claustrophobia of setting it all in a small apartment; but all the movie does is get lost in masses of dialogue; badly written and poorly delivered dialogue, that is. The film is also massively overacted; it just isn't believable that people would act like they do in this film after finding themselves in this situation. Robert Downey Jnr is one of the many things that is wasted in the film. With Natural Born Killers, he proved that he could give brilliantly entertaining performances, and that is something that this movie could do with. The two females aren't wasted because nobody expected anything from them anyway, but Downey could definitely have been better utilised. Overall? A waste of time. Don't bother, see Jules et Jim or Natural Born Killers instead. That's my advice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While the prominent and over use of the play-like format is in total operation throughout the film, it is not however this that lets this picture down. Rather it is the unconvincing female performances and rather tedious script that the film so obviously relied on a little too much. With an idea that had potential, the simple plot is diminished still by Graham's failure to truly express the devastation her character so adamantly claims to experience. The use of improvised scenes by all the actors would not be such a bad idea if only the two leading ladies could take advantage of this privilege. As Downey Jr proves as usual what a gifted actor he is, he shadows the two actresses in their scenes together which is constantly noticeable. The pointless yet intense sex scene seems merely to exist in order to prevent the film from being too verbally expressive giving the actors a much deserved break from talking. With an unsatisfying conclusion, Two Girls and a Guy has very little to recommend it other than Downey Jr's formidable if not out of place performance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The storyline seemed fine, the actors seemed fine, the movie should

have been fine. But it sure wasn't - It didn't lead us anywhere, the

scenes are weird. Maybe it was meant to create something new, to make

us think. That atleast it did: Where is the rest of this film? To me it

was waste of money, time, and talent. Someone might want to see this

for curiosity, to see if they can figure it out. Other I personally

wouldn't recommend this to anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am being in no way facetious when I say that this movie was worse than any other movie ever made. Worse than \"Batman & Robin\". Worse than \"Manos, Hands of Fate\". Seriously, it's that bad. When people tell me that a movie is terrible I use the \"Two Girls\" scale to figure it out. If the movie is comparable to \"Two Girls\" then I won't watch it. If it's twice as good, maybe I'll watch it, but only to laugh at the retards who paid somebody to make it, because a movie twice as good as this one would still be a piece of garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At my local video rental store, they have a special place for Two Girls and a Guy. It's a long running joke really. The clerk lets people rent it for free. They value their customers too much to let them waste their hard earned money on it.

I was extremely surprised to see that people gave this movie a good review. Maybe someone can explain it to me. (or maybe the positive comments were jokes? Did people involved with the movie write them? Perhaps the mother of the director\/writer?)

Maybe I've just seen so many good movies that this one fails in comparison.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After sitting through this god-awful 82-minute excuse of a film, and having previously wanted to gouge my eyes out after having watched another James Toback-directed mess called \"When Will I Be Loved\", I've come to the conclusion that he has the best agent in the world. How else can these horribly written, painfully-directed pieces of trash get made in the first place.

I like Robert Downey Jr., but perhaps being in this movie drove him to substance abuse.

Heather Graham has to be embarrassed about her zombified performance. Half the time the camera is on her she just is looking off in a daze.

Such a crappy script. Prepare yourself for Hollywood name-dropping galore (example: five minute meandering discussions on Denzel Washington's acting....etc.)

There's a great character in Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22 named Dunbar. He spends most of the time in the novel shooting skeet, which he abhors. When asked why he shoots skeet all the time if he hates it so much, he replies that it makes time CREEP by, and he'll have a longer life. Well....if you really want to feel time creep by, watch this film! I swear...the 82 minutes will feel longer than a 4 hour David Lean epic. It goes on and on and on and on...

I hope I never watch another James Toback film again. If I could give this NO STARS, I would.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is about pathetic, spoiled, ego-driven winers who think they have something interesting to say, performed by pathetic, spoiled, ego-driven winers who think they are interesting. Straight from the coke-filled gutters of New York's arty farty incestuous drama scene.

How so many viewers get tricked into making them think this carries any substance remains a mystery to me. Maybe they secretly long to belong too to this overpaid and overestimated 'actor guild' or maybe they have never seen a decent movie?

Get out, put your hands in the dirty earth and get a real job. Otherwise, kill your self with a real gun.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The big problem I had with this movie was that Lombard's character is, as another user put it, \"unnecessarily cruel\". Lombard plays the role of Ann Krausheimer Smith, who believes she is married to David Smith, played well by the sharply dressed yet appropriately bumbling Robert Montgomery. The movie has some funny moments, especially when Montgomery's character goes to great lengths to try to get his \"wife\" back. Understandably, she is upset because the marriage is technically not legal, but she only finds out three years into it.

Lombard's character seems quite cold to her \"husband's\" sincere attempts to woo her back. While not being highly adept in that effort, Montgomery is nevertheless visibly loving, and yet Lombard is as cool as a pillar of ice. There are almost no clues suggesting any sort of reconciliation between the warring couple for much of the movie, and it is hard to see any sort of comedy- even dark comedy- in that aspect. To some extent, the movie almost suggests a sadistic undertone, with Lombard's character getting a \"kick\" out of her husband's feeble efforts. While one might consider this another 'Battle of the Sexes' type of movie, the reality is that it is a highly lopsided battle, if that: Montgomery's character, while certainly flawed, is not flawed enough to make it a typical exemplar of the masculine chauvinist\/misogynist (an excellent example of that is Michael Douglas in 'War of the Roses'). In fact, the character is largely effeminate, as revealed by not only the sharp dress of Montgomery (which probably owes largely to the perennially sharply dressed actor himself), but also to his discomfort in attempting-but failing- to play the role of a womanizing bachelor. His only major flaw is his vanity, but that fault does not balance out with his partner's excessive cruelty. And there is no suggestion that she is trying to instill any jealousy out of subconscious love. This is what makes it so cruel, and sad. Montgomery's character simply looks weak. In reality, no wife would want a man so weak unless she \"wears the pants\" in the marriage. But then again, a woman who wears the pants in a marriage would never seek to be so cruel because she has already affirmed that role early on. Hence, the whole theme seems weird. This movie is neither a champion of feminism (Lombard's character does show some signs of the sort of independent-oriented woman of the 60s, but that idea is soon quashed and the character falls back into the 1940s), nor an even-sided battle of the sexes (as Montgomery's character is truly a cipher of masculinity and therefore a lost cause).

This movie is, on the surface, a slapstick, but beneath that veneer it is really much darker, with sadistic undertones. All of which makes its resolution appear, well, odd. (Maybe that oddity was the whole point?). In any case, slapstick this movie is not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" is one of the not too well known early American Hitchcock's movie. But if \"Lifeboat\" (wich unfortunately also belongs to this category) is an underrated masterpiece, not all the movies signed by the master of suspense in that time (the early 40's) are really worth seeing. And to tell the truth, not discovering this film isn't really a lost.

\"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" is an average and conventional screwball comedy, where it's rather hard to find the Hitchcock's touch. Maybe you can catch a glimpse of his shadow (wich isn't much) in the cruelty that Carole Lombard is sometime capable of (but it's well hidden in an impersonal package), in a vertigo scene where two of the characters are trapped on top of a trade fair attraction, and maybe in the character of the mother. And that's about it ! Even for the Hitchcock fan, there is little to connect with.

And for the screwball comedies amateur, there isn't very much more: none of the situation are exaggerated enough for being really funny, and we're far from the masterpieces of Hawks for instance. And if one or two scene are quite amusing, there're not even the funniest in Hitchcock's filmography, who created comical situations in almost all his movies (even \"Psycho\" could be considered full of very dark humor). So, there is really little to save in this movie, that can without annoying anyone (or maybe only both hardcore fans of Hitchcock and screwball comedy, who are in love with Carole Lombard), stays one of the not too well known early American Hitchcock's movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am astounded that so many people find this film even close to good. Let me make it clear that I am a HUGE Hitchcock fan and went out of my way to own as many of his films on video as I could but this one I felt was so below par not only for Hitch's films - aw heck, I'm being far too nice here. This pictured really sucked. I don't care that Hitch did a favor for the very talented Carole Lombard, but I have seen 50s sitcoms with more cleverness and style than this boring turkey. Chemistry between Lombard and Robert Montgomery? Listne I like mashed potatoes and ice cream but I wouldn't want to taste them together. I have seen better chemistry in chemical spills on th highway than here.

If you really love Hitchcock, avoid this film and see any one of his better ones. For crying out loud, the bits Hitch did on the old TV show were funnier than anything this film fails miserably to deliver.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Alfred Hitchcock made this comedy of mis-marriage in 1941 but his heart doesn't appear to be in it. Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery are the couple who discover they were never legally married and spend the movie bickering their way back to true love. It doesn't have much of a reputation and it is easy to see why. The jokes are familiar from better films but here they don't gel. And the leads are uncharismatic. Lombard's performance is clipped and starchy and it's doubly sad to think she was dead only a year later. Robert Montgomery seems to know he's in a sow's ear and tries his damnest to make a silk purse out of it without much success. The best performance comes from Gene Raymond as 'the other man', (he has a lovely drunk scene). This is one of the few really bad Hitchcock films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Perhaps the wildest outlier in Alfred Hitchcock's career is this straight-out comedy vehicle by the director, pairing Carole Lombard with Robert Montgomery as a couple who discover a mistake has invalidated their marriage. Where do they really stand with each other?

Contrary to what others say, there IS an element of suspense here: The idea that these two miserable people might escape each other, free to inflict their awfulness on some other, undeserving mate.

It's funny reading comments here about how miserable Lombard's Ann Smith plays out in this film, because Montgomery's role is as much of a heel. He manhandles Ann, snaps at witnesses, short-shrifts clients - just the kind of lawyer who gives his profession a bad name. Ann is overbearing, too, of course, the kind of wife who holds her husband hostage from work for six days over a petty squabble, bringing up things like what he did in Paris when he was 20 and hadn't even met her yet. \"I forgave you that!\" she says, as if it was big of her.

For David, a revoked marriage is an opportunity to have a little illicit pleasure with his \"mistress\" before tying the knot for good. For Ann, it's an attempt at premarital sex that must be repelled with a bottle of champagne to the head, followed by expulsion from their apartment and her life.

The acorn doesn't seem to fall far from the tree, as Ann's mother is scandalized into apoplexy when she learns what David tried to pull: \"Oh my poor baby! Thank Heaven your father is dead!\"

That's a rare good line in this laughless, unlikeable comedy.

You can call this an example of the \"remarriage comedy\", in which the bonds of matrimony are challenged in order to be reaffirmed. You can also call this an example of what Roger Ebert calls the \"idiot plot\", in which the storyline depends on the main characters acting like idiots. Hitchcock seems to have a laugh at uptight American morality, but can't really do much more with it than a jokeless scene where an older couple is scandalized by the sound of loud plumbing.

Lombard died within a year of this film's release; it was the last film of hers she lived to see. What a shame it couldn't have been something better! She was overbearing in \"My Man Godfrey\", too, but in such a likable way you didn't just have to go with her, you wanted to. Here she plays for laughs that aren't there while sadistically breaking David's chops again and again. Montgomery rolls his eyes a lot like Groucho, a study in smugitude.

The only really decent thing in this movie that lasts more than a few seconds is Gene Raymond as David's law partner Jeff Custer, who makes a play for Ann and acts with honor and decency. Raymond underplays his many reaction shots, and even a drunk scene, all to good effect.

***SPOILER***So decent a guy is Jeff that Ann ends up rejecting him for not fighting David after she goads him into a confrontation, calling Custer \"a lump of jelly\". Jeff exits the scene, leaving Ann and David together for their future murder-suicide. Here's one Custer that managed to escape a massacre!***SPOILER END***","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was Hitchcock's third Hollywood feature, and it appears he was yet to settle into a pattern of consistency, turning from faithful adaptation of classic novel in Rebecca, to espionage thriller in Foreign Correspondent, and now this romantic comedy in the mould of the \"screwball\" pictures of the 1930s.

Hitchcock's formal method, on the other hand, had by now settled into something consistent, so much so that he was unable (or at least unwilling) to deviate from it. It was unwise then for him to step outside his usual genre, and a romantic comedy was particularly inappropriate. In Rebecca it was actually great to see Hitchcock constrained by his producer and the source text, forced to turn his technique to heavy Gothic drama, but for Mr and Mrs Smith there is a huge mismatch between form and content. In other words, Hitchcock was no Ernst Lubitsch.

First, let's look at the romantic angle. The best love scenes in Hitchcock films were wild, passionate and slightly dangerous \u0096 the \"ever fallen in love with someone you shouldn't have?\" situation, and he was great at depicting that. This is something that makes a much earlier film, Rich and Strange, one of the few Hitchcock non-thrillers that really works. Hitch is not so good however when it comes to a more gentle and familiar love story. A light, tender touch is required and Hitch doesn't have it.

Secondly, take the comedy. Of course, Hitchcock films could be funny \u0096 The Lady Vanishes is probably the best example \u0096 but only when the jokes were sprinkled throughout the story. The master of suspense simply isn't enough of a comedy director to create a film that has funny bones. He cuts up scenes as he would in a thriller \u0096 snappy opposing angles of people talking, inserted close-ups of hands and feet, point-of-view shots \u0096 but doesn't allow for comic timing or focus on gags. For example, the business with Carole Lombard's dress bursting at the seems is shown to us with a couple of close-ups, but these are timed more as if he were revealing some crucial plot point, and have no comedic impact. Occasionally Hitchcock's style does roughly coincide with the comedy \u0096 for example the arrangement of characters in the scene at the club, where Robert Montgomery tries to make it look as if he is with the attractive, sophisticated woman at the next table \u0096 but such moments are few and far between.

Even the cast of Mr and Mrs Smith are not up to standard. I'm not sure this was Robert Montgomery's strength lay, and he is boring here. This was of course exactly where \"Queen of Screwball\" Carole Lombard's strength lay, and yet while she is clearly acting well the scenes are simply not geared to capturing comedy performances. Even Jack Carson, who could be hilarious when he was really allowed to let go before the camera, fails to perk things up at all. Of course, neither of these fine comedy actors is helped by the screenplay, which isn't exactly bursting with laughs in the first place, even if the basic story is a fairly good premise.

The only full-on comedy Hitchcock made after this was the Trouble with Harry, and that sort of worked because it played upon his familiar suspensefulness. However it was only when the story could exist independently of the humour, when the basic framework was suspense \u0096 as it is in The Lady Vanishes or Family Plot \u0096 that Hitchcock was capable of doing comedy well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I only voted it 2\/10 mainly because Hitchcock agreed to direct it.He certainly had an off-day with predictable plot lines, stupid childish characters who are desperately trying to be funny.There were \"twee\" hygenic, sanitised, emasculated \"sex\" scenes at a time when the Hollywood Production code was in full force.Lazy male characters in the film who like \"soap\" characters never do a stroke of work for which they are paid.It always irritates me when food is usually never eaten by actors (one exception was in the eating scene in \"Tom Jones\" (1963); although copious amounts of drink are consumed - actors have to leave their mouths free for the next line! Carole Lombard certainly fitted Hitchcock's \"cool blond\" idealised image of a heroine, but what ever possessed him to direct this worthless unfunny script, he should have stuck to his thrillers.It certainly has not worn well over the last 69 years.I couldn't wait for it to end as it gradually irritated me no end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First: a warning.

I recently saw this movie on DVD in the Universal 'Hitchcock Collection' series. The source print looks to be in immaculate condition, but the image is a bit soft, suggesting it might be a second generation copy straight from video. The framing is far too tight, so all the compositions are terrible. Even the title of the movie is cropped. I gather from other IMDb reviews that there is a much better version available.

Mr and Mrs Smith is just a footnote to Hitchcock's career.

In his lengthy interviews with Francois Truffaut in the Sixties, Hitchcock gave a comprehensive overview of his whole body of work, but all he could say about this picture is that he did it as a favour to Carole Lombard and that he didn't understand the characters so just photographed Norman Krasna's screenplay.

In truth, there is not much more that needs to be said.

It is a screwball comedy out of the same mould as It Happened One Night, His Girl Friday and Philapdelphia Story. Carole Lombard is a typically feisty wife who learns that her marriage is technically invalid, falls out with with her husband on the flimsiest of pretexts and spends most of the picture being 'adorably' unreasonable.

Robert Montgomery does well enough as the put upon husband, but it is hard not to lose patience with him. Long before the end of the movie the audience is saying: \"dump the silly cow, she's not worth it.\"

Gene Raymond plays the best friend with whom she becomes engaged. He is supposed to be a courtly, 'old family' Southerner, although this is not obvious from his accent and only really becomes apparent in the drunk scene (which he otherwise plays very well). He is an honourable, generous, teetotal gentleman, so of course he is bullied and patronised by Robert Montgomery and made the butt of many of the jokes - although he is not as badly treated as the similar Ralph Bellamy character in His Girl Friday.

This movie feels like it was made by people who only knew of screwball comedies by reputation, but hadn't actually seen one. For example, a good screwball comedy has a strong central idea with a number of on-going comic threads that continually intertwine and overlap. Here, all the comedy elements are just strung out, like beads on a necklace. This is screwball comedy by the numbers.

It is the same with the direction. Typically, these comedies race along at an ever increasing pace that rises to near hysteria by the end. Hitchcock doesn't get this. His direction is somewhat lethargic and the picture becomes a stately succession of scenes that all seem slightly over-written (but under-nourished) and slightly too long. He was never a particularly good director of actors so he just lets the cast get on with it. They do OK.

Hitchcock had a good sense of humour, which he frequently used in his thrillers, but he had no feel for comedy as a genre. His later Trouble with Harry was also a misfire, for similar reasons to this movie, but at least he was involved in that picture. Here he is just going through the motions.

All the people connected with this movie were good solid professionals so it is not especially bad. It just feels a bit derivative, over-familiar, over-long and ultimately rather flat.

Mr and Mrs Smith is one for Carole Lombard fans and Hitchcock completists only.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The good things first: I agree with another viewer who said that Gene Raymond has a marvelous drunk scene. He does -- I was tickled to finally get a chance to laugh. And there were other moments I found amusing -- Raymond's parents in the bathroom with the defective plumbing, and the scene in the restaurant with Robert Montgomery trying to make Carole Lombard jealous by mouthing sweet nothings to a stranger.

But overall, I was dismayed. I love Carol Lombard and most of Hitchcock. And I understand the restrictions laid on productions by the Hays Code. But this was embarrassing and awful to watch. Of course I knew they'd end up together, this is a romantic comedy after all. But it made no sense, it happened too fast. Plus I can't believe the professions of love when confronted with such hurtful behavior, both physical and confrontational.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Komodo vs. Cobra is not going to set the world on fire. It's not a hallmark of cinema history. What it is is a group of underfunded filmmakers trying to make another movie, make another paycheck, and continue to support themselves and their families. As such I give these efforts a lot of slack. I mean, come on, it has to be hard to be a Russian special effects technician. Not a lot of big budget films getting made there. BUT-- they are a dedicated bunch and more than willing to throw their all into whatever lame American monster flick needs affordable SFX. And I get a kick out of looking for the same locations appear time and again in these flicks. If for some reason you find yourself watching this again, look at the sequence where Pare and company are walking through a \"jungle.\" Look at their feet and you'll see paved walkways. And if you happen to still have a copy of \"AI Assault\" (shown a week or two earlier also on SciFi), you'll see the folks in there tramping through the same ersatz jungle. Come to think of it, I think the helicopters land in the same clearing in both flicks. I can admire the thriftiness of these films. Every dollar really does show up on the screen! Too bad there just aren't enough dollars......","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A group of environmentalists travel to an island to uncover a secret lab that is experimenting on animals. When they arrive, they discover that they are to late. Apparently the government made a scientist test his experiment on a komodo and, yes, you guessed it, a cobra which made them grow very large. I'm not sure that this movie really needed or deserved explaining since it is almost identical to Curse of the Komodo which also sucked. The computer effects are as cartoony as ever an the komodo roars like a dinosaur which really got on my nerves. Like Boa vs. Python, this movie is not worth seeing and is about as much fun to watch as it is to nail your hand to a table. Avoid!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So, Wynorski remakes Curse of the Komodo a second time, this time replacing the interesting characters of the original with a bunch of obnoxious environmentalists \/ anti-capitalists. And he adds a Cobra. Most of the movie is spent listening to the self-righteous characters prattle on about the evil capitalist pigs, while sandwiched between this cavalcade of condescension are flashbacks to what happened on the island before they got there. DNA experiments were conducted, critters started to grow, people spoke to each other without coming off as being morally superior jerks, etc. Needless to say, it would have been a much better movie if they would have made the flashbacks the movie and forgotten about the sanctimonious do-gooders. Lest I forget, there are a few short scenes scattered here and there where the holier-than-thou posse gets picked off one by one, but they probably comprise less than 2% of the film. The main event pitting our title characters against each other lasts about one minute and is as exciting as watching the previews for the latest Dino-Crisis video game.

The acting is pretty bad overall, even for this sort of film. Half the actors seem like they're more concerned with pronouncing every last syllable of every word than speaking their dialog in any sort of believable manner.

I actually did make it through to the end, but it's one of those movies I wish I would have recorded and then watched later, because there are plenty of parts that need to be fast forwarded through. Overall, I give this effort one star, it has absolutely none of the elements that make a B-movie fun to watch. It's a sad day indeed when you can say with sincerity that the makers of this movie could have learned a thing or two from watching Boa vs. Python.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a total movie geek with the fortunate job of video store manager, I tend to watch all sorts of movies, from good to very very bad. This was a movie with so many corn-ball lines, cheesy CGI effects and predictable plot points that I ended up laughing extensively before switching it off after 30-40 minutes. The \"creature feature\" genre of movies has been putting out some pretty awful stuff in recent years (Godzilla 2000 anyone?), but this movie makes me think the creators weren't even trying. It might be worth checking out just for the \"make fun of me\" potential (count the gunshots!), but I couldn't in good conscience recommend this movie to anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is like a zoology textbook, given that its depiction of animals is so accurate. However, here are a few details that appear to have been slightly modified during the transition to film:

- Handgun bullets never hit giant Komodo dragons. It doesn't matter how many times you shoot at the Komodo, bullets just won't go near it.

- The best way to avoid being eaten by a giant Cobra, or a giant Komodo dragon, is just to stand there. The exception to this rule is if you've been told to stay very still, in which case you should run off, until the Komodo is right next to you, and then you should stand there, expecting defeat.

- Minutes of choppy slow motion footage behind the credits really makes for enjoyable watching.

- $5,000 is a memory enhancement tool, and an ample substitute for losing your boating license\/getting arrested.

- Members of elite army units don't see giant Komodo dragons coming until they are within one metre of the over-sized beings. Maybe the computer-generated nature of these dragons has something to do with it.

- When filming a news story aiming on exposing illegal animal testing, a reporter and a cameraman with one camera is all the gear and personnel you will need; sound gear, a second camera, microphones etc are all superfluous.

- When you hear a loud animal scream, and one person has a gun, he should take it out and point it at the nearest person.

- When you take a gun out, the sound of the safety being taken off will be made, even if your finger is nowhere near the safety

- Reporters agree to go half-way around the world in order to expose something - without having the faintest idea what they're exposing. Background research and vague knowledge are out of fashion in modern journalism.

- Handguns hold at least 52 bullets in one clip, and then more than that in the next clip. Despite that, those with guns claim that they will need more ammo.

- Expensive cameras (also, remember that the reporter only has one camera) are regularly left behind without even a moment's hesitation or regret. These cameras amazingly manage to make their way back to the reporter all by themselves.

- The blonde girl really is the stupid one.

- The same girl that says not to go into a house because a Komodo dragon can easily run right through it, thus making it unsafe, takes a team into a building made of the same material for protection - and nobody says a word about it.

- High-tech facilities look like simple offices with high school chemistry sets.

- Genetically-modified snakes grow from normal size to 100 feet long in a matter of a day, but don't grow at all in the weeks either side.

- The military routinely destroys entire islands when people don't meet contact deadlines.

- Men with guns don't necessarily change the direction they're shooting when their target is no longer right in front of them. Instead, they just keep shooting into the air.

- The better looking you are, the greater your chance of surviving giant creatures.

- Women's intuition is reliable enough to change even the most stubborn of minds.

- Any time you're being hunted by giant creatures is a great time to hit on girls half your age.

- Animal noises are an appropriate masking noise for 'swearing' at the same volume.

- Old Israeli and Russian planes are regularly used by the US Military.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is Hilarious what is better than watching two creatures battle one another? GIANT cgi versions of these beasts which battle! However I do require one of the guns used in the movie. Because apparently they are using cheats. Count the amount of shots they use before having to...oh wait that's right they never have to reload. Regardless count the shots... it's hilarious.

The sound effects used in the movie for the Komodo vary from a tiger to an elephant. Oh and did I forget to mention that apparently these GIANT Komodo dragons are stealthy as hell? Because somehow even when the actors are looking in the direction that the beast comes from they are surprised when it appears.

Whenever someone dies you can tell its coming because they all brace for it, they put their arms up in the air and cross them to save themselves... it never works.

The final gem is that these script writers brains are just a gland full o' knowledge. With \"facts\" such as both of these creatures being amphibious to comments such as \"helpless animals\" they are just full of fun facts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you're looking for a movie that's fun to watch simply because you can make jokes about the not so great acting, cheesy \"special\" effects, and typical sci-fi plot...then this is the movie for you! Not at the acting was bad, in fact, a few actors were actually fairly decent. The special effects weren't the greatest (to say the least); the animals looked completely computer animated. There was an annoying squawking to cover up the swearing and there was only one song played over and over again throughout the entire movie. Overall, a good movie if you're looking for something completely cheesy and fun to make fun of. Not a good movie to watch if you're looking for something serious.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Komodo vs. Cobra starts as 'One Planet' environmentalist Jerry Ryan (Ryan McTavish) & his girlfriend Carrie (Renee Talbert) hire Captain Michael Stoddard (executive producer Michael Par\u00e9) to take them to an island in the South Pacific, at first Stoddard is reluctant since the island is a top secret military research base but soon changes his mind when a load of cash is offered. Along with TV news reporter Sandra Crescent (Jeri Manthey) they set sail for the island & once ashore find out that the military have been funding illegal DNA genetic experiments which have resulted in huge Komodo Dragon's & King Cobra's that have eaten almost every other living thing there & Stoddard & co are next on the menu...

Co-written & directed by the ever awful Jim Wynorski under his Jay Andrews pseudonym this is just plain awful, this is just plain hard to sit through & is even worse than the usual rubbish 'Creature Features' the Sci-Fi Channel have the nerve to air if that's possible. The script is terrible, predictable & utterly boring, some giant monsters of some sort are created by scientists messing around with DNA, a group of people are trapped with said monsters & have to try to escape being eaten. That's it, that's the whole plot of Komodo vs. Cobra, maybe this was trying to rip-off AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004) with the title but all the 'vs.' bit amounts to is a rubbish thirty second stand-off between the two titular beasts at the very end, boring as hell & surely a big disappointment to anyone hoping to have a full on monster mash. The character's are poor, the dialogue is awful, the pace is slow, the story is predictable & clich\u00e9 ridden & the whole film just sucks really with a lazy script that states wrongly that both Komodo Dragon's & Cobra's are amphibious which they are not. Hell, Komodo vs. Cobra isn't even worth watching for any unintentional laughs since it's so dull & hardly anything ever happens although the sight of a woman hiding behind the smallest rock on the beach from the Cobra is quite funny for the wrong reasons.

How does Wynorski keep getting directing jobs? He is probably consistently the worst director currently working, how can he keep getting fun sounding films set on beautiful locations with half decent casts & still churn out such an awful film? I think this was cut to get a PG or for it's TV showing since every time someone swears it's masked by a Parrot squeak! There's zero gore or violence & the monster scenes are limp, people just sort of stand there, the monsters just sort of stands there too hissing or roaring & that's about it. The CGI computer effects are terrible, this is really poor stuff that just looks horrible.

With a supposed budget of about $450,000 this looks as cheap as it was, the Hawaiian locations are nice to look at but that's about it. The acting is poor from an uninterested looking cast.

Komodo vs. Cobra is an absolutely terrible Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' from Jim Wynorski, films don't get much worse than this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Where do I start? First off, the story sucks. The acting sucks, the effects really suck, I guess I'll start with the story. The story for Komodo vs. Cobra: number one, it doesn't explain how or when the Komodo and the cobra even got there. Or for that matter, how it was created. The acting: TERRIBLE! It seems like the director just pulled a few people from the street (which is probably what he did). And last and definitely the least, the effects: they are so horrible that the komodo doesn't even look like a komodo, just a dinosaur, that looks incredibly unrealistic. The water doesn't even move when the cobra appears. All in all: terrible piece of crap, don't even think about renting it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Writer & director Jay Andrews, a.k.a. Jim Wynorski, serves up more of his characteristic shlock with a decent cast menaced by grade-Z computer generated reptiles in \"Komodo Vs. Cobra,\" as generic a rip-off of \"Mysterious Island\" meets \"Jurassic Park\" as you can imagine. The chief problem with this predictable yarn about monsters dining on mankind is the incredibly phony special effects. The cobra and the Komodo are hilariously awful. However, the graphics people do an okay job of integrating the monsters with their victims, not that any of this is in the least believable. Clearly, \"Komodo Vs. Cobra\" had a budget that so low that virtually everything non-human in its looks as fake as all get out. This cheesy monster epic takes place on a remote island where the U.S. military conducts top-secret DNA testing on animals. The result is that gigantic Komodos and cobra thrive in this tropical island paradise. As the action opens, the primary scientist is gobbled up by a cobra that likes to swim. After, we are introduced to a group of 'Greenpeace' like environmental protesters and a journalist. Planet One organizer Jerry Ryan (Ryan McTavish of \"Hellbent\") pays charter boat skipper Jim Stoddard (Michael Pare of CBS-TV's \"Houston Knights\") five grand with the promise of another five grand if he will take them to this forbidden island. Meanwhile, the U.S. military suspect that something is amiss on the island so they send their own team of men who give eaten by the supersized predators. Our heroes run into the last remaining scientist on the island, Dr. Susan Richardson (Michelle Borth of \"Wonderland\"), the daughter of the scientist responsible for this insane science project, who tells them that the military is going to target the island for destruction. The title match between the two overgrown predators occurs in the last quarter hour after our heroes, who have been consistently whittled down by the monsters, find a helicopter and take off in time before the military pulverizes the island. There's no tension, suspense, or anything worthwhile in this substandard creature feature. The best thing about this yawner is composer Chuck Cirino's orchestral soundtrack; it gives \"Komodo Vs. Cobra\" an epic feel. Usually, Jay Andrews writes and directs tolerable drivel, but this ranks far below his low standards. The sexy women fare better at survival than the guys. In one scene, our heroic group fords a river and we don't get to see any wet T-shirts. Drat! There's nothing in the way of memorable dialogue or relationships in this dreck. I think that the military guys do far too much saluting when they get their heads together to conspire. Let's hope that Michael Pare got a good payday out of this garbage. The ending as one of the scientists takes on the characteristics of a lizard comes strictly as an afterthought. It's not so bad it's good, it's just bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just found out before writing this review that \"Komodo vs. Cobra\" and another movie called \"Curse of the Komodo\" were both directed by the same guy, Jim Wynorski. That might explain why they are films of nearly identical premises. They both feature a military-governed island, a colonel whose concerned more about covering his tracks than the lives of his employees, people racing to get to a chopper that is conveniently lying in a field somewhere on the island, and giant komodo dragons created through genetic experiments running amok. What differences are there? Well, the intruders on the island are now capitalists wanting to expose the government secret and there's a giant cobra on the island as well, hence the title \"Komodo vs. Cobra\" even though the conflict between the two monsters is hardly relevant to the 'story.' \"Komodo vs. Cobra\" is more or less what you'd expect given its title and its channel origin: the Sci-Fi Channel. Although every now and again you will find one that for one reason or another may appeal to you (I liked a movie called \"Komodo\") I hardly doubt this one will.

\"Komodo vs. Cobra\" is not only a boring film, but it's also one of the least enthusiastic sci-fi flicks I've seen in a long time. In some of these movies, there is an air to them that indicates the filmmakers were giving at least a certain level of effort, but I see very little here. That's indicated again by it just being a rehash of \"Curse of the Komodo.\" The CGI for the monsters look as if they came straight out of a second-rate video game, the cinematography and misc en scene is poor, the acting ranges from passable to poor, the action scenes are dull, and then there are some parts that are, frankly put, unforgivably bad. I see a lot movies where a person will shoot a gun many times without reloading and I can deal with this. But in this movie, where Michael Par\u00e9 takes a single thirty-eight handgun and fires it approximately fifty times nonstop without reloading once\u0085well, at first I laughed, but even then it just became tiring. That would be the 'action.' A monster appears, people scream, Par\u00e9 fires nonstop without reloading his gun once throughout the entire picture, and somebody gets eaten.

\"Komodo vs. Cobra\" is a very bad movie. The only thing in the movie that is worth mentioning in a charitable manner is an actress named Michelle Borth, who is not only very beautiful, but a surprisingly strong performer. Even with the trashy dialogue and lack of enthusiasm in the screenplay she was given, Michelle Borth managed to pull off a surprisingly good performance and it just appalls me that an actress as good as her can get stuck in a film as junky as this. She obviously took it for the paycheck, but it won't boost her career any, I'm afraid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Laughable would be a good term to describe this movie. But, since this movie deserves nothing good said of it, I'll use the term god-awful instead.

Centering around the adventures of a bunch of eco-warriors investigating the nefarious doings of the military on a semi-tropical island, the lack of a budget rapidly becomes apparent. Michael Pare (a real actor! But only in the sense that Pinocchio was a real boy...) leads the bunch of fools through a series of monster chase-and-gobble-hapless-victim scenes. There is some vague attempt at pseudo-science to explain the presence of the giant reptiles, but it convinces the viewer about as well as the acting does.

As if this doesn't insult the viewer enough, the movie also features what I'll call \"Guns of never-ending ammunition\". I never saw Mickey Parrot or his female side-kick change clips once during the entire film, yet I can positively report they cap off at least 40 rounds each in any scene where they are required to fire their weapon. Forty rounds may not seem like that many, but we are talking standard handguns here. I figure 15 round clip, tops. And remember, they never change clips, nor even appear to carry any extra ammo.

It's dumb-assery like this which consigns movies to the eternal fires of celluloid hell, and rightly so. The third-rate CGI does little to help matters and the acting is best laughed at, else you'll start crying. Why SciFi Channel repeatedly churns out this mush is anyone's guess.

My advice....give this one a wide berth...a very wide berth!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just caught this on Showtime...ewwwwwww, not even fun in a bad movie kind of way. One of the lamest monster flicks I've ever seen. Plus the TV reporter in the movie was that annoying Jerri from a past season of Survivor. The only amusing thing was that the \"secret base\" was the house from Fantasy Island (and a million other movies and TV shows; the place is located in the L.A. area). I fully expected Mr Roarke and Tattoo to come out and greet the visitors. If Tattoo had gotten eaten by the snake, I might have given this movie a 2, but oh well. Watching people stand there and scream for five minutes while the Komodo or the cobra loomed over them instead of making a run for it was pretty funny, especially because you could really tell that they were just screaming at an empty spot where the computer animators would later paint in the monster. I nearly fell out of my chair, though, when in a flashback scene they brought in either the cobra or the komodo - then normal size - in some indestructible solid steel container with some air holes drilled into it. Wouldn't a wire cage have sufficed? LOL! Guess they couldn't afford to rent a real komodo and cobra. I have to remember I rent Showtime for their series and not their movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another laughably lame and senseless low-budget sci-fi TV presentation\u0085 but actually its kind of amusing\u0085 kind of\u0085 in a passably undemanding way. Am I being soft? I don't know why they come up with these titles. Yes there's a komodo. And yes there's a cobra. However what's the deal with 'versus' in between? Sure they do come to blows\u0085 in only two sequences (one recapping an incident and the other being the dodgy climax) and quite boring exchanges I might add. The get-up is the same old routine of a scientific experiment getting out of hand on a secluded island (no dinosaurs about), and some innocent bystanders (environmentalists hoping to expose animal testing) getting caught up in it. This sees a komodo dragon and cobra becoming massive in statue with the government soon wanting to destroy any sort of the evidence (including witnesses) of its existence by blowing up the island. So this leaves the survivors racing against time to find a way off. The prominent staples existed of awful video game CGI, hack script, few dingy sets (although the tropical island setting was easy on the eyes), throwaway characters (but I found the performances faired up), lifelessly tacky thrills (which for some reason kept using the same repetitive shot of the victim just standing there in terror\u0085 which implied I'm waiting, please eat me now, I'm not going anywhere and eventually they were swallowed whole\u0085 well almost as it seemed to always take a second gulp to finish them off or just save the hassle by stupidly squashing them) and a very hysterical edge with some sort of wretch message amongst the acts of survival. Director Jim Wynorski seems to be on cruise control throughout. Michael Par\u00e9 has fun with his gruff dialogues and Michelle Borth added much needed sparks. Renee Talbert is there to pout a lot, quite successfully too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When moviegoers hear two popular villains\/characters will be fighting, they flock to the theaters to see how the battle will end. There's Freddy vs. Jason, in which two very popular horror icons try to kill each other. And, more similarly to this, there's Godzilla vs. (Insert Name Here). But the very generic Komodo vs. Python is just a horrible title, and an even worse premise. Obviously, the movie's a D-list picture, but, at least come up with a more compelling name, maybe something that can trick the unsuspecting viewer into watching it. With a name like this, you know what you're getting in to.

A group of military men\/women, including a 20-something year old sexy scientist woman are left for dead by the military on an island inhabited by a giant komodo dragon. As long as they can make it off the island and to the boat, they'll be fine, but...no...there's a giant python guarding the ocean and the way off. Let's hope all these guys can make it off the island, and that the python and komodo don't verse each other in some sort of horrible special effect battle.

Really, this movie is bad in almost every way. The acting is pretty bad, or maybe it's that the special effects are so cheesy, that the acting is unbelievable because no one believes that these people are in any danger with creatures that look like they were made on an early 90s computer. Nonetheless, this movie is actually pretty funny. The creatures are so clunky looking, and the actors really give it their all pretending like they're in danger.

I'd like to say that this movie is a steaming pile of sh*squawk!*...but I can't. This PG-13 rated film actually bleeps itself out. Every time a curse word comes, a parrot noise beeps out the word. Even words that can be said on network television. How *squawk*ing cheap that they bleep out words, and with a parrot no less. Eventually these parrot noises got to me and I couldn't help but laugh at the incompetence.

This movie is bad, from the silly beginning to the ridiculous Night of the Living Dead style ending, but it's also kind of funny. As a horror movie it fails miserably, as an action movie, it fails slightly less, but still pretty bad, and as a comedy it shines.

My rating: * out of ****. 95 mins. PG-13 for some violence and Squawked out cursing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nothing will ever top KOMODO with the lovely Jill Hennessey as a shrink (!), but KvC ain't quite as bad as I expected for a SYFY channel quickie. Just make sure to watch it while drunk or stoned, or while trying to go to sleep. The unimaginative title basically says it all: A group of mostly unknown actors converge on an island where a government experiment to grow giant vegetables has gone wrong. Giant creatures that came into contact with the vegetables have taken over the island and eaten everyone. So now the government is preparing to blow up the island, regardless of the people being there. The acting is wonderfully atrocious, especially a mustachioed general right out of THE INCREDIBLE HULK TV series, but this is typical of this kind of made-for-cable schlock. The CGI creatures are TV-level quality, which means you know you're watching cartoon monsters. However, two of the gals in the group are very cute, and worth watching as they run here and there in their tight little outfits. You just want to eat them up!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"probably the worst creature feature ever,boa vs python was a million times better then this & that wasn't great either,bad acting,bad effects & guess what the DVD is one of those one with 3 hours of previews before the main menu.probably the least scary movie ever,no blood or violence,people are stupid and keep using pistols when they have no affect on these animals, the only cool part was the radioactive leeches that was pretty cool,i name of the island is just a rip off of Jurassic park boring tiring & not worth even looking at but i suppose the characters stupidity is pretty funny so it would make a good comedy film but definitely not a thriller","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can admit right away that this is one of the worst movies i have seen in my life. And that is not saying a little, because i consider myself to be somewhat of an aficionado when it comes to crappy film. But this is beyond bad. This movie is so awful that there is no fun left in it, it's just bad.

Reviewing this is almost impossible. There are no strong points and nothing positive to say. I'll just ramble about a few of the points that sucked. First off, the CGI has to be one of the worst i've seen. I can't believe this movie was made in 2005, the CGI reminds me of something i might have seen in Babylon 5 way back when CGI was new and fresh. It's poor beyond belief. Second, the actors all seem like they belong in the worst kind of daytime soaps. And looking at their resumes i see that i'm correct... Thirdly, being able to breed enormous reptiles is no match to the other technology they invented in this movie: the recoilless pistol with infinite ammo! Seriously, Michael Par\u00e9 fires 100-200 times without reloading in every other scene... As if that was not enough there are also shape-shifting planes! At first they are regular F-16 fighters, in the next scene they are something else completely, and in the third scene they are F-16 again! If you're buying stock footage, please don't mix it like this!

Honestly, there is loads more to say, but i think i'll stop. You all understand what i'm saying. Honestly i didn't think this kind of movie was made any more. It's like something Ed Wood would do. Completely ignorant of quality, not caring how anything looks... It's almost amazing in all it's awfulness. If i could give it 0\/10 i would, but 1\/10 is the lowest grade. So that's it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A team of amateur journalists and tree-huggers catches wind of a secret government project, Project Carnivore, on a remote South Pacific island. The scientists there are producing giant-sized corn, but the genes are spreading to other species, creating abnormally large Komodo dragons and a cobra (one that's bullet-proof and swims underwater). With the help of the scientist's daughter, can they escape the island and tell the world? Even if i hadn't seen this film on the Sci-Fi Channel (which, sadly, i did) it would scream \"Sci-Fi Channel\" with its low production value, weak acting and some of the worst special effects in history. The effects here are comparable to another creature film, \"Raptor Island\", although not nearly as bad. I would suspect that there must be at least a handful of people that worked on both films, but I haven't bothered to confirm that and probably won't. It will be a sad day when I see either of them films again.

Which is not to say it's not enjoyable. I watched it at two in the morning with my sister's boyfriend and I can't speak for him, but I thought it was a pretty good use of time. As bad the whole thing is, it's a fun picture if you like to make fun of movies and the scientist's daughter is attractive enough to carry the film (I believe the actress' name is Michelle Borth). Michael Pare also appears as a ship captain, and his poor choice of roles here actually makes his work on \"Furnace\" look respectable (even if that movie is intolerably bad).

I can't be too hard on this film simply because it was more or less exactly what I thought it would be. Bad effects? Low budget? No-name actors? I didn't have any higher hopes. Yet, this doesn't mean that it's awesome, either. Coming in at par is nothing to be proud of and this one will slowly fade into the distant memory department. For the one fan who likes this film (and calls it \"KvC\"), hold on to your copy because you'll have a heck of a time getting a replacement.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"****SPOILER ALERT**** My boyfriend, some friends, and I rented this movie as part of a marathon of really bad movies. We sort of knew what we were getting into. But the lack of plot, direction, and special effects actually left us hoping for a great (or passable) fight scene between the two main characters... the badly rendered swimming cobra and the super violent giant komodo (that ate people like scooping ice cream)... we sort of get this in the end, but had to be cut short due to possibly budget or time constraints? Its one redeeming quality is that its laughably bad, with many salient details pointed out by other readers. I recommend this movie if your into cutting onions to make yourself cry.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am currently watching this movie and I have absolutely no hesitation in reviewing it now. The acting is ridiculous. Half the cast must be retired porno actors, and to get kicked off pornos you could imagine the quality of acting.

The graphics are unlike anything I have ever seen. I think there are puppet shows with more believability. They can't even afford blanks for the guns they shoot at the pathetic excuse for monsters. Perhaps I should also note how incredibly impressed I am at the number of 'bullets' their pistols can hold.

If asked to summarise the movie, I would say that someone had rustled up a group of complete no-hopers at the local county-fair, slapped them on an island, added needlessly intense music and let a 6 year old do the editing.

I can honestly not formulate any possible explanation for why this movie was released, recorded on DVD and costs $6 from my local video store for one day. If anything I have received the benefit of knowing that I am a lot smarter than all parties involved in this film.

I hate this movie with great intensity. Why? I wish I knew Captain, I wish I knew....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jim Wynorski strikes again with the very literal minded KOMODO VS. COBRA. No guesswork here. A giant CGI komodo dragon -- it sort of looks like a dog minus fur -- takes on a humongous CGI king cobra, with a bunch of tree huggers and others caught in between. The tree huggers get charter boat captain Michael Pare (who else?) to take them to an off-limits federal island. An experiment by a mad scientist in growing very large veggies has become an experiment in growing very large critters, thank so to our nutty military. Now all that's left on the island are the very large critters and the mad scientist's tiny, shapely daughter. The group runs into her at the old plantation lab, the monsters arrive, and the chase is on. If you watch enough Wynorski\/Sci-Fi Channel flicks, you'll recognize some of the sets and locations from many other movies. Acting is nonexistent, as is the plot. At the very least, you can enjoy watching the badly animated compo\/dog stomp down on its intended victims just before scarfing them up. The cobra just strikes and swallows. No imagination at all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was watching the sci-fi channel when this steaming pile of crap came on. While not as bad as Wynorski's \"Curse of the Komodo\", this still sucks...BAD. Wynorski uses the same island as in \"Curse of the Komodo\", as well as the same actors and house. The effects are top notch (suprising) but thats about it........I don't know what else to say about this movie.......oh yeah! As in \"Curse of the Komodo\", the government gets involved and decides to bomb the island! Also....when i saw this part i laughed hysterically...A KOMANBRA!!! (part man, komodo AND cobra!). Overall this movie is utter crap even on bad movie standards. Just remember if Jim Wynorski had anything to do with a movie....steer clear....to avoid from falling asleep keep repeating \"It's almost over..it's almost over...\". 0 out of 5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad, bad, movie, so bad it is worth watching. As long as you watch this movie knowing that it is bad and you'll be spending 2 hours of your time watching a bad movie, it's worth it. The special effects are cheesy and the animals look fake and the acting is bad, but watching the faces of the actors as they try to look frightened is just very funny. If your sister is about to be eaten by a giant komodo dragon wouldn't you do a little something to try and save her? If she did get eaten wouldn't you fall on your knees crying your heart out? This guy just sat in a chair and ran his fingers through his hair. How anti-climatic is that? Maybe he was supposed to be in shock or something. He does join his sister in the komodo's belly - oh didn't mean to spoil it for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Scientists at a remote lab experiment on (insert scaly creature here) and create out of control monsters. In the meantime a crack military team\/the scientist's daughter\/bank robbers find their way to the remote place and are menaced by the giant critters. One by one they're eaten, all during an \"exciting\" race to not be blown up by the forces who initially created the monsters...\" The sad thing is that this sounds like about a dozen movies which have appeared on the Sci-Fi Channel. I have to wonder just what is going on? Sure... I like bimbos and Hollywood-Hunk wannabes be eaten by CGI critters as much as the next person... but where's the plot or originality? Granted, there are times when Sci-Fi Channel Shines. Battlestar Galactica, if a bit dark, can be very good. Writers have continued to pump life into the various Stargate offerings, and the latest BBC import of Doctor Who is surprisingly good.

Even in the various \"giant animal\" movies on Sci-Fi, the animation seems to be getting better all the time. Compare the kommodo in this film to the rather clunky version in the first giant kommodo film on Sci-Fi.

But goodness... how about a different plot? Maybe some -different- giant critter? On a whim, I started searching around the internet. Among the litter I found a few interesting stories which might appeal to SF fans and out of work Russian CGI animators at once. I offer http:\/\/www.macrophile.com\/~arilin\/archive\/metamorphosis-day to the network with a suggestion that they contact the author for the story rights. (The story contains violent images generally on a par with those of various Sci-Fi channel offerings).

The story has subplot, ethical and moral comment on the nature of humanity and ends not on one of those horrible \"did they REALLY kill all the monsters???\" moments, but rather leaves you guessing completely and in an entirely different mindset.

Which is generally what science-fiction is supposed to do, no?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Within the first 5 minutes of this movie I knew I was in for one of those \"pick at the faults\" kinda movie. The acting was terrible, the script was even worse. Who ever let these people write write such crap for a movie need to be feed the Komodo's themselves. With Russian Mig jets posing as U.S. Air Force jets, and pistols that can miraculously shoot 50 - 60 rounds rapid fire without reloading is poor detail to any story. In one scene komodo are killing special forces troops at night, while in another they are explaining how the komodos and cobras are cold blooded and don't come out night!!!! Also with fantastic special effects available in today's movie industry, they were only average even for this low budget movie.

All that being said, I did watch it to the end curious as to what other wonders bad film making could produce. Shame Shame Shame, for producing such rot!!!

This movie should have been left on the cutting room floor!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"imagination must of slipped Jim Wynorski mind when he wrote the script to this one. i don't mind when the animals scenes are almost identical but when the actors repeat lines from other movies is going a little too far. I did enjoy seeing Jay Richardson and Glori Ann Gilbert get eaten. Gloria brings nothing to a movie but her tits (my husbands sentiments). Jerri Manthey should of stayed on survival island her acting is stiff, unbelievable and she just a plain boor. liked the scene where the cobra comes out of the ocean eats the guy then for added flavor destroys the dingy. At least we know the next plot giant snake man slays komodo before becoming daddy to a nest of eggs. Jerri would be great as the mother cobra. sit back with a 6 pact or a couple of joints. it will ease the pain.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"28 years before 9\/11, there was another 9\/11 which represented a key date in the history of Chile, South America and the whole world. This was the date in 1973 when a bloody coup in Chile deposed Salvador Allende the first Marxist president elected democratically anywhere in the world and put an end to the Chilean experiment of a democratic transition from capitalism to socialism. Allende committed suicide when the armed forces attacked the presidential palace.

Unfortunately this film is too biased and too nostalgic towards the time of Allende's rule to be an objective rendition of the man and of his place in history. The times were troubled and Allende was a disputed figure in the history of his country and of the whole world. True, he was democratically elected, but his policies plunged Chile into economic crisis. He was deposed by a coup and a right-wing dictatorship followed with repression and flagrant human rights abuses, but he was also an ally of Castro who saw in his policies another way of making revolution. We'll never know if his tentative to build a socialist yet democratic society would have succeeded. The authors of the movie take a completely pro-Allende position, there is no opinion or point of view trying to explain the other side, to answer questions like why did the middle class oppose him, or how his democratic views could go together with supporting or being supported by Castro. The tone of the commentaries is nostalgic and apologetic, almost propagandistic. People who want to get a better understanding of this episode of the history need to wait for a more balanced and objective film or book in the future.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I kind of like JAG. It do have it\u00b4s charm but lately it\u00b4s to much propaganda in it. For an outsider (a non American) the patriotic feeling can be a bit to much.

I don\u00b4t like that Rabb and MacKenzie goes from being lawyers (as they were in the early parts of the TV show) to become super heros that stops wars and rescues entire continents. Its almost like watching a recruitment video from the US army.

I still watch the show, so it\u00b4s not that bad. But i would prefer more episodes when Rabb and MacKenzie investigates military accidents and don\u00b4t save the world in the future.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was so \"impressed\" with Tim Kincaid's MUTANT HUNT that I gave this one a try. It is the near future, post apocalypse of course. A wandering fighter named Neo (no, not that Neo!) joins a group of similar looking fighters to challenge The Dark One and his underling Valaria. Along the way they encounter mutants, crazed females, sewer worms, a big spider leg and some clunky robots. Oh my!

Sadly, ROBOT HOLOCAUST is hardly up (or down) to HUNT's level. Clocking in at a painful 79 minutes (the box says 90), this is one cheap flick. The sets have all the elaborate design of a carnival haunted house and the costumes prove that in the near future everyone will dress like John Travolta in the final dance number of STAYING ALIVE. The atomic wasteland is a combination of rubble filled old buildings and Central Park. The Dark One's headquarters is ominously named The Power Station and looks like, well, a power station. The acting is universally bad except for Angelika Jager as the evil Valaria. Jager is a whole 'nother level of bad. Vit er sick Cherman acczent, she gives a performance so amazingly bad that it becomes the sole reason to recommend this film. She also delivers the film's only nudity in the \"pleasure chamber\" section of the film. Ed French again supplies the robot effects but they aren't nearly as slimy as his work in MUTANT HUNT.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cheap, gloriously bad cheese from the 80's, the decade of cheese. I watched this one first uncut and un-MST3K'ed, and it was pretty much laugh out loud funny even without the comments.

The plot(such as it is) revolves around a post-apocalyptic world in which the AI robots revolted(sound familiar?) and destroyed pretty much everything, leaving a world in ruins with air so bad no one can breathe it. The few humans that are left act as slaves to an enigmatic being called the Dark One, which seems to be part computer and part organic being. The 'air slaves' work to produce energy for this being in return for breathable air. Every once in a while, the Dark One has the strongest of the air slaves fight to the death, so that no one will rise as a leader in a revolt against the Dark One.

Okay, that's the so-called serious stuff. On to the silly stuff, such as the ridiculous quasi-futuristic clothing that everyone sports, including car seat cover 'fur' garments, loin cloths, and spangly stuff and feather boas(worn mostly by the Dark One's henchwoman, a chick with an unrecognizable and almost non-understandable accent). Or the wooden acting and stilted lines sported by all of the so-called 'actors', who's dialog is high on pretension and low on sense. Or the dime store special fx, including pink socks with teeth glued onto them for 'deadly' sewer snakes, a bomb made of strung piano wire and a tin can, and terrible 'mutants' with Halloween rubber masks on.

A band of air slaves follow their leader, a mysterious wanderer who has adapted to the air outside, to go to the energy plant to destroy the Dark One. The guy's name is Neo, which explains where the Wachowski brothers got the idea for the Matrix. They meet up with a group of Amazons along the way, with the obligatory fight scene in which the female is bested(of course). Has anyone else ever noticed that in every Amazon movie or t.v. show ever produced, these so-called amazing warriors always get their butts kicked by either men or women? Amazons are just pansies, I guess.

This band of determined warriors makes their way through Central Park...errr...the ravaged lands beyond the last standing city(good way to save money on the matte paintings of a destroyed New York City, anyway) and journey into the sewers leading to the Power Station where the Dark One and his go-go girl henchwoman Valeria hang out. Here they vanquish such ferocious beasts as the sock puppet worms, a giant spider no one sees, and the goofy lobster robot who is one of the Dark One's personal guard.

The final showdown is pretty sad. One of the slaves, a girl who's father was taken by the Dark One because he'd produced a way for people to breathe the foul air, sees that her father has been 'consumed by the Dark One's true form\", which involves him being eaten by a giant avocado until only his head is sticking out. The three remaining adventurers destroy the Dark One by turning off a few switches, and the robot holocaust dies not with a bang but with a whimper. The two humans exchange some amazingly wooden last lines, and that's it. The End.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a despairing film. Dress actors in furry rags, place in suburban wasteland, set cameras rolling and hope for the best. One can only imagine e the thanks the cast gave when their characters were killed off by sockpuppets, thus sparing them further humiliation in this dullfest. This rivals Monster a go-go as the best cure for insomnia ever made. Oh God - how can I fill up 10 lines explaining how overwhelmingly bored everybody looks in this movie? Whiney crappy plastic bungling robot who annoys everybody both on and off screen, Giant spider reduced to a single giant hairy leg pulled by string, actors desperately trying not to look at the camera while mumbling off dialogs...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In fact it was awful. The main chick in it who gets topless was obviously sleeping with the director at the time. It was shot at some warehouse most likely owned by family or friends. Also they chose not to bother coming up with a story. Sure these are ways to cut cost, but are they smart ways of keeping costs down? No they aren't. At the very least they could have found a middle school student in a \"creative writing\" course. Those kids may have at least had a lesson about story structure. At the very least, they could have read up on 3 act structure but acting obviously wasn't a priority either. Watching these jerks run around in funny clothing that was stupid by 1980's standards was an embarrassment. The fact that none of these actors committed suicide in humiliation is probably a testament to the limited distribution this film received. Had the actors actually seen the final result of their hard work, there would have been a line of people waiting to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge.

I'd give this movie 10\/10 stars but it only deserves 1 for being released at all. This movie should be shown to film students everywhere. It's better than 90% of student films I've seen and wow is this movie a piece of shiiiit.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All right, there's no way to sugarcoat this. The plot was ridiculous, the premise was ridiculous, the acting was unconscionable, the effects were laughable and all of the outdoor scenes appear to have been filmed in New York's Central Park. That having been said, there was something about this movie that I couldn't walk away from. Maybe it was the atmosphere, or maybe it was the evil super-vixen or the amazon wenches.

Anyway I'm not one to sit on the margins and criticise without pointing out a few redeeming qualities, so here they are.

A violent off-shoot of the women's lib movement is portrayed in a wilderness setting (central park, of course), and all of the masochistic young men out there will be very impressed. Furthermore, some of the scenes in which certain characters lose consciousness are amusingly dramatic (you'll note that I write dramatic, rather than convincing).

All I can say is that some people like B movies and I'm one of them. If you're one of them too, then give it a go. Cheers, Mr Kincaid. This is one for the ages.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am not familiar with the producer's other works, but this movie is a piece of crap.

I never saw the MST3K version, but I can tell you, Mike and the Bots probably didn't save it.

I love a grade-z movie as much as the next bad movie fan, but this was almost unwatchable.

There was no credit for who did the voice of \"The Dark One\". Sounded a bit like Patrick Stewart at times.

A group of high school students who found a junk super-8 camera in the trash heap could make a better movie than that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is really bad. Most of it looks like it was filmed either in a park or a basement. There's a giant spider but all we see of it is one leg. There are some worms that live in a cave that are just cheap sock puppets with cardboard teeth. And the plot is a bunch of post-apocalyptic mumbo jumbo that makes no sense at all. The whole thing is just laughable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mystery Science Theater 3000 would have not been able to bring any redeeming quality to a showing of this \"gem.\"

This one is like a cheesy pirate copy of 80's porn you could have purchased on VHS from an arcade on 42nd st. before Disney bought the whole smash and closed them all down.

But, wait - all the sex scenes have been cut. I challenge anyone to find a worse film. This film could replace water-boarding as a humane method of interrogation.

No, I take that back - I would prefer water-boarding.

The only credit this movie could earn apart from being the worst movie ever made would be to threaten the middle east into solving its problems under pain of having to watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Robot Holocaust is about the lamest, most pathetic attempt at making a post-apocalyptic movie that I've seen. And I thought the Italians were the masters of wretched Mad Max wannabes. Some of those movies like Escape 2000 are positively brilliant in comparison with this piece of poo. The plot is nonsensical \u0096 even with a narrator setting up every scene. And boy does it drag. Scene after scene with nothing of any interest happening. The special effects (and I use the word \"special\" loosely) consist of sock puppets. Yes, that's right \u0096 sock puppets! The acting is abysmal. Angelika Jager is in the running for worst performance I've ever seen. Sure, she's French or German or whatever \u0096 but man is she bad. I cannot think of a single positive thing to say about the movie. So I'll stop there because ten sentences on this junk is about ten too many.

However, and fortunately for me, I saw the MST3K version of Robot Holocaust. Some of the things that made the movie so bad helped make this MST3K episode a winner. For a season one episode, the riffs come fast and furious and hit their mark just about every time. On my MST3K rating scale, I give this episode a 4\/5 \u0096 seek it out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some films are just plain silly beyond explanation. This is one of them. Words cannot do justice to the wooden acting, the stupid plotline, and the ever-predictable outcome. About the only thing that makes this film halfway worth watching are the scantily clad women (and the mute guy for you ladies) in it. The leader of the warrior women and Valeria are quite appealing to the eye. But that's about all this movie has going for it.

Some silliness in point: One scene, when they start to journey to the lair of the Dark One, they are walking away from a supposedly destroyed land. But we clearly see a 1980's New York behind them. About 2\/3rds of this movie looks like it was filmed in a high school basement. The deadly sock puppets look about as scary as a sesame street monster. I have to agree with Latronic in that many 1950's trash b-movies did a better job than this. About the only one I can think of that didn't was Teenagers from Outer Space.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After watching this movie, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between it and another film called America 3000. Both were very bad mid 1980's post apocalypse disasters on celluloid. Obviously fake sets, wooden acting and stupid monsters are found in both films. About the only difference between the two is that the lead villainess here (played by Angelika Jager) has a very thick accent. Avoid this one unless you're watching the MST3K version. Joel and the bots barely salvage this turkey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this was made in that beloved age known as the 80s and shot in my hometown of New York City. actually, this has become one of my favorite b sci-fi movies. Oh, sure, it really stinks to high hell, but there's so much to make fun of, laugh, and enjoy that it becomes more tolerable after every viewing.

Such as:

Try to find the similarities between this and...well, OK, there is nothing similarly bad as this. Well, except Castle of FuManchu.

Sock puppets can be dangerous to your health

Create supense by describing through voice over rather than showing any imagery

Have leading villainess \"Valeria\" (played wonderfully by Angelika Jager) deliver some of the most riveting lines ever!!

Lots of men and women in post apocalyptic fashion (aka leather bikinis, loin cloths, and dead animal fur)

Do be horrified by the end!

I'm off to have a salad. Toodles!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think I can safely say (without really giving anything away), that this movie had no robots in it. The guys in \"robot\" costumes didn't act or speak as such, and the evil entity behind the whole \"plot\" isn't a robot either.

The whole thing looks like it was shot in a city park somewhere, with photos dropped in the background when the director needed a custom set. I can't even use words to describe the acting...

This couldn't even offer the hilarious ending of \"Star Crystal\". In short, it is clearly one of the worst sci-fi movies of the 80's and I would be so bold as to say \"of all time\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, this movie actually did have one redeeming quality. It made up the funniest season one episode of MST3K. I wish Rhino had released this one instead of \"The Crawling Hand.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I once lived in the u.p and let me tell you what. I didn't have the foggyest idea what the heck this \"bear walk \" is. I never heard of it the whole 10 years I was up there. It was really funny in the beginning but went down hill quickly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having lived in Michigan's Upper Peninsula (30 miles from Escanaba) in the mid-1990s, I was eager to see this film. It begins promisingly enough, with some superficial understanding of the values and quirks of U.P. life. But Jeff Daniels apparently was not content with a low-key approach that would have been fitting given the place and the people. Instead, he introduces extremely crude humor and some wildly inappropriate mystical\/supernatural elements. Although there is a good movie to be made about this practically unknown region of the U.S., this is NOT it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is inconceivable to me how ANYONE could have enjoyed or laughed at this movie. I'd say it's the worst movie I've seen in years and I see a lot of them. Maybe I've forgotten junior high? It's also very hard to believe that this is the same Jeff Daniels to did such a brilliant performance of George Washington in The Crossing. Seems like ever since he did Dumber, he's gone into the tank. Can you believe he even wrote and directed this junk?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went into this movie expecting a thoughtfull piece about how to be accepted in culture and I wound up blowing $8.50 on a 10 minute fart joke and a whole bunch of fake accents. Sorry, Jeff, but if you're going for the whole cult thing, you gotta a while to go.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Excruciatingly slow-moving, boring and stupid. Lots of juvenile bathroom-humor, drawn out into painful tedium. I like Jeff Daniels, but he should stick to acting and forget writing. I am amazed this is rated as high as it is. I call it a turkey.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Escanaba in da Moonlight\" is the first showcasing of Jeff Daniels writing and directing talents.

I've seen worse debuts but this one isn't that great.

\"Escanaba in da Moonlight\" starts off like as a decent parody of this part of American culture. As we follow Rebuen Soady (Jeff Daniels) on the eve of deer hunting season 1989. He is getting close to the record of oldest Soady to never bag a buck.

The film takes places in the upper regions of Michigan and has all the normal cliche characters. But there is a warmth there that tells you, this isn't being mean spirited.

Well, Reuben is heading off to The Soady Deer Camp and before his wife (Kimberly Norris Guerrero) gives him a Native American necklace, his lucky hat, and two-forms of liquid you probably don't want to know about.

Anyway, she is really the only one who believe in him. He finally gets to the camp where his Dad, Albery Soady (Harve Presnell) is waiting and his brother Remnar (Joey Albright) is soon to show.

Okay, let's fast forward this. In here there are some laughs, a few moments when I chuckled a loud. But most of the jokes here are used a few to many times.

But the biggest draw back is the spiritual\/Native American happenings. Just when you settle in with the characters these strange things occur. But the special effects are so cheap all it is, is a big flash of light and then head quickly bobbing back in forth.

And the ending, well it is worthless.

The move itself wasn't bad, the quirky character, and fun parody were good. But it should've stayed at that. Instead of having stupid spiritual awakenings that look like rejected scenes from some demon possession movie.

I give \"Escanaba in da Moonlight\" a 4.5 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Admittedly, I tuned into this in the hopes of seeing some beefcake shots of James Brolin. Unfortunately, there was only one, early on, and the rest of the movie was very tame, and ultimately made little sense.

The story, what there is of it, centers on Nick and Julie Atkins, a couple whose marriage of many years is beginning to grow stale. Nick, a successful businessman is focused on work to the point of neglecting Julie, who tries to fill the void by going back to school. Julie's longing for the passion that she and Nick had early in their marriage begins to take shape in the form of powerful sexual fantasies which block out reality for minutes at a time, causing her to do things like burning breakfast and misplace her husband's papers. At first she fantasizes about her husband, but as the movie progresses, she begins to fantasize about other men, and about encounters with random strangers whom she meets. This culminates in her acting out her fantasies with disastrous consequences for her marriage. Can she and her husband rebuild their relationship? Is it worth saving?

This could have been an interesting premise, but the execution is so bland that you wonder why they even bothered. Characters aren't developed. Motives aren't explained. Background information isn't given. No exploration is made of how Julie got to the point where she couldn't control herself, and no explanation is offered as to how she will do so in the future. The end product is a muddled mess which is just as confusing as Julie's fantasies, which are surprisingly underdeveloped.

The acting is a mixed bag. Donna Mills as Julie does well with the material she is given, although her continual self pity does become strident after awhile. James Brolin acts as though he is reading his lines from cue cards, and even his anger over his wife's infidelity is hard to buy into, he shows so little passion over the whole issue. The supporting roles are mostly forgettable.

Disappointing treatment of what could have been an interesting story. More's the pity, since it doesn't even offer the eye candy it promised.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This unintentionally amusing mid-80s TV movie is based on the premise that sex bomb Donna Mills (in a mostly appalling wardrobe throughout) is a neglected housewife, pining for her sexy past as a cheerleader. She escapes her empty life by fantasising about random sexual encounters with one of the many attractive men she comes across, finally giving into her fantasies and indulging in a bit on the side, although all she really wants is to reignite the flames of passion with her boring husband James Brolin.

There are many laughable aspects to this film, Mills' first foray into co-producing (later, following her departure from Knots Landing, she found great success as a trashy TV movie queen starring in mostly issue-of-the-week melodramas through most of the '90s - she usually played a victim of some sort, clearly determined to wash her hands of the wonderfully wicked and entertaining conniver she played for so long on Knots). Funniest are the drawn-out fantasy sequences, filmed as though they are meant to be soft-core porn (wind and smoke machines, backlighting, porno music), but as this is a network TV movie the scenes are all very chaste and ultimately not very sexy at all. The most amusing (and bizarre) scene has Mills taking a walk on the wild side downtown among the spiky-haired punks (complete with Robert Palmer soundtrack).

Less laughable is the dreadful dialogue that the cardboard characters are forced to utter (pity poor Cicely Tyson as the mandatory psycho-analyst, or Veronica Cartwright as the mandatory best friend, or even pre-Babs James Brolin with that daytime soap style of clenched fist anger.)

Of course, as in all of these sorts of films, we learn that all problems can be solved through psycho-therapy and then the film just becomes silly, as we explore, briefly, the reasons for Mills' \"shocking\" behaviour (as if it can't just be that she wants a good shag!)

Vacuous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film actually starts out pretty interesting but for my taste it degenerated far too quickly into a dull and predictable melodrama. None of the performances are particularly interesting and the camera work is just standard TV movie stuff, so there's really no reason for anyone to see this movie unless they are as big of a Jeff Bridges fan as I am I guess.

Bridges plays Mike Olson, a young man who announces at a family picnic that he is quitting college to go on the road. His parents believe he is \"just acting out\" and talk about how \"he has no plan\". He assures them he does have a plan, and that he needs to discover his true self and his place in the world. So much so in fact that he invites them to go on the road with him and purchases an antique bus to travel in, which he and his father repair in true TV movie father-son bonding fashion. Up until about this point in the film I was somewhat interested in the plot and characters and I wanted to see how his stuck-up mother (Vera Miles) was going to react to life on the road. There's a funny scene early on where the father and son have to convince her to take the trip with them. They show her the inside of the bus and she gradually becomes more and more interested, finally departing in a huff with some kind of talk about curtains versus blinds on the windows. Bridges marvels to his dad (Carl Betz, equipped with radio announcer voice) that she has changed her mind. Dad assures him \"electric oven... works every time!\".

But the movie goes downhill almost as soon as they hit the road. It turns out that Mike's only \"plan\" is to introduce them to some \"friends\" of his who turn out to be random people who they meet at a hippie rock festival. As soon as I saw the rock festival I was a bit disappointed... particularly as it became obvious that the entire rest of the film would take place at the festival campground and not actually on the road. But at least I thought there might be a decent band like, well, if they couldn't afford Hendrix or the Stones maybe they would at least have Canned Heat or Little Feat or something like that. No dice -- apparently the only music at this festival is some horrible choral group with orchestra that sounded like a poor imitation of the Fifth Dimension, coupled with an annoying announcer who's supposed to be humorous.

Also we are introduced to a set of hippy festivalgoers and their various medical melodramas. Kathy (Renne Jarrett) is a pretty blonde girl with existentialism and nature on her mind, who falls in love with Mike before revealing the fact that she needs kidney dialysis to live and has run off to the festival to die. And 2 other campers are determined to have a baby in their crude tent, introducing the struggle between modern medicine and hippy ignorance (or something like that). All in all the longer this goes on the more painful the film becomes for anyone hoping for any element of surprise or real drama.

Basically this movie is a waste of time, although it would probably amuse anyone who is really into the period of time in the late 60s, early 70s and the films from that time. I'd be just as happy if I never see it again though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie purports to show a middle class family's attempt to figure out what is \"going down\" in the America of the late 1960's. Their trip to a rock festival is as far as their refurbished old bus gets. Without exception, the characters are superficial stereotypes.

If you want to know which well-established Hollywood actors were desperate for a paycheck in those days,.. just look at the credits. Sal Mineo, I had forgotten just how badly his career had hit the skids! Thank God, his career rebounded before his untimely death.

The writers on this television turkey were clueless. Outside of doing weed, their insights into the \"hippie movement\" were laughable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the problems with popular culture, especially when discussing the popular culture of the 1970s, is that mass media - especially television - is usually about four years behind 'underground' media, primarily music. Many people think the 'Woodstock Generation\" remained important throughout the 1970s; actually, it was all over at Altamont in 1970. By 1972, 'underground' rock or the 'counterculture' had moved east to England and Led Zepplin, Black sabbath, and David Bowie, early metal-heads and the so-called 'glam-rockers,' who were all 'peace and love' - not. Neither, in a darkly different vein, was Charles Manson's 'family.'

This obvious pilot for a television show (that, thankfully, was never picked up by the networks) is attempting to come to terms with a culture that was already as withered as yesterday's flowers. The script must have been lying around a few years - by the time it was produced, writer Carlino had already achieved recognition for tough Mafia revenge tales. And the cultural references are all to \"Easy Rider\" and Woodstock (1969). The music referenced on the soundtrack is actually earlier, 1966\/67 - at Woodstock Hendrix, Canned Heat, and Sly and the Family Stone had blasted this kind of folk-pop into oblivion.

The movie is about a middle-class family that goes on the road in order to meet hippies. Wow, man, farout, outasight, it's a groovy mind-blowing happening of a bag. However, politics count for nothing - Vietnam? some place in Asia, right?

This average (meaning stale and vacuous) TV movie is only redeemed by Jeff Bridges' surprisingly mature performance as the young college drop-out who convinces his parents and grandma to 'discover' (hippie) America. All the rest of the performances are standard TV fair by standard TV actors of the time. The director avails himself of some nice location cinematography, but otherwise the film is a poor way to spend 90 minutes.

I knew it was all over when Sal Mineo remarks of a young runaway (who tells the other characters they are not really there): \"She's a latent existentialist.\" Wow, far out, groovy.

A couple extra points for being 'so bad it's funny,' but if you don't care about the '70's TV version of the '60's, stay away.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You don't have to spend much time watching this made for TV movie or series pilot or whatever it was intended to be to figure out just what lies in store. The incredibly bad musical score makes its debut from the start. Seriously, if this isn't the worst theme I've ever heard, I certainly can't remember it. While the acting talent is available here, from Jeff Bridges to Carl Betz, Vera Miles, and Sal Mineo, the writing is atrocious and the story is contrived, filled with insipid stereotypes, and an obvious ripoff from Ken Kesey. Why must Hollywood always present tales from the sixties as if the so-called hippies were all unidimensional morons? It's too bad that such an interesting era in our exceptionally conformist social experience is generally depicted by out and out garbage so that the least offensive of the genre is now accepted as reasonably authentic when almost none of it comes even close to the way things really were. The best I've seen to date is a memoir called Looking Back by a guy named Becker, but who else has even heard of it? No one in Hollywood, that's for sure. They're too busy pushing tripe like this groaner of a movie to bother with reality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Set in the Philipines, Lethal Panther 2 is a dreary early-90s martial-arts action flick which sees a reckless cop hunting down the nasty criminals who killed his wife. A rather cheap looking production with almost no artistic merit, this film relies on the quality and quantity of its action. But whilst there is no shortage of fisticuffs, gun fights and explosions, the quality is just not there. The endless battles are desperately lacking in originality or excitement, with poor editing and mundane direction making this film a real chore to sit through.

The usually impressive Yukari Oshima is totally wasted, with her natural athletic ability overshadowed by some excruciatingly bad wire-work. The ballistic action scenes are an unimpressive mixture of 'slow-motion flying-through-the-air-whilst-shooting' heroics, crazy vehicle stunts, and endless bad guys lining up to be shot.

With so many better examples of the 'girls and guns' genre now available on DVD, I suggest that you leave this one well alone (unless, like me, you'll endure pretty much any old rubbish in order to be a completist).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just awful. It's almost unbelievable that, with characters and situations provided by Dashiell Hammett, such a plodding, passionless mishmash could result. But that's television for you -- filler between commercials. The first warning signal sounds from the fussiness of the period re-creation, which screams \"1928\" in banner type. Flivvers and touring cars, fedoras and waistcoats, cloches and speakeasy jazz (jarringly played) -- with all the attention paid to pointless, arty detail, the important matters get ignored.

Like narrative clarity, or plausibility, or competent writing and acting. The plot sets one of Hammett's operatives (\"Hamilton Nash\" so whether he's called \"Ham\" or \"Nash\" we think of \"Hammett\" or \"Dash\") investigating a bogus diamond theft. Thus is introduced the young woman who supposedly carries the Dain Curse (the charmless and talentless Nancy Addison, who went back to soaps where she belonged); she belongs to a crackpot religious cult led by Jean Simmons and seems addicted to \"drugs\" as well; there's also a Mysterious Gaseous Drug which seeps into rooms....

But enough. The writing is never more pedestrian than when it reaches for the poetic or high-flown, and the cast parrots it the only way they know how: by grotesquely overacting. Simmons gets treated like minor royalty from Old Hollywood, but the grande-dame treatment doesn't wash. Hector Elizondo for some reason enjoys second billing (after Coburn) for a dispensable part. Other familiar faces drift through, doing little good for their resumes.

The actors aren't even photographed to look good; Jason Miller is an especial fright, but extreme close-ups of Coburn are pitiless, too. Coburn probably copped this role because, with mustache, he bears a strong resemblance to Hammett. He needed more guidance than that; nobody has given him the vaguest hint as to how to play his character, or of the story's tone, or of how the different strands of the plot mesh together (they don't, at least not in this telling). So he flashes his big Chesire-cat grin whether called for or not.

The Dain Curse is available on videotape, in a variety of lengths. For those foolhardy enough to \"see for themselves,\" the shortest abridgement is the kindest cut of all.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I appeared as an extra and was on location as a journalist covering \"The Dain Curse\". My involvement was during the segments of this film shot in Jim Thorpe, Pa. (Jim Thorpe was also one of the locations of the 1969 film \"The Molly Maguires\"). I reported the 'action' in the Emmaus Free Press newspaper where I was editor 1978-80 (the paper ceased publication int he 1990s). I recall the excellent attention to detail of the period costumes, automobiles, etc. The modern asphalted streets of Jim Thorpe were covered with gravel to mimic a 1920s rural town of the south. At the time, I interviewed the producer and spoke briefly with the director during a set change break; I did not get to interview James Coburn which was always a great disappointment to me. As an aside, I appear briefly in one of the street scenes wearing a snap- brim hat and a tweed jacket. The producer asked me to \"jump in\" and it was a real thrill. I still have a collection of black and white stills I took of the production work for the newspaper. Someday, they may be of interest to film\/television historians.--Lou Varricchio","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to be the most boring movie I ever sat through. It is dreary and drab, has no excitement, the acting by Hulce is terrible as Hulce cannot pull off the proper accent required for this film. The story is stupid and I sure wouldn't recommend this crap for anyone unless you want to die of boredom.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"ExCUSE me, but my tongue was TOO in my cheek when we filmed this piece o' poop. As the evil sister with hair that Mommy Dearest would envy, I did my very best to channel Tim Curry in Rocky Horror. I'm sad that this did not come across... Ah well, a friend compared it to a 'rock bottom budget SHOWGIRLS' with a white hot spoon.' I'll have to be content with that.

What amazes me is no one mentioned the endless (and dull) wet T-shirt contest. It is seriously the longest wet T-shirt contest in cinema history. And the only one where the contestants were wearing industrial strength cotton-polyester shirts that defied all efforts to get them wet and translucent.

And didn't anyone catch the director's cameo as the dude on the payphone interrupted by our hero? With the line 'are we filming yet?\" clearly audible? Jeez, this is bad movie heaven for REAL aficionados...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie can't decide what it is -- a soft porno or a sf movie. Not enough plot for a real movie, but way too much for a porno.

In a galaxy far far away, a good princess (we know she's good because she has long blonde hair, wears a white toga, is polite, and is mooning wistfully about her dying mother when we first see her) inherits the kingdom over her elder sister, who is evil (and we know this because she has dark hair and wears too much makeup, abuses her male sexual slaves, sneers and curls her lip all the time, and talks imperiously about the horrors she'll perpetrate when she's queen). The evil princess gets upset and tries to stage a coup, but the good sister gets away to Earth. Of course, she materializes buck naked in a bar during a wet T-shirt contest. It really goes downhill from there. The acting is ludicrous, the dialog sounds like it was written for a porno, and the general storyline is ridiculous. There's not even enough skin to make happy the sort of person who'd watch this for skin. I love \"good\" bad movies, and this one's not even enjoyable on a \"bad movie\" level.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Princess Warrior is a science fiction action movie with a pretty thin plot-essentially on the death of their queen mother two sisters, one evil and one good, fight for control of the throne. The good sister is being beaten so she escapes to Earth where she appears buck naked in a strip club in the middle of a wet t-shirt contest. The rest of the movie is basically one long chase scene, as the evil sister tries to find and kill the younger good sister. But the younger sister is helped by Bob, a good-hearted DJ, and everything is complicated by police involvement and the good sister's ignorance of Earth customs and culture. The older sister catches up to her younger sibling several times but the latter manages to escape and go on the run again. Throughout all of this action, there is a cult of women on the home planet having some kind of a space age s\u00e9ance to bring the good sister back. Sadly a good portion of this film seems to be rather boring car chase scenes as they drive around Los Angeles (and what was that sound effect when the police car crashed???) The film culminates in another physical fight between the sisters with a predictable ending.

It seems to borrow elements from Star Wars (the light sabers and the look of the girls' home planet in the opening and subsequent scenes), Dr. Who (the phone booth like means of transportation) and some of the costumes (from the cult on the home planet) could have been taken from Star Trek episodes.

Ms. Dana Fredsti (the evil sister in the movie) in another user comment mentioned \"the endless (and dull) wet T-shirt contest. It is seriously the longest wet T-shirt contest in cinema history. And the only one where the contestants were wearing industrial strength cotton-polyester shirts that defied all efforts to get them wet and translucent.\" I couldn't state it any better. The only thing I would add is that the music in this scene is just plain annoying.

Most of the acting is pretty over the top, but that seems to suit the whole style of the movie. The actors playing Vinnie and Vito were just too much for me-I just found them annoying. Ms. Fredsti (Curette) seemed to be enjoying herself and not taking the whole thing too seriously, in contrast to Sharon Lee Jones who acted decently but seemed to be taking everything more seriously. All of the police were portrayed as bumbling idiots, presumably to add comic relief, which is a bit unnecessary, given that the whole movie was rather comical.

From a ratings perspective, this film had a lot of foul language; some topless women and others scantily clad in thongs, but not enough skin to satisfy those who are looking for nudity; one sex scene that was portrayed in a non-graphic arty dreamlike fashion; and little violence-while there were threats of violence throughout, the scenes of both sword fighting and brawling were exaggerated, and too camp to be \"offensive\", though it looked like the actors were having a lot of fun with it.

I have to wonder who came up with the character names? Ovule (a small egg), Curette (a surgical instrument used for scraping and cleaning), Exzema (suspiciously similar to a disease characterized by scaling skin and pruritus), Bulemia (an eating disorder with binging and purging) and Rickettsia (another disease)?

Overall, this is a bad, low budget, campy, sci-fi action movie, but it did keep me entertained, though I might need a few drinks before watching it again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know when you buy a used (oops, excuse me, previously viewed)DVD for $5.99 you shouldn't have very high expectations, but even that was a steep price for this poor boxed disc.

I will give the producers credit for providing a complex challenge for the viewer . . . to determine which is worst, the acting, the scripting, the camera work, the special effects . . . they all pretty much tie for just plain terrible. Oh, it has the absolutely WORST faked car crash ever used in a motion picture anywhere.

Now all this is pretty serious ridicule for a movie fan who proudly features 'Police Academy', 'Naked Gun', 'National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon\" and a host of other campy discs in his collection. But, at least those folks know that ones tongue should be planted firmly in ones cheek, the cast of PW, unfortunately use their tongues in an attempt to deliver inane dialogue. And, although it is almost beyond my belief, the movies characters seem to think they might actually be doing something of value. A back room pornographer would be ashamed to release this mess.

Oh . . . lucky me bought the worst video ever made at the same time . ..\"Fraternity Demon\" . . . maybe the name should have given me a hint.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I absolutely hated this movie. Even though the movie wanted to transmit some kind of social message, it was done in such a clich\u00e9 ridden and melodramatic way like a Mexican soap opera.

Also the acting was terrible especially Charityn and her son. That's one of the problems with dominican movies, they use celebrities that can't even act just to attract the masses.

I'm even more ashamed about the positive reviews here which sadly means Dominicans are just being condescending to what's done here instead of giving honest and critical opinions that will help our film industry base itself on quality.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a fan of Henriksen (I liked him in the \"Millennium\" series) and of course Lorenzo \"Renegade\" Lamas, I had expected at least SOMETHING from this film. Sadly, the plot is predictable, the acting is bad and the computergraphics used for most stunts don't work out. Sometimes it even looks like they've captured some shots from Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The cinematography sucks as well. Unnecessary funky camerawork in the beginning only detracts (from the cheesy dialogue) and gives the film a cheap, made-for-video-look. It works in hiphop-movies and Jet Li movies, but seems out of place in this flick.

I would have liked this film 10 years ago. I was 11 then.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason any of the hundred or so users watched this movie was because they belong to the crew, were friends to the crew, or were obsessive fans of either Lance Henriksen or Lorenzo Lamas. I personally follow the \"cult of Lance\", so I was disappointed to see that despite being the headliner, it's in name only. Playing rich criminal Newcastle, Lance is a joy to watch but all of his screen time is relegated to the beginning of the movie. Newcastle sets up a 747 heist which includes Ketchum (Lamas) and a bunch of forgettable characters. The biggest shock to this viewer was that the pre-heist scenes were not all that bad. With the exception of somewhat obnoxious and rather confused looking Aviva Gale, who times every line with the finesse of a grade school play actress, acting was decent all around, and none of the lines really made me cringe.

But once the heist occurs, the movie falls asleep. Not only is their plan the most ridiculous thing ever captured on film, but it's dragged out for far too long. This isn't a very deep movie, and you have to fill out your 90 minutes, but these scenes are so boring I nearly nodded off at two in the afternoon. One particular sequence in which we watch each and every one of the characters perform the same task over and over again is especially difficult to get through. The movie's name is \"Rapid Exchange\", but the exchange is far from rapid - it's overlong and bloated to extremes. Perhaps it would have worked if any of the characters had real personalities, but come on, there's only so much you can ask out of a straight-to-video movie airing of Showtime Extreme.

Thankfully, there are several laughs, intentional and unintentional (Lorenzo Lamas is seemingly a master of disguise, which makes for a couple of incredibly bizarre scenarios), and Lance returns in the film's end, albeit for a brief period of time. It's a bad movie, and I probably didn't have to tell you that myself, but it's far from the worst thing I've ever seen. I wouldn't put it too high on the list of Henriksen films, since he's been in some real gems with greater screen time, and either way the movie loses a lot of steam once the heist begins, but the best thing I can say for Rapid Exchange is that the last two films I watched before it were the mainstream Hostage and the overrated, pretentious Crash - and this was better than both.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I found this to be a watchable all be it very predictable movie. There was some good stunt work that gave a fair degree of excitement and suspense to the story. One did however have to suspend ones credulity on a number of occasions for the plot to work. For example despite losing their transfer cable, couplings and harness when the pilot retracted the undercarriage manually, they fortunately found a spare on-board the aircraft complete with Caribbeans. According to the plot drilling a hole in the ceiling of the vault would disable the alarm system in the vault when the system was reactivated (I can't think why), according to Daltry there battery operated drill would be unable to drill through the vault ceiling however they just happened to have a hydraulic drill complete with hoses and fittings to fit the equally convenient take off points in the planes hydraulic system located above the vault. As the plane has a closed hydraulic system it is hard to see how this could be accomplished without affecting the control systems or at least setting hydraulic pressure alarms in the cockpit. Accepting this for the sake of the plot it takes them several minutes to drill a small hole through the top of the vault (tension will they be able to drill through before FED's get there to check the false alarm), yet from the time the vault door closed and before the FED's had walked the few feet to the second security door they had cut a squire hole in the roof of the vault big enough for them to get through. One can accept all theses and other inconsistencies for the sake of a good yarn, however what spoiled the movie for me was when what appears to have been an effort by the script writers to discuses what up to that point was a fairly predictable ending, they killed off the two hero's (If one can refer to crocks as hero's) Ketchum & Brooks one was shot and thrown out of a 747 at 10,000 feet the other wiliest sliding down the cable between the two planes the villain Daltry with one hand manages to unhook the cable carrying the weight of a full grown man with the air pressure of several hundred miles per hour pressing on him, and letting him fall to his death. And yet in the next sequence these two without any kind of explanation (however tenuous or implausible) have miraculously survived the full from 10.000 feet and had time to set up an elaborate scam to get the money. The only comment on there survival was to Sophie that her brother is a bad shot. Don't expect an Oscar nomination for this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I did have a good time the first 45 min. or so, but then suddenly it was all down hill. The suspense somewhat started to get thin and the jokes somewhat the same all over. What kept it going were the good actors.

But the problem with this film is that it is trying to be cleverly funny,like Tarantino and god is that outdated stuff. Tarantino being a bit overrated sometimes, this movie comes ten years too late. At best it is for teenagers, and I am sure many of them find the character of Johann funny, which he is for the first 30 min. The other problem I have with it is that the story fades away towards the end more and more, thou I tried to find a recovery point. Maybe it didn't recover because the lack of passion comes with the effort of trying to be cleverly funny. Also, like in many movies, sure, good actors who can afford it don't seem to demand a better dialogue, or just turn down the script.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Badly shot, badly edited, clumsy dialogue, flat characters, unsuccessful adaption of a novel. It doesn't really get much worse. Decent acting and good popcorn saved me for this hour and a half - felt more like three hours - of boredom. Occasional good one-liners.

David is a dim-witted young man, who has never recovered from losing his brother at an early age. He puts his faith in a Chinese philosophy mumbo jumbo video, although that doesn't seem to help him much in real life. David is a member of a debt-collectors gang, where every member has an IQ below sea level. A lacking script, along with uncreative shooting and even worse editing, make what could have been quite funny incidents of failed debt-collecting look like a amateurish homemade reality show.

David rents an apartment from an elementary school teacher, Haraldur, who by dropping a couple of sentences about his own importance convinces David he is dealing with the most dangerous criminal in Iceland. A severely lacking script doesn't offer David anything to base his opinion on. A couple of scenes SHOWING Haraldur doing something that David could have misinterpreted would have done the work. The potentials of film as media, as opposed to the text of the book this film is based on, are not exploited.

At first, David's connection with Haraldur raises his status within the debt-collectors gang, but the prevailing paranoia in the criminal world forces David to show where his loyalty lies.

The plot of the film is fine, but then it is based on the book. This could have been a much better film. A good screenwriter could have made something of this material. Sadly, that is not the case.

The acting is generally good. P\u00e9tur J\u00f3hann is excellent and credible as David. Eggert \u00deorleifsson doesn't get much to work with, but does his best with what little material he has. Ingvar Sigur\u00f0sson and Michael Imperioli (in a tiny role) manage alright.

Overall opinion: What could have been quite a funny and entertaining film about a dim-witted anti-hero in a debt-collectors gang, becomes a boring, badly-crafted film made after a poor manuscript. Staring at your toes for an hour and a half would be more enjoyable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I set out with a few friends to see this movie, we went an hour before the show started to get good seats. So as you can probably imagine we where exited to see this movie :). But that excitement soon turned to horror, this movie is a complete failure, it just try's to hard to be funny that its sad, the script is poorly written and relies to heavy on the actors to make up for it...

The only good acting in the whole movie was from Stefan C. Schaefer who was great, the plot was weak and even the \"funny\" scenes felt forced and unnatural, considering that the main actors are some of Iceland's best comedians it's well special...

I would not Recommend this movie to any one, because it try's to hard and never really delivers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a clunker!

It MUST have been made for TV or Cable.

Look: forget the screenplay - forget the bunch of forgettable actors. Excuse me? Continuity? The NSA\/NIA\/whatever or whoever he is (an agent) takes-off in an F16 - is shown in an F18 chucking his guts up and, later, the aircraft shown taxiing is an F4 Phantom! Oooh, wish that I could be so cavalier.

Apart from the male actors(!?) The women are WASPS: blue-eyed and long-legged and, eventually, get to cry about the heroes who save them. Even when a solid weld could save most of the cosmo- astro-nauts, the blond drops the welding tool. Duh!

As an SF movie one out of ten. As a movie per se: 1\/2 (that's a half point). They should have ditched the space station and headed for Mars.

Major raspberries.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Admittedly, you can put a model airplane against a black background and call it sci-fi, and thats enough to get me interested, so if you are like that, Black Horizon will at least get you interested before you watch it. The best part of the movie is when they rehash some actual footage of a shuttle launch.

The movie plays like the Naked Gun series, spoofing cop dramas with bad clich\u00e9s and bad acting. Unfortunately, i don't think they meant to be funny, the actors really are made of cardboard, the dialog really does suck, so well just have to laugh at them, and not with them.

On a side note, it is rare to see a movie that takes place half in outer space, half on earth, and doesn't mix in the expected extraterrestrials and supernatural events. I really do ache for more realistic drama based on our space endeavors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Russian space station 'Avna' with a crew of four Russians and two Americans is threatening to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere in a matter of days. Russia asks for NASA's help in rescuing the stranded crew and NASA scrambles the space shuttle Atlantis. The NSA also have an interest in the 'Prometheus', a prototype microwave power source being tested aboard 'Avna' and organise for one of their men to be placed on the mission.

That's the plot. Onto less important things. The space station and the shuttle are the same, blatantly obvious models used in 'Fallout', 'Memorial Day' and 'Dark Breed' (and a handful of other films, I suspect). The model effects are so obvious throughout the entire movie and make the film look very 1960s. The sets are a little better but are far too '80s for what is supposedly a brand new station built by an American company (which later comes in as part of a conspiracy to destroy 'Avna' and the 'Prometheus' and claim the insurance. The script has a few good moments (including Yuri's farewell and the little spiel at the end) but is otherwise fairly bland and sub-standard. The acting is okay; the only real standout performance comes from Alex Veadov who offers up some of the film's better dialogue. Michael Dudikoff is, surprisingly, one of the best parts about this film. Ice-T is Ice-T. 'Nuff said. The film offers a few surprises, though, that I don't wish to spoil.

Certainly one of the better low-grade, contemporary-set sci-fi films of the last six years, but not the best. The film is watchable but the special effects and plot will probably put a lot of viewers off. Rent the other 'Stranded' sci-fi film instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I knew it was going to be awful but not this awful!!, as it's one of the most boring movies i have ever seen, not a damn thing happens!. All the characters are dull, and the story is stupid and incredibly boring!,plus The ending is especially lame!. The only reason i rented this piece of crap because i am a big fan of Michael Dudikoff, however he is wasted here, and looks extremely bored and shows no emotion what so ever!, plus i cheered out loud when the movie was over!. It's like the movie had no plot and it was all about nothing, and Ice-T is god awful(even though he is OK in some stuff), plus Dudikoff and Yvette Nipar had no chemistry together at all. There's one scene that the director tried to make emotional but he fails miserably as Yvette Nipar didn't really show all that much emotion, however there is a decent Car chase scene, but that's not enough for me to recommend this god awful film!, plus the dialog is atrocious. Avoid this movie like the plague not a damn thing happens, please avoid and trust me on this one you may thank me afterwords. The Direction is horrible!. Fred Olen Ray does a horrible job here, with shoddy camera work, laughably cheap looking set pieces, terrible angles, laughable use of stock footage, and keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is terrible!. Michael Dudikoff is nowhere near his usual amazing self, he looks extremely bored, and shows no emotion what so ever, his character is also extremely dull, as i can't believe he signed on for this piece of garbage, he also had no chemistry with Yvette Nipar(Dudikoff still rules!!!). Ice-T has barely anything to do and also looks bored, and he didn't convince me one bit. Hannes Jaenicke is not very good here, he had somewhat of a wimpy character, i didn't like him. Yvette Nipar is pretty but was really terrible here, she didn't show much emotion, and had no chemistry with Dudikoff, and as a result i didn't give a damn about her character!. Art Hindle,(Owen Marsh),Kathy Harren(Katharine Marsh), and the rest of the cast are bad as well. Overall Please avoid like the plague!, Fred Olen Ray and Steve Lathshaw should be ashamed of themselves!. BOMB out of 5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this movie because I am a huge Dudikoff fan. I figured it couldn't be that bad. Boy was I wrong! At the 15 minute mark , I was begiing the others to let me rip the DVD out and fling it back to the rental store, but they refused. They swore it had to get better.

They were wrong! This movie was lacking everything. The actors delivered their lines with as much emotion as a comatose rock! The plot was ridiculous and I was offended that Hollywood assumed people were dumb enough to enjoy it. None of the characters interacted very well with each other. Ice-T gives one of his worst performances here.

After watching footage of the wrong plane, bad guys standing up to get shot, and clips being emptied and missing everything, I wanted to scream and bang my head on concrete. The movie hit its plateau of ignorance when the people on the space station used an elevator to travel. Space suits are not needed and there is gravity in space regardless of what real astronauts may say.

I didn't finish this movie and hated it. I don't want to finish this movie. This is slow suicide. I could feel my cerebral cortex planning to avenge the torture I put it through.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really should have learned more about this movie before renting it. It was one of those movies where you keep watching it figuring it's got to get better. Then, when it ends, you feel stupid for having wasted precious time in your life that you can never get back. Ice-T did his bad guy thing and, well, that was the highlight of the evening. The pictures of the shuttle looks like it was done with a little toy inside of a box and the spacewalking scenes were funny because you could see the strings attached to the space suits. The script was lacking and the car chase scene with the guy bleeding and going unconscious was incredible because he drove better than I could have on one of my best days. All in all, I have seen worse but this sure isn't one I'd recommend or want to remember.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rented this tonite from my local video store. It was titled \"Black Horizon.\" I guess someone felt this was good enough for a 2004 re-release...

Micheal Dudikoff is unfortunetly not a ninja in this movie, one of the major flaws of this film right off the bat. Another major flaw would be that Ice-t's action scenes are stolen from other movies, particularly the first scene of his rescue, which is directly from the Wesley Snipes movie \"The Art of War,\" with Ice-T edited in. I hope they paid for that footage.

The plot is awful, the special effects had little effort put into them (love those wires holding them in space), the acting is wooden (also love those New York\/Russian accents). Ice-T being in the movie is pointless. These guys also forgot the fact that there is no gravity in space, but I guess they weren't worried about it.

Micheal Dudikoff should go back to doing what he's \"good\" at and make American Ninja 6.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Poorly acted, poorly written and poorly directed. Special effects are cheap. Best performance is by Yvette Napir, but that's not saying much. Story is a confusing mess about corporate greed leading to sabotage of a space station and an attempt to rescue those stranded aboard.

There is little suspense and even less action. There's one car chase that's not bad, but the rest of the movie is simply a waste of everyone's time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ed Wood rides again. The fact that this movie was made should give any young

aspiring film maker hope. Any screenplay you might have thought of using to

line a litterbox or a birdcage should now not seem that bad. Do not watch this movie unless you have a healthy stash of Tylenol or Rolaids. Watching this

movie made me realize that Boa vs. Python was not that bad after all. It probably would have been better to do this movie in Claymation as at least that way no actor would have had to take credit for being in this film. It is understandable why this director has so many aliases. There is a bright side to watching this movie in that if you can get someone to bring you a bag of chips, then you can eat your way out of the cocoon of cheese that surrounds you enabling you to

make your toward your TV set's cocoon of cheese that surrounds it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Nothing to watch here. It's all been done (and better) before. Who cares about this woman - deficient in every way - as a mother as a wife and as a friend? In one instant when she could have taken the high road - she jumped into re-addiction with both feet and held her breath - for no better a reason than \"me, too!\" If she wasn't the pretty and young person she portrays on screen - but looked more like the real human wreckage that is represented by our family members, neighbors and friends who really suffer from additions we'd change channels in a nanosecond.

This movie starts out at the bottom and goes downhill. Nothing redeeming, no lessons taught - nothing uplifting in any way. None of the main characters even evoke sympathy, let alone empathy. (Well, maybe the snake.) I would have had more fun if I'd shut a door on my hand. Who needs drivel like this?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What is it about drug addiction that so draws first-time filmmakers to offer their own take on the subject? This subject has been done to death. Drug abuse is bad. We get it. Drug addiction is painful to watch. We get that too. But the bleak subject matter doesn't give the filmmaker license to make a sloppy film. Every film need not be Hitchcockian masterpiece of cinematic excellence, or use Orson Wellesian deep focus, but it's still a narrative movie. Verite does not mean pseudo-documentary. Even consumer mini-DV cameras are capable of producing white whites and black blacks, and this filmmaker is just being lazy by shooting no contrast scenes with existing lighting: the subject is bleak enough without artificially forcing it with sloppy cinematography. And even documentary films have a sound mix. Vera Farmiga is very talented, given the right material, but the director obviously over-directed her and sucked all the life out of her performance. Addicts may live in a fog, but they still have emotions, but none of these characters seem to exist off-screen. The supporting players merely delivered their lines without creating real people. Sorry to be so harsh, Debra, but some things are true whether want to believe them or not. I'm sure your next film will be better -- but please, not another drug movie. :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this one at Sundance, and I can't figure out why it won the directing award. It was painfully slow and literally colorless. It's the type of movie that is only appreciated by film fest snobs who think any movie that a lot of people like must be beneath them.

The jury at Sundance this year seemed to be making a conscious effort to reward the underdog, ultra-low-budget films. That's all well and good, but this wandering, dragging mess looks like a home movie. Mini-DV shot in a snow-covered gray winter results in a drab look for a drab movie.

Certain motifs (snakes) are beaten to death in spite of the fact that they add nothing to the story and make no sense as symbols.

Now, it wasn't all bad. Vera Farmiga is phenomenal in her role as a mother with a drug problem. She will be going places, and she deserves it. Her co-star Hugh Dillon also does a fine job. Frankly, there are many fine moments in this movie, but they just don't fit together very well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's not often I give two stars to a horror movie because horror is my favorite genre. A movie can be BAD in that it isn't a masterpiece but can be enjoyable on the basis of unintentional humour, bizarre characters, etc. A case in point are a great number of horror\/sci-fiction movies from the 1940s to 1980s era. They are enjoyable for genre-buffs and guilty-pleasure seekers because their \"badness\" is entertaining. However, this movie has none of the humour or effective gory scenes of the \"Piranha\" (1978) original.

I suppose in 1995 it was the heyday of political correctness so gore on TV was at a minimum. Now in the mid-2000s with the C.S.I. shows, TV's an absolute blood-fest! (Good for us horror fans!)

William Katt and Alexandra Paul are no Bradford Dillman and Heather Menzies (the original 1978 stars.) It's not Katt's and Paul's faults but the writers and director who created this tepid turkey. How the main characters interact is the main flaw of this movie. I won't say how because that is part of the plot.

This TV movie probably had a bigger budget than the original but flopped as good horror, as can be seen from the user votes here. Stick with the 1978 original if you're in the mood for a killer-fish movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, i thought the movie was blah 1\/10.

anyways the best part is the first 5 minutes of the film with the nerd's or whatever girlfriend, this is the part u guys watch out for Tho she had big hooters, i thought is that really a random actor? Heck no, it wasn't it was actually a model by the name of Larissa McComas but u already knew that

So, that made sense but that was about it rest of the film (that i saw anyway) didn't care 4, and didn't bother watching the rest of it That's

all i needed to C to be satisfied so 2 those of u that just care for that well there u go enjoy","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I guess my biggest mistake was to watch this remake of '95 \"Piranha\" back-to-back with Joe Dante's '78 original. I did the same last week with \"The Omen\". Curiously enough, watching the remake right after the '76 original, really made me appreciate the 2006 version quite a bit for various reasons.

But this approach sort of backfired on the '95 Piranha version. It enhanced the fact that it really is a lesser picture. Basically, the '95 version is more or less the exact same film, as it tells the same story and follows it practically scene-by-scene (only Barabara Steele's character and the military intervention were written out of it). But the cinematography wasn't as good. The acting was worse too. Especially Alexandra Paul (playing Heather Menzies' character) showed me again what a horrible actress she is. Bradford Dillman (from the '78 version) had his Charlton Heston way of acting going, which was amusing, while in the '95 version William Katt does a good job at being William Katt. So I didn't mind him, really. But the whole cast is pretty much inferior and the only worthwhile event was spotting James Karen (\"Return of the Living Dead\", parts 1 & 2) in a cameo. John Carl Buechler's make-up effects aren't as neat as Rob Bottin's. The musical score had some ring to it, but Pino Donaggio's score was much more memorable in the original. So all these shortcomings really shone through with having just re-watched the original as part of this double bill.

Since Scott P. Levy's remake does follow Dante's original, I guess it is entertaining enough to sit through, though it's lacking the wit Dante's original had. But what really made me not like Levy's version very much, is the fact that quite a bit of stock footage from the first film was re-used during the piranha attack scenes. I never like it when filmmakers do this (and I'm not talking about using footage for flashbacks or other valid reasons). I mean, if you don't have the budget (or imagination) to come up with newly shot material, then for Pete's sake, don't do a frickin' remake. But Roger Corman produced this (cheaper) remake, so I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised about the re-use of footage.

If you do decide to watch \"Piranha\", then make sure it's been a while since you've seen the original. You might enjoy this remake a little more then. And oh yes, that cool little stop-motion creature from the original is nowhere to be found in this film, as to be expected. But what's worse, there also isn't any female nudity in this one (the original really had quite some titty-shots going for it, and that blonde girl from the opening-scene even accidentally pulled her underwear a bit down too far when removing her jeans!). Figures, as this '95 version was made for TV.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think that this was one of the most trite films ever made. No redeeming features at all. Even my 12-year-old son said it was laughable. May be a good candidate for the next generation of \"Mystery Science Theatre.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is one of the worst remakes I have ever seen in my life! The acting is laughable and Corman has not improved his piranhas any since 1978. 90% of the special effects are lifted from Piranha (1978), Up From The Depths (1979) and Humanoids From The Deep (1979). It makes Piranha II: The Spawning look like it belongs on the American Film Institute List.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you can stomach the campiness, this movie should make you laugh out loud several times. It did for me, at least. I'll only mention one of my favorite elements: the \"underwater shots\" of the \"fish\" \"swimming\". The sound which accompanies those shots is great too.

One last note: William Katt is actually a pretty decent actor. I hope he gets another day in the sun; watching him as \"The Greatest American Hero\" was a fun part of my childhood a couple of decades ago, and he hasn't been very visible since. He seemed kind of depressed in this movie. Somebody give him a fun job on a good show, or something.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are interesting pieces here of and about Bruce Weber's likes and dislikes. Maybe if a professional editor had put it together for Biography, I would have felt more satisfied. Instead, I spent $8 at a film festival on it. For an autobiography, almost nothing is revealed about Bruce Weber, other than he likes to look at photographs, shoot interesting people, especially beautiful teenage boys, and listen to jazz. The director of \"Crumb\" would have made a much more interesting and cohesive film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is essentially a \"how-to\" on how to be a well-connected pedophile. I'm amazed that so many people-- especially other gay men-- have seen this movie and read the book and no one has brought up the fact that if Weber was not an influential photographer, he would be in jail, doing time for child abuse. Poor Peter Johnson. Weber took this poor, naive (although incredibly handsome) teenager whom he found at a training camp for high school wrestlers in the Midwest, brought him to live in his home, and took thousands of homoerotic photos of him, many of them full-frontal nudes, all through Johnson's teenage years. That ain't art. It's child abuse. And what's worse, Weber made lots of money off of it, and poor Johnson is going to have serious \"issues\" the rest of his life. Weber's lecherous love of the boy is downright creepy, as are his ramblings about famous (and not so famous) people he's known, as he tries to complete Johnson's \"education.\" Creepy, and then just plain boring. The only redeeming thing I can say about the movie is that it is a fascinating study of self-deception. But I can't help but wonder why no one ever considered the effect this was having on \"Chop Suey\" (Weber's nickname for Johnson) himself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you're looking for an accurate portrayal of Che Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary who helped aid Fidel Castro in his bid for power, you'd better read up on Cuban history or even type in his name on a search engine (you ARE on the Internet, after all).

But whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH \"CHE!\".

Unless, of course, you just want a good laugh.

All the reviewers of the time (and moviegoers) gave \"Che!\" their vote for worst film of the decade. And no wonder; have you seen this travesty? Its facts are tenuous at best, Sharif is even unconvincing as a corpse and as for Palance's Fidel Catsro imitation....

Like I said, if you want a good laugh.

It's like watching a co-production between The Learning Channel and Mad Magazine.

One star.

I wonder if Palance can do W. C. Fields, too?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"35 years after this was made, Castro still reigns. Unfortunately, we're left scratching our heads wondering how the dim-witted maniac played by scenery-chewing Jack Palance made it as far as 1960. I stumbled back across this recently, and was amused at noticing the incomparable Sid Haig and \"B\" movie favorite Paul (Untouchables) Picerni among the rebels. Fleischer was obviously well past his prime when he directed this foolishness. Some of the lines are classic in a \"Did he really say that kind of way?' The other thing I just noticed is that the score and the sound (NOT the dialog) are actually excellent -- the only first-rate elements of the entire production. So, don't watch this to learn anything about history or acting, but if you feel like watching this as a goof, bring the beers and have some fun.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The few scenes that actually attempt a depiction of revolutionary struggle resemble a hirsute Boy Scout troop meandering tentatively between swimming holes. When Sharif or, please God, Palance try their hand at fiery oratory, they sound like Kurtz swallowing a bug. The displays of strategic brilliance incorporate a map of Cuba replete with smiling fishies in the ocean, and a positively Vaudevillian hypothesis on how the Bay of Pigs came to pass. What does that leave us with? One comical dentistry scene; a surfeit of uppity Hollywood peasants who address the camera as though it were a moving train; and, just for kicks, a passel of homoeroticism that is not limited to Castro's manic and unremitting cigar-fellatio. Never trust a Medved, but even a busted clock is right twice a day: this is a HISTORICALLY awful movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"CHE! is a bad movie and deserves it reputation as an unintentionally funny film. It takes a serious subject and presents it like the Cliff Notes version or Classic Comics because there isn't much emotion or a proper narrative--just episodic segments stitched together with mostly stupid \"true stories\" relayed by a variety of yutzes.

This is a deservedly derided film, as it is poorly written and acted. However, what I have found most interesting about the film is its apparent gay subtext. Instead of Che Guevarra and Fidel Castro working towards a Communist Cuba, they seem to be more of a gay couple--with Che behaving coy and aloof and Fidel as the ardent suitor! Again and again, the film abounds with great lines such as when Fidel implores Che \"Cuba needs you....I NEED YOU!!\". I am not sure if the studio intended this homosexual undercurrent, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize it! I am very surprised that the other reviewers didn't point this out. However, if you remember this when you watch the film, it makes viewing much more exciting and even funnier.

A final note. In recent years, Che has been very chic--even a fashion statement with hoards of brain-dead teens, who have no idea who he was, wearing shirts emblazoned with his face. Considering he was a cold-blooded killer and nihilist (an odd combination for a doctor), this new reverence for the man is gross. What will they do next, put Hitler or Dr. Mengele on T-shirts and posters?!!? Even Communists with consciences should be appalled by the bloodshed Guevara was responsible for and I find it ironic that people with computers are championing a man who might likely have killed them given half a chance!

Considering how stupid and unintentionally funny this movie was, it does nothing to further the message that Guevara was no hero. I would love to see a realistic film done of his life--with the good and the bad but also with dialog and a plot that weren't apparently created by chimps!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You can't really blame the movie maker for glorifying Che because the industry is all about money. Most of the stories you hear about this \"freedom fighter\" are absolute tripe fabricated by the communist Cuban government after Che's death. Che was a murdering scumbag from day one. Here's a list of the great things Che did for Cuba 1) Executed thousands of innocent Cuban Men, Women, AND CHILDREN to satisfy his lust for power.

2) Destroyed Cuba's economy and good standing with the rest of the world. The Cuban peso used to be equal with the American dollar. Now it's basically worthless.

3) Continually failed at all things that involved diplomacy, economy, and the military. He never made it past his first year in Medical School, and he was only in one real battle, in which he surrendered with a fully loaded gun.

4) He took over the largest estate in Cuba to set up for himself. He had a Yacht, a 60\" custom made TV from America, a swimming pool, and a view of the Ocean. So much for shunning the materialist life style.

Cuba today is an absolutely destitute country, and you have no one but Che and the Castro brothers to thank for it. If you go to Cuba today you will not be allowed out of the tourist areas. If you did manage to get out of what you're meant to see, you would find slums, beggars, and prostitutes.

If you think any of what I'm saying is untrue then go do some studying. Compare Cuban exports from 1950\/60 to those of today; talk with people who survived or who had parents in the so called Cuban \"revolution\" of the 1960's; read all of the reports of murdered innocents; read the reports from people who served under Che and Castro and fled because of what an evil, disgusting human being he was.

And please, please, always remember to read or watch EVERYTHING objectively. Stop taking everything at face value and THINK ABOUT IT.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie really starts strong. We know that Roberts is an Atlanta hotshot sent to Australia to fix Coke's marketing problems. We also know he is an eccentric genius. Roberts' fine acting convinces us of this rather quickly.

Unfortunately, the plot is so flimsy, that whatever fine character development has been achieved, it is negated by voids, inconsistencies, and downright boring film sequences.

Usually, I am a sucker for bold and far out plots. Examples which I am fond of include, \"Dark Star,\" \"O.C. & Stiggs,\" and \"Popeye.\" Coupled with the fact that I must admit that this film was well acted, it surprises even myself that I cannot recommend this film.

The utter breakdown in this movie occurs about midway through the film. All comedy is instantly lost and the film turns dark. Afterwards, the film plods along. The film's attempt to get the comedy rolling again is not successful. More surprises await the viewer and they are darker still.

To be sure, mixing drama with comedy can be a formula for success. However, with this movie, the result is about as successful as \"new coke.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At least the jingle by Tim Finn was melodic. Roberts is the his usual inept self. Characters are inconsistent, dull, purposeless. Roberts changes his accent even within one line.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, why? Among the filmmakers that came out in the 80's and 90's Gus Van Sant is one of my idols. There are others, a few. Steven Sodebergh, PT Anderson, Tim Hunter, Danny Boyle, Martin Donovan, Harmony Korine, Wes Anderson. Idiosyncratic, infuriating some times, but consistent, surprising, unpredictable. Their names make me switch on the TV, go to a video store or even buy a ticket and go to a movie theater. Van Sant's \"Psycho\" however, gives me pause. Why? I wonder. A shot by shot massacre of one of the perennial classics. The color was jarring, the performances, atrocious. What was Vince Vaughn doing? Was it a parody? A bad joke? What the hell was it? Anne Heche as Janet Leigh? Who dressed her? Viggo Mortensen with a cowboy hat. Viggo is a superb actor but in this case he couldn't make us forget John Gavin and if Julianne Moore had been introduced to the world through this performance there wouldn't have been any \"The Hours\" for her, \"The Minutes\" maybe. So, here I am, bad mouthing the work of one of my idols. The crashing question remains: Why, Mr. Van Sant? Maybe, in the words of President Clinton, because he could. I'm afraid that's no excuse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is, per se, an above average film but why in the name of Bog was it made? It's impossible to treat it as a thing unto itself because it is an almost shot-for-shot remake of an Alfred Hitchcock classic of 1960. You can't watch it without the 1960 film nudging into your consciousness.

What does the word \"credit\" mean? How can we credit Van Sandt and his associates with anything except deciding to use different actors, slightly different sets, and color?

Anne Heche is attractive but lacks Janet Leigh's stolid determination to become a respectable middle-class woman. And Heche is younger than Leigh, who brought to her fruitless attempt to marry and settle down, the desperation of a woman facing forty. And Heche doesn't project anxiety the way Leigh did. The scene with the CHP officer looking in her car window illustrates the weakness in the role. In the original, the officer asks, \"Is there something wrong?\" Leigh: \"Of course not. Am I acting as if something were wrong?\" The officer hesitates before replying: \"Well, frankly, yes.\" That exchange is omitted from the remake for the simple reason that Heche isn't nervous enough.

The worst change, without a doubt, is the substitution of Vince Vaughn for Anthony Perkins. It may not be Vaughn's fault. Who could match Perkins in the role? Perkins is twitchy, bird-like, long-necked, cloaked in an externally charming exterior that masks an inner vacuum. His every move (eating candy corn, with his adam's apple bobbing) and every utterance, the faint laugh, the arid chuckle, is spot on. He just can't be improved upon. Vaughn brings to the role the presence of a short-haired beefy guy who was just discharged as a Lance Corporal from the U. S. Army. To suggest his psychosis all he can do is superimpose a maniacal giggle on top of what appears otherwise a perfectly normal Norman in speech and manner. (Unlike the original Norman, Vaughn doesn't even stumble over the word \"fallacy\" because it resembles \"phallus\".) He could be just hanging around the motel waiting to hear about his application for a football scholarship to UCLA.

The direction deserves a few comments. I don't see what it adds to the story when we see Norman masturbating while peeping in on Anne Heche. I don't OBJECT to it. I wonder why it's there, just as I wonder why the rest of the movie is there.

And, I suppose in order to impress us with how much color adds to the visual experience, Van Sant seems to have missed a bit of Hitchcock's more subtle stuff. Heche is given underwear of all different colors -- green, pink, orange, and -- mango? Is that a color? If so, what the hell color is it? Never mind. The point is that in the original, when the traveling camera first peeks through the window of the Phoenix hotel it captures Janet Leigh in bed wearing a pure white half slip and a white bra. Later, after she has stolen the money, we see her in her underwear again -- this time both her slip and bra are black. Tis a small thing, but Hitch's own.

At that, the idea of shooting in color might not have been bad except that the black-and-white shooting of the original was superb. The color and odd lighting effects in this version turn the ordinary, dull, and subliminally ominous motel into something that looks like it belongs in the seedier part of Las Vegas.

Most of all, the 1960 film was shocking in more ways than one. I can remember seeing it in a drive-in in San Diego and staring aghast at the screen when it became clear that the central character was actually DEAD -- half-way through the movie! Nothing like it had ever been done before.

That murder in the shower, in both movies, was a big improvement over Robert Bloch's original novel, by the way, in which the author writes something like, \"The murderer then entered the bathroom and cut off her head with a knife.\" I'm not making that up. Well, not entirely. Even here, Van Sant's movie gives us excess. There is more blood and more bare flesh. And where Hitchcock closed in first on the blood circling the bathtub drain and dissolved to Marian's blankly open eye, then pulled the camera back slowly to reveal her face, he rotated his camera from a slight tilt to the proper vertical, giving the viewer a sense of not just disbelief at the murder, but a dizzying disbelief. Van Sant doesn't tilt his camera a delicate 10 or 20 degrees as Hitchcock did. He practically twirls it on its axis.

It won't do to call this a bow to Hitchcock because it's not. It's a pecuniary plundering of Hitchcock's material (already ripped off in \"Psycho\" I, II, III, IV, and \"Psycho: The Beginning Years\", and \"Come Into My Parlor: Mrs. Bates' Revenge,\" and \"Hand Me That Knife, Would You?: The TRUE story of Norman Bates.\") A rehashing of and grinding away at truly original stuff, a crumenal act if not a criminal one. And that's not to mention the many homages in other films, especially the French, such as the notorious \"ocean of boredom\" scenes between Marcel Brulee and Jeanne Gateau in the much-admired \"La Mere de la Nuit.\" (Maybe I'd better add that that last sentence is a terrible attempt at a parody of academic critics. And when a chicken's guts grind corn, it's a \"crumenal\" act. I won't go on except to say these gags, shabby as they are, are more fun than the movie.)

So who was it made for? I'd have to guess. Kids who are too young to know about the original and who don't like movies in black and white? Kids who are hoping to see another ordinary slasher movie? Chimpanzees?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know curiosity killed the cat, but I simply had to see the remake of Psycho, especially after being on such a Hitchcok journey recently and knowing his work. I've watched the original Psycho though since I was a kid, I knew how to respect it and not only that, it was an excellent movie! One of the best, in fact! The first thing I said when I heard about the remake was \"How do you remake perfection?\". I stuck to that as well, but I think I have a more open mind now and figured maybe it was a way of introducing Psycho to a new generation.

But this turned into a total insult and slap to the face of the original Psycho. I know this has been said, but I watched the making of this film, and the director was like \"Oh, I just want to update it and shoot each scene shot by shot like the original\"... what's the friggin' point?! OK, but I want to judge this movie on it's own, despite it's insulting blows the original. I mean, the acting wasn't up to par, but honestly, it looked like the actors just watched the original and just memorized the lines from there and made it their crappy own.

Watching the making of this film, I wanted to slap Anne Hasche, she said \"I've never seen the original, I just wanted to work with Gus.\" Ooh, that made me angry, because frankly, it's not just that, she really sucked in this role as Marian, she wasn't convincing, not to mention her shower scene really was horrible. Vince Vaughn didn't make... let's just put it this way, the film was horribly miscasted. This was a sin against film and on it's own, this was actually a bad movie. It was too much and destroyed what could've been a new introduction for a new generation. But to Gus, leave the film making the one's who KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING!

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No matter what other people have said you can't review this movie without comparing it to the original, if it existed on it's own it would be a 2-3 out of 5 film but it is a remake of a 4-5 out of 5 film and so has standards to live up to and we need to see if it reached those standards. If the film was a re-working or, as in Planet of the Apes, a re-imagining of the original you would be able to look at the film in it's own right, only referencing the original. Imagine it this way, if someone took the model in the 'Mona Lisa', posed her in a different way, and painted her you could only compare the framing,concept etc to the original but if someone just repainted her in the position of the original you would have to compare it totally.

That said this film doesn't just fail to be as good as the original it fails spectacularly, like it or not the original was one of the best movies ever made, the shower scene will never be forgotten, the remake was meant to be a celebration of Hitchcock but ended up actually degrading him and his master work.

The degrading aspects of this picture were Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. It's nothing to do with wether they acted better or not it's that the relationship between Norman and Marion in the original was really quite innocent, Norman didn't really understand sex, he had hardly any contact with the outside world and when he meets beautiful Marion and watches her change you feel that he is partly doing it from fascination as he doesn't really understand sex and his attraction to her,this makes Norman sympathetic and almost an anti-hero, you are on his side because he doesn't fully understand the world and is constantly fighting with himself and his 'Mother'. In the remake that whole dynamic is gone, I must admit to Janet Leigh not being my type but she is very attractive and you can see that, Anne Heche is really unattractive and so Norman finding 'her' Marion attractive is unbelievable if you add that to Vince Vaughn's Norman masturbating whilst looking at her and you get a Norman that is just waiting for a chance to jack off at any naked woman no matter what she looks like, who you feel absolutely no sympathy for, they further destroy Norman's innocent nature by putting the porno mags in his room. It destroys a character that we have come to like and feel sorry for, it's like re-making 'It's a wonderful life' and having the main character a pimp, totally degrading.

The only other character that I had problems with was Rita Wilson as Caroline, Marion's workmate. In the original when Pat Hitchcock says the line 'he must have noticed my wedding ring' it elicits a response of laughter as she is absolutely kidding herself, when Rita says it it just seems plausible as there really isn't any other reason why any man would flirt with Anne Heche over her.

I'll admit that I am very biased, the original 'Psycho' is my favorite film of all time, had the film been a reworking, with a different angle, then you could have turned these characters on their heads and it would have been perfectly acceptable.

Hitch famously thaught the film would be too gory in colour and made it in black and white to lessen it. This also made the film more atmospheric and frightening in it's own way and it gave it a beauty that could never be captured in colour and it is a sad statement about how movies are de-sensetising the public that people have said how the shower scene was more frightening in colour. (n.b before people think 'he can't spell' remember I'm from England and we spell it colour)

A remake should be just that, re made, this is a forgery, a complete copy and a very bad one at that. I could go on comparing but there is no point, almost everything is superior in the original. The only one thing that is better is the performance of Viggo Mortensen as Sam Loomis, John Gavin was very flat in the original (Hitch called him 'The Stiff' behind his back) and Mortensen gives a more believable if less likeable performance. William H. Macy and Julianne Moore are the only other actors that hold up to the originals.

Overall a movie that should be labeled 'Expensive Embarrassing Failed Experiment. Only view if comparing to original or if original is unknown to you. But view original too' The movie would have got a 3 out of 5 if it were original or a reworking but as it is 0.5 out of 5 (for Macy, Moore and Mortensen)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hitchcock's original classic benefited tremendously not only from the performance of, but also the 'look' of Anthony Perkins. He projected a kind of clean-cut innocence: a young teen-idol type of persona. He was not an actor who had portrayed baddies before this; nor was he physically suited to the role of what the public might have imagined a psychopath to look like, especially in the 50's when this ultra-chilling aspect of mental illness (split personality psychosis) was relatively unexplored in film. Which is exactly why the casting of him as Norman Bates was a slice of true Hitchcockian genius. Audiences were taken by surprise to put it mildly.

That's why this re-make does not work, even a little bit, in spite of trying to be an exact copy. Whereas Anthony Perkins looked like someone you would never think of as being a serial killer, Vince Vaughn is easily imaginable as one. He lacks the frail look of Perkins and his acting chops are clearly inferior as well, at least in this role (honestly - has there ever been an actor who could convey nervousness as genuinely as Anthony Perkins?). While it was a pointless re-make to begin with, the miscasting of the story's most important character sucks this film down completely.

As a side note, I feel that Hollywood's propensity for re-making great movies because 'young' people refuse to watch anything that's not filmed in color not only stinks to high heaven of corporate greed but is exceptionally disrespectful to the original work. As for viewers who can't watch black and white - it's their loss. Hopefully they'll mature sometime in the future and no longer require shiny colours to hold their attention. When they do they'll discover that sometimes black and white works far better. With the background muted, the story and performances are that much more front and center. And in many cases the mood or atmosphere created through black and white cinematography is just not attainable in colour.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I know that the original Psycho was a classic and remaking it was a mistake, ESPECIALLY a shot-by-shot remake. I think that that has been more or less proven by the rest of the comments here. But there's far more wrong with this movie than just that.

The first problem is the color. The original film was shot in black and white but, what few people realize is, the original was shot AFTER color film had been invented. The choice of black and white film was partially a budget concern, but it was also a stylistic choice of Hitchcock's. Now, this is not to say that the remake should have been redone in black and white, but the colors of this movie are all too wrong. The most predominant colors in the film are orange and green, particularly on Marion who is not supposed to be a flashy character. The bright colors make it look like a happy movie and, when horrific events take place in these color schemes, it looks like a cartoon more than anything and the audience is inclined to laugh rather than scream.

The second problem is the lighting. This is a dark dark tale which should be highlighted by dim lighting, but this remake seemed not only to fail in this but seemed to go in the OPPOSITE direction. Most of the scenes are very brightly lit, even at times when it is illogical to do so because it's at NIGHT!

Another obvious problem is Vince Vaughn's performance. Yes, he does pull off Norman Bate's awkwardness and madness quite well, I don't deny him that. But there is one element to the character that he failed to show: the softness. There should be a certain deceptive friendliness to the character, at least at first, which then fades away once we realize the truth about him. Beyond being a character trait of Norman Bates, this is a recognized character trait of ALL PSYCHOPATHS!!!!

There are a few good aspects of this film. Some of the performances are great. As I said, Vince Vaughn came very close to pulling off a decent portrayal of Norman Bates. Viggo Mortensen and Juliane Moore were great together and their chemistry was very different from the characters in the original, which was a welcome change. Anne Heche may have been atrocious but, unlike Janet Leigh who was untruthfully advertised as one of the biggest stars of the film, Anne Heche was given last billing in the opening credits.

I read on the cover of a copy of the Psycho novel that Gus Van Sant claimed this was not a remake of the Hitchcock film but rather a new adaptation of the original novel. I now wish that I had bought that book and saved the comment because, after seeing this film, that comment is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever seen. There was no attempt in this film to disguise the fact that it was a rip off of the original, and it would be far more believable if Van Sant had tried to tell us that he was really a three ton ape from the planet Zafroomulax. So many shots were copied exactly without any actual thought as to why Hitchcock had composed the original shot in that way. Such as the scene in which Sam and Lila are talking while their faces are entirely covered in shadow. Hitchcock covered these actors' faces in shadow because he thought they were bad actors and wanted to hide their faces so nobody could see their awful performances, not because of any artistic or stylistic purpose.

In other words, my review is about as pointless as the movie itself in that it replicates something that's already been said. Like everyone else here, I reccommend you don't waste your time on this film and get the original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I have to agree with the critics on this one, who all said \"leave it alone.\" Why they had to make this re-make of the 1960 \"Psycho,\" I don't know. My guess is they wanted to reach a new audience and thought color and modern-day actors were the answer, since those were the main changes. The dialog was the same and the story the same.

On one hand, I applaud them for not making this over with a lot of profanity and nudity and making it a sleazy film. Yet, if they were going to keep everything the same, why bother when you weren't going to improve on Tony Perkins, Janet Leigh and the original cast?

Did they honestly think Vince Vaughn was going to be as good or better than Perkins? Are you kidding? Ann Heche, with her short mannish-haircut, is going to be better than Leigh? I don't think so!

Yes, the colors were pretty in here but it's the black-and-white photography that helped make the 1960 version so creepy to begin with. It's perfect for the story, not a bunch of greens and pinks! Once again, I guess the filmmakers were banking on an audience that never saw the original.

This was just a stupid project that never should have gotten off the ground.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The most disposable movie in the history of cinema?This one is a strong contender!Why wasting so much money for such a pointless useless work? The only difference between the HItchcock classic and this poor imitation is color,wide screen and Leila's Walkman!!A movie which's supposed to generate thrills and fear leaves me completely indifferent.

No you' re going to tell me it will urge the young generations to see the original?balderdash!This \"psycho 1998\" is a giant spoiler.

They could have done something different,for instance ,by casting an actor closer to Bloch 's Bates ,an obese man.They content themselves with an obnoxious rehash!A pox on it!and long live Alfred Hitchcock!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me begin by saying that this remade version of one of the greatest ever created movies \"Psycho\" (1960) has been nothing but a fine example of poor direction, poor acting and poor cast. The best way to describe this movie is by comparing it step by step, acting by acting and process by process to the original.

Alfred Hitchcock, one of the greatest movie directors ever lived, had an intention to shoot the original in black and white despite the availability of color at that time. Okay, people in 1960 may not have been used to bloodshed or horrifying scenes as much as we are today but that didn't prevent people from liking it and getting nominated for 4 Oscars. Gus Van Sant had absolutely no reason to release this in color except that the year was 1998. What should have looked realistic in color did not. After the shower scene Norman washes his hands it is easily comprehendible that whatever was used for blood looked like some kind of red wax. Once he washes off the blood his hand is red in color.

About acting, perhaps there couldn't have been a better cast of Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins in the original. Perkins suited well for Norman and he was incredibly natural when he smiles and talks to the stranger. Hitch wanted a handsome and good actor and it worked just fine. In this version, I personally think Vince Vaughn looked perfect and handsome and strong to play Norman's role, unfortunately his acting was nothing less than terrible. In the motel office where Norman and Marion have the long conversation, he had zero expression on his face and his voice and face never changes throughout. In the original in the same scene when the madhouse is described, we can clearly see the sudden change of expression on Perkins's face and he looks scaringly angry although not aggressively. Vince Vaughn here works out the entire conversation like he's just had his lines by heart. Again, terrible acting. Same is with Anne Heche. In the opening scene in the original, we can see how tensed and nervous Marion (Janet) is when she drives to Phoenix. She was happy in getting the money but at the same time scared for life. That's what I call acting. In the remake, Heche has no signs of fear and she smiles periodically for getting the money. I don't think anyone would be \"happy and smiling\" when they've just stolen $400000 and the entire state police is behind them. In the shower scene, Janet in the original grips the curtain, turns around and dies after getting stabbed. In the remake, Heche gets stabbed, turns around, then sways the other way, has a foolish expression on her face and manages to die with great effort. Again, terrible acting.

There are also some specially introduced changes in this movie from the original that seems to have nothing to do with the plot line and the ongoing situation. In the scene where Arbogast gets murdered, two scenes blink in between the stabs. One with a naked woman and the other with a sheep. Many people including myself aren't exactly sure whether the second scene showed a sheep or a cow or whatever it was. What on earth does a beast or a naked woman have to do with an investigator's murder! The changes were just inappropriate and unnecessary. There are a couple of changes in the ending scene as well.

Let me add some (and the only) positive points along with that. I felt Julianne Moore did her job well and played a good character of Lila. And William Macy acted well, that was almost exactly how Arbogast's character should have been played.

It is common man's knowledge that the purpose and intention of a movie remake is to make the present generation aware of a movie that has a good classic plot line, and to try and make it look better than the original. And if anything has happened here according to what I just said, it is directly the opposite. Unfortunately many people like me weren't impressed after watching this movie unless we came to know of the existence of an unforgettable original version.

Please do not watch this movie, it is nowhere near the original and the original will always remain one of the best ever created movies if not THE best.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all,the whole idea of remaking a classic such as \"Psycho\" is nothing short of ludicrous.A lot of time and effort was wasted here.I am sure they are smart enough to know that they could not improve on the original,so they must have had a tribute to Alfred Hitchcock on their minds.However,the idea that began as a well intentioned tribute, results in being a slap in the face to the horror master.This movie is poorly produced,poorly acted,and unnecessary to begin with.The original classic stands well on it's own,even after 40 years.The event of Hitch returning from the grave and coming after the people responsible for this piece of trash is unlikely,but if I were them,I would sleep with one eye open just in case.Don't waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don`t be fooled into thinking that this is a remake as in this years remake of THE TIME MACHINE is based on an earlier film . It`s not because this is a pointless re- film . That is the director has used the original camera script shot for shot similar to the \" remake \" of THE GET AWAY from a few years ago . The scenes are identical to the original , the dialogue is identical to the original , the camera angles are identical , no attempt whatsoever is made to embellish or restructure the original script ,( But with a director like Van Sant at the helm we should be thankful . He sure ain`t no Hitchcock ) in fact I might even be correct in saying the costumes might be the same because the private eye wears a pork pie hat. Didn`t they go out of fashion in the late 1960s ?

Bottom line:Avoid","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, first of all, who in their right mind would remake Hitchcock and second, who would do it shot for shot? I admit I had no intention of ever watching this movie for that very reason. The original Psycho is one of my favorite films ever and this just seemed like a degrading photocopy of it. I did watch it because my girlfriend wanted to compare it to the original and we both agreed less than five minutes into this crap that it was awful. First, as mentioned, they did it shot for shot. Where's originality? Why remake a movie that is almost perfect EXACTLY the way it was done the first time? Why remake such a movie to begin with? If you ARE going to remake something, remake something that doesn't work and make it BETTER!

Second, they used the exact same script from the 1960 version. The dialog no longer works. It works fine and sounds perfect for the 1960 version, but seems odd and stilted coming out of modern actors. Why not update the dialog? Hitch didn't write the script, you could have rewritten.

This film had some very good talent and they were wasted by imitation of the original actors. The actor who played the car salesman seemed like he was just playing John Anderson's performance as the car salesman in the original. All the actors seemed like the only direction they were given was be the characters from the original movie. Vince Vaughn may have seemed a little creepier than Anthony Perkins, but in doing so, you loose the sympathy you are supposed to have for Norman. Having Norman masturbate while watching Marion undress was going too far and lost the innocence of the character that I think Tony Perkins captured so well in his performance. Viggo Mortensen's accent was annoying and Rita Wilson was far too old to play Caroline. Her lines came off as someone desperate rather than just young and fun like Patricia Hitchcock's performance.

The only good thing I saw about the film was that Gus Van Sant was able to open the movie with the shot Hitch had envisioned. Hitch wanted to open with 1 long shot going over Phoenix but couldn't at the time so he had to settle for a series of shots cross-dissolved together. This film fulfilled that vision with a helicopter shot going into the window of the hotel. After that, though the film became a worthless waste of celluloid.

If you are curious about how to destroy a wonderful film, watch this, but do NOT under any circumstances watch this BEFORE you watch the original. This is a faded photocopy of the original and should never have been green-lit. Stick to the master's film, not the imitation.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*some possible spoilers*

Of course this film could not be expected to be as good as the original, remakes rarely are. But, this remake of one of Hitchcock's greatest films, Psycho, could have been a lot better.

First of all, whoever cast the movie must have been psycho. I mean, Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates! What where they thinking?! Unlike the \"harmless\", almost childlike Bates that Anthony Perkins was able to portray, Vaughn looks like he would could be a murderer. In efforts to make his Bates seem innocent, Vaughn ends up acting gay. Many of the other actors didn't seem to fit their parts either, including Julianne Moore who just didn't seem to fit in the film.

On top of the atrocious casting, the cinematography is notably shabby, despite the fact that they remade the film scene for scene. The one thing they added were random shots of object such as clouds or a nude woman, in between the shots of characters being murdered. These shots seemed to be irrelevant to the plot in anyway, and in turn made no sense.

Overall, this Psycho remake, which could been a decent picture, instead turned out to be a complete waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not only Why? But \"What were they thinking?\" This must have been some

sort of payback to Gus Van Sant, because this is one of those odd movies

that never should have been (re) made. It purports to be Hitchcocks film

frame by frame, but without the magic or the tension or the great film

making. Rent the original instead, spare yourself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A horrendous film, ill-conceived and crude. The acting of Anne Heche and Vince Vaughan is so inferior to that of Perkins and Leigh in the original version they have to be seen to be believed. There was no reason to make this picture, which only highlights how accomplished and brilliant Hitchcock was, and how inimitable. Also, there's a creeping, pervasive insensitivity in the film that isn't there in the first film. Hitchcock's Psycho was scary and shocking, but one could genuinely feel for all concerned, even the pitiful Norman Bates. There were moments of pathos, irony and fey humor the remake doesn't have. One of the best things about Hitchcock's film was its incredible and intuitive depth and sense of nuance, of when to cut away and when to show something, on whether to use a close-up or long shot, on whether to make an actor sympathetic and when to make him frightening, and so forth. The remake has none of these qualities and doesn't even try for them. It's an idiotic exercise that I'm amazed even got released.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Van Sant copies Hitchcock's masterpiece shot for shot including some modern facets: a walkman, and nudity from Anne Heche. Unless you have a strong desire to see Ms. Heche naked there is absolutely NO reason to see this film instead of the original. Hitchcock's masterpiece is much better and Van Sant fails to realize that in hiding the nudity and the gore, the original shower scene is all the more terrifying. Ask Janet Leigh about that one. The acting is also much flatter and the technical aspects much less impressive.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What an embarassment...This doesnt do justice to the original with awful acting from everyone in this movie, Hitchcock must be spinning in his grave. The scence where Marion gets killed in the shower is just so uneffective and unoriginal. The only good bit is that they used the same music and its so obvious who kills her in the shower. I rate this movie 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*SPOILERS INCLUDED*

Alfred Hitchcock's brilliant and innovative adaptation of Robert Bloch's novel was an amazing film, unlike anything previous. Every shot, every camera angle, every nuance was PERFECT. He didn't just break the rules, he made up a whole set of new ones.

Here's the spoiler: there is absolutely nothing new, different, or original about this movie. Gus Van Sant doesn't just pay a homage to Hitch, he rips off every idea, and does so in a less original, more conventional manner. I didn't have anything against Gus Van Sant before I saw this movie. I liked Drugstore Cowboy and I thought My Own Private Idaho was a very interesting film. The question burning in my mind when it comes to the remake of Psycho is, \"Why did you do it, Gus?\"

In my mind, there are only two reasons to do a remake: 1) The original was a good story, but the movie sucked. 2) The original was a good movie, but someone has thought of a fresh, new approach to the material. Neither one of these factors is at all present in the Gus Van Sant version of Psycho. Apart from the fact that it is in color, and there is one scene in which there is a montage of disturbing imagery relating to the title character's possible inner dialogue (which I found unnecessary), there is nothing new here.

Furthermore, I found the casting left something to be desired. Anne Heche was okay as Marion, but she lacked a certain vulnerability that Janet Leigh portrayed in the original. I didn't feel as sympathetic towards her character, because the choices she faced seemed far less constrained as a woman in today's society, as opposed to the choices she would have faced as a single woman living in the early 1960's. Vince Vaughn got a few laughs with his rendering of an incredibly naive Norman Bates, but I feel that Anthony Perkins' timing and nervous, haunted look was much more effectively creepy. The only performance that I enjoyed better than the original was the character of Lila Crane, played by Jullianne Moore. She was excellent as usual, and brought a new strength and intelligence to the character.

To be fair, there is some beautiful camera work, especially during the famous \"bathroom scene\" in which Van Sant takes advantage of his use of color to show the murder in vibrant shades of crimson. And yet, during the whole film I had this irritating sense of deju vu. Haven't I seen this somewhere before? Oh wait, I HAVE seen this somewhere before! Nearly every scene seems to be copied shot for shot from the original. One almost gets the feeling the director made this film as a school project. \"See, I can make a Hitchcock film, too!\"

If you haven't already, go see the original. It's held up over the years, and beats this bit of mediocrity, hands down. You won't be disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A remake of a successful movie can be a tricky business at best; to remake a true classic, especially one that is veritably the definitive film of a director like Alfred Hitchcock, is something else again. And after watching this version of `Psycho,' directed by Gus Van Sant, two things come to mind immediately: What's the point, and what on earth were they thinking? Especially in light of the fact that Van Sant used the same screenplay (by Joseph Stefano, taken from the novel by Robert Bloch) that Hitchcock used. The final result here underscores some of the finer points of the art of filmmaking: First, that a `remake' should be just that; a retooling of the original, rather than a `copy' using new players; and second, that shooting in color, using more blood and being a bit more graphic does little more than detract from the impact of the film. Although this was a noble effort by Van Sant, ironically in the end it suffers from the same flaw with which Norma Bates was afflicted: The `mind' of the film was divided; half was Hitchcock, half Van Sant. And the twain, though met, shall never be bound. Van Sant, even working from the original script, would have been better off making his own film-- all the way through-- rather than attempting to duplicate exactly what Hitchcock did with certain scenes. The opening shot of the movie, for instance, and especially the `shower' scene, arguably one of the most famous scenes in the history of the cinema. Copying Hitchcock, from the shots looking directly into the shower head to the one of the drain, and using the same `skree! skree! skree!' sound effects-- even as homage to Hitchcock-- again, only distracted from the story. And, if you factor in the performance of William H. Macy (as Private Eye Arbogast), you have yet another split in the psyche of the film. Macy is a terrific actor-- one of the best character actors in the business-- and his performance here is excellent; but as good as it is, the attitude and delivery are pure David Mamet (with whom he has worked many times), and seemingly out of context with what Van Sant is doing. So the film winds up with a triple personality disorder: Hitchcock, Van Sant and Mamet. I felt like I was watching `House Of Good Will Psycho Games.'

\tAs far as performances go, Macy's was as solid as they come, and Anne Heche (Marion Crane) did a good job of creating an original character, escaping the trap of attempting an imitation of Janet Leigh. The weak links were Viggo Mortensen (Sam), who made Marion's boyfriend so smarmy and unappealing it made you wonder why she had anything to do with him in the first place; and Vince Vaughn, who--to put it as delicately as possible-- was simply awful as Norman Bates. His whole performance was that of an actor playing a role (and not very convincingly at that); affecting effeminate mannerisms and punctuating his speech with `spontaneous' bursts of maniacal laughter made his Norman more of a caricature than a character, altogether unbelievable and pretentious. It gave the movie the feel of a reenactment of a `True Incident' you would see on a television show; it would have been entirely in keeping with the sensibility of the film to cut away from Norman sitting alone in his parlor to a shot of a sober-faced Peter Graves, intoning, `Such was the mind-set of Norman Bates on that fateful, rainy night when Marion Crane stepped out of her car and into his life--' The supporting cast includes Julianne Moore (Lila), Robert Forster (Dr. Simon), Philip Baker Hall (Sheriff Al Chambers), Anne Haney (Mrs. Chambers), Chad Everett (Tom Cassidy), Rance Howard (Mr. Lowery), Rita Wilson (Caroline), James Remar (Patrolman) and James LeGros (Charlie the Car Dealer). If nothing else, Van Sant's `Psycho' is a curiosity that goes to show that having a good director, a predominantly excellent cast and a script that is a proven commodity does not necessarily insure a success. Granted, todays era of psycho-babble, `American Psycho' and Hannibal Lecter have effectively taken the edge off of a character like Norman Bates somewhat; but there is still a singular intimacy in this particular story of the relationship between Norman, his mother and his victims that will forever remain inherently disturbing and terrifying; but Van Sant is unable to convey that sense of dread, that throat-clenching fear, with this film. If ever there was a movie made that should have been earmarked straight-to-video, this is it. Better still, had it never been born. I rate this one 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the dumbest ideas for a movie. Remake a classic film shot-by-shot. I hope nobody tries this technique again. In 1998, \"Good Will Hunting\" director Gus Van Sant tried it by remaking Hitchcock's 1960 classic \"Psycho\" and failed miserably. What on earth was Van Sant thinking of? This remake doesn't even come close to topping the original. The few changes that were made here were no help. If you want to see \"Psycho\", the choice is obvious. See the original.

* (out of four)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The 1998 version of \"Psycho\" needed to be set back in the 60's, rather than present day. The headliners would have done a good job with the setting. There were two scenes that just stuck out like a sore thumb. The first one was at the beginning of the movie when Marian Crane (Anne Heche) was sitting at her desk. Her boss took his client into his office because \"it was air conditioning.\" I imagine that the majority of Arizona businesses have air conditioning. The other was the meeting of Lila Crane (Julianne Moore) & Sam Loomis (Viggo Mortensen). Lila sporting the Walkman seemed like an exaggeration to update the movie. The movie did spook a number of the viewers in the theater.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Norm(an)ally I don't mind remakes. There are some pretty good ones out there, BUT this one is a stinker! Considering it was practically scene for scene, it had a good story and great actors. Van Sant copied Al's direction virtually flawlessly, and it added color (I'm not one of those who think it has to be B&W to be classic). It should have been at least a mediocre movie... but it was pee-pee caa-caa! I don't understand how it could have been screwed up so badly. If you must, watch it as a curiosity, but I would suggest that you not bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, so Gus Van Sant wanted to remake Psycho in color so that he could bring it into modern audiences, who would probably go into cardiac arrest if they were ever forced to see a movie in black & white, while they conveniently forget that both \"Clerks\" and \"Schindler's List\" were filmed in black & white and are great movies.

Unfortunately, the same narrow-minded people who wouldn't want to see a great movie just because it's in black & white are the same people who wouldn't like \"Psycho\" anyway, because it doesn't have a murder or sex scene every two minutes. And the murders are not the grisly blood\/guts\/gore\/bone-snapping that people are used to from having seen \"Halloween,\" \"Friday the 13th\" and \"Nightmare on Elm Street.\" This is why remaking \"Psycho\" almost exactly as it was originally was destined to not work, because it's really only of interest to people who are fans of the original. Everyone else is just watching it to tide them over until the next \"Scream\" sequel comes out, and for that reason, they will be disappointed. \"Psycho\" relies on suspense and mystery, not blood and guts. (And just so nobody thinks that I must be a senior citizen if I like older movies, let me set the record straight by saying that I am 21.)

So if doing the movie in color was all that Van Sant wanted to change, why not just colorize the movie and rerelease it? I mean, what's the point of remaking a movie if you're not going to change *anything*? The least he could have done was to put his own director's spin on it, rather than just copying Hitchcock's - or even better, hired a new writer to adapt a new script from the original \"Psycho\" book. But it seems that Van Sant couldn't decide whether he wanted to remake \"Psycho\" *exactly* or not. This should have been an all or nothing project - either remake the movie exactly or do it differently - but as it stands, this movie is about 95% the same, but with a few touches thrown in that don't seem to have any purpose. Such as having Norman masturbate while he spies on Marion undressing. It doesn't serve the plot at all, and the only reason he put it in was because he *could*. He wanted to say, \"Hitch couldn't show people masturbating in 1960 so I'm going to do it.\" Whoopee, big deal, like I'm so shocked at seeing someone masturbate. And what on earth was the point of showing single frame shots of clouds and farm animals spliced into the murder scenes? And then he leaves *out* an important scene, where Lila and Sam meet the Sheriff outside the church.

Plus, by using the almost exact same script, the entire movie seems a bit of an anachronism. The opening credits say that the year is 1998. Then what's with Marion's 60-ish looking dress or the parasol she carries with her? Why do Marion and Sam have to have their trysts in a hotel room, when these days nobody would be shocked by what they are doing? Why are there no air conditioners in Marion's office? Why does the Bates Motel have no tv's in the rooms, and apparently no automatic locks on the doors? Why does the Sheriff have to ask the operator to connect him to the Bates motel? This was why using the exact same script was a mistake - just changing a few words here and there was not enough to modernize it. It needed a whole reworking.

While Vince Vaughn turned in a good performance as Norman, he just didn't seem right for the part. Part of what made the original \"Psycho\" so creepy was that Norman had that innocent, boy-next-door quality, so nobody could believe that he was capable of such horrible crimes. With Vince Vaughn playing the part, is anyone really surprised that Norman was a psychopathic killer?

That said, I can understand that Gus Van Sant was obviously a fan of the original \"Psycho\" movie, and wanted this to be a tribute. This isn't a bad movie, but the problem is that this may be some people's only exposure to \"Psycho.\" I really think you should see this movie only if you've seen the original. Since I am a fan of anything to do with \"Psycho,\" I bought a used copy of the remake, which I may watch occasionally. The original movie was a filet mignon, whereas the remake is a hamburger. But even filet mignon would get boring if you had it everyday, so it's nice to have a hamburger once in a while, for a change.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The original \"Psycho\" (1960) is widely considered as Alfred Hitchcock's best work and certainly, in my opinion, is one of the best movies of all time. The decision to film a shot by shot remake is therefore, a little puzzling.

The cast in the original was flawless, so the cast of this remake had a lot to live up to. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates was not a good choice for the lead. He is too much of a pretty boy hunk and is not very convincing as Bates. I can imagine actors such as Mark Wahlberg or John Turturro doing a much better job in the role. Anne Heche as Marion Crane does a creditable job, but one keeps mentally comparing her to Janet Leigh. Julianne Moore is a much better actress than she shows here and Viggio Mortenson merely walks through his role. The best of this new cast is William H. Macy as the private detective.

Although director Gus Van Sant does an acceptable job, he can't build the suspense the way Hitchcock did. And why did he change the scene in the basement of the house? In the original, the atmosphere is dark and damp and closed in, whereas in this version, it takes place in a brightly lit laboratory like setting. And I think the black & white photography of the original has a definite advantage over the color version.

Maybe another flaw could be the fact that most moviegoers have seen the original and know what is going to happen and when.

All I can say is if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Honestly, how hard can it be to make a good remake? Obviously pretty hard! I was soooo excited to see this because I loved the original, and my friends go and see it and tell me it really sucks. Well, I finally see it and I was sooo disapointed. Ok, the shower scene was more realistic...that's why I gave it a 3. Otherwise, it did suck. Vince Vaughn does a terrible job playing Norman, he's just too dense or something. I don't know, it was just terrible. Don't see it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No,no,no. That is my advice to you if you are wanting to see this film. Anthony Perkins is the one and ONLY Norman Bates,as is Janet Leigh in her role as Marion Crane. This just seems like a colorized version of Psycho,with a few mildly different touches thrown in for a more modern appeal. Vaughn is dull as ill Norman,and Viggo Mortenson's Sam Loomis seems too much the cowboy compared to the original. Please folks,do yourself some justice. Don't bother with this. One can only wonder what Mr. Alfred Hitchcock and Mr. Anthony Perkins would be thinking right now.......

* out of ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first review I saw of this on IMDB says that Vince Vaughn is a much better actor than Anthony Perkins was in this role. Makes me wonder if he saw the original. It's tough to review Psycho if you don't have the perspective of how revolutionary the movie was in 1960. You have a heroine who isn't very likable and is killed not far into the movie and a villain who is creepy, but makes you feel for him. Add to that some graphic violence and you have a blue print for some of the slasher films of the 80s and 90s.

Where does this film go wrong? Let's start with casting. Anne Heche is fine as a Vivian Crane, but as Norman Bates, Vince Vaughn is all wrong. For one thing, he looks far too young. Secondly, he has no idea how to play the roll. His nervous laugh reminds me of Ron Howard trying to play a tough guy on Happy Days. Everything he does screams I DID IT! The original movie, even to those who know everything about it, still makes you feel uneasy about the influence of mother on Norman, and turns her into a real separate character. How about the shower scene. When I finally saw the 1960 movie on a big screen, I was surprised at its power to scare the heck out of me. Bernard Herrman's score becomes incredibly shrill and loud and goes further toward scaring you than Danny Elfman's synth interpretations during the scene. This shower scene merely serves to show us Anne Heche's naked body and some nice color blood. Which brings us to the choice to film in color. Didn't work.

There is something about remaking classic films that hardly ever seems to work. Some may see this as a noble experiment, but honestly, if Gus Van Sant had nothing to add to this film, he should have left it alone","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jud Nelson is an aspiring actor who becomes involved with a married couple who enjoy playing sadistic games on other people. The husband gets his jollies by burying people alive. If that isn't bad enough, he has a miniature video camera in each coffin so he can watch his victims suffocate.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dodgy plot, dodgy script, dodgy almost everything in fact. The most compelling performance is that of Joanna Pacula as Lauren, but even that does not rescue this pointless and nasty film. The director's implicit invitation to viewers is not merely to suspend disbelief but to suspend judgement.

Presumably it is intended to be steamy and menacing, but although the film has its erotic moments they are few and far between. This sort of thing has been done better by lots of others. Don't go out of your way to see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Totally forgettable movie but an unbelievable soundtrack: I'd give it (soundtrack)a 9 out of 10. I have the CD and the guitar work (Nils Lofgren) is superb! I saw the movie years ago and had to check IMDb to remember what it was about. I obsessed about getting the soundtrack and have since had to replace it. It ranges from blues\/soul\/ballad to a dose of gospel. All songs written, arranged, produced and performed by Nils Lofgren who is the \"other\" lead guitarist opposite Steve Van Zandt in the E Street Band. This dude can play! The vocals are handled by Nils (he can't sing very good-too raspy), Bonnie Sheridan (who is a great singer) and Tom Lepson.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was poorly shot. Looks Like a rush job, last minute casting is obvious. Writing is very weak. Good for stage, not film. I feel bad for Andrew McCarthy. He's a very good actor who has not been getting good roles lately. This role was not for him. Maybe glad it has been picked up yet. On the festival circuit this film shall stay.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Awful in a whole new way, ANYTHING BUT LOVE probably should be seen by movie buffs--if only as a cautionary measure that proves all that can go wrong with a \"vanity\" production. I am guessing a vanity production, since there is no other reason on god's green earth to cast as talent-free and not particularly attractive non-singer\/actress as Isabel Gold in the leading lady role--vied for yet by the likes of \"lookers\" like Cameron Bancroft and Andrew McCarthy--except that she also helped write this bizarre little movie. Her singing leaves much to be desired, and yet, unbelievable as it is, all the other characters in the film think she's terrific. There are a few moments here of actual charm or humor, but VERY few. Otherwise this is a silly, sad fiasco that veers from paint-by-numbers to paint-by-wrong-numbers. You know how it is when people look at a piece of modern art and someone says, \"My kid could do better than that!\" Well, this is a movie, the likes of which your--or anyone's--kid might do better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One would think that with all the lavish care and expense that went into this made-for-TV movie, it would reflect something of the taste and manners of the upper class couple--Wallis Simpson and the Prince of Wales--instead of being a mawkish, unappetizing historical romance.

Nor is it helped by the fact that JANE SEYMOUR and ANTHONY ANDREWS give stiff, rather uncomfortable to watch performances in which the events move much too slowly to hold attention.

It's hard to understand why a star of OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND's caliber would wish to play the supporting role of Aunt Bessie since the role is so colorless she just about fades out of sight. At this stage in her career, Olivia was appearing in so many \"nobility\" roles requiring a regal presence but nothing more.

A trivial movie best left forgotten among all the made-for-TV movies of that era.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't get me wrong. I've got a considerable soft spot for the works of Charles Band, both as producer and director. But you've got to raise an eyebrow when the man who was willing to put his name to \"Dollman Vs The Demonic Toys\" sticks a pseudonym on anything. As a bit of bad-movie fun, \"Head Of The Family\" is rather lacking, although it is better acted than you might expect. Jacqueline Lovell is a definite talent who deserves better than these kinds of movies. J.W. Perra is also quite funny as the titular monster, though for such a superintelligent being he does get hoodwinked quite easily. Y'know, I'm nitpicking because the rest of the movie is so sharp and witty of course....

And having a lead character called Lance Bogan? Nice one guys. We didn't know you Americans knew that piece of slang!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is awful, just awful. Someone bought it for me as a Christmas present because they knew I liked a good horror flick. I don't think they understood the \"Good\" part. All I can say is next year this person is getting slipper socks from me. Avoid this movie-- it makes you bitter. Peace.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film for one reason: the tagline is \"Upset the head\u0085 and you're dead!\" Cracking. It's not surprising that this silly horror comedy runs out of steam before the tape is out of the box, but it wrings a few laughs from its oddball premise and cast of characters: an eagle-eyed human radar, a huge strongman, and a big-breasted sexual magnet are all mind-controlled by a huge head in a chair, who's not happy about his family being blackmailed by a murderous scumbag. This looks like being a promising mixture of ham and cheese before it becomes clear that the characters are one joke wonders and the plot is pretty ordinary if you, erm, ignore the giant head.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ahh, nuthin' like cheesy, explopitative, semi-porn, masquerading as horror...This one stars Jaqueline Lovell(sometimes Sara St. James), the nubile starlet also seen in \"Femalien\", \"The Erotic House of Wax\", and that family favorite \"Nude Bowling Party\". She is now a fixture in Surrender Cinema's line-up of talentless cuties starring in pointless, soft-porn exploitation flicks. \"Head of the Family\" actually tries to be a real moovie. A con-man and a tramp try to get said-tramp's husband off-ed. They turn to a large-brained evil genius in a wheelchair, and his family of moronic misfits, who uses mind control to send out zombies to do his nefarious bidding. Said-genius has a giant head, hence the clever title of the film: that's about the extent of the film's humor. But basically, it's an excuse to show off the ample talents of Lovell and Dianne Colazzo (Ernestina). Laced with some of the wierdest dialogue can be herd (what the heck is \"plowing oats\", anycow??), and just plain stupid, this titular thriller will moost likey appeal to the breast-cownters of Drive-In Theater, but no one else. The MooCow says avoid the devoid, unless yer looking for a rent on cheesy T&A\/horror night. :=8P","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was not only disappointing to the horror\/suspense film lover, it was disappointing to anyone who sees it. WoW. I thought that this film might be funny because the guy with the huge head. However, it was filled with long and drawn out conversation that wasn't needed. There was so much sex that I hate women and men now. This film was not only boring, but there was no substance. Wow. Wow. On to of all this, each scene looks like it was light from a single light bulb, and I think they used the same set for two different lawyers, a restaurant, and an airport. This movie is not for the movie lover who loves bad movies because in the end, it feels likes wasted time. See the movie!

-party","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No gore, no blood, no gratifying death scenes...dumb dumb dumb dumb. Dear God sitting through this movie made me sick. Sick sick sick. Very boring...extremely boring...

Theres not even a humorous aspect to this film! i cant find a good thing to say about it, other than the lead guy had a nice body...I guess. Definitely not worth the fifty cents I paid to rent it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie gives a cinematic example of the word worthless. It's awful, you can forget plot or decent acting, cause it's not there. And with the dismissal of any decent story or acting or even the trait of being mildy frightening then there is usually only one plus left for a horror film. The appeal to those who like soft core porn. This film doesn't even have that. The women show a little skin, but not really anymore than say the Xena show. Except for the main star who is not particularly attractive and has a couple of poor, and I mean poor sex scenes. So in short if you like good movies you have no interest in this film, if you like cheese you still don't have any reason to rent this film, if you like erotica and soft core porn you really have no motive to rent this film, and most importantly if you value your time in the slightest, you cannot do better than to avoid this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Upon completing this infernal piece of trash, a friend and I swore a solemn vow never to again speak of how we had just trashed away the last 90 minutes of our lives. This film is completely pointless, a two dimensional hero and heroin who we can't give a hoot whether or not they survive and some of the lamest villains to ever darken the screen of horror (or any other) genre. To further prove just how absolutely pointless this film was, I would have liked to add a plot synopsis, but I can't write fiction. All and all, the only reason I can think of that anyone would ever want to view this film is if they had just murdered their entire community and is looking for some self afflicted punishment that will haunt you for all following years to come!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to be one of the all time greatest horror movies. Charles Band made the best movie of 96' in this little seen gem. Highly realistic and , incredibly stylised- with a visual flair David Fincher would envy, its not hard to see why Band went on to make such classics as 'Killjoy 2: Deliverance From Evil', 'The Regina Pierce Affair', 'Virgins of Sherwood Forest', and 'Timegate: Tales of the Saddle Tramps'.

With a highly sophisticated story- a tiny body with a large head controls a family of weirdos who perform experiments on naked women, this movie may be a bit too much for younger viewers and is only for the most educated type of viewer, but for those who see it, Band is able to convey subtle messages about the human condition through his masterpiece. The head is symbolic of the lost love and longing for one's inner self that we all must face at one point or another, and for this reason i was able to engage with this film on a deeply personal level. Although many earlier critics have compared Band's film to Re-animator and other lesser works, this stands head and heels above the rest. It is gorier, but not pointlessly. The gore in this film is well crafted and used to enhance the storyline, rather than to just get a cheap shriek out of the audience. Also, the special effects in this film are absolutely top notch, easily the best work done in a horror film since... well... ever! The work in this film makes Savini's effects look like the work of a blind, limbless hobo.

The only problem i have with this film is the copious amounts of full frontal nudity, which were ultimately unnecessary in achieving the composer's goal- to create a timeless epic that would forever go down in history as possibly the greatest film of all time. If it were not for this slight problem i would have given this film a perfect 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A couple of friends and myself visited the video shop a few years back and we were in one of those moods to rent some cheesy non seen flicks. My friend grabbed Head of the Family and we were greeted by a head sitting in a wheelchair. Well that set us off laughing and we decided to have a bet to see who would be the one who had to go to the desk and pay for the movie. Well you guessed it, it was me!!!!!!!! I have never been so embarrised in all my life. We got home and put it on and we rolled about the floor laughing for about 45mins because this was the funniest film in the world. I cant remember much about it but one thing i do remember was the blonde girl getting it on with some guy in the back of a shop every 5 mins. That head made me laugh and when i look at other peoples comments aboout this movie it makes me laugh even more. Head of the family is so good and the head is funny and im still laughing ha ha ha ha ha ha ha","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this film on the advice of a friend who assured me it was one of the funniest things he'd ever seen. Sadly this person is completely lacking a sense of humour and I was forced to endure two hours of the worst film making I have ever seen. Please do not watch this film. 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie on a show that was showing bad B-movies and trying to get you to buy them. It basically was just a long trailer but gave you a really good idea of what the movie was about. After viewing the trailer, I thought I would rent this movie because it looked stupid and generic, but could still be entertaining in a perverse sense. IT'S NOT ENTERTAINING in any sense of the word. The film has two (or should I say four) things going for it and it's not the number of deaths, it's the women. They are hot and naked a lot and Ms. Lovell could be a legit actress, but not in a movie where the emphasis is on T&A and corny dialogs. This isn't even a horror movie or scary, unless you are talking about watching the actors try to act. The production value is pathetic, the acting is worse and the writing is the worst. What was the point in making this movie? To scare people? To rip off \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre\"? To try and be funny? To show off the women's breasts? To put some guy's head into a retarded outfit, with fake hands and legs? To have a character just say the word \"Snow\" over and over? To not have any real violence but have enough nudity in an attempt to cover up the fact there is no real plot? To be able to make a sequel to a movie no one has seen or will ever watch? I made a mistake in picking up this movie, don't make this mistake too.

STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am not a fan of the original book but was expecting to see a better adaptation than the Natalie Portman movie, which I found awful. This version is even worse.

First, there is very little of Ms. Gregory's book in this script. The whole subplot of George Boleyn's sexuality is completely eliminated and in this version George is merely a flunky shuttling between his duty to the Boleyn family and his duty to the King. I thought the title of the book referred to Mary as the lesser-known of the Boleyn sisters, but here it is used to refer to Anne.

Second, the script has the characters periodically address the audience as if in confession. Apparently this is intended to give a bit of back story and explain their motives, but it is amateurish in execution.

On top of the bad script, the direction is stunningly bad. There are too many shots done with a circling camera which is none-too-steady at best and downright shaky at worst. Several of the speeches are delivered tentatively, as if in a first rehearsal. The production values for Henry's flamboyant court are minimal. The costumes vary: some are copies of historical portraits and others are from some costume designer's fevered imagination. And the King, the source of all power and favors, is often shown ALONE. No fawning courtiers, no servants in the background - where are all the people?? I am accustomed to Hollywood turning history into fantasy, but I expected better from a BBC production. Even based on a flawed book this production is BAD.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i was lucky enough to read the book beforehand and i do know a little about Tudor england.

the writing directing and editing of this TV movie for the most part was truly awful. i felt as if i was watching a really bad drama doc about the period rater then a movie.

first there were too many cut's between important parts. And leaving out important events which happened at the time, one is henry's fall out with Rome over his desire to divorce Katherine of aragon which led to england's breaking away from Rome and establishing her own church. they barely stuck to the book at all. i'm all for creative freedom but to a limit, especially when your dealing with a well written book as your starter point. in the book Mary give's birth to young Catherine first and then she has young Henry is born. Both their father is Henry's the eight. in the movie they show harry's first then Catherine. And suggest that Catherine father is William Carey.

there are too many bad moment's in the movie to write them all.

i will however say that Jodhi May and Natascha McElhone portrayal as the Boleyn sisters was probably the best part of the movie.

if you haven't read the book and know nothing about Hennry's the 8 court i will recommend to stay away from this movie. And for those who read the book the movie will annoy you for it's lack of details and important plot's.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie twists the facts of Anne and Mary's lives into something unrecognizable. To make Mary Boleyn, who in fact was a rather dim and foolish creature, and make her the \"good\" sister is just silly. It is Anne who was in fact the far more interesting character, and that is why it is her life, and not Mary's, that has been told so often.

In response to an earlier review, I fail to see how Anne's life was so \"criminal\"... to me it's Henry who was the real criminal. Whatever Anne's motives for winning the king and withholding her affections in order to gain a crown and husband has to be taken into context of the time in which these real-life events took place. Anne, in comparison to the majority of most of the courtiers in her time, was a relatively innocent figure. Most modern historians discount or have disproven most of the myths and slanders that this movie perpetuate about her, and I have never heard of anyone who actually believes the rumour than she slept with her brother. This movie is so sensational and false that it is maddening to think that someone, without knowing anything about this period in history, could walk away believing anything this movie has presented as \"fact\".

I won't even get into the weird filming of the movie... but I'm pretty sure that cameras weren't invented in the 16th century, so I don't understand why Anne and Mary are talking to one throughout the movie... it's a really bad plot devise and is jarring and annoying, to put it mildly.

Anne of the Thousand Days is not accurate either, but is infinitely more entertaining and at least comes closer to telling the story of one of the most intriguing women of history. Don't even think about renting this.. it's two hours you'll never get back!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was included in the Six Wives of Henry VIII BBC miniseries DVD. I loved those six movies. They were well-acted, well-scripted, and historically accurate. I did actually read Gregory's book and liked it well enough despite it's HUGE historical inaccuracies (I mean the whole fake homosexual angle with George Boleyn in particular), but this movie didn't even mention that. That angle was one of the pivotal points of the book.

Above all this movie just leaves me asking \"WHY?\" Why do we see, as someone else aptly put, \"The Real World: Tudor England\"? Why are the camera angles so bad in general?

Why is the script so bad? I mean, I know it was improv, but come on! The actors at time stutter and stammer over their lines and it's obvious that they're making them up as they go along.

Why are the sex scenes so awkward? The way they were done in the book made them at least somewhat interesting. In the movie they're just bad, verging on being absolutely hilarious. At one point, the actress playing Mary Boleyn was having sex with the actor playing Henry VIII. He's thrusting away and she's got this look on her face that says \"Hm....I need to go to the store. Is he done yet? Maybe if he finishes I can go pick up some cheese real quick...\" It's just bad.

Why does Catherine of Aragon play such a small role in this movie? Her refusal to get a divorce was one of the leading causes for the scandal that rocked Christiandom. She's the reason why Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn couldn't get immediately married. Why is she not present here? Over all, this movie is just bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I realize a period piece is expensive to make, and that this style of shooting (close framed shots to camera, moving camera, wide aperture shots, washed-out) allows such films to be made for a price. As a style, it has advantages and disadvantages like any other, it allows more period pieces to be made. Like any style it has its detractors and supporters - there are probably even those that believe that this manner of shooting has an artistic basis.

If only some of the money saved, could have been spent on the script for whatever style is used, a film needs good writing and good acting.

The acting in this film is mostly very good. The writing less so. It is composed of a collection of bits taken from the book and much which is relevant to the plot is left out making for a disjointed collection of scenes with little or no continuity.

If you have read the book, do not under any circumstances watch it. If you have not read the book, are easily pleased and have nothing better to do there is no harm in watching it, but be prepared to be disappointed.

It could have been so much better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Other Boleyn Girl - not to be confused with the book it claims to be based upon. This movie is not even close to a faithful adaptation. I could understand them changing or elaborating on a few things. The book is not perfection, but it was well-written and became very popular. I could understand if the BBC wanted to make this a little more faithful to what actually happened, who Anne Boleyn really was - but it's not even close to being historically accurate either. It's just fluff. Mindless, made-up fluff. A real shame.

To begin with, the writer and director seemed to think it was a good idea to setup the story like it was a reality TV show. Seriously. They have the Boleyns sitting in front of the camera, confessing how they REALLY feel about what's happening in their lives. Anne Boleyn sits in a confessional (not the church kind, the Real World kind) and chooses what she wants to tell and what she wants to just sit and smile about. She looks stupid having to use such a modern cinematic device in a film set in the 1500s. It's \"The Real World: Tudor England!\"

Jodhi May is a very good actress and after 'The Aristocrats' and 'A Turn of the Screw' I was becoming a real fan of hers. But she should never have been cast as Anne. Actually I think she would have been a better Mary. Natascha McElhone was a poor choice. She's a good actress, sure, but she has very modern features and does not appear convincing in period costume. (Honestly, I spent the first half of the film trying to figure out if she was \"that girl\" from 'The Truman Show.' She was.) She's also too old to play the teen-aged Mary so for some unknown reason they made Mary the oldest of the sisters. It makes no sense, I know. It's like the BBC seemed to forget that these people actually lived. They're twisting the story around and making things up left and right. I feel ridiculous having to correct the BBC on historical inaccuracies, but REALLY!

Apart from the two sisters the rest of the cast was actually very well chosen. Steven Mackintosh struck me as a brilliant choice for George, and his casting was the real reason I decided to seek out this movie. Big mistake. He does a great job, sure, but he's hardly in this. How can anyone pretend they're adapting The Other Boleyn Girl and hardly mention George Boleyn? That's just absurd. Philip Glenister was another very good casting decision, but yet again, was hardly in the finished product.

The real problem with this is the script. There's just no getting around that. It's bad. It's really, really bad. It's too melodramatic and not engaging. Anne is portrayed as an air-head, Mary as the ringleader, and George as the follower. Mary's first husband is hardly mentioned, her relationship with the king is never explained - they simply do not tell the story Phillippa Gregory wrote. The whole thing comes across as a great big waste. I have no desire to see this thing a second time. I guess I'll just have to read the book again and hope that the Natalie Portman version due out next year will be much better.

*Note: As of this writing, the only way of obtaining this miniseries in the USA is on the last disc of the miniseries 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII.' That's a great miniseries but can cost $50 to $60 and that's way to much to spend if you're just looking for this piece of garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't express enough just how bad this film was. First of all what a waste of some legendary stars although they are quite old and pretty unconvincing. Fred Astaire, well I guess he must have owed some one a big favor as this was his last film role. The script is a mess and the film seems terribly draggy. I imagine maybe if I saw this back when it came out (1981) I might have thought it was decent. However seeing so many actual good horror films, this was one of the worst. The only real convincing anything in this mess was the very young and lovely sort\/of creepy Alice Krige. The main young character was trying to act the best he could but was utterly terrible. I wasn't sure how much of it was from his lack of skill or the lack of a comprehend-able script, but either way he was just plain bad. Don't watch unless you want to see a bunch of old guys be somewhat scared.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must not have seen the same movie as the one the comments refer to here. First, I think they should have serialized Ghost Story if they were going to film it at all. The truncated version they come up with was awful. I felt the performances were mannered and so much was left out of the story that the performances of such masters as Astaire, Douglas, Houseman, and Fairbanks seemed hammy. Alice Krige was superb as Eva, though. Craig Wasson is a good actor but he was only adequate as the protagonist. The decision to cast Patricia Neal and to truncate her role was not a good one. Imagine what Anne Bancroft would have done with that character! I blame the script, which was poor. The production values were dark and the pacing was slow. A disappointing, pedestrian effort.

The book is one of the five greatest suspense\/horror novels of the 20th century, IMHO. But the movie was disappointing, although a great introduction for Krige.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All that talent.....but when ya have poor direction, and a WEAK screenplay, it doesnt matter WHO is in a movie. Very tired attempt at telling a tale..which was actually interesting in the beginning, but then QUICKLY fell apart toward the end....to bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ghost Story has an interesting feminist revenge tale premise, A-list veteran actors, colorful flashbacks with nifty look-a-like youthful counterparts of the old men. scary staccato music heralding the approaching horrors, atmospheric New England winter weather, and an excellent charismatic actress in the title role. Ghost Story could have been much more effective in black and white and in eliminating some of the more lurid special effects, and to presenting a more cogent screenplay (we should not have to be wondering about why the two trailer-parkish acolytes are in the script) The biggest detriment of the film is Craig Wassan (definitely separated at birth from Bill Maher) who from perhaps editing or just bad acting, is totally ineffective. He seems to \"specialize\" in wide-eyed, wide-mouthed reaction shots; not a lot of personality here. The revelation however is Alice Krige, pale-faced, enigmatic, terrifying underneath the placid exterior. However, her Eva Galli is creepy even before she meets her fate; I mean, a young woman who says things like \"I'd like to take a bite out of you\" or \"Dance with me, you little toad!\" is already not in the land of the living. Ghost Story would have been much better in a low-key, Val Lewton mode. The overdone special effects completely undercut the chill factor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is another film I missed out on Italian TV as a kid: notable for its quintet of ageing stars, most of whom had never made a horror film in their life (Fred Astaire, Melvyn Douglas, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., John Houseman and Patricia Neal), it deals with the men\u2019s long-concealed past crime coming back to haunt them. It takes the form of a ghostly dead-ringer for the girl they all loved (Alice Krige) but whom they were forced to dispose of after an unfortunate incident when she humiliated their egos! Fairbanks, who was the one responsible for the deed, has twin sons (Craig Wasson) and so Krige directs her revenge upon them as well. Soon one of the latter, Fairbanks himself and even Douglas and Houseman all wind up dead. Therefore, the remaining Wasson and Astaire decide to confront the ghost at the scene of the crime where they also have to contend with a couple of sinister tramps who somehow do Krige\u2019s bidding! I was looking forward to seeing these veterans on their last legs (Douglas died before the film had even premiered though, by that time, he had already completed another role, while it proved Astaire\u2019s own inauspicious swan-song) but GHOST STORY went through too many changes of mood \u2013 while maintaining a sluggish pace throughout and emerging overlong into the bargain \u2013 to be anything but a failed curio. Having dollops of sex (including full-frontal nudity from Wasson!) and gruesome make-up effects muddled the waters all the more and marred the old-fashioned elegance inherent in Jack Cardiff\u2019s (another notable of long-standing) cinematography.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film gives new meaning to the term \"uneven\", giving us a few intriguing characterizations offset by an awkwardly realized plot that relies on a few well-placed stingers to deliver the majority of the thrills.

The plot concerns a group of men who harbor a secret that has caused a curse to be visited on them in the form of a ghostly female apparation that causes death. She also may be seducing their sons.

It is quite a spectacle to have all the notable veteran actors together in one film, but unfortunately they're not very convincing, particularly the scene where Melvyn Douglas goes off the deep end begging the others to listen to him. It's no shock then that the actors who play these same characters in their youth are terrible, especially the giggling Ricky. They deliver the worst \"gee-aren't-we-all-drunk\" scene I've ever watched.

The movie has a few saving graces, namely Dick Smith's great ghost makeups (however misplaced they are in this film), and Alice Krige's fascinating performance as Alma\/Eva. I've never read the novel that this film was taken from, but I intend to after reading some of the other reviews on this page. You don't have to have read the book, however, to realize that this is only a shadow of the original tale. There is a good story here, but it seems lost somewhere, amid exposition that shows the men having nightmares over and over again and making unsubtle references to the secret they all share.

As it stands, it appears as if there was about half an hour of footage removed from this print, particularly near the climax. After all...how is it that Fred Astaire manages to mount an excavation of the pond so quickly? What did Gregory Bate and the kid have to do with Eva? And while we're at it...what the hell was she, anyway? Why did letting her out of the car cause the apparition to disappear? If it was an apparition, how could it have sex with two men and have them not know?

These and other questions will never be answered, at least not by this film. Unless some restored footage is discovered somewhere, it will probably forever remain a curiosity with some oozing makeup, bizarre sex scenes and nudity, and a few attractive performances.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This story had a good plot to it about four elderly men that share a deadly secret concerning a young woman that they met 50 years ago. After all this time, the young woman returns to seek revenge on the men. This story occasionally made me nod off during the movie in the middle of tiring elevator music and the ever so consistent thunder storms. But it is well worth the wait in the end when we find out just who the mystery woman is that keeps plaguing the old men in their dreams and interfering in a young man's life. The most of what I liked in this film was the suspense in which the young woman appears to the men just before their deaths. The special effects were something. Every time I heard her call out to them I would think \"Not that face again.\" But it was a good movie, I just wish that the pace was not as slow or the acting not as tiresome. And what I also liked about the movie was the flashback of the 20's, very authentic as well as the costumes being original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe it's because I read Peter Straub's wonderful book before seeing the film, but I was terribly disappointed by this movie. In my opinion, the filmmakers removed everything that made the story interesting and unique, and replaced it with more common Hollywood-style elements.

It's too bad, too, since this movie has a terrific cast, particularly Fred Astaire, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Melvyn Douglas, John Houseman, and the then-largely-unknown Alice Krige. They're just not given very much worthwhile to do.

In fact, I was all for leaving halfway through, but a friend convinced me to stay to the end, as he was sure it had to get better. He apologised to me during the closing credits.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie strayed too far from Straub's novel for me to enjoy. Barely made it to the middle of the film. Besides changing Don Wanderly from Edwards nephew into his son, the removed most of the major scenes and a number of characters that gave the novel so much life. What was left was trash. Straub's version was far superior to this poorly executed film. I don't think casting did all that great a job on picking the Chowder Society members either. Hopefully someone will come along and actually remake this film correctly in my lifetime. I just hate when Hollywood butchers the works of talented authors because they think their version so much better. Makes me sick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No serious spoilers, but some very minor ones.

\"Acacia\", a Korean contribution to the ever popular Asian horror wave, concerns a husband and wife who decide that they're getting on a bit and decide to adopt a child. The child, who has an usual obsession with the dead tree in the family's garden, eventually disappears when the couple eventually have a child of their own and the aforementioned tree seems to hold a grudge against the family itself.

And that's about it. The film moves at a snails pace, clocking in at over 100 minutes with 80 minute material. It is essentially a thin family drama with a creepy tree, and there is very little in the way of scares, just shots of the tree with weird mumbling noises playing over the top. However, the idea of the tree being the child's mother is a pretty original one, but it isn't exactly exploited to its full potential. This sort of separates \"Acacia\" from much of the new wave it belongs to: films like Ju-On and Ring tend to do the opposite, and milk bland ideas until they are red in the face.

The film does begin to get going towards the end; however the realisation of the child's fate and the parent's actions not only dampen the earlier curiosity of the story, but are revealed with such machine gun editing that it's difficult to take in all at once. The final sequence is undoubtedly creepy, however it feels like too little too late.

Overall, the film does not feel too much like a Ring cash in, however with the \"film renaissance\" that Korea is currently going through, I couldn't help but feel this film could have been so much more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Having just watched Acacia, I find that I have to agree with the negative reviews here. I like Asian, and Korean horror, and I had great expectations for this film. Man, was i disappointed. Watching this, I kept thinking \"surely they just do this to catch me off guard later on\", and for a while I expected something ingenious to happen. However, I slowly realised that the film really is that bad. It is the cheapest cash in into the Asian horror market I have seen so far.

The basic story is perhaps not even that bad, but the way it is filmed it seems like the most laughable plot ever. The tree as a 'scary' device might be okay if used cleverly, but all the filmmaker does is giving us different shots of...yes, a tree, over and over again. He seems to hope that the tree will do all the work for him in terms of tension and build-up, but it just feels like what it is: shots of a tree. For goodness' sake!

Slow build-ups can be very effective, and a film that presents the viewer with only few glimpses of what is wrong might deliver good scares, but not Acacia. Sure, we get a glimpse of a child on a tricycle disappearing around a corner, and, yet again, meaningful shots of the tree from above, or underneath, or the side, but these scenes are just not scary. They feel silly, especially because you realise that the director means them to be scary. They simply aren't.

Apart from that I agree with some of the other reviewers, that the characters are ridiculous. In particular the one character's 'descent into madness' is laughable. However, what really breaks Acacia is the terrible editing. Its hard to see why scenes were cut together the way they are, but it's bad, and it kills any spark of interrest it might have had. It also makes me feel patronised, because I can see what they are trying to achieve with it, but I cannot believe that they think I would fall for such cheap ploys.

There are lots of great Asian ghost films, and lots of bad ones, but this is by far the worst I have seen. They must have been going through the list of 'what to put into ghost movies', and ticked them all off, but in the end they forgot to add the actual movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As far as Asian horror goes, I have seen my share of disappointments along with some of the creepiest sh*t imaginable... \"Acacia\" doesn't really qualify for either of those categories. It had a few moments of tension and was interesting to watch, yet I couldn't help think that there should have been a tad more to this story. The film deals with a childless couple who decide to adopt a kid who appears to have a fascination with trees. He develops a bond with the Acacia tree in their yard and seems to communicate with it. Then, during a fight with his mother involving their new birth child, he storms off after threatening to find his dead mother who is now a tree. When he doesn't come back, the parents send file a report and wait, while the neighbor girl believes he somehow inhabits the Acacia tree. The pacing is rather slow and the ending gets a bit weird, but I have to recommend this as a slightly enjoyable effort, though the story feels a little flat. Hell, I can't really make up my mind on this...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the acclaim it got I was expecting more from a Korean horror if it's going to be viewed in the same caliber as A Tale of Two Sisters, as some other reviews have stated. This movie isn't in the same caliber except in budget spent on special effects. Think Amytiville horror. With a tree and sparse dialogue.

If you're going to have a movie with limited dialogue, the plot line and characters have to carry the film. This film could have been told quite well in a 30 minute short film concept, 2 hours with a lot of staring at trees and terror scenes that make you not only not scared, but detract in a \"What the...\" sort of way does not a good horror movie make.

Those people who are stating that this film gave them lasting impressions must literally have heart attacks when decent horror films lay it in.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a fan of the horror movie, regardless of which hemisphere it comes from. I know what to expect from the West, the East and most horrors in the middle. So I received the DVD of 'Acacia' in the post and looked forward to a slow build of ever increasing tension and scary children with odd, disjointed movements hiding under duvets.

The major selling point for this film was that it has a far more linear story line than many of this ilk - you get who the characters are, where they are from and what they do. You get the baseline information (nice couple, can't have children) and realise that the premise is just too normal for something freaky NOT to happen.

And then comes the bad. The number one complaint is that the story is OBVIOUS. I got it pretty much the moment the kid hugged the tree. I knew where the film was going and was even able to predict the order of death and for what reason.

The editing is shocking and unfortunately, not to the benefit of the film. Even were I still pondering the events, tension isn't allowed to build because the director seems to have gotten a new editing suite for his birthday and wanted to use it as much as possible.

And my final gripe is this....the tree was unnecessary. This would have been a perfectly good tale of subtle horror with just the couple breaking down over the death of the child - the titular tree bought nothing new or exciting to the film. So I'll finish where I started - my overall impression was 'Oh.'","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh how awfully this movie is! I don't know if it is a horror film or a drama, cause the story and the both genres are not established very well! The story is not moving, it is slow, boring, and sleepy from the beginning to end. This movie really bores me! But I really liked the camera work, it is authentic, fresh and clear, the acting is great too, the little boy was the great performer in this movie, but it hasn't made me to jump from my seat. But this movie makes me grab a pillow, lay on the bed and sleep until the credits roll...

Boring! Not worth watching! I tell you, this movie sucked!

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A moderately interesting start, some pretty scenes in sixteenth-century Japan, and a promising idea. But the execution? The comparison that springs to mind after about fifteen minutes is \"Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death.\" Really. A specialist in \"Oriental history\" who doesn't speak any Japanese, walks on tatami without removing her shoes, and is generally dumb as celery? Please. This looks like a student film: the sets are risible, the acting (except, perhaps, for the title character) close to wooden, the plot utterly arbitrary. At least \"Cannibal Women\" was funny! This is best watched with someone who knows something about Japan, just to watch disbelief repeatedly crawl across their face.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Remember those terrible war movies your grandmother forced you to watch 25 or so years ago on your old VHS recorder? \"The Fallen\" is just a bad executed remake of those movies! The story is terrible, the direction is terrible, the editing is terrible, the music is terrible, and all together make an unbearable nightmare.

It is also terribly slow! Very slow! I tried to sleep while watching it but I couldn't do it because I had nightmares of it.

Please don't watch this movie! It is THAT bad! Ten lines is a lot so I don't know what else to say.

Press the eject button NOW and you wont regret it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For starters, I once met the director when he was going to WW2 re-enactments with a period movie camera and making videos of the events which looked DARNED good. I really wish he'd kept that up. Because as much as I applaud what he accomplished on a clearly \"next to nothing\" budget, when I popped out the DVD, I just wondered why I sat through almost two hours of nothing. There's no real plot to speak of, you don't really care what happens to the characters (maybe the Italian troops and some of the Germans), and the ending is yet another \"art film\" commentary on the futility of war. I could have told someone how it would end once I got through the first ten minutes. I KNEW the Germans would have a few heroically volunteer to fight to the death, I knew most of the Quartmaster GIs would be killed, it was just too darned obvious! And while I'm on the subject, I was shocked to see so much of the Axis side done well, yet the GI side done comically. All the character development was clearly for non-English-speaking roles. The GIs simply got shafted hard in this film. And I can't help but wonder if they even had someone on the set who understood how the US Army works? The phrases, terminology, actions, were clearly written by someone with no knowledge of the American military at all. Had I now known who had directed this film, I'd have sworn it was directed and written by a German...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What on earth was that? My family and I just waisted 2 hours of our life for this piece of rubbish !!! There was no plot, no tension, only a lot of boredom !!! My kids could do better movies with our video-camera.

But maybe we just did not get the point of the movie...oh wait, my mum did. She was the only one who liked it for the following reason: \"At least a film with no cars screeching...\" If you are looking for a war-film with no fighting in it, is still interesting and gripping and has a strong anti-war-message, then you should watch \"The Trench\".

I give this film 3 out of 10 because it is good enough for an afternoon-nap and because I am too nice...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've rent the movie because i'm very fond on war movies and on the cover picture i've read \" better than save private ryan\"....mmmmm ...i thought cool! guys....is just a ridiculous movie. Almost fun. Nothing to do with a proper war movie. I want my money back! Why the f...k the peoples lies??????????? F NO SUBTITLES They tried to make everything cooler with the light....but they didn't make it. Sorry about this.....but the movie is awful. The italians are shown as \"Mafia e mandolino\"

The American as stupid farmer The Germans as even more stupid farmer.

The actor are ridiculous and unprofessional.

Please....please......","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've never written a comment on IMDb before, but this movie was so bad it left me little choice but to warn you not to waste the two hours of your life. As an avid WWII historian, I don't even know where to begin on how historically inaccurate this movie was. Carbines with Korean War bayonet lugs, K98k's missing cleaning rodes and sight hoods, German uniforms that didn't exist, the list could go on forever. Added that it's loaded with flaws, has literally no plot or climax, and acting on par with your local high school theater. The epitome of cheesy.

PLEASE...there are too many good WWII movies out there to waste your time on this junk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First there are some plot holes in this movie. We see in the very beginning a kid dies from playing the game. But who was tied up in the mail truck delivering the package which contains the game? How did the driver place the package into the mailbox when he was lashed to the steering wheel? It is not like he was Mr. Fantastic. Wow that in just the first 15 minutes... The actors are second rate, take the \"Bad Guy\" played by Patrick Kilpatrick (who?) exactly he has appeared in one episode of everything on TV and some secondary roles in poor movies (like this one). So most of the acting is like TV dramas, I can live with that, but the graphics or special effects are horrible. The disembodied \"Game\" voice sounds like a poor clone of Hal from \"Space Oddessy 2000\". What they called Zombies looked more like shadows jumping around like monkeys from \"Planet of the Apes\". The Aliens had transparent bodies like the shadow zombies. In most cases, the movie was just predictable as it had no hook or hidden agenda going. The story was a good idea but like most good ideas discussed over lunch was never developed beyond that good idea stage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, the first thing I saw after looking at the DVD box was \"Best Screenplay\" and thought this would be a good rental. WOW, was I mistaken! I'm sure at one time there was a good movie in here, but after the incredibly poor acting and \"video game\" production values, this ends up looking like Tron's retarded half-brother. The first scene sets up the overall atmosphere of the entire movie. Five minutes into it, you'll be asking yourself, \"What the Hell am i watching?\", and it will just snowball from there. An awful soundtrack that makes every song sound like Rob Zombie's \"Dragula\" rounds out this miserable piece of crap into a laughably bad movie. On a side note, #3 most romantic quote in a movie - \"I think you're the final destination.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, this movie wasn't good at all. Video games aren't what I would brag on if I was over the age of 15. Cool to play games, but writing a comment about video game players may like this movie for that it is, that is strange. Just play a video game, don't make up a sorry story about getting trapped in one. I use my cell phone, I hope I don't loose my girlfriend in that. Grease being the worst ever? OK, Grease has a very well thought out story along with being a musical. Even if you don't like musicals, anyone would say Grease is good. My brother plays video games all the time and he watched 30 minutes and left because it was so awful. I feel asleep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hmmm, not a patch on the original from Shaw Brothers. The fighting is average and looks very clunky. The story line is as to be expected from a 70's Kung Fu film, confusing and daft. Stupid voices for women,dubbed in posh English accents for men. i turned this off early and i love martial arts flicks. Get the original, its so much better than this average movie, don't be fooled, i bought the wrong flick what i wanted was the Shaw brothers movie. i have just started commenting, I'm only doing foreign and martial arts films this is just the beginning of my movie collection, i personally own most modern martial arts flicks. Hope you don't waste time watching this one, its for die hard fans of 70's Kung Fu only.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented a copy of this one from Netflix -- big mistake. The DVD version titled \"The One-Armed Swordsmen\" was produced by madmen who thought that the fighting sequences would be appreciated better pasted all together in one big chapter than as part of a consistent, sequential story. Some of the story was left in separate chapters, which you can select from the main menu, but the DVD is still a mess. Don't rent or buy it. Not that there was anything wonderful about the original story, an absurdly complicated piece of nonsense. Much as I liked seeing Wang Yu in his prime again after all these years, this one is an utter waste of time. I've had dish detergents that made a better film than this. What the chopped-up DVD version shows us is that no matter how silly a Chinese script may be, you have to see some sort of story to care about how the fighting sequences turn out.

But \"The One-Armed Swordsmen\" does offer you do the chance to see both Wang and Shaw Brothers stalwart Lo Lieh beating up smirking pretty boy David Chiang -- it's always a pleasure to see that happen. Lo plays a sort of second-string villain here, and serves as a prime example of why some people really need orthodontists. he film is also graced by the participation of Taiwanese actor Chang Yi as the magistrate.

Another comment above mentions the obligatory fight-in-the-inn scene (there are two, in fact) where Wang and Chiang are attacked by a pack of comical barbarians using what look like cavemen weapons, making Bruce Lee noises while they fight. None of this makes any sense, but that's okay if you're not expecting any clarity or common sense. It was fun to watch anyway.

Another peculiarity of this production is that there are no significant women characters. There are a couple of female roles, but they play no serious role in the action or the plot.

If you can find a copy of the original Shaw Brothers One-Armed Swordsman movie, the one which explains why he has only the one arm and why he uses a broken sword, go for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is by far one of the most pretentious films i have ever seen. it is a tight slap on the face of some Indians who speak in English and were looking at the mirror. disgusting. the bubble gum version of the 1970s politics of the north Indian plains. the message - the educated English-speaking Indian tried to save the poor beggars of India in all earnestness. it ignores the fact that the poor beggars are also capable of and are saving themselves on their own.

as a love story its okay. the problem is that the love story and character development is based upon a completely fraudulent version of politics.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is supposedly about three young idealistic people, two of whom join the Naxalite movement and blah blah. It is really just another film about some beautiful, rich people trying to decide who they should bed next; the peasants and naxalites and the political struggles of the era merely serve as a picturesque backdrop. Literally, as we don't hear the villagers say a word, never mind learn anyone's name, thus they occupy the same 'role' as the 'natives' in old Hollywood films. The movie is also dull, and the story does not actually get us anywhere - except to various bedrooms. We are apparently supposed to admire the artsiness of it all, which merely means no good song and dance routine, which would not have saved the film of course, but might have at least alleviated the boredom.

My friend Japna was annoyed at the immorality of the whole story, not the bedroom bit but the whole pointlessness of the story. The message seems to be that ideals are not worth pursuing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie uses random events of historical significance as its backdrop and willy-nilly criss-crosses the lives and time-lines of its 3 central characters. To what purpose, one may ask? The problem with this film is that the script becomes the 'story', not characters or their lives.

It starts off with a bunch of rich, aimless college kids (and a couple of not-so-rich too) drawn into the Naxalite movement. Affair, rejection and separation follows. People go their own ways, seemingly. Only till the heroine forces herself upon them. Not once but twice. After a pause in the 'Movement', the next hurdle for these 3 is the Emergency imposed on the country by Indira Gandhi. Lots of political figures roam around for no obvious reason. The sub-plots are too contrived and don't add up to make a logical whole.

The movie tries to impose a false pace but never reaches a true rhythm. Barely coherent at times, there is no maturation and growth whatsoever in the arcs of the 3 ex-college buddies. Even after they are presumably married, engaged, settled or whatever, they are ever too eager to just ditch it all and head off to a village to have sex with the ex-lover or ex-flame. What fertile imagination the screen-writer possesses. So many 4-letter words are used without any rhyme or reason that its downright abusive!!

Chitrangda Singh has a horrible American accent that she doesn't try to hide. Its hideous hearing her mouth clich\u00e9-ridden dialog like 'Whats up? I didn't think you'd come' (this, after the hellish nightmare she's just been thru) or, in the beginning, 'I appreciate your concern but I can take care of myself'. Yikes. What kind of clown wrote the dialogs for this? She invites her friend in to have a cup of 'South Indian' (no less) coffee, wishes someone Good Morning and then is wished Good Night by someone else in the family. Now whats up with THAT?!?

The countless uncredited villagers and tribals are the best actors. The editing is really erratic with too many cuts. Obviously trying hard to make a bold statement, Sudhir Misra screwed up big-time on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It would be quite easy to make this movie sound fun: a call girl gets shot in the forehead by a North Korean spy, but survives. The bullet that is embedded in her brain makes her long for knowledge, as well as sex. Unbeknownst to her, she walks away from the shooting with the cloned finger of George W. Bush in her purse, a key which can unlock the power to use nuclear armaments. Just call it a romp, and at least a few people will show up to the theater. I'm not sure how many did go to see this four year old film when it opened in New York this past April, but I sincerely hope not many. It sounds like a light and playful pinku flick, but it has art-house pretensions and is really just incredibly boring. Many pinku films in the past have been successful in their artistic aspirations, but this film's aspirations just make the time that elapses between the sex scenes excruciating. And then the sex scenes aren't even good! I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff in dirty Japanese movies. I've never seen this country produce something with sex this dull. The Spice Channel is more imaginative. The only worthwhile thing in this movie is the body of the lead actress, Emi Kuroda. Otherwise, this is pure torture.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay. I really tried to tap into the (so called) silly & surreal humor that this film sets out to be. I'm told that the Japanese version of this film is much shorter than the one shipped to America (go figure!), and has less political references. Apart from all that, I found this sexual\/political farce just as boring and pointless as standard porn. The central female lead is easy on the eyes, and could actually act. I would love to see her in a non pink film where she could actually flex her acting muscles (and no,not the ones you're thinking of). It's obvious that Japan can (and does)produce just as much crap as other countries. I couldn't recommend this to anyone, with the distant possibility of someone who has a Jones for Asian porn. Go see a real Japanese film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife and I met doing a professional production of \"The Merry Widow\" in 1982 -- in English, but a straight translation.

Only the very basic skeleton of the original plot is visible in this \"adaptation\". Most of the characters have been deleted, along with the entire B plot, and all but one of the characters remaining have been renamed. Most of the characters in the movie aren't in the operetta, either. The action has been moved from Paris to, at first, Washington, DC, and then to the fictional country of Pontevedro, which the movie has renamed \"Marshovia\", and only later to Paris. The net result is that we don't reach the beginning of the original play until about 45 minutes in.

And the main source of tension in the plot is deleted, too. In the original, years before, Count Danilo and the heroine were very much in love, but his family refused to allow them to marry because she was poor; it's his broken heart that has rendered him a careless playboy. Now that, as a widow, she's the richest woman in the world, she still loves him, and he still loves her, but his pride won't let him admit it to anyone, even himself, and she must spend three acts playing mind games to break him down. The trope of the aristocrat with money problems who won't admit that he's in love with a rich woman for fear of what people will think supplied the main plots of a substantial fraction of Viennese operettas for decades after the 1906 \"Widow\". In this movie, they've never met before, which rips out not only the heart of the whole thing, but nearly all the comedy.

Lamas does a pretty decent job, though.

An interesting musical point is that several times we hear a snippet or so of \"Tr\u00e9s Parisien\", an extra song written (in English, despite the title) for the London premi\u00e8re, which was not, as far as I know, usually found in American productions until the 1980s or so.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I feel terribly sorry! Where the Lubitsch-pic was enchanting, marvelous, full of spirit and elegance, this one here is only - colored! Lana looks like 51 (in fact she was 31 at that time, but obviously depressive) and tries to play a shy and dull girlie. Think of Jeanette McDonald, who gave the role of the widow a double-faced depth by \"playing\" with Count Danilo. That Lana had to play an operetta although unable to sing - crazy! She only sings one song - the title role of an Lehar-operetta, that is really funny! The only really good thing is the great waltz scene at the end: glamorous! And - after watching this scene - have a look at the introducing waltz scene in \"Gentlemen Prefer Blondes\"! Any similarities?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is not exactly what I would call a Mad Max film, after seeing Road Warrior and experiencing the excellence of that film, I felt somewhat disappointed after seeing this. It supposedly started out as some kind of kids in the wilderness film, and was merged with the Mad Max franchise(bad idea). The casting was not exactly the best, I mean come on Tina Turner? One of the main problems with this film is that there are no good villains. No Wez, no Humungus, not even a decent Toecutter! Nothing really even happens, if you are going to plan on seeing this sub par action flick (can it even be called that?) make sure you see Mad Max 2 or Mad Max, or better yet both. Another problem with this film is that there are too many people, even the Thunderdome battle sequence is dull, Max doesn't even kill anyone! The music is bad, the characters are bad (not in the good way) and after seeing this film, it left a very bad taste in my mouth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Every time I've seen this movie I get the same impression: some parts of it are so amazingly stupid\/bad that they crack me up, they aren't intentional, and there are a lot of them; the rest is just plain bad, stupid and\/or irrelevant. A movie like Evil Dead gets credit for being bad at it's own expense because it's the intended result-it' stupid and cheesy because Sam Raimi succeeded at what he was trying to do. This movie doesn't have that excuse, it's stupid and cheesy because the filmmakers failed so miserably. The crap result gets heaped on top of the crap writing and crap performances to make it a shame that the lowest rating a movie can be given is one for 'awful.' Watching this movie has the same effect as listening to a Billy Madison essay--\"Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.\" I should be able to give this movie something around a -5.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like the previous two 'Mad Max' films, 'Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome' is not exception to the violence and strange plot. Mad Max is in a post-war society where he must destroy master blaster and get the children to 'tomorrow morrow land'. This is generally a warped film with Peter Pan references and Tina Turner, methane-pigs, and odd characters. I got very bored by watching it all, and it offered nothing to me. I did not feel inspired after watching this film; the only decent thing about this film were the extremely-odd characters that got picked off in various ways throughout the film. It's too weird for me, and it was much too dull.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Intelligent summary, isn't it?

If Mad Max was something of a simple, straight forward, nothing special but nothing wrong either kinda film, they totally made up for it with it's sequel, The Road Warrior. So, in theory, with a third great film it would've been a great trilogy... now, it's not!

Such a huge disappointment Beyond Thunderdome was! It's main premise is pretty cool, with an 'underworld' (think a mix between Metropolis and The Time Machine), but it all isn't carried out with too much conviction. Add the obnoxious Tina Turner and the no good story-line of the people waiting for a plane, and this is just one huge stinker.

Maybe they can brighten things up again with part 4 (although that one is just probably gonna be 1 huge budget-explosion kinda thing), because this just isn't right.

3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Even allowing for my unabashed love of the first two films in the franchise, and sweeping away any sort of biased leanings I might of had for the character of Max, I just can't bring myself to rate at average this cartoonery waste of space that so nearly soils what had gone before it.

Gone is the rugged nasty streak that brought feeling to the character Mad Max Rockatansky, gone is the impacting feeling of desolation in an apocalyptic world, and more crucially, gone is director George Miller's passion for the franchise. The dreadful score matches the cartoon heart of the film, it seems that the makers didn't really know what to do with the amount of cash given to make this third {and thankfully last} instalment. Sure the stunts are spot on {to be expected by now}, and of course Miller manages to paint a barren desert landscape by purely lifting from what he has done before. Yet he clearly struggled for fresh ideas with the action since The Road Warrior's crowning glory of the Petrol Tanker pursuit is replicated here, only he uses a train instead!!.

It's just a very poor show that may have seemed like an ambitious turn of events back in the mid 1980s; but when viewing the three films together now, Thunderdome just comes across as a director losing his edgy approach whilst sadly getting caught between the mix of comedy and fantasy action. And the truth is that neither of those genre slants would have worked singularly, in the context of this series, anyway. I give the film 3\/10 purely for one real good Thunderdome fight sequence, while the stunt men here deserve some credit at the very least. But this is the third time I have tried to like this film, and as glutton for punishment as I undoubtedly am, I wont be trying again, ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched all three mad max films in succession for the first time a few days ago and was left bitterly disappointed with the third instalment. it destroys the fine work of the first two films with weak and cheesy action and a story line that turns the apocalyptic Australian wastelands into a comical sand pit one would expect to see in a children's adventure movie. the character of max is unrecognisable from his dark and cynical persona seen in the previous films and changed into a predictable uninteresting saviour that left me feeling betrayed. if you haven't seen this film yet then simply don't. Let the story end with the road warrior and save yourself a very painful hour and a half. (spoiler alert) the other major issue i had with this film that truly left a bitter taste in my mouth was the flying man. we had already seen him in the road warrior where he had helped max and yet when he reappears in thunderdome it looks like the two had never met. whether he was supposed to be a different character or a relative of the road warriors gyro man i do not know. however it was not explained and is a weak element in this overall weak film. 2 out of 10. doesn't get a 1\/10 because of the thunderdome fight.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Originally I wrote what was a sarcastic,scathing review of this pathetic piece of dung,but every time I submitted the review I got \"this contains a very long word which is not allowed\", also words that were not misspelled were judged incorrect.

Now the word that was judged too long was never identified.After numerous attempts at eliminating words eventually I got the sneaking suspicion that the IMDb site is politically sensitive and set to reject certain words automatically.Nothing I wrote was obscene or racist in itself.But after eliminating all of the longest words the same message was repeated again and again,also words that weren't judged misspelled were all the sudden considered misspelled!

The pc police are everywhere.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is without question one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, it is also one of the most unintentionally hilarious. I like to compare it to Plan 9, in that it can be so bad, so awful,so dumb, and such a waste of time that I find myself laughing out loud.

One of my biggest problems with it is that it's a complete ripoff of Robin Hood, and let be honest and say that I love Robin Hood with Errol Flynn, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights. But let's face it, from the forbidden love between Peck (who is definitely slumming it. Although in all fairness this was still a good few years before the masterpiece To Kill a Mockingbird) and the female character (who is so forgettable, apparently, that I have forgotten her name.), to the final scene where the good guys dress up as monks to fool the bad guys screams \"ROBIN HOOD\" all over it.

However, I don't think the film isn't worth seeing. On the contrary, I think that this is one of the funniest movies I've seen in years, even if it was unintentional.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This turned out to be more of a women's romance-soap-suspense film than what I hoped it was....simply a tense thriller. Yes, the final 20 minutes were suspenseful but much of the previous 75 bordered on being just plain tedious.

Ruter Hauer was a little too subdued, not playing his normal intense character. Natasha Richardson sports somewhat of a dumb look most of the time and her character was very unappealing.

The story is so-so. It's not as bad as I'm making out, but it sure isn't anything I'd watch again, and the back of the VHS describing this movie was misleading.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everything you do in this world should make at least a little bit of sense. Unfortunately very little of \"Delusion\" makes any sense. Jennifer Rubin is adequate in her role as the main squeeze of hit man Kyle Secor. Secor on the other hand overacts to the point of annoyance. Jim Metzler, the embezzling yuppie is very unbelievable as the novice, revenge seeking, adversary. When Jennifer Rubin gives back the money she has carefully been concealing, all credibility flies out the window, and the guns pointing final showdown between Secor and Metzler is beyond ridiculous. Avoid \"Delusion\", unless you are delusional enough to believe the misguided positive reviews here. - MERK","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Delusion\" is what you experience when you watch this flick and then believe you saw something worthwhile. This flick, which tells of a trio of semi-psycho travelers who are up to no good somewhere in the CA desert, is amateurish and just plain stupid. The film suffers from an awful story, a lousy screenplay, and some terrible direction just to mention a few of the deficits. If the flick has anything at all going for it, it's B-movie diva Rubin's even performance. Don't waste your time on this turkey. (D)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Now I remember what the 'indie' filmmakers were ripping off before Pulp Fiction. It was David Lynch, right?

I hunted this thing down to see Kyle Secor. What a waste of a perfectly good Bayliss. It was so painful to watch him, sort of like when someone you love is horribly sick and there's nothing you can do.

Nearly every cliche in the book: the desert, the psycho, the quirky mob boss, the biker, Tracy Walker (who fortunately was only in one scene, but I kept expecting him to reappear and say something strange and profound like \"If a man wants to know where he's going, he's got to look at where he's been,\" or some contrived garbage like that). I have a theory as to why so many indies are short on location in the desert. I think it's because they can save money on lighting.

If you like to be in pain, find this movie and give it a viewing. If you're a fan of Kyle Secor, watch reruns of Homicide on Court TV. If you want a good, quirky road thriller, check out Wild At Heart.

There is a reason that no one has heard of Delusion! My god, what a waste of a good title.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Hindi remake of Mrs Doubtfire starring and directed by Kamal Hassan is a somewhat shoddy version, and not as good as expected.

Kamal Hassan clearly struggles with Hindi dialogs, even after all these years, and cannot handle even one scene effortlessly. The guy has aged and should give it a rest. Hassan doesn't bring anything new to the role or to the character as say, Dustin Hoffman does to Tootsie, or Marathi actor Macchindranath Kambli does to Mavshi's (aunt's) character in \"Moruchi Mavshi\" (Moru's Auntie, comedy play).

What was the kid doing playing with firecrackers when it wasn't Diwali? Most of Chachi's romantic 'cross-connections' -- Vs Amrish, Paresh and then Johny Walker, seem redundant to the main storyline. Tabu's bathing scene was unnecessary. The family is North Indian but must be reminded of Karva Chauth night by a 'Maharashtrian' Chachi. Yeah, right.

The fine acting skills of not one but four actors namely Tabu, Om Puri, the late Amrish Puri and Paresh Rawal have been wasted in this film.

Watch the original Mrs Doubtfire -- clean, crisp and crackling with fun, quite unlike Chachi 420.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Like most musicals of the era, one must check reality at the door. Broadway MELODY of 1938 is not remotely believable nor plausible, but kind of fun in its strange way. This movie is really just an excuse to execute the talents of the stars. Some scenes just happen as if they were in a review, not a plot driven movie.

Judy Garland shines and it's a pity she has so little to do unless much was left on the cutting room floor.

One of the most inane happenings are the way Eleanor Powell get a lead role in a Broadway show and Robert Taylor says it's going to be work, work, work from dawn til dusk. Several scenes go by and there's no work, no rehearsals...NOTHING. She needs money to win a horse in an auction. She has no money. Isn't she getting paid while she rehearses? Taylor has to borrow money to help. He's supposed to be a big time producer. He has no money??? Anyway, that's just two elements in this strange story.

The musical numbers are quite wonderful which saves this from being a total loss. Broadway MELODY OF 1940 is much better as is Broadway MELODY OF 1936.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All I can do is echo the sentiment already expressed by some of the other commenters. This is CITY OF GOD meets HAPPY DAYS. The bipolarity of the ruthless thug (one minute a ruthless killer, the next minute a Luv's diaper commercial) is completely unconvincing. You can approach it in one of two ways: (1) A gritty, realistic movie turned sappy; or (2) a sappy, ABC-afterschool-special with profanity, violence and animal cruelty. Either way it just don't fly, do it? Why then has it received so much praise? As others have implied, it gets the \"conscience vote\" from the west. Show us pictures of poverty to contrast against our fluffy, double-wide theatre seats and 44-oz cokes, and we'll applaud in a heartbeat. But--oh--don't forget to candy coat it, because the bitter pill of reality (tantalizing as it is) is hard for us to swallow.

I'm terribly disappointed that this film would receive so many awards and accolades, especially when there are far more deserving works of film out there. All I can say is: beware of any film that receives awards (Hollywood Oscars = sweeping, syrupy tripe. Cannes Film Festival = beard-stroking, artless propaganda). To find the real gems, you'll have to work hard at it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie looked like it was rushed to release for some reason. Definitely not a well made movie. So unbelievable. The scenes where the President (Holbrook) were downtown and walking among the people were a farce. There would not be a chance for the common folk to be within 30 yards of the President in that situation in real life. If it wasn't for the blood and profanity, this was shot like a TV movie. It could have been decent if it was done differently. Holbrook's (President) talents were never realized in this movie. Shatner's acting is okay. The production values in this movie leave a lot to be desired. Overall, I think most people would be better off not wasting time to watch this affair.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie looked like it was rushed to release for some reason. Definitely not a well made movie. So unbelievable. The scenes where the President (Holbrook) were downtown and walking among the people were a farce. There would not be a chance for the common folk to be within 30 yards of the President in that situation in real life. If it wasn't for the blood and profanity, this was shot like a TV movie. It could have been decent if it was done differently. Holbrook's (President) talents were never realized in this movie. Shatner's acting is okay. The production values in this movie leave a lot to be desired. Overall, I think most people would be better off not wasting time to watch this affair.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was included on the disk \"Shorts: Volume 2\"--a rather dull collection of short films. Shorts are among my favorite style of films but somehow the people assembling this second collection had a hard time finding quality content--and it wasn't nearly as good as the first volume or other shorts collections.

This short film feels like it's woefully incomplete. There is a story, but so much in unanswered that the viewer, like me, feels a bit left out and unfulfilled.

The film begins with a woman, her boyfriend and her Westie (that's a dog, by the way) going to a lonely beach. The lady speaks with an accent that, at times, is a bit difficult to follow. Given that I am hard of hearing, I sure would have loved if it had been closed captioned. Anyway, the boyfriend goes for a swim while she naps. When she awakens, her dog is gone. She panics and makes the guy follow her all about looking for the dog. They spend most of the time arguing and being disagreeable. Then, out of the blue, they stop to have sex. Later, they find the dog--end of story.

As far as the characters go, both seemed rather dysfunctional and unlikable. She was a fussy and demanding lady and he seemed to have contempt for her. When you wondered why they were together, their little sex break showed what bond kept them together.

Some might like the characterizations--I kept finding the people irritating and unreal--more like caricatures than people you might meet or know. Also, the payoff for all this just isn't worth the wait (unless you want to see the guy naked).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not surprised that this film did well at the Hamptons Film Festival. It is a shallow film that would appeal well to shallow people. Two actors pretending to be actors in a relationship who fight and look for a lost dog. The film is allegedly exploring the dynamics of the relationship, however, the relationship is far too petty to merit any such exploration. This couple has one dimension: they fight, they tease, then they make love and fight some more. There brief moment of tenderness does not reveal any possible reason that these two would be involved with each other given their venomous and volatile relationship. Beautifully shot, excellent score, but without anything of merit in the script or characters, this short is just that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do these guys take have a computer kick out these same plots over and over again, only the names, places, and faces are changed to prevent complete boredom. Hubby is handsome and rich, but too busy to pay attention to his gorgeous wife. A situation she constantly tries to remedy. Her friend\/neighbor has the same problem so they become interested in each others hubbies--the grass is always greener. Throw in a sexy scheming made who has designs on everybody and you get a lot of stripping and dipping and a salad bowl of an unintelligible plot.

The quality of bodies is pretty high here, although not much in the way of \"contact\", even simulated is shown. Good late night erotica if Jay Leno can't put you to sleep.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Based on the comments made so far, everyone seems to either hate this movie or love it. I think it would be fair to point out that although this is not a GREAT movie, it has its interesting moments. For one thing, it was filmed on location in Colorado (was it Breckinridge or Telluride? I can't remember, but it is in the credits). The location is absolutely stunning and spectacular. It's beautiful, even to me who lived in Colorado for several years.

Next, it has Disney's penchant for wonderful character actors. Harry Morgan has never been in better form than when he plays in a Disney movie. He is literally hysterical. Also, remember the wonderful Mary Wickes? Although she has a \"bit part\" in this movie, she is great, as always. If you don't know who she is, think of the animated Disney version of Hunchback from Notre Dame (she was one of the gargoyles), and she was also the most interesting nun in \"Sister Act\", as well as the best nun in \"The Trouble With Angels.\" She has always been a great character actress and most character actors never receive the recognition they deserve.

In addition to character actors and all-star casts, in the 1960s-1970s Disney may have not had the \"greatest\" movies, but, if you really watch some of them from beginning to end, you will NOTICE that every movie has some really funny or hysterical moment in it. The entire movie may not be funny, but there is always a comic gem (at least 1 or 2) in every single \"live-action\" movie Disney ever made. Whether it's Harry Morgan in one of his bellowing tones of voice, or Tim Conway floundering around, or Joe Flynn giving one of his priceless looks of horror, it is all good. The whole film may not be good, but there are ALWAYS hysterical moments in every Disney film from this period that I have ever seen. Disney in this time period always managed to make a person smile, despite the dumbness of the film.

Bsed on these comments, I disagree with viewers who say every Disney movie in this time period is awful. That statement it not quite accurate. Rather, it is easier for me to give credit to the funny moments and overlook the weaknesses in the plots.

Some live-action Disney movies are true classics (Old Yeller, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Mary Poppins), but for those that aren't, I am able to appreciate them for what they were -- good clean family fun in a time when movies had become vulgar, crude and offensive.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Snowball Express\" from the Disney Studios isn't quite as dated as some of their output from this era. There are no hippies or hot-rodders, just dull-as-dishwater Dean Jones inheriting a ramshackle hotel\/ski-resort from a deceased relative. When Jones and family pull into a sleepy Colorado town, the folks who give them directions--looking like extras from \"Deliverance\"--are curiously vague about the hotel (we expect it to look like a one-room shanty), but actually the accommodations are very nice. Jones' teenage daughter has a sour look on her face throughout (which doesn't prevent one of the local yahoos from leering at her), and of course clumsy pop Dean Jones is a regular stumblebum on the slopes, leading to a lot of pratfalls in the slush. Perhaps this square scenario might've benefited from some magical whimsy, for this script is a frozen stiff. * from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was pointless. I can't even call it sci-fi, since that requires more from a movie than merely taking place in space. \"Max Q\" isn't even set in space for the entire movie. The story\/plot is unoriginal, the cast isn't anything to write home about, although it would be strange with a top cast in a mediocre film... Furthermore, it's not particularly exciting or well-told. At least it's evenly balanced in a low quality sort of way, in that nothing or no one stands out. Everything is equally bland. I usually find some quality in \"space flicks\", even if it's just 90 minutes of semi-lame entertainment bordering on low-budget pathetic, but \"Max Q\" didn't even give me that satisfaction. All in all , a complete waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry, but this really does feel like a modern day Apollo 13 knock-off. Totally implausible (at least Armageddon FELT like a comic book! This felt like a bad High School film project), acting was about as clich\u00e9 as one can get, and....landing a space shuttle on an LA freeway? Come on. Seriously. Jerry, what were you thinking? And all the clich\u00e9s: The pregnant astronaut's wife, the nosy reporter who gets in everyone's way, the stalwart manager with \"Go Fever\". And it's one thing to twist the laws of physics or politics or whatever to make an entertaining story, but at least make it GOOD! Fact and science were totally butchered for this. The space shuttle doesn't have fuel tanks in it's wings, and even if it did, it couldn't steer by shifting fuel between them (and neither could a DC-10).

If you like bad acting, bad storytelling, low realism, and cheesy clich\u00e9s, this one can't be beat!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook \"How to write a space disaster movie\" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.

Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a \"Special Visual Effects\" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.

I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!

And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.

The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.

I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot was not good.

The special effects weren't.

The acting was... not very good at all.

Like others, I felt there were numerous holes in the plot that you could fly, well, a space shuttle through.

I thought the ending was rather unbelievable.

By the way guys, about the \"blow torch in space\".

Blow torches have their own supply of oxygen (Hence the name \"Oxy-Acetylene torch\"). Two hoses run from the torch: One to an acetylene bottle and one to an oxygen bottle.

So a \"blow torch\" would work just fine in space.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some famous stories are prone to being moved to another epoch and, as such, becoming an embarrassing TV-movie. Oscar Wilde's Canterville Ghost is one of them. This TV movie for kids is utterly cheap, concerning acting, character work, credibility, directing and even concerning the modest special effects. As often, the question arises: what was this made for?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a bad film, as its central message is very muddled and the plot seems like it was the result of merging several disparate scripts. As a result, it often makes absolutely no sense at all and certainly is not a film Miss Dunne or Mr. Huston should have been proud of making. However, the film IS worth watching if you are a fan of \"Pre-Code\" films because it features an amazingly sleazy plot that strongly says that nice girls DO put out--even if they aren't married and even if their partner IS!!

The film begins with Miss Dunne as a social worker assisting troops heading to Europe for WWI. In the process, she meets a scalawag (Bruce Cabot) who eventually convinces her to sleep with him. She becomes pregnant and he then goes on to the next unsuspecting woman. However, Miss Dunne does NOT want him back, as she realizes he's not worth it, but later her baby dies at child birth. While all these very controversial plot elements are used, they are always alluded to--almost like they wanted the adults in the audience to know but hoped that if they phrase it or film it in just the right way, kids in the audience will be clueless (after all, films were not rated and kids might attend any film at this time).

Surprisingly, this entire plot involving a stillborn baby and Cabot ends about 1\/4 of the way through the film and is never mentioned again or alluded to. It was as if they filmed part of a movie and abandoned it--tacking it on to still another film. In this second phase of the film, Miss Dunne unexpectedly begins working at a women's prison (though we actually never really get to see her doing anything there). What we do see are countless horrible scenes of severe abuse and torture that were probably designed to titillate. And, as a result of all this violence, Miss Dunne goes on a crusade to clean up the prison and becomes a reformer and famous writer.

But then, out of the blue, another type of film emerges and the women's prison reform business goes by the wayside. Dunne meets a judge (Walter Huston) who is married but he desperately wants her. Now throughout the film, Dunne is portrayed as a very good girl--even though she did have unmarried sex with Cabot (she was more or less tricked into it). But now, single Irene, who is a tireless reformer and good lady begins sleeping with a married man. He tells her that he and his wife are estranged and are married in name only, but she never thinks to investigate if this is true, and with his assurance, off flies her clothes and they are in the baby making business! BUT, while she's pregnant with his love child, he's indicted for being a crooked judge. He assures her he's innocent, but he's convicted and it sure sounds like he's a scoundrel--using inside information from people that have come before his bench in order to amass a fortune. Then, in the final moments of the film, Miss Dunne tries in vain to get him freed and vows to wait with the child until Huston is released. The film then ends.

So, we basically have three separate films AND a bizarre early 30s idea of what a nice girl should be like. I gathered that she should be a strong-minded working girl who instantly becomes an idiot in her personal relationships! This really undoes all the positives about Dunne's character and it's really hard to imagine anyone liking the film. A strong women's rights advocate might easily be offended at how weak-minded and needy she was and religious people might see her as totally amoral or at least morally suspect! With a decent re-write, this could have been a good film or at least interesting as a lewd and salacious film, but it couldn't make up its mind WHAT it wanted to be and was just another dull Pre-Code film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can have been on Irene Dunne's mind when she accepted the role in this distasteful account of a woman of negotiable morals? Certainly, the Irene Dunne of the 1940's, whose reputation as a faithful Roman Catholic who publicly abhorred smut, and shunned any film scripts or Hollywood society, that might be even be remotely construed as corrupting public morals--would never have become associated with such a dubious project as this.

Perhaps, New York's Cardinal Spellman, in his private audience with her, gave her a good dressing down over this role? That we will likely never know, inasmuch as she never spoke of it in later years, though she did denounce her morally suspect, (though quite successful) 1932 film, \"Back Street\" as \"trash\".

Certainly by the time she received the distinguished St. Robert Bellarmine Award in 1965 for exemplary public Catholicism, \"Ann Vickers\" was no longer recalled by the general public.

Suffice it to say that \"Ann Vickers\" works neither as entertainment or social commentary.

Miss Dunne's role as an adulterous social worker, who sleeps around, (between reforming prisons and writing a best seller on correctional rehabilitation) doesn't dovetail with her temperament or on screen demeanor, and one keeps suspecting that the whole thing is a kind of tongue in cheek gag, (what else can we think when we witness a montage of Miss Dunne's sympathetic beatific gaze superimposed over a shot of a female prisoner being scourged?) By films end, she has renounced careerism in favor of marriage, (to crusty convict Walter Huston no less--and what kind of lunacy would ever conceive of pairing these two romantically?)

Irene Dunne completists will no doubt wish to see this curiosity, if only for the chance to hear her promise to rehabilitate a cocaine addict under her charge: \"I'm going to get you off the snow cold turkey\" !!!

Well, if nothing else such sordid goings on, do present her light years from her usual milieu of operatic trills, furbellowed chiffon and strawberry phosphates--cocaine addiction not being the first subject one associates with the irreproachable Miss Dunne.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this type of \"soft core\" before, but I can honestly say, I wasn't expecting this to be in the same type as \"Rod Steele: You Only Live Until You Die\"--which was both sexy AND funny. It had a good script, a sincere leading man, and a sense of purpose. It also has Gabriella Hall who is hot. The reason why I didn't expect this movie, was because the box was missing the \"Must be 18 to Rent\" Sticker. I was looking for more \"cheese\" and less \"cheesecake.\"

First of all, I think movies shouldn't be allowed to start with \"actors\" rehearsing for a part at a talent agency (or wherever \"actors\" rehearse). In this movies seeing the \"actors\" rehearsing highlights the lack of preparation that went into acting out the real characters in the movie.

Okay, having found out that this WAS a soft core movie, I didn't necessarily turn it off and demand my money back. But, the dizzying way the extended video \"erotic\" scenes are added to what was probably a late night pay-cable release are very annoying and easy to fast-forward through without the sustained quality of, say, Rod Steele. You know they must've had some money, because I think some of it is filmed overseas.

I will have to say the main actor trying NOT to spill the invisibility potion on himself is one of the most baffling acting jobs I've ever seen. And, I've seen Torgo from Manos! It may actually have been worth the dollar rental fee (that and Gabriella Hall). Still, there are better corny movies to rent with your friends.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After just viewing the movie, I must say this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. This takes my worst movie award away from Komodo, which is no easy feat. It is neither a porno nor a legitimate film and it gives them both a bad name. The acting, camera-work, plot, script, and sound are all awful. My personal favorite part of the movie is the duck asking the bartender if he has any grapes. Why was a joke such as this put in the film? Was the director thinking; \"I need a humorous scene to balance out the great acting so I will use some lame ass joke I read on a Laffy Taffy wrapper.\" Another retarded part is when Norman spills the invisibility potion on himself as he attempts to keep it from spilling. Why did they even bother to give the film a NC-17 rating, were they hoping to get as large of an audience as possible? At least if it were rated X it would be more sexual and therefore taking the viewers focus away from the overall low quality. I pray for someone who worked on this panty waste of a flick to respond.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i was surprised after watching this piece of crap , if you have seen an episode of TOM and JERRY in which jerry pours some liquid onto him and becomes invisible than you are likely to see the same cartoons with added EROTIC topping a man becoming invisible and doing S*i* is the conclusion of the movie. involving too much sex in a cartoon themed movie doesn't increase its worth :( , and most of all i was surprised when the same cartoon ending was used to show up the Mr.Invisible and that was really awful i must say , flour drops off the rack and our very own Mr.Invisible becomes Visible \"watch ZACK and MIRI make a porno\" i bet you wont get bored,

1\/10 from me","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One would think that anyone embarking upon a followup to the groundbreaking Naked Civil Servant of 30-plus years ago would at the very least try to honor the original with some kind of inspired vision, but no. Here we have a sort of biopic of one of the most stylish people of the late 20th century that itself boasts no style whatsoever. True, the filmmakers have assembled some outstanding actors - and handed them a chipped mug of drab gruel to work with. Everything in the infrastructure of this film is wrong, starting with the script, which is another one of those TV-movie condensations of great lives wherein every other line is a \"famous quote\" by the subject and every other scene is an in-your-face introduction to the next pivotal character in the subject's life. We get Swoozie Kurtz as a PR maven who promotes Crisp as a stateside entertainer; Denis O'Hare as the editor of a gay periodical who hires Crisp as film reviewer, becomes somewhat alienated from him when he appears indifferent to the passions of 80's AIDS activists, and then returns to the fold as a compassionate friend of the dying octogenarian; Jonathan Tucker (in a fine performance) as a shy, insecure painter of gay-themed canvases who is befriended by Crisp; and finally Cynthia Nixon as performance artist and Woman-About-Bohemia Penny Arcade who, intrigued by Crisp's persona, offers him a spot in her traveling cabaret act. Nixon is a persuasive and gifted performer but is given no chance by the script to embody the down-to-earth and streetwise Arcade. Crisp spent the last 20 years of his life in a one-room flat in an old tenement building in Manhattan's East Village. He famously said that he never cleaned because \"after a few years the dust doesn't get any worse,\" or something like that. But looking at the depiction of that flat in this film you'd never get the flavor of that dustiness. He frequented a local coffee shop on a busy avenue and would be seen pretty much each day of the week sipping tea and watching the world go by. In this film we get a diner that looks like something on 12th Avenue by the Hudson River. Most of the \"streets of New York\" scenes have a sterile, unreal look with no sense of the period.

The soul of this film is the great John Hurt in the title role. After nearly 35 years he can still grasp the essence of this peculiar post-Edwardian Englishman and put it across to third millennarians. His every line, every gesture is exquisite. In the later scenes he even modulates his vocal projection to suit that of a person whose life is winding down toward death. Crisp wrote shortly before he left this realm that when one grows very, very old one's skin takes on the character of a smelly overcoat that cannot be removed and one longs for death. One senses that feeling in Hurt's performance. So, for him and him alone this film is worth a look.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In this follow up to The Naked Civil Servant we see the final years of Quentin Crisp's life in New York. John Hurt is again Crisp (come on who else could play the part?) and its a role he inhabits to the point of disappearing. For me Hurt is Crisp and I've always found it very hard to take the man himself because Hurt was more him than he was himself. Its masterful performance. His equal is Denis O'Hare as Phillip Steele, Crisp's long time friend and confidant.

Unfortunately outside of the performances the film has little to recommend it. To be certain the film gets the details right. Filmed in and around New York the film the film looks and feels like New York and its environs, but dramatically its kind of inert. Its Crisp talking to people being witty,trying to come to terms with the world as it is (he ended up regretting some poorly chosen words concerning AIDS) and dealing with the infirmities that old aged thrust upon him. Quentin the man is always interesting, but his life as portrayed is really not.

I am disappointed by the film. I've always admired the man and his unique point of view. I just wish he was better served by this film about his life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this last night at the Tribeca Film Fest and holy god was it bad.. From the script to the editing to the acting to the cinematography-- none of it worked. Not to mention the set design\/costumes were so distractingly wrong for the time period (it spans the years from the late 70s up until 2006 or so). Even John Hurt, who's usually an amazing actor, was so over-the- top ridiculous. Granted, Quinten Crisp is an over-the-top guy to begin with, but Hurt was given nothing to work with here. I don't know much else to say except the audience I saw it with absolutely loved it.. so maybe it's just me. But audiences love anything at film festivals when they're sitting next to the director and all the actors. It's not a very accurate test of how good the movie is or how well it will play. Personally, I thought this movie was terrible. On the other hand, it was so terrible that it was hilarious. Get drunk and give it a shot when it's on HBO in 2 years, if it ever makes it that far.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This must be the most boring film I ever saw. The only positive I can say about it is that thankfully I didn't pay to see it. We were given a free showing in school and everyone in the audience just sat there embarrassed wondering when the fun would start. This piece of junk is a badly filmed, way too long film. The actual idea on why making the movie took about 10 seconds to present. The only ones who can be interested in this film are those who lost their jobs and want to know why. They might find some of the interviews interesting. A different edit might have made an interesting documentary of this, but I doubt it, the interviews shown were not engaging in any way. As it is, it is just a tragedy, both to behold and to be a part of. AVOID THIS FILM AT ANY COST!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Can you people please stop believing everything this man says. Get

your facts straight before you start praising this liar. He's not even

from Flint. He just says that to keep his \"blue collar\" look. He's

from a rich suburb next to Flint. I mean he went to a private school.

His parents paid for him to go to school. Wow, that sure does seem

like they suffered a lot from Flint going to the dumps. He was also born in Canada. Oh wait, that makes him a Canadian citizen. I wish he would just move there. Instead he lives here in his 1 million dollar New York apartment. Thats working class right there. I sure can't wait for his DVD set to come out. I want to here him talking about how big corporations are bad. Where will I get those dvds? Oh yeah, at Target and Wal-Mart. The two biggest corporations in America, which were also the only two stores allowed to sell them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Leni Riefenstahl would be embarrassed by the disgusting propaganda Moore tries to call \"humor\". That this movie, and Moore's other prevarications, actually attract admirers proves that, alas, it's possible to fool some of the people all of the time.

Let's see if we can bait foreigners. Let's see if we can extol obsolete factories. Let's see if we can add to the sum of hatred in the world. Let's see if we can pretend we're funny. Let's see if we can out-isolationist Charles Lindbergh. The only thing Moore lacks in comparison to Lindbergh is a medal from G\u00f6ring.

Admittedly, in this film, Moore had a bit of self-deprecation to his schtick. In this film, Moore mocks Roger Smith, CEO of General Motors, as an aloof, uncaring elitist. Moore could do that in 1989, but now that Moore has surrendered himself to aloof, uncaring elitism, this characterization of Roger Smith has an ironic twinge. Who really wouldn't rather be Roger's buddy than Michael Moore's?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"During university, our Philosophy professor, Mr.R, played us \"Roger & Me\" in its entirety. This was at a time when the obese misfit was still pretty much unknown; a charlatan-in-the-making, a soon-to-be-household-name who was still busy honing his fact-bending skills and still learning how to manipulate the easily impressed, the pathologically paranoid, the mentally ill, the sexually frustrated, the illiterate, the semi-literate, the clueless, and the laughably gullible among ye.

As we finished viewing it, I thought: \"Yeah, it was somewhat entertaining - in a totally daft Bugs Bunny kind of way - but what an ultra-biased, anti-Capitalist propaganda turkey that has no objectivity whatsoever this is; its sole purpose being to take cheap shots at people and ideas which the film's creator has pet-peeves for. This isn't a documentary by any stretch of the imagination.\" However, our beloved Marxist professor was absolutely thrilled with R&M, and we ended up not only NOT criticizing any aspects of it, but Mr.R actually spent the remainder of class praising its \"qualities\". Just so we understand each other, the words \"propaganda\", \"viewer manipulation\", \"left-wing Extremist\", or \"selective fact presentation\" never exited his perpetually smiling mouth... And just to remind you: this was supposed to be a philosophy class, not INDOCTRINATE YOUR STUDENTS WITH YOUR OWN POLITICAL B.S. course.

Anyway, now I get to the really interesting aspect: this professor, Mr.R, is now a highly successful screenwriter in Hollywood. He has written several left-wing scripts with A-grade stars in them.

The moral of the story: those are the kind of people for whom all doors are open in Hollywood.

Michael Moore is a talentless filmmaker (which he proved beyond a smidgen of a doubt with \"Canadian Bacon\"), but being a Marxist liberal opens doors to just about anyone. Tinseltown is teeming with rabid pro-Chavez extremists, hence why political brainwashing through simplistic portrayals of reality has been part-and-parcel of the Hollywood experience for many decades now.

Embrace this demagogue and you've betrayed your own brain forever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was forced to watch this film for my World Reigonal Geography class. This film is what is wrong with America today, instead of figuring out the best way out of hard times or situations we would rather complain about how it is someone else's fault. This film goes through the downfall of Flint, Michigan and blames it 100% on General Motors. In the process of doing so Moore goes to great lengths to make the executives of General Motors out to be villains just because they are doing their job in a capitalist society. Moore films several evictions throughout the film and does not ever even ask once if the person is being evicted because of a GM layoff. Additionally, he never interviews the landlords of the tenants filmed. Moore goes to great lengths to twist historical events to fit his political agenda in this film of pure propaganda.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That this film has such a low IMDb rating is not surprising. In our post-Enron era, do we really need any more reminders of America's obsession with the greed creed? The topic has become so politically charged that a lot of viewers not only are not going to be entertained by movies of this sort, but will respond with barely concealed rage. It was all I could do to sit quietly through this cinematic memo of corporate corruption without extracting the DVD and smashing it into a thousand pieces.

What's really irksome with these kinds of films, including \"Purpose\", is their pretense that behind the glitter, there's some meaningful message that makes the film worthwhile. In \"Purpose\", I found no such meaningful message. What I did find was a story that idolized the materialistic trappings of capitalistic power and wealth. The two main characters, nauseating in their glibness, do very little actual work. Instead, they party, they play golf, they strut their coolness, they sound \"hip\" with dialogue straight out of MTV-culture-speak: \"rock my world\", and \"Now get back to partying; that's an order\". John is smug, self-important, shallow, and smirks a lot. Robert, who wears funky little glasses, is even worse.

The film includes two youthful garage geeks, who look and sound like they're right out of the film \"Antitrust\" (2001). Stereotypes are played for all they're worth, and in this film also include chic-looking computer equipment, and Barbie doll chicks on hand for those occasions when our can-do future billionaires need some relaxation after all that heavy-duty partying. And with the time-bound images and dialogue that such a story necessitates, can you imagine how dated this film will be in fifteen years?

About the best I can do for this waste of cinematic celluloid is to say that it does have some nice aerial views of San Francisco. The film would have been a lot more enjoyable, a lot more entertaining, if they had ditched those odious characters and that repulsive story, and simply flown us viewers around in that little plane for the film's duration.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Computer savvy John Light (as John Elias) goes from Stanford drop-out to successful young Dotcom-era tycoon. But, Mr. Light's sneering success could be short-lived, with partners like ambitious Jeffrey Donovan (as Robert Jennings). Mr. Donovan used to bed down with Light's girlfriend, Megan Dodds (as Lisa Forrester). Donovan wants Light to know that binge drinking and casual sex don't have to end in college. After reading a naughty Internet sex session, Ms. Dodds shines Light on. He may lose is \"Digital Dreams\" Internet empire, too! Veterans unsuccessfully trying to lending dramatic gravitas include red lollipop-sucking Mia Farrow (as Anna Simmons) and quick-drawing, computer-hating Hal Holbrook (as Tom Walker). Ms. Farrow looks sweet with her lollipops.

*** Purpose (2\/21\/02) Alan Lazar ~ John Light, Jeffrey Donovan, Mia Farrow","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ham-handed homage to honest hacking. Felt good in a soft-core way about equivalent to its mild pornography, until its vapid lack of technical and economic reality, emotional and moral sophistication became apparent.

Basically a muddled '90s remake of '85's \"Real Genius\", with fewer and stupider geniuses, and a cynical bad ending.

Perhaps this movie would appeal to someone delighted by the thesis that becoming a billionaire is so easy it's almost accidental. Or perhaps to technical types who like seeing themselves depicted as cool and sexy. Speculating about the reasons someone might like this movie is certainly more interesting than the movie itself. The movies closing credits song is more interesting than the movie itself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film tells the true story of escaped black slaves who found their own mountain-top commune as free men in 17th-century Brazil. The story is interesting and edifying. However, this film -- as a film -- is terrible.

The soundtrack is not period music or tribal music. It is Afro-Brazilian pop music from the early 1980s. Battle scenes are fought to the sounds of cheesy pop rhythms best left to the disco or bad cops dramas. Admittedly, the lyrics are folk-ish tales of the slaves' heroism. The special effects are absurd. Rather than invoke the mysticism of African religion and atavistic beliefs, they merely make the film look cheap. They are completely unbelievable, and I don't mean merely in a sense of verisimilitude.

Life within the commune of Palmares could not have been the way it is portrayed in the film. For this society, as shown in the film, is one-part kibbutz, one-part Afro-pop festival. Moreover, it is almost embarrassing to watch the director play upon the clich\u00e9s of blacks as talented singers and dancers who simply want to be happy. He portrays daily life as a series of dance parties in which the freed slaves paint themselves bright colors and whirl around to the strains of '80s pop music. On the other hand, they have an abundance of beautiful food, but the viewer hardly sees any work being done. The king inveighs against private property in a hackneyed and clich\u00e9d way. When a man complains that people are taking the vegetables that he has grown over many months, the king says, \"What comes from the earth belongs to everyone, as the earth belongs to no one. If they need food, they have a right to take yours.\"

I am glad that I learned about this episode in history, but I am relieved that a film with such low production values and that trades upon such worn stereotypes would likely not be made today.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dreadful, stupidly inane film dealing with corruption at the Louisiana Purchase Lumber Company.

Everyone in the state of Louisiana seems to be corrupt and inept. A member of the college's English Department can only sign his name with an X.

When it appears that a straight laced Senator (Victor Moore) is coming to the state to investigate, everyone there tries to blame the innocent but foolish Bob Hope character.

Is it any wonder that Vera Zorina did not get the part of Maria in 1943's \"For Whom the Bell Tolls?\"

Naturally, the corrupt officials along with Hope try to show pictures of Zorina with Moore so as to ruin him politically. Moore marries the head of the restaurant who he had insulted when he asked for a ham sandwich. He thought the reason that she was upset was because it was a kosher restaurant. This is the extent of humor is this absolute mess of a film.

When Hope tries to defend himself in Congress, he does a take-off of James Stewart in \"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.\" By then the film is too far gone for any good response.

The music and lyrics are both absolutely terrible. That song praising Louisiana, sung in various ways, is absolutely terrible. Irving Berlin had something to do with the music of this utterly terrible film?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife and I couldn't even finish the film. Truly, it was rather painful.

First, the historical accuracy is compromised not so much by the events themselves as the ridiculous one-dimensionality of the characters. For instance, Augustus takes the \"burden\" of power only with great reluctance. Indeed, he is portrayed as if he's some sort of great humanist and believer in democracy.

Second, the camp! My lord, the dialog is horrifically bad. I recall the soap opera my mother watched when I was a child having better dialog than this. The constant exposition and pontificating grates upon the ears like fingernails on chalkboard. Ugh. (Okay, I exaggerate a bit, but the dialog truly is bad.) The HBO series Rome is superior for no other reason than that its characters were at least believable, regardless of their historicity.

Rome was also wise enough to know they couldn't stage epic battle scenes. The creators of this film did not. When Caesar attacks Munda, the battle scene is practically farcical.

I will grant that the costumes are perfectly good. The sets are fine, though their CGI backdrops can be a bit jarring at times. The sound is bad, though\u0097both in terms of the music, the foley work, and the dubbing of so many of the side characters.

Anyway, it's completely not worth renting. As a history major, I was hoping for an alternative approach to Augustus than HBO's Rome, which, I feel, failed to capture his overall \"feel\" quite as well as they did Caesar or Antony. Instead, I should have just stuck to my reading.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a voice of a person, who just finished watching the second season of Rome, almost at one go, and grabbed the opportunity to see \"what happened next\" - this film conveniently takes off where Rome ends. If you find Rome an abomination, a foul mouthed screw-fest of little historical accuracy, then you might enjoy Imperium: Augustus. But, if you feel Rome is a good thing, if you enjoy the complicated intrigue, the ambiance of decadence and the work of the actors, then Imperium will obviously appear to you as an overly timid, superfluous and tedious soap opera with not many redeeming factors.

There are some actors who for my taste look somewhat better than these in Rome. I especially disliked Rome's image of Cleopatra as a drug-soaked sex addict. There must have been a great deal of strength and dignity in that woman, and the actress in Imperium suits the part much better. O'Toole and Rampling are good, and so are some others. But then... If you have come to know - and love - Atia as the super cool bitch, you'll find the depiction of her in Imperium - as a tear-jerking mother goose in an apron - absolutely ridiculous. There are supposed to be some bitchy characters in Imperium, but these actresses rely heavily upon staring at the men and nothing much more. You'll find no interesting female characters in this epic. There's also the painfully comic Maecenas, whom we see as a screeching drag queen, even though there is little historical evidence that he was such (he's once referred to as \"being effeminate in his pleasures\" in the annals).

The interiors are rather meager and rely on clich\u00e9s upon clich\u00e9s. Cleopatra's big hall looks like something out of a computer game or a children's play room in an Egyptian theme park. There's a looooooooot of really poor 3D graphics, not up to 2003 standards.

The action is presented as a series of flashbacks the aged Augustus is reliving. So we get a quick look at some historical events, some of which are presented well, whereas some are not. An disproportional amount of time is wasted to show Livia as the \"eternal flame\" of Augustus. This affair doesn't sizzle for even a moment, the dialog is superlame and everything is seasoned with tacky tear-inducing musical score. Whatever amount of reality the show aims to capture, every last shred of it is destroyed by the dry synchronized dubbing (most of the actors are non English speakers).

Everything is lukewarm in this epic. True, there are more historical accuracies than in Rome, but dramatically speaking, it's plain boring. The characters lack depth and the dialog sharpness. Camera-work is often reduced to static shots, and lighting offers nothing to please your eye.

There's really no-one to love and no-one to hate in Imperium. Regardless of whether you liked or disliked Rome, there are much better films and miniseries around. Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire would be one thing I recommend.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In terms of historical accuracy, this is the absolute worst Roman film I have ever seen. The list not only of errors but of plot ideas that are flat impossible would run longer than the three-hour film, but just to give you an idea...

Julius Caesar and Augustus are presented as liberal Democrats, taking the side of \"the people\" against \"the nobles.\" This is patently absurd. The Caesars were as noble as you could get. Their interest was in consolidating power and stabilizing a country that had been wrecked by 150 years of civil war. There had been reformers, notably the Gracchi brothers, who lived about 100 years earlier, and to some extent advocated for the rights of ordinary citizens.

There are several scenes that are utterly ridiculous, if you know anything about the period. \"Cleopatra\", with Richard Burton, will give you a much better idea of how events unfolded, fanciful though it is.

Historical accuracy is one thing. Acting and dialogue are something else, and here this film veers perilously close to being a bad junior high school production. I burst out laughing several times, especially when Julia, the daughter of Augustus, meets a lover. They clutch passionately, as she breathes: \"My father...\" \"Ah, your father, your father.... your father would disapprove.\" Peter O'Toole is at his worst, forced to gnaw his way through some very pompous and silly lines. The actor who plays Augustus as a young man is such a nebbish --- and the character is written as such --- it's impossible to envision him as the cunning, crafty, Machiavellian politician who created the Roman Empire. Here, he's just a whiner who has to be told what to do most of the time.

Charlotte Rampling does manage to emerge from an underwritten role as Livia, Augustus's wife, with dignity. Had she been given a fuller role to play, she might have rescued this production from absurdity.

There is some nice photography and battle footage, helped by plenty of standard issue CGI. Oddly, this was made for British TV (and appears to be a British-Italian co-production) but is labeled with an \"R\" rating.

The DVD picture is excellent and the Dolby Digital soundtrack is very nice, although you only notice it during the few action sequences, as the movie is mostly talk.

Almost any Roman movie, even \"Cleopatra\" or \"The Fall of the Roman Empire\", has more historicity --- to say nothing of compelling drama --- than this bizarre Classics Illustrated, Jr. adaptation. This one gives new meaning to the much-abused phrase, \"Based on a true story.\" In this case they could have said, \"Suggested by real events.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For several reasons, this movie is simply awful. Other posters have listed some of this movie's historical errors. Well, I have a layman's knowledge of Roman history and even I found the inaccuracies flagrant. I usually forgive errors in historical movies because I understand that the purpose is to entertain not educate. And shrinking a long saga down to a two hour feature requires some, let's say, historical license. But this movie goes well beyond mere rounding.

There's worse. To tell a story from a distant period, the movie uses flashbacks which just make the story more confusing. Unless viewers have some prior knowledge of the period, they will quickly be lost. In addition, the movie was obviously filmed simultaneously in Italian and English with various actors being dubbed later. At times, the actors seem as if they were in completely different movies which were then edited together. In fact, this is not far wrong. The actors were obviously pasted onto a cheesy computer generated ancient Rome.

The only reason I give this boring mess any stars is because I always find Peter O'Toole entertaining. But that is no reason to rent it. If you are curious about Roman history, there are much better movies available.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a stupid waste of money! 30,000 square feet of rebuilt ancient Rome, 2 millions cubic meters of 50 feet tall buildings, 10,000 costumes, 2 years of works, an International Ancient History Committee (sic!), some first class actors and actresses . The final result? An empty TV-movie for a single-digit IQ attendance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can I say about this? Such a big Prestige-Production - but in the End? Wasted Time, wasted Money.

This work a disaster is historically seen. Only some examples:

* Augustus often is named 'Gaius' - his First name (Pronomen). But the old Romans don't used this Name. Correct would be the Surname (Nomen Gentile and Cognomen) or the 'Octavian', 'Caesar', 'Augustus'.

* Livia was shown as tyrannic Wife. But this historically wrong.

* Iulia was shown as nice young woman - but she wasn't one. Adultery and (maybe?) Prostitution and arrogant behavior was the cause of her banishing.

* She wasn't at the dying bed of her Father. She never was allowed to leave her banishing. And she was at this time around 50 years old! Not as young as she was shown. In the same Year Augustus died she committed suicide, because Tiberius stopped giving her a Pension.

* Augustus was much more scruplesless then in this Movie shown. But Author and Director seems to believe Augustus' own 'Res Gestae'.

What remains? Historically extremely doubtful, bad acting, bad built and equipment - 2 Points out of 10 - one for Peter O'Toole.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wesley Snipes latest straight to video film is a convoluted mess, horribly reminiscent of Steven Seagal's latest works. The script is horribly written and makes no account for the low budget it is and tries to be too clever for its own good. Sadly too, Snipes has fallen into the trap of having an ADR voice double doing much of his dialogue, and an entire narration that comes every now and again through points in the movie. It's sad to see a guy of Wesley Snipes talent doing garbage like this film, and producing a tired and clearly bored performance, barely bothered to produce his own dialogue. It's become somewhat of a joke with Steven Seagal, the fact he doesn't perform his own dialogue, but it's not something I'd have expected from Snipes. Perhaps it's due to the producer, Andrew Stevens who has worked with Seagal previously, or the director Po-Chi Leong, responsible for Seagal's epically bad Out Of Reach.

The plot involves shady government officials, terrorists who coach soccer teams, disks with incriminating evidence on and a hefty chuck of missing money. Oh and biological weapons. Now how they are connected I don't know but what I can tell you is the diabolical script is pretty hard to fathom and like many of these DTV movies, this likes to include one twist too many. The plot is also uninterestingly told, playing out it's cards with people having shady one to ones in offices and dark alleys etc. It's all kind of \"lets have a sit down and dish out some plot points for the sad bastards watching this film!\" The pace of the movie as such suffers because despite the dullness of the performances and the storyline, the film does have some nice action scenes. As an example of how a DTV film has successfully put across a storyline of a twisting nature, I give you Dolph Lundgren's directorial debut, the Defender. That movie had it's share of twists and over complexity but the movie has a last hour of almost entirely action, with Dolph under siege form terrorists. The plot points are told in the context of action, on the move, while avoiding death. The movie doesn't stop to tell us what's happening, it doesn't break up the pace. As such although the plot was a little convoluted, it was more forgivable cause the action never let up. The Detonator like too many of these films, stops everything to give us a convoluted walk through of who's bad, and who isn't, before inevitably shifting that round in the pulled from the rear end twist at the end. These movies can often suffer with pacing issues.

Snipes himself as I mentioned is pretty bland here. At the beginning he's putting on a camp persona as he's undercover with some arms dealers. Initially it seemed as if he was enjoying himself but unfortunately the rest of the movie sees him and his occasional voice double sleepwalking through the role. Snipes only comes alive when he's called upon to kick ass. There's some nice action here though, with some swift and crunching martial arts and some nicely punchy shootouts. The film also features a decent car chase. Silvia Colloca co-star and she's not much of an actress, but she is gorgeous, with a costume that screams \"look at my cleavage!\" The rest of the cast flit in and out with clich\u00e9d and uninteresting roles.

Snipes thankfully has better projects lined up from now. He has another team up with Mario Van Peebles, called Hard Luck, then he will do Chasing The Dragon, from the director Chris Nahon, who did Jet Li's Kiss Of The Dragon. Finally Snipes is apparently doing Toussaint, a biographical drama, directed by Danny Glover. The future is suddenly looking brighter for Snipes, but lets remember he was getting extremely well paid for his DTV films, around $7million a movie, possibly more. It's also funny to consider that of all these DTV god's Dolph Lundgren is doing the better films, directing himself, with the enjoyable Defender and the supremely violent and nicely done The Russian Specialist, and what's more he's doing them on a fraction of the budgets of these diabolical offerings from Wesley and Steven Seagal are producing. *1\/2","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen a few bad action movies in my days, but this one's just plain awful. I feel it's a waste of time to even write this but I'll make it short. Why this movie suck? here are 10 reasons: 1. Very amateurly directed and cut. 2. Bad bad bad acting of the whole cast. 3. Silly dialogs and too many clich\u00e9s. 4. Too many plot holes, a lot of scenes don't add up. 5. Bad photographing (and a lot of continuity issues). 6. Ridiculously bad performance by the lead female actress. 7. Unreliable action scenes (and not too good, either). 8. Even for a Snipes movie, he shows a big lack of acting materials. 9. Outrageous accents (of all the cast). 10. Last, but not least - too many implausible facts, such as a tournament of soccer in the U.S., CIA needing to do background checks to get new information about their employees, a mattress that is explosion proof and so on. In essence - it's a waste of time, it's not funny, not entertaining, not even as a joke - DON\"T WATCH IT!!! Seriously, just don't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After an undercover mission in Bucharest to disclose an international gang of weapon dealers, the agent Sonni Griffith (Wesley Snipes) is assigned to protect the Romanian Nadia Kaminski (Silvia Colloca), the widow of an accountant of the Romanian Mafia. However, the CIA safe house is broken in by the criminals, and Sonni realizes that the information was leaked from inside the Agency. Alone, trusting only in his friend Michael Shepard (William Hope), Sonni fights to survive and protect Nadia.

The career of Wesley Snipes is downhill. I have just seen this flick, and it is another disappointing movie of this actor, whose career is presently very similar to Steven Segal's one. The movie has many explosions, shots and car chase associated to an awful story and horrible acting. First, the Afro-American Wesley Snipes is chased by the police of Bucharest, but they never find a black American man. I have never been in Romania, but I believe there are not many Afro-Americans in this country. His character does not like to bath, wearing the same clothes along many days. There is no chemistry between Sonni and the sexy Silvia Colloca, but she freely has sex, falls in love for him and shares her fortune with him. The boy that performs Nadia's son is horrible. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): \"O Detonador\" (\"The Detonator\")","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unlike some of the reviews written here, I didn't hate this movie. It is a movie that COULD have been much better than it was. Not Oscar material, true, but much better than it was.

I thought the plot had a good hook and through line. Granted, this movie was badly written. And TERRIBLY directed and produced. I mean, how many irrelevant flashbacks can you have? Why were we there? What exactly is the point of the opening sequence? It seems like the producer(s) watched American Beauty a few too many times and thought 'I'll use that in an action movie!' I thought the movie wasn't that badly acted. Wesley Snipes did a credible job, he just ran afoul of some bad direction. And once this movie hit the production room, things just got worse. The main actress, I think, had the same problems. Some of the other acting was suspect, yes, but it was a low-budget flick. Again, I would say it is the director's job to pick that up and correct it.

As an overall recommendation, I would agree with the first review I read that this movie is not worth seeing. Or maybe it is worth seeing, if you are a film student and want to see what NOT to do.

3\/10, and that's giving it praise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Since Wesley Snipes descended(or Ascended)to the world of DTV action movies the result has been Miss,so-so,and miss.Unstoppible was weak.7 seconds was entertaining.The marksman was the proverbial scraping of the septic tank.

And what of The Detonator?We'll anything would be above suffering the Marksman again.But the Detonator holds a small amount of merit that is hampered by a lazy star and Low budget.

Sonny Griffith is a not-so-by-the-book Covert op who busts illegal arms dealers in Poland.When his latest assignment ends up a bullet-buffet leaving a pile of bodies;Sonny then is ordered to escort a witness; Nadia (the ever-hot Silvia Colloca) to the US.Trouble is; Sonny is being duped by a traitor in his own organization who is keeping his trail hot for Gangsters with Nuclier Ambitions.

Snipes delivers in the action department.He is in half-blade mode here.He actually does well in the first 15 minutes of the Detonator,before descending into pure sleepwalking mode that ruined the Marksman.Colloca does more than look pretty.There is some conviction to her scenes.A lot of the actors look familiar,and have been in the last 3 or 4 Seagal\/Snipes movies.Its always good to see Michael Brandon again.

The action is telegraphed here.But never boring.Running,car chases,Fights.Director Po-Chih Leong seems to have gotten better after the Seagal farce;Out of Reach.He does a credible job.But is constantly hampered by the low budget.Enough with the eastern Euro-locations.Its cheapening the movie's look.Vancover cannot be that much expensive can it?

The Detonator ends just average.It does not have the so-bad its fun aspect of Seagal' Mercenary for Justice. But it is nowhere near as entertaining as Van Damme's Second in command.Nor as thrilling as Dolph's Mechanik.Perhaps Dolph should direct Wesley next eh?

Its high time The producers pump a little more money and thought into these DTV titles with the kind of money they are making from them.Its only fair.The result could be a high seller perhaps?

Snipes would be advised to try making this one his last DTV action flick.Its sad to see YET another waste of this gifted actor's Talents.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"to start off, i'm easily pleased. i'm in no way a real critic, and movies that authentic critics, friends, family, and newspapers may find awful may even be fun for me to watch.

not this one however.

i got it since it was the newest wesley snipes movie in my DVD-store. i like snipes, but this was a let-down.

bad story, bad actors, continuity-glitches, crappy sound, depressing locations, a pseudo- cool snipes, i really had to force myself to finish the movie.

they even left some markings in the shots where a car was supposed to come to a stop.

and i'm not talking about \"small production company\/young director\/low budget\" kind of bad, where you may ignore some mistakes because you feel sympathy.

a wanna-be block buster action movie that disappoints like no other in a long time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Detonator is set in Bucharest where some sort of ex CIA Government agent named Sonni Griffith (Wesley Snipes) has tracked down a arms dealer named Dimitru (Matthew Leitch), things go wrong though & Dimitru finds out that Sonni is working for the US Government. After a big shoot-out most of Dimitru's men have been killed by Sonni which the local Romanian police force are unhappy about, top man Flint (Michael Brandon) decides to send Sonni back to the US & at the same time protect a woman named Nadia Cominski (Silvia Colloca) who is also being sent back to the US. However it turns out that Nadia is wanted by Dimitru & his football club owning boss Jozef (Tim Dutton) who need her in order to complete a deal for a nerve gas bomb which they intend to set off in Washington killing millions of people...

This American & Romanian co-production was directed by Po-Chih Leong & The Detonator confirms beyond any shadow of a doubt that Wesely Snipes has joined the washed up action film stars club who are relegated to making generic action films in Eastern European locations, yep Snipes has joined such luminaries as Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal, Dolph Lundgren, Rutger Hauer & Chuck Norris. I give Snipes a bit of credit since he held on a little longer than the rest with the excellent Blade: Trinity (2004) still fresh in a lot of cinema goers minds (every film he has made since has gone straight-to-DVD) but it had to happen sooner or later, like a lot of the names I've mentioned Snipes has lived off the reputation of a few great films & if you look at his career he's been in more bad films that good ones. Like the recent films of JCVD & Seagal The Detonator is pretty awful. The script by Martin Wheeler is as predictable, boring & by-the-numbers as anything out there. The Detonator is the sort of film you expect to see on an obscure cable TV channel playing at 2 O'clock in the morning. The Detonator is chock full of clich\u00e9s, Snipes is forced into a situation where he has to protect a woman & at first they dislike each other but by the end they are in love, his closest friend at the CIA turns out to be a traitor while the obnoxious by the book boss no-one likes actually turns out to be a pretty decent guy, Snipes character is allowed to run around Bucharest shooting, killing & blowing people up like it doesn't matter & he never gets arrested, the action is dull & forgettable, the bad guy own a football club so there are lots of annoying football terminology & there aren't even any funny one-liners.

Director Leong doesn't do anything anything to liven things up, The Detonator looks cheap with a car chase in which the two cars never seem to get over the 30mph mark. OK the action scenes are relatively well staged but they are few & far between & utterly forgettable in a 'bad guy shoots at Snipes & misses, in return Snipes shoots at bad guy & kills him' sort of way. There's a half decent car crash & explosion but very little else. It seems some of The Detonator was shot in a Romanian football stadium, I think I'd rather have watched the game for 90 minutes rather than this film.

With a supposed budget of about $15,000,000 The Detonator is reasonably well made but not that much really happens. Set & filmed in Bucharest in Romania. The acting isn't that great, Snipes just doesn't seem interested & feels like he is just there for the money which I don't blame him for at all.

The Detonator is yet another poor clich\u00e9d action film starring a has been actor & set in Eastern Europe. Why do Sony keep making these things? Not recommend, there are much better action fare out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's get one thing straight: I like much of Snipes' work. Unlike his other high-kicking contemporaries (Seagal and Van Damme) he can actually act. This film, however, does little to enhance his reputation; it's not exactly unwatchable - but I am not in any hurry to watch it again either. In fact, if I never saw it again it wouldn't bother me - there are just loads of better films out there to waste my on! It's a pity because with a bit of imagination and and some subtle changes this could have been a worthwhile film. Instead the director has chosen to almost try and bludgeon his audience into submission with too much over-the-top violence and very little characterisation.

The biggest problem I have is with Snipes' co-star, Silvia Colloca. It baffles me that the producers of this film went to all the bother of hiring a stunning beautiful (for my money anyway) and talented actress like Miss Colloca and then give her such a pathetic one-dimensional character to play with. If she was hired to simply add a bit of \"glamour\" to the movie she doesn't even do that very well; there's no nudity in the film and also no sex scene worth mentioning. Strange, really. Given the amount of violence in this film it baffles me why the producers have taken such a conservative attitude to sex and nudity. Are we living in 2007 or in 1957? What the producers of this rubbish (and probably the actors as well) have forgotten is that films are meant to be fantasies. Like most of the inhabitants of this planet my real life is very boring. I would love to be chasing terrorists, be able to handle myself like Mr Snipes and hook up with a beautiful young thing like Miss Colloca. This film satisfies none of those fantasies very well. Which is precisely why I am giving it such a bad review!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am from Romania ... and for that i apologize if my English is not so good.

i just finished watching this movie and i must say that i am extremely disappointed. I always liked Wesley Snipes's movies but this one is terrible. I regret that I spent over 3 hours downloading this film. There are a lot mistakes in the film. For example, the stadium in the film is not Lia Manoliu. The name of the stadium is Ghencea. The name of the soccer team is called Steaua Bucuresti, not Uli.The scoreboard of the stadium is not capable of showing graphical images: video replays, live images etc. It's a simple scoreboard that can only display letters and numbers. The Uli(Seaua) team's opponents are displayed on the scoreboard as Din ( probably from Dinamo Bucuresti - who are Steaua's main rivals in the Romanian soccer championship). The images from the soccer match are from a match between Steaua Bucuresti and Poli Timisoara (my favorite team and my only love - look it up on the internet and you will see why). The police cars in the movie are not properly made. There isn't a single dark-blue police car in Romania! They are all white! The \"mistake list\" can go on and on and on ... but i will stop here! In short terms this movie is horrible. It does not worth renting it, it does not worth buying a cinema ticket for it, it does not worth downloading it! I honestly feel sorry that Wesley snipes played in this movie. A previous movie of his ... 7 seconds ... also filmed in Romania ... was OK but this is terrible!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, ill be brief. This film wasn't just bad it was very very bad, with line4s like \" if you deal with the devil you expect to get sh*t on your shoes\" you know your in hideous film territory. After watching this film i wanted to kill myself and my entire family, it gave me such a vast feeling of self-loathing I wanted to do murder. don't watch this film. i will kill again. but when I do it will be terribly edited with a pathetic soundtrack and stock shot for hire action sequences and bad shirts.

fortunately there is a flipside, its the first action film to feature a three door ford sierra.

unfortunately it ends up trashed on its roof :(

Ps: Worse than the Marksman","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At first sight, I must say already, watch The Contractor, 2007. With Wesley Snipes too. A better action movie and with a more dramatic plot.

The Detonator has an horrendous plot focusing in some sort of atomic bomb, set in Romania and with awful directing for an action movie-- there is no thrilling moments and an action movie is turned in to boredom.

Really, what you expect Wesley Snipes to do, when awful screenplays like this one are offered to him? Don't blame him, he needs the money.

This was the first impression when I saw the movie, 3 years ago. But I won't see it again, no way. Screw it. It sucks. There. I said it.

PS: I don't think I ever said \"this movie sucks\" on a IMDb review. Thank you, Detonator!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Meh, Sums it all up for me really. Boring story, bland dialogue, dull action scenes (HOW do you make something like a fight or a shootout boring? Do you actually have to TRY to do that?), no real characters etc. Just dull. Snipes is a gifted actor and physical performer but none of this has come to the surface in ANY of his DTV work, when the opportunity is there to give the audience a much more superior product than they are used to. Imagine a decent script with a few solid characters that you care about and some damn explosive action, fights, shootouts, etc. How can it be that hard to handle? My personal opinion is that the primary players in the productions simply do not care. There is no evidence of enthusiasm for what they are doing. Look at Snipes in the first 2 Blades, Passenger 57, Rising Sun, New Jack City, Demolition Man etc? Awesome, intense performances complemented by decent (if not always outstanding) scripts, good supporting casts and wicked action.

None of that is evident in any of these releases so far which is a tremendous shame. The distributors slap Wesley's face on the cover, knowing the audience will lap them up as they haven't realised yet that they haven't seen him in theatres for nearly 2 years.

I'd love to see Snipes work with somebody like Isaac Florentine who really knows how to make the most out of a DTV production, and work with Alpha Stunts who are simply some of the best action guys out there. Together they would all make an awesome team and a Snipes action vehicle we would all be proud of seeing.

Detonator sucks. It's not as bad as The Marksman, which chews, but it still really sucks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes it is your typical direct to video action flick. And of course they do their best to change it up a little bit but fail miraculously. Snipes delivers his perfectly bland performance that he always does. Colloca proves that you don't need any talent to star in a film but just sex appeal. The worst part is that it didn't cover my bad movie basics which are: 1 \u0096 Cheap looking villains. 2 \u0096 Perfectly timed one-liners. 3 \u0096 Intense car chases with massive explosions. 4 \u0096 The hero hooking up with the hot chick. 5 \u0096 Multitudes of nude or scantily clad women for no reason. OK so I lied, it covers those but does so horribly.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It seems that all companies that are enjoy with the taxes taken by Romania for picture,grant the image that disappear since 1994 .They are hardly try to get the oldest car the had founded, but they never take pictures of the Lamorghini,Ferrari,Aston Martin and all new Mercedes that are more the you can find in some important countries.

A second problem is that they filmed in some neighborhoods in Bucharest where they had the possibility of clear the streets and put garbages on dressing people with i don't know maybe '90 clothes a making them seem so stupid that you will realize the script was maybe a second hand bought from ebay or worth.

I wist for future to keep making movies in US and to make good money there than to give us a little bit and shame our country.I have no reason to believe that someone will understand the message(beyond my English---:sorry)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I could hardly stay awake. The acting and the plot were horrible. I like B-movies, but this movie has nothing that could make me laugh or think about. OK, there were two or three funny moments at the beginning, so I have to give this movie 2 out of 10. If you really want to watch it, watch the first 10 minutes. After that you will get more and more disappointed while the movie runs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I like dark humor and non-PC stuff, but not if it is with no purpose but to elevate yourself. Bashing a group of people without any trace of self-irony is crap.

There are people who could make concentration camp jokes funny, but whoever made this film unfortunately failed even in the VERY easy task of making fun about Turks in Germany. It is a very easy task, but if your are the Germany equivalent of an inbred redneck (=inbred Southerner from a village where virginity is often lost to farm animals) you certainly will fail at this and also at life. I have heard and seen so many funny stuff about minorities in Germany, but this \"movie\" (this piece of crap being listed here is an insult to the next worst movie) sucks like the calf the makers of this movie met some years ago.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, let me underline, that Im not a great fan of political correctness. In fact I like satire or dark humor, even if it makes jokes out of minorities. The reason, why Im pretty sure, that this racist piece of work is not worth a look, is that it doesn't make fun of minorities to demonstrate their condition of living, their social circumstances or the way they are treated by society. Moreover it uses every stupid stereotype and prejudice to strengthen xenophobic feelings and reservations. Its really a pity, but not a surprise, that the other comments didn't get that point, cause we all had a cheap laugh. Congratulations.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Any one who writes that this is any good there kid may have worked on it or put money in to this god-awful college experiment. It was lousy, slow, and painful to watch. Running time of only about 84 minutes, it felt like three and half hours. The only person to blame is the director, who knows nothing on how to direct a scene, where to place the camera! 95% of this dreadful movie was shoot by long master shots. Two or three people in the frame talking or yelling forever( or what seems like forever), No close-ups!! No medium shots!!. There are two so-called fight scenes that any filmmaker with a brain would have shoot some close-ups or medium shoots for them. They looked very amateurish. The scenes with the father and son screaming at each other would have worked better if there was a cut away of just the father or just the son acting,or reacting. Tri-C must be very mortified to show this any where. I have seen a bunch of bad movies in my time some of them are fun because they so bad, this is not one of them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is a difference between a \"film,\" and a \"movie.\" A film, regardless of quality, is ready for public consumption. A movie is what a group of friends gets together to make over the course of a weekend with a camcorder. In my time as a viewer, I have seen may examples of both.

On September 19, I attended a screening of writer\/director Jon Satejowski's \"Donnybrook.\" Now having read the script and having seen two different cuts (a rough cut and the \"finished\" product) of this piece, I can safely say it is a movie. And a student movie, at that. It is, for lack of a better word, competent, which is to say, the director knew how to push record on a camera and capture moving images. The visuals are, for the most part, static and unimpressive, and dialog scenes are reduced to mostly long shots, with little to no close up shots to allow the audience to establish a relationship with the characters. I understand that this is a modestly budgeted film, but some visual flair would have been appreciated, and it would have gone a long way toward keeping the audience interested.

Granted, there have been independent pictures that have shown that limited camera work can be over come with well a well written, engrossing story and some sharp dialog. Steven Soderbergh's \"sex, lies, and videotape\" comes immediately to mind. This movie, however, has neither. The main story is weak and unfocused. If the main plot is Davie trying to mend his relationship with his father, then I feel this movie misses the point. What I got out of it is that Davie's main aspiration is to \"change the face of rock 'n' roll.\" However, we see very little activity on his part to show this. While there is one dream sequence at the beginning, and an impromptu performance of his at the end, all we seem to get are scenes of Davie listening to music or casually strumming a guitar. We are simply told that Davie has played a lot of gigs, but we never see him in full rock out mode. Next time, SHOW don't TELL the audience. Anyone who has taken a creative writing class knows this. Also, Davie doesn't look like someone that would have been big in the glam rock era of the 1970's; he looks like he'd be more comfortable in the early days of rock 'n' roll, posing as James Dean's less talented brother. In the meantime, the rest of the movies events seem to happen at random to rather clich\u00e9 characters, and story threads, that have little or nothing to do with the slim main story, are brought up and abandoned with alarming frequency (i.e. the subplot involving Terry's father). If I want to see a film with this kind of haphazard construction, I will consider watching \"Napolean Dynamite\" again, a film I could barely make it through the first time.

As for the above mentioned dialog scenes, I guess I should mention that they are few and extremely far between. Is it too much to ask for characters who do speak? I don't think it is. When the characters do speak, it is in short, choppy sentences; collections of oh so insightful questions, angered grunts or wildly over-the-top outbursts. These characters simply do not behave like normal, rational people. Working with material like this, it is easy to understand why there is only one good performance in the film, Al Hudson's, and that's just because he's doing a poor imitation of Sam Elliott for his time on screen. A good director, or at least one who is ready for the challenge of a feature director, would have been able to spot these problems and get the writer and camera people to correct them. However, with Satejowski being so close to the material, he simply doesn't see them, or, if he does, he is unwilling to take the necessary steps to fix them because it'll hurt his creative vision. Being unable or unwilling to deal with criticism in a constructive manner, is the mark of a self-indulgent, misguided fool. Just ask Rob Schneider.

In the end, we are left with a poor, high-school-set, knock-off of Zach Braff's amazing \"Garden State\" combined with the equally amazing \"Velvet Goldmine,\" two films far more worthy of your time.

Now before any of the cast or crew come out of the word work to take me to task for this review, allow me to offer this. The best I can do is compliment Mr. Satejowski for having the ambition to make a film of his own and to put it out there for an audience to see. However, the hopes that this movie will be picked up and distributed are simply deluded visions of grandeur. This is a student movie, nothing more, nothing less. If the movie holds any promise (and let's face it, at this point, it isn't going to come from the acting, writing, or directing), it is this: If, IF, the people associated with this film are willing, then, please, learn from this movie, file it away, and use the lessons learned on your next attempt; don't attack your critics, or have friend or family do it for you. If you are able to do this, maybe the next one will be worthy of distribution, worthy of being called a \"film.\"

I am your audience, and I am willing to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I go this game and it is alright I guess. I just expected a bit more. The main problem with this is that the hacking is extremely hard, even if you read the instructions you can't get it. Also the graphics aren't as good as Pandora Tomorrow and Double Agent. This game could do with some improvements, it says that if guards are waling in water and you shoot a sticky shocker in the water the guard will fry up but nothing happens. In my opinion this is the worst out of the three. I haven't played the first one but have played Pandora Tomorrow, this and Double agent. This game deserves a 4\/10 though. Could do with some improvements.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My brother-in-law and his wife brought the movie over one night to watch on video. This should have given me the first clue that it would be horrible. It was. From the very first frame to the last this movie is terrible. It does not even quite register as a \"B\" movie. Maybe an N or a P. One of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. From the rubber raptor-on-a-stick to the still-breathing corpses in the car to the beyond horrible closing lines, this movie isn't worth watching if you've received it for free.

Skip this one altogether--unless you want to play Mystery Science Theatre with your friends, it will provide good ammunition.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Roger Corman has enjoyed his shares of cinematic infamy in his illustrious low-budget career, spanning over 300 movies. While few (if any) would call him great, his films' obscure connections to underground culture (via reference, tribute, or influence) have ensured him a warped legacy of sorts. Throughout his career, he has also developed a bad habit of remaking his own films (\"Piranha\", \"Humanoids from the Deep\", \"The Black Scorpion\", etc.), without improving on them in the slightest. \"Raptor\", \"written\" and \"directed\" by \"Jay Andrews\" (Jim Wynorski, the man behind one of my favorite cinematic guilty pleasures, \"Chopping Mall\") takes that practice to a disturbing new low regarding Corman's mid-'90s \"Carnosaur\" trilogy.

\tWynorski's credits are in quotes because \"Raptor\" isn't a tribute to the \"Carnosaur\" films, and not even a remake. \"Raptor\" IS the \"Carnosaur\" films, or at least the film's dinosaur-induced death scenes, haphazardly spliced together with trace elements of the original plot and some newly shot scenes (many of which consist of \"dino's eye view\" shots in a lame attempt to make the inserted scenes look less obvious). The \"new\" material was written around the footage, instead of vice versa, and is totally unremarkable, with huge gaps of logic (e.g. two separate teams are sent in by the military simply so footage from parts 2 and 3, where the soldiers had different uniforms, could be included), which is amazing considering how little logic plays into any of the \"Carnosaur\" films already. The actors' lack of any feeling in their characters (though in fairness, any character dimension is only presented in the script once, maybe twice) brings to mind the terribly wooden acting in 1950's b-films, and it certainly doesn't make anything between the ripped-off attack scenes worth watching. Even more embarrassing for the actors of the new scenes is when there is an obvious discrepancy in the physical build between the new actor and the actor in the original scene. When the only scene evoking any response in a film is the oldest trick in the horror book, the \"spring-loaded animal\", something is seriously wrong.

\tAs it stands, this is a despicable practice in two b-grade figures (who need not worry about ruining their reputations, because they haven't got one) ripping off their own material, for the cheapest and quickest of dirty tricks, simply because they can (why else would anyone feel possessed to rip off a series meant to be a rip off of the \"Jurassic Park\" series?). There isn't much more I can say other than that this film carries my very highest recommendations AGAINST viewing; the only good thing about it (besides gazing at Melissa Braselle's navel) is that now I don't have to see any of the \"Carnosaur\" movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So bad, it's entertaining, especially during cocktail hour, and believe me, you'll need a beer, a drink, or whatever to get through this turkey. Where do they get the financial backing for such paint-by-the-numbers \"horror\" flicks? The fun in this movie is predicting which characters will get eaten and in what order, and trashing the so-called \"uniforms\" the \"military\" jokers wear. The raptors, by the way, are not the same raptors we met in \"Jurassic Park,\" but a cousin species. (Sorry, no spoilers here. You'll have to watch it to find out for yourself) Don't expect the plot to make sense, simple as it is, just go along for the ride. You could make it a game... take another drink each time you hear a certain sound... or better yet, every time someone gets crunched by a \"raptor.\" With a little luck, you won't even remember having seen this \"C-grade\" made-for-TV movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only reason there is a question mark in parenthesis is NOT because I haven't seen every film released in 2001 thus far. It's because this film was only made PARTLY in 2001. The rest of it was stolen from Roger Corman's OTHER dinosaur films, Carnosaur 1-3.

I have a confession to make. \"Carnosaur 2\" is perhaps one of my favorite B-movies. It borrows so much from James Cameron's \"Aliens\" it's not even funny. But I love it. I can't explain exactly why. It just WORKS for me. I liked the sets, I liked the cinematography, I liked how they borrowed from \"Aliens\". It's all a bit ironic that Cameron at one point was an understudy of Corman's, with films like \"Battle Beyond the Stars\" (1980).

I own the Carnosaur trilogy on DVD, and the most I can say for part one is that it has moments. The most I can say for the third is that it took me five years to find it watchable.

Now we have \"Raptor,\" which does NOT continue that series. Instead, it borrows ENTIRE scenes from the Carnosaur Trilogy and BUILDS a movie around it. And somehow Roger Corman was able to get Eric Roberts and Corbin Bernsen to do it. Now, I'm not saying either Roberts or Bernsen are at any kind of career high. But they were both at one point what could be called RESPECTABLE actors. Not here. Sure, actors react to effects they won't even see while filming all the time. Here, however, they are reacting to mismatched footage from films that are between five and eight years old. There's even a sherrif whose costume was modeled directly after a character in \"Carnosaur 1.\" Apparently it made too much sense to get the original guy back.

When \"Raptor\" was announced I was a wee bit excited. I was however disappointed when Corman said that they'd be using the old dinosaur models from \"Carnosaur.\" Apparently Corman decided after this interview was conducted that he wouldn't even do that. And its not that he couldn't find an FX crew to do it. The script for this was clearly written keeping in mind that the story had to be built around pre-existing stock footage.

Don't compare this to Ed Wood. Ed did better than this. At least he only used the stock footage of Bela once, in one film. There are ways of incorporating stock footage into a movie, and \"Raptor\" takes this frowned-upon technique to a new low. Even if you liked \"Carnosaur 3: Primal Species,\" stay away from \"Raptor.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a huge Eric Roberts fan, I collect his movies and so far has get to 60. But I\u00b4m honest to say that sometimes he really makes awful movies. But hey that\u00b4s why I like him - he is entertaining.

But this one has to take the price, I can\u00b4t stop wonder why. Somehow they managed to get Eric and also Corbin Bernsen to the picture.

While Bernsen is plain awful (I really don\u00b4t like him), Roberts manage to be the best thing in the movie (and that doesn\u00b4t mean much). He practically do it on routine basis.

The female lead (Brasselle) looks like a plastic doll and acts like one to. And Tim Abell and his crew looks like action-man plastic dolls and acts like those to.

The plot is really embarrasing. I haven\u00b4t seen any of the Carnosaur movies so I can\u00b4t recall on the footage that has been added from there, but it explains some things. But still there are holes huge as craters in the plot.

SPOILERS ALERT

The first attacks are located outside the laboratory in the woods nearby. But at the end they blow the whole laboratory in pieces and just relax that everything is over, but they forgot about the ones outside??????

When the helicopter pilot is eaten alive I wonder how she couldn\u00b4t notice a T-rex climbing into the chopper????

The guys in orange overalls is my favourite - what are they doing, out for a jogging round or what??

Of course there are a B-movie standard sex-scene with silicon titties involved too. This time it\u00b4s Lorissa McComas that greets us. I don\u00b4t have any problem with that (she looks awful) but to look at a guy squeezing tits and being on the verge of climax for 8!!!! minutes is just tooo long.

Shame on you all (including Eric Roberts) - Now I look forward to watch Con Games (I wonder???)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film was really terrible.

However , it's worth seeing , as it features the worlds most unnecessarily extended sex scene ever. I mean , this thing went on for about 7 - 8 minutes (repeating the same 'moves' over and over), thats almost 10 % of the whole film! I haven't laughed as hard as I laughed at that for a long time.

There were some seriously strange and pointless goings on in this film, but the one that I found funniest was when (for no reason whatsoever) a helicopter lands and 5 or 6 guys in orange suits run in to the complex near the end. 2 minutes later they run out again. What the hell was that for?? Also , the tiny white forklift that magically changed into a huge yellow digger was pretty classic. I'm led to beleive that this is because they used footage from the 'carnosaur' trilogy to patch up this absolute donkey. I'm gonna have to see those now!

The film is worth watching for a laugh or two , but if you dont find bad movies funny, stay away!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is sad. According to my fellow IMDb users, (*SPOILER*) RAPTOR uses stock footage from the Carnotaur films. Well, since I have not seen the Carnotaur movies, I cannot say. But, I do notice some pretty bad editing and even worse acting. This movie is one big steaming pile of s***. It makes absolutely no sense. Here is this thing that calls itself a PLOT: Mad scientist re-creates raptors. Raptors kill people. Sheriff investigates. *SPOILER* (although I don't know what it is that I'm spoiling) Sheriff catches on to mad doctor's plans. Army guys are sent in and raptors start killing army guys. Raptors. Yeah, right. I could make a clay figure that looks more real. The FX are the cheapest ever used in a movie. There is a lot of gore. Cheap gore. It doesn't even look real. I will agree with another person who rated this movie that the only thing this movie has going for it is the fact that it ends. There are about two seconds of originality in this film. And that only comes from when the sheriff is talking to some tax agent on the phone about his electric bill or something. This idea has been used in about 100,000 other movies with 100,000 different names. Overall, I'm gonna give RAPTOR 1\/5 just because it ended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"On the bright side, it ended. That's the only thing this movie has going for it, of course.

This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen some bad ones. This movie is actually so horrible, I went and changed my rating for Children of the Living Dead to a 2 just for not being Raptor.

Official one-liner rating: \"Come with me to another movie if you want to live.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worst film ever, with characters from Carnosaur 1-3 inserted merely to fall to the same demise that they had in the first film, so that footage and special effects could be reused.

Stay away from this debacle.

Corman is ruining his legacy. He made and produced some amazing films - but that era ended with Carnosaur being his last \"creative in its badness\" film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

**********SPOILER ALERT***************

If you happen to like JURASSIC PARK 1, 2, or 3:

If you happen to appreciate really bad movies for their sheer entertainment value if not for their quality (case in point-John Carpenter's DARK STAR-highly recommended)

If you happen to like movies about dinosaurs in general-

THEN STAY AWAY FROM THIS CINEMATIC CRAPSTERPIECE!

The shameless use of stock footage from CARNOSAUR 1 & 2 make up most of this miserable attempt at a dino\/slasher flick- Take the scene, for instance, where the security guard meets his doom at the jaws of the Alpha T-Rex. For some reason, he drops about 50 pounds and appears 10 years younger. Why is that? Simply because this scene was lifted directly from CARNOSAUR, which was a crummy flick to begin with.

The ending was a carbon copy of CARNOSAUR 2, for those unfortunate enough to have sat through that straight-to-video loser. Again, we see Mr. Rex do battle against a bulldozer-which alternates as a forklift truck-through the miracle of -ta-daa!- stock footage from the aforementioned CARNOSAUR 1 & 2. Of course, the ending is exactly the same-the beast falls to his death just as the complex goes up in flames.

A real insult to anyone's intelligence.

But it's still better than watching the ROSIE O' DONNEL SHOW.

Rating: 1\/2* out of *****

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oy vey... Jurrasic Park got Corman-ized. As usual the plot is wafer thin, from 1 foot tall dinosaurs that weigh 150 pounds and leave tracks bigger than they are, to inexplicable science which uses lasers to keep the dinosaurs in check and poultry trucks which have chickens loose in cages large enough for big dogs (I've seen chicken trucks they are all in cages the size of shoe boxes). And all that is in the first 15 minutes of this disaster of a film. All the male actors are imbeciles (thinking a grizzly might be loose in the desert, constantly dropping items to give the raptor an easy kill) and the female actors all look like they just came from a modeling shoot for Fredrick's of Hollywood. The raptor itself is the worst thing since the Hobgoblins (from the movie of the same name), it looks like they had a hand puppet version and a plastic model for the \"motion\" shots. If you want a good movie to sit around and heckle MST3K style, this is gold. If you want competent film making and good acting... don't watch a Roger Corman film. Acting gets a 4 out 10, some of the players upon this stage did try. Story gets a 2 out of 10, it reads like a drunken storytelling session gone bad. Special effects gets a 2 out of 10, I've seen worse, but not many.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is an abortive, stillborn attempt to stitch together several bad movies and make some sort of extra-bad movie. It fails at even this, since there's way too much \"plot\", and not nearly enough goofy puppets and ridiculous gore. Seriously, the puppets are sweet, and the guys in suits crack me up pretty good. The performances are C-grade at best and lame throughout, with special props to the Spec-Ops guy who spoke some sort of bizarre East Coast\/Venusian dialect that was almost impossible to decipher. Not that you really care what he says, as only the curse words are distinct. Cinematographically, it's non-offensive, pretty much what you'd expect from low-rent straight-to-video offal (just like the script). The fact that New Concorde used footage from the \"Carnosaur\" films IS offensive, and quite confusing. For shame, New Concorde. For shame. \"Carnosaur\" is one of my favorite terrible movies, and they somehow screwed it up and made it nigh unwatchable. See the \"Carnosaur\" films if you want to see shoestring dinosaur mayhem.

I give it one star because I am so fond of the movies it steals from, and also because the scale doesn't have a zero.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, I would like to clarify that I consider this one of the funniest films I have ever seen. I have watched it almost 10 times just because I've wished to spread the deliciously tasteless innards of this film to other unsuspecting victims. It has the captivating essence of a hand-held camera recording of a distant nephew's seventh birthday. It has all the writing of a WWE match. And most of all, it has the consistency of a face scraped along a sidewalk. This movie is a masterpiece.

The film begins with an almost instantaneous mutilation of three, drunken teens in the desert. This scene convinced me that I was onto something big when I picked this film from the DVD rack (being drawn to the box because of the graphic of a velociraptor yelling the word \"RAPTOR\" on the front of it). The scene contains such treasures as tomato sauce, spaghetti intestines, vain attempts at humour and rubbery dinosaur puppets that repeat throughout the course of the movie. This movie is a masterpiece.

The film contains erratic backdrops and prop use that causes one's mind to melt at the thought that someone could just have so little shame when it comes to creating a film. An example is when a truck, in the middle of the night, is parked beside a cliff wall. The very next day, they find it in an open grassy area. The driver couldn't have driven it there since he had his face bitten off by an unnamed bipedal carnivore (I will explain why it's unnamed in a second). So, my only guess is that either the velociraptor drove it, the livestock the driver was transporting did it, or Jim Wynorski doesn't think very highly of his viewers. Hell, in one part they expect me to believe that they are walking down a main street at night when the road doesn't have gutters, the fire hydrant is precariously placed next to a phone booth, and there's only a single street light. Yet, still, I feel compelled to watch and re-watch this film, just so I can find more things that will make me giggle the next time I watch it. This film is a masterpiece.

The directing on this film is horrific. Long extended pauses. Strange cuts to characters that weren't even in the general vicinity of the conversation. People discussing things casually while facing the camera (and in turn, making them face the wall). They can't even give the dinosaur a coherent species, flipping between calling it a baby dinosaur and using a rubber velociraptor puppet (distinguished by the intensely long, fat, disproportionate claw). This film is a masterpiece.

The editing is prominent on this film. This is not a good thing. I am well aware that the film is a collection of scenes from other films, masterfully crafted into a single piece of crap, but there has to be a limit! Sub plots end as abruptly as they began. Explanations for the sudden disappearance of characters not being limited to, well, not being explained at all! And an ending that felt like driving a muscle car into a brick wall without a seat belt. You just never know what is going to happen because the film doesn't follow a coherent structure. This film is a masterpiece.

Now, I'm going to just have to mention a single scene (the greatest one) that occurs near the end. This is a spoiler, but not really. The final scene contains a showdown between tyrannosaurus rex and Sheriff Tanner. It is like the showdown between Sigourney Weaver and the Alien Queen in Aliens, except without all the emotional power\/budget\/epic battling. It pretty consists of Tanner ramming the dinosaur with a piece of construction machinery. A white bobcat. In a space of several minutes, through a series of sneakily slipped in cuts, the director manages to turn that white bobcat into a yellow forklift\/crane looking piece of machinery. Now, as I said, I know that this film is made from scenes from other films, but what two films warrant a showdown with a t-rex in a construction vehicle? This film is a masterpiece.

This film gets a 1\/10 for quality of film making, but a 10\/10 for how much it makes me laugh and enjoy myself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The biggest and most disconcerting things of the Raptor movie was ending for the Tyransaurus is identical to Carnosaur except kid in the loader was a bit better acted and action then the adult. The similarities to the Carnosaur movies was rather poor choice in plot line. The only thing that approached good was the beginning with the kids in the jeep. Then the plot went down hill from there. Would have been nice if a different plot had been devised, rather then cloning the earlier movies. The raptor movie should have taken lesson from Jurasic park series in various plots. The only movie that has come close to a good dinosaur movie most recently is Aztec Rex. The repeated scenes as if taken from the Carnosaur movies leaves a person thinking of those movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The defining scene to this movie is when the fat guy quits,but the evil doctor just gives him one more duty,check on the dinosaurs.Keep in mind that he no longer has this job and so is absolutely not getting paid for this.Also keep in mind it's a goddamn dinosaur and the doctor he's supposed to trust is evil and doesn't like him.But he's still like,yeah okay.That just defined the stupidity in this movie.One Melissa Brasselle proves that seriously anyone can bolt on some breasts and be in movies.I can go ride a mountain-bike between them,but hey aside from that the people of Paraguay are very nice.Eric Roberts gives his absolute worst performance so far,there's no adjective to describe how bored he is throughout.Corbin Bernsen saves what there is to save and you start rooting for him,but they have to stick to the formula of course.And I wonder how much your life sucks when you play like,one of the army guys in this one?How low can your acting career go?The special effects are so embarrassingly bad you expect a sign saying \"Studio 3\" to get into the frame.It's not even honest pulp,it's all taken from \"Carnosaur\",which even sucked all by itself.And then I wonder why just anyone is allowed to make a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought a DVD collection (9 movies for 10 Euros) where this one was included. It turned out to be the \"uncut version\" whatever that means. Beside the low average quality and short scenes there was one thing that was really strange - the soft sex scene. It started with a close up of 2 bigger breasts. After around 2 minutes I had an expression on my face which fitted the term \"boooooooooooooring!\" quite perfectly. 7.5 minutes of not even bouncing concrete like tits (at this point the term breasts is a bad choice) is far beyond from entertainment.

The rest of the movie was more like \"people aren't \/that\/ stupid, are they?\"

Lucky me, the DVD was scratched and I got my money back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We all know that the world is full of dodgy, rip-off horror films. Some of these can be fun to watch, due to their stupidity, awful effects and iffy dialogue. But Raptor, which could have been in the same league as the equally pointless Carnosaur series, does not even ATTEMPT to have any enjoyment in it. Its so poorly done, it is really unbearable, even if your just watching it with the intentions of having a no-brain day at home. Where do we start? Well... the sets are pretty drab. My old drama group created more realistic stages. The genetics labs look like they are from a university, and it looks equally unbelievable on the outside (Even for cover-up, why would you place yourself near civilisation where people can easily hear the dinosaur roars), whilst the doctors ward just doesn't look believable at all. Next up in the complaints list is the creature effects; well, what can I say? Absolutely pitiful. Also, I think it's worth mentioning, the woman's tits should be mentioned as an effect. Both of the main female characters have so obviously had boob-jobs, and it brings the characters down, being one female is a respected member of police, whilst the other is the sweet, \"innocent\" daughter of the towns sheriff. The acting, though, is by far the worst tragedy. Eric Roberts can be excused for at least trying a bit to give his role something. Thats where it ends. Corbin Benson should have killed his costume designer for making his lacklustre performance look even more pathetic, whilst the female lead looks SO bored (Though, with this film you could let her off). The other character I'll point out is the daughter, who lets her tits do all the acting in the \"raunchy\" sex scene (Ten minutes of endless re-run shots of her bouncing on top of some bloke).

All in all, and summed up as one. don't bother, just don't.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So I was sick with the flu one Saturday and the silver lining was that SciFi Channel was having a marathon of dinosaur movies that day - the \"Carnosaur\" trilogy, \"Pterodactyl,\" \"Raptor Island.\" Then I flicked ahead on my cable remote to see which movie SciFi placed in its glamorous, Saturday prime-time slot. Some movie I had never heard of before called \"Raptor.\" I was pretty excited. The movie begins with some teens driving around in a jeep, when they get stalked and killed by a Velociraptor. I was like, \"Hmmm, that's odd, that looks almost exactly like a scene in \"Carnosaur,\" except it was in the middle of that movie.\" Then I sat through some really bad acting and then some guy was suckered into walking into an underground research laboratory where he got eaten by a ferocious T-Rex. Now I'm like, \"Wait a second, that was also a scene in \"Carnosaur.\" Then, after I saw some scenes blatantly ripped off from \"Carnosaur 2\", I figured out just what the hell was going on. So basically, Roger Corman & Co. ripped off scenes from the \"Carnosaur\" trilogy to use as the action scenes, weaved in a basic \"dinosaur-runs-amok\" plot, and tried to pass it off as an original movie. Shameful. I don't know who I'm more angry at, Roger Corman or SciFi Channel for trying to pass this off as worthy of the prime-time slot. The only reason why this was worth watching to its conclusion was to pick out the actors\/actresses who looked like their counterparts in the \"Carnosaur\" trilogy and guess which scenes would be lifted next. As much as it pains me, being a dinosaur lover, I have no choice but to give this the lowest possible rating because I feel completely ripped off.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The storyline of this movie is clich\u00e9 and obviously has been ripped off from Jurassic Park. The filmmakers didn't even try to hide that. It seems as though there was not enough budget to make decent dinosaur-dolls, so instead the viewer sees some robot-like toy-dinos (from a cheap toystore) which move in a very unnatural way. It's funny though, because it's so bad. The acting is almost as unnatural as the dinos are. No one seems really excited to be in this movie (which I totally understand). Especially the last half hour is extremely boring and it's almost impossible to watch it without falling asleep. The one positive comment note I'd like to make about \"Raptor\" is that it doesn't take a full 90 minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, lets get one thing straight, i love dinosaur movies, even the bad ones. So with this in mind lets proceed. \"Raptor\" is a truly awful film, in fact its not even a film in its own right as it is cobbled together from bits of \"Carnosaur\", \"Carnosaur 2\" & \"Primal Species - Carnosaur 3\". There is some new footage with Eric Roberts as a sheriff and his busty sidekick running around looking confused, frightened or whatever it is there trying to convey (badly) on the emotional scale but then how can they react to something that was filmed several years earlier. The producers (yes Roger Corman i'm talking about you!) even went to the lengths of hiring 2 people from \"Carnosaur\" to play bit parts so there grisly death scenes can be reused! So this film is the cheapest of the cheap. Watch the 3 original movies, there no Oscar winners but they have some meritt and entertainment value but avoid \"Raptor\". Oh, it also has the most pointless sex scene that runs for nearly 10 minutes! Do you think they were trying to pad out the running time?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie doesn't even deserve a 1\/10 This movie was a scam.

I swear that at least 30 minutes of the film were DELIBERETLY copied from Carnosaur 1, 2, & 3.The whole movie \"Raptor\" was based of the movie and that was really a pathetic attempt to be a \"Thriller, Action Packed, Dinosaur\" copy. I loved that movie series and seeing it be put on a movie that cant even afford or willing COPY it without doing there own models is what America is coming to.I recommend you see the Carnosaur movie FIRST (all of them) and then watch this, and you will know what I mean.

- Spencer","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I understand that Roger Corman loves to do things on the cheap, but this is just sad. I purchased this flick from the dollar bin at my local video store not a month after watching the original Carnosaur. I was blown away; It was the same damn movie, with just some Corbin Bernesen spliced in! It reminded me of all of those 80s ninja movies that took old Kung Fu movies and spliced in a bunch of white ninjas running doing cartwheels with the word \"ninja\" written on their headbands (if you haven't seen them, check out \"Ninja Terminator\", \"The Thundering Ninja\", \"Black Dragon\" and \"Ninja Warriors\"). Thanks Roger Corman; you just made me waste a dollar.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A gut-ripping baby T-Rex is on the loose in a small western town, prompting sheriff Eric Roberts and animal control agent Melissa Brasselle (who walks through her role in a very disinterest fashion) to get to the bottom of things. They discover that a mad scientist (Corbin Bernsen) is, unbeknownst to the government sponsorship, continuing on with a long-abandoned US research project called Operation Jurassic Storm (ha!) by creating an army of dinosaurs in a secluded underground lab facility. Before long, our heroes become trapped inside, the marines are called in, the power goes out and the dinos are set free to make a quick lunch of everyone they can get their claws and jaws on.

Despite an often infuriatingly inept script full of plot holes, character inconsistencies and loose ends, this direct-to-video copy of JURASSIC PARK and CARNOSAUR is fairly digestible trash, thanks to good production values, passable FX, the occasional laugh and plenty of brainless action.

Someone pointed out that an opening scene in this film was stolen from CARNOSAUR, but anyone used to watching Roger Corman productions knows he allows directors to liberally reuse clips from his early films to save both time and money.

Score: 3 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why isn't this movie on the bottom 100? Raptor is, without a doubt, the worst movie I have seen in all of my fifteen years of life. I have never before witnessed such a catastrophic mess as this. Absolutely everything about it is awkward and cheaply done.

Nobody in the cast gives a somewhat decent performance. The dialogue is utterly incoherent and the humor is anything but humorous. Corbin Bernsen was the most painful part of the whole thing. I can't help cringe when I recall some of his lines, like \"In or out? You're worse than a cat!\" and \"Your lady friend isn't a very good poker player. She's just revealed her hand.\"

The raptors are a joke. Even I could make more realistic dinosaur effects than these filmmakers have shamelessly done. It is an insult to the actual velociraptors, or any dinosaur for that matter. Not only that, but the killing scenes are too gruesome even for me. I don't seriously think these animals would rip their victim to shreds and throw pieces all over the ground just to make everything look gorier. Besides, the blood and guts are all useless when you can see the deaths coming from miles and miles away.

I am a big fan of Jurassic Park movies and of dinosaurs. Maybe the filmmakers didn't anticipate anybody with a shred of intelligence or sense to disregard bad filmmaking to stumble upon this movie on HBO late at night, like I did. If I could say one thing to anybody involved in this film, I would have to quote Dr. Alan Grant from the first Jurassic Park...

\"Just try to show a little respect.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Screen treatment of the comedic Broadway success \"The Gay Divorce\" (a title which was considered too scandalous for American moviegoers, though it was used in the U.K.) concerns a man and woman (Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers) meeting under embarrassing circumstances while she's in the process of divorcing her spouse; they dance, argue, make up, dance, argue some more and dance some more. Betty Grable is very appealing in a brief bit (singing and dancing in the number \"Let's K-nock K-nees\" with overtly sissified Edward Everett Horton), but the star-couple looks distressed and unhappy throughout. The surroundings are screwball-sophisticated yet the characters are not more than one-dimensional. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Films about the mundane are often the most interesting of all films to me, in the hands of an insightful artist who examines all the twisted little details of the mundane. The French cinema seems to often be very good at this sort of thing, and I love the French cinema.

This film was about the mundane. It didn't have a much of a plot. It was just characters who lived in a town, very normal people, and stuff just happened. But it wasn't very interesting stuff, and it wasn't examined very insightfully. The film did capture a bit of a mood, but it wasn't a particularly captivating mood. And while I can't think of much that the film did specifically wrong, it failed on just about every level to do anything right.

There were a lot of characters in this film. A lot of them kind of looked alike, so it was hard to figure out who was who, and what were their relations to one another. I don't mind putting some effort into understanding a film, or even watching an especially complex film more than one time to iron out the details, but this one was a puzzle not worth the solving for me.

The only good thing I can really say about this film is that the cinematography was pleasant--functional, not brilliant, but pleasant. The camera often captured some nice postcard-type shots. But it rarely found the really interesting little details.

I've seen a handful of not-so-good films so far at the Seattle International Film Festival, but this was the only one that failed to get any applause when the credits rolled. I sensed a big collective sigh of relief when the film was finally over. But I suppose there are probably some people out there who would like it.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The death of a performer at a Broadway stage play brings a theatre critic and a police detective together as an unlikely crime-solving duo. The dead performer's niece becomes not only the object of affection for our critic, but also a prime suspect in this death, and some other murders that occur at the theatre. 'The Phantom Killer' sets his sights upon the young woman as his next victim; so, it is a race against time for our heroes to catch the killer,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Milton Raison's screenplay puts a little spark in this low-budget mystery whodunit. Helpfully, Dave O'Brien (as Anthony \"Tony\" Woolrich) does well in the lead role; his skills as an actor appear to be much greater than the productions employing him. O'Brien and cab driving sidekick Frank Jenks (as Egbert \"Romeo\" Egglehoffer) would have made a fine 1950s TV detective team. Leading lady Kay Aldridge (as Claudia Moore) and the supporting cast are also good. Unfortunately, the story becomes meandering, and anti-climactic.

**** The Phantom of 42nd Street (5\/2\/45) Albert Herman ~ Dave O'Brien, Kay Aldridge, Frank Jenks","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a semi fictional memoir of an \"international man\" who have witnessed various political upheavals in recent 30 years.

I was hoping that this film would offer unique insight into politics and war. I was also hoping that it would be touching and affecting. However, I was disappointed by this film. \"Chico\" seemed fragmentary, with the main character, Ricardo, staying in one country for 10 to 20 minutes. As could be expected, no detailed storyline could be elaborated in such time frame. The excuses of him moving to another place were often perfunctorily explained. The result was a disappointing collection of fragmented clips shot in various countries.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"My Blue Heaven\" is boring. The plot is insipid; the characterizations and dialogue stink; the musical numbers, while occasionally staged in interesting ways, are not only too often absurd, but also lyrically trite, painfully bright, and emotionally hollow to the core. The leads, Betty Grable and Dan Dailey, are attractive professionals; however, in spite of their every talented effort to uplift the drear and uncompelling material, they fail. David Wayne and Jane Wyatt, for all their demonstrated talent in other projects, are more or less cyphers here.

There's really only one reason to watch \"My Blue Heaven\". One reason...one star: Mitzi Gaynor, in her film debut. Her total screen time is probably less than ten minutes, but so what? Her pert and promising screen personality, her feline beauty, and her exceptional charisma shine through gloriously and make these minutes the most watchable, memorable, and exciting moments in the entire film. If you would value an opportunity to see a tremendous young talent on the rise, then check out Miss Mitzi Gaynor in \"My Blue Heaven.\"

Incidentally, I scorn (and would urge you to avoid) Drew Casper's manic, obsessive-compulsive DVD commentary for this film. Wordy, digressive, unduly fastidious, frequently ill-timed with what is playing on the screen, and galloping throughout with an excess of nervous energy, his comments are absolutely indigestible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...and in this series, I've been reduced to an annoying jock with a gay hairstyle. Remember my friend Marco, who got all the good lines in the books? Well, in this series his one-liners put Mr. Freeze to shame. Remember our uber-evil nemesis Visser Three? He's a bald guy with inane catchphrases. Remember Rachel, \"Xena, the Warrior Princess\", and Cassie, my sensitive and caring love interest? They've been turned into mindless bimbos by the 10 (!) writers who decided the original characters weren't cool enough for TV. Remember the awesome extra-terrestial Ax, who was cool, intelligent, and really, really liked cinnamon buns? In this series he's the Token Alien with an extremely annoying voice. Remember the witty banter our team had in the books? In this series our dialogue is so dreary and stupid it's obvious the writers were pandering to the lowest common denominator.

So forget everything you thought you knew about the Animorphs! It was Cassie who became allergic to morphing, not Rachel, thought-speak is *supposed* to echo, and Visser Three and Ax, rarely, if ever, appeared as Andalites (no, it has nothing to do with the budget!).

I'm not crazy. And I'm not lying. The jerks are all around us. And if you're unlucky, one of them might adapt one of your favourite books, or series, or graphic novels, into a really awful TV show. You've been warned.

\"Finally... television worth watching.\" ~ (the very bald) Visser Three

(r#91)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ah Animorphs. I loved the book series and eagerly devoured each one in middle school and when I heard that there was a television adaptation, I was very excited.

Boy what a let down the final product was. I think for me, this was the moment when Nickelodeon stopped being about cool programming and more generic.

So what was wrong with the series? Let me count the ways: 1. The characters were HORRIFICALLY miscast. In the books, the Animorphs were somewhere between 12-14, the television cast were at least 18. I remember being horrified when I first saw the cast photos.

2. Horrific acting\/bad writing. I dunno which was to blame so I'm lumping into the lumpy mass that it was. Perhaps it was the fact that the accelerated age of the cast hampered the humor that is at least cute coming out of a 13 year old because Marco - not funny. In fact, I don't remember a single comical moment from the group and there were a few. The actors were certainly not helped by the writing which was bland at its best and head smackingly pathetic at its worst.

3. My lord they were stingy with the budget. The final result of the Andalites alone should have convinced Viacom to pull the plug...Their heads had clefts that clearly showed which was the helmet.

4. Back to the cast - Rachel by far was the biggest let down, far from being the warrior woman in the books, the best equivalent in the TV series was \"scarecrow\". Also, I know Cassie was an idealist but there is a difference between \"idealist\" and \"idiot\".

5. One of the worst opening titles ever. Did the music have to be THAT obvious? 6. Answering question 6, \"yes\" because everything else was dumbed down so why shouldn't the expectedly less intelligent viewers receive a thick as a brick song from a lame rap-rock rip-off or whatever the hell that was.

Since then, there have been bigger let downs (Iraq, 2004) but in case I haven't made myself clear - this show sucked and was an abomination to the book series it was supposed to be based from.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'd liked the Takashi Miike films I'd seen so far, but I found this pretty disappointing. I'd bought it, but I won't be keeping it.

I saw it on the Adness DVD, which has just two episodes. In the first, a killer abducts women, cuts the top of their skull off to expose the brain, plants them in the ground up to their chin, and plants a flower in the brain. You can tell that from the DVD box. In the movie, the top of the head is digitally blurred out by TV static. Had you not seen the DVD box, the viewer wouldn't know what people were looking at until later a young cop produced a small model of the body. Oddly, there is also a flash frame later on of the woman's head and it is not censored. Apart from this, I'm not really sure what was going on. Some women get phone calls, and a sketchy animated character cavorts around when that happens. An animated character also appears on TV screens sometimes. It's unclear if anybody sees it.

In the second episode, pregnant women are being found cut open and their babies are missing. Again, a cop produces a model of what the corpses are like, which is helpful since again the actual body is censored. There is also a natural birth in the movie, but oddly even that baby and the umbilical cord are censored! According the the DVD box, uncensored versions were not kept when this was originally made. Perhaps even if they had, if they knew they were going to be censored, maybe they didn't bother actually showing anything...? Not sure.

If I hear the later episodes are better, maybe I'll look for them. As it is, I won't bother.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Much of the commentary on this board revolves around debating the validity of some comparison to R DOGS made on the DVD cover. Forget about all of that... This film-- er-- home movie is utterly horrendous. How can anyone with a shred of credibility claim this as being 10\/10??? There is no plot, none. I couldn't believe that I spent money to rent this (more on that later) and that I had fooled myself into believing that this (based on box cover art and some sort of film fest award blurb) had potential. The only thing I do really remember was that, unbelievably, one of the annoying main characters was supposedly offed with a bullet to the head... and he ends up surviving the wound and making it to the final credits alive. Wow. And looky dere, Killers has a sequel. Double wow.

True story -- I actually was in so much denial that I had wasted my money and life force on this rental that I kept the videotape for what must've been six months. I kept telling myself that it never actually happened. The video on top of the TV was an illusion - a mental symbol of my self-loathing. After someone pointed out that is was indeed real and that I needed to get a grip, I decided that I couldn't just leave it there. I thought, \"How many others have I denied the suffering of sitting through the viewing of this masterpiece by hoarding Killers all to myself?\" I had to do the right thing and return it back to the hell from which it came.

So, as I imagine most of the populous of IMDb would do in a similar situation, I mustered up some major courage and drove to the video store... at 2AM. After making sure that no one was around, I got out of my car (still running of course), slipped the movie into the drop box slot, and booked the hell out of there never to return.

I guess I expected that some goons from Hollywood Video corporate would come looking for me (the bill must've racked up to something like $1,238.67 by that time) so I moved away from the area. However, coincidently, much like the Killers storyline, nothing ever happened.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...but you can see it from here.

I definitely don't understand why anyone would recommend this movie. Not a bit of plot, not suspenseful, not well-made. No point to having made it, really.

Completely forgettable in ever way.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is an embarrassment. Nothing works on any level. The direction, screenplay, acting , and editing work together to repel your eyes from the screen. Everything is inappropriate and incoherent. At first you can sit there with and groan, wince, and laugh at it, but very shortly the whole effort of watching just becomes too ponderous.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has got to be one of absolute worst movies I've ever seen in my life. The writing and acting are just pathetic. It ranks right up there with Uncle Sam on the all time worst movies ever made. However, when I see crap like this able to make it to video, it really inspires me to pursue my wild dreams of making films because I know I could do a better job than what the makers of Killers did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's just say that it might be the worst movie I've ever seen. On the front of the box of the movie it says something about it resembling Reservoir Dogs. I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. This is just a warning message to anyone who might read this. It's not even worth renting when you want something to laugh at.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Imagine an exploitive remake of The Defiant Ones with a black chick and a white chick attached to each other. Set the story on some Caribbean island where the drug dealers rule and the revolution has arrived. And have the black woman be from Huggy Bear's stable of ladies and the white woman be a watered down Patty Hearst and you've got Black Mama, White Mama.

In those waning days of the drive-in theater this item must have been a big old hit. All the hot buttons of the Seventies are pushed in this one. Even though they both fill out their clothes better and will get a few whistles from the males in the audience no one is ever going to mistake Pam Grier and Margaret Markov for Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis. All right, Halle Berry and Jamie Lee Curtis.

Margaret and Pam are prisoners where the guards and the warden look lasciviously at the new fish arriving. Margaret is a rich girl from the state who took up 'the revolution', whilst Pam's your basic high priced call girl who's been servicing the local drug kingpin and grew tired of it and tried to leave the island.

Margaret's fellow revolutionaries ambush the bus transporting them from the women's prison to town, but they get lost in the escape. Both have their different agendas, but like Sid and Tony they can't quite agree on whose agenda comes first. Makes for some interesting times as the police, the drug dealers, and the revolutionaries are all looking for these two illfated chain buddies.

Just so you don't get any wrong ideas the head of the revolutionaries and Markov's kanoodling partner is named Ernesto played by Filipino actor Zaldy Zshornack. The whole mess was shot in the Phillipines who were getting their own film industry started.

Nice location photography in the Phillipines is all that Black Mama, White Mam has to recommend it. But if you're a fan of really bad black exploitation flicks, this is one for you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some of the films produced by Roger Corman's New World film company in the 1970s represent the best kind of B-movie, where the limitations of the genre actually act as a kind of freeing influence on the writers and directors \u0096 such classic drive-in films as \"Deathrace 2000\", \"Hollywood Boulevard\", \"Grand Theft Auto\" and \"Caged Heat\" emerged from this environment. Unfortunately, his former confederates at American International Pictures were running out of steam in the 1970s, particularly in the absence of Jim Nicholson, and they often produced second rate imitations of Corman's films, sometimes featuring his self-made stars. \"Black Mama, White Mama\" is one of those films. It's basically a cheaper imitation of \"The Big Doll House with some of the same stars doing a lot of the same things. Yes, this is a John Ashley co-production (yes, the same John Ashley who was the hilarious Elvis wanna-be in \"How to Make a Monster\" and paired up with Debbie Walley in \"Beach Blanket Bingo\") with all the signature marks of his productions \u0096 women's prisons where everyone except maybe 2 or 3 lead characters including the inmates and the guards are Filipino actors in mostly non-speaking roles, where we see supermodel-type women taking on the roles of revolutionary militants, and where the primary joy of the film is derived through rudimentary S&M exploitation.

The print I saw most recently was horribly light-damaged (good ole Will Viharo described it as \"Yellow Mama, Yellow Mama\"), but I think even in the best conditions the photography and directing are extremely routine. There's also very little visual value here\u0085 Corman must not have had very much to do with the film itself because he was always canny enough to at least give his films some extra production value by filming in free public spaces that would make the film look more impressive. This film doesn't look impressive, it doesn't have an impressive soundtrack, and you just feel embarrassed for anyone who shows a shred of talent. The only remotely interesting performances come from Pam Grier as a feisty whore out to escape the life, Filipino actor Dindo Fernando as her grotesquely self-indulgent pimp, and Sid Haig as a cowboy styled mercenary. The story places Grier and co-star Margaret Markov in a low budget female version of \"The Defiant Ones\", but does very little with the melodramatic possibilities afforded by that premise. It's basically just an excuse to ensure that the two protagonists can still stop for a good mud wrestling match while they're trying to escape the prison together. This is all in the spirit of good fun, but the film ultimately fails even as exploitation because there's a certain edge and rawness that should be present in such scenes that is instead replaced under this director's hand with a kind of yawning predictability.

So the film will have little value for fans of hard-core exploitation value \u0096 at least in the version I saw it's no more explicit than \"Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!\" from over a decade earlier, and far less interesting visually and thematically. For those who just enjoy getting a laugh out of \"so bad it's good\" films, this one might provide some fun but it's not in the upper tier. People would be more advised to seek out \"Caged Heat\" or some of the others that revel in their own brutality to the point that it becomes camp; this one is more similar to less ambitious efforts like Cirio Santiago's \"The Muthers\". Sadly, the best thing about this particular film is the title and the presence of Pam Grier, who was better in other films around the same time (particularly Jack Hill's \"Coffy\"). This film perhaps illustrates a midway point in Miss Grier's journey from Corman secretary to B-movie Queen-For-A-Day, but other than its historical \"significance\" as such it will have little value even to Grier's big fans because she is given very little to work with here.

Worth skipping, unless of course you get to see it in a movie theater with a lot of friends and a lot of beer like I did. And even then its value is questionable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"And you'd be right. Black Mama, White Mama, also known as 'Women in Chains,' is exactly the kind of trashy and crappy b-movie that the premise suggests. Pam Grier has been thrown into a prison on a small island with a lot of other women, and this place seriously makes the summer camp where Martha Stewart is locked up right now look like a maximum-security prison. It's not five minutes into the movie that one of the hottie guards utters the line 'Strip 'em and get 'em wet,' and then we are introduced to a prison life that resembles some college freshman's fantasy of what the inside of a sorority house is like.

The prisoners soap and rub and wrestle with each other in the shower like it's a Girls Gone Wild shoot, then they all hang out together in their dorm, openly smoking pot and discussing in a big group what would be the best ways to escape. I've never been to prison myself, but I have a feeling that escape plans are the kind of thing that you want as few people as possible to know about, prisoners or guards or otherwise. The biggest difference between this prison life and some fantasy sorority life is that the women in this movie all wear orange cardigans (and no pants. Go figure) that say PRISON on the back. Must be those generic prison outfits for prisons that can't afford pricey accessories like their prison name or prisoner numbers for their uniforms.

And as is to be expected, a prison that can't afford to put prisoner identification on the backs of the uniforms can obviously not expect to be able to find guards that are interested in guarding the prisoners as much as they are in having sex with the prisoners and each other.

The conflict of the movie's title refers to the fact that Lee Daniels (Pam Grier) spends much of the time handcuffed to a blonde prisoner named Karen as they are on the run from the cops after escaping from the prison. I won't go into details about how they escape except to say that you might have seen something like it in The Fugitive had they been unable to afford to stage a train wreck, and it leads into the muddled story of the conflicting interests also chasing these two women for different reasons. Karen and Lee both have their own gangs of people each hoping to rescue their respective escaped prisoner, and the cops are after both of them all the while.

(spoilers) So Karen is involved with a bunch of hippies that want to Revolutionize Life As They Know It. Meanwhile, Karen just wants to get off the island, something she's been trying to do for years, and isn't it just perfect that they each need to go to completely opposite sides of the island in order to fulfill their goals. So we get this odd couple pairing and, since they are an odd couple, it's not hard to predict that they will hate each other for the vast majority of the film but grow fond of each other by the end.

In a movie with so many conflicting interests, especially when those conflicting interests not only propel the two main characters in opposite directions as they pursue their goals, it is not unreasonable to expect that there will be a climactic moment involving the rival gangs at some point in the movie. Not about to leave anyone unsatisfied, they throw in a stupid gang standoff at the end of the movie, where everyone shoots machine guns at each other, killing each other en masse while the two women paddle safely and calmly across the river in a little boat. Nice.

Even better, at the end of the movie, after a huge massacre in which lots of people get shot and spurt bright red paint all over the place, the Captain of the police looks over the masses of dead criminals covered in awful, awful special effects, and we learn that he will be a Major before dinner. Not a bad way to end the movie, the criminals all kill each other off and the cops get all the credit, but here is the last line in the film \u0096 'It's better to win, isn't it?'

Is THAT why the Captain is going to get promoted to Major? Because he figured that out???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot for Black Mama White Mama, revolves around two female inmates, at a women's prison in the Phillipines. One Black, and one White. These two women, are thrown together in the prison. Pam Grier is Lee Daniels Lee is incarcerated in the hellish women's prison, for dancing as a harem girl.

Lee's boyfriend owes her part of his profits, from his drug-dealing activities. Lee is mainly interested in breaking out of the prison to get hold of her beau's drug money, so that she can leave the Phillipines and assume a better life. Margaret Markov plays Karen Brent, a white women from a privileged background, who is also a revolutionary. Karen has joined a group of revolutionaries, determined to change the corrupt Phillipino political system. She's captured by Phillipino authorities, and held as a political prisoner.

The story-line takes-off, when Karen and Lee break out of the prison they were in together. The two of them also happened to be chained together at the wrist. As they flee, they also fight with each other, because they have different goals to pursue. Naturally, they hate being chained together. But they also realize that they must put aside their differences, to help each other survive while they evade capture.

If this film seems very similar to The Big Bird Cage, it's because much of the cast in the two films is the same, as well as their location in the Phillipines. Roger Corman, has always had a consistent stable of actors, that he used in all of his 70s B movies. Besides Pam Grier, Sid Haig, Roberta Collins, Claudia Jennings, Betty Anne Rees, and William Smith, were also among the many actors that were frequently cast, in Corman's AIP films.

Like The Big Bird Cage, Black Mama White Mama, relies on too much gory violence to be palatable. Pam Grier conveys her usual tough chick persona in this film, and shows her competence as a female action heroine. Margaret Markov is less effect, in her portrayal of the revolutionary Karen. She just seems to fragile and well-coiffed, to be a dedicated political guerrilla. Except for Sid Haig, as the colorful Ruben, the rest of the cast is forgettable.

This film has little entertainment value, unless excessive, heinous acts of violence are your thing. Only the performances by Pam Grier and Sig Haig, make this film worth watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one heck of a sleazy film. Like so many \"women in chains\" films, this one is chock full of lesbianism. However, unlike most prior films, which strongly implied this, BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA shows an awful lot of skin as a horny female prison guard leers at the women as they shower as well as has sex with one of the inmates. For the early 1970s, this is definitely a soft-core pornographic film--sort of like GIRLS GONE WILD GOES TO PRISON! It's also a bad rip-off of THE DEFIANT ONES, though in this case it's two hot females who hate each other who are chained together when they escape. Whereas the original film is considered a classic, this one can only be considered a classic example of bad taste. That's because there is no subtlety and the movie is just cheap--cheap thrills, cheap writing and very cheap acting.

Pam Grier is the \"black inmate with an attitude\"--a lady who was set up and sent to prison on this hellish island. Margaret Markov is a revolutionary. When they escape, they both can't stand each other and have opposite goals. However, since it is clich\u00e9-driven, there's really no surprise in how the film ends--with their both becoming (gag me) friends.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The title pretty much lets you know what you're getting. It's a grade-C howler but not as blatantly funny as I was hoping. Directed by exploitation film specialist Eddie Romero from a story that originally came from Jonathan Demme (long before directing \"Silence of the Lambs\" and \"Philadelphia\"), this low-budget 1972 action movie was obviously filmed in the Philippines but set in some anonymous third world country. Playing hooker and small-time drug dealer Lee Daniels, blaxploitation superstar Pam Grier plays the first half of the title role, while long-forgotten Margaret Markov is the other half, Karen Brent, an unlikely Patty Hearst-like political revolutionary looking to partner with her comrades to overthrow the oppressive local government. Naturally antagonistic toward each other, they are in a women's prison camp where they wear inexplicably bright yellow mini-skirts as uniforms. Run by a closeted warden and lecherous matron, the prison is just an excuse for a lengthy shower scene and some half-hearted cat-fighting as Lee and Karen are pitted against each other. Of course, they escape but shackled together a la \"The Defiant Ones\" and continue the cat-fighting until they attack a couple of nuns to steal their habits.

Meanwhile, various groups of unsavory men are in pursuit - the loutish drug lord looking for Lee who stole $40K from him, the rather passive revolutionaries looking for Karen, and the incompetent police (who suffer the humiliation of exposing their privates to the drug lord). Needless to say, everything eventually comes to a head but not before gratuitous nudity by a number of Filipino women, a dog wears Karen's panties and some of the worst of 1970's men's fashion (one beer-bellied revolutionary wears a leather halter top with a straight face). There is a rather sad ending, but what's truly sad is how much of the potential black comedy is missed entirely in this hilariously preposterous exercise. Sadly, Grier is disappointing in this outing because her character is not allowed much to do beyond dealing with all the \"jive\", while Markov is an Amazonian blonde whom I am convinced is trying desperately to be credible. Since no one displays any talent for acting, the rest of the cast is not worth noting, except balding, bug-eyed Sid Haig, who uses his standard psycho persona as the drug lord. The 2003 DVD contains only the original trailer as an extra.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pam Grier is the super soul sister of the 1970's, appearing in many blaxploitation films that have recently been discovered and appreciated by a new generation. I can safely say that BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA may be the worst Pam Grier movie I've ever seen.

Grier is Lee and Margaret Markov is Karen; they are two female prisoners who escaped from prison after Karen's revolutionary friends attacked the paddy wagon. Chained to each other, the film becomes THE DEFIANT ONES for women, but has three separate plots: a fat criminal (Filipino sleaze star Vic Diaz) wants Lee dead, a cowboy bounty hunter (the excellent Sid Haig) searches for the two girls; and Karen's revolutionary friends search for her. The film eventually becomes so convoluted and uninvolved with the two women that the title should have been MEN CHASING WOMEN. Grier, an action star, is not given any chance to participate in any of the many (overlong) action scenes. Markov is excellent as Karen and Grier is OK as Lee, but both are eventually forgotten in the many subplots. One interesting scene has the bounty hunter forcing a police officer and his chief to drop their pants so he can shoot the one with the smallest penis (judged by his whore), but is easily forgotten amidst all the mayhem.

BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA starts out great as a women-in-prison film complete with lesbian wardens and a shower scene, then completely switches to a chase film. If director Eddie Romero (famous for directing Filipino horror films) had just stuck with the WIP theme, he would have been fine. Instead, BMWM gets real old real fast and the surprise ending just makes the audience wonder why they sat through a 90-minute film for it to end like this! Another problem: where is the film supposed to be set? While some of the accents are Hispanic and cities have Spanish names (Los Robles, etc.), all the natives are obviously Asian! Hmmm... Recommended only for die-hard Grier fans, who even then will be disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you find the hopelessly amateurish acting, the uninteresting story, the fake blood and all the mindless shooting bearable, then you may actually have a fairly good time watching this trashy, low-rent exploitation film. You might also want to check out a pretty good catfighting sequence that's offered, although it's not good enough to make the rest of the movie worth sitting through. (**)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worst part about this film is that it did not have to be so terrible.

They had a nice budget, though so do many films; they made it look slick and pretty, and best of all they had the 21st century lesbian-savvy audiences who would embrace a lesbian positive film... and yet the writer and director went out of their way to lift every single redone film bit about lesbian torment and confusion at boarding schools, (you know, the place all lesbian love lives and dies).

This is a theme that has been done again and again and AGAIN in film, but something that viewers-if one uses this voting forum as a clue- cannot seem to get enough of.

Every element of this story was so over the top, excessively phony and contrived that it was painful to sit through. The lead characters say it all: the crazy, abandoned, genius, rebel lesbian tough girl (well, they took a super pretty femme like Piper Perabo and tried to rough her up, but it didn't stick much) seduces pretty rich girl who is destined to betray her.

Watching them every step of the way is character 3, a dopey, well-meaning, wide-eyed, good girl observer. I say 'every step' because she shares her every thought with the audience via the stiffest, most inane monologues.

Her lines seem to have been WRITTEN by a fifteen year old, though they are trying oh so, so hard to sound like how a fifteen year old would really, um, you know, well... talk. \"Hearing them (make love) with their noises was um, you know, like, well... okay!\" she says about her 2 wanton roommates, who roll around in the bed next to her.

Later she asks Graham Greene- the accomplished native American actor who is completely wasted in a roll as a gardener (!) \"Is it wrong to care what people think?\"

Sorry, but is she a teenager, or is she age 7?

Granted, Piper Perabo (as Polly the tortured dyke) & others do an okay job for the horrible lines they are forced to utter. Perabo has a nice energy level and is obviously very comfortable in front of a camera. She would do well in a decent project, so this is in no way a criticism of the acting.

But this story is SHAMELESS in perpetuating every single stereotype about lesbians all rolled into one character. They couldn't stop with her (Polly) being an angry, crazy-passionate, secret genius who finished math problems for the speechless teacher. Oh but that's after she argues with the teacher who dares accuse her of \"gabbing\".

\"That's a word THEY (males) use against US (women)!\" she says, stomping out of the classroom.

Is this ALL the writer could come up with? Or maybe we should ask: Why stop there?

Poole and co. went on and made Polly a poetic dark child who communicates with wild hawks by screaming their name in the woods.

Cue the slow motion, sci-fi, Xena atmosphere!

Then we have her writing to her birth mother... (most lesbians are love-starved orphans, in case you were in the dark).

Then we have two teachers (one uptight, one a zany type with loose neck ties) who hover around all of the action (the school looks awfully big for just 2 teachers)... and give dark child\/ seductress\/bird girl tense looks. Hmmmm. I wonder if something well, you know... um, FUNNY is happening between these TWO TEACHERS??????

There is simply no excuse for something this poorly done. Heartbreak happens, but surely the writer and director know that lesbians exist in much more sophisticated times than this schlock.

I cannot reveal the ending out of respect to those who force themselves to sit through til the end, but if you are not laughing, I can only guess you are crying. And not for the right reason. And I don't mean the wimpy make out scenes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you think it's beautiful to be obsessive about who you are in love with, then I can imagine giving it a good rating... but I cannot imagine that this theme of obsessiveness and having little respect for others (such as the way Paulie treats the teachers who try to help her) is anything you would want to teach your children. Yes, it's also bad the way Victoria treated Paulie, but guess what. That's life. Isn't it a more important lesson to learn how to get past these disappointments and make the best of your life? Or is falling off the roof a better lesson to teach our children? Secondly, when Mary's father didn't show up for the dinner, and Paulie helped Mary release her anger, that Mary even said she wished he were dead... Somehow I don't think this is a good message either that you deal with your disappointments through anger.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, that's what this should have been called, anyway. Mainly, due the the ridiculous, ham-fisted use of what can barely be called symbolism by the director. It would not have surprised me to find out that this was A) One of Lea Pool's earliest efforts, and B) at least semi-autobiographical. Turns out A is wrong, although I don;t know about B. I will bet she attended boarding school, though, and had a rather terrible same-sex relationship of SOME kind. This is the message that was beat down our throats by this film, and the short film which preceded it, the name of which I no longer recall.

At any rate, the character development was clumsy (Who introduces herself by saying what her name means? Nobody.) the symbols were about as subtle as an all-glass elevator full of teen-age girls losing a cable and plummeting eighty stories. All over a loudspeaker. Honestly, the cry of a falcon when Perabo declared she was a raptor and leapt off the table? That was ridiculous to the point of parody. And it was only one of far too many symbols meant to show even the dumbest of viewers what her point was. And that was that she had a crappy childhood and feels the need to make movies about it, ala Vincent Gallo, instead of seeing a therapist, ala all of us who get on with our lives. There was nothing tender, nothing sweet, and nothing moving about this film. It was poorly enacted trash, and the actors could not save the Brett Ratneresque over the top \"HEY THIS IS MY POINT IN THIS MOVIE\" use of film techniques, writing, and acting. Sorry, but it was terrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ken Burns' \"Baseball\" is a decent documentary... it presents a clear origin of the game, a great depiction of baseball's early years and heroes. There's plenty in this movie for any baseball fan... that said, the film has several glaring flaws.

18 hours is simply too long for the human attention span. It's clear that Burns stretched his film out to fit his \"nine inning\" concept. It's not even a tight 18 hours... the pace on every segment is slow, almost morose... the music always nostalgic and wistful. Isn't baseball ever exciting and fun? Why is every player and their accomplishments presented in the form of a tragedy? Talking head after talking head turn every pitch into an emotional heartbreak, yakking about baseball as a metaphor, baseball as Americana, the psychology and theology of baseball... enough! This is syrupy, mawkish drivel. Billy Crystal is here to sell us all the Yankee hokum he's sold us before. Ken Burns uses the National Anthem as the series' theme song, and manages to play \"Take Me Out To The Ballgame\" so many times you might vomit. We get it, dude.

Clearly Burns is a neo-Hollywood faux-liberal, so he spends probably a third of the film on the Negro leagues... these segments are spent chastising whites of yesterday for not being as open-minded as Kenny is today. For shame! He chides baseball for being segregated in the thirties and forties but fails to realize that America was segregated in those times! Burns falls head over heels in love with Buck O'Neil, a former negro-league player, and drools over every piece of footage in which the elderly O'Neil waxes poetic about his playing days. Nonsense...

Burns would have been better off with an adult to help him edit his creation down. \"Baseball\" winds up as mushy, gushy, civil-rights propaganda disguised as Americana. Its clear that Burns is not a baseball fan... otherwise he would know we watch games laughing and cheering, not weeping and reciting soliloquies... are you listening, Mr. Burns? There's no crying in baseball.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A pre-Nerd Robert Carradine, a pre-Automan Desi Arnaz Jr., and an almost pre-pubescent Melanie Griffith take to the road and head for Alaska with romantic dreams of becoming wealthy salmon fishers. Well, their dream is about as exciting as this lackluster youth road movie. They aren't particularly interesting, and the film doesn't exactly have much of a point, beyond `We got together the spawn of some famous people and made a low budget film about their misadventures.' Out of the cannon of 60's and 70's road films and rebel youth films, this one is mediocre, under developed, uninvolving characters, not much wit, not much freshness to the story, which is as bland as the films muddy landscape.

But, for those who care- They head to Alaska, and apparently Alaska was like the Wild West in the 70's because everyone carries a gun and is rough and tumble. Robert Carradine says charming things like `I hope we can find a shower, my nuts sure itch.' (And he's the one with Melanie Griffith!) They are quickly robbed and forced to take jobs, and the local bigwig, their employer, puts the moves on Melanie and eventually fires Desi for not being corrupt. That's when they aren't smart and do not leave town, opting instead to eat dog food or go hungry, get beat up by the guys goons, and then take a joyride in the bigwigs car. The final half of the film abandons the evil bigwig as the trio commit a robbery, go on the run, and hatch a kidnapping scheme, and so forth. The film just sort of ends, annoyingly and ambiguously, but seeing as how they didn't bother to have much character development and story in the first place, its rather appropriate. Worth a look if you are really into low budget 70's fare, but ultimately pretty forgettable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The video box for 'Joyride' says \"starring second generation superstars\", and one can't help but feel sad. Granted, Melanie Griffith has gone on to bigger and better things...but who cares about the rest of the cast? So with that being the pathetic attention grabber on the box I was foolish enough to purchase the film for a dollar thinking I would be in the land of 'so-bad-they're-good 70's films' Eh, not so much. While so many aimless 70's youth films (or plain ol' 70's films for that matter) tried so hard to say something deep and meaningful, 'Joyride' doesn't even try. It's just aimless. It is devoid of any interest whatsoever. Each character is so poorly conceived that it's no wonder these actors look so listless.

In a nutshell the movie is about three 20-somethings who go to Alaska to start a business, but instead get robbed and then have to find work. They get beat up, eat dog food, steal cars, rob banks. It's all very typical but on top of that it's executed in the most mundane way possible. There are no surprises and the flow is so bad, and the actions of the characters so ambiguous that you can miss several scenes and not mind at all.

But if you're a fan of Melanie Griffith's breasts - then this is a must-see. That's still not enough to get this above the lowest rating I can give.

Best Line: \"Jesus, everything is biology with you.\" * out of ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just saw this movie and all I can say is, where are the drive in's these days. This seems like it would have been a great 2nd feature at a drive in in 1977 (maybe playing with one of those Joan Collins movies), but it's only worth watching now if you're feeling nostalgic for the 70's. Silly plot that is full of holes, but it does remind one of the era it was made in. Interesting to see Melanie Griffith so young and Anne Lockhart is quite attractive, though not much of an actress. In fact, there is not much acting going on in this movie at all. It's sort of a Dukes of Hazzard adventure without a twang or a 1969 Dodge charger jumping over stuff in the Woods. But there is a Mecrury Comet jumping over a garbage dump in this one!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think that a lot of friends of people who acted in this thing must've come on and rated it because I'm telling you, its just awful. The acting is worse than soapopera bad, the effects are like something you'd see out of a 1970 episode of Doctor Who, the story is, well, there is no story. And they keep using the same 2 minute song over and over and over again. And the werewolf? Its like the muppets they used in Wing Commander, the giant cats, remember how bad they looked? The werewolf is that bad. Seriously, the guy who directed this thing is terrible and should never get to direct anything else again, except maybe his son's school play, but even then, he should have to pay the audience to see it. Ghostwolf is nothing but a bad joke.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No one can say I wasn't warned as I have read the reviews (both user & external), but like most of us attracted to horror movies... curiosity got this cat. (Come on, we all scream at the people in the movie not to go into the dark room, but you know that's horror aficionados are always dying to know what's in there even if we know it'll be bad).

The bottom line is that this movie left me angry. Not because it pretends to be real (who cares...gimmicks are allowed), or because the actors and dialogue are so lame (is this an unusual event in horror movies?) or even because the movie is so bad (and I am being polite here). What really got me mad is that the film is not only a rip off of BWP, but also a half-hearted lazy rip off at that.

I don't believe in sacred cows and if they thought they could outdo BWP then kudos to them, but they didn't even try. The movie was made with little effort or care and that is the most unforgivable sin in horror (or any) movie!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The characters are annoying, immature, and flaky....Madison being the most annoying of all. OOH...a cold spot! Such a dire threat! Any ghost in that house would have fled in self-defense! To make a long story short, this movie is boring. Seeing a chair flying across a room may be creepy, but that's about as intriguing as it gets. I watched it once and when one of my kids wanted to watch it again, I was tempted to take a baseball bat to the TV set rather than watch this rubbish again. If you want a good horror movie or even a passable comedy, this isn't it! The only good part of the whole thing was \"the roach scene\" and, by the end of the movie, you ended up feeling sorry for the roach!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was surprised that the makers of this movie actually came out said that this movie was a true story. The majority of the scenes looked fake to me. For instance when the one girl was eating her sandwich and there was a roach in it. While she was eating the sandwich the camera on the opposite side of it showed that there was a roach on it. It's funny how the camera just happened to be filming on the sandwich when the girl was eating it. Another scene is when the gang went to open a clothes closet and a cat flew out of the closet or should I say it was thrown out to give it effect. This movie was not realistic at all. It's highly doubtful that the events that happened were true that evening when the \"St. Francisville Experiment\" took place. I believe that the house may be haunted, but not on the night this movie was filmed! The ending was amusing when Tim and and other girl were chained down in the some sort of basement. Paul and Madison found them and rescued them! I would rather watch the Blair Witch Project again then have to sit through the St. Francisville Experiment movie again. As I said, if the makers of the movie did not state that this was a true story with true events I may have like it more. Your better off getting more entertainment from the Blair Witch Project (even though this is not a true story either)!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay they tell you it's real. They don't list any screenwriters or directors, but one viewing of this movie will prove to anyone - It's not real in the way you were hoping for. The speaking rarely sounds like real natural talk...but also down not sound to be scripted. (possibly loosely scripted). To me it sounded much more like they were always trying to ad-lib. (which they almost always did poorly). Therefore, they knew they were making a 'movie', not just collecting real natural footage. So I'm sure these people knew what was going on, knew they had certain spots to look for things that were set up...and they were just told to ad-lib around it all.

*************'Major Spoilers'**************** *****************************************

Okay, it's so lame. Every item, spot or thing that could be strange or use d as a scare, is magically stumbled upon by these people. Let me list off the ridiculously obviously faked things that happened that I remember:

1) Less than 2 minutes of entering the house, they turn a light switch on - the light sparks and a chandelier almost falls on a guy.

2) They happen to find an old medical bag with a bloody butcher knife* in it, while exploring the cellar.

3) They hear a noise in an armoire, so they open the door slowly - BAM - a cat happens to be in there and jumps straight at the camera while shrieking.

4) Then they happen to notice there is a hole in the wall, so let's stick our hand in...wow, they pulled out a doll of a baby wrapped in mummy tape.

5) Let's go to the attic, uh-oh it feels 'heavy' up here....BOOM - a chair flies across the room.

6) Time to eat. Oh no ! The girl that was scared of bugs had a ROACH in her sandwich ! LOL !....ridiculous.

7) Let's get out the Ouija board...oops one of the legs on the planchette fell off the side of the board. That couldn't be because the people were pushing it could it ? (they find out a ghost there is named Charles)

8) Wait ! What was that noise in the chimney...CLINK - oh my shackles fell out \"I think she* kept people up here\".

9) Now wimpy girl is going to brave looking up the chimney shaft...oh, what's this she sees something...and is asking people who aren't looking up the chimney what it is. SWISH - It falls off straight at her. (perfect camera shot) She moves just in time. It was more chain.

10) Now we have to separate and each 'cleanse' our designated rooms - wouldn't it be something if things started happening one by one to these people now...okay:

CHICK #1: Wow, suddenly her room is shaking...but no one elses does.

DUDE #1: Actually says to himself \"Charles, is that you Charles...it can't be you because you're just a figment of my imagination aren't you Charles\". Well guess what, he gets knocked over and dragged across the floor. Another lucky camera shot.

CHICK #2: Hears things..try to communicate ...and is standing there getting abrasions or something.

DUDE #2: He was in the attic, reached his arm through a hole in the floor and got a splinter....I don't remember what else.

11) Dude #2 runs, gets Chick #2...they hear chick and dude #1 screaming...they find them chained to a wall and strapped to a table.(*) They leave. Cut to black. Final text tell us they escaped safely, were treated for minor cuts. They have since had nightmares and insomnia, we also find out the next day a 911 call was made by they name a someone named \"Charles\".

*************'Major Spoilers'**************** ******************over********************

Okay, when I first heard this movie was being made, I couldn't wait. I thought it was going to be real. REAL, real. - and more professional, with more professional type people. I love the idea of this type of thing, I'd love to see real haunting footage. Before this movie was released I saw couple reviews of it by people online. They both claimed how fake it was and how stupid the people were.. time passed I forgot about the film....then I realized It was never released at theaters. So I found out it went straight to video, rented it....found that every brutal review was completely true. It's too bad, I really wanted this to be good.

Random thought: The house didn't seem to have TVs, radios..kitchen appliances that I recall...which would make me think no one has lived there for a long time. Especially the house is truly known for being haunted...im pretty sure no one lives there. But it looks so clean and tidy...and what was a cat doing there ? The property does not have near by neighbors....

All-in-all, you'll only want to rent this if you and your friends wanna sit there and make fun of it...or if you heard about it a long time ago and it intrigued you. (you will will be disappointed if you are expecting a good film...or real film)

Random thought: I believe the producer says \"The 'footage' you see is real\". Well technically it is real footage isn't it ? Real footage of fake hauntings ? Maybe that was his loop hole.

I give this this movie one star - strictly on the fact that they told the story of Madame LaLaurie. A real New Orleans story.

The best performance was by the guy who teaches the participants about the ghost hunting equipment in the beginning. He was obviously actually real...or a good actor.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The St. Francisville Experiment claims \"this ain't no walk in the woods\", a direct slap in the face of Blair Witch. Where Blair Witch proved to be a film that overworked the viewer's imagination through simple suggestion, The St. Francisville Experiement overworks the viewer's patience. One must say, however, that this is destined to be a camp classic.

Warning: Spoiler is forthcoming!!

I viewed this movie in a local theater in which the movie's \"paranormal consultant\" Troy Taylor spoke about the making of the movie. Should anyone want to see this movie without knowing the forthcoming information, stop reading here. For those of you who can't resist, read on my friends and all shall be told.

Mr. Taylor, a writer of rather unintriguing ghost stories which he claims are all true, informed the audience at this video screening that The St. Francisville Experiment was not a documentary. Shock! Amazing! As if we didn't know... He informed us that all of the frightening discoveries the participants made were all staged and prearranged by the film's producers. Matter of fact, he informed us that the last 15 minutes were not even filmed in Louisiana, but rather in California. All four participants were true actors (notice I didn't say good...). One of the participants is actually a special effects technician on ER.

What infuriates me about this film is that it proclaims everything is true. It feebly attempts to outdo The Blair Witch Project by claiming it's true whereas Blair Witch was a hoax. The amazing thing is that no one could have belief this film for an instant. Filled with dreadful acting and hilarious lines such as \"surround yourself with the white light\" and \"I love the ghosts\", The St. Francisville Experiment belongs at midnight movies everywhere so the crowd can properly heckle, boo, jeer and chant \"I love the ghosts!\"

Talk about false advertising. True stories are not filmed with staged special effects that look as if the neighborhood Boy Scouts troop set up a haunted house. From the bug in the sandwich (ooh...scary...) to the annoying Madison, from the \"seance\" which is nothing more than the foursome playing on an Oujia Board to the two mice being found under a bed, The St. Francisville Experiement is one embarrassing hoax of a movie. Lion's Gate would be wise to dump this thing into the nearest trash compactor or advertise it as it really should be:

\"The St. Francisville Experiment: A comedic look at how not to make a movie\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I rented this one by accident. I lifted the video up and looked at the back and thought \"shameless Blair Witch rip-off\". Then, in a moment of carelessness, I grabbed 'The Francisville Experiment' thinking it was something else. My horror upon arriving home and realizing my mistake was far more terrifying than anything this film had to offer. Boring Characters, bad acting, and a feeling of 'we saw the Blair Witch Project and could do the same' permeate the action to the point where watching on fast forward will lead you straight to the credits. I'm not one to fault film makers for being lazy or desperate, but after this yawn-fest I felt the need to warn everyone: don't waste your time, you have a life.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ted Nicolaou made a lot of great horror and fantasy films. I am looking for all his films to see. I could not find this one for 3 year, until I unexpectedly found it in youtube. To tell the truth I wanted to see more ghosts and less talks here. It looks like in 1999-2001 Ted had a crisis , maybe in money. His features of this time look more like real low budget thrash z garbage movies. But I do not claim him to be a bad director this time . Everything happens. The ending has some nice creepy details and suspense but the whole film was long dull dialogues .

only for real Ted's fans.

www.myspace.com\/neizvestnostlab","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Imagine if you will: four teen students have an assignment to spend the night in a haunted house in St. Francisville, Louisiana to check for the existence of the paranormal. If you watch this in the dark and late at night; you possibly will have the hair on the back of your neck rise a couple of times. Otherwise this mock documentary is a very lazy rip off of BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. What is to be dialogue is very lame and the actors are pleasant looking enough, but seem to lack genuine personality. It seems to take forever before something real spooky even happens. This movie is excellent for 'sleep overs', when you have both eyes barely open and everyone is yakin' and snackin'.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Obviously, someone was looking at catching onto the \"Blair Witch\" wave.

This movie was set up like all the \"reality\" haunted shows that are popping up on TV lately (and I must admit, I get a kick out of these), but this movie is MUCH cheesier! Probably the first three-quarters of the movie is filled with the \"participants\" going through the house, WHINING. Give me a break! Spending 10 minutes whining about going up into the attic is not my idea of a good time. Any paranormal happenings are blatant setups. No strings, but too perfectly caught on camera to be real. The \"participants\" were not very likeable either. Two goofy guys who don't take it seriously, one girl who scares at the drop of a hat, and the quintessential over-played \"paranormal\" person. Is this becoming the clich\u00e9d-\"formula\" for a ghost movie?

I have to admit, the last 15 minutes or so were pure tension. They took every ounce of tension in the movie and stuck it in those 15 minutes. I admit, I spent that time pacing in the kitchen. I really wouldn't recommend this movie to younger viewers, even if it is PG13.

If you're looking for some entertainment, if you don't take it seriously, you will get a kick out of this movie. There's tons of situations to make cracks about! If you're looking for an great story-line.. look elsewhere ;)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is a LOT of repetitive dialogue in this movie about \"cold spots\" (signaling the presence of a ghost), and characters praying to surround themselves with white light to protect themselves. To recreate the feeling of the movie, I shall repeatedly make references to cold spots throughout this review. I'e seen worse movies than the St. Francisville Experiment, but this may be the most *forgettable* one of all (\"it's getting cold!\") Basically some 20-somethings spend the night at a haunted house. This is filmed as a supposedly true documentary. It's obviously not real, but the house does contain some cold spots. SPOILERS- (as if you won't be able to predict most of the plot!). Not much happens in this film. We have the time-honored horror cliche of a cat jumping out of hiding near the beginning, as a \"practice\" scare to warm up the audience. The people wander around with flashlights, occasionally taking a moment to remind the house that they come in peace- that they mean no harm to the spirits (or cold spots) within. Now and then a door will swing shut and startle somebody. Of course , the ouija board makes an appearance. They chat with a ghost named \"Charles\". A girl eats a sandwich with a cockroach in it. More cold spots. Another door swings shut and some guy goes off about the scuff sound of the door. Scuff, scuff, he says. Oh my god, somebody says. \"Surround yourself with white light.\" I admit there is a good scene in the attic (where a chair is knocked over by a ghost) that really caught me off guard. But aside from some funny bad dialogue, the chair scene (the actual split-second when it is knocked over, nothing immediately before or after that moment) is the only good thing in this movie. However there are still some cold spots in here. Eventually, the movie ends. Nobody dies. No more details necessary. I wasn't a big fan of Blair Witch Project, but it looks like a masterpiece next to the St. Francisville Experiment. You may find yourself not debating whether or not this is a real documentary, but whether or not it was intended to be funny. I still don't know. But whatever it was intended to be, it failed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a good companion to Blair Witch, because it does so much wrong that BW did right. Like BW, this one pretends to be a documentary of ghostly events, with each member of the team manning his\/her own camera.

The sense of reality is never there, however. The participants are poorly written clich\u00e9d characters and the events that take place are equally clich\u00e9d (the cat jumping out of a closet, falling chandelier, etc). Also the stilted dialog and inept improv work by the overly-attractive cast detracts from the docu feel. AND, worst of all, the supposedly participant-held cameras record too many events too perfectly to be even remotely believable. Actually, with some re-editing, this thing could have been a Blair Witch parody. In fact, there is a scene in which the blond historian is eating a sandwich with a huge roach on it that is actually pretty funny as is, reminding me of a similar gross out scene from \"Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me.\" But in the end the event is played straight, with no punchline. It's hard to tell what the intent was with The St Francisville Experiment other than to glom a few stray BW bucks. But it's pretty sad when the only real interest I could find in it was whether the blond historian was going to have her t-shirt tied up off her belly in a particular shot or not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just watched this movie with a few friends they said I had to see it but from the beginning i knew it was going to go from bad to worse. So I can only give this movie a 1 because the effects that were used were so poorly used and thought out that anyone can see that there were no \"real\" ghosts. I feel the worst part was this so called \"old haunted house\" contained a whole bunch of new items and a few \"convieniently placed items\" I could have thought up effects that would have looked much better than a chair being flipped over by an unseen ghost (or should i say wire). Then later when they review the tape of the chair flipping it flips in a different way. Uh Oh thats a big continuity error. If this was a truly good movie then they would have caught that and all of the other \"old house\" items. This movie is like a rip off of house on haunted hill and the Blair witch project all rolled into one poorly thought out and assembled movie. I would be ashamed to put out something with that bad of acting, effects and cheap video shots of the girls chests and how convenient the camera falls when something \"paranormal\" happens. This movie is an insult to people who are out there actually looking for ghosts and getting real ghost footage on tape.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I realize why people hate this film. And, I hated Blair Witch Project,so go figure? This is about as staged as it gets & yes they do insult your intelligence by trying to make it seem real.I really liked the madame lalaurie storyline though it's more than likely made up. But, the main reason I like this film, is fake or not when the ghosts start attacking & kidnapping them,I get chill-bumps every time & have to look behind me as it feels like something's there with me.i know it's my imagination, but hey more than half of the drivel that is horror in today's cinemas & DVD's doesn't give me goosebumps,so that makes this a creepy delight.Not for everyone, as skeptics will hate it & not for gorehounds as with a PG-13 rating there is no gore. And, the females are very annoying!You'll wish the ghosts would take them off & experiment on them before it's all said & done. ** out of *****.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"why oh why did i ever waste my time watching this film? it was given to me on video by a friend and i thought i'll watch it, it can't be that bad surely. firstly the acting is simply appalling and we're supposed to believe this is real? secondly this film is blatantly trying to copy the Blair witch project (yawn) and does so very poorly. so if you want the fright of your life i would suggest that a Simpson's Halloween special would be far scarier. but, if you just wanted to a laugh then maybe the general crapness of this film would suffice. but overall i would avoid this film at all costs or drink a large amount of alcohol before viewing. the best bit? its only about an hour and a half, thank god.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I suppose for 1961 this film was supposed to be \" cool \" , but looking back now ( 45 years ) it's charm was just as silly as it's entertainment value ! Granted , the special effects do well on T.V. with the Series that started in 1964 , but for the BIG screen ?? I once had a fish tank that was equally as exciting ! I must agree about the Octopus scene near the end where it attached itself to the Seaview. Obviously not well staged...or trained ! Overall , it's pretty bad acting with shoddy special effects and I still do recommend it - for fun laughs sake. This was probably one of Irwin Allen's Biggest films and I think he thought a lot of it . Barabara Eden went on to play \" Genie \" on T.V. Micheal Ansara was her Husband . Now that is a cool part about this film ! I always enjoyed seeing real life Husband and Wife teams star in the same movie . Neat !","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sure that any legitimate submariner would happily ship out on the USOS Seaview (yes, SOS...) Why, you could play full-court basketball in the torpedo room, it's so large. And how 'bout the bay windows in the bow, the better to see giant squids or minefields that appear out of nowhere? Did I mention the colorful mess-cook with the parrot on his shoulder? And the Admiral's stateroom with what appears to be a loft? Big bleeping sub...

OK, OK...it's never gonna win any prizes for authenticity. And if the sub is laughable, the plot is even worse. Somehow the Van Allen belts of radiation, hundreds of miles in space, have \"caught fire\" are going to make global warming look like a weenie roast. Pompous Admiral Nelson (Walter Pidgeon), along with his sidekick Lucius (Peter Lorre, looking suitably uncomfortable) hatch a scheme to put out the fire by firing a missile into its midst.

There's plenty of intrigue (sic) along the way, with a born-again survivor (and his little dog, too!) two \"dames\" who can never leave well enough alone, a passel of \"red shirts\" who are expendable, and plot holes big enough for Godzilla to walk through. Thrill to the Seaview being chased at what looks like 60 miles per hour by another sub -- no need for advanced sonar when you can follow from 100 feet astern.

The movie careens from one cliff-hanger to another; the payoff is so anticlimactic as to be pointless, certainly not worth the 1 hour and 50 minute wait.

The technical adviser for this shipwreck must have been a 14-year old boy with a stack of Popular Mechanics magazines. Worth watching, if only to riff upon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to like this movie. Great cast \u0096 Walter Pidgeon in a role that reminds us of his iconic \"Forbidden Planet,\" Barbara Eden and Robert Sterling as young lovers, Frankie Avalon as a musically inclined sailor (is a guy on a submarine a sailor?), even Peter Lorre as a scientist with a fondness for sharks. Maybe it's a good kiddie movie but I had trouble staying awake. Lorre was severely underused. I guess he was a red herring, like Pidgeon \u0096 you expect him to maybe go nuts and try to throw the hero or his gal in the shark tank. No such luck. By the way, why is there a shark tank on a submarine? It's typical of the movie's lack of ambition. They explain why Lorre is walking the shark back and forth (because we're seeing it) but just expect us to accept the fact that there's a shark on this sub for some reason. \"Research?\" Yeah, scientists are always doing that research stuff, who can understand them? Of course, if there wasn't a shark, who would kill the evil psychologist lady (Joan Fontaine)? I'm sorry but even kid's movies in the 50s are capable of being less predictable and frankly idiotic (not to mention exploitative).

The first 10 or 15 minutes really got my hopes up. Great theme song sung by Frankie Avalon. Pidgeon leading Floyd the Barber (Howard McNear actually, sorry Howie loved ya in \"Blue Hawaii\") and Joan Fontaine on a guided tour, careful to skip the room with the huge \"WARNING\" sign on the door, past Peter Lorre with aforementioned sharks, and then we see a full screen shot of Eden shaking her moneymaker to Avalon's impassioned horn playing! The movie quickly goes downstream from there. There's no real explanation for the firestorm threatening the Earth, so there's a distinct lack of dramatic tension and no villain to boot. Instead Pidgeon's character is made into an unconvincing red herring vaguely of the Ahab variety (I guess \"The Caine Mutiny\" was still fresh in people's minds), and Fontaine's character suddenly turns evil for no reason at the end. Oh, I suppose the reason is that it's a surprise for the audience. And it is kind of surprising, since the only negative thing she's done is to talk bad about the captain's mental health and there's STILL no reason why she did the sabotage after she's revealed to be the villain. Very poorly done and unconvincing. The guy who was the pessimistic bible nut was better \u0096 at least his character made sense.

So what else could go wrong? Endless, interminable scuba-diving footage. I never understand the appeal of that kind of thing. A giant squid attacks the ship for a minute, just so there's a monster for the theatrical trailer. Maybe that fooled some people into thinking it was going to be a fantasy adventure film, instead of a half-baked suspense movie about military scientists who are never wrong. Yes \u0096 perhaps worst of all, it's barely a fantasy movie much less a science fiction movie. It never did anything for my imagination because the whole premise was nothing but another disaster\/apocalypse and these characters never experience any feelings of wonder or discovery. I'm through with Irwin Allen. I never liked his later movies anyway, but this one got me by pretending to be Jules Verne when it's really just another formula exercise in disaster escapism. The whole movie is just waiting to see which character will improbably turn evil and die. He always hired an actor\/actress with a charming and personable screen persona to play these roles and that's the only element of \"surprise\" to be found since there's no logic to these characters anyway. What a pathetic waste of time for these actors. George Pal's movies are 100 times better (the only one that was lame was \"Atlantis,\" which, not coincidentally, was the most Allen-esquire), full of wonder and excitement and \u0096 think of it! \u0096 ideas! Other than a few effects scenes and Barbara Eden, there's nothing worth seeing here in my opinion. I guess it's good fun for those who are into disaster movies, but I think they are a hollow and dull genre of films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's hard to work up any enthusiasm for this awful cartoon-like epic that for some reason has become a cult classic. It certainly can't be because of the totally artificial look of the set designs or the limpid acting of an all-star cast. These days it's shown much too frequently on Fox Movie Channel or AMC.

It pains me to report that veteran actors like Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine are even cast in this muddled science fiction travesty, none of which rings true. It's like watching an expensive budget being spent on a Saturday afternoon kiddie show full of cardboard characters and unconvincing dialog. It's a comic book version of the Jules Verne novel.

The maturing Fontaine was still attractive but wears a pained expression on her face, perhaps regretting that she had accepted the role of the psychiatrist before reading the script. She contributes absolutely nothing to her cardboard role but an imperial and uncomfortable presence and looks totally out of place most of the time. Faring no better are Robert Sterling, Barbara Eden and--most of all, Peter Lorre--as well as Frankie Avalon, who gets to sing the title tune which--it's safe to say--did not become anyone's favorite title tune.

An awfully frustrating experience to sit through a film like this which wastes an attractive cast and is an insult to almost anyone's intelligence. Totally unconvincing from start to finish. The film, as well as the fantastic submarine, sinks to the bottom of the sea long before the fight with a rubber octopus brings the film to a dreary conclusion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Irwin Allen, past master of cinematic schlock, pulled out all the stops in VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA. A badly aged Walter Pidgeon, who actually may have been dead when he played this role, is the commander of an atomic submarine that must be the size of the Empire State Building. Every room is gigantic and some even appear to have no ceilings. You could bowl and hold a formal ball simultaneously in some of these rooms. The sub, called the Seaview, is on its maiden run when all hell breaks loose: the Van Allen radiation belt catches fire and the Seaview must launch a missile into the belt by a certain time or the world will go down in global warming flames! Along for the ride are a bunch of truly terrible character actors, many borrowed from TV. This makes them TV hack-tors. The worst is probably that poor man's Stella Stevens, Barbara Eden, as a naval secretary, squeezed into too-tight clothes, sporting high heels and acting like she's appearing in a beach party flick. Maybe that's because Frankie Avalon is also along for the ride. A badly aged Joan Fontaine, almost unrecognizable here, plays a visiting doctor with a big bad secret, but in truth who cares? VOYAGE is a truly bad movie obviously made for small children, but what child is going to sit still for endless shots of a miniature Seaview model moving over and over again from right to left across the screen in what is obviously a studio tank? There is not one scene where we believe these folks are actually aboard a sub. When the Seaview shakes, the actors fling themselves about, sometimes in opposite directions to one another. Just like on the good old STAR TREK TV series, when the bridge shakes. If I remember correctly, not one fish or sea creature is seen -- except for an octopus that momentarily latches onto the sub, a nod to 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA. The octopus, if it was real, was probably about a foot long and it shows. Worse, when folks are standing at the Seaview's glass nose, the ocean they are supposedly watching is obviously a closeup involving an unseen air hose spouting bubbles, probably filmed in a fish tank. You have never seen bigger bubbles in your life. You'd think these bubbles alone would smash the damned sub to pieces. Sadly, a badly aged Peter Lorre is also along for the ride. Near the end, when the missile is entering the flaming belt, Lorre is seen enthusiastically congratulating Pidgeon while everyone else is still waiting for their cue to start shaking hands and embracing one another in victory. A one-take scene if I've ever seen one. What a stinker. It's not even good for a laugh. Stick with SILENT RUNNING.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Only a very small child could overlook the absurdities in this bomb; the first difficulty faced by the submarine \"Seaview\" is what appear to be chunks of--rock? falling down through the water and crashing into its hull. But it's not rock, they're under the North Pole--it is ICE! Everybody, except possibly hitherto mentioned small children (and even some of them) know that ICE FLOATS.

Then, disaster strikes--that darn VAN ALLEN RADIATION BELT around the Earth catches fire! No one knows how this happened, we are told, which is understandable, because it is utterly impossible for radiation to \"catch fire\", and even if it could, there is NO AIR IN SPACE for it to burn.

There is literally no good reason to overlook science concepts basic to 2nd grade school textbooks when making a film; however, Irwin Allen manages to do it again and again; perhaps we are meant to focus on the \"people\" instead, which is pretty easy, as they are CARDBOARD.

The cast tries very hard not to look embarrassed in this ridiculous sub-kiddie romp, much like later episodes of his \"Lost in Space\" TV series, the concept of which was swiped outright from writer Ib Melchior and then rushed into production.

The sub looks pretty good, though, which is why this one gets a \"2\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think Walter Pidgeon was badly miscast in this film. Just not believable in the role. Barbara Eden was beautiful, and acted her part well enough. No one else was at all memorable.

I remember the TV series spun off from this movie when I was a small child. I even think I had a plastic \"Seaview\" that would submerse and was great for playing with in the bathtub. Long time ago.

As for some of the other criticism I've read for this film: It's certainly unfair to judge special effects or science knowledge of 4 decades ago by today's standards. The effects were OK for 1961. Not great, but OK. As for the science, that was ludicrous even for 1961. There's no excuse. Also, the sub was awfully roomy. I understand that the navy refused any help at all for this film, so maybe the filmmakers just had no idea.

Overall, the film bored me. (And I'm a sci-fi fan.) Can't recommend this one. Grade: D-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Irwin Allen put all his talents behind this one: he's co-screenwriter, producer and director of this cartoonish \"epic\" about an atomic submarine and its efforts to reduce a ring of radiation circling the Earth. Potentially exciting story fails to take off, despite an eclectic cast. Varied players from Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine to Frankie Avalon and Barbara Eden are interestingly intermingled and provide a dash of color, but this soggy sci-fi is pretty cheesy. Good for a few stray laughs, but Allen didn't seem to know the difference between strong, solid adventure and campy nonsense. Later a popular TV series. ** from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jim Varney's first real movie is quite a delight, but don't come in expecting to see Ernest P. Worrel any time soon. I felt the wide array of characters Varney depicted were great, but without being said, the rest of the movie should be put into a mulcher or something. A rather odd beginning for a movie icon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My website (www.theflickguy.org) lists this pick as the worst movie of all time. Here is an excerpt:

\"If I were strapped down to a chair and forced to watch this movie over and over again, I couldn't imagine Hell being any worse. Jim Varney plays a three-handed crazy guy bent on destroying the world (apparently starting with cinema). Now let's face it, no one expects a whole lot from a Varney movie, but this agonizing drivel had me dry-heaving for 92 minutes. Not a laugh. Not one. This is not kamp or gitchy, this is not even mindless. It is evil. Do not rent this, it may destroy your DVD player. Do not even buy the VHS from a 29-cent clearance bin to use as a blank tape. It is the worst film of all time. Period. I mean it. Really.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this is one of the stupidest movies ever, not THE stupidest mind you but one of the stupidest. This is 96 1\/2 minutes of sleep inducing material. Probably Jim Varney's worst movie ever. The last 30 seconds of the film is the best and funniest part but hardly worth sitting through the whole movie for. On the other hand, if you are a die hard Jim Varney\/Ernest fan, then like me, you must add this film to your collection. It does have brief, rare moments of humor, although they are few and far between. The mere fact that this movie is so hard to find makes it a collectors item and a must have for your ernest collection. I was lucky to find this film online at a dirt cheap price a couple years ago. I believe I paid 1.99 plus shipping for it. And it was the only copy I could find anywhere. Even though this is a truly all around horrible movie, it is still a must have if you are a Jim Varney fan and an Ernest movie collector such as I. On a scale of 1 to 10 I give this movie a 2 but thats only because I've never seen a 1 before ;)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie when it was first released in 1986. At the time I was young and enjoyed all the normal comedy available, i.e.; Monty Python, Jim Belushi & SNL, Steve Martin, Cheech & Chong, so I believe that my judgment represents most \"sane\" individuals.

The absolute best part of this movie was the trailer played at the beginning of the movie for the new \"My Little Pony\" movie that was coming out.

This movie was so atrocious that it was actually yanked from most theaters before the initial week run was completed.

I'm surprised that anyone would waste there corporate money to duplicate this steaming pile of human waste.

Don't waste your time or money to rent or watch this \"movie\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie, which I just discovered at the video store, has apparently sit around for a couple of years without a distributor. It's easy to see why. The story of two friends living in New York searching for their pal from high school who is now living homeless under the boardwalk at Coney Island, has flashes of being a very good film, but ultimately is weighted down by the story focusing on Stan and Daniel, rather than on their homeless friend Richie. Cryer is as usual very good and the film has a nice stark look to it, with the ghostly images of Coney Island. However, writer Cryer and director Richard Schenkman are too busy dealing with the fairly uninteresting lives of Stan and Daniel rather than focusing on Richie. One flashback in a music store, where Richie has a crush on an employee stands out and really shows the viewer where this film could have gone. But in the end, not much. Two many drawn out scenes of annoyance, such as inside the Skeeball building. RATING 4 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I kind of like JAG. It do have it\u00b4s charm but lately it\u00b4s to much propaganda in it. For an outsider (a non American) the patriotic feeling can be a bit to much.

I don\u00b4t like that Rabb and MacKenzie goes from being lawyers (as they were in the early parts of the TV show) to become super heros that stops wars and rescues entire continents. Its almost like watching a recruitment video from the US army.

I still watch the show, so it\u00b4s not that bad. But i would prefer more episodes when Rabb and MacKenzie investigates military accidents and don\u00b4t save the world in the future.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Watched this piece ONDEMAND because the description was kind of outlandish. This film stinks of cocaine, the opening scene alone must have cost at least five figures in blow to film. This is a racist, homophobic piece of garbage that plods along for a good 1hr and 22mins with absolutely no direction. I am a little confused on how this has good reviews here. I won't bother telling you the plot line because as far as I can tell there is no plot. I'm pretty sure everyone showed up to the set everyday did giant lines, dressed Loretta Switt in plunging necklines to show as much flapjack breastage as possible and yelled action; letting the cast improvise in a cocaine frenzy. Much like real beer this movie nearly caused my liver to fail half way through. Save your money, and watch 'Strange Brew' instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Given the subject matter of drug addiction Down to the Bone almost can't help but be a rather depressing film. But depressing doesn't necessarily have to mean bad. Unfortunately in this case it is in fact pretty bad. The film has some good things going for it, most notably the quality performance of Vera Farmiga in the central role of Irene, a working mom struggling with a cocaine addiction. But there isn't enough good here to outweigh the bad. The film's failings lie mainly with the story, which fails to captivate and never really seems to get going. Irene goes to rehab and comes home to a clueless husband who has no idea how to support her attempt to kick her habit. Irene grows close to another recovering addict, a male nurse from her rehab center. Complications ensue. But the story never really sparks to life. It doesn't seem as if the movie is really going anywhere. You can say it's a stark, realistic look at the day-to-day struggles of an addict. Maybe so but in this case it doesn't make for an interesting movie. The whole thing has a very \"blah\" feel to it. The minimalist cinematography doesn't help matters, adding another layer of drab to the incredibly drab proceedings. And none of the other performances measure up to Farmiga's. Hugh Dillon is OK as Irene's male nurse friend but nobody else in the cast adds anything of value to the proceedings. All in all this movie is a bleak, depressing and rather dull ride.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"IF you love movies about fruity dudes who prance around with a top hats and canes while spouting off random line of poetry while stabbing their victims then this is the movie for you!!

If you like movies where it looks like the whole thing was shot with a camcorder, and when people get disemboweled their internal organs are made out of baked ziti an marinara sauce this movie is even more for you!!

And if you simply love movies where the acting and dialogue sucks so much that it makes you feel dead inside, then for God's sake run to the video store right now and buy this movie right now!!! Hurry go before it sells out!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This homemade horror movie tells the story of a dude who kills people using the motif of stories by Edgar Allan Poe. The local police have bungled the case for a few years, so now the FBI has taken over. They know exactly who the guy is, but apparently no one has thought to swing by his house, because that's where he's hanging out, running around in his vintage clothing and torturing the random locals. So FBI-chick gets kidnapped, which involves her father, the former lead investigator from the local police. To top it all off, a pack of wacky college kids have decided to camp out at the house and smoke a bunch of weed.

Mostly, the FBI agent winds up shrieking and running around like a little girl, and not a single one of the burly college boys thinks to just stop and take a swing at the wimpy Poe-boy. Mostly overacted and sometimes underacted, Dead End Road reeks of a low-budget, cast-with-friends production that has silly points too numerous to cover.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Detective Burt Williams has been on the trail of the infamous Poe killer for nearly three years.Burt's daughter Kris Williams,a homicide agent for the FBI along with her partner Sean Michaels take over.Burt reluctantly steps down from the case and retires.For the next seven months the \"Poe Killer\" continues his murderous rampage until Kris discovers that the killer uses internet chat rooms to seduce his prey.She logs in as Annabel Lee and is quickly captured by Poe killer.It's time for Burt to find the sadist and free his daughter before it's too late.Amateurish and supremely braindead horror flick with no suspense and a bit of nasty gore.The acting is hilariously terrible,the characters are painfully dumb and the killer is not menacing.Still I have seen worse indie horror flicks.3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was honestly the worst movie i have ever seen. the acting was god awful, the story line also was bad. it was however a good idea. if this movie would have had better cinematics, and a lot better actors, i might of had something better to say. edgar allen poe was a great Gothic writer, and this movie just destroyed it. why do people always have to kill good stories by making bad movies. the only good part was when the killer put the head under the floor with a tape going, that was pretty good. the swinging axe was just horrible, there was absolutely no suspense. and also when the killer is chasing everyone around in the end, he was going from one place to another in just seconds, it makes absolutely no sense.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I bought this movie sight unseen at a sci-fi convention and I got what I deserved for doing something so silly. Simply put this movie is implausible, boring and unwatchable.

I was so bored and disgusted with the lack of plot development that I turned it off to watch a repeat of Mythbusters. I understand that this was a very low budget move, or least it looked like a very low budget move, but that does not excuse the horrible acting, terrible plot and even worse camera work. It looks like something a group of college students did in between classes and getting drunk.

Maybe if the villain wasn't so laughable and the plot was something that actually could happen in real life with respect to law enforcement it might become so bad it's funny. This movie isn't funny, it's just bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"You know, I really hate IMDb's censor system, since my entire review is almost gone if you take out the cursing. But here we go. Editing time!

Holy moley is this bad. I thought it might be a cool little movie, judging by the plot summary, since yknow I've blindly rented such gems as Frailty and American Nightmare before. But this is just abominal. It's about a killer who uses Edgar Allen Poe's works as reference for his murderous exploits, and the story of a detective who has to stop him. Can't these blithering hacks make a good movie without defiling the grave of a great horror writer? I mean, the kills in here are completely devoid of thought or originality, and the references to Poe are hokey and fake, without enough thought put into them. They're shallow, and they put Poe's work to shame. Full of holes, with awful sequencing. The acting is bad too, reminding me of the abortion that was known in some third world countries as \"Fear X\", what with all the pausing and un-emotional lines.

I realize this is an indie movie, but that's no excuse. I've seen high school kids act better then these morons, and I myself could've come up with better kill scenes and a better plot, given ample time.

This has no reason to exist. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How in the world does a thing like this get into my DVD player at home? How does it even get to be packaged and distributed? Are there absolutely zero screenings a movie (and I use that term loosely) have to go through before it's put on a video store's shelf anymore? I'm all for DIY film making but come on! That doesn't entitle me to get a group of my friends and relatives together, a crappy camcorder, an awful story and put it all together to create a heaping pile of crap and call it a movie. And I wish people would quit using the words \"Indie\" and \"Campy\" to describe these types of movies. They're not either. In no other profession would something like this be considered acceptable. If someone tried to sell you car that was as bad as this movie, you'd take it back and say it was a lemon. If it was a surgical procedure, you'd be suing the doctor for malpractice. I wish I could get my time and money back after watching this. Shame on the video stores who stock movies like these. They're a rip-off to the public. You want \"campy\"? Go get any of the Friday the 13th movies (even the LATER ones) or Dead-Alive. At least those don't make you want to kill yourself. It's because of movies like this that make people automatically equate independent with garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What to say about \"Dead End Road\"...

Lets just say that Edgar Allen Poe would have been so ashamed. The acting, writing, effects, and everything in this movie was just horrendous. That doesn't even do justice! This movie was the biggest piece of garbage I have ever had to sit through. That is also why I stopped it about 20 minutes before the ending because personally I didn't care what happened to the characters. I have seen bad but this was definitely the worst. I got hyped up for this because I am a fan of Poe and this was just bad. Just bad.

What upsets me more is that you can't rate films with negative numbers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the strangest things on TV. It is set in a bizarrely underpopulated Midlands superb called Leatherbridge which seems to be the dullest place in the country. It features a bar with no visible staff or customers, a university with no students, a police station with no criminals and a doctors' surgery with more doctors than patients. The story lines are dire - every episode revolves round a bizarre medical issue acted out by a variety of brummie extras who can never actually act, and for some reason the doctor always ends up round their house solving their problem. Pretty entertaining for its pure comedy value, but I cannot believe that this thing actually masquerades as a serious drama. Bonkers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am coming out fighting here because this film was so well shot and so well cast that I am twice as angry about its de-evolution than I would have been with a lesser work. Without revealing too much of the plot, I can only say that part one of my 2 VHS set was an unnerving, unfolding delight of bizarre but plausible plot developments. The lead character was suitably naif-like but also intelligent and very very open. The events that he is rapidly forced to come to terms with are the separation of his parents, the culture shock when his Pakistani roots collide with a complete breakdown of English straitlaced society in the sixties, his father's dubious transformation into the revered Buddha of Suburbia, and the turning of his cousin into a feminist militant as his best friend suddenly becomes an icon of the burgeoning punk movement in the seventies. Among other things.

What made me so angry was the amount of detailed work each actor put into creating and establishing their characters in the first part, only to have the whole thing devolve into very bad porn episodes in the second part, far too many to justify plot development, and far too explicit to even seem erotic. My biggest pet peeve is when directors let their private fetishes interfere with the truth of their movie, and this to me was a supreme example.

I felt a bit like I'd been invited to a party of very clever, funny strangers, only to have the doors locked and the guests not allowed to interact, and all of us forced to watch bad seventies sexploitation films instead. What an insult to the hard work of these amazing actors! Why not just make a cheeseball flick to begin with? And why cast a great lead character who can actually act, and then cut away from him whenever he is building up to a great performance? I almost felt as if he too was growing tired of the endless sex scenes where all he did was lie there pumping his pelvis for yet another breathy naked actress.

Bottom line - Part One is minor genius, Part Two is second tier soap opera perversion. I know the book is quite explicit, but I felt that these fine actors were as exploited in real life as their characters were in the movie, and it made me quite angry and very uncomfortable. Only John Waters can pull off such a dubious degrading of actors and plot and have it seem artistic. My suggestion is to only watch the first part, toss the second in the proverbial rubbish heap, and you will love the Buddha forever. Score A+F=0","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everyone has their choice for \"worst movie they've ever seen.\" Some like to pick on Gigli or Battlefield Earth. Some pick on classics like Plan 9 From Outer Space. Ever since I was 14 I have been very vocal in saying that to me, it is Problem Child 2, and 9 years later, I feel the exact same way. It's not \"one of the worst,\" it's not just an expression. It is THE ACTUAL worst movie I have ever seen.

How much farting, pooping, peeing, and puking can you put in a single movie? I don't need to see a dog take a dump that goes up to my waist! Why is it that I'm so hard on this filth? I have nothing against bathroom or gross-out humor. Heck, I like the American Pie movies. Having such an excess of it within 90 minutes is a bad idea, but the true tipping point is to do it with kids! Having little kids call each other sexual names (IMDb won't even let me post that word on here, yet here it is coming out of the mouths of 8 year olds. Think of the irony in that!) and urinate and puke on each other just makes the whole thing feel dirtier. Worst line in the movie: \"I guess I should fart in more people's offices.\"

What other film has: urination into lemonade, dynamite sticks exploding toilets, a little boy filming his babysitter having sex and projecting it on the side of the house, and a little girl joking about scratching testicles?

However, my absolute favorite moment has to be when the same little girl is on a carnival ride, says: \"I'm gonna puke,\" opens her mouth, and fake looking puke shoots straight out of her open mouth in a perfect 90 degree angle! The puking scene in Scary Movie 2 looked more real than that.

I suppose the only redeeming element in the movie is Gilbert Gottfried. You get the impression that he didn't even have a script, but was just being his usual self. Too bad he has to act stupid while pizza gets thrown on him.

You know what? Thinking about the movie this much has just made me have to go to the bathroom. Goodbye!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"and nothing else.

One of my friends bought the Problem Child Tantrum Pack (contains the first two \"Problem Child\"s in one disc), and we decided to watch the sequel because it was \"funnier\".

There were many funny moments in the movie (the vomit scene, that's all I need to say.), Nippy the dog after eating CHOW DOWN, and numerous others. The movie is nothing but toilet humor, but it's hilarious. Other than the funny moments, though, this movie has little to offer.

John Ritter annoys the crap out of me, because it sounds like he's reading out of a book. The man can't act in this one, sorry.

Although I can't say if I would find the movie funny now...(we were blown when we watched it), it's a perfect movie for a rainy day...but nothing else. Don't expect Oscar material on this one, guys.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This sequel to Problem Child is just as bad as the first one. It still teaches kids that it's O.K. to be bad. It's impossible for me to recommend this movie to anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie in the theatre and it was a terrible movie. The way Michael Oliver who now turn even worse in the sequel is the biggest intolerance I cannot bare. Junior upset his father because he would not go to school which got his father Ben madly insane. Also the Crazy Dance ride operator is not fair to Junior for not letting him go on the ride. And that Lawanda Dumore is as horrible as a serial killer to Junior because she made threatening insults to Junior which is why I cannot tolerate this movie. Even if the movie is re-released back into theatres in the extended version, I still would not see this movie because this movie is not something I can even tolerate. In fact, it stinks!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was just an awful movie. I've watched it once when I was roughly 12, I am now 19 and I don't think I will ever forget this movie.

I still feel sick whenever I think about it, it was just everything horrible that could possibly fit in one movie. I really don't understand what kind of person would enjoy this utter rubbish. It's not enough to simply turn off your mind to enjoy this movie, I can enjoy the dumbest made-for-TV Disney movies as much as the next person, but this is something else completely.

Usually I don't like to judge a movie until I have seen it myself, but believe me I am doing you a favour. Do not watch this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Seriously! You've just got to see this movie to understand everything that is wrong with it. It came out during the time period where everybody was trying to make family movies that everyone could enjoy (The little rascals; Mr. Nanny, etc.) yet it lacked any charisma or enthusiasm. Every single character in the movie is driven by rage, with the exception of Trixie's mother, who shows only aggravation and weariness, possibly at the tired clich\u00e9's this movie enjoys.

To put it simply, the biggest flaw in the film was not the acting, nor the filming, but most notably the writing. The lines we receive are reminiscent of Disney classics, although this film lacks the whole-heartedness IL' Walt managed to pull off. Junior's Dad, (John Ritter) makes you mad without even doing anything, simply because he allows Junior to run around unsupervised, and only gives him a stern warning when he tapes a 200-pound behemoth to a chalk board.

Also, Junior's grandfather is particularly excruciating. For those of you who saw the first one, found it nauseating, and thus, did not see the second one, \"Big Ben Healy\" as he is referred to in this movie, is still a total douche. He basically barges into John Ritter's house uninvited, settles himself in Junior's room, even though he says that he hates Junior, and basically does nothing to accelerate the film's speed, or to support the film in any way. Rather, he ticks off the audience by being a lazy free loader.

Finally, we are introduced to a wide variety of new characters, such as the smug, obnoxious, Trixie, who carries dynamite in her backpack, which she first lights, then hands, to Junior, who simply stares wide eyed at. Also, Gilbert Gottfried returns in this film, this time playing the obnoxious principal at Junior's new elementary school. If Gilbert Gottfried ain't enough to get the point across, I will put it simply: This film reeks!

2\/10 stars, because the actor's convictions shine through the film, even though the script sucks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Problem Child 2\" was a complete waste of my time. The original film wasn't very good but its a classic compared to this film. The first film went over the top with its scenes of a devilish child wrecking major havoc in the lives of everyone he's around. Here, it goes even further over the top. And one scene in this movie proves that theory. That carnival ride sequence was too much for me to stomach. It's awful. This movie shouldn't have been made.

1\/2* (out of four)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only good either of the Problem Child films caused was bringing together Amy Yasbeck and the late John Ritter. Aside from that, the flicks are as demonic as their hero. In this basically unnecessary sequel, freshly separated Ben (Ritter) and his little hellraiser Junior (Michael Oliver, who never needs screen-time ever again) move to a new town infested with willing bachelorettes. Ben eventually picks Lawanda (played by the most underused original SNL-er Laraine Newman), whose Blanche DuBois tendencies don't suit Junior in the least. To add on to Junior's torture, it seems this town already has a little firestarter in younger girl form with Trixie, who coincidentally has a sweet, single mother played by Yasbeck, the same actress who played Junior's first horrible mother-through-adoption. You can see where the plot goes from here. Searching for my favorite scene is like pulling teeth, so I guess I'll go with the \"cherry bomb in the toilet\" gag that makes Back to the Future's James Tolkan one of the many grown-up victims (that guy's always playing school authority figures). Jack Warden and Gilbert Gottfried return as their parts from the first film, but sadly, there is no appearance from the Bow-tie Klansma- er, I mean Killer (Michael Richards) that made Problem Child all the more fun. On a serious note, I'm sure these films, whether abusive parents saw them or no, did wonders for the red-headed children of America. Let us also salute these proud American flicks for their terrific promoting of adoption. Oh, and dog poop jokes - gotta have dog poop jokes.... Shmucks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ten minutes of people spewing gallons of pink vomit. Recurring scenes of enormous piles of dog excrement - need one say more???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Junior and his dad start a new life in a new town. It's the same life because Junior hasn't changed one bit. He is still the same rotten brat as before only he's gotten bigger. This time he has a pal named Trixie and she is only slightly worse. Junior doesn't like his dad dating and messes up every opportunity that he has. Then grandpa moves in and the dog comes along. I thought that the two of them would have made it a good movie but they didn't even become buddies until the end. This is a movie for the most immature people. It has diapers, farts, doggy do do, and toilet humor in it. Only someone under the age of twelve would find this to be super hilarious. I hope when I have a son, he is exactly like Junior.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Problem Child\" was an okay movie, but did it really merit a sequel? I don't think it did. The original movie's only redeeming asset was Gilbert Gottfried, and he wasn't even good in this sequel.

I can't really put my finger on why this movie was bad. For starters, it just wasn't funny. Even when I saw this as a nine-year-old, I didn't sympathize with Junior (Michael Oliver) at all. His character came off to me as whiny, self-loathing, and perhaps most importantly, a rebel without a clue. He appeared to hate every woman that his father Ben (John Ritter) dated for the sole sake of hating them. It also doesn't send a good message to kids with divorced parents (who constitute over half children in the U.S. these days) when the one woman Ben decides to (almost) marry is a Southern aristocrat who is vindictive and who happens to hate children as it is.

And as cool as I thought it would have been to see original SNL cast mate Laraine Newman come back to the big screen, she couldn't even save this movie. I also found it strange that she was a white Southern d\u00e9butante whose name was Lawanda. That sounds more like an African-American woman's name. But of course, that has nothing to do with why I disliked this movie.

I think the movie didn't work because you had antagonists you were supposed to hate, along with protagonists you weren't supposed to hate. John Ritter's character was supposed to be a good parent who tried desperately to teach his child right from wrong without conforming to authoritative parenting. Instead, he came off not only as a wimpy parent, but also one who was desperate to find a wife in a matter of days, regardless of how well he knew the woman. Did I mention this sends a bad message to children of divorced parents?

In a nutshell, the rest of the things that went wrong with this movie included Amy Yasbeck unnecessary and unexplained return to play an entirely different character, that young girl who was even more obnoxious than Junior, completely uncalled for toilet humor, and even more outrageous and outdated homophobic humor (involving the dog catchers). The movie was just a mess, and really doesn't deserve a DVD release if it hasn't been given one already. It should just rot on VHS along with all the other bad, forgettable 90's comedies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Did the first travesty actually make money? This is another sequel (along the lines of ANOTHER STAKEOUT) that no one asked for. But we've received it anyway. The sequel is like its predecessor, completely brain-dead. It's also pretty disgusting (remember the dinner scene?) To think I almost felt sorry for Ritter, Yasbeck, and Warden. Did they need the money that much?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Whenever someone tries to tell me that they think a movie is the worst ever (and it's usually some movie that's \"cool\" to hate, like \"Manos, the Hands of Fate\" or \"The Avengers\") I ask them, \"is that movie a comedy about an orphan who is constantly trying to murder adults? Does anyone utter the line 'I'd rather eat a turd' in that movie?\"

This movie is WAY too infantile and moronic for adults, and WAY too violent and irresponsible for children. Is there that much money in the Beavis and Butt-head demographic to make a series of movies like this? There is a Problem Child 3, but I haven't seen it. I'd rather eat a turd.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What an awful movie. Full of cliches, perplexing scenes, very bad acting, and an atrotious script. It is hard to believe the same guys that wrote The People vs. Larry Flint and Man on the Moon wrote this garbage. Man, this makes my list of Top 10 Worst Movies of All-Time. Didn't this guy, this director, if you can call him that, realize that the first Problem Child was bad enough? Let alone make a sequel for it!!?? Amazing that piece of trash films like this can be shown to children let alone be released! 1 out of 10 *'s","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am having a hard time finding the words to explain just how much I detested this movie. The historical trial of Henriette Deluzy-Desportes and the Duc de Praslin is a tragic and compelling story that, I feel, had the potential to be a fantastic film, but failed.

Although the cinematography certainly had something to say for itself, it in no way could make up for the terrible structure of the film, the badly written script and most of all the horrendously overacted characters. The worst of them were the Duc's children who were so over-the-top-corny and sickeningly fake that it was almost painful to watch.

In conclusion, this film left me feeling nothing more than irritated and profoundly disappointed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie was incredibly stupid with meaning what so ever. i fell bad for all the actors and actresses that ruined there career to be in this stupid movie. the entire movie was based on how unrealistic they could make it, to make little like it which made it even stupider. even some of the names were unrealistic. the film is fun to watch which is why it had 2 out of 10 stars. this is probably the 3rd stupidest movie ever made. i got really made after i realized that it had mostly adult actors in it yet in was a kid movie. the most upsetting one was Danny Trejo a horror movie actor who is always dirty. the other actors were pretty much clean as far as i'm concerned.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My kids enjoyed the movie, but I was bored. There were a few good lines and a handful of funny parts, but the plot was pretty lame and relied on the special effects and gadgets to pull it through. Still, it hit the center of the bullseye that it was aiming for: it was good for the kids.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As kids movie it is great. For the family it just sucks. I was truly hoping for something like the Goonies which is a great film for all ages. This movie was just geared too much to the kids with the silly script and characters calling each other little names like booger breath. ??? Alan Cummings was however a delight. And why do people compare Willy Wonka to this movie...just because there is a theme song closely resembling the Willy Wonka song doesnt make this film anything like Willy Wonka.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All the actors in this film seem bored. They are not really interested in their roles and the dialogue is all delivered in monotone. It's a problem because I think the basic idea for the film is really very sound. I suppose it's just bad direction which leaves the actors drifting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I couldn't help but look at the time every 5 to 10 minutes because I found this movie a total drag. Childish humor, cheap looking sets, cheap looking effects, a plot that makes \"Legally blonde\" look like \"The Usual Suspects\" and so many coincidences that I can now officially say that Robert Rodriguez had brain surgery somewhere after 1996. The only thing he left as his trade mark are some cool camera moves, but there's where it ends. OK, so the guy decided to do something new for a change, a children's spy movie. Well if I were 12, I'd feel insulted. The best thing in this movie is the absolutely amazing Carla Gugino that just stole every scene she was in. Sadly, there weren't many. 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Of all the kids movies I have seen over the years this was probably the worst. I took four kids aged from 7 to 11 and none of them liked it.

The script seemed to be based on a Willy Wonka style story but it just didn't have anything to it.

If you are considering seeing this movie dont waste your time, it is bad.

They are making a sequel, so it may be worth watching to see if they can even make a worse movie, but I don't think it is possible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, what a cheesy movie this is! It starts off looking like it's gonna be a backwoods slasher, with the camera following dogs running through the woods. It then gets a bit boring and follows the story of some girls moving into some house haunted by Indian spirits. We then get plenty of shots of one partially clad girl and another naked girl in the bath. It suddenly gets really cheesy when the \"Zombie Indians\" arise from the earth and start terrorising the girls. We even get a samurai Indian.

This movie starts off pretty boring although I did find the story of the four Indians who buried themselves alive quite interesting. Once the Indian zombies (or whatever you want to call them for they aren't technically zombies) start terrorising the girls is when all the fun begins. This is not a special flick and can't be taken seriously, it's just something fun to watch when you're bored or when you're drinking with friends. I can't help thinking though that it would have worked better as a short story because the first half is tediously boring.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ladies and gentlemen, allow us to introduce to you \u0085. The Toltecs! This ancient Latin American tribe, even preceding the Aztecs, supposedly had the most malevolent and bloodthirsty sorcerers, yet they get their asses whooped by a couple of college floozies and a one-hundred-and-seven-year old lawman with a whip! But before you get to see this, however, you have to struggle through more than 40 minutes of sheer boredom, infantile pranks and sleazy sequences that don't contain any actual sleaze. In case I haven't made myself entirely clear yet: \"The Dark Power\" is an indescribably cheesy and inept piece of 80's horror crap that still manages to be amusing because of its sheer and somewhat charming stupidity factor. Writer\/director Phil Smoot's intentions were obviously admirable, but he \u0096 as well as the rest of the cast & crew \u0096 lacked the talent and financial means to deliver something even half-decent. Smoot carefully watched \"The Evil Dead\" and other similar demonic-themed movies, and somehow must have thought he could pull this off as well. The movie opens with an old Indian guy dying in his isolated countryside house; barely speaking out his last word above a whisper \u0085 Toltecs. His grandson promptly rents out house to a bunch of college chicks, including a typically 80's aerobics babe, a cute black girl and a racist redneck gal. Soon they will discover why exactly the old Indian lived like a hermit, as he was actually the guardian of an ancient Toltec burial ground. Toltec sorcerers buried themselves alive, only to emerge again thousands of years later and feed on the flesh of the living. And, honestly, is there any better tasting flesh than that of bimbos? As hinted at before already, the first half of \"The Dark Power\" is terribly lame and sleep-inducing. The clich\u00e9d pranks, the retarded dialogs and the ridiculously overlong footage of Lash LaRue swinging around his whip seem to go on forever. Then, the movie loses its last smidgen of credibility when the Toltec sorcerers emerge from the ground. Instead of menacing, they look like drugged out hard rock stars with imbecile masks and drunken gestures. Exactly ONE gory moment is worth mentioning, when a guy's lips are stretched out over his entire skull, but overall even the carnage aspect of this movie is disappointing. The only remotely worthwhile moments are utterly senseless, like when a 9-year-old kid (named Cletus!) goes joyriding with his uncle's truck or when the vulgar naked chick sips beer in the bathtub after working out. Seriously, unless you get turned on by the sight of a 1940's western veteran swinging around his whip at nothing, I'd advise to skip this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow... I suspected this one to be bad... But now I find myself just at a loss for words... Honestly, no words of mine can do this movie any justice...

I'll try to say something anyway...

This truly is one unique gem. One of the worst kind.

Lash La Rue - given his background as an actor - doing a whip-fight with a Toltec sorcerer-zombie during the movie's climax...??? A true stroke of genius, without a doubt.

It rarely happens that I laugh out loud when watching a movie alone. It happened numerous times with this one.

The accents of the actors, man, the accents... And the dialogues I heard them speak... And the acting itself... I just couldn't believe what I was hearing.

That fat uncle farting so loudly (when walking up to the house together with his little nephew) for no apparent reason whatsoever...

Tits! Yes, there's titties! And female ass! There's even a naked chick in a bathtub sipping a beer...

That one \"stretch his mouth over his face\"-kill was the bomb! A true highlight.

The comedy-aspects were just totally bonkers. I just couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. For a while I even thought that they were unintentional, shaking my head in disbelief. But about halfway in the movie, I started to get the bigger picture. Guess it took me half a movie to dumb-down half of my brain, to finally get it.

I had a really hard time believing this movie... But it's good, really, I think. It had one black chick walking up to a very tiny cupboard, opening it and then saying \"Wooow, look at all the storage space!\". And she said it like she meant it. I mean, that's good dialogue and good acting, right?

Oh, and perhaps needless to say: Lash La Rue's whip-skills suck major ass in THE DARK POWER. It's really sad and pathetic to behold. That's all part of the comedy, of course. Or wait, I might be wrong. No, yes, I'm wrong. Lash La Rue was amazing with the whip! It was the editor's fault. He messed it up, cutting his lashes together and all. Or wait, it might have been the camera operator. He filmed from the wrong angles... Then why didn't Phil Smoot say anything? That's it, it's the director's fault.

But it's a good movie.

I'm just gonna quit talking about it. I have nothing meaningful to say anyway, except for the fact that I hope my brain will recover from this experience... some time soon.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film started off really tense when a poor young boy is set upon by a pack of savage dogs. After a tense chase he is saved by said grandpa with magic whip.

We are then introduced to a string of annoying house mates, including one tart who is always half dressed. During this stage the film heightens tension with strange \"plinky plinky\" background noises that had me on the edge of my seat.

I stopped paying attention for a while but when I looked back on the screen there where weird creature type things going around grunting and killing. One word of advice if you are ever trapped in your home by some nutter - get some cardboard boxes and a tray.

Although we did skip half the film, because it was totally non interesting or memorable, we are now at the stunning conclusion, the last surviving creature thing fights a \"Whip Duel\" with grandpa and his magic whip. I wont say what happens here, but I can say the whip battle is full of tension, with aerial fights, split level fights and all manner of drama.

I am now going to shove this film through the door of a neighbour i don't like.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When a group of dumb kids (including an unlikable. racist bitch) stay at an old house, it awakens four murderous Toltec spirits. Can Lash La Rue save the day? Will you be able to watch until the end due to the horrible comedy on display.

\"The Dark Power\" is the kind of really bad horror\/comedy hybrid Troma used to release regularly. Thing is, they didn't. release this. That doesn't excuse the whole thing, as it has a dreadful synthesizer score (including bad attempts at Native American music and even worse \"comedy\" music), bad make up effects (basically Halloween masks), and atrocious acting (Ok, the fat guy was alright, though everyone else is terrible, and La Rue, a Western movie vet, seems embarrassed to be there-not that I blame him really.)

The worst thing though, is the comedy aspects. Sure, dumb teens is one thing, but when the movie keeps talking about the Toltec spirits as if they are the ultimate evil, only for them to turn out to be horribly annoying, bumbling fools, all hope is dashed. Combining horror and comedy takes at least some skill. There is no skill on display here, as it all is just stupid, and not \"so dumb it's fun\" either. I mean \"smoking pot and listening to bad Punk Rock aren't I dumb\" dumb.

Not even a decent ripped off face and a chick in little clothing can save this disaster. Terrible movie, and not even worth a rental.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A total and utter travesty of a movie.'Dark power'is the kind of film even troma would be embarrassed to release.The script,direction,acting and action sequence's are so dire as to be almost painful to watch and one cant help thinking that it's mere 75 minute running time could have been better spent. The above reviewer must be related to the director as that's the only reason i can see for his\/her appraisal of this rubbish,some might call it b-movie fun or 'so bad it's good' just to excuse there enjoyment of it,but when the lead actor ( and most experienced cast member) cant deliver his lines convincingly you know you've got a very,very bad movie.Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Glenn Ford, a New York boy who has been saving his cash, thumbs and hobos his way to the Arizona ranch he has bought, where he hopes to find HEAVEN WITH A BARBED WIRE FENCE.

A film with a Dalton Trumbo script and story, directed by villain extraordinaire Ricardo Cortez, and starring the frequently twitchy Glenn Ford and the restless Richard Conte just shouldn't be so bloody nice. Though the system -- mostly seen as mean cops and railroad bulls and real estate con men -- is as awful as one might expect from the leftish Mr. Trumbo, every single proletarian is just so sweet and nice and salt of the earth that one feels nausea. It doesn't help that the heroine -- a sweet blonde thing who is an illegal alien refugee fleeing Franco's Spain -- is annoying for reasons of both scripting and acting.

So why watch? Richard Conte, in his first role, already has his persona and a pretty good part. And there are some moments of 30s leftist camp that are pretty astonishing. (Did Dalton absolutely have to set a major portion of the movie in the Russian Worker's mission? All that was missing was a portrait of a beaming Joe Stalin!) Also, this is Glenn Ford's first substantive role (though his performance isn't good).

Why not watch? Essentially, the movie offers an unconvincing vision, is wedded to a political viewpoint that is risible, and the two leads have made much better movies. Also, the strengths of Dalton Trumbo as a screenwriter are nowhere in evidence. Instead, we get a film that the Coen Brothers Barton Fink could have written in a flash (and avoided that hellish bout with writer's block).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"i was one \"chosen\" to see this movie in a sneak preview.

first you should know that this film is based on the video game \"far cry\", a for its time really good game (2004). second you should know that the regisseur of this flick is the great uwe boll. this is a man, who takes video games (dungeon siege, bloodrayne, postal, etc.) and makes movies out of them (VERY horrible ones....).

i still remember when i saw boll's \"the king's swords: a dungeon siege tail\". there were so horrible mistakes in this film (like 3 scenes playing at the same time, 2 at day-time, and one somehow at night.....)

so lets come to \"far cry\". if you expect cool action, forget it. really cheap tricks and a plastic helicopter are far away from real action. if you expect a cool story, forget it. orientating by the not-so-bad story of the game, this movie is a laugh. the actors' playing makes the movie in a lot of moments funny, but in a no-good way.

i had the chance to see this movie for free. so do not do the mistake and pay for this trash. its one of my favorised flicks for the bottom 100.!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mr. \"Uwe Fail\" strikes again, transformed a classic game in a cheap piece of crap. Poor acting; Poor Directing; Awful adaptation; I mean, Far-Cry game was awesome, its like a true FPS game, cool weapons and lots lots lots of \"point and shoot\". In the movie we had nothing compared to the game.. Well we had some of the \"point and shoot\" thing but... i don't know how to explain, but if you ever watched another \"Uwe Fail\" movie you will understand. If you don't believe me, go to the website \"petition online\" and do a check for one named \"Stop Uwe Bowl\".

That movie made my eyes bleed, someone must stop him for once.

Don't waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of Bolls better attempts. Just shows that if you do something long enough you have to improve just by chance. It is still not good but it is at least watchable which is an improvement over the bloodrayne. The main difference between Bloodrayne and FarCry really is that the story from Farcry wasn't the games strong point whereas Bloodrayne had a strong story and thus Boll had more chance to mess it up.

The action in this movie is actually fairly good. Occasionally a touch overdone but in a good way and worth a watch just for that.

Acting wise it was pretty decent. Most of the actors are pretty good but you can tell they aren't taking it seriously based on comparisons with other performances. But the lighter mood this gives to the film actually helps.

While I think sticking a little bit closer to the story of the game might have made for a slightly better film the changes made are pretty practical and not big enough to make a difference. Especially given the plot of the game was hardly Oscar winning just a vehicle for FPS carnage. Would have liked it set in the Jungle as that was a pretty integral part of the game but Canada doesn't have a great deal of Jungle and it is at least set in a kind of rainforest.

Why Boll feels the need to change already professionally scripted and directed game plots I don't know but he does. And until he starts letting the source material speak through his adaptations will always be lacking. Watch the film for a laugh its good for that and maybe for watching during a party as drinking party fodder.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is only one reason this movie is watchable. Till Schweiger. He is such a good actor the movie isn't completely terrible. Uwe Boll please take up another career. The special effects and action are acceptable. All other aspects were very disappointing. All I can say is that Kevin Smith (An evening with...) talked about Tim Burton not ever reading the Batman comics and it showed. Uwe Boll must not have ever played the video games that he keeps making movies about. If you two ever want to know how it is done go see Andrzej Bartkowiak. Doom was one of the best video games to film adaptations ever. Some people may disagree, but if you watch the movie you can see that the guys at ID had a lot to do with Doom. It doesn't seem like anyone at UBIsoft was even near this production.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am deeply disturbed by some posts I am reading on the message boards for this movie, people saying it is actually a good movie! Just because this movie is Uwe Boll's best to date does not make it a good movie at all, no way in hell! Far Cry is a clich\u00e9d mess full of bad acting, poor direction, and an uninspired story with a shoddy script. This is Boll's first pure action movie, and news flash people, action movies aren't too hard to make because for a basic action flick all you need is explosions and gun battles scattered around a flimsy plot, and hey, Mr. Boll succeeds in doing that. House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, and Bloodrayne, all horror games adapted into movies by Boll are far worse than this (they have no redeeming qualities). Far Cry boasts two things which make it his best yet: two good leads and a couple of well-done action sequences. Til Schweiger is quite good as Jack Carver, and Emmanuelle Vaugier is a strong female lead. The usually great Udo Kier is passable as the clich\u00e9d villain and the supporting cast are pretty damn bad. Towards the end of the film there is a surprisingly tense chase sequence which came as a shock considering Boll was behind the camera.

Unfortunately the rest of the movie has an incredibly cheap feel to it, with bad CGI, lame one-liners and clich\u00e9s around every corner. Oh, and the worst lead up to a sex scene I think I have ever scene. Not only have the two only known each other for six hours, but all it takes is for him to say he kept warm while in the army by spooning his fellow soldiers. He already got her to take his clothes off by merely telling her to. Then he took his off and climbed into bed because he was afraid of hypothermia.

Anyway, to summarise, this is a bad movie. It is mindless action movie that can kill 80 minutes if you are totally bored. One could probably do worse than popping this in and watching it, but I'd personally say watch a classic action film like Die Hard or Predator and stay away from this derivative mess.

1\u00bd\/5","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't really mind the creative ideas interjected in these movies, but seriously. There isn't one coherent part of the game in this movie. That seems to be the trend, buy the rights and then just make a movie that has zero to do with what the fans want. This butchering is almost entertaining because you know you are getting away with hiding behind a lack of skill, and control of money (not yours) that allows you to do this. Play a game, or hire someone to, and please make a real movie, or stand in the boxing ring and have your butt handed to you as you so claim won't happen.

wow, 9 lines of text and i was done. had to add blah to bug you, sorry","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Uwe Boll slips back in his film-making skills once again to offer up a scifi horror tale of mercenaries and reporters taking on super soldiers on a remote island. An okay cast headed by the excellent Udo Keir is cast adrift by Boll who makes the worst of script that should have worked. The mad scientist being investigated by a reporter has been done to death but this script is amusing enough that the plot should have worked, additionally the effects and super soldier design with their dead lifeless eyes have some degree of creepiness, however Boll somehow manages to film everything in an off handed way. Its as if he couldn't be bothered to actually figure out what would work and instead rattled off stock camera placements and walked away. Additionally the assembly of scenes has no spark or life, I'm guessing that Boll only shot one or two takes and just used what he had. It really stinks. Clearly Boll is in one of his periodic retrograde films where anything he's ever learned about film gets flushed. The last film he made that was this bad was Seed a serial killer movie that is one of the worst films I've ever seen. This isn't that bad, but it is close simply because it should have been better. Then again Udo Keir is good enough that he does make watching his scenes worth the effort and make this a an almost so bad its good film. I'd take a pass unless it's late at night and you're catching it on cable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really liked the Far Cry game, nice graphics, good level-design, interesting and clever enemies, above-average length and even a somewhat decent plot. I am not by default against movie spin-offs of games. I thought \"DOOM The Movie\" was hilarious. But what Uwe Boll has done here, is to take the game and modified every one of its good aspects and turned them into something horrible (well not the length, the movie runs only a merciful 90 min) The characters are even more stereotypical than in the game, which is quite an achievement. The entire plot is told without any twists or mystery. Several blatantly ridiculous scenes tell you every bit of the story. And come on \"Genetically Modified Soldiers\"? they could have come up with some better name.

However, this film should get some award for the most idiotic love scene. I have never seen anything of the like. I could not believe they were trying to be serious \"we have to get out of the wet clothes\" \"I think I'll get hypothermia\" (although everybody is wearing T-shirts) \"we need to cuddle together for body warmth\" \"Is that your gun?\" But... but ... weren't there people who consciously did this? There must have been a scriptwriter, a director, actors, a gaffer, an electrician, some food guy! Why didn't anyone jump into that scene to stop this evil from happening? Was this film done by ravaging, inhuman, genetically modified film people? I won't start at ranting about how many logical errors, inconsistencies and scriptwriting flaws there were, but even to the die-hard action-fan, this can't be anything but insulting.

This film did actually ask for being rated 2 out of 10, so I'll do it that favor. But that leaves me to explain where the second star comes from. Special-effects? Nah. Acting? Not really. References to the game? You wish. Wait! they used the font from the game for the title and the credits. That was neat.

If you are looking for a flick for a bad movie night, go for \"2012 - Supernova\", this one is just - sad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Clearly this would have had potential in more capable hands, but given Uwe Boll's track record it would have been surprising if there would have been any merit to this farce.

The first 5 minutes are classic monster movie madness - even the horrible one-liners delivered by GI Joe type soldiers feel as if they were lifted off another venture into the same genre.

You will be doing yourself a favor if you exit the movie at this point. You've already passed all the highlights and you will have spared yourself the suffering of sitting through some of the worst acting in recent history.

Next, enter absolute rubbish talent. The leading man has the same amount of charisma that you will find in garden slug.

There is an awkward bit of contrived romance thrown in - this feels so wrong that you can only speculate why this scene was conjured up in the first place. Normally the genre uses interludes of romance and nudity to inject some humanity and sympathy into otherwise cardboard cut-out characters - here it backfires on all cylinders.

The effects are bad and the action unbelievably boring. Where other classics show originality and imagination in the face of budget restraints - here it just seems like everything was spent on catering.

There are in fact no redeeming features here - not even the \"it's so bad it is almost good\" applies. It's just bad, and in a bad way.

Our hero questions the leading starlet about the night they spent together and how she would rate him. She gives him 2 out of 10. I give the whole affair 1 (I'd have gone for 0 if that were possible).

Don't waste your time on this dribble, there is plenty of crap cinema out there, which exceeds this ridiculous rumble in the jungle.

Oh and finally, the movie has little to nothing at all to do with the popular game Far Cry (at best it is extremely loosely based on it).

Horrible, move along!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sadly this film lives up to about 1% of the hype that the game created in 2004 and leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. For video game enthusiasts, book worms and movie fans alike there is nothing more disappointing then a film that is based on an original concept (whether on paper or gaming console) that does not deliver. And not only that, goes well under the mark. Far Cry the video game released in 2004 created such a cult following that making a movie from the content should have been easy and scores of gamers would have flocked to watch the film. If you are a gamer that has played Far Cry; do not watch this film. Anyone else who hasn't played the game; it'll still seem like a B grade acted \/ B grade directed movie. Uwe Boll, hang your head in shame...this should've been easy to make into a blockbuster. The storyline of the game was incredible (think Jurassic Park meets Alien) and yet you still managed to take it and mould it into your own terrible recreation of an instant classic. Video game companies be warned - if Uwe Boll comes a knockin', lock the door. Oh & Til Schweiger...I look forward to seeing you make up for yourself in Inglourious Basterds. What were you thinking taking this one on? Sigh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not too good a movie. Sure, it contains action, but the effects aren't all that good for a '08 movie. Gunshot effects are downright horrible. Acting is \"meh\"

It is nothing like Far Cry, other than names and the very basics of the story (genetically enhanced super soldiers going amok). The super soldiers are very different, the mercenaries are different, the setting are completely different (tropical island in the pacific in the game, island in northern-ish America in the movie).

I loved playing Far Cry. I loved the story and setting. I hated the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Barely came trough the whole movie... Acting is bad, dialogs are even worse. Felt kinda st00pid 4 watching it, but it was named the same as one of my favorite games, so I struggled trough. They even screwed up the sound. At certain parts of the movie the background music is so loud, that i had to turn the volume down. It would be great, if this was a competition about who can screw up more.

Oh and PS: I don't know what's this guy \"Uwe\" capable of creating... I certainly don't think this movie is bad just because he's the director. I checked the list of his work, and this is his first(and probably the last) creation that I've seen.

over&out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was actually fairly surprised to find out a movie based on the Far Cry game had been created. The story here is not something I would consider to be a strong point in the game universe. No worries though as in typical Boll fashion the story in the movie has very little to do with the game it is based on. Now I understand that certain liberties need to be taken to make a transfer from one form of media to another but it seems like he really just doesn't even try to make a connection. Not only that but the acting and action sequences are so corny it almost makes you feel like the whole project was one big joke. It has been said a million times before but why couldn't someone more talented pick up the video game rights to create a movie????","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a huge fan of the Farcry Game, HUGE fan. It still holds a place in my top-10 games list of all time! The story line was new, fresh... A truly brilliant foundation to base a movie on... or so i thought...

Farcry the Movie is no less than another directors attempt at cashing in on a successful game franchise (see Doom: The Movie, and many more...).

The Video Game begins as the player (Jack Carver) awakes in a sea side cave after been shot off his boat by an RPG from an unknown soldier. Jack then finds a communication device where (Harlan Doyle) guides him across islands, shipwrecks, jungles, installations and VOLCANOES, to find his (lady friend?) (Valerie Constantine), all the wile battling mutated super soldiers, and genetically enhanced animals.

The Movie plays out very, very differently: 1: There's a needless 30 mins (1\/3 of the movie) of \"backstory\" before we even get to the 'boat blowing up' scene. 2: Jack then walks onto the beach, kills some goons, then drives off... Nothing like the game... 3: There is no communicator with Doyle on the other end... 4: The 'Modified Soldiers' look like albinos with singlets on... And there was no mutated 'monkey-like' creatures jumping out of the bushes. A part of the Farcry game i enjoyed allot... 5: There is no sun filled beach scenes, no aircraft carrier, no communications stations on huge cliffs, LITTLE reference to any in-game contents (characters\/items\/vehicles), in fact no attempt to follow the story line at all. 6: The climactic Volcano scene from the game is replaced with an old industrial building. 7: There's an Ending scene... where everyone (except Krieger) live happily ever after... WHAT THE!

I recommend avoiding this movie at all costs! If you are a Gamer, you will HATE this movie will all your soul. It is a movie clearly intended for males, so girls, stay away... So if your a male, 12-29 years of age, have never played Farcry, and are not disgusted by directors attempts at porting books\/games to the cinema... then this is for you...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a fan of the game and watching this film made me physically vomit!!

It was an awful film, though the story was similar to the games plot. the whole super human soldiers thing. Other than that Jack Carver, an all American man in the game, is played by a germen, unless thats some sort of twisted irony, that is what made me pull a middle finger at my TV screen the second it started. The fact that you can tell its filmed in a forest in the middle in what seemed like the middle of summer, this is uncalled for because the game is set in the tropical rain forest, whereas this looks like the director just looked out his window in the morning and went \"thats a good forest.\"

THIS IS A NOTE TO ALL DIRECTORS: If you ever plan to make a film based on a game\/book play it, understand it and ask fans about it... don't just play it for an hour and assume you know it!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So im not a big fan of Boll's work but then again not many are. I enjoyed his movie Postal (maybe im the only one). Boll apparently bought the rights to use Far Cry long ago even before the game itself was even finsished.

People who have enjoyed killing mercs and infiltrating secret research labs located on a tropical island should be warned, that this is not Far Cry... This is something Mr Boll have schemed together along with his legion of schmucks.. Feeling loneley on the set Mr Boll invites three of his countrymen to play with. These players go by the names of Til Schweiger, Udo Kier and Ralf Moeller.

Three names that actually have made them selfs pretty big in the movie biz. So the tale goes like this, Jack Carver played by Til Schweiger (yes Carver is German all hail the bratwurst eating dudes!!) However I find that Tils acting in this movie is pretty badass.. People have complained about how he's not really staying true to the whole Carver agenda but we only saw carver in a first person perspective so we don't really know what he looked like when he was kicking a**..

However, the storyline in this film is beyond demented. We see the evil mad scientist Dr. Krieger played by Udo Kier, making Genetically-Mutated-soldiers or GMS as they are called. Performing his top-secret research on an island that reminds me of \"SPOILER\" Vancouver for some reason. Thats right no palm trees here. Instead we got some nice rich lumberjack-woods. We haven't even gone FAR before I started to CRY (mehehe) I cannot go on any more.. If you wanna stay true to Bolls shenanigans then go and see this movie you will not be disappointed it delivers the true Boll experience, meaning most of it will suck.

There are some things worth mentioning that would imply that Boll did a good work on some areas of the film such as some nice boat and fighting scenes. Until the whole cromed\/albino GMS squad enters the scene and everything just makes me laugh.. The movie Far Cry reeks of scheisse (that's poop for you simpletons) from a fa,r if you wanna take a wiff go ahead.. BTW Carver gets a very annoying sidekick who makes you wanna shoot him the first three minutes he's on screen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a disgrace to the game FarCry i had much expectations but all ended up in a nightmare. Besides the bad acting the visual effects, stunts the plot even the humor used in the movie was an absolute flop. The movie is not worth watching at all. The funniest part was when the girl comes and kiss Jack in order to give him the key to the cuffs. Guess the she got the keys to handcuffs all the time. I hope some good director will make a remake of this fantastic game into a movie someday. And I they will invest some good cash to get the visual effects right and the scenaries right as well as the ACTING right. But till then don't waste time by trying to watch this movie because it will surely make you go mad specially if you are a FarCry lover.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Completely overlooking the whole movie adaptation of a video game, this is another terrible movie by Mr. Boll. How he continues to be hired to make movies is a constant surprise to me and obviously most of the movie going community.

As a whole I will say that this attempt was fractionally better than so many of his previous attempts. Some of the dialog was even half way decent in Far Cry though he still misuses some phrases and in some cases he doesn't even use the phrases correctly.

Now besides the fact that Jack Carver is supposed to be American and not German, Til was still entertaining in this role. One exception is the laughably lame lines he uses to get in bed with the girl. And we are supposed to believe that she is ready to have sex with him so casually after such minimal dialog? Emile? Simply there for comic relief I am sure and still lame. Jack's character looks old and tired yet is still capable of the extreme acrobatics needed to avoid one of the altered super soldiers in the lab.

Don't watch this one for the Far Cry adaptation. But you might just waste an hour and a half watching it if you have nothing better to do.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Normally I love finding old (and some not-so-old) westerns I haven't seen, to be the entertainment for the evening. It's such a great way to sit back, relax and escape the politics and world problems for a few hours. But this was not to be the case with this version of The Magnificent Seven. The casting and storyline of this series closely follow the Hollywood formula for politically correct entertainment; good old get-your-mind-right, revisionist history, where the 'bad guys' must all be white, male, Confederate (in this case), and preferably Christian (if it can somehow be worked into the script). It's sad, really. The best movies out there, are now and have always been about simply telling a good story up on the big screen - not about forwarding someone's political ideology.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"... with a 500$ budget and a bottle of ketchup.

If you are a fan of C movies with no talented actors whatsoever, a ridiculous story, cheap effects and lousy camera-work, this film delivers.

All others be warned. You could probably make a similar movie with a couple of friends in your backyard and a home camcorder.

The film is good for some laughs though. Watch it with some friends and discuss how NOT to make a movie.

2\/10 for unintentional comedy.

Why the hell do you have to write 10 lines? I have seen comments with less lines and writing this is just a lame filler.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow! Here comes another straight-to-video scarecrow movie to keep the cinematic masochists happy. If the cheap-looking opening credits don't tell you you're in for quite a ride, then the diabolically tragic \"writing\" sure will.

A diabetic kid gets tied on to a legendary scarecrow as part of his initiation onto the baseball team. Then the scarecrow goes nuts and starts offing people. Need I say more? This movie consists greatly of cheap effects that makes it look like it was edited with iMovie (note that spooky color inversion) and actors who apparently weren't good enough to show up on some late-night Cinemax special. Actually, thats not fair, as the actors didn't have much room to work around the abysmal script. Parts of this movie really seem like parody, especially when one character picks up his guitar and starts playing the worst song ever conceived by humans, with the worst lip-synching ever performed to go along with it. The \"gore\" here is also a major disappointment. In most B-movies such as this, there is a thick layer of cheap gore FX to make up for what the story and acting lacks. Here, the stuff is so cheap that it's not even fun. This movie actually makes \"Jack Frost 2\" look like lots of fun in comparison.

If you think this movie is the \"worst one you've ever seen\" then you probably haven't gotten deep into the world of straight-to-video B-horror. Regardless, this movie will cause you a great deal of mental anguish, no matter what your background.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My roommate and I have another friend that works at a local Blockbuster Video. He finds truly awful movies for us and tells us about them. One of them was a \"Christmas Horror\" film starring former professional wrestler Bill Goldberg as a killer Satna Claus. We didn't watch it immediately, but we didn't think there could be anything worse. Apparently, we were wrong. We were shown this slasher film \"starring\" Ken Shamrock versus a murderous scarecrow. At first we thought Ken would actually BE the killer scarecrow, and that's why we wanted to watch, but he wasn't, and that made the movie even worse. What absolutely RUINED the movie was the teen drama. If you want to save your brain cells from trying to escape from your head, NEVER EVER WATCH THIS MOVIE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I cannot believe I let myself rent that piece of garbage! The acting was so poor, my Grandmother could have done better. The punches thrown in the movies were nowhere near the character the Scarecrow was knocking to the floor. The movie became a chore to watch!

So this group of baseball jocks decide to go hazing, even after they weren't supposed to in orders form there coach under consequences. So, naturally, they go anyway. They decide to tie a loser to a post with the so called \"Scarecrow.\" When the loser's best friend finds out about this, him and his girlfriend go to rescue him.

The kid is found out to have diabetes, and is hospitalized, while the jocks head out to the beach the next day. The scarecrow finds them there and kills them all pretty much.

I'm sure you really don't care. Anyway, the Scarecrow ends up having a connection with \"Diabetes Boy\" and the boy starts to finish off the scarecrows job once the scarecrow is killed. Yes, it is really really cheesy.

It thought this movie was full of bull sh*t. Sooner or later the only ones living (naturally) are the boyfriend and girlfriend who are the Main Characters :) The evil is then transfered to the boyfriend, and he kills himself to break the curse so nobody else will be hurt. Touching hey? No, don't waste your hard earned money on this, I give it a score of a one since thats lowest, otherwise, it doesn't even deserve that much.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jerk hazer Mike(David Zelina playing this college frat man as one major bastard you want to see die right away)and his college cronies leave hypoglycemic diabetic Sam(Caleb Roehrig)hanging on a wooden cross along with this scarecrow which is a legendary ghost story. They get PO'd at Sam who essentially goes into shock and aims a swinging punch at Mike that lands across his girlfriend Patty(Kristina Sheldon)instead so leaving the poor guy hanging is his punishment. Somehow, Sam's soul \"emerges\" with the inanimate scarecrow who comes from the cross to destroy everyone who left the poor guy there to rot. Mike and the gang send the uninitiated dorks back to bring Sam down but they are the first to receive a swinging blade across their throats. Mike and his posse head for the beach to gulp booze, play volleyball & bicker until the scarecrow arrives to end their little soir\u00e9e. Sam's substitute brother Jack(Matthew Linhardt)is supposed to look out for him, but decides to sleep with new love-interest Beth(Samantha Aisling)instead. So when he receives a cell-phone message from Mike concerning how they left Sam hanging on the cross while they were off at the beach taking in the sun and sand, Jack is frenzied with fear. Beth's estranged father is a doctor and he agrees to see after Sam's condition after they cut the nearly dead young man down taking him to emergency hospital. Returning to the beach to confront Mike because of his negligence(..not to mention Jack's promise to coach Ramsey, played by UFC fighter Ken Shamrock, regarding no hazing), Jack and Beth will face the same straw-stuffed assassin that is bumping off the others. Coach Ramsey, who was part of a past hazing incident that went awry causing killer-scarecrow-mischief, has to confront some demons himself as he informs the survivors of the group about what they are up against.

Babes, boobs, and blood..this flick follows the basic slasher guidelines. Yet, this flick also carries the typical slasher traits of corny characters, acting, dialogue and overall plot. The flick shows signs of it's low budget particularly in the violence as most of the real action takes place off-screen instead of showing it happening up, close & personal. What appears on screen is mostly the aftermath of the killer's vengeance:one fellow holding his guts, another with a stake(holding up the group's volleyball net) plunged through his chest, blood spatter after a woman gets hit over the head presumably with a large rock, one chick laying dead after the scarecrow hit her with the SUV, etc. There is also some dubbing problems where it's clear the sounds of their voices often don't match the movements of their lips..particularly the unintentionally hilarious sequence where Ed(Travis Parker), wannabe rock star, is singing to his buddies a horrible song they all seem quite impressed with.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Scarecrow Gone Wild: He's the Death of the Party!\" Need I say more? Scarecrow gone wild got four out of ten stars from me for one simple reason: aside from the terrible acting, plot holes, cheap special effects, and anti-climactic whistling, it was cinematic gold! I think that this movie could have actually been really good, had the scarecrow turned out to be the baseball coach (as portrayed by the ever-so-brilliant Ken Shamrock). But then again, they would have had to cut those AWESOME \"Return of the Jedi\" electricity special effects.

While watching this movie, my friends and I were convinced that it was in fact written by one of our friends, a stereotypical teen-aged boy. This movie has topless women, miserably fake gore, and dialog that could not have talked its way out of a paper bag, or in this case, a cornfield.

If I could ask the filmmaker one thing, it would be this; \"How much did you have to pay the teenager that wrote this for you?\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So unfortunately me and my mate watched this!!! It was showing on a Sky channel over here called \"Zone Horror\" which basically shows crappy B-movie horror films 24\/7. It was a boring Friday night, so decided to have a laugh and give this one a look. Apart from the atrocious acting, the awful plot, the dire effects, the shoddy camera work and the brain numbing ridiculousness of it all, it was OK, LOL!!! In all seriousness it was quite a laugh picking holes in it and laughing at the goofy actors. There is a bit of semi-nudity which perked the movie up a bit, unfortunately it was the \"uggo\" who got topless as my mate calls her :oD If you're bored one evening and this happens to be playing, take a chance, you just might like it :)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I supposed 'Scarecrow Gone Wild' is a dull slasher flick. Yes, it have some good point, but it's a rehash from another flick. The acts is so awful nor the plot.

The story goes from a legend about a living scarecrow on the cornfield. When an initiation become a prank and cause the life a boy in jeopardy, the scarecrow comes alive and start a killing frenzy. Sound familiar, right? It's derived from Scream, Friday the13th, Jeepeer Creepers, Children of the Corn, you name it!

'Scarecrow Gone Wild' is so below average film. Barely have a scary moment. Even the final scene is laughable! Sadly, we still could enjoy it as our time killer. But I prefer you to watch something else instead. Unless you're a big fan bad and cheesy movies, off course.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The initiation to the local sport team involves taking the newbies out to the corn fields and guess what? There is a scarecrow murdering people there. Only one of the newbies survive but falls into a coma due to diabetes. Meanwhile the scarecrow starts to kill all of the involved people, one by one. Whats the scarecrows secret? Will they find it out before the scarecrow gets them all? This is a low budget movie and it shows. Sound is OK but picture is really corny. The plot\/script really sucks and is quite pathetic and non logical. The acting is really bad and sometimes just laughable. Cant really say much about the special effects cause there aren't that many but the few there is ranges from bad to OK(for a low budget that is). There is some nudity and thats probably the only thing worth to watch in the movie(that is if your a horny teenager, if not, skip the movie all together). Another complete waste of time and money so don't see it. Goes for hack'n'slash fans too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"WEll first and for most I'd just like to say that I'm back out of retirement from writing well deserved comments about horrible movies. Only the movie in titled \"Scarecrow gone wild\" could bring me back, so here I am.

With that being said, I like to start off with this comment. OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This movie was really horrible, I mean I know it was going to be bad. But I had no idea that I would be spending 60 minutes out of a possible 90 minute film laughing at what I thought was a horror movie.

Let's start with the biggest flaw of the film (to me that is). Ken Shamrock. Now if memory serves me correctly, Shamrock is one of the worlds most dangerous men. Now if memory serves me again, he was also in this stupid movie being a stupid comic relief (or that's how it looked to me). I mean how else do you explain all of his lines. My all time favorite line of his in this so called movie was \"It's been a long time coming\". OK????????? The funnest thing about that line was that no more then five minutes prior to him say that, he was sitting on the beach talking to the soon to be dead kids about how the dam scarecrow could not be killed. So if he has knowledge of this, why on earth would he start trying to combat it as soon as he sees it (the scarecrow that it). Like I said before, he must have been the comic relief, except I don't think his UFC buddies where laughing.

Now that I've finished that well deserved paragraph on to the movie.

I'll admit that I can't remember a lot of scenes, and that's not good considering that I just watch the movie no more then fifteen minutes ago. So what I'm going to do is list the top five things wrong with this film 1. Usually when horror movie monster have their own theme music, it's not heard by the victims or even by the monster itself. So why were just about every person involved in this movie able to here this pathetic whistling. I mean I saw the scarecrows face and nothing about it said that he was the whistling type.

2. Why on earth were there murders on a beach. I'm sorry, but threw out history beaches are associated with party time and vacation type feelings. But I guess this horror movie thought it was going to be such a success that it would change all of that. Plus was it me or did the beach seem to be the size of someone living room. I mean every time an actor or actress was running around on the beach, it looked as if they were running in the same spot.

3. The girl running in the gray sweat pants. That really bother during the duration of this film. I mean she looks so ridiculous. Plus it didn't help any that she looked as though she was the youngest out of the whole group. I mean what was she like twelve or something. There no excuse for someone to be that thin on camera. I mean doesn't the camera add like ten pounds or something, so what was her excuse.

4. People trying to get record deals on camera. Just when I thought that this movie could not get any cheesier, out comes the wanna be Gorth Brooks and oh man was he lame. I don't' remember the whole scene, but from what I do remember it was not pretty. This one guy starts singing this song about something that has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with what's going on in the film. The funniest part of the whole happening is how everyone seems to being enjoying this. I mean the only person who doesn't really know how to response to this is the \"token black guy\". And that's sad because if I'm not mistaken he was the one that encourage this latest addition of American Idoal. But here's where it gets funny. While this guy is all into his new song or whatever. In the far distance we see or villain aka the scarecrow. And boy does he look pi**ed off at this. I mean there's actually a moment where he looks like he's really jealous of this guy. So what does he do about this jealousy, well I'm glad you ask. He wait's for the guy to finish his song, and then he finises the guy. I don't want to give the death scene away, but I can tell you this. If that scene doesn't make you laugh, then nothing on this earth will.

5. This movie was way longer then I expected. And it didn't help that they tried to pulled some pathetic twist bulls**t at the end to squeeze another 10 minutes out of this film. I mean I'll admit, I didn't see the twist coming, but that had a lot to do with the fact that I was hoping that the film was over and done with. But no they had to do they twist s**t. Needless to say that when I say that coming, I just turned off the T.V. and said f**k it, there's no way that movie could have gotten any worser. Thanks to my rather fast judgment I can say that I'll never know what was to happen next. But I promise that I do not care!!!!!!!!!!!!! All and all the movie is good for a laugh, but please don't buy it. Just hype it up to one of your friends and watch it on there expanse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This third installment in the Scarecrow series is by far the best of the lot. I know, I know...but how good is it? Well, let's not be silly. It's still pretty bad, but by comparison to the first two, it's a fine film. Again shot on digital, with decent lighting and good camera work.

****SPOILER****

When a college baseball team hazes new members, one is left in a diabetic coma. Of course, they abandon him in a cornfield, tied to a scarecrow. In keeping with the legend, the boy's soul is transferred into the body of the scarecrow, which comes to life and wreaks terrible vengeance on, well, pretty much everyone. The co-eds drive to the beach, which is somehow very close to the cornfield. On the sunny beach, they are killed one by one by the whistling scarecrow.

Writer\/director Brian Katkin does a credible job of bringing some much-needed drama to the film. Unfortunately, the drama leaps over good and lands in common cheese. Much of the acting was fair, but there were some really terrible bits, including an awful piece of poorly done lip-synching. Some plot points were left mostly unresolved, and most were used to get someone alone so they could be slaughtered. Again, better than the previous installments, but still lacking.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So me and my friend are carousing our local movie rental store and are looking for something to pick up to go along with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, so why not pick up the third installment in the Scarecrow series!?! Keep in mind that this is not just Scarecrow Three; this is, Scarecrow: Gone Wild. Now both of us had seen to the first two Scarecrows so we felt obligated to finish the job. Let's start with the cover of the DVD first. First we notice a picture of Ken Shamrock (\"The World's Most Dangerous Man\") on the cover. Apparently he was used to market the movie as the \"lead actor\". By the way, he has the least screen time of any member of the credited class. Next we notice a picture of a very attractive and very scantily clad woman in the middle ground of the cover. I can assure you that she is not in the movie....at all. At the time of rental we assumed that this was to reiterate the fact that the scarecrow was \"going wild\". In the background we noticed a large carnival on an island out in the ocean. I can also assure you that the carnival is also not in the movie...at all. Looking back me and my friend should have known something was up. I mean really, who the heck puts a carnival on an island. Now on to the actual movie. We start when a young man is inexplicably fused to a scarecrow in the middle of a corn field. Don't ask me how they were fused but think of when Brandon Lee waking up from the dead in The Crow. It's just that stupid. But in the scarecrow's defense, he has \"gone wild\". Anyhoo, the scarecrow, who now lives vicariously through the young man, takes a trip to his local beach to brutalize those who had done him wrong. Because yes, in the world of The Scarecrow, beaches are conveniently located in the same general vicinity as cornfields. To make a long story short the scarecrow kills all who stand in his path without any warning except for the scarecrow's trademark whistle that signals a slashing. This is however rather impossible to believe because the scarecrow's costume's mouth is clearly sewn shut. Several tracking shots that would make Kubrick roll over in his grave later, and we have one of the worst third installments in a series ever. Well except for maybe the third Matrix. As Joel Siegel would say, \"This Scarecrow is wildly bad.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I knew I was in for a LONG 90 minutes when the opening voice over mispronounced the word 'scarecrow' (it sounded like Scare Crew). And sure enough 90 minutes later, after witnessing beyond horrid acting, tedious drama, scarecrow's punches going nowhere near their intended target, but \"hitting\" it anyway, Ken Shamrock \"acting\", and the most stupid illogical ending, I've seen in my life (Ok, no, I take that last one back, in about a week). After making it through all that, I openly weeped that I couldn't just go to Lacuna a la Jim Carrey and just erase it completely from my mind. Any thoughts I might have had that Director Brian Katkin might have made an OK film given the right circumstances that I had after watching \"Slaughter Studios\", are totally and completely gone from my mind now.

My Grade: F

Eye Candy: Tara Platt and Lisa Robert get topless

Where I saw it: Starz on Demand (available until September 22nd, 2005)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched the 1st scarecrow movie and didn't bag out that one, though i knew it was b grade it actually had some decent gore and the guy playing the scarecrow was an awesome acrobat and had some good skills going. The effects were better and the costume looked heaps better then this movie.

I borrowed this one with an open mind, i am also a fan of ken shamrock (former ufc superfight champ) and was hoping it was a decent movie.

Boy was i wrong, the movie sucked, the monster was pathetic in both appearance and in actually being scary, the storyline was SO predictable it was like watching the movie in preview mode, as i already would guess what will happen, the music was so bad, with a horrible lip sync song that made me wanna punch the screen.

Overall avoid this crappy movie.

Save some money.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1. The Largest Amount of Money Spent was on the package of hot dogs they put on that guy's stomach, the ones that were supposed to be intestines. 2. Ken Shamrock is in it. 3. Ken Shamrock gets destroyed. (he doesn't die which is sad.) 4. It leaves you wanting more... aspirin. 5. The makers of the film are the kind of people who don't care what their monster looks like. \"Just give him a $30 mask.\" \"Good enough for me.\" 6. The Scarecrow RUNS A CHICK OVER. AWESOME. 7. The film-makers don't actually make their actors sing or play the guitar. 8. The Scarecrow uses a volleyball pole as a javelin and impales the dude who doesn't actually play the guitar or sing. 9. The Scarecrow can choke a dude in like 3 seconds. 10. It makes you actually think of all these things and write them down for other people. god what am i doing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Scarecrow Gone Wild starts as high school teenager Mike (David Zelina) & his mates decide to to give a 'hazing' to wimpish diabetic Sam (Caleb Roehrig) as an initiation of some sort. Mike & his mate decide to take Sam to a corn field, tie him to a cross next to a freaky looking scarecrow & leave him there all night, sounds like fun right? Well, things backfire when Sam goes into a diabetic coma after suffering from a hypo & the vengeful spirit of Sam passes into the scarecrow which comes to life & starts to hunt down the kids responsible for Sam's unfortunate life-threatening predicament. Can Sam's best mate Jack (Matthew Linhardt) & his girlfriend Beth (Samantha Aisling) save the day & Sam's life?

Written & directed by Brian Katkin Scarecrow Gone Wild is the third straight-to-video entry in the Scarecrow series & while I haven't seen either of the previous two after seeing Scarecrow Gone Wild I'm certainly in no hurry to change that situation that's for sure. The script actually has an almost decent premise as the wronged soul of Sam seeks revenge & his friends have to keep the real Sam alive somehow but the way it is told is poor & I suppose that basically it's just an irrelevance to the fact that this is a film about a killer scarecrow running around killing people in not very gory or imaginative ways. Having said that there are one or two scenes here which save it from a one star rating, the fart gag in the corn field is funny & something a lot of immature blokes might do (like me), the bit when two guys bury their mate in the sand & then stand over him & pee on him is also rather funny in a laddish juvenile way & a cool bit when some guy starts singing an awful song so the scarecrow throws a pole which impales him! However these OK bits are few & far between & as a whole it's a silly, boring, poorly written teen slasher film with highly annoying character's who irritate. It' also very predictable & has a stupid twist ending which doesn't really feature the scarecrow at all which is a problem as when you watch a film called Scarecrow Gone Wild you expect to see a scarecrow go wild & I have to admit he looks quite cool as horror character's go.

Director Katkin does a reasonable job here actually although what on Earth is up with that hospital at the end & all that neon lighting everywhere & the fact there is only one patient there & two members of staff? The cinematography is much better than the usual straight-to-video low budget horror film of late & there's some nice, if totally unrealistic, lighting. The film lacks any real scares or tension & some of the medical terminology used throughout is a bit iffy to say the least & I say that as an insulin dependant diabetic myself. There's not much gore here, there's a couple of scenes where some actor has some fake guts placed on their stomach to represent them being gutted but it looks pretty fake, there's also a burned face & a couple of impalement's but little else. There's a fair amount of naked female breasts on show if that's your thing.

Technically Scarecrow Gone Wild is pretty good considering some of the low budget abominations I've sat through recently, unfortunately it's still a poor film overall. The least said about the acting the better.

Scarecrow Gone Wild isn't as bad as some of the straight-to-video horror crap that's been turning up recently but having said that it's not that much better & it's still a bad film when all said & done. Not recommended, the two previous entries are Scarecrow (2002) & Scarecrow Slayer (2003) both of which also went straight-to-video.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Another sequel! Why on earth do they keep making these? This has got to be the weakest 'franchise' ever, yet it is still being funded and spawning sequels. SCARECROW GONE WILD - which I only watched so I could officially trash the whole series - brings back the evil straw-man who, again, butchers up some college kids... That's basically it. The acting sucks (as usual), the death scenes are beyond pathetic, and don't be fooled by the title, this thing doesn't have as much nudity as you may think. A couple nice topless girls, but nothing too pants tightening. Let me just conclude my continuous insult (or review) on this movie by saying: if I come across a SCARECROW IN SPACE or a FREDDY VS SCARECROW on the video store shelves, I'm going to be in absolute awe...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This an extremely horrible movie. And if your thinking you've seen another horrible movie, exactly like this one before, you probably have. You probably saw Scarecrow 2 made in 2003. Yes thats what I said, Brian (the director) stole the movie idea. And not only did he steal it, he actually might have been able to make it worse. I bet the even the actors were scared to tell people they were actually in the movie. Also I have to mention that the director was trying to make up for the cheesiness by showing as much tits as possible. Also the kissing scenes were put together like a porn movie. In fact that is probably all that the director has ever seen, and tried to put together a decent movie, which will never work.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an excellent example of an entreatingly bad b-movie. There are worse movies than this one (Titanic for example), but this definitely shares the pile of steaming crap movies.

OK this was apparently shot in Kansas City, which explains why everyone is so lame. The main guy looks like Steve Guttenberg, and is even more lame than him! I didn't even think that was possible! In fact, him and the main girl in the movie are responsible for the WORST DRAMA EVER! Its not just that there acting was waaaaaaaaay over-dramatic, well actually it was, of course the script was terrible which combines for a deadly one-two punch in bad terrible utterly unwatchable drama.

The scarecrow, lets talk about him. The whistling you hear every time he's around is stupid, and obviously dubbed in. Now his costume, I cannot get over that - its a guy wearing burlap sacks and a stupid mask! I simply am dumbfounded, maybe if your 3 years old with brain damage you'd be scared of him\/it.

One of the characters, the token black guy actually, used the line: \"This might be a chance to earn my red wings\" when referring to trying to score with one of the girls on her period. Wow, um yea, that is the kind of dialogue you can look forward to.

Oh, in the beginning when the scantily clad girl is running through the corn, why is it roped off? I'm pretty sure its not supposed to be evident, just one of the many obvious mistakes made throughout this 'film' Another is the bad dubbing for the musical number (yup thats right), there all at the beach, and the one dorkaziod gets up the courage to sing a song and play guitar for everyone, and its so obviously dubbed its funny. Thankfully, the scarecrow answers all our prayers and throws a spear right through the guy's chest when he's done singing. Overall the gore like that is pretty good, this is one of those films when you rooting for these people to be killed by the killer.

OK, there's a scene where the 2 guys bury one of their friends in the sand, then stand up, whip out their peni, and urinate all over the guy in the sand. Who does this? Really, imagine it \"Hey, lets bury joe in the sand, then stand up and take out our genitals like its no big deal and pee on him\" In fact, this brings up the homo-eroticism in this film, what the hell? A good part of the beginning of this movie is the jocks standing around in there underwear in the locker room and corn field while there doing the hazing. What the hell is with that? Traditionally, in film and real life, jocks get the girls and nerds don't. That really doesn't make sense as all nerds think of is girls and sex, and apparently all jocks think of is sports and being around each other in their underwear, I don't get it.

Lets get to the sex. As someone who watched this movie with me put it: \"I've never been so disgusted by heterosexual sex in my life\" and its true. If you like hot A cup action, or ugly old woman boobs, then this film is for you. I swear, they found a girl with the smallest breasts ever and this is who they get to do the nude scene?? Then the ugly old woman nurse shows her bouncy ones a couple of times, and man, I just didn't want to see that.

Now, I have to talk about the timeline continuity to this film, thats what really is just bizarre. It starts in the daytime, then they all head to the cornfield, and within like 2 minutes its instantly dark middle of the night, when they drive off from there saying their going to the beach - its instantly day again, and apparently they stay at the beach until night again, and until day the next day. SO basically these events in the film cover 4 days, without any of the characters needing sleep or anything, its really weird.

After the main killings have taken place, it flash forwards to '3 weeks later' and apparently none of these people actually care that they saw their friends brutally murdered! The surviving people literally pop some champaign! And thats when I realized the budget didn't go to the script, directing or acting, it all went to that freakin bottle of champaign.

The ending. Stop reading now if you don't want the ending spoiled for you, it truly is enjoyable.

OK, so the end takes place in a church, and the scarecrow put his soul inside the diabetes kid body, then he fights with the steve guttenberg lookalike guy, and he fights him with a b-movie version of the power the emperor had in star wars! I'm not kidding, its so stupid! So somehow, in the middle of the fight, the scarecrow's soul jumps bodies into the guttenberg jr. guy, and then with the last amount of will he has of his own, he impales himself on a cross in the church! Its awesome! Some blood, but whats even better is that the cross is obviously cardboard! You can see the bottom move off the ground! Wow, yea have fun watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Firstly this has nothing to do with the much better 18 weapons of Kung Fu starring Gordon Liu. I mention this as my Kung Fu Theater presents DVD has a totally misleading picture on the cover, the wrong plot on the back and goes on to mention (no idea why) The Young Hero starring Hwang Jang Lee. Apart from an introduction to the history of the 18 weapons style told by a monk to some children during the opening and the usual mysterious manual that everyone is after, the weapons never really appear again and the fights are all boxing style. The hero is Lee Shao Hwa who I have never heard of before or any of the other actors. The film mentions another director Wu Yuen Ling as well as the one IMDb lists. The other actors are Wang Fu Quen, Wang Wing San, Chen Fei Fei, Wang Ki San, Suen King Kai and Hwa Yue Suen who seem to have sunk without trace after this film. The fights are reasonable and frequent but not great and the 'star' doesn't have much charisma. The twist at the end is just stupid and the film seems to end abruptly as though they got bored with it. The scenery and the training sequences in the river are a little different from usual. Unfortunately the pretty sister gets drowned not the very irritating (though acrobatic) young boy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have a friend that works at blockbuster, and he gets 5 free movie rentals a week, so one day as we were scouring the aisles for something interesting, i stumbled across 18 Weapons of Kung Fu, and judging by the box alone, this movie seemed pretty wack, but nonetheless we gave into temptation and rented it -- afterall, it was free.....and thank god it was....this is by far THE WORST movie i have ever seen....the budget must have been a pickle and a piece of string...the plot was ridiculous, the only mention of the \"18 weapons\" is that there is some book that teaches the ways of the 18 weapons that some bad guy is after -- and thats it! there isnt even any weapon fighting in this movie...that and the action sequences are just flat-out BAD....9 times out of 10 the other guy's punches and kicks come about a foot away from landing on the other guy's, and there are MANY times when the the movie will skip frames (a result of ridiculously poor editing)....the dubbing is as well laughable, and it is hardly even understandable....and we wont even get into the acting...the ending will definitely leave you saying \"wtf??\", however to be fair i must mention that the fighting techniques used by the actors were somewhat decent, and the old guy is a mad chump....but thats about it...thankfully i didnt have to pay for this movie, but i guess at least now i know exactly how bad a movie can actually be....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the ultimate Kung Fu movie! This is the only Kung Fu movie! This is the only Kung Fu movie I have ever seen! I am giving this movie way too much credit! My best guess for the reason for making this movie is that someone wanted to show off someone else's martial arts abilities, but realized that you can't just film a guy fighting another guy and have people watch it, so he put a story behind the fighting... and people still didn't watch it.

This movie's story line was onion skin thin. That acting was goofy and stereotypical of any Kung Fu movie. The dubbing was literally the worst I have ever heard. It seemed if you played a small role in this movie, like the fat guy or the two guys trying to catch the main character with a net, it didn't matter who over did your voice. It could have been a dyslexic with a slurred stutter and nobody would have said anything. But beside all of this, the movie makes up for itself with the somewhat awesome fight scenes.

The fight scenes were definitely what this movie was all about. But the instigations of the fights were totally absurd! On most all instances, a guy either pops out of the tall grass, or glances at the main character from a distance, and then attacks him. But once the fighting started, things sort of balanced out. There were only two things that really hampered the fighting, though. Those constant \"wooshing\" sound effects that were added to every swing of a fist or foot or sword, and the poor editing that made 25 percent of the fighting VERY jumpy and choppy. Someone would be in the middle of a back flip and then suddenly be on the ground being kicked, and then instantly be back on their feet blocking a punch. But while the cut and paste editing was more of a nuisance than anything else, it didn't really affect the overall movie.

In the end, this was not a great movie, but I wasn't expecting a great movie. A great movie is not something you should expect when you see a box cover like this movie's. All I saw this movie as was a way to pass an hour and a half of boredom. I rarely say that, but this was just one of those movies you have no practical use for, so you watch it whenever you have some free time. Enjoy the movie if you decide to watch it! Good day gentlemen.

-Scott-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had all the potential and makings of a great feel good, great love story...the cast is perfect, the visuals work, the original premise works, the characters work....but the story moves from one chess move to the next in a most predictable way...not one character in the movie has any depth or has any depth explained by the director. All we know about Catherine Zeta-Jones character is she is obsessed with her world....nobody is allowed in and nobody challenges her world...that much is obvious....but the remaining characters all have their own dimensions that are really never explored or exposed....Aaron Eckhart's character had so much more to offer to the story but wasn't allowed, Abigail Breslin's character is so easy to understand that her performance comes across somewhat predictable and phony....in the end everything reverts back to the forced turbulent world of Catherine Zeta-Jones which the audience never totally falls for....honestly, her turbulent world is not much more than a portrayal of a selfish, self obsessed, spoiled lady who most people would not have much time or sympathy for in the real world. The director needed to make her a hero and never does....in the end, it is Eckhart's character that ultimately wins because he wins.

Not a lousy movie, just a movie that could have been a lot better with more depth of personalities allowed in, explained and exposed.

Cheers","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, i must admit, when i saw the trailer for this movie, i was looking forward to it. I am generally a fan of light hearted romantic comedies and from the trailer, thats the impression i got of this movie. However, i spent most of the movie waiting for the comedy to begin. Although there were a couple of amusing scenes, in general the outlook of the movie was quite depressing.

I also found it difficult to fall in love with any of the characters as they all seemed a little underdeveloped, the time which the director could have used exploring the characters taken up by a needless overuse of Opera, making the movie feel dragged out and slow.

All in all, although there are some touching scenes, the trailer is quite deceptive and i would only suggest you go watch this if there is really nothing else that tickles your fancy.

Not fantastic, and as i have said before; Bland.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Go to the video store and get the original. I do not understand why Hollywood has that need to take a perfect foreign movie and remake it. \"Mostly Martha\" or \"Bella Martha\" has a much better cast. Beginning with the heroine Martina Gedeck, who convinced me much more in the role of the work-obsessed perfectionist than the more famous Catherine Zeta Jones, to the Italian cook and the niece suddenly deprived of her mother and forced to live with an aunt, not fit for child-rearing.

In many ways, the American version of the movie is a copy of the German original. They just exchanged the actors. However, they also changed the story because it would have been difficult and not very believable to materialize a father for the little girl in an American context.

I was thinking about that. Maybe the father could have been Puerto Rican, or Cuban, or Mexican. Well, there are so many \"guest workers\" in the U.S. Take your pick. But I doubt that any of them would have shown up to shoulder the responsibility as the Italian father did in the original. Therefore, the American movie leaves that part out but keeps the Italian cook. And by doing this the whole story changes. In the original \"Martha\" is so removed from reality that she thinks it is okay to send her niece off with a complete stranger in a foreign country.

The American \"Martha\" is softer and therefore the movie is sweeter and does not have that edge the German movie has.

In the original the \"Italian\" cook is not so good looking but much more charming , the little girl is more of a brat but much more believable and \"Martha\" is more representative of a career woman in today's world than the watered down version we are presented in the American version. And the whole opera music in the American version was very annoying. I loved the Italian songs in the original and bought the CD.

Hollywood recognized that \"Mostly Martha\" was a great movie. Maybe the distribution companies should have put it in more theaters or it should have been shown in English without subtitles. In any case, the original is so much better. By the way this reminds me of another remake. \"Shall we dance\" is one of my favorites in the original Japanese version and totally forgettable in the American version.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Much as I really like Catherine Zeta-Jones, I wondered once again, why remake a good movie? This version lacked the tension and passion of Mostly Martha. It was a clear rip off. Maxime Foerste was more convincing as a hurting child who healed with love. I couldn't believe Abigail Breslin. Martina Gedeck owned this role. Unfortunately Zeta-Jones should have found another one that she could own (she has other roles she does own.). Sergio Castellitto was good as a vulnerable but joyful Italian. Aaron Eckhart seemed passionless in comparison. This version was pleasant but bland.

The love between Mario and Martha was perhaps predictable but satisfying. The therapist added an interesting bit of color that didn't seem important. I liked it when at the end he said he'd be back but the movie was over before he returned. I have Mostly Martha at home. Every now and then I revisit it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is only one word to define the whole movie, that is: awful. How \"Mostly Martha\" was remade is awful. The title of the movie is awful. The actors are awful. And the idea of combining good cooking and USA is awful. If you have seen \"Bella Martha\", well that is the original title and it means \"Beautiful Martha\", this one is a punch in the stomach. The acting of Ms.Jones is so poor and unnatural that even Jessica Alba, considered one of the worst actresses (http:\/\/www.razzies.com\/history\/05nomActr.asp) would have done better. Not to mention the cook, who would better play a different role. And the little girl... not worth mentioning. Bella Martha was a very nice movie, an authentic one... why was it remade? There was a story.... here they took it out. There is no story... What shall it represent? In one way also this movie was perfect. You know when all ingredients fit together? Well this is the case here. A perfect Crap....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How bad idea was to remake an almost Oscar -worthy film?! MOSTHLY MARTHA is MUCH MORE BETTER, has deepness, finesse and so on and mainly: a wonderful and talented actress in the leading role (Martina Gedeck). It's a joke and ugliness with the handsome Aaron and the whole atmosphere... again a ridiculous effort from Hollywood. There are more and more remake and the films are full with schemes.. Isn't anybody there who can create a good and newly script? Or this is a safety solution to make remake or movies from the well-tried cartoon figures? The films are getting much less interesting nowadays. Oh yes: If you want to see a REALLY good movie watch the original one. It's definitely worth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There really is only one reason to watch this barely adequate and utterly predictable movie about an uptight chef Kate Armstrong (Catherine Zeta Jones) whose life changes when she inherits her orphaned niece Zoe (Abigail Breslin) after her sister is killed in a car wreck. And that reason is to watch Aaron Eckhart (Nick) who, with his floppy haircut and appealingly laddish attitude, looks good enough to slap between two slices of organic Pannini and eat with an olive oil and balsamic vinaigrette dip and a few finely diced sun dried tomatoes. He reminds me of Sean Bean. The thought that he might take his shirt off really was the only thing that kept me awake until the end. He removed his apron petulantly several times, but to my disappointment, never went further.

I can't be too critical because I was watching it on pay per view at home, so it hadn't cost me the price of two movie tickets at least, and I was brought up to be grateful for small mercies. But really, this is Rom Com at its most formulaic. Zeta Jones gives a very flat, monotonous performance, she seemed utterly lacking in passion, (possibly due to the amount of time she apparently spent in the cold store at the restaurant? Thirty takes in there can't have been fun) and her face barely changed expression throughout the whole movie. Abigail Breslin was pretty good as the niece, she's such an appealing little girl that it's quite impossible to criticize her, and anyway I loved her in Little Miss Sunshine. Patricia Clarkson is always good value and I can't really fault her performance as the restaurant owner, because she seemed very underused, given what a good actor she is and how little she had to do here. But the whole thing is just so clich\u00e9d, much of the dialog banal, and the outcome so obvious. This is the cinematic equivalent of paint by numbers, and Zeta Jones and Eckhart generate little heat on screen.

Nick likes Italian food (doubtless indicating his burning inner passion) and cooks to the sound of Puccini. His appearance in Kate's kitchen at 22 Bleecker (the restaurant's name) predictably ruffles her feathers but his uncanny ability to bond with her niece by cooking pizza and building a Bedouin tent in the living room, brings Kate around and, despite a few stumbles along the way, she ends up giving him her prized possession. No, not her honour. But her recipe for saffron sauce.

I'm being very unfair here, aren't I? I mean Rom Com is Rom Com, and we all know what we are letting ourselves in for when we sign up. But does it always have to be so mind numbingly dull?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a longtime fan of the original of this movie (Bella Martha\/Mostly Martha), and everything that makes that movie great and enjoyable to watch is missing from this one. I miss the slow pace, the build-up of characters and their style in small gestures, the dominance of lights and moods and moves over dialog. I don't think that the story itself is enough. Martha\/Kate is more secluded, and Mario\/Nick is not a clown. In most of the cases the things that makes one scene great in the original, its is not working in its copy here. The small alterations take away the tension. My opinion is that you should go and see the original. It'll worth the inconvenience of subtitles.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hesitated seeing this movie, having really enjoyed the original, 'Mostly Martha'. What a disappointment. Catherine Zeta Jones is a good actress but this wasn't her film. The original had poignant moments, perfectly punctuated with an incredible soundtrack. No reservations felt like it never connected. The food, the characters - nothing felt passionate. In Mostly Martha, the food came alive- every scene was filmed in such a way you could taste it with your eyes - the smells, the textures. The food in 'No Reservations' was in the background - rarely did we get a closeup of the preparation; the characters were not real enough to carry the movie without it. It was hard finishing the movie - many of the scenes felt awkward. See the original - it's a truly enjoyable movie; the soundtrack incredible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes, I spelled that right. This movie is so predictable, the actual word needs additional letters to exemplify the predictability. From the moment the principal characters and situation are introduced, it is paint-by-numbers as to where this plot will take us. The foreshadowing was as subtle as a two ton sledgehammer. You could take numerous pieces of dialogue and anticipate the role it would play in the ending.

Catherine Zeta-Jones and Aaron Eckhardt did decent jobs in undemanding roles and Abigail Breslin played the cute role admirably. It's just that the movie brought absolutely nothing new to the romantic comedy genre. The romance was tepid and the laughs were weak and few. Sure, it's an OK movie if you have nothing to watch, but you won't miss anything by missing this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I recall years back, Michael Douglas wanted his wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones, to be in a romantic film because he felt his wife had all the goods. No doubt she does, but NOT in this film. A colossal waste of time, no story, no character development, no chemistry, nada. This was not the vehicle that we all hoped this film would be, boring and a HUGE disappointment. Didn't even watch the whole film, torture. Catherine Zeta-Jones was obviously trained in how to work a kitchen, move around, present a dish but this wasn't the food network, nothing learned here and once her counterpart appeared, supposedly a romantic interest brewing, where was the chemistry. The poor slob on the second floor of her building trying all the ploys to connect and no character development there. The loss of her sister was poorly played out as who knew there was a closeness. The sister's daughter just was plopped here and there with something that was supposed to draw you in, NOT. Just a waste of movie time. The promoters certainly did their job to put this lack-luster film on all the networks tempting you with all kinds of teasers. Sorry to say, don't spend a dime.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Catherine Zeta-Jones and Aaron Eckhart star in a \"romantic\" drama about an uptight chef played by Zeta-Jones, who ends up carrying for her niece when her sister is killed in a car crash. While she's out taking care of family matters she's replaced by Eckhart.

Unfunny maudlin tale with no chemistry between the leads (she's a dead fish and he's okay, but not much of anything). Watching this I was wondering why anyone would want to see this since Zeta-Jones' character is so unlikable. Come on she's so obsessed with cooking and being the best all she does is cook for her therapist or talk about food. Ugh. I won't use any of the numerous puns that come to mind. I couldn't finish it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I saw the trailers for this movie, it looked like a good romantic comedy. I expected some light fluffy fun. Instead, I was bored and a little depressed.

Honestly, there was no chemistry between the leads at all, and the movie had little, if anything, that was funny about it. The little girl was adorable - when she cried, I cried - but I thought they might have used someone a little bit younger in the role.

Either way, the movie was filled with long, dull silences or swelling opera music. I'm not anti-opera, but I would have preferred them to spend that time letting us get to know the characters, who were all stiff and underdeveloped.

I was really disappointed in this movie. The whole time I watched it I kept thinking of how much better it could have been.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm really not going to waste my time with in depth analysis, i'm just going to say that i'm extremely disappointed that Catherine Zeta-Jones made the mistake of being in the main role in this absurd, nonsense, in this full of clich\u00e9s boring to death thoughtless pathetic try in film-making! There is no point in trying to find the positive sides of this movie, because as a whole it is poor in every single way, and the saddest thing is that Zeta-Jones is dragged so uncompromisingly into the clich\u00e9s, that she has absolutely no chance of showing even 1% of her talent!

Avoid this movie even at the opportunity of spending the night at home starring at the wall!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really wanted to love this movie, and not only cause it had Aaron Eckhart in it but I thought the premise would be cool cause I enjoy movies and shows that revolves around chefs. The cinematography was good but besides it being revolved around chefs everything else is just very clich\u00e9. Oh and Little Miss Sunshine was very irritating in this movie although Abigail Breslin seems to be a bit irritating in every movie she is in cause she plays a lot of roles where she is whinny. It has some decent flashes of cooking, but food really didn't play a big part in the movie than I expected which was a big disappointment for me. This film had some good potential, the cast was great but they just had very little to work with. I like a good light hearted romantic comedy but this was just bland. And longer than it should be cause it felt way longer than it is. It's not a terrible movie, you just won't miss anything by not watching this movie.

4.5\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had high hopes for this film when I saw the listing and decided to watch it on TV, uninterrupted by commercial breaks. I've liked Lee Van Cleef in many movies but I'm afraid that having the other characters call him Chris repeatedly doesn't turn him into even a reasonable facsimile of Yul Brenner's Chris.

I found this movie to be a complete disappointment - the music sound track tried to impart the magnificence portrayed in the original but it too failed to bring the film up the the standard of the original. The rich textures of the characters in the original were mostly missing from this film. I guess if you haven't seen the original it would be okay. Too many clich\u00e9s and too little depth to the characters. I missed the humanity and compassion and the three dimensional characters of the original.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The director was probably still in his early learning stages when he tried his hand at westerns. Have a look at the outfits. Everybody looks well-scrubbed, well-brushed, well-dressed and well-ironed as though ready for church. Even the horses look well-groomed and shiny. This is a WESTERN, for crying out loud! It's supposed to look dusty, nasty and sweaty. And then there's the amateurish acting of the females in this bird. The whole lot, a dozen or so, all pretty and well-endowed, were just freshly raped and widowed, but hardly a tear flows. Instead they all look with great interest (if not downright lust) at the newly arrived magnificent seven who they subsequently feed, bandage and comfort with love during their battles with the bandits. The same directing criticism goes for Lee van Cleef, who does a reasonable good acting job. Our Lee, playing the law, just lost his dear wife. But Lee, hard as organic rock, shows no emotion whatsoever and finds himself within days of his spouse's demise in the arms of a juicy widow with whom he, together with her brood, walks off into the future. The cad. And then there's another thing that always kind of bothers me with this type of films: it doesn't matter how many dynamite-induced explosions take place in the middle of a pack of some 50 horses, never mind how many shots are being fired at the rabble on top of them, only the crooks get killed and the nags always go their way rejoicing in one piece. (I know...silly moi...it's just a movie...). It's not the worst western ever made, but prepare for some serious yawning.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I guess I should now comment upon a 4th flick in the MAGNIFICENT SEVEN franchise; the sequels still surprise or amaze me\u0097by their sleaze and deliberate _absurdism. They constitute or forge a 4th way\u0097not classic, not revisionist, not European\u0097but a sleaze Americana, kindred to the violent vigilante '70s movies, absurd trash. This installment too is bombastic sleaze\u0097inexplicably awkward and even somewhat strange.

Now what I find disturbing that these sequels not only have their opportunist fans; but that the fans simply do not sense any difference between the original's style and the sequels'.

These sequels are not boring or insipid\u0097but bizarre. They are of course very badly written\u0097messy scripts, rubbish lines. It's straight crazy; in this installment each gunman gets several women\u0097 Van Cleef's young wife begs him to release a young prisoner; he finally does. The young man resumes his life, shoots Van Cleef, kidnaps the wife, rapes and kills her\u0097then joins a wrongdoer. Van Cleef, who has previously refused to help defending a village, now assembles a small bunch and charges the wrongdoer's hacienda; then the wrongdoers charge the village where Van Cleef has set.

I liked the cast.

Van Cleef is Chris; Stefanie Powers, pretty active in the '70s screwy westerns, is Van Cleef's darling. Callan, very antipathetic, is Noah, a writer and Chris' sidekick. The rest of the aggressive bunch are Askew (one of the only three survivors), Armendariz, Lucking, Lauter; Rita Rogers is truly hot, fleshy beauty.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I would bet a month's salary \"The Magnificent Seven Returns\" (MSR) was made-for-TV. Other reviewers attest that MSR was a theatrical movie, and I'll take their word for it. The logical answer must assume it was originally shot for TV, and after a change-of-studio-heart, it was released theatrically instead. Every actor is primarily a TV actor: Mariette Hartley, Michael Callen, Ralfe Waite, Stephanie Powers... TV performers all. Lee Van Cleef split his time between TV and theater screens. Stephanie Powers has only made 3 or 4 \"real\" movie appearances in the last thirty years of a very prolific television career - proof positive this was shot for TV. Minor players are veteran small-screen actors who can be seen on old reruns of \"Gunsmoke\", \"Wild Wild West,\" \"Streets of San Francisco,\" and so on.

The ho-hum sets are identical to the Universal Studios Tour sets, often seen in old episodic TV. And the editing betrays the one-or-two-takes-hurriedness of TV, with limited camera movements, positioning, cutting, and lighting. The sound track, exclusive of the original Berstein themes, are straight from seventies television. Yep, I'd bet money it was shot for TV.

That's an important point in evaluating MSR. Initially I watched MSR on cable assuming it was an old theatrical release. In comparison to the original \"Magnificent Seven\", it's a joke, a cartoon, an amateurish attempt at movie making. Acting, lighting, writing, settings, action, cinematography, music (exempting the Berstein themes), editing, pacing,...on and on....all pale in comparison to the classic \"Magnificent Seven\" which is close to the perfect 60's western, and one of the great action movies of all time.

However, viewed as an early 70's made-for-TV movie, as I suspect, the film is actually better than average. Those unfortunate enough to live through the 70's as an adult, know what I'm talking about. MSR would have competed against \"Alias Smith and Jones\" and similarly bland network shows. During the seventies, \"Gunsmoke\" was a quality show, concentrating on character development rather than action, deemphasizing gun play to two shootouts a week. The first shooting, usually a murder, sets the hour's plot into motion - the second shootout climaxes the episode by killing the guest star, his nemesis, or otherwise resolving the conflict with Marshal Matt Dillon. MSR has more action than a whole season of \"Gunsmoke.\" In this light - in this frame of reference - MSR is passable entertainment, a cut above the TV fare from that decade.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The series finally hits rock-bottom with this lousy fourth installment, which was (thank God) the last one. None of the three sequels did justice to the highly entertaining original, but this particular film is nothing more than a shameless attempt to exploit the name of the \"Magnificent Seven\" and Bernstein's rousing music theme. The production values resemble those of a made-for-TV movie and the characters are forgettable and indistinguishable: in parts \"II\" and \"III\" you couldn't remember their names, here you can't even remember their faces. Lee Van Cleef was an inappropriate choice for the role of Chris, but nobody could have replaced Yul Brynner in our minds anyway. Don't waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is a cash in. A cash in reliant on a rousing theme tune created for an earlier classic. Yul Brynner has long since jumped ship and so have most of the production values. Lee Van Cleef takes over the lead role of Chris. I can't think of any actor who looks less like Brynner than Van Cleef. Hey, he could have at least shaved off his hair and lost the moustache, just for the sake of continuity. Some correctional centres show this movie in order to punish offenders. One step out of line and The Magnificent Seven Ride! is brought to the fore and wielded. They didn't even bother trying to make this movie not look like a TV movie! Abysmal.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Joan Crawford is convincingly disfigured as our story starts, and of course she get fixed up. But she's a bad egg, exploiting one guy, while living out another guy's anti-social philosophy. All of this takes place in Sweden, which is truly bizarre. It causes anything and everything memorable in the visuals, which are freed from having to depict Anytown USA, but it makes a viewer wonder why every remake since is burdened and rendered unspecific by the need to Americanize everything. There is plot, plot, plot so chatty that you could drown in it, and making matters worse is a framing device that adds zilch to the movie. The photography is occasionally nice, with odd angles and miniatures incorporated quite well. But it's overwrought without ever once drawing you in.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the animated series:

Aeon Flux was an amoral rebel that was completely detached from everything and everyone. She was cruel, selfish, loving, unpredictable, witty, caustic, confident, sarcastic, lethal, untamable, ambiguous all at once. The original Aeon had layers upon layers of depth. She almost never allowed her personal emotions to show through. The original plot was deliciously ambiguous and thought provoking. You could never tell what Aeon's motives were. Aeon was a militant anarchist whereas Trevor was a radical idealist, because of this they could never have any semblance of a stable relationship.

In the movie:

Aeon Flux works for the Monicans and her political motives and personal motives are very clear. She was pretty, loving, vulnerable, easily tamable, emotional and very predictable. The Aeon in the movie had one layer of depth at most. The plot was obvious and contrived. Everything is completely laid out for you from the beginning. There was virtually no conflict between Aeon and Trevor, at least in terms of personal philosophies. The only conflict between them was that they were on different sides.

The movie was a horrible disappointment to me. I felt betrayed. They took the idea of one of my favorite animated characters of all time, squeezed all the depth and personality out of her, and pumped her full of Hollywood clich\u00e9s. The essence of the animated series was completely lost in this movie.

The only reason I'm not giving this movie a \"1\" is because the visuals were incredible. It was neat to see some of the familiar animated scenes like the fly in the eye done with CGI.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a bit unnerving when a studio declines to screen a film for the press before it goes into wide release. That many movies suck is no surprise, but when a studio itself admits as much ahead of time, the process of movie-going becomes a passion play of sorts. Consider it an early Christmas gift from Hollywood, then, that \"Aeon Flux\" isn't nearly the affront to taste and decency one might expect, given the above. Though ultimately overwhelmed by its flaws, it at least has (sort of) an idea with which to toy around. Too bad director Karyn Kusama seems to have little clue how to execute it all.

It's the future. There's been a plague. There is a dictatorship, and there are rebels. The latter are known as the Monicans, and far from being a cult of beret or tennis racket worshipers, they're into attempts to overthrow the former, called the Goodchild regime. The regime is occasionally mean to the citizenry, which is more than Aeon Flux (Charlize Theron) and her pals can stand. Through some sort of biochemical virtual reality technology, the Monicans receive orders from their dear leader (Frances McDormand), a mystical priestess-type who appears to have been cross-bred with a carrot. It falls to Aeon to strap on some form-fitting, futuristic spandex get-ups to carry out the High Carrot's orders, which are of course some version of \"destroy the regime.\" Having years earlier watched her sister get liquidated by the Goodchilds, she needs little convincing.

Not surprisingly, things get complicated. The Goodchilds might not be quite what they seem, and Aeon herself might have an unexpected history with them. Though occasionally muddled, the film's central conceit (of which I won't reveal more) contains some neat notions about the nature of human existence and survival. There's room for much more examination of which the film doesn't take advantage, but the ideas are there, at least. The big problems of \"Aeon Flux\" are technical. Kusama has made the baffling decision to film nearly all the action so close that we can rarely follow what's going on. To make matters worse, it's edited in a flurry of jump cuts that leave us completely lost. The result is some serious spacial disorientation that takes over the film. \"Aeon Flux\"'s aesthetic is one of sleek costume, oddly-angled architecture, and nimble characters. Much of the action occurs in minimalist, open spaces that beg for some unbroken long shots that might convey the grace and athleticism implied by the above. Instead, we get split seconds of flying limbs, breaking glass, and accompanying sound effects.

There is a pretty good movie trying to get out of the morass of \"Aeon Flux.\" Put this stuff in the hands of the Wachowski brothers, say, and the results could be quite different. As it is, though, I felt like \"Aeon Flux\" was willfully pushing me away from a movie I wanted to enjoy. This film is unattuned to its own strengths. Like a novice poker player dealt a royal flush, it somehow finds a way to lose in spite of its potential.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you're a fan of the original series, do NOT see this movie.

I should have been skeptical from the previews when Aeon expresses her motives for murder. In the series Aeon had no family and no motive for her adventures save selfish interests. Obviously the chimp-writer in charge felt the movie needed to cater to the \"bad grrl\" demographic by making the character deadly, but have a good reason to kill people.

You wouldn't have thought it possible, but the movie is more two dimensional than the cartoon. The characters are all portrayed as inherently good with some conflict of interest that eventually gets resolved. All dogs go to heaven, and same for every character that dies in this movie.

The selfish,twisted,perverted, dominating personas of Aeon and Trevor are nowhere to be seen. In the end they literally develop into a cutesy couple ala Annie Hall. The only character who remained true to the show was the Relicle, the floating machine in the sky. I suppose if you ever thought \"gee, I like Aeon Flux, but I wish it were more like every other faceless good-v-evil sci-fi Hollywood slop out there\", then you are in for a treat.

They didn't even get the look right. I suppose a black metal bikini was too much to ask for, but the whole setting is wrong. 400 years into the future sure looks like 30 years into the past. Instead of a distinctly urban post-apocalyptic world, the viewer's eyes are offended with a 70's mod-squad frutopia of egg-shaped furniture, wood paneled walls, earth tones, and lots of plants. Bregna was a dystopia, not a utopia.

Speaking of Bregna, that's the only city on earth according to the movie. The show is clear that there are two cities, Bregna and Monica, which used to be one. In the movie, the \"Monicans\" are just Hollywood storybook freedom-fighters. They also have as much technology as the Bregnans, which is not the case from the show.

The only possible conclusion is that the real writer for this movie was a high school kid, and that he wrote it the day before it was due to the studio execs, and he's never seen an entire Aeon Flux all the way through. The overwhelming amount of inconsistency with the cartoon is baffling. Beyond using certain names like Aeon Flux, Trevor Goodchild, and Bregna, the movie is nothing like the show.

The actual bulk of the movie seems to try to blend the colorful plots of soy-lent green, blade runner, Logan's run, and tomb raider, which came out a dull brown mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The MTV sci-fi animated series \"\u00c6on Flux\" is brought to life with Charlize Theron playing the title character, a freedom fighter who fights oppression in the walled city of Bregna, 400 hundred years into the future. For her latest mission, she has been sent to kill the city's leader Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas), but she uncovers secrets along the way.

Aeon Flux falls under the category of good premise, mediocre execution. Interesting story yet the film was a little dull. A lot of people are saying that this is one of the worst movies of the year and that's not true at all. It may be a disappointing film but it's an average film at best. I have never seen the cartoon version of the movie so I can't compare the two. It's probably better because they have a chance to explain the story more. The film is not that confusing but it's easy to get lost if you're not familiar with the material. The acting was alright, nothing special. Charlize Theron gives a good performance and seems dedicated to the film. The rest of the cast also give decent performances including Jonny Lee Miller, Frances McDormand and Marton Csokas. There are also more than a few interesting characters in the film including Sithandra, Aeon's friend.

The problem with Aeon Flux is that it takes itself too seriously. It carries the same serious tone throughout the entire film and that gets a little tiring. There's no humor and the film becomes a little boring at times. This is the same problem that Elektra had. Because the film is so serious, the dialog sounds cheesy and the serious scenes seem forced. The action scenes are pretty good but that's not what the film is really about so don't go in expecting just an action movie. The twist at the end isn't mind blowing but it's still a nice ending and better than other thrillers that have come out this past year (Hide and Seek). The costumes are little weird but still look nice and interesting. The visuals were are also done well so the film at least looks nice. So, the movie may be a case of style over substance. Interesting to look at but may not hold your attention for a very long time. In the end, it's not the best film out there but it might for a decent rental. Rating 4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Right up (or down) there with Toys and Jurassic Park 2 and The Phantom Menace.

The premise sounded cool, some of the commercials looked semi-promising, but alas, the entire movie had about 30 seconds of neat shot-ness, and that was shown on the small screen's 30 second slot.

If you want amateur writing, second-rate effects, ridiculous costumes, and an all-around snoozefest by all means watch it. The plot is recycled sci-fi fodder. Too bad too, because coming in I thought it would be bad but held out hope. It may be the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot.

Bottom line - Don't watch it.

Unless of course you -liked- any of the above 3 movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Critics have started calling it the Oscar Winner club, understandably. What after Halle Berry won it for Monsters Ball then going straight to the diabolical Catwoman. Hilary Swank triumphs in Boys Don't Cry and follows it with The Core. Jamie Foxx takes a nosedive as a pilot in the dull Stealth after scooping a gong for Ray. Now it's seems Hollywood Starlet Charlize Theron craps all over her \"Monster\" Oscar with this one of the worst Sci-fi spectacles ever made.

The film loses its audience interest after a mere 20 minutes meaning the only thing really worth staying for is the fact that despite the film being rubbish Charlize Theron is still an exceptional actress who is clearly making the best of a crude and laughable premise. Not only is \u00c6on Flux ultimately shallow but for an action flick it's also really very dull. It will only really appeal to comic book fans and Horney teenagers who like the idea of Theron running around half naked for 90 minutes. Flux only really succeed in failing.

Set against the 2011 virus that kills 99% of the world's populace, and in the last city on Earth, Bregna, the survivors, some four hundred years later, in the year 2415, are continuing to live in the Goodchild dynasty, the name of the scientist who developed its cure.

All is not well in this utopia and it is not what lies beyond its high walls that protects its citizens from the never ending jungle but what unspoken, unwritten taboo that holds and binds these unwritten taboo that holds and binds these unfortunates' together that lies within these walls of paranoia, conformity and unquestionable obedience. Filmed in and around Berlin, ironically, this is a story set against a totalitarian state, a walled city, where its peoples are no longer capable of reproducing, and its sinister and most secret plot of how it sustains life.

\u00c6on Flux is the assassin that has been assigned by the underground rebels to change the course of Mankind, forever. This is the story of her fight for justice, freedom and revenge.

\u00c6on Flux combined lousy narratives, ropy pacing and truly dire effects. Looking more like an unrealistic video game rather than a film. The only thing that is fortunate about the failure is that no sequels are in the works, Flux might just be the beginning and the end of what could have been one of the worst franchises in history, thank god for the lousy box office takings then.

My final verdict on this truly lousy feature? There really isn't a story here just Charlize Theron jumping around in a black suit like a grass hopper. The acting is very wooden moronic and emotionless compared to the other cinemas that are out there today. It try's too much to be like an adaption and doesn't really take much from the cartoon which is what I was expecting, the only thing that was done half right that pays tribute to the cartoon was the fly in the eye scene. Avoid at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While Aeon Flux was mildly entertaining and a slightly better way to spend a Wednesday evening than the pub, i did leave pleased that i had got buy one get one free tickets. knowing nothing about the film as i went in, in fact i didn't even know there was an animated series before i read this site, i was ready for anything, and as some other viewers noted, the trailers showing a well filmed, good looking, and interesting piece of cinema had pulled me in. half way through the film though i was kind of disappointed, it did remind me of the fifth element but i too feel it just lacked the extra bit of depth and left me with the empty feeling. and enough of the pointless and slightly boring gun fights, if you're going to do them, do it with some style, not just loads of explosions and inept guards falling down. personally i'd rather have seen a bit more about the story and the people in the city or got to know more about how the chairman was being undermined, than yet another long and loud gun fight.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I got to know \u00c6ON back in the early 90s via television and I loved it...

What did you like about it ? The cranky drawing style ? The flawless artistic action involved ? The absurd and deadpan communication between the characters ? The whole layout of the surrounding future world ? No matter what you loved about it...

The Aeon Flux film of late 2005 has nothing of that.

Karyn Kusama, the so called \"director\" of the film, was hopelessly over-strained with transporting the original content to a new film. If you 're not familiar with the original series, you won't understand anything during for the first 60minutes of the film.The story is inscrutable and the vapid characters do not develop during the film.

Kusama's attempt to improve the storyline by implementing some rather weak explanatory conversations between the main characters is not only a lame attempt to cover up her flaws as a storyteller , it's simply unworthy of the original \u00c6ON concept.

Charlize Theron might be an attractive woman, but she can't impersonate the \u00c6ON character. Although she was attached to strings doing action scenes, her lack of talent for physical motion simply ruins the action sequences in the film. The result is a tremendous amount of hectic picture cuts to cover up the sheer lameness of her physique.

Forget about all the rest, it's not worth talking about...

I give 1point for Ms.Theron showing her boobs and 1point for the nice architectural photography in the film. That's it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Laughable.

Clich\u00e9d.

Overdoses on style to compensate for poor writing.

Remember when MTV actually used to air music videos and other shows besides Reality Shows? Aeon Flux (2005) is based upon one such show \u0096 a cartoon from the mid-90s \u0096 featuring a superhuman female protagonist in black latex clothing. Aeon, played by the lovely Charlize Theron in this adaptation, is a cold detached rebel who is as dexterous as a line-dancer and as deadly as a viper-snake. She needs to be, if she expects to kick the asses of the totalitarian government.

I love science fiction, but hate the sudden influx of half-assed futuristic dystopian technology-overdosed films like The Island (2005) and Equilibrium (2002) (bottom of the pile). Aeon Flux has all the problems that are present in these films, but amplified. That is, there is nothing original left to show so they compensate for it with the sleek style that Matrix (1999) catalyzed. The special effects are therefore sensational in Aeon Flux which earns it a few points, but scratch the surface and there is literally nothing there.

To make matters worse, all performances in this film are atrocious and some actually wound me to watch. Charlize Theron's character Aeon Flux is interwoven with the most cheesy tough-chick schtick and it seems as though the director Karyn Kusama cannot quite decide where to go with her next \u0096 should she make her more detached or more emotional? She doesn't know! Let's go both ways! Imagine you take a shotgun, load it chock-full of character developments of different sorts and there fire into a random mess. This is the character of Aeon Flux.

The film Aeon Flux puts forward all the 'mandatory' ideas in a dystopian society - individual vs. society, nature vs. science, emotion vs. cold reason, etc. You've seen all of this before, and better done at that. Go read Orwell, Bradbury or Huxley, or even watch Logan's Run (1976) or Blade Runner (1982)... anything! Avoid this viciously uninvolving cheese-fest for as long as you can.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Started watching this but didn't believe in any of the characters. In particular the relationship between the bakery assistant and the waitress just didn't work for me at all. The scenes between the bakery owner and the assistant were nice but the rest was just very slow. It was a very superficial movie and it gave me the feeling that I was watching play rather than a film. The characters were very 'stagey' and the storyline was a lot like a stage farce. By the time the pyromaniac waylaid the assistant I was bored and didn't care what happened next and so I switched off. Glad I didn't pay to see it. Didn't laugh or even smile once. There seems to be a strange tendency for Americans to classify their films as 'comedy' when they are funny peculiar rather than funny ha ha. I have finally learned to avoid what Americans term dark comedies which usually turn out to be gruesome weird and unfunny. Now it looks like I will have to be a bit more discerning when they call a film romantic comedy as well. Maybe comedy means something different when applied to a film rather than a series in America. I don't understand why America can produce amazingly funny comedies like Two and a half men, Will and Grace, King of Queens but can't seem to produce really funny films without resorting to toilet humour. This film wasn't gross or anything. But it wasn't anything at all just one big yawn...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!

The premise goes like this : A store gets burnt down and assistant Sergio is asked by the father of the man who started the fire to take the wrap to which Sergio agrees .

So far so good , but there`s a fair lapse of logic involved Sergio agrees to do this for the sum of 25,000 dollars but why ? Come on guys if you were a good looking white boy would you run the risk of getting a long spell in a tough jail ( A very real possibilty for arson ) for the sake of 25 grand ? I know I wouldn`t , and seeing as you`d have a criminal record no employer would want to touch you with a barge pole so is $25,000 dollars all that much for a life of workfare and welfare cheques ? There`s also something else that seems to have gone without notice from the premise , since Mister Lumpke has told Sergio that his son did the fire he seems unware of the possibility that he may know too much . Wouldn`t alarm bells be ringing in your mind about someone wanting to keep you quite if they told you something ?

I guess we`re not suppossed to think about such details since A PYROMANIAC`S LOVE STORY isn`t suppossed to be an intelligent thriller , it`s a light hearted romantic comedy\/ chick flick that`s probably best apprieciated as a girls night in . Looking through this comments page it is obvious that the movie has its defenders but as a cynical male I wasn`t too impressed and William Baldwin does go way over the top","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not having any idea what this film was about, but based on the fact that John Leguizamo was appearing in it, we decided to watch it. Well, it turned out not to be the wisest decision. In fact, as another commentary in this forum puts it, we felt embarrassed for the actors that participated in this movie.

While the film is by no means horrible, it doesn't make sense at all. The over the top performance by William Baldwin doesn't help the situation either. John Leguizamo is a multi-talented actor who deserved better. The basic problem it seems to be the film was a project that started with good intentions in making a little comedy and the people in charge ran out of ideas along the way. The result is an uneven film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was an attempt toward a romantic comedy, and one which did not work. Although the film was cast in an interesting manner, the dismal script betrayed the best efforts of all. The director's fey mannerisms may have succeeded if he had adopted a point of view. It was embarrassing to watch William Baldwin and, in particular, Armin Muller-Stahl.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not really worth a review, but I suppose it's my duty to warn you all - especially since there are some pretty good reviews of this Canadian bomb floating around out there... Bad acting and a slow moving, absolutely atrociously boring 'coming of age' tale in which 3 boys lives are turned upside down when a man on the run shows up at their clubhouse in the woods. At firs the boys make good with the intruder and at one point even view him as some sort of a role model... However all this changes... and you still won't care. You will recognize Chris Penn, whose biggest cinematic impact is Corky Romano, and a young Devon Sawa, whose career peaked at 'Casper'. I was hoping for a '12 and Holding', 'The War', or 'Lie' and all I got was a waste of time. This film struggles to keep it's audiences attention and never makes an impact or maintains a note of anything remotely interesting.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just spent the last half an hour reading through the other reviews and I don't know if I want to laugh or cry. There's no way that ADJL is like Harry Potter, Danny Phantom, Fairly OddParents, other then a secret magical world, which has been close to overdone. Also, no way is ADJL anime. Anime is very much a drawing style(and some will say more, such as plot and Japanese origin), either way ADJL is not anime so stop saying it is and if you're looking for something that is like anime, look else where, like Teen Titans and Avatar.

ADJL is typical. It's just like all the other Disney shows. An arrogant main character kid who thinks he knows everything and doesn't bother to listen to people who're older than him and continues to make the same mistakes. Best friend sidekicks. Repeative plot with a hint of a twist. And sibling rivalry. Can't they once make a character that has brains and isn't full of himself? Can't they have kids respect their elders? Can't they think of something different with the plot? Can't they have the siblings get along and not hate each other? ADJL is just too generic, because you also have bad guys that get defeated and come back again, and are also complete idiots, that have no background for their hate. C'mon, you'll think that someone who's at least 30 will be able to out-wit a 13 year old.

Watching ADJL is like watching nearly anything else on TV these day, same thing over and over again. Nothing special, just new designs characters and one small idea that has been used again and again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Loosely based on novels by Earl Derr Biggers, 20th Century Fox's Charlie Chan series proved an audience favorite--but when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the studio feared audiences would turn against its Asian hero. This was a miscalculation: actor Sidney Toler took the role to \"poverty row\" Monogram Studios, where he continued to portray the character in eleven more films made between 1944 and his death in 1947.

20th Century Fox had regarded the Chan films as inexpensive \"B\" movies, but even so the studio took considerable care with them: the plots were often silly, but the pace was sharp, the dialogue witty, and the casts (which featured the likes of Bela Lugosi and Ray Milland) always expert. The result was a kindly charm which has stood the test of time. Monogram was a different matter: Chan films were \"B\" movies plain and simple. Little care was taken with scripts or cast and resulting films were flat, mediocre at best, virtually unwatchable at worst.

Thanks to an adequate cast and a few interesting plot devices, THE SHANGHAI COBRA is among the best of the Monogram-made Chan films--but even so it barely manages to achieve a consistent mediocrity. In this particularly entry, Chan (Sidney Toler) is called upon to investigate a murderer who kills with what appears to be a cobra-like bite; at the same time, he decides to make certain that a government supply of radium tucked away in a bank vault, of all places, remains secure. Do these two seemingly unrelated plot lines come together? Well... could be! Sidney Toler is always enjoyable as Chan, but most of his Monogram performances seemed \"phoned in\"--and that is as true of COBRA as it is of any Monogram Chan film. As usual, the really enjoyable performer is Mantan Mooreland. Changing times have led us to look upon Moreland's brand of comedy as demeaning to African-Americans, but he was an expert actor and comic, and taken within the context of what was possible for a black actor in the 1940s his work has tremendous charm and innocence.

Fans of the 20th Century Fox series are likely to find Monogram's Chan a significant disappointment and newcomers who like the Monogram films will probably consider them third-rate after encountering the Fox films. Like other Monogram Chan films, THE SHANGHAI COBRA is best left to determined collectors. Four stars, and that's being generous.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not one of Monogram's better(not trying to be amusing here either)Chan entries. The Shanghai Cobra has a lot going for it, but, in the end, is just way too confusing and cluttered to be overly satisfying. The film opens with a murderer named the Shanghai Cobra having already struck twice and now is about in a scene at a diner in some way. We have a guy, a girl, and another guy having some implied connection when one guy dies in the streets. Yes, I am simplifying things here for the sake of brevity, for this really is at the core of the problems with this film - it has too much going on without any real, fulfilling explanation. I haven't even gone into the diner cook who has some involvement and a juke box that talks to you and has a screen and everyone doesn't seem to have a problem with that! All this is in the first five minutes or so. Then Chan enters film working for the government and flying out to help a friend. He also has right to check a bank's store of radium and is looking for a man wrapped in bandages that he helped arrest in Shanghai many years earlier. I found the plot very involved as stated earlier. Toler is back as Chan. He is ever affable. Benson Fong and Mantan Moreland are back too. Both do good jobs and are quite amusing. But the convoluted plot just didn't convince me, and much of the film was watched with a weird, questioning glance. This isn't a bad movie not just a very interesting one except for the most devoted of Chan fans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Admittedly, I am not a fan of the Monogram Chan films. . The plot, involving radium theft from a bank vault, is a bit far fetched and a long way from the atmospheric mysteries that Fox produced. Mantan Moreland and Benson Fong (as No. 3 Son Tommy) provide some laughs as usual. But otherwise there isn't much here. Great title that is wasted.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Shanghai Cobra starts out like gangbusters, with a rain soaked diner scene straight out of Shack Out on 101 or Gun Crazy (the first one). Unfortunately the film then proceeds to plod its weary way through a standard Chan formula that is only barely enlivened by the always wonderful Mantan Moreland. It's as if director Karlson blew half his budget in the first five minutes, just getting the set up the way he wanted it. Watch the beginning and think about The Phenix City Story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Lemmon was one of the finest actors that had ever graced the screen. He could effortlessly switch from dramatic roles to comedic with ease, making most of his peers green with envy. While his performance in \"Save The Tiger\" is Oscar-worthy, I feel it was given to him as he had missed out on his other opportunities to win the award due to other, better roles that had preceded this current one.

This is also one of those pretentious movies that comes out to basically showcase the talent of the cast, or in this case, one particular member. It's too bad the screenwriter's output didn't match that of Lemmon's. Don't waste your time with this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jack Lemmon was one of our great actors. His performances in Days Of Wine And Roses, The Apartment, Some Like It Hot, Missing (to name the first ones that come to mind) were all worthy of Best Actor nomination. His only win was for Save The Tiger, and that's a shame. He gets melancholy down to a science, but never brings it into balance with the driver in his character. He actually did a similar character much better toward the end of his career in the one-note Glengarry Glen Ross.

As for the movie, wonderful supporting work by Jack Gilford as Lemmon's partner and Thayer David as an arsonist, go for naught because the rest of the script is a muddled jumble of cliched vignettes, angst, neurotic nostalgia, and pointless moralizing. Worth seeing once as a time capsule into 1970's style experimental direction by Avildsen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film's premise seems to be that the passing of the World War 2 generation in America, with its apple-pie phoniness and hypocritical morality, was a terrible tragedy. Those awful hippies ruined everything apparently.

What holds the film together are the excellent performances - particularly Lemmon's which is truly remarkable. Otherwise we have a boring slice-of-life drama (just over 24 hours of Jack's life) with pretensions.

I found it a chore to sit through.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Canterville Ghost (1996).The director made this too sappy a production. Maybe it's the generation, but I really liked the Charles Laughton version. There is a time and place for \"emoting\" and this production does not translate very well. Patrick Stewart, reciting Shakespeare was very good, but still inappropriate. Would neither recommend nor watch again. The close-ups and padded text and sub-plots were lost on me. Adding extraneous material and scenes takes away from a truly great work. The screenplay writer should find another profession in which to misplace his talent, maybe afternoon soap operas would be a better venue. Check out the really good version and pass on this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is nothing like an Oscar Wilde comedy, and this movie is nothing like a comedy. The melodrama labors from scene to scene and the comedy is completely absent. In the original story, the humor comes from the Americans who are oblivious to the ghostly traditions of Canterville Chase. The American father even offers some oil to the ghost to quiet the creaking chains. Read the book!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's a certain irony in a parody of the Gothic genre being turned into a mess of clich\u00e9s by filmmakers who either had no idea what the story's purpose was, or just didn't care. All of the hallmarks of your average family film are present- rambunctious younger siblings, a grumpy teenager who doesn't want to move, unsympathetic parents who are unable to see the apparition, and of course a romantic subplot. The movie has very little in common with Wilde's original story, which was largely written to poke fun at the melodramatic Gothic novellas that were all the rage at the time. If Wilde saw this version, he'd probably laugh- and then of course, write a parody. One can only hope that the children who watched this bland, mass-produced pap eventually discovered the wit and sparkle of the original version.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was really excited when I read \"The Canterville Ghost\" would be shown on TV. However, I was deeply disappointed. I loved the original story written by Oscar Wilde and sadly nothing of that was transferred by the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie by accident on TV and it was so unbelievably awful I could not switch it off. Every single piece of wit and intelligence has been removed from the Oscar Wilde story by the inept screenplay writer. It barely matters because the dire acting, clich\u00e9d camera-work and cloying music would have ruined anything resembling like a decent script anyway. The worst performance comes from Patrick Stewart who comes across as the most hammy, talentless, minor mock-Shakespearean nincompoop as the ghost. \"Get thee out of here!\" he screams at one stage while waving his arms like a pantomime villain. A truly terrible film and why wonders why Stewart, who can act when called upon to do so, has soiled his reputation by making worthless pieces of crap like this and the XMen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a Genghis Khan \"fan\" I was looking forward to this movie. After devouring Conn Igguldens epic novels about Genghis and reading up on loads of historic records I feel I know something on the subject and was thrilled to share my knowledge with friends via this movie...

That turned out a deception. This movie is practically made up from beginning to end. There are a few things that seem correct but mostly it is pure make believe of the writers. That does not have to be a problem, I like good entertainment just like anyone else unfortunately it is mostly boring. Nothing of the greatness comes forth in this movie.

I would NOT recommend this movie if you know anything on the subject.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this film a few nights ago and it was awful!

Awfully long - even though they managed to skip through the majority of his life!

Awfully boring - the parts they included were long-winded, and for some reason the director chose to cut away from some of the action and left huge parts of the film unexplained!

Awfully inaccurate - the whole'mystical' side to this film was a joke, and last time I checked Ghengis Khan wasn't exactly a nice guy!

Awfully acted - I found several of the characters hard to believe, they were very two-dimensional and lacked and kind of depth!

A saving grace of the film was the cinematography. That is why I gave this film a 2 star-rating rather than the bare minimum! However, if you want to look at something pretty I would recommend buying a picture instead!

All in all this film was an awful waste of my time and money! Please do yourself a favour and give this Mongolian turkey a miss!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was waiting for this movie for a time. In the first day of the air in Turkey, I watched it. It was totally a disappointment for me. I was planning to watch a historical movie, but the one in the screen was a fictional one. First of all, the main character of the movie Cengiz Han, the great conquer was portrayed like a soft, calm, even a loser one. You can not feel the power in the movie. Historically, the war machine he created was conquered \u00be (even more) of the world know in those years. To do that, Cengiz first unite the Asian tribes. However, in the movie, this loser man is in one scene poor-alone man, and in second scene, he is commanding armies. War scenes were incredibly week. In the final battle, the Mongol horseman were using double swords on their sides and cutting the enemy. : ) As a consequences, me and my friends just laugh at that scenes. Mongol army means Mongol archery horseman. You can not see that in the movie. Another ill thing was the use of fantastic elements in the movie. I do not want to go into the scenes which was portrayed Cengiz as a prophet. We can say in the integrity of the movie, it is acceptable. However, the scenes when the old monk saw the future and go to find the wife of Cengiz Khan after Cengiz gave him a mission is really funny. When the monk died in the desert, Cengiz's wife feel this dead and she find the corpse in the continent. We are talking about the Asia\u0085 Again we laughed. There are a lot of more things to say but, I don't feel that this movie has value to talk more.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The narrative was clear and concise but overall the film never caught my interest- scenes felt flat and uninspired.. Ghengis khan, historically speaking, had a very interesting\/epic life but the film failed to capture that- instead focused on small skirmishes as a youth and a love story I think I've seen disguised in a slew of other films. I never felt sympathy nor empathy for the lead- yes he had to overcome slavery but then seemed to have an easy ride to khan- pillaging, killing and double crossing his way to the top. The one redeeming quality was the photography- the landscapes certainly helped the bleak atmosphere of the film, unfortunately combined with the bleakness of the story- I left unmoved, and disappointed..","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worst film I have seen in the last 12 months. The plot of the story was uninteresting, the movie ended when he became gingesh khan, i always thought there happened something really interesting afterwards. i knew that Mongolia and all the areas where the movie played have beautiful landscapes but the movie didn't profit from that. The jokes where really poor. The narrator, gingesh himself, could have told a bit more about Mongolian history, traditions etc. My co-viewer knew nothing about that at all so he was a bit lost. I was so looking forward to see this film but was really disappointed after all. It was one out of 3 movies I have ever seen in cinema where I considered to leave before the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm really amazed that this got an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes and a nomination for best foreign film at the Oscars. The 7.3 rating on IMDb... that's not so much of a surprise, seeing the way IMDb users have been voting recently. I just can't get into a film in which the actual facts about its main character have clearly been distorted, and not at all in a way to make the movie artistic, but rather to make it melodramatic and less boring. Which, it turns out, actually makes it very boring for anyone who was expecting to see a serious and credible interpretation of the life of Genghis Khan. The far-fetched and over-dramatized Mongol often echoes the likes of 300, a film that couldn't be happier to be ridiculously inaccurate; but unlike 300, Mongol takes itself seriously. It's stoic seriousness, mixed with the obvious inaccuracies, is what makes it truly the most boring film I've seen this year; possibly the most action or biopic movie I've EVER seen. The characters were pathetically written. Honestly, I doubt Genghis Khan was as boring and passive as shown in this film. Which is funny to me, because if there's anything that I'd think should be changed for the sake of theatricality, it's making a boring person into an interesting person. The romance between Khan and Borte is similarly boring, simple, and stupid. Also, without giving anything away, Mongol contains the single stupidest scene I have seen in a LONG time- where there should be a good 20 minutes of plot development, the film just skips forward without any explanation. It looked like something out of a Saturday Night Live skit that parodies epic action movies with horrible pacing. (Did I mention how seriously Mongol takes itself?) Meanwhile, it drags like no film I've ever seen before. Even now, I could swear it was three hours long. About 45 minutes into it, I checked the time, being pretty certain that it was almost finished. Besides some pretty scenery and quality acting from Asano (naturally), Mongol is honestly just a disaster. It completely failed to entertain me or enlighten me in anyway. I would never give this film a second chance. And not to sound racist or patriotic or whatever, but give me a trashy and mindless American epic over Mongol any day. At least then I know what I'm getting, unlike with Mongol, where the reviews and ratings led me to believe it was actually something worth seeing.

The saddest thing about how much I hated Mongol is that I have friends who I know, without a doubt, would simply love it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film did not excite me. While on vacation in Turkey I noticed that it was playing at the local cinema and decided to take the chance to go see it. The action sequences in the film are well choreographed, however, the story drags during the middle of the film.

One thing that I did not quite follow is how Borte was able to get the money to bribe the guards.

The other thing that I did not particularly like was the missing segment of Khan's life. It did not go into detail as to how the bad guys were able to find him and re-imprison him after he had gone missing for so long.

Overall, I rate this movie a (4) because I enjoyed the action sequences, but they were too few to justify a higher rating as the dialog left me less than impressed...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For Native Mongolian speakers the film lacked emotion and emphasis. Used too many non Native speakers especially Jamukha. Too many diversions from the actual history. Terrible terrible subtitle!!! I wonder where and who did that subtitle. It was both in English and Thai. I wonder how bad the subtitle was in Thai if the English subtitle was soooo bad! Described the one of the greatest leader's life very uninteresting. There are better films made by Mongolian directors with very low budget from 1980's. Honestly, I'm wondering if the film critics of Academy award is that lenient or what? Only good thing was some good CGI in some fighting scenes only moderately... not over the top CGI","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all I dunno if I was supposed to use my imagination in this film or the director was trying to save money or low on budget! Here we go....

Basically there were so many years and gaps that I don't understand, its like the movie was jumping from 9 years to 20 years to 30 and so much gaps that makes you ask questions how the hell did this happen? and why? I think this is a big flow. Forget the reviews who keeps whining about the history , this movie doesn't have only history facts issues, but also has so many flaws. So most of the people keep saying watch this in cinema you will lose all cinematography like rivers, deserts etc.. thats true they are beautiful thats why I waited for BluRay release 1080p. OK! beautiful scenes but whats the point of that? I turned off the movie after 1 hour and half, I just lost Interest. The movie kept on doing the exact same things jumping in years ( At least Mr. Director put for example, after 2 years after 10 years!) I mean i couldn't watch the movie I lost understanding of whats going on! Anyways i wish i could include spoilers but when u decide to watch this movie, just ask yourself how did this happen? you will know what i mean! Don't watch this movie its a waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The best part of this DVD is the cover. It goes down hill from there. There was no chemistry between the leads, the kisses looked like something I traded with my grandmother.

The sound was so bad that at least I was spared some of the dialoge.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well Folks, this is another stereotypic portrayla of Gay life however, the additional downside includes poor acting, horrible script, no budget, terrible sound and let us not forget the impossible storyline.

It is Christmas in New York City and our story immediatly \"focuses\" on two male individuals, apparently lovers for some time. One of them has not let his parents (the right wing, religious zealot types) know that he is gay (adding to the impluasability of the story 'cause this guy is as efeminant as gay guys come these days) and his parents are coming to viusit him. They will stay in his New York apartment where he and his lover have just decorated for Christmas.

The story continues to develop around the arrival of the parents, who noone will like anyway and - how through only obvious and predictable ways - they come to learn there son is gay. Tears are shed as was my interest in this movie.

The cast of charecters, seemed like an intro acting course at the local community theatre. The lovers in this film are mismatched, and there does not appear to be any cohesion to their union.

The landlord is flat and her attempt to be humanistic in the situation are undercooked and certainly didnt help move the plot any further.

The dragqueen friend who steps to the aid of one of the lovers in his \"time of need\" is stereotypic and gives a bad name to the unique art of drag.

Although some guys night find one of the lovers to have a nice body (again, stereotypic imagery) it does not help this story.

Stay away from this film, especially if you are considering a purchase. You'll shoot yourself if you do!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The horrific production doesn't qualify as a \"film.\" It was obviously shot on video tape, and very poorly at that! There is a constant screaching sound for the audio(sounds like a bad microphone), which is so annoying that you sometimes cannot understand what the characters are saying. Badly dubbed-in music will suddenly appear in a scene, and the entire editing of this thing rates about a ZERO!

The plot is contrived and ridiculous. A late 20's gay man trying to hide his live-in lover from parents visiting? PLEASE! And the reaction the mother has when she finds a picture of her son kissing his boyfrioend is beyond melodramatic and rolls right into stupid. Talk about a stereotypical view of gay life! The acting is worse than a porno movie, and the direction is very poor!

As far as \"production\" goes, there isn't any!

This title is simply a lame videotaped attempt to call itself a \"Film.\" There is no heart and soul to give it even the smallest bit of praise.

It's just a stupid waste of time, so avoid it at all costs! BAD ACTING! BAD WRITING! BAD DIRECTING , and the title of \"producer\" is vanity as this trash probably costed them the price of the videotape they shot it on.

This ametuer garbage has no business getting released onto a dvd as it's deceptive to the cunsomer. I cannot stress how horrible this \"SUGARPLUM\" crap is!

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"his has to surely be one of the worst gay-themed films of all time. Who told any of the so-called actors that they can act. Bad sound - bad script - gestures so overboard that they defy reality. A nightclub scene with only one actor and dubbed crowd scenes.

After seeing other low budget films similarly made I was prepared for something innovative - but not plain pathetic.

Parents and friends really should not encourage anyone to make such tripe.

And the DVD - No menu access; its worse than a VHS tape. Once you start you have to watch the whole thing through - luckily the fast forward button works - with this film and DVD nothing else does.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a joke, right? This can't be a real film? It's not even a real video? Give any Harvey Milk High School kid a video cam and they could make a better movie than this. The film maker's can't be serious... right? Is this satire? Comedy? Drama gone horribly wrong? The script is about as single-minded and dull as is conceivable. Ten monkeys locked in a room with a laptop could come up with a better screenplay. The dialogue isn't clich\u00e9d. Clich\u00e9d dialogue might elevate this holiday mess to something akin to camp fun - but it doesn't and it isn't. Worst of the worst - a landlady wanders into a dramatic scene in a private apartment dressed a bathrobe carrying a frying pan like something out of a \"Honeymooners\" episode. Whaaa??? I have seen better acting from middle school drama clubs. One of the leads is an attractive lunk, the other is not. Both can't even manage a convincing kiss. So much for romance. The supporting players are jaw-droppingly over-the-top.

Everything is underscored by a nauseating soundtrack and the sound seems to have been recorded in a back room toilet. Most of the dialogue is (mercifully) unintelligible.

This stale cinematic fruitcake isn't even worthy of being the next ROCKY HORROR or a gay holiday installment of MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 3000. It's just plain bad. In every way. VISIONS OF SUGARPLUMS will not dance in your head - they will trample your every expectation. Have an eggnog and stare at mindlessly at the neighbor's holiday lights - it will be time better spent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"GOLD RAIDERS (1951)

A dull western\/comedy feature with the Three Stooges (including Shemp Howard at this point, who I've always enjoyed as the \"third Stooge\") doing their usual schtick, and directed by the normally dependable Edward Bernds, who also did some of their funniest classic shorts -- so one has to wonder, just what went wrong this time? The most probable answer is that what worked pretty good as a 15-minute two-reeler comes up as too much for a 55-minute feature film. Unlike so many of their classic short subjects, GOLD RAIDERS is not worth revisiting.

*1\/2 of ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a serious film about black revolutionaries and not really an action film. Billy Dee plays a young man fed up with racism who decides to take things into his own hands. It's fairly gritty and realistic without exploiting the characters but still it's not that interesting either and Billy Dee's character, though maltreated by white authority figures, doesn't really come off as sympathetic. It's also hurt by it's extremely low budget. Still, it's interesting to look at as it's a good depicttion of 1970s social issues.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must give credit to Billy Dee for trying to pull this off. Knowing this was a blaxploitation film, I started my DVD with a certain expectation. I knew it would be low budget... the acting sub-par... but hoped for a few gems to be sprinkled throughout. If there were any diamonds or gems sprinkled within this film, they were successfully buried under tons and tons of coal... or perhaps overacting. As an actor and filmmaker, I cringed often when potential poignant moments were ruined with atrocious performances. Yet, I must admit, I could not look away. I don't know if this was like a car wreck you can't turn your eyes from, or some mysterious power in the film that kept me there. This film is a good case for an excellent story that was told wrong. If Walter Kronkite were to tell \"the Aristocrats\" joke, it would be a total flop, although the joke itself is hilarious. Let Dave Chappelle tell it, and we are all rolling on the floor laughing. This film needed a \"Chapelle.\" Now, with that said, if you have the opportunity to purchase this film for the dollar that I did, do it. It is well worth the money. Perhaps I will take another dollar, purchase the rights to this film, and remake it. Who knows... it might not be any better, but it surely can't be any worse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"The Final Comedown\" wants to \"say something\" about racism and inner-city violence; unfortunately, the message is invalidated by the nonsensical script, the amateurish production, and the heavy-handed polemics. How heavy-handed, you ask? To give you just one example, a black doctor comes out of his hiding place, unarmed, with his hands up in the air, ready to surrender to the police: one of the (all-white) cops says \"Don't shoot him, he's a doctor\", to which another cop replies: \"So what? He's still a n****r\", and proceeds to shoot him in cold blood. The cops are portrayed as ignorant, racist killers, even though at the end there are just as many dead people among them as there are among the black people who staged the riot. And this whole event was meant somehow to \"sensitize\" the white folks to the demeaning treatment of the black folks, when in fact something like this can only breed more hate and violence on both sides. Pamela Jones, as Williams' girlfriend, briefly lights up the screen with her smile and body, particularly in a tender sex scene, and elevates the rating of this movie from 1 to 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I grew up watching the \"Bowery Boys\" on the weekends and even at young an age I could tell this was low rent stuff as the name implies. Still it was fun to watch Satch (Hall) get the better of Muggs (Gorcey) after Muggs would beat the crap out him. The East Side Kids stuff were never shown even though it was public domain stuff and probably cheap to run, it was just to low a standard for kids to tune in even though we only had like 5 channels to watch. Enter the year 2005 and I am repossesin about my childhood. I can't find any Bowery Boys on DVD but I found The East Side Kids on disc and also on a public domain website. Thankfully I saved my dough and saw Bowery Blitz on the web for free, and it really really blows. Now I can see there are some Bowery Boys and maybe Monogram bad movie lovers here that gave this melodrama crap a 7 of 10 but c'mon folks, this ain't even trying to be funny. It's an East Side Kids drama, not a comedy so it's no good. The best part was seeing Muggs fight at the end, he reminded me of my grade school days flayling away like a girl when I would get in a fight, it was kinda abusin. Leonard Maltin said in his mini bio that this flick is one of the better ones, so you can just imagine the rest. If you wanna see some halfway decent East Side action see Ghosts on The Loose maybe but the bottom line is usually a comedy team starts out strong in their career and tapers off, these mugs blew chucks early on then slowly picked it up until Hall's antics dominated than they were at best. Still 2nd tier stuff way below the 3 stooges, who they imitate but amusing for those who grew up with them. This feature won't bring back pleasant \"Bowery Boys\" memories and is best left to Monogram fanatics.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

Well, great costumes and a wonderful `feel' for Pre WWII Italy. But what happened here?

Great actors...Kristin Scott Thomas, Sean Penn, Anne Bancroft, James Fox, Derek Jacobi ...if you can't get memorable performances out of this `A List' then the problem with this movie must be blamed on pitiful direction and an inadequate script. I rented this on DVD after having liked \"Angels & Insects\" (1995) also directed by Philip Haas.

Yipes! I can hardly believe how dull this thing was. It just dragged on and on and no one was able to save the poor thing. This is not even a good intriguing-foreign-dudes-and-young-things-in- pretty-clothes chick flick!

\"Tea With Mussolini\" Gone Amuck!

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let me be clear. I hate these kinds of movies. I do not like anything where the protagonists are all bourgeoisie English. I find this kind of literature and film awfully pretentious. You will never get me to read a Jane Austen book willingly. That said, the only reason I read W. Somerset Maugham's book and watched the subsequent film was for a class.

Mary Panton (Kristin Scott Thomas) is a beautiful English woman living in a borrowed villa in Florence before World War II. One night after dinning with some of her rich royalty related friends, she willingly picks up an Austrian refugee, has sex with him and ditches, and then he kills himself. As the movie gets further and further, you really want to dislike Mary.

What a load of crap this movie was. First of all, there were many subplots and characters invented in the movie that weren't even in the book. I doubt very much the late Mr. Maugham would've appreciated them. The characters, though wealthy, were some of the most superficial and self-centered people I have ever seen.

The only reason I didn't give it anything less than three stars was because the acting was the only thing redeemable. The always talented Kristin Scott Thomas is perfect for the role of Mary. In fact, I couldn't picture anybody else filling her shoes. Sean Penn and Anne Bancroft also had supporting roles, that were just as good as the lead.

Save yourself the pain of watching this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"UP AT THE VILLA (2000) **1\/2

WARNING: YOU MAY FIND SOME SPOILERS AHEAD

It's hard to know what is the point in UP AT THE VILLA, a gorgeous but shallow period piece, one of those made with the only objective of earning Oscar nominations for best costume design and art-set direction (one for cinematography and another for score are also welcome). It has the same basic idea of thousands of period pieces produced every year: a good-looking, intelligent woman trying to find love in a strange place to her. She has many difficulties but ultimately finds her happiness in the arms of a man that is not the one that she had an accomplishment with. In this case, our lady is in Florence, some time before World War II. She is an English widow engaged to a rich-but-old man (whom, obviously, she doesn't love). One day she meets another man, who has not a good reputation but for whom she falls in love. Of course there is her friend who will help her for better or worse and a third man- who commits suicide here, in the lady's room, setting up a risky situation for her. Guess how the story ends...?

UP AT THE VILLA is not a bad film. I was always quite interested in the story, but never got excited. The problem is not the slow pacing, but the screenplay. Adapted from a novel, it needs something more spicy, exciting, twists and suspense. Every time you think the story will get warm, it gets cooler again. If you think there is a conspiracy involving the mean police chief of Florence, well, there is, but it doesn't change almost anything in the story. It just keeps going and going, till the predictable ending.

As I said, UP AT THE VILLA is not bad. If it is a bit bland, it never gets sappy and too sentimental. The acting is half and half, but surely convinces. Kristin Scott Thomas made some really bad choices after THE ENGLISH PATIENT (the saaaaaaappy romantic drama THE HORSE WHISPERER and the dull\/irritating RANDOM HEARTS). UP AT THE VILLA is undoubtly better than those pieces and Kristin is also better, but she can do more than that. Sean Penn is good as always, even if his character is a big dude. Anne Bancroft is a terrific actress (THE GRADUATE, my God!), and here she doesn't let her character become ridiculous. Now, the supporting actors are pretty bad (Jeremy Davies is sooooooooooo irritating!).

The directing is good, but not audacious. It was interesting to know that the director is the same of ANGELS AND INSECTS (also starring Kristin Scott Thomas), another so-so period drama, but more audacious than this. What matters here are the visuals. Florence is wonderful, the costumes are great, the scenery, the music...

In the end, UP AT THE VILLA is an average romantic drama, but of course it could have been much better. It is watchable and interesting, but don't expect a suspense film- it is not! This film kind of fails because it wants to have some mystery, something to behold... However, there is not much to say mainly because of the shallow screenplay. Now, about the Oscar nominations, don't worry- it will probably get them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Boring as hell and kind of a chick flick.

It's the story of a neurotic woman who struggles with the concept of marriage as a business arrangement, the romantic nature of a one night stand, and the uncertainty and pitfalls of true love.

Many of the story's motifs are reminiscent of other recent KST movies (e.g. the English Patient), but have far less appeal.

After the first half-hour I started checking my watch, wondering if I'd make it home in time to catch Leno on tv.

I passed up \"Gladiator\" to see this!?!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"can someone please help me i missed the last view moments and i don't want to pay money to see the whole film again. i got to just where they are in the train carriage and she says 'what about that drink now?' and smiles. what happens after that? is there anymore dialogue or action? surely it doesn't just end there? i was a bit bored in the film and kept hoping it would get better. i love Kristen Scott Thomas does anyone remember the UK TV series she was in about some nuns? i am wanting to know the name. Sean Penn was brilliant Madonna eat your heart out! everybody else in fact the film a bit predictable, it was a 'spot a star cast'. the ending took me by surprise i really thought she had burnt her boats.....if you are a fan of any of the stars its worth watching.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"UP AT THE VILLA fooled me into thinking I`d be watching something similar to GOSFORD PARK . The film opens at a ballroom in 1930s Italy which is populated by vulgar Americans and uptight upper class Brits , but in truth UP AT THE VILLA plays out far more like a Merchant -Ivory production which is very bad news because it`s a very slow , and I do mean very slow romantic drama with some of the romance being very unlikely . If you like slow romantic dramas you might like this movie . I didn`t","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We've all seen bad movies, well this one takes the cake. I've seen that Junior movie box staring back at many times from my many journeys to the horror section at the local video store, and I was a little interested, it looks like it pays some homage to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, so I thought I'd get it. Mistake! Junior sucks hard, long, and with commitment. In other words it's really bad. Although it does win my award for most creative use of a bikini top. AVOID!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Heh...I'm surprised this movie still exists in any form, let alone it being available for rent!

This flick is one of the many bad slasher flicks that exist only for the T&A and the cheap laughs. The story line crosses a bit of \"Texas Chainsaw massacre\" with a screwy mamma-centred back story reminiscent of \"Psycho\", and a bit of the good old women-in-chains, tough-as-nail-ex-con broads tossed in for good measure - in other words, complete unoriginality wrapped up in half naked women spiced with a dash of utter idiocy! Looking on as the director attempts to make the marsh land of Quebec pass off as Southern U.S. bayou land is sad, I tell ya!

Funny thing for me is, I was actually at the premier of this flick as, at the time, I was pals with Ratchford, the film's \"star\". It was painful to watch on as Jeremy sank into his seat whilst the flick unfolded its mangled wings.

I'm happy to see that Ratchford, after this sham of a first flick, has grown into one hell of an actor. He can be seen regularly on the Canadian cop drama \"Blue Murder\", has appeared on \"CSI\", not to mention his role in the classic Clint Eastwood film \"Unforgiven\" - we forgive ya, Jeremy! It was a rocky start, but you done good, man!

~T.Paul","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1st watched 4\/30\/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-John Waters): Corny Waters-like comedy musical with some funny scenes and good parts but it didn't make a whole worthwhile experience. John Waters directed this music-filled spoof of the fifties scene with Johnny Depp playing the title role. This movie is very similar with what he did with the 60's spoof entitled \"Hairspray\" but this one is not as effective. Some of the tunes are catchy, some of the characters are interesting in their quirky Waters-like way, and the portrayals are fine although sometimes overdone. The storyline is similar to the movie \"Grease\", where there is a good group and a bad group. The guy from the bad group, Cry Baby, wow's a girl from the good group. The good girl then joins the bad group but once Cry Baby hurts her -- she falls back to the good group. This just sets up the ending where Cry Baby tries to win her back. Now, one difference that is expected in Water's movies is that the bad group doesn't appear all that bad all the time and the good group acts like they have a pole up their you-know-what. I definitely saw this in Hairspray, as well. The wacky and goofiness isn't really all that much fun in this movie, though and it just leaves us with a feeling like the movie could have been much better. The prime appeal of the Johnny Depp character is that he's able to make one tear roll down his cheek(thus his namesake) at various times and makes the women fall all over the place for him. This is overused and the basic bottom line is that the movie is OK, but not that great.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Waters's contribution to the world of cinema has to be searched with a telescope, and then when\/if something is found (by sheer chance and lots of luck) it has to be analyzed with a microscope.

And after it has been analyzed it would get discarded into the lab's \"rubbish bin for totally useless things\". One single atom of that microscope is worth all of his movies combined.

CB is etremely campy, and intentionally so. The usual JW stuff: comic-strip dialogue, simplistic plot, moronically cheerful characters, chewing-gum pop, overacting etc. Waters knows that he is incabaple of making a movie of quality, so he hides behind the mask of the \"intentionally cheesy film-maker\" - which supposedly makes him a special kind of \"anti-artist\". But in the world of cinema, being an anti-talent often gets mistaken for talent, which is exactly what Waters had hoped for - and eventually got. It's a con act. Charlatans infest the world of cinema and modern pop art; it's a plague.

Perhaps we have John Waters to blame for inspiring Baz Luhrman to make all those horrible, dumb turkeys. It's like a virus: one Waters creates five new bad directors, and then these five each create more, and so on. Where will it end? With \"Dancer In The Dark\"? Can that bomb actually be topped?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was pure genius. John Waters is brilliant. It is hilarious and I am not sick of it even after seeing it about 20 times since I bought it a few months ago. The acting is great, although Ricki Lake could have been better. And Johnny Depp is magnificent. He is such a beautiful man and a very talented actor. And seeing most of Johnny's movies, this is probably my favorite. I give it 9.5\/10. Rent it today!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"John Waters owes me 2 hours of my life back. I saw a sneak-preview screening of this way back in 1990, and I'm still in pain. Not before or since have I seen such a terrible piece of filmic waste spewed upon the screen. There is nothing positive I can say about this film. Acting--awful; plot--ridiculous; music--atrocious. Following the movie, my friends and I demanded our money back from the manager of the theater. He explained that, since it was a free screening, he couldn't give us anything in return, no matter how much agony we were suffering through. How Johnny Depp's career survived this trainwreck of a movie is anyone's guess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Maybe I was to young when I saw it. Perhaps I have not grown up with Grease and Elvis movies.

I failed to get it. I get \"black\" comedy (Black Adder etc.). I get irony and spoofs. I don't get this one though.

I made it a quest to find out the name of this movie (enlisting the help of people on usenet and the most excellent IMDb Message Boards) so it could be my first 1-pointer. Awful!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was terrible. The acting was lame, but it's hard to tell if someone was acting well since the writing was so bad. This is one of Johnny Depp's worst movies- I highly discourage anyone from watching it.

If you must see Cry-Baby though, I recommend muting it and simply ogling at Mr. Depp for and hour and a half.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The plot of \"Open Graves\" is very simple:it's about a board game called Mamba,where the players die in real life the same way they die in the game.Laughable death scenes include killings via computer generated crabs and snakes.The characters are cardboard and deliberately annoying and there isn't even a tiny bit of suspense.I liked Eliza Dushku in \"Wrong Turn\",but she is completely wasted and unmemorable here.The climax with CGI-witch coming from the sea is utterly laughable and stupid.The only reason to see \"Open Graves\" are some interesting camera angles plus sexy Eliza Dushku.If such movies are the future of horror then I seriously give up.Give me any 70's or 80's low-budget horror flick over this modern piece of crap.A generous 3 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, so I know better than to watch movies on SciFi . . . er, sorry . . . SyFy. Or shifafa. Or whatever it is now. So sue me. I spent my whole Saturday doing advisory-board brainstorming for a nonprofit. I can be forgiven for flopping into my armchair and wanting to watch some movie I'd never seen, rather than read Proust in the original or learn how to play the oud.

Which is to say, I didn't deserve Open Graves. Of which I saw none, incidentally. Were there any? Did I fall asleep? Why is it called this?

Some icky visuals. Not many scares. As with too many films in modern horror films, no reasons are given--apart from shared humanity--to care about any of these people. Half a point, though, for the legless entrepreneur, who was clich\u00e9d but did have one good scene.

It all sort of plays like Final Destination delivered via a board game. The game does have an intriguing look to it, and it involves one of my favorite old conundrums. I'll give it that much. The drawback there is that the game possessed more personality than most of the characters.

As for the end, if you didn't see it coming, then I think YOU fell asleep. Somewhere back around the dawn of the genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I have to say this is better than most SyFy outings, but that isn't saying much.

The plot is that someone buys a game that is made from the bones and skin of a dead witch from the Spanish Inquisition (and nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!) He and his friends play the game, only to be interrupted halfway through when the friend who went on the beer run is killed in a way that the game predicted.

What then follows are a series of kills that are typical for a movie like this, or any of the Final Destination movies. It has the puzzle at the end and the interesting subplot with the cop who wants the game to bring back his family... but otherwise, it's just a mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Think Jumanji but with a death curse. A bunch of surfer dudes get their hands on a game that takes the life of some one who is playing it. Supposedly it was made from the skin of a witch during the Spanish Inquisition and carries a nasty curse.

Okay, undemanding and just sort of watchable tale isn't anything you haven't seen before.Frankly its a been there and done that story that hits all the right buttons in such away as to have no real surprises. Far from the worst thing that SyFy has run but certainly its not the best. There are better choices out there but if this is your only choice you won't completely hate it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Low budget mystery. A shot rattles out of the dark and a woman is seen running from that direction. A young architect Jimmy McMillan(Chick Chandler)discovers a dead body that goes missing. The woman in a hurry, Mary(June Clyde), is linked to the death scene; but it is McMillan that has to try and solve the case to avoid serious suspicion. Suspects are six shop owners in the vicinity of the crime scene. All the atmosphere of Film-Noir; but not quite the real thing. This flick musters just enough to be a decent low budget mystery\/drama and is a nice little escape. Other players include: George Meeker, Michael Raffetto, Milton Wallace and Rebel Randall.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unfortunately a boring flick, and obviously the only way to see it is the butchered bootleg Public Domain version, which is so blurry and dark that at times you have hard time making out where the screen is. The leading actors are a nuisance. The man spends most of his screen time trying to appear nonchalant, charming and sexy, forgetting totally what the film is about and that he is a murder suspect because of some dame who played him for a goose to start with. The dame herself merely walks through the flick, being dignified if she's not busy appearing cute. It's a rather badly written stuff, never interesting or witty. No good camera work, no memorable soundtrack, no glamorous actresses or atmospheric sets. It only scratches the surface of the genre, and nothing happens if you miss this totally missable flick.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most of the positive comments posted here are as verbose as the movie! It takes a long-winded bore to appreciate a wordy and boring film, one supposes. Some have merely called the film \"contemplative\", meaning slow and devoid of plot, however, one Dutch reviewer hit the nail on the head: this is an important event turned into a dull film whose tone is set in the very first scene. Here a young couple is being shown an apartment by a Realtor who, predictably, talks non-stop and regardless of what else is going on. So does just about every other character!

The only silences in this picture are dream sequences--1930's Soviet propaganda snippets--and they are also its most interesting parts. This tells you something about how watchable the rest of the movie is.

The device of filming most of the scenes in extreme closeup--as if one were looking through a crack in the blinds--gets old fast.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I loved so much last Bellocchio's movie, the masterpiece \"L'Ora di Religione\". It had a great screenplay, great actors (well, have to say Castellitto is so much greater than others), a brillant use of lights for a great cinematography.

Well, Buongiorno Notte is a different story. Ridiculous screenplay erupting tons of morals (and we could speak weeks about politics, you know we are italians...). Poor cinematography (it's too simple representing '70s dark years with dark colors and dark lights, do some efforts more peoples!!!!). Bad use of music: what's the point of using psychedelia to represent the tragic rationality of Brigate Rosse?

And to all the people who claimed the main prize in Venice, I answer:\"Are you nuts????\" Maybe the russian film was bad but not as bad as this.

I'm down with the P.E. Don't believe the hype!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Friday Night With Jonathan Ross must have those in charge of Ross rubbing their sweaty little palms together. They know the BBC lacks imagination when it comes to talk shows so when they have Jonathan Ross at their disposal they are quite settled to just sit back and let a half wit command this primetime slot.

Ross Spends most of the show grooming his ego and smiling about how much the BBC is paying him. The show is a complete copy of many US Chat Shows - Leno, Letterman, Conan O Brian, the list goes on - but he and his team have clearly seen what works on the masses can also be done for the dumb masses in the UK also.

The unfortunate situation - he has no competition? Parkinson has gone by the reality is he was never really up to much except grooming a celebs ego. Can't we have someone funnier and slicker on British Screens instead of Jonathan Ross? Once Ross has built up his ego enough he will then proceed to the very boring concept of the stiff celebrities in the green room - so trying to get on with each other. If an A-Lister is present (which is so often the case these days - as there are no other chat shows they can turn to - to promote their latest movie) - he will spend the next hour either flirting with them or trying to be their best friend in the Universe. Sqeamish when he had Ringo Starr on - a man that cares nothing for licking arse - Ross genuinely was begging for his mobile phone number (as common policy on this show is for Jonathan Ross to get everyones number so he can be seen in the right company when not working). Of course Ringo said it how it is - and simply said no I don't like you - dead pan serious.

Ross needs to be axed from all Awards and TV shows - the masses will get over it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Any evening with Jonathan Ross now means to me his wit in first hassling and upsetting with carefully chosen words a 78 year old man by phone and then suggesting he and Russell Brand should house-break and masturbate him while he slept as a way to say sorry for making obscene phone calls to him. Kinky! And illegal. For a really big laugh maybe next time he should try it on someone he knows well, like his Boss? Or a follower of Abu Hamza? Would he be amused if someone did it to one of his daughters?

Over all the years I've perhaps seen less than 30 minutes of BBC Star Man Ross's chat show because I find him so loathsome, some of the guests I saw were OK though - probably most of them who ever appeared were OK for all I know. As a chat show it seems pretty poor though \u0096 what's so chatty about asking Tory leader David Cameron on this TV programme whether he ever masturbated to photographs of Margaret Thatcher? He chatted up Gwyneth Paltrow by simply asking her if she wanted to f*** him. However, Ross's yob mentality was finally totally exposed with the above revelations, and I thought I'd take the opportunity to warn the few decent folk around the world who might not know just how vile this man is and to steer clear of him and his - unless you think all comedy should be \"edgy\" ie obscene\/vacuous. We're not yet all the same here, although BBC and Channel 4 are jettisoning all standards.

In October 2008 Ross with fellow tosser Russell Brand made a series of premeditated sexual obscene phone calls to Andrew Sachs' answer-phone (Manuel from Fawlty Towers), had it broadcast as intended on BBC national radio against Sachs' request and then tried to get Sachs' granddaughter to burn the evidence in case they got prosecuted. A significant number of people over here (probably most of them non BBC license fee payers) found it hilarious and\/or that the national scandal had been overblown, but many people apparently still knew right from wrong and 42,851 eventually complained to BBC about the incident. Many unrighteous media fools and others snickered about these 42,851 never having heard the radio programme (and never wanting to) - using their argument they presumably also consider an event such as the Holocaust justified because at the time relatively few people complained to the media, and none of us here now should be horrified by it because we weren't there. The 2 BBC producers initially involved in passing it for broadcast thought it was \"very funny and brilliant\" comedy and only 2 people complained about Brand's radio programme at the time - which I'm afraid only indicated the moral level his 400,000 weekly listeners had sunk to with the help of BBC expertise. Highly moral BBC tried and failed to use it in mitigation in the later OFCOM investigation. Roll over Aristotle, tell Lord Reith the news! Sachs' agent complained to BBC but was ignored by them until a Tory national newspaper got hold of the story. The penalty for any ordinary pervert doing this would normally be sacking and prosecution, maybe even prison, but while Brand and the Head of BBC Radio 2 were both eventually ordered to resign the multi-millionaire Ross was given a 12 week holiday by BBC's Boss (I suppose that he asked Ross's permission first though if he could dock Ross's pay by \u00a31,500,000, to prevent him from suing) to come back to this programme afresh in 2009 before his contract runs out. All that time to think of more smut and\/or more insulting witlessness for his 4,000,000 viewers to admire - but at least he could still chortle his way to the bank as usual to keep his spirits up. Some people think that his position will be untenable and he won't be able to carry on. I think his skin is so thick because the stakes are so high that he will come back unbowed and re-energised with pent up vitriol. (Update 23.01.09: I've just watched the first 5 minutes of his new series - the \"most enormous cock-up\" - to use his referential phrase - is continuing to allow this sniggering unrepentant law-breaker to take the public's money like this.) But who knows: maybe in the future after the slimy British film & TV industries have comforted him for the moral stance taken by the 42,851 and showered him with awards he will become a Sir for his services to Perversion by the perverts in Government. At the least I hope this pair of edgy deviants sign up with other perverted commercial TV and radio stations and stay there, so I won't be paying for their flouting the law and spouting illegal obscenities in the future. In 2009 OFCOM fined British TV license-fee payers \u00a3150,000 for this \"sorry\" affair - Thanks Ross for offering to pay! Not.

To the apologists: Get a life\/sense of humour\/sense of proportion! It's not the end of the world having a pair of talentless perverts as your heroes and there's far more important things to worry about in this world, like the price of real cheese! To sum up family man Dross: a comedy genius to apparently millions of people (especially himself), merely a nasty obscene phone caller receiving an obscene wage packet from an obscene multimedia company to others. So much for our society of Political Correctness and Respect! As you should've guessed, it doesn't apply to the rich and famous and never will, but only to the poor. To sum up BBC: Stumbling blindly on from Huttongate, Campbellgate, Dykegate, Springergate, Crowngate, Phonegate now Rossgate I hope its next crisis will be Abolitiongate. I also hope anyone who thinks comedy should be always challenging and pushing back boundaries ie offensive aren't challenged or offended by my opinion of this particular law-breaking pervert, his perverted programmes and his current perverted employers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"***Tip: Have It Read To You, Heres How***

1) Copy And Paste This To Notepad (NOT WORD) 2) Go To. START>ALL PROGRAMS>ACCESSORIES>ACCESSABILTY>NARRATOR

having your testicles ironed.

When Jonathan Ross started his career he was on a show call \"The Last Resort\" now a days he is the first resort to host anything and anything. TV Award Shows that half the time he is up for nominations in, Comic relief, chat shows, quiz shows, game shows, charity shows, Brighton. Just when you at you wits end and think you can find salvation in the wireless the lisping twang of good old J.R. Hits you like a freight train going none stop from Texas to downtown N.Y. That has lost a hour and is trying to make it up.

About this show (FNWJR).

Its a normal chat show format with J.R. As host and a house band that concisest of four gay men (ha ha ha, ow my aching sides.) and season one had Andy Davis, but he left or was fired to give way to Ross's Ego.

Ross will more less use his guests as props and you really don't hear them speak because of his \"Its my ball and I'll take it home\" attitude, you also see that the bigger the guest the more he is willing to lie and suck up to them, to get in with the big boys (Like the weak kid at school who hangs round with the bully).

However when a small reality T.V. Star comes on he'll happily humiliate them, asking personal questions about the past and telling them about their lack of talent to get the laughs. Sometimes he will under estimate the popularity of a guest, say something to belittle them and then when the audience act shocked, he will quickly turn and start making himself the fall guy, the best example of this was when \"Life On Mars\" star John Simm came on and he said how does someone like you get work, your OK looking but not Hollywood good-looking (Bare in mind the Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry was in the green room, he was really only trying to suck up to them before they were even on the couch). When the audience acted shock Ross quickly said \"What, I'm bit light headed from wearing that corset, I don't know what I'm saying\". If he don't have any low forms of TV life on he'll just dig at the four gay men on the piano with jokes more out of date than his fashion.

Its very much a different story when a Hollywood A-lister or big TV star comes on the show in that he'll tell them stories to humor them. When some actor explains that he was in a support band then Jonathon Ross will say something like \"Wow, well he ever I go to see a band i was try to look interested for the support band, to make them feel as though they are wanted\" with an underline message being \"please like me, I was probably one of the people that cheered you when you was in your band\". Top this off with an audience of Ross fans so hooked on every bad old joke and bulling, it really makes for a poor show.

Your better off watching US chat shows instead, they are more scripted but not anywhere near as hard to watch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Childish storyline ripped off of a lame Hollywood movie, terrible acting, cheesy dialogue, and not quite \"up-to-par\" sex scenes. That's right another great softcore parody! I enjoyed this film greatly! Sure the acting is terrible, but that part of the fun! The storyline is ludicrous, but some things must be sacrificed when the story has to revolve around girl-on-girl sex scenes. And because it's only softcore (no penetration) the sex scenes were a little bland. But it's like the great god of softcore smut Russ Meyers said \"who really cares what goes down beneath the waist.\" I don't know if I'd agree with Mr. Meyers on this one but what the hell... the flick entertained me for an hour and a half. I give it a C+, it would've been a solid B if they coulda cast more of the girls to look like Russ Meyers actresses. VaVoom! VaVoom!~","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sure, this film was retarded. But you expected that the moment you looked at the cover-box. It's a B movie, and on the T&A factor this movie delivered. Truthfully, it was funnier than expected. While it was by no means a work of comedic genius, like \"The Party Animal\" or \"Orgazmo\", as far as B movies go it was worth the watch, if you're into that sort of thing anyway.

Christians and morally-oriented parental groups, this is soft-core adult entertainment. If you don't want your children watching sexual content and nudity, then you should keep your children away from this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll preface my review by stating that I am not a fan of the independent 'straight to video' genre that owes a great debt to the grindhouse films of the 60's. I don't own any, I've never rented any, so I might lack the appreciation for these tongue-in-cheek, low-budget stinkers that many other people have.

I caught this movie on Cinemax late one Saturday evening with a lady friend. Please don't ask me why I was watching Cinemax late one Saturday evening with a lady friend. We were bored with World Championship Poker. Some atrociously bad acting courtesy of Misty Mundae (and I wish she wouldn't own up to being from Illinois, as we actually turn out some very bright thespians here) caught our attention. Now normally, the aim of some good soft-core porn would be to get you and your partner in the mood. Some good sex, tongue in cheek humor, and who know what could happen? After about 15 minutes, and a scene where the title character seduces a mugging victim, my lady friend said 'if you want to watch the rest of this fine, I am going to bed so I don't have to. Please turn the volume off.' Here is what I gather from the plot: Misty's character is a sexless nerd who gets bitten by a spider and turns into a super-sex kitten with super web slinging powers that don't come from her wrists. There is some sort of evil villainess involved, who didn't look particularly evil or sexy. Spiderbabe saves the day, has sex, M.J. (who is male in this film) constantly gets propositioned by stereotypically bad gay bikers, and somehow the evil villainess gets pushed off a building to her death.

What was good about this film? It ended.

What was bad about it? Acting to make a third grade pageant look like Oscar winners, a script turned out by people who I picture to be drunken, college-aged sex perverts who wouldn't know what sex is if they took a class taught by Dr. Ruth, special effects that were about as special as someone jumping off a trampoline, humor about as funny as\u0085 well, I have yet to encounter anything that is lamer. The sex scenes? If we were watching a video, the only thing those scenes would have turned on is the fast forward button. And the action scenes? Some of my old Atari VCS games had better choreography.

Now I know this type of film is supposed to be enjoyed for it's inherent badness. Companies like EI don't set out to make good movies: they have a niche and they target it. My experience as a marketer tells me they are right on the money in servicing their audience. But after my brief exposure to 'Spiderbabe', I for one can say I am not delving into that world again any time soon. Maybe the problem with the filmmakers in this type of genre is this: they spend so much attention to making the films bad, that if they made an effort to try and focus on those things they do very well, they would turn out some very enjoyable 'le bad' Cinema, a la Troma films in the 80's. Sorry folks; the spirit is there, but the effort isn't.

Though I have to admit that \"Alice in Acidland\" intrigues me\u0085","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is bad. I saw the rated and the unrated versions. They are terrible!! Now, I know it's suppose to be a low budget, porn spoof of spiderman, but Spiderbabe is just not good at being bad-good. It's not funny! Not funny at all!! I wanted to laugh. I tried to laugh. But this movie let me down. At least the unrated version has lots of nudity to look forward to. And is it me, because Mundae is not a great looking woman. From the waist down she's okay, but on the way up leaves much to be desired. She does look good in that school girl outfit. Please, if you must watch this spiderbabe, rent it first. Rated or unrated, doesn't really make any difference, they're both bad to me!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This thing, directed by french sensation Patrick Sebastien,is worst than all the turkeys that you may have seen. Forget Independence Day, Kazaam, The patriot, etc... you get the picture, this one's the pits. Sebastien is a TV celebrity in france, (if you need an equivalent, let's say he's Jerry Springer with an I.Q of 13), this is his first movie let's hope it's the last. I hope Troma or someone would distribute this film in the States, so that you guys out there can excperience the French stench at it's worst. Let's cut this short, this is the Masterpiece of S**t.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The director of this movie is a famous french TV presenter, Patrick Sebastien. He likes music and humor for rednecks, and his incredible movie is absolutely in his image. It's the story of a young retarded person, called \"Zep\" (sic). A night, he sees his sister's SM sexual relation, and decide to do the same thing: he rape the girl who he loves! Zep is placed in a asylum, and his unlucky girlfriend in a clinic. One man will find them. One man will reunite them. This man is a psychologist. This man looks like a Hell's angel. This man is... Patrick Sebastien! With an excessive use of clich\u00e9s, we'll see how the Absolute Love can break all misunderstandings, and how a humanist doctor can force a victim to fall in love with her rapist. We'll also learn how using sandwiches in order to seduce a girl. Not only Patrick Sebastien thinks that he can do better than one century of psychiatry, but he also impose us a silly left ideology; with the character of the father's girlfriend, a boss, who want to take away the feeble of his girl. Distressing. But it's very pleasant to laugh at Zep (mentally retarded persons are not funny, except in this movie.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To even say that this film is Sebastien's work at his best just tell you everything you have to know on the man. Sebastien is a pathetic, foolish, not amusing at best, yet highly popular host on french television. If watching any of his shows is just plain torture for any normally constituted human being, his first (ans lets hope only) film proved to be even worst. Sebastien's apology of rape (the victim fall in love with her aggressor) is not only misplaced but plainly unacceptable. I highly suggest you not to bother taking a look at this picture (or any of Sebastien's future features), you would just loose your time...There is something about french television that don't smell right...and this is Patrick Sebastien!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you wish to have a truly traumatic experience, than this awful motion picture (if you may consider to call it that) is for you. A film worse than the postman,sizzle Beach U.S.A, Batman and Robin, Kazaam,fair game...well you get my point.This film directed by French television sensation Patrick Sebastien (Jerry Springer with an I.Q of 25) can truly be considered the worst film ever made. I do hope that Troma or someone in America would distribute it, so that the u.s.a can experience the French stench at it's worth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One can only sit in utter amazement at this mess of a film and be amused at some of the raves people have bestowed upon it. The biggest problem seems to be the director's inability to make up his mind as to whether it's black comedy, farce or a combination of both. It meanders all over the place in search of direction and has some utterly embarrassing performances that might be better suited to bad sitcom. What a shame to see the talented Dianne Wiest's comic talents squandered and the ever annoying Jane Birkin is so over the top she's more bothersome than usual.

Perhaps a lot of the positive criticism is due to the \"quirky French\" nature of the film - therefore, it's labeled \"smart\" or \"genius.\" It's neither. Instead it's bad tripe that leaves a rather rancid after-taste. Merchant-Ivory should stick to the serious stuff as they certainly have no comprehension of comedy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't even know where to start. I did not like it. It did not behave like a story and so much was injected into the movie (the pot brownies, the son was gay (?) the murder was justified, what possible reason could there be in the script for Linda aka Penelope to exist) that was never explained. It was all fluid spilled on a table and left dripping off the counter until it all made a big mess on the floor.

Why did Vanessa Redgrave make a five second cameo? Why did Diane Wiest use her Bullets over Broadway character without the camp-fun? Why was Jane Birkin in the storyline to begin with. The list is endless. The movie ended and we all looked at each other -- like -- did you understand any of this??

I tell ya one thing, if I watched my long lost Dad get murdered I certainly wouldn't be hugging the murderer. Tell ya another thing, if \"Bob\" broke up with \"Bob\" what purpose did hiding the son in the closet have? Was Bob going to have sex with Bob in front of the son? How did the murderer contact the son so easily?

If this review sounds confused, it is because this was a waste of film, talent and time. What the heck did the dead shrink have to do with anything!!

Jezz, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen because it should have\/could have been better, stronger and it should have made some kind of sense. Any sense. Instead we are given a watered down \"Diva\" (the film from the 70s complete with a murder) and tired performances reading boring words from a script that is completely insane.

By pass it folks. Or maybe me and the rest of the people who reviewed this film are too stupid to understand it all -- I mean after all it is a french film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Almost a masterclass in how not to direct a movie. From the misjudged, often incomprehensible script onwards Dr Rey builds on a series of poor decisions that make the film an excruciating viewing experience. Sadly the film never rises beyond a kind of old fashioned, almost misogynistic gay camp in which women are over-wrought, OTT and middle aged and the men are young, vacuous and forever on the hunt for sex. The director was unable to pitch either the tone of the film or the level of the performances.

There is certainly a great deal of 'acting' going on. Dianne Wiest slips into a pale impersonation of her Bullets Over Broadway performance and poor old Jane Birkin flounders in her attempt to give a comic performance. Though you have to pity her as there is very little real comedy here. The whole thing feels like a very low rent version of Merchant Ivory's Le Divorce which, to be quite honest, wasn't very good, either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"...out of this movie.

Sorry to say, this showed at the Cleveland International Film Festival. Our copy did not have subtitles, so I asked the Festival crew if there was a problem with the print received. \"Not so...\" I was told. \"the director wants it this way\".

Again, sorry to say, my French is barely high school elective level (more than 3 decades ago). Much of the initial dialog is in French, so I'm sure I missed the nuance and many details in between my understanding of a few key words.

I've rated this a \"1\", primarily because of the irony of a director who once worked doing subtitles refusing to put subtitles into a movie to be seen by an American audience. Excuse me, even if most Americans wouldn't know where Europe was on a map, not even a film festival audience should be assumed to know \"the native language\" of a given movie. Even if a few of us don't know Finnish, I would still expect subtitles for the few \"dolts\" who aren't sophisticated enough to have expertise in the 37 different languages presented. I'll put up with this ego from David Lynch, not from Litvack.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'll give it a two for Denis Leary. He had some good lines, but that's it. What was the point? Where was the script? Who was supposed to act? A movie needs more than this one has to offer. Save the hour and a half to watch your hair grow, or fall out, whatever the case.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Usually I have a lot of luck with these small scale movies. I looked at the cast. Leary, Lovitz, Delpy, Wuhrer, Estevez. How bad could it be? Unfortunately the answer was...pretty bad. I have a hard time remembering a movie that had such poor execution of a plot that had potential.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What a waste of energy and money. What a waste of what talent there was.

Emilio Estevez was completely wasted and mostly unused throughout. Jon Lovitz was very mildly amusing but pointless. Harry Dean Stanton - why bother? And was it just me or can Kari Wuhrer barely act in this one.

The story was pretty non-existent and really disjointed. One of my biggest problems was the reaction of the characters to the events that transpired. Like the surf \"dudes\" giving up their lives every time they were threatened in the last half? How about that you NEVER saw them surf once!! The set-up to some scenes took way to long with not enough pay-off to make us give a damn. Nothing in this \"movie\" felt really true or genuine.

The only good things I can say is some (very little) of the scenery was filmed nicely and a few scenes were mildly interesting. Don't see this when there is so many better pointless movies out there.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hated it with all my being. Worst movie ever. Mentally- scarred. Help me. It was that bad.TRUST ME!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Cheesy 80's horror co-starring genre favs Ken Foree and Rosalind Cash along with Brenda Bakke are some of the featured players in this tale about a haunted health club. Goofy dialogue and some nasty gore effects make this movie watchable. Not bad but no great shakes either.

Recommended for the bad dialogue and acting. B-movie fans only.

B","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the worst anime series I have ever seen. When I watched the manga review in a magazine, I thought it was maybe interesting, but when I got the chapters I realized it was a complete stupidity.

OK, the first 2 or 3 chapters are OK, and the series have an standard. But as the plot advances, it becomes totally incoherent. The series tries to show some mystical based upon the Christian mythologies, but it's a total stupidity. It features some demons and stigmata scenes... Totally nonsense. It seems the series tries to seem deeply-thought, complex or mythologically reviewed, but a watcher with a bit of brain and cultural references, will realize soon all those elements used don't have a real sense: THEY ARE PUT THERE ONLY TO IMPRESS THE IGNORANT WATCHERS!!

The final chapters are full of totally nonsense elements: battles with cat-eared demons, references to a supposed fight between demons, and demons who controls time (with no apparent reason). The final is totally nonsense; an ignorant watcher will see on it a floating final that gives them a place to meditate; but the truth is this: THE FINAL AND THE COMPLETE SERIES IS A TOTAL INCOHERENT AND INCONGRUENT NONSENSE.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To start out with, the script is immitative and inane. The characters are shallow and formulaic. The plot has arbitrary reversals and non sequitors. Baldwin's direction is terrible -- these actors could do better on their own. The jokes and wisecracks fall flat. The shoot out scenes are clumsy and incredible. Baldwin directs himself as the wise courageous hero but spends most of his time in power struggles with women, particularly with the caricatured repressedwoman in their tunnel team who is always asking for and denying reassurance. The conductor suffer from absurd incompetence, being unable to effectively employ a pistol he has come by.Anomalies: a hooded man bristleing with guns stalks through a railroad car, startling people. The next time we see them they are going about their business sitting in their seats, talking, eating, reading, knitting.In the New York subways folks sometimes come on the train to do some musical or dramatic number --- maybe that's what they thought the \"happening\" was.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is perhaps the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen well over 300 movies in my lifetime. The acting atrocious, the only bright spot seems to be judging the anatomical prowess of the female castmembers. After watching this movie, it is suggested that the viewer not operate heavy machinery or go driving for a period of at least 24 hours. Also a bottle of Valium would be recommended so you don't feel so bad for the 100 wasted minutes of your life. The plot is nothing original, the dialog excruciating, and even the weapons seem sub-par. Do yourself a favor and go to your local Blockbuster and burn whatever copies they have of this horrid film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Consider \"I Know All\" Action hero is lighting a cigarette in the darkness. While tries to hide\/seek the Bad guys. (Probably to give a signal light to say here I am coming)

That's one of the 100 scenes you can laugh at. (I think the movie should in the Comedy category.)

Awful directing, awful script, Bad Acting, Cheap special effects. (They used a tunnel so they can hide there acting in darkness)

3 out of 10 (that also for making me laugh looking at those pathetic mistakes)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't reviewed anything on here for quite awhile, but after having the misfortune to sit through this rubbish masquarading as entertainment I had to put forward my thoughts.

Normally, however bad something is, there is one redeeming part, whether it is an actor who was okay, a scene that was passable, an attractive cast member, or a general feelgood moment. Unfortunately, that isn't true here, as the film starts of atrociously, with a ridiculous shootout, which was so poor, I thought it was a practice, & two halfwits, otherwise known as the boys in blue chatting beside a school.

One of these idiots was Daniel Baldwin, who not only starred in this, but also actually Directed this garbage, & unlike his brothers cannot act for toffee. Not that he was on his own here, as everyone in it seemed to belong to the acting school of a trained chimp.

Luckily, certainly for me, I only watched an hour of this masterpiece, as the DVD wouldn't work, & was probably made by the same fools who produced this. So if you have nothing to do but watch paint dry do watch this as it is just as boring, & ideal for getting rid of unwanted guests.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really like Ryan Reynolds and Hope Davis and I actually had high hopes watching this last night on DVD. Mainly as I try to avoid reviews until I watch something myself and form my own opinion Big mistake! My 2 \/10 is for the first segment which in fairness is actually quite decent and if they had made the movie about the characters in section 1 alone it may have risen above the 5\/10 mark.Once it moved into TV 'reality show' territory it stank to high heaven. Ryan Reynolds captured the essence of an actor on the edge wonderfully but as a gay TV writer and famous games creator \/ devoted family man he was definitely less effective. From the blurb on the box I expected a flashback thriller along the lines of 'Memento' - unfortunately this is nowhere near that standard of movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, what is really great about this movie:

- Ryan Reynolds, great acting! There are very few actors I really like and for now he is one of them. He has an amazing skill to impersonate characters.

- The soundtrack! Very good music played at the right time.

- The idea of a nine lost in his own world, incapable of leaving.

Still, I give it only a 3 out of 10 for certain flaws:

- Horrible second part. It seems that the director was very eager to make something new, but despite of the efforts it was really boring

- Very annoying character Melissa. I couldn't stand the scenes with her - i.e. it was constantly annoying. She represents everything that is wrong with American woman.

- Terrible explanation of the numbers. The director was so busy with character development, that he completely missed the point of a good story.. excuse me koalas? brr... terrible!

This movie had great potential. The filming is nicely done, the music is really good, but nothing more.

See it only if you are a fan of Ryan Reynolds, or have a lot of time to spare.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"*****SPOILERS*********

This movie was truly awful. This woman deceives her employers right from the start and then selfishly proceeds to tear them apart. At the end you see her making a profession out of the trade she'd learned from the father of her \"pupil\". I put pupil in quotes because the governess never really seems to teach the child anything. She seems to hate her and can't stand being near her. I felt sorry for the little girl who simply wanted to be loved, absent that, it was understandable that she would say and do outrages things just to get attention but the viewer wasn't supposed to sympathize with the little girl, the viewer was supposed to sympathize with the governess who hated her pupil and manipulated and deceived her employers. I just couldn't do it. This was not the story of a self made woman, rather, it was a window into the mind of one who uses others at every opportunity with no other thought for anyone outside of her own family. I couldn't stand the governess! This was a really horrible movie. I only paid one dollar to rent it but even that was too much!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wanted to like this one - the situation was rich, and the setting unusual and interesting. But the story is swamped with childish female gothic romance elements that are hard to swallow. The director is unfairly prejudiced against the 'goy' characters -- content to let them be grotesque cardboard caricatures -- and inexplicably indulgent towards the homewrecking behavior of the heroine. The potentially interesting power struggle between the inventor and the governess is not really dealt with.

Feminist film makers will get more credibility when they stop manipulating situations to throw all the sympathy to the heroine, and start dealing honestly with issues. This movie more closely resembles 'The 7 Pieces of Gold', another earnest failure, more than 'The Piano' - a real tale of passion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had an excellent premise, and could have been a fascinating look at racism, attitudes to women at work and male female relations in England early last century. However, it simply turned into a soppy love story. But what was worse, is that the love story was totally unbelievable. The acting was for the most part poor, the direction confusing, but most of all the screenplay and the story were non-existent. The only thing I liked about the film was how dark it must have been before electric lighting. I really got a sense of just how little light one candle puts out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Governess was, by far, a very pitiful film. I do not use this word loosely, as it honestly was a poor excuse for a movie. I finished watching this feature with only one word on my mind \u0085 \"why\"? Honestly, you could use this question at the end of every scene of this film and it would seem like it fit. There were so many inconsistencies that lead to a lack of development (both in the story and in the characters) which ultimately lead to a very confusing film with actors walking through the motions instead of giving any explanation. Scenes would occur with no foreshadowing, understanding, or drive to a complete ending. It was as if I was watching several different ideas thrown together without really any resolution. Actors were setting events in motion that did not seem to fit their character or really were resolved. This was my biggest issue with this film. The complete and utter lack of structure to this film brought all specks of foundation crumbling down with a genuine \"ripple-effect\" being felt throughout the rest of the film as a result.

Let me explain myself further on this lack of consistency throughout the film. I would liken this film to a bowl of lumpy oatmeal that had a zebra in it. It made no sense nor was there any logic behind it all. Minnie Driver was the worst culprit of this deed. Her character's lines were drawn very fuzzy and nearly transparent. She would do things like talk about sex all the time with her sister, but yet she seemed very open to sexual experiences all the time. She has her first moment of passion in this film, and there is no pain or excitement. It nonchalantly happens, and this just didn't seem to fit the original conversation that we had at the beginning of the film with Rosina and her sister. She is a very intelligent woman that accidentally finds a solution to Wilkinson's problem and suddenly wants full rights to his invention? That was confusing and completely random. Is it not obvious to anyone else that her teaching methods were non-existent. Anyone in their right mind could see that she wasn't teaching Cavendish's daughter anything. The sudden and awkward relationship that randomly forms between Driver and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers nearly had me laughing out loud. I thought maybe I had discovered some magic in this film as Rhys-Meyers literally \"poofed\" into the scene and suddenly caused some unneeded drama. It felt that the director (or writer) was thinking that the original story was going nowhere fast, so by adding this random character we may be able to advance the plot a bit (or confuse the lesser film enthusiasts). Well, it didn't fool me, I saw that he was nearly a \"cut-and-paste\" character used to strengthen an already weakened story. Don't get me started on the ending, which had no consistency to the rest of the story. Again using the \"cut-and-paste\" method, the writer of this film needed a way to just end the story, and this was the only solution they could arrive to. It is sad when actors are forced to do things out of character \u0085 but I guess that is the name of the game in Hollywood. Fix until completely broken, or at least salvageable.

The remainder of the story was unexciting dribble. There were maybe a handful of neat cinematography moments where you could see that there was one sliver of creativity trying to peak through coupled with some bars of decent, period piece music, but nothing to write to Grandma about. More family structure with some stronger introductions could have strengthened this film a bit more, but as I stated before, by leaving open-ended scenes just lying around the entire film, you will experience a crack in your foundation. What may seem like a sturdy story, will eventually wear down over time, and by the end of this film I felt that the house was crumbling down on top of me. Wilkinson plays his normal self in this film, while Driver apparently did not want to get naked, but everyone else had too (I will have to see a doctor after those images were burned into my eyes \u0085 eeewwww). Also, she wore the same dress everyday. That was disgusting and I could smell her through the television. Sex and dirty laundry. Now there is a great film for you! There just seemed to be some potential floating around here, but instead it was just rubbish. Nothing was answered, questions seemed to fall like snow in Alaska, and mediocrity seemed to reign supreme.

Overall, this could have been a decent film that combined the powerful themes of science and love together, but instead it was just pitiful. I cannot stress enough the disturbing fact that characters were going through motions without any sort of pre-explanation. I don't need cinematic moments handed to me like a child, but something should have been done to build a foundation. Just remember the oatmeal with a zebra analogy that I used. If you were as confused about that as I was, then you will completely understand the film The Governess, while if you prefer zebras in your oatmeal \u0085 then, maybe this film is for you!

Grade: * out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"THE GOVERNESS is a moody period piece, the meandering story of a Jewish woman who, upon the death of her father, sets out to 1830's Scotland, posing as a Gentile to get work to support her family in London.

Rosina - or Mary, as she calls herself in a none too subtle piece of symbolic writing - is a rudderless child, a socialite with dreams of being an actress. She strikes up an alliance with her employer, and by accident solves a crucial problem in his research with photography. Giddy with success, they begin a halting and uncomfortable affair while the eldest son of her paramour falls hopelessly (and inexplicably) in love with her.

And like a child, she fails to understand the consequences of her actions - in the end, betraying those she deceived in order to make a life for herself.

Many claim this is something of a feminist manifesto, but I disagree. Whether intended or not, this film only resonates with me if I think of it as a cautionary tale. In the end, Rosina's greatest disappointment is the truth - that she lied, happened upon a way to help a man she wanted to be both her father and her lover, and in the end contributed nothing but destruction. As such, the end of the film gives me the impression that nothing she did, no one she used, made her happy - and that is exactly as it should be.

Did I need a movie this long and langorous to teach me this lesson? Not at all. On the contrary, had it not been for excellent cinematography, unique score and my hope that she'd get her come-uppance, I wouldn't have stuck with it to the end of the film.

Fans of Minnie Driver will likely be disappointed by her uneven performance but may wish to see it anyway; I doubt young female fans of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers will be able to stay awake for the payoff they expect, and I can't help thinking this holds too little cultural detail to be of interest, even to photography buffs. The 3 points I award the film are solely for its visual style and score. On the strength of their other work, I assume the actors' performances are so disappointing because of a poor script and worse directing, but they are, in the end, unremarkable.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Despite strong performances by Minnie Driver and Tom Wilkinson, this film fails to ignite the imagination of the viewer.

By the way, what has become of Ms. Driver? She had such a potential in the film industry.

This to me was almost like an 1850s version of Yentl without the musical fanfare. With the death of her father, Driver takes a position as a governess to a Christian family, hiding her Jewish identity.

While I realize that this is a period peace, it was awfully dull even for 1850 England and Scotland.

The lady of the house is most irritating with that sing-song voice of hers. I expected her to refer to Driver as dear at any moment. What kind of name is Mary Blackchurch? I know that Driver is trying to pass herself off as a Christian, but does this name signify all the way?

In the interim, Mary finds love with the young charge's father (Wilkinson) and his emotionally unbalanced son.

In the end, the only thing that we see accomplished is that Mary has found a profession to provide for her family-photography. Did we really have to be subjected to what was happening throughout the film?

The early scenes of Judaism practiced in 19th century England and the cholera epidemic at the end could have been played up more. There is a definite underlying feeling of anti-Semitism by the Wilkinson family but that's never allowed to come out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If I heard the male lead say \"This is madness!\" one more time I would have barfed. The film is one big cliche, with fake \"grind him under your heel\" attitudes. Not one male in this movie has one redeeming quality; reminds me of Soviet-era films with strongly politically-oriented messages. I couldn't even understand WHY there was attraction between the leads, nor could I wait for the ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not good. Mostly because you don't give a damn about what happens to all these people. Some comments : 1. I am tired of seeing governesses who never talk to their pupils, never teach them anything and take a tired and annoyed look whenever the said pupil, who of course has been won over in the space of 4 seconds, says something 2. Fine, so Rosina has a father complex and therefore is attracted to her employer. But Charles is completely different in all aspects from her father - if anything Henry is much closer as a sensual, exalted person 3. How could you ever believe that she would be more attracted to Tom Wilkinson than to Rhys Meyer. 4. Hard to believe, if she had been in fact raised as a deeply religious girl, that she would be so careless about sleeping with a gentile after knowing him for 5 minutes.

Some good things about the film : At least she didn't end up pregnant, not knowing who the father was... The whole description of life in the Jewish community in London is good","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had potential. If it had been handled differently. What it needed was a different director. That's certain. And perhaps a different leading lady. I just can't understand the Minnie Driver character - or at least how she played it. She was completely unbelievable. I cannot believe she would have liked her performance in this movie either. She was probably abandoned by the director or incapable of delivering what the director was trying to get her to do. I am writing this as I am still watching it. I'm thinking I would have hated to be in her shoes trying to 'act' something I didn't understand. Well, we've just proceeded to the affair she begins with the son (I'm still watching). I'm now beginning to be profoundly embarrassed for everyone involved in this enterprise. If you enjoy watching movies that miss their mark in a big way, then watch this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jane Eyre with full frontal nudity! I was not surprised to see that a woman had had a hand in this awful \"woman's picture\" and I mean that in the worst possible way. The trouble is, it could have been so good if they had only left out the Jane Eyre stuff and stuck with the vastly more interesting scenes involving the Spanish\/Portuguese Jews in early 19th century London. When the sound track music is better than the film, you know you are in trouble. When you fast forward the video because you can't stand the film, just to make sure you don't miss anything, you are in even worse trouble. This film will end up on the romance TV channel where it rightly belongs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Hardbodies 2\" is harmless, aimless and plot less. I would add \"brainless\" to that list, but the movie-within-a-movie gimmick, although not done very well, helps it to narrowly escape that label. The scenery has changed from the California beaches to the Greek islands, and the only returning cast members from the first film are Sorrells Pickard (the bearded guy) and Roberta Collins (who at one point falls into a mud pit, bringing back memories of her classic catfight with Pam Grier in \"The Big Doll House\"). All the other actors are new, but apparently Brad Zutaut is supposed to be playing the same character (Scotty) as Grant Cramer did in \"Hardbodies\". This sequel lacks the energy and appeal of the first movie, and doesn't come close to matching it in the \"hotness\" department, either. Of course Brenda Bakke and Fabiana Udenio are both very pretty, but the Teal Roberts - Cindy Silver - Kristi Somers team is unbeatable. \"Hardbodies 2\" is not the worst of its kind by any means, but if you only want to see one of these movies, the original is the one to get. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"

This film was produced and released as a successor to a ghastly - although fairly popular - slapstick Californian beach comedy called Hardbodies, but it has little or no connection with the earlier film and is better assessed completely in its own right. It is certainly better than Hardbodies I, and is more closely related to films such as Venus and Summer Lovers which were also filmed during summer in the Greek Islands. The combination of blissful beaches on blue bays with beautiful bare bosoms makes for seductive viewing, but (except for travelogues just designed to help plan your next holiday) even such films require an adequate story line if they are to hold a viewers attention for more than a very few minutes. Venus was underpinned by the legend of the re-incarnation of the goddess, and Summer Lovers had the viability of a \"menage a trois\" as its theme. In my view both these films were much more successful than Hardbodies II which has a very tenuous story line and depends too much on simplistic semi-slapstick comedy. The use of slapstick quickly becomes tedious, it usually leads to a series of very short self contained cameo sequences that are hard to integrate into an ongoing story line. Mel Brooks achieved this brilliantly with Silent Movie, but few other films have succeeded in the same way, and Hardbodies II unfortunately does not. There is also the problem that the slapstick sequences do not co-habit happily with the idyllic and peaceful scenario in which the film is set. The final airport sequences were no doubt intended to provide a hilarious ending for this film but in my opinion they are an example of the worst type of overplayed slapstick pseudo-comedy. They are also grossly overlong, so I left the cinema with a bad taste left in my mouth. This is a film which could have been much more successful with a stronger story line and with most of its slapstick sequences very heavily pruned. As it was released it certainly does not warrant a viewers rating higher than 3.

\tThere is little memorable in the acting, but the cast does its best within the limitations imposed by a meagre story line and poor direction - it is in these latter areas that the failure arises.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's just when a band tours, and only has one original member. It's not the same as the classic line up. All new actors playing the main roles of Rag, Scotty, etc, with Ashby as virtually the only returning face from the first movie. And he was of only minor note of the first flick, serving as the only redeemable group of the three guys that Scotty was trying to assist in meeting females. The film is poorly written, featuring the dumbest dialog this side of Armageddon. Even for a T&A movie, this one is a turkey. Not even die hard low budget 80's films fans would want to sit through this movie, which has no plot, and plenty of bad acting. This film would have been better off never being released. Just plain bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The '80's were the best of times and worst of times for James Karin, he starred in one of the best cult horror-comedies with \"Return of the Living Dead\" and a year later he acts in this piece of.... this bad movie. A sequel to Hardbodies (but not really), has a group of fairly unlikeable characters attempting to make a movie in Greece. Through design or sheer laziness the line between the film and the 'film within a film' is not only blurred, but throughly non-existent from scene to scene (which would be confusing if I were just interested in anything happening in the movie in the first place. Unfunny would be too generous a term.

Eye Candy: Nana, Fabiana Udenio, and many numerous extras get topless; Brenda Bakke shows some T&A

My Grade: F

DVD Extras: Just trailers for \"Hardbodies\", \"American High School\", \"Strike\", \"Virgin Territory\" (comes in a double-feature DVD with the first film, for the masochistic)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pointless movie about making a movie. No where near the flesh shown in the original, which was quite enjoyable and even had fun music. Not here.

It's always fun seeing the Pathmark guy though.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Believe it or not, this was at one time the worst movie I had ever seen. Since that time, I have seen many more movies that are worse (how is it possible??) Therefore, to be fair, I had to give this movie a 2 out of 10. But it was a tough call.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, did this episode start on a STOOOOOPID premise! The Enterprise is chugging along when all of the sudden, Abraham Lincoln is floating around in space and welcomes the Enterprise!!!!!!! Is it just me, or is this a really lame-brained idea?! Lincoln comes aboard and they welcome them. Abe suggests they beam down to some barren planet, where they meet other famous dead folks--both good and evil. It seems that a really cheesy-looking rock monster has assembled a team of GOOD and EVIL people to battle it out for supremacy. The whole thing seems really daffy and inherently unfair, as the GOOD side is saddled with Surak--a Vulcan who makes Gandhi seem like Rambo!! Despite a totally AWFUL premise, the action is pretty good and it's great to see overhead shots of obvious doubles fighting it out in this grudge match. But, don't mistake this for high art or deep sci-fi. The bottom line is that the series was on its last legs as a first-run series and this really looked like they dusted off this turkey and filmed it regardless of the absurdity of the premise.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film follows the life of a great guitar player, who wants to make it big but acts irresponsibly almost to the point of self destruction.

I was expecting the usual Woody Allen witty dialogs, sarcasm and humour, but \"Sweet and Lowdown\" failed to provide any. The main character, Emmet Ray, is an egocentric, rude, irresponsible and hurtful man. He is so unlikeable, that I do not want to now about him, or care about him. I wonder why a film about him has to be made. The pacing of the story is slow, making the film a terrible bore. Even Sean Penn's great acting fails to revive the film to a watchable level.

I like Woody Allen's films a lot, but \"Sweet and Lowdown\" is a major disappointment.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the first Woody Allen film I've found not worth watching. I think Woody has tried many different genres to interest results but this movie just left me irritated and bored. The music is lovely but don't bother watching this hopeless mock-umentary.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I think I've finally seen my last Woody Allen movie! I read the review in the newspaper and went to see this movie with the expectation of having a good Woody Allen experience (as I've had many times in the past). Well, that was not the case. This movie has nothing to offer. Even with the wonderful performance by the talented Sean Penn - this movie failed. One of the features of his other movies is multiple characters - variety, witty dialogue. This movie basically consisted of only one character - very one dimensional. It had almost no laughs. It probably looked good on paper! I think the only thing special was the performance of Samantha Morton. Now I'll be looking for her movies in the future. So, in conclusion, this movie was a major disappointment. >","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Woody Allen (who I have to confess at the outset I have never been a big fan of) directed this quasi-documentary about the life of Emmett Ray (Sean Penn), a 1930's jazz guitarist whose star apparently shone for a while, then quickly faded. Penn does a credible job in the role, portraying a complicated and somewhat neurotic man (not unlike Allen himself, which perhaps explains why Woody would be attracted to this project) who can't maintain relationships, and whose twin passions (aside from guitar playing) were shooting rats at the dump and watching trains.

There isn't a great deal of consistency to the story. It's narrated in a sense by a series of modern-day jazz \"experts\" (one of whom is Allen himself), who relate their various theories and interpretations of different events in Ray's life. The end result is a wildly inconsistent account of the life of a fictional man who seems to have been given a fairly interesting life story by his creators, who probably should have done a better job with it.

Jazz fans and fans of Woody Allen will probably enjoy this. As for me? The best I can give it is a 3\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Once again Woody Allen seems to be completely devoid of any inspiration other than recycling himself. Here we have a mock documentary (like Zelig), the structure of the film is a series of anecdotes (Radio Days, Broadway Danny Rose) set in the 30's (Zelig, Purple Rose, Bullets over Broadway) about a low-life (Deconstructing Harry) who believes being a genius absolves him from being a jerk (ditto). Given this film and Deconstructing Harry, one wonders if this is Allen's justification for his own actions with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter; yes, I was a jerk, but I'm a genius so you gotta love me.

Allen has only produced two good movies in the past ten years; the fine but overpraised Bullets over Broadway, and the excellent but largely ignored Manhattan Murder Mystery. His other efforts range from trifles (New York Stories, Mighty Aphrodite), to edgy yet experimental (Husbands and Wives), to pure drek (Alice, Scenes from a Mall, Shadows and Fog, Celebrity, Deconstructing Harry). His films no longer even try to have a narrative arc, and his humor seems to aim at wryly amusing, not funny. After Deconstructing Harry I stopped seeing his films in theaters; after Sweet and Lowdown I may stop renting them as well.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"CAMP BLOOD

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1 (Nu-View 3-D)

Sound format: Mono

Whilst hiking in woodland near the deserted Camp Blackwood - site of an unsolved murder ten years earlier - four young city-dwellers are targeted by a masked psychopath who kills their guide (Courtney Harris) and stalks them through the woods with murderous intent...

Low-rent time-waster, filmed on camcorder utilizing the Nu-View field sequential 3-D format. There's a plot, at least, but the script adheres closely to an established blueprint (with obvious nods to the likes of \"Friday the 13th\", \"The Burning\" and \"The Texas Chain Saw Massacre\") without adding anything even remotely new or interesting to the formula. Director Brad Sykes - also responsible for similar 3-D efforts like THE ZOMBIE CHRONICLES (2001) and BLOODY TEASE (2002) - cites the early works of George A. Romero and Sam Raimi as key influences on his career, but while those filmmakers challenged the mainstream with their no-budget efforts, Sykes uses video technology merely to imitate his cinematic heroes, resulting in a home movie with delusions of grandeur. Aside from the 3-D format, there is NOTHING here to warrant anyone's attention. Followed by CAMP BLOOD 2 (2000).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Apparently the writer and director of this direct-to-DVD slasher movie is a fan of Friday 13th and other summer camp slashers. This movie has everything - a group of teenagers who want to spend the weekend with fun, alcohol and sex in an abandoned summer camp called \"Camp Blood\", the old man who warns them not to go there; and of course the crazy killer with the machete who keeps on slashing and hacking at the teenagers without any reason at all... The whole thing could have worked if it had been shot on 35 mm film with acceptable Special Effects. But instead the Special Effects are poorly done. The killer walks around as if he's out on a Sunday afternoon stroll, and the only good things about this movie are the acting of the talented main actress and the sex scene at the beginning. Other than that - dull and forgettable. Jasper P. Morgan","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The cover case and the premise that write there is so promising. As slasher maniac I expect much from this. But, what the heck is going on. The movie is awful. The direction, the plot, the suspense and the act of the casts is so amateurish. I even thought that they are using a home video camera to shot it. Lucky that it still manage to deliver some good moments to me that make me have to like it. Thanks for the bad package of so-called \"Camp Blood\".

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"WARNING!!! SOME POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS, AS IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE!!!

Okay, if you haven't figured out the plot yet, I am going to give it to you. Two couples head out to a camping site, but a clown masked killer shows up and causes all sorts of mayhem.

Now it is time for me to give these couples some advice.

1. Never, ever go to camp dubbed Camp Blood by the locals. 2. Don't have sex or make out in front of the killer. 3. Don't go chasing after the killer if he or she runs away. 4. Don't yell profanity at the killer. 5. Make sure your cellular phone works before you go camping. 6. Everybody needs to bring a sharp or dangerous weapon and carry it on themselves at all times. 7. Wear loose and comfortable clothing and bring a good pair of running shoes. No tight and binding clothing and no high heels or sandals. 8. Wear glasses or contact lenses if you need them so you don't stab the wrong person. 9. Always carry your car keys on you. 10. Put out a camp fire when you go to bed. 11. Watch your step. If you trip on something, your going to break a bone. 12. Check the backseat for uninvited guess. 13. If the killer has you cornered, at least put up a struggle.

And guess what? At least one, but usually all four of the main characters breaks all of these common sense rules. They are the dumbest characters ever to grace a film.

Now for some brief comments. This slasher film was on a very tight budget. So low four of the 7 or 8 actors play more than one role. The acting, writing, direction, sound, lighting, camera work, plotting, editing, etc. are all bottom of the line. But like the classic film JACK O this works on a sooooooooo bad, it is very entertaining and campy fun level. So rent this and have a good time and laugh. My rating: 5 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Its difficult to be too tough on Brad Sykes, a hard-working guy doing what he loves, there is an honesty about him that seems often lacking with other microbudget directors. Check out the minuscule crew credits on Camp Blood, there is none of the usual thanking everyone down to the pizza joint they ate in, its Brad and his buddies and thats it, no pretentious rubbish. Jennifer Ritchkoff isn't your average horror flick heroine, but does well enough for you to hardly notice, Bethany Zolt looks like a star and Joseph Haggerty is so funny it hurts. The Clown is hardly an original horror film bad guy, but the design is good, Shemp Moseley does a decent job of bringing him to life and the image clashes nicely with the rural backdrop. Camp Blood is horror as blue collar and basic as it gets, not a good thing, not a bad thing, just a thing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am a fan of slasher movies, especially of Scream 1-3, but this one is just one killing after another. To my astonishment: Part II is far better and you get the whole story of part one summarized! So don't waste time on this one and move right on to part II, you won't regret it cause Part 2 actually has a PLOT and is quite self-ironical. First Part: 1 out of 10 Second Part: 4 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Camp Blood looked great when I was buying it, but when I watched it boy was I wrong. Its tacky, the acting is outrageous and the quality of the film is shocking. Being a movie fan, I usually find humour from tragic horror, but at times I couldn't even laugh. Maybe Camp Blood 2 will be an improvement.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Idiots go camping and act like idiots before they finally die like idiots, yes Camp Blood (or if you're wanting an awful, badder than bad pun that suits a badder than bad film, \"Camp Bloody awful\"), is so bad it's actually quite depressing to watch. And it has all the ingredients to be a perfectly bad film...

Awful acting-check. Bad script-check. Tacky effects-check no originality whatsoever-double check.

It doesn't even attempt to be different, and is riddled with every predicted clich\u00e9 imaginable. For example, the film opens to a couple having sex in the woods, so of course they end up dead.

One of the most disturbing things is that this film actually spawned two sequels, how and why only baffles the mind.

Just stay away from this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I must first mention that as a group of mates, we often find entertainment in wacthing films which are known to be terrible for comedy value, hence our rental of Camp Blood.

Camp Blood was the first film which we'd rented that had been shot on what looks to be a camcorder, and was so rubbish it wans't even funny.

The DVD was returned and a refund was demanded, with the added suggestion some sort of quality control is implemented to prevent such utter rubbish being stocked.

Don't do what I did, and let the curiosity get the better of you, it's so bad it's not even funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1st watched 7\/19\/2003 - 1 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Ridiculously lame 3D movie which pretty much follows the plots of many 80's teen slasher flicks. Stupid kids go to a known murderous camp site, become hunted by an unknown masked man, and then we try to figure out who, if anyone, is going to live. We really don't care who's behind the mask but even that's not hard to figure out if you've seen any of these kinds of movies. What a waste of a 3D viewer despite somewhat decent 3D effects.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Camp Blood is an absolutely atrocious slasher film. We're mixing Friday The 13th with the Blair Witch Project and adding....a killer in a clown mask.

The budget for this film must have been very low, some of the actors played multiple parts and the camera used produced a picture equal to the colourised version of the original Night Of The Living Dead, which if anybody has watched that version will back me up that it is poor.

This film was just so bad. There is nothing in the film even worth watching. The very fact I watched this all the way through stunned me. Just take my advice and don't buy or rent this film. It is appalling.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a puzzle to me how this turd of a film ever got distribution.

Sure, it's horror and there's a fair share of nudity, but by god, the production value is the lowest I've ever seen, the equipment used is worse than standard home equipment, everything is overlit, giving everything an amateurish look, bringing your thought to America's worst home video's or whatever that show was called..

Please people, is it too much to ask that you actually do an effort when you expect to waste 90 minutes of peoples lives watching this? You really should have done some short projects first cause it's obvious you're a bunch of amateurs! 1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"How to round up every possible clich\u00e9 and stereotype existing in the genre of horror and then subsequently stuff them into one massively lousy movie? The answer: \"Camp Blood\". This is amateurish slasher nonsense made on a micro-budget and a little bit too obvious inspired by \"Friday the 13th\". Four of the most intolerable teenage characters you'll ever see \u0096 they're like a combination of ugly, stupid and annoying \u0096 go camping and quickly find themselves pursued by a homicidal maniac in a clown suit. Don't even ask me what the killer's motivations were or even who he\/she was, because if it did feature in the film, I totally missed it. This is one of the worst movies ever made, with no inspiration or craftsmanship whatsoever. The production values were so pitiable that there are actors playing multiple roles without even bothering to make them unrecognizable. The only half-decent and worthwhile sequence throughout the whole of \"Camp Blood\" is the opening in which the impressively voluptuous Meredith O'Brien has sex in the woods with her geeky boy scout. Yes, I'm fully aware that this is a totally shallow remark to make, but then again this is a juvenile and retarded film, so who cares?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yes sure, this is a Friday the 13th rip off but I have no problem with it. It's a good effort, the killings aren't that gory but the acting of one girl carries the movie, what a scream queen, Jennifer Ritchkoff. For a low budget movie the effects are nicely done, okay, sometimes you can guess how it is done. Some people have problems with the use of the camera, I can't see what's wrong with that. It's so strange that so many people dislike this movie, I really enjoyed it. Of course the script isn't original but give me one that is, I mean, so many slashers are made in the woods. maybe it is all predictable but it's a worth see, I have seen a lot worser, I can tell you that","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"But I can't say how I really feel about this pile of steaming dung. Where to begin. The film quality, there isn't any. I've seen clearer pictures on America's FUNNIEST HOME VIDEOS! The acting is substandard, the gore effects is okay. The clown mask is the best part of this movie, the story is repetitive. The same thing over and over again. At least in a Friday THE 13TH or HALLOWEEN we stick with one main character for the most part. There is no main characters, just victims. Man, now we come to the worst part of all. The final survivor kills the clown and finds out it was one of her friends. Then when the police finally arrive, they don't believe her and she is locked up in a rubber room. What kind of ending do you call that, crap, that's what. In my opinion, there is no excuse for a bad ending in a horror movie, that was just sloppy writing. The excuse, \"It has to ending badly, it's a horror movie.\" or \"We need to end it badly to leave it open to a sequel\" are just lame excuses and that is all. I must give the CAMP BLOOD the THANKSGIVING TURKEY.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"well, what can i say. WHAT THE F**K? There really isn't much to say about this, really. The only way you would like this is if u, like me, like bad bad horror to laugh at.

ACTING- VERY UNCONVINCING! Just watch the last scene with the main actresses running! Rip-off of Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE! but in a bad way! Just awful!

Gore- Really not believable. In one scene they use one of those knives which have a chunk cut out of them which fit over a body part etc. By using this,with the addition of red ketchup, its supposed 2 look real, although it really doesn't.

Plot- predictable 'kids get lost in woods on camping weekend' movie ripped off from Friday the 13th.

Killer Quality- scary mask if you're scared of clowns, kinda unbelievable that someone would chose this as their costume however. The director obviously realised all the good costumes had been used in all the other horror-camp movies out there.

TOTAL- 3\/10 *\/***** p.s- stay away from CAMP BLOOD II, that one made this look like LORD OF THE RINGS.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yeah i bought camp blood and it wasted about 86 minutes of my life and 5 pounds of my money on this crap, I mean i didn't expect an amazing movie, judging by the front cover i wasn't really expecting anything great but at least not boobies in the first 3 seconds (I'm not complaining about the boobies..) I'm complaining about what the hell that has to do with anything? this film should have been kept on there hand cam at home as a joke....they suck..why was the blood more brown and turd like that real blood?...cheap i tells ya i mean everyone wasn't in colour they were just tinted yellow, And another thing that made me die laughing at this sad excuse for a film was the fact that they tried to pretend the clown was a woman all the time, although its clearly a flat chested black short haired man...did anyone else notice that the only special effect in this film was a slowed down jump..that was also poor oh and the dissolve effect that you can find on many basic p.c programs such as...powerpoint....this film blows","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"83 minutes? Nope, this thing is 72 minutes, tops.

If you cannot guess the killer in this movie, you had better throw your TV out the window, because you ain't learned nothing in 20+ years of cinematic slasher history.

And how come the plain star who never gets naked is always the one you want to get naked?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I only gave this film a 4 because I saw it in 3-d. If you don't see it in 3-d, I give it a 2. This movie is so bad it's not funny. Anyone can make a film like this for a weeks pay. Bad acting,effects and story!!! But it was cool to watch in 3d. Why can't they make good movies in the 3-d format???","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was thrilled by the fresh (pun intended) synopsis of this film and looking forward to watch it. The first few shots introduce some of the characters as well as the main location where the stories take place; the gardening allotments. The movie looks fantastic. Colorful yet simple. Magical yet genuine. Unfortunately, it only takes a few minutes to figure out where the movie will go. We quickly figure out this will be a manipulative, sappy tale illustrating a bunch of jaded people set in their ways confronted by \"nice victimized\" refugees and that it will have a happy ending where the jaded people realize the error of their ways and accept these people.

The characters, particularly the prejudiced ones, are very \"comic-booky\" in nature. The story focuses mainly on two refugee families. One of them is headed by a single mom played atrociously by Diveen Henry. I am saddened to say that any emotion that might have been felt toward her struggles were defused by what was memorably bad acting.

The other story is much more interesting and focuses on a father and his two children. All are scarred by their journey to this country by way of containers, where the wife and mother died but it is the husband who suffers the most. Benedict Wong gives a mind-blowing performance here. At first, his emotions are very subdued but as the story develops, he subtly makes us aware of the inner-struggles of his character.

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is just extremely boring. There were so many possibilities with this movie. There are several characters to keep track of, many of which might have potential but none of it is realized. Even worse, despite this movie being very much not Hollywoodian, some of the main plot threads are solved cheaply in a Hollywood b-grade way. Example:

Character A likes character B Character B rejects his advances No problem! Let's have character C declare her love for character A so we can all have a happy ending. Yawn.

I liked very much the plot thread of the Asian family. That was well done. Unfortunately, the whole allotment business, the communal aspect of it, the dynamic involving a large cast are all under exploited.

What you're left with is a movie that has very little worth.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Empty shortening of John Irving's novel strives for profundity courageously but ends up being absurd. It's a quirky, goofy and bittersweet string of sketches, attempting to explain a man's growth from birth to adulthood and how he deals with the vices of lust and fanaticism that surround him. Garp is born to a formidable unmarried mother, Jenny Fields, played by Glenn Close.(The various stages of Garp's childhood are played by three young actors before Robin Williams takes over as Garp reaches adulthood.) The story follows him through childhood at a boys' prep school, where Jenny is the school nurse, through his high school passions-wrestling,writing,and sex-to marriage with his high school sweetheart, children, marital problems and a writing career. Jenny meanwhile has become a famous feminist , espousing an unorthodox cause. The plot details an abundance of comic and tragicomic episodes and outlandish adventures. Williams gives a cherub-faced performance. This script was not fitting for his wildness and anarchy and thus his talent was wasted. He's like an injured bird sputtering out of control. John Lithgow's role as a father like transsexual, imparting wisdom, also doesn't make sense. This movie was able to attract some reasonable attention in 1982, due to the popularity of Robin Williams and his new entry into movies. Williams had recently shed his Mork and Mindy pursuits and focused more on stand-up comedy and movies. Audiences were confused by this film, especially by its arbitrary and inexplicable ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Who the heck is responsible for this terrible mangling of one of my favorite books? This is just terrible. terrible acting, terrible script. The story isn't even close to its old self - and what were they thinking? Robin Williams, for Gosh's sake! This really defies description. Don't see this. Seriously, don't. Not even for laughs. Especially not if you're a fan of the book. This might just be the worst movie adaptation ever - everything is disjointed and scrambled - the characters which are important in order to understand the sequence of events are seriously marginalized, and every potentially interesting location from the book has been changed (example: Vienna - New York) into something profoundly uninteresting.

For those who haven't read the book - it's basically a fictional biography about a writer growing up, exploring his writing and so on. His mother writes an autobiography which is hailed (despite her protests) as a sort of feminist manifesto. The book is well-written, engaging, and long. Its prose is simply beautiful.

This movie, on the other hand, is about Robin Williams once again telling us to seize the day.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tediously long dreary cinematic waffle. I couldn't believe how bad this film was. I watched it merely because of the numerous people who gushed about it on this site. Was I watching the same film? The entire episode is one-dimensional. Nothing that happened in Garps' past affected his (or anyone else's) future and no-one was affected by their past. I think it was Socrates who said about plays that if a scene can be removed from a play without having any effect, then it shouldn't be there. Obviously, the director didn't know this rule and, so, stuffed his 'work' with one dire scene after another. Even the plane crashing into the house was unexpected, it wasn't a surprise, but it was unexpected!

It is worth mentioning that at the time of writing this (1st Dec 2002), even though many people say it is one of their favourite films, no one has bothered to add a memorable quote. The reason being that there simply aren't any.

Don't waste your time watching this, watch a plank warp instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this movie at the theater and paid money thinking it would be at least mildly entertaining. The only thing I enjoyed about it was when Robin Williams crashes into the car at the bottom of the hill, and the end, when he seems to get killed. Glenn Close was obnoxious, and she obviously did not seem old enough to be Garp's mother. A mother like Garp's would have had her kids taken away by the Department of Children and Families.

Robin Williams and his glazed donut look of benign goodness is just too sweet and smarmy for me. He has two roles he can play: Funny person or sad, tragic, good-hearted victim. See the Fisher King, Good Morning Vietnam, and all of his so-called \"dramatic\" roles. It is always the same performance. Put them all together into one long mini-series. Glenn Close is always a cold fish. Remember Fatal Attraction? Would you have an affair with her even on your worst day and if you were single? Did you feel any sparks between her and Michael Douglas?? Have you ever seen Glenn Close warm up any screen?? John Lithgow had the only interesting role. This was back in the day when he used to play serial killers and bad guys, so seeing him as a transsexual was at least funny. Garp is made for all those people who love to see movies about sick, abnormal, dysfunctional people and then claim it is beautiful and profound.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this film when it first came out and hated it. I just saw it again 27 years later. I actually liked some of it... although Robin Williams was totally wrong for the role... What I remember most about hating the film is that it was almost the complete opposite of what I had understood when I read the book. Since I haven't re-read it, I can only give you my impressions from the past - but I am sure of one thing - the film is a paean to family life, whereas in the book, almost ALL traditional institutions - including, and perhaps especially, marriage - are shown to be strait-jackets that we would be well rid of. The only positive in the book is the wondrous nature of children...something that only the very beginning and ending of the film really captures (with that incredibly gorgeous baby floating in the air. Too bad Williams doesn't have a tenth of his charm!) My low mark is therefore from the fact that the film misrepresents the book. As a film on its own it fares better - but only for a few key performances. Mary Beth Hurt is wonderful - I think anyone watching it would fall in love with her. And John Lithgow as an ex football player who has had a sex-change operation is fantastic... he never once camped it up or made the character anything but commendable - and as such his performance had an incredibly integrity. I watched him closely during all of his scenes, and never once was he anything except womanly. Nothing in his performance ever came near the performance of a drag queen... and that made all the difference. In fact, of all the people in the film, his is the only one which is irreproachable. It is worth seeing this film only for his performance.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera-work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. Although sound came into general use in 1928, there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman, unhappily married, who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods.

The most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town, proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife's lover. In a frenzy of jealousy, he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment, losing his nerve. It's probably the most tension-filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow-moving and obviously contrived story.

HEDY LAMARR is given the sort of close-up treatment lavished on Marlene Dietrich by her discoverer, but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to Hollywood. Her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (ARIBERT MOG), the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim.

The swimming scene is very brief, discreetly photographed, and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. The love-making scene, later on, is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film--artfully so. More is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism--and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece.

Not so. It's disappointing, primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly Miss Lamarr is fortunate that Louis B. Mayer saw the film and on the basis of it, gave her a career in Hollywood. He must have seen something in her work that I didn't.

It's apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. The jarring \"workers\" scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. It fails to end the film on the proper note.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie really shows its age. The print I saw was terrible due to age, but it is possible that there are better prints out there. However, this was not the major problem with the movie. The problem was that although the film was made in 1933, it was essentially a silent film with only the barest of dialog scattered (only a few sentences) in the film in the most amateur fashion. Sometimes the characters' backs were turned or they were talking with their hands over their faces--all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lips and \"cleaverly\" (?) hide the fact that the film was dubbed. Well, its true that this Czech film would need to be dubbed into many languages but to do it this way was really stupid and obvious. It just looked cheap.

Overall, the film looked low budget and silly. It's really a shame though, because there was a grain of a good story--a young woman who marries an older man who is either gay and\/or has no interest in women. But in the 21st century, few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess. EVEN with a few glimpses of the naked (and somewhat chunky) Hedy Lamarr, it isn't worth all the fuss that accompanied the film when it debuted. Even by 1933 standards, this film was a poorly made dud. About the only interesting thing about the film is to see how different Lamarr looked in 1933 compared with the glamorous image Hollywood created when she came to America--she looks like 2 completely different people.

It's such an incomplete looking and technically inferior film, I don't see how it has gotten such rave reviews. For technical problems alone, the movie can't rate a 10 or anything near it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I thought that this movie might be a good spoof, or at least a good independent comedy like Friday. Instead it was more like something someone in high school would make with their parents' camcorder. It wasn't just the low budget that makes this film bad (many great films have been made on a low budget), it is simply a bad movie and it wasn't even bad enough to be good camp. Case in point: for the first ten minutes of the movie nothing happens except the 3 main characters sit in their room smoking dope, put on their makeup, and then answer a phone call. You keep waiting for something to get story moving, but it never comes. The sound was so bad I had to turn the TV up all the way just to almost make out what they were saying (which wasn't interesting anyways). If I pay to rent a movie I will usually suffer through it even when it's bad, but it was all I could do to sit through 20 minutes. It looks like the person before me felt the same way because they didn't rewind the tape and left off about the same place I did. The only reason I gave this a score of 1 is because the rating system doesn't have negative numbers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Carlito's Angels\" is a spoof of \"Charlie's Angels\" that is not afraid to spoof even itself at times, however that does not mean that the film is above criticism by the viewers as well - it is amateurish and juvenile (I think \"fast-motion\" stopped being funny around 1914). The assaulting rap music often drowns out the dialogue, and the film feels longer than it is, even though it runs barely over an hour! The girls themselves are hot & adorable, with wonderful lean bodies, and even though they never get naked, their outfits leave little to the imagination. By checking out their IMDb pages, I found out that one of them (Alessandra Ramos) is actually going through with a film career; I wish her luck, because although this film is bad, she (as well as the other girls) gave it whatever energy it has and I wouldn't mind at all seeing her again on the screen. (*)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The opening scene really got me into watching the movie. However, not more than 5 minutes later, I was already gouging my eyes out. Not only could I not understand a word that was said, the acting could have been better by a group of mentally handicapped. The one highlight of this movie was that there was a punk white midget. However, I didn't quite get the connection on how a white midget was the child of two African Americans. But I guess anything is possible. Also, why the hell was Robin in the movie? I'm not sure that it added anything artistically. Overall, I would strongly recommend you jump off a cliff before you rent this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"They prove that the cops, when they can't find the REAL perpetrators, always blame the parents and accuse them of sexual abuse of their kids. These movies always depict the press as a bunch of animals and have the parents coming out of court to feed the press' hunger to humiliate the grief-stricken. Hasn't anybody ever heard of a courthouse back door in these movies? Here, you have a psychic who tells them exactly what happened and WHERE the body can be found, but the police are not told and nobody heeds his findings.

The police are portrayed as blockheads who don't know what they are doing and there's always an outside detective, like Ed Asner, who comes in late on the case, believes in the parents and solves the mystery.

Also, after the parents are cleared, they don't spit in the faces of the dumb cops who put them in jail, took their kid away and accused them of killing their own child.

It looked as if I've see this film MANY times before.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A Chicago couple, Dillon and Dougherty, are falsely accused of killing their daughter. People begin to wonder if they did it. The police investigate and find suspicious evidence. The couple are maligned by the public and accused in the press. The cops speculate that they are Satanists and have ritually murdered their own daughter. They are charged and brought to trial. They are represented by publicity-seeking lawyers who give them bad advice and bill them for $100,000. The evidence presented against them is twisted or hidden by the police. Fabricated intimations of sexual abuse are presented. Their other child is taken away from them and put in a foster home. Dougherty is pregnant and gives birth to find her baby removed. Verdict, she didn't do it but he did. He goes to the slams with a sentence of 45 years.

In the last third of the movie, with Dillon in jail and Dougherty wondering what to do next, we see people who have been antagonistic now slowly coming to the couple's defense. Witnesses admit to having lied. Other facts are brought to light that, finally, result in Dillon's release. The killer is never found, though the movie gives us a thorough whacko as a plausible perp.

This is a weeper from beginning to end. Nothing seems to go right for the couple. Oh, there are a few happy moment, maybe a party where everyone is glad to be together and tearing up with joy, or some point of evidence in their favor is discovered and people hug one another. But it's never long before someone rushes through the door with more bad news and all the faces are frozen in tragic disbelief. (Usually a fade to block follows.) There isn't necessarily anything wrong with moving tragedies, although I can't imagine what pleasure we get out of seeing people suffer. There's plenty of tragedy in Shakespeare too. I suppose whatever we find interesting about tragic stories lies in the way they're told. \"Oh, but I am Fortune's fool!\" Romeo cries after killing Juliet's brother. Here we have Dougherty running in her robe through a hospital corridor, screaming, \"Where's my baby???\" There isn't any ambiguity or irony in the story -- as I'm sure there must have been in the real life events on which it's based. People are either good or bad here. Or else they're bad, then they turn good.

The film isn't aimed at exploring human quirkiness, or the way things work out. It's aimed at wrenching tears from the audience. The actors provide first-rate role models. I can't remember the last movie in which I saw so many tears. There are rivulets of tears. Showers of them. Cascades of them. A veritable Niagara of them. A Lake Lacrymose of them.

Well, I'll give one example of the efficiency with which the movie is crafted. Dillon and Dougherty hire a Chicago cop who works on the side as a private investigator (Ed Asner). Asner is sympathetic to them but he doesn't really accomplish much. He seems to be in the movie not because of his importance to the case but because he can provide the victimized couple with a kind of philosophy -- \"Learn to live with it,\" which is okay -- and because he suffers from colorectal cancer, so we can watch him take his medicine, double over with pain, and finally pass away.

What's frustrating about the movie is that in focusing so intensely on the suffering of the couple, it sidesteps one of the more important issues that it raises -- the function of gossip in regulating private lives.

Gossip is a strange thing really. If we call it \"gossip\" it's bad, but if we call it \"public opinion\" it sounds acceptable, at the very least. Of course we all have convictions about issues that may or may not be justified. (As I write, Michael Jackson is once again being brought to court accused of molesting a young boy, and I wonder how many of us thrilled at the news and immediately assumed he was a pedophile.) But gossip isn't all bad either. It's like water. When it's properly controlled it's a community asset. We need gossip to keep each other in line. It helps us to maintain public order. But, like water in a flood or a tsunami, it is ruinous to a village when it rages out of control.

This is a movie that's okay if you're not looking for too much in the way of insight into human nature. It's done so cleverly that, given its goal, it's hard to argue with it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Some movies you watch and you say, \"Well, that made no sense.\" And you don't really mean it. You're just saying things were overly complicated or slightly nonsensical.

\"Bread And Circus\" makes no sense at all. And I mean it. And that's not because it's surreal. From the start, it's pretty clear it's a feeble excuse to do splatter special effects. There's no script. There's no plot. There's no story of any kind. One event does not lead to the next -- that's how fundamental the bad writing is here.

So what? I mean, there are TONS of movies out there that fall into that category. They want to show you gore, they give you gore. Why even talk about it?

Because, in this case, \"Bread and Circus\" gave me hope. Okay, there are some surreal elements. Vaginas, in the ground -- people crawling out of them. The earth, in space, two legs on either side. These sorts of images are wonderful, fun, odd, crazy. But the movie doesn't do anything with them.

Stuff happens, the movie ends, and it's all very unsatisfying. I suspect the script was made up on the fly. Too bad. If there had been a story of ANY kind at all, it would have made for a much more entertaining film.

The film is very much like the beautiful car you would love to own. Then you lift up the hood and there's no engine. Just a small man peddling a bicycle.

GRR!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"MARY, MARY, BLOODY MARY is an OK time killer. It has a uniformly attractive cast, the action is rarely dull. There are a lot of killings. And the production values are not bad. But in the end, it plays like a standard TV episode from the 1970s with some nudity thrown in. The film is the end product of an \"author\" trying to make a purely commercial film. There's very little depth here and the film spends too much time with chases and action scenes. Except for the scene on the beach with the old man, MMBM is almost devoid of any scares or suspense or dread. The director has very little understanding of the horror genre.

It's watchable even though it doesn't leave a lasting impression.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie made me so angry!! Here I am thinking that here's a new horror movie, one w\/a sense of intelligence & then the movie starts. The scenery, the delivery of lines, the costumes, the fake gore, must I go on? There are porno movies out with better dialog than this. I understand the concept behind indie movies, but my goodness, this wasn't just indie this was a high school book report shot w\/a camcorder & the cast are all friends & relatives. This is 1 movie that was doomed from its beginning. Maybe if it was 1982 instead of the new millennium this movie could fly. But it seems to me that someone hung a rock around this albatross's neck & it was sinking at a constant rate of speed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm so glad he wasn't alive to see this. This movie is a debauchery of his work. I agree with the other commenter-- this movie was a terrible disappointment. I'd give it a zero, but am forced to give it a 1.

The story was weak, and it reminded me of the days when I was a young teenager trying to write a movie, then looking back on it and realizing how horrible it was. Bad actors, family and friends, and someone stupid enough to fund it was how it was made. It's really amazing how strings can be pulled to get anything done. If this movie was able to make it out to the general public it puts high hopes on other indie film makers who have talent worth a damn who're struggling! This movie made me laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. By all accounts this was seriously not meant to be a comedy. Scary movie is a better play on a horror genre-- this movie just sucks.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First, let me start off by saying this film SOUNDED very interesting: A serial killer copycatting the works of Edgar Allan Poe (who is one of my writers of all time). Sounds cool, right? Yeah, definitely not. Probably the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. And that's not an exaggeration. I've seen a lot of very, very bad movies. This one takes the cake. And I was even prepared for a bad movie before going into it.

Perhaps the writer should've studied some law enforcement procedure: If you have the name of the killer, his entire life's history, a criminal record, and HIS ADDRESS, where is the first place you should look? Hmm. . . possibly. . . his house? What?! NO! That's a preposterous idea, Anthony! How could you suggest something so obvious and level-headed rather than going to a bowling alley? *spoilers end* Honestly, sometimes I can forgive a movie if the writing is good but the acting is bad, or vice versa. . . but this just had everything wrong with it you could possibly find.

I think my biggest pet peeve was how the police\/FBI acted.

For example: Black FBI Agent: \"Okay, endangered female, just sit here in this car in an empty parking lot while I go inside and look around the potential crime scene where a serial killer is supposed to be. Sound good to you?\" Moronic Female FBI Agent: \"Yeah, sounds a-okay to me. Go right ahead. I'll be sure to not focus on my surroundings or at least check the perimeter.\" Black FBI Agent: \"Excellent, that's what I would do!\" Honestly, if you want to be in law enforcement, rent this movie so you can learn how not to act. . . or if you're a human and want to learn the same.

0.5\/10: A half-point just for getting a film produced and in stores. Congrats.

-AP3-","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A low budget may be an excuse for poor acting talent and pathetic looking fake gore. However, it is not an excuse for poor writing. It is a talent to be able to write dialog without making it sound forced and mechanical. The dialog in this movie was on par with most instructional videos shown to fast food staff in training.

I also understand that one must make a few exceptions when it comes to acting talent when you only have 20 bucks to spend on it. With that being said, no serious director would have looked at these scenes and said to himself, \"that was perfect\". I see better character acting on Canadian television.

This movie had a paper thin plot, bad acting, poor dialog and holds no intelligent ideas at all. This simply proves to me that some independent films are that way for a reason. If your looking for a quick scare, rent anything else. Even the \"Cable Guy\" was a scarier film. After watching this film, I think i would have been better off watching a re-run on the X-files.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This may be all you need to know in order to decide whether you want to see this.

The movie is bad. Really, really bad. And sometimes it seems to be aware of that and make fun of how bad it is. It aligns cliche after cliche and even manages to grow worse as it goes along with some moments that are bad enough to be hilariously funny.

If you can laugh about really poor quality in script writing and production values, you might enjoy it. Otherwise prepare for some serious brain damage.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Adventures in Dinosaur City, though a creative idea, was a nauseatingly atrocious attempt at filmmaking. Being sucked into a TV and into a new world is interesting. Three teens obsessively enthralled with half-animated dinosaurs is not. Don't waste the time or the brain power to see this sure loser. I wouldn't even let my kids watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1st watched 8\/7\/2004 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Brett Thompson): Silly, juvenile-focused movie about three kids being zapped into their favorite cartoon with their parents experiment. The script left much to be desired in this Hanna-Barbara like rip-off of some Saturday morning 'live-action with people in dinosaur costumes kids show' with some goofy cavemen hanging around. Nothing really to admire about this and nothing much to be said either. I'm just amazed I found this at a Blockbuster video store as bad as it was and the way the stores are ridding themselves of old VHS movies. I guess they couldn't even sell it, so back on the rental rack it went.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was in one word. Terrible. First of all the people who invented that thingie that puts you in the TV, are slightly insane! Secondly, the three teens are so obsessed with the show, it's scary! The movie was stupid, and no effort or thought was put into it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst movies I've seen this year. Everything about the film screams \"AMATEUR\". For a movie set in the 1800's, everybody speaks like it's the 1990's. The acting, particularly the people playing the white slave masters, is horrible. After about an hour into this movie, I walked out. What a waste of time and effort. For a much better film on this subject, see Steven Spielberg's far superior \"Amistad.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the worst movies I've ever seen!!! Absolutely awful. Poor acting, poor story, there isn't one redeeming quality about this movie to recommend. Amistad is much better. Avoid this movie like the plague!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I had to write a review for this movie based on the ones that are saying gory, non stop action, great movie..

These people were obviously watching a different movie. Killpoint honestly sucked from the word go!! I kept waiting and waiting for this film to get better and it was to no avail. Some said this movie was brutal and others said gory but I can't find either of those adjectives actually showing up in this, I mean hell there are so many scenes with people getting shot and there being no blood at all it's not even funny!! I guess the best way to sum this up is it probably should've been rated PG by 1984 standards and now in the year 2010 there is no doubt this would be PG!! Bad, BAD not in the fun cheesy \"B\" variety movie!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Essentially plotless action film has two good guys (Fong and Roundtree) pitted against two bad guys (Mitchell and Pierce). Fong is perhaps the most uncharismatic action lead of the 80s, Roundtree's small part is a far cry from his \"Shaft\" days, and Cameron Mitchell adds another shameful role to his career, one to sit right next to his laughable turn in \"The Toolbox Murders\" (this man was a respected actor once, now he has come down to wearing flowers in his hair and complaining about people bleeding on his carpet). Only Stack Pierce acts with some dignity. As for the violence, don't worry: most of it is too badly done to offend anyone. (*1\/2)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is very violent, yet exciting with original dialog and cool characters. It has one of the most moving stories and is very true to life. The movie start off with action star Leo Fong as a down and out cop who is approaching the end of his career, when he stumbles on to a big case that involves corruption, black mail and murder. This is where the killings start. From start finish Fong delivers in this must see action caper. This movie also co-stars Richard Roundtree.

I really enjoyed this film as a child but as I got older I realized that this film is pretty cheesy and not very good. I would not recommend this film and the action is very, very bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Tony Curtis and Skip Homier both are wearing black with white trim canvas shoes in the scenes just before and after the swimming pond and the tank being blown up. Must have been too hard on the young stars feet.If the real Marines had been on the mission they would have been wearing boots. IN the first scenes they took off their leggin's just before starting out on their little trip to find the Farmer. When they went to the area where they dug the fox holes Tony and Skip are wearing combat boots, then later when Lovejoy and Curtis run into the Framer and his daughter Tony is wearing the \"Tennis Shoes \" but hey have been blacken. The movie in about a true story but did they really need the love interest??","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A CBS radio program entitled \"We the People\" assists in finding an American home for Vienna refugee Charles Coburn (as Karl Braun), a skilled surgeon and pool hustler. He arrives with beautiful daughter Sigrid Gurie (as Leni), who is \"studying\" to become a nurse. Relocated to a small, dusty Midwestern village, they are welcomed at the station by burly John Wayne (as John Phillips) and his uncle Spencer Charters (as 'Nunk' Atterbury), a veterinarian. Ms. Gurie is unhappy in the dustbowl, and wants to leave. Immediately. But, the prospect of romance with Mr. Wayne might change her mind...

God answers the citizens' many prayers for rain, but it may not be enough to save the farming town. The entire town is advised to relocate to Oregon. Wayne wants to stay and tough it out. Coburn receives an invitation to work at a top clinic. And, Gurie learns her fianc\u00e9, presumed dead, will be arriving to claim her as his wife. She feels duty-bound to accept; but, he has a dark secret... This film does not flatter Wayne, who seems way out of his element. Being paired with Gurie, promoted as another Garbo, doesn't help. They do have a cute scene in Wayne's car (\"Jalopy, an Italian car\").

**** Three Faces West (7\/3\/40) Bernard Vorhaus ~ John Wayne, Sigrid Gurie, Charles Coburn, Spencer Charters","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mild spoilers below.

The prospect of war was clearly on the horizon when TFW was filmed. From the opening scene of European refugees to the final prediction that Naziism will be the death of millions of Germans, this movie is as much a propaganda film as the films made after Pearl Harbor. There isn't a lot of entertainment value here though the footage of the dust bowl is interesting to those of us who aren't old enough to remember it. The rest of the plot is pretty forgettable with the Herr Docktor Coburn - with a pretty bad accent - and daughter assimilating into America with Wayne's help. Other than the dust bowl scenes, the only memorable aspect of the movie is one best viewed with hindsight. Coburn's speech comparing Naziism to a malignancy worse than cancer and describing the (then current) successes as a momentary outburst of energy from a patient right before death were eerily accurate and Varno's Dr. Scherer played accurately to post war newsreel footage of unrepentant Nazis justifying their actions.

When viewed from a historical perspective, some aspects of TFW are interesting. If you look at it for entertainment outside of the WWII perspective, you'd have to say this is one of Wayne's less successful efforts.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Shame to see an interesting story diluted into standard \"Vietnam made for TV\" fare. Usually HBO movies are a substantial cut above TV. Bill Paxton was a pretty good choice for the lead role, but wasn't given much to work with.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was expecting a lot more of this film than what I actually got. The acting was just awful from everyone and the story was far from impressive. It took a lot of something I don't to even follow what was going because it was so jumpy. An example of the acting is when Paxton's character, Vann, is upset the South Vietnamese colonel for so he throws some of the sand from the \"sand map\". It was impossible to get any idea of what he was feeling and his actions were robotic. To make things worse, I have no idea how I'm supposed to feel about Vann. He's obviously presented as the protagonist but as soon as he gets to Vietnam he starts an affair with an Vietnamese English teacher. The only thing the movie had going for it was that it wasn't particularly boring. I give it 4 stars out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It looked cool from the movie sleeve, but after five minutes we weren't sure if it was a homosexual documentary of west side story without any female interest. The film quality was poor, and there was hardly enough gang fighting action to sustain even the drunkest person's interest for long enough to watch the entire film. May god have mercy on the souls of both the actors and the filmmakers responsible for what I can only describe as my new one and only reason why I never will want to see (or trust) an Australian made film again. I have to write more so I will again say that the actors were so bad that I'm positive I could make a better movie with fifteen dollars and a box of Trojans. Please don't see this movie for your own sake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Let's face it, a truly awful movie, no...I mean a \"truly\" awful movie, is a rare, strange, and beautiful thing to behold. I admite that there is a special place in my heart for films like Plan 9 From Outer Space, Half Caste, Species, etc. And although I'm giving this film a 1, I highly urge anyone who enjoys a bad film for what it truly is (a bad film) to find a friend, snacks, something to drink, and make the special occasion it deserves out of: Aussie Park Boyz.

From the very first moments of the lead actor's side to side eye-rolling performance as he attempts to inject intensity directly into the film without ever looking at a camera (a slice of ham straight out of silent pictures--eat your heart out Rudolph Valentino) to the sudden hey-we're-out-of-film conclusion, you...will...not...stop...laughing.

To sum the film up, its a poor man's Warriors down under, complete--and that description alone should be enough, but then comes the wonders of \"the spaghetti eating scene\", \"the 'We've got their tickets; they won't be leaving town now' scene\", \"It's the Asians! Run!!\" and more. The only truly objectionable part is a gratuitously filmed rape. Outside of this, I dare you to watch this film. And I dare you to find evidence of acting, or lines, or direction, or any of those other boring and superfluous elements that so-called critics say a film needs to be judged as good.

If this movie doesn't cause fits of uncontrollable laughter before it ends, all I can do is roll my eyes menacingly from side to side at you and shout, \"You dog! You dog! You dog!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For those of you who don't remember movies -- http:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0080120\/ -- this came out in '79 ( I guess enough time has gone by so naturally Nunzio figured he could just redo this and say he wrote it - yea, right! ).

The acting in this is way overboard - the \"tough guys\" walk around with their shoulders hunched forward to give the impression they are bigger than they really are, also the \"hero' seems to have a passion for snorting, and rolling his eyes in a bug-eyed kind of way to express angst\/anger to the celluloid eye.

There is a sort of racial message here, from the Sicilian perspective (mind you this is about 3rd generation down the line... the original \"wogs\" arrived in OZ after the war and during my childhood - yep I'm an Aussie. So the \"wogg-iness\" has been diluted a lot - they even sound like true-blue Aussies - not a flicker of the \"dago accent\" anywhere ( there, there's another slang for ya, Nun! )

Maori's with sunnies (sunglasses) at 4am - must be cool to be sun-blinded in the middle of the night and it looks like Redfern... this is at this movie's tedious end. Nunzio tried to copy the flavor of the Warriors but, left too many holes in the story. How about coincidences ?

The warriors had a gang of baseball guys wielding bats, with white face makeup chase the heroes to a train station and fight them - Nunzios gang get chased on a railway station by a gang of stick wielding guys wearing whitish face masks. The warriors were mistakenly accused of shooting\/murdering another gang-member -- Nunzios gang are mistakenly accused of raping the sister of the big Maori gang boss. The warriors are lured into a room by a gang of girls who attack them - Nunzios crowd want to crash at a friends house, which is populated by, yep, a gang of girls -- there are almost too many copies from the Warriors to keep on about here.

I am saddened that people don't want to see other moves from OZ because of this tripe - how about Mad Max - Commander and Master of the World? Not all movies are made by actors who are so bad, they have to fund their own movies.

As far as the other actors in this show are concerned, they seem to have taken their cue from \"the Nun\" as they all are as bad as each other - don't bother with this movie! I can't get my money back - so save yours!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although i watched this film by myself(thankfully), i still felt embarrassed while watching it. I was tricked into renting it by the reviews on the front cover, and the bloody\/gritty camera stills on the back-which led me to believe it was some sort of documentary. These actors are laughable throughout the entire film, not convincing at all. The story involves an Italian Australian(?) gang, just fighting other gangs, and then running,fighting,repeat. Supposedly they train extremely hard, which makes them way better than other gangs. For some reason I don't believe that they could actually beat up some of these other guys that are twice their size. I could be wrong... no I'm not wrong, this movie is not enjoyable on any level.The jail montage looked like it was a summer camp, just instead of kids, it was a sausage fest of horrible actors, just hanging out and laughing and trying to look hard. This movie is not worth your time, save your money, or throw it in the garbage, just don't waste it on this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love watching Australian movies but this steaming pile of crap was just plain embarrassing. The DVD cover looked promising but you know what they say, don't judge a DVD by it's cover.

I also noticed that it won Best Actor for an award but the competition must have been really bad because the acting in this film is pathetic. It just seemed that the director thought he had enough talent to direct and act when he should really focus on one part of film-making and get it right before spreading himself too thin. The music was pretty ordinary. The story really didn't go anywhere. It was just a sequence of fights strung together with poor script and cheesy dialogue.

I will say this to all aspiring filmmakers though. Watch this film. It will give you hope that your film will win something at some festival.

However, good on them for getting in there and having a go. Hope they learned some lessons and their next venture is a little better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"this movie is one that belongs on the cutting room floor. For one, the opening sequence does not put forth the element of 'gang' related subject. If it wasn't supposed to then at least they got that part right. Secondly...whats with all the glancing to the left and then to the right??? they even do it in synchronous style. Nowhere have i witnessed a member from a rival crew walk up to a bar, look for someone, from the outside lookin like he is all that and a bag o chips at a barbie and walk away without even being confronted let alone get 'what for'. I wasted money on the rental price and am glad i did not purchase the DVD itself.

If this was made by college( T.A.F.E ) students then at least they gave it the old Aussie try. Better luck next time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everything about this movie is awful.

You can tell in the first five minutes that this movie is going to be terrible. You can't however, gauge how bad it's going to be.

We start the movie with a seemingly endless intro scene aided with gay music and no dialogue. Having the camera move up and down big guys who are trying too hard to look like mentals doesn't provoke the slightest emotion.

What then starts seems to be one of two separate stories. The first half of the movie consists of the wogs going around competing in paid, midnight fights with other ethnic groups. The wogs always win of course, because they apparently lift weights and have \"respect\". It is in these scenes that we first get to see the degree of bad acting, editing, scripting and hatred for the people who funded this film.

Eventually the main character and his mate get sent to prison. The entire prison part of the movie is unrelated to what I assume is the plot, and consists of a bunch of fights.

Once out of prison(3 years for murder?) The main character and his mate reunite with the wogs. They then go to the \"other side of town\" and try to lay low, because apparently everyone wants to kill them.

soon the wogs get set up for the rape of another gang members girl , and run around town fighting off hordes of different gangs. This point of the movie can be compared to an arcade game, as the wogs simply run around and fight off enemies who seemingly get worse and worse as the movie goes on.

Anyway the movie ends with some massive climatic fight scene in which the remaining wogs (the two main characters) take on every gang they've fought so far. Apparently the other gangs don't have a problem uniting to take on the remaining wogs(the skinheads don't mind Asians). After about a million more people get beaten up by the invincible wog brothers the movie ends with the main characters heading home. They don't make it home however, because they are burned to death by the the thousands of angry film critics who storm the set and leave angry letters everywhere.

This movie may be more like a computer game then a movie, because that would explain how two guys can take about a million punches to the face from a million different people who the majority of the time are twice their size.

There are also tonnes more stupid unexplainable events in this movie, such as an Asian fighting off his own gang and taking a katana to the head just to let the wogs get away.

Like someone else mentioned, this movie isn't so bad its funny, it's just so bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"within about 5 minutes in to the film the first fight scene i was watching i just could help but pointout the lack of tension in the scene the cameras crossing back and forth really shows he had no idea what he was doing, well actually the soundtrack shows that the best. i no its a low budget film and your not going to get top 40 songs but at least get music that goes with the scene that isn't actually that hard acting, well if i saw any i would gladly let you know. the script was so badly written would now surprise me one bit of the guy directing wrote this piece of beep, i will give the person one 10\/10 and that was for the DVD cover because if i actually saw \"before watching this\" in a shop and it was like 10 15 bucks i would have bought it, why well if you look at the front cover this actually well done you flip over to the back and you see that it has actually won awards. now that is a very misleading thing because even in a small film festival i wouldn't ever believe in my life that this would win anything all i can say is \"wow if this was the best i wouldn't want to know what the crap in the film festival was like\"

films that are this bad only have one good use and that is for a aspiring film maker to use as inspiration films like this are better tools then good films, because with good film you almost know off the bat there is a good chance you wont make a film that good, but if you use a film like this you can look at all the things they director or writer did wrong so you wont make the same mistakes, and you have the added plus of looking at this film and saying if a piece of beep like this can get made then there is hope of anyone out there","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film proves a theory I have had for quite some time - in Australia, as long as a film deals with the right topic, it will be a success regardless of how terrible it is. Aussie Park Boyz could not possibly be any worse - the acting is beyond terrible, the plot is basically a poor Warriors knock-off, and the filmmakers clearly have no idea about ethnic gangs in Australia (an Irish gang in twenty-first century Sydney! The last time any Irish gangs were in Australia was about a hundred years ago in the time of the tinkers!) But because it's about ethnic rivalry, one of four topics guaranteed to be a success in Australian cinema (along with struggling families, minority groups, and the biography of a famous Australian) it won multiple academy awards. I've always suspected that Australian critics will lap up any rubbish that deals with these issues, but part of me thought, or at least hoped, that they had their limits. This film proves otherwise. So to all you Australian aspiring film-makers out there, don't bother putting thought into your film or choosing people who can actually act, or even getting your facts right - just write a script about some poor family trying to make ends meet, or someone of a foreign race coming to Australia and having to deal with racial prejudice and stereotypes, or, if you want to take a leaf out of these people's book, some ethnic gang fighting some other ethnic gang that isn't actually plausible in the period the film is set, and your film will win five academy awards regardless of how pathetic it is!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film follows a very similar storyboard to The Warriors, only with less intensity and rather poor acting which is nothing to write home about.

The story in general is not that bad, based around a small Aussie gang who are trying to get out of the city when one of their members is framed for the rape of another gang's girl. They then have to fight their way through the streets whilst they are been hunted down by a number of rival gangs. On could assume that the writers have taken a page out of The Warriors book and re-written it, but as mentioned above - with not nearly as much intensity.

The acting as a whole is not very good in my opinion, and it's clearly obvious on many occasions that they are indeed acting... the fight scenes make up for this however but then the poor sound effects that go with them bring it back down.

This film has nothing on Once Were Warriors.

Low budget, alright story, poor acting, nothing to write home about.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not prone to ranting and my expectations were low to start with, but how did this seem like a good idea? Just because you have a camera, some big ugly friends for actors, and delusions of talent, does not mean that you should go out and make a film. This should have been the cinematic equivalent of singing in the shower, i.e. it should never have seen the light of day. However, somehow this rubbish found a distributor to help it escape the confines of a 3 by 4 foot cubicle. It goes from bad to worse. Talk about low budget, one torture scene consists of a guy getting a mug of coffee thrown over him while he's tied to a chair. Evidently this is very painful because the big baby proceeds to scream in agony....maybe he ordered decaf!! The acting is worse than wooden (I could possibly watch a tree for 30 seconds before becoming completely bored, if you can look at this rubbish for that long you're a better man than I!) and the fight scenes would be at home on a kindergarten play yard. Do not touch this movie, unless you enjoy pain (in which case you should try spilling lukewarm coffee over yourself). I'd like to say it's so bad it's good, but really this is just awful.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film could have been great- but wasn't. Amongst the cesspool of talentless no-hopers and friends of the film makers who wanted to help out there are some mild inklings of talent. The main star of the film plays a good lead role. He is convincing and has those scary Italian eyes. However, he is teamed up with the worst rejects of actors anyone has ever come across. The opening scenes of the film are among the worst and most embarrassing. It looks like Gay Porno. Fortunately no one stripped off. The rape scene that keeps being mentioned is rubbish. The prison sequence was the best part of the film- although irrelevant. The movies soundtrack (if you can call it that) sounds like a teenage boys first attempt at using cooledit and some sample cds. It is boring, repetitive and extremely lame. In fact the whole film is lame. Get out while you still can!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"the reason why i gave this movie a 4 was for a couple reasons, but this movie was not that bad. first off, the editing i found too be pretty poor at times, the script(or what they had of one) was not very good, and if not for Nunzio La Bianca, the acting would have been crap. but all that aside(ha ha i know its like the whole movie) its not that bad for an extremely low ind. , low budget film. If they would have gotten more money, a little better actors(but these ones were intimidating so it was good) and a little more detailed script this movie would be terrific. Somebody has to tell me this guy was influenced A lot by the warriors by Walter hill. i mean this movie is exactly like it. anyone who has seen both those films will agree with me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I don't understand why this movie was released, it looked like something that you show your mates after you borrowed your mums handycam she bought in 1987. I am Australian and work for a video store in the UK and thought that if an Aussie film made it into our store it can't be all bad... boy was I wrong!

If anyone writes a good comment about this movie they are either lying or the makers of the film.

The picture was BAD, the sound was HORRIBLE and the acting, oh the acting, it was the WORST acting in the HISTORY OF FILM.

It makes me embarrassed and offended that they used the word 'Aussie' in the title because I am proud to be Australian and this movie is seen in other countries and may give people the wrong idea.

Please anyone who reads this and has seen this movie, take the time to find other Aussie movies to watch because you could choose any one of them and it would be better than that one.

I could have made a better film if I took a camera, filmed my but for an hour, ate the film waited for it to pass through my body then threw what came out at the television... no offence.

DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!!!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Being a fan of ZaSu Pitts comedies, I thought this one looked like it was worth a try. I was quite disappointed.

(The version I saw was on TCM, but consisted only of the Niagara Falls movie; the Miss Polly movie was absent.) The talents of the actors, who give fine performances, is wasted on one of the stupidest stories I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through.

Tom Brown (Tom Wilson) surprised me by being the strongest actor in the show, but the spotlight is hogged by Slim Summerville (Sam Sawyer), who, if he has any talent, didn't demonstrate it here.

ZaSu Pitts (Elly Sawyer) is great, but doesn't have near big enough a part. The biggest laugh in the movie is when she ends up under Sam under a table.

The only one in the movie who has any sense at all is Tom Wilson. Margie (Marjorie Woodworth) is unreasonable in general. While she is physically quite attractive, her personality and attitudes make her completely undesirable. Elly, Sam, and the hotel desk clerk are just complete fools.

Sam and Elly give up their honeymoon suite in the crowded hotel for Tom and Margie. But then they take it back. Sam ends up imprisoning Tom and Margie in their room. Most of the movie is them trying to break out, but Sam, using a rifle, always puts them back again.

Towards the end comes the worst part. Tom, who is finally about to make good his escape, runs into a minister on a lower floor of the hotel. Now the guy, who, as I said, is the only one in the whole movie who has a head on his shoulders, suddenly, for absolutely no reason at all, decides he has to marry Margie!

He drags the minister up to the room he has just escaped from, but Margie doesn't want to marry him. He gives her a kiss, and now, after one kiss, she feels compelled to marry him.

Finally, Sam has the nerve to say to Tom, \"You deceived me,\" when practically the only line Tom had to Sam earlier was, \"We're not married,\" to which Sam replied, \"You think I'd believe that?\"

Idiotic.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This appears to be two movies spliced into one. In the first, ZaSu Pitts is a renegade in a small town. She wants to help the romantic life of Marjorie Woodworth. OK: I'd never heard of her before either. But she and Pitts are in both parts of this concoction.

Before we know it, Pitts is no longer Miss {Polly. She is Emmie. I had to rewind to see if I'd fallen asleep somewhere. I hadn't. She no longer in a small town but on her way to the title Honeymoon destination.

The movie has some cute moments. The first part is better, with roles for what seems to be every third-rate character actress working in Hollywood at the time.

And what of Ms. Woolworth? She sounds a little like Betty Hutton. She sounds a little like Marie Wilson. She's pretty, certainly. But she's no comedienne.

Pitts often was used in very small roles. Here she has the largest role. She's always fun, though this movie made me wonder if a little of her doesn't go quite a long way. (As a comic. When she was a tragic actress in Von Stroheim silents -- \"The Wedding March\" and Greed\" are the two I have seen -- she was brilliant.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A genuinely odd, surreal jumble of visual ideas which probably looked extremely puzzling on the printed page; just what drew Robert Redford to the project, one may never know. Sidney J. Furie directs this knockabout journey of an egotistical motorcycle racer taking a milquetoast juvenile under his wing; the kid looks up to this anti-hero, and eventually begins to ape his amorality. Disjointed and off-putting--though for some, the sight of Redford disrobing, about to disrobe, or having been disrobed might be enough to warrant attention. Lauren Hutton gets naked too, however all the sexy flashes are just teasers for the prurient-minded; there simply is no story. Perhaps Furie was making an esoteric comment about feckless wheelers and their flock circa 1970. If true, then this pre-Blank Generation approach backfired, as the film was not a success. *1\/2 from ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"PREY

Aspect ratio: 1.37:1

Sound format: Mono

A lesbian couple (Sally Faulkner and Glory Annan) living in a remote country house are driven apart by the arrival of a young man (Barry Stokes) who turns out to be a flesh-eating alien, the vanguard of a massive invasion...

Despite its shoestring budget and leaden pacing, Norman J. Warren's follow-up to SATAN'S SLAVE (1976) amounts to a great deal more than the sum of its meager parts, thanks to a surprisingly complex script by Max Cuff (apparently, his only writing credit): Faulkner and Annan indulge an obsessive relationship whilst living in isolated splendor within the English countryside (rendered alternately beautiful and ominous by Derek V. Browne's eye-catching cinematography), though Annan's discovery of bloodstained clothing in an upstairs room marks one (or both) of these doe-eyed lovelies as psychologically disturbed, which may explain the absence of their respective families, some of whom appear to have lived in the house at one time or another and 'left' under mysterious circumstances. Stokes' unexpected arrival throws the relationship into disarray, partly because Faulkner has a pathological hatred of men and partly because Annan is attracted to him, creating tensions which result in a climactic whirlwind of violence. There's an extraordinary, multi-layered sequence in which Faulkner attempts to 'emasculate' their clueless visitor by dressing him in women's clothing, though Stokes' alien mentality allows him to rise above the intended mockery.

In the early scenes, at least, the relationship between Faulkner and Annan is depicted with uncommon grace and dignity, but this heartfelt sapphic liaison quickly devolves into crowd-pleasing episodes of sex and pulchritude, culminating in an explosion of horror when Annan allows herself to be ravished by Stokes following a violent argument with Faulkner. The closing sequences are (quite literally) gut-wrenching, especially Annan's final scene, which appears to have been clipped for censorship reasons in 1977 and never fully restored (what remains is still pretty vivid, so brace yourselves!). Excellent performances by the three leads, bolstered by Warren's unobtrusive direction, which takes full advantage of the stunning woodland locations, thereby compensating for the film's budgetary shortcomings. Originally released in the US as ALIEN PREY.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, this simply is the worst movie ever made. Period. Horrible acting, sets and music. Ok, everything sucks in this movie. I almost forgot! The special effects are \"great\" also. So if you like bad movies, watch this, it can surely make you laugh!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Although this has to be the nadir of season six, this schmaltzy episode isn't badly written or acted. It's just that most of us looked to the X-Files for taut, gripping horror\/thrillers ending without easy answers and moving toward dark but fathomable conspiracies. Season 6 gave us a stream of tongue-in-cheek comedies that undermined the show's continuity and, frankly, made Simpsons' Halloween Specials look like great thriller TV.

In this episode Victoria Jackson of SNL fame plays the long-suffering girlfriend of a man who sets himself up as a rainmaker. However her weatherman boss is the one who truly loves her and Mulder winds up having to provide him dating advice in order to get out of town.

There's some playful fun with the chemistry between the agents and some amusing but none-too-sophisticated characterization of Midwestern hicks. It's nothing you'd want to see more than once!

It's hard to figure out Season 6. X-Files creator Chris Carter seems bored by the whole 'Syndicate conspiracy' story arc and abandons responsibility to the black comedy writers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well, I must say, I initially found this short to be quite average, but having watched it nearly 5 times since (its constantly shown on IFC), I've developed an enjoyment of the simple plot elements and reality of the situations presented. Sofia Coppola contributes a solid addition to the category.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dictated by thin experience (of both life and industry) and no cash Sofia Coppola's early short is almost by necessity an observational piece set on a high school campus. The cast are rather weak and do not benefit from being shot in b&w (it's difficult to tell the characters apart). The sound editing does little to help a simple story of fickle teenage allegiance.

Yet there are one or two things to note. Inamongst the inconsistent editing the high school campus is filmed with a balance of aspirant wide and intimate close-up shots. The editing-to-music also creates an interest and momentum (without descent into the netherworld of the Music Video). Coppola clearly made an attempt to vary the pace of the film. The dramatic turn is cut fast and to-the-point and the second act is almost non-existent; we recognise it's actually been played out in tandem with the first, which is the point of the narrator-on-crutches trope (who is an otherwise curiously appended character in that first act).

Despite these notes it's an awkward short. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Your idol will deceive you in this movie. Stephen Nichols is mis-cast as a young german student still bending under his father's orders although the actor obviously looks near 40 years-old. This makes his relationship (a collection of copulation scenes, basically) to a very young looking girl all the more disturbing. The character's have no dimension and the war depiction serves only as a backdrop for this soft porn wannabe. Nichols, who is one of daytime TV's best performers shows no passion in what is to be the main interest of this movie: watching him have sex over and over with this girl. It's like watching two animals going at it. If you're a fan of this actor's talent in other projects, don't rent this for you will never view him in the same way. If, on the other hand, you want to see Stephen Nichols have an orgasm in front of the camera, you might like it: Stephen will show you his naked butt, lots of tongue work, his groaning range, but not his talent as this character who's obviously just as sex-driven and misjudging as he was for wanting to do such personal things in front of the camera. He may have found it kinky but I didn't - a BIG deception!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I chose to watch this film because I am a Stephen Nichols fan. Unfortunately, I am unhappy with Mr. Nichols' choice to do this movie. The film was slow, badly acted, and included some very graphic sex scenes of Mr. Nichols' character with a very young woman. Watch at your own peril!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are times when, less than halfway through a movie, I start to wonder what the creators were thinking that made them decide not to burn every reel of footage and instead release a movie that has no real merit of any kind. And I mean any kind. This movie doesn't even hold up as made-for-cable porn. In fact, Heaven's Tears is completely and utterly boring, and at times a bit disturbing in its naivete. The girl, who is, as I recall, eighteen, masturbates while thinking of an older Nazi who hit her with a car--the \"bumping into her in the hall as a way of introducing ourselves\" syndrome from sitcoms and Robert Zemekis films. Then, on their second or third meeting--get this--he is the shy one, the one who is resistant to the girl's sexual advances, and yet, all she has to say is, \"I'm old enough. I'm want to,\" and he takes her to bed. Then, after sleeping with this girl he hardly knows, he feels completed, as if he could die right there in the bed with her and he'd have lived a full life. It's like \"Lolita\" without a shred of social and personal commentary.

The cinematography is the most boring part of the movie. No interesting angles or originality at all, not even for the sex scenes, which are supposed to be the main draw for these kinds of movies. The masturbation scene is just a camera circling the girl's bed (very fake looking, as if it's on a stage), and it's interspliced with her fantasy of the man taking a shower in a waterfall. The \"I am completed\" scene is just a close-up of the girl's right side (head down to her breasts) with the guy on top of her, and it's the same shot for the whole time, even though there are repetitious cuts to a fairly unrelated scene of the Nazi's older sister, who has some kind of incestuous crush on him (she's ridiculous and silly, so it doesn't matter). I think the whole thing lasts five to ten minutes, and it's neither enlightening nor arousing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst hindi film I have ever seen. It conforms to all the stereotypes of bad Hindi films. The plot is ridiculous, the acting over the top, and Shah Rukh manages to fit in a couple of song sequences even though he is playing the character of a dumb man.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film would be a great piece of history if in fact it was a real film of the Kennedy assassination. The are far too many mistakes in this film for me to point out. It is a film of the Kennedy assassination, but many of the important facts have been altered. There are missing scenes, and many of the scenes, after the president's limo passes the sign, don't fit in. Both Kennedys move noticeably slower then the other four people in front of them. Next time you watch this film look for things that don't add up, such as the Texas Gov. and his, along with the SS men in the front, lunge forward but you can see that the limo is not stopping or slowing down, in fact is is accelerating. This film is clearly an attempt at a cover up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I lay the blame for The Comebacks on anyone who enjoyed Date Movie and Epic Movie. You people encouraged the Fox studio to keep on churning out desperate parody films, and now we're faced with what just may be the laziest and most desperate one of them all. The Comebacks barely qualifies as a parody. Heck, it barely qualifies as a movie. This is a comedy in theory, but not in execution. No one, not even the people involved with this mess, could have possibly fooled themselves into thinking they were making a funny movie. Director Tom Brady (The Hot Chick) has made something truly wretched here.

The plot, if you can even call it that, centers on a man named Lambeau Fields (David Koechner). Right when I heard his name within the first couple seconds of the film, I knew I was in for a long movie. Funny names are seldom funny, and become even less funny the more you hear them. Lambeau is one of the worst coaches in the world, but he's been given another chance by his best friend, Freddie Wiseman (Carl Weathers), to coach a ragtag high school football team called The Comebacks. Lambeau must not only lead the team to victory, but also teach them the ways of inspirational sports movie clich\u00e9s. He expects his kids to have poor grades and problems with alcohol, and ridicules them when they don't. When it looks like the team has a chance to play at the big championship Toilet Bowl game (Did 10-year-olds write this script?), Lambeau is shocked to discover that Freddie is the coach of the big rival team that his team will be playing against. Turns out Freddie only encouraged Lambeau to take the coaching job, because he wanted The Comebacks to lose.

The Comebacks is a movie so forced and pathetic, I almost had a hard time believing what I was watching. Spoof movies have recently turned into a game of \"spot the movie reference\", and this continues the tradition. It tries to squeeze in as many references to other sports movies as it can, but it either does absolutely nothing with them, expecting us to just point at the screen and laugh out of familiarity, or it attempts to be funny and falls flat on its face. Some of the films referenced include Field of Dreams, Bend it Like Beckham, Rocky Balboa, Friday Night Lights, Stick It, Radio, Miracle, Remember the Titans, Gridiron Gang, Invincible, and Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. But wait, wasn't Dodgeball already a parody of inspirational sports movies? So, in other words, we're watching a parody of a parody of inspirational sports movies. If that makes any sense to you, you're just the audience this movie is looking for. Some of these films are referenced in the plot, and some (like the Rocky one) are just thrown in for no reason, because the filmmakers wanted to try to reference as many films as possible. There are some that the movie even feels the need to explain to us in its dialogue, just in case we've missed the obvious reference. You know a movie is in trouble when it has to spell out its own jokes to us.

The worst thing is that the screenplay by TV veterans and first time screen writers, Ed Yeager and Joey Gutierrez, doesn't even know the first and most important rule of parody - You have to play it straight. The actors have to pretend they're not in on the joke. The reason why the classic Zucker Brothers movies like Airplane, Top Secret, and The Naked Gun are remembered so fondly is because they cast serious actors like Leslie Nielsen (yes, he was a serious actor before he turned to comedy) and Robert Stack, and then threw them into ridiculous situations. What made it funny is that they acted like they weren't in a comedy, and kept a stone face to the weirdness around them. Those films wouldn't have worked if they played their roles broadly. The Comebacks proves this, as all the actors are forced to play their roles so goofy, it's like they're screaming at us to laugh. David Koechner keeps on flailing his arms, bulging his eyes, and screaming at the top of his lungs to the point he looks like someone who knows he's trapped in a dead-end comedy, and just tries too hard to pretend he's having a good time. The movie also doesn't understand the art of celebrity cameos (also an important factor when it comes to parody films). What kind of cameos do we get in The Comebacks? Andy Dick and Dennis Rodman.

By the time the movie throws in an out of nowhere and extremely pointless cast musical number to Journey's \"Don't Stop Believing\" for absolutely no reason whatsoever, I was just about ready to walk out the theater door. I was the only person at my screening, and the thought of this movie going on its pathetic way to a completely empty house kind of appealed to me. I did sit through the rest of The Comebacks, and I was not rewarded for my efforts. The sad thing is, Fox is not yet done killing the spoof genre. They have a parody of 300 coming out next year called Meet the Spartans. I'd say it can't be much worse than this, but I've seen the trailer, and I wouldn't want to get your hopes up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Spoof films have come so far since Mel Brooks in 'The Producers' (1968) said \"Don't be stupid, be a smartie. Come and join the nazi party\". It brought us delightful films, such as 'Young Frankenstein', 'Airplane!', and even 'Naked Gun'. But the good die young. Luckily, the genre managed to make it all the way up to the end of the 90's. And then... the Wayan's Brothers unleashed the apocalypse: 'Scary Movie'. Suddenly the word spoof was an innuendo for crude sex jokes. Most movies claiming to be spoofs since then have followed suit, including 'Scary Movie 2', 'Date Movie' and the film to kill the genre 'Epic Movie'. Sure, there have been some reliefs. There was 'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz'. Will Ferell has become a vehicle spoofing close to every sport imaginable. Also, the Wayans Brothers quit the 'Scary Movies' and they have been made by the dependable Zucker Brothers. While these films have held some value in the rescue, the genre is tragically doomed to be films only loved by prepubescent males who just discovered what an erection is. People who haven't explored the term 'spoof' and cut and paste movies together for a quick laugh. No heart, no brain, just cheap glue. Sadly, 'The Comebacks' has been added to the list. Dave Koechner (Who starred in 'Anchorman' alongside Ferrell) leads a teams of underdogs to win against a coach (Carl Weathers of 'Happy Gilmore' fame) who got him back into coaching. Koechner has shown promise as a supporting actor, but as a lead in this film, he just sounds scripted. He sounds too much like he's doing a cold read passionately. Also, the jokes about being a washed up coach, who through the course of the movie encourages the team to fail in school and later runs from the police in his underwear, have been done before. Yes, this is a spoof film. But let us remember that even spoofs can have quality. Give the characters dignity and a sort of sophisticated view on modern society. Also, the reliance on stereotypes is not going to get us any more laughs (who knew one movie with jive-talking people could lead to gangster stereotypes (not really, but you see)). While I will admit to laugh at least a few times... it wasn't on par. The football team within itself had a lot of stereotypes, including a Mexican, a cocky jock, a fat guy, the scrawny nerd, and the mentally handicapped aid. Even the only female on the team got reduced to stereotypical female humor, being mostly scantily clad and giving off innuendos. In fact, her character, as well as most of the others, never developed. It's a sad state of affairs for this movie. If only it wasn't so reliant on stupid sex jokes, it could've made something for itself. In fact, this movie will probably be the butt of jokes alongside 'Epic Movie' for time to come. Koechner really deserved better. The script in general was poorly conceived, even naming the championship 'The Toilet Bowl'. So yes. spoof movies are dying. There is a movie called 'Meet the Spartans' (be ahead of the trend, boycott now!) coming out that includes a spoof on Britney Spears' breakdown. So let those kids keep getting erections... but people grow up and lose them. We need sustenance. One day, they will learn to stop spoofing spoofs and restore them. Hopefully, one of the heroes will be 'Get Smart', made by the master Mel Brooks, coming out next year.

Rating: 2 out of 5 (Stars)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With so many horrible spoof movies, this is sadly a breath of fresh air to the genre. Compared to classics like Airplane or the Naked Gun, this is awful, but compared to recent spoof movies like Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie, this is very clever and original. Don't get me wrong, though, this was not a good movie in any way. I laughed a few times, and there are a few inspired gags, but any pop culture reference falls flat on it's face, as does most jokes in the movie.

Lambeau Fields (David Koechner) was a bad coach in the past, but now he's brought back to teach college football, and this time he'll do a good job. His wife (Melora Hardin) is feeling distant from him and his daughter is dating a football big shot to spite her father. Spoofs of various recent movies come into play, as do a lot of sight gags and nonstop stupidity.

The best parts of the movie are the gags not relying on reference to recent movies. Spoofs of Radio, Rocky, Dodgeball, Friday Night Lights, Invincible and many other sports movies are not funny in the least. It's mainly the smaller gags that get a few laughs, like a bizarre crotch scratching scene, or a chewing tobacco spitting joke. These little throwaway giggles cannot carry the movie, and by the end, it's hard to watch. The last 20 minutes are grueling to sit through.

The characters are surprisingly developed for a sports spoof movie, however, I'm sure the characters were built on clich\u00e9s from the genre. Nonetheless, they're not too bad. David Koechner can pull lead actor in a movie off. Too bad they gave him so much crummy material to work with. Matthew Lawerence has fine comedic timing in a not always so comedic role as a ballet dancing football player with a cross dressing father. Carl Weathers rounds off the cast, once again playing in a sub-par sports movie (Not the Rocky movies...Happy Gilmore!) Overall, this is a goofy comedy. At times, it's funny, but more often than not, it's just very annoying and predictable.

My rating: * 1\/2 out of ****. 90 mins. PG-13 for language, sexual humor and drug humor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a nonsense\/spoof comedy, in the lines of The Airplane or Naked Gun, but it doesn't even come close to this two, because it lacks originality and a little more intelligent jokes, rather then just throwing you with the same old easy jokes.

You can figure out some references to other movies, from the top of my head I identified Dodgeball and Rocky, so you can have some fun with that, trying to find out what movies are spoofed.

The movie also offers you an occasional laugh, but nothing that can cause you injuries, thus nothing really funny.

I liked the character IPod in some ways (even though some of the jokes with him are standard comedy 101).

I think this movie (and like most of nonsense\/spoof comedy) depends on the mood you are in, so if you think you will laugh to any joke watch this movie. If you are in a serious mood forget about this (re)watch The Airplane instead, it will definitely make you laugh","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The spoof genre, which has lacked creativity and humor for some time already, gets spat upon yet again by hacks with no talent. No point, no fun, no originality; just a few cheap bucks for the film makers.

It takes more than just referencing some recent movies and giving characters double-meaning names to be satire; to make people laugh. Any clod can pick up a cam-corder, and have some bad-acting buddies in cheap costumes imitate somebody. Since the genre being targeted this time is inspirational sports movies, there are a few lame references thrown out to movies of that type: the jokes are so weak the characters actually have to emphasize the references in various ways, to get you to laugh hysterically. It doesn't work.

That's not comedy. However, the same old worn out sophomoric \"jokes\" ripped off from a middle school washroom (done even more blandly than usual) are all here. If that's not enough, there's a running \"gag\" of a bus running somebody over. So funny, right? Also, one pathetically poor scene does more product placement than Michael Bay; again with the same unfunny results. A musical bit flops miserably. Pity Carl Weathers, once Apollo Creed in the Rocky series, now stuck with roles in swill like this.

Lousy beyond words. Watching a snail run the marathon would be less tedious than watching this film is. Probably a lot funnier, too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first saw the previews for this movie on TV I thought that this could be a funny movie. I was wrong. All though I am not totally against movies that make fun of others. Some are actually funny such as the first scary movie. This was one of many that have been made as of late that are not. The humor in this film was anything but funny and was rather dull.

I feel the one of the biggest problems is that they poked fun at to many movies such as Varsity Blues, Friday Night Lights, Stick it, etc. And if you are anything like me you try to pick out each movie instead of paying attention to whats going on in this one. Even the adult humor in this movie was dry. Do yourself a favor and save you money and time and rent don't rent this movie","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Comebacks is a spoof on inspirational sports movies, and let me just tell you-it is not a good one. Tom Brady (the director) probably found it hilarious that referencing sports films (from Gridiron Gang, Invincible and even Miracle! to The Longest Yard and Dodgeball-yes Dodgeball!) and tossing in a couple of sex jokes, would be the funniest thing since Airplane! Well, he was wrong. They did such a slipshod job, you'd thought it was written in a week. I have found it that if a director loves the genre, the movie will be good. Obviously, Brady does not love the genre he is spoofing. This movie is a rancid piece of garbage not worth viewing, so don't see it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Im sorry to myself, you know why. I feel pained from the viewing of this movie. I went to the theater with some friends to see this movie, and still did not give it the satisfaction of watching it in entirety ( i left with about 20 minutes left... hoping to god it might make me at least comfortable for a moment. ) most movies now, even this bad ones... when i watch them, there may be a small part in the movie where I feel some joy at times because of maybe a quirky joke or a good line... this movie on the other hand made me feel uncomfortable and mad at myself the whole time, especially since i wasted money on it. It was poorly written, poorly directed, poorly shot, and definitely poorly acted...

please, for the good of humanity, do not see this movie, even if your some guy who wants to say he has seen like every movie ever... just don't...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If it would of had Jack Black listed as the leading actor I would of stayed away from this movie right away. It actually makes some of his movies look good compared to this movie.This movie should of been filmed as a cartoon for ages 3-8 and it would of been a lot better. It is nothing but a bunch of the stupidest skits from other movies put together to make one big mess.The movie looks like it was shot in about one day with no thought at all behind it. There's a few times where it looks like maybe there's gonna be a turning point and the movie well actually have plot to the movie or at least a storyline would develop but the stupid skits inserted just ruin the whole movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Sometimes, things should just not be made. And while the set-up seemed good enough, it proceeds to only make the audience gasp in horror. But the problem is, its not another Saw film. Its just so bad you wish you were receiving punishment from Jason Voorhees.

I lost track of how many sports movies and spoofs it incorporated into the film. And generally, it flopped in its attempts. True, telling his team they should fail every subject to be true players was somewhat funny at first, but that grew tiring to watch. That and the joke about \"Radio\" and \"IPod\".

Overall, I can't stand to watch this film again. Even Trantasia is worth more than this. \"D-\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There was nothing remotely funny about this movie. It makes fun of various sports movies and clich\u00e9s but nothing about it is remotely funny. Most of the movies they parody doesn't even fit in with the film and are really only their so they can be in it. Non The main actor was well cast in it but that's really the only good thing about this film. Also the various cameos in it were kind of cool to see but i have no idea why they would waste their time being in this piece of garbage. Thank goodness I only spent $4 on it as this is not something worth spending money on. ONly watch if you have absolutely nothing to do or just want to waste an hour and 30 minutes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie is a terrible attempt at a spoof. Its attempts to parody various sports movies are half-baked and not at all funny.

Even things that should be funny - like the female kicker from India who's always wearing traditional dress over her uniform - aren't really funny. The fact that the football team studies and gets good grades which makes the coach mad didn't get any laughs either.

The plot of having a traditional loser get one more chance by coaching a loser high school football team really had potential as a spoof. It's a classic and trite sports theme. But alas, the screenplay was too weak for ANY cast to pull it off. And this cast is no exception.

There is gratuitous use of women in bikinis and underwear, so it's not all bad from that aspect.

But Animal House or Talladega Nights, this is not.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"1st movie comment ever! I'll start with saying \"Come on! Wasn't THAT bad... was it?\"... No it was't that bad actually. I laughed and giggled enough times through the movie so I cannot say with hand on my heart that it was rubbish.

It's completely different, this and Epic Movie (Epic Movie sucked bad.. doh!). \"How so?\" people would ask. I'll tell you how. This movie is not as nearly as pointless, not to mention that the stupid (and I say stupid because it is, but being stupid makes it funny) stuff that happens around and with the characters is actually enjoyable in this movie. Not the best around but hey... what would you expect - look at the poster! Some people said it was stupid, I find that when writing a comment one should be more objective (my own opinion) but yeah, of course it was stupid, it's a movie about \"stupid\"! Look, I'm not telling you to go and watch the movie now or else you missed the event of the century. What I am telling is that, if you happen to see the movie somewhere, please don't carve your eyes on the opening credits. See what it's all about - who knows, you might like it a bit.

I give it 4\/10 for not being so bad and making me laugh and some unexpectedly good sex-related jokes.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One would think that since this film has a bad rep that I would be exaggerating when I say I hated this film.But I'm am serious this movie was just so stupid and so unfunny, and such a waste of time.I mean after the first 30, I had a major headache and the smile I had on my face(that was mostly getting ready to laugh) was wearing off.When this film was over I was so glad and because I had good expectations that it would be funny I was extremely disappointed.The acting is not great, the comedy moments are lame and unfunny.Hardly anything is good about this, because I laughed at like maybe 2 parts.Overall this is so boring and I can't tell you how awful this is, I think this could be used as a suicide technique.I mean I don't think for some its even watchable.So my final words on this are, AVOID AT ALL COSTS.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When I first saw the trailer for The Comebacks, it looked absolutely horrible and I had no interest in seeing it, but when it came out on DVD today, I figured since there was nothing else that caught my interest, I would rent it and give it a shot. I watched it tonite and it really wasn't that bad. I think it was immature and stupid at times, but there were a few funny moments that made me laugh. I don't really watch many sports movies, so I wonder maybe if I saw more, maybe this movie would make more sense to me, but it's all good, I still didn't mind so much watching The Comebacks. I admit, these \"stupid spoof\" movies are lame, but what's the harm in a stupid joke every once in a while? The Comebacks isn't really that bad if you give it a fair chance.

Coach Fields is failing in life, family and career both, but when he is offered a chance to bring his career back to life if he can bring a looser football team into the championship. But the team is really really terrible, like beyond terrible. But with a little work and team effort they try to give it their all, even though that might turn into something more sad.

The Comebacks over all isn't the worst film I've seen, I think it's good for a couple laughs and giggles. I know that this was stupid, but I couldn't help but laugh when the coach comes in the middle of a fight in the locker room and he's beating the nerd's head against the locker, just him and the nerd in general were so funny together. If you have an open mind and don't take this movie too seriously, I think you'll have a fun time watching it, if you watch it expecting it to be Oscar worthy material, this is not the movie for you.

4\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For the record, I hate spoof movies. Except for Mel Brooks and AIRPLANE! because those are classics and make fun of the clich\u00e9s, not the actual movies itself. I think that spoof movies are the bottom of the barrel for both comedy and film. I especially hate things created by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, the \"geniuses\" behind DATE MOVIE, EPIC MOVIE, and MEET THE SPARTANS.

I decided to give THE COMEBACKS a look. Since Friedberg and Seltzer had nothing to do with the production, I was as objective as possible. It was just like one of their movies. It was basically every sports movie rolled into one with lame kindergarten jokes, and disturbing images of bodily injury that's supposed to make me laugh and failed.

Only someone high would laugh at these jokes. Toilet bowl? Who wrote this? an 11 year old? I was surprised to see that this was the creation of the producers of WEDDING CRASHERS, which was actually pretty decent. But there attempt at the spoof genre was about as funny as a burning orphanage. The only reason that I gave this two stars (when it clearly deserved one) was because Friedberg & Seltzer had nothing to do with this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Do all spoof films require pure stupidity and a lack of ANY sort of intelligence whatsoever to the humour? Is there even just a single genuinely FUNNY parody film anymore? All I see are zero-quality films that look like a couple stoned high school students got bored one day with a video camera. These movies are not funny, they're not clever, they're not entertaining, they're just useless in every conceivable way.

The Comebacks was a movie that tried to hide its hideous level of trash by not calling itself \"Sports Movie\". It's the same thing, though. There are a few different writers for these films, the Wayans did some, Freidberg and Seltzer did some others, and I'm sure there's another pair. I can't even tell the difference in direction or humour to be honest, it all seems like the same people wrote and directed them. I can't tell if the Comebacks was done by the people who did Scary Movie or the guys who did Epic Movie, or someone else, it's just the same jokes from all the others.

If you have ANY shred of taste or value for humour, don't see this movie. If you have self-worth, don't bother seeing it. If you have ANY respect for film making, don't even consider watching it. Don't see it in any broke down, derelict theatre that may still carry it, don't rent it, don't order it on Netflix or Pay-Per-View, don't Redbox it, and don't even watch it for free on OD. Avoid it like the plague.

The only conceivable reasons I can see to watch this film are as follows.

A. Masochism. If you like torturing yourself, there's very few better ways. B. Seeing a prime example of why to avoid ANYTHING that says \"Fox Atomic\". C. You're being paid considerably high amounts of cash.

I really would not watch the entire thing if someone offered me $100 to do it. It's just mindless, mental collapsing torment.

You might as well watch Zohan.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A comedy that spoofs the inspirational sports movies, The Comebacks tells the story of an out-of-luck coach, Lambeau Fields, who takes a rag-tag bunch of college misfits and drives them towards the football championships. In the process, this life-long loser discovers that he is a winner after all by redeeming himself, saving his relationship with his family and friends, and finding that there is indeed, no \"I\" in \"team\"!

I decided to watch the unrated version for this film. It was thirty minutes longer and I though it may be better than the theatrical release, hearing that people hated this movie. After all, thirty minutes of extra footage can add a whole lot to a movie. Well, I certainly was wrong. It was as bad as the recent \"Meet the Spartans\" but it was thirty minutes more of torture!

Seriously, who makes a close to two hour spoof movie?! A spoof movie is short because if it goes any longer, it would be overkill! Honestly, I love stupid comedies. Heck, I liked \"Date Movie,\" \"White Chicks,\" \"Epic Movie,\" and \"Little Man\"! I guess when it comes to spoof movies, it is either a hit or miss and this one definitely missed.

On the lighter side, from the many jokes in this film, I will say about six or seven made me laugh, even some that made me laugh out loud. But that's not saying much. Following those jokes were more scenes of torture and unfunniness.

I can't see how people would say this is not a terrible spoof film. In fact, there is as much product placement in here like Meet the Spartans, there are as many dance sequences, and unfunny jokes. I will say another thing I like about this movie is the songs. They are some very good songs in here. Overall, watch it if you like spoof films. Skip it if you like funny films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was only a matter of time that a spoof would be made of sports movies! And there are plenty of movies to be spotted which are made fun off. But the biggest problem I had was the fact that it stays with recognizing movies. The director and writers of \"The Comebacks\" somehow forget to get creative. While I must admit that I laughed at certain scenes,\"The Comebacks\" could have been so much funnier. The actors forget to deliver their lines seriously and have a straight face throughout the movie. A spoof demands this and that is the main reason why silly jokes work in movies like this. Because of the failure of the cast to do so the jokes never hit their mark. Some scenes take forever and normally in spoofs that doesn't have to be a problem. Take \"Naked Gun\" for instance. Their is always something happening on screen. In \"The Comebacks\" they didn't even bother to let stuff happening in the background. Only a couple of factors make this movie worth watching! It still is fun to spot the movies that are made fun off. And Jermaine Williams as Ipod. His parody on Cuba Gooding Jr. as Radio was hilarious! He seemed to be the only one in the cast to get the idea of what a spoof is about. Not entirely bad!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We arrived at the theater too late to see Rendition, which was our intention, and 'The Comebacks' was the only film that hadn't already started. I had an inkling of how bad a film it was after reading the short blurb at the ticket counter. The theater was empty when we arrived and only two other people entered before the film started.

The screenwriters and director threw every imaginable sports clich\u00e9 at the audience without creating a single laugh, not one during the entire movie. Think of all the football movies that have been made and the millions of dollars schools and fans spend each year on football and you realize how ripe it is to be parodied or lampooned. If you add Texas to the mix,you ought to come up with the sports version of 'Little Miss Sunshine', not a big yawn.

The first film that came to mind as we exited the theater was 'Can't Stop the Music' By comparison, this was 'Can't stop the Music' without Bruce Jenner, Valerie Perrine, or the Village People.

If the film had a single grace note, it was seeing Matthew Lawrence grown up.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Back in 2002 when Matthew Lawrence did The Hot Chick, I also saw Drumline that day. Drumline wins by default! If The Comebcaks had been released in March (as planned) the same time TMNT was released, TMNT would've won by default!

Granted, Matthew Lawrence did a fine job portraying a quarterback. He didn't have to resort to uttering dirty words which is a plus. But when he started playing with his private parts as well as another football players and touching a girl's boob, those were the minuses.

But the biggest minus that ticked me off is that every football player got to participate in the mock music video, except Matthew Lawrence (insert The Price Is Right's losing horns)! Another blown musical opportunity for him, just because he's shy about doing music.

In the past, Matt has disappointed me many times (Super Human Samurai Syber Squad) where he came so close to having a musical moment, but ended up failing.

Sure, Joey had a singing career with two albums to his belt and Andrew's starting a music career of his own. But it's very rare to find a Matt musical moment. The two that stand out would be on Brotherly Love where he played the guitar and sang \"Pigeon On Your Car\" (Art Atrack), which he wrote by the way, and that romantic Boy Meets World moment when he sang \"This Dame\" (As Time Goes By).

Matt, you've played jocks too long. Why not make a musical comeback. You have a good voice and I miss your musical side.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst movie I have ever seen. If I wasn't watching it for free, I would have never finished it. The creators of this film should be ashamed of themselves. It seems like this is supposed to be a film in the vein of Scary Movie and Date Movie (a terrible movie, but 10x better than this one), but failed miserably. The only jokes in this movie seem to be based on slapstick. A guy falls down, someone gets hit by a bus, etc. None of the ideas are clever, basically the worst premise for a movie ever. The plot (or lack thereof) is completely retarded. The plot seems to center around the coach and his family, however there are so many other things going on in the movie it is completely ridiculous. Terrible, terrible movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"RKO was trying to boost its starlet JOAN FONTAINE when they cast her as a flying nurse who is strong-willed enough to make a doctor (JOHN BEAL) come to terms with running away from responsibilities in this little programmer. TCM aired it as a stepping-stone in the career of Joan Fontaine.

Fontaine is earnest and does an acceptable job, nothing more, and John Beal is okay as her love interest. But it's obvious that PHILIP HUSTON (who has the appearance and cocky manners of a young James Garner) is the actor who should have shared top billing with Fontaine. Whatever happened to this handsome actor? Why didn't RKO promote him, along with Fontaine? He showed skill as a light comedian.

These are the kind of thoughts that went through my head as I watched this rather tepid drama which never quite lives up to the stark promise of its title. The story itself is rather tiresome, only occasionally coming to life because of Fontaine's spirited heroine.

She photographs prettily as the nurse and wears her serious expressions skillfully, suggesting that there was more to be tapped at a future date. Beal never did go on to a distinguished career and his performance here shows why. Strictly lackluster.

But whatever happened to Philip Huston? Evidence here is that he should have had a worthwhile film career.

Trivia note: Watch for Dwight Frye (of \"Dracula\") as the out of control patient aboard the airplane.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Ten Steps has basically a reasonably good premise for a scary short but the execution is simply appalling. The dialogue is terrible and the acting is of the kind so regularly witnessed in Irish short films. Really really embarrassingly bad. The girl has to go down the 10 steps of the cellar to change the blown fuse. She telephones her father who is entertaining his boss at dinner. The mother, an \"actress\" with very questionable acting skills, answers the phone and in a loud scolding voice tells her not to be ringing as Dad is 'trying to impress his boss'. The actress playing the boss's wife very successfully emulates the mother's poor acting when she tells them that their house is haunted. The rest of the film consists of the father coaxing his daughter down the stairs on the telephone. The Ten Steps employs the stock techniques in camera movement, lighting and music that one would expect in a below average horror film. Poor.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is quite possibly the worst documentary I have ever seen. It looked so amateurish. Chris Hegedus was one of the Directors of The War Room which was a great movie (albeit a little one sided), but it looked beautiful. Startup.com looked like it was shot in some guy's basement. The quality was so pitiful that I couldn't stand watching it. I saw about 30 minutes or so and I had to take it back to Blockbuster and get something else. I can't understand how something so amateurish some from someone like Chris Hegedus. How the hell did this win any awards to begin with??? The War Room definitely deserved an award, as did another great documentary called Ameragosa (both won awards). This documentary looked like it was done by Uncle Joe who also does weddings on the weekends. Shaky, dimly lit, unflattering lighting, bad sound, a 10 year old could make a better film than that guy did.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I didn't care much for this, it seemed too contrived for a documentary. Also, the filmmakers seemed to steer me towards certain characters, and yet I was completely unsympathetic towards the protagonist because of what they chose to show me of him.

This movie disappointed me because the story and the people were interesting, yet the movie fell flat because of snappy editing that didn't allow the viewer enough time to understand each scene. The developments in the story were glossed over in lieu of showing the men in boxers or other stuff that was incidental to the tale that they were telling.

I'd recommned that you skip this one and just read up on this story.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sure there is a documentary amongst the ruins of this Yawn-fest somewhere, given enough time maybe the producers could find it. I do not connect with any of the characters. This is a problem for a documentary. That disconnection soon festers into a complete animosity bordering on hostility. Although because of the poor story flow, I'm not really sure what is happening to them and what are the consequences of whatever it is they are trying to do. The story and faces jump around so quickly it is very hard to completely understand what is going on. The 3rd founder that takes them for $700K is introduced so late into the film, Khaleil and Tom have to backpaddle (fruitlessly) to explain \"oh yeah, this guy created the idea too\". And just when I thought I had a slight grasp on who all the tertiary characters were, some crazy woman in ranting about getting a puppy? What's up with that? Also, did Tom really have to give all those awkward speeches to the staff? I can only imagine the boredom they felt when it was really happening. Actually I think I feel for them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Perhaps it's just the format of this film, a documentary, but I believe that the movie would have been much better served by good actors and more solid dialogue. The fact that the actors are also the business owners is a double-edged sword. They know better than anyone else the emotions and complexities of the business they were in, but, since they are not professional actors, they do a very poor job of conveying those emotions and the documentary suffers. There were some truly memorable scenes in this movie and lots of good lines but they were delivered so poorly that they will fade away with time and the only memory I will have of this documentary is that it had some good scenes which I can't remember.

Watch this if you want a first-hand account of the .com bust and see what happened to the 99% of people in the industry who didn't become instant millionares. However, be prepared for some nauseating camera work, poor acting, poor dialogue, and an overall bad movie that epitomizes the era of the Internet boom.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The real problem with this story is that there's not much story to the story. There's hardly any plot to speak of. Widower buys an electric grandma for his kids. One kid resists electric grandma. Then finally accepts her. Then the kids grow up and grandma leaves. Really, very little happens. It's much more of a premise than a story.

Moreover, strip it of it's schmaltz, and you have a story that had already done before, and better: The Lonely. Same basic idea: person initially can't accept the love of a robot, because it's just-a-machine, then eventually yields and comes to love the robot. The biggest difference is that The Lonely is much more powerful, as both the protagonist and we, the audience, are shocked abruptly back to reality and forced to remember that in the end the robot really is just a mechanism.

I also find the story highly flawed in that the electric grandmother is just *too* perfect. She's not only \"human\", she's *super-human*. She's *wiser* than a real person, she has no traces of mechanicalness to her at all, and she makes marbles appear out of thin air. It frankly really chafes at credulity to think that she's a machine.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Asmali Konak has arguably become one of the best TV series to come out of Turkey. With its unique cinematography and visual approach to filming, the series has gained a wide following base with rating records continuously broken. Personally I do not agree with singers becoming actors (hence, Ozcan Deniz - the lead actor) but I guess the figures speak for themselves.

In relation to the movie, it was disgusting to see how much someone can destroy such a plotline. Years in the making, this movie was able to oversee every descent story that existed within the series. Not only that, the cultural mistakes were unacceptable, with an idiotic scene involving the family members dancing (Greek style) and breaking plates, which does not exists anywhere within the Turkish culture.

Some argue the movie should be taken as a stand alone movie not as a continuation of the TV series but this theory has one major fall, the way the movie was marketed was that it will be picking up where the series left off and will conclude the series once and for all. So with that note in mind, me and everyone I know, would have asked for a refund and accepted to stand outside the theatre to warn other victims.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I ordered this movie on the Internet as it is very difficult to get Turkish movies where we live. I've heard so much about the TV series from my friends and practically everyone in Turkey, I was expecting to see a breakthrough in Turkish cinema. What a disappointment.

Me and my husband (who is an admirer of any movie with a bit of Turkish landscape and Turkish dialogues in it) only watched it all the way through because we had paid $20 for the DVD. Well, that was a boring way of wasting it.

It was confusing, at times overacted, whereas other times underacted. The storyline was not only confusing, but adding a gay man walking with his dog on the beach and using some toilet humor in the script to make it 'Hollywood' didn't also work for me.

The American characters were almost too stereotypical that it was neither funny nor realistic and like another user mentioned, the Turkish customs and lifestyle was irrelevant.

The camera movements had no significance. Adding a few Dervishes (never seen in them in Kapadokya by the way) and broken plates -Greek style- only made the movie even more confusing.

I am ashamed of this movie and all the noise the press has made about it. There are surely worthy movies made by Turkish directors which deserve more attention and respect.

I give this movie 1 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Negative numbers are not available to convey how bad this movie is! Wooden acting coupled with a story line that has been rehashed dozens of times. Everyone in this movie should attend Overactors Anonymous. You would think an original story could evolve from the general concept. Young men at a prep school are tying to come to grips with the Pearl Harbor bombing. It does raise interesting questions, but the manner in which they are conveyed make it more of a joke. The typical characters were present including the zealous jock and nerd (glasses included). I could not have been more uninterested in the wooden dialog and clich\u00e9 characters. Upon the completion of the movie, I had to throw the DVD in the trash. Stay far away from this dud! You won't get the 90 minutes of your life back!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you are an insomniac and you cant get anything to get you to sleep i definitely recommend this movie. If you are renting it for whatever other reason....DONT!....this movie is by far one of the most slow moving turtle motivated movies i have ever seen. The only reason i rented it was because my brother wanted to for some odd and strange reason. I cant even write about this movie anymore...GET IT AWAY FROM ME!!!!!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am an atheist with little love for certain aspects of Christian fundamentalism.

That said, this movie is reprehensible, vile and transparent. It only works on the level of the currently fashionable (and tired) hatred motif of white American Christian fundamentalism. Had this movie been made about a fundamentalist Jewish or Muslim family, or even a black Christian family, the outrage would have been palpable, and the movie would have been roundly panned in ALL circles. As it stands, though, it's \"OK\" and \"artful\" because white Christian fundamentalists remain one of the last \"acceptable\" targets for garbage such as this.

And garbage it truly is. If you want to see a quality film of a similar bent, find and watch or review \"Badlands.\" Nothing good was done in \"The King\" that wasn't done better decades ago in that masterful film.

As other reviewers note, the characters are almost completely undeveloped in \"The King,\" the lines are a snooze, the cinematography is lackluster. We've seen the tale of the sociopath done better 100 times. This movie doesn't cut it for thoughtful viewers.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"James Marsh's The King is a film that mystifies me. I can't think what its meant to be for. It's a story about a young man called Elvis played by Gael Garcia Bernal who gets an honourable discharge after 3 years Navy service and then goes off to find his biological Father and behaves dishonourably with him and his family. It's all rather sick really. Elvis worms his way into the family by seducing his 16 year old sister Malerie (Pell James). It's rather impossible to identify with anyone in this film from here in Middle England. Preacher Father and bouncy joyful Christian Congregation; I couldn't work out whether the film is meant to be deriding them for their mindless beliefs. Or is the target the happy family and we are meant to think that's unviable. OR is it just saying that some people are lost and just hell bent on destruction. It's shallow. We all know that bad things happen; the interesting bit is to learn why but this film just gratuitously depicts a violence without ever unravelling the thinking that has led to it. \"The King\" is such a lost opportunity. There are some really interesting questions about honour; the Warrior Code; the changing concepts of valour; honour killings in Indian families and so on. Honour is a very varied concept. But this film just adds nothing to the notion. However, Paul the Projectionist did more than his meagre role suggests. The DVD Projector showed all films in a green-only hue and the only way to repair this was to get it sent to Belgium. He did this through Christmas. I think those postal workers and repairers and Paul went far beyond the call of duty and our reward was this dismal film. But you might see it differently?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was so frustrating. Everything seemed energetic and I was totally prepared to have a good time. I at least thought I'd be able to stand it. But, I was wrong. First, the weird looping? It was like watching \"America's Funniest Home Videos\". The damn parents. I hated them so much. The stereo-typical Latino family? I need to speak with the person responsible for this. We need to have a talk. That little girl who was always hanging on someone? I just hated her and had to mention it. Now, the final scene transcends, I must say. It's so gloriously bad and full of badness that it is a movie of its own. What crappy dancing. Horrible and beautiful at once.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"While killing time on a Saturday morning, \"Looking For Lola\" came on HBO. I decided to give it a shot even though the description of the movie looked pretty bad. It was even worse than I could imagine. The movie was incredibly unbelievable and there was absolutely no on-screen chemistry between the lead actors that I found myself shaking my head almost every 10 minutes. Between Mike Greenbaum (lead actor) in scenes in which he skips the bill at a fancy restaurant and where Lola (lead actress) allows him to use her boss' house to fool his parents into thinking he's rich, it was almost as bad as him \"daydreaming\" about people around him doing the macarena (it was HORRIBLE!) and the two actors ultimately falling in love. I kept wanting to change the channel, but I was trying to give it every chance into becoming a cute love story with a few chuckles. It never did. In fact, it became so bad that I decided to finish it just so I can claim that I watched one of the worst films ever made in it's entirety, instead of being criticized for not \"giving it a fair chance\". The last scene where Lola tries out for a dance part was the culmination of the movie. She comes in late after getting married (even that scene where Mike tells the priest to hurry up and then just snatches the papers away claiming that it's done was in tune with the believability of this movie), and then somehow \"convinces\" the judges to give her a look. The two male judges are already put-off with how late she is. But after watching her waif around the stage (ok, she dances fine, but not overly impressive), everybody joins in including Lola and Mike's families, other dancers that were there, and *cough* even the judges. Bad, horrible, terrible. It was so bad I had to write a review. Watch at your own risk.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As much as I love the story of David Copperfield, I cannot claim to have enjoyed this movie. It was probably the second worst movie I have ever seen. One problem I see is that the magnitude of the novel asks for a miniseries of several hours, rather than a regular movie. It is just impossible to capture a significant amount of the events that take place in the story in two hours. I dis not enjoy the brooding flashback format. It was disjointed and would be impossible for someone who did not already know the story to fully grasp. Also, I don't think the filmmakers interpreted Copperfield's personality correctly. The idea of him strolling around on a beach moaning about his life seems inconsistent with the proactive, forward-thinking nature Dickens gave him in the novel. Agnes also bothered me. She came across as a ditsy household decoration, rather than a strong woman. Dora was perfect, however. This movie was fraught with problems, and I wait eagerly for someone to make a decent screen version.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One only has to read the cast list and credits to salivate in anticipation of this DAVID COPPERFIELD, but, alas, alas! How so much major acting and directorial talent could have turned one of literature's richest tales into such a monumental BORE, is totally beyond me. It's pretty to look at with lovely photography, particularly the Yarmouth sequences, but, JUST PLAIN DULL!!! No need to go on! Skip it and check out the Selznick or the marvelous BBC mini-series from the 1980's.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This version of David Copperfield is dreadful from start to finish. I knew we were in for a wasted evening's viewing when a rather silly to the point of embarrassment Attenborough and Olivier camp it up as two baddies. It was all downhill after this. Aunt Betsy was adequate but had none of the eccentric flair she was noted for.The worst of the worst was the producer's choice for Uriah. This was the music hall version of this character, previously and admirably played by Roland Young. And what was all this self-absorbed Angst from David. Dickens must have rolled over in his grave to see his favorite child turned into a wimp weeping in his beer.

This was one time when Hollywood knew more than jolly old England.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director Delbert Mann was a much better director than this film indicates. He directed ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, THAT TOUCH OF MINK, and THE LAST DAYS OF PATTON among others. This mediocre, made for television retelling of Dicken's masterpiece is so bad, even those unfamiliar with the often filmed tale, will be unsatisfied.

Besides the fact that the movie is available from only two known suppliers (Brentwood and BCI Eclipse LLC) the poor quality of the transfer, and the scratchy and muddied sound track make the task of finding this film on video not worth the effort.

I have always believed that if a company is going to put a film on video and charge the public money to buy it, then they should at least have a descent copy of the film and do a good job on the transfer. Unfortunately neither of the two suppliers have such a work ethic and the result is only fit for the bargain bin in the local discount store.

The story is told mainly through flashbacks, making the film episodic and talky. Much of the rich detail of the novel is lost in this translation. The characters of Martha, Traddles and others have been cut and the relationship of young David and Steerforth is not explored enough, so we are left wondering why David would hang out with the guy.

The relationship between David the boy, and young Agnes is never developed and it is hard to understand why she and David eventually marry. Since Martha is left out, it is a mystery how Dan Peggoty finds his niece. And the absence of Traddles makes David a very lonely fellow.

Some have credited this film with doing a good job of abridging the lengthy novel. I disagree, this is at best a hatchet job on the book. Anyone who has seen the 1935 George Cukor version will agree.

The performances in that version by Fields as Micawber and Rathbone as Murdstone, are definitely worth the trouble of watching it. And the more recent Masterpiece Theatre version (April 2000) and Hallmark (2000) versions are both outstanding achievements in made for television adaptations of classic novels. Directors Simon Curtis and Peter Medak who are responsible for those films are deserving of the highest praise.

My final comment on David COPPERFIELD 1969 is Don't buy it, there are several much better versions of the film available. If it is on television, turn the channel to something else. It is a waste of one hour and twenty minutes of your life. Sorry folks, but I can't praise such an appallingly bad film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film brought a whole new meaning to that well-worn phrase 'like watching paint dry' because this was 'like watching paint dry in the middle of a monsoon'.

I was attracted to the film by its location on the west coast of Portugal which I have visited. It is a ruggedly beautiful place and the black-and-white introduced a whole new dimension to the beauty. That was the only good thing. The story was appallingly banal and frankly you have to have some story.

A film crew runs out of film and the entire crew then have to wait. Well, a wait is a wait. I can wait for a number 15 bus on Princes Street in Edinburgh, I can spend hours on a remote railway station in the middle of nowhere on cold winter's Sunday afternoon. However a wait is boring and yes, this wait was boring too.

So the leader goes off to America to remonstrate with the film supplier who castigates him for not making the whole thing in colour. After a number of arguments two blessed bullets ring out from wherever and the eagerly-awaited end finally arrives, and not before time.

Yes, I would see this film again if someone arms me with a couple of cans of colour film so that I can hurl them at the screen.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Did someone find the plot somewhere in the film?. Perhaps it is the thing missing in this pretentious exercise of cinema about cinema. It is quite surprising that Gordon says that \"A movie without a plot is nothing\"... It is possible that characters have more to say that the own Wim Wenders. Was this phrase in the original plot or the actor decided to send a hint to the director?.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I sat (uncomfortably) through this film becoming more and more staggered at just how it got made at all. The script itself makes the acting look embarrassing, and it fundamentally becomes a waste of time for everybody concerned. If you avoid seeing one film this year, make it this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That's what I felt like yelling as well as stomping out of the theater, but I restrained myself. Yes the acting was great, no this wasn't the typical hollywood film, but the dialogue just wouldn't end (or get interesting)! And despite all the gabbing, you never get to really know or care about any of the characters. Definitely the most boring film I've seen since Sphere, but I was expecting that one to be boring. I had to sit through it, but please, spare yourself","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched Hurlyburly as a second choice after Affliction was sold out. I have never seen so many people walk out of a movie. Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, and Chazz Palminteri can do nothing to save this coke-snorting, endlessly pedantic, bad Mamet-wannabe.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A complete and utter waster of my precious two hours. The entire movie could have been made in less than 60 seconds by simply showing people getting coked up, a car crashing, people getting more coked up, people having sex, people crying, and people getting more coked up. The tagline for this movie should have read \"Come see how f*cked up our characters are! They're stoned! They're coke addicts! They're a mess! Who are these people? Do you really care? Does it matter? Just give us your money please, because we sure don't care about anything else!\" An absolutely terrible movie. It never went anywhere, you never got to know the characters (they never even said what these people did to earn such a big house and so much money and cars and coke), and it was just downright boring. You might like the movie a little more if you're a stoner yourself, but for the vast majority of us that aren't, this movie is a waste of film and of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Acting 10, Script 1. \"Hurlyburly\" is from that unfortunate postmodern school of theatre that has declared anything resembling a story or plot is forbidden. While people may get away with this on stage, on film it becomes deadly -- or at least deadly dull. We're left with a bunch of great actors spouting dialogue that, while brilliantly written, adds up to nothing. Even worse, every character speaks with the same voice despite their backgrounds. The only attempt to differentiate is to have teen-waif Anna Paquin use the word \"ain't.\"

Never mind that the characters are unsympathetic losers to the extreme, the camera work is plain sloppy and (for LA residents) the attention to geography is laughable. (Hint: the view out Sean Penn's front window is about eight miles away from the view out his back window, and you can't drive south through Hollywood and wind up in Glendale pretending to be Burbank.) Okay, suspension of disbelief and all that -- and normally I wouldn't pay attention to little things like that, because they are just vagaries of production. But, the fact that they did stick out so much despite the thespian pyrotechnics on screen says a lot about the weakest element of this enterprise -- the script.

In short, skip this one, even on video. Rabe picked the wrong quote from the Scottish Play for his title; Hurlyburly would have been better named \"A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.\" A bit long for the marquee, perhaps -- but at least it would be honest advertising.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw Hurlyburly on Broadway and liked it a great deal. I don't know what happened with the film version, because it was dreadful. Perhaps some dialogue that works on stage just sounds incoherent on screen. Anyway, I couldn't wait for this film to be over. The acting is universally over the top. Only Kevin Spacey has it together, and he seems like he knows he's in a bad movie and can't wait to get out.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's not funny, it's not interesting, it's not well shot, you don't care about the characters, not one single one of them. There's nothing that engages you in the narrative flow, you really could care less what happens. Big, big waste of time and talent.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie with no idea what it was about beforehand. I was intrigued for the first whole hour. It was shaping up to be a great thriller. A very talented cast and good dialogue.Then it all fell apart for me at the sight of the first vampire. I couldn't believe my eyes.A great thriller was flushed down the toilet. The rest of the movie from that point was totally awful.

I gave it 4 stars for the brilliant beginning alone. I think that's a little generous, but I was entertained for a while. I'm not a fan of vampire or zombie movies at all.If you are, then you may disagree with my opinion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was not a good movie!! Why do you people keep saying that? There is a nice little story going on and then some sexy girls and then BAM vampires!!! Why? Why are there vampires? Where did they come from? Also, what the hell?! There are all of these \"super human\" vampires but George Clooney and three other random guys dominate ALL of them. Quickly too. It's not like there was a long fight scene with lots of struggle. There was just three dudes from the bar killing these vampires like a fat man kills twinkies! The next thing you know, Clooney and the stupid girl are rescued by Cheech and leaves the family-less homeless in the middle of Mexico. End of story. Literally. Oh and the strip club was an Aztec temple which is funny because that would have to be southern Mexico not the border. Why are you people lying and telling people this is a good movie? Do not rent, buy or even watch this movie at a friend's house. You will wish you had that time of your life back.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just what is the point of this film? It starts off as one film, then changes track, cheating us of a resolution to that film and ends as another movie which is nothing but a pale, pale imitation of so many other schlock-horror flicks you've ever seen. The overall impression is confusion in every respect and a great deal of hubris. Screenplay by Tarantino, direction by Rodriguez, two guys who have previously shown talent, but who now seem to believe their own hype and assume that whatever they do must be good merely because THEY did it. But it doesn't quite work that way. You're only good while you continue doing good things. There are so many questions to ask: Just what are George Clooney and Harvey Keitel doing getting involved in such pointless dreck? Clooney initially makes an intriguing bad guy \u0097 utterly ruthless and efficient \u0097 and it would have been interesting to see where that was going. But, of course, we never do. And the Clooney of the vampire film changes into a completely different character. That's not clever or witty, that's just bad, bad work. Keitel looks thoroughly ill at ease throughout, and no wonder. Did no one in the studio take a look at the script before this project was given the go-ahead? Tarantino is utterly unpleasant as a murderous sexual deviant (and why did he, as writer, assume we would find the rape, gruesome murder and butchering of an inoffensive hostage funny). On every level \u0097 except the technical \u0097 this film stinks. Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What could have been an excellent hostage movie was totally ruined by what apparently looks like a bored director ... there were so many directions that the movie could have taken ... a vampire slash-fest was not one of these!!! The last 45 mins. or so results in the movie being an absolutely ridiculous waste of time. ...and sex machine?? ... you gotta be kidding me! The acting talents of the likes of Juliette Lewis and Harvey Keitel (not to mention George Clooney) are completely wasted in this nonsensical movie.

The director... Robert Rodriguez, known for his other gory flicks including el mariachi, desperado, once upon a time in Mexico, and the very recent sin city ... really holds your attention with the well executed first half ... which leads you to believe that you are in for an entertaining time ... but then apparently for no reason, and without any provocation, the madness starts ... there's even feeble attempts at parody and comedy ... truly exasperating!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love dissing this movie. My peers always try their best to defend it, probably out of love for Quentin Tarantino or Harvey Keitel, but they'll never convince me that this one should be treasured. Here's some huge reasons why: A: The plot goes from kidnapping road trip movie to vampire-inhabited strip bar slasher flick with no set-up whatsoever. Suddenly something very real turns into something very fake, which is like sitting the audience down to a Thanksgiving feast then exploding it with dynamite. B: That untalented Juliette Lewis is in it. C: Preposterous ideas abound such as actual torso-and-leg guitars, brothers with the last name \"Gecko,\" bad vampire make-up jobs, Cheech Marin playing three characters (?), and a crotch-based gun that only fires when \"erect\" and belongs to a guy who goes by \"Sex Machine.\" If Robert Rodriguez didn't pathetically try to be so innovative with his violence, I might've had fun with this obvious popcorn flick. The whole project's like he got the ideas by playing with action figures. The only thing even close to being considered my favorite scene is George Clooney's laugh-out-loud cheesy monologue after he kills his blood-sucking, horny-for-children, terrible-acting brother. I swear I think they thought it up right then and there. This movie's out to offend, and ends up offending those who want the offensive. Horrible movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.

When I first started to watch this movie my expectations were it was a vampire movie, that is going to be awesome considering how Rodriguez and Tarantino both helped make the film. I began about 15 minutes into it and already my hopes for this movie were down the drain, which shocked me. First, the story it was going with was not at all appealing in anyway possible, and just flat out boring and uncompelling to the point where I just wanted to turn it off. I was getting more frustrated with this movie as it dragged on, but I guess I had hopes that it would get better.... then when it finally showed vampires it BLEW MY MIND, in a VERY bad way. I thought,\"Okay this movie started with some backwash horrible story about these two criminals, then VERY slowly turned into some vampire movie which I thought it was going to be from the beginning, in like, the last 30 minutes?\" To add on to that, they try to make the main characters all cool and awesome and mean around the end when they're just not; A bunny would've been more intimidating than these characters! This movie is a horrible piece of crap!!! From Dusk Till dawn disgraced me and left a terrible taste in my mouth, disheartening thoughts in my head, and left my body unable to move from the horrible shock that I just wasted 108 minutes of my life away on a horrendous film. I do not understand how George Clooney, Quentin Tarintino, Cheech Marin and Danny Trejo, all being the good and honorable actors that they are, could take part in this useless filth. In my opinion, From Dusk Till Dawn is one of the worst movies ever made that I have suffered my eyes on. Do not see it, you'll be doing yourelf a GREAT favor...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film is simply appalling, how the talent involved made this is beyond human belief.Iguess they must have been boozing when they thought of this idea,I feel as if 2 hours of my life have been taken from me.Harvey Kietel will try and distance himself from this rubbish, it should have been a great crime movie but it develops into a gory mess of vampires.I would recommend this film to people who like to sleep through movies ,you wont miss a thing.The humour is set to appeal to the lowest common dominate, movies can uplift us and remind us that life is worth living, this film just depresses you.As DeNiro said in one movie the saddest thing in life is wasted talent this film is a perfect example of this statement.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's a long time ago I saw this movie and still it's one of the worst I've ever seen. I like lots of kind of movies; sci-fi, action, drama, thrillers and sometimes even horror. Not a combination of two. This could have been a wonderful movie, but they all blew it up. I didn't want to see this movie, but friends of mine insisted to watch it. I didn't know it was such a crap. I loved the first part, in which Clooney and Tarantino drove through Texas, killing everybody on their way (especially the scene with the liquor shooting was excellent), but at its turning point, in the titty twister bar everything changed. Stupid Vampires took over the place and what could have been a perfect gangster movie became a stupid horror movie like 'Nightmare on Elmsteet'. If you like horror, watch a real horror movie. And when you love bloodstolling thrillers don't watch it at all, you will be very disappointed at the end.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Has anyone else noticed that this version is basically a scene-by-scene remake of the 1933 version, with some of the scenes taken out? It makes me think less of a film that does that, showing a definite want of creativity. In all fairness, I tend to be biased in favor of Katharine Hepburn, but this version of the film seems like cinematic plagiarism. The 1933 version was nice and sweet, though a little awkward in presentation and transition at times, and then this version took the script, the music, and even a fair amount of the scene blocking from the earlier version. I don't understand the point of making the film again when the method of remaking it was to basically redo George Cukor's film with everything the same except the people working on it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After all the hype I had heard about the Jane Austin novel and different film versions of the book I found myself very disappointed with the movie. I had expected a classic drama but that was not the case. First of all let me preface my review with the fact that I love old movies, particularly mysteries and dramas, but not female oriented movies. This probably makes a huge difference, so take my review with a large grain of salt. I thought the acting was a bit over the top, but that is very common in movies of this era. June Allyson was good as Jo but I found every sister to be stereotypical and form driven. There were no surprises or overly dramatic moments. I hate writing negative reviews, but the movie left me very cold. It has always been my intention to read the book, but after this that seem unlikely. The only warming story line was between the old gentlemen and the youngest sister, that was a very welcome bright spot in an otherwise disappointing viewing experience. Again there are others who love this movie, I'm just not one of them.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I watched this movie last night, i'm a huge fan of the book, and i was pretty happy with the version in which Winona Ryder and Susan Sarandon starred. But this one, it's just awful. Oh my God, i don't understand how they dared to ripped apart this classic story and made the characters totally different, starting with the switching of Beth being the younger sister, and making Amy the 3rd one. And Jo interpretation, terrible, Jo was a feminist, intelligent and kinda angry young lady, and the actress portraying Jo in this movie acts like a foolish and very annoying little girl. And what's with the Laurie going to war?. i'm OK with the fact that when a book is made into a movie there has to be some changes made, but not re-write the whole story. very very bad done.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was the next to last film appearance by Jill Ireland, who died of cancer in 1990 after four decades as a well-known actress and producer. Ireland made quite a few waves in the press when she dropped her then-husband David McCallum in 1967, beginning her long relationship with Charles Bronson. It is a great irony that Bronson, probably the all-time leader in number of deaths rendered on-screen, had one of the most enduring marriages in film history.

'Assassination' seems to be a movie that was tucked into Cannon's production schedule for the sake of Bronson and Ireland. Ireland was already suffering from cancer-related illnesses in 1987 and you can almost picture the two actors wanting to do 'just one more, for old times' sake.' 'Assassination' is carelessly done as a whole, showing the lack of polish and dwindling funds that would tank Cannon by 1990. But there's a kind of nostalgia value in seeing the couple together one last time and the film makes you wonder what exactly helps a relationship to survive in the chaos that is Hollywood.

Bronson plays Jay Killian, a high-ranking Secret Service agent who is assigned to protect the First Lady, Lara Craig (Ireland). The President's wife has a reputation for being difficult, bossing Service agents around and wanting to do things her own way. That all changes, however, when attempts are made on her life and she must journey with Killian by car, train, motorbike, and believe it or not, dune buggy to escape would-be assassins. There is little surprise here, as Killian believes the murderers are part of an inside job, perhaps arranged by the President himself. On the way, Killian and Mrs. Craig develop an unspoken affection for one another in scenes between Bronson and Ireland that are actually very funny.

What really gets me is how this film was promoted upon its release and how it's still made to look as a DVD. The original trailer gives you the feeling that 'Assassination' is another cold-hearted Bronson shoot-'em-up. But a lot of this movie - which was rated PG-13, by the way - is in a comic vein, putting it along the lines of a romantic thriller like Bronson and Ireland's western 'From Noon Till Three.' Even the DVD case shows Bronson with a rocket launcher, ready to blow things up. Which he does, but to a lesser degree than his other '80s potboilers.

On the whole, 'Assassination' is late Cannon slop work and doesn't really know what kind of film it wants to be. Besides drifting from actioner to romantic thriller and back again, there are serious mistakes in continuity, property values are bottom-of-the-barrel cheap, and the effects are dreadful; many of the explosions seem like matte work rather than being done on location. Robert Ragland, who had shown good composing skills in earlier films, teamed up with Valentine McCallum on a score that is mostly synthesized and better fit for television.

Richard Sale's script has real lulus of dialogue, with the conversations between Bronson and Ireland the only bright spot. There is no explanation as to why the First Lady is called 'One Momma' all of a sudden, nor as to why Ireland is left with her British accent when the character is a Wyoming native. Jan Gan Boyd, playing Killian's main assistant, has a kitten-like personality and is badly miscast as a federal agent. Stephen Elliott (a former Tony Award nominee who died in May 2005), Randy Brooks, Erik Stern (as assassin Bracken), and Michael Ansara (Senator Bunsen) are acceptable in their supporting roles.

Incidentally, this was the last film directing gig for Peter Hunt, who broke onto the scene with 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' in 1969 and collaborated with Bronson and Lee Marvin on 'Death Hunt' in 1981. 'Assassination' is available on DVD through MGM Home Entertainment; it is presented in dual widescreen and standard format with three-language subtitles and theatrical trailer.

** out of 4","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In the twilight years of his career, Charles Bronson forged long-running partnerships with several directors, most notably J. Lee Thompson and Michael Winner. He did two films for one-time Bond director Peter Hunt too - the first being the decent 1981 actioner Death Hunt, the second being this indifferent political chase thriller. Assassination is pretty dull if truth be known, and come the end you'll find yourself longing for something with a bit more passion and pace, like The Wilby Conspiracy for instance (which, plotwise, this film resembles).

Bronson sleepwalks through his role as bodyguard Jay Killian, whose assignment is to protect the American President's wife, Lara Royce Craig (Jill Ireland, real-life wife of Bronson). Killian believes that Mrs Craig has been targetted by assassins; she thinks he's an over-protective, paranoid pessimist. Turns out - surprise, surprise - that Killian was right all along and someone is indeed out to eradicate her. The pair of them go on the run, pursued by the assassins.

Everyone knows that the wife of an American President is known as The First Lady. For some reason, in this film they have renamed her \"One Mama\"! Quite what the point of this is is anybody's guess, but it's indicative of the film's pointlessness as a whole. Most of the film's performances are lazy, and the script takes a heck of a long time to get to where it's going. If I had to label Assassination within a specific genre, I'd say it is supposed to be a \"thriller\". I'd say that with some reservations, however, as to say that it's a thriller it has precious few thrills.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bronson and Ireland, in their last film together, make a likable pair. He is more restrained than usual and she has become a winning actress. But as a thriller the film is totally worthless. Its premise is downright silly and its pace is much too rushed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I can't believe I sat through this garbage. Palm trees in D.C. (already mentioned), a dummy-as-dead-body bit so obviously artificial that I thought it was SUPPOSED to be a dummy ... until it left a bloodstain ... stilted dialogue, ridiculous plot. I think it's a shame that Jill Ireland's final film before her death was this stinker. Don't waste your time - I wish I hadn't. The only saving grace is that it was on cable, so I didn't waste my money on top of everything.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First off, I'm a huge Bronson fan, have been since the late '70s. I watched every film he made on the big screen since \"Love and Bullets\", which ironically was the beginning of his end as a big name, Hollywood-blockbuster star.

I kept hoping that things would turn around for him, that he would make a really good film in the '80s, but that never happened. And I don't know what he was thinking when he signed with cheapjack studio Cannon and hack director J. Lee Thompson for most of his latter films.

\"Assasination\" gave me some hopes when I saw that Peter Hunt was directing instead of Thompson but those hopes were quickly dashed. First off, the film looks incredibly cheap, like it was made for about 3 mil, minus Bronson's inflated salary (I heard he insisted on 5 mil per picture which is probably more than the rest of the budget for all his Cannon films). The White House scenes were filmed on the VA grounds in West LA - I was taking the bus when they were shooting. Nice job on recreating the white house but did no one think about getting the Palm trees out of the shots? Guess not.

Secondly, the supporting cast is really bad. Ireland was dying of cancer and despite this she's not bad but the horrible Asian woman playing Bronson's sidekick was typical of Cannon's talent at the time --non-existent. I would be real curious to learn how she got this role. I can't imagine a worse actress for the part, plus she's a good 40 years younger than Bronson! The story is not that bad and it's something that bigger and better-budgeted studios did later (Eastwood's \"In the Line of Fire\" and Costner's \"Bodyguard\" film) but the way it's staged here is really sad. I'm wondering if they could not afford to do more than one or two takes per shot. None of it is believable in the slightest. If Secret Service men really behaved like the keystone cops in this movie we'd have presidents rotating out of office (and out of life) every few months...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Charles Bronson has given the viewers lots of great moments on the screen. But this movie lacks everything that a thriller\/action-movie should have. There are a few action scenes in the movie, but they're really crappy. And when the action scenes fail, does the story save the film? Not at all, is my answer to that. The story is even worse than the action scenes. It's very straightforward and boring, and even though I'm a big movie fan, I almost fell asleep several times. I don't know how they came up with a failure like this. A low budget, maybe? Regardless of that, it looked like all the actors had no interest in being in the movie at all. When that happens, the result is really bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Secret Service agent Jay Killion (Charles Bronson) has been assigned to protect the President-elect's wife, the new First Lady (Jill Ireland). She is a very difficult woman and Killion has his hands full. She is the victim of numerous assassination attempts, all directed by the President's Chief of Staff, who wants the First Lady dead. This movie insults your intelligence with not only the story line, but also with the lack of realistic locations. For example, in the scene depicting the Inaugural Parade, the First Lady is in a Rolls Royce convertible with agent Killion and without the President. Also, we know what Washington, DC, is like weather wise in January, and not only is everybody \"top coat less\", you can even see some palm trees in the 70 degree and sunny weather! (Obviously filmed in Hollywood, not Washington, DC). This movie is a joke. It is not worth your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lame. Lame. Lame. Ultralame. Shall I go on? There is one, I repeat *one* funny scene in this entire, drawn-out, anti-amusing Amateur Hour Special of a film: Fares Fares' fat father knocking someone over with his beer gut. That's it. The rest of this shockingly mediocre pile of nothingness consists of the usual trademark bored-looking Swedish \"actors\" delivering dialogue which goes into one ear and out of the other, a banal story, sloppy direction and, well, little else worth mentioning. Nepotistically cast Fares Fares is as charismatic as a chartered accountant and his nose rivals even that of Adrien Brody in terms of sheer ridiculous hugeness. Torkel Petersson should only work with Lasse Spang Olsen. The rest of the cast is, luckily, easily forgettable, whereas Fares' humongous, titanic nose will forever haunt me in my dreams.

Josef Fares helps ruin Swedish cinema. Don't support him and his nonsense. Jalla Jalla is to comedies what Arnold Schwarzenegger is to character acting, Kopps would have been much more respectable if it had been a no-budget Youtube video, and Zozo was simply the most pretentious, pseudo-touching garbage ever unleashed by a Swedish director. Wake up and smell the roses: Swedish movies can be so much better than this, so stop pretending Fares' flicks are worth watching simply because they're \"good to be Swedish\". Please.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If this movie would have been in English, all critics would have trashed it. The language is extremely bad, the scenes are awfully directed and it's not at all funny. After the movie I thought that this movie could have been written by an 8th grader, at least if you consider the lack of believable characters and the fixation on certain male body parts. (oh, on dogs as well...) The story is just plain nonsense compared to the more mature Vingar av glas that premiered almost at the same time. Of course the public chose Jalla! Jalla! while Vingar av glas got little attention.

What was really disturbing for me was the fact that the movie looked really bad. That was probably due to the fact that first time director Josef Fares used really cheap camera equipment and then decided to just play around with it, for fun I suppose. The result, however, is a movie that can easily be split into 12 short films with a new directorial style in each one of them. This was very frustrating. Maybe Josef Fares should have stayed with his short films since that seems to be the only art form he can master.

Another disturbing fact is that the story does not hold together. At several times in the middle of the movie, the story has to move on very quickly and the characters then run into one another in a way that is just too unbelievable.

And then I have not mentioned the 2-dimensional characters, especially those in the supporting roles.

Even though I consider this one of the worst Swedish films of the 90s as well as one of the most overrated, it is kind of understandable that the public liked it. I mean, bad taste has always been the trademark of the masses...

I'm more surprised that the critics enjoyed it. They should have known better...

Grade 2 of 10

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The script is very weak & there is no depth in the characters. The story telling is not the importing thing here. The unnecessary action & Scenes does not really help this one. One of the worst movies in Sweden\u00b4s history of films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The appeal of this film has to be the artsy Euro style, because there's absolutely no substance. A bunch of stuff happens that seems to be going somewhere... but it never gets there.

It's difficult to come up with a full 10 lines of commentary, because this film is such a totally empty experience. There's lots of nice photography of a cemetery, some really lame zombie effects, some flashes of what might pass for surrealist humor, and a feeble, existentialist ending. These elements undermine each other. Just when you might be enjoying the creepy mood, there's some silliness with bouncing heads or zombie sex. To keep from screaming with boredom, you clutch at the minimal story line - and it disintegrates into ridiculous illogic. It's like someone took several half-baked B movies and tossed them in a blender.

What comes out is mostly a film *about* meaninglessness - and *not* a good one. Clearly, it will impress that category of art-house fan who sees emptiness as indistinguishable from depth. Everyone else should stay well clear of this dreary mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I am utterly astonished at how over-rated \"Cemetery Man\" is among horror fans! Now, I usually welcome movies that blend two or more kinds of genre-styles into one and I love just about every zombie-comedy I have ever seen. To my dismay, this Italian cult-classic really didn't show me a lot to get too pumped up about... It follows the unusual duties of a full-time cemetery care-taker and his retarded, man-child, Curly Joe looking assistant as they seem to primarily dispose of the recently deceased who pop out of the ground seven days after their initial death. He meets a widow whom he \"wows\" with some grisly grave-yard atmosphere and develops a quick romance, soon having sex with her on her dead husband's grave. The husband's corpse springs alive and bites her, triggering a series of events that seem to consume the rest of the movie. \"Cemetery Man\" attempts to incorporate every element it can, like horror, romance, comedy, action, and fails entirely in the long-run. It plods along, never able to focus on any aspect long enough to make it interesting for the viewer, such as the paunchy sidekick's relationship with a living severed head, a motorcycle riding zombie launching out of the ground, the main character deciding to gun down random people on the sidewalk, etc. This thing is so convoluted and dull that it's nearly impossible to take it seriously. Sure, it's stylish and often \"elegant\", but even the most \"artsy\" kind of films need the right kind of lineage to allow it to make sense. \"Cemetery Man\" plods along, appearing unable to focus on anything for more than a few minutes which becomes very tiring after a while. People argue that \"it's a more sophisticated zombie movie\". Frankly, when it comes to zombies, I don't want anything more \"sophisticated\" than Romero... There's a little bit of gore and nudity - mainly in the scenes where it wants to play \"horror movie\", but not nearly enough to make up for it's uncompromising lack of structure. Terrible film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"In Michele Soavi's confusing art-house zombie film, Dellamorte Dellamore, Rupert Everett plays Francesco, a caretaker in a cemetery where the dead don't stay buried for long. Aided by his simple assistant, Gnaghi, Francesco deals with the cemetery's zombie problem by either shooting the undead in the head or splitting their skulls with a spade.

However, soon after falling for the mysterious beautiful widow of one of his recently interred, Francesco finds himself busier than ever before\u0085

Having garnered some particularly favourable comments from some of IMDb's more respected horror officianados, I decided to see what the fuss was all about. I've just finished watching the film, and I can honestly say that I haven't been this disappointed by a horror film for quite some time.

With its dreary, muddled pseudo-philosophical plot, and an extremely bland performance from leading man Everett, Dellamorte Dellamore is an irritating and plodding mess that not even some splattery gore (courtesy of Sergio Stivaletti) and welcome gratuitous nudity (from busty Anna Fialchi) can save. I am at a loss to understand the amount of in-depth analysis and discussion that this pretentious bilge has received from its misguided fans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dreadful. I hope I can save two hours of your life by warning you away from this. I just finished watching the film, BTW.

I love good cross genre films. This isn't one of them. Show me a sci-fi musical, a dramatic farce, or a religious action flick, I'll watch them all. But you cannot just throw epigrammatic quips at a rambling, camp, schlock-horror fest and draw my applause.

I love philosophical films. This isn't one of them. Anyone who is amazed at the depths of intellect plumbed in this film hasn't read a good book lately. Or ever. The \"thought-provoking\" dialogue is trite, at best. Perhaps it lost something in the translation.

I love a good horror-comedy. This isn't one of them. Laugh! I thought I'd never start! Squirm? Only when trying to think of a polite way to phrase my feedback of the film to the friend who recommended it.

Rupert is incongruously good in the setting of this film, but even he cannot resurrect it. I only wish he had shot the director instead if the zombies.

For shame, that the land that gave rise to The Inferno should also give rise to this. Dante would be spinning in his grave.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When this series aired I watched most of it. I think it was supposed to be a long running series in the vein of \"The Fugitive\" and \"The Incredible Hulk\" where the protagonist is being chased around the country looking for a solution to his problems. In this case the hero's problem is his progressive aging in reverse. I liked what I saw of these shows. The acting was good especially the sorrowful relationship between the lead character and his wife. Problem is: They cancelled it before it had a chance to end. (either that or I missed the last episodes).

They never got a chance to wrap up the story either, knowing it had been cancelled. Poof it was just gone. However, like I said before I might have missed the last episodes. But my proof to the contrary is this: I rented the tape. Where I left off in the series. The lead character's wife dies in a fire started by a chase involving King's famous organization the Shop. While getting away hero is kidnapped. It ends with his friends realizing they have to go save him from the Shop. The end. Last episode. On the video: His wife does not die but escapes the fire with him. Right when he should get nabbed by the Shop, he and his wife share a weird moment then phase out of existence. Abrupt, silly and cheap to the extreme. They just wanted to put this video out and decided to tag on an ending not caring how bad it was. They might as well of just shown some stock footage of the first atomic bomb detonations. Almost Pythonesque.

The show did have a cool opening title sequence set to the David Bowie song of the same name","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Firstly, this is NOT an adaptation of a Stephen King book, short story, novella, or anything else. From EW's Web site, and their review on the show when it first aired, \"...he never writes down to his audience, and he never betrays contempt for his subjects. His first original work for television, Stephen King's ''Golden Years'' (CBS, July 16, 9-11 p.m.), is no exception.\"

The series was apparently going to be (as others have mentioned) an ongoing series, which is why we never saw the ending after the cliffhanger they left us on. But this was never quite made clear to the viewers who were left wondering how it all ends??

When the series came out on videotape, it touted itself as having the \"never-before-seen ending!\" It should have said, \"the should-never-be-seen ending!\"

*** Spoiler ***

The very ending was the only significant part changed for the video (though parts of the whole were left out), and that changed ending was what destroyed the story. For example, rather than our two intrepid FBI agents realizing that they were now labeled as bad guys and on the run from the evil Jude Anderson of The Shop (as originally broadcast), Jude simply walks up to them... And they shoot him. Bang, dead, and no real emotion to speak of in the scene. Ditto on the bit with Harlan and his wife going poof. Whereas the original ending left us with a spectacular cliff-hanger, on the video, they simply get out of the cock-a-doodie car.

*** End Spoiler ***

It was a sad ending to a rather well made mini-series, and makes the video completely not worth buying, or even renting. Sincerely, save your money and your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I remember when this show came out. It was originally advertised as a mini-series. At the end of the last episode it said \"To Be Continued\" to the dismay of all the people who had watched the whole boring beyond words thing. It ended as it was supposed to, so yes, you can blame the series for having no ending. The plan was for there to be another obviously if ratings had been higher, but it was a boring show that way too long, and annoyed people by not ending when it said it would, so they never made any more. Quite a few of the comments blame its cancellation and lack of ending on the viewing public, when the truth is that for this show that is not the case, it ended the way it was actually planned to end, it is just a lousy ending.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Please -- if you haven't attempted to sit through this garbage and are considering viewing this flick\/mini-series -- do yourself a favor and find anything else to do. Floss your teeth, start learning to play the cello, beat your dog -- anything you choose will be time better spent than watching this junk. This is not a bad movie that you can get a few chuckles out of -- it simply sucks in every way possible. Just boring from beginning to end.

And for those animal lovers out there that feel my comment above is insensitive -- if your dog could speak, he or she would beg for a beating rather than suffer through watching this mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I really hated this movie and it's the first movie written by Stephen King that I didn't finish. I was truly disappointed, it was the worst crap I've ever seen. What were you thinking making three hours out of it? It may have a quite good story, but actors? No. Suspense? No. Romance? No. Horror? No. It didn't have anything.

It's got this strange, crazy science man with Einstein-hair, the classic thing. Not real at all. And a man keep getting younger all the time. It seems like they just used the name of Stephen King to make a crappy, too long movie with nothing exciting at all.

I give this movie \"1 (awful)\". If they had like -5, I would probably take that instead. It was a total waste of time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"ok, i am really into King's stuff, but this is just dreadful. the whole movie, i am waiting for the main character to do something profound with his new youth and power. i can tolerate the worst of movies, as anything is better than watching a cut movie with commercials in it. but this takes the cake. i gave it a 2, and i would never recommend it to anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love Stephen Kings work and the book was great but I was very disappointed when I bought this movie on DVD. This was one of the worst B-movies I have ever seen. It feels like they had a tight schedule and only took one shot at every scene even if it turned out to be a bad one. And where did they find the actors.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is without question the worst screen adaptation of a Stephen King work, if not the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME! This is an unbelievably horrible movie. I fell asleep on this stinker several times and I wasn't tired! I would rather shoot myself than sit through it again!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay, I guess I'm pretty much a fan of spindled, mutilated, and destroyed Stephen King stories (when they reach the 'Screen') as any of us sad Masochists out here. I KNOW full well that most of them are done poorly. I EXPECT it. I PLAN on it. I humbly allow for it...

But, THIS time... GEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ... Okay, so I THINK I saw this thing a number of years ago..., fine. I THOUGHT I remembered that it was pretty good... WRONG... Like I'm saying (granted in a wordy, annoying, roundabout way : ) I really wasn't trying to be snobby or expect much, but what was this thing, a Mini-Series? I have only ONE thing to say: D......R.....A.....W......N O.....U.....T How can you POSSIBLY justify dragging the thing out minute by minute, scene by scene of friggin' ENDLESS, completely MEANINGLESS, and mind numbingly SLOW dialog? I mean EVERY bl**dy scene is two people 'DISCUSSING' how they feel and back and forth and D...R...A...G I...T bl**dy well O...U...T After about an hour and a half, which I THINK is about 1\/2 of the running time (I didn't check, sorry : ) I FINALLY got totally fed up! After an hour and a half what had happened OTHER than the original accident...? They were running away while the 'Shop' guy was killing eye doctors, news photographers, and LOTS & LOTS & LOTS of meandering dialog.

I'm sorry, I promise that it is not that I have to have non-stop mindless action; I love LOTS of films where not much happens, but in them at least when they DO talk and such MEANINGFUL things are being said and characters are being deepened, thoughts are being conveyed... SOMETHING!!!??? Okay, I admit that the actors in and of themselves were not too bad (except Stephen King, of course : ) I liked the Shop guy, I thought both of the 'older' people were fine. I liked the General and the main woman. It's just if they could have cut out all of the HOURS of filler, that's all I'm saying. I mean, it's SUPPOSED to be a Sci Fi Thriller, sort of..., right? you know what really took the prize when the Shop guy was needlessly making one of his MANY time filling telephone calls, this time he is talking to God knows WHO getting all emotional (for him anyway) and acting like he can't handle it... WTF!!!??? The guy has clearly been shown to be a cold blooded, efficient killer. What the HELL was THAT about??? So, just multiply that by about 500 and that is basically why I finally turned if off about half way through; it was either that or hang myself, I swear! I mean there are other King 'adaptations' out there that are lame, but at least they MOVE ALONG...! Oh well, I guess perhaps if you MAYBE are into the 'story' itself and don't mind crawling along and have the SUPREME & DIVINE patience to wait until the end, it might be worthwhile.

But, I sincerely and humbly doubt it...

I don't write these things very often, but THIS time I just HAD to or I wouldn't be able to sleep at night (like I did DURING the show! : )","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"First of all, the nature in the movie is beautiful, and there is a bit of Mongolian music. Well, the horses looked Mongolian and the camels, but that's about all what was Mongolian in it. Oh, Borte is played by a Mongolian actress, albeit a lame performance. But she is pretty, which redeems a bit the lack of performance on her part.

But, I totally failed to understand what was the point of this painful-to- watch piece of 1.30 hour fantasy created by Mr.Bodrov. The plot totally lacked any sense of cohesion. There was no logic behind the development of the plot. In fact, there was hardly any story at all, just a number of loosely tied scenes with a bunch of guys in \"Mongolian\" clothes, speaking some kinda pidgin that is supposed to sound like Mongolian. Most actors were either Japanese, Russian or Chinese, most scenes were shot in China, Kazakhstan or Russia and there were a lot of disturbing pathos about what is it to be a \"Mongolian\". The dialog is primitive and the scenes with dialog are slow. The battle scenes are laughable. All the supernatural pathos is lame and is obviously there only to make up for the lack of the story.

The Japanese actor was like a wooden doll, and looking at him one wouldn't get any idea how this person could become a leader who could unite the nomadic tribes. He looked sleepy, soft, stiff and pitiful for the most part of the movie.

And I don't even want to start on the subject of the historical relevance of this piece of cinematic waste. To see Chinggis-khan half of the movie as a slave, to see his two first kids be born from other men, to see his wife selling herself to the Tangut merchant... my blood starts to boil. And where is the beautiful story about the friendship between Temujin and Jamukha? One could make a great movie out of it. Where is the story of the rise of Temujin? Of his childhood, of his relationship with his family, with his brothers, of how he struggled to survive among mighty enemies of his family? where is Van khan, who helped him a lot? where is the depiction of life in the steppe, of the life of the nomads, of their traditions, of their relations with the other nations around them?

Where is development of the characters? We totally fail to see what brought Temujin together with Jamukha and what brought them apart and most important, how Temujin became Chinggis-khan, how he, an outcast with no wealth and military power managed to unite the Mongolian tribes and create such an organized and effective war machine that crushed one nation after another and created the largest land empire in history. All this could make several interesting and dramatic stories with complicated plots and deep characters, but unfortunately we didn't see any of it in Bodrov's creation, not even a glimpse.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I went to see this film because it was recommended to my wife and she wanted to go.

We were both trying to look at our watches well before the film ended, in order to see how much more we had to endure. Two hours and six minutes long, it is. It's divided roughly equally between battle scenes (about a dozen of them, all more or less interchangeable), and plot development.

One would have thought that with the subject being the son of a minor tribal chief who conquers half the world, plotting would have been relatively easy. There's a fair bit of raw material there from which to make a pretty good story. However the writers fluffed it completely. We get no real history. We get instead a Hollywood version of history.

What sustains young Temudjin through his long -- almost endless, actually, or so they seem to the viewer -- tribulations? Why, the love of a good woman, of course.

How does he get out of prison? Well, an old monk, who recognizes his innate goodness and greatness, sets out across the continent to take to this good woman a talisman that symbolises Temudjin's love for her, dropping dead just close enough to her for her to find him as he lies there, talisman in his hand. And of course she then goes and, having (inexplicably) become rich and powerful, rescues him.

How does he escape from the shackles? Well, he goes off to the shrine of the great wolf-god Tengri (or some such name) and Tengri sets him free by magic. Yeah, right.

Why does he want to become ruler of the Mongols? The wolf-god again, apparently. Off goes Temudjin to ask for guidance, and -- surprise! surprise! -- he gets it. \"Laws,\" he says to himself. \"What the Mongols need are laws. Good, simple ones.\" Golly, it was impressive.

And then finally, how does he win the decisive battle against his rival's more powerful forces? Better tactics, certainly, but also through the aid of the good old wolf-god again, who sends a storm at the height of the battle. All the troops cower as the thunder rolls and the lightning flashes (Mongols are scared of thunder, you see) -- but not our Temudjin. The troops, completely wowed by his bravery, acclaim him king!

I don't know what induces people to keep producing this kind of garbage. The funny thing is it's interspersed with all sorts of gritty realism: lots of slurping of milk, dirt and violence. It's as if the producers of this movie wanted to get the trivial things right so that viewers wouldn't notice how infantile some of the big stuff is.

There's heaps of violence in graphic close-up: slashings, impalings, spouts of blood, sprays of blood, clouds of blood -- the blood guys had a great time, actually. Despite the realism, it's impossible to take seriously.

I must mention the ludicrous CGI final battle scene. How anyone can think these things look realistic is beyond me. They don't. Oh, and it's all shot in the standard Hollywood style -- breathtaking panoramas for the spectacular scenery, and the super-close-up Stedicam stuff for the battle scenes. And the standard Dolby super-sound-effects of whumps and thumps and the constant low-frequency hum to sustain tension.

Tedious.

Avoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Have seen this movie today. Very disappointed and wondered how it could be in the Oscar shortlist. The most sad things are:

1. It's very slow.

2. How Ghengis-khan, cruel and mighty emperor of Asia can be played by a kind, good actor with warm and lovely eyes - during all the movie except one scene?

3. Lot of holes in the plot: there's nothing about how he became the emperor; nothing about where he spend 20 years between his childhood and mature age. We see an ex-slave without money, power, friends or home. Click! - the very next second he's leading the huge army, without any reasons to be a leader.

4. The magic of Ghengis-khan arise is kindly explained only by the help of one wolf\/god\/whoever it was.

5. Can a man make love to his wife THAT way after not seeing her for years?

6. Is it enough to win the sword fight if you just riding your horse through the enemy lines, sitting there with two swords and everybody around you dies? Does Ridley Scott know that way?

7. Why after 20-30 years Khan's mother doesn't look older?

8. What is the motivation for the main character? (None. Literally.)

Don't waste your time. Really. Cinematographers's work is good; the nature is outstanding - but the movie cannot be made without director and script. The real Ghengis-khan would execute director in a second.

Kind regards.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was lacking in a lot of areas. It's about this Elvis type guy who races cars and is approached by these BIKERS from SATANS ANGELS. One of them is named Banjo and they beat up college kids for fun. THey want the Elvis guy to be their \"driver\". At times, I wanted the folks from MSTK3000 to be quiet because the movie was actually kind of good. Sure, there was violence and a lot of cheesy lines, such as \"What kind of beer do you want? A COLD ONE\". That was cheesy. The dude who plays Banjo is a great boxer and I was glad to see him do a few fight scenes. Also, the biker named FATS had a NAZI SWASTIKA on his jacket!!! That was pretty bold if I must say so myself.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie begins with a man who appears to be some sort of sports driver. He meets up with a gang which contains an arrogant boss, an obvious idiot, a fat boy who never speaks, and a woman who rotates between the three of them. The group which is called Satan's Angels, wants Rod, the driver, as their personal driver. He says no but then says yes after the authorities make him a spy to check on them. They rob a weapon shop in a ridiculously plot-missing scene. The scene involves the woman walking into the store with her long hair in a bun and large circular glasses on. She says she wants protection and wants the shopkeeper to load the gun to show her how. She then takes it from the shopkeeper and shoots him. The other three in the gang (excluding Rod) run into the store. They take everything off the walls and then proceed to play with it like children receiving their toys on Christmas Day.

This movie surely wastes no precious screen time with a plot.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not really all that much to this movie...either a stunt racer or a stock car racer has a flaming car in the beginning of the movie, goes to bar, is approached by a biker gang who ruins his chances with a very lovely lady, offer him a job, he goes back to their place, refuses, the police ask him to accept their ya go!!! What plays out is a very annoying little film that sees the hero not really do all that much and a biker gang that can kill and for some reason the police can not pin a crime on them. I am not sure why the female biker did what she did at the end, but hey it is a bad movie, you always get scenes that make little sense. I am still trying to figure out if I misheard it when they said the hero of the piece was a stunt car driver. They may have said stock car driver because why would a stunt racer be racing and I wouldn't think it would be all that uncommon for a stunt car to crash. The actors are bad, and all the bikers are pretty annoying and the hero is kind of incompetent...really this movie is not full of kicks but it is the pits.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ah, another movie with motorcycles, hell's angels posse and Steve A-Lame-o as the not-so-cool car driver. This movie does not rely on story but lots of drinking, pot smoking, and lots of moronic acts. Steve's rendition of a dying cat during his \"I love what I know\" serenade had me vomiting for hours. Bike chick Linda (rrrr) makes out with everyone! Fats did the best acting since he just grunts and makes sounds. I also dare you to try to make out what Banjo is saying. \"You messin' wit private stock.\" This is scriptwriting folks.

I liked the ending. What better place to have the climax than a lighthouse! You have to see this to detest it.

DIE Jeter, DIE!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No that its sick. It's not sick. It made me want to puke because I spent 2 dollars on it. Its boring, Retarded, and annoying. I didn't see the MST3K version, which sucks because I bet the MST3K version was funny. It's sad that people waste money on these kinds of movies. I'm surprised its not on the \"100 Worst Movies of All Time List\".

TromaDude's Rating- 0 outta ***** stars","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Recap: A lone swordsman, living in the desert and acting as an agent to other swordsmen, recollects how his life turned out to be as it is. It started with that the woman he loved chose to marry his brother instead, causing him to leave his home town. One of the swordsmen is Huang who is himself in the middle of a complicated love story, where a woman wants to have him killed for having ran away from a promise to marry her younger sister. But the sister wants to hire a swordsman to have Huang protected, and everything is put to an edge when the woman and her sister is really the same person.

Comments: I've seen the Redux version released in 2008 of the original that was released in 1994. How the two versions differ I can't say, but the Redux is very heavily stylized in the way of Chinese Wuxia action. That is unfortunate as that style to me seems to have forgotten one of the most important elements of a successful and entertaining movie. A comprehensible story. But true to its style scenery and visual elements seem much more important and much more in focus of writer and director Kar Wai Wong. Therefore there are lots of colorful, very beautiful scenes, that are completely unrelated to the story.

The editing and timeline of the story is also mishandled. Much is left out in the scenes, the time line is broken and rearranged in a confusing way. Very slow and calm scenes are suddenly relieved by surprisingly brutal and seemingly unmotivated fights, only to themselves being relieved by something else and unrelated. The result is a confusing and very uninteresting movie.

Thanks to these brutal but very few fights, the movie is put into the action genre. The poster and photographs also imply this but could almost be regarded as false marketing. Only a few minutes out of the 90 could be considered as anything like action, the other couldn't be farther away from it. The movie in its entirety is very slow, dull and hence very boring. Not even the rare action filled scenes help since they are so disconnected from the rest of the movie.

I might say that I'm not a fan of this Chinese style, since they often seem to be afflicted of these same problems, most importantly that the visual is more important than the story, but Ashes of Time Redux is perhaps the worst example I've seen.

3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Ashes of Time\" was an audacious project but ended up being a pretentious movie. This film is a good example of how to tell a simple story in a complex manner. The plot of \"Ashes of Time\" is fairly simple and comes down to two words: \"love triangle\". Because of those \"love triangles\" crossing stories, jealousy, hate and love are the main dynamics displayed by the characters. The narrative part is seen through Ou-yang Feng's eyes (Leslie Cheung). Ou-yang Feng lives in the desert, where he acts as middleman to various swordsmen and becomes the tool of Destiny through which vengeance is achieved. Unfortunately \"Ashes of Time\" fails in telling these simple stories of love and hate. Wong Kar-wai lost himself driven by a desire to make each frame of the film a painting and an aesthetic experience. In fact beside the casting of beautiful actors (men and women) everything else is a failure in this movie. Dialogs are minimalists and not original at all. Picture's quality is very much unequal, the editing is one of the worst ever seen (at least by me) in the \"swordplay\" genre and finally the filming of the rare sword fight is very confusing and unappealing. Even the attempt of building artistic scenes is not always achieved: the so call erotic \"women on a horse\" scene is ridiculous, not erotic and useless. Wong Kar-wai wanted to deliver 100 minutes of pure aesthetic experience and forgot that a film is first about how a plot is told. By forgetting that he delivers an awkward movie that doesn't even fulfill its artistic objective.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As I sit back after watching Wong Kar-wai's 1994 movie Ashes of Time \u0096 more specifically the 2008 re-edit and re-release with the word 'Redux' slapped on the end of the title \u0096 I wonder what went wrong. I wonder why the film just didn't work out at all. I wonder why the movie failed to score any major points in my book. In particular, what was it about the film which dragged it down, and made it the director's worst film of his career?

Well it's not too hard to figure out really. Let me just say that it truly is a shame that Kar-wai so abruptly went down this hell-hole of mediocrity and poorness in moviedom, especially considering the fact that in the same year he released Chungking Express, one of his enduring legacies and an absolutely sublime film. So \u0096 what went wrong? It would be suitable to consider Ashes of Time as somewhat of an experimental film. Our director essentially places his own inimitable style of film-making and places it in an entirely different setting, mood and atmosphere; what results is a catastrophic film which is all over the place and simply does not work out. Hence, it would be even wiser to call Ashes of Time a failed experiment. Bold, audacious and innovative, but a failure nonetheless.

Let me elaborate. Those who have seen the films of Mr. Kar-wai, a Hong Kong-born film auteur who's made his mark on the art-house world since his debut in the late-80's, will know that there is an overriding aesthetic which binds all of his movies together; essentially and frankly speaking, they're all colourful, thought-provoking, amiable, subtly humorous and meaningful evocations of life, love and loss. The same formula is transposed into Ashes of Time; however, the regular setting of Hong Kong is ridden of, and in its stead we're placed into the setting of ancient China, and the land of the legendary martial arts warriors and clansmen.

Intertwined into this quasi-adventure\/historical caper is the typical Kar-wai love story, this time involving an elegiac hit-man who has moved to the middle of the desert, and is carrying out contract killings. However, I must stop myself there; description of characters is a useless thing to do. Why? Because not a single character in Ashes of Time is worth mentioning or nothing. What a bland cast, and what a waste of talent (the case of Ashes of Time contains nearly all regular Kar-wai collaborators).

Not only that, but the film is essentially endless incessant rambling in a horrendous, almost non-existent narrative structure. One of the main reasons why detractors of Ashes of Time berate it is because it seems to possess no plot whatsoever, let alone a semblance or an indication of one. You can definitely see what they're getting at, even from the first two, three minutes, maybe less, of the film. Perhaps it's just the atypical setting of ancient China which is unaccustomed and inappropriate for Kar-wai's typical film-making style. I like to think, however unfortunate it may be, that Mr. Kar-wai just stuffed up big time here.

One thing that a reviewer can actually compliment in Ashes of Time, albeit said compliment being starkly isolated, is another director trademark \u0096 wonderful, colourful and blissful aesthetics. What joyous colour is composed on-screen, what glorious textures are painted for us, and what breathtaking landscapes and imagery are captured for us throughout the entire movie. We can at least take this as a sign that Wong Kar-wai is still there at heart, and it's just the film which is so atypical, and buries his usually commendable nuance. Although the visuals aren't enough for us to fully absolve Kar-wai for this disastrous venture, they're enough to make the film worthwhile \u0096 and at least we don't walk out of the movie in a completely and totally cantankerous mood, now that there's something we can think of nicely.

The film is essentially a 'wuxia art' film, following in the style of, say, legendary Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa. However, one thing differentiates Kar-wai's film from Kurosawa's best, and that's that in the Japanese director's films everything gels together and simply works. In Ashes of Time, nothing seems to work. Kar-wai's attempt to make a genuinely profound wuxia film, let alone an intellectual and provocative movie in general terms, is a futile endeavour.

Kar-wai claims that making Ashes of Time exhausted him, and that he needed time to clear his head. It must've certainly been a fatiguing effort on his behalf, as his exertions are embodied in the film and transferred to us directly \u0096 I mean, just watching the film is an exhausting effort, and now I need time to clear my head of this unpleasant movie-going experience.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Disclaimer: During my ventures into foreign cinema, I have taken a liking to a wide variety of movies that span different genres that include horror, action, drama, comedy, and romance, to name a few. Thus, I have enjoyed the thoughtful, serious tone of dramas as well as the mindless, popcorn fun of action films. With a wide array of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean movies under my belt, I am confident in my ability to recognize bright spots in movies to appreciate and complement. Unfortunately, Ashes of Time has nothing to recognize. It is one of the worst Chinese movies I have ever seen.

To start off, this overrated swordplay epic showcases the infamous \"slideshow\" action sequence throughout, which is nothing more than an ultra-cheap and pathetic form of action choreography. One simply needs to show a series of close-up pictures of grimising faces, swords, legs and\/or arms, and then a dead body. Bravissimo! You now have an action sequence for Ashes of Time. The problem lies not only in its poor quality but also in the fact that the scenes are so chaotic and disjointed that the viewer has no idea what the hell is going on.

The dramatic element of this film is nonexistent, as it relies on the characters telling the viewer that they love someone or hate someone instead of actually developing and showing such elements on screen, which renders all characters generic and colorless, leaving the viewer completely indifferent to their actions. In fact, the storyline itself is an absolute disaster, introducing way too many characters way too quickly with way too many plot devices. Plot complexities in films can be used very advantageously (i.e., A Tale of Two Sisters), but Ashes of Time becomes exploitative trash when it does nothing more than convolute a very simple plot for no apparently good reason.

In fact, this entire movie acts like a series of smokescreens to cover up its deficiencies. Horrible action choreography is covered up by \"slideshow\" tricks and chaotic camera movements. Non-existent character development is covered up by the characters overtly saying how they feel. And a thoughtless storyline is covered up by confusing the viewer with convolution.

As if this weren't bad enough, this movie was extremely boring, seeming more like 150 minutes instead of the actual 95.

Rating = A rarely given 0\/5 Stars.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The direction by Wong is perhaps the all time worst in film history I've ever seen. This film makes my all time worst film of 2000, Dungeons and Dragons by Courtney Soloman looked like an Oscar winner. The flaws in this movie is beyond explanation. The biggest one is the lack of depth. Every scene does not develop fully as if the editing room doesn't know how to do their job correctly. Its a shame that with such an all-star cast of talents and a famous popular traditional story can be destroyed by this lack of vision.

I am so disgusted and hope that some great director like John Woo or Ang Lee, decide to remake this film and do some justice. I'm not even sure if I can rate 0\/10??","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Your ability to enjoy The Ashes of Time may depend on our expectations before stepping into the theater. Even its most strident supporters seem to agree that audiences can be split right up the middle in their appreciation of this unique film.

Unlike most HK actioners, the battle scenes are curiously kept at a distance. When they do happen, they're rendered in a jerky style in which it's difficult to make out exactly what's occurring on screen. The dramatic scenes can be extravagantly beautiful, with the of Maggie Cheung, Brigitte Lin, and a roll-call of HK's top acting talent chewing up the scenery. As with some of Wong Kar-wai's early work, the dialog could be more precise.

In short, The Ashes of Time requires a forgiving attitude. Released around the same time as Wong Kar-wai's spectacularly successful Chungking Express, it's clear that the director isn't as confident working with the elements of the martial arts film. Anyone looking for tense action is likely to be disappointed. But those intrigued by the director's aesthetic will likely find this a unique experience at the very least.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The trailers for this movie promised and this movie delivered exactly what was promised: Good campy fun with lots of very good looking naked broads! If you were expecting a major Hollywood movie with major stars, stellar budgets, and MPAA tamed money shots, you will be *very* disappointed.

However, if you are a fan of the old \"B\" movies with unknown, but very good looking young stars that act amazingly well, given the material, some hokey, but surprisingly well done special effects, and very tight naked nubile bodies, this movie is almost heaven!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of those movies where the acting, set location, direction, and effects were so bad you need to rent a copy get 5 or 6 buddies, a keg of beer, sit down and watch it. To borrow from the late Douglas Adams, \"Watching this movie will be like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon... wrapped around a large gold brick.\".

What is wrong? Everything. British actors posing as Americans, there have been many that can pull it off like Bob Hoskins but he isn't in this one. It wasn't even necessary to choose North America as a location why not say it took place in England or something? The director seemed to like taking shots of girls tits and asses more than actually coming up with some kind of character motivation. So at this point you drunken buddies will be saying, \"ALL RIGHT! Another T&A shot!\". There isn't much dialog so feel free to skip off to the kitchen and make those sandwiches. What did I like about this movie? After my friends passed out, I managed to collect $185 off of them and told them they spent it at the strip bar after we finished watching the awful movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've read other hacks' reviews of this movie, and while it certainly isn't the best movie ever made in the sci-fi \/ horror genre, it isn't THAT bad if you accept it for what it is - low-budget, b-movie fare that (shall we say) \"borrows heavily\" from the likes of 'Alien' (nasty extraterrestrial monster that cocoons its victims) 'Species' (gorgeous and confused \"space girl\") and 'Incubus' (the beastie-breeding-with-captive-girls angle). This is one seriously cheesy movie, and the whole thing was obviously done on a shoestring budget, although the alien isn't too bad (I've seen far less convincing men-in-rubber-suits at any rate). None of the acting is Oscar material and the Isle Of Man doesn't really double for Boston Massachussetts very convincingly. The plot is fairly predictable too and the premise that an alien craft would travel squillions of miles and crash land smack bang in the middle of an all-girls college campus - thus conveniently providing a rich source of perfect breeding victims - is utterly laughable. However, the movie does have its suspenseful moments, there's a few helpings of nudity and semi-nudity and the film does feature one of the few movie appearances by the beautiful and tragic model \/ actress Kadamba Simmons (as the \"Space Girl\") who, at the age of only 24, was murdered in London by her jealous boyfriend shortly after making this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Of all the movies in the history of movies I can't imagine someone sitting down and saying, I want to spend X amount of dollars (or pounds sterling) to remake that flawed classic film called \"Breeders.\" Lots of stories have been turned into films about meteors coming to Earth with something sinister lurking inside. Why not put your money into making a spectacular 3D remake of \"It Came from Outer Space\" instead? Why look for a dingy nudie flick that existed only for the purpose of showing off a rubbery set of monsters and some naked coeds? Was the script for the 1986 version of \"Breeders\" so inspiring that these producers felt it had to be done again and this time done correctly? When you come down to it, the only reason this film exists is to show off Britcom cutie pie Samantha Janus. But if you're gonna make a skin flick and exploit Sam Janus in it, you'd better have her more naked than this and naked more often than this if you want to succeed.

Meteor lands ... monster escapes ... coeds duff their clothes ... monster eats people ... and another \"what if?\" ending ensues.

Honestly, I never thought I would ever recommend the original \"Breeders\" over any other film but this would be the one to come in 2nd Place to it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dire beyond belief. Obviously set on the Isle of Man masquerading as the US - very badly - and full of cut-rate British actors who can't do American accents. A monster that looks like an unarticulated promotional cut-out for Alien from a movie store, with the most inflexible feet ever seen. Girls in the shower, undressing, catfighting, blah, blah, blah. You get the idea. Don't watch it, run away, hide, AVOID.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It's strange what fate does to some people. While looking in the discount bin at a DVD retailer, I came across a copy of Deadly Instincts. Being a collector of any film that is either sci-fi, horror or featuring alien monsters, I decided to buy it (not to mention the fact that it cost five dollars \u0096 a bargain, believe me). After viewing it, I came to the opinion that it was nothing special. But after doing some research on the Internet, I discovered that the film was actually called Breeders & was a remake of the Tim Kincaid horror flick that menaced video stores in the mid-1980s. Which I've already seen. My appreciation of \"Deadly Instincts\" grew following that discovery.

A meteorite crashes on the lawn next to a private girls' college. The sole teacher there, Ashley (played by Todd Jensen \u0096 that's right, the guy who gets turned into a cyborg in the cult flick CYBORG COP four years earlier), notices that some of the students are beginning to disappear, while encountering a black-haired woman with a scarred face & wearing a kinky leather outfit. His investigation reveals that an alien creature had hitched a ride on the meteorite & had come to Earth to breed using the local womenfolk. Along with a local detective who believes him to be responsible for the disappearances, Ashley tries to stop the monster.

The original BREEDERS, directed by Tim Kincaid (who would leave the genre to make gay porn), was a sci-fi \/ horror film which was actually a thinly-veiled soft-core porn film designed to take skin flicks to genre fans. It is, in my belief, one of the worst films made in the 1980s. Why anyone would want to remake it is quite a mystery.

This remake is actually a better effort than its low-budget source. The film, which takes the basic concept of an alien monster trying to interbreed with human women, eliminates any pornographic elements. In fact, the film is actually very tame. There are no sex scenes, no nudity (even during the shower scene), swearing & violence are kept to a minimal level & there is no gore (which may cheat gorehounds). This makes the remake a film safe for the whole family, that is if the kids aren't scared by alien monsters (which brings me to the film's M 15+ rating, which seems a bit much).

Tameness of subject matter aside, the film does have some faults. The script, while featuring some good characterizations, has a number of holes so big you can crash a meteor through.

What? You're mad at me for that? Come on, this review needed a bad pun so it will remain interesting.

Anyway, the film's setting is one problem the script failed to fix \u0096 the film is set in Boston but the buildings don't look like they belong in Boston. Something about the architecture ain't right. Another thing is the college itself, with a rather large building housing about twenty students (all female, of course) & only having one class \u0096 art. The only teacher there has a relationship with a student (& so does the janitor!), which somehow escapes the attention of the principal. Not to mention the cops, who are so one-dimensional (& stupid) that the real Boston PD would have a good case if they ever decided to sue. Oh, & the meteor\u0085 well the chance that a meteor which is sent from Saturn (check the opening credits) reaches Earth with no onboard propulsion is astronomical. That doesn't include the chances that any passengers in the meteor will survive the landing.

As far as the acting goes, Todd Jensen gives a dependable performance as the heroic teacher while the late Kadamba Simmons (who was murdered by her boyfriend shortly before the film came out) cuts a striking figure in that leather outfit, as well as proving she can act. The visual effects are run-of-the-mill, with credits due to the filmmakers for bringing us a cool-looking monster.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Imagine the most cliche ridden b-movie horror plot you can. Add more plot holes than plot. Have it scripted by a 10 year old. Have the acting done by A-Level drama students faking really bad US accents (in the Isle of Man!) Add monster special effects that the lovers of B&W Dr Who shows will appreciate. Result: duff film. Throw in Samantha Janus taking her clothes off (make a point of this on the cover) and you'll probably sell enough copies to make a profit anyway!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"After a meteorite lands in \"Boston\" (really somewhere in the Isle of Man), a hideous, fanged alien monster is released and is on the loose in a local girl's school, causing mayhem and turning the students into zombie-like creatures. This film is apparently a loose (and I stress loose) remake of the 1986 film with the same name, as it features the same monster but a different plot. Both films are terrible, but to the credit of the 1986 version, it was watchable. This isn't. Let's start with all the problems\u0097the acting, especially from the lead professor, was very, very bad. This film is supposed to take place in Boston (we know this because the film makers had the ingenious idea of putting \"Boston police\" or \"Boston gas company\" on everything), yet everyone seems to have rather muddled British accents (At least they didn't try using Boston accents, thank God). The script is a big flawed mess. The best example of how dumb the writing is when it's established that you can turn the zombie-students back into humans by removing a necklace containing a piece of the meteorite. Is that what our brave heroes do? No, they run around SHOOTING the zombie-students instead. Nice. Director Paul Matthews, who also wrote\/directed the weak 1995 monster movie \"Grim\", clearly doesn't know how to pace his films. The movie is terribly boring in places. The lighting is awful. The film looks cheap and bland. One of the most disappointing aspects is the lack of notable gore. 99% of the death scenes involve the creature popping out of a dark corner and dragging someone away, while we hear they're \"horrified\" screams off in the distance. This convention never worked well in the past, and certainly doesn't work here. The visual effects were AWFUL. The CG opening sequence in space looked like it could have been created on Microsoft Slideshow for God's sake! The \"explosion\" of the Gas tanks at the end was just as awful. Okay, I like to consider myself a fair critic, so I'll give credit where credit's due--the creature effects were actually pretty cool. Gotta love those close-ups of slimy, drooling teeth!

To sum the film up, \"Breeders\" is a terrible, cheaply made horror movie that should be avoided like the Ebola virus. Not recommended.

1.5\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was a pathetic movie. The Alien was decent, but the movie itself gave a new meaning to pitiful. The plot is something that's been done over and over again! However, this one does it the worst! The acting was c**p, the scenes were often too dark to get what was going on. No one developed any concern for the main character. The movie was far too slow paced, and the murder scenes that there were were foolishly crafted and ended up looking no more interesting than the rest of the movie. There are some movies which \"suck\" but can still be enjoyed because of there total outrageousness, but this doesn't even have that!! Whoever made this film thought that they could make something good and they failed miserably. There is nothing this movie has to offer except a headache. Avoid it!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"College students (who are actually in their late 20's) on campus in Boston (which looks strangely like the Isle Of Man) are menaced by a fierce monster (assembled during a Blue Peter episode). The new teacher must save the day (Even though he is really... Oh, who cares?)

I'll start with the positives... there is a nice shot of Eastenders new gal Samantha Janus's can in the obligatory campus shower scene with her best mate Katy Lawrence. A bit of side trivia: Katy was hired when she arrived at auditions with her sister, just as moral support to her sibling but ended up landing a part. Oh, joy. Picked from obscurity to... flash her pert buttocks in a meaningless scene added for titillation, then getting killed 30 minutes in for her troubles. Her latest (and only other credited role) is as Probationary Nurse #5 in Atonement. I wonder if she snuck a look at Keira Knightly (if extras and stars are allowed to mix) and wondered: where did it all go wrong?!

I'll give a few hints Katy: If all the other British cast members are asked to speak with American accents in a doomed attempt at mass-marketing, and the only person who can manage it is the B-movie veteran USA native Todd Jensen, you know you're in trouble. If you look at your wage slip and it'll only just about cover your lunch and your bus ride home, you ain't starring in a movie with a trillion dollar budget. If the premiere is attended by loads of family members of the fourth assistant director and provokes gales of laughter when the Stickyback tape monster rampages through the sewers, it should dawn on you that this isn't exactly Alien. Or even a Critters IV, come to think of it. So Katy, in your next life (I'm a Buddhist, you see) perhaps you'll be a bit more selective in your choice of debut feature rather than impulsively jumping at the first pile of crap that heads your way. Flashing skin in your first movie does not guarantee long lasting success. Unless you're Sylvester Stallone. And he had the script to Rocky to back him up.

To all intents and purposes this is as 0\/10 a movie as I've ever seen. However, for sheer unintentional laughs and pure camp value, it gets a 1. Well done ;)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just to let everyone know, this is possibly the WORST movie I have ever seen, and I've seen pretty much everything. If you're thinking of renting it, DON'T!!! It's not worth the cardboard container that it came in....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was shocked there were 18 pages of good reviews. This has to be one of the worst movies especially considering it was recommended. Must admit that comedies are not my favorite genre, but this movie made it worst in that it tried so hard to be clever that it made me squirm to watch it.

The concept of the movie is comparable to audition week on American Idol. You watch because people are so blind to their shortcomings. But we knew this movie didn't have bad actors. So how funny would it be to have good singers try to convince they shouldn't get anywhere near an American Idol tryout? It would be pointless as this movie was.

The use of improv is over-rated. We've all been in that setting where a group of friends get on a roll and everyone is cracking up with tears in the their eyes. I feel that is improv. Improv can't be turned on just because the camera is rolling as this film proves. If you like that Drew Carey hosted show of improv, you'll probably like this film.

Overall the jokes were poor, the improv was sophomoric, and the over-acting by Guest and company was campy...and those are my compliments of this drivel. If a guy playing a trumpet AND the kettle drum at the same time is funny to you, fine. For me, I prefer more heady stuff like \"I Love Lucy\" or \"Hee-Haw\".

But remember, I think SNL lost its humor in the 1980's, so maybe you'll like this G-rated humor. I kept waiting for a person to identify himself as the zoo keeper and then tell us there was no zoo in town. That's the humor you can expect.

My only wish was that I could give this a minus rating.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Grosse Pointe Blank was really quite a below average film. Its hit man theme is very dry and is more like a romantic comedy than a hit man thriller. The acting is very normal. The performances are extremely embarrassing at times with many characters seeming very 'eccentric' and that really annoyed me. The whole reunion and the 'Wow, I haven't seen you in 10 years!' element is extremely cheesy and many scenes just drag on, especially nearer the end when they are at the actual reunion party and the characters are going through each of their former classmates one by one greeting them. It just all seemed very tacky, pointless and was poorly executed.

Dan Akroyd's role as a 'rival' assassin is very sparse. He only seems to appear once at the very beginning and right at the very end in a 'final show down' which is hugely hyped up but doesn't deliver at all.

The soundtrack is also very mediocre. The bulk of the songs that are in this film are straight out of the 1980's and with the exception of two or three, are very bad. Hearing duff songs over quite a duff film just adds to the negativity that surrounds this film.

I could go on and on about how little things were annoying and were just very bad such as the very few action sequences that came and went very quickly, the lack of character development and how poorly the whole thing was constructed in that department, the way that half the time you forget that Cusak's character is even a hit man at all as the element is so non-existent.

Even the way the comedy thinks it's funny; but it isn't. I didn't laugh once during this movie. Sure, maybe I smirked now and again but my only REAL feel good point was when I realised the movie was nearly over!

Please, don't waste your time with 'Grosse Pointe Blank' despite the relatively high (but badly incorrect) IMDb rating. I've seen films that are better than this film that have lower rating on this site which tells you that there ARE better films out there. Just don't bother with this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It seems at least vaguely possible that this movie provided a bit of inspiration for \"The Sopranos,\" as its main character, Martin Blank (John Cusack) is a hit man who has so many issues from his past and his profession that he's in therapy trying to deal with it all. Everything finally comes to a head at his 10-year high school reunion. The problem was that by the time Blank got to the reunion I had stopped caring. Frankly, I found this movie a drag from start to finish.

It had potential. There was a reasonably good cast, headed by Cusack and Dan Aykroyd, playing Grocer, his arch-rival in the hit-man business, along with Minnie Driver as Debi, Blank's high school sweetheart who he stood up on prom night, and a limited role for Alan Arkin as Dr. Oatman, Blank's psychologist. That fairly talented cast never really seemed to come together, though. The drama lacked intensity and the comedy lacked real humour. What I thought had the most potential to be a comedic storyline was Grocer's proposal for a hit man's union, but aside from becoming a bit of a running joke, the idea never really got developed. As for the romance, one wondered why Debi would even think of letting this guy back into her life.

There were a handful of chuckles, but nothing really caught me and held me and I spent most of the movie wondering whether this thing was ever going to start to click. It never did - not for me, at least. 2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The title doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not sure what door in the movie shouldn't have been opened.

The movie starts uneventfully, with a conversation between a man and a woman in a room that looks like a richly furnished train car, complete with the sound of the train traveling. In fact, the man's house is a train car, and he has a cassette of train sounds. The woman leaves, and calls a young woman. The young woman tells her boyfriend, a doctor, that she's been told her grandmother is ill, and she needs to return to her home town. She hasn't been there in thirteen years.

Flash back to thirteen years ago. A shadowy figure enters a house. He caresses a sleeping young girl, then goes into another room and stabs the girl's mother. The girl wakes up and enters her mother's room and finds her dead with a knife in her. She screams, and an arm comes out of nowhere and claps a hand over her mouth. She looks up in fear. That early scene in the movie of the killer muffling her scream, and the girl's look is one of the few effective shots in the movie.

It doesn't have much going for it in the visuals department. Occasionally there's some strange use of sound, and there's some weird lighting in an attic scene where many of the panes of glass are red and blue.

Back to the present day. The young woman arrives in her grandmother's house. An old doctor is there, who she doesn't trust, along with the man from the opening scene \"Judge\" and Kearn, the town's museum operator. She doesn't trust any of them, and it's true they don't inspire any trust. She's rather crabby throughout the whole movie. She wants to check her grandmother into a hospital. The men in the town want her house, and the museum operator wants the things in it (his museum is already filled with many of the grandmother's things). Inexplicably, the woman wants to keep the house.

The young woman starts getting phone calls from a man speaking in a sinister whisper. He makes various threats, and wants her to do things to arouse him. Such scenes recur often. Unfortunately, there are so few characters in the movie, that the possibilities of who it could be are limited. Worse still, we see right from the beginning who is making the phone calls. So, while the young woman doesn't know (even though the caller occasionally drops into his normal voice), the audience always knows: no suspense. Each call rattles her more and more.

The ending was unexpected for me, so maybe gets points for not going with the obvious, but I'm not sure I cared for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I find it disconcerting that in an era when satisfying and fulfilling spirituality is unknown and we are all scattered across the whole spectrum of possible beliefs, that a charlatan and fraud of Gurdjieff's caliber (as a charlatan, he is exceptional; there is no denying he had a special gift. It's a pity he misused it, though, for the aggrandizement of his wounded ego, feeding on the adulation of unwary sheep who were at his beck and call and in awe of him) can inspire such extreme adherence and credulity. This movie presents an idealized version of Gurdjieff's own largely fictional and fantastic account of his formation and \"awakening\" (which I would rather describe as his discovery of how much he could sway the minds and wills of certain types of sadly disoriented people). See it, if you dare to have a disagreeable eye-opening about how sadly deprived we are of true religious leaders, to the extent that a clown like Gurdjieff could inspire such devotion - and be careful to have your blood pressure medicine at hand if you are one of those who still hope for a healthy religion to emerge from the ruins of Christianity, as a supreme example of cinematography at the entire service of the premises and pretenses of a dysfunctional cult.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, Yawn. Not another chick flick where the men are all pigs and the women will get even for the abuse they suffered. The only difference is that, in this film, everybody's a pig or has mush for brains. I hated this film for the moral issue of why it's right to send a man to prison for life for a murder he didn't commit. Is that a more immoral act than his abuse and deviousness. This movie shows all the situational ethics of bad writing. I saw it on the CBC's \"Best of Britain\" series. If this is Britain's best, no wonder the British film industry is in trouble.

The only bright spot in this film was David Tennant, He plays his character as so despicable that I'm likely to spit on the next person who speaks with a Scottish accent. Kate Ashfield tries to play the victim but comes off in the end as immorally devious as David Tennant's character. They deserve each other.

In the mush for brains category are the parents who see nothing wrong with the obviously psychotic Brendan. English policemen are made out to be so incompetent that they're unfit to give out traffic tickets. The British Policeman's Union should sue the makers of this film for defamation.

This film isn't worth the electricity it takes to run your DVD to watch it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I haven't read the book of this and based on this adaptation, will not bother. I hated every character in this show - Miranda was slutty, selfish and mumbled miserably through the appalling dialogue, her sister was a total wimp, and this was the worst depiction of manic-depression I have ever seen. I have a degree in Psychology, and this was not accurate. In fact, until it was mentioned, I did not realise Troy was supposed to be bipolar - I thought he was a normal, slightly grumpy teenager.

The only saving grace in this stupid show was David Tennant, whose brilliantly psychotic performance was the only thing that got me to watch the second half.

Clearly the writers and producers of this show have not done any research - Troy's mental problems are not remotely accurate, nor are the forensics involved in the \"twist\" ending (and if you did not spot that a mile off, you are a big ole dummy!)

Utter garbage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OK, this 'horror' film was meant to be a joke, right? Please tell me it was supposed to be a joke, then I'll understand.

A big cawing bird with giant claws - or one claw, anyway - swoops down on unsuspecting folks on the ground and gobbles them up. Mara Corday and Jeff Morrow sufficiently overact in order to keep things interesting, but at least you'll enjoy a hearty snicker when you see the 'monster'. It looks like a cross between a deranged chicken and Mortimer Snerd.

Either director Fred Sears just made this picture in a hurry and knew the bird looked utterly ridiculous, or he really thought his film and creature were genuinely frightening. I prefer to think - and hope - it was the former.

P.S. The bird needs a haircut.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I love old \"monster movies\" for the pure camp value. This one does not disappoint if you find that sort of thing amusing.

The acting is pure 1950s stilted crap. You do get used to it when you've seen enough of these... the dialogue is very silly and ultimately forgettable. You're just there for the giant bird.

The \"science\" in this movie is hilarious. A monstrous otherworldly avian that can manipulate anti-matter... intent on wreaking havoc and eating people... an alien who has come to Earth to nest. Some of the best scenes in the movie (that don't have the bird in them) include the \"scientists\" explaining what is going on.

A lot has been said about the ridiculous bird marionette. It looks like a new baby bird... bald and ugly with ruffled feathers. It even caws like a hungry, angry fledgling. However, the bird scared the crap out of my three year old, who had big scary bird nightmares for the evening. It's a bit creepy.

I was very sad about the scene where they shoot the egg. (Somehow the egg is not protected by an antimatter shield.) But I'm a bird lover, what can I say?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pilot Mitch MacAfee (Jeff Morrow) sees a UFO while test flying a plane--but nothing shows up on radar. Then planes and ships start disappearing and reports of a UFO increase. It turns out it's a giant monster bird that is attacking and killing. But what is it and why is it here?

This has all the right elements for a classic. It has an actually pretty entertaining script--I was never really bored. The acting is good (for a 1950s monster movie). Morrow doesn't overdo the macho hero act and Mara Corday is quite good as the requisite female love interest. She's also strong and takes care of herself--even though she IS off getting food and coffee for everyone all during the movie. The problem here is the monster. Dear God--it's TERRIBLE! It looks like a deranged turkey! It has a long neck, a hilariously stupid BEAK, some teeth, a few strands of hair on its head and claws. And--oh yes--it squawks! Not roaring--squawking! The actors had no idea what it looked like--it was added after production. Actors Morrow and Corday were horrified when they finally saw it in a theatre. Morrow said his audience burst out laughing and he left the theatre quickly before the movie ended! Producer Sam Katzman was responsible for this. He wanted to save money and gave the world the stupidest monster ever. And you can SEE the wires moving it too! This gets 4 stars only because Morrow and Corday are so good and the script is well done. It gets no stars for the pathetic monster--wait till you see it attack what is obviously a toy train! Worth a look if you're a horror fan to see what has to be the stupidest monster ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is almost Ed Wood territory. Yeah, that ridiculous wreck of a flying monster looks like a cross between a turkey buzzard and a bad day at the dentist's office. And that sound effect screech makes fingernails across a blackboard sound like Mozart. And why The Giant Claw when the goofy critter gobbles its victims with a mechanical jaw. We get big close-ups of the ugly chicken foot, but nothing more. I guess the producers thought a more appropriately titled Big Mouth might suggest a Jerry Lewis comedy. And speaking of comedies, all that \"anti-matter\" gobbledy-gook is funnier than anything in a Lewis movie. I guess the scripters were stuck for a reason why an ordinary duck hunter couldn't take care of a 1950's flying menace, so they concocted a real whopper-- anti-matter from another galaxy. Yup, this fugitive from KFC is supposed to have flown in from another galaxy behind a shield of anti- matter as explained in excruciating detail by one of the film's resident geniuses. In this case, it's Jeff Morrow a pilot who I gather in his off-hours advises Einstein on the secrets of the universe.

Unfortunately, it's also Morrow who keeps the ridiculous proceedings out of the bad-movie Hall of Shame since he actually delivers his lines with a straight face. What's more, he even sounds as if he believes them. This is a movie acting triumph of the first order. To heck with the Oscars, Morrow deserves a combat medal for performing above and beyond the call of duty under the most extreme bad movie circumstances. Watch leading lady Corday, then you can gauge his fortitude under fire. She looks like she just woke up inside a bad dream and maybe if she stands stock-still, no one will notice her. I barely did. Oh well, the first time I saw this drive-in disaster was through a beery haze in the back row of what's now a housing development. I should have learned my lesson and broken out another 12-pack this second time around.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Spreading panic from Broadway to Bombay, 1957's The Giant Claw boasts perhaps the ultimate flying monster in movie history. Described by one terrified Quebecois witness as \"La Carcagne \u0096 she's de devil in de storm with de face of de wolf and de body of de woman with wings, bigger than I can tell,\" it doesn't say much for Canadian women since when we finally see it in focus it's a cross between an overgrown buzzard, a chickenhawk and Gonzo the Great. But this isn't just any old giant turkey \u0096 impervious to rockets, invisible to radar and with a taste for swallowing parachutists whole and pecking away at the United Nations Building, it's an extraterrestrial giant turkey from an anti-matter galaxy millions of miles from Earth that's come here to build a nest: \"No other explanation is possible.\" Luckily for humanity Jeff Morrow, test pilot and \"chief cook and bottle washer in a one-man birdwatching society,\" invents a weapon to disable its impenetrable shield so they can hit it with everything but the kitchen sink \u0096 but don't worry: Morris Ankrum's general assures him \"We've got kitchen sinks to spare, son.\" \u0096 just in time for a last-minute clinch with co-star Mara Corday. Some of the dialogue has dated rather unfortunately \u0096 \"I admire your spunk, and you keep climbing on our backs whenever we've messed up\" \u0096 and strangely enough it's nowhere near as much fun as a film with a giant flying turkey should be, but the beast itself is such a truly memorable creation for all the wrong reasons that it's hard to dislike even if you are liking it for all the wrong reasons. And full marks to the cast for delivering gem after gem of direlogue with a straight face: \"Honest to Pete, I'll never call my mother-in-law an old crow again!,\" \"The only trouble is that the last time I talked to a chaplain there wasn't any telephone line to the one and only place where we can get the kind of help we need\" and the immortal \"There it is now, attacking the United Nations Building!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This one's as cheesy as they come \u0096 the concept of a massive and indestructible extraterrestrial bird is already too loopy for words, but wait till you get a load of the goofy creature as it appears on screen! I tell you I laughed so hard through this thing that I missed out on some of the expository dialogue \u0096 then again, the latter is often so heavy on scientific jargon and laws of Physics and such (at which I've never been any good, in spite of my love of sci-fi movies) that it didn't really matter anyway! The bird \u0096 first depicted as a mere blurred form whizzing through the skies but subsequently shown in all its dopey glory \u0096 is so sublimely silly that it wouldn't be amiss in a Looney Tunes cartoon (witness the series of intermittently-taken photographs that start with the creature in the distance and end on a side-splitting extreme close-up of its face)!

Director Sears had fared much better with his other film about UFOs, the fine EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS (1956) \u0096 with special effects provided by a master, Ray Harryhausen (speaking of which, I've just given away my copy of the latter in anticipation of acquiring Columbia's recently-released SE DVD); also, it seems to me that some of the footage illustrating the bird's rampage in New York here were lifted from the destruction of Washington seen in that earlier sci-fi classic! Again, the leads are played by genre regulars \u0096 namely Jeff Morrow (from THIS ISLAND EARTH [1955]) and Mara Corday (from TARANTULA [1955]); as with the afore-mentioned FLYING SAUCERS, these titles are highly-regarded and beloved by fans \u0096 consequently, they are vastly superior to this lamentable addition to the alien\/monster animal cycle prevalent during the sci-fi heyday and beyond (incidentally, other flying menaces were featured in THE FLYING SERPENT [1946], which I haven't watched, and Larry Cohen's tongue-in-cheek updating of same in Q: THE WINGED SERPENT [1982]).

Unfortunately, THE GIANT CLAW can't even rise to a decent climax \u0096 which is so rushed as to be \"a wash-out\", to quote a jet pilot from the film itself whose assault with rockets on the bird proves completely ineffective (that is, before Morrow realizes that it's shielded by an invisible barrier and then has to figure out a way how to be able to penetrate it). Ultimately, apart from the intractable (and frankly tedious) technical asides, one gets a feeling of \"so bad, it's good\" watching this: after all, it only lasts for 74 minutes \u0096 and, in any case, the bird is such an unforgettably daft creation as to put a huge smile on your face every time it turns up!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Personally, I have no problem with the acting, nor the script. I do have a problem with the giant bird. It was simply AWFUL. Plain and simple.

One's first impulse is the roll around laughing when one sees it. What were they thinking!? Budget be damned. The monster bird was a monstrous joke.

Of course, in my opinion if the producers could obtain actors such as Ankrum, Corday and Morrow, then they would have the special effect people come up with a much better beast. Oh well. What is done is done. This will be the case of the eternal joke on them that was unintended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Largely forgettable monster film from the 50s features truly awful special effects -- the \"claw\" in question is a giant puppet that would make Jim Henson want to kill himself. I just saw the movie last Thursday and I can't even tell you who was in it. That's a bad sign. I'm told that when the movie premiered audiences laughed it off the screen.... and that was in the 50s when standards in special effects were much lower. Basically I should have walked out of the theater as soon as the words \"produced by Sam Katzman\" came on the screen if I knew what was good for me, but then I sat through \"Harum Scarum\" also so I guess I deserve it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one awful movie!! Some people told me that it was not that bad actually but I sure disagree! The monster is amazingly cheap (and funny) looking but this is something we all knew I guess. In addition to that, the dialogs are awful and the writing is just plain terrible.

As bad as it is, this movie as the quality of being entertaining. Not always for the good reasons but it's a good \"so bad that it's fun\" flick.

By the way, there's no such thing as \"La Castagne\". According to a secondary character in the film named Pierre (described in the movie as a French Canadian), there's a legend among French Canadians about a giant bird know as \"La Castagne\". As a French Canadian myself, I can assure you that I never heard of such a legend. It sure made me laugh though... :))","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wish I could have voted this movie a ten, it's that funny. If they had intended for it to be that funny I would have given it a ten. I have to give it a 1, but it's the funniest darn 1 you'll ever want to watch. See the giant blur flash across the screen! Where did it come from? What is it? It flies, it terrifies, it's electrifying, it's on strings! This bird has real personality. I was about ten when I saw it for the first time, and when Big Bird appeared on Sesame Street, I was sure they were one and the same!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this movie when I was about 12 when it came out. I recall the scariest scene was the big bird eating men dangling helplessly from parachutes right out of the air. The horror. The horror.

As a young kid going to these cheesy B films on Saturday afternoons, I still was tired of the formula for these monster type movies that usually included the hero, a beautiful woman who might be the daughter of a professor and a happy resolution when the monster died in the end. I didn't care much for the romantic angle as a 12 year old and the predictable plots. I love them now for the unintentional humor.

But, about a year or so later, I saw Psycho when it came out and I loved that the star, Janet Leigh, was bumped off early in the film. I sat up and took notice at that point. Since screenwriters are making up the story, make it up to be as scary as possible and not from a well-worn formula. There are no rules.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Giant Claw is in fierce competition with films like, 'Robot Monster' and 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' for worst film of all time. A phony looking giant vulture attacks 'Lionel Trains' in this completely unconscious film. The script is so bad that everything the characters say to one another is ridiculous. It's no wonder that this film is a prime target in the movie, \"It Came From Hollywood,\" where this gem is hammered for the line, 'A Bird As Big As A Battleship', with gleeful, endless needling. The line pops up relentlessly through the course of the film, so there's no escaping it. There are several shots from, 'The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms' and 'Earth vs. The Flying Saucers' among other sci-fi films from the 50's to beef up the scraggly vulture's attacks. At one point the big vulture is responsible for a few deaths, so the military puts the entire world under martial law and no one is allowed to go out of their homes. Of course, the huge buzzard is mainly concerned with pursuing the stars of this classic, Jeff Morrow & Mara Corday, wherever they might be. Yet the director is so lame that he doesn't even provide for a few honey shots of pretty Mara in a decent dress and black heels for a little relief from the tedium of this zero star thriller. That's the second time this blunder has been made. In 'Tarantula', Mara Corday struts around in hot dresses for the whole film, but is relegated to pants throughout, 'The Giant Scorpion'. The budget for this film must have been not more than thirty or forty thousand dollars and I doubt whether Morrow or Corday got more than three thousand to make it. It looks like the whole thing was shot right out of somebody's garage.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Before we start, may I say I hope you've already eaten when you're reading this. Why? Because, after I'd seen this film for the first time, the bird's look and sound made me want to eat chicken after the words 'The End' had appeared on the screen. So don't say you weren't warned.

Fred Sears might have directed \"Earth vs. the Flying Saucers\" (an okay film and one of the bigger examples for Tim Burton's \"Mars Attacks\"), but \"The Giant Claw\" is not that giant a film. Yes, it's a prehistoric monster that flies in the air, attacks planes and cities and occasionally treats itself to a man on a parachute. The beast is giant except in the scenes where it's considerably smaller, but who needs consistent proportions in a movie? Scary? It could have been, but not if the plot is hopelessly silly and the monster looks like like a puppet that ran away from Sesame Street.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is a truly terrible sci-fi\/horror film from 1957. In fact, despite Ed Wood, Jr.and his dreadful films getting a lot of publicity, this turkey is every bit as bad as the worst of Wood. Now the acting is a bit better than you'd find in the Wood epics (such as PLAN 9 and BRIDE OF THE MONSTER), but the special effects managed to be significantly worse than Wood's! However, bad movie aficionados will be happy to hear that it's so bad that it's still excellent viewing. Like a Wood film, it's great to watch this crap-fest and laugh along with your friends.

The film begins with a scientist flying about doing some testing in his jet. However, out of nowhere, a UFO streaks by and his report of this over the radio triggers a panic by the Air Force. However, later, they realized that the UFO didn't appear on the radio and they think the scientist is a nut! But, when soon after this planes start disappearing all over, they realize there must be something to his sighting.

So far, the film isn't great but it's watchable. However, by the time the horrible flying monster appears, you know you're watching a turkey. First, through horrid use of stock film and crappy models, airplanes keep changing mid-flight. Some may not be bothered by this, but with airplane lovers like me, seeing an F-80 turning into an F-86 to an F-102 fighter plane made me crazy--especially since the planes look nothing like each other. Second, through \"clever\" cinematography, all you really see of the monster is a ball of fuzz for half the film! This is frustrating and you hope that when you finally do see it clearly, it will be worth the wait. Well, no such luck!! The \"monster\" looks less realistic or scary than the duck from Groucho's \"You Bet Your Life\" TV show!! In fact, it's significantly less realistic than any of the Japanese giant monsters!! In fact, Big Bird from \"Sesame Street\" is even a bit scarier and realistic!!! It's just god-awful in every way and might just be the dumbest movie monster in history--about as bad (or worse) as the monsters in ROBOT MONSTER or TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE!!! The bottom line is that this is an absolutely dreadful film that sane people won't like. Bad film fans like me (who are a crazy bunch) will probably love it! All others...be afraid,....be VERY afraid!!

FYI--You might notice that some clips in this film are from other sci-fi movies!! I am positive the crashing Washington Monument scene was stolen from EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS but I also saw a couple other scenes that I swear are from other films. What a hack job!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This terrible moovie is fun on many levels - the moost obvious is the lame, fake-looking bird puppet which floats around the cheap sets, without ever flapping it wings (like it was on a string, perhaps?), attacking model trains and toy cars. The \"science\" is asinine - a masonic atom gun?? And what's up with the enormous amounts of Brylcream in everyone's hair? I guess the 50's were the Slimeball decade! Well, this bird puppet apparently comes from \"some god-forsaken anti-matter universe\", and it's here to build a nest & lay eggs in New York. Seriously. That they manage to kill the puppet is almost a shame. I give it 1 hoof out of 4 - it's silly and stupid, but moore fun than Armageddon. :=8)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is one of the most laughably bad films I've ever seen. I cannot believe whoever wrote the review above was serious. Perhaps he was connected with making it. It doesn't have anything going for it. There is no suspense, the acting is dire, the direction hopeless. The music score (?) is three trite notes played ad nauseam. The plot (?) must have taken all of five minutes to write. The dialogue is what a 10-year-old would come up with if asked to do a homework project. The only (slightly) redeeming feature is the actor playing the psycho himself, who grimaces, trembles and gurns magnificently and thus is amusing at times. The only reason you would be on the edge of your seat would be if you were suffering from a weak bladder. Don't waste your time.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Without a shadow of a doubt this is and probably will always be the worst film i have ever had the missfortune to see my whole life. Take 5 wooden actors who got thrown out of acting school because they were so wooden someone sat on them thinking they were a bench.

Then add a cheap camcorder. You know the old VHS types that cost \u00a320 on ebay. Add a terrible story line with no effects and yes you have this film. What a shocker it was. They couldn't even save it by having a fit girl in it. She was fat and ugly and was the worst of all. I actually watched it all as i could not believe this crap ever got funded.

MISS AT ALL COSTS","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"San Franpyscho: 1 out of 10: So you want to make a serial killer movie. But your budget is non-existent, your camera equipment is elderly and your stars are Joe Estevez (Martin Sheen's younger brother and a staple in really bad movies) and Todd Bridges from Different Strokes. There are probably ways to pull of at least a watchable film. The Quiroz brothers have no clue.

First of all much of the cast seems to have been chosen in a desperate attempt to make Bridges and Estevez look like Oscar caliber thespians. Really how hard is it to play a priest or an overbearing mother? Certainly a city the size of San Francisco has a few professional actors willing to work for a few bucks and a screen credit. Clearly Chris Angelo and Bonnie Steiger who play these roles have other talents such as landscaper or waitress they ought to be fine tuning.

Joe Rosete as the killer (yes the serial killer is simply known as \"The Killer\") is also pretty awful in a mentally ill method kind of way but I am almost willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as his character is written with zero style or personality. A boring almost laughable serial killer is a problem for a serial killer movie.

In addition the Quiroz brothers seem to have originally planned this as an ABC Family movie of the week. There is no nudity or violence to speak of and the R rating clearly is for the adult style pacing. This move meanders like an 85 year old woman driving with wraparound sunglasses and her turn signal on. The only occasional horror comes from lighting Estevez's face with a glare that makes it look like his lower jaw was removed.

I wasn't expecting a great film when I rented San Franpyscho but I wasn't expecting mind numbing boredom either.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie was pretty bad. It's not so much a script problem. It's just that the movie is really boring in terms of pacing. The movie just seems to plod along at a slow, agonizing rate. The story in San Franpsycho is that there's a serial killer on the loose who is killing morally corrupt individuals (maybe I read too much into it, but hey, it's my nature apparently) after The San Franpsycho kills a pair of people under the Golden Gate Bridge we're introduced to one of the main characters of the film: Joe Estevez (brother of Martin Sheen) as a curmudgeony cop named Bill Culp. Bill is currently trying to hunt down the killer (seriously he doesn't have a name, he's just The Killer), and he is trying to coerce a local news reporter named Rita to help him with his investigation, Bill is the stereotypical hard-edged cop and he threatens Rita to throw her in jail for obstruction of justice. Anyway a few scenes pass by and suddenly Rita finds a letter left by the psychopath (He's a cold blooded psychopath!) and she has a change of heart and tells Bill and his partner Joe about it and help them with the investigation.

The movie tries to be a taut murder-thriller, but sort of just fails at that. It's much like the movie The Black Dahlia it tries to be tense but it just is unbelievable in terms of that. The movie tries to be serious throughout, but it has scenes like where The Killer masturbates (obviously a fan of gore porn what with lines like: \"ooh blood on her\" or something to that effect) and Joe Estevez hitting the table going: \"He's a cold blooded murderer!\" I admit to chuckling more than once at the movie, even though I'm sure it was intended to be a deadly serious movie.

One of the only positive points the movie has going for it is the fact that I didn't pay money to see it (huzzah netflix). And it's sad because I could see some good in their movies after watching The Damned. Sure the movie had its fair share of flaws, but it was enjoyable. Sadly though San Franpsycho has nothing going for it. Granted it has an okay script it's nothing too grand, but it could've been interesting. Instead what you get is a murder thriller that fails to thrill or have even vaguely enjoyable deaths. Also the other reviews claim that the movie has \"a great twist ending that's shocking\" apparently I was watching a different movie because by about the one hour mark I sort of figured out what was going to happen. The ending didn't shock me in the least bit. I would go on insulting this wreck of a movie but I don't think I will. Long story short this movie is a boring uninspired thriller (I use that term loosely) that fails to have the \"Hitchcockian thrills\" that another reviewer claims to have a predictable ending, bland deaths, acting with all of the emotion of a plank of wood, and a decent soundtrack.

I'm sure others will try to defend this with the usual: It was a low budget movie, they did the best they could with such a low budget, and all that other nonsense. But when you get right down to it there was very little that they could've really spent that budget on, there was very little special effects work, the soundtrack sounds like it might've been recycled from Hood of the Living Dead or The Damned, and it's the same damn crew from those two films. This movie really reminds me a lot of another low budget flick that was no good, and it was called Mr. Jingles, the two are about the same quality, they fail to deliver anything close to enjoyment and should fade quickly into obscurity.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"go get your camcorder, your little brother, and the disturbing neighbor next door who throws boiling water on raccoons; and you got yourself a film! well, that's what these guys thought anyway. it was so bad i can't even remember the majority of it except for flashbacks comparable to someone who toured in 'Nam. despite the really corny title, the horrible quality, the terrible actors, and the clich\u00e9 writing, i think this movie isn't the worst i've ever seen. i'm saving that slot for everything with steven seagal, chuck norris and jean-claude van dam. anyhow, if you are out of options when it comes to finding new \"horror\" films that you haven't seen 1,000 times already, (as i was) and you are debating this one, i would still skip this. it had absolutely no redeeming qualities. this mock serial killer thriller was a weak, puny attempt at an even B film. if they're really lucky it might make the wal-mart $4.50 bin. but, i highly doubt it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I hope this isn't a portent of things to come. High-definition camcorders are getting cheaper all the time (although I wouldn't swear that's what was used here), so it's open season for all the wannabe Scorseses and Tarantinos.

There is no hiding the cheapness of this stinker, and calling it a 'film' would be doing the industry a big disservice. The photography is of a standard you would expect on a family outing to the zoo. I could build me a new house with all the wooden acting. What's remarkable about that is that nobody stands out as the worst. They are all equally terrible. Like a whole bunch of Ben Afflecks. Or Steven Seagals.

What hooked me was the title. I'm a sucker for this sort of thing, like Frankenhooker, or Monsturd. Frankenhooker was pretty bad, too, but at least I got some laughs out of it, and the acting was merely bad, not awful. I can't comment on Monsturd as I've yet to get hold of a copy of it.

Anyway, I hope the people who made this didn't make any money from it. Else they might be encouraged to try it on again. Please, guys, pawn the camcorder and go back to your regular job.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"With David Arquette starring you would immediately think this to be a stupid movie. Well, it is a stupid movie with a horrid script. But the F\/X, namely the eight legged freaks, makes this flick a hoot to watch. A tribute, albeit on the silly side, to those great mutant creature features of the 50s. Arquette and Sheriff Sam(Kari Wuhrer)summon help in fighting off the toxic waste induced giant spiders wreaking havoc on their tiny town in Arizona. Also in the cast are Doug E. Doug, Rick Overton, Leon Rippy and the charming Scarlett Johansson.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My expectations were high after seeing the trailer. They were even higher when i saw the movie had the same director as independance day and godzilla. The special effects in independence day were much better then in this movie. The whole movie I was waiting for the spiders to show up. The rest of the storyline was really boring. And when the spiders came, they had a very amateuristic look, like the special effects were from a movie made in the 60's. I didn't watch the whole movie. When it was played for about one hour I switched off my DVD-player. I watch 3 movies almost every night, and I have never walked away from a movie, even if it was that boring. The only thing good in this movie was the pretty sheriff :) That's why I voted 2 instead of 1 :) So don't go see this one, instead you should go out and rent Starship Troopers, it's like the same only 10.000 times better.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not going to say the story of the movie as some people do. I'm pretty sure people who read this will know what the storyline is. I'm also not going to go on and on about everything thats wrong with this movie, because I'll be here for ages if I do. The storyline is typical, and the special effects are below today's standards. This is not a movie you should watch if you are a serious movie buff (as most of us here are) little things will annoy you the whole movie and ruin the experience. If your a casual movie watcher, who likes to have a good time when they are watching a flick, then this movie is perfect for you, lots of fun. It would also be a good movie to take a partner to. Just not for us movie buff's.

5 out of 10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eight Legged Freaks is a modern monster movie, like a remake of any of the old 'Attack of the giant [INSERT ANIMAL HERE]'-movies of the 50s, 60s and 70s. Or rather, it should have been more like a remake of the, instead of what is was. So, how is a monster movie done in the year 2002? Well, from the typical opening with some chemical making the spiders grow to huge proportions, they mix movies like Gremlins, Jurassic Park, Starship Troopers and flavor it with some parody like Scary Movie. Gremlins is probably the best comparison, but Eight Legged Freaks was so full of parodies and stupid jokes that it was sometimes more like Scary Movie. It was way too much, at least if you're looking for a monster movie and not just another parody movie filled with jokes.

For a movie like this you don't expect much of the acting, and that is just the way it was. The story though was extremely thin, with just a bunch of loosely connected events to show off some action mixed with all of the jokes, leading up to an easily spotted and corny ending.

I rate Eight Legged Freaks a 4\/10, and that includes the fact that the special effects where pretty good and that the noises the spiders made where hilarious.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Somehow, I really thought that I was going to enjoy this film because I love pictures with mountain climbing and a great mystery in the plot. I must say that the photography was fantastic and there was some scary scenes that captured my attention. I thought that Nicole Eggert,(Diana Pennington),\"Thank You, Good Night\",'01 played a very convincing role as a young girl who had a tragic loss in her life and meets up with some characters who want her to guide them up the mountain. Marc Singer, \"Angel Blade\",'02, played a very unconvincing weird guy and over acted in many scenes with a bad temper that looked comical. This film was a big disappointed and not worth watching, unless there is nothing on the TV to ENJOY!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The limited scenery views were the only saving grace to an otherwise uneventful and boring movie. The acting was borderline absurd which I blame on the script and screenplay. Nicole Eggert didn't look the part, didn't act the part, and was totally unconvincing as a mountain guide. After watching this I was left with the feeling that some friends had some free time and decided to make a movie. It must have been produced on a budget of pocket change. The plot was thin at best and with the low caliber of acting at times it begged the question to be asked, \"Why are we doing this?\". I managed to sit through the entire movie but also asked myself, \"Why?\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"So I caught this one afternoon as \"What Lies Above\" and actually watched it because the beginning was somewhat promising. The heroine, Diana Pennington, is a mountain climbing expert...but that doesn't help her when her fianc\u00e9 Brian gets hurt on a climb. When she goes off to get help and returns, he disappears from the mountain, never to be seen again.

Two years later, Diana is still a climber...but she won't go near Snowman's Pass. That is, until Curt Seaver appears and tells her that he can find the body of her lost fianc\u00e9 with a new satellite program. She agrees and they take off up the mountain with Curt's two assistants: His \"bodyguard\" Hugo and the computer whiz Tyler. From the start, you know that there's some ulterior motive going on, but unfortunately the twists aren't good and lead to a laughably bad chase sequence that makes up the last 20 or 30 minutes of the movie.

The major disappointments are the red herrings, most of which have supernatural undertones that never come to fruition. The object from the sky that fell into the mountains (which turns out to be not so supernatural), the story of how Snowman's Pass came to be, and the most memorable one of them all: Diana's dream sequence halfway through the movie. But what disappointed me most is where they dropped the ball. The majority of the movie revolves around the search for Brian, that's why I can't for the life of me begin to understand why the mystery of what exactly happened to him and where he was is never solved through the course of the movie. This was the major plot. This was how the movie STARTED! How do you NOT wrap that up?

I wouldn't tell too many people to bother with this one...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I caught this film -- under the title of \"What Lies Above\" -- on Lifetime movie network last night, and just had to comment on it. Designed as a resourceful-woman-in-peril, action adventure yarn, it is so unintentionally funny (thanks in large part to Marc Singer's scenery-chewing hammy performance)that I thought I was watching a cross between \"Cliffhanger\" and \"Home Alone 5.\" Heroine Nicole Eggert makes her devious but dumb as dirt male pursuers look like the Three Stooges succumbing to her ridiculous makeshift booby traps (somehow she manages to devise a swinging battering ram with rope and a log in a matter of minutes, which temporarily takes out one of the knuckleheads who want to kill her). Worth watching for a hearty laugh.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this on a boring Sunday morning just this morning. Well I was drawn to the fact that it's an outdoor movie.. I was hoping to find some nice sceneries but it the views where just limited.. They just go back and forth in the same spot all over again.. I hate it when they're using this so called hi-tech stuffs like the this Motorola blue-tooth headset they're using to eliminate the use of a walkie talkie it was just so funny.. they look like amateurs. And they where like advertising those badly designed alien-ware Laptops that could link up to a satellite to find people.. I couldn't say more about this TV-movie.. The ending was bad that it looks like they cut it short eliminating the use of rescue helicopters and etc.. *\/**********","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILER ALERT.

This movie will spoil your afternoon or \"wee small hours of the morning\" viewing slot.

I like Marc Singer. He has portrayed good characters in the roles I have seen. Until this movie.

What starts as a promising movie soon disappears up itself with the disastrous cgi'd background and the extreme close up on the person about to die...

Then it gets worse.

A lot worse.

To describe it as hammy acting would insult pigs. This movie goes to the bottom of the ham barrel and scrapes the acting off there.

Apart from Marc Singer's overcooked hamming it up, Mike Dopud stomps and plods around the scenery looking as if he is afraid he might fall on the rocks and his wide-eyed 'manic' bad guy just makes him look like a moron. He isn't menacing at all.

George Stults looks like a deer caught in the headlights. He claims to have been threatened by the other two but his character would have been threatened by a cashier offering him \"paper or plastic\".

This is really a vehicle for Nicole Eggert as an independent woman getting her life back despite attracting the wrong sort of man... She was unremarkable.

This is not a remake but this is remarkably similar to \"Cliffhanger\" - seasoned guide, loses someone in a fall, conscience pricked to help out someone else, a missing treasure worth oodles of money and a gang of n'er-do-wells who exploit the guide. Except Cliffhanger was a great vehicle for Stallone and Lithgow. I must admit, Lithgow stole the show.

Even the unintentional comedy was poor. There were times when I wasn't sure if they were using a rubber-faced model as a stand-in for Singer as he tried in vain to storm the weather station (no pun intended). Pressing his face to the door post and his clumsy manner in general did nothing to help his character.

Avoid.

No, seriously, avoid it. Save 96 minutes of your life and do something else more constructive like watching paint dry or grass grow. Or just close your eyes and examine the backs of your eyelids for 90 minutes...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Gotta add a comment to this one!!!

First, ironically, one needs to add the \"spolier alert\" to conform to IMDb's parameters, but there is absolutely nothing here to be \"spoiled.\"

There are six characters: the good-looking gal whose the A-list mountain guide in the area of the \"climb,\" and apparently among all guides (including Mt. Everest Sherpas) on the planet; her lost love, who disappeared from the titled pass two years prior, whom the party is purportedly seeking, but never find; her store-owner friend, also a guide, who may be better than a Sherpa but no match for her; the weird lead actor who engages her services, and says they'll find her long-missing love in the bargain; his one associate, a computer hacker with purportedly limitless expertise, of a level sufficient that Gates might seek advice from him; and his other colleague, a bodyguard who apparently has an IQ not even near three digits.

There are, of course, nefarious goings-on, and the secret quest of the lead actor is to gain recovery of a satellite which has fallen in the \"Pass,\" and has world-altering and unique data to bring them untold riches. Exactly what is never revealed.

Overacting abounds, the script looks like something which might get a C- in a freshman writing class (but an F if submitted at a higher level), and the thespians gnaw every piece of scenery like a horde of beavers.

The most interesting aspects of this movie for me was juxtaposing portions with three other flicks or roles I've seen.

First, the mysterious, undisclosed secret data makes one recall \"The Spanish Prisoner,\" an A-list\/Mamet film, surrounding a valuable corporate \"process,\" never specifically clarified, but better for it. Definitely not so here.

Second, the lead biscuit proved perhaps even more resourceful then \"Rambo\" in dealing quickly when menaced later in the presentation.

Third, I remember a Steven Seagal flick (don't recall the title) where he was semi-conscious and abed for about 1\/3 of the time, and fully-comatose for another 1\/3. Although I've not sought viewing a lot of his work, I've seen enough to have noted that while comatose, he provided the best work he ever has, and most in-line with his laconic persona. In this opus, while awake, the young hacker may have been the most engaging personality on-screen, but while indisposed and incapacitated during the latter portion, and unable to emote, he provided the best acting during this seemingly unending two hours.

Take the thin, silly basis for a plot here. Imagine it being compressed into, say, a lbit on SNL, with Gilda Radner, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Martin Short in the four roles. They could get record laughs with few changes to the dialog here.

The most interesting aspect in the last analysis is contemplating what information could have been in the spy satellite to be worth \"even billions\" to any of many nations, and yet rendered worthless (according to the guru hacker) if simply placed upon the internet, with no apparent consequences thereafter? Even a turkey like this one should have at least a small trace of logic somewhere. This one is totally devoid.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Charlie Chaplin responds to open auditions at Lodestone Studios. Rival Ben Turpin arrives at the same studio, obviously another unemployed comedian! Turpin tries to horn in on Chaplin's action after the studio head hollers, \"Next!\" Chaplin manages to walk in over Turpin, however. Charlie amusingly manages to botch jobs as an actor and carpenter. In the end, he manages to get a big break, but will a star be born?

There are a lot of jokes involving the buttocks. The initial scene involving slapstick from Chaplin and Turpin is a relative highlight. Note that Gloria Swanson is the typist in the far background left on your screen, in the film's opening. Agnes Ayres also appears.

*** His New Job (2\/1\/15) Charles Chaplin ~ Charlie Chaplin, Ben Turpin, Charlotte Mineau","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rabbit Fever is a mockumentary collection of sketches, each one of them focussing on a female personal device that was made popular by a single 1998 episode of Sex and the City (the latter half of 1998, rather than the early episodes which were all directed by women). From opening statistics that make Rabbit Fever sound like a soft porn movie, we are treated to a sea of predictable sketches with real and imaginary characters in a world run amok with women's addiction to solitary pleasure.

Men, as Germaine Greer rather arrogantly explains, have invented a gadget for women that makes men superfluous in the bedroom. The Rabbit Vibrator (which some statistics suggest accounts for about a quarter of all vibrator sales) is so called because of little rabbit-like long ears which vibrate to stimulate the clitoris, while rotating pearls inside the shaft stimulate the inside of the vagina. The film interviews characters that attend Rabbits Anonymous to help overcome their 'addiction', as well as known people such as Tom Conti posing as a professor or Richard Branson (amid scenes of rabbits being banned on aircraft) saying he would like to provide free rabbits to his first class air travel passengers and ultimately to all of them.

The main weakness of the film is that the idea is not enough to sustain 85 minutes of cinema, the sketches don't have the writing skills of say a Charlotte Church or Ricky Gervais to make them funny enough and, while it might make desultory late night TV, doesn't have a hook to get people to queue up in public at multiplexes to watch masturbation jokes.

Lines like, \"It's been nearly a week since you used your rabbit - how are you coping?\" wear rather thin after five minutes. The film is based on the idea that the mere mention of the word 'rabbit' will get a laugh . . . and another one, and another one. Frantic midnight drives to buy batteries might be amusing in real life, but here they look rather laborious, and the special emergency delivery service outstays its welcome.

Strangely the BBFC gave it an 18 certificate in spite of zero violence, hardly any explicit sex, and sexual references that are less 'perverted' than any late night comedy show. The company protested the decision, but the BBFC didn't budge. At first sight this seems overkill on their part and their consumer advice now simply says, \"Contains frequent strong sex references.\" One might think that youngsters would find masturbation jokes funnier than the most desperate of hen night parties, and the topic one worthy of debate; but Rabbit Fever does not even have the saving grace of a balanced approach to its subject matter.

The best part is probably The Rabbit Song by Ruocco (who play a band called Thumper in the film). For those who have dozed off and woken up at the end credits, there is a bonus scene at the end of them to reassure them that they haven't missed anything.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rabbit Fever is one of those film oddities. It's an enjoyable 90 minutes, demands little of the viewer, and delivers as much, and on any terrestrial television channel even in a prime time slot I think that Rabbit Fever would be rather well received. Which makes me wonder why it has been pushed into cinemas.

The movie is filmed in the style of a television documentary, and introduces us to 6 women who have am addictive relationship with the Rabbit Vibrator. The film is primarily focused on investigating a supposed addictive quality to the famous sex aid product. The narrative is 100% tongue in cheek throughout.

The storyline is strong, an introduction to some well rounded and likable characters, some enjoyable back-story, peripheral characters and situations develops into an engaging story, and pleasing conclusions. Sadly there's nothing that feels clever or new.

Rabbit Fever has some sharp moments, a few switches that hint at what the writers are capable of, and all credit to them it's not just 90 minutes of knob gags and innuendo, I could probably watch it with my mother. But there's a laziness about some of the scenes that holds it back, those moments went you are up for it, when you want it to be outrageous, and all you get is a dollop of sit-com.

I chuckled, I left the theatre feeling empathy for the characters, but I also left with the bitter thought that someone had taken a 90 minute reel of made for TV, light entertainment and tried to put it into national cinema.

I think Rabbit Fever achieves some of what it set out to do, it's a quirky subject, a rounded storyline, a well presented cast and a good diversion for 90 minutes. But there's nothing in this that can justify the extravagance of a movie theatre environment. Quite the opposite - a few commercial breaks would have given the viewer chance to grab a breath of life that Rabbit Fever seems to lack.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I saw this in a preview screening and have to say that this documentary style movie is the biggest load of tripe I have ever seen.

Completely unfunny, low budget, boring, rubbish script, terrible acting - The entire audience (young and old) sat through the film comatose without laughing for most of it... there were literally only about 2 places you will laugh in the entire movie

Many people left halfway - Can't blame them... I stayed thinking that the film would pick up, however, it never did and I wish I'd left.

The humour was really lame and I am surprised that this ever made it on to the big screen. I am not someone who is offended by the adult content of this movie at all - It just wasn't funny. The people who made this movie really don't deserve your money, so please don't pay to see this film.

This isn't even funny enough to be shown on TV, let alone cinema...

I wanted to give it 0 out of 10, but the system won't allow it...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Not a balanced point of view. The director shouldn't express her opinion as truth. The movie has some criticism of Fujimori but it always gives him and his family the last words. So few critics of Fujimori were provided that it seems the only reason they were included was to be able to say the movie provides both views. But that is not the case.

The movie barely shows one of the massacres that Fujimori is accused of. And it gives him credit for the masterminding the murdering of the MRTA insurgents that took the Japanese embassy. It is well documented that the CIA did the planning. There is even pictures of a well known CIA strategist on the site published by Caretas magazine and other newspapers.

The fact that such well known information was not used by the director gives us a few possible conclusions: the director is pro-Fujimori and purposely and falsely chooses to give the credit to him; the director does not want viewers to note that the CIA and Fujimori worked together; or it was just out of ignorance since the director is not Peruvian and was not present in Peru at the time the events occurred.

The explanation provided by other commentators, that Fujimori is still fairly popular in Peru, does not excuse the lack of accuracy and balanced explanations.

Also, the statistics provided in the movie for the actual support of Fujimori were the highest I have ever heard of. Most statistics by major poll agencies are much lower.

Another point to mention is that the intelligence that was key in the capture of the leader of Sendero and discover the secret network was done by a police force led by Ketin Vidal and he had complete autonomy from Fujimori and Montesinos.

The first government of Fujimori did experience an improvement in overall economic trends (GDP) but this improvement was financed by the privatization of several national industries with contracts that were not beneficial for the country in the long term. Also, the gap between rich an poor continued to increase during Fujimori's regime. In his second term the economy was suffering and there was nothing else to privatize and by the end of Fujimori's second term the economy was about to collapse.

In terms of investments in infrastructure of Fujimori's regime, they fallow the paternalistic pattern. They were created to raise support for Fujimori but were not meant to last long. These structures needed continued maintenance but Fujimori did not provide political power for the civilians in order to demand further investment. In fact, Fujimori's regime was able to destroy most forms of political organizing such as unions and grass-roots groups and the increase in informal unorganized labor was immense.

Finally, the director chose to spend most of the movie talking to Fujimori instead of citing the cases of massive corruption in favour of Fujimori (the Media, Business Owners, the Military, etc) that were so wide spread it was impossible that Fujimori was not aware of it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"All the pro comments about this movie claim that the movie is balanced. That is their main justification to give a high rate to the movie. But a movie is not balanced when the main perpetrator analyzed is given the last world in every single subject. The director herself admitted to this at the first San Francisco film festival showing. She justified it by saying that she couldn't waste the chance of having access to Fujimori. That might be true but by showing so much of Fujimori's take on the issues makes the movie clearly pro-Fujimori and unbalanced. I dare any of the other commentators to prove this wrong Tips 1: claiming Harvard professors, intellectuals, and Latin American Diplomats agree with you does not help your argument (use logic). Tip 2: disagreeing with the director doesn't help your argument either (The director says she thinks Fujimori is charismatic and patriotic and therefore she portrayed him that way)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was looking for a documentary of the same journalistic quality as Frontline or \"Fog of War\" (by Errol Morris). Instead I was appalled by this shallow and naive account of a very complex and disturbing man and his regime: Alberto Fujimori. This movie should be called \"The return of Fujimori\". The director presumes she made a \"perfect\" movie because alienates both pro and anti-Fujimori factions when in fact it is a very biased and unprofessional piece of work.

The movie has few crucial facts wrong:

1) She uses the so called \"landslide\" election of 1995 in which Fujimori was re-elected with 65% of the vote, as an example of the massive popular support of Fujimori. But we all now know to be the fruit of a very organized electoral fraud.

2) The movie states that Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) killed 60,000 people. In fact, the Truth Commission's final report states that there were 69,280 deaths due to political violence in Peru. 33% of those were caused by SL. That leaves the other 67% in the hands of the police, military and other groups. The fact that she uses the same misleading information that Fujimori has been using for 10 years it is another example of how terrible this movie is.

For any person with some education on Peruvian politics and history, Fujimori is clearly a consummated manipulator, a delusional character and remorseless egomaniac. His regime was very far from being democratic. He is still a menace to Peruvians. Despite these facts the director lets Fujimori tell the story. Not only on how he wants the camera to be positioned but the narrative and direction of the film seem to be part of his political agenda. He always seems to have the last word. There are no journalistic \"cojones\", just soft questions and unchallenged remarks. Where is Oriana Fallaci when we need her? The director, when questioned after the screening, didn't hide the fact that she was deeply impressed by Fujimori, his charm and intelligence. Yes, she has been definitely charmed by him, and you can tell by looking at this film. It's obvious she has a very hard time to digest the multitude of facts that point towards his responsibility on the corruption, murder and deception that took place. She assured the gasping audience that Fujimori was really a \"patriot\" when few moments earlier, one of the leading Peruvian journalists was very adamant in telling us that Fujimori was, above all, a \"traitor\". She went on to say that despite all the accusations not \"a single dollar\" was found on any bank account on his name, etc, etc. It was like hearing again the same gang of ruthless thugs that ruled the country for 10 years defending their master. It was a sad moment for journalism.

This film makes injustice to history. It is an insult to hundreds of dead people, disappeared or unjustly incarcerated by Fujimori's regime. No wonder she later confessed that all the Peruvian intellectuals she befriended while making the movie felt betrayed by it. Unbiased? The words \"oportunistic\", \"na\u00efve\" and \"denial\" come to my mind instead.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A friend and I went to see this movie. We have opposite opinions about Fujimori but after watching this movie we agree on the following: the easiest way to have an inaccurate documentary is to make it about a foreign country in which you were not present when the events happened, no matter how talented or how much you invest in the film. If you are truly looking to learn about another countries history, watch something made by natives of that country otherwise you won't be able step away from your bubble. And those who try to force their views and opinions about something to which they don't belong are really abusing their power. To make it even worse, the director chose to not talk about the embarrassing involvement of the CIA with Fujimori's regime. She decides to evade dealing with the only subject for witch her country has much to explain to Peruvians. But this is not surprising because, both, the director and the CIA are violating the sovereignty of Peru by trying to affect the democratic processes at very different levels of course.

If the director was really interested in helping Peru she would have financed a native to make the documentary. In any case there are numerous Peruvian made documentaries, films and books about the subject. Such include \"Ojos Que No Ven\", \"Dias de Santiago\", \"Montesinos-Fujimori: Las Dos Caras de la Misma Moneda\", \"Montesinos: Poderoso Caballero\", etc. The director of the \"Fall of Fujimori\" should spend her time analyzing the numerous problems in her own country or at least the involvement of her country in the matters of other nations.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A friend and I went to see this movie. We have opposite opinions about Fujimori but after watching this movie we agree on the following: the easiest way to have an inaccurate documentary is to make it about a foreign country in which you were not present when the events happened, no matter how talented or how much you invest in the film. If you are truly looking to learn about another countries history, watch something made by natives of that country otherwise you won't be able step away from your bubble. And those who try to force their views and opinions about something to which they don't belong are really abusing their power. To make it even worse, the director chose to not talk about the embarrassing involvement of the CIA with Fujimori's regime. She decides to evade dealing with the only subject for witch her country has much to explain to Peruvians. But this is not surprising because, both, the director and the CIA are violating the sovereignty of Peru by trying to affect the democratic processes at very different levels of course.

If the director was really interested in helping Peru she would have financed a native to make the documentary. In any case there are numerous Peruvian made documentaries, films and books about the subject. Such include \"Ojos Que No Ven\", \"Dias de Santiago\", \"Montesinos-Fujimori: Las Dos Caras de la Misma Moneda\", \"Montesinos: Poderoso Caballero\", etc. The director of the \"Fall of Fujimori\" should spend her time analyzing the numerous problems in her own country or at least the involvement of her country in the matters of other nations.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For the first forty minutes or so, Luna is a real pleasure to watch. The characters and their situation are interesting and the photography and locations are beautiful to look at. Then Jill Clayburgh discovers her son Matthew Barry is using heroin and the movie starts to unravel and then becomes outright laughable in its sickness.

Clayburgh asks him why and when he started using the drug and she nor the audience ever get a straight answer, which would be a bit helpful. He mentions not caring about anything but that's not right because we see clearly in the amazing early scenes that he has a good deal of interest in his mother's singing, baseball, sex, and apparently cared enough to turn down marijuana. This movie is for people who think junior gets into hard drugs because mom and dad were workaholics who missed his piano recital. I think such a dangerous and emotionally volatile drug like heroin was chosen as some sort of intellectual catalyst for the later scenes of incest. There's a lot of discussion about the mother's love for the son but it's really about Bernardo Bertolucci being pretentious. Luna would have been great as a quaint little family drama.

How old was Matthew Barry in this movie? I was more concerned over the bizarre things he had to do as an actor for this film than for anything his character was going through. ** out of ****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The movie starts out a bit interested with the son interested in a teenage girl his own age. Clayburgh's timid-appearing husband is killed in car crash as she is getting ready to go to Rome and sing as a diva. Matthew objects but comes along. He connects with the young girl again but this time, Matt is on cocaine. His superb voice, lovely, impetuous mother is in the limelight. She doesn't know how to handle Matt's addiction. The movie drags on in search of a plot. Clayburgh is in the wrong role and Bertolucci may have had his head in the moon while directing the picture. The Moon has great symbolism.

Save your time. I am perhaps overly generous with 4*.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"11 years after this film was released only 5 people have reviewed it here on IMDb. There is a reason for this utter lack of interest in Across the Moon. It is coherent, but lacks all cinematic virtue. See this film for examples of terrible production in all respects. The opening credits for instance are white letters rising mechanically from a red background. The ending features Michael McKean staring out a prison window saying \"There's lots of mysteries out there.\" followed by a clip montage\/music video of all the uplifting moments in the tragically bad movie. Julinana Hatfield. Everything in between is awful. I struggled to find any value in this movie and have come up empty. Though it is hard to believe, even a cameo role from Burgess Meridith (always a crowd pleaser) only disappointed me further. This movie is like a mockery of what is special about movies. On paper the movie is below average. Women living together in a trailer. But what actually was produced was nearly unwatchable. The movie attempts to branch off in many directions but never follows through on any. The unappealing conflict of having their boyfriends in jail is never resolved. No conflict is ever resolved. There really is no conflict. The women attempt to become hookers, but that never happens. Instead they get jobs as a bartender and a shelf stocker. Sound exciting? IT wasn't. IT was stupid. And the bulk of the movie is the two women talking and generating contrived conflict. The women are capable actresses, but the script was beyond poor. Useless. This was a terrible movie, but it is even worst that they borough Burgess Meridith out of his retirement home to make it. Bad from start to finish. Like the lion without teeth, this film has no bite.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Unless you're into masochism, never see it. It was an insufferably long, pointless, eye-harming, depressing movie and will forever top my list of bad movies. Whoever wrote this movie is a sadist. I almost cried at the end, that's how bad it was. I'd like to give it zero stars, but since that's not an option, I give it one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Director Michael Ritchie and actor Robert Redford's second documentary-style drama, 'The Candidate', is a political satire that still seems fresh and pertinent today. So it's a pity that 'Downhill Racer', made a short time before, seems so dated by contrast. The music is ugly, and the perhaps innovative ski-ing sequences are now standard in televisual coverage of the sport. The world of ski-ing seems strangely amateurish (probably accurately, given the time the movie was made, but it's hard to relate to today's professional world), and the theme of Americans in Europe likewise seems hundrum in an age of ever easier travel. Perhaps the biggest problem is the flat plot, centred on the arrogant but enigmatic hero; unfortunately, it's a dreary performance from Redford, offering us little insight into his cares or motivations. And a character-driven film without much of a character is never a good bet. I expected much, but sadly this is a boring movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Rather like Paul Newman and Steve McQueen with their racing car movies this has all the appearance of a \"jollies\" project for Robert Redford, as he gets to ski up hill and down dale in the Alpine sunshine.

The story is as light as powdered snow with Redford's small-town boy David Chappellet (what kind of lead name is that?) who with his eyes on the prize of Olympic glory, gets up the nose of, in no particular order, his coach, father and team-mates. Women are a mere side-show in his insular world as evidenced by a fairly distasteful pick-up scene with an old girlfriend in his hometown and then his selfishly petulant pursuit of, heavens above, a free-thinking, independent woman, played by Camilla Sparv. The ski-ing sequences are fine with some good stunt-work involving numerous bumps and scrapes on the piste but their effectiveness is dimmed by our subsequent familiarity with top TV coverage of skiing events down to the present day. Plus I'm not convinced that the Winter Olympics has the same mass identification with the general public as the summer games so that when Redford eventually wins his gold medal in the final reel, I couldn't really be that excited for him one way or another.

Of the actors, Redford, best profile forward, doesn't need to do much and indeed doesn't, while Gene Hackman does better with equally meagre material. Ms Sparv does well as the chief female interest well who treats Redford the way he's doubtless treated every other woman in his chauvinistic way.

In truth though, there's a lack of dramatic tension throughout for which the action sequences don't fully compensate and you don't care a fig for any of the leading characters. One of those films where the actors probably enjoyed making it more than the viewers did watching it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What this film has is its realism , you really do get the feeling screenwriter James Slater has been doing his homework on the subject of downhill skiing while director Michael Ritchie shoots the movie in a fly on the wall documentary style . However the problem is unless you`re a big fan of the sport there`s not a lot in DOWNHILL RACER to grab your attention .

Before anyone asks why I watched it , I did so because it featured the great Gene Hackman in an early role but that`s not really a good enough reason for watching","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Downhill Racer is essentially, a movie to see only for the terrific skiing sequences. Although there is a story here, Robert Redford's character, a skier trying to make the U.S. Olympic team, is so bland and unsympathetic that you wonder why to care about him at all. Gene Hackman, in an early performance, adds nicely, but this is a film that could be watched with the sound off, and it wouldn't make much of a difference.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A real let down, the novel is such a brilliant stomach churning journey into madness but this made for TV movie style nonsense is turgid and painfully slow. Stick to Mike Hammer. I find it hard to believe that no body has made a brilliant version of this book, Kubrick gushes over it on the cover, he should have taken over the reins on this one. Stacey Keach is too soppy as Lou Ford, and the whole thing has the same production values as that seventies TV spin off, of Planet Of The Apes. I thoroughly recommend that you go out and buy lots of Jim Thompson novels though, actually The Grifters isn't done too badly, thats one of his, starring Jon Cusak.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"We get to see who the good guys are. The union. And who the bad guys are, a rich man who steals elections and his spoiled son. The filmmaker forces us to see good from evil. All the characters hate the bad guys so that when watching the film, this can help us along on hating the bad guys. This is the worst kind of film-making - manipulative and childish. The plot centers on a cop who is in-between the good and the bad, and he's stuck in this ugly film. It's boring and pointless. The narration by star Keach is really bad. And a good actor, Don Stroud, overacted to the hilt, playing the guy no one likes, and who we aren't supposed to like. It takes a long time for this bore to take off, and for the title to assert itself; then when it does take off, it crashes a minute later. Boring. One of the worst films ever made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie had the potential to be a decent thriller, but it was hampered by only having about twenty minutes worth of good script, which was mostly used up in the beginning. After that holes started to appear in the story that one could drive a truck through. The movie followed a descending curve from good to ordinary to bad to ludicrous by the time it concluded. It's not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It might be that the film I saw was entirely different from the one that the others saw, however as the actors are the same I can only think that the cut I saw in Europe differed from the one circulating in the US.

Anyway, this was the worst movie that I saw the past five years. (Closely followed by The Waterboy...)

Why: Because in my opinion this director has taken elements from every thriller preceding this one, mixed them, put the in the wrong order with the wrong music and published it.

(Examples: nothing happends, the music gets scary, and still nothing happends. The \"grumpy\" officer us grumpy in a way that would let the actor flunk any acting class. There\u00b4s a buddy-moment which comes out of nowhere at the end. There\u00b4s an inescapable scene and in the next scene all the problems are gone.)

If you want to see a smart movie: see Memento. If you want to see a better thriller: see any thriller that comes to mind. If you want to see Patrick Swayze: see Dirty Dancing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The worst movie I have ever seen. The sound quality was bad, the cutting of the scenes was even worse and above all it was not logic and it had no speed...

I first tought: \"Oh No, I don't want the trail that proves that poor Patrick was an innocent killer\". But this turned out to be even worse. Typically in this American film you get a super-hint or no hints at all. I want very tiny small hints that direct you to the killer. The audience isn't involved. And now, when I don't get any hints at all, you can expect a several 's\/he-is-the-killer' sweeps in the end. And that is not all. ah... This is hopeless, lets make an end to it...

In one word: Disgusting..

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Love Life\" explores a very culturally relevant scenario of a marriage of convenience between a lesbian and a gay man. I found the subject matter compelling, even if the conflict was a bit forced and too easily resolved. For example, Thomas falls for Joe a little too quickly and conveniently for the plot. There are many continuity errors: one other user commented on different cars in the garage, Joe's glasses...the one that got to me the most was the fact Joe's facial hair configuration seemed to change from scene to scene. In the end, I found myself more turned-on by this movie than moved. Stephan D. Gill has a pretty nice body and shows it all quite a few times with pornstar skill and exuberance, and all-too-often acting chops to match. Many times, the movie seems like it is going to go full-on porn. Stephanie Kirchen does a fine job, but her moment of enlightenment at the end was sullied a bit for me, since I was in the mood for a good romp in the shower by the end of this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What to say about this movie? A married couple has more then just each other. After playing around for some time things gets more serious. A difficult choice has to be made: continue the old situation or start all over by following the heart. Guess what happens at the end.

This movie seems to be very low budget. But a good story don't have to be expensive. It looks like a play that has been converted to a movie only by using several cheap locations (at least very little other people visible) more than just the stage, in this one the house. From the first minute future developments are clear as water. Nothing unexpected happens. Sometimes you may think watching a soft porn movie, in which case you know in advance that there's no story.

I find this movie disappointing so that's explains the vote (4).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There is no way to avoid a comparison between The Cat in the Hat and The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, so let's get that part out of the way. First of all, let me start by saying that I think Grinch was an underrated and unappreciated film. Cat was... well, just awful.

Jim Carey was cast because he is a brilliant physical comedian, and fearlessly commits to over the top, outrageous characters. Mike Myers fell back on his old bag of tricks.

Why, why, why Mike Myers?? The kids could care less, and the Austin Powers demographic isn't going to spy this film. So, what was the studio thinking?

The Cat was also apparently related to Linda Richmond. Can we talk? Why a New York Accent? Not entirely consistent with anything Dr. Seuss has ever written. Myers was even allowed to sneak in his Scottish shtick. I wonder how many different voices the director and the studio tried to edit out of before they just gave in and said \"as long as you don't say fahklempt', you can keep the accents.\" Meyers never seemed to find any sort of comfort, either with the costume, make-up, or dialogue.

The jokes, what few there were, were crude and age inappropriate. When Myers picks up a garden hoe and delivers to the camera: \"dirty ho\", everything but the rim shot was missing, and even that wouldn't have helped.

The same folks who created 'Whoville', clearly had a hand in the creation of the town and the houses in 'Cat'. The sets and props were very appealing, giving the viewer a much needed distraction from the bad writing, direction, and Myers.

There was some fun to be had with Alec Baldwin and Kelly Preston. Dakota Fanning was the only actor who seemed to be aware she was in a movie based on a Dr. Seuss classic, and stayed true to the genre.

Call the SPCA. This Cat should be neutered and never be allowed to reproduce again. Please, please, no sequel.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't get me wrong, I assumed this movie would be stupid, I honestly did, I gave it an incredibly low standard to meet. The only reason I even saw it was because there were a bunch of girls going (different story for a different time). As I began watching I noticed something, this film was terrible. Now there are two types of terrible, there's Freddy vs. Jason terrible, where you and your friends sit back and laugh and joke about how terrible it is, and then there is a movie like this. The Cat in The Hat failed to create even a momentary interest in me. As I watched the first bit of it not only was I bored senseless, but I felt as though I had in some way been violated by the horrendousness of said movie. Mike Myers is usually brilliant, I love the majority of his work, but something in this movie didn't click. One of the things that the director\/producers\/writers\/whatevers changed was that they refused to use any of the colors of the original book (red, black, white) on any character but the Cat. Coincidentally or not, they also refused to capture any of the original (and i hate to use this word, but it fits) zaniness of the original. The book was like an Ice Cream Sunday, colorful and delicious, and the movie was about as bland and hard to swallow as sawdust.

Avoid this like a leprous prostitute.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Film critics of the world, I apologize. It is your job to give advice to the moviegoing public so that they can wisely choose what to spend money on. But I ignored your advice and I have been deeply hurt. However, my decision to see \"The Cat in the Hat\" wasn't made haphazardly. You see, three years ago all of you critics said that we should all avoid the \"calamity\" known as \"How the Grinch Stole Christmas\". Then some friends of mine took me to see it and it turned out to be a colorful, funny and almost hypnotic yuletide treat. So when the critics unleashed their fury against \"The Cat in the Hat\", another big budget Seuss update with a big name star in the title role, I thought that it must be the same old song. How wrong I was.

For five whole minutes I thought I was in the clear. The opening credits are clever, the kids are charming and the production values are top notch. Then the cat showed up. There are many problems from this point on, but the biggest one was the woeful miscasting of Mike Myers. Where \"The Grinch\" was saved by the inspired casting of Jim Carrey, \"The Cat\" was destroyed by Myers. He can be very funny when his energies are applied where they belong, comic sketches. Every movie he's made that was truly funny was really just a feature length comedy sketch, from \"Wayne's World\" to \"Austin Powers\". So he tries to do the same thing here, it's just that these comedy sketches are more like the stuff that they stick at the end of SNL, not funny, just painful. Not that the writers helped him out any. After the charming prologue the movie turns into an hour of repulsive bodily humor gags, poorly timed pratfalls and insultingly stunted attempts at hip humor. This movie was the most disheartening cinematic experience I have ever had. Period. So much talent and work went into something so vile. I know that the adult stars of this movie will be relatively unscathed by this mess, I just hope that the wonderful Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning will get more chances to show their charms in far better movies. If you are a parent, please avoid this like the plague. With movies like \"Elf\" and \"Brother Bear\" currently in theaters, you have far better choices.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Audrey, I know you truly cherish your husband Ted's memory but PLEASE do his legacy justice and heed his wishes. Dr. Seuss refused to license his characters during his lifetime for a very good reason. We beg of you to please stop cashing in on his stories, images, fantasies and characters. They are getting disemboweled by the powers that be of Hollywood and Broadway. The children of tomorrow will be stuck with these histrionic and grotesque interpretations that will forever pollute the loving warmth and innocence of his books.

It is indeed your property to do with as you wish. I just wish you would listen to the advice of others for a little while. Save what is left of Dr. Seuss. Thank you.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The only good thing about this unfunny dreck is that I didn't have to pay for it. I saw it for free at college. And if a college student can't find humor in something that was free, it's hopeless.

Stale acting and poor jokes cannot be masked by an excellent, yet bewildering set design (that goes out of its way to market Volkswagon Beetles). I don't know what Michaels Myers was doing in this movie, but I have never seen anything more depressing. This was nothing more than a blatant effort to capitalize on the previous success of the Grinch (which has its opponents, but I enjoyed it very much). It's difficult not to sit through this failure and wonder what better projects were passed over to fund it.

You want a funny Seuss adaptation? Go with the Grinch.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you liked the Grinch movie... go watch that again, because this was no where near as good a Seussian movie translation. Mike Myers' Cat is probably the most annoying character to \"grace\" the screen in recent times. His voice\/accent is terrible and he laughs at his own jokes with an awful weasing sound, which is about the only laughing I heard at the theater. Not even the kids liked this one folks, and kids laugh at anything now. Save your money and go see Looney Tunes: Back in Action if you're really looking for a fun holiday family movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was physically painful to sit through, maybe because (like many people my age, and younger) I grew up with Dr. Seuss and loved his books - funny, clever, whimsical and subversive at the same time. \"The Cat in the Hat\" sucks all of the interest and spark out of the story, and Mike Myer's performance as the Cat is mostly bewildering. Why the Borscht Belt accent, the unfunny patter, the inappropriate jokes, the charmless costume? I had to go back and re-read the books to see the real problem: the books are SIMPLE. This movie is OVERBLOWN and way, way too long.

You don't expect every kids' movie to be Toy Story or The Iron Giant, but this one set a new low. How could Mike Myers need the money?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"From the acting, direction, scriptwriting and art direction this film is just entirely ill conceived and the money would have been better spent on shoes for land mine victims. When did we get so sad that they have to fill a a children's movie with sexual innuendo to keep the parents attention.

Dr Suess is rolling in his grave right now, what with the \"dirty ho\" \"S.H.I.T\" and fake erection scenes etc etc etc. Its shameful how they trade on the name of Suess to get the parents to bring their kids, throw in the profanities to try for the teens and a few sad parents who won't watch a a film with their child if there is no T & A. Greed greed and more greed.

Compare this to the classic children's films and we can get a disturbing view of world is turning into. These guys should stick to making MTV videos. How on earth this movie got >400 votes as a perfect 10 is beyond me. (unless its the directors family)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well the previews looked funny and I usually don't go to movies on opening night especially with my kids because ......well you never know. Here is a movie that doesn't appeal either to children or adults as the jokes are too perverse for children and falls completely flat for entertainment purposes for adults. I was actually embarrassed to be with my 9 and 6 year old and having to explain to my 6 year old what S H * T spells. Essentially what happens here is a total twisting of Dr. Seuss's classic. It adds an evil and lazy neighbor who wants to marry the children's mother for her money. If that was a subplot, then maybe that would have been fine but it ends up being the major plot around the whole movie and \"the cat\" plays more of a subplot role in exposing the neighbor to the mom for who he really is. Take my advice and read the book and pass on the movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Mean spirited, and down right degrading adaptation to the classic children's tale not only lacks the charm of its forefather but lacks any talent what so ever. Mike Myers should not only be ashamed of himself for his horrible performance that is a clear rip off of what Jim Carrey did but he should give up acting all together. He is so annoying that you would want to beat the crap out of him if you were able to jump right in the film. The sets are ugly and the cinematography is very poor. I have seen a lot of bad film this year, but this not only takes the cake but it is with out a doubt one the worse films ever made.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Inappropriate. The PG rating that this movie gets is yet another huge misstep by the MPAA. Whale Rider gets a PG-13 but this movie gets a PG? Please. Parents don't be fooled, taking an elementary school child to this movie is a huge mistake. There were numerous times I found myself being uncomfortable not just because the humor was inappropriate for kids, but also because it was totally out of the blue and unnecessary.

But all that aside, The Cat in the Hat is still a terrible movie. The casting and overall look of the movie are the only saving graces. The beautiful Kelly Preston and the always likeable (or hateable in this case) Alec Baldwin are both good in their roles even though Preston is almost too beautiful for a role like this. The kids are conditioned actors and it shows, especially with Dakota Fanning. Fanning is the only human aspect of the film that kept me watching and not throwing things at the screen.

Did I mention there was an oversized talking cat in this movie? Mike Myers is absolutely deplorable. I didn't like him as the voice of Shrek, and I truly believe now that Myers should not be allowed near the realm of children's films ever again. His portrayal of The Cat is a slightly toned down version of Fat Bastard and Austin Powers.

In the end, the cat should not have come, he should have stayed away, but he came, even if just for a day, he ruined 82 minutes of my life, 82 minutes of personal anger and strife.

The Cat in the Hat may be the worst kids movie ever.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The Cat in the Hat is just a slap in the face film. Mike Myers as The Cat in the Hat is downright not funny and Mike Myers could not have been any worse. This is his worst film he has ever been in. The acting and the story was just terrible. I mean how could they make the most beloved stories by Dr. Seuss be made into film and being one of the worst films of all-time and such a disappointment. I couldn't have seen a more worst film than this besides, maybe Baby Geniuses. But this film is just so bad I can't even describe how badly they made this film. Bo Welch should be fired or the writer should.

Hedeen's outlook: 0\/10 No Stars F","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie has made me upset! When I think of Cat in the hat. Im thinking of cat in the hat books. You know, the one from a few years back that parents read to thier children. Well, I though that this movie would be a lot like that! But much to my suprise was nothing like the books! Insted it is more like young adult humor movie. In one part cat is talking to a gardening tool (hoe) cat talks to it like it is his hoe (agin adult humor). the naming of his car I all so though was a little untastful for a kids movie. under the rating you'll find: mild cude humor and some double-entendres. I think in short this means adult humor. I wish I could return this movie! wal-mart said they wouldn't because the movie has been opened. If you are thinking about buying this I suggest that maybe rent before you buy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Bad. Bad. Bad. Those three lines sum up this crappy little film that can only attract idiot children and their parents to the cinema. and its... #1 Movie in America! What is this country thinking? Mike Myers looking more like Micheal Jackson. Some Chineese lady that falls asleep within 3 minutes. A lame plot with dirty jokes. It's grotesuque and awful. When Green-Eggs and Ham comes out in 2005 I'll be so happy! (not) Eddie Murphy and Tracy Morgan will probably play two hipsters trying to find the lost Green-Eggs and Ham. They'll try to chase Sam-I-Am and that mean guy who are running away with it. (I hope they don't ruin the classic book.) Don't waste time and money by seeing this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are plenty of comments already posted saying exactly how I felt about this film so Ill keep it short.

\"The Grinch\" I thought was marvellous - Jim Carrey is a truly talented, physical comedian as well as being a versatile clever actor (in my opinion). Mike Myers on the other hand gets his laughs by being annoying. I used to like him very much in his \"Waynes World\" and \"So I Married an Axe Murderer\" days - but Ive never been fond of Austin Powers and \"the Cat In The Hat\" has just finished me off.

This film was horrible - the gags were horrible! inappropriate for children not only in adult content but in the fact that some of them were so dated they havent amused anyone for 50 years! The plot was messy, messy, messy! Its a shame really because the children were very likeable as was \"Mom\". They probably could have picked a better villain than Alec Baldwin - but he could have pulled it off if it weren't for Myers ugly, revolting over-acted portrayal of the Cat.

I mean - did Myers even glance at a script? Was one written? The other actors seemed to have one - but the Cat just seemed to be winging it!

On the other hand I would like to mention that the sets and props were marvellous!!! But unfortunately they cant save this film.

Poor Dr Seuss - the man was a genius! Dont ruin his reputation by adapting his work in a such a lazy, messy way!!!

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just about everything in this movie is wrong, wrong, wrong. Take Mike Myers, for example. He's reached the point where you realize that his shtick hasn't changed since his SNL days, over ten years ago. He's doing the same cutesy stream-of-consciousness jokes and the same voices. His Cat is painfully unfunny. He tries way to hard. He's some weird Type A comedian, not the cool cat he's supposed to be. The rest of the movie is just as bad. The sets are unbelievably ugly --- and clearly a waste of millions of dollars. (Cardboard cut-outs for the background buildings would have made more sense than constructing an entire neighborhood and main street.) Alec Balwin tries to do a funny Great Santini impression, but he ends up looking and sounding incoherent. There's even an innapropriate cheesecake moment with faux celebrity Paris Hilton --- that sticks in the mind simply because this is supposed to be a Dr. Seuss story. Avoid this movie at all costs, folks. It's not even an interesting train wreck. (I hope they'll make Horton Hears a Who with Robin Williams. Then we'll have the bad-Seuss movie-starring-spasitc- comedian trilogy.)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The sun was not shining, it was too wet to play, so I went to the movies, that cold, cold, wet date day.

\"The Cat in the Hat\" was the name of the flick, and when it was over, my stomach was sick.

Mike Myers played the Cat, his humor was lame, and kids needn't see this, the humor was not tame.

the film was like drinking milk, from a rabid cow, so it IS fun to have fun, yet the filmmakers didn't know how.

This film, in short is atrocious. The acting was bad, the plot was tweaked too much, and the humor was surprisingly very crude.

It starts with Conrad and Sally, A rule breaker and a future sheriff. When their Mother has to go to work, she gets Mrs. Kwan to babysit. Possibly the lone funny part in the movie is when Mrs. Kwan is watching a Taiwanese court room, a `la C-SPAN. She soon falls asleep, and here comes the Cat.

The film starts to spiral out of control. The Cat came to try to let the kids have some fun. He's got Thing 1 and Thing 2, Who suddenly start trashing the house. He improvises a TV Infomercial, and accidentally slices his tail off. And when the Cat goes full Carmen Miranda, it's not funny. Possibly his only funny disguise is as a hippie activist. And there's a fish who tries warning the kids about the Cat.

Too bad he didn't warn us this film was as much fun as sour milk, or chopping your tail off.

Soon the kids are outside looking for the family dog, who has the key to a crate on his collar. If the crate is not locked soon, their house will be home to the Cat's universe. Here it gets a little more interesting, but not enough to save the film.

The acting, overall, is horrible. Mike Meyers brings his brand of irreverent Austin Powers humor to the Cat, Saying things like \"You dirty ho\" and imagining himself as a woman for the rest of his life after a whack in the testicles while posing as a pinata. Spencer Breslin is great as the trouble-making Conrad, and Dakota Fanning is cute as Sally, though they alone are not enough to save this horrendous Aortic Dissection waiting to kill John Ritter(accident waiting to happen). Alec Baldwin's slick and slimey Lawrence Quinn is disgusting, ever trying to woo the kids mom, who is played by Kelly Preston. And Sean Hayes is Mr. Humberfloob, Mom's boss, and is also the voice of the fish. The latter three are also bland.

Overall, if I were a parent I would not take my kids who are into potty humor, cause there's plenty of it and more. Save your $7.00 and see something else. As the late great Dr. Seuss once said,

It is fun to have fun, But you have to know how. Really, Universal, stop! Theodore's already turning over in his grave.

Like my Mom always says, \"Curiousity killed the Cat\".- The Cat In The Hat * out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Well I guess I know the answer to that question. For the MONEY! We have been so bombarded with Cat In The Hat advertising and merchandise that we almost believe there has to be something good about this movie. I admit, I thought the trailers looked bad, but I still had to give it a chance. Well I should have went with my instincts. It was a complete piece Hollywood trash. Once again proving that the average person can be programed into believing anything they say is good, must be good. Aside from the insulting fact that the film is only about 80 minutes long, it obviously started with a moth eaten script. It's chock full of failed attempts at senseless humor, and awful pastel sceneries. It jumps all over the universe with no destination nor direction. This is then compounded with, ............................yes I'll say it, BAD ACTING! I couldn't help but feel like I was watching \"Coffee Talk\" on SNL every time Mike Myers opened his mouth. Was the Cat intended to be a middle aged Jewish woman? Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning were no prize either, but Mr. Myers should disappear under a rock somewhere until he's ready to make another Austin Powers movie. F-, no stars, 0 on a scale of 1-10. Save your money!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"When my own child is begging me to leave the opening show of this film, I know it is bad. I wanted to claw my eyes out. I wanted to reach through the screen and slap Mike Myers for sacrificing the last shred of dignity he had. This is one of the few films in my life I have watched and immediately wished to \"unwatch\", if only it were possible. The other films being 'Troll 2' and 'Fast and Furious', both which are better than this crap in the hat.

I may drink myself to sleep tonight in a vain attempt to forget I ever witnessed this blasphemy on the good Seuss name.

To Mike Myers, I say stick with Austin or even resurrect Waynes World. Just because it worked for Jim Carrey, doesn't mean Seuss is a success for all Canadians.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Holy cow, what a piece of sh*t this movie is. I didn't how these filmmakers could take a 250 word book and turn it into a movie. I guess they didn't know either! I don't remember any farting or belching in the book, do you?

They took this all times childrens classic, added some farting, belching and sexual inuindo, and prostituted it into a KAKA joke. This should give you a good idea of what these hollywood producers think like. I have to say, visually it was interesting, but the brilliant visual story is ruined by toilet humor (if you even think that kind of thing is funny) I DON'T want the kids that I know to think it is.

Don't take your kids to see, don't rent the DVD. I hope the ghost of Doctor Suess ghost comes and haunts the people that made this movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was so looking forward to seeing this when it was in production.But it turned out to be the the biggest let down. A far cry from the whimsical world of Dr Seuss. It was vulgar and distasteful I don't think Dr Seuss would have approved.How the Grinch stole Christmas was much better. I understand it had some subtle adult jokes in it but my children have yet to catch on. Whereas The Cat in the Hat screamed vulgarity they caught a lot more than I would have liked.Growing up with Dr Seuss It really bothered me to see how this timeless classic got trashed on the big screen .Lets see what they do with Horton hears a who.I hope this one does Dr Seuss some justice.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've seen some bad things in my time. A half dead cow trying to get out of waist high mud; a head on collision between two cars; a thousand plates smashing on a kitchen floor; human beings living like animals.

But never in my life have I seen anything as bad as The Cat in the Hat.

This film is worse than 911, worse than Hitler, worse than Vllad the Impaler, worse than people who put kittens in microwaves.

It is the most disturbing film of all time, easy.

I used to think it was a joke, some elaborate joke and that Mike Myers was maybe a high cocaine sniffing drug addled betting junkie who lost a bet or something.

I shudder","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Spend your time any other way, even housework is better than this movie. The jokes aren't funny, the fun rhymes that are Dr. Seus aren't there. A very lousy way to waste an evening. My kids 4-16 laughed a little at the beginning the younger ones got bored with it and left to play Barbies and the older ones left to play ps2 and surf the net. My wife left and did dishes. So I finished it alone. It was the worst \"kids\" movie I have seen. If you want to watch a fun kids movie watch Shrek 2, that movie is fun for kids and their parents. AVOID THIS MOVIE. It isn't funny, isn't cute, the cat's makeup is about the only good thing in it and you can see that on the disc label.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dr. Seuss would sure be mad right now if he was alive. Cat in the Hat proves to show how movie productions can take a classic story and turn it into a mindless pile of goop. We have Mike Myers as the infamous Cat in the Hat, big mistake! Myers proves he can't act in this film. He acts like a prissy show girl with a thousand tricks up his sleeve. The kids in this movie are all right, somewhere in between the lines of dull and annoying. The story is just like the original with a couple of tweaks and like most movies based on other stories, never tweak with the original story! Bringing in the evil neighbor Quin was a bad idea. He is a stupid villain that would never get anywhere in life.This movie is like a rejected comic strip from the newspaper if you think about it. The film sure does look tacky! Sure there are a funny adult jokes like where the cat cuts of his tail and the censor goes off before he says a naughty word, mildly funny. At least the Grinch had spunk, and the film was actually good! This film is a cartoonish piece of snot with bright colors and bad mediocre acting. Was Mike Myers even in this movie actually? And another thing, the fish. What is with that stupid fish! First time you see him, he's an actual fish. Next time you see him, he's all animated and talking. But he looks like an animated piece of rubber play dough! This film is a total off target wreck. Good joke, bad joke, bad, bad, bad, good joke! I'm surprised it even had good jokes like the water park ride joke, that was good. So please if you have the choice, watch the Grinch instead of this mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"No redeeming features, this film is rubbish. Its jokes don't begin to be funny. The humour for children is pathetic, and the attempts to appeal to adults just add a tacky smuttishness to the whole miserable package. Sitting through it with my children just made me uncomfortable about what might be coming next. I couldn't enjoy the film at all. Although my child for whom the DVD was bought enjoyed the fact that she owned a new DVD, neither she nor her sisters expressed much interest in seeing it again, unlike with Monsters inc, Finding Nemo, Jungle Book, Lion King, etc. which all get frequent requests for replays.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Most movies I can sit through easily, even if I do not particularly like the movie. I am the type of person who recognizes great films even if I do not like the genre. This is the first movie I could not stand to watch. Cat in the Hat is the worst movie I have ever seen--and I've seen a lot of movies. The acting is okay (Myers is good as the cat, it's just that he is REALLY annoying). The silly songs the cat sings were boring and monotonous, even for the children in the audience. The plot drags on and on, and viewers must suffer through poor dialogue. The \"witty\" parental remarks are disgusting, not funny (I remember some awful comment about a garden hoe being compared to, well, a type of person people call a \"ho\"). Even though the movie is really short, it seemed to last FOREVER. Do not waste your time. I know small kids who hated this movie. If children can't stand it, I do not know how any adults can. I would like to fume more about this film but I do not even feel like wasting anymore time writing this review about it. I HATED IT! So, in summary, do not spend 90 minutes of your life watching this! See a GOOD movie!

1\/10 stars--the lowest review I have ever given a movie.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"An absolutely atrocious adaptation of the wonderful children's book. Crude and inappropriate humor, some scary parts, and a sickening side story about the mom's boyfriend wanting to send the boy away to military school to get him out of the way makes this totally inappropriate for the kids who will most likely want to see it because of the book (3-8) yr olds. Don't waste your money, your time, or your good judgement.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Shame Shame Shame on UA\/DW for what you do!

I was appalled.

Do NOT take kids to see this movie. The humor is totally inappropriate for children - plus they'll be bored and disappointed. Certainly *we all* have read Theo's wonderful children book and certainly we have expectations...but this is pure trash. Dr. Seuss would be ashamed and certainly would've never given his \"thumbs up\" at such a dastardly attempt to capitalize on a classic.

What a pity.

Spend your money on the book. If you own a copy, then buy the book and donate it to a Toys for Tots program. This movie is NOT worth a \"free\" ticket viewing.

Stick with the book. The tv cartoon version works well if you want a visual portrayal - save your money...seriously. SAVE your money - it will be on cable by saint patty's day.

Shame shame shame on what they do!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's only one thing I'm going to say about cat in the hat...as a KIDS movie and a good comedy movie it sucks...I lost track of how many terrible jokes in the movie that not only sucked but weren't exactly kid appropriate. Oh and by the way the way the cat in the hat talked was annoying...as for the plot I completely forgot. Who cares it sucked anyway. i'm not sure why Mike Myers joined but I think the writers were trying to make it sound like him in Austin powers without the swinger talk and it overly succeeded- but so what it was annoying. don't see it-it belongs in the bottom 100.............................. the jokes are so unkiddy it's funny","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A fine line up of actors and a seemingly nice plot -- though not original -- promised me a nice evening in front of the TV. I was disappointed. The actors delivered up to standard (Juliette Lewis cuddly as ever; William Hurt solid but in the background; Shelley Duvall convincing as ever) but the story was too thin to keep me engaged to the story and, the twist to the finale was too obvious and too late; there was only one character who was nice to he girl, so guess what?! Then the final after-twist\u0085 I do not know what to think of that. The boyfriend and the neighbor? Contract with the Devil, or just to get her to move in? What! The film had a nice idea behind it, but the idea was not worked out in detail. It could have been good, but it was not. Too many loose ends to tie up, Columbo would say.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"'The 4th Floor' is a decidedly mediocre film starring Juliette Lewis as a young interior designer with a heck of a problem neighbor. Jane (Lewis) has recently inherited a terrific 5th floor apartment from her grandmother, and per agreement with the landlord, gets a ridiculously low renting rate. Her boyfriend (William Hurt as a creepy weather man) wants her to move in with him, but she wants her own space. So she moves in, and weird stuff starts happening, and because this is a B-grade horror flick, there's a dumb, not-to-be-found-in-reality reason why. As the none-too-intriguing Jane keeps trying to tell others- her boyfriend, the police, coworkers- what's going on, everybody thinks she's losing it. So, of course, she has to face the problem- the lunatic living right below her- alone. Neither scary nor interesting, The movie's single saving grace is Lewis. She's a very fine actress but poorly used here, which is not to say she isn't the best thing about this flick- because she is. She has feral charisma and holds the screen better than a dozen of the silicone bimbos that routinely populate this type of movie. This type of movie, though, is not worthy of her- which is ironic, given that she's probably the only reason anyone would see it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My wife invited my son and I to watch this on cable TV on a lazy Saturday evening, thinking that it might show an unusual role for Juliette Lewis. On this promise, at least, the movie delivers: her character is ineffectual, adhering to nearly every slasher-type horror movie cliche. As does the movie. A cataloguing of its studied adherence to them would be an exercise in recall of something I hope to quickly forget, so I won't make one. Basically, this is a whodunnit, heavy on the red herrings: everybody appears guilty, rather than just the two one suspects from the beginning. The \"rule out the logical and obvious, and what's left is it\" rule of bad horror movies works well on this one. The only surprise to have any impact on me was its final snagging of the indeterminate ending cliche: will Jane keep her appointment with her attempted rescuer, who will tell her the (obvious to the audience) identity of the 2nd conspirator, propelling her into another round of hysterical victim-play. Mercifully, I will never know.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Unfortunately, this movie is absolutely terrible. It's not even laughably bad, just plain bad. The actors do their best with what is the cheesiest script ever. How scary can a movie be when the climax actually involves a roomful of millions of styrofoam peanuts?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dumb excuse for a thriller with absolutely zero chemistry or reason in relationship between Lewis and Hurt (why is she dating a man old enough to be her father anyway?? The suspense is laughable. Lewis is very good, but a script is needed, and there isn't one. My score for this trash: 2 out of 10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yep. Those of my generation who grew up watching those old Sunbow cartoons were spoiled. The 80's Joe tune was one of the best cartoons in the history of television. Well written stories, well developed characters. Granted it was nothing more that a glorified toy commercial but it definitely helped carry that toy line. Fast forward almost twenty years later and enter Valor vs. Venom. The animation was average at most. The movement of the characters seemed to jerky and puppet like. The movie felt more like a Small Soldiers sequel than a story about a special military force. Then we have character development or lack there of. Dusty likes to be all Dusty? Slice and Dice like to do things together? What? Did the writers take a writing course on how to develops characters with the depth equivalent of Jar Jar Binks? As for the story. I like a bit of Sci-Fi. But that whole concept of turning soldiers into a mutant army has been done to death in the Joe universe. Mega Monsters or Toxo-zombies anyone? But I give the creators credit for trying to make the fan boys happy by having martial arts action every 10 minutes. I'm not a huge fan of SE and SS but I did like the fight scenes between the two. If you can appreciate VvV for what it is you will enjoy it. I admit to not being able to appreciate VvV as I should. Again everything Joe gets compared to what ways done in the 80's, and honestly nothing will ever compare to the glory days of GI Joe. If you can appreciate VvV for what it is you will enjoy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, the horror, the unspeakable horror of this film. If you can even call it a film. This looks like some first-year art school project, hastily cobbled together.

The \"talents\" here will subject you to a painful mix of under- and- overacting, and practically all the scenes were terribly contrived and pretentious.

The film in no way reflects Malaysian culture or social conventions - nobody even talks that way over here. I live in Malaysia, BTW.

Spinning Gasing seems tailor-made to pick up an award in the foreign film category of some western film festival. And unfortunately, that ploy seems to have worked. Some reviewers would no doubt describe it as \"exotic\", but a more accurate word would be \"atrocious\".

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"To call this film a complete waste of celluloid would be an understatement.

The acting was unconvincing to say the least, especially from actor Craig Fong, who couldn't have acted stiffer. As far as story goes...well...what story?! The \"film\" is nominally about Harry Lee, a Malaysian of Chinese descent who comes back to his home country after flunking out of every course he took and tries to start a band.

The film has ever cliche you can think of -- sex, tension among band members and a little bit of racial tension thrown in.

The problem is that even with a subject that's been covered adequately by even the most amateurish directors, this movie is all over the place and the whole thing just feels contrived with parts that would make even the most hardened reviewers' hairs stand on end.

","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was the first feature film for just about everyone involved, including director Teck Tan, so they deserve credit for pulling it off. But this film was awkward in its direction, preachy in its style, exaggerated in its acting, and overly politically correct. The plot was all over the place, preventing any aspect of it from developing well. Gangsters get involved in the story, though i'm not sure what their presence added to the movie other than making the film even more unrealistic. They could have been completely left out and the film would have been better as a result.

The plot is about a young ethnic Chinese Malaysian who returns to his home country after studying in the West. His studies have brought him back with the skills he thinks he needs to fulfill his dream of managing a rock band and taking them to the top of Malaysian charts (a rather juvenile premise). The beginning of the film hints at conflict with his traditional father, but once the gangsters get involved this part of the story is dropped unceremoniously.

The film tries to take advantage of Malaysia's wondrously diverse ethnic mix, but unfortunately the manner in which these aspects were put to film either seemed terribly contrived or downright preachy. There is a pretty scene of Malay women doing a beautiful traditional dance on a beach, but the way the vision is integrated into the plot seems forced and unnatural.

The acting came off as somewhat amateurish, and the male lead was particularly unconvincing. The female Malay lead was a notable exception leaving the most positive mark. The film also has an openly gay character, and though he is a bit of a caricature, he provides some of the funnier moments in the film. But the movie was just barely a notch above a typical local television soap drama. Sadly, this film, which is not in the least offensive, has been banned in Malaysia. 3\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm very interested in the overwhelmingly positive reviews here. While it had some good features, for the most part I found this movie to be heavy handed, predictable, and, worst of all, not in the least bit scary. The first 30 minutes of the movie were promising, the actress did a nice job in her portrayal, and the world around her was well thought out and meaningful. Unfortunately, from there, the movie entered into a downward spiral. I went into this movie with no clue as to what it would be about-- didn't know anything about the actors, directors, genre, etc. At a certain point, my wife made the comment \"is this supposed to be a scary movie?\". Well I suppose so, as the boiler-plate \"horror movie\" score full of squeaking violins and extended vibrato could mean nothing else. There didn't seem to be a whole lot of originality in the movie, the romantic interest was painfully obvious from the first moment, and the second half of the movie descended deep into the realm of the ridiculous. A movie like this walks a dangerously narrow path, and unfortunately there comes a point where the viewer must decide whether to continue walking along that path, or to jump off and simply laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. For the final 30 minutes, I chose the latter.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm sorry, but I cannot understand what people were smoking when they wrote how great they thought \"Ethan Mao\" was. I have seen better acting, character and plot development in pornos! WARNING: I am going to give away a key element to the \"plot\". After holding his family hostage overnight, Ethan lets his vile, evil, hated step-mom go to the bank - ALONE!!! - to retrieve the piece of his late mom's jewellery which he so desperately wants. Guess what? She calls the cops! Wow ... what a twist! I couldn't see that coming at all.

The only good thing about this movie was that it was less than 90 minutes.

Pure, unadulterated rubbish!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Saw this at the video store and thought I'd give it a try. Sounded like a good story and the cover looked good. That was it. The characters looked good, and the actor who played \"Noel\", was the most convincing, though he didn't have any heavy time in the movie. I find it really hard to give a movie a bad rating, but this is one, in a minute number, that gets it my book. As the movie went along I kept wanting it to get better but to no avail. Asthetically, it was good. The sound and lighting was good, but the acting in this film killed it for me. It was like watching a low grade soap opera. I just kept saying, \"I can't believe they released this move like this\". I paused several times out of sheer unbelief that the acting was that bad. There's so much I want to say but I'll just say this, everything else, for the most part, was good, it was the acting, as a final cut, that really did this film in.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you and your friends find as much humor and enjoyment from horrible acting, jokes, props, and overall film making as me and my friends, you need to rent this.

From simply reading the tag line and seeing how not funny it is, you should assume more not funny, poor quality, great, hilarious content through out. Its a tale of some of kids who defy every law of physics and reality and fly back in time through a modern day big screen TV to a world of dinosaurs who eventually become their friends. Not to mention a hilariously serious scene where T-Rex becomes a father figure for one of the kids. Yeah...

It should be in the comedy section but you'll find it with kid movies if you find it at all. So call your friends over, sit back, relax, get ready to laugh, and enjoy. You will be quoting the laughably horrific one liners in this movie for weeks. \"Whats with all the ruckus?!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Okay,I had watched this movie when I was very little and the day that we were cleaning out the closet I see this!I thought,\"I have no idea of what this movie was like,\"so I went ahead and put it in.OH MY GOD!!!!!This film is so darn bad!I never thought that this film could ever get as close to my least favorite film as it did,but I did laugh,because all the jokes were so corny and ridiculous,not funny!!!!So much stuff in this movie was funny,because it was SO STUPID!!!!This film is not anywhere near good.I would have to say if you want to watch this movie you definitely better not expect anything big and if you've already seen it,trust me,I feel your pain as well!!!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was sooo bad. It wasn't even funny at all. Not even the sarcastic scenes were funny. Oh man, bad, so bad. Thumbs down. Spoofed, Karate Kid, Teen Wolf, Footloose, Dirty Dancing, Some Kind of Wonderful, Soul Man, and probably another or two. Chris Kattan at his very worst as the high school janitor who is a talented dancer, who runs a dance studio in a warehouse. He has a jealous girlfriend, who breaks her ankle and her dance spot goes to the cute blonde newcomer who Chris has eyes for. I thought the acting was really bad. I like laugh out loud comedies, this was not one. \"Not Another Teen Movie\" wasn't funny, but had a lot more funny scenes than Totally Awesome. \"Scary Movie\" is suuuper funny. I always laugh when I watch those, super enjoyable. This movie, not funny.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh, dear! This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. It's unbelievably repetitive; every scene seems to consist of people being gunned down, running round screaming, or being kicked in the face, which quickly becomes very dull. I wouldn't mind if the combat was even any good, but it isn't; the main character Phillips pushes the various goons over with ridiculous ease, and no matter how often he stands in full view of the Tracker, he never gets hit, even though extras and minor characters are being shot and blown up all around him. I've rarely seen a worse cast of actors (especially Don Wilson, if you can even call him an \"actor\") but that's not really surprising, given the dialogue they have to work with (sample line: \"Computers killed my brother!\"). The plot is a sub-par ripoff of the excellent Terminator; the special effects are laughable. Overall, this film is just utterly dreadful. And why does everything explode?","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Plot Synopsis: Los Angeles in the future. Crime is kept under control by Core Trackers, android assassins dispatched by the United States Computerized Judicial System to execute the guilty. Secret Service agent Eric Phillips prevents an attack on his boss, Senator Robert Dilly (the man who set up the USCJS), by the Union for Human Rights, a group of anti-machine activists. Dilly attempts to initiate Phillips into his private circle but the SS agent goes on the run after witnessing Dilly murder a UHR agent in cold blood. Dilly sends Core Trackers after him. Phillips joins the UHR group & helps them uncover a conspiracy involving Dilly.

\"Cyber Tracker\" is the first of a number of sci-fi \/ action hybrids directed by Richard Pepin, co-founder of PM Entertainment, a powerhouse of action films during the 1990s. Other Pepin films include \"Hologram Man\", \"T-Force\", \"The Silencers\" & \"Dark Breed\". Pepin films typically start with a major action sequence which lasts about 10 minutes before allowing the plot to kick in. The script for this film has a few plot holes \u0096 it is never clear what the conspiracy the heroes are trying to stop actually is. As for the acting, Don \"The Dragon\" Wilson may be tough but cannot act for beans, with little charisma. His co-stars are a lot better. The film's best bet are the action scenes, which throw up some impressive artillery fire, a huge bodycount & not one but three moments where a vehicle flies through the air, flips & hits the ground, exploding. The visual effects border on the cheap side & the musical score is low-key & shrill.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eric Phillips (Don Wilson) is a secret service agent who prevents the assassination of a senator however along the way he finds a conspiracy and has a tracker on his tail. The tracker by the way is bent on terminating Phillips. The most obvious inspiration for this low budget cheeseball action flick, is of course Robocop and while that film had some imagination and real energy, this just has a real life kickboxing champ running away from a robot. The movie isn't so awful as it is just empty and repetitive. The story is written in clich\u00e9s and the characters are set up to be cut down by the various gunfire. Don Wilson, as usual, is terrible in the lead role.

*1\/2 out of 4-(Poor)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"CyberTracker is set in Los Angeles sometime in the near future where bodyguard Eric Phillips (co-producer Don 'The Dragon' Wilson) saves senator Robert Dilly (John Aprea) from an assassination attempt by a group known as the UHR, the Union of Human Rights, who are angry at Dilly for spearheading the Computerised Judicial System in which robots called CyberTrackers are sent out to determine & dispense justice on the guilty. Anyway, Eric saves Dilly who is very impressed & decides to see if he can trust Eric in his shady activities like the cold blooded murder of a traitor, being the fine upstanding guy that he is Eric isn't impressed when Dilly kills a woman & he is asked to keep it quiet. Eric escapes & sets out to bring Dilly down, however Dilly has lots of powerful friends & he uses his influence to frame Eric & have his CyberTrackers sent out in pursuit of him...

Co-produced & directed by Richard Pepin I think films like CyberTracker give films a bad name, I didn't like it that much at all. The script by Jacobsen Hart is pretty predictable, it doesn't excite, it steals most of it's ideas & theme from other better sci-fi films & the heady mix of martial arts action & sci-fi don't gel that well. There a few fights, some car chases & a couple of shoot outs but it's all rather bland & forgettable. The film lacks imagination considering the film is set in the future & it deals with robots, technology & the way society is run & it's judicial system in particular. Speaking of which the fantastic Robocop (1987) mixed it's violent action & clever social commentary brilliantly but CyberTracker doesn't even try to make any relevant social statement or try to portray any meaningful moral message about law enforcement, the script basically uses the concept to have robots & shoot outs which Robocop did as well but also managed to include a good story. There is very little in CyberTracker that I can say was entertaining & that's what films are about right?

Director Pepin does OK but nothing stands out, it's all rather forgettable & it's not particularly exciting. The sci-fi elements are nothing more than the robot side of things & as a whole the film doesn't look that futuristic. The action scenes are alright, there's some exploding cars & some shoot outs but nothing spectacular.

Technically CyberTracker is average, for a film supposedly set in the future it already looks dated & the special effects are poor. The acting was bad, I wonder if Don 'The Dragon' Wilson signs cheques with that name?

CyberTracker was a waste of my time, there is nothing here original or exciting & the action is instantly forgettable. Poor & that's all that needs to be said, not recommended.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was obviously made with a very low budget, but did they have to make it so obvious? It looked like they made no effort to make the \"future\" look in the least futuristic. For example, the first scene takes place in an 80's office building and all the cars that get blown up are from the late 70's (I assume they didn't want to blow up cars that cost more than $500). Additionally, its pretty obvious that Don \"the Dragon\" is driving his personal car during the movie (after all, he did partially fund the film). Finally, they point out at the beginning of the film that all kinds of drugs are now legal in this new \"cyberpunk\" society. Not only does this never become important in the film, but later when don needs surgery without anesthesia, why doesn't he just go out and get some legal heroin or morphine? The whole movie is sloppy like this and completely anticlimactic since Don easily blows up an \"unstoppable\" Cybertracker about 25 minutes into the movie. However, if you find this movie cheap or free I'd watch it, the last scene is almost worth putting up with this whole film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yet another version of mother of all gangster flicks-the Classic \"Godfather\" and yet another case of over-hype due to media circus. Sarkar, the 13th Hindi film of Ram Gopal Varma as director is also the weakest in his Underworld trilogy including the other two being the excellent-Satya and Company. The Charisma, the magnetic persona of the two Bachchans playing father-son duo on screen for the first time is definitely a treat to watch out for. Not just strong performances but their perfect chemistry is the biggest scoring point here for which Varma should be applauded. However, the same equation of the duo is missing with the other characters in the film. Reason-the other characters look more like cardboard caricatures esp. the villains represent the typical Bollywood baddies. A character who attracts attention is elder son played by Kaykay but again not able to hold due to half-baked characterization. . The Drama and conflict is brought alive by the excessive use of Close-shots, which brought a claustrophobic effect rightly needed to construct an ambiance. The haunting Score (Amar Mohile) and the sound design (Kunal Mehta, Parikshit Lalwani & Anup Dev), together with dark, murky background overlapped by shinning powerful images (camerawork by Amit Roy) contributes to Visuals so typical of Ramu's style. But there is an overuse of Music though fortunately no songs are there in the film. But can interest of today's \"intelligently growing\" audience be sustained just on shoulders of two performers and strong Visuals ? I don't think so. Surely, audience \"maangey more\" and here film fails to deliver. In any adaptation, in order to add a new dimension, the biggest pre-requisite is the Screenplay, which is sluggish here not being crisp at places, and therefore the pace slackens quite often. What finally audience is subjected to is a highly predictable, very commonplace drama with very little surprise elements. Top Stunt director Allan Amin Ghani is also not in his best form. Some scenes which require a different treatment includes- a Minister is talking foul about Sarkar and the son is overhearing; a very amateurish shoot out in the jail on Sarkar, Sarkar Jr. escapes from the clutches of his enemies, a Son easily motivated to kill his own father, a son is secretly entering his father's room to kill him, a police commissioner slapping Sarkar Jr-all this requires a more realistic, hard-hitting approach which is the back-bone to create the required conflict. The dialogues are weak for eg. look at an amateurish line where a CM says to Sarkar Jr. \u0096\"Wo jo Police Commissioner tha na usay maine hata diya\".. The women folk take on Sarkar's working is completely ignored. The uninterrupted negotiations about criminal activities while Sarkar is with his family also look slightly out of place In fact, the film follows a graph quite similar to Ramu's own production-Ab Tak Chhappan. In depicting the battle between good and evil, the other side of life-the law, police, administration, politics is completely ignored. Certainly, more is expected in content. Here the film definitely falls short and could not rise above an average fare. Dear Ramu, agreed that now you are laughing your way to the bank, you definitely need to take some drastic overhauling measures in your film production factory, before it is too late.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I was expecting a lot from Mr.Amitabh Bachan's role of SARKAR, but am disappointed. Being a Ram Gopal Verma's direction i was not ready for this kind of a movie. Sarkar is supposed to be a strong character, but the movie shows that Amitabh is too dependent on others power rather than his. There is a movie in Tamil called Nayakan based on the theme of GOD FATHER and Kamala Hassan has played the lead. The movie is well directed and the power till the end remains in the hands of Kamala Hassan, not his son. Amitabh Bachan seems to be too helpless in the movie and he just accepts everything instead of changing things. The movie fails to show the strong impact of God Father.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It is disappointing to see as talented an actor as Amitabh Bachchan in such a weak role, especially when he was beyond sensational in BLACK (which I highly recommend). One line in the film states: \"Sakar is not a mere man, he is a thought and a philosophy.\" Director Ram Gopal Varma credits THE GODFATHER as an inspiration for this movie, and perhaps that is the problem. It seems like a badly mangled American movie set in India. The Left Elbow Index considers seven elements of film-making--acting, continuity, plot, character development, dialogue, artistry, and production sets--on a scale from a high of 10 to a low of 1, with 5 given as a average score. The film continuity seems high, an 8, by maintaining a violent tone infused with drama in places, and using justice outside the legal system as motivation. However, there seems to be a lack of emotion connected with the evil of organized crime. The acting rates a 4, it appears too weak, even when someone is being beaten or murdered, it seems hoohum. For example, when one character is shot in the forehead, I found myself wondering if, or when, he was going to fall. He does not, and ala Ronald Reagan he is placed in an automobile, with his bleeding face cradled ala John F. Kennedy. The plot rates a 5 as an example of American-style gangsterism, with a family oriented Robinhood at its head. Character development appears static, and the characters seem like chess pieces on an abandoned chess board, thereby earning a rank of 3. The dialogue seems stilted, and appears to be forced to fit some Bowery pattern of speech--a 4 for dialogue. Production sets look to be below average--a 4. And, artistry is puzzling, with far too many close-ups, too rapid panning, and too many group scenes where the actors seem over rehearsed--a 3. To me, too much camera movement is disruptive. The average of the Left Elbow Index is 4.4, and with a slight deduction based on poor derivatism it moves down to a 4. Two questions continually arise in the film: one, why are so many people eating so often: and, two, does not India have its own brand of organized crime? Do films like this have to be so dependent on Western cultural examples? As much as I like Amitabh Bachchan, I cannot recommend this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Dear Mr Ram Gopal Varma, I don't know in which capacity I am writing this letter to you. I am a never-say-he's-finished Amitabh Bachchan fan, having sat through his cock-chasing act in Jaadugar. I also demand some important designation in The Godfather fan club, having watched the Coppola classic more times than you have delivered flops from your Factory. And, of course, I have been a big admirer of yours, right from the time you had Nagarjuna wrapping the cycle chain around his knuckles in Shiva.

When you announced Sarkar and called it your take on Godfather, all one wanted to know was the date the first look would be out, the Sunday the promos would go on air, the Friday the film would be released. It was sheer wish fulfillment at work knowing that you, and not someone hovering between the mustard fields of Amritsar and the tulip gardens of Amsterdam, had taken up the task of recreating the Puzo pages on the Bollywood big screen.

Your cast couldn't have been more you \u0097 working for the first time with the legend, casting Abhishek as his screen-son, giving Kay Kay a role he has deserved for years, bringing back forgotten faces like Supriya Pathak and Rukhsar, and picking complete non-actors like Katrina and Tanishaa to join the list\u0085 Before July 1, you had made Sarkar the most-awaited film ever for any Godfather freak who worshiped Bachchan.

The opening credits stoked the hope that your stunning sepia-tinted promos on the telly had kindled. But now, you labeled Sarkar your tribute to Godfather instead of the word \"inspired\" which you had been using all along. Probably you don't want the two creations to be compared but when the medium is the same, then a Kaante would be compared to Reservoir Dogs and a Reservoir Dogs to a City On Fire.

Also, when your first and last sequences \u0097 the heart of any screenplay treatment \u0097 are all about the establishment and the transfer of power, you can't keep the Nagares and the Corleones apart, even if you replace the American mafia moves with Maharashtrian political power play.

But you got it wrong, Mr Varma\u0085 You wanted to show Amitabh in his 70s avatar, as rustled up by the pens of Salim-Javed. You wanted him to lurk around larger than life. You wanted him to be his own brand(o). Then how could you steal his voice in the name of using silence? How could you keep him rooted to his chair in the hunt for interesting camera angles? How could you leave him stranded without his voice and stature, the two things that have made his B so big? Coppola's Godfather cameraman Gordon Willis masked Brando's eyes throughout the movie because it didn't have the power to match that drawling husky voice or that sudden snap of the fingers. But you tried to repeat the Malik act from your very own Company. But Bachchan is no Ajay Devgan \u0097 his forte doesn't lie in the stagnant stare and the suffocating silence. You made the man look like a comatose patient, who's reminded from time to time to look at the cue cards and mouth those predictable one-liners. For that, Agneepath's there, any given Saturday.

Which Bachchan fan would go and watch Kay Kay Menon stealing the thunder from under his nose in the scene where Sarkar asks Vishnu to leave his house? Which Amitabh aficionado would go and watch him focus on achaar and carom, in a film that talks about power with a capital P in the promos? We can't handle so much in the name of restraint and understatement! You don't even allow the camera to rest on him for five seconds when he learns that his son wanted to kill him. Give me the old-school camera-only-on-Bachchan style, any given Saturday.

Kudos to you, of course, for making an actor out of Abhishek, first in Naach and now in Sarkar. You also allow him to show Mallika Sherawat that he can run as well as his father. Even in the short prison sequence, you really make the Bachchans come out of the text, an opportunity Shaad missed in Bunty Aur Babli. Wish the film could have been more a father-son story rather than a chaotic conflict between caricatures in the name of characters, who pop up like the ad windows on the Internet.

You also let the women more into the script than Puzo and Coppola did and again, you deserve all the Brownie points for squeezing them in so effectively. Pathak is a welcome return as the mother in the middle, Tanishaa lovable as the lovelorn girl, Katrina a revelation as Abhishek's confused lover and Rukhsar's silence speaks volumes.

But sub-plots do not a classic remake. When your free-flowing camera tries to make every frame look hatke and your loud background score irritates incessantly, we keep getting reminded that we are in a Factory. Well, maybe not a Nino Rota score but Sarkar certainly deserved better than those Govinda, Govinda chants and uncalled-for flute interludes.

Mr Varma, some of your Factory directors tell me that you are involved with every project, from overseeing the shooting schedules to supervising the editing sessions. Perhaps, in the middle of all the various storyboards, the Bhiku Matre scream is being muted by the Subhash Nagare silence. Perhaps, you need to bring the shutters down on the factory and work on a single homemade product. Otherwise, your products would remain products, to use and throw, not treasure. And movie buffs like me, for whom there are no hits and flops, only good cinema, would rather choose a film without Factory finish, any given Saturday.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At the beginning of the movie, Ramgopal Verma says that \"Sarkar\" is his tribute to The Godfather. This one feels more like an insult. It pales terribly in comparison to the Coppola classic. Although no one was expecting Ramgopal Verma to fill Coppola's shoes, the movie did create a lot of expectation and buzz.

Amitabh Bachchan plays \"Sarkar\", a character automatically drawing instant comparisons to Indian political party Shiv Sena's Supremo Bal Thackeray. Abhishek Bachchan plays his son Shankar who returns from abroad and gets caught up in Sarkar's politics at home. Just like Al Pacino in the original Godfather.

As most Bollywood fare, incidents and characters are overtly simplistic and devoid of any kind of solid foundation. Quick phone calls and sudden announcements turn the film from one direction to another. Abishek takes to Mumbai's murky underworld politics-crime nexus like a duck takes to water. Amithab Bachchan as Sarkar is supposed to look magnificent and powerful, he just ends up looking old and clueless. Most of his acting is centered around constantly staring at different things around the movie set - the actor in front of him, the floor or in some other random direction.

However, Kay Kay performs exceedingly well as the wronged elder son Vishnu. So does Zakir Hussain as Rashid, the Dubai based dope smuggler who wants to gets his footing in Mumbai. This actor has awesome screen presence and can send chills down your spine with just the way he looks. The moment he enters the screen, you want to run and hide under the bed.

All its obvious flaws not withstanding, the film did well at the box office. The buzz and the big star cast obviously helping. Also Verma manages to hold your interest albeit mildly towards the later half of the film. He is actually making a sequel to this one which I am sure will be more of the same fare.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What on earth happened to RGV? There are so many things wrong about this movie that one needs to stop and decide where to start- first and worst - the music. Every scene was accompanied with this pretentious background music that was telling you the mood, quite pathetically, I might add. Secondly, the lighting - do we really need such dark scenes where we are wondering if the projector is still working? And finally - if you are going to Indianise the Godfather and Godfather 2 - please realize that a lot of us have seen in. Nayakan was a ripoff of GF1 but better done, and more entertaining. I have seen a similarity in both Company and Sarkar and while RGV's Ab Tak 56 was brilliant, these two movies leave something to be desired. People will not be impressed any more by just corrupt politicians and the lot. Maybe RGV should see Maqbool, which is good enough to be RGV!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A remake can be successful. An adaptation can be successful. It isn't relevant whether its a remake or an adaptation.

A good movie is a good movie and a poor movie is a poor movie, regardless.

Sarkar, I am afraid, was a very poor movie. First of all, just by making characters look dangerous, or macho, they don't bring in an aura about them.

What was so brilliant about Nagre(Amitabh Bacchan's character) that we should have been in aura of his 'power' and what showed the 'benevolence' of the character? Nothing.

This fact was said by a commentator and Amitabh kept giving facial expressions. Now Amitabh can give brilliant facial expressions but why should it mean any thing if there is no history or story to go with it.

There wasn't proper charecterisation of the characters who worked under 'sarkar' too. Just because a man had spectacles, why should we assume he is wise. ] The flow of the movie was generally dullbecause scenes from the Godfather were created (like the policeman slapping Abhishek Bacchan), the older brother being killed by Abhishek (like Fredo was killed on instructions of Pacino) but too much was sought to be packed into the movie with too little story and depth to go with it. That was indeed the problem.

If you try to pack 3 hours of intricate detail like a Godfather in 2 hours and that too with few dialogues, what you get is a highlights show from a cricket match, never making the full impact watching a full match will make.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm a huge Zack Allan fan and was disappointed that he only got one scene in the movie. This was also my favourite scene where he confiscates a character's weapons and directs her to Down Below. Unfortunately unlike Thirdspace & River of Souls, most of the action took place off station. I didn't care much for Garibaldi after the first three seasons and think Sheridan is okay but no Sinclair. I like Lochley but she only had limited screen time. If you like Crusade or space battles you should enjoy it. Personally I can only give it 1\/10.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Countenance! Antoine Monot, in a copycat impersonation of Kevin Smith's Silent Bob, keeps asking for it, but writer\/director Christian Z\u00fcbert never listens. Z\u00fcbert just can't say no to a joke, no matter how cheap. The best thing about this movie is its soundtrack. Of course, Joey Burns of Calexico and the divine Jonathan Richman, understated old-school bard of \"There's something about Mary\" fame, would grace any small-town dropout story. In visual allure, Stefan (Lukas Gregorowicz) looks cool enough riding his tan six-series BMW two-door, wearing aviator shades, going nowhere. True, he *accidentally* sleeps with his wild-eyed bohemian kid sister (Marie Zielcke), but then, who wouldn't? Thumbs up also to how he goes black-and-white on a liberal dose of that mysterious substance they call zero-zero, but if you're looking for a slightly more serious rendering of what intoxication can do to you, I suggest you check out \"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas\".","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Yeah, what did I expect? I thought this would be a film about young adults at their turning-point in life, something like \"Sonnenallee\" or \"American Pie\", which I liked a lot. I wanted to see a funny film, perhaps with an ironic look on idyllic Wuerzburg. And what did I get?

Attention, spoilers ahead!

This film starts with a lengthy dialogue which gives you a good hint of what will inevitably follow: more lengthy dialogues. Sometimes I thought Moritz Bleibtreu might have forgotten his text and trying to hide that fact by improvising and just repeating what he was saying before. But as I think of Bleibtreu as one of the better german actors, I believe that this effect really was intended. I think the author wanted to show how boring talking to close friends can be - especially when they are stoned. But really, I don't need cinema to be bored by stoned friends' talk. Boring dialogues make up most of this film.

But okay, that's one thing. I can cope with that, I have seen nice films with abominable dialogues, just think of Schwarzenegger's life's work. But the next thing is that characters are cheap and flat and that the storyline is as foreseeable as anything. Just one example (SPOILER!!): Why, do you think, does someone take a garden hose to his hemp-plants deep in the forest? To water them? Of course not, usually you don't find water-pipes deep in forests, do you? The only reason this water-hose is there is that a hunter who happens to come by while the two protagonists are harvesting their dope can be drugged, maltreated and finally filled up with three bottles of Jaegermeister. I truly hated this scene, because it's really violent. Usually, I don't mind violence in films - slapstick-comedies are full of it. But in that sort of comedy there is a silent agreement between the film and you that people don't get hurt if they fall on their faces or get beaten with chairs or things like that. But if that happens in a film which is otherwise realistic enough, slapstick-scenes also seem real. In this particular scene in \"Lammbock\" I really thought that this hunter must be badly injured, if not dead - the final scene really invoked in me the impression that he is left to die there, totally filled up with more booze anyone could handle. And the protagonists just walk away. It would have been otherwise if the author had consistently followed one style; the scene could have been quite funny.

Talking about being consistently - that's what I missed most about this film. The whole film seems to be a listing of small episodes that came to the author's mind. Things just happen without a apparent reason - yeah, I know, that's life, but that's not cinema, because cinema is meant to tell a story, not to show boring episodes without any significance. I found myself asking \"Where's the point?\" all the time. Characters besides the two main ones are not elaborated, you never get to know why the protagonist's sister wants to sleep with his best friend Kai, in fact, she tells you but I could not buy it, not at all. I think she just was there to give Kai an opportunity to act this childish AIDS-test sketch, which you sure have seen a thousand times before, and mostly better. The protagonist's girlfriend you meet once, then she leaves Germany (what you don't even see and the guy doesn't seem to care) and finally it is mentioned in one sentence that she has met someone else in America and splits up with the protagonist. It seemed to me that the author wanted to tie up a few loose ends. He actually didn't, you never really get to know what's so bad about studying law, being daddy's son (daddy fixes everything in the end and serves coffee in the middle of the night, which to my mind made him one of the nicer characters in the whole film) and living in beautiful Wuerzburg. Even the dinner with daddy's layer-friend, which maybe was intended to show how horrible it is to have to live up to dad's expectations, seemed flat, just another nice dinner with the family's friends (except for the trip the guy is on later, but I think showing that eating dope before you dine with parents isn't healthy was not the point of this scene, if there was any). I have experienced far worse dinners in my life than this one and still finished my exams. I couldn't understand one single character in the whole film, they just seemed flat and implausible.

All this made it a not-so-good film, but not one I wouldn't watch again on television. It really had a few good scenes (most of them were not new, though, like the one with the nice and understanding policemen), some were really funny, some dialogues were nice and I like Bleibtreu's play, although he repeated his well-known stereotypes again this time. Not good, not abominable, that's what I thought after the film was half over.

But then came this incest scene and this I really found repulsive. Incest simply isn't funny. I don't even know if this was intended to be funny, some people in the audience laughed, so it could have been meant this way. This scene spoiled the whole film for me, I couldn't feel sympathy for the protagonist any more - I can't feel sympathy for anyone who f**** a helpless person, to me, this is rape and rape isn't funny. So it might have been a hint of drama or so, but the incest is never again mentioned (although we thought this could have been one reason for the protagonist to leave Germany in the end, but as it is never mentioned again, we don't know.), it is even totally unnecessary. I almost expected the sister to become pregnant in the end, which would just have added the finishing touch to this tasteless story, but not even this final cliche is fulfilled, just as nothing is really solved or thought through to the end in this film. It isn't really funny, it isn't really a drama, it isn't at all a road movie a la Tarantino despite desperate tries on violence, it is definitely not enjoyable.

Skip this film. Watch \"Final Fantasy\", that's also bad, but at least with beautiful pictures and not that tasteless.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Hailing from 1988, Touch Of Death is probably the most frustrating Fulci film I've seen to date, prompting me to join the chorus of horror fans who generalise that his films get worse as you get later into his career. Considering the plot synopsis, I was expecting some bloody bad-natured fun with this one, but for all its bizarre flourishes, it feels tedious even at a running time of just 80 minutes, and suffers from nauseatingly shabby production values and film-making craft (or lack thereof).

El Story: A gambling addict widower wines and dines rich (and strange) women he finds via lonely hearts columns before offing them in gruesome fashion - sometimes eating them or feeding them to animals - and stealing their money to keep his debtors at bay. Sure, it's unlikely that just one man would be the host for so much screwed-up pathology all at once (addict, psycho\/sociopath, cannibal), but this is Fulci!

Touch is actually the cheapest and sparsest looking Fulci film I've seen. There's almost nobody in it, even in the background of shots out on the street, for instance. A newsreader who keeps appearing on the film's televisions to warn the non-existent cast about the maniac's latest doings operates out of the most pathetic TV studio on the planet. He never even gets to look at the camera because has to read all the headlines off misaligned sheets of paper.

Some scenes just go on and on with the protagonist muttering to himself about what he's done or what he's about to do, but the acting is nowhere near good enough to sustain this kind of thing, so the main outcome is viewer boredom. The film also looks bland and ugly in general. I've read that it was intended to be an Italian telemovie (did it ever screen in that venue? With the amount of gore involved, it seems unlikely), and it does reek of crappy old telemovie production values.

This is also Fulci's first foray into outright black humour, but he's just too graceless a director to make it work. Sometimes conspicuously cheerful or 'wacky' music is used to play against a gruesome scene, for instance while the hero\/villain is carving up a dead body in his basement. The effect isn't really chilling or funny or ironic anything that you'd like it to be - it's mostly just hamfisted and crappy.

There are of course some redeeming moments of gore (that you'll be waiting for while trying to stay awake), including the eventual murder by oven(!) of a woman who just won't quit life, even after her face has been totally bashed apart with a bloody great club, and a homeless guy who gets a car run back and forth over him about five times. The most outrageous element of Touch, however, is all the physical deformation on the widows courted by the crazy guy. Beards, hairy moles, messy harelips - it's not like he sought out women with these features, it's just the way all lonely hearts widows are, apparently. There are plenty of shots of Mr Crazy secretly grimacing while he's smooching up these women. The black humour of such garish misogyny might have some staying power or resonance if the film wasn't so poorly executed in general. In the end, Touch Of Death just seems like a really lazy, inarticulate mess.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is just dreadful. I regret every second of the 80 minutes I spent watching this dreck. I think it's supposed to be a comedy, but I don't remember laughing much, except at a few blatant inconsistencies and downright glaring errors.

An unattractive middle-aged man called Lester meets up with rich unattractive middle-aged women via lonely hearts ads, and then murders them for the money he needs to feed his gambling addiction. That's the whole plot, and that's really all that happens. Along the way there is an attempt at intrigue when Lester starts to get phone calls from a mysterious stranger who taunts him about knowing his secret, but its so badly implemented, you may not realise what is actually supposed to be happening. The sequences in which Lester murders the rich widows are all quite brutal but also seemingly dressed up as comedies. One sequence has a woman bludgeoned with a wooden pole and then shoved into an oven. It's very cruelly depicted, but it is played out against blaring big-band waltz music, with Lester pulling faces and adopting comedy poses throughout. Another scene has the victim murdered while she constantly sings shrill opera songs...you have to see this to believe it! Actually - you don't have to see it at all, in fact I strongly recommend you avoid this flop. Fulci does not seem to know which hat he is wearing and there's no evidence of any of the flair seen in his earlier career. One sequence stood out to me as particularly wretched: the revelation when Lester suddenly realises that he has no shadow. Fulci seems unable to think up any visual representation of this phenomena on screen, so from this point on he just films the actor as normal, shadow and all!! And thus totally blows the whole angle. Either he had zero budget for effects, or he just didn't care enough to think up any way of showing it. Whatever it was, that should give you a taste of how lame this whole project is. I couldn't even understand most of the film, and there certainly wasn't anything on screen worth looking at half the time. Even the ending was as flat as a pancake. A real dud.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This latter-day Fulci schlocker is a totally abysmal concoction dealing with an incurable gambler (Brett Halsey) who decides Bluebeard-style to pay off his ever-rising debts by seducing some of the ugliest bitches you will ever lay your eyes on and who just happen to be wealthy widows! The Fulci-penned script also contrives to incorporate a few blackly comedic elements - which only result in some unfunny business involving a corpse which won't stay put, an opera singer victim who won't stop singing, etc. - not to mention a doppelganger theme straight out of THE STUDENT OF PRAGUE - although, in this case, the two personas communicate via pre-recorded radio messages!! In the end, I can't say I'm surprised that this film shows no sign of the sophistication of Mario Bava's HATCHET FOR THE HONEYMOON (1970) which it resembles in several ways and that it is content to merely pile up the disgustingly gory (but none-too-convincing) effects of dismembered limbs and squashed or melting faces with which, alas, Fulci had by then become completely associated.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lucio Fulci was famous for his Italian splatter movies, mostly his undead films like Zombie or The Beyond. Here he directed a black comedy of sorts, but there's just one problem: its nauseating. I say this knowing that I like City of the Walking Dead (which is also gross but not like this). A compulsive gambler gets money for his habit by romancing ugly and deformed rich women then murdering them and stealing their cash. The film makes this plan look that easy. I guess the women were too ugly to go to a bank, so they always had their cash on person. After the upteenth murder I began to suspect what I've always heard about Fulci: he hated women. He must have. At any rate this film stinks, its not funny, and Fulci should have stayed with giallo and supernatural zombie movies. Avoid this film at all costs.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There are certain horror directors for whom I've built up so much respect & admiration over the years, that they can't possibly disappoint me know matter what garbage to decide to put on film. Lucio Fulci is surely one of them, but damned, he's trying to disappoint me with his later efforts! You can easily afford yourself to skip most of the films Fulci directed or produced during the late 80's and simply watch \"Cat in the Brain\" instead, because that one title gathers and repeats the best and absolute goriest footage of no less than SEVEN other Fulci-flicks, including the sickest murders sequences featuring in \"When Alice Broke the Mirror\". As a whole, this movie definitely ranks among our director's weakest and most pointless achievements. The script is incoherent as hell, the basic premise is totally implausible and somewhat stupid and there's absolutely no suspense to enjoy. I love the title, but it's actually quite meaningless. There is a character named Alice in the story, but it's only a supportive role and she certainly doesn't break any mirrors. I suppose she could break stuff simply using her voice, as she's an opera singer, but she doesn't. The plot revolves on a middle-aged and gambling-addicted playboy who spends his days seducing wealthy widows and killing them for their money. Lester Parson butchers the ladies (as well as unwelcome witnesses) in gruesome ways, makes steaks out of their juiciest body parts and feeds the remainders to his cat. There's also a silly psychological sub plot in which he thinks his own shadow is responsible for the murders instead of him. The difference between \"When Alice Broke the Mirror\" and some of Fulci's greatest horror films (\"The Beyond\", \"City of the Living Dead\", \u0085\") lies in the fact that he totally doesn't bother to create a horrific atmosphere. The characters, Lester included, are colorless and boring and the murders are ordinarily depicted; like it's the most common thing in the world to put a woman's head in a microwave or repeatedly run back and forth over a human body with a car. The lighting is poor, the cinematography super-ugly, the editing clumsy and amateurish and the acting performances are downright miserable. If I didn't know any better, I would think Lucio deliberately made a lousy film in order to protest against all the harsh critics that dislike his repertoire no matter how much spirit and effort he put into it. The obvious element to enjoy here is simply the outrageous gore & bloodshed, because even the attempt to blend in black comedy doesn't work properly. As long as Lester swings around his chainsaw and cuts off women's feet, \"When Alice Broke the Mirror\" is an undemanding piece of horror entertainment, but other than that, there's isn't a whole lot to recommend.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Lucio Fulci, a director not exactly renowned for his subtlety, ill-advisedly tries his hand at black humour in Touch of Death, a made for TV movie about Lester Parsons (Brett Halsey), a psycho who seduces and murders rich widows in order to pay his gambling debts.

Starting off with a wonderfully gory scene in which the lethal lothario disposes of his latest victim via chainsaw, mincing machine and hungry hogs, Touch of Death starts promisingly enough, but Fulci soon loses control of proceedings, introducing a weird sub-plot involving a mysterious copycat killer and some heavy handed 'comedic' scenes. There are several more graphic murders which, in true Fulci fashion, are extremely violent and gruesome, but even the high level of bloodletting doesn't stop this from being one of Fulci's poorer efforts.

As I have found with many of his other movies, a comprehensible storyline is not exactly high on the agenda when Lucio is behind the camera. This film has many peculiarities which left me more than little perplexed: why didn't Lester dispose all of his victims using the dismemberment method seen at the beginning? Why are all of his victims either hairy or disfigured? What the hell is that ending all about?

Fulci is considered by many to be one of the 'greats' of horror cinema; I don't understand his popularity, finding the majority of the films of his that I have seen so far to be generally lacking both decent narratives and technical proficiency. Touch of Death certainly does nothing to change my opinion.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Back in 1994 the Power Rangers had become a huge franchise and t.v. executives at the USA Network were hoping to get in on the action and came up with the Tattooed Teenage Alien Fighters from Beverly Hills, in which the evil Emporer Gorganus, who looks like he's wearing a home made Darth Vader costume, and his talking bird, that looks like a rubber dog chew toy, come to earth to invade it using giant monsters that look like rejects from a 1970's Godzilla film. Fortunately Nimbar an alien that looks like a giant piece of clear jello recruits four teenagers to defend the earth, Nimbar gives them each a tattoo of a different star constellation that allows them to transform into buffed up superheros who look like dancers from an eighties tech no music video, they could also combined into a giant knight. Forty episodes were made. The USA Network clearly did not have the money to try to adapt a show from Japan like Power Rangers did, and made up this show on their own using the budget of a 1950's scifi film. The fights scenes are generic, the special effects are poor, and some of the sets look like they could fall down. The actors pretty much realized how ridiculous the show was and pretty much ham it up and overact. I can only imagine their shock when the show was cancel led.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've been surprised by the enthusiastic response to this film. It seemed dull to me, much as I enjoyed looking at Penelope Cruz, and the plot details often poorly worked out. It also seemed like an intensely sexist film: if the gender roles were reversed, almost everyone with any sense would be up in arms complaining the movie is intensely misogynist. It's not just that both the principal males are portrayed as complete jerks and sexual predators, but also that the women are portrayed as almost flawless, forming a utopian community which lacks conflict of any kind and which rests on relentless generosity and good humor. Utopias are notoriously dull and this one turns out to be no exception. But it's also interesting to notice what happens (and here comes the plot giveaway, though it refers to a very early scene) when the teenage daughter kills her father. (1) Her mother rushes to take responsibility for it and(2) the daughter seems to suffer almost no remorse (and in fact her emotional life then disappears from the film). It's not quite a glorified killing, though Aldomovar's camera lingers on the blood in a bloodthirsty way, as though it makes an attractive painting, and then it's soaked up and out of sight without bloodying either daughter or mom, neither materially nor emotionally. Later the film reveals another killing, again by a woman of a man, , and once again it is a killing which the film implicitly endorses.In short, Volver is an ideologically-driven film with an unpleasant and in fact a repugnant ideology, and so I write an ideological critique. But apart from that, it's just not very interesting. It has none of the depth of, say, Aldomovar's Talk to Her, which I loved.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A film by Almodovar- sends a tingle down my spine every time. The capitalized print which opens the Spanish auteur's latest feature instantly induces memories of salacious nuns, gentle necrophiliacs, wisecracking transsexuals\u0085and I haven't even got as far as the infant-terrible's critically reviled early work. And after a beautiful opening montage, with the camera roving across a wind-swept graveyard animated by a hoard of widows feverishly scrubbing tombstones, I thought Pedro had me again under his wicked spell.

Yet once my nostalgia had subsided, there was very little to fill its place. For a director who revels in bringing humanity to assassins and rapists, he does a very poor job at finding any emotional depth or endearing quality in his women. Penelope Cruz is Raimunda, a headstrong housewife whose life is complicated by her daughter's accidental killing of her abusive husband. Thankfully she lives in Almodovar's Spain where your friends will quite happily help to dispose of a corpse for the offer of a round of cocktails. Add to the melting-pot the ghost of Raimunda's mother and a host of other eccentrically warm-hearted matriarchs. \"Volver\" means literally to return, and Pedro does appear to be recycling old material. The sub-plot of incest feels as though it were tacked-on as the obligatory \"taboo\". Instead of commenting on or subverting the issue, as with his treatment of paedophilia in Bad Education, it feels forced and unconvincing amid the film's chick-flick sentimentality. I suggest Almodovar call his next film Salir (to move on).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"One of the first things I noticed that allowed this culture to stand out among the rest was during the wake at Sole's place. An aerial shot is used to show Sole being flowered with kisses by a sea of women. I believed this was a commentary on the closeness that women had for each other of this culture\u0097ones who stuck together across the generations, separations and misunderstandings, and still being able to bond and rely on each other. Also, the film seemed to glorify women as almost flawless individuals. What I mean by flawless is that they did not suffer the consequences for their actions and were treated as if they had no imperfections. An example of this is shortly after Paula accidentally killed her father. Her mother immediately comes to her rescue and takes full responsibility for the act while Paula seems to suffer almost no remorse for what she has done. Again, another example of this is when each daughter (or granddaughter) has had an opportunity to reunite with their supposed \"dead\" mother (grandmother). Knowing the stresses that this has most likely caused in their family, each one of them still embraces the mother without care for what she has done\u0097that is, killing her husband and his lover. In this light, women are portrayed as ones who not only love each other independent of character acts, but also ones who don't seem bothered in the least by the acts in which their friends\/family members perform.

Another idea that I thought was intriguing of this culture was in regards to their idea of the supernatural. With the death of Raimunda and Sole's mother and her inexplicable return, the director builds the audience's emotions to believe that this film is going to embody the supernatural. The people depicted in this culture seem very supernatural, that is to say, very eager to believe that life exists beyond the grave. Their aunt, long-time friend Augustina, the prostitute and other people living in the city of La Mancha all believe the rumors of the dead coming back to family members to finish the \"unfinished business.\" I believed this was a mixed reflection of the culture's religious faith (predominantly Catholic) as well as their need to make amends with those who had no chance to be forgiven during mortality. The belief they held in regards to the dead being \"alive\" was also to give hope to the destitute circumstances they suffered in mortality. When the viewer is exposed to the fact that this film isn't supernatural at all, it's interesting to observe the role the mother continues to play. She's treated as if she still is a ghost (i.e. hiding in small crevices (underneath the bed or inside a car trunk)). I believe the director portrayed the mother this way to heighten the already existent supernatural beliefs the city had adopted. The mother's character seemed to be a metaphor for the city's long-held belief in life after death.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"At least for me. I have been following the career of Mr. Almdovar since the beginning and I was not crazy about this film. I think Penelope Cruz was miscast, the type of woman she is portraying does not look that good, she makes the character unbelievable. Also, the singing scene was just weird. I do not get the point and the lip-sync was awful.

As Spaniard, another thing that drove me nuts are the accents. Why people coming from the same place have such a different accent? The difference between the two sisters is notable and makes no sense. And the village? are we in 2007 or 1950? I found myself trying to explain to my American husband that many of the things in the movie are \"old school\", things are not like that anymore.

I was expecting more but this time Mr.Almodovar did not deliver, at least for me. I am not saying that Miss Cruz does a bad job, I am saying that she does not belong there, not portraying that character.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Though I have watched Sal\u00f2, I do not know if excrement tastes tart. If it does, this \"film\" is accurately titled. So much of roughage, so little substance, this is the celluloid equivalent of celery - only it does not cleanse the palate. It leaves the taste of wasted time in the mind's mouth, and if I could vomit this film and get back that expanse\/expense I would. Detention was more exciting. The director should be forced to wear a dunce cap, and the Spirit of Ed Wood Jr. couldn't save this semi-professional projection from certain failure. A waste of time, a waste of mind. **Don't be fooled by the toothsome Dominique Swain: competent eye-candy she was in the Lolita remake, less tragic and savvier than Sue Lyon, though by no means better. However, a previously competent turn of the screw does not make her a skilled crafts-person. You need craft for that, not crap, which is what this film is. The reels belong in the girls' bathroom, flushed till the pipes burst, while director\/direct-less Christina Wayne should do 5-10 in study hall. Watch anything else and pass this class, by (bye), forever!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Tart\" is a good illustration of old the Yogi Berra saying: \"If you don't know where you are going, you will probably end up someplace else\". Writer\/Director Christina Waye (in her first feature) has managed to make a $3 Million movie that ends up someplace else. \"Tart\" is either a coming of age story devoid of characters that a rational person can connect with, a black comedy without any humor, or a sexploitation movie without anything that is particularly sexy.

Unlike the standard Swain film, \"Tart\" actually employed a competent and experienced production designer. Good enough to provide two extremely nice shots: the scene of Swain and Barton taking a bubble bath together and the scene of Swain in the park-featuring a nice montage of the \"Alice in Wonderland\" sculpture. The symbolism incorporated into these elements supports the possibility that Waye (despite the absence of a linear logic or unity of tone) actually has some visionary talent and aspirations for making a quality film.

It is even possible that Waye was trying for a fusion of the somewhat expressionistic \"Metropolitan\" and the camp classic \"Cruel Intentions\" which also deal with the Manhattan upper class. There are many camera shots framed by windows and doors yet few tight shots of faces and eyes. The former technique hinting at symbolism and the latter at intentional distancing from the characters and their motivations. \"Tart\" seemed on the verge of veering into camp territory at least twice and would have been well advised to keep going in that direction. First there was the scene where they try to dump the seemingly deceased Swain into the garbage chute. Then there is the whole bit about her father being Jewish (played to the same extreme as Joel Grey dancing with the Jewish guerrilla in \"Cabaret\").

In her other films Swain's acting technique is to overwhelm each scene in which she appears (insert scenery chewing here) but in \"Tart\" she actually shows an ability to restrain herself. This is the best performance of her career. It also provides some clues about her physical deterioration from willowy super cute in \"Girl\" to hulking lumpy-faced in \"Pumpkin\". This transformation was about half-complete by the time she made \"Tart\"; so go the ravages of time.

Mischa Barton (\"Sixth Sense's\" I feel better girl) and Lacey Chabet are excellent in supporting roles. The rest of the cast is simply horrible, although some of the blame for this should go to Waye's script and direction.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The beginning of the movie was confusing and the rest of it was predictable. It was just one of those movies that I came across in my netflix instant queue and I thought it would be interesting to see Brad Renfro and Bijou Phillips team up together again since Bully. Unfortunately \"interesting\" never happened in this movie. Swain plays an invisible girl at a private school whose best friend is rich and does anything she wants at any time (Phillips). But Swain likes one of the boys (Renfro) from the \"in crowd\" and eventually starts hanging with them. And, of course, like all other movies things are good (or so you assume since the movie never hints on that things are good) and then things become not so good by hanging with the rich kids.

The problem with the movie is that there are absolutely no peaks and valleys. It is just a dead lifeless movie that after you've watched it, you feel you could have done anything better. Some scenes (the ones with Renfro's parents) don't even make sense as to being in the movie because the director and writer didn't follow up on it, at all.

All the interesting things that COULD have played out was just completely ignore and this is almost like watching a before they were stars episode (Mischa Barton and Rachel Bison from the OC).

The only shining light in this movie, and the reason it doesn't get a ONE rating from me is Phillips. They needed more scenes with her in it. Renfro just look like he brought over a bit of his character from Bully. And, for pete's sake, the Title is BS, change the name.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Basic structure of a story: Beginning, Middle, End.

Sometimes this structure is played with, and we get Memento or Irreversible and the story plays backwards. Sometimes it's just not linear, a la Pulp Fiction. Regardless, they all have a beginning, middle and end.

This is the first film I have ever seen that doesn't have an end.

Beginning: Girl's best friend is expelled.

Middle: Girl needs to cope without best friend.

End: Non existent.

Not that having an end would've saved this film, but at least it would have been complete.

It's an exercise in apathy; we get a party-mix of characters, and they all turn out to be duds. Boring, vain, vapid and pallid imitations of people.

And here's the action within this film: NOTHING HAPPENS. Nothing at all happens. Mischa Barton tries to talk with a plummy English accent, Dominique Swain whines a lot and Brad Renfro receives a blow job from some old guy. End of movie.

By the time the credits rolled, I had a horrible feeling that many prisoners must feel: periods of time, those precious minutes of our life, have just been wasted.

The only passable point (and that is a very emphatic ONLY) is Brad Renfro. He acts well. Lacey Chabert I tend to like, but no luck here. Due to good work in other films, I will forgive Mischa Barton this travesty, but I hope all cast members were slapped in the face for their involvement.

Please, I implore you. Avoid. Don't fool yourself into thinking \"I'll make up my own mind\". My sister told me to never see this, and I ignored her, wanting to make up my own mind. That was a bad decision.

I have never hated a film. There are many I don't like, but I have never hated a film. Until I saw this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Eghads, what a bad movie. Tart is perhaps the very worst movie I've seen all year, and I've run across some doozies. There is nothing redeeming about this trash, from the characterization to the direction to the plot. Even the usually brilliant Dominique Swain couldn't save this movie. None of the characters are in the least bit sympathetic, with the possible exception of Eloise (wonderfully portrayed by Lacey Chabert, the only bright spot in this dismal failure).

*******Possible Spoilers********

The main problem with Tart is that it rambles on without saying anything. It staggers about drunkenly instead of leading us along the path of the story. It also introduces numerous potentially tantalizing details (the hypochondriac brother, the mother's possessions constantly being repossessed, the anti-semitic classmate, the other classmate's murderous father) without successfully exploring a single one of them. And just when I finally thought that there might be some sort of resolution for the characters, the movie crashes to an unexpectedly violent end.

I left the movie feeling that it was trying to tell me something, but with the strong impression that the message was forgotten before it could be communicated. This is an obvious first film from a writer\/director who really needs to spend much more time working under more established film makers before foisting any more of her work on an unsuspecting public.

I gave this film 1 out of 10, and I'm usually very generous, even with bad films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"TART is the worst movie I've seen this year, and that includes both the Affleck\/J.Lo bomb GIGLI and the Rob Zombie borefest HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES. I don't know if that's a fair comparison seeing that TART was made two years earlier and probably has a budget half that of even the low-budget 1000 CORPSES. Regardless, all three movies suffer from the same shortcomings: horrible script, horrible acting, horrible direction.

*** SPOILERS *** (although I honestly don't think there's anything to spoil)

TART is about a group of super-spoiled private school kids. Most of them reside in super-sized apartments along New York's hyper-expensive Park Avenue, thanks to the finances of their neglectful parents. The film showcases the aimless life of one of the students (Cat) as she discards her only true friend (as frivolous a person as she was) in the pursuit of the \"good life\" with the in-crowd. That, of course, leads to sex, drugs, and music that is substantially worse than rock & roll. Everything is overly dramaticized in the way that truly bad movies usually are. Cat's first sexual experience leads to her being branded a tramp and ostracized by her newly acquired circle of friends; her first encounter with drugs leads to her nearly being dumped down a garbage chute after her cohorts believe her to be dead from an overdose. No heavy-handed messages there, he said sarcastically.

That's mainly what the \"seen it before 100 times\" plot entails. Other minor, and even less interesting, plot details include one friend who steals jewelry and trinkets from all the others, a wild child who lives life on the edge (and finally falls off of it one night in the EAST Hamptons), an anti-Semitic British chick who ends her close friendship with Cat the moment she finds out Cat has a Jewish father, and Cat's strained relationship with her single mother who tries unsuccessfully to get Cat to appreciate the privileged life she has. The thief turns out to be an irredeemable lowlife. The \"wild child\" is played as a toned down version of one of the Hilton sisters. The British girl disappears from the film after the break-up. The mother\/daughter relationship is seen as totally inconsequential until the film's final schmaltzy scene, where she and her beleaguered mother have a reconciliation of sorts. *yawn*

*** END SPOILERS ***

About the cast and crew.... Dominique Swain came on the scene strong with her role as the underaged seductress in 1997's highly watchable LOLITA and FACE\/OFF. Her performances were strong enough to land her on quite a few \"ones-to-watch\" lists at the time. She was 17 at the time and I hope that they will not be the best roles of her career. If she takes a few more roles like the one she takes in TART, it very well may be.

I've only seen Bijou Phillips in one other film (BULLY) and I swear her performance in that one was nearly identical to the one she gave here. I'm not sure if she's incapable of giving varied performances or if it was just a coincidence her roles in the two were so very similar. My guess is that the former is true. I sense this woman possesses very little talent as far as acting is concerned. Here, she is the actress tapped to portray the watered-down Hilton sister. That she gives such a weak performance is amazing considering that she grew up with, and remains friends with, the real-life Hilton sisters. She's essentially playing a version of herself in this film, and doing a damn poor job of it.

As for writer\/director Christina Wayne... I know nothing of her other than TART was her first, and only, film project to date. With a first effort like this it is no wonder her career in show business was short-lived.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Movie Title - Tart

Date of review - 5\/26\/02

Year of movie - 2001

Stars - Dominique Swain, Brad Renfro, Bijou Phillips (barely), Melanie Griffith (barely)

NeCRo's Rating - 4 skulls out of 10

May Contain spoilers

Plot

An \"outcast\" Dominique Swain wants to be with the \"in\" group and so she abandons her real friends and joins them.......much annoying rich people talk occurs. Acting

ugh, I guess I got what I wanted in that Dominique was ok, but man, the rest of the cast besides maybe Brad Renfro were bad or at least not interesting or likable at all. I know some could say that the others were good because they made me hate them....trust me....I like unlikable chars but this group is unlikable because they can't convincingly be bad people.

It figures that the only other people I got this for were barely even in it and that is Melanie Griffith and Bijou Phillips, but the little time they had they were ok. Melanie spoke maybe 2 lines, but at least Bijou had a good character although small.

Violence and Gore

My mind was constantly under attack from horrid dialogue and very very annoying characters, that's violence enough!! ok there was one bludgeoning with a rock which was ok.

T&A Nudity Factor

hahaha, they couldn't even add in any nudity to help spice up this movie, probably because no one would want to bear their body for this crap. If they are going to expose themselves they should do it in a movie where they will be remembered as their character and not for \"oh hey I heard she gets naked in this one.\"

Overall View of the movie (review)

ok ok I know I pride myself on being the person who can like most if not almost all movies or at least find some good in it. Well this movie is one of the few I really struggled to find anything worth while in. The problem with this movie is that it is so damn annoying. I already have a deep hatred for snobby rich people attitudes and that didn't help either. All this movie really is, is just a bunch of rich people sitting around acting depressed and stupid. I can't stress the annoyance factor enough. This movie tries to rehash the tried and true \"In group\" plotline which can usually be done ok with little difficulty.

Why do I not have a pic from the movie or the box cover? Well I felt this movie didn't deserve that glory so I decided to put a pic of the reason I rented this, and that reason is none other than Dominique Swain. Yes I too was wooed by her in Lolita and thought she was so good that I decided from then on to check her out in any movie in which she acts. At least I keep my promises and yes I have seen the majority of her movies, minus a few hard to find ones. She herself is a great actress and I would defend her actively, but man she chooses some of the crappiest movies to star in. This movie and Smokers are both in the same boat of crappiness, but at least Smokers had a cool idea for a story and even some real good scenes.

Also the dvd box tries to fool you into thinking that this movie has stars as well in it by putting Melanie Griffith and Bijou Phillips names on the front of the box. If there's one thing that P****S me off it's a movie that plasters the names of stars on a box to make you think \"wow it has ____ I wonder how good ___is in this one I saw ___ in that movie and thought she was great!\" only to have the big names in the movie for a total of maybe 10 minutes between the 2. Bijou actually had a part that semi-meant something. Melanie on the other hand, only has 2 lines about.... Granted I don't like Melanie that much, but this is about ethics and not star acting.

Out of all this mess though props must go to Brad Renfro for turning in an ok performance along with Dominique. Brad may be one very messed up kid in real life, but at least he can act. So the only reason this movie gets any skulls is because I got what I basically wanted which was Dominique Swain and Brad Renfro. Also I had the added pleasure of seeing underrated actress Bijou Phillips make me like her even more. So even though I was annoyed throughout I still came out with some positives, although this was pretty hard this time.

I recommend you to ONLY see this if you've seen Lolita and know how good Dominique is or if you are some offbeat fan of Brad or Bijou. Uber Melanie fans will be sorely depressed. Also if you're a fan of crappy movies like me, please do not assume this be a guilty pleasure because you will feel guilty alright, for the money spent on buying or renting.

Some movies are \"so bad that they are good\" as the saying goes. What they forgot to add was \"so bad that they are good (to pass up).\"

NeCRo","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The box to this movie totally misrepresents itself. The cover shows a view of legs & panties in a short skirt. The title is `Tart.' The synopsis on the back of the box made it seem as though Cat, the main character, was an outcast who became one of the popular students, but that popularity lead to a bizarre lifestyle that she could not escape from. Everything that the box built this movie up to was a horrible lie. I expected a sort of crappy, direct-to-video version of `Heathers' targeted at the teenagers of today.

Let me tell you what `Tart' was really about. Yes, this really is the plot; so if you don't want to know what happens, stop reading. We have one unlikable, boring rich girl. This unlikable girl's best friend is a skank. The skank gets expelled from school, so the unlikable girl befriends some British girl. This leads to the unlikable girl dating this boring guy, who the box refers to as the `most popular boy in school.' If that guy was the most popular guy in their school, I wish I would have gone to that high school, because I could have kicked the crap out of him. Anyway, as any movie will tell you, the most popular guy in school is invariably a murderer or drug addict or thief, or in this case, all of the above. Anyway, everyone ends up disliking the unlikable main character because she is Jewish. Then the most popular guy in school beats her best friend, the skank, to death with a rock because the skank caught the most popular boy in a homosexual act. The unlikable girl's stoic mother and hypochondriac younger brother are there for her at the end. Oh, and the entire movie is about snotty rich kids and their horrible parents too. Gee, what is wrong with that? That sounds like a fantastic movie! Well, that's what I thought. But you see, there are NO likeable characters in this movie. The main character is boring. The filmmakers made her average, while during the film she keeps spouting off about what a freak she is. The skank is not skanky enough, and has little screen time. The popular guy is nothing to write home about. The popular girls are just your run-of-the-mill rich girls. There are no moral lessons. Cat, the boring main character, is not a freak, does not ever become one of the truly popular girls, and (worst of all) after all the crap she goes through, she thinks she is still too good to befriend the only nice girl, the dorky girl. To be honest, I have no idea why the movie is called Tart. I kept asking, who's the tart? Is she the tart? Are they all tarts? At 94 minutes, theoretically this is not a long movie. But after actually watching this awful waste of a VHS tape, and not knowing who the tart was, I was surprised that the movie was only an hour and a half. The movie felt like it was two hours and some change. After a while, I was hoping the movie would be about pop tarts. At least when you look at a box of pop tarts, you know what to expect.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Just once in a while you see a movie so mind-numbingly awful that you have to comment on it. This was that movie. Poorly scripted, acted and totally unbelievable. It's movies like these that show you how good the banal Hollywood trash usually is!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I only wish that I had the good sense to turn this movie off in the beginning when I knew it was terrible.

Instead I gave it the benefit of the doubt and waited for it to get better.

Don't make the same mistake I did.

The title has nothing to do with the movie. The movie has nothing to do with the real world. The plot has nothing to do with a plot. The acting consists of a guy who wants to be John Cusack, but can't pull it off. The lead is a girl who tries to be Claire Daines. Sadly, she can't pull that off either. They are in love, although god only knows why. And by the end I was hoping that they would all kill each other off just so I could believe none of these kids would ever taint the world again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"As a rule, I try to find as much in films as I possibly can to enjoy them. I made no exceptions with \"Tart\", doing my very best to appreciate it for what it was. But no effort, no matter how great, could possibly redeem this pitiful excuse for a movie.

It failed for a number of reasons. Firstly, the cinematography was directionless and ineffective. Secondly, the script reached depths of 'poor' that took it well and truly beyond the 'so bad it's good' category. Thirdly, the acting left mind-blowing amounts to be desired - it was appalling, it really was. Anyone who saw Mischa Barton (seen here as the remarkably terrible Grace, a character so poorly invented and realised that Ja Ja Binks doesn't seem so bad) as Devon in John Duigan's \"Lawn Dogs\" will wonder what went wrong between then and now. Perhaps, had she been given a character worth bothering with, and a modicum of direction, she at least might have given this film ONE redeeming feature. Alas, such was not the case. Finally, the film seemed to have no point whatsoever, expressing nothing, achieving nothing. Really, I wonder why Christina Wayne bothered.

\"Tart\" made a feeble attempt to be something, and failed. The result - a film, sadly, so bad that it's just very, very bad. Don't bother - it really isn't worth it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"For the first time in reviewing films, I found myself immediately uninterested in this story. I don't know if it was the way that it was filmed or the story behind the characters, but it felt bland, overused, and completely unoriginal. Within the first thirty minutes, I found myself rather apathetic with all the characters and the story. I felt as if I had seen this structure before, and Tart was providing nothing new to surprise me. After thinking that it may just be my mood, I stopped the film and chose to start it fresh in the morning, but the same feeling persisted. I just didn't care. That is not a good sign. The characters were bland. When I say bland, I literally mean that by watching them develop, you will never have any flavor hit your palate. The story seemed recycled, nearly to the point of plagiarism. Now, I am not saying that Christina Wayne stole this story, but she added nothing fresh to the perspective. The casting was horrid, the underlying symbolism and themes were so far lost that no critic could find them (nor the characters), and the stories were vague and sloppy. You knew nothing about anyone or anything, and instead of pushing more emphasis on the characters, we instead found ourselves with drugs, minor sex, and money pushed into our faces. These are themes we have seen in every film since the dawn of film time, yet somehow could not be creatively captured by Wayne.

What immediately pulled me away from this story? It was mainly the characters. I have seen most of Brad Renfro's work, and honestly he needs to redefine himself. Director Larry Clark has defined him, and oddly he cannot get out of that stereotypical character. Within the first twenty minutes of Renfro's screen time I was bored. I knew exactly what he was trying to portray and why. It was spectacular nor impressive, just repetitive. He needed to bring some excitement or suspense to his role, instead of just blandly playing this random socialite. Without a strong character, the final climax of this film comes instead as a letdown. Renfro did not showcase the best of his abilities in this film. While I am on the subject \u0085 nobody showcased the best of their abilities. What is going on with Dominique Swain, outside of Lolita, I don't believe she has really emerged as an actress, and following-up with roles such as Cat Storm doesn't help. Bijou Phillips was the only actress that I witnessed actually try to bring something remarkable to the screen, sadly due to everyone else's horrid acting, she was lost. Rambling here and there, and honestly nearly forgotten about during the second act. Melanie Griffith was a pointless cast and most of this film's budget probably went to her TWO scenes that she was in. Maybe the rest of it went to the random guy from The Kids in the Hall, who desperately needs to place himself far away from this project.

My biggest problem, outside of the acting, was the pacing of this film. Nothing, and this is hard for me to say, but nothing gelled together. There were so many sub-stories happening throughout the course of the film that no actual substance was formed. The robberies, the teenage \"angst and woe\", the wealthy socialites learning how horrible real life is, the random Kids in the Hall guy, and even the ending just felt rushed and horribly edited together. With this shoddy craftsmanship the whole story never really formed any true shape. Family structures were never defined, characters were never given any emotion, and all we are left with are bits and pieces of honest leftovers. Wayne did not complete the task at hand.

While I hate to put the entire burden on the director, with this film I am left with little choice. With a horrid title that just screamed the complete opposite of what this film was about, with amateurish directional ability the cast pretty much was able to give every emotion in every scenes, leaving us with disgusting acting and poor developments, and with vague storytelling it is hard to place any \"good\" behind Tart. This was a film I had heard nothing about, and after viewing it I can see why. All Wayne has done with this film is random take excerpts from other films that have done a better job of defining all the elements above and cut all together to make the film Tart. It is hard for me to say this, but Wayne ruined this film. While I don't believe there was much to fully take from the story, any remaining elements of excitement were drained as Wayne took the helm. While most of the time you can credit some of the story, perhaps strong acting, or even the music, in Tart you can credit nothing. From the opening sequence until the end, I felt like I was swimming through very lumpy oatmeal. No consistency, no strength.

Overall, this film is a waste of your time. If you are searching for some deep symbolic elements or possibly some banter on our society, you will not find it in this film. While I know that was what Wayne was attempting to show, the final product seems like it was edited on an Etch-a-Sketch. It was an embarrassing film to sit through, and encourage nobody to pick it up. Wayne threw to the wind all the teachings of her Columbia University education and destroyed two hours of my life. Avoid at all costs!

Grade: * out of *****","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"SPOILERS!

I gave this film 2 out of 10 for 2 scenes that I will never forget.....by the way, my husband rented this surprising non-blow 'em up almost chick looking flick...but I guessed why when I saw the cover....girls in school uniforms....duh....lol....ah well, men if ya can't beat 'em join 'em.....;-)

Bijou Philips, one of my favorites on the indie screen...too cute......not only gets into bestiality (her toy dog is the best lesbian in town according to her bubbly outrageous character)..that would be the first worthwhile scene..

Then she enters a restroom in a lovely gown & goes into a stall....after a bit she gets up, goes out to the party she & the pathetically sad 'Cat' character are at,& hands a shiny silver ice bucket to the host of the party...the host looks in her precious silver ice bucket and says, \"oh my god it's poo.\"

I love Bijou Phillips myself for her creativity and unusual movie choices, this would definitely be one of them....and um, I would rent it for the poo scene if I were you.....I am not a big poo jokes fan, but it definitely puts the 'party people' in their place (they didn't look like they were having a good time anyway.....lol)...You will never forget these two scenes...hmm, but is that what we want in our databanks?....Maybe you shouldn't follow my advice at all....lol

Dominique Swain is kind of squirrelly & sad in her confusing nonsensical role in 'Tart'. I don't know, I can't decide if I like her because she is so into indie films?? Indie films are awesome & all but couldn't she pick a few good ones? I am going to check out a few more of her movies and reserve judgment.... but this one was, (pardon the reference to beasts) a dog.....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It was so disjointed - it seemed to jump from place to place - and the \"thief\" was obvious. It was a poor man's (not to mention high school) \"Less than Zero\". I would pass on this movie as it has very little to add. So many issues are left unresolved, and that's okay - but the fact that it jumps around to the point where you wonder what's exactly going on is terrible. The voice-over is needed because the movie doesn't work on its own. Avoid this movie, and watch something else about rich teen angst. I'm sure there are plenty of others to watch. Don't waste your time on this.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Why do people make bad movies? Didn't anyone working on the picture know that what they were making had no point? There is something about this picture that threw me off, besides the fact that I found this \"movie\" to be unrealistic, pathetic, and POORLY ACTED. I admire them for the try, but the \"actors\" in the movie at times seem to be trying to hard and no single character has substance or says anything mildly intelligent. This movie deserves zero stars. But I did not have that option, so it gets a 1.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Tart\" is a pathetic attempt at film making which wanders around and among a bunch of Manhattan teens exploring all the usual teen preppie stuff...sex, drugs, and classical music almost completely without story, focus, or purpose. Griffith is in the film for about 2 minutes while Swain dutifully works her way through another in her long list of dog flicks. Nothing in this films works and Wayne should consider getting a real job. Not recommended for anyone. PU! Ugh! (D)","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I'm not even going to waste more time describing how bad this movie is. Bottom line: It was horribly acted, had enormous plot holes and went absolutely NOWHERE. The only good thing about it was the description my digital cable gave for the movie: \"A married man with a struggling business has a fling with his secretary.\" Huh?? Wrong movie apparently, although it may have made things slightly more interesting if any of the description were true.

--Shelly","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I wish they would just make a special section in the video rental stores for movies like this. The section would read: \"Movies for lonely older men who like to watch young girls being naughty and wearing fetish clothes\" I guess dominique swain, after lolita nd now this, is establishing herself as the queen of the dirty old man genre.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This film has recently been televised by Turner Classic Movies. It may have been considered racy in its time, and may have made money, but even the most die-hard Jane Russell fan will find it hard to sit through this dreck.

There are many movie musicals from the 1950s which can withstand the test of time, even though dated by current standards, but which can still be enjoyed because of good music or dancing or an amusing plot. \"The French Line\", however, fails at all of these aspects.

It doesn't matter that Russell was a fine singer when she is given lousy vocal material. The entire cast is dragged down by a boring, trite plot and dialogue.

It's not even worth recording and skipping through to only the musical numbers--they're crummy.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Jane Russell was an underrated comedienne and singer (see SON OF PALEFACE and GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES), but you'd never guess it from her display here. A real stinker, produced by Howard Hughes in his all-too-successful effort to kill off RKO Radio Pictures.

The movie kills its first opportunity to show off sexy Jane when it places her in a bubble bath and then has her chastely singing \"I'll Be Switched (If I Ain't Gettin' Hitched)\"--and it's all downhill from there. In her autobiography, Russell apologized for the movie's number \"Lookin' for Trouble\" because it was supposedly so risque--nowadays you could show it on The Disney Channel. (By the way, said autobiography has a jaw-dropping photo of Russell in a bikini, far sexier than anything","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"The first Shiloh film was enjoyable by adults as well as children. This one starts with about an hour of filler where not much happens, with stilted dialogue; only in the last act is there any significant action that really moves the plot along. The dog is still cute, though, and young kids may enjoy it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is an adaptation of an Edith Wharton work, whose writing is amazing. Sadly, this movie never shakes the feeling that these 20th century movie people don't grasp the 19th century repression and desperation Wharton's work depicts. Ward and Dalton aren't so bad, but Alicia Witt's wooden performance made me wince. She was supposed to be playing the restless element of the story, but she stood like a stick the whole movie long, and I never believed a word out of her mouth. When she asks Sela Ward \"Why can't I move you?\" near the end of the film, I couldn't help but answer: \"That's what I've been wondering for the last hour and a half!!!\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Slow-moving ponderous movie with terrible acting on the whole - but lovely locations & clothes to admire, and, of course, Timothy Dalton, who does a compelling job, as always. I wanted to laugh out loud at the voice-overs - so silly!! But Dalton is always worth watching, even in bad movies, a wonderful actor, older now, but still very handsome and masculine. This movie is worth viewing only to see him....and he seems like he wandered into a bad dime romance novel, poor fellow. Your time would be better spent watching Mr. Dalton in 1970's \"Wuthering Heights\" or the early 1980's BBC version of \"Jane Eyre\". Poor Sela Ward, so lovely, but so wooden.... surely she's been better in other movies.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Return to Sender, a.k.a. Convicted, is almost imperfect. The one good thing about this particular film was that I was never bored. That being said, the reviews that hail this movie as a low-budget success may not have watched the same movie that I saw.

Rather than write a review and tell you what happens and what works and doesn't work, I will simply comment that nothing works. There are plot holes in this movie that you can drive a semi through. The acting in the film is not very good, although that may be a result of a script so poorly worded that it could have been ghost written by George Lucas. There was no need for exceptional sets or costumes for this particular movie and everything seemed appropriate. Did I mention that there were some plot holes? By the end of the movie, you are wondering how a blind guy can be such a good shot with a shotgun, why Kelly Preston trusts Aidan Quinn, why she would fall asleep the night before her client is supposed to be killed, how Aidan Quinn can drive 400 miles in such a short time with a car that keeps breaking down during the rest of the movie, why Aidan Quinn didn't by a fifth instead of a bunch of nips, etc.

With all that being said, this is certainly a B-movie, and a terrible one at that. The unfortunate thing is that it just isn't bad enough to be good. If you value your time, please let this serve as a public service message to stay away from this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This was pretty bad - from bad acting, bad technical details, bad camera shots, and bad audio (even though I was watching a DVD, sometimes I couldn't hear what they were saying, sometimes it was blowing my speakers, even within the same conversation). The plot was predictable, and the characters consisted of mostly unbelievable neurotics, bi-polars, and caricatures. Character development was awful... the bratty little sister (why was she even written into the script?), the nagging mom (again - what purpose?) the whiny girlfriend (why didn't he dump her long ago?), the 'dark suits' gang (how original - couldn't think of a better name I guess), the drug dealer's hot girlfriend (gotta have a hot Latina if your going to have LA gangs I guess, but really...), etc etc Can't believe I watched the whole thing.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Don't get fooled by the 'awards' and the comment below. This is just 1 poor movie. The way George Katt played his character (the soft gangster) makes it very annoying to watch. The conversation in the opening scene is a dramatic display of this. De in the rest of the film the character's head seems to be somewhere else. His emotions don't match with the things that happen in the film.The things he says as a voice-over doesn't add anything to the film. It just makes Zeus an even more spineless character with is head in the clouds.

The story and the film was put together with a total lack of fantasy. All parts of the film were poorly stolen from other modern directors. Let's hope Jon Rosten will use his own style and ideas for his future films.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wow, this movie really sucked down below the normal scale of dull, boring, and unimaginative films I've seen recently. The acting was poor and robotic. The story was so bland you could have summed it up with a simple 5-minute short. Audio was so poor and dirty it was hard to even listen to; perhaps it was unedited from the camera it was shot off of? I'm not sure which movie the 3 glowing reviewers were commenting on, but it wasn't this one. Perhaps the director had his hand in seeing that his film received a good review, at least before the real reviews started to show up.

Save your time or you'll just be wasting your time and money on this film. Absolute suckage!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This movie was terrible not only was the plot weak, but the acting was unbelievable bad, and at times pathetic. Very unrealistic dialogs people in real life don't talk like this and there is no emotion or feeling in anything said very monotone except for the almost indistinguishable whispering that constantly occurs. Even the editing is bad the cuts are terrible. The camera work was sloppy and shaky on close ups even sways back and forth during conversations. There is nothing positive about this movie and George Katts needs to be working on heavy machinery or anything where he doesn't have to converse with other humans because he clearly doesn't know how to. How did this movie win\/ get nominated for awards oh my god!!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Everyone's already commented on the obvious fact that the first few comments were obviously from people who either had a stake in the film or had friends\/family who had a stake in the film, and that's okay - if I'd made a movie, all of my family and friends would be in there complimenting it, too. In all honesty, there are some good things along with the bad things in this movie. Unfortunately, the bad things far outweigh the good. Good: The overall plot was mildly interesting. The music was overall pretty good. Several of the songs (when you could hear them) were actually pretty cool. The only musical issues I had were: #1) the first suspense scene with some sort of quiet instrumental (it really seemed to take away from the suspense), #2) the song being played when the lead characters went to an outdoor party at a friend's house and #3) the songs that were good were too quiet, especially when a heavy metal song was playing in the background while Danny Trejo hung a man (sounded like a pretty cool song, but it should have ripped out across the scene when Danny Trejo got froggy). Now for the completely bad stuff: The script was atrocious. I mean, HORRIBLE. I've seen smoother dialogue in a Star Wars movie. Advice to the writer from a part-time writer and full-time movie buff: When you write dialogue, ask yourself, \"Is this something that people would actually say?\" Honestly, the script was laughable. I want to slam the acting, but with that kind of writing, it's hard to know if they have talent or not. The mildly interesting plot was seriously hampered by the crappy dialogue. I know it was low-budget, but words don't cost money - if you have a good script, even semi-competent actors can pull it off. This movie didn't seem to have either, but hopefully the director will get a second shot at making a better film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"My mom brought me this movie on a DVD. A guy in a rental recommended it. But in fact, this might be the worst movie I've ever seen. You know, I didn't expect much from this film, but it didn't have a good story, it wasn't even funny and it was senseless. I was looking forward to see Christine Lakin in this movie because I loved Step by step. Even she was a huge disappointment. The story was completely unreal. One of the party guys is dead (he wasn't dead in fact, he woke up later), the house looks like there exploded a bomb and there are 2 guys who have 3 hours to handle everything. But then there comes a homosexual, policeman... There is a total mess till the end and the guys managed to tide up and everything in like 15 minutes??? Come on, just be realistic at least. Waste of money. Really...","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I could crap a better movie. This is a waste of time and money. it makes me sick that movies like these are actually getting made and the people making them actually think they're good. I happen to like teen comedies, when they're done well. This movie, however, takes this genre to a new low. With movies like this, people think it's actually okay to make this filth and ask unsuspecting people to pay money to sit through it. It's sadism.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I can't believe people actually a) write scripts like this b) have a budget to make a film c) actually expect it to be successful. Words can't even describe how horrible this film is. I enjoy my fair share of teen movies, but this didn't even come close to being funny. In fact, it was funny for the sole reason that it was so horrible. I can probably count one (maybe two) parts in the film where I even managed to squeeze out a chuckle (other than the laughs regarding how bad it was).

Renting this was one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made. Its been a day since I've seen the film, and I'm still in shock regarding how horrible it was. Avoid at all costs.

2\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you liked William Hickey in \"Prizzi's Honor\", he resurrects his character, as Don Anthony in \"Mob Boss\". This is a very weak \"Godfather\" satire with few laughs. Stuart Whitman looks perplexed as to what he's doing in this schlock-fest? Morgan Fairchild's performance is one of the better efforts in the movie, and that alone is not a good sign for sure. Eddie Deezen vacillates between \"Three Stooges\" slapstick and a bad Woody Allen imitation. Fatally flawed, \"Mob Boss\" is so derivative that boredom quickly overcomes comedy and the film drags on with car chases, hidden weapons in a restaurant bathroom, and numerous other nonsense. - MERK","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Ever once in a while I run into a movie that is so embarrassingly bad I wonder why movies exist. This is one of them. This is a terrible attempt to parody The Godfather with annoying cartoon sounds, and bad dialogue. Eddie Deezen is just plain annoying as Tony, an annoying twit who upon his father, Don (William Hickey)'s request, takes over the family business. Tony, as I said, is an annoying little twit. This makes the whole movie a complete mess. The movie is terribly daffy. It's too cartoonish. The main point I'm trying to make is that you can't make a parody of an acclaimed drama like The Godfather with so much cartoonishness. It doesn't work that way. Believe it or not, you have to take a parody of a dramatic movie seriously. If you don't take it seriously, it will feel too much like a parody. The thing about doing a parody is that you can't seem too much like you're doing a parody. You have to make it seem like you're taking the movie at least a little bit seriously. It also feels like they're just mocking Woody Allen, and that's what makes this movie absolutely terrible.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"That's about the only redeeming quality in a movie that otherwise insults the viewer's intelligence by losing track of time, plot, and reason for being produced.

Plus, how that guy with the glasses ever got a gig in Hollywood is beyond me.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I recently had to watch this for a project in a Sociology class and thought it was absolutely the worst movie I have ever had to sit through. It was like bad a bad cinemax movie with all the \"good bits\" taken out. Bad acting, the fake documentary set up, nonsensical plot, and rudderless direction all combine to make a terrible, terrible film.

The female characters are basically only there to be sex objects. Consider this exchange: \"He's hot.\" \"He has a girlfriend.\" \"Do you have a girlfriend?\" \"No.\" *girl takes boys hand and leads him behind some bushes. boy comes out and sits next to other boy, girl saunters off* \"Did you hit that?\" \"No, I didn't want to take my pants off.\" \"You're stupid.\" Another girl shows up when the boys are going to Beverly Hills, gets in the trunk with one of the boys, and when they get pulled over by a cop, you see the car bobbing up and down.

A homosexual pervert, a trigger-happy Clint Eastwood look alike, and what seems to be a luchador mask all add to the inanity. One of the boys gets caught by a cop, no one cares. One of the boys gets shot, no one cares.

Someone said the dialogue was mostly improvised, and it shows. Just awful. I would never recommend this film to anyone.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Look, don't get me wrong I love independent films but COME ON! I could barely sit through it without wanting to kill myself. the director had absolutely no talent and he turned something that could have been OK to a F***ing Nightmare. I am a punk enthusiast myself and even the music sucked. the acting was crap.

I am usually a bleeding heart for these low budget films but this one, this one didn't even try. Please don't waste your precious time and money. I am sorry to be so harsh but come on! it dragged on and and on and on. Remember when the kids got into that party with the weird cupcakes and the watermelon martinis? how did they just blend in? It made me frustrated how they could just go anywhere they wanted and get into trouble and have sex and a \"meaningful conversation\" with whoever they wanted. I know im blathering but my mind is just buzzing with everything I hated about this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I've never been a big Larry Clark fan, but somehow, I've been dragged to almost every single one of his movies. Now, I like independent films, and I grew up very much into punk rock, and I'd like to say that this film is disappointing to both audiences. Not every punk song incorporates \"Oi!\" into its choruses, as they do in this particular film.

But the real problem with this film is that it switches moods every fifteen minutes or so and lacks any kind of cohesion. Clark has made his living pretending that his fictionalized stories are \"how kids really are,\" and as such, you'll allow him ten minute scenes of stupid dialog that go nowhere, because that's the cinema verite feel he's going for. However, when he shoots a ridiculous death scene (pick any of them, save for the opening drive-by), the over-stylized attempts at what I assume is intended to be black humor are completely out of context, ridiculously shot (in most cases, far worse than a student film) and absolutely ludicrous in terms of the story. John Cassavettes and \"Date Movie\" make poor bedfellows, as the forays into the latter style take you out of any kind of reality to remind you that you're watching a movie - a really, really bad one at that.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Larry Clark is not renowned for his talents as a writer or a director, but he has made some undeniably important films. Kids, Bully, and to a lesser extent Ken Park all achieve their intended purpose: shock, revulsion, and even disgust. These films are uncompromising in their content and use their controversial nature to expose very serious problems in modern youth. Kids exposed us to the proliferation of A.I.D.S. and sexual promiscuity among the young. Bully touched upon similar issues. Ken Park dealt somewhat ham-handedly with sexual abuse and suburban ennui. Irrefutably, all of these films exposed something horrifying and left a bad taste in your mouth.

Wassup Rockers is about a group of poor Hispanic skateboarders from South-Central Las Angeles who go to arbitrarily go to Beverly Hills to skate. That's it.

Wassup Rockers is nothing.

It has no substance. It has an essentially nonexistent narrative. And, like Kids, it features a cast of first-time actors who were drawn out of the films setting. However, unlike Kids, none of them have any semblance of talent. There is better acting in porn. This film features, without a doubt, the most terrible performances I've ever seen in a feature film. One can respect Larry Clark to exposing these young men to the film-making process, but these kids are absolutely cringe-worthy, folks. Might I add that apparently these gents also produced the soundtrack, which features some of the most dismally inept garage punk you'll ever hear- my advice is to pop a couple of migraine pills before you enter the theater, or you'll regret it afterward.

But then again, it's not like they had much of a script to work with. Every line that is uttered is a contrived, pathetically-delivered, and irritating beyond all measure. The story itself is ludicrous. It starts out reasonably enough, but soon slips quite unexpectedly into sheer absurdity. This begins of course with a capricious sexcapade with a pair of rich white girls, followed by a series of clich\u00e9d National Lampoonish encounters, characters being killed off for no reason, and finally resulting in a ridiculous anti-climax. Shots go on much longer than they need to. Be prepared to watch people fall of skateboards for about fifteen minutes straight, overlong, lingering shots of characters doing nothing or skateboarding down streets. But then again, with the script at a scant 32 pages they need as much useless filler as possible. Perhaps Wassup Rockers would have worked better as a short film.

Anyways, I could go on like this. This is the worst film Larry Clark has made yet. For those of you who are interested in seeing a Clark movie if only for his shocking pederast antics, look elsewhere. This is by far the tamest film he's made yet, and it's also the worst. It's flat out horrible. Like, Uwe Boll horrible. Definitely the worst one I saw at the festival.

1\/10","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"There's nothing to say except I want my time back that this movie took from me. I'm not racist against Latinos. Hell, I'm half Brazilian. I loved the movie Kids. It doesn't make any sense. These kids just go around and do nothing. They're not even good at skating. The whole time I'm just waiting for something, anything, to happen! but it doesn't. NOTHING happens the whole movie. Did I mention they suck at skating. I might make a movie called beat up rockers, and the whole premise will be about kicking the sh*t out of poser moron punks like these kids. I'm not even going to get into it, this movie sucks. Please do yourself a favor and burn this movie if you come in contact with it so some other poor soul won't make the same mistake.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"It starts out like a very serious social commentary which quickly makes one think of other Clark movies like Kids, Bully, etc. But then just as quickly, it unravels into a direction-less mess. Who is the main character? Is this a serious film or some Gregg Araki-esquire over the top goofy film? Is this a skate documentary with moments of dialog inserted? I have no clue. I found myself watching the clock and wonder when this turd was going to end. I kept thinking there would be some big shocker culmination which never came. I cut a good 20 minutes out of the movie by fast forwarding through the pointless skate scenes. Yes, it illustrates the changing landscape between the have's have not's. I got it way back in the beginning. Kids and Bully was done in such a way that I actually felt like I was observing the realities of that group of friends. Wassup felt very staged, poorly constructed and ever worse acting. Teenage Caveman, which Larry didn't write but did direct, was terrible. But at least it felt like it was suppose to be a terrible movie that didn't take itself seriously. Wassup Rockers was just plain bad.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Pick a stereotype, any stereotype (whether racial, sexual, cultural, etc.), and I bet you'll find it in Wassup Rockers. Do you think that all Hispanic teenage boys are stupid, hairy, inarticulate, and dirty troublemakers? Are Hispanic girls sex-crazed, easy, ass-baring sluts? Do Black people all want to start fights and carry guns? Do all gay people throw themed parties with pink drinks and ask young boys to model for them? Are all White teenage girls rich, stuck-up princesses who are bored with White teenage boys and are looking for something a little more dangerous? If you answered \"yes\" to any of the previous questions, you, my friend, are a bigot, and you will LOVE Wassup Rockers.

Director Larry Clark likes to shock his audiences (I was 15 years old the first time I saw Kids and I think that's why I'm still a virgin), but Wassup Rockers isn't shocking\u0085 it's just bad. He tries to be edgy and realistic with his minimal dialog and body-hair close-ups, but these characters and this story are completely unrealistic.

Simply put, Wassup Rockers is a teenage boy's fantasy. What 14-year-old boy doesn't want to be a skater who gets in trouble, crashes parties, drinks 40s, and is told by the hot, rich, White girl that his uncircumcised penis \"looks dangerous?\" Besides that demographic, I really don't know who's going to enjoy this film.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"**Possible Spoilers Ahead**

Whenever fans of bad movies congregate for more than a few minutes, a name that invariably comes up is that of Larry Buchanan. This amazing director has given us remakes of other turkeys (ZONTAR THE THING FROM VENUS), cheap-jack crime dramas like A BULLET FOR PRETTY BOY, and tawdry conspiracy flicks like DOWN ON US and GOODBYE NORMA JEAN. THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a humdinger to say the least. Overlooking the fact that Loch Ness is extremely long and narrow, Larry filmed this howler on a wide and round California lake. Early on, the film boasts some dazzling (for the budget) underwater photography and creates some atmosphere in spite of itself. Then it degenerates into windy dialogue uttered by no-name actors with lapsing Scottish accents, not to mention a soundtrack that will do nothing for the much-maligned bagpipe. At one point, campers sing \"You Take The High Road, I'll Take The Low Road,\" just to throw in one more Scottish cliche. If Scottish people ever decide to jump on the Political Correctness bandwagon they'll sue Larry Buchanan over this film, his surname notwithstanding. The monster looks like a giant papier-mache puppet and it makes the dragon in Beanie & Cecil look terrifying by comparison. In one unforgettable scene Nessie takes to land and, to evade some patrolling soldiers, the fifty-foot long critter tries to hide behind a tree-and the soldiers don't see it! THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a true mind-boggler that must be seen-several times--to be believed.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Something strange is happening in Loch Ness. The water is crystal clear, nor cold. A giant robotic plastic monster emerges and kills Scots! What is this movie?! First, I love reading stories about Nessie, sea monsters in general. When i saw this for sale, i thought it was a cheap rip off of jaws. No. It was terrible! The story was pointless, acting was 100% garbage, the only up side was the cool mechanical Nessie they used. It was full of inaccuracy, wrong locations, and bad everything. Not worth your while, just leave it on the shelf (or garbage can) you found it on. On second note, This film was shot in Cailifornia, not Loch Ness, a major diss to Nessie fans.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"OMG, another bad film by Larry Buchanan. That guy did not learn to stop, did he? First, he gives us zero budget sci-fi movies and lies about famous dead people, and now he is exploiting the Loch Ness Monster as being vicious.

The \"plot\" is basically about some southerners of the USA pretending to be Scottish camping out at Loch Ness. Alas, out on the fishing hole, oops, I mean lake of Loch Ness, there is a killer inflatable monster that clams itself to be Nessie, going out of its way to kill people for no apparent reason.

I am surprised that the crew of MST3K never heard of this movie. Yes, it is that bad too.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I think this is one of those few movies that I want to rate it as low as possible just to pay it a compliment.

I haven't seen this movie in about 25 years, so I really can't say that much about it. It still seems to be very hard to find on video. But I remember my brother and I stumbled upon it somewhere in the toxic brew of late night UHF channel television of the mid 1980s when I was about 10 years old. So I've never actually seen the beginning of the movie, but I saw most of it. The first thing I remember is this couple is sneaking out of a campsite and they're rowing to an island to make out, and then they get attacked by an insane Scotsman in a kilt with an axe! They manage to escape from him but get attacked by the Loch Ness Monster, which in this movie is just a head and a neck with no body. The eyes and the mouth of the monster don't even move, it looks like a pi\u00f1ata.

I mean I had just literally never seen anything on this magnitude before and it totally blew my mind. I had seen some bad movies on TV in the early 80s but I had never seen something so totally inept and so casually and thoughtlessly constructed that it seemed like the people who made it spent less time and effort on it than we did watching it. I had already seen some of the Troma films and that type of thing that tries to deliberately be \"campy\", but this was the pure and real stuff and it was my first encounter with truly great bad film-making. This movie was like the last gasp of the drive-in era and I caught a whiff of it just in time. Actually when we were watching it, we couldn't figure out if it was made in the 50s or the 70s. Turns out it came out just a few years before I saw it.

Later I came into contact with Mystery Science Theater and found out about a lot of the old B movies and serials, but I had already seen it in this movie. The movie is so funny that I had never even laughed that hard at the Monty Python crew or Bill Murray or any comedian. After seeing this movie I was always trying to search for the \"good bad\" movies and I got a lot of my friends into it. But this movie was and basically is an impossible one to find. I never really found out what it even was or who Larry Buchanan was until the 1990s when IMDb took off and the internet took off and information started getting passed around. But this movie still needs to be discovered by a lot of others who might appreciate its transcendentally bad qualities. Look for it.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"What can I say about a movie as bad as this? The people who made this movie, didn't even try to make the monster in it look realistic. You never see more than its head, and the head is just a giant puppet that has little movement except for when it opens it mouth to roar. And the sound they used for the roaring is the best part. At many points in the movie it sounds exactly like a TIE fighter flying over! I couldn't believe that when I first heard it and had to rewind several times to make it sink in. Other than the terrible looking monster and the noises it makes, there isn't much more to this film except for a few corny attack scenes and the crazy Scotsman attacking the kids trying to have an intimate moment in his castle. Still, it's watchable if you like this sort of trash. I know I do....","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"A few buddies and myself have the strange hobby of seeking out really horrendous and utterly obscure (for a good reason) horror flicks and then subsequently watching them under the influence of mind-broadening consumer goods like alcohol and\/or soft drugs. Surely a lot of people do this, but they watch movies like the \"Godzilla\" remake, whereas we torment our eyes and brains with stuff like \"The Loch Ness Horror\". And, eureka, this is a prototypic bad movie! We open traditionally, with bag pipes music during the opening credits. This is, of course, to emphasize extra to us dumb viewers that the story is supposed to take place in the Scottish highlights and not in director Larry Buchanan's birthplace Texas. For that exact same reason, the cast members are seemingly also instructed to overact tremendously and talk with talk with atrocious accents. The American marine biologist Prof. George Sanderson arrives in Loch Ness with some brand new and highly sophisticated sonar equipment to track down the whereabouts of the legendary monster in the lake. Meanwhile, there are many other parties hanging around the lake, like a group of kids on a Science Camp (what a boring way to spend your vacation), retired army generals looking for a Luftwaffe plane that crashed in the lake during WWII and a bunch of thieves and failed scientists that are steeling the monster's egg. You would think that these numerous sub plots bring some diversity and excitement in the plot, but unfortunately that's not the case. \"Loch Ness Horror\" is an overall boring flick with only a couple of noteworthy elements. The monster itself, for example, is a delightfully cheesy creation with cute eyes and a smoky breath. His teeth also glow in the dark, which is quite useful when you're dumb enough to go out on a boat ride in the middle of the night. Near the end of the film, the remaining cast members were more interested in the lost Luftwaffe plane than in the monster, so it was about time to wrap it up. \"Loch Ness Horror\" is carefully recommended in case you're a fan of bad B-movies from the 80's, but be advised that it contains an overload of senseless dialogs and a bizarrely rushed ending that makes it look as if the film suddenly ran out of budget.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I completely forgot that I'd seen this within a couple of days, which is pretty revealing in itself. The umpteenth version of Gaston 'Phantom of the Opera' Leroux's locked-door country-house mystery, I had heard that it was an engaging and witty update. So it appeared from the likable title sequence and a few neat touches in the opening scene, but the film very quickly ground to a halt and became vaguely tedious and wholly unsatisfying.

As a mystery the major problem is that it is fundamentally unsolvable by the audience: like the worst Agatha Christies, it depends on a character appearing in the final act with a wealth of background information that we have not been privy to. As a film, be it comedy or thriller, the crucial problem is that characterisation is almost non-existent. With the exception of the killer, everyone is a face-value version of the typical suspects in the typical country-house murder story - reporter, endangered heiress, suspicious fianc\u00e9, scatterbrained scientist father (a surprisingly poor Michel Lonsdale), etc. There's no depth and little of interest, and the frequently over-ripe or misjudged performances don't help. You frankly don't care about anyone in it, so there's no jeopardy or suspense. Only Claude Rich and, in the last reel, Pierre Arditi get anything to work with, and only in the last reel does the film get close to a sense of resonance that is too fleeting to be really effective.

For the rest, we get endless exposition and a couple of ineffective would-be comic set pieces (a promising one with a photographer trapped inside a grandfather clock is just too poorly thought through to pay off), with Dennis Podalydes reduced to Irving the Explainer for the last third of the picture. I'm not fond of country-house movies or Agatha Christie style whodunits, so those who are might cit it a lot more slack, but I found it a poor show. As Rich says when the mystery is revealed, \"It's all rather something of a disappointment.\"","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear!

To think that films such as this were made, and probably enjoyed by thousands at drive-ins really boggles the mind. How innocent we were in those days.

To put it bluntly, this film is crap. The hero is so wet you can hear his squishy damp footsteps in every scene. My Lord, but he's just one of a whole slew of awful, awful actors that appear in this turkey. No wonder MST3K picked it. The story, such as it is, centres around a stock car driver (who is so incompetent, you really believe it is the actor driving the car) that he gives up and \"gets in with the wrong crowd\" Oooooh! Scary stuff. However, the wrong crowd turn out to be the biker equivalent of The Three Stooges and their \"hand-me round\" slut of a biker chick. As an example of how lame this whole thing is, the writers obviously wracked their brains to come up with a frightening name for the biker gang - if four people can be called a gang, that is. The result? The gang is called Satan's Angels! I kid you not.

Such dire acting and dialogue, along with ridiculous scenes, make for a wonderful beer and chips movie. But otherwise its just the worst kind of rubbish.

As I said. Once, this may have been considered good. But today it just makes you laugh (and cringe) with every minute that goes by. Avoid it except for a good laugh. And make sure you're more than half-drunk too!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Legendary pop star Steve Alaimo (\"Don't Let the Sun Catch You Crying\") stars as an unlikable stock car racer whose career has hit the skids (ha ha) because he constantly crashes his car (or as he laments, \"I'm tired of being run down by every grease monkey that gets behind the wheel\"). He falls into a bad crowd of humorously inept Nazi bikers, improbably named Jeeter, Banjo, Fats, and, er, Linda. Fats is the most likable of the bunch; he took a surfboard to the back of the skull and now only communicates through grunts, sort of a Harley Davidson Leatherface.

Anyway, Steve is fooled by the cops into catching the dastardly crooks in the middle of one of their bank robberies. The gang only robs banks for \"kicks, man\". I guess they give the money to charity. Steve fails constantly, the bikers get greasier, and the whole thing never comes off as daring because it's so dull. This movie looks like it was filmed through a grease-soaked paper towel. Not since \"Necromantic\" has a movie so trampled my soul.

The guy who played Fats went on to direct \"Deranged\", the Ed Gein biopic starring Robert Blossom.

Anyway, in summary: Wild Rebels: Hilarious on MST3K, dreadful everywhere else.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Wild Rebels is fun in a bad way, but also frustrating due to the actual good, or at least workable, elements in the story. It deals with a race car driver (Steve Alaimo) who gets mixed up in a group of bikers called Satan's Angels, who hang around a lot until they decide to rob a bank. Meanwhile Alaimo also gets recruited by the cops to report back to them what the Angels are up to and where they'll rob next. It's not even that the film is really too 'dated', though it does of course carry the significantly crude and stupid music in the film (from the band on stage in one scene, to Alaimo \"performing\" if you could call that drek that, to the regular generic score).

It's just that there's not more care taken by the filmmaker into putting a little more logic, direction, and better actors for the parts. As it is I didn't have a major disliking towards the film, as I did with the Hellcats, but it almost left me a little indifferent to it all, too. What could come through as being unpredictable only comes through with stupid things like the name of the Florida town ('Citrusville' ho-ho). So it's not completely un-worthy then of its Mystery Science Theater 3000 status as of late. The commentary is good on the movie, even if once or twice I almost wanted to hear what the characters on screen were saying in case it might have some worth. Wild Rebels might be more of a good time if you've got a six-pack and low expectations, but as it is I wouldn't watch it again.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"This is basically your run of the mill violent biker flick complete with nifty slangs, crashes, and music. OK, so just slangs and crashes. It's a slight notch above much of the other fare featured on MST3K but it's still the equivalent of driving a nail into your kneecap: slow and painful. To give away plot would exhaust my energy so I'll just say you're better off skipping this one.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"I just caught \"Wild Rebels\" on one of the \"Mystery Science Theatre 3000\" archive compilations, and this movie was so bad even the MST3K crew couldn't make it entertaining. There are some MST3K \"targets\" that were films whose concepts were so dippy they couldn't possibly have been good movies (like \"The Green Slime\"), and others whose basic premises could have been made into genuinely entertaining films if their filmmakers hadn't bobbled them in the execution. \"Wild Rebels\" is a film whose basic premise DID make a good movie three years earlier, when Don Siegel directed his remake of \"The Killers\" at Universal. Both films are about a failed racing driver who's seduced by a femme fatale into driving the getaway car in a robbery masterminded by the woman's boyfriend -- only in \"The Killers\" the driver was John Cassavetes, the woman was Angie Dickinson and the criminal mastermind (cast wildly but successfully against type in what turned out to be his final film) was Ronald Reagan. Steve Alaimo, Bobbie Byers and Willie Pastrano are quite a comedown! But what REALLY makes \"Wild Rebels\" an awful movie is the direction by William Gref\u00e9 (note the accent over the final \"e,\" present in his on-screen credit), which has absolutely no sense of pace whatsoever and seems to let every shot run at least half again as long as it needs to to make its dramatic point. It's only a pity that someone didn't do a mocking commentary on this movie now (in 2009); the comparison between Steve Alaimo's hairdo and Rod Blagojevich's would have been irresistible!","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"If you decide to watch Wild Rebels, don't expect anything deep and meaningful. If you're looking for a film that explores the relationships and structure of a motorcycle gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for an expose on the breakdown of the American educational system and the problem of juvenile delinquency, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for a movie that examines how undermanned rural police departments are when facing a well-financed, well-organized gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. But if you're looking for an absurd movie filled with scene after scene of unintentional humor, horrendous acting, a paper-thin plot, and community theater style production values, Wild Rebels is the right movie.

Wild Rebels is the story of a down-on-his-luck stock-car driver named Rod Tillman (Steve Alaimo). After a fiery crash (which Rod walks away from completely unscathed despite having only a cotton pants and a London Fog style jacket for protection), Rod decides to give it up. With no plan for his future other than to wander aimless through the back-roads of the South, he stumbles on the Satan's Angels motorcycle gang (a gang being three of the stupidest guys to ever zip up a leather jacket and a woman they seem to share). This group of hoodlums spends their time terrorizing a rural town in Florida by committing such atrocities as stealing a newspaper from a neighbor's mailbox. These bumbling idiots need someone to act as their driver during some larger crimes they have planned. Apparently, these three Einsteins can only drive vehicles with two tires, not four. So they recruit Rod to perform feats of daring that only an experienced stunt driver would be capable of like keeping the car in the middle of a gravel road during a low-speed chase. Eventually, they hold-up a bank, get into the aforementioned low-speed chase, and have the lamest gun battle with the police ever put on film. I could go on forever, but you get the idea.

I hate the term \"so bad it's good\", but that seems to aptly describe Wild Rebels.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"\"Wild Rebels\" was probably a fun second film at a drive in movie triple feature 40 years ago. It hasn't aged very well, but it was never meant to age well; it was obviously intended to be disposable, forgettable fun from its inception. Taken on that level, it's a good example of the biker flick genre.

Several elements help distinguish it from the dozens of similar films being churned out at the same time. The 'hero', 'Rod Tillman' (Steve Alaimo) comes off as somewhat of an unimpressive 'Everyman' - he's not especially brave, tough, talented, or handsome (although he does win a fight with a tough biker gang member halfway into the film, and the girl gang member chooses to help him over her fellow gang member at the end of the film). The soundtrack is quite well done, featuring a nice 'Ventures' style bass\/drum riff that keeps things moving and saxophones and brass charts that pep things up quite a bit. And although the script is pretty shallow, all the actors inhabit their cardboard characters convincingly and with a fair amount of energy.

There are plenty of careless technical gaffes: terrible 'day-for-night' scenes that occur in broad daylight, squealing tires in a swamp, fire sirens mistakenly stuck on the soundtrack instead of police sirens, a bank sign made of duct tape on a ceiling tile, a Luger that sounds like a Winchester 30-06, shotgun blasts that cut down people 100 yards away, a detective killing a biker on a 3rd floor landing from the ground with a revolver with a 2 inch barrel.

There are a whole bunch of goofy story elements : Linda (the girl gang member) disables a bank guard with a drug-filled syringe, the final shootout takes place inside a lighthouse (!), police roadblocks don't actually block roads, the police apparently never heard of ducking, and the police detectives apparently never heard of planting bugs or having their undercover guy wearing a wire.

But the plot chugs along, the cameraman knows what he is doing, the pacing in most scenes is pretty good, and there are some nice, zippy one liners and dialog exchanges here and there that keep the energy level up. (My favorite: \"Man, you're messing with private stock! (ie, Linda)\" So no, don't seek this one out or anything, but if a copy of the MST version should fall in your hands, you should have some good, shallow fun watching it. Vastly superior to \"Five the Hard Way\" or \"The Hellcats\" or even 'Girl In Gold Boots' (three other MST covered counter culture movies).","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Probably the biggest thing about Wild Rebels that hurts it the most is the hero. He's got LOSER written all over him, but that doesn't stop him from \"getting the girl.\" Probably one of the world's worst race drivers imaginable, he decides to stop racing after he crashes his car. Well, his new job is racing still, as a bunch of biker types pick him to drive their getaway car as they commit crimes. There's nothing really to endear you to Rod, even the situation he's thrown into is pretty stupid. In the end, at the lighthouse scene, you'll wish that Rod gets killed with all the bikers. Get this: He's shot twice, once in the arm and once in the leg, and still manages to crawl up the stairs a little. If only Jeeter had better aim...

Avoid this one unless you're watching the MST3K version.","label":0,"label_text":"negative"} {"text":"Previous reviewer Claudio Carvalho gave a much better recap of the film's plot details than I could. What I recall mostly is that it was just so beautiful, in every sense - emotionally, visually, editorially - just gorgeous.

If you like movies that are wonderful to look at, and also have emotional content to which that beauty is relevant, I think you will be glad to have seen this extraordinary and unusual work of art.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it about an 8.75. The only reason I shy away from 9 is that it is a mood piece. If you are in the mood for a really artistic, very romantic film, then it's a 10. I definitely think it's a must-see, but none of us can be in that mood all the time, so, overall, 8.75.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"CONTAINS \"SPOILER\" INFORMATION. Watch this director's other film, \"Earth\", at some point. It's a better film, but this one isn't bad just different.

A rare feminist point of view from an Indian filmmaker. Tradition, rituals, duty, secrets, and the portrayal of strict sex roles make this an engaging and culturally dynamic film viewing experience. All of the married characters lack the \"fire\" of the marriage bed with their respective spouses. One husband is celibate and commits a form of spiritual \"adultery\" by giving all of his love, honor, time and respect to his religious swami (guru). His wife is lonely and yearns for intimacy and tenderness which she eventually finds with her closeted lesbian sister-in-law who comes to live in their house with her unfaithful husband. This unfaithful husband is openly in love with his Chinese mistress but was forced into marriage with a (unbeknownest to him) lesbian. They only have sex once when his closet lesbian wife loses her virginity.

A servant lives in the house and he eventually reveals the secret that the two women are lovers. Another significant character is the elderly matriarch who is unable to speak or care for herself due to a stroke. However, she uses a ringing bell to communicate her needs as well as her displeasure with the family members. She lets them know through her bell or by pounding her fist that she knows exacly what's going on in the house and how much she disapproves.

In the end, the truth about everybody comes out and the two female lovers end up running away together. But, not before there is an emotional scene between the swami-addicted husband and his formerly straight wife. Her sari catches on fire and at first we think she is going to die. However, we see the two women united in the very last scene of the movie.

The writer\/director of this film challenges her culture's traditions, but she shows us individual human beings who are trapped by their culture and gender. We come to really care about the characters and we don't see them as stereotypes. Each on surprises us with their humanity, vulgarity, tenderness, anger, and spirit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my first Deepa Mehta film. I saw the film on TV in its Hindi version with its \"Sita\" character presented as Nita. I also note that it is Radha who underwent the allegorical trial by fire in the film and not Nita\/Sita. Yet what I loved about the film was its screenplay by Ms Mehta, not her direction. The characters, big and small, were well-developed and seemed quixotic towards the end--somewhat like the end of Mazursky's \"An Unmarried Woman.\" They are brave women surrounded by cardboard men. And one cardboard man (Ashok) seems to come alive in the last shot we see of him---carrying his invalid mother Biji. He seems to finally take on a future responsibility beyond celibacy and adherance to religion.

Ms Mehta seems to fumble as a director (however, compared to most Indian mainstream cinema she would seem to be brilliant) as she cannot use her script to go beyond the microscopic joint family she is presenting except presenting a glimpse of the Chinese micro-minority in the social milieu of India. She even dedicates the film to her mother and daughter (not her father!) Yet her Radha reminesces of halcyon days with both her parents in a mustard field. Compare her to Mrinal Sen, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Muzaffar Ali and she is dwarfed by these giants--given her competent Canadian production team and financial resources! Mehta's film of two bisexual ladies in an Indian middle-class household may be sacrilege to some, but merely captures the atrophy of middle-class homes that does not seem to aspire for something better than its immediate survival in a limited social space. Kannada, Malayalam, and Bengali films have touched parallel themes in India but did not have the publicity that surrounded this film and therefore have not been seen by a wide segment of knowledgeable cinemagoers.

Ms Das, Ms Azmi, Mr Jafri and Mr Kharbanda are credible but not outstanding. Ms Azmi is a talented actress who gave superb performances under good directors (Mrinal Sen's \"Khandar\", Gautam Ghose's \"Paar\", Benegal's \"Ankur\") a brilliance notably absent in this film. Ms Das sparkled due to her screen presence rather than her acting capability. All in all, the film's strength remains in the structure of the screenplay which is above average in terms of international cinema. I am sure Ms Mehta can hone her writing talents in her future screenplays.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a great film in every sense of the word. It tackles the subject of tribadism in a society that is quite intolerant of any deviations from the norm. It criticises a great many Indian customs that many find oppressive -- such as the arranging of marriages by others, the importance of status and face, religious hypocrisy, sexism, the valuation of women in terms of their baby-making capacity, the binding concepts of duty and so on. At the heart of the film is a touching love story that goes beyond such limitations of the society which the two protagonists find themselves. The film is well-acted and genuine, completely believable from beginning to end, unlike most Bollywood flicks. The main faults of the film as I saw it was first, that the two lovers seem drawn to one another not necessarily by a natural affinity for each other as much as the fact that they are stuck in dead-end marriages with no passion and no rewards. This may play a part in the sexual awakening of the characters, but most people stuck in the same situation will not \"turn homosexual\". It seems clear from the beginning of the film that the two characters are quite heterosexual -- when Radha does her scene at the end of the movie with Aashok, she makes it quite clear that \"without desire she was dead\", and the implication was that if he had desired so, he could have fulfilled her quite completely, and also when Sita seemed very disappointed when her husband seemed to not like her. Such situations do not turn people into homosexuals -- they may seek comfort in others in the same position, but inthe film it is not at all made clear that they are lesbians from the beginning -- quite the opposite. Some people are bisexual, it is true, but most tend to be either hetero- or homosexual. In the case of the ladies in the film, both had insensitive jerks for husbands . . . if this had not been the case, would they have naturally found the need to express their desire in a relationship that they may have otherwise not have considered? The film ignores this. The other fault is the naming of the characters . . . the names Sita and Radha seem contrived deliberately to shock and outrage (imagine a film in America depicting a gay relationship between a man named \"Jesus\" and another named \"Paul\"!) by using names associated with various Hindoo scriptures. The film is strong enough to stand on its own and needs no such devices in my opinion. At any rate, the faults do not take much away from the power of the movie. It is indeed a very touching and powerful story -- the images and characters will stay with you a long time after you leave the theatre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A stunningly well-made film, with exceptional acting, directing, writing, and photography.

A newlywed finds married life not what she expected, and starts to question her duty to herself versus her duty to society. Together with her sister -in-law, she makes some radical departures from conventional roles and mores.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Overall, a well done movie. There were the parts that made me wince, and there were the parts that I threw my hands up at, but I came away with something more than I gone in with.

I think the movie suffers from some serious excess ambition. Without spoiling it, let me say that the obvious references to the trial by fire in Ramayana, is way beyond what this movie stands for. The Ramayana is an epic. Not a 200 page book that puts down women in India. The movie is about two girls married into a very distinctive Indian family. While the basic tenets of the \"unwritten laws of the family tradition\" seem to be that of conservative India, let me assure my reader that I (having lived in Delhi for 12 years) found entire parts that just did not ring those bells. I mean some things and some actions are very true, but some other stuff is just way off the mark. Especially today.

Delhi is complicated. India is complicated. The director tries to simplify both. And fails pretty miserably at that.

Why in English? Can you imagine a movie about American Indians in English. Or the French speaking in English. Seriously jarring. Even the servant spoke in fluent accented English (albeit with a hint of colloquialisms in the language for \"believability\").

But the chemistry between the leads is palpable. If you like it hot, this is a movie for you. I think that is the biggest saving grace - the development of a true real life love story.

If this film was about Radha and Sita, then it would have got full marks from me. And in being about them, it could have made a subtle statement. But this movie goes out there to say this is what India is, and this is what Indian society is like. And in that respect it succeeds as much as it fails. Just take everything you see with a pinch of salt. The dark secrets of India are not being revealed. Just two girls are falling in love. Just like it happens everywhere else.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now I do understand that this film was not meant as an indictment against all Indians but it is an amazing film because it dares to investigate the hypocrisy that some Indians have concerning their women and sexuality. I have known for some time that sexism is very common in this society (with women being murdered because the husband's family doesn't want them any more after his death or because she had a small dowry as well as the frequent killing of female fetuses because they are seen as a curse instead of a blessing). I also realize that some from this culture will be greatly offended by the film, but the bottom line is that there is some truth to the subject matter--even if the film was so strongly attacked when it debuted in India a decade ago. As a result of the extreme misogyny in the movie, most Western audience members will be shocked or at least be emotionally pulled into the plight of the ladies in this film.

Although I am a male, am not rabidly feminist and I am straight, the film had a strong positive impact on me and it is NOT an agenda film that can only be enjoyed by Lesbians and \"man haters\". In fact, I don't think the film is promoting hatred of men or homosexuality but instead gives a credibly argument how in the case of these two ladies it was the only reasonable alternative due to their wicked husbands. Yes, I use the word \"wicked\" and mean it, as both husbands living in this large household are intensely selfish and have no regard for their spouses' sexuality. In many traditional societies this is indeed the case and women are doomed to an empty emotional existence.

One husband married a vivacious young woman, Sita, out of family obligation. This arranged marriage is uncomfortable for them both but in the beginning Sita makes an attempt to connect with her sullen husband. However, he sees himself as a victim and could have cared less about Sita--and he continues to have an affair with a liberal-minded Chinese lady. To make matters worse, he did nothing to hide the affair and made no apologies. In their dead marriage, sex was purely meant to produce children and there was no way Sita could have any of her sexual or emotional needs met. And unfortunately, he could have cared less.

Another husband was married to a lady who was infertile (Radha). Oddly, after initially trying to have children, they have gone the next 13 years without any sexual contact whatsoever! It's because this man has decided to become an ascetic (i.e., in Hinduism, a person who gives up the pleasures of the world to gain inner enlightenment). Now his wanting to do this was all well and good IF he was not already married and had obligations for his wife. However, being married, this was an incredibly selfish act and like his brother, he assumed his wife had no sexual feelings nor did he seem to care. The closest he would allow her to him sexually was to sleep next to him--as having her next to him helped teach himself to \"overcome the desires of the flesh\". This must have brought nothing but frustration to her.

So, you've got two neglected and normal women living in the same household who long for emotional connection as well as an outlet for their sexual needs. Eventually, these needs bring these sister-in-laws together--at first, just emotionally but later sexually as well. The movie was brilliant how it got me to look at and understand how in some cases homosexuality is inevitable and even healthy compared to a life of emotional desolation.

Late in the film, when the intensity of their sexual relationship is discovered, it leads to a not totally unexpected reaction from Radha's \"enlightened\" husband--a man who seeks religious insight and peace yet is so wrapped up in himself that true insight and growth is impossible.

This is a very challenging and adult film. While there is very little nudity, the subject matter is very adult and this is not a film to show your kids. Very disturbing indeed is one minor character who masturbates in front of an old paralyzed lady--as I said, this is NOT a film to let your kids watch. However, for a mature audience, this is an excellent and highly erotic film that will get you to think.

The film features good acting, complex characters, excellent writing, lovely mood music and a slow pace that might annoy some, but which I found rewarding. The only serious negative I cannot blame on the movie itself but on the idiots who released this on videotape. This is because although the movie is in English, the accents are quite strong at times and it's not always easy to understand what's being said. BUT, and this is the worst part, there are no closed or open captions--including them is a must for Western audiences. If you do watch this film, see if you can find it on DVD or hopefully a newer release on video will have captioning--mine sure didn't.

By the way, director Deepa Mehta (a popular female director) has made several other wonderful films such as EARTH and BOLLYWOOD\/Hollywood. A consistent theme in her films is the conflict between traditional Indian culture and expectations and Westernism--with a strong emphasis on female characters. Not surprisingly, this West-thinking lady makes her home in Canada and is divorced--a truly unusual woman to say the least. For a similar film that explores traditional culture meets Western culture, try another Canadian gem, EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are questions that sometimes hover over us and have no answer. Two women progressively find themselves ensnared in each other's arms (as corny as the expression sounds, that is exactly what happens) and fins that they cannot answer their own question as to what defines their relationship when their very own society has no name to what they are. Deepa Mehta's somewhat mis-titled FIRE is the first of a loosely connected trilogy, here linked by the theme of the elements, and more symbolic than consuming. Fire as uncontrolled erotic passion does not make an appearance here, since the women -- the older and more feminine Radha (Shabana Azmi) and the younger, more masculine tempered Sita (Nandita Das) come to realize they share a lot more than common ideas and affection for each other and stand for what they believe is their passion for each other despite the opposition faced by their very traditional husbands and families. As in WATER, FIRE is deeply spiritual, even if it technically falls into the mode of sentimental melodrama (where WATER, much like the weight of the word, carries a stronger meaning that ultimately transcends its definition). Even so, it's a very beautiful picture, and a strong voice from a strong director.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I finally watched the third film in Mehta's trilogy: \"Fire\". To begin, I'd say that \"Water\" was the unquestionable masterpiece, on all levels. Fire comes next with Earth close behind in order of quality. Fire: there is so much going on in this film that I'll need a few more viewings to drink it all in. The writing is superb, the script creating friction that starts the entire process of \"heat\" from the beginning until the end when it really does erupt into a fire, the conflicts moving into complete rupture of relationships.

Mehta is one brave lady: she sees with a clear eye much that is jaundiced, false and repressive about the great society from which she came from. India is rapidly changing these days but much of this is economic change. That she met with such ferocious opposition to the making of \"Water\" after having had the script cleared, shows that there are still many taboo subjects which Indian people more than less cannot look squarely in the face, cannot examine or discuss them. Worse, if someone like Mehta has the courage to hold up a mirror to these issues, she faces death threats. So, as much as India thinks of itself as a pluralistic, tolerant society, the facts are not always so. Whereas \"Earth\" was merely a historical setting of the carnage of the civil war after Indian independence, Fire and Water are pointing at personal, social and religious issues, which as I say are considered so strongly (in a negative sense) that an open artistic dialog is still many years away. As I write this \"Water\" is scheduled to actually be shown in India later this year. I'll believe it when I see it.

Fire confronts a similar sexual and emotional conundrum that I saw in \"A price above rubies\". Whether it's arranged marriages (which it used to be like among Jews about 150 years ago, or like it is among many modern Indians), they have the risk of having a bad match forced upon both men and women; or, just plain loveless marriages..... However, this is not the real issue. Mehta is clearly impatient with the totally rigid religious attitudes that either keep widows in misery (Water) or else keep women enslaved to loveless marriages (Fire). I am no expert regarding either the secular or Hindu laws concerning divorce. The film seems to imply that the stigma (of divorce)is almost as bad as the sad marriage. In any case Mehta's film is a very moving, powerful attempt at sexual discourse that holds modern Indian relationships up to probing scrutiny. That all three of these films have made themselves felt in India as an unwarranted attack on their culture sounds to me like the predictable clamor of a repressive mindset. Mehta is forcing the issues to be looked at no matter how much flack. I admire her work and cannot highly recommend her films enough. Superb, disturbing, provocative, taboo shattering.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"one of best movies ever...Fire...it is not much about sociological description of India today...it is the mind blowing use of light that never stops, never becomes...normal...even when...in this sense the movie is almost unique...both leads are of very good quality...the origin of Das as a street performer are pretty obvious...her performance is a superb \"cammeo\"...but the use of the light...I have look at it and looked at it, again and again...still mind blowing after ages...nothing torrid in the story...rather \"pure\" way of facing the subject...in a way it is sad that in the bizarre world we live today, a major art work is usually known as a gender film...Fire can stand face to face with Dryer's Jeanne D' Arc or Ichikawa's Biruma no Tategoto or some of the major Kurosawa movies, just to name \"some\". Wish my input could help a little this movie to its deserved way to fame.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While the romance in this film is an important aspect, it is largely about the role of responsibility and duty in modern Indian. All of the major characters were well fleshed out, and had their own \"inner life\". I recommend this strongly","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is more a subtle story of the fact that in Indian household how most decisions are taken by the man, how no attention is paid to the desires of the lady, for example how even when the husband and wife sleep together it would be a test for the husband whether he can control his desires, not to give the woman pleasure. And in such a type of scenario, women invariably have two choices, either to accept all this and take it into their own life, which is usually the case or not accept this and try to mould things to satisfy themselves, which makes a movie!

Fire is a brilliantly directed story of the second option, which women choose for themselves, no sacrifice, not to serve anybody else, rather a decision for their own good. Somehow the whole idea of justifying lesbianism didn't find an acceptance in the Indian audience but if one looks the whole movie from an angle of self-expression, then the whole debate doesn't even arise.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Its a very sensitive portrayal of life with unquenched or constrained desires. What does one do with desire in a culture and society with rigid norms? One husband finds outlet with the immigrant - since immigrants don't belong or aren't accepted, they don't need to conform and dam their desires. The other husband looks for solace in spirituality and tries to evaporate his desire into nothingness. It fails - of course - and he breaks down in the last scene for multiple reasons. Sita still cared enough for him to find that moment to let him know that he is not responsible for her deviant outlet to her blocked desires. The mother in her still couldn't find the strength to destroy his myth. She sees him as a child who is glorifying himself in his lust-control but should she give him the opportunity to finally grow up? Both the wives find courage and togetherness through their shared rejection by their husband.

But the final act of rejection was by the grandmother - she could not break free from her rusted mindset to accept Sita's desire. A decade and more of receiving care was not enough to break the shackles of her culture.

Seems like it was easiest for the househelp to let his desires flow - since he's anyway damned by his culture - being at the bottom of the hierarchy. Since there is anyway no respect and expectations, might as well taste sin.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I admire Deepa Mehta and this movie is a masterpiece. I'd recommend to buy this movie on DVD because it's a movie you might want to watch more often than just once. And trust me, you'd still find little meaningful details after watching it several times.

The characters - except for the grandmother perhaps - are all very balanced, no black and white. Even though you follow the story from the perspective of the two protagonists, there is also empathy for the other characters.

I think the IMDb rating for the movie is far too low - probably due to its politically controversial content.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a bold movie to hit Indian cinemas when it was released. The first movie to perhaps openly depict lesbian tendencies amongst Indian women. The leading actress of Indian cinema Shabana Azmi added substance to the movie with her hot passionate scenes with Nandita Das.

The movie oozed with sexuality and the director used sex in the best way possible. The sex was not for erotic purposes but was in the context of the movie. The scene where Nandita Das loses her virginity to her husband certainly was the first of its kind in Indian cinemas.

Good acting by all the actors especially Nandita Das amidst criticism from the Indian public","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Water' (2005), the final part of Toronto-based Indian film-director Deepa Mehta's elemental trilogy has been finally completed, almost ten years after the release of the very first controversial element, 'Fire' (1996), which was followed with a slightly lesser controversial sequel '1947: Earth' (1998). Mehta made her directorial debut with a 24-minute Canadian short film 'At 99: A Portrait of Louise Tandy Murch' (1975), but it was her Canadian feature film about the life of Indians living in Canada that brought her fame back in east, her country by birthright, 'Sam & Me' (1991). Recognition internationally came in the way of 'Camilla' (1994), starring Bridget Fonda, along with the actress who in 1990 won an Oscar in Best Actress in a Leading Role category at the age of 80, paving the way for middle-aged actresses to still have hope, for her portrayal of a stubborn old Jewish woman in 'Driving Miss Daisy' (1989), late Jessica Tandy.

'Camilla' dealt with a friendship between two women from two other ends of the human lifespan, a May\/December friendship. 'Camilla' was Tandy's last picture; she died the very same year.

International fame followed Deepa Mehta in 1996 with the release of the controversial 'Fire', which spread with rage among the false patriotic consciousness existing Indian extremist. Having already explored friendship between two women in 'Camilla', in 'Fire' Mehta went a step further to portray a more intimate relationship between two lonely neglected women. Set in modern day India, the suburbs of the capital city of New Delhi, it shows two brothers and their wives, the elder brother (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) having joined a weird Hindu sect leads a life of celibacy, faithful to his guru of sexless existence. The younger brother (Javed Jaffrey) is having an extra marital affair with a Chinese woman (Alice Poon). Thus, both the wives, Shabana Azmi playing the elder brothers wife and Nandita Das the younger wife, find themselves neglected in their own way. One forced to lead a celibate life, thanks to her husband's eccentricities, and the other whose only interaction with her husband is through sex, and nothing more. Living in a world of in-laws and being the only two outsiders in the family, having nobody else to confide in, the two women fall in the arms of each other. Thus comes the issue of lesbianism. If there were an outside man's shoulder to cry on, there most probably would have been chance for them to fall into the arms of a man, but having no one else to confide in, their need for each others support is quite obvious. It does not necessarily state that all neglected women would end up taking lesbianism, it just happened to exist with regard to the two women in this context. All in all, the movie is excellent, and delves far deeper than just two women rolling in bed. The key focus isn't lesbianism in the movie, but the plight of modern day neglected Indian wives, even in the capital city, the two female characters just happen to have a sexual relationship.

Two years later, Deepa Mehta's second installment was the element of mother earth, released in India by the name of '1947: Earth',yet another excellent movie by a great director, this time in the Hindi language, unlike 'Fire', which was made in the English language.

Now Deepa Mehta has managed to complete the trilogy, despite a lot of problems, having released the final installment recently, 'Water'. No doubt it would be just as great as the other two.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For all that has been said about the subject matter, and the controversy that surrounded it, please do not overlook what I feel to be the most important part of the film: the salient struggles of everyone to keep their pride through their trials. Whether dealing with self-imposed male braggadocio, a sexual reawakening, or even life itself, everybody is human.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Deepa Mehta's \"Fire\" is groundbreaking, bold, and artistic. A masterful social commentary on the plight of the women from conservative, upper middle class Indian households, this is a film no one should miss. Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das give stellar performances by underplaying their characters as much as possible. A.R. Rahman's music is the work of the genius and almost plays the role of another character in the film. Mehta uses Rahman's score and together, they create such amazing sound montages that effectively portray the views of the world around Radha and Sita whenever they look to each other for support. This film is not about lesbianism as many have branded it. Lesbianism is just a part of the film. It is unfortunate that most people tend to write the film off calling it taboo instead of giving it a chance and looking at its real meaning.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The theme is controversial and the depiction of the hypocritical and sexually starved india is excellent.Nothing more to this film.There is a lack of good dialogues(why was the movie in english??). There was lack of continuity and lack of passion\/emotion in the acting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is really about choices. In the oppressed state of affairs as seen in Fire, where good women had to be obedient and do what was correct in the eyes of tradition, there seemed few options for Radha and Sita. However, granted that it was not their only option. What is life without desire, Radha questions Ashok. Yes, it's true that life provides us with a number of options but how many we can take depends on a number of external factors. When your world is confined to a small Indian household, being a dutiful daughter-in-law to a silent but observant still powerful matriarch, a dutiful wife of 13 years to a man who has taken a vow of celibacy due to your not being able to have a child, a man who only wants you lying next to him to prove his strength in eliminating his desires. I felt the ladies had little choice but to find solace in each other's company. I guess the fact that so many women applauded Ms Mehta's work, was because it provided them with an option to think for themselves. An option to do what was perhaps unacceptable. The lesbian scenes I felt was merely to put that point across. Every scene in the movie from the first at the Taj Mahal to the last at the Mosque, is etched in my mind. How frustrating to be a prisoner of your feelings and desires. To feel that you had to forgo the human touch to be a dutiful wife just because it is expected of you. To have to suppress any desire you might have and to crave for the human touch. What then is the meaning of our existence one wonders. In the scene where Sita is crying alone in the room and Radha comes in to comfort her, their lips accidentally brush against each others and it awakens a feeling in them. Something they have both been deprived of.

Bravo to Ms Mehta in translating her vision so clearly. I especially like the flashbacks to the young Radha trying to 'see' for the ocean. It is a metaphor for freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom to transport ourselves to places we would normally be unable to reach. In those scenes, it is gently told to us that her sense of duty has also been passed down from her mother who I assume lives within the rich Indian traditions of duty in marriage. The movie is beautifully filmed and enhanced by the musical score by A.R. Rahman. Since the film, I have become ardent fans of the two lead actresses and the director. I look forward to more of Ms Deepa's future productions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Easily one of the best Indian films ever. Granted, that's not saying much(I made this conclusion after a whopping 15 minutes of watching). But I can truly say that Fire is also one of the really beautiful and brilliant films I've seen.

Beautiful because of its imagery. The best example I can give is the parallelism between the 2 female leads(Radha and Sita) and the characters of the same name in Hindu mythology. Sita, for example, is the wife of the revered Lord Ram. As legend goes, Ram subjugates his wife by making her walk through a Fire to prove her `purity.' Sita, in response, cries and leaves him, reuniting with her mother(the Earth). This story has all sort of crazy links to the stories of the 2 Indian women(Nandita Das and Shabana Azmi). The word `Fire' all of a sudden has many meanings - marriage, tradition, religion, motherhood, and probably a few others I didn't catch.

Brilliant because of its social overtones. Many who were offended by the premise for this movie should in fact be first to see Fire(e.g. my mom, who actually loved it). Why? Because although Fire is an attack on tradition, it is also an attack on tradition. In other words, that is its strength, NOT its weakness. Traditional conservative social mores(whether Indian or Canadian or American or whatever) are useless if they enslave you. Gender roles and self-denial can both do this.

These are the things I took with me after seeing Fire. Hats off to Deepa Mehta\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As well as being a portrayal of a lesbian love story, FIRE is also a comic satire of middle-class (?) Indian culture. I find this is a quality which is little appreciated about the movie. These two genres (i.e. deep meaningful alternative-love story and comic satire) usually mix together just as well as oil and water do, but Mehta (somehow) manages to achieve the balance to near perfection. The servant Jatin's behaviour, the family's treatment of him, the bedridden grandmother's constant inescapable presence, Ashok's obsession with a swami's teachings: coming from a culture much like India's, these are things I can immediately identify as being typical. They have been crying out to be pointed out and ridiculed. While developing her primary subject matter, Mehta manages to achieve this secondary theme skillfully. In fact, much of the humour in the film which provides essential relief from the heavy subjects of taboo lesbian love and gender issues, stem from this satire of the seemingly ordinary. The film flows from the comic to the serious with great subtelty.

All in all, brilliant use of symbolic devices (Radha compared to Sita of legend and coming out of Fire unscathed and, therefore pure; the lifelong desire of the young Radha to see the ocean finally achieved when she gains freedom). Kudos to Shabana Azmi(Radha), the lighting crew and Deepa Mehta; their very un-Hollywood-like (and un-Bollywood-like!) talents made this movie special. One criticism: the first scenes seemed rather disjointed to me in that they did not flow into each other very well.

The verdict: 9 on 10. Nothing less for a movie with scenes so burned on my mind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For a moment, let's put aside the cultural aspects of this movie, even if it is a very important side of it, and let's look at the simple fact that this is a very nice love story. Two individuals find themselves in a difficult situation, caused by two selfish husbands. They have to live through their sad days without any ray of hope. If each one of these two women had been alone, imagine what kind of life each one would have had to accept. They found each other and they fell in love. That this love was against all the social, religious and cultural laws of their environment is almost irrelevant. They loved each other, found relief in each other, that was sufficient. The reaction of the individuals around them is but a small fact that they have to accept, suffer even, and then they can go on with their lives, their life. Very nice.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Her Excellency Madam Shabana Azmi has worked in countless movies over life time. I think best is yet to come.

Fire is ok.

But still good days are yet to come.

Hopefully, in Water I will be able see her better.

Thanks and Regards.

PS: India doesn't have a director to make best use of her.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...means \"take up and read\", which is precisely what I felt like doing after having seen this marvelous film.

Von Ancken stimulates and inspires with this breathtaking and superbly executed adaptation of Tobias Wolff's 1995 New Yorker article of the same name. The incredible performance by Tom Noonan is brilliant and provocative and the editing, sound design, cinematography and directing are truly inspired. The nuanced changes and embellishments on the original story are subtle, clever, and make the film cinematically more dynamic. It's lyrical pacing is mesmerizing and begs you to watch it again.

Watch out for this young director...he's going places.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although Bullet In The Brain is, without question, superior amongst short films, it largely seems more like a short piece of writing than a film. And it is a little hard to feel too sorry for the teacher when his smart ass remarks get him shot. But after the bullet enters his brain we begin to understand a little bit about why he became so jaded with life in the first place. There is an awful amount of detail packed into this reasonably short film and this is what makes me feel that it should have been extended a little bit - it seems like there's almost too much to take in at once as the details come flying at you so fast. A slightly more relaxed pace and a less po-faced narrator in the final section would have benefitted this film a little bit. Despite these complaints, there is no denying that Bullet In The Brain is a quite stupendous work compared to many short, and even full length films. The makers should be applauded for trying to make such a basically emotional and literate film in the current climate of quick jokes and Hollywood action.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very, very odd film...one that is so odd it's best you just see it for yourself. The film begins with a jaded professor haranguing his class because the students have the audacity to not be as incredibly brilliant as he is! You can tell very quickly that this man is a total cynic--finding the value in practically nothing but sticking to his own inner sense of self-importance. Additionally, he seems tired and bored with the monotony of life.

Later in the film, he walks into a bank robbery and manages to annoy the robbers so much that one of them shoots him in the head. Oddly, this is only half-way through the film and what followed was a very bizarre narration of the final seconds of his life. This is when the film becomes exciting because the style of the narration is just like one of this literature professor's novels--one that is intelligently written and says things the way we wish we could all say them.

See this weird film--it's amazingly compelling and not like anything I've ever seen before.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The finest short I've ever seen. Some commentators suggest it might have been lengthened, due to the density of insight it offers. There's irony in that comment and little merit. The acting is all up to Noonan and he carries his thankless character perfectly. I might have preferred that the narrator be less \"recognizable\", but the gravitas lent is pitch perfect. This is a short for people who read, for those whose \"bar\" is set high and for those who recognize that living in a culture that celebrates stupidity and banality can forge contrary and bitter defenders of beauty. A beautiful short film. FWIW: I was pleased at the Picasso reference, since I once believed that Picasso was just another art whore with little talent; like, I assume, most people - until the day I saw some drawings he made when he was 12. Picasso was a finer draftsman and a brilliant artist at that age than many artists will ever become in a lifetime. I understood immediately why he had to make the art he became known for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie, with all its complexity and subtlety, makes for one of the most thought-provoking short films I have ever seen. The topics it addresses are ugly, cynical, and at times, even macabre, but the film remains beautiful in its language, artful with its camera angles, and gorgeous in its style, skillfully recreating the short story of the same name written by a master of short stories, Tobias Wolff.

Not wishing to spoil anything of the movie, I won't go into any details, other than to say that this movie is magnificent in and of itself. It takes pride in what it does, and does it well. It shows the most important memories of life, all of which can be topped by the single most elusive feeling: unexpected bliss. This movie, of its own volition, has created in me the same feelings the main character (Tom Noonan) felt when words transformed his very existence, and that is one impressive feat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This short deals with a severely critical writing teacher whose undiplomatic criticism extends into his everyday life. When he learns why that's not a good idea, we learn a bit about the beautiful craft of writing that he's been lecturing on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I have to disagree with Leonard Maltin on this animated short. He loves it and claimed it was hilarious. I enjoyed it but didn't see any humor. He doesn't even like hockey or know anything about it, and still loved the story. Living right across the border from Canada, I have watched hockey for 50 years both there and in Buffalo....but I didn't think much of this cartoon. Oh, it was interesting and I know what would happen if you wore a Toronto jersey up in the Quebec area - disaster! That especially holds true in the glory years of Les Canadians. However, that doesn't make the story funny.

Back in the 1950s, everyone in the Quebec provinces idolized the Montreal Canadians and their star player, Maurice Richard, and everyone wanted to be like him. When his mother orders a new sweater, it has the Toronto Maple Leafs emblem on it, so the kid doesn't want to be caught dead wearing it.. When he finally does and heads to the local rink, he gets ostracized from the rest of his hockey buddies. What's so funny about that? I could see the same thing happening to a kid in Boston who is Red Sox die-hard and his mom gets him Yankees shirt! Horrors! You couldn't wear it, and vice-versa.

Maybe to someone who doesn't follow sports at all, like Maltin, this situation seems odd and humorous to him...but it's a fact of life or any bit-time sports fan and his favorite team. It was an interesting story, and totally believable, but nothing that made me laugh.

The art was fun to look at throughout, almost like looking at a long series of crayon paintings done by a talented school kid. The French Canadian accent was good, too. This movie was part of the DVD \"Leonard Maltin's Animation Favorites From The National Film Board Of Canada.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having been raised in Canada, I saw this short many times mostly on the CBC. I have seen it numerous times, at many ages in my life, and each time the reactions are the same. It is a joyous bittersweet, beautifully animated film that tugs at your heart. I am sure I have it on some VHS tape somewhere digging around.

Every kid growing up can relate to the situation, and wanting to fit in with your favourite idols. The scene and look on the kids face when his mom is filling out the Eatons catalogue and his jumping around the room is priceless. I haven't seen someone capture that carefree mood of youth on film as well as this little short has.

Sure I am a Montreal habs fan, and that makes my appreciation for it more special. But in the end it is the nostalgic look and feel of pond hockey, and the memories of your family telling you that you should be greatful for what you get even if it isn't exactly what you wanted. And oh yeah, the animation is beautiful too ;)

Rating 10 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Animated shorts just don't get much better than this wonderful Canadian film. This short feature is dripping with Canadian references, and so, this film will probably be appreciated by Canadians most of all. But the basic story is universal, and it is told lovingly by writer Roch Carrier. It is a hilarious story that I have known for quite sometime, and I was recently fortunate enough to see it again, so I simply HAD to write a hearty recommendation for it. This is a masterpiece, and a must-see whether or not you are Canadian.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This marvelous short will hit home with everyone who, as a child, specifically asked for something because it was hip or cool, only to be given something that would mark you for life with your peers and were told by your Mom or Dad (or both) that it didn't matter, as you earnestly began considering enlisting in a Witness Protection Program in order to avoid ridicule. For those U.S. residents who don't get the horror because you don't follow hockey, it's like a Dallas Cowboy fan getting a Washington Redskins jersey or a Yankees fan getting a Red Sox jersey. It isn't pretty. For our European friends, think of two great rival football (soccer to us) clubs and imagine a fan of one getting a jersey from the other. Ouch!!! NFB of C outdid themselves here!

Une hommage du Maurice \"Rocket\" Richard, merci, M. Richard.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A boy who adores Maurice Richard of the Montreal Canadiens receives, much to his horror, a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater in the mail. I recently watched this in a class in which few of the students were interested in hockey, but nearly everyone knew about Maurice Richard and the Toronto\/Montreal rivalry. Highly entertaining, amusing, and accurate.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would assume that this film would get rave reviews in Canada--particularly in Quebec. That's because the Canadians have traditionally loved hockey and the Montreal Canadians were like gods in Canada for decades. As an American, the closest thing we have to them are the New York Yankees. If you are a fan, then they are the greatest and winningest team in history. If you are not a fan, then they are Satan's team!! Well, at least that's how it was as I grew up in Washington, DC in regard to the Dallas Cowboys. So I am pretty sure when this film was shown up North that everyone immediately had a strong emotional reaction--their national sport AND the closest thing they have to a national team in the NHL.

Now the cartoon itself is moderately interesting when it begins and the main character talks about growing up around Ottawa and rooting for the Canadians AND Maurice \"the Rocket\" Richard. However, when his mother accidentally buys him a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey and forces him to wear it, I knew right away what a horrible and shameful thing this would be to a little boy. This ability to connect to the character--even though he lives in a far off land is what made this a very special short film. The way the other kids treated him and his conversation with God at the end make this a lovely nostalgic film. Very clever and memorable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie made by the NFBC was made in honor of the Montreal Canadians dynasty years in the 50's,60's and 70's. My 5th grade teacher played this in class in honor of my 11th birthday in 1987 and also to celebrate my return from a serious facial injury in 1986. I have been a Canadians fan for 29 of my 30 years of life. on a scale of 1-10, I give this film a 117. All hockey fans should see this as I hope it will be placed in the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto and shown at the Bell Centre in Montreal or here in Edmonton at Rexall Place. Watch this film with your family it is a great movie. I also recommend the book in both French and English. Go Habs Go.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I throughly enjoyed this short, even as a Toronto Maple Leafs fan.

Director Sheldon Cohen and Narrator Roch Carrier captured all of the boy's emotions perfectly. From the feelings he had for his hero, Maurice \"Rocket\" Richard, to the excitement, anticipation and hope of getting a new Montreal Canadiens sweater soon, to the look of horror on his face when he got his sweater from his mother; A Toronto Maple Leafs sweater was priceless and the shame of having to wear this dreadful (in his eyes) blue and white Toronto Maple Leafs sweater; Not the rouge, bleu and blanc of the Montreal Canadiens with Richard's number nine, like his old sweater. And worst of all, his Mum made him wear this Maple Leafs sweater out of the house. You could envision and anticipate the ridicule he would get from his friends when he hit the ice wearing that sweater before he got there.

I was laughing the whole time and this is one of the best animated shorts I've seen.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a piece of cinematic beauty, and it shows more of Quebec culture to others than probably any other work to come from la belle province. It takes everybody into a first-person experience of the culture, to the point that you wish you glued your hair in place and lived, breathed, and ate everything Maurice Richard. The book does this as well as the short, and I'm glad that in all the time I did spend studying French in high school, this was required reading in both languages.

I thought it was brilliant to have Roch Carrier narrate this story. His molasses-thick accent brought a lot of realism to the story. The animation was good, as well, very surrealist, which brings attention to the idea of this being a whimsical daydream, fancying over better days gone by.

Again, as a symbol of culture quebecoise, this is unsurpassed. One can almost smell the tourtiere being cooked slowly over a wood stove. This whole film deserves endless praise for making people proud to be Canadian, and encourage us all to appreciate the finer things of family and our roots. I'm from Ontario, and this film made me fall in love with Quebec. Maurice Richard va toujours vivre dans nos coeurs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This story focuses on the birth defect known as FAS, or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, a disease diagnosed too often among Native Americans. In spite of the down-beat nature of this drama, the great script and the characterizations move the story along very well. This is arguably Smits best performance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It has been years since I have been privileged to see this movie on TV. I only wish I could contact someone to see it again. I married a man with three children and two had Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. I didn't' realize this but seeing this movie helped me understand more about their problems and more about how I can love them and help them overcome their difficulties. My step-son is now 35 and thank the Lord he has blossomed wonderfully but still has many after affects of being born by an alcoholic mother. We speak every month to Rehab patients with alcohol and drug addictions and this sharing has truly made monumental changes in their behaviors and endeavors to start out a new life not addicted to drugs and alcohol. Please please let me know how I can get a copy VHS or DVD of this movie or when they will show the movie again on TV. If you have not been in these shoes, you probably could never understand its value. Thank you so very much.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was everything but boring. It deals with reality. To the people who think this movie was boring, open your eyes to the real problems in our society. Our children are dying. The consequences of alcohol and drug abuse are not to be ignored. I work in a correctional facility as a chemical dependency counselor,and i deal with these problems every day. People of all ages and all walks of life are effected by the consequences of their alcohol and drug abuse. It destroys families, hurts people and leads to serious brain damage,all kinds of health problems, and death. It is all preventable. This movie should be shown in every high-school in the world. If anyone owns this movie and wants to sell it, or sell me a copy, please e-mail me at: Ottenbreit2@netzero.net thank you","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a excellent movie. I deal with a child who I am raising that has FAE and watching this movie was more than word can explain. I also purchased the book and it was great. I would like to have a copy for my own use and so I can have my son's teachers watch it also.I would like to know if anyone could sell me a copy of this movie, let me use it for a time or refer me to someone where I could purchase it. Thank You, Myra I would recommend this movie to anyone who deal with children\/adults with special ability's. This movie should be shown again on TV. The team of doctor's that have been tracking my son would also like to have a copy. His special Ed teacher has also asked me to try to locate a copy that he can have or that he can borrow.

Thank You","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very good film, focusing on a very important issue. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a very serious birth defect that is totally preventable. If more families saw this film, perhaps more children would not end up like Adam. Jimmie Smits performs in one of his best roles ever. This is an excellent movie that takes into account a very special family with very important needs. This is not unlike thousands of families that exist in the United States today. There are children struggling with this world wide. The really important point here is that it all could have been prevented. More people should see this movie and take what it has to say seriously. It is well done, with important messages, handled in a graceful way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Channel zapping one night I just caught the start of this movie and it hooked me from the beginning. It tells the sad story of an adopted child, Adam, whose mother left him after birth. The movie takes us through his childhood, and makes us discover a very disturbing fact from Adam's past. I will not reveal more, but it is a very in-depth movie and will intrigue you for sure. This was one of Jimmy Smits best roles in my opinion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When the circus comes to town and places the lion's cage directly over Bugs Bunny's home, Bugs ends up somewhere in the range right between freaked out and intrepid. Despite the title \"Acrobatty Bunny\", it's only at the end when Bugs and the lion perform acrobatics. But even leading up to that, it's quite funny what Bugs does to escape getting eaten; somehow, he always manages to use the other character's weakness against him, and then pull any convenient object out of thin air! Bugs later ended up in the circus in \"Big Top Bunny\". I liked this one better, as the latter got drug down a little bit by giving the antagonist an Eastern European accent (I know that it was during the Cold War, but still). I recommend this one.

And with the end, we can affirm that it'll never be Aloha Oe for this cartoon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A savage, undisciplined lion has been put behind bars for a circus carnival. He suddenly notices a hole on the floor of his cell, then sticks his nose into this hole to snuff it. At first he thinks Bugs Bunny's home is belong to a camel; yet when he wakes Bugs up from his sleep hoisting him up to the ground, there he meets with Bugs, his next trainer.

If you ever wonder how Bugs would turn a savage lion into a Hawaiian hula dancer with traditional skirts on, you should watch this cartoon. Director Bob McKimson offers endless laughters by means of absurd and unexpected demonstrative humour.

The signature scenes include:

1\/ the look of Bugs Bunny's home, cross-referencing to Donald Duck with the B.B. name acronym on the headboard of Bugs's bed

2\/ Bugs Bunny's short journey with the mine hoist climbing up to the ground floor

3\/ When Nero the Lion calls his friend the Elephant for help, Bugs uses a toy mouse to scare the Elephant; since the Elephant needed a broom to outpower that toy mouse, he uses Nero as a broom!

4\/ Bugs becoming a clown with the proper costume and make-up and the practical clown jokes that he makes

5\/ the trapeze scene while Nero chasing after Bugs

6\/ the famous Human Cannonball scene after which Nero the Lion starts dancing Hawaiian Hula

The magic moments which keep Acrobatty Bunny fresh at all times in our memory:

1\/ When Bugs comes out of his bunny hole, he thinks he's in the Pinocchio tale; and starts acting to save Pinocchio out of the giant whale's stomach

2\/ When the Lion roars to scare him, Bugs replies back to him with roaring

3\/ Bugs arguing with the Lion for he's making so much noise, then finding a piece of wood to rub it against the iron bars while singing in order to make more noise than him

4\/ Wearing rubber heels at the circus, Bugs starts to bounce like toy rabbits and causes Nero to bounce!

Those are the 10 main reasons that keeps Acrobatty Bunny as a Bugs Bunny classic and can be found in the \"Bugs Bunny Classics' MGM\/UA Video (1989)\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The \"good news\" is that the circus is in town. The \"bad news\" is that's right over Bugs Bunny's underground home. He wakes up as his place shakes like an earthquake hit it, when workers pound stakes into the ground and elephants stomp by, etc.

To be more specific, the lions' cage is place exactly over Bugs' hole. The lion sniffs food, and by process of elimination, figures out it's a rabbit. Bugs, curious what all the racket is about, winds his way through the tunnel and winds up in the lion's mouth.

I'll say for thing for BB: he is totally fearless, at least in this cartoon, and at least for 30 seconds. When he comes to his senses, he runs like crazy and we get a lion-versus-a rabbit battle the rest of the way. Once again, Bugs faces dumb opponent, one he calls \"Nero,\" but lion is fierce and Bugs will need all his wits and somewhat-fake bravado to fend off this beast.

About half the gags are stupid and the other half funny, but always fast-moving, colorful and good enough to recommend. I mean, it's not everyday you can see a lion on a trapeze, or doing a hula dance!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once again, Bugs Bunny sacred home is violated by careless people. This time the traveling circus put a lion's cage right over the rabbit's hole. So Bug's has to come out of the hole and face Nero (that's the name of the lion), which he does in his usual hilarious style. After a slow and rocky beginning to the cart, it keeps getting better and better and winds up being quite hilarious. Nero the lion turns out to be a pretty good foil for Bugs and that turns this short into a highly memorable one, if still shorn of a classic. This animated short can be found on Disk 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 3.

My Grade: A-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robert McKimson's 'Acrobatty Bunny' is one of the director's finest shorts. Although the circus-based setting may evoke hideous memories of McKimson's dreadful 'Big Top Bunny', 'Acrobatty Bunny' is in fact nowhere near as dull as that travesty. Pitting Bugs Bunny against a ferocious lion, 'Acrobatty Bunny' is fresh and funny from the outset, not to mention extremely attractive to look at. There's a classic scene in which Bugs takes a strangled elevator ride out of his hole only to emerge directly into the jaws of the lion. In a brilliant Disney parody, he hollers \"Pinocchio\" down the lion's throat! This brilliant opening is a sign of things to come. There are some expertly choreographed antics in and around the lion's cage to begin with, followed by a hilariously grotesque and irritating rendition of 'Laugh Clown Laugh' which, as a child, I used to impersonate regularly! All this culminates in a short acrobatic sequence which gives the cartoon its name. I've never been fond of the circus as a setting for cartoons and find it usually makes for a dull and predictable set of gags but 'Acrobatty Bunny' breaks from the mould and the result is an exhilaratingly funny short which stands amongst McKimson's best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Julie Andrews plays a German spy who falls in love with an American pilot Rock Hudson, while on an assignment for Germany.

The songs are beautiful. The two are well-paired. Julie demonstrates a more temperamental side in this film than the nice girl she normally plays.

A half-German, half-English girl who sings beautiful and entertains the troops in WW I, Julie sings some endearing Mancini songs.

I loved the film. Some will say it's a \"chick-flick,\" but so what. It's wonderful.

Supporting characters are somewhat stereotyped. It may not be up to Rock's performance in Pillow Talk, Magnificent Obsession, or Giant.

Blake Edwards shot the film in Ireland and authentic WW I -type planes were used in the film. Scenery for England and France is absolutely gorgeous.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I suppose I like this film as well as any I know; it is not perfect, but under the title \"The Americanization of Lily\" this charming and memorable semi-musical satire might I suggest have been appreciated more, and still loved by those who recognized its special Blake Edwards'-produced spirit of gentleness, clever humor and solid narrative. The improbably but delightful story-line follows Lili Smith, a fringe-type spy for the Germans in a much simpler and less black-and-white war; Lili Schmidt passing as Smith is helping her Uncle who is patriotic too, for Germany but neither cruel nor political, merely opportunistic. Lili's target is William Larrabee, a charismatic U.S. squadron leader who can supply her valuable information. The plot thickens comes when Lili falls in love with Larrabee, has her eyes opened to the consequences of her playing spy, and sees the effects of combat on wounded men at a hospital and realizes what it might mean to his men whom she has met and likes. She gets jealous of a rival for Larrabee's affections, then realizes she can no longer do what she has been doing and gives up the spy business. The logical end of the film comes when after the terrible WWI has ended, as she sings the theme song of the film, \"Wishing\" in a darkened theater, one by one the members of Larrabee's squadron appear, including her lover himself, indicating they have forgiven her and their former opponents; and even Uncle Kurt enthusiastically joins in the singing of \"It's a Long To Tipperraree\", to indicate all is well with the world again. This is an audacious and sometime brilliant story idea, written by director Blake Edwards and William Peter Blatty of \"John Goldfarb\" fame; and it is a delightful narrative. Larrabee's squadron, including an inebriate who keeps crashing and other lovable types populate this lively film; and the feel of this stylish and glowing film is almost epic, both in its scope and realization. Credit must go to Jack Bear and Donald Brooks for their costume creations, Reg Allen and Jack Stevens for sets, Fernando Carrere for another beautiful production design, Henry Mancini for his sensitive and appropriate musical score, and to Russell Harlan for his shining cinematography. In the beautiful footage, the principal actors are Julie Andrews as Lili, Rock Hudson as Larrabee, Keremy Kemp outstanding as Lili's Uncle Kurt, Michael Witney, Lance Percival as the inebriate pilot, gorgeous Gloria Paul as Lili's stripteasing rival, and many other fine actors in smaller parts. It is hard to say enough nice things about the pace, or the cleverness of the just-this-side-of broad comedy; this element is introduced by Edwards to leaven the horrors of actual warfare, to example the almost comic-opera approach with which men made war back in a more innocent-minded era of human civilization.. This comedy also helps prepare the way for Lili's conversion from uncritical acceptance of a duty to the German state to acceptance of the reality of what she is doing and potentially what she may be causing. This is a rare \"sense-of-life\" film about Lili's \"Americanization\", her assertion of herself in the real world and then among others before tragedy can happen. It is haunting, I find, and beautiful in many ways. I consider it to be Blake Edwards'masterpiece of directing; and under the title \"The Americanization of Lili\" I believe with hardly any changes it might have been recognized as the polished sapphire of a film it is by every standard I know.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This often maligned movie is a must for fans of Blake Edwards, Julie Andrews, Henry Mancini, or Hollywood musicals. Other writers have commented on the shifts in tone, the confusion of plot, etc., but the film has many things to recommend it. The score is one of Henry Mancini's best (and he has written many wonderful ones), several songs are sung to perfection by Andrews, Julie's performance is nuanced and she is decked out in some beautiful clothes, (she is at her absolutely loveliest here), the on-location shots are breath-taking, and there are some funny Inspector Clouseau-type sight gags to boot. Rock Hudson basically phoned in his performance, but he is passably good. A real curiosity item in that it was the last major film Julie did for about 10 years and, in many ways, is a precursor to Victor\/Victoria. It is lovely to look at and listen to. When will it be available on DVD??? When it is, I for one would like both versions--the longer and shorter, director's cut. Since it was lampooned in S.O.B., they would make a great two-pack!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Darling Lili is fantastic! Its by far one my favorite films! It certainly didn't deserve the poor reviews it received. Julie Andrews, playing the title role of Lili Smith (Schmidt) is the best part of the whole movie. She is entrancing and spectacular! As Julie Andrews is my most favorite actress and singer by far, I was most definatly not surprised by how stunning she is. This movie is just...great (I'm running out of adjectives!), it's magnificent, marvellous, amazing, funny, terribly romantic, sad, and just an all-out thrill and its all thanks to Dame Julie Andrews!And to her husband, director Blake Edwards. Oh, yeah Rock Hudson was ok, too :)

Julie Andrews is the beautiful and well-loved singer, Lili Smith. Rock Hudson portrays Major Larabee, who quickly falls for Lili, and she with him. But their affair was not coincedental. There meeting was planned by the German Government (I'm not sure if that's exactly what you'd call them, but you get the point), because the warm, happy, singing entertainer Lili is actually a German Spy. Lili is told to seduce Major LArabee in order to get information of the new Top Secret Opertaion (later know as \"Crepe Suzette\"). Though Lili is on a solemn mission, she falls in love with Bill (Major Larabee), for real, making her original quest challenging. But Lili pulls through and completes er task, after she finds out something that is not really true about Bill. The ending will remain unsaid by me as it is wonderfully layed out. If anything, you'll thoroughly enjoy this movie, I most certainly did!!!!!!!!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, I am a romantic of sorts who likes musicals and comedy and this fit the bill! Julie Andrews gives a mesmerizing performance at the beginning and end of this film with the \"Whistling in the Dark\" production number. The sedate-to-outrageous number that she performs in the middle of the story when she believes that Rock Hudson has been seeing a dancing\/call girl is eye-popping and will certainly make you giggle.

I only wish that this film could be found in video or DVD as I would surely purchase it in a heartbeat for my home library!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even a bad Julie Andrews Musical is worth watching and this isn't bad! In fact it's quite entertaining. Actually it's a fascinating study on trying to manipulate a star's personae.

To break Julie's \"goody two shoes mold\" she plays a German Spy\/English Musical Hall Actress. She subsequently went on to take her top off in the movie S.O.B. and play a drag queen in Victor Victoria and other not so goody girls usually under hubby Blake Edward's direction.

The movie is admittedly problematic It is hard to feel for her character because she's a German Spy. We want to love Julie but she's on the wrong side of the law. Probably this is why this movie flopped. Julie as a German Spy? Our Mary Poppins? our Maria Van Trapp suddenly a German Spy?

The romance seems to happen overnight and come from nowhere. But never mind, it's a musical and it has Jullie. Oh and did I mention hunky Rock Hudson is in it too?

Julie gives a glowing wonderful performance that any musical comedy buff should not miss. Great WW 1 Songs and nice tunes by Mancini.

Yes the film has plot holes and at times doesn't seem logical. For example, why is Julie and her uncle suddenly pursued by the Germans when a minute ago she was spying for them.

But on another note, who cares? The musical numbers are fun and exciting. The costumes and scenery extraordinarily lavish. The cinematography quite on the mark.

It has the annoying idiot detectives that Blake Edwards puts in all his movies. (Yawn)

But it has Julie- trying desperately to change her image. (You can imagine dinner with Blake and Julie - Julie: \"Blake we need to change my image.\"

Blake: \"I Will make you a German Spy, then we will take your clothes off in another movie and then play a transvestite in a another movie. They won't recognize you. It will be the death of Maria Von Trapp\"

Fascinating study on changing an image. Wonderful Julie. A must see for musical comedy buffs. Much more entertaining than Star!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I always loved this film. The music,story and the action. I especially love the opening and closing of the film. The music stayed with me throughout the years. The WWI plane battles were great and the comedy is typical Blake Edwards. Slaptick is his forte' after all. Julie's singing is amazing and keeps me glued to the screen. The sets and the scenes are wonderful. The characters are appealing. I loved the scene with the wounded soldiers and Julie's singing to them. I wish she sang to me in Vietnam. I also enjoyed the old cars from the period and the WWI music.I was glad when the DVD arrived. Now I can whistle in the dark watching it again and again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is certainly well-constructed, beginning and ending in the dark, with focus on Lili Smith \/Schmidt, Julie Andrews,initially the singing 'angel' later the notorious spy.

It's beautiful! I saw the movie about 15 years ago and watched it again recently. While it was dismissed by critics in the 70's as overblown, 'cinema vulgaris', and lacking in structure (among others) time has proven them wrong. Blake Edwards certainly has produced a film that is almost of lyrical quality.

The film soars and swirls (aerial photography; Julie Andrews in motion) and captivates. One must just buy into the premise that Julie Andrews is a spy whose mission has gone wrong. Overlooking the tepid chemistry between Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson, one must believe that these are lovers - who in all innocence fall for each other. And in the end, love is far more important than winning wars. And so is maintaining innocence.

There is a lot of understated acting, and the film certainly reaches emotional depths often not seen in comedies.

There are wonderful comedic elements (foreshadowing the French goons in Victor\/Victoria), interesting diplomatic asides (reminding me of The Tamarind Seed, seen about 18 years ago) and a general sense of good-will.

Suspend all disbelief and this movie will carry you away. Julie Andrews' belting out of war songs and the haunting 'Whistling Away the Dark' are reason enough to turn the TV on, just for the soundtrack. And the striptease number, like the 'Jenny' number in Star! works.

This film has, like a good champagne, aged well. Paramount should bring it to DVD as soon as possible. The same applies to transferring the laser disk of Star! to DVD. These are both interesting pieces of Julie Andrews' meticulous and then underrated works.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i found the story to be just enough of a thriller that the wonderful henry mancici music didn't lull me. julie andrews was excellant and i sure don't understand why this movie had problems at the box office when it came out because it just makes me happy at the end to have everybody singing. and i do like happy ever after endings which i think you can say this movie has along with some traditional blake edwards humor...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson were great in this movie \/ musical. The opening song by Ms. Andrews, \"Whistling Away the Dark,\" will always be in the back roads of my mind. The plot line during World War I, is great and suspenseful one. If you are a romantic, you will love this movie. This is a movie that I always enjoy to see again and again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Blake Edwards film isn't too sure whether it wants to be a comedy, a drama or a musical. No matter, the sheer presence of Julie Andrews, is reason enough to see this comedy-drama-musical-spy spoof. Julie is beautiful and uses her many talents, throughout the film. Rock Hudson looks tired, but he's is more than fine, as Julie's romantic interest. Authentic World War I cars and planes, add to the appeal. Overall, the film is very entertaining. The DVD release is an edited (by Blake Edwards) version of the original release. Supposedly, this is the only version that Edwards would allow; but, Turner Classic Movies has shown the complete (theatrical release) version, recently. Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first viewed this movie when it first came out and also bought an LP recording of the soundtrack. I liked it so well, I went back to see it several times..cannot understand why it was considered a flop. Julie Andrews was lovely in this film, her voice was in top form and the costuming was beautiful!

The film contains a little bit of everything and even though some of the scenes were a bit heavy-handed, they were still fun.

I recently found I could get a copy in DVD form and ordered it......I was disappointed that a couple of songs and sequences in the movie were not included in the version of the DVD I ordered.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am an avid Julie Andrews fan and I just watched this for the first time on DVD -- the Director's Cut version. I was very surprised that it was rated G. How did they get bedroom scenes, a seduction story line, two strip tease acts, and war\/shooting\/blood into a G rating? Weird. I would rate it PG-13.

Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It was a beautiful showcase of Andrew's voice and talent. The acting was great. The storyline was a little weak, leaving gaps that could have been filled with some good dialogue. There were too many \"no talking, just walking\" scenes for me... I would have liked to see the the relationship between Julie and Rock blossom, so that the intense love would be more believable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Darling Lili is a mixture of Perfection and Magic! The Stars; Julie Andrews & Rock Hudson could not have done a better attempt if they tried. It's full of all the magic that a young lady wishes for and it makes it seem as if it can all really happen to you. The brilliance of the Director; Blake Edwards is shown to be at his best. He was truly capturing the woman he loved on screen!

The blend of each song, went perfectly with the moment in the film. The Film opened with Julie Andrews singing Whistling Away In The Dark and closed with the same Song by Andrews.

For A Film Of This Excellence To Have Been Such A Failure When It Was Released, Is A Total Shock...

As It Is: \"Inspirational...Purely....Inspirational!\" ~One Of Andrews Most Memorable Lines In This Film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It really is a great film (after being able to ignore Blake Edwards Pink Panther references which he appears to be obsessed with and are hugely unfunny). Julie is, as usual, wonderful - singing and acting brilliantly. I remember seeing it at the Odeon Cinema in the Haymarket, London on its release. However Julie's non-appearance at the UK premiere of STAR! was most unfortunate and (apparently!) due to filming the aerial shots for Darling Lili over Ireland. A reasonable excuse if she had appeared in any of these aerial shots but she did not. Two box office flops in a row ruined her film career for quite a few years. But Darling Lili,just like STAR!, deserves much more public appreciation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fun, entertaining movie about WWII German spy (Julie Andrews!) falling in love with American pilot (Rock Hudson), while trying to get secrets from him. For some reason this was attacked by critics and shunned by the public in 1970--I can't see why. It's beautifully shot, has wonderful costumes and interiors, and exciting aerial dogfights. Also it has Andrews doing a strip-tease (strictly PG material) and singing a beautiful song--\"Whistling in the Dark\". The movie does have problems. Andrews and Hudson did not get along during the shooting of this--and it shows. Their love scenes lack spark and they have zero sexual chemistry. Still, they turn in OK performances. The film is a little long (even in the 105 min director's cut I saw) and gets way too dark and serious at the end. Still, worth catching. Try seeing the directors cut...the other one runs half an hour longer!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The centerpiece of Lackawanna Blues is the character Rachel \"Nanny\" Crosby, who runs a boardinghouse and provides unflagging support to a young boy, Ruben, the narrator of the film. Based upon the experiences of writer-actor Ruben Santiago-Hudson, the film lovingly recreates the upstate New York boardinghouse and evokes the cultural climate of a world in transition in the 1960s.

The first half of the film is virtually non-stop music. The second half addresses more completely the various characters in the boardinghouse. Nanny's ability \"to take fragments and make them whole\" affects everyone within her sphere. An especially vivid scene is when she confronts an abusive husband, telling him firmly, \"If you ever touch that child again, we're going to dance!\" As delivered by actress S. Epatha Merkerson, that line is so steely and filled with such resolve that the husband with the hair-trigger temper is frozen in his tracks.

From start to finish, Merkerson delivers a commanding presence Her character binds together the disparate lives of the borders in her home. This was a touching, heartfelt film with a wonderful cast. As played by Merkerson, the character of Nanny simply radiates love. This is a film experience that I will remember for a long time to come.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The main reason for watching this picture is to savor the brilliant performance of S. Ephata Merkerson. Ms. Merkerson dominates this film with her tremendous presence as Nanny, the woman who believes in doing good, no matter to whom, with no strings attached. This actress clearly shows a range that is amazing.

Thanks to director George Wolf for bringing this distinguished cast of some of the best Black Americans actors together. This ensemble group under his tight direction help create the right atmosphere in which the action takes place.

Of course, none of this would have been possible if Ruben Santiago Hudson hadn't written his wonderful play. Working with Mr. Wolf, perhaps the best theater director of this generation, they have opened the play in a way that it evokes that not too distant past where a child lives under the influence of Ms. Crosby, when his own parents are not around to take care of him. Ms. Crosby becomes the adoring mother of little Ruben; in a way, he represents her reward for having lost her own daughter.

Unfortunately, there is no time to develop some of the characters, as the action solely concentrates in enhancing the relationship between Nanny and the young Ruben, played with such charm by the young Marcus Carl Franklin, who is a natural. The only thing that could have been done differently was the voice over narration that is at times intrusive, as it doesn't clarify, or justify what one is seeing. Frankly, just by watching the interaction of the players, is self explanatory.

In the background there is always music. No matter what hard times these people are going through, but Nanny's house is full of laughter and that glorious music that takes us back to that era.

Aside from Ms. Merkerson, other notable performances are given by Terrence Dashon Howard, one of the rising stars of the moment. Mos Def, Jeffrey Wright, Marcy Gray, Louis Gossett Jr.,Delroy Lindo, Rosie Perez, Carmen Ejogo, Jimmy Smits and the rest.

Ms. S. Ephata Merkerson deserves to be seen by a wider audience. In \"Lackawanna Blues\", she clearly demonstrates she can do anything she wants because of her enormous talent and charisma.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I always felt that Ms. Merkerson had never gotten a role fitting her skills. Familiar to millions as the Lt. on Law and Order, she has been seen in a number of theatrical releases, always in a supporting role. HBO's Lackawanna Blues changes that and allows this talented actress to shine as Nanny, successful entrepreneur in a world changing from segregation to integration. But the story is really about the colorful array of characters that she and her adopted son meet in a boarding house in Lackawanna, New York, a suburb of Buffalo.

The story could be set in any major African-American community of the 50's and 60's from Atlanta's Sweet Auburn to New York's Harlem. But the segregation-integration angle is only a subtle undercurrent in the colorful lives of the folks at Nanny's boarding house. The story revolves around Nanny's relationships with all kinds of people, played by some of the best actors in the business (I purposely did not say black actors--this ensemble is a stunning array of talent who happen to be black, except for Jimmy Smits, of course) I recommend this film as a fun and colorful look at a bygone day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Superb editing, outstanding acting, especially by Epatha Merkerson, and highly enjoyable musical soundtrack. This film reaches back to the 40's to comment on the racial lifestyle differences and some effect of desegregation while it weaves the true story of a truly admirable and fantastic lady.

The actor portraying the young Terrence Howard character does a wonderful job reflecting the life and times of his upbringing in the small upstate New York town. The audience laughed, cried, and erupted in applause for the film and its director.

Soon to be shown on HBO (Feb 7, I believe) - fire up the TIVO and enjoy a great story!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I gave this film my rare 10 stars.

When I first began watching it and realized it would not be a film with a strong plot line I almost turned it off. I am very glad I didn't.

This is a character driven film, a true story, which revolves mainly around the life of Rachel \"Nanny\" Crosby, a strong, beautiful (inside and out)Black woman and how she touched the lives of so many in the community of Lackawanna.

Highly interesting not only its strong characterizations of Nanny and the people who lived at her boardinghouse, but also it gives us a look at what life and community were like for African Americans in the 1950's, prior to integration, and the good and bad sides of segregation and how it ultimately affected and changed the Black community.

In addition to excellent performances by all members of the cast, there is some fine singing and dancing from that era.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Lackawanna Blues'is so emotionally powerful in its portrayal of urban Blacks during the 50s and early 60s. A culture of joy and sadness specific to working class Blacks that existed outside the mainstream culture. The characters of Santiago-Hudson's play depicted Black individuals who lived imperfect lives but maintained strong positive values of love,loyalty and honor. Although the characters moved away from those values at times, they did not deny the importance of the values. Instead they recognized and accepted their own imperfection and those of the other characters, without judgment, that passed through the life of \"nanny\". The central characters were strong and believable, the settings were realistic and brought back personal memories of a by-gone era. Pre-integration urban life was a time of sensory intoxication, sight, sound,and smell, that could almost be experienced by watching the drama \"Lackawanna Blues\" unfold. I will watch it again and again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No blood, no sex (though it oozes passion), no special effects, but just one of those pearls that comes across your movie screen when you're not really looking and grabs your attention.

Great acting, great sets, great music, beautiful storyline. If only there were a lot more movies made like this one!

The sets move us through time and make us feel like we were there.

The acting appears like real life, and elevates us to the level of awareness of \"Nanny\", to whom no-one is a lost cause, least of all the inhabitants of her own \"Halfway\" house.

Best of all it's a true story of misfits learning to \"fit in\". I was somewhat jealous of the good times that everyone appeared to be having in the movie! Could we all spend some time in Nanny's house?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a great movie. Something not only for Black History month but as a reminder of the goodness of people and the statement that it truly does take a village to raise a child. The performances by S Eptath was outstanding. Mos Def and his singing was off the hook. Had to do a double take when I saw that was Rosie Perez there. But the supporting cast of actors and actresses made this worth watching. All the different stories they had was amazing. And how Nanny protected Jr and literally everyone else that was in her presence. I can truly understand her being the matriarch of that time period and even more so how tired she was in helping everyone. Cant wait for it to come out on DVD. It would be a welcome addition to any movie library.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was very good, not great but very good. It is based on a one man play by Ruben Santiago Hudson..yes he played most of the parts. On paper it looks like stunt casting. Yes let's round up all the black folks in Hollywood and put them in one movie. Halle Berry even produced it. The only name I didn't see was Oprah's ,thank god because it probably would of ended up being like a Hallmark movie. Instead this movie was not some sentimental mess. It was moving but not phony, the characters came and went with the exception of her husband, Pauline and the writer in question. The movie revolved around the universe of Nanny, Mrs Bill Crosby and how she raised the writer and took in people. Now being a jaded New Yorker when he said she took in sick people and old and then we see them going to a mental institution to pick up a man, I'm thinking looks like sister has a medicare scam going. Getting folks jobs and taking the medicare\/caid checks But no she explains to Lou Gosset she just wants 25 bucks a week and did not want the money ahead of time. I think that part was put in the movie just for us jaded New Yorkers so we know she is not scamming the poor folks.(g) It was written by a New Yorker so he knows the deal(g).. She almost seems angelic and looking through a little boys eyes I can see why. She is married to a ne'er do well who is 17 years younger and fools around on her. Terrence Howard was born to play these type of parts. He was good but I would like to see him play something different. Markerson who plays Nanny is also very good. But for some reason the person who stood out to me was a small role played by Jeffery Wright. Where is this mans Oscar? He already won a Emmy and a Tony. He was in Shaft and he stole the movie. I did not even know who he was in this movie. He is a chameleon never the same. I never seen him play a bad part yet. This was a 5 minute role and he managed to make me both laugh and cry. I re-winded the scene few times ..one time because I didn't know who he was. His wife Carman Ejogo was excellent. I have seen her in roles before mostly mousy stuff. But she is so good here. I actually know people who act just like her. So it was very real to me Macy Grey who had one of the bigger parts was also very good. I was very happy that they did not kill Nanny off. I thought she was a goner in the beginning of the movie. BUT she was able to go home and start her old routine of taking care of people. There are women like that in most of our lives. People we might know or even lived with. Thank god for them, I do not know how they do it all of the time. I have a friend who lost 2 children and been through a lot of stuff but whenever I am feeling selfishly sorry for myself I call her and she always puts me in a good mood. THis movie is a tribute to all of those people. I only wish they they told us what happened to some of the characters like the the one armed man, Paulines boyfriend who is played by one of my favorite actors on HBO's The Wire, Omar, Rosie Perez's character and Richard the lesbian and Delroy Lindo's one arm man, he was mesmerizing in another small role.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a must-see movie. You will laugh, you will cry, and when it's over you'll wish there were more. Well-written and compelling, this movie draws you in and holds on tight. The casting was perfect, the characters purposeful, and the performances outstanding. \"Nanny\" is the standard to which all women should hold themselves: strong, forgiving, protective, and never judgmental. \"Nanny\", to me, is the epitome of what a Christian mother and woman should be: a true pillar of the community. If I were half the woman \"Nanny\" is, I might consider myself to be doing okay. I would have been devastated if \"Nanny\" had died at some point in the movie, but since she didn't I will definitely buy this when it comes out on DVD. I can only hope that the story continues and that Ruben goes back to Lackawanna to try to rebuild the town, piece by piece and person by person.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was absolutely one of the best movies I've seen.

Excellent performances from a marvelous A-List cast that will move you from smiles to laughter to tears and back.

I couldn't help but care about the characters. Ms. Merkerson will blow you away, as will the young man playing the young lead.

I also thought that the set design was top-rate. The viewer is really placed inside each era as it's presented.

The music is a blast, too. Nice selections to represent mood, time and place. The blind blues man is stereotypic but he delivers some great songs.

This is a great story that will survive many repeated viewings. Take the time to watch it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fantastically written, acted, and produced! Loved seeing this gleaming, talented cast -- every single one of them -- give a such great performance. This movie thoroughly warmed the cockles of my heart! Great storytelling!

This is a great movie for Black History month. Full of an accurate portrayal of recent history and very real characters who weathered incredible pain -- with dignity and a belief in a better future. It is so easy to see how these diverse adults all affected this child and contributed to the fertile imagination that would eventually fuel the talent of his adulthood. The next time you're in the company of a listening and observing child, remember; show or he may be a writer-in-the-making!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lackawanna Blues is a very moving film depicting an era filled with varying emotions and characters as seen through the eyes of a young boy. The film clearly supports \"it takes a village to raise a child\" and reminds of an important time in black history and culture. I gained an incredible amount of respect for Macy Gray as an actress. Her character was a little crazy, yet lovable; clearly we all have known someone like Macy's character. S. Epatha Merkerson is absolutely fantastic as Nanny. I never realized that Epatha was such a great actress. Law & Order never showcased the depth of Epatha's acting abilities like Lackawanna Blues. I was pleasantly surprised and amazed! The music and the characters reminded me of my own childhood...it was a sweet nostalgic walk down memory lane. I truly enjoyed the film and eagerly await the DVD release to add to my collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watch Lackawanna Blues every time it comes on. It brings back happy times for me. I grow up in a big city in the mid-west. It reminds me of when I was a child although my situation was a little different it feels the same. It makes me wonder if all we will ever know about families are lost. The big mama's of day are under the age of 55. Will they see know what it takes to be a inspiration to other. I hope that I was not the only one who loved this movie enough to relate it to their past. The music was great in this movie. I truly felt like this should have gone to the theaters I would have paid to see it. As I viewed the movie for the second time I figured out who life this movie was about. He did an superb job in writing and producing this film. I guess who better to produce a film based on your life other than you. As soon as I can I will be obtaining a copy for my home use. I alway enjoy black producer or directors they make such film feel like you were actually living in the time right than. Thanks for such a great movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lackawanna Blues is and excellent movie. The casting was perfect. Every actor and actress was perfectly suited for the role they played. Their chemistry together was amazing. The acting was superb. I felt as if i knew the characters. I could almost 'feel' them. They reminded me of people that I knew as a child growing up in the 50's and 60's. Oh, the memories!! My personal belief is that this movie should have been on the big screen for all to see. I have watched this movie so many times, that I can almost recite the lines as the characters are saying them. I can't even list my favorite part, because I have SO MANY favorite parts. Thank you for bringing back a part of my youth that I never see in this day and age...and that is Black people loving each other, looking out for each other, respecting each other, caring about each other, and doing all we can to help each other. Gotta go now. I have to go watch it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have watch this movie almost every night that is was on HBO. It is of my opinion that it could have been successful in the theater, providing the advertisement leading up to it was top scale. I was thoroughly impressed with the actress who played Nanny. She is an outstanding actress. Of course, my favorite actor is Terrance Howard. He is a very understated actor and he deserves much more credit than he has received. Ebony magazine did do a nice article on him, giving him some of his due propers. Lakawanna Blue, gave me a understanding of the stories my parents use to tell us. They were from a similar town \"Philadelphia, PA\" were they had to have their fun in the junt joints and such. I also like to say that Mos Def is a incredible actor. He has found his calling. I've seen him in several movies where he has played a variety of roles, from thug to doctor and he has the stuff! Overall, please put Lakawanna Blues on video for rental.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just a great soundtrack. Really enjoyable music. Outstanding cast, great lead performance. Worth watching.

Doesn't really explain what happened to the neighborhood. You are left feeling that integration is to blame or that with the departure of the lead character the neighborhood disintegrated.

This movie seems well researched and extremely well crafted. I especially enjoyed some of the minor characters like Jeffrey Wright.

The cutting during the opening sequence helps express what a lively, engaging and desirable experience that nightclub would have been with the jump music, food, drink, dancing, gambling and sex.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lackawanna Blues is a moving story about a boy who is raised in a house by some pretty unusual people.

It's editing and soundtrack really pulls you in to the story and lets you experience the film the way the writer really meant for it to be seen.

The music really tied into the story, which made the characters come to life. The editing made the story more progressive and captivating.

I was also surprised by some of the performances of the cast, most notably S. Epatha Merkerson's.

I can't wait to see the one man show featuring this films writer, Ruben Santiago-Hudson.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best,Lackawanna Blues

Great movie,great cast,great music,this is one of those movies that is so good that when it is over you wish it would go on for another 90 minutes,I will w3atch this one many times.

This is one of those movies that grabs you from the beginning and twist and slams you emotionally throughout the feature. The cast is extraordinary without the faintest hint of anyone being uncormfortable in their role. You get the sense that you're really there taking all this in. A great deal of care was given in the sets, costumes and music of the period. The relationship between the characters we meet is both simple and complicated as the movie goes on, but the steady performance of Ms. Merkerson is so powerful that the movie ends before we've had our fill of the wonderful misfits. To single out anyone other than \"Nanny\" is an injustice because we have very good performances by great veteran actors including:

Jeffery Wright, Jimmy Smits, Terrence Howard and Delroy Lindo. But it is Marcus Franklin, Macy Gray and Ms. Merkerson that makes this a wonderful experience.

The movie moves rapidly and is short by todays standards, but it is without question one of the best movies you're going to see this year. If you like good period pieces that will challenge you emotionally, tug at your heart, lift you joyfully and have you tapping your feet at the same time, then this is the movie for you. I've shown it to several friends and they all want my copy, that says it all, the movie is that good. Check it out for yourself.

danceability-1, Amsterdam Holland","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those movies that you just don't want to end. The characters are rich like a well woven tapestry. Colorful costumes, music and characters draw you in and tell a tale of the people that lived in a boarding house over the decades around the time of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. A young man is taken in by a dynamic, big-hearted woman that runs the house and these are stories based on his experiences.

I couldn't believe this was a made for television film. It was so well executed. S. Epatha Merkerson is wonderful as Nanny and she brings so much life to this role. You want to be right there amongst her boarders.

I enjoyed this film so much I bought the DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a wonderful film, filled with eccentric, unique characters who are wonderfully realized by a great ensemble cast. The director also did a great job keeping the story held together, getting those wonderful performances (on not messing with them) and using music (and what wonderful music it is) to great effect. S. Epatha in the lead role is great. I had always heard what a brilliant stage actor she is, and although I have enjoyed her on Law and Order, this really shows what she can do with a filled out, complex role. Macy Gray is terrific, Mos Def, as usual, wonderful. Lou Gossett, great. Jimmy Smits, terrific, and doesn't try to pull focus because he's a star. A true piece of ensemble acting.

Rent it, enjoy it, groove to it, and treasure it. Something special.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lackawana Blues An impressive HBO movie about a beautiful woman that made her house a home for several characters.Touching,alive,entrancing-a great mix of sound and story- based on a true story featuring an All-Star cast.A time capsule about .....

you get the point and no I am not on the payola for the HBO crew- I would throw around more superlatives but I am about to go out . The extras on the DVD include a deleted scene,a featurette and commentary.The funniest part about the featurette was \"star\" lighting they used when interviewing exec producer Halle Berry..

OK seriously - good times A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ever since I first encountered the Divine Ms Merkerson as a sex therapist in Spike Lee's \"She's Gotta Have It\" I have been sold on the range of this exceedingly gifted yet terribly underrated actress. She received an Emmy for her portrayal here and to say it is well-deserved is a masterpiece of understatement.

Here she simply shines as THE guiding force and hand in her community. This was especially poignant for me for I grew up in this very same time period. The production detail was phenomenal and evoked wooooooooooooooonderful memories of life and times during the 50s & 60s and of women like Ms Merkerson portrayed. She was thoroughly and ably accompanied by a hot, hot cast with performances one would enjoy over and over again. I first saw Macy Gray's name in the credits and went ho-hum. Her performance was so good, I didn't even recognize her until about a 3rd of the way through. I am especially proud of the obvious care and attention to detail to produce a feel and look of another beautiful era in African-American culture that is very tastefully done.

Another very interesting aspect is that the project was less concerned with the racial fabric of the times but infinitely more attuned to the richness of the characters and the emotional diversity they provide to exemplify that in the final analysis it is about the choices we make and to what extent we accept responsibility for those choices.

This is a worthy, elegant presentation of African-American life and is most assuredly destined to become a classic. You owe it to yourself to have this as part of your collection.

I highly recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"S. Epatha Merkerson shines as Nanny in this touching and vibrant look at the life of Ruben Santiago, Jr. (Marcus Franklin) while growing up under the guardianship of Nanny. The film gives a good character study of both Nanny and Ruben and manages to capture life's ups and downs in a realistic fashion unlike so many memoirs that are made into film. The supporting cast adds much spark and many recognizable faces appear in smaller roles including Mos Def, Macy Gray, Terrence Dashon Howard, Rosie Perez, Louis Gossett, Jr., Liev Schreiber, Jimmy Smits, Ernie Hudson, Delroy Lindo, and Patricia Wettig. Loses some steam and vibrancy towards the end, and the ending sequence leaves a bittersweet feeling. But, overall a great film with a truly outstanding performance by Merkerson.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is by far one of the best biographical films of recent times. I'll go so far as to put it up there with Ray and The Aviator. It is the story of a young, bi-racial boy who lives in a boarding house run by the amazing Miss Rachael aka \"Nanny\". You will fall in love with Nanny, a woman who gives all of herself to those around her. S. Epatha Merkerson brings the character to life beautifully, and the other cast members are do the same. If I were to praise each actor for the way they played their roles, I'd have to mention everyone in the entire cast.

The music in this film perfectly blends with the story, almost dictates the way it goes. And what's more, this film is actually entertaining. It won't bore you at all, not even for a minute!

I highly recommend this film to anyone wanting to spend an evening at home watching a very smart, very entertaining, quality film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"LACKAWANNA BLUES is an entertaining, engrossing, emotionally-charged HBO-TV movie based on the childhood memories of actor Ruben Santiago-Hudson (who also appears in a small role). This joyous motion picture experience is centered around Santiago-Hudson's childhood guardian, Rachel \"Nanny\" Crosby, a strong, big-hearted black woman who ran a boarding house in upstate New York during the 1950's. Nanny was a one-woman social service organization whose boarding house was filled with drunks, derelicts, cripples, drug addicts, misfits, and everyone else in town who needed a hand-up instead of a hand-out. The crux of the story revolves around Nanny's relationship with young Ruben (beautifully played by Marcus Franklin),a boy whose divorced parents were unable to raise the boy properly so Nanny took him in. S. Epatha Merkeson, who has been wasted for years in the thankless role of Lieutenant Van Buren on NBC's LAW & ORDER, turns in a powerhouse performance as Nanny, the neighborhood mother-figure whose boarding house became a symbol for the downtrodden black folks in her town. Merkeson is nothing short of magnificent, in a performance that earned her a Golden Globe and an Emmy Award. Merkeson is backed by an impressive all-star cast that includes Terrance Howard (brilliant and heartbreaking as Nanny's husband), Louis Gossett Jr., Rosie Perez, Jimmy Smits, Delroy Lindo, Macy Gray, Michael K. Williams, Jeffrey Wright, Henry Simmons, Patricia Wettig, Ernie Hudson, Mos Def, and Hill Harper as the adult Ruben. Colorful and exciting, beautifully photographed and exquisitely scored, this is one of a kind motion picture experience that works on all levels, but if for no other reason, is worth seeing for the electrifying starring performance by S. Epatha Merkeson, who is given the role of a lifetime and makes the most of it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every once in a while a film comes along with characters we all know and love. A film where you see people you know portrayed on screen. It's cinema very at its best.

Lackawanna Blues is that film. Set in 1960s upstate New York, the story surrounds a rock- solid woman, who is the foundation for her community. This, based on a true story film, is told from a child she accepted as her own. This child, Ruben Santiago-Hudson wrote the screenplay.

*Emmy winner, S. Epatha Merkerson stars as Nanny, a woman who has wit, drive and determination for helping others in her boarding home. She does this as she wrestles with infidelity from her young lover, Bill Crosby, played by the **Oscar nominated Terrence Howard.

But make no mistake; see this film for the amazing performance of Merkerson, who is brilliant in this role. She encompasses a person we have all known, and perhaps love.

Lackawanna Blues is already on DVD; be sure to pick it up at your local video story today.

*Merkerson has already won an Emmy, Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild for this role.

**Howard has an Oscar nomination for his role in Hustle & Flow.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lackawanna Blues is a touching story about Nanny, a woman who gives all of herself to help those in need. It's told from the viewpoint of a boy, taken in by Nanny when his own mother isn't quite up to the task.

I have respect for this movie for three main reasons: 1) It is touching, but not sappy. It's told in a very real fashion, without a lot of the aggravating Hollywood storytelling baggage. And the ending is quite good (teary but not over-the-top).

2) Although it's clearly an African-American film, being set in the post-segregation black community of Lackawanna, New York, it doesn't wear its ethnicity on its sleeve. The story stands on the strength of the characters and the dramas (and comedies) surrounding their lives. It's not preachy, it's simply good.

3) It has a great soundtrack (can't beat old-school R&B and Chicago blues).

Generally the acting is strong, but not universally so. Some of the performances simply don't hold up to the characters the actors are supposed to portray. But considering it was a made-for-TV movie, that's to be expected.

8 out of 10. Imperfect but likable, good film for a rainy day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lackawanna Blues is a drama through and through. It details the life of a strong woman by the name of Rachel Crosby (S. Epatha Merkerson). Rachel is referred to as Nanny by all who know her, but she could have just as easily been called Wonder Woman. She epitomized strength, will power, confidence and resolve. She owned a home that she used to house just about every type of person that society would reject. Her tenants consisted of a lesbian, a psychotic war veteran, an amputee, and a host of other vagrants that made the home miles away from ordinary. Each successive event Rachel took in stride and handled flawlessly. She wasn't a dictator devoid of compassion, but in fact she was quite the opposite. She displayed compassion almost to a fault by giving shelter and refuge to so many that she seemed to over-extend herself.

Merkerson did a good job, but I believe this role was right up her alley anyway. The movie had an even keel never straying from Rachel. There were of course dramatic moments but they were to be expected. Nothing was ever to shocking or profound other than Rachel herself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"LACKAWANNA BLUES is a fine stage play by Ruben Santiago-Hudson and an even finer film as the author adapted his own life story for the screen. This brilliant film ignites the screen with rich colors, fine music, brilliant editing, superb direction by George C. Wolfe, and a cast so stunning that they make an encore viewing compulsory! Yes, it is just that good.

The story is based on the author's life as the child 'Junior' (Marcus Carl Franklin) raised in the inimitable home of soulfully empathetic Rachel \"Nanny\" Crosby (S. Epatha Merkerson), a lady who devoted her life to aiding the disenfranchised by transporting them from the South, from mental hospitals, and from the streets to Lackawanna, New York. The boy recalls all the lessons he learned about life from the inhabitants of the house - odd characters with painful pasts - and from the disintegration of his racially mixed biological family rescued by Nanny. The myriad characters of the home are too numerous to outline but they are portrayed by some of the finest actors in the business: Terrence Howard, Rosie Perez, Mos Def, the beautiful Carmen Ejogo, Louis Gossett Jr., Jeffrey Wright, Ernie Hudson, Charlayne Woodward, Jimmy Smits, Patricia Wettig, Macy Gray, Liev Schreiber, Kathleen Chalfant, Lou Myers, Hill Harper - the list goes on and on.

In the course of the film we are introduced to the cruelties of racism, the history of desegregation, the dynamics of drug abuse and violence, the infectious joy of African American music contributions to our musical culture, and the courage of one fine woman who battled all the hardships the world can dish out to maintain the dignity of those with whom she came into contact. S. Epatha Merkerson is wholly submerged in this role, a role she makes shine like a beacon of reason in a world of chaos. She offers one of the most stunning performances of the past years, and had this film been released in the theaters instead of as an HBO movie, she without a doubt would add the Oscar to place along side her Golden Globe award.

The entire cast is exceptional and Wolfe handles the acting and the story like a master: like riffs in a jazz piece, he pastes tiny moments of conversation with each character and Junior along with flashes of scenes from the story with the matrix of dance fests at the local clubs brimming over the top with incredible blues, jazz, dancing, and joy. The production crew has mounted this little miracle of a picture with extreme care and never for a moment does attention lag from the momentum of the story. Highly Recommended, almost Compulsory Viewing! Grady Harp","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched The Dresser this evening, having only seen it once before, about a dozen years ago.

It's not a \"big\" movie, and doesn't try to make a big splash, but my God, the brilliance of the two leads leaves me just about speechless. Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are nothing less than amazing in this movie.

The Dresser is the story of Sir, an aging Shakespearean actor (Finney), and his dresser Norman (Courtenay), sort of a valet, putting on a production of King Lear during the blitz of London in World War II. These are two men, each dependent upon the other: Sir is almost helpless without the aid of Norman to cajole, wheedle, and bully him into getting onstage for his 227th performance of Lear. And Norman lives his life vicariously through Sir; without Sir to need him, he is nothing, or thinks he is, anyway.

This is a character-driven film; the plot is secondary to the interaction of the characters, and as such, it requires actors of the highest caliber to bring it to life. Finney, only 47 years old, is completely believable as a very old, very sick, petulant, bullying, but brilliant stage actor. He hisses and fumes at his fellow actors even when they're taking their bows! And Courtenay is no less convincing as the mincing dresser, who must sometimes act more as a mother than as a valet to his elderly employer. Employer is really the wrong term to use, though. For although, technically their relationship is that of employer and employee, most of the time Sir and Norman act like nothing so much as an old married couple.

Yes, there are others in the cast of this movie, but there is no question that the true stars are Finney, Courtenay, and the marvelous script by Ronald Harwood. That is not to say that there aren't other fine performances, most notably Eileen Atkins as the long-suffering stage manager Madge. There is a wonderful scene where Sir and Madge talk about old desires, old regrets, and what might have been.

Although it doesn't get talked about these days, it is worth remembering that The Dresser was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Actor nominations for both Finney and Courtenay, Best Picture, Best Director (Peter Yates), and Best Adapted Screenplay.

I had remembered this as being a good movie, but I wasn't prepared to be as completely mesmerized as I was from beginning to end. If you want to see an example of what great acting is all about, and be hugely entertained all the while, then I encourage you to see The Dresser.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'The Dresser' is one of those films which are so perfect you really struggle to find something not to like about them. Written by Ronald Harwood (himself a former dresser to the legendary Donald Wolfit), it sparkles with energy and true love of life behind the footlights.

As 'Sir', the overbearing actor and main focus of the play, Albert Finney is a joy to watch - whether complaining about the lack of a storm during the 'blow, winds ...' bit of 'King Lear' or chatting to his faithful stage manager, Madge (Eileen Atkins, good as ever) about the old times. As Norman, his camp dresser, Tom Courtenay gives a fabulous performance, wiggling around at the beck and call of 'Lear', collecting a bottle to go at the pub, or bitchily disparaging the former Fool, Mr Davenport-Scott (often mentioned, but never seen!).

In an engaging support cast, there's Edward Fox as Oxenby (a typical arrogant second lead), Zena Walker as her Ladyship, Lockwood West as the replacement Fool, and many others.

This film has great energy, bringing with it some of the greasepaint of its stage origins, it is true, but being so well-acted you don't notice. Very well done indeed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

What more can you ask for? A great screenplay based on one of the finest plays of the latter half of the 20th century, two fine emotional performances by Courtney and Finney, a realistic vision of war time london, a great supporting cast. This film takes you on an emotional rollercoaster through humour, sadness, loss and fulfillment. if you are in the theatre it is even more effective. This is a true 10 on the rating scale !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fantastic cinema experience. I really enjoyed seeing this truly magnificent film in the theater when it came out. There is nothing to add, except that is a terrible shame that sir Albert Finney still isn't accepted by the AMPAS (American Academy). After roles in such films as Tom Jones, Murder on the Orient Express, Under the Volcano (to name only few - for these he was nominated for the Oscar), The Dresser is arguably his highlight, yet...

I know, Oscars are just popularity contest, but if Americans like British actors and actresses (\"and the Oscar goes to\" Jeremy Irons, Daniel Day-Lewis, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Glenda Jackson etc. - and they all deserved the award!), why they always left sir Finney with empty hands?

On the other hand, they gave it to John Wayne and Marisa Tomei (in Cousin Vinny). I don't know, should I laugh or cry.

If you have seen the two leads in The Dresser, you won't forget what is the art of acting. Watch this film and enjoy! I recommend it to everyone who loves art.

I give 9\/10 for this excellent film (1 point missing for non-cinematic material, after all it is \"just\" a theater)

Note: My criteria is much stronger than this on IMDb (10 only for the cinematic masterpiece that should\/could last forever).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are brilliant as Sir and his Dresser. Of course the play is brilliant to begin with and nothing can compare with the immediacy and collegiality of theatre, and I think you listen better in theatre; but on the screen we become more intimate, we're 'up-close' more than we are in the theatre, we witness subtle changes in expression, we \"see\" better as well as listen. Both the play and the movie are wondrous: moving, intelligent, illuminating--of the backstage story of the company, of historical context, of the two main characters, and of the parallel characters in \"Lear\" itself. If you cannot get to see it in a theatre (I don't imagine it's produced much these days) then, please, do yourself a favor, and get the video.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film has its detractors, and Courtney's fey dresser may offend some folks (who, frankly, need a good smack upside the head) -- but the film is top notch in every way: engaging, poignant, relevant. Finney, naturally, is larger than life. Courtney makes an ideal foil. I thought the performances to be terribly strong in both leads, and Courtney's character provides plenty of dark humor. The period is well captured, the supporting cast well chosen. This is to be seen and savored like a fine cordial. I only wish it were out on DVD already...(*sigh*)...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a movie that deserves another look--if you haven't seen it for a while, or a first look--if you were too young when it came out (1983). Based on a play by the same name, it is the story of an older actor who heads a touring Shakespearean repertory company in England during World War II. It deals with his stress of trying to perform a Shakespeare each night while facing problems such as bombed theaters and a company made up of older or physically handicapped actors--the young, able bodied ones being taken for military service. It also deals with his relationship with various members of his company, especially with his dresser. So far it all sounds rather dull but nothing could be further from the truth. While tragic overall, the story is told with a lot of humor and emotions run high throughout. The two male leads both received Oscar nominations for best actor and deservedly so. I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys human drama, theater--especially Shakespeare, or who has ever worked backstage in any capacity. The backstage goings-on make up another facet of the movie that will be fascinating to most viewers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Sir\" has played Lear over 200 times,but tonight he can't remember his opening lines.Sitting at the mirror,his eyes reflect the King's madness. His dresser prompts him gently,mouthing the words.There is an air of desperation about both these men.The great actor knowing his powers are slipping away,his valet cum major domo cum conscience cum surrogate wife - aware of his boss's decline into madness and knowing he is powerless to do more than ease his passing. \"The Dresser\" is really a love story between the two.Over the years they have become mutually dependent on one another to the extent that neither can conceive a future without the other. Set during the second world war,it concerns the fortunes of a frankly second - rate touring Shakespearean Company comprising an equal number of has - beens and wannabes led by \"Sir\", a theatrical knight of what might kindly be called \"The Old School\".Whatever part he is playing he grabs centre - stage and bellows out over the footlights,bullying his audience into applause.But,somewhere inside him,buried most of the time deep beneath the ham he regularly dishes out,there still remains an occasional glitter of his earlier greatness.It is to catch a glimpse of this that his audiences fervently hope for. Mr A.Finney very cleverly concentrates on the ham,often to the point of caricature,and,just when you are ready to dismiss his performance as mere hyperbole and bluster he will produce a moment of exquisite subtlety and vulnerability that makes you realise that a great actor is playing a great actor. The same goes for Mr T.Courtenay.It's easy to write off his portrayal

of Norman as an exercise in stereotyping.Here we have a middle - aged effeminate rather than camp theatrical dresser sashaying his way through life,enjoying the company of \"The Girls\" and loving the wicked Insider gossip rife in \"The Theatre\".There were - and I strongly suspect still are - many men just like Norman in The Profession.Infinitely kind and patient,knowing more about the plays than many of the actors,they run backstage with wisdom and affection.I believe the vast majority of them would hoot with approving laughter at Mr Courtenay's portrait. I saw \"The Dresser\" on the London stage where,against the perceived wisdom,Mr Courtenay's \"Norman\" was rather more subdued than in the movie.\"Sir\" was played by the great Mr Freddie Jones to huge acclaim from the audience.It was a memorable performance that overshadowed Mr Courtenay's,reducing him rather to an \"also - ran\" as opposed to an actor on level - billing.The idea that \"Sir\" and \"Norman\" might be almost incomplete without each other went right out of the window. \"Norman\" was reduced to being his puppet,which I'm not sure was what Ronald Harwood intended,but made for breathtaking theatre. Messrs Finney and Courtenay redress the balance in the movie,restoring equality to the relationship. Both men have come a long way since their early appearances in the British \"New Wave\" pictures when they became the darlings of the vaguely Leftish,\"middle - class and ashamed of it\" movement.When the British cinema virtually committed Hari - kiri in the 1970s they quietly concentrated on the theatre apart from a few roles to keep the wolf from the door.With the renaissance of more substantial movies,they re - appeared,blinking in the unaccustomed bright light.

\"The Dresser\" marked their return,still fizzing with energy and talent, shouting to the world at large \"We're still here\".It's not a big movie but is assuredly a great one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anyone who appreciates fine acting and ringing dialogue will love

this film. Taken from Ronald 'Taking Sides' Harwood, it's a funny

and ultimately excoriating analysis of a relationship between two

very 'actorly' types. Albert Finney is sublime as the despotic

Shakespearean actor who barely notices the world war raging

around him, so intent is he on the crumbling fortunes of his theatre

company and his own psychological and emotional breakdown.

Tom Courtenay is matchless as Norman, the 'Dresser' of the title,

whose apparent devotion turns out to be anything but selfless.

Really a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What is worth mentioning that is omitted in the other reviews I have read here, is the subtext of how the law shaped the lives and behaviour of gays in the era portrayed in the film. While Courtenay's character is evidently gay, he is not the only one: the often talked about Mr. Davenport-Scott is the other, and the reason that he is never seen, the reason alluded to that he has disappeared seems to be that he has been detained by the police for homosexual activity - a criminal offense in England at the time.

We can read under the surface that this recent event has unsettled Norman, Courtenay's character: and we can also see in a passing remark by Oxenby, the Edward Fox character, the quick renunciation of any connection to such a person when the law is involved: the fear of association affects many of the characters, and is part of the portrait the film paints of a time and the people who inhabit it. The abandonment of Courtenay at the end by Sir has been anticipated all the way through, if this subtext is included: it also makes sense of both the otherwise inexplicable omission of his Dresser from the list of those he gives thanks to. The flamboyance combined with the fear of exposure produces the combination of yearning and fear that Courtenay has to 'step into the footlights', as he does when he makes the announcement about the imminent air raids, a scene that would otherwise be gratuitous, but that is both a symbolic and literal depiction of the man's inner torment.

So while the drama is of the decline of Finney's Sir, a great deal of the tragedy of the film and play comes from the 'fatal flaw' of Courtenay's gayness, and makes this a film about him, as the title suggests.

The art direction, pacing and cinematic style of this film seem to come from another time, more distant than the eighties and, in some ways, even than the second world war. The implicit portrait of a society still clinging to an older moral order, and the sympathy of the character racked and ruined by the cruelties of that order, of necessity trapped in the enclosed world of the theatre; and the knowledge we have of how much of it all would be swept away after the war makes this film all the more poignant, for all its flaws.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Dresser\" is a small but absolutely wonderful film, brilliantly acted by Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay. How in the world this tiny film attracted enough attention to garner five major Academy Award nominations back in 1983 is a mystery to me, but it's nice to know the Academy can be guilty of a display of good taste every once in a while (of course, they gave the award that year to \"Terms of Endearment\"-- after all, they don't want to be accused of showing TOO much taste).

Albert Finney is a drunken Shakespearean actor in a production of \"King Lear\"; Tom Courtenay is the man who works double time behind the scenes to keep this actor in front of the footlights. It's both hilarious and piteous to see Courtenay's character showering Finney's with attention and affection, only to see his efforts utterly unappreciated and dismissed, even up to the very bitter end. Finney and Courtenay work wonders together, and though Finney gets the showiest moments (he does get to recite Shakespeare after all), Courtenay is the heart and soul of the film.

Grade: A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The many other comments about the film say it all - just like to add that we showed it last week to around 30 at our Community Cinema, and it got an overall average score of 8.6. We'd 100% recommend it, then, for today's audiences, especially if they can see it on a real cinema screen, and can talk about it with others afterwards, as our audience did.

The sheer power of the acting performances by the whole troupe was incredible and quite spellbinding. Of course, Finney and Courtenay were truly the stars. but everybody was thoroughly well cast. For our afternoon audience, the majority of whom are \"senior citizens\", the fact that the plot could be followed with such ease because of the clarity of speech and the wonderful non-techy use of camera and sound was a great influence

How delightful, many said, to see a really great film that's British: still not dated twenty years on: not full filled with blood & guts: not confusing because of bob-about-all-over-the-place camera shots, and back and forth through time story lines: no seedy sex scenes. Such views were even uttered by some who were younger.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my three all-time favorite movies. My only quibble is that the director, Peter Yates, had too many cuts showing the actors individually instead of together as a scene, but the performances were so great I forgive him.

Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are absolutely marvelous; brilliant. The script is great, giving a very good picture of life in the theatre during World War II (and, therefore, what it was like in the 30s as well). Lots of great, subtle touches, lots of broad, overplayed strokes, all of it perfectly done. Scene after scene just blows me away, and then there's the heartbreaking climax.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Dresser\" is perhaps the most refined of backstage films. The film is brimming with wit and spirit, for the most part provided by the \"energetic\" character of Norman (Tom Courtenay). Although his character is clearly gay, and certainly has an attraction for the lead performer (Albert Finney) that he assists, the film never dwells on it or makes it more than it is.

The gritty style of Peter Yates that worked so well in \"Bullitt\" is again on display, and gives the film a sense of realism and coherence. This is much appreciated in a story that could so easily have become tedious. In the end, \"The Dresser\" will bore many people silly, but it will truly be a delight to those who love British cinema.

7.7 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brilliant and moving performances by Tom Courtenay and Peter Finch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went to an advance screening of this movie thinking I was about to embark on 120 minutes of cheezy lines, mindless plot, and the kind of nauseous acting that made \"The Postman\" one of the most malignant displays of cinematic blundering of our time. But I was shocked. Shocked to find a film starring Costner that appealed to the soul of the audience. Shocked that Ashton Kutcher could act in such a serious role. Shocked that a film starring both actually engaged and captured my own emotions. Not since 'Robin Hood' have I seen this Costner: full of depth and complex emotion. Kutcher seems to have tweaked the serious acting he played with in \"Butterfly Effect\". These two actors came into this film with a serious, focused attitude that shone through in what I thought was one of the best films I've seen this year. No, its not an Oscar worthy movie. It's not an epic, or a profound social commentary film. Rather, its a story about a simple topic, illuminated in a way that brings that audience to a higher level of empathy than thought possible. That's what I think good film-making is and I for one am throughly impressed by this work. Bravo!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As others that have commented around the web... I'm a 130 pilot in the Coast Guard. Having said that, and being the skeptic I am, I went expecting the over-the-top cheese factors. There was some cheese, but all in all, not much.. and the film was pretty accurate.

I watched the trailer again today. After seeing the film yesterday, I've realized the trailer gives the impression the movie is nothing but rescue after rescue action scenes. This isn't the case.

The movie is truly more character\/story driven than action. The inner struggles both Costner and Kutcher are dealing with.. Kutcher's is revealed further into than movie than Costner's is.

Of course, there is a minor love story.. no surprise there. But for the most part, the movie tells the tale of two lives that come together, and after some time, help each other heal old wounds.

As girlie as it sounds, Costner and, as much as I try not to like him, Kutcher do actually work quite well together and compliment each other very well in the movie.

As critics have stated, you've seen it all before.. Top Gun, Officer and a Gentlemen, etc. But what movie hasn't been remade a million times.

I can recall only one F word being spoken.. and can't really recall any other language.

The movie is 2+ hours, and for some, may tend to get a little long towards the end.

You'll laugh, you may cry, but I can honestly say, it was worth the $4 I paid.

I hope you enjoy the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I attended an advance screening of this film not sure of what to expect from Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher; both have delivered less than memorable performances & films. While the underlying \"general\" storyline is somewhat familiar, this film was excellent. Both Costner and Kutcher delivered powerful performances playing extremely well off each other. The human frailties and strengths of their respective characters were incredibly played by both; the scene when Costner confronts Kutcher with the personal reasons why Kutcher joined the Coast Guard rescue elite was the film's most unforgettable emotional moment. The \"specific\" storyline was an education in itself depicting the personal sacrifice and demanding physical training the elite Coast Guard rescuers must go through in preparation of their only job & responsibility...to save lives at sea. The special effects of the rescue scenes were extremely realistic and \"wowing\"...I haven't seen such angry seas since \"The Perfect Storm\". Co-star Clancy Brown (HBO's \"Carnivale\" - great to see him again) played the captain of the Coast Guard's Kodiak, Alaska base in a strong, convincing role as a leader with the prerequisite and necessary ice water in his veins. The film wonderfully, and finally, gives long overdue exposure and respect to the Coast Guard; it had the audience applauding at the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I work at a movie theater and every Thursday night we have an employee screening of one movie that comes out the next day...Today it was The Guardian. I saw the trailers and the ads and never expected much from it, and in no way really did i anticipate seeing this movie. Well turns out this movie was a lot more than I would have thought. It was a great story first of all. Ashton Kutcher and Kevin Costner did amazing acting work in this film. Being a big fan of That 70's Show I always found it hard thinking of Kutcher as anyone but Kelso despite the great acting he did in The Butterfly Effect, but after seeing this movie I think I might be able to finally look at him as a serious actor.

It was also a great tribute to the unsung heroes of the U.S. Coast Guard.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was pleasantly surprised to find this movie showing as a sneak preview in my local theater.

We have all seen this plot line before (Top Gun, GI Jane, An Officer and a Gentleman) but a good script still works. This story is basically about the training of a Coast Guard rescue team with a couple of side story lines. Kevin Costner plays a highly successful rescue team leader, Ben Randall, who is forced into heading the training team after a tough mission. The movie takes us through the rigors of the training process and the personal stories of both the Costner character and that of Jake Fischer, played by Ashton Kutcher. I am happy to say that Ashton is great in this part.

There are no great surprises in this movie and you will probably realize what is coming long before it arrives. However, the use of humor, the exploration of the toughness of the training and the fun of watching Ben Randall \"do his own thing as a trainer\", kept me riveted and thoroughly entertained. I really enjoy watching a movie that makes the entire audience laugh out loud, gasp here and there, and clap at the end as a tribute to the movie.

We all had a good time (despite a couple of tough moments in the movie)and, I think, you will too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was looking forward to The Guardian, but when I walked into the theater I wasn't really in the mood for it at that particular time. It's kind of like the Olive Garden - I like it, but I have to be in the right mindset to thoroughly enjoy it.

I'm not exactly sure what was dampening my spirit. The trailers looked good, but the water theme was giving me bad flashbacks to the last Kevin Costner movie that dealt with the subject - Waterworld. Plus, despite the promise Ashton Kutcher showed in The Butterfly Effect, I'm still not completely sold on him. Something about the guy just annoys me. Probably has to do with his simian features.

It took approximately two minutes for my fears to subside and for my hesitancies to slip away. The movie immediately throws us into the midst of a tense rescue mission, and I was gripped tighter than Kenny Rogers' orange face lift. My concerns briefly bristled at Kutcher's initial appearance due to the fact that too much effort was made to paint him as ridiculously cool and rebellious. Sunglasses, a tough guy toothpick in his mouth, and sportin' a smirk that'd make George Clooney proud? Yeah, we get it. I was totally ready to hate him.

But then he had to go and deliver a fairly strong performance and force me to soften my jabs.

Darn you, ape man! Efficiently mixing tense, exciting rescue scenes, drama, humor, and solid acting, The Guardian is easily a film that I dare say the majority of audiences will enjoy. You can quibble about its clich\u00e9s, predictability, and rare moments of overcooked sappiness, but none of that takes away from the entertainment value.

I had a bad feeling that the pace would slow too much when Costner started training the young guys, but on the contrary, the training sessions just might be the most interesting aspect of the film. Coast Guard Rescue Swimmers are heroes whose stories have never really been portrayed on the big screen, so I feel the inside look at what they go through and how tough it is to make it is very informative and a great way to introduce audiences to this under-appreciated group.

Do you have what it takes to be a rescue swimmer? Just think about it -you get to go on dangerous missions in cold, dark, rough water, and then you must fight disorientation, exhaustion, hypothermia, and a lack of oxygen all while trying to help stranded, panicked people who are depending on you for their survival. And if all that isn't bad enough, sometimes you can't save everybody so you have to make the tough decision of who lives and who dies.

Man, who wants all that responsibility? Not me! I had no idea what it was really like for these guys, and who would have thought I'd have an Ashton Kutcher\/Kevin Costner movie to thank for the education?

Not only does The Guardian do a great job of paying tribute to this rare breed of hero, but lucky for us it also does a good job of entertaining its paying customers.

THE GIST

Moviegoers wanting an inside look at what it's like to embark on a daring rescue mission in the middle of the ocean might want to give The Guardian a chance. I saw it for free, but had I paid I would've felt I had gotten my money's worth.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you had asked me how the movie was throughout the film, I would have told you it was great! However, I left the theatre feeling unsatisfied. After thinking a little about it, I believe the problem was the pace of the ending. I feel that the majority of the movie moved kind of slow, and then the ending developed very fast. So, I would say the ending left me disappointed.

I thought that the characters were well developed. Costner and Kutcher both portrayed their roles very well. Yes! Ashton Kutcher can act! Also, the different relationships between the characters seemed very real. Furthermore,I thought that the different plot lines were well developed. Overall, it was a good movie and I would recommend seeing it.

In conclusion: Good Characters, Great Plot, Poorly Written\/Edited Ending. Still, Go See It!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen this story before but my kids haven't. Boy with troubled past joins military, faces his past, falls in love and becomes a man. The mentor this time is played perfectly by Kevin Costner; An ordinary man with common everyday problems who lives an extraordinary conviction, to save lives. After losing his team he takes a teaching position training the next generation of heroes. The young troubled recruit is played by Kutcher. While his scenes with the local love interest are a tad stiff and don't generate enough heat to melt butter, he compliments Costner well. I never really understood Sela Ward as the neglected wife and felt she should of wanted Costner to quit out of concern for his safety as opposed to her selfish needs. But her presence on screen is a pleasure. The two unaccredited stars of this movie are the Coast Guard and the Sea. Both powerful forces which should not be taken for granted in real life or this movie. The movie has some slow spots and could have used the wasted 15 minutes to strengthen the character relationships. But it still works. The rescue scenes are intense and well filmed and edited to provide maximum impact. This movie earns the audience applause. And the applause of my two sons.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a Petty Officer 1st Class (E-6) and have been in the USCG for 6 years and feel that this movie strongly represents the Coast Guard. There were only a few scenes that were far fetched. The most far-fetched was when PO Fischer (Kutcher) went down inside of the sinking vessel to pull the vessel's captain out of the engine room... that would never happen. Swimmers are not allowed to go inside of any vessel no matter the circumstances. Second, the Command Center (supposedly in Kodiak), it looked more like a NASA command center... we don't have any gear that hi-tech. Third, the Captain of the Airstation would not be running the search & rescue cases with like 10 people on watch. In reality it would be an E-6 or E-7 as the SAR Controller and maybe 2 other support personnel like an assist SAR Controller & a Radio Watchstander. Otherwise the movie was dead on, I think they should have incorporated more of the other rates in the CG and their roles in search & rescue instead of just Aviation based rates. Some of the scenes from \"A\" school reminded me of my days their and the dumb stuff I did and got in trouble for in my younger days.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Our family (and the entire sold out sneak preview audience) enjoyed \"The Guardian\". Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher gave convincing performances as the fictional helicopter rescue swimmer characters Ben and Jake. After seeing this movie, you can't help but imagine how difficult it must be to graduate from the USCG helicopter rescue swimmer school and one day take part in real rescues.

Even though this is a fictional movie, it delivered rather convincing virtues of team spirit, dedication and bravery exhibited by all the members of the actual U. S. Coast Guard.

The special effects used to create the rescue scenes were incredible. You actually felt like you were taking part in a real rescue.

I feel the movie could have been made without the \"Hollywood\" bar scene (when you see the movie, you might agree) since the real Coast Guard does not condone such behavior.

Very entertaining, very action packed, definitely worth seeing. Thank you, U. S. Coast Guard and the REAL helicopter rescue swimmers, \"So Others May Live\". I'd highly recommend this movie to everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was fortunate enough to see this movie on pre-release last night and, though I wasn't expecting to, actually really enjoyed the movie for the most part. The rescues and sea effects were amazing to watch and definitely provided edge of the seat tense moments, probably all the more so knowing that there are guys who do this for a living. The weaker parts of the movie revolve largely around using stereotypical set scenes. I'm not going to spoil the movie but this really follows along the lines of An Officer and a Gentleman and those moments give it a little bit of a cheesy aftertaste.

Like I said over all this movie is pretty good and worth checking out as long as you can get past the clich\u00e9s.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I only went to see this movie because I have always liked Kevin Costner. I felt that Ashton did a great job in the Butterfly Effect. Unfortunately, even though these two actors were\/are capable of good if not great acting moments some of that was missing here. Some of the scenes were just not believable and didn't have enough story line support.

Though the movie claims influence from the hurricane Katrina aftermath, there was very little (none) to that effect in the movie.

Overall, I liked the fact that the movie brought forward some of what goes into saving lives from a water perspective.

The special effects were pretty good and more than a little intimidating. Not sure I'll ever go deep sea fishing again...

I expected a little more emotion in the film than what was presented.

Definitely a movie that could've been seen on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was sadly under-promoted but proved to be truly exceptional. Entering the theatre I knew nothing about the film except that a friend wanted to see it.

I was caught off guard with the high quality of the film. I couldn't image Ashton Kutcher in a serious role, but his performance truly exemplified his character. This movie is exceptional and deserves our monetary support, unlike so many other movies. It does not come lightly for me to recommend any movie, but in this case I highly recommend that everyone see it.

This films is Truly Exceptional!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How many movies are there that you can think of when you see a movie like this? I can't count them but it sure seemed like the movie makers were trying to give me a hint. I was reminded so often of other movies, it became a big distraction. One of the borrowed memorable lines came from a movie from 2003 - Day After Tomorrow. One line by itself, is not so bad but this movie borrows so much from so many movies it becomes a bad risk.

BUT...

See The Movie! Despite its downfalls there is enough to make it interesting and maybe make it appear clever. While borrowing so much from other movies it never goes overboard. In fact, you'll probably find yourself battening down the hatches and riding the storm out. Why? ...Costner and Kutcher played their characters very well. I have never been a fan of Kutcher's and I nearly gave up on him in The Guardian, but he surfaced in good fashion. Costner carries the movie swimmingly with the best of Costner's ability. I don't think Mrs. Robinson had anything to do with his success.

The supporting cast all around played their parts well. I had no problem with any of them in the end. But some of these characters were used too much.

From here on out I can only nit-pick so I will save you the wear and tear. Enjoy the movie, the parts that work, work well enough to keep your head above water. Just don't expect a smooth ride.

7 of 10 but almost a 6.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My yardstick for measuring a movie's watch-ability is if I get squirmy. If I start shifting positions and noticing my butt is sore, the film is too long. This movie did not even come close to being boring. Predictable in some parts sure, but never boring.

All of the other military branches have had love notes written about them and seen their recruitment levels go up, why not the Coast Guard too? They are definitely under-appreciated, until the day your boat sinks that is.

The movie was very enjoyable and fun. Kevin Costner is perfect as the aging macho man who doesn't know when to quit. However, I was most impressed by Ashton Kutcher's performance. I have never liked him, never watched any of his TV shows and always considered him an immature ... well, punk. In this film, he does a great job! He is well on his way to having leading-man status. I think the film we were shown must have been an advance rough cut or something, because about 2\/3 of the way in, the film stock turned very grainy, the sound level dropped and microphones were seen dropping down all over the place. Also at the viewing were representatives from the movie, looking for audience feedback - particularly on the parts of the film we didn't like.

*****POSSIBLE SPOILER: The feedback I gave concerned a a couple of lines in the beginning. Kevin Costner comes home to see his wife, Sela Ward, packing her stuff up and moving out. He says, \"Maybe I should be the one to move out.\" And she replies, \"No, you don't know where anything is in this house; I should be the one to go.\" This doesn't make sense: If she knows the layout so well, Costner is right, he *should* be the one to leave.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My boyfriend and I went to watch The Guardian.At first I didn't want to watch it, but I loved the movie- It was definitely the best movie I have seen in sometime.They portrayed the USCG very well, it really showed me what they do and I think they should really be appreciated more.Not only did it teach but it was a really good movie. The movie shows what the really do and how hard the job is.I think being a USCG would be challenging and very scary. It was a great movie all around. I would suggest this movie for anyone to see.The ending broke my heart but I know why he did it. The storyline was great I give it 2 thumbs up. I cried it was very emotional, I would give it a 20 if I could!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went and saw this movie last night after being coaxed to by a few friends of mine. I'll admit that I was reluctant to see it because from what I knew of Ashton Kutcher he was only able to do comedy. I was wrong. Kutcher played the character of Jake Fischer very well, and Kevin Costner played Ben Randall with such professionalism. The sign of a good movie is that it can toy with our emotions. This one did exactly that. The entire theater (which was sold out) was overcome by laughter during the first half of the movie, and were moved to tears during the second half. While exiting the theater I not only saw many women in tears, but many full grown men as well, trying desperately not to let anyone see them crying. This movie was great, and I suggest that you go see it before you judge.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 08th MS team features two hopeful romantics from different sides of the conflict. Aina, the Zeon officer, and Shiro, the Federal Forces' new pilot, meet in a battle in space, throughout the 12 episode series (and one \"movie\") the two debate their love for each other while trying to come to grips with the war that surrounds them. It features a Romeo and Juliet romance and unbeatable animation. By far one of the best to hit American Shores. Suit Up!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just re-watched 08th MS Gundam for the 2nd time. It is so much better than Gundam Wing. I can't wait to get the DVD and see what was edited out of the series. This is great to see the Gundams actually move about clumsily through the land. Somebody really thought over writing this move script.

See this today,.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw this film, it reminded me of all the greatest dreams i had (mostly filled with robots)

I can relate to Eledore's problems and I have a similarity to Shiro, and this is a great film to watch (if you're a Goth who is bitter and eccentric like me!). All in all, watch it before it's out of print!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It took a loan out film to Columbia for Gene Kelly's home studio MGM to realize his creative talent and give him some control over what he did in his own films. Cover Girl also became Rita Hayworth's signature film for the GIs and their pinup fantasies during World War II.

Kelly plays the owner of a small nightclub in Brooklyn where Rita is a featured dancer and Phil Silvers the comic. Of course Kelly does a bit of hoofing himself there.

Hayworth comes to the attention of millionaire Otto Kruger when it turns out that Kruger had loved and lost Hayworth's grandmother. In some flashback sequences from the gaslight era, Hayworth also plays her own grandmother with Jess Barker playing the young Kruger. You might remember Jess Barker was the husband of that other legendary screen redhead, Susan Hayward.

Broadway producer Lee Bowman also is attracted to Hayward, but he's not interested in nostalgia. He wants her for his Ziegfeld Follies revue and in fact the biggest number of Cover Girl is the title song of the film. It's nicely done in Follies style.

Hayworth also gets to sing A Sure Thing in a gaslight era number and in the only song in the show not written by Jerome Kern and Ira Gershwin, Hayworth also does an old English music hall number Poor John. When I say sing, as everyone knows Rita mouths words. Singing here is done by Nan Wynn.

The biggest hit of the show is Long Ago and Far Away which is introduced by Gene Kelly. It was one of the biggest hits of the World War II era and one of the biggest sellers Jerome Kern ever wrote. It happens in fact to be a favorite of an aunt of mine who with my uncle will be celebrating 60 years of marriage this September. Long Ago and Far Away was nominated for Best Song, but lost to Swinging on a Star.

What really sets Cover Girl apart and what makes it a milestone film for Gene Kelly is the two numbers Put Me to the Test and the Alter Ego number. Harry Cohn decided to do what Louis B. Mayer had refused at MGM, to give Kelly creative control of his own material. Kelly later said the alter ego number was one of the hardest things he ever attempted in his career. In it he dances with a pale reflection of himself and the choreography is dazzling and intricate.

In fact after one more loan out film, Christmas Holiday at Universal, Louis B. Mayer never loaned out Gene Kelly for the rest of the time he was at MGM. And he did get creative control from then on.

With that dazzling technicolor cinematography and Rita's red hair and Gene Kelly's boundless creativity, Cover Girl was and is a classic and will forever be so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A good story about Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth) who dreams of being on broadway which means she would have to leave the small dinner theater where she works with Danny (Gene Kelly) and Genius (Phil Silvers). Rusty is in love with Danny. All three are good friends and every Friday night they go to a local bar where they get oysters so they can look for a pearl (they never eat them). The story line provides numerous opportunities for songs and dancing. The movie has two questions that Rusty must answer: Is fame all that it is cracked up to be? and Is less really more if you are happy? Answering those questions makes the movie. The movie also does a good job of showcasing the talents that all three principals had. Never a dull moment!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Cover Girl\" is the best musical Rita Hayworth ever made. Ms. Hayworth will always be remembered for \"Gilda\", however, the next movie would be \"Cover Girl\". The story is great. It is about a dancer who wants to be a cover girl and makes it big in show business. She does it without the help of her talented dancer\/director boyfriend (Gene Kelly). Mr. Kelly is given the chance to choreograph the musical numbers. The dances are spectacular. It is fun to see Phil Silvers, a comic, do the musical numbers with Ms. Hayworth and Mr. Kelly.

The supporting cast is perfect. Lee Bowman is given a chance to be an interesting third wheel, the other boyfriend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rita Hayworth as Rusty Parker is the COVER GIRL du jour--she's one of the dancing girls in Danny McGuire's club, the most special one according to Danny (Gene Kelly) and pretty much anyone who comes across her. Take for example, Vanity magazine magnate John Coudair (Otto Kruger): enchanted by Rusty's resemblance to her grandmother Maribelle (also played by Hayworth in flashbacks), whom he wooed devotedly when he fell in love with her, he tries to relive his youth by fixing what he thinks went wrong between himself and Maribelle. He doesn't believe that Danny could give Rusty happiness, or everything she should be entitled to--he even gets Danny believing this himself. When Rusty shoots to fame as Vanity's 'Cover Girl', Danny drives her away into the ready and waiting arms of Noel Wheaton (Lee Bowman). So what happens when Danny returns to town with his sidekick Genius (Phil Silvers) in tow, only to discover that Rusty is marrying Wheaton?

As a musical, COVER GIRL benefits from the beautiful score and songs written by Jerome Kern and Ira Gershwin, including the Oscar-nominated 'Long Ago and Far Away' (possibly one of the most gorgeous ballads ever written and beautifully, sweetly sung as a duet by Hayworth and Kelly), Maribelle's number 'Sure Thing' (the more lacklustre 'Poor John' isn't a Kern\/Gershwin collaboration) and 'Put Me To The Test'. The dancing, of course, is top-notch, since Gene Kelly had more than just a hand in the choreography. It shows in the simplest of dances, for example his dance with Hayworth to 'Put Me To The Test', or the joyfully exuberant 'Make Way For Tomorrow' number (performed by the trio of Danny, Rusty and Genius)... which foreshadows the reaction Gene's character has to the police cop in the title number in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN. Kelly especially scored a technological and artistic coup with the 'Alter-Ego' dance. Like its successors in ANCHORS AWEIGH and AN AMERICAN IN PARIS (Jerry the Mouse and the 16-minute ballet respectively), this dance is an example of the incredible innovation and creativity Kelly brought to the modern film musical: wanting to use the film medium to present dances that couldn't be showcased on a stage, and years before CGI, Kelly insisted on dancing with the one person who could possibly match him in talent and style--himself. The number is hardly five minutes long, but it (and Kelly's genius) still takes one's breath away, even sixty years down the line. This is the reason I watched COVER GIRL, and if nothing else, this dance is truly worth it.

You can tell that a great deal of money was lavished onto COVER GIRL and Rita Hayworth--not that she doesn't deserve it. Witness the scene when Rusty hits Broadway--the large screen showcasing all the different cover girls gives way to a staggeringly large stage rigged for Rusty's entrance. Hayworth is indeed one of the most effortlessly beautiful girls on show in the film, and she dances with a style and grace that is almost worthy of Kelly. (Very few of Kelly's co-stars have that honour.) She is hilarious in some scenes, for example her drunk scene when John and Wheaton come to get her from Joe's.

For some reason, however, her performance still lacks the spark of greatness which would help COVER GIRL overcome its general curse of mediocrity. That curse is only lifted whenever Gene Kelly is on the screen (dancing or no), or when Eve Arden as John's long-suffering secretary 'Stonewall' sidles by with another cutting comment or clever observation. Since the film, in the end, belongs to Hayworth, neither Kelly nor Arden can save it as a whole. This isn't to say that the film is bad--it isn't. It's enjoyable, with great songs and cute numbers and lots of pretty girls to look at. But it's just not quite a classic. The dancing is classic though--so watch COVER GIRL for that, and you won't regret it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is definitely an outstanding 1944 musical with great young stars and famous veteran actors under the direction of Charles Vidor. Rita Hayworth, (Rusty Parker),\"Charlie Chan in Egypt\", sang and danced with Gene Kelly,(Danny McGuire), \"Anchors Away\", Danny McGuire owned a night club in Brooklyn, N.Y. and was in love with Rusty Parker who was a dancer in his club along with Phil Silvers,(Genius),\"Coney Island\", who was the comedian in this picture and also worked and dance together with Danny, Rusty. Otto Kruger, (John Coudair),\"Duel in the Sun\" played the role as a promoter of a cover girl magazine and decided Rusty Parker was going to be his top model. Jerome Kern's music is heard through out the entire picture and the song, \"Long Ago & Far Away\" is the theme music for this musical. This film was nominated for many awards and was a big hit at the box office during WW II which kept peoples minds off of the war that was going on at the time. Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly were instant hits and their career's exploded on the silver screen for many many years. Great Musical and a film you will not want to miss, this is truly a great Classic Film. Enjoy","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very enjoyable, fluffy, glamorous musical from the 40's. 'Cover Girl' made Rita Hayworth (formerly the dark-haired Latin senorita Margarita Cansino) into a bona-fide, all-American star. It confirmed Gene Kelly's amazing talent as a dancer, singer, actor and choreographer. It epitomises the exuberance and colour of the musical genre.

Rita Hayworth is great as Rusty Parker- it is her picture, and her presence is always at the forefront. Her singing is dubbed, but her dancing is absolutely brilliant and she combines very well with Kelly. I think that Rita was highly underrated as an actress- she plays every scene superbly here. Gene choreographed the dance sequences (he was basically given almost complete creative freedom here), and his 'Alter Ego' dance number is amazing. Such artistry. The stand-out tunes are 'Make Way For Tomorrow', 'Put Me To The Test', and, of course, 'Long Ago and Far Away'. The plot is rather thin, yet it does have a moral. It's about the perils of quick fame and fast money, and how any happiness with only these factors will ultimately be doomed. This will cheer you up, lift you up to your feet and make you laugh.

That said, 'Cover Girl' is not the greatest musical ever produced- it has a number of flaws that must be addressed. One can say that a little bit of Phil Silvers goes a long way. His character gets tedious rather quickly. However, I was impressed with his dancing ability and how he was able to keep up with Gene and Rita. Another major problem is that too many songs are just not that great. The 'Cover Girl' number looks fantastic, but I'm not a fan of the lyrics or the singing. 'Poor Tom' is a huge downer. I think it's one of the worst numbers I've heard in a 40's-50's musical yet. It stinks. The grandmother sub-plot borders on being ridiculous. But that's only my opinion. Others may like these elements.

Still, apart from it's faults it's a very, very good film, much better than most of the product churned out today. The dancing and singing is sublime, the production values are excellent, and it's mood is infectious.

8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best musicals of the 1940s. The glorious Technicolor shows off Rita Hayworth's beauty and spectacular hair. She should have made more movies in color, but then Columbia was hardly in a position to splash out money for Technicolor spectaculars.

Rita is a WOW as Rusty Parker - she more than keeps up with Gene in some of the most sparkling numbers ever. She also looked beautiful in turn of the century gowns, so she was given a chance to play her own grandmother.

The film opens with \"The Show Must Go On\" - it looks great to me - but Danny McGuire (Gene Kelly) is not impressed. His motto is work, work, work!!! One of the dancers, Maurine (Lesley Brookes) is determined to better herself and is going to audition for Vanity's Golden Wedding Cover Girl Competition. Rusty just happens to find herself at the auditions as well. In a very funny scene Maurine has just had a so so audition and seeing Rusty, gives her a few tips on how to impress the judges!!! \"Don't be shy and demure - chatter and sparkle\". Rusty does so with gusto!!!

They decide on Maurine and go to the show to see her but John Coudair (Otto Kruger) sees Rusty - she reminds him of someone from his past. Cornelia (Eve Arden) is still having nightmares over Rusty's audition. \"Whose Complaining\" features Genius (Phil Silvers) and the dancers, dressed up as working girls - (Rusty is a cabbie).

John is remembering a long lost love (Rusty's grandmother, Maribelle Hicks) the first time he saw her singing \"A Sure Thing\" - set at the races. Meanwhile Danny, Rusty and Genius are looking for pearls at their local diner. They then launch into the happiest song of the 1940s (in my opinion) - \"Make Way For Tomorrow\".

\"Put Me to the Test\" is a spirited song and dance number featuring Danny and Rusty. In the meantime Rusty has been chosen Cover Girl and Danny McGuires' is the place to be seen. Lee Bowman appears as Danny's romantic rival and puts a damper on things. Lee Bowman is probably the most boring leading man ever - so Danny never needs to worry.

Rusty (dubbed by Martha Mears) sings \"Long Ago and Far Away\" and it is danced beautifully by Danny and Rusty. The gowns that Rita wears are stunning. Travis Banton and Gwen Wakeling designed them. Danny wants the best for Rusty but is afraid he will lose her. Gene Kelly is also fantastic in the \"Alter Ego\" number where he dances with himself.

\"Poor John\" is another look back to the turn of the century - it was written in 1906 and is an extremely funny song poking fun at rich relations - Hayworth looks gorgeous in an amazingly quaint outfit. Look for Al Norman in both \"Poor John\" and \"A Sure Thing\". He was an amazing eccentric dancer, who appeared in several early musicals, including \"King of Jazz\" and \"Paramount on Parade\". He was easy to spot.

The \"Cover Girl\" dance is just wonderful. Rita was so talented - beautiful and a great dancer. After a bevy of beautiful models parade through covers of America's top magazines, Rusty bursts through in a beautiful gold gown dancing down a ramp to the very catchy \"Cover Girl\" song. Gosh I just LOVE this movie!!!!

Highly Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rita Hayworth is right there where she should be - as a \"Cover Girl\" in this 1944 Technicolor film also starring Gene Kelly, Phil Silvers, Eve Arden, Lee Bowman, and Otto Kruger. Rita plays a beautiful showgirl, Rusty, working at a small club owned by the man she loves, Danny (Kelly). Each Friday they go out for oysters with Genius (Silvers), the club comedian. They all hate oysters, but they're looking for a pearl. When they find one, all three of them will have good luck, they believe.

Rusty auditions and wins the role of cover girl for a magazine - she starts off ahead of the other contestants because the magazine owner (Kruger) sees a resemblance between Rusty and the girl he once loved, who turns out to be Rusty's grandmother. Once she becomes the cover girl, the world opens up for her and her dreams of appearing on Broadway come true. Danny wants her to have her success, but at the same time realizes he's lost her.

\"Cover Girl\" has exuberant dance numbers and songs by Jerome Kern, with Rita dubbed by Martha Mears. Rita is at her best playing both Rusty in the present and her grandmother in the past. For such a sexy, desirable, gorgeous woman, she was apparently very insecure and always under the thumb of domineering men. None of this ever showed on screen, nor did the fact that she didn't want to be a movie star. She is one of the true goddesses and brought everything she did to life. Gene Kelly is in a serious role here, but gets plenty of chances to dance and sing. Phil Silvers is very amiable and funny as the in-house comic and best friend.

This is a very good movie with no dull spots. The only problem I had is the idea that Rusty has to choose between a successful career and the man she loves. When supermodel Jinx Falkenberg, who plays herself in the film, speaks of getting married, she's warned by her boss not to, that she's too necessary to the modeling business. We're not told if Rusty continues with her career or goes back to work at Danny's - but all signs seemed to point toward the Brooklyn club. Why couldn't she have had both? Nevertheless, you can't beat \"Cover Girl\" for top entertainment, beautiful color, lovely music, great energy, fine performances, and its most fabulous asset, the glorious Rita Hayworth.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has got to be one of the better post-Astaire musicals made by Columbia. Produced by Arthur Schwartz and directed by vet Charles Vidor, this picture really put Gene Kelly on the map and cemented Rita Hayworth's reputation as cinema's premier female dance partner. She plays a bit of a dual role here since she performs contemporary 1940s numbers with Gene and co-star Phil Silvers, but also puts her in the role of her grandmother, a nightclub performer in the late 19th Centry.

The music should also be singled out because this was I believe the last project that the legendary Jerome Kern (most famous today for \"Old Man River\" and \"Smoke Gets in Your Eyes\") worked on, and his lyricist was the equally legendary Ira Gershwin. They supplied a score that is full of charm and characterization. The music for the historical sequences is especially noteworthy because it's so perfectly styled in the early 20th Century idiom that was Kern's original period. It's a bit like picking up a record from one of your favorite bands from the 1970s and hearing them do a song in the original style of that time.

The story is pretty inconsequential, which is fine with me because this film is as close an approximation as you will ever be likely to see of the 1930s\/40s golden age of Broadway musical comedy style on film. Even the 1940s war propaganda aspects of the film's music give it extra charm as the talented trio sing \"make way for tomorrow\" and even humorously poke fun at America's enemies and use period slang such as referring to \"gremlins\".

Probably the most memorable performance in the film is Kelly's dance to the \"Alter-Ego Dance\", which found him arguing with and then dancing with himself as a metaphorical image of the battle of the conscience. This prefigures much of his later work and also stands an effective and memorable scene in and of itself.

Fans will want to seek this out for various reasons -- Kelly fans will see this as a rare chance to see him outside of the confines of MGM with a different set of co-stars and music superior to his usual MGM material. Hayworth fans will want to see Rita in glorious color at the peak of her fame and ability. And fans of classic Broadway musicals will definitely want to hear Kern's final score and marvel at the quality of Gershwin's lyrics and the compatibility of their styles. This is a definite gem in the crown of Columbia's musical program.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fantastic musical starring Gene Kelly and Rita Hayworth. He owns a nightclub where she dances. She's no star yet, but she gets a big break when she's chosen as a cover girl for Vanity, whose owner was actually in love with her grandmother. When he sees the resemblance, he picks her right away for a contest his maganzine is running. Hayworth's newfound fame at first works wonders for Kelly's club, but her star rises so quickly and so high up that his grasp on her begins to falter. This isn't the most original of plots, but the two leads really make it work. It also helps that the screenplay is great. Kelly's not yet at his peak, especially his peak as an actor. His dancing, however, wow. Hayworth is the star, but Kelly claims the film's most memorable moment as he dances passionately with his own reflection. It's obviously a take-off of Fred Astaire's shadow dancing in Swing Time, but I think Kelly one-ups it, which is hardly believable. In fact, this has got to be the most amazing dance sequence in film history, save perhaps the finale of An American in Paris several years later. The rest of the songs are also excellent, and the musical numbers are even better. Too bad Rita didn't sing her own songs (well, she may have a couple of them, as her singing voice seemed to be different sometimes). Her dancing is wonderful, as is the rest of her acting. It's hard not to love her in anything. She's really one of the few truly beautiful women from the classic era. Not plastic like many of them; no, you can really see the warmth in that woman. Her smile is so disarming. Phil Silvers has the role as Kelly's best friend, and he is also very funny. The trio of Kelly-Hayworth-Silvers is obviously the kernel which became the Kelly-Reynolds-O'Connor trio in Singin' in the Rain eight years afterwards. One of the biggest musical numbers in the film seems almost completely pilfered with the \"Good Morning\" number in Singin'. I do think Singin' in the Rain is the better film, as Cover Girl is a little rough around the edges. This roughness, though, just adds to the charm. There are aspects of this film that beat Singin' in the Rain, and even An American in Paris. For instance, the central relationship is more emotionally involving. Instead of the dominant older man chasing the little girl (Leslie Caron and Debbie Reynolds were just teenagers, after all), we have a very nice relationship with two people who seem more like equals. There is no chasing around - an aspect that does unfortunately turn a lot of the best musicals a little sour, you have to admit. Kelly and Hayworth are a couple from the start, and when that begins to fray, I really felt it. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really like this film because of all the stars and the dancing and the story that goes along with it. Rita Hayworth was at her most glamorous in this musical and the costumes were gorgeous. Although a musical, I thought Rita Hayworth did a fine performance of dramatic acting in this film as well. As far as her dancing, I think she was excellent. Even Betty Grable pretty much endorsed Rita's dancing in this film as she commented that Rita danced rings around her own dancing and let's face it, Betty Grable was an excellent dancer. The cinematography and vivid colors are also noted. Rita wants to be a cover girl for a magazine but she's also in love with her mentor played by Gene Kelly. Does she leave Kelly to fulfill her dream and bypass love and Broadway stardom or does she stick around to find that unique pearl that will change her life forever? You'll have to watch the film to find out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rita Hayworth lights up the screen in this fun, fancy and delightful musical starring Gene Kelly. Rita plays nightclub dancer Rusty Parker who has dreams to be a successful Broadway star. Unfortunately, her career is getting no where in Danny McGuire's Night Club. When one of her fellow dancers says she's going to enter a Cover Girl contest, she decides to follow her dreams and enters. She reminds the publisher of her Grandma, who he was deeply in love with many years ago. But when she finds this success, her boyfriend is not happy about it.

I had never seen Rita before this, and I am so glad I did! She has such a scene presence and is a very good actress. There are some good numbers in here, not the best of any musical but they are melodic and good to listen to. One thing I didn't like was Gene Kelly's character. He should have supported his girlfriend! But anyway, that's perhaps the only criticism I have about this movie. Cover Girl is a glorious, fluffy film - perfect escapism. Not everyone's ideal movie, but a wonderful movie nonetheless, due to Rita Hayworth's star power. Great movie, truly impressed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Brooklyn, the nightclub dancer Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth) has a simple but happy life dancing in the McGuire's, owned by her boyfriend Danny (Gene Kelly). Rusty, Danny and Genius (Phil Silvers) have a ritual on Friday nights: they order oysters in a bar, trying to find a pearl. The life of Rusty changes when she participates and wins a contest to be the cover page of the Vanity magazine. She is invited to work in a huge theater in Broadway, whose owner proposes her. She loses her happiness and starts drinking in her new life style, missing the love of Danny and her old friends. 'Cover Girl' is a delightful romantic comedy, very naive and having magnificent parts, such as the beauty and talented Rita Hayworth dancing, singing and acting; Gene Kelly, specially in two scenes, dancing with himself and with Rusty and Genius on the street; the songs and the choreography of the dances are also spectaculars. Danny, the character of Gene Kelly, is almost nasty with his chauvinist behavior. Rita Hayworth surprised me with her talent: I found her amazing in 'Gilda', but she is stunning in 'Cover Girl'. In accordance with the information on the cover of the VHS, 'Cover Girl' was the first musical where the songs were part of the plot, giving continuity to the story, instead of just being 'thrown' in the movie. My sixteen years old son saw this movie with a friend of the same age in a recent Gene Kelly festival and they loved 'Cover Girl', therefore I dare to say that this classic is recommended to any movie lover and not only to the old generations. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): 'Modelos' ('Models')","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of my favorites non-MGM musicals, it's a classic!> Rita Hayworth is in top form, her beauty leaps out of the screen. Gene Kelly shows off his dancing skills and introduces to musicals his edgy and innovative choreography that eventually would change the way musicals are choreograph. Phil Silvers is the perfect second bananas, and Eve Arden injects this movie with a lot of class.

The structure is so theatrical that one has to wonder why, in this era where major Broadway shows come from the movies, Cover Girl hasn't been adapted to theatre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Long ago and far away they knew how to make a musical and \"Cover Girl\" is no exception to the rule.

A story of a dancer in a nightclub who becomes a cover girl and famous. The old adage applies here- that happiness and fame always don't mix.

The dance routines are marvelously choreographed. What dancing and chemistry between Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly.

Otto Kruger is the older gentleman who discovers Hayworth, when he sees her picture that shows a strong resemblance to the woman who left him at the aisle-Hayworth's grandmother Maribel.

A jealous reaction by Kelly drives Rusty (Hayworth) into the arms of Broadway producer Lee Bowman.

The picture is basically history repeating itself at the end.

To add to the glory of this fine film, there is the always wise-cracking Eve Arden and the hilarious Phil Silvers, appropriately named Genius in the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another great musical from Hollywoods Golden Age! I liked this movies story about a trio of friends who are performers at a small nightclub that is far from Broadway and all its glitter. Although not the big time they are very content with their lives and the small club where they perform. Gene Kelly plays the owner of the small club and is also the boyfriend of one of its dancers, Rita Hayworth who happens to garner some attention when she's given an opportunity to be on a cover of a magazine. Trouble begins for Gene Kelly as his girlfriend is now the talk of the town. Phil Silvers plays one of the three friends and does a good job. Of course there is the music and the dancing. One dance performance by Gene Kelly stands out. He is walking along the street at night alone and he see his reflection in a shop window. His reflection soon starts dancing along with him in the streets, great cinematography. Don't miss this one, great entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was Gene Kelly's breakthrough, and that alone makes it memorable. Throw in Rita Hayworth as his love interest and comedian Phil Silvers of all people as his sidekick and you have the ingredients for a real crowd pleaser, which is exactly how it turned out.

Kelly plays Danny McGuire, a nightclub owner in Brooklyn (Brooklyn is always the \"wrong side of the tracks\" in '40s films) whose star attraction and love interest is Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth). Rita is lovely, and even plays a dual role as Rusty and Rusty's grandmother. Rusty has a chance at the big time through the machinations of John Coudair (Otto Kruger), who romanced and lost Rusty's grandmother.

The plot revolves around Danny cutting Rusty loose, to the detriment of his club, because she has a chance at success that he can't give her. But, naturally, that's not what Rusty ultimately wants, because, as usual in films of that time, the right guy is the only thing on the girl's mind. There are no surprises, but everybody does their thing well.

Kelly does the first of his amazing trick dances, this time with himself as a reflection from a glass window. He was the master at that sort of dance, and one still has to wonder how they timed everything so precisely so that he really does seem to be in two places at once. The melodrama gets a bit thick, and there are some gratuitous war references thrown in that do little but provide the opportunity for a song or two, but Kelly takes this film to the next level. This was before he became a mega-star and too smooth perhaps for his own good. An underlying edge of rawness to his character lends it a believable and almost wistful air.

Kelly's character in the 1980 \"Xanadu\" also was named Danny McGuire. This film was the beginning, that film the end, of a terrific run for a dancing genius. Clearly, this film meant a lot to him. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though I strongly feel that SITR is the best Gene Kelly movie, but this a pretty good one. I liked the music and the dancing and the ending on how Gene got the girl. My favorite part though without a doubt is Gene's dance with his alter ego. I love watching two Gene Kelly's for the price of one. It shows what talent Mr. Kelly really was. It is a movie that I think that everyone should watch at least once in their life time. So you have not seen it go out and find to watch it today! I'm sure that everyone out there has a Gene Kelly friend that has this movie in their collection. So go over to their house and pop some popcorn and enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although I'm not crazy about musicals, COVER GIRL is a delight for classic movie buffs and especially for fans of Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly. The film may be dated by today's standards and the story and songs may be nothing special, but the musical numbers are magnificently staged and there's a terrific cast to go with the film. Plus, the film is a worthy introduction for fans of Rita Hayworth...she's simply breathtaking in glorious Technicolor.

Despite Jerome Kern's collaboration with the film, his music here is nowhere near as special or memorable as his songs in SWING TIME (1936), yet the songs serve the film well. The dancing is nothing short of excellent, especially coming from Gene Kelly's solo number and my favorite musical number, \"Alter-Ego Dance.\" The amusing Phil Silvers nearly steals the film as Kelly's partner. Otto Kruger, Eve Arden, and Edward Brophy give good performances in their dramatic supporting roles. And Rita plays a sweet, charming girl here; a role that's a far cry from her femme fatale babes in films like BLOOD AND SAND (1941).

All in all, this is a delightful film that's worth watching even if you're not big on musicals. Yet the film's music could have been more memorable if only my favorite period songwriters, Irving Berlin or Cole Porter, wrote the songs for this film. However, it's the glorious Technicolor cinematography and the imaginative dancing that are the real treats of the film's production.

While I was watching Rita Hayworth do her stuff, I don't think I've ever seen a more beautiful or graceful redhead dance on the screen since I saw Moira Shearer in Michael Powell's masterpiece, THE RED SHOES (1948). Just watch Rita in COVER GIRL and fall in love with her.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not a big fan of musicals, but I was always enamored of Ms. Hayworth's looks, so I thought I'd give it a try.

This may be the best showcase for the multi-talented Ms. Hayworth. She's never looked lovelier in a film (with the possible exception of 'Gilda', where she is sex symbol par excellence).

Rita is more than ably assisted by Gene Kelly and Phil Silvers. The comedy may be dated, but it is still quite amusing. Kelly does one of his tour-de-force dances, dancing with the image of himself from a window.

But Rita drives this whole movie. An excellent cast, featuring Otto Kruger and the always- wonderful, wise-cracking Eve Arden doesn't hurt.

Rita sings, Rita dances, all the while looking impossibly beautiful! The music may be short of classic, but the lyrics to most of the tunes are quite clever.

I find this movie works better than 'Gilda', which I regard as a flawed film. To Ms. Hayworth's credit, she also drives 'Gilda', and Gilda drives any red-blooded male insane.

The film holds up well after all these years. Much leg candy for the male audience is a nice bonus!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although the plot of Cover Girl is very flimsy and tired, it does serve well enough as an anchor for the Kern and Gershwin musical numbers. Following her signature role in Gilda, Hayworth opted to star in this musical that seems tailor made for her. Besides looking as gorgeous as ever, she impresses with her dancing as well. Gene Kelly, who was on loan to Columbia from MGM, matches her in dancing and the sequence where he cavorts with his own shadow was nicely done. The supporting characters were also competently acted. Personally, I didn't enjoy Cover Girl as much as the musicals Hayworth made with Fred Astaire. However, Cover Girl is still very entertaining and easy to recommend. My score: 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The most notable feature of this film is the chemistry between the actors, the sense of camaraderie in their dialogue and dances. This typical rising-star musical has an overworked plot, even for 1944, but because of the actors it's still fun to watch. Hayworth isn't even that much of a dancer, but she has a lot of 'inexperienced' charm that fits her character. Kelly plays his usual caring authoritarian role while Silvers provides plenty of self-deprecation and laughs. The movie can also be very serious at times. Not a must-see, but recommended if you like the actors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To be brief, the story is paper thin and you can see the ending coming from a mile away, but Gene Kelly, Rita Hayworth, and an impossibly young Phil Silvers keep the movie afloat throughout and at times lift it right up into the air. A few of the songs are terrible clunkers (\"Poor John\" is a train wreck) but most of them are great fun, and the scene of Hayworth performing on the absurdly huge set for Kelly's rival has to be seen to be believed. Another treat is the perfect faux-NYC sets in the best Hollywood tradition.

Another attraction, if you consider such things attractions, is the howlingly awful male \"chivalry\" toward women. The oily leering and transparent obsequiousness that passed for male charm back then (in the movies, at least) is presented in its most lurid form here. Some of the men are about like a cartoon wolf.

One minor disappointment is Eve Arden trapped in a role so minor that she barely has a chance to do anything. I can imagine a lot of potential comic interplay between her and Silvers--a missed opportunity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One night I was listening to talk radio and they had Leslie Nielsen on the program. He went on to explain why there were only 6 shows. '

With TV shows like MASH you could go to the fridge to get a beer and as long as you heard what was going on you didn't miss anything. But with Police Squad, you HAD to watch the show, with the sight gags you missed a whole lot if you didn't see them. Who could forget \"... the part of town known as \"Little Italy\"...\" with the coliseum in the background.

Even the movies relied heavily on the sight gags, but then again being in the theater you were a captive audience.

Leslie also said the one reason the show, movies and other movies like Airplane were funny is because they didn't attempt to tell what was funny. It was up to the viewer to get the jokes.

Well that's just my 2 cents.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To say that this is a good show is not to say anything at all. After all, this show is made by the same crew responsible for Airplane and other hilarious and brilliant movies. Writing is superb. Even though the show is built on one-liners, they don't become overbearing or annoying. Leslie Nielsen is flexing his comedy muscle to the full extent as if saying: You ain't seen nothing yet. The format was definitely polished to introduce Naked Gun. When watching these movies, notice how many schticks are taken from the TV show. The brilliant part is that they don't have to be changed too much. The show was truly a testing ground for bigger and better versions to come later.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Extremely funny. More gags in each one of these episodes than in ten years of Friends. And with a good (ie. funny) Nordberg, not the fab-only-casted OJ Simpson in the movies. When will these episodes emerge on DVD?...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The creative team that brought us Police Squad - and the Naked Gun derived from it - said in interview that they were told by their network contact that the show would be canceled, after their delivery of the first episode. Basically, the show was never given any chance. Typical Hollywood. The contact apparently told the team that the problem with the show was that, for the show to be funny, the viewer would actually need to watch it; most shows are presented on TV with the understanding that the viewer needed to get up and miss a few minutes while getting food, or going to the toilet, etc.

The humor of the show is extremely dry (it uses no laugh-track), and the universe the characters inhabit is one in which anything can happen, regardless of logic, as long as it was totally unbelievable; so, for instance in one episode a surgeon has to bribe an informant on the street in order to get a tip on heart surgery.

Those familiar with the Naked Gun films should be warned that there are a number of interesting disjunctions between the show and the films. In the films, Nielsen developed a particular \"take\" approach - that is, eyes widened when confronted with the unexpected. This doesn't happen in the show, where Nielsen's Drebin is the center around which the rest of the universe revolves - nothing is unexpected to him. Also, there are no romances in the show, and no parodies of MTV. Finally, the show takes certain risks that the films avoid; in the first episode, Drebin, to \"re-enact the crime\", has a squad of homicide detectives shoot each other from a number of different angles - ballistics the hard way. This is actually a risky bit of humor, since we need to accept that it's perfectly normal for policemen to kill each other while investigating a crime, for no other reason than experimentation. This sort of thing rarely happens in the films.

Taken individually, each of the episodes is actually funnier than any one of the Naked Gun films, since they are both more compact (more happens in a shorter time-frame), yet more leisurely paced (there's not the rush for a punch-line as sometimes happens in the films). There are some inconsistencies that happen in the films (primarily \"2\" and \"3\") that never occur in the show's shorter time-frame.

Of course, there's no doubt that Naked Gun (the first film) is one of the great comedies of theatrical cinema. And if you watch the TV show episode after episode in one sitting, the dry quality of the humor might wear away one's tolerance.

None the less, it would be useful to have a DVD of this, and watch an episode a day for a few weeks - If laughter has, as some claim, medicinal value, watching this show is good for one's health.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this series after I had seen the Naked Gun films. I found it much better than the films, and I thought the films were great! This series literally glues you to the television set in anticipation of the next pun, sight gag, or funny situation (the all night wicker place, club flamingo). I don't think I've ever laughed as hard at a TV series in my life, even after seeing the movies first and thus knowing some of the jokes. I think its a shame that only six episodes were produced, but I agree that the writers would be very hard pressed to maintain this level of comedy for any more episodes. Overall, the series is a must see for those who like puns, bad jokes, and slapstick sight-gags.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I still count \"Police Squad!\" as the absolute funniest TV show of the 1980s. Somewhere, on BetaMax no less, I have all six episodes. I knew that a show this good wouldn't last and that I had to preserve it for myself. How stupid was ABC? They were quoted as saying that viewers didn't know that \"Police Squad!\" was a comedy because it had no laugh track! Right! When Drebin has a line like \"You take chances just getting up in the morning, driving to work, or sticking your face in a fan.\", how can THAT be comedy!?!? I've seen every episode at least ten times and still see something new I missed before. Even the deep backgrounds always have gags ongoing. Don't miss it if you have chance to see an episode, but if you're reading this then you probably already have copies squirreled away someplace as I do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two years after 'Airplane!' took off, Jim Abrahams, Jerry and David Zucker cast one of its stars - Leslie Nielsen - in this hilarious television series, a glorious take-off of old U.S. detective shows such as 'Dragnet'. Nielsen played Frank Drebin, America's answer to 'Inspector Clouseau'. It had the same style of humour as 'Airplane!'; clever visual gags in the background, unnoticed absurdities, and recurring characters such as Johnny the shoe-shine boy who seems to know everything about everything. Guest-stars ( including William Shatner! ) were killed off in the opening credits. 'Police Squad' was the first U.S. sitcom since 'Batman' to lack a laugh track. Many have lamented the fact that only six episodes were made, but I think it was about right. The concept could never have sustained a full 24-episode run. Five years later, 'Police Squad' made a successful transfer to the big screen, when the first of the 'Naked Gun' trilogy was released. Jim, Jerry, David, and Leslie had the last laugh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The funniest show ever on TV, albeit the humor is not for everyone. I realize it would have been hard to keep the show fresh if it had ran longer, but it's a shame only six episodes were filmed. The gags fly rapidly from the opening credits until the very end, when you would see Drebin and his boss, Ed Hocken, pretending to be in freeze frame as the closing credits rolled, during which the criminal (still moving) would see everyone else motionless and try to escape. In another episode, the building started collapsing around them as Drebin and Hocken remained in freeze mode.

Leslie Nielsen was comedic brilliance as Frank Drebin and the perfect fit for this show \u0085 how he managed to keep a straight face through some of this is beyond me. Because the jokes and sight gags came so often and quick, you can watch the episodes a 2nd and 3rd time and catch things you missed the first time. If you're like me, you can watch them over and over and still find yourself laughing. Even the jokes that made no sense nor seemingly had any reason to them, such as the \"Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln\" tag-line in the opening announcement, somehow worked \u0085 perhaps they were thrown in there precisely for that reason.

Cleverly spoofing the old Quinn Martin detective\/cop shows of the 1970s, Police Squad would return from commercial break with the words \"Act Two\" appearing on the screen, which was immediately followed by \"Yankees One\" or some other quip. On the opening credits, the episode's title would appear on the screen, but the announcer would utter a completely different title. My favorite jokes and lines from this series are way too numerous to list, but one of my favorites is when Drebin asks a down-on-his-luck boxer who has previously tanked fights, \"Do you think you can beat the Champ?\" The boxer responds, \"I can take him blindfolded!\" To which Drebin responds back, \"But what if he's not blindfolded?\" A minute later, in reference to the boxer's small, dingy apartment, Drebin tells him, \"I'm going to help you get out of this sewer.\" The next thing you see, Drebin is popping up through a manhole cover on the street! In another episode, Drebin and Hocken are questioning a bombing suspect's flimsy alibi. Drebin, not believing him, says, \"Alright, let's say you did go the movies.\" After a slight pause, Drebin, Hocken, and the suspect all look at the camera and in unison say, \"You did go the movies.\" A few moments later, when Drebin is forced to let the suspected bomber walk free due to lack of evidence, he storms away and angrily yells, \"Tell that bomber to take off!\" What's seen next is a cop giving the thumbs-up signal to a WWII-style plane on a runway right outside the building! While there were many classic Drebin quotes, one particularly memorable one was, \"Sorry to bother you Mrs. Twice. We would have come earlier, but your husband wasn't dead then.\" Another classic was, \"I'm a locksmith \u0085 and, I'm a locksmith.\" When a visibly shaken kidnap victim's father asks Drebin, \"What I do I do?\" \u0085 Drebin, in classic deadpan fashion, responds back, \"Well, as I understand it, you're in the textile business.\" As I said, the humor is not for everyone \u0085 many people simply will not \"get\" it. During the show's brief run, I remember the reaction being very mixed. Some people thought it was absolutely hysterical and one of the funniest things around, while others thought it was the stupid and unfunny. For me, Police Squad, even 20+ years later, is the funniest thing I've ever seen on TV. For younger viewers who enjoy this type of humor but who have never seen Police Squad because they were too young when the series initially aired, I highly recommend. I found the six episodes to be even funnier than the subsequent \"Naked Gun\" movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Police Squad! (1982) was a funny show that ended too soon. But I guess it had it's run before it got too repetitive and unfunny like so many American television shows. The geniuses behind this funny show were the team of Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker. Every since his straight act in the comedy hit AIRPLANE!, Leslie Nielsen has found a new career as a comedian. In this short lived t.v. series he had the chance to play the straight man in a wacky comedy once more. The bizarre titles to each episode gave away the ending. But Lt. Drebrin (Leslie Nielsen) got into so many weird cases that they have to be seen to be believed.

Tooo bad they never released this on D.V.D. If a show needed to be re-released it would have to be this one. A whole new generation is waiting to see this show!

Highly recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After reading over all these reviews I'm very surprised to see that no one has even once noted that this show was based on the 1957 to 1960 NBC cop show \"M Squad\" starring Lee Marvin, i read reviews comparing it to \"Dragnet\" and some of the Quinn Martin police shows, but if you watch M Squad you'll see it was based on it. In the late 1958 episodes of M Squad onwards, you'll see Lee Marvin who plays Lieutenant Detective Frank Ballinger get out of his car and then hes shot at,and he shoots back, the beginning of Police Squad is basically the same ( including the Jazz music) and then Lee Marvin narrates what goes on, (Im Lieutenant Detective Frank Ballinger,M Squad,a special department of the Chicago police) and in Police Squad Leslie Neilsen does the same (Im Detective Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police Squad, a special division of the Police Department) and so on, in one of the M Squad episodes there's even the Johnny the shoeshine guy character and in a M Squad episode entitled \" More Deadly\" there's a Police Squad episode entitled \"A Substantial Gift (The Broken Promise)\" which is the same story!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The creative team of Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker had their roots in improvisational theatre in Madison, Wisconsin, I believe it was. They had a group called 'Kentucky Fried Theatre'(or something similar.) They put a bunch of their set pieces onto celluloid as'KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE'(1977), which was long, irreverent, sophomoric and really funny.

They followed up with the very popular, AIRPLANE! (1980), which really put them on the map. In it, they took some rather well known veteran actors in Robert Stack and (especially) Leslie Nielsen, and putting them in prominent roles, proceeded to parody every clich\u00e9 of every aviation film since the days of John Wayne's (Batjac)Production of THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY (1954).* Pockets stuffed with cash and now having been noticed, the trio worked out a deal with Pramount Television and the American Broadcasting Company TV Network to do a half hour comedy spoof of the nearly countless Police Crime Drama show that have come and gone on our television screens over the years. Remembering the fine job that Mr. Leslie Nielsen had turned in on AIRPLANE!, he was cast in the lead.

As Sgt\/Lt.\/Captain Frank Drebbin (the rank designation switch being one of their comic bits),he presided over a great series of successive puns, sight gags, non sequitors, and overblown police\/crime clich\u00e9s.All of these strung together by some,seemingly standard scripts. Added to this is overly dramatic opening narration, voiced over information contradicting the visual printed info. They always used this in giving the title of the episode titles, where voice and printed titles never matched.

They had a great musical score, which even though being somewhat exaggerated, would have passed as theme and incidental music in a straight drama.The musical score, the opening titles and format of having the episodes divided into Act I, Act II, Epilogue, etc., were all part of obvious, but affectionate, ribbing of Q.M. (Quinn Martin) Productions. (They even had the same announcer as did the real Q.M.'s.)

One thing that this all too short of a series did not have was a technically augmented audience laughter. And, boy they sure didn't need any phony tract. The nature of the spoof was such that it demanded the viewer's close, almost undivided attention, and that proved to be the ultimate reason behind POLICE SQUAD's downfall.

In regards to the series cancellation,an ABC Executive explained that the episodes \"...called for too much attention on the part of the viewer.\" So, isn't that what one would want?

So, after only 6 wonderfully wacky, hilarious episodes,off to the afterlife of series cancellation went POLICE SQUAD!, only to be reborn in THE NAKED GUN trilogy, made for the big screen in movie houses. Once again, they did quite well at the Box Office. Oh well, TV's loss is Cinema's gain, thanks to you Mr. Idiot TV Exec!

* THE HIGH AND MIGHTY was produced by the Duke's own Batjac Productions and released by Warner Brothers. It was unavailable for quite a number of years and finally, Mr. Wayne's family made arrangements to release it to television and to video.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first remember bumping into this zaniness from the Zucker brothers and Jim Abrahams, back in the early days at Comedy Central. Back in those days (the 90's) their programming consisted of Benny Hill reruns and the original MST3k, complete with bearded host.

Capt. Frank Drebin (played by the stone-faced, dead-pan filibuster, Leslie Nielson) is a process created first from the amalgamation of various stereotypical police television show protagonists (think Dragnet meets Starsky & Hutch the Show), boiled in a flask full of well-known police television show plots and scenarios. This is distilled, 3 times to produce the most pure policeman every made. Forget about Simon Pegg in Hot Fuzz (for now. save it for later). Frank Drebin is clueless at most times, a terrible driver, a terrible shot, macho yet sensitive and vulnerable. He is a master of the police investigative methodology (a.k.a - ask Johnny the Leathery Old Shoe-Shine Boy). This does not make him a bad cop. Cops get lucky also. Capt Drebin (notice he's a Captain here) has perfected it. Along with his partner, Nordberg, and the rest of force, perfectly parody the police drama over the course of 6 golden episodes.

The show is a treasure trove of hilarious dialog and quotable quote-ables. Most of the sight gags are a bit dated and silly. The magic never came from the sight gags,however. At its core was a nonsensical and straight-faced conversation and activities in the foreground, with crazy things occurring in the background. The movies can best be described as 90 minute compilations of the best gags from this series. Think of Monty Python's And Now For Something Completely Different.....

If you liked Airplane 1 & 2, Naked Gun 1,2,3, or Top Secret, then you will definitely enjoy this.

I always liked the series better than the movies, even though I saw the movies first. Why? 2 words : No O.J.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I was young, I was a big fan of the Naked Gun movies but just recently I watched the show Police Sqaud! and I think its great! Leslie Nielson's awesome, Alan North is cool, and who the heck is Rex Hamilton? But anyways, it's one goofy show.

One of my favorite parts of this show when they do the freeze frame scene during the end credits. I think my favorite one is when Norberg (not O.J.) walks in during the scene and he tries to fit in with the freeze frame. Classic!

The only problem to me is the cigarette gag gets very old (when Drebin shows a cigarette to someone and asks, \"Cigarette?\" and the person replies, \"Yes. I know.\") I think they used it too many times by whatever.

Good acting, good gags, great show!

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The inspiration for the \"Naked Gun\" movies casts Leslie Nielsen - who had only recently started doing comedy* - as the incompetent but heroic Frank Drebin, always having to solve an absurd case. Like \"Airplane!\" and the movies based on the series, the humor relies on Mel Brooks-style spot gags and silly comments (namely the \"yes it is\" remarks), along with the fact that Nielsen remains very serious despite the nonsense around him. And of course, the final frame, in which something keeps moving.

It's too bad that the show only had six episodes. At least it spawned the movies. You can't go wrong with Leslie Nielsen in these sorts of roles. I suspect that they all had fun filming it. Really funny.

*Before \"Airplane!\", Leslie Nielsen had starred in movies like \"Forbidden Planet\", \"Harlow\" and \"The Poseidon Adventure\". As late as 1987 he co-starred in \"Nuts\" alongside Barbra Streisand and Richard Dreyfuss. But since the first \"Naked Gun\" movie it's been all comedy all the time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A criminally short lived show that went on to spawn three movie spin-offs (Naked Gun 1, 2 & 3), this is fast-paced, in your face, rapid fire comedy that has more hits than misses.

Leslie Nielsen plays Detective Lieutenant Sergeant Frank Drebin, an incompetent Detective who bumbles and fumbles his way through cases, with the capable assistant of his boss, Capt. Ed Hocken.

The story lines are spurious, at best, but it's deliberate, as the goodness here lies not in the storytelling, but in the weaving of a constant flurry of jokes along with some genuinely weird and wonderful characters.

The jokes themselves come in many forms, be it wordplay, slapstick, puns or background gags, most of them hitting the spot, though some fall a little flat. It's inevitable with this 'gag every few seconds' approach that some will fail, but the ratio is good.

The characters are a delight. From the guest star of the week dying in the opening seconds of every episode, the laboratory scientist who appears to be conducting cruel and unusual experiments on children to the shoe-shine who is some form of oracle, the writing is witty and sharp as a cutlass.

Though not especially successful at the time, it rapidly developed a cult following, many blaming the shows' relative lack of success on being way ahead of its time and too sophisticated for the target audience, chief amongst them none other than Matt 'The Simpsons' Groening: and he should know.

Dated by todays standards, if you can see through that aspect, you're in for a treat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember watching Police Squad! when it first came on ABC in 1982 and I thought it was a very funny show, thanks to the many sight gags, non sequitors and scripts filled with word play. In one episode, there was a line where a man named Once was shot twice.

But unfortunately, ABC canceled the show after only six episodes. I felt it deserved a much longer run but a network executive thought the show demanded too much attention of the viewer because of all the sight gags in each episode. One that I remember was in the opening where the episode's title was different from the one shown on the screen.

Leslie Nielsen's portrayal of Frank Drebin was deadpan, yet very funny and his role was in the narrative style of Jack Webb of Dragnet. Alan North did well and Peter Lupus, in one of his few roles since Mission: Impossible wasn't bad as Norberg, But the one character that stood out was Johnny the Shoeshine Boy, played by William Duell. After giving advice to Drebin, there were cameos from Dick Clark, Dr. Joyce Brothers and then Dodger manager Tommy LaSorda.

Even though Police Squad! had a short life on ABC, the Zucker Brothers didn't give up on the concept which turned out even more successful in the Naked Gun movie franchise. I'll close with a regular closing gag. Freeze the ending right here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two years after the success of 'Airplane', Jim Abrahams and Jerry & David Zucker created this brilliant sitcom starring the great Leslie Nielsen as plain clothed detective 'Frank Drebin'. Also in the cast was Alan North as 'Captain Ed Hocken', Ed Williams as 'Ted Olsen' and William Duell as 'Johnny The Shoe Shine Boy'. 'Police Squad!' featured unashamedly corny jokes and clever visual gags playing in the background. Each episode would conclude with a mock freeze frame in which the characters in frame stand completely still. One of the best 'freeze frame' sequences saw one of the characters pouring coffee into a cup while standing still, causing the cup to overflow! Guest stars were killed off in the opening titles, one included Georg Stanford Brown being crushed by a falling safe! Despite gaining positive reviews and much critical acclaim, 'Squad!' only lasted for six episodes before being cancelled. This didn't mean the end though, five years later the show was transferred to the big screen for the first in the trilogy of the 'Naked Gun' films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nothing like this was seen on TV at that time and probably never will again. From the first image of that police light blinding you and from there you heard the words: \"Police Squad - in color\", you were schocked to see that this in no way was an ordinary sitcom.

Also to kill off a \"Guest Star\" and then never refer to him again, where had you ever seen that before. Then the actual show started and if you did not pay attention, you would miss several jokes in the background. Don't pay too much attention to one thing or you would be sorry. This was the show that video recorders were made for, way before Married with Children or The Simpsons.

The stories did in no way make sense and the dialog was sometimes so weird that you had to think about it for 5 minutes before realising that it was a joke.

The characters Frank Drebin and Ed Hocken came right out of Dragnet and they were absolutely straight (no funny accents or expressions) but instead there were puns and twisted sentences played absolutely deadpan. Only once as I can remember, were there a segment played for silly laughs - a scene involving a trip to a dentist, suction and a whole lot of saliva.

There were some tedious moments - like the informer Johnny and an appearance by some celebrity. That was strictly a one-joke moment but they had to use it in all six episodes. Oh, well. Everything can't be perfect. The important thing is that the rest of the time you were knee deep in tears of laughter.

Leslie Nielsen was fortunate that this revived his career when they put the Frank Drebin character in 3 features but it must have been an Achilles heel as well. Can you remember seeing him in anything except Naked Gun type work since? And don't count the awful Mr. Magoo reworked for live action. He probably made a lot of money, though.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having long disdained network television programming, I remember the first time I caught an episode of \"Police Squad!\". It was totally by accident. It was during the show's initial network run on ABC in early 1982. I am a chronic channel surfer and was flipping the dial one evening when suddenly appeared \"Police Squad!\"'s opening credit sequence on my TV screen. I immediately recognized it as a sendup of the opening credits of \"M-Squad\" starring Lee Marvin, one of my all-time favorite cop shows. I stopped surfing. Then of course came headquarters getting shot up, followed by the immortal Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln. By now I was saying to myself \"What the heck is THIS??\". Then came \"special guest star\" Georg Stanford Brown getting flattened by a plummeting safe. I was hooked from that moment. The episode was \"Ring of Fear\/A Dangerous Assignment\", with its comic references to \"On The Waterfront\", and \"Muhammed Ali\", but most memorable of course were all the sight gags and non sequiturs. Leslie Nielsen and Alan North in their loose parody of Lee Marvin and Paul Newlan of \"M Squad\" were an absolute riot. \"Finally\", I said to myself, \"A network television program truly worth watching!!!\". Wouldn't you know it would be canceled just a few weeks later. Leave it to the networks -- I should have known. Anyway, I just bought the DVD collection of all six episodes and they are just as funny today as they were 27 years ago. The \"Naked Gun\" movies were terrific as well, but I really missed Alan North (he was so good as Ed Hocken), Peter Lupus as Nordberg (what were they thinking casting OJ in that part?), and especially William Duell's \"Johnny\" the shoeshine guy. Great stuff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story told by The Cranes are Flying is not, admittedly, all that original. Young lovers are separated by war; bad things happen to both. We've seen it many times before.

Nonetheless, we haven't seen it filmed this well, with bold shots that take liberties to emphasize separation, or destruction, or hopelessness. All the more remarkable coming from the Soviet Union, and reason to conclude that Tarkovsky is not the last word in modern-era Soviet cinema.

I was reading Chekhov's \"Three Sisters\" the other day, and chanced upon what may be the meaning of the title of this film. In Act 2, Masha objects to the notion that we must live our lives without meaning or understanding:

\"MASHA: Surely mankind must believe in something, or at least seek for the truth, otherwise life is just emptiness, emptiness. To live and not to know why the cranes are flying, why children are born, why there are stars in the sky. Either you must know why it is you live, or everything is trivial - mere pointless nonsense.\"

Likewise, Veronika has a hard time believing that the war, and her and others' sufferings, have been pointless. Better to assign a meaning, to live as if one's life is significant, and not to give in to despair. It is perhaps this thinking that prompts her to her final act in the film.

BTW as a minor correction to one other comment here--there may be a pattern of V's in the film, though I hadn't noticed them myself. But the first letter of Veronika's name is not a further instance of this; in the Cyrillic alphabet, her name begins with a letter which looks like an English \"B\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1956 was the 20th Congress of the Communist Party and the Soviet Premier Krushchev made a speech denouncing Stalin and the Stalinist purges and the gulag labor systems, revealing information that was previously forbidden, publicly revealing horrible new truths, which opened the door for a new Soviet Cinema led by Mikhail Kalatozov, once Stalin's head of film production. This film features a Red Army that is NOT victorious, in fact they are encircled, in a retreat mode, with many people dying, including the hero, in a film set after 06-02-41, the German invasion of Russia when Germany introduced the Barbarossa Plan, a blitzkrieg invasion intended to bring about a quick victory and the ultimate enslavement of the Slavs, and very nearly succeeded, actually getting within 20 miles of Moscow in what was a Red Army wipe out, a devastation of human losses, 15 to 20 million Russians died, or 20% of the entire population. Historically, this was a moment of great trauma and suffering, a psychological shock to the Russian people, but the Red Army held and prolonged the war 4 more years until they were ultimately victorious.

During the war, Stalin used the war genre in films for obvious morale boosting, introducing female heroines who were ultra-patriotic and strong and idealistic, suggesting that if females could be so successful and patriotic, then Russia could expect at least as much from their soldiers. Stalin eliminated the mass hero of the proletariat and replaced it with an individual, bold leader who was successful at killing many of the enemy, an obvious reference to Stalin himself, who was always portrayed in film as a bold, wise and victorious leader. But Kalatozov changed this depiction, as THE CRANES ARE FLYING was made after Stalin's death, causing a political thaw and creating a worldwide sensation, winning the Cannes Film Festival Palm D'Or, as well as the Best Director and Best Actress (Tatyana Samoilova), reawakening the West to Soviet Cinema for the first time since Eisenstein's IVAN THE TERRIBLE in the 40's.

This film featured brilliant, breathtaking, and extremely mobile camera work from his extraordinary cinematographer Sergei Uresevsky, using spectacular crane and tracking shots, images of wartime, battlefields, Moscow and crowded streets that are extremely vivid and real. Another brilliant scene features the lead heroine, Veronica, who hasn't heard from her lover, Boris, in the 4 years at war, so he is presumed dead, but she continues to love him, expressed in a scene where she runs towards a bridge with a train following behind her, a moment when the viewer was wondering if she might throw herself in front of that train, instead she saves a 3 yr old boy named Boris who was about to be hit by a car. Another scene captures the death of Boris on the battlefield, who dies a senseless death, and his thoughts spin and whirl in a beautiful montage of trees, sky, leaves, all spinning in a kaleidoscope of his own thoughts and dreams, including an imaginary wedding with Veronica. This film features the famous line, \"You can dream when the war is over.\" In the final sequence, when the war is over, the soldiers are returning in a mass scene on the streets, Veronica learns Boris died, all are happy and excited with the soldier's return, but Veronica is in despair, passing out flowers to soldiers and strangers on the street in an extreme gesture of generosity and selflessness revealing \"cranes white and gray floating in the sky.\"

The film was released in 1957 in Russia, and according to some reviews, \"the silence in the theater was profound, the wall between art and living life had fallen...and tears unlocked the doors.\"



","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're looking for a typical war movie, this is not it, so a note to all the testosterone-pumped carnage-craving war buffs out there, don't bother. Although the film is about Russian characters in WWII, don't expect to see any Nazis, cannons, blood, gore, etc. It's not a film about people who cause a war or who fight a war. It's a film about ordinary people who war happens to and the choices they make in dealing with it.

Acting, cinematography, writing: all perfect 10s here. You'll certainly appreciate it if you're Russian like me, but even if not, you'll probably love it. If you speak no Russian, look for the RUSCICO (Russian Cinema Council) DVD version. It's got subtitles in about 14 different languages, but the English dubbing on this one I'd say is just as good. It's of course not as good as the original Russian track (some stuff is lost in translation), but just as good as the English subtitles. So go check it out, especially if you're studying film in any aspect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Love and war did happen on the other side of the iron curtain and by looking losely at it love was just as strong as in the West and war was often more poignant (should I say more realistic ?).

This film is as much about war and love as it is about the Soviet thaw of Mr K's era. It also reminds us than the best war movies were not necessarily made in the 1990's with rivers of hemoglobin and millions of USD spent on special effects and marketed actors.

This movie is a classic of Soviet cinema and a outstanding picture of one of the greatest human tragedies : war.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The plot of this movie is set against the most terrible war in history of mankind: the violent clash between Adolf Hitler's Germany and Soviet Russia, from 1941-'45.

With the western areas of their country thoroughly devastated, and 20 to 30 million Russian people killed, the vibes of this conflict can be felt in Russia up to the present day. Let alone back in 1957, when memories were still very fresh and painful.

This very black setting strongly contrasts with the fine and coherent style of 'Letjat zhuravli's' beautiful shots. Its simple story deals with human behaviour in times of war: bravery, love, patriotism, weakness, cowardice and corruption. All beautifully tied together by a toy-squirrel.

Add to this the truly magnificent acting, and it's easy to understand why this movie is so famous. Really, one of the very best ever made.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would like to tell you just a few things before considering seeing this movie. If at one point or another you thought you've seen good camera work, be prepared to be amazed by this movie. For the record, this movie was made in 1957 in Russia, but the technique used here is probably something that we've seen much later in the western world...about 20 years later. The level of emotions through the film varies quite a lot: happiness -love-war- despair-joy, but in the end you remain with something quite unique: the joy of seeing one masterpiece of filmmaking. The young directors from our time should study more this kind of movies and maybe they will be able to create something similar..even though I think movies like this are very hard to come by... If you've seen \"I am Cuba\" , then this movie would appeal to you very much, but if not, be prepared for a unique experience. The Russian directors have something in common: very small budgets, great actors, and a joy of creating art...and yes, they are able to create more masterpieces than all the western world together. I am not a big fan of Russia, actually I hate everything that's communist, but the film making in that part of the world, manages to create such feelings that are hard to describe.

Enjoy it.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of those films that I happened across through The Criterion Collection and as usual indulged as a change of pace. That turned out to be a great decision. I was almost mesmerised by the quality of the film, the story it told and the way it was told. The almost minimalist feel to the film with sparse dialogue and almost constant music just added a whole evocative level to the film. This really is a superb film to spend some time with and enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It does not surprise me that this short (91 minutes) B\/W movie that was made 50 years ago in the Soviet Union during the short period called \"ottepel'\" or \"the thaw\", has gained so much love and admiration among the movie lovers over the world. It is sublime and beautifully filmed. Some scenes feel like there were made way ahead of their time. Sergei Urusevsky's camera work and creative discoveries were included in the text books and widely imitated. The film tells the moving and timeless story of love destroyed by merciless war but eternally alive in the memory of a young woman. It is also the film about loyalty, memories, ability to live on when it seems there is nothing to live for; it is about forgiveness, and about hope. The film received (absolutely deservingly) the Grand Prix at Cannes Film Festival and Tatiana Samoilova was chosen as a recipient of a special award at Cannes for playing Veronika, the young girl happily in love with the best man in the world in the beginning of the movie. After separation with her beloved who went to the front, the loss of her family in the bomb ride, and the marriage to the man she never loved and only wished he never existed, she turned to the shadow of herself, she became dead inside. Her long journey to redemption, to finally accepting death of her beloved and to learning how to live with it, is a fascinating and heartbreaking one and it simply won't leave any viewer indifferent.

For me, the movie is very personal and dear because I was born and grew up in the city where its characters lived and were so happy in the beginning. I walked the same streets, squares, and bridges over the Moskva River. Every family in the former Soviet Union had lost at least one but often more than one family member to a combat or to the concentration camp or to the ghetto or to hunger, cold, and illnesses during WWII and my family is not exception. My mother and grandmother knew the horrors of war and never healing pain of losses not just from the movies and the books. \"Cranes are Flying\" speaks to me clearly and honestly and touches me very deeply. It is a masterpiece of movie making but it is a part of my life - my background, my memory, and my past.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Moscow, the young couple Veronika (T. Samojlova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov) are in deep love for each other. With the World War II, Boris volunteers to join the army and is sent to the front on the day before Veronika's birthday, and they do not have the chance to say goodbye to each other. While waiting for news from Boris, Veronika is raped by Boris' cousin Mark (A. Shvorin) and they marry each other. However, Veronika does not forget Boris, and keeps waiting for him.

\"Letyat zhuravli\" is an impressive and heartbreaking romance in times of war. The direction is excellent and uses ellipses along the story, inclusive in the capital scene when Veronika is raped by Mark. The camera-work is amazing, with sophisticated planes and angles, and long traveling. The scenes of Veronika in the middle of the tanks, or in the train station with many figurants are awesome. The magnificent cinematography is highlighted by the restored image of the DVD. T. Samojlova has an extremely beautiful face, and a touching and sensitive performance. The speech in the last scene makes another great example of an anti-war movie. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): \"Quando Voam as Cegonhas\" (\"When Fly the Stork\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A true masterpiece of the Soviet cinematography. It's a shame for the Soviet Union that Samojlova was never given an opportunity to play in the Western movies -- but then again, she would probably never find herself there. In \"Letyat Zhuravli\", she is unforgettable. This was one of the few movies where I was crying...

In addition to Samojlova, Batalov and Merkurjev, who are top rate, it was a brilliant work of the director and the operator which made this movie an all-time classics world-wide. Just remember the scenes of piano music and proposal under the heavy German bombardment, or the death of Boris with a swirling sky above his head and his last visions appeared blurred in those skies. The very simple means -- but the great technique added to the emotional weight... Mind you, 20 years before \"The Star Wars\", 41 years before \"Titanic\", and with a Soviet budget.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had long wanted to watch this romantic drama (with a WWII setting) and, now that I have, all I can say is that it's a veritable masterpiece of Russian cinema!

Soviet films are known for their overzealous propagandist approach but, thankfully, this one's free of such emphasis - with the interest firmly on the central tragic romance between a promising artist and a vivacious girl, doomed by the outbreak of war for which he gladly volunteers but from which he'll never return. The girl (a remarkable performance from Tatyana Samojlova) is also loved by the young man's cousin and, when she doesn't receive word from her boyfriend, gives in to the latter and marries him. He, however, is an aspiring concert pianist bitter about the war having curtailed his chances for success and, knowing too that the girl's still devoted to the soldier, begins to neglect her. Finally, word reaches the girl of her loved one's death but, by the end of the film, she has learnt to accept this as a sacrifice to their native country and is content to live with her memories of him.

The film features some truly amazing camera-work which makes extremely judicious use of the screen space and, by frequently adopting tracking, tilted and high or low angle shots, renders great power to the unfolding emotional drama. Individual sequences are equally impressive - two in particular: the stunning scene, frenetically edited and sped-up to boot, in which the girl saves an abandoned boy from being trampled by a truck; and the young man's premature demise in an unfortunate incident at the front, undoubtedly one of the best of its kind I've ever watched (with the sun moving away from him, symbolizing the life that's seeping out of his body, as he imagines the wedding day he'll never have!). Also notable, however, is the scene where the girl goes to look for her parents in her home that's been hopelessly devastated during an air raid; as is her final violent capitulation to the concert pianist - which she tries to resist by repeatedly slapping him in the face - taking place during a later air raid and making particularly effective use of a set of billowing curtains!

Disappointingly, the R1 DVD of this outstanding film is a bare-bones affair (the RusCiCo edition features a few supplements but, being an export, tends to be heavily overpriced and hard to track down to boot!); Criterion released it in conjunction with another war-themed Russian classic, BALLAD OF A SOLDIER (1959) - which my pal at the local DVD rental outlet has told me is forthcoming...

The only other film I've watched from this director is the Arctic epic THE RED TENT (1969; albeit via the much-shorter U.S.-release version!), a star-studded international production based on true events; given the unmistakable artistic quality of THE CRANES ARE FLYING, I regret missing out now on his famous documentary I AM CUBA (1964) a number of times when I was in Hollywood late last year: apart from receiving a one-week theatrical run, it was shown more than once on TV accompanied by a feature-length \"Making Of\"!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While watching this film recently, I constantly had to remind myself that it was made in 1957..........and in the USSR! That makes it all the more remarkable. Many of the cinematographic effects in the film seem cliched in 2002, but they were quite original in 1957. I first saw this film in 1963, when it was first released in the US, and I was struck by its originality then. Now just having seen it 40 years later, I have no reason to change my mind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Russian actress TATIANA SAMOILOVA reminds me so much of the young Audrey Hepburn and the camera in THE CRANES ARE FLYING seems to love her just as much. She is the focal point of a bittersweet war romance against the background of World War II in Moscow.

The film is almost poetic in its gorgeous B&W cinematography which was the main reason for watching the film in the first place, since I had never heard of it and decided to give it a try when it aired on TCM.

It's a very moving love story about a girl's deep love for a man who is suddenly swept away by his role as a soldier drafted in wartime Russia. She's unable to forget the memory of her romantic attachment to him, but inexplicably marries someone else who has forced himself on her, a pianist who soon realizes that she still loves the soldier she hopes to hear from. Their marriage is a troubled one because she can't let go of her remembrance of a happier time with her soldier sweetheart.

By the end of the story, she accepts the idea that he's never going to return and is able to face reality and cope with the situation. There's a very poignant final scene at a train station where arriving soldiers are greeting their loved ones and the tearful girl shares the joy of the returning soldiers by giving some flowers from her bouquet to the joyous families.

The stylish and striking camera-work is what carries the film, as well as the honestly played story.

Tastefully done, but perhaps the English subtitles didn't tell the whole tale because some of the plot elements seemed a bit blurred to me as if they had been glossed over.

Summing up: Easy to see why it won awards at the Cannes Film Festival. Reminded me, in style, of another great Russian film, BALLAD OF A SOLDIER.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie won a special award at Cannes for its acting and it's not difficult to see why. (A few spoilers - but for the ending, you'll have to watch the movie!) A simple story - in Moscow on the eve of war between Russia and Germany in WW II Veronika (Tatiana Samoilova) is in love with Boris (Aleksei Batalov) but they have a spat when she learns that he has enlisted in the army. Boris leaves for the front before Veronika can tell him she loves him. Boris is shot but his ultimate fate remains unknown to Veronika or his family. Mark, Boris' cousin, rapes Veronika who feels obligated to marry him. Degraded and demeaned by the cowardly Mark, Veronika clings to the hope that someday Boris will return. Superb camera-work and wonderful set pieces by director Kalatozov. (For anyone interested in film technique another movie by Kalatozov, I AM CUBA, has at least two superb set pieces - one of them a long tracking shot that begins with a funeral procession through the streets of Havana, rises two stories to a cigar factory, tracks though the window and follows the procession down a long, long avenue - all without a cut.) Superb acting, particularly by Samoilova and Vasili Merkuryev (as Boris' uncle) that is made all the more poignant by sheer understatement. A devastatingly romantic movie with a heart-stopping performance by Samoilova. (This movie is frequently linked with the other Russian classic Ballad Of A Soldier.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The aftermath of World War Two almost resulted in the death of Soviet cinema. In the early years of the 1950s, film production came close to a complete standstill {a mere nine feature-films were released in 1951}, and the work of all filmmakers was closely monitored, and often censored, by the government. Following the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, filmmakers were given greater artistic freedom with their pictures, though many remained reluctant to challenge the heroic, optimistic and propagandistic stance towards warfare that had been prevalent in previous years. It wasn't until 1957 that director Mikhail Kalatozov and writer Viktor Rozov became bold enough to produce what is widely-considered the first post-Stalin Soviet masterpiece, 'Letyat zhuravli \/ The Cranes are Flying,' one of the finest depictions of war I've seen from any country or time period. Not only was the film lauded for its artistic brilliance in the Soviet Union, but international recognition was soon to follow, and Kalatozov's film was honoured with the Palm d'Or at the 1958 Cannes Film Festival.

'The Cranes are Flying' is both an invigorating visual feast and an audacious, humanistic portrayal of war. Unlike many Soviet war-themed films of the time, it was less constrained by the archetypal figure of the traditional war-time hero, and more concerned with the futility, brutality and, indeed, the inevitability of conflict. Love, as a cinematic concept, is too-often idealised as a notion that somehow conquers all and endures endless hardship, and yet the reality is substantially less romantic. In the film, two lovers, Veronika (Tatyana Samojlova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov), separated by the advent of the WWII {widely known in the Soviet Union as the Great Patriotic War, 1941-1945}, pledge to marry after the war, but tragedy denies the couple their wish. Driven to betrayal by the unending torment and uncertainty of waiting, Veronika agrees to wed Boris' cousin, Mark (Aleksandr Shvorin), a handsome but unworthy youth. The film may conclude with the proud victory of the Soviets, and a patriotic flag-waving parade, but the optimism of this sequence is overwhelmingly eclipsed by the bittersweet tragedy of our young female protagonist, who wanders soullessly through the celebrating crowds.

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of 'The Cranes are Flying' is Sergei Urusevsky's inspired and dynamic hand-held cinematography, which realistically and dizzily captures the chaos and confusion of war, not necessarily in the hail of gunfire and the cries of dying comrades {in fact, only one of the film's sequences joins Boris on the Eastern Front}, but from the perspective of the family and friends who are left behind. In one particularly impressive, oft-cited long shot, the camera follows Veronika as she frantically searches for Boris in a crowd of departing recruits and their families. The hand-held camera smoothly follows the girl off a bus, jostles through the crowd alongside her - capturing momentary snippets of loved ones saying farewell to their sons and husbands - before unexpectedly craning above the crowd as Veronika disappears into the dust of a passing squadron of army tanks, a breathtaking movement that offers scope and urgency to the dramatic episode. Urusevsky first acquired his filming experience as a military cameraman during the war, and obviously fell in love with the storytelling possibilities of hand-held photography: \"The camera,\" he once declared, \"can express what the actor is unable to portray: his inner sensations. The cameraman must act with the actors.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Unlike the many who have posted here, I'm not movie literate. I stumbled across this movie by accident (channel surfing), and couldn't surf away. This is a truly incredible movie, worthy of all the praise the critics and those on this site have heaped on it. The actors are terrific. Tatiana is beautiful and innocent. Her fianc\u00e9 Boris is sweet and patriotic. You couldn't help but feel Boris' father's exasperation and sorrow as he upbraids his son for such foolishness as volunteering to serve in the great war.

Others have summarized the movie so well, so I'll just mention a couple of scenes that moved me the most. When Boris' brother reveals to his family that he has broken trust with his brother and \"has to marry\" Tatiana, Tatiana's twisted mouth shows her revulsion at this betrayal (even though her part in the unfaithfulness might have been through rape). You fear that the rest of the movie might right this wrong by visiting just destruction on Tatiana and the brother, or worse, show Tatiana destroyed by an immoral descent into cigarette smoking decadence. Since this isn't \"French existential cinema\", the latter doesn't happen. Thankfully!

Another scene that tears at your heart is when the unnamed \"musician\" soldier who was saved by Boris returns to tell Boris' father of the death of his son. He unwittingly breaks the news to Tatiana. I can't describe the sorrow of this scene... Still,Tatiana finds finds a straw to grab and hope that Boris will yet come home. The musician actually never saw Boris buried, after all.

I won't mention more scenes, but do want to observe that the touches of Soviet political correctness didn't detract at all from the film. Boris' brother is revealed as the piano playing anti-soviet slacker that someone who steals his brother's wife-to-be would have to be. No doubt he gets at least a \"tenner\" at the conclusion of the film! The ending, when Tatiana finally learns for certain that Boris is dead, still manages to end with cheerfully and full of hope for the future. You don't even want to imagine the tears and catharsis that must have swept through the theater when survivors of that war, with their own losses in mind, first saw this movie.

Incredible. Go see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's not difficult, after watching this film, to see why post-silent Soviet cinema is held in such little critical esteem. Don't get me wrong. THE CRANES ARE FLYING is, for the first half at least, supremely entertaining, boasting a lightness of touch completely unexpected from its country of origin; a fresh, brisk, spacious technique that eventually irritates as much as it initially charms; two stunning subjective set-pieces; and a romantic verve that flirts with, but never quite topples into, Lelouch territory. It's just that , in its subsuming of vast social, national and world events to a love affair, it is essentially no different from a conventional Hollywood movie.

Of course, in a Soviet Union that emphasised the state above all else, and in an era (World War Two) that suppressed individualism and liberty to uphold murderous symbolism, this foregrounding of two appealing young lovers is a relief. And the thematic similarities - all consuming love rent apart by war - with two of the most wonderful of all films (SEVENTH HEAVEN, LES PARAPLUIES DE CHERBOURG) also adds to its potential loveability.

The story is simple enough. Boris, a young factory worker from a bright medical and artistic family, and Veronika, a student, conduct a breezy relationship at night, their only free time. Boris's cousin Mark, a composer, also has eyes on Veronika. When the Nazis invade Russia, Boris secretly volunteers, to the chagrin of his family and lover. He promises to write to Veronika, but never does, thinking maybe she hasn't bothered to see him off, or perhaps the mail is simply unreliable. Veronika's parents die during an air raid, and she moves in with Boris's family, helping out at the hospital where his father tends wounded soldiers.

Distressed by Boris's silence, Veronika is also assailed by the attentions of Mark, who has gained exemption from military duty by bribing a local official. She is eventually worn down, and marries him, to the disapproval of her adopted family. Boris, meanwhile, is killed in action. Veronika, disgusted with herself and an adulterous Mark, refuses to believe this, and awaits his return, fostering a young orphan bearing his name.

The title refers to the birds the couple see at the height of their love, symbolic perhaps of its transcendant, epiphanical power. But this is illusory - the cranes fly in a V formation, and this shape pervades the entire film, through the geometric shapes of buildings, interiors, exteriors, groupings of people, composition, camera angles, the heroine's name - or by editing in which feet walking southwest in one story are met by feet walking southeast in another.

This serves to fatally trap the lovers who have no control over their destinies, and also suggest the Stalinist power that is never, specifically, mentioned in the film. Although the pair seem to be free in space, whether literally in an unpeopled environment, or privileged in generous close-ups, they are always ironised, minimised, torn apart - by circumstances, families, by crowds (see the brilliant, if obvious, sequences where Veronika is engulfed by tanks, or the pair fail to meet in a huge crowd), or simply by the film's structure, which is constantly distancing, through paralellism, their closeness. Although at the beginning, the lightness and brightness of style suggest a beautiful romantic idyll, it is constantly being broken by strange edits or camera angles of distracting snatches of music.

What is most remarkable is how these blocks to romance are achieved by abstracting rather than emphasising historical forces. The whole film, but especially the war itself, is strangely unreal and dreamlike, we are never shown its harsh, brutal actuality, just its effects on the lovers. In fact, it is transformed into a majestic spectacle, devoid of nasty Germans.

On the home front, the air raids create delicious effects of light and shade, or ruins of almost Gothic decadence. In the bunker, the threat to the Soviet empire is less important than Boris's perceived indifference. The empty, oneiric Moscow spaces the lovers initially, than Veronika with her mother, walk though are less actual locations than emotional spaces.

When Mark tries to force himself on Veronika, the air raid is less a destructive reality than a symbolic release of sexual and emotional frustrations. This is a brilliant sequence, filmed with silent, Expressionistic terror, in which the screen seems to burst with hysteria and violence, all the more compelling for the earlier scenes' wistful gentleness.

It's not much different at the front either, where fights over girls' honour are more urgent than tactics, Nazis or despair. The movement of Boris and his wounded comrade into a final space is a further abstracting of the experience of war, its setting in a forest giving it a sexual dynamic; and Boris' final, pre-death flashback is an extraordinary mixture of dream-wish fulfillment and heightened anxiety, in which what is wished for becomes menacing and grotesque.

From this point on the film becomes a little less interesting, slightly more obvious. One more grasp for Expressionist overload - Veronika's attempted suicide and her rescuing the infant - is clumsily handled; and her sombre guilt casts a paralysing shadow over the whole film. The use of deep focus, at first ravishing, soon becomes wearing, devoid as it is of any of the moral force or meaning Welles brought to its use in CITIZEN KANE. After what seems a quietly sly critique of totalitarianism in favour of the individual is cruelly betrayed at the end, when individual suffering, as so often in Russian art, transmutes into symbolic (i.e. sexless, dehumanised) hope. A pity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like in a circle the movie leads back to its point of departure, the image of the cranes that are crossing a Muscovite sky. They represent the freedom to realize your life as you wish, in order to aspire the greatest possible fulfilment.

In the beginning Veronica and Boris experience such a promise of happiness, and their eyes follow the path of the cranes in exhilaration. It seems as if they might be able to live according to their dreams.

But Man is not a bird. Life draws up its own rules, from which no human can escape and which we cannot change - not even by making a supreme effort. War breaks out, and without much hesitation Boris signs up for the front in order to fulfil his patriotic duty. He cannot even say good-bye to Veronica, for she arrives late at the assembly point from which the soldiers are sent away. Surrounded by a jubilant crowd all her attempts to attract Boris' attention must inevitably fail.

Boris eventually gets killed in war, without Veronica learning about it for the moment. His brother Mark, a vigorous musician, who obtained the exemption from military service by corruption, is eager to take his place. Veronica initially resists, but in a frightful night of bombing she finally falls victim to his charms. A marriage takes place, which is never accepted by the family.

Soon feelings of guilt seize hold of Veronica and she realizes that Boris' return is the one and only thing she actually longs for. She therefore eases her bad conscience and despair by the self-sacrificing work in a field hospital.

When war finally is over, once again a crowd of enthusiastic people gathers in order to cheer the victorious soldiers. Again Veronica is among them, forcing her way through a wall of bodies. In her hand she is carrying a bunch of flowers, until she finally has to give it away to complete strangers, for one of the homecomers has just dashed her hopes by confirming the sad certainty of Boris' death.

Once again the cranes invade the sky, drawing their wayward lines. But now Veronica is watching them on her own, and the look in her eyes is a different one. She has had to accept the impossibility to live according to preconceived plans, to follow the guidelines of your dreams. For all humans are nothing but helpless puppets hanging on the inscrutable strings of fate.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mikhail Kalatozov's The Cranes are flying is a superb film. Winner of the golden palm at Cannes Film Festival, it has an excellent cinematography and performance by Tatyana Samojlova, the only Russian actor ever to win an award in Cannes for a performance. She plays Veronika, a teenager in love with her boyfriend, happy and without preoccupations, with plans of getting married. Her life will get upside down when World War II strikes and her boyfriend volunteers to the army. The film depicts the effect of war on a teenager love and on the people that stayed and saw their loved ones go and fight, waiting for a letter or other information. It is a portrayal of lost innocence. Samojlova does a magnificent job, and her character transformation will break your heart. The camera movement is fast with a lot of close-ups, it is a dancing camera. The first scene in the stairs is fantastic, but it isn't the only one, there is later a scene when Veronika attempts committing suicide, and another, in my opinion one of the most powerful scenes in movie history, the bombing of Veronika's house when she runs the stairs in the middle of fire, to find her apartment completely destroyed. Simply great! 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Director Mikhail Kalatozov's film The Cranes are Flying (Letyat zhuravli) is a glorious piece of cinema. From the screenplay by Viktor Rozov, based on his own play, Kalatozov shows us a vision of the heroism of war and the suffering by those left at home. Inundated with countless war movies showing us the frontlines and the carnage, the topic itself becomes tedious and avoidable. However, this Russian gem shows how the tale of hardship can be told in a different way; by telling us, straight from a soldier's mouth how war is hated by all, that they hope those who died did so for a cause that will allow for peace and the end of fighting, we see a new vision of WWII. We have young men volunteering to wage war for peace, to keep their families and loved ones safe at home rather than draftees fighting a battle they don't believe in. With so much hatred towards our current situation in the Middle East, and how people are dying for no reason, against their will, it's nice to see a film that shows just how selfless and heroic these soldiers are, as well as those awaiting their return.

Communist Russia shows how involved all were in the war. While Boris may have volunteered to go to the frontlines, his father is head doctor of a hospital aiding in the mending of soldiers injured and his sister is helping him there as well as his girl Veronika, doing all she can to keep her mind off the fact that no letter has arrived from her love. An entire city comes out to send the boys off in celebration. Even the factory that Boris and his friend Stepan work for send representatives over with gifts of gratitude. Whether this is all a glorified look into Russia at the outset of WWII or not, I don't know. There are no protests or badmouthing of these boys risking their lives for a country, it is all praise and thanks. Some in America could learn a lesson from this because whether you agree with the war at hand or not, protesting and wreaking havoc in its name only sullies what these men and women are sacrificing each and everyday.

The acting is top-notch throughout, but some deserve singling out. I really enjoyed Antonina Bogdanova in a small role as Boris' grandmother. She is the one family member he can trust and her sadness at his leaving is very evident on her face and through her body language. Vasili Merkuryev, as the patriarch Fyodor Ivanovich, brings what is perhaps the best performance. As spoken at the end, about fathers needing to choke back hidden tears, Merkuryev epitomizes those sentiments. He puts on a tough exterior, especially cracking jokes and riding his son hard when he finds out about his volunteering just hours before he must leave. But when Boris exits to go to the assembly station we see the true pain of the man, seated in sorrow at the table. He loves his son dearly and although he may not be able to show it to him, his actions throughout the film express it to the audience. Aleksey Batalov is effective as Boris, a happy-go-lucky young man, and idealist, doing what he believes is right, and Aleksandr Shvorin is good as the villainous Mark, staying home due to his talented piano skills, or maybe just to steal his cousin's love. That love, played by Tatyana Samojlova, really draws the audience in to her grief, dejection, and slim glimmer of hope. The true star of the film, she must go through many emotions on a journey where she does lose her way, needing to steer back on course, hoping that she did so soon enough for Boris' return.

Besides the realism to the story, as well as being unafraid to use tragedy to get the theme across, I also loved the visual style of the film. Sergei Urusevsky's cinematography is amazing, especially when considering the movie was shot in fullscreen. It is one thing to create stunning compositions in a widescreen panorama; it is completely different to do so in a square frame. Right from the beginning we get a beautiful static shot of a winding walkway along water, a bridge in the background at the top, as our two lovers skip their way up the screen and into the distance. There are multiple instances of the camera being behind barriers yet still allowing for the action to be seen, creating unique spatial depth and interest at all times. Sharp angles are utilized, as well as careful blocking to allow for overhead shots and exaggerated juxtapositions of characters in frame together.

The real feats, however, are those instances of the long shot. Used well towards the end to follow Veronika through the mass of returning soldiers, it is magnificent earlier on as she roams through those saying goodbye to their loved ones while she searches for Boris, her own farewell needing to be said. The planning for this shot must have been extensive because while she weaves in and out of people, the camera focuses on couples kisses, people yelling to one another, and more, all purposely in frame at specific moments while the camera moves through. Everyone needed to hit his mark precisely and it leads to a brilliant piece of cinema. It's just one part of an overall masterpiece of tone and style; The Cranes are Flying shows how successful placement and mise en sc\u00e8ne can be in showing the audience what it needs in as simple a way as possible. Composition and professionalism from the actors and crew can work wonders, adding something that huge setpieces and special effects can never do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fabulous cinematography from Sergei Urusevsky help to make this a stunning piece of work. The opening scenes are as if one is leafing through some master photographer's album and as the story begins to unfold we are swept away with both the events depicted and the beautiful look. All is well shot but there are several whole sequences that are simply breathtaking. Difficult to describe without 'spoiling' but suffice to say one is a very intense scene during an air raid and the lady left behind and her lover's brother are at odds as the sirens whine and the windows shatter. Another superimposes a swirling staircase and a spinning shot of tree tops and even develops into a fantasy sequence. Soviet film making of the highest order.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a fantastic film. The acting is some of the best I've seen. Tatyana Samojlova is obviously very beautiful, and she automatically draws you into the film with her believable acting. The The cinematography was extremely ahead of its time. Watching it, I could see parallels of cinematography used today. This is truly a groundbreaking film. Because of the cinematography and acting, the audience can feel the change in tone from beginning to end as the tone in the environment in the movie changes. It's a very touching and powerful piece. My friend told me it was must see, and I definitely agree with her. This is one of those films that you watch and never forget. Everyone should see this intensely moving film. This should be put on everyone's \"Movies to See Before ________ (whatever)\" list.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sick of the current cinema output, particularly American cinema, I've been making an effort to see the Oscar-winning foreign films. That's when I came across this gem. Slow to start, it picks up nicely once war is declared. Basically an old fashioned girl-waits-for-boy-to-return-from-war-story, the performances, the cinematography make this so very much more. Why Tatyana Samojlova as the young woman didn't become an international star after this is beyond me(though she has remained successful in her own country). You take the journey with her: young, defiant impetuous young girl, who, through the ravages of war becomes a very sober, somber woman who keeps a glimmer of hope (her final scene is devastating). We love her as much as the camera does. And the camera-work! Was this the pioneer in hand-held camera work? It truly adds an immediacy to the story. And the beauty of it (like when Tatyana's character is running up stairs and next to a slatted fence). I am humbled and grateful to see this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm out of words to describe the beauty of \"The Cranes are Flying\", but I'll try anyway to write about it. It's a powerful and delicate love story that takes its place in the Second World War. It's the classic story of lovers (Boris & Veronika) separated by the war and of what comes between them. The film's images are so gorgeous, that you'll be carried away - the film technique is in perfect unison with the emotion.

There are few scenes that portray directly the war: A bombing - wind, lightnings, explosions - that will have important consequences in the life of the main protagonist, Veronika, who waits for the return of Boris; and there's another scene on the front, where we we will be confronted by a emotional\/visual hurricane showing the images played in Boris' mind. Another scene works as the leitmotif of the film and provides its title - the cranes flying in the sky. This image stands as a the symbol for Nature and its seasons and underlines the final message of the film: Not to give up hope and fight for a better future.

Kalatozov is a great director, this film is visually stunning and it also touched me deeply. It is not just pure technique.

Tatyana Samojlova is perfect as Veronika. What more can I say? The film transcends the time it was made - the action takes place during the Second World War. But it could have happened anytime, anywhere. As long there are wars (great or small) the film and its message will remain relevant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a magnificent, and in many ways impressive film. I saw it on TV as a little boy, with my throat almost strangled with tears, and again today on the magnificently restored Criterion DVD.

Cranes is the very essence of the War Weepie. Imagine Umbrellas of Cherbourg with no music and no color, or Waterloo Bridge with no class consciousness.

Tatiana Samoilova, a cross between Vivien Leigh and Bjork, is deeply affecting as a pretty girl whose fianc\u00e9 enlists and doesn't write or come back.

The fianc\u00e9, Boris, dies on the front, and his death scene is indescribably romantic. Very daring too, because so close to \"over the top.\" But that scene will stay with you.

Although the Soviets were so defined by WWII, the movie is quite unspecific, and more powerful for it. The pre-war and post-war scenes have a very 1957 feel. There is no attempt at period detail. The whole film becomes more and more stylized, until the Siberian scenes, which feel like a modern opera set (that is a compliment). The cathartic final scene is milked to its last drop - there again, comparable to Cherbourg. The production feels like a big budget (those staircase scenes must have cost a pretty kopek).

Go for it. Don't expect a bitter socialist pill (although it is, of course, very sad). The Cranes are Flying is an impressive slice of world cinema, quite advanced considering where and when it was made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you believe that any given war movie can make you really feel the war, you need to see \"Letyat zhuravli\" (called \"The Cranes are Flying\" in English). It tells the story of Veronika (Tatiana Samoylova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov), who are in love on the verge of WWII. They are walking along the waterfront, watching the cranes fly by, when the war starts. Boris is promptly sent off to war. Veronika hides out with a family and ends up marrying the son, whom she does not love. Boris, meanwhile, continues trotting through the countryside, fighting the Nazis and experiencing all the horrors of war, until he he runs out of energy. When Veronika - working in a military hospital - receives this news, she refuses to accept it, until Boris' body arrives home on one of the trains. Simultaneously, the radio announces that Germany has surrendered and the Allied Powers have won the war; the Soviet Union lost 27 million citizens, but it's the start of a new era.

This movie did a very good job showing the human impact of the war not only in the battlefield, but also how it affected the civilian population. This is definitely a movie that everyone should see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie on TCM last night, all excited expectation, having last seen it (twice) in its memorable 1957 release in Toronto. I told my wife, who hadn't seen it before, to watch for the thrilling long tracking shot, no cuts, where Veronika is seen on a bus on her way to find her Boris. In a hand-held frame that certainly predates the modern Steadicam, the shot then pulls back up and cranes (pun unintended) over the street as she exits the bus, and darts among the tanks to cross the road. THEN I remember that, no cuts, we follow her up close to the fence as she peers through, anxiously looking for him, but does not find him. But we do continue to follow Veronika as she searches the faces of harried recruits and their emotionally racked women, all extras, and each one a gem of riveting Stanislavskian behavior. How, one wonders, did Kalatozov and his cameraman Urusevsky set up this extraordinary sequence. But what did I see in this version? After crossing the street dodging the tanks, the scene abruptly ended, and cut back to scenes at the apartment, before continuing to the soldiers and their families at the fence. Seems to me that this film was not only restored, but also re-edited. What a downer!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is undoubtedly one of the greatest landmarks in history of cinema. By seeing this film,we can only retrospectively notice that world cinema in 1950s had such a purely humanistic dramaturgy,such a strong and adequate use of sound-image montage,and almost religious admiration of ethical choices in human life. Cinema was then not only one form of arts. It was much higher than ordinary life and it gave many people hope to live after the tragic war. It is said, that even Picasso was moved and cried that such a work of art can appear only once in 100 years! Audience that time was also different. I read that after seeing Kurosawa's \"Ikiru(Live)\" in its first release, young couple quietly told each other,\"It is a good film, isn't it?\". I think,contemporary cinema, though technically developed and opened some new narrative perspective, has lost the most important---reliance of audience.Cienma was once really the most popular art from and, unlike modern fine arts and contemporary music,gave millions of people hope and ideals. In this point of view,\"Letyat zhuravli\" must be in the pantheon of classics of all the time, as \"City light\",\"Ikiru\" and \"La Strada\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In my review just submitted I referred to the young actress lead as Katerina when it should have been Veronika. I was so involved with character and the action I guess that I wasn't that concerned with names. Anyway, she and the film are brilliant. As I said, the cinematography and the director's use of montage are worthy of Eisenstein and his cameraman, Tisse'. The production design is top notch. The placement of actors in the foreground, middle ground and background within any given mise en scene is worthy of study. Stunning, memorable camera movement, and an ending that has an emotional punch that leaves Hollywood films far behind. Gee! Heroic self sacrifice instead of walking into the rainbow. Thanks again, John Hart","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While Boris(Aleksey Batalov)is off to fight in war against the Germans for his Mother Russia, his beloved Veronika(Tatyana Samojlova)marries his conniving cousin Mark(Aleksandr Shvorin)in a moment of weakness shortly after her parents were killed in an air raid over Moscow. Through various trials and betrayals, Veronika will await word or letter from Boris no matter how long it takes, holding hope that he will return to her.

Powerful piece of film-making boasts simply incredible photographic work by cinematographer Sergei Urusevsky. Some of the many magnificently framed, moving shots include the scene where the camera follows Veronika through a crowd of loved ones saying goodbye to each other as she rushes through the mob of bodies to say goodbye to Boris..and doesn't quite reach him even as we watch Boris looking impatiently into the swarm without luck. The sequence after the air raid where Veronika walks up the standing stairs circulating up the destroyed building she once called home and the scene where Mark makes his lustful move on Veronika as another air raid continues just outside the building as wind rustles the curtains and flashes of light emanate inside are just two of MANY examples where Sergei Urusevsky shows his genius at framing images that will last forever on film. But, without the power and tragedy of the story regarding how war can forever shape the destiny of a couple who dearly, deeply love each other, this film couldn't hold up with the beauty of the visual alone. Together, however, we're left with an amazing film..simply a haunting masterpiece from the Soviet Union after Stalin breathed his last breath. I feel honored just have beheld such a great film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here is a movie of adventure, determination, heroism, & bravery. Plus, it's set back in the late 1800s which makes it even more interesting. It's a wonderful, adventurous storyline, and Alyssa Milano is wonderful at playing the wholesome, confident, no-nonsense Fizzy...a great role-model. This is one of my favorite movies. It is a movie to be watched again and again and will inspire you and enrich your life without a doubt. Not only is the storyline excellent, but the movie also has fabulous scenery and music and is wonderfully directed. This movie is as good as gold!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Goldrush: A Real Life Alaskan Adventure is a great tv film for all ages. The movie focuses around \"Fizzy\" (Alyssa Milano) who wants to go on travel for gold in Alaska. The only person who hires her is Pierce Thomas Madison (Bruce Campbell). What comes next for her is an adventure she will never forget. This tv film was just great. The acting is #1 (especially by Bruce Campbell and Alyssa Milano) and I also learned some information about the Goldrush. I recommend this TV film to all without hesitation. It is also based on a true story.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First time I saw this great movie and Alyssa, my star*, playing Frances Ella Fitz, was so great in this movie! It was just so real and her little dog so cute! I saw it the first time when I was like 11 years old and it was the best movie i had ever seen, and you know what? I still think so! 10\/10 ********** = greatest ever!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1929, director Walt Disney and animator Ub Iwerks changed the face of animation with the release of the very first installment of their \"Silly Symphonies\" series, \"The Skeleton Dance\". Iwerks and Disney had been collaborating together since the early 20s, in Disney's \"Laugh-O-Gram\" cartoon series; however, their friendship suffered a tremendous blow when Iwerks accepted an offer by a competitor to leave Disney and start his own animation studio. That was the birth of Celebrity Productions, where Iwerks continued developing his style and technique (and where he created the character of Flip the Frog). While his work kept the same high quality, it wasn't really popular and by 1936 the studio was closed. Later that year, Iwerks was hired by Columbia Pictures, and Iwerks decided to return to his old skeletons for another dance, this time in color.

1937's \"Skeleton Frolics\" is essentially, a remake of the 1929 classic \"The Skeleton Dance\", the movie that borough him fame and fortune. Like that short film, it is set on an abandoned graveyard, where at midnight the creatures of the night come alive and begin to play. The dead rise from their coffins, ready for the show that's about to begin, as a group of skeletons has formed an orchestra, and begin to play a happy tune. Now, it's not easy to be a musician made of just bones, as some of the orchestra members have problems with their body parts, however, the band manages to put a good show and another group of skeletons begin to dance. A lovely couple of them faces the same problems that troubled the orchestra: it's hard to dance with loose body parts. Everything ends at dawn, and just when the sun is about to rise again, the skeletons run towards their graves.

Directed and animated by Ub Iwerks himself, \"Skeleton Frolics\" follows faithfully the pattern set by \"The Skeleton Dance\" years before, although with a crucial difference: Iwerks did the whole film in Technicolor. The bright tonalities allowed Iwerks to create a more visually appealing film, and also to use the many new techniques he had been practicing since leaving Disney, creating even better effects of depth and dynamism than those he conceived before. It is certainly a more experimental film than \"The Skeleton Dance\", although sadly, this doesn't mean it's necessarily a better film. For starters, the film is practically identical to the one he did with Disney, with the only differences being the music (more on that later) and the color effects. It looks beautiful, no doubt about it, but it definitely feels kind of unoriginal after all.

However, it is not the unoriginality of the concept what truly hurts the film (after all, Iwerks executes it in a wonderful way), but the fact that the musical melody created by Joe DeNat for the film is pretty uninteresting and lacks the charming elegance and whimsical fun of the one done by Carl W. Stalling for \"The Skeleton Dance\". In other words, while DeNat's tune is effective and appropriate for the theme, it's easy to forget about it rapidly while Stalling's song has a unique personality that makes it unforgettable. Being a musical film, this is of high importance, and so the mediocrity of the music brings down Iwerk's flawless work of animation. Personally, I think that with a better musical accompaniment, \"Skeleton Frolics\" would be remembered as fondly as \"The Skeleton Dance despite not being as groundbreaking, as it's still a fun film to watch.

It's kind of sad that most of the work Iwerks did after leaving Disney is now forgotten due to his poor success, however, it must be said that if Iwerks lacked the popularity of Disney or Fleischer (Disney's main rival), he did not lack the quality of those companies' films. It was probably just a case of bad luck what made the man who gave life to Disney's mouse for the first time to face failure out of Disney. Despite its shortcomings, \"Skeleton Frolics\" is a very funny and visually breathtaking film, that while not exactly the most original and fresh film (one just can't help but thinking of \"The Skeleton Dance\" while watching it), it definitely reminds us that Iwerk's skeletons are still here to haunt us, and inspire us.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having just seen Walt Disney's The Skeleton Dance on the Saturday Morning Blog as linked from YouTube, I used those same sources to watch a remake done in Technicolor for the Columbia cartoon unit and animated by the same man-Ub Iwerks. The colors, compared to the earlier black and white, are really used imaginatively here and many of the new gags-like when one of the skeletal band players hits a wrong note constantly or when one loses his head and takes another one's off or when one dances with the other with part of that other gone-are just as funny as the previous short. It does get a little repetitious near the end. Still, Skeleton Frolics is well worth seeing for any animation buff who wants to compare this with the earlier Silly Symphony.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Interesting cartoon, included on the DVD of \"The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra\". I especially like the way the color was used in the background art--very artistic for Columbia, whose cartoon department generally had a very low budget (and the results looked like it!)

I do wonder, however, how a certain... um, finger gesture... ever got past the censors. Granted, the gesture in question was seen a lot less frequently in 1937 than it is today. You'd think someone besides the animators would have noticed, though--especially since it's seen three times in the scene in question! And based on the context, I suspect that its inclusion was intentional, something the animators slipped in just to see if the censors WOULD notice!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't believe I rarely ever see this title mentioned by all you eighties horror freaks and I definitely won't be joining all my fellow reviewers here in saying that 'Bloody Birthday' is awful viewing. On the contrary, I enjoyed it very much and I was pleasantly surprised by the ingeniousness and surprise twists it offers. Don't just refer to this film as being 'another 80's slasher' because the victims here are rather unlikely and so are the killers. We're introduced to three cherubic-looking youngsters who were all born during a solar eclipse. At the moment they were delivered, planet Saturn was blocked by both the sun and the moon and, due to this, the kids are emotionless and seemly without conscience. This really starts to show around their tenth birthday as they go on a merciless killing spree.

Granted, this stuff is incredibility far-fetched and even slightly offensive but, seriously, who cares? Unlike many other horror films from this period, it at least attempts to bring something original and imaginative. For once, the kids' acting is good and the entire film has a creepy atmosphere and grizzly music. The murders sequences are grim and tense, and it's always eerie to see them getting committed by angel-faced kids. I don't know who hired the 3 kids but they did a good job. Especially the girl and the kid with glasses are highly memorable. The bleak images of the heartless trio remind you of classic highlights, such as 'Village of the Damned', 'The Bad Seed' and 'Children of the Damned'. This film is nowhere near as memorable as these milestones but great fun and not one horror lover will regret watching this.

Bloody Birthday was written and directed by Ed Hunt. Not particularly the greatest genius in cinema, but a pleasantly deranged fella who also brought us immensely entertaining cheesefests like 'The Brain' and 'Starship Invasions'. If all this isn't enough to convince you yet, Bloody Birthday has a lot of nudity. And not just any nudity, but a topless dance-act by MTV-VJ Julie Brown. Oh, and keep your eyes open for a completely redundant cameo by Joe Penny, later the star of TV-series 'Jake and the Fatman'. Check it out!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An absolute classic of 80's scare flix. This one isn't like any other as it pits pint-size, wild-eyed, psychotic youngsters with an urge to kill against all the grown-ups in town. Bud from JUST ONE OF THE GUYS (80's gold again) plays one of the killer-kids and he's paired up with one of the little girls Jake Blues tries to purchase in the BLUES BROTHERS. There is a third blond boy, but he keeps disappearing from the movie for whatever reason. The violence is hilarious at times and also surprisingly gruesome in spots. The demonic gang of smiling kids, though somehow possessed by extra-planetary means, bear little resemblance to the droid-ish Children of the Damned, who never thought to use pistols, crossbows and shovels to kill those pesky adults. Julie Brown (not Downtown Julie Brown-the other one) shows her rack, like three times, as she dances around in her bedroom. This movie is a rarity that I cannot believe I missed growing up in the 80's. This would have been my absolute favorite movie as a kid if I had seen it. Where is the sequel the ending begs for? This movie is just incredible. Seek it out at all costs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is not the scariest of all time, but it is a great example of a campy eighties horror flick -- low budget, no stars, lots of inventive death scenes, and enough nudity to keep the teenagers in their seats. The premise is interesting and fun and the three evil kids play their parts well. A nice starting point for \"Just Say\" Julie Brown exposing her talents early in her career. This film won't be seen by many, but for fans of 80's horror it's a must.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Three ten-year-old children born at the same time during a solar eclipse begin to slyly murder anybody that offends them.

While killer kid movies weren't exactly new at the time of this twisted 80's slasher the theme of children as murderers works nicely for this film. Bloody Birthday does deliver some good chills and suspense, while managing to be a competent killer thriller with some strange qualities. It straddles a fine line between cheesy and creepy, but it does remain entertaining throughout with an interesting plot. There's some strong murder scenes, as well as a good bit of nudity to establish this as a solid slasher guilty pleasure.

The cast does a fairly good job. Young stars Elizabeth Hoy and K.C. Martel deliver some menacing performances, while rising star Julie Brown does a striptease before a memorable murder scene. Veteran star Susan Strasberg does well as the teacher and Jose Ferrer has a cameo appearance.

All around this off-beat slasher entry isn't bad, though it's admittedly not flawless, but it is well worth watching for genre fans.

*** out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sorry about the \"extremely clever\" summary phrase. I don't know what I was thinking, but I really couldn't help myself.

I've been meaning to see 'Bloody Birthday' for a long time and I must say that it was a pleasant surprise to find a copy of this film by accident and for such a low price. And believe me, I live in a small South American village and these things are very unlikely to happen. It's a real shame that some of these 'gems' from the 80s are now almost completely forgotten. 'Bloody Birthday' is one of those movies that surprisingly ages well enough to remain watchable nowadays. Not a masterpiece for sure, but still entertaining and guess what?... it doesn't really have unintentionally funny scenes. I know it's a shocker if we keep in mind that this is a low budget flick from the early 80s about a group of evil children who kill people. But trust me, the movie manages to remain respectable and watchable for the most part.

In 'Blood Birthday', the story revolves around three children who are born during a a total eclipse. According to astrology, during eclipses, the sun and the moon block Saturn, which controls emotions. As a consequence, the three children who are born that day, eventually become uncaring and evil. Since they don't experience any feelings of remorse whatsoever, these 10-year-old kids gang up against basically everyone who stands in their way, including their own parents and siblings... and kill them! The body count increases day after day and the police authorities believe that there's a psychopath lurking around the place. In the meantime, Debbie, Curtis and Steven, don't hesitate to keep butchering people, since nobody seems to suspect of those sweet angel faces (?)

Like I was saying before, 'Bloody Birthday' is surprisingly NOT funny. I know I said that before, but I'm truly surprised by this. I was expecting some hilariously bad scenes, but the movie proved me wrong. True, it's not exactly what most people would consider a 'serious' horror movie, but if I have to be fair, I'd say that the story is decently executed. One of the most important reasons why one would normally expect laughable situations (like I did), it's because in these kind of movies in which the main villains are children, the young actors tend to be plain awful and they make the whole thing laughable. Let's face it: kids tend to be horrible actors, which is understandable and we can't blame them for that. But to my surprise, the three young actors who played the merciless killers in this film, looked very disturbing and not at all funny. The rest of the actors are also good and if you're a George Clooney fan, you can see his uncle playing a doctor in this movie. Yeah, I know right?... who cares?. Also, Julie Brown, the great actress, singer, comedienne and gay icon, gives a solid performance as the naughty older sister and in case anyone is interested in nudity: she also strips in one of the scenes and she looks great naked. Too bad she didn't have more time on the screen though! Julie is 'absolutely fabulous':P

So basically, this movie is fine if you're in the mood for some modest horror from the 80s. My only objection regarding 'Bloody Birthday' would be the way to justify the children's motives. This is perhaps one of the lowest points of the film. Let's see: if children who were born during an eclipse end up being heartless killers, then how come these three were the only ones who actually murdered people? I'm sure there were other children who had been born the same day... and during other days of total eclipse too, oh well!. Overall, no big deal, it's just a simple observation, that's all. I've seen worse, trust me. Take 'The Children' (1980) for example, in which the precocious killer get their evilness after being turned into zombies by toxic cloud. No, believe me, 'Bloody Birthday' is far more decent and if you enjoy simple slashers, you're going to enjoy this one very much.

So, now you know: you're invited to the children's birthday party... and the hosts will be serving a delicious poisoned cake for you and the rest of the guests. Come on, you can't miss it ;)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is great. 80's sleazy slasher movie about three kids born during an eclipse, so they kill everyone they see. The reason they kill makes practically no sense, but it just adds to the charm of this movie. And dang, these kids are crazy, especially Curtis. If you've seen the movie, you know who I am talking about. That kid's vicous! Although the movie doesn't have much gore, it is entertaining, and for some reason you kind of care about the characters. It also has some nice nudity. Has some decent acting as well, really a decent 80's slasher movie, it's worth a look if you ever get the chance to see it. You'll have nightmares about those darn kids though, I guarantee you!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This agreeably perverse and oddball early 80's teen body count flick may never reach the astonishingly bent pinnacle of the deeply unsettling and criminally underrated murderous moppets movie \"Devil Times Five,\" but it's still an above average killer kid opus nonetheless.

The slim, but serviceable plot centers on a trio of misfit tykes -- two bratty boys and one creepily twinkle-eyed, albeit angelic-looking little girl -- who are all born during a solar eclipse on June 9th, 1970. When the strange antisocial trio, who stick together in a tightly self-contained and exclusive circle, reach ten years of age they suddenly go homicidally bonkers and declare open season on the hapless, unsuspecting local yokels of the heretofore sleepy and peaceful California suburb of Meadowvale. Writer\/director Ed Hunt, the usually incompetent unsung hack responsible for such wonderfully wretched clunkers as the delightfully dopey \"Starship Invasions,\" the uproariously inane Jesus Christ vigilante parable (!) \"Alien Warrior,\" and the stunningly silly \"The Brain,\" does a pretty solid and capable job here: the kill scenes are abundant and reasonably brutal (the arrow-through-the-eye gag is especially nasty), there's a sizable smattering of gratuitous nudity and soft-core sex, a goodly amount of tension is neatly created and maintained, some nice dollops of dark humor punctuate the arrestingly warped mayhem, and the surprise grim ending manages to be truly jolting.

Moreover, the top-drawer cast further elevates the proceedings to the perfectly watchable and absorbing: Jose Ferror as a small-town doctor, future \"Jake and the Fatman\" TV series star Joe Penny as an amateur astrologer, \"The Prey\" 's Lori Lethin as the plucky babysitter heroine, Susan Strasberg as a bitchy school teacher, \"American Ninja\" 's Michael Dudikoff as a chowderhead jock, and Cyril O'Reilly (the lonely misanthrope vampire in the hauntingly melancholy \"Dance of the Damned\") as a libidinous teen dude who gets bagged while doing just what you think with some naked hot chick in back of a parked van. Billy Jacoby (who went on to star in such late 80's direct-to-video dross as \"Dr. Alien\" and \"Demonwarp\"), Andy Freeman, and especially the eerily adorable Elizabeth Hoy are genuinely creepy and convincing as the terrible troika of chillingly evil and amoral rugrats. And, yes, that's none other than Julie Brown, the brassy comedienne who scored a surprise Top 40 hit with the hilarious novelty tune \"The Homecoming Queen's Gotta Gun,\" as the lovely, vacuous, full-breasted redhead bimbo who does a great lengthy, totally extraneous, yet still sizzling and much-appreciated nude striptease while dancing in her bedroom to a cheesy blaring rock song! All in all, this baby sizes up as a sturdy and satisfying slasher item.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bloody Birthday plays on the assumed innocence of children and shows them as bloodthirsty monsters. Steven (Andy Freeman), Curtis (Billy Jayne;credited as Billy Jacoby), and Debbie (Elizabeth Hoy), were all born on the same day during an eclipse. Besides sharing a birthday, they also share a love of murder (and they're not picky about who they kill either). Young Billy, Elizabeth, and Andy play the parts of these emotionless monsters quite well but they know when to put on the charm too. But they can't go on fooling everyone. This is an overall good horror flick, its not too unrealistic, there are a few good moments of suspense and the kids portrayed the roles well, (the grown-ups are pretty hammy though). I'd say its well worth seeing, (I own a copy myself).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Story about three eclipse (maybe even Indigo, ha) children beginning their love for murder. Oh, and the people who are \"hot\" on their trail.

Bloody Birthday, a pretty mediocre title for the film, was a nice lil surprise. I was in no way expecting a film that dealt with blood-thirsty psychopath kids. And I may say it's also one of the best flicks I've seen with kids as the villains. By the end of the movie I seriously wanted these kids to die in horrible fashion.

It's a really solid 80s horror flick, but how these kids are getting away with all this mayhem and murder is just something that you can't not think about. Even the slightest bit of investigation would easily uncover these lil sh!ts as the murderers. But there seems to be only a couple police in town, well by the end, only one, and he seemed like a dimwit, so I suppose they could have gotten away with it. Haha, yeah, and I'm a Chinese jet-pilot.

Nevertheless, this movie delivered some evilass kids who were more than entertaining, a lot of premarital sex and a decent amount of boobage. No kiddin! If you're put off by the less than stellar title, dash it from your mind and give this flick a shot. It's a very recommendable and underrated 80s horror flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Three children are born during a solar eclipse and ten years later this has somehow caused them to grow up without consciences. As their simultaneous tenth birthday celebrations approach, they become cunning and calculating cold-blooded murderers. Nice-girl local teen Joyce Russel (Lori Lethin) finds herself confronting these little terrors when most others are falling for their angelic demeanors.

Hearkening back to films like \"The Bad Seed\" and \"Village of the Damned\", this films' premise of evil children may not be wholly original but it's still pretty disturbing. All three of the child actors - Elizabeth Hoy, Billy Jacoby, and Andy Freeman - are chillingly convincing. Director Ed Hunt and his co-writer Barry Pearson maintain the unpleasant yet compelling mood for the duration of the film; they go so far as to have the little girl charge admission for an unwilling peep show involving her older sister (future stand-up comedienne and MTV personality Julie Brown, whose striptease is a real eyeful).

Name actors Susan Strasberg, as an icy teacher, and Jose Ferrer, with barely any screen time as a doctor, add to the proceedings with their presence, while K.C. Martel, one of the youngsters from the original \"The Amityville Horror\", is very likable as Joyces' kid brother. Other familiar faces like Ellen Geer, B-movie he-man Michael Dudikoff, Cyril O'Reilly (\"Porky's\", \"Dance of the Damned\"), Joe Penny ('Jake and the Fatman'), and William Boyett (\"The Hidden\") can be seen as well.

Touching upon such parental fears as children playing with guns that they've discovered and being locked inside old refrigerators, \"Bloody Birthday\" is a little more than just a slasher variation with kids as antagonists. Aided and abetted by Arlon Obers' music score, this film sticks in the memory more than some of its brethren, without lots of gore to fall back on (although that arrow through the eye gag works quite well).

Bleak, nasty, and downbeat, \"Bloody Birthday\" is worth a look for the curious.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Three kids are born during a solar eclipse and turn into vile murderous little tykes who're above suspicion by everyone, save for Joyce (Lori Lethin) and her younger brother Timmy. That's the story in a nutshell. The acting in this one is tolerable for the most part. Notable for MTV-J Julie Brown (not the 'Downtown' one) showing some skin, and a very early part (albiet small) for Michael Dudikoff. Not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but in the 'killer kids' sub-genre it's a bit of a guilty pleasure.

Eye Candy: Julie Brown shows T&A (the only film thus far, to claim that honor); Sylvia Wright gets topless

DVD Extras (R1): 16 minute interview with Producer Max Rosenberg (wherein he insults the director AND Canada, great stuff); Biography of Ed Hunt; and trailers for \"Kiss of the Taratula\", \"Don't open the Door\", & a red-band one for \"Homework\" (which features nudity)

My Grade: B-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought I was going to watch another Friday The 13th or a Halloween rip off, But I was surprised, It's about 3 psycho kids who kill, There's not too many movies like that, I can think of Mikey, Children Of The Corn and a few others, It's not the greatest horror movie but it's a least worth a rent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Three children are born at the exact same time,during a lunar eclipse.Just before their 10th birthday they embark on a killing spree.\"Bloody Birthday\" is a typical slasher from early 80's.It's a pretty average stuff with plenty of nudity.The evil children never generate any menace and there is almost no suspense.There is also no gore or scares in \"Bloody Birthday\",but the film is mildly entertaining.Unfortunately no real explanation is provided for the kids sudden homicidal mania.The murder scenes are quite gruesome for example we've got death by handgun,baseball bat,skipping rope and shovel.So if you're a fan of early 80's slasher movies give this one a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know little or nothing about astronomy, but nevertheless; I was, at first, a little sceptical about the plot of this movie. It follows three children that were all born during a solar eclipse and so have no emotion, and thus (naturally) become ruthless serial killers. The plot does sound ridiculous at first, but once you realise that a solar eclipse blocks out Saturn and, as you know, Saturn is the emotion planet, it all falls into place; makes complete sense and it's then that you know you aren't simply watching another silly 80's slasher with a pea brain plot. Thank god for that! Seriously, though, Bloody Birthday is based on a ridiculous premise, but it more than makes up for that with it's originality. Having a bunch of kids going round slaughtering people may not be the most ingenious masterstroke ever seen in cinema, but when given the choice between this and another dull Friday the 13th clone - I know what I'd choose.

Also helping the film out of the hole that some people would think it's silly plot dug it into is the fact that it's extremely entertaining. Many slashers become formulaic far too quickly and the audience ends up watching simply to see some gore. This film, however, keeps itself going with some great creepy performances from the kids (which harks back to creepy kid classics such as Village of the Damned), a constant stream of sick humour and a small, but impressive for the type of film, dose of suspense and tension. One thing that I liked a lot about this movie was the vast array of weaponry. There's nothing worse than a slasher where the killer uses the same weapon over and over again (cough Halloween cough), but that's not the case here as Bloody Birthday finds room for everything from skipping ropes to bow and arrows. There wasn't any room for a chainsaw, which is a huge shame, but I suppose not every film can have a chainsaw in it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not for the squeamish, but the number of twists, inventive uses of situations using vampire mythology, gorgeous visual extremes, together with interesting and quirky characters make this one of the most stunning horror films I've ever seen. It descends into utter madness along with characters, but never seems exploitative or horrific without purpose. There are copious amounts of bloodletting accompanied by some nasty sucking and squishing sounds, but also subtle moments where you laugh out loud. As he tends to do, Chan-wook Park keeps you off center with leaps in time and plot and situation that you have to fill in for yourself forcing your involvement in the story and characters.

And there's a lot of literal leaping. Keeping in the vein of vampire myth (pun intended), they have superhuman strength and can nearly leap tall buildings in a single bound (to coin a phrase). The first time our heroine is carried by the across the tops of buildings by the troubled vampire priest, it has all the magical romance of Lois Lane and Superman - but this romance becomes increasingly disturbing - but driven by a strange and conflicted 'love affair' not by mere horror.

The acting is superb, particularly OK-vin Kim, the gorgeous actress in the female lead role who, at 22, shows a range that is remarkable. The character borders on a kind of black widow film noir type. She careens from innocent to impish to vixen to demon with utter conviction. This is a really smooth and nervy performance.

If you love real art in horror, or are a fan of Oldboy - don't wait for the video, see it immediately.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you love Chan-wook Park, you know what to expect. His films are brutal, poetic, tragic, and artistic, with splashes of very grim humor. THIRST is clearly Park's style, and I loved every second of it, from the cinematography (every shot is gorgeous and creative) to the story, which blends Shakespearean tragedy, murderous love, Gothic horror, and layered character drama. The characters are complex and there is plenty of moral ambiguity to go around. Even the most sociopathic character evokes sympathy. The direction is restrained and the performances are nuanced - like SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE, there are too many subtleties to take in on the first viewing. Chan-wook Park is an intelligent, bold, consistently surprising filmmaker. It's unpredictable - scenes go from brutal and heart-wrenching to laugh-out-loud hilarious in an instant. This is closer to LADY VENGEANCE then SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE as far as being over-the-top and comical. But, like LADY VENGEANCE, it's incredibly rich, thought-provoking, and rewarding.

If you like beautifully told vampire stories (LET THE RIGHT ONE IN) or are a fan of Chan-wook Park, seeing THIRST should be obvious. Easily one of the best films of 2009.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thirst

I found that this film was beautifully crafted. The cinematography was well above excellent. I though almost any frame could be frozen, and you would have yourself an exquisite photograph. The use of color stands out most. In many instances the camera was gliding through the scene and the work was flawless.

Park Chan Wook's direction was fantastic. He had me believing unwaveringly in his far- fetched universe. There were several touches of verbal and visual humor (of a dark nature) that just added another depth to the picture as a whole.

The acting I would not call outstanding but it suited the film and worked well enough.

For me, the only place where this film lacked was in the story. At times, I will not lie, the goings on between characters just did not make sense. Sometimes the story flow was clunky. Overall, I was disappointed with the subdued narrative, and I felt it ran a little too long.

But I still recommend this film, for its vision, its visual flourish, its dark humor, and at the end of the day, it is an interesting film even if imperfect. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I won't bore you with any synopsis, chances are you already know them. And hopefully you are already familiar with Park Chan-Wook's work.

I STRONGLY disagree with some of the other commentators in saying that \"Park has not moved on from the vengeance trilogy blah blah blah.\" Because you know what? He HAS!!! The vengeance trilogy were different from each other in style to begin with, how can you even compare the sombreness and subtlety of \"Sympathy For Mr Vengeance\" with the frantic and extravagance of \"Oldboy\"? Park Chan-Wook has incredible style, but his movies don't all share the SAME style! That has been true and remains true with the release of \"Thirst\".

\"Thirst\" is an incredible picture, it literally has EVERYTHING you want in a movie. Jaw-dropping violence, tasteful gore, great humour, incredible suspense and even very realistic sex scenes. The story is so crazy that at no point can you guess what will happen next. I'm so happy to say that Park is back in top form with this fantastic dark-comic-vampire-love-story. Watch it as soon as you can!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the director of Oldboy comes this slick vampire flick. Kang-ho Song stars as a priest who is accidentally changed into a vampire while being cured of a deadly, mysterious virus. His vampirism and priesthood are quite at conflict, but he is able to survive by robbing the hospital's blood bank and unconscious patients who might not mind some siphoned blood. Because of his supposedly miraculous survival, he comes into the lives of Ha-kyun Shin's family. Shin has cancer, and his mother believes that Song can cure it. Unfortunately, Song's vampirism raises his levels of lust to a height where he can't help but fall for Shin's young wife, OK-vin Kim. Kim is intensely interested in the world of vampirism, and the two become lovers. The film from there goes in weird directions that I think one should experience for themselves. What really should be mentioned is Chan-wook Park's mastery of the medium of cinema. My God, I've rarely seen such a masterful visual artist at the peak of his powers. The major flaw of the film is that it's a little incoherent, especially near the beginning. Park is interested in telling his stories mostly in the visuals, which can be difficult to follow at times. But when it works, man, does it fly. The film is also perversely hilarious. The final sequence, easily one of the best of the decade, is simultaneously heartbreaking and delightfully ridiculous. OK-vin Kim should become a worldwide star after this film. She gives one of the best performances of the year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The vampire \"craze\" has, in my opinion, actually proved its worthiness of such infamous categorization. There were many sub-genre films last year from a multitude of countries. I've reviewed many and have a few more to discuss. Forgive my indulgence, but since I've recognized the trend as a phenomenon (which it is and, coincidentally, features my favorite horror staple). I'm going to now move outside of North America for a bit and introduce you to hopefully meaning films that you didn't see as of now.

Of the many effects of Twilight is the creation of \"guy\" and \"girl\" vampire movies. I hate this sexist categorization, which has the effect of polarizing an entire generation of fans into \"sides\". I think men are prone to hate Stephenie Meyer's work (and its offspring) to some degree because they feel some sense of betrayal that an archetype which was always theirs is now liberated. Women may be unlikely to enjoy future \"neutral\" pics since they grew up with ironclad expectations that were enforced four times. We need more directors to create vampire films which either gender is capable of enjoying (unequally) if vampires are going to survive the craze and remain relevant. Cue: Thirst This Korean film was directed by Park Chan-Wook of Oldboy fame. There are two ways to dissect it. Either it straddles between gender expectations and is universally marginally enjoyable, or it is a floundering mess that doesn't decide which target audience it prefers and should therefore be viewed by no one. Don't let me convince you that the film has no inclinations. Its director is a man whose fame is story-driven action films. Its protagonist is male and has a passive-aggressive interest in his lover (more on this later). Still, his desire for a woman he has known both before and after mortal life is not contrived, and his attention is returned. There is a male slant to this picture, yet it is not so one-sided that women could not enjoy it. The same cannot be said of Daybreakers or New Moon.

The plot follows an Emile Zola novel called Th\u00e9r\u00e8se Raquin, which I have not read. According to Wikipedia, the novel is about an affair that develops between a married woman and a single man. He kills her husband during a fishing trip and begins dating her. The two of them are incapable of having sex because they picture the dead man's body between them. They are thus driven to insanity, but care for the woman's ailing mother. At the novel's conclusion, they try to kill each other, discover each other's plans, and commit suicide.

Now, transcribe this nearly 150 year old French novel into modern South Korea and you've got Thirst. Chan-Wook doesn't embellish the story enough to elevate this to must-see. He often ignores many of his own ideas in favor of following his inspiration. I think the most memorable parts are when his scruples are unhinged by narrative. His use of the mother-in-law as the foil for their bad romance is just perfect. See it.

The protagonist is originally a devout Christian who becomes a vampire after a faulty blood transfusion following his volunteering for a new medicine. He thus becomes the god he once was smitten with. People flock to him and view him as a grand healer. OK. That's really cool and could have provided a great basis for his relationship. Yet this idea is given little idea screen time as he changes into a realistic Christ figure who tries to maintain his virtue even though his lifestyle demands that he relinquish it. Instead of confronting the delusional people, he instead sips blood out of comatose hospital patients.

Let's continue with the Christian allusion. The woman tricks the vampire man into killing her husband. Her overprotective mother-in-law suffers a stroke and eventually warns friends of the family of her daughter-in-law's treachery (finger waggles). The man kills her but resurrects her. The two of them invite former friends over and the woman begins mercilessly harassing the humans. The man says enough is enough and decides to drive to a beach and forces her into waiting for sunrise with him. They both die, but he atones for her crimes (and his own but the film portrays her evil more prominently).

The woman character is a caricature, and her profession offers an explanation for her behavior. She is a housewife with no education, while the man is a priest whose mortal life was restrictive. Vampirism magnifies their characteristics. She becomes a monster like one would expect of someone without knowledge. He becomes a demigod with a spirit. His life is how atheists view themselves and her life is how religious people view those without divine intervention.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No pun intended. I'm not going to spoil anything about the story, but it's safe to assume that you already know, what kind of character the main actor portrays. And of course being a priest while being \"naughty\" exaggerates all that. Plus this is the most erotic movie from Park Chan Wook yet.

If you have seen Wook's previous works\/movies you know he is very visual (in a good way) and it shows again here. While it strays away from the vengeance theme of his prior movies on the surface, it still has quite some heat hidden underneath. And when that boils, quite a few bad things start to happen. But through all that dark, there also moments of light (fun) to be had too. A very stylistic and though provoking movie, that lives outside the mainstream and does a very good job ...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now that I have seen it, it was NOT what I was expecting, at least not until the very END. I read some of the other reviews before picking up a used copy of this from Amazon and was glad I did. Having been first introduced to Park's work via Oldboy, I was curious to how he'd treat the genre and was rather pleased at the clever manner in which he executed it. I think Park has matured in terms of presentation because while Oldboy and some of his other work has very nice and deliberate camera work, he has some nice innovations in Bakjwi that I had not seen in other vamp movies. For example the scene where Father Hyeon is realizing the \"beast\" growing within him as he gives his shoes to the always barefoot Tae-ju and he is able to SEE the blood pumping through Tae-ju's skin and his eye's widen in blood-lust for it. That was a nice effect. I was also happy that Park did not CG the crap out of the movie and the is in fact very little CG at all. I came away from Bakjwi being totally set up to think one thing was going to happen and get taken for a ride in true Park fashion. Additionally, I liked that Park played with a little symbolism and reversal whereas we don't usually get this is Asia cinema. During the beginning of the movie we see the plot develop slowly and get to know the characters and you feel like an invisible observer to the thing that are transpiring. Park treats you a little like Ghost of Christmas future coming to show you, albeit a bit boringly, what life is like outside your world. Ah, but then we start to feel a little kinship with the befallen Father and his burgeoning lust for Tae-ju and conflict with duty as a priest. We almost start to root for them even until Park not so nicely slaps us back into reality and we really see that in the end Bakjwi is a movie about moral dilemma and right and wrong. It won't spoil it if I tell you to watch Bakjwi from the mindset of a priest and I think you'll come away from it with what Park wants you to come away with. Don't expect Oldboy and stylization because that's not what you'll get here. A very interesting take on the genre indeed. Those who missed the MANY literary elements and religious allusions watched some other movie, not Bakjwi. After Bakjwi, watch Let The Right One IN, it's also not what you'll expect either.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After watching Oldboy I was a little disappointed by the rest of Park's work, some of it is good but it never approaches the level of humour and originality that Oldboy had. This one does, it is nothing like Oldboy in plot or style but the same level of quality is there.

The acting is good with Kang-ho Song, OK-bin Kim and Ha-kyun Shin delivering excellent performances. Kim in particular manages to swap from the creepy horror scenes to the surreal comedy without the slightest misstep.

The plot is strange with lots of twists and turns and takes a big swipe at the vampire clich\u00e9s.

The directing is spot on with tons of pace and humour throughout and some of the most memorable scenes I have ever seen. It does boast what is probably the weirdest love scene you will ever see.

This is just a great film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Korean cinema has the ability to turn genres on its head, and the latest by the celebrated director Chan-wook Park is a tale of a good pious priest who becomes a vampire. Add a temptress leading him astray and a cast of eccentrics and you have a wonderful recipe.

Directed in part in a style similar to the \"Sympathy\" trilogy it's as sumptuous as it is dark. Steering clear of clich\u00e9 it does offer some new tricks in the overdone vampire genre. Its an existential movie trying to capture the moral conundrum of how exactly a person has to choose to live with their conditions rather than revel in the blood lust. However, the film doesn't take itself too seriously and there is boundless humour throughout.

Our leads play their roles to perfection, playing with our emotions and revelling in the dark humour. There are moments of reflection on the whole moral conundrums involved in the film but its never preachy. Some might find it overlong and it can lull at points but it's worth giving it a chance to the end.

If you like left field films then there are fewer better than this one of late. Dark and engrossing, it will pull in a crowd. One I'd recommend you give a try.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The great thing about Thirst, Chanwook Park's latest film, is that it's the anti-Twilight. Some of you may take that as a minus, but in reality it's a big plus. Park takes the method of vampirism seriously, and as well the torrid love story between Sang-hyeon and Tae-Joo. We see the conflicts of both of the characters- Sang-hyeon being a priest who undergoes a medical experiment that, unbeknownst to him, turns him into a sickly but true-blue vampire, and Tae-Joo with her mother and \"idiot\" brother, the latter is killed by Sang- as in a very strong melodrama. There's nothing terribly weepy or insipid with the story and characters at any point, and the implications put forth from religion early on (Sang, for example, is seen as a healer of sorts since he rose from the dead thanks to his vampirism, even as he just can't be that and knows it) on top of those about good vs evil, push it up into another plane cinematically.

That Thirst also rises up to the awesome standard of artistry that Park has displayed with Oldboy, Lady Vengeance and the underrated I'm a Cyborg but That's OK, should be taken as a given. Thirst is a film with a juicy narrative and bizarre suburban characters, and is shot and edited with an eye for a mood that is part satiric, part romantic\/erotic, part dramatic and lastly fantastical. And it doesn't always treat vampirsim as something of a simple horror movie set-up (though as a horror movie Park has more than his share of scary scenes). It's more akin to the movie Near Dark which never mentioned the word vampire but let you know it was, and treated it with sincerity and a kind of lucid track of attention, and that the disease itself and its effect on a person's existence is perhaps scarier than the killings or bloodshed. Once you see one vampire jump up really high or heal its wounds, you've seen em' all.

Thirst also has a wicked sense of humor, much like Oldboy, only here with a bite (pun intended) meant to emphasize bizarre physical states of being. An example of this can be found with the Priest's predilection of sucking off of blood from people in comas by taking their blood tube and suckling on it on the floor. Or the manner in which Tae-Joo holds on to one scrap of humanity by keeping her mother alive, even as she's had something like a stroke and can only blink her eyes and tap one finger as a means of reacting to the blood-suckers who've brought pain and horror to her home. But these moments are like icing on the cake to make it a complete experience. What makes Thirst last in the mind is how elements come together, of drama and existential pains, of a Bunuelian-surreal sense of Catholicism (I especially loved the dynamic between Sang-hyeon and the other priest who gives his arm up for blood-sucking but really wants to be a vampire too), and of the erotic: the scenes where the priest finally gives in to Tae-Joo are incredible in their pace and length of shots and how real it gets. Not in a pornographic manner, but in the sense of these characters' release and escape, which doesn't last long over the scope of the story.

If it's not as great as Oldboy, it's not something to carp about. Not all films Chanwook Park directs will reach the stature of his masterpiece (and, at the least, he'll always be known as the man who directed that movie). But Thrist is an excellent addition to his oeuvre, and to the serious streak of vampire movies in general. The film-making is crisp and exciting and even dangerous (and what a white room of 'daylight' the characters live in!), the humor is dark and hilarious, the acting is intense and moody- especially from subtle strokes from Song Kang-ho and the quirky evil and surprising vulnerability from Kim OK-vin, and the ending, when it does finally get there, is one of those truly superb vampire-movie endings you'll be talking about for years, in a good way. In a battle between Thirst and Twilight, Thirst takes the knock-out in the first round. Between Let the Right One In or Near Dark, it's tougher to call. 9.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chan-wook Park, you have to hand it to the guy. In my eyes, he's not only a brilliant director but a brilliant director who can turn his hand to any genre and often provides something refreshing yet still ultimately satisfying.

Thirst is, essentially, a vampire tale but one that plays fast and loose with some of the \"rules\" of the subgenre. Kang-ho Song plays Father Sang-hyeon, a man who unselfishly gives himself over to a research program and then unselfishly kind of catches the disease they are trying to cure, dies and comes back. All thanks to the blood he was transfused with. Being the only one out of five hundred to survive, he becomes quite the celebrity to those who know him and all he wants is to get back to normal. Normal, however, now involves being able to leap great distances without injury, wanting to drink blood and getting severely hot under the collar when rays of sun get on his skin. It's not long before he's living with a rather dysfunctional family unit who knew him in his childhood and while he hides his new, strange lifestyle he finds himself drawn into a complex love triangle, becoming more acceptable of darker thoughts and sliding down a slippery slope that could lead him from man to beast to monster.

Deftly blending a number of genres, Park's movie felt much fresher and more original to me than Let The Right One In (to use a recent example) and genuinely impressed me with it's approach to material that could easily have felt as well-worn and rehashed as any number of other vampire movies we've seen over the years. It's a mixture of horror, melodrama and comedy while also pondering ideas such as strength of faith, the power over life and death, the downside of immortality, etc, etc.

Some people have complained that this genre-blending approach weakens the movie but I personally found that it was a lively, entertaining and always enjoyable movie helped by a great central performance from Song as the tortured priest and fantastic turns from a supporting cast with no weak links. Many characters get to move through a range of emotions and all do so with skill and believability, especially the young woman (played by OK-vin Kim) who becomes the object of the priest's love, lust and affection.

Fans of Asian cinema (and Park in particular) and also fans of Poe's \"The Tell-tale Heart\" (watch and learn) should lap this up, it's yet another classy movie from a man who seems to take everything in his stride and always manages to put out nothing less than solid entertainment.

See this if you like: Cronos, Near Dark, Dellamorte Dellamore AKA Cemetery Man.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Oldboy' director Park Chun-wook returns with what must be one of the yuckiest and at the same time most serious vampire flicks in movie history.

Trusting the latest Hollywood fad, vampires these days are supposed to be rather nonviolent, asexual, love-lorn chevaliers instead of the evil rampantly sexual blood-sucking mind-manipulating man-beasts of yore. This is the film you want to see if you want to remember the sticky thrills of the past... well, at least in the second half.

'Thirst' starts out with a lengthy character exposition culminating in a slightly different love story. The vampire transformation of a priest is, over quite some time, sidelined by the romantic and sexual aspects of the story, which makes for some awkward viewing. But the last 40 minutes or so are surprisingly gory. Well, maybe not so surprisingly if you know 'Oldboy' and 'I'm a Cyborg but that's OK', but I guess it's fair to say that 'Thirst' beats Park's earlier films in terms of in-your-face violence.

All in all, be warned that this is neither art cinema nor a horror flick. It may be too disgusting for many and too tame for some. 'Thirst' is original, entertaining and fortunately a little less weird than Park Chun-wook's earlier endeavors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of the Korean movies I've seen, only three had really stuck with me. The first is the excellent horror A Tale of Two Sisters. The second and third - and now fourth too - have all been Park Chan Wook's movies, namely Oldboy, Sympathy for Lady Vengeance), and now Thirst.

Park kinda reminds me of Quentin Tarantino with his irreverence towards convention. All his movies are shocking, but not in a gratuitous sense. It's more like he shows us what we don't expect to see - typically situations that go radically against society's morals, like incest or a libidinous, blood-sucking, yet devout priest. He's also quite artistically-inclined with regards to cinematography, and his movies are among the more gorgeous that I've seen.

Thirst is all that - being about said priest and the repressed, conscience-less woman he falls for - and more. It's horror, drama, and even comedy, as Park disarms his audience with many inappropriate yet humorous situations. As such, this might be his best work for me yet, since his other two movies that I've seen were lacking the humor element that would've made them more palatable for repeat viewings.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A beloved and devoted priest from a small town volunteers for a medical experiment which fails and turns him into a vampire.

Physical and psychological changes lead to his affair with a wife of his childhood friend who is repressed and tired of her mundane life.

The one-time priest falls deeper in despair and depravity. As things turns for worse, he struggles to maintain whats left of his humanity...

The vampire movie should have really been extinct now thanks to the poor efforts of the Twilight and Underworld franchises, but the director injects new blood into the story of the vampire, by putting simple things into perspective.

These vampires have reflections, and no fangs, but still feed and die the same. Making the main protagonist a priest really opens up a can of worms for questioning ones acts. The priest primarily feeds to make himself better, but when he meets his friends unfulfilled wife, carnal instincts set in.

What makes this film intensely erotic is that when the couple consent for the first time, they are experiencing something they have never before, forbidden passion, which makes the scenario all that more sensual.

Chan-Wook adds some much needed humour into the film, but this is only realised in the final third of the movie. We see the daughter lift her mother in the chair in front of everyone, and when she realises her own strength, just puts the chair down and carry on. Hilarious.

and the final act wouldn't be out of place in a carry on film, or even the three Stooges as the couple fight for survival\/death respectively.

CGI is subtle and fantastic, and the scenes with them jumping from building to building is so graceful, you could be watching ballet.

The vampire genre feels fresh and vibrant after this, but more importantly, has the eroticism and intensity that most vampire films are missing these days. It's violent, but from the director in question, i wouldn't expect anything different.

A really interesting story, with fantastic characters and beautiful cinematography.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There's this whole theory of horror that some people adhere closely to that the monsters and the violence should be kept off-screen. Park Chan-Wook throws that concept completely out the window and shows directly what he wants--and what he wants to show is pretty much anything he can think of. Leaving it to the actors and dialog to create subtlety, from a stylistic perspective Park seems willing to do just about anything to get his point across. Whether it's long involved ensemble scenes with the camera whizzing around a mah-jong table or entire weeks confined to a single shot between two other scenes, dialog from the scenes before and after bleeding over them, Park doesn't keep to a specifically structured style but focuses more on telling the entire story of a couple's relationship from virginal remove through utter codependence to utter self-annihilation--and uses vampirism as the link and priestliness as the drama. It's that simple, and that complex, at the same time.

You gotta give him credit. Too many people are ready to compare any modern vampire movie to Twilight, with Twilight almost always being the lesser of the works, but here the stories are actually comparable, but this one is more raw and honest. None of this sparkly coming in the window during the night to talk crap, but anything ranging from the dirtiest, most desperate and virginal sex scene to eventual spousal abuse as the two leads begin to vie for power over one another. It's the same deal--guy and girl meet, girl finds out guy is a vampire, decides to join him anyway, but with no happily ever after, just straight-up limited time as they become forced to keep each other closer and closer and run out of options. The girl's motivations are particularly interesting as one desperately craving power and attention, to a fault, foiled by the guy who just wants to live a good life as best he can under the circumstances, but is a hypocrite who cannot admit that he's merely using his vampirism as an excuse to act against his moral training.

The movie isn't perfect and it does tend to stretch (there's no three act, five act, or any act structure here, just scene after scene of character building and dysfunctional romance), but what's great about it is that Park Chan-Wook is willing to show everything frankly and honestly while delighting the horror sensibilities of tension and gore. He also provides an expertly chosen soundtrack to hit the emotional high-notes in a pretty effective way, too.

--PolarisDiB","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Priest, into profound love and suffering showed not the result of love, but the process of love and salvation has high-souled beauty of human(or vampire?). http:\/\/plaza.rakuten.co.jp\/confuoco\/diary\/200911290000\/

And the love of Femme fatale is not notorious, but lovely in taking the responsible death as a vampire. She did not keep falling deep into the paradise lost, but decided to leave human alone. Fragile, but lovely Femme fatale! This movie made me think about suffering between human and vampire, that far beyond priest, and salvation. Also I thought about love. Adam was not so responsible for Eve's but this Adam(priest), sacrificial and responsible to pick Eve up from the Paradise Lost, vampire's world. Another Symphonic Poem of Adam & Eve, Paradise Lost.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm the first to recognize that Chan-wook Park's Thirst is exceptionally well made, but spending over two hours with Tae-joo(OK-vin Kim)is enough for anyone to tolerate for such a length of time. Sang-hyeon(Kang-ho Song)is a priest desiring to volunteer for experimental studies on those willing to subject themselves to rigorous injections concerning a specific virus which kills infectiously. Instead of legitimately dying, Hyeon becomes a vampire, always yearning for the sustenance blood gives for him to fight off an infectious disease which returns causing the symptoms which flat-lined him to begin with(..bumps\/sores, and the body vomits blood). Sunlight, as is known in the vampire genre, causes torturous death if exposed to Hyeon for a length of time. Hyeon falls in lust with Tae-joo, the wife of sickly childhood friend Kang-woo(Ha-kyun Shin). Tae-joo was taken in by Mrs. Ra(Hae-sook Kim), regarded as a puppy, and practically used as a domestic animal to be ordered around. Ta-joo is miserable in this situation and begins a torrid affair she instigates with Hyeon, soon manipulating him into perhaps killing Kang-woo by having him believe she's a victim of abuse. Renouncing his priesthood, Hyeon dives headlong into the relationship with Tae-joo, soon a willing participant in killing Kang-woo. This incident, which Tae-woo contributed to(..using a boat, in the middle of a lake, both proceeded to burying him underwater, Tae-woo keeping him Kang-woo from re-surfacing as he attempted to re-enter)will haunt both, as circumstances arise with Kang-woo \"missing\"(Hyeon got rid of him, where police would not find his corpse). Soon Mrs Ra suffers a stroke(..though, one finger and the ability to blink her eyes contribute mightily as the story progresses, showing that she more aware than they are led to believe), and Hyeon gives Tae-joo a special birthday gift..vampirism. In doing so, Hyeon has created a monster. Tae-joo admits(..though a slip of the tongue)that, in fact, Kang-woo never hurt her, and as she thirsts for blood it is soon realized that killing for a supply doesn't bother her morally or psychologically. Tae-joo becomes such a hand full, Hyeon has to take desperate measures if he is to stop such a menace to society, himself included.

I will say that Thirst is one of the best horror films I've seen regarding 2009. It's a methodical approach Park takes and we are led down a dark road with Hyeon and Tae-joo, as they commit terrible deeds with nothing positive ever to come from their unholy union. Innocent people die because of Hyeon's love(..what once was lust shifts into an obsessive love by the end)for Tae-joo, and it will cease to end if he doesn't make a painful choice. We see inside their heads, their souls, and it isn't always pretty. 2 hours with them can be quite exhausting..but, credit to the director for pulling no punches in regards to devious behavior and how the powers of vampirism can be given to the wrong people. Hyeon, seen as a rather pleasant soul at the opening, accepts \"hell\" for Tae-joo so one could look at Thirst as a unique love story, but not exactly a healthy one.

In regards to the violence, while Park does have a tendency to pull away from extremely graphic details, there's enough sadism involved to perhaps turn the stomach a bit. At the very least, the way the violence is carried out may be certain to leave a lasting impact. The sexual situations between Hyeon and Tae-joo can be pretty heated and erotic, while also sordid and morally reprehensible. The movie, I think, is still quite a complex examination of the lengths one will go to remain attached to an object of affection(lust).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We all know what Chan-wook Park can do. If you haven't seen Oldboy(or the sympathy trilogy for that matter) you are missing out on some of the best films made this century. But i'm not here to talk about them. I'm here to talk about thirst.

This movie is not what you would expect. Yes it is a vampire movie, but at the same time it is also a very twisted tale of romance between a priest and a young girl. I wont get into the synopsis(you can read that above) but instead tell you what this movie has to offer. Chan-wook Park is a master of cinematography and this movie is no exception. With some very surreal scenes backed by intense lighting, he sets the mood perfectly in almost every scene. The movie does start a bit slow, but I felt this was necessary to build a relationship with the characters. Once things start moving along it almost never lets up until the credits roll. \"Thirst\" is predominantly a love story, but not in the same sense that you would think. the relationship between the lead characters is very intense, but at the same time almost disturbing. Chan-wook Park is no stranger to controversy as we know, and this film touches on taboo almost as much as oldboy. The end scene is by far the most powerful in the movie, and perhaps one of the best conclusions to a film I have seen.

Overall this is an exceptional film that I feel all movie buffs should see. It is an exciting(and admittedly different) take on the world of vampires, and the romance is far from sappy or boring. This movie is gritty, selfless, and beautiful in all the wrong ways. Obviously it is not for everyone, but chances are if you are reading this review you are already interested. See it. Do not hesitate","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i hate vampire movies. with that said, this one was very interesting to me. i do want to point out one thing tho. \"bakjwi\" literally means bat in korean and we all know that in many classic vampire stories, you see count Dracula or vampires turning into a bat and fly away or wuheva. We also know that bats are mammals that can fly thus many categorizes them to be \"exceptional.\" As I watched the film, I realized that the theme of bat is deeply embedded in this movie more than just to make the bat-vampire connection.

Duality of human nature = if you ever read aesop's fables, there is this one fable where mammals and birds are fighting and a bat just can't seem to take a side and it tries to play both sides to his advantage. Mammals and birds find out what this bat has been doing and banish the bat out of their lands at the end of the story.

the two contradicting sides of human nature are constantly at battle throughout the film ex. sang-hyun's blind priest friend, sang-hyun's effort to quench thirst and his sexual desire, tae-ju playing both sides, her ordinary boring life vs. her thrill seeking vampire adventure, etc (won't ruin too much, u have to watch the film) and this theme is beautifully presented on a plate with delicious sides of romance, sex, violence, religion, dark-comedy,tragedy, vengeance, you name it!

i feel like many would find this movie boring and too long, but this film is very fresh and new, something that i haven't seen b4 yet. I wouldn't say this is CW Park's best work, but it is mos. def. the strangest to comprehend yet darkly intriguing!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The definition of a vampire is an inhumane corpse supposed to leave its grave at night to drink the blood of the living. Bakjwi nearly nails this concept on the head minus the clich\u00e9 of pointy fangs and neck biting. Being an R rated movie, I knew this was actually going to pertain to vampires actually being vampires. Which means that the characters in the movie are going to do what vampires actually do without restraint and rightfully lack any glamorous moments in comparison to Twilight. Having viewed Chan-wook Park's preceding Oldboy, I had very high expectations of Bakjwi.

I anticipated some awkward plot sequences with our anti-hero, known as Priest Sang-hyeon, and was very impressed by his performance as a holy-man who is forced into this quandary of being humane and obeying his thirst as a vampire. (SPOILER) After the initial premise of him surviving the defective blood transfusion, he starts to crave blood and discovers his super strength and his flying ability. The screen shots do his transition phase without overbearing on exposition. He starts drinking the blood of the dying and those who wish to be euthanized for moral reasons. The oft tragic and dysfunctional love affair the priest has with the manipulative Tae-joo is very riveting as they are played by The Host's Kanh-ho Song and actress OK-vin Kim. The special effects are properly placed in the backdrop and while it doesn't offer anything new in the ways of stunts and CGI, it didn't impose itself into the plot driven and character developed premise. The story and the pivotal plot points are very perverse and grotesque yet very original in its own Korean style.

There aren't many negatives I can say about Bakjwi. Sometimes I ask myself if the priests transition phase could have showed more of the priest having an emotional crisis with his transformation, but then again this would have made the movie 3 hours long. The movie was long to begin with. On the same token, vampires really don't have much in the way of expressing emotions to begin with. As mentioned before, this movie is very tragic, so don't expect anything hopeful while watching this.

Overall, Bakjwi is delightfully dark, morbid and original. I strongly recommend this movie for serious viewers who are past the teenage phase of Twilight. This is definitely the Korean answer to the Swedish Let The Right One In, which is also a good movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"They say that it is always better in horror movies to leave things to the imagination of the viewer- to hide certain details from the audience in order to tickle their sense of imagination, dip into their fears and let that give birth to their darkest thoughts.

That was not the case when I watched Bakjwi, under the American title Thirst. Now playing at select theaters near you. Seems like the film makers did not want to spare you any details. There WILL be blood in this film and you WILL try to look away.

For rest of review please visit http:\/\/without-terebi.blogspot.com\/2009\/08\/thirst-aka-bakjwi.html Thanks and hope you enjoyed reading above.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although at times I was the only one in the cinema who was laughing, this is the main pleasure I took from the beautifully shot \"Thirst\" - laughter. Although sometimes it seemed that the movie had an identity crisis and didn't know whether it was a tragedy or a comedy, the blackest of black humour shone through at regular intervals.

It helped of course that it the standard of acting by everyone concerned was wonderful, and that I was slightly obsessed by the at times wicked leading lady, who was gorgeously elegant no matter how blood soaked and malevolent she became.

I read reviews that suggested this movie was overlong. I didn't think so. In fact the last scenes, moving and hilarious (I mean, the brown shoes....) by turns, were among the best in the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anything Park Chan-wook creates is guaranteed to be unique, brilliant, and very twisted at a minimum. Well, anything that isn't I'm a Cyborg at least. Park's newest film titled Thirst is a vampire romance-erotic-thriller-dark comedy-drama \u0096 yes, that is a lot of adjectives \u0097 inspired by the 19th century French novel by Emile Zola titled Therese Raquin. Park creates a uniquely Korean, and uniquely Park, vision of the vampire mythos and asks the audience to explore the dilemma of a Catholic priest discovering himself having a thirst for blood and the moral and spiritual crisis that would develop. Park delivers on the elements you would hope but definitely falls short of masterpiece quality like Oldboy or even that of Lady Vengeance. Heavily bloated with a narrative that often loses itself much less the audience, Thirst desperately needed another trip through the cutting room. It crawls when it should be running but luckily brings it back home before losing the audience completely. As negative as it may sound the positives definitely outweigh the negatives and another volume has without a doubt been added to the dark and twisted Zeitgeist of Park Chan-wook film.

Check out the rest of our review at www.thefilmstage.com","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wasn't expecting much because of the harsh reviews, and proceeded to enjoy the movie a great deal as a result. Softer colors and less stunning compositions of the shots than some of his previous films, in my opinion, allowed the narrative to take the focus. Though the religious conflict in a vampire flick was commonplace, I felt like many of the other things were not. For example:

how his powers were often revealed through interaction with her.

the very strong and well acted love scenes.

the symbolism of the man they killed to get closer to each other actually separating them even more.

Their strong differences of what it means to be 'vampire' created by their prior life experiences.

the lack of scores of other vampires appearing or being created through the movie.

I've heard and read several things about 'tricks used in other films'. Of course. However, i feel that tricks are used to emphasize what is happening in the scene and I feel that he does this well. I don't need a director to use new tricks. I prefer that the tricks that are used are used well and appropriately, which i feel is the case with this film.

I recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The cinematography is the film's shining feature. Park really knows his stuff when it comes to shooting memorable scenes from behind a camera. Every shot is filled with vibrant colors that leap off of the screen. Every frame of the film seems to tell a story all on its own. I hope there's a Blu-ray release of this film because it will look fantastic. It's rather intriguing to see which elements of the vampire mythology Park used for his vision. Sang-hyeon has to drink blood to survive and to stay looking flawless, has incredible strength, and is vulnerable to sunlight. He doesn't, however, have fangs and also has a reflection in the mirror.

Although I've never seen the film, I couldn't help but feel like this was Chan-wook Park's version of Twilight. The entire middle portion of the film is devoted to Sang-hyeon's and Tae-Joo's love for one another. It felt like the adult version of Twilight, really. There's a lot of blood, nudity, sex, and even a few obscenities thrown in for good measure. Maybe it's the Chan-Wook Park fanboy in me, but I honestly feel like I can guarantee that this is the better film of the two. The psychological aspect that I love about Park's previous films is in Thirst, as well. That's a major factor for me as any film that causes me to think or is unusual in any way winds up becoming a fan favorite. The soundtracks to Park's films always seem to fit its respective film like a glove. Thirst is no exception. While the soundtrack is a bit more subtle this time around, it fit the overall atmosphere of the film rather effortlessly.

The middle portion of the film did seem to drag on longer than everything else in the film. It's weird though as the scenes during that time are crucial to the storyline of the film and it's hard to imagine Thirst being the same film if any of those scenes were cut. Nevertheless, it is my one nitpick of the film.

Chan-wook Park bites into the vampire mythology with Thirst and puts his own dark, psychological twist on it. Park's films always seem to have a specific formula or include most of the following: great writing, beautiful cinematography, a solid cast, some sort of psychological twist that'll mess with your head, and a memorable ending. Thirst delivers on all fronts and will hopefully get more of the attention it deserved during its theatrical run on DVD (and eventually Blu-ray, hopefully).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(This has been edited for space)

Chan-wook Park's new film is a complex film that is not easy to classify. Nominally a horror movie, the central character is a vampire, the film actually has elements of comedy, theology, melodrama, cultural invasion (and its analog of viral invasion of a body), romance and few other things as well. It's a film that has almost too much on its mind. The film takes its own matters and mixes them with classic European literature, in this case Emile Zola's \"Th\u00e9r\u00e8se Raquin\". It's an odd mix that doesn't always gel, but none the less has an incredible power. Here it is almost 24 hours since I saw the film at Lincoln Center (with a post film discussion by the director) and I find my cage is increasingly rattled. Its not so much what happens is bothersome, its more that its wide reaching story and its themes ring a lot of bells in retrospect.

The plot of the film has a will loved priest deciding that the best way to help mankind is to volunteer for a medical experiment to find a cure for a terrible disease. Infected with the disease he eventually succumbs and dies, but because of a transfusion of vampiric blood (its not explained) he actually survives. Hailed as a miracle worker the priest returns to the hospital where he had been ministering to the sick. Unfortunately all is not well. The priest finds that he needs blood to survive. He also finds that he has all of the typical problems of a vampire, and its no not possible for him to go out during the day. Things become even more complicated when he becomes reacquainted with a childhood friend and his family. The priest, some of his animal passions awakened becomes taken with the wife of his friend. From there it all goes sideways.

An ever changing film, this is a story that spins through a variety of genres as it tells the very human story of a man who finds that his life has been radically altered by a chance event and finds that he is no longer who he thought he was. It's a film that you have to stay with to the end because the film is forever evolving into something else. Its also a film that has a great deal on its mind and the themes its playing with are constantly being explored in a variety of ways

The film has enough going on that one could, and people probably will, write books discussing the film.

The two of the strongest parts of the film are its vampiric elements and its romance The vampire part of the tale is brilliant. There is something about how it lays out the ground rules and the nature of the \"affliction\" that makes such perfect sense that it kind of pushes the old vampire ideas aside. Sitting in the theater last night I found myself amazed at how impressed how well it worked. I think the fact that it played more or less straight is what is so earth shaking. Here is a vampire who just wants to have a normal life. It's contrasted with what happens later, it makes clear that living an existence of hunting humans really isn't going to work. Its not the dark world of Twilight or Lost Boys, rather its something else. I personally think that the film changes the playing field from a hip cool idea or dream into something more real and tangible. (The sequence where the powers kick in is just way cool) The romance is also wonderfully handled. Sure the sex scenes are steamy and well done, but it's the other stuff, the looks, the talk, the gestures outside of the sex that makes this special. I love the looks, the quiet stares as the forbidden couple look at each other hungering for each other and unable to act, the disappointment and heartbreak of betrayal both real and suspected, and the mad passion of possible consummation. This is one of the great screen romances of all time. It perfectly captures the feeling and emotion of deep passionate love (and lust). If you've ever loved deeply I'm guessing you'll find some part of your hear on screen, I know I did. The statement \"I just wanted to spend eternity with you\" has a sad poignancy to it. It's both a statement of what was the intention as well as the depth of emotion. The tragic romance will break your heart.

I won't lie to you and say that the film is perfect and great. Its not, as good as the pieces are and almost all of them are great (especially the actors who I have unjustly failed to hail as amazing) the whole doesn't always come together. The various genres, thematic elements and tones occasionally grate against each other. Frequently I was wondering where the film was going. I hung in there even though the film seemed to be wandering about aimlessly.

I liked the film a great deal. I loved the pieces more than the film as a whole. Its been pinging around in my head since I saw it, and I'm guessing that it will do so for several days more. Like or love is irrelevant since this is a film that really should be seen since it has so much going on that it will provide you with enough material to think and talk about for days afterward. One of the meatiest and most filling films of the year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILER ALERT! Don't read on unless you're prepared for some spoilers.

I think this film had a lot beneath its shell. Besides the apparent connections with \"Oldboy\" (and Park-wook's other films), an incestuous relation in this one really disturbed me, and also the subtle erotic theme that hung around all the vampiric, physical action.

The main actor, Kang-ho Song, is terrific in the r\u00f4le of the priest Sang-hyeon - coincidentally, \"sang\" means \"blood\" in some languages - who truly loved Tae-ju, played by OK-bin Kim. Their relationship reminds me a lot of that between Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek in \"Badlands\", where the girl appears psychopathic and the man is basically wrapped around her finger.

Their relationship is one thing, but the girl's mother is entirely different. While moving, she is stiff, one-dimensional and taut, but paralysed, she says all through not moving, or through the wink of an eye.

Park-wook has really, really mastered his cinematography in this film, and owes a lot to Stanley Kubrick; there are a whole lot of beautiful shots strewn throughout the film, some for simple effects and some that require several glances and probably repeated views to fully catch.

The music is quite stock, using mostly strings to accompany the main thespian's monoreaction; it's a very good thing that the character is as withdrawn as he is. While he does very little and loses at that, he seems to instead be a person who thinks a lot. While his love-interest says and does a lot, her actions display very little thought behind it. In my humble opinion.

All in all, a very disturbing film that is not made for action, which isn't even in the same dimension as most things that are about vampires these days; it's magnificent, and repellant at the same time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film powerfully demonstrates the struggle of two women in love in a culture so deeply entrenched in ritual and tradition. All this against a backdrop of an India which itself is struggling for freedom from these same values. This film is both political and personal and never too preachy or idealistic on either front. It is easy to see why \"Fire\" has caused riots in India, but tragic nonetheless. A true film such as this one deserves to be seen by all people of the world, not just privileged westerners.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fairly interesting look at some characters from India's burgeoning middle class. Although India is rapidly modernizing, her culture is not keeping up. This film involves the patriarchal society, where women are not yet truly free citizens. A land of arranged marriages, men who dally with mistresses with total impunity, and women who are expected to tolerate all this, will eventually come up short. I was impressed with Nandita Das, who was quite attractive, and played her character with total earnestness. But I was even more impressed with Shabana Azmi, who I understand is a long-time fixture of Bollywood. Her quiet beauty and low-key psychic suffering was excellent. The lesbian subtext of this film was never particularly erotic, and never titillating. (Darn!) Worth a look for those interested in vastly different cultures.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The thing which makes \"Fire\" even more appealing to watch apart from its magical artistry, is its touch of femininism and rebellion. To my mind, the very character played by Shabana Azmi is a symbol of the Indian feminine protest against the Indian society. The name of the movie and the scene when Radha walks through flames in her kitchen are symbloic of Hindu Mythology's Lord Rama's wife Sita's walking through fire for the proof of her immaculacy, as per the same narrative which appears in the film too. The film could be a great inspiration for women, particularly those in the subcontinent, to search for their liberties and to attain control of their lives.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This intelligent, moving and beautiful film is a study in the ways people react to tradition (reminds me of William Faulkner's novels).

The characters all feel trapped by the weight of the roles they are expected to assume, and seek for a way to live within those roles rather than throw them off altogether. But as the story develops the two wives, trapped in loveless marriages, draw together. Drawing on the strength of their friendship and love, they give each other the courage to abandon their roles.

They have found that living within their traditions is no life at all, it is a sort of living death: without passion, without true connection to others, without fulfillment. Although they know there will be a price to be paid for their rebellion and freedom, it is a price much less dear than the sacrifice called for by a comfortable, predictable existence.

The screenplay is wonderful, the acting marvelous. Near perfect!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's worth boning up on the Hindu pantheon before watching this film. Three main female deities -- wise Sita, nurturing Lakshmi and Kali the Transformer -- as well as three main male deities -- grave Rama, playful Krishna and Shiva the Ender -- are all alluded to. Knowing the folklore as surely every Indian member of an audience does lends a richness to the telling of the present-day story. In fact, one folktale is enacted first on stage, as part of a lesson in spirituality, and then in the movie's \"real life.\" \"Fire\" speaks out against the misogyny and homophobia in the society to which its producers are native, and it does so with a beauty that weaves the message into multiple levels of the viewer's awareness, making it a deeply satisfying presentation. This is the finest film i've seen in the past ten years; very highly recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is such a revered and studied film, a classic among Hitchcock's many, it takes no cajoling to want to watch it again. Yet you think: can it hold up even when the huge (and clever, and amazing) trick of the plot is no surprise?

Yes.

And for starters there is the start, a profoundly beautiful and slick telling of the really the whole story, the gist of it. Two taxis, two men shown with their shoes, each walking onto the train, sitting then across from each other, and, oops, a mistake, a little nudge, and the conversation begins, and we see the men themselves. They are interchangeable.

The tone here is characteristic of Hitchcock, as it is in many horror and suspense films-- cheery and light. We know entering the film, however, that this won't be the case, so already we are worried. What, after all, is about to go wrong?

A lot. In truly Hitchcock fashion, it is a purely innocent man (nearly always a man) who faces injustice, who is trapped by circumstance threatening what is most valuable to him. The innocent in this case, tennis player Guy Haynes, is played with an innocence that is believable--his collegiate politeness in that first scene, for example, as he realizes the other man is a little cuckoo, is just what you or I might do. The not-so-innocent man is the self- absorbed and scarily intelligent spoiled child, Bruno Anthony, played with utter brilliance by Robert Walker. (This uncanny performance is equivalent to that of another Hitchcock wacko, played by Anthony Perkins in Psycho.) So from scene one, on the train (and the train, really gorgeous!), we have the two leads and we have the mind-blowing and utterly simple and ultimately devastating plot, from the first novel by Patricia Highsmith, who also wrote the books behind the two Mr. Ripley movies. And it doesn't hurt that the screenplay was co- written by Raymond Chandler himself, who knows something about economy and clever dialog. And crime.

And of course there is more than just the first scene. What to note? Well, that smarty of a senator's daughter (I thought she was terrific) is Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia, who is still with us (as of 2009; she also had a role in Psycho). And there is a characteristic landmark location for a key scene in the film--the tennis courts in the Hamptons, known to us as the site of the U.S. Open. The fantastic last full scene with the carousel is the only place where Hitchcock moves into a kind of slow and steady montage, building up the suspense by making it surreal. The fear gets positively fattening with the laughing children and the old man crawling underneath it all. And when it collapses in a crash--that's all backprojected on a set, one of the more naturalistic uses by a director known for not worrying about the realism of his back projections.

The photography is that perfect Hollywood stunning without becoming so stylized (as in some noir films) that it is an object in its own right. Look again at the first scene, or the shooting (and editing) of Haynes entering the house for what the audience thinks is a murder. This is sophisticated construction. When we are not completely surprised that it's Bruno in the bed, that only proves that the director has us on our toes. Something unexpected is always expected.

Are there glitches? Who knows? It depends on what kind of falseness you can accept (or embrace) as beautiful style. The scene where Bruno is choking the old woman at a party is both brilliant (the woman, played by Norma Varden, is a caricature so believable it takes your breath away) and marred by his looking at the senator's daughter and being triggered into a deadly trance by her glasses, and her resemblance to his earlier victim. This is a mid-20th Century idea of psychology that intrudes on many of Hitchcock's efforts. (The end of Psycho, for starters.)

The Wikipedia article on the film smartly emphasizes the consistent doubling of things in the movie, from the main characters to the murder victim and the senator's daughter. This echoes in lots of little ways--two men trail him to the tennis court, two men accompany the victim to the amusement park, and so on. There can be too much made of this, but it does supply an aesthetic consistency above and below our consciousness. Don't forget, there are meant to be two murders--it is the lack of the second murder, the inability to create a doubling in that case, that causes Bruno to unravel.

Walker the actor had emotional problems and was institutionalized in the year before this movie was shot, and just afterwards, he died from a reaction to a drug used to calm one of his outbursts. Though he appeared in other films, Strangers on a Train is easily his tour-de- force. Farley Granger had a long career that never quite saw him break into true stardom, though his style can have a peculiar nervous sweetness that really works, especially in They Live by Night.

And if you watch this one for the first or third time, do look for the chilling and hilarious scene at the tennis match where the crowd's heads all move back and forth in unison-- except for Bruno's. He is staring out without moving his head straight at us. As the trailer for the movie says, after this movie, you won't be talking to \"strangers on a train.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have used this movie in my college Ethics courses for over 10 years (also Woody Allen's \"Crimes and Misdemeanors\"--another terrific, multi-leveled ethical study).

It's fiction. I don't focus too much on the unrealistic features of \"Strangers\" because all fictional films are obviously false on many levels. I love the film as gallows comedy, tautly told, with many ironic twists and visual pleasures--even if it's \"unbelievable.\" The story is told so well that I don't even think of criticizing its plausibility (although I must confess that the tennis match seems the weakest part to me--too much Hollywood fluff and not enough real tennis competition).

Some problems presented in the film that hold promise for realistic moral education and ethical discussion:

1. Ethical Passivity: some weaknesses of the Guy character are intended by Hitchcock. A primary ethical insight of the film is the danger of inability to articulate one's moral positions. Guy is unable to effectively block Bruno's crazy proposals at the start. An interesting question is why and how does Guy behave so passively, ineffectively? A possible answer is his depression because of his intense and complicated divorce process.

2. Miscommunication: Guy commits another failure at the start: on the train, to get away quickly, he agrees that Bruno's ideas are all good. But Guy's literal meaning is opposite to his inflected, sarcastic meaning. Bruno takes the literal meaning as an agreement for the criss-cross murders. Guy takes the sarcastic meaning as an escape from any murder agreement. To some extent, near the beginning, Bruno may be partially pretending that an agreement has been struck, to draw Guy further into a web of complicity. Bruno is manipulating Guy; Guy's linguistic ambiguity on the train gives Bruno a chance to put an ethical \"stranglehold\" on Guy. Bruno manipulating Guy may also take on other meanings . . . .

3. Secrecy: Some have speculated about a sexual relationship between Guy and Bruno. It seems at first ridiculous, especially since Guy appears obviously heterosexual in his relationships with Miriam and Anne. However, remember that Guy is also ineffective with both women. Guy appears (stereotypically--it's 1951 remember) effeminate, especially in relationship to Bruno. Guy, the strong athlete, is weak on the inside. Bruno is also conflicted (playing \"against himself\"), appearing facially and physically strong at first but then displaying some \"effeminate\" traits (Bruno's fashion and footwork; his gushing emotionally to Guy in different situations; his receiving a manicure from his doting mother; Bruno kissing and desperately fondling his mother's hand; other more subtle gay stereotypes that hold cryptic meaning from Hitchcock's point of view). I wish I could hear Hitchcock clarify his intended meanings here.

4. Dishonesty and Distrust: Guy makes some colossal blunders in hiding truths about Bruno from family and from police. Guy fails to fully comprehend that admitting fault quickly may be better than a cover-up or a delay in confession. Again Guy is driven by passivity, insecurity, fear--and perhaps a self-hate that is closer to Bruno's own self-loathing than we care to see or to admit. Both Guy and Bruno act out their own parables of impotence.

5. Lack of Evidence: Guy feels a problem mustering the evidence to acquit himself. While quickly going to the police would solve a huge problem, Guy traps himself with his own doubts and insecurities: the absence of desired alibis; the inability of the alcoholic professor to testify on Guy's behalf; the obsessive need to appear politically pristine; and other personality factors that cause Guy to feel defenseless. He is as dysfunctional as Bruno--just not as dangerous (yet one could partially blame Guy for Miriam's murder).

6. Disease and Mental Disorder: an interesting question is how legally responsible is Bruno for the murders? The more ethically incompetent Bruno is as a sick sociopath, the more guilty Guy may be as someone healthy who failed to stand up and morally act to prevent the crimes. Guy's failure is like a man who fails to call the police when a sick friend threatens suicide, and death ensues. One could argue that more than one crime is committed and that Guy is an emotionally hobbled accomplice.

These and many other features of the film make \"Strangers on a Train\" a gem of a morality play, a diamond for philosophical and cinematic reflections.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Looking back at the career of Alfred Hitchcock, it never fails to be surprising how such a brilliant and visionary man could be denied sufficient recognition for how revolutionary he was for the film industry. It is likely a sign of how ahead of his time Hitchcock was, always attempting to push the envelope, and never coasting along with a film made simply for the purpose of being entertaining, but always with a deeper, more poignant motive on his mind. Strangers on a Train, one of Hitchcock's first and more underrated hits, is a perfect example of these traits - an entertaining and suspenseful story, even when viewed over 50 years later, yes, but so carefully and intelligently constructed it stands today as a masterpiece in film technique.

Arguably one of the pioneering \"suspense thrillers\", Strangers on a Train may come across as slightly dated in certain aspects, but it retains every bit of superbly crafted tension as it did back in 1951 (if perhaps slightly less shocking). The brilliant use of cinematography and lighting as well as quick, careful editing are what really make the film stand out, drawing out every possible iota of tension and retaining the audience's focus even in slower scenes. If there was ever any doubt of what a simply masterful filmmaker Hitchcock was, simply watching five minutes of Strangers on a Train should be enough to disavow such sentiments; every shot is so carefully chosen and constructed, all serving to drive the storyline ahead in a particularly innovative fashion. Sadly enough, there are certain moments in the story which are screechingly out of place enough to jar our focus away from the superb cinematography and editing - Bruno being able to reach down to the bottom of a sewer grate is simply unbelievable, and the figure of a stereotypical old man crawling under a wildly out of control carousel provides unintentional comedic relief in what is meant to be the film's most tense and engaging scene. These are only brief moments, but they are enough to stand out as painfully weak in an otherwise stellar film.

But what really makes Strangers on a Train stand out is the story premise. As Hollywood films of late run the risk of descending inescapably further and further into the vat of turgid clich\u00e9e after clich\u00e9e, it's wonderfully refreshing to see a 50 year old film with a premise which actually comes across as smart and original. Sure it's fairly straightforward, but the concept of \"swapping murders\" is simply one that would not fly in films of today's day and age, which makes it all the more entertaining to watch; the film's brilliant screenplay keeps the action flowing at a swift pace while providing us with some wonderfully memorable lines all the while. One can't help but notice the deeper themes Hitchcock is alluding to throughout as well, especially the concept of \"darkness in humanity's heart\", demonstrated by elderly ladies being fascinated and exhilarated by the prospect of murder, as well as Bruno's own cavalier attitude towards death. Hitch also works in many moments of dark humour (Bruno popping a child's balloon with his cigarette is priceless), and irony, shooting suspenseful scenes in happy, easy-going environments, such as the iconic carnival scenes, to create an even more eerie atmosphere. This may be a suspense thriller, yes, but to overlook the brain concealed beneath it would be simply inexcusable.

The antagonistic figure of Bruno (essayed to perverse perfection by Robert Walker, sadly in his last film role, but easily stealing the film from his admittably very talented fellow cast members) is without a doubt what makes Strangers on a Train so memorable, as the character is a marvel to behold. Here we have a simply superbly crafted villainous figure, all the more intriguing by how ordinary and unassuming he seems. Rather than cackling madly and thwarting the hero at every possible moment, Bruno is a calm, controlled, psychotic mess. He speaks of murder in such an offhand tone, yet retains a passionate glint in his eye when discussing different fashions of killing people. Bruno could seem to represent the \"Id\", as Freud would put it, the inner, darker and uninhibited aspects of mankind. It makes an interesting contrast to the hero figure, Guy Haines, and how bland and uninteresting he seems, almost as if to drive home the prospect of evil being much more interesting and appealing than constantly striving to do the right thing.

Yet despite this implied message, Hitch still twists our emotions enough that we root for Guy at every turn, and cheer at each new obstacle he is forced to overcome. It's a testament to actor Farley Granger's talent that despite Robert Walker's villain easily stealing the show, Granger's hero still comes across as sympathetic, still commanding our support even when falling prey to being a far less compelling character. Superb support is given by Ruth Roman, who manages to overcome the clich\u00e9e and be a more innovative and complex romantic interest figure, Kasey Rogers giving a stunning performance as Guy's horrifyingly manipulative and hedonistic first wife, and Patricia Hitchcock, proving that she is far more talented than being simply \"the director's daughter\" would imply. The superb cast (headed by a simply wonderful Walker) really bring the film to life, adding so much more merit to the film than simply Hitchcock's breathtaking stylistics.

All in all, Strangers on a Train may still come across as slightly too dated for certain viewers, but it's still a shock how modern and appealing to contemporary audiences seems, considering it was released half a century ago. Once again, Hitchcock proves his unparalleled mastery of tension and film technique, and the film's surprisingly original and enjoyable premise is alone worth a viewing. Highly recommended to anyone wishing to undertake a brilliantly made but superbly entertaining film experience!

-9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, this is about as good as they come. There are arguments about whether Hitchcock was only a \"master of commercial suspense\" or maybe a \"compulsive technician\" -- or was he really \"deep.\" Nobody knows precisely what terms like that mean, but it's legitimate to ask if, at his best, he could not have been all three things at once.

In this one he seems to be about at his peak. Hardly anything in it is accidental. It abounds with doubt, ambiguity, and wit. And the story is engrossing, Patricia Highsmith apparently having complexes similar to Hitchcock's own.

I'm sure the plot has been thoroughly outlined elsewhere so I won't bother going into it. I'll just point out five on screen incidents that Hitchcock is undoubtedly responsible for.

Bruno Antony (Walker) has followed Miriam (Laura Miller) and her two boyfriends to a carnival at night with the intent of murdering her. She's noticed his attention and is innocently flattered by it.

1. Laura and her two friends rent an electric boat to go through The Tunnel of Love and then to an island in the center of the lake. Walker is right behind them, smiling, in his boat -- Pluto. \"Pluto.\" It's not an allusion to the Walt Disney cartoon character. It's a reference to Pluto, also called Hades, a god of the underworld in Greek and Roman mythology. This tiny touch can't be an accident. And the \"underworld\" that Walker represents is not just a literal hell, but the underworld of the human mind. I hate to say he's a Jungian \"shadow\" but that's what he is. (Did Carl Jung see this movie? He was alive at the time of its release -- but probably not.) 2. Now, this is a deadly serious sequence, right? Walker is a lunatic who is about to murder a woman he doesn't even know. Imagine the way this would have been laid out by most directors. A night-time stalking through a crowded carnival, stealing from shadow to shadow, the killer peering from behind the canvas walls, and so forth. What does Hitchcock show us? When Walker first comes through the gates, concentrating on his victim, a little boy in a cowboy suit, holding a balloon, runs up and shouts, \"Bang! Bang! You're dead!\" Walker jerks his head back in surprise and glares down indignantly at the kid. And when the kid starts to walk away, Walker darts his cigarette at the balloon and pops it, then continues his pursuit without another glance. That's one way Hitchcock treats impending doom.

3. The famous strangling reflected in the fallen eyeglasses, which has been aped innumerable times.

4. Miriam and her friends stop at one of those devices that you pound with a big mallet, sending a kind of hockey puck up the shaft to measure the strength of your blow. One of her boyfriend whams it and the puck doesn't reach the bell at the top. Under Miriam's delighted and admiring gaze, Walker smiles and rubs his hands together, then picks up the mallet, slams it down, and the puck bangs against the bell. She's thrilled. He puts the mallet down, looks at her, grins, and WAGGLES HIS EYEBROWS at her like a ten-year-old showoff! 5. After the discovery of Miriam's body, while whistles blow and people shout, Walker leaves the carnival and encounters a blind man waiting at the curb. Walker takes the old fellow by the arm and leads him across the intersection, gravely holding up his hand to stop the traffic. A macabre joke.

These incidents and others all take place during the ten or fifteen-minutes of the carnival visit. (Robert Walker's performance is exceptional throughout.) It's essentially a kind of invitation to be noirish. (Cf: \"Ride the Pink Horse\") But the menace of the scene is undercut by Hitchcock's insistence on irony and distance. None of the familiar noir techniques are employed. There's nothing really \"creepy\" about it. And the murder itself is hardly a savage one. I don't think that any director other than Hitchcock would have handled it the way he did. It would have been all menace and shadows, hiding places, abortive attempts, scowls instead of grins.

Not that it's an entirely flawless movie. A flawless movie is not yet with us. Some of the middle section is a bit slow going and Farley Granger, although a nice guy, is stolid, dull, and rather stupid. His new girl friend is just dull.

Hitchcock was to treat the misattribution of guilt with deadly seriousness in \"The Wrong Man.\" I'm not sure Hitchcock ever thought about the difference between legal guilt and moral guilt. The latter was imposed on him at an early age by his Catholic education. \"Original sin\" -- you're BORN with it -- and all that. In filmed interviews, he always glibly explained away his fear of the police and of authorities generally by telling a story about his father taking him to the police station to put a scare into him after some peccadillo. We're justified in asking if that was only what psychoanalysis calls a \"screen memory.\" I hope you get the pun. I know, I know. It's strained and inept but I spent a good deal of valuable time thinking it up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of Alfred Hitchcock's best films, and one of his most underrated. I believe it certainly exceeds a 'Psycho' or 'The Birds' for technical artistry and brilliance. It is a macabre, tense, darkly humorous product that will leave you in awe for quite some time.

Robert Walker creates one of Hitchcock's most memorable villains as the father-hating, mother-fixated (but aren't most of Hitchcock's villains mummy's boys?) Bruno. It is a disturbing, stunning performance that illuminates the whole film. His character is obsessive, apparently homosexual (look at those deliberately effeminate ties and hear how he is described as 'European'), strangely charming and dangerous to cross. Farley Granger certainly knows this as he becomes entangled in Bruno's sordid web after the pair meet on a train. Bruno, knowing some inside information on Guy's affairs, proposes the two 'swap' murders for each other's benefit. Walker will kill Granger's slutty, conniving wife who is inhibiting his marriage to beautiful Anne, whilst Granger will murder Bruno's father, who he so intensely hates. Everyone's happy, right? A win-win, as Bruno asserts? Wrong. Granger forgets about the indecent proposal, but an obsessed Walker doesn't. He commits his murder and is determined to hound Granger until he completes his side of the bargain too. 'Strangers' becomes a riveting, suspenseful game of cat-and-mouse in Hitch's capable hands.

Hitchcock was absolutely amazing at creating intriguing minor characters and building scenes. We have the whore Miriam, Granger's estranged wife pregnant to another man. She lasciviously slurps a phallic ice-cream cone whilst openly eating up Bruno with her eyes. Barbara Morton, Anne's sister, is a deceptively sweet yet smart and cunning young girl who comes out with the most crude remarks you'll hear from a bespectacled girl in the pictures in the 50's. Senator Morton is authoritative and self-absorbed. This is one of the most daring films Hitchcock ever made, and it is, typical to a Hitch film, subtly sexual in detail.

This fits into the film-noir category with it's focus on murder, lies and deceit and shadowy cinematography. Walker's nut is one for the ages, and Granger makes a convincing troubled protagonist. Roman is perhaps weaker than the other two, and I never believed her relationship with Granger. Still, the overwhelming positives cancel out the slight negatives and it can be safely said that this is one of the BEST American films ever made.

Just look at what Hitch does here- the originality, the technical skill. We see the murder of Miriam reflected in her shattered glasses. A game of tennis turns into one of the most thrilling, intense scenes you'll ever see. A innocent fairground turns into a place of murder and foul occurrences. A young boy's balloon is popped callously by Walker (Hitch obviously liked what he saw in 'The Third Man!').Children's delight at riding the carousel turns into screaming, fast-paced terror. Hitch subverts normal, everyday events like no other.

The camera-work here is among the best ever seen in a Hitchcock film, and the premise is to-die-for. It's slick, oozes sophistication and devilish charm. The cross-cutting between Walker and Granger's characters is magnificent- Granger's do-or-die tennis match is just as vital as villain Walker's rescue of an incriminating piece of evidence lost down a drain. Hitch again build his villain into a nasty, repulsive yet sympathetic and oddly charming (Did anyone else find him strangely attractive, more so than Granger?) piece of work- we are just as tense as Walker in our hope that he can get the lighter out of the drain. We need him to, anyway. He holds the key to the story.

You'll never view an approach from a stranger in the same way again after seeing this film.

Amazing.

10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Truffaut book-length interview with Hitchcock, it's apparent that Big Al's fear from the police dates back to his childhood. His father sent him to the police station carrying a note. The note said: \"He's been naughty, imprison him for an hour.\" The policemen obliged and ever since Hitchcock has had a deep fear of being wrongly accused and taken by the police.

\"Strangers on a Train\" is probably one of the best in his \"wrongly-accused\" series. The movie is based on a Patricia Highsmith novel. That's the same author who wrote the Ripley series. She was always fascinated by smart criminals.

Hitchcock's opening is very strong and takes you immediately to the protagonists: Guy Haines, a famous tennis player, and Bruno Anthony, the aspiring criminal. The two guys share a chemistry which in that day and age was probably a lot more than what the audience could chew. Bruno tries to persuade Guy that they could commit the perfect murder (leaving no clues), if they switch victims. Bruno will kill Guy's wife who wouldn't give him a divorce, and Guy would kill Bruno's father. The motives are respectively love and money.

Bruno's performance is meant to be seductive and homoerotic. This is not something that was done by accident. In fact, Hitchcock edited two versions of the movie: one US, one UK. In the US version the volume of Bruno's seductiveness was turned down quite a bit.

\"Strangers on a Train\" is a very deep movie but more importantly this is another excellent Hitchcock thriller. An excellent example of a thrilling scene is when Guy is climbing the steps up to Bruno's father room. Hitchcock reasoned that the audience's attention needed to be distracted at this point so that they don't figure out what Guy will find in the room. Hitch treats us to a HUGE, menacing dog at the top of the stairs which provided the needed distraction.

The most famous shot in the movie occurs during a tennis match. Bruno has been continuously stalking Guy so that Guy will fulfil his end of the bargain (kill his father). When Guy looks at the audience, all the heads are swiveling back and forth. All except one - Bruno's. He's looking straight at Guy with an \"i'll-get-you\" smile.

The ending is another example of suspense. Both men fight for one key piece of evidence on a merry-go-round that's rotating at mad speed. A worker is crawling under it so he could get to the controls. When we finally get off this ride and the movie ends with Guy proving his innocence, we are left exhausted and nail-less (for those of us still biting our nails!).

\"Strangers on a Train\" is easily one of Hitchcock's best \"wrongly accused\" movies. Some credit him with one of the best villains (Bruno) as well. All in all, the movie might appear somewhat dated but that's a lesson in thriller-making from the master himself. I won't turn down Leonardo, if he came to teach me Renaissance painting, so neither should you.

<< Review posted at FilmDailies.com>>","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Alfred Hitchcock's adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's \"Strangers On A Train\", Guy Haines (Farley Granger)and Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker)meet for the first time on a train journey and discuss the idea of carrying out two murders. The rather pushy Anthony suggests that he could murder Haines' unfaithful wife and Haines could murder Anthony's domineering father. The lack of any connection between the murderer and the victim in each case should ensure that both crimes would remain unsolved. The tenor of the conversation leaves the more easy going Haines with the impression that the proposal is not entirely serious. Complications arise later when Anthony murders Haines' wife in an amusement park and then pursues Haines to keep his side of the bargain.

The differences between the two men are clear from the start. Haines is a professional tennis player, respectable and rather modest about his achievements whereas Anthony's life is going nowhere and he admits to having been thrown out of three colleges for drinking and gambling. Haines is in a relationship with a Senator's daughter who he wants to marry. Anthony characteristically interprets this as a cynical manoeuvre on Haines' part to provide himself with a shortcut to a career. The character differences are also reinforced visually. Anthony often inhabits shadowed areas and travels in a boat called \"Pluto\" whereas Haines is frequently seen from the more heroic perspective provided by low camera angles.

There are some striking visual sequences such as:-

(1) The murder of Haines' wife which is shown through the reflection of her glasses which fall to the ground as she struggles to free herself from Anthony.

(2) The depiction of Anthony alone, dressed in black and looking very small against the enormous white Jefferson Memorial building.

(3) The occasion where all the spectators at a tennis match are moving their heads in unison, following the action, whilst one head (Anthony's) chillingly remains fixed in a position looking at Haines.

(4)The scene where the roundabout goes wildly out of control and eventually crashes spectacularly.

Frequent use is made of \"doubles\" throughout the story, for example, Haines and Anthony are originally introduced as 2 pairs of feet getting out of their taxis and going to the train. As the train pulls out of the station, there are 2 sets of tracks each providing a choice of 2 ways forward. The 2 men discuss the murders of 2 potential victims and order 2 double whiskies. The Hitchcock cameo sees him struggling on board the train carrying a double bass. Haines feels double crossed when his wife reneges on an agreement they had for her to see a lawyer to arrange a divorce. Haines' wife goes to the amusement park with 2 boyfriends. When Anthony confronts her before the murder he lights his cigarette lighter and produces 2 reflections in her glasses. Anthony later becomes very disconcerted when he meets the Senator's younger daughter who he sees as a double for Haines' wife. Anthony also feels double crossed when Haines refuses to go ahead with the second murder. When Haines is travelling alone in a train going to Metcalf, he sees 2 men in the same carriage accidentally kicking their feet together in the same way that he and Anthony had.

The action throughout the movie proceeds at a great pace and the performances of Robert Walker and Patricia Hitchcock (as the Senator's younger daughter) are particularly powerful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have never seen this in the theater, my second viewing was tonight on big screen DVD as opposed to old VHS tape from rental store.

Saucey for it's time and I'm sure the Hayes code was pushed to it's limits.

Hitch's pallet here is the \"game play\" between two combatants. And yes if Guy calls the cops on Bruno right away the movie is 63 min shorter, HELLO people do you always make the best or most logical choice. How many times have you been in either person's shoes and made the right choice? For the love of God it's called poetic license..However as Guy sees the situation he has found himself in he takes it upon himself to rectify it. He does not solicit help nor does he lie to his would be new wife. Her defense of him sets off the final show down with Bruno feeling he has one more card to play.

For the cop shot-ting an innocent person in pre-cam corder days and before rules of engagement this type of thing did happen. In the post Rodney King world a presidential candidate backed the police in sending 43 bullets at an unarmed man. If you haven't seen or witnessed outrageous police behavior your blind or have an application pending for the academeny.

Back to the movie...

Go watch it with. Try and wear a post WWII filter and pretend your seeing a great suspense movie like many did for the first time back then, and sure it's been copied since but your looking at one of the source of inspiration for many that followed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When Alfred Hitchcock made STRANGERS ON A TRAIN it was a harbinger for the bulk of the film going public that he was back at the top of his form. From 1946 to 1950 his films were not box office successes, and his contractual arrangement with David O. Selznick ended because of this. Actually he made some really good films in the period, such as NOTORIOUS, SPELLBOUND, UNDER CAPRICORN, ROPE, and (my opinion) STAGESTRUCK. But while NOTORIOUS AND SPELLBOUND were liked, the audiences were turned off by Hitch's attempts at experimentation: his use of a dream sequence by Salvator Dali in SPELLBOUND was acceptable, as was the setting among psychiatrists. But the experiment with long takes in ROPE confused the public (making ignore the merits of that film), and the willingness of Hitch to have the audience fooled by a lie told by a leading character in a flashback was disliked - far more disliked then it deserved to be - in STAGESTRUCK. A matter of bad timing for UNDER CAPRICORN (it was released just as the scandal of it's star Ingrid Bergman and Roberto Rosallini broke out) made it seem to be a failure (which it wasn't). THE PARADINE CASE was another failure - and one that really had little in it's favor.

With STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, Hitchcock shied away from the special tricks that interested him in the recent films. Instead he concentrated on his favorite themes of shared guilt and mistaken identity. Based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith, the story was of how Guy Haines, a professional tennis player, meets a fan of his - Bruno Anthony, a playboy - who is traveling on a cross-country train at the same time as the athlete. Bruno is talkative and fawning, and Guy views him as one of the typical fans he has met...if a little eccentric, with his talk of wanting to be on the first rocket to outer space. But Bruno knows all about Guy's personal problems. He is married to a promiscuous young woman named Miriam, and is in love with Anne Morton, daughter of a Senator. Bruno knows that Miriam won't divorce her successful celebrity husband. Bruno mentions how he can sympathize - he hates his stepfather, who is constantly criticizing him. Then Bruno mentions (sort of off the cuff) an idea he has about two men - technically strangers - exchanging murders for each other and then committing two perfect, unsolvable crimes instead of fumbling them. Guy listens to the idea - and agrees it is an interesting idea. The train reaches Guy's destination, and his last comment is like a validation of the idea. He just does not realize that the \"eccentric\" Bruno is a sociopath, and believes Guy has just agreed to the two killing each other's foe!

It's a wonderfully simple plot actually. Bruno, of course does kill Miriam, but he fully expects Guy to live up to the murder agreement and kill his stepfather. Guy is horrified - and worse, he finds that he is the police department's number one suspect. When Bruno, to encourage Guy, mentions he has the latter's lighter (he pocketed it on the train) and can plant it at the murder site, Guy finds himself in deeper problems - how to avoid the police, and how to control (if possible) the insane Bruno?

Hitch always planned the shots of his film carefully, so that from the start we see both our \"heroes\" from their feet heading towards their fateful meeting in the train with each other. There are constant cross-contacts used in the film to show how the two men are drawn into each other's orbits. It is like fate drawing them together. Yet both have their own personality - and Hitch, with a typical twist, makes the mad Bruno actually more of an attractive figure. His scheme may be vicious (it will kill two people if successful, and he will have Guy live up to the agreement no matter what) but he has a zest for life. One suspects that once Guy too had one, but his marriage's failure, coupled with his now dating a socially prominent woman, has made him more circumspect and dull than he was.

The cast is good too. Robert Walker probably had his finest role in this film (only a year before his death). It was a far cry from the homespun boy-next-door of SINCE YOU WENT AWAY or THE CLOCK. His lithe figure also looked quite elegant in tales in several scenes. As Guy Farley Granger acts like a cousin of his co-murderer in ROPE, especially as the circumstances make him increasingly suspicious to the authorities (as his earlier role made his jittery behavior increasingly suspicion to Jimmy Stewart). As for the ladies, Kasie Rogers is properly sluttish as Miriam - enabling the audience to be prepared for her demise (in a famous sequence shot in the reflection of her eyeglasses) so that they actually are cheering Bruno in his act of evil. Patricia Hitchcock appears as the younger sister of Anne (Ruth Roman), who bears a close resemblance to Miriam, and accidentally sets off Bruno at a social occasion. She plays this rare role well. Ruth Roman is properly supportive of Granger, but her role is limiting because she is establishment in her background, and somewhat low keyed. Other supporting performers, Leo G. Caroll as the Senator, Marion Lorne (usually a comedian) as Bruno's dotty mother, and Norma Varden as an unexpected recipient of violence from Walker are all shown to best advantage - all at the hand of a master.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Safer indeed. Hitchcock is cinema's all time pervert; however, we all know his perversions are ours as well, so we forgive him. And we not only forgive him but we applaud his clever way to invite us for an unforgettable train ride.

I saw Hitch's 1953, I Confess, a week before this one, and I put both in the same category as part of his trademarks. These trademarks resided in his genius questioning and pulsing his artistic veins that spills psychological drops of blood on the viewer without leaving stains of guilt, instead very subtle awareness of feeling ashame.

The pen is always mightier than the sword and Hitch firmly wrote the most arguable questions with his wrist, and then holding firmly with his hands, he held cameras that always reflected peoples thirst for blood (most humans have), otherwise comedy wouldn't be mostly a tragic thing, and making people laugh wouldn't be so complex.

Mixing all dark elements of \"high society\", with a wealthy psychopath Bruno, and an ambitious tennis player wanna be politician, Guy, the story is one of the most well constructed and guided by Hitch, inspiring many filmmakers, not only with its plot, but with tricky images provoking dark smiles and happy nightmares.

Barely perfect!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of Alfred Hitchcock's three greatest films, along with \"Psycho\" and \"The 39 Steps\", \"Strangers On A Train\" is as brilliantly out-of-control as a merry-go-round in Metcalf, and almost as deadly. It's the kind of film you have so much fun watching, you can't even feel properly guilty about it until you have time to catch your breath.

Top amateur tennis contender Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets a singularly weird, louche stranger named Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) on a train. Thanks to the gossip pages, Bruno knows all about Guy's problems with his no-good wife Miriam, and rather gaily suggests they do each other a favor: Bruno will kill Miriam and Guy will kill Bruno's father, who wants to put Bruno in an institution. Guy laughs it off, but Bruno ain't kidding, as Guy finds out to his peril.

It's a great premise for a murder story, and Hitchcock gives \"Strangers On A Train\" a run for all its worth, with the help of Walker in perhaps the greatest performance in any Hitchcock film, including Anthony Perkins in \"Psycho\". While Perkins makes his mark playing tetchily against the grain, Walker as Anthony is one perfectly at home either buttering up old ladies at a swank dinner party or strangling a young woman at an amusement park.

What drives Bruno? Many commentators suggest his apparent homosexuality finds a match in pretty Guy. Yes, Bruno lights up the old gay-dar, but Guy seems happy enough on love's rebound with socialite Anne Morton (Ruth Roman). Bruno's interest for Guy could just as easily be envy, for someone making a mark in the world while he lives at home, letting Mommy file his nails.

\"Oh, I certainly admire people who do things,\" Bruno purrs, looking like a cat eyeing a mouse. \"You know, it must be pretty exciting to be so important.\"

Later on, Bruno calls himself a \"bum\", accurate enough except for our rooting interest in him, even as he wrecks Guy's life with his homicidal meddling. It's the ultimate perverse underdog's tale. There's a sense of integrity about Bruno, in his dogged dedication, which commands our respect and which Hitchcock plays to so brilliantly. When Bruno floats away from the scene of his big crime, am I the only sick person in this world who's actually happy for him? I think not, yet Hitchcock keeps the story on a right-enough path for us to realize how low we have fallen. We don't want Bruno to win, exactly, but we enjoy his \u00e9lan as he tries.

Everything else is so perfect, or at least close enough, to make every shot memorable. Hitchcock always managed at least 2-3 good setpiece sequences per movie; here you get a score of them at the amusement park alone. (\"20 Big Shows\" the neon side at the entrance says, and they aren't kidding.) Script, camera-work, a gripping tennis match, Ruth Roman's jaw-dropping figure, it's all too much greatness for one film to contain. Even Granger does his callow-youth thing here with more risible plausibility than Gregory Peck ever managed.

You can call this a clinic in movie-making, but \"clinic\" sounds too dull. \"Strangers On A Train\" is good nasty fun, all the way through, leaving you with a nifty stinger at the tail as you realize you were rooting for the wrong stranger all along. Heck, I'll take that ride over again in a second!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As I looked at this movie once again, I think it belongs among Hitchcock's greatest films. The first time I saw it I was just blown away by the suspense, action and imagery. It has the gripping ending, the deranged murderer, the innocent man framed or victimized by circumstances, some great on-location shots, e.g. the Jefferson Memorial in Washington and Penn Central in New York. It also has great supporting actors with Hitch's daughter Patricia in the role of the younger sister to Ruth Roman and the stalwart Leo G. Carroll in another of his Hitchcock movies. The merry-go-round episode near the end is one of the most nerve-wracking in Hitchcock's body of work.

Robert Walker as Bruno Anthony (his last full film) gives a great performance as the deranged stranger on the train, who worms himself into the life of the unsuspecting tennis star, Guy Haines (Farley Granger). Granger plays the nice guy who is caught up in a messy divorce. The movie opens with the camera showing the shoes of two separate men as they leave their taxis to board the train. Eventually, they meet and the story takes over. The stranger takes an unusual interest in the tennis star and as the movie continues,the stranger becomes a stalker. The action shifts from place to place, including Washington, the fictional small town of Metcalf, the Forest Hills tennis championship, and a passenger train taking the two leading men back and forth on separate missions. Towards the end, the pace of a tennis game is woven into the plot as they race against time. The camera cuts away to the faces of the athletes as they volley and serve in a remarkable series of shots. When the closely-fought contest is over, the climactic chase takes place. Hitchcock has a love for trains and it is great to see Penn Station, long since gone. Trains are featured in the 39 Steps, the Lady Vanishes, Shadow of a Doubt, Spellbound, North by Northwest and this movie.

This classic Hitchcock thriller took place at the start of a period of great creativity for the master of suspense - the 1950's and I am convinced that one day it will be given its due in the Hitchcock hall of fame.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I knew the premise of this film, and obviously I can't miss a good sounding film, especially from \"Master of Suspense\" director Sir Alfred Hitchcock. Basically tennis champ Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets eccentric stranger, Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) on a train travelling from Washington to New York. Bruno talks about a perfect murder, Guy hates his wife, and Bruno hates his father, so Bruno \"suggests\" swapping murders. Guy obviously didn't take him seriously, until of course when Guy's wife Miriam Joyce Haines (Kasey Rogers (or Laura Elliott)) is found murdered in an amusement park. Guy of course is the chief suspect, and Bruno keeps \"bumping into him\" reminding him of their \"plan\", and giving him more things to help him kill the father he wants dead. This murder enquiry and Bruno's stalking are threatening his tennis career, and his relationship with the daughter of Sen. Morton (North by Northwest's Leo G. Carroll), Anne (Ruth Roman). Bruno realises that Guy won't do his murder, so he decides to plant the evidence at the crime scene to make him guilty, Guy's monogrammed cigarette lighter at the amusement park. After his tennis game, Guy and Anne (who obviously found out the murder \"plan\") race to the amusement park to stop Bruno, and they have a fight on the speeding out-of-control carousel. Also starring Patricia Hitchcock (the director's daughter) as Barbara Morton, Marion Lorne as Mrs. Anthony, Jonathan Hale as Mr. Anthony, Howard St. John as Police Capt. Turley and John Brown as Prof. Collins, and Hitchcock's cameo is the Man boarding train carrying a double bass. Some interesting dialogue and character interactions, some good suspense moments, and of course the unforgettable carousel finale, a good classic film. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Cinematography. Sir Alfred Hitchcock was number 75 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, the film was number 32 on 100 Years, 100 Thrills. Very good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In my never-ending quest to see as many quality movies as possible in my lifetime, i stumbled upon this film on cable. I tried Hitchcock three times before this, and never have i felt that the man's work lived up to the praise he had received. I always felt he was good, not great (from what I've seen) This was the best of his films I've seen thusfar. Robert Walker is absolutely chilling, his performance takes the film where Hitchcock wanted it to go. Even an average performance here damages the overall product. My favorite scene was his obsession about getting the lighter from the drain (how exactly does he get his arm down there though?) Bruno is quite a compelling character, but i also loved the performance by Patricia Hitchcock as Barbara. The rest of the Morton family as well as Guy were a bit dry and boring, but she added some flare to the movie, as well as having some of the better lines in the script.

Lastly, in any suspense movie, you're going to live and die by your ending. This one holds water, unlike a couple other Hitchcock films I've seen. I truly was unsure of how it would end, which kept me on the edge while i watched and waited.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was lucky enough for this film to come on TCM, so I had the opportunity to see it. It's rather hard to find, despite it being a Hitchcock classic. Unfortunately, it also has its shortcomings, some of which Hitchcock has repeated later. First off, the ending is a little too neat and \"perfect\". In the last few scenes, until the last five minutes, there is an astounding amount of tension; then, the five minutes just clears everything perfectly up... very unsatisfying. The ending is also overly dramatic, for a Hitchcock film. He is, was and always will be the master of suspense... why would he stoop to something as low as a cheap action sequence for the ending? Apart from the few shortcomings, the film is great. The plot is excellent; one of the best and most universal ever. The theme? Simple. You meet a stranger. A perfect stranger. He offers to kill someone for you... you know you have someone you want(if nothing else, subconsciously) dead. The catch? He asks you to do the same for him... will you accept this bizarre yet ingenious arrangement? You're clear of suspicion, and so is he... after all, neither of you knew the victim. And you don't know each other, either... you're just 'strangers on a train'. Brilliant concept, and one that just about every single person can relate to. The pacing is good, you never lose interest or patience. The cinematography is good, but not nearly as good as it is in other, better Hitchcock films. The acting is flawless. The characters are well-written, credible and realistic. Hitchcock uses some of the same elements that he often uses; the dominating mother, the mothers boy, etc. The film is very good, but it just feels a little watered down. It didn't go that famous extra mile that would have made it great. It stopped before crossing the line between what's common and what's daring. That is the primary reason for the film failing to be great, but mainly remains good, with potential to be more than that. The end leaves you unsatisfied and disappointed. However, everything leading up to the end is very good, so the film still gets a deserving 8\/10. Good, but not great. Any fan of Hitchcock should see it, as it is among his best... somewhat far down on the list, but still there. I recommend it to any fan of Hitchcock. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Has aged really well - still thrilling and suspenseful today. Certainly one of Hitch's best movies. Beautifully shot, with a great premise for suspense, sex-appeal provided by beautiful Ruth Roman. Because of the great premise, you feel like you have to watch it to the end. If you find yourself losing faith in Hitch and doubting his title as the Master of Suspense, i recommend this nice little movie as an antidote. 5 out of 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rating: 8 out of 10. Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

Tennis star Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets the mysterious Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) on a train. Soon afterwards, Guy finds himself drawn into the psychotic realm of Bruno's world.

Guy is separated from his wife and is now involved with a senator's daughter. Guy is interested in entering into politics after he retires from tennis. Bruno wants to kill his own father but doesn't want to do it himself.

Bruno proposes that he disposes with Guy's wife, while Guy's part of the deal is to eliminate Bruno's father. Guy dismisses this idea since he isn't interested in having his troublesome wife killed.

Bruno goes ahead with his half of the proposal. While Guy becomes the prime suspect of his wife's murder. As law enforcement continues to investigate Guy, Bruno continues to torment Guy, wanting him to complete the other half of the proposal.

'Strangers on a Train' has one of the most exciting endings of all Hitchcock movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a well-crafted piece from everyone's favorite master of suspense. As usual, the technical elements such as camera work and lighting are outstanding (especially for the film's time). I did not find the first part of the film very exciting, but the latter one certainly made up for it with one thrilling scene after another.

The only thing I did not like about this movie was the choice of Farley Granger for the part of Guy Haines. Somehow, I didn't find him very believable. On the other hand, Robert Walker shines as sinister 'bad guy' Bruno Anthony.

Overall, I would highly recommend this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's been said before--Strangers on a Train is Hitchcock's best movie--and he's made so many good ones! Like other Hitchcock, Strangers on a Train requires your full attention to really appreciate it, but once you can...you will.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is another one of Hitchcock's highest rated movies and rightfully so. This is a tale of two men who meet on a train and playfully exchange murder fantasies. One of them (Robert Walker) takes it seriously and this leads Guy Haines (Farley Granger) to trouble with the law. Another fast moving Hitchcock movie with lots of great scenes (the carousel scene and the tennis match are worthy of mentioning). Not a movie to be missed- it is a shame that no one will re-release this on DVD with loads of extras- just a cheap Warner Brothers DVD is all thats out there now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was fabulous. It is definitely a top 5 hitchcock film. The directing and camera shots are nearly flawless(aside from the dog scene when he licks the guys hand, clearly in slow motion). The plot is well written and realistic. It was very believable that an innocent man could fall into a trap like that.

I would rate Bruno as hitchcocks second most interesting character( of course bates is first). Robert Walker plays a very believable maniac. He didnt overact the part which made it believable(much the same how perkins didnt overact his part). Overall this is an excellent movie, an absolute must see for any hitchcock fans.



","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first murder scene is one of the best murders in film history(almost as good as the shower scene in Psycho) and the acting by Robert Walker is fantastic.A psychopath involved with tennis star in exchange murders.That\u00b4s the story and overall this film is very good but theres one problem:why dosen\u00b4t Guy Haines go to the cop in the first place.4\/5

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first murder scene is one of the best murders in film history(almost as good as the shower scene in Psycho) and the acting by Robert Walker is fantastic.A psychopath involved with tennis star in exchange murders.That\u00b4s the story and overall this film is very good but theres one problem:why dosen\u00b4t Guy Haines go to

the cop in the first place.4\/5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just re-watched this thriller, one I had previously believed to be one of Hitch's lesser efforts. How wrong can you be! Maybe because I'm older, or maybe because the film gets better with every viewing, but now I think it's amazing. Every bit of suspense is wrung out of the tiniest detail, and that final scene on the merry-go-round is just breath-taking! Perfect in every way, highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being the second last of Chaplin's Essanay films, CARMEN is a parody of Cecil B. Demille's drama with the same title. It stands as quite obvious that Demille's acknowledged film didn't impress the comedy king that much, which he later admitted in his autobiography.

Parodies were not a new experiment for Chaplin. He had done several of them already, namely HIS PREHISTORIC PAST and HIS NEW JOB, and would continue to do so until the very end of his career in films (for instance in A KING IN NEW YORK).

Chaplin does a very good portrayal of Don Jos\u00e9, and Edna Purviance's is very as good as Carmen. Neither act as we are used to; Charlie is not the lovable Tramp and Edna is far from an innocent little woman, but that was not Chaplin's intentions, either. A BURLESQUE ON CARMEN is a somewhat odd Chaplin-film, very different, but includes good material nonetheless.

The main story is, although very differently structured, as in the original drama. Don Jos\u00e9 is very much in love with Carmen, but is not alone in that field; \"Carmen, Carmen, (the) beautiful Carmen, (is) loved by all men under 96,\" but he has the big advantage that he is an officer, and there we are; this is the famous story about rivalry, love, greed and honor, seen from a humorous perspective. Thanks to Chaplin's and Purviance's performances, and to the wonderful, wonderful music by George Bizet which I highly admire, this could actually have been a near-comedy masterpiece, it's time taken into consideration. It could have been. But unfortunately, although it is a good pretty good comedy, I don't feel it's fair to blame people who claim that A BURLESQUE OF CARMEN is far from being a masterpiece. But it's important to keep in mind that this has nothing to do with any lack of talent, but rather a result of conflicts concerning business. When Chaplin refused to re-sign Essanay contract after completing his last film for the company, POLICE, they took revenge by editing back all the scenes Chaplin originally had edited out from CARMEN. Thanks to this, the film is somewhat confusing and has several pointless scenes which are more annoying than funny, and the film turned out to be rather a Ben Turpin-feature --Turpin played Remendados-- than a Chaplin-short. Naturally, Chaplin was in despair when he discovered what Essanay had done, and had to stay in bed for several days.

Despite its obvious flaws, A BURLESQUE OF CARMEN is highly recommended to Chaplin-fans and to admirers of beautiful music.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of Chaplin's longest films up to that point, Burlesque on Carmen is a clever and surprisingly complex parody of what was then \"Prosper Merimee's\" well-known story about \"Carmen.\" I was a little confused about the difference between the IMDb's listing of the 1915 Burlesque on Carmen and the 1916 version. Based on the running time I assume that it was the 1915 version that I saw, since the 1916 one is a good 20 minutes longer, and from what I've read, those are 20 unnecessary and unimpressive minutes.

From the very beginning, it's clear that Burlesque on Carmen is one of Chaplin's most complex and ambitious efforts to date, starting off with a long back story, told through inter-titles, about the tragic love story of Carmen.

Carmen is sent by a band of gypsies (\"A band who put the GYP in gypsy.\"), to seduce a Spanish officer so they can pull off their smuggling operation. It's a clever, Chaplinesque band of criminals, the leader of whom, Lillas Pastia, has \"spent 50 years learning to steal, thinking he might be offered a job in politics.\"

On a side note, I've seen some almost misogynistic messages and jokes in some of Chaplin's earlier work, but probably none quite as overt as in this one. Near the beginning of the movie, as the band of gypsies are traveling, there is a scene where the mules and women are loading, and an inter-title explains that \"the mules are the ones with long ears.\" In case you couldn't tell, I guess.

Chaplin plays the part of Don Jose, the hapless officer who is to be seduced by Carmen. He is described as \"a brave soldier and lover of women.\" Not exactly a stretch for Chaplin who removed any doubt about his ability to play a convincing comic soldier a few years later in the brilliant Shoulder Arms. And of course, he didn't have to act about being a lover of women.

What is different here, of course, is his polished military uniform and straight-backed disciplinary manner, interspersed, of course, with some of his traditional slap-stick moves. He strikes me as a little guy in a position of authority, struggling to maintain the respect of his subordinates by exerting a gruff, stolid exterior.

Soon Carmen enters (\"Loved by all men under the age of 96\u0085\"), and she immediately begins flirting with Charlie. I should mention that for a good majority of the movie, it is surprisingly faithful to the original story, which was full of jealousy and tragedy. Chaplin is strangely convincing as a jealous lover, able to evoke a jealous passion that I've never seen from him. There's at least one scene where he is genuinely a little scary.

Chaplin has some great sight gags in the movie, like a hilarious table dance and some classic sword fighting near the end. And his boyish charm and the role of a soldier is also definitely a winning combination, although there is another peculiar stunt involving a group of men pushing a huge door back and forth that wasn't very effective to begin with but just kept going on and on and on, probably about five times longer than it was worth. Although it was interesting that when it finally fell over it clearly was revealed as a movie prop. I always appreciate such glimpses at the old movie sets.

The end of the film is it's strongest part. It bears striking resemblance to Romeo and Juliet, but just when you think that Chaplin is going to conduct a major thematic experiment by diverging distantly from his traditional style, there is a hilarious twist that is as vintage Chaplin as anything I've ever seen. Nice work!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I Would have to disagree strongly with the previous lame comment. I watched this not expecting too much from it. The Fact is that the cast were superb, Especially The lead Teen Female. The dark sides of them all came through, all were messed up in an not obvious way. There was an underlying current which ran through the movie of teenage angst and sexuality. The serial killer role was played well also as you could feel he had gone through what they had as children. What this movie is, is a strong drama\/thriller. Yes I would agree they don't do the obvious, but you could relate with the messed up teenage heads they did what they did and it is believable. Also a decent dark ending, instead of which could have so easily been an opt out happy one. The attention to detail in the movie was fantastic also. I very good solid 7 out of 10. A little slow at times, but lets a thinking person see where the characters are coming from.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw what I believe to be the best Australian film of the year so far, Jon Hewitt's Acolytes.

Acolytes is a stylish thriller with a killer premise. Get this\u0085two bullied and molested teens discover a local serial killer in their suburb AND then set about blackmailing him to kill the bully who molested them. Hewitt has picked a top notch cast including excellent new comers Sebastian Gregory, Josua Payne and Hanna Mangan Lawrence to play the teens. Add to that three, yes, thats right three great psycho's! Lead by Joel Edgerton in an outstanding performance of serial killer du jour, Belinda McClory his deranged spouse and Michael Dorman as the teen raping bully, with swastika tattoos. Once you add these teens and these menacing adults, all hell breaks loose\u0085 Hewitt has crafted a balls to the wall serial thriller thats damn original and accomplished. You can see the influence of Larry Clark and David Lynch's Twin Peaks but Hewitt makes it all his own, in a Qld suburban back water, always ringing with the drones of emptiness. The script by Shayne Armstong, Shane Krouse and Hewitt is tight.

If marketed correctly this film could be a break out hit with teens. The next Wolf Creek? It could well be. It makes all the right moves. The teens are real ala Larry Clark. They don't suck and have an attached PC agenda, they are non communicative, good looking and hip. The killers are dark with real menace. Joel Edgerton steals his scenes as the mild mannered local Ted Bundy, who sports a butterfly on his 4WD spare ala John Fowles The Collector. Dorman's petrol head rapist pours on the menace that tops Suburban Mayhem and provides a creepy thug who you can't wait to see buy the farm.

The film is fast paced, tough and brutal. Not only that, it displays a confidence and directorial mastery from Hewitt that is surely to win him an IF or AFI nomination, if not award! Its nuanced and poetic mise en scene, brilliant sound design, excellent cinematography and tight structure mark it as clearly one of the best directed Oz features I have seen so far this year.

The film leaves you shaken, thinking and unsettled. Its a truly great edition to the return to genre going on in Australian cinema at present. It will surely garner the interest of Hollywood. Oh, and did I mention it got into Toronto? What other Oz feature films can say that much? The world should get ready for a new auteur, Jon Hewitt.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been a Mario fan for as long as I can remember, I have very fond memories of playing Super Mario World as a kid, this game has brought back many of those memories while adding something new. Super Mario Galaxy is the latest installment in the amazing Mario franchise. There is much very different about this game from any other Mario before it, while still keeping intact the greatest elements of Mario, the first noticeable difference is that the story takes place in space.

The story begins much like any other Mario game, Mario receives a letter from Princess Peach inviting him to a celebration at her castle in the Mushroom Kingdom. Upon arriving at Peach's castle Mario finds Bowser and his son (Bowser Jr.) attacking the castle with their airships. Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and then lifts her castle up into space. In the midst of the castle being lifted into space Mario falls off and lands on an unknown planet. Mario is found by a talking star named Luma and is taken back to the Luma's home, a floating space station, here Mario meets many other Lumas and also meets their leader, a woman named Rosalina. Rosalina tells Mario that Bowser has taken away the space station's Power Stars and scattered them across the universe, it is up to Mario to help the Lumas find them and save Peach, thus the adventure begins.

The way you play the game is by flying from the space station to other galaxies, each galaxy consists of multiple planets that Mario travels amongst in levels via these shooting stars to retrieve the Power Stars. Mario can at many times walk all the way around planets without losing gravity, some planets are small and others are big, many planets are similar to classic Mario environments. The best thing about the game are the controls, all of the stuff like jumping and such is still the same, but the wiimote is used in many unique ways in this game. You shake the remote Mario will perform a spin that is used as the primary attack in the game, and it will as well activate the shooting stars. You can also point the remote at the screen and use the pointer to fire star bits at enemies or objects in the environment. Then there is the graphics, these are by far the best graphics on the Wii, it is just so hard to describe how great this game looks, you could probably almost say it looks as good as some 360 games.

My only minor gripes is that the going upside down effect takes some getting used to, and also the story is pretty weak. The worst part is that you lose all of your lives when you turn off the game, no matter how many you had when you last quit you restart at 4 lives. Still these minor problems aside it's a superb game that is highly entertaining and is very challenging. This is the type of game that we've been waiting for on the Wii.

A perfect 10 out of 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*THIS COMMENT WILL PROBABLY HAVE SPOILERS!! I CHECKED THE SPOILERS BOX JUST IN CASE BUT IT MIGHT NOT HAVE SPOILERS, BUT BE AWARE ANYWAYS IF I SAY SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER A SPOILER AND I DON'T!* Wow...best game since Super Mario 64. I got this game the first day it came out, and before I got it, I went on some gaming websites to look at its ratings (yes, they already reviewed it before it came out), and I was shocked. I was expecting something like Sunshine because lately all the Mario games have kind of been getting worse and worse. But this one totally beat the other games. The scores on this game even beat Halo 3! It's simply amazing.

STORY: Not the best, Mario games are never known for their plots, and this one isn't really much of a difference. Bowser once again kidnaps Peach but this time invades the Mushroom Kingdom on a festival celebrated once every century and gets a flying saucer and it shoots lasers on the ground and then they put anchors inside the ground and rip off the castle and its foundation into outer space.

GRAPHICS: Absolutely gorgeous, the best graphics on Wii so far. The water effects are really nice too, if you ever see the water, it looks so real because the effects they put in it.

MUSIC: Simply amazing, the music in this game is orchestrated. Not all of it, but even the ones that aren't orchestrated still sound very nice.

GAMEPLAY: Very entertaining, keeps you wanting to play more and more, and for me, since usually I tend to be very frustrated with games if I die a lot, I mean, I'm definitely not the only one, but this game for me didn't have that a lot. Now it still kind of did, but not to the point like Mario 64 where I totally go crazy and end up turning off the game because it made me mad, this one never did that.

DIFFICULTY: There are two types of difficulty, because you can just technically beat the game with just 60 stars, which I think is kind of easy, but to beat the game 100%, you have to get 120, like always, and that quest is way harder, but at the same time still very fun.

LENGTH: Good length, definitely not too short. It took me around 15-16 hours to beat it with just 60 stars, but 120 took me more like 45-50 hours. Now I didn't play it constantly that much, I played first a lot one day, then the next couple of days just a couple hours each day, then the next two days I played it all day. To me though, I think the quest for 60 stars was a tiny bit short, so if you want a long game, I suggest getting all of them.

PRESENTATION: Now, the cinematic scenes in this movie are superb. The way they are, it just looks so much like something I would see in the theaters. They are hands down the best cinematic scenes on any Mario game so far.

OVERALL: This game is definitely a great game, and I advise you to not wait until Christmas, get it as soon as possible. This game also is a good mixture of old and new, you'll have some sidescroller levels where you move just side to side, or up and down because they'll change on gravity, but even the music has some old classics in it. So this game seems to be like a masterpiece. To me, it's my favorite Mario game of all time, but others may disagree. But it's still a great game. I recommend every gamer who wants to have fun in a game to get this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"the mario series is back, and in my opinion, better than ever. Galaxy is the most creative mario yet; even more so than super mario 64. the controls are great; some of the best for the wii. beautiful graphical design as well. the levels are very big, and the good old bosses are back. there is tons to explore in this game; definitely a high level of replay value. I only have 2 complaints: 1: the story is a little to similar to mario 64. and 2: the difficulty isn't very high; though it does require some patience. mario fans: the game you've been waiting for. Casual gamers: this game is more than worth the buy. 9.8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like some other people wrote, I'm a die-hard mario fan, and I loved this game.

This game starts slightly boring, but trust me, it's worth it. As soon as you start, your hooked! The levels are fun and exiting. They will hook you 'till your mind turns to mush. I'm not kidding. This game is also orchestrated, and is beautifully done.

To keep this spoiler free, I have to keep my mouth shut about details. But please try this game! It'll be worth it!

Story: 9.9 Action: 10.1 (It's that good!) Hardness: 10 Attention Grabber: 10 Average: 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Warning: May Contain Spoilers) Let Rosalina help Mario lead the way and smile because this game will brighten your day.

120 stars will require luck and skill, but 60 will bring you as much of a thrill!

Blasting through stars show Mario and Luigi and what travelers they now are!

Walking upside down has never been more fun, especially a final battle with Koopa near the Sun!

This is truly a super awesome game and it absolutely deserves a place in Nintendo's Hall of Fame!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ever since 1981, Nintendo has been making great video games such as Super Mario and Zelda. Most ideas would get a bit boring after 20 years. Games made by Nintendo never seem to get boring because they're always adding something new. It went from arcade games to the Wii and I hear that there's a new version of the Wii scheduled for release in 2011. The thing that makes Wii games so different is the fact that your actually doing something instead of just sitting on the couch pushing buttons.

And I have more good news. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is to be released in 2010.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those games where you love it to bits or hate it to shreds.Even being a hardcore Mario fan can make you dislike this game.You can hate it because it is 2 short and somewhat boring and easy.Or you can love it because it is a mixture of amazing graphics(not a Nintendo fan huge excitement) music or game play.I know a lot of people that say it is amazing,and others who think its the worst Mario ever.It really depends on the type of Nintendo fan you are.I personally love this game and I think it is the best wii game,but you should determine that for yourself.So I think you should absolutely get it if you are the right Nintendo fan.But If you love The classics too much,you may not like it.So try it out yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What exactly do people expect when they watch an Al Adamson film? Are they expecting classic cinema that is wonderful beyond belief and will leave them with lasting memories? You'd think so by some of the reviews. Al Adamson's films are trashy and sleazy and cheesy, not much more, so if you go into them knowing that already it helps, and they aren't necessarily to be taken at face value, especially when they have so much unintentional entertainment value. First off, this starts by ripping off the end theme music from Outer Limits, so you know things are looking promising. This is the story of some wacko cult that lives in the hills and while trying to raise a dead body, the leader suffers a heart attack and ends up in the hospital. Of course Nurse Sherri tends to his needs and all, and when an operation is needed she just happens to be hanging out in the operating room when the guy passes on so his spirit invades her. And Nurse Sherri begins to change. No longer the nice nurse, she develops a taste for blood and sharp objects. There's a couple little side stories going on like folks trying to burn the body of the dead cult leader and a blinded football star that has become the love object of one of Sherri's co-workers who also just happens to dabble in voodoo. This is not bad if you're a cult film fan, but it may be bad if you're a \"Spiderman\" fan because you won't like it. At times this actually lurches towards \"respectability\" (for Adamson, anyway) but then it \"unredeems: itself with some ridiculous event. If you enjoy Adamson's films and similar trash you may well like this, for anyone else who may be looking for a lost treasure, keep digging. 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love just about everything the late Al Adamson directed in his long and varied career, but \"The Possession of Nurse Sherri\" stands head and shoulders above fun yet admittedly grade-Z schlockfests like \"Horror of the Blood Monsters\" and \"Dracula Vs. Frankenstein\". This film is actually scary! Am I saying that you're going to jump out of your seat when you watch \"Nurse Sherri\"? No, of course not. But this pastiche of elements from \"The Exorcist\", \"Ruby\", and \"Carrie\" is one of those nice, eerie little horror movies common to the seventies. You can't put your finger on what's so spooky about it, but the film drips with atmosphere. (And what an ending! Don't worry, I won't spoil it for you.) Adamson and producer Sam Sherman really nailed it with this one, and it doesn't matter whether \"Nurse Sherri\" was a calculated success or a happy accident. Jill Jacobson is likable but not outstanding as the hapless nurse who becomes possessed by the spirit of a recently deceased cult leader (Bill Roy, who shines in his brief role). Geoffrey Land is okay as her surly doctor boyfriend. There are some blaxploitative elements here (profit was the bottom line with these cheap drive-in flicks, after all) but they actually contribute to the plot rather than just being window dressing. \"Nurse Sherri\" was a Poverty Row production, and it shows at times (sets, special effects, etc.). Still, the film has heart, mostly decent acting and direction, and some genuine chills. Sam Sherman also saw fit to use Harry Lubin's theme music for the late '50s\/early '60s television series \"One Step Beyond\" in this film, which certainly adds to the creepy atmosphere. The DVD contains two significantly different cuts of the movie (the early version features a lot of T&A that wound up on the cutting room floor to make way for more horrific stuff) as well as the theatrical trailer, the TV spot, and a great commentary by Sherman. Does anybody know whatever happened to Bill Roy, by the way? Next to John Carradine, he's the best actor I've ever seen in an Al Adamson film, and he plays the cult leader like he means it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"''Meet Sherri..for an evening of Pleasure and Terror!'' Cheap special effects,cheesy lines,yep its the original 1978 Movie ''Nurse Sherri'' Starting Geoffrey Land as Peter Desmond,and Jill Jacobson as Sherri Martin and Directed by Al Adamson.

The movie is about an evil ancient spirit that possesses a nurse at a hospital,then she starts killing doctors one by one.The acting was okay but some of the acting was robotic.The storyline was good but the sex scenes were just thrown in there probably to get more views.The directing was bad,And the special effects looked like a drawing,the effects didn't fool anybody.the death scenes were pretty good but the director mixed too many things in there that didn't make any sense like the sex scenes,the nudity,the football player,and many more.

Overall Its A Good Movie,But Not The Best.

7 Out Of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Reanhauer (Bill Roy) is the leader of a desert-dwelling cult who tries to resurrect one of his people, only to have a heart attack himself! He ends up dying on an operating table, and for the sake of revenge, his spirit takes over the body of the title character (Jill Jacobson), who then proceeds to go about hacking and slashing until her fellow nurses learn what needs to be done to exorcise the demon.

While I know enough about the directors' filmography to know that it primarily consists of outright schlock, \"Nurse Sherri\" is really not all that bad. Sure, it's clear that this was very low-budget stuff, yet all that I found egregiously cheesy about it were the visual effects. The acting is not as bad as one might expect, either.

There are two different versions available of this on DVD. A much more sex-oriented version featuring bountiful amounts of T & A is the original cut, with such hilariously silly vignettes as the victim and and her love interest sharing their \"strangest sex\" moments, including one involving fellatio during a college lecture!

The movie would then be re-cut for theatrical version with the horror elements emphasized more strongly. Some scenes are dropped with new ones added (with Stevens, the role played by J.C. Wells, expanded). The movies' most memorable sequence in this cut is a scene in a foundry, and it works quite well. This cut of the movie is more interesting overall; I would recommend that a viewer see them both and compare them.

Both versions hit their stride in the final third, and benefit from a marvelously scene-stealing performance from Bill Roy as the crazed Reanhauer, and a moody climax set in a graveyard (although actually filmed in Adamsons' backyard!). Marilyn Joi is also worth mentioning as the cute nurse who is attracted to football player turned patient Marcus Washington (Prentiss Moulden), who's lost his eyes in a car accident, and who incidentally is key to resolving the story with his knowledge of voodoo rituals. The movie also makes amusing use of music from composer Harry Lubins' personal collection, including compositions for such TV series as 'One Step Beyond' and 'The Outer Limits'.

\"Nurse Sherri\" (known by more alternate titles (including \"Beyond the Living\" and \"Hospital of Terror\") than any other Adamson movie) is actually fairly entertaining low-budget fare. I ended up having a good time watching it.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at the 2002 Toronto International Film Festival.

This is the first Indian film I've seen in the Tamil language, and while it does share some similarities with other Indian films (wonderful music and choreography, sweeping storyline), the director attempts more than just to entertain. The film tells the story of Amudha, a precocious nine-year old whose parents reveal to her that she was adopted, thus beginning an odyssey that takes them all from India to war-torn Sri Lanka. Gorgeous visuals mix with horrifying scenes of violence expressly to make a point, though it is a simplistic one. Amudha is played by P.S. Keerthana, and she is one of the few child actors I've seen who can be precocious and yet not annoying. Her charm and beauty held the film together.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sri Lanka... not a country I've ever given much thought to, I have to admit. I didn't even know it was near India, let alone that there has been a bloody civil war going on there since 1983. It seems that the rebels of the Tamil minority have been in an ongoing conflict with the military regime that runs the country for many years, causing many deaths and widespread suffering on the island.

Mani Ratman's latest film, A PECK ON THE CHEEK, tells the story of a young girl named Amudha, who is separated from her Sri Lankan parents by the war and raised by a young Indian couple. Amudha is a bright and mischievous girl, whose life is turned upside down when her parents tell her that she was adopted as a child. Although her adopted parents love her as much as could be, and have raised her without prejudice along with their biological children, Amudha cannot help but want to learn more about her biological family.

Mani Ratman is probably best known for his 1998 film DIL SE, which hides a story about terrorism and politics inside a love story (or is it the other way around?). A PECK ON THE CHEEK inhabits similar territory, but is perhaps more ambitious in the ground it covers. The central theme that binds the movie is of love between all the various members of a family, and especially that between a child and her adopted parents. It's a pretty honest and open look at feelings, that can be extremely touching and heartwarming at some times and quite painful at others. It's an emotionally complex film, with characters that are somewhat idealised but still behave in a very human way.

The film revolves around 9 year old Amudha, played with charm and vivaciousness by young actress P.S. Keerthana in her first and only acting role. She's a princess and a monster, always getting into trouble but so disarmingly charming nobody can stay mad at her for long. The young actress is perfectly cast for the role, and does a tremendous job in the various and often difficult emotional scenes required of her.

A PECK ON THE CHEEK has such an innocent name I was quite unprepared for the intensity of the experience. Never has such a small act come with such an enormous emotional impact, I dare say. The film is a bold and artistic effort to explore issues that are not frequently covered on the silver screen.

Mani Ratman's direction is superb, very confident and mature - the most sophisticated work I've seen from this director yet. The film is visually very stylish, with some excellent camerawork and imagery. A.R. Rahman provides the film's soundtrack, which is not as good as his classic DIL SE or BOMBAY music (based on first impressions at least) but still shows his great musical talent.

I'm not aware of a DVD release for the film yet - I saw it in Tamil with English subtitles thanks to the San Francisco International Film Festival, of which the film was undoubtedly the highlight. The production is a truly world class effort, and I am sure it will be popular with western audiences as it begins to receive wider exposure.

Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a big follower of Indian Movies especially Malayalam and Tamil.

Shame on India for not sending this movie as their official Oscar entry. I have seen this movie and it has clearly revealed to me the maturity Tamil cinema has in its screenplay and narrative which bollywood better catch up with.By the way to all we westerners, Tamil Cinema is more qualitative and very different from Bollywood which is all about good looks glamour and promotion.

Coming to the point what was India thinking when they sent a movie like 'Devdas' to the Oscars? That was a really a Masochist move. I think they are trying to punish Oscar judges with boredom by sending Devdas since the judges toppled Lagaan last year.

'Devdas' is just a brigthly colored but stale and predictable melodrama of Love, fate and destiny. I would keep away from it. Anyway, not sending a movie like Kanathil Muthital shows how much of a revamp Indian administration needs to save them from poor administrators who lack intelligence. Now I know why this country has so many issues. They are heavily talented but not showcased properly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Sri Lanka, a country divided by religion and language, the civil war between the pro-Sinhalese government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a separatist organization, has claimed an estimated 68,000 lives since 1983. Human rights groups have said that, as a result of the war, more than one million people have been displaced, homeless or living in camps. The impact on children and families caught in the conflict is sensitively dramatized by acclaimed Tamil director Mani Ratnam in his 2002 film A Peck on the Cheek, winner of several awards at the National Film Awards in India. While the civil war is merely a backdrop for the story of a young girl's voyage of discovery, the human cost of war is made quite clear and Ratnam gives the fighting a universal context, pointing the finger at global arms traffickers as the source of wrongdoing.

Beautifully photographed in Southern India by cinematographer Ravi K Chandran in a setting mirroring the terrain of Sri Lanka, the film tells a moving story about an adopted 9-year old girl who sets out to find her real mother in the middle of the fighting in Sri Lanka. Played with deep feeling and expressiveness by P.S. Keerthana in a memorable performance, Amudha is brought up by a loving middle class family with two younger brothers after her natural parents Shyama (Nandita Das) and Dileepan (J.D. Chakravarthi) were forced to flee when the fighting broke out, leaving her in a Red Cross camp. In a loving flashback, we see Amudha's adoptive parents, father Thiru (Madhavan) a prominent Tamil writer, and mother Indra (Simran) a TV personality, marry to facilitate their adoption of the darker-skinned little girl.

Young Amudha has no idea that she is adopted until it is sprung upon her abruptly on her ninth birthday, according to the parents' prior agreement. While she is playing, Thiru tells her almost in a matter of fact tone that \"you are not our daughter\" and the response is predictable. Distraught, she questions who her father was, what her mother's name was, why she gave her up, and so forth but few answers are forthcoming. Amudha runs away several times until her parents agree to go to Sri Lanka to help her find her true mother, now a fighter for the Tamil separatists. The family's immersion in the reality of the civil war leads to some traumatic moments and difficult decisions, handled mostly with skill by Ratnam, though a sequence where the family was caught in a crossfire felt amateurish.

A Peck on the Cheek is of course a Bollywood-style film and that means tons of music and melodrama. The melodrama did not get in the way because of the strong performances by the lead actors; however, I found the musical dramatizations of songs by A. R. Rahman counter to the mood of the film with their slick, high production techniques and fast-paced music video-style editing. Yet the compelling nature of the story and the honesty in which it is told transcend the film's limitations. Tamil cinema has been criticized by many, even within the country as being too clich\u00e9d and commercial, yet A Peck on the Cheek is both a film of entertainment and one that tackles serious issues. That it successfully straddles the line between art and commerce is not a rejection but a tribute.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kannathil Muthamittal was simply one of the most touching and sincere movies ive seen in a long time. the story of an adopted girl who on her 9th birthday learns the truth about her parentage. she sets out in an endeavour to find out more about her real mother and learns that her mother is now a terrorist.

the greatness of the movie lies in its simplicity. mani ratnam generally has a tendency to create unreal and pompous overblown characters in this movie, every person seems real and their interactions are touching and sincere. this is the reason why this ranks as one of his best movies.

the movie is emotionally draining and tugs at the heart of the viewer, keerthana as the 9 year old amudha and simran as her adopted mother are simply brilliant. their relationship is the cornerstone of this movie. there are some notable flaws here, particularly the scene where amudha learns that she is an adopted child is jarring and seems totally unreal. it is hard to believe that such sensitive parents would break such a news in the manner that they did. another flaw is, surprisingly enough, the brilliant songs. they again seem forced and stand out, not gelling with the rest of the script.

having said these, this still is one of the most poignant and beautiful movies to come out of india in a long long time. this beauty is not just in the script or characters but in teh technical brilliance as well, ravi chandran's camera work is sheer poetry. all characters perform creditably and the realistic humour, especially in teh flashback scenes are entertaining.

a sincere 9!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was astonishing how good it was! The plot is extraordinary, and the acting spectacular. At first I thought this wasn't going to be that great because of a summary, but after about the first five or ten minutes of the movie, it struck me that I was dead wrong. I literally cried about four or five times in this movie, and despite this, I must've watched the same scenes over and over again about thirty times in one week! No, the song scenes were not as awesome as they could've been, but the plot is what really gets you. American or Asain, I would recommend this to anyone--and I have now. I guarantee that after seeing this one, you'll get the best out of it, and its plot. I hope you feel the same, and write a rave review too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Director of Kannathil Muthamittal directed the first Indian film I had seen \"Dil Se\" which led me down the path of buying well over 122 Hindi DVDs in the

course of four months. I can say I understood the total attraction, I was

somehow confused as to why the film would stop for \"music videos\". It was an excellent movie, I didn't know what to make of the dancing and the female

vocals were a bit shrill for my western ears, but somehow I found AR Rahmen's score hypnotic. I bought the soundtrack the following day and then Lagan, Kuch Kuch Hota Hai and K3G the following week and with the exception of \"Ichi the

killer\" a few other Korean films , I can't be bothered to watch much else. Kind of strange for someone who has only watched a strict diet of Hong Kong, Horror

and Action\/Science fiction films for the past 30 years.

But I should get back to Kannathil Muthamittal, It is one of the Mani Ratman's latest efforts and I laughed, Cried, Got totally mad, terrified and most of all I didn't feel manipulated. The acting was superb, the photography was beautiful, I think you could stop the movie at any given time and would notice that any give frame would be worthy of painting. The music fit the movie perfectly and after the

credits rolled, I wanted to watch again... so I did.

It would be foolish to discuss the plot for fear that you may miss the pleasure of watching the events unfold and the characters develop. This is what great film is all about! I stood and applauded in my home theater when it was over!

My wife is watching now, and I can't wait for her reaction, I can't expect it will be anything less than mine.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I finally snagged a copy of Kannathil Muthamittal through Netflix and spent New Yera's Eve watching an amazing drama unfold. It began with Shyama (a winsome Nandita Das) getting married to Dhileepan in the backwaters of Sri Lanka and then a war takes over their romance. Shyama has to flee to India and is in a refugee camp as she gives birth to a child. Several years later we see Amudha, a playful well-loved child (P. S. Keerthana), who is the darling (or burden) of teachers, parents and fellow schoolmates alike, in a very How to Solve a Problem Like Maria sequence. On her birthday she is told by her parents Thiru (Madhavan) and Indra (Simran) that she is not their biological child, she was adopted. This tilts her confident love-filled world and she constantly dwells on why her birth mother left her. Several attempts at truancy later the adoptive parents take her to Sri Lanka to try to find her birth mother. The country is torn asunder by a raging civil war and the trio are inevitably caught up in the mess. But this also leads to their meeting the new Shyama - one who finally is confronted by Amudha and asked why she abandoned her daughter.

The story of a child who has to grapple with the fact that she was abandoned at birth, her obsessive drive to reconnect with her birth mother, the unconditional love of the adoptive parents, the demons that drive the birth mother, the normalcy of Chennai and the horrors of terrorism ravaged Sri Lanka - Mani Ratnam made a masterful film that blended many ingredients into a saga that is soul stirring. AR Rahman's music beautifully complements the magical and the poignant moments in the film. The film has excellent performances from Madhavan, Nandita Das, Simran and an absolute stunner role as Amudha - the abandoned one - done by the child artiste P. S. Keerthana. This performance won her a National award.

The cinematography is visual poetry - each frame is beautifully crafted and breathtakingly shot. I am intrigued by the connection Mani Ratnam has with terrorism, love and obsessions. I think his exploration of these subjects is absolutely outstanding. Mahadevan's character was quite unique - his passion and idealism did not make him selfish, rather was well matched with how much he cared for the little girl. His one liners were hilarious. The mother played by Simran was also quite multi-dimensional - she was idealistic, loved the adopted daughter but also worried about her biological kids. The shock, angst, and obsession of the child Amudha was outstandingly portrayed by P. S. Keerthana. Her wide accusing eyes did most of the talking. In fact the enigmatic characters were those of Nandita Das, and her husband. Perhaps Mani deliberately made them mysterious so as to not give us overt ideas of why they were the way they were - the enigma of why a terrorist becomes what he or she becomes. It also kept him from being judgmental - this was another conflict in which he took no sides but merely reported while showing the human tragedy.

Kannathil Muthamittal is visual poetry and a soul stirring drama - I rarely weep in the movies, but this one left me moist eyed and a little heartsick. This is a beautiful film - a treasure and a keeper if you can find a copy; beg borrow or steal one today and watch the film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mani is back wit a Rathnam(gem) he manages to capture the mental trauma of a small girl searching 4 her mother they way he goes about showing the problems-in Ceylon is a treat.. .. Tis movie is a must watch.the musical score does enhance the viewing pleasure.. Rahman a find of Rathnam has given some great tunes the lyrics r apt 4 the movie the locations used for the movie are very good and makes viewing pleasant the movie starts of in a light manner moves over to capture the feelings of the girl finally goes on o shed light into the life of people in war torn places across the world this is yet another classic from ManiRathnam","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One more classic performance by Maniratnam and his team. They can be proud to show this movie at all film festivals for it has got everything that needs to name it as an \"all time classic\". The war and its impacts in Sri Lanka through the eyes of a ten year old girl is the movie all about but the scenes and circumstances will surely be not the one that you will expect. Madhavan no wonder he is one of the best actors in the country who can always add beauty and unique identity for the role he plays, and it needs real daringness to act as a father for three kids when he is considered as a dream boy with a glamorous personality in the industry. Music by AR Rahman makes the movie a special one for those who love melodies. Above all the story and the way it is told makes it as the best movie in the recent times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an incredible movie that begins slowly. It leads you along in thinking of it as a typical maudlin family drama. Then, in the second half, there is a plot twist that utterly transforms this into a profound tale of global scope.

If you are unaccustomed to films from India, with song and dance routines seemingly grafted on for no reason, stick with this movie. Especially beginning with the second half, you will find this movie an amazing experience.

*********** Minor Spoiler Here ************* I have but one complaint with the movie. The dialog at the end (between Amudha and MDS) seemed very weak and missed the opportunity to bring in the war as a force that transforms people's lives. It was implied all along, but there should have been something about the importance of the struggle for MDS.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I stepped into the theater, I thought this was going to be a great movie. And I was not disappointed one bit. WOW! This movie is brilliant! The emotions felt through out the whole movie are extraordinary! Great acting by Madhavan and Simran. Beautiful music by A.R. Rahman. This might most probably be the best Tamil movie I've seen in ages. Mani Ratnam has yet again proved that he is the best in making meaningful and heartfelt movies.

This movie is basically about a young girl (P.S. Keerthana) who is in search of her biological mother (Nandita Das) who abandoned her in a refugee camp to fight for her country just like her husband (J.D. Chakravathy). A young novelist (Madhavan) finds out about this young girl's story and decides to write a story about her. He and his wife (Simran) decide to adopt this young child but one day she finds out that they are not her real parents and decides to search for her biological mother.

This movie really screams EXCELLENT. The way Mani Ratnam presented the movie is magnificent.

My Rating - 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this is one of the best tamil movies i've seen in a while. i love the fact that it doesn't revolve around a guy and girl falling in love and they made the movie brilliantly. The cast did a great job and i especially congratulate the litte girl. She was brilliant and really brought out the feeling of an adopted child searching for her real mother. Best of all are the songs, beautiful music and moving lyrics. There are some great songs in this move ya'll! especially 'Kannathil Mutthamittal' and 'Velai Pookal'. Great songs, both of them. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to enjoy a good cry and some great acting (and superb songs! ). Cheers Simran.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You don't have to be a tamilian to appreciate this gem of a movie.I don't know a word of tamil and saw this movie only because a friend had recommended it to me.Understanding a movie without knowing the language is quite tough but I could make out the story because the lead actors (and actresses)emoted really well.And the little girl was really cute (she wasn't irritating like child actors in most hindi movies).The story is really touching and hats off to Mr. Ratnam for trying something different.The relationship between the parents and their children are shown quite realistically.(I could identify with the characters in the movie).It was alltogether a movie that will remain in my heart forever and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to my friends.Also the songs are just out of this world!They were beautifully and meaningfully picturised.If only I could understand the right meaning of the lyrics:(","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To tell you the truth, I do not speak Tamil, and I did not understand the film. My good Tamil friend, Kaneswaran Kumarswamypillai (wow, what a long name), explained every thing to me. What a great movie!!! After watching this movie, I felt I should have watched many more movies from Tollywood (Tamil Film Industry). The war scenes were amazing, camera work excellent, and plot beautiful. The actress \"Simran\", what a beauty. Give her an award for best looking someone. Ding, Ding, Ding, come on I smell a OSCAR winner. I didnt understand the songs, but they were excellent. Mani Ratnam is a great director, and I hope his next film was a success.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hello all! I went to this movie without any expectation though I knew Maniratnam would've given an excellent film! I was stunned!! The backdrop is the struggle between the tamils settled in Sri Lanka and the government. The story is about how an young girl Amudha who lives with her foster parents at Chennai, India leaves to Sri Lanka in search of her real mother. The high points of the film are the performances of every actor and actress and ofcourse, the cinematography, editing and all other technical details. Full marks to the cast and crew. I have to mention about the cinematography as it brings out the war in such a way that you feel yourself being there. Excellent work! Though the war sequences reminded me of Saving Private Ryan, such a work was never attempted on Indian Screen. Overall the movie is great! And hats off to Mr.Maniratnam.

Mani Ratnam has once again proved that he is a director who can take Indian cinema to great heights! I would love to watch this film again and again. An excellent film and a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kannathil Muthamittal is for sure a great movie. I have to give it to Mani Ratnam for a great directing job and A.R. Rahman for great songs. The camera work is just excellent and is similar to Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan. I will be shocked if this movie does not win an Oscar for Best Foreign Film or even Best Camera Work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When you want to celebrate life and love, especially for precious little daughters, you have to shout it from the countryside. And what gorgeous countrysides! There are so many tears of joy even God joins in. See this movie.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this movie when it was released and no doubt it is heart touching. I liked the point of view of a kid who came to know that what she was thinking about her were actually not true. It's a shatter to that small kid. And her search to find out who she is. And before and after she knows about her, the relationship between her and her foster-mom. That's a nice view. A R Rahman adds his stress by a good re-recording and songs. In this movie mani ratnam does not exaggerate or give advices (like in Vuyire) but simply narrates the characters as they are . And because of that the film exactly strikes the audience. The pool bath scene of chakkarvarthy and nandhitadas did not convey perfectly what it meant for. Mani Ratnam has amazingly improved.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is absolute gold. If you haven't seen it, do. Mani Ratnam outdoes himself once again. This film introduced me to Nandita Das as well, though everyone shines in this movie. My only regret is I've never found a copy with subtitles to the lyrics of the songs. We are led from the jungle of northern Sri Lanka to the serene beaches of Southern India, as well as from the terror of war to the ultimate conquest by love of the human heart. Beautiful, subtle, witty, with a few hidden surprises waiting for the viewer, this movie stands up to being seen again and again, and the story within the story, The Umbrella, is done so well, as we watch the scene unfold from drawings in a book. Lovely. Watch it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mani sir as usual brings out another amazing story with Kannathil Muthamittal. Such an amazing relationship between parents and child is brought out in a beautiful fashion. Mani Sir as usual without much special effects and not much outdoor shoots.(In fact this was the only movie where he went outside India ever..that too just to sri lanka).Mani's class is written all over the movie...and to add to it ARR's music..which is just amazing...Vellai Pookal is one of my most fav songs ever... Maddy,who is what he is in the film industry has impressed a lot too. Starting from alaipayuthey ,to kannathil to ayutha ezuthu to guru.. Mani ratnam has showed to the world what a versatile actor Maddy is. Simran has been really good too. She has showed that she can act too in non-glamorous and character roles. In all an amazing movie. Sad that the tamil public could not appreciate this gr8 movie and it bombed at the box-office....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It pays to watch Reader's Digest. Or Time, if it was the original source of the article that served as a supposed inspiration to Mani Ratnam to make this masterpiece. Based on a true story of an adopted girl who goes in search of her biological parents, Mr. Ratnam paints a classic that rivets as much as it rebukes, cherishes as much as it chastens and preaches as much as it practises.

Where does one start? The foreboding gloom that precedes fresh strife in northern Sri Lanka? The chaotic household of a family headed by a firebrand engineer-author and 3 adorably naughty children? Or that murky region where reality crosses the point of providing a comfortable existence and becomes a monster of incredulous and sinister events and ideologies? Whichever way one looks at it, this film is worth being in your collection, if you happen to like Mani Ratnam's compelling dramas.

Mr. Ratnam is a past master in blending fictional tales within real life incidents and in this film, he oozes class in adapting two real-life stories into one. I will not go into the story as it is better seen than read. But, what I will dwell upon is the impact it had upon me and why, for all the war-mongering that happens in this world, it cannot destroy that simple yet inexhaustible force called hope.

Innocence, in its purity, cannot fathom the complex desires of adult decadence and greed. Nor does it recognize perils when it is accompanied by the fierce determination to seek what it wants. It is an innocence of such nature that drives Amudha to seek her biological parents, despite warnings that they could be lost in the cauldron of civil war. Having survived a terrorizing experience of conversing with a physically challenged man only to realize that he is a more lethal entity in disguise, Amudha sticks to her cause in a manner that tears down her well-wishers' resistance. And finally, when the twain do meet, mother and daughter, the reunion is so taut with emotion that even the temperamental adoptive father is reduced to tears. Aided by a coruscating background score from A R Rahman, the scene that follows is poignant to melt even the stoniest of hearts: a list of questions that Amudha has to ask her biological mother. In a culmination as dramatic as the sequence of incidents leading to it, a child discovers its mother, alive in body but lost in spirit. With the crushing realization that she has no hope of staying with the one who bore her, Amudha does to her adoptive mother what this film's title means: a peck on the cheek.

As for the cast, the trail is clearly blazed by the brilliant PS Keerthana. Mr. Ratnam has a gift of extracting spectacular performances from little-known child artistes, but this should take nothing away from Keerthana for an award-winning performance. With an able supporting cast of Madhavan (Thiru), Simran (Indira) and the stupendous Nandita Das (Shyama), she embellishes the scenes in almost every frame she is in. The music may be not as memorable as other Rahman offerings but that still didn't stop him from garnering another National Award for the best music direction. \"Vellai Pookal\" is as much an ode for the need to cherish human life as it is for nature. The dialogues are top-class (sample the touching exchange Amudha and Indira have on the swing, shortly after the revelation that she is not Indira's biological daughter) and the cinematography, superb.

This film is a clear statement to drop arms as much as it is to respect human life and expressions. Do not judge it as a lesson in film-making; you will only lose out on experiencing one of the very best from the Mani Ratnam-A R Rahman stable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Last night, I saw A PECK ON THE CHEEK (KANNATHIL MUTHAMITTAL with English subtitles). Oddly, it was 137 minutes long--slightly longer than the time listed on IMDb.

At first, I found myself losing interest in this film because the rather confusing style of filming really lost me. The context for what was occurring was missing and I am glad I stuck with it. At the beginning, a young couple is married and shortly after the wedding, war breaks out in their native Sri Lanka and the lovers are separated. Months later, the wife is very pregnant and on board a refugee vessel heading to India. At a refugee center, you see the lady about to give birth--after which the titles to the film finally are revealed.

The entire focus of the film then changes completely--to a young girl who is about to turn 9 in Madras, India. You see her in her home and she talks to the camera about her life and family. None of this seems that interesting or important and you wonder what is missing--what about the lady who was about to give birth? My wife and I debated this and we finally guessed that this little girl was actually the child of the lady in the first part of the film. Somehow or another, she had been adopted and was talking about her life with mom and dad #2--though she did NOT realize these people were not her biological parents.

Soon after this, the parents revealed themselves to be total idiots (one of the complaints I had about the film), as they decided to tell this very young girl the truth about her parentage AND tell it in a way that left the girl emotionally screwed up and confused. Despite a stupid decision and telling her in the worst way, the parents made up for this by agreeing to help her find her biological mother. Seeing the impact all this had on the girl and parents (particularly the adoptive mother) was impressive to watch and sure sparked my interest.

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has been involved in a very, very long and brutal civil war with Tamilese militants, off and on, for three decades. The family's decision to look for the mom back in Sri Lanka was indeed noble, but also a bit stupid at times--as they took so many risks and nearly got killed again and again by just blindly jumping into the middle of a war! This was all exciting and captivating but also left me wondering about the sanity of the adoptive parents--first you tell her she ISN'T your biological child and now you take her in the middle of a WAR ZONE!!! Sure, the kid really wanted to meet her biological mother, but this really was stupid in hind sight. If it were me, I might have been tempted to pay an unemployed actress to play the part and fool the kid--thus avoiding being in the middle of a war!

Despite my complaints, the film was lovely to watch and was very rewarding. Far from perfect, it sure hits an emotional home run. Also, while I expected this because I have seen several Indian films, many Westerners will be a bit surprised by the vivid songs that seem to come out of no where--this IS standard in most films from India--including those made in Bollywood (Bombay) and Tamilwood\/Kollywood (Madras).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Recently had the pleasure of seeing this emotionally charged film by Director Mani Ratnam at the 2002 Toronto International Film Festival. I have bestowed my highest honour of the Film Festival on this feature. Make sure that you do not let an opportunity to experience this cinematic gem pass you by ... but be forewarded: this film will make you shed a tear if you belong to the species known as homo sapien! A 10 !!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Touching Bollywood epic melodrama about a 10 year-old girl who finds out that she's adopted, and is determined to find her birth mother. The film's major success is the performance of P.S. Keerthana, who plays the girl. The first half of the film is very good. There are a few really good songs, too, especially the number that introduces the protagonist. Unfortunately, the film's second half, which takes place in war-torn Sri Lanka, feels like an entirely different, and disappointing movie. It's big on explosions and special effects, with Sri Lankan soldiers and rebels dodging grenades, running from fireballs, and being yanked by stunt wires. All the film can offer as insight are cheap platitudes like, \"Some day there must come peace\" and \"Perhaps the children will find a way\". The final sequence, where the daughter and mother are reunited, is good, but so over-the-top with the music and a well-timed downpour that it feels like a cheat. I know, I know, it's all in the style of Bollywood. But this is a story where big moments simply detract from the simple, powerful central story. Bollywood could certainly use a little restraint at times, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My favourite movie of all time. This was a flawed piece of work by Coppola and seeing the documentary 'Heart of Darkness' made it even more compelling. Coppola at this point was king of Hollywood after making 'the Godfather' and 'GodfatherII' and had developed the ego necessary to even dare try to make a movie like 'Apocalypse Now'. Through sheer arrogance he went to the Phillipines with a partial script and thought he would know what he would do when he got there. Just as Captain Willard thought he would know what to do once he got to Col. Kurtz's compound. And just like Willard, he DIDN'T know what he was going to do once he got there. This is such a masterpiece of American cinema, beautifully photographed and the river is such a perfect metaphor and backdrop for the story. What I like most about 'Apocalypse Now' is that it offers no answers or conclusions. Consequently, because of this open-endedness, it infuriates some viewers who like their movies to be much more obvious.

This movie defies categorization. Some call it a war movie which it isn't at all, really it is more of a personal study of man. The best pic about Vietnam is 'Platoon' in my opinion and if a viewer is seeking a retelling of the Vietnam War go there first for answers.

Coppola should be commended for his take on the bureaucracy of war which he conveys quite effectively with the meeting with Gen.Corman and Lucas (Harrison Ford) and the Playmate review. The sheer audacity of Kilgore makes him an unforgettable character and the dawn attack will always be a Hollywood classic.

It is an almost psychedelic cruise to a very surreal ending which makes it a movie not accessible to everyone. Very challenging to watch but rewarding as well. I could offer my explanations on each scene but that would be totally pointless. This movie is intended for interpretation and contemplation as opposed to immediate gratification.

A little footnote, definitely if your a first-time viewer of Apocalypse Now, watch the original version first, the 'Redux' version is, I think, more intended for the hardcore fan and is more of a curiosity than a 'new and improved' version of the movie","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw APOCALYPSE NOW in 1985 when it was broadcast on British television for the first time . I was shell shocked after seeing this masterpiece and despite some close competition from the likes of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING this movie still remains my all time favourite nearly 20 years after I first saw it

This leads to the problem of how I can even begin to comment on the movie . I could praise the technical aspects especially the sound , editing and cinematography but everyone else seems to have praised ( Rightly too ) these achievements to high heaven while the performances in general and Robert Duvall in particular have also been noted , and everyone else has mentioned the stark imagery of the Dou Long bridge and the montage of the boat traveling upriver after passing through the border

How about the script ? Francis Ford Coppola is best known as a director but he's everyway a genius as a screenwriter as he was as a director , I said \" was \" in the past tense because making this movie seems to have burned out every creative brain cell in his head , but his sacrifice was worth it . In John Milius original solo draft we have a script that's just as insane and disturbing as the one on screen , but Coppola's involvement in the screenplay has injected a narrative that exactly mirrors that of war . Check how the screenplay starts off all jingoistic and macho with a star turn by Bill Kilgore who wouldn't have looked out of place in THE GREEN BERETS but the more the story progresses the more shocking and insane everything becomes , so much so that by the time reaches Kurtz outpost the audience are watching another film in much the same way as the characters have sailed into another dimension . When Coppola states \" This movie isn't about Vietnam - It is Vietnam \" he's right . What started off as a patriotic war to defeat communist aggression in the mid 1960s had by the film's setting ( The Manson trial suggests it's 1970 ) had changed America's view of both the world and itself and of the world's view of America

It's the insane beauty of APOCALYPSE NOW that makes it a masterwork of cinema and says more in its running time about the brutality of conflict and the hypocrisy of politicians ( What did you do in the Vietnam War Mr President ? ) than Michael Moore could hope to say in a lifetime . I've not seen the REDUX version but watching the original print I didn't feel there was anything missing from the story which like all truly great films is very basic . In fact the premise can lend itself to many other genres like a western where an army officer has to track down and kill a renegade colonel who's leading an injun war party , or a sci-fi movie where a UN assassin is to eliminate a fellow UN soldier who's leading a resistance movement on Mars , though this is probably down to Joseph Conrad's original source novel

My all time favourite movie and it's very fitting that I chose this movie to be my one thousandth review at the IMDb","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As I peruse through the hundreds of comments that loyal readers of the IMDB have posted on this film, I find it very interesting how few ,\"middle of the road\" comments there are. Everyone either loves it, or they hate it. Having seen Apocalypse Now approximately 30 times, and having recently dissected it on DVD (how did we ever live without those magical digital machines?????), I can say without hesitation that I am one of those who have a very special place in my heart for this film. \"Why would you like a film that's so confusing?\" ask many of my associates. The answer is this: Forget the war, forget the brutality....This is a classic story of society protecting itself from those that refuse to fall in line with the status quo. Brando represents the individual that has his own way of getting the job done. They (Big Brother) sent him out to do the job, he does it too well, without adhering to the accepted \"standards\" of death and destruction (Am I the only one who's troubled by the fact that we have 'standards' for death and destruction????), so they send the \"Conformity Police\" out to eliminate the individual. Hmmmmmm....Draw any parallels between this and things you see every day? With the deepest respect to Mr. Coppola, whom I believe is one of the best directors of all time, I think he transcended his original intent of the movie, and probably didn't even realize it until after the movie was released. The subtle sub-text that permeates the entire movie has way too much to it to have been planned and portrayed; instead, it seems to have 'grown' itself, like some wild flower in the middle of a vegetable garden. Again I must reiterate: I think FF Coppola did a bang-up job on this entire production, as did the cast and crew, but the sum of the movie exceeds the individual efforts ten-fold. So if you haven't seen the movie, rent it, watch it, then watch it again, and maybe a few more times, and look for all the generic parallels to everyday life. Only then make a judgment on the quality of the film. Those of you that have seen it, watch it again with the mindset previously described. I think you may just have a whole new appreciation for the film. Or maybe not! No matter whether you love it or hate it, be sure and give credit to Coppola for his masterful story-telling style!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"During the final throes of the Vitnam war, our central character, Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen) is dispatched by the CIA on an illegal one-man mission to assassinate a renegade US Marine commander, Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), who has allegedly gone 'completely insane', but who is successfully waging a private cross-border war from his base in Cambodia, a neutral and therefore off-limits country.

The entire narrated story of what Willard sees and does as he is ferried up the Da Nang river by an undisciplined and terrorised navy patrol boat crew to murder Kurtz is a grand metaphor for the excesses, decadence and ultimately the weakness of the Anglo-Saxon psyche: If we don't understand something, and we are unable to control it, exterminate it. Kurtz had eventually come to know this.

Unless you pay complete attention to every emotional gesture, to every word of the dialogue between the protagonists, especially in the scene where the two of them are alone in Kurtz's darkened lair, you will miss one of the central themes of this incredible movie. Kurtz's subtle deal with his executioner, his unilateral 'surrender' in return for Willard agreeing (did he nod?) to tell Kurtz's 'son' (another metaphor for us, the next generation, the ones watching the movie) the truth about all the horrors that they had both seen in Vietnam, is mind-expanding stuff.The bonding between the two men whilst Kurtz cross-examines Willard,--interlaced with some of his own horror stories, is incredible, nay, genius, film. The closing (intercut)scene of the ritual slaughter of a sacrificial bull is the single most powerful of symbols. Coppolla has made, intentionally or not, the ultimate anti-war statement, one that should resonate through the ages.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Apocalypse Now Redux', Francis Ford Coppola's war opus is probably the most beautiful war film I have ever seen. Capt. Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen) is a Vietnam soldier who is tapped to head a very dangerous and highly classified mission into Cambodia to 'terminate the position' of Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a highly ranked and highly regarded army man who seemingly has gone completely insane and defected from the army, setting up his own little society and helped by a cultish following of soldiers. Escorting him up the river to Cambodia is a handful of navy men, and along the way, they encounter several interesting people (most notably is Robert Duvall's Kilgore, a badass lieutenant colonel with a few screws loose) and some horrifying situations.

'Apocalypse' is less historical war film than a philosophical and psychological study. It is more 'Full Metal Jacket' than 'Platoon'. The running time of 'Apocalypse' is over three hours, but the film is so wonderfully paced and compelling that when the end of the film arrived, I was actually surprised at the amount of time that had passed. The beautiful cinematography is surely what stood out the most for me, however. After seeing this film, I am convinced that Coppola is one of the masters of light and photography in film history. The 'Godfather' films were all tinged with an almost sepia tone, and shadows created the feeling of a Baroque composition. With 'Apocalypse', there is an incredible usage of natural light, and the shadows, particularly in the scenes involving Brando and Sheen, almost become a living character, they are so pervasive and effective. Another gorgeous scene was when Cpt. Willard and Jay Hicks (Frederic Forrest) were in the jungle looking for mangoes, and come across a tiger. The sheer enormity of the surrounding foliage (leaves as big as a house) made the characters almost Lilliputian, but the colorization of the scene was incredible. While everything else was almost a muted grey, the leaves were an incredibly vibrant green, an effect that was particularly striking. Another really minor positive moment in the film was the great scene when the helicopters carrying Duvall and company attack the small village while playing Wagner. This could have just been an ultra-dramatic underlying soundtrack to the scene, but instead Coppola turns the song into an actual part of the scene, with Duvall mentioning that he likes to play it while they are approaching to 'scare the hell out of them'.

The performances in 'Apocalypse' are first class. Much has been made of the amount of money Brando earned for the film, and the amount of trouble he caused. Regardless of this, he turned out a powerful performance for a relatively short amount of screen time. Sheen is completely outstanding - this is the first time I have seen him really unleash in a film \u0096 and Duvall is a lot of fun to watch as the loony Kilgore. 'Apocalypse Now' is a film that is so pervasive in pop culture by now (most know several choice lines from the film, 'I love the smell of napalm in the morning' et al) but I knew little enough about it that there were plenty of surprises left to experience. I have not seen the original cut of 'Apocalypse Now' so I cannot compare it to this newer cut, but this is a film that should most certainly be experienced. 8\/10

--Shelly","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i have lost count as to how many times i have watched this movie. i've never grown tired of it since this is a movie that can be enjoyed and interpreted on so many levels. they just don't make movies like this anymore.

after recently finally watching the riveting documentary on the making of this film (Hearts of Darkness:a filmmakers journey into madness), i'm even more amazed that this film even got finished, yet alone turn out so great.

the fact that they actually filmed this movie in the jungles of the Phillipines is the film's greatest asset. you actually FEEL like your in Vietnam.

all of the actors are fantastic with my favorites still being Robert Duvall (\"I love the smell of napalm in the morning!!\") martin sheen, and the great Marlon Brando.

a lot of people complain that the film gets too murky, weird and cerebral near the end. well, remeber what Coppolla said about this movie, \"This film is not about vietnam, it IS vietnam!\" what he means is that this film is about MADNESS and not the war.

this movie is based on the short story \"Heart of darkness\" by Joseph Conrad and is set against the vietnam war instead of the civil war as in the book. i think that was a brilliant combination in my opinion.

this is perfect, challenging film that is dark, violent, humorous at times and well done in every single possible way.

a true classic

rating:10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Francis Ford Coppola's \"Apocalypse Now\" is not a Vietnam War film. Do not confuse it with one. It is set to the back drop of the war, but it is a metaphorical exposition on the deteriorating effects that war has on the human psyche. It is also one of the most audacious films ever made, produced, or even conceived (second to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. To call it a masterpiece would be an understatement of proportions as ambitious as the film's production levels.

Opening with no credits and following a memorable first scene playing to the tune of the Doors \"The End\" as Martin Sheen's Captain Benjamin L. Willard hallucinates to images of helicopters and napalm, the plot is essentially laid out in the first 15 minutes. Willard's mission is to \"terminate... with extreme prejudice\" Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) who has invariably gone AWOL in the far reaches of the Cambodian jungle and, as told by his general, is \"out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still in the field commanding troops.\" Kurtz is a delusional Colonel now being worshipped by a large group of followers who have dubbed him a god. For Willard, this covert operation seems somewhat more manageable than actual combat, yet, the journey he is about to take will be a personal quest that will challenge the limits of his human behavior.

Teaming up with a small crew, they embark down the vast reaches of the river in a rickety boat. Along the way, Willard educates himself on all things Kurtz. During Sheen's raspy voice over, he details his thoughts on the abundance of material he reads. Kurtz was a highly decorated and respected Green Beret. He was a normal man with a family, until a part of him succumbed to the horrors of human brutality and he led himself down the path that Willard is being led. The descent into the jungle is marked by a mesmerizing aura that echoes the battles being fought not to far away. Eventually the power of the experience weights on the group as drugs and a sort of solitary confinement attacks their senses. But Willard seems unfazed and desensitized in his quest to find Kurtz. As he reads about this mythic figure, he is drawn to the man's power and why he has become what he has become. We know that Willard's slow decay will parallel that of Kurtz's.

Marlon Brando has been revered for decades. His presence: unmatchable. His genius: undeniable. But for those unacquainted with his acting prowess and unaccustomed to his physical nuance, Brando can be perceived, in the eyes of an uncompromising film-goer, as a hack. He is most certainly not. Brando was difficult to work with, hard to interpret and impossible to understand, but his talent for unintelligible rants and unparalleled monologues is irrefutable. The man obviously knew what he was doing even if we didn't. His Colonel Kurtz is a being of limitless delusions and continual profundity.

If the film is any indication of the journeys into hell than Francis Ford Coppola's actual experience with making this masterpiece is a true life account of one man's fanatical struggle to produce a movie. It is reported that during the film's 200 plus day principle photography schedule, Coppola contemplated suicide. The film was not only an undeniable struggle to make; it is a grueling film to watch. Coppola's sweat and blood seep through the pores of the steamy locals and his dedication filters through the orifices of Martin Sheen's haunted soldier Willard.

I can not help but feel a warm sense of nostalgia for this type of film. At the dawn of all that was original and unprecedented, films that challenged as well as stimulated were commonplace. Audacity aside, Apocalypse Now is pure film-making. My respect and admiration for Mr. Coppola is of the highest order. But I shudder at the return to what has become the norm for today's standards for film: a lack of innovation. It is not simply the unoriginality of the world of cinema today; it is the fact that nobody seems to care to tell a story anymore or to tell one with heart. But we still have the great ones like Coppola's masterpiece, a film which bathed in its ability to give us something deeper than that which we could comprehend.

That depth in Apocalypse Now is the step into madness. The killing can disturb. The loss of innocence can unhinge. But it is the damage from within; the countless barrages of images that distress, unnerve and detach us from our everyday world and the memories that plague our deepest thoughts that eventually segregates us from humanity and propels us into the realm of the instinctual, the savage and the animalistic. If the thought of killing does not provide sustenance, the act of killing provides man with its fundamental catharsis.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Somewhere on IMDb there is a discussion about the greatest director of all times (Spielberg, Copolla and others are named there). The greatest argument was around Spielberg and whether he is or isn't a great director. The problem with Spielberg is that while he is a master technician, most of his films lack depth.Saving Ryan is really outstanding from a technical point of view, but its message is dull and while its very entertaining, it doesn't make you think about anything. AN is the best movie I ever saw because it combines great shooting with a deep philosophical perspective on so many things, starting from war in general, the clash of civilizations, the condition of soldier in wartimes (is a soldier a hero or an assassin? Brando says he is neither, the french lady says he is both ...) and many others. The problem with some people is that they try to argue about whether these points are true or false. But a great movie, and a great piece of art in general is supposed to spark arguments, not to solve them ... Maybe Coppola is right, or maybe he isn't, nobody holds the truth anyway. You can watch this movie for its outer beauty, amazing scenes, great acting and memorable quotes and you will be entirely satisfied. But what really make this movie a masterpiece is its inner quality. You can't help but make a comparison with the recent Fahrenheit documentary.Both Copolla and Moore tackle similar issues, but while Copolla presents matters from an outside , objective point of view, Moore takes a very partisan position that really compromises the whole point of a documentary ... It is really a shame that a film like Fahrenheit 9\/11 won a prestigious award like Cannes. But anyway, if you want to start to understand a little of the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the second World War and any war in general, you should definitely see this movie, and not the other one ...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie changed the art of film making, telling a complex story in a powerful new way. The film mixes brutal realism with fantasy, intercutting a modern war with strange scenes full of technicolour smoke. The film uses music not as a score laid in later, but as a practical part of the scene playing from speakers, radios etc. Coppola uses a classic piece of literature as inspiration, taking scenes and characters, and putting them into entirely different surroundings. That is a tricky and brave thing to do. Then he takes a superstar, Brando, pays him a fortune, and films him so that you can barely see his face. The pure guts that such a move requires is astounding, and it works beautifully. This movie belongs in the top ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After the success of the first two 'Godfather' films in 1972 and 1974 respectively, Francis Ford Coppola embarked on an ambitious attempt to bring home the reality of the war in Vietnam, which had concluded with the fall of Saigon to the Vietcong in 1975\u0085 The plot was loosely based on the book 'Heart of Darkness,' a story by Joseph Conrad about Kurtz, a trading company agent in the African jungle who has acquired mysterious powers over the natives\u0085Coppola retains much of this, including such details as the severed heads outside Kurtz's headquarters and his final words, \"The horror\u0085 the horror\u0085\"

In the film, Sheen plays an army captain given the mission to penetrate into Cambodia, and eliminate, with \"extreme prejudice,\" a decorated officer who has become an embarrassment to the authorities\u0085 On his journey up the river to the renegade's camp he experiences the demoralization of the US forces, high on dope or drunk with power\u0085

Although, as a result of cuts forced on Coppola, the film was accused of incoherence when first released, it was by the most serious attempt to get to grips with the experience of Vietnam and a victorious reinvention of the war film genre\u0085 In 1980 the film won an Oscar for Best Cinematography and Best Sound\u0085

\"Apocalypse Now\" was re-released in 2001 with fifty minutes restored\u0085 As a result, the motion picture can now be seen as the epic masterpiece it is\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From all of the Vietnam war movies this is probably the most frightening and disturbing and that is really saying a lot with so many spectacular ones that have come out. It has this freakish feel to it. Everything is so chaotic in the movie it scares you. It is not like it shows a lot of different things compared to the other Vietnam war movies. What does push to such a high level is the:

The directing was spectacular here. Francis Ford Coppola shows of his talent in his last epic movie. Unlike other directors he makes you feel as if you are in the war. Most others just display and show you the horrors of war. Coppola though makes you feel confused, shocked and scared. These feelings of war are usually told to us from a movie or story. This is something that I have only experienced very few times while watching a film. The writing was of course amazing too. It brought you write into the middle of the movie. It never made me bored and this movie is three hours. The cinematography goes hand in hand with the directing which very much added to the freakish experience of watching this film showing all the chaos around you even when everything seems calm.

The acting was bone-chilling. Just look at Marlon Brando also giving his last great performance playing a deluded, out of whack colonel. When ever I think of a crazy gone made soldier I think Marlon Brando in Apocalpyse Now. With Brando n this film you don't want to look into his eyes. Like the movie he was freakish. To me this performance is as memorable as the one he gave in The Godfather. Martin Sheen gave a very deep performance and probably the best one of his career making you see everything through his eyes all the craziness he is experiencing and yet wanting him to get to his goal. It is just a wonder why these two did not get Oscar nominations. Robert Duvall was able to show part of that craziness with his ludicrous battle strategies, among those playing music to tell the enemy he is coming. Also Duvall's character asking one of the soldiers to surf in the middle of a battle was just shocking but believable. Other great supporting performances were given by a young Laurence Fishburne, Sam Bottoms and Frederic Forest who all summed up the attitudes of many of the soldiers at that time without becoming a clich\u00e9. Also for once cameos were put into good use having Dennis Hopper and Harrison Ford who I both love.

I would definitely recommend people to watch this movie. It has a message and everyone involved in the making of it is at their best. There is nothing more I could ask of this movie with its great acting, directing, writing, cinematography and great ending. Watch and you will see why it lives up to its title Apocalpyse Now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I've watched this movie for over 25 years now and it's still almost as interesting as when I first saw it. It is definitely one of the most unique films ever made.

I still think Martin Sheen got \"dissed\" big-time in the billing, too. He dominates the film yet gets lesser billing than Marlon Brando, who only appears in the last 30 minutes of this 2 hours, 17 minutes film (theatrical version). How unfair is that?

Sheen is fantastic in here, especially his narration, which runs throughout. It's one of the best narrations, if not THE best, I have ever heard in a movie. His voice is just haunting as he relates his thoughts on this incredible, nightmare-like adventure. I never fail to appreciate his work in this movie.

The other thing that strikes me about the film over the years are the number of memorable scenes, ones I have never forgotten, such as......

Sheen losing it in his hotel room in the movie's first scene; Robert Duvall and the totally out-of-place surfing scenes and then the ensuing attack with Wagner's dramatic classical music blaring out of the helicopters; The Playboy bunny entertaining the troops; Frederic Forrest being freaked out seeing a tiger close up in the jungle; the weird scenes on the long riverboat ride; the appearance of hippie journalist Dennis Hopper greeting the crew in Cambodia and then Brando's bizarre character. It goes on and on with strange scenes.

That's not to say I enjoyed everything. No, there are a few very unpleasant scenes, such as the one in which an ox is sliced in half (can't watch that anymore), an innocent family is slaughtered on a small boat by Sheen's young stoned-out crew, and the crew is a little too goofy at times. Then, there is the huge amount of profanity, led by way too many f-words.

So, there is a lot of good and a lot of bad things in this movie for almost anyone who watches this One thing for sure: it is a film you WILL remember!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spoilers. This review has been edited due to word limit.

`The horror. The horror.' Marlon Brando, Apocalypse Now (1979) and Apocalypse Now Redux (2001)

The sentence which is as famous as `Here's looking at you, kid,' or `Are you talkin' to me?' or `May the Force be with you,' or `I'll be back,' means a little more than some one-liners. When it is spoken it lingers in the air with an importance and meaning that does not go unnoticed. What might drive some viewers nuts is that they may never find an answer to the horror unless they re-watch the film and try to pay close observation to every single frame.

What, exactly, does this line of dialogue mean? The horror spoken of is the reality of war. The reality of moral men being so easily corrupted that they turn on their inborn instincts and kill fellow beings without any sign of guilt. When Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen) stands before the dying Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) at the end of the film, `The horror.the horror.' is the realization of Willard's corruptness. He has mercilessly killed a man in cold blood as part of his assignment. This isn't a typical Hollywood ending. In most cases a character gains something, whether it be emotionally, physically, mentally or all three. But Willard both gains and loses. He gains the knowledge that he has lost his morals. And that is a shocking ending.

`Apocalypse Now' is Francis Ford Coppola's tribute to the artistic side of filmmaking. This film is wholly different from `The Godfather.' It is hallucinogenic, visually dazzling, and an ode to the guilty side of human nature. At first it seems realistic, and then it becomes strange, and then symbolic, and, by the end, original in its own unique perspective of the spiritual side of warfare. This is not as much a film about the Vietnam War as it is a film about the war within us.

At first it does appear to be another war film. Captain Willard (Sheen) is assigned by an Army Lieutenant (a young Harrison Ford) to assassinate a renegade American Colonel named Kurtz (Brando), who is hiding out somewhere in Vietnam with a hoard of troops who more or less act as his slaves.

Willard carries out his mission `with extreme prejudice,' heading out on a boat along with four soldiers, including the boat captain, Chief (Albert Hall), Chef (Frederic Forest), and a very young `Larry' Fishburne (who later went on to appear as Morpheus in `The Matrix').

\"Apocalypse Now\" is in a many ways a modern update of Homer's Odyssey. As our main character, Willard, carries on his journey, he meets an array of original and strange characters, including Lt. Col. Kilgore (Robert Duvall), who has a strange fetish for surfing, and a stoned photographer (Dennis Hopper), whose lively gestures and mannerisms can be compared to those of the very much lesser Jeremy Davies in \"The Million Dollar Hotel,\" one of the worst films I have ever seen. Davies failed to make any connection with an audience; Hopper does. He is like the poetic vibe between Willard and Kurtz; he is like an interpreter going back and forth and speaking in foreign languages. In this case, he is translating Kurtz to Willard, although I'm not so sure Kurtz needs a translation of Willard.

Many films are lucky enough to have one or two memorable scenes or lines. \"Apocalypse Now\" has many. Kilgore descending upon a Vietnam village playing Wagner's \"Ride of the Valkyries\" remains one of the most remembered scenes in all of film history. There is sharpness to it, a brutality to it, an ironic tone to it, and also a sense of playfulness. When Kilgore kneels down on that beach and says, `I love the smell of napalm in the morning.it smells like victory,' we all crack a smile.

I won't lie to you: `Apocalypse Now' is a strange film. It isn't exactly the easiest thing to analyze. The end may frustrate some viewers if they don't understand Marlon Brando's significant speeches. But what it all comes down to, what really matters, is that this film is about the dark nature of the human psyche. The horror is the realization of war and its effects, not the war itself. Kurtz says, `You have a right to kill me. But you have no right to judge me.' Brando's character, Kurtz, is left to the audience to judge. To many na\u00efve viewers he may appear as a crazy loon whose power got to his head. But that isn't what Francis Ford Coppola is trying to get across. By fighting in Vietnam, Kurtz has realized just how great he had it, and how bad some others had it. By walking through devastated villages he eventually comes to realize that we are the na\u00efve ones, living our lives in a fool's paradise. We are totally na\u00efve to our surroundings and possible misfortunes until they hit. By seeing how unlucky some Vietnamese are, Kurtz realizes just how easily he could be struck by something. Just how easily he could end up like the people around him. And he also realizes that the people who did this are people who have abandoned their morals and left them at the door. Many people think the horror is one thing. It is two. For Kurtz, the horror is the reality of how na\u00efve he was and the reality of the war's impact upon men. And after Willard murders Kurtz, and hears Kurtz's dying words, he realizes it too. He realizes the effects of war. To see so many soldiers with no sense of right or wrong makes him realize the horror of what war can do to a man. And what it has done to him. The horror.

5\/5 stars -

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) has been sent on a classified mission into Cambodia during the Vietnam War to assassinate Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) as he has gone completely insane and is no longer taking orders. And since Kurtz is one of the most decorated men in the armed forces, it is hard for Capt. Willard to understand how Col. Kurtz could go off the deep end as he has, killing without clearance and taking the war into his own hands. What possibly could have pushed this great man over the top? Through Willard's long journey through the jungle to find his target, he tries with some success to understand why. But what will he decide to do once he finds him?

Any movie that can start out with The Doors' \"The End\" is a great movie in my book, especially if it can flow with the mood and imagery shown with the song. Apocalypse Now does this perfectly. I can't think of anything better for it to be set to, the Vietnam War and the insanity in the soliders' minds that it created. AN is a dark and brutal story about a long journey through some of the hairiest jungle in Vietnam, the ultimate destination of which is murder. Through it's use of music and score alone, we are thrown into a dark world of mystery, violence, and insanity. A perfect example of how to set mood through music alone is this film right here.

An overall great cast, with the exception of Laurence Fishburne, of which Sheen and Brando give us more than enough acting skills to spread around on our movie desire bread. I just don't like Fishburne, ever since I found out he was Cowboy Curtis in PeeWee's playhouse my contempt and hatred for this man has increased ten fold. I realize the pettiness of this but I simply do not care. We need to sick Gary Oldman on him. Brando is excellent as Col. Kurtz and I can't think of any other actor that could have played the good man gone insane and hold such screen presence. Sheen is also fun to watch as Willard and we can identify with his questioning of his mission and the war in general. My favorite character in the movie has to be Robert Duvall's Lt. Colonel Kilgore. Before this film I never pictured Duvall as a wartime cowboy but honestly it's my favorite of his parts to date. He simply nailed his character, which is one of the best in the entire film, as the gung-ho Air Cavalry commander who loves to surf. Maybe a little over the top but still brilliant. I also love the smell of napalm in the morning.

The plot is a fairly simple one and it doesn't take too much brainpower to figure out what's going on. Willard's mission is to kill Kurtz, plain and simple. But it's the journey of the film that is really it's heart and also the dire situations of war itself. In the Redux version we are forced to sit through the extended French plantation scene and the Playboy bunny scene which really adds nothing to the film's entirety other than it makes it a longer journey. I don't feel they take away anything though, it's just a matter of if you want to watch a three and a half hour movie or the original. Through this journey, the film points out the utter futility and irrelevance of the war to the Americans and the massive effect it had on the soldiers who fought in it...in fact, that's the entire point. On top of that, the troops were not supported by the public and that could very well have helped cause a character like Kurtz' to go completely mad.

A big war movie lover, this one is up there with Platoon and The Deer Hunter, all of them classics. I sometimes try to compare films of the same genre to one another but it has gotten me in trouble in the past in my reviews as I have had to go back on what I've said. All three have their own strengths and add their own twist to the Vietnam War....so to really say one is better than the other is fairly pointless...even if after having most recently view AN I think it's a tad better. In the end, Apocalypse Now is a true classic in either version and worthy of the status it's been given. As a fellow reviewer has previously stated, AN is one of the most ambitious films ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Movies seem to fall into two categories: films that reinforce existing societal values and beliefs, and those that challenge them. This film is a 180-degree shift from the idealistic rhetoric portrayed in offerings like \"The Longest Day\" and \"The Green Berets\" which seem more like Disney fantasies by comparison. The \"Apocalypse Now!\" project, the production and resulting film, is \"Heart of Darkness\" updated into a psychological horror story of the late 20th century post-modernist variety. The cast and crew who worked on it probably could relate to the terrifying places the human mind can achieve. This is the plight of Joseph Conrad's original character Kurtz who came into literary being in 1901 and subsequently referenced in TS Eliot's \"The Hollow Men\" (Mistah Kurtz, he dead) of 1925. Although neither a straight telling of Conrad's \"Heart of Darkness\" (1901) nor a first-hand account of the Vietnam experience, \"Apocalypse Now!\" stands as a masterpiece which pushed on the envelope of cinematic potential. \"Apocalypse\" is not just about the \"horrors\" of war per se, like \"Platoon\" and \"The Deer Hunter\", but the darker sensibilities of human nature as revealed through the raw and demeaning confrontations of violent conflict on a mass scale. Apocalypse Now! is not so much seen as experienced.

The bulk of the movie is the journey of a trained secret assassin, Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen in a tour-de-force performance), aboard a US military boat traversing an unnamed river into the heart of Vietnam and Cambodia where few westerners would ever tread. His mission is to terminate Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a career army Special Forces Division officer who was the darling of the US Military until he went AWOL and renegade in the deep uncharted jungles between Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The official classified report is that the colonel has gone insane but as events play out, something else has happened to him that is far more terrifying than simply insanity. Sheen's mission is to terminate the colonel with the American public none the wiser.

The movie is rather episodic. The journey along the river is made up of several vignettes as Sheen and his crew meet different self-contained \"aspects\" of the war at the ground level. American audiences of the 1970's had probably never seen this kind of film-making before, with the possible exception of \"The Deer Hunter\" which was released in the previous year. The first, and one of the most notable, is an helicopter battalion led by Col Kilgore (Robert Duvall in an Oscar-nominated performance) who is a cross between General Robert E Lee and Richard Wagner. He loves to play \"Ride of the Valkyries\" from Wagner's \"The Ring\" when he bombards helpless villages. His line \"I love the smell of Napalm in the morning\" is one of those oft-quoted lines from the annals of cinema. Other encounters include an amphitheater where enlisted privates will be entertained by the likes of Hugh Heffner and Playboy bunnies.

Despite all the production catastrophes that impeded getting this footage into the can, the remarkable aspect of this film is its pacing. The original release (not the later Redux version) does a fine of job of building until the viewer is emotionally prepared to deal with the climactic confrontation between Willard and Kurtz. The strange discourse between Willard and Kurtz is worth the price of admission alone. And some of the shots of both Sheen and Brando in certain places are some of the starkest and terrifying images ever produced on film. Not even the likes of Clive Barker, Wes Craven or David Cronenberg have anything on Coppola in terms of horrific imagery. Brando's Kurtz in one scene in particular is so utterly terrifying it makes most other horror movies seem tame by comparison, which comes from the recognition that the horror is not from without but from within.

Without giving too much away, Coppola's solution to the climactic moment stands as one of the most innovative of cinematic revelations. According to the documentary \"Hearts of Darkness\", Coppola feared that the inevitable final scene would lapse into melodrama, and the atmosphere of the movie's darker hues would be compromised. He wasn't sure how he could make it work until his wife encouraged the director to witness the ceremonial sacrifice of an ox as practiced by the native people with whom Coppola was using as extras in the scenes with Kurtz at \"his\" village. After the viewing, Coppola had his ending, and it is one of the most simultaneously disturbing and beautiful sequences in the history of American film-making. Love it or hate it, no western viewer will be the same after seeing this scene.

This film is not for all tastes just as Conrad's original novel is not the kind of book that will be read on airplanes. It's not just the violence and the pointlessness of violence that are difficult for most American viewers to absorb. It's the naked unveiling of aspects of the human condition that seem so removed from suburban American life that make this film difficult for the average movie-goer to handle, which is as it should be. Coppola did not make a family picture. However, if the viewer can understand its larger point, there is a lot to be gotten out of Apocalypse Now!. If you're looking for a film experience to reaffirm pre-existing attitudes about American sensibility and heroism, better stick with John Wayne. But if you're willing to be taken into places you've never been, even beyond \"the evils of war\" rhetoric, \"Apocalypse Now\" will take you into a world you thought you'd never visited before, and the disturbing part of it is that you may recognize it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even with all the cinema dealing with the trauma of the Vietnam War (Jacob's Ladder, The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, and Taxi Driver to an extent) one feels that we don't even know the half of what happened. Even contemplating the horror feels inhuman. And a progression - or retreat? - to the inhumanity that it necessitates is a key part of Apocalypse Now, Coppola's greatest and one of the most important films ever made. Loosely based on Joseph Conrad's 1902 classic, \"Heart of Darkness\" which chronicles the loss of sanity and corruption of morality that comes with distance from civilization - a surfacing of a bestial nature, as it were, a la Lord of the Flies - it brings the story of a physical and psychological journey to Vietnam. The story is of Willard, a general commissioned on a special mission to Cambodia after his first tour of duty in Vietnam is served. Willard at the beginning of the film is stuck in Saigon, psychologically unable to go back home - eerily echoing Nicky in The Deer Hunter. So he is contacted: his mission is to assassinate a renegade Green Beret who has isolated himself in a remote outpost on the Nung River, and who has purportedly gone completely insane - worshiped like a god by the natives, and killing indiscriminately. This man's name is Colonel Kurtz, played by Marlon Brando in the second best role of his career (the best being Stanley Kowalski in A Streetcar Named Desire). As Willard journeys upriver in an army boat with some soldiers accompanying, his witnessing the horrors and the insanity - and the overwhelming pointlessness of it all - leads to an eerie sympathy and identification with Kurtz before they even meet. By the time they do, Kurtz's methods don't really seem as wrong or as they should, and they certainly don't seem too unusual or out-of-place. Apocalypse - a place beyond morality, the outpost on the end of the world. The loss of civilization, the loss of judgement, of self. Kurtz's monologue about an atrocity he witnessed as a Green Beret, and his later revelation, is one of the most chilling and well-delivered speeches in cinema history. The film is about trauma, about the human spirit and its breaking point - here, it's a lot like The Deer Hunter, and just as good. Apocalypse, however, takes the boundaries of what we can endure to a global level - Coppola's sweeping footage of the humid, murky jungles of Cambodia and an opening sequence of helicopters amid exploding forests and an orange sky - set to an oddly fitting Doors soundtrack - as well as chilling scenes on the river and of an air raid on a village with Wagner blasting from speakers (a scene which has gone down as one of the most chilling, darkly humorous, and strikingly pointless war scenes ever) - this all contributes to the sense of Apocalypse - the end of the world - and not at some distant point in the future, but Apocalypse Now and forever. The Deer Hunter is much more up close and personal, you can even tell by the title, and shows the totalling effect trauma has on the individual psyche, the breaking down of the human soul, and its ability to either surrender completely to forces of darkness, or to limp on. This is why both films are equal - they are two parts of the same thing. In \"Heart of Darkness\", Kurtz is shown as conflicted between morality (civilization) and his inner savage. In Apocalypse Now, Kurtz has left all conflict behind. He is beyond good and evil. He has let go of morality like a drowning man lets go of a saving hand in the moments before his death. Kurtz indeed is only waiting for death, quoting T. S. Eliot in his temple to himself, lost in the jungle. His last words, and the words echoed at the end of the movie, are, \"The horror...the horror.\" He is referring to the infinite void of existence, of the human psyche, and to the pitch black emptiness within his own mind, where atrocities are born again. It is impossible to express in words the experience one goes through watching this film - the experience, in short, that Willard experiences on his journey. The end part, at the outpost, almost in fact comparable to its brother scene in The Deer Hunter, is one of the most deeply, calmly, and seductively disturbing things I've ever seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have always loved the ironic symbolism and brilliant cinematography of Coppola's masterpiece. I was lucky enough to meet Martin Sheen outside the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium one night in 1981, as he waited for Charlie and Emilio to leave a concert. He was very humble about the praise I shared with him for this work of art, especially his portrayal of the young Captain. This is, without a doubt, a must see, a complete 10 and an important part of American Film History. \"Charlie Don't Surf\". Robert Duvall's famous line (the other one) does not need repeating as it has become an oft repeated anthem and his Pattonesque character will long be remembered as a classic American war hawk in the John Wayne tradition. It is a surprise to see how young Laurence Fishburne looks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I decided I need to lengthen up my review for my all time favorite film. Unlike other war films that focus on the event, Apocalypse Now takes the viewer into a psychological head trip. The sheer surrealism makes the body uncomfortable, yet you can't lay your eyes off of it. Based off of Joseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness, Apocalypse Now slowly descends its protagonist, Willard (Martin Sheen) into madness, most likely the same way Kurtz plunged into insanity. The production of this film is notorious for its delays provided by the monsoon season and for Brando's unprepared performance (he read his lines from cue cards). There is a documentary titled Apocalypse Now: A filmmakers Apocalypse which shows the hell everyone went through in making this.

The opening sequence is one of the most famous and popular in any film. As the blade of the helicopters are heard in slow motion and napalm is dropped in the trees, the song \"The End\" by the Doors can be heard. The next shot is of Willard in his bed with the fan on, so the noise of the helicopter coincides with the fan. We are informed that he does special missions for the military, mostly assassinations. When his next mission is given to him, he is baffled. \"Charging a man with murder here is like giving a speeding ticket in the Indy 500.\" The man he has to kill was a respected colonel that has gone insane and isolated himself along with tribes people. Kurtz is ordering atrocious acts that are carried out by these people and he must me stopped. Willard does not go alone however. He is carried on a boat with several soldiers and they come across several battles. Along the way, they meet Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore \"Hoorah\" about the war. Willard ponders that if Kilgore is that crazy, what could Kurtz be like. There are many scenes that portray Willards plunge into insanity: The tiger attack, the slaughter of innocent Vietnamese, the nonstop rain, the piled dead bodies scattered about, and the deaths of his crew members. When he reaches the Kurtz compound, he is greeted by the village people and a hippie photojournalist (Dennis Hopper). Instead of assassinating Kurtz right away, Willard begins talking with him and his conscience begins to doubt what he should do. Kurtz, on the other hand wants to die. He is tired of the war and wants to go down as a soldier. Willard kills him with a machete while in unison, a buffalo is sacrificed with several machetes by the people. Once they realize their leader has been slain, instead of killing Willard, they hail him as their new king. Willard rejects the offer and leaves them.

The cinematography here is absolutely breathtaking. The colors are grain free, something that is rare in older movies. I can watch it muted and admire the beauty of the scenery.

The acting ensemble is terrific, with everyone playing their parts well. Many criticize Brando for some reason, but I think he nails his role as a depressed lunatic who is beaten up by the war.

The soundtrack and the score are haunting, and provide the mood for the film. I am wondering what instrument they used in that guitar-like sound when the credits roll? There have been many parodies of this film, but my favorite quote comes from Marge Simpson when she explains to Homer why a character with the same name on a police show is behaving like an idiot: \"Your character provides comic relief for the show, like um, Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now.\" Those who have seen the movie know why this is hilarious.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Francis Ford Coppola's masterpiece was a great ending for a golden decade of American cinema. In the 1970s there was an atmosphere of tolerance, open-mindness, and progressiveness among the studios that allowed the making of major films by a few of the best directors that the United States has ever had. I am not a historian, but all the events that preceded the decade (a few being the violent deaths of major figures of the American political and cultural scenes, the racial struggles, the emergence of the 1960s counter-culture, the increase of violence and death in the streets...) seemed to influence the vision of filmmakers who were willing to dare, be different, and create entertaining and intelligent motion pictures. Coppola's film is a strange blend of humanistic thinking and skillful film-making, following the parameters of war and adventure films, and at the same time subverting them with its flowing reflections on the value of life, the reason of death, or the ethics of war. It is also a passionate work, made against all odds, chronicled in the 1991 documentary \"Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse\"; a motion picture that went beyond any previous reflection on the Vietnam war ever to reach the screen. This may not be the definite Vietnam motion picture, but dealing with it Coppola defied the formula of classic melodrama found in two Vietnam movies made simultaneously, \"The Deer Hunter\" and \"Coming Home\", or in latter ones as \"Platoon\" and \"Casualties of War\", before Vietnam became the starting point to make products of any genre, as horror in \"Jacob's Ladder\", or comedies as \"Good Morning, Vietnam\", among the more respectable. Coppola had the courage to take that economic and political conflict as the background of a search for answers to questions faced by any man every day of his life, without betraying the dramatic consequences of that war.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, I believe that this movie is much more appreciated by viewers who have actually read Joseph Conrad's \"Heart Of Darkness\", the book that was the literary basis for the movie. With that said, I believe that this movie is astounding. It is an excellent war film that doesn't so much concentrate on the gore and brutality of the Vietnam Conflict, but more the psychological toll that it took on the young, inexperienced \"kids\" who were sent to fight it. Coppola showed real genius in the art of film-making, using many visuals to help tell the story. The acting I felt was definitely all-around up to par. Marlon Brando's part in the movie is what really got me as far as acting. His elucidation to Willard at the end of the film reels you in, and reveals the hollowness of a man that you've heard about and wanted to see throughout the movie. Those who would consider this just another war movie need to give a detailed look to all the literary elements that are entwined with this film, because there is a great amount of meaning behind it all. In my opinion, this is one of the most sculptured and best-made films of all time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's that film that loads of people hail as a classic - Apocalypse Now, now a re-cut, re-up, Redux 22 years after it's original release.

The film is loosely based on Conrad's Heart of Darkness, it's main plot (if it has one) being Capt. Willard's journey on a naval boat through the Vietnam conflict on his way to terminate a rogue Colonel. (Colonel Kurtz) We see the characters and situations he meets, and he tells the Colonel's story along the way.

My initial feelings towards the film is that it's not particularly gripping at times, especially early on, but at least a good dose of comedy is put in, in the form of surfing fanatic Col. Kilgore. As the film progresses however, a good deal of tension is built up with Willard's reading through various reports on Col. Kurtz until the end is in sight, when everything comes together and the atmosphere of the film reaches an incredible level and holds it there until the end.

The usual aspects everyone looks for in a decent film are all of a good standard. Cinematography in particular stands out as exceptional, and I found the performances of Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall and Frederic Forrest to all be worthy of a special mention. The score I found initially sounded out of place, but as the film progressed... I'm not entirely sure if it did actually get better, or it fitted better, or if it had just grown on me, but by the end of the film I was thoroughly enjoying it.

This is the second time I have seen the Redux version, (I have seen the original around four times) I'll say now that the first time I saw it I was disappointed. I was expecting a \"classic\" film, with lots of war. The fact that Willard got the mission at the beginning of the film and didn't carry it out until the end had me bored because all of the character interaction on the way that IS the film seemed unnecessary. This is due to the fact that the plot is not entirely defined (as the focus is more on the character and the journey more than the plot), in most cases a second viewing is needed to appreciate the film fully (as with all films that are more character than plot based), as the second time around, you know where the plot is going. I had a similar experience with It's A Wonderful Life, which is now one of my favourite films.

With the big four Vietnam films, Apocalypse Now wins over the rest on atmosphere, but lacks the action and involvement of Platoon, the emotional intensity of The Deer Hunter, and cannot really be compared to Full Metal Jacket (probably my favourite of the four). Apocalypse Now is a great piece of work, especially towards the end where it becomes staggering, and is to be recommended for anyone who enjoys a good character based film and doesn't mind some casual violence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a must see for any war movie buff. One of the greatest movies of all time and loaded with great quotes such as:

Kilgore: If I say its safe to surf this beach Captain, then its safe to surf this beach!

Kilgore: Smell that? You smell that? Lance: What? Kilgore: Napalm, son. Nothing in the world smells like that. Kilgore: I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brilliant actors and brilliant picture!! I love the chopper scene with the music in the beginning, it is just SO touching and at the same time real but at the same time surrealistic! The Vietnam War was far from human and I believe this movie kind of shows have terrible human beings can act under certain circumstances. Modern war movies are spending so much money on effects. This is just a straight forward smart movie that takes you beyond your imagination. A movie that really pictures evil and hate mixed in fearness and fate. How insane the world is and the power of will and friendship, love and passion. A must seen movie and without any doubts the best war movie ever! Many tried to copy but still there are no movie even close as good as this!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this movie 4 times in 5 months and i never get tired of it just because it is perfect. And it has also got the best film music ever and the best supporting roles ever written for a movie. I mean you just have to love Robert Duval , Marlon Brando , Martin Sheen and Lauerence Fishburne in this movie but specially Duval. I can not believe that Kramer vs. Kramer did win an Oscar in stead of this amazing war movie. So this is my conclusion if you take the director of the worlds greatest movie ( The Godfather ) and the best of Hollywood actors you can only succeed. Now I just have to writhe something to get this preview so do not read this except the last line. This movie rules !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You can find an anti-war statement here without looking too hard; that layer is hackneyed. Or you can find a value neutral comment on the madness of war (stripped of \"judgement\"); that layer is completely uninteresting.

Or you can watch this for the darn good entertainment value of Duvall's one-liners, but that's just a coating for commercial mastication.

You can try to view this as a 'realistic' Vietnam war film, but ask any veteran and he'll swat down that notion -- most vets will say it stinks.

Or view it as a 'will he or won't he' morality play -- nothing rich there, either.

Where I found the value was in the superb self-reference. Coppola needed a container with great enough dimensions (the war) to fit the greatness of the skilled multi-dimensional actor playing 'a great man'.

Brando the man was as much of a maverick as the Kurtz character. The studios were uncomfortable with his acting 'method', yet he always excelled and won accolades; the 'generals' are uncomfortable with Kurtz's 'unsound methods', in spite of his strategic genius.

So Coppola makes a movie all about Brando's greatness. To hammer on the point, he places himself in the movie (as Hopper, a manic photojournalist laden with multiple cameras) to spout his praises. Brando himself is only seen in half-light and silhouettes -- brilliant cinematography by Storaro that only increases the actor's power. And he goes out like the sacrificial bull to complete the narrative equation. Oh, yes: \"the horror...\"

Other pieces of interest: the great use of point of view camera perspectives, including 'being in the firefight' long before \"Private Ryan\"; the ground breaking use of sound, notably the ominous flanging sweeps and the sonic depiction of an acid trip.

Don't get caught in the outer layers; the rich part you should despoil from this is the brilliant core of sound, vision and self-reference.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It carries the tone of voice that narrates the book into the jungle of Vietnam and into the wild-eyed look of Martin Sheen and Dennis Hopper and the mystical morbidity surrounding Colonel Kurtz.(I don't say Marlon Brando because after watching the documentary, \"Hearts of Darkness,\" I am skeptical as to how much credit Brando is due for that quality). The tone of voice I'm talking about is brooding and dramatic without being overbearing: \"Everybody gets what he wants. I wanted a mission, and for my sins they gave me one. They sent it up with room service.\" It is indulgent without being narrow and alienating. A good example of is Hopper's indulgence into aphoristic madness, generously installing lines written by T.S. Eliot and Rudyard Kipling into his stony monologues: \"I mean, the man's a genius\u0097sometimes he'll walk right by you without even saying a word, and sometimes he'll grab you by the collar and say \"did you know that 'if' is the middle word in 'life'\u0085if you can hold your head while all around you they are losing theirs\" and then \"I mean he's a wise man, he's a great man; I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent seas\" (The first one's Kipling, the second one's Eliot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would like to submit the following goof.

During the bridge scene, soldiers are seen wading out in the river, asking to be taken away and seeking to escape. Some of the soldiers approach Captain Willard's boat and attempt to board carrying with them suitcases. Soldiers are not issued nor do they ever carry suitcases into a combat zone. They have duffel bags, packs and footlockers but not suitcases. The use of a suitcase in this scene is absurd and out of keeping. Additionally, if you look closely, you will see that the suitcase is floating on top of the water. This is probably a very good indication that it is empty,otherwise it would sink.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an apocalyptic vision of the hell of our contemporary world. The social criticism of our shallow, commercially oriented values is what makes this film an exceptional vision of the \"war is hell\" clich\u00e9, underscored by a mythical journey upriver to Cambodia by a special forces captain whose mission is to eliminate (with extreme prejudice) a rogue colonel, who's left behind the army's concepts of justice to create his own world. When I saw Apocalypse Now in 1980, I thought it was a deeply flawed masterpiece. In particular, I found the final segment of the journey with Brando, which encapsulates Conrad's Heart of Darkness, to be rather boring. I finally got around to seeing Apocalypse Now Redux and the flaws have been taken care of. Redux makes the movie an outright masterpiece, certainly among the top 100 films ever made. Brando's performance now seems full and complete, perhaps rather less mysterious, but much more profound. Martin Sheen is brilliant at the heart of one of the best acting ensembles ever assembled. It's great to spot a young Harrison Ford, Scott Glenn, etc. in early screen performances that suggest what fine actors they will eventually be recognized as. The work of Robert Duvall, Fred Forrest, Lawrence Fishburne and Sam Bottoms is greatly enhanced by the additional footage. If you've never seen this film, skip the original and head straight for Redux. I wish we could get a Gangs of New York Redux from Scorcese to fill in all the gaps in that deeply flawed potential masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a classic war movie. One of the best, a stark image fest of flashing lights, harrowing dark backgrounds and helicopter blades morphing into ceiling fans. A star-studded spectacle of immense power.

Martin Sheen is a mercenary sent up river to assassinate the general gone astray, a sadistic dictator played beyond belief by the great Marlon Brando. Also along for the ride are, Robert Duvall as an over the top DI with a penchant for \"napalm in the morning\" or at least the smell of it. Dennis Hopper is an edgy photojournalist with a view slanted views about the war and about his leader. Also in this amazing film you'll see up and coming stars such as Laurence Fishburne, R. Lee Ermey, Sam Bottoms, Albert Hall and keep an eye out for Harrison Ford too...

Behind the lens is Francis Ford Coppolla delivering a film with maybe more intensity and drama than the acclaimed Godfather films, he highlights war in it's most basic form, which for the most part is something you can't see, you can only feel it, as the boat carries on up river the feeling of the war tightening in is quite unbearable. The feeling of this is a rather claustrophobic feeling and really makes for unusual moods from the viewers. Honestly no films has ever made me feel like that.

Criticism is hard to find. The biggest qualm from some is that Brando earned tons of money for a ten minute role, but in all fairness this is unjustified. It was money well earned, a role that physically restricted him, being at the time an unwell man, and a role that he really made his own. I can't picture anyone better for the role. And if you get the Apocalypse Now Redux version, there's some extra bits of the great man, and I think the Redux does make the film miles better.

Final impressions are that if you are lucky to get the Redux version then you will be blessed with a completely satisfying film with a cool 49 minutes extra footage. If not, then still you won't be disappointed, this film is up there with the best, and deserves some great recognition, and a firm place as one of the top 50 films ever made...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Breathtaking at it's best, intriguing at it's worst, Francis Ford Coppala's groundbreaking epic 'Apocalypse Now' is one of the most iconic and celebrated motion pictures of the 20th century, and in my opinion, the greatest ever film depiction centered around America's involvement in Vietnam.

What I like most about 'Apocalypse Now' is that it is uniquely different from any other films of the same genre. Growing up as movie buff, and with a particular interest in war films, I've seen many films, which have attempted to portray the 'images' and 'feelings' of Vietnam but have been unsuccessful in doing so. Films such as 'Hamburger Hill' and 'We were soldiers' fall into the category of trying to capture the atmosphere of Vietnam by depicting 'heroic battles' which are, more often than not, tainted by the zeal of Hollywood film production.

In 'Apocalypse now' there are no battles, no heroes or villains, there is nothing in the film that suggests that it is intended to reflect the imagery of Vietnam through the physical aspects of war. Rather, it is a film, which powerfully investigates and explores the human psyche when it has been tormented by the absolute 'horror' of what was the darkest military conflict of the previous century.

The sheer brilliance of the acting (in particular the interpretation of taciturn Captain Willard by Martin Sheen), along with the spectacular cinematography (filmed in the Phillipines), which provides crucial realism to the backdrop of the film, makes 'Apocalypse Now' an unforgettable epic.

Evoking a myriad of emotions and leaving us with a maelstrom of mediation, 'Apocalypse now' is not for the light-hearted moviegoer. It is masterpiece that demands multiple viewings to be fully appreciated.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to admit that I had low expectations for this movie. But I was surprised to find it entertaining, interesting, and funny. It's an entertaining thriller and not so much a horror film. There were moments that made my hairs stand up! Even better, though, were the highly amusing, occasionally hysterical, comedic moments in the film (you'll know which ones I'm talking about). There also are a few great special effects (and the humor and the special effects aren't necessarily separate).

The acting, on the whole, is very good--way better than a typical low budget horror film. The lead (Jackie), in particular, and many of the smaller, supporting roles (like the lawyer, the couple living next door, the pizza man) are well acted. If they hadn't been, the film wouldn't have kept my interest and I would have lost my belief in the story. This is a good, interesting low budget thriller and definitely worth a rental!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One thing that came across to me in watching this film is that it was fun\/exciting for the cast and crew; I could sense that they were going up against the budget constraint with enthusiasm & dedication because they apparently liked the people involved.

I tend to like B movies that are original and have heart, and I think this is one such work. The actors seem to me to be putting there hearts in it more than usual, maybe because of some good direction from the lead actress\/director, and they evidently were clear enough in their parts of the story to make a coherent, watchable piece of art.

The critiques of this film that more or less say, \"why not just rent a hardcore porn movie,\" make the point as to why they didn't like the film. Going to this film hoping for a lot of T&A without patience for the material of the plot is why it is so unenjoyable for them. One could say the movie is more of a romantic work than a softcore porn movie, even though I take it the star has done her share of soft porn. I think she graduated.

In terms of the writing, the dialog is not a huge part of the movie, like in a Tarentino film, but the plot is decent and the twists are original and sometimes fun. Particularly the ending is not a disappointment but a pleasure, with the villianess\/heroine and the \"leading man\" learning from their complex web of feelings.

I understand that the producer got a 3 film deal out of this. Hats off for proving a few tens of thousands of dollars can go pretty far if you have some artistic sensibility and pride.

Gabriella and the other girls with scenes of nudity were likable along with being hot, not just airhead bimbos, so as an erotic science fantasy piece with some gorgeous nude art, even with the limits of B-movie land, not disappointing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anyone who critiques 'Jacqueline Hyde' as anything more than the playful and undeniably erotic romp that it's intended to be is just not playing with a full deck. Just from the title, it's obvious that this low budget horror comedy isn't meant to be taken seriously... it's as tongue in cheek as a nympho's french kiss, and just as titillating. The female cast members are all great and fun to watch. Check this out, Rolfe Kanefsky is the clown-prince of soft-core horror. Unlike most soft-core horror flicks, this one is entertaining all the way through with charismatic and exceptionally attractive actresses. The movie doesn't even attempt to follow the storyline of the Robert Louis Stevenson classic, but instead seeks out every way possible to create risqu\u00e9 sight gags and erotic situations. Blythe Metz, the brunette femme fatale who portrays the sexier, homicidal side of Jacqueline, is a real knockout. Watch and enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jacqueline Hyde is a good quality film and does manage to be likable because of what it is. Everyone out there will like it! Sandwiched between the amount of breast shots, the times Jacqueline rubs herself, the various times Jackie spends chatting to herself and the times spent heaving in the Magdelena Mountains, this could create one hell of a dishwasher if your career were to end.

Unlike most horror movies that take place in space or in some restless tranquility with ripe green apples, this one takes awhile to guzzle. The performing is good. Other than great acting by Dan the pizza delivery guy (must see), there are no standouts, but no notably bad outcroppings from my recent dinner either (and I do mean recent). Excellent acting overall because there are no typically dreadful actors which you'd find in movies of the four \"Skin\" related data fields or in the biological skimmer's found in any IBM shop. In addition if you see a female in this movie, the likelihood is that she will be butt naked by the next scene! Now that I think about it, there is quite a bit of action in this movie. Between the first and the second electro yank obtained from a hot chick and the time you observe her \"buckets naked\", keeps em' speculating. I loved it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Me and my mates used to gather together in one house to watch this on a Friday night before going to the pub. It was the only programme that ever made us miss opening time. It is one of the best comedies I have ever watched if not the best. David Jason was brilliant and was compared many times to Buster Keaton with his clever stunts that were pulled off so believably. I wish I could get hold of the series on DVD to watch again. He had an amazing ability to make stupid things look believable and this series shows how much talent he has in so many different directions. He is an accomplished \"Trip and fall guy\" and I remember watching a trailer once where he showed people how to do this professionally. Certainly he is the one to teach people this art. He only showed glimpses of it in other programs he did. Pshaw, this program shows how multi talented he is. I am lost as to why David Jason vetoed another series being made, as for my mind it was one of the best things he has ever done and I've been a fan of his since he did this series. It is said he did not like it because it showed the rawness of his early career. Well to my mind, that might possibly have been the right decision when he took it, but now his career has progressed so far, I believe this would be a good time for him to do another series showing him looking back on his \"secret life\" full of blunders that he does not see. Rod","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With the obvious exception of Fools & Horses, this was in my opinion David Jason's finest series.

Coming straight after his TV debut on 'Do Not Adjust Your Set!', these 13 episodes revealed a mastery of comic timing not seen since the old silent movie days. By comparison, Porridge, Open All Hours and that awful series 'Lucky Man' did not come close.

I believe Jason banned the series being repeated because it showed him at his rawest. Shame on him. A new generation deserves to enjoy this. The series actually flopped in the ratings but that is most likely because it was shown against 'The Brothers' which aired on BBC at the same time, before VCRs were commonplace.

BTW, I have only just noticed that his long suffering assistant, Spencer, was played by Mark Eden ; Alan Bradley off Coronation Street. I am amazed he didn't try to murder Edgar Briggs!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the '60's\/'70's, David Jason was renowned for his many supporting roles in television comedies such as 'Do Not Adjust Your Set!', 'Hark At Barker' and the 'Doctor' series. It was in 1974 that he landed his first leading role, in London Weekend Television's 'The Top Secret Life Of Edgar Briggs', written by Richard Laing & Bernard McKenna.

Edgar Briggs is a secret agent of the 'S.I.S' ('Secret Intelligence Service'). He genuinely tries to do his job well but always seems to mess things up. Astonishingly enough, though, he always succeeds in getting to the bottom of cases, much to the amazement of his colleagues- 'Buxton' (Michael Stainton), 'Spencer' (Mark Eden) and 'Cathy' (the lovely Elisabeth Counsell), all of which answer to 'The Commander' (Noel Coleman).

Briggs is married to 'Jennifer' (Barbara Angell), a woman who, much like Michele Dotrice's 'Betty' from 'Some Mother's Do 'Ave 'Em!', has the patience of a saint and stands by her hare-brained (but well-meaning) husband, no matter what.

Like 'Some Mother's Do 'Ave 'Em' and 'The Baldy Man', 'T.T.S.L.O.E.B' was laced completely with slapstick. Each episode saw Jason perform stunts such as plummeting from a high window sill or falling from the top of a ladder while decorating his flat. It was 'custard pie in the face' stuff really.

'Edgar Briggs' was not a big hit, due to poor scheduling from I.T.V. A shame as it was an amusing and enjoyable show, well served by its star and the fine support cast. The leading man, though, did not seem to enjoy the experience of the show. David Jason vetoed repeat screenings of the show because he felt his acting in it was non-refined. Granted, the David Jason who played 'Del Boy', 'Inspector Frost' and 'Pop Larkin' is way different to the one that played Briggs but by no means was his acting unrefined. Most actors would have turned Briggs into a ridiculous caricature but Jason's performance made Briggs a credible, realistic figure. Odd perhaps, but not unimaginable.

Jason's next vehicle was 'Lucky Feller', in which he played mummy's boy 'Shorty Mempstead'. It too failed to make the ratings. His lucky break came in the shape of A.T.V's 'A Sharp Intake Of Breath', in which he played walking disaster area 'Peter Barnes' for four series between 1977-1981. So, while not outstanding as such, 'Briggs' is an easy and worthwhile watch. Nice 'James Bond' style theme tune, too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Comic secret agents have made a comeback in recent years, with Mike Myers' 'Austin Powers' and Rowan Atkinson's 'Johnny English', and more recently Steve Carell in the big-screen version of the hit '60's show 'Get Smart!'.

Back in 1974, it was David Jason who was wearing a shoulder holster and carrying an attach\u00e9 case full of documents marked 'Classified'.

'The Top Secret Life Of Edgar Briggs' was his first starring role in a sitcom, after years of being a supporting actor in such shows as 'Six Dates With Barker', the 'Doctor' series, and 'Hark At Barker'.

Humphrey Barclay had found him working in a pier theatre in Bournemouth and was sufficiently impressed to include him alongside Michael Palin, Terry Jones and Eric Idle in the children's comedy show 'Do Not Adjust Your Set!'.

'T.T.S.L.O.E.B' cast Jason as 'Edgar Briggs', a well-meaning but incompetent agent for the Secret Intelligence Service. Whereas John Steed wore a bowler hat, Briggs had a trilby. Whereas Napoleon Solo carried a radio pen, Briggs owned a pipe. Objects fell to bits in his hands. He read Confidential documents in bed while his wife ( Barbara Angell ) perused Woman's Own ( on one occasion it would be the other way round ). When he tracked a pair of Russian agents to a heliport, he accidentally switched on the airport's Tannoy system, and broadcast his plans to capture them! When he hid on a train so as to photograph a meeting between an S.I.S. man and his enemy-contact, it moved off with him aboard and took him straight to Brighton! When he tried to organise the defection of a female Russian scientist, he took a 'short cut' to elude his pursuers, only to wind up hopelessly lost in a car park. Yet, like 'Inspector Clouseau', he always seemed to come out on top at the end, much to the dismay of his colleagues.

As previously mentioned, he was married. His wife Jennifer was understanding about the sort of work he did. Though they had a row once which resulted in her yelling at him from the window of their high-rise flat: \"Secret Service this, Secret Service that! You never stop thinking about the Secret Service!\". He shouted back: \"Think of the neighbours! They're not supposed to know I'm in the Secret Service!\".

Briggs was part of a team of agents whose number included 'Coronation Street' villain Mark Eden ( he was the psychotic Alan Bradley ) as 'Spencer', Michael Stainton as 'Buxton', and 'Doctor At Sea''s Elisabeth Counsell as the lovely 'Cathy Strong'. They answered to 'The Commander', played by the late Noel Coleman. The Commander was kidnapped in one episode, leaving Briggs temporarily in charge of the S.I.S. - which naturally horrified everyone.

This hilarious show was by Richard Laing and Bernard McKenna, who had written for the 'Doctor' series. Rather than spoof Bond, it was more of a send-up of the serious spy shows such as 'Callan' ( though it had a Bond-style theme tune ). Furtive meetings in underground car parks, code-breaking, stolen missile plans, that kind of thing. Jason brought a lot of energy to the role, doing a lot of his own stunts, such as Briggs falling off a ladder whilst decorating his flat, and tumbling down a hill in a wastepaper bin, and were reminiscent of those to be found in the 'Pink Panther' films.

'Briggs' had all the ingredients to be a smash-hit. Unfortunately, it was not networked. In the London area, it was put out on Sundays at 7.25 P.M. where it was trounced in the ratings by the B.B.C.'s soapy drama 'The Brothers'. It was then moved to Fridays at 7 P.M. because I.T.V. wanted to showcase its latest American import - the T.V. version of 'Planet Of The Apes'. Briggs never found an audience. A similar fate befell Jason's next major show: 1976's 'Lucky Feller'. It was not until 1977 and 'A Sharp Intake Of Breath' that he found his first successful solo vehicle.

You can see the title sequence ( along with two brief excerpts in German! ) for this series on YouTube. Unfortunately, that is all you can see. Jason will not permit his early starring shows either to be repeated or released on D.V.D. A great shame. For the moment, however, Edgar Briggs' life will have to remain top secret.

CODA: I have seen a number of episodes recently and I'm pleased to say it stands up incredibly well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent and moving story of the end of a uniquely intimate affair. Then again, the point of the film, to paraphrase another comment, is that every relationship can be unique and intimate. A truly quality short film which caught me at my busiest, yet had the power to pull me down onto the sofa and watch, fixed and quiet, for the duration. Bobby and Tessa are powerfully moving characters and anyone who has suffered the end of a love affair will find this film to be a cathartic exercise. Beyond that, the 'film within a film' idea plays out very well with this cast and is quite riveting, though in a somewhat melancholic way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At the beginning of this film, which I found myself watching on IFC in the wee hours of the morning, I was filled with a sense of claustrophobia and general discomfort. The feeling of being trapped with no way to escape was so powerful that I didn't know if I wanted to continue watching...although it didn't really seem to me that I had much of a choice, so compelling was the situation.

Gradually, though, that feeling of discomfort waned (although it never really disappeared entirely), and I felt drawn into Tessa & Bobby's predicaments, and really just hoping against hope that they might get back together.

Really just a moving, powerful story fit snugly into a tiny package. I had no idea that Sarah Polley had anything to do with it until perusing her trivia, so now I love it even more.

I definitely recommend it. ...If your lucky enough to catch it on the Independent Film Channel sometime, or wily enough to figure out some other way to view it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In moments of desperation were willing to do whatever it takes to win. I loved how the Maple Leaves futility was used as a metaphorical basis for Bobby and Tessa. The acting was accurate by far superior from the hogwash intake given by the film industry.

Great editing! At the end of the short I felt it was a bit incomplete but so is life and this is were life and art waltz into cinematic masterpiece.

Excuse me while I rinse off the cheese whiz, but I guess it's acceptable at certain times.

Two scenes which I must point out are: The bath tub and the couch scene.

The couch scene for Tessa was a defining moment and 360 of the human condition. Throughout the short I viewed her as a brute, but now we see her true reality. Her mind spoke before her heart. Need I say more about the bath tub scene.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very moving film that takes a new twist on somewhere we've all been: a relationship as it's about to end. Kristen Thomson's performance as Tessa, desperately trying to hold onto her connection with Bobby for just one more day, is extremely convincing and moving and takes you right into the story. Who hasn't been faced with the end of a relationship and at least wanted to shout out tearfully, \"Just one more night!\" When he does give her one more night, the journey that these two people share makes you pause and think about how precious every truly close relationship can be, and how each one - whether permanent or not - should be treated with respect, rather than simply thrown away.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So real and surreal, all in one. I remember feeling like Tessa. Heck, I remember being Tessa. This was a beautiful vignette of a relationship ending. I especially liked the protesters tangent. It is nice to see symbolism in a movie without being smacked over the head with it. If you get the chance to see this, take it. It is well worth the 30 minutes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was half-dozing as I watched a late night selection of short films--but sat bolt upright from the first frames of \"I Shout Love\" and could not take my eyes away for its full, brief, perfect length. With incredibly assured pacing and performances, this film maintains its funny\/sad\/insightful tone throughout. The credits at the end went by so quickly and in such small type, I had to go online to find out the person responsible for this master work. What a pleasing surprise to see the name of Sarah Polley, a major actress who is too seldom seen.

Kristen Thomsen (Tessa) and Matthew Ferguson (Bobby) turn in rich, touching performances as a couple in the throes of breaking up. As they work through a reprise of Tessa's favorite moments from their time together, both actors reveal dimensions of their characters and their relationship in ways that bring nothing but honor to their talents--and to the director\/writer's skills. The film creates a moving narrative with laugh-out-loud moments and caught-breath sorrow.

\"I Shout Love\" is unquestionably one of the greatest and most memorable short films I ever expect to see. It has wit, heart and stunning originality. It matters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like many others saw this as a child and I loved it and it horrified me up until adulthood, I have been trying to find this movie and even been searching for it to play again on TV someday, since it originally played on USA networks. Does Anyone know where to buy this movie, or does anyone have it and would be willing to make a copy for me? Also does anyone know if there is a chance for it to be played on TV again? Maybe all of us fans should write a station in hopes of them airing it again. I don't think they did a good job of promoting this movie in the past because no one really knows about, people only know of the Stepford wives and Stepford husband movies. No one is familiar with the fact that there was a children version. Maybe they should also do a re-make of it since they seem to be doing that a lot lately with a lot of my favorite old thriller\/horror flicks. Well if anyone has any input Please I Beg Of You write me with information. Thanks Taira tcampo23@aol.com","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Stepford Children is the second best Stepford movie in the Stepford series.I saw the original The Stepford Wives in the theater when it came out in 1975.I was absolutely blown away,it was terrific.I have seen all of the Stepford movies, and I like all of them.I think that The Stepford Children is such a campy and fun movie.I just watched it again recently on tape, and I enjoyed it immensely.The cast in this movie was real good to watch. Barbara Eden did a bang up job as usual.Every role that she has ever played has been very good.Barbara Eden is very good at playing roles where she is a kind and nurturing type of person.Don Murray as the husband and father was just perfect in this movie.He was particularly effective at being the irritated father to his two teenage children.I made sure that I have all of the Stepford movie on tape to enjoy.If you get a chance to see this movie you should.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You may have serious doubts about watching the third sequel to The Stepford Wifes, but this is an absolute classic. Much scarier in premise than the first, and very entertaining. It only got a video release here in the UK, but should be released worldwide for everyone to enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Stepford Children, besides being a very good made for TV movie, shows the very disturbing result of indoctrination. It is quite a statement about how being made to act within the confines of what is considered \"Good\" behavior can destroy whatever it is that makes a person unique and an individual. I think that this is a movie that parents who want to maintain some semblance of the thought that loams within the hearts and minds of youngsters should watch with their children and discuss what the movie is saying. I don't know if that was in any way the intent of this movie but I have always been of the opinion that it is one of the best movie devices against the wish to have children conform to an unrealistic and domineering pretense of what is in the best interest of anyone other than that of the children themselves. I hope to one day see this movie on DVD. I am at the starting gate... waiting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The third entry in the \"Stepford\" franchise, but apparently the three made-for-TV obscure sequels are incredibly obscure and hard to trace down, whereas the 70's original as well as the blockbuster remake with Nicole Kidman are commonly known and very popular. I haven't seen either the early 80's \"Revenge of the Stepford Wives\" or the mid 90's \"The Stepford Husbands\", but this \"The Stepford Children\" is a quite charming and highly entertaining little film. It's basically the exact same film as the original; obviously less mysterious yet much cheesier and incredibly 80's to the nth degree. The main difference here, like the title implies, is that not just the liberated wives but also the rebellious and punk teenage offspring in town undergoes the typical and highly effective \"Stepford treatment\", licensed by the local Men's Association. For some reason the scenario attempts to uphold the Stepford mystery until late in the film, even though nobody is likely to watch this sequel before having checked out the original and presumably everybody also knows about the denouement. The Harding family is all packed and ready to move from the grisly city of New York to the small and peaceful community of Stepford. Particularly father Steven is excited about their new life because he already lived in Stepford and always wanted to go back ever since his first wife, whom his new wife Laura and adolescent children Mary and David know very little about, died under mysterious circumstances. The town is almost too perfect, with picturesque neighbors and model students, and especially the modern teenagers face huge difficulties to adjust. Their efforts to modernize the place and take the local youth of Stanford in tow cause confrontations with the eminent townsfolk, particularly the members of the Men's Association, and put the familial relationships under a lot of stress. David meets and falls in love with the last \"normal\" girl in school Lois, but when even she transforms into a domestic dummy overnight, David can convince his skeptical mother to investigate the sinister Stanford secret. The first hour of \"The Stanford Children\" is slow-paced and rather tame, but the finale is trashy and cheesy like the VHS cover promises and like a late 80's thriller ought to be, in fact. The modus operandi behind the Stanford secrets is illustrated in greater detail, and I think horror fans and lovers of the original film will appreciate that. At least, I did. The overall plot still doesn't make a lot of sense and the script is chock-full of irrational aspects, but it's nonetheless an engaging formula and undoubtedly one that evokes an atmosphere of suspense and fear. The acting performances are far above average. Especially the arrogant and obnoxious members of the Men's Association depict plausible characters and even teenage players Tammy Lauren and Randall Batinkoff give away impressive performances. Recommended without hesitation!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As the superb `Prime Suspect' series reaches part four there is no loss of momentum at all, this in itself a considerable achievement.' Prime Suspect IV: The Lost Child' has the solid supporting cast that we take for granted in these British dramas but of course the beautiful Helen Mirren easily dominates; our eyes never leave her while she's on-screen.

The search for the lost child of the title leads Superintendent Jane Tennison's CID team to a prime suspect who turns out to be a convicted pedophile now living with a single mother and her two young daughters. The insight we are given into the workings of his mind is one of the emotional highlights of this mini-series but it may be too strong for many stomachs.

The action sequences are brilliantly handled with the hand-held camera thrusting us right into the middle of the excitement and there's gripping tension during the climactic siege.

Altogether this is another magnificent police procedural drama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Prime Suspect 4\" continues the exploits of the inscrutable and dogged seeker of truth and justice, Detective Superintendent Jane Tennison; the first of three miniseries (PS4, PS5, & PS6) with the notable absence of founding writer Lynda La Plante from the credits. Imbued with the same gritty reality of the first three series, the second three series pit Tennison against the forces of evil while coping with middle age, loneliness, indiscretions, a host of personal and professional problems, and resolutions which are sometimes less than ideal. PS4 conjures two stories while PS5 & PS6 are single episodes each which find Tennison seeking justice on behalf of the brutally wronged while waging war against institutions which are willing to sacrifice the interests of her victims for those of a greater good. In other words, to prevail, Tennison must overcome both evil and good forces, something which makes the always gray scenarios of the PS series yet grayer and the Tennison wars as much a matter of principle as of finding murderers. Very good stuff which only gets better from series to series. (B+)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm surprised that mine, so far, is the only comment on this t.v. movie...as far as I'm aware, the series itself, has had a huge following, reviewer pundits and real people alike, have praised it to a person. Anyway, let me tell you right away that, if like me, you're a sucker for gritty police dramas, you'll like \"The Lost Child\" Tennison, the heroine, throughout the \"Prime Suspect\"series, has been battling the male police establishment, throughout the series, getting to her present, comparatively powerful rank in the police hierarchy through hard work,obstinacy, and sheer talent for police work. She is,essentially, an ambitious career woman, but she has a romantic side and is certainly no man-hater. Unfortunately her relationships are affected by the wicked hours, which her career demands, and she has never married, so when she finds herself pregnant from her latest affair, she is faced with the choice of becoming a mother, and jeopardising her entire police job, let alone future advancement, or having an abortion - which she opts for. This abortion never looms large in the ensuing drama - it's very skilfully dealt with, in less than a couple of minutes screentime, a marvel of economy in scripting, and editing - but it's always there, as a counterpoint to Tennison's desperate efforts to find another \"lost child\" - a kidnap victim - before it's too late. The story takes many twists and turns,before the surprise ending, and one is fascinated, alike, by the plot, and characters (although I found the many villains a little overdrawn), the police, and especially Tennison, herself, are not always competent, nor that likeable, which figures, given the unpleasant job that they have to do, in the sleazy underworld which this series, habitually inhabits.

Mirren, herself, has said that she'll make no more movies in the series, but, excellent as she's always been in the role of Tennison, the series, itself, is as \"actor proof\" as is another addiction of mine -Dick Wolf's American\"Law & Order\" - whoever appears therein, each could go on forever. As is my fervent hope.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After having seen The Lost Child for quite a number of times since its release in 1995, and having read the reader's comments (mostly about Jane Tennison's background and Helen Mirren's superb role in it), it strikes me more than ever that no comments are made upon the brilliant role Robert Glenister is playing as Chris Hughes. Even after 10 years it is still one of the most credible ways of portraying the complex personality of a child abuser, carrying the weight of his own past.Watching the episode for the full one and a half hour makes you constantly switch between feelings of love and hate for this guy, in which the hate prevails because of the gravity of his actions. I have seen more brilliant roles of my favorite actor, but this one never fails to make the largest impression possible to me. Helen Mirren would never shine without these wonderful actors next to her. Praise for Robert Glenister!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Inherited this from my x's DVD collection when he left with my best friend (enough said), watched it one night when there was nothing on the telly (nothing new there then) and got a very pleasant surprise. Very British (you no hardly any budget, no faces you know or have even seen before), the accents were a bit thick for my liking, but after a worrying start (a bit too close to home in my case) it began to grow on me. Apart from the some unnecessary jokey cutting that really didn't add anything, I found the film throughly uplifting, very real, natural performances throughout left me wanting more from an ending that came suddenly too soon. Highly recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A vg Brit rom-com, one to watch if you can get your hands on a copy. Quirky and often surprising, this is not the best of Brady's films (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is by far the funniest), though it does have a unique charm. Well written the story veers off into a few dead ends but mostly surfaces with a new plot high. You know from the start how it's going to end, but when it comes it is honest and very open ended, a realistic and credible ending, the end seemed like a beginning, enjoyable and left me wanting more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rented this out from my local because it was the only new British film available this week. Never heard of the film-maker before or his other films (thank you IMDB). About time some one made a good young British comedy that didn't star Hugh Grant or forty something's. The story is a morality tale but never preachy, throughly enjoyable from a young and fresh faced cast. Luke Goss's cameo was surprisingly very good, but then he did surprise me with his excellent performance in 'Blade'. Loved the colour grading, especially in the night club sequences. Great music and a truly original voice at work here. Nine out of ten and well worth the rental charge.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We really liked this movie. It wasn't trying to be outrageous, controversial, clever or profound. It was just entertaining and was what it said on the box a charming romantic comedy. Every other Brit film maker seems to want to change the world, nice to see one that just concentrates on telling a good yarn with elegant style.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's just one of those films, you're either love it or hate it, my girlfriend and me loved it, told my brother to rent it and he hated it, said it was too flashy and colloquial, then again he only usually goes to see big action movies, so probably not enough explosions left him disappointed. There were some great new talent (I'd never heard of the leads before anyway)? Des Brady (the directors brother?) was especially good. Playing a right dick at the start I thought he never would redeem himself but he managed to crawl out of the dark hole he had created and by the end I was really routing for him. A very surprising film with a whole lot of heart, if you can live without a body count and explosions then this one is very original. Yashimo. Brixton in the UK.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very charming film with wonderful sentiment and heart. It is rare when a film-maker takes the time to tell a worthy moral tale with care and love that doesn't fall into the trap of being overly syrupy or over indulgent. Nine out of ten for a truly lovely film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow! Why aren't more British movies like this. Great rights of passage money with a big heart and some stand out performances. The comedy is quirky and original and the kid is really great. One to hunt down and watch. Look out for it! Ten out of ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched Love Life on holiday, when it was filmed at a film festival in Florida. It was a lovely surprise to find a British film that wasn't derivative or exploitive. A beautiful romantic comedy for a change that will charm the pants of audiences prepared to sit back and enjoy the gentle pace of the film. The transitions between scenes I found a bit distracting, but as whole I think Love Life is a winner, a ruby in the dust. One for all the family. A pleasant change to see a British film for teen audiences that isn't littered with four letter words. Try and see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Logged on to the imdb to say what a charming film Love Love is and am totally confused. Seems to me that someone has been getting their titles mixed up. \"Plastic demon baby\" what? This wasn't Love Life. A little bit luvy dovey for my tastes but a great, funny and original film. Especially liked the ending that didn't fall into the normal pit of cliche that all hollywood romantic films crash and burn it. Nine out of ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watched this film at a local festival, the Silver Sprocket International Film Festival Florida . What a lovely film. A simple, uncomplicated morality tale about a young care free young man having to take responsibility for his actions. It neither pretentious or flashy my two teenage daughters loved it and for a change I wasn't embarrassed by any of the film content or language. A real family film and the best British comedy film I've seen since Billy Elliot.The film went on to win not surprisingly the top festival awards of Best Film and Best Director. Ten out of ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Gundam series only follows Gundam 0083 Stardust Memory. The story takes place during the same time line as the original Gundam in the year U.C. 0079 the time of the One year war, but the mobile suits are designed as new models are and are as a result look more articulate. The Hero of the story is a young Lt. Shiro Amada, who may lack any real combat experience but makes up for it with creativity and effort.

His life get complicated when he meets Aina Sahalin a Jion ace pilot (the enemy), the to end up falling in love and begin to change their attitudes about the war around them. The other cast of characters in the story are not there for background either, every one in this story has a history to them.

There is also another Ace mobile suit pilot in this series that can be added into the pantheon of ace mobile suit pilots. Right up there with Char Aznable and Anavel Gato is Norris Packard, not the top villain in this series, but his presence give the 8th mobile suit team a hard fight. 3 of them against Norris and his single MS-07B Gouf custom mobile suit.

In conclusion This Gundam along with Stardust Memory is a must see!!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It seems to me that a lot of people don't know that Blade is actually a superhero movie on par with X-Men, Daredevil, Punisher and the likes. What all these heroes (and in the case of X-Men hero group) have in common is that they were all conceived in the magical world of Marvel. Blade was originally a normal person (in a blue outfit) who chased vampires because of a personal grudge and eventually facing of with Dracula himself and he was for lack of a better word boring. So boring in fact that the character was shelved and in fact never used in the Marvel universe. At least until he was reinvented.

David Goyer did a stroke of genius when he took the character of Blade and turned him into a leather clad dark knight. He can't take all the credit though and much of this must go to Stephen Norrington as well who with his distinct visual style brings out the best of the character. The Blade character (Wesley Snipes) is pretty amazing in this film and mixes martial arts with Batman like darkness. Snipes is pretty good as the title character and is successful in bringing out the duality and inner demons of the character. He is, however, a pretty rigid actor both in voice and in posture and is only interesting enough for one film (which is clearly seen from the inferior sequels). Kris Kristofferson is good as well and really brings the tormented character of Whistler to life with energy and sense of timing. N'Bushe Wright, however, is fairly weak as a leading lady making her character relatively flat and lifeless. Donal Logue is pretty funny and manages to do a lot with a minor character. German, Udo Kier, should also be mentioned as he brings a lot of finesse and style to the vampire race, probably born of his experiences from playing Dracula. Stephen Dorf provides the best acting in the film and his chilling performance as Deacon Frost stands as one of the best screen villains I have perhaps ever seen.

The story is good and, I feel, renews the vampire genre (something that hasn't been done since Robert Rodrigues' From Dusk Till Dawn) by adding a lot of contemporary elements and maintaining the comic book feel. By saying that the film has a comic book feel does not mean that the film is unrealistic. Far from it. A lot of effort has been put in trying to make the film seem as real as possible. Including the effects which are pretty good for their time. I found the vampire \"dustings\" to be a very nice touch. In stead of adding a lot of blood when a vampire dies Norrington chose to let the vampires spontaneously com-bust which looks great. The fact that the overall effects were well done adds to the credibility of the film which would otherwise have fallen flat on its face.

As previously stated Norrington has a very distinct visual style that sets him apart from the directors of the following Blade movies. Del Toro is nearly as skilled but I prefer Norrington's style. His style gives the film a very special look and feel but most importantly it gives the film atmosphere. A very tense dark atmosphere which works great in tune with the main character and story. Along with the visual style the music which also works fine and adds a lot to the atmosphere of the movie.

All in all Blade is a very entertaining movie that should probably have had an 8 from me but a few annoying flaws (which cannot be revealed without spoiling the movie, suffice to say, many of them are located near the ending of the film) does that the film must settle with a high 7.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I admit I go more for the traditional vampire tale, but this one is a real winner. Lots of way out graphics and good story to go with them made for an interesting 2 hours. There was loads of gore with vicious blood suckers attacking mortals and even each other for control of the world. A good one for all us vampire lovers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hope the summary line won't irritate you that much (it's a little homage to the Chappelle Show\/Charlie Murphy, but also to the character Daywalker). But I'll try to put all the things I liked about the movie in one paragraph and everything I didn't like in another paragraph, so it will be easier to read!

Let's start with the good things! The quote \"strong bloody violence\" (which is used by rating boards, to describe the content of a movie, does fit here very well. This is not a movie for kids! Or for the faint of hearted! It has Blade as a central character (Wesley Snipes is phenomenal) and a crazy enough story thread to hold\/justify the action scenes! The original idea is also very engaging and intelligent. The action scenes are great here too.

OK over to the things I didn't like. The overall story is too thin. It's enough as I've written above to hold the action scenes together, but there could be more. And a character like Blade deserves more (imo). The drama therefor isn't the best ... also it's use of clich\u00e9s doesn't help. Some characters are underwritten ... That's that! :o)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Blade' would be an extremely above-average comic-book, vampire-hunter action\/horror if it weren't for two minor flaws. #1 I loved seeing the all-but invincible Blade\/Snipes do his slicing and dicing, but the whole \"Yes!\" fist\/punch was literally a letdown. #2 Bad, no make that horrible, CGI \u0096 even for 1998 standards. This is mainly in the last third, but some sprinkled throughout. Okay, despite those minor infractions, I really enjoyed this movie. All actors did a suburb job and the fact that this now looks like yet another 'Matrix' rip-off is hilarious considering this came out one year prior. So maybe 'The Matrix' copied 'Blade.' At any rate, it's a very movie for multiple genre-loving audiences: Comic Book geeks, action fanatics and horror\/vampire lovers. So, we have Blade, half-man\/half-vampire, or \"day-walker\" and his accomplish, Whisler (a la \"Batman and Alfred\") battling the undead who, apparently almost out number humans. Who knew? In a rare act of humanity (Blade's more of an antihero) our sword ninja\/vamp rescues a newly infected (coincidentally) blood specialist\/doctor. Meanwhile, trouble brews amongst the vampires as one wants (you guessed it) supreme power and needs Blade somehow to obtain it. It's not the most original concept, if you read what I just wrote, but still highly enjoyable. You will want to see Blade succeed, you will root for him despite his imperfections and mannerisms. And you will know what's coming as this is the typical act 1-2-3 of a comic book introduction movie. Still, watch this without trying to go too deep. Such as Vampire SPF-1000 \"suntan lotion\"? Really? What about the scalp? Wouldn't that still burn? Just like the money they burn for weapons? Uh, okay, I am going too deep. Once again, sit back and enjoy the techno-charged fun ride.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Overall, I give this film a decent 7.6. To start I'll say I love how the character was portrayed and adapted on to the screen. If you read comics occasionally or simply watch DVD extras you'll see the Blade character is drastically different from the one we see in the film. Among the changes, Blade is now most importantly half vampire, therefore acquiring \"all of their strengths, but none of their weaknesses.\" The credit for this goes obviously to David Goyer, a fellow fan of the darker genre of comic books. Thanks to him Blade has become a much more interesting character and I find him one of my favorite anti-heroes really. Wesley Snipes is born to play this role, although some would've probably pererred Dezenel Washington or Will Smith (lol). His acting here doesn't need to be exactly Oscar winning per say considering the character but I'm glad he decids to play the DayWalker in the two sequels. Also starring is Stephen Dorff as our main villain and Kris Kristofferson as Blade's Alfred so to speak. The acting is good actually and the action keeps the plot going for sure. The opening scene in the club is one of my favorite parts I've got to say. As much as like this movie there are few things that bother me which take away from this film ranking with something like \"Spider-Man\" or \"X-Men\". Stephen Norrington had the villains portrayed in a way I didn't like so much honestly. Their lines were so full of foul mouthed comedy it didn't really feel like a comic book film to me. Plus \"La Magra\" a bit disappointing as the final villain but the intense sword fight makes up for it I guess. Not to mention a sense of extra non-realism: a black man in a leather coat with a sword beaing the #$%^ out of a cop in broad day light some how going unnoticed by the crowds walking by seemed kinda..well...dumb. Moving away from a few of its flaws, the music by Mark Isham was great and fitted the film nicely. Luckily all these problems are fixed and improved on in the stunning sequel, \"Blade 2\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Blade is a dark, gloomy, but significent vampire movie and is one of the best ones. A bit of gore, but nothing really that bad. Wesley snipes played a strong role as he eliminates the vampires. Not really like buffy, because thats too tame but Blade delivers a decent plot and it's the kind of movie that you would probably like to watch on a dark stormy night....thats at best viewing!

87%","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the ever growing film genre of comic book adaptations, Blade is by far one of the best realised, and most faithful (overall) to the source material.... given that the character has almost 30 years of history in the comics since his debut as a back up figure in Marvel's Tomb of Dracula, the writer took almost ALL of the characters and plot elements from the comic's history. While changes were inevitably made, the finer points of the film steamroll right over any criticisms. Don't let any of you friends tell you different: Blade is one fine film. If it feels too \"comic booky\" for you Stanley Kubrick snobs out there, it's because it's supposed to. Deal with it, but don't dis it for it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"However closely the movie is to the comics, it doesn't matter. This movie radically moves away from the boredom of \"Interview with the Vampire\" (although it's acting was good) and slides in the wonderful action scenes. Very convincing tale and interesting with surprisingly good acting from all. Disadvantage - poor graphics. Does it matter? Nope.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For a brief moment. The opening scene with Traci Lords and the

techno bar is incredible. I'd probably follow her to my ultimate death too! Best vampire movie of all time but with a twist. The fight scenes are awesome. Wesley Snipes displays an athleticism you dont get to see every day. And Stephen Dorff is impressive and very believable as an ambitious new recruit moving himself up the hierarchy by any means necessary. Great flick 9\/10. Where's Blade II?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Interesting twist on the Vampire yarn - fast, loud and moody. Despite my initial fears Kris K carries his part reasonably well and Snipes aka Blade provides a formidable physical presence. Lots of blood, steel, silver, burning and exploding bodies provide an enjoyable :) 110 minute distraction. IF you like the black look of The Matrix then Blade will appeal to you, Blade even has a 'dodge the bullets' sequence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is superb! Wesley Snipes Plays Blade the vampire hunter with pure class, he kicks butt in such a fluid and violent way that would make Bruce Lee proud. The movie is a fast paced, thrill ride of action and superb stunts. The first action scene and last are outstanding and Wesley looks like a Terminator as he runs around wiping out all suck heads. The script is pretty good and there is sharp dialogue too. Wesley should have done more action films than he has, i know he is a very good actor and in this he is not streched as much as in his more comic or drama roles but as far as action stars go he is the best actor of them all, only Bruce Willis, Stallone and perhaps Tom Cruise (if he counts as an action star) come close. Also aswell as Wesley being quality, Steven Dorff is also very good as the bad guy. It was an unexpected surprise that someone of small stature compared to Snipes should come across as menacing, but he does. Overall the film is sharp, stylish and i hope the sequal is done with the same sort of pace.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those movies that I can watch again and again and not get tired of it. It is by far one of the best comic book adaptations ever. I liked this one even more than X-men. In fact, this movie is sort of a cross between X-men and the matrix and it came out before either. Wesley Snipes does a great job with the character of Blade. He is just not an emotionless super hero. Also, this movie isn't sugercoated to get a pg-13 rating. Sure comic books are for kids mainly, but I like a little more in my movies. Let's face it, if we were in these situations we would cuss up a storm to so it is more realistic. This comic book adaptation also has something that many don't. A good fight in the end between the bad guy and good guy. Let's face it, none of the Batman movies had a very good ending fight.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing this one in the theatres when it came out, having no idea what it was going to be about and being so pleasantly surprised that I vowed to buy the video when it came out.

While I won't go too far into dissecting this film, I will say that I gave it an 8\/10, for all the reasons you can read in the other user's reviews.

What I will say is this:

The first 10 minutes of this film are incredible. It's as close to a textbook audience grabber as I've ever seen. I once put this movie on at a party, where everyone was winding down and getting ready to leave. I just wanted to see what would happen if I showed them the first ten minutes.

Everyone, who watched the opening, stayed to the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this film was brilliant! i absolutely loved it! wesley snipes was great for this role - and i'm sure blade 2 would be just as good.

blade is by far one of my favorite action\/horror movies out there! and if you havent seen it yet, and like vampires and blood (all that stuff) you should really rent it, because i assure you that you'll love it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved it. In fact, I watched it over and over and over, and I could watch it again. This movie doesn't get boring.

The vampire concept is revolutionized in this movie. It's a job well done, great for today's generation.

Wesley Snipes was born for this role. Stephen Dorff was an ideal vampire. Arly Jover, mmmm mmm, she can bite me any time she wants and what a sexy accent she has. Donal Logue provides great comical relief.

This vampire movie is like no other. I can't wait for Blade 2.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great underrated movie great action good actors and a wonderful story line. Wesley is verry good and the villain the bad guy is wonderful The girl plays a nice role and the comedy mixed with blakness!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Blade is probably one of the best vampire\/action movies ever made.It has it all:action,horror,blood.this movie is for action fans.It's either you like it a lot either you hate it and if you hate it ,it means you don't like action or vampires movies.Wesley snipes takes his role seriously and he his the perfect guy for blade","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this film I prefer Deacon Frost. He's so sexy! I love his glacial eyes! I like Stephen Dorff and the vampires, so I went to see it. I hope to see a gothic film with him. \"Blade\" it was very \"about the future\". If vampires had been real, I would be turned by Frost!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not being the least bit familiar with the characters from the comic book series, I expected this film to merely accomplish the basic: introduce me to the characters and their inherent characteristics, present a plot, and end with the destruction of the main adversary and perhaps hint at the possibility of a sequel. And that's exactly what this movie happens to deliver.

However, unlike with most other comic book movies, I felt that this one did it with a bit of class. Risking a more limited audience with strong language and graphic fight scenes, \"Blade\" presents a very modern, believable and dismal world whose little nuances effectively managed to elicit a sense of dread--as minor as it may have been--from a viewer who rarely ever becomes involved in a story unless an emotional (i.e., sappy) aspect is concerned.

Yes, the movie has innumerable plotholes, and preposterously unrealistic situations such as a standard female doctor being astute enough to contrive what no one else has been able to for several thousand years. But when you have an enemy as cool as the one in this movie, and fight scenes with involving and exciting camera cuts and special effects such as this, what else matters? It may run a little long, but for what it sets out to do, \"Blade\" stands out in sharp relief among most other movies in this genre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's got action and fantasy mixed all together what more do you want in an action movie? And it also has one of the best martial artists in the movie industry today, Wesley snipes.So all in all this movie hasn't left anything out. And that's my comment of what I think is a classic beat em up movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"hi

Blade is an sensational action movie . the hero (Wesley Snipes) and the villain have done justice to their roles.

The movie's action sequences are better then Matrix!

Wesley Snipes is one the best action heroes ever.

If u like action\/vampire movies , this is the ONE.

the theme is pretty good considering the fact that so many vampire movies have been made before.But these is the best of them.

Enjoy the Ride.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, sure, this movie is a bit on the hokey side. It's difficult to take characters from comic books and put them into movies with any credibility (Dolph Lundgren as The Punisher, anyone?), but this tries very hard. I've never read the actual comic book, but that doesn't really matter, I suppose. I judge a film mainly on its merits, not on whether it is a faithful retelling of someone else's idea. (Unless its a film based on a true story, that demands at least some attempt at truth and accuracy.) So why will I give this movie a fairly high rating? Because it tries. It tries very hard. In my book, that makes it a fair attempt at an entertaining film.

Many films have been made with vampire subject matter being the main focus. It seems everybody has their take on vampire lore, be it the cross, the silver, the garlic, the aversion to sunlight, whatever. Some of those ideas are included here. The storyline is familiar... a group of vampires conspire to take over the world, with one person (mainly) standing in their way. Blade (Wesley Snipes) lives for the sole purpose of the destruction of the vampiric masses, who have slowly but surely moved into the world, and share it with humankind. For the most part, the human race is blind to the fact that vampires exist all around them. The vampires have even taken familiars, people who aspire to be vampires and do the vampires' dirty work for them to show how worthy they are of eventually being \"turned.\"

Now that I think of it, there are many elements of this movie similar to the storyline of the Roddy Piper film, They Live. A hidden enemy, hidden group of people plotting against them, the fight to save human-kind... all that is present in Blade as well.

The acting isn't the best here. Snipes is, at best, only slightly better than some of his other roles; N'Bushe Wright, a relative newcomer, isn't too bad; Kris Kristofferson is forgettable as Blade's sidekick (he's to Blade what Chip is to The Punisher). Stephen Dorff does the best job of the whole cast here, as the \"head\" vampire you just love to hate.

I don't know, but I just loved the special effects in this film. From the blood-soaked vampire-style rave, all the way to the inevitable fight at the finale of the film, the special effects aren't half bad. There's certainly enough blood and gore to go around, but after all, this is a vampire movie, right? The various shapes and sorts of weaponry Blade uses are fairly unique, and not generally used in contemporary action films. Snipes has more flair with a decked-out sword than he does with, say, a machine gun. Plus, there's so much more thought that goes into fighting with a blade than just blowing someone away. (Unless, of course, you are Indiana Jones.)

Overall, this isn't the best action film ever made, but it's not half bad, either. As a bonus, the musical score & soundtrack are pretty cool, too. Tell me, in what other movies can you hear super drum'n'bass like Source Direct or Photek?!

My Rating: 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Blade was a thrilling horror masterpiece and it was a brilliant movie with real great action, I cant wait for Blade 2, This is one of Wesley Snipes greatest movies, the acting is great the story line is great everything about this movie is great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The real life case of an innocent First Nations chief(the Indian) by an Winnipeg city officer(the Cowboy) is the basis of this TV movie. The actual case caused its fair share of racial tension in Canada, a small scale Martin Luther King thing. The misjustice of First Nations people is becoming a staple in the Canadian cinema diet. What makes this film worth viewing is the focus on the family's reactions. The father played by Gordon Tootoosis demands forgiveness and the brother played by Eric Schweig demands justice. The stars Gordon Tootoosis and Adam Beach(WINDTALKERS, SKINWALKERS)have minor, almost cameo, appearances. Soon-to-be star Eric Schweig makes his mark in this film with a powerful performance. An honourable mention goes to veteran actor Gary Chalk who has chalked up over 100 movies to his credit. His portrayal of the troubled soul Inspector Dowson was worthy of a Gemini Award(the Canadian Emmy)along with Eric Schweig. The special effects(jump cuts, dream sequences) are occasional and not overbearing. Couple this with some beautiful northern Canadian scenery and recent ongoing events involving police officers and First Nations people like the Neil Stonechild case, and you have a very rewarding and relevant viewing experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I grew up in Winnipeg and saw the treatment of the natives almost everyday. There are good and bad in EVERY race, why make them all out to be bad? That goes for all races today. John Harper was an educated man, he graduated from high school, he even had a year of university under his belt before going back to the reserve. How do I know this? John Harper lived with my family for the 3 years he was in high school, and he kept in contact with us the year after graduation. He was a kind and gentle soul, he could be fun loving and he could be serious when the times were right. I wasn't very old when he left our house, but I can still remember all the times he helped me with my homework when my own brother couldn't be bothered. He even taught grade 3 the year before he came to Winnipeg. None of this is mentioned in the movie, and the suicide of constable cross is an admission of guilt as far as I'm concerned. What happened to John is unforgivable, not only in the native community, but also in the white community. Not everyone in Winnipeg think like the police do, I knew the person inside, and what he was like as a PERSON, not an Indian!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched it for the second time today and I must say with all my heart it is about damn time they made a movie about us as people not as spiritual beings. Such a waste of human life as this story was maybe some good will come out of it. And Eric is hotter than ever. To often in the movies First Nations people are seen as other than everyday people. We are always portrayed as chiefs or medicine people. Hey we are just like everyone else. And this movie showed just that. We hurt when an injustice is done and we can win in quest for justice. It is really to bad that the big movie companies cant see that. I cant wait till this comes out on DVD. Thanks to those who chose to show this story as it really was.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cowboys and Indians is an excellent film. The writing, acting, directing could not have been better. This was a story that begged to be told, and this group of talented individuals and teams did a superb job of doing so. Stories like this one are not pleasant ones, but serve to remind people of the social injustices that exist all around the world. It is my hope that when this film is seen that attitudes and prejudices will be changed. A film that can do that is a rare a special thing. Andrew Berzins is an excellent writer, and his talents and expertise in this field came shining through in this film.

Thank you for telling this story!!!

Ruby","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoy this particular production of \"The Mikado.\" The producers added a few touches throughout to make it more amusing for modern audiences -- for instance, \"As Some Day It May Happen\" (the \"little list\" song) is completely updated, and a few lines are ad-libbed throughout the play. Liberties were also taken with the setting. The costumes are not Japanese, but rather 1920s English (although some of the \"Tittipudlian\" girls wear '20s-inspired kimonos). This production is well-choreographed with some 1920s dance styles, and there are some extra dancing maids and bellhops to keep your eyes (as well as ears) entertained during the songs. If you're a Gilbert & Sullivan purist these changes may bother you, but I think they're fine -- and I love the costumes!

Felicity Palmer (Katisha) is absolutely hilarious; all of her scenes make me laugh out loud (one of my favorite add-ons is when she first makes an entrance -- the dancing bellhops annoy her with their antics, so she screeches at the top of her voice, \"STOP IT!!!\"). All of the other main characters do a fine job as well. I particularly like Mark Richardson as Pish-Tush (that toupee!) and Lesley Garrett as Yum-Yum.

You must keep in mind that this is a stage production being filmed and set your expectations accordingly. There is no change of setting, although the filmmakers used some 1930s film techniques to add interest. If there is one draw-back to this production, it is that the stage makeup wasn't modified for close-up shots with a camera. Foundation lines are often visible and there seems to be a surplus of eyeliner, lipstick, and blush everywhere. I've seen this sort of thing happen before with films of plays, and it's a little jarring at first. However, I hope you'll get used to it and enjoy \"The Mikado\" for what it's worth -- a thoroughly enjoyable rendition of a classic!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this on Thames television and loved it. I subsequently saw a dreadful write-up by someone who certainly hadn't watched or listened to it. So, I bought a copy and then I bought another copy! The only sad thing is that it is not available on PAL VHS or Region 2 DVD. The Australian version is great, but this one is better! I might buy another.............","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are times I am convinced that The Mikado is the best Sullivan & Gilbert opera ever, but that is only so long as I'm not listening to Iolanthe. Be that as it may, The Mikado is probably the most frequently filmed of the Savoy Operas. (Yes, I put the composer first. Nobody says Hammerstein and Rodgers, or Hart and Rodgers, or Boito and Verdi, or What's-His-Face and Strauss. You don't even hear the names of librettists for Offenbach, Suppe, or Balfe. Gilbert was just the bigger name (and the bigger ego) at the time, so they put his name first. It's time that silly practice was put to rest.

Anyway, The Mikado is a compleat S&G operetta. It has some of Sullivan's catchiest numbers, combined with some of Gilbert's cleverest lyrics. It has an interesting book and sprightly dialogue. It's got a wonderful degree of craziness. And it leaves the door wide open for elaborate and whimsical costuming.

This particular production, filmed in a live performance in 1990, turns its imagination toward striking simplicity. Set in a British seaside resort toward the end of the Art Nouveau period, it throws over the japonerie of the original entirely. The result is costuming and setting in an eye-caressing medley of whites, grey, and blacks, accented by occasional bits of red (and less frequent uses of yellow and green). It takes some getting used to, but it's really spiffy. Of course, when the chorus tells you they are gentlemen of Japan, you would be right to exclaim, \"Oh, pooh. Bah!\" (Did I just say that?) It's most gratifying that this fine production is now on DVD. However, one caveat: the print seems to be photographed through a glass of imperfect clarity, so that the expected sharpness of the image is softened and ever so slightly fuzzy. The tendency to superimpose images is, alas, annoying. Why do people who are doing a really spiffy production want to muck it up with artsy-fartsy stuff of that sort? But it's the performance that counts the most. We may skip the overture, since although one is performed, Sullivan never wrote one. (True, it may be so he wrote none for any of the Savoys. But the Mikado overture doesn't even date from Sullivan's lifetime and was compiled by observing the techniques used in the others.) As for the rest of the operetta, it's first-rate and supremely funny.

The Ko-Ko here is the estimable Eric Idle, who does it credit. There is a tradition of bringing a Big Name into the role. The was a U.S. TV production years ago in which Ko-Ko was played by Groucho Marx with mixed results. Idle's performance is delightfully quirky ... he does \"Taken from a county jail\" assisted by a tennis racquet. His \"I've Got a Little List\" is done as a speech to a microphone -- of course it has the usual updated lyrics, which are much funnier than the usual run of such things, and his delivery is positively hysterical. It goes on that way throughout.

In this operetta, it's important to have a good Katisha; it's just no fun if you're not being bellowed at in style. This Mikado has a fabulous Katisha in Felicity Palmer, in her way almost as Big a Name as Idle. She bellows with the best of them in a wonderful rich contralto ... wonderful, especially, for a soprano. And her costume...!!! (Not to mention her recital with Franz Liszt, apparently, accompanying.) Nanki-Poo is played by Bonaventura Bottone. I have trouble getting around is somewhat un-Nanki-Pooish chubby shortness -- but is voice is undeniably a solid, rich addition to the vocal palette. There is a nice touch during \"A Wand'ring Minstrel\", where the chorus reacts with distaste to the mention of \"his nancy on his knee\" -- bear in mind the Mikado's decree about flirting. Be that as it may, Bottone is a fine singing actor and if his appearance doesn't put the best face on Nanki-Poo, his performance does.

Yum-Yum (Lesley Garett) and her friends are appropriately pretty and silly. She and Bottone do lovely duets. Pish-Tush (Mark Richardson) plays his persona as something a blageur and does it very well. Poo Bah (Richard Van Allan) is wonderful as a stuffed shirt out of water ... a role later done to death in American sitcoms (you know: haughty butlers forced to cater to bratty children -- that sort of thing). The Mikado (Richard Angas) is bloody marvelous, with an imperious voice at absolute variance with his ridiculous lyrics.

I don't recommend you get this as your only Mikado. Get a good traditional production as well, so you can see what Gilbert intended (more or less) in terms of staging. That being said, I'll watch this one twice while viewing any traditional bit once. On the whole this is a terrific offering, a vocal and visual delight, with delicious over-acting. It's a DVD to treasure, with dervish-like maids, tap-dancing bellhops, and all. Watch for the bellhops with signs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you want to see a brilliant performance of Mikado, played to perfection with expert timing and panache, don't watch this version. If you want to see a hammy version with Eric Idle strutting around in 1930's english gentlemen's private club society, this is the one to watch. It's a lot of fun and a good intro to Gilbert and Sullivan, but after this, rush out and rent the Canadian Stratford version. You'll see the difference between good and great. Nobody does G&S better than Brian McDonald and the Stratford group.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're tired by the same repetitive, unintelligent material that the mainstream movie industry releases, you'll enjoy \"You Are Alone\". It is thought provoking, well shot and riveting.

Without revealing anything that you don't find out in the first few minutes of the movie, this is the story of a young white high school girl from an upper middle class environment who is working as an escort and is discovered by her neighbor. The vast majority of the movie occurs in a hotel room where he hired her to come.

Through their discussion, you explore two shifting views of prostitution, depression, loneliness. Yet the movie is not depressing. It talks about dark things without being depressing.

As a viewer, your emotions and preconceived notions are moved around, but gently. You come out of it with a lot to think about. I like that in a movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jessica Bohl plays Daphne, the sexually precocious suburban teenager struggling with the hell of high school. Daphne's neighbor is Buddy (Richard Brundage), a depressed middle-aged man still angry over loosing his wife. Daphne is attracted to world of prostitution because it promises to cure her of barely legal boredom and loneliness. Once Buddy strips Daphne of her secret, he hires her to help him accept the loss of his wife. The entire film takes place at the Hotel Duncan, yet details of each character's history are exposed through dialogue and flashbacks. Their appointment climaxes with the story's concluding twist.

Both actors truly understand and become their particular character, delivering a convincing, sincere performance. Their on-screen chemistry, critical to the entire film, is genuine.

The film's dialogue is natural, real to life. The writer, Gorman Bechard, undoubtedly did his homework because all references are industry and character-age appropriate. Daphne is intelligent, yet clearly still an eighteen year old. Buddy may be middle-aged, but still not the hackneyed na\u00efve type normally depicted in film. Daphne and Buddy's conversation primarily deals with their despair and frustration with life, but is still comical at the right times. Although the general mood is very relaxed, the dialogue has its own vivacity, forcing the audience to become empathetic toward the character's conditions and uncomfortable at their straightforward vulgarities.

The incredible soundtrack truly captures the essence of the film. Each track commands sentiment, actually contributing to the scenes and characters. Even existing independently from the film, the compilation truly expresses You Are Alone's central theme-- loneliness.

You Are Alone is a less conventional piece that deals with of notions typically not spoken. Definitely worth seeing\u0085 it's the sort of thought provoking film that forces you to question your own threshold of loneliness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this at the Chicago IndieFest and have to say YOU ARE ALONE is a lot funnier than the other reviews and even the website would lead you to think. Not HA HA Wedding Crashers' funny, but sick, twisted, I can't believe she just said that but it's so damn true funny.

Jessica Bohl, who deservedly won Best Actress, is amazing to watch. There's never a moment when you think oh, I'm watching a movie and she's an actress. She's too damn real for words.

In fact there's 2 scenes that I'm still giggling over, and I won't give them away, but in one she's in the bathroom talking about how much she gets paid for performing a certain service and how \"awesome\" it is. (I almost wonder how many people in the audience are secretly thinking the same thing!!!)

In another she talks about a teenagers definition of \"sex\" versus an adults, and if it isn't the truest dialog I've heard in a movie in a long time, I don't know what is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The actors in this dark film are truly believable and well cast. The quality of the camera work makes you feel as if you are there The screenplay is intense and does not wander. The plot is one that makes you want to watch it a second time from the new perspective gained by the ending. We showed this film to a small group of patrons at Gadsden's Center for Cultural Arts. After the film, ever patron was eager to discuss the film and one person called me the next day to say that they were still \"bothered\". While we put an 18 and up age restriction on the film, I would watch the film with a youth group as it is a very real portrayal of an ugly situation and sets the stage for great conversation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 1980's 'My Dinner with Andre,' with Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, is essentially a dialog about the world and how it affects and can lift the spirit. 2005's 'You Are Alone' demonstrates how common worldly events can shatter the soul.

The story revolves around three principal characters. There's Daphne, a pretty teenage student who frets about virtually every decision in her life. Then there's the prostitute, or paid escort, Britney, as self-confident as Daphne is self-conscious. What makes them interesting is that they share the same body, if not the same personae. Part of the magic of this film occurs in one of the early scenes where Daphne approaches a door of an aged hotel room. She halts and is obviously torn by the decision of whether or not to knock on the door \u0096 but it is Britney that effortlessly glides into the room when the door is opened.

On the other side of that door is Buddy, a middle-aged nobody with few, if any, personal qualities that anyone would find attractive. He goes so far as to be confrontational about Britney's chosen profession as soon as she enters the room. However, we soon learn that Buddy is Daphne's next-door neighbor and has watched through the years as she grew from little girl to womanhood. This complicates things for the audience. Is Buddy just being a concerned neighbor or does he want something else?

If it's sex that Buddy wants, here it is. Britney loves sex. Her definitions may be Clintonesque but that doesn't lesson her enthusiasm. She prefers older men and wears a rainbow of plastic wristbands that her clients are invited to chose from. Each color band denotes a specific act that she'll perform \u0096 but exactly which act isn't revealed until after the band is broken off her wrist and the choice is irrevocably made.

Britney is, or believes that she is, in control of every encounter. Even when blindfolded and bound, as she is by one of her regular clients, she imagines her arms and body being stroked by multiple men but her legs and pubic area being caressed by a woman in blood red lingerie. The film's imagery just keeps coming.

Buddy's pathetic life is one of acceptance. He's lost his wife, his dog, even his fantasies of the pretty teenager next-door. It's no coincidence that he's lured Daphne or Britney to this particular hotel room. There's a painting on the wall of a dinner plate with only a fish head left. This is a perfect metaphor for Buddy's life; all of the good parts are finished. So it's here, where he brought his wife when they were still college students, that he makes his stand \u0096 to regain some control of his own life, to make his statement.

The director of 'You Are Alone,' Gorman Bechard, knows his craft. The principal action in the hotel room serves as a solid anchor for the film, assisted by a myriad of inter-cut scenes that add dimension to the characters, their circumstances and conflicts.

As the film progresses, Britney asks Buddy if she should get undressed. He says yes, but she strips only to her underwear. An actual prostitute would probably remove all of her clothes (one of the profession's five gets). But it isn't Buddy that's being teased, we are. As the film concludes, we find that there are far deeper human emotions and motivations in play. A tease doesn't work unless it actually delivers. Britney does, so does 'You Are Alone'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have a hard time putting into words just how wonderful this was. Once in a while you see a film that just sticks with you. \"You Are Alone\" is that movie (for me). The film is constantly in my head and in my heart. I replay the scenes mentally every day and analyze them and go through the emotions all over again, as if I am seeing it for the first time.

There is nothing I did not like about the movie. Amazing soundtrack!!! The ending was perfect. Very emotionally stirring!!! It was compelling and riveting.

I adored Jessica Bohl and her performance was the greatest I have ever witnessed. I admired Brittany's strength (what a strong woman).

The tag line is \"When your darkest moments come to life\". We never know what we are capable of doing. Everyone says oh I would never do that, when really we have no idea what we would do in a situation. We are very capable of anything and this movies delves straight into that subject. The honesty of the movie may be my absolute favorite part.

Thank you Gorman Becherd for a perfect piece of art!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some people are born with mourning souls with their song sung singularly until they encounter another soul as tortured and\/or as bitterly sweetly beautiful as their own and an unusual magic happens. YOU ARE ALONE is a brutally honest look into two tortured souls that intertwine for a moment of understanding and oneness only to be torn apart by the differences in the oneness between they're pain. Death is explored figuratively and literally. It is what happens when ones soul is dead or similarly too alive, too awake to reality. It is the life NOT which you imagined behind the eyes of passer-by's. This film explores the aching pain in us all, the frown beneath the cheery facade, the ache below. The ugly instinctual animalistic thoughts and acts become honest and matter of fact and then Bechard sprinkles a dash of unexpected innocence and beauty into the mix knowing both linger in us all. Bechard, the writer, is a expert observer of the human condition and because of his non judgmental attitude presents life in a light we often shield our eyes from but yearn to see and understand. He, as director, focuses on the nuances of the actors spirit that shines through the character they're playing to the actors own personal familiarity with the emotions brought on by each situation. This is the most accurately written and directed character portrayal of a man and woman's experience together I have encountered as of yet, even though the two characters encounter is probably not the \"normal\" encounter.

The soundtrack encapsulates in each songs lyrics what the characters would let their hearts spill out if able and strong enough. It is each characters real voice sung through the beauty, pain, talent, and emotional intelligence of emerging indie artists ready to explode onto the alternative music market. The perfect soundtrack for those of us with issues - those of us who admit that we have issues and those of us that hide it.

I always enjoy exploring the darker sides of life with Mr. Bechard's both fascinatingly creative and realistic view of life and the characters that revolve within it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You Are Alone is a beautiful, almost delicate film, smart directed, crisply written, with two complex and riveting performances, and a twist of an ending that no one will see coming, but will make you want to see the film a second time to go back and catch up on all the clues you misread.

The story, about a highschool girl who drowns her depression and awkwardness by working a few hours a week as a $500 an hour \"schoolgirl\" escort, and the depressed next-door neighbor who discovers her secret and hires her for an afternoon call in a downtown New Haven hotel, features breathtaking performances from both Jessica Bohl, as the girl, and Richard Brundage, as her neighbor.

Bohl as Daphne gives a breakthrough performance on par with Maggie Gyllenhaal in Secretary. She so captures a teenager's angst of growing into her own skin, and when she talks about always being in control, you start to realize she's not in control at all, but in danger of going over the deep end, which I guess in a way she does.

Brundage as Buddy is depressed, angry, heartbroken, a shell of a man. But it isn't until the film's startling conclusion that you grasp a full comprehension of his pain.

After a very brief opening segment, which will hook most independent film lovers, and have the religious right running towards the exits, we are brought into the hotel room. At first you're not sure about these people, or the film-making style. Shaky, annoying...like the characters. Until you realize their back story, told in short flashbacks. They're confrontational at first for a reason, and so is the camera. But as they open up, as the story settles down, likewise, so does the camera. And, I don't know, 20 minutes in, give or take, you find yourself unable to take your eyes away from the screen.

Having just seen the world premiere screening at the Brooklyn Film Fest -- where the director asked the audience if anyone expected the ending and not one person answered yes \u0096 I almost wish the film were already on video so I could watch it again. Because thinking back now on some of the conversations in the film, particularly a very candid dialog regarding fantasy and climax, I really thought things were going in a very different direction. But I realize now so much of their conversation meant something completely different than what I imagined. I need to see it again!!! But as dark and sexual as much of the talk is, blunt to say the least, I found myself laughing more than I might have expected at some of its candor, which definitely falls into the \"things we think, but lack the nerve to say out loud\" category. It's very blunt, especially when you realize so much of it has a completely different meaning. Some of it will make you uncomfortable, especially if you're watching You Are Alone with a partner. You'll definitely have something to talk about \u0096 perhaps argue about \u0096 afterwards. Perhaps it should come with a warning: You SHOULD be alone when watching! The music is amazing. I would have come home, and purchased the soundtrack at my favorite online music store if I could have. The film looks as good as anything shot on film. After the screening director Gorman Bechard was asked what sort of process he used to get the digital footage to look so good. His answer: none. They couldn't afford it.

I have to give Bechard credit. I am a big fan of his two shorts, The Pretty Girl and Objects in the Mirror, but even they could not have prepared me for the complexities and surprises of this film.

To everyone involved: bravo.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a film directors nightmare... especially of the mega buck, multiplex variety. While not a student of the art I still have a high threshold for disbelief suspension and buying into the film maker's vision, if I can find it. That's why a gem such as 'You Are Alone' is such an exhilarating find. The intimacy and pacing drew me in and never let me go. Jessica Bohl and Richard Brundage give thoughtful nuanced performances and director Gorman Bechard displays a deft hand in presenting what is an understandably disturbing day in the lives of two terribly damaged people.

Spoiler below

I bought the DVD version and have shared it with several people. The reactions have been varied, from disbelief in the ability of Daphne to complete the assignment for which Buddy has paid her to an inability to watch the whole film because it was just too real and emotionally devastating. As a compulsively skeptical moviegoer I have to be either grabbed by the collars and hauled for the ride or sidled up to and seduced by the filmmaker. This film took the later route for me and by the end I was so involved that I felt Daphne's horror and pain at her role in Buddy's demise. My reaction to this film reminded me of watching 'The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover' by Peter Greenaway many, many years ago. By the end I was fascinated and repelled and utterly unable to tear my eyes away from that film too. I've watched this film several times now and truly appreciate the eye and ear the director has demonstrated. I am familiar with other works he has been done including a couple of cheeky movies, 'Galactic Gigolo' and 'Attack of the Killer Bimbos' and a mixed bag 'The Kiss' which I recently learned was killed in the cradle by the producer and doesn't really represent the directors vision. Too bad, because I loved the prior two films and even found 'The Kiss' interesting but wish 'The Kiss' was available in a director's cut with all of the original vision and music in tact. I look forward to future work by this interesting director and the leads Jessica Bohl and Richard Brundage.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a fantastic movie about two people, one a young teenage girl, and the other, a middle aged man, who are each looking for someone to help them fulfill a certain emptiness left by former loved ones.

Both actors give brilliant performances that various audiences can relate to. The script, although written by Gorman Bechard, seems as though it was written from a woman's point of view. And at the same time, men can relate to the male characters because of how well they were developed and described in the movie.

The end of the movie has an unusual but powerful and unexpected twist that leaves you speechless. I would recommend this film to anyone who has ever felt lonely or abandoned by a loved one. It is clear in this film that you are not alone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is Engaging and Complex while maintaining simple beauty .Our two characters come together sharing the base of curiosity and loneliness, but it is a springboard for learning these people, they 're life styles and pasts which support this.

The two lead actors (Bohl, Brundruge) were in the moment as any two actors I have ever seen. %100 believable, they transport the audience seemingly effortlessly, into their world. The actors' seamless acting teamed with Bechard's Beautiful, realistic dialog and his truthful direction drives the story forward into a striking and moving finale.This film is visual treat- soft ,increasing the intensity of The story. The soundtrack serenades the viewer, soothing yet drawing out the emotional content of the film. I find this project to be nothing short of a masterpiece. intriguing.intense.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is like Happiness meets Lost in Translation with a Sixth Sense ending (or maybe a Crying Game surprise), and the best soundtrack I've probably ever heard...if that all make sense.

The first 30 seconds pretty much tells you you're in for a twisted ride. (I was surprised no one walked out right away during the Brooklyn premiere.) But from there, the film settles down into a talk-fest between two really damaged people, Daphne and Buddy.

They're lonely, mess-up, and boy do they talk about sex. Daphne brings to life her most interesting tales of escorting, some are quite funny (Mr. Chang) some disturbing (the Harlan scenes with music that tells us what we see might now be what's going on, or what Daphne is really feeling), and because I have a friend who used to escort, I might add, most seem quite real.

You Are Alone is multi-layered and mostly brilliant. Okay, maybe a couple minutes less of the talking, and I don't know that we'd have missed anything.

Then again, I need to see it again knowing the ending.

I like this movie.

(The director asked people in the Brooklyn audience to write a review on IMDb because a lot of people read them. Request granted.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the film at the Brooklyn International Film Festival (World Premiere).

A haunting, intimate portrait of Loneliness, and the repercussions of letting it grow and turn into something darker.

The acting of the two leads (Jessica Bohl & Richard Brundage) is excellent, and makes one wish you had met these characters before they became so damaged.

Reminded me in theme of the works of Atom Egoyan (Exotica) and Raymond Carver (Where I'm Calling From).

The Soundtrack (Tywanna Jo Baskette, Crooked Fingers) is excellent and reinforces moments in the film without drawing attention to itself.

Highly recommend the Film and the Soundtrack.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had actually considered investing in this movie when Gorman was out drumming up funding. I loved most of the script but did not like the ending. Gorman insisted the ending was as it had to be.

Seeing the completed movie I have to say I am amazed. Reading the script I had not imagined the acting (and Gorman's directing) would be as powerful and moving as it is here. The two leads did an amazing job. They were very believable and this movie is well worth watching just for the performances of these two amazing stars.

Now, for the spoiler and if you have not seen the movie please don't read further as you need to see the movie first. (I actually wish I had never read the script just so I could have experienced the movie ending first hand.)

----------------------------- SPOILER

I have two main problems with the movie. First off, and I'm sure I mentioned this when I read the script, the wife should have died. If she were dead the ending would be much more believable. As it is, we have this guy who has been agonizing over a woman who left him 'years ago.' If she left him and he is still in love after so long he'd have to be seriously delusional. But he doesn't come across that way in the script. (There is also the problem of why he did not expend all this energy going after the wife he still loves.)

Plus, if the wife were dead we would actually be able to believe that they had a fulfilling, reciprocating love, and therefore believe that the guy is devastated enough for the ending to be reasonable.

However, I don't buy Daphne doing what she does in the ending. I'd need a heck of a lot of convincing to believe that this naive girl (very naive for a whore but believable due to Bohl's performance) did what she did. The character is simply not cold enough. And if she did this out of some kind of love, or something else, then there is a whole piece of the movie\/story missing.

Much of this movie is reminiscent of \"Sex, Lies, and Video Tape.\" I think it could have been as popular if Gorman had chosen to give the movie a more believable ending.

So watch the movie, enjoy the performance. And make up your own mind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This really is a movie that you need to see twice. When I first saw this film I was really drawn into the story. While the majority of the story takes place inside of a hotel room, the stories that Buddy (Nick Drake, wonderful allusion) and Daphne share take you outside of their room and into their world. Through their conversations you get a feel for the loneliness and pain that each feels. The soundtrack accompanies the movie perfectly, dark, lo-fi and intriguing. When you see the film the second time around you can pick up all of the clues that you missed the first time around leading up to one of the best ending I have seen in a long time. I hope to see this movie find a distributor for the DVD so that it will be more accessible. Great movie, you won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the BEST movies I have seen in a very long time. Bechard has a way of looking at things that is completely unique and this movie does not disappoint.

This movie has you guessing throughout, and with the seemingly taboo topics addressed it keeps you glued to the screen. There are no bad guys or good guys, Bechard makes sure of that. The characters are so perfectly complex you feel for each of them, you care about what they have been through.

Bechard's use an attention to details is unmatched in this world of \"FAST FOOD MOVIES\" and while some of the topics may make some uncomfortable - you love the feeling it gives you.

I have heard it said too often that there are no NEW stories to tell. Thank you Gorman Bechard for proving that false.

Run, don't walk, to see this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although it was dark, depressing, and at times hard to watch, You Are Alone held my attention and was refreshingly honest in its dialog. It truly captured the angst of teenage romantic relationships. In addition, the soundtrack was amazing. The lyrics and the tone of the songs complemented the sadness of the film so well that it made you wonder if the tracks were created specifically for the movie.

Jessica Bohl is the best actress I have ever watched. Her compelling and believable performance made the movie. It made me wonder if she really IS a prostitute. Who knows. Anyway, the movie was very worth seeing. LOVE, YOUR SISTER! yeah, that's right....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this film at the Sidewalk Film Festival in Birmingham, AL, which was actually a really fun festival, and was blown away by it. It was the best movie I saw all day by a long shot. A school aged prostitute meets with a middle age man and attempt to end there deep depression together. It's an inner look into the darkest parts of human sexuality. Story stems from real life occurrences, ripped straight from the headlines. Raw, blunt dialog and a killer twist at the end. The film does contain graphic sexual dialog and nudity. Definitely not suitable for kids. Too depressing for some people's tastes. Definitely worth checking out in my opinion though.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Good show, really good acting, and the director takes us swimming through his storyline in an interesting, unpredictable way, especially since, essentially, it's two people in a room. It doesn't race through like many modern films, but doesn't drag, either. Bohl is flippant enough to believe her in the \"now\" of her character, which is still involved and not going back on her 'career' choices - so it is believable without the need for her to show us a deep, self-examination of her soul...Brundage has the delicate balance of weight, innocence, meekness, and class to pull off 'Buddy' very well. A bit grainy on the film quality, but it fits the tone of the story. Could use a little polishing on the hair and makeup end of things, but definitely worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very literate, intelligent drama about a group of international travelers held virtual prisoners in the Hungary of 1956 by invading Russian Communist regime. Kerr and Robards play lovers, she a British baroness, he a Hungarian freedom fighter trying to do his bit for his country. Other New York theater stars of the period Anne Jackson & E G Marshall play an American couple traveling with their two young sons, including Ronny Howard in his screen debut. Jackson's character is hugely pregnant and not anxious to give birth in a soon-to-be communist country; she gives an impassioned plea in the third act of this film which presages the naturalistic acting styles we've come to know today from Redgrave, Fonda, & Streep. Leading the pack of Soviet wolves is Yul Brynner, magnificent as a commandant and at his sexiest since he played opposite Kerr in \"The King and I\". He is mean and nasty and terribly conflicted by his attraction to the lovely, patrician, & heroic Kerr. This is one of the great transition films of the latter part of the Golden Era of American film. Do not miss it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Set in Hungary in November 1956, this is the story of a group of foreign nationals who were trying to leave the country at the time of the Uprising.

Once the airport is closed, the titular journey begins on a bus taking them to Austria. As would be obvious, they are stopped on their way which is where they come up against the almost faultless Yul Brynner whose military power as a Red Army Major was marked with loneliness, his internal struggle between right and wrong, his search for the truth and his need to feel emotions for other human beings. He was saddened by the fact that his job had alienated him from his friends and enemies alike and he yearned for social contact.

Robert Morley plays the quintessential stiff upper-lipped Englishman who, no matter how serious the role, manages to maintain an almost light-hearted logical outlook on life while Jason Robards has a stunning movie debut which enforces the reason why he had so many roles throughout his career. Deborah Kerr, as the leading lady, exhibits the grace and femininity we have come to associate with her yet manages to bring over the strength and resolve required for her character.

The film deals with a very tempestuous time in European history but it never ceases to remind us that there is good in all of us and you can never completely judge a book by the cover. Fabulous scriptwriting ensures that for all the seriousness of the subject there can still be great one-liners and comedic instances that add to, rather than detract from the movie. The chemistry in the cat and mouse game between Kerr and Brynner makes you understand why they appeared in more than the one film together.

All in all, a thoroughly engrossing movie which I would definitely watch again. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Journey\" is a romantic version of the cold war. It's about an English woman (Deborah Kerr) trying to smuggle her former love, a Hungarian scientist (Jason Robards, Jr.), out of Hungary during the Hungary Revolt in 1956. She's on board a bus with thirteen other international people who are trying to get out of Hungary through the Austrian border.

Of course, the bus gets stopped by the Russians for a security check. The Russian officer-in-charge (Yul Brynner) becomes attracted to the English woman (Deborah Kerr)and delays the trip. Of course, the Russian officer knows the truth about the Hungarian scientist posing as a British citizen, but he decides not to arrest the scientist because he is waiting for the English woman to come to him. Of course, this all sounds absurd, but it is a fun movie to watch. Despite the romantic flow of dialogue between Mr. Brynner and Ms. Kerr, which seems inappropriate in the situation that they are in, the movie becomes suspenseful and interesting. The good acting overrides some of the silly dialogue. Perhaps, some people involved in the Hungarian Revolt would not appreciate this movie; they would consider it a piece of fluff.

This is my favorite Yul Brynner role. He speaks with his own, masculine voice and is very attractive, especially when he becomes vulnerable. This is Deborah Kerr's second time working with Yul Brynner since they made \"The King and I\" in 1956. They make a very attractive couple. Too bad they never worked again. This was the second sexy role Ms. Kerr took since \"From Here to Eternity\". Despite the fact that Ms. Kerr was wearing heavy winter clothes throughout the movie, she was very beautiful and sensual.

The fine supporting cast was headed by Jason Robards, Jr., in his first film role. Some of the international cast were recognizable, like for instance, Robert Morley from England. However, the rest of the actors, I have never seen before or since, were just great in the movie. In the background, it was fun to see Senta Berger, as one of the maids, speak a few lines of Hungarian. A few years later in 1966, she was in a movie, \"Cast a Giant Shadow\", with Yul Brynner as his leading lady. She is still working today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Set during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, this story has all the suspense of a good cold war book or movie as a multinational group of foreigners attempt to smuggle Jason Robards out of Hungary into Austria. However, three things complement the story, making this an extremely good movie.

First, the actors use the actual languages of their roles. The Russian soldiers speak only Russian; the Hungarians only Hungarian; the Germans only German, except to the minimal extent to tell the story. Since Debra Kerr is English, she speaks only English, and, of course, Yul Brynner and a few others essential to the story also speak heavily accented English. As a result, the empathy of the audience to the travelers becomes paramount. The viewer shares all the confusion and suspense of being involved in an illicit border crossing when he\/she cannot understand any of the languages spoken around them. Very powerful feelings are aroused in the audience, and notwithstanding the heavy use of foreign languages, the audience is never at a loss for following the film. No subtitles are necessary.

Second. I was in Hungary in 1995, and I'm telling you, this movie has it right on. From the gypsy music overpowering the dinner meal to the underground caverns in the buildings where much of the action takes place to the village scenes, the realism is incredible. If I didn't eat in the actual restaurant in the movie, I ate at its double. I thought that I actually walked down the main street in that village. (Actually, the film was shot in Austria).

Third, and most important, this movie reunites Deberah Kerr and Yul Brynner (after The King and I) and the magnetism between them as the story unfolds is nothing short of Oscar qualified. Of course, Yul already received an Oscar for playing that relationship, so the Acadamy wasn't going to give him another one, but that is the quality of the film. Don't miss this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen several Yul Brynner films--yet this is his best performance as the camera captures his emotions in close up as he snarls, smiles, and laughs. Brynner might have been equally arresting in Ten Commandments, Taras Bulba, The Magnificent Seven, The Brother Karamazov and the Mad Woman of Chaillot but none of these films have captured his range of talent in close ups as in this one. He is arresting and tantalizing to watch in every shot.

Equally fascinating and sexy, without removing her clothes, is Deborah Kerr. The script allows her to exude a sensuality that is not visual but suggestive--she reprised this sort of role years later in The Night of Iguana. The film does not suggest that she slept with anyone to help with the release of the group from the clutches of the Russians in fact she is shown as running away from the Russian Major (in contrast to the Maupassant story or the Isak Denisen story). Yet the film bursts with suggested but real physical allure of the Kerr character.

Kerr can never be classified as a beautiful actress in my view, but she is a superb actress. She puts her soul into dignifying the characters that she portrays, which often clashes with the spirit of the character. It is this contradiction that makes her roles in The journey, Quo Vadis, and The Night of Iguana memorable.

Why is this an unusual film? It is not easy in Hollywood to see Russian characters portrayed as good people--Dr Zhivago was an exception. Brynner's Romance of a Horse Thief was again great cinema by Abraham Polonsky but never acknowledged as such because of the intolerance towards Leftists in the post-McCarthy era.

The film is also unusual in its casting--great French actors Gerard Oury and Anouk Aimee--rub shoulders with Jason Robards Jr and British actor Robert Morley. In many ways the film is international than American. All four are great actors and add to the entertainment.

Those who have read Maupassant and Denisen's works will find the film is not true to either work. Yet the film can stand on its own as its sanitized (censored?) version has a dignified charm of its own--provided by the reality of the night that led to the release of the group. I think Litvak deserves to have the last laugh in providing an interesting and plausible twist to the tales that led to the making of the film, while entwining bits of both written tales (e.g. the last bus ride and the final kiss)

But I do have one grouse--why do Hollywood never acknowledge the sources that inspire the stories? Only recently (e.g., Insomnia) have the original works begun to be mentioned prominently in the credits.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yul Brynner is Major Surov, a singing, dancing, vodka-drinking Russian Officer stationed near the Austrian -Hungarian border during the Hungarian uprising of 1956 in Anatole Litvak's The Journey. Though the film has yet to be released on video or DVD, it remains one of Brynner's most compelling performances. Because of the political unrest, a group of travelers cannot fly out of Budapest but are put on a bus to Vienna. Before they can reach the border, however, their passports are taken and they are detained for questioning by the Russians led by Major Surov.

The Major has reason to suspect that there is a Hungarian freedom fighter among the group being smuggled out of the country. Indeed Lady Ashmore is hiding a mysterious passenger, Paul Fleming (Jason Robards, Jr.) who pretends to be an American but fools no one. She is helping Fleming mainly to repay a debt she owed because of the trouble her past association caused him. Among the other passengers are a British journalist played by Robert Morley, an American family played by E.G. Marshall, his wife Anne Jackson and their two children, one of which is the screen debut of little Ron Howard.

Major Surov takes a romantic interest in Lady Diana Ashmore (Deborah Kerr), and a romance of sorts develops between them. She offers him nothing but disdain and a stiff upper lip, however, though we suspect that underneath her heart still beats. The Cold War intrigue and the powerful acting carry the story but the romance is never quite convincing. It remains, however, one of my favorite Yul Brynner films and deserves to be seen if only for his passionate performance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoy this movie. The first time it was on Turner Classic Movies. All the actors did very well but Brynner steals the show again like always ( he is so sexy!).This is one of the movie that you do see Brynner's emotions. Actually this movie this is the first I ever seen him laugh because he plays very strong, larger-than-life and serious roles in other movies. In this movie you see both a masculine, tough and sensitive side of Brynner .Brynner seems to be a \"ladies'man\" in this movie.That is amazing how Brynner eats the glass cup and speaks in his Russian tongue it drives me crazy in love. I don't understand when both Brynner and Kerr ( they both have very good chemistry) stars in a movie together and then Brynner always die at the end it kind of reminds you \"The King and I\" in a way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"a great movie, with a rather unclear political message. it\u00b4s shot in a theatrical style, i.c. most of the action takes place inside. mayor surov and diana ashcroft seem equally suspicious of each other. emotions run high since the western tourists and business-people seem unwilling and unable to yield to the eastern-russian charm of the mayor, although he makes every effort to understand their point of view. the two opposite world-views are made pointedly clear, but the movie also shows that human emotions cannot be controlled by politics. its powerfully acted and has a high emotional impact for a 50s movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a big Dostoyevsky fan, I had always been disappointed with Hollywood's halfhearted attempts to get into the Russian romantic aesthetic -- case in point, Yul Brynner as Dmitri Karamazov. I had thought the whole problem was a poor casting decisions, but then I saw Yul as Major Surov and changed my mind. When given an intelligent script to work with, he suddenly came alive and was as noble, sexy, and conflicted as you could ever want a Neurotic Russian Officer to be! So he was a better Dmitri as Major Surov than he was as Dmitri. But that's because writer Tabori actually gave Yul, as the Conflicted Russian Officer, the kind of Conflicted Russian Officer lines that are worthy of real literature, and that have real meaning and pathos in them. For example, a propos of folk music, he says musingly, \"You hear a man crying in the dark. And if you listen carefully enough, you know what he cries for. You look surprised, Lady Ashmore. Despite what you may have heard, tractors and Marxism aren't the only things the Russian cares for. There is always time for music.\"

Brilliant!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Journey\" is a very good film. Produced in the spring of 1958, in Vienna, and released in 1959, this movie was quite popular in his early years. Despite the political problems, which influenced the movie's success (because the story happens during the Hungarian Revolution, the Cold War), \"The Journey\" is a very good film, but not well-known. I think it should be released immediately on DVD, because most of the people who have seen it so far want to have it at home. One of the most important qualities of the film is the extraordinary chemistry between Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner, their intense relationship. All their scenes together are very important, but they also reveal the strong feelings, the great passion and love between the characters (Major Surov and Diana Ashmore). Another quality is the script, which is very well written. It was even published as a novel, by the screen player George Tabori. The film keeps its tension from the beginning to the end. At first, we didn't know if Diana and the other travelers could leave Hungary, because the Communist Major discovers that Diana's friend, Paul Kedes, is Hungarian and he isn't allowed to leave the country. The Major falls deeply in love with Diana and this is, in fact, the true reason why he doesn't want to let her go. But after he embraces her and gives her one of the most memorable kisses ever seen on screen, and she kisses him, too, he lets her go. And the end of the film is one of the most dramatic endings ever filmed-the Major and Diana say \"Goodbye!\", she arrives at the frontier with all the travelers, including Paul, while Surov is shot several times by some Hungarians, so he dies. Yul Brynner is very, very handsome and Deborah Kerr is very beautiful, charming, refined, just like an English Lady. Yul and Deborah are perfect together. They are one of the greatest couples of the Golden Hollywood. A true moviegoer should watch this film. \"The Journey\" has everything that a good film should have-a great, captivating story, interesting characters, a wonderful direction (Anatole Litvak is, in my opinion, at his best). Finally, I want to give a message to Warner Bros. Studios or those who restore and release classic films: Please, release \"The Journey\" on DVD as soon as possible.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yul Brynner was a symbol of villein in the tine of 50,s , he play a role of Russian leader in Hungary at the time of revolution in this country in 1956 that made it against the Marxism.

The script of this film made it by good taste from the writer that mixing love and adventure with showing different characters in the journey from Hungary to England.

The best point in this film was the symbol of challenge from the Hungarian Resistance to kill the Russian major(Yul Brynner) in the hall time of the film that made a meaning about the disadvantages of this major from his bad works , but at the end he made a good work to help Deborah Kerr for escaping her and her darling to London to write in his book a good working to gain at the end people,s agreement and trustment after his assassination by the Hungarian Resistance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most people will consider that Yul Brynner's greatest performance was as the ruler of Siam in THE KING AND I. Certainly it gave him a wide variety of moods to test his abilities in, from comic, to tragic, from eager to learn to dominating to hateful. It also showed him to advantage as a \"talk singer\" and a dancer. Finally, as it was also his Tony Award winning performance from Broadway, the film allowed us to capture something of the great Broadway performance as well.

But he did other movies that showed his talents as well as THE KING AND I. His comic turn in ONCE MORE WITH FEELING was quite nice. So was his performance as General Bunin in ANASTASIA, or his Ramses in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Yet he came terribly close to being a 1950s successor to Eric Von Stroheim as \"the man you love to hate.\" A certain vulnerability in his acting and roles endeared him to the movie public, even after his best years as a star were behind him - and he retreated more and more to repeating the King of Siam on television and the stage.

To me, his finest performance is in this 1959 drama with Deborah Kerr, Jason Robards Jr., Robert Morley, E. G. Marshall, Anne Jackson, and Ronnie Howard. The film is set in pretty modern times - the powder-keg that was Hungary in 1956, when briefly it looked like the Iron Curtain was about to collapse there under the reforms of Hungarian patriot Imre Nagy and his supporters. But the Hungarian Revolution collapsed due to bad timing. The Russians and their Polish and East German allies sent tanks in to crush the revolt (and arrested and executed Nagy and other reformers). The West stood by and let this happen: England and France had gotten caught in the Suez crisis, and the U.S. had berated them and Israel for attacking Egypt. Due to the actions of three close allies of the U.S., the West found it hard to condemn the overkill of the Soviet Union. It was an unfortunate situation, and the Hungarians have never forgotten how they were abandoned in it.

In the film Brynner is Major Surov, a Russian intelligence officer who is watching for some of the leaders of the Hungarian revolt, one of whom is Paul Kedes (Jason Robards). Kedes may be getting assistance from some westerners on a bus tour through Hungary, led by Robert Morley (including Marshall, Jackson, and Howard, and Kerr). The latter are being kept in a hotel while their bus is being repaired, and Brynner mingles with them, hoping for a lead to the whereabouts of Robards. But Brynner is human - he tries to be ingratiating with these people (all of whom see him as a monster), and in sequence, when he has drunk a little too much, he confronts them with the questions that has bothered historians since 1945: How is it (even if one notes that Russia had Stalin in charge) that relations between Russia and the West collapsed so quickly? The allies, on the whole, had worked well together from 1941 to 1945, but after Yalta and Potsdam all types of mutual suspicions just erupted. Did they have to? Surov is a good officer, but he is torn in half by loyalty to the Communist regimes in the Soviet Union and in Hungary that he supports, and his growing fondness towards Kerr, who is hiding Robards but is also willing to note the more human side of the Russian major. And as the film reaches it's tragic climax, we watch as Surov has to decide if he will follow his sense of duty, or take pity on Kerr, Robards, and the other westerners who want to leave. It becomes a true struggle for him - and one that he may win far too late. It was a great film about a tragedy of post war Europe, and possibly the most thoughtful role Yul Brynner ever portrayed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There have been many excellent comments about this movie and I want to add my voice to the praise. Yul Brynner has never been more powerfully attractive. His Major Surov was riveting. Your eyes just cannot leave the screen when he's on it. This is his movie. This is not to slight the rest of the cast which was also exemplary, especially Deborah Kerr and Anne Jackson. As they were mostly stage actors, they brought many nuances to their performances. For example, I have seen this movie at least 4 times, but this is the first time I noticed the reaction of the German girl when she came face-to-face with a Russian soldier. Even though he was not threatening, her absolutely hysterical reaction made me realize that she must have been in Germany after WWII and was most likely gang-raped by the Red Army. The possibility of discovering deeper layers of story that may lie just beneath the surface makes me want to see this fascinating film again and again. Please put it on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anatole Litvak directed the 1959 film, \"The Journey,\" starring Yul Brynner, Deborah Kerr, Robert Morley, E.G. Marshall, Anne Jackson, and Jason Robards.

The film takes place during the 1956 Hungarian uprising and concerns a group of travelers having problems getting out of Budapest because of political problems in that part of the world. They are put on a bus to Vienna, but the Russians, led by Major Surov (Brynner) confiscate their passports and hold them for questioning. One of the passengers is Paul Fleming (Robards), posing as an American but in reality a Hungarian freedom fighter, whom the major believes is being smuggled out of Hungary. In fact, Lady Ashmore (Kerr) is hiding him. She becomes the focus of the Major's romantic attentions.

Very good film that conveys the tension and hassle of the Cold War, and all of the performances are wonderful. Brynner is particularly excellent as the passionate Major who isn't all bad, and Anne Jackson gives a realistic, powerful performance as a pregnant woman who doesn't want her child born in a Communist country.

Good script, good director, good cast - there should be more films like this. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The \"silver screen\" gets freshly polished with this beautiful film about aging happily and enjoying life's rainbows. There's plenty of silver hair on this silver screen, but the film's namesake is more like 85-going on-25 with his energy, humor and lust for life. The story of entertainer extraordinaire Uncle Frank, his devoted wife Aunt Tillie, and the zippy residents of the local area nursing homes inspires us to \"live each day as if it's your last\" and brings a glimmer of hope to those often-dreaded golden years. A great movie for young and old audiences!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It doesn't matter whether you've experienced the plight of the elderly in America or if you're just plain clueless, Uncle Frank and Matthew Ginsburg give you that clue in a straight forward, funny, wake up and smell the roses sort of way. By the end of the film, it is obvious that while being totally entertained, somehow, you've also been educated. A terrific film, by a terrific up and coming talent in the movie field. Matthew Ginsburg is a name to pay attention to.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film works on a lot of different levels. It's a profile of one very cool couple, a social commentary on aging and nursing homes, a love story, a musical. I've seen Uncle Frank a few times, and every time I watch it I'm not sure who to go call first--my parents, my wife, a friend I've lost touch with . . But it has a way of making you remember the most important relationships in your life--and want to reaffirm the ones that continue. Expect a lot of laughs, and probably some tears if any of the vibrant characters here strike a chord. I'm pretty sure they will.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Uncle Frank is everyone's uncle. This documentary covered all aspects of aging in America, the lonliness, the humor, the irony. Uncle Frank and Aunt Tillie were supremely generous in sharing their life experiences with the audience. The director did an unbelieveable job of capturing the small and large pieces that made up their lives. Thanks to everyone who helped in making this film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie three times at different ages of my life and always did enjoy it very much indeed. This Can-Can is an authentic explosion of joie de vivre, like Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly musical, but in French way. And a Jean Renoir nice tribute to his time, his friends, lovers, music and dances. It is at same time a show business chronicle of that age, full of affection and French mood. It is too a clear tribute to the Impressionism (people who likes impressionistic painters will like this picture). It is particularly a tribute to Toulouse-Lautrec and, of course, to Jean Renoir father, Pierre-Auguste. You will find hear a trustworthy and splendid colored recreation of some Renoir master work. Excellent casting, scenery, sound-effects and music. Even it tell us about the creation of Parisian Moulin Rouge, obviously it is a fiction story (and not very original by the way, as it fall down in the very well know moral that the show must go on). But the Jean Renoir production is great.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my favorite Renoir from the Fifties. It's the story of how Henri Danglard built and launched the Moulin Rouge nightclub; we see the workmen blasting at the site to get construction underway, and the training of the dancers. Finally, the giddiness of opening night and the long sequence of cancan dancing. Financial problems and the ego displays of the performers are described.

Gabin is in great form as the easy-going Danglard--see him deal humorously with Nini's violent boyfriend. Gianni Esposito is moving as the wistful Prince who is courting Nini. Maria Felix, with that amazon's body, is imposing as the egotistical Lola, Danglard's first lover. Finally Fran\u00e7oise Arnoul as Nini the washing girl who ends up dancing for Danglard, and becoming his girl, is just stunning; her loveliness and pert charm will win you over.

A bonus: we get Edith Piaf, Patachou, Andr\u00e9 Claveau and other stars in cameos playing the stars of a century ago who ruled over the Moulin rouge.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"French Cancan\" is one of my favorite all time movies. It's an excellent film. There's color, there's humor, there's music. It's a very good portrait of the so called Belle \u00c9poque, though Jean Renoir's priorities were always to show a creation, a fantasie. So the film isn't a historical movie. The final sequences in which the girls dance cancan are unforgettable images. It's a film you shouldn't miss.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although it doesn't seem very promising for a long stretch, Renoir's French Cancan ends up being an effortlessly charming film. The story is clich\u00e9: a laundry girl, Nini (Fran\u00e7oise Arnoul), is discovered by a night club owner, Danglard (Jean Gabin). Danglard steals her from her baker boyfriend and drops his current girlfriend, both of whom come back for their former lovers. Nini has to choose whether to go back to her humble life with the baker, go on with the show with her employer, oh, or become a princess, as a prince falls in love with her at one point, too. I'm glad the film didn't go for the most obvious choice, as a lesser film certainly would have. The film ends with the opening of Danglard's new night club, the Moulin Rouge, and a couple of gorgeous song and dance numbers. The first of them, \"Complainte de la Butte,\" which also provides the base of most of the film's musical score, is simply one of the most gorgeous songs ever written, and Renoir himself wrote it. If you're a fan of Baz Luhrmann's 2001 film Moulin Rouge!, you'll recognize the tune, as it comes up near the beginning of that film, sung by Rufus Wainwright. Although it isn't very prominent in that film, everyone I know who owns the soundtrack loves it. In addition to having one of the most lovely songs ever written, French Cancan also boasts one of the cutest leading ladies ever to grace the screen. It's hard not to fall head-over-heels in love with that girl. 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Renoir's tale of Paris,the Cancan,a washer-girl and the Moulin Rouge.A more subdued,but highly entertaining version of the opening of the Moulin Rouge. Jean Gabin gives his usual excellent performance.The Technicolor photography on the print I saw was exquisite.An easy evening's viewing. chris w galla","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are frames in this film that could be Renoir paintings with vivid colors against muted backgrounds. The humorous combination of sexual honesty and innocence is refreshing in this fifties film and makes palatable the old story line of the ingenue that becomes a star. The can-can number at the end seems realistic and exciting but not over the top as in an American dance sequence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jean Renoir's homage to the Paris of the late 19th century is beautiful in many ways. Not only does it appear to have been photographed by Toulouse-Lautrec and Mucha, it portrays the geographic Paris; the streets accessible only by staircases, the unpleasant end of fleeting popularity, and the sexual opportunism of men with a product to sell, in an uncompromising picture of show business that is in stark contrast with the picture painted by Hollywood. There is an obvious comparison to be made with Lloyd Bacon's \"42nd Street,\" which had been made about 20 years before, featuring Ruby Keeler as a dancing sensation, a fresh-faced kid from the sticks who had come to New York to get into show business, who saves the show when the star fails--\"You're going out there a kid from the chorus, but you've got to come back a STAR!!\" Warner Baxter's \"Julian Marsh\" is a director who suffers for his art and is unappreciated. Jean Gabin's \"Danglard\" keeps running afoul of genital politics, but when he talks about the show he is more like Knute Rockne than like Julian Marsh. He's all about the game, except--for his pointy thing. He has a profitable new venture sewed up until his mistress become jealous of the woman whom she recognizes as his next mistress. His prospects rise and fall with every coital journey he takes.

Danglard takes Mistress 1 (Lola de Castro, played by Maria Felix) slumming to a dive, where he sees \"Nini,\" (Fran\u00e7oise Arnoul) with her boyfriend and first lover, Paulo the baker, and discovers that she is a spirited dancer. He uses his charm and the prospect of money to lure Nini to studying dancing so that she may go on the stage. The prospect of money and fame charms Nini, and she become Danglard's next mistress, as well as an apt student of the cancan, which Danglard has dubbed \"French Cancan,\" to cater to the current Anglophile tendency in the dance.

Both \"42nd St\" and \"French Cancan\" are tributes to show business--to modern entertainment--that has is own iconography and its own conceit. \"42nd St.\" is centered around Julian Marsh, a great director of Broadway shows, which he organizes with great personal energy and dubious sexual involvement. The male juvenile is a middle-aged twit with lumbago, replaced by Dick Powell, the pretty tenor with secret wealth to hide. Danglard, on the other hand, goes from woman to woman, seducing them with the promise of fame, hooking them with what must have been a very persuasive endowment. One has no doubt that he is heterosexual and quite active. Postcoital scenes abound.

Days after seducing Nini away from Paulo, he has discovered Esther, a Piaf type, and begun to prepare her for her job of singing the film's theme song while he plays it on her fiddle. That of course arouses Nini's jealousy just as she has aroused the jealousy of Lola. (And of course Nini had already forsworn the privilege of being a Czarina!) The whole movie is about how Danglard's concupiscence has cost him money but how even his troublesome horniness is subordinate to his love for the show--how the audience demands devotion--and it is this potent combination of phallic persuasion and tempting fame that makes Danglard the hero, while asserting that a true lover of the show will never profit as much as the money men. At the movie's conclusion, Danglard, having outfoxed the creditors and the jealous babes, approaches a new attraction watching the incredible (and believe me, it IS incredible) performance of the cancan. \"Have you ever thought about being on the stage?\" he asks, and the curtain descends. Meanwhile, poor Julian is sitting of the fire escape of the theatre listening to Peggy Sawyer's new fans disparage his contribution to the show's success. (I won't even go into \"42nd Street\"'s central line, \"Oh, Guy, it was GRAND of you to COME!\")

Furthermore, I won't go into the glimpse one gets of legendary Parisian entertainers, including a brief vision of Piaf, nor of the vision of a Paris both urban and rural. Certainly there is a sample of the styles that engendered Trenet and Aznavour. But it is the memoir of an assertive and welcome masculinity, something unseen in any Hollywood musical with which it might be compared, is a pleasant relief from the androgynes of 30's Hollywood musicals (including my beloved Fred Astaire, not to mention Dick Powell), let alone the barf promulgated by MGM in movies like the repulsive \"American in Paris.\" All those fountains! We'll save our comparison of that turkey to \"Breakfast at Tiffany's\" and its deconstruction of the American male for another day.

That Danglard may have been a hopeful vision, in postwar France, of a kind of hyper-masculine mec that may or may not have ever existed, is practically beside the point. That he is a man's man, neither John Wayne nor Edward Everett Horton, is perhaps more on target. That he is a man who likes the ladies is never in question. I, for one, wouldn't mind living his life at all. I wonder if Gabin was that lucky.

At the beginning of this comment I wanted to talk about Baz Luhrman and what Sinclair Lewis called \"boloney\". I never got that far. Baz's Moulin Rouge... well, Paris doesn't put that kind of stuff in the Seine anymore.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just viewed Jean Renoir's wonderful film, French Can Can. It is a visual delight and a great entertainment. The recently produced Moulin Rouge pales by comparison. I didn't quite get all of the praise that the recent movie received. Now I'm convinced more than ever, that my appraisal was correct after seeing a master film maker like Jean Renoir's version of the same story. He succeeded in getting great performances out of his entire cast, and the great French actor, Jean Gabin was in rare form. The dance sequence near the end was one of the most exciting one I'd ever seen. It was long, but I didn't want it to end. This film deserves to receive more recognition than it's got.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a pleasant musical about the creation of the Moulin Rouge dance hall. In many ways, this reminds me of the Hollywood musicals of the 40s and 50s, in that it has many clich\u00e9s leading up to the inevitable conclusion (\"will the show STILL go on?\"). While of course none of this is new, it was enjoyable and well made. The musical numbers at the end are frenetic and beautiful to watch. In many ways it reminds me of a sexier version of THE GREAT ZIEGFELD. In real life, Ziegfeld was quite the player but this was sanitized in the American film. But, in FRENCH CANCAN, the characters have fully functioning libidos--but nothing is really shown, so the movie is okay for kids.

Nothing new but well done nevertheless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like classic Hollywood musicals, the plot is just an excuse. A must see for those interested in French music hall (including a song by \u00c9dith Piaf) and for the wonderful 10 plus minute cancan finale. The dancing in the film is not at all like what usually passes for cancan.

Some might object to the Technicolor costumes and the bright lighting, but it gives you a clear view of some grand costumes and sets.

Consider it Jean Renoir's love letter to the Paris he grew up in. Certainly the Jean Renoir film for people who don't like his serious films or who only like his Hollywood productions.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a longtime admirer of the 2001 film \"Moulin Rouge\" and a more recent admirer of Jean Renoir's film-making, I knew that I'd inevitably watch his \"French Cancan\" sooner or later. The movie tells a fictionalized story of the opening of the Moulin Rouge nightclub. The impresario Danglard (Jean Gabin) tries to turn Montmartre laundress Nini (Fran\u00e7oise Arnoul) into a cancan star, without arousing the wrath of his tempestuous mistress, the belly-dancing Lola (Maria Felix). This is just one of several love triangles in \"French Cancan\"--true to stereotype, these French showbiz folk are always falling in love.

Renoir directs with his typical gentle humor and attention to supporting characters, and also wrote the lyrics to a beautiful waltz song prominently featured in the movie. Gabin perfectly incarnates the aging French playboy hero. Arnoul is a cute redhead who holds her own in the dance numbers, except for a few trick shots where a double is obviously used.

\"French Cancan\" is billed as a musical comedy and while there are lots of musical numbers that take place on the nightclub stage, etc., only one character, Casimir, ever breaks into song in the middle of conversation. The actor who plays him, Philippe Clay, is fun to watch--a really tall, skinny young man who sings, dances, and does contortions.

The movie ends with a long cancan sequence, as all the characters learn to triumph over their problems and make art together. The dancing is much more brightly lit and coherently edited than in \"Moulin Rouge\"; in fact, if I have one complaint about \"French Cancan,\" it's that the whole thing is a little too Technicolor. Even when Nini experiences heartbreak or someone sings a melancholy song, the lighting is bright and flat, no shadows intruding. Yes, the result is a cheerful and warmhearted musical comedy; it's just that I can't help thinking that things weren't ever this colorful and innocent in real life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am not a fan of musicals, but I am a huge fan of Jean Renoir and Jean Gabin. I rented this movie on a whim and was pleasantly surprised even expecting greatness from the classic director. This movie is BEAUTIFUL. The shots are like oil paintings with motion, something a lot of directors strive for but Renoir MASTERS. I cannot express how much this movie transcends itself... it's not really a musical, it just has a couple of well-placed musical numbers and a grand dancing finale. But there is something about this movie in particular which makes you feel absolute JOY when watching it.

I am a fan of foreign art films, but I'm also a meathead who loves things like Die Hard and Schwarzenegger movies. I get very easily turned off by things that are overly happy or in \"la la land,\" but this movie has an overwhelming positive energy that is just irresistible -- not to mention every frame is gorgeous and the plot is good. 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I made a promise that if ever I posted a comment that was less than complimentary, then later felt different about it, I would return and make known my change of heart. So far, this is the first time it's happened.

I'm really starting to enjoy Hack. Something has clearly changed. The storylines seem to be much stronger. The plot may still be a tad surreal, but the characters have developed so much more depth that a surreal plot can be forgiven. I attribute this to fine acting.

Not every show can come charging out of the starting gate a winner. Some need time to pick up speed. I'm glad I kept watching this program, and I really hope it lasts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To keep it as simple as possible. This is a very good show. That is well written, and has a fantastic cast. It's not loaded with blood and guts. And centers around a disgraced cop and his relationship with his ex-wife, his son, his former partner (Andre Braugher), his childhood friend, now a priest (George Dzunzda), and lastly the person who happens to get into his hack in that episode. Are you likely to find something like this going on in your city NO. Is this still a good story YES. And it's nice to see a man portrayed as good father in spite of his flaws. Watch more then one ( 2-3) and you'll see why a lot of us are hooked on this show. And thank you David Morse for making this character so interesting. Another good job!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It seems that Hack has been described as un-realistic... but that's what TV is. TV is meant to provide an escape from everyday life and I feel Hack does a great job in that regard. Add to this the slow process of revealing his past and engaging\/interesting plots; you just can't seem to get enough. Plus, with such great actors as David Morse, Andre Braugher, and even little Mathew Borish, what more can you ask for. So if you are looking for an involving experience and have a liking for \"underdog\" characters, I suggest giving Hack a chance, especially now that it's finally getting off its feet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Hey, I didn't order no cab!\" \"Yeah, well you got one...\" What can I say about Hack...what a man among men. He was a heartened ex-cop turned cab driver with a heart of gold. If you were able to (and fortunately for America's TV viewers...one person per week was) penetrate the cold, hard surface of Hack's exterior, you got to see a caring man devoted to vigilante justice. The show was superb, I laughed, I cried, I smiled...all in the same episode. My arms would break out in goosebumps when our dear friend Hack would exit his cab in another dark alley...with nothing more than his fists...ready to avenge a wronged civilian. A smile would break out on my face when the screen showed me a criminal in a dark alley's facial expressions when the Taxi of Justice's headlights illuminated upon his face. Week after week I canceled my duties as president of the Klingon Association to bask in the warmth glow of Hack's brilliance. I have never seen a better show, and I mourned the loss of one of America's greatest treasures when the show was canceled. In other Hack-related news, I would like to announce to the world that my wife and I are expecting Hack Koen to come into the world in about three weeks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have only see three episodes of Hack, starring David Morse, and it looks as though I've missed 37 episodes! well thats if ITV 3 are showing them in chronological order. I've just watched 'Misty Blue' (episode 38). I have really enjoyed the 3 episodes, but then I'm a David Morse fan, (esp St. Elsewhere). For any one reading this, Hack is excellent. Pity its being aired on ITV 3. The cast is strong, though I cant get used to the idea of David playing a bent cop, still we all know he's the good guy wrongly accused. I see Gary Cole has guest starred, what ever happened to 'Midnight Caller'? Just wonder if Hack is available on DVD (yet). Lovin it. Cheers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"David Morse and Andre Braugher are very talented actors, which is why I'm trying so hard to support this program. Unfortunately, an irrational plot, and very poor writing is making it difficult for me. I'm hoping that the show gets a serious overhaul, or that the actors find new projects that are worthy of them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am sick of series with young and clueless people, talking about their \"problems\" all the time, self centered, boring and absolutely annoying (Popular; Dawson's Creek; Beverly Hills; etc). \"Hack\" is a breath of fresh air, with a great actor (David Morse), a completely different plot, credible people with REAL problems (thank God !!) and very, very good histories. I just love it!! I hope \"Hack\" will go on for a long time, because it is a great television series for grown up people, for a change.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this show. It's clever and very well acted. David Morse and Andre Braugher have great chemistry. The writing is clever and subplots generally give great comic relief. After every new episode, I'm always amazed how thought provoking and at the same time entertaining this show is. My only complaint would be Donna Murphy's absence, at this point, in the second season. As David Morse ex-wife, Heather, she added such character to the show.

I think this show is a credit to the crime\/drama genre. With that said - I can not for the life of me understand why this show has such a low rating. Would someone please who gave this show a 1 rating back it up with a critique?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like \"Hack.\" Think the \"Lone Ranger\" reincarnated as a 2000s cab driver, a decent but flawed guy, in Philadelphia doing his best, while seeking to work out issues from a troubled past, and you've got the synopsis. David Morse is nearly perfect as Olshansky. He helps people but instead of riding \"Silver\" in the old west he drives a cab through the mean streets of contemporary Philly, without handing out silver bullets. The supporting cast is first class and well above average. At times, the witty dialog almost reaches the level of that 70s classic series, \"The Rockford Files.\" This show deserves a return, hopefully in a better time slot than 9PM Friday(eastern).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, so this series kind of takes the route of 'here we go again!' Week in, week out David Morse's character helps out his ride who is in a bit of a pickle - but what's wrong with that!? David Morse is one of the greatest character actors out there, and certainly the coolest, and to have him in a series created by David Koepp - a great writer - is heaven!!

Due to the lack of love for this show by many, I can't see it going to a season series - but you never know? The amount of rubbish that has made it beyond that baffles me - let's hope something good can make it past a first series!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An extremely dark and brooding show with an excellent cast. One of the few shows that I try to watch on a regular basis. Glad to see Bebe Neuwirth in a recurring role, but feel Andre Braugher is underutilized. He is one intense actor! Hope CBS gives it a better time slot next season.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is nice to see a show that has a little more content than just blood and guts for a change! As an added bonus, it is nice to see some local home boys from Massachusetts making good in L.A. I hope this show will be a keeper.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everywhere I hear that people are calling this show bad because its premise is too far fetched....well maybe a do-good cab driver in Philly is pushing it a little (at least the cab drivers ive met), but that's what makes the show great.

The fact that this show is a little off the reality track is an issue but its still enjoyable and fun. Its highly watchable and even though u know Mike wins out in the end he never wins in life. David Morse is a great actor and does a great job in the title role. His supporting cast is great and i must say the location of the show is especially great!

All in all I watch this show not because im looking for a good dose of reality or a show with lots of action, I watch this show because its got great acting, a good premise, and a great story-line every week. It's also a plus when i can pick out the landmarks he drives by, or know what intersection he's at. I Love this show and I love Philly!! Give this show a shot!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is NOT your run-of-the mill police story where the characters were only secondary to the gun battles and car chases. The episodes, so far, are more realistic and intelligent.

If you are looking for something with a lot of butt-kicking Rambo-style cop story, you will not find it here.

I gave it a 9. I wish this series lives long. Morse is excellent!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"He's not your conventional cab driver.

This guys got issues. With his wife, with his son, a priest, all his fares, his ex-partner and most of all himself. And the greatest thing is they just throw us all into it. So we have to keep watching to find out more about his past.

The idea may not be original but David Morse makes it so. I think this is a great show, and I hope people catch-on before the season's over.

WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Ahh...I didn't order no amazing hit show\".....\"We'll you got one\" Hack is simply the greatest television show ever made. A little bit of me died when I flicked on the t.v. one Friday night to catch a little Hack and it wasn't on. The show dug deep into key social issues of our culture. I found that at the end of any episode I watched; I walked away having been both entertained and informed. I am actually dumber now that Hack is gone. I no longer want to help the needy and less fortunate. Since Hack has been gone I see them as eyesore's and an unneeded strain on taxpayers. So for the love of God we need to bring back Hack!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have never missed an episode. David Morse is a wonderful actor and I am hoping that this show can survive. It certainly beats out that CSI crap. I love the storyline and would actually like to see him as a cop again someday. I give the show a 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ugh, what an embarrassing episode last night! It was either a failed script for \"ABC Afterschool Special\", or the product of an earnest rookie writer, just out of college, making an homage to that classic PC anti-gun homily from 1974, \"The Gun\". In fact hubby & were disappointed that the closing shot wasn't of The Gun being melted down like in the movie!

No, I'm not some NRA shill. It's just that when the producer of an intelligent & nuanced series gets it in his head that I should be subjected to a didactic dramatization of his personal Cause, I'd appreciate it if the lecture at least wasn't delivered via 2-by-4. Geez!

OK, the sociology lesson is over. The Message has been delivered. The Important Episode has been aired. Now let's get back to some entertaining episodes that try to respect our intelligence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Legendary hammy and arrogant horror movie star Conrad Radzoff (splendidly played with wicked sardonic aplomb by Ferdy Mayne) dies of a heart attack. A bunch of drama school students steal Radzoff's corpse from its crypt and take it to a rundown mansion so they can party with it. Radzoff comes back to life and picks off the rude youths for desecrating his grave. Writer\/director Norman Thaddeus Vane concocts a fresh, original, and even pretty stylish spin on the usual body count premise, offers a neat evocation of the glitzy Hollywood milieu, and does a sturdy job of maintaining a pleasingly misty and spooky ooga-booga atmosphere. The kill set pieces deliver the grisly goods, with a gal being set on fire, a juicy decapitation (the severed head rolls right down the stairs and onto the lawn so a raven can peck away at it!), and another poor lass being crushed with a levitating coffin rating as the definite gruesome highlights. Kudos are also in order for the stellar cast of familiar B-flick faces: Mayne has a deliciously eye-rolling ball with his flashy role, Leon Askin contributes an amusing cameo as bitter washed-up director Wolfgang, Nita Talbot adds some class as flaky psychic medium Mrs. Rohmer, plus there are nice turns by Luca Bercovici as jerky drama student ringleader Saint, Jennifer Starrett as the sweet Meg, Jeffrey Combs as the geeky Stu, and Scott Thomson as the nerdy Bobo. Popping up in cool bits are Chuck \"Porky\" Mitchell as a detective, Patrick Wright in one of his customary policeman parts, and Tallie Cochrane as a corpse. Joel King's polished cinematography gives the film an attractive glossy look. The moody score by Jerry Mosely likewise hits the shuddery spot. A fun little fright flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Look, this movie is obscure, brilliant, and a classic that should sought out by any means necessary. I suppose the powers that be have decided that it will forever be relegated towards the bargin bin; nevertheless, we could only pray for the chance to see this one on DVD. I would say that it even beats the great Phatasm. If you like a dark movie, with plenty of spooky imagery, look for this one and see how an 80s horror movie is suppose to be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Is there any question that Jeffrey Combs is one of the true horror greats? This movie seriously doesn't suck and is sort of funny... Watching a young Combs at work is great but I wish he had had more lines. Look out for Beyond Re-Animator. It's going to kick some azz.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While many pass this off as a B movie it is, indeed, a first class comedy that is well-written and acted. Red Skelton is great as Wally Benton better known to radio fans as The Fox. Ann Rutherford is perfect as Wally's fiance Carol Lambert. Conrad Veidt leads a very well cast gang of criminals. I read one account of this movie which states that Vincente Minelli directed this film, not unless he changed his name to S. Sylvan Simon, who directed all three of the Fox movies. This is a very entertaining film made when imagination was encouraged. So get over your black and white prejudice if you have one, sit back and enjoy a truly great comedy. This was also Red's first starring role. Take note during the climax of the reference to Orson Welles' War Of the Worlds broadcast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Red Skelton (in his first starring role) plays Wally Benton who plays 'The Fox' on a radio show. He writes the murder mysteries and as 'The Fox' solves them. Joseph Jones (Conrad Veidt) is trying to figure out how to perform the perfect murder on someone. He kidnaps Benton, his girlfriend (Ann Rutherford) and another girlfriend (Virginia Grey). He tells Benton to write out the perfect murder...or his girlfriends get it...

Very funny and enjoyable movie. Fast-moving (it's only 77 minutes), a good script and perfect casting really puts this across. Skelton is very good in his first starring role--very funny, fast, handsome and intelligent. Veidt is excellent as the evil Jones. Rutherford and Grey are lots of fun as Skelton's girlfriends. All three of them play off each other perfectly--their verbal sparring is the highlight of this pic. Also fun to see Eve Arden in a small role.

Well worth your time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are 3 of these movies, all similarly crafted and each extremely amusing. Red plays radio sleuth Wally Benton, aka The Fox who gets wrangled into solving real life crimes along with his fiance played by your typical wartime girl next door looker, Ann Rutherford. Many of the one-liners and gags are dumb and probably were in the 1940s which I anticipated. But, just as many actually made me laugh out loud, which was unexpected to say the least. Red Skelton has a surprisingly strong screen presence, surprising I say because I grew up with a much older version of the man who's charm really didnt play well in my formidable years. I have to give these movies the go ahead though -if your in the mood for this type of nostalgic fare. I almost threw in light hearted, but in truth people get wasted and beaten up and dare i say it, the suspense at times is well above average. As with most movies from this era, it gets a PI (politically incorrect) rating for reasons you can well imagine. Wartime is funny that way I guess, and so then again are these movies. Watch one, watch them all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Red Skelton plays a radio detective known as \"The Fox\" in \"Whistling in the Dark,\" also starring Ann Rutherford, Conrad Veidt, Eve Arden, Virgina Grey and Rags Ragland. Wally Benton, aka \"The Fox\" finds his plans to marry his fianc\u00e9 Carol (Rutherford) thwarted when he's kidnapped by a the leader of a sham cult (Veidt). Joseph Jones (Veidt) has just learned that his cult, The Silver Haven, is not getting a promised inheritance because of the existence of the old woman's nephew, who is going to be living off of the interest. He wants Wally to devise a perfect murder plot so the man can be killed on the airplane en route to meet with his attorney. For backup, and because he's not sure which one is Wally's fianc\u00e9, Jones kidnaps Carol and also the radio sponsor's daughter (Grey).

This, to me anyway, is a superior film to the second entry in this series, \"Whistling in Dixie.\" The plot is better, the cast is better, there is less slapstick and fewer corny jokes. Skelton, when he's not making faces and rolling his eyes, is quite amiable, and Rutherford is very good. Veidt always played these evil men to perfection. Eve Arden is Wally's agent, who arranges a date for him and Grey to make sure his contract is renewed. I had only seen Grey in films from the 1950s onward. She was always a good-looking woman, but who knew she was such a knockout in the '30s and '40s? This is a fun film with a neat cast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You have to be awfully patient to sit through a film with one-liners so flat and unfunny that you wonder what all the fuss was about when WHISTLING IN THE DARK opened to such an enthusiastic greeting from audiences in the 1940s.

On top of some weak one-liners and ordinary sight gags, the plot is as far-fetched as the tales The Fox (Red Skelton) tells his radio audience. You have to wonder why anyone would think he could come up with a real-life solution on how to commit the perfect crime and get away with it. But then, that's how unrealistic the comedy is.

But--if you're a true Red Skelton fan and enjoy a look back at how comedies were made in the '40s--you can at least enjoy the amiable cast supporting him. Ann Rutherford and Virginia Grey do nicely as his love interest and Conrad Veidt, as always, makes an interesting villain. One of his more amusing moments is his reaction to Skelton explaining the mysteries of wearing turbans. \"I never knew that,\" he muses, impressed by a minor point that is cleverly introduced.

All in all, typical nonsense that requires you to accept the lack of credibility and just accept the gags as they are. Not always easy for a discriminating viewer as many of them simply fall flat, the way many comedies of this era do because the novelty of the sight gags and one-liners has simply worn off.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Note: After writing this review I see that this listing is indeed about the TV series and not the original film. My mistake. I thought IMDb for a database for movies, not TV shows. But since most people will look up this film under BAGDAD CAFE and not OUT OF ROSENHEIM, which, strangely, is the name this film is listed under on IMDb, I'll leave this comment here.

Maybe I missed something, but when I read that other review it seemed to be entirely a review of the CBS series -- which must have been loosely based on this film. I did not see the TV series and I might like it or not, but one thing I am sure is that it is very different than this film. This film is NOT like a TV show at all and Whoopie Goldberg is not in it or any other famous Hollywood stars (other than Jack Palance, who was very charming in his role).

This is a terribly sweet movie that totally thinks \"outside the box.\" It is not at all like a Hollywood formula movie, which is probably why the (what's a nice word for idiots?) who decide to market movies or not decided not to market this one.

First of all, this movie captured my heart and imagination from the get-go. From the music (which is just part of the time so you can't really call it a musical) to the cinematography to the really cool story.

A German or Bavarian woman (very pretty and quite plump) gets in an argument with the other German or Bavarian man with whom she is traveling through the California desert with and parts ways with him --he taking off in the car and she left to fend for herself on a deserted and desert-like highway out in the middle of nowhere.

She finds the small and dilapidated but charming Bagdad Cafe, in Bagdad, California and checks in. The rest of the story is magic. I don't want to try to describe this film because I want you to enjoy every surprise.

Warning: If you are a racist or have something against big women you will not like this movie, as the main romantic lead is a big woman and characters of brown and red skin have large roles and are included as \"part of the mix\" without any racism involved.

I gave this film a 10 for orginality, entertainment and sheer delightfulness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this on TCM recently and, through the IMDb I found that there were seven \"Crime Doctor\" movies with Warner Baxter as the psychiatrist-detective. Baxter is a bit long in the tooth compared to his stolid performance in 42nd Street a decade earlier. Not noir, and a bit campy today, the movie also has a touch of the possible supernatural. The plot, black and white cinematography and characters are far more complex than those of the Mr. Moto and Charlie Chan series. There are subplots, unexpected twists and appearances by a number of B movie stalwartly we all should recognize immediately (none ever made it to the A status). It is a wonderfully unpredictable 70 minutes.

I would love to see a boxed DVD series of these films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another nice entry in the Crime Doctor series [#4\/10], with atmospheric almost noirish black and white photography and some splendid Spanish American backdrops and sets. And a more off-the-wall storyline too!

A man who looks like the insane murderer of his first two wives is found dead in a locked room after a dramatic dinner party. The Crime Doctor is on the scene (ostensibly as a guest) to immediately and resignedly proclaim it murder, and so we are presented with a quite weird set of people to mull over, for one of them did the deed. Was it the frothing brother of the dead 1st wife, the 3rd wife and rich widow Hilary Brooke, the dancing brother and sister vampires, the intense young man, the eccentric cabinet maker Lloyd Corrigan on loan from Boston Blackie, the irreplaceable butler, or odds-on Jerome Cowan? Police Inspector Emory Parnell had his work cut out, but Warner Baxter as Ordway was as unflappable as ever in working it all out. One of the goofs listed on the IMDb is wrong: On breaking into the murder room Ordway says \"Right through the centre of the forehead\" and Cowan replies \"He didn't miss this time\". Favorite bits: Baxter and Cowan travelling through club sandwiches and beer at the nightclub to make amends for their interrupted dinner party; The scene where the Braga's place of repose is seemingly rumbled. The plot does seem to meander a bit at times and the way it was all explained off was perhaps more worthy of Monogram, but leaving it in the air as supernatural wouldn't do either!

Well worth a watch if you already like the genre, you won't be disappointed unless you really don't like the genre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Better than average World War II-era \"who-dun-it\" featuring Warner Baxter as a former gangster who suffered amnesia and has been reborn as a psychiatrist now known as Robert Ordway who helps both the police and criminals who want to go straight. Crime Doctor's Courage is the fourth in the series of ten and also involves a victim who might have some mental problems. The link to \"courage\" is not particularly clear.

This entry revolves around the death of fortune hunter Gordon Carson whose two previous wives have under mysterious circumstances and who in turn dies in a locked room under conditions that resemble suicide but Dr. Ordway labels murder. Hillary Brooke plays the part of widow Kathleen Carson who is involved with Anthony Caruso - a mysterious Spanish dancer whose act includes his sister that disappears on stage. As a mystery novelist, Jerome Cowan is a good supporting actor as is Lloyd Corrigan as an aficionado in crime.

Spooky houses with creaking doors, caskets in the cellar, and suspects that are never seen in daylight add to the air of suspense. The set for the dance sequence is quite elaborate and the ballet music very good. Direction, production design, and photography stand out. The exterior shots and costumes suggest more affluence rather than normally found in the average \"B\" detective thriller.

Strongly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The sort of \"little\" film which studios used to excel at but seldom make anymore. Sort of a \"soul\" version of the more well-known \"The Last Of The Blonde Bombshells\". Ian McShane is excellent as a DJ and aficionado of soul music who becomes obsessed with the idea of re-uniting the members of a classic soul group, and the film follows his exploits as well as those of the group members; a cast which includes such genuine musical talent as Isaac Hayes, as well as acting stalwarts Taurean Blacque, Derrick O'Connor and Antonio Fargas. Not meant to be an epic by any means, this is nonetheless a chunk of solid gold.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very delightful bit of filmwork that should have had wider distribution. Ian McShane is right at home playing the soul loving DJ who gets canned because he won't \" go along with the program \" and sets out to let the world know what they're missing. The supporting cast is great as well, and the music is the \"Soul\" of the film. I just wish that the film would be released so that I could get a copy of this for my film library.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ordinarily, Anthony Mann made westerns with 'the big guys' - James Stewart, Gary Cooper, Henry Fonda . . . the A list cowboy stars. But in this B+ film, he tackled something notably different and had quite a bit of success with what turned out to be a truly one of a kind western. The main character, played by Victor Mature, is a trapper\/ mountain man, and ordinarily they are romanticized in films - Robert Redford in Jeremiah Johnson, that sort of thing, where the hero is not in fact a typical mountain man but a clean cut heroic figure who hangs out with real mountain men. Not here. For once, a true mountain man - vulgar, crude, animalistic - is the central figure, and it's something to see, giving Mature one of his better later roles. The real acting chops are provided by Robert Preston, excellent as a self-absorbed Custer type cavalry commander, and James Whitmore, the poor man's Spencer Tracy, as another of those old timers who feel themselves trapped between ever more hostile Indians on the one side and the oncoming force of civilization on the other. Even more impressive is a very young Anne Bancroft as the officer's wife, who is initially repulsed by the very sight of Mature's grisly character, then finds her own veneer of civilization slipping away as she begins to realize, to her own shock, that she's attracted to him. Rarely if ever has a remote frontier fort been so accurately realized on screen, without the romantic allure that John Ford gave such a place in his masterful Fort Apache. The battle sequences are big scale and notably violent, and particularly impressive if you seen them in widescreen format. Good show, and underrated movie, all around.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

`The Last Frontier' is a superior western that overcomes numerous deficiencies in weaving its tale of trappers Jed (Victor Mature), Gus (James Whitmore) and Mongo (Pat Hogan) and their relationships with the army, particularly Captain Riordon (Guy Madison), Colonel Marston(Robert Preston) and Corrina Marston, colonel's wife (Anne Bancroft). Hired as scouts after losing their supplies to the Indians, Jed, Gus and Mungo adjust to living the `civilized' life within a fort on the edge of the `last frontier.' Jed, who has been raised by Gus, both inspires and looks up to the `older' Gus and Mungo, and has an especially difficult time dealing with `civilization.' His real problems start after he becomes strongly attracted to the colonel's wife, Corrina. Colonel Marstonis a reckless man, who endangers every one around him with his dreams of ruthless victory over any opponent. Corrina, a woman repressed by her station and sense of responsibility, loves her husband for what he could be and Jed for what he is. Caught in the middle is Captain Riordon, a brave and likeable man torn among his duty to the army, his strong friendship with Jed and his fear of the likely disastrous consequences of the colonel's recklessness.

What makes this movie so interesting (as well as entertaining) is that, in most cases the weaknesses and the strengths of `The Last Frontier' are EXACTLY the same elements (forget the insipid title and dated music)

First, the screenplay. Almost all of the subplots (particularly, the reckless Colonel) have been done better elsewhere, but have rarely been assembled with such eccentricity. Just when you THINK you know what is going to happen next, this one takes off in a DIFFERENT direction. POSSIBLE SPOILER: `The Last Frontier' being a `Production Code' movie (back in the day the word `virgin' was taboo), it's very surprising that the adultery factor was handled in such a mature, tolerant manner. I expected either Jed or the colonel's wife to reap some retribution for their sin. I was surprised and a little disappointed the movie didn't exploit that expectation to create a less predictable ending.

Second, the casting. Mature is at least ten years too old to play the part of Jed, the wild-eyed innocent raised in the woods'. James Whitmore, who plays Gus, `the man who raised Jed' is actually five years younger than Mature. Nevertheless, Mature is very endearing, playing a character who is innocent of civilization but is in no way stupid. Although there were several actors who could have played the role at the time (most notably, Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas), none could have played Jed better. Preston (also Mature's junior) plays Colonel Marston, missing the tics and affectations one would expect from such a driven man. However, Preston perfectly captures the sense of honor someone must have seen in Marston to promote such a reckless fool to colonel's rank. Bancroft is an especially shrewd choice as Corrina. Bancroft's dark hair has been died blonde, and this achieves the same effect as it did for Winona Ryder (`Edward Scissorhands') and Christina Ricci (`Sleepy Hollow'). That is, I felt conflicted about the character without knowing exactly why; I believe the answer is that blondes and brunettes have considerably different skin tones and eye shades. Further, Bancroft has always projected a toughness that borders on hardness (here the blonde hair softens her up a bit, though). This enables the 24 year old Bancroft to stand toe to toe with both the 40 year old Mature and the 37 year old Preston; yep, she could be a colonel's wife. Madison walks a careful balancing act as Riordan, handling a complex role and sometimes ackward dialogue.Playing a role similar to that of John Wayne in `Fort Apache' Madison does a more skillful job at it.

This movie has a `Silverado' type camaraderie. That alone makes it worth seeing. It also has memorable performances, beautiful scenerary and great action and direction. I just hope a letterbox version is available (many have been lost), because this movie takes full advantage of that format.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the more obscure of Anthony Mann's Westerns, The Last Frontier was also his only cavalry Western (aside from one brief episode in Winchester '73), though naturally he focuses on the outsiders and internal conflicts rather than offering a Fordian celebration of comradeship and shared ideals. Set not in his beloved high country but in the foothills and forests, it's a much more cynical view of life of the frontier, in many ways his Fort Apache without the need to preserve the legend: this outpost is made up of misfits, failures, cowards and the odd competent officer ignored by his superiors, badly led while the Civil War takes priority and all the best the army has to offer.

Victor Mature and James Whitmore are the free trappers who find civilisation creeping up on them when they are relieved of their pelts and packhorses by a local tribe aggrieved by the incursion of the Cavalry into their territory. Rather than blame the Indians for their losses they decide it's the army's fault for building the fort and decide to demand compensation from them, ending up joining their ranks as scouts instead. But despite the best efforts of Guy Madison's amiable and competent acting commander to bring Mature into the 19th Century and make him fit to wear the uniform, the arrival of Robert Preston's humiliated Colonel eager to revenge himself on the tribe that drove him out of his own outpost \u0096 and Mature's clumsy infatuation with the Colonel's wife (Anne Bancroft, too much of a blank slate here to do much with the role of a woman who's tired of being saved by men who think they know what's best for her) \u0096 soon drive matters into much darker territory. It's not long before some of the soldiers are busily planning on killing each other, both sides trying to goad their subordinates into doing the deed for them: little wonder that at one point Mature throws away the bluecoat he has long coveted in disgust, screaming \"I would have died for this, but it's nothing but a dirty filthy blue rag!\" The Stallone of his day, Mature was one of those actors who could surprise you with the odd excellent performance here and there when matched with the right part and the right director. This is not one of his better days despite having his most complex part, perversely enough as a simple man \u0096 well-meaning but drunk, violent, uneducated and with a unsubtle, almost childlike lust for life, the part seems designed with Burt Lancaster in mind, with some striking similarities to his character in The Kentuckian. But Robert Preston's Ahab-like Colonel is clearly the best role, determined to resurrect the career he destroyed in a single disastrously suicidal Civil War engagement by launching another pointless suicidal campaign against the tribe that added another humiliation to the list that keeps him out of sight and out of mind of the promotion board. In his obsession to redeem his career he moves further away from any hope of moral redemption, driven as much by his sense of shame at his wife's sympathy as by the promotion of former comrades he regards as his inferiors. He's beyond salvation, but there's still a recognisable human being in there and one not entirely without a sense of integrity \u0096 he genuinely admires Madison's courage in making a futile attempt to get Preston's orders countermanded by their superiors \u0096 fatally skewed though it is.

Like its hero, the film is a little rough around the edges (and boasts one of the most surreal and jaunty title songs of any Western), but that only tends to make it more interesting, and there are plenty of Mann's typically elegant camera moves and plays on perspective, while the frontier setting is convincingly harsh and primitive. Unfortunately the deficiencies of the early CinemaScope lenses are very apparent in Columbia's DVD, with the image often dark (2.55:1 CinemaScope required a huge amount of additional lighting and early Scope films show a lot of trial-and-error) and grainy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is another good western,which i enjoyed.it's not an epic or anything,but it is good for what it is.it' about 3 fur trappers,led by a men named Jed,who is crude and uncivilized.Jed and his two friends find themselves as scouts for a fort that is the only thing standing between them and and Indian band,who resent the Americans on their land,and want to take it back.that's the gist of the story.what follows is action,excitement,even a bit of humour,and forbidden romance.one of Jed's friends,Gus,reminded me a lot of the character Quint(played by Robert Shaw)in the movie Jaws.they both have that crusty,gruff demeanor.anyway,if you're a western fan,you should find lots to like about this particular entry.i think it deserves a 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Victor Mature, as a barely civilized and mostly out of control mountain man and trapper, may be on the poster, but Robert Preston as a failed Union colonel who led his men to get \"cut to ribbons\" by Confederate artillery at Shiloh, and is sent to a fort in Oregon for his incompetence, has the most interesting part, married to a young and hard to recognize at first Anne Bancroft. The uncivilized Mature lusts for the colonel's wife, giving the film an interesting and even dark subplot which goes so far as to reference coveting another man's wife at one point by James Whitmore who plays Mature's older and wiser mountain man father figure. Directed by Anthony Mann, this film is lost among his more famous westerns with James Stewart, but even so you really don't need the Indian menace to make this a film worth seeing, although Preston gets to prove his bad judgement as a commanding officer again in a failed expedition to finally bring the Indians under submission, in a well staged attack among the forest that quickly turns into a rout.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this film, which offers a variety of interesting subplots and complex love-hate relations, along with interspersed action scenes and some lighthearted moments in which the mountain men counter harsh army discipline. All the main characters are well cast. True, John Wayne or Robert Mitchum could probably have done the starring role just as well, but Victor Mature certainly comes across as a headstrong brawling Tarzan of sorts. Reminds me of his film role as Samson, another difficult, but not impossible, man to tame.

The mountain men in the opening scene are certainly an anachronism, as the era of pure trapper mountain men pretty much ended 20 years before, with the collapse of western beaver populations as well as the fashion market for beaver pelts. This story supposedly takes place in Oregon just before the end of the Civil War. Judging by the volcano in the background of the opening scene(probably Mt. Lassen), the fictional fort was located somewhere in a remote section of the Cascades, as we never see any other civilians. However, there is plenty of conflicting evidence that it actually takes place in the mountains of Wyoming or Montana! Red Cloud, the war chief who threatens the trappers and soldiers in the fort, is the namesake of a very famous Sioux war chief who led a very successful campaign in 1865-66 to exterminate the newly built army forts in Wyoming and Montana. Fort Laramie(eastern Wyoming)is mentioned as being not too far removed from the fictional fort. The plains tribe of Assiniboines is mentioning as joining Red Cloud. This aspect of the story, then, bears a general resemblance to historical fact.

It may be of interest to note certain resemblances between the plot of this story and that of John Ford's \"Fort Apache\". In both cases, we have a fort commander who was recently assigned to his first frontier post with Native American problems. He underestimates the military prowess of his adversaries, regarding them as little more than cannon fodder to promote his career. In both films, he pays dearly for his inexperience in dealing with the enemy.. Also in common, the greenhorn commander resents a subordinate who has long experience with the local Native Americans and wants to tell him what is wise to do and not to do. In both films, we have a budding romantic relaionship between a woman very close to the commander's heart and a subordinate, which the commander does everything to squelch. Clearly, the commander must be eliminated to allow these romances to proceed to completion.

I also see certain resemblances with \"The Misfits\". The soldiers, as a whole, including the commander, are misfits of a sort((as one of them admits): mostly they have \"problems\" or are raw recruits with no experience fighting Native Americans. The commander's wife apparently is the only woman in or anywhere near this fort, thus is inherently a misfit, with a husband who is very uncertain of his future in the army. The trappers, in turn, are also misfits, not really wanting to accept army or civilian discipline, yet cut off from their previous free spirit lives by the recent army-generated antagonism by Red Cloud.

Finally, we can also compare this story with Anthony Mann's later film \"The Far Country\", starring Jimmy Stewart. In Stewart's case, he can choose to return to being a loner cowboy, at the end. But Mature's character doesn't come up with an appetizing new way of being his own boss. Red Cloud has made life outside of the army in this region too dangerous to contemplate. Besides, he has an obsession with the Commander's wife.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very enjoyable 50's Western. I have it in my collection and recommend it to Western fans.

Mostly Victor Mature's movie and quite well done in my estimation.

He's a trapper who joins a frontier post as a scout. Red Cloud caught three of them on their land and took their possessions. They all joined as scouts after their loss.

Victor has set his eye's on the Colonel's wife and lives life on the post without much regards to regulations.

Action done quite convincingly but no great depth or much feeling to other characters.

50's Westerns are my favorites and this slides easily to a satisfaction. A Western of this kind is in the pages of the past and perhaps never to be made much again. One to enjoy. Gave it a 7 rating. Likely 6.8 worthy but films like these become more precious over time.

For film-noir fans...\"The Big Steal\" \"They Live By Night\" \"Side Street\" are most wonderful movies to be enjoyed. Bought and viewed. Noir seems to resemble Westerns in a way. Some long ago and never forever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dylan and Bobby are boyhood friends and they are in love the way that young boys sometimes are. But Dylan has met a girl and is starting to put those boyhood things aside. Bobby knows that he's not interested in girls and misses what he had with Dylan.

Told as part cheesy 80's pop video, part home movie, part video recollection this film tells a confusing and sad, but all too often true, story that will hit home with many that see it.

This film brings back a lot of memories and struck a very true chord with me but I wish the film maker had gone a bit further and left it on a happier note. Yes, we all love and lose, even when we are young, but there's always tomorrow, especially when we are young.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beautiful....that one word pretty much sums up this whole film. Everything from the cinematography, the directing, the acting.....brilliant. At any point of the film, you can pause it, and you will no doubt be looking at something mosaic or \"artsy fartsy\" as some people would say. I assure you, that after one viewing, \"Bobbycrush\" will be stuck in your head. I know this from first hand experience. Even the soundtrack is great. It goes together very well with the tone and pace of the film. Be thankful that Cam Archer exists in this world. We need more people like him to make films that show love and shame in totally real (and surreal) imagery.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cam Archer's lyrical Bobbycrush boldly captures the disorienting kaleidoscope that is adolescent desire with a lush rendering (beautifully photographed by Aaron Platt) that is more vibe than narrative. Caught somewhere between documentary and dream, Bobbycrush recalls the inventiveness of early Todd Haynes and the vivid hyperrealism of Gus van Sant. With grit, glamour and heartbreak, it's kinda like the movie equivalent of Sonic Youth playing bubblegum pop.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One would have expected Hitchcock's return to major studio filmmaking to err on the side of chastened caution. Surely few expected his most riotous, unrestrained film, a gleeful melange of vicious black comedy, exciting suspense, mocking manipulation, and astonishing flights of fancy. But that is precisely what they got: STRANGERS ON A TRAIN.

What is remarkable is how much Bruno's transgression disrupts the world of the film. Much has been made of the masterly crosscutting motif, but its immediate effect is to completely obstruct the straight line of progress Guy is making of his life, and hence the society he represents or is eager to join. Guy is the archetypal American, the working-class boy made good, moving in influential circles, athletic, successful, handsome. Bruno is his destructive opposite, gay, decadent, 'European' (he lives off his father, in a Big House, and just lounges about dreaming of murder). Bruno's life is one of repetition, circularity, whereas Guy moves straight ahead. It is Bruno's achievement to move Guy into his realm (represented by the merry-go-round) and force HIM to transgress (break the law, hope for murder (Bruno's)).

Bruno is quite literally fighting patriarchy. All the authority figures in the film are criticised - Bruno's father, a man whose brutality we get a glimpse of, but the true horror of which is constantly alluded to in the film (especially in Aunt Clara's paintings - that incredibly intense negative energy must come from somewhere); Anna's incredibly Machiavellian, self-serving father; the insensitive judge who thinks nothing of lunching after an execution; the tennis commentator whose smugly authorative comments are always mistaken. Far from being the mother-hater of legend, Hitch, as Robin Wood perceived, is deeply hostile to fathers and patriarchy.

Bruno's transgression turns the world topsy-turvy. This is Hitch's most surreal film. Whenever Guy is in his plot, he is filmed straight, with conventionally romantic music. But whenever Bruno intrudes, the atmosphere becomes carnivalesque, bizarre, much more fun. This is Hitch's first truly American film, revelling in the primitive detritus of Americana. Grown men puncture little boys' balloons, or try to throw them off merry-go-rounds. Distinguished professors of mathematics sing about goats on trains. Elderly society matrons are strangled at elegant soirees. Washington is filmed like a series of spare lines in a vast desert under a huge sky, like a haunting Dali painting. There is one of the greatest, and funniest, scenes in all cinema when we see a motionless, smiling Bruno in a sea of turning heads at a tennis match, an image worthy of Magritte. Just look at any scene with Bruno in it, and watch it derail into the bizarre.

Phalluses abound in the most ridiculous permutations - check all those balloons (Hitch had obviously just seen THE THIRD MAN) - as well as in more staid environs: Washington will never look the same again. STRANGERS is also, VERTIGO notwithstanding, Hitch's most overtly sexual film - as well as the phalluses, there is the sustained homoeroticism, the remarkable play with 'riding' horses; the gobsmacking fellatio joke when Hitch's daughter spills powder over the policeman.

And yet Hitch doesn't stint on good old suspense. In the very proper endeavour to show what a great artist he was, critics tend to overlook what made him famous in the first place. Much has been made of Bruno as a prototype of Norman Bates, and Hitch plays merry havoc on audience identification, willing Bruno into murder. There is a hilariously painful sequence where Bruno loses the lighter with which he intends to frame Guy down a drain. The gasps of tension and sighs of relief on the part of the audience I was a part of in support of an insane murderer is inherently funny, slightly disturbing, and highly revealing about our true reactions to conformity and success. And Hitch milks it with callous glee - listen to the mocking music and exagerrated compositions, and kick yourself for taking it all so seriously.

STRANGERS is one of Hitch's five best films, and therefore one of the greatest things in cinema. The dialogue is so strange and brilliant, I can't believe it wasn't written by Chandler. Patricia Hitchcock is a wonderful imp, standing in for her cheeky father as she taunts Guy. The fairground finale is a remarkable, dizzying fusion of exciting, tense set-piece, black comedy and symbolic site. If Bruno's final words condemn him to hell (according to the Catholic precepts Hitch is supposed to embody: compare with a similar ending in THE KILLERS), we applaud his integrity, infinitely preferable to Guy's debased serving of self.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alfred Hitchcock has made many brilliant thrillers, and many of them have gone on to be hailed as some of the greatest films of all time. One film that tends to get somewhat lost under the Vertigo's and the Psycho's is this film; Strangers on a Train, the most compelling film that Hitchcock ever made. The story follows Guy Haines, a tennis player and a man soon to be wed to the Senator's daughter, if he can get a divorce from his current wife. One day, on the way to see his wife, he meets the mentally unstable Bruno Anthony aboard a train and soon gets drawn into a murder plot that he can neither stop nor stall; and one that could ultimately cost him his life.

The conversation aboard the train between Bruno and Guy is one of the cinema's most intriguing and thought provoking of all time. What if two people \"swapped\" murders, thus resolving themselves of all suspicion of the crime, and rendering their motive irrelevant? Could this truly be the perfect murder? What makes this film all the more frightening is that the events that Guy is lead into could happen to any, normal everyday person. Everyone has someone they'd like to get rid of, so what if you met an insane man aboard a train that does your murder for you and then forces you to do his? The chances of it happening are unlikely, but it's the idea that anyone could be a murderer that is central to the message of Strangers on a Train; and in this situation, anyone could.

Is there any actor on earth that could have portrayed the character of Bruno Anthony any better than Robert Walker? The man was simply born for the part. He manages to capture just the right mood for his character and absolutely commands every scene he is in. The character of Bruno is a madman, but he's not a lunatic; he's a calculating, conniving human being and Robert Walker makes the character believable. His performance is extremely malevolent, and yet understated enough to keep the character firmly within the realms of reality. Unfortunately, Robert Walker died just one year after the release of Strangers on a Train, and I believe that is a great loss to cinema. Nobody in the cast shines as much as Walker does, but worth mentioning is his co-star Farley Granger. Granger never really impresses that much, but his performance is good enough and he holds his own against Walker. Also notable about his performance is that he portrays his character as a very normal person; and that is how it should be. Ruth Roman is Guy's wife to be. She isn't really in the film enough to make a lasting impression, but she makes the best of what she has. Alfred Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia, takes the final role of the four central roles as Barbara, the sister of Guy's fianc\u00e9. She is suitably lovely in this role, and she tends to steal a lot of the scenes that she is in.

Alfred Hitchcock's direction is always sublime, and it is very much so in this film. There is one shot in particular, that sees the murder of the film being committed in the reflection of a pair of sunglasses. This is an absolutely brilliant shot, and one that creates a great atmosphere for the scene. Hitchcock's direction is moody throughout, and very much complies with the film noir style. The climax to the film is both spectacular and exciting, and I don't think that anyone but Hitchcock could have pulled it off to the great effect that it was shown in this film. It's truly overblown, and out of turn from the rest of the movie; but it works. There is a reason that Hitchcock is often cited as the greatest director of all time, and the reason for that is that he doesn't only use the script to tell the film's story, but he also uses to camera to do so as well. Strangers on a Train is one of the greatest thrillers ever made. Its story is both intriguing and thought provoking, and is sure to delight any fan of cinema. A masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even though some unrealistic things happen at the end (i.e. a cop shooting a gun into a crowded merry-go-round where any number of innocent could be killed), this still was an intense, enjoyable thriller, one of Alfred Hitchcock's better films. Robert Walker is excellent as the chilling nutcase, really convincing giving a fascinating performance that is almost too creepy at times. His co-star in here, Farley Granger, is okay but is no match for Walker, either in acting or in the characters they play. It's the typical Hitchcock film with some strange camera angles, immoral themes, innocent man gets in trouble, etc. Unlike a lot of his other films, I thought this one was a fast-moving story with a very few dull spots. Being an ex-tennis player, I enjoyed his footage of some excellent old net matches that featured some good rallies. Hitchcock's real-life daughter Patricia has an interesting and unique minor character role in here. She didn't just get the job because of her dad; she can act. Also of note: the DVD has both the British and American versions and there were some differences in the story. This is a classic film that is still referred to in modern-day films, even comedies such as \"Throw Momma Off The Train.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Strangers on a Train\" was one of those film classics I had always heard about but somehow never gotten around to actually seeing. I finally watched it a few weeks ago and, as always with any Hitchcock movie, it not only stood up to the test of time, it far surpassed most thrillers being made today. You can see the inspiration for future action movies here - the climactic ending with the out-of-control merry-go-round and the two villains dueling each other reminded me of the big action sequence at the end of Jan de Bont's \"Speed.\" Of course, \"Strangers\" is over forty years older than \"Speed\" and contains no modern special effects, but the visceral thrill is there - Hitchcock was a true genius.

The not-so-subtle gay side of Bruno (Robert Walker in an amazing performance) has taken form in many other psycho-stalker-figures in future movies. Consider him a male version of Jennifer Jason Leigh in \"Single White Female.\" He knows about Guy before he even meets him on the train - we almost get the feeling their contact isn't incidental - and is soon entirely obsessed with him.

Hitchcock loved the Oedipial elements in his movies (also see \"Psycho\" for more blatant undertones) and there's a lot of that here. Bruno hates his father and wants him to die so he can be with his mother. His effeminate ways and obvious homosexuality must have just slipped by the censors in 1951, when gays were not \"allowed\" to be portrayed on the screen - yet Hitchcock gets the message through effectively when we see Bruno in the lounge on the telephone wearing a very non-masculine robe, flirting with Guy and responding to his mother.

The deep layers of this movie make it a fast-paced thriller than you can return to again and again - unfortunately it's being remade as a big-budget Hollywood production, but after seeing the original I honestly can't imagine anything surpassing the sheer white-knuckle thrills of this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Strangers On A Train, it's obvious from the start that playboy wastrel Robert Walker has singled out Farley Granger as an unwilling accomplice to a pair of murders. Granger's a semi-public figure, he's a tennis pro, but not an especially high one. High enough however for him to know that Granger is trapped in a loveless marriage and would like to be free to marry Ruth Roman.

So when they meet as complete Strangers On A Train one afternoon, Walker knows enough that Granger will at least be intrigued enough with the possibility that if the two of them, complete strangers, did commit homicide on parties that the other would be convenienced by their demise. Though Granger is repulsed by the idea, one of the beautiful things about this film, is that you can see in the performance he gives that Granger just might submit to temptation.

In fact when Walker kills Laura Elliot, Granger's wife whose been two timing him and even gotten pregnant by another man, he expects that Granger will in turn murder Walker's father so that Walker can inherit his estate. Today Walker would be called a trust fund baby and a pretty malevolent one at that.

Alfred Hitchcock directed Walker to his career role, ironically in his last complete film. Walker died the following year with most of My Son John finished. Hitchcock does not do too bad by Farley Granger either.

Of course when Granger does balk at committing homicide on people who never did anything to him, the tension. Strangers On A Train is also characterized by great editing, first in the tennis match in which Granger has to finish the match and waylay Walker before he plants evidence convicting Granger at the crime scene. And also in that final climax with a fight on a runaway carousel between Walker and Granger.

Strangers On A Train is Hitchcock at his best, it should not be missed and ought to be required viewing when film classes study editing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

\"Lets swap Murders- your wife, my father\"- seemingly innocent conversation between two strangers - Bruno Anthony and Guy Haines when they meet over lunch on a train journey. Guy, a solid, respectable tennis player, whose problem is that his wife, the flirtatious Miriam, won't divorce him so he can marry senators daughter Anne, laughs the whole conversation off as a joke. The following week he isn't laughing any more. In a scene of classic Hitchcock suspense, Bruno stalks Miriam through a carnival and strangles her. As he does, her glasses fall off and we see the murder eerily reflected twice through her lenses. Cold hearted and amoral Bruno, his part of the deal completed, approaches an appalled Guy expecting, even pressuring him into 'doing his bit.' Matters are not helped when Anne's precocious and outspoken younger sister turns up suspecting Guy of Miriam's murder. So accused of a murder he didn't commit and expected to commit another, what is Guy going to do? The power of this film is in the presentation of human beings as having a murderous side to their nature - and this Hitchcock does to perfection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went into this film expecting a slasher, and while Mute Witness does take influence from said style of film-making, this is much more than just your average slash flick. There are a number of thrillers that focus on a certain disability - blindness is more common (Blind Terror, Wait Until Dark, Cat o'Nine Tails to name a handful), but the implications of having a mute lead in a thriller such as this are well portrayed, and actually integral to the plot as the fact that the lead character can't speak is often the reason why she finds herself in dangerous situations that would be easy for anyone else to get out of. Our mute witness is Billy Hughes, a make-up artist working on a horror film production at a studio in Moscow. She finds herself locked in after hours one night, and after attempting to phone her sister for help, she stumbles upon what at first appears to be the making of an illicit sex flick, but soon turns out to be a snuff movie! She tries to convince the authorities of what she's seen, but finds that no one believes her story...

Recently Hostel made the headlines for showing snuff movie making in a foreign country, but this film did it first and actually does a better job. It's maybe not quite as nasty as Eli Roth's opus, but the gore is more effective, and since director Anthony Waller (who went on to direct one of my favourite modern thrillers with 'The Guilty') implements a good sense of humour into the proceedings, Mute Witness is both sufficiently gory and fun to watch. The director certainly has a talent for crafting suspenseful thrill rides, as this one never stands still. The plot is put into action quickly, and Waller constantly introduces plot twists which give a big helping hand to the overall entertainment value of the film. The acting isn't bad for a B-movie, with young performers Marina Zudina, Fay Ripley and Evan Richards delivering good performances. The atmosphere is gritty, and the Russian locations are suitably unfriendly, which helps the film to retain a foreboding atmosphere. Overall, Mute Witness is a much better film than you might expect it to be. The plot flows well, and the atmosphere and tension are spot on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you enjoy suspense this movie has it. The fact that Marina Zudina portrays a mute adds to her haplessness and increases the suspense. Alec Guiness's appearance was nice, but didn't really add to the movie. I'm not sure if Evan Richard's part as Andy Clarke was an attempt to add a little humor or if he was supposed to just be a bumbling idiot. I thought the cinematography was excellent. This added not just to the quality of the production but to the suspense as well. The bathtub seen with the water droplets in slow motion was wonderful. Also the scene where the knife comes down and then it switches to Andy Clarke cutting an extremely rare piece of meat was very well done. I would call it overall good entertainment","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is always a well-known, and important directorial device to set up the atmosphere of a film within the first 5 minutes. In the crucial opening scenes, the film should assert itself and make the viewers take notice and get interested in the rest of the film. Here, in \"Mute Witness\", we find a prime example of this.

*Scene spoiler*

In the first 5-10 minutes, the film opens to a very Hitchcockian scene of a pretty blonde lady in her apartment, with the radio on. She's wandering around, applying lipstick, dolling herself up, and ignoring the news report of a serial killer on the loose. Of course, the serial killer is in her house, and monitoring her moves, knife in hand. She hears a noise, looks in a room, and there is her partner in a pool of blood. At the very point of her screams, she turns around to be faced with the knife-wielding maniac, who stabs her repeatedly in a brutal and horrifying act....

...then something odd happens. As the woman convulses in her death throes, the killer sits down and takes out a cigarette to watch his victim perish. Before he finds his lighter, his cigarette is lit...from someone else in the room! The camera pans out, and we realise that there are more and more people in the room, some taking notes, some filming, some recording the death, and that the lady is taking an awfully long time to die, and making a very hammy job of it too. When the audience realises what's going on, and the whole scene is part of a film, the suspenseful and horrific scene takes on an element of humour.

*End Scene Spoiler*

I have highlighted this opening scene for several reasons. Firstly, it portrays the atmosphere of the whole movie perfectly. A thriller in the style of Hitchcock or De Palma, with some very disorientating, and even blackly humorous moments. - It conveys a central subject matter (that of the difference between a 'movie screen death' and a 'snuff film death', an issue which is elaborated on later in the film), and finally, it introduces the viewer to the characters, all as silently as possible.

The plot of Mute Witness centres around Billy Hughes, an American special effects make-up artist who is working on the set of the film, being shot in a large warehouse in Moscow. Billy cannot speak, but she communicates in sign language through her sister. After the end of an evening's filming, Billy inadvertently finds herself locked in the warehouse by accident, and in her attempt to escape, is witness to two of the crew making what first appears to be a porno film, but turns out to be a snuff movie. Suddenly, her escape from the warehouse is a matter of life and death.

Without doubt, the first half of the film is powerful and absolutely gripping. Billy's saving grace, and her handicap is the fact that she isn't able to utter a sound. (In fact, in my opinion, one of the best aspects of the film is the fact that it isn't chock-full of women screaming). There are some utterly disturbing moments, and some superb set-pieces of real suspense (The corridoor, and the elevator shaft are perfect examples). The timing is fluid, and the whole first half is an incredibly satisfying experience in itself.

The second half of the film introduces new concepts. While there are still several suspenseful moments, the focus is on plot twists. New characters are introduced, and it is ambiguous as to whose side they are on. While there is nothing wrong per se with the second half of the film, it just doesn't quite measure up to the first half. There are some neat moments of black humour that perfectly juxtapose and punctuate some very dramatic scenes, but there are also some very lame comedy moments (coming specifically from Billy's sister and her fianc\u00e9e, who happens to be the director of the movie Billy is working on), that almost ruin the film, just because they are badly misplaced and\/or mistimed and ruin the pace. - At the end, the twists keep coming at a rapid-fire speed, and the climax of the film is, appropriately, as tense as the first half.

There are several things that really make the movie work. The barriers of communication that Billy must face, both as a mute, and as an American in Moscow, mean that even an emergency call for help becomes a dangerous situation. The actress that plays Billy, Natasha Zudina, does a wonderful job in the film, with an engaging on-screen prescence, and a brilliant performance, and finally, the direction as a whole, but most particularly in the first half of the film, which truly is a study in Alfred Hitchcock's suspense\/thriller film techniques.

As I have already said, though, the let-downs in the film are from some terrible comic relief moments that really do not need to be added. There is already a consistent and effective streak of dark humour that appears in the film without the need for the characters of Karen Hughes and Andy Clarke (The sister and the moviemaker) to turn their scenes into some unusual sit-com. However, despite these shortcomings, the film is a thoroughly enjoyable thriller, and ideal for a group viewing at halloween. (Certainly better than the usual slasher horror film...!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story is airtight from the beginning until the latter third of this movie. Then the story gets more and more outrageous. The Main character portrayed by Marina Sudina is fantastic and had a difficult role. This could have been a super-great movie had the ending been more realistic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I couldn't stop watching this movie, though it was far past my bedtime.

Comparisons to Hitchcock are deserved -- this thing really plays with you. It walks a wonderful line between real, immediate suspense and a dark, distancing humor. Like many of Hitch's heroes, our doe-eyed mute witness has innocently stumbled into something truly horrific -- and we are taken on quite a ride with her, at turns identifying totally and feeling her fear, at turns watching in thrilling suspense as she is placed further in jeopardy.

The filmmakers have put in a lot of tender care in working this out. Right from the opening shots, they engage and challenge you to determine what is real and what is fabrication; who is to be trusted and who is a monster. The plot twists and turns unpredictably. Suspense is created with a combination of carefully chosen camerawork, imagery, music -- but most simply THE EYES of the characters, which sends raw fear right into you.

A warning: there is some frighteningly real gore, as well as some nudity. The horror scenes are done in an emotional way that make them far more scary and disturbing than in any teenage-slasher pic.

And a teen-slasher pic it AIN'T. The characters are quirky and feel like real people, for one thing -- a couple (including the heroine) you may even find endearing as I did. There will be no mistake you're watching a movie made for grown-ups. I mean, Alec Guinness is in it, briefly, and you know he didn't NEED the work!

Pop this in the VCR some night when you can't sleep. . . and don't want to, yet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In today's world of advertising and teenage horror and sensationalism it is very rare that one gets to see a movie and no nothing about it. Movies like Psycho and Blair Witch, while being great in suspense (both with great build ups) are spoiled by the fact that we know all about the best scenes and at least the plot before we see them. With Mute Witness, a rare treat, I stumbled upon this film and watched it, scared witless, in the middle of the night. I was scared by the menacing Russian ambience, the 'snuff' theme and the claustrophobic plight of the mute and the fact that the (amusing, which always leads to likeable) characters could meet the end at any second. Since this is a low budget and rare film we watch it without any expectations. It also has Fay Ripley in a rare movie role, watch and prepare to be excited, scared and thrilled in totally unexpected ways.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Man, I never laugh so much this year, and it's pretty hard to make me laugh. While I expected some Hostel-style movie, the smile came to my face even from the beginning. This film-inside-film shows a female stabbed \"victim\" messing the whole set until she finally \"die\". Her overacting drive the director nuts and his funny reaction tell us, the viewers, that Mute Witness is not a typically horror movie.

The main character, the mute American make-up artist Billy Hughes, is played by the beautiful yet talented Russian actress Marina Zudina. Her performance is top-notch; her character can't speak, so the body language and the emotions on her face must compensate.And, oh boy, she did a wonderful job. Her sister (Fay Ripley) is the girlfriend or the fianc\u00e9e or the wife of the \"in-film director\" (Evan Richards). They were both very funny most of the time. I won't spoil more, but the scenes following the bathtub moment, with them two, the fake policemen and later the angry neighbor were plain brilliant black comedy.

The plot get twisted near the end, possibly misleading at one particular moment. But don't worry. Such a delicious movie can be viewed in family or with your boy-\/girl-\/friend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know how this film went unnoticed for so long.

I saw this film on TV, i was flipping through the channels and came across this unexpectedly well made film. i missed the first, probably , 10 minutes, but that does not matter..this film literally gripped me, it is a real spine chiller.

The absence of well known actors in the film adds on to the effect,u do not know what to expect from the actors because they are new. U never know when they will get killed or what they are up to. so it is all the more tense.Even though there are many new faces their performances were top class.

The filmmakers play with your mind, just revealing enough gore to make imagine the rest. The shock, fear, horror and helplessness are also brought out well by characters in the film.

The well written situations n twists,fast camera movements, slick editing and superb direction makes it an excellent suspense thriller. This film actually switches between the genres - horror and suspense thriller leaving the viewer clueless and tensed. Undoubtedly comparable to Hitchcock.

I could not even move from the TV even during the commercial breaks .. i was the helpless MUTE WITNESS to this superb film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of my all-time favourite movies. Nothing can beat watching this movie for the first time. If I could go back in time and erase my memory or suffer from momentary amnesia I would so I could enjoy this movie as much as I did that very first time. It's still enjoyable second and third times round but I found myself appreciating the humour more as the shocks and thrills weren't unexpected. If you want a see a film that you truly won't be able to predict the ending of then I highly recommend this film. Its chilling, shocking, full of suspense and there's also loads of humour to help you through it too. If you watch this film and don't love it I truly question your sanity!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is, without doubt, one of my favourite horror films ever! I really cannot believe that it didn't gain much more popularity when it was released, especially when the main contenders at the time were the usual Wes Craven sequels and copycat horrors, Mute Witness has all the style, suspense and quickfire plot twists of a Hitchcock\/DePalma movie, coupled with some very sharp black comedy and a great plot. It never promises to be any more than a good popcorn-and-hot-dog movie, but it is difficult not to just enjoy the film for what it is.

The plot centres on Billie Hughes - a mute girl working on the set of a horror film being made in a Russian factory. By a series of events, she finds herself accidentally locked in, and stumbles on the filming of a snuff movie.

One of the best things about the film is the lack of screaming that seems to invade every horror film ever made. As the main character is mute, she cannot make a noise - something which is a blessing at some stages of the movie, and a curse in others.

The director seems to have studied his Hitchcock very well, Even the opening scene is a tongue-in-cheek nod to both Hitchcock's \"Psycho\" as well as fairly generic slasher movie scenes.

While the acting can be hammy at times, the whole film does hold it together, not only throwing in a couple of excellent scenes that put you right on the edge of your seat, but a few neat little questions about how the film is going to end.

All in all, a hugely overlooked, well-paced and action packed psycho-thriller which I would recommend for any jaded viewer looking for something a little different from the usual Freddy\/Jason\/Scream\/Michael Myers\/Damien regurgitation's at hallowe'en.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed the acting in this movie. Except for the sister. She reminded me of Janice on Friends. I could never quite believe she was anything but obnoxious.

My main problems with the movie were the anticlimatic ending and the execution scene with the sister and brother-in-law. The guy falling out of the exploding car? Maybe if his hand had been blown off and he ran to the mute for help and she kissed him and rushed him to a hospital, maybe then I could have gone for the ending. I think somebody needed to die in the execution scene. Mainly the brother-in-law. He was such a pain in the ass anyway. Or maybe the sister needed to accidentally kill the guy who saved the mute. I could have even bought into the brother-in-law killing the hero and the ending being the two sisters being put in snuff films.

It is worth watching again and as I always say, it is much easier to be a reviewer instead of an author.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The plot is somewhat original, and all the actors did their job pretty well. There is a plenty of comic relief, too. Some things do not make a lot of sense (e.g. the first \"chase\" scene, why would the heroine not just hide somewhere and wait until the baddies leave?). The Russians actually speak Russian without accent, but the cars are extremely strange, with models spanning like 50 years, and so the place seems weirdly out of time. Overall, if you like thrillers you will probably like this one as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've waited 9 years to watch this film, simply because i never saw it advertised on TV. Eventually i caught it and it was well worth the wait. It's much better than your over-hyped scream or last summer garbage because it's all at a fairly quick pace, with no drawn out, creeping through the house to cheesy music scenes. Only the bad dubbing lets it down a little but don't let that put you off in any way. What lies beneath - over hyped and crap. Mute witness - low budget, not hyped at all and very good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie ! I think I've seen it 5 times already (it was quite a success in France and they often play it on TV). Ok, it's a thriller and there is great tension. But mostly (and specifically in the second part) it is absolutely hilarious ! And very original. The directing and photography are just splendid.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is definitely one of the most scary and spell-binding films ever made. You are stuck to the movie from the beginning to the very end. Even though there are some plot holes, it keeps being exciting to the final showdown. Besides \"8 MM\" and \"Peeping Tom\" this is one of the best films about \"Snuff Movies\", a taboo theme of our culture. If you like the SCREAM Trilogy, you will probably love that one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An intense thriller about a mute movie make-up artist who witnesses a snuff film being made when she is working late in the studio one night. After she tries to get away from the murder scene, she realizes she is in for more than she bargained for when the entire mafia is out to kill her for being a witness. This movie leaves you on the edge of your seat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Superbly crafted low-budget thriller with more twists and turns than you can shake a stick at, and plenty of ghoulish humour along the way as well.

The cast play it very well, although Richards' self-centered movie director is a bit hard to take at times. The tiny two-scene cameo by Sir Alec Guinness, oozing menace as the crime czar of Moscow, is simply the icing on the cake.

Well worth repeated viewing, but not on dark nights when you're all alone!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a VERY good movie. I give it a 10.

It's very different in that it's kind of a long stalking scene all the way through. The fact that the main character is mute is used throughout the story in a very believable way.

She sees a murder (for a snuff-movie) and decides to run but is chased (this takes quite some time). I won't reveal the rest of the movie for it would spoil the experience, but rest assured: it's very believable, well played, very intense and has some nice surprises plus a great ending.

Don't miss this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mute Witness is a modest, yet very solid thriller that never really received the attention or good comments it deserves. The film \u0096 written and directed entirely by Anthony Waller \u0096 is a tense, action-packed thriller with black comedy aspects and horror influences. No pointless mumbo-jumbo or endless plot-twists\u0085just straight to the point mystery. Mute Witness handles about the vicious topic of `snuff'-movies and is effectively set in Russia. *** SPOILERS *** Since the production costs are cheaper there, a US film crew temporarily moves to Russia for shooting a horror film. An old hangar is used as film location. The female make-up artist of the team accidentally gets locked up overnight and while trying to find a way out, she witnesses the recordings of an authentic snuff-movie! She's caught and tries to escape but, since she's a mute, she can't cry for help and neither can she explain what she saw to the police properly. The girl's life is in real danger now, since there's a whole hidden network behind these snuff productions and they don't want the witnesses to be alive\u0085 *** End Spoilers ***. Mute Witness contains multiple highly exiting action sequences and is rather bloody. Some of the mystery clues are effectively kept secret till the very end. Regarding the similar topic, I'd say it's definitely better than the more famous `8 mm', directed by Joel Schumacher and starring Nicolas Cage. The acting in Mute Witness isn't great, but the leading actress (who's Russian herself) looks really cute. Sir Alec Guinness makes a special appearance, too. And a very cool one, I may say. Surely recommended with guaranteed fun and scares.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, this film came on on a workday at 230am. The cute little actress who played Billy caught my attention initially and after the 1st 15 minutes I was held captive to my television till the very end. It has you on the edge of your seat, then throws in clever bits of comedy during the most tense sequences.

The only draw back is that the story was not substantial enough to fill hour an a half film, causing certain sequences to drag just a little. Nonetheless, it was still very entertaining, and I recommended it to all my co-workers the next day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you want to see a true thriller, rent this!!! It's not from the director or screenwriter of \"Scream\", doesn't feature overacting, overpaid \"TV\" actors passing off as \"stars\", and is not a run of the mill special effects bonanza. Instead you'll get a top-notch, edgy, very strong (in violence) yet thrilling nailbiter.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First half of the movie scared the hell out of me and normally I'm not easy to scare, but second half of this thriller didn't work quite a well, but still very scary! A good thriller, than use simple ways to make good horror. Lowbudget, set in Russia, unknown cast, and made in Europe. but still great fun, and yes there is a few laughs throw in for good matters as well!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the movies one has to start watching with an open mind. One knows it's going to about a mute, one could look forward to or be afraid for a lot of sentiment.

Well, forget it. The movie starts with a little black humour, and then gets started. From then on its takes you on an ever frightening ride through the dark centers of Moscow. All right, it must be said: the unexpected twists are expected, and the mute is mainly used as a plot tool or fear builder. But this movie doesn't let you go.

It's like the old gangster movies, but then without any glamour at all and in Russia. And that's one of the most important aspects of this movie: it's situated in Russia. This does have a great impact on the movie, according to me it makes it better. Everything becomes simple and basic, life is without nonsense. This could be a great potential for more movies in the future, gangster movies about the Russian mafia.

It is a beautifull and terrifying movie. It's horror, but you can't feel but sympathy for the little mute. One last advice: don't look this too late in the evening if you want to sleep well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm just starting to explore the so far wonderful world of monsieur Ozon. I've seen only 4 films so far, and with the last one in the row it hit me that all of them were in fact about lonely women and their actions. Not a single non-lonely female character out of 12, and all of them bring heavy impact of surroundings.

This film is probably the only one (out of four) where this impact is for good.

The gay theme is an almost standard part of background for Ozon's films, so it doesn't grab the accent (although the looks of the characters might). Watch for the feelings, not for their objects.

Very nice and fleeting, truly like a summer romance, and while being a relaxation to thought and mind, it gives some food for the soul.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There's not a dull moment in Francois Ozon's \"Robe d'Ete\". It's surprising how much is packed into this short film. While reclining on a deserted beach after a nude swim, a young gay is approached by a girl seeking a light for her cigarette. She invites him to make love in a wooded area near the beach. On returning to the beach. they find that all his clothes have been stolen. She lends him a summer dress to cover his nakedness and requests he return it next day. He rides his bike back to the holiday cabin dressed as a girl. His gay companion is sexually excited. Early next morning the young man returns to the sea and bids farewell to the girl whose holiday has ended. She suggests he keep the dress as a memento of their summer romance. It's a light-hearted film that captures the spirit of summer holidays by the sea, but perhaps not for those who are embarrassed by nudity or homosexual themes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i expected it to be good, after i'd seen some other ozon's superb moments, and read much about it... but this movie is brilliant - clever, very bright (emotionally and visionally), perfect in all moments. every movement is there for a reason, everything fits so closely and primordially true and honest. this is the movie about the beauty and innocence; about it's simplicity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Subtle, delicate ,touching.

A young man in a summer dress on a bike like incarnation of perfect joy. History of a coming -out and anatomy of relationship.

Soft ambiguous gestures, slices of desire and a day like space of innocent miracle expression.

Two men, a girl, a afternoon on beach, some words and a gift. Religious traces and a pantheist vision. Cercle of light and expression, nooks of an ordinary day and hot evening.

A erotic chaste film in which the gay identity or the first sexual relation are only instruments for good definition of a universe with sensitives values.

Pledge for self- discover, universe of beauty exploration, the sign of Ozon and same nostalgic air of every creation, \"Robe d'ete\" is a splendid occasion to understand the moment like projection of dream, to look, with emotion and child soul the essence of the essence beyond the images or people.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sadness and nostalgia permeate Late Chrysanthemums, a 1954 film by Japanese auteur Mikio Naruse, now undergoing a retrospective of his long unavailable films thanks to James Quandt of Cinematheque Ontario and The Japan Foundation. Based on three stories by Fumiko Hayashi, Late Chrysanthemums tells the story of four retired geishas, now middle-aged, whose lives have become full of disappointment and regret. Performance are uniformly outstanding, particularly that of Haruko Sugimura, who starred in films by Ozu's Late Spring, Floating Weeds, and Tokyo Story among others. Sugimura portrays Kin, a former Geisha who has no children and lives only with her young maid who is unable to speak.

She has become cynical about men and has turned her attention to money, particularly real estate speculation and loaning money to her friends, Nobu (Sadako Sawamura), Tamae (Chikako Hosokawa), and Tomi (Yuko Mochizuki), all former geishas. Kin's friends live in meager circumstances and complain about how Kin has become greedy and Tomi spends considerable time gambling to try and make ends meet. Both Tomi and Tamae are in the process of losing their children. Tamae's son is leaving to work in the coalmines in Hokkaido, and Tomi's daughter has decided to accept a marriage proposal from an older man. Both resist the change in their circumstances but come to accept it as inevitable.

Two male friends visit Kin, Seki a former lover with whom she once contemplated double suicide, and Tabe (Ken Uehara), another lover who she looks forward to seeing again after many years. Her mood is upbeat but soon turns to resentment when she discovers that the two men are only interested in borrowing money. Naruse cuts between two extended sequences seamlessly as Kin confronts Tabe and Tomi and Tamae console each other over the loss of their children The dialogue is extremely natural and the characters are women of strength who, though their future does not seem bright, refuse to see themselves merely as victims. Late Chrysanthemums has the simplicity, humor, and stoic acceptance of life prominent in the films of Ozu and is a bittersweet reminder of the slow passing of time and the comfort that memory and companionship can bring along the way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For me, \"Late Chrysanthemums\" was interesting not only because it was my first film of Naruse I completely enjoyed, but because it was technically as modern and innovative as his 30s work I've seen. This doesn't mean innovative editing in the way Godard would introduce it with \"Breathless\" in 1959, but quite the opposite.

The editing was as fluent as in the best of Hollywood films from the 30s\/40s, but at the same time incredibly fitting regarding the way he was telling his story. Unlike them, it never purposefully accentuated anything or tried to make itself \"invisible\" but, together with the cinematography, made me feel like I was traveling on a gentle stream, constantly feeling the waves beneath me, like a gentle stroke of the hand or the almost unnoticeable rocking of a cradle. In this sense the film was comparable to Ozu's and Mizoguchi's work, but somehow even more subtle.

What was so modern was the fact that the editing seemed almost a character in itself, similar to the remarkable camera-work in Dreyer's Ordet (1954) or Vredens dag (1943) which is revealing us a deeper understanding of the film and its characters rather than simply showing them to us.

I feel that Naruse's editing and cinematography are the most interesting aspects of his films, elevating the stories significance beyond the obvious. The wonderful sets and settings shouldn't be forgotten either! I found the story itself to be rather conventional.

The narrative and its characters were introduced in a very interesting way, and I thought that the first half of the film was setting up a delicately ingenious spectrum of emotions and interrelations. Unfortunately the second half of the film and its resolution were rather didactic and and formulaic compared to the set up (though by itself it would have been perfectly fitting in any other - less complex - film). Somehow I felt that he failed a bit in trying to dissolve the many layers he had woven. Maybe he should have kept them intact. This criticism might seem a bit harsh to a viewer of this film, especially since the procedure is again reminiscent to the way Ozu dealt with the plot in his films. Unfortunately I haven't yet the feeling that Naruse was able to elevate the story and its characters in his films' conclusions in a similarly sublime fashion. The best efforts I have seen to date - Ukigumo (Floating Clouds \/ 1955) and Midaregumo (Scattered Clouds \/ 1967) - sustained the energy he had built throughout the narrative, while delivering poignant and resonant endings.

This is already more than most director's are able to do, and in my opinion the basis for a real mastery of the cinematic medium. In this regard, and considering the resonance of the last two films I've seen by him, he may have already become one of my favorites.

The only problem I have at the moment, is where I'm going to see more of his films on the big screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mikio Naruse's examination of the lives of three idling, constantly complaining, single ex-geishas in post-war Japan is a wonderful character piece. They used to be friends in the old days but now their relationship is strained because one of the women has become a successful moneylender and the other two owe her. Although the moneylender is the only one who has become successful in this rebuilding economy, she is the only one of the three that has no children. The other two each have a child whom they depend upon for income, because neither of them work. Complications ensue when the kids decide to get married (though not to each other) and leave home. This leads to the bitter, grumbling old women to become even more bitter and grumbling, getting drunk and bemoaning their rotten children and inconsiderate friend the moneylender. Meanwhile the moneylender is herself unhappy, despite her fortunes. She has no one besides her young deaf maid to keep her company and chance encounters with two former lovers from her geisha days lead nowhere - all they really want is to borrow money from her. The three characters are all neck-deep in the quicksand of their own bored lives and are too weary to struggle much, usually opting instead to resign themselves to the futility of it all or, at the very most, toss complaints back and forth to each other.

\"Late Chrysanthemums\" is very slow-moving and not much actually happens but Naruse, like all great directors, has the ability to do much with very little. I haven't seen much of his work but I suspect that this isn't his best, even though it is very good. The problem, I think, is that it all doesn't seem to amount to much. But the film is full of good points. Although it is cynical, it isn't overly so. Naruse seems to sympathize with his desperate characters, and he paints vivid portraits that make the characters seem even somewhat noble in the squalor of their self-made misery. While the film isn't a must-see, it is important as a fragment of the work of a great little-known (outside of his own country) director, precious little of which is available on video here in the U. S.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A look at three geishas who are way past their prime. Now they look back on their pasts with fondness and bemoan their present. Kin (played by Floating Weeds' Haruko Sugimura) has sworn off men and has made a good living as a moneylender; everyone on the block owes her. The other two, Nobu and Tamae, wish they could land husbands, but are not foolish enough to believe they ever will. Meanwhile, their children - one has a son and one a daughter - are both about to get married (not to each other). Tamae is irked at how much prettier her daughter has become than her, and bitterly tries to convince her not to marry the man. Nobu's concerns about her son are more legitimate in nature, but they are also (understandably) self-serving. After her son leaves, she'll be alone. A bit into the film, two of Kin's former clients come looking for her, one a man so obsessed with her that he tried to get her to commit double suicide with him, the other one of her handsomest clients. Unfortunately, he comes for her money, not her love. The way I've described the film makes it sound unrelentingly depressing, but it's really not. Sad, but not fatally so. It's more bittersweet. Unfortunately, I only marginally liked Late Chrysanthemums. The story seems better when I look back on it, but it is very slow and dull. I actually nodded off twice during the film, and I wasn't at all tired before I started it. This is the kind of film that I can appreciate more than like; it reminds me very much of my reaction to a couple of Ozu's more famous films. 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Naruse is typically considered one of the 3 master founders of Japanese film, the other two being Ozu and Mizoguchi. This is an interesting and honest film on the lives of retired Geishas. Whatever happens, when such a woman ages, and loses her charm and mystique? Well, for those who are interested, watch this film. One: Okin, is successful as a money-lender, but the other two have to borrow from her and are resentful. Okin doesn't have any children, but the other do. Okin finds out that her old love is coming to visit her, and is excited. Naruse is a master in subtle studies of his female protagonists' characters. Bangiku ultimately draws the viewer into the study of the questions of ones happiness, and one's life-worth. Very good film indeed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is about aging Geisha in post war Tokyo. Okin, played by the incredible Haruko Sugimara, lends money to two other ex Geisha, Tamae (Chikako Hosokawa) and Otomi (Yuko Mochizuki) and they resent the way she is somewhat smug about it. Tamae has a son, Otomi a daughter, who during the film announce they're leaving them while Okin, never a mother, gets visits from two men in her past who, it turns out, just want money from her. Its a compelling tale of what choices you make, what you do to get through life and who you're responsible and beholden to. Haruko Sugimara has always been in my eyes one of the greatest character actresses ever from any country and she plays the mostly unyielding, less than compassionate Okin with an air of superiority that makes you not like her, but at the same time almost envy her. At a time when great films were made by Ozu, Mizoguchi, Kinoshita and Kurosawa, amongst others, Mr. Naruse is right up there with him. If you have a region free DVD player, you should attempt to find the two Naruse box sets released in England. I think this film was a great character study of women who are in danger of being irrelevant. That they are really not makes this film a veritable masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"MINOR SPOILERS

Misunderstood classic remains one of Henson's finest and most personal films. It may seem funny to call a movie as beloved as this one 'misunderstood,' but people do seem to remember this one mostly for Jerry Juhl's snappy screenplay and Paul Williams's knockout songs. Now while these things are admittedly great, as is the movie's formal playfulness (screenplay-within-the-screenplay, film break, etc.), what distinguishes 'The Muppet Movie' from the other Muppet films is the serious, wistful thread that runs through the picture. It's a road movie, all right, but like most road movies, the pleasure is in the getting there, and the achievement of the characters' goals is tempered by uncertainty, and by the knowledge that they can never really go back again. Throughout the film, we are shown the down side of show business, even before the Muppets have 'made it': Piggy abandons Kermit without a second thought at a phone call from her agent, Gonzo expresses the loneliness and regret of a performer's life on the road in his haunting 'I'm Going to Go Back There Someday,' and, worst of all, Kermit is continually tortured and tested by Doc Hopper, who wants him to commercialize his art for the unholiest of purposes. (One can only wonder what Henson would have made of his family's management of the company after his death.) Kermit himself agonizes over his choices in the desert conversation scene, and the final 'Magic Store' number questions whether it's all been worth it, before concluding that it probably doesn't matter either way. All this is punctuated with the expected Muppet chaos and satire and deliciously awful jokes, and of course the serious stuff wouldn't work if it weren't. But 'The Muppet Movie' isn't just another jokefest, as the rest of the diminishing-return Muppet films would become. No, it's a lovely, gentle metaphor about the relationship between art and entertainment and business, and it's every bit as effective today as it was 25 years ago. 9.5 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In many ways, the perfect movie. The \"Incredible Journey\" and Horatio Alger tale come together for a positive spin on the usually depressing subject of existentialism. In essence, the travails of the muppets boil down to the finale song of the movie: \"Life's like a movie, write your own ending, keep believing, keep pretending.\" They create their own reality, which has all the trappings of every epic tale: a lofty goal at the end of what is necessarily a obstacle-laden journey; an ever-increasing group of like-minded individuals for camaraderie; a nasty set of villians who are not beyond all redemption; and a big-budget Hollywood ending because, darn it all, they CAN.

Only Jim Henson could pull this off. He walks the line between sentimentality and philosophy without swerving too long or too hard into either. Of course it seems odd that invest such weight into a film starring puppets, but in the end perhaps they are the perfect, uh, puppet to make these points. The movie's atmosphere allows for the pure enjoyment of the Hollywood dream, the \"happy\" ending, unnecessary cameos, and bursting into song at the drop of a hat. Usually these aspects are anathema to quality in film, but the self-deprecating manner under which the story is delivered makes for guilt-free viewing. One of the few films that can truly be called \"suitable for all ages.\"

The other muppet-related films (including \"The Empire Strikes Back\"), while palatable, do not touch the simple grace of this film. Take, for instance, the musical number \"Hope that Something Better Comes Along,\" the duet of Kermit and Rowlf. Amusing in its vaudevillian goofiness, yet makes a bitingly crucial point about the motivations behind life choices. Brilliant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jim Henson's The Muppet Movie is a charming, funny and brilliant film that can be watched AND enjoyed by adults and kids. I feel this is my favorite childhood film because it combines great characters, great story, and great wit that it is irresistable. The plot involves Kermit the frog (puppeteered and voiced by Henson) in his odyssey across America to follow his dream in Hollywood. Along the way, he meets Fozzie Bear, The Great Gonzo (my favorite), Miss Piggy, Rolf, and DR. Teeth and the electric mayhem.

This film has so many good things I can't even say them. But it is memorable and every time I think of a puppet or muppet, I will think of this film. Look for cameos from Mel Brooks, Dom DeLouise, Paul Williams, Madeline Kahn, Bob Hope, Richard Pryor, Steve martin, Edgar Bergen (and Charlie McCarthey), Elliot Gould, Carol Kane and the great Orson Welles. Excellent and spectacular, one of the best films of the 70's. A++","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Y'know, it's very interesting watching this... half the people involved with it are now dead...

Anyways, it's been a long time since I've watched anything Muppet related, but this stuff is pure gold. I'm a great fan of puns, and this movie has them quite well placed, but one of the amazing aspects of it is its pacing: it's not really high-speed children's pacing where the filmmakers just randomly decide to move the story along without giving the character's depth, it's just kind of moves along with the characters wherever they want to go.

Kermit the Frog is just an awesome character. His voice and the expressions on his puppet-face are fantastic. But above all, he points out why he's popular--\"he can sing and make jokes too!\"--but more appropriately why he's so endearing--he, without any effort, inspires everyone to search for their dreams. In the meantime, he also has to deal with himself, which is an uncommon theme in family movies.

It also contains quite an ensemble of comedians making appearances here and there, some to great effect, others to a little less (I think Mel Brook's part was just a bit overplayed, do you?). Some parts of the film are just kind of odd. But it's highly imaginative and takes itself to the same destination from a very different direction.

Moving right along...

--PolarisDiB","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jim Henson as Kermit, Dr.Teeth, Rowlf and Waldorf.

Frank Oz as Fozzie, Piggy and Animal.

Jerry Nelson as Floyd Pepper, Robin the Frog, Lew Zealand and Crazy Harry.

Richard Hunt as Janice, Statler,Beaker and Scooter.

Dave Goelz as Gonzo, Dr.Hunnydew and Zoot.

Charles Durning and Mel Brooks.

cameos by Steve Martin, Carol Kane, Orson Welles, Bob Hope, Richard Pryor and others.

This is the first Muppet movie of the billion others that came out, and is also the best, by far! This deals with Kermit the frog going on a trip to Hollywood and meeting the other characters along the way. This movie, along with being already good, has excellent songs performed by the Muppets, including Rainbow Connection, Can You Picture That?, Moving Right Along and others. This movie, unlike the other Muppet flicks, carries a strong sentimental value to me. It's such a nice movie. Also noted is it's many cameos featuring Steve Martin, Mel Brooks and a dozen others.

my rating-A plus. 109 mins. rated G.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all i'd like to say that this movie is the greatest thing that ever happened to mankind. It is the best out of all the excellent Muppet movies, and every other movie out there! so BOO-YA for jim Henson!

This Movie is the first of all the Muppet movies and the best. (boo ya) It's about a Frog (kermit) who tries to make to hollywood. along with the awesome friends he meets on the way comes a couple of the greatest songs ever made that are bound to become classics, including \"the rainbow connection\"

in conclusion i would like to say that watching this movie was the greatest thing EVER!. If you havn't already seen it, then get off your computer and get you tushy to your nearest video store!!! (if they don't have the muppet movie, i'd sue them BIG TIME )","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would have been about 11 years old when this movie was first released. All these years later at 37 and I had no qualms hiring it on DVD. Great entertainment for all ages. And what about the song The Rainbow Connection? See:

Why are there so many songs about rainbows And what's on the other side? Rainbows are visions, but only illusions, And rainbows have nothing to hide. So we've been told and some choose to believe it I know they're wrong, wait and see. Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, The lovers, the dreamers and me.

Who said that every wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star? Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it, And look what it's done so far. What's so amazing that keeps us stargazing And what do we think we might see? Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, The lovers, the dreamers, and me.

All of us under its spell, We know that it's probably magic...

... Have you been half asleep? And have you heard voices? I've heard them calling my name. ... Is this the sweet sound that calls the young sailors? The voice might be one and the same I've heard it too many times to ignore it It's something that I'm s'posed to be... Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, The lovers, the dreamers, and me.

Laa, da daa dee da daa daa, La laa la la laa dee daa doo...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Who doesn't love the muppets?! Impossible it is to watch them without getting some kind of warm, fuzzy feeling inside. So, I guess what's important is that this movie seemed to very successfully capture what makes the muppets so special. I don't remember much about the details of the plot but the various moments and characters in the film I recall quite fondly. In fact, there was quite a nostalgic atmosphere to the whole movie but without being self-conscious in any bad way. Refreshing for someone who possibly gets too hung up on meticulous details and technique; the \"magic\" transcends all that other stuff. 'Tis indeed what movies are made of.

So, how does the film achieve these things? Hmmm, nice question! Stumped am I? Let's see. Really, I feel like it's quite simple. The filmmakers believe in their material and don't take themselves too seriously in the process. I probably wouldn't say the film has many truly inspired moments, but it does have a certain life to it (that funnily enough a great many \"real people\" movies lack). A zest. You really want to believe in these funny little people and their adventures. They also have a certain innocence about them that makes them all the more endearing.

Generally I get the impression that the people that made the movie just weren't afraid to try whatever felt right to them at the time which gives the whole thing quite a loose feel. Kind of like a really accessible and enjoyable extended jazz session. Lots of talent, little predictability and plenty of warm personalities coming through. The cameos were of course a bunch of nice surprises for instance. Maybe I don't feel I have much to say about it because I was half-asleep when I saw it (and\/or as I write this review). Anyway, I'm sort of semi-repeating myself here but I really liked the sense of family the movie had. Full of love I suppose you might say. Again, a feeling of nostalgia comes to mind which not many films manage to achieve so effectively or effortlessly.

And to repeat myself once more, one of the film's best charms is its very relaxed and welcoming atmosphere. Like the Nathaniel Hawthorne quote about happiness being (like) a butterfly, so The Muppet Movie greatly succeeds partially by not seeming to try to do so. Same with beauty being best undiscovered or untouched or unforced or something like that. Anyway, if that sounds sappy, I also reckon it was pretty hilarious.

So, all in all, this movie was very funny, touching and difficult not to smile along to. Plus it features lots of great music! Highly recommended to all humans, both the young and the young at heart.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first feature length Muppet Movie, and excepting maybe The Muppet Christmas Carol, the movie puppeteers the world over are still looking for as a guide. Disney has done the Muppets a dis-service and this movie proves it over and over again. Featuring classic comedians and guest star cameos, keeps to a simple but original plot, classic Muppet lame jokes, Paul Williams genius in song writing, and Electric Mayhem madness, and comes off with an amazing movie especially when you realize that the major cast are puppets. Only Croft has come close to Hensen's genius with puppets. Half of the fun today is playing is that cameo actor\/actress still alive???? I can only hope Frank Oz and Dave Goelz and the rest of the surviving Muppeteers can somehow rescue and revive Kermit and Company from the deadly grasp of Disney.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is one of my fondest childhood memories. Seeing the Muppets (at the height of their popularity) heading Hollywood, singing and dancing, with Miss Piggy googely-eying her beloved Kermit, Fozzie Bear doing his best as everyone's manager, and a generous cast of \"extras\" delivering a film that turned out to be \"okey dokey\".

Kermit's melancholy ukulele number \"Rainbow Connection\" was nominated for an Oscar that year, but was beat out by Norma Rae's \"It Goes Like It Goes\". I'll pick Kermit's song any day! Get the kids and enjoy this timeless fantasy...someday they'll find it, the rainbow connections, the lovers, the dreamers and me!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have not seen this movie since 1979 when I was a teenager. I grew up with the Sesame street muppets and later realized how much effort and time went into bringing these characters to life. Jim Hensen was a genius and master muppeteer. When I watched this movie the other day it took me back in time when I was younger and things seemed so much simpler. For this bit of time travel I rate this movie a 10.

The plot line explores how Kermit goes from the swamp to Hollywood. The laughs and gags are classic muppetism. I am glad these films are still around for the next generation. I hope I never out grow the magic of the muppets.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have always loved The Muppets. Though most children's entertainment then wasn't that likable, The Muppet's was. The Muppet's are very, very funny. They are probably the most likable children's characters ever.

Not only did The Muppets have their own show. They also have starred in many films. from The Muppet's Christmas carol to The Muppet's treasure Island. The first Muppet's movie, The Muppet movie, was also, like the show and the other films, excellent.

The Muppet movie is about how they all got started. Kermit the frog used to live in a swamp. Until one day a movie executive tells him that there are auditions for frogs in Hollywood. So Kermit takes off for Hollywood. Along the way he runs into lots of people such as Fozzie Bear, Gonzo the great, and Miss Piggy. Also, an evil man is trying to capture Kermit.

All of the Muppet films are highly enjoyable. I mean they are all very funny. This film has many film appearances. Such as Steve Martin, Mel Brooks, Elliot Gould, Carol Kane, Richard Pryor, and Orson Welles. The Muppet films are all very enjoyable. I hear that Jason Segel is going to star in one soon. I can't wait to see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A bunch of full-length movies featuring the Muppets, created by Jim Henson & Co, have been made, but \"The Muppet Movie\" was the first one of them all, and the first in the original trilogy, which also features \"The Great Muppet Caper\" and \"The Muppets Take Manhattan\". It was released seven years before I was born, so I obviously didn't get to see it at the time (nor did I get to see its two successors when they were first released). However, I saw a lot of the Muppets during my childhood, mostly after Henson's premature death in 1990. I finally got around to seeing this movie for the first time around the mid-nineties, after hearing the soundtrack. Unsurprisingly, I liked it at the time, and revisiting it in recent years hasn't exactly been disappointing.

One day, while Kermit the Frog sits in a swamp with his banjo after singing \"Rainbow Connection\", a Hollywood agent named Bernie comes by in a boat and urges him to pursue a career in Tinseltown. Kermit takes his advice and goes west. He soon meets Fozzie Bear, an unsuccessful stand-up comedian in a restaurant, and convinces him to come along. The frog is also noticed by Doc Hopper, the owner of a frog leg restaurant chain who wants Kermit to be his mascot. As a frog, Kermit is disgusted by this, so he refuses and leaves with Fozzie. On their road trip across the country, Kermit and Fozzie meet other Muppets who join them, including Miss Piggy (who soon becomes Kermit's love interest) and Gonzo. Unfortunately, as they all try to make their way to Hollywood, Doc Hopper, assisted by Max, is willing to do anything to force Kermit to become his restaurant chain's mascot, so Kermit finds himself in increasing danger!

One thing many people praise this film for is the songs, and I can understand why. There is, of course, the Oscar-nominated \"Rainbow Connection\" at the beginning, and more good tunes follow, such as Kermit and Fozzie's catchy road song, \"Movin' Right Along\", and \"I'm Going to Go Back There Someday\", a poignant ballad sung by Gonzo. \"Never Before, Never Again\", the song Miss Piggy sings when she first sees Kermit, is the only one I would consider rather weak, and their romance seems awfully sudden. The Muppets in this movie are generally lovable, just like they are on TV, and some of them provide a lot of the humour, including Fozzie, making his first appearance in the film hopelessly trying to entertain people in a restaurant with his stand-up, and, well, if you're familiar with these famous Muppets, you should know what to expect from each of them. Some of the live actors who appear briefly in the film can also be funny, such as Dom DeLuise as Bernie the Agent and Steve Martin as the \"Insolent Waiter.\" Also, it's not 100% comedy. There are serious parts of the film which they also did well.

Watching this original Muppet movie again this year was my first time watching any of them since seeing \"Muppets from Space\" (one of the Muppet movies made after Henson's death, released in 1999) for the first time last year. I was very disappointed when I saw that film, which had never happened before when I watched any film or TV show featuring the popular puppet characters! Not only is that movie not very funny, I also think it's a tad too dark and cruel for the Muppets, as I stated in my review of it! However, I can't say I think the same of any of that movie's predecessors, including this one, released twenty years earlier. \"The Muppet Movie\" seems to be the most popular of the bunch, and since it has so much to like, not just for kids, that's understandable. I highly doubt there's much left to say about \"The Muppet Movie\" that hasn't been said at some point in the past thirty years, but today, it remains good family entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Who doesn't remember The Muppet Movie???

Kermit the Frog is now an American culture icon. What child doesn't appeal to this character?

As the first actual Muppet film, the movie simply called, The Muppet Movie did very well. Kermit takes a Hollywood agent's advice and goes out of his home swamp to respond to the ad. Along the way he meets up with a pig, a bear, chickens a rock band and a few other quality puppets. Watch for dozens of cameo appearances like Madaline Kahn, Steve Martian, Richard Pryor, Mel Brooks and several more. I grew up watching this movie and I loved it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am 17, and a biased Muppet fan, and while I love Treasure Island, Christmas Carol and Great Muppet Caper, The Muppet Movie absolutely deserves to be up there with the best of them. It is enormously entertaining, thanks to the snappy script by Jerry Juhl, and the film looks lovely, with some beautifully staged musical numbers. Speaking of the songs, I really liked them, sure they aren't the best song score out of the Muppet franchise, but they were very nice to listen to, especially Never Before. Never Before is now one of my favourite Muppet songs along with First Time It Happens and Professional Pirate. The Muppets as usual were fantastic, particularly the always delightful Miss Piggy, and the chemistry between Kermit and Fozzie was great. And what a brilliant human cast- from Bob Hope to Orson Welles, from Madeleine Kahn(the same wonderful actress who brought us hilarious movies like What's Up Doc?, Blazing Saddles and Clue) to Cloris Leachman, from Steve Martin to Richard Pryor, all of whom made memorable guest appearances, if careful not to overshadow the Muppets in a fantastic film. 10\/10 Bethany Cox","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Muppet Movie

directed by

James Frawley

Kermit the Frog and friends relive the tales and stories of how they all came together.

The Muppets star in their first feature film, bringing the magic they are known for to a bigger picture. The story is not too complex and is written as a prequel of sorts. The well written jokes appear as each character gets a worthy introduction. The cameos aren't just thrown in either, but written in as interesting characters, making one of the many peaks for our furry friends.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If I rate the film maybe a bit high, you can blame it on sentiment. This is one of the first movies that I remember seeing and totally loving. I saw it at the drive-ins here in California in the late 70s. I was already a big fan of \"The Muppet Show\" on TV so I was primed for the movie, and the movie did not disappoint. Basically it takes the whole absurdist ethos of the Muppet show and transports it from vaudeville into a road movie. Kermit the Frog is on a quest to become famous; not because he wants to take champagne baths and ride in a private jet, but because he wants to \"make millions of people happy.\" Of course.

Along the way he picks up all his beloved muppet friends, most endearingly Fonzie Bear who he meets at a seedy bar doing stand-up. They sing \"Movin' Right Along\", a song that has always charmed me with its upbeat melody and its theme of friendship and shared discovery. He also encounters enough Hollywood movie stars to fill a Stanley Kramer movie, including comedy luminaries like Richard Pryor, Steve Martin, Edgar Bergen, Milton Berle, and Mel Brooks. Brooks in particular has a rather dull bit, and you are left feeling that Henson could have cut a few of these cameos out if he wasn't afraid of offending the stars. Anyway, as befits a road trip movie like this the very first person he meets is Dom DeLuise.

The ending is one of the more odd examples of literally breaking down the 4th wall that you will find in any \"children's\" movie. The Hollywood dream seems to be crumbling all about them, when a real rainbow pierces the Hollywood set with its authentic joy and mystery. I'm sure this was meant to relate to some of Jim Henson's own personal or spiritual experiences.

This is the best movie with Muppets by a long shot. If you or anyone else was wondering why the Muppets were so popular back in the 70s, considering how poor the movies have been for the last few decades, I think this film has at least aged well enough to provide a clue.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've Seen The Beginning Of The Muppet Movie, But Just The Half. Because I Only Watched It At Mrs Kelly's Friend's House. The Songs Were The Best And The Muppets Were So Hilarious. They Learn That If They Believe In The End Of The Rainbow, Anyone Can Make It, No Matter How Small, No Matter How Green(Which Was Included In The Trailer).

Kermit Is My Favorite Protagonist(Which Means It Describes The Main Character) And So Are The Other Muppets. Mel Brooks Was Amazing When He Played Professor Max Krassman. The Scene Where Miss Piggy Saves Kermit By Doing Kung Fu On Those Guys. It Was So Cool.

The Muppet Movie Is The Best Jim Henson Film With The Most Hilarious Characters And People Will Cherish For His Successful Film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first feature-length adventure of Jim Henson's beloved muppet characters is a very competent musical comedy vehicle as Kermit The Frog leaves his carefree, swampy surroundings for the bright lights (egged on by stranded Hollywood agent Dom DeLuise who overheard him singing); on the way, he meets Fozzie Bear (a pitiful stand-up comedian at James Coburn's El Sleazo Caf\u00e9 who has Telly Savalas for a bouncer and Madeline Kahn a patron!), the piano-playing dog Rowlf, bestial drummer Animal and his laid-back, funky band, egomaniacal beauty queen Miss Piggy (in a ceremony presided over by Elliott Gould and Edgar Bergen), etc. All the while, Kermit et al are pursued by frogleg burger magnate Charles Durning and reluctant acolyte Austin Pendleton, sold cars, ice cream and balloons to by, respectively, Milton Berle, Bob Hope and Richard Pryor, served food by insolent waiter Steve Martin, nearly brainwashed by mad German scientist Mel Brooks and, finally, land an audition in the offices of movie mogul Orson Welles (who has Cloris Leachman for a secretary)! The pleasant song score comes courtesy of Paul Williams who also makes an appearance as the resident pianist at El Sleazo's. For the record, I have recently acquired four of the subsequent Muppet movies and should be watching them in the weeks to come when their turn falls due.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed THE MUPPET MOVIE very much. It was the first of the Muppet movies and is by far the best because it's so creative and fresh. With later films, the ideas just didn't seem quite so original. But here, we get to see Kermit and Miss Piggy riding bikes (an incredibly difficult scene), an excellent ensemble cast and just a lot of fun. I loved every minute the Muppets were performing and I would have rated the film a lot higher except for one serious problem. In this and most subsequent Muppet films, some powers that be felt there was a need to include lots of non-Muppets--in particular, many, many cameos by stars. Some worked fine (such as Charles Durning's) but many just seemed irrelevant and slowed the picture to a grinding halt. Probably the worst of them was with Edgar Bergan. Yes, he was an amazing man who inspired Jim Henson and the rest of his crew, but the tiny scene he's in just wasn't needed nor were most of the cameos. Still, despite this big complaint, it's a great film for the entire family--from the kids to even the most demanding adults.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A delight from start to finish.

If you don't like the Muppets, then I just have to feel sorry for you. This terrific film doesn't simply cash in on the Muppets' popularity -- it's a well-conceived and well-written film in its own right. It's got great songs, and it has that thread of wistful melancholy that was always present in Jim Henson's creations and which is most personified in the character of Kermit the Frog. I always responded to this as a kid, and it's what makes the Muppets still enjoyable to me as an adult when other material aimed at children drives me crazy.

A huge cast of big names appearing in cameos makes this film feel like a kiddie-sized version of \"Around the World in 80 Days,\" except that it's about 80 times better.

Grade: A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Why are there so many songs about rainbows, and what's on the other side?\" Kermit poses this relatively simple double interrogative near the beginning of \"The Muppet Movie\" while singing his signature song, \"The Rainbow Connection.\" As time goes by, the question and the movie only gain profundity.

I'm going to forgo the review of this movie as a children's comedy, but look at it instead as a classic for every generation to love with serious ideals and a heartwarming message that gains more warmth with each passing year.

As the milestones in my own life come creeping up on me, I hear more and more the evocative strains of that elementary ditty, and realize that it can fit the soundtrack to anyone's life, because we all dream. And that is what this movie is about. It's not just a bunch of puppets-- it's a bunch of puppets having the strength to pursue their dreams, which is a good lesson for everyone.

And while the humor and mirth of the film always feel good, they're not a fair judge of the movie. Only \"The Rainbow Connection\" and the powerful emotions it will realize. And it all fits in: \"Rainbow Connection\" *is* the Muppet Movie, and vice versa. It's existentialism meets children's entertainment-- there's no simpler way to describe it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Muppet movie is an instant classic. I remember the opening scene with the bird's eye view of the swamp and Kermit starting into (in my opinion) the most loved song in the history of songs. At this point my mom would always sing along with Kermit.

Watching this title as a young adult it makes me smile. I can still sing along to my heart's desire. Like many Muppet films there are in jokes for adults that are( In my opinion) still funny today. My favorite line of all time is actually from this film, it's the last line spoken by my green, goggle eyed hero Kermit \"Life's like a movie , Write your own ending\". That's what I intend to do! Thank you Jim Henson.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie as a teenager when it came out in theaters, way back when. Seeing it again, nearly 30 years later, I was surprised at how well it has held up. The gags are still funny, the interaction between characters works great, and the cameos come off better than ever. (Steve Martin's has to be the best one.)

My kids (9, 11, and 14) all loved it, and the music is good enough that they are still humming the tunes many days later.

I would suggest that before seeing the movie, you should view at least a half-dozen episodes of the Muppet Show, to get a sense of the back-story behind the characters, otherwise the movie won't make all that much sense.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Looking back on Jim Henson's works years after his death is like taking a look back into another time. For unlike most so-called creative types attempting to sell to, or worse yet cynically exploit, children nowadays, Jim never seemed to really forget what it was like to be a child. And if there ever was a moment in which he demonstrated this, Labyrinth aside, it is 1979's Muppet Movie. Filmed as an allegorical story about how Henson came to work in children's television as a puppeteer and ended up with a half-hour show of his own on primetime television, The Muppet Movie ends up an affirmation of everything more progressive, understanding sorts would say to children who did not quite meet the expected norm during the 1980s. And as we enjoy the fruits of an era in which we are gagged and bound from speaking about anything lest someone might get offended, the open celebration of difference or diversity that formed a large part of The Muppet Show is on offer here. I have said it in other comments, but I must say it here. A great light in the world went out the day Jim Henson died.

The Muppet Movie begins with its cast sitting down to see the premiere of what were about to see for the next eighty or so minutes. In short, precise strokes, we are introduced to the major players as well as some of the minors. And when the story proper begins, boy are we given a great song to bring us into the moment. The Rainbow Connection painted both a beautiful and sad image of what the Muppets, especially Kermit, were. These were not just a bunch of felt puppets with singular personalities who combined to put on a show. They were living things based upon a part of all of us, only writ so much more boldly than we are used to. As each Muppet was introduced to us in turn, we saw another reflection of part of ourselves, and of course the children in the audience would respond differently to each character. Hence, everyone had a favourite. When Animal appeared behind a drum kit and attempted to eat a cymbal, I knew I had found one of mine. Nowadays, I am more of a Swedish Chef fan, but what the hey.

Complementing the characters was a string of musical numbers that further developed their motivations and personalities. Can You Picture That? shared an insight into Dr. Teeth and his band as well as the creative soul of Henson. But the most relevant song to me was Gonzo's number, asking what he is and where he came from. Many of us would spend a lifetime gazing into the stars and, like Gonzo, saying we knew we would be going back there someday. Not that all the songs were so deadly serious, of course. Fozzy and Kermit share a number after they decide to combine their talent (or lack thereof) and hit the road. If any evidence were required that present-day \"musicians\" have lost the ability to use the pop structure to create something listenable, this number would be it. Never before, and never again, would the group dynamic of a cast and the music so perfectly complement one another. With the puppeteers and voice actors so perfectly on top of their game, the human cast had a lot to live up to.

Which makes it all the more amazing that the human element also lived up to their end of the deal. Cameos literally pepper the film, with everyone from Steve Martin to Telly Savalas popping in to offer their support. Even Richard Pryor, the last man one would expect to see in a film about the Muppets, appears to set up a hilarious moment. Mel Brooks' cameo is just as disturbing to me as an adult as it was when I was a small boy, but I suspect that is because Henson knew why I would find it disturbing now. The big acting strength, though, comes from Charles Durning, who as Doc Hopper embodies everything both Henson and his audience determined to resist. At every junction, Hopper comes to either offer Kermit the chance to sell out and betray his own kind. Or perhaps offer stops being the right word when Hopper's attempts to ensure Kermit's compliance become progressively more forceful and violent. The whole thing is one big metaphor for how every artist has his heart broken by the world.

Of course, Animal also shows up to remind us that just because our friends are not sweet and cuddly does not make them any less of a friend. In point of fact, Animal turns out to be the best friend that Kermit has in that moment. And that has been the core message of every good show or film Henson has been involved in ever since. That shunning or dismissing others simply because of linguistic or cosmetic differences could literally be the worst mistake one ever makes. There can be little doubt that in today's world where a moron in a purple suit can tell my sons they are not good if they do not have good feelings for fifteen seasons and still not come under serious investigation by child welfare authorities, Henson's creature workshop could never have got off the ground. To misquote the album title, daring to be stupid is one thing, but enforcing the choice upon others is another matter. The Muppet Movie demonstrates how Henson dared to ask us all to think, both inside and outside of the proverbial box. There will never be another entirely like him, but he never would want us to stop trying.

Therefore, The Muppet Movie is the epitome of a ten out of ten film. If we were to send a film out into the cosmos to prove to intelligent life that we are worth more than being obliterated, this would be it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As Muppet movies go, this is easily and clearly the best. It features loads of cameos by big named comedic stars of the age, a solid script, and some great Disneyesque songs, and blends them together in a culmination of the best display of Henson's talent. The story is basic, and the jokes are many-leveled in order to amuse both the adults and the kids to which this was marketed, without exposing them to ideologies their parents may not find desirable.

This is simply fun, but it is also a well made, well written, beautifully endearing classic.

It rates an 8.9\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a movie that will brighten up your day, for sure. Kermit the Frog, is just an ordinary frog in his swamp, when a talent agent stops by and tells him that Hollywood is looking for frogs to be in movie (lol). On the way, Kermit meets Fozzie Bear, Miss Piggy, Gonzo and his chicken Camilla, Rowlf, The Electric Mayhem, Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker. But also trailing Kermit is the proprietor of a restaurant chain, Doc Hoppers French Fried Frog Legs. All things considered though, Kermit and the Muppets make it to Hollywood.

This movie is recommended for everyone, young and old.

It has some wonderful musical numbers, like \"The Rainbow Connection, \"I'm Going to go Back There Someday,\" and \"Movin' Right Along.\" The Muppets also use many forms of transportation in this movie. Kermit rides a bike, Fozzie drives a Studebaker, and another car, Gonzo takes flight with a bundle of helium balloons, (which is one of my favorite moments by the way ;) ), and Kermit and the rest of the Muppets finally go the rest of the way by the Electric Mayhem's bus (Dr. Teeth, Floyd, Janice, Scooter, and Animal); who meet up with them in the desert after Fozzie's car breaks down.

Even some Sesame Street Muppets make cameo appearances (i.e. Big Bird is walking along on the road, on the way to NYC to break into public television). The end is also a very heartwarming moment. Every single Muppet created is in the final scene, along with a final \"Rainbow Connection\" reprise.

But those poor Muppets worked so hard on their movie set, then it all comes crashing down, and the camera explodes in a huge ball of sparks. You'd think everything is ruined and destroyed, But the rainbow comes shining through the roof at the end, and it all sums up the magic of this film, and you know everything will be all right.

Perfect 10\/10. Watch it, and you'll be enchanted by the fun and sadness of this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This wonderful movie captures so many elements of what makes a family comedy funny, entertaining, sweet and memorable, it's difficult to decide where to start.

From the opening number, \"Rainbow Connection,\" Paul Williams's excellent score sung with gusto by Kermit D. Frog, which gives us a prologue of what the whole adventure is about, throughout the story, this is one fun movie.

Essentially, it's a road trip movie, where Kermit travels cross-country with a dream of pursuing a \"rich and famous contract\" to entertain. Along the way, our green hero meets a series of other aspiring actors, comedians, singers, and musicians, who coincidentally, are muppets like Kermit himself. Is this how the Muppets really started? \"Approximately how it happened,\" Kermit tells us.

Not since \"It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World\" has the cameo formula been used so prolifically and successfully. The aspiring stars encounter many recognizable faces during their Odyssey; some just blink across the screen, but others have very memorable cameos. Steve Martin's amusing bit as a rude waiter is probably the best. Puppeteer Jim Henson's nod to his inspiration, Edgar Bergen, is especially touching.

Anyone who ever watched the Muppets TV show will get to see all of their favorite characters, they're all here. The puppetry work is magnificent; look especially for Kermit riding a bicycle (how dey do dat???) In-jokes and references to old movies are everywhere, but the best one-liners are reserved for Kermit himself. An example: when the crooks are terrorizing Kermit and Piggy, she affectionately says to her short, green, and handsome beau, \"I wouldn't give up this evening together for anything, would you?\" \"Uhhh, make me an offer....\" I also love the gunfight at the OK Corral scene: brilliantly absurd silliness.

Gotta get \"Movin' right along\" now, but to summarize: a good natured movie that can be enjoyed by anyone, regardless of age or movie genre taste. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, before I start my review, I just read every review for 'The Muppet Movie' here and I can't believe that someone could give a negative review to a movie like this. (Fortunately there was only one.) I mean, I can understand how someone may not like 'Star Wars' due to the whole Sci-Fi genre, but to not like a movie starring some of the most lovable puppets in the history of mankind is almost sad.

Okay, I will step off my soapbox now and review this movie.

'The Muppet Movie' came out when I was seven. All of my friends wanted to see this as their birthday movie, so I think I saw it about four times in the first month in theaters.

As a child many things attracted me to this and all the other Muppet movies & TV shows. The singing was probably the main one. Most of the songs in 'The Muppet Movie' are classics. From \"Rainbow Connection\" to \"I'm Going to Go Back There Someday\", they're entertaining and thought-provoking.

As an adult I see 'The Muppet Movie' in almost a whole different light. Yes, the things that thrilled me about it as a kid are still there, but it's the little jokes and such that are just plain hilarious.

I mean, when you think about it, Jim Henson is a sick man.

Kermit is a frog and that is in love with a sweet pig that wears purple gloves and could karate chop you into two pieces. Fozzie is a stand-up comedian bear. Gonzo is a 'whatever' that is infatuated with chickens. Then you have two old guys that heckle, a piano-playing dog, a rock band with a maniac drummer, a Swedish chef that you can't understand and a number of other characters that are just plain eccentric.

Yet, for these reasons and more, Henson has entertained millions of children and adults, giving us all something special to watch and remember him by.

'The Muppet Movie' will always remain in my heart for many reasons, but I think the biggest one is because it's a movie, unlike a lot of recent children's movies, that I feel comfortable to have my kids watch. Plus, I don't get bored out of my mind with jokes that are dumbed down to my kids' level.

It's a great movie that is sure to be remembered forever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Quality entertainment all around. The spectacle of Kermit on his bicycle is one thats as memorable as ANY in cinema history. There's just not a bad thing to be said. Tons of muppets, great cameos, slapstick, puns, whatever you want, its here. The lovers, the dreamers, and me INDEED.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I give it 8 out of 10 because it is a cult classic. Also it is directed by legendary sasquatch hunter Robert W Morgan who also plays the part of Jarvis in the film. In listening to recent blogtalkradio show called the AARF show(Robert Morgan is a co-host)he tells that because it has become such a cult classic and does well at movie conventions and such,there are plans to maybe do a sequel to this film. I think he said that two of the original stars have signed on and he hopes to have a few more. Robert is a good man and I hope it does well. He has devoted 50+ years of tireless work as a Sassquatch Researcher(which is also one of my interests)and author. Check out his show on the paranormal and maybe look for Blood Stalkers II sometime in the near future.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a pretty obscure, dumb horror movie set in the 1970s Everglades. It is really stupid and lame for the first half, then it actually starts to get good for the last half. There is a scene with the hero running to save his friends interspersed with shots of a church group singing, I don't know. It is mesmerizing. I was impressed with the night time scenes, because it actually looked like night, unlike most low budget horror films where it still looks like daytime. I feel like the director was really talented but was working with a miniscule budget and a tough schedule. There are a few scenes towards the end, the one mentioned above and also the end credits that are extremely cool. This movie could have been a genuine classic if it left its Scooby Doo conventions behind and went straight for the throat. I was surprised at how good this movie turned out to be. I couldn't take my eyes off of it, and I had to ask myself \"why?\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm pleased that this was the work of foreign cinematographers because it can't be accused of unfair bias. With absolutely no cause, the Jacksonville cops rush to judgment in this case and pick the first black suspect to accuse of the murder of a white, foreign tourist. They picked a 15 yr. old kid who is just about as close to a saint as you could randomly find and then make fools of themselves trying to pin an unlikely case against him. In addition to the unfairness resulting from the blatant prejudice there is the matter of 6 months of unjust imprisonment of a completely innocent young black teenager. It makes one question whether as a society we should compensate those who are charged, imprisoned and subsequently found innocent. This docudrama is well produced, professionally recorded and presented in a captivating package from which you won't want to take a 1 minute break. If you care about social justice, don't miss this one. It certainly deserved its Oscar.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely adored this movie. For me, the best reason to see it is how stark a contrast it is from legal dramas like \"Boston Legal\" or \"Ally McBeal\" or even \"LA Law.\" This is REALITY. The law is not BS, won in some closing argument or through some ridiculous defense you pull out of your butt, like the \"Chewbacca defense\" on South Park.) This is a real travesty of justice, the legal system gone horribly wrong, and the work by GOOD lawyers - not the shyster stereotype, who use all of their skills to right it. It will do more for restoring your faith in humanity than any Frank Capra movie or TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. And most importantly, I wept. During the film, during the featurette included at the end of the DVD - it's amazing. Wonderful film; wonderfully made. Thank God the filmmakers made it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You know, before seeing this film I had little sympathy for those caught up in criminal cases. I mean if they were arrested and charged, \"they must have been guilty\" I reasoned?

I formed this opinion over some years. You see a good friend of mine once worked as a detective in some of the more seedy areas of Sydney. He frequently complained that his policing efforts were wasted due to 'bleeding heart' lawyers and magistrates. He would \"bang the crooks up in the morning and they would be \"back on the street by noon\". It took its toll... they wore him down. He quit.

He has argued since, not unreasonably I thought, that creative evidence gathering, to keep the baddies \"where they belong\", was... well... \"acceptable\".

My arguments about the rights of innocent people weren't valid he claimed. \"What are the chances that you will ever be arrested and charged with a serious crime\"? he would argue. And, being a law abiding citizen, the weight of his argument convinced me he was right. The chances of me, or any of my family or friends, being charged with murder or a serious offense were zero to none I thought.

Hmmmmm. Well as mentioned earlier, seeing this wonderfully enlightening documentary changed all that.

I'm sending him a copy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't need to say much about how good this documentary is--it's truly an amazing piece of true narrative. The story is simple enough: a white senior citizen tourist is murdered by a young black man in Florida, and the boy who is arrested is mistreated and put on trial with only the public defender and his family on his side. It's very enthralling, and the public defender is a joy to watch in all his human ways--you can't help but pull for the triumph of justice, and the ending fulfills more than could be expected of a true story.

It's a shame more people haven't seen this documentary, but hopefully you will find a way to watch it. For those interested in race relations in the United States, and the actual workings of law enforcement and the legal process, it's well worth your time and effort to find this documentary. I give it a 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I happened to leave HBO on last night following Six Feet Under. What ran next has left me speechless. What an incredible piece of work. I don't just recommend this, I MANDATE that you see this. It's better than anything Hollywood could ever ruin. I just hope they never get their hands on it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a fascinating documentary about a 15 year old black lad who is accused of murdering a tourist in Florida and the subsiquent court case that follows. What this film shows is how corrupt the American police system is and how easy it can really be to convict an innocent man and how a senile old fool who thinks one black man looks very much like another and sod it if he rots in jail because i said he was the man who murdered my wife.The star is the defence lawyer who is brilliant at not only his job in court but he also did he what the police should have done all along. Fascinating stuff. 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw the movie, through Netflix. I was intrigued by the way the movie was described, but in the end, it was better. I was moved in many different directions while watching this movie. I was filled with hurt, hate, angry, bitterness,pain and finally relief. To look at the young man accused, would break your heart, and convince you that they had the wrong person. The smugness of the police, makes you cring, because just as the Rodney King Beating brought to light, the brutality of the police, this movie brings forth the total lack of moral fiber in these police. And the fact that they beat this boy, and got away with it, only infuriates you more.

But, I have to tell you, I fell in love with the attorney, Mc Guinness. One of my favorite lines, when he was telling us what an a**hole on of the cops was... The cop told him, to go on, keep sucking on that cancer stick. Mc Guinness told the cop... 'I always have a cigarette before sex...' I was letting him know I was going to screw him\"

I have a new respect for some of the law in this country.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie with my mother. She is 81 yrs.old and was raised to be a bigot. She even acknowledges this. I don't think she really understood what was happening, she had already made up her mind that the kid was guilty. Scary. I felt for this child and his family. What torture they went through and remained faithful. That is true faith. Back to the movie. I was disgusted by the police force and their ineptitude. I am so glad that this public defender was chosen to work this case. It was very fortunate for this family that they had a person that cared enough to see through the crap that was handed to him. I could tell when one the cops was lying. He would not look the defender in the eyes. His eyes moved to the side when he answered the questions. It is unfortunate that a black person has to be punished because of the color of his skin. I read the book about the black man being dragged behind a truck by three white men. They were finally found guilty after many years. I can't remember the title, but it was the same premise. Whites doing whatever they want with blacks. I am sure the child in the movie will be traumatized for a long time, if not forever. I pointed out to my mother that most serial killers and pedophiles are white. No comment from her. I want to commend the director and producer of this film. I feel the exposure they gave to this blatant injustice was a necessary project. I am an avid viewer of indy films. I feel that they are well written and have substance. I am pleased that I happened to grab this movie on the shelf. I felt compelled to write a comment because of how strongly I feel about the film and the prejudice that continues to exist in our modern society.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"with that, carry the same dark weaknesses we all unfortunately possess: lying, deception, laziness, the list goes on.

However, as an American, I was shocked to see that corruption and racism exist in today's police force as is reflected with the Duval County Sheriff Department's horrible detective and police work with the murder of a white female tourist and a 15-year old accused black youth. I shook my head in shame that detectives were protected from their abusive work while a young man's LIFE hung in the crooked balance of justice.

However, there is also a story of hope with our judicial system and how poorly-paid public defenders stuck by their guns (irony intended) and forced the truth from the detectives. I wanted to fly down to Florida and tell anybody with influence what a great public defender team they have in Duval County; those lawyers care about the \"little\" man and, most importantly, for justice.

The other story line is about faith and family. Praises to the accused's family and their strong Christian (submit any dedicated religion) beliefs and wonderful family values. I hope they win their lawsuit against the Duval County Sheriff's Department.

Bravo for justice!!! Bravo for the little guy!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this on HBO because it won the Oscar a week earlier. It compares favorably with fictional courtroom dramas.

The story is of a 15-year-old black kid placed on trial for the Jacksonville, FL, murder of an elderly white woman based almost solely on the identification by the victim's husband and on a confession that the defense contends was coerced.

About half the footage is of the trial; it's supplemented with footage of the defense lawyers (two public defenders) explaining their case, interviewing witnesses, and visiting key locations. This is edited with a minimum of needless repetition, and placed in logical order. The camera work is pretty solid. And there's a mildly surprising epilogue.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You think the police are always right.

You believe that \"eye-witnesses\" are always right.

You believe the prosecutors will not take a case to court if lazy police have failed to perform 98% of a basic investigation.

You believe a U.S. city might have a \"few bad apples\" in law enforcement, but that the \"good cops\" will quickly nip those who systematically engage in evil-for-evil's sake in the bud.

You believe that the possibility of an ex-football lineman being instated as a detective solely because his dad is the county sheriff, and being allowed to beat \"confessions\" out of randomly-selected teenagers with absolutely no fear of negative consequences to himself could happen in the America of the 1930s, but not today.

You believe a judge will NOT send a case to the jury if anyone with a brain in their head can see the defendant is a totally random passer-by nabbed by the police because it was hot, and they did not feel like working that day.

You believe that all the innocent people imprisoned six months here or 20 years there are \"exceptions to the rule,\" and an injustice like this could NEVER involve your family member, someone in the middle class, or someone like YOU.

You think that you are aware of every terrible, indisputable, 100% proved outrage of the last 10 years in America--yet you haven't seen this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very good film. Very good documentary.

Very good to see those vermin detectives humiliated and found out as the bigoted, narcissistic, heartless swines their one eyed parents, community and environment raised them as.

I tip my lid to Pat McGuinness. Can we get this decent human being on some kind of 911 commission or investigation? We need his integrity, endurance, intelligence, clarity and spirit fighting the rigged game that is world politics and big business.

All the animals come out at night - whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets. Pat McGuinness should be the first drops of that real rain. The people who control this earth are animals. They need to be drowned.

I'm just in shock. Walking the night is scary business. The inhuman howling and cackling is of detectives, in Murder On A Sunday Morning. In Pat McGuinness' blazing spotlight, they look horribly caught, horribly guilty, and ready for a just and horrible drowning.

It is exceptionally satisfying, in a world in which the punters play a rigged game, to see justice done and to see every narcissistic felon drown like the pathetic human rats they are.

How does it feel you railroading, abominable, snaky fingers of the law? How does it feel to have your rigged prosecution, your rigged confession, your rigged detective work found out for what it really was? How does it feel?

I hope it twists like a knife you miserable, one eyed nothings.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anyone that is looking for an episode of \"Law and Order\" or \"CSI\" would have to look elsewhere as the most basic elements of police or forensics work were totally ignored in this case.

A murder took place, and all the police did was to grab a 15-year-old boy off the street and take him to the only witness - a 65-year-old man - and say is this the guy who did it? Sure, the old man thought that the kid in the back of the police car had to be guilty. never mind that he looked nothing like the real killer and was dressed completely differently. He must have shrunk, reversed his age by 5-10 years and changed clothes.

The police made absolutely no effort - and they admitted it! The did no forensics on any of the evidence, they questioned no other witnesses, and they beat a confession out of a 15-year-old.

The saddest thing about this compelling look at the criminal justice system is that it occurred right down the road in Jacksonville, Florida. Let everyone now start talking about \"Southern justice.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Art imitates life imitates art. Atticus Finch is reincarnated into the D.A. in this tragic and suspenseful gripping documentary that plays more like a who-done-it and how did it happen. The authenticity and sometimes reluctant honesty of the individuals make this a compelling story in many layers. Although racism is one of the themes there are other elements such as work ethic, integrity, and coping with grief that have drawn me back to view and review this film again and again. The music is driving but not obtrusive; the pacing and visuals are such that there is no mistaking the fact that these are real people going through an authentic experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an extraordinary film. As a courtroom drama, it's compelling, as an indictment on the American justice system, it's frightening. For Brenton Butler the consequences of this system could be devastating. This film highlights the fundamental flaws of the legal process, that it's not about discovering guilt or innocence, but rather, is about who presents better in court. In truth, the implications of this case reach beyond the possibility of an innocent man being found guilty, or a guilty man being free. Every citizen has a right to justice, whether a perpetrator or a victim. But do they get it? The film is well paced, understated and one of the best courtroom documentaries I've seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie last night on HBO & didn't expect to get hooked - I usually fall asleep when I watch HBO. But it happened & you will too. It's a tragic documentary (2002 Oscar winner) about a murder of an elderly female tourist in Jacksonville, Florida and subsequent investigation, arrest, & trial of a 15 year old boy.

Watch this movie today & get a feel for how we have progressed as a society. This film was most deserving of an esteemed Oscar - you'll be moved to tears.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A MUST SEE documentary.-----This movie had so many things to consider while watching it. It was a great documentary of a trial of a 15 year old black kid named Brenton Butler. He accused of killing a white tourist in Florida. It shows how the police took statements from the husband of the dead woman of the description of the man that killed his wife. The husband seemed to want to change some things to merge with what the police said the young man was wearing. The police little to investigate the crime. Brenton's lawyer Patrick McGuinness is meticulous in getting information to help his client. He tells the viewers what he thinks and the strategy he will use on the police to show their incomplete investigation and beatings against his young client to get him to confess. The camera goes with McGuinness to where Brenton was questioned. McGuinness also takes pictures of the room and how the audio is monitored. He questions a policeman on the stand and ask what the heard Brenton say to one of the investigators and he challenges their own words. McGuinness investigates with Ann Finnell each place the police should have gone and the things they should have done but did not. The movie shows the Butlers as a loving Christian family who have faith in their son's innocence and faith that God will set Brenton free. They visit him in jail and pray with him there to encourage him. There are scenes of group prayer for Brenton, the lawyers, the Judge and everyone involved in this case. I am a white and I was surprised to see how blacks in high police positions treat other blacks. It was very disappointing to see black and white police stick together when they think they got their man. Police have a hard job and I believe most of them are honorable not like the ones in this movie. I think this is a great movie for anyone involved in the Judicial system including Judges, police and lawyers and even potential jurors to watch this movie and learn from it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wayne Wang's direction may be the ingredient which made this film much more impressive to me than \"Slums of Beverly Hills\", which covers remarkably similar ground. The interplay between Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman is riveting. Real chemistry there. This film succeeded in bringing me inside the dysfunctional life of these two women without dragging me down into depressed frustration. Susan Sarandon's character hammers at all the nerves which a narcissistic parent is capable of touching in an insecure adolescent. She amazingly manages to do this without coming across as floridly insane or intentionally sadistic. And, Natalie Portman deflects each attack on her character's ego with the resigned grace of an intelligent codependent child, untainted by the smug cynicism of the Natasha Lyonne character in \"Slums of Beverly Hills\". Portman's character is an adolescent with dignity under stress, an unusual creature in modern films. The film reaches a very satisfying resolution without trying too hard. I highly recommend this film to the viewer who wants to be challenged and entertained.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman play Adele and Ann August, a single mother who's the working definition of the word \"dreamer\" and her solemn, pragmatic daughter. Adele, wanting to make a fresh start in a big city, moves them from Wisconsin to California.

Decent, if not exceptional or particularly memorable, with some serious and sad moments. It pushes some emotional buttons, that's for sure. Best thing it offers is a solid cast, and Sarandon and Portman are quite good in the leads - even if their characters are one-dimensional at times.

Could be better, could be worse.

I gave this one seven out of ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was a new direction for Natalie Portman. A much more adult role, though she comes to it from the traces of a child in the movie itself. Ann,(Portman) and Susan Sarandon, who plays her newly divorced mother, Adele, travel from a small town in the middle of nowhere to Beverly Hills. There these tortured souls try to come to terms with their new life and their new relationship as Portman's character grows up. Unknowingly at first to Adele, she grows up and becomes a better mother for it.

Ann sees her mother telling her she wants to be an actress, or so she thinks. Adele uses that crutch every time there are problems in their lives. We see their struggle as mother and daughter come to terms between themselves and with being alone, having left their old lives behind.

The acting is top notch from both of them. They seemingly become mother and daughter before your eyes. You can almost feel there is a bond there beyond the actual movie.

Though this movie really doesn't take us to any new ground in these types of films, the fact that the acting is well done, and the story isn't too flawed, let's me recommend it.

I will say however, it will probably go away soon, I don't believe it can have the staying power needed for a huge Christmas season of movies starting in a week or so. See it now before this happens if you like either of these actresses.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I have not much to say about this film except that it was a truly wonderful film. Natalie Portman is absolutely fantastic as the daughter in this lovely mother-daughter relationship film.

Beautiful film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The interaction between Portman and Sarandon was quite interesting, and I was really sold on the mother-daughter relationship. It is a family story that isn't dulled down by frills and special effects; a story of how it really is. I couldn't help but give of a sigh at the end of this movie for alas it is a well told bittersweet tale of growing up and relating with family and friends. The acting was quite exquisite and I hope we'll be seeing both Portman and Sarandon in familiar roles down the road...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a freshman in college, this movie reminded me of my relationship with my mom. Of course, my situation doesn't parrallel with Natalie Portman and Surandon's situation; but my mom and I have grown up with the typical mother and daughter fights. There is always the mother telling you what to do, or not being the kind of mother you want to be. I was balling my eyes at the end of this movie. Surandon's reaction of her daughter going to the East coast, miles away, after all they've been through reminded me of how I felt, being from a small city in the West coast, going to New York.

The movie is meant for women who have children that are now all grown up. It is very touching, I was moved by the movie. Every feeling out of the characters in this movie was utterly real, you didn't get any phony sentimentality. I was sitting through the credits at the screening of this movie, alone, wishing my mother was sitting next to me so I could hug her and thank her for everything. This movie is a bit corny of course, but everything is trully momentous. Its all about what a mom can learn from her child; and what a child learns from her mother. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Natile Portman and Susan Sarandon play off of each other like a symphony in this coming of age story about a young girl, who is sentenced to life as the daughter of one of the nuttest women you will ever encounter. Sarandon has this ability, call it talent if you will, to play some of the most off-beat characters and bring their humanity to forefront of any film she makes. As the mother of this obviously brilliant and muture beyond her years young girl, Sarandon alternates between being the mom and being the child with the ease of a ballet dancer. More importantly she does it with strength and flare without stomping all over Portman's portrayal of the daughter. The question is always asked when we deconstruct the film plot, who changes? This film is certainly about the daughter, but if you look close at the dreams and sacrifices that Mom makes you come to understand that she changes in step with her daughter. I am willing to bet this makes all of us in the audience change also. The hallmark of fine drama","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My one-line summary hints that this is not a good film, but this is not true. I did enjoy the movie, but was probably expecting too much.

Adele, who is solidly portrayed by Susan Sarandon, did not come off as a very likable character. She is flighty and irresponsible to what would be an unforgivable degree were it not for the tremendous love she has for her daughter. This is the one thing she knows how to do without fail. Adele's daughter, Anna, is a sad girl who is so busy making up for her mother's shortcomings that she does not seem to be only 14-17 years old. This, of course, makes Natalie Portman the perfect choice to play Anna since she never seems to be 14- 17 years old either. Portman pulls this role off with such ease that you almost forget that she has not been making movies for 20 years. Yet, even with the two solid leads, Wayne Wang never seems to quite draw the audience in as he did with The Joy Luck Luck and even more so with Smoke. Though I have not read the book, the film feels as if it has made necessary changes to the story to bring it to the big screen, changes which may drain the emotional pungency of the story. I enjoyed the film for the fun of watching two wonderful actresses do their work, but I never got lost in the experience and I never related to their plight.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was able to see \"Anywhere But Here\" last night as a free sneak preview. I absolutely LOVED the film! I was drawn to it because of the realistic portrayal of a mother\/daughter relationship...there was definitely a connection between Adele a and Ann. I think that speaks volumes of the outstanding performances of both Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman. Sarandon was just the right actress to portray Adele and after leaving the theater I could not think of another actress in the role. Portman was also excellent as Ann. She brought a sense of maturity and intelligence to the role that I don't think any other teenage actress could. I think it would the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences should give credit where it is due and nominate both Sarandon and Portman for Awards in the \"Actress\" and \"Supporting Actress\" categories. It would be a shame if they were overlooked.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anne (Natalie Portman) tells us about how much she hates her mother, Adele (Susane Sarandon). That's how the movie begins. Adele decided that her and her daughter were moving to California without asking anyone and leaving her husband without any reason. The story is about the relationship between the mother and the daughter. It's really deep and touching, thanks to the great work of the actresses. Natalie was nominated to a Golden Globe for that role. She is one of the most talented actresses I ever saw, and so is Sarandon. They really look like mother daughter. The soundtrack is also great. The movie is incredible. *10 out of 10*","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The main attraction of Anywhere but Here is the superb performance of Natalie Portman. She gave her rather thankless character a lot of much-appreciated emotional depth. Susan Sarandon, a fine actress, is suitably sincere as the mother figure. I thought the chemistry between the two stars was believable, a chemistry that could have been developed more with a more involving script. I am not saying the script was bad in any way, I am just saying it seemed underdeveloped at times. I don't think it was the script writer's fault. The film did suffer from being overlong, and became sometimes unfocused in the longer scenes. The film does look beautiful, with some good direction and excellent performances. All in all, watchable certainly, but maybe more for an older audience. 7\/10 Bethany Cox.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is about a single mother who is happy go lucky to the point that she is almost irresponsible, and her sensible teenage daughter who is undergoing adolescent turmoils.

\"Anywhere But Here\" is an engaging film from beginning to the end. Both Ann and Adele are described well right at the start, so we get to know how different their personalities are. Clashes inevitably ensue, and they are engagingly presented. I find myself so drawn to their state of minds and their circumstances. it is as if I am living their lives, feeling what they are feeling.

Susan Sarandon gives another excellent performance in \"Anywhere But Here\". She is charismatic, happy go lucky, hedonistic, warm and loving all at once. I have always liked Susan Sarandon, and I think she is grossly underrated.

\"Anywhere But Here\" is a captivating emotional journey.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought Anywhere But Here was a good movie.It stars two wonderful actresses, Susan Sarandon and Natlie Portman, which when I heard they were in a movie together I resist watching it.Overall, it was a pretty enjoyable movie.It had it's moments where I felt as if they tried to hard, and there was also some really overdone and worn-out material, but there wasn't anything in the movie that I absolutely hated.I even liked how they used the pop-up performance of the uncredited Thora Birch, and all the little happy\/sad moments are touching and effective.If you want to watch this movie, go ahead, because even though I don't recommend it, it's not something you should avoid, and a 5.9 rating seems unfair in my opinion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Regarded as another one of the recent over-the-top drama's brought upon us by Hollywood, this movie excels where others have totally failed(especially considering the most underrated performance in recent dramatic character portrayal by that of Natalie Portman), this film is almost unanimously driven by the chemistry that both Susan and Natalie share. They seem to be so natural during the movie that you would mistake them for a real family. They go through so many mother-daughter conflicts in the story its kind of hard not to pick up on their acting abilities. I feel that these two actress' talented performances picked up where the story was lacking and almost too familiar (full of cliche's) and really saved the suffering plot. I would recommend this movie mainly to those who like either of the two actresses or such over-the-top drama's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chick Flick? Of course.... Been done before? Many times.... Predictable? Yes..... Worth watching? You bet! I was delighted with Sarandon and Portman's portrayals of otherwise stock characters in a familiar story line. I am a great fan of mother\/daughter stories. What makes the difference between the good ones and the weak ones ARE the performances and the character development. Although this is not the BEST of its genre, I will buy it and watch it again. I felt the characters were believable and the acting was superior.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anywhere But Here is not exactly anything new, but the excellent performances by both of the main actresses made it worth watching. Sarandon and Portman are a mother and daughter who move from rural Wisconsin to sunny Beverly Hills, California, in search of a better life. The main conflict comes from the fact that Natalie would much rather have stayed in Wisconsin with all of her friends and family, and she felt that she was forced to go to California with her overbearing mother.

(spoilers) While it's true that the film as a whole is disappointingly predictable, Susan Sarandon and especially Natalie Portman give performances that are so good that they almost make the material seem new. Anywhere But Here doesn't cover any new ground, but it does have the rare quality of being able to take overused subject matter and make it fairly interesting again. Also seen in this movie is the most heartbreaking facial expression seen in years, seen on Natalie Portman's face when her mother drops her off on the side of the road and she watches the car fade into the distance. Particularly noteworthy is the ironic subplot about Natalie's mother pressing her to become an actress, as well as a very convincing performance from Shawn Hatosy as one of Natalie's very close cousins from back home. His death is a tragic clich\u00e9 almost always seen in movies like this one, but the rest of the film makes up for numerous weaknesses like this. Not great, but Anywhere But Here is definitely worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was impressed with this film because of the quality of the acting and the powerful message in the script. Susan Sarandon plays the part of a flighty, irrational and possessive mother, who constantly gives her daughter the message that they must stick together. She removes her daughter from a dysfunctional but loving family in Indiana to pursue an exciting acting career in Hollywood. The daughter is dubious, but at first she has no choice--- the bond with mother is pathologically strong.

In time the girl sees that the mother is off into flights of fantasy and does not have her feet on the ground. She sees her mother go head over heels for a handsome, seductive guy who loves 'em and leaves 'em. She sees that the mother doesn't get it. So how can she look to her mother for guidance?

The mother directs the girl to a drama try-out and sees the daughter act out the part of the mother in such a way that a shockingly painful mirror is held up to the fly-by-night mother. This causes a period of depression and the girl is horrified at the impact on the mother and is apologetic, but the lesson takes hold.

There is character-growth as the mother realizes her selfish claim on the daughter and eventually is persuaded to let the girl go. It is a touching scene and a valuable lesson, that parents, however emotionally dependent, have to let the child go and become her own separate person.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was laying in bed, flicking through the channels... and boy do I have channels... 500 of them. With over 70 movie channels, I probably watch a movie on cable, once or twice a month... DVD has spolied me.

Anyway, I'm flicking through and I come to this movie and because I see Natilie Portman, I take interest. 110 minutes later I am still interested. How could this be? When I first saw the previews to this movie in the theater I remember making fun of it. I never thought I'd watch it... nevermind like it.

The story is based on a book, and you can tell. The movie is very episodic, andit's not like the movie has a great plot, it just sucks you in. May-be its that performances that do it. I'm pretty sure in must have been.

This movie was good for no reason...

Peter's Movie Rating (out of 10): 7","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"it\u00b4s a movie to see on tv and only once.. i mean, it\u00b4s good, but it\u00b4s a little too lengthy and the plot is so well-known, it isn\u00b4t very original but it isn\u00b4t boring. the best thing of the movie are the performances, natalie portman and susan sarandon are great actress and in this movie they have done a great job. i give it a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Susan Sarandon. She made this movie for me. I've never appreciated her acting more than as I did in this movie. She really acted as though she were Adele August. I can appreciate actors and actresses who leave their individual persona and create a character who's truly believable.

Natalie Portman as Ann August helped create the ideal antagonist as their characters developed through the movie. The movie was about them so the other characters were peripheral.

I gave this movie an eight rating, but Susan received a ten from me because of her performance. As far as relationship movies go, Beaches and Terms of Endearment had a greater impact on me than this movie, but I highly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most families will recognise similarities between their own family and that created through brilliant acting by Natalie Portman and Susan Sarandon. Natalie creates an on screen image that justifies her as one of the best actresses in America and one worthy of a Golden Globe Nomination. The control of her emotions are so in tact that at any point in the movie she can tap into them and release an unforgettable scene. Susan is also amazing in this movie as yet again she chose a role that is so different to any other and carries it through with true professionalism.

Any Natalie fan would've seen the film based on her past successes, but you should also see it for the emotions that are released during the film. It is a truly humbling experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Since I am a fan of Natalie Portman, I had to see the movie. I enjoyed every minute of it. It plays out in a very sincere way. Throughout the whole movie at seemed as if Natalie was the mother and Susan was the mother. Susan's character kept making bad decisions and kept getting burned because of it.

I heard that there was supposed to be a love scene involving Natalie and some-guy (he's in Outside Providence) but Natalie would only accept the script if that scene was removed. And I think that is great. I think that a love scene would have ruined the tone of the film.

Natalie must have a knack for picking good movies to be in because I haven't seen her in a bad film yet. So, any movie that has Natalie Portman will no doubt be seen by me.

A good film. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Its the best movie I have seen in 2000, it has the beautiful and talented Natalie Portman in it. It has a great storyline, cast and soundtrack. I enjoyed it very much. 10 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being 15 myself I enjoyed this flick thouroughly!! I related to the character Ann August more than most would. My Mother isnt AS eccentric as Adele, but the feelings of lonliness is the same. This movie is perfect in the ating aspects, and Natalie's, and Susan's performances are so linked together that it's the best onscreen dual i have seen in years. Their chemistry brings the characters to life, they become real people! I would recommend this flick to anyone who is hoping to get away. Because there is genually alot of people out there who would wish to be \"Anywhere But Here\" including me! and if you can, see this movie with your best friend or your mother. Its the tears that blend everyone around you together more!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Adam Sandler's movies are my favorite comedies. The Silence of the Lambs is my favorite horror movie. The Matrix is my favorite sci-fi movie. Anywhere But Here is my favorite drama.

Perhaps the single most valuable asset that this movie has is it's acting.

Susan Sarandon is absolutely amazing. By the end of this movie I felt as if I knew her character better than I knew myself. She did a simply amazing job.

Natalie Portman also did a great job. I recently rented her first movie, Leon (1994), in which she played a 12 year old girl. I believe that she is a contradiction in terms; she was a good kid actress. Well, 5 years later she is still just as good an actress. In fact, she's much better.

Not only did Sarandon and Portman portray their characters well, but they also worked perfectly together. I mean, even now I can hardly believe that they are not actually mother and daughter in real life as well as in this movie.

This movie is about a 14 year old girl (Portman) and her restless mother (Sarandon) that leave their home town in Wisconsin for Beverly Hills.

At first Portman hates her mother for taking her away from her cousin and friends, and the two begin a very tumultuous relationship that goes up and down over the course of a couple years (usually down, might I add).

Although this explanation is a little vague, the plot can only be summarized vaguely. But when you see this movie you will see that the plot really is not so vague or weak, for it is actually very deep. What I am saying is that the plot is outlined weakly, but then they focus in on it to make it strong.

And it is very strong, but also the plot sequencing is great. And there are a few brilliant scenes that I hope will someday be seen as \"classic\".

I loved this movie. I laughed. I cried. And although, admittedly, there are a few loopholes, it's still a stellar movie and it really comes together in the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm sorry, but \"Star Wars Episode 1\" did not do any justice to Natalie Portman's talent (and undeniable cuteness). She was entirely underused as Queen Amidala, and when she was used, her makeup was frighteningly terrible. For \"Anywhere But Here,\" she sheds her god-awful makeup and she acts normally. And not only can she act good, she looks good doing it. I'm a bit older than she (she's only 18), and I have little or no chance of meeting her, but hey, a guy is allowed to dream, right?

Even though Susan Sarandon does take a good turn in this movie, the film belongs entirely to Portman. I've been a watcher of Portman's since \"Beautiful Girls\" (where she was younger, but just as cute). There's big things for her in the future - I can see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just came back from seeing this awesome movie!! I can relate to it so much...It reminded me when my sister had to go to college, we had to move from place to place, and my mom acts like Adele August! Boys might not like this movie since it brings tears to your eyes. One of the best real-life movies I've ever seen!! and Natalie Portman rules!! 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this movie tonight. Coming into it I thought it would be good because I like Natalie Portman alot and Susan Sarandon is a great actor too, but it was way better than I could have imagined. You come out of the movie feeling great. The acting was excellent, which is something that can be hard to come by lately. Natalie Portman is destined for great things and me being a college student at NYU, think that it is great that she is going to school instead of just being an actor. Anyways, back on subject, the movie keeps you interested the entire way through and I definitely think that everyone should go see it. I would give more details, but I don't want to give away the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely LOVED this movie! Since I don't want to give much away, it's basically about about a mother and a daughter and the life they have together. It's very heartwarming story, between the struggles they have. I also think Natalie and Susan have perfect chemistry throughout the entire film! This is definitely worth seeing! Two thumbs up, way up!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a fan of Saint Etienne and the City of London, I was very excited to see this movie on the list of the Vancouver International Film Festival. This movie has great shots, an absolutely excellent soundtrack and interesting insights into a 'not so well known' London.

The movie is held completely in 'dark' colours, which I personally don't like too much. Furthermore the narration was a little too British and the comments sometimes got a little flat. Other than that, there are some great comments by Londoners and excellent shots. FINISTERRE doesn't glorify London by showing all the great attractions of the city, but rather gives deep insights in what London is really like. From the East end to the vibrant centre with its music scene as well as the 'special little retreats' for Londoners.

All in all:

+Great Soundtrack +Nice shots +great insights

-Narration -Tiering to watch at times -Very dark picture

Worth watching! I give it a 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is about London and it's an amazing movie. it will be released on DVD in april 2003 and I will buy it when it gets out so If you have not seen it until then BUY IT. The music in the movie is even better (saint etienne) have done the soundtrack.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Never, ever, have I been as impressed by a film as this little piece about four groups of people, that faces a crisis, or many. In some ways a little like Short Cuts, but totally different, at the same time.

There are a heap of lead characters, whom we all learn to know very well as their stories unfold, and they are, as persons show their good and their bad sides, their weaknesses and their strengths, with lots of drama and laughter.

The closest equivalent in a US movie, I can think of, which then is far weaker in every respect, is the Royal Tenenbaums.

Four Shades of Brown, as the title would be in English, tells the story about a stressed out hotelier and his wife, and his elderly parents (who are traveling magicians); about the receptionist at an animal crematory and his family misadventures; about the members of a cooking course (who mostly talk about their sorry lives) and fourthly about the funeral for a womanizing trotter jockey, who tries to continue orchestrating the family from beyond the grave, by singing and appearing in 3D during the funeral, thanks to high tech equipment that has cost his entire fortune (the family gets nil, not even the famous horse is given to the family)!

There is a warmth and compassion in this film, that is filled with grief and laughter, that I've never experienced before.

Most actors were new to me, except Robert Gustafsson and one or two more, but they all deserve the big slam the film took at the Swedish Guldbagge extravaganza (= the Swedish \"Oscar\" Awards) a week ago!

Male, female and male supporting actor prizes went to this film, plus a few more, to boot!

If you have the chance, go and see it - the hours float by very quickly!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't know what to expect from this hugely popular (and hilarious) Swedish comedy & satire team, as they released their first feature film. More broad satire? Well, we do get four contemporary, exceptionally memorable tales of family pains, generation gaps and fatherhood, in particular. But it's drama, thankfully, and what drama! Epic in its scope, as each episode is from carefully picked, geographically different parts of Sweden. But each story could seriously carry a whole movie, if expanded separately.

It's dark, twisted, harrowing, yet massively entertaining and breathtakingly executed. Script, acting and cinematography are absolute world class, as three hours seem to get by in a blink! It's four shades of mastery, and easily one of the best films in the nations' cinema history. It's Sweden's answer to \"Short cuts\" or \"Magnolia\", if you like, and instantly on par with those!

9 out of 10 from Ozjeppe","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie must be exported to the rest of the world! An absolute masterpiece, with a both bizarre and grim film about four different stories from four different locations in Sweden. The one with the newly renovated hotel with the improper wooden figure of an old finance minister is absolutely the best of the four, odd story about love or career. I would love to see all four as a film on their own they can be so much more extended.

Also the unique pause in the middle is something I've never seen before.

Can't wait for the series (if they're doing one) or the extended DVD. Apparently they had cut out a lot to fit it in to just 3,5 hours.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"During the making of this movie I once caught a statement on television about it. Something like: \"Is Killingg\u00e4nget now taking off Nazism?\"

So, my comprehension of this movie, was from the beginning to get a notion of Nazism. When recently seeing this movie in the TV-version I had this filter before me and it wasn't difficult to see this.

Strangely enough I haven't met this way of interpreting the film ever since I first heard it.

These are the things I found in \"Four shades of brown\". In all four of the stories the lack of empathy leads to disaster:

1. The crematory-worker shows no realistic empathy to the dead animals or to those who had to say goodbye to them. In the crematory-room in dealing with death and fire it's almost like a cheerful game to him. The seriousness of death and fire is not emphasized by the father and his boy accordingly, in ignorance pushes a button that leads to the disaster that injures his father severely.

Possible lesson: The importance of showing the young adequate emotions. When they grow up they need to know what behavior leads to disaster and what emotions lead to good.

2.The magician maneuvers his wife like an invisible puppeteer. Just when she thinks she has begun to cut off the strings to the masters hand, reaching for personality, integrity and joy, he pulls hard and she is back in desolation and despair.

Their son has tried to revolt in creating his own life with perfection and \"good\" taste in opposite to his parents \"bad\" taste. The real problem he is carrying within is far from comprehensible to him: His fathers behavior passes on when suffocating his own wife in his spotless environment.

Possible lesson: Oppression breeds bondage.

3.The father who was abused as a child passes on sadism to his children when he cheats them on their inheritance. He robs them of their childhood and in the end even of their inheritance.

Possible lesson: When no love given you cannot give any.

4.The fathers abuse of his daughter creates in her a ruthless revenger with sadistic aggression. Here the ice cold Nazi-sadism becomes very obvious in physical violence. It gives a possible background and a somewhat plausible explanation to the actions of young \"scin-head\"-nazists behavior when oppressing others.

Possible lesson? : Can Nazism take birth in a pervert home?

Can the hideous consequence of ignoring empathy in family life, in the long run, be that room is given to sadistic Nazism ?

Very seldom does a movie contains so much. It reveals little by little as I meditate on it. I consider it brilliantly \"painted\" and the actors are superb. Especially the nice-seeming bloke played by Ulf Brunnberg that turns out to be the worst of all..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like seeing Linda Blair playing in an actual \"horror\" movie again. I had been disappointed with her in most everything since the \"Exorcist \"movies (Which i loved). What was up with all of those nasty \"B-movies\" she did?

David Hassellhoff on the other hand, all i could do is laugh. He is not cut out to be a horror movie actor. David needs to stick to \"Knight Rider\" or \"Baywatch\".

All around, this is an awesome movie. Even for the eighties, this was an awesome film. It has horror, action, and drama. It is a suspenseful, and I loved the way Linda Blair turned out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Witchery, or Witchcraft as it's commonly known in Europe, beings with Jane Brooks (Linda Blair) waking up from a nightmare involving a witch. Jane's Mother & Father Rose (Annie Ross) & Freddie (Robert Champagne) are interested in buying an old deserted hotel on an island about 50 miles from Boston, renovating it & reopening it. Together with Jane & their young son Tommy (Michael Manchester) Rose & Freddie are planning to travel to the island with an architect named Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland) to check on the amount of work that needs doing, they also meet up with the estate agent Jerry Giordano (Rick Farnsworth) & hire a local fisherman named Sam (George Stevens) to take them to the island. Once there they enter the hotel & begin to inspect the property while back on the boat Sam is killed & the boat is let loose to sail off into the distance. They discover two unexpected guests in the shape of a photographer named Gary (David Hasselhoff) & his virgin fianc\u00e9 Leslie (Leslie Cumming) who happens to be researching a book that she is writing about the gruesome legends & superstitions surrounding the infamous island & hotel. As the night draws on a raging storm outside isolates them from the mainland as a mysterious 'lady in black' (Hildegard Knef) keeps popping up as the ancient evil that resides in the hotel seeks fresh victims for demonic possession, human sacrifice & Satanic rites...

The director of this American Italian co-produced film is somewhat shrouded in mystery as the IMDb lists Fabrizio Laurenti as Martin Newlin but there are rumours that Joe D'Amato did the honours, either way to be honest despite it's bad reputation I found Witchery quite entertaining in a so-bad-it's-good cheesy sort of way. The script credited to Harry Spalding & Daniele Stroppa on the IMDb again is confusing too as the actual credit on the film itself is Daniel Davis, anyway whoever wrote this thing did a decent job, please stop laughing. At heart it's a haunted house horror but adds some gory deaths & a surreal feeling to everything. The different sets of characters have reasonable motives & didn't get on my nerves as much as I'd thought they might, it's not plotted very well, it doesn't make a whole a lot of sense & the dialogue isn't exactly top drawer stuff but as a whole Witchery entertained me for it's 95 odd minute duration plain & simple. It's reasonably well paced, a little slow to get going maybe but there are plenty of surreal, bizarre goings-on & gruesome deaths to keep one amused. One part of Witchery which destroys some of it's credibility is this so-called storm, there is no storm in sight & the sea is probably calm enough to swim in, Witchery's supposed 'twist' ending didn't really work for me either & just check out the dumb expression on Cummings face on that final freeze-frame. The hotel provides for a good isolated location & adds a certain atmosphere to the film which has the distinctive indefinable 'horror' feel throughout, cheap horror at that. Technically Witchery is not too bad at all, it was obviously shot on location so it looks good throughout & while not exactly the pinnacle of film-making finesse it's overall production values are slightly better than expected. The violence & gore is of typical Euro explicitness, a woman has her lips sewn shut & hung inside a fireplace so she can't scream as the others light it, someone is crucified & then burned alive, impaled on a swordfish, someones veins expand & pop & a woman is raped by a man with no lips. Witchery was shot in English so there is no dubbing, as far as acting goes David Hasselhoff & Linda Blair in the same film what more can I say?! Yes ladies Hasselhoff does take his shirt off & for the lads Cummings takes hers off. Both Hasselhoff & Blair are a hoot to watch in this thing, however the little kid is very annoying & really can't act at all. I sure most sane film-goers will disagree with my opinions but I still stand by the fact that I liked it & would happily watch it again, Witchery is pretty good fun & definitely worth a watch if your into 'bad' films or your a horror fan in general.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Linda Blair has been acting for forty years now, and while she will never escape the part of Regan MacNeil in \"The Exorcist\", few of her subsequent horror films have used her legendary status to such great effect as \"Witchery\" does. She plays Jane Brooks, a pregnant single woman who travels with her family to an abandoned island hotel that her parents want to purchase. They are accompanied by a couple of real estate agents (Catherine Hickland and Rick Farnsworth) and upon arriving at the island they meet a photographer (David Hasselhoff) and his writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming) who are illegally squatting in the hotel while investigating the legend of a local witch (Hildegard Knef). It seems that a long-ago witch-hunt resulted in her suicide, and she was with child at the time. Unaware of the danger, Jane has recently dreamt of the witch's dramatic death, and Jane's little brother Tommy (Michael Manchester) has been more directly visited by her spooky, black-clad spirit, which he calls 'the lady in black'. The group's time at the island inn begins quietly enough; unknown to them, however, the Lady in Black has already dispatched the captain of their hired boat (George Stevens). Before long, the isolation and cold begin to affect everyone, and it is during this period of moodiness and tension that the Lady in Black begins her reign of terror. She plans to avenge her own fate by possessing Jane and sacrificing her companions and her unborn child. Each of her other victims fulfills an aspect of her vengeful curse - greed, lust, and the blood of a virgin. As the sun goes down and the sea becomes wild, she haunts them one by one in gruesome, horrifying ways. The island location is effectively scary, and the inn is very creepy and hauntingly shot. It's such a colorful film that it reminds me of Dario Argento's work. The lighting is excellent, and the set decoration is perfectly spooky. The soundtrack is very effective and unique. The horror effects are extreme, terrifying, and unforgettable. The cinematography is great, and it is this that brings us back to Linda Blair. The creative team behind this film shoots her like a horror star should be shot: lots of dramatic push-ins, lingering close-ups that subtly detail Jane's incremental possession, and moments that are reminiscent of other great horror films. There are hidden homages to \"Rosemary's Baby\", \"Jacob's Ladder\", \"The Shining\", \"Black Sunday\", and of course \"The Exorcist\". She does a great job, and absolutely steals the show with her moody and understated performance. That isn't to say that the rest of the cast disappoints; Catherine Hickland is sexy and very good, and veteran performer Annie Ross is memorable as Jane's bitchy mother Rose. Hasselhoff gives it his best, but he is not essentially a film star, and his television persona gets in the way of his performance. Blair and young Michael Manchester have a wonderful chemistry together. The film is otherwise so violent and creepy (in a good way) that it desperately needs their warmth (Blair also played a mother in 2003's \"Monster Makers\", and her maternal scenes in that film have the same tender feeling to them). Lastly, Hildegard Knef (in one of her last roles) plays a great witch, and she has the most amazing voice and accent. Along with Blair, she was also perfectly cast. But it's Blair's movie all the way. Jane Brooks also seems to have some psychic ability, and this aspect of the film hearkens back to \"Exorcist II: The Heretic\". I think \"Witchery\" is up there with \"The Exorcist\", \"Exorcist II\", \"Hell Night\", and \"Summer of Fear\" as Blair's best genre work to date.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Witchery\" is a decent little Euro-Trash horror yarn! David Hasselhoff is pretty damn funny in this one and sadly, he's one of the better actors. Linda Blair is downright terrible and the lady who plays Hoff's wife...she is hilariously bad! The plot of this film is ridiculous too. It's got some holes, which you can't help but notice, but it remains entertaining throughout.

The gore in \"Witchery\" is freaking outstanding. I loved the part where the old bag gets \"sucked\" into the trash chute and ends up in the chimney to roast! And the part where the lady \"gets taken advantage of\" by the Devil was pretty damned disturbing. I'd say this one is a must for gorehounds.

If you're looking for an overproduced, well-acted flick, look elsewhere. But if you like old-school style Italian sleaze and over the top gore, \"Witchery\" belongs on your shelf.

I'm surprised by the low rating on here! What were you people expecting, \"The Exorcist?\" 7 out of 10, kids.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*Please note: (The below text is taken from the Irish DVD Release). Some of this summary MAY be wrong:

Edge-of-your-seat chiller, in which The Legacy of an ancient Witch and her bloodthirsty coven causes a deserted island hotel to become the embodiment of evil two Centuries later.

When an inquisitive photographer (David Hasselhoff, Baywatch, Knight Rider) and his virginal fianc\u00e9e (Linda Blair, The Exorcist) creep onto the island to research its gruesome history, they are joined by an unwit- ting estate agent and his prospective buyers.

Gradually the group find themselves falling victim to the ancient evil that lives on in the mysterious old woman who roams the hotel, seeking fresh victims for Satanic rites, human sacrifice and demon- ic possession...

Check in at the Witchcraft hotel... we hope you enjoy your SLAY!

Additional Info. on the movies contents:

Violence: Some gruesome, sexual violence - VERY STRONG!

Sex and\/or nudity: Some strong, as well as innuendo.

Bad language: Some, strong.

Other: Some drug use and references.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must confess that I've been a huge fan of the almighty David \"the Hoff\" Hasselhoff ever since he starred in the hit 80's TV series \"Knight Rider.\" Whether it's his extraordinary debut as a libidinous high school basketball player in the hilariously raunchy \"Revenge of the Cheerleaders\" or his brilliant portrayal of a dashing prince in the schlocky sci-fi gem \"Starcrash,\" the Hoff has proved time and time again that he's a simply terrific (and shamefully underrated) actor supreme. The Hoff excels here as Gary, a cynical and skeptical photographer who along with his repressed virginal writer girlfriend Leslie (attractive brunette Leslie Cummings) investigates a seedy dilapidated haunted hotel located on a remote island off the coast of Massachussetts. They're doing research on witchcraft throughout the ages and the hotel's last owner was an actress who allegedly practiced the black arts. A bickering family also shows up on the premises to check out the hotel. Pretty soon various folks begin to get bumped off in assorted gruesome ways by the mysterious Lady in Black (an effectively eerie Hildegard Knef).

Granted, the rest of the cast gives the Hoff a run for his money: the ever-perky Linda Blair projects her customary charming flair as a spunky pregnant woman who winds up becoming possessed (natch!), legendary jazz singer Annie Ross bitches it up with gleeful aplomb as a snippy old bat (poor Annie winds up being incinerated alive after she has her lips sewn shut and she's hung upside down in a chimney), and gorgeous blonde Catherine Hickland oozes considerable sex appeal from every fetching pore as a lusty slut. Fabrizio Laurenti's competent direction, a suitably creepy atmosphere, Gianlorenzo Battaglia's slick, glossy cinematography (the fluid prowling Steadicam tracking shots are especially nice), the gaudy special effects, Carlo Maria Cordio and Randy Miller's spirited shuddery'n'spooky score, and the gory, sadistic violence are all up to par. But ultimately it's the tremendously dynamic and charismatic presence of the one and only the Hoff which makes this choice tasty chunk of tacky Italian horror cheese such a winner: He takes his shirt off once (hubba hubba!), gets sprayed with blood, and -- WARNING: Major *SPOILER* ahead -- even meets a pleasingly grisly untimely end. Produced by none other than Joe D'Amato, this picture overall rates as good, sleazy fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't see this movie until it appeared on television because I was doubtful about comic flicks. Ever since the \"Batman\" series, \"Spawn,\" \"Judge Dredd,\" and many other pitiful p.g.-13 bombs, I dodged everything at all cost. I would question in my mind, \"why can't someone make a movie that is rated R and stays true to the story, how difficult is that?\" And finally my prayers have been answered with Blade. This movie pops right out of the pages onto the screen with sheer violence, blood, martial arts, weapons, fire, the good against evil, etc. Yeah sure a lot of action flicks contain all these goodies, and most of them have bombed. But not Blade, the movie was filmed just right, not going overboard, delivering a good length and never a dull moment. Blade II is cool, but not as cool as the first. Blade is indeed one of the best real comic flicks I've seen in a long time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now here is a movie that does something that hasn't been done in a long time. It take ten or so different elements that we're already familiar with (Vampires, martial arts, a techno beat, top-o-the-line special effects, etc.), and turns it into something that feels brand new. In what could have easily been merely a combination of \"Mortal Kombat\" and \"Buffy: The Vampire Slayer,\" Wesley Snipes (no favorite of mine since and mostly because of \"Passenger 57\") gives a really good turn as the half human\/ half bloodsucker. He acknowledges the internal conflict, but doesn't dwell on it more than necessary. He makes Blade as deep a character as Michael Keaton made Batman.

I'll say that the only part of the movie that got me a little miffed was the always present horror movie cliche of that one person that the hero happens to know who happens to know exactly how to stop the evil guy. On the other hand, you sort of have to have that in a movie like this, so it's easily excusable.

Well, Snipes is good. And Steven Dorff, hyped in the previews, makes a more than bad enough bad guy to Snipes' hero. He's got class, presence, and enough control in his little pinky to teach Al Pacino how to tone it down a bit. Who would ever think that a comic book movie would be a launching pad for an actor? I sincerely hope this is. And whoa! where the heck did Kris Kristofferson get acting talent? Don't get me wrong, but the prolific actor hasn't done anything memorable since \"Millennium,\" and how many of us watched that just 'cause of the cool video box? Well, here he is, folks, in a very Obi-wanish turn, as Blade's mentor and father figure. And good job, too.

The quality of the acting is matched by the quality of the choreography and special effects. Accompanied by a pulsing techno beat, the fight scenes brings back and quickly banish memories of Mortal Kombat. Hey! It had a script, too! I was wondering what had happened to all the good writers out there.

The two major indications to me that I saw a quality flick were these; I had no feeling of remorse about paying full price to get in, a la any Schumacher \"Batman,\" \"The Avengers,\" \"MK: Annihilation,\" \"Godzilla,\" or \"Armageddon.\" (wow, how many of those came out this year? Ugh) Also, I look forward to the inevitable sequel, as per the film's ending. Let's just hope they do as good a job with it as with the first one.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Blade is a fantastic action\/thriller that keeps you captured for the whole duration and Wesley Snipes delivers what I would say to be his best performance yet.

This film has everything that you would ask for in an action\/thriller, it has plenty of blood, guts and gore, a twisted, disturbed bad buy, moments of humour but most importantly a very good story line with plenty of twists.

Their is constant action throughout the film with breathtaking stunts and effects, Wesley Snipes fighting movement is fantastic.

This film is in my opinion a must see, Wesley Snipes cool, solid appearance makes this film and I can't wait for the sequel 'BLADE 2' being released next year.

My IMDB Rating - 9 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like horror or action watch this film ASAP. If the opening scene doesn't get your adrenaline pumping then someone should check your pulse. Great Action, excellent casting and top one-liners. This is the only film I have seen in a cinema where the crowd applauded each chop, kick & punch thrown. Not perfection but who cares when films can be this much fun. Its a pure rush of dark comic book action. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wesley Snipes is perfectly cast as Blade, a half human, half vampire known the daywalker. He has all their strengths and his only weakness is the thirst for blood. Since he teamed up with whistler (Kris Kristofferson) he has hunted down vampires who have lived amongst us unnoticed for centuries, but omnipotent overlord Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff) is tired of living in harmony with the humans (Food as he calls them) and he plans to waken the blood god and take control of the world.

This movie is well cast, written and directed; ensuring the viewer has a thrilling ride from start to finish. Packed with great fight sequences and slick dialogue, Blade is certainly more action than horror, but it definitely delivers.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ben Marshall, a teen ager from a religious background, is made aware about the financial situation at home by his domineering mother Laura. She suggests him to find a temporary job in order to contribute to the household. In fact the family has taken a widower, to board with them. Robert Marshall, the father, is a pastor at the local church; he'd much rather be in the country watching birds than tending to the souls entrusted to his church.

The job Ben applies is with an older actress, Evie Walton, who wants him to do things for her around the house. \"Dame\" Evie, as she calls herself, is a woman of a certain age whose career has died maybe because she was not that great. In fact the only memorable appearance seems to be in a soap opera which was popular but she'd rather forget about it. Evie, who is a compulsive liar, tells Ben she's dying, only to forget it conveniently, later on when she comes clean to the boy.

Ben is obviously in awe of the larger than life personality of his employer. He has been taking driving lessons. Evie asks him to take a camping trip, which he does against his better judgment. He knows that it will provoke his mother's fury. Not content with that, Evie decides to go on to Edinburgh, where she has been invited to read at an arts festival. It is this trip that solidifies their bond. Ben gets to meet and taste the pleasures of the flesh with a sympathetic Bryony.

When Ben gets back, everything crumbles at home. His mother, who has been having an affair with a parishioner, decides to leave the family in favor of the young man she has been having an affair with. Ben and Evie's relationship survives the test of time. He also begins to see his own father in a different light.

Jeremy Brock, the writer of \"Driving Lessons\" and other memorable English films, takes his first directorial job with this engaging comedy. The mixture of show business and religion, loyalty and friendship, are explored in his screen treatment making it a fun time at the movies. We have seen the similar situation before as in \"Billy Elliott\", where Julie Walters plays a nurturing role with a younger man. We had read the film was based on Mr. Brock's own experience while working Dame Peggy Ashcroft when he was young.

Julie Walters, who plays Evie Walton, is perhaps the best excuse to watch the movie. She always delivers. Ms. Walters is a welcome presence in any film she appears and she does wonders with her fake \"dame\". Laura Linney, a luminous player herself, doesn't quite get our sympathy with her icy mother. Rupert Grint, famous for his Harry Potter's movies plays Ben, the young man who sees in Evie a kind soul. Nicholas Farrell is the betrayed father. Michelle Duncan has a small role in which she shines.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really only watched this movie because it had Rupert Grint in it (who I knew as Ron from the Harry Potter movies). I had never really appreciated Rupert as an actor until this movie. I loved the entire film. Rupert does a wonderful job in this hilarious, quirky movie. I think the movie could have been fine without the sex, but it worked somehow. I can't wait to see more of Rupert's films in the future. Julie Walters also did an amazing job. In the Harry Potter movies, she has a very small role, so I didn't quite know what to expect from her either. But she was wonderful as Dame Evie. The part where she swallows the key was absolutely hilarious. Overall, an amazing movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'd heard about this movie, but didn't see it until my daughter, who saw it on a flight to Australia, told me it was a great movie. I was interested in seeing whether Rupert Grint, away from Harry Potter, was showing the promise you see in the Potter movies. I wasn't disappointed. He's become a fine actor, showing a range in Driving Lessons from a shy boy being beaten down by an over-bearing obsessive mother, to a young man finding himself to be worthy of his own, and other's, esteem. Going over lines from plays and poetry with his aging-actress employer, it's obvious that he's ready to take on much more complex roles in films and the stage. But the jewel of this movie was Julie Walters. I'd seen her previously in the Potter movies, Billy Elliott and Calendar Girls, and loved her. In Driving Lessons, as she does lines from poetry and Shakespeare, I was awed by her timing, command of the language, and body language. I'm hoping it was make-up\/costuming, as she portrays an older woman with osteoporosis, though no mention of it is made in the movie-- as a nurse, I can say that she did this perfectly, portraying a woman on the brink of old-age, but clinging to the sparkling past that she reveled in. This is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time, and I wish I'd seen it in a theatre first-- but I doubt it ever played anywhere here in Albuquerque. We miss out on so many of these types of movies here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I, being a fan of Rupert Grint, rented this film a few months ago. I thought it was a very well written movie with a bunch of great actors. It was entertaining, and showed that Rupert Grint could play more than his most well known character of Ron Weasley. His subtle portrayal of Ben and everyone else's great acting made this film very likable.

Ben, a very shy boy with a extremely religious and sensitive mother, is looking for a job. He finds one and becomes the, I guess you could call \"assistant\" to Evie, a retired actress. At first, it is just a way for him to earn some money. But after a while, he and Evie seem to develop a friendship. Evie helps Ben break out of his shell a little and gets him to have fun and be happy with himself, and in the end they both seem to need each other.

Whether you are a fan of Rupert Grint or not, this movie is a really entertaining one with some very cute and moments. I highly recommend it to anybody who wants to see a great movie with great and talented actors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a great film. The movie shows so many themes all in one amazing film. Driving Lessons centers around Ben (Rupert Grint) a shy 17 year old who is coming of age. The movie goes on about how Ben is sick of his dominating mother and how he just wants to be himself. Ben then meets Evie, who he makes a very special bond with. The two take a journey and in the process Ben finds himself and what a relationship that he and Evie share. This is the movie that you watch by yourself, or with someone else. No matter what, you will all feel what Ben goes through in the movie. It is a very heart warming film that just makes you think whether your driving lessons were ever as emotional or as much of a journey as Ben's Lessons.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought it was going to be a lousy movie, honestly, I mean, Rupert Grint, RON, acting in a movie different from Harry Potter, was actually really difficult to picture it. But as the movie started, it showed that this guy does have talent, I mean, is the best actor of the HP trio, for reference, have you seen Emma Watson trying to act? Or what about Daniel's acting? Both lack experience even though they have acted in a million Harry Potter movies. Ben, his character is a very shy boy, incapable of showing his true feelings about everything, his despise about his over ruling mom and the resentful anger towards his father who is unable to step up and confront his unfaithful wife. Julie Walters was absolutely brilliant! Her interpretation of an old retired actress trying to live with the shadow of her past, while she tries to remember Shakespearian sonnets is absolutely wonderful! Also, it appears that many youth is wasted in religious nonsense acts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was cleverly written and very well acted. Its a movie that greatly surpasses other films in terms of originality and enjoyment.Rupert Grint played the part marvelously, and has a general knack for the acting business. The almost obsessive mother added quite a lot to the plot, and was a character one could almost instantly loathe. This reminded me, in a way, of the Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood. Not by means of actual content of the film, but the premises, and overall tone to the film itself. \"Driving Lessons\" is a coming of age story, which many might find very easy to relate to due to the overpowering mother, the lack of freedom, and the discovery of oneself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had never heard about this film prior to coming across it as I was perusing the shelves at a local rental store. Having just watched the latest Harry Potter installment, I was intrigued by Rupert Grint and wanted to see more of his work. Reading the description on back about \"an overzealous, evangelical Christian do-gooder,\" and identifying as an evangelical Christian, myself, I thought, \"Oooh\u0085this should be interesting.\" And so it was. I found Mr. Brock's story beautiful in both words and images; and sadly enough, all too familiar. The contrast he drew between Ben's parent's interpretations of what it means to be a Christian was a poignant commentary on how Christians view themselves and the impact that perception has on those around them. On the one hand, we have Ben's mom stating, \"Whatever happens behind these walls, Ben, we're God's ambassadors. We show the world a smiling face.\" On the other hand is Ben's dad discussing truth in his sermon at the beginning of the film. At the end of his monologue, he states, \"The more a person parades their Christianity for the benefit of others, the less I am inclined to trust the Christianity they claim. God tells us true faith is the freedom to choose truth. Now, how you express that, the way, the manner, the means at your disposal, these things are of no consequence, be you Christian or atheist, unless in your heart you are true.\" If only our churches were full of Christians who ascribed to this latter definition of what it means to be a follower of Jesus, rather than the former. What a difference that would make! As a Christian and a psychologist, I would want an imperfect yet authentic faith over a perfectly polished image any day. What a tragedy \u0096 to feel like I always need to play a role when, really, I just need to rest in the freedom of being completely who God made me to be. I think Mr. Brock provides a refreshing glimpse of what this freedom in Christ looks like. I recommend this film for anyone who desires a fresh look at faith.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had to get this movie, since it didn't come to where I live. I waited patiently and it was worth the wait. I totally fell in love with this movie. The chemistry between Walters and Grint you could see, since they also worked together on the Harry Potter movies.The woman who plays his overbearing, righteous mother really had me convinced all right and how much of a hypocrite she is, I think she did a great job playing the role. I only wish we could of had seen the actually sex scene or more of it. LOL, but of course we just have to use our imagination on how it went down. (snickers) I totally thought the movie was worth the wait and if you want a good movie to watch. Rent this movie. I do have to say that Rupert really did a great job and it's nice to see that he's doing movies outside of Harry Potter,even though I totally love him as Ron Weasley. The whole cast did a great job and I hope Rupert continues to act outside of Harry Potter to broaden his skill!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was unsure what to expect from \"driving lessons\"- unsure whether Rupert Grint could carry such a role, but within the first few minutes I was completely hooked. All the way through, the music, acting and scenery were absolutely stunning. Julie Walters, as always, gave a superb performance as the eccentric old actress Evie, and Rupert Grint, equally as good,gave a fantastic performance as the romantic Ben.

Right from the beginning, I was forced into involuntary cringes, bursts of laughter and swellings of joy as Ben broke free from his controlling mother and fought for his friendship with his only friend, Evie. A very controversial story, probably rather exaggerated but none the less one of the best films i have seen in a long time.

Highly recommend to anyone seeking a good British film and an evening to kick-back and just enjoy yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you love drive-in cheeze from the early '70s you will just love this one.How could you go wrong with a low budget film about bloodshed in a lunatic asylum? You can't! Crazy folks and sharp objects are always an entertaining combination.

The film looks like it was shot inside someone's house for about $320.65. For me that just ads to the fun of watching this type of stuff.The gore is a bit mild compared to others of this ilk,but there is enough to keep us bloodthirsty sickos (like myself)happy.Some horror films drag in parts and leave you waiting for something to happen.That's not the case here.The characters are entertaining enough to make every frame quite enjoyable.There is never a dull moment from start to finish.The mind melting climax at the end that is just unbelievable. I liked it so much that right after the end credits I watched it a second time.It's an absolute must see for any self respecting drive-in horror nut.

9.5\/10 on the Drive-in-Freak-O-Meter...required viewing

Yea I love you..I DO love you...now take your Thorazine and put your clothes back on...please....8)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You'll either love or hate movies such as this thriller set inside a lonesome asylum in a far off lonesome land. It's not so much of a horror show, but a concoction of frightening imageries and wackozoid mental patients. \"Scream\" is the best term to use in what was obviously a popular drive-in classic noted for some strange and wicked behaviors. Notice the \"judge\", who's about to put on the ax from behind the doctor! Brr-r-r-r!!! Not much else can be described here other than some bloody tasty goodness, but when you get a chance, remember the familiar old saying by the hag lady: \"Get out! Get out! And never ever come back!\". Don't you wish you haven't looked in the basement?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Charlotte Beal arrives at an isolated country mental hospital to become a full-time nurse there. She is confronted with a motley group of crazies and a seemingly crazier supervisor. Is Dr. Masters all she seems to be?

DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is one of the best low-budget movies in the genre and why people always put it down is beyond me. The acting is excellent, my favorite performance being by Betty Chandler as Allyson the nymphomaniac. The chills just jump right off the screen. You probably won't have to say \"It's only a movie, it's only a movie\", it isn't that scary, but it should appeal to any horror fan who respects the low-budget horror genre, which I do. It is very hard to make a creepy film on a low budget and few actually succeed. AXE is another cheap film that is looked down upon. Maybe people are so spoiled by the big budgets of recent films that any movie that doesn't have excellent effects and\/or isn't considered a classic doesn't have a chance with an audience. But I think that after people see this movie, they will see how important the low-budget horror genre is and this movie is a classic that stands out among the other rubbish.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If anyone ever assembles a compendium on modern American horror that is truly worth it's salt, there will *have* to be an entry for SF Brownrigg's ubiquetous exercize in Asylum Horror. Every time I watch this movie I am impressed by the complete economy of the film, from the compact, totally self-contained plot with a puzzling beginning and an all too horrible ending, the engaging performances by what was essentially a group of non-professional actors, and a prevading sense of dread and claustrophobia that effectively consumes the narrarive with a certain inevitability which is all the more terrifying because the viewers know what is going on long before the hero[es], with the only question being when are they going to wake up & smell the coffee?

Shot on a dental floss budget in Brownrigg's native Texas at an old palatial manor that nicely serves as the setting for a private sanitorium, DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is another intriguing twist on the good old Edgar Allan Poe tome about inmates taking over the asylum just before an otherwise \"normal\" outsider unwittingly joins the ranks without realizing until it is far too late that not all is what it seems, they are totally cut off & beyond any outside help, and inevitably find their own sanity questioned as the madness spins out of control -- The Original STAR TREK TV series had a go at this with their WHOM GODS DESTROY episode from 1968, Juan Moctezuma gave the proceedings a peyote fueled Mexican psychedelic trip in DR. TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON in 1972, and tangentially related is Fernando Di Leo's ASYLUM EROTICA\/SLAUGHTER HOTEL, which injects the elements of an unknown killer and an ending that can only be defined as \"Splatter Cinema\" -- Brownrigg may not have seen or been thinking of SLAUGHTER HOTEL, but he sure came up with some similar ideas.

Legaliciuos former Playboy Playmate Rosie Holotik plays Charlotte Beale, RN in Clinical Psychology, who has just left her nice job as a supervisor at a major hospital to travel way out into the middle of some god forsaken waste right out of a Peckinpah movie to work with a Dr. Stevens at his private sanitorium. Dr. Stevens has pioneered a new form of therapy based upon basically encouraging the emotionally & psychologically scarred to face their inner obsessions, bring them to the surface and hopefully rid the patients of whatever has fried their sense of reasoning. Nice idea, but arming a 6ft 250 pound utterly insane man with an axe and telling him to pound out his aggression AND THEN TURNING YOUR BACK ON HIM probably isn't the smartest idea, and Dr. Stevens is dispatched before Ms. Holotik even appears onscreen with a good whack to the lower portion of his skull.

This event leaves the sanitorium effectively in the hands of one Geraldine Masters [actress Annabelle Weenick, who also served as the script supervisor & production manager], a woman of startlingly professional demeanor who quickly defuses the situation with the help of Sam, the film's wonderfully unlikely hero, a lobotomized African American boheomouth played by an actor named Bill McGhee who was sadly robbed of a supporting Oscar nomination for his turn as a mass of muscle with the brain of an 8 year old boy. Sam's one wish is to have someone help him put his prized toy boat \"in the water\", and his continual asking of the various female cast members to do so [and his nonstop consumption of chocolate popsicles] as *SOME* kind of underlying theme, though we will avoid such here because the kids might still be up. There is also a quick subplot about a staff member who has decided to leave after being threatened by one of the patients, but I'll leave the details of that to your discovery.

Ms. Holotik arrives just as Dr. Stevens has been effectively laid to rest and is quickly won over by the snappy professionalism of Ms. Masters, who reluctantly allows the leggy young nurse to stay on in spite of the tragedy that has just happened, oh, TWENTY MINUTES AGO, which you must admit was rather sporting of her. Holotik's Nurse Beale begins to demonstrate symptoms of not being the sharpest meat cleaver in the drawer, however, when informed that she shares living quarters with a bunch of maniacs and there are no locks on the doors & doesn't trudge off for the nearest Ace Hardware Store to pick up a hasp and padlock to secure herself, and we are treated to a couple of truly creepy scenes where some of the inmates sneak into her room & do stuff like smell her hair, try to kill her with butcher knives and caress her neck with axe heads. But that's all a part of working in such a radical psychiatric health care environment, Ms. Master's informs her, and she goes about her oddly defined \"rounds\" that consist of wearing as leg defining a nurse outfit as you can find in a 42nd Street fetish boutique and getting to know the inmates.

Allysson is a obsessive compulsive nymphomaniac with homicidal tendancies who likes to take off her shirt & provide the film with some T & A between fits of histrionics; Harriet is a young former mother who let her child die in a stupid accident and now dotes on a beat-up old doll that she is also homicidally protective of; The Seargant is an actual seargeant [and implied Vietnam vet] who's negligence led to the death of his platoon, and now watches from the window with binoculars for the approach of an unseen enemy; Jennifer is a Phish fan who couldn't score a ticket to the New Year's Eve Show and went insane & likes to scarf down nembutols and other barbituates when nobody is looking, and likewise has hidden homicidal tendancies linked to her inability to find a bra; Judge Cameron is apparently a homicidal pervert who became obsessed with his own sense of power and now likes to chop things up with axes; Ms. Callingham is an aged poet who serves as a sort of soothsaying old hag from MACBETH before the cat gets her tongue; and Danny is an insane idiot who was included in the cast as the random element that the plot cannot control, and who's antics serve as the real catalyst for the series of tragedies & murders that ultimately take place in this dark, old, creepy house in the middle of nowhere.

The house itself is a wonderful set, with a threadbare early 1970's decor that is remarkable in it's unremarkableness, with a fantastic use of color achieved by subtle ambient lighting. The house is a series of hallways and rooms with shiny brown wooden floors, twisting, confined stairways, secreted closets and passageways leading to the different larger areas, and of course the basement mentioned in the title -- visited only once, but boy it sure proves to be a doozy! I love the frosted old freezer where Sam keeps his stash of popsicles, the utterly plain exteriors that remind me of a summer home our family used to visit every year & force us to swelter in the heat: Everyone is covered with beads of persperation and looks exhausted, and even the ever cheerful Sam at one point begins to suspect that bad things are happening, though he cannot understand what it all means and Rosie H. is too firm in her belief of her profession to even suspect what has really happened, and while Ms. Holotik's limitations of an actress may have diminished the effectiveness of her Big Revelation scene, she's a great screamer when all Hell starts to break loose, and Brownrigg indulged of some nice camera shots of her in various suggestive poses or stages of undress that show off what a pretty lady she is without exposing anything more than her contract stipulated. Too bad!

The real show stealer is Sam, however, and fans of what I have been taught to refer to as Splatter Cinema will not be disappointed by the rather shocking finale, and there is something moving about how Sam runs to the protection of his friend and brutally kills everyone within arms reach in a matter of seconds that either suggests he was one mean motha before his lobotomy, or the film is CUT. In any event you won't be prepared for the ending the first time you see it, even though you as the viewer know what the score is long before anyone else in the film has put it all together.

Except for one person: Rhea MacAdams' uproariously stereotyped old coot Mrs. Callingham [who seems to be inspired by the Donald Sutherland Old Woman character from the Michael Reeves' 1964 Christopher Lee film CASTLE OF THE LIVING DEAD, in addition to a rather nasty death by round spike to the eye], who not only predicts the future, but has the film's most laugh out loud amusing bit of dialogue while on a walk in the garden with Ms. Holotik that runs something like this --

\"It's really beautiful out here. Do you get out much, Mrs. Callingham?\" asks Holotik, to which the old woman replies

\"It's YOU who needs to get out.\"

Hilarious, and one of those things you gotta kind of see for yourself to \"get\". DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is available on at least a half dozen \"bargain bin\" codefree DVD releases by companies like Brentwood Home Video, Diamond Entertainment, VCI and Platinum Disc Corp.'s HORROR CLASSICS series; I kind of like Alpha Video's sexily gorgeously decorated $6 release from 2003:

Dig through those bargain bins! But make sure you get one with the 89\/90 minute print contained therein; an older 83 minute version is downright confusing due to some of the trims, and you really need to see the ending credits as intended to bring this sick, twisted and surprisingly entertaining yarn to it's end.

Masterpiece? Maybe not compared to THE EXORCIST or ROSEMARY'S BABY, but it is a very uniquely American horror film, and a genuine classic of the drive-in age that deserves to be rediscovered by anyone looking for something made with more than just a little bit of brain juice, and not a penny more than they absolutely needed.

***1\/2 out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nurse Charlotte Beale(the lovely Rosie Holotik)has arrived to Dr. Stephens' clinic for the insane prepared for a new job. What she doesn't expect is to find another supposed doctor in his position after Stephens is attacked by axe-wielding maniacal \"judge\" Oliver W Cameron(..in a running gag, anytime he confronts a situation out of his control, he retreats to repeating his name). That doctor is Geraldine Masters(Annabelle Weenick)who isn't sure about whether Beale is a proper fit for their establishment. After a long discussion about the position(which is quite an awkward scene as the two debate about Beale's being sent a letter by Stephens getting a job at the clinic with Masters often reminding her that he is no longer in charge)Masters agrees to let her work in the nursing position, but the good Doctor may not be who she seems..

The assortment of loonies includes Sam(Bill McGee)a simple-minded child-man who was Stephens' last victim of lobotomy, Jennifer(Harryette Warren)a woman who needs an adult to comfort her as she wallows at Masters' heel like a puppy, Danny(Jessie Kirby)a trouble-making annoyance often trying to steal the fake baby of disturbed Harriet(Camilla Carr), Allyson(Betty Chandler)a sexy nympho who just wants to be loved and hops at any man she sees, & \"Sergeant\" Jaffee(Hugh Feagin)your typical case of soldier who hasn't escaped the madness of war.

The film shows Masters' unorthodox methods of running the clinic with allowing the patients to roam free with the doors to all rooms without locks calling into question..and, not to mention, the fact that Oliver is still allowed to walk around despite just chopping Dr. Stephens with an axe. And, what exactly happened to Dr. Stephens? Ah ha..

Tacky 70's drive-in trash is a lot of fun if you are into a warped brand of cinema. I'm attracted to bizarre flicks about mental rejects because of their unpredictable nature..you just never know what the hell might happen, especially in this case where they are allowed to roam often unattended. Some consider the low budget a liability, but in the case of this film, I think it enhances the experience. With the cheap photography and weak production values(being shot for peanuts in a run down house in some awful location)it seems creepier and I felt like a voyeur peering into insanity through a camera lens on the outside looking in.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is such a fun and funny movie. Highly entertaining at all angles. It features an outlandish array of memorable, psychotic but lovable nuts. We got; the judge, the Sargent, the kid, the creepy old lady, the slut, the clown. And unfortunately they all live in a big house that doesn't have any locks and is understaffed. So for our enjoyment we get to see them run around, play games, and be dangerous. We also learn a lesson along the way... never give your patient an ax!

This was before Cukkos Nest, AND surpasses it. At least on the fun level. It even has its sweet moments. \"Love is pure. Love is grace. Love is strength. You love me, your love is pure, you'll always love me.\" Now who could resist that? Nuts are humans too. Just a few loose wires. Be a little careful, or you'll get an ax in the back! Children at play. Hehe.

The telephone repair man was really funny and his reactions to the nuts and bitchy boss were truly genuine. All the characters in this film are tremendously well played. And I really did find them funny. No, HILARIOUS! They may even give you dirty thoughts of how you can take advantage of them. Or how they can take advantage of you.

This is actually a very smart movie. There is a brilliant twist ending. I must say I expected this to be a good but never expected THIS. It is horrific. \"The court has made its decision. You are no longer in control!\" I love it. The ending is so, SO perfect... you'll shed a tear.

I am so thrilled after seeing a movie like this. I will never forget it now. It is not just a cult... it is a cult CLASSIC. Whatever you do... Don't Look In The Basement !!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Low-budget but memorable would-be shocker that instead emerges as theater of the bizarre. Vulnerable, naive nurse Charlotte Beale comes to a secluded mental hospital and is completely unaware that the only sane people have been murdered, despite the red flags that are constantly being raised all around her.

The lack of a decent budget really gives the filmmakers little more to go on than a sense of style, as well as a cast of wacky characters. The pleasures of this film don't come from the film's shocks, which are fairly tame, but from the weird atmosphere. First we have the delusional woman who thinks her baby doll is real. There's also an axe-murdering judge, a shell-shocked war veteran, and old Mrs. Callahan is like everybody's daffy elderly grandmother gone amok. A young patient named Allyson gives the term \"nymphomaniac\" new meaning. A big guy named Sam is just a little slow after a botched lobotomy, and Jennifer vaults suddenly between catatonia and violent outbursts. The only other sentient person in the place seems to be Dr. Masters, but does she have a secret?

\"Don't Look in the Basement\" is a great example of low-budget exploitation films. There isn't much plot going on, but the cheapness works for the movie. Several cast members turn in memorable performances, particularly Betty Chandler and Annabelle Weenick, and the way the director adds little weird details to the movie can really stick with you.

The scene between Allyson and \"the telephone man\" is a classic for all time, and especially delicious are the facial expressions of Dr. Masters when she begins to go over the edge near the finale of the movie. Brownrigg also makes great use of the cheap soundtrack, with several musical cues really evoking the characters that they accompany. My favorite cue is the \"crazy\" cue, a sitar that twangs whenever one of the patients does something pathological.

Also wonderful is the way that Charlotte herself plunges into hysteria at the climax, with the patients revealing that Dr. Masters is simply another inmate, and then suggesting that CHARLOTTE is also a patient who is being allowed to act out her delusions (she certainly has a tenuous grip on reality, why else would she not question the ominous lack of phone service or outside contact?). The scene where Charlotte manages to finish off the barely-alive Dr. Stephens with a toy boat has to be one of the greatest moments in low-budget horror. Yes, \"Don't Look in the Basement\" could very well be the \"American Beauty\" of Grade Z trash.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I personally have a soft spot for horror films that are set in hospitals and asylums so I had a good feeling about watching this \"Don't Look in the Basement\", even though its reputation is doubtful. Well, turned out I was right! This is great, trashy entertainment with a couple of efficient shocks and delightfully absurd characters. You have to, of course, look beyond the poor productions values and the completely illogical plot but, if you manage to do that (and if you're a fan of this type of horror, that's an essential quality), you'll be rewarded with an outrageous \"video-nasty\" in which blood and insanity form the main elements. The young and cute nurse Charlotte arrives at a remote sanitarium where she's supposed to start her new job. She finds out that the Doctor who hired her was killed by a patient and the replacement doctor-in-charge Masters seems reluctant to accept the new arrival. The life inside the sanitarium is rather peculiar, with the patients running around free and every door is kept unlocked. After a whole series of bizarre events, Charlotte discovers the horrific secrets that the institution hides.... The opening 10 minutes (pre-credits) are great and so is the completely deranged climax. Everything in between is pretty much without surprise or tension but you patiently wait because you just feel that the finale will be wild fun. The asylum's patients are textbook lunatics, but I love them nevertheless. Some of my favorites include the former judge (who still talks exclusively in legal terms), the suspicious army-Sargeant and the mad-raving old lady. \"Don't Look in the Basement\" is great low-brained fun, especially recommended to fans of 70's trash-cinema, sick puppies and other types of scum. The lunatics have taken over the asylum, yeah!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found the film Don't Look In The Basement to be very good, with some great characters in it. It is about a young psychiatric nurse called Nurse Charlotte Beale(Rosie Holotik),who is going to start work at a isolated mental asylum. Whilst there, she meets various sorts of different characters including Dr. Geraldine Masters who becomes in charge of the asylum after the the owner of the hospital Dr. Stephens gets killed by one of the patients by hitting him with an axe.

My favourite characters in the film are Mrs Challingham(Reah MacAdams), a very funny little old lady, Allison who is a nymphomaniac, and Sam(Bill McGhee) a young black guy who goes around all Day seeming to be in a world of his own all of the time. The film was a very low budget film but was still a really great film. I know that it was on the 'Video Nasties' list back in the 80's but a did not think that it had a lot of gore in it, Alothough it did have some disturbing senses in it GREAT FILM RECOMMENDED!!!.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The impossibly sexy Rosie Holotik plays Charlotte Beale, a new nurse at one of those movie-type asylums where the doctor in charge has his own, unorthodox ways of treating the inmates. Reluctantly bringing her on board is the officious Dr. Masters (Anne MacAdams, a.k.a. Annabelle Weenick). The inmates don't take too kindly to Charlotte, either.

Part mystery, part horror, this initial effort from B-movie director S.F. Brownrigg has an oppressive feel to it. These colorful psychos, including a nymphomaniac with no self-esteem, a gentle giant who's already had a lobotomy, and a supposed \"judge\" who speaks in legalese jargon, dominate the screen with their unnerving presence.

It's a picture that works fairly well, establishing the gritty, grim atmosphere right from the get go. Some brief bursts of graphic violence also help to give it that good old fashioned exploitative quality.

It builds in intensity as the imperiled heroine struggles to maintain her own sanity, offering one surreal encounter after another. Particularly effective is the poetry-quoting, dotty old Mrs. Callingham.

For cheap 1970's era cheese, it's pretty effective, with a particularly nasty climax. I had a pretty good time watching it.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yet another in the long line of \"Don't\" films of the late 70's and early 80's yet this one is much more than that. This film is a highly underestimated low budget schlocker with a twist. It has the grainy quality and bizarre soundtrack that is typical of horror films of the time period but it's the highly underestimated performances of the surprisingly talented actors\/actresses that make this movie good. A young nurse arrives at Dr. Stephens' progressive mental hospital right after he has been murdered by one of his patients and all is not what it appears to be. It seems Dr. Masters, a rather ambitious female doctor, has taken over his duties and begun to implement her own ideas. Each of the patients take on their own unique personalities and have their own personality traits and flaws which make for highly entertaining interactions. There is the nymphomaniac, the crazy old crone, the woman with an unhealthy obsession with infants, and a man who has reverted back to his childhood among others. There is also a strange little twist to this bizarre story that later finds the young nurse trapped inside the asylum with the patients running around loose and bodies piling up. If you are a fan of cheap 70's sleaze than this is the film for you!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT This little forgotten gem holds a special place in my heart and on the Video Nasties List. The flute-sitar-rattle box soundtrack is classic. The main character, although way hotter than most low budget starlets, is a pretty standard low budget lead. The Doctor Masters character is well written and well acted. Some of the lesser characters are kinda stupid but add to the nostalgia of the movie. It's Campy. I ain't trying to lie. The character that makes this great is a Faulknarian Man-Child named Sam, one of the patients in this sanitarium-gone-mad-flick. The gore is pretty standard although I think the color of the blood is awesome. It's so ..Red. This movie, I believe, was received poorly because of it advertising scheme. Some soulless little ad executive got his grubby hands on it and thought \" Let's rip of the AD campaign for Last House on the Left, that's doing well\". Little chumps like this have ruined the world of film. All balls and no brain. Also, the editor may or may not have been an alcoholic. Maybe there all drunk. You'll see what I mean. One more little note. Don't buy this from the Wally-Mart dollar rack. They have cut it to and unwatchable level. Try to find the longest cut you can.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"... but you probably have seen it or else you wouldn't be here. It's so obscure that you probably stumbled onto it like I did because this little known gem receives no word-of-mouth.

From the very beginning you know how the storyline will shake out but watching as our innocent redheaded nurse puts the pieces of the puzzle together is high quality entertainment. Most horror films bombard viewers with graphic displays of torture but Don't Look in the Basement plays it subtle, which makes for superior suspense. Note to horror filmmakers: some of us do like subtlety! Lovely and homely nurse Charlotte takes a job at a sanitarium but is dismayed when she learns that the head doctor who hired her had a gruesome accident and she is now the subordinate to a mysterious doctor, who we all know isn't a doctor at all. The suspense is built through Charlotte's unraveling of events with assistance from many of the patients, but which of the patients can Charlotte trust? This is a gem and is my absolute favorite TRUE HORROR movie. I love Re-Animator and Evil Dead but they play more for the HORROR-COMEDY crowd.

VIOLENCE: $$$ (Quite tame for horror standards but there is a decent sprinkling of gore throughout the film. The opening scene is classic; no other horror film starts out better, and the end has its fair share of gore as well).

NUDITY: $$$$ (Eager to fall in love Allyson (Betty Chandler) spends a good deal of time naked, attempting to seduce half the men at the sanitarium. Betty Chandler is a knockout and I am shocked that this is her only film credit).

STORY: $$$$ (The story is well handled despite the premise getting a lot of mileage in Hollywood. The script has a knack for building suspense and never fails to place poor Charlotte in a precarious situation).

ACTING: $$$$ (Betty Chandler does the best job here as Allyson, capturing dementia with naivet\u00e9 in an ethereal form. The Judge was splendid as well, weighing facts before he came to a verdict while Rosie Holotik as Charlotte gives a genuine performance as you will feel for her character.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Don't Look In the Basement' is so easy to knock but the truth is simply that Brownrigg is one of Horrors real underground stars and IMHO is vastly overdue some proper recognition. 'Don't' is his undisputed masterpiece. This scummy psychodrama snags the viewer straightaway into such an odd, disjointed, claustrophobic world of sweating insanity you have no real idea what the hell is going on. It succeeds in making you feel strangely dirty, just plain grubby, for Brownrigg's world is this mad, unwashed, scummy prison cell of rants, obsessions and all shades of mental illness. And he uses his low budget palette to wrap his grot blanket around you like a bad memory. There is just something so beautifully odd about the whole damn thing. In a word, classic.... Also, if you watch 'Don't' first then you will have some idea of the insane psychodrama style that marks Brownrigg's other films. In summary they really don't come any more esoteric than this - well, actually they do, track down Brownrigg's 'Keep My Grave Open'. Mad genius. Accept no substitute.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Young, ambitious nurse Ms. Charlotee (Rosie Holotik) is sent to work at a mental asylum out in the middle of nowhere. During the course of 3 days, she encounters strange happenings, even a patient in her bedroom watching her, yet she still stays. The mental patients are all a little eye rolling (espically by the Judge), but my favorite was the old crazy biddy (Rhea MacAdams). The storyline is okay at best, and the acting is surprisingly alright, but after awhile it's gets to be a little much. But, still it's fun, quirky, strange, and original.

Note: The thing inside the basement is hardly horrifying, so the title is a little bananas.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not sure what intrigues me about this movie so. It is grainy, poorly written, bleached out, often ridiculous, and at many points mind numbingly dull (the person I was watching it with fell asleep twice.) And yet there is something in this film that fascinates me, though I am not sure what; perhaps the character of Sam, an enormous former patient who was lobotimized by the former head doctor and who is perpetually sucking on an ice pop), or the marvelously played head doctor (I forget her name).

Anyway, watch it and form you're own opinion; it has one of the greatest endings I have seen in film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dr. Stephens (Michael Harvey), head of a seriously understaffed institute for the insane, takes a 'progressive' approach towards the treatment of his patients, even allowing his loonies complete freedom of the building, day and night; he pays the price for his forward thinking, however, when he rather stupidly prescribes chopping wood with an axe as therapy for one of his patients and consequently gets his neck mistaken for a log (serves him right for not suggesting basket weaving).

Shortly after this tragic incident, nurse Charlotte Beale (Rosie Holotik) arrives at the hospital to take up position as the doctor's assistant, and discovers that the facility is now being run by the much sterner Dr. Geraldine Masters (Annabelle Weenick). Despite being unaware of her deceased predecessor's decision to employ Ms Beale, and not particularly eager to take on new staff, Dr. Masters agrees to let the pretty nurse begin work, but following several harrowing experiences at the hospital, Charlotte begins to wonder whether it might have been better if she had been turned away.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is actually happening at the hospital, the 'lunatics have taken over the asylum' schtick being a premise that should be familiar to most seasoned horror fans, but S.F. Brownrigg's Don't Look In The Basement still proves to be an entertaining piece of drive-in fun thanks to its well defined collection of nutters: lobotomised, popsicle-sucking Sam (Bill McGhee); Judge Oliver W. Cameron (Gene Ross), who continuously mumbles courtroom phrases; old Mrs. Callingham (Rhea MacAdams), who recites William Allingham's creepy poem The Fairies and warns Charlotte of impending doom; cackling loon Danny (Jessie Kirby), who delights in teasing the other patients; Harriet (Camilla Carr), who thinks her doll is a real baby; army nut Sergeant Jaffee (Hugh Feagin); and best of all, Allyson King (Betty Chandler), whose rejection by a series of men has left her with a craving for love (ie., she tries to jump any man who goes near her).

This convincingly crazy set of characters, plus a bit of gore and nudity, reasonable direction from Brownrigg (who also gave us the impressive white trash horror Scum of the Earth), and a solid turn from Playboy covergirl Holotik, all go to turn an otherwise rather predictable, low budget piece of exploitation into a very watchable psycho shocker.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A nurse travels to a rural psychiatric clinic run by Doctor Stephens. She is upset to learn that the doctor has died,leaving his assistant Doctor Masters in charge.She is unnerved by the inmates including a crazy Judge,a shell-shocked Vietnam vet,a catatonic and a creepy nympho,but is soon befriended by a hulking black man Sam.She needs all the friends she can get as people are dying all around her.\"Don't Look in the Basement\" is my first horror film of S.F Brownrigg.Despite its low-budget it manages to provide some genuine chills plus a nice amount of cheap gore including a particularly nasty scene with a desk-spindle through an eyeball.The climax of inmates taking control over mental asylum is an intense melange of wild camera-work,gore and piercing screams.8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although it isn't mentioned very often, \"Don't Look in the Basement\" is a very interesting film and is definitely worth a watch. The story follows a young nurse, Charlotte Beale, who is hired at Stephen's Sanitarium to replace Dr. Stephens, after he is murdered by a patient. Many patients begin to torment Miss Beale, and her boss, Dr. Geraldine Masters, acts as if she's hiding something...

This movie has many appealing characters that you actually end up caring about, and have sympathy for during the climax, which doesn't happen very often in horror films. The musical score is great and is reminiscent of \"Dark Shadows,\" the performance from Rosie Holotik, Rhea McAdams, and Bill McGhee are all great, the story is very intriguing with a great twist ending. This movie has a campy atmosphere around it that no other film I have ever seen has been able to capture. Many horror fans have never seen or even heard of this film which is really unfortunate because it could have been a horror classic. \"Don't Look in the Basement\" is definitely worth watching for all fans of 1970s drive-in films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Back in the 70's, a small-time Texas filmmaker named S.F. Brownrigg directed a handful of surprisingly decent low-budget drive-in horror flicks which seem to have developed a small cult following over the years. Before viewing his first film, Don't Look In The Basement, I wasn't too sure what to expect, but I sure as hell didn't expect it to turn out to be the only Texas horror I thought was better than the Chainsaw Massacre. I don't know, this might actually be my all-time favorite horror movie.

We begin in an isolated insane asylum. At first, it seems like a rather laid-back place to get mentally healthy, considering all the patients are allowed to roam around freely and whatnot, as if it were their house (I guess it is). none of them seem all that dangerous, only delusional. The residents include a love-nympho, a 700 year old woman, a man-child, a spaz, a guy who thinks he's in a war, a woman who thinks she has a baby, and a guy who thinks he's a judge. One day, out of nowhere, Judge kills the doctor with an axe, shortly thereafter, the wanna-be baby mama kills the nurse. Ten minutes into the movie, and things are looking really ugly. Perhaps the new nurse will know what to do, then again, perhaps not. Giving away more would do more harm than good. It's best to plunge head first into this one, knowing as little as possible. If you can appreciate honest-to-God, untampered with horror, then you will not be disappointed.

If you liked Scream, if you liked Wrong Turn, if you go for that unoriginal, over-produced, over-scored digital Hollywood garbage, then chances are high you just wont see the beauty in this one. Don't Look In The Basement, being a first attempt makes the quality all the more shocking. The atmosphere and the graininess fit into the location and the score like a glove. Unfortunately, good ol' S.F. used up most of his good ideas on his first movie, although, the next entry in his Texas-sized quadrilogy, is somewhat of a masterpiece, that is, if you're into extra sleazy, mean-spirited, Hixploitation like someone I know. If you fall in love with Brownrigg's first two, and absolutely must find out what else he had to offer, check out Don't Open The Door, and The House Where Hell Froze Over. Don't Look in The Basement has everything that successful horror needs, no stars, no budget, no digital effects, just an original story brought to life in an insane asylum, with a dozen cast members, and a somber, subtle score, and of course, the twist. This is real horror for the real horror fan. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Widely known as \"Don't Look in the Basement\" - this is pure 70s horror, B-movie goodness that could actually pass as the genre's version of \"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest\". Though the movie seems to go nowhere throughout the first hour+ of it's runtime, I enjoyed this particular batch of quirky crazies and their various personalities and deficiencies - such as the former army sergeant, a chick obsessed with caring for a plastic doll, a lovable man-child, and a loony nymph. After their head-doctor is murdered by a patient, a small sanitarium hires a new nurse onto their under-staffed facility, who becomes immersed in the resident's different \"ticks\" and outbursts. Things gradually become stranger, however, when patients start acting far more abnormal than usual... You never really know, or care, where the movie is going, 'cause it still entertains up until it's completely whacked-out ending! Several of the \"twists\" felt a little too forced and I could have used a tad more blood, but I really dug this much too under-rated blend of humor and horror. Check it out...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Clearly my rating for this is not to suggest it compares with the classy horrors of the likes of Argento but with other 70s low budget, drive in fare and in that department it truly is a classic. The lack of money shows, (Does anyone care too much?) the acting is adequate rather than professional, (Does that make it more realistic?) but unlike so many other movies, and not just low budget ones, this does not drag for a moment. Crap it may be but non stop crap, in your face crap and although inevitably a bit campy at times, this is a must see for anyone who has any idea what I'm talking about. At times quite delirious, this crazy little film filled out with crazy characters is clearly made for fun and fun indeed it is to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just discovered this obscure '70s horror movie while browsing on YouTube. For a low-budget effort, it has plenty of compelling moments in gradual pacing in leading to the surprisingly shocking finish. While there is one woman who takes off her shirt constantly, the fact that she's a nymphomaniac makes those scenes important to the story and there's one scene with the curly-haired young man as he attempts to seduce her that turned me on before his pulling back made her screaming mad. The young nurse who comes in and gets hired is alluring herself and I'm not surprised she posed for the cover of Playboy. Some characters are very irritating and some scenes do seem ridiculous. For the most part, however, Don't Look in the Basement (That's the title I saw on YouTube) provides enough drama and chills for an entertaining B-movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't Look in the basement is actually a very clever and well thought out exploitation flick that gets a bad rap because of its cheap quality and bad acting. Sure, it's not a masterpiece by anyone's standards but it is a very fun little B-film with a lot to offer and even a lot of creepy scenes that will stay in your head.

As I said, the acting could have been a lot better but that's the case with most exploitation so I can't really complain. The story is clever and has some great plot twists that will keep you guessing. I thought the gore was a lot of fun too. There's just something great about older gore films because they didn't have CGI back then so they had to actually set it all up themselves. See this one for a good time!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film, also known as \"don't look in the basement\" is actually not bad. It is a little known film even to die hard horror fans but I found this movie pretty entertaining. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly not without its problems but do think more people should give it a look. The story of a hot nurse going to work in a sanitarium is certainly an appealing one to me. I thought the acting , which seemed forced at first, somehow got better as the film went along. It seems like the actors really got into their roles. There are some good, colorful characters, including a guy who thinks he's still a soldier, one who thinks he's a judge, an adult with a child's brain, and an attractive girl who craves attention so bad she drops her clothes when any man gets near her. The title \"don't look in the basement\" has about as much relevance to the story as \"the last house on the left\" has on that film. If you like movies with creepy characters in a mental ward like I do, check this out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sweet young nurse Charlotte Beale (a charming performance by ravishing redhead knockout Rosie Holotik) goes to work at a remote rural asylum run by Dr. Geraldine S. Masters (the excellent Annabelle Weenick). Among the motley assortment of colorfully crazed patients are insatiable, aggressive nymphomaniac Allyson King (the luscious Betty Chandler), loopy Judge Oliver W. Cameron (a gloriously hammy Gene Ross), paranoid Vietnam veteran Sergeant Jaffee (nicely played by Hugh Feagin), gentle giant Sam (the amiable William Bill McGhee), and nutty old hag Mrs. Callingham (the supremely irritating Rhea MacAdams). Said patients are dangerously encouraged to act out their fantasies by Dr. Masters, which of course results in a rash of brutal killings. Director S.F. Brownrigg, working from a clever and suitably overwrought script by Tim Pope, does an expert job of creating and sustaining a suffocatingly dank and brooding atmosphere of seething madness and oppressive claustrophobia. Robert Farrar's spooky score, the grimy set design, a few wild grisly murders, Bruce B. Alcott's grungy no-frills cinematography, plenty of deliciously robust, scenery-scarfing histrionics from a game no-name cast (Ross in particular is a total eye-rolling hoot), and the genuinely shocking surprise bloodbath conclusion further add to the overall infectiously seedy fun of this choice trashy chunk of 70's low-budget regional horror exploitation cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a late-going patron of the drive-in thearers (1970's-1980s), there are many movies that I have seen & forgotten. This is one I could never forget. Despite its low-budget, exploitation-style of movie-making, the STORY was very well done. The isolated therapy-asylum, where patients act out their fantasies in order to help cure their phsycosis, the accidental murder of the head doctor just as the new nurse arrives on the scene, the (supposed) assistant doctor taking over, the various crazy paitents, the revelation that the assistant doctor is actually a patient herself, and, finally, the rescue of the young nurse by the simple-minded Sam, who killed everyone else in the house so she could escape unharmed, made for a great STORY, which held the film together. I emphasised the word STORY because that's what makes a good or great film. No matter how much blood, gore, nudity, sexual matter, or outrageous behaviour you put in a film, if the STORY is not good, then the film is not good. The film credits show clips of all the actors, including the old hag with the final line telling you to get out & never come back, which is a great ending to this film. If it is out on video\/DVD, see it & enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nemesis Game is a mind-bending film filled with riddles, death, mystery, and philosophy. In it's simplest sense the film is about seeking answers and what happens when you've finally found them all. The search for answers leads Sarah Novak down a path that gets darker as it gets more compelling. The final answer seems more dangerous than it is worth, yet Sarah is so close to understanding it all. What would you do if you were offered the ability to finally make sense of the chaos of life?

The movie was written and directed by Jesse Warn. While this was Warn's first feature length film, the movie doesn't reflect that at all, but instead shows polish and an artistic approach to telling the story. Carly Pope was powerful in the lead role and showed a depth of complexity that was fascinating to watch. I would definitely love to see more of her work.

Being based on riddles, this is a very cerebral movie. It's that's your thing, as it is mine, then I totally recommend seeing Nemesis Game. Rating: 4.5\/5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It could be easy to complain about the quality of this movie (you don't have to throw cartloads of money at a movie to make it good, nor will it guarantee that it is worth watching) but I think that is totally missing the point. If your expecting fast cars, T&A or a movie that will spell itself out for you then don't watch this, you'll be disappointed and dumbfounded.

This movie was thoroughly enjoyable, kept us on the edge of our seats and made us really think. The writer obviously put a lot of thought and research behind this movie and it shows through the end, just remember to keep an open mind.

Note: the school scenes were all filmed at McMaster University and most of the rest was done in Toronto.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the movie while I was in a class a few years back in high school. I thought it was a thought provoking movie that made you want to look into the power behind riddles. I think the type of people that wouldn't like this movie would be those who don't like solving things, or those who get frustrated when they can't solve riddles. its a good movie, based on a true story that happened in my home town of Toronto, Ontario. so if u want a real record of the things that happen in the alleys there, watch this movie. And for those who only watch movies to point out plot holes and character flaws, realize that in real life, this same stuff does happen. but thats all I want to say on that. The riddles are good, some are hard, some are not. But the movie also leaves you wanting more, more riddles, more explanation, just plainly, more. Something more I want to add, is that the ideas within this movie, the underground riddle world, does exist, but there is a lot more to it. To find it, you can not look for it. To never look for it, would be no way to find it. Leave your mark, and it will find you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A raw edgy thriller that aimed for great philosophical heights it couldn't quite attain. I did still enjoy the film immensely. It had great elements of suspense, leaving me with that delightful spine chill I expect from thrillers, and it achieved this purely psychologically, without resorting to escalating blood and gore. The soundtrack and setting added to the suspense perfectly. At times, it was a bit unpolished, particularly the acting, and character development. It could only have been a better film if we had known more about the nightmares from the past the characters see when they close their eyes, and why they felt this desperate need to seek the \"answer\" that is so integral to the storyline. After all they seemed to continue to seek it, despite knowing or at least having an inkling of what might happen when they found it. I would recommend seeing this film if you are prepared to look beyond the grit to see the potential of a diamond in the rough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say? Not as bad as many here have made it out to be. The only reason I even watched this film that I had previously never heard of before, was strictly for IAN McSHANE.

I was not disappointed in the least. IAN McSHANE was absolutely brilliant and brings an amazing subtlety to his role. He's always great to watch and for my money... an extremely underused actor.

As for the rest of the film.... Every other actor in the movie delivered strong, solid performances. These people certainly weren't being paid huge amounts of cash for their participation (as this was a fairly low budget film) but this did not mean that any of them \"mailed\" their appearances in. Everyone was convincing and compelling with the parts given to them.

I was even pleasantly surprised at ADRIAN PAUL's performance though I must admit I have only ever seen him in the HIGHLANDER Television series before this movie.

The plot was well paced and the storyline intriguing and much like real life, not everything ends up tied in a nice neat little package for you at the end of the film. Anybody who expected a clear-cut, by-the-numbers, connect the dots \"conclusion\" or \"answer\" at the end of the movie... CLEARLY wasn't watching the film closely enough! This film is not going to tell you what the \"meaning of life\" is! The idea is that after seeing the film, you might go and discuss the unanswered questions with your friends over a coffee. I certainly did.

No car chases... No explosions... No bar room brawls.... (sounds pretty dull, huh?) But the reality is that I was completely absorbed by the film and it's just a well written little piece with an interesting hook and solid character performances by all parties involved.

****** WARNING...****** If you're the kind of person who dislikes movies that dangle an enormous \"question\" as the central engine of the story and then end the movie without answering that particular question directly...

YOU MIGHT NOT ENJOY THIS FILM.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this film was probably the best \"scary film\" i've seen in years. chilling might be a more accurate description. the ending was unexpected and therefore took me by surprise. if it has any flaw it would be the overuse of the whole meaning of life concept. since noone truly knows that answer, you definitely sail into murky waters when you incorporate that concept into a movie. put that aside and the movie is quite enjoyable. carly pope should emerge as one of the next bright young stars in the film industry. the rest of the cast were somewhat shaky, however since the focus was on sara novak (carly pope), her performance anchored the movie. the, at times poor acting abilities of her costars were not an issue since it was not their performances that fuelled this movie. (thankfully). watch this movie you should enjoy it.

t","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen many many movies and this just totally blew my mind. The trauma, the suspense is just amazing. I ended so wound up in the psychological fear and Philosophy of it, and relating it to reality. Movies that play and challenge your mind are movies you don't forget, those that make you doubt your reality. A problem could be the quality, but that doesn't bring down the essence of the movie.

The idea it self is brilliant and the ending leaves you just completely shocked and with the question for you to seek the answer. I just totally loved it! So many clues and twitches and puzzles. One of the best movies ever, hands down.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Set mostly in the back streets of Toronto NG is a dark , mysterious journey that takes the viewer into the minds of a young man and woman ( Vern and Sarah ) , each of whom has a fascination with riddles and a disastrous incident in their past . Fine dialogue and first-rate casting propel this low key, noirish journey into the girl's search for the meaning behind the word puzzles that keep appearing in her life. Aided by her , anything but enthusiastic, male friend, the two of them reach the end of their quest , but with a price to be paid. The film never intends to answer all of its mysteries , but does an excellent job in the exposition of several plot twists","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this film not knowing anything about it. I had presumed it was a sci-fi b movie of some sort. How wrong I was. The plot is enthralling and intelligent, the cast are all charismatic and the whole film just makes you think for a change. Some of the riddles stumped me completely but in the end the answers were rather simple. I am quite baffled at the low scoring of this film as I thought it was quite unusual. If you liked the film Se7en (Seven) with Brad Pit or The Matrix then you will like this. There is no major special effects or fancy gimmickry here at all. It is all about the plot, about building the characters and building an atmosphere. It is a film however than ultimately provides no answers which may irk some people but I thought the ending was great. I am still not sure if the film is based on an true story or not.......","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a cult classic for sure!!

It is tricky to follow at times, but then again, so is a film like Jacobs Ladder or even say Fight Club. If you want standard fare, then i figure go rent the Care Bears Movie or perhaps an old Disney classic. But if you want \" to view the world differently\" then i would say open yourself up to Enigma's and for that matter to a film that challenges what we see and think.

For me the key is that the film was original and had me questioning throughout. So while i have seen some complaints, all in all i would say take the film for what it is and enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you enjoy riddles and suspense, you will enjoy this movie. Truth be told it was mostly the Adrian Paul part that got me to pick it up, I knew almost nothing about the movie beforehand. Plot is: Sarah (Carly Pope), a student of philosophy and metaphysics, starts playing a mysterious riddle game trying to figure out \"the reason\" and gets involved in \"the game\" by solving riddles. Vern (Adrian Paul) is a shop owner, also a riddle fanatic, and also gets entangled in the game. Myth has it that if you solve the game, the meaning of existence (referred to as \"The Design\") is revealed. Brendan Fehr's character is a \"village idiot\" type hanging around the shop who turns out to be more than he seems. All in all, I thought the movie was pretty well done. And it's definitely an original concept, a rare find these days! I personally happen to like riddles and puns, so while most of them weren't very difficult, it was still a fun movie. Well worth the rental.

So, if you haven't seen it -- get it! :-D

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To summerize this movie: nice for TV but too small for the theatre. I enjoyed watching this movie at home but I wont watch it a second time. The concept is good, but what ends up in the movie is just a summary. The end had a 'nice' twist but is still unsatisfying. Maybe it was the intention of the director but it wasn't worked out like a it should be. But then again, it's an OK kind of movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jennifer Montgomery's \"Art for Teachers of Children\" is a stunning, disturbing masterpiece. Montgomery's gritty camerawork and cinematography coupled with the brilliantly unemotional performances she evokes from her cast heighten the sense of shocking, raw realism in this autobiographical story of a 14-year-old Jennifer's seduction of her married boarding-school guidance counselor. The scenes between the amazingly uncanny actress playing Jennifer (Caitlin Grace McDonnell) and Jennifer's mother (actually voiced by Ruth Montgomery) on the phone are some of the most intriguing and powerful I've ever seen captured on film. The lesson ultimately learned here? \"There's nothing more dangerous than a boring man who creates bad art.\" Well, I would highly recommend this remarkable piece of \"Art\" for anyone interested in thought-provoking independent cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film is not for everyone. Some might think the acting is bad when it is actually understated and natural. There are no obviously evil acts and there are no stunningly beautiful moments. There is a lot of indecision, an lot of conflicting feelings.

Actually this film takes a very honest look at a very complex subject, Sex with minors. It is complex because the characters are trying to deal with love and sex when her body and hormones are still developing and both of their minds and personalities are still developing. Complex also because society has very simplistic views of sex with minors, and complex, because the characters don't know if society is right or if their instincts are right.

Some will not like the movie because it leaves unanswered questions. Questions such as who was really in charge of the relationship, who was damaged, did good come out of it, was it art, who was damaged more, did some of the problems with their relationship stem from it being forbidden by society, did some of the problems stem from their own immaturity, and probably most important, was this truly a crime?

The film is resolutely neutral on all of this, and it is this neutrality that is its strength. It is the reason for the understated acting, the simple sets, the lack of background music, soft lighting, and the general \"flat\" presentation. The message is clear. We don't really understand this kind of relationship today, and quick judgments are bound to be shallow.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watch a lot of movies - DVD, features, and classics, you name it. The night I watched JERICHO MILE, my wife (who had ordered it on the internet) said she remembered it from when she was in high school, that it had stayed with her all of these years. Somewhat reluctantly I sat down (with our daughter & son), and was riveted from the opening sequence to the end titles. We all were.

She, who remembered the original, and our kids (18 and 16) who had no idea what the movie was about couldn't believe it. Our favorite scene? Bar none, when peter Strauss so passionately bangs his fist down and says, \"i'd do it AGAIN!\". It didn't advocate violence because it was a defense crime, but evoked such intensity we couldn't believe it...when his fellow cell mates gave him their food in support of his efforts, there wasn't a dry eye in our house.

Someone please make more movies like this one. UNBELIEVABLE!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched the this the other night on a local station because I didn't feel like watching tripe like 'American Idol'. Peter Strauss gives a great performance as a convict named 'Rain' Murphy who keeps to himself. He admits to his crime and makes no bones that he feels no shame for it. His cell is bare of any comforts that other inmates have like books and pictures. The only time he feels in another zone is in running. He does it often and can run a mile in under four minutes. When a college coach hears about this, he wants to prime him for a shot at the Olympics. At first, 'Rain' wants no part of this, but when his best friend is killed, he shows interest.

This is a good movie, period. Strauss is very good (What did you expect, anything less?) and Michael Mann shows hints of greatness that would come full bloom years later. This movie had that bit of realism (probably because it was filmed among convicts). It almost feels like this was a true story. The additional casting is good. There is a lot of notable names like Brian Dennehy, Roger E. Mosley, and Richard Moll as well.

My heart sank when some pompous board of directors wouldn't let him run because he didn't feel bad for his crime. His final act made me stand up and cheer. When they took his dreams away, he took them back hard. This was back when TV movies were actually good. 'The Jericho Mile' is a gem of a film. ESPN Classic, PLEASE SHOW THIS FILM!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've never given a movie a ten out of ten before but this is the closest I have ever come (I gave it a 9). There are very few movies that I truly love, this however is one of them. With it's gritty realism, fantastic on-site locationing, and it's great soundtrack it literally blew my young mind when I first saw it in 1979. At that point I didn't know about prisons, violence, racial tensions, or the struggle to survive & live free. I doubt that anyone who is an adult, or for that matter anyone who is growing up in todays world could be impacted by this film in the same way I was all those years ago, but I will say this: \"if you haven't seen this movie I envy you\"; this is because you have the chance to see this great film for the frist time. For each of us they're different, but here's to the rarest movies of them all: the ones we actually love...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An interesting and involved film about a \"lifer\" just trying to live out his days peacefully. Elements of the main character appear in Michael Mann's later films, like Thief (1981), Heat (1995), and so on. You can see this one at the UCLA Instructional Media Laboratory-- one of the only places in the country that has copies readily available to the public. It's a great one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this movie - I like prison movies in general (I'm not sure why -- I'm sure some shrink could make something out of it!) I spent one night in jail more than 20 years ago, and I knew then I would never go back - I got the individual version of \"scared straight\"! (I did get locked up in an isolation cell on Alcatraz for a couple of hours, compliments of a park ranger, but that's another story!) Anyway, the genre really interests me. The soundtrack, specifically \"Sympathy for the Devil\" by the Rolling Stones, was the perfect backdrop for the film. To this day, I think of \"The Jericho Mile\" every time I hear the song.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peter Strauss, by nature of appearing in mini-series and made-for-TV films, often gets an unfairly high proportion of bad reviews - Usually from casual observers who saw ten minutes of the film, having channel-hopped into it half-way through. Well, I've just read all the other 20 reviews for this film and am delighted to see not a single bad word said about The Jericho Mile - That should be enough to have you blasting out to buy this film!!

Peter Strauss won an Emmy for his role in this film and watching it even once will show you why he deserved it so much....

Looking to be objective, I attempted to criticise this film. Instead, I found myself arguing down every one of my possible nit-picks. This is what true, realistic film-making is about. This is not your typical Hollywood sensationalism, where everything is overacted - It's so realistic and true to life that people have thought it's based on a real event!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i love watching the Jericho mile. i mean watching peter Strauss run the mile is like watching usain bolt sprint the 100 meter. i think peter Strauss is a excellent actor and should do another running movie. he is lightning fast has great energy and can run a mile in under 4 minutes and that my friend is amazing. no man alive can out race rain Murphy i mean the man runs 80 mile a week no one does that but him. i've watched the Jericho mile 100's of times and will watch it 100's more. great movies get watched more than movies that are not. i thank the makers of this film for giving years of there lives to make it.they are great people and i bless them all.thank you for letting me get my word out again thank you all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A film that deserved theatrical release. This made-for-television movie is a cinematic gem that exemplifies the technique of Michael Mann with stirring contemporary music tightly integrated to the visual images. Always with Mr. Mann, the amplification of impact by the music is almost as if there is an invisible academy-award-winning actor added to the ensemble of cast, writer, director and cinematographer.

This film is definitely one of my all time favorites. While nothing is perfect, this film comes very, very close.

Along with an excellent script, great direction and masterful acting by Richard Strauss, there is an all-star ensemble of character actors at their finest: Roger Mosely; Brian Dennehy; Ed Lauter; Geoffrey Lewis; Richard Moll; Miguel Pinero; William Prince; Burton Guilliam; Ji-Tu Cumbuka; Richard Lawson and Billy Green Bush. You may not recognize the names, but you will recognize every face.

If this comes on TV, sit down with popcorn, turn up the sound for an amazing soundtrack and score, and prepare to be riveted for the 97 minutes of the film. I highly recommend recording it, since it is only available on VHS and DVD from Holland and the DVD is region 2 encoded.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first time I saw this film I was a kid. I was ten years old when it was released but since my family never went to movie theaters I saw it on Network TV. I remember watching it alone\u0085and crying afterward. It was only the second film to illicit that response (Rocky was the first) and there haven't been many since. I can't say why exactly; Larry \"Rain\" Murphy didn't deserve to win any more that Rocky Balboa or anyone else. I know I admired Murphy, not so much for what he did, but for the way he did his time. Stoic. He didn't need a stopwatch or freedom to find dignity. He ran because he could. He needed no other reason. I have a rule today, that when I see this film late at night on cable television (the only time most will come across it) I must watch, no matter what I have to do the next morning. Fortunately it doesn't play often like Shawshank Redemption or other favorites, so I still get plenty of sleep and I never tire of the story of one man's unrepentant imprisonment and personal victory.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I read on the web that this film is being remade into a theatrical feature. Finally!!!!! It's about time Hollywood got their act together. The big Studios always frown at edgy material, with Oscar written all over it. Go figure!!

JERICHO MILE was made ahead of it's time. It's a masterpiece.

Michael Mann, a true visionary, found a way to engage an audience without overindulgence. Peter Strauss' Emmy award performance is probably the best character role I've seen in my film-viewing lifetime. Any actor who touches this role will never be the same (unless an Academy Award is already sitting on their mantle).

The gritty multi ethnic ensemble, a backdrop for THE JERICHO MILE makes one understand the delicate social dynamics of our world. This is about redemption without public validation, and the power of the human spirit overcoming all barriers. Imagine a convict imprisoned since he was a teenager for life with no chance of parole, that doesn't know he is possibly the fastest runner in the world. ...what would you do??

This movie makes you walk away feeling you haven't been cheated on any level. Totally thrilling, engaging, emotional, and a \"Rolling Stones\" soundtrack that kick's ass!!!

I always thought this would be made for the big screen... Can't wait...!!! In the meantime I'll have to continue re-watching my weathered VHS copy I've had for many years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great movie. The best role Peter Strauss ever did. The music is good, the message harsh, the actors great and the story is both emotional and raw. Only in the seventies did they make them like this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was very good. I really enjoyed it. Tom McCamus' performance was excellent and very believable as the consumptive son Edmund. I also enjoyed the set design (house) and the costumes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Desperadoes\" (1943) is a genuine classic, not for its story (which is fairly routine), but for its technical production elements. This was a landmark western, the biggest ever at the time of its release and all the more unique because it was a Columbia production-a lightweight studio with a bottom feeding reputation. Only Fox's \"Jesse James\" (also starring Randolph Scott) from a few years earlier gave anywhere near this lavish a treatment to the genre. Although it would be eclipsed in a few years by \"The Searchers\" and \"High Noon\", \"The Desperadoes\" was a ground breaking effort and a historical treasure.

In 1863, the economy in the town of Red Valley, Utah is based on rounding up and selling wild horses to the Union Army. The script gets a little messed up here with references to the railroad (which was several years away in Utah's future) and Custer's Last Stand (Custer was busy fighting Stuart in Pennsylvania at the time) but these are not important plot elements.

Red Valley has an honest sheriff, Steve Upton (Scott), but the banker and several citizens are corrupt; robbing their own bank each time the government pays for a herd of horses. The town is visited by Cheyenne Rogers (Glenn Ford), a famous outlaw who is an old friend Steve's. He wants to go straight, especially after falling for the pretty livery stable owner Alison McLeod (Evelyn Keyes). Cheyenne's partner \"Nitro\" Rankin (Guinn \"Big Boy\" Williams) is mainly there for comic relief as are Uncle Willie McLeod (Edgar Buchanan) and the town judge (Raymond Walburn who models his character on Frank Morgan's \"Wizard of Oz\" crystal ball faker).

Taking no chances with their huge budget Columbia packed this thing with tons of action and every western movie element but Indians and covered wagons. There is the best wild horse stampede ever filmed, a spectacular barroom brawl, an explosive climax, romance, and three-strip Technicolor. All this stuff doesn't necessarily fit together but who would have cared back in 1943. Unity is a problem as it tries to be both a serious action western and a comedy.

The cinematography was probably the best ever at the time of its filming. The indoor scenes are solid but it is the naturalistic outdoor photography that is truly impressive; both the lyrical static shots and the moving camera filming of the action sequences.

Scott and Claire Trevor were top billed, but the studio clearly wanted to promote Ford, who would soon be their biggest star. And Director Charles Vidor utilized the film to showcase his new wife Keyes (whose portrayal of Scarlett's sister in \"Gone With the Wind\" had connected with audiences more than any small part in the history of films).

The Ford-Keyes dynamic is \"The Desperadoes\" most unique and important feature. Rather than go for the clich\u00e9 \"love triangle\" with Scott and\/or Trevor (which it first appears will happen), the entire romantic focus is on the two younger actors. This was probably the best role Keyes ever got and she makes the most of it. Playing a tomboyish but extremely sexy young woman who looks great in both leather pants and dresses, and who rides and fights like Kiera Knightley's character in \"Pirates of the Caribbean\". This was revolutionary at the time and coincided with the 1942 formation of the WAAC for WWII military service.

\"The Desperadoes\" is one film that has been well taken care of and the print looks like it is brand new. Unfortunately there are no special features on the DVD.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Probably because this is Columbia's first film in color, the colors look different specially in the indoor scenes. They seem to be stronger, sharper and the result is a bit unrealistic, but very pleasing. Randolph Scott is the sheriff, a good guy but the real star of the movie is a very young Glenn Ford, who is an outlaw that wants to change. Evelyn Keyes is the woman that starts falling for Ford and Claire Trevor is the Countess that runs the saloon. There is a funny character called Nitro that does not think twice before blowing it. I particularly enjoyed two moments of the film, one when there is a tremendous horse stampede and you see thousands of horses, there was no computer to help at that time, so I presume they must have gathered all those horses, no easy task. Another moment is the final shootout, technically very good. There is also quite a fistfight. Seeing this western made in 1943 with such great action scenes, makes you come to a sad conclusion: They don't make them anymore. Would they be able to in case they wanted? I have my doubts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Randolph Scott and Glenn Ford were once outlaw pals together, but now Scott's a sheriff and young Ford is still hiring his gun out. He gets hired to pull a bank job, but is delayed getting to town and those that hired him get someone else. That leads to all kinds of complications, a lot for a film that's not even 90 minutes long.

Randy and Glenn both got girls here. Claire Trevor plays her usual good time gal with a heart of gold. And Evelyn Keyes is the daughter of Edgar Buchanan who falls for Ford big time without realizing who he is or why he came to the town that Scott is the sheriff in.

It's B western, but unusual for the time and for Columbia Pictures it was given the full technicolor treatment. The Desperadoes marked Glenn Ford's first film in technicolor, a process reserved only for some of the more expensive films from bigger studios. Harry Cohn was certainly not one to shell out for it. And definitely not during war time.

The plot gets a bit convoluted as both Ford and Scott are put to the test of friendship versus expediency\/duty. The plot also involves some high class hypocritical skunks in Randy's town who are the real outlaws as far as the film is concerned.

The four leads do a fine job and the best supporting performance is Guinn Williams as Ford's lovable explosive lunkhead of a sidekick. The climax involves a cattle stampede and a shootout in the town saloon and is one of the best ever done in a western film.

Fans of the four leads and westerns in general will enjoy this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i liked this western Starring Randolph Scoot and Glenn Ford.it's got pretty much everything a western should have.there's gunfights,action,chases on horseback.there's a bit of a romance angle that's hinted at.there's some nice comic relief in the form of Edgar Buchanan,who plays Uncle Willie McLeod,a character who pretend to be a doddering old fool,but is actually aware of everything going on.Randolph Scott plays the town Sheriff,and Glenn Ford Plays Cheyenne Rogers\/Bill Smith,a hunted outlaw who eventually tries to change his ways.i liked the different mix of characters in the movie.i didn't find it always fast paced,but i never found it boring either.even though the movie is in 1943,it is in colour. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is simply a good ole fashioned western..not overly complex or long. It doesn't deceive itself in thinking that it was made but for entertainment. Still, it is one of those westerns you can watch once and be done with without returning. It features former partners Randolph Scott and Glenn Ford whose friendship is strong despite the fact that Ford's Cheyenne Rogers has been part of bank robbing(he even steals Scott's Sheriff Steve Upton's horse without knowing it his good friend for which he is thieving). In Red valley, Upton is under heavy scrutiny for a bank robbing that ended with several dead. Claire Trvor portrays Countess Maletta, a friend of Cheyenne's who gives he and buddy \"Nitro\"(Guinn 'Big Boy' Williams)a place to stay for the time being. Cheyenne desires to go straight, but finds that hard when Jack Lester(Bernard Nedell)and his bad bunch want to rob Red Valley's bank. It is actually Jack who is behind the murders, but Cheyenne's troubled past is hard to get away from. He and Nitro will be charged with the murders they didn't commit(the robbery was one Cheyenne didn't commit)and it will be Upton who must somehow save the day before Lester gets away with murder. There are sub-plots which include Cheyenne's falling in love with Alison McLeod{Evelyn Keyes;the irony of the story is that Alison's father, Uncle Willie, is actually in cahoots with Banker Stanley Clanton(Porter Hall)in a planned united theft with Lester to steal the town of Red Valley's loot}. Will Upton uncover Uncle Willie and Banker Clanton's treacherous scheme? Will Uncle Willie be able to go through it without his conscience always bothering him? This film has a terrific barroom brawl and a dandy of a climactic shootout. Columbia couldn't have picked a better genre to begin the coloring process as this film has some fine mountainous shots as men give chase on horseback and such. Don't expect to get your socks blown off, but the film is simple and well paced.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Glenn Ford is hired by a crooked bank owner and wily stable owner Edger Buchanan to stage a fake robbery while the banker hides the real loot. With Ford a no-show, the two instead go with a trigger happy second choice, leaving Ford on the hook for killings he didn't commit.

Columbia Pictures' first color feature, The Desperadoes looks fantastic with sets and costumes fabricated to take full advantage of the Technicolor process accentuating tons of well staged western spectacle.

This has the irresistible teaming of a young Glenn Ford (third-billed but essentially the star) and a prime Randolph Scott leading an incredible supporting cast of great character actors in colorful roles, including scene-stealer Edger Buchanan as a good-natured but mildly villainous yokel who isn't as dumb as he looks and who has quite a few memorable lines.

A fairly complex script effectively mixes incredible action sequences, melodrama, and comedy, well directed by Charles Vidor. This is one of the great westerns of the nineteen-forties and highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a excellent back when it came out. It had some the best talent available and a funny story. Between Candace Cameron and Tatyana Ali, it was hard to choose who is cuter, and add in Carlton from Fresh Prince and all the other big names, and you get a blockbuster. Ok, a made for TV blockbuster, but none the less. If you can find this move, don't miss it.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this movie is my favorite movie. I am not sure why, but it is. Julia Duffy has been my favorite actress for awhile, and when I saw this, I went crazy. It's sort of romantic, and I definitely recommend this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a teenager, I watched this movie every time it was on TV (and it was on a LOT) because of its witty, appealing-to-teenager humor. It may not be what critics consider 4 star viewing, but I love it for what it is--a fun comedy meant to please the audience. The teen actors are of my generation (probably why I love the movie so much) and was like a fantasy cast of everyone's favorite TV shows of the early 90's--Full House, Family Matters, Fresh Prince--all of the shows were represented and the result was probably the best teen movie of the 90's. Though it may not include the high doses of nudity and violence that so many teen movie writers think vital to success among the youth demographic (or perhaps because of its absence), I highly recommend it to pre-teens and teenagers everywhere.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is all about reality, submarine warfare in WW2 was not a clean precise science. There were no computers giving exact enemy details, there was no precise instrumentation to 100% control the sub. Not all the crew went to fight with a song in their heart, and a smile on their dial.

People with expectations of seeing a \"pretty war\" in this movie will be grossly disappointed, .............. GOOD, they deserve to be disappointed, they deserve to have reality shoved into their face.

War is not clean, exact, fought by people about to break into song. It is endured by scared, cold\/burnt, hungry, desperate people willing to do anything to survive.

\"We Dive at Dawn\" is a fine example portraying a desperate situation needing desperate actions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The submarine used was NOT Varangian! 'It' was in fact two boats, P614 and P615, both built for Turkey by Vickers Armstorng at Barrow-in-Furness but kept hold of by the Royal Navy for the duration of the war. P615 was sunk but P614 was eventually delivered in 1945.

The confusion no doubt arose because someone looked up P61 (as I did) and found Varangian! When in fact, the last digit of both P614 and P615 was in fact just painted out....

There are some extremely realistic moments in the film. These Turkish boats were very similar to the S-class. As no S-class submarines survive, the shots of them (as P61) and of the depot ship \"Forth\" form part of an interesting record now, as well as an excellent film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Any film about WWII made during WWII by a British production company has no latter-day peer in my opinion, respectfully. The confluence of so many things near and dear to my heart are in At Dawn We Dive: as a descendant of Admiral Horatio Nelson and student of all aspects of World War Two and particularly naval warfare, I favor depictions of subs and action in the North Atlantic and especially those which include the German side of things. For those unacquainted with target priorities, an attack on an enemy warship is the greatest event that a submarine can hope to encounter and such a rare opportunity would develop surprisingly similarly to what we see here. The pacing is deliberate and typical of the works coming out of the Ealing, Rank and British-Gaumont studios back in the day: frankly I prefer its quieter, more cerebral approach for its humanity and realism that engages far better than any over-produced Hollywood movie ever could. This reminds me of Powell and Pressburger's The 49th Parallel thanks to the powerfully persuasive Eric Portman, a favorite of mine. John Mills receives second billing and a smaller font in the titles, so this is clearly meant to be Mr. Portman's film but the whole cast shines. As for the title sequence, am I the only one who is utterly charmed by Gainsborough Production's lovely pre-CGI Gainsborough Girl?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent tub-thumper from the war years.

John Mills leads a fine cast of regular British B-movie stalwarts in a solo submarine attack upon a fictitious enemy battleship.

Filmed in black and white, it's well paced and also well placed considering that a war was going on at the time. If anything, it shows how seriously the authorities took positive propaganda.

The mission-side of the movie takes place in genuine submarines. Things are cramped and claustrophobic. The actors look suitably grimy and sweaty without being too offensive to the heroic palate. Other commentators have already drawn attention to the authentic little details like keeping the vessel trim and forgetting to read instruments, as well as the engine-room activities.

This probably is the first movie in which debris (and a dead German) is blown from the torpedo tube to fool an enemy destroyer. And it's the ONLY time I have seen part of the vessel exposed in a pretence of sinking - a high risk gamble if ever there was one.

I'm a little sceptical as to whether or not a submarine could punch its way through a wire-rope net. Submerged speed was barely twice that of human walking speed, and the net would have had a great deal of 'give'. Also, the engineer was at the same work-station and operating the same levers both on the surface and submerged. This, too, seems implausible as either diesel or electric engines were used and they were in different sections of the ship - or so I'm told.

There was a wee bit too much shore-side drama for my tastes. But then, this was a propaganda effort, and clearly contained a subtle message for civilians to mind their behaviour as it could adversely affect service morale and therefor the war effort.

These niggles aside, it's a pretty entertaining little adventure. Nowadays movies of such vintage tend to be screened in the afternoon, whilst far more modern and inferior movies enjoy prime-time. But then; it's no longer politically-correct to mention the war in the presence of our European friends (Too many of them have guilty consciences), or our own left-wing fascists (non of whom have ever fought for the freedoms they now take for granted).

As a submarine movie it is eminently collectible. Better than 'The Enemy Below', I think, though less demonstrative. Not so authentic as 'Das Boot' by any means, but not so gross either.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're in the middle of a ferocious war and it's still not clear that you're going to come out on top, among the things you'll be concerned with is to keep up the morale of the civilians...to demonstrate that our troops have the bravery, the resourcefulness and the dedication to overcome all the odds in a noble cause. And that's just what director Anthony Asquith provided the British with 1943's naval war film, We Dive at Dawn. After more than 60 years, it's not surprising that some of the movie is dated. It doesn't help that the class stereotypes which help define the enlisted men from the officers can be jarring. Here, as in so many other British war films, the men invariably have thick regional working class accents while the officers speak with an educated fluency that would place them at home in England's finest ruling-class establishments. In this movie, Freddie Taylor (John Mills), the captain of the submarine Sea Tiger, is clever, confident, resourceful, aggressive, in control, good with his men, humorous with his peers, quick to make a decision. And it helps that he's lucky. His men are jolly tars, for the most part, competent at their jobs and always ready with a joke when things get tense. Although we spend the first third of the movie getting to know these people while they're on leave, after that things get tense quickly.

Taylor and his sub are ordered to destroy the Brandenburg, a new German battleship. They just miss the ship when it enters the Kiel Canal and heads into the Baltic. Taylor assesses the risks and decides the Sea Tiger will go after it, through mine fields, anti-sub nets and with a real risk of not having enough fuel to return to home base. After several tense situations, the confrontation takes place. The Sea Tiger lets loose six torpedoes but has to dive, not knowing if it had done its job. After a clever subterfuge, Taylor outfoxes a couple of German destroyers but then realizes there is not enough fuel. He plans to scuttle his sub and surrender when, just at the last moment, James Hobson (Eric Portman), a seaman who had been sullen and a loner and who speaks German, says there is a small Danish coastal village that had been a fuel depot. He thinks it might still be for the Germans. The last third of the movie is a rousing action sequence as the crew of the sub attempts to hold off the Germans long enough to pump in enough fuel to get the Sea Tiger back to Britain. This is a wartime propaganda movie, so don't expect failure. And did the Sea Tiger actually put the Brandenburg down? Are the men reunited with their wives and sweethearts? Did Hobson have a reconciliation with his wife and small son that left him smiling for once? Did Freddie Taylor finally have a chance to make use of all those female names in his little black book? You'll have to see the movie.

There are propaganda war movies and there are propaganda war movies. Some, like Powell's and Pressburger's One of Our Aircraft Is Missing and The 49th Parallel, still stand up to viewing today because the stories are solid and unexpected and the creators didn't use obvious shorthand clich\u00e9s. Others, like We Dive at Dawn, were made with enough clich\u00e9s that when watching we have to remind ourselves how dire the time was when the film was made. Still, Asquith can build a lot of suspense even with a few clich\u00e9s. The Sea Tiger's forcing its way through a sub net was tense. The stalking of the Brandenburg and the plotting needed for the torpedo firing was realistic; John Mill's no-nonsense attitude while he prepared to attack was well-handled. The fake-out preparations to make the Sea Tiger look as if it had been destroyed by depth charges was as realistic, inside the sub as well as out, as you could hope for, and the battle for the fuel depot was dramatic and exciting. We Dive at Dawn is not a classic war film, but it's a well-made, well-acted example of its type and time.

John Mills, it's worth noting, had a long, long career. Especially in the Fifties he played in a number of serious-minded films looking back at those WWII days. He had the quality of showing grit, cheerfulness and perseverance, but of also being trustworthy, a man England could be proud of as he fought the war. Top-billed in this movie was Eric Portman, a fine actor with a unique voice and the ability to give stares so cold you'd want to put on a sweater. Everyone on the sub is very much in the joking but stiff-upper-lip mode, but Portman manages some complexity for his character. Mills and Portman did fine jobs working together on this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this expecting to see the usual British stiff upper lip stereotypes and was surprised to find the dialogue remarkably natural and tinged with black humour. It was more like Eastenders Goes to Sea than In Which We Serve. The scenes during the approach and attack are remarkably realistic in their depiction of a fighting ship and the stuff ups and banter among the ship's company (well at least based on my service in the 1970s). Some of the throwaway lines are very witty (\"I'm not joining the Band of Hope just to please some greasy fish fryer!). My only complaint is that they didn't show what happened to the Irish coxswain and his bride to be, or the tattooed PO and his \"I Love Arabella\" tattoo!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

***************************MILD SPOILERS AHEAD**************************

We Dive at Dawn is an English made movie with John Mills in the lead role. The second time I watched the DVD version was on a big screen TV and I must say the movie is better than I thought the first time I saw it on the samll screen. May be it was the big screen viewing that helped?

I still say the first few segments of the movie are muddled, but once the submarine leaves the dock and begins its mission, the movie takes off too! The search for the German battleship named the Brandenburg and the adventures which went along with it were absorbing and the detail shown in the movie are interesting!

I'm increasing my rating to 7\/10. If you enjoy WW II films, I think you'll find this one interesting once the submarine gets underway. Some of the men on the sub have quite a sense of humor, too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This seemed to be a lackluster film to me that betrays a low budget with poor cinematography and not all that great of a job of editing. It may be of interest to those who know something about submarines during the World War II era, but I recommend that all others beware. Many of the scenes in this film were flat and some of the actors were a bit weak. The story about the men getting called back to duty during a short leave seems realistic enough, but there's no real pacing or tension in the story. I also had a tough time understanding what the actors were saying, partially due to some strong English accents and perhaps some due to an inferior job of sound recording. I give this a 55\/100. Most folks will want to \"steer\" clear.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. This, in my opinion, is Rob Lowe at his best. I'm not quite sure why this film has gotten such a low rating. I guess you either love it or hate it, but if nothing else, it is definitely worth a rental.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This one is a hilarious diamond in the rough. The acting and plot aren't that impressive, but the lines just keep on coming. This catches a lot of flack because it seems at first glance like, well, a bad movie, but it's so kooky that you can't help but be amused. The spastic lightening quick dialog and quirky characters keep it going... I was especially fond of Sharon, the Canuck on Shrooms eh? However, the one that really stole the show was Richard's little brother Andrew (Ira Heiden), his high pitched whining was somehow endearing. The whole movie rocked.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I swear if I did ever tried cocaine I'd be able to relate to this film perfectly. Its pace, as well as the dialog, churns out at speeds that some viewers might need to stop and relax their heads.

There are great little elements that pop up through out the film, like how Rob Lowe's character seems to always be loosing a shoe, or how some characters keep running spirals around his zigzagged path. The story was put together extremely well and the direction seems flawless.

The movie reeks of clumsy and cuteness. This is one I think most could enjoy. A few laugh-out-loud-even-if-you-are-alone moments ensure that I'll certainly be watching this again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Shivering Shakespeare\" could be considered the first classic of the \"Our Gang\" talkie era. By now, Hal Roach Studios began to hit their stride in making talking pictures, and \"Shakespeare\" is the happy result.

The Gang is appearing in a version of Quo Vadis produced by Kennedy the Cop's wife. The kids don't find the play very fun to be in and are distracted by people in the theatre and cannot remember their lines. Among the funniest bits are Kennedy the Cop as the giant, who pulls off his makeup to fight an overzealous man in a bull costume; and the terrible dancing girl (played by director Bob McGowan's daughter.)

Several filmographies mention that \"Shakespeare\" has the first pie fight in a talkie. This may be true, seeing as they tried different speeds with the film during the fight. Buster Keaton's brother Harry is at the receiving end of one of the pies. Very funny and an early Gang talkie classic. 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this as a kid (THE LITTLE RASCALS first went on TV the year I was born) and fairly recently bought this on DVD. In between, I watched it on the occasions it was on and took careful notes at 1) the pie fight itself and 2) how racist some of these parts were: Farina as a Nubian slave, doing voodoo, for example. I think Roach and McGowan would have been beaten to death if they'd tried to do that now.

Notice how the pie fights in The Three Stooges' HALFWITS' HOLIDAY and IN THE SWEET PIE AND PIE resemble this one...and this film came out a few years before their initial contract with Harry Cohn at Columbia Pictures. There was obviously some inspiration from SS and Laurel & Hardy's THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY for these films...remember, at that time, they all stole from the best, each other!!!

One more note: Laurel & Hardy buffs, that bake sale lady was none other than Dorothy Coburn, who also appeared in TBOTC-the 'flapper' getting into her car and getting it in the rear end. It always escapes me why she was never credited?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beware, My Lovely is an experimental studio film from the early fifties and was directed by a man, Harry Horner, better known for his set designs. Robert Ryan plays a handyman who is hired by Ida Lupino to do some housework for her. The problem is that he is a psychopathic murderer and doesn't know it. Miss Lupino is an empathetic soul and tries to win Ryan over, to little avail. He is not the sort of man compassion could help or cure. Thus we have an interesting situation of two people who basically mean well, but one of them can't do well because there is something wrong with him. He suffers periodic blackouts during which he commits acts of violence, which he later forgets.

Essentially the effect Ryan has on Lupino is that of the hunter and his prey, or in another sense a sadist. The audience finds out early on that Ryan is a mad killer, but it takes Lupino much longer. Thus we must live with this knowledge as we watch poor Miss Lupino try everything in her power to 'win' Ryan over in order to make things work, get the job done, get on with life. But getting on with things isn't in Ryan's makeup, as he is incapable of any but the most rudimentary forms of normality, and as soon as there is an opening his paranoia asserts itself.

As a study in mental illness the movie isn't too impressive. What it's superlative at is showing the effect of major mental illness, with dangerous psychopathology in the mix, and its effect on a normal person. In this regard the film is realistic and compassionate, though relentlessly logical in that we know Lupino can't 'fix' Ryan, yet we want her to. The result is that, if one is willing, one can get extremely involved in this film emotionally if one can put aside, so to speak, its melodramatic structure.

Horner shows us, gradually, the layout the Lupino house , a forbidding gothic monstrosity that never feels like a home. We become familiar with staircase, kitchen and pantry; and we come to know which windows Miss Lupino can use for an escape and which ones she can't.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Intense domestic suspense with the mistress of the house (Lupino, excellent as always) threatened by a psychotic migrant housecleaner (Ryan). The 2 masters of the genre are at their heady, erotic best as they match wits, emotions, and wills in a bizarre hostage situation right out of the Saturday Evening Post. Richly hued B & W photography with an unusual amount of close-up head shots. The young girl who teases Ryan is really well directed here. Improbable, but satisfying suburban melodrama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can see that the ratings for this film aren't all that high for this film, so I must be in the minority for liking this film so much. Well, I am right and everyone else is wrong (just kidding). I guess I like it because I am a psychology teacher and I really liked the brooding character played by Ryan. While he truly is dangerous as well as VERY menacing, you can't exactly hate him because he is clearly mentally ill and probably suffering from some sort of brain trauma. And wow did Ryan do a really good job portraying this man! You really find yourself feeling for Ida Lupino as he destroys her life. So with such intense acting and menace, why is the movie rated relatively low? Well, probably because it isn't exactly believable,...but boy is it entertaining and creative. Give it a try and don't believe the score of 6.4--it's a lot better than that!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Whenever Ida Lupino appeared or directed a film in the 30's,40's and 50's, you were guaranteed great entertainment even if the picture was black and white. Ida was able to capture audiences and keep them spellbound until the very end of her pictures. In this film as Mrs. Helen Gordon,\"High Sierra\",'41 along with Robert Ryan,(Howard Wilton),\"Golden Gloves\",'40 she keeps you guessing just how the relationship is going to turn out and just how poor Mrs. Gordon will be able to have a normal and happy marriage with love and real affection. If you liked Ida Lupino, who could play the roles as a criminal in a woman's prison and prison warden who was hated, this is the film for you to enjoy. I truly believe that Ida Lupino was not given the true credit she deserved for her great talents in the Movie Industry!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie with its single set, minimal cast, and straightforward photography (except for a couple of brief special effects) reminds me of one of those old 60 minute playhouse dramas so popular during TV's early years. Nonetheless, the suspense hangs heavy over poor war widow Ida Lupino as she tries to deal with her semi-psychotic handyman Robert Ryan before one of his mood-swings kills her. And who better to play the troubled part than that great actor Ryan. He wasn't very versatile-- watching him essay comedy is almost painful. But no one was better at wounded idealism (On Dangerous Ground) or the psychic pain of this movie. Few actors could express as much with their eyes as this lean and towering figure.

Lupino's problem is that she's locked up in her house with a man who is kind and gentle one moment and raging the next. The suspense comes from her various ploys to keep him happy while trying to escape. It's a nail-biter all the way. This is not one of Lupino's many fine \"soulful\" parts that she was so good at. Instead, it's a role many lesser actresses could have handled well enough. My favorite scene is with Ryan and bratty teenager Margaret Whiting. Ryan's already having difficulty with his masculinity and what others are saying about him. Then when Whiting walks in and finds the attractive-looking Ryan scrubbing the floor, she starts getting coy, flirting with her budding sexuality. Sensing trouble, Ryan abruptly fends her off-- finesse is not his strong suit. Insulted, Whiting attacks his masculinity by calling his work \"women's work\". That does it. Up to that point he's been courteous and professional with Lupino, trying to set himself on a normal path. But Whiting has hit his raw nerve. Now there's heck to pay as Whiting bounces out the door, leaving Lupino to pay the price. It's a riveting scene, expertly done.

Anyway, this is one of the dozen or so films produced by Lupino and her husband at a time when audiences were moving away from these little black-and-whites in favor of wide-screen spectacles. Too bad. What a hugely talented figure she was both behind the camera and in front. She deserves at least an honorary Oscar from a movie industry to which she contributed so much.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw this film it was about 1956 and even though I saw it again recently I have not changed my mind about it. I think it was Robert Ryans best film, because he portrayed someone like my father, and he was a schizophrenic in real life,(my father) although he never murdered anyone but was affected more so during the second world war which made him worse. Having to humour him just to get by and get through the day was so apt. (My mother and brother had to do this)When I saw Robert Ryan portraying this type of man, it was a very good imitation of this type of individual, and I was impressed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We are in a small town, a homely widow (Ida Lupino) hires a handyman (Robert Ryan) to look after her house. She soon starts to regret it as Ryan grows erratic by the hour, it appears that she is host to a dangerous schizophrenic, and now she is unable to escape her house.

Beware, My Lovely is adapted from Mel Dinelli's {The Spiral Staircase} story and play called \"The Man\". Pretty much a one set movie and a two character driven piece, the film boasts two great central performances and offers up an interesting take on mental illness. One however shouldn't be fooled into thinking this is a violent and nerve shredding picture, because it isn't. It's clear from the get go that Ryan's Howard Wilton is a dangerously troubled man, but this is a different sort of \"peril\" movie. One that throws up another slant on psychosis and thus makes it difficult to hate our dangerous protagonist.

Ryan and Lupino are a great combination, they had also done the excellent, and far better, On Dangerous Ground this same year. So with both actors clearly comfortable together, it brings out a finely tuned character story all based in the confines of one house, re: prison. Ryan is particularly strong as his character flits in and out of madness, with some scenes powerful and at times inducing fear and at others garnering deep sympathy. The direction from Harry Horner is safe {he in truth doesn't have to do much other than let his actors run with it} and George E. Diskant's cinematography contains some smart and impacting visual touches. With one involving Christmas tree baubles immensely memorable. Falling some where in between being average and great, Beware, My Lovely has enough about it to make it a recommendation to fans of borderline and easy to follow Film-Noir. For fans of Robert Ryan tho, it's something of an essential viewing, oh yes, and then some. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beware My Lovely originated from a play written by Mel Dinelli who apparently liked writing about frightened women. His first and best effort was the screenplay for The Spiral Staircase. He also did a Loretta Young suspense thriller Cause For Alarm a couple of years earlier. The play Dinelli wrote was originally entitled The Man and it ran for 92 performances on Broadway during the 1950 season. It was Dinelli's only effort on Broadway and it starred Dorothy Gish and Richard Boone.

The roles that Gish and Boone played are taken by Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan. For whatever reason RKO thought to eliminate the age difference. Dinelli himself rewrote his play for the screen so I'm wondering what he thought about that. Certainly the frailty issue was eliminated completely from the story.

That wasn't the only thing that was eliminated. The people are all wearing period clothing from around World War I yet there's no reference at all to the time this story takes place in. I thought that strange and later on when the telephone company repairman comes to Ida Lupino's residence, I noticed his truck was a vintage one of the same era.

The film is almost entirely set within Ida Lupino's home where she's hired an itinerant stranger in Robert Ryan as a handyman. The film is a great object lesson in not hiring strangers without reference. It turns out that Ryan is a schizophrenic who imprisons Lupino in her home for about a day.

Both the leads do fine jobs even with the changes made. Films like Beware My Lovely are the stuff that a small studio like RKO did best. If this were done at MGM or Paramount the glossy trappings would have overwhelmed a solid story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The subject is World War II and Robert Ryan is a rejected soldier whom Lupino hires as handyman. She is a war widow.

The set is limited but the acting makes up for this. Robert Ryan is conflicted: one moment he seems nice, then confused about where he lives. At first Lupino tries to help him. He seems troubled but nothing more dangerous. But how do we know? The suspense builds. I truly enjoy films like this, which rely on the human element for suspense. What is this man capable of?. There are some scenes with O.Z. Whitehead and Dee Pollock as an annoying grocery boy who sees something is wrong. We keep thinking she will be helped, then Ryan's personality turns again. He becomes like a Jekyll\/Hyde character and eventually chases Lupino with a knife.

Worth watching for these two superb actors. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I particularly enjoyed Delly's review of this film and agree that Howard is not the only \"damaged\" character. Howard is rather ruthlessly \"set-up\" by the script, but there is no evidence that his previous employer is actually dead or, if she is, that he murdered her. Howard doesn't know and neither do we. In terror and confusion at seeing the woman lying there, he bolts. However, he never actually harms Helen Gordon, no matter how enraged he is. Indeed, he reacts with horror at Helen's fainting spell and the fact that he is holding a pair of scissors...then he resumes his tidying up and greets the recovered Helen with the almost pathetic \" I'm very tired now. I think I'll go home\". Frankly, I don't think he's a psychopath. A sick puppy, certainly, but not a psychopath.

The problem with Howard is that he has no real male identity. He wanted to serve his country, but his mental condition denies him a place in the army. He is singularly rootless and isolated: no wife, no girl, no home (again, at least as far as we know). And, he does a woman's job - \"Floor's are my speciality\". Helen's niece ruthlessly strips away this pride in his thoroughness by exclaiming caustically that she would want a man with a real job. Also, although he finds himself strongly attracted to Helen, he is unable or unwilling to do more than scare her by making a strong sexual pass. He is remarkably powerless - can't fight, can't work, can't make love.

Helen is justifiably terrified, however. She tries to connect to him but, finding that he doesn't respond normally (i.e. way outside the comfort zone provided by her rose-tinted memories of husband Ned), unwittingly presses all Howard's buttons by lying to him in her attempt to escape.

Both characters, trapped in the house, trapped by fear, neuroses, rage and memory, deserve sympathy. I know the sudden ending has disappointed some reviewers, but I felt it fitted well, as it offered a kind of release to the characters. Helen is freed, I think, from the past. When Howard tries on her husband's army coat, Helen's disgusted reaction is highlighted. She no doubt feels that the \"sacredness\" of Ned's possessions has been violated but, hopefully, her need to keep everything \"untouched\" has been lost in the reality of her own struggle with danger. Perhaps she can move on.

Howard is also freed - from his endless cycle of anger, hurt and violence. Whether he moves on to treatment or to jail is debatable, but I hope it's the former.

Great performances from Ryan and Lupino. I prefer \"On Dangerous Ground\", but this is pretty good too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A terrific B-feature. A virtual two-hander and set over the course of a day, (you can see it's stage origins and even how it must have worked as a radio play), and although only 77 minutes long, played out in sequences akin to something like real time. Robert Ryan is the psychopath who keeps Ida Lupino trapped in her own home. Both are superb, especially the under-rated Lupino whose initial independence and self-control soon crumble before Ryan's unhinged intruder. Today, of course, it would be all guts and gore but the restraint shown by director Harry Horner, (much better known as an Art Director), only adds to the suspense which at times is worthy of Hitchcock.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beware, My Lovely came on TV on BBC2 recently during the early hours so I set the video to record it and was pleased I did.

A man finds a dead woman so he escapes so he don't get the blame for her murder and gets a job as a handyman at a widow's house but she does not know what she is taking on here. It turns out this man is a psychopath and possible killer. He starts tormenting her and locks her in the cellar. He then cuts the phones line so she can't get help from the outside. A young boy who regularly does shopping for her notices something isn't quite right when he comes to drop her shopping off. Eventually, the man leaves, acting as if nothing has happened.

I can see why Beware, My Lovely was given an X certificate when released in the cinemas. Some of the scenes are rather nasty for this time. I also thought the man was going to do something to the young boy too.

The cast features an excellent performance from Robert Ryan as the psychopath, Ida Lupino as the widow and are joined by Barbara Whiting and Dee Pollock as the boy.

This is certainly Robert Ryan's most chilling performance I've seen. A must see.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ida Lupino is trapped in her own home by crazy Robert Ryan in \"Beware, My Lovely,\" a 1952 film from RKO. Lupino and Ryan did three films together and worked well as a team, both being consummate professionals and strong performers. In this film, based on a Broadway play called \"The Man,\" Lupino is a World War I widow who rents out a room in her home. She's very active and well-liked in her community and though her husband has been dead for two years, she's not ready to move on. The man who rents her room goes on vacation, and Lupino hires Robert Ryan to help her with some heavy-duty cleaning in the house. He's friendly enough to start, but later terrorizes her, locking her in the house, and not allowing her to answer the phone or the door, as he grows violent and more out of touch with reality.

The character played by Ryan is shown in the beginning of the movie running away when he discovers a dead body in another house he's working in. It isn't clear whether or not he's the killer, since he seems surprised to see the body. He might be a split personality, as when his personality turns ugly toward Lupino, he seems to have no memory of his activities when he comes out of it. He doesn't know that he has the keys to Lupino's house in his pocket and doesn't know why he has tickets to a party that he bought from young children who came to the door.

\"Beware, My Lovely,\" is a very suspenseful film, and the two leads give terrific performances. The tension builds to a very high level and ends in a way you're not expecting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"the fact that there was so much fuss is ironic, as the whole point of the programme was to highlight the way the media treat such 'taboo' subjects, such as paedophilia. the newsdesk set, the suits, the smug presenters, the men-at-the-scene shouting about things you can see behind them, the pointless cgi graphs and stats, the whole thing was a satire, a very very funny satire. the way c-list celebrity's will say absolutely anything if their agent tells them it'll be good for their career (\"there is no evidence for it, but it is scientific fact\"). It may be hard to watch (with milly dowler and the cambridgeshire girls, as well as 9\/11), but satire is supposed to be challenging, and we shouldn't be afraid to stand up against the blatant scaremongering and headline grabbing media, just because it's a delicate matter. How this show failed to win any TV awards for it's intelligence, observation, courage, acting and thought provocation is shameful, but, as watching it will show you, not in the least bit surprising.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chris Morris' Brass Eye TV series had always generated a large number of complaints, both from the audience and from the people taking part. But, nothing he has done has managed to stir up more controversy than this. The 2001 Brass Eye Special. Before the hugely overrated Jerry Springer Opera arrived, the Brass Eye Special held the record for the most complaints received about any TV program ever aired.

The sheer volume of complaints that the general public made towards the Brass Eye Special was unbelievable! Many complaints were voiced by people who never even watched the program! The subject that the program handled turned many heads, but the message was widely misinterpreted. The message was even lost on some who enjoyed the program. This was not a show that mocked the subject of paedophilia. The show was purely about the media and it's presentation of the subject. Morris, is and always will be, a media satirist. The notion that the program 'makes fun' of paedophiles and children who have been abused is completely laughable! Morris never attempts to do either such thing. He merely draws our attention to the overwhelming, and very often stupid media hype surrounding the subject.

Using many of his established 'Brass Eye' characters, such as, Ted Maul and others, Morris shows just how much the media over blow every little thing about a subject that they themselves created and built up, and the result is as funny, if not funnier, than anything Morris has done previously. Using his tried and tested formula, Morris manages to trick several gullible celebrities into believing that they are working on a serious documentary. In actuality, they are made to look like exactly what they are. Retards.

All in all, the Brass Eye Special needs to be seen to be believed. And, with one opening line, Morris manages to sum up the entire media situation as it stood in 2001: \"Welcome to Paedo-Gedden!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Who ever put that review as 'of bad taste' is not all quite there... its so funny, genius and fantastic you could watch it until your eyes are square! not to mention the rest of the work he has done on the rest of the series...all is as good as Morris' standards. if you think that it is 'awful', 'distasteful' or 'sick' then i can only think of one thing to say to you: \"go to hell.\" thanks. it had to be said! i think that the way that so many people complaining was a complete joke...i would like to make a shout out to all the people that actually did that: \"haven't you got anything better to do with your time? what are you trying to prove?\" thanks for reading my heart-filled review on the matter...cheers","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This BRASS EYE special PAEDO-GEDDON was swamped by complaints ( More on that later ) when it was broadcast in 2001 following a national debate around a possible \" Sarah`s law \" following the abduction and murder of school girl Sarah Payne . In fact it`s scheduling was delayed while Phil Collins took legal advice after he found out he`d been fooled by the show`s maker Chris Morris into a starting a campaign entitled Nonce-sense

If truth be told this show is probably more remembered for the controversy than the content which is in very poor taste but I do confess that I laughed out loud . The edition centres around paedophiles and how society treats both them and their victims . Chris Morris plays the presenter who tells the audience that an infamous paedophile has been launched into space then confesses that an eight year old child has accidentally been placed into the capsule along with the paedophile . Cue the child`s frightened screams . Like I said very poor taste

Other highlights of the show include Dr Fox giving a scientific lecture that paedophiles share an identical nervous system to crabs ( \" No one knows this but it`s a scientific fact \" ) Labour MP Barbara Follet giving a public warning about equipment paedophiles put on their genitals while surfing the net and Kate Thornton warning viewers that paedophiles can send gas through the internet which makes young children suseptable to sexual predators including one victim \" Who was once a shy innocent child and who now has the sexuality of a sixty year old Colonel \" . Morris also shows a police officer in the child protection squad a serious of photos wanting to know if they`re classed as obscene . The photos included Barbie surrounded by a marital aids and a composite photo featuring a young boys head , a dog`s body and an erect penis that could only have belonged to John Holmes . Hey I never said this show was tasteful did I ?

It`s impossible to mention PAEDO-GEDDON without the hypocritical fall out that surrounded it where politicians , childrens organizations and policemen rushed to condemn the show for making fun of a very serious subject . The show was poor taste despite me laughing all the way through it but it`s a biting satire . Perhaps the critics should take a long hard look in the mirror where a liberal elite allows convicted paedophile slime to walk around the streets of Britain before they criticise a mere TV show for exacerbating tensions .","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's the 1980's and the teenagers are ready to party it up in a scary old house that is rumored to be haunted by the ghost of Murder McGee. After mistakenly conjuring the dead through an unfinished conversation on an Ouija board, the kids are forced to fight to the death battling a vengeful ghost who possesses and kills all of their friends one by one. Sound familiar? It's supposed to. It's clearly marketed to pay homage to the classic 80's slashers with the tagline: \"Excessive violence. Gratuitous nudity. Zero budget.\"

Can't get enough; It's pure entertainment! I enjoyed the humor and the way it poked fun at all the horror clich\u00e9's, but at the same time embraced what was fun about movies from this time. There is something you get with this movie you never got with the old 80's slasher films though: good acting. The entire cast was very talented and you don't see that very much in any low budget flicks, recent or otherwise. There was a lot of chemistry between the characters. I was very entertained throughout the entire film, and I am fully convinced the writer\/director and cast will go a long way in their separate careers. The script was very well written, and the dialogue flowed naturally.

The effects were a bit amateur and the scenes were not lit well, but the fact that this movie admits on its cover there was practically NO BUDGET, I already know this going in. This film makes it simple to politely ignore its faults and just sit back and enjoy. Although this is not an Oscar award winning opus, it never claims to be, and props to that. It's a lot of fun. If you like slashers, you'll really appreciate this film. If you like blood and boobies, you'll appreciate it also.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"STMD! is one of the most fun and enjoyable low-budget films I've seen in quite some time. Director Jeff Smith (who also served as co-writer, cinematographer and editor) definitely shows his love of under-appreciated 80's horror films with this movie! Anyone who loves the cheesiness, preposterous situations, wacky and stereotypical characters of 80's horror movies will definitely love this very tongue-in-cheek homage to the past.

STMD! definitely lives up to the qualities described in the poster and then some. It has all the \"excessive violence\" and \"gratuitous nudity\" that is reminiscent of those entertaining 80's horror movies we all love. I had a blast watching STMD! From the 80's outfits that the stereotypical characters wear to the blood splatter to the goofy tone I just couldn't get enough!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Loved this movie! Kicking it old school! Love the idea. Love the script. Love the characters. I really really really loved the Geeks! I was excited to see the silly slapstick horror flicks still being honored. This was right up with my favs such as Saturday the 14th and Pandemonium. If you are a big fan of scary AND silly then this is your movie! Only taken off one star because I would love to have had better sound. Not bad sound but would have liked to have more. Great blood splatters. Great murder weapons. Great costumes! I really love the nod to the great 80's teenager stereotype ala breakfast club. And I can appreciate the non-CGI suspense. Really good camera action and light suspense instead of cutting to CGI. I would rather have good fake that really fake fake.

Kisses to the cast and makers! oh, loved the \"making-of\" too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, so the following review is more of a synopsis more so than really containing any spoilers, but better safe than sorry so as to avoid being blacklisted, right? Right! Consider yourselves officially warned, and read on...

In this parody\/tribute to the greatest time in horror movie history - the 1980's - a group of stupid teens are getting together to host a seance in the house of the notorious Murder McGee, who butchered his entire family a few years back and buried them in the back yard. As I'm sure you can guess, things go from bad to worse faster than you can say \"Where's the beef??\" and in typical 80's horror movie fashion the deaths are bloody, the dialogue is cheesy, and beautiful women are taking off their clothes every chance they get. Good times...

No clique or 80's horror movie clich\u00e9d characterizations are left unrepresented here. In fact, no stone was left unturned at all \u0096 we have the cool hero, his innocent girlfriend, the Goth chick, the tough thug (think John Bender), the hot blonde who keeps losing her shirt, the shy dork in love with the hot blonde that keeps losing her shirt, a couple of gorgeous half-naked lesbians, and two big geeks.

As you can plainly see, the cast is pretty big. Usually, larger casts are where things can fall apart quickly, with one or two sour apples buggering up the whole barrel. Not in this case though. Not a single cast member left me disappointed. The acting was very well done. Everyone from the cool hero in his Thriller jacket played by Jovan Meredith to the grooovy Goth chick played by Renee Dorian to Geeks One & Two played by Cory Assink & Jonathan Brett \u0096 they all played it straight, brought their A-game, and knocked it out of the park. If you're a fan of Gary & Wyatt in Weird Science, you'll immediately fall in love with the geeks.

Director\/co-writer Jeff C. Smith is a guy to watch for in the future, trust me on this. If this is what he can do with a low budget, there are nothing but good things ahead for him when he gets more money for future projects. The characters were dead on; the atmosphere was perfect; the laughs were huge; the blood flowed, and squirted, and sprayed beautifully \u0096 it was just like watching a horror movie from the 1980's. Call this one \"THE BREAKFAST CLUB meets NIGHT OF THE DEMONS\"!!! The tag line says it all, and says it honestly - \"EXCESSIVE VIOLENCE; GRATUITOUS NUDITY; ZERO BUDGET\" - no false advertising here, folks! As fans of this genre, we have to look to the indies and support these hard-working folks who are busting their humps out there bringing us original tales, lest we forever get stuck in a world filled with big studio watered-down PG-13 'horror' or pointless remakes like The Hitcher. No, thank you - no more of that for me.

In closing, I honestly have to say that STUPID TEENAGERS MUST DIE! is by far one of the best indie flicks I've gotten the pleasure of watching this year. It's a bloody good time, and holds up on repeat viewings. From the dialogue to the characters to the wardrobe...even the closing love theme over the end credits (which if that doesn't bring back fits of laughter recalling mid-80's power ballads by REO Speedwagon - over-pronounced R's on every word starting with the letter 'R' - then I'll eat my DVD right now)...bottom line is, if you're a fan of 80's horror or horror in general, no more hesitation - this flick deserves to be in your collection!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cheezy? Yep. Poorly filmed? You betcha. Zero budget? They proudly claim it on their posters. Brilliant anyway (or because of it)? For sure.

This movie celebrates (and makes fun of) everything that was classic about the 80s teen horror genre: Characters with absolutely no depth, fitting into a stereotyped roll they never escape for a moment; teenagers trying to survive a slaying by some mysterious force they disturbed by doing something lamely adolescent; completely gratuitous nudity; impossible amounts of blood coming out of victims; slow moving zombies; great one-liners... and our hero even wears a Michael Jackson jacket!

This is not an all-out spoof like Scary Movie, but more a tribute film to the lost innocence of the 80s horror movies... when being scared and grossed out could also be a fun, silly, sexy, and goofy good time!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just saw Baby Blue Marine again after 30 years. I still find it a pleasant and romantic film which catches a time which has been lost forever. The innocence and purity of a time now long gone, is truthfully captured in this small film. The acting is above average and Richard Gere's brief appearance as a shell-shocked Raider Marine war hero, holds a keen interest for any film buff or Gere fan. Jan-Micheal Vincent is in his prime and looks and acts like the \"All-American\" boy. The late Bruno Kirby (who was billed as B.Kirby, Jr.) has a meaty role as \"Pop\", a peace-loving, Marine Corp reject, dreaming of getting back home to his wife. If you're looking for sex, drugs, or rock and roll, this movie is not for you. If you're looking for action and adventure, the same applies. However, if you want to recapture a time in America of innocence, honor, romance, and love, then Baby Blue Marine is a movie for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was actually around 13 years old camping near the McCloud River, near Shasta when this movie was being filmed. My family was paid to leave our campsite for the afternoon, when they filmed Vincent floating down the river. A little trivia...the scene where they pulled him out, was actually where he started his float down the river. And if the stunt man missed the netting, there was 20 foot waterfall about 1\/4 mile down farther.

Anyway...I watched it at the time, and didn't get it. It wasn't until years later when I saw the movie and actually understood the meaning of it. It's pretty powerful movie and certainly a fine job by Jan at such a young age. His movie career never really took off as expected, but of course he later found success on TV. I wish this movie was available, cause I would love to see it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"**SPOILERS** Beautifully photographed slice of life home-front WWII love story with Norman Rockwell paintings in the beginning and end of the movie about how a \"war hero\" is not just someone who kills for his country but is also someone who thinks for himself and isn't corrupted by the war propaganda that's constantly drummed into his head. Washing out of the Marine Corps Marion \"Hedg\" Hedgepeth, Jan Michael-Vincent,is kicked out of boot-camp, after five weeks, and forced to put on a Baby Blue Marine uniform that shows that he just didn't have it to make the Corps. Humilitated and scorned wherever he went as he's going home to St. Louis and terrified what his family, whom his dad was in the Marine Corps in WWI, would think of him in that he couldn't \"Cut the Mustard\" as a US Marine.

Hedg stopping in a bar and finds sitting next to him is a Marine member of the fearless and deadly Marine Raiders Richard Gere whom a admiring Hedge buys a beer. Making conversation with Richard Hedge is shocked to find out that not only is he being sent back to the Pacific Theater after all the battles he fought in, and combat medals he got, but the totally gray hair and mid-thirty looking Richard is going to be 21 next month! That's what being in the Marine Corps and WWII did to him! Buying Hedge a number of drinks Richard takes the drunk Baby Blue outside and knocks him out taking his Baby Blues and leaves his impressive US Marine uniform with some money in it for Hedge to ware.

As soon as Hedge puts on Richard's uniform, that fits him perfectly, he's confronted by this big drunken US paratrooper who calls himself Cement-Head wanting to have a fist fight with the Marine Raider. Hedge doing everything he can to avoid trouble is forced by Cement-Head to belt him, after he himself cracked two beer bottle over his cement-head, to get himself warmed up for the big bout between Marine,Hedge, and Paratrooper, Cement-Head. Hedge incredibly floors the big cement headed buffoon knocking him out cold with one punch! \"I guess the trick is not hitting him in on top of his head\" a stunned Hedge tell his, Cement-Heads, fellow G.I's.

Hitch-hiking to this small town of Bidwell Hedge notices this US Military internment camp for Japanese-Americans who are there because their considered a threat to US security. It's later in the movie that Hedge shows everyone what a real hero he is, not who the people in the town think he is, by risking his life to save one of the hated \"Japs\" who mindlessly together with two of his friends escaped from the interment camp, where the hell did they think they were going anyway? Hedge risked his life by saving the scared to death Japanese-American from drowning in the dangerous rapids outside the town. Hedge in his actions taught the people of Bidwell that not all \"Japs\", even those who are American citizens, are bad and treacherous banzai screaming suicidal kamikazes like they were thought by the newspapers magazines and movies at the time to think that they were.

Hedge strikes up a conversation with the very cute and pretty waitress at the local diner Rose Hudkins, Glynnis O'Connor,who's just crazy about him that even Hedge at first thinks that it's his uniform not him that impressed her. Later when Hedge admits to Rose that he's not what she and her parents think,A US Marine Raider,that he is Rose had by then gotten to know the sweet and caring washed-out marine so well that it didn't matter to her at all what he was supposed to be, a Marine a Paratrooper or a Post Office worker, it was what was inside his heart that really counted.

The film has a number of touching and beautiful scenes in it between Hedge and Rose that shows how movies used to be made years ago without all the sex and profanity that we see and hear in movies today that involved two people in love with each other.

The way the film accurately, not phony baloney, shows the true feelings of average Americans, back then in 1943, about the war in general and Japanese in particular couldn't have been done in more authentic and accurate as well as good taste. \"Baby Blur Marine\" does it's best not to be too politically correct in not showing the hero's or leading actors and actresses in the film having the same feelings and ideas back then during WWII as most people have now, which would have come across as phony as a three dollar bill, to those people watching the film who lived during those historic and momentous times when the film was to take place.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film in 1980 and it touched a cord which reminded me of a more innocent time. The opening narrative, music and paintings by Norman Rockwell set the tone for me. You either love the movie or hate it. Jan Michael Vincent was at his all time best and portrayed Cpl Marion Hedgepeth in a most innocent and touching way. This movie is at the top of my all time favorites, a shame it isn't available on DVD or VHS anymore. The ending was also wonderful. John Hancock did a marvelous job of capturing the essence of the time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an interesting, hard to find movie from the early 70's starring Jan Michael Vincent as a young man who doesn't make the cut as a marine. Dressed in 'baby blue' outfits to humiliate them as they are sent home, the failed recruits are sent packing. Vincent stops at a bar and runs into a very young Richard Gere who has just returned from a tour in the Pacific as a hard-core Marine 'Raider'. Gere's character is already jaded and contemplating desertion, and he takes advantage of Vincent's innocence, stealing his 'baby blue' uniform after getting him drunk and beating him in an alleyway. Vincent's character, whose name is Marion, takes Gere's outfit and is suddenly transformed into a Marine 'Raider'. Marion hitch-hikes his way into Wyoming and stops at a little Norman Rockwell-like little town. In the local caf\u00e9 he meets Rose Hudkins, who immediately catches his eye. Staying with Hudkins parents, Marion attracts all sorts of attention from the towns folks. Mr Hudkins suspects Marion and wonders how a Marine 'Raider' could still be so innocent. The story also brings up the Japanese Internment Camps, as the towns folks go 'hunting' 3 escapees. Marion is shot accidentally during this hunt. But there's still a happy ending, which befuddled me a bit. I would have preferred a little more drama! Anyway, this captures JMV at the peak of his 70's performances. BUSTER AND BILLIE, BABY BLUE MARINE and WHITE LINE FEVER in the mid-70's were amazingly good JMV performances. He was both an action star and a heart-throb all at the same time!!! He made a lot of quality movies during his career, and continued to do so up into the mid 80's with the great TV show Airwolf. He does a very good job in this as 'Hedge', quietly observing the way people treat him (in his uniform) as he travels across the country. He must have performed some of the stunt work as well- there is a harrowing river scene at the end of the movie-and it looks like he's the guy getting tossed down the river to me! But really, at the height of his popularity, this movie could have done so much more with JMV's talent and his looks. Innocence can only be so interesting. Evil, as explored in \"Buster and Billie\", is much more dramatic! Anyway, Glynnis O'Connor is delightful as Rose. The whole look of the movie is like a Norman Rockwell painting. The outdoor scenes are gorgeous - must have been filmed in Canada.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie bombed at the box office and in the voting here but I loved it. One measure of a movie's worth is how much of it you can still remember after 25 years. I won't bore you with a list but there are dozens of deeply comic scenes, also a good story and great casting. The inept robbers are a hoot. See it and judge if it ever gets on TCM.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"VERY memorable comedy. It's fun to watch the many situations develop and finally converge after a long journey on that greatest collection of eclectic humanity (and the world's largest honky-tonk) - the great American Freeway. Like \"...mad, mad world\" it's got loads of contemporary talent, old-boy politics, good comedic action and dialog. Unlike that one it is the target that seeks, not the unwitting seekers - they have no idea what they really want as they drift along America's great road. Nor does it carry the weight of having a great fall guy who is saved only in the end by a great belly-laugh. But the ending stunt sequence is nothing short of spectacular with excellent film editing, humor and timing, and the big city bank scene is hilarious with very original acting by one very talented character in particular. The total aplomb of the city dwellers in the face of chaos leaves one feeling like the proverbial fly on the ceiling. The slapstick is funny, but Honky Tonk Freeway deserves to be heard and seen closely because it is surprisingly loaded with nuance and character reactions that are easily missed. All in all a very funny reflection of who we were and are, good or bad, and the goofy situations we find ourselves in. It was just meant to be FUNNY and it is!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the early '80s, I recorded Honky Tonk Freeway from the cable. Since then I have waited, hoping it would be on DVD. Yesterday I found it. It is one of the best humorous character studies I ever saw. The Old Fashioned episode is priceless. At this time (4\/28\/02) only two have reviewed it. One hated it, the other loved it. If you have a DVD player, either rent it, or buy it as I did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A notorious big budget flop when released. This Robert Altman inspired comedy has some terrific moments and an occasionally inspired cast. Although it goes on to long an loses its focus completely, there are enough funny moments that will keep a curious viewer watching until the end. If you are a fan of character actors and actresses, this will be a treat for you; you will recognize so many terrific little known performers throughout this movie (you may not know their names, but you know their faces), heck even the kid from A Christmas Story turns up in a small part. Rent if from Netflix, if you read this, I bet you will enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember watching this movie over and over again when I was a kid. I loved it. Whilst I haven't watched it recently, I am sure I would enjoy it just the same today. Its a very light funny movie guaranteed to make anyone laugh. The situations with each one of the characters were so funny and imaginative! I particularly liked the one with the girl traveling with her mother's ashes (who ends up picking them up on the highway after the explosion) , the robbers and the nuns. This nice humour style is much missed these days. Also, this movie proved that actor Paul Keenan (Dynasty\/Days of our Lives) was off to a great start. I recommend it to anyone lucky enough to find it in their local video shop.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wonderful film ahead of its time,

I think so, In the eighty's it was all about winning, Greed is Good ? Remember that one ? I have seen this film more that 20 times, To me this is a real desert island film, I keep watching because there is always something more to learn about these flawed characters that I just love, Jessica Tandy, and Hume Cronin, are simply wonderful,Also Beverly D'angelo, Beau Bridges come in at a close second, don't get me wrong there are many more great performance's in this film, and it is also the way it is written that made it for me, and I hope you, a film that you will want to see over and over, I think TV shows like \"Northen Exposure\", and now \"Earl\" owe a lot to this film. but remember it is not a Tom Cruise film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Back in August, '81 there was a country-ish buzz to movies, big hits like \"Urban Cowboy\", \"Every Which Way But Loose\", \"Smokey and the Bandit\" were all the rage. For that reason I suspect the producers of this movie chose \"Honky Tonk Freeway\" as the title hoping it would help the movie's box office receipts by drawing in that same \"Urban Cowboy\" crowd. Instead \"Honky Tonk Freeway\" bombed at the theaters and I suspect it do so in part by being burdened with a poorly chosen title. Thats same problem burdens it now on video and thats too bad because its a pretty good movie and in a comedy style ahead of it's time. No matter what, probably anybody who can remember 1981 will enjoy it.

Its too bad this movie bombed. But I think it would have anyway even if it hadn't been saddled with a poor title. Its a movie ahead of its time. One could look at this movie now and see that its clearly a father or *great-uncle anyway) to the kinds of comedy made today. For its day \"Honky Tonk Freeway\" was pretty full of innuendo and a kind of frankness about life that didn't get popular in comedy till much later on. While clearly its a child of \"Airplane\", its more mature, and while its certainly no \"Knocked Up\" it clearly points in that direction. The characters are more \"comedy-mature\" in that they are low-key and don't ever think anything they do is anything other than serious. The jokes are in the choices of what to emphasize and the camera views and the way the view themselves and their situations.

But, more than that, \"Honky Tonk Freeway\" is a real time capsule. A great look back at the exceedingly early 80's. The people in this movie are dressed and act as everyday people of 1981 did. It was clearly meant to reflect the times and be a sly comedic comment on everyday life around them.

I don't know if my review is helping you, but this is really a good, sometimes kind of excellent, movie thats worth renting if you want to see how a lot of faces that are familiar today looked when they were 30 years younger. Beverly D'Angelo is so young its hard to realize its her sometimes. So are Beau Bridges and Terri Garr. Terry Garr was just about to become the toast of Hollywood as her next movie after this one was \"Tootsie\" which finally made her a star. Howard Hessmann was arguably the biggest \"current\" star of the the day when this movie was made. Back in 1981 Howard Hessmann was the star of the big hit TV show \"WKRP in Cinncinatti\". He played its lead character, the rascally night DJ. Daniel Stern was just about to break out as a star as the grown-up narrator voice of the lead child character in the popular 80's sitcom \"The Wonder Years\" There are also several faces that are no longer with us these days, its nice to see Hume Crowyn and Jessica Tandy as a an old married couple on a journey. Jessica Tandy would finally pick up her Oscar ten years after this for \"Driving Miss Daisy\". There is also the great Geraldine Page in one of her final movie appearances. Though she'd had a brilliant career she didn't get her Oscar till four years after this in 1985's \"Trip to Bountiful\", for which she richly deserved it, and she died very soon after getting that award.

Plus, there are lots of other faces in this movie, actors who aren't big stars but who have done tons of supporting work. Many are familiar even if you can't think of their name.

This movie is a pleasant little diversion. A bunch of people with a variety of problems set out from various locations each for their own individual unrelated reasons who all, in a vaguely Altman-esk way, end up heading towards Florida and unbeknownst to them a rendevoux in the little town of Ticlaw, Florida, which happens to be reeling from the effects of being bypassed by the recently constructed interstate nearby which did not construct an exit to Ticlaw which effectively takes the town off the map.

And thats also what this movie is about, fascination with the whole idea of the interstate system, which had only recently been \"completed\". It had taken a generation to build, from when it was authorized by congress around 1960, through many years as different parts were built and then \"went live\" and by 1980 most of the system had finally been built and all connected together and first the first time the promise of what the interstate system would be had turned into what is. And people were enchanted by it. Everybody by 1980 was pretty much an \"interstate freeway veteran\" in the sense that by then everybody had used parts of it and knew how it worked and how it was different from other roads in that it had no red lights or stop signs, only on and off ramps, and that it went to places that were formerly less accessible. By 1980 anyone could drive anywhere in comfort and without having to stop for anything except to eat and sleep and a bathroom. And this was all new then.

The ending is anti-climatic and isn't that satisfying albeit its one spectacular moment. What makes it great is it's the journey not the destination that makes Honky Tonk Freeway timeless in spite of it being such a product of its day. Forget its title; instead let it take you down memory lane.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this movie on Netflix and had to add it to my queue. I wasn't disappointed when I got it as it's just as funny now as when I saw it at a local drive-in theater back then.

It builds to a climax nicely with you getting glimpses of the various characters as they begin their trip across America on the \"Honky Tonk Freeway, America on wheels.\" This was a strange comedic role for William DeVane as I remember him as Kennedy in the 1974 TV film \"The Missiles of October\" and felt no one could have pulled that dramatic character off as well as he did.

It reminds me a bit of Dick Van Dyke in \"Cold Turkey' where Van Dyke played the local minister. DeVane's role as mayor, minister, and activist was typical for small towns so it makes his character seem amusing and real.

Howard Hessman and Teri Garr as the spoiled family in the RV was on target for the time as well. Anyone who has traveled across country with small children, (Are we there yet?) will appreciate those scenes.

The scenes of a small town struggling to survive reminded me a lot of the small town I grew up in but they handled it with the charm and humor that you often only saw in small towns. It's sad that many small towns disappeared because of the freeway system and it gives a realistic if humorous view of what they had to do to survive. (Used zoo animals anyone?)

All in all, it's a lightweight comedy with no particular message but a humorous glance at America during the early 80's. Well worth watching if you just need a bit of good cheer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Meant to be some sort of a social commentary about the way that our lives were spinning out of control in the 1970's, this movie plays more like something Mr. Schlesinger threw together after having a bad day on the freeway. A mish mash of snippets about the nuts encountered along the freeway in Florida, and along the freeway of life, the cast is mostly wasted and probably ended up on the cutting room floor. The problem is that what DIDN'T end up on the cutting room floor probably should have! Now available on DVD, it's kinda fun to see a comedy that would have cost $100 million to produce had it been made in 2004. It rolls along and isn't too difficult to sit through, and, strangely enough, in 2004 we're all still pretty much just

hopping in our cars and going faster and faster, heading nowhere.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Love this little film, that reminds me somewhat of the original Japanese gem, SHALL WE DANCE? (not the overblown Gere\/Jlo remake...) Luckily I found it and taped it when it was showing on a STARZ Promo Weekend, because as far as I know, it's not available on DVD. I'll watch just about anything with Yancy Butler (anyone remember the short-lived TV series MANN AND MACHINE ???) in it, and she positively shines in this. She does a dance routine to a disco song that is verrrryyyyyy HOT!! Loved all the other characters in it, especially the ones played by Patrick Stewart and Leslie Caron (where's she been all these years?). This is one of those films that I take out from time to time and always come away smiling after watching it. Recommended highly!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I felt that this movie had a lot of heart and must have been a labor of love for Eleanor Bergstein. The primary actors (Campbell Scott, Jennifer Beals, Yancy Butler, James Goodwin III, Patrick Stewart, and Leslie Caron) were very well selected and played their parts with excellence. It was a very uplifting movie that I wish was available on tape or DVD. A rare gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just finished this movie and my only comment is \"OH! WOW!\". Jennifer Beals is ok as the fiancee, but Yancy Butler as the female dance instructor is pure sexual dynamite! Having watched her in WITCHBLADE, I was not prepared for the pure unadulterated sensuality and raw sexual excitement she launches onto the screen.

I gotta see THIS movie again....if only for Yancy Butler as Corrinne!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This may be the most tension-filled movie I have ever seen.

In fact, it's so nerve-wracking, I haven't been able to watch it again after viewing it two years ago, but I will since I have the DVD. There were a couple of scenes in here that are almost too much to watch....so if you've got problems and need to \"escape\" for an hour-and-half this film will get your mind off anything else.

The Russian actress Marina Zudina did a super job in facial expressions alone, which she had to do since her character in here is a mute. She plays a cute and wholesome makeup artist for a sleazy filmmaker. After the day's shooting is done and \"Billie\" is about to leave, she hears something. She takes a peek into the room where they were filming and discovers they are now shooting a \"snuff film\" and actually killing someone. Billie's eavesdropping is discovered and she runs for her life as the killers go searching for her in this big warehouse-type building.

There are two extended scenes in which our heroine is running for her life and both of them will wear you out. The first I described above. The second scene, the climactic one, goes on too long and isn't as well done as the first. In fact, the film should have been trimmed a bit but, overall, since it's so good at keeping our attention, then it served its purpose as entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An amazing piece of film that was well-conceived and kept me on the edge of my seat. Brilliantly orchestrated in its timing, and the comedy kicked in exactly when the tension needed a release. The acting was generally well-done (the \"Director\" should've asked Alec Guinness for acting lessons), and the shot selections were impressive (as in elongating the hall as Billy tries to race to the door in the studio). This movie didn't let up since the opening scene...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A couple of years before SCREAM spoofed the slasher\/horror genre with savvy, self-conscious young things knowing every trick in the book of what to do and not to do in a precarious situation, a little movie produced in Russia hit the theatres without any grandiose pretensions.

This movie was MUTE WITNESS. Starring a cast of unknowns (except an extremely brief cameo by Sir Alec Guiness whose scenes were purportedly filmed eight years prior to the actual filming of this movie), it told the story of a mute make-up artist, Billie, who is working on a film on location in Russia produced and directed by her sister's boyfriend Andy. She is unaware that the set has closed when she goes to retrieve her belongings and inadvertently stumbles onto a porn shoot that becomes extremely bloody. Overcome with horror she alerts the murderers of her presence, a chase ensues, and finally she is rescued by Andy who take her home as they alert the police. The trouble is... there is no body, no evidence that anything of the sort took place. Even so, a mysterious inspector seems to be on Billie's side of the story....

And to say more would be criminal. MUTE WITNESS is the kind of film that demands a scrutiny of viewing similar to the most intricate, clever thriller because as much as it is a convoluted thriller, it's one that pays its dues to movies like WAIT UNTIL DARK and the best of Hitchcock in its choice of camera cuts, deadpan humor, Americans reacting in foreign countries where they are powerless, and nail-biting suspense until it seems something must snap. Even if the story does become a little too implausible due to the fact that the story arc suddenly becomes the focus of an even greater conspiracy, the film succeeds in not trying to trick the audience with cheap shots (for example the sudden appearance of a person on camera accompanied by a crashing swell of violins) but with the fear of the unknown and that death is only a shadow away. Very smart.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Billy Hughes is a mute young lady working for make-up on a cheap horror picture being filmed in Moscow by an American director. One night Billy gets locked in the movie studio. Later that night she hears that someone might be in the building and goes to check it out. That's when she stumbles across a woman being brutally murdered, while being filmed. After escaping the clutches of the murderers, Billy informs the authorities, only to be red-faced when the men show it was an act. Billy knows what she saw and soon her life is in turmoil again from underground figures that believe she has something of importance.

I don't know how this heart-pounding sleeper passed me by, but I thought it was a much older flick. There's one thing though, it's got to be one of the most jarringly, and intense thrillers I've seen in quite a while. It's just a great suspense builder and mostly everything clicks into place! The first half of the feature is surprisingly gripping with taut sequences that have your heart in your throat and clouds us with an atmospherically foreboding environment of alienation. Underling this is a humorously wicked black streak. Faults do pop up in the story, as it does lose that furious grip it held so early and goofy humour (or better putter comic relief) between Fay Ripley and Evan Richard's characters is a hit and miss affair by being too forceful. In the long run, it probably could have done without. Despite some cringe moments, this aspect didn't hinder my enjoyment of it. For me, the soft ending they decided to go with just didn't feel right.

The interestingly mysterious premise was eerie to the bone and packed some unsettling goods. So multi-facet was the context and its thrills, there was something fresh to how this all plays out and the nervy jolts and unbearable tension are weaved into a range of sudden plot turns and twists. Really, they made superb use of the novel idea of this disability and to handicap the situation, by staging it in a foreign place where not too many spoke English and so we are caught up in the confusion too. The delicate Marina Zudina gives a harrowing portrayal of the American mute girl Billy. The way she able to display the erratic emotions through her eyes and actions gave it some gruff and believability. Director Anthony Waller shoots the flick in a rather stylish, well-timed and skillful manner, without loosing that grimy look that eventuates from its rigid surroundings and a powerfully airy music score persistently nags at you. The only real name to make an appearance was small cameo part by Alec Guinness. The performances by the cast were all fine, especially the nail biting turns by Oleg Yankovsky and Igor Volkov as the Russian murderers.

This riveting feature that's mostly made up of unknowns, is way better than your average dark thriller. Highly Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Laura Gemser plays a magazine photographer who is sent to Africa for a photo shoot. There she is met by a couple and other swinging couples. They all stay at this huge, very touristy hotel with a gigantic swimming pool. One night they have a pool party complete with \"real live\" native dancers. It's very un-politically correct and very kitschy. Later, Emanuelle finally has her photo shoot, which turns out to be in one of those drive-through, stay-in-your-car safaris (albeit the photography is gorgeous). Throughout the film, Emanuelle is going after every man she meets. The photography is very well done in this film. There are scenes with cascading waterfalls, galloping giraffes and ancient ruins. The film is worth seeing for the soundtrack by Nico Fidenco alone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You know you're watching softcore with the wrong attitude when the poor dubbing bothers you. I'm okay with the crappy lip syncing but the sound mix is really of too. Every time someone says anything it sounds like there's a narrator. Either way, this is pretty much the purgatory between boring French professionalism and the heavenly campy Joe D'Amato flicks involving cannibalism and whatnot. Don't get me wrong, there's a fair dose of exploitation in this one, but there's always room for more. Laura Gemser stars, and that's good because she's hot. It's a bit freaky how at times you can see her bone structure, but she still rules over her white counterpart. You can also make a cool drinking game of how often she takes her kit of. Often. Every reason is good. Every person is good. Every location is good. One scene even involves an entire hockey team, whatever they are doing in Africa. Sometimes the plot gets in the way, and the supporting cast consists of some really vile looking people, but there's enough Laura Gemser for all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The incomparable Laura Gemser appeared briefly in an erotic scene from the French \"Emmanuelle 2.\" This amazing woman did not go unnoticed, and was soon cast as the lead in this all new Italian series, where she is the centerpiece; a beautiful photojournalist who travels the world experiencing all the mysterious eroticism that the world had to offer. In this first installment, Mae Jordan\/Emanuelle is sent to Africa to photograph the people as well as the stunning landscape and wild exotic animals. Much like Sylvia Kristels character, Emanuelle has not come into her own when it comes to being open and comfortable with her own sexuality. This first film is basically about how she becomes the \"Emanuelle\" that most exploitation cinema fans are familiar with. Filled with gorgeous cinematography, beautiful people, and an intoxicating 70's score from the legendary Nico Fidenco, this one is sure to please. Those who enjoy the more story-driven style of the original french \"Emmanuelle\" should definitely like this as well. The main story here being an interesting cat and mouse tale of a womanizing playboy who comes to the realization that he has fallen in love with a woman who is the female version of him! Sexy, fun and totally entertaining throughout; a soap opera to be sure, but one with enough skin and general eye candy to keep the male viewers entertained. For some reason this is the hardest one in the series to find on DVD. there has never been a legitimate DVD for this, which is very strange. The bootlegs that sometimes appear online will have to do until someone gives this diamond of a film a proper release.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like NIGHT STALKER and then X-FILES, the show set up a fantastic situation and the main characters had to sort it out. Unlike these, the hero(es) weren't left holding an empty bag at the end. They had usually tangible results. It was also made clear that the 'good guys' were in a dirty profession where they occasionally had to pull some nasty things. Imagination, wit, acting which didn't always take itself too seriously ... I miss it. One reason being, I'm hard pressed to think of too many shows - BANACEK aside - which did as good a job of taking the viewer and grabbing their attention right off the bat. The writers excelled at setting up hugely improbable, if not downright impossible situations which the characters then had to find an explanation to. explanations which often took 90 degree turns into the clearly unexpected yet, for all that, still made sense. Too, I agree with another reviewer that the Anabelle character was somewhat underused, but when she was on screen, it wasn't just for eye candy. She was quite competent in her own right and stood up to the two male leads when she felt the point she was making warranted it. A rarity in those days. Sullivan? If he wasn't in the Department, he'd be working for the KGB or CIA. He's that sort of coldly efficient, ruthless type. He knows how the world works and realizes what it can take to get the job done. King? It's clearly a game to him. One he excels at and which he parleys into ideas for the detective\/spy novels he writes as his ostensible 'real' job. He's probably the most fun to watch of the three, although they all have their moments and often, too. I do agree that the eventual spin-off series featuring only his character lacked the interest of the original, however.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Created by Dennis Spooner, 'Department S' was a glossy thriller show about an offshoot of Interpol, based in Geneva, created to solve baffling mysteries the police could not handle. If a plane landed at Heathrow with no-one aboard, if a man was found wandering around London in a space-suit, if the passenger of a Rolls Royce suddenly transmogrified into a skeleton, if a train pulling into a tube station turned out to contain dead commuters, you called on 'Department S' to sort things out.

Peter Wyngarde played 'Jason King', a flamboyantly dressed crime novelist whose fertile imagination helped crack many of the bizarre cases. King caught the public's fancy and was later awarded a spin-off show. He was ably assisted by American 'Stuart Sullivan' ( Joel Fabiani ) and the delectable 'Annabelle Hurst' ( Rosemary Nicols ). Unusually for a '60's show, the department was headed by a black man - 'Sir Curtis Seretse' ( Dennis Alaba Peters ) If the show looked and felt a lot like 'The Avengers', it was hardly surprising. It shared many of the same writers and directors! The colourful titles were designed by Chambers & Partners, and are worth tuning in for alone. As was the case with so many I.T.C. series, the music was composed by Edwin Astley. His theme for 'Department S' has got to rank as one of the best television themes of all time.

Predictably, the show looks a little sexist and dated now, but don't let that dissuade you from tuning in. Imagine a hybrid of 'Jonathan Creek' and the 'Austin Powers' movies and you've got 'Department S'!

Trivia Note: the episode 'A Small War Of Nerves' features a young Sir Anthony Hopkins in a major role!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With all due respect to Joel Fabiani and Rosemary Nicolls and their characters, Department S will be forever associated with Peter Wyngarde's Jason King.

Most people remember him as this camp, flamboyant and debonair womaniser cum detective in the mould of Austin Powers but that will do a disservice to the character: He's far more nuanced than that.

Jason King is lazy (he often lets Stewart fight all the bad guys and only chips in at the end), he is egotistical (his appreciation of people is based on whether they've read his novels or not), a lot of his detective work is speculation without facts to back them up and he sulks whenever Annabelle is right...and she often is. He's clearly a man having a mid-life crisis and drink drives but.......Jason King is brilliant. If Wyngarde had played him purely as a dashing hero, it wouldn't have worked but he shows King often as a paper tiger, led by his libido, love of finery and prone to grandstanding (and it gets in the way of his detective work at times) but he has some of the best lines and put downs in TV history. And by not playing him as whiter-than-white, the chemistry and interactions between the three lead characters is all the better for it.

Watching it again on DVD recently, you get to see just how much depth Wyngarde put into Jason King.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spawned by the same Monty Berman \/ Dennis Spooner partnership which produced The Champions and Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) - the latter retitled My Partner the Ghost for the US market - Department S remains a classic example of the action-adventure series which the UK produced in bulk during the late 1960s. Like those two shows, its internal dynamic of two guys and a girl might seem to indicate a progressive attitude towards equality (Dept S also has a black superior), but it's mostly facade: the launch episode, \"Six Days\", is barely halfway through before Rosemary Nichols is called upon to parade around in bra, panties and one (yes, one) stocking in order to extricate herself from a dodgy situation. Still, it's an interesting time capsule, even if the appalling fashion sense of Peter Wyngarde's character (which, amazingly, degenerated even further in the spin-off series Jason King) should definitely have remained buried.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, SWORD IN THE MOON finally got a DVD release in Korea, and despite the mostly negative responses I've heard to it, and the suspiciously tardy DVD release, I couldn't help but pick it up - any wu xia film is better than most non-wu xia films in my eyes :D Perhaps low expectations were an advantage, because I was quite pleasantly surprised to find the film pretty enjoyable.

An assassin is killing a number of ministers who were involved in a revolution that usurped the throne, and the government's top swordsman is tasked with identifying the culprit. This doesn't take particularly long, but the answer is not one he wanted to hear. Through prolonged flashbacks we learn why, and the history of the swordsman and the assassin, and of the revolution.

The film is typically melodramatic for a Korean film, and resolutely serious in tone - no HK style comedy moments to be found here. The story can be a little difficult to follow at first, but all makes sense eventually. The film goes a bit wobbly at the end, but no worse than a Chang Cheh film might do, and for the most part I found it enjoyable. The production values are high, with some good cinematography to capture it. The fight scenes aren't up to the calibre of the better HK wu xia films, but perhaps they're not meant to be - the fights are more \"realistic\", in that they're less like choreographed dance routines, but there's some wirework and occasional cgi that put the film in \"wu xia\" mode. The film doesn't have the best cast, unfortunately, with the leads being a tad lacking in charm and occasionally difficult to distinguish from each other. There's a young lady in the film that I don't think I've seen before, but makes the best impression of any of the principle cast - not just because you see her nekkid... or perhaps it is :p The film lacks the charm and grace of the better HK wu xia films, and perhaps the beauty too, but I only wish HK would make them half this good anymore - TWINS EFFECT 2 does not give me hope that *that's* about to happen any time soon, though Tsui Hark surely still has it in him if he can get the funding and cast. SWORD IN THE MOON is not going to go onto my list of favourite wu xia by any means, but it's a whole heap better than ROMANTIC WARRIORS or LEGEND OF THE EVIL LAKE - perhaps better than BICHUNMOO too, though I did like that film quite a bit more on a second viewing. Obviously it's nowhere near the wonderful MUSA, but it's a different affair altogether really. SITM will probably get a second viewing within three years, which is perhaps the best indicator of how much I liked it :) 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the movie on its North American premiere (July 14, 2004) at the Fantasia Festival. I was slightly disappointed as I had been expecting a more epic, ensemble cast movie along the lines of Musa the Warrior. Instead, the movie concentrated only a much smaller number of characters. Still, the movie was solid, thoughtful and visually intriguing. There were slightly jarring tone shifts from the dominant thoughtful and realistic tone of confused loyalties, intrigue and blood, versus the lighter, more flamboyant, martial arts sequences. It almost seemed as though the filmmakers couldn't make up their minds about whether the movie was supposed to be a martial arts \"flick\" or a historical epic. The story touches nicely on the issue about the need for loyalty versus the need to adapt to new situations. Is it really worth your life and those of your friends to be loyal to one's master or does there come a time when one must submit to the winds of change? Is there perhaps greater courage in leaving the old ways for new ones? How does one decide? These questions are raised in this movie, and ironically, there is the suggestion that the answer given, may in fact be the wrong one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing a preview for this film at my local mall where there is a stand for purchasing foreign films, I thought it looked very entertaining. Before watching the movie i went on to IMDb to see what ratings and comments it received. I was worried when I noticed the low numbers and the negative ratings. Despite the hype, I watched to movie and to my surprise I found it unbelievable.

The story was great (just pay attention) and the characters and their relationships within the film is astonishing. I haven't seen such a good combination of leading characters in long time. I really felt for both characters and sensed a strong bond. As reading previous posts about this movie not being \"epic\" enough or a lack of martial arts I could not disagree more. This film is what it is, its not Braveheart and its not Enter the Dragon but it is still a wonderful film that does an excellent job combining story both and action.

While Sword In The Moon isn't perfect (what movie is?) it still is wonderful and moving. Just wait until the ending scene, with the music and cinematography together, its breathtaking. I only hope more people can see this movie to give it a fair voting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must say: out of all modern korean martial arts movies this one is worth checking out. It wasn't as epic as Musa-The Warriors and didn't develop the characters as well, but it had many nice ideas. Simple story: a elite soldier thought dead, returns after years to end the reign of the Japanese in Korea in medieval days. His counterpart was formerly the best friend he had and now he is out to stop him. The fight scenes are all with sword or different weapons and very entertaining to watch. The motives of the figures are discovered first near to the end. You might need to watch it again to get all the connections right. And me personally...I loved the end. I could watch it over and over again. Maybe a little pathetic, but a real freedom fighter story.... People can be killed, but not the ideas they stand for....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although I saw this movie in Korea, in Korean, and therefore did not understand the language, images sure say more than enough. From what I can make of it, this is the story: Two superb sword fighters become friends in their service as the king's guard. One of them finds himself opposed to the ways of the king and starts assassinating important men. The other has to hunt him down. This movie is visually great. The swordfighting is great. And the movie has a gripping end. I just hope this movie will be marketed for the western cinema goers. And be released on DVD, of course.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nice movie. At the begining, i thought it's a medieve detective kind hi-fi movie, but the ending totally surprised me. I guess, the whole movie covers too many subjects, each of them can be the main subject,e.g. avenge, friendship, and dream. But it mixed all of them without focusing on any of them. I think, it'd be a great movie if it's built around the ending from the very begining.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jewel Thief is a rare breed of film - completely noir in its story but nothing noir about the presentation. A young man Vinay, superbly played by a newly face lifted Dev Anand at age 40+, is estranged from his police officer Dad and finds a job in a jeweler's store. Soon random people come up to him and call him Amar. Using just a few pithy moments the presence of a \"doppelganger\" is established. Then a woman Shalini (Vyjayantimala) comes forward and claims to be engaged to said doppelganger. She is accompanied by her loving brother (Ashok Kumar) who is so convinced that Vinay is actually Amar he makes him take his shoe off and prove that he is not Aamr, the 6 toed one. The jeweler's super cute daughter Anju (Tanuja) is completely enamored with Vinay. Amidst all this confusion there is a Jewel thief on the loose and he is stealing at will. Slowly we learn from Vinay's encounter with a super hot night club singer (Helen!) that the thief is Amar the doppelganger. Many many good looking women (Anju Mahendru, Faryal) are after the hero. The police force, including Vinay's Dad, are completely befuddled. Vinay is slowly falling for Shalini\/Shalu and her brother seems to bless the union. The action moves to Sikkim as that is where Amar's next heist is to occur. The rest is for you to watch - the duplicate, the girls, the men who hang on to Vinay's every word thinking he is their boss Amar, the loving brother sister duo - nothing seems quite right, and it takes the deft story telling (and direction) by Vijay Anand to conclude this tale in a highly entertaining manner. The movie has numerous moments that you will wonder at until they deliciously weave into a grand finale at a dance in a palace in Sikkim.

I was not a big Vyjayanthi fan but she is quite competent here, although at her chubbiest. She is able to add to the confusion in the story in a subtle way, but is best when she is sorrowful or dancing. Tanuja is cute as a button and I loved her in this film. I so badly wanted her to get the man. Dev was, well, Dev. If he were not walking like a man with a congenital shoulder defect (one shoulder always lower than the other) I would wonder who they had found to imitate him! Yet his style, charm and charisma were unfailing. In the song Yeh Dil Na Hota Bechara, only Dev could look cool carrying a fishing rod to which a large plastic fish was attached! Ashok Kumar was simply awesome - Dada Moni did not miss a beat the entire movie and turned this into one for the history books.

SD Burman spun magic with numbers like Baithe Hain Kya Uske Paas (Helen in a blood red rooster imitation dancing on a bar top), Aasman Ke Neeche, Rula Ke Gaya Sapna Mera, and my personal favorite seductive number Raat Akeli Hai Bujh Gaye Diye.

If you are craving a great story, with more twists than a pretzel, wanting to be kept guessing, yet amused and entertained - then go buy or rent Jewel Thief. Better to buy it, then you can go back and see it again with your buddies. This one is a keeper.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Unlike Bond and other detective movies, Alfred Hitchcock's hero used to be a common man who would get into trouble and then with his acumen and courage (and luck) would get out of it. Jewel Thief is based on the same principle and so in a way it is Vijay Anand's tribute to the master of suspense. The tribute as it may be but it stands its own grounds and establishes Vijay Anand as a great director himself.

It is the story of a common man Vinay who one day realizes that he has a double called Amar who in fact is a Jewel Thief. Suddenly Vinay finds himself in the middle of a hatching scheme and to save himself goes on a wild goose chase to find this Amar who remains one step ahead of him. The suspense is almost killing throughout the movie and as the plot unravels you are hit by the brilliance of the scheme. Just like Hitchcock's movies, Jewel Thief can boast of a grand climax shot inside the grand palace of Sikkim.

Everyone and I mean everyone; Dev Anand, Vijay Anand, Ashok Kumar, Vajyanti Mala, Tanuja, SD Burman, Kishore Kumar, Majrooh Sultanpuri etc. etc. are in their top forms. This is one of the best thrillers ever made in India.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jewel Thief is *THE* crime thriller of Bollywood, and why should it not be? It is directed by the biggest exponent of the crime thriller art in Indian Cinema Vijay Anand ('Johny Mera Naam' and 'Teesri Manzil.) I could watch this movie for any of the following reasons (in order of importance):

1 Vijay Anand's direction 2 R D Burman's music 3 Dev Anand 4 Vyjayanthimala 5 Ashok Kumar 6 Majrooh Sultanpuri's lyrics

Even if Jewel Thief is not a Bond Movie it definitely has bond babes. Helen, Tanuja, and the mysterious Vyajanthimala (and some cameos.) But our sauv\u00e9 Vinay (Dev Anand) is anything but Bond. He is out of control for most of the story and goes where the story takes him almost always as confused as we are. He even flirts with Anju (Tanuja) trying to hit her romantic nerve, just so that he can get employed in her father's shop.

Dev Anand might be in a double role - well I don't want to spoil your movie or else I would have told you. That is what most of the mystery is about. Dev Anand works in a Jewelry shop and there is a robbery when he is supposed to be at work - though is not, or at least has a perfect alibi. We wonder who did it, is it Dev Anand as 'Vijay' the person he claims to be or is it 'Amar' someone we have not yet seen but many people claim is his look alike. Comes 'Shalu' (Vyjayanthimala) who even claims that he is her fianc\u00e9, in a tense situation Dev Anand has to prove that he is Vinay and not Amar. While everyone wonders if Dev Anand is Vinay or Amar he is asked to remove his socks. Amar we are told has 6 digits on one of his foot. While we watch with bated breath the events that are about to unfold Dev Anand even finds time to joke.

The real life brothers Director Vijay Anand and Actor Dev Anand have many movies between them this is not the best of them but definitely the best in Crime Thriller.

There are moments of Hitchcock's North By Northwest, but the movies are very different. Except for the confusion about who is who, a treacherous female lead and lot of traveling there isn't a lot of similarity. Dev Anand could very well be Amar in addition to being Vijay. People have seen him, they identify him where ever he goes. There are too many of those people for this to be a fraud. Finally Vinay thinks it is better to carry along with being Amar to find out what is the truth, and it is a sad mistake. He gets too deep into it, only to be saved by the twists of Cinema.

When I watched the movie as a kid I was definitely not amused, the ending confused me completely. Even now there are parts about the ending that I do not like, but I'd recommend this movie anyway.

Even as a kid I enjoyed the songs this movie has to offer. 'Yeh dil ...' - a definite loafers song in Kishor Kumar's voice. I could hear 'Rulake gaya ...' whole day long. Ditto for 'Aasmaan ke neeche' which is set 'under the skies' of Gangtok (at least the story line suggests that). 'Raat akeli hai' among the sexiest song to come out of Hindi cinema featuring Tanuja as the seductress. 'Meri taraf dekho' - Helen's cabaret and we 'look at her'. 'Hothon pe ...' - now, could there be any better thriller of a song than this. As the song progresses we are more tensed than we ever were and the words 'hidden in Shalu's lips' add to it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An excellent thriller of all time. Vijay Anand excels as Director and Editor. Performances by Dev Anand, Vyjayantimala, Tanuja and Ashok Kumar prove to be an asset to the film which has its screenplay worked out to the minutest detail. Cinematography adds to the mystery, glamour and other requirements of the story as it evolves. And to top it all, music by Sachin Dev Burman is unforgettable. \"Yeh dil na hota bechara\" by Kishore Kumar, \"Raat akeli hai\" by Asha Bhosle, \"Rula ke gaya sapna mera\" by Lata, \"Aasman ke niche\" by Lata and Rafi and \"Hothon pe aisi baat main\" by Lata, again reaffirm Burman Dada's unique stature as a top notch composer with a style of his own.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jewel Thief is one of those suspense thrillers in which the viewers are left guessing till the end who the villain is. Suspense builds from the very first scene when the jewel thief becomes a national problem and there are cleverly concealed clues in the film so that you can guess who is the jewel thief. The story portrays that Dev Anand (Vinay in the film) and the jewel thief have identical faces. But you get a 1000 watt shock when you finally come to know the villain. There are many surprises and a lot of fishy stuff going on but there is time for romance and six melodious ever lasting songs sung by Lata Mangeshkar, Asha Bhosle, Kishore Kumar and Mohmmad Rafi.

This film was also talked about for its song's videos. Consider the teasing and counter teasing in Asman Ke Neeche. Or the blocking of road by Dev Anand when Tanuja was going out with her friends in Yeh Dil Na Hota Bechara. Or the romantic Dil Pukare Are Are in the beautiful Sikkim. Or the wonderful dance by Vyjantimala in Hotho Pe Aisi Baat. Add to it Rulake Gaya Sapna Mera and Raat Akeli Hain and you will never forget this film for any reason.

Able acting by Dev Anand, Ashok Kumar, Tanuja and Vyjantimala and direction by Vijay Anand (Dev Anand's younger brother) makes this one of the best loved Hindi films of all times even today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was marketed extremely well. When it was released in '97, during the middle of Master P's fame and success anything and everything with his name on it was selling off the shelves. That's why it's no wonder this underground urban drama sold over 250,000 copies and still goin'.

If you are a fan of No Limit back then or even now check it out. It has a few old school phatty videos and don't get me started with the freaky deaky strippers at the bonus Ice Cream Party. So what I got to say to all the people who don't like Master P or No Limit Records don't watch it because it isn't for you and don't bother voting on it because you're only going to deter TRU no limit fans from renting or purchasing this video with your low votes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie. It is the first film Master P have ever done. It is based on the story of his life. It is low-budget, but it is very good. It shows how Master p grew up in projects in New Orleans.

Not only did Master P start in this movie, he also was the writer and director with Moon Jones. The DVD also has The No Limit ice cream party on it. This movie shows how Master P goes from bad too good and how he had to deal with the things around him. It also has many of The No Limit Records roster in this film. You should buy or rent this film.

It is a great movie to watch is you like rap, or is a Master P fan. I will not spoil this movie for you. Go get this movie as fast as you can and watch it. You will like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best films I've seen in the last years.Belmonndo and Deneuve shine in their respective roles, he as a naive plantation owner and she as an enigmatic trickster.Words won't do this masterpiece justice,suffice it to say that this is a movie that explores the darker side of love and the pain,humiliation and capacity for self-delusion that go with it, although it's dressed as a film noir. Forget that feeble remake with Jolie and Banderas, see the genuine artticle instead and treat yourselves to some moments of great cinematic beauty.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've slowly been collecting the films available on DVD of both Catherine Deneuve and Francois Truffaut. Both actress and director have done some stinkers in their time - fortunately Mississipi Mermaid is not one of them.

Next to \"The Soft Skin\", coincidentally staring Deneuve's sister (the late Francoise Dorleac), this would have to be my favourite Truffaut film.

As well as directing, Truffaut also wrote the screenplay. Something that always strikes me about Truffaut is his almost childlike innocence when presenting a story -- one could almost call it naivety.

There's a scene towards the end of the film where Belmondo returns to the apartment in Lyon with the remains of the loot. He rings the doorbell and Deneuve answers wearing a negligee. In the time it takes Belmondo to reach their room from the street, Deneuve changes into her dress, puts on her best pair of stockings and shoes, then lies on the bed and pretends she is asleep. It's a scene that could almost come from the mind of a child - but that's Truffaut for you.

Watching Catherine Deneuve in her films of the late 60's is indeed a sensory pleasure. She is so extraordinarily beautiful it is almost painful for us to watch. Incidentally, for those fans, there are a couple of topless scenes of her in this film - indeed a sinful pleasure.

I disagree with previous posters. I see nothing 'Hitchcockian' about the film at all. As for the 'look' of it - i love the look of the older film stock used in the 60's. It certainly gives films of this period a unique look.

Highly recommended for both Deneuve and Truffaut fans......","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, the owner of a cigarette factory Louis Mah\u00e9 (Jean-Paul Belmondo) is engaged through correspondence with Julie Roussel and he does not know her. When Julie arrives in the island to get married with Louis, he waits for her in the docks but Louis does not recognize Julie in the passenger vessel and finds that she is totally different from the picture she had sent to Louis. They get married and Louis shares his bank accounts with her. When Julie's sister writes a letter to Louis asking her sister to write to her, Louis discovers that the woman is not Julie that is missing. Further, he finds that the woman has cleared his bank accounts and left the island. Louis and Julie's sister hire an efficient private detective Comolli (Michel Bouquet) and Louis travels to France seeking the woman, but he has a nervous breakdown in Nice and is submitted to an intense sleeping therapy in a clinic. He recovers and finds that the woman, actually Marion Vergano (Catherine Deneuve), works in the Phoenix Club Priv\u00e9 in Antibes and lives in the low-budget Monorail Hotel. Louis breaks in her room and when she arrives from the club, she tells that she was happy with him but her former dangerous lover Richard had blackmailed her. Louis is still in love with Marion and escapes with her to the countryside. But Comolli is chasing Marion in France accused of murdering Julie.

\"La Sir\u00e8ne du Mississipi\" is a film-noir by the great director\/writer Fran\u00e7ois Truffaut, with an unconventional love story of passion, murder and love that hurts. The femme fatale Catherine Deneuve is astonishing, probably in the top of her beauty and is delightful to see her face and the topless scenes on the road and in the room. Jean-Paul Belmondo is very athletic, and the sequence when he escalates the wall of the hotel is impressive. Catherine Deneuve makes this film worth and gives credibility to the passion and lust of Louis. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): \"A Sereia do Mississipi\" (\"The Mississippi Mermaid\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Contains spoilers)

People who put a Lonely Heart's ad in the newspaper are often idealists. They try to put into a few words everything they are and expect. The exchange of letters is full of hope...Louis Mahe (Jean Paul Belmondo), owner of a cigarette company on the ile de la Reunion (east of Madagascar) is so affected by the letters of Julie Roussell that he proposes to her. But not the expected pretty brunette comes from board of the \"Mississippi\", but - Catherine Deneuve. And we know from the start that she is a marriage imposter and that a crime has taken place. She shows no interest in \"Julie's\" wardrobe (she does not even get her trunk open) and neglects her canary until it dies. But the most basic tricks of seduction (an open zipper) are sufficient to transform Louis into a pliable little dog. First: a joint bank account. And then, when Julie's sister draws attention to herself, the flight. With 27,850 millions of Louis' 28 millions - she would have needed his signature for the entire sum.

Louis and Julie's sister engage a private detective (Michel Bouquet). Louis contrives to trace Marion (Deneuve's real name) in Antibes where she works as taxi-girl - her gangster-lover left her penniless, or rather centimeless. Louis finds himself unable to kill her. She tells her story: Orphan. Precocious. Lesbian experiences. Many sugardaddies. Jail - and soon she leads him by the nose again. The detective turns out to be sly as a fox and tenacious as a blood hound; Louis and Marion bury his body in the cellar. They flee to Paris, where Louis discovers that Marion has a costly taste. She worships money like a deity. He sells his firm at a fraction of its value. But when the corpse of the detective is discovered (a flood) they have to flee again - without the money. Life in a mountain lodge, together with a whining loser - Marion can think of a more cheerful life without this appendage...

A high point in the careers of everybody involved. Belmondo's self-deceit makes him nearly endearing. Deneuve looks beautiful in her wardrobe by Yves St. Laurent, and her performance is delightful: At first she fakes the fragile wifey - too timid to ask her husband for money, that's why the joint bank account is needed - but after being exposed she sounds like Katharine Hepburn in the jail scene of BRINGING UP BABY. The scenery is spectacular - the tropics, the riviera, Paris. Truffaut directs with self-evident aplomb: the sixties were the only decade when european films were head and shoulders above american productions. After this film Truffaut was able to look his idol, Alfred Hichcock, full in the face.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film is a joy to watch, not just for the plot, which is gripping, but also for the superb performances of the actors, Deneuve and Belmondo. Though considered a 'flop' on its first release it has become a critical success, and it is clear to see why. Deneuve's acting style suited the film brilliantly. she constantly gives the impression that she is holding back or hiding something, and her character in this film is. I will not spoil it with saying what, though it is divulged fairly early on. Belmondo is lovable as the fairly naiive but in love tobacconist. I would recommend this film to all Truffaut or Deneuve fans. It is a brilliant Hitchcockian style thriller with exciting twists and interesting relationships and characters that develop as the film does. The film is approx 2 hrs, so you feel that you have not been sold short. Deneuve steals the show in this film, and it is clear that at the time of making the film Truffaut was very much smitten with her. A definite must see for any cineaste or moviefan. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This agreeable French movie deals about a millionaire owner of a tobacco factory on an African island nearly to Madagascar named Louis(Jean Paul Belmondo). He's a single man looking wife, then he advertises a bride and gets a gorgeous woman named Julia(Catherine Deneuve). When she spontaneously appears turns out to be much more attractive than expected. He marries to Julia but she suddenly disappears.A French eye private(Michael Bouquet) is hired by Julia's sister and soon he's on the trail of his previous spouse. Later Louis encounters her in a dancing-hall under another name. In spite of the romantic delusion and everything, Louis goes on enamored with his enigmatic wife.

This film is a splendid drama plenty of betrayal,deception, killing, theft and Hitchcockian suspense. Good performances by Jean Paul Belmondo as young proprietary of a cigarette company who seems determined to fall under the spell of a femme fatale and a wonderful Catherine Deneuve as suspect heroine. The film gets several references to the American cinema, but Truffaut(400 blows) was a fervent moviegoer, such as : Johnny Guitar, Colorado Jim, Bogart, and Hitchcock.The USA version was cut numerous minutes and deserves an urgent restoring and remastering. Loosely based on the novel titled'Waltz into darkness' by Cornell Woolrich (Rear window and screenwriter of Alfred Hitchcock hour) who also was adapted in 'Truffaut's The bride wore black'.Colorful cinematography by Denys Clerval(Stolen kisses) and atmospheric musical score by Antoine Duhamel, Truffaut's usual musician.This is one of the best of his suspense movies along with \u00a8Farenheit 451 and Shoot the piano player\u00a8. Remade by an inferior version by Michael Christofer(2001) with Antonio Banderas, Angelina Jolie and Jack Thompson, full of erotic and lust scenes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very interesting plot of the film based on the novel \"Waltz into Darkness\" of the writer Cornell Woolrich. It is a drama rather than a film noir, which tries to send a message that love changes your own life, i.e. your love to any person and the love you received from him\/her. A wealthy man really changed his life for love, while his partner finally understood that he was the only one that loved her. Belmondo played well as usual, while a somewhat still young Michel Bouquet played his eternal role of a detective or police agent. Frankly Bouquet was not so impressive in this film, but less than that was the performance of Catherine Deneuve. She was not so convincingly in her role as a prostitute then lover\/wife of Louis Mah\u00e9 (Belmondo). For those who like to visit the world, the film offers the occasion to see part of the Ascension Island, and also Lyon city in France.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This must be one of the most horribly titled films of all time. The kind of title that ruins a film because it neither evokes the plot nor the characters. A title like this makes a film flop, even the French title is not much better. Too bad - Truffaut & Deneuve must have been enough to sell it..

This is a long film, but largely worth it. Clearly influenced by Hitchcock, we have an intercontinental story about a personal ad bride, her rich husband, a theft, an identity switch, and obsessive love. The plot here is actually very good, and takes us on an unexpected trip.

The thing that works both for and against the movie is the focus on the relationship. It is an interesting study in how these plot developments are played out in \"real life relationship\" with these two people. Unfortunately, this is what bogs the film down, and makes it ultimately dissatisfying. We do like films to have a real sense of finality, and that is missing here.

It was the case in many of her films that Deneuve became a canvas for Directors to play their fantasies out on, and this time it doesn't work as well. Messy here, is the fact that the Director clearly just wanted to have Deneuve take her top off a few times. Deneuve is an actress who always seems very deliberate and thoughtful, so these attempts to make her seem spontaneous fall flat.

Basically, the script needed to be worked out better before shooting began, to make this film tighter and shorter and to snap. But Truffaut didn't snap, did he? So - it wanders a bit, but remains interesting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"MISSISSIPPI MERMAID is a disturbing and unsettling examination of what it means to be in love with the \"wrong\" person.

Truffaut's directing is his usual outstanding work. Although this is far from his best. Deneuve is very, very beautiful. Despite the character she portrays.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I honestly don't know what words IMDB will allow me to use in this review, as a result, I'm having a hard time describing these shorts. Let's just say there's a good amount of gay sex, some necrophilia, some incest, a fair amount of masturbation, and several artificial.... members. And I loved every minute of it.

Not that it's ALL crude humor. It isn't. They stray away from fart gags for the most part, with the exception of one sketch entitled \"Pizza\" in which they use one very well. \"They\" being 3\/11ths of the short-lived sketch comedy group that aired on MTV called The State, namely David Wain, Michael Showalter, and Michael Ian Black.

The trio go on adventures, usually playing themselves and encounter strange and unusual people, people that are often actually more normal than they are. The supporting cast is fantastic as well. Paul Rudd, Julie Bowen, Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and Sam Rockwell all make appearances in various sketches. They're also joined by other The State alums like Joe Lo Truglio and Todd Holoubek. The musical selections are also very well placed.

I've enjoyed these sketches over and over again, but they aren't for everybody as they're pretty vulgar most of the time. If you like clever humor that isn't afraid to push the limits of good taste, then I highly recommend this. If you liked Wet Hot American Summer (Directed and written by Wain and Showalter) or The State, then you should really enjoy this.

I think it can currently only be ordered online. Check out their website and stream a couple of sketches to get an idea if you really want this first, and then find out how to buy the DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you were ever a fan of MTV\"s \"The State,\" then these three guys will be familiar to you. But even if you only stumbled upon them via the internet like I did, you will soon come to appreciate their unique brand of comedy.

Born out of their stand up comedy trio, 'Stella', Michael Ian Black, Michael Showalter and David Wain produced these brilliant vignettes of surreal comedy to display at their shows, and now after being available only to download from two websites, they appear in pristine glory on one DVD.

Think comedy sketch show sans censorship, and you'd be halfway there. No stone of decency is left unturned. But for those who like their comedy rude, self-indulgent and bordering on puerile, (and I mean that in the most flattering way) this is the DVD for you!

I think it's worth the money for the commentary from the two Michaels and David alone, you can't help but take a liking to them as they explain their actions, cringe at their own antics with sex toys and by turn pat each other on the back and hurl abuse.

Fantastic.

It must say something for the appeal of Stella that the likes of Julie Bowen and Paul Rudd are willing to throw themselves into the action so fearlessly. And you should follow their fine example, throw preconceptions to the wind, and prepare to laugh yourself sick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hilarious and low-budget comedy at it's best. This set of unique individual sketches with extensive self-referential humor is reminiscent of a really raunchy Kids in the Hall. Be prepared for some of the most random and recitation worthy lines, filled with ethnic slurs and awful language. Sex toys included!

There should be more comedy like this around today. This collection of sketches on one DVD will warrant many viewings and reviewings in order to appreciate some of the parts. If you enjoyed The State and\/or Wet Hot American Summer, get ready for some more glory. If you are even considering this for younger audiences I would say that every child on earth should see this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw Stella on comedy central I thought \"god, this is horrible!\" But I loved Wet Hot American Summer. So I knew something didn't make sense. There was nothing left for me to do but search out for the Stella shorts which I had heard contained more dildos than any other comedy troupe out there. When I found them not only were my dildo expectations met, but I found probably the greatest comedy scenes I've seen in years. The set of twenty odd short films put me on the edge of my seat with water running down my legs. Not only did I laugh my ass off the first time I watched them but continued to laugh harder when I watched them over and over again. It's really a shame Comedy Central had the restrictions of cable television for the Stella series. It would have faired much better on HBO or Showtime. Their brand of humor can't be restricted by censors or popular culture. Given even if it was on HBO I'm sure the \"masses\" would have voted it canceled in a season or less, but still it would have been fantastic. Needless to say I'm now in love with Stella and all it's individual members. Any Stella fan should check out David Wain's site with all his short films. They are equally as enjoyable as Stella itself. So my hat goes off to Michael Showalter, Michael Ian Black, and David Wain for the unbelievable comedy they have made with Stella. I hope to see much more of the troupe in the future.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow, Stella Shorts are great! Lots of patrons from The State and Stella, the TV show. I never knew that Stella could have gotten any better then they were on the TV show Stella or even Comedy Central Presents: Stella. I also never knew short comedies could be any good. My favorite ones were Pizza, Racking Leaves, The Woods and David arranges to a meeting with his long lost cousin Greg. I think over all that David was the funniest one. Its funny when he doesn't make sense. I like the music in the shorts. Thats something I pay attention to a lot. They always had good taste in music. I wish they still made shorts, either that or bring back there sitcom. I hope they continue making good and funny comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw the film at the Hollywood Film Festival in Oct '04 . Mark Robertson took a huge chance writing an extremely difficult part for his first film and it paid off big in his casting of Kelly Overton. I had a strong feeling she came from the theater so I looked her up here and ...surprise, I'm right. More Hollywood actors should follow her lead, give up the expensive acting classes and get back to theater because only with that kind of training will you be prepared for a ride like this. For all the great things I can say about the film and the director (and there are many) I just can't stop talking to people about Kelly Overton's masterful performance. We'll be seeing a LOT MORE of her work, no doubt.

Congratulations to Mark and Kelly on a daring film. Get it out in the theaters so I can bring all the people I made want to see the film ASAP!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and to date, this year, it is one of my favorites. The story was excellent although the twist at the end was far too predictable and I knew what would happen far too early. Usually when this happens the film is spoiled for me (like \"The Others\") but even knowing the outcome I still enjoyed it right up to the end. Looking through the comments of others many people were impressed with the performance from Kelly Overton (Eve), I'm afraid I was not. Her performance seemed to be the weak part of the film to me, in contrast to the amazing performance (or characterization) by James Haven (Don Wake) ... I hope we see more of him. What a great little film, highly recommended to all!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the film yesterday and really enjoyed it.Although there were several clues which I could realize after second time watching ,I was not able to awake the Dow-Dawn case. Maybe this was my carelessness.The subconsciousness of a woman was became concrete with personalization.'Let me go out'the key sentence of the film.Let me go out from deep deep inside of your brain and we will both be free.A discrete film that forcing the limits of human conscious and brain.Anybody who have seen the 'Machinist' would realize the similarities with breaking dawn.A man that could not escape from his conscience (again a psychological and an abstract concept)meets it in an human body.And he will just be free of accepting and realizing there is no way of escape.Also I want to mention about the performances of 'breking dawn's stuffs.In spite of having not many experiences, from actors and actresses to director all exhibited separately reasonable performance that have created a synergy which would increase the quality of the movie","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When i saw this movie the first thing that jumped at me was the acting of Kelly Overton a young (and op and coming star) actress that i saw for the first time totally blew me away.. she is amazing on screen and I'm really looking forward to see what the future brings her....

The movie it self was good in the sense that it let Kelly Overton do her stuff and take the wiever for a ride... not much new tho i had the feeling that i had seen it all before.. but a good experience :) I would recommend this movie... if only to see Kelly Overton.. this stage actor takes the screen by storm.. i give this movie a vote of 7... 5 for the acting performance and 2 for the rest of the movie.

And on a last note.. sorry about my bad English.. if this is gibberish for you :P plz ignore me...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this movie on local t.v. at about 4:30 a.m. I didn't have expectations for it but after the opening credits I knew I was into something good.

There are situations that are left for your interpretation to \"find out\" what really happened so your attention is a key factor.

The whole psychological thriller situation deals a lot with character development and the way things are executed by the main character.

Your sub-conscience also plays an important part because through a series of events and dialogs you will be able to make a correct interpretation and generate an opinion.

The technical aspects are very good. Really good in fact. Kelly Overtone is extremely sexy and she's candy for the eye although she's most of the time in her white clothes.

The fear factor is almost inexistent but there's plenty of mystery and tension to dig from.

I would recommend it for those who enjoy supernatural and psychological thrillers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Stephanie Meyer is going to be so ticked! Now, her book \"Breaking Dawn\" will not be first with that title. Sorry, Twilight fans.

Kelly Overton (The Ring Two) is medical student, Eve, who is assigned to interview psychotic Don (James Haven - Angelina Jolie's brother). I suspected the twist, and when she found out they both grew up in the same town, I was sure of it.

She kept getting deeper and deeper with her patient to the point that I felt there was a shared delusion going on. At times, she even acted like she had PTSD. I really thought she was losing it.

Well, she wasn't losing it, and when the end came, I was floored. My whole suspicion turned out to be wrong. The twist was even more amazing than I believed.

Overton was fantastic and the story is so much better than something Stephanie Meyer would come up with. A must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a mystery. It's not scary, it's spooky. You'll probably jump at some points and for some of it you'll be scratching your head to figure it out. It unfolds its mystery through the main character Eve and her psychotic college project at an insane asylum, Don. He needs her to search for some clues to vindicate himself from murdering his mother, and once Eve agrees to help him, she completely opens up pandora's box and unleashes some very strange things, including Malachi. I won't go into Malachi, but I thought the way that played out was complete genius. I know movie buffs won't regard this movie with the same prestige as other classics because it doesn't have anyone very famous in it (Angelina Jolie's brother was excellent, but maybe he should have asked his sister to show her face just so this movie could get some recognition) but I do think the way the Malachi ending works is something to talk about. I've recommended this to my friends, definitely worth the purchase or rental price.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a surprisingly very good movie, and an interesting idea.. However, it was just a little bit disappointing in that the 'Twist' was a little too predictable and just a bit too early on in the movie. Whilst watching, it started to get a little bizarre and confusing to the point that, the only reasonable outcome possible was the inevitable plot twist, but it certainly did not ruin this movies flow. There were superb performances, there was never a dull boring moment, so totally well worth watching this one. It kept me interested right up until the end, and for me there isn't many movies that can do that these days. I highly recommend people watch this terrific little movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Jungle is more of an adventure than a science fiction movie. The only sci-fi part is the Woolly Mammoths living in the present day.

Elephants are attacking villages in a part of India and these attacks are also killing people. An expedition is sent to investigate and one of the members of this, an American hunter blames these elephants are being frightened by Woolly Mammoths, which are suppose to be extinct. Nobody believes him at first, but they do when the Mammoths appear at the end. An earthquake finishes them off.

The Jungle was shot on location in India and has a lot of nice scenery and some good Indian music, including some songs which keep the movie moving along nicely. The Mammoths are actually real elephants with fur coats and long tusks stuck on.

The cast includes Rod Cameron, Cesar Romero (The Lost Continent) and Marie Windsor (Cat-Women of the Moon).

The Jungle is worth seeing, just for the scenery and music. Very enjoyable.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't really criticize this film. It is literally the first film I ever remember seeing and lead to a lifelong love of science fiction and horror films and prehistoric animals. Fortunately, seeing it again years later, it held up fairly well. Rod Cameron plays a big game hunter whose last safari was wiped out by mammoths. No one believes him, including his best friend, played by Cesar Romero, whose brother was among those killed. And Rod Cameron was the only survivor. The film was shot in India and has some good scenery. The acting is on a high level. I don't believe Rod Cameron, Cesar Romero and Marie Winsor ever turned in a bad performance. The mammoths, when they finally arrive are fairly effective. The ending also has an unusual twist, particularly for a 1950's science fiction film. Definitely worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Interesting tale of giant mammoth elephants running amok in modern India. Features transparent special effects-elephants dressed in shaggy coats sporting tusk extensions. All this said, we do have a good story and a fine cast at work, and an exciting climax. It's been said that the running time on this one was doubled when it showed in India-courtesy of Robert Lippert, a master at 'padding.' Given a choice, opt for the shorter version.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember this film fondly from seeing it in the theatre. I recently found a copy on VHS & it held up to my memory of it. While obviously not a \"big budget\" film, the acting is quite credible & the scenery, locales, & costumes are very well done. I only wish the Mammoths had been in more of the picture, but when you see them, they are also well done (remember, SFX was done in those days without benefit of computers, some poor devil had to actually put all that hair & fake tusks on real elephants!)...the same effect was used on the elephants in \"Quest for Fire\". A better than average adventure film & a chance for the star, Rod Cameron to play something besides a cowboy, which he also did very well over the years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Earth Final Conflict began like a new world, a new vision from the creator of Star trek, something fresh and unique full of great elements. A very good cast with an extremely credible Kevin Kilner as William Boone, an ex cop good begins to work as guard of some kind of ambassador of a mysterious alien race (Talons), after the dead of his wife in strange circumstances. But soon the character of Kilner joins to a group with the mission to discover what are the truth intentions of the aliens, why they seem to be so nice and care for the human race. Soon this resistance group begin to discover the sinister plans of the Talons using the humans in they own problems to survive they own destruction. As I said before, the show began great, all was almost perfect, including characters like Da'an, the original Da'an was a big mystery because he seems to be a nice creature but at the same time he has his own evil plans manipulating some people in earth. Soon came Zo'or who wasn't bad but... mark the beginning of the fall of this show because he became the first big enemy of humans, the incarnation of evil, killing what could be something greater in Da'an. The first seasons ends in a great way with the dead of Boone and the second shows a new lead character (Liam) an hybrid being of human and Kimera (another alien race) with some very interesting powers. He replace Kilner character in a good way so another storylines make it better, including the conflict with the jaridians and the atavus. But as I said lines before the evilness of Zo'or begin to take more importance so the new conflicts were less realistic as the same Talons. With time the whole great storyline of the alien roots of Liam where almost totally erased the same with other things of the previous seasons. So when the final season began the original Earth Final conflict was just an almost forgotten dreams, all the magic was missing, just to let some vain intents to keep alive the show including the return of Kilner and Liam for a few episodes. The final episode was just the evidence of how bad was the show with so many bad changes (to think the writers of some episodes didn't know anything about the first stories), it was one of the worst end I have ever seen in a TV show. A real shame because Earth Final Conflict began like something unique, fresh, the stories the cast, after watch so many show from USA, something from Canada from the mind of the creator of Star trek was wonderful but in the end all change to worse. I hope someday someone make a remake of this show, of course using nothing from season fourth and fifth (except the cast, everyone were perfect in his work). I still can dream in a better things.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gene Roddenberry never let his fans down. His death ended Sci-Fi legacy that will never be matched. Earth: The Final Conflict was proof! His pilot film and the first 2 Seasons were well written and meticulously produced, but somewhere along the way the Roddenberry touch was lost. The loss of lead, Kevin Kilner (William Boone) definitely hurt the series as he was a vital part of what made it work. The story involves the human race being visited by the Taelons, an extra-terrestrial race who dub themselves 'The Companions'. After 3 years they have given earth new technologies, helpful information about the Universe and more. Many question their intentions here on Earth. The main liaison on Earth between the races is Da'an (Leni Parker) and he is to many, the most trustworthy Taelon. Questions arise: just why are they here? what are their goals, is Da'an aware of any suspected plots against the humans? There is an underground group led by millionaire industrialist Jonathan Doors (David Hemblen) who utilizes his millions to investigate the Taelons. By the end of the First Season things are going well, Da'an seems trustworthy, Boone assists Doors in his investigation while working with Da'an and the Taelons as a liaison. In the middle of the 2nd Season things start unraveling and the once terrific and fascinating series spirals downward, mostly because Roddenberry had died and was not around to guide the producers, of whom his wife Majel Barrett-Roddenberry was co-producer. Still, the first Season remains intriguing and fun to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ok, everybody agreed on what was the best season. The first. And killing off Boone was a bad desicion. Also killing off others was bad. Blame the directors and writers for it. Bad boys. BUT. I still think this is the best scifi series ever! Sorry guys I can't help it! I see that the quality of the series was decreasing after the first season. Still it's easy to accept Liam as the new main character, if you are over Boone. He is really... mysterious. The thing that shocked me most was when Lilli was written out of the story and how. That was something she didn't deserve! And what do we get? Some blonde chick called Renee, with absolutely no character! But these Taelons stay mysterious, and you stay wondering about theyre true plans till the end. True Suspence. The conversations between Zo'or and Da'an are sometimes brilliant.

I understand that, when you jump in on an episode from the 3th,4th or 5th season, you may not understand this show. But when you watch from the beginning, you just cant break loose!

The acting is great, the special FX are marvellous, the music is beautiful and the plot intriguing. Gotta see this, guys!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Believe me I wanted this series to work, but the early departure of Kevin Kilner dealt a near death blow after season one. Robert Leeshock just wasn't right for the part and Jane Heitmeyer did an admirable job as lead but the series just got too messy and confused at that point. I don't know what happened in Season Five, what a mess. Sometimes its time to drop the red cape and just stick the sword in the bull, if you know what I mean. The only consistent thread holding the series together were the amazing performances of Leni Parker and Anita LaSelva as the two Taelons in quiet idealogical conflict. If not for their talents and well-written dialogue they would have been two weird bald man-chicks in a B-movie series.

If only this series could have ended at season 4 and picked up later by SyFy...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm sorry to see that it has been rated that low by many people. The series started off very good and after the first season it wasn't that good.

People tend to forget the beginning of something and only look at the end. This is not good to do, you should look at the total, not the end result. It is sad that a lot of the \"usual\" characters died but, damn, we had a lot of nice NEW characters.

Please do not attach yourself to a few characters but attach yourself to the series, the plot. Please do understand that I didn't like it when Boone died, when Augur died but well... it needs to be done. Can you imagine that everyone keeps living the whole series when they are in a lot of danger all the time? Come on, face it, if they didn't die they would be invincible. In this way you will always keep the tension, will he survive, will he die? I do realize that people attach their selves to characters, I do that too. My favorite character was Augur, the one who could get into every computer he wanted. He was the one who was mysterious, he could do things with the computer no one else could do.

I wish to make one statement to all the people who vote negative, does a series which started so good deserve to have such low rating? Should we look at the final season instead of the total? Should we not see how good the series was when it started? Should we not see how much we enjoyed it?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this show. I think the first time I tried rocky road ice cream was due to this show. Wasn't the shop located like right on the beach or something? I actually wrote back and forth with Marci for several years. I lost touch and wish I could reconnect now as adults. Anyone know where she is now? I wish they would put it out on DVD. I seriously doubt that since I think there maybe like five or six people who even remember the show airing in the first place. They just don't make shows like this anymore, do they? I wonder if it would still hold up in this day and age. Do you guys know anyone that could burn DVD's of the show they taped on VHS? I'd be willing to pay(within reason).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been looking forward to the release of this DVD (and it's follow-up {Female Prisoner Scorpion: #701's Grudge Song}) for some time. I very much enjoyed the first two movies of this series. After just watching this film, I would have to say that this is probably my favorite of the three.

All three of these movies were directed by Shunya Ito. What is great about them, though, is that, even though they all feature the same lead character (wonderfully played by Meiko Kaji), they are each vastly different from the others.

The first movie (Female Prisoner #701: Scorpion) is more or less a typical Women In Prison movie. But the character of Scorpion is very intriguing - very reminiscent of the anti-heroes of many spaghetti westerns. And the director often used some very interesting and unusual visual approaches to the material.

The second movie (Female Convict Scorpion: Jailhouse 41) is a real tour-de-force. Not so much a WIP movie as the bulk of the film has Scorpion and six other escaped inmates on the lam.

This movie (Female Prisoner Scorpion: Beast Stable) is the third in the series and the last one directed by Shunya Ito. This one plays out as much more of a crime drama. Once again, our heroine is on the run. But this time out, she has managed to maintain a certain amount of normalcy in her life (relatively speaking anyway). She gets a job, she finds a place to live, she makes a friend on the outside. But, of course, everything has to unravel eventually. FPS: Beast Stable has a more straight-forward story that is told at a more leisurely pace than its predecessors. But I found it to be engaging from beginning to end. And don't worry: there is still plenty of depravity to go around in this movie! But I think these movies transcend most exploitation films because the more disturbing elements are played in a straighter tone rather than being used exclusively for in-your-face shock value. Yes, there were definitely moments in this movie where I cringed mightily. But I didn't feel that they detracted from the value of the story (well, maybe a time or two). One thing I have greatly enjoyed about these films is the continued build-up of Scorpion's mythos. With this entry character development is used much more extensively than in the previous two. We get to see that she is much more than just a stone-hearted vengeful badass!

As I mentioned earlier in this review, a fourth movie followed. It also features Meiko Kaji as Scorpion but had a different director. Without giving anything away I want to mention that FPS: Beast Stable ends in such a way as to make a sequel completely unnecessary. The fourth film is still quite good but it seems to play as a superfluous footnote to a mind-blowing trilogy.

I would highly recommend this movie to anyone interested in out-of-the-ordinary films. FPS: Beast Stable can be enjoyed as a stand-alone piece (as can the first two movies) but I would also recommend watching the others first if you have not already done so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The third film in a cycle of incomparably brilliant Exploitation movies, and the third masterpiece in a row, \"Joshuu Sasori: Kemono-beya\" aka. \"Female Prisoner Scorpion: Beast Stable\" (aka. \"Sasori: Den Of The Beast\" where I live) of 1973 is a film that differs from its predecessors in some aspects, but that equals (or arguably even surpasses) them in brilliance. The entire original Sasori series with the wonderful Meiko Kaji stands out as the absolute highlight in WIP cinema, and all of the films, especially the first three, uniquely combine Exploitation and Art-house cinema like no other movie does. \"Beast Stable\" is the third, and second-to-last \"Sasori\" film with Meiko Kaji, the last one to be directed by genius director Shunya Ito and, in my opinion, the greatest of them all. The first film \"Joshuu 701-g\u00f4: Sasori\" of 1972 is an absolute masterpiece of Exploitation cinema and simply THE Definition of Exploitation-Art. In the equally brilliant first sequel, \"Joshuu Sasori: Dai-41 zakkyo-b\u00f4\" Ito added more surrealism and symbolism. The third \"Sasori\" film, \"Beast Stable\" keeps up the surrealism (allthough not quite to the same extent as the second), and features even more social criticism than its predecessors. Topics like poverty, forced prostitution and the exploitation of the poor are central themes of the movie.

This third \"Sasori\" film is ingenious and sublime in all aspects and arguably the greatest of the, generally brilliant, cycle (to me it's this one, with the first one as a close second). Once again, \"Best Stable\" is both very artistic and very Exploitation-like. The visually stunning film features an enormous amount of brutal violence and sleaze again, as well as sequences of enormous surrealistic beauty. The stunningly beautiful Meiko Kaji is once again brilliant in her role of Nami Matsushima (aka. Sasori). I absolutely worship this wonderful actress, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to do so. The rest of the performances are also great, especially Mikio Narita is great as a police Inspector who is obsessed with catching Sasori. The musical score is the same throughout all three films, with \"Urami-Bushi\", sung by Meiko Kaji herself, as the main theme, which is great, since the score is, simply put, pure perfection. As its predecessors, \"Beast Stable\" is an absolutely brilliant masterpiece of Exploitation-Art that no serious lover of film can afford to miss. The entire Sasori-cycle ranges high on my personal all-time favorite list. \"Beast Stable\" is arguably the most brilliant masterpiece of them all! 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Female Convict Scorpion - Beast Stable\", the third in the series, is a magnificent piece of pulp sleaze. Closer in tone and subject to a Nikkatsu violent pinker than other Scorpion entries, it is stunningly photographed, directed with lurid enthusiasm, and populated with a rogue's gallery of villains and degenerates. Shinya Ito, the director of the first installment, returns for this surreal fable which begins with Scorpion (Meiko Kaji) cutting the arm off a cop she is handcuffed to and fleeing into the Tokyo subway with said arm still swinging from her wrist. She takes refuge in a red light district where she befriends a prostitute, who is first seen seen having incestuous intercourse with her brother (who ends up impregnating her). Scorpion's desire to protect this unfortunate woman eventually exposes her identity and all hell breaks loose. She is beaten, sexually assaulted, and locked inside a bizarre bird cage in the villain's lair. I loved everything about this hypnotic, nihilistic, and emotionally touching movie. It is the superior of the three first Scorpion films and features one great scene after another. I can't recommend it highly enough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many consider BEAST STABLE to be the last of the \"true\" FEMALE PRISONER films, as it is the last of the series directed by Shunya Ito, and is followed by one other film (GRUDGE SONG) by a different director. I have not seen GRUDGE SONG yet (but soon will...) so I don't know how it stacks up to the previous FP films - but it will be interesting to see. The way BEAST STABLE ended didn't really leave a lot of room for another predecessor - but I guess I'll find out...

This entry has Scorpion on the run from the cops, where she hooks up with a street-hooker who ends up pregnant with her retarded brothers child (oh yeah - that's no lie...gotta love these sleazy story lines). Scorpion ends up being kidnapped by an old rival, but (as she is so good at...) ends up escaping and taking revenge on some people that wronged a few of her hooker friends...

I agree with some other reviewers, that this one is a little slower at points and more \"serious\" then the previous two entries. The story is somewhat confusing and convoluted at times, but a lot of these 70's era pinky films are - and I still love them. BEAST STABLE is lacking pretty badly in the nudity area which was pretty disappointing - but I thought it strong in other areas - storyline, cinematography, some good sleaze,etc...Definitely worthwhile to fans of this sort of thing, or who have enjoyed the other FEMALE PRISONER films...8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The third and final Female Prisoner Scorpion film directed by Shunya Ito. The series' star, Meiko Kaji, would complete the series in the fourth installment, Grudge Song, directed by the capable Yasuhara Hasebe (who also directed Kaji in the excellent Stray Cat Rock: Sex Hunter). The original Female Prisoner #701: Scorpion is one of my all-time favorites. The sequel, Jailhouse 41, is nearly as good. It's generally considered the best of the series, and I might agree, I think, if it ever gets a better release on DVD (the original, by Image, is very poor). Beast Stable, in my opinion, is nearly as good as FP701. It's much slower, much more contemplative. It has its share of violence and nastiness, but there's more focus on the story and the characters. Sasori (Kaji) eludes detectives in the first scene (she is handcuffed to one and lops his arm off \u0096 and escapes with it in tow, which must be seen to be believed!) and hooks up with a freelance prostitute, Yuki. Yuki is being hassled by a local prostitution ring, which includes a goofy-looking madame with a cage full of pet crows. What really surprised me is how sad the movie is. Yuki's story, which is never resolved, it heartbreaking. The images are startling, and Ito's direction is masterful. It's too bad that he never went anywhere after he left the FP701 series. This is an awesome film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There's hell to pay when you cross Nami Matsushima(Meiko Kaji), Female Scorpion, and a dangerous group of thugs(..including their sadistic head pimp and his equally repellent lady), operating a prostitution ring with an iron fist, does just that. Hell hath no fury like Scorpion, and a determined detective, Gondo(Mikio Narita), seeking revenge for decapitating his arm after handcuffing her, will do whatever it takes(..and that includes intimidating anyone who might know her whereabouts)to catch Nami. Nami finds an ally in hooker Yuki(Yayoi Watanabe), who provides her a temporary shelter. Yuki has a retarded brother who suffered a brain injury during a job, and must take care of him(..in a disturbing revelation, regarding incest, she also provides his sexual needs!)..she, in actuality, keeps him locked up in a room while working the streets! Meanwhile, Nami is targeted by a vile neighbor once she finds a place of her own(..she works as a sewer), and he threatens to turn her into the authorities(..Nami was an escaped convict, who fled a subway from the cops)if she doesn't supply him sexual favors. His wife dumps a tea kettle of boiling water all over his face and body, resulting in death, & the prostitution clan come looking for Nami to pay the debt of losing a very important member of their organization. That's when Katsu(Reisen Lee), the pimp's lover and confidant, realizes that the one responsible for the loss of their loyal member is a former inmate of hers, Scorpion. Subduing her with an injected liquid drug, placing her in a bird cage(!), Katsu embellishes in her imprisonment. What ultimately fuels Nami's rage is watching a prostitute die outside her cell, a victim of a forced late-term abortion, left to bleed to death. Finding a scalpel clutched in her hand(..from the operation room), Nami will break free from the cage and prey upon each member of the clan responsible for the hooker's death. The series of scalpel murders provide Gondo with an opportunity to catch Nami, and he'll trap her in the underground sewers below the city, but can he catch or kill her? Especially if Yuki comes to her aid?

Trust me when I say there was no shackles binding director Shunya Ito or his film-making team because FEMALE PRISONER SCORPION:BEAST STABLE is yet another perverse, deranged, and ultra-violent entry in the very entertaining series. Equipped with fine production values and a visually stylistic talent for capturing all of the madness in imaginative ways, Ito pulls you right(..or he did me)into the twisted drama that always exists when Nami Matsushima is on screen. When you have a protracted opening credits sequence where your anti-heroine is fleeing through the crowded city streets with a man's severed arm handcuffed to her, the viewer has to know what they're in for! The incestuous sub-plot is simply bizarre(..and it's shot in a soft-core way with the retarded brother humping his numb, cold sister with dead eyes staring ahead!), and the entire abortion sequence is rather hard to sit through. But, the abortion angle, as disturbing as it is, provides motivation for Nami's revenge..despite Nami's imperfect ways, and her criminal nature, you would rather see her take these cretins out than vice versa. Interesting angle with Detective Gondo, as well. Gondo is willing to break the rules, and he becomes a force-of-nature towards anyone who stands in his way of capturing his mortal enemy. His fate at the end, visiting another enemy of Nami's, in an isolated cell, while she looks on, perfectly encapsulates what makes these films so ridiculous yet so entertaining. The scalpel murders is a montage of slumping scumbags, in various places, the blades protruding from flesh, with Nami leaving the crime scenes very driven to wipe the whole clan out in memory of a fallen victim of unfortunate circumstances. While the film is essentially a comic book adventure, there's a sadness that permeates, and few characters come away without flaws. I imagine many will walk away from this scoffing at how unrealistic FEMALE PRISONER SCORPION:BEAST STABLE is(..specifically how Nami is able to escape capture time and time again, accomplishing her goals of revenge, paying back all those who have wronged her), but I looked at it as a violent action cartoon, much like the later 80's films, and enjoyed it for what it was. As always, this film features some beautiful Asian actresses and some colorful heavies. Meiko Kaji, almost always reserved\/quiet, yet chilly staring down her enemies with violent intent, is in fine form(..in more ways than one)and Reisen Lee, as her cross-eyed, repugnant adversary, runs away with the picture as a perfectly realized contemptibly abusive foe worthy of psychological torment(..when both are in prison, Nami's ways of torturing her are sweet). My favorite scene has nothing to do with the plot, but is so wonderfully wrong, features a dog discovering Gondo's rotted severed arm, walking through a street eventually finding a resting place to chew on it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After finishing the Zero Woman series, I was looking forward to the Female Prisoner Scorpion series; both based upon comics by Tooru Shinohara. Unfortunately, I was not able to see them in order, as this is the third in the series.

It starts great as The Scorpion (Meiko Kaji) is escaping from the police. Detective Kondo (Mikio Narita) did manage to get a cuff on her, but she proceeded to cut off his arm and get away. If that isn't bad enough, later on a dog digs up the arm and is seen trotting down the street before finding a place to enjoy his treat.

Scorpion might as well go back to prison as life is no picnic on the outside. First, a local Yakuza Tanida (v) threatens to put her back if she doesn't put out; and then the gang leader gets her when she gets rid of Tanida. But, they don't hold her for long before she escapes and is looking for vengeance.

Soon they are dropping like flies. Some certainly deserved it for wearing garish outfits with shirt collars so big they went all the way to the shoulder. The madam (Reisen Lee) turns herself in to avoid getting killed.

The police arrive at her latest kill and trap her in the sewer. She's in there for a week and the cops find out that a friend (Yayoi Watanabe) has been supplying her with food. (The story O Yuki (Watanabe) and her brother is a subplot that is very interesting, but only incidental to the movie.) They try to burn her out, but this is The Scorpion, and she has some unfinished business.

Not the usual mix of sex and violence, this is a slow tale that is beautiful throughout.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Since the past couple of days I'm really hooked on the \"Female Scorpion\" series and I keep hitting myself over the head because I waited until now \u0096 which is way too long \u0096 before purchasing the whole box set. \"Beast Stable\" is the third brilliant effort in a row, and the undeniably main trump of this series is how the writers always came up with something entirely new and different for each installment. Never before, or after, has there been an exploitation series that offered so much variety when it comes to story lines, settings, themes and filming styles. The original more or less qualified as a so-called \"Women-in-Prison\" flick (but already an atypical one), but you can't possibly categorize parts 2 and 3 as such, since they hardly feature any footage within prison walls. And the overall tone and atmosphere keeps changing with each new episode as well. The first film was harsh and gritty, whereas the second was psychedelic and part three is almost mainly melodramatic. Don't let this last description discourage you, however, as \"Beast Stable\" still features more than enough exploitative themes and disturbing footage in spite of the dramatic ambiance. The opening sequence, for example, is downright fantastic. Sasori, still a fugitive from the law, literally chops her way to freedom on the subway when there's no other possibility than to cut off the arm of the persistent policeman that handcuffed her. Her run through the city with the cut-off arm dangling on hers while the credits appear on screen, accompanied by the familiar theme song, is just pure and genuine exploitation gold! The story compellingly continues with our heroine desperately trying to lead an anonymous life in the big city, but the poor thing simply can't escape her past or even new types of agony. Sasori befriends a prostitute, though without exchanging dialog, and takes on a job in a sewing atelier. Her own retarded brother (!) impregnates the prostitute, while Sasori gets in trouble with the local pimping and underground crime network. She cleverly prevents a thug from taking advantage of her body, encounters a former enemy from prison and furiously avenges one of the prostitutes when she gets submitted to a barbaric abortion. Meanwhile, the one-armed cop continues to obsessively prowl the streets, looking for retribution against Sasori. Our multi-talented director Shunya Ito formidably criss-crosses all these story lines to a powerful wholesome and never once loses grip on the visual aspects or ingenious filming style. \"Beast Stable\" features some of the most impressive compositions and ingenious camera angles you can imagine, the editing is flawless and the exterior locations are effectively depressing. Those who know Sasori's character a bit are aware that the film seriously lacks memorable dialogs, but this always gets widely compensated with Meiko Kaji's wondrous on screen charisma and menacing grimaces. There's very little sleaze, apart from the aforementioned incestuous sub plot, but the brief flashes of extreme violence are terrific and the twisted ending is almost too brilliant for words. In fact, I think part three might just be the greatest (or at least, my favorite) one of the series so far. My only small and totally irrelevant point of criticism is regarding the ridiculous sounds one of the birds produces when Sasori is locked up in a cage. That bird sounds like a ventriloquist's dummy with stomach cramps.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The original Female Convict Scorpion is an all time masterpiece. The first sequel, Jailhouse 41, was not quite as good in my opinion, though it's still notable for the fact that it took the idea from the original and created something in a completely different style. Director Shunya Ito has managed to do the same thing again with this film; the story is a bit different here, but still he's managed to take what made the previous entries excellent and better than many films of this type and craft something fairly original around it. Again the action focuses on Nami Matsushima (a.k.a. \"Scorpion\") and this time she's out of the jailhouse and not too keen on the idea of going back. After escaping from pursuing police officers, one thing leads to another and Scorpion finds herself getting it together with a prostitute and her retarded brother. The prostitute ends up getting impregnated by the retarded brother (...), while Scorpion is kidnapped and caged up by someone who she made an enemy out of in prison. But Scorpion doesn't like spending time behind bars and it's not long before she's back to doing what she does best.

The film gets off to a great start as we see Scorpion hack the arm off a copper intent on taking her back to jail. From there, however, the film slows down a lot and Beast Stable ends up being more of a drama than the previous two films. That's not to say that there isn't still plenty of action - Scorpion still spends a lot of time in 'revenge mode' and the film isn't exactly short on general sleaze. Meiko Kaji once again reprises her role as the sinister title character and it's another understated, almost wordless performance. Her screen presence is great, however and she manages to have a menacing presence despite being only small physically. The plot structure for this film is similar to the other two in that it all builds into a crescendo of revenge. There are more people who have angered Scorpion in this film than in the previous two so this section takes up a fairly large part of the film. There's a few surreal sequences, not as many as in the first film and nowhere near as in the second, but the film stays in with the rest of the series on that point. Overall, I would say this film is between the first two in terms of quality - not as great as the original and slightly better than the second.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well it is a good movie. However, you have to admit that Van Dame's movies haven't been so great lately. On the other hand if you are a hardcore van Dame fan you should watch this as there is a huge improvement with fighting scenes. Also What i really liked is the music beautiful music. am sure this will kill time if you are action fan. As for Isaac Florentine the director of Undisputed 2, i don't think he did a good job as he did with Undisputed.I cant wait when one day Van Dame's movies hit the cinemas before the DVD. Maybe, one day:).

In the end it worth the watch if you got no other action movies to watch, this could make your hour and half fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing Undisputed 2, I knew what to expect from Isaac Florentine.

The Shepherd: Border Patrol is a decent flick (not Van Damme's best, but definitely not his worst.) There is some bad acting from VD's supporting cast, but it makes sense.

The storyline and plot has all been done before, so it's nothing new. I mean this is Van Damme. We don't really expect much of an amazing plot do we? So lets talk about what we all want to watch this movie for anyway: the fighting.

Without giving anything away, I thought the way the fights were filmed and shot were well done, way better than a few of VD's recent movies such as Second in Command, in which the entire end fight is HORRIBLE. With Florentine behind the camera, and if you've seen Undisputed 2, he seems to know how to photograph fights and enjoys it. A few of the fights in The Shepherd reminded me of VD's older stuff which is what we all want to see. The fights were good, and i said \"hah, awesome\" out loud a few times. But I was hoping for just a bit more considering how good I thought Undisputed 2 was.

Something I found intriguing was VD's daughter in the film, I thought \"wow she's kinda hot\" come to find out, its Bianca Van Varenberg, JC's real life daughter. I have never seen her before so that was a nice treat.

All in all, this movie is not half bad. Yeah the story has been done before but at least JC was attempting to make a good movie. Next time though, add more hand to hand combat! I think He still has what it takes to do another big budget movie...his acting has improved since he's been doing DTV's and he really is in great shape at 47. I don't know about you but I'm one of the ones who thinks that most of his DTV's are actually good with the exception of Derailed. All he needs to do is get back into \"bloodsport\" shape, and make a martial arts movie...and I think people would respond well even though he's not jet Li. This movie is definitely worth the rental. =)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is good in it's genre and that genre is naturally action with a little\/average budget. Looks like Van Damme delivers greatly better performances when he has a good director guiding him. There is your basic bar brawl, alley scene and mostly a lot of gun fighting. Some basic drama, but nothing too deep. Isaac Florentine directs an OK action flick if you ignore the weak plot and the holes in it. But the person who steals the show is:

Scott Adkins. How come this guy isn't a massive Arnold Schwarzenegger caliber action star that I don't know. Director Isaac Florentine has made a movie with Scott Adkins before called Special Forces (2003) which has some unbelievable martial arts talent that will satisfy the most demanding kungfu enthusiastic. Another amazing Scott Adkins feature is Undisputed 2. Check this guy out and make a noise, this guy needs to get super action star status and he needs to get it now!

What else can I say about the movie? It's Van Damme stepping up a notch from some of his most recent work. No Oscars here for sure, but you already knew that. But never the less it has a nice little town feel and I could find worse ways to spend my time. So I'm giving this a solid 7 out of 10 in it's genre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the best direct-to-DVD effort from Van Damme that I have seen yet. Van Damme plays a border patrol agent who is out to stop heroin smugglers trying to cross into the United States. The action in this movie is great and the fight scenes rank with Van Damme's best. Costar Scott Adkins shows why he should be the next big star in the martial arts genre. For further evidence check out \"Undisputed 2\". Adkins is so good in fact that before I watched \"The Shepherd\", I thought that Van Damme might not look very believable in defeating him on screen. Van Damme holds his own though and although he isn't quite as athletic as Adkins is, he can still kick with the best of them. All of the fight scenes in this film are very well done and the gun battles are above average for this type of film as well. The only negative thing I can say about this movie is that the story is a little underdeveloped. I think Van Damme's character's motives should have been presented earlier in the movie, especially in regard to why he carries around a rabbit. The reason he does is very cool but you don't find out until the very end. There are a couple of other things that are never really explained either but this is a Van Damme movie so you know where the priority lies in making this kind of movie and it ain't character development. Overall though, this is a solid action movie that I recommend. So run for the Damme border!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed it. There you go, I said it again. I even bought this movie on DVD and enjoyed it a couple of more times. Call me old fashioned but I prefer movies like this to garbage like Die Hard 4 which hold up the box office and get critical acclaim just because you have some old guy saving America. Van Damme moves well for a guy of his age(47 I think), delivering kicks that reminds one of Kickboxer. If you like old school action and and explosions, this is the movie to watch. This is one of Van Damme's best works.

Van Damme and Steven Seagal movies get released theatrically where I live so I never miss a chance to watch our old school action stars on the big screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well...it's about time! Van Damme is back and kicking in this action thriller that's his best film in recent years. The plot isn't too inventive but the whole border patrol theme is interesting and the ex-marines as drug smugglers twist is cool. But what makes this movie awesome is the fact that Van Damme is back to doing martial arts again. His latest films have been more acting oriented, but in \"The Shepard\", JCVD is back to dropping the bad guys and looks to be in excellent shape. There are some impressive fight scenes and Van Damme shows he can still pull out the old famous 360-spinning heel kick. For being a low-budget action movie, it does have good sets and great stunts. Van Damme says some humorous lines and shows that he's improving as an actor. I'm glad he's back to dealing out some Van Damage...i've been let down by the lack of fighting in his recent films. Scott Adkins is great in his role and Van Damme and him have a 1 on 1 showdown at the end. Overall, it's one of Van Damme's better films and it will keep you entertained. A must rent for JCVD fans. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed for another martial arts epic like \"Bloodsport\" or \"Kickboxer\". Nok Su Kow!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's really good to see Van Damme's film are slowly getting better of late and especially compared to C-grade flops \"Derailed\" and \"Second in command\" which were both tragic and not in a good way. The Sheperd: Border patrol is a good action flick with some really great action\/fight sequences. It's good to know that Van Damme still knows how to kick seeing as his last film \"Until Death\" had no martial arts in it at all!!!

That being said, this film is significantly inferior to \"Until Death\" which was a really good turn for Van Damme. \"Until Death\" lacked the over-the-top action of most Van Damme films but was dark and gritty and Van Damme's performance as an actor was surprisingly good in that film. Still, The Shepherd is definitely a film worth checking out especially for Van Damme fans or just action movie fans in general but if you're looking for a film with a bit more story line.....you may want to skip this one!

I do believe that this film was done well enough especially on what little budget it would have been shot on. The only real problem I have with this film is the title; \"The Shepherd\"? I don't get it! I suppose \"Border Patrol\" just doesn't have the same ring to it without the word \"Shepherd\" in front of it!!!

My rating for this film is 7 out of 10 but that's by Van Damme movie standards not in any other film category.

i.e. It's good for a Van Damme film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought that this was the most interesting film that JCVD has done in a very long time. I loved his character and the whole thing with the rabbit set a different tone for this film. IMHO, JCDV may really be on to something going forward. A little more light heartedness, some obvious homages to other films, mixed in with some great fights...I would like to see more this style of film-making from him. One of the other posters thought that the bar scene was a Desperado rip off. I immediately saw the R. Rodriguez connection also, but thought it was very clever and made me want to see the film again to look for more subtle cues from other films. JCVD rocks!!

Other stuff after reading other comments:

No music in the dungeon fight? At first I didn't like that at first either, but then I thought it was interesting because it threw me off balance a bit by giving us something that we didn't expect. Made it seem more real.

I also always get a laugh when directors cry like 2 year olds that their film was \"stolen\" from the studio. Directors are paid to do a job. The studio is the boss and they want the product that they want. Very few directors have absolute final cut on a film. In this case, JCVD is THE talent and the only reason anyone is watching this film. I am sure he got a film that he was happy with. I have a relative who works at a post house who knew a little of the story. PRESUMABLY, the director worked on and delivered his cut of the film. Everyone who saw it said it was a disaster...then JCVD and the studio re edited the movie. This stuff happens all the time. He also did see the final cut (which he claims he didn't) and his \"delicate genius\" ego was severely bruised because they hated his delivered cut. If this director was smart, he should have taken credit for this one as it would have been his best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like Steven Seagal I also am a big Van Damme fan and have followed most of his movies since the start of his acting career.

In this flick Van Damme assumes the role of Jack Robideaux whom is a cop that just moved to New Mexico from New Orleans to work as part of the Border Patrol. Haunted by memories of his past, it is up to Jack to put an end to a group of Ex-Navy Seals from smuggling illegal drugs into the U.S. that killed his daughter.

Overall I found this film to be very good, Van Damme is in very good shape for 48 years old and can really move. The action scenes are very intense and the movie even throws a couple of plot twists in to keep you guessing. Unfortunately Van Damme does not have the same intensity as he did say 10 years ago, regardless The Shepherd: Border Control is the 3rd straight solid film that Van Damme has made possibly opening the door for a larger project.

I definitely recommend this movie to a Van Damme fan or fan of action movies in general; The Shepherd: Border Control is a great movie, not as good as Until Death but better than the Hard Corps. Be sure to give this one a try, you will not be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After 10 years, it is finally save to say that our Belgian Action Star is back again. I personally found this one to be even better than Wake Of Death, which makes it his best movie in... 10 years!! Okay, it is not like his highlight years as Timecop, Universal Soldier, Sudden Death or even his best effort to date: Hard Target (one of the best action movies ever made by one of the best action directors John Woo.) The Action is good, the story is exciting, the dialogue is quite funny, this one is better than expected.The bad guys are awesome like in Hard Target, and the fight scenes are \"old school\". Real fans know what to expect. I must say, I gave up on him, but Van Damme is finally back. More Please....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have not seen a Van Damme flick for a while, pleasantly surprised, he still has it, looking older, but tougher, kind of like Sly, becomes more rugged with age. This is a good flick and has prompted me to take a look at all the Van Damme movies I have missed over the last ten years. I would like to see a good director put Van Damme on the big screen with a good plot. Van Damme still has the moves to amaze the audiences, the last movie viewed with Van Damme was Legionnaire, that was a good flick as well. In addition, I looked in to Van Damme's early fighting history, I too my amazement I realized he is the real deal, very accomplished martial artist in his younger years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like the shepherd! Sure the acting wasn't good but the fight scenes were nice. Van damme throws some nice kicks and so does adkins. The story was average. A Texas cop battles smugglers. This movie did everything a van damme movie should do which is martial arts and action. Van damme was never a good actor. I think this movie is better than van dammmes last 2. If you're looking for an Oscar winning performance you're not gonna get it here but if you're looking for action and martial arts then this movie is for you. Scott adkins is an amazing martial artist and unfortunately the public has gotten tired of martial art superstars but his movies in this movie are great. Van damme delivers strong kicks and it's good to see him performing martial arts again since he has not in his last 4 or 5 movies. This movie is definitely worth watching if you're a van damme fan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was made on a relatively small budget (10-20 million dollars?) with almost no promotion at all from its distributors. I only knew about it because I am a long time Jean-Claude Van Damme fan and I always check out his latest films in hope that they will be at least watchable and aside from some real turkeys (Derailed, Second In Command), they are. This movie has an easy enough plot to follow and Van Damme gives a good, humorous performance through out but the movie owes all of its credit to the fight scenes involving Van Damme, Scott Adkins and the final one of them together. The editing and camera work for most of the film is pretty terrible but Isaac Florentine can definitely film a good fight scene. I too am happy that Van Damme has been acting better lately (In Hell, Wake of Death, Until Death) but with the good acting came less martial arts. In The Shepherd, Van Damme proves that he still has it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Van damme has done some great films over the years and this one hits a big ten in my books. From the setting of Mexico to the five star fight scenes, this movie was amazing. The film is all about border patrol officers protecting there territory which is the border of Mexico. Ex navy seals are smuggling drugs out of Mexico into the united states of America (USA), Van damme and Scott Atkins give stunning performances as the cop and the villain. Although this film wasn't as good as until death but it still gave the action,acting and the film a five star look. I always look forward to these b grade action films and they keep getting better. keep them coming van damme.

Watch this film if you enjoyed films like - Until death, The hard corps and second in command.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first got wind of this picture, it was just called \"Shepherd\" and was supposed to be the film that would put JCVD back into chances of doing theatrical shtuff. I was very well excited about the whole piece.

By the time it was titled \"The Shepherd: Border Patrol,\" I was tap-dancing in excitement for this flick. With Isaac Fluorentine at the helm of directing, and JJ Perry pulling stunt coordination, I almost peed me pants in anticipation. Pics were released of JCVD kicking 8 different kinds of arse as well as Scott Adkins playing what I thought was the villain, and I was mind-blown in excitement. I thought it was going to be another epic martial arts situation like Lone Wolf McQuade.

Then it came out. I ordered it off Blockbuster online for $20 and was ready for anything. The reviews from vandammefan.net kinda had my ideas alittle altered, but I braced myself. The mail came on day 4 and I ripped open the package. My initial plan was to rush upstairs, rip the face off the cardboard packaging, then smash the case in the proper dynamics so the disc would land in my DVD player. However, I stared at the case for 10 minutes then placed the disc in my player and watched the film.

By the time it was over, I was cool as a fool in the pool. The Shepherd is certainly one of my all-time favorite direct-to-video films ever and makes Derailed look like even more of the toilet mess that it is. Sure, some of the fights ran a twee bit short, but they were still VERY awesome. The shootouts were superb, as was Scott Adkins, who SHOULD have been the villain, unlike the forgettable Steven Lord.

I highly recommend this flick. Seriously.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Crack House (1989) was one of the few film during the 80's that falls into this genre. What's supposed to be an anti-drug film turns out to be nothing more than some white-exploitation exercise in depravity. There's nothing wrong with that however. The video presentation even has an anti-drug message from one of the stars of the show Richard \"turncoat\" Roundtree,

The movie follows two young lovers in high school. One of them is a quasi tough guy and the other is his girl. One of them get's turned out by a mutual friend whilst the other is given a trip to the slam and is later on given a chance to get back at his ex-friends. Jim Brown appears as the movie's \"Mister Big\", he's one bad dude who still can punk-out anybody and is a very sadistic guy who likes to smack his hoes and beat the tar out of those who try to defy his word. Luke from General Hospital makes a guest star spot as well.

If you like hard edge sleaze then this movie's for you. Sadly, Hollywood doesn't make these any more and when they do, it's neither exploitative nor entertaining.

Recommended for sleaze fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film essentially contains all the elements of a great 70's exploitation film, except it was done in the late 80's for the direct to video market.

You have a young couple in love, but the whole world around them is involved either in crack dealing or gang violence. When the boyfriend goes to jail, the girlfriend ends up vulnerable to all the criminals, who are everyone in this movie except for the cops. First she gets hooked on crack by a dealer and then because he owes drug lord Jim Brown money, she becomes Brown's property. Then she's basically enslaved in a military style crack house that the movie is named for.

As if this isn't enough reason to see this movie, you also have Anthony Geary playing a seemingly conservative school guidance counselor, but he's really a major crack dealer. In a sleazy yet hilarious scene, he demands sexual favors from the heroine because she has no money for a fix. In an earlier scene it was established that he is her counselor. That scene and another where Jim Brown forces her to take a scalding hot shower because she stinks are hysterical. Lead actress Cheryl Kay was really good in this film. Tarantino, bring her back.

It's not surprising to me that someone mentioned in another review that Tarantino is a major fan of this. It has just the right blend of comedy, action, sex, romance, and yes a central message to stay away from drugs. Jim Brown's villainous turn here deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as another great 80's B villain, Wings Hauser in Vice Squad. Sometimes I think there should be a b movie Oscars where performances like this could be acknowledged. In the meantime let's hope that the modern straight to DVD filmmakers learn learn to use this same type of tongue in cheek humor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie for the first time when Quentin Tarantino showed it to a bunch of us at the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin. He prefaced it with how freaking awesome he thought he was and how funny it was and in the context of his explanation, it was HILARIOUS. I can see how it would be damaging to some audiences, and the subject is not funny at all, but there are at least three lines in the film that had me laughing so hard I thought I'd pee. They don't come until after the halfway point, but when they do, oh God...you will die. Oh and Jim Brown is brilliant. He's not in a lot of the movie, but when he's there, you know whose movie it is. Naturally, the best line in the movie (and the funniest) is his; you'll know it when you hear it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Working girl Kitty (Sothern) is engaged to Bill (Kelly), who neglects her by working long hours at his garage in order to save money for their marriage. After being stood up on her birthday, Kitty goes on a double-date\/blind date, where she meets department store heir Bob Hartwell (Hamilton). She falls in love, but leaves him when his protestations of love appear to cover a desire for her to be his mistress, rather than his wife. Faithful Bill rallies 'round to comfort her, and at last she gives in to his repeated requests to reinstate their engagement, pressured in part by Bill's support of her family after she loses her job. When Bob returns, however, convinced that he wants marriage after all, will Kitty follow her heart or her conscience?

This film was a lot better than I'd expected it to be. The character of Bill at first comes off as the sort of loud comic Irishman type that Jack Carson played so often. But Kelly (and the script) infuse the character with real compassion and love, and Bill turns out to be the best person in the entire group. Viewers may find themselves rooting for him against the feckless Hartwell! The tone of the film wavers, however, between light-hearted romance and a much darker side, especially in the depiction of a dance marathon and a rather horrific accident at Bill's garage.

The cast is rounded out by the dependable Jane Darwell as Kitty's mother, an impish but not yet thoroughly obnoxious Mickey Rooney as Kitty's younger brother, and Spencer Charters as Kitty's ne'er-do-well father.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Blind Date\" is one of three stories-made-into-movie by author Vida Hurst. Lots of familiar faces in this oldie from 1934. Mickey Rooney as a mouthy little punk. He seems to be in the film for comedic and homey \"family values\". Jane Darwell again plays the strong-willed mother, just as she had in Grapes of Wrath and the Oxbow Incident. Ann Sothern is Kitty, who has been dating Bill (Paul Kelly), but meets up with rich Bob Hartwell, played by Neil Hamilton, who may or may not be better for her. You can certainly tell that this was made at the very beginning of the Hays production code -- at one point, Kitty says she can't be up there alone with him if there isn't anyone else in the house...what a change from just a year or two prior, when anything and everything was OK. Good solid plot, but a whole lot of conversation and mushy love talk. It raises the question over what a girl should be searching for in a man; should she hold out for a man with integrity who treats her nice, or just find a man with big bucks, as most of the movies from the previous 20 years had advocated...? and how do men change when their situation changes ? watch out for some violence in the strange dance marathon scene. TV viewers from the 1960s will recognize Hamilton as Commissioner Gordon from Batman..... Also some weird drama in the off-screen lives for some of the cast in this one --Paul Kelly had gone to jail for being accessory to murder in a love triangle. Mickey Rooney had an affair with Norma Shearer, who was 20 years older; Rooney ended up being married eight times. Tyler Brooke (Emory) and Spencer Charters (Pa) both knocked themselves off in real life. The title \"Blind Date\" has been reused many times, for films, TV series, and even cartoons, but none of them seem to have the same plot as this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story is about a working girl (Ann Sothern) who has a pretty thoughtless boyfriend (Paul Kelly). This boyfriend is so busy trying to start his own business that again and again he forgets dates or shows up late. The final straw is when Sothern has a birthday and Kelly says he's too busy to take her out to celebrate. So, not wanting to just stay home, she goes on a blind date with what turns out to be a very rich young man (Neil Hamilton). Sparks fly but it also becomes apparent after Sothern breaks off her relationship with Kelly that new boyfriend Hamilton is a \"love 'em and leave 'em\" sort of guy. How all this is finally resolved is not too difficult to predict--just suffice to say that in the end everything works out just perfectly.

This is a very modest little film from Columbia Pictures--with a relatively small budget as well as second-tier stars. It's clearly a \"B-movie\" despite there being small roles played by a Mickey Rooney and Jane Darwell--as both had yet to become famous. Now this is NOT to say that these are bad actors or the production isn't any good. In fact, given the production values, this is a pretty amazing film as everything seems to work so well despite having a pretty ordinary and somewhat predictable plot outline. That's because the actors and director did a really good job putting the story across. Plus the writers did a good job of humanizing the characters and making you care about them. The ending, in particular, is really sweet and practically had my tear ducts flowing! Because of these factors, the film earns a 7 of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has to be one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. The idea of a typical family leaving everything behind to live in the wilderness. When mom and dad both lose there jobs, not to mention they have green slime in their bathtub. They decide it's in their families best interest to move to Oregon. Once there everything goes wrong. An interesting cast of characters compliment this movie. Including a young Molly Ringwald,this a movie I would definetly recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...and I'm so disappointed because I can't seem to buy the DVD or VHS of it anywhere.

Its a kind of mix of, Uncle Buck and The Great Outdoors and Molly Ringwald is fabulous as the spoilt teenager. This was made when Molly was still a brunette, just before she hit the big time with Pretty In Pink.

I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who likes a good clean family comedy, with an edge!

If anyone has a copy of this, or knows where I can get one...please leave a message for me - it'll be much appreciated.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i first saw this movie back in the early 90's,and instantly fell in love with it.richard benjamin and his wife paula made the 1981 movie \"saturday the 14th\"in 1981 prior to making this movie in 1983.i think they work quite well together.this movie made me laugh on several occasions.it also has a young molly ringwald,who would later go on in the late 1980's to do movies such as pretty in pink and sixteen candles.it is fun watching her a little younger.although not seen by many people..i don't even think the average movie fan has ever heard of this movie.but when i first came acrossed it i was glad i did.i gave this movie 10 out of 10 stars as i think it is a fun movie the whole family can enjoy.lastly i would like to say its not available on DVD,so i picked up a VHS copy on ebay,so if your interested,you probably can find one on there.it might be in the $20-$30 dollar range but i got mind for $12 bucks.i wish they would eventually release this on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Hollow is a wonderful murder mystery that provides all you can expect from Agatha Christie and of course Poirot. It' s set on a country house on a weekend. As always all the guests are suspects and it's up to Poirot to figure out the truth. With movies like this it's always best not to give too much away so I'll stop here. What I loved in the `Hollow' was that it's a mystery the old fashioned way. When Poirot arrives everybody is around the body for example. Everybody seems to be the culprit. There's that suspicious look and the atmosphere is just perfect for the story.

You can expect a wonderful time giving guesses as to whom did it and how and why and maybe in the end even be surprised. A cup of hot chocolate on a cold winter night and you got a pretty enjoyable experience.

The actors are all very good. As a curiosity notice Edward Hardwicke who played Dr. Watson in Sherlock Holmes. Nice to see him after a few years. Suchet is amazing as always and fortunately is on screen most of the time.

I did find out who the murderer was but still it's not predictable and It's also very believable.

So in conclusion a great movie and as always a pleasure.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a better civilization, this and many other of the David Suchet movies would be released in theaters. The plots are fabulous (no, I'd no clue who had done it, but the clues were all there if I'd been more imaginative - the best kind of mystery), the production values astounding, the acting (from Edward Fox, Sarah Miles, Lysette Anthony, Megan Dodds, and of course David Suchet as Hercule Poirot) simply perfect, the dialogue wonderful, the music and sens of suspense and tension just wonderful stuff.

One of the pleasures of these Hercule Poirot movies for a man is how many beautiful women star in them! Here were have two - the sexy sinuous Megan Doods and the stunning Lysette Anthony.

You really can't go wrong renting these - they're just wonderful - like the most wonderful dinner in the most wonderful restaurant with the most perfect company you can imagine - your mind constantly working because it's all there and you struggle but by keeping your mind constantly thinking can keep up with everything - and the settings gorgeous.

I can't think of movies that stimulate thought more than these Hercule Poirot\/David Suchet movies. It's impossible to over-praise them - and I had never seen one before a few months ago nor read an Agatha Christie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"David Suchet,(Poirot),\"FoolProof\",'03, gave an outstanding performance as a perfectionist in almost everything he did or said. If he had a cocktail, he always had a napkin to blot the excess on his mouth with unbelievable perfection! You could just view the expressions on the detective's face and see that he never missed an item of importance in the suspects behavior. The beautiful Falls Colors through out the English countryside was simply breath taking. Megan Dodds, \"Bait\",2000, gave an outstanding performance as a very sexy, wild woman who was able to keep very important secrets away from Mr. Poirot. A very enjoyable film if you really like the acting of David Suchet as Mr. Poirot!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent work all around especially by the actress who played the wife Gerda (Claire Price) as well, of course, as David Suchet. I did really figure out whodunit but that is beside the point. The ending, which I won't divulge (someone describes it on the Board in answer to someone else's question if you are interested.) I found really sad. Despite Agatha Christie's reputation for writing cardboard characters, I thought these really well-rounded by and large.

The pacing of the story was good and I enjoyed seeing Sarah Miles as Lucy and Edward Hardwicke (Cedric's son I believe in addition to being a well-known Dr. Watson.)) as her husband.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie deserves a 20\/10 if I could give one. \"THE HOLLOW\" is a great Hercule Poirot novel and the twist at the end fools most people. I am overjoyed that this movie stayed completely faithful to the novel. There was no major difference that I could spot. The only difference was that Poirot was introduced into the story earlier that in the novel. The acting was superb, and the music, as usual, was amazing quality! David Suchet is perfect in his role, and the rest of the cast is perfect in their respective roles either. In no other movie that I've seen so far has Poirot been portrayed so brilliantly! Hats off to the producers-- they have made a movie that I along with many others will cherish for a long time to come!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an absolutely true and faithful adaptation of 'The Hollow'. It could be argued that the actual mystery here is not one Christie's best but what makes 'The Hollow' special is the characterisation and I found the actors here, more or less without exception, were perfect in their parts. In such a uniformly good cast it's difficult to select stand out performances but I have to say that Sarah Miles is just perfect as Lucy Angkatell. What is extraordinary is that she not only conveys Lucy's dottiness, tactlessness and her more lovable qualities BUT she also manages to pull off the underlying truth that in fact, Lucy is not really all that nice! Megan Dodds is also very good as Henrietta and Claire Price very affecting as Gerda. John Christow is really quite an unlikeable character but Jonathan Cake nevertheless manages to make us see what his women see in him.

As I said, the script follows the story quite faithfully. The only disconcerting thing I found was that Midge and Edward's relationship really comes out of nowhere and I do believe that some of it must have ended up on the cutting room floor! Theirs a secondary story however and the primary story is very well done. The whole thing looks beautiful as well, really capturing a perfect English autumn.

Its a beautiful film in every respect and well worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just after having moved into his new cottage in the English country, Hercule Poirot gets an invitation to dinner from Sir Henry and Lady Angkatell, the owners of a large mansion nearby. But the next day, one of the guests is found shot near the pool, and his clumsy wife is holding a revolver a few steps away....

This Agatha Christie mystery is somewhat thin, though the killer's plan is still very clever. It's the exquisite filming and cinematography that elevate the story to a higher level. This episode mostly keeps the serious tone of \"Five Little Pigs\" and \"Sad Cypress\", but contains more dark humor than them. The cast includes possibly the two most famous actors to have worked in the series by this point, Edward Fox (as the butler) and Sarah Miles (as Lady Angkatell), though the standout performance is given by the dazzlingly beautiful Megan Dodds as the ahead-of-her-time Henrietta: her one-on-one confrontations with Suchet sparkle and are the highlights of the film. Oh, and since an English police inspector does get involved in the case, I think they could have brought Philip Jackson back for this one. (***)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie was very good. I'm an avid mystery fan and I usually figure out who is going to be killed and who did the killing. While I did figure out who was going to be killed I didn't figure out who did it. I wasn't happy with the portrayal of the Gerda character but given the year the movie was supposed to take place it is possible the woman would have been that 'cloying'. Please know that while these Poirot movies are good, they just don't have the same dynamic to them as the series does because they don't have Japp, Ms. Lemon and especially Hastings! David Suchet is definitely Poirot. I have seen every actor who's played him. The worst was Peter Ustinov!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie was very good. I'm an avid mystery fan and I usually figure out who is going to be killed and who did the killing. While I did figure out who was going to be killed I didn't figure out who did it. I wasn't happy with the portrayal of the Gerda character but given the year the movie was supposed to take place it is possible the woman would have been that 'cloying'. Please know that while these Poirot movies are good, they just don't have the same dynamic to them as the series does because they don't have Japp, Ms. Lemon and especially Hastings! David Suchet is definitely Poirot. I have seen every actor who's played him. The worst was Peter Ustinov!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Extramarital we see B-actress Traci Lords at her very best. She's all wrapped in horror & suspense here, a type of role that suits her very well.

This mainstream movie lends a lot of its atmosphere from Paul Verhoeven's 'Basic Instinct' (1992), by the way. However, there are differences between the main female characters of Traci Lords ('99) and that of Sharon Stone ('92). For instance, in Extramarital Traci adds some tiny elements from her porn-past. We also shouldn't forget mentioning Extramarital's three main actors. By putting down a convincing performance, each of them greatly contributes to the overall quality of this movie.

All this makes Extramarital into a very enjoyable B-movie. Its storyline shows a good build-up, its tense being well-spread from start to finish. This movie keeps you at the edge of your seat, until its unexpected end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Good Film.

I managed to pick this up on DVD in a local store sale. \u00a32.99 seems like a good deal and it is. Thing is the film is named \"To Kill For\". It took a little detective work to find out it's original name.

In the UK it has been rated as an 18 and rightly so although the standard of films depends on the \"ability to sell\". Having seen Final Destination 3 last night it, in my view, should have been a 18.

Maybe the fact the delightful, Traci Lords is in it tends to make the classification board step it up to 18. Such a shame.

Traci is a great actress and should be given the chance to appear in bigger and large budget productions. She ability to turn what is branded a B-Movies into a Fine performance is nothing short of amazing.

Long Live Traci Lords and her incredible talent as an actress.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very good offering from HBO. Traci Lords is becoming a much-better dramatic actress with each effort. I hope to see this attractive lady in more challenging roles in the future, instead of the \"flighty\" roles she has been stuck with in the past.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really like Traci Lords. She may not be the greatest actress in the world but she's rather good in this. She play the dowdy, conservative, reporter to a 'T'. It's a great little thriller which keeps you guessing for a good while. Jeff Fahey is also good as Traci's boss. I think given a decent break Traci could be a top actress. She's certainly no worse than some of today's leading ladies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ok i am a huge Traci fan so her just being in the movie automatically makes it rank at the 8.5+ rating. But even besides her being in it i thought it was a good movie especially for it being an HBO movie. But i am afraid if you take Traci out of the movie it would just be ok. But a person can't do that she is in it and she is a wonderful actress. She just keeps getting better and better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I hardly know where to begin in writing about this gem, except to say that it represents young Buster Keaton at the peak of his powers and must certainly rank with the half-dozen best short comedies ever made. THE GOAT is twenty minutes of smoothly paced, expertly photographed, beautifully executed gags; two reels of non-stop comic invention driven by an unmistakable undercurrent of paranoia and yet somehow leading to a happy ending -- which wasn't always the way with Buster's comedies. (See COPS for one case where Fatalism ultimately got the better of him, or ONE WEEK for the victory of Defeatism.) If I had to describe this film in one word I'd call it \"effortless,\" but if I were permitted two I'd call it \"seemingly effortless,\" for surely a lot of hard labor goes into the making of any comic opus that unfolds with such sublime ease. Still, they didn't call him the Great Stone Face for nothing: Buster never let the public see him sweat.

A sardonic title card tells us that our opening sequence is set \"along Millionaires' Row,\" i.e. on a bread line in a grim urban setting, where Buster waits patiently at the back of the line and, as a result, doesn't get fed. But it needs to be emphasized that not for one moment does he play for pathos; Buster has our sympathy, but he never asks for it. Before long, through a series of accidents, coincidences and absurd misunderstandings, Buster is believed to be an escaped killer named Dead Shot Dan and is being pursued by every cop for miles around, and yet while he's clearly dismayed by this turn of events there is never a hint of self-pity or even surprise; we get the sense he always knew that this is what life would have in store for him, and that he hasn't time to feel sorry for himself anyway, he has to figure out new ways to dodge those cops and escape from the latest trap.

Just as Buster refrains from playing for sympathy he never seems to strain for laughs either, which is especially impressive because THE GOAT must be one of the most laugh-packed short comedies in existence. This is the film that features that iconic shot of Buster riding a train's cow-catcher right up to the very lens of the camera, which isn't a gag exactly but sure is laugh-provoking in its own strange way. Meanwhile, there are gags involving guns, dogs, cops, an incredibly furry mustache, and a clay statue of a horse that melts under Buster's weight (a surreal sight indeed), but some of the biggest boffos are saved for the finale when Buster is trying to elude his primary nemesis, Big Joe Roberts, a rotund cop who also happens to be the father of leading lady Virginia Fox. Trapped in Big Joe's dining room, Buster leap-frogs over him and sails through a transom, turns a phone-booth into an elevator and pretends to disappear, and eventually uses the elevator itself to rid himself of his pursuer and win the girl in time for one last fade-out gag.

To say more would be a disservice to first-time viewers. I only wish I could see this film in a theater full of people who'd never seen it before, and float on the laughter. Live musical accompaniment would be nice too; and incidentally the musical score supplied by Kino for their home video\/DVD version of THE GOAT is first-rate, serving as icing on an already tasty cake.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Along with Cops, The Goat is one of Keaton's two funniest shorts. Which makes it one of the best shorts ever made. This has an decent \"plot\" for a short, and it forms a perfect line on which to hang some great gags. Keaton is mistaken for an escaped convict (how the mistake happens is a classic) and then must elude the authorities. Best gags - the bread line and t he \"elevator\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Metro film is episodic, but nearly a constant series of chases, mainly trying to escape police, whether real or imagined, as Buster is mistaken for an escaped criminal. It is consistently inventive and entertaining. Its greatest value is in its documenting what Hollywood looked like in the early twenties, since 95% of it is shot outside among the streets and building exteriors of the time. One gem moment and one gem sequence are present here.

The great moment is when a train at a great distance quickly approaches the camera and finally stops just short of it - with Buster glumly sitting on the cowcatcher and thus moving from a long shot to a close-up within seconds.

The great sequence is with the phone booth next to the elevator - one constantly being mistaken for the other with races from floor to floor - one of the great Keaton gags.

Kino's print is sharp and clear - almost pristine. There is a violin\/piano score accompaniment. This is one to seek out and enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not all, but most of this story is Buster being mistaken for \"Dead Shot Dan,\" a notorious criminal.

There really is no story, just a series of adventures to show off Buster's physical talents, which are amazing, and his comedic timing. The 27-minute film is basically one adventure after the other mostly involving someone chasing our hero.

Earlier, it's a couple of policemen on their beats racing through the streets after Keaton and later it's \"Big Joe\" Roberts, a rotund cop - and father a girl Buster is interested in - who chases him. Those latter scenes were the best I thought, with a lot of clever gags involving the hotel elevator where Big Joe and his daughter live. That was Keaton at his best.

It's just a madcap half hour that makes little sense, but cares? It's Buster at his slapstick best, or near it, and so it serves its purpose: to entertain us. Just think: 85 years after this film was made there are people (like me) still discovering and enjoying these silent comedy classics! Cool!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To my eternal shame, I've never seen a silent movie - not even the mother of all vampire movies, \"Nosferatu\". However, if they display half the creativity and sheer joy of this effort from Buster Keaton then I'll probably try to watch a few more. This is genuinely funny as well as being a stunning introduction to the world of the silent comedies. The premise, such as it is, focuses around an unfortunate case of mistaken identity as Keaton is mistaken for renowned bad-guy Dead Shot Dan (co-director Malcolm St Clair). This leads to a number of chases and escapes as the authorities get ever closer to the increasingly desperate Keaton.

You're left amazed and entertained in equal measures. Keaton is a natural comedian but also an accomplished stunt-man, judging by the way he leaps and jumps around like Jackie Chan on speed. And the comedy is also of an exceptionally high standard - my Better Half had to cut short a phone call to her parents because she was laughing too much! If you've never experienced a silent movie like this then it is nothing short of a revelation to watch - it certainly blew away any ideas I may have had about silent films. Naturally, it isn't as polished as today's movies - the acting is pretty awful, truth be told but that doesn't matter because you're enjoying the movie regardless. Anyone with a passing interest in movies in general should make the effort to watch this because they will not be disappointed. Brilliant!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one you can watch over and over and laugh just as much each time. We have been on a Keaton fest around here after purchasing some of his films. In this one Buster is mistaken for an escaped murderer and there are lots of chase scenes and crazy scenes but also what is best about Buster - his creativity. The opening scene is really funny and it just keeps going from there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is a running thread in film comedy that all the great comics are just falling short of the law or on going to jail. Think of that conman's conman W.C.Fields in THE OLD FASHIONED WAY, or the Marx Brothers in A NIGHT AT THE OPERA, or Chaplin in THE ADVENTURER, of Mae West in SHE DONE HIM WRONG. The skirting of the law is inevitable, and when they end up on the side of the law the results are actually still hostile between the forces of law and order and the comic. Think of Lloyd in his first talkie, WELCOME DANGER, trying to \"assist\" the San Francisco Police Department in the midst of a crime wave, and making police sergeant Edgar Kennedy want to kill him. Think of Laurel and Hardy as ill-fated cops in MIDNIGHT PATROL. I find this type of hostility is so patent in all these giants' (and their peers') comedy that even a fake title for a film deals with it. Think of Jerry Seinfeld in one episode of his series creating a Three Stooges short, SAPPY PAPPIES, where the boys end up being electrocuted for murder.

Buster Keaton frequently pulls in the forces of law and order to be his opponents in his comedies. Look at STEAMBOAT BILL, JR., where he tries to spring his dad from a calaboose. But he actually had more conflict from police forces in his shorts. In CONVICT 13 he is dragged back to prison when mistaken for an escaped convict. In COPS (perfect title - if you see it you'd understand) the police force of a large city is repeatedly looking for Keaton, mistaken for a terrorist). And in THE GOAT he is unable to avoid the police for most of the film.

Keaton is a tramp just looking for food. But he is totally unlucky. When he sees a stranger throw a lucky horseshoe (which Keaton earlier ignored) over his shoulder, and then find a wallet full of money, Keaton tries the same thing, and hits a cop in the head. The cop gives chase, and Keaton (as luck would have it) runs into another cop, tries to act normal, but ends by throwing the other cop into the path of the first. Soon he has three cops chasing him. Briefly shaking them he walks by a window at the local jail where local murderer \"Dead Shot Dan\" (Malcolm St. Clair*) is being photographed. Passing in back of the barred windows, Keaton is stupid enough to stop and look straight in. The desperado notes this and ducks as the picture is taken. When Dead Shot flees the police, it is Keaton's face on all the wanted posters.

(*St. Clair would eventually be a successful director of silent and early sound comedies, although in his later biography would be a stint at 20th Century Fox where his work with Laurel & Hardy was below par.)

Keaton flees to another town by train (disconnecting the passenger cars containing his pursuers from the locomotive and tender). This is the film (by the way) that has two famous Keaton jokes. His arrival on the locomotive is done in a distant shot, with it coming closer and closer, and suddenly the audience sees Keaton sitting on the cowcatcher.

The second famous sequence goes later (and may have influenced Chaplin somewhat in the beginning of CITY LIGHTS). Keaton had accidentally knocked out a man who was arguing too violently with a pretty woman with a dog (Virginia Fox). When he sees the poster's calling him a murderer he thinks he killed the man. He is being chased in this town by a suspicious chief of police (Joe Roberts), and momentarily loses Roberts in the park. A statue of \"Man-of-War\" is being constructed and the sculptor is unveiling a clay model of the horse). Keaton is seen seated on the clay model, trying to maintain his dignity as the clay legs of the horse start collapsing under his weight.

Keaton manages to meet the pretty Ms Fox, who invites him home for dinner. Only he doesn't realize her father is Roberts. The last five minutes of the film deal Keaton fleeing and avoiding Roberts while he and Fox get away together.

It's a funny comedy, and a wonderful example of Keaton's work at his best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw this for the first time on UK TV, with good musical accompaniment. The elevator scene is class, especially when he does the going-down thing in the phone booth, and then fiddles with the floor-indicator. The jump through the transom is really impressive, and there's so much more. Apart from all the stuff that's been mentioned before, there's the fight with the man who's been bullying the woman with the dog - it just looks so simple. The only drawback is the plot - he gets mixed up with Dead Eye Dan, who then escapes but doesn't reappear, even when some more gangsters get involved later on. The scene where it looks like he's shooting at the fat inspector is funny, but would have been better if Dead Eye was the one pulling the trigger.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a wonderful comedy short--one of Keaton's absolute best. Through a long series of silly mistakes, Buster is mistaken for a wanted killer. And, as a result, most of the film consists of him running from the cops and one detective in particular. While generally I am NOT a fan of movies with a lot of chase scenes, this one is the absolute best as far as pure athletic and acrobatic ability. I have seen some that have had wilder stunts, but none where the star was so limber and able to move with amazing grace. In particular, there is a scene where he runs across a table, jumps on a man's shoulders and dives up through the transom as lithely as is humanly possible. Plus so many of the gags are funny and perfectly timed, such as how he really comes to believe that he's actually killed someone. By the way, this film is VERY similar to COPS, also by Keaton, but original enough and with enough energy to make them both worth seeing.

This film is brilliant and the only Keaton short I can think of that I probably liked even more was THE PLAYHOUSE--where Buster plays every role at the theater.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Buster Keaton was arguably at his most enjoyable when he did short 20 minute films, and they don't come more rib-ticklingly funny than this gem. The dead pan comic gets involved in a photographic mix-up with a wanted felon. This leads to his elaborate evasion of several street cops and fellow passengers who recognise the his face from the \"Wanted\" signs. The Goat is choc-a-bloc with brilliant site gags, from the opening scene at the bread queue, right up to the wonderful elevator chase at the end. A Keaton film never feels as though its silence is lacking, as sound is never something you needed with him. His movies explain themselves through the wonderful (yet incredibly dangerous) things he did to himself. It isn't hard to see just how influential he really was - the man is every bit as thoroughly amazing today as he was in 1921.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A BUSTER KEATON Silent Short.

Poor Buster becomes THE GOAT (\"scapegoat\") for a dangerous escaped murderer.

This is a wonderful, hilarious little film with Keaton at his absolute best. In what is essentially a series of chases, Buster gets to exercise his endlessly inventive imagination. Big Joe Roberts appears as the highly suspicious police chief.

Born into a family of Vaudevillian acrobats, Buster Keaton (1895-1966) mastered physical comedy at a very early age. An association with Fatty Arbuckle led to a series of highly imaginative short subjects and classic, silent feature-length films - all from 1920 to 1928. Writer, director, star & stuntman - Buster could do it all and his intuitive genius gave him almost miraculous knowledge as to the intricacies of film making and of what it took to please an audience. More akin to Fairbanks than Chaplin, Buster's films were full of splendid adventure, exciting derring-do and the most dangerous physical stunts imaginable. His theme of a little man against the world, who triumphs through bravery & ingenuity, dominates his films. Through every calamity & disaster, Buster remained the Great Stone Face, a stoic survivor in a universe gone mad.

In the late 1920's Buster was betrayed by his manager\/brother-in-law and his contract was sold to MGM, which proceeded to nearly destroy his career. Teamed initially with Jimmy Durante and eventually allowed small roles in mediocre comedies, Buster was for 35 years consistently given work far beneath his talent. Finally, before lung cancer took him at age 70, he had the satisfaction of knowing that his classic films were being rediscovered. Now, well past his centenary, Buster Keaton is routinely recognized & appreciated as one of cinema's true authentic geniuses. And he knew how to make people laugh...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I'm an Italian horror big fan and I love movies from directors such Argento, Fulci, Bava Sr and Bava Jr, only to quote the most famous. \"La villa delle anime maledette\" is one of the most unknown movie of this genre, shot when this kind of cinema began its crisis that continues still today, and director Carlo Ausino sounds totally new to my ears (althoug he directed six movies... this is the price Italian directors have to pay to not work in Rome...) . But the film is not so bad. And it's absolutely not correct to talk about \"trash\". OK, the plot is not so original; it reminds me stuff like the Amytville series (the year is the same of \"Amityville Possession\" by Damiano Damiani) or \"Shock\", the last work of Mario Bava. But you have to think that this is the movie of a cinematographer (like Mario Bava movies); so the most important thing is the atmosphere, not the story or the characters; atmosphere very well created by the use of light and by the camera movement. The rest remain in the background. I think the movie works; not so good, but works; it's surely better than a lot of Hollywoodian production like \"the Haunting\" which have a bigger budget, but not bigger ideas...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this movie at the Tribeca Film Festival and i have to say that i thought it was amazing. The combination of humor and sincerity really made the movie worthwhile. The movie was about a seventeen year-old boy whose mother and father are very religious. The seventeen year old, Ben, decides to work for a retired actress who teaches him about girls and driving and life. It is very comical and touching. I honestly have to say that it is now one of my favorite movies. I recommend this movie to anyone and everyone. If you didn't catch one of the showings at the film festival, it's supposed to come out in theaters later in the year. Please go see it! It is a great film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A British twist on Harold and Maude, Driving Lessons features a reined-in Rupert Grint and an over-the-top Julie Walters. While it is true that Grint is stone-faced like a redheaded Benjamin Braddock for the first half of the movie, it does not deter from the quirky family film--there are things going on that are out of his character's experience that would create a shell-shocked reaction. The chemistry between Walters and Grint carries the film, though Laura Linney's hard work to make her written stereotype human is also notable. These performances combined with a fun poppy soundtrack with artists like Sufjan Stevens, John Renbourn and Salsa Celtica make this kids popcorn flick worth a Saturday afternoon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I only heard about Driving Lessons through the ITV adverts, and to be honest, I didn't know how much I would like it. I switched on the TV last night and was totally surprised. Driving Lessons is a modest, simple film which draws you in right from the start. Rupert Grint plays the part of socially awkward teenager Ben brilliantly. He's definitely one to look out for in the future. Dame Eve Walton is played by the fabulous Julie Walters. I loved the simple plot and the way the actors portrayed their characters with great sensitivity. The highlight of the film, for me was Evie's rather colourful poem. It shows how friendships can form between the most unlikely pairs. In my opinion, watching Driving Lessons is a great way to spend 2 hours. The scenery was also striking, especially the countryside. Anyone who can call this sparkling comedy forgettable, I strongly disagree with","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this tonight with moderate expectations - if Tartan Films have picked up on something and are releasing it the that's generally a good sign, however I'm not normally a fan of Julie Walters, generally disliking her comedy roles (sorry to any fans, but it's a personal thing - I just don't find her funny in comedy).

This was magnificent though - a great performance by all, but Grint and Walters are exceptional! Plenty of laughs, plenty of pathos, great timing and a wonderfully paced film - such a coming of age film wouldn't normally be something I'd expect to like so much but I can't recommend this highly enough - and watch Rupert Grint as he matures into a fine fine actor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't disagree with a previous comment that \"Driving Lessons\" is more than a little twee, but one man's indictment is another's endorsement, I suppose. In my book this film succeeds on pure charm, no small feat in itself.

I can't help but wish the story was a little less conventional given the amount of acting talent in it, but by the end the plot seems more like a backdrop for the character interactions anyway. Julie Walters' Dame Evie is a gloriously over the top and over the hill actress. Though Evie hasn't had steady work in years, it's unclear the last time she visited reality, if ever (think Edina from \"AbFab\" at 65, at one point she is even forced to come to grips with her kitsch-factor). Some may find her annoying, but I think that's the point, to emphasize just how much she pushes the reserved Ben's (Rupert Grint) buttons to force him out of his shell. Ben is equally isolated from reality, living his whole life under the thumb of his overly dependent mother, who Laura Linney manages to breath some life into, despite being a fairly one-dimensional character (ye olde overbearing religious mom). I was rather impressed with Rupert Grint who I found to give a very honest and believable performance (not to mention sweet as all get-out), I can't think of many teen actors today for whom I can say that.

The heart of the movie is what happens when Ben and Evie's worlds collide. At first Ben is understandably tentative, but also intrigued, as Evie is essentially the exact opposite of everything he's ever known. With the combination of Evie's persistence and Ben's helpful nature a genuine sweetness develops between them, culminating in an unlikely road trip that gives Ben his first real taste of independence.

The tone is consistently light even through a few brief melodramatic bits, but there was still a surprising amount of emotional resonance, a credit to the main actors. All in all I'd say that if you're willing to sit back and let yourself be charmed by some lovely performances, \"Driving Lessons\" shouldn't disappoint. However, if \"cute\" is not in your movie vocabulary, best to stay away.

One other minor note, the soundtrack features the music of Sufjan Stevens prominently, a nice touch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Driving Lessons From the writer of the critically acclaimed films, Mrs. Brown and Charlotte Gray, Jeremy Brock brings a touching heartfelt dramedy starring Academy Award Nominees Julie Walters and Laura Linney and from the Harry Potter series, Rupert Grint. The beautiful portrait tells the story of Ben Marshall, (Rupert Grint) a seventeen year old boy being held captive in the heart of his religiously neurotic mother Laura (Laura Linney). After his school year ends he decides to take a job with a clever, free-spirited, and \"heavy on the bottle\" retired actress, Evie Walton (Julie Walters). The pair embarks upon wonderful adventures from camping to walks around the block to the simple conversations about life. Challenging the domineering mother, as well as each other along the way, the two develop a beautiful bond that revolutionizes both their lives.

The comedic elements are flawless and precise especially coming from the British veteran, Julie Walters. Brock uses his unique style to create an infamous and loving nature that first time directors could only dream. Directing comes naturally to Brock as he builds up stunning imagery that breaks the surfaces and plunges the viewer down into an overabundance of adoration and creation. Even the subtle score by unknown composers Clive Carroll and John Renbourn accentuate the tone and manner Brock had no trouble in generating.

Laura Linney is always making her mark in films as she does as \"Laura.\" The bossy and overbearing mother is at times unbearable and with Linney at the helm of it we are engulfed into that persona. The complexity of her character couldn't have been more flawlessly portrayed by anyone else. Rupert Grint breaks away from \"Ron Weasley\" and tries on someone new. His performance is more responsive than loquacious but Grint gives us someone brand new to a child performance and the viewer gets to enjoy it. But the standout is coming from Oscar nominated actress Julie Walters who gives \"Evie\" a life of her own. Despite the role being clearly a leading one, Walters fairs better in the supporting category where I believe she can simply take home the prize. \"Evie\" is a mix of \"Clementine Kruczynski\" and \"Mrs. Laura Henderson\" with her free spirit and lovable persona. Hopefully her role will not go unnoticed this awards season.

Driving Lessons isn't an \"out of this world\" experience but a fine, enjoyable one that any viewer could just kick back and learn a little something about life, love, and friendship coming in the forms of the most beautiful colors and sizes.

Grade: ***\/****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught the first screening of Driving Lessons at the Tribeca Film Festival. Rupert Grint shows he can act past Harry Potter. Laura Linney is amazing as the overbearing mother. Julie Walters is hilarious as Dame Evie Walton, with a mouth worse than a sailor. I hope that this film is picked up by an American distributor so that everyone can see it. This film is not only about Driving Lessons, but life lessons. Ben (Rupert Grint) is torn between wanting to obey his overbearing mother and vicar father and wanting to live his own life. It's an amazing film, from an amazing director whose taken his own life and put it on the screen for everyone to see, and everyone who can, should.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wasn't expecting much out of this movie and I was slapped in the face. Julie Walters, Rupert Grint, and Laura Linney perform wonderfully as the main characters in this movie. Any teenager can relate to parental control and the urge to come out as who you really are, which is basically what this movie is about. Ben (Rupert Grint) does this when he meets retired actress Evie (Julie Walters) and begins to express his ideas with words. He slowly but surely breaks out of his shell and becomes much less awkward. Each and every viewer feels the ups and downs of the movie and the theatre is filled with laughter 75% of the time. The film satisfies all, and I hope that soon it might be released in all US theatres, because many do not have the chance to see the film unless they live in big cities. It is a MUST see!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Driving Lessons\" sees two middle class quintessential British families meet head on, when Grint's character comes into contact with Evee, (Walters), a slightly deranged out-of-touch actress with an ego. Grint betrays his overpowering, and over-Christian mother, (Linney), and goes off travelling with Evee to Scotland, to accompany her on a trip to participate in a Poetry reading, something she claims could be her last, due to an illness.

Grint's portrayal of a caged youngster, brainwashed by an overbearing, and even hypocritical mother, is the masterpiece of this film. His portrayal of a downtrodden teen in search of his true morals, and happiness, is captivating to watch unfold throughout. The film is sharply shot, and well paced, with very few moments leaving you tired, an achievement, particularly considering the nature of the plot. Walters really grabs hold of her character with both hands, and successfully brings the audience to her side of things, emphasising Linney's ironic immorality throughout. Her role in \"Driving Lessons\" is enjoyable and memorable in every sense.

The plot develops nicely, leaving the audience cheering on Grint as he chases back to Evee's place during his lunch break during his stint at a local bookshop to apologise for his wrongdoings. The values in the piece are continued and brought out thoroughly up until the final drag, in a very consistent way. The overbearing, (and relieving), main idea being that religion doesn't lead to happiness, and certainly doesn't lead to morality.

The audience are left sympathising with the radical but lovable Evee, with her and Grint making an irresistible partnership on the big screen, transferred directly from their debut in the \"Harry Potter\" series. Charismatic and beautiful acting together with a tight and fact paced script make this a must-see this Christmas.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this film on ITV and I enjoyed it a lot. It was very watchable and very funny. Julie Walters and Rupert Grint were perfect in their roles. Julie Walters gets a special mention since she creates a wonderful diverse interesting character to watch. Ben's character is kinda shy and Stoic but the changes he goes through are wonderfully acted out by Rupert Grint, I would definitely say he has a future in acting after Harry Potter.

Laura Linney is quite good in her role as Ben's over protective mother, the only thing they went wrong with is by making her too....Villain-y. Ben's father was also an interesting contrast to his mother, and in the end he is quite honourable too. The only character i wasn't keen on was Bryony, she was a bit plain and unnecessary i thought.

Overall this is a great comedy drama that is very easy to watch. one of my favourite films of the year easily.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Loved this movie, what a hoot. Rupert and Julie are great together with Rupert being almost poker faced against Julie's animation, which worked well. Laura did a good job as the overbearing mother.Julie of course is marvellous as usual. While this movie will keep you laughing most of the time it also has a poignant side to it as it unravels the secrets in the lives of the main characters. Interesting that it was entitled Driving Lessons as this might lead you to believe this is the main feature of the movie which directly it is not though it certainly could be seen as \"Ben\" finally being in the driving seat in his own life. Like most things that are funny in life there is always the sad side and there are some moving moments in this movie. Very enjoyable movie and well worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sweet, entertaining tale of a young 17 1\/2 year old boy, controlled by by an overbearing religious mother and withdrawn father, and how he finds himself through his work with a retired, eccentric and tragic actress. Very well acted, especially by Julie Walters. Rupert Grint plays the role of the teenage boy well, showing his talent will last longer than the Harry Potter series of films. Laura Linney plays his ruthlessly strict mother without a hint of redemption, so there's no room to like her at all. But the film is a very entertaining film, made well by the British in the style of the likes of Keeping Mum and Calendar Girls.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A beautiful film. One that made me think of god but not feel guilty nor overwhelmed. Made me think about death but not fear it, think about life but not hide from it. A movie that gave both love for all I stand for and at the same time condemned it to the deepest pits of hell. A movie that made me think of love and all that I have lost, but no sadness graced my eyes, for some strange reason, relief. A child of two worlds, god and theater. And a good bit of wine and irony! I most highly recommend *****

\"When The S*** Hits The Fan, Get A Tent\" Oh and we should all go camping. Every day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've felt that Rupert Grint has a lot of promise from that role by which everyone knows him. So even though I had never heard of this film before, when it appeared in my cable TV listings, I immediately switched to that channel. I am so happy that I did!

I've read from other reviewers that they don't generally like coming of age stories; I on the other hand quite do. I am one of those who is always coming of age; I have been since I was 12, I'm 52 now, and I will probably continue until I'm 92. Coming of age is nothing more than suddenly realizing the possibilities that another day brings. The suddenness of the realization, the magnitude of it, sometimes throws us into disarray. If we try to shelter our delicate selves from that, then yes, I can see how the coming of age can end. But if we simply dust ourselves off, and settle into the new direction we've discovered, then we're all of a sudden on a new path, and we're just as alive as we were yesterday, only stronger, brighter, and I daresay, more interesting.

So that's what this movie was about. This was a coming of age story all the way round; young Ben, his father, Father Robert, and certainly Dame Evie... all went through a marvelous transformation. In fact, so too did Mr. Fincham, didn't he?! All did, I suspect, except in fact the mother, in spite of her enormous opportunity so to do, provided by the events of the end of the film. One is left with the feeling that she will continue on exactly the same path she's been on, only with perhaps a different supporting cast.

So an excellent film, that could not possibly have been made in America, which is utterly depressing to think about, but thank God we have a steady supply of films made elsewhere that we occasionally get to see. I really heartily recommend this film, so long as you don't mind cringing through those parts of it that are all too familiar to us all, and grinning through all the rest of it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing the Harry Potter movies, I've been a fan of the trio actors Rupert Grint, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson; yet, we've been waiting to see if they would do other projects besides play the same characters year or every two years of the J.K. Rowling series. Mainly instead of a trio, the cameras and magazine articles concentrate more on Daniel and Emma, being that they're the leading male and only leading female in the saga leaving Rupert dead-end. No matter, every actor has a time to shine and Rupert's light hits him for once in this movie.

\"Driving Lessons\" is called the Harold and Maude of this generation with Rupert Grint playing the role of Ben Marshall, a young British lad who lives with his domineering mother (Laura Linney) and a wimp of a vicar (priest) father for which he wants a job in the summer but can't find work while at the same time taking his driving tests (and failing) and writing poetry for a young girl who doesn't have any interest in him.

Ben seeks an ad in a church newspaper for which the job requires to take care of an elderly lady. He takes the job and realizes that he's in for a fun of surprises as Evie (Julie Walters, Rupert's mother in the Harry Potter series) an out-of-work actress who is also a poet giving Ben the run for his money. They bond where and tell each other secrets along with Evie acting like a child and getting into mischief where she drags Ben along for a country road trip. From their not only does Ben drive all the way from Britain to Scotland since Evie needs to recite at a local library, but at the same time an older lady falls for the young man in which Ben starts becoming a man.

There is mishap and at the same time rejoice with Ben and Evie along with saying that I was very pleased about the film when it came out in theaters and I was impressed with Rupert Grint's acting, especially if he showed the rest of the world that even though he brings a bit of Ron Weasley within Ben Marshall, there's no stopping the actor on his brilliant performance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"DRIVING LESSONS is a little film that sneaks up on you. What at first seems to be a bit of fluffy nonsense comedy British style is at its base a very fine story about coming of age and the needs for significant friendship of both the young and the elderly. Writer Jeremy Brock ('Mrs. Brown', 'Charlotte Gray', 'The Last King of Scotland') here directs his own screenplay and the result is a cohesive, progressively involving tale filled with fascinating and diverse characters, each performed by sterling actors.

Ben Marshall (Rupert Grint, standing firmly on his own as a developing actor post 'Harry Potter' series) is a quiet, plain little poetic seventeen-year-old living with his bird watching Vicar father (Nicholas Farrell) and his obsessive compulsive, rigid, evangelical do-gooder mother (Laura Linney) in a home where 'needy people', such as the murderous cross-dressing Mr. Fincham (Jim Norton), take precedence over family matters: the mother is by the way having an affair with priest Peter (Oliver Milburn), using Ben as her cover! Sad Ben is among other things attempting to learn to drive a car. His mother is a poor teacher and decides he needs professional lessons AND needs to get a job to help pay for poor Mr. Fincham's needs. Ben follows an ad and meets Dame Eve Walton (Julie Walters), an elderly has-been actress who is as zany as any character ever created. She hires Ben and the fireworks begin. Through a series of incidents, including a camping trip Evie demands they take, the two learn life's lessons missing from each other's natures: Ben learns self respect and self confidence and Evie finds a true friend who will allow her to drop her stagy facade and be the dear human being she has been hiding.

Julie Walters, always offering the finest skills of acting in every character she creates, finds a role like no other here: she is outlandishly wild and lovable. Rupert Grint is exactly the right choice for the challenged coming of age Ben. The chemistry between the two is as tender as that in the classic film 'Harold and Maude'. Laura Linney is as always a superb actress playing a role quite different from her usual repertoire. And the supporting cast is a panorama of fine characterizations. This film is a delightful surprise and one sure to warm the heart and entertain those who love fine writing and direction and acting - and message! Grady Harp","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"lovely. i just love the movie. i want to see this movie because Rupert Grint is a fantastic actor. his expressions are great, spectacular. the movie was excellent. Julie Walters it was perfect too. I think that Rupert is the only boy with red hair that i love. Rupert have a beautiful smile, a beautiful voice. and a wonderful accent. i think that the movie was great and was great see Rupert in another thing but harry potter. and its a very good actor, so it deserves that and more. he just have a golden globe but probably it deserves an Oscar academy award. there are some actors that do not act very well but have a Oscar anyway. it does not matter. but he is perfect, brilliant and beautiful","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although i don't like cricket at all and i have seen this movie 13 years ago, I still think it is one of the best coming-of-age movies ..i remember the day i returned home from my school and sat down to have my lunch, I saw the opening titles of that movie and then....i was so immersed in it that i felt i was there, it really affected me personally. i still remember how i felt when i first saw it ,i felt that the poor boy was a friend of mine, going through the same adolescent experience we were having in those days. what i really liked about that movie is the main theme of a \"shy\" boy fantasizing about \"kissing\" his dream girl, no offense but if that was an American movie, you would certainly see-at a certain point, mainly climax- the \"shy\" boy \"making love\" to his girl, and i really can't grasp this contradicting concepts till now...i have a simple request ,if anyone knows how to get this movie on a DVD by mail ,please let me know cause i need a shot of memories..Thanks","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was at school in the late sixties and early seventies and this film is very much how my school was. The school play where the leading actors kiss, that happened at my school. A crazy gang of lads, my school again only when we went on a cross country run we would have a smoke! 'Getting the whack', some one at my school broke in through a sky light and broke the canes! after that they were kept in a safe!!! And as for certain nocternal activities! what can I say.... The film actually came out in 1982, I remember that as it was when I bought my house and the film was showing at the same time. If you like British films and films about school, growing up and period pieces, then this is for you. Another film very much like it, 'SWALK', came out a few years before and I for one would like to see that again, also 'Kes' is in the genre. Highly recommended. (But trust me, 1982 is when it came out)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An enjoyable movie, without a doubt, and very evocative of both its era and that very particular stage in any boy's 'rites of passage'. But I have to say that having read the very positive comments here, I was a bit disappointed. The period was captured, but the plot was desperately thin. The whole thing revolves around the most egregious bit of miscasting in the history of school plays. The idea that quack quack would ever be chosen to play not only one of only three star turns, but a philanderer, is risible. And without that, nada. The sub-plots bore no relation that I could see to the main plot - all of them could be removed in their entirety without in any way affecting the main story - which surely suggests a fundamental flaw. When all your sub-plots look like padding, you know a central idea is being stretched beyond its limits. Nevertheless, it's a benign movie with its heart in the right place, there are some fine performances, and you just get the feeling that everyone involved felt deflated at the final 'cut!' That good feeling permeates the film. And that has to count for something. A flawed really quite good movie. 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Doe-eyed high school student Kathleen Beller is found beaten and

raped in the opening scenes of this made for TV movie. The film

then flashbacks to the few days before the rape, as Beller is

harassed by a stranger.

Beller and Scott Colomby and her best friend Robin Mattson and

Dennis Quaid are double dating early on. Beller's anxious parents,

laid back Tony Bill and shrill Blythe Danner, wait at home wringing

hands and so on. Right away, the 1970's makes its dated

entrance, as the young couples discuss the romance and love in

\"Three Days of the Condor.\"

Beller, an amateur photographer, begins getting threatening notes

stuffed in her locker at school. The film makers wisely give us a

whole slew of suspects: Beller's new boyfriend, Mattson's

boyfriend, Beller's dad, Beller's ex-boyfriend, and what about that

overly friendly photography class teacher who wants Beller to be a

little more sexy in her self-portraits? I knew who the rapist was

because the Worldvision Video company video box has a picture of

the attack on the back cover, destroying any suspense in that

regard.

Without giving away who the attacker is, Beller begins getting

harassing phone calls, and is eventually raped. The movie then

heads south as she makes like Nancy Drew and secretly sets up

a time lapse camera to catch the guy stalking another student.

Finally, the film makers tack on a hokey ending narration from

Beller about the lack of understanding for the victims of rape in that

day and age.

The suspense here is very real, without going over the top into

scary movie stuff. Beller is very good, and watch for her and

Mattson's scene in an abandoned theater- both do great jobs. The

film is full of familiar faces, including Ellen Travolta in a small role,

and everyone is professional.

This was made in 1978, and it shows. I am sure no one had any

idea that this would be reviewed in 2001 by an overcritical horror

movie lover who needs to get to bed and be up early in the

morning, but some of the attitudes here are embarassing. The

teacher who tells Beller to be sexy is never made to explain what

exactly he had in mind. Nowadays, if any high school teacher said

that, then THAT would have been a made for TV movie on its own.

After Beller is raped, the rapist is still a part of her life, as warrants

are issued, blah, blah, blah. There may not be a case because

Beller is not a virgin, and cannot prove she was raped by whom

she said. Many of these problems have been addressed with

modern technology and policing efforts, but this film obviously

knew it would have a chance to add to the reform debate. Rape is

an act of violence that has not gone away, but efforts today to catch

the attackers are miles ahead of twenty four years ago. The

problem is the anti-rape angle feels tacked on, like an

afterthought. Before that, we have a tight little suspenser that has

real honest to God characterization. After the rape, everything

changes, filmwise, and not for the better.

I remember Beller from the '70's and '80's (and who could forget

her revealing role in \"The Betsy\"), but she has not done anything in

almost ten years. This is a shame, since she was very good way

back then.

I will recommend \"Are You in the House Alone?!\" based on the

acting alone, with a reluctant nod to at least the first two-thirds of

the film. If you want to relive 1970's made for TV high school life,

this is your cup of Tab.

This is unrated but contains physical violence, some sexual

violence, and some adult situations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, I love this movie!!!!! I watched it over and over again. It is so hard to tell who the attacker is. You keep thinking it's one person, then another, then back to the first person, then another person. It is so suspense full you want to fast forward your TV to the end to see who it is.

SUMMARY: Gail Osborne is raped and left at her home. She is in the hospital and begins to tell the story of how she was raped. It goes from her meeting her steady boyfriend, to her teacher who takes a liking to her, to her ex-boyfriend, all different stories, all suspects. But who did it?

I love the acting, they have a lot of great talent in here. The suspense is wonderful and the settings are superb. If it comes on TV watch it. *** 1\/2 stars 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Are You in the House Alone?\" belongs to the pre-cable TV days when the networks were eager to offer an alternative to popular TV shows. It is well-made thriller with a talented cast and credible situations. Kathleen Beller plays a High School student who gets a series of threatening letters. Everyone seems to think that it is nothing more than a prank but Beller is really scared. Tony Bill and Blythe Danner play Beller's parents, Ellen Travolta (John's sister) is the High School Principal and Dennis Quaid has one of his earliest roles as a cocky rich kid. It's a competent chiller with a still relevant social message. Beller is lovely - if you are 30 or older, you will remember that she was very popular among youngsters. Blythe Danner, who I usually don't like, gives a truly moving performance. Nice little film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is a lot to like in this film, despite its humble trappings of a preachy PC tale about rape and the perp always faring better than the victim. The movie did create a fair bit of suspense in the mystery surrounding who was sending the notes. (I, for one, was sure it was the teacher. In fact, that would have been more probable plot-wise because the idea of the best-friend's boy-friend kind of came out of nowhere. I guess the point of that is that \"rape is omnipresent. You never know who it is going to be\".) Ms. Beller is luminous as always (yet see KB discussion board for my qualification of this statement). Like all preachy films the plot lasts 15 minutes past the climax so you might want to quit watching at that point. Unless you are really curious to find out what happens to Phillip. Blythe Danner, as the mom, is in the role she was born to play: the fretting, over-protective mom. Some good 70s scenes for 70s fans. (The dark bar that the father goes to in order to drink away his pain is all dark-stained beams, barrels, oak and cork). A must for Beller fans and highly recommended for fans of 70s High School melodrama or 70s kitsch in general.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Distributor: GOODTIMES home video

Plot: A pretty high school student is marked for unrelenting terror in this suspense filled made for TV movie. Gail Osborne is new in town. She makes friends, has a boyfriend and everything seems to be going her way. That is until she gets an ominous and frightening phone call while babysitting. After more and more phone calls, she is raped. throughout most of the movie, she tries to find proof that the person did rape her.

Audio\/Video: This 1987 VHS edition from Goodtimes stinks. There are constant lines at the bottom and top of the screen.

Extras: No extras from Goodtimes home video.

Final thoughts: This suspense filled made for TV movie was made in 1978, so don't expect many deaths (there are none). If you can find this movie with the Worldvision home video logo on the front, then buy it. But the Goodtimes version is pretty crappy. This can be a little boring, but if you are patient, the ending is pretty good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been strangely attracted to this film since I saw it on Showtime sometime in the early 80's. I say strangely because it is rather a ludicrous bit of soft-core fluff, a genre I'm not particularly interested in. The dialogue is pompously and nonsensically philosophical (making sense, no doubt, only to it's Franco-Italian producers)and the plot completely extraneous. What it does achieve is a wonderfully hypnotic and thoroughly pleasant mood. The scenery (the beautiful Philippines), soft-focus nudity and wonderful score all contribute to a strange and extremely watchable exercise in a sort of film making seldom seen today. It is truly one of my great \"guilty pleasures\". I was fortunate enough to find it on an old laserdisc and have watched it more times than I think is healthy. A worthwhile moodpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I finally saw LAURE and I have to say that I equally enjoyed it and was dismayed by it. What's great about it is the atmosphere, the music, the location, the cinematography and the beautiful cast. The story is non-existent for sure but with these movies it doesn't really matter. The pace in languid and the settings are exotic. The film has a lot going for it. Unfortunately, it also has a few things going against it. The first thing is that the gorgeous Annie Belle and the handsome Al Cliver have no chemistry whatsoever. Because the two are playing a couple and are on screen for almost the entire length of the film the lack of chemistry between the two is a definite liability. According to IMDb, Al and Annie were a real couple when they filmed this movie. They sure kept their attraction to each other from showing on screen.

The other problem with LAURE is that some sex scenes are just ineffective or even ridiculous. There's one sex scene that stands out as one of the silliest I've ever seen in any soft porn flick: our young blonde couple are picked-up by a helicopter pilot who happens to be a cross-dresser! The pilot flies over the city to pick up his girlfriend (!) and they have an orgy of sorts in the helicopter, in mid-air. And Al Cliver is filming all of this with his 16mm camera! I kid you not. Ridiculous. We later see that 16mm footage being edited on a moviola. While the footage rolls, Al and Annie start making out. This scene is actually good but the footage on the screen behind them was at times too much. Watching the footage of the cross-dresser getting it on with his bimbo while piloting the helicopter almost had me rolling on the floor laughing out loud. Is this supposed to be erotic or believable in any way? The last thing I want to see is a woman pleasuring a man in drag, certainly when the man in drag makes for such an ugly woman, while piloting a helicopter, no less. Al and Annie getting it on was cool as was the music during the entire scene. I just wish the footage on the editing screen wasn't so silly.

Speaking of drag, another dull plot point in LAURE which really drags the movie to a crawl are all those moments with the great Orso Maria Guerrini and his two wives. A married threesome is an interesting idea but it hardly registers here as hot or even interesting. The two women are sorta dull and we rarely see the three having sex. In fact, Orso keeps his clothes on for almost the entire film, even when he's with Annie Belle. This is another minor complaint about LAURE: there's nudity but it's not as much as other films of the same era. It just needed more skin to punch it up.

Except for those minor complaints and the drag queen moments, LAURE is actually very watchable. I love these kind of softcore films from the 1970s when the attention was set on mood and atmosphere, not the crude stuff we see today.

p.s.: make sure to watch Emanuelle in Egypt, which stars Annie & Al but also another famous screen couple, Laura Gemser and Gabriele Tinti. The music in that movie is also great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gorgeous Annie Belle in her prime stars in this adventure\/sex movie. She wears her hair in a buzz cut that is bleached platinum. She and her boyfriend are visiting some tropical Asian paradise. They have decided to keep an \"open\" sexual relationship, which is played out on their journey to find a secret society\/tribe where the people live one year and then are reborn in some kind of ceremony. The scenery is gorgeous, deep vast green gorges and jungles are explored. The imagery is very similar to that of the movie \"Black Emanuelle\". It is rich and colorful. Recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite some really scenic locations in the orient and some sporadically energetic music by Franco Micalizzi, this film doesn't quite reach the level of Joe D'Amato's similar efforts while staying just about as trashy. The author of the original book \"Emmanuelle: The Joys of a Woman\", Emmanuelle Arsan, directed and had a smallish role in this film, which mostly pornographically showcases a very young Annie Belle as she gets in a variety of oddball sexual situations. Her boyfriend, played by ZOMBIE's Al Cliver actually approves of her sleeping around and even persuades her to continue her practices even after the two of them are married! Orso Maria Guerrini drops by as a professor who is oh so usually married simultaneously to two women, one of whom is played by Arsan herself. Despite beginning promisingly and having a few hilarious lines of dialog like \"can you see me with the naked eye?\" ... \"I can see you better naked!\", the film shambles along plotlessly up until the less-than-spectacular finale. Much like D'Amato's EMANUELLE AND THE LAST CANNIBALS, the main characters are all in search of some lost tribe, but don't get your hopes up, there's no violence at all in this film, and not much sex either for that matter. Just a lot of nudity and silly dialog. I couldn't help but find some appreciation for this little film, if only for the completely cornball logic the film goes by.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been strangely attracted to this film since I saw it on Showtime sometime in the early 80's. I say strangely because it is rather a ludicrous bit of soft-core fluff, a genre I'm not particularly interested in. The dialogue is pompously and nonsensically philosophical (making sense, no doubt, only to it's Franco-Italian producers)and the plot completely extraneous. What it does achieve is a wonderfully hypnotic and thoroughly pleasant mood. The scenery (the beautiful Philippines), soft-focus nudity and wonderful score all contribute to a strange and extremely watchable exercise in a sort of film making seldom seen today. It is truly one of my great \"guilty pleasures\". I was fortunate enough to find it on an old laserdisc and have watched it more times than I think is healthy. A worthwhile moodpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hehehe. This was one of the best funny road movies ever! I laughed so I fell out of the chair. With many Norwegian and foreign celebrities playing themselves. Harald Zwart is the producer, known for films like Agent Cody banks and of course One Night at McCool's.

It is about Norwegian crazy fans, going to the world cup in Soccer in Germany 2006. And all sort of crazy fun that comes with it. It was hilarious. I couldn't stop laughing. I haven't had so much fun in ages. Rumors say it will come a number two, but I do not know. It will be hard beating this one.

recommended to everyone! It is a must see film. I was suppose to see it at the cinema, but I had work at the times it where shown. And been trying to rent it for a month, but all the time rented out. Got it today on DVD. Well worth it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I hate football!! I hate football fans! I hate cars! but this film was the funniest thing I have seen in quite some time.

I was given the great opportunity to see this film at the weekend, and all I have to say is I laughed till I cried, and when is it going to be available in the UK and Denmark. Girls, this is one football film you will need to see, its hilarious!

The fact that this film started out as some crazy commercial for a telephone company is just amazing, the guys may not be well known actors, but this is good down to earth real humour, with real people, and I for one applaud them for taking this to the screen.

WELL DONE!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was one of the few Norwegian movies I actually looked forward too see. It started of as a few commercials with a motley bunch at football matches. Then they made a movie out of it. The leads are not pros (and you can see that) but they still do a very good job and the movie all in all blew me away.

Norway is known for making crappy movies (no offense)but I had a good feeling about this one. Even thou I'm not interested in football I wanted 2 see it. the story is a lot better than expected and the laughs just keep piling up. there are loads of cameos from Norwegian celebrities and players. the characters are well portrayed and you feel for them. IF You're EVER GONNA SEE A NORWEGIAN MOVIE. LET IT BE THIS ONE!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a huge fan of Harald Zwart, and I just knew that I had to see this movie, even though I can't say I'm a soccer fan. But watching this just filled my heart with joy, and I had a great time in the movies watching it.

Bj\u00f8rn Fast Nagell does a tremendous job directing this movie, and even though you notice the main characters are new at acting, they grow with the movie and makes it what it is. Even though it is supposed to be a soccer movie, there is surprisingly little soccer in it. The whole idea is to show the six guys making up the word N O R W A Y on their trip to the World Cup in soccer playing in Germany this year.

If you're only gonna see one Norwegian movie this year, this is the one..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"[CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!]

Garfield and his owner Jon Arbuckle were in a rut. They basically had no life at all. All they did was lay around and count the ceiling tiles. Jon even organized his sock drawer according to color and fabric. He needed a life. So he consults a book on the subject that tells him to meet a woman. A singles' bar was a great place to start. Unfortunately, when the music started and Jon hit the dance floor, we see what made disco die: Jon killed it. Jon next tried to pick up girls at the video store. He ended up feeling down in the mouth. Literally. The laundromat was no prize either when Jon and his would-be date get a glimpse of each other's underwear. Jon tried to act all buff at the beach, but soon he angered a real buff guy, which left Jon feeling, once again, down in the mouth. Literally. Jon then tried to pick up girls walking and jogging by. No avail. Jon pulled out a guitar and sings the blues. Unfortunately when he mentioned his cat being fat, a fat man walked up and stomped Jon's guitar. It was hopeless.

Fortunately for Jon, an ad flashed on the TV: an ad for Lorenzo's School for the Personality Impaired. It guaranteed a lifeless person to get a life in a few easy steps. Jon and Garfield attend the class. The building didn't exactly look the same way it did on TV, nor did Lorenzo act as peppy as he did on TV. Jon sat next to a pretty girl named Mona. So while Lorenzo taught his lessons of introducing yourself, checking your pulse, and pretending to speak a foreign language, Jon and Mona get to know one another. They leave together, forgetting all about Garfield. At home, Jon and Mona just sat on the porch and talked. Garfield was jealous of Mona for fear that she would take Jon away from him. Garfield envisioned the future: Jon and Mona get married, she moves in, and soon she gives birth to a little Arbuckle who is overjoyed at pulling Garfield's tale. Back to the present, Garfield would not stand for it. He tried to get Jon to get rid of Mona, until she started scratching behind his ears. But then Jon learned that Mona was allergic to cats. So that was basically the end of their relationship. But they still saw each other every now and then, and Garfield was sure to be with them.

Another hilarious Garfield TV special! This one was made during the run of TV's Garfield and Friends. Garfield was slimmed down somewhat. SOMEwhat. Since hie early 1980's cartoons. The scenes of Jon trying to pick up chicks is funny, so is the one where the fat guy stomps on Jon's guitar. Good ol' Lorenzo Music is back as Garfield. Thom Huge is Jon. Frank Welker (The third man of 1,000 voices) is Lorenzo. And June Foray (The woman of 1,000 voices) is Mona. If you like Garfield, then I recommend you see Garfield Gets A Life today! It, along with Here Comes Garfield, and Garfield on the Town, were just released on DVD! So check them all out today! You are guaranteed a good time. Hey, has Garfield ever let you down before?

-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this TV special Jon is the one who needs a life. The highlight of his day is counting the tiles on the ceiling and rearranging his sock drawer. Not content with this forever, Jon takes Garfield to a self help group in order to meet people. How many people will be interested in a loner 20-something who's best friend is a cat?

After several failed attempts at getting a girl, including one cringeworthy dance scene that rivals David Brents' fusion of Flashdance and MC Hammer in The Office (Disco's dead?, says Jon), he is more than shocked to find a cute girl who is as much as a jerk as himself.

Naturally, they get on but Garfield is worried that John will forget about him and prefer having kids to a cat. Fortunately Jon's new girlfriend is allergic to cats.

With slicker animation than past TV specials, this feels like a longer episode of Garfield and Friends.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Can you capture the moment? When first you hear rain on a roof? Some things are beyond the sum of their parts, expressing the poetry of life. The things that matter.

Poet Dylan Thomas captured the seemingly inexpressible \"A good poem helps to . . . extend everyone's knowledge, of himself and the world around him.\" (Bob Dylan named himself after him). So why has it taken so long to make a film of the great Dylan Thomas? A simple biopic could have missed the point. Writer Sharman Macdonald has taken a different, better approach.

In The Edge of Love, she creates the world of passions and complexities that fill the poems so we can swim in them. The lives of four friends. Dylan, who lusts and loves to the full. Wife Caitlin (Sienna Miller), his feisty support. War-hero William (Cillian Murphy), who saves him from a street brawl. And then there's his childhood sweetheart. Vera. Dear Vera. Take your breath away Vera. She's Caitlin's closest friend. William's wife. And, like a muse, the 'star' in Dylan's dark sky.

It all kicks off in the 1940 London Blitz, with bomb shelters in the Underground. Enter Vera (an impressive Keira Knightley) under makeshift stage spotlights. She meets Dylan for the first time again in years, her heart is flushed. Their eyes shine through the smoke of the room. The purity of their former passion. Dylan (native Welsh-speaker, Matthew Rhys) is no sanctified, sanitised poet. Master of his vices he must experience them all fully. He introduces his beloved wife then continues to woo Vera.

The Edge of Love is a visual treat. The soundtrack leaves you wanting for more. Performances are possibly the best by these actors in their careers. As a lush love story it's pretty good. As an insight into Dylan Thomas and the reality of poetry in all our lives, not bad at all. And as a tribute to a great man, inspiring.

The production has been at pains to project the spirit of Dylan Thomas without compromising historical accuracy too much. Dramatic tension involves a pull between artistic freedom and conventional morality. Audiences looking for an experience based on the latter may be disappointed. And it will play less well to audiences whose boundaries are those of Albert Square.

Sharman Macdonald seemed aware of the headstrong nature of artistic freedom and its limits when she spoke to producer Rebekah Gilbertson (granddaughter of the real William and Vera). \"Think of all the things that you don't want me to write about,\" she said,\" because I have to have carte blanche.\" For Macdonald, the limits were if she should cause offence to Dylan's memory. But for many artists, especially men, the limits are those which wife and family could set on them. A woman is not going to let lofty ideals interfere with practical common sense issues, and will even put her children's interests before her own (This occasionally happens the other way round, as when towering genius Virginia Woolf refused to let loving Leonard bring her down to earth - in The Hours).

In spite of the tension between Caitlin and Vera, these two women become closest buddies. It is one of the main (and very beautiful) themes of the film.

The film's colours tell a story in themselves. In a drab, wartime Britain, Caitlin and Vera are vivid highlights in an ocean of grey. Shortly after meeting Vera's lit-up-in-lights stage persona, we encounter Caitlin through her searing blue eyes, sparkling in a darkened railway carriage. Her dramatic red coat cuts a dash through streets of colourless homogeneity, triumphing on a beautiful staircase as she reunites with Dylan. But Vera's lipstick red brightness is less enduring. For her, marriage is second-best, even when she has become possessed with genuine love for her husband.

Outstanding cinematography extends to using montage to juxtapose images, in a manner similar to poetry's juxtaposition of unrelated words to create further meaning. Horrific war scenes in Thessaly are intercut with screams of Vera in pregnancy. Giving birth or is it abortion? We are not told immediately. Pain is universal and goes beyond time and place to our present day.

Constant echoes of Dylan's poetry throughout the film lead us beyond earthly opposites. It reminds me of Marlon Brando reading TS Eliot in Apocalypse Now. A light beyond the horrors of the world. A different way of seeing things. \"I'll take you back to a time when no bombs fell from the sky and no-one died \u0096 ever,\" says Dylan to Vera as they walk along the beach. Elsewhere, Caitlin recalls childhood with Vera: \"We're still innocent in Dylan,\" she says.

There's a time to leave your knickers at home or share a universal cigarette. (Not literally, perhaps.) A time to be inspired. Enjoy what is possibly the best British film of the year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So keira knightly is in it...So automatically we compare this film to attonement. Aside rom the fact that this film is also wartime and her appearance is uncanning, these films are totally different.

The Actors work well, i think one good thing is there is no memorable person, they are a team.

If you want a film where things happen, then id advise another as the story of this film is about human interaction and their physche's damaged by their experiences and how their lives are intertwined.

This film have genuine interaction, perfect pause moments that make you hold your breath. No its not exciting, but it is gripping if you can empathise with these characters. At moments i wondered if this film may have been better as a theatrical play rather than a movie. We expect a lot from movies as everything is possible, and yet with theatre we allow for interaction and rely on belief.

There are things wrong with it if your looking for a blockbuster, if you look for nothing and allow the film to take you in, move you, allow yourself to forget these stars, and not to judge them as actors but let them become people, you will truly ind yourself moved.

GO ON!! give it a go!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was fortunate to attend the London premier of this film. While I am not at all a fan of British drama, I did find myself deeply moved by the characters and the BAD CHOICES they made. I was in tears by the end of the film. Every scene was mesmerizing. The attention to detail and the excellent acting was quite impressive.

I would have to agree with some of the other comments here which question why all these women were throwing themselves at such a despicable character.

*******SPOLIER ALERT******** I was also hoping that Dylan would have been killed by William when he had the chance! ****END SPOILER*****

Keira Knightley did a great job and radiate beauty and innocence from the screen, but it was Sienna Miller's performance that was truly Oscar worthy.

I am sure this production will be nominated for other awards.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite the title and unlike some other stories about love and war, this film isn't too sticky and pink, because love is as a rose: With thorns, that is. The four leading actors set their characters realistic and with a good sense and balance between the tragic and the down-to-earth.

The music and lyrics of the cabaret\/chanson-esquire songs (sung b Keira Knightley herself) drag the viewer deeper and deeper in the film, from one place to another, between the brutal war and amongst the peaceful love. Some people may find it too much a biopic, but it \u00eds mostly a romantic story, even though it consequently follows the life of Dylan Thomas and the triangular relationship which is steeped by joy and jealousy.

London gets visualized from another angle for once, the bohemian life of Dylan during the bombings of the Germans is set in a floating atmosphere of small bedrooms, pubs and bars. The independent women, the soldier and the charismatic poet are constantly swept in both feelings of love and anger.

Maybe the end is too twisted and hangs somewhat loosely to the rest of the film, but all in all this is a great romantic story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was fortunate to attend the London premier of this film. While I am not at all a fan of British drama, I did find myself deeply moved by the characters and the BAD CHOICES they made. I was in tears by the end of the film. Every scene was mesmerizing. The attention to detail and the excellent acting was quite impressive.

I would have to agree with some of the other comments here which question why all these women were throwing themselves at such a despicable character.

*******SPOLIER ALERT******** I was also hoping that Dylan would have been killed by William when he had the chance! ****END SPOILER*****

Keira Knightley did a great job and radiate beauty and innocence from the screen, but it was Sienna Miller's performance that was truly Oscar worthy.

I am sure this production will be nominated for other awards.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the start of \"The Edge Of Love\", the viewer is transported to the striking world of WW2 London. We follow the lives of four people who might have been created just for this movie, an exploration of female friendship and the strains caused on it by marriage and infidelity. Except one of the characters is named Dylan Thomas, perhaps the greatest English poet of the 20th century. And his reactions to the world around him were not only selfish, but at times truly despicable.

This movie is based on Thomas' writings about love and romance. These were adapted with a sharp screenplay by Sharman MacDonald (Keira Knightley's mother). The director, John Maybury, does claim that the three other lead characters were actual people.

All four are performed very strongly. Sienna Miller is Dylan's wife, Keira Knightley is the cabaret singer Vera Phillips. Matthew Rhys is Dylan Thomas, and Cillian Murphy is William Killick. The first section of the movie takes place in London during the Nazi air raids, with Vera being pursued by Willaim, a soldier waiting for deployment. By a chance encounter, Dylan meets with his first love, Vera. From there Vera meets Caitlin, Dylan's wife. While the three are drinking, William successfully breaks Vera's guard.

The film follows their lives as Vera and William are married and he is sent to war. Vera has become pregnant, and returns to Wales with Dylan and Caitlin. There they face a gritty existence, with Vera supporting Dylan and Caitlin with her husband's war pay. Through these times, Vera's and Caitlin's friendship grows. So does Dylan's infatuation with Vera. She gives in. This creates the first test for the two women.

When William returns from war, he barely recognizes his wife, and has no bond with his infant son. Things get worse, as Dylan idly watches his friend struggle with battleground fatigue (post traumatic stress disorder). William realizes something has happened between Dylan and Vera, and in a drunken rage shoots up Dylan's house.

\"Edge Of Love\" starts as a stylish romance in war torn London and ends in the stark, gritty life of motherhood, infidelity, and attempted murder in Wales. The treatment of PTSD is well done, and should speak to an American audience. Some day (see ending).

Each star has a great moment. Miller when she is yanking out stitches in her head in response to her abortion of another man's child. Knightley and Murpy when he finally bonds with his son. Oh hell, almost all their scenes are awesome. And Rhys when he purgers himself on the stand to get Vera's husband sent to jail.

Yet, the real star of the movie is Jonathan Freeman's cinematography and John Maybury's direction. They seem to understand that no matter how good the story or how historical Thomas is, this is a film dominated by two great actresses of our time. And they cherish their scenes with stunning shots. While this isn't best picture material, it is a very good movie (much more engaging than \"The Dutchess\"). It has a visual lyricism that accentuates the use of Thomas' poetry. Also, this is clearly Knightley's second best performance of her career, and perhaps Miller's best.

I have always had a weakness for the Artist in struggle, whether it's Hulce's Mozart, or Hoffman's Capote. But I was stunned at how little sympathy I felt for Dylan Thomas. His struggles with alcohol are well known. But his antagonism of William and Caitlin to gain possession of his first love Vera makes him out to be.....a bad man.

So is this Academy Award Worthy? Clearly no. At least, not this year. It will be released state side in March, 2009, making it ineligible for the Academies. This is 9 months after it was released in Britain. Between Atonement, Miss Pettigrew, and Brideshead Revisited, the US has had its fill of WW2 British period pieces. Too bad. This film is better then the other ones, except Atonement. But in this one, Knightley's soldier does come back, but as a shell of the man who left her.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With its ww2 timing, falling in and out of love, and easy on the eye Kira, this is re-Atonement.

This a relationship story with focused main characters working out the the balance between first and fast love in the home front of WW2. Poet Dylan Thomas philanders his way between wife and ex in dark and smoky Blitz London and later in windy wales.

Vera's ex and next spark off each other as the poet and soldier become a sideline while the girls bond and share. An easy watch that works well in the era bouncing along with just a few dips in pace. Would work well with French subtitles but then I may have been to too many art house movies lately.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Where would Hollywood have been without Fredric March as Robert Browning or Dennis Price as Lord Byron, famous lovers in their day? Even an actor as normally straitlaced as Michael Redgrave once brought some moody charm to a portrayal of W.B. Yeats. Writers' lives are an endless source of inspiration.

But of all poets it was Dylan Thomas, the roistering, free-loving Welshman who enjoyed a pint or two (and drank himself to death in New York at the age of 39), who was closest in spirit to the film industry. During World War II, he produced scripts for British propaganda documentaries. He even wrote the screenplay of a vapid melodrama called The Three Weird Sisters, in which three old maids in a Welsh village plot the murder of their rich half-brother. All that is now forgiven.

In John Maybury's The Edge of Love, Thomas is played by the Welsh actor Matthew Rhys. It's not a full-scale biopic. The film covers four years in the poet's life during World War II, when he lived with two women: his wife Caitlin (Sienna Miller) and a former lover Vera Phillips (Keira Knightley), whom he met again by chance during the war. It seems he loved them both. The relationship of these extraordinary women -- to Thomas and to each other -- is at the heart of Maybury's absorbing film.

How it came to be made is a story almost as remarkable as that of the lovers themselves. Rebekah Gilbertson, the film's producer, is the granddaughter of Vera Phillips and William Killick. William, a war hero (played in the film by Cillian Murphy), married Vera while she was still in love with the poet. Gilbertson was inspired to make the film when she discovered a book about her grandparents, Dylan Thomas: A Farm, Two Mansions and Bungalow, by David Thomas, describing their tangled lives. Sharman Macdonald, who wrote the screenplay, is the mother of Knightley. The part requires Knightley to sing, and her mother included songs especially for her. Surely no film with such felicitous family connections deserves to do other than succeed.

We begin in London during the Blitz. Bombs are falling, sirens are wailing, and Phillips is singing to sheltering crowds in an underground Tube station. In a pub, by chance, she meets Thomas and discovers after all these years that he has a wife and child. Phillips and Caitlin form a friendship untroubled by jealousy or rancour and are soon sharing beds and bathtubs, listening to Thomas read his poems, exchanging intimate secrets and smoking their heads off, as everyone did in wartime. Caitlin turns out to be more experienced in the ways of the world (\"My first was Augustus John, he seduced me when I was 15\"). But it's the refined and soulful Phillips who stirs Thomas's deepest responses and eventually succumbs to his charms. In the meantime, she has reluctantly married Killick, who has seen her in the Tube station and been instantly captivated by her beauty (if not her singing).

It is an intense and strangely beautiful film, though Thomas himself may be its least impressive character. He is best remembered for Under Milk Wood, his verse radio play about a day in the life of the mythical Welsh village of Llareggub, whose name spelt backwards was not something polite English teachers drew attention to. I once had a vinyl recording of Richard Burton reading the poem (he appeared in a film of Under Milk Wood in 1971), and I've never forgotten the creamy, seductive quality of his voice. The legendary charisma, the magnetism of the man, is something I missed in Rhys's performance. Thomas comes across as a strangely pallid, even secondary, figure compared with the women in his life.

In his previous film, Love Is the Devil, Maybury explored the turbulent life of painter Francis Bacon and his sadomasochistic relationship with his lover and model, George Dyer. The Edge of Love seems to me a richer and more satisfying film. If you ask what insights it offers into the springs of Thomas's creative inspiration, I would have to say Llareggub. But as an insight into his egotism, his smouldering moods and his general indifference to the feelings of others, it is wonderfully sad and revealing.

Thomas had a good war, boozing and writing while other men (including Killick) were being traumatised by the horrors of battle. In one scene near the end, Thomas's behaviour towards his friends seems unforgivably callous. But this is not, after all, Thomas's film. Murphy gives us a magnificent study in doomed passion and the emotional debilitation of war. Miller is charming and pathetic as the wife. And Knightley looks almost too exquisitely delicate to be real (as she did in Pride and Prejudice). But this is probably her finest performance. And in every respect the film is worthy of her.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Welsh poet Dylan Thomas excused from serving in active duty is doing his bit for the war effort producing bits of prose for some propaganda branch of government in Whitehall.

Thomas is portrayed as a freethinker believing in free love married to a woman with an equally demanding artistic streak and likewise with a penchant for extramarital romance. Thomas writing and reciting his poetry in systematic domestic mayhem throughout becomes somewhat priggish towards the end, resting somewhat uncomfortably on his society connections and pulling rank on a war veteran, who had shot up his house, and who was incidentally married to the woman he had been having an affair with.

The real story of this film is the love of two women, one (Keira Knightley) whose first love was Thomas (Matthew Rhys), the second (Sienna Miller) who is Thomas's wife. At times it reminds of The Singing Detective, as in very good television with slightly sinister overtones laid on top of scenes of surreal camp absurdity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Keira Knightley and Sienna Miller stars in the story of two of the women in the life of Dylan Thomas. Knightley is Thomas's boyhood sweetheart he re-encounters during the Blitz. Meeting at a bar they reconnect, however things become complicated when Thomas' brings his wife (Miller) along the next time he meets her. The women hit it off and things proceed at pace until the trio are joined by the man who will become Knightly's husband. This further complicates things as jealousy begins to show its face.

Beautiful to look at, extraordinarily written and wonderfully acted (everyone disappears completely into their roles) this is a sumptuous feast for the eyes and the ears. It's so nice to see a film about adults being adults. On a purely visceral level I really enjoyed watching the film because the film is so artistically pleasing. Rarely have I ever seen a film that is this beautifully crafted.

The trouble with the film is I'm not entirely sure of everything that happened. Something seemed to be missing and a couple of times I had to replay the film to see if I missed something. Its not bad, but its not completely satisfying as a result. (I tried to look up on line to see how much of the film is true but I couldn't find anything) Still I think this is a film worth seeing. It's a beautiful film for adults with probably the best acting the leads have done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film flopped miserably in the UK, and it didn't deserve to. The trailer of this film is slightly misleading, and I guess it mislead critics and audiences into thinking it was \"Atonement: Part 2\". While the film was marketed that way to capitalise on the earlier success of Joe Wright's BAFTA-winning film, it's very different in tone. It focuses on an imagination of sorts of Welsh poet Dylan Thomas' life during the Second World War as the writer of propaganda films for the war effort, and his subsequent return to Wales. Director John Maybury quickly introduces Dylan's (Matthew Ryhs) childhood sweetheart Vera Phillips, played by Keira Knightley. She was Dylan's first love in their homeland, but the moment has passed, and singer Vera only wants it as a beautiful memory. Or does she? Vera unexpectedly strikes up a close bond with the other woman in Dylan's life, \"Queen of Ireland, love of my life, mother of my child\" Caitlin Thomas (Sienna Miller). The three form a sort of menage a trois in war-struck London, but Vera then falls for a dashing soldier, William Killick (Cillian Murphy). They quickly marry, with Killick leaving for War. A frightened Vera convinces the Thomas' to return witb her to Wales, but the three are faced with the realism of the birth of Vera's child, William's jealousy and shell-shock after returning home, and Caitlin realising she cannot share Dylan with her best friend.

Filmed on a low budget, this is more of a mood piece than anything else. It works best as a realisation that some memories and feelings need to be treasured but not renewed. The performance of Sienna Miller is particularly excrellent (unfortunately the paparazzi nonsense detracts from the fact thats she's quite a talent), and Knightley and Murphy are once again very good. The let-down is Rhys as Dylan, who, while the Welsh poet himself was no bed of roses, lacks charisma and makes us wonder what these women see in Dylan. The writing is very choppy, some beautiful moments interspersed with sloppiness. It's certainly worth watching, however.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i did not expect to enjoy this. in truth i watched it because a friend knew a friend knew a friend who wrote the script but wasn't credited. knowing Dylan thomas, and really being appreciative of his poetry but aware and rather disconcerted by the man, i didn't feel i needed to see a twee adaption of his lame bohemian life laid bare. and this was not it. critical and yet appreciative it was. it made me cry. kiera knightley was superb, even with that slightly strained welsh accent,and it is a sad tale that they tell. Dylan thomas is not the hero as sadly he was not throughout his life and neither really are the so called 'feisty woman' of the pr spiel. it is cillian the william of the movie. a man that leaves the woman he loves to fight a war that they ignore. his challenge to reoonnect with that indifference is what is of real interest to this film and what a beautiful performance from that actor. i thiink this film is underrated because it was marketed so badly. Dylan thomas fans will expect something more from their so very flawed hero and get less, and well that is how it was marketed. it is not a film about Dylan thomas and it is much more interesting for it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is primarily about love in WWII, yet we must remember that it's also a biopic for Dylan Thomas and those around him at this particular stage in his life.

The movie's timing is just great. It really captures what I think would have been the spirit during those times; smiling and hoping you're not going to get bombed. While it may prove boring to some, the movie does have a particularly dangerous edge to it.

At one point, my heart was racing towards the end as the movie hits its climax. It really does feature some poignant moments that are handled with skill by the four main actors. Cillian Murphy is on fine form here, as is Matthew Rhys. Both are polar opposites and it makes for an interesting watch. The relationship formed between Sienna Miller and Keira Knightley's characters is wonderful and we have the acting to thank (and watch out for a cameo by Suggs of 'Madness').

Despite all of this, it's a rather slow movie. Coupled with the fact it's just shy of two hours, it's quite a slog to get to the conclusion.

Overall, it's a solid non-fiction war movie with many wonderfully crafted moments that were no doubt helped by the splendid number of well-known British names behind the scenes. But it really does drone on for too much at times. Still, a worthwhile watch. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Given that Dylan Thomas is an icon of modern Anglophone poetry I expected a movie that would be prone to a hagiography of the subject. On the contrary the poet is presented as sexually irresponsible, a drunkard, a bad father, a lier and a hypocrite and perhaps a coward. Of course one could argue that all those things are an advantage when some one is an artist and especially a poet since one of the purposes of art is to subvert the standards of conventional morality but still I do not thing that a positive role model could crop up from such a bundle of personality traits. Any way I found the other male hero of the story Captain Cillic a more endearing character. The two female roles were played by actresses Knigtley and Miller and were truly charming especially the first when she performed songs in slim outfit to inspire bombarded Londoners during WW2. Another good point is the role that sexual jealousy plays even in relatively progressive milieus that think that age-old conventions can easily be surpassed.The atmosphere of the Blitz was also convincing as well as the portrayal of the distinct outlooks among people who have experienced war as opposed to those who talk about it theorizing on it's possible political outcomes.I think one would recommend such a movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although I am very familiar with poet Dylan Thomas, I know nothing of his life. Whatever his life and specifically his marriage involved, I would imagine that The Edge of Love (based on the novel) manipulates things a bit, but unless you are a historian or a poet, who cares.

The movie is less about Thomas and more focused on the two most important women in his life. One is his wife Kathrine, and the other is Vera who was his first love. One romantic night on the beach as youths is something that both have tried to put behind them but cannot, now grown up they are good friends. I forgot to mention that this is set during the war. Vera becomes engaged to Captain Will Killing who he gets her pregnant and leaves for war. While he is away, Vera starts to fall for Thomas again, and Kathrine has fallen out of love with him. She is also carrying another man's child. Things get even more emotionally complex when Capt Killig returns

As you can see, it is a very soap operatic plot, and it takes shape in a fairy drab slow manner, with perhaps one too many sequences of sappy dialogue. But all is not lost yet. For a non- Hollywood production, I think that the Edge of Love is about as stylish a picture as one can get. It is certainly more dimensional and intelligent than about 90% of contemporary romances, Hollywood production or not. Some of it has to do with being set during the war, which sets up emotional conflict that feels more convincing and less artificial, a bit like Atonement. this one features acting and cinematography of equal talent to Joe Wright's Oscar nominee, but it is in far greater need for stable pacing and progression. Things are okay at the start and finish, but the middle section is where your attention span may be tested, unless you are deeply and profoundly rooted in the story.

I doubt if The Edge of Love will have that kind of an effect on the viewer, but is a good film to check. it might even make a good date night movie, considering it is so much smarter than the chick flicks that boyfriends are forced to endure today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Can't grade this very well, because I can't say I liked it. But it is the story that bothered me, not the realization of the film. The acting, directing, atmosphere, music were all good. It's just that after you see a bunch of people doing things you can't truly relate to, the movie ends. It is educational in the way that it shows the horrors of war as seen from home and the way feelings don't need to make any sense at all and still be strong, but that's about it.

The plot covers a period of a few years in which the poet Dylan Thomas is taken under the roof of a former ex-girlfriend. He is married, brings his wife and later the kid, while the ex (Knightley) marries some other guy. But the tension is there, Dylan is a self obsessed jerk and the new husband comes back home from the war with a slight case of PTSD. Add in some pretty temperamental characters and you have your hands full.

Bottom line: you have to be \"in the mood\" to like this film. The hard part is defining this mood. I don't think I've ever been in it yet. Ever. So it is probably better watched by adults with a grasp on weird complex human behaviour and maybe a curiosity about Dylan Thomas.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a masterful piece of film-making, with many themes simmering and occasionally boiling over in this warts and all study of the poet's bohemian, self-indulgent wartime years that span the aerial bombardments of London and the outward tranquillity of a Welsh coastal retreat - the borderlines between friendship, lust and love, dedication to art and experience versus practical concerns, jealousy, rivalry, cowardice and egotism versus heroism and self-sacrifice and more. A mature, subtle script that suggests and occasionally brings into dramatic focus the underlying tensions is well served by perfect performances (apart from the odd inappropriate smiling that Keira Knightley is prone to, though perhaps under direction this time as the other characters themselves often mention it). But above all the exquisite visual composition of each moment, with inventive and elegant use of close-up, camera angle and lighting, including pointillistic faux home movie footage, is a wonder and joy to behold. It's as continuously beautiful to look at as a Bertolucci, but the relationships here are more convincing and the narrative more engaging than some of that master's work. A very rare type of film these days - it holds the attention and stirs the emotions without abandoning artistic integrity and succumbing to manipulative, superficial shortcuts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...but it's still an entertaining TV movie. The transposition to the Civil War makes a nice change of pace, and adds a few subtexts (such as Ariel's servitude to Prosper\/Prospero) that you might not otherwise see. Thankfully, they didn't try to make it a mini-series: at 90 minutes, it's just about right.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Never having read or seen the Bard's original work, I can't begin to compare this work to his story. So I won't. Instead I will just say that this was a very entertaining story with some very nice special effects (and some that looked a little lower in budget, but still decent enough to enjoy). I thought all the primary actors did a fine job performing. The style of magic seemed more black than white and is almost certain to offend anyone easily upset about that sort of thing, but I thought it was well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For a TV movie this was definately worth seeing. All the acting was very well done and the story itself had a touching universal theme. I have not read\/seen the original and as a rule I can't stand Shakespeare, but I enjoyed this movie(the civil war setting was very well done as well). Dont expect to see an epic, however you should find it moving enough to enjoy. By the way (on a side note) don't compare this (or any other movie for that matter) to the original work. Movies aren't supposed to transfer a book to the screen, but rather take the general idea of it a then adapt a story from it. When people say \"the book was so much better\" (they're usually wrong anyway) what they are really trying to say is the book was so different.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is a nice comedy. It has the great features of the childhood, lying or trying to get away from own generated troubles. The casting is great, great acting. And the special effects ? Well, some stunts are really impressive. Watch it! :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, I'll admit that if I didn't have kids, I never would have seen this film and would never see it. But, considering all the rotten kids movies I have seen (such as SPY KIDS 2 or BABE: PIG IN THE CITY), this is a significant improvement. And, it had enough in it that I wasn't totally bored out of my skull or contemplated suicide (something I did repeatedly in the other two movies). Sure, the performances are pretty broad and the plot is kinda silly--but it IS a kids film. And, compared with other films in the genre, this is definitely better than average. Frankie Muniz and Amanda Bines actually appear to have some talent and probably will continue to have careers after puberty--at least on infomercials or doing voice-overs.

So, if you are looking for a film to see with your kids, you certainly could do a lot worse!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Movie is really an entertaining, good clean fun movie, for the kiddies. Kaley(played by Nickelodeon's talented Amanda) is the sidekick to a rambunctious boy who has a hard time telling the truth. He eventually works this into a movie script that gets stolen. I won't bore you with the details. If you have children and want to see an entertaining if not thrilling kids movie, I highly recommend this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Big Fat Liar\" comes as a welcome -- shallow, but welcome -- breath of fresh air after one too many films featuring bathrooms, bodily fluids, pets on acid, gaseous jokes and crotch gags. After all, \"See Spot Run,\" \"Max Keeble's Big Move\" and \"Snow Dogs\" had signaled The Degenerative Spiral of Kiddie Movie-making. Worse is the realization that the young audience would later be satiated by the smuttier offerings of \"Not Another Teen Movie\" and \"Slackers.\" Written by Nickelodeon producers Dan Schneider and Brian Robbins (who coincidentally co-starred on the '80s sitcom \"Head of the Class\"), the film stars Frankie Muniz as Jason, who's always ready with a good lie to get out of scrapes. (Where's the English paper? Dad choked on a Swedish meatball.) His teacher (Sandra Oh) issues an ultimatum: Turn in the paper by the end of the day or take summer school. Jason whips out a story called \"Big Fat Liar\" and is struck en route to school by a limousine carrying insensitive Hollywood producer Marty Wolf (Paul Giamatti). Wolf gives him a ride, but Jason leaves his paper behind. No one will hear the truth this time, and Dad tells him he's lost his trust.

Months later, Jason and best friend Kaylee (Amanda Bynes) see a movie preview for \"Big Fat Liar,\" and head off to Los Angeles to wreak havoc on Wolf's life -- all to get a confession that he stole Jason's paper to make the film. They even gain the sympathy of some of Wolf's abused employees, including his assistant (Amanda Detmer), former chauffeur (Donald Faison), movie star (Jaleel \"Urkel\" White, playing himself) and stunt coordinator (a much-aged Lee Majors).

Because \"Big Fat Liar\" is without the edge that his sitcom \"Malcolm in the Middle\" is known for, Muniz is easy to root for but doesn't have much to work with. Likewise for Bynes, who headlines her own Tracey Ullman-like sketch show on Nickelodeon. All the hamminess is given to Giamatti, whose eyes bulge and cheeks wiggle with every sneering insult.

The film gets snaps just by attempting the high road, and should be enjoyed by its target audience (especially since most of the high jinks occur on the Universal Studios lot). But here's one head-scratcher: The message is that it pays to tell the truth. But didn't we just see Jason getting to his payback by telling white lies throughout the film? Well, at least there's no poop.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie on my flight from Philly to Denver. The screen was three rows in front of me and about 12\" x 10\". So I really wasn't going to watch it. But I like Malcolm in the Middle, so I thought I'd watch just a few minutes. Next thing I know I'm sucked in, having a great time, and was pleased as how good it was and how fast it seemed to make the time go by. I agree with that the acting is very good for this level of entertainment. Being one of the older baby boomers, I was also pleased to see Lee Majors with a role in the movie, as with a couple of other actors who were famous (Jamiel?) \"yesterday\" but are out of the spotlight today poking fun at themselves.

It's your basic \"kid is wronged, kid gets even (and then some), and everyone enjoys themselves in the process\". No heavy thinking, no great analysis needed. Just a good fun way to pass the time.

3.5 out of 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Big Fat Liar is what you get when you combine terrific writing, great production, and an emphasis on clever ideas over adolescent pap. The two stars work great together, and--what can I say? Amanda Bynes shines. Putting \"Irkel\" and Lee Majors in the film were brilliant touches. Watch this film with your kids. If you don't laugh throughout it, you must not have been paying attention.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was fun! Especially if your between 8 and 15. Frankie Muniz and Amanda Bynes make a believable team of 8th graders getting back at an adult who really deserves it. Paul Giamatti makes a great adult who you really want to 'get'. My 13 year old daughter and her friend loved it. Parents: No really bad words or any sex to worry about. Recommend it for the 'right' crowd. AP","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just had to add my comment to raise the average on this one. Paul Giamatti lets it all hang out in this one and is a hoot. He would probably say it was easy, but he really does a great job and should have won something for it. We've had the DVD for several years and my kids (boy now 4 1\/2 and girl 9) will watch this one over and over, and the humor is adult enough that I don't mind having to hear it in the background (and I do run to the TV for the really funny parts). Simple moral message, lots of decent action and slapstick, \"bad\" grownups acting goofy to take the edge off, minimal bad language and minimal potty jokes make it hard to beat for a family standard.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't understand why IMDb users would rate this movie 5.2\/10? It really is great, very funny. I would strongly recommend this movie for all of you, adults, teenagers and especially children!

The story is about a 14-year-old kid who always tell lie, at home and school. One day he had his homework of writing a 1000-word-story. But he didn't, so the teacher told him to write it and gave her in 3 hours, or he would have to go to Summer School. Yep, he wrote it in 2:45. \"Big fat liar\", I think it was a story of himself. On the way to the school he hit a limo of a famous Hollywood producer, and he gave him a ride. But the kid forgot the story in the limo. He told his parents and the teacher, but of course, they did not believe him. And the movie producer, he took the kid's story as his new movie, \"Big fat liar\". When the kid saw the trailer of the movie, he told his parents he had written it, but they didn't believe. So, he and his friend had to go to L.A to prove one thing: The truth is never overrated

Enjoy this great movie, you won't be disappointed. Don't trust the 5.2\/10 rate, it should be 9\/10! Believe me!

P\/S: so sorry, my English isn't good enough to make a better comment!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Much better than expected. Good family flick - catch it on reruns. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Paul Giamatti chews up the scenery - he has way more talent then the role deserves. A treat to watch Inspector Uhl from \"The Illusionist\" go over the top. The blue man scenes had my 11 year old in stitches. The cameos were particular fun for the parents - nice to see Lee Majors and Urkel (umm, Jaleel) again. It's going to be tough to think up 10 lines for this film , but let's hear it for a movie that promotes honesty between a child and their parents! Amanda Bynes does a fine job when she gets to be part of the sting. I normally can't stand Frankie Muniz but he is just fine here. Hats off to the casting director - if only for hiring Giamatti!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I could watch this movie ALL DAY! I LOVE it. Probably my all time favorite movies. But, by the way, \"badger1970\" there are a few parts with bad language, not TOO bad, but it's not exactly G rated. GREAT movie!!!!! I recommend it to everybody. Any way, it's making me type 10 lines of text, so I am going to keep typing until it will let me post this comment. Okay... Still typing... This is getting annoying. Ugh. I still have four more to go. Anyway, WATCH THIS MOVIE! Even if you have already seen it. I DON'T CARE! Has it been 10 lines yet? Nope. Only 2 more lines left. I don't even know why it wants me to do this. I think I am done. Wait a minute, I'm NOT done, SORRY, people. I know it's torture listening to me. WEll, I suppose that you don't HAVE to read this comment... But you should, because I wrote it. I am probably done now. Finally, bye.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the funniest movies I've ever saw. A 14-year old boy Jason Shepherd wrote an English paper called \"Big Fat Liar\". When his skateboard was taken, he had to use his sister's bike to get to the college on time and he hit a limo. When he went into the limo, he met a famous producer from Hollywood, Marty Wolf. When he left the limo, he forgot one thing: his paper! So Marty Wolf took it and he turned Jason's English paper into a movie! When Jason admitted that he left his paper in the limo and Marty took it, his parents and his English teacher didn't believe him! So Jason and his friend Kaylee had to fly to Los Angeles to go to Hollywood to make Marty admit he stole his story to Jason's parents. When Jason told Marty to call his dad that Marty stole that paper, Marty tricked him and burned his paper! Jason got so angry that Marty burned that paper so Marty called security to get Jason out of his site! Jason and Kaylee realized Marty isn't going to admit the truth. In order to take Marty down in Phase 2: The Takedown, Jason and Kaylee put permanent blue dye into the pool and when Marty jumps in, his body turns all blue and it wouldn't come off! Then they put permanent orange dye in Marty's shampoo and when he uses it, his hair turns all orange and it wouldn't come off too! Finally, they put lots of glue on Marty's earpiece to make him call Jason's father and when Marty uses it, it sticks to his ear! It was funny when Marty's hair and body turns all blue and orange and his headset is glued to his ear! After that, they tricked Marty by telling Monty, who is Marty's assistant, that Duncan moved to a house where there's a party going on. When Marty went in to see Duncan, he was at the wrong house and all the kids at the party beat him up! When Marty was in the house, Jason and Kaylee switched the controls of his car. When Marty drove his car, he knew all the controls were switched and he didn't know which button to push. He's stupid enough to fall for it. When Marty hit the rear end of the masher, the masher wrecked his car! It was so funny. So Marty starts to call Jason's dad and tricked him again! He was on the phone, but it wasn't his father, he called security! After the security got Jason and Kaylee out of Marty's site, they suggested them to go home. Monty was going to be on Jason and Kaylee's side cause she knew that Marty was a liar and a jerk so she told Rocco, who is one of the security guards that she will take care of the kids. Jason told his father the truth of what he's been up to for the past 2 days and had his parents come to L.A. When Monty came to the kids, she's going to help the kids move into Phase 4: The Payback. Jason splits the crew into 3 teams for Phase 4. One team will distract and trick Marty until Jason's parents get to the set. Marty first rode with Frank Jackson, but his car broke down so he rode with Jaleel, but he took him into the desert and leave him there. When Marty was in the desert, a helicopter came to rescue him. After that, one of the blades are jammed so Marty and the pilot got off the helicopter. After that, he was on the way to the set and when Jason saw him, Marty stopped and saw what Jason has: his monkey! So Marty went after Jason and Kaylee and when they saw Lester, he released the water and when the water came, it pushed Marty away. Marty was still after the kids and when Kaylee went the other way, Jason led Marty to the top of the apartment building. At the top, Jason was challenging Marty by making him admit the truth and Marty will never ever tell the truth. When the crew caught Marty in surprise, all the people including Jason's parents who were at the set knew what Marty did. Marty was going to kill Jason but the only way for Jason to escape is jump down from the top! After that, his parents believed him that Marty took his story. When the people who were on the set left, this is the end of Marty. At the end, Jason's story, Big Fat Liar was a movie. I cant get enough of it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This isn't a life-changing movie; it's not an epic, or anything like that. But it's entertaining, and it's fun. It's a film that the whole family can watch together, and at the moment there are precious few kid-suitable films that DON'T have a love story in them! It tells a good story in a lighthearted way without trying to dazzle the audience with over-the-top special effects, like lots of films these days are. It's got some fairly good acting in, and all the music that's been used fits in pretty well with the movie content. The acting is quite good too, the actors look comfortable and believable in their surroundings and most importantly the jokes are actually funny. I'd recommend it for people of all ages - it certainly made me laugh. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie.

Yes, the main character lies, but that's why it's called \"big fat liar\". Even though this kid runs away to Hollywood, it doesn't give kids the idea that they can. Besides, he doesn't just do it for fun or to get away from anything, he does it to regain trust.

I don't think it was just one big ad for Universal Studios, because I liked how it gave an inside view of what it's like for kids who don't know how cool movie-making is.

It has good music and fun characters. This family\/comedy is totally fun for kids and parents alike. It has humour, excitement, and real life difficulties like lying.

In the end, \"Big Fat Liar\" sends out a moral: don't expect lying to be easy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILER WARNING

We've all heard the \"Boy Who Cried Wolf\" legend. But what if the wolf was a person in the modern world. Well it might be something like Big Fat Liar. Fourteen-year-old Jason Sheperd ( Frankie Muniz from \"Malcolm in the Middle\" ) is always lying to keep himself out of trouble. One day he is pressured to write an English essay, but it winds up in the hands of sleazy film-maker Marty Wolf ( Paul Giamatti ) who plans to turn Jason's story into a Hollywood blockbuster. No one believes Jason when he for once tells the truth and he ends up in summer school. However Jason is determined to prove to his parents the truth and travels to L.A. with his friend Kaylee ( Amanda Bynes ). When Wolf refuses to admit he ripped off his story, Jason plans to make Wolf's life a living hell. B.F.L. is no masterpiece but it's a nice way to spend 90 minutes of you're time. I wished they could've made it a bit longer though and there aren't that much pranks although they are clever enough ( I like the pool-dye the best ). I might not have liked this as much as I do if it weren't for Paul Giamatti. He is simply hilarious in this. If you have 90 minutes to kill try this out. You might just enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"BIG FAT LIAR, in my opinion, is an absolutely hilarious movie with a moral to it. When Jason (Frankie Muniz - \"MALCOLM IN THE MIDDLE\") and Kaylee (Amanda Bynes - \"ALL THAT\") played those tricks on Marty (Paul Giamatti - DOCTOR DOLITTLE), I really smiled and felt good. That's what I liked most about this movie. As a matter of fact, everything that happened after Jason's essay erroneously ended up in Marty's hands was hilarious. I especially loved Jaleel White's cameo. When I first saw him, I couldn't be certain, but, when I asked my mother if it was him, she said, \"Of course!\" Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say, \"Like I said earlier, there is a moral to this story, and that moral is, always tell the truth.\" Now, in conclusion, if you are a fan of Frankie Muniz, Amanda Bynes, or Paul Giamatti, I highly recommend this absolutely hilarious movie with a moral to it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Big Fat Liar is a great watch for kids of all ages, even adults. I had a great time watching this movie and recommend this to kids of 10 years and under. The laughs never end and the adventurous plot is pretty good too! Frankie Muniz is funny and Marty Wolfe is hilarious! Overall, a nicely made film for kids to enjoy and just have a great time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Big fat liar is a pretty funny movie. But as I was watching it, I thought about something. Some of the events that occur in this film are unbelievable. So really, the film is kind of a big fat lie. There is no way that he could've gotten away with all of this. Here are all of the unbelievable stuff.

1. When he fakes his father had choked on a meatball, and acts like he is the father. Jason(Frankie Munez) couldn't have gotten away with that. Well, luckily for us, he didn't. So it didn't stick with it, the outrageous.

2.Even if the Grandmother was blind, she still could've figured out that that wasn't her granddaughter.

3.They couldn't have gotten on the plane, flown to L.A., acted like they were coat salesmen, sneak into the studio, and then, and then... Well, some of the film is a little unbelievable. But it doesn't hurt to tell a little white lie. Trust me, I do it all the time.

Big fat liar, though unbelievable at times, is fun. It's also very funny. But let me just say one thing before I continue this review. If Paul Giamatti wasn't in this movie, it would really suck. It would be horrible. Big fat liar is also pretty funny, though corny at times. I give it a thumbs up.

Big fat liar:***\/****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing Big Fat Liar, I think Jason learned a lot more. When he told the truth about Marty stealing his story, it was like the boy who cried wolf. People heard him, but they didn't believe him. Nobody did anything to help him. Besides, not only Marty's movies stink, so does his advice. The truth is not overrated. I am so glad he got exposed for what he really is. Everyone found out that he stole from that boy, including his parents. Not only he stole from that boy and lied about it, he gave them someone else's work and tried to call it his own, which is plagiarism. Doesn't he know that it is illegal to plagiarize someone's idea? Another reason why he got fired. He is not trustworthy. He's a liar, a cheat, a thief, a crook, and a plagiarist. You got that Marty? You're a plagiarist. Plus, you got everything that you deserved.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILER ALERT!!!! This was my son's review of the movie, which he wanted me to post.He wrote this, I swear.

With Malcolm in the Middle's Frankie Muniz, and Nickelodeon's Amanda Bynes, they get to go to show business. They team up on the actor Paul Giamatti. He stole Jason Shepherd's essay on Big Fat Liar, and makes it in to a movie. Jason (Frankie Muniz) and Kaylee (Amanda Bynes) have to go to L.A. to get it back. Jason's dad does not believe that he wrote that essay. So every time they see each other Jason asks Wolf (Paul Giamatti) to give Jason's dad a call because he wants his essay BACK!!!! Wolf does not make the movie but the President of the company makes it. At the end the family and Kaylee see the movie, Made by Wolf Pictures and based on a real story written by Jason Shepherd.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wasn't expecting much from this tale of a kid whose term paper is stolen and turned into a movie script.. who then he travels to hollywood to get even.. but.. hey.. it's still a fun film. Frankie Muniz of \"Malcom in the Middle\" fame stars as the kid and is fairly good and Amanda Bynes as his friend is also very good. Yea the film does work as an advertisement for Universal Studios theme park and is really kinda a silly kids film.. but i enjoyed it anyways. GRADE: B-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With all of the \"R\" movies out today, it's hard to find something you can take the whole family to see. My kids loved it. It was good clean fun. I would highly recommend it to anyone who wants to take the whole family out for a nice evening at the movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fun movie! Great for the kids - they found it very entertaining. Somewhat predictable, but there are a few surprises. Great movie to watch if you're looking for something just to entertain (don't expect to be seeing a classic!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Who said it had to be believable? Do yourself a favor and turn off your ration before you sit down to view this film. You'll enjoy the experience much more. You'll find yourself forgiving some of the movie's more outlandish plot set-ups, and simply accepting it for what it is--a great family film. I appreciated not having to be concerned about \"questionable elements\" in a children's film for once. That, to me, is worth the price of the ticket. And it manages to maintain its wholesomeness without being obvious about it--older chidlren will enjoy this film. Enough good humor to keep adults interested. Very good film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know not why people considered it trashy or obnoxious; It's not like American Pie or something. I know not why people are offended by the Universal plugs; since it's part of the plot, the advertising is excusable.

This is a funny movie with good dialogue, good subtle wit, a good story, a good moral (that thankfully doesn't get too sappy), GREAT acting, and a cheesy ending.

(minor spoiler) The basic premise here is the classic story of a Shepherd boy (Muniz) who lies so much that no one believes him when the Wolf (Giamatti) comes along. So he gets his best friend Kaylee (Bynes) and they go and drive the Wolf crazy.

Frankie Muniz can be annoying in other roles, but not as Jason Shepherd. He handles the suave confidence of his character perfectly well, and what appears to be a lack of expression at first glance is really a perfectly executed nonchalantness.

Amanda Bynes. What more can I say? The girl's got the gift. She's funny, talented, versatile, and very, very attractive. (I'm only 6 months older than her. I need to get to California sometime soon.) In fact, the 'best-friend' part was originally a boy, but became a girl as soon as the makers saw Amanda's interest. Which works out pretty well, since the part would've been pretty dull without the blessing of Bynes's abilities.

Paul Giamatti is a very talented man. While some would play Marty Wolf as evil and diabolical, Giamatti made him-not just a jerk, mind you, but a LIKEABLE jerk, a jerk that livens up the screen, rather than intentionally dimming it. And I doubt many other actors could pull off the psychological breakdown that Wolf undergoes as well.

All in all, great movie. Loved seeing Jaleel White able to mock himself. Loved seeing all the little references & such built into the film. (one of the guests in the party scene is the director, Shawn Levy, another is Bynes's former co-star Kenan Thompson) Loved seeing Amanda in those outfits........ Get the DVD if you can. It's got all kinds of great extra stuff, and the lovely Ms. Bynes is your guide through the menus. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well it might be a kid's movie...perhaps but i'm not gonna let my kids from 9 watch it!,so the one who say it is a kid movie hmm?!,it is teenager movie i agree..,so but back to the movie it is about a boy who can lie very good..,so good that at the end nobody nows truth or lie.Anyway it is a nice movie to see nice screen play i vote a 8 for screen play and story ...i think they writers mend a litlle lesson whit it...''the truth is never overated''.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Big Fat Liar is the best movie ever! It is funny, and cool. Jason Shepherd (Frankie Muniz) proves that he was not lying and goes to Los Angeles to Get his paper back from Marty Wolf( Paul Giamatti). Along with friend Kaylee(Amanda Bynes), mess up his life since Marty won't call Jasons' dad and say he wrote the paper! Yet it all turns out good and is a good movie to watch!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to admit that I absolutely loved this movie. Of course as I'm sure you know that \"Malcolm's in the Middle\" star Frankie Muniz, and the ever so sweet Amanda Bynes \"The Amanda Show\" starred in this children's comedy as two friends that I'm sure that we can all re-late to. The movie is about a boy Jason Shepard(Frankie) and his friend Kaylee(Amanda)going onto an adventure in Hollywood.

SPOILERS AHEAD

As it begins Jason is a typical 14 year old boy whom lies to get around every day life's problems. One day Jason is hit by Mr. Wolf(the big bad director). Jason's english paper is stolen by Wolf and begins the adventure along with kaylee to earn his father's trust back. They fly to Hollywood in search of Wolf to get him back. Frankie and Amanda do all sorts of crazy stunts to get Wolf back, and all he has to do is call Jason's dad and tell him he stole his idea. But the end is no real surprise, being the good proveles and wins.

The story is cute and fifth grade humored but what do you expect it's rated PG. I really belive this is one of the years best family comedies. Not only is the childrens acting great, exceptional casting, well written, but it's good clean fun. It made me laugh as well as fall in love with it's innocent message. I highly reccomend it and would like to disagree with that someone who gave it a zero out of ten. The unemployed critic isn't unemployed for nothing. I give it (well i voted a ten out of ten) a perfect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you have seen the Telugu version of Gilli \"Okkadu\" you will find this to be very similar in story line, but Gilli has different songs and takes place in Tamil Nadu not Andra pradesh. Although this is a remake of \"Okkadu\" you will find that Vijay and Trisha make this a unique film, Vijay and Trisha make a great pair. A few negatives were when Vijays character slaps Trishas character for going to buy a present for him, he never apologizes and she still stays with him in the end. Good action and songs make this an all around great movie I recommend it.

I give it a 10\/10, one of the best I have seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Am an ardent Vijay fan. I have never seen another movie of his which is as good as this.

It has all the regular clich\u00e9s that one can expect from a commercial entertainer. A hero who is bad in studies but a star in his forte i.e.Kabbadi. His friends to fill in the comedy quota. A heroine in a life-and-death situation. A villain, which I say is the best ever portrayed by the protagonist. High octane chase and action sequences. Music that can make one dance. And above all that a perfect storyline to keep all the above factors within an enjoyable circle. Perfect.

The director doesn't give any chance for the audience to loosen up. He just goes on from one nail on the head to the next. And one can see the lighter side of Vijay in this film which he rarely executes.

All said.....This movie was and will be perfect for many years to come....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ghillie a remake of the Telugu \"okkadu' is thankfully a clarified version of the original. It packs the same punch and Dharani true to his cinematic brilliance delivers it with style and panache. A flagging Vijay's career with the entry of the likes of Surya and Vikram on the fray, got the much needed uplift with this movie. This might well prove to be the best movie Vijay has ever been on, considering the choices he has been making since then. The hard-working actor seems to have lost his bearing what with talented new entrants being accepted both by the industry and public alike.

The tightly snug script, which runs at, a neck-break speed revolves around Velu, a willful youngster aspiring to make a mark in the game of Kabaddi( a popular game among boys in India). The events following the chance encounter with Muthupandi, his rescue of the girl in distress and how he juggles with the aspirations of his friends and his own forms the fulcrum and end of the movie. Vijay fits as a 'T' into the role and essays a subdued and believable portrayal of the boy next door.

Trisha has more than a stereotyped Tamil heroine mantle to play. The role is far more complex than just a girl in trouble. With limited dialog's, Trisha exploits her occasional muted expressions and subtle vulnerability to add color to the role. This is a classic case of a cover page girl coming-of-age to become a professional actress. Trisha became my personal favorite after this movie.

The movie ends on predictable lines, although one has to credit the Director for keeping the audience guessing on many things including Trisha's change in decision to leave the country. Prakash Raj deserves a word of praise for providing the perfect counter-weight for Vijay's role. His almost indomitable stature in the role of a villain and the apparent chinks in the hero's armor form a perfect ploy for keeping the audience guessing.

Overall this is a great movie that deserves at least a single viewing. I give it a clear 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"brilliant screenplay..

the screenplay is very tight ..that u will be gelled in seat..

this movie is an example for movie can survive only with screenplay and no-story needed..

story is very simple that u can write in one line. but screenplay was amazing..

brilliant performance by Vijay and Prakashraj..

though plot is similar to okkadu.. director adapted only the plot. Tamil version is much fast paced than Telugu.

Movie travels straight without any chance of deviation, though u can understand each and every characters back-drop.

keep going","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ghilli is the best movie of vijay & one of the biggest hit in his career.... As I had not seen the Telegu movie so I could enjoy this movie even more.The story is about a girl wanting to escape the clutches of a local goon who wants to forcibly marry her. Since he is a goon so no body is ready to help the heroine. Vijay who had come to play a Kabaddi match there sees this and decides to help her. The rest of the movie is how vijay helps her & how the girl ultimately escapes the clutches of the goon & the goon's father's political cronies. The movie has lot of the edge of the seat thriller moments and will keep the viewer engaged till the end. Vijay is as usual very good in role of the kabaddi player. Trisha,Ashish Vidyarthi,the bunch of vijay friends all have done their job competently. A special mention has to be made about the villain of the movie Prakashraj.The villain's character has been properly etched out and prakashraj has portrayed it very well. Surprisingly, for the first time, I felt sympathy for the villain in the end. The dialogue \"Hi Chellam\" has really caught on with the masses. The music by vidyasagar is brilliant and the song 'apadi podu' is a rage all over..Dharani has to be credited with such a nice masala movie which will be enjoyed by not just die hard vijay fans but also by the general tamil movie audience all over the world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"if u haven't seen Vijay in \"Ghillli\", \"Gilly\" or \"Ghillie\". go watch it. wow. its devastatingly hilarious. i don't know if Dharani (the brilliant director) was being serious or not. There are tons of hot guys in this one, look out for someone who calls Velu \"Maacha\". The one with the brilliant braids, devastatingly hot. His teeth are brilliant as well. Vijay rocks. Trisha cries every 5 seconds. It is very deep. Watch it, you won't regret it. There are some great laughs in this one. If you don't speak Tamil, learn it. Then you will get all the inside jokes. It is one for the whole family, except maybe the violent bits should be skipped. I've seen this movie around eleven times .... and counting.

Wow!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The word Ghilli actually means a small sharp wooden game instrument that is used in a game called ghilli-danda (a precursor to Cricket) in India. The use of the word as nickname for the principal character is stylish, as it signifies one who is sharp, fast and can hurt badly when rubbed in the wrong way.

Ghilli is one of the best movies for Vijay and in it is unrivaled in its pace and action. The movie never slacks for a moment, and keep you always with some exciting action. The movie is set in Madurai and Chennai and its story core is simple. A rich landlord tries to covet a beautiful girl in his town, and his unquestionable power and authority, prevents the girl from seeking a justice. The hero tries to rescue her and the majority of this movie portrays the week in which all this action happens.

A very exciting movie and though the story is nothing new, the director and the actors receive praise for the full-paced action.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Tumbling Doll of Flesh\" by Tamakichi Anaru is a Japanese shocker about three thugs who sexually abuse,torture and dismember a young woman whilst filming their horrible actions.Typically twisted Japanese porno sickie that offers plenty of sadistic sexual violence and grisly gore.There is no plot to speak of,just plenty of hard core sex scenes(optically censored again)and lots of blood.The special effects are quite impressive-the dismemberment of Japanese porn actress is shown in unflinching detail.The tongue cutting scene really made me squirm.Her arm is also chopped off and her stomach is graphically sliced open and finally one of the sickos is having sex with her intestines.\"Psycho:The Snuff Reels\" actually reminds me \"Guinea Pig:Flowers of Flesh and Blood\",but it's not as memorable.So if you're a fan of ultra-depraved Japanese sickies like \"All Women Are Whores\" or \"Raping My Virgin Slave\" give this one a look.8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you were enjoyed by watching \"Guinea Pig\" - then you'll like this movie to! \"Psycho: The Snuff Reels\" is a nice pseudo snuff movie with lots of sex elements. Actually the effects are not so realistic like in \"Guinea Pig\", but its still pretty gory.

\"Psycho: The Snuff Reels\" contains 70 minutes of sex, fetish and then torture scenes. First 20 minutes is like a normal porno movie. After that you'll see fetish sex scenes. And last one is a torture scene. The guys torture and rape girl - they cut off her legs, hand, tongue... In the end guy rapes girl in her stomach (!) and after that other guy beat him and cut off his balls. Sounds pretty sick, isn't it?:)

Like I said - it's pseudo snuff movie. \"Psycho: The Snuff Reels\" is pretty rare Japanese movie and as I know it's really hard to find it. But if you are crazy about that sort of films I believe that you can find it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all , you should watch this only if you don't mind the lack of subtitles , pornography , kinky sex and utter , horrifying and truly shocking depravity . I mentioned kinky sex , but to call sex in the second half of the movie \" kinky \" would be a great understatement . It's more like a punch in the face if you aren't prepared for this sort of sickness . That being said , I can go back to reviewing this morbid piece of pseudo - snuff genre brought to us by our fellow Japanese .

The plot seems to be fairly basic , almost nonexistent : a girl is hired to perform in amateur porn movie . Don't expect much in first 30 - 40 minutes . There is some dialog - if you don't speak Japanese it's not going to mean much to you - that seems to be an occasional chatting between the girl and the crew & performer , then there is some porn ( straight sex ) , and after the scene is finished the performers and the crew take a break . And then ... it starts to happen .

It seems that the girl is talked into performing one more scene - this time tied with the rope . The abuse begins : whipping , slapping , hot wax ... In the end , girl breaks down and cries . They untie her .

Then we see performers and crew sitting at the table as if nothing had happened - except for the girl . She is visibly shaken and looks like she wants to leave . She walks to the door , sits on the floor to put her shoes on ... and that's when hell breaks loose .

She is hit in the head with the baseball bat , her wound is treated , she is tied to the bed . What ensues can be briefly described ( I'm not going to spoil everything for you ) as rape during dismemberment . Think of \" Flower of flesh and blood \" , mix it with porn and you will get the idea .It goes on for about 20 minutes or so . SFX are very good , makeup too . Everything is shown , with no mercy for the viewer . You have been warned .

I thought \" Visitor Q \" was a very sick movie . After watching \" Niku daruma \" it looked like a fairytale to me .This movie is so sick , so depraved , so twisted , so disgusting that the harshest words pale in comparison to it's finale . Too bad it's released only on VHS so there are no subtitles available . But the movie still works without them . So , if you are into ultra sickness , extreme sadism and other beauties of this beloved genre , check this out . I hope you won't have nightmares .8\/10 .","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tumbling Doll of Flesh (aka Niku daruma and Psycho: The Snuff Reels) This was on my want list for quite a while, and then I finally scored a copy on Ebay a while back. It's never been on DVD, and what I got from Ebay was a very good quality DVD-R, which I'm quite satisfied with. The movie is I believe the most extreme example of torture porn, with an emphasis on porn. A woman responds to an ad for a porn movie and goes with the producer to a place where it is filmed. The porn is definitely real, with the annoying Japanese pixelation to try and hide the hardcore shots, without much success most of the time. After the porn movie is shot and the actress is ready to leave, she gets clubbed over the head with a baseball bat, and taken back to the room and savagely dismembered in slow shots, and in one of the most disgusting scenes, the male porn guy screws her in an open wound in her chest. This is after both legs have been severed, her arm, and a few other niceities. This movie outdoes the Guinea Pig series by a long shot, in fact, they are not even close to the realism, although cheap gore effects, shown in this movie. This is indeed one of the best fake snuff films I have ever seen, if not the best. Now I must warn you, that if you are not into this stuff, you should stay far far away. This movie is very strong, and with the real sex, it is in a very sick way, erotic to an extent. And I mean, in a very sick way. But wherever you come down on this subject material, this movie brings the goods home, and I would definitely recommend you seek it out. After reading about the movie, I was expecting something very strong, but it exceeded that by a bunch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Japanese have probably the most sadistic movies around the world,and this is one of the strongest examples.With a running time at about an hour,it contains enough sexual violence and gore to disgust every single sane person on earth(even those who are hunting this type of movies).Three men and a woman are making a porn film.After some normally shots(which are pixelated),the girl is tied up,and the madmen cut her food,arm and tong.After that,they make a hole in her abdomen and a man has sexual intercourse with her intestines.He is knocked unconscious too and has his penis cut off.The special effects are good for an obviously low budget production(only the tong cut scene looks fake),and we can't talk about acting,direction or screenplay.After hearing a lot about this film,I was very happy when I finally found it.The first part is pretty boring,but the second one totally f***k up my mind,the torture and killing scenes being some of the most extreme and disturbing I have ever seen.The gore hounds will be satisfied by \"Tumbling Doll of Flesh\",but an unknowing viewer shouldn't even read the synopsis.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My Mother Frank begins as a warm, amiable comedy about a middle-aged Catholic woman (Frank, short for Francis, played by Sinead Cusack) who shakes herself out of the doldrums by enrolling as a student in her son's university. Most of her friends and family are horrified, not least her son (Matthew Newton), who is busy falling in love with his best mate's girlfriend (Rose Byrne). Meanwhile Frank has raised the ire of her disapproving English tutor (Sam Neill).

Matthew Newton is utterly disarming as David; relaxed and natural in the role, even when the character's uptight. He generates valuable goodwill, steering the audience through some of the film's more awkward, broad comedy moments. Not long after the half-way point, first-time writer-director Mark Lamprell expertly steers his film into darker emotional territory and gives Cusack a real chance to shine.

The supporting cast is full of familiar and welcome faces (Lynette Curran, Sacha Horler, Nicholas Bishop) and all the principals (including a more animated than usual Sam Neill) are excellent. While it meanders a little towards the end, My Mother Frank delivers more than it promises and is a genuine Australian crowd-pleaser.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't see how a film of this quality only gets an average of 5.7 from IMDb voters. It's a classic Australian production that resembles recent efforts such as LOVE AND OTHER CATASTROPHES, THE SUGAR FACTORY, OCCASIONAL COARSE LANGUAGE, RUSSIAN DOLL, SAMPLE PEOPLE, THE SECRET LIFE OF US, LA SPAGNOLA, STRANGE PLANET, FRESH AIR, DUST OFF THE WINGS, DOING TIME FOR PATSY CLINE, etc..., as a 19-year-old uni student (Newton, in perhaps his best role yet, on par with CHANGI at least) with a bored, over-religious mother gets the shock of his life when she decides to enrol in the same course as him - and before you go thinking ANOTHER GOOFY MOVIE, it's not, there's some real substance here. Sure, it's a simplistic view of life in general and arts students in particular (but then they are rather simplistic under all that philosophical mumbo-jumbo aren't they?), and maybe the study of Sinead Cusack's character is a little muddled at times, but the film is bright, funny, and has some important messages. The principle cast is terrific: Cusack and Newton are wonderful, and Rose Byrne (see her also in THE GODDESS OF 1967) is so underrated it's not funny. She's a beautiful, fresh, confident actor who deserves every accolade she receives. I gave MY MOTHER FRANK 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Australian public and the Australian film industry are often heard to complain that there are not enough great Aussie films around, or that they are all the same.

Well in this case this film is not a carbon copy of other Australian films. It is unique - it will make you laugh out-loud, it will make you cry and it will make you feel really good about yourself.

The casting of this film is superb and the acting is second to none. The script and the photography (colour\/light etc) is wonderful. But more important this is a great film. I don't want to talk about the plot as I think it is always best to see a film knowing as little about it as possible. Suffice to say this film will appeal to a wide range of audiences. Take your girlfriend, take your Mum, take your friends - for a great evening out.

10\/10!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fantastic film featuring great Aussie talent. Director Mark Lamprell dealt with the potentially sob-inducing subject matter in a way which was humorous and refreshing. Definitely the highlight of the 2000 Brisbane International Film Festival. Australian film veteran, Sam Neill was, as always, fabulous in the role of Frank's uni professor and new talent Matt Newton gave a performance which will have people saying, \" you know, Bert Newton, Matt's dad!\" Get out and see this movie!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film purely by chance. It was shown very late, or more correctly very early one morning on television. I had woken up and was having trouble getting to sleep and this film came on.

It deals with a subject covered many times elsewhere (it certainly isn't as good as Educating Rita, despite a couple of additional twists) and has a very predictable ending.

Despite its very obvious shortcomings I did enjoy the film and this was thanks to the acting of some of its players rather than the story or the piece as a whole.

I am a big fan of Sam Neil and have seen him in many different films including: Dead Calm; The Piano; Sirens; Children of the Revolution; Event Horizon; Bicentennial Man and the ubiquitous Jurassic Park. He was very good but he could have played this part with his eyes shut.

Some of the acting was, in my opinion, dreadful Rose Byrne for example and some of the elusions were rather heavy handed (all the board woman in empty lives all dressed totally in white for example).

However, two actors (who I hadn't, or don't remember, seen before) impressed me a lot Sin\u00e9ad Cusackn as Frances (Frank) Kennedy, and especially Matthew Newton as her son David. He, in particular, was very convincing and I would like to see a lot more of him.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brilliant Aussie movie... A little slow at the beginning, but once it gets going you can't stop laughing. When I originally saw the movie I vaguely knew the plot line, as I am not sure if many people are aware that this movie is based on a true story, and more so in particular, the director and his mother (obviously names have been changed). I only knew this fact as the director is a friend of a friend of my family. When I saw the movie, somehow my stepmum kept it secret that we were to meet Matthew Newton after the screening... Such a nice gentleman (except for a particularly nasty incident with his ex)! Brillian casting as well with Sam Neill and others! A great reason to keep supporting the Australian film industry","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's almost impossible for me to sit down and write a conscientious review of THREE COLORS: RED without letting people in on some of the ideas that Krysztoff Kieszlowski has explored in the previous two entries to this fascinating trilogy. The more I see them and think of them, and imagine myself in their world, the more I get its theme: that we are more linked to each other than we would want to think ourselves, and all it takes is a little hand of fate to set some events in motion. In BLUE, Juliette Binoche played a grieving widow whose plan to live her life without connections to the past had her meet someone unexpected. In WHITE, an act of cruelty spawns an unlikely friendship between two men who will, against the odds, conspire to bring the perpetrator to justice and full circle. And now, in RED, all the elements of fate and apparent coincidence apply themselves into the meeting of a young Genevese model and a retired judge who has a habit of prying into other people's lives.

This young girl is appropriately named: Valentine (a luminous Irene Jacob), who has this radiance about her and even smiles openly while working the runway. Not that she is without some baggage: she has a boyfriend, unseen, who also demands to know what she is doing at all times, she has a brother who troubles her, and she rejects the advances of a photographer who is working on her image for a huge billboard. She strikes a dog while driving and nurses her back to health, but when she takes her to the owner, a retired judge (Jean Louis Trintingnant), he does not want her. \"I want nothing,\" he coldly says, and elements of BLUE suddenly reveal themselves as this arrogant man, who also lives in anonymity and apparent, free-floating freedom, conducts surveillance on unsuspecting people. This male version of Juliette Binoche's character at first shocks Valentine -- she states she can only feel pity for him as she walks away in horror, but a chance event has her back at his place, and here is when he begins revealing who he is, and his great loss.

At the same time Kieszlowski is unfolding a parallel story: the story of a young man, Auguste (Jean Pierre Lorit), about to become a judge and who lives right across the street from Valentine -- but they keep missing each other. Chance is the word. Like Valentine winning the jackpot at the grocery story she visits, elements of chance pepper her life and Auguste's. He has a girlfriend who also supplies people with telephoned reports about the weather. One of them happens to be the old judge. He knows more about her than Auguste does, and he's never met her. Like God, or Prospero, he is slowly creating a storm which will crack the walls of this present state of conformity and bring a new meaning to the expression \"We meet again.\" It's this parallelism between the old and young judge that makes RED so beautiful and transcendent, because time is, in reality, a lot more fluid than we would like to deem it. There are people whom we meet in life that if only we had been born in similar time frames, so many things would be different.

Such is the case with Valentine and the old judge. I believe that there is definitely a strong fraternity of souls tying them together in a tight bond: she is that woman whom he did not meet -- by chance or not -- and is, whether he knows it or not, trying to make amends, hence why he goes to the great risk of revealing his surveillance and becoming the social outcast. But it doesn't end there. One of the many links between the three movies is the character of an old woman walking to a large garbage container. Where Julie did not see her (and would not have helped her anyhow), and Karol fresh from his public humiliation sneers at her thinking, \"Someone is worse off than I am,\" Valentine is the one who helps her. Frailty in need can happen anywhere, and Kieszlowski even applies it here in a minor character.

Now, RED is so much more than a story. Valentine, the old judge, Auguste, even Rita the dog: these aren't characters confined by storytelling. An American version would ruin the idea and commercialize chance encounters and even bring forth a dumbed-down ending. RED is so devoid of a linear, defined plot that anything could happen to any of these people and the possibilities that this story could have veered off in so many directions had one crucial element not taken place at the exact moment and place.

Adding to the concept of characters who mirror each other despite time frames or location is the theme of sexual betrayal. This is also an important and character defining element in all of the three films: in BLUE, Julie's husband had a mistress and she also betrays Olivier when it's become clear she's emotionally dead. In WHITE, Dominique has Karol listen to her moan over the phone (which becomes an important device in RED) as she has sex with a man while the billboard of Brigite Bardot's CONTEMPT looks on. In RED, the old judge's tale of love and betrayal gets re-enacted. And all this time, Valentine's billboard image looms over them like a presage of what is to come at the same time that Rita, the dog Valentine's car struck, bears seven pups, life renewed for the six major players in this complex trilogy obviously filmed with care and love. Why do I say six? You'll have to watch the movie and wonder.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I feel at a loss, so brilliant is this film. Kieslowski is a writer, a philosopher; and while an excellent filmmaker, his greatness lies in his writing; and \"Red\" is his paradigm. This film is a metafictional study of the artist's judgement in the creation of his fictional world; of how an artist can attempt to remake life -- even his own -- thru his art, even as he cannot escape the knowledge that, no matter how he involves himself in his story, it is still fiction and he is still outside of his remade world, still burdened with its unreality and the reality of the life he has tried to artistically remake. And magically, all of this is not to the smallest degree at the expense of a wonderful story about the mysteries of love and fate and the characters who live out this story, this pre-judged destiny. If I had to choose, I might nominate this the greatest film ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the last film of Krzysztof Kieslowski - one of the greatest directors in the history of cinema. He intended to retire after this film, so in a way it is his artistic testament. He died a couple of years after making the film, and though it is said that he intended to return to directing, Destiny decided that this was indeed his last. And what a film!

'Rouge' the last film in the three colors French trilogy is actually a very Swiss film. Set in Geneva, one of the two main characters is a Swiss retired judge, and Durenmatt immediately comes to mind. But there is more Switzerland in the cool atmosphere, in the lack of communication of the characters, in the politeness that envelops cruelty of life. Several characters who start with little relationship will come together at the end in a moving and human final, which only a great artist could have staged.

Little else can be said that was not said and written hundred of times. Yes, the film starts slowly, and the fans of the American style of action movies or melodramas will get discouraged first and will get lost as viewers. They deserve it. The film gets quality as it advances, and one of the not so hidden messages is that real life and real humans are more interesting than the Hollywood cartoon and plastic action and characters. Cinema quality is very original, the image being a 'Study in Red', as the title shows. Acting is fabulous, with Irene Jacob and Jean-Louis Trintignant - the later in what will remain probable the best role of his old age.

A great film. Seeing it again probably adds, and I am happy to have it recorded on tape. 9\/10 on my personal scale.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"See Three Colors: Blue and Three Colors: White. They are both wonderful films and will give an added dimension to the finale Three Colors: Red. Red is a fantastic film. It can be enjoyed in a single viewing, and indeed, the climax of the film is very powerful in that first viewing. But, watch it again. Once you understand the use of symbolism and character parallels in this movie, you will see new things with each viewing. With the first viewing you understand that the film is the work of a brilliant mind. With each additional viewing, you find yourself discovering that it is, in fact, a work of genius. Red is meant to symbolize fraternity in the French flag. The story turns the theme of fraternity around to be viewed at angles one would never suspect. The facets of fraternity shared by the different characters is as deep as you care to peer. If you are used to the blatant \"symbolism\" in most mass films, you may find Red a bit slow. You may find yourself looking at a screen filled with intensity that you do not fathom... and yawning, wonder what all the excitement is about. This is not a mindless, vicarious experience. Everything is not explained to you. You must think as you watch. You must see... not simply look. Wonderful movie... one meant to be enjoyed by a wonderful moviegoer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is not only the last piece of the Three Colours trilogy, but also the best of the three and one of the best movies of the 90s. There's hardly another movie that so wisely and consequently asks for humanity and respect for every human being.

Valentine (Irene Jacob) lives in Geneva, where she works as a model. Though she has a boyfriend, she seems to be rather lonely. One night she has an accident and injures a dog and who leads her to his owner, a retired jugde (Jean-Louis Trintignant), who is cynical and spies his neighbors phone calls. Disgusted by him she cannot go away and they meet again. Two lonely souls meet each other and they become friends and develop a deep love for each other.

The story itself is too complex to be told completely, there is another connection between them in a young man who represents both the judge and Valentines real love and there is more to their relationship than only friendship.

The actors are wonderful, Irene Jacob and Jean-Louis Trintignant developing a deep and authentic friendship.

The topics are of an endless validity, Fraternity, not only in contact with each other, but also in the respect for the right of privacy. Alarmingly we seem to loose this right more and more, which makes movies like this one even more important than it might have been in 1994.

Red is one of the strongest colours that exists, representing inner turmoil, love, anger and passion. Used here as another protagonist, it brings a unmatched depth to the movie. A masterpiece!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The final part of Kieslowski's trilogy based on the colors of the French flag finds the director at peace with the metaphysical and transcendent nature of the cinematic image. In Red, imagery is paramount, as well as the obvious but clever color coding. However, rather than adhering to empty aesthetic contrivances based on the 'cinema du look', Kieslowski's Red is a multi-layered, densely plotted meditation on the nature of fate and love. In Red, love and fate are intertwined but complex notions, dictated as much by the whims of human beings as the invisible parallel associations that seems to pass us by. You sense Red is really an allegory, a reenactment of Prospero's omnipresent gestures in The Tempest, yet it is more than its story appears. Red demands countless viewings, and in each viewing something new is discovered that weaves itself into the already immaculately plotted structure.

Although Red stands alone as a masterwork from Kieslowski, it's best viewed as part of the trilogy. Elements of Blue and White are referenced in Red, which knowing viewers will enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is not only difficult to comment separately on the three parts of Kieslowski's trilogy, it seems obvious that the filmmaker wants us to do just the opposite: view them in order, Blue, White, and Red, and consider them together as one complete work. It is true they are distinct stories with distinct themes: liberty, equality, fraternity, and each them is developed with unique applications of intrigue and artistry. They are each well worth seeing independently, but I believe they are best seen as one work. Collectively, I would rate the trilogy as a 9; separately, I place each in my top ten for the years 1993 and 1994.

The color red is most memorable in the third movie as a backdrop in a billboard ad, the profiled model of which is the central of the movie's three main characters. The other two characters do a double-take of a varying degree of recognition when they first come upon the ad, posted larger than life alongside a busy city intersection. This ad is not a major part of the plot of this movie, yet its image becomes striking and is one of the reasons I have called Red a `mind-bending' film. This is the third of Kieslowski's Three Colors trilogy, based on the Blue-White-Red of the French flag and the three parts of its motto, `Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.' The films stay primarily focused on these themes, keeping with the basic levels of one, two, or three main characters, yet with each film the complexity of plot escalates as the three principles move from fundamentally personal (Liberty, Blue) to relational (Equality, White) to social (Fraternity, Red). Red is my favorite of these films, and I give it a 9. It stands by itself as a great film, but one should see Blue and White first for the fullest effect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"and there are not many in cinema history. \"Rouge\" seems to be a bit of a hope. Hope in mankind and in life. But to say only that may be naive. Kieslowski could find the right way to tell the story of that embittered judge and the twentish but wise model. Perhaps that old and disappointing love affair will not be repeated -there's the new couple with the young judge after the accident-. But what to say about this master of the camera? You can't miss a second of the movie because you have to watch every and each one of those faces. Kieslowski loved human beings and that is quite evident in the way the camera treats the actors. Ms. Jacob and Mr. Tringtignant are perfect It's not only this movie but the downbeat \"Thou shall not kill\" and \"A story about love\" that may you think about contemporary cinema as a way of expressing an artist's point of view. Pity American public -the average one- could not see these films. At least they are not in the Maltin's dictionary. And even the Baseline does not know what to say about this unique man. abel posadas","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Valentine, a model in France is separated from her lover who is abroad, they plan to meet up in England, but seem to be growing ever more distant as the film progresses. One night after declining a pass made by her coworker, she hits a dog named Rita. The dog survives and she returns it to her owner, a hostile retired judge who's is living as a hermit and eavesdropper, listening in on the conversations of all his neighbours. She becomes intrigued by the nature of this man and visits him often, often becoming part of his eavesdropping games. One conversation the two listen in on is of extreme importance though, the conversation between a young soon to be judge and his wife, which we find out parallels the life of the man who is eavesdropping upon them. As we find out more about the couple, the man reveals more of his story, then continues his story, and we find out if the two men will continue towards the same fate. Little does Valentine know how her life, this encounter and the fate of the young judge will become entangled together. Her hitting the dog that day seemed to be fate, a divine sacrifice by the dog for her owner, allowing Valentine to be the saviour of the young judge, who is traveling the same path as her dear friend, to prevent him from having such a grim future, filled with loneliness and solitude. It seems the old man's dream will come true after all, and he can sleep with a smile on his face for the rest of his days.

An AMAZING finale to possibly the BEST trilogy of all time! Kieslowski never ceases to amaze me. He is one of my favourite directors, and one of the most talented directors in the history of cinema. His use of the colours of the French flag in the three films was nothing short of incredible, every shot, every scene was like a work of art. Three of the most visually appealing movies i've ever seen. And his subtle connections between the three films are awesome. Usually signified with a subtle pause, or late focus in a scene, see if you can spot some. I have to mention this and it is a huge SPOILER, i loved the ending, how all the characters of the three films were the remaining survivors of the ferry disaster, with Valentine and the young judge together, and the old man watching it on her TV, solidifying his happiness over the suffering which he dealt with for those many years. I couldn't think of a better way to end the film, but a smile on my face, great way to wrap up an amazing film and trilogy! I recommend this for EVERYONE who loves film, movies, anything...A Work of Art! 10 out of 10 for both the movie and trilogy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Its my favourite film because there's so much going on that you don't see at first and so many things that make you wonder \"Did Kieslowski mean that or is it in my head?\" For instance - is the judge meant to be God or some supreme being ?

Also Irene Jacob as in The Double Life Of Veronique is outstanding, there may be a few superficially prettier actresses but none who manage to convey beauty of spirit with physical beauty the way she does.

Tritingnant also is magnificent without really saying much and the things he does say are excellent such as his answer to Valentine . . . \"Be\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the \"goofs\" section for this film there's a comment to the effect that there is a mistake in continuity where Auguste's car is seen to be parked in a different place from that seen in a previous shot in the same scene. This is incorrect. One of the views is from Auguste's flat, the other is from Valentin\u00e9's flat across the street. The whole purpose of this segment is to show how Valentin\u00e9 and Auguste - who may be made for each other - almost cross paths (as happens several other times) but never quite do so, until circumstances throw them together on the ferry at the end of the film. (And here there is the implication that Joseph has manipulated things so that Auguste is on that ferry, having inspected Valentin\u00e9's ticket to see which sailing she is booked on.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Trilogies are very interesting. Some go out with a bang (Lord of the Rings), some get progressively weaker (The Matrix), some get lost in obscurity (Blade, Back to the Future), but some maintain the genius, that seemingly ever-growing bright light that floats beyond the surface of its flawless exterior. Case and point: \"Three Colors Trilogy\". This chapter in the trilogy, being the last one, is the most philosophical and thought-provoking. In \"Blue\" we had a more visually stunning, more character-driven plot, in \"White\" it was more of a light hearted, narrative-driven story where we listen more to what the characters say than anything. \"Red\", however is focused on the \"what ifs\" and \"how comes\". It questions our own fate and focuses mainly on the past and the future than the present.

This chapter is about a young model who runs over a dog and brings him back to his owner. She soon finds out that the owner of the dog is actually a cynical retired judge who spies on his neighbors' phone calls through advanced spying equipment. All three films in the trilogies have very basic plot lines, but bring a lot more to the story. Consider in \"Blue\", the story of a woman dealing with the loss of her loved ones. We are constantly shown ideas about the contemporary French society and how that reflects the character's behavior. \"Red\" is not only about a young woman who finds shelter in an older man's life, but it is also about chance, hope, and fate.

Irene Jacob stars as Valentine Dussaut, who at first finds the old man (Jean-Louis Trintignant), whom we never find the name of, extremely self-centered and disgusting. Though through self reflective analysis, and her voyeuristic intentions, she learns that the judge would be the perfect man for her, if only he was 40 years younger. Irene lives across from another, younger judge, who highly resembles the old man. This is the \"what if\" that keeps circling in the movie. What if Irene were born 40 years ago? The old man would have been her perfect match. But what if the younger judge is actually her perfect match, since he so closely resembles the older one. Valentine doesn't know this, only we do, and Krzysztof Kieslowski subtly suggests this in almost every frame which Irene is in. We are constantly smacked in the face with his presence, as almost a suggestion of Irene's fate.

I mention that the old man does not have a name for a reason. That reason is because it is very symbolic to the overall theme in the story. We are to compare the old judge to Auguste (Jean-Pierre Lorit), the younger judge, in more than one way. We learn that the old man once had someone he loved but she got away. In another scene, we see Auguste heartbroken as the love of his life gets away with another man. There are constant reminders of whether or not Valentine will ever meet this man. Even though they pass each other without noticing every single day. There is also the motif of the telephone, to Valentine it is a way of keeping sane and updating her life, to Auguste it is what leads to his heartbreak, and to the old man, it is the only thing he has left. These three elements serve to shadow the characters own psychology. It is a sort of statement about what they are and who they are.

All three \"Colors\" films stand for a certain principle, most common in France. \"Blue\" stands for Liberty (the personal being), \"White\" stands for Equality (being accepted by more than one), and \"Red\" is Fraternity (to socialize, to learn). And although this final chapter is an obvious focus on the Fraternity principle, Kieslowski makes sure he brings in the other two as well, in order to connect all three stories. For example, we see the old man trying to reach out to Valentine and enlighten her with his spy equipment, which is a reflection of the Equality principle. We also see near the end that Valentine is doing some soul searching and that she's more concerned about herself than others (not picking up the phone when Michel calls), a clear example of Liberty. And with all three principles established, Kieslowski nicely connects all of the characters as well, in the final and most heartfelt scene.

\"Red\" is about where you could have been if you were older or younger. It is about whether or not there is someone completely perfect for everyone, and whether or not one person can change your life. The final chapter in the most awe-inspiring trilogy ever made, this film breaks barriers in both directing and storytelling. It is not only about our modern life, but about where life could and should be in our modern time. And although the movie is more subtle than both \"Blue\" and \"White\", it boldly exclaims a statement of love and compassion.

It's hard to imagine that \"Red\" was Kieslowski's last film, and that he died at such a young age. Nevertheless, the trilogy will always be his masterpiece and we will always remember him for his work that ranks right up with Bergman, Fellini, and Wenders as a truly remarkable director who's never been awarded with an Oscar. Kieslowski, you have been missed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Master Kieslowsky came with an idea in 1993, the idea was to portrait how human relationship are in the world today, passing from Blue (a crafted visual masterpiece about a woman's life) from White (A visual comedy movie about marriage) and finally arriving to Red (A masterpiece dealing with human interaction).

While I'm not going to spoil the move I can easily say Red is the best movie from the 90's decade because it has one of the strongest messages in a script I have ever ever seen.

The movie begins a little slow but finds it's rhythm early enough to keep you hooked through the whole movie.

The performances are perfect, sublime. since the characters are completely realistic and they're not clich\u00e9d in any way and one could expect no less from the actors and one doesn't get disappointed... seriously I believe Jean Louis Tringtignat deserved an Oscar nod at least.

The music from Zbiegnew Preisner is amazing it's one of the best musical scores ever. Piotr Sobocinsk Cinematography is also outstanding he got an Oscar nod for it (and deserved to win).

Overall the movie is a perfect 10 and will be loved by people that love foreign cinema and people who don't. Don't Miss it.

How did the awful Pulp Fiction beat ed this masterpiece at Cannes is beyond my comprehension","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Are we allowed to interfere with our fellowmen's everyday's life? Is it possible to intrude upon their intimacy, to penetrate the inwardness of their thoughts violating the privacy of their own home without being blamed? The director raises some doubts about these apparently solvable questions, almost sympathetic towards judge Jean Luis' destabilizing decision of coming to terms with his own inducted self-seclusion by means of fragments of lives embezzled by him.

\"Trois couleurs: Rouge\" is based on the concept of \"UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION CONCEIVED AS THE HUMAN DESIRE OF AN OPEN WINDOW ON THE WORLD\". The phone may be considered the main character of the story: after its performance in \"Dekalog 9\" it gives in the beginning the encore to Kieslowski's onlookers, followed step by step in its fast run across the world. The director looks deeply into the faculty of communication of human beings, without taking up a definite position about the ethical side of individual behavior. Once again he points out to us the unpredictability of future events, venting careful descriptions about strange courses and recourses of life separated from each other by a considerable number of years. Inexplicable combinations oddly converging in a series of continuous and upsetting situations. - Some books falling to the pavement. - One of them opening casually on a fatal page, predetermining the destiny of a future profession, as in a past similar occurrence. - Glimpses of daily life meeting fleetingly, ideally joined by their fondness for the fictitious musician Van den Budermayer. - Human fortunes marked by the most ill-fated coincidence.

In this piece of work deserving to be seen with our heart's eyes instead of our mind's ones we can witness a dialectic game between judge Jean Luis' (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Valentine Dussaut (Irene Jacob, maybe the sweetest actress of our times, together with the beautiful Winona Ryder), in a generational conflict between the experience of a world-weary old man and the self-conscious immaturity of a nice girl on the point of facing the steepest path of her ascending way. Kieslowski talks about \"dialogue tests\" between a disappointed human life and a youth unaware of her future, between a spiritless misanthropist and a spontaneous girl full of good sense of unselfishness.

And the final parade when the damp odor of tragedy still lingers in the air, with all the main characters of the whole trilogy in full evidence, saved by an accidental stroke of luck thank to the providential script cleverly written, gives us the extreme greetings of this movie master fully used up by his great passion for cinema. Only a sense of bitter regret and emptiness is left to remind us the existence of a void impossible to fill. GOOD-BYE KRZYSZTOF. WE MISS YOU SO MUCH!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I believe I share the same psychological outlook on the world with Kieslowski. He is Polish, I am Dutch, yet we share a synthetic mind: the world is not void of the metaphysical amidst total coincidence. Hardly ruled by man or perhaps by a poet-prime minister, so that as a social and cultural 'low pressure area', Poland could play the role it did in WWII, being critical yet Christian towards the Jews but often not less critical toward oneself. There are innocence and guilt in Kieslowski's world view, as the symbols in Catholicism: the White versus the Black Madonna. In Rouge, the Black Madonna is she who the judge fell in love with when he was a young man. Flashbacks are magically-realistically intertwined with the present, although totally coincidental, such as the camera simply swinging to the other side of the street or the then young judge's red jeep passing by the now young woman's car after she accidentally hit his dog with it. That we leaped through time in those same camera moves, is what we grasp later. His love was unanswered, so that his life wasn't as he had planned it. He lost his ability to love other people and animals. Being a judge, he feels he is actually spying on other peoples' lives and when he retires, he simply continues to do so, spying on his neighbors this time. The innocence and sense of righteousness of the younger woman (literally) accidentally getting into his life, reinstalls his better judgment and it is because of her that he spontaneously confesses his spying behavior to his neighbors and the police, accepting and even holding on to the stones consequentially thrown through his windows. In the process, history repeats itself between this man and the woman he loves, although this time he is old and the woman not the same. Kieslowski may have wrestled with this bit for the old judge is his alter ego, and it is said he was infatuated by Ir\u00e8ne Jacob. Both women play the same essential role in his psychology, of the one (!) who possesses his heart and soul and therefore can make him or break him, even as an old man! It is as if the 'powers in the air' are, or God is, bringing them together. Coincidences are *too* coincidental to just be chance or even good luck. There has to be some mystical, supernatural or theological source influencing these unfathomably deep life-decisions. The study book fell and opened at the page of the exam question is another example of this. Or the moment the old judge spoke his heart to the young woman, the wind outside the opera house suddenly slams the open doors and breaks the windows. The gigantic picture of the young woman happens to predict the one on TV, after the drowning accident on her Canal crossing trip. These moments are effectively accentuated through the human voice of liturgy or what sounds like it (Van den Budenmayer).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well every scene so perfectly presented. Never before had I seen such a movie that has meaning in almost every scene.

Well while I was watching this movie I remembered watching \"Amilie\". Amilie is also a similar kind of movie with more fun and fantasy touch. These movies are both based on a same plot line. But both of them are Perfectly perfect in there own way and being able to create a world of their own.

Red is able to provoke lots of thoughts in people about destiny and dejavu s. And I am still thinking about it.

The story is great and the ending is a bit funny. I was laughing in the end scene. Well funny how this three movie Red White and Blue are connected.

All in all a great work of art. A work of a masterman.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In my analysis of \"Trois couleurs: Blanc\" I wrote that its tone is much lighter than the tone of \"Trois couleurs: Bleu\". I think it's the same with this film. This time it's not because of a tragic comedy-element, but much more because of the main character Valentine. Although her boyfriend is living abroad and is ridiculously jealous, she manages her life with lightness and optimism, it seems to me that she might be Kieslowski's image for a carefree youth. The opposite seems to be the judge, who is very pessimistic, a grumpy old man, who experiences big loneliness. In my view, Valentine and the judge are pretty similar to each other, the judge is just much older and has experienced many more disappointments. They share a different kind of naivety and they both discover that they can learn much from the other one. Finally I would like to stress Ir\u00e8ne Jacob's performance, she rounds off the run of amazing female contributions to the \"Three Colours\"-trilogy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a classic continuation to Bleu, the likewise excellent film, with Juliet Binouche as a main star, moreover, she is a cameo appearance here, in Rouge, just for a second at the very end. But this film, truly red and very sweet although very sad, is a real winner. The main heroine, played by ever great Irene Jakob, is a successful photo \/ fashion model. She leads a full, active life, only darkened by her traumatic relations with her weird friend Mike, who is in England. By some lucky chance, she gets friendly with the old Judge, who spends time listening to the private telephone talks of his neighbors. The story starts to weave even further, and we see him in court, being almost universally condemned for his pastime. She is the only one who feels sympathy for him, for his cute doggy Rita and her pups, and for all the people who surround them. We also witness the break-up of a happy couple of a young lawyer and his lady, and their quarrel is also fueled by that telephone scandal... But the film is not about this, even. It is mostly about the loneliness and deep rifts between people, far and near. When she sails to England on a ferry, with that lawyer as a chance fellow-passenger, as well as that earlier mentioned Binoche who starred in Bleu, the ship sinks and we see the horrified look of The Judge when he watches the news trying to guess if she survived. She did, and still we feel very heavy at heart. Mr. Kislowski managed to draw a grand, subtle story about the solitude, misunderstanding, secrets and pain. Deep, dark personal pain of those who are lost and lonely. Brilliant film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The greatest movie ever.

How's that for a contention? However, if we look at it through purely cinematic terms, it is clear that Three Colours Red is a masterpiece. It is not enough to merely say this - Three Colours Red is the masterpiece of world cinema. If you accept that Citizen Kane is not human enough, if you accept that Star Wars is not actually very good, if you accept that Ozu and Mizoguchi both have to take a step back - then Three Colours Red is the foremost masterpiece of all time. As a discussion into human morality, Three Colours Red works on an intensely metaphysical level, with a depth that none can match. Blue went almost as far into the human psyche, but stopped as it was going to pull the rabbit out of the hat. White forced us to reflect on the humanity of equality - this, in retrospect, was better still, but still not quite there. Red, however, is the real thing. What he expresses in this movie, is an expression of what it is to be human. In fact, what he expresses is _how_ it is to feel human. It forces us to examine up to the minutest detail, the very nature of our souls, of our ethical selves. In Red, one may find meaning on one of its several levels. On the first level, Red achieves a high level of verisimilitude - we could have no trouble in calling Red an exceptionally entertaining story. However, the coincidences inherent in the film and its conceits force us to examine the movie as a movie. It is as if Kieslowski is saying: \"Ceci n'est pas la r\u00e9alit\u00e9\". In effect, in pursuing a humanistic goal, Kieslowski can also challenge reality. It is a trick that Kieslowski has been attempting since Le Double Vie de V\u00e9ronique, but not until this, his final film, did he finally manage to reach this divine intertwining of fate, philosophy and circumstance. The actors and actresses, too, appear to be at the mercy of a greater power. Valentine (Ir\u00e8ne Jacob), is aptly name, for she seems to represent an almost pure love. Meanwhile, the idea of first impressions is challenged by Jean-Louis Tritignant's Judge Kern, a cantankerous man, who, by the end, becomes an almost all-knowing observer of events - a character who symbolically seems to possess the power to bring characters together - a power to make people happy, a power which he could only achieve through Valentine.

We have a capability to see films as more than just a series of pictures. In fact, films have the potential to possess more meaning than literature. It won't happen, of course, but at least we have the power to view this film, knowing that it gives us the power to achieve the something that we can't define, but all possess. A synopsis of this film read: \"A film about a woman who runs over a dog\". Well, it is.

Isn't it?

-Simon Huxtable

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I use IMDB very much. Mainly reading comments of other people about movies I\u00b4ve or not seen. I\u00b4ve thought it was time to write a few words about this movie that changed my life, and the way I look a movie. I think I have seen it at least a dozen times since autumn 94, when I saw it in the theatre for the first time.

I feel Kieslowski is one of the best directors of all time. And I think this is his best one. It was his last one. I was very sad the day I knew he has died, because sure we lost the chance to get something more from him.

RED is just the best Kieslowski + incredibile performance by Trintignant & Jacob + cinematography by Sobocinski. If you haven\u00b4t seen it LOOK FOR it!!! If you have, just come back to it!!

Red: just a masterpiece. please, forgive my poor English!, reader","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Valentine \"Dogkiller\" Dussaut and Joe \"The Judge\" Kern join forces to clean up the mean streets of Geneva! Thrill as they put the kibosh on international heroin smugglers, Polish fugitives, peeping toms, philandering girlfriends, renegade dogs, and litterbugs who are too lazy to bin their recyclables. Don't be fooled by the deceptive Miramax ad campaign that paints it as a pretentious, art house flick. This movie is 100% action!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There's a spartan, unsentimental edge to this film that allows plenty of room for us to participate in the action without any stylistic encumbrance telling us HOW we're meant to be feeling; in 'Blue', everything was overtly sad (sure, powerful as hell, but still); in 'White', it was delightful whimsy. But there are no such emotional clues, or cues for that matter, in this one. It's as if he finally let the force of the tale work its own magic without razzle-dazzle embelishment. I think that's what makes it the most initially enigmatic of the three, but finally, the most transcendent and redemptive. Never has remorseless, unsparing honesty been quite so beautiful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Rouge\" is part of a trilogy, but very much stands on its own. It isn't a sequel of any sort. The very end, which I won't divulge, ties the three films together, but not seeing the other two doesn't make it too confusing.

This film amazes me because it is so spare, so subtle and simple, but is as effective, emotionally and intellectually, as any big-budget spectacle or all-star melodrama. Kieslowski here investigates the phenomena of chance and destiny. Both themes are loosely woven together in the story. The film is very much a puzzle, but the message is pretty straightforward: Everything happens for a reason. Love is in all of our destinies as long as we open ourselves to it. The title, \"Red\" refers to the French flag, where red represents \"fraternity,\" or brotherhood. The color dominates the visuals of the movie. I tend to think of it as representing love or passion, or the blood of life. It's great when a film allows the freedom to do that ;)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most of Kieslowski's films seem like puzzles to me, meant to expand mind and soul. The characters are not very believable, are idealized, are schematic. Nevertheless, the way Kieslowski presents their winding ways through life, their complicated interaction with others, with the universe, with chance or destiny, makes me understand faith, makes me (want to) believe in God. That at some point it all has a meaning, if not to me, then certainly to someone.

Trois couleurs and especially \"Rouge\" comes closer to making me touch, feel, experience the \"truth\", the \"meaning\" than perhaps any other of his films. The only problem being the paths of the \"puzzles\" explored are a bit too similar to his other films and at some point they become somewhat predictable. There is still plenty of joy to be had here. It is like a familiar brand of wine - you know what to expect and it delivers, sometimes with a newly found bouquet which might come from aging - either the wine or yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Irene Jacob is mesmerizing in this final installment of Krzysztof Kieslowski's trilogy and the story is infinitely satisfying as it succeeds in tying all three films together. I am simply in awe of the amount of talent it took to do one of these stories, let alone all three. Everything seems to fit together so precisely, all the elements of filmmaking so eloquently executed, and the end result so much greater than the sum of the individual parts. Trois Couleurs is epic in nature and belongs on any list of great cinematic achievements. Simply brilliant!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"They both believed that a hidden sentiment has unified them. This certitude is beautiful,but the incertitude is more beautiful. They believed that they had never been met.Nothing has happened between them.But those roads,those stairs,those corridors for all that time they could have been met.\" Although it did not mean to be,it was a swan song.Two young people,who are neighbors and have never been met,are found in the same places,the same times,doing most of the times the same things.They finally meet in the dramatic and very brilliant end that brings them together.Meanwhile the woman has met an old man.Their relation is brotherhood-like.He told her his life.It was like the young one's but with better prospectives.The young man can do whatever the old man has not lived.He can be happy with the woman. The ending is exceptional.There is a ship wreck.The only survivors are the heros of the \"Three colors\".The man and the woman finally meet.The scene lasts a few seconds.The woman there looks like the photo she had taken for an ad in the beginning of the film;sad in a red fond.\"But every start is only the continue.The book of the life is opened in the middle.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is not only about feelings and human emotions, it is also about everything that could be but it's not. Poetry in movies can be awfully boring and annoying, but this movie is delightful to be watched. Not to mention the amazing Ir\u00e8ne Jacob, a great actress in France - one of the best, actually. When the movie ends, you can only feel sorry. After all, when something is truly great, we want more (Well, for another great movie by K Kieslowsky with Ir\u00e8ne Jacob we can always watch La double vie de Veronique)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wonder. My favorite film. The most important film about relationships ever made. Brilliant writing. Magnificent directing. Image systems and symbolism that leave you thinking about it all days, weeks, years later. Wow. A truly great work of art.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What some Hollywood-movies try and practically never succeed, creating somehow metaphysical connections between persons (without becoming unrealistic), manages this beautiful movie perfectly well (resembling in that way a little to the wonderful 'La Double Vie de Veronique' of the same director and with the same beautiful actress). This is a REAL movie, that changes perspective of life a little bit - intelligent and beautiful story, masterfully directed, excellent main actors, masterful cinematography. I've just seen the movie the 3rd or 4th time, and I still think it's one of the best I've ever seen. And if you should be unhappy with the ending of 'White' - 'Red' puts an happy end to the whole trilogy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Transcendental, sophisticated, incisive, emotive, powerful... I could think of a hundred adjectives to describe this fantastic work of art and intelligence, and still I would feel they were insufficient. All I can really say is that I am infatuated with this film. Applause to Krzysztof Kieslowski, Zbigniew Preisner, Ir\u00e8ne Jacob, and Jean-Louis Trintignant. May \"Rouge\" live forever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Stan Laurel regarded PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP as the first \u0091true' L&H film. THE SECOND HUNDRED YEARS was the first 'official' L&H film, but this was the one where Stan completely resigned himself not only to performing (he had signed on with the Hal Roach Studios as a director and 'gag-man', before certain situations - among them Oliver Hardy's accident with a leg of lamb leading to Stan having to replace him; and the extra money that performing would provide for himself and his new wife, Lois - brought about his historic return to performing, as well as writing, directing, editing and involvement in other areas of production), but also realised the fact that he was part of a team that worked well together. This, therefore, is an historic and very important film in the history of comedy.

It is also a surprisingly funny little silent film; rather different from what Laurel & Hardy would become known for and from what they are more immediately associated with today. The characters of 'Stan & Ollie do not appear - Scottish Stan Laurel plays the nephew of Oliver Hardy, a respectable man about town who is reluctant to be seen with this strange-looking fellow with a kilt and the habit of chasing pretty girls. There are some very funny moments in this well-made, charming little movie, and the performances of these two Kings of Comedy are spot-on - watch Stan's little 'scissor-kick' and smile that says, \"Well waddaya know?\" when he sees girls, or the hair-ruffling scene at the airport, for instance. Hilarious.

Watch this film if you can, with backing music from The Beau Hunks Orchestra (available on the VVL video releases) which enhances the 1920s feel and is very, very pleasant to listen to. It's a brilliant and underrated little film, which is why I said it was 'surprisingly' funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of L&H's shorts most frequently cited as the first \"real\" L&H teaming and perhaps one of their best silent features. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Ollie) is a millionaire who has come to the docks to greet his nephew Philip, whom he's never seen. At first Ollie is laughing it up with everyone when this strange little man unboards and draws a great deal of attention to himself by the way he's behaving during his medical exam, but is quite humiliated when it turns out that this is the fellow he's supposed to be greeting. He has been told that Philip is a good boy, but he has one weakness--women. Mumblethunder and Philip set off to go home, but their journey there is continually interrupted by Philip breaking into a little dance every time he sees a woman, then chasing after the woman. Huge crowds gather each time this happens, not so much because he's chasing skirts, but because Philip himself is also wearing a skirt (a kilt). Finally Mumblethunder manages to drag Philip into a tailor's shop to be measured for a proper pair of pants, but Philip escapes from there as well to chase more skirts. There are lots of laughs all around. It's also nice to see a short like this because the boys aren't exactly the characters we know and love. Ollie is pretty much his usual character, but it's such a joy to see Stan acting so differently from his usual man-child character. It shows he wasn't a one-trick pony and excelled in other types of roles when he got the chance. With a run time of 19 minutes its short and sweet, providing classic one liners which still have me in stitches.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a Laurel & Hardy comedy short with some great and funny moments but overall the movie relies a bit too much on just one comical premise.

The comical premise this movie mostly relies on is very simple; Stan Laurel not wearing any pants. Laurel plays a Scottish naive young person who arrives in America in full kilt. For some reason he gets the center of attention because of this and his uncle played by Oliver Hardy thinks because of this that its time to put some pants on Philip.

Its humor is well executed but the main premise also gets a bit tiresome after a while. Although the movie definitely still has its comical great moments, it at the same time is also far from the best of the many Laurel & Hardy comedy shorts that are still around. The movie is simply too simple to be considered one of the greatest, although it definitely is most fine executed all, for most part.

Great good clean fun, just nothing too remarkable or memorable all.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movie is certainly worth a watch. it's full of action. it's also humorous. you'll laugh until your stomach hurts if you watch this movie. this movie also includes lots of hi-tech things hence the name gen-y. i recommend you to watch the prequel of this movie which is gen-x.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Genius or utter madness? That depends on your interpretation of this film. I responded to it on the level of a self-aware \"cop-movie parody\", and I sincerely hope that was the intention as I don't see anyone taking it seriously! :-D Paul Rudd for one seems to be chewing up the scenery and really getting into the spirit of things! Is this film supposed to mark a departure for Rudd from his core background in the comedy genre? Some kind of insane attempt to reinvent him as a hard-boiled action star? I think not!

With the cheesy, almost awkward acting, low budget FX, and zany over-the-top action set pieces, it all kinda evoked that old TV show \"Sledge Hammer\" for me! HILARIOUS!!! :-)

Of course, I may have totally interpreted the film wrong. If it was in fact an attempt at a 'straight' action movie, then it was certainly an amusing failure!!

Watch with lots of alcohol and some mates!!! ;-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a well done action movie. There are plenty of fight scenes, the acting is convincing (for this genre) and RS1 is awesome. I don't know why people feel compelled to trash RS1, I thought his effects were executed very nicely and his design looked great. The plot was acceptable for a martial arts movie.

Having said that, I must tell you Richard Sun is one of the worst actors from Hong Kong I have ever watched. At least RS1 had the right idea by killing him. Now, for all of you who thought Sam Lee (Alien) was a bad actor...he wasn't meant to be taken seriously! I have just had the pleasure of watching Gen-X Cops (prequel) and Sam Lee played the same character the same way!

Now, please, all of you guys who watch highly reviewed Oscar winners: DO NOT JUDGE THIS IS A THINKING MAN'S MOVIE! IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO REQUIRE THOUGHT! Just meant to be enjoyed, that's all. I hope they make another soon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am having a holiday in hong kong now, and i just saw gen y cops at the cinema.... what can i say... it was sooo cool!!

Everything you could wish for was in it! Basically... just see it if ya can... I'm gonna get my friend to send me the vcd when it comes out....

Only bad thing was the dodgy American style of talking employed by some of the hl actors... like Edison... \"What's up my man?!\" but it did add even more humour to iy... hhehe

See it... especially if ya like any of the following geners: HKfilm, action, comedy, sci fi! SEEITMAN!! Edison did a good song for it too... so download it... Edison Tse - Heroes","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is great. All the hi-tech machinery and technology is mind-boggling. It is packed with action, humour and not to mention, guys. You will want to see it again and again. Very very funny. Also, it has a very unique plot which is unpredictable. You wouldn't want to miss out on it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gen-Y Cops...since I heard of the film being in release, I have been wanting to see it because I loved Gen-X Cops. I was a little disappointed that A) Nicholas Tse didn't return and B) too much slapstick. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the sequel because it may not be good as the first film, but it is good in its own way.

Stephen Fung returns as the ultracool ladies man Match, who has a steady girl in Oli (NOTE: Where is Haze?) and Sam Lee returns as the insane Alien (this time sporting a mohawk and speaking a lot of English!!!!). The real star of the film is newcomer Edison Chen. He makes a great replacement for Nicholas Tse as...Edison. I also enjoyed Paul Rudd's performance of Agent Curtis...he seems to be the tough as nails, smartmouth FBI Agent you'd love to hate...but soon, you'd like his character.

The fight scenes are a lot better in this one...even though there are very few, but they are great, courtesy of Jackie Chan stuntman Nicky Li.

Look for a cameo from Ron Smoorenburg as a cage fighter who has a teeny little fight with Match. Smoorenburg also is the stunt double for Rudd.

If you liked GEN-X COPS...you'll love GEN-Y COPS!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this movie has got it all. It has really cool music that I can never get out of my head. It has cool looking characters. IS REALLY funny(you know, the kind that you'll crack up on the ground and you'll keep saying the funny parts over every day for three weeks).Despite the bad acting, bad cgi, and bad story(about cops going after a robot), its really cool. Its one of those movies you and all of your family can watch, get together, eat pizza, laugh like crazy, and watch it two more times.

There are so many funny parts, like when Kurt was trying to get Edison's attention and gave him the finger, and then threw a paint ball gun at him so they could play paint ball. On that part, I kept saying \"Remember, Remember?\"to my cousins who saw it and showed them what happened. There was also a really funny part when Edision ran into the room and Kurt was there(just before they fought) and Kurt was talking about his \"Strange dream\" and how he was \"Superman\". I LOVED that part, although it has been a while since I saw it, so I don't remember that part. Everything the actors said were funny, like how Kurt says, \"I worship you, like a GOD!\" to the robot.

Although there was some bad things, in all it was a GREAT movie. Man, I can't stop laughing. I wish I had that movie. );","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have so much hope for the sequel to Gen-X. Luckily, my hopes have came true. You got a whole bunch of action, comedy...silly comedy, and surprises. I think the newcomer Edison, is really a hit in the movie, but I really find Sam's 'Alien' stupidly annoying with English. Although the movie had some flaws with the robot graphics and the silly dialogue, the action always keeps it strong. The action set-up is much stronger than the 1st.

This movie is getting more of an American feel since 60% of the movie is in English from the Cantonese. This movie will not disappoint you. I recommended this for young 'uns that care about pure action-packed fun.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The main reason to check this one out is to watch Laura Gemser in all her glory.

That's reason enough for me.

She heads to Africa as guests of another rich guy that seems to be all over these films. Huge mansion near the jungle. Hunters staying around for parties when they aren't out hunting zebras. And said parties becoming drunken orgies.

All the high society types in the Emanuelle films seem to have out of control fetishes. And Emanuelle beds most of them.

Joe D'Amato did NOT direct this one. He just ripped it off and used the same cast(s). And did anyone notice the 'subliminal' sexual images at the gas station? And why did most of the men stay dressed during the sex scenes?

Coherence? Hardly any. BUT GODDESS GEMSER IS BEAUTIFUL.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first of the Italian rip-offs of the French soft porn blockbuster (though it might be interesting to note that the boot-shaped country actually got their first with Cesare Canevari's 1968 IO, EMMANUELLE starring Erika Blanc) is a very different kettle of fish than the sleazy sequels provided by the late, questionably great Joe D'Amato. It is much closer in spirit to the now very dated Just Jaeckin film from 1973, taking a pokerfaced look at male\/female relationships, questioning such then hot topics as fidelity and jealousy, all in luxurious exotic surroundings. Unlike D'Amato, director Albert Thomas (aka Adalberto Albertini, who also made the hard to find YELLOW EMANUELLE, actually a sexed-up version of MADAME BUTTERFLY !) does not present us with predatory drug lords, snuff movie makers or rampaging cannibals, making for an admittedly less sensational yet far more erotic viewing experience.

Photo journalist Mae Jordan aka 'Emanuelle' (lovely Java-born Laura Gemser in her first lead role following bit parts as a Thai masseuse in EMMANUELLE 2 and an 'unspoilt native' in Just Jaeckin's portion of the rarely seen COLLECTIONS PRIVEES) flies down to Nairobi where she's to shoot the stills accompanying an article by noted British writer Anne, played by the very Teutonic Karin Schubert with a butch haircut that takes some getting used to. Anne shares an 'open relationship' (remember when this was made) with her Italian husband Gianni (Angelo Infanti), meaning that both pretty much jump anything with a pulse. Contrary to her subsequent reputation, Emanuelle appears positively reticent compared to her heavy breathing hosts, smoldering seductively at Gianni by way of foreplay until the exquisitely tantalizing pay-off. Okay, so she does make up for this lack of wantonness at the end when she does an entire male hockey team on the train. I kid you not.

Production on this sexploitation classic is quite impressive, especially the superb cinematography. And Nico Fidenco's musical theme is a solid favorite of anyone with more than a passing interest in the genre, a hilarious Eurotrash pop ditty (try to make out those totally nonsensical lyrics and have a full evening's worth of fun with the family !) that turns up throughout the entire film in every conceivable type of rendition from slow 'n' sexy to hip-gyrating disco.

This is entirely Laura Gemser's show though. Billed simply as 'Emanuelle' (as was another actress on the same director's elusive EMANUELLE NERA 2), she lights up the screen from start to finish. Not yet submitted to endless rape scenarios (as she would be once D'Amato took over), she seems much more relaxed than in later films, even smiling from time to time, a rare occasion as anyone who has seen some of the lady's work surely knows. A flawless Eurasian rather than as the title suggests black beauty (she hails from Dutch India now Indonesia and is actually quite close in physical appearance to the supposed author of the novel Emmanuelle Arsan), she projects a slightly passive, even submissive sensuality which somehow detaches her from the 'depravity' her morally corrupted cohorts indulge in. Unlike the French film, cheapskate moralizing is kept to a bare minimum, almost thrown in as an afterthought near film's end when Emanuelle tells Gianni that he hasn't lost her as he never possessed her to begin with. I swear you could hear audiences of the Just Jaeckin version groan whenever Alain Cuny's supremely irritating Mario showed up on screen as it meant we were in for too many minutes of halfbacks libertine philosophizing as an alibi for getting the divine Sylvia Kristel (now living in the Belgian capital of Brussels by the way...) to disrobe, the real reasons theaters were packed for years on end. Gemser's later husband, Gabriele Tinti (now deceased, she has remarried), appears on the sidelines as the constantly drunk 'Scottish' (huh ?) writer who forces himself briefly on Emanuelle amid the African ruins at some point, but no real sex scene though.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Got back from Morocco then, where my dad was attached to the German embassy, when the film came out in Europe; took all my girlfriends to see it, show them the beauty of the country, where Jimi had played - and stayed -; where the hippies stopped after leaving Ibiza and before joining Goa. Sean Combs just celebrated at a friends restaurant in Marrakech recently, the Djema el Fna was much wilder in those days than it is now; the Stones went there earlier, Brian recorded in Tangiers ; so it's memories and family entertainment and I'm glad my son will get to know about the north of Africa watching this movie. Candice Bergen looks beautiful and oo7\/Connery is pretty funny indeed; and Teddy Roosevelt as played by Brian Keith quite impressive.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just cannot emphasize enough what a lovely movie this is. Just

the memory of this movie right now enchants me. If you want to

see a sweeping epic of a movie, with wonderful actors in vivid

scenery, with great dialogue, reminding you of what early America

could have been like [what the world could have been like back

then]...well...I highly recommend this movie. Especially during a

time of war and conflict in Iraq...when our American image is not at

all what it used to be...this movie takes you back to a time when we

were just starting out. When being an American meant really

picking yourself up by your bootstraps and getting going. When

the world was such an untamed and unknown place. Well, this

movie has that...and more. Enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a Morocco completely invaded by Europeans and Americans, in the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the Moroccan leader Mulay Achmed Mohammed el-Raisuli the Magnificent (Sean Connery) kidnaps the American Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen), her son and her daughter. His intention is to get some money and rifles as ransom for them, to fight against the corrupt Sultan of Moroco (Marc Zuber). In times of election, the American President Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) agrees with the proposal. However, Raisuli is betrayed and Eden helps him to be released from the prison with the American soldiers. I do not like films about explicit colonialism and lack of respect to the sovereignty of other countries, but `The Lion and the Wind' is indeed a great adventure. The action scenes are very realistic. Candice Bergen, the most beautiful American actress in the 70\u00b4s, is wonderful, performing an abducted woman like in the remarkable movie `Soldier Blue'. Sean Connery is perfect, as usual, as an honest and nationalist religious leader. Brian Keith is great as the American president. I do not know much about the Morocco history to analyze whether there is any truth in this story, but this movie is a worthwhile entertainment. In Brazil it is only available on VHS. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): `O Vento e o Le\u00e3o' (`The Lion and the Wind')

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Average adventure movie that took a serious story and \"Holywoodised\" it.The watering down effect done particularly towards the average script snatched away this movie's place as a would be solid classic. Why water down such a great storyline?Probably because it deals with \"sensitive\" colonial subject matters and the producers do not want to create political heat,just quick profits thank you.The directing,cinematography and soundtrack and acting was good.The screenplay was average.The charm of Connery made up for his wrong Arabic accent and all the scenes with President T. Roosevelt were masterpiece takes.The costumes\/sets here was very good.Too bad we did not get more of a serious historical drama since this is what the story demands.Only for big fans of the lead actors or fans of exotic Romance\/Adventure Holywood movies.....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The portrayal of the Marines in this film is spot on. The action scenes are some of the best ever produced in accuracy of content. The uniforms and weaponry of both the U.S. and German troops were perfect. The costumes and weaponry of the Berbers were perfectly accurate as well. This film could easily be used to teach militaria of the period and has been used by the USMC Academy for this purpose. The scenes depicting Roosevelt shooting and the rifles he was using was beautiful. Procuring so many period weapons in such good shape is testament to the attention to detail and presentation this film should be noted for. Millius is a genius.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Wind and the Lion is well written and superbly acted. It is a tale that exemplifies the American spirit and the American character. This movie is a story from the early 20th century that is strangely relevant to the political landscape of the world in the beginning of the 21st century. It is a true classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The wind and the lion is a marvelous sweeping motion picture. It is a monument to what filmmaking once was but is no more.

Connery, despite the thick scottish brogue, plays the Raisulu very well. He inspires the viewer in a way many lead characters cannot.

Candice Bergen, in one of her early roles, is marvelous as the kidnapped socialite Mrs. Pedacaris, showing courage in the face of adversity (and plenty of humour as well). A marvelous film, rent or buy it and you won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at school and absolutely loved it. Based on a true story, this is an absolutely splendid masterpiece of a film. Seriously, I couldn't find anything wrong with it. One definite plus is how it was filmed. Set in Morrocco in 1904, the Wind and the Lion is filled with stirring images like the Great Raisuli on horseback especially. The cinematography was faultless, the editing was crisp, the costumes were gorgeous and the scenery was breathtaking. And I have to mention the music from Jerry Goldsmith, it was phenomenal. I have used this phrase a lot recently, but Goldsmith ain't my favourite film composer for nothing. His score here is so rousing and exciting, it shows the man's true musical genius, and this gem of a score should be up there with Goldsmith's best scores with Legend, Rambo:First Blood, Patton and The Secret of NIMH.

The action is exhilarating and the screenplay is intelligent and sophisticated. The direction is sensitively handled too. The performances were astounding as well, with Sean Connery, ever the picture of charisma and suavity, magnificent as the Great Raisuli, he almost dominates the entire picture on his own. He is joined by a feisty Candice Bergen, a wily John Huston and a captivating Brian Keith in one of his more understated performances. The history is fairly accurate, perhaps flimsy in some areas, but with the acting, music and visuals so good I am past caring. 10\/10 Bethany Cox","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with msinabottle; this is a great movie. Here are some dialogue snippets:

Raisuli (Sean Connery) to Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen): \"You see the man at the well, how he draws the water? When one bucket empties, the other fills. It is so with the world. At present, you are full of power. But you're spilling it, wastefully. And Islam is lapping up the drops as they spill from your bucket.\"

Raisuli: The English have paid very well in the past. Pedecaris: Well you'll not have your way with the Americans. President Roosevelt will have your head for this. Raisuli: Roosevelt. This President Roosevelt--he would try and take it himself? Pedecaris: He certainly would! He is a man of grit and strong moral fiber. He does not kidnap women and children! Raisuli: What kind of rifle does he use? Pedecaris: A Winchester! Raisuli: Winchester. Winchester. I have no knowledge of this rifle. Pedecaris: You will.

Teddy Roosevelt (Brian Keith): The American Grizzly Bear is a symbol of the American character: strength, intelligence, ferocity. A little blind and reckless at times, but courageous beyond all doubt. Oh, and one other trait goes with all previous. Newspaper reporter: And that, Mr. President? Teddy Roosevelt: Loneliness. The bear lives out his life alone. Indomitable. Unconquered. But always alone. He has no real allies, only enemies--but none of them are as great as he. Newspaper reporter: You feel this might be an American trait? Teddy Roosevelt: Certainly. The world would never love us. It may respect us. It may even grow to fear us. But it'll never love us. For we have too much audacity. And we're a bit blind and reckless at times, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a very-near-future world, a corrupt government monitors everyone constantly with computers and surveillance. One man has managed to evade assimilation, and operates outside the system, fighting to preserve his freedom. An engaging and imaginative story and some very interesting editing and camera work. There are some confusing and slow parts, but all in all, an excellent example of what a small crew with brains and talent can do on a shoestring budget.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went to this film having no idea what to expect. I actually took a date to it in the theaters when it first came out. We both thoroughly enjoyed it and it helped to have someone to discuss it with after seeing it.

I only recommend seeing this film if you appreciate non-mainstream movies. It's not as disjointed as Liquid Sky or as fanciful as Forbidden Zone. The original plot is very easy to follow. There's A LOT of subtle humor.

Here's a quick summary of the plot if you are completely lost: A big-brother type government keeps tabs on everyone in society. Suddenly a new person appears and there's no data on him (he appears insane). He may or may not be the second-coming of Christ. The over-cautious government goes into a frenzy to find him and discover his true motives. The ruler is also obsessed with immortality.

Some scenes are frantic while others are completely low-key. We follow the lead character as he encounters all different kinds of people in society.

I didn't need my consciousness altered to enjoy the film, but I know that some of my friends felt that helped.

Split was also filmed around Santa Cruz and San Francisco.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the type of film that may need to be viewed several times to capture all of its beauty and intelligence { just like Curse of Frankenstein from 1957} . If you don't like odd, non-mainstream films, steer clear of this masterpiece. For me, the artwork alone in this film is worth the purchase price of the videocassete. The storyline is a bit fantastic but seems to becoming reality in our world today. For being produced in the 1980s, this film is proving to be a prophetic vision of whats to come with Big government and Big brother wanting to control and monitor us.

There are many slow sections and the dialog can be quite hard to catch in many scenes { thats why I've watched it 6 times now} but if you can digest it all, it may prove to be well worth your time.

The film is basically about a world where people have evolved into robotic machines that have lost their individualism . They are only concerned about accumulating and procreating. The hero of the film has not succumb to this sickness and has not been \" tagged\" and monitored by big brother. His mission is to release a secret drug into the water supply which will change the way the human robots think and allow individulaism to once again be a part of humanity.

Yes, its very low budget, but for its time the computer effects and sound effects are very unique and the paintings are utterly fascinating. If you have an open mind, this film should impress and its prophetic visions are chilling.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you Listen to Ween (The Pod, God\/Satan), then you know what's going on with \"Split\" I found that watching the film under the influence of LSD helped to deal with Audio\/Video tracers from fantastic editing job. The plot was only important from second to second. The acid helped to interact with the sounds, subliminal and general pace of this masterpiece. Don't bother writing about something out of your comprehension's reach...There just isn't enough of these great independent attempts at expression at it's most raw , amateur level. I dare anyone to make a movie that can equally Mess with my head and change the way I look at visual arts and the world's reality. Not to mention the many realities that haven't yet been explored by this humans mind. I love the vision of Chris Shaw. I also appreciate the texturing terroristic film \"The Begotten\" by E. Elias Merhige.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ten years before \"The Matrix\" and hot on the heals of \"They Live\" came this brilliant piece of low budget science fiction film making. If you like bizarre, unconventional, intellectually challenging, David Lynch meets John Carpenter style movie-making you'll love \"Split\". There are moments of true genius in the framing and cinematography. Look closely at a sequence shot through wine glasses in an art opening party and right after that a scene involving cue cards. The plot involves a man named Starker who lives outside of society who wants to wake us up from the dream. Similar to \"They Live\", \"1984\" and \"The Matrix\", it is based on the premise that we are all constantly monitored by shadowy Big Brother type government agents that know everything about us and have invisible robot probes constantly patrolling the city. This is all revealed pretty early on in the plot. POSSIBLE SPOILER: Starker has invented a drug that when placed in the water supply will wake everyone up from the illusion of reality. Along with the cinematography and the ingenious ways the director makes do with his shoestring budget, the other highlights of this film are the monologues. I challenge anyone to not be rewinding, memorizing and quoting the classic quotes from this movie for years to come.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie once a long time ago, just once, and I didn't know where it had come from, and I looked for about six years to find it, and I finally found it here at IMDb.com! Just the whole concept of the movie is great, I believe it's got something to do with a race of bioengineered beings, keeping tabs on us and our planet, but there is one person who keeps out of being assimilated into conformity. And the way that he does it,to keep himself from being tracked and located, is what keeps the movie entertaining. I don't remember exactly how it ended, but I remember, it finished with a great climax, and a good twist.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first heard about \"Greek,\" I figured I would watch it because it sounded ridiculous. Another of ABC Family's so-bad-they're-almost-good shows. But tuning in with a friend from college found us both enjoying the pilot episode a lot more than we had expected.

As a member of a Greek society, I can say that a lot of the stereotypes that are brought up here are ones that come up almost every time someone starts talking about the sororities and fraternities on a campus. And are also very fun to play with just on are own, let alone to watch on a TV screen. The opening scene harkened to an only-slightly-dramatized version of preparing for an actual formal rush in some sororities and it continued on from there.

This isn't a show for over-sensitive Greeks. If you get offended even at jokes about things that aren't-so-great about Greek life, then you'll spend the entire first episode, and probably many other, cringing and yelling. But everyone else should have a ton of fun watching it. It's nothing new, but when it comes to college, nothing ever is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really like the show!! As a part of Greek Life, I can say that some things are over-exaggerated, but overall it's still pretty damn funny.

Rusty is a likable lead character, his roommate is HILARIOUS and the entire cast is entertaining in their own rights. I like that it focuses on individual situations as well as interpersonal relations with the organizations.

This show covers it all, and they do it without cursing or anything else that bad (how else could it be on ABC Family?).

My favorites are Cappie (of course), Rusty's roommate and pretty much all of Kappa Tau. This show is a great launch pad for them and I'm excited to see what doors this opens.

Please renew this show next summer, ABC Family. Like I said, love love LOVE it!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So when I first saw commercials for Greek I did have a few questions to how they were going to approach Greek life, if they were going to give away sacred frat and sorority secrets, if they were going to focus on the brother and sisterhood a fraternity or sorority brings, or what most college kids think of Greek life as a huge party.

Luckily, it covered everything. The story plot was great, it gave you a character to love, hate, someone you want to be like, someone you don't want to be like, and of course a crazy roommate!

It was one of my first looks at what writers believed Greek life to be like, and I can honestly say they hit the nail pretty dead on.

I love how one of the biggest things they covered throughout the season was the relationship between Rusty and his crazy roommate. Its hard enough moving away from home, and being forced to live in a small room with someone you don't even know, then come to find out.. you have nothing in common. Probably every college bound freshmens worst nightmare.

Rustys sister Casey was pretty much the typical girl on campus EVERYONE is jealous of. What didn't she have? Oh thats right.. Evan all to herself. Rebecca and Evan had an \"affair\" early into the season, which made you feel fairly sympathetic for Casey. Her character evolved, and her relationship with Rusty became more and more loving and outgoing.

Cappie is one of the most fun loving characters, and absolutely insane. One of my favorite episodes included him getting completely trashed at a strip club, and Rusty having to call Casey to bail them out. I like how they addressed the issue of gay people in Greek houses, Calvin was a very real feeling character, and I really respected him because he stuck to his standards. So Jen K was fairly crazy, but she actually liked Rusty. It was surprising and I continued to question her from the start, but of course, I did want it to work out between her and Rusty.

I am definitely looking forward to the return of Greek. It takes you into the truth of Greek life, something that a lot of people look past. One of the biggest things that frats and sororities are known for is parties and drinking. Greek is a great show, and the characters are easy to relate to.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just recently stumbled upon this show when ABC family had an all day marathon before season 2 premiered. I remember seeing previews for the show back in 2007, and thought it would be short lived, and not very well written, because it was on ABC Family.

Never doubt an ABC family show! This show surprised me in the best way possible. Not only is the show well written, story lines are realistic, funny, and enjoyable. I was expecting a lot of talk about relationships, something like \"this guy dated that girl who dumped me for that kid... etc.\" But this show is anything but! The characters are appealing and you really feel a connection between them all. There is a lot of chemistry between the actors, and they can really make you feel like the stuff is happening right before your eyes.

Don't doubt this show, it is truly enjoyable to watch... and get hooked on ;)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not a big TV person... but when I saw the premier episode of Greek, I couldn't wait until next week! I don't miss the show for NOTHING!

THANK GOD for DVR! LOL I'm in love with Cappie... he acts like a bad boy, but he is so sweet... Everybody has their own character so, we have pretty much all types of people. You could still throw in a Hispanic and a chubby persons.

I didn't go to school in USA, so, I never liked the idea of frat houses and stuff like that, so, when my husband told me about the show I didn't pay attention, until he asked me to watch it and since I didn't have noting better to do, I agreed. I laughed SO hard the first night that I just needed to keep watching it.

So.. i'm with the other people that voted for this show to continue on! I will hope for a second, third and who knows how many more episodes! Its a really good show, very funny and entertaining!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must say I thought the show Greek would be really ridiculous and stupid. Since I am part of a sorority I didn't want them to make Greek organizations look bad....

but I think Greek is hilarious. Yes, they do have the stereotypical sorority and fraternity but it's not mocking but just cute humor.

All the characters are pretty likable minus Rebecca Logan (I just can't stand her), Casey and Rusty have good chemistry as brother and sister. Then there is Cappie. Who doesn't love a guy like Cappie haha His character brings so much to the show. Rusty's room mate, Dale played by Clark Duke, is hilarious as well.

It's definitely fun to watch so tune in for season 2. I can't wait till it is back on!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched the pilot episode for this one with high expectations, having just graduated college and moved on to \"real life\". I was not in a fraternity, but a lot of my best buddies were, and I got to partake in a lot of the partying that they did in their house, so I know what goes on to some extent.

This show is obviously a dramatization, not a documentary in any way of Greek life, or college life for that matter, although it does hold a lot of truth, albeit exaggerated for the most part. If you watch the show for the value it contains as a TV show, and nothing more, it is very entertaining, much like movies such as Old School, Porky's, Animal House, etc. If you watch it expecting it to chronicle all of your experiences in your own college life, you will probably either be left wanting more, or mad that they over-dramatize a lot of events.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have watched two episodes so far, I really like it. Even though I am no longer in college, it makes me miss the wonderful college life. I wish that I spent a little more time socializing. I kind of identify myself with rusty. When I was rushing a fraternity, my big brother was not like Cappie at all, I wish that I had a big brother like him. So if a show like this can actually make people to identify themselves with the characters, then it is a pretty good show.

It is more realistic than American pie with less explicit sex jokes. Can we also call this a younger version of \"desperate wives?\" some of the writers must be Greeks themselves, the story seems to reflect somewhat of the real fraternity and sorority life. It was shot in high definition. And they actually filmed outside instead of inside of studios. so the picture quality is very good. They could easily make this a good film. Unlike a movie which can only last a few hours, I can have about 45 minutes of fun watching it free on TV weekly.

The casting is excellent, the actors are about the right age, and they are new and fresh, so that makes them more real. This show practically is about everyone. There are Asian and black frat boys and sorority girls in the show as well. It is almost a little shocking that they had a little story about two guys in the fraternity had sex in first episode, then tried to hook up again in the second episode. I don't think that I have seen anything like this on TV before. This show somehow reminded me about a Warner bro's TV show of teenagers called \"Young Americans\" which got canceled in early 2001. In that show, a girl who dressed like a man kissed a guy, and that guy thought that she was a male homosexual.

Greek life can be fun, but on the same time, students have to study for exams, etc; by the time when people actually have some free time in their lives, There is no fraternity of sorority for them to join any more. I don't know how long this show will last, sooner or later, those people will have to \"graduate\" college, too. Maybe they will find some new actors for another 4 years of fun college life!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I sat down to watch Greek for the first time, I wasn't expecting a show with complex characters, intriguing plot lines, and impeccable writing... but that's exactly what I got.

Greek follows several college students who are in the Greek system at Cyprus Rhodes University. Rusty Cartwright enters Cyprus Rhodes as a Polymer Science major who aspires to be in a fraternity. His older sister, Casey (the show's center and soon-to-be-president of Zeta Beta Zeta, the most prestigious sorority on campus), isn't exactly supportive of his plans. In fact, none of her friends even knew she had a brother until he set foot on the college grounds! On top of dealing with the fact that her dorky younger brother has been forced back into her life, Casey's boyfriend Evan Chambers (soon-to-be-president of THE fraternity on campus, Omega Chi) is cheating on her with a new ZBZ pledge (Rebecca Logan), diabolical ZBZ president Frannie is pressuring her to stay with him, and she still has feelings for her slacker ex-boyfriend Cappie (president of the party house on campus, Kappa Tau). These characters are joined by Calvin Owens (an athletic, intelligent friend of Rusty's who happens to be gay), Dale Kettlewell (Rusty's die-hard Christian and \"possibly racist\" roommate and best friend), and Ashleigh (Casey's quirky best friend and confidante).

Throughout Greek's two seasons (or four chapters) viewers are often reminded that college life is not black and white, but \"in shades of gray from here on out.\" Every character makes their fair share of mistakes, but every one of them has redeemable qualities. Casey and Cappie have a complicated, but beautiful, relationship throughout the series. Rusty, Dale, and Calvin's friendship is not always perfect, but they manage to survive every obstacle that is thrown at them. Even Frannie, Rebecca, and Evan (the show's \"villains\") are shown as human every once in a while.

Greek shows college students at their best, worst, and in-between. It is a show that reveals college as what it truly is: a four-year adventure where one's morals, beliefs, and willpower are tested, compromised, and sometimes even changed.

Greek has at least one season left, if not more, before it ends. I cannot wait to see where the characters end up next. Greek is not your typical ABC family sitcom. If you want to tune in to a show that shows the truth behind human motivation, Greek is the show for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i love this show. i hate when it goes to season finale because it feels like forever until the season starts again!! i have followed this show since its pilot then all the way threw from where rusty starts college and see's Casey his sister to now where he's dating Dana.. love this show cant wait until Monday night!! Also i am so glad that cappie and Casey finally got back together that was driving me crazy!!! As for Evan and rebecca i hope they get back together which it just feels like they will by the finale. i just looked it up about the main part of the cast and i am so SHOCKED that Casey Cartwright(Spencer Grammar)is Kelsey Grammar's daughter!!! that just surprises me so much and the other thing that's a huge SHOCKER is that she was born the same year as me and that she was born on my baby brother birth date with my year and i had been watching her the whole entire time and had no clue!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...I cannot believe I was hooked on this show instantly, after seeing the first scene I was in it deep.

Anyway, first of all the guys are hot, Cappy, Evan, Calvin, Fischer, Cappy, Heath, Cappy etc.

Secondly, the girls are cute, sexy, smart and are not afraid of being called bitches. I like that. Which at the same time doesn't make them mean and greedy, just realistic.

Third the relationships are so great, especially Casey and Cappy. Lately every show turns very away from it's original path and people end up with someone who wasn't even in the first season. Cappy and Casey's relationship is true love, a kind that lasts. They loved each other throughout the years and it didn't end when a guest star appeared.

In todays world maybe it's kind of unbelievable for two people to love each other for a long time but it happens. And people define each other in college so I knew exactly who I wanted to be with in college. Just like Casey and Cappy.

I HOPE THERE ARE MANY MORE SEASONS OF THIS SHOW AND I HOPE WE CAN SEE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CASEY AND CAPPY NOW THAT THEY WILL PROBABLY STAY TOGETHER, at Thanksgiving... Love this show","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am so excited that Greek is back! This season looks really eventful. Im glad that Casey is trying to get serious about school but is still involved in the sorority. Its really funny that she wants to go into politics & that they're highlighting her 'scheming talent.' I loved Calvin's new haircut! It makes him look more mature. They should shave Cappy's head, as well. All the guys are hot but Calvin is definitely the hottest! I cant wait to see more of him! I'm especially interested in what happens between Calvin, Adam, & Rusty! I also love Rebecca. She's really pretty. I actually think that Rebecca & Calvin should hook up. go for it, Calvin! Join my team!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As someone who was in a Pan-Hellenic sorority, I wasn't sure what to expect when I tuned into this show. After seeing so many over dramatizations in \"made for TV movies\" and the craziness of the reality shows, I was curious to see if Greek would be able to show the true College and Greek life experience.

I was very pleasantly surprised at how the show was able to give the viewer the satisfaction of identifying the ever-familiar characters of this genre, but it was also able to add depth to the characters. Greek life isn't just about parties and petty conflict. Although those things happen within Greek Life, they also happen in any other social or professional circle throughout a person's life. To characterize it as some exclusive experience to those in a Greek Organization would be false. Most of the story lines and situations taking place in Greek can and do take place everywhere, in every circle of friends, on sports teams, in real life. But I've watched both episodes and my \"little sister\" whom I'm still very close to and I have spent both episodes laughing and being reminded of how they've truly captured the spirit of our college years and experiences.

I liked how the second episode showed how the characters struggle with the other facets of their lives; school, relationships, goals, etc. Cappie telling Rusty that school comes first and going to your brothers for help, that was very true to life. You can't stay in an Organization if you have bad grades. The way Rusty got his assignment to his professor was far fetched, but it was entertaining. Even the dynamic between Casey and Rusty; It happens, you grow up and whatever your relationship with your sibling(s) was, it changes so you must adjust.

The bottom line: Greek is a great show, great entertainment value, and enough \"real life\" in there to be believable and definitely worth the viewers time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is absolutely fantastic. It provides all the great drama and romance of teen shows like The OC and Dawsons, but it's a whole lot funnier. It's a show with morals and values, without everything being sugar coated and sanitised (ala 7th Heaven.) We don't have sororities or fraternities in Australia, and our university system is completely different, so I have no idea how accurately Greek life is portrayed. But I don't care! Because this show is my new favourite! Any writer that can make me love a racist, homophobe confederate flag-waving Bible basher must be genius.

And Cappie is my new Pacey. Sorry Josh Jackson, you've been dethroned!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a decent effort for a B-Movie Martial Arts actioner. Ian Jacklin, a former North American cruiser weight Kickboxing champion, is the lead and acquits himself well in the action scenes. The muscular Matthias Hues gets a chance to add more to his Martial Arts bad guy persona in this film than in all of his many others and if you are a fan of The Teutonic Titan, rent this movie now!

Renee Griffin is also noteworthy as the romantic interest in this film. She starts off with attitude but soon warms up to the hero and they make \"The beast with two backs\" in a very stylish fashion.

The fight scenes are good in the American tradition (NO Hong Kong acrobatics here!) with added realism from having Benny \"The Jet\" Urquidez playing himself as John Larson's (Jacklin) trainer.

All in all this film seems to have more sub plots than most in its genre so you get MORE of a story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another of the endless amount of cookie-cutter 'Kickboxers Fight to the Death for the Amusement of Wealthy Scumbags' films that there were so many of in the 90s... Y'know, the ones created by taking the words 'Death', 'Blood' and 'Steel' and the words 'Ring', 'Fight', 'Match' and 'Cage' and putting them in a random generator! Saying that though, Death Match is a pretty good entry in the over-used genre, thanks to its exciting fight scenes and the surprisingly good acting of its kickboxer cast.

The story concerns two buddies - ex-Kickboxing World Champion John Larson (played by pug-faced Middleweight Kickboxing Champ Ian Jacklin, probably previously best known for his awful performance as the main villain in Ring of Fire 2) and Nick Wallace (Nick Hill, a likable guy probably best known for the role of street-fighter Sergio in Bloodsport 2) who work the L.A. docks loading crates onto ships. One discovery of a boxful of guns and a brief fight later, our two heroes are jobless and propping up an L.A. bar. Sensible John Larson decides to head North and look for a job; headstrong Nick Wallace has heard of a guy paying good money for fighters to fight in private kickboxing matches. \"Why should things change?\" says John, \" If you need me, i'll be there.\" Predictably enough, it isn't long before Nick has gone missing and his good friend is fighting in the deadly 'ring of death' trying to find a lead to his missing buddy.

Sure enough, there are no prizes for originality here, but like i said before, this films strength lies in its action, its cast of real-life fighters and the fairly good performances it manages to wring from them. Ian Jacklin in particular surprised me. Previously i'd just seen him as the bad guy in Ring of Fire 2 and in bit-parts in tripe like The Steel Ring, and i've always been quite amused at how bad an actor he is (good fighter though!). But in Death Match, he's pretty good! Given a decent script and a haircut, he proves himself to be quite the charismatic leading man! And his friendship with Nick is very well portrayed. Jacklin and Hill have a nice chemistry and you really believe these two characters care for each other. Enough for one of them to lose a job, travel halfway across the country and risk death to save the other - I wish i had a friend like that!

It was also nice to see Matthias Hues as a villainous henchman with a little more depth than we're used to seeing from his many 'villainous henchman' roles. However don't be fooled into thinking he's the star just because he's on the video cover (with, it seems, his head stuck on the body of Michael Bernardo from the cover of Shootfighter) - he is good while he's on screen, but he isn't on much..

On the negative side, the film is pretty slow when there's no fighting going on, with lots of unnecessary scenes (whats with gangster Jimmie Fiorello's pointless story about his grandfather??), and the end fight is disappointingly short, but on the whole i enjoyed it! Plenty of fights, most of them good. Isn't that all we martial arts really need? And of course eye-candy, here in the lovely form of the very pretty Renee Ammann. All in all, a pretty entertaining kickboxing movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of my favorite movies. I like horses, I like happy endings, and I like Walter Matthau. I miss him and am glad to have a great film like this to remind me why he was so wonderful. Watch it with your kids (or your horse).

The story of an old hard boot horse trainer with kids, and down on his luck. If you have ever had or appreciated horse racing you will appreciate the rags to riches storyline. It may be a little below \"Seabiscuit\", but not a lot. The story is the same one, except it is the quarter horse version. Well acted, correct racing terms and equipment, and nice racing scenes. Don't take my word for it, get it and make up your own mind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A good movie for horse enthusiasts and most others. It's a horse racing movie, and it's a \"little man gets his chance\" movie, and it's a \"how far would you go?\" movie. Walter Mattau once again proves his adaptability as an actor. He fits right in as Lloyd Bourdelle, a Louisiana Cajun horse bum. This movie gives you a rare screen glimpse of Lousiana Cajun horse drag racing. He has a young quarter horse who is a top racing prospect. \"had nothing but a filling station and a good horse.\" The Bourdelles seize the opportunity to make it big by taking the horse, Shadow, to Ruidoso, New Mexico, to get ready to run in the All-American Futurity. But how far will Lloyd go to win the fame and fortune? Also memorable from this movie are scenes of Lloyd spitting tobacco juice and waiting for his truck to start.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Walter Matthau can always improve a mediocre film, and this movie proves it. He turns in a very realistic performance as a small-time horse trainer and single father, not sugar-coating either role.

He can be, by turns, soft-hearted and doting, then iron-handed to his boys, and we can see the same dichotomy in his approach to horse training (we see that he doesn't want his young prospect racing horse overworked and hurt in small-time races, but he seems to be willing to risk the horse's life when he gets into the big time).

This is just one of Matthau's wonderful performances, and one that I highly recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wonderful family movie & a beautiful horse movie. 75+ %entertainment. Casey, Buddy, Kelly Marsh are very interesting and lovable characters. The horses are real beauties.

Has the horse racing as a backdrop for showing how luck is sometimes nothing but some good commonsense. Shows how kids can do stupid things for stupid reasons. Shows how adults can do stupid things for selfish reasons. The very realistically portrayed characters transform the unrealistic theme of the film into something everyone can relate to.

Andrew Rubin puts in a wonderful performance as Buddy,the sensible elder brother. Somewhat reminded me of Aidan Quinn(eyes, speech delivery, facial appearance).

Casey makes you fall in love with the character because of the earnestness. Sarah Blue is also nicely portrayed by Alexis Smith. Lloyd Bourdelle, the father, is played by Walter Matthau and he IS the character.

Though there is room for improvement in the movie, its a very enjoyable, feel-good movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great family film dealing with down to earth people who enjoy their local interests dealing mainly with horse racing. Lloyd Bourdelle, (Walter Matthau) is a farmer who also raises quarter horses and has a young son named Casey Bourdelle, who loves horses. Lloyd is able to raise a full grown horse who he calls \"Casey's Shadow\" after his son and this horse breaks all speed records and is a possible winner of a million dollar race. Sarah Blue, ( Alexis Smith) becomes interested in this horse and offers to buy the horse for $500,00 dollars, however, this horse receives serious injuries to his legs and Lloyd receives a serious set-back which upsets the entire family. Walter Matthau gave an outstanding performance and this is a great film to view and enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this on the Accent Underground release with the short films. I found the film at first boring and old fashioned and switched it off after the first hour - I was a little drunk and tired.

I went to bed, and no kidding I had a nightmare about this film within half and hour of falling asleep. I couldn't stop thinking about why, so I got up, switched the TV back on, loaded the DVD and saw the rest of the movie.

Well done Alex Frayne sir, you've managed to implant your film into this old, cynical movie goers head, and that takes doing. So 10 out of 10 to you.

I can't say I 'love' this film of yours, but it has made a lasting impact despite its flaws and low budget etc.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Talking about competition features at the Split Film festival, we have titles from all over the world. China, Korea, Canada, USA and Australia and many of these stories are indicating that the world is really valley of tears. Modern love...thats for sure.

In that movie by Alex Frayne, two younger married people and their boy are traveling from town to the coast to visit the grave and house of the man's uncle who raised him a long time ago and who died in mysterious circumstances. The coastal village seems like something in an American horror film where the village is bizarre and people are uncommon mutants. But episodes in Alex Frayne's pastorella can't be described as horror in the normal way. In fact this is an extreme interesting drama where we are seeing relationships and horror through flashbacks and much more. In this story and through obviously psychological facets of the actors we are shown a peep show of film some charmingly eccentric Australian film-making. Thus is the the case of Frayne. Always something new and fresh. Visual intelligence and unique sensibility of some Australian directors is astonishing good. Frayne's movie is super. There is something in the Australian landscape that shows their movies so special as we have see in FRAYNE's Modern Love and in RAY Lawrence movies Lantana and Jindabyne.

It seems it will be the same in future titles of Alex Frayne.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The most vivid portrait of small-town oddity I've seen in a long time -and I'm not just talking about Australian films. This piece of work seems to have been made \"under the radar\" and really, it's an entirely fascinating piece of work, that has a worldliness mostly unseen in recent Aust. film making.

At times it is rather slow and strange - it seems to meander hither and thither not really sure if it's a thriller or a 'head-movie'. But the stunning aspect of the film by Alex Frayne is its iron fisted, ruthless direction. It never wavers, it is highly controlled, precise and absolutely self-assured. The cinematography is some of the most artful, beautiful and lyrical I've seen. The sound is all psychological, the music builds the tension.

By the third act, the story is ramped up and episodes collide and converge - don't attempt to piece together the puzzle of the last 20 minutes, it's a bit of an impost - but by that time the film has you a bit of a trance, a sort of hypnosis, and you've been sold a riddle - that has no real answer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We see a man move from city to \"out-back\" and change dramatically - his family asks questions, but he goes mad.

Strange, brilliant film for screening here in Israel. Wonderful locations, great actors, a film which masquerades as a \"thriller\" but which is more a case-study of madness in the lead man.

The film was way above the other films screened as part of the AICE festival here in Israel. Best of luck to the team who arrived at this film. It's a Grand Guignol, a little masterpiece of noir.

My only criticism which prevents a \"10\" is that the sound and the music is overpowering at times. It tends to get in the way of the images, which speak for themselves.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John and his wife Emily, accompanied by their child Edward venture from the comfortable environs of suburbia to the village where the husband spent some of his childhood. There has been a death in the family and John must begin proceedings to take control of an old ramshackle cottage, situated by the seaside and once inhabited by an old man who has apparently committed suicide.

Sceptical about the circumstances of the death, John divorces himself from his family and from reality, puts his own life in peril, and puts on the clothes of the old man who is now dead.

The film now changes - nothing is what it seems - the people of his past appear, in full Gothic\/hillbilly glory - his wife worries about his mental state - and his son disappears into the reeds.

John finds that the old man didn't commit suicide, that his death is far more mysterious and strange. In a spine chilling finale, we learn that the events of the film actually never happened and that the entire narrative was imagined by the little boy, Edward, who is struggling to come to terms with his parents' divorce proceedings.

Modern Love is a macabre piece of high art cinema, a puzzling and perverse piece of pretentiousness, full of vague suggestion and unexplored red-herrings. It is humourless and seemingly unconcerned with current Indie trends which both validates its creators, but also renders it pass\u00e9.

But the weaknesses of this Australian film are fully outweighed by its sheer muscular cinematic vision, its bloody-minded and uncompromising precision and its oddball Euro horror. The bastardry of script norms and lack of slick dialogue pales into insignificance against a backdrop of noir and a lead performance that needs to be seen to be appreciated.

One of the most aggressively weird Australian films in years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film really used its locations well with some amazing shots, dark and disturbing the film moves very slowly, but constantly keeps you watching. Modern Love worked well in the Gold Coast Film Fantastic program this year offering audiences a glimpse at an Australian Cinema that is usually neglected. Most importantly it is refreshing to see Australian cinema not taking on the clich\u00e9 Aussie characters and story lines we have seen done to death over the years. This film would compliment any festival and will open debate after its screenings. The performances and characters are well developed, and the cinematography is fantastic. An interesting exploration into family relationships, and environments.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this movie at the Glenwood Cinemas at the weekend as part of the Kansas International Film Festival, which, as usual has provided a thoughtful and eclectic sample of world cinema.

I have been keen on Australian Film for a number of years, so was pleased to learn that this film was included, and I was certainly not disappointed.

Superbly shot, firmly directed, it's an eerie tale of one man and his journey to the heart of darkness, as it were. It reminded me a tad of Lynch's Wild at Heart, it has that strange madness in it, but I was glued to the movie for other reasons - namely that it presents a portrait of Australia which is..well, very believable.

I have vacationed to the Land Down Under a number of times, once in the 1980's and again about 7 years ago with my wife.

I don't wish to go to great lengths explaining my vacations, but the director Frayne appears to have a grasp on much that I find so odd and eccentric about Australia, a country that is responsible for the extremities of, say, Nick Cave on one hand, and Steve Irwin (the 'Crocodile Hunter') on the other.

One incy wincy whinge - - I would have preferred even more of the 'unknown' Australia. Much more in fact. But I also realise that there's only 1 and a half hours to do it all in... 'Sigh.'

Overall though, this movie is very, very accomplished.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK. A warning for anyone out there who is a parent or guardian. Be careful about who you see this film with - ie - DO NOT TAKE KIDS TO SEE THIS FILM. I'll explain why.

1 - the title is misleading and the film has nothing to do with romance - I assume this was fully intentional on the producers behalf, but is annoying 2 - the film itself is really very very disturbing. I have some problems - first is the fact that the film is neither violent or sexual and therefore is not a 'horror film'. But it IS a very disturbing film ,and involves a child and his parents, and a small town.

OK, it boils down to this. The film is not suitable for minors, because it contains sequences and images that are unsettling and would be confusing to a child. Is has a bizarre quality to it, and its ONLY because it has a child in it that makes me feel its unsuitable. As a parent myself I feel strongly enough to want to tell people because I read only the other day that it is having a release in theatres.

I hope im not offending the film makers by saying this, but I think its my right, because its getting a release, and has an M rating only.(because its not violent or sexual). Just weird and unsettling but pretty good in and of itself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"UK-born Australian helmer Alex Frayne calls for attention with his strange, necessitating a meticulous read, visually stunning Modern Love (2006). Following the steps of a man incapable of controlling a drastic personality change spurred by the death of a close relative pic offers a fascinating examination of human psychology. Distributed by Accent Film-Australia.

John (Mark Constable), his wife Emily (Victoria Hill), and their son Edward (William Traeger) arrive in a small Southern town to take care of his deceased uncle's (Don Barker) property. While Emily and Edward check into a local hotel John begins to question the locals about Uncle Tom's death - some say that he committed suicide, some are unwilling to talk. Puzzled John comes up with a theory of his own - Uncle Tom is alive and well, hiding in the nearby bushes.

If not for the occasional lines of dialog used to ease its heavy atmospheric tone Modern Love could have been easily mistaken for a Sokurov film. Shot with a 16mm camera its washed-out color scheme is strangely evocative of the Russian director's reflective forays into human agony. Perhaps it isn't a coincidence that it was at the Moscow International Film Festival where Modern Love had its premiere.

Looking under the surface of this unique collage of intoxicating visuals however reveals a slightly different picture - while Sokurov's films tend to remain painfully intimate, to a point where they intentionally detach the main protagonists from the surrounding environment by blurring everything into a large splash of the director's preferred yellow, Modern Love very much feeds off the Australian countryside. John's gradual psychological transformation is dependent on it and the more the story progresses the more it becomes obvious that nature was an integral part of Frayne's vision.

In Sokurov's The Second Circle a young man returns to the Russian countryside to bury his deceased father. In the shack where the old man once lived everything is covered with dust. He gathers the few old clothes scattered around and places the body of his father in a coffin. Then he bids goodbye and buries it. The rest of the film is a prolonged reflection on the collapse of the Soviet system, the loneliness and dissatisfaction many were left dealing with.

In Modern Love, somewhat ironically, love is nowhere to be seen. On the contrary it is pain, loneliness, and dissatisfaction with \"modernity\" that suddenly invade John's life. Unlike The Second Circle however here the main protagonist has the opportunity to re-embrace his modern life. His wife and son await him, yet, he walks away. Slowly but surely the present begins to disintegrate under the weight of a somewhat confusing past.

I doubt Frayne intended for Modern Love to be so strikingly similar to what Sokurov did in The Second Circle. Yet, the pacing, and in particular the puzzling framing, are precisely what transforms this film into a near meditative experience - a difficult and enormously brittle approach to deconstructing human psychology the two directors have mastered to perfection.

Mark Constable delivers a top-notch performance as John adding even greater depth to his highly challenging character. His facial expressions are outstanding. Both Victoria Hill and William Traeger match perfectly with their performances pic's tense visual style.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Received this DVD from the ACCENT range which is a label which specializes in art-house flics, they released Irreversible and a range of Bergman's opus.

The thing that struck me about Alex Frayne's strangely titled film MODERN LOVE is that it is an impeccable film that breathes with perfection and vision, a film that takes us into the mind of Mr Joe Average, replete with voices in the head, visions, and madness. It's set in rural redneck Australia, the film doesn't trivialise or praise the folks like so many Australian movies. ie our films are full of \"loveable rogues\" or people with \"hearts of gold\" etc etc etc.

Not in this film. The spirit of Stanley Kubrick looms large here, it's not flawless, but has a mesmerising attention to details, a romantic streak and a mood that is bracing if not embraceable.

Minor quibbles...the transfer looks faulty - front credits were sliced, they don't fit in frame.

Also, one of the short films is corrupted, it stops half way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at the 3rd Adelaide International Film Festival at the Palace cinemas, and was totally switched onto it in the opening five minutes. Thanks goodness for a film that ignores all the rubbish we often see in Australian films that seem to revolve around a)race b)gender and c) class, in favour of er...dare I say....jolly good cinema. The producer, a shy, slightly eccentric chap called Alex Frayne introduced his film, made with a bunch of his mates near the town he spent much of his childhood. Apparently he's spent much of the last year traveling the world with the film, mostly in Europe. The world the film creates is both brilliant and arty, not least because of strange and disconcerting editing style, the Gothic characters, and the surreal sense of time and place that draws viewers into its nightmarish realm.

The producer returned for the Q + A after-wards. Someone asked him what his inspiration was - he replied \"South Australia.\" Hear hear! Another asked him what a 'day in the life of alex' entailed. He replied that he drives an old Ute, that he has breakfast at the same table at the same restaurant that he's jolly well eaten at for the past 8 years! and that he plays piano which helps him to think. He doesn't drink booze and plays cricket once a week. Then the Q and A session ended abruptly because of the next film screening - so my thoughts are that for the next festival, they need to extend the after film sessions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this at the BendFilm Festival Friday amid an unsettled crowd of people, not helped by a poor decision by the planners of the event, who chose a totally inappropriate short film to precede the movie. And it really threw the audience when Modern Love came up after a light, whimsical short (name I forget).

People!!! It was really silly to mix this short with Modern Love - which is a serious drama movie. A film film.

So the audience gets the teaser which is a comedy and then...Modern Love. Hmmmm. Modern Love, despite my reservations (strange ending, a little too tangential)needed a short film that was commensurate with it's oddball strangeness, so my advice to the programmers for next year is to take more care planning the show.

The folks watching Modern Love really just didn't know what had hit them, - they were led up the path and this is not their fault.

Modern Love has some superb performances which play well against the tangential meanderings of the film - a film that its maker seems to have 'wondered out loud' rather than executed in the normal way a film is scripted and shot.

Too bad the audience was misinformed. Wrong session placement, wrong short film, wrong approach by the well intentioned programmers, who, despite good efforts, need to see a lot more films and travel to some other festivals.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jingofighter I agree with some of your comments, but I have to disagree on a couple of things. First, this film is nothing like THE CARS THAT ATE Paris. Not IMHO. Nothing like it.

I think the film had elements of surrealism, but I think the basic approach of the film maker is not \"surrealist\" per se. therefore its not really like CARS Paris, I think more like a weird Euro work, with some scenes bearing the hallmark of \"wierd\" not surreal.

Secondly, I think the music by Heuzenroeder is brilliant. They used whistling, that old sound from Country and Western records, and its waaayyy better than most Aussie films which usually team the film maker up with a dumb sounding Indy band that the company wants to push.

As for the name of the film - I don't know why it's called Modern Love, I was kinda hoping for David Bowie to appear dressed in drag and lipstick... opps I'm starting to show my age.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film via one of the actors' agents, and it surely conforms with a great deal that comes out of Sth. Australia in terms of the overall *tone,* which is rightly dark and moody.

I thought the little boy in the film was excellent. Mostly kid actors are *hammed up* and embarrassing but not in this case. He was really very good. In terms of the *surrealism* thingy mentioned by jingo, well, I just think this film is plain 'weird.' It's a real weirdo film, with weirdo locations, storyline, weird stuff going on the whole time. But 'good' weird as opposed to 'bad'.

Its hard to think of other movies like it, but its not at all like CARS ATE Paris, maybe more like a REPULSION, but actually I think more like a Hammer movie from the 60's. Its certainly has an interesting mind working behind it.

JINGO, My question is also about the title. Why Modern Love?? Anyone? Also, jingo, what did you mean by \"god Forsaken\" when you were talking about Australia, hmmm? Just curious","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK....so, by minute 15 in the film, there's still no dialogue.

This film arrived to me in a padded sack from Down Under, with Sharpie encrypted info on the front. I am a programmer from a North American fest, and MOD LOVE was sent thru to me by our chief as a potential starter having preem'd at the far-away Moscow\/Karlovy Vary interface.

Straight away I thought \"this film is not for us\" (no dialogue by minute 15??) but kept watching anyway. Well, well, well. It built and built and built, and half way in I was involved in this film, because, like when you go to the zoo, at first you're reticent, but by the time you get to the dangerous snakes bit, you're totally 'there'.

This film has a dangerousness, not at all like the much hyped WolF Creek, but because it is so totally 'other' in every way shape and form, and seems to weave a web made up of all the fantasies of most independent first-time helmers ie. - gloomy weather, red-neck intrigue, odd splicing, eerie music, and a plot which, though imperfect and basic, has a bit in common with one of the 'great Aussie Movies' ie The Cars That Ate Paris, by Wier. But MODERN LOVE is actually not really a very Aussie movie in the sense of Ocker-ishness and playful self-deprecation that pervades many of that country's films. It works on a more nightmarish realm from the start. No cell-phones, no brand names, no i-pods, no gritty urban middle\/class angst - just a dude married to a good-looker, an old Volvo, and a little boy (son) who has weird teeth and chucks stuff around. Oh and it's set in weird sea-side village where people all look slightly 'wrong.' Photographed by Nick Matthews (2:37) and music by Tom Huzenroeder (Ten Canoes) MOD LUV succeeds where many Aust. movies fail - ie it stands up without regard to the \"god-forsaken\" country that it comes out of. Instead, it revels in a warped but entertaining riddle which the film itself cannot solve - and herein lies the weak link...what on earth does this film have to do with \"Modern Love\"???? The final minutes of the film seem to give an answer, or at least hints at one....and as I sat and drank a coffee and ate my Hershey's afterwards, all that I could surmise was that this film's helmer, Alex Frayne, will prob have a lot of fun with this one.\/","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am surprised that there is confusion over the title of this film. Quite obviously, it is an investigation into the nature of modern love. It is suggesting that love is love while the going is good, but one in which people reserve the right to put themselves first, and if the going gets tough, they get out and go onto something else.

This observation has generational implications, as it is coming from Generation X, makes comment on Generation X, and in the end is aimed at Generation X. It expresses disappointment that love has transformed from that which the Baby Boomers, the parents of Generation X, had engendered in their marriages and family lives, and which gave Generation X the innocent and bountiful childhood it ultimately enjoyed.

The Generation X attitude to love is, of course, flippant, but as decisions are made and commitments are broken, the biggest casualty are the children of Generation X. This is made clear at the end of the film, and was so pungent I took a week to recover from the shock I received from this epiphany.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a nice film. It had a interesting storyline, that was executed pretty well in the later part of the film. The storyline kinda reminded me of The City of God. But this one is done in a more nicer way in comparison. It had what i really loved:a tinge of surrealism. Some pretty interesting cinematography (thru the wooden camera) I'm not sure if it was culturally correct, but it definitely widens you're view of south Africa. The actors were good (for 1st timers, most of them anyway), i especially liked Estelle character, which made this movie pretty enjoyable. What is interesting though, was that it makes you ask about your own life. Are you really doing what you really love? Or do you consent to the norm, the conventionalism around you. Definitely worth a watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a random rental at the video store. But I was impressed from the start. Wooden Camera is a gem of a 2nd feature by an engaging director. The film captures deeply insightful moments and several often times frustrating and complicated social interactions young interracial friends would experience in a modern post apartheid South Africa. The young actors are quite good and well directed in their approach to the core material and the dialogue is natural and interesting. The film is very rich in visuals providing a frame by frame study of deeper understanding and fulfillment without falling into iconic stereotypes and clich\u00e9s. The musical score to the film adds body to the film without being obtrusive. After watching it the second time, I tracked down the DVD on amazon and have been happy ever since.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, maybe there are parts of this film which require suspending belief a little but that doesn't take anything away from the film's charm and wonder. It was shown as part of our town's youth film festival and was the organising committee's favourite. Which is not surprising. The subject matter - coming together in a race-torn, though post-apartheid South Africa is highly topical and the treatment of the theme is inspirational. Of course, as the previous comment mentions the film does have its shortcomings, but the realism of the setting and the way the director treats his subject matter belies these shortcomings. I saw this with my wife and we returned the same evening with the children. A film to watch, meditate, discuss and act upon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed very much the movie wooden camera. I think it's a little bit influenced by the Brazilian movie \"City of God\", but maybe this parallelism between the two tracks possible to follow (crime and art) in social neighborhood are a reality.

I think the films made by Madiba are really beautiful. I don't think it's unreal that he shoot such good films, because there's a lot of artists that don't have any type of education and can be really genius.

I enjoyed very much the soundtrack. It's adjusted to the pictures.

See the movie...it's good to show how can be a life in a social neighborhood.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is amazing, while not perfect by Hollywood standards it encompasses a gentle look at the wide divide between rich and poor, black and white that is true in many parts of the world. It handles the audience with kid gloves while delivering a truthful look at societal problems. The children are beautiful, take special note of the young man who plays Sipho. The friendships that develop are universally true, anyone can relate to the choices these young people have to make. The influence of adults is interesting - it appears to be taken from real life experiences as there are snip-its of conversations and interactions-much like a child would remember experiencing. I would highly recommend this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One should not be too critical about the director's second feature.

I really like the camera work of Madiba. As Mr. Shawn pointed out, he had a unique way of looking at things.

However, howcome a 14 year old boy shoot such beautiful images? Remember he has not got any education of any sort. I don't think english is the common tongue in Cape Town ghettos. Worse still, Madiba looks even smaller than his supposed age of 14.

Any way, if you overcome above-mentioned peculiarities, you can watch the film and still enjoy it because of nice camera work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is by far the most definitive film on the police force which I have seen. Although not directed by Ram Gopal Varma, it has all the elements of an RGV film. Dead straight dialogues, blunt treatment of the subject, brilliant direction, and superb performances (even by those with little job to do in the movie). The chemistry between Nana and the Don, even if they are professional rivals, is amazing. And so are the small events like an insider not giving information to Imtiaz even while he is being bashed up in the locker, but only to Nana when he is out. The change in working conditions with the change of the senior is dealt wonderfully. The first half keeps one absolutely engrossed, moving like a documentary with Nana acting like a mentor to Jatin explaining to him the intricacies and philosophy of the work.

Overall one of the most brilliant films on cops in Indian cinema. Definitely not to be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I still remember watching Satya for the first time. I was completely blown away. Here was a movie that was very different so from the other Gangster films that I had seen. So realistic, so Mumbaiyya and so believable. Despite \"Company\" (which was a very good effort) and \"Vaastav\" (more focused on the journey of the protagonist) which came close, no underworld movie could ever live up to Satya.

When I watched Ab Tak 56 for the first time, I said to myself \"Indian Cops have their own 'Satya' now\". The quote by Nietzsche in the beginning itself tells you that this is no ordinary film. What strikes you about the \"encounter\" at the start of the film is the relaxed manner in which it is carried out. There is a cold and scary feel to it cos you realize that it is part of their routine.

Ab Tak 56 is not the story of an honest cop or a corrupt cop but of a cop who is ready to do what it takes to get rid of the criminals when all lawful means are exhausted. With simple shots and camera angles, director Shimit Amin manages to capture the essence of the characters and gives a realistic and rough feel to the movie. Editing seems non-existent and hence effective. The music is also impressive and haunting and stays with you long after you've left the movie hall.

But for me, what really takes the cake are the dialogues and the superlative acting from each and every character. Sandeep Srivastava has done a brilliant job as the dialogue writer. If I start listing my favourite dialogues, I'm afraid I'll end up re-writing the entire script of the movie.

The movie boasts of some stellar performances. Yashpal Sharma is detestable as Sub-Inspector Imtiaz Siddiqui and so is Jeeva as Joint Commissioner Suchak. Revathi, Hrishita Bhatt, Mohan Agashe and Kunal Vijaykar have small roles which they play to perfection. Nakul Vaid as the rookie Jatin Shukla was a revelation. The scene where he has to hesitantly shoot the wounded gangster \u0096 Oh My God! He learns under the tutelage of Sadhu Aghashe and firmly believes in him.

Prasad Purandhare as Zameer Zafar is impressive. His conversations with Sadhu are real jewels of dialogue writing. Never before in Indian cinema has any film brought out such a beautiful relation between a cop and a gangster.

Not that I have not been a fan of Nana Patekar before this film but this film pushed me from a fan to a devotee. Nana as Inspector Sadhu Agashe gives the performance of a lifetime and one of the best I've ever seen in Hindi cinema. From the way he talks to his expressions, from the way he taps his cigarette to the way sips his tea \u0096 it's almost as if Nana can do no wrong. He is at his best in each and every scene especially when he's teaching Jatin about how the police force functions. His cool and composed manner of doing things is scary at times. His dialogue delivery and body language had me convinced that he is one of the finest actors in the country. It's a shame that he did not win any popular awards for this one.

Last but in no way the least, Shimit Amin does a brilliant job of bringing all this talent together and exploiting them to the fullest to come up with a modern masterpiece of Indian cinema. In an industry that is sickeningly accustomed to lifting stories from here and there, Amin takes an original script and brings it to life with a beautiful treatment. I just hope that he continues the great work and doesn't give in to Bollywood-isation! If he can do that, I'm sure he'll be a force to reckon with in the coming years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nana Patekar once again proves that he is the best actor working in Bombay without a doubt. His recent movies involved shouting his lines that does not bode well for the theater trained thespian. One wonders why he is always not given his accolades during awards season.

\"Shakti-The Power\" was one of his flicks that was an utter disapointment along with Kohram (a missed oppurtunity to create screen magic with Amitabh Bachchan).

But Patekar exudes a cool calm in this film playing a cop on a sort of social justice journey. Ridding the streets of Bombay of underworld dons in fake encounters, Patekars character takes control of the screen (and the viewers attention) and never lets go. The editing is tightly paced and there are no annoying songs to distract from the story.

Along the same lines as the modern day cult classic \"Company\", the movie is well acted, directed and should have a long shelf life on DVD.

The final ten minutes that see Nana and the main villain talk at his offshore haven are bound to be part of Hindi cinema classics. Won't be dissapointed with this cops and robbers flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I almost stopped watching Hindi movies because of the mediocre quality and story lines. One exception for this is Ramgopal Verma movies. This is a nice movie with great performances from the star cast. This is must see movie for those who are sick of watching stupid dancing and love stories. The adaptation of the story and characterization was exceptional good.You should watch this movie for Nana Patekar. based on the life of Mumbai cop Daya Naik this movie deals in a more realistic way. The film delves into the life of the common man, which he has apart from being an encounter specialist. I rate this as one of the best movie of the year","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love the way he experiments. Ab Tak Chappan was a thrill to watch just as much Satya and company was. Jatin the new comer also lived up to his role and Nana Patekar was at his best. Suchak was really irritating but I think he fit the character he was playing - he had really ugly teeth. The story has a great progress and no songs in the movie makes it better. I only wish he signs up Urmila for his other up coming movies. I think they are the best director and actress combination I have seen. I have not seen Naach as yet but I am looking forward for it. I for some reason don't find Antra Maali that exciting to watch on the screen - unlike Urmila.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No music. No stupid masala. A reasonably realistic portrayal of the police system in India and based on a real \"encounter\" specialist in India, Daya Nayak. That is Ab Tak 56 (56 symbolises how many criminals the lead \"Sadhu Agashe\" has killed\" - well you already know that bit)Brilliance exudes Nan Patekar in the role as a relaxed and calculating Indian cop. THe one liners are just hilarious. The plot though slightly predictable on review, is intriguing all the same. Another one of the films from Ram Gopal Vermas The Factory. Movies which are either decent or really good, Ab Tak CHappan meanders close to very good. But yet remains one of the Top 70 films released from India, commercial and artsy included.

What is great is the story telling is relaxed and showcases finally (in an Indian flick) how the police network works. The cast is really damn good but seriously the one liners are funny as hell (though i dont know if the subtitled version will appear as funny) The producers are trying for a Cannes release, which is interesting. Made by debut director Shamit Aman (i think thats his name).

Again 55 y.o. Nana Patekar is brilliant away from his silly shouting roles of the past, just shows what a good director can do with a good actor. Really good stuff. If you are interested in Indian movies and are disgusted by the nonsense some of our guys dish out then this is definitely a relief.

Again Patekar is the guy who happilly carries the movie on his shoulders and epitomises the style of the movie- relaxed, funny, intelligent and calculating. Good dialoges, good acting, nice direction all in all Great stuff. Recommendations: Gangaajal, Ram Gopal Verma's Company (both Indian flicks)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Satya was excellent.... Company was just as good but more polished, probably owing to the money earned from previous movies. Ab Tak Chappan however is even more entertaining. The dialogue is gritty, crude and at times hilarious. Nana Pataker shines yet again in a role that only he can fulfill with authority but the supporting cast are very talented. Direction is tight and the story evolves at a satisfying pace with a very dramtic climax. As a depiction of reality it may be over-dramatised but at the end of the day it's a movie so the balance is spot-on. I've ordered my DVD and can't wait to see it again at home. As a lover of these type of gangster flicks, this is very gratifying and comes highly recommended for the refreshingly \"non-Yash Raj\" Bollywood gangster flick lovers out there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is by far one of the best films that India has ever made. Following are the plus points of the film...

Wonderful direction, cinematography and editing, the editing is very smooth and the timing of changeovers is excellent.

Even though the film shows the life of Mumbai Policemen and their hardships, it never gets boring or sympathetic.

Mind-blowing acting by lead actor Nana Patekar. One can surely hope that he gets nominated for the Best actor for the academy awards.

Controlled violence. The violence is controlled and the film doesn't become a bloody mess.

No stupid songs as in usual Indian movies.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A really realistic, sensible movie by Ramgopal Verma . No stupidity like songs as in other Hindi movies. Class acting by Nana Patekar.

Much similarities to real 'encounters'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ab Tak Chhappan is a fictitious story surrounding a police department in Mumbai, India. Sadhu Agashe is a hard working, hard-edged cop heading up a plain clothed crime squad who makes a name for himself by killing dangerous criminals in staged police encounters rather than locking them up in prison. His loyal officers obey him without question but a rift forms when one of his officers, Imtiaz, becomes frustrated by Sadhu's high ranking status and is secretly competing with him for criminal kills and status. A new recruit is also pushed into the fraternity and Imtiaz is angry when Sadhu allows him to take the lead on his first case. Further change comes in the form of a new police commissioner who disapproves of Sadhu's tactics and everyone gets caught up in internal politics.

I was surprised to see such a well directed action thriller coming from India. The camera work is excellent, the story is well told and the tension is high when the drama unfolds. The acting, pace and political subterfuge convinces the viewer that they are a fly on the wall witnessing the blood, sweat and tears from a close up and personal view and that the events are based on reality which is no doubt why we are told that it is not at the beginning of the film although it is likely that the director, Shimit Amin, has taken liberties with factual accounts. Nevertheless, Ab Tak Chhappan is an extremely polished piece of film-making.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once again I must play something of the contrarian. Most of the reviews for Ab Tak Chappan have been extremely positive. Mine is positive, but only slightly. A 7 out of 10 is equivalent to a \"C\" letter grade from me.

It seems that a lot of the praise is rooted in two factors: One, that Ab Tak Chappan is more realistic than the typical Bollywood film, and two, that it is trying to do things differently.

The first point I couldn't care less about. I'm not looking for realism in films, and so I do not score higher for a film that shows a story and characters closer to how I believe the real world to be--I'm a big fan of surrealism, fantasy, absurdism, and so on, although I do not dislike realist films merely for the fact that they're realist.

For the second point, I agree that it is commendable to try to do things differently. However, I don't think \"originality\" versus formulaicism makes for a better or worse film in itself. A film can be \"original\" and poor, just like a film can be formulaic and excellent. What matters are how well the film does whatever it sets out to do and how enjoyable or aesthetically rewarding that is to the viewer.

Ab Tak Chappan is based on the true story of a Mumbai cop named Daya Naik. Naik was an \"encounter specialist\". Encounter specialists, who could be said to be early instantiations of real world \"Judge Dredds\", are trained to operate like the criminals and gang members they pursue, and they're basically given a license to kill--effectively acting as policeman, judge, jury and executioner in a matter of moments. Ab Tak Chappan follows the story of Sadhu Agashe (Nana Patekar), the encounter specialist based on Naik. We see him at work, interacting with his fellow encounter specialists and engaging in violence. We see him at home, trying to live a normal life in his less-than-luxurious surroundings. We see him trying to adjust to a new \"commissioner\" halfway through the film. And we see his odd relationship with a notorious Indian gangster, Don Zameer Zafar (Prasad Purandhare).

All of this has the potential to make a fabulous, gritty film. I agree that it's nice to forgo the typical Bollywood musical numbers and romances--not every film needs that stuff; Ab Tak Chappan producer Ram Gopal Varma is famous for leaving music and romances in the background or by the wayside in many films that he's directed or produced. Additionally, Ab Tak Chappan has some good performances--Patekar almost gives off a Death Wish (1974)-era Charles Bronson vibe. It also has admirable cinematography--the hand-held stuff near the beginning of the film was particularly effective, for example. It has a great score that mixes more of a moody Hollywood-sounding action\/crime score with traditional Indian instruments and modalities. The violence is well done and gritty.

There is also decent exploration of subtexts, including the morality of (having) encounter specialists, the idea of following orders, and so on. The encounter specialists are shown having to largely divorce themselves from ideas of right and wrong. More poignantly, the film questions the merit of blindly following orders. Parallels are drawn between the encounter specialists following orders and, say, members of a country's military, and we're shown what a corrupt situation this can lead to.

But (you just knew there was a \"But\" coming, didn't you?) director Shimit Amin and his scriptwriters have created a story with far too many characters, far too much sprawl, and that moves a bit too slow. All of these problems may be due to Amin and crew looking at the Godfather films, which Ab Tak Chappan has some (at least superficial) resemblances to, although from a policeman's perspective.

Most of the encounter specialists we do not get to know very well--these are shallowly drawn characters to say the least, except for Agashe and Jatin Shukla (Nakul Vaid). For one, Narayan, I didn't know who he was until at least halfway through the film. His name is mentioned a number of times, but I'd only get glimpses of him until the scene would change. Then everyone would change clothes by the time they appear again and I'd have to start all over figuring out who Narayan was.

The same thing happened with Agashe's first commissioner. The film was already far into the new commissioner before I could figure out the relationships. It seems like there are new characters in every scene. We never learn the stories of most of them. While that might have some artistic merit in that the encounter specialists are mostly killing people they do not know anything about (because they're mostly doing so on orders), since we do not learn much about most of the encounter specialists, either, it's difficult to find characters to care about, and that doesn't exactly make for a gripping film.

The primary villain is Zameer. But until about halfway through the film, there's no indication of this. He doesn't get much more screen time than the other villains parading through the film, and he's literally \"phoning his performance in\"--he's in another location (Dubai), communicating only by telephone for the majority of the film. We don't actually see Zameer doing much. To an extent, the film depends on a couple \"twists\" that necessitate not showing Zameer doing a number of things, but we could see him do other things, and a lot of the other villains could have been left out.

That would have tightened up the film a bit, making it more focused and about a half-hour shorter, both of which would have benefited its impact. This is not an action-packed film by any means. For at least the first 45 minutes or so, I found myself admiring Ab Tak Chappan's considerable style, but saying, \"Okay, get on with the story already\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It would seem a given, but if a viewer forgets context, he risks missing an opportunity of enjoyment.

It is easy to carp, from the lofty heights of the 21st century, at styles and prices of the Great Depression years; but the intelligent viewer will remember that magic word, \"context,\" and better understand and, thus, enjoy \"Accidents Will Happen.\"

Among the actors, Ronald Reagan again showed himself a good-looking and personable guy, and again gave a right-on performance.

A reviewer earlier said Gloria Blondell played the nasty wife, but that was wrong: She plays the concession-stand clerk who has a crush on the Reagan character, Eric Gregg, but keeps hands off as long as he is married.

Gloria was cute. Not as lushly beautiful as her sister, Joan, she was still attractive and a good actress. Perhaps her looking somewhat like Joan was a detriment to having a more successful career, and it is certainly our loss.

Sheila Bromley was Mrs. Gregg, and played it well.

Other actors included Dick Purcell, and the great Earl Dwire got to play something besides a villainous cowboy.

Again, most of the players never attained the \"household-name\" status many of them deserved, but they by gosh gave good performances here, in a story that is still current.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Over the years I seemed to have missed this picture of Ronald Reagan, and due to his recent passing to the big screen in heaven, it was shown on TV recently. This is a great low budget B&W film of the late 1930's, however, it is very interesting to see how criminals used their talents to steal money from insurance companies with false claims during this particular time frame. I was surprised at the role Ronald Reagan,(Eric Gregg),\"The Killer's,'64, played in this picture, along with a great veteran film star, Sheila Bromley,(Nona Gregg),\"Nightmare Circus\",'73, who was a great supporting actor. It was a great film that showed Ronald Reagan as a very young man reaching for the stars in his career in Hollywood at the time. God Bless HIM !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at the 2004 Toronto International Film Festival. Since I work in the wine business, I had been quite eager to see this documentary, and I wasn't disappointed. Reportedly drawn from over 500 hours of footage, the good news is that Nossiter will be releasing not only a theatrical cut, but a ten-part, ten hour series of the film on DVD by next Christmas (ThinkFilm is distributing it). The bad news is that it's still a bit of an unwieldy beast. When it was shown in Cannes, it was close to three hours long. For Toronto, he's cut about half an hour but it still clocked in at 135 minutes. Now, for me, that's fine. I love wine and I love hearing about the controversies raging in my business. But not everyone wants that much.

Nossiter flits around the globe, from Brazil to France to California to Italy to Argentina, talking to wine makers and PR people and consultants and critics about the state of the wine world. The theme that emerges is that globalization and the undue influence of wine critic Robert Parker are forcing a kind of sameness on wine. Small local producers are either being bought up by larger conglomerates (American as well as local), or are being pressured by market forces to change their wines to suit the palate of Mr. Parker, who dictates taste to most of the American (and world) markets.

It's a complicated subject, and I can understand why Nossiter wants to let his subjects talk. There is Robert Mondavi, patriarch of the Napa wine industry, and his sons Tim and Michael, whose efforts to buy land in Languedoc faced opposition from local vignerons and government officials. There is Aim\u00e9 Guibert, founder and wine maker of Daumas Gassac, iconoclastic opponent of Mondavi's plans and crusader for wines that express local terror. There is Robert Parker himself, expressing some discomfort with his influence while refusing to stop writing about the wines that he favours. There is \"flying wine maker\" Michel Rolland, consultant for dozens of wineries all over the world, advising them how to make Parker- friendly wines. There are many many more fascinating personalities in this documentary.

If you are a wine lover, you will want to seek out the ten-part series as well as the theatrical version of this film. But even if you're not into wine, the film is an interesting look at how the forces of globalization are changing many of the world's oldest and most established traditions. The effects on local cultures and economies cannot be ignored.

(8\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this at the London Film Festival last night, apparently the shorter version. James McNally's summary of the content of the film is very good. Nossiter very deftly blends his investigation of the wine business into wider concerns about globalisation, homogenisation, the effect of the mass media, the power of capital and the need for diversity.

The film is shot on hand-held DV which some might find offputting, but which does enable Nossiter to catch people off guard on a number of occasions which probably would not have been possible using more conventional equipment.

Despite the sprawling feel of the film, the editing is very sharp, not only giving us a parade of the world's dogs, but also undercutting a number of interviewees' comments with somewhat contradictory visual images, and giving others sufficient rope to hang themselves. To a degree this evoked Michael Moore's recent work (although Nossiter operates in a more subtle way), but probably the roots of the film go back to Marcel Ophuls' \"The Sorrow and the Pity\", both in the way the film is constructed and in the emergence of 'salt of the earth' French peasants as the stars. De Montille pere et fils were present at the LFF screening and answered questions afterwards. We do indeed all need a little disorder - bravo Hubert!

Overall an excellent film with implications that go way beyond the world of wine into the way we construct ourselves as people, and organise our world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Business vs. personal conviction. Profit vs. art.

As with any documentary that pits the capitalist large corporations against the small producer, the viewer will invariably have to take the side of one or the other based on their own believes. This is as much a documentary of the new standardized way of doing things that globalization is bringing us, against the old traditional ways where character and the art of making things matters almost more than getting the product sold.

If you have to remember one thing from this movie, it is that the masses can no longer decide by themselves, they just follow the taste of one or a couple of critics that tend to equalize and standardize taste in the same way as MacDonalds used to do for the fast bite (something Parker himself admits to in the film against a backdrop of a Burger King sign). \"It is all about image\" against content as another interviewee says. That is the easy way, the standardized way. Easier than taking the time for a nice wine to mature, easier than to forge your own taste by trying and trying yet over again. Controlled branded taste is easier.

There is a glitter of hope when even some of our cousins across the ocean agree that a few people are \"levelling\" the taste of wines to maximize the profits and ensure a maximum of it gets sold to the \"grey masses\". Individuality and difference is sacrificed for the extra buck. It is nice to see that not everything or everyone is giving in to standardization, even across the ocean.

As in many other areas of today's world, dominance of a few and reduced freedom of choice impacts us all... let everyone make up their mind and decide what to go for. Too much standardization kills the mind and taste; difference brings innovation and healthy competition and will allow for choice - and not just vacuum-packed \"more of the same\". Standardization sells easily and a lot, and brings everyone to the same level - the lower one.

On this, I am going to open up a nice bottle and wish you a hearthy \"sante\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was expecting a lot from this movie, and I can say I haven't been disappointed. First of all, this movie, as a world tour of wine making, let the spectator enjoy beautiful places. The people interviewed are really interesting and funny too, in particular Hubert de Montille. The shooting may be confusing, the camera always being unsteady and often focusing on secondary elements in the backgrounds. You may not like it, but I don't consider it as a defect.

The themes raised in the movie may be kind of confusing as well, since globalization isn't the only issue discussed. But Nossiter managed to give his movie a consistency all along. A great achievement of this movie is revealing all the characters involved in the wine industry as they really are, avoiding a clich\u00e9 \"Good against Evil\". This could be the main difference between \"Mondovino\" and Michael Moore's documentaries; Nossiter's point of view appears in a subtle way, through opinions expressed by his favorite characters. The richness of this documentary relies mainly upon the characters, the history of long-time wine-making families, such as the De Montilles, the Mondavis, the Antinori and the Frescobaldi. Nossiter lets the spectator discover that wine is somehow related to families, rather than just being a business and an industry. This movie doesn't make you want to drink wine, but certainly make you want to discover vineyards and wine-makers.

I watched this movie as a student in Enology, and let's just there are many ways to learn. I give this documentary 10 out of 10, despite his technical particularities.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very interesting documentary - certainly a lot more than Sideways, a pseudo wino drama - where the capitalist conspiracy is revealed in all its greed. According to the documentary - and confirmed by the recent publication of a biography on Parker - only two men dictate the nature of wines in the world: Robert Parker of Massachussets and Michel Rolland, a French wine industry expert based in Bordeaux and also known as a \"flying winemaker\". The director is clever enough to insert interviews of local wine producers from many different regions of France, from Sicily to Argentina and interviews of the biggest players in the industry such as the Mondavi family to uncover the wraps on the globalization of wine making and marketing. A must see for anyone interested in the dark side of the industry. Drinking a glass of wine will not be the same political and commercial act after watching this well made documentray.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just saw this movie 2 days ago. A very interesting look at people and our world through the world of wine. I have no special interest in wine, and yet I found this very enlightening. The director gave me the impression that he has the ability to show people as they are. While he exposes a lot of things that are below the surface he manages not to take a stand and leave that for the viewer. He shows a lot of compassion to people (and dogs) and sympathy and let people tell their story and in the same time exposes what they don't want to tell.

The movie shows us where our world is going to, what are the benefits and what is the heavy price we pay. It is a movie about the love of wine and the love of making it big, personal and global, character and formula.

The real stars of the people for me are the older wine makers with their disillusioned look at the world and themselves.

It takes some time to get use to the hectic camera moves and editing, but it's worth it.

Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's not really about wine. No, Nossiter's real targets are those who would streamline and assimilate the peculiarities of local (wine) production for business purposes. To this end he has made an excellent, objective film. Spirited, bumptious, emotional and flawed independent wine producers are juxtaposed with media-finessed, anodynesprech Amercians and auld-Europeans: the art of wine-making against market-driven, laboratorised product manufacture. It's an open show that doesn't lead conclusion.

Nossiter's film is occasionally infuriating to watch - cameras are neither concealed, nor steadicam, by any means. There are also plenty of captions as well as subtitles to wade through, often too short a time on screen.

However it does outdo Michael Moore at the game Moore can't play anyway. The characters speak for - and therefore condemn - themselves. Well worth a viewing 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"mondovino is a moving and rewarding documentary. in the world of wine there is a huge different between the big winery and the small one. it's not just about size of of your vineyard but also the amount of money and power you have. if you have enough money to place ads in the wine spectator and hire a so called \"wine except\" then it doesn't matter the size of your estate. also in business world of today wine often has to mass marketed and suited to people's taste. what is means many times wine filtered of it's origin. mondovino shows the commercial side of wine in that of mega producer Robert mondavi, and Michael Rolland the wine expert who shapes wine to the taste of today's critics like Robert parker who is also in the film. now these men are not evil or wrong for they have done a great deal of good for wine. but they have power on a grand scale. as we all know power corrupts. mondovino also shows small wine makers such as Aime Guilbert of the languedoc and Hubert de montille of volnay in burgundy. these wine makers are not starving wine makers but they know like all great wine makers that it's about where the grapes are from. the best example of this is explained not by a wine maker but by a Haitian man working for Neal rosenthal the wine importer. the area the grapes are grown the terroir that matters, that a guiding hand that knows this makes important real wine.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Our reviewer from Toronto told you what you need to know about this film (except note that it needs editing-the hand held technique gets really old, really fast). I saw this film last night in Menerbes, France-we are in the Luberon Valley, which is covered with vineyards and of course wine makers. They were all there in the Salle de Polyvalente for the showing-crammed in. Polite, patient, genial. Although my French is testy, I got the gist of the film but noted that the audience loved the \"old\" terror growers interviewed-esp. the one from a communist village in Languedoc. He got a lot of laughs. This is unusual in France-laughing aloud. There is no question which side of the terror-globalization war they are on! SM","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First, I loved the documentary. It represents a new school history\/theory where a subject can reflect a wide range of social and historical issues.

I'll get the camera and dogs out of the way first. I hate the Blair Witch quality of the camera, but also understand the advantage of such a casual approach. In fact, I agree with the other reviewer that it gives us unprecedented access.

Dogs: Warning, I have a doctoral degree in literature which I do NOT use as a profession, so some of my training may seep in: The dogs are a beautiful metaphor for the complex relationship of human's great endeavors and our need to find the labor to achieve them. The dogs might reflect their owners, as one reviewer suggested. But they also serve as a stand-in for the workers we see in the film. While this might hint at the Marxist problem raised by one reviewer, I think it also shows how difficult it is to globalize labor issues. No Mondovi's in Italy may not translate as well elsewhere. (Yikes! I am a Marxist at heart and hate to hear my cynical resignation hold sway!) It is a remarkable bait and switch. The dogs are family, the workers are family. But, in the end, the dogs are the workers (the last scene with the poor farmer). While you may disagree with the politics, the artistry of the analogy, coupled with the more overt politics of the film, are wonderful.

Had only Faulkner (I am from Alabama) had the power of film beyond the Hollywood market, what interesting tales would have been told.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Christmas gift arrived courtesy of TCM. We had never seen the film, even though we have seen most of the films of Barbara Stanwyck. This comedy made us laugh so much, that at times, we had to restrain ourselves, in order to hear the dialog.

This is a movie that should be seen by people suffering from stressful situations, especially around Christmas. It would certainly lift one's spirits by just letting go. The movie would make a perfect gift in the form of a DVD, or a VHS tape.

\"Christmas in Connecticut\" was directed with great panache by Peter Godfrey, based on a story by Aileen Hamilton.

The best thing in the movie is the felicitous pairing of two of the most popular stars of that era: Barbara Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan. Barbara Stanwyck always played strong willed women, obviously, this was a change of pace for her. In this film, as well as \"Lady Eve\", Ms. Stanwyck displays a knack for comedy. She and Mr. Morgan, who played in a lot of musical comedies, make a winning combination.

There are no weak performances in the film. Sydney Greenstreet, an actor notorious for playing 'heavies', is a delight to watch as the rich, and fat, Alexander Yardley, the man who owned a media empire and who knew a good thing when he saw it. Reginald Gardiner, an accomplished English actor, adds luster to the stellar cast behind the two principals.

S. Z. Sakall, is another source of continuous mirth; he plays the Hungarian chef Felix,who has a hard time with his own version of the English language. Also, Una O'Connor makes a perfect Norah, the housekeeper in the Sloan perfect Connecticut farm.

In reading other comments in this forum, it's sad to learn that the glorious black and white cinematography is not appreciated by some people. After all, color was not widely used in the 40s, and most of the classic movies have to be seen in its original format because, what would be accomplished in 'coloring' them?

This film should be a requirement for anyone looking to spend almost two hours of uninterrupted fun at Christmas time because total merriment is assured. Watch it with an open mind and heart an maybe you'd like to see \"Christmas in Connecticut\" every year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film about 15 years ago, and I have been enchanted by it ever since. It is such a feel-good experience, that I could happily watch it at any time of the year. However, to me, it is the ultimate Christmas movie.

The fact that it is in B&W is irrelevant - although I often wonder what it would be like in colour. You can just get that warm, glowing feeling watching the Christmas events unfold.

Stanwyck and Morgan are perfect together, and Greenstreet is the antithesis of his usual character, Sakall is a blustering joy to watch.

It is light relief and certainly does not tax the brain, but leaves you feeling glad that you saw it.

I can't wait for it to become available on DVD in the UK. I shall certainly be at the front of the queue to buy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the perspective of the hectic, contemporary world in which we live, the so called `good old days' always seem so much more serene and innocent; an idyllic era gone by of which we have only memories and shadows that linger on the silver screen, as with `Christmas In Connecticut,' a warm and endearing film directed by Peter Godfrey. Barbara Stanwyck stars as Elizabeth Lane, a popular `Martha Stewart' type magazine columnist who writes about life on her beloved farm in Connecticut, always with the latest recipe at the center of the story. One of her biggest fans is Alexander Yardley, played by Sidney Greenstreet, the publisher of the magazine for which she writes. Yardley has never visited her farm, and in response to an idea expressed to him in a letter from a nurse, Mary (Joyce Compton), he decides to spend an old fashioned Christmas with Elizabeth, her husband and child and, as a special guest, a certain Mr. Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), a sailor just recovered from spending fifteen days at sea on a raft after his ship was torpedoed. Elizabeth of course cannot refuse her boss, but there are problems; not the least of which is the fact that she has no farm and writes her column from the comfort of a high-rise in the city. It makes for a precarious situation for her as well as her editor, Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne), as the one thing Mr. Yardley demands from his employees is total honesty. What follows is a charming and delightfully romantic comedy that transports the audience back to a seemingly more simple time and place, to share a Christmas Past where a warm hearth, good food and kindness prevail.

Barbara Stanwyck absolutely sparkles as Elizabeth, with a smile and presence warmer than anything the grandest hearth could provide, and totally convincing as a city girl entirely out of her element on the farm. Morgan also fares well as the somewhat naive sailor, whose trust in his fellow man is admirable. Even with the deceptions being played out around him, he's the kind of guy you know will somehow land on his feet, and in the end it's Elizabeth you really feel for. One of the true delights of this film, however, is Sidney Greenstreet. His Yardley has a gruff exterior, but beneath you know without a doubt that this is a man with a heart as big as Texas. It's a straightforward, honest portrayal, and it's a joy to watch him work; the most memorable scenes in the movie belong to him.

The supporting cast includes Reginald Gardiner (John Sloan), the terrific Una O'Connor (Norah), Frank Jenks (Sinkewicz) and Dick Elliott (Judge Crothers). A feel-good movie that plays especially well during the Christmas Season (though it would work any time of the year), `Christmas In Connecticut' is a memorable film that never takes itself too seriously, is thoroughly uplifting and will leave you with a warm spot in your heart and a sense of peace that makes the world seem like a good place to be. It's a true classic, and one you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10\/10.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At the time that this movie was made most housewives knew exactly who Barbara Stanwick was parodying.Today only some women over 50 probably remember Gladys Taber,whose column \"Butternut Wisdom\" ran in Family Circle Magazine from before World War II until the 1970's.She lived on Stillmeadow Farm in Conecticut,and her columns were collected into a number of books,Stillmeadow Seasons, Stillmeadow Daybook, etc. The lines that Barbara Stanwick recites as she types them for her column are quite typical of the ones that began a typical Gladys Taber column.Besides cooking and country living,she got rather nostalgic and philosophical at times.She talked a lot about her favorite dogs, mostly cocker spaniels.You might say that Martha Stewart is the Gladys Tabor of today.

Christmas is Connecticut may not be any cinematic masterpiece,but it is pleasant,lighthearted entertainment,soothing to the stressed out mind,and that is good enough","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Forget Jimmy Stewart reliving his life and opt for this smart comedy of errors instead. I suppose only institutionalized sexism explains why this flick and Stanwyck's other great Christmas story, \"Meet John Doe\" aren't revered with the same level of love as...well, you know it's name.

Stanwyck plays a food writer for a McCall's-type rag who has been lying for years to her pompous publisher about the folksy setting for her recipes. She's an ace b.s. artist until the day Morgan's sailor is pulled from the ocean after 18 days afloat & 6 weeks recuperation in a Navy hospital. Released the last year of WWII, the film is dusted with subtle patriotic gestures and holiday nostalgia but never sinks to sentimentality. Stanwyck is sexy and sassy as always and meets her match in the hunky Morgan with whom it's love at first sight. Unfortunately, she has to play married to Gardiner's prissy architect who actually has been seeking her hand for years at his farm in CT, just to fool her boss.

S.Z. Sakall adds a great deal of Hungarian malaprop & double-entendre humor in support as Babs' true source of culinary talent & Una O'Connor is hilarious as Gardiner's obnoxious Irish housekeeper.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It finally hit me watching my VHS of Christmas in Connecticut what other film this one reminded me of. If it weren't for the fact that the other was done 20 years later, I'd say it was a remake.

Just as Rock Hudson was a phony fishing expert for Abercrombie&Fitch who had to get some on the job training at a fishing tournament, Barbara Stanwyck plays an forties version of Martha Stewart.

Stanwyck's a cooking columnist who's built up this whole image of living on a small Connecticut farm with husband and baby cooking all these marvelous delicacies. Trouble is she's unmarried, childless, writes her column from her apartment in New York and doesn't know how to boil water. But her writing is a hit with the public.

Trouble comes when she's hijacked into cooking a home Christmas dinner for a war hero sailor played by Dennis Morgan who gets to sing a couple of songs as well. Got to keep up the image at any cost. And her publisher Sidney Greenstreet likes the idea so well that he invites himself to the dinner.

So with borrowed farm, baby, and Reginald Gardiner who'd like to make it real with Stanwyck she tries to brazen it through.

Christmas in Connecticut's now a Yuletide classic and deservedly so. The leads are warm and human and they get great support from the assembled players. S.Z. Sakall as the Hungarian restaurant owner\/friend of Stanwyck from whom she gets her cooking information and Una O'Connor as the housekeeper have a nice chemistry between them. Reginald Gardiner and Stanwyck have no chemistry at all, obvious to all but Reggie and he's funny in his stuffed shirt way.

Most people remember this film as one of Sidney Greenstreet's few ventures into comedy. If he's not an outright villain, a cynical observer of life or a tyrannical tycoon, Greenstreet is few other things on screen. Christmas in Connecticut gave him a rare opportunity to burlesque his own image and he made the most of it.

In a biography of Barbara Stanwyck, she mentions she enjoyed making Christmas in Connecticut as a welcome change from some villainous parts like Double Indemnity she'd been doing recently. One of the things that made doing the film so enjoyable was that between takes, director Peter Godfrey and Greenstreet would do some impromptu entertaining of cast and crew with English Music Hall numbers. Made for a relaxed and warm set and the cast responded accordingly.

Now if only someone had been filming those numbers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Make sure you make this delightful comedy part of your holiday season! If you admire Dennis Morgan or Barbara Stanwyck, this film is a fun one to watch. They really work well together as you would see in this movie. The whole cast was very entertaining. Since I'm a Dennis Morgan fan, this film was a real treat! But...everyone can enjoy it! Recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's fun and fast paced, as one falsehood leads to another and another toward an inevitable, surprising conclusion. The suspense separates this Holiday flick from all others. One wonders how the pieces are going to fit, both during the movie and in the future.

The character actors laid the foundation and entertained us in the process. Sinkewicz (Frank Jenks) shows us what manipulation can get...and ultimately what manipulation can cost! Uncle Felix (S.Z. Sakall) sizes up each person for us while trying to protect \"Lishka\" (Barbara Stanwyck), and this helps us decide who we are going to root for in the end.

If we could ever achieve a perfect world, imperfect people would likely have to undergo a series of events such as these.

A glaring weakness is that fake baby cry after it allegedly swallowed Uncle Felix's watch. I've heard more authentic crying from a doll in a toy store.

Watch it, and you'll really feel like you've been somewhere!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Given the acting roles he played in the 1940s (Casper Gutman, Signior Ferrari, Mr. Peters, Jerome K. Arbutny, Ex-Superintendent Grodman, Count Fosco, Titus Semple) it surprises many of his fans to learn that originally Sidney Greenstreet made a name for himself in comedies in the West End and Broadway. He was usually such a total villain, or serious actor to the public that his comic talents were ignored. In fact he actually did make four comedy appearances (one a spoof of his villainous portrayals with his villainy partner Peter Lorre in a cameo appearance). His best total film appearance in a comedy was probably that of magazine publisher Alexander Yardley in \"Christmas In Connecticut\" (although his autocratic, half-mad soap tycoon in \"The Hucksters\" is a close second). Despite some problems with the screenplay, it is a good film, and usually revived in the Christmas season.

Elizabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck) writes a column in \"American Housekeeping\" magazine for Yardley, where she gives household tips and cooking recipes. She is the 1945 version of Martha Steward, except that Ms Steward is a cook and house-owner, and can vouch for trying out and testing what she advocates. Stanwyck can't. Her cooking recipes are those of her friend Felix (S.Z. Sakall), a gourmet chef and restaurateur. The house she describes as her home (a model farmhouse in Connecticut) belongs to her unofficial boyfriend, architect John Sloan (Reginald Gardiner). Gardiner really would not mind marrying Stanwyck, but she is not fully ready to consider a final commitment to him.

As the film begins, an American is shipwrecked by the Nazis. This is Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), a sailor. He spends two weeks in a raft before being rescued. Sensing publicity value, Greenstreet decides to grant Morgan's wish to have a genuine old fashioned Christmas in Connecticut. He basically tells Stanwyck that she will entertain Morgan and himself at her farm for the holidays. Stanwyck is unable to explain that the columns image of herself (complete with her ability to flip flap-jacks, and raise a baby she supposedly had with her husband) is a lie - if she does she will be fired, as will her immediate boss Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne). In a moment of depression she accepts Gardiner's proposal of marriage, and then Gardiner finds his Connecticut home is dragooned into becoming the \"actual\" home of Stanwyck and himself and \"their baby\".

Of course, aside from putting off Greenstreet's meddling curiosity, Stanwyck and Morgan find that they are falling in love (much to the annoyance of Gardiner - he does actually expect that Stanwyck will still marry him). Complication following complication occurs, as lies piles on lies, and as neighbor's babies succeeds neighbor's babies, before Greenstreet begins to wonder if he is missing something. But it is a comedy, so everything works out well. Even Greenstreet, at the conclusion, is amused by the entire madness - his celebrated hearty chortle mirroring that of Santa Clause for a change. This is not a classic comedy, certainly not a great one, but amusing enough for the season to be worth watching in December.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is one of my favorite Christmas classics. Sure, it's fluff, it's not \"relevant\", but when did movies being simply entertaining and fun become a bad thing? No, this movie is definitely \"A Good Thing\" as Martha Stewart(appropriately)would say! Barbara Stanwyck is so appealing in this film and Dennis Morgan perfectly compliments her. Both of them have charm and warmth to spare. They are assisted by a crew of those incredible character actors who seem to have disappeared since the 40's and 50's--Sydney Greenstreet, S.Z.(Cuddles)Sakall, Reginald Gardiner and Una O'Connor among them. Where are characters like this today? Not one role could have been better cast. Bette Davis thankfully refused this role as beneath her and she was right to refuse it. She would have attempted to steam roll over everyone and everything around her and completely destroyed the film. Stanwyck was a strong actress, but had the wisdom to play this lightly. She has seldom been more appealing and is pitch perfect. Morgan is the essence of the nice guy. Because his part is the least splashy there is a tendency to overlook his skill. Just the fact that he could hold his own surrounded by such distinct character actors is an accomplishment in itself, but he too is absolutely perfect as Jefferson Jones. Skip the ill advised(and pointless)1992 remake and watch this bright, sparkling holiday gift!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Personally, I don't like a lot of b\/w movies, but there's something magical about this movie.

The movie starts with Elizabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck). \"Liz\" writes a magazine column about how she's the 'Martha Stewart' of Connecticut. Of course, she's lying. This becomes a problem when her publisher, Mr Yardley, asks her to play host to a NAVY sailor over Christmas. In addition, Mr Yardley, who's going to be alone for Christmas, invites himself up to the farm for the Christmas party. From there, things just go crazy.

Since the movie is set on a New England farm, the movie has a warm holiday feeling. Plus, the characters are hilarious. Mr. Yardley is always shouting orders, and Liz's friend Felix is always yelling 'Catastroph!' when things go wrong. Finally, the movie ends the way a Christmas movie should end; a jolly fat man laughs and shouts \"What a Christmas!\"

In short, no matter what age you are, you will love this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Barbara Stanwyck is a sheer delight in this wartime comedy, about a sailor invited to spend Christmas with a popular magazine writer's family, at her farm in Connecticut. The problem is she has no husband, baby, or farm, as she writes about in her column, and she can't even cook; her wonderful recipes being provided for her by her good friend \" Uncle\" Felix, owner of a Hungarian restaurant in New York City.

Things get even more complicated when her strict publisher boss invites himself along for Christmas. A scheme is hastily planned, with her stuffy fianc\u00e9 providing an actual Connecticut farm, neighbors providing a borrowed baby, and a quick wedding planned when the publisher isn't looking. But when the handsome young sailor arrives on Christmas Eve, romantic complications ensue, as the supposedly married author falls like a ton of bricks for the nice guy Navy man and vice versa.

This is a charming, warm film that deftly balances humor with sentiment and is a wonderful showcase for Barbara Stanwyck to display her considerable comedic talent, aided by such marvelous character actors as Sydney Greenstreet, Una O'Connor, S.Z.Sakall, and many others. A Christmas night dance at the town hall is a toe tapping delight to see, and the unexpectedly sweet and feminine side of Stanwyck is a wonderful surprise, for viewers who have seen her mainly as tough, bitchy women in femme fatale roles. Truly a wonderful film that has stood the test of time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have always loved old movies but this is one of my top ten favorites...it has all the charm, 1940's quaintness, and good old fashioned romance and it's hilarious, to boot! Barbara Stanwick plays an independent single woman who writes cooking\\home life articles for a famous magazine...under the premise that she is a married homemaker. Even the president of the magazine is under this delusion. Enter a handsome GI, (played by the talented Dennis Morgan)just rescued off of a raft along with his buddy. His simple wish is to stay at the homey Inn the she writes so eloquently about and relax with her famous home-cooked meals. She now has to frantically find a way to save her job and reputation...add to this that her fianc\u00e9 is in a hurry to tie the knot doesn't help. The humor is superb and the chemistry between the leading characters a lot of fun. Throw in the character-actor nicknamed \"Cuddles\" (who fits this name completely) it becomes even more adorable. This has become my must-see movie that I snuggle in with a cup of cocoa each Christmas season. A wonderful, enjoyable movie to enjoy at Christmastime or anytime!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a wonderful old fashioned Christmas favorite, which I try to catch on TV every year if I can. It revolves around a Martha Stewart like journalist named Elizabeth Lane, charmingly portrayed by Barbara Stanwyck. However, in contrast to Martha, this lady is a phony with no domestic skills whatsoever. The other cast members effectively complete the story, and include Dennis Morgan (Jefferson Jones), Reginald Gardiner (John Sloan), and Sydney Greenstreet (Alexander Yardley).

Elizabeth Lane is a journalist who writes food articles, portraying herself as a happily married country homemaker with children. In reality, she is a single woman living in a New York City apartment and cannot boil an egg. Her recipes are borrowed from her Hungarian chef friend, Felix. Elizabeth gets away with her deception until the publisher of her magazine, Alexander Yardley, decides he wants a nice old fashioned country Christmas, and invites himself to visit her, bringing with him a returning war hero, Jefferson Jones, a sailor who had been shipwrecked. Yardley demands total honesty of his employees. To get out of her predicament and save her deception based career, Elizabeth borrows the Connecticut country home of her longtime architect suitor, John Sloan, a dull, fussy chap who has long sought marriage. She also borrows a neighbour's baby (actually, several) to pass off as her own and her 'husband' Sloan's.

Of course this scenario makes for much merriment. It's a screwball comedy and a charming romance, with the added attraction of a Christmas atmosphere. Whenever I think of this movie, I picture the snowflakes falling, the tree beautifully decorated, the fire roaring in the hearth, the turkey roasting, and Christmas cookies baking.

Why did Hollywood feel compelled to do a remake? I understand there is a 1992 version, directed by Arnold Schwarzenegger and starring Dyan Cannon, Kris Kristofferson, and Tony Curtis. I have not seen this modern adaptation nor do I wish to. This old favorite is perfect just the way it is and a holiday 'must see' along with It's a Wonderful Life, White Christmas, Miracle on 34th Street, and of course all the versions of A Christmas Carol.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though it's a Christmas movie, \"Christmas in Connecticut\" could have been done any time of year, as it's the story of a soldier who spends what is to be an idyllic time with a Martha Stewart type. That's what he thinks. In reality, the lady in question, portrayed by Barbara Stanwyck, has a popular magazine column about life on a farm with her husband and baby. She has no farm, no husband, and no baby, nor are the many recipes she publishes hers. They belong to the restaurant owner nearby. When her no-nonsense editor, Sydney Greenstreet, insists that she entertain soldier Dennis Morgan, she enlists the aid of her boyfriend to use his farm, and she transports herself and the restaurateur there. There's even a baby...well, actually, there's more than one. Chaos ensues, and the charade becomes increasingly difficult to play out, especially when Stanwyck falls in love with Morgan.

This is such a wonderful movie, and even if you're gravely depressed, \"Christmas in Connecticut\" can lift you right out of it. Barbara Stanwyck is wonderful as the career woman turned homemaker. Despite not being as flashy as Crawford or Davis, she was nevertheless able to do what any role called for - she could be cheap, elegant, warm, nasty, cold, and\/or sexy and she makes it look easy. On top of that, she is always attractive and alluring. Dennis Morgan is a handsome and charming solider; as an added bonus, he gets to use his Irish tenor. Fianc\u00e9 Reginald Gardner is all business, and you can tell he's not quite right for Stanwyck. S.Z. Sakall as the fake uncle\/real chef is hilarious, especially as he prays Stanwyck can flip a pancake before an audience.

I can imagine the impact this delightful film had at the tail end of World War II. It must have been a real beacon for the better times to come.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I came across this movie back in the mid eighties as a teenager and it immediately became one of my favorite holiday and non-holiday films. As you can tell from the other reviews this movie has a very good story line and great actors signed on for it.

Stanwyck is great as bride to be that is having second thoughts. Dennis Morgan's acting is strong also. He goes unnoticed in most films but was a very capable actor, check out KITTY FOYLE. In this film he plays the visiting sailor that woos Stanwyck away from her husband to be.

This is a Christmas classic. The settings and the story make for a great Christmas romance","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just got this movie for Christmas and have already added it to my favorites list. A cute and simple story which makes a beautiful movie. Who could not love Uncle Felix or not have their mouth water at the sound of all that food. Definite points go to Sydney Greenstreet for his performance of Alexander Yardley and also to Reginald Gardiner who played John Sloane, the impossibly boring fiancee. Truly a gem to be watched every Christmas.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Stanwyck and Morgan are perfectly cast in what is, in many ways, a modern equivalent of Dickens' Christmas Carol in its sensibility. The success of the film depends on the casting of Sydney Greenstreet as the Alexander Yardley character. Yardley is the modern equivalent of Dickens' Scrooge in the way he exercizes control over his employees -- until the Christmas spirit overtakes him. The role is a 'walk in the park' for Greenstreet who had been one of the stage's great Falstaffs when he was part of the Lunts' company. Greenstreet had only entered films five years earlier when, at age 61, he was featured in what was to become a film classic, the first and best film John Huston ever directed: 'The Maltese Falcon'. 'Cuddles' Sakall was probably never better in his traditional role as the embodiment of middle European gemutlicheit. The attractive set used throughout most of the film is an eye-pleasing gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Christmas in Connecticut\" is an absolute gem, and a must-see for Christmas! Elizabeth Lane, a precursor to Martha Stewart, is a magazine columnist and the ne plus ultra of homemakers--the perfect wife, mother, and domestic goddess. Only thing is, she is none of these things--a total phony. Unfortunately for her, she is about to be found out. Her publisher, Mr. Alexander Yardley (a brilliant comic turn by Sydney Greenstreet) gets the bright idea of inviting a famous war hero to Elizabeth's \"perfect farm\" for the Christmas holiday. Only thing, there is no farm, \"perfect\" or otherwise. The comedy involves how Elizabeth is to keep her real identity under wraps so she will not lose her job. Elizabeth's colleague, John, happens to have a farm in Connecticut, so that solves that problem. However, he wants to marry Liz, but she does not want to marry him. He offers her marriage, though he knows she doesn't feel the same way about him that he does about her. He makes the offer anyway, and assures her that he is willing to wait. And here Barbara Stanwyck, as Liz, delivers one of the most devastating put-downs I have ever heard. With perfect innocence, she replies: \"Could you wait that long?\" OUCH! In addition, the scenes between Una O'Conner and S.Z. Sakall are hilarious. They don't seem to like one another (though one suspects they really do). They are rivals in the household, and S.Z. Sakall's mangled English is equaled by Nora's strangled pronunciation of his name (\"Mr. Basternook\"). \"My name is FELIX!\" It is amazing how Christmas-y these black and white films are. Great character work by all involved. Don't miss this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Christmas In Connecticut\" is a gem of a Christmas movie classic. While lesser known than some others -- it is nonetheless a delightful way to spend an evening at holiday time. I watch it every year.

Barbara Stanwyck is perfectly cast as, Elizabeth Lane, the single, career girl. Way before it was popular, Stanwyck embodies the single girl on the rise. Her NYC apartment, and her friendly \"uncle\" restaurateur around the corner typify the single girl in the city existence. She can't cook yet she writes a homemaking column for a magazine!

Dennis Morgan is also perfectly cast as our wartime hero, Jefferson Jones, who wants to meet the amazing Elizabeth Lane. After being lost at sea, all he wants is to spend Christmas in a \"real\" home. Which sets up the delightful, madcap story that evolves. It is fun from beginning to end. We should all have an Uncle Felix too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a delightful, they-don't-make-em-like-this-anymore kind of film. Well performed by everyone and peopled with interesting character actors. An intelligent, witty script acted with the right blend of broad comedy and understated humor. Holds up for repeated (annual?) viewings.

**WARNING** the re-make of this film with the same name, directed by Arnold Whatwashethinking, is an unbearable mess - painful to watch - without a scintilla of the charm and wit of the original.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Add this little gem to your list of holiday regulars. It is

sweet, funny, and endearing","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film reminds me very much of the later Rock Hudson film MAN'S FAVORITE SPORT--about a fishing writer who has NEVER fished and is forced into entering a fishing tournament. In this case, Barbara Stanwyck is a Martha Stewart-like writer who can't cook and doesn't really have the perfect family she describes in her articles--in fact, she has no family at all. Well, like Rock, she is maneuvered into performing--in this case, creating a huge holiday dinner while vacationing in the countryside. Since there is no family, she takes home a veteran and a few friends and tried desperately NOT to \"let the cat out of the bag\" that she can't do any of the things she is known for doing. A cute little comedy and a welcome film to the annual holiday film lineup.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A magazine columnist who writes about life on her farm house when in fact she lives in a NY apartment must come up with a plan when she learns that her publisher and a war hero will spend Christmas with her. After a slow start, it turns into an entertaining little screwball comedy, thanks to a fine cast. In a big departure from her previous role as a femme fatale in \"Double Indemnity,\" Stanwyck displays a nice comedic flair. Morgan is smooth as the affable war hero while Greenstreet is well cast as the publisher. However, Sakall steals the film as a chef trying to master the English language while speaking with an almost incomprehensible European accent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've discovered this movie accidentally and it was really a nice surprise. A Christmas Classic,it's also one of the fine comedies of the 40s. The story line is simple : Elisabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck) makes out her living by writing culinary columns for a magazine. At Christmas time, her boss, Alexander Yardley (Sydney Greenstreet) asks her to invite a young weakened sailor in the Connecticut farm she write about. The only problem is : She hasn't got any farm and she can't cook. To get out of the jam, Elisabeth agrees to marry a wealthy friend (Reginald Gardiner,who has a farm) and flies for Connecticut with her wonderful cook Uncle Felix.

There's a fine direction by Peter Godfrey and the cast is really wonderful : Stanwyck has never been better as this witty and yet romantic woman. Greenstreet, Gardiner and Sakall make hilarious and human supporting characters. The only weak point is the leading man, Dennis Morgan. He starts well but as the movie goes on, becomes really a bore. One almost feels sorry for Elisabeht Lane to ends up with him rather than with Gary Cooper or David Niven who both would have been more suitable for the part. Anyway, this is a joyful Christmas time movie with a refreshing score and I advice it to everyone who likes to spend funny and sweet Holidays...in Connecticut.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Barbara Stanwyck probably didn't think of it, but it is a relief to see her in a more becoming dark hairstyle (if it wasn't a wig) than the one she had to wear in \"Double Indemnity\" the year before. That film, while the premiere \"film noir\" and an all-around great film, gave her a great role, but oh, that hair. Here, she is more chic and certainly no femme fatal, but she is certainly a 40's woman. She has gotten used to life without men since most of them are off at war, and as a successful Martha Stewart like columnist, she writes a homey column in which she describes her country home as the camera pans over what it really is. We meet her boss, Sydney Greenstreet, who has no idea that she is living a lie, and when he pushes his way in for a Christmas away at her supposed Connecticut home, she has to come up with a husband (Reginald Gardiner) and baby before we can say \"Jingle Bells\". Hungarian chef S.Z. Sakall steps in to help and ends up in a cutsey pie one-on-one with Irish Una O'Connor. \"It's not Goulash, It's Irish Stew\". Sakall simply takes the paprika, pours most of it in, and says, \"Now it's goulash\", totally changing what she has prepared for lunch. Then, when it comes to the flapjacks, he flips and she scoops. For years, a few friends of mine and I will use that line every time pancakes come up in a conversation. \"I don't flip. I scoop!\". She won't even flip just one for Greenstreet, saying \"I've never flipped in me life.\" O'Connor can get on the nerves when she screeches over and over in some films, but here, she is delightfully lovable, and her pairing with Sakall is very charming.

It is obvious in the romance department that Reginald Gardiner is not Barbara Stanwyck's cup of tea, especially when she meets handsome Dennis Morgan, who is a bit dimwitted when bathing the baby, which eats soap, causing Stanwyck to get a bit alarmed. He should suspect something instantly, but doesn't. But it doesn't matter. The film is so charming with the country setting filled with snow, an abundance of rocking chairs, and a dog running towards them as the sleigh comes up. Living in New York City after 25 years in Los Angeles after growing up in a small town on the western side of New York State made me miss this kind of Christmas. While Central Park is beautiful after a first snow and the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center is exsquisit too, there is something about looking out at a snow-covered field of trees, and catch an occasional glimpse of deer, rabbits, or other wild life.

This is a great holiday film that can also bring on the Christmas spirit out of season, and makes a great pairing with another Barbara Stanwyck country Christmas film, \"Remember the Night\", an underrated gem. Add on the big city Christmas of \"Meet John Doe\", and you've found perhaps one of the busiest stars of holiday films around.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely adore this film about a lady columnist (Barbara Stanwyck) for a major homemaking magazine who delivers a welcoming article each month that includes details about her awesome home life as a wife and mother in a beautiful Connecticut home. The trouble happens when the owner of her monthly publication demands that she have him and a WW2 hero as guests during the Christmas Holidays. Why is she worried? Because she lives in a small New York apartment, isn't married, and doesn't have a baby - and can't cook at all! Hilarity (and romance) ensues when she tries to put on a believable act in an effort to save face\/ keep from being fired by the magazine owner (played by Sydney Greenstreet). This is a delightful comedy; one that I highly recommend to classic movie lovers!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While it's not \"perfect\", it's close. Love Barbara Stanwyck, SZ Sakall, Sidney Greenstreet, Dennis Morgan, Robert Shayne (Superman's police chief), the housekeeper, the waiter at Restaurant Felix, and the judge......I can go on and on. This movie has been part of my family's holiday tradition since I was a youngster, and my children grew up with it, too! \"The baby swallowed the watch\" was always my son's favorite line.

Sexy Barbara Stanwyck in pants and gowns stole the show along with the cuddly, funny S. Z. Sakall. Dennis Morgan has a few great songs, too.

I highly recommend this movie and suggest you skip the remake (blah).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've always liked Barbara Stanwyck who was, perhaps, the hardest working lead actress of the 30's and 40's although few of her movie roles are memorable. Today she is remembered most for the TV show \"The Big Valley\". Stanwyck worked so much because she was durable; it seems that she would accept most any role and make the most of it to make the movie a success and so directors loved her and many an ordinary picture gained credibility by her presence.

And so it was for \"Christmas in Connecticut\" a very ordinary effort whose plot strains credulity and isn't even really about Christmas. It does, however, have Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan as well as some supreme character actors including Sydney Greenstreet and S.K. Sakall so there are plot twists and funny moments which undoubtedly seemed more real in 1945 than they do today. To begin, the plot concerns a magazine writer (Stanwyck) who the magazine's readers believe is a domestic goddess, married with a child and living on a farm in Connecticut but who is really single, lives in New York City and knows nothing about cooking or homemaking. Could anyone get away with such a fraud even then? Apparently, and even the owner of the magazine (Greenstreet) is deceived although one would think that he would have long since seen though the deception but the story moves on and Stanwyck, Greenstreet, a sailor recently survived from his sunken ship (Morgan) and Stanwyck's restaurateur friend (S.Z.Sakall) find themselves spending Christmas in Connecticut at a farm belonging to Stanwyck's boorish boyfriend (Reginald Gardiner). You can imagine all the possibilities there are for this as the fraud unwinds as it must. Gardiner wants Stanwyck to marry him to perpetuate the rouse but one wonders how she can stand him at all. Morgan and Stanwyck fall for each other but he is supposed to be engaged and she is supposed to be married. Regardless, they begin what seems to be a make believe affair dancing cheek to cheek and stealing off in a horse drawn sleigh. Meanwhile, the incredibly naive Greenstreet character who has seen Stanwyck and Morgan go off together but still doesn't get it sees one of the neighbors take back a child that has been borrowed as part of the deception and calls the cops to report a kidnapping. Stanwyck and Morgan are arrested for stealing the sleigh and the hoax begins to unwind.

At this point the movie is funny as in ridiculous or absurd, not funny ha,ha and it routinely ends like screwball comedies always did. The good guy gets the girl and presumably they live happily ever after.

I watch this movie every year at Christmas to enjoy these character actors at their best in a story that reflects way it was in 1945 and because of a long held fascination with Barbara Stanwyck. Thank goodness it was set at Christmas or like 95 percent of Stanwyck's movies it would have been long ago forgotten and we would not get to see it each year anew.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the best work i have ever seen on television. The story is compelling--all the more so because it is true. The writers did their homework--the accuracy of events is well documented. The acting is great. This has to be the best role Sam Waterston has ever had. And the black and white cinematography was exceptional. My only regret is that it is not available to buy. A few years ago I contacted someone involved with the production (either with PBS or in England) and was told they had no plans to release it on VHS (at the time). This was a BBC production and ran in the U.S. on American Playhouse. There is such an interest in seeing this--just hard to believe no one can make it available.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Has anyone found a way to purchase copies of this series yet? I can see that a lot of people have inquired but I can't tell if any of them have been successful. It's hard to believe that a series this good cannot be viewed by people today, especially one based on real issues faced by real people during what were both tense and exciting times in our country. How can this be true and what can we do to change it? As an aside I agree with all the comments other writers have made about this series on this web site. This is an excellent story about events that everyone should be aware of and know something about today. Lots of us saw this series when we were in college or around that time anyway. Now we want to share it with our children ... but we can't? If that is true what would some good written materials be that would relay the same information?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...a true geek-girl's dream: high tech, high drama, smart guys, steamy sex, and large explosions. (VERY large explosions.) Sam Waterston is so natural in the role of Oppenheimer that tapes of the REAL Oppenheimer sound odd: apparently, he had a voice similar to Ronald Reagan! The triumph and tragedy of Oppenheimer is one of the 20th century's most stirring dramas, and this movie stands as a model of what docu-drama ought to be: the facts are allowed to speak for themselves, while the fictional parts are used to amplify and fill in the record, not to call attention to themselves. An interesting fact: some of the technical details used had only recently been declassified, and so are of special interest. A must-see!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I posted on IMDb on this series recently, giving a snail mail address at the commercial arm of the BBD where one would write to appeal release. I wrote to that address, mentioning Sam Waterson and his popularity prominently. I just received the following reply:

From: emilyfussell@hotmail.com Subject: Oppenheimer Date: May 14, 2006 1:44:00 PM MDT To: kk2840@earthlink.net

Dear Kate,

I work for the BBFC, the British equivalent to the MPAA, and we classify DVDs and videos as well as films in this country. Anyway, I am currently in the process of giving a certificate to the 1980 miniseries 'Oppenheimer.' While researching the work on the IMDb, I noticed your post and thought you might like to know that the work is about to be released (hence the need for a certificate).

I don't know which company is distributing it, but keep your eyes peeled!

Kind regards,

Emily +++++++++++++++++

hooray!

I also want to contact Netflix re purchasing this.

Kate Killebrew

kk2840@earthlink.net I emailed the BBC recently regarding whether their terrific series Oppenheimer had ever been released on video or DVD. I have not been able to find it. I received the following reply. If you do write the BBC, be sure to mention that Sam Waterston is very popular in the US. You can also enter \"Oppenheimer (1980)\" on amazon.com, and find a box to check to request release by the owner (BBC) and be notified when it's released.

Kate Killebrew kk2840@earthlink.net

Here's the reply from the BBC:

Dear Kate

Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Oppenheimer'.

I was interested to read that you would like a copy of this programme which you have enjoyed. I have checked the BBC Shop and on-line retailers and can find no record of it being available. We are unaware of plans at present to release this programme on DVD. However, if you would like to make a suggestion, can I suggest you put it in writing to the commercial arm of the BBC:

Commissioning Editor BBC Worldwide Ltd Woodlands 80 Wood Lane London W12 0TT

May I thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC.

Regards

Elaine Hunter BBC Information ______________________________________

-----Original Message-----

{Comments:} i am trying to find a copy of the terrific BBC production \"Oppenheimer', a six part series made in 1980 with Sam Waterston from a book\/script by Peter Prince. I watched parts of it then on PBS American Playhouse, but can't find it on video anywhere.

http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this series on PBS in 1980 in college and I still can't get it out of my head, although I have never seen it since. I remember every cast member (the casting WAS perfect, as mentioned in other comments), the design, the lighting and, of course, the story, which is by itself is enough to keep you glued to the set. Probably the best TV series I ever saw next to the original \"Roots.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Absolutely the best thing I have ever seen on TV. It was both entertaining and informative. The reason I found this site is an attempt to find out how I can again see it.

In the light of present understanding of history we have to sympathize with Gen. Leslie Groves who was responsible for the nuts and bolts of running the Manhattan Project. Most certainly he was not as paranoid about security as most have thought in the past.

The casting for the real life people portrayed was outstanding. It was the first time that I noticed Sam Waterston as an actor. Except for height he looked very much like Robert Oppenheimer.

The early scene in which Oppenheimer is leading a class of graduate students was especially intriguing to me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this mini in the early eighties. Sam Waterson proved himself to be a great actor. In fact when he began Law and Order I was disappointed in him as it was not as powerful a role. Unfortunately the good roles do not pay the bills. I wish I could find a copy of this rare series and review it. It is both factual and entertaining. Everyone should see it to know what really happened. I was so moved I purchased and read the book \"Pppenheimer-Shatterer of Worlds\". And saw how this man became an unlikely hero who was never rewarded for his insight. If you get a chance be sure to watch this movie and see what a performance Mr. Waterston can really provide an audience. Enjoy the movies!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't remember the series, I believe it may have been \"American Masters\", but it was broadcast on PBS around 1980. Most people have some knowledge of the development of the A bomb, and those that have little, or none, probably think it is a pretty dry subject. Anyone who has viewed this 7 part series does not feel that way. You get to know the turmoil in Oppenhemiers mind, and how the development changed his life forever. You understand the tragic figure he became, and why. With 7 episodes you get to know the major players, and the intrigue and backstabbing. I have contacted PBS about the chance of obtaining a video, or DVD, but have never received a response. Too bad, I would love to see it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I, too, found \"Oppenheimer\" to be a brilliant series and one of the finest offerings ever on American PBS. David Suchet was particularly effective as Edward Teller, as I recall, and the overall conception was spectacularly good. The only reason that the series doesn't rate a full 10\/10 is for the low-budget production values in some areas. Actual content is absolutely first-rate in my recollection.

The Oppenheimer miniseries will be released in the UK on July 31st! It will be a Region 2\/PAL set, but it would seem that a Region 1\/NTSC set should be soon in the offing.

If you have a universal player in the US, you can order the series right now from Amazon UK.

http:\/\/tinyurl.com\/znyyq

Huzzah!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"President Harry S. Truman once said that the only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.

Seven years before Richard Rhodes' superb Pulitzer Prize-winning \"The Making of the Atomic Bomb\", the BBC produced a seven-part miniseries, \"Oppenheimer\", that was a character study of the people who designed and built the weapon that ushered in the Atomic Age, permanently joining science and technology to the state (and, in particular, the military), not merely making history, but changing the world forever.

The production is impeccable, the casting nothing short of miraculous; not only the main characters, but even secondary characters bear uncanny resemblances to the persons portrayed. In particular are Sam Waterston in the title role of American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, who was based at the Los Alamos, NM, laboratory (the site for which he personally chose); Manning Redwood as General Leslie R. Groves, who oversaw the entire Manhattan Engineering District (the project's formal name); David Suchet as physicist, and ultimate nemesis of Oppenheimer, Edward Teller (who, nearly forty years later, whispered into Ronald Reagan's ear and brought us the Strategic Defense Initiative - \"Star Wars\") and Jana Sheldon as Kitty Oppenheimer. The attention to detail is uniformly excellent throughout.

Part thriller, part love story - and ultimately a tragedy, this series faithfully recreates a chapter in world history - and that of science - that we dare not forget. Highest recommendation.

(NOTE: Viewers who enjoy this series will also enjoy Jacob Bronowski's 13-part series \"The Ascent of Man\" and the BBC film of Michael Frayn's play \"Copenhagen\".)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Oppenheimer' with Sam Waterston in the title role and with David Suchet as Evard Teller is an example of the docudrama at its very finest. Well written, well acted by actors who bear a believable resemblance to their historical characters, highly informative, and very entertaining. The set designs and costumes capture the feel of the US during World War 2, and the plotting and dialog make the viewer feel as if he were really present at Los Alamos and caught up in the excitement of the Manhattan Project. The only downside is that this is a British production, and some of the actors lack skill in affecting a convincing American accent. (The skill of current day Australian & Irish actors taking on non-native dialects is amazing.) The storyline is fully consistent with Richard Rhodes' definitive history of the development of the atomic bomb. Sadly, the mini-series was shown only a couple of times on PBS at the beginning of the 1980s and then apparently vanished into oblivion.

'Oppenheimer' compares favorably to the more recent 'Fat Man & Little Boy' feature film with Paul Newman as Leslie Groves (the chronically overweight and rather homely General would be thoroughly flattered) and Dwight Schultz (alumnus of TV's 'A-Team') as Oppenheimer. As a mini-series, 'Oppenheimer' is around 4x as long as the Newman feature, but uses the all of the additional time completely to its advantage.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oppenheimer was a GREAT series (it was the first thing I saw Waterston in) and it is too bad copies aren't available. A similar situation exists for \"Glory Enough for All\", a British series from around the same time, about the discovery of insulin. I would pay a good price for both of these on DVD. Is it really so difficult to get Oppenheimer on a DVD that is able to be played in the US? Another very enjoyable series, again from about the same time, was \"Danger UXB\". A series about defusing UneXploded Bombs, hence the name. That one you can get from your local library.

Pete","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Insanely well crafted mini-series.

I recall seeing most of it twice when shown on American Playhouse on PBS. Was heavily promoted at the time. I believe it might have been one of the very early mini-series showing on PBS outside of the Masterpiece Theater series.

The full length production was shown I believe only once during its first broadcast. Was 6-8 hours total. This length was edited down somewhat to 6 hours. Cut some interesting, but slow scenes.

I am very much hoping that the folks holding its current rights do follow through and restore a complete, not edited version to DVD. Not worth creating a VHS version at this point.

Would fit in very well in the mini-series or dramatic history genre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":">>> Great News there is a BBC DVD release scheduled for 31st July 2006,UK - there is also a scheduled release in States - don't know the date - can't wait ! ! <<<<

>>>> below is my original comment <<<<<

I agree with all the other reviewers - it is simply staggering that one of the greatest TV dramas ever has never been released on DVD

The story line is gripping - the acting is outstanding and the character development is enthralling !

Over here in the UK we have quite a history of getting TV drama series and films out onto DVD through popular campaigns

It's very hard to see why the rights owners do not go into a DVD production ? I'm going to e:mail one of the leading players in this grass roots movement and see what happens. Who did the production ? was it BBC ? RW","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like an earlier commentor, I saw it in 1980 and have never been able to shake the memory of the gripping story, splendid acting, and dramatic musical score. It certainly contains some of Sam Waterston's finest work. He and the writers depict Oppenheimer not simply as an unjustly victimized hero -- which he was -- but also as naive, fond of alcohol, and snobbish, a rounded portrait instead of a stereotype.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just as a reminder to anyone just now reading the comments on this excellent BBC mini-series, published in 1981, it was not available on DVD until the last few years. Since then, it has become available, but initially only in the British format (for which I bought an 'international' DVD player, which you have to hack--illegally, I suspect, to see it), but the series is now available through amazon.com--3 discs-- for between $19-21, to be viewed on DVD in the US format, no hacking. There were 41 reviews, average 5 stars. This mini-series is one of the very best on Oppenheimer, or the Manhattan Project, or virtually anything produced by the BBC.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is a great danger when you watch a film that had had such a profound affect on you the first time around , that 20 years later , it wont hold the same magic as it did before. I must admit i wasnt expecting it to be as good as i remembered but a was pleasently suprised. P'tang Yang Kipperbang is still as fantastic as i remember it when i was a 12 year old .This film has a certain type of brilliance that not many films possess. It is engrossing , it is briliantly acted and best of all it makes me feel like a kid again and there isnt many things that can do that. John Albasiny and Abigail Cruttenden's rolls in this film are 1st class and i had forgotten how good they were until now. I urge any parent of teenagers to sit them down and watch this and see if it has the same affect on them as it did on me. P'TANG YANG KIPPERBANG EEHHH! 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Postwar England, the dawn of the \"atomic age\". Yet, the worries of a young schoolboy yearning to experience his first \"kiss\" cannot be derailed by something as inconsequential as THE BOMB. This was a delightful if not educational look at young love from the vantage point of an adolescent male and his world of the

1940's. Free of political correctness and preachy messages, this film exposes the viewer to the world that only the mind (and

hormones) of a young teenager can create. Wonderful subplots

maintain character interest ala \"Gregory's Girl\", and plenty

of well blocked shots help keep up the imagery of this era. This is a very good story for anyone, young or old, who has

ever been in love, or ever wanted to be. Does he ever get his wish? Watch it and see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An untidy man, known as Bill, lives in a small dreary flat, with a poster of Marilyn Monroe on the wall, and his typewriter for company. Only the man can't think of anything to write. He wanders around the streets following people, just to see where they go. Maybe this will give him some inspiration to write. He begins to follow a well dressed man holding a bag. He follows him for a few days. While in a cafe, the well dressed man sits down at a table on the opposite side of Bill, and inquires why Bill is following him. The well dressed man says his name is Cobb. Cobb then surprisingly informs Bill that he is a burglar, and even starts to take Bill with him into houses to steal things; although Cobb insists he doesn't go into other people's homes to just steal. He says he likes to let people know he has been there, and interrupted the things they take for granted. He puts knickers from another burglary into a man's trousers, for example.

The film is told in flashbacks at times too. The director used this technique in greater abundance in his recent feature Memento. Bill eventually decides to cut his hair and dress in a suit, on the advice of Cobb. He meets a Blonde lady in a club, who used to date the owner, a bald man, who is very dangerous, she says. We see a scene where a hammer is used by the bald man's hence men on a man's fingers in the Blonde lady's flat. These are some of the many pieces of the puzzle that the director shows us, and they will all fit into place when we arrive at the surprising conclusion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Given Christopher Nolan's string of successful films, it's a no brainer for me to want to check out his filmography watch his debut feature, which is shot in black and white back in England, running less than 70 minutes long, done with little budget, but containing all the hallmarks that has made him a master filmmaker and storyteller.

Though short, the film is no less gripping with its meandering plot that will leave you guessing, because the premise doesn't even scratch the surface of this tale, which is pretty amazing considering the depth in the narrative's structure and characterization. As told, we follow a writer wannabe called Bill (Jeremy Theobald) who starts a habitual obsession with following random people he fancies on the streets in a voyeuristic manner, which at first could be conceived as research, before he starts to make up his own rules, and break them.

He meets up with charismatic Cobb (Alex Haw) who turns out to be a robber with peculiar sensibilities and modus operandi, and soon finds himself hooked with hanging out with him as they go about breaking and entering and speculating about their victim's livelihood, as does the pursuit of a femme fatale blond (Lucy Russell), a mobster's moll who rejects his every advance.

Told in a non-linear fashion which comes with scenes that don't quite add up in the beginning, this sets the film up for multiple viewings as you study just how Nolan sustains that suspense and intrigue with you as the audience expecting and wanting more, which gets duly delivered. There are enough twists here which spins the film into a dizzying crescendo, where loose ends begin to come together, and the brilliance of the stellar story start to shine through.

It's also amazing how, as a first feature shot on the cheap, that something that clever and sophisticated can be conceived from his own experience in being burgled, with Nolan involved in every stage of production, from writing to shooting, producing and directing, having worked on the project for a year since shoots can only happen on weekends. I guess here's an example of a successful filmmaker's humble roots, which should serve as inspiration and spur new filmmakers out there. Now I'll patiently wait for Christopher Nolan's Inception due out later this year, whose trailer is already such a tease.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Following is a little-known 1998 British film, which was made with a budget of \u00a38000 and has a running time of 70 minutes. When watching it, you'd never expect its director to go on to make it in Hollywood and become one of the most acclaimed and celebrated directors of the 21st Century \u0096 well, everybody has to start somewhere I suppose.

The director of Following, as you probably already know is Englishman Christopher Nolan, who directly after Following would go on to direct the critically-acclaimed independent film Memento; a few years later he would be hired by Warner Bros. to direct the new Batman series, which further brought him acclaim, and so on and so forth. My point is, everybody has to start somewhere \u0096 even if it's not in the most astounding debut \u0096 and Christopher Nolan introduces himself to the world in 1998 with Following.

When watching it, I couldn't help but draw resemblances to another directorial debut, avant-garde auteur David Lynch's Eraserhead. Following is not a surrealist psychological horror film in that sense, but the similarities are noticeable; most notable, it's shot in grainy black-and-white and has an atmosphere about it that makes it unique. It's hard to describe in words, but it loosely resembles the smoky atmosphere you'd find in the film noirs of old. Hence, it can be said that Following is a contemporary film noir, or a neo-noir. Overall, it's an amalgamation of that and a psychological thriller, and the story is most appropriate to these two genres.

The main character is nameless, and the movie's title stems from an early, obsessive-compulsive trait he possessed \u0096 randomly picking out people on the street and following them, sometimes even for hours on end. During one of these 'stalking expeditions', the main character becomes noticed by one of the people he is following, and is confronted. Turns out that the 'confronter' is a man who is willing to befriend our narrator, and he introduces himself; his name is Cobb, and he's a petty burglar who invites the narrator to follow him on his burglaries.

From there, the main character becomes swept up in Cobb's world, and he becomes embroiled in crime, passion and violence as he gets more and more intimate with Cobb. Following is not so much a character study, but instead a film which follows the tumultuous relationship between these two main characters, and the devastating ramifications it has on our narrator. Nolan succeeds in making the film resemble a film noir, and emulates the respective atmosphere well.

As a thriller, Following is taut and atmospheric; however as a film in general, it's somewhat of a disappointment. If not that, then one could definitely call it underwhelming. The entire film is shot in a non-chronological and non-linear fashion, and it makes the story and film-experience unique, to some extent \u0096 this style has been done so many times now it's almost commonplace technique \u0096 and the story itself is unique to some extent.

However, Following is ultimately underwhelming for the entire film, and is disappointingly unspectacular. The story calls for more \u0096 more action, more suspense and more thrills \u0096 but it becomes too embroiled in its own storyline, and instead focuses on creating an intricate story. Following does succeed in doing that, but without any other elements it's a film noir that doesn't quite work out; it's got a sense of emptiness which isn't enormous, but still noticeable nonetheless. Furthermore, the film's shocking revelation at the end \u0096 almost a mandatory convention in film noirs \u0096 is one that makes us feel cheated; it's unpredictable and comes out of nowhere, but in relation to the story it's disappointing, as it essentially makes the preceding scenes, and the entire film, seem like an enormous waste of time.

But the positives far outweigh the negatives, and in the end Following turns out to be a flawed but satisfying film, Yes, everybody has to start somewhere. Christopher Nolan does it with Following, and he does it in a fine manner. A quiet, meek but fine manner. It's not the most astounding movie, and it isn't quite worthy of the accolades the director would go on to receive in the following decade, but it's still a good film nonetheless. When singling out Following, you find a well-made, taut and atmospheric thriller, one which lacks noticeable nuance or innovative style but still manages to grip audiences nonetheless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chris Nolan's labyrinth like noir about voyeurism and identity is amazing from start to finish. A first film is as complex as \"Memento\" or \"The Prestige\", though maybe a little harder to get a handle on. Still it smacks of originality and creative drive, and has a \"twist\" as intellectually challenging as it is realistic pulp. Few film makers have made as good of use of their editors and attention to narrative that Nolan has. The story is about a bored writer who likes to follow random strangers down the street, until he follows someone, whose noticed him following others, and has been following him in tern, from there the complexity escalates and identities begin to rearrange. More naturalistic and realist than Nolan's later work but just as razor sharp.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is definitely Nolan's most intimite,and thought-provoking piece. Not to say that Memento or Insomnia are bad,but they were definitely up to more Hollywood standards...while Following is more of an indie flick. The story is very brilliant,and very well developed. Overall...watch this if your a fan of any of Nolan's work,I'm sure you'll be able to appreciate it more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A suprisingly good film considering the circumstances of its production. Features performances from no-name actors that rival the top talent on the planet (sadly none have persued a career).

Also features the the god-like ability of Christopher Nolan to write perfect dialogue. Dialogue is what carries this story, which is about a man who likes to follow people for material for his books. Well shot, VERY well edited, even better written, and amazingly well performed.

This movie has everything a great film needs, except people who have seen it. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If Christopher Nolan had made Memento before Following, then all of the flaws in Following would have been corrected. In Memento, Nolan constructed the switches in time perfectly. We were able to tell when it was the past, when it's current, etc. However, Nolan experimented with it a little, and it just doesn't work. Although he had a small budget and couldn't use color (which is one way Memento worked), it was just too hard to distinguish between time. On the DVD is a feature that allows you to play the scenes in chronological order. I intended to write my review after watching it, so hopefully it would make more sense, but, of course, it wasn't working.

You can't blame Nolan for not coming up with original ideas. A young man, Bill (Jeremy Theobald), is bored, so he decides to follow random people on the street. He finds one, Cobb (Alex Haw), that particularly interests him. Soon, Bill becomes friends with Cobb and goes with him as he breaks into houses and robs them. Then, a saucy young blond (Lucy Russell) enters, and the movie becomes even weirder from there.

The ending of Following is one of the most shocking endings I've seen. Sure, Fight Club had an amazing ending, but the way that Following's ending played out was amazing. I felt like someone had smacked me on the head and given me a concussion. Nolan has a thing for making good endings (well, maybe not, I could guess Insomnia's from a mile away), and can really construct a great story. Following may not be the easiest to follow or look at, but it's such a finely crafted, original story with a shocker ending that you'll probably want to watch all of its 70 minutes again.

My rating: 7\/10

Rated R for language and some violence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great British director Christopher Nolan (Momento, Insomnia), directs this odd film about a struggling writer obsessed with following people. This proves harmless at first but soon turns dangerous after taking the game a step further after meeting a like-minded man who shows him the ins and outs of breaking and entering. The two men soon get in over their heads in a strange world involving the mafia and prostitution. Jeremy Theobald plays the writer and Alex Haw the like-minded friend. Both are great performances. This low budget movie was shot total guerrilla-style with no permits for any locations and no big stars but has what a lot of huge budget films don't have which is a clever script and creative direction. An impressive debut by one of todays best directors. Good Stuff!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brit director Chrstopher Nolan now has a career in America, and a reputation for making movies both popular and critically acclaimed; but this small film was where he started. And it certainly showcased his talent, with its striking black-and-white cinematography and achronological storytelling that prefigures his later 'Momento', albeit in a less extreme way. Thematically and mechanistically, the plot reminded me of David Mamet's 'House of Games', but the film still feels fresh and sharp, right up to the final twist of the ending whose flavour was expected, but whose pointedness is unexpectedly delicious. The acting, on the other hand, is not quite in the same class - the film has a stylised quality, and possibly to a greater extent than the director intended. But it's still a fine debut, simultaneously claustrophobic and beguiling.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Christopher Nolan's first film is a 'no budget' black and white film about a unemployed writer who begins following strangers, which in turn leads to robbery and also violence. It is very good.

Like in his later film 'Memento' he doesn't present the story in a linear way. Instead it jumps around somewhat so you end up really sucked in trying to piece it all together and early, apparently random, shots take on significance as the film progresses. This style also means the twists are much more effective.

Definitely worth seeing if you get the chance (especially if you like his later work and\/or Film Noir)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An excellent debut movie for the the director of Batman Begins, comes the Following, a movie about a man who follows other people for inspiration of characters in stories he writes. One man he follows, he decides to go further and the man turns out to be more than he bargained for.

Using a cast of non-actors and his uncle, writing directing producing and otherwise completely making this movie entirely on his own with almost no budget and produced independently, this movie is much more than you'd expect.

For anyone who likes Memento and complex twists, turns, shocks, and messing around with time, this is definitely a movie for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are two things that I noticed in this film. (This is not a spoiler, just a mistake in storytelling.) When Cole takes Bill to his first B&E, he finds the \"box\". As soon as Cole finds it he says, \"The box. Everyone's got a box\". A minute later, just before he dumps the contents on the floor he says, \"We're actually very fortunate. You don't see these often\".

Observation #2 (Spoiler Alert!)

I had to watch the thing three times, I couldn't figure a couple of things out. Then I watched the Chronological version and saw that they were having flash backs from the latter to the previous during the time changes. So at some points we were actually watching three different times in about 1 min of wall time.

That was a good thing because I don't know how many more times I could watch it before returning it to Netflix.

Color me obsessive.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent film, but Momento (Nolan's other big budget film) is much better . I would recommend people go to see Momento and then if they like that, see this film. THe film is shot in black and white which I was a bit annoyed with at first but once into the film you understand black and white is the best way for the film to be seen. It is extremely gripping and reasonably easy to understand even though the way it is made is extremely clever. Elements of the storyline i think are a bit daft but the film is definitely worthy of a second viewing. To conculde the film has a clever plot, clever twists and turns, very good acting and bearing in mind the budget of the film I have to say that it is pretty amazing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Following is an intriguing thriller that requires constant awareness to be completely understood. The plot has many twists and uses displaced chronology. The event sequence complicates following Following. If you are willing to pay attention, it is an exciting movie full of noir earmarks. With the running time at 70 minutes, there is a lot to take in, but the fast pace helps to keep the viewer enthralled.

Bill is a lonely, untidy fellow who takes up shadowing people and seeing where they go-what they do. He is a bit too conspicuous, however, and eventually gets caught by a well dressed, clean-cut bloke named Cobb. Cobb entangles Bill in a world the poor boy is not prepared to live in. Cobb is a smart rogue who seems to have complete control over the other characters. By the end of the film the disjointed story is explained thoroughly. The film is an excellent first effort from the talented Christoper Nolan, who would go on to make Memento, one of the most original movies of our time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm amazed that Memento (which is an excellent flick) is so well-regarded in the Top 250 and this one doesn't even appear!! What the hell is that?? To be honest - when this movie ended my knee-jerk reaction was that this movie is better than Memento. After the euphoria of the fabulous ending wore off, I concluded that they are equal in their excellence. I am just confused about why its not in the Top 50 along with Memento. I'm going to venture a guess that (sadly) it's because it's in black and white or because (again sadly)that the characters all have British accents ...sadly because that is no reason to not appreciate a great movie like this.

I'm telling you that if you loved Memento, you will love Following as well. Brilliant!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw this at the Hong Kong International Film Festival, over three years ago. I went in with no expectations since Christopher Nolan was a no-name at the time, but it sounded interesting and turned out to be one of the best things I saw at that festival. It worked well on the big screen, with the technique of cutting the scenes out of sequence adding to the mood. Mr.Nolan gave a good account of its making at the end, enough to put anybody off starting out as a film-maker! I liked it better than Memento although this was, perhaps, due to the lower expectations. And the fact that it was more of an art house movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is superb, it has the same low-budget first film feel of 'Pi' and 'Clerks', but has the style of 'Memento' (also by Writer\/Director Christopher Nolan). The score, sound effects, photography and editing are almost 'Memento' prototypes, and the story shows that Christopher Nolan is best when Writing and Directing. Don't be put off by the low-budget look and acting, or even the short length of the film, and just watch it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a great movie for being only 67 minutes long. There was an aspect of film-noir contained in this movie and I am glad that Nolan picked to film it in black and white. The plot is simple yet entertaining that keeps you engaged. Even the dialogue was good along with the acting. It reminded me of what was to come in Memento by not being in chronological order. I liked how the main character tried to use what Cobb taught him for example saying \"everyone has a box\" which he put his personal things into. Also, on the writer's door was the batman logo which seemed ironic because Christopher Nolan would later direct Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, two other great movies. There is a great twist in the end which I'm not going to spoil for anyone who hasn't seen it, even though I kind of figured what would happen when Cobb gave the young man D Lloyds credit card. I also liked how the writer had a copy of The Republic by Plato one of my favorite philosophical books. This is definitely a movie you need to watch more than once to get the full aspect of it, plus it only being an hour long. There is also a circular aspect to it by ending where it began which I thought was pretty brilliant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This flick was the introduction for a lot of us to the works of K Gordon Murray. That's because it was easy to find. It was on every public domain label in the VHS era, and before that, a late night t.v. cult classic, double knee thigh slapper. Besides, HOW do you resist the title?

For late comers, a brief explanation of it's merit: Florida wheeler dealer K. Gordon Murray imported Mexican horror films, dubbed them into English, then made a mint with them at the drive in. The Mexican ORIGINALS were weird enough to begin with; American boundaries and accepted horror film conventions were cheerfully disregarded. Great, great set design and lighting were placed beside weird or laughable special effects. NOTHING in Hollywood was as close as these were to out and out strange. Now, mix in Catholic influenced social conventions, Mexican folk lore, and we are not in Kansas anymore.

Add to THAT the English scripts they were dubbed into. Most were written by Reuban Guberman, who wanted words to match movements of the actors lips ON SCREEN, not the literal translation. As a result the American soundtracks tended to run from overwrought to down right loopy. There's even a fan web site for Murray that prints the best, most over the top lines for each movie. First time viewers to the films complain about the pacing, the purple prose, the production values and are told it's SUPPOSED to be that way..while the people laugh with enjoyment over things normally considered fatal film flaws. It all must be very confusing if you don't have a taste for it.

This one was made back to back in 1957 with the two previous films in the series; THE AZTEC MUMMY and CURSE OF THE AZTEC MUMMY. All three are now available on the 3 disc AZTEC MUMMY COLLECTION (BCI) and it's about time. It has the K Gordon Murray version on one side, the original Mexican production on the other side. The contrast between the two is fascinating. A lot of the times the original Spanish is not much saner.

ROBOT\/MUMMY starts off with a nice long flashback bringing you up to speed on the previous episodes, sort of..continuity was tossed out the window in number two, and it's downhill from there, logic wise. You don't even get The Angel back, or any mention of him in this final episode. Names, places, even family trees switch between films. After a while, you start LOOKING for the continuity changes.

By now, the series villain Doc Krupp is totally pig biting mad, nearly drooling with dementia and STILL wants to steal the Aztec breastplate. Rosita Arenas is sent back to the past with another nice edit of the AZTEC MUMMY floor show, and wanders out into the dark in her nightie to help find that doggone breastplate again. The mummy isn't any happier with this then he was last time.

The robot actually has a production credit. It was made by 'Viana & Co S.A.'. I mention this, because it looks like the grips came up with it between takes on a slow afternoon when the real costume went walkabout. Nope.

This was PLANNED.

Wait until you see the controller it runs from. X box, where WERE you when Krupp NEEDED you??? The Robot LOOKS crushed to death at the end, but actually came back in two more Mexican made movies..it had a FAN BASE..

All in all, a funny quirky finish to a three movie series. Sit back and enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a film. Quite possibly the best I've ever seen, the Direction, the Production,the score and the cinematography,absoloutley wonderful. The acting is also excellent, and the Man\/Robot scenes have to be seen to be belieived. I can not recommend this film enough. Get it out on video now, turn the lights down and enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a totally awesome movie! If you haven't seen it yet, you damn well should. Sure, the plot is slow to develop, the special effects are laughable, the acting is ridiculous and the action is badly choreographed, but as wrestler DDP would say; That's not a bad thing....that's a good thing! Everything about this movie is hilarious, especially if you get the dubbed version, which has even worse actors. It's countless laughs until you get to the end, yearning for the sequel, where the mummy fights wrestling women. Thus, I give it ten stars. Unless you're one of those 'discriminating' and 'intelligent' people with good taste, who likes only 'high quality' films of the highest calibre, I recommend this utterly monkeydellic movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Kid is a really good family movie about a stuffy image consultant, Russ Duritz, who has lots of money, a good job, nice house, etc. The only problem is he doesn't have much of a social life as nobody seems to like him as he isn't always very nice. One day though things are about to change when an eight year old version of himself magically appears. This gives Russ a second chance to make things right. Bruce Willis plays the lead role here and he gives a really good performance. The Kid is a nice, heart-warming movie for everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From a perspective that it is possible to make movies that are not offensive to people with strong moral values, this one is definitely worthwhile. This is the second Bruce Willis film in a row that manages to tell its story with no nudity, off-color humor, profanity, or gratuitous violence. (I refer of course to The Sixth Sense.) Both movies are engaging on more than one level. This one is appropriate for children as well, although as others have pointed out, it isn't a flick FOR kids.

I was bothered that the time travel device that drives this plot is never explained, except that we know Russell himself initiates it as a 70 year old. Also, why does his dying mother have to come to school to get him when he wins the fight; why, if as his older self says, he has to fight that kid again and again for the next few years does his mother not have to come and get him every time, and why he doesn't learn to kick butt in the process. I also found the score rather annoying and not always appropriate to the action on stage.

Good use of the red plane as metaphor, however.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Kid - At 39 years old Russel Duritz has a life that most men would envy - he has a great job, is respected (and feared), has a beautiful house and makes buckets of money. But everything comes at a cost, in this case no social life, no conscience and a fear of spending the rest of his life alone. He just needs someone to show him the way.

As I watched the movie, I kept wondering why Disney didn't pass this film on to Miramax - not because it's particularly daring or edgy, but because it is clearly a movie for adults. This is exacerbated by the marketing campaign which is clearly targeting children - it is lumped in with trailers for \"Rugrats the Movie\", and \"Pokemon 2000\" (aren't they passe yet?). But I quibble.

I was impressed by the sensitive treatment of the subject matter - rather than the typical male midlife crisis that involves some pathetic sap buying a Porsche convertible and acting like a moron, Willis' character undertakes some serious introspection and takes stock of his life. His guide on this journey of self-discovery is himself at age 8 (they never explain how Rusty arrives and frankly, I didn't care). Young Rusty's innocence and unbridled optimism give him a distinct advantage in divining the truth - he sums up Russell's job as an image consultant thusly, \"You teach people how to lie and pretend to be something they aren't\". In order for a good script to succeed, however, you need actors to bring it to life. Not a problem here.

Although Willis has thrice ignored W.C. Fields' warnings about starring with children or animals he has lucked out once again, meshing as well comedically with Breslin as he did dramatically with Osment. Willis manages to balance Russell's cutthroat powerbroker traits with vulnerability and confusion, without becoming ridiculous. Breslin meanwhile gives a dead on portrayal of a kid from everyone's childhood - the one that always stuck out for some reason and got picked on. We also get two bonus performances: Lily Tomlin is great as Russell's levelheaded assistant and Jean Smart is perfect as an insightful charming anchorwoman (I loved her in \"Guinevere\").

The Kid is charming, heavy, and real. And it will appeal to adults of all ages.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When the first trailer for this film was viewed by myself, I was curious as to what angle the storyline would take. After all the plot of having one's childhood self return to the present leaves open many options. Bruce Willis however does a superb job in the role he was given. I was surprised to see just how well he could act in this part. This is also a good career move as many others have said but after seeing it I now agree. This film is mainly about remembering the kid you used to be, and coming to the realization that you aren't the adult you planned to be. This is a wonderful story and a gripping tale that makes us all think. Usually we scorn at \"What if...\" movies. For example, Waterworld attempted to answer the question \"What if the world were to be covered with water and...?\" But truthfully, nobody cared. This movie however effects everyone in the theatre. True, young children may not fully grasp the idea of growing up and having all your dreams fizzle away, but it leaves a great impact on the adults and parents of those children. This movie is definitely worth seeing. Although, it will be better the second time around because you won't be thinking so much (about how the kid got there, and why and all that stuff) Just relax and have fun. And take something with you when you leave that cinema. Take that piece of your childhood you've forgotten and enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now for sure, this is one of the lightest-hearted stories that Bruce Willis has been in to date and yet,-- it is still touching. I really like Bruce's style and persona, I haven't loved everything he has ever been in, but he brings it to the 'Big-time' for me in most all his film endeavors.

The story begins..... He is power, confidence and style with a capitol 'S' . He drives a Porshe he lives well, in a palatial estate with a grand view of the fair city. That's Russell Duritz. He is an image consultant to those who are on the top or rising to it. His acclaim, he is Russell Duritz, he knows what it takes to make it. It just seems that as life is going along swiftly and foundation-ally set, there is a problem, an intruder at his home, the alarm has been activated!

Russell can't seem to figure out (for the moment) what is happening to him. It's different and yet it is somehow familiar. A small boy, who looks exactly like....-- him. As their lives run smack dab into each other, there seems to be a reason that is screaming out to him, \"You have unfinished business to take care of, now!\"

Amy the supporting young lady of the story is probably the best balance that he has seen and has in his life. She works with him, puts up with his 'ego' and yet, she is smitten with Russell. Very much so. With Rusty his past 'self' now in the picture and talking a mile a minute, singing too late at night, everything that was foundational is becoming like jelly!

Willis is fun, egocentric and at times out of his head in this lovable Disney modern times classic 'The Kid' and to add his little heavy-duty side kick Spencer Breslin is a perfect addition to this sparkling story of childhood to adult and back to childhood adventure. Chi McBride is an inspirational supporting character, as he is the heavy-weight champ, teaching 'little' Rusty how to box to defend himself against the bullies on the playground.

All in all this is a real winner of a movie with even Lillie Tomlin as the secretary and aide to Russell. I originally saw this back in 2000' and then again years later, with equal enjoyment. This is a shiny family comedy that has a super ending that will warm the hearts of any Disney fan Recommended highly (*****)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While my kids enjoyed the movie (and announced afterward that they want to buy it later) I think I got more out of it that they did. The scene in the airport shop at the beginning is real life (I did not use the cutting comment aloud, but I thought it). It is a feel good mid-life movie, a bit sappy and some scenes work less well than others (why does the kid stay with Bruce Willis after he knows his Mom is dying?), but all in all and good time. It also gave our family something to talk about - did my kids think my life was boring? What do they expect at 40? How can you not like a movie that gets a good conversation going with your kids?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a word of explanation, Disney's \"The Kid\" has absolutely nothing in common with the Charlie Chaplin 1921 classic of the same name. What we do have is a pleasant enough, though unbelievable, feel good family comedy as only the folks at Disney can provide.

Bruce Willis, in a change of pace, plays a self-centered stuffed shirt of an \"Image Consultant\". He degrades, not only his clients, but those close to him as well. You know that he is going to have to change before the final credits.

Into his life comes a chapter from his past in the form of Willis' character as a nerdy 8 year old played with cutesy pie conviction by Spencer Breslin (Disney always finds these kids somewhere). This forces Willis to come to grips with his past and well..you know the rest.

Appearing as Willis' love interest is Emily Mortimer and Lily Tomlin as his Executive Assistant. Both have little enough to do as most of the movie involves the inter-action between the Willis and Breslin characters.

\"The Kid\", though not the greatest of Disney movies is one nonetheless that you can sit down and watch with your family and come away from with a warm feeling.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is so nice to see Bruce Willis come down off his action throne and let us see that he really is a talented actor. He shines in this film as the near-40-year-old image consultant who has totally lost touch with his inner child--until he meets him face to face. This is one of those rare films that doesn't talk down to its audience and truly offers something for the WHOLE family. It is about caring for each other, keeping some of the child inside you, and realizing that you don't grow up exactly the way you thought you would. Willis seems to be building an impressive track record for working with kids (just witness \"The Sixth Sense\" with Haley Joel Osment), and he has great chemistry with Spencer Breslin here. There is some nice photography and music, and the ending is wonderful and uplifting. A great film to see with EVERY member of your family.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Truly a wonderful movie. Bruce Willis gives his always-outstanding comedic-romantic acting power to this message-movie and the movie brings hope to the losers many of us know we are. A gift to everyone of middle age whose spent time seems both full and yet empty: there is more around the next bend and it can be great, enriching, and romantic. Leave the recent past and return to the lessons of the distant past, and then take off on a favorite flight to your better future. If we could re-live our youthful experiences, if we could really remember the events that shaped us, wouldn't we find a special kind of freedom? See the movie, open the gift.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Imagine you have the opportunity to see yourself again as a kid. Now think what would happen if you had the chance to speak with your younger self, or even change him\/you. Would you try to influence or try to change your younger self's beliefs in light of your future experience? Or perhaps the encounter would change your older self's perception of life and reality?

Walt Disney's The Kid tries to engage this complex thought by putting \"older self\" Bruce Willis in a collision course with \"younger self\" Spenser Breslin (from The Santa Clause 2 and The Cat in the Hat \"fame\"). The result is a sometimes funny sometimes touching encounter, which makes you ponder about your own past, present and future \u0096 and truly believe it is never too late to change your course.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"hello, looking for a movie for the family to watch on a Friday night? Can't find what your looking for? I thought this was an extremely enjoyable movie. Good for the whole family. I found that it had a remarkably rare combination of it being appealing to both adults and children alike. It was brilliant, to say the least. Bruce Willis's acting was top-notch, there was a lot of humor in it and overall, a great movie. In my opinion, it's a must-see movie. And I don't think that about a lot of movies, believe me when I say it takes a lot for a movie to get me to think that. It's clear that there was much work done by Bruce Willis and cast to get this movie done. Excellent story, good acting, and again, overall a thoroughly enjoyable movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of Bruce's most underrated films in my opinion, its an awesome heartwarming film, with a neat story and an amazing performance from Bruce Willis!. All the characters are great, and I thought Willis and Spencer Breslin were just awesome together, plus Bruce Willis is simply amazing in this!. This is definitely one of Bruce's best comedic performances (The waaaaaaaaaamabulance thing was great) and I thought it was very well written and made as well, plus The finale is especially cool!. It's good natured and it was cool how you can see Russell's (Willis) character change throughout the film! plus the ending was pretty good. I think this should be higher then 6.0 and it's one of the best Disney films I have ever seen! plus it has many surprising moments throughout. All the characters are extremely likable, and it also has a cute love story angle too it as well, plus Bruce and Spencer Breslin both had some really funny lines (Holy Smokes!). This is one of Bruce's most underrated films in my opinion, its an awesome heartwarming film, with a neat story and an an amazing performance from Bruce Willis and I say its a must see!. The Direction is great!. Jon Turteltaub does a great job here with really good camera work, and just keeping the film at a very fast pace. The Acting is excellent!. Bruce Willis is amazing as always and is amazing here, he gives one of his best comedic performances, is hilarious had wonderful chemistry with both Spencer Breslin and Emily Mortimer, had some funny lines, and was dead on throughout the movie, he was one of the main reasons I liked this movie so much! (Willis Rules!!!!!!!). Spencer Breslin is fantastic as the younger version of Russell, he was very funny and didn't get on my nerves once, he is one of the better child actors out there!. Emily Mortimer is good as Amy and was really cute I liked her she had decent chemistry with Bruce too. Lily Tomlin is funny as Janet I liked her quite a bit. Jean Smart is good with what she had to do, which was not much. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall a must see!. **** out pf 5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this movie. Yes there was disrespect throughout the movie, but Bruce Willis learned, from The Kid, that there is more value in repecting others, and his life of disrespect needs to change. This movie was a refreshing change from the trash that Hollywood is trying to shove down our throats. There are some very good lessons to be learned in this movie. I really believe this was one of Disneys best, even though a couple of things could have been left out. I was impressed with the lack of swearing and lack of sexual inuendos. It isn't perfect, but much better than most everything else out there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I waited long to watch this movie. Also because I like Bruce Willis. The plot was quite different from what I had expected but still quite good. Its a good mix of emotions, humor and drama.

Left me thinking over and again :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At last, a great film that doesn't have to be edited for profanity or sex! It's a fun film that the whole family can enjoy. Willis is great, as always. \"Rusty\" was delightful. Just enough action to keep interest going.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this Dream-Come-True, I found myself loving what was going on. It's a good movie, and should not be passed off as a corny fantasy movie. It's too smart for that. It's definitely a feel good movie, but with a nice message to leave you with. 7\/10, B, **1\/2 out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Perhaps I was just in a really good mood when I watched this film. but, for whatever reason, I really liked this film. Was it terribly original? No. Was it a bit predictable? Yes. And so what? It was still a really nice movie. I've always liked Bruce Willis (well, almost always, there was Hudson Hawk and The Fifth Element, after all), and he portrayed a selfish, sarcastic b***ard perfectly. Maybe this movie isn't Academy Award material, but it sure is feel good material. Go rent it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story is quite slow at the beginning except few interesting humour that come along the way but some of the plot still empty.

The science on how the kid entered the 21st century is still a mystery except at the end of the movie, we have been shown of how.

Other than that, everything looks ok!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I couldnt believe how well this kid did on screen, you will completely forget that they are actors and loose yourself in the movie. It is like watching home movies with a twist. I recomend this to everyone. Highly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why would I say that? Because when the movie ended, I was in a good mood. So many people exclaim at the end, wow! Bruce Willis can be funny. For those of you who believe he learned how to act after the sixth sense, you must be very new to his career. He won an emmy for best actor in a comedy series before he did Die Hard. It's like saying, wow, the sky learned to deposit snow on the ground just because it's your first winter in life. The movie was hilarious. What boggles my mind is how some other comments made about this movie claims that there are no memorable lines or scenes. Spoiler...

The waaaambulance? I am not a loser? Have you ever seen a grown up scream I am not a loser before?

I thought this movie was great. It was funny, it was never boring and in a cheesy Disney sort of way, it had a point to make. Something to do with life and of course any kid movie trying to do that is in over it's head but for once, I didn't care.

If you haven't watched it. Do so. You'll like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(WARNING - CONTAINS MILD SPOILER) A movie almost designed to make you pause and check your recollection of it - it's confined to an almost empty motel where the huge courtyard resembles a circus ring and the rooms seem like temporary withdrawal points rather than refuges; as the characters become increasingly preoccupied by the past, the present increasingly falls away, until the ultimate incendiary appearance of the Countess in the black Mercedes marks the fusion of reality and fantasy. Whether or not their stories are true, and whether Stanton is truly the father or just a crazy old man stepping into their stories, seems impossible to determine. The theme seems to be how love of an extreme and unconsidered nature messes with stability to the point where reality itself breaks down; where exotic, misplaced fantasy becomes dangerously tangible. The image of the burning motel - a symbol of dislocation beset by destruction - is an appropriately weird ending for this strange but effective, startlingly imaginative, movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Adapted from Sam Shepard's play, this movie retains many play-like elements such as a relatively fixed setting (a roadside 50's motel in the Southwest) and extensive, intriguing dialogues. A woman \"May\" is hounded by a man \"Eddie\" (played by Sam Shepard). She tries to hide from him in the out-of-the-way motel, but he finds her. The film explores the history of their relationship, mainly from their childhoods, that has led them to this point. It's very easy to feel sympathy for the characters and to understand that their dysfunctional present relationship is a result of past events out of their control. We mainly watch them fight, make up, fight, make up and so on. One image that stands out in my mind, is of Eddie hauling May over his shoulder kicking and screaming, taking her somewhere she doesn't want to go.

The soundtrack is also perfect soulful country with vocals by a lesser known artist \"Sandy Rogers\". She has this country doll voice that almost yodels at some points in the album! This is the kind of movie that will stay lodged in some part of your brain\/soul. In other words, go see it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once again, we are fortunate to see a gorgeous opening scene where the artists' work has been fully restored and we see this old-time grocery store on a street corner with the snow gently falling. Inside are the rich colors of all the merchandise, from produce to canned and boxed goods to medicine to candy, etc.

In essence, this is a story of those goods \"coming to life,\" such as the animals on the labels of items, or a pie, or even a pack of cigarettes.

The whole \"show\" is narrated by \"Jack Bunny,\" a Jack Benny impersonator, with music from conductor Leopold Stokowski, who was in so many Looney Tunes animated shorts I have lost count. A lot of the humor is topical, so it pays to know who \"Little Egypt\" and other characters. The Busby Berkeley-type \"aqua\" number with bathing suited-sardines coming out of the can, and the tomato can-can dance were both clever!

All of the above, and more, was in the first half of this slightly longer-than-normal length cartoon. The second half was about a King Kong-type which escapes from the \"Animal Crackers\" box and terrorizes everyone. That part was not much, and ended on a somewhat stupid note. So..... an \"A\" for the first half, a \"D\" for the second, making it about a C-plus or B-minus overall.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While caricatures and\/or references to entertainment industry people or things or even brands of products is usually a staple in shorts like this one, they aren't used in quantity here. Most of the individual gags are rather generic. As I'm going to give examples, there will be spoilers below:

There are only three (well, technically four-there's a quick one at the very end of the cartoon) caricatures that I spotted, which is kind of low for this type of short, though one is a featured character with a fair amount of activity. They are Jack Benny (as Jack Bunny), Leopold Stowkowski and the inimitable Ned Sparks (as a crab on a can-chances are very good that, if a crab was involved in a Warner Brothers short in the 1930s-1940s, the caricature used would be Ned Sparks). There are also references to Billy Rose's Aquacade and a riff on a radio show character called \"Henry Aldrich\" (Coming, mother!), a play on Superman (Superguy here) and the villain is a take-off on \"King Kong\". That's it for that kind of gag.

The products themselves are mostly generic and the gags are more plays on basic items in unusual situations, such as turtles coming off of cans of soup to attack the villain as tanks, tomato soup cans doing \"The can-can', gingerbread men who turn into paratroopers, using tissues for parachutes and so on. The gags are very good and it's an excellent example of a Bob Clampett cartoon. Clampett had hit his stride as a director by this point and while it isn't anywhere near his best work, it's nothing to sneeze at either. This short can be found on Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Vol. 3, which is an excellent set that I highly recommend. This short itself is also recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Heya Denver fans! The animation is a cartoon's classic & one of my favorite too (and yes, it was broadcast in Europe as well. Including my tiny central-European country, Slovenia! =:) Oh, how I miss the 80's cartoons!! Honestly, they were way better than today's children shows. More imaginative, creative, full of fun with good morals, more substance, great storyline and excellent character voices. Computer animated shows of today lack all of these features. So all of you, who agree and want to bring back all the shows so that the kids of today's generation would see the entertainment that these cartoons brought to us, please log on the side posted bellow and sign a petition for a rerun of the 80's best cartoons!

http:\/\/www.thepetitionsite.com \/1\/we-want-an-80s-child-cartoon-kids-show-channel

Carpe Denver! =)

Lejla","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"hello all Denver fans!

i couldn't agree more with you guys! This show was so cool and cute, i i watched it as a kid in the late 80s. Among Denver are other favourite too, such as Care Bears and Rainbow Brite. I am 24 now, but it is still one of my favourite shows, and my favourite cartoon from the 80s. It brings back all the memories. The theme tune was great too, i get goosebumps whenever i hear it. It is sad that it lasted such a short time, but it has remained a firm favourite. Its great that i am not alone and that there are people out there who liked it too. This is one of the cartoon shows i shall keep for future generations.

Viva Denver! :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film, for what it was set out to be, succeeded. It's a short tragic film. Although my choice of film are ones that really develop characters and their relationships, this film is meant to just give a taste, leaving you with the \"what happens next\" factor. After watching it, I really was wanting more, more of the characters back story, what influences they had to make them into the people they were. I think thats what the makers intended the viewing audience to think. The acting is amazing. There aren't many lines in the film so their body language, facial expressions, and overall presence needed to be powerful enough to withhold a scene. Both Franco and Miner have that element and it shows. For them (especially Franco) to take the time to make this, obviously says they believed in this film and wanted to be apart of it and for that, I appreciated the film for what it was. Also I'm happy I own it so I can share it with other people that would've never known it existed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Travis (James Franco) is a young man riding a train for business reasons (we're to assume) who leaves his beloved phone behind. It gets picked up by a prostitute, Terri (Rachel Miner), and when he goes to her city to pick it up, a series of events occur that are sure to stay with him forever.

Both characters have barriers they've put up to defend themselves from communication. But despite their facades, it's obvious both are eager to bust them down. In total there are about 30 or so spoken lines, but from the way James Franco and Rachel Miner use their faces you might as well turn off the volume, words are unnecessary. A scene to look out for is Terri staring at herself in the mirror. You can just feel her despair permeating the room.

But, the movie isn't perfect. It's mostly filmed using hand-held cameras, which gets a bit distracting. Mainly due to the acting of Mr. Franco and Miner and the photography, the script's flaws don't stand out as much. Still, sometimes it seems as if the story doesn't really know where it wants to go.

All in all, this is the type of film that truly stays with you long after you watched it. An hour after you've seen it, you're still 'what-if'-ing yourself on the behalf of certain characters. It's not flawless, but still leaves you wanting more, wishing it were at least 4x as long.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a haunting short film. Both James Franco and Rachel Miner deliver performances that hurt, ring true and stay with you. Since this is called a tragic story this isn't much of a spoiler. But I wanted to change the outcome, even though it is right for the story, because I had already come to care about these people. I can only think of a few short films that have had that effect on me. Beautifully shot, acted, edited. High caliber work all around, even to the use of just the right sound and\/or music to advance the story. The end credit song finished the job, wringing even more emotion from me. This is first rate from beginning to end. Kudos to the writer\/director and all involved.

This is my first review of a film in the comments section. I promised to do so in exchange for a copy of the DVD. The review could be good or bad, just my honest opinion. This is it and it's the least I can do. I am so glad I got to see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In my opinion the directing, editing, lighting, and acting(minus Franco) were very good. I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised and impressed with this film. I wasn't expecting much, in way of camera angles, sound, etc, but in these areas the film wasn't bad at all.

After seeing the film, I personally felt frustrated with both characters because I wanted so badly for these two characters to reach out to one another. And I felt like the Travis(Franco) character wasn't really affected or changed in the end after Terri commits suicide. Although, this is probably due to the lack or inability of James Franco to express emotion(of any kind) very well in this movie. I've seen a few of Franco's other films, and to me he just can't pull it off when a scene calls for real emotion or facial expressions. The only positive he brings to the film, is the possibility of more people watching this movie.

On the other hand, Rachel Miner's portrayal of Terri was well done, and she looks to have a bright future ahead. I could really see and feel the sadness and emptiness in her character, and it made me feel for her. I only wish I could have seen more into Terri's life before the film ended.

For a short film, this movie was good, but it leaves you wanting more in the end. I only wish it could have been just a bit longer, to see the characters develop a little more. In spite of that, I hope to see more films from the director and crew in the future.:)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not here to tell you \"Armored\" is Kubrickian, Hitchcockian or Fellini-esquire. Nope. Referenced directors are more like Don Siegel (\"Charlie Varrick\") and Walter Hill (\"The Warriors\"). Those two helmers didn't fool around with niceties like putting women in their movies. No skirts need apply. They unapologetically made guy movies. Guns, lots of guns. Men met violent death with a twitch of the jaw. Their movies were like a sap to the head. You want a friend? Get a dog.

\"Armored\" is so a guy movie. Dueling armored trucks? Bloody gunshot wounds? Exploding money? If that doesn't get the lizard part of your brain excited, then stay away.

At 88 minutes, \"Armored\" is all muscle without an ounce of fat. We meet six security guards who drive armored trucks, three per truck. The six, led by Matt Dillon, scheme up a fake hijack involving two trucks. Their mission one day is to deliver $42 million from the federal reserve (I think). The idea is to drive both trucks to a warehouse, stash the cash, then stage a hijack. Sure, the cops will suspect them, but if they stick together they'll get through it.

Trouble is, one of the six, played by Columbus Short, is a holdout. At first. But he faces eviction. And he's the guardian for his messed up younger brother. He needs cash bad.

Matt Dillon cajoles, pleads, persuades the holdout. No blood on anyone's hands. A clean getaway. All good, no bad. You'll be rich forever. Blue skies smiling at you ...

Right.

Everything goes to hell, of course. It's one damned thing after another and the stakes keep going up. And it almost all happens claustrophobically inside an abandoned warehouse somewhere in Los Angeles. In fact, the movie goes out of its way to project a backdrop of industrial urban decay. I happen to like industrial urban decay.

Kudos to Matt Dillon, who plays the top bad dog. He goes from charming to disappointed to frustrated to outraged to totally effing insane in the course of the movie. Love that guy.

Also, credit is due to the menacing, throbbing, blistering and totally sinister electronic soundtrack by John Murphy. I am guessing he's heard a few Tangerine Dream records.

Also, it's surprising that this is a PG-13 movie. I caught one \u0097 one! \u0097 f-bomb in this entire movie about violent tough-guy robbers. On some level, I like that. Take the kids.

The director is Nimrod Antal, a Hungarian who made a fine noir set in the Budapest subway system called \"Kontroll.\" Screenwriter is an out-of-nowhere guy called James V. Simpson.

A lot of the people in this movie are just starting out. I am willing to bet the esteem given to this movie will rise as time goes on and these filmmakers advance in their careers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Good, boring or bad? It's good. Worth your money? If you can spare it for a ticket, sure. Better than the trailer makes it seem? Yes, oddly.

There isn't much to the script - Guards working at armored truck company move vast amounts of cash. Guards see opportunity to retire as millionaires, one of them is too honest to go along with it all, and a well-laid plan goes to hell.

This could have been a poorly-executed Reservoir Dogs ripoff, but the skill of the cast and the director's ability to make just about anything tense pull it out of that realm and put it onto a solid footing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is about six men who are assigned to transport money from bank to businesses. Ty Hackett (Columbus Short) was in Iraq for the war serving his country and now just is being helped out making a living by his friend Mike Cochrone (Matt Dillon) making sure he does not loose his house. Mike tells him that this wasn't the life his parents were expecting for him and he should be living a better life than he is now with his brother Jimmy Hackett (Andre Kinney). Telling Ty that him and Jimmy have always been family to him and would do anything to help them out, Mike tells Ty about a plan to make a heist. The money would be around 43 million split six ways among the other transport men too, although Ty does not like the idea he tells his friend Mike as long as no one gets hurt he would be in. The last night Ty was forced to talk to a welfare lady about putting up his brother in foster care giving him a dilemma to lose what matters most in his life. Although the plan sounds safe at first, greed isn't everything when it comes to taking lives.

When it comes to heists, your either in or your out, so when you don't go with a plan its hard to play the hero and stop greed driven people when it comes to having large sums of money. This movie comes with a star studded cast to keep you interested starring Jean Reno, Laurence Fishburne, Amaury Nolasco, Fred Ward, Skeet Ulrich, and Milo Ventimiglia. Short I have recently only remembered him in \"Stomp the Yard\" which was about a kid who lost his brother and lives his dream to go to college. This was probably one of his best movies I have seen him in and this one he fits the character so well it's great to see him on the big screen again in action.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"New guy at an armored car company gets talked into becoming involved in an armored car heist by his fellow drivers in order to score some quick cash. The problem is that they really don't have much of a plan and when complications arise things turn deadly.

Fast moving popcorn action film has a great deal going with it. First off the film is under 90 minutes so the film doesn't really have the time to bog down in plot. It cranks everything up and just goes. Next the film has some great action sequences so one moves towards the edge of ones seat. Lastly the film has a stellar cast that include Matt Dillon, Jean Reno and Lawrence Fishburne. Its a first rate cast that sells and covers over the stories short comings.

This isn't brain surgery its a popcorn movie and on that level it scores highly. Worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a decent movie. Although little bit short in time for me, it packs a lot of action, grit, commonsense and emotions in that time frame. Matt Dillon and the other main character does a great job in this movie. The emotions and intensity were convincing and tense throughout the movie. It is not typical fancy expensive Hollywood CGI action movie, but it was a very satisfying movie indeed for the price. My evening was great because of this movie. This movie is straight traditional action movie with great acting, story and directing. I would recommend this movie. The character development of the characters were good and makes you believe that were are actually seeing a real event taking place. Because this movie I believe was made with cheaper budget, the acting and quality were much higher.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well unlike most people.... I went into this movie expecting it to not be that good and it turned out to be an awesome film. Pretty cool plot I love the idea of it but what really made this movie was the actors. they all did an incredible job and it was pretty cool to see fishburn and dillon work together. It's a movie where you go in thinking right away you will be able to predict whats going to happen but it doesen't quite turn out how you predicted. I don't want to give away anything about the story so I wont... but I suggest giving this one a chance. If you saw the movie Money Train and enjoyed that you would love this movie. Maybe everything Lawrence Fishburn touches is gold?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching the preview of Armored I thought the movie was either going to be a very bad or a very good film. Thankfully, the movie was entertaining, suspenseful, and realistic. There never is the perfect crime, and Armored showed why. The movie show perfectly when people get into stressful situation they behave like animals. The last hour of the film is very entertaining. Matt Dillon is still a very good actor. Hard to believe Dillon is 50 years of age. I would buy this movie. I give Armored eight out of ten. Not a Christmas movie. Did I write ten lines yet? Nope! Anyways, there is not to many action films. Armored has a lot of excitement in it, which gives the movie goer a choice over another comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was great!Tangi Miller and Flex did a great job. They both look good together and they both pulled it off.Tasha Smith was so funny as the cousin,and she couldn't stay out of her business.Essence held it down for her girl, when she needed her. Aloma was sweet and played a dear Grandmother she really reminded me of my grandmother.And Oh,I can't forget about the stripper, he was so find, and I didn't know if I should cover my eyes or smile while I watch him reveal his sexiness on the big screen.Damn! he was fine! Tangi looked flawless, and sexy, and she stepped up a notch since Felicity. Over all the movie had a lot \"A\" List Actors and Actress. It was funny, sexy, crazy, touching,loving, emotional and wonderful. This movie is a must see! Go it get on DVD now if don't have it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cute Movie feel good movie I had never heard of this movie but ran across it while looking for something to rent. I had high hopes for this movie based purely on Flex being in this movie. I have never seen him in anything not worth while. True to form this movie delivered for me. I enjoyed the story. The movie is full of great actors and actresses. The hilarious Tasha Smith, Essence Atkins and of course Tangi Miller. I really liked this movie a lot. I didn't give it five stars because it did not discuss certain issues that I thought the movie should have detailed. The issue was apparently resolved but I would have appreciated a discussion resolving the issues. I liked the movie so much that I am now buying the movie after I've already rented and watched it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"True Love, I truly enjoyed and LOVED this movie. It was fun, funny and inspirational. I just saw it on DVD. How did I miss this one it's a winner! I mean Flex was \"That Guy\". I wanted to marry him. This was my 1st time seeing him as a straight leading man and he pulls it off. I thought Tangi Miller was the best ever and I was a Felicity head too. A fearless woman who only fears her Nana. Thank You for giving women of color range in your work and she looks great! Tasha Smith was a Blast! Aloma Wright was priceless as Nana. This cute romantic comedy is \"A Must See\". Oh and the new comer Marcus Patrick is worth the surprise ladies...True Love. Karen","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My friends and I saw this at the San Diego Black Film Festival. It was great. Stormy is a strong black woman and Nana reminds me of my grandmother.

Rene is FINE!!! Seeing him take off his clothes was definitely worth the price of admission. Can someone forward me his contact info?

My friend thinks Flex is the finer of the two. She's been a Flex fan for years though so she might be a little biased. The cousins were funny and just as trifling as Nana described them. LOL.

I am looking forward to seeing this movie again when it comes to theaters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu (1976) is a vastly underrated early work by director John Woo. The film stars Dorian Tan (Tan Tao-liang) and features Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung and James Tien in significant supporting roles. Many people believe, or have been lead to believe by deceptive advertising, that this is a Jackie Chan film. This is not a Jackie Chan film, Dorian Tan is the star but Jackie gives one of his best (most serious) early performances.

The Hand of Death is about a Shaolin disciple named Yunfei (Tan) who is sent on a mission to assassinate a Shaolin traitor named Shih Xiaofeng (Tien) and protect a revolutionary named Zhang Yi (Woo). Along his journey Yunfei meets up with a young woodcutter named Tan (Chan) and a disgraced sword fighter (Chang Chung) known as \"the wanderer.\" Both men have suffered at the hands of Shih and want to take revenge. The three team up to defeat Shih and his eight bodyguards and escort the revolutionary to safety.

The martial arts action is above average under the direction of Sammo Hung. Dorian Tan uses his trademark high kicks very effectively as the \"Northern eighteen styles kicks\" along with some \"Southern five styles boxing.\" Sammo Hung and Jackie Chan provide excellent martial arts performances as well. James Tien is not the greatest martial artist on the Jade screen but does an acceptable job. Some of the early fights are a bit slow and seem over choreographed but the final showdowns featuring Chan, Tan and Hung are very good.

Director John Woo provides plenty of interesting character development in the film, which is refreshing. The cinematography by Leung Wing Kat is very stylish, unique and beautiful for a kung fu film of this era. Joseph Koo's music: a combination of soft flutes and 70's \"Shaft\" style orchestral pieces is kung fu cinema at its best. Hand of Death is not Jackie and Sammo's usual kung fu comedy. Hand of Death is a serious, straightforward revenge driven story.

Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu is an underrated classic in the old school kung fu genre. The film is one of the best artistically of its time and a preview of the great things to come from Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung. Hung's great choreography is put on display here before his directorial debut and Chan's early charisma and talent can be clearly seen.

Hand of Death is a solid, stylish old school kung fu film and a brilliant early work of the legendary John Woo.

Kung Fu Genre Rating 7.5\/10

Wanderer to Tan (referring to his new weapon): \"The Little Eagle Wing God Lance.\"

Tan: \"Just a knickknack.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE HAND OF DEATH most definitely rates a ten on a scale of one to- due, in no small part, to John Woo's masterful direction, coupled with Kat's superb cinematography: some of the leisurely tracking shots alone are worth the price of a rental; there are moments when this one borders on becoming an art-house film. Both James Tien and Sammo Hung make for the kind of villains you can't help but love to hate. Tien is particularly good as the baddest of the bad. It's a role reversal the likes of which I don't think I've ever seen before (Tien normally played a hero and, in fact, with his moustache, I didn't even recognize him at first). Sammo's goofy \"buck teeth\" only make an already unsavory character seem even more flawed; that he also happens to be a skilled martial artist makes him even less likable- in a villain you love to hate kind of way. His choreography of the fight scenes throughout is fantastic. Jackie Chan appears briefly (early on and late in the going) as a blacksmith, and I believe I actually glimpsed Yuen Biao somewhere along the way. Tan as the lead is nothing less than magnificent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is amazing. You will NEVER laugh harder. It's a target. No, I think it's...yes it's...A BOOB! This movie gets funnier by the second--like when Jackie Chan's character finally dies in his final fight scene. This movie is velly velly seekwet like treasha! Congrats if you buy or rent this. You'll never return it, in my opinion. I didn't, and I haven't found it in a store since. I watched this movie once and I was forever in love with Kung-Fu action flicks. If you're looking for an amazing film in the realm of great production value, good or even mediocre acting, and good special effects...this is NOT that movie. If you're looking for laughs and timeless wonderment, pick this up for a dollar and you'll probably never let it go. With friends, popcorn and drinks, it's the perfect evening.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a very good PPV, but like Wrestlemania XX some 14 years later, the WWE crammed so many matches on it, some of the matches were useless. I'm not going to go through every match on the card because it would take forever to do.

However major highlights included the HUGE pop for Demolition winning the tag team belts from Haku and Andre the Giant, The first ever mixed tag match featuring Randy Savage and Sensational Queen Sherri vs Dusty Rhodes and the late Sapphire and the first ever clash between The Ultimate Warrior and Hulk Hogan.

Some matches were a complete waste of time. Like The Bolsheviks vs The Hart Foundation was only about 40 seconds long, Koko B Ware vs Rick Martel was short and Big Bossman vs Akeem was too short.

Mr Perfect vs Brutus Beefcake and Ted DiBiase vs Jake 'the snake' Roberts were very good indeed.

Overall Grade - B","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wrestlemania 6, is an entertaining Wrestlemania, if not an entirely successful one. The Ultimate Challenge, is of course worth the price of admission alone, but once again as with a lot of the early Mania's, there's too much filler in between. The crowd pops for almost everything, and as always, giving us the reliable announcing team of Gorilla&The Body. Having a Face vs Face match as the main event for a Wrestlemania, was absolutely unheard of at this time, it only made things that much more tense.

Matches.

Koko B. Ware\/W Frankie Vs \"The Model\" Rick Martel. For a 3 or so minute match, this is as good as it gets. I wish it was a tad longer, but what I got, was pretty damn good. Martel wins, with the Boston Crab.

2 1\/2 \/5

WWF Tag Team Championship. Demolition Vs Colossal Connection|C|\/W Bobby Heean. HUGE Pop for Demolition. Match itself is pretty dull, I often had trouble paying attention. Andre really didn't do much, so in a way it was more like a 2 on 1. There is solid talent involved here, and it's a shame they couldn't produce better. Demolition wins that titles, with there Pattened maneuver off the top. Crowd blows the roof of for the finish.

1 1\/2 \/5

Earthquake\/W Jimmy Hart. Vs Hercules I got what I expected here, a standard boring filler match, with Earthquake doing his thing. I'm not really a fan of either, so It didn't perk my interest much. Quake wins with his sit down splash.

1\/5

Brutus Beefcake Vs Mr.Pefect\/W The Genius. Deafening pop for Bruti. Really good match up, with sadly not enough time given to develop even further. It really kept my interest, and remains one of my favorites on the card. Beefcake wins with a slingshot to the post, much to the crowd's approval.

3\/5

Roddy Piper Vs Bad News Brown. HUGE pop for Piper. Nothing more than a boring brawl, that does not know what it wants to be. Some entertaining antics from The Hot Rod, but nothing else. Noteworthy for Roddy painting himself half black, and calling himself \"Hot Scott\"

1\/5

The Hart Foundation Vs The Bolsheviks. Record breaking, but other than that, nothing to see here. Harts win with, The Hart Attack.

0\/5

The Barbarian\/W Bobby Heenan. Vs Tito Santana. Average for the time it got, but watchable nonetheless. Crowd was rather dead for it, except for Heenan's interference. Jessie's hilarious cracks, about Tito's food is more entertaining, then the match itself. Barbarian wins with a nasty looking, flying clothesline off the top.

2\/5

Mixed Tag Match. Dusty&Sapphire\/W Elizabeth. Vs Macho King&Sherri. Big pop for Dusty, and an even bigger one for Elizabeth, who looks absolutely stunning, might I add. I thought it was OK. It was lively at least, if nothing that great. I'm not a fan of Dusty' so. Dusty and Sapphire win, when She rolls up Sherri.

2\/5

The Orient Express\/W Fuji. Vs The Rockers. Crowd is rather anemic for this, surprisingly. Decent no doubt, but with these guys involved, it should have been better. The constant focus with Fuji, kinda detracts from the match. Express wins by count out, when Janetty gets nailed with salt.

2 1\/2 \/5

Jim Duggan Vs Dino Bravo\/W Earthquake&Jimmy Hart. Duggan like an idiot, brings out The American flag in Canada. Duggan gets some solid boo's for it too, but that also may be due to Bravo's Canadian heritage. Crappy match all around, I don't care for Duggan, but that's not why it sucked. Too short in the end, to really matter. Duggan wins when he whacks Bravo in the back, with the two by four. Duggan gets splashed for his troubles.

0\/5

Million Dollar Championship. Ted Dibiase|C|\/W Virgil. Vs Jake Robers\/W Damien. Some slow spots, but when all was said and done, I had a good time. Two solid wrestlers giving it there all, resulted in an entertaining match up. Crowd noticeably gets Ancy during parts of it though, by doing the wave. Dibiase wins by count out. Jake has the last laugh, by giving away some of his money, much to the crowd's delight.

3\/5

Big Bossman Vs Akeem\/W Slick. Nice pop for The Bossman. Too routine, and too short to really mean anything, in the end. Akeem was a gimmick, I was never too fond of. Bossman wins with his slam.

0\/5

The Rhythm&Blues segment was pretty much a failure. Crowd wasn't into it

Rick Rude\/W Bobby Heenan. Vs Jimmy Snuka. For a filler match, before the main event, this wasn't too bad. If it had time to get going more, it would have been excellent, for sure. Rude wins, with the Rude Awakening.

2\/5

Title For Title. Ultimate Warrior|IC Champ| Vs Hulk Hogan|WWF Champ| This one is all about the atmosphere from the crowd, and the split crowd reaction, for the most part. Warrior got a pretty decent pop, but in my opinion it was a little underwhelming. Hogan dwarfs it completely,with his. It's one of Wrestlemania's best matches in history. With two people, who aren't really known for there wrestling, they managed to create an amazing match up that was talked about for ages. I have seen this many times, and my respect level grows higher for each one, for their effort, considering i'm not a fan of either. Even die-hard fanatics who crave pure wrestling, can't bitch about this one!. Warrior wins with his splash.

5\/5

Bottom line. Wrestlemania 6 is an entertaining entry, if nothing overly special. It's memorable for the main event, the location, and the crowd, but it's not one of the best if you ask me. That being said I do enjoy it, and I give it my recommendation to fellow wrestling fans.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WrestleMania 6 took place April 1, 1990 at the SkyDome in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Match 1: Rick Martel vs. Koko B. Ware - For what it was, a very solid opening match. Koko was always fairly popular with the fans, and at this point Martel was still getting over as a heel talent. In the end Martel is able to snag the win in a pretty non memorable match.

Match 2: The Colossal Connection (Andre The Giant & Haku) (c) (with Bobby 'The Brain' Heenan) vs Demolition (Ax & Smash) for the WWF Tag Team Championship - At this point Andre's health was really awful, so his performance was really nothing special. The crowd is 100% pro Demolition in this match. In the end Haku is pinned and we have New Tag Team Champions. After the match Andre lays out Haku and Heenan and turns face at what would turn out to be his last WrestleMania.

Match 3: Earthquack vs Hercules - Very short match. Big dominant heels were really a popular thing at the time. R.I.P. to both men in the match. John Tenta (Earthquake) passed not that long ago and same with Hercules. In the end Earthquake pins Hercules for the win.

Match 4: Mr. Perfect vs Brutus \"The Barber\" Beefcake - The first really good match of the night. R.I.P. to Curt Henning (Mr. Perfect). Really solid back and forth action from both of these talented guys. In the end Brutus gets the win thanks to a lot of his major fan support during the match.

Match 5: 'Rowdy' Roddy Piper vs Bad News Brown - Not a technical classic, but a pretty decent brawl for WrestleMania. Piper comes out half black\/half white in what is considerably a classic moment. In the end both guys fight to a double count out with no clear cut winner.

Match 6: The Hart Foundation vs The Bolsheviks - Complete squash match. The Hart Foundation gets an easy win. Surprising that WWE used to have a tag team division.

Match 7: The Barbarian vs Tito Santana - Bobby Heenan's \"Heenan Family\" fairs better in this match as The Barbarian takes the win against Tito Santana. Not memorable, but good to go back and watch years later.

Match 8: Randy Savage & Sensational Sherri vs Dusty Rhodes & Sapphire - Big inter-gender tag team match. Dusty Rhodes wears the uncomfortable polka dot outfit out to the ring. In the end Rhodes and Sapphire get the win over \"The Macho King\" and Sensational Queen Sherri.

Match 9: The Rockers vs The Orient Express - Surprisingly another tag team match. Tag wrestling used to be so much better during this time period. A young Shawn Michaels and his partner Marty Jannetty take a loss by count out in this match to the Orient Express.

Match 10: Dino Bravo vs Jim Duggan - Duggan gets a decent reaction, despite his American Patriot gimmick. Bravo, a member of Jimmy Hart's group, comes to the ring with Hart and Earthquake. Although he has support, Duggan takes the win.

Match 11: \"The Million Dollar Man\" Ted DiBiase (c) vs Jake 'The Snake' Roberts for the Million Dollar Championship - The first major main event of the night. Roberts was extremely over with the fans. Match was considerably good for what it was. DiBiase is able to pick up a count out win on Roberts. But Roberts ends up possessing DiBiase's money and giving it away.

Match 12: The Big Boss Man vs Akeem (with Slick) - One Man Gang's sad attempt at being an African Dream named Akeem. A really short match that needed some more time to develop itself as a match. Boss Man wins with a slam.

Match 13: Jimmy \"Superfly\" Snuka vs Rick Rude - Heenan comes to the ring with Rude for this match. Snuka, never really got it good at WrestleMania. He always seemed to be on the losing end. After a short 5 minutes, Rude gets the win over Snuka.

Match 14: WWF Champion Hulk Hogan vs Intercontinental Champion The Ultimate Warrior - Dubbed as \"The Ultimate Challenge\" we get some interesting promos from both men earlier in the night. The match was actually very good, given that people tend to think Hogan can't wrestle. A lot of near falls that really got the crowd and people that watch at home into it. In the end Warrior gets the win on Hogan and wins both titles. A stunned crowd looks on as Hulk Hogan suffers his first loss at WrestleMania.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the 1980s in wrestling the world was simple. Hulk Hogan would take on Roddy Piper, or Bobby Heenan's cronies or Ted DiBiase and come out victorious more often than not. Occasionally he would get an ally like Randy Savage in 1988, but mostly it was all about Hulk Hogan vs Bobby Heenan, and that's the way it should be.

But on this night that was about to change, a new champion, a man who the WWE thought would be their man for the 90s was crowned. It didn't work out. But the WWE was right about one thing: Hulkamania was finished and a new order needed to be established.

This historic Wrestlemania, the first to be held outside America, kicked off with Rick Martel defeating Koko B Ware. Koko never really had a lot of luck at Wrestlemania and was taken down in short order here.

Next up the Colossal Connection Andre the Giant and Haku put their tag team titles on the line against Demolition Ax and Smash and lost. New tag team champions crowned.

Next match saw Earthquake defeat Hercules. Hercules was another fellow who didn't really have a lot of luck at Wrestlemania. Plenty of luck for Brutus Beefcake as he ended Mr Perfect's undefeated streak. Well, I guess someone had to end it.

Roddy Piper and Bad News Brown fought to a double count out in a slow but fun match, next up the Hart Foundation defeated Nikolai Volkov and Boris Zhukov in 19 seconds. Not really a match, unfortunately. The Barbarian then defeated Tito Santana in a short match.

The American Dream Dusty Rhodes and Saphire then defeated the Macho King Randy Savage and Queen Sherri in a messy mixed tag match. This was the only female wrestling really going on in the WWE at this point of time.

Next up was a fun match as the Rockers Marty Janetty and Shawn Micheals defeated The Orient Express in a fast paced encounter. There were a lot of good tag teams at this point in time. Jim Duggan then beat Dino Bravo in a nothing match.

Next Ted DiBiase put his most cherished possession, the Million Dollar Championship on the line against Jake Roberts. Roberts was distracted by Virgil and counted out allowing Ted to retain his title in an entertaining match and one of the longer matches on the show.

Next up the Twin Towers collide as the Big Bossman defeats Akeem in short order, this is followed by Rick Rude winning a short match with Jimmy Snuka.

Finally we come to the main event with Hulk Hogan putting the WWE Title on the line against Intercontinental Champion The Ultimate Warrior. This is an entertaining back and forth match won by the Warrior after Hogan missed a leg drop. The crowd was extraordinary and the match was a great spectacle.

And so the torch was passed, but would the Ultimate Warrior prove to be the Champion the WWE hoped he would be?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This event defined an era of wrestling entertainment that, I believe, is not equaled today. The colorful characters - in their stereotypical garb - brought a certain charm to the show that has since been raped by society and overexposed. Wrestling had a bit of an innocence back then. A kid could watch it without watching an episode of Jerry Springer.

Looking back now (I was 5 at the time), although I loved both Warrior and Hogan, I think I enjoyed Warrior more because of his mystique. Hogan was the branded hero who weilded an impressive public image. The Ultimate Warrior, on the other hand, was a masked man of few words - an out-of-the-limelight hero for a different audience.

This rivalry was so exciting as a kid because of this duality in me duking it out for each combatant. I had a place for both of them. Because there was bloodshed too in this long, heavy battle, the stakes were high - at least to me as a kid. On a similar note, because of Hogan's defeat, this made him more human - I remember feeling kind of sorry for him.

All of these emotions at play in the juvenile boy's soap opera made Wrestlemania VI such a great time to witness this game.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*SPOILERS AHEAD*

Great WrestleManias were still a few years away. But this one was certainly good, with lots of good matches, and one great match.

Demolition was always at their best at WrestleMania. I'm glad their last WM hoorah (I refuse to include the other version) was a win over the Colossal Connection. I liked the gag of Andre never tagging in.

Few fans know that this was the first time anyone ever beat Mr. Perfect. For some reason, Brutus Beefcake's feat was never recognized. Or the fact that he did it pretty easily.

The Hart Foundation's win over the Bolsheviks was the shortest in WM history, including the 24\/9 second match between King Kong Bundy and S.D. Jones.

I'm glad Jake and DiBiase got to fight at WrestleMania. This made up for the fact that the feud had to be put on hold for so long.

I expected the Big Bossman-Akeem feud to heat up, but the Bossman just clobbered him. As good as Bossman was as a heel, he was just great as a face. He was always intense and obviously loved his job.

If the Warrior just had a better work ethic and maybe tried to learn to wrestle, he would have been a great WWF champion.

Worth a watch, especially since the boring matches are too short to complain about. And the tag team matches are all very exciting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The largest crowd to ever see a wrestling event in the US took place at Wrestlemania 6. Over 93,000 people showed up to break the Rolling Stones indoor record, and this event didn't disappoint at all. Maybe the biggest match of all time took place as the Immortal Hulk defended his world title against the Ultimate Warrior. There are over 12 matches in all so you get tons of action","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film in the early 80's on cable. It was unique as a statement about the sixties, culture, war, music, race, and a bunch of things I'm certain I missed. However about a year ago it came back into my life as I started enjoying it with my son. He's a little young (9) for a lot of the themes in it, but he understands dancing hippies are fun to watch, and he gets the idea that end is ironic. While I can't think of other films in this genre, it does have a stand alone genius I love. It also does a unique justice to Central Park. Most musicals are lost on me, one way or another. \"Tommy\" was over the top and heavy handed in direction, \"Oliver\" seemed like crowd control on the silver screen, \"The Wall\" was so much abstract self important and indulgent dribble, but listening to \"Failure of the Flesh\" from Hair sounds right for our times today, as it did in the eighties, as it must have in the sixties...truly Timeless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this movie more than 50 times in my life, and each time I watch it the movie is just as entertaining as it was the first time! George Berger (played by Treat Williams) leads a small group of 1960's-1970's era anti-war \"hippies\" living at large in New York City. This small group happens upon a young man, Claude Bukowski (played by John Savage) who has been drafted into the US Army for service in Vietnam. Despite their best efforts to dissuade him, Claude does eventually report for basic training in the Army. Still distressed over his having left them, the hippie group steal a car and travel across the USA to visit Claude \"...for a couple of hours,\" in the words of George Berger (to an M.P. stationed at the entry gate of the Army base Claude is temporarily stationed at in Nevada). The outcome is truly touching, so I won't spoil it for those who have not yet seen this fantastic movie. The musical score is equally fantastic! Don Dacus (of the rock group Chicago), who plays the part of \"Woof\" - one of the hippies, is a not a key character, but the movie wouldn't have been the same without him. Beverly D'Angelo (who plays Sheila Franklin, an uptown girl who is befriended by the hippie group) is sensational in her role! A MUST SEE film!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now more than ever we need Peace & Love in this world!

This film really showcases the wonderful music of the Broadway show, and the fabulous Choreography of the legendary Twila Tharp! I saw it again after many years, and it still holds up well.

Thank you, MGM\/UA for putting this on DVD! I love the option of seeing in Widescreen. MGM rocks for doing this on many of their DVD releases.

Ya gotta love Treat Williams as Berger and John Savage as Claude. They couldn't have picked better actors & actresses for this film! Beverly D'Angelo is such a 'hot mama' in this film--I had forgotten just how hot! WOW!

The supporting cast is absolutely great,

with the late great Nell Carter making a singing cameo in a couple of scenes, as well as the kooky Charlotte Ray (Mrs. Garrett on 'Facts Of Life')

The story gets a little weak toward the end, but the anti-war sentiment of the late 60's still holds up, and is relevant today.

It's beautifully filmed (quite a bit on location) and is so colorful and lovely and really brings the spirit of 1968 back on the big screen.

I saw this movie when it was released in 1979 when I was 15, and was moved by it then, and it still moves me now at 40. Some other reviews on here say they think it should have been made sooner--I don't think Hollywood was ready to make such a movie back in the late 60's-early 70's.

The Vietnam War ended in 1975, and the whole thing hit a little too close to home, I think for this story to be filmed before it was (like in 1969, 70, 71)

Bravo to Director Milos Foreman! I love this film!!!!!!!

It's nice to see it again, this time on DVD. It never looked better!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first time I ever saw this movie was when I was four years old. I remember loving it and everything about it. 13 years later, I am now 17, and decided to watch it about a month ago because I am taking a 1960's class in school. I didn't really know what to expect, since it had been 13 years since I last saw it, but I was completely blown away by it. The actors were amazing, the music was so fun, and I now find myself singing along to every song. Treat Williams is great as Berger, the \"leader\" of the hippie group, who always gets what he wants, one way or another (except for at the very end, of course). John Savage is actually very convincing as Claude, the Oklahoma draftee who falls in love with Sheila (Beverly D'Angelo). D'Angelo is lovely as the prim and proper rich girl who eventually rebels against her upbringing and joins the hippies. The other hippies are played by Annie Golden, Don Dacus, and Dorsey Wright. Annie Golden is just adorable as Jeannie, the girl who is pregnant but still as cute and innocent as a child. Don Dacus and Dorsey Wright are good as Woof and Hud, the other two members of the group, and Cheryl Barnes, who plays Hud's fianc\u00e9e, has an amazing voice.

The only problem I have with this movie, however, is that the relationship between Claude and Sheila is not very convincing. They are barely ever shown together, and when they are, they fight (remember the skinny dipping scene?). It seems as though their relationship is very weak, and by the end of the movie we are supposed to believe they are madly in love, only based on the few meetings they had. I also see that many people writing reviews here are upset by the PG rating this movie has. I personally would raise the rating up to a PG-13, only because there is some drug use... but remember in 1979, PG-13 didn't exist. I don't think the nudity is bad at all, it is in no way sexual (in fact, there isn't really any sex at all in this movie), and it is only to show the childlike innocence that the group maintains. In most European countries, nudity isn't regarded as something bad, and I don't see why it is here in the US. Anyways, I give this movie a high rating, and I'm glad it was made back then, because in the insanely \"politically correct\" world of today, they wouldn't even think of making it, and even if they did, it would be a very \"watered down\" version, and I'm sure you wouldn't get the full effect.

In conclusion, this is a very underrated film that is definitely worth checking out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(May contain spoilers) I find myself disappointed with the criticism this movie receives. While it is most certainly not perfect, it is much better than it is given credit for. The acting and photography are excellent. Some of the musical numbers are great; including the title number, \"Where Do I Go?\", \"Easy to be Hard\", and \"Black Boys\/White Boys\". While I have not seen the stage musical, I think that it clouds the judgement of many. This is not the musical you see in theatres. Do not attempt to compare them. The theatrical musical might have been sensational to watch, but it would never have had the same effect on film, so a plot had to be added. And the ending that has been added is just amazing. The movie left me feeling like I had actually watched something important, unlike most of today's movies, which only satisfy on one level.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 1979 film musical of HAIR was loosely based on the infamous 1960's Broadway musical that became famous because of its infamous nude scene. The stage musical isn't really much more than a group of skits strung together with some amusing musical numbers; however for the film director Milos Foreman (who won an Oscar for directing ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST) and the writers have taken the basic premise of the play and the score and constructed a real story to make the show more \"user friendly\" for the big screen. In the film, naive farm boy Claude Hooper Buchowski (John Savage) is about to go into the army and decides to spend a couple of days in New York where he meets a group of aging hippies (Treat Williams, Dorsey Wright, Annie Golden, Don Dacus)who get him involved in a group of nutty misadventures, including the pursuit of a snooty society girl (Beverly D'Angelo). The story divides into a series of vignettes that range from the ridiculous to the sublime, but it is all gorgeously photographed with a clever use of NYC locations and imaginatively staged musical numbers (outstandingly choreographed by the legendary Twyla Tharp). Treat Williams lights up the screen as Berger, the unconventional and free-spirited hippie who does his best to get Claude to loosen up and is matched scene for scene by Savage as Claude, who brings a lovely sweetness to the role of Claude. Annie Golden is a charmer as Jeannie, the pregnant hippie who is pregnant by Wright or Dacus, doesn't know which one is the father and doesn't seem to care. There is one outstanding musical number after another here...\"Aquarius\" is a tour through Central Park which includes dancing horses...Treat Williams disrupts a fancy dinner party in \"I Got Life\"...\"Black Boys\/White Boys\" features the late Nell Carter and Ellen Foley extolling the ethnic virtues of men and \"Easy to be Hard\" is a powerful rendering of one of the best songs in the show by original cast member Cheryl Barnes, who plays Wright's ex-girlfriend and mother of his child. This is a beautifully photographed, well-acted sung, and danced psychedelic acid trip of a movie that must be seen and once seen, will initiate multiple viewings as this dazzler has to much to offer to catch it all in one showing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not a big musical fan, but this is one of the few I really love. Unlike many other musicals, such as \"The Sound of Music,\" none of the songs are about gratuitous stuff. Each song is social commentary, acumen on war, sexuality, recalcitrance, spirituality, and freedom. Especially amazing songs are \"Easy To Be Hard,\" \"Age of Aquarius,\" \"Hair,\" \"Flesh Failures\/3-5-0-0,\" \"Walking In Space,\" and \"Hare Krishna.\" Totally revolutionary and wonderful. I can't wait to someday see it live!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The songs are fantastic and the story-line is good. Like many other acting schools, mine also produced HAIR. For most hair production it's a golden opportunity to do nude, but my production was fully dressed... I don't think full frontal nudity in a movie or a play guarantees artistic quality... And so did the creators of the movie. The movie version is great with classic hits following each other while letting the plot develop to the chilling climax. A great cast of actors, dancers and singers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The antiwar musical \"Hair\" is my number one cult-movie. I do not know how many time I have seen this film in the movie-theaters and on VHS, or how many times I have listened the CD with the stunning soundtrack, and now, this masterpiece has been finally released on DVD in Brazil.

The pacifist and touching story is still amazing, a hymn of freedom, friendship and liberty of choices, and pictures the resistance of a generation against the stupidity of war. I do not know what happened to this wonderful generation of the counterculture of the 70's and their dreams, since the present world is probably worse than in the 70's. I do not recall who won the Oscar in 1979, but Treat Williams and John Savage deserved at least a nomination for their awesome performances. Beverly D'Angelo is extremely gorgeous in the role of a hypocrite spoiled upper-class teenager. I have seen \"Hair\" probably more than twelve times, and my eyes always get wet while Berger walks to the airplane singing \"That's me, that's me, that's me\", and I start crying with his gravestone in the cemetery. I believe this is one of the most beautiful, sad and touching conclusions of the cinema history. My wife, my daughter and my son also love this film; therefore I can guarantee that \"Hair\" is timeless and recommended for any audience. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): \"Hair\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I was younger I saw the end of HAIR on TV. I just watched the last 5 minutes of the film. And I was really impressed by it. I got goose pimples and I said to myself that I HAD to watch this film.

And I did, and I've to say: This film is amazing. The songs are great, the actors are very good and the message... The message of this film is one of the most important ones: \"Make love, no war\". This film is a real masterpiece. Meanwhile it's my favourite film.

The last song is one of the saddest and happiest I ever listened to. I nearly could feel myself joining the crowd. All I've got to say: \"LET THE SUN SHINE, LET THE SUN SHINE IN\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hair is one of my favorite movies of all times. Even not being part of my generation, I already watched this movie 9 times and I can't get enough with the beautiful message of understanding,passion,beauty and love. This movie is against the Vietnam war and shows how people should be united independent of the color,origins, religions and classes. I love the characters Berger and Woof and I think Central Park of the 70's one of the most beautiful places I already saw in my life.

By the way,I still have this music in my mind:

When the moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars Then peace will guide the planets And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius The age of Aquarius Aquarius! Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding Sympathy and trust abounding No more falsehoods or decisions Golden living dreams of visions Mystic crystal revelation And the mind's true liberation Aquarius! Aquarius!

ps: I am surprised to see that the director of this movie is the same director of AMADEUS. I just love both movies!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i watched it because my friend said we could try it, when my father asked if we'd watch it. i didn't want to because it was such an old film, how could that be good ? i finally did watch with that friend and my father. my friend and i loved the film. the songs are great, the actors were cool and we were crazy about it. i guess this shows even though it's from dad's time that doesn't mean it can't be a good film. i bought the film not so long after seeing it on TV, i put it on a lot and sang along with the songs. i even watched it with my classmates on my birthday party. it's a nice, good, and sometimes funny film.

if you don't try, you can't say it's bad. even if you think no, i'm not going to watch a film from dad's time. try the first part of the film you can always stop watching if you don't like it. i really recommend it, it's great!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Milos Forman's original HAIR was the perfect movie that actually revealed how life was changing in those years, not only in the USA, but especially in this country. One of the plots in the film was to be used in other films to come after Hair, for example, in American Graffitti, etc. It was an original story with a touch of generational sadness in it. The characters in the film were like lonely \"cells\" in a \"body\" that was changing all over. Overall, a very good film, perhaps a little underrated though. Annie Golden's role was minor but she acted very well. It was the film that practically launched John Savage as an actor. One of the members of the Chicago played his role well even though it was a minor role.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Absolutely amazing! Humor, up-beat music and an anti-war message make this probably the best movie I have ever seen.

First of all, I love how clever this movie is, particularly in the Vietnam part of the plot. It's interesting how they make the army officials enforcing the draft look ridiculous. Follow that with the serious situation of the actual war, and then the conclusion (which leaves me seething with anger at the war); and yet there is absolutely no violence on the screen. Wow.

Also, the music is really cool. But what is very unique in this musical (as opposed to Evita, or Wizard of Oz, for example) is that the lyrics don't tell the story. The mood does (along with the visuals and between-songs-dialog): \"Donna\" is an upbeat song which emphasizes the happy mood, whereas \"Flesh Failures\" has a driving, intense beat, in a minor key.

Also, I notice the LSD scene is not very flattering. Now I'm definitely not going to do drugs (not that I ever intended to).

All things considered, this is an amazing movie. The only negative comment I could say is that it's sometimes hard to hear the dialog. But who cares? 10\/10 stars!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a cult film for many reasons. First because of the phenomenal success as a musical both in Broadway and London, then as a musical film. The film is close to the play and some of the provocation of the play is no longer provocative twelve years later. The discourse against the Vietnam war is no longer a protest song against the war itself, but a strong song demonstrating how the young people of these late 60s managed to bring the political establishment down. Milos Forman play with some situations at the end of the 70s like the narrow minded justice, the self-centered umbilical righteousness of the rich or of the little ones who have just one rank of power more than the powerless. He also heavily plays with the racial element and the sexual ambiguity he builds all the time. The film remains pleasant and thoughtful. And of course it is a tremendous thrill to remember these years when we have had the privilege, and that was not a chance, to live them. November 11, 1969, Nixon ordering mass celebration for the 1918 armistice, which became the order for teachers at all levels to take their students to the celebration and the march, supporting thus the invasion of Cambodia that was in full swing. And some dare give lessons in democracy to foreign countries. I also remember the long campaign for the impeachment of Nixon in 1973-1974 that will eventually lead to his resignation and the swearing in of Gerald Ford, the first Vice President, and eventually President, of the US who had not been elected, since he was appointed Vice President by the Senate after Spiro Agnew had to resign to face trial, conviction and sentence for embezzlement. Of course that makes us think of today when in 2000 a president of the US was not elected by the people but by the Supreme Court, or of a war that was rejected by millions world wide from the very start, and even before the start, and was started against the better judgment of the United Nations and of three permanent members of the Security Council. And some speak of a new world order based on the respect of others. Modern Western man seems to have some problems understanding that the world is changing and has already widely and wisely changed. Modern Western man seems to be kind of out of sync and to need special evening classes to learn that democracy wants the majority in the world to be the majority, and the West is far from that majority, and that if the Soviet block had been able to understand that market economy is not capitalism but that market economy can be either socialist or capitalist the Berlin Wall would have fallen, but the other way round, and that China has learned that lesson marvelously well and is at the foot of the wall they have to climb over to learn that their socialist market economy has to lead to political democracy, but they will, just like Vietnam was able to reconstruct itself after thirty years of vicious war aggression and damage. In other words, Hair is a perfect food for thought.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I Won't say anything about music, because this topic can be so deep that it can become one huge separate review, so let's concentrate on movie that is brilliant... No doubt, one of the best works of Forman.

The simple story about love, friendship, freedom and ideals... oh yes, the ideals for which even pacifists are ready to go in war...

There is not a single fake word, single fake character, single fake feeling in the story, because the love, freedom and friendship isn't something complicated for the characters of movie. These things aren't something that \"everyone can view from different angle\" These aren't things that need much thinking to understand... their love is simple, their friendship is simple, their ideals are as simple as the word \"simple\" itself and that's why these characters are so deep.

Berger, the leader of a hippie played by Treat Williams is a guy who lives to live and that's the biggest happiness for him... he has his ass - (as he sings in one of the scenes in the movie) and that's enough to make him happy with his property...

Berger never accepts that something can't be done... and his right... If he wants to go to some rich guys' banquet in his dirty old clothes and huge long hair, he will do it... if he want's to go to another state to just see his friend, he'll do it... he never thinks twice... he just do it.

How? why is he so powerful? the answer is simple: because he is FREE.

Just watch how the wind makes the hair wave in this movie and you will understand it all, maybe you will even free yourself too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've avoided seeing this film for some time but finally picked up a copy. Having been born too late to see 'Hair' in its contemporary setting, I have just been familiar with the UK and Broadway cast recordings for many years; and saw it on stage in the late 1980s where it looked a little creaky but still, great fun.

The film. It drops some of the songs (The Bed, My Conviction, Frank Mills) and cuts others (Walking in Space). However, what is left is presented very well indeed. All the singers and dancers are excellent, and the key performers (especially Treat Williams as Berger, Beverley D'Angelo as Sheila, John Savage as Claude) are memorable.

As a hippy celebration and anthem, 'Hair' manages to be remain potent even in a film made ten years too late. It was no longer the era of peace, love, and Biba, but the time of punk rock ... although watching this film now, in the time of Iraqi problems, gives a new resonance to the Vietnam issues of the 1960s.

Milos Forman, who also made 'Amadeus', did a good job on directing. In its scope and feel it reminds me of Norman Jewison's 'Jesus Christ Superstar', especially with the joy of the 'Aquarius' scene and the intimacy of 'Easy To Be Hard'.

I really enjoyed this film and consider it a good representation of a musical born out of the first truly hedonistic era.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Treat Williams reached a degree of stardom with this movie, and really squandered it. Don't be led astray by his poor movie choices since. This movie really stands out. \"Hair\" is a musical that really deals with the attitude, and probably more so with the persona, of the famed peace movement of the 60's. There is a lot of spectacular music done in spectacular fashion. Unlike the music videos of the late 70's, 80's, and 90's, the video flashes coincide with the subject matter of the music. In other words, the video makes sense when matched with the songs, so you know it never could've made it on MTV. The subject matter dwells on drugs and being hippies, but it mostly an anti war movie dealing with the senseless tragedies of Viet Nam. One of the protagonists is an Oklahoma boy intent on making a difference, believing all the patriotic dribble he is spoon fed, and he happens upon a gang in New York, who are more or less glorified hoodlums; their characters are very unique, and probably wouldn't make sense today, but this bunch bands together by burning their draft cards. What ensues in some spectacular scenery and mesmerizing scenes involving not only the three leads, but the other 3 gang members, as well as a newcomer with a small child, whose entrance is easily one of the ten grandest entrances of all time in cinema, partly because she sings one of the greatest songs of that generation. Despite their faults, you come to love these people, a cinematic triumph with a heart felt and grand finale.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thank god for this movie. It's a document of talent that, three decades later, seems even more unique and rare in retrospect.

The music is just extraordinary, packed with so much talent in writing, performance, arrangement and production that it's absolutely infectious. The lyrics and vocal arrangements are incredible. The performances by under-appreciated talents like Nell Carter and Ren Woods uplift my spirit every time I hear them. While the film may be different from the stage version, I prefer the soundtrack to the cast album, which I find truly grating and under-developed. Here the arrangements are filled out and expanded into dynamic pieces that couldn't have been produced in a stage setting.

But the music isn't the only thing extraordinary about this movie. The juxtaposition of almost hyper-realist dialog scenes (reminds me of Altman films) intercut with exuberant musical and dance numbers, really works. All the talent in this movie--directing, writing, photography, editing, music, choreography, casting, acting, costuming, art direction--merge perfectly into one of the best musical films I've seen.

I think it's amazing how much we know about the characters in \"Hair,\" based on very little information or plot. They're not drawn as caricatures, but as realistic and very human people. We see little glimpses of where they come from, but the portrait is completed by vignettes that draw the characters to the surface through accomplished acting, directing and editing. There's an undercurrent theme of the misogyny of Berger and Hud which colors their characters by exposing their reckless macho-hippie ideology. The scene of Berger's home life reveals important details about his psychology, and the brief glimpse of Claude's home tells us volumes about his background through the simple, realistic and genuine interaction between Claude and (presumably) his father.

I love the fashion in this movie. It defiantly mixes sixties ideas with VERY seventies looks (one does have to overlook Treat Williams' hair extensions...). It's a document of how chic much of the late-seventies was, contrary to the conventional wisdom that the era was all about bad taste. Claude's beige knitted tie was a hot trend of 1979, and the hair and clothing of the singers and dancers (particularly those in white during the Central Park scene) mixes up the decades in a way that suggests the timelessness of the musical's themes. These elements merge with Twyla Tharpe's extraordinary state-of-the-art choreography in a way that enhances the artistry of both.

\"Hair\"isn't a film that rewards cynicism. If you come to it with expectations, then you're most likely going to be held captive by artists who aren't bound by your rules. For me, it opened my eyes and ears and spirit to an insightful and passionate musical dialog about war, friendship and family that transcends its time and is still meaningful and relevant to me to this day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie in the theater. I was 10. I just watched it a second time and I must say it was amazing. The music, the dancing, the acting. It is a great story and told extremely well. I fell absolutely in love with Treat Williams when I was a kid after seeing him in this movie. One of my favorite parts was when his mom kept yelling at him to give her his pants, and then finally said \"how much do you need\"? (money). That was classic. ; ).

Moms are the best. If you haven't seen this movie since it came out I say see it again. It's timeless. It will do what all great movies do; make you laugh, cry, and think.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"conventional and superficial ,Claude\u00b4s portrayal was incomplete it is supposed that just a few moments with Sheila , makes him win her love , but the story itself and the songs make it and enjoyable experience essentially the final sequence .Altough i don\u00b4t know why it was given a PG rating .

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It couldn't have come out at a worse time--just as the nation was entering the Reagan years, the boom-boom 80s, the time of no regrets, no concerns. It got no word of mouth, and opened poorly. The studio ditched it. But Hair is possibly the best musical ever made--with Forman directing and Tharpe choreographing, it's a startlingly beautiful, well-acted, well-written triumph that few people remember. The casting is perfect, the musical numbers unforgettable, and even the downer of an ending doesn't diminish the film's indomitable spirit.

If you haven't see this movie, you haven't seen the best musical of all time. Seriously.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the movies having made significant influence on me as a person. The sound tracks are best and the performance is excellent. Just a great movie for ever, to time limit, just for the entire live, you must have in your collection! This is one of the movies having made significant influence on me as a person. The sound tracks are best and the performance is excellent. Just a great movie for ever, to time limit, just for the entire live, you must have in your collection! This is one of the movies having made significant influence on me as a person. The sound tracks are best and the performance is excellent. Just a great movie for ever, to time limit, just for the entire live, you must have in your collection!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just watched Hair after a lapse of 20 years. It struck home. For those of us who tried to stand on the shoulders of the civil rights movement and fight the rule of privilege and power; who resisted the fascism of the Johnson\/Nixon administrations; who now as veterans of civil wars fought the war in Vietnam every single day until finally the US beast died and fled; for all who said no in many different ways -- it's remarkable how unsuccessful we were. How large the real table was on which Treat danced. How driven the wizard behind the curtain. We were 20, 22, 24. We didn't know the nature of the enemy. The size of the monster who for the next thirty years and counting would continue to eat the world. How could we? Even with smoke and the bat (the bat!) in our hand, like Treat, we were too young, too middle class, too invested, too much a part of the actions we hated.

But there was a moment. As Andre Gregory observes in My Dinner With. . . , there was a moment or two somewhere back there in the late 60's and early 70's when perhaps we could have found something besides the yellow brick road. Something not fueled by Bechtel, prisons, Enron, and Dick. Something collaborative. Something innocent and critical at once. Something with dance.

But we missed it. Like Kong bending a girder, the \"revolution\" was turned in on itself. Into sexism. Racism. Homophobia. And class crushing politics. Until we got to \"W\". Treat would have hated \"W\". And Iraq and the pathological lies. If they were in that film. Then. But the moment passed and \"W\" was almost inevitable. Comprehensive incompetence riding the drunken, raging bull into estuaries, children's lives, and China shops.

We should have done something more. Something better. But we clearly didn't know what.

Now what?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For people like me who were born long after the '60s ended, we can only learn about the era through cultural artifacts, of which \"Hair\" is one. This is certainly a well done tour de force. One can get a sense of how things were for the hippie culture. Probably the most impressive scene - for me at least - is when the group crashes the rich people's party. As for the movie's final scene, one might interpret it as the symbolic end of everything that the '60s represented.

But no matter how one interprets this movie, it's important to understand that even though the '60s themselves may have ended, the movements that typified them still exist in small enclaves. It's a time that people won't soon forget.

Anyway, this movie is one that I definitely recommend. Milos Forman scored another great one here, right between his two masterpieces \"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest\" and \"Ragtime\" (so why did he later make a piece of crap like \"Man on the Moon\"?!). Starring John Savage, Treat Williams and Beverly D'Angelo.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A competent comedy that delivers the laughs for fans of Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. I suppose this film was made for those who enjoyed the two GRUMPY OLD MEN films, as there seemed to be a bunch of these buddy team-ups spotlighting the comical duo in their twilight years. The idea is a sure-fire one: Matthau, a bumbling gambler who's thousands of dollars in debt, connives his unsuspecting friend Lemmon into taking a free cruise with him where they can meet rich old ladies; the catch is, they've been signed on as Dance Hosts and Matthau can't dance.

OUT TO SEA is a funny film, and not all of the chuckles are to be found courtesy of Lemmon and Matthau. I found Brent Spiner (best known as Data from STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION) to be very humorous as the snobby ball-busting dance coordinator. As the prissy boss of the two aging actors, he manages to match them in the laughs department. Though the film doesn't really need any, there's also a a love story or two to be found here as well, involving Dyan Cannon (who looks pretty fine for her years).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Movies aren't always suppose to be about deep, provolking thoughts. Sometimes they're simply meant to be escapes from reality. Out To Sea fits the bill perfectly.

A light hearted \"golden years\" romantic comedy, Out To Sea may not be big budget, you might be able to easily tell when they were acting in front of a green screen, but it's still very much a movie worth watching. A sweet movie that needs to be given a break.

This is just good, light hearted fun. It's not meant to be a deep movie. It's something worth watching. If for nothing else, you must see it for Brent Spiner's humorously stiff and uptight rendition of Oye Como Va. Gil is a character you love to hate and Mr. Spiner pulls off the perfect evil comic foil to two beloved comedy movie gods.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While this movie is not the most entertaining in the world, I think it is better than most over all. I mean it had it's little laughs and just all around a good feeling. It's not too often we get to see two old geezers just having fun with their age and honestly having a good time with the jokes. Walter and Jack had such a great chemistry together as friends\/brother in-laws. Just watching them romancing these women was fun and you rooted for them all the way because wither we have to admit it or not, for their age, they still had game! :D I loved just the whole plot of being able to move on and having fun no matter how old you are. I'd recommend this movie for a nice laugh if you want one.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I got a few laughs out of this one, more than a lot of other so called comedies. The big ship was a knockout and getting to see a lot of it's scenery was fun: as was getting to see some of Dyan Cannon's curves. This wasn't the height of Lemmon's and Mattheau's career, but it wasn't a total dog as some suggest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau have got to be one of the best buddies ever to work together. They have made lots of movies together, i think they are both fantastic when they do work together in a movie. Out to sea is a fantastic comedy movie i think to watch. I give the movie 10 out of 10. Jack lemmon and Walter Matthau will be remembered when the movies they did together will be on tv. They will be sadly missed. God bless you both.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon, both of whom are sadly missed, proved once again that they were a team dedicated to their craft of bringing hilarious moments to the screen. This film is just another example of this.

This time out they play two brothers-in-law who land on a ship as dance instructors on board.

Of course, their boss is a perfectionist and miserable person named Gil Godwin who just enjoys harassing these boys. It's hilarious how Lemmon gives a quick lesson in dancing to Matthau and how the latter dances a riotous rumba with the boat's owner Rue McLanahan.

Too bad that fellow dance instructors Hal Linden and Donald O'Connor are given so little to do but their parts call for that. Matthau falls for Dyan Cannon, on board with her fellow gold-digging mother, the usual outrageous Elaine Stritch. Unknown to them, Matthau has no money either. The widower Lemmon falls for Gloria De Haven, looking lovelier than ever.

The film belongs to Matthau and Lemmon and will serve as a further tribute to their illustrious careers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was totally surprised just how good this movie actually is because when I first saw it I was only mildly amused! I must say however, that I am still very disappointed that Donald O'Connor wasn't given a bigger and better role! He was an enormous talent.

There is a great chemistry among all the main cast members and Matthau has never been funnier.

I am tremendously glad that this picture got made because we get to see Lemmon and Matthau team up for the very last time; in a vehicle that puts their talent to great use. Brent Spiner proves that \"Data\" from Star Trek the Next Geeration is not the only good character he can play.

The storyline is really quite simple but the comedy and the characters work really well and I laughed heartily throughout this movie and I highly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"8\/2008. When I originally wrote my comments, shortly after first seeing this film, I took a critical view, feeling that Lemmon and Matthau had basically \"phoned-in\" their performances, which paired them in a manner they'd done several times previously.

But upon seeing it again, it seemed different, especially in view that neither of the two main mega-stars lived a great deal longer after its release.

With the exception of Spiner, all of the eight principals are performers with considerable experience, and likewise unavoidably a lot \"longer in tooth\" than we've seen in many of their other film and t.v. work. But isn't almost everyone?

Seeing it again, while it certainly won't be regarded as a \"classis\" in any of their careers, it is a fun film, with a lot of interesting scenery as well.

From my viewpoint, it reminds me that many films, plays, etc., can often be looked at either from a very critical viewpoint, or looking instead to the lighter side, without expecting a film to be another \"Citizen Kane,\" \"Casablance,\" or (in terms of the two leads), another original \"Odd Couple.\" It also will provide a continuing piece of nostalgia for Lemmon and Matthau, as well as the others in the cast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the kind of movie that people of a certain age will say of \"I didn't think they made movies like that anymore\". Walter Matthau gives his usual over-the-top performance, but instead of leaving teeth marks all over the scenery, leaves endearing grease stains. He is like that great uncle we all know that still wears plaid polyester and embarrasses everyone, but we still love anyway.

Jack Lemmon's performance reminds us why he had more Golden Globe nominations than anyone else (22). He gives a true-to-life performance of the basically 'good, ordinary man', even in the milieu of a farce.

This film will probably not appeal to people who prefer blunt humor designed to confront or offend, but will appeal to people who appreciate broad farce played with a straight face.

The entire supporting cast is excellent in their ability to play such absurd characters while maintaining the reality of each character.

Brent Spiner gives a marvelous performance as a professional version of a lounge lizard. Anyone who has known professional hosts in real life will immediately recognize the type he is playing. He nails the type perfectly. His rendition of 'slime' merits study as a perfect example of the contrast between absurd and pathetic.

The plot is rather a straight-forward 'let's marry rich' theme that has the usual results. Just because a plot theme has been done a thousand times does not mean that it is dated, but rather that it is a timeless theme.

The rest of the supporting cast shows what can happen when professionals exhibit their skills in the roles that are written for them, instead of vying for the spotlight. In this film even the second tier actors shine. It is also obvious that they enjoyed making this film.

The plot may be standard and thin, but it allows the performers to shine.

This film is a true treat for people who want to see professional actors engaging in their craft. The plot falls away and the performers shine.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"with two old friends.

I've always enjoyed both Lemmon's and Mathaeu's films, and of course their team efforts are always worth watching, and often hilarious.

Although I didn't personally regard this film as in the hilarious category, it is certainly a competent and entertaining vehicle for fans of the two principle actors and of 60s style romantic comedy plots.

Brent Spiner may actually steal the show in terms of laughs as the arrogant and tyrannical Cruise Director.

Gloria DeHaven proves that senior ladies can remain enormously attractive.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Out to Sea was a great movie. I expected comedy and from about 10 minutes into the film to the end, there was comedy, and laughing points. Jack and Walter are great together, and the addition of Rue McClanahan made it a wonderful movie, that should be seen over and over again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Out to Sea\" is a fun movie starring that wonderful duo of Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. This film is not quite as funny as their \"Grumpy Old Men\" comedies (which it strongly resembles), but there are many laughs throughout. Lemmon and Matthau play a couple of in-laws who take a cruise together. Once they get on the boat, the thing Lemmon doesn't know is that Matthau has signed them on as dance hosts so they don't have to pay for the cruise. This infuriates Lemmon who's in no mood to dance. What's worse, Matthau doesn't even know how to dance. Nevertheless, they go along with it and it the process they meet some of their fellow passengers and crew members. Here are the crew members: there's the cruise director Gil Godwyn, played to the hilt by \"Star Trek: The Next Generation\" veteran Brent Spiner, who acts like an evil dictator. There's two fellow dance hosts, played by \"Barney Miller\" star Hal Linden and veteran movie musical star Donald O'Connor. There's the ship's owner Mrs. Carruthers, played by \"Golden Girl\" Rue McClanahan. As for the passengers: there's Vivian, a widow played by Gloria De Haven, who falls in love with Lemmon. There's Liz, played by one of my all-time favorite actresses, Dyan Cannon, who falls in love with Matthau. There's Mavis, Liz's mother, played by veteran stage actress Elaine Stritch. And they meet others as well. All these actors are a pleasure to watch as Lemmon and Matthau play off of them. It's great to see Cannon here, see's beautiful as ever; Stritch is a hoot; Spiner is a funny comic villain who's plays it deadly straight; De Haven is wonderful; Linden, O'Connor, and McClanahan have a good moment or two; and finally, the two main stars, Lemmon and Matthau, are fine as usual. A nice little gem of a comedy.

*** (out of four)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is well cast, often silly and always funny. Lemmon and Matthau work their tag team magic to perfection. Brent Spiner is just a riot as the egotistical tyrant of a cruise director. From the first \"hare krishna\" to the last \"you ought pay him fifty bucks for calling you two studs\", I thought this was a totally entertaining fun comedy","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A movie I've seen and enjoyed possibly more than any other movie. I first saw it as a kid and loved the drama and the great climactic battle. As I got older, I enjoyed it as much or more than before, but now due to all of the components that work together to make a true classic. The acting is great (especially Keith as T. Roosevelt), the cinematography spectacular, the script is full of gems, and the directing pulls it all together wonderfully. It's loosely based on an actual event, and it shows rush of Europe and a newly emergent America to carve up the 'Sick old Man' (the Ottoman Empire) as it collapses in a fashion unlike any other 'historical' movie I've seen. Humor, drama, action, love...it's got it all and deserves far more acclaim (much like 'The Great Waldo Pepper').","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We usually think of the British as the experts at rendering great adventure from the Imperial age, with the likes of The Four Feathers (1939) and Zulu, simply because the Imperial age was, for the most part, British. Here, in The Wind and the Lion, we see a wonderful rendering of America's own Imperial age.

America's projection of power under Teddy Roosevelt is the backdrop for this conventional tale of the kidnapped damsel who, despite her gentility, is smitten by the rough, manly nobility of her captor, who in turn is disarmed by her beauty and scorn. (Politically correct prigs eager to see some slight of \"native\" peoples or cultures can rest assured, that the way Arabs and Muslims are depicted here is far more flattering than the way their modern counterparts depict themselves on the current world stage.) What makes this story different are the terrific production values - faultless photography, composition and editing - the terrific casting - the underappreciated Brian Keith playing a bully Teddy - and vivid history.

Though The Wind and the Lion is told largely through the eyes of the son, every member of the family can identify with one of the characters, whether it be Sean Connery's noble brigand, Candace Bergen's feisty heroine, John Huston's wily John Hay or Steve Kanaly's spiffy, radiant, ruthless can-do lieutenant, Roosevelt's \"Big Stick\". There is a transcendent scene at the end, when the little boy is symbolically swept away by the dashing Moor on his white steed. This is high adventure at its best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sean Connery is very good as the Great Raisuli, Lord of the Rif and Defender of the Faithful. This is an adventure movie with Arabs, Germans and the USMC all coming to grips at one point or another. There is also a lot of humor in the interplay among the main and supporting characters. The story is based on the true incident in which a wealthy Greek-American businessman was kidnapped by the Raisuli in the early 1900s. Milius has substituted Candace Bergen and her two children as the victims of the kidnapping, and this opens the story to a lot of literary license.

On the other hand, the movie gives Milius the opportunity to remind the viewer of two of the most famous (though mostly forgotten) political quotations of the TR era. Brian Keith (very good as TR) says, \"Pedecaris alive or the Raisuli dead!\"; and John Huston (also good as Sec of State John Hay)asks the Japanese Ambassador at a White House dinner, \"You likee knifee, you likee forkee?\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best 'guy' movies I've ever seen has to be the Wind and the Lion. Gad, the scenes...

Raisouli's bandits swarm over the wall... A staid British gentleman calmly gets up from tea with Candice Bergen and drops three of them with a Webley revolver in his coat. A whisper from the ghost of Empire... Lest we forget! Lest we forget!

U.S. Marines coming ashore from the long, long gone _Brooklyn_. They were carrying Krags, it should have been Lees, but, oh wow. And the Winchester 97 blowing large holes in obstreperous natives and even more obstreperous and faithless Europeans...

Raisouli --Sean Connery, o, Wow!--wondering 'What kind of gun does Roosevelt use?\"

Teddy Roosevelt--Brian Keith, o, Wow!--wondering \"What kind of gun does Raisouli use?' and writing yet another angry letter to Winchester about the stock on his Winchester 95.

Raisouli, armed with but a sword... A Prussian cavalry officer, HOLSTERING his pistol and drawing HIS sword... Honor. That's something long dead, from a world long gone, but Raisouli would never have flown a plane full of children into a building...

Milious at Milious's magnificent best, and now out on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lovely Candace Bergen as the widow Perdicaris are kidnapped and held for ransom by the Sheik Raisuli played by one dashing Sean Connery. The incident comes during 1904 as Theodore Roosevelt runs for election to the presidency in his own right. Needing a good example to show off the muscular foreign policy of the United States, Brian Keith as Roosevelt issues a stunning declaration to the Sultan of Morocco, \"Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead.\"

But in this adaptation of that incident the famous declaration is the only true thing about this story. The Perdicaris in question was in reality one Ion Perdicaris who was a Greek immigrant and dilettante playboy. In fact Perdicaris gave up his American citizenship years ago and was back as a Greek national. Never mind that though, his predicament was serviceable enough at the time.

The damsel in distress makes better screen material though so it's a widow woman and her two kids that are in harm's way here. Of course as presented here the incident is also used by some of our European powers to get their foothold into Morocco. The intrigues get far beyond one brigand's demand for ransom.

The Wind and the Lion is hardly history. But it is an enjoyable film and Sean Connery is always fun to watch. Brian Keith also fits my conception of Theodore Roosevelt and the scenes in the Roosevelt White House do ring true to all the stories told. John Huston plays the ever patient Secretary of State John Hay who Roosevelt had inherited from his predecessor William McKinley.

But kids don't use this film to skip reading a history assignment on the Theodore Roosevelt era.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was my late wife's favorite film. I'm sorry she did not live long enough to have the video as I'm sure she would have worn it out. What can we say? A great romantic story and the push off of two great men, the Raisuli and Teddy Rex. Sean Connery and Brian Keith are great in these roles. But while Connery is his usual sexy sex, it's the late Brian Keith who gives us a solid performance as the mercurial Teddy Roosevelt. Back up is provided with Candy Bergen, gorgeous in her early 30s, as the kidnapped American widow. Great back-up also comes from the great John Huston as Teddy's beleaguered SecState, John Hay; Geoffrey Lewis, from the Clint Eastwood films is great as the hesitant US Ambassador, Gummere; the late Vladek Sheybal with his demonically evil stare is great as the Beshaw and more is given by Steve Kanaly and Roy Jensen whose faces we have seen in several backgrounds. All in all, this is a film filled with wonderful romance, mindful of an era long gone. Mindless story? Not at all. The issue of big nations pushing around smaller ones for their own hegemonical interests is as true today as it was then. Overly romantic? Not really-- certainly not maudlin in any sense. Fun to watch? You bet. I own the video and will watch it again and again. I suggest you do the same.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I reviewed the video for a local magazine, I called it \"the greatest achievement in the history of the American cinema.\" That was not wholly tongue in cheek. TW&TL remains Milius' best work, and it's sad that he has so little opportunity to work anymore. However, TW&TL remains a striking exposition of what once was known as The American Character, largely on the strength of Brian Keith's superb portrayal of Teddy R. (Obviously Milius--and Keith--admired TR tremendously to make two films about him, including \"The Rough Riders.\") It's hard to fault this film at any level: a splendid balance of action, levity, relationships, and the serious topic of America coming of age in the world. Furthermore, TW&TL has exceptional appeal across the board: note the stats showing it rates best with under-18 males, females 18-29, and over 45! Clearly Candy Bergen struck a responsive chord with women as well as men.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my all time favourites. All the actors do a great job. Comparing this movie to \"Lawrence of Arabia\" does no justice to both movies. \"The Wind and the Lion\" levels a much lower budget with fantastic actors portraying heartwarming characters in a heartwarming atmosphere. Action and beautiful pictures are provided as well, which all together guarantees a favourite movie to me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like The Wind and the Lion very much. It was a good movie. I thought that since I'm young and it was made so long ago I wouldn't like it all that good, but after I saw it, i was amazed of how good it was. My family liked it, my friends liked it, everyone I showed it to liked it. I liked it because it showed how Arabs and people in Morroco was treated during the Early 1900's, by the Germans, French, and even the Americans. If I was a High School History teacher, I would definitely show it to my student's, From a High Schooler's point of view. I give this movie a good 10 out of 10. My grandparents liked it so much they bought it for themselves. My little 3 year old cousins even sit down and watched it.

Systemoffell","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one great, sweeping, movie you will remember for a long time. It is about history, America, the change of times, Teddy Roosevelt, Morocco, a kidnapped American and her children, and the leader of the Berbers, with the blood of the Prophet in his veins.

This movie is based on a true story--like Jesse James was a banker. An American WAS kidnapped in Morocco and the Marines went part-way to the shores of Tripoli to rescue him. So much for that. You know Hollywood. Sean Connery is the Berber chieftain and Muslim leader. Candice Bergan is the guy who was kidnapped, along with her two kids; the son is Rex Harrison's grandson, Simon, no less. John Huston is Secretary of State, with a great John-Huston-style straight line at a State Dinner, watch out for it. Brian Kieth IS Teddy Roosevelt, all-American, all-male, a character that is an interesting commentary as modern as today.

The sweep and beauty of the desert and Morocco are shown beautifully in the cinematography in this film, which will stay with you, a haunting and compelling memory. The score is as sweeping and exotic as the images.

This is a story about two cultures, both with grand ideas and historic pasts, struggling for the future without an idea at all about one another. In any event, the struggle comes down to might versus ingenuity.

Then at the last, there is the little boy--remember the little boy? What do you think HE thinks?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Writer\/director John Milius takes a little-known incident from American history and extrapolates wildly in all the right ways. The result is a grand adventure tale that showcases two of its stars in memorable, larger-than-life roles: Sean Connery as the wily Arab sheik with an inexplicable Scottish brogue, and Brian Keith as President Theodore Roosevelt, itching for the chance to put that \"big stick\" to good use.

Aided immeasurably by Billy Williams' glorious widescreen cinematography and a magnificent score by the always reliable Jerry Goldsmith, this early effort seemed the harbinger of a talent to rank with contemporaries Lucas, Coppola and Spielberg. Although Milius served up tantalizing glimpses of his ability in scripts for JEREMIAH JOHNSON and APOCALYPSE NOW, his career seemed to take a downward turn not long after he started directing, ultimately foundering on dreck like CONAN THE BARBARIAN and RED DAWN.

Here's hoping that he will again find his way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a perfectly watchable adventurous movie to watch, with a great cast and a good story, based on true events.

It's interesting to note that the story of the movie is based on true events. It's above all for most part an adventurous story, with all of the usual ingredients you would expect from an adventurous movies set in an Arabic world. So, lots of sword fighting, good old fashioned honor, religion and a rich proud country. But the movie is also filled with humor, to make the movie a light and pleasant one to watch.

The constant cutting back and forth between the Morocco plot involving Sean Connery and Candice Berger and the American plot line involving Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) wasn't the best possible approach in my opinion. The two things have totally different paces, totally different characters, it are just totally different worlds! Of course both story lines are connected and focuses on the same thing but the contrast between the two worlds is just too big to let it work out. It doesn't at all times make the movie feel connected and a bit disjointed. The American plot line is most of the time more political while the Morrocan plot line is purely adventurous and action filled. In the end you could perhaps even wonder what the whole point or Roosevelt in this movie was. Seem that John Milius is just a big admirer of him. Often the American plot line would take away most of the pace out of the far more interesting and more action filled fast paced Morrocan plot line. After all, John Milius always has been at his best as an action director.

It isn't until halve way through that the movie fully gets on steam. The most- and largest scaled action of the movie then kicks in. Especially the large scale end battle does not disappoint. I wish the entire movie was like this. That way this movie would had also been a better known one, no doubt.

The movie has a great Jerry Goldsmith musical score, that is perhaps way better known than the actual movie itself. The movie is also a good looking one with great production design and nice looking action and battle sequences in it. Appereantly the movie only costs $4,000,000 to make but that is really hard to believe, considering the settings and size of the movie. I mean John Milius his best known movie \"Conan the Barbarian\" cost about $20,000,000 to make but was a far more campy looking one and was less impressive on its scale.

Quite funny to see an Arabic speak with a big fat Scottish accent but hey, it's Sean Connery so you just simply tend to accept this. He suits his role well. So does Candice Bergen. It's always hard for a female character to come across as believable and work out in a movie such as this one but she manages. Also John Huston plays a great role in this movie!

A perfectly fine watchable movie!

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why couldn't the end of the movie have been Sean Connery's men fighting the French instead of the Germans. Ever since the French had occupied Algeria in 1830, the tribes from Morocco and those of Algeria were making raids on the French military and civilian settlements. This movie could have been a continuous of that historical aspect where the French had seize the Rasuadli so his followers would not be raiding Algeria, and then his followers would have attacked the French to free him.

The movie is still stereotypical of shootouts between the Germans and the Americans. When the Americans shoot the Germans, their guns (even the pistols) make loud noises, create large bloody bullet wounds, and their enemies are screaming after being shot. When Germans shoot at the Americans, their guns don't make large sounds, do not create bloody wounds, and their enemies make little or no sound after being shot.

In real life, the American Krag rifle was the worst rifle America had ever produce until the early version of the M-16 came along. The Krag was hard to maintain, not reliable, and the rifle bolt was always jamming. The German Mauser was one of the world's finest rifles. We were so impress by it during Spanish American war, that we made a copy of it and call it the Springfield rifle.

Finally, the people of Morocco must had a word for artillery since the French were using them in their raids against Morocco. I didn't like it when they made the Rasuldai feel stupid that there was no word for artillery in the Moorican vocabulary. Instead, the Rasuadli stated that the Europeans had guns on wheels that make the ground shake.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1904. The North African nation of Morocco is hanging onto a tenuous Independence, as the various European powers - France, Germany, Britain, Russia, Spain, and now the United States - are vying for influence in the region. The Sultan (Marc Zuber) is a weak puppet; his uncle, the Bashaw (Vladek Sheybal), who is being manipulated by the French and Germans, is the real power behind the throne. Enter Berber Chieftan Raisuli (Sean Connery), the leader of the Rif tribe and \"the last of the Barbary Pirates\", who kidnaps an American missionary, Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen) and her two children and takes them hostage. Back in the US, President Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) threatens to go to war over the issue: \"Pedecaris Alive or Raisuli Dead!\" - seeing the issue as the perfect way to exercise his \"Big Stick\" diplomacy, though Secretary of State John Hay (John Huston) is not so confident. However, the Raisuli has less sinister plans for the Pedecarises, who are more than capable of handling themselves in any event.

John Milius's great historical film, based VERY loosely off of a true story (i.e. Pedecaris was a middle-aged man), is a wonderful bit of escapism. It has some amazing action scenes, a witty, well-written script, a fine cast enjoying themselves with the material, and does not overstay its welcome like, say, \"Pirates of the Caribbean\" or the \"Lord of the Rings\" movies. It's not really an \"epic\" film in the strictest sense, but it's one of the best pure action movies ever made.

While the historical context is shaky, the storyline is interesting, and as some reviewers point out, it is even more pertinent today than it was when made. As President Roosevelt says, \"America is like a grizzly bear\" - fierce, strong, but a little blind and reckless at times. At the time of the film's setting, America has just been propelled onto the world stage as superpower, following their resounding victory in the Spanish-American War - and Roosevelt seizes this incident as a way to prove America's worth. In real life, it didn't quite work out that way, but allegorically it works well. While written from a right-wing perspective, Milius's screenplay is pretty accurate in assessing America and its place in the world. He admires Roosevelt and his method of \"big stick\" diplomacy, and correctly recognizes (in the words of Roosevelt) that while America may be feared and respected, they'll never be truly \"loved\" by the world, no matter what they do. And there are some scenes - like Roosevelt's target shooting of European leaders and the almost-comic surprise attack by Marines on the Bashaw's palace - which show America's reckless and violent side, while others - the climactic showdown with the Germans - show their heroism.

The historical\/political context of the film is, of course, merely meat on the bones of what is essentially a rousing action\/adventure film. There are some brilliantly done action scenes, such as Raisuli's rescue of the Pedecaris's from double-crossing tribesmen, which features some of the best swordplay in any film. The opening entrance of the Raisuli and the aforementioned march and attack of the US Marines are brilliantly done bravura set pieces. And the final battle, which combines elements of \"Lawrence of Arabia\" and \"The Wild Bunch\", while a major historical fantasy (a three-way battle between Germans, Americans, and the Rifs), is a superbly staged, adrenaline-pumping sequence.

The excellent cast gives some wonderful performances. Everyone seems to be having a fun time with the film, and it shows. Sean Connery is surprisingly convincing as a Berber with a Scottish accent, but manages to pull off his interesting, well-drawn and chivalrous character who comes to respect his hostage and abhors modern, uncivil warfare. Candice Bergen, an actress whom I've never been fond of, gives a fine performance as the feisty Eden Pedecaris, who is every bit as tough as her captor. Brian Keith is an amazingly convincing TR - you really feel he must have been like this, an athletic, blustering, yet practical and intelligent man with an admirable sense of self. The scenes of Roosevelt boxing and target-shooting while discussing foreign policy are some of the greatest \"bad ass\" moments in movie history - and who can forget lines like \"Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?\" John Huston provides solid support as the weary, cautious Hay, acting as a perfect foil to the much more impetuous Roosevelt.

Among the fine supporting cast, the best are Geoffrey Lewis as Samuel Gummere, the cynical Ambassador caught in the middle of the political intrigue, and Steve Kanaly, as the gung-ho Marine Captain who cheerfully advocates (and carries out) \"Military intervention!\" as the blunt and simple solution to the whole complex situation. Other familiar faces such as Vladek Sheybal, Nadim Sawalha, Roy Jenson, Larry Cross, Marc Zuber, and Darrell Fetty also do fine work, no matter how small their role. Spaghetti Western fans will recognize Antoine Saint-John (\"A Fistful of Dynamite\") as the German general and Aldo Sambrell as one of Raisuli's tribesmen.

\"The Wind and the Lion\" is, all around, a wonderfully done adventure film. It has something for everyone: wonderful gun- and swordplay, a lot of humor, a tough, feisty heroine (and her two cute children), a nice (if unconsummated) romance, and an interesting (if fanciful) political\/historical context. It's not a masterpiece, but hey, it wasn't trying to be. I give \"The Wind and the Lion\" a stirring nine stars and my highest recommendation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Taken the idea out of a true diplomatic incident \"The Wind and the Lion\" is a very good adventure film set in the deserts of Africa.

El Raisuli (Sean Connery) head of an Arab tribe kidnaps an American woman(Candice Bergen) and her two children to obtain some concessions for his country out of American president Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith). Out of this simple plot John Milius gets a very complete and enjoyable movie in the genre.

The outdoor dessert locations, an impressive color photography, very well handled action sequences and perfect settings turn the picture in a sort of epic one with an undeniable sense of greatness. The musical score is also remarkable an fits accordingly.

Sean Connery is very good as the Arab leader and proofs he can handle almost any kind of role. So is Candice Bergen as the woman who shows strength under dangerous circumstances but deep inside is scared and has her weaknesses; she gets to admire Connery and even understand his complete different focus on life arising from their also completely different cultures. Brian Keith plays one of his best roles ever as American president Teddy Roosevelt.

Most entertaining and very good cinematographic sample in the genre. Give it chance, you won't regret it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay,I'm a history buff,and okay,I'm a action film junkie,so of course,this film is on my top ten of all time.I really love the action scenes,and the unique weaponry of the period.I sort of have doubts about fighting two-handed sword from horse-back,and the Raisuli sword seems more katana-like than scimitar-like,...oh well,I've never fought from horse back,either.

I love the attempts at philosophic proverbs,too.The typical desert tribesman probably couldn't read the Koran,so they'd take his word for it.Several writers have criticized Connery's brogue;well,on vacation as a youth,I met a family of South Africans in our west,Dinosaur National Monument,and although they spoke Africaans between themselves(yeah,second generation Germans can hear the difference),they spoke English with a Scottish brogue.Seems that who teaches you affects your pronunciation.Scottish Missionary?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the earlier reviews of this movie ends with \"Only for big fans of the lead actors or fans of exotic Romance\/Adventure Holywood movies...,\" as if those weren't reason enough to love it! Anyone who, after seeing this movie, complains about Connery's accent, or the lack of historical verisimilitude, or the realism of the political motivations, or any other extra-movie concerns, simply doesn't love movies. See it and be awed by the star-power of the two leads, the exotic, romantic, photography and music, and the bold adventure of a truly escapist film. This is proof that Hollywood can \"make 'em like they used to\" when it really wants to. A solid 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now, lissen you guys, I LOVED THIS FILM, though not quite as much as FAREWELL TO THE KING, another beloved John Milius epic. It was fun, a lot more than if it were based on a Tennessee Williams drama. It's a great yarn, with a whiff of political correctness. I love this film for its beautiful photography, its humor and its attenuated criticism of the Bad Guys (Berbers) and the REAL Bad Guys, the spear- carriers for the acquisitive 'civilized' world, with their repeating rifles, artillery and large gunboats out there in the harbor.

The standout scene is the Berber encampment with blue-gray smoke from the cooking fires rising into the chill desert air. It is visually eloquent, highly evocative.

Set in 1904 Morocco, WIND features a helpless American woman (Candace Bergen) who is taken hostage by a dashing, albeit immodest, Berber bandit (Sean Connery-the very model ofa Scottish Muslim nomad). The exciting story is based on a few historical facts. The photography is Milius beautiful, punctuated by Jerry Goldsmith's outstanding score.

Mrs Pedicaris and the Raisuli conduct protracted foreplay and bounce around in the desert between oases. Even though the Raisuli proudly traces his lineage back to the apes, he is a perfect gentleman - he even lets her keep her head after she beats him at chess! A Marine detachment storms the Bashaw's palace, putting out the fires of competing hegemonies with gasoline. Don't mess with the Corps, Abdul.

There are many entertaining stereotypes:

Despicable Sultan - resembles a dissipated ferret. Definitely not a Liberal.

Cruel German Officer - a large, bellicose Dachshund sporting a monocle. He gallantly chooses to fight the Raisuli with swords instead of gunning him down in the manner of Indiana Jones. Noblesse oblige, by way of Von Clausewitz?

Dashing Marine Officer - kicks the crap out of the Bashaw of Tangier's army and storms his palace while chewing tobacco. His speech is mildly aphasic. The Bashaw begged him not to breathe on him.

The Berbers - a horde of groveling sycophants led by a charming megalomaniac. None of them take baths, except perhaps in camel urine.

President Teddy Roosevelt is undeservedly portrayed as vacuous and preoccupied with guns, toys and stuffed grizzly bears.

Beautiful American widow - gives the men a lesson in courage, as do her two children. She evidently has a huge supply of clean, starched clothes and rarely has a hair out of place.

The Raisuli sends Teddy Roosevelt a message, thanking him for the gift of a Remington repeating rifle, declaring,

\"MEESTER ROOSEVELT, YOU ARE THE LION AND AIEE AM THE BREAKING WIND.\"

How true.

Please do not take my acerbic remarks to mean that I did not like the film. I had almost as much fun writing this as watching da Pitcher.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found West Point to be an agreeable film, although I doubt that I would watch it again. The performances were convincing, with William Haines as yet another obnoxiously amusing young man that has his come-uppance by film's end. It's hard to believe that stardom beckoned Joan Crawford less than a year after this film was made, as she looks rather awkward at times.

I would apply the comment made by another concerning Ramon Novarro's \"Huddle\" (1932) to this film as well. There is a great film waiting to be made here, but there is something lacking. The backdrop and integration of the Corps was well utilized, but I was less involved than I thought that I would be. Perhaps Haines' character went too far, or got away with too much. His \"repentance\" did not seem genuine enough; and what kind of message did it send for him to run every play in the last minutes of the Army-Navy game? Where's \"the Corps\" in that? Might as well have taken out the other ten men and let him do it all himself. Also, I doubt very much that William Bakewell's weak, puny character would ever have a real-life counterpart at West Point.

All this aside, the film is sometimes very moving and inspiring. It is a fine look into the daily practices of an honorable institution. Thank goodness that tradition still means something at West Point too, unlike the vapid \"traditions\" of Ivy League schools, only half-heartedly engaged in these days.

As to the score: it was appropriately martial. But, there was a distinct over-use of snare drums. Using them for knocks on the door, scene transitions, et ALU as well as in well over half the scenes got to be rather tedious. It rather lessened the viewing experience. I was ready to say \"I GET THE POINT ALREADY.\"

With that, enjoy the film, but don't expect too much emotional involvement.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Haines is excellent as the brash cadet who thinks West Point will really amount to something now that he has arrived. Haines displays his easy, goofy comic persona as he takes on West Point and Joan Crawford, the local beauty. Great fun for the first half. And amazingly touching after Haines's character goes too far and nearly gets shunned by fellow cadets. The new, humility-filled Haines get s alast-minute reprieve to play in the bill football game against Navy and, despite a broken arm, wins the game. Great, rousing entertainment by MGM in this Haines formula film, shows Billy at his best. William Bakewell also scores as the skinny follower. The handsome-but-goony character would be played by Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Gary Cooper and others in later decades, another take on the beautiful-but-daffy dames played by Carole Lombard and Marion Davies. West Point is a winner!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A brash, self-centered Army cadet arrives at WEST POINT with a dangerous wise guy attitude towards the Corps.

In a role obviously tailor-made for him, William Haines shines in this highly enjoyable tale of honor & friendship. A grade-A scene stealer, Haines during the first half of the film is up to his usual Silly Billy behavior, which under normal circumstances should have gotten him confined to the guardhouse. The last half, however, becomes very serious, leading up to Haines' moral redemption and giving him a fine opportunity to exhibit his acting talents. If WEST POINT does not quite reach the caliber of Haines' previous TELL IT TO THE MARINES (1926), this is doubtless due to the absence here of a costar of the charisma & quality of Lon Chaney for Haines to interact with. However, this tribute to the Army is very effective entertainment and should be appreciated on its own merit.

Joan Crawford appears as Haines' love interest, playing the virginal daughter of the local innkeeper. Joan is pert & pretty and especially shines in her first scenes, when she meets Haines on a Hudson River ferry and is subjected to his usual immature antics. Haines & Crawford made five silent feature films together and were tremendous friends for life. He was the much bigger celebrity at this period and gave her many hints for getting ahead in Hollywood. A superstar herself by the early 1930's, she reciprocated after his ouster from MGM in 1932 by encouraging his career change to interior decoration.

Little William Bakewell is effectively cast as a Plebe who idolizes Haines; their relationship is actually given more of a sentimental treatment than that of Haines & Crawford.

The film was made with the full cooperation of the War Department. Extensive location filming at the Academy helps tremendously with the production's ambiance, which was given splendid production values by MGM.

WEST POINT has been recently restored and given a rousing new score by David Davidson.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Was struck at how even the acting was throughout. William Haines had an acting range that is wonderful for silent film. Not over the edge. There are moments where the camera work is most excellent, and combined with the story, like when he is waiting to see the Superintendent, very well done.

Thoroughly enjoyed the flick.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched this, an early Harold Lloyd short film that featured his \"glasses\" character on Kino Video's DVD of \"The Harold Lloyd Collection\". He's actually a con man with Snub Pollard as his partner who gets discovered by Bebe Daniels who herself performs fake s\u00e9ances. What she discovers is that Lloyd and Pollard bilk many customers by dropping fake rings that are \"lost\". I'll stop there and just say this was quite funny especially when Harold and Snub enter the place Bebe works and encounter some creepy contraptions and put on costumes like Snub trying one of Bebe's outfits. Not too much slapstick but what there is of was also quite funny. So on that note, I recommend Are Crooks Dishonest?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very odd movie for Harold Lloyd--at least in regard to the sweet character he played in movies throughout the 1920s and 30s. Instead of a nice guy, he and Snib Pollard are con men--out to rob everyone blind. In a particularly successful con, Chester pretends to have lost a \"very valuable ring\" and a bit later, Harold finds it as a stooge is also looking for the ring. The ring, of course, is a cheap one dropped and then found by Harold, but the greed of the stooge is so great, he \"convinces\" Harold to say nothing and sell him the \"valuable\" ring and then they run away to enjoy their luck(?). Again and again they find patsies until they meet up with a woman who herself is a con woman (working with a guy doing fake s\u00e9ances). She arranges a nifty con and takes all the money they stole--and has a cop standing by to make sure they give her the money.

As luck would have it, the two con men stumble into the lady's shady business when no one is home. Soon, the lady returns and messes with their minds--releasing a lot of dirty tricks to punish them for their wicked ways.

All around, this is a completely odd and contrived film, but it is also exceedingly funny, as the jokes work very well and Lloyd and Pollard make an excellent team. Plus, while creepy and strange, I liked seeing Pollard dressed like a lady.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sure, most people will designate \"Island of the Fishmen\" as silly and trashy hokum, but can you honestly name one other movie that brings forward THIS many exhilarating themes? This Italian gem stands for pure entertainment and features stuff like voodoo, volcanic eruptions, mutant fish-creatures, the mysterious continent of Atlantis, treasure-hunting, a remote island filled with death traps and utterly mad scientists! All this and much more in one simple movie? Yes, please! Close-minded opponents of Italian horror cinema can easily tag this film as a cheap exploitation version of \"The Island of Dr. Moreau\", but the truth is that this is so much more! \"Island of the Fishmen\" delivers thrills and adventure from start to finish with surprisingly convincing special effects and astonishingly stylish camera-work. The story promisingly opens with a small group of prisoners, survivors of a shipwreck, washing ashore a tropical island. They encounter the sadistic Edmond Rackham who rules over a native tribe\u0085and a legion of genetically created amphibian monsters that live in the island's swamps. There are so many twists and additional sub-plots in the story that it's almost impossible to write a summary but, trust me, this gem is worth checking out. Sergio Martino once again proves that he's an ingenious filmmaker who has the talent to be commercial-minded and creative at the same time. He makes great use of the beautiful island location and also the interior sets look very impressive. The staggering underwater footage and imaginative scenery really lift this film high above the normal standards of late 70's exploitation. I don't quite understand why Roger Corman reworked the original so much and released it on the American market under a different title (\"Screamers\"), because there are very few elements open for improvement. The cast members are all Sergio Martino regulars (with the exception of the great Joseph Cotton is a neat supportive rule) and give away great performances. In case you can get your hands on the recently restored German version, you're treated to fifteen uncut minutes of extra action. See it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I finally got a chance to settle in and compare the two versions of this film currently going around -- First, the good old scummy, sleazy Embassy VHS print called SCREAMERS, and then a new fully restored Italian DVD by everyone's new favorite media company, No Shame of Italy.

The American adverts about \"men turned inside out\" is as everyone says, totally misleading, and indicative of a Roger Cormanized take on what otherwise would be a superior fantasy-adventure thriller for grown ups. The complete Italian version is a somewhat sprawling, well designed and deliberately paced take on \"Island of Dr. Moreau\", and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a sumptuous, handsome Euro Horror outing with a brain, good plotting, character development, location shooting, period costuming and sets, etc.

But I must admit that the 14 year old knucklehead weed puffer still lurking somewhere inside of me got a bigger kick out of the more lurid, sleazy and unkempt Roger Corman version, which has some nice over the top gore, a flashy but preposterous opening segment, and then the bulk of Martino's original film, albeit somewhat abridged to make room for Roger's idea of entertainment. The pacing was somewhat quicker, the shock sequences closer together, and you see just as much of Ms. Bach's fantastic form as you do in the extended Italian version.

I still don't have much of an idea about what the specific story concerns though: there are a number of plot twists and incidental characters that were somewhat hard to keep track of. A local voodoo subplot didn't help much, and it's funny how everything culminates in just another fistfight between the noble castaway prisoner and the mad scientist ... Perhaps a few more viewings are in order. I will say this: Fans of the movie should avail themselves of one of these PAL imports and take a look at what is actually a movie rather than just another murky old home video -- the widescreen shot compositions once again reveal that Martino had an eye for filling his screen with interesting stuff. Nobody gets their heads ripped off like in the SCREAMERS print, but it's still interesting stuff, and once again proof that while his standards may have been pretty much confined to the area around the gutter, Roger Corman new good trashy fun when he had it made for him, and side by side these are actually better movies than they had to be.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie surprised me. The box is misleading, the tagline is misleading and the costumes and tone of the film are misleading. The movie is quite gory, well-acted and beautifully shot. The special-effects are top-notch and seem to be ahead of their time, until you realize this movie came out in 1979, not in 1963 like it's tone would suggest. It is a unique take on the Dr. Moreau story, and one of the better versions filmed. The first fifteen minutes are the highlight and the most shocking, but the film doesn't ever really fall apart. Definitely worth-seeing if you are a fan of dramatic costume\/horror classics and gore-fests.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Screamers is an Italian fantasy film (L'Isola degli Uomini Pesce) bought by Roger Corman and released through his New World Pictures. Of course Corman has to carve his initials on it by having one of his lackeys (Dan T. Miller) direct some additional gore footage before he has it released in the states.

L'Isola degli Uomini Pesce is a very entertaining retelling of the Island of Dr. Moreau. It is 1891 and Claudio Cassinelli is shipwrecked on a mysterious island with a few newly escaped convicts. Claudio comes across the stellar Barbara Bach and Richard Johnson. Johnson plays the dastardly Edmund Rackham: a man who is able to manipulate scientist Joseph Cotton into turning the local native population into amphibious deep-sea diving creatures, (they look like a cross between the Black Lagoon creature and one of The Humanoids From the Deep), by convincing Cotton that the mutations are being created for the highest of scientific and humanitarian motives.

Having discovered the lost city of Atlantis, Rackham is using the amphibious creatures to loot its treasures. Sexy Barbara Bach plays Cotton's daughter who has a psychic link with these mutations. In one memorable scene, Bach takes a midnight swim with these mutants wearing only a thin white cotton dress that leaves little to the imagination. Claudio discovers one of the convicts he has befriended has been turned into a gill-creature and then all Hell breaks loose.

Filmed at the same time and in the same location as Zombi 2, Richard Johnson didn't even have to change suits between films. The house where the experiments take place is the same house Johnson uses to conduct experiments in Zombi 2. Talk about economic filmmaking!

The additional footage features a few bloody beheadings, (way to go Roger!), and a laughably bad Cameron Mitchell doing his best pirate imitation. All that's missing is the parrot.

Spanish title: Le Continent Des Hommes Poissons","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fans of Euro-horror flicks - Portland's video\/DVD store Movie Madness has a whole section devoted to this genre - can't afford to miss Sergio Martino's gut-busting \"L'isola degli uomini pesce\" (called \"Screamers\" in the United States). Here's the lowdown: some shipwreck survivors land on an uncharted Caribbean island in 1891. The island is inhabited by a landowner, a scientist (Joseph Cotten) and his daughter (Barbara Bach). Sure enough, it turns out that the landowner is making the scientist create a race of fish-men. And while the fish-men remain calm as long as they can drink their potion, they get nasty otherwise.

This movie is sort of a mixture of genres: Euro-horror, swashbuckling, voodoo, and maybe a little bit of \"The Island of Dr. Moreau\". But it's mostly an excuse to have the fish-men disembowel trespassers; ya gotta love that! I wouldn't be surprised if the Euro-horror genre gave Quentin Tarantino some of his ideas for \"Grindhouse\". After all, the European horror directors have no scruples about what they show. This is one that you're sure to like.

So Joseph Cotten is the only cast member from an Alfred Hitchcock movie (I mean \"Shadow of a Doubt\") who later co-starred with Ringo Starr's soon-to-be wife and Audrey Hepburn's ex (by whom I mean Mel Ferrer) in an Italian horror flick. The things that we see in life...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When a group of escaped convicts manage to flee to a remote island,they soon find that their new home is inhabited by a strangely menacing doctor(Richard Johnson of \"Zombi 2\" fame),a mad scientist(Joseph Cotten),his beautiful daughter(Barbara Bach)and a horde of superstitious natives.The tribesmen say that the doctor has created grotesque half-human,half-fish creatures for evil,secretive purposes.And though at first the prisoners do not believe this,as they disappear,one by one,they begin to change their minds.\"Screamers\" is a very entertaining mix of \"Mysterious Island\" and \"Humanoids from the Deep\".There is plenty of gore with really cool decapitation scene and throat tearing to boost.The acting is so-so,but the film is fast-paced and entertaining.Give it a look.8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although the video box for many copies of this film claims it is about people turned inside out, this is a total lie. In fact, apart from the opening segment, the film isn't even a horror movie. With its sunken treasure, legions of fish people, and mad scientists, it's a lot more like a Doug McClure adventure movie. Obviously, this film is no work of art, but it's kind of fun to watch... Just be warned that the beginning is quite gory.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"action packed,with my favorite type of creature.I won't give any of it away if you have'nt seen it,cause it's worth taking the time to sit down and unravel in the mystery of things as presented in this film.It did gets slow at times and those were the moments my mind wondered which does easily anyways but moist of it kept me quietly thrilled,where you keep it in your head instead of letting it out,probably the mood I was in at the time.Special effects and action sequences you could feel made up for the occasional lulls.Of course there'es a duschload of movies out there exactly like this,the film still has it's own style and flavor,which I respect from underground independent horror movies anyways.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie on television as SCREAMERS and loved it. I heard an interesting story about this film. When Roger Corman released it to drive-ins in the summer of 1981, his trailer department sent out an advance trailer which was not actually footage from the film. It was allegedly footage of a naked woman being chased around a laboratory set by a monster. During the film's opening at drive-in's, irate customers complained the did not see the movie they paid to see. Theater owners called Corman and said their customers felt ripped off. So Corman had to run off copies of the footage, and send the positive film to theater owners to splice into the film themselves. Since the footage was never part of the film negative, it has not appeared in any video, DVD or television broadcast. Has anyone ever seen this footage? Anyone who saw this film at a drive-in in the summer of 1981 remember this?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lt. Claude (Claudio Cassinelli) and several prisoners from his sunken ship wash ashore on an island owned by Edmond Rackham (Richard Johnson). Following a few random prisoner deaths, Rackham takes in Claude and his two remaining prisoners. Luckily for everyone, Barbara Bach just happens to be on the island too! Unluckily, there are some crazy fishmen who like to kill people.

This Italian produced exploiter seems to have it all - a touch of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON mixed with DR. MOREAU with a dash of WHITE ZOMBIE voodoo and Atlantis stuff. Despite some wonky looking fishmen costumes, the film does benefit from some beautiful location photography and a nice twist about halfway through. All of the actors are good and Joseph Cotton even pops up as a old biologist. Director Sergio Martino handles himself well enough as there is action ever 10 minutes or so. That can't be said for his belated follow-up THE FISHMEN AND THEIR QUEEN (1995), easily one of the wackiest and most off-base sequels since HIGHLANDER II.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching this odd little adventure movie, it's hard to believe that it was directed by the same man who brought us such high quality Giallo classics as The Strange Vice of Mrs Wardh and The Case of the Scorpion's Tail, but it has to be said that despite it's low quality production values, Island of the Fish Men is an entertaining ride and one that surely deserves more praise than it's getting. Like many Italian films from the seventies, this is one is a rip off of a successful American film, the one in question this time being the critically panned Island of Dr Moreau. Sergio Martino's film takes ideas such as mutation, greed and adventure and moulds it into one slightly compelling film, which makes up for what it's lacks in coherency and logic with a load of mostly intriguing ideas. The central plot follows a boat which crashes on a small island. It quickly becomes apparent that not everything about this place is normal, and it soon transpires that half of the population has been turned into \"fish men\" - a cross between a man and a fish, which exist for purely selfish reasons...

The truth about this movie is that it's a lot more fun if you ignore the trashy production values. The central monsters look completely ridiculous, and much of the movie takes place on sets that look like they cost someone a few pennies - but the movie is well shot in spite of this, with the underwater photography being a particular highlight and the pacing of the movie is well done in that the film never becomes boring. The way that the plot comes together isn't exactly genius, but it takes in a lot of ideas and I've seen films made on plots with much less thought put into them than this one. The biggest location standout in the film is definitely the lost city of Atlantis. To be honest, I'm not a massive fan of adventure movies, and therefore don't see this lost city get mentioned much - but it is always nice to see it in a movie. The central island location is good in that it provides an apt setting for the story and also provides the movie with the right amount of mystery, as Martino makes good use of the voodoo theme. Overall, this isn't exactly a classic and there are certainly a lot worse trashy adventure movies out there than this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1891: Stalwart, morally upright military doctor Lieutenant Claude de Ross (solid Claudio Cassinelli) and several other shipwreck survivors wash ashore on a remote tropical island that's governed with an iron fist by the ruthless and sadistic Edmund Rackham (superbly played to the deliciously slimy hilt by Richard Johnson), who lives on the island with the feisty Amanda Martin (a winningly spunky performance by the ravishing Barbara Bach) and her unhinged rogue biologist father Professor Ernest Martin (a marvelously dotty portrayal by Joseph Cotten). Moreover, de Ross discovers that Professor Martin has control over a dangerous race of fishman beasts who are being exploited as slave labor by Rackham. Director\/co-writer Sergio Martino relates the lively and absorbing story at a constant snappy pace, offers a flavorsome evocation of the lush and remote tropical setting, does an expert job of creating and maintaining a creepy and mysterious atmosphere in the spooky opening third, further spices things up with a nice line in dry humor, and stages the exhilarating action-loaded climax with considerable rip-roaring aplomb. While the central premise is obviously inspired by \"The Island of Dr. Moreau,\" the story nonetheless is given a great deal of freshness and intrigue because of Martino's artful melding of such diverse elements as voodoo, the lost underwater city of Atlantis, a rousing mondo destructo climactic volcanic eruption, buried treasure, unscrupulous genetic experiments, and even some exciting rough'tumble fisticuffs between de Ross and Rackham during the thrilling conclusion into an altogether dynamic, imaginative, and often immensely entertaining whole. The sound acting by the sturdy cast qualifies as another substantial plus: Cassinelli makes for a likable hero, Johnson essays his juicy villain part with supremely lip-smacking aplomb, Bach rates as a quite fetching damsel in distress, plus there are neat supporting contributions by Beryl Cunningham as sinister voodoo priestess Shakira, Franco Iavarone as the superstitious Jose, and Roberto Posse as surly troublemaker Peter. Giancarlo Fernando's sumptuous widescreen cinematography delivers a wealth of striking visuals while Luciano Michelini's throbbing tribal score hits the funky spot. The amphibious humanoid fishman creatures are pretty gnarly-looking, too. An extremely fun flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is based on the novel Island of dr. Moreau By H.G. Wells. It's a fairly good one too, it's at least better than the version by John Frankenheimer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An on screen caption informs us that it is 'the Caribbean Sea, May 1891'. A small lifeboat drifts aimlessly at sea containing six convicts from a shipwrecked prison ship, and the ship's Doctor a Lt. Claude De Ross (Claudio Cassinelli). It's night, a strange current takes the boat towards a strange, unnamed and uncharted island. The boat hits some rocks and is torn apart. One of the prisoners is killed by what appears to be a slimy mutant fish-man creature. The next morning morning Claude wakes up to find himself washed upon a beach. He finds a pool of white bubbling water and one of the prisoners dead beside it. Claude warns another surviving prisoner Jose (Franco Iavarone) not to drink the water as it will kill him. They both eventually meet up with the other surviving prisoners, Peter (Roberto Posse), Francois (Francesco Mazzeri) and Skip (Giuseppe Castellano). Francois wanders off on his own to try and catch an animal for food, he finds and kills a large water bird. But in turn he is killed himself by one of the fish-men. Claude, Jose, Peter and Skip continue to explore the island as they put Francois's death down to an animal attack of some sort. Soon after Skip is killed when he is impaled on a spike at the bottom of a pit. Now only Claude, Jose and Peter are left. They stumble across a cemetery with lots of empty graves and signs of recent black magic rituals. Claude spots a snake on a nearby rock, suddenly a shot is heard and the snakes head explodes. A woman on horseback named Amanda Marvin (Barbara Bach) is revealed to be Claudes saviour. She tells them to leave the island immediately as it is owned by a Edmund Rackham (Richard Johnson) and he doesn't like visitors. Claude, Jose and Peter decide to carry on regardless, eventually finding Rackham's large house in which they are invited to stay. That night Peter goes after Amanda and tries to rape her in a swamp, Peter quickly becomes food for the fish-men. And a Voodoo priestess called Shakira (Beryl Cunningham), who lives with Rackham, performs a black magic ritual involving slitting the throat of a chicken at the cemetery. The next day Claude and Jose decide they should leave the island as they feel very uneasy about Rackham and think he is lying to them. Jose rides off on horseback and is lost. Claude is saved from one of the fish-men by Amanda and is again told to leave. Claude wants to confront Rackham again. Rackham reveals that he has a scientist, and Amanda's father, named Professor Ernest Marvin (Joseph Cotten) who he needs to be kept alive. Rackham says that the longer Ernest stays alive the chances of his own survival will dramatically increase. Rackham tells Claude his plan. Rackham has found the lost city of Atlantis at a depth of over 2,000 feet. He is using the fish-men as a means of getting at the lost treasures of Atlantis, and needs Amanda and her father to control them. He claims the fish-men are descendants of the original inhabitants of Atlantis. Rackham offers Claude a share of the treasure if he will help him keep Ernest alive. Later Claude remembers the name Ernest Marvin as a scientist who was condemned for experiments transplanting animal organs into human beings. Finding Ernest's secret laboratory he discovers Rackham had lied to him and the fish-men aren't descendants, their actually genetically altered people turned into amphibious creatures by Ernest's grotesque experiments! Rackham has finally had enough of Claude and decides to put an end to his meddling by sticking him in a large tank and slowly filling it with water, as the islands volcano starts to erupt and send lava flying everywhere. Rackham wants to leave the island with his treasures and Amanda, will Claude escape almost certain death to save Amanda and get off the island before the erupting volcano tears it apart? Directed by Sergio Martino I really liked this film that mixes various genres. The script by Sergio Donati is fast paced, interesting and entertaining. The plot is revealed bit by bit, which kept me interested in watching it all the way through. I must say at this point that I've seen the original version and not the one with added scenes inserted for it's US release by Roger Corman. Barbara Bach makes for an extremely attractive leading lady, but I hated the way she was introduced by shooting a snakes head off, I thought it was more than a little distasteful. Richard Johnson makes a great villain and Claudio Cassinelli a likable hero. The fish-men themselves look a little fake when the camera lingers on them too long but their cool looking and I've seen worse. Some of the miniature effects look a little poor too, but overall again I've again seen a lot worse. There's no real gore, violence or nudity in it, but that didn't really bother me actually. The photography by Giancarlo Ferrando and the production design by Massimo Antonello Geleng combine to create a very nice looking film. Period costumes, props and sets like Rackham's house and Ernest's lab with it's old scientific equipment. The lush green jungle settings also add to the visual splendour on show. I really liked this film and I was entertained throughout it's running time. I'm not sure who I'd recommend it too as it mixes various genres, I guess someone who maybe fancies something a little bit different and generally well made. If you can find a copy give it a go, I'm glad I did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, I'm just going to disagree with the past comments that criticized this show. I happen to think this show is awesome. (I mean when Jasmin Weber was still on and Franzi was still alive, so addicting!). And I was surprised to learn that this was categorized as a soap, because it just doesn't carry the same look and feel as soaps in America. Soaps here are absolutely horrific! At least GZSZ films on location, features real music and more plausible story lines. Moreover, the acting on GZSZ, for the most part, is quite believable especially with Josephine Schmidt and Felix Jascheroff. (Plus, soap actors are some of the hardest workers around in the business as they have the most demanding work schedules). If it's ratings are that high, it must be doing something right; soaps in America are shown in the day-time and, historically, have always had rock-bottom ratings. Give GZSZ a chance! Trust me, it's good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"GZSZ is the longest running daily soap in Germany and it's cult! I started watching it from the first day on and I got hooked on it right from the start. Over the years so much has changed, the old characters like Heiko, Elke, Tina, Saskia etc. left, and new ones appeared like Marie, Kai, Cora or John. I have to say that I liked GZSZ better in the years 1995-2000 because today the show focuses too much on the younger characters. My favorite character is Sonja Wiebe because she is the most scheming person that has ever been on that soap and she is also one of the most interesting characters on the show. Tina Bordihn was great as the first Sonja but as Tokessa became the recast of Sonja the character got even better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Planet\" is an astounding piece of film making. For a mere \u00a38000 Stirton Production have turned out one of the most original sci-fi films for a long time.

Starring the physically intimidating Mike Mitchell, the film is a mix of great special effects, strong storytelling and well planned action. From the opening space battle, to the pounding finale, everything about this film appears well above it's budget.

To start with the special effects, while certainly not \"Revenge Of The Sith\" standard, they are on level, if not above, the likes of Babylon 5 and Farscape. And for a snip of a price as well. The detail and the movement is superb, and captures the imagination from the off. The design of everything, ships, weapons, entities is second to none. The imagination and creativity involved is a real surprise for a film of this budget.

Another surprise was the strength of the story, and the arc it takes. There are a few twists and turn, most of which are well written into the script, surprising and well played out. I was surprised that, two years in the making and first imagined 15 years ago, how relevant some aspects of the story are to today's society. With the happenings around the world, there may be a certain resonance with the lengths the mercenaries are forced to go to in order to survive.

Even the sounds effects are spot on, as is the atmospheric music. The use of light and costume add further to the professional look. Balmedie Beach in Aberdeen looks a desolate and lonely place.

In all honesty this film looks 10, if not 100, times the budget spent, and that's testament to a creative, hard working team of people, from the director, to the cast, to the effects via the producer and sound team. Wonderful effort, I recommend you get your hand on a copy ASAP","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every once in a while you stumble across a movie that takes you by surprise and this is one of them. On the surprise scale this would rate as sharing a hot tub with Jessica Alba whilst a band consisting of Elvis, Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, Phil Lynott and Keith Moon play you music for the night. The reason why this film will surprise you is that for the meagre budget they had (\u00a38,000) and that this was done by a bunch of mates who just wanted to try it out they have produced something very slick and looks easily 100 times more than its budget.

The plot is simple a crew of mercenaries carrying a dangerous prisoner through space come under attack and are forced to crash land on a nearby desolate planet. After some checks not only does the planet not exist according to star charts but they are not alone as it seems and something very unfriendly begins to pick them of one by one. It sounds like very standard Sci-Fi fare mixing elements of Aliens. Predator and Pitch Black but it takes all these and makes them into something that feels fresh and original.

The Location shooting in this is fantastic, utilising Balmeddie beach in Aberdeen to the maximum and you genuinely feel that you are one an alien world. The seemingly never ending sand dunes and clever lighting effects give it a very bleak feel , you truly think the crew are stranded on an alien world. Also the action sequences are superb, the opening assault on the freighter a great showcase of what special effects can be achieved on a budget and the firefights as well as the stunning finale all showcase the inventiveness of the film.

As for the team of mercenaries the cast excels themselves. For a low budget independent movie the casting here was done via local media outlets and they seem to have picked some possible stars for the future. Local body builder Mike Mitchell whilst not a natural actor slots into his role as the Arnie-Esq leader of the mercenaries. From the rest of the cast there are two stand out performances Patrick Wright as second in command McNeal and Scott Ironside as the rough and ready engineer Vince. Both have some the best lines in the movie and Scott injects a good bit of humour into the movie with his performance. Patrick gives a well rounded performance as the cool as ice second in command.

Director Mark Stirton can be very proud of what he has achieved and shows that Scottish cinema need not all be 'Kilts and Ceilidhs' or 'Slums and Drugs' Scottish films can be fresh, inventive and most of all a lot of god damn fun. This film is Scottish (with a north east flavour) to the core and praise to the actors and directors for keeping the accents intact which adds to the charm of the piece. Although the budget limitations show from time to time (the only fault i could find) that is to be expected. This film, its cast and crew deserve all the success they get and then some more. I for one wish Mark and his crew every success and theirs is a career to keep a very close eye on.

Rating - 9\/10 The first Scottish sci-fi is bold, fresh and inventive a real triumph.

Movie reviews, news and opinion like no other plus the kick ass bi-weekly pod-casts.

www.fightrunner.co.uk

contact@fightrunner.co.uk","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WOW!! Talk about a film that divides the audience! This is a real love it or loath it kinda movie. Personally I really enjoyed it. I noticed that other reviews are comparing it to Pitch Black - this is kinda dumb as the only thing they have in common is SAND! People can be real stupid. No, this film is far more in common with The Thing (how people fail to notice is amazing - they even have the same basic music) Lots of Carpenter touches are there, blue collar heroes, sharp humor, endless rolling landscapes full of death and things not understood. Perhaps what stops this film being a real classic is it's deference to other Carpenter works. Not least Dark Star which it has something in common with. I'd be interested to know how much it REALLY cost? $8000? Is that even possible? Maybe it was based on a short film that cost $8000? But I did find myself strangely moved when the various space dudes died. They are so underplayed that it's like watching a documentary at times. Having said that the script is kinda clunky and only about half of them can act however and I'm not sure the big guy playing the Captain is one of them. But his gun is AWESOME!! Give it a chance, if you like early Carpenter you might fall for it, just don't expect 2001.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Got the chance to see this at a friend's house today, and was impressed with what it achieved on such a small budget. Not that this ever bothered me anyway, since I love low budget sci-fi like Dr Who, Blake's 7 and Dark Star. Hell, even Outland wasn't a big budget affair, so whilst money helps, it takes more than throwing cash at things to make them good.

The story is straightforward at first, with a group of mercenaries paid to escort a prisoner through space. Their ship is attacked and they are forced to land on the nearest planet. They then discover the prisoner has made it too, he's a stone cold nut case and that's only the start of their problems.

The effects, except for the gunfights, are minimalistic and add to the film without overwhelming it. Computer effects look a bit dodgy at times, but serve their purpose well and add to the story, lending a futuristic feel to the proceedings. Films like I, Robot could have benefited from this approach instead of being largely style over substance and substituting special effects for a plot, like all too many of Hollywood's offerings.

Whilst none of the actors get Oscar material, it's tightly scripted and shot and at an hour and ten minutes doesn't outstay its welcome. The characters don't get fleshed out much, but then they didn't in Predator either, which it resembles in feel. Big man Mike Mitchell is a good stand in for Arnie and is a good combination of brains and brawn.

Some people may be annoyed at the lack of explanation towards the end, but I like it. Unlike a lot of films and shows which leave things unexplained, it is not so obscure that you can't get a handle on it at all, and I'd like to see a sequel where the nature of the aliens is explored further.

A cracking little film from an enterprising team, done on the cheap but a fun way to pass an hour. If this is what they can do on a shoestring I'd like to see what they would do with a bit more cash, and hope the film industry and the talentless armchair critics don't knock all the creativity out of them first.

Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The '7' rating is not necessarily a smear-- this movie was done on a low budget-- but done well within its limits.

A usual pot-boiler plot-- Ship carrying a prisoner is destroyed in space, people and prisoner escape in pods, land on unknown planet where their presence wakes something up. Mayhem ensues, a lot of ammo is expended.

The special effects were spare and properly done, emphasizing future technology with holographic displays and controls instead of relying on bulky, cheap looking plastic props. Plus the pacing of the story moved without allowing the viewer to lapse into boredom where they start picking things apart.

I peg this one as a lite Saturday afternoon flick. You can get up and hit the fridge without pausing it and it'll still be enjoyable. Even better, your girlfriend can talk all the way through it without damaging your enjoyment-- and she'll be happy: after all, she got to TALK to you! It's THAT type of movie.

Anyways, the actual story line has s few holes in after they hit the planet, but hey, this is a Guns 'n' Ammo action movie. Cohesive story lines are not necessarily required so long as you have Beer and chips at hand. So don't get get yourself into a brain-cramp over the ending.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!!!

I did buy this film for a dollar and I've seen much worse for much more!!

This is a Scottish sci-fi film from Mark Stirton and according to the Making of (hysterical by the way) the production only cost $8000. Eight grand!!! That wouldn't pay for half a minute in Hollywood!! Nevertheless ---- This is top fun film making. If you like things gritty then you're in for a treat. These are some rough character with rough voices and harsh swearing. I didn't mind, but my girl friend did!! The actors do a fine job and it's interesting to see people that I've never heard of or seen before. It meant I had no idea who was going to die first.

If you watch a movie for it's 'latest of the latest' visual effects then watch a Star Wars. The effects here are OK, but kinda weak in space. But the monsters are very well done if a bit pred like.

Stirton does an amazing job with not very much and I'd love to see his take on a real Hollywood movie. It least it wasn't predictable and I almost fell off my chair when one dude got his head blown off!!! OK, so it is a little derivative of other sci-fi, but for this budget it is an amazing attempt and anyone who thinks making a sci-fi film for 8 g's is easy or happens a lot clearly knows nothing about the film industry.

Good marks for a good film, extra marks for working so hard, extra extra marks for a really interesting Making of. No standard bull here, all the problems of production are gone into making it like Lost in Mancha only with a film at the end. But why no commentary? KEEP GOING SCOTS!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was trying to work out why I enjoyed this film?? Its not because of money spent on it that's for sure!! Did I see a painted water pistol in there? Maybe they don't have the same sort of visual effects houses in the Scotland? Or maybe they just didn't have any money? The making of clearly shows a gang of very plucky guys making a movie against the odds. Awesome! But what I really liked was the grit of the performances. Mike Michell and Patrick White play the lead parts like 2 normal guys. No Hollywood histrionics here.

OK, so the effects work isn't very good. The spaceships just don't look as good as they should in todays FX world and I've seen much better free stuff on youtube. But the film holds together very well once they get to the Planet. Was this filmed in Scotland or just by a Scottish crew? Or is it just better effects work? Did they edit out the water? By the end I kinda loved this film and was disappointed when they all died.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On many levels it's very good. In fact, considering that this was a low-budget British indie by a first time feature-director with a largely neophyte cast, it's a magnificent achievement. I don't know how much it cost. The figure of \u00a38,000 was bandied about in publicity but you never know how reliable a figure like that is. The point is that this film looks like it cost a couple of million quid and it clearly cost a tiny fraction of that Great special effects, terrific production design, effective props and costumes, excellent photography, good acting and direction, an impressive score and an absolutely stunning sound mix. Even having said that, much of the script was great. The characters were clearly identified and all had something to do. This is a movie about ten men all dressed roughly the same in one location and it would be easy for them to be nameless, faceless blanks but these were ten characters - mostly that was done through the dialogue and the way they reacted to things. Throughout the middle act, when the plot was developing, the script told the story well and showed how it affected the characters. If the whole film was like the second act, it would be stunning.

Before the ship blows up, twelve people make it to individual escape pods or 'e-pods' which blast away from the ship. They're not much more than automatic metal coffins and the poor sods inside are trapped, cramped and have no real idea where they're going - but that makes sense. I like the e-pods - they're an excellent idea done very well and make more sense than a nice, roomy escape capsule. I also like the way that we are specifically told, later, that they are designed for ship-to-ship escape but can just about make planetfall in an emergency - because, let's face it, these guys were bloody lucky that their ship was blown up so close to a planet. That said, it doesn't look to me like there are 116 unused e-pods still on the freighter and you have to wonder how the prisoner is able to get into an e-pod - but in he gets. (And it has just occurred to me: shouldn't the Captain have gone down with his ship rather than being the first guy out of there?) Anyway, the e-pods all land on a barren planet with nothing but sand and sparse vegetation - or at least on a sandy, sparsely vegetated part of the planet which may have icy wastes and lush jungles elsewhere. Nah, it's a planet in a sci-fi movie - it will be exactly the same all over. We have to accept that all the e-pods come down within a few miles of each other so that the ten survivors are able to meet up, firing flares into the sky to locate each other.

The Captain, a muscular mountain of a man who could have a pretty good career in action flicks if he gets the right agent, decides that they should try and contact 'Captain Behan' with whom they were intending to rendezvous. But they cannot do this from the planet, they need to get into orbit. The engineer says that if they combine the power units from two e-pods they can probably give one of them enough juice to lift itself on anti-grav doodads high enough to blast above the atmosphere. It can all be done on automatic but it will need a 'pilot' to send the signal. The captain valiantly volunteers for this but in a commendably sensible move the engineer points out that putting the heaviest man into the somewhat dodgily repaired e-pod is ridiculous and that it needs to be the lightest member of the team. That's Kid. I really liked the way that he now points out that his name is David and the Captain starts using it, treating him with dignity and respect. That was good storytelling and good characterisation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, so maybe it's because I'm from the North East of Scotland and I talk just like the guys in this film, but I found this great fun. Cheap fun to be sure, but plenty of effort has gone into making the film look great and the actors certainly give it all. I was actually quite effected when they died. In particulare when the Captain finally fell. The script? Well it;s a game of 2 halfs. The opening half of the film is well written and sharp. The last half hour is not so great, with many questions left unanswered. This will doubtless annoy others as it annoyed me. But nevertheless, good fun and a very smart first feature from Sturton.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i was having a horrid day but this movie grabbed me, and i couldn't put it down until the end... and i had forgotten about my horrid day. and the ending... by the way... where is the sequel!!!

the budget is obviously extremely low... but ... look what they did with it! it reminds me of a play... they are basically working with a tent, a 'escape pod', a few guns, uniforms, camping gear, and a 'scanner' thing. that is it for props. Maybe this is even a good thing, forcing the acting and writing to have to step up and take their rightful place in film, as the centers of the work, instead of as afterthoughts used to have an excuse to make CGI fights (starwars).

The cgi is fine. It is not exactly 'seamless'... but imho it still works. why? because there isn't too much of it, and what there is, is not 'taking over' with an army of effects house people trying to cram everything they can into the shot. it prompts the imagination... it's some relatively simple stuff, with decent composition (especially the heavy freighter shot.. there is one long shot that must be at least ten seconds...that tracks the entire length of the ship... it must be a record for sci fi battle sequence film making in the past 10 years, to have an action sequence that lasts longer than 0.75 seconds), and some relation to the story. it might look old or not 'state of the art', but it doesn't look stupid and it doesn't take away from the story.

The acting is good, except the characters die too fast to get to know them. The captain was great, but a few of his scenes could have used another take. I also got confused with his character losing his cool and stomping on a corpse, I like to think captains are calm cool and in control... what was going on in that scene? did the other crew worry about him losing it at that moment? did he feel himself losing control?

Now, as for the plot.... mostly it is good... why? Because it doesn't try to explain itself. It just happens. It's called 'the planet', its a mystery, get it?? Nobody knows why there is a statue, and they don't find out either. The mysterious cult? The weird scientist with the tattoo? What do you expect to find out in less than 90 minutes? This isn't War and Peace. And, thank god, it's not star wars\/trek either. No midichlorians, no 5 minutes of expository boring dialog that has no purpose in the story. The characters are stranded, and are only able to figure out a few basic things... it is not a star trek episode where they find out it's leonardo davinci or a child like space wanderer. It is mysterious, and i liked that. I don't know why, maybe I can identify with these guys more , since they don't know whats happening, and i don't either... they don't talk a lot of space gibberish or have magic boxes telling them what is happening.

In fact, I would argue that one of the weakest moments is when the 'traitor' turns on the crew, and tries to 'explain' the reason for the planet, the cult, etc. This coincidentally has some of the weakest dialog, imho, in the whole movie, and it interrupts the flow and some of the characters look unnatural in that scene.

OK, sometimes I felt it was a little too mysterious, though. Like, why did the guy get fried through his eyes with lightning? That was odd. Just weird. The 'hamlet' ending... again I would have liked to have known some of these characters better. And would it have been so hard to have a 30 second rescue scene at the end? This is not a serial show, it was a film, and we like closure in films, even if they can have a sequel. Imagine Hamlet with no 'flights of angels sing thee to thy rest'

Anyways. What can I say. This was well worth the dollar I payed at the 'red box' machine at the supermarket. It was also, imho, a better piece of storytelling than starwars parts 1 2 or 3. Like I said, it sucked me in, wanting to know what was happening, and I couldn't stop watching until the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie! Yes, it is rather cheap and I'm sure plenty of reviews will be snooty about that. But my goodness what a lot they pack in for the cash involved. I was reminded of the early work of Sam Raimi. Yes it is rough, but has good energy and plenty of fun. The acting ranges from the very good in Scott Ironside and Shawn Paul Hasser, to the not so good in some of the lesser parts. Is it a cult movie? Well it grew on me. First time I liked it but by the 3rd viewing I was loving it. The movie is probably a 7 out of 10 but I'm giving it 8 for sheer cheek. Anyone who can pull this off for 8 grand is worth watching. Almost makes me want to visit Scotland!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Got this the other day from the Creators on DVD. I saw this advertised in a free magazine whilst family were stopping in a hotel, had never heard anything about it. After reading it was filmed on Balmedie beach i just had to buy it. I used to take the kids to the dunes in the film all the time whilst living in Aberdeen.

1st off Im not a big Sci-Fi fan (baring Star Wars) I was really just wanting to see what they had done with this film location, I was presently surprised. This didn't turn out to be a standard Sci-Fi, more like a mix of sci-fi and survival horror.

Had a good storyline, which was different, had great special effects for the budget that it was produced with \u00a38000. Acting was better than average for a low budget film. The way they have edited out the whole coastline to make it feel like the dry desert planet that they are on was nice.

Weapons in the film were realistic and the creatures were cool kinda like predator in invisibe mode.

All in all I will buy any future releases from these guys, maybe a all out horror next (Hint Hint). The extras on the DVD were very informative on giving background for the producers, I would like to see some of them shorts included as extras on a next DVD release.

Excellent work keep it up","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"People seem to be expecting Citizen Kane here! The Planet is a B-monster movie and as such is good fun and different enough to be enjoyed. The director clearly has something to offer - not so sure about some of the cast. As for the effects? \u00a38000 ain't a lot of effects budget.I for one would happily recommend this outing to a sci-fi head or anyone who doesn't take monster movies too seriously. If so? Watch 3colours blue instead.I noticed one review saying it had ripped off Alien. Like Alien didn't rip things off. The best thing about the film? The director. The worst thing about the film? The cast. Maybe it's time for the Director to move from Glasgow to London and find some talent. In the meantime - well done. At least you're trying to do something.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to confess that I know some of those involved, I was in the forerunner to The Planet, Evil Unleased, however this was more than 10 years ago and I had since lost contact with them. I happened to be watching BBC Scotland News and a piece regarding Scottish Cinema, this mentioned and showed clips from The Planet and comments from it's director Mark Stirton, this prompted me to order a copy of the film on DVD.

Now to the film, the level of acting, writing, directing and sfx is up there with some of the best around, OK it's not Star Wars but I've seen many a Hollywood product that is far inferior. It is very strange watching a film spoken in my local North East Scotland accent but that soon passed.

^Mild Spoilers^

The Planet draws on several sci-fi classics; Star Wars, Alien, Pitch Black, Forbidden Planet and Predator, a handful of the merchant crew of a deep space transport ship survive their craft being attacked and destroyed by unknown ships, they escape onto a deserted desert planet, one by one they are killed by invisible attackers, the ships only passenger, a mysterious prisoner also makes it to the planet, a battle ensues as the crew fight to survive.

The Planet is a brilliant piece of sci-fi film making that certainly hides it's limited budget, well done to Mark, Mike and all those involved, I look forward to your next work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I believe this film was made for the not so princely sum of \u00a38000 but that didn't really show. There wasn't anything amateurish about the production or the acting, the characters were gritty and real and the location could have been any desert area in the world instead of a not too warm beach just north of Aberdeen. The actors were quite easily acceptable as a bunch of mercenaries stranded on a mysterious, deserted and uncharted planet, none of them seemed to be particularly friendly with each-other but were willing to fight to keep themselves and their comrades alive. There weren't any great explanations of what was going on, which can be really contrived, so a lot of the plot was left to your imagination rather like The Big Empty which was a film I also enjoyed. I found that I quite warmed to most of the characters, there were some perhaps unintentionally amusing moments, the men were so ordinary that you felt you could empathise with them and the film's climax and ending were quite poignant. I think Mr Stirton and his crew should be quite proud of themselves I've seen worse films with a budget of millions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Crazy Scottish warrior race, stranded deep in outer-space, low on food and budget free, started ten now down to three, who will help these men of pluck, with visual effects that semi suck, but I kinda liked the freaky being, if I met one then I'd be fleeing, but not if I had Scottish mates, we'd f'n swear and avoid that fate, so in the end it wasn't botched, it was a DVD I'm glad I watched, but if they ever make a sequel, dump some actors, not all were equal, some were good, with gritty acting, some were wooden, and should maybe pack it in, but the action kept me watching all, the shooting, shouting, didn't stall, I'll tell my friends not to fear, and watch again in another year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My buddies and I spent the majority of a Saturday afternoon watching a selection of \"bad\" movies. Among the flicks we watched, the strongest contender (for quality bad-movie fare) was easily Jack-O. It's ludicrous that movies such as \"Gigli\", \"Glitter\" and \"You Got Served\" are listed in IMDBs bottom 100. While they're certainly bad movies, they don't belong in the bottom 100. They're robbing \"Jack-O\", and \"Keeper of Time\", etc, of the Bad Movie Greatness they so richly deserve.

So what makes Jack-O so great (in bad movie terms)? For starters, Steve Latshaw, the director, decided to cast his son, Ryan Latshaw, in the role of Sean Kelly. Unfortunately for Steve, Ryan Latshaw was dangerously close to being out-acted by a block of wood. The kid, seriously, has no ability to emote whatsoever. The end result: unintentional comic gold. The kid could be listening to a joke, or just moments away from getting his head smashed asunder, and his expression is one of stony \"emotionlessness\".

The other aspect of the movie that we found awesome was the sheer number of \"double dreaming\" sequences. What is a double-dream? Well, it's when a character wakes up from a nightmare, and then something equally nightmarish happens, and then the character wakes up again. Basically: they wake up after dreaming about waking up from a nightmare. Clever device, no? I believe the character of Sean Kelly experienced no less than 3 double-dreaming sequences.

Let's see... what else? Oh yeah! This movie has a veritable cast of thousands. It's truly stunning to see how many speaking roles are introduced throughout the course of the movie. Best of all: almost none of the characters have anything to do with the story. They're either killed by Jack-O, or they serve no purpose whatsoever.

Jack-O himself was pretty sweet. Like most other B-movie monsters, Jack-O has the amazing ability to, seemingly, teleport over great distances. He's invariably hanging-out, somewhere in the background, whenever you're dealing with a major character. What's puzzling, however, is that when he's actually chasing someone he moves at a shambling\/stumbling speed, and yet he's able to keep up with people who are sprinting.

That's all for now. Closing remarks: if you're looking for a unintentionally hilarious bad movie, you can't go wrong by renting this beast.

Bad Movie Score: 7\/10 Good Movie Score: 3.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Man, I can't believe the largely harsh and negative comments for this movie. Okay, it sure ain't no sophisticated work of cinematic art. But it is a good deal of entertainingly tacky fun. For starters, the titular pumpkin-headed supernatural killer dude has to be one of the single most laughably silly and unscary things to ever stumble in front of a camera; he looks like something you would see in a fourth-rate carnival spookhouse. Secondly, the moderate gore is ridiculously fake and unconvincing, with the definite highlight occurring when this annoying uptight ultra-conservative woman gets electrocuted by a toaster. Then there's the always welcome presence of the ever-lovely Linnea Quigley, who's memorably introduced taking a nice, long, utterly gratuitous shower that goes on for two minutes. Amazingly, we also have appearances by deceased schlock picture legends John Carradine as an evil warlock and Cameron Mitchell as a horror TV show host. Moreover, scream queens Brinke Stevens and Dawn Wildsmith have fleeting cameos. Lead child actor Ryan Latshaw projects all the charm and acting ability of a moldy old tree stump. Pretty brunette Rachel Carter pops her top and bares her cute little breasts. The cruddy special effects are decidedly less than special. The score is suitably overwrought. Yet this film overall has a certain endearingly hokey appeal to it which in turn makes this honey a real delectably cheesy hoot to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Story involves ancient demon being released upon a small town on Halloween night. In all my life I have never seen such a cheesy film, but it is so d**m entertaining you can forgive its bad acting, effects, direction, and script. This is the best movie created for the Halloween season since the original Halloween. And when they introduce Linnea Quigley's character for the first time, she is butt naked in the shower for like 5 mins. Goodness they just don't get any better than this. Rush and buy this tape right away. 5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although I'm a girl, thankfully I have a sense of humor and realize that this really IS a funny anime! Watching it does give you an overwhelming feeling that it's definitely a guy show but that doesn't take away from the fact that its hilarious! 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Golden Boy is ecchi humor (bordering on hentai) in the guise of \"educational moments.\" The main character, Kintaro, wanders around getting himself into the silliest situations involving women... It's just that he's shy on the surface but analyses everything until he can learn something from it. The most striking feature of the series are the circumstances surrounding his \"education\", which are outright embarrassing, yet funny at the same time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Believe me when I say this show is just plain hilarious. The basic story is about Kintaro Oe who travels from town to town taking part time jobs, chasing women, and learning all he can about life. Kintaro has to be one of the easiest to relate to characters ever made. He takes everything to the extreme, and it's just laugh out loud funny every time. From his constant never ending quest to study life, to tiny things he instantly blows up into life or death matters.

One of the funniest things about this show is simply Kintaro's constantly extremely over the top expressions and reactions. He spends a great amount of time in various super deformed modes like Dragon Half or Trigun. Other times in less then 0.1 seconds his face will turn not just serious, but manga-fighter-style life or death expressions like a weight lifter trying to benchpress a new record. It's hilarious.

If that wasn't enough, the writing is superb and the english voice acting couldn't possibly be better. Kintaro's English VA is just perfect and will have you rolling around when he's not even really saying anything. The one thing to mention though is this is without a doubt an Ecchi series. It practically defines the word. If you're an adult anime fan who can get a laugh out of movies like American Pie, you'll love this.

- Rirath_com","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Simply put, there are two parts of this series that made me cry till my eyes fell out. First: The part where he was set to wash the toilet, but ended up drinking the toilet water while imagining it was the hot director giving him a golden shower!!! (I laughed so hard!)

Second: The part where he tried to prove worthy of a swimming school instructor. He seemed like a pro diving in, but as expected, he couldn't swim (proper at least^^). However the funny part of this was when he finally reached the end and said \"how was that\" or something. That was so friggin hilarious, I couldn't stop laughing.

If you get the chance to see this anime series, I strongly recommend it. One of the best I've seen.

Definitely the funniest!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this quite a bit but I have friends that hated this. There's no sex, but there's very little nudity in any of the episodes - which is a good thing. Also, Keitaro has a toilet fixation that's explored in at least half the episodes. (Toilets are way more advanced in Japan.) Hmm, I'm wondering why I rated this so high myself...? It certainly isn't that I like naked cartoon girls. In some ways, Keitaro Oe (the main character) is analogous to Johnny Bravo except instead of being an obnoxious, musclebound jock, Keitaro is a hyperactive nerd. Or you can think of him as Japan's answer to Leisure Suit Larry. He's easier to take if you watch it subtitled rather than dubbed, but he grows on you either way if you give him a chance. He IS the Goldenboy.

The formula is the same for each episode. Boy meets girl, boy tries to win girl's heart despite being a dorky pervert, boy somehow succeeds against all odds. Typically, the girl doesn't realize she likes Keitaro until after he's beaten to a pulp and\/or pulled off some spectacular stunt like engineering a modern operating system in one week or winning a race against a gasoline-powered motorcycle using his bicycle.

Episode #1 features a rich software tycoon. I think animating her boobs put a major dent in the budget because she's the only female that has this kind of animation. She also dresses completely unprofessionally. Most people who rate this negatively probably never got past the first episode.

Episode #2 has the rich, young daughter who likes to tease. She's only 16 but that's legal age in Japan (and in some states in the US, I might add). Her father is also a brutal yakuzza type that has a reputation for killing guys interested in his daughter.

Girl #3 is the sweet innocent daughter of a noodle shop owner that's mixed up with a bad boyfriend. Aside from Keitaro running interference for the maiden and being kissed by a guy, there's almost no ecchi of any kind in this episode - a sharp drop from the previous two. Nevertheless, Keitaro and the evil boyfriend really pound each other.

Episode #4 has Keitaro trying to impress a top-notch swimming coach. Keitaro seems more 'direct' about his intentions with this particular girl than any other... and she's pretty direct in return...

Girl #5 is the biker babe. She's probably the most top-heavy of the 6 (although not super-buoyant like girl #1) and 'raciest' in terms of sexuality and vulgarity. This particular episode is easily the most over-the-top in terms of (lack of) realism. Keitaro should have broken every bone in his body at least twice during the race against the biker babe but I think the producers and writers said, \"It's just a cartoon! We can do anything!\" This lapse in realism makes it a fan favorite.

Finally, episode #6 introduces a new girl (that's works in animation) and the previous 5 girls help Keitaro as he tries to cope with impossible time and resource constraints to get an OAV out the door by the deadline. In terms of ecchi, this one's very tame as well, but there's plenty of humor. The ending has all 5 extremely pretty girls from the past team up to hunt Keitaro, who slips away unnoticed, ostensibly with the intention of gang-raping him. Yeah, that -ALMOST- happens in real life. Someone crossed Ukyo Tachibana (ala Samurai Shodown) with Steve Urkel(ala Family Matters)...

All in all, there's no middle ground for this. You'll either hate it or love it. If you're new to anime, you probably don't want to start with this. At the same time, if you can stand characters like Happosai (from Ranma 1\/2) or Johnny Bravo... or you like comedies that lean more heavily towards silliness but have very sexual overtones, you should give it a shot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Golden Boy is in my opinion one the sleeper \/ lost treasures animes out there. A sexy comedy, about a young man quest to find his nitch in life and he blunders into all sort of odd jobs that somehow has this rather sexy girl who ultimately falls for him but he not really realizing it! Its truly something that you can easily miss if you at the name, but once viewing it...will fall for the comedy\/silliness that lies inside. Truly a crime that only produced 6 OVA episodes and pilot movie were made. However, being unique as it is. I'm surprised it survived to produce that many. If you want a good laugh, with high quality anime that is (100% CGI free), check this anime out. Boy who one day may save the world....or maybe not.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Endearingly silly anime, only six episodes in duration, about a hapless delivery boy called Kintaro (well, he's called a delivery boy, though he is meant to be in his 20's), and the adventures he has on his travels. Each episode sees him arriving in a new town, acquiring a new job, developing something of a love interest before each episode ends with him leaving.

Gently sexist, juvenile, very immature at times, this is the kind of anime that just puts a smile on the face.

Not one to start with if you are not a fan of anime, as this certainly won't convince you about the genre, but for those who are already converted, this is entertaining fluff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Someone says this anime could be offensive for girls... not really. Embarrassing situations are funny; first time i see this series i was in the video store, people around me started laughing, doesn't matter the age or gender. A teacher said that in order to guarantee the attention of someone in a book the beginning must be entertaining and the ending shouldn't be obvious by just reading the last page. During the first minutes in the series the boy is hit by a car, during the last moments of the series, the same car appears.. Episodes had a touching and funny ending, specially last one. I don't regret to buy these series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Finally! Other people who have actually seen this show! It is the funniest anime I have ever seen, but most people have even heard about it. It is just hilarious. 'And so kintaro will continue to ride his trusty bike and maybe one day, he will save the world....or maybe not'. tare just some classic bits in it 'and so he will ride onto the next city...because he has no choice since his brakes are broken (study study study)' And some of the lessons that he writes down in his little notebook, 'today i had a very educational experience. I tried to look backwards, but unfortunately I was already looking that way. It hurt. Todays lesson, the human head cannot turn 360 degrees.'","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the last episode of the Goldenboy OVA series. Kentaro finds himself working in an animation studio, which is rather interesting if you don't know anything about the way anime studios were run. Besides episode 3, this was probably the least risqu\u00e9, but it had a nice girl interest, as well as a surprise reunion from others in the previous episodes. My only complaint about this episode is it seemed a little too short, but at the same time this may have only been because it was the only original script for the show that wasn't based on one of the manga chapters. but it ended well, leaving us with the nice feeling that Kentaro is permanently 25, studying on. Definitely watch the rest of the series all the way through, you can buy the whole series for like $17, you can watch it all the way through in about 2 1\/2 hours, or watch your favorite episode if you have 20 minutes free time (which i do if i have a lunch break at school.) good series, check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was a wonderful romp, intelligent, playful, mysterious, full of surprises, with humor in odd places and a tremendous energy. The famous film director (the protagonist) and the events he tries to manipulate through film all become entangled in fascinating ways as he is nearly out-maneuvered by a prince who has never heard of him. There are wonderfully rich images throughout and paths suggested but not followed (exactly what is going on with the somber wife of the pedestrian tourist wedding director?). The ending is so much the better for being untidy. Realism and logic are not what you should be looking for here. If we are going to turn our weddings and our imaginative lives over to film directors, we should be prepared for a wild ride, this film seems to suggest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is something that one of the characters (the aging film director who pretends to be dead) says which may summarize all the film: \"In Italy it's the dead who rule\". True! This is a country without a future, in the hands of old and jaded men. And Bellocchio's cryptic portrait of the country, pivoted on the apparently senseless story of a director who has to film marriage parties to earn a living, manages to say a lot about what is not working here. But foreigners may miss the point, as it's not clearly expressed. I understand that Australian or Canadian people who watch this may get bored and wonder if there's a meaning--well, there's a meaning, but it's clear only to people who live here today, and keep their eyes wide open... like Bellocchio. Surely it's not one of his best films, and it's not as powerful as Buongiorno, notte, but it's worth seeing... for Italians who live in Italy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If Sicily is a territory of the baroque, with its doubling of perspective, that's part of this movie's challenge to realism. And it's an exuberant pleasure here, outdoing Fellini with not one but three film directors, plus of course the actual Bellocchio, who has made some really great movies and shouldn't be touchy about his honor. There is a variety of takes and casting improvisations on Manzoni's \"I promessi sposi\" with, somewhere there, actual marriage. Sicily is also taken to be a territory of skulduggery (You already know this version of the island, so there's no spoiler involved), a comic version of which makes the picture worth seeing for Sergio Castellito's work with guard dogs on the floor of the great hall of a palazzo.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The title role of this western is played by Robert Walker, Jr. He's a young gun who with partner David Carradine gets separated after doing a contract hit on a Mexican general. In eluding their pursuers Carradine and Walker become separated. Walker comes upon the camp of lawman Robert Mitchum who takes a liking to Walker and makes him a prot\u00e9g\u00e9 and reclamation project of sorts.

This is the first of two films Robert Mitchum did with writer\/director Burt Kennedy. The second was the more humorous The Good Guys and the Bad Guys.

Not that Young Billy Young does not have its moments of hilarity. But it is a tripartite story involving the Walker reclamation, Mitchum's hunt for the bad who killed his son and a romantic triangle involving Mitchum, Angie Dickinson, and town boss Jack Kelly.

The film abounds with nepotism. David Carradine is John's son. Dean Martin's daughter Deana is in this, Walker is the son of Robert Walker and Jennifer Jones and Mitchum's son Chris plays Mitchum's son in some silent flashbacks.

Robert Mitchum got his start in westerns and always looks right at home in them. Angie Dickinson essentially repeats the role she had in Rio Bravo. Walker had a brief career playing rebellious youths and doing a good job at it. I've often wondered what happened to him. He looks hauntingly like his father. Maybe he didn't want to come to such a tragic early end like his father.

And it that wasn't enough, Mitchum fans get to hear old rumple eyes sing the title song at the beginning of the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Burt Kennedy both wrote & directed this western taken from a novel. Kennedy was a well known good writer & director, mostly westerns.

Robert Mitchum was a star for over 20 years when he made this. This role was like many he had made already,One can see why he was a big star for so many years.

He filled this role easily like a well used glove.

The title character is played by Robert Walker Jr. (his father a fine actor Robert Walker--died tragically at age 32---his mother is noted actress Jennifer Jones).

Robert was of slight build & even though he had talent only made a few films. (he was in Rita Hayworth's near last film.

ROAD TO SALINAS ---the same year & was very good).

He looked very much like his father, but seemed to lack his fathers charm. He made only a few more movies. He is still living & I wish him well.

Most of his scenes are with another son of a Hollywood great. John Carradine's son David, who is still making movies. they made a nice team.

In westerns you always have a female character & usually she is a dance hall performer. (today they call them hookers), Angie Dickinson assays this role nicely. also featured are western stalwarts, John Anderson & Jack Kelly.

It was film in Old Tucson )outside of downtown Tucaon Az,. & the scenery is gorgeous.

Typical of the older westerns, there is not too much action,there is some good humour & the usual ending shoot out.

It is a fast enjoyable 89 minutes.

Ratings: *** (out of 10) 84 points(out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A good entertainment but nothing more : in this western we are between the classics and the spaghetti ones. This provides us a good a conventional story but it's always a pleasure to see Robert Mitchum with his legendary flegma although he isn't as fit as in the forties or the fifties. And don't forget David Carradine is the son of John Carradine","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had read up on the film and thought it would be cute, a feel good Saturday night movie. I wasn't expecting anything great, figured it would be mostly fluff but hopefully not a totally bad experience. I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised.

The dialogue was pitch perfect, most of the actors were exceptionally good and it flowed nicely. Ash Christian was perfect, his ability to turn an awkward moment into something touching was nice to see. He could have turned this character into something we've all seen before but instead strayed away from stereotypes and focused on the wittiness of the character. It was wonderful to see Jonathan Caouette again, I didn't know what he would do after Tarnation. Ashley Fink is gem, a great young character actress that hopefully will get more work.

There are moments in the film that could have used some work, but all in all not a bad time at the cinema. My friend described it as a gay Angus\/Napoleon Dynamite but it's something more than that. It's a character study into what it's like to grow up gay in a small town, the pain is there but the humor behind that pain (that only age can make clearer) is magnified. I look forward to seeing more of Ash Christian, Ashley Fink and Jonathan Caouette soon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a movie, that has all the basic elements of its genre. It makes you wanna cry, it makes you laugh, it disgust you, it makes you angry etc.

The topic of the story is fortunately not about some disease or drugs, what is the common trend in gay themed movies in these days, but it focuses on the social interactions between characters what could be considered not to be in the high school elite. The play and the direction could be a little bit more sophisticated, but on the other hand it's somehow better so, because it really shows the distress of the characters, that they are experiencing. If this was intended, then this is a remarkable job and assuredly an achievement, specially for such an young director.

It's actually a good story that gives you a little inside into, how it is to be a fat girl and to acknowledge it to yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this film at an OutFest screening in Los Angeles in July, 2006. It's rough around the edges (sound recording in particular is wobbly) and often very funny. The script is rather jarringly episodic and ends abruptly, but Ash Christian infuses the film with lots of genuine heart. It's also a refreshing change of pace to have a gay film that doesn't star underwear models obsessed with partying and chasing straight guys. Props to a warmly sympathetic Jonathan Caouette as Mr. Cox, a kindred spirit to Rodney (Ash Christian), the lively and spirited Ashley Finke as Rodney's best friend, and Deborah Theaker as Rodney's mom, who is given the best one-liners in the script and steals her every scene. The film is like its writer\/director\/star\u0097lumpy and a bit odd, but also very sweet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My friends and I saw the movie last night in Austin at a showing for AGLIFF (a film festival). This movie was one of the best I've seen this year. It was a great comedy - very original and heartfelt - and FUNNY AS HELL! Everyone in the audience was laughing throughout the entire movie. Texas is a big state - with LOTS of small towns - and of course, plenty of teenagers who grew up as \"fat girls.\" I know a lot of people will relate to this film on a personal level. Ashley Fink and Robin de Jesus were awesome - they were so great in these rolls, it was like the script was written with them in mind. And speaking of the script, it was very well written (very believable), and Ash is a great actor (his facial expressions alone made me giggle). It IS an independent film - but don't let that fool you...It's a good one! Seeing this caliber of work from someone so young is truly inspiring.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this last night in Fort Lauderdale. In general it was funny and I liked the characters especially Sabrina. The acting is good and the story line was OK except for the ending which left way to many strings dangling and we were like (what?) I wanted to know what happened to the characters and it was a strange ending that could have been done so much better.

The film did portray rule life really well and we laughed throughout. It has flaws that is for sure but for a first time film for Ash Christian I thought it was good. You might want to wait for the DVD on this one. But if you get a chance to see it give it a shot","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OhMyGAWD!!! THE MAGIC GARDEN is perhaps one of my most vivid '70s childhood memories. Two hippie chicks with ponytails, Carole and Paula would swing on swings, tell jokes they picked off the chuckle patch, dress up with costumes they found in a giant chest called The Storybox, and argue with a pesky pink squirrel named Sherlock that lived in one of their trees. They also could strum a mean acoustic guitar and sing a pretty melody. This was a great childhood show. Very 70s feeling. But that's the problem: They don't MAKE shows like this anymore. Pity that. You could tell these two girls really had hearts of gold and loved kids, they were really sweet. MAGIC GARDEN is one of those shows that if they came out with a box set people WOULD buy it, because its such a MELLOW walk down Memory Lane.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's hard for me to explain this show to my grown friends. I have a bunch of Shasta Daisy's in the back yard which I lovingly call my \"Chuckle Patch.\" My friends laugh at me and look at me like I have 2 heads. It would be great to see this series on DVD for us folks who remember it fondly with our other childhood memories, or to show our friends that there really WAS a chuckle patch! Where kids TV today is compiled of violent cartoons, characters who do magic, or a talking sponge who lives in a pineapple under the sea, The Magic Garden was real in the respect that it taught us good values.

I will hold fond memories of Carole and Paula, and the Chuckle Patch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best memories of my childhood. Should be on DVD. It captured everything we grew up with in the seventies - peace, mellowness, flower power and great acoustic music. The two hosts, Carol and Paula, were the definitive peacenik hippies, with long hair, peasant blouses and bell bottoms(they looked like a Katherine Ross(ala \"The Graduate\") and Ali McGraw(ala \"Love Story\"),respectively.)

They made us happy with jokes from the daisy \"chucklepatch\", gave us lessons on being nice through conversations with the crotchedy garden squirrel, and entertained us with music from their guitar. They were the best, and Carol was also the original Sandy in the original production of \"Grease\"(cool).

This show should be in a time capsule from the era that would also include, \"The Yellow Submarine\", \"Arrow to the Sun\", and Marlo Thomas', \"Free to Be...You & Me.\", also, \"Sunshine\", and \"The Point.\"

And last, but not least, that theme song, \"See ya, See ya, Hope you had a good, good time, ah ha, Glad we got to say good mornin' to ya , Hope we get get to see ya again, See ya, See ya, Glad that you could stay awhile, ah ha, hope we get see ya again, see ya, see ya.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I grew up in New York and this show came on when I was four-years-old. I had half-day kindergarten and this was on WPIX Channel 11 in the afternoon. I just loved the music and stories and remember humming them around the house when playing.

I just saw part of an episode on YouTube and for a moment I could remember how it felt watching those shows as a small child. I, of course, stopped watching when I got in 1st grade because it was on before school got out (no VCR's or DVR's back then). I grew up, not realizing that the show was still on until I was in 11th grade!

I also had no idea that there are DVD's and wish my nieces and nephews were young enough to enjoy this show, but now they're all past the demographic, or I'd buy all of them DVD sets. This was so much better than a lot of the kid shows today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I was five years old, it was my favorite television show. I remembered it was on channel 11 at 2PM everyday. The show's premise was simple with Carole and Janis as the hostesses of this children's television show. They sang songs and read stories to us as children. It was done in a studio with only 54 episodes which was re-broadcasted over and over. I remember Sherlock, the puppet, in the tree. The show taught us how to count, add, subtract, and the alphabet. For thirty minutes a day now, I learned something new with Paula and Janis. I remember those days as pleasant memories and now I hope the children of today can learn to love simpler things like hearing stories, inexpensive props, riding the swings, and talking to puppets. The set was ideal and simple but it was Carole and Janis who made it worth while while. I miss my childhood and those days where the most important thing was watching the Magic Garden. Life seemed so much simpler and better. Now, I hope the kids today enjoy the show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was one of my favorite shows when I was a kid. It had it all--music, stories, a talking squirrel, and chuckling daisies. I wanted to be one of those hippie chicks singing and swinging on a swing. I'm 35 and I grew up in South Jersey, but we got three New York channels with our cable hook-up, and I think it was on Channel 11. They just don't make shows like this anymore (I know that makes me sound really old), and it blows my mind that I grew up with only 9 channels on our TV, but I could always find something cool to watch. I've only talked to one other person who actually heard of and watched this show. She's three years younger than me, and she grew up in North Jersey. I would love to see this series on DVD, so I could show it to my 5 year old daughter, and she could see what silly (but great) stuff her mom used to watch! I just found a VHS tape of a few episodes, and a music CD from the show on ebay, and I bought them right up, even though they were a little pricey. I can't wait to get them to re-live the great memories!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a tough film to review, since several factors need to be taken into account. Let's filter the more judgmental..Ok, are you interested in the facts concerning the serial killer of Jeffrey Dahmer? Can you withstand an independent, low-budget film? Are you objective enough to NOT dislike a film solely due to its lack of stars or professional look? Well, if you said yes then you should have a mind open enough to handle this one. This film is an almost 100% accurate dramatization of Dahmer's adult life and subsequent murder spree, and is styled as an autobiography. It isn't a glamorized, unrealistic account that unfortunately the theatrical film \"Dahmer\" (2001) was. The movie begins with Dahmer, played quite convincingly by Carl Crew, sitting in the police car as they raid his apartment. His thoughts of what got him there are presented to us in a past-tense, narrated style that accurately explains much of Dahmer's psychoses and motives which led him to commit murder almost 20 times. We get to know the character, both the devious side as well as the side that came moderately close to living a normal life. It isn't anyone's fault but Dahmer's that 17 people died, but being a criminal psychology student, I was pleased to more than just his animalistic side represented, truthfully, in this film. You see him having a loving relationship with his grandmother as well as trying to find companionship, but of course we witness the side of him that everyone remembers. It should be noted that there is little actual onscreen violence, with much of it suggestive in shots such as spattering of blood or a body being struck through a blurred curtain. You do see two deaths that I remember, one being a pretty bloodless throat slash and the other being a man shoved alive into a barrel of acid. While you don't see anything graphic, this cruelty and the convincing acting of both Crew and his victim make this a disturbing scene. And while the actual onscreen mutilation is kept low, you will see the results. There is a prop hand and head or two, but it seems as if this was to disturb the viewer and doesn't look to be exploitive. Besides, these fake anatomical pieces are where the budget limitations are visible. Although acceptable, they look enough like fakes to not be too disturbing. The film actually concludes before Dahmer's death in 1994, due to the fact that it was released a year or two prior. That's about the only big difference from the real story, and the information that remains is, as I've stated, very true to the facts. The film quality could be better, the dialogue often sounds a little too quiet, and the acting of several characters IS a bit hammy, but it's not overboard. In my opinion, this is a flawed but ultimately honest and serious look into one of America's most remembered serial killers. I think it's safe to say the film is memorable as well, and I respect it for overcoming its limitations to deliver the story in a believable manner, aided by a thoroughly excellent Carl Crew as Dahmer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is the most traumatising and painful horror film I have ever seen in my life. To know that this film is based on a true story and watching Jeffrey Dahmer(Carl Crew) brutally murder his victims is enough to bring a tear to my eye. I admit this was a low budget film with not the best dialogue, however it explained why Jeffrey Dahmer was a Psycotic maniac. As he was so selfishly\/inwardly emotional his emotions and selfishness went so far deep into his brain that it resulted into him becoming a murderer. Every person that he lured back to his apartment, he was attracted to and had feelings for, and the reasons why he murdered them wasn't only for the thrill of killing them but because he couldn't cope with the fact of them leaving him. In the scene when he killed his first victim by bashing an object at the back of the guys head from what I noticed wasn't because he wanted to kill him but because he was devastated with the idea of the guy leaving him. It was from thereafter that he got use to the homicidal behaviour and made killing his hobby - for both evil and emotional reasons.

The scene when he was talking while crying on the phone with his mother and telling her how much he loved her and the love he showed to his grandmother and how he didn't want to move out of her house did show that he did have love in his heart. One scene that I found quite spooky and strange was when a priest overheard Jeffrey in a pub inviting a guy back to his apartment and then phoned Jeffrey up in a phone booth within the pub so that the guy would lose patience and change his mind on going home with Jeffrey. When the guy left the pub, the priest then hung up the phone and was was laughing at Jeffrey. I also found that Carl Crew played a remarkable acting performance as the role of Jeffrey Dahmer. His evil and cold blooded facial expressions before he massacred his victims were so real, I was shivering in my seat. His facial expressions reminded me of the way Vincent D'onofrio (Private Pyle\/Leonard) in the film 'Full Metal Jacket' looked just before he gunned-down the General in the toilet barracks.

If your an emotional person I wouldn't recommend you to watch this film but if your not, than go ahead and watch it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hey what do you expect form a very low budget movie!?!? Although I haven't seen \"Dahmer\" (2002) I can say that following what the media put out about Jeff this is a pretty accurate depiction. I have studied the Jeffrey Dahmer case and learned all I can about this man. This is a low budget movie but it shows the mentality of a serial killer. If you can get past gore and see what the underlying story of a sick mind. I loved this movie! Just brace yourself for low budget and no blood. Its a story as seen through the eyes of a killer and his actions and thoughts from childhood up through his arrest. My favorite line is : \"If they had bothered to look in the back seat it might have saved a lot of lives\" Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just called my brother Paulie on the phone and he said he was watching Hoods and it was funny. So, like I said, never go against the family! The demand for more lines is OK since I like to express my own opinions quite frequently. If something is misspelled it's most likely my eyesight and not my brain. This gives me yet another chance to take my shots at \"The Departed\". When one knows exactly what is going to happen in the last scene with no prior knowledge, that usually means it wasn't all that suspenseful. All you need is a good directer,the same guy I believe who did my favorite mob movie, \"Goodfellows), but in a completely different way.And then just throw in Jack the great and you got yourself an Oscar. Easy as pie. I have to see hoods to make sure it wasn't better than \"The Departed\" Gibbs","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Strike Force\" or \"The Librarians\" is a fun action movie that doesn't it take itself too seriously. William Forsythe stars as Simon, who is looking for a missing daughter of a wealthy client. He meets up with Sandi (Erika Eleniak) who is also looking for someone-her sister. But there are evil bad guys afoot. The most evil of them all is Marcos Canarious (Andrew Divoff). Marcos likes to kill people. So now, Simon and Sandi have to team up to bring down the villains. The whole cast is great, with Divoff stealing the movie. There are also cameos by Ed Lauter and Burt Reynolds. If you are looking for a good action film, watch this and have a good time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite what its critics ensue, I enjoyed immensely for precisely what it is. Eyecandy for both sides of the gender spectrum. Soderberg has done the artsy hard edge stuff before, won Oscars, is at the top of his game. Ocean's 12 is light, commercial, fluffy, Steve's day at the Midway if you will. I am generally not a fan of Zeta-Jones but even I must admit that Kate is STUNNING in this movie. It's ending screams of an upcoming trequel and I will be one of the millions who flock to see 120 minutes of George and Brad and Matt parlay through Clooney's digs in Lago di Como as they swindle some rich bad guy again and again. If we tolerated 3 installments of the Lord of the Rings, I ask if we can drool over Clooney's salt and pepper lid just one more time?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I felt cheated out of knowing the whole story. While there could be a twist, this twist was so significant, that I felt betrayed. I believe it could have used a better writer who could weave all the elements of the story together better. The writer could have revealed more of the 'twists' throughout the movie, rather than all at once at the end. That aside, I believe that the actors did very well with what they had, particularly Matt Damon, who actually had a little character in his character, little quirks that weren't egotistic or like a smooth criminal who always knows what he is doing. The other main characters were their own separate entities who just happened to converse with one another. The cohesiveness of the group in Ocean's Eleven was gone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Soderbergh is a fabulous director, but nothing he could conjure could beat the amazing cast he gathered for this zenith of sequels. Clearly, he knew this from the get-go. The term \"star-vehicle\" has traditionally been used to refer to a movie that builds itself around one star. What this film does is net a whole herd of Hollywood hot shots and make them shine even brighter than before. The last scene says it all--all the stars sitting around with NOTHING happening and NOTHING being said. We just get to see them socialize as though it were a scene from a reality show where George Clooney, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, and Don Cheadle are just hanging out, being themselves. So the story's not important at all--at least, that's not where the films' greatest pleasures come from. If you want a clever heist movie, better stick with 11. But if star-gazing turns you on, this will make your day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Film certainly can be a narrative medium, but by no means is it the ideal medium. Literature best carries a plot, because the reader can supply the imagination necessary to complete the structure. Film is appreciated best when viewed for what it is: a series of images grouped together. What Soderbergh does in Ocean's Twelve is combine impeccable film-making technique with the free-flowing form of American movies from the 1970s. From looking at the comments posted recently, most people went in expecting a standard-issue heist movie, a la Entrapment; it seems people actually miss the tiresome clich\u00e9s of romance disguised as tension between the leads and ridiculous plot twists designed to keep the audience awake. Soderbergh's directing prowess is reason alone to see this movie, but close-ups of Pitt and Zeta-Jones forty feet high on the screen don't hurt either. A true treat for those who love the flickering of lights on the silver screen, and a disappointment for those trying to make film something it's not.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With a cast like this, I knew the acting would be amazing. Still, I was cautious, as I always am of sequels. Would it sustain the feeling of the first film? Could they possibly replicate the tension and thrill of the masterful heist of Ocean's 11? We'll never know, because they didn't try. At least, not in the way I expected. Instead, they made a light and truly funny parody of the heist genre. If you want a gripping, logical heist, don't watch this. If you want a good laugh, with witty dialogue, quirky characters, and an absolutely genius scene where Julia Roberts has to impersonate herself, then you'll love Ocean's 12.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ocean's 12

'If you steal fifty million dollars, they will find you.' (Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber, Die Hard)

This adage certainly rings true in this sequel. Terry Benedict has been informed that Danny Ocean and his compadres were the ones who ripped him off and now he wants it all back. The Ocean gang need a lot of money and fast, but cannot work in the states as Benedict has made it impossible for them. So it's off to Europe to perform acts of death defying thievery, whilst trying to avoid Catherine Zeta Jones' super cop, an old flame from Rusty's (Pitt's) past.

On their first heist in Amsterdam they find out that who ratted on them was the 'Night Fox', a super slick thief with a legend complex. He issues them with a challenge that could write off their debt in full or land them in some kind of Uma Thurman-Kill Bill II-buried-alive-type-sequence. Interesting? Well, yes. Slow? Sort of. Entertaining? Mostly. Unnecessary scenes of character development? Plenty.

Ocean and his band of merry men are charismatic, if nothing else and as this is a sequel and we are all old friends we see plenty more 'pally' situations and conversations. Too many. Damon's Linus is more nervous than before; the cousins are bickering as we knew they would; Bernie Mac talks too much and Don Cheadle's cock-er-ney accent is as bad as ever (I really like Cheadle, but could not abide this). Pitt and Clooney talk like old friends, filling each other's glasses and reading each other's minds. However, what worked so well in the last film was the lack of character development versus how slick the whole damned op was. And as much as these actors work well together, Zeta Jones fits into this film like a big square peg in a tight 11 sided hole. She simply doesn't fit and her chemistry with Pitt is non-existent.

The stars of this film for me, however, were Vincent Cassel as the Night Fox and Soderbergh's choice of locations. Cassel plays pomp and wealth as if he was born into both. His Night Fox is arrogant, 'awfully cavalier with other people's lives' (Danny Ocean) and a total contrast to the Ocean gang. This is where I think the film loses its way. Cassel and the European locations provide an all too realistic contrast with the American actors and the style of the first film. We want slick, brash and quick-witted; not gritty, considered and intellectual. This is where the film doesn't work.

Admittingly, you cannot repeat the same formula twice to the letter, but going to far left or right usually does more damage than good in a mainstream film like this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ocean's twelve is probably better than Ocean's eleven. I know most people would disagree, But I actually liked it more. After three years, it was good seeing the gang return. The reason behind the heist is a bit more inspired the second time around. I see why they stole from Benedict(Andy Garcia) in the last film. This film they have a bit more motivation the second time around. Ocean's twelve is more entertaining, and cooler than Ocean's eleven. With a funny cameo by Topher Grace saying \"I just walked in that new Dennis Quaid movie\" and other things. I think Ocean's Twelve is probably the best in the series.

The Plot: A year or so after Ocean's Twelve, Terry Benedict(the guy they robbed in the last film) is back and says that if Ocean's eleven doesn't pay him back the money they stole, he's going to call the cops. So Danny Ocean and the gang go to Europe, where Rusty meets his old cop girlfriend Isabelle. After she meets him again, she begins to follow them around. Also, the gang learns that they have an enemy who is also a thief who is a little better than they are.

With many funny scenes like when Tess(Julia Roberts) goes to Europe and pretends to be Julia Roberts, Ocean's Twelve is a pretty clever film. It's cooler, funnier, and more entertaining than Ocean's eleven.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I heard that after the first Oceans movie, the sequels begin to go downhill. I believe that this is not the case(at least not for this film). This movie is even better than the first film! The original crew returns three years after they successfully robbed Terry Benedict's casinos. Now, Benedict is visiting each one of them personally telling them to get the money back within two weeks. To do that, they must do a couple heists in Europe to get the money.

The acting is very good. The all-star cast exceeded expectations. Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, and Catherine Zeta-Jones were probably the best in this film.

There are some confusing moments in this film. But that does not matter because there are only a few confusing moments. Anyway, this movie is only made for harmless fun.

Overall, this is a great heist movie. I rate this movie 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would just like to point out (in addition to pleading for the series to be released on DVD) that a show does not have to be realistic to be entertaining. These days, with all the blood and gore in the news and in crime dramas, reality shows, etc. it's nice to get lost in a good, cheesy show with entertaining characters. PWOG fits the bill. Was it Emmy material? No, but it was awesome just the same.

I also have to put a vote in for the second cast - they were more charismatic than the cast of season one. I would definitely agree that the first season had a more serious vibe than the second two, but I was definitely more sucked in by the latter cast. Even though the series has been off the air for years, I'll never stop hoping that it be released for purchase.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first season told pretty much how all elements of the Marine Corps would operate (i.e. ground, air, helicopters and jets) as a team. That's the season I give the high rating to! (True, there are still a lot of \"liberties\" taken in season 1, but the stories were more believable.)

The subsequent seasons were a gawd-awful attempt of Melrose Place meets Top Gun!

I was a Marine stationed at Miramar at the time and I remember them shooting the show around the San Diego area. I got to talk to Rod Rowland and James Brolin.

Rowland's character was good to go.

Brolin's character was good in the first season only. For some reason he slacked off after the first ep of the second season.

If you want to see a LITTLE of how the Marine Air Ground team operates, then season one is the one to watch.

If you're into Melrose Place and soap opera like plots with an attempt to merge them into Top Gun, then see the last two seasons.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One would think that a film based on the life of the Japanese author Yukio Mishima would be a daunting if not impossible task. However Paul Schrader has indeed made a film \"about\" Mishima that is both superb & complex. While it is not a literal biography, Schrader & his co-screenwriter Leonard Scharder (his brother) have taken several incidents from his life, including his sucide and crafted what can best be described as incidental tableaus that are visually sparse and stunning. Mishima's homosexuality is almost not there, due to legal threats from his widow, but in spite of this, the film is still terrific, and one of the best films I saw in 1985. I should also mention the important contribution of Philip Glass who did the score, which adds an additional texture to the film, and is superior to the one he did for Scorsese's Kundun. Also notable is John Bailey's fine crisp beautifully colored cinematography and the great production design & costumes by Eiko Ishioka who went on to do the memorable costumes for Coppola's Dracula for which she received a well deserved Oscar. Hopefully this film will soon be available on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mishima is one of the greatest films ever made. Now I think Paul Schrader is the greatest screenwriter of all time, but I don't really like the films he's directed of what I've seen (with the exception of this and Affliction), but this is an amazing, disturbing, and highly 3-dimensional character study. It follows the life of Yukio Mishima, Japan's most celebrated writer, combining the last day of his life with flashbacks and his stories. I don't know how, but Paul Schrader manages to combine all of those in a very artistic way. The acting is great, so is the photography, and a perfect score by Philip Glass. Although confusing the first viewing, this is one of the few films that becomes richer with each viewing. Truly an underrated gem of a film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It has taken several viewings for me to fully appreciate this film. Initially, I was struck by the stylized sets, but found the rest slow going and dull. I thought that such a sensational subject needed the Ken Russell treatment to take it way over the top. I now find the enforced restraint (placed on the production by Mishima's widow) to be an asset. Some of the more lurid aspects of Mishima's life are reiterated and dramatized by corresponding themes from his novels. I think it helps to be familiar with the novels - that's what finally made the difference for me. Still feel the film overall could be a little tighter and warmer, but it's genuinely unique, and deserves serious attention. Love the fact that the Japanese characters speak Japanese - not English. The Philip Glass score is mesmerizing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Movies are something you see on Saturday night and forget by Sunday morning. Motion pictures are works of art that stick with you forever. Mishima falls into the latter category. This is the type of thing that should win Academy Awards, a brilliant, visual peice of film that is both depressing and uplifting. Instead of doing a straightforward look at the life of Yukio Mishima, director Paul Schrader interweaves three adaptations of the author's stories into a look at his past and final day on Earth, the day he tried to lead the Japanese military into rebellion in the name of the Emperor. Failing to do that, he commits ritual suicide in an ending that hits you like a ton of bricks. The three short story adaptations allow a look into what led him to this and are presented in an experimental way that makes them appear to be filmed stage plays. Ken Ogata is magnificent as Mishima. Despite his eccentricities, he comes off as very sympathetic, a man who is quite willing to die for his beliefs and does. This makes the ending that much more devastating and the sense of loss more meaningful. Of the three story adaptations, Temple of the Golden Pavilion, Kyoko's House and Runaway Horses, it is the last that is the strongest and most emotional. It also is the story that most closely matches Mishima's mood in his final years and illustrates what truly led him to the events of November 1970. This review cannot be complete without a mention of Philip Glass' striking musical score. Not since 2001 has a film score been such a perfect compliment to it's visuals. Paul Schrader crafted one of the most beautiful movies of the 1980s or any other decade for that matter. Have the hankies at the ready because the ending will leave you in tears. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters reminds you that sometimes film can still be an art form and as art it is brilliant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are very few films that are able to tell such a complicated story on so many levels as well as Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. One of the most difficult aspects of story telling is the ability to flashback and forward without losing the pace of the film. This film not only flashes back and fourth with the greatest of easy, but it also flows through some of Yukio Mishima greatest stories. This film exceeds in every aspect and is a joy to watch. Not to mention the incredible Philip Glass Soundtrack.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my favourite film and I think it is perfect. Unlike virtually any other film I can name, I never watch this film and think it would have been better if they'd changed this or that or whatever. Is this the definition of a work of art? I think so. Every brushstroke in Mishima is perfect and it all flows from the Schrader's script. I've always sort of liked Paul Schrader's work (you can't argue with Taxi Driver and Light Sleeper is an amazing film), but while his writing often seems to border on the bombastic, his directing style is usually non-existent. This is deliberate, I think, because his films usually deal with a search for redemption and are set in the real world; ugly and harsh. His style suits his themes as he presents his characters in a simple and realistic way, and lets them show the audience the truth of the situation. Imagine if Schrader had directed Taxi Driver or Bringing Out The Dead, instead of Scorsese. But like the protagonists of those two films, while Mishima the man was ideal Schrader material, right-wing, vain and at odds with society, his works were subtle and beautiful. In fact he had a secondary writing career as a woman's writer, churning out what can reasonably be described as romantic potboilers. So you wouldn't necessarily imagine that Schrader was the ideal man to capture that subtlety and beauty on film. I think the film shows that he was. The script he helped fashion splits Mishima the man into three parts; his life, his death and his mind. His life is represented in black and white, still camera, formal compositions. His death, for which he will always be best remembered, is handheld documentary style. And his mind is represented by the dramatised extracts from his novels, each one revealing the thought processes of this complex man, who hardly ever wrote a character that wasn't a reflection of himself. These dramatisations are beautiful to look at, thanks to Eiko Ishioka's remarkable production design and Schrader's imaginative staging. In all parts, the acting is superb, especially from Ken Ogata as Mishima, who captures the essential charm, arrogance and narcissism of the man. The photography is excellent throughout and contains images that the viewer will retain forever. Finally, the music is simply superb, perfectly matching the images, although written and recorded before shooting, adjusted during the editorial process and then re-recorded. How much the music influenced the shoot I do not know, but it bonds perfectly to the image. I have seen many ideas of what various people think the theme of the film is, what Schrader is trying to say. You know, the big stuff about life, death etc. But I do not think the film is saying anything. Mishima has already said it, the film simply repeats.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The only pure life, is one that ends with a signature in blood.

So says Mishima anyway, a young sheltered boy who becomes a celebrity author. The life of one of Japans most celebrated literary voices, is told from three perspectives, his life just before he and four members of his private army take over a Japanese military base and commit ritual suicide(shown in color), flashbacks(shown in black and white), and scenes from his novels(shown in a kind of dreamy Technicolor set design somewhere between traditional Noh Theater and \"the Wizard Of Oz\". These stories are often told at the same time, but are edited to reinforce, the slow fusing of Mishima's life with his fictions, until the end(or the beginning) when like the ancient samurai he so admires, he will be at a balance of pen and sword (when his words and actions are the same, and he is a full and \"pure\" being).

Paul Schrader wrote the screen play for \"Taxi Driver\", and directed \"Cat People\"(a bizarre erotic horror film, which left strange impressions on me as a boy), and in Mishima, he comes closest to making a really excellent film.

Whats interesting is to watch the poet, the homosexual, the shy and awkward man with a low body image who overstates his Tuberculosis to get of of WW2 (of which he seems forever ashamed), become a body building, samurai obsessed, a-sexual, media phenomena, all the while still writing prolific amounts of novels, plays, and short stories.

A short and sweet version is to say Mishima has no father, and becomes obsessed with masculinity, beauty, sex and self destruction, in some tragic attempt to feel connected to something bigger than himself, that he was always missing. Watching him with his fellow suicidal cadets, you see him happy, delivering his big paternal speech, giving orders, and loving the control...until the speech itself, the point where pen and sword meet? Of course, this ignores the subtlety of the story telling craft here which makes this transformation so natural and remarkable.

Though the story, fascinating at times, really isn't this movies greatest success. The cinematography, performances, editing,music(by Philip Glass), and set designs, are really what make this worth seeing, and more than a traditional bio-pic.

One day I will pick, up a Mishima book, he does seem to have an ear for prose, and for staging ideas, but for now I'm satisfied with the film.

Those interested in Japanese Literature, and post-war culture, should check out. Fans of inventive combinations of facts and fictions, should enjoy as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mishima - a life in four chapters is in my opinion the best Paul Schrader film to this day. Mesmorizing cinematography, accompanied with Philip Glass mystical musical score added a completely magical aura to the story of one of the Japan's greatest novelists, whose originality and picturesque narrative are beautifully portrayed in this picture. As any gifted character, Mishima was troubled with severe self conflicts, the main of them being the conflict between the \"pen and a sword\" as the director puts it in his final chapter, or the struggle between the sensitive poet with homosexual feelings, living in a notoriously masculine society with centuries long warrior traditions, thus widening the gap between the sensitive and the militantly traditional side of Mishima himself.

All Schrader's films (and the ones he wrote scripts for) are basically stories of the inside conflict within a man that doesn't belong in an environment he lives in. That also goes for Mishima, who, apart from Japanese military school upbringing is brought up with love for theater and words. His demise consisted of both of these key points in his life, it was about words and theatrical ending in a life long play. Film like this comes along once in a long while, and most will have to wait a lifetime to reach this beauty. 20 out of 10!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters\" is a visually stunning production that handles complex issues with evocative ease. It is based on the life of controversial Japanese author Yukio Mishima, who committed suicide in the 1970s. It is not really a biopic - at least not one in the traditional sense - but an exploration of Mishima's iconoclastic oeuvre. The film succeeds in presenting abstract concepts in an unembroidered, totally engaging manner. Paul Schrader makes you sympathize with Mishima without having to deconstruct him or his work. It doesn't quite solve the puzzle but it does make you understand it. An added bonus: As we see Mishima's fury over the lack of tradition in a morally vacant modern society, Schrader gives us an excellent demonstration of the dichotomy between thought and execution in cinema. John Bailey's cinematography is spectacularly good. The grandiosity of composer Philip Glass' work is perfectly suited for the project. \"Mishima\" is the best film I've seen this year, so far.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a movie that should be viewed and treated as a piece of art. This is an oblivious labour of love by the Schrader brothers about the life of Yukio Mishima that is full truly artistic elements. The movie jumps from color to black and white, past to present, fictional works by Mishima to him. All without being confusing in the least bit. The only thing that gets me is that the entire movie, with the exception of the narrator's spoken parts is in Japanese. Still a masterpiece that deserves an audience but hasn't found won. Criterion, if you are reading this, this is a film that should be released under your imprint with as much extras as possible. This film truley deserves more. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Paul Schrader and his brother Leonard wrote Mishima, and in so doing, clearly drew parallels between the life of Yukio Mishima and his work. The film is divided into four sections: beauty, art, action, and the fateful day when Mishima held an army general hostage and spoke to the garrison, only to have it ridicule him and his Bushido ideals of the samurai code. Mishima committed ritual seppuku on November 25, 1970, and he planned it as a meshing of beauty, art, and action. Schrader edits scenes recreating that day with three different scenarios from Mishima's novels: Temple of the Golden Pavilion, Kyoko's House, and Runaway Horses. The moment of seppuku is perfectly realized in relation to its shocking climax via pulling back the camera while simultaneously zooming in.

Black and white sequences are intermingled with the colorful moments depicted in Mishima's novels. The black and white scenes represent memories from Mishima's childhood and youth. Schrader correlates some of these autobiographical moments with scenes from the novels that often parallel Mishima's real life, such as his stammer, development of his bodybuilding obsession, and his fostering of the samurai code. Each of the three themes of beauty, art, and action is exemplified in the chosen depictions from the respective novels. The color sequences are reminiscent of early, stagy Technicolor films, giving the film, perhaps, an intended surreal quality considering the subject matter.

Ken Ogata plays the real Mishima with unfailing determination, headed to the general's office on that fateful day and resembles the real Mishima. Schrader took tremendous risks with this film in focusing on the novels he did and with tying them thematically to both Mishima's personal life and his literary ambitions. The editing of the film between the three main sections of November 25, 1970, the black and white growing up segments, and the colorful novel scenes clearly point to the deliberate intersection of these elements of beauty, art, and action in Mishima's life. At times, it is difficult to follow, and there may be little to recommend for the uninitiated viewer. *** of 4 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters is an art-house biography about Yukio Mishima, celebrated Japanese writer, who bears resemblance to Paul Schrader's earlier character Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver): both of them are lonely people searching for their place in their society and when they realize that world doesn't need them, they try to destroy their surrounding universe.

If you want to learn about life of Mishima, then you won't find a lot of information here, because it shows that he didn't live a very interesting life (except for his final day), but if you want to understand his personality, then it is the best movie of its kind, as most of the movie is adaptation of his novels and also provides a guide to his thoughts. This movie shows that Mishima was a person, who witnessed the fall of Japanese culture, which he was very fond of and with his final act he tried to save traditions and prove to himself that he is a real warrior, but he realized that as a person he was just a man with no power to change the events.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a haunting telling of the life of the author and poet, Mishima. It jumps around through his past, through his last day, and through some of his stories but is expertly constructed as it moves from section to section. It captures the flavor of the man, his work and of his times...the difficult 1960s.

I think the most wonderful parts (literally, full of \"wonder\") are the excerpts from his works. The sets (especially designed to work with the camera) are amazing....stylized, beautiful and effective. They could be used as exemplars for any set designer. I woke up at night dreaming of the Golden Pagoda.

The stories were powerful explorations of the nature of man and of art. After watching this film, I wanted to learn more about the works of this artist.

I highly recommend this movie for anyone interested in art, poetry, theater, politics, or Japanese history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this originally on Channel 4 (UK) and it was a fantastic film that left a great impression on me. However I saw it on Irish TV recently and there was an added narration by Roy Scheider (\"we're going to need a bigger boat!\"). This ruined the film for me. His droning monologue adds absolutely nothing to the film, and if anything takes from the films brilliance. I wonder at the new DVD version that has no Roy (due to legal reasons?) would stop people from buying it. Well believe me, the film is much better for it!

Cheers

Damian","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I never heard of Mishima before I watched this film and although parts of it are a little tedious, I still find myself drawn to watch it when it is repeated on the box. At the beginning of the film, we are told about a celebrated Japanese writer behaves like a lunatic and commits seppuku in public. As the film progresses you are gently inducted into twisted logic of Mishima's mind. The stages of his life are are presented in four chapters. Each chapter itself is a blend of two contrasting narratives, the first continues the story with scenes from Mishima's life and appear in black and white. The second narrative is an adaptation of scenes from a novel and these are staged like a play and filmed in vivid colours. There is a different novel staged in each chapter. Between each chapter, the narrative returns to the present, as Mishima proceeds towards his eventual ritual suicide. This means that the drama and tension is maintained until the end.

I suspect that many people will find this film to be boring pretentious and art-house. I respect that, this is not a film for people who want action and a strong story line. If on the other hand you are the kind of person who relishes the opportunity to penetrate the mind a bizarre man while watching his life story told in collage of beautiful pictures set to music by Philip Glass, you will love it. I loved it.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've just watched this with my three children - 12yrs (boy), 10yrs (boy) and 8yrs (girl) and this film was good old fashioned family action adventure. Although definitely aimed at the kid market (I'd say 5 to 13)it was certainly watchable and as a parent it is a pleasure to find a movie that appeals to a broad range of ages whilst still being suitable for the whole family to watch - particularly younger children.

The story revolves around Ricky, a bit of a nerd with a vivid imagination (this can definitely be seen in his daydream sequences) who foils a kidnapping and major art theft while on on-board a flight to Washington for a school trip. Ricky's dad is an airplane mechanic, so Ricky not only knows the structure of the aircraft inside out but is also a top-gun on his computer flight simulator. This comes in handy when the pilot and co-pilot are out cold through a series of misadventures and there is no-one left to fly the plane. I don't want to give away any more of the plot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is titled \"Junior Pilot\" here on IMDb but \"Final Approach\" at Netflix. Go figure! The movie is a delight for both the target youth audience and for adults who can suspend their maturity long enough to watch this film through the eyes of their own youth. For the adult, the story is quite predictable, and perhaps trite and melodramatic; whereas the tale may seem new and creative to youngsters who have not yet seen or read many films or books with such a story line.

In any case, credit must be given to the film's creators, particularly the director James Becket and the cinematographer Denis Maloney, for making this most entertaining and visually interesting film. The cut-aways to the young protagonist Ricky's fantasy thoughts are hilarious as well as delightfully filmed.

The young actors give uniformly believable performances, seemingly quite invested in their roles--silly as many scenes are. Jordan Garrett plays the protagonist \"Ricky\" with quite well, having excellent camera presence. Jeffrey Tedmori creates a delightfully soft and sensitive \"Shashi\" who of all ridiculous things thrives on hot sauce. Skyler Samuels and Adam Cagley give solid performances as well.

As is typical of his always fine acting, Larry Miller creates a solid parental figure around which the children's part-real, part-fantasy world revolves. Compared to his father-figure, the other major adult roles appear to be shallow and one-dimensional, intentionally and quite humorously so, to be sure.

This movie is a simplistic youth-targeted story, of course, yet it is quite entertaining, perhaps repeatedly so to the targeted youth crowd, but also for at least one viewing by adults who retain the ability to view such a film from their once-youthful perspective.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a great movie. It had one \"sot-so-nice\" outburst. Plus there were some very intense (drama) scenes which might make it inappropriate for younger viewers, under 6.

For a under the radar film, the acting was quite enjoyable, and touched down in our family room for a near perfect landing. It held the attention of our whole family and we were kind of sorry to see it end.

This movie had elements of spy kids with young people saving the day, but was given a somewhat more believable scenario. The dream scenes were a distraction at first, but did a great deal to establish the plot. The pranks and hi-jinx were also quite amusing.

We hope you like as much as we did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Definitely worth renting! Good clean family entertainment. My 4 and 5 year-olds (and I) loved it. Kept them on the edge of their seats. I recommend parents sit with their younger children to watch this, as it can be quite suspenseful for them. It's not too often you can find movies that you can watch with your children, and so this is a rare find. Some of the acting \/ realism isn't quite there at times, or maybe is a little corny, but children don't seem to notice or care, they love it. Parts are predictable, but other parts are not - like trying to figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. The movie doesn't have any really scary\/creepy stuff, and so I doubt it will give children nightmares. It does inspire children to dream, which is something we need to encourage and foster more in our children. Rent and be blessed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I spotted this film in a branch of the Duane Reed pharmacy in New York on holiday, and it seemed like a bit of silly fun. And sure enough, the whole premise is ridiculous beyond words - but it turned out to be a thoroughly enjoyable action film for kids, and their parents too.

10-year-old Ricky Bernard (Jordan Garrett) has his head in the clouds most of the time, much to his father's (Larry Miller) dismay. As a member of his school orchestra, Ricky and schoolmates fly to a concert performance ... and once again Ricky's mind 'takes off' and suspects some criminal plot is happening.

Reluctantly aided by best friend Sashi, who is a fan of hot sauce (what a strange plot device that was) and others they try to get to solve the mystery. Oh yes, and Ricky's skills 1,000 hours of flight simulator experience prove to be handy when he is called on to save the day in the film's thrilling climax! It was good to see Eric Roberts and Mark Dacoscos play parts in a family film. And watching the DVD interviews everyone seems to have had great fun taking part.

I totally liked Junior Pilot; charming and good-natured performances, funny plot line and a real; sense of enjoyment and sheer silliness.

If you are looking for an entertaining family film, you could do far worse than buy this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just found the entire 3 DVD set at Wal-Mart in the bargain bin for $5.50, so I thought I would take another look. Total of 13 hours to watch it all (26 episodes). I was born in 1948 and saw most of them on TV in the sixties. Many independent stations repeated them for many years.

Better than I expected actually, time has been kind to the obvious sincerity of it's creators, and to the obvious gratitude and respect they give to all the Allied fighting men and women. More abstract and arty than a straight forward documentary, but very truthful in it's depiction of the causes and final results of WWII. That war was greatly dependent on sea transportation, and the final victory was dependent on who achieved the final mastery of the world's oceans. The Allies were the ones who were able to do it.

Interesting too, to see how they try to strike a balance between big events, and the individual soldiers and sailors that made them happen. The score is impressive, if a bit too much by today's standards. I read somewhere that Robert Russell Bennett contributed just as much as Richard Rodgers to final score. I imagine that Rodgers provided all the major themes, and it was up to Bennett to fit them to the images. Great job!

Should be seen by every ruler, or potential ruler. A warning to tyrants that wars are eventually won by ideals, determination, and the supplies to back them up. Logistics: their quality and delivery will determine the eventual victors. The Allies outproduced and surpassed the material quality of the Axis, attacked their very source in the process, and insured their eventual defeat.

Sorry to see that the producer, Henry Salomon, lived a very short life. IMDb's facts were rather skimpy, I have to find out more about him. He did a few more outstanding documentaries before his early death. Might have more to say at a later time

Trivia: I had all 3 LP records made of the background music, pretty good overall. Unfortunately, the producers decided to add sound effects to the last one, relegating immediately to just novelty status, rather than for serious music listening. Too bad too, because it contained some interesting but more minor themes in the series. Silly stuff like 16 inch guns firing, torpedoes being fired, bulldozers, planes...just for kids mainly.

RSGRE","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"GLORIFYING not GLAMORIZING World War II.

We've had quite a few documentary series about World War II on the regular Television programming. Without looking up any information in some encyclopedia or film book, it seems that this old memory can recollect most names entirely on it's own.

There was CRUSADE IN EUROPE,which was the title of the war memoirs of one General of the Army and later the 33rd President of the United States of America, Dwight D. Eisenhower. It told the story of the conflict in Europe as viewed by the Supreme Allied Commander.

Then there was a CRUSADE IN THE PACIFIC(subject matter self-explanatory),which I don't remember much about. Newspaper Man\/Author, Jim Bishop was the host\/navigator of BATTLELINE.

And there was the excellent WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE VALIANT YEARS.* The Series was a co-production of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the American Broadcasting Company. It first aired in 1960-61 season here in The States and boasts of having Richard Burton's speaking the words of Sir Winston.

It is the 1952 NBC Television Network's Production of our subject matter today, this VICTORY AT SEA that wins the cigar, hands down.

To begin with, this had to have taken the production several years of carefully and literally sorting through thousands of hours of film. The movie footage referred to here was the official filmed record taken by members of the Armed Forces of the United States, independent newsreel film, Motion Picture Record of our other Allied Partner Nations,as well as captured Axis pictures from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.

Once that was accomplished, the various corresponding film had to be cut and edited into a series of 1\/2 hour installments. This was done with great skill, being that there were so many scene changes, whether done abruptly or as a dissolve. The look of ever episode appears as smooth as if it had been a single motion picture project.

The writing of the Spoken Word to accompany this finest of real life film was no less amazing and unique. The highly polished and meaningful eloquence wastes not a word and at times even understates the description of action, rather than exaggerating it. The narration goes to Mr. Ralph Graves, who was a talented Actor of Stage, Film, Radio and Television. He certainly gained a measure of immortality by way of his golden toned voicing of the written episode descriptions.

Lastly, VICTORY AT SEA enjoys the luxury of having an original score, both opening theme and incidental music, penned by Richard Rodgers of Broadway fame.(Rodgers & Hart, Rodgers & Hammerstein) His compositions are intricate, full, variable and even \"classic\" in the true sense.

The Classical Arrangement was played by the NBC Sympphony Orchestra under the Direction of Robert Russell Bennett and as a soundtrack record\/cassette tape\/compact disk, it has been continually available and in demand ever since its first release, 55 years ago! And, really small wonder, for it is this musical score that is so mesmerizing to the viewer\/listener. It truly puts the frosting on this cake.

* SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE VALIANT YEARS also had a beautiful and highly memorable original score. This also was composed by Mr. Rodgers.

** We had in additional \"Ace in the Hole\" in our house in the person of our Father, the Late Clement J. Ryan(1914-74). Dad had been in the U.S.Navy during the war, being inducted in 1943 or'44. Our Pop was always on hand to explain and further elucidate any of the situations that were depicted in the series.

He and our Mother the now 90 year old Bertha (nee Fuerst)Ryan already had my older sister, Joanne(1942-90)as a Dependant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's nice to see a romantic comedy that does not have the prissy man lead, this has solid acting from both male leads and also from the female lead and although the story is a little long and a little clich\u00e9 you cant help but like it.

I think the story was a little rushed at the end, but extending that would have made the story even longer. Superior to other romantic comedies such as 100 days with Mr arrogant, and possibly tied with my tutor friend.

It would make an interesting introduction to Korean cinema, not as great as My sassy girl, but still good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this because a friend told me it was damn good, and I watched a video on it, so I was really into watching it. I watched it, and, damn, the fighting scenes are REALLY good. If the guys can't fight like that in real life, they sure fooled me. There isn't as much fighting as I would like, I have to say, but the fights that are in the movie are pretty spectacular. They don't show much, but you can tell it's violent and cool. But there's also the plot, that goes around a love triangle between the main characters, though it's a bit twisted. Tae-sung is a carefree guy who seems to love getting into trouble, as well as fights. He's the leader of his school, and is the rival of Hea-won, who's the leader of his own school - a bit of a playboy, hot-headed and a rich boy. Then there's Han-kyung, a girl with not a lot going for her - her father just passed away and she moved back with her mother, the guy she liked is dating her old friend -, and then she meets Hea-won, who goes to her school, and Tae-sung, who calls her \"nuna\" (older sister). Eventually, she discovers Tae-sung is her brother, fruit of one of her father's affair, and he loves her despite of their blood relation. Meanwhile, Hea-won falls for her, and takes her as his boyfriend. But she is torn between her boyfriend and her little brother, who confesses her love to her. Overall, it's a wonderful movie, but if I was really depressed after the end, and I just couldn't help but think, Damn, are all Korean movie I watch about fighting\/death\/depressing stuff\/incest?? 'Cause that sure was the case with Old Boy, and Temptation of Wolves. It's a very good movie, but people have to be ready to cry at the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let's face it.

This movie is incredibly clich\u00e9, as Korean romance dramas and movies go. First of all, there's a pair of long-lost siblings, one of which falls in love with the other. Second, there's a not-so-popular girl and two gorgeous, popular guys who fall for and fight over her. Third, one of the characters suffers from a tragic disease, which, eventually, takes his life.

Still, I like this movie.

Without the right actors, this movie would probably have disappointed fans of the novel. But because the actors fit the roles perfectly, the movie is engrossing--I honestly couldn't stop watching. Kang Dong Won, despite his pretty face, gives an awesome, heartrending performance, not to mention Lee Chung Ah and Jo Han Sun, plus all the supporting actors.

I'd definitely recommend this movie to everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was geared up to not like this movie, and the first 10 minutes or so did nothing to allay my fears. It starts off with 2 high school gangs squaring off against each other with bad kung-fu. A scenario found in countless other Korean films. Ho-hum. Add the fact that the story was written by the same guy who wrote \"He Was Cool\" (which was barely passable) and, well, I thought I was in for a nondescript 2 hours.

But don't give up so quickly! \"A Romance of Their Own\" was directed by Tae-gyun Kim, who also did \"Volcano High\" (which I thought was loads of fun). Anyway, \"Romance of Their Own\" soon takes a turn much for the better. A high school girl, just having moved to Seoul, finds herself in the middle of attention from two prospective suitors. Each guy has his own merit, and it is not clear which one (if either) would be the right pick.

What follows is not your usual teen love triangle. The emotions are complex, and while you may not agree with certain choices or actions as the film develops, you can certainly understand why the characters make them.

The movie asks questions of the characters and the audience. Who does one choose? At what point is one obligated to even make a choice (and is it unfair to one if it seems he is being strung along)? After you (or your heart) has made a choice, how do you react (and how *should* you react) when new information comes up that sheds new light on the situation? There is one scene, near the end, that is very subtle but perfectly captures what I think would be a real-life reaction instead of over-the-top \"movie reaction.\" The subtlety is in a character in the background of the scene. Recent events and revelations have left him confused and emotionally overwhelmed. Basically, he doesn't know what to make of things. Instead of having him \"act out\" something, or look all gape-mouthed dumbstruck, he just stares off at some fixed point unable to react or say anything at all. It's like someone just pulled the plug on him. His reaction rang true to me and I appreciated the scene.

Like most Korean films, there is a mix of action, bravado, slapstick, and melodrama. Korean films often take abrupt turns (see, \"Sex Is Zero\" for a great example), which can be quite a shock for the uninitiated. Go ahead and initiate yourself with this one. Like it, love it, or hate it, I think most viewers will be able to relate to and appreciate the characters' actions and reactions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really liked this movie. One thing I have noticed is that Korean TV drama's are way better, as far as giving you the whole story. I watch movies when I do not have the time or feel like going through 16-30 episodes. Movies are seem to be rushed and if you do not watch carefully, you may miss something.

I do feel this one was rushed and I had to rewind a few parts to try and find what I missed, especially towards at the end. If you like nice love stories, I still think this is cute, and if yo have the extra time, I still think this is worth watching.

It is always nice to go back follow the actors in different movies as we do not get to follow them from when they begin, as we do the actors producers and directors in our own countries.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was made only 48 years after the end of the Civil War--most likely in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. In the film there are recreations of battles and the people of the era that look rather impressive and realistic. It also provides a different and more balanced view than just its contemporary, BIRTH OF A NATION--a patently absurd and racist film. Because of this, this short film would be excellent for use in the classroom to discuss the war and tell the story of a very young man that runs away to enlist as a drummer. The boy makes good and is a hero, though the film ends rather melodramatically--a definite convention of the day. Not a great film, but a decent plot, decent acting and little of the over-the-top acting you often saw in other films of the day.

One annoying aspect of this film was the too frequent use of title cards to describe or set the stage for stuff that was really obvious. It got annoying from time to time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye is a great family movie. Salman Khan is looking handsome and great than ever! There's even a scene where he takes off his shirt! What a surprise!!! Rani Mukherjee is great too. Pooja Batra had very few lines to say but I'm glad she has been acknowledged for her role because she definitely has potential.

It's about Prem (Salman Khan) and he is a wedding singer. He is about to marry Nisha (Raveena Tandon) but gets stood up. Prem goes to Nisha's house and asks her why he was ditched and it's because her brother is ill and she needs to marry an NRI, Rahul (Inder Kumar), to get the money to get him treated. Prem moves on and in comes Priya (Rani Mukherjee). Prem falls in

love with Priya but it's a shame she's about to get married to an NRI! Who could this NRI be?! Priya falls in love with Prem too while Rahul is there with her. Prem gives Priya an insulting comment one day and she goes off and sets off to Agra for the wedding with Rahul. Will Prem stop her? Watch KPNHJ to find out!

The film was very funny! The songs were great especially the song \"O Priya O Priya\" It's a shame the film flopped in India and I don't know why?! Every film in India is going flop nowadays!! This film deserved to be a hit. The only problem I found with the film is that they had an obsession about NRI's! They think ALL NRI's are rich! The film deserves a 9\/10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having seen other Bollywood flicks with Salman Khan in them, I can say this is my favorite of the more recent ones. The songs are all quite fun, especially 'O Priya O Priya' which seems to have a nice mix of Beatles, Indian music and (dare I say this) a bit of Prince. The love stories are a bit more believable than, say, Chal Mere Bhai. The occasional focus on Prem's use of alcohol is at times troubling as it doesn't really seem to make sense to me, but it's played well by Khan--although his voice does become squeaky when he's portraying drunkenness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A delightful story about two evacuees, has been turned into a nice little film, by the BBC. Most children who like a good story will enjoy this. The characters are played really well by a very good cast. Not sure whether our American friends will appreciate it, but they do get a mention, as Aunty Lou runs off with a gorgeous American soldier.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this episode of Masterpiece Theatre and immediately came to IMDb to look it up. I was greeted by a comment from another user, who believed that it was nothing special, a 6 out of 10, and underwhelming. I would feel morally remiss if I didn't disagree.

Now, I am an avid fan of Masterpiece Theatre, but oftentimes the stories can be a bit silly on television, for example, \"He Knew He Was Right\" was absolutely horrendous. \"Carrie's War,\" however, is probably the best I've seen so far. The entire cast does an excellent job, and it held my interest more than any other piece I've seen recently. The character Mr. Evans is of particular interest, and through subtle images of, for example, an untouched birthday cake or a garnet ring, my opinion of him went from bad to truly good. Truly. His ultimate demise, and the story of how everyone around him left him a cold hard man, is what brought out the bittersweet in this story for me.

The end is gratifying in every sense but one; that everyone did not get what they deserved, but overall things worked out. I absolutely recommend this to everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Humphrey Bogart in his first starring role looks very young, acts well, but has a pronounced lisp only hinted at later in his career. Still, he's very good and very appealing as the idealistic young inventor of a new airplane motor.

Dorothy Mackaill is the real star here, playing a once-rich woman who's torn between her real love for Bogart (he's broke too) and the comfort and security of marrying an older man (Hale Hamilton).

Along for the ride are Astrid Allwyn as Bogart's trampy sister, Bradley Page as her would-be producer, Barbara Leonard as the cosmetologist, Jack Kennedy as Gilligan, and Halliwell Hobbes as the faithful (and wise) butler).

Both Mackaill (whi had been a star in silent films) and Bogart were trying to gain a toehold in talkies in 1932. Bogart was a slow-rising actor from the Broadway stage; Mackaill was slipping and would soon appear in skid-row production like PICTURE BRIDES. Yet they are both very good here. Mackaill wasn't even 30 when she appeared in this film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"You were on your way up and you tripped on a skirt !\" Gilligan says to Jim Leonard. That sums up the plot of this story of up and coming Leonard (a YOUNG Humphrey Bogart) when his dream gets sidetracked by the bombshell heiress Carol, played by Dorothy Mackaill. Leonard has been working on a new and improved motor, but now his love life and motor company both have their ups and downs in this 68 minute shortie. Bogart hadn't developed the quiet, brooding style yet. Good performances by most of the supporting characters - her butler, his co-workers, a sister, interlopers along the way. Some adult themes, since it was done just before they really enforced the film code, but it's still tame compared to what is on TV today. Directed by Thornton Freeland, a year before Freeland directed the incredible \"Flying Down to Rio\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Christopher Nolan's first feature film wowed critics who saw it when it first came out. Shot on a micro budget of $6,000 this is a student film with real class. The film is shot in black and white, and features people who you assume are friends of Nolan's appearing in the movie. This is not to say they are bad actors because they are quite good. You could see Jeremy Theobald and Alex Haw appearing in other projects but unfortunately they haven't since this was made 6 years ago.

Nolan's thriller, much like Memento, does not play chronologically, it shifts the scenes around much like Pulp Fiction. The writing is fantastic. It is a great twisting thriller but because the temporal order of the film is shifted around it makes it even more interesting. I thought the last ten minutes in particular when everything starts to become clear were excellent.

For a film of such a small budget and with no recognizable names at all, this is so good. It is superior to most that Hollywood studios offer and Nolan after three films (this, the superior Memento and the not quite as good but still excellent Insomnia) has cemented himself as the most exciting new talent of recent times. I can't wait for Batman.

This film is short and sweet and certainly a great watch. It is very professional and the twists are fantastic and completely surprising. I also thought that the score from David Julyan was also excellent, very atmospheric and had a chilly quality to it. He has gone on to compose Nolan's other films.

Overall I would recommend this, I intend to get all of Nolan's films. This is a low budget gem. *****

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Christopher Nolan's first directorial effort, a year before he did \"Memento,\" and this is almost as brilliant as that classic. He uses time differentials in a similar manner to tell his story, and it's a very clever one.

Bill is this young writer who begins following complete strangers around just to see where they live and what they're all about. One day, he follows this man, Cobb, who turns the tables and confronts Bill, who breaks down and confesses what he's up to.

Cobb is a burglar and he takes Bill along on a few jobs to teach him the ropes. Both men are voyeurs of a sort and a bond begins to grow between the two of them.

But there's an ulterior motive for Cobb nurturing this relationship, and it all ties in very smartly at the end. No, I won't spoil it but this is a very cool movie and I'm beginning to think Christopher Nolan is a genius.

If you like suspense films with surprise endings, this one is a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The debut that plucked from obscurity one of the brighter stars of contemporary noir is an assured, if limited, stab at the con game and obsession. Filmed for zero money, Nolan couldn't have chosen a better subject than the drab and seamy underside of London to ply his trade, given the lack of funds. This short (67 min) is at its best in playing with the audience's and protagonist's expectations about who is scamming whom, though the initial set-up does ring some alarm bells in the credibility dept. The muddy cinematography (he often used natural lighting due to budget) can be mostly chalked up to noir stylization, though the limitations do show at times.

One can easily see Nolan's style developing in this fledgling effort; many of the same themes of blurred identity and expectation smashing recur in MEMENTO and INSOMNIA. Not a masterpiece but good and certainly worth a look for modern noir and Nolan fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just finished watching Following and I thought it was great. I rated it 8 out of 10. I plan on watching it again with the director's commentary and then again in chronological order.

I rented this movie because of my fascination of Christopher Nolan's more recent movie Memento. Following has some similarities; this movie was probably the blueprint for Memento. Even the music in some parts is very similar.

Shooting the movie in black and white gives it a mysterious feel. The story and dialogue is really good. The performance of the actors is believable.

Christopher Nolan made this movie on a really low budget. I look forward to his next release Insomnia, a big budget movie with my favourite actor Al Pacino.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great film. No gratuitous gimmicks like in most Hollywood films. Everything supported the suspense of the plot. B&w gave it a basic, no-frills feel also. In short, it was visceral in its simplicity of cinematography and cast.

Following serves as an interesting contrast to Memento. Characters in both used manipulation and subterfuge extensively. In that sense, both reminded me somewhat of \"In the Company of Men,\" also highly recommendable. One difference between Nolan's two films is that Memento was a little easier for me to follow, given that the b&w scenes progress in a constant chronological direction, and so do those in color. I don't think that was true of Following, where scenes seemed to be shown at random. If you have the choice between VCR and DVD, I'd highly recommend DVD, since that gives you the option of watching the movie a second time in chronological order, not just in the scrambled (albeit ingenuous) order presented by Nolan. It also makes it easier, upon a second viewing, to piece the order together for yourself, if you want to.

As another viewer noted, one of the best things about both this movie and Memento is that none of the cast were famous. They were characters, not big-name actors who brought in personas developed in other movies.

Given certain similarities in the plots, I wonder if Memento is sort of a remake of Following, but intended to reach a bigger audience, like Edward Burns made She's the One in the mold of -- and with largely the same cast as -- The Brothers McMullan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just watched this on DVD three times - Once the 'normal' way, once with the scenes in consecutive order (in this doozy of a film noir, the beginning, middle and end of the story intertwine), and once with the director's commentary running. Quite amazing. A bare-bones tale, told with more flair, energy and substance than most big-budget overblown features being released today.

I think this is an even more accomplished film than the subsequent Memento, which turned me on to Nolan in the first place. Can't wait to see what he does with a bigger budget (and bigger box-office stars) in his next film, Insomnia.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bill, Jeremy Theobald, is an inspiring writer who hasn't gotten anything published as of yet. Bill also has an odd and strange habit, he likes to follow people.

Bill picks out some stranger in the streets diner or on the subway, metro, and follows them as if he were their shadow. Maybe Bill does this to help him in inspiring himself to write the great novel that he's been dreaming about or get an article of his get printed in a major magazine? Maybe it's because it fills Bill's lonely life with a purpose and even makes the person of his curiosity a face in the crowd with meaning and substance by his paying attention to him or her? Or maybe it gives Bill someone to look after and care about and be responsible for besides himself? Bill has a simple rule that he follows religiously when he follows someone : after you follow him or her to their home or place of work you stop.

One day Bill follows Cobb, Alex Haw, home and instead of following his rule of stopping he still keeps following Cobb. Bill will soon realize how right he was with that rule he set for himself in following people and at the same time how wrong he was by breaking it.

Amazingly good low-budget movie made by Christopher Noland in 1998 before he hit it big in Hollywood with his ground-breaking and original motion picture classic \"Momento\" some two years later that has already become a major cult movie.

\"Following\" is actually a much better movie then \"Momento\" because it's a conventional and easy to follow story. Compared to \"Momento's\" which was at first confusing and then when you realize what the movie is telling you in it's backward storyline very complicated. Whats makes \"Following\" so much better is just by it being simple but at the same time brainy in it's affect on those who watch it. The movie is far more direct as well as devastating and you don't have to see it over and over to get just what it was trying to tell them like \"Momento\" did. \"Following\" is a story within a story within a story with one of the most surprising as well as simply manipulated ending, if you watch the movie again and notice the clues, that you'll ever see.

Made with an unbelievably small budget of $6,000.00, thats less then what most Hollywood movies budgets out for coffee-breaks, with a no-name cast in black and white and just over one hour, 71 minutes, long. Hollywood as well as the motion picture industry outside of Hollywood can learn a lot from Chris Noland in how someone with nothing more then talent and imagination can achieve what millions of dollars in most cases can't; make an intelligent and at the same time penetrating film with next to nothing in money and no big name stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Christopher Nolan had his goals set on Following in a very narrow direction, and in that direction he pulled off something that reminded me of the kind of great little 'poverty-row' movies the likes of Ullmer directed back in the 40s. Only this time, he's able to implement touches of homage- things like black and white photography (a given due to the shoe-string budget but also essential to the dark crevices these characters inhabit) and casting of the actors (the John Doe lead, the slick male counterpart, and the beautiful-in-a-gritty way femme fatale)- while keeping it in the realm of the 90s underground indie where for several thousand dollars and specific choices in locations and music and such anything could be possible. That, and as well in the film-noir mood Nolan also puts together a cunning web of a plot, maybe even more so than Memento. Where the latter was a work of a psychology unfolding by way of a plot enriched by looking to the past inch by inch, here the non-linear structure serves the purpose of showing how far someone like Bill can go through as dark a path as Cobb, only in an environment where keeping on your toes is not for someone who's not really twisted and into the deeper mind games Cobb is.

Of course, the whole act of following someone becomes the main thrust of the story, and going into it I wasn't even sure where it would lead, if it might be some kind of stream of consciousness ala Slacker where Nolan would lead his character along to one urban British person to another. But the establishment of the ties of Bill to Cobb are done in a quick and excellent way, as we see right when Cobb approaches Bill at the caf\u00e9 to ask what he's doing following him tells almost all we need to know about both- that, and the first robbery he brings him along for. What seems to soon be a good score on the horizon is really all one big set-up by Cobb and his lady (just called 'The Blonde', maybe a too-obvious homage to noir, but why carp). But this is revealed in a way that actually truly had me guessing, as the manipulation of the narrative worked all the more to arouse questions not so much of why but of how. The density is brought out all the greater due to the actors understanding of their essential points as characters, with Alex Haw being brilliant as a true sociopath who can barely mask his 'deep' ideas about what it is to really take pleasure in a burglary, and Theobald with that demeanor of someone who can never be as smart as he is in what he really does, but is more intelligent in that naive way that stands no chance in the dank environment such as this; Russell almost makes it too easy, even with a face that would send Ana Savage shaking her head.

Meanwhile, Nolan is also on the ball with his style as a cameraman, keeping nothing in that doesn't add to ambiance and suspense, with the fade-in\/fade-outs not too quick to leave a lasting impression, but enough to add to the 'this-could-lead-anywhere' logic of the script. He follows it in hand-held form as if he knows where his limitations lie, and yet is fantastic at keeping the essentials: close-ups when need be (one I loved is Russell's face in a small mirror), and a fairly simple techno track that never detracts. Sometimes, as mentioned, the line between seeing something in 'present-day' and seeing something that is as everlasting as a solid pulp story of low-level criminals with mind-games and moral ambiguity is always never totally clear, which for me is practically irresistible in its dark way. Simply put, this is one of the great calling cards I've seen from a filmmaker in recent years, and should hopefully be something that future fans of Nolan's other work can look forward to to discovering. Or even to those who think that noir has gone to the rapid-editing and big-gun-firing dogs of the mainstream (even in independent films) it's a bright little 71 minutes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even with only 6,000 bucks and a cast of part-time actors, Christopher Nolan was a master. Nolan is in my opinion, the next great and our first taste of Nolan doesn't contradict that.

None of the problems that constantly plaque and discredit the low budget independent picture haunt Nolan and crew. Our actors are inexperienced and young but they deliver and engage us in this story. In all honesty I think Following is Nolan's best screenplay because it is the one he had the most control over. It's a beautifully imagined film. It takes us into a world where we don't feel limited by the constraints of budget. The dialogue and atmosphere is bold and intelligent.

Nolan's trademark method of telling the story out of continuity is applied for the first time here and here it is done in a way that throws the story full out at you. With Memento and The Prestige you have to think a bit to truly get a complete grasp on the genius but Nolan doesn't try to confuse people with his prototype film. We can distinguish time by the appearance of our protagonist. This method of telling a story is both creative and engaging. I am Glad that Nolan has had so much success with it because his films become more than what they could be with this method. The pay offs in the Prestige and Memento would not have been thrilling at all if the movie was told in a conventional format. This idea has been done with moderate success before but Nolan has truly made it his own.

The script here is Nolan's finest. I had some doubts about his writing abilities, I all ways imagined that his brother Jonathon was the writing talent but he proves me wrong with Following. It is a thought provoking story which makes interesting observations of people and how they function. Cobb's assessments about burglarizing and how it can lead you to discover what makes people tick actually sounds plausible.

My only real complaint is the camera work gets shaky at times but it doesn't take away anything from the story or the acting.

Following is the first film of the man who will personify 21st century film-making at it's finest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Christopher Nolan's directorial debut is a memorable one. The film was very well received and help land contracts for making 'Memento' and quite rightfully so.

Following is an exquisite example of how films should be made. No fancy effects or blood-dripping gore...just brilliant writing and good acting. Nolan manages to captivate us once again with his writing. The actors, all unknowns to me and I suppose most people, did a good job bringing the characters to live. They were all believable and that's all they need to be. The film is confusing because it plays with chronology a lot but it's very rewarding in the end. The film's a little short to be a full-length feature but any additional length would've ruined the style of the movie and the brilliance of the writing would've been diminished. Though short, the film has every aspect that makes a film attractive (IMO): an intriguing beginning, an exciting middle and a surprising end.

I dare say Following is almost as good as Memento, his best film by far. The scrambled chronology is equally masterful used in both films, the amazing plot twists are present and the acting is very good.

This film was made with a mere $6000 but the quality is much higher than most( almost all) million dollar box-office hits. The use of b&w may be a hard pill to swallow for the big audience, following is primarily Nolan showing off his skills to the studio bosses :-). And what skills they are...rarely have I enjoyed writing so much as in 'Following'. Even Pi doesn't even come close IMO, though it's also very good.

This is a film surely not to be missed by any self-respecting movie-lover. If you liked Memento, 'Following' is definitely for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is an interesting exercise to witness the early works of great artists. Sometimes, even without the 20\/20 vision that hindsight offers you can see the cogs and wheels that make these people what they are. Following is one such look into the past of Christopher Nolan, one of the great time-warping story-teller of today.

Christopher Nolan's style of film-making puts a great deal of emphasis on the delivery of the story. Although people might complain it relies too much on the back-and-forth shifting of time, I still find it fascinating to see how he uses that one technique differently each time. Memento was probably the most convoluted piece of story-telling I have ever seen. Discount the hardened cynics who say it is an old piece of meat wrapped in fancy dressing. Memento shows how even the simplest of stories can be turned into a mind-bender. The Prestige, which was considerably stripped down in comparison, still showed creativity in how its three stories were interwoven. Even in a jaded enterprise like the Batman series did Christopher Nolan sprinkle some of his outstanding yarn-weaving tricks, breathing new life into the dark knight.

Following is an intense tale of intrigue and mystery, where we see a dilettante writer, who becomes a reluctant voyeur, who becomes an unknowing accomplice to a variety of petty crimes, and finally sees an end no one could have expected. Having never heard of Following before, I had no idea what I was to expect. At every point the film kept me guessing as to where it was leading me. Since the mystery angle was clear, I was constantly trying to figure out what was going to happen next. And that is where I think the film succeeds so well. The film has many elements that led me off on many wild goose chases.

The film is entirely in black and white and told in multiple timelines, both of which are considered gimmicky these days. Following does all of this in the least formulaic or contrived way possible. There doesn't seem to be a reason why the story is told in the way it is, but you don't feel like you are being taken for a ride. The lack of pretension or self-aware arrogance is what makes this style of story-telling work. Highly recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This two-character drama is extremely well-acted and has a valid message and some TRULY shocking moments (shocking not because they are graphic, but because you're not prepared for them when they come). But eventually it does become oppressive, just like the somewhat similar \"A Pure Formality\" did. Still, Alan Rickman should have gotten an Oscar nomination for his multi-dimensional performance, no doubt about it. (**1\/2)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even the trailer for this movie makes me cry, like the first time I saw this movie. Not for people who are easily upset by intense material! The finest performances by Alan Rickman and Madelaine Stowe, without a doubt. This dreadful tale of a society with the power to kidnap and torture it's citizens for ANY reason, whether they are anarchist's or the writer of children's books will chill you to the bone. I saw it when it first came out 1991 and I remember every frame. It still scares the hell out me today. It's happening now.

Apparently, IMDb requires ten lines to meet their criteria for a film review. IMDb might want to GET A GRIP! Some of us are a little more succinct about writing opinions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am profoundly grateful to have seen this movie. The acting is astonishing, the movie itself is powerful and clear, and the issues involved are handled with subtlety and depth.

This is an important movie. It could be profoundly transformative.

I would pay good money never, ever to see it again. Because it *is* so good and so complex, it is extremely difficult to watch. I admit that my taste in movies tends strongly toward light entertainment; the visual medium can be so powerful that I tend to avoid it for anything really important. Those of you with greater fortitude than I have may find it easier to handle.

But I strongly encourage people to see it at least once. Preferably with others, so you can talk to each other, and have someone around to remind you that there's more to the world than the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really love this movie. It has a very real feel to it. I believe it was never popular because of the subject matter, however, because of the subject matter, it makes the movie all that much more important.

This is an \"A\" movie and I recommend it highly. If you liked \"1984\" book or movie, I think you will like this one as well.

This is harsh, to say the least, including mental and physical acts of torture, some pretty vile. Not for the week at heart or stomach. No gore, but his movie is so great at projecting the mental anticipation it doesn't need blood and guts.

If you are not a realist or a pestimistic person I don't think you will enjoy it. It leaves you with an uneasy feeling about humans, what they're capable of, and the very real possibility that our government(s)does not necessarily have our personal best interest in it's heart.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie took me by surprise. I first saw it more than 10 years ago, and it stays with me still. It's got it's just plain boring points, and I, personally, would have ended it differently- this has not in the least bit discouraged me from watching it over and over and recommending it to others. The acting is _fantastic_. The cast and director do an amazing job with the script, and anyone who likes 'different' movies, who has the patience to sit and say, \"What the hell is this?\", and allow themselves to be drawn in should give this film a chance. If you just want Alan Rickman to be goofy or to see things explode this is not the movie for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What would it be like to be accused of being a subversive? This is what this film explores through the eyes of 2 characters, one being the accused subversive, the other being the interrogator. It is a frightening journey from the beginning to the end. This film is not for everybody and if you do not understand political governments thoroughly, you will never get the point of this film, as proved by 90% of the reviews here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rarely does a film capture such intense drama and emotion. What makes this film so unsettling is that the drama feels so real, it's almost hard to remember that it's only a movie. This is by far Madeline Stowe and Alan Rickman's performance of their careers. The film almost feels like a theatrical production the way it is staged and lit. The only bad thing about this movie is that it's very difficult to get a copy of it. I have yet to see it other than on Laserdisc. This truly powerful film deserves a digitally remastered transfer and special edition treatment on DVD. It really is that good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ms. Stowe is sensational in this power drama about a secret policeman who interrogates a children's author because he believes she is trying to plant ideas in her writings that are contrary to the state's. This is an incredibly powerful film. Both performances are worthy of more recognition as is the message of this movie. Put this on your must see list if you can locate it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an amazing movie and is very clever at using the few actors and sets. It is also very shocking - the physical and psychological torture (both explicit and implied) is mixed with calm and even humourous stretches. So the horror is always unexpected, and brutal. I'm not soft, but this would have to be the most shocking film I have ever seen. The message of this film is definitely delivered with a sledgehammer. This is the film I will always remember both actors for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The good news: the director is reportedly committed to the cause of Amnesty International and eager to deliver a solid message about the freedom of expression and the evil of oppression. The plot is distinctly original and the actors are two of my absolute favourites. The not-so-good news: 'original' is not everybody's buzzword when visiting the movies or video stores. Also, noted critics like Mr Maltin and Roger Ebert have dismissed the film as a genuinely failed attempt to convert a play from stage into cinematic form. If I remember correctly, the title is taken from the fairy tale Stowe's character has written and which has made her a possible subversive and suspect person in the fictitious place where the story takes place. Her dreams are dangerous to the government, represented here by Rickman as the intense, manipulative interrogator. Since those two people are virtually the only ones appearing in the film altogether, the director is in for a real challenge in keeping the viewer's attention. In the end, I found the whole thing fascinating. Not flawless and definitely not for everyone, but rewarding. It's nowhere near a masterpiece like Kieslowski's 'A short film about killing' or as explanatory as 'Dead man walking'. But if you're into those films or any of Costa-Gavras political thrillers, you may appreciate this one as well. Just don't expect any overexplicit sermons or eyefilling action sequences.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This little two-person movie is actually much bigger than it looks. It has so many layers. I've watched it over and over, and always pick up on something new. I am amazed at the depth of the acting, and I feel if this movie had gotten wider release that there would be no question that Alan Rickman is a major star","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film deals with universal themes, mentioning no specific country as its context: it could happen anywhere--and has, in substance if not form. Those concerned about 1st amendment issues, censorship, et al--but don't want to be bored with lectures--need art such as this to illustrate, dramatize, teach, inspire.

Rickman is certainly an under appreciated character actor; he shines in this film, showing off multiple acting talents that you must see (I have yet to see him give a bad performance, though, even in not-so-great films). Stowe gives perhaps her best performance (and proves that she possesses one of the most striking pair of eyes in Hollywood)--in two words: stunning, convincing.

The set design perfectly matches the situation, in function and mood. The sound editing heightens to appropriate effect. The total contrast conveyed through the animation sequences is a perfect symbolic device-and the welcome and only respite to the bulk of the story's necessary venue. The script is tight and essential, with engagingly dramatic-yet realistic-dialogue (i.e., as it might be and ought to be). Perhaps the most amazing aspect to contend with is the fact that 1) this is the director's first time out; and 2) he is the writer. In one phrase: a tour de force--with three recommendations: see it, own a copy, see it repeatedly to fathom all its secrets and grasp all it genius.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the most difficult movie I have ever seen...the emotional content is horrific, yet unforgetable. A woman who is accused of being a political activist is brought in for questioning. The whole movie revolves around her interrogation. Alan Rickman and Madeline Stowe have intense and powerful roles for which they deserve Oscars for their performances.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this movie late one night and never knew what hit me. This was one of the most disturbing movies I have ever seen, yet had me on the edge of my seat waiting to see what would happen next. Alan Rickman is an excellent \"bad guy\" but this character beats all others. I've never been so affected by a movie! It's been 6 years and I still can't forget \"Closet Land.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Closet Land is an amazing, terrifying piece of cinema. It features only two actors in a single set, but never loses your attention. The set design is imaginative and troubling, the staging of scenes maintains your attention, while adding to your own sense of confusion and terror. The acting is outstanding, with Alan Rickman and Madeleine Stowe having the duty of carrying every scene.

I first saw this film in 1991, soon after it came out on video. It didn't play in theaters where I lived; not surprising, given its political content. It should be seen, though. It features a brilliant staging of the torture and interrogation techniques used by repressive societies to instill fear and obedience in its citizens. The country is never named, which makes it all the more striking. It could be anywhere; East, West, 3rd World, 1st World. It illustrates what happens when a small group of people decide what is best for everyone; when government becomes the ruler of the citizens, rather than the servant.

Madeleine Stowe is a children's author who has been dragged from her bed in the night and subjected to terror and torture. She finds herself in a room with Alan Rickman, a seemingly pleasant functionary. At first it seems a horrible mistake and she is free to go; but, fear causes her to remain and the terror escalates. She is increasingly subjected to physical and mental torture. The interrogator uses sensory deprivation, temporal manipulation, confusion, auditory manipulation, role play, and twisted logic to break down the author. She is humiliated and browbeaten, forced to endure strenuous bodily positions, deprived of food and water.

Through it all, she refuses to give in; to do what the interrogator asks. She is told that it will all end if she just signs a confession. A simple little act. She refuses. Through it all, she employs defense mechanisms that have developed since childhood. It is slowly revealed that she was the victim of childhood sexual abuse. To survive, she developed fantasy worlds and characters that would take her away from the abuse. These mechanisms allow her to transcend her torture and turn the tables on her interrogator. She starts attacking his own beliefs and profession, forcing him to examine his own life and motives. In the end, she is free, because she maintains the freedom of thought. The interrogator is the one trapped by the state.

This movie was made during the height of the Cold war, Apartheid, and at a time when the crimes of many governments throughout the world made daily news. It is even more timely in a world where \"enemy combatants\" are held and interrogated in secret prisons, denied legal rights or counsel; where \"ethnic cleansing\" lays waste to whole societies, and humanitarian aid is denied. It demonstrates that the individual can stand up to the state or other oppressor by refusing to give in to fear and terror.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Closet land is not at happy movie. Neither is it connected to any kind of social realism. This is perhaps its strength. The distance from specific time and nations strengthens the message, makes it more powerful and rips away the burden of nationalism and propaganda you often sense in movies made to criticize nations in opposit of ones own (I am of course primarily speaking of the USA propaganda in some commercial film).

Bit closet land is so much more than a message. It is a film of pure, surrealistic beauty, filled with the same clean, clinical form you find in work such as 1984 and it's equals.

I am of old a big fan of Alan Rickman, the man with the golden sarcasm (and, I might add, the uncomparable sex-appeal ;-)). The outplay between him and Madeleine Stowe is brilliant. Everytime I see him, he seems to play a character even nastier than the last one...

But, enough sweettalk. The film lacks in action. I dont want any crashing cars, but I want something to happen, except pure talk. After an hour I got really tired of the interrogationroom, the predictable actions and more than anything I wanted a more complex view of it all, the world, the former lives of the characters and all the rest of the framework that was missing. For some people a nice touch. For me something less positive.

Anyway, Closet Land is a movie worth it's time if you are ready to make a trip into the abyss of the human nature.

And of course for us who really loves the Always Evil Alan Rickman.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movie had me stuck in this endless loop of thinking about it for days afterward...granted i am not the movie snob that some folks around here appear to be, but i thought this was amazingly well-acted, and a powerful creation, if lacking a little subtlety in exectution. i happen to admire movies that can effectively recreate the sensation of watching a stage play, it creates an inharmonious eeriness that works well with this flick. i am also a great fan of alan rickman, so that might be my bias. personally i found the lack of spatial landmarks a good thing -- this could in fact be anywhere, and probably is. i say go easy on what was a powerful experience for me, and likely for anyone involved in any sort of political activity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Simply beautiful. One of the best mind-- umm... screws--- in existence. Both Rickman and Stowe play their roles to the hilt in this tale of a childrens' book writer who-- maybe?-- has written a subversive tract. Moscow could learn a few things from the torture techniques in this film. They could also do worse than hiring Alan Rickman. Five out of five stars, and at present (1-20-2000) #2 on my top 100 films of all time list.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film, with only two characters, takes you closer to these two people, the interrogator and the prisoner, than most films take you to any character, however well-crafted.

The sheer confusion, terror and pain which Madeleine Stowe's character undergoes is deeply disturbing, as is Alan Rickman's sadistic yet charming interrogator.

This film is all too possible, and builds to a shocking climax, the effect of the film as a whole leaving you sitting in silence at the end. It'll haunt you for a long time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know what it is exactly, but the film is happily sitting on my shelf, with no thought of ever leaving me...Fulci has crafted one of the most ridiculous, bizzare, cheez-infested and well unique movies I've ever seen. Not sure what else to say about it, but I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! The steak tartar scene is absolutely uproarious, and the whole nazi torture orgy fiasco is strangely hilarious...I'm not sure what Fulci was trying to do, but has anyone heard that, based on this film, Fulci accused Wes Craven of ripping him off with \"Scream\"? \"Cat in the Brain\" is a must for bad movie lovers everywhere...Yes I'll definitely say it's not a \"good\" film, but I guarantee certain scenes will stick in your mind forever! This is an exercise in craziness, people...I guess if I were a \"serious\" critic I'd give it a 3, but on sheer enjoyability (again I can't really explain my affections) I'd give it a 7....Really whacked out flick...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, this is new...Famous Italian horror director Lucio Fulci shoots a film about a famous Italian horror director called...Lucio Fulci. After years and years of witnessing gruesome horror sequences, it becomes hard for Lucio to separate reality from fiction and he often hallucinates about committing violent murders. He quickly descends further into a seemly endless spiral of madness and unverifiable venom. Even the dedicated psychiatrist can't seem to keep Fulci on the right track... Now, when it comes to pure fun and entertainment value, Cat in the Brain certainly is one of Fulci's most pleasant films. The gore is overpowering and copious, to say the least. The amount of filthy massacres is impossible to describe, especially when you manage to get your hands on the fully uncut version (referred to with the aka:\"Nightmare Concert\"). Decapitations all around, victims ' intestines are spread on all sides of the screen and the chainsaws are working overtime! The film also becomes unintentionally funny quite soon (since it's so exaggerated) and a perfect experience to watch with a group of friends when there's beer in the fridge. Of course, from a more professional viewpoint, this production can't exactly be called a masterpiece! There's not the least bit of tension or atmosphere to detect and the characters are completely empty-headed. In order to make more room for the gore, characters are just being introduced for 5 seconds and subsequently die a horrible death. Especially compared with Fulci's highlights - like \"The Beyond\" or \"Don't Torture a Duckling\" - this film looks like a quickly warmed up snack. The best way to interpret \"Cat in the Brain\" is like a personal statement made by Fulci and a direct attack towards censorship. Perhaps after seeing so many of his films \u0096 especially the latter ones \u0096 being cut by censorship committees and bashed by pseudo-artistic critics, he wanted to avenge himself by delivering a gory mess that simply can't be cut! If you take out all the explicit violence and the truly sick make-up effects, you only got about 10 minutes of footage left! Especially because the insane killings re-occur later in the film as Fulci hallucinates about them again. You can almost hear our director think stuff like: \"Let's see how you're going to censor this now!\" Even the entire development of the murder investigation happens in the background. Are the victims missed by any of their friends or relatives? Are there any police officers looking for clues that'll lead them to the killer? You don't know and Lucio doesn't bother to inform you about that, because that would lead to sequences that don't require cutting. Oh, and it's pretty damn pretentious as well! The name \"Mr. Fulci\" or even \"Lucio\" is mentioned every 3 minutes (34 times throughout the entire movie, to be exact) and our director clearly enjoys being in the spotlights for a change. Hey, I certainly don't blame him...After over 30 years of delivering amusing movies; he deserved to have a little extra fun. You're a God, Mr. Fulci!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lucio Fulci's Cat in the Brain is an inventive and somewhat egotistical tale of a director's decent into madness. The director in question is Fulci himself, who stars in the film. Fulci has become known to horror fans everywhere as 'the godfather of gore', and for good reason, as he has provided us with some of the nastiest and most gruesome films ever to grace the silver screen; from the eyeball violence in films like 'Zombi 2', to a man been hacked to death with chains in 'The Beyond', all the way to the full on gore fest known as 'The New York Ripper'; if you want gore (and let's face it, who doesn't), Fulci is your man. However, all this catering for gorehounds like you and I has taken its toll on Fulci's mental state, and he's quickly delving into madness, brought about by what he films. Fulci's problems don't end at his mental state either, as his psychiatrist that he has gone to see about his problem has took it upon himself to take up murder as a hobby, using Fulci's films as blueprints for the murders!

I've got to say, the acting in this film is absolutely atrocious. There is one scene in particular that involves a hooker, and it's only fit to be laughed at, for both it's acting and it's stupidity. Fulci takes the lead role of the film (obviously). He's not an actor, and it shows, but his performance is actually the best in the film. It's even safe to say that one the whole, the acting is bad for an Italian horror film. Of course, nobody goes into an Italian horror expecting good acting, so it's somewhat forgivable, but I do think that Fulci could have hired some better ones. Bad dubbing doesn't exactly help either. However, something that does help is the fact that the terrible acting is counterbalanced by lots of gore, and it's extreme to say the least! People get their heads cut off, a woman is slain in the shower (and unlike Psycho, here we REALLY see it), people are hacked up, fed to pigs and there's lots and lots of cinema's finest melee weapon - the chainsaw on display, which delighted me no end. The amount of gore is massively over the top a lot of the time, which gives the film something of a 'spoof' feel, but Cat in the Brain is obviously a tongue in cheek film anyway.

It would be hard to make a film about yourself and not come across as being a bit of a big head, and Fulci does indeed come across as a bit of a big head in this movie. His name is mentioned often, and he's on screen nearly all the time; it's not too much unlike 'New Nightmare' in the ego stakes, but it's obvious he had a good time making this, and I for one had fun watching it, so we can forgive him a little egotism. The film's ending lets it down - I saw it coming a mile off, but then didn't seriously think that the movie would take that route, but I was wrong; it did, unfortunately. The ending left me cold, and the film is a better watch if you turn it off just before the final two minutes. However, despite it's ending and terrible acting, Cat in the Brain is a lot of fun and will please Fulci enthusiasts no end, and it is therefore recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Un Gatto nel Cervello\"\/\"Cat in the Brain\" is one of the goriest horror movies ever made.There is a lot of blood and gore,including chainsaw butchery,bloody stabbings and numerous decapitations.The film is also interesting as \"self parody\" of Fulci,but the gore and violence is the key element in it.Some of the gore FX were taken from own Fulci's movies \"Quando Alice Ruppe lo Specchio\" and \"I Fantasmi di Sodoma\"(both 1988),plus gore FX taken from Fulci-supervised \"The Snake House\" aka \"Bloody Psycho\" by Leandro Lucchetti,\"Massacre\" by Andrea Bianchi,\"Non Avere Paura Della Zia Marta\" by Mario Bianchi,\"Non Si Sevizia i Bambini\" by Giovanni Simonelli and \"Luna di Sangue\" aka \"Fuga dalla Morte\" by Enzo Milioni(all 1989).The scene where Brett Halsey beats the woman's face to pulp is from \"Quando Alice Ruppe lo Specchio\",a film Fulci had made for Italian TV in 1988.The chainsawing of the female corpse at the beginning is taken from the same film,as is the head in the microwave and the guy that gets driven over and over again.Highly recommended,especially if you like extreme cinema!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fulci is one of my all time favorite Italian splatter directors. He is also a very good story teller mixing horror, the supernatural, and psychedelic themes altogether very well. This film was truly his last great story before he directed such disappointments as \"Voices From Beyond\". The story is simple as Fulci plays himself, a horror director. After years of filming splatter and gore films it seems that Fulci starts to suffer a breakdown in which he starts hallucinating about people being slaughtered. He decides to see a psychiatrist who only makes matters worse when he convinces Fulci that he is killing people.

Fulci used gore scenes from several pictures around the same time. These films I don't believe he directed but certainly produced. Some of those films are \"Massacre\" directed by Andrea Bianchi (Burial Ground), \"Touch of Death\" directed by Fulci, \"The Murders Secret\" and I can't remember the rest of the films.

Nightmare Concert is a very underrated film, even by Fulci fans. But I loved this movie and have watched it many times already. It is sad that Fulci didn't get a chance to direct anything worth while after this but nonetheless this is a great film and I do recommend it to any Fulci fan, whether you like it or not. 9\/10 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Cat In The Brain\" is a series of extremely violent sequences knitted together by a plot that feels more like an overview, describing director Lucio Fulci's most notorious years of film-making. The movie could also be seen as a dark comedy of sorts, effectively spoofing the various claims that violent cinema causes violence in real life. Fulci goes further than that, he casts himself as the star, the central figure of the film thus showing the audience who is the man behind all the cinematic gore. \"Cat in The Brain\" is not about presenting a clear story and following it. Instead it pokes fun at some of the clich\u00e9s that have been surrounding the horror genre for years.

Lucio Fulci plays himself as a horror director struggling to keep his humanity intact. Years of violent film making have finally began to reach him. It starts slowly, steaks and meat in general begin to disgust him, his colleagues assure Fulci that all he needs is some rest. But that doesn't help and soon the grotesque ideas for his movies begin to overwhelm his daily thoughts. In an attempt to find a cure for his dangerously maddening mental state Lucio starts going to the local psychiatrist. Unfortunately that does more wrong than good and Fulci is thrown into an even bigger mess, as the psychiatrist turns out to be a psychopath, who mimics the murders from Fulci's films in real life.

The film retains all the trademarks of Italian splatter cinema, good or bad they are all here. So any comments about the acting or the technical aspects and budget constrains are quite irrelevant as to the quality of the film. It is a visual experience, no doubts about it. Fulci throws in an incredible amount of violence easily surpassing pretty much everything he's made. Amputated by chainsaw limbs, cannibalism, child murder, decapitation, these are just some of the many grotesque acts witnessed in \"Cat In The Brain\". Some of them are obviously recycled from a few the director's less profile movies but they don't stand out of the context, and actually feel quite at home here. As I noted before the movie exists much better as a satire of the genre rather than a serious piece. The way some of the violence is presented does help establish that idea. Such sequences shortly after climax are rejected by the reality in the film, as they are revealed to be actually scenes inside a movie that Fulci's character is directing. This sort of \"film in film\" presentation lessens somewhat the impact of the gore. But in no way does it make it an easy to watch film. Oh no this is far beyond and above the levels of gore found in mainstream horror, and gorehounds will in no doubt be satisfied with that fact.

Lucio Fulci was a very polarized figure. People either hate his work or love it. \"Cat in the Brain\" won't convince any of Fulci's detractors in the opposite but it is nevertheless an interesting part of his filmography. One that fans should really check out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Un Gatto nel Cervello, or Nightmare Concert as it's more commonly know amongst English speaking audiences, starts as horror film director Lucio Fulci (played by the man himself Lucio Fulci) goes to lunch after filming a very gory & violent scene, however he orders steak & has a horrible vision relating to cannibalism. The grotesque visions, hallucinations & dreams continue & begin to affect his mental state, Fulci decides to seek help & contacts Professor Egon Schwarz (Dvid L. Thompson) for psychiatric help. Schwarz claims that Fulci cannot separate fantasy from reality & agrees to help him, however Schwarz has a more sinister ulterior motive as a serial killer starts to brutally kill prostitutes & Fulci thinks he might be responsible....

This Italian production was co-written & directed by Lucio Fulci who also stars in the film as a horror film director named Lucio Fulci which doesn't really feel like a lot of effort went into it, anyway Un Gatto nel Cervello is gory if nothing else & for that alone I rather liked it. The script by Fulci, John Fitzsimmons, Giovanni Simonelli & Antonio Tentori is nothing more than a threadbare excuse to edit together lots of gory footage from other Italian films. It serves it's purpose well enough I suppose & to see Fulci on screen has a certain fascination if your a fan of his or are familiar with his films, the ending is very rushed almost as if they ran out of money as it just has a policeman telling Fulci they killed the killer & that's it. Another thing about that ending when the two cops put the white sheet over the dead killer in the field & then they walk away leaving it there without any other police presence, I mean would the police in Italy just leave a dead body in the middle of a field on it's own? It moves along at a good pace & if you like your gore then you have to see this although if you don't like gore then you'll hate it with a passion, it all depends on your disposition so the choice folks is yours.

Director Fulci was never the most artistically adept filmmaker & it shows here as his footage is bland, flat & looks like it was shot for TV, the footage from the other films (7 in total) doesn't match the stuff Fulci shot & it is obvious that this has been pieced together from different films. If your looking for gore you've hit the jackpot, people are dismembered with chainsaws, put through meat grinders, faces are melted, there are a few decapitations, there are some slit throats, someones body is gorily crushed under a car, a tongue is ripped out, someone has their throat crushed as a wheelchair runs over it, there are loads of stabbings, someone has their guts removed with a hook, there's a rotten corpse complete with maggots, someone hand is cut off, someone has their head bashed in & their eye falls out, a gory death by piano wire as it slices through someones throat, there are loads of severed limbs, gallons of blood splashed around & a scene of some cats eating brains & there's more as well. Having said that some of the special effects are a bit fake & look cheesy.

With a supposed budget of around $100,000 it shows, this is pretty cheap looking, it has no visual style or artistic merit but then again why would you want those when you can see a Nazi orgy sequence & wall-to-wall gore? The acting in this is terrible including Fulci.

Un Gatto nel Cervello is a top film if your a gore-hound like me, however if your looking for something with a little bit more substance or indeed any substance then this ones not for you. This is the sort of film which divides people straight down the middle, you'll either love what it does or hate it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I couldn't help but relish the entire premise of CAT IN THE BRAIN because it dutifully explains a director's steadily going mad, seeing people murdered from past movies he has made. Even mundane activities such as cooking a meal in the microwave or running a faucet of water yield some horrific butchery from a film in the past. Director Fulci playing himself, is directing GHOSTS OF SODOM(?)and can not seem to deprive his mental well being from constant murder. He seeks help from a psychiatrist who, instead, uses Fulci's work as a method to execute a series of innocent people, hypnotizing the director into thinking that perhaps he's responsible.

This is obviously a film playfully poking fun at Fulci's image, while exploring the themes of how such a profession, which produces so much death and destruction, rarely untamed, could mold and shape a legacy. The film features pretty much a wrap-around story surrounding non-stop graphic violence with every possible way to kill a woman expressed in grisly detail. This has a shower murder Hitchcock never could direct, or probably want to. The film's savagery compliments the mental state of Fulci's Fulci(..I know)during the running time. Reality and cinematic fiction have fused and Fulci can find no escape. The ending(..explaining the old clich\u00e9:\"It's only a movie\")couldn't work any better than it does here. Fulci's boat says Perversion(..excellent touch)and he sails off..I can only wish this was his final film because that's a perfect close if there ever was one. David L Thompson is the deranged psychiatrist planning to kill his adulterous wife. Jeoffrey Kennedy is a cop Fulci fears had a family murdered by the fiend.

The ultra-violence in the film features plenty of unique ways to take a head off such as the door to a chest, a scythe, a chainsaw, and hatchet. The most brutal violence derives from nasty chainsaw activity as a dead body is hacked to pieces(..how a gardener's chainsaw work on a log fits beautifully in one nightmarish hallucination sequence)..the most shocking use of a chainsaw is when a little boy gets decapitated! The opening scene with the puppet cat tearing away, feasting on Fulci's brain, is a howler. The scenes which are spliced within the film, featuring a horrified Fulci looking on, are obvious, but I couldn't help but enjoy this anyway.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The one who says that Lucio Fulci is not one of the most important names in the history of splatter is probably mad.The Italian director is a legend among hardcore-horror fans,and his work exceeds the barriers of the genre(who can forgot his western,crime or fantasy flicks).This is probably his goriest film,and unfortunately one the last.A horror director(Fulci as himself) starts hallucinating about gruesome murders.He goes to a psychiatrist,who makes him believe he is the criminal.In this time,the doctor begins a long chain of serial crimes.With such a plot,the movie should have been filled with something.And there are roting corpses,crashed or melted heads,stabbings,decapitations,chainsaw dismemberment and many others.Kind of boring sometimes,the film is saved by the excessive violence that will definitely please the gore addicts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the late eighties and early nineties the decline and death of independent video companies like Vestron and Media effectively shut off Italian horror films for much of it's American audience. Coincidently(?) Italian genre films also declined in quality and profitability.

Occasionally movies like Primal Rage, \"sequels\" like Beyond The Door III, Troll 2, and a few Dario Argento films limped out onto video but most remained unreleased (until DVD) in the US for nearly a decade or longer. Movies from these lost years became very sought after and talked about among horror fans.

Of these films, Cat In The Brain is probably one of the most hyped of all due to the legions of Lucio Fulci fans and the fact that it was not only directed by but also starred their idol, Fulci himself.

Though not quite Fulci's best, it's still better than most of his later efforts. His rabid fan-base will probably love it. Italian horror and giallo aficionados might also enjoy it, depending on their tastes but I'm not sure about anyone else. People who only watch Hollywood stuff might not want to take the word of the many glowing reviews here.

One thing I personally found fascinating were the scenes featuring probably Benito Mussolini's only lasting contribution to Italy, Cinecitta Studios. The name is instantly recognizable to any fan of Italian movies. Until I saw it here, I could only imagine what it looked like.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fulci... Does this man brings one of the goriest and weirdest movies ever made? Answer: yes! Cat in the Brain, also known as Nightmare Concert is Fulci's last masterpiece. Yes it is, no matter what some people will say about it. There are few facts why this movie is one of the best Fulci's movies.

Fulci make a fun of himself and his movies with this one. Lead roll in this movie is no other then Fulci himself, who plays... well horror-splatter-gore director, who thinks he is slowly going insane. It's filled with black humor which unlike in the most of the modern horror movies works here. Being Fulci flick, you need to know it's gory. How much? Well pretty much. I always loved gore in the movies and I never get enough of it, but Cat in the Brain actually stopped my thirst for gore, and believe me, it's a hard to archive. Even the Braindead didn't stop it. CITB is all about gore. Almost every scene revolves about Fulci, who after being hypnotized by *khmmm* evil psychiatrists is seeing all kinds of horrors for everything that happens to him or everything he sees. Some of the scenes involves him accidentally dropping the whiskey, and instead of that he sees rotten corpse lying on the floor, which starts to spit some ooze from it's wounds. Forget the Beyond or Zombie 2, this IS the goriest Fulci movie! Now I like how Fulci manage to apply all those comic parts in the gorefest movie. He is such a brilliant director. Some funny moments and lines happens from time to time, like one where Fulci says \"making gore movies is kind of a sickness\" Ending is very good considering that Fulci (and most of the Italian horror masters) is know for making ending with no sense or many plot holes. If you are fun of the Fulci, make sure you check it out. If you have a weak stomach, avoid this and repeat \"Its only a movie\" ps. some of the gore scenes within this movie: Chainsaw dismemberment (full), tongue torn out, eyeballs torn out, maggot infested corpses, zombies, decapitations, face being putted in boiling water, stabs in the shower (to head), throat slit, many parts of the body and organs being toast aside, hammer smashed face...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lucio Fulci was one of the most prolific Italian directors by the time of his death in 1996, yet his career had long since descended into a downward spiral of increasingly futile genre entries that could barely stand in the shadow of his earlier work. For much of the '70s into the mid-'80s, he cranked out such stylistically distinctive horrors as \"City of the Living Dead,\" \"The Beyond,\" and the brutal giallo \"The New York Ripper,\" fondly remembered by fans like myself. And while \"Cat in the Brain\" falls in with the era of Fulci's decline as a filmmaker, it is a shocking, darkly hilarious headtrip that, while a clearly inferior work (the framing, effects, and acting are below par), proves an interesting, open-ended meditation on pop psychology and film's ability to desensitize. Make no mistake: \"Cat in the Brain\" is a total gorefest, and as disjointed as Fulci's previous films, but it deserves credit for trying to be something more. In a deliciously tongue-in-cheek touch, Fulci plays himself: a director in the midst of filming yet another violent horror flick who comes down with perverse\/murderous hallucinations; after visiting a shrink who puts him under hypnosis, his dreams and reality begin to intersect, to the point where the viewer cannot discern the two. The recent DVD from Grindhouse Releasing mentions \"Cat\" as an heir apparent to the likes of \"Eraserhead,\" and it does carry a similarly disquieting, awkwardly funny quality associated with the best surrealist art.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an interesting movie. I think it's very humorous, although the humor is very black. Fulci is good and funny acting himself, it's a really funny and truly crazy \"self-portrait\" of an artist (\"I make horror films. If I would make love films, no-one would buy tickets...\"). And it's really SEXY movie also: Almost all the time there is some \"action\" or tension going on; and many sexy girls\/women... Maybe it goes to the core of why anyone starts to do movies\/art in the first place... It's a real psychedelic trip, maybe best seen a little drunk or some similar state of mind. There is some really nasty gore scenes also, of course, because it's Lucio Fulci. As a matter of fact some of those scenes are quite disgusting. Anyway it's one of the three best and most complete Fulci films I've seen (the others are House By The Cemetery & Zombi.Haven't seen The Beyond). Actually, the script is overally, to my opinion, quite ingenious. You could see this movie as a portrait of an extreme neurotic, or a person who suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder (fashionable words): The character has a compulsive need to confess \"crimes\" or bad thoughts; Especially crimes he hasn't even DONE. And he questions himself all the time: What if I HAVE done it? What if I want to do it? Have I done it? Do I want to do it? He overreacts and exaggerates his thoughts. I'm sure Fulci has been interested of psychology, and maybe even read something of the area; in his \"House By The Cemetery\"-movie for example there is a character named Freudstein. This is maybe the most concentrated and straightly personal movie Fulci did. I also like the simplicity of the photography\/pictures in this film. Only thing that disturbs me a little bit is the sadism, especially towards women; I don't quite understand why? Is it entertainment? Is it art? Is it horror? Anyways and overall, this is really interesting and well made movie, definitely recommended classic film at least for fans or anyone interested of this genre. For the others it may be too much.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I honestly have to say that A CAT IN THE BRAIN is one of the most fun and unintentionally hilarious films I've ever seen. This film is packed with stupid dialog, ridiculous scenes, and a self-involving plot, starring legendary horror director Lucio Fulci himself.

The threadbare story-line is about an aging director (Fulci, who is also named Lucio Fulci in the film...)who is starting to go nuts and hallucinate because of all the vicious things he's put down in film over the past many years. He goes to a shrink who hypnotizes Fulci, and tells him that he will believe himself to be a killer, but that the shrink will actually be the one doing the killing. The rest of the film is made up of shots from the \"film\" that Fulci is directing during all this action, scenes of the shrink killing people all-the-while grinning like a f!cking moron, and some of Fulci's hallucination sequences. Oh, and a few tits thrown in for good measure as well...

A CAT IN THE BRAIN is completely over-top-and ridiculous in every sense. The gore is classic Fulci - nasty and strong with some really decent scenes. The chainsaw sectioning of a female corpse is pretty cool, as is the chainsaw beheading of a small boy. Lots of stabbings, gougings and other cool kill-scenes make this one a pretty non-stop bloodbath. The ridiculous dialog (LICK IT!!!!LICK IT!!!), as well as some of the insanely goofy scenes (the Nazi orgy, the opera singing slap-fest and the running down of an innocent hippy come easily to mind...) make this one fun as hell. Not nearly as dark as some of Fulci's other films - CAT is more of a self-indulgent horror\/comedy that if it wasn't meant to be funny, is actually kind of sad. I say to grab a fifth of cheap bourbon and settle in to this one. I watched CAT with a few friends and we laughed the entire time. THIS is the feel-good movie of the summer...Recommended 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movie gets a 10 because there is a lot of gore in it.who cares about the plot or the acting.this is an Italian horror movie people so you know you can't expect much from the acting or the plot.everybody knows fulci took footage from other movies and added it to this one.since i never seen any of the movies that he took footage from it didn't matter to me.the Italian godfather of gore out done himself with this movie.this is one of the goriest Italian movies you will ever see.no gore hound should be without this movie in their horror movie collection.buy this movie no matter what it is a horehounds dream come true.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the late 1940s there was a short film series entitled \"Flicker Flashbacks\" in which excerpts from silent dramas featuring the likes of Mary Pickford and Blanche Sweet were played for laughs. Scratchy clips from antiquated old movies were rearranged, projected too fast, and given an overlay of jangly music and lame quips. The attitude expressed through this brutal treatment pretty much summed up mid-century Hollywood's view of its early days: silent cinema was considered hokey, florid, a little embarrassing, and only good for a chuckle. During the 1950s this attitude gradually began to change for a number of reasons. James Agee's famous 1949 essay on the silent clowns for Life Magazine was a factor, but television played a major role in reacquainting viewers with silent movies. Admittedly, the TV networks sometimes handled the material as crudely as the \"Flicker Flashbacks\" people, but higher-toned series such as \"Silents, Please\" treated the films with respect. Another milestone was Robert Youngson's compilation feature THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY, which proved to be something of a surprise hit when it was released to theaters late in 1957.

I don't know if Charles Chaplin was aware of Youngson's film or its success at the box office, but it was around this time that he decided to launch a theatrical re-release of three of his best short comedies, A DOG'S LIFE, SHOULDER ARMS (both made in 1918), and THE PILGRIM (made in 1922 and released the following year). These three movies happened to work well as a trio since they contrast nicely in plot, theme, and setting. In addition, all three feature familiar faces from Chaplin's stock company, some of whom play multiple roles in each short. At the time of the re-release the films hadn't been publicly screened in over thirty years, so perhaps Chaplin was concerned about maintaining his reputation with a new generation of movie-goers, especially since his best work was seldom shown on television in the new medium's early days.

Unfortunately, Chaplin apparently concluded that the films moved too quickly at the old silent projection speed, so the decision was made to \"stretch-print\" them, which meant that every other frame was printed twice. Maybe he wanted to avoid the 'Flicker Flashbacks' look, but this wasn't the best way to go about it. Aesthetically speaking, the results were awful and practically destroyed the movies' flow of action, but nonetheless that's how THE CHAPLIN REVUE was released to theaters in 1959, and that's the version that was transferred to video and made commercially available by Playhouse Video in the 1980s. I purchased a VHS copy of the movie at the time and was terribly disappointed with the jerky, stop-and-start rhythm of the films.

It's a particular pleasure to find that David Shepard's restoration of Chaplin's compilation (originally produced for the laser-disc format) is a vast improvement over the Playhouse Video version. For the most part, the projection speed has been corrected. The \"stretch-printing\" is gone at any rate, though the action seems to drag a bit at times. For example: in A DOG'S LIFE during Edna & Charlie's awkward dance in the Green Lantern Cafe, Edna's bare arms appear visibly blurred; at another point, during the trench scene in SHOULDER ARMS when Charlie is relieved from sentry duty, the action appears oddly slowed-down for a few moments, but this may be the result of a maneuver by the film restorers to cover a bit of decomposition. Over all, picture quality is fantastic considering the age of the movies themselves.

Other bonuses: the REVUE begins with rare behind-the-scenes footage taken at the Chaplin studio. This includes shots of an obviously staged, jokey rehearsal session where Chaplin throttles diminutive actor Loyal Underwood, as well as scenes of Charlie at his dressing table putting on his makeup and trimming the famous mustache. These scenes are accompanied by Chaplin's narration, delivered at a rapid clip. Chaplin also composed a new musical score for the compilation, and in my opinion his themes for the REVUE rank with his best compositions, especially the pieces used during the caf\u00e9 sequence in A DOG'S LIFE. The only exception is the song written for THE PILGRIM, a pseudo-Singin' Cowboy number called \"Bound for Texas\" sung 'Fifties-style by Matt Monro (sounding rather like Gene Autry), which is distractingly anachronistic and out of place. Otherwise, throughout the rest of the REVUE, the music is perfectly suited to the action and the atmosphere.

It feels as though the Image release of THE CHAPLIN REVUE is, in a sense, its long-postponed debut, presenting these classic comedies the way they were meant to be seen all along. In this form, the REVUE ranks with Chaplin's most durable and enjoyable works.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The three shorts included on this compilation issued in 1959 are timeless Chaplin classics, nothing wrong with them and nothing to criticize either. Chaplin's score for these films and the framework added as bridging sections between the shorts are also well done. The problem with this compilation is a minor one, yet annoying. The shorts have been stretch-printed to fit the 24 frame p.s. speed of contemporary films whereas the shorts themselves where shot at 20 frames p.s. This results is jerky motion that doesn't look very attractive, and yet this was an excusable solution given the limitations of optical printing technology at the time, it's just not excusable that the current DVD version is unrestored, the films look dirty as they did in 1959 and are still stretch printed. There are separate restored versions of these classics available, even on DVD, and it would not be a problem to restore the image, but alas this has not been done.

A minor quibble has taken up a lot of space in my article, but I say again a minor quibble, it should not detract all that much from the experience although it detracted one point from my rating. The shorts are still worth '10'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most of Chaplin's most famous films are his full-length features. And, I assume most people have at most seen only a few clips of him from his pre-feature days when he starred in dozens and dozens of comedy shorts. This is really a shame, as some wonderful shorts are pretty much waiting to be discovered by the world in the 21st century.

If someone watches this film they have an excellent chance to see some of Chaplin's better shorts because Chaplin himself chose these three shorts and strung them together with a bit of narration to make this 1959 feature film. This is great for several reasons. First, in Chaplin's earliest films from 1914-1915, his character of the Little Tramp is still in its earliest incarnations or is absent altogether. Plus, even when he is there, he was often mean-spirited and self-centered--something very alien from the Little Tramp we have grown to love. Second, because the shorts that were chosen were in great condition, if you watch this film you won't need to worry about watching scratchy film with gaps and lousy musical accompaniment that doesn't fit the action (a common problem).

So, for a great look at Chaplin's shorts at their finest, give this film a chance. It's sure to provide you some excellent laughs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hearkening back to those \"Good Old Days\" of 1971, we can vividly recall when we were treated with a whole Season of Charles Chaplin at the Cinema. That's what the promotional guy called it when we saw him on somebody's old talk show. (We can't recall just whose it was; either MERV GRIFFIN or WOODY WOODBURY, one or the other!) The guest talked about Sir Charles' career and how his films had been out of circulation ever since the 1952 exclusion of the former \"Little Tramp' from Los Estados Unidos on the grounds of his being an \"undesirable Alien\". (No Schultz, he's NOT from another Planet!)

CHARLIE had been deemed to be a 'subversive' due to his interest and open inquiry into various Political and Economic Systems. Everything from the Anarchist movement from the '20s (and before), the Technocracy craze to Socialism in its various forms were fair game for discussion at Chaplin's Hollywood parties; which of course meant the inclusion of the Soviet style, which we commonly call Communism.

COMPOUNDING Mr. Chaplin's predicament was both confounded by one little detail. He had never become an American Citizen.

ANYHOW, enough of this background already!

SUFFICE it to say that he had become 'Persona Non Gratis' in the United States of America. .It was high time to get the old films out of the mothballs and back out to the Movie Houses. It'd sure be a great gesture by us easily forgiving and quickly forgetting Americanos.

IT would be a fine gesture to the great film making artist; besides, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences was planning to honor Chaplin with a special tribute at the 1972 Oscar Show. This would surely be a tearful yet joyous packaging of pathos a plenty for having America invite Charlie back and have him come and receive a special Academy Lifetime Achievement Award in front of a World-wide Television Audience numbering in the Millions.

BESIDES, that would be a natural for promoting the Chaplin Season at the Theatre! (Remember, the Little Tramp was as astute as a Bu$ine$$ Man as he was as a Film Maker!) THE program consisted of showings of MODERN TIMES, CITY LIGHTS, THE GREAT DICTATOR, MONSEUR VERDOUX, A KING IN NEW YORK and finally THE CHAPLIN REVUE. We remember being very excited in the anticipation of the multi date film fest.

IN our fair city of Chicago, it was booked for the Carnegie Theatre on Rush Street. The festivities lead off with MODERN TIMES and all of the others would be shown one at a time, each staying for whatever period was necessary in order to satisfy the public's desire to view each picture. As we recall, the very last on the schedule was THE CHAPLIN REVUE.

IN RETROSPECT, we look back and wish that they had begun the run with REVUE; as there were undoubtedly legions of moviegoers (much like ourselves) who knew very little about his accomplishments in motion pictures, except for those Keystone, Essanay and Mutual Silent Shorts that were being shown as regular feature on so, so many Kiddy Shows all over the country. Oh well, once again, no one consulted me!

CONCENTRATING on today's honored guest film, THE CHAPLIN REVUE, we found that it was actually three separate pictures; carefully bound together by the use of narration by Chaplin (Himself), some lively Themes and Incidental Music (once again written by Chaplin) and some happy talk and serious narration (Ditto, by Chaplin.) He opens up the proceedings by making use of some home movie-type of film depicting the construction of the Chaplin Studio in Hollywood, as well as some film taken of some rehearsal time, showing Director Chaplin demonstrating just what he wants to a group of actors.

THIS segment was well done and well received by the audience. Both the building humor and the rehearsal were amplified by making them seem accelerated. (The rehearsal naturally, the building by use of speeding up the camera's photographic process. The old trick makes it appear that the buildings were almost building themselves.

THIS amalgam of shorts incorporated three of Chaplin's short comedies from his stint with First National Pictures.; roughly that being 1917 to 1923. The choice was well thought out and gave us a wide variety of subject matter and mood.

FIRST up was SHOULDER ARMS (Charles Chaplin Productions\/First National Pictures, 1918). As the title suggests, it is a tale of World War I. Released in October of 1918 with about a month to go before the Armistice Day of November 11, it was a comedy of comical Army gags and a romance between Private Chaplin and a French Girl (Miss Edna Purviance). The levity is fast, physical and in the grand old tradition of ridiculing the Enemy, the German Army.

DISPLAYING an excellent example of the old adage about Children and Dogs bringing folks together, the next film A DOG'S LIFE (Chaplin Productions\/First National, 1918) traces the parallel lives of Chaplin's Tramp and a newly adopted stray, Scraps. The movie story involves families, two of them. One Homo Sapiens, one Canine and both supplying us with some big surprises.

AS the finale, we have THE PILGRIM (Chaplin\/First National, 1923) was a good choice to have as the finale. It was bright, light and tight. It was an excursion into the area of the Western Spoof, Comedies of such type having been done since by every comedian and team. The \"Pilgrim\" in the story is not of your standard Thanksgiving Variety; but rather a \"dude\" or \"Tenderfoot\", who has ventured out West. The Tramp is not only that guy; but his character is an escaped Convict who is mistakenly thought to be the new Clergyman of a Western town's Church!

OUR Rating (that is Schultz and Me) is ****. (That's Four Derbies)

POODLE SCHNITZ!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Mr Bean (Rowan Atkinson) is in this world, but not of this world. His mind simply doesn't seem to comprehend things the way an average person would and his life is one long disaster because of this, getting himself into constant mishaps and far out, zany situations, which he is left to sort out on his own as he doesn't seem to mix with anyone and he rarely speaks. But he never gives up and, despite the simplest of tasks being a constant struggle for him, applying his own zany methods of solving the problem always pays off for him in the end.

To look at the sorry state of modern British humour, with all it's focus of sex and general vulgarity, you'd be forgiven for forgetting that a show like Mr Bean was made at one time. There's nothing unsuitable going on here, just good, clean U rated humour of the type Tommy Cooper and the like made in the 50s. And I find it just as laugh out loud funny now in my early 20s as I did when I was a young boy in the early 90s.

Although I can look at it a little deeper now and see there must be more to this character than than meets the eye. There must be a reason why he does things the way he does and things seem to keep going wrong for him. As others have noted, it looks like he may have a type of autism. In fact I'm so convinced about it that I really think were a professional psychologist to analyse him, I think Mr Bean could be the first famous, fictional character to be diagnosed with something like Asperger's Syndrome.

If you'd like to see some truly hilarious British humour at it's very best before it all became obsessed with sex and vulgarity, then this would come highly recommended. Shows like Little Britain do work because it's well realised but it's really just as vulgar as the rest. Shows like this show we were more restrained and civilised once, and hopefully we might start putting out this type of humour more again sometime soon. *****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mr Bean was great fun, i loved it, every episode was really funny, Rowan Atkinson was perfect for this role, he's a funny looking bloke and his facial expressions were hilarious!!!

The series was so successful that they even made a Mr Bean movie in 1997, which was also pretty funny by the way!!

It's funny seeing all the adventures and situations he gets himself into, this series was a classic for sure, and i still watch an episode from time to time.

Mr Bean is well worth a 10\/10 in my book, fans of offbeat comedy must check this out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Mr. Bean\", starring the legendary Rowan Atkinson, was a huge hit during its run in the 1990s, and I probably first saw it when I was around ten, shortly after it ended, so I was seeing reruns. I certainly wasn't much of a fan at the time, and didn't see too many episodes. I didn't really get into the show until my late teens, just a few years ago, which was when I finally watched every episode. Unlike before, it made me laugh many times, and since then, that has always been the case during repeat viewings of episodes!

Mr. Bean is a mysterious, self-centred, antisocial, extremely naive buffoon whose best friend is his Teddy! He is pretty much isolated from society, and life is not easy for him, as he constantly struggles with very simple things! This is because he lacks some fairly basic knowledge, and has the mind of a child. He finds himself in various kinds of trouble wherever he goes, and comes up with very bizarre ways to try and solve the problems he faces! Not only does he often cause trouble for himself, but sometimes for other people as well, which he often doesn't tend to realize! In other words, Mr. Bean is a walking disaster!

The humour in this show is very visual, and there is very little dialogue. The gags are almost always sight gags, which is mostly what the show is about. While there may be an occasional lacklustre gag, I would say the vast majority of them are funny, often hilarious, (there are so many highlights)! While \"Mr. Bean\" is certainly not the most sophisticated comedy ever made, it's still great for many of those who like visual humour, and due to the very limited dialogue, you don't even have to speak fluent English to enjoy the show, which is why it has received such a world-wide reputation! The show ran for a few years, but the episodes were made very gradually, so only fourteen were made in total. Nonetheless, it is a classic series, and deserves its wide appeal!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...the last time I laughed this much. It's a testament to the talent of Rowan Atkinson that he has managed to create a comic character with several layers and a clearly defined personality - without hardly ever speaking a word. The whole success of the program rests on Atkinson's shoulders, but he carries it with ease. Despite the fact that the show only ran for one season, anyone even vaguely in touch with pop culture recognizes the rubber-faced social 'tard, so great is the talent and effort put into the performance. At times exasperating, at times lovable, Mr Bean is an innocent, unlucky chap who also happens to be evil incarnate. The brilliance of this character cannot be put into words, you have to see for yourself.

The show gets almost too depressing at times, like in the infamous New Year's Eve sketch, or when Bean celebrates his birthday by going alone to a restaurant, offering himself a congratulatory card signed by himself, and being served a stake he doesn't quite fancy. Still, there are times when you can't help but feel impressed by the inventive methods by which Bean gets himself out of trouble, like when he disposes of said stake in numerous clever-ish ways, or when he changes into swimming trunks without taking his trousers off first! Whatever your reaction to Bean and his unorthodox lifestyle, you're bound to throw fits of laughter while watching.

Finally, I'd like to point out that although \"Bean\" is classified as a program for children, it is just as enjoyable for any grown-up with a sense of humour. Because the more \"adult\" jokes will go over the heads of the little ones and the intelligent slapstick (yes, there is such a thing) is funny no matter what age you are, \"Bean\" is the truest definition of a family show. This is justly a classic and it always brightens up my day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a wonderful family sitcom. Rowan Atkinson has appeared in to other excellent sitcoms, The Thin Blue Line (Better than this) and Blackadder (Not better than this).

Mr Bean is a no talking, human disaster. He goes to places and gets himself in absolute mayhem, the mayhem includes: Climbing up to the top diving board and is too frightened to jump off, taking about 20 minutes, until some kids eventually throw him off, ending up inside a washing machine and driving his car while sat on a roof. Bean drives a Mini and has a teddy.

This was quite similar to The Baldy Man, a series staring Gregor Fisher who says very little, but gets himself in mayhem Best Episode: Do it Yourself Mr Bean, Episode 9: Bean hosts a New Years Eve party, then gets some stuff for decorating his flat, but has too much stuff and has to drive his car on the roof.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rowan Atkinson's creation Mr.Bean has stood the test of time and will be forever etched upon the memory of those who viewed it.

Living alone and appearing not to have a job of any description Mr.Bean goes around doing day to day activities in a rather comedic fashion.The mistake prone Mr.Bean induces heartfelt laughter when put even in the most simplest situations.Though he barely spoke any coherent words his jovial actions more than made up for this.

Even when driving in his beloved Mini Mr.Bean still manages to cause inadvertent chaos.Not very much is known about his background but his ability to draw tears of laughter from the audience at his funny shenanigans is well known.

Before he found fame Nick Hancock can be seen in a couple of the episodes","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean ranks right up there with Laurel & Hardy, Buster Keaton, the Marx Brothers and other comedy greats. I have never seen people laugh out loud so heartily and literally fall out of their chairs as when I introduced them to Mr. Bean via my videos and now DVDs. I'll never forget the first time my brother saw him. He was over for a visit and I asked him if he'd ever seen Mr. Bean? \"Who?\" he said. So I got out my video and showed him the one where Mr. Bean is in church and starts to nod off. My brother laughed so hard he fell out of the chair and was holding his stomach from laughing so hard. He became an instant fan of Mr. Bean. We all know how hilarious these episodes are, but the fun is in sharing them with others. I have seen so many people laugh 'til it hurts! Favorite episodes are: the visit of the Queen, the Hotel room stay, late for the Dentist appointment, the Christmas episode (a classic...plus kids love it!) and the New Year Party. Rowan Atkinson is a comic genius!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rowan Atkinson delivers an unforgettable performance as the clueless Mr. Bean who never goes far without his Teddy Bear. The appeal of Mr. Bean is largely his childish behavior and innocence. We don't know if he came from the sky or another planet. He is the kind of strange character that you can't make up quite easily. He is often alone and used to it. He has a hard time communicating through speech which might be why we only hear his grunts at times. There are other characters who speak to him and he responds. The character of Mr. Bean is a mystery and still is. He lives alone and does the unthinkable when he can do the sensible thing. Mr. Bean is rather an odd man out who does not mind it much. He rather live a simple life with his yellow car and teddy bear and hopes to get to work on time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mr. Bean has always been my favorite. No matte how many times you watch the same thing, the show never gets monotonous or repetitive. Mr. Bean is one of the greatest comedians in the world who doesn't need to even speak to make people laugh. His gestures, his facial expressions and his face itself is so funny to watch. The situations which he faces on the show is simply hilarious and the way he handles them is even greater. There is simply no reason why this show shouldn't receive a 10 because it is fabulous. Its something that would even make the most serious or sad person in the universe laugh. Some of my all time favorites episodes from the show are: 1) When Mr. Bean lodges at a hotel 2) The one where he watches the scary film 3) Mind the baby ( The diaper scene especially). In fact, all the episodes are so good that it is really difficult to criticize the show. Mr.Bean can go to any heights to prove that he is funny, including completely stripping himself in one of the episodes. the way he handled that situation was simply mind blowing. 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mr. Bean has shaped the face of British TV comedy. He has proved that you do not need wicked words or wit, a massive budget, a great deal of intelligence or even any intelligence to make something brilliant. And Mr. Bean is one of those characters who you just can't forget. Some of these episodes had me in stitches - yes, they're not realistic at all and they're all pretty stupid, but to be honest, realism is one of the barriers Bean has broken on its way to greatness. Rowan Atkinson and co. always manage to cook up interesting new ideas - and hilarious new gags - remember when Mr. Bean drove his green Mini whilst sitting on a sofa on the roof? Mr. Bean is one of those things that never gets weak - the movie wasn't as good as this, but Bean has introduced a distinct new sense of humour to the world, and kids and adults alike will marvel at its immense fun factor. \"Extras\" and \"Little Britain\" can be damned - this is British comedy at its best and most original. These escapades never get old! 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This TV series is about a foolish and unconventional English gentleman who gets up to all sorts of merry mishaps.

I remember watching Mr Bean with my family back in 1990, when I was still a child. My family laughed so hard at every episode, and the contents of which still come up in our daily conversations twenty years later. The memorable scenes which are still in my head include Mr Bean attempting to get out of his car park, shooting out the lights, counting sheep, and him in the swimming pool. We bought all the Mr Bean videos on VHS, no mater how expensive they were. It was worth it because we watched them over and over again! It is so rare to see a very funny TV series that is suitable for all ages.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Because Mr. Bean almost never speaks, I heartily recommend using a DVD player with the teacher holding his finger over the pause\/play button. At the end of any age group's lesson, simply devote 5 minutes to pausing and playing the DVD, encouraging students to shout out the answers to \"What's this?\", \"What will happen?\", \"What's happening?\", \"What's wrong?\", or any other question that elicits responses from that lesson's new vocabulary and grammar.

Because everyone's looking at the TV, normally shy students become vocal. Because the DVD can be started or stopped at any point, it's a perfect \"filler\" for the awkward \"between\" times while students are leaving and arriving.

I tried other DVDs, notably \"Tom & Jerry\" cartoons and Red Skelton DVDs, but no others were as good as \"Mister Bean\" at holding students' constant attention.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 1990s was a great decade for British sitcom with many popular creations such as ONE FOOT IN THE GRAVE, ABSOLUTELY FABOULOUS THE THIN BLUE LINE, THE BRITTAS EMPIRE and MEN BEHAVING BADLY arriving onto TV screens for the first time.

However, MR. BEAN is, hands down, the greatest sitcom of the 1990s.

MR. BEAN represents the first major attempt at a throwback to the era of silent greats such as Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton for several decades. It brings to the audience a single character - Mr. Bean - played to perfection by Rowan Atkinson.

Many people who have commented on this page as well as on the message boards on this and other websites have engaged in debates about whether or not Mr. Bean has a mental disability or has significant learning difficulties arising from such a disability. However, I believe this debate is unnecessary because I highly doubt that the creators of this show expected anyone in the audience for a single moment to even consider Mr. Bean in such a context.

Mr. Bean is shown to be a character who seems to have very few friends, rarely speaks and chooses to solve problems by himself with no guidance from others. Some of his methods to approaching day-to-day tasks such as preparing lunch or going to the dentist are approached in a manner bizarre to anyone watching the show. This is where the humour derives from. Mr. Bean is not necessarily someone with a mental disability, he may just be an eccentric person accustomed to dealing with things his own way. And naturally some of his methods to completing a single task often result in disaster, which we then see Mr. Bean try to resolve.

Sometimes, we see Mr. Bean show a mean or petty streak, often trying to compete with those around him or play pranks on those least expecting it. But no real harm comes to anyone at the end of the day and outcomes are always reassuring.

Unlike most examples of British comedy in the past 30 years, MR. BEAN is simple, inoffensive, harmless U-rated entertainment suitable for everyone in the family to enjoy. It is for this reason why the TV series became a big hit in dozens of countries throughout the world. It is also why it will still be remembered in several decades from now when lots of other TV shows will have come, gone and been forgotten.

Some critics claim the show only appeals to children yet I laugh just as much at Mr. Bean's antics now as I did when I first saw the episodes as a kid in the 1990s. Rowan Atkinson has used his natural ability to create effective visual gags that seem just as funny on repeat viewings as they did the first time.

The TV series has to date spawned two spin-off movies, BEAN and MR. BEAN'S HOLIDAY. As one familiar with the type of humour shown in the TV series would expect, it does not translate to success on the big screen. The two movies do little justice to the TV series and fail to truly capture the magic of the episodes. The greatest failing in both movies perhaps resides in the change of setting. In both movies, the producers take Mr. Bean out of his normal British surroundings into America (the first movie) and France (the second movie). As a result, the movie characters around Mr. Bean respond differently to his behaviour than their TV series counterparts. Both movies re-use gags from the TV series, and the evidence shows that the gags were done right the first time. In the second movie, Mr. Bean is shown to be behaving out-of-character with some aspects of his personality exaggerated to the point where some gags seem dumb rather than funny. At various times, I found myself thinking that the character I was watching was not Mr. Bean but a pale caricature. It is clear that Rowan Atkinson was not enjoying himself as much as he did in the TV series. His heart just wasn't in the performance. After the second movie came out, he stated publicly that he would not play Mr. Bean again. I realise how he felt.

Returning to the TV series, each episode shows evidence of meticulous planning in terms of writing and execution in every single scene. Even the weakest episode is still highly enjoyable and well ahead of the two movies.

My favourite episodes are the first three - these set the high standard that was to continue. I consider the final episode to be the weakest but still hilarious nonetheless.

To summarise, MR. BEAN is a truly superb sitcom suitable for all the family. Rowan Atkinson is a true comic genius and the evidence is in the 14 episodes of this TV series. My recommendation - watch and enjoy. But only see the movies if you consider yourself a die-hard fan after seeing the TV series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favorite T.V shows of all time, Rowan Atkinson is simply a genius!, and it's only fitting that i chose this to be my 1000 review!. I can't begin to tell you how much i love Mr. Bean he's the man, and what amazes me, is how he gets out of these incredibly difficult situations, and he is always so creative,plus Robyn Driscoll also deserves accolades!, he is also a genius!. My favorite bit that he has done is the Amazing Adventures of Mr. Bean and while all the rest of them are amazing, this remains my true favorite, plus i wish the show didn't stop so soon!. Each episode is brilliantly written, and they were all masterfully directed, plus Each episode is a classic in my eyes!. This show is incredibly popular, and i can definitely see why, as it's quite possibly the funniest show ever. The character actors all played there roles really well, especially Robyn Driscoll and Matilda Ziegler (as Irma). This is one of my favorite T.V shows of all time Rowan Atkinso is simply put a genius and an incredibly talented comedian (possibly the best!), and it's only fitting that i chose this to be my 1000 review f you haven't seen this show , drop what your doing right now and go check it out, you will not regret it trust me it's one of the best T.V shows ever!,and i will continue to watch the show over and over again, i never tire of it!, Mr. Bean Rules!. ***** out of 5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There was once someone in my family (not saying who it is because of personal reasons) who thinks that Mr Bean is always so silly in whatever he does on the comedy series. Imagine how I felt at that time. Shocked instantly.

There are more reasons than one why I love watching Mr Bean. Being one of those earliest shows on the local television here in my country where I first grew up watching, it's just one of those things which had stuck into my head. There was even once my friends and I talked about few of the selected episodes and we just laughed together.

It's always silly, funny and hilarious in whatever antics Rowan Atkinson as Mr Bean will do in each episode. Though lately at times it may show some of the repeats here, it never failed to bring back those childhood memories of mine. In fact, I can dare say this is the very first show which introduces me about the kind of shows which come out of the UK as I was growing up.

The comedy series...definitely really wicked, as what the Brits may be saying.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I was younger, and today, Mr. Bean is a work of genius. Three-time BAFTA nominated Rowan Atkinson stars as the almost silent (miming) human looking alien dropped onto Earth causing chaos and mischief wherever he goes. He has tried to do an exam, put his pants on in front of blind man (he didn't know he was blind), gone to church, tried to dive at a swimming pool, made lunch on a park bench, seen a scary movie, changed in his car, had a picnic with a fly intruding, spent Christmas with his girlfriend (Matilda Ziegler), looked after a baby in Portsmouth, been to Room 426 of The Queens Hotel in Portsmouth, won a pet contest with his Teddy, driven on top of his Mini on a new chair, and even met and knocked out the Queen. Guests included Rudolph Walker, Richard Briers, Angus Deayton, Nick Hancock from They Think It's All Over, Caroline Quentin, The Day Today's David Schneider, Richard Wilson, The Fast Show's Eryl Maynard and The Vicar of Dibley's Roger Lloyd-Pack. It was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Comedy (Programme or Series) and Best Light Entertainment Programme. Rowan Atkinson was number 18 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 24 on The Comedians' Comedian, and he was number 8 on Britain's Favourite Comedian. Outstanding!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this movie way too much. My only problem is I thought the actor playing the villain was a low rent Michael Ironside. Of corse Ironside is just a low rent Jack Nicholson. I guess Mike was busy that year with \"Highlander 2: The Quickening\". Sadly \"Beastmaster 2\" would have been a much better career move. It is certainly the best of the Beastmaster series and in many ways reminiscent of that great big screen classic \"Masters of the Universe\". Not only does it star the incomparable Mark Singer it also features an amazing supporting cast, specifically the second girl from \"Sliders\", Uncle Phil from \"Fresh Prince of Belair\" and evil chick from \"Superman 2\". It rocked my world and is certainly a must see for anyone with no social or physical outlets. BEASTMASTER FOREVER!!! ROCK'N ROLL!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All the reviewers are making one big mistake. This movie was not suppose to be taken seriously.

It was made for kids and teens of the late 80ies or early 90ies and as such it was truly a film of it's time. If you hated that period, or love the first movie so much that you can't even take a joke about it, then this is garbage, but only because it wasn't meant for you. The low budget here and failure of the Beastmaster 1 at the box office (grossed under four mil. with a nine mil. budget) were obviously the reasons to drop the seriousness of the original and to put it in the present day. You can complain about the story, dialog or logic, but again this was made to run, not to win races. If the movie had tried to take itself seriously it would be a total failure, but it doesn't do that for a second (in \"our\" world, Dar sees a movie theater that's advertising The Beastmaster 2, enough said). To paraphrase Clint Eastwood from Dirty Harry movies: This movie knows it's limitations. It's more of a comedy\/parody then usual adventure. Soundtrack (for the time) was also great. Actors aren't taking themselves that seriously either so even the usually irritating \"spoiled rich brat\" role (played here very well by young Kari Wuhrer) turns out good.

So, if you are nostalgic for the 80ies\/90ies (cheese) culture, or you liked the first part, and don't mind going out on a cheese limb, you'll have tremendous fun with this attempt to revive Dar in the 90ies (literarly). This is not really the sequel to the first, and don't watch it if that's what you want. It's more of a \"what if\" fantasy sequel.

As for the \"why different dimension and not just different time\" question: When in history did we have those tall winged humanoid creatures that suck the flash of bones (from the end of part 1)? By the way, the movie ends in the Zoo because of an attempt at a cheap (moneywise) big finale. It's suppose to be the best place for Dar to show all his moves (him being the manipulator of animals).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A \"sleeper\". I had never even heard of this movie until I was channel jumping one night. I've been a police officer myself for 25 years and thought this was a true to life movie. Non-police critics are rating the movie purely from a critic's point of view and not from a police officer's point of view. This is real.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm rating this pretty high just because of Sam Elliott. I could've done without the female nudity but I'd sit through almost any nonsense in order to see Sam strut his stuff. He gets to spout wonderfully cynical witticisms, many of which I agree with, and it's a joy to see him in a role in which he actually gets to emote instead of just standing around scowling and looking virile as can be. My boyfriend opined that this movie is in a couple of ways similar to a film in which Ed Harris had a Hispanic partner (in the police sense of the term!) who was a little overeager to prove himself. You can draw your own conclusions on that score but if you like Sam, you'll like this. You could say I'm biased, but who isn't in some way? I'd buy this on DVD in a heartbeat!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the start you will like Sam Elliott's character (Falon) : a trustworthy cop that is notably loyal to his partner. But too loyal, and too revengeful when seeing his partner dead in an alley, cause he then kills who he thought to be the assailant before giving him a chance to explain. Falon is an alcoholic, and that tends to sway him from being in self control, though he manages to direct his attention towards finding who's really behind his partners death. He carries along a rookie as his new partner (which seems to be seen too often in films) but Esai Morales does well in accompanying Sam Elliot, though puzzling pieces begin to fit to where Morales begins a self-approved investigation towards Falon; he mainly wants to find the answers since Fallon isn't letting him in on the whole story, and does not like what he finds. There is not a last minute showing at who the bad detectives are, which is okay; and they are not able to sway Falon into joining them, leading to a dramatic ending. Fine acting all the way around, with a touch of humor from Paul Sorvino who is the captain of detectives. It's a good movie that will make you want to see it several times; so it qualifies as a -must see-, and a good addition to a movie collection! (Filmed in San Francisco)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sam Elliot is brilliant as a tough San Francisco Detective Charlie Fallon. When his partner is killed while meeting with an informant Fallon snaps, beats the informant to death, and dumps his body in a river. The next day Fallon is assigned a rookie partner, and given the task of investigating the informants murder. Sam Elliot does a good job of portraying a man who tortured by the guilt of his own murderous actions, and grief over the death of his partner who may have been involved in police corruption.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ah! When good actors take on bland material! If you are thinking of this movie as a tight police thriller you may be disappointed. While the situations are very true to life, the plot proceeds at a very predictable clip and you can pretty well see what lays ahead way before the actors take you there. Many of the criminals and secondary figures are really just stereotypes in motion. Much of the dialog is just plain silly.

But! If you love to see good actors rise above this kind of material and make something of it, then you will LOVE this movie! Sam Elliott is nothing short of brilliant in taking the one-note character of Detective Falon come alive with depth and pathos. Those of you who have never seen Elliott emote that much beyond his usual scowling stoic stances will be delighted at the range of emotion he depicts in this film. And also, in his early fifties in this film, he looks fantastic! His bare chest scene gives hope to middle aged men everywhere! Esai Morales does a wonderful job elevating his role as Det. Falon's eager beaver new police partner. He could have easily played it as a Robin to Elliott's Batman, but instead he breathed a genuineness and passion into this role. He makes it work despite some of the lame lines he is given to say.

Paul Sorvino is fun to watch! He plays the eccentric police captain. He seems to know he is slumming in this movie and is having a ball doing it. He makes it fun for us too.

This movie is very by-the-numbers in plot but makes up for it with great performances! Sam Elliott fans should definitely get this one as it is suck a kick to see him spread his wings and do so much more than he usually is allowed to do!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"**SPOILERS** Extremely brutal police drama set in San Francisco involving a sting operation that goes terribly wrong. A cop Det. Falon, Sam Elliott,mistakenly and savagely beats to death an undercover policeman Winch, Mike Watson,thinking that he murdered his partner Det. Sam Levinson, Mike Burstyn. A partner who unknowing to Falon was dirty.

Getting the lowdown that a group of policemen under his command are dealing drugs by knocking off drug dealers of their cocaine and heroin and then selling it back to them Captain Delgoti, Paul Sorvino, sets up a number of sting operations in his precinct with one of the cops targeted being Det. Levinson. Levinson's partner Det. Falon who's as honest as the day is long has no idea of Levinson's corruption. When Det. Falon find's his partner Det. Levinson stabbed to death outside a bar, were they were at drinking the night away, he goes nuts and attacks and beats to death the man on the scene Winch. Winch who was not responsible for Levinson's murder was in fact there to get him to turn and gives up the names of his fellow drug-dealing corrupt cops.

With the help of striper and girlfriend Sally, Mimi Craven, Falon has Winch's body put in a car and drives down to the docks dumping it in San Francisco Bay feeling that the \"cop killer\" got just what he deserved. What Falon doesn't know is that the two cops later put on the case of Leinson's murder Holloway & Orlanski, Dan Lauria & Richard Gilliland, were the one's who murdered him.

It's not until much later that Falon realizes that his partner was dirty when he was assigned together with rookie detective Michael Murrow, Esai Morales, on the Winch case and tries to cover-up his involvement in Winch's death. Falon's new partner senses that he's anything but interested in finding Winch's killer and slowly puts two and two together.

The two dirty cops, Holloway & Orlaski, trying to cover up their role in both Levinson murder, whom they killed fearing that he's about to turn evidence on them, as well as their drug dealings. The two crooked cops set up ex-con Jerome Johnson, Perry Moore, by breaking into his apartment and planting drugs there and then, to make it look like a drug hit, brutally murdering him and his wife! This happens right in front of the couples two year old son in one of the most shocking and sickening murders scenes ever put in a movie.

Not satisfied with killing Levinson and Johnson, together with his wife, Holloway and Orlanski get to Falon's girlfriend Sally, who was a junkie and being supplied with her drugs by the late Det. Levinson. The two corrupt cops stick a needle in Sally's arm forcing her to overdose not realizing, by sticking the needle in her left arm, that she's left-handed! Which would make it physically impossible and which also alerts Falon, who finds her body, that Sally was in fact murdered and didn't kill herself voluntary or by accident.

Falon begins to come to his senses when he's later approached at his old watering hole by Holloway and Orlanski and asked to join them in their drug dealing operation. Falon angrily refuses but now he knows that like his partner the late Sam Levinson that he knows too much and is now a marked man.

Meanwhile Det. Murrow, now a lot smarter and wiser, by getting to know what his partner Falon is all about confronts Falon about Winch's death only to get knocked out and cuffed to a sink at the bar that Falon was at. With Falon now smashed from his drinking, but with a full head of steam, goes outside to meet Holloway and Orlanski knowing that no matter what happens he'll end up on the losing end.

Tough and uncompromising movie about police corruption with Sam Elliott as the old veteran who thinks he's seen and knows everything about crime and police work but has a lot to learn. Still he overlooks his partners Det. Levinson, whom he worked with for 20 years, secret life as a drug dealer that not only leads to him murdering an innocent man but ending up being killed himself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It has to be said that this film is definitely one of the better \"bargain bin\" movies out there - I'd feel a bit cheated if I had paid \u00a315 for it, but at about \u00a31.50 I felt that I definitely got more than my monies worth.

The film can't quite decide if it wants to be \"Mad Max\" or one of the Clint Eastwood \"man with no name\" spaghetti westerns, and as such is stacked with clich\u00e9s from both. Even the manic loony who hangs out with the bad guys in \"Mad Max\" is there.

That guy from \"Blade Runner\" also cops a good billing, although he only turns up at the beginning and the end of the movie.

Favourite bit - for me the punch-up on top of the oil refinery - if you look closely you can see the \"post-apocalyptic\" rush hour traffic thundering past in the distance as the two protagonists knock seven bells out of each other.

Get several lagers in, a few pizzas and sit back and enjoy what is ultimately lightweight but entertaining drivel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ok, when I rented this several years ago I had the worst expectations. Yes, the acting isn't great, and the picture itself looks dated, but as I sat there, a strange thing happened. I started to like it. The action is great and there are few scenes that make you jump. Brion James, maybe one of the greatest B-grade actors next to Bruce Campbell, is great as always. The story isn't bad either. Now I wouldn't rush out and buy it, but you won't waste your time at least watching this good b-grade post apocalyptic western.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I saw that yesterday and It was much better than the other making-off from VH1, too bad than this one it's pretty outdated but you get to see all the staff who makes south park, very interesting stuff.

It's also funny than this documentary portrays Trey and Matt like selfish greedy snobs creators who doesn't work and spend all the time having fun or relaxing (which is kinda ironic because they work pretty hard on the show).

It also shows all the animation process to make a south park episode, interview with the actors who brings character's voices and much more.

If you're a fan of south park I highly recommend you this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park, finally get out of their grueling schedule to talk to the cameras while sipping champagne in their hot tub. At first, when watching this, I did not sense as much sarcasm as there was in this. I knew they were joking when they would complain about different actors on the show and when Trey said he wasn't going to give his mother any of his money, but there is so much sarcasm throughout, that this documentary, is more of a mockumentary full of inside jokes.

This \"documentary\" shows everything about South Park (up until the second season anyways). It shows what goes on behind the scenes with the animation and the recording. It has interviews, many of which are fake interviews, but some, amongst all the fabrications, give insight into the show. Clips from both of Trey Parker's Spirit of Christmas shorts are shown, as are many good clips from the show. If you were a South Park fan, then this should have quenched your thirst for show knowledge back in late 1998 when this was made. Now, obviously the show has changed, but this is still interesting.

What we have here is an amusing documentary where Trey Parker (especially) and Matt Stone come off as arrogant jerks, and that's exactly what they wanted to come off as. They may be this way in real life, but here it was a joke, a 51 minute long insightful joke.

My rating: *** out of ****. 51 mins. Not rated, contains Language and Sexual Content.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Going' Down To South Park is a 1hr long documentary about South Park with interviews with Trey Parker and Matt STone and all the other people who work on South Park.There really isn't much to say, it shows the history of South Park and what it takes to make one episode.It is basically a behind the scenes of the show. It shows the different merchandise that south park has made(it was really comedy central who put it out). It also shows the controversy which was caused by South Park.It shows plenty of funny clips from the show as well.It's a fairly funny documentary.Any fan of South Park should check this out.You can find it on youtube.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This British documentary was recently shown on Comedy Central during their \"Best of\u0085\" week and can also be seen on South Park's second season DVD. I remember seeing many commercials for the DVD showing clips of this documentary, most of which occurs with Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and some other guy in a hot tub. It was funny when I saw it in the commercials, but I was used to seeing it by the time I saw the actual documentary.

Overall, \"Goin' Down to South Park\" is a fairly funny and interesting look at how South Park episodes are made and of the series' history going back to when Matt and Trey came up with the idea in college. However, there was something about the tone of this documentary that actually felt sort of depressing. It's not as fast-paced, rapid-fire, and as lively as the actual South Park episodes. Instead, it kind of has a slow, dry-wit style, which at times can be funny, but most of the time you're just waiting for something to happen. If you get the chance to watch it, by all means go for it, but I don't think you're really missing much if you never see it.

My IMDb Rating: 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a very beautiful and slow film. There is nothing Hollywood about it. It is very danish and the characters are very real. It is the first danish film to take up this transsexual theme. It is really about love that has no gender. I would not say it is about lesbian love even though the two main characters (the transsexual veronika and Charlotte) are attracted to each other. It is a story about love and life.

The story pretty much takes place in the two apartments. There is almost no background music, which makes it seem more real and intense. The two actors playing the main characters are great. They really make them seem real. They are not archetypes, but real people you could meet in the street. I think it is the first time I have seen a transsexual portrayed this well. Very well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A strange relationship between a middle-aged woman and a transsexual who gonna be a woman soon. Charlotte and Venorica, both trapped by their inanimate lives and don't know how to get out of them. Charlotte is an owner of a beauty clinic, she has broken up with her aggressive ex-husband, moved into an apartment alone with all the furniture packed except her big bed. Veronica lives downstairs with her poor dog, She's sensitive and desperately bothered by her mother's visiting and the bad relationship with her dad. Her only hope is that the upcoming transsexual operation will turn her into a real woman and then everything will be fine. All she can do now is waiting for an approval certificate.

Then these two individuals meet by chance and gradually they are all involved into other's lives, there are some sparkles between them, but no one is brave enough to face the truth because they are not willing to accept the change as most people do. Eventually the ending is quite satisfying and leaves some imagination for us to think about it.

The director's great work gives me an great impression, she handles the development of characters very well, the emotional atmosphere is quite full and intense. Also I am so obsessed with the gloomy lights all over the apartment, Delphic but full of desire.

Two main characters are played by Trine Dyrholm and David Dencik, they are amazing in their roles, a very impressive performance and the chemical reaction between them is genuine and convincing.

This Swedish indie film is about encountering and change, no matter you're homosexual or heterosexual, male or female, the oddness of life exists everywhere, whenever you fall across it, you'll be hesitate and bewildered, but at least don't be afraid, follow your heart and choose the right way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Soap is an interesting movie and very brilliant at parts. You must watch it for its strong characterisation and the risks the plot about two troubled individuals falling in love takes. You must know the story through various other reviews, so lets speak about what is brilliant about this movie.

Firstly, the two protagonists are so real and such intriguing personalities. The first being a woman who has opted out of a four year relationship and is angry enough to sleep with anyone coming her way. The second being a man who has always wanted to be a woman, whose pain and loneliness is shown with so much sensitivity and brilliance. You hate the former and your heart bleeds for the latter.

The second thing about this movie is the entire concept of loving one for who one is, irrespective of gender. So, would you still love your partner if he\/she were to change his\/her sex? The movie explores that idea and it is a beautiful one.

But there is one point where the movie fails. I wish the relationship between the protagonists had developed in a better way. That what they feel is love doesn't come across till the end. But watch it, and post your thoughts on it here.......","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first episode of 'Man to Man with Dean Learner' that just aired was at least up to scratch with most episodes of 'Garth Marenghi's Darkplace' and had me at \"My Maisonette\". Hope it keeps up the good work of 'faux terribles' on my TV. Richard Ayoade is one of the best in the new breed of \"alternative comedy\"(I hate this phrase but am too lazy too think of another one.) comedians on TV today.I'm glad that on a trip of local DVD retailers today \"Garth Marenghi's Darkplace\" was sold out across the board. Even from his brief stint in Nathan Barley I knew that Ayoade was a serious talent and I'm sure he would have been great as Dixon Bainbridge in 'The Mighty Boosh' To continued success! In the vein of these programs I also felt it necessary to extend my review, in order to secure a place on this public domain.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After the highs of darkplace it was never conceivable that Holness and Adobye would be able to create anything half as good as garth marengi. Yet i think that man to man in its own right is as good a show (on the good episodes) as darkplace. i cant argue that 2 of the episodes really are'nt that good but the other 4 certainly make up for it. if i had to pick 2 great episodes id go for formula4 driver Steve Pising (pronounced Pissing) and the great Garth Marengi. to already have a bit of understanding of the programme is a real plus as Dean Learner makes many inside jokes but even if you have'nt seen much Dean id recommend this as some of the rants he launches into are genius ie. His argument with Def Lepord over their name. All in All a great show which just misses full marks because of the couple of less funny episodes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A spin off comedy talk show from the creators of 'Garth Marenghi's Darkplace' The new series, Man to Man with Dean Learner, focuses on Garth's manager, publisher and publicity agent, as played by Richard Ayoade.

Nightclub owner, restaurateur, publisher, international playboy - Dean Learner is a one-man brand.

After his co-funded Channel 4 television hit Garth Marenghi's Darkplace he now invites you into his luxury penthouse flat for an all-new, entertaining and immensely stylish TV talk show.

Man to Man with Dean Learner will feature all Dean's remaining celebrity friends, as well as plenty of live music and fine fish-dish cuisine in a show that reeks of class - but not fish!

I attended two of the live recordings and it had me in stitches. There are distinct comparisons to Alan Partridge's 'Knowing me Knowing you' in the layout but Richard Ayoade and Matt Holness's unique writing style take it to another level.

If your a fan of Darkplace then you can't miss it. Catch it when its aired late this summer","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very strange series with Dean Learner. I really didn't understand the guests. I knew they weren't serious but whether they were really them was unclear because...i guess i'm just that stupid. I don't know if this classes as a spoiler but the guests aren't real like in Ali g or anything they're played by one man or so i believe. I love the serious look that he's got going on. Its like that programme that was on on a Sunday morning that i forget the name of lol. I also really like the suit and moustache thing he has got going on. Its quite hot. He's insensitive which is one of the funniest qualities. I also like the way he has subsections of the programme. It makes it seem more authentic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are only a few movies which can be called `must see' and SHEPHERED is one of those films. In many ways it was ahead of it's time (and you can tell it was a source of inspiration for several better-known films) Copied by many, equaled by none, this truly is one great movie.

The story is complex but unfolds itself as a taut yet frequently amusing thriller and highly thought provoking exploration of the nature of humanity. The story takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where people must live underground and chaos reigns. C. Thomas Howell is a `Shepherd' one who protects the populace for various religious leaders by killing off any unfit members of the society. The whole idea made me think about our society. It's really a brilliant social commentary, which is more than I can say for certain recent sci-fi\/action blockbusters. MATRIX RELOADED and REVOLUTIONS didn't make one feel that any real innovation was taking place, just dull video-game effects. But SHEPHERD scores on the action scale too...

Not once does this movie let the viewer catch their breath. Peter Hayman proves himself to be one of the few genius action directors. We're talking 100%, high grade, down home kung fu fighting! It was excellent. Really good special effects, shoot-outs, bleak-futuristic cyber-punk noir style\u0085 the film really has its own elements.

When talking about SHEPHERD, it's impossible not to mention how much style it has. The vision of this city is really stunning. It recalls images of Tim Burton's very memorable vision of Gotham in BATMAN. And these sights are photographed by Graeme Mears with a degree of skill that puts Gordon Willis and Conrad Hall to shame. Even the special effects proved amazing. Doubtless the scenes where fighting occurs are landmarks in all of filmmaking. This movie is a ballet of awesome visual display.

Still, at the base of it all, there lies an interesting story, carried through by a strong cast. The acting (especially Rowdy Piper) and the plot are both great, and excellently directed. In contrast with loads of futuristic films made with a strong artificial flavor, the characters are believable and the dialogue is natural and full of wit. I'm always proud to see a great film like SHEPHERD come along. It's a damn shame that it didn't receive good distribution and made nothing in the box office. It's a rarity worth searching for. This movie will impress you and make you feel 10 times cooler for having seen it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A group of teens that have broken into a huge department store, are attacked by a crazed police man. Exciting and suspenseful throughout and refreshingly devoid of extreme violence and gore, but those Aussie hairstyles and accents are a bit much to take. And they can induce headaches. But this is still a good thriller. 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We have moved far beyond this tentative foray into a forbidden area-drug addiction-for the 1950s. As such, the film may seem dated. The Man with the Golden Arm served its function is peeling back a layer of the underside of society, an eye-opener to a Southern country boy in 1955 when I first viewed this film in the theater. After some serious consideration about being too young, I was allowed to go. It was powerful and affecting then and still maintains some sharp, painful moments of the soul stripped naked. As a movie depicting the loneliness at the core of being, it succeeds.

Filled with angst, Frank Sinatra, in his best role, creates a vulnerability that makes him sympathetic to the viewer. He conveys his helplessness and ineffectualness in a beautifully restrained performance. As a voice of common sense in the dead-end urban jungle, Kim Novak as Molly is quite good. She is compassionate and yet stands on solid ground. The interaction between Sinatra and Novak is really good. Darren McGavin plays a slimy character and does it very well. Eleanor Parker is superbly irritating and painfully insecure in her role of the pathetic Zosch, the crippled wife of Sinatra. Arnold Stang is another unlikely survivor of the street. Regarded as pitiful and despicable, his character Sparrow provides tart comedic moments.

The music is almost the star of this film-brooding, frenetic, moody, poignant. Elmer Bernstein's score perfectly accentuates the tensions of Frankie Machine's spiritual weakness and physical need for heroin. Molly's theme is bittersweet and captures aurally what the film depicts visually. I know of no other soundtrack that effectively complements the tension and defeat within a man as effectively as does this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Mild Spoilers) Frankie Machine had been dealt a bad hand in life. A card dealer at an illegal gambling den in his Chicago neighborhood he was busted when the joint was raided by the cops and given six months in jail.

While behind bars Frankie was treated for his heroin addiction at the prisons hospital and learned how to play the drums as part of his rehabilitation program. Now out of prison and back in his old neighborhood Frankie is trying to put his life back together by getting a union card in the Musicians Union and then a job as a drummer in a band and put his old life behind him but instead it catches up with Frankie in no time at all in \"The Man with the Golden Arm\".

Otto Preminger's ground-breaking 1955 film about heroin addiction with Frank Sinatra giving the performance of his life as the drug addicted card sharp Frankie Machine, the Man with the Golden Arm. Frankie tries to getaway from the life that he lead but has this monkey or, better yet, gorilla on his back that just won't let him. Soild performances by the entire supporting cast starting with Frankie's friend Sparrow, Arnold Stang. Sparrows attempt to get Frankie back on his feet by shoplifting a suit of clothes for him ends up putting him and Frankie in the slammer, and almost back to prison, until his former boss at the gambling den Schwiefka bailed him out.

There's Frankie's psychically as well as emotionally crippled wife Zosch, Eleanor Parker, who sees that her hold on Frankie is slipping and is slowly driven to madness murder and suicide. There's Frankie's drug dealer Louie, with Darren McGavin in one of his first acting roles, who's hold on Frankie is only good as long as he stays addicted and Louie goes out of his way to make sure that he does.

There's the owner of the gambling joint that Frankie works at as it's top card dealer Schwiefka, Robert Strauss, who like Louie goes out of his way to get Frankie back to work for him even though if he's arrested again Frankie's hopes for a new and better life will go down the drain. And then there's Frankie's next-door neighbor and friend Molly, Kim Novak,who goes to almost impossible lengths to get him over his addiction by locking him up in her apartment. It's there that he goes \"Cold Turkey\" and almost ends up dying trying to kick the habit in one of the most harrowing sequence ever put on film.

A no holds barred movie with explosive performances by everyone involved makes \"The Man with the Golden Arm\" one of the great classics of realism in motion pictures coming out of the 1950's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Man With a Golden Arm was one of a trio of great films around that same time that dealt with drug addiction. The other two were Monkey On My Back and A Hatful of Rain. But I think of the three this one is the best.

Maybe if Otto Preminger had shot the thing in the real Chicago instead of those obvious studio sets the film might have been better yet. Who knows, maybe Preminger couldn't get enough money to pay for the location. It's the only flaw I find in the film.

Frank Sinatra is a heroin addicted card dealer who was busted for covering for his boss Robert Strauss when the game was raided. He took the cure while in jail and wants a new life as a jazz drummer. But a whole lot of people are conspiring against him.

First Bob Strauss who wants him back dealing, especially because a couple of heavyweight gamblers are in town. He uses a few underhanded methods to get Sinatra's services back. Secondly Darren McGavin is the local dope dealer who wants Sinatra good and hooked as a customer again. And finally Eleanor Parker his clinging wife who's working a con game to beat all, just to keep him around.

Frank Sinatra got a nomination for Best Actor for this film, but lost to Ernest Borgnine in Marty. Sinatra might have won for this one if he hadn't won for From Here to Eternity in the Supporting Actor category a few years back and that Marty was such an acclaimed film in that year. His scenes going through withdrawal locked up in Kim Novak's apartment will leave you shaken.

Eleanor Parker does not get enough credit for her role. She's really something as the crazy scheming wife who wants Sinatra tied to her no matter what the cost. If she had not been nominated that same year for Interrupted Melody, she might have been nominated for this. 1955 marked the high point of her career.

Darren McGavin got his first real notice as the very serpentine drug peddler. His performance is guaranteed to make your flesh crawl.

Elmer Bernstein contributed a great jazz score to accentuate the general dinginess of the bleak Chicago neighborhood the characters live in. Not a place you'd want to bring up your family.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Frank Sinatra did so many excellent things in the world of entertainment that it's hard to single one out as the best. If I had to name the best thing he ever did, though, it would be his performance as Frankie Machine, the heroin- addicted musician and poker dealer who is saved, just barely, by the love of a good woman (played by an exceptionally babelicious Kim Novak). The \"cold-turkey\" scenes between Sinatra and Novak are terrifying and heartbreaking. The movie is very nearly perfect, in fact, from Saul Bass's title graphics to the ground-breaking jazz score by Elmer Bernstein. It might not be the sort of thing anyone thinks of in regard to the 1950s, but it's a must-see nevertheless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've always enjoyed Frank Sinatra's music, and just recently I wrote a term paper about his life story. I've been fascinated by the life and legend of Ol' Blue Eyes. However, I've never seen any of his movies. So I wanted to see if his acting was as great as his singing. Well...it was! I was blown away by his performance in this movie! He really does a tremendous job as recovering heroin addict Frankie Machine, who's trying to put his life back together and audition as a drummer for a local band.

Otto Preminger's direction is great as well. I haven't seen any of his other movies. I read his biography on the IMDB. He seems like one of those directors who was sorely misunderstood, and people had conflicted thoughts about him. Seems like the kind of person who appeals most to cult enthusiasts. I haven't seen enough of his films to know for sure if he's really brilliant, but now I'm curious. I want to see more of his films, because judging by his attempt with \"The Man with the Golden Arm\" this guy has talent. I also loved the music for this movie. The score definitely contains the kind of music that I'll remember if I ever happen to hear it again. That's when you know you have a great score.

The supporting performances are fine as well, including Darren McGavin as the local drug pusher, Eleanor Parker as Frankie's wheelchair-bound wife and Kim Novak as his lover.

It's interesting to see how filmmakers handled the subject of drug abuse, as opposed to modern attempts in films like \"Trainspotting\" and \"Requiem for a Dream.\" Back in 1955, just mentioning the word \"drugs\" caused controversy, and if you watch the film they kept the subject on a very discreet level. There's only one scene where Frankie is actually getting heroin injected into his arm, and they showed a close-up of the reaction of his face rather than showing the needle graphically poking into his veins. But it delivered its message without making it feel watered-down. In a powerful drama like this, with powerful performances and direction like this, you don't need graphic portrayals of drug abuse to keep the audience intrigued.

\"The Man with the Golden Arm\" is a dramatic gem that all film buffs should check out. It really is an amazing piece of work!

My score: 8 (out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is easily one of the best movies of the 1950s. Otto Preminger directed only four or five really good movies and this is one of them. Frank Sinatra gives his best performance and the music score by Elmer Bernstein is dynamite. From the opening titles (by Saul Bass) to the hysteria of drug addict Frank going cold turkey, this is a riveting movie! With Kim Novak (giving a very good performance), Eleanor Parker (giving a very bad performance) as well as Darren McGavin as the reptilian pusher and Arnold Stang as Frank's grifter pal. Beware of bad prints: this movie is in the public domain so some copies are pretty rough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Otto Preminger's \"The Man with the Golden Arm\" is a reference to heroin addiction - something that must have been rather risky to film back in 1955, fifty years ago (the censors today STILL have a problem with drug content in films!).

The lead role was originally offered to Marlon Brando, then snatched by Frank Sinatra before Brando could respond. Sinatra convincingly portrays a pro card dealer and ex-heroin addict who returns home to the city only to find himself battling the demons of temptation.

Preminger is one of my favorite directors (his \"Anatomy of a Murder\" starring James Stewart is a brilliant and revolutionary courtroom drama). Preminger pretty much helped change the face of cinema back in the '50s - \"Anatomy of a Murder\" was extremely controversial when it came out due to both its plot and content (references to rape, women's \"panties,\" seduction, etc.) and \"The Man with the Golden Arm\" deals with a topic that is equally volatile.

However, Preminger pulls it off without becoming exploitative. This is like a forerunner to \"The Panic in Needle Park\" (1971) and bears more than a few similarities in terms of general motifs to the classic Billy Wilder movie \"Lost Weekend,\" starring Ray Milland. These three films in particular are probably the best movies about alcoholism predating the 1980s and still remain relevant today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rather than go on location and make a realistic film about drug addiction in the Windy City, contrarian director Otto Preminger decided to go the opposite way and make his movie appear as artificial as possible, thus flying in the face of the fashion set by men like Kazan, Huston and Zinnemann, who were making their pictures all over the world. Nelson Algren, on whose novel the movie is based, went on record as despising it. What, one wonders, was Preminger up to, and why did he do the movie this way?

The sets in the film are so minimal as to suggest a Mr. Magoo cartoon. Louie, the drug pusher, is attired as to resemble the sort of gangster the artists at Mad magazine used to draw. Arnold Stang, wonderful comedian that he was, seems out of place in a serious picture like this, and his very appearance, topped off by an exaggerated and over-sized baseball cap, elicits laughter. Robert Strauss, another actor best known for humorous roles, is likewise out of place, as his large, heavily jowled face and Runyonesque delivery of lines seems more appropriate to a Jerry Lewis movie. Against all this, stars Frank Sinatra, Kim Novak and Eleanor Parker have to work overtime to just keep the viewer from snickering. Sinatra is jittery and manic throughout, suggesting a man ill at ease with himself, hence wholly appropriate for the role of a drug addict. Miss Novak, plant-like and sublimely deadpan, is sympathetic and seems a product of the artfully dingy slums she graces in the film. Parker is pure Hollywood and very hard-working as the crippled and crafty Zosch. She is never convincing, but then neither is the film.

I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone interested in a realistic depiction of the lives of drug addicts in America. The Caligari sets alone make it unbelievable. Preminger may have been aiming for a dream effect, as the cardboard backgrounds give the proceedings the surreal feeling of a nightmare operetta, perhaps harking back to Preminger's early days in Vienna.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am fifteen years old and have seen thirty-three of Sinatra's films (not counting videos of TV shows and documentaries) and have been unimpressed by only two of them. ''Till the Clouds Roll By,\" and \"The Miracle of the Bells\" don't really count, however, considering that in the first all he does is sing a magnificent \"Ol' Man River,\" and in the latter he's not half bad-only the picture is pathetic. My favorite records, radio shows, TV shows, and movies concerning Sinatra change virtually every day-everything taking on a different connotation at each viewing and occasionally seeming the best thing he ever did and occasionally the worst until the cycle comes around again, but there are a couple things that are beyond comparison. When it comes to movies, \"The Man with the Golden Arm\" heads that list. Everybody who knows anything about Sinatra knows he thought this was his best-ever performance; he was Oscar-nominated; it was the first serious look at drug addiction; etc.,etc. The jazz score is unforgettable, Kim Novak's likable despite a ludicrous accent, Eleanor Parker is annoying and waaaay too dramatic, the turtle-like Arnold Stang is amusing the first time but more embarrassing every time out, and Darren McGavin makes a wonderfully slimy drug dealer, the sets are unconvincing - at first glance it seems a peculiar mixed bag tossed together by the great Otto Preminger with an off-center charm.

Then you come to Sinatra. Like everything else in his life - other than music - reports of his acting are alway divided in half. Directors like Fred Zinnemann, Frank Capra, Billy Wilder, Stanley Kramer, Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich, and Otto Preminger, all agreed that had Sinatra worked as hard on his films as he did on singing, he'd have been among the greatest actors in the world - if not THE greatest. Humphrey Bogart even said,\"This guy has the most natural acting talent I've ever seen.\" Not bad for a man who never took an acting lesson in his life, was at the same time producing the discography that would make him \"the greatest singer of the 20th Century,\" and did almost all his scenes in one take.

In direct conflict with all of this are those other reviews and biographies that sniff haughtily about what a lousy actor was this Mr.Sinatra, and how many \"bad\" movies he made. The question will never be answered to everyone's satisfaction because controversy was among Sinatra's greatest assets, and both arguments were in a sense playing into his hand. In any case, at this time, in this role, Sinatra is magnificent. A reviewer said in the late fifties,\"Sinatra may not be the greatest actor in the world, but there is none more fascinating to watch.\" No matter what Sinatra is doing in a film, it's hard to take your eyes off him. This, of course, is a \"charisma,\" that I've only seen in a handful of other people-Orson Welles, Richard Burton, Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift-perhaps James Cagney. There's no real definition for it and it often makes it hard to figure out whether you're really enjoying a performance or just spellbound, but that quality on display here is what makes the movie. Sinatra is downright riveting, real, intense - transcending decades and thousands of paper-doll pop stars with something called quality. Like it or not, this is a one-man show with a few character actors hanging around in the background. He covers every emotion with remarkable subtlety, from sweet, lonely tenderness with Kim Novak to the terrifying shock of Frank Sinatra (Frank Sinatra!) whimpering and screaming in the agony of \"cold turkey.\" Sinatra was right - this is his best performance. No question.

I was eight when Frank Sinatra died. I wasn't around for all the years of bobby-soxers and ''Anchors Aweigh,'' Mr. Ava Gardner and ''From Here to Eternity,\" albums with lamp posts and ''swingin' lovers,\" Kennedy, Vegas, ring-a- ding ding. Basie and Mia and Reagan and concerts from Madison Square Garden to South Africa to the White House to the Sands. I can't say I like Sinatra because I heard him at the Paramount or because I hear \"September of My Years\" autobiographically-the usual excuses. And my excuse? When I was eleven I watched a movie called \"On the Town\"...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have never been as surprised by a film that was this old. Only \"The Treasure of the Sierra Madre\" holds up this well, performance-wise. As someone that has seen heroin addiction first-hand, I was shocked at how realistic this film was. Frank Sinatra's performance is completely uncompromising, realistic, and heart wrenching. Otto Preminger's direction is perfect for the film, with long takes and a very mobile camera.

Kim Novak's performance is good, as is Eleanor Parker's. In fact, the entire supporting cast works very well, with understated performances, as befitting this film's style. The documentary style is part of what keeps this film up to date. Highly recommended.

8.0 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Frank Sinatra took this role, chewed it up with the rest of the scenery and - spat it out HIS way. TMWTGA is stagey, the ending is trite, some of the scenes need a little more cutting, but that's all. It's great entertainment from start to finish, and while you watch it you realise that Sinatra, that long-dead MOR crooner, had junkies, gangster card games and the whole US urban hustle thing in his blood - he didn't learn it from an acting coach. There are all sorts of directorial touches to keep you amused, and the (non-dated) soundtrack cooks all the way. The marathon card game beat Goodfellas, Sopranos, etc. by forty years! So it wasn't faithful to the book? What movie is? And I can't imagine it being remembered if Brando had been let loose on it; the cold turkey scenes would have been embarrassing, instead of edgy, convincing and moving with Sinatra. No-one else has mentioned the seedy, lazy, cynical cops - absolutely spot on! And Eleanor Parker would have driven *me* to smack.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like your films to pull your emotions out of you, if you like your films with a guy you can root for, and relate to, if you like your films in black and white, you gotta see this film! Watch it from start to finish, because you don't want to miss a beat. It is sometimes slow, and it makes you wonder when something is going to happen, then when the plot begins to unfold, you will be on the edge of your seat! I know I was! My Mother told me about this film as our family had some of the same things going on in it as the film does. We loved Frankie, who plays the lead convincingly. What ever you think about Frank Sinatra, put that aside, in the film, he is skinny and he doesn't sing, so keep an open mind. For the era it was made in, it tells a story that is still being told today in homes all across the nation, and quite possibly the world. Please watch, if you like older films, give this one a try.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Frank Sinatra has one of his best roles as a reformed heroin addict coming back to his Chicago neighborhood after an extensive stay in a clinic. He plans to stay off the drug and find work as a drummer, but he can't avoid running into his old friends. He had been arrested originally not for any drug-related charge, but because he was caught dealing in an illegal poker game. His skill at poker has earned him the nickname of The Man with the Golden Arm, and the men who run the game, one of them being his former heroin connection, want him to deal again. Meanwhile, Frank has to take care of a woman whom he injured in a car accident, Zosch (Eleanor Parker), and make up with his old girlfriend, Molly (Kim Novak). The film is great at putting us in Sinatra's mental state. When he feels sure of himself at the beginning of the film, I felt good for him. But, when a promised phone call doesn't come one day, he descends into depression and goes back on the smack. Later, when he finally gets to audition, he arrives completely strung out. His embarrassment when he can't play the correct beat is devastating. He had such big dreams, and the other musicians don't even pay him a bit of attention as he rushes out of the room. The film moves quickly and it shows Frank's drug problem in a realistic light without turning into a social message picture. The actors are uniformly fine. Elmer Bernstein's score is one of the best of its time. The only thing I don't like about the film is the ending.

SPOILERS

Although I really like the character of Zosch and Parker is very good in the film, they could have done a little more to fill in her backstory. The ending is a little too pat. While there is surely pathos that will remain with the characters after the film closes, Zosch's death ties up all the loose ends a bit too neatly. Frank is free to love Molly and he won't go to jail. Also, his dealer is dead, so at least the immediate threat is gone. Well, I guess in Hollywood there's always a desire to tie everything up in a neat little package. It harms the film a little, but, as it stands, it's still one of the best and most adult movies about drug addiction I can think of. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Otto Preminger was one of the great maverick film directors.Like John Huston he was a character from one of his own movies,like Mr Huston he was a wonderful ham who slipped in and out of performance at random but the final product of his labours was unmistakably his own. With a few exceptions films are now made by corporations,not individuals,and as a result are usually highly-polished \"packages\",a product in much the same way as a golf ball,a tin of dog food or a motor car is a product.The involvement of human beings in the process is almost incidental.Such is the appetite for the product that there appears no end to the line of well-finished,glossy,superficially entertaining but ultimately empty films that flood the countless TV channels and movie outlets.There is no time for a man like Mr Preminger to stand a little apart from the torrent of \"product\" and craft a personal work of art. Of course there has always been the \"Art for art's sake - money for Christ's sake\" ethos in film-making,but now \"Ars Gratia Artis\" has,in all but name ,been consigned to history's cutting-room floor. Today Otto Preminger would be lucky to get a job delivering pizzas in Hollywood. Half a century ago,having made the hugely influential,\"Laura\",\"Where the sidewalk ends\" and \"The moon is blue\",he set about filming Nelson Algren's controversial novel \"The man with the golden arm\" in his eccentric and individualistic manner.Rather than take his camera out onto the streets he stayed in the studio and used stylised almost Expressionistic sets,quirky casting(Mr Frank Sinatra - hot from his success in \"From here to eternity\",the young,inexperienced but breathtakingly beautiful Miss Kim Novak and Mr Arnold Stang,a man whose oddities were after his own heart)and a remarkable era - defining score by Elmer Bernstein featuring the cream of West Coast jazzmen. An Otto Preminger film was always an all-round experience ,to be considered as a whole rather than breaking it down into acting,directing,photography.What appeared on the screen was Preminger's vision,his creation and his interpretation of Algren's novel ,not a film of Algren's novel,any one of twenty competent Hollywood hacks coud have produced that. From the first hi-hat cymbal beat that accompanies Saul Bass's iconic title sequence we are drawn into Preminger's take on what is nowadays called \"The Life\",in truth a murky area occupied by hustlers,junkies,cops,drug dealers,stone gamblers,jazz musicians,their women and hangers-on.The lines are blurred in \"The Life\",and it's dog eats dog down there. The inhabitants circle each other like sharks,looking for a sign of weakness to be exploited.Frankie Machine(Mr Sinatra)a professional card dealer,ex-junkie and aspiring jazz drummer is a born victim.When things get tough he goes back to the needle.Although he kicks the habit by going cold turkey there are absolutely no guarantees that he won't go straight back on it further down the line. Mr Sinatra's depiction of an addict in the throes of withdrawal has divided the critics,but the fact of the matter is that even fifty years later most of us have probably never seen such a thing in real life so we don't know how accurate the portrayal is.When I first saw the film in the late 50s I was very impressed,watching it recently on video,it seemed ,to put it unkindly,hammy.Perhaps he is a victim of his own success as many actors subsequently \"doing\" cold turkey have,with the passing of the years,taken his performance and refined it somewhat. Arnold Stang is outstanding as Machine's pal Sparrow,a performance he exceeded only in \"It's a mad,mad,mad,mad world\". Try and watch it on the big screen and view it as the cinematic vision of a true auteur,a giant amongst today's pygmies - Otto Preminger.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lots of scenes and dialogue are flat-out goofy, but when you add it all up, i.e. Machine's daily cycle from depressing walkup to depressing bar to depressing burlesque hall to depressing smoke-filled poker games and back home again, you get a weird sense that somebody, somewhere is trying to give a faithful depiction of the junkie's life circa-1955. Whether it's Sinatra, who obviously would have bumped up against this type of character growing up in Hoboken and working in numerous bands, or Preminger, who uses the soundtrack and the Frankie-Zosch subtext to slip the addict's interior worldview past the Hays Code cage, you get a good companion piece to On the Waterfront, which was filmed almost exactly the same time. Sort of a faux-realist work that leaves you realistically wondering how deep the drug culture is embedded in American life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*** Spoiler in fifth paragraph *** This was an amazingly frank (uh-huh, uh-huh) picture for 1955. Otto Preminger and Carlyle Productions took a chance by making it, the Motion Picture Association of America balked at certifying a film that openly shows a junky jabbing a syringe full of heroin into his arm. Frank Sinatra took a chance both on playing an addicted musician and at falling flat on his face in a role that required at least twice as much acting as he'd ever done. All in all these gambles paid off, the movie is a classic, though it's not perfect.

Nelson Algren's novel may be great, but it has far too much going on to fit comfortably into a two hour movie 'The Man with the Golden Arm' is 119 minutes and often feels much longer. However, in my opinion it's not just Frankie Machine (Sinatra) that makes the film but the other characters and their sub-plots, all involving Frankie. Ultimately it's not just Frankie who has the addiction, everyone and everything seems to be dependent on him and he feels it keenly. When the pressure gets to be too much the drums start pounding on the soundtrack and Frankie steps across the street with his well-dressed \"friend\" Louie.

It's an exaggeration to say that Frank Sinatra's music career was ever really in the doldrums, but in the early 50's he was in limbo between his days touring with big bands and the Las Vegas era. 'From Here to Eternity' established him as a serious actor and his career as a singer rebounded as well, but 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was still a significant challenge, the whole show sinks or swims with his performance. He pulls it off with such skill that for several minutes at a time I forgot I was watching Frank Sinatra, he must have known junky musicians and exploited that knowledge to the utmost.

Set side by side with Billy Wilder's masterpiece 'The Lost Weekend' there is more emphasis on the sociological causes of addiction in 'The Man with the Golden Arm.' Whereas Don Birnem (Ray Milland in 'The Lost Weekend') seems to struggle mostly against himself, Frankie Machine is beset by external forces and he takes refuge in the needle. Neither approach is wholly right or wrong, mostly because addiction is impossible to fully explain, but it seems like this film might have benefited from a little more insight into Frankie's internal struggle.

*** Spoiler *** One of the problems I have with this film is the clich\u00e9d reliance on \"quitting cold turkey.\" I realize that 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was probably setting the trend rather than following it but that doesn't make it any better. In the beginning of the movie Frankie has to all appearances kicked his habit with the help of a doctor and a treatment facility of some sort. Naturally the drama of the film requires that he backslide, but I found the All-American ideal that a man has to face his problems alone (or maybe with the help of a good woman) out of place here. Going cold turkey and riding off into the sunset with Kim Novak seemed too unrealistic. The end of 'The Lost Weekend' was similar but in my opinion was a little less rosy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great little ground-breaking movie (in 1955) about an important subject.

I wasn't expecting much from Sinatra's performance and was pleasantly surprised by it. Loved Kim Novak! She was gorgeous!

Loved the jazz score by Elmer Bernstein! As great as that by Lazlo Schifrin for \"Bullitt\"! I am very surprised it doesn't seem available on CD (if anyone knows about the soundtrack's availability on any other format, they should post it here somewhere!).

Preminger's direction was, as usual, borderline flawless.

Haven't read Nelson Algren's novel nor have any idea how faithful the screenplay was to it. The subplot of Frankie as a \"hot\" card dealer was a bit of a surprise, too, as were a few other things. But see for yourself. It's very much worth seeing...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A truly excellent look at the world and the realities of being a heroin addict. The movie is one that will hit much too close to home to those who were involved in the drug culture and have knowledge of what being(or being around) a heroin addict really is. Good movie, which will never truly be outdated. Excellent performances by all involved and the minimalist set is Preminger's way of showing how bleak a JUNKIE'S world can become. Worth a look--an education of sorts. The golden arm is a worried look at the truth of the underground life of pain a junkie lives in.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the crash of the opening theme, \"The Man With the Golden Arm\" is classic 1950's entertainment. No subtlety here, Frank comes home from prison with a monkey on his back and goes right back to the old neighborhood, where the old scumbags still lurk. This is a tale of his dark ride with all of his emotional baggage intact. The performances are all a bit overripe, but that's part of the fun of watching. Darren McGavin and Arnold Stang are unforgettable, and almost steal the show. This and \"The Manchurian Candidate\" are the two greatest Chairman of the Board films, in my humble opinion. Don't miss either one of them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A dark and painful look at the perils of drug addiction, Sinatra is wonderful in this film. Just watching his frenzied writhing and screaming and destructive rage near the end of the film is enough to make anyone think twice about trying heroin; maybe they should show this to kids in health class instead of the mindless drivel we are compelled to endure year after year.

It's the story of a man who is simply trying to make a new, clean life for himself after being in prison, trying to rid himself of his drug habit and his job of dealing cards in illegal gambling operations, who is pulled down, pulled back into the muck by the evils of human nature. He is being taken advantage of by his employers, the drug dealers, and even his enigmatic, crafty-yet-stupid wife.

Even if you didn't like the film itself, it's worth seeing just for the soundtrack. It's all heavy, swinging jazz with large drum and brass sections. This, with its groovy, yet slightly sinister sound, helps set the mood, along with the grinning, snaky drug and card dealers, who always seem to hover like vultures around Frankie Machine.

I recommend this to anyone -- especially if you like film noir, zoot suits, fedoras, or jazz.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great book, great movie, great soundtrack. Frank Sinatra shows in this movie that when he wanted to put the effort in, he could act. The ending is a bit schmaltzy, but for the time it's understandable the studio wanted a happy ending. The graphic nature of the heroin addiction (groundbreaking for the period) is a plus. Add the terrific soundtrack and you've got one of the great American movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Man with the Golden Arm was one of the first films to have as its main topic (and, in some respects, the message) the tragedy of heroin addiction. It's nowhere near a great film, but its importance lies in Otto Preminger's dedication to making it feel real and on the edge of melodrama and naturalism. What I liked is that it's not so much an expose of junkies (if you want the best expose of that read Naked Lunch, if you can get through it anyway, besides the point), but the nature of the urban environment Frankie Machine lives. He expects after he gets out of prison for dealing to go on the straight and narrow, to become a drummer in a band and make it legit as a musician. But he has his \"crippled\" wife Zosch, who can't work and needs money and often complains, and then there's the old neighborhood- he can't escape seeing Louie (Darren McGavin), who is still doing back-room card games and, yes, pushing dope. Like Mean Streets, it's hard to escape the minutia unless you leave.

But then again, it's hard for Frankie Machine not to try and operate naturally in this urban quarter. It's just that he can't escape the temptation of junk (when he's booked on a phony theft charge with his friend, he sees a junkie freaking out, and it puts back the fear of going back on into his clean self). And personifying Frankie is Sinatra, and I can't see anyone else who could've played him, even original choice Brando. He fits into the neighborhood, and seems like the kind of guy who should be a step ahead of the game. But there's also a vulnerability to Sinatra that he pulls out wonderfully, and by the time we see him going 'cold turkey' in Molly's apartment, it's believable even if it's not the kind of thing those from 'my' generation would think of heroin (i.e. Trainspotting and certainly Requiem for a Dream). If for nothing else, you want to watch the movie to see what happens to Sinatra as this character.

The flaws, however, come in some of the other performances, though it's a little tricky. Eleanor Parker seems to be overacting for a good portion of the movie, fooling Frankie that she's really crippled when in reality she can walk and is fooling him for one reason or another. But then it becomes clearer as it goes along- she's supposed to be nuts, and nuts with jealousy, and on that level it starts to get better. Meanwhile, Kim Novak is good, though not Vertigo-worthy, as the possible girl in the side but more like the voice of reason in the story. Then there's a Detective Bendar, who might be one of the most one-note characters\/performances, ever. And also Sparrow, Frankie's nerdy friend, and the characters of Louie and Schiefka, and they're all played as one might expect them to (actually, McGavin is better than OK). As far as casting other talent around Sinatra, Preminger doesn't do all that great. And, frankly, some scenes kind of fall flat.

But there's a lot of fascination in the Man with the Golden Arm, and not just as some dated piece of sociological interest. It works as compelling drama, and as a message piece conveyed without being preachy or campy. It's a genuine article, just not exceptional.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

One time heroin addict Frankie Machine (Frank Sinatra) gets out of prison to his bumbling jailbird partner Sparrow (Arnold Stang), needy cripple of a wife Zosch (Eleanor Parker) and bit on the side Molly (Kim Novak.) He's trying to make it big as a drummer in a band, but until his big break comes along he's stuck doing the only other thing he was any good at other than being a junkie- dealing cards in high stakes games. And try as he might, even prison hasn't cured him of his addiction to the devil's drug- causing him to lie to and deceive all those around him and driving him to desperate measures to feed his habit. His yearning to come off it is his only motivation towards a happy ending.

When people think of Frank Sinatra they generally think of classic high pitched songs like Under My Skin, New York New York and It Had to Be You. But lest anyone forget he was actually a renowned actor too and, if his performance in the acclaimed From Here to Eternity wasn't enough, he will also be remembered for this cutting edge drama, dealing with what was at the time the ultra taboo subject of drug abuse.

The film is often listed as one of the first to feature graphic heroin use (probably the reason behind the 15 certificate) in a time when it was a subject that was still very much pushed underground. In his portrayal of the main protagonist, Sinatra is fine, perfectly conveying the despair, desperation and sincerity of a man losing every second chance that is being given to him. His cold turkey scene is much more intense than Ewan McGregor's in Trainspotting. The first co-star to make an impression is Parker as Machine's demanding, needy cripple of a wife, using her husband's guilt and sense of duty to all the effect she can. Novak as his secret lover still manages some strong moments but is less of a star than Parker. Stang does his usual comic relief thing, as the bumbling sidekick who trails the leading man around with his waspy New York accent.

Director Otto Preminger does allow the pace to drag a bit sometimes but this is still a powerfully absorbing film all the way, with plenty of unexpected twists and turns and which should be admired for being one of the first films to bring such a grim subject so powerfully to life. ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie about 12 years ago and I can still remember it as if I just saw it recently. That is how much this movie has affected me.

Considering this is a movie from the 50's I think it was ahead of its time. It surprised me as in how it maintains its integrity in this subject some might have considered taboo back then. Very realistic in showing the tumultuous and heartwretching journey that an addict chooses to embark on. One can only imagine how the audiences were affected by the realism of this movie back in those days.

I personally think is was one of Frank Sinatra's top five performances in the big screen.

When others are discussing movies dealing with Mental Illness and\/or addiction I always recommend The Man with the Golden Arm as one of the top five to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just getting released from a six month drug rehabilitation program and having served his time for dealing cards in illegal gambling card games, Frankie Machine (Frank Sinatra) has high hopes for going clean and finding a new life as a big band drummer. However upon returning to his old crime-ridden Chicago neighborhood, he soon finds the pressure mounting from those around him, including his wheelchair-ridden wife Zosch (Eleanor Parker), to return to the old money-making \"Dealer\" lifestyle that first got him started on the path of self-destruction that is being an heroin addict.

It's very rare that a film has so many great character performances as this one does. Frank Sinatra is superb as Frankie Machine, and realistically portrays the symptoms of a drug addict going through withdrawal arguably better than anyone else had ever been done before him. Sinatra seems to possess a keen understanding and awareness of his character here and expresses the constant battle for control over his own life that is forever going on inside the heart of the man that is Frankie Machine. Parker as his crippled wife Zosch wants to possess Frankie forever, to have him \"deal\" to make good money so as to take care of her and pay her ever-mounting medical bills. She seems terrified by anything she sees as a threat to her control over him, such as the freedom the life of a drummer might offer, or anything that might change the status quo between them.

Onlooker Molly (Kim Novak), a girl who lives in the same building and seems to possess real, strong genuine feelings for Frankie, having no desire to control him but only to help him proves the best thing Frankie has going for him in the world if he can just stay straight long enough to wake up and realize it. Darren McGavin as the heroin drug peddler Louie however is always there just waiting in the wings knowing just the right buttons to push, just the thing to say, to get a former addict to revert back to that old habit, one profitable to Louie but deadly for the addict.

The setting too seems to take on a life of its own, constantly dark, gritty, seedy and crime-ridden with nowhere near enough positive things to look forward to in life, a place where it's all too easy to escape via a bottle or drugs, a quick \"fix\" that's truly no fix at all but only works to keep one in the dark away from the daylight and all the bright prospects the world might have to offer. It's a neat touch that when Frankie is on the right track, the setting always seems brighter than when he's headed down the wrong road. While some argue it is a bit dated, to me this is a gritty film featuring a realistic inner war within a man for control over his own fate, one that features very strong character performances by all involved. Given that, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM gets my highest possible recommendation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A truly excellent look at the world and the realities of being a heroin addict. The movie is one that will hit much too close to home to those who were involved in the drug culture and have knowledge of what being(or being around) a heroin addict really is. Good movie, which will never truly be outdated. Excellent performances by all involved and the minimalist set is Preminger's way of showing how bleak a JUNKIE'S world can become. Worth a look--an education of sorts. The golden arm is a worried look at the truth of the underground life of pain a junkie lives in.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Moon Is Blue\" director Otto Preminger tackled even more taboo subject matter in his controversial 1955 release \"The Man with the Golden Arm.\" Whereas he had incensed the Motion Picture Association of America with his use of the words \"virgin\" and \"mistress\" in his mild 1953 comedy \"The Moon Is Blue,\" Preminger went far beyond what any movie had attempted with \"The Man with the Golden Arm\" since Dick Powell made his law and order epic \"To the Ends of the Earth\"(1946) about thwarting the international traffic in narcotics. Based on Nelson Algren's novel that won the 1950 National Book Award, this gritty, uncompromising, 119-minute, black & white melodrama deals with heroin addiction. Initially, when Preminger's film came out, the Motion Picture Association of America would not issue its seal of approval because the filmmakers depicted addiction to narcotics. This groundbreaking film qualified as the first major motion picture to handle narcotics from the dope fiend's perspective and actually showed the paraphernalia that junkies wielded to shoot up heroin. The Production Code stipulated that filmmakers must refrain from showing characters using illicit narcotics. Nevertheless, United Artists released this unique Frank Sinatra picture and it grossed over $4-million dollars.

The critical and commercial success of \"The Man with the Golden Arm\" eviscerated the Production Code. As a result, the MPAA amended the Code so that filmmakers could delve into other taboo subjects, such as drug abuse, kidnapping, abortion and prostitution. The film received three Academy Award nominations. Oscar nominations went to Sinatra for Best Acting, Joseph C. Wright and Darrell Silvera for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Black-and-White and Elmer Bernstein for Best Music, Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture. Indeed, Elmer Bernstein made a name for himself with his jazzy score. The producers had thought about casting Marlon Brando in the title role, but Sinatra beat Brando to the punch. Eleanor Parker, Kim Novak, Arnold Stang, Darren McGavin, and Robert Strauss co-starred with Ole Blue Eyes. McGavin was particularly memorable as a sleazy heroin dealer, while Eleanor Parker played the protagonist's wife with a dark, deep secret of her own that comes as quite a shock.

\"The Man with the Golden Arm\" refers to protagonist Frankie Machine's ability to manipulate a deck of cards. Frankie deals cards for Zero Schwiefka (Robert Strauss of \"Stalag 17\") but he has been out of Chicago for the last six months in a federal narcotics hospital recovering from heroin addiction. Not only has Frankie licked the habit, but he also has learned how to play the drums and plans to embark of a music career. Optimistic as Frank is about his future, he finds himself facing his past all over again when he returns to his old stomping grounds. Schwiefka wants him to deal for him again, and Nifty Louie Fomorowski (Darren McGavin of \"Counter-Attack\") tries to induce him to resume his heroin usage. Meanwhile, Frankie comes home to his invalid, wheel-chair bound wife, Zosh (Eleanor Parker of \"Escape from Fort Bravo\"), who manipulates him with guilt. Frankie was drunk when he had a car accident and Zosh wound up in a wheel chair. Frankie shows up with high hopes and a drum set, but Zosh sees no future for him as a musician and urges to go back to work for Schwiefka. Frankie plans to visit a music promoting and one of his own friends, Sparrow (Arnold Stang of \"My Sister Eileen\"), shoplifts a business suit from a department store for Frankie. After Frankie refuses to work for Schwiefka because he is going to see musical agent Harry Lane (Will Wright of \"The Wild One\"), Schwiefka turns both Frank and Sparrow into the police. Meanwhile, Schwiefka gets Brach's Department Store to drop the shoplifting charges. The suit was worth $37.00. Frankie agrees to resume dealing for Schweifka and the hustler bails him out. Not long afterward, despite his resolution to shun heroin use, Frankie breaks down and pays Louie the $2.00 for a fix.

Eventually, Frankie meets Harry Lane and Lane warns him that he is catches Frankie shooting up that he will have nothing to do with him. What poor Frankie doesn't know is that Zosh has recovered her ability to walk, but she uses his guilt about the accident to hold on to him. Zosh is also jealous of her downstairs neighbor, Molly Novotny (Kim Novak of \"Picnic\"), Frankie's former sweetheart who hustles drinks at a nearby strip bar called the Safari Club. When Zosh complains about headaches that Frankie gives her practicing on his drum set, Frankie moves them downstairs into Molly's apartment. Schwiefka and Louie are planning a big poker game with Sam Markette (George E. Stone of \"Guys and Dolls\") and Williams (George Mathews of \"Gunfight at the O.K. Corral\"), two big-time gamblers who have heard about Frank and his legendary 'golden arm.' Schwiefka and Louie persuade a reluctant Frankie to deal for $250. After an early winning streak, Frankie starts losing and he cannot reverse his bad luck. In fact, Frankie spends about two days dealing. Exhausted, his nerves shot and desperate for a fix, he falls apart on the second day and Markette and Williams catch him cheating. Louie refuses to give Frankie a fix, so Frankie knocks him out and ransacks his apartment for the heroin.

Preminger pulls no punches in \"The Man with the Golden Arm,\" and the film is pretty disillusioning. None of the characters here are remotely sympathetic. Essentially, they are either hustlers or hustled. Sinatra gives another dynamite performance as does McGavin and Parker. To be sure, \"The Man with the Golden Arm\" has lost much of its impact in the intervening 50 or more years, but it still ranks as a landmark film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"But quite dated today. Otto Preminger made this movie without the certificate of approval that was needed then. It was enormously courageous and risky as he could have lost his investment and future.

The film is not true to the wonderful book and is unfortunately hollywoodized.

Frank Sinatra (and I've never been a fan) playing Frankie Machine, is astonishing in his performance. One forgets it is Frank up there, the level of realism he brings to the role of a jonesing drug addict has to be seen to be believed.

Kim Novak, eternally gorgeous and talented, does not disappoint in the role of the devoted outsider, always there for Frankie.

Supporting roles, particularly a young, handsome and talented Darrin Mc Gavin, are faultless.

Eleanor Parker, playing Frankie's wife, is hopelessly inept. She swings from irritating to melodramatic and is far too over the top. A forgettable performance.

The stagey, cheap settings are appalling, as if a firm gust of wind would blow the whole tacky painted cardboards over the horizon. Almost laughable at times in their tawdry cheapness.

The music was irritating, poundingly so at times. As if each nuance of the script (example: when Louie is getting Frankie his fix out of a drawer) had to be underscored at a high decibel level.

7 out of 10. Sinatra truly deserved his Oscar nomination. Worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Man with the Golden Arm, Otto Preminger's controversial, panoramic crime drama, plays itself out among the mental descriptions of its living and architectural occupants, in rhythmic, lashing arrangement. Opening the film, a closeup from within a bar of Frankie looking in through the window, already tells us to the prominence that the protagonist's subjective experience will grasp. Pulled in the direction of increasingly slighter spaces, the film shuts itself off, as the local gangster's long-drawn-out poker game shuts itself from the daylight, bolts itself in, as Sinatra's Frankie Machine has himself locked in a room in the celebrated scene of his harrowing struggle to overcome his habit. In delving into the shapes and faces of its jazzy urban haven, the visual traffic in The Man with the Golden Arm characterizes skewed psychological circumstances, forming an overpowering environment, as maintained by the recurring tracking shots into closeups of Frankie's eyes.

The grace of this fiery drama, striking as early as the exciting opening crane shot, displays the command over the perceptible world that studio production allows. The wonderfully dilapidated urban sets define an independent place with no beginnings or ends, an indeterminate state, the sort that in reality hardly last as long as this skid row seems to before being gentrified or leveled. The flair of certain performances, particularly Robert Strauss's as the wonderfully named underworld gambling boss Schwiefka and Arnold Stang as Frankie's trusty four-eyed lapdog, becomes this fiery surreal feature pleasingly. The premise of drug addiction, Sinatra's powerhouse performance, Elmer Bernstein's infectious, forceful jazz score and Saul Bass's famous, influential and controversial opening sequence centering on the animated paper cut-out of a heroin addict's arm ensured that, in its era, The Man with the Golden Arm presses forward upon the cause for realism in the still reticent Hollywood. It is impressionistic and subjective, as I say, but its intent, its force and its spirit are much closer to home.

What absorbs me the most in this film is its aspect as a gangster film. It has the illegal card games, short cons, the fights, the guns, the double-crosses, characters on the lam, a femme fatale, a stunningly sexy gun moll, the shady nightclubs and urban landscape, but it does more than exploit this environment for entertainment. Really, it is the perfect environment, and genre, in which to tell this story, a crime-ridden urban borough where it's all too comfortable to escape through a bottle or two, or three, or four, or drugs, a transient dose that really just functions to keep one in obscurity from any enlightenment and all the clear scenarios the world could bid.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A proof that it's not necessary for a movie to have a deep many-layered story and other sophisticated elements to be a good movie. Even if the story could be expanded in many directions, especially in more sociological way (people lust for money) it seems that it's perfect just the way it is. Through many sudden changes it takes the spectator to the end without any unnecessary complications and without letting the spectator taking the eyes of the screen.

But the acting for me isn't so good. With the exception of Lindsey McKeon the others were average or even worst. In some scenes they just empty-stared in front of themselves. For exception of Lindsey which was more convincing. It's a really simple movie for just laying back and enjoying.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this mini-movie when it first aired, and loved it!It kinda funny to see how far people will go for money.It's also funny to see how much a boyfriend can be \"Whipped\". \"Whipped\" enough to kill. I think the cast was great, especially the character Kristin.Without Her smooth talking,and deceptive looks the movie would have not been the same.

I never use to watch USA but now it is one of my stations.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Clifton Webb as \"Mr. Scoutmaster\" is one of the all-time greats for comedy and remembering an innocence, now diminished in the world. I cannot understand why the networks like American Movie Classics and such do not show this movie, although I have requested it time and again.

This movie should be shown to children now for its portrayal of loyalty, respect, dedication and resolve to achieve the best possible on an individual basis. There is so much low self-esteem talked about in present daily lives, but this movie, among many, many others, would be a wonderful learning tool for the present-day younger generation to see what can be accomplished by common sense and decency and pride in yourself and your achievements to better yourself. Sad that this type of movie does not appeal to modern audiences. It certainly appealed to us 'baby boomer' generation of yesterday. OLD LESSONS ARE UNIVERSAL AND TIMELESS.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A middle aged man, Robert Jordan, set in his ways, takes on a boy scout troop after his predecessor leaves under duress. Jordan takes on the pack mostly to learn what the boys like so he can revive his flagging radio program which is losing it's appeal to the younger set. He has a rough go at first with the boys, especially so with Mike, an 8 year old who forms an attachment for the older man which is anything but reciprocated. Do things work out for Jordan and the scouts? Check out this entertaining and amusing film from the old days.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was never intended as a big-budget film but was a cute little picture that pretty much anyone could enjoy. It probably won't change your life, but it is certainly charming and engaging.

Clifton Webb plays a curmudgeon (that's certainly not new) who has a TV. However, his ratings are failing and he is worried about cancellation. So he decides maybe he is too out of touch with kids--as he and his wife have none of their own. So, he volunteers as a scoutmaster and regrets doing this almost immediately! Remember, he IS a curmudgeon and doesn't particularly like kids. To make things worse, one of the kids really likes him and follows him like a lost puppy. No matter how indifferently he acts towards the kid, the child just wants to spend time with him! The kid is cute and nearly steals the show all by himself!

What happens next and the twists and turns of the movie are something you'll just have to find out for yourself. Understand that this is a light, cute and yet not cloying movie you'll probably enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robert Jordan is a television star. Robert Jordan likes things orderly, on time and properly executed. In his world children are to be seen, not heard. So why would Mr. Jordan want to become the master of a rambunctious band of Boy Scouts? Ratings. His staff figures that if learns how to interact with the youth, they will be more inclined to watch his show. Of course watching Jordan cope comprises most of the fun.

Like Mr. Belvedere and Mr. Belvedere Goes to College this one is sure to please.

ANYONE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robert Jordan is a television star. Robert Jordan likes things orderly, on time and properly executed. In his world children are to be seen, not heard. So why would Mr. Jordan want to become the master of a rambunctious band of Boy Scouts? Ratings. His staff figures that if learns how to interact with the youth, they will be more inclined to watch his show. Of course watching Jordan cope comprises most of the fun.

Like Mr. Belvedere and Mr. Belvedere Goes to College this one is sure to please.

ANYONE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robert Jordan is a television star. Robert Jordan likes things orderly, on time and properly executed. In his world children are to be seen, not heard. So why would Mr. Jordan want to become the master of a rambunctious band of Boy Scouts? Ratings. His staff figures that if learns how to interact with the youth, they will be more inclined to watch his show. Of course watching Jordan cope comprises most of the fun.

Like Mr. Belvedere and Mr. Belvedere Goes to College this one is sure to please.

ANYONE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WARNING: MAY contain some minor spoilers.

Hard to say anything bad about this movie, except for one thing.

YOU DON'T GET TO SEE IT MUCH ANYMORE !!!! Then again, maybe that's because you have to be home in the morning or at 3 am to catch it the Fox Movie channel.

Too bad, for this is another gem lost to time, Clifton Webb takes his patented sour, know-it-all demeanor he had perfected as Lynn Belvedere (\"Sitting Pretty\" and sequels), and turns 'Nature Boy'.

Actually, it's like this.

Webb plays Robert Jordan the host of a Sunday children's educational program that is losing audience share, and the network breaks it to him that he needs to do something about it, or else.

Part of the problem may be due to the fact that the married host has no children.

BUMMER !!! But as such things happen, the local church pastor needs a leader for an unruly troop of Boy Scouts, and finds a willing victim ... ahhhh 'VOLUNTEER' ... in the host, so Jordan he takes the position.

Problem solved, RIGHT ???

WRONG !!! This being a movie there are other problems.

For example, it turns out one of the Scouts is the son of his boss at the TV station, which causes a little friction; especially since the kid is overweight, has asthma as well as an attitude.

And he is the more reasonable one.

Also, there is this Cub Scout, Mike (George Winslow) who wants to hang around, being the 'stray puppy' type.

As it turns out, the reason is that he has no folks of his own, but is cared for by a relative who hasn't much time for him.

It is things like this that makes his job harder than expected.

All in all, Webb becomes more understanding of kids, and not only saves his show but learns a rewarding lesson, and eventually even adopts Mike.

Still a great movie after all these years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A Brief History of Time is not only a documentary on the beginning and the ending of the universal and reality as we know it, this is a story about the man and the genius known as Stephen Hawking. It is his story that reflects the story of time and change throughout the history of the universal. The style of the documentary \/ editing style of the interviews begin and end with a quick fade to black. Almost like blinking in between segments and interviews, the documentary gives you an odd feeling like this is the view point of Stephen Hawking and not the eye of the camera. The running time is only a little longer than an hour. It is a short story, then again, its subject matter could be talked about for days and days. An interesting and proud story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\", this amazing film by Eroll Morris documents the the life and work of one of the greatest minds in the history of astronomy. He has contributed more to Science, despite his debilitating disease, ALS, than an able bodied Scientist could only dream of.

The film begins by telling of Hawking's childhood, and how he was a poor student that was recognizably bright. He slacked his way through college and university, where he was diagnosed with the disease that would take away normal functions of his body, but would allow him to continue living and thinking perfectly.

Morris discusses how the brilliant mind of Stephen developed from childhood to the present, at one point his mother tells how- when she was pregnant- she prophetically bought a astronomical atlas to read while in the hospital. Hawking himself narrates the timeline of his discoveries, while Morris interviews close friends and colleagues whom have been lucky enough to befriend the magnificent man.

He tells how he was first intrigued by the discovery that the Universe was expanding similar to how a star would expand. We also know that stars eventually die and become what is now known as \"black holes\", if this is the case,will the universe not too begin to contract, reversing itself until we reach the \"big crunch\"? as Hawking puts it. And when the universe does begin to recede, will time not \"reverse\"? When posed this question, I began to think that death may not be the end, perhaps one day time will go backwards, and our death will become our rebirth and our birth our death. The universe is one big cycle just like everything else in life.

This is what Hawking is telling us, everything in the universe recycles itself. This is completely logical and can make your mind wonder in a million directions pondering it. This is why i love this film and why isay it is a MUST SEE!!! An 11 out of 10 ...Morris never ceases toamaze!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been a huge Errol Morris fan ever since I saw Thin Blue Line and heard it saved a life. To date, this movie is his best piece of work.

The plot is a mixing of Stephen Hawking's Book of the same title intertwined with the man's life. The story is told through interviews with family, friends, and Hawkings himself.

Don't be fooled; It totally sounds boring but the whole package is dynamic and thought provoking. The blending of life and theories is seamless and thoroughly entertaining. I was particularly moved at how well they humanize this genius and omniscient man. Tho physically powerless, Hawking's greatness and shear brilliance is encapsulated into a real live human being that we are allowed to laugh at and aw over at the same time.

Find this movie. Watch it and enjoy. And if the studio who owns this picture reads this, A 15 year Anniversary edition would be perfect NOW...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Stephen Hawkings is a genius. He is the king of geniuses. Watching this movie makes me feel dumb. But it's a great movie. Not highly entertaining, but very very intriguing. The movie centers around wheelchair bound Stephen Hawkings, a man who makes Einstein look average, and his theories and scientific discoveries about the universe, time, the galaxy, and black holes. Everyone at sometime or another during a really intense high comes to a moment when they think they'v got the universe and the cosmos figured out and they swear as soon as they sober up they'll write it all down. Well here is a man who actually held that feeling for more then six hours. Here is a man who despite suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease has become the greatest mind the world has yet seen. Watch this and listen in on how he has formulated theories on black holes. Awesome. You won't be the same after you see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A brief history of time. The cosmological content of this documentary is fascinating, the thoughts provoking and the man... brilliant. Yet I had a hard time enjoying this documentary.

The way the family members and professors are interviewed feels so unnatural. These members were interviewed on specifically built sets and were directed uncomfortably. Mostly, their accounts came across as very acted and forcefully directed. The (deliberate) non-inclusion of asked questions manipulates the given information into a very harsh and impersonal format.

I do not know who are responsibly for the interviewing but they did a dreadful job and with that took away from the viewing experience.

Overall still a fascinating documentary well worth seeing, if only for the interesting concepts presented.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Stephen Hawking has one of the greatest minds, or if that's too simplistic to coin for him one of the most curious and daring, that also happens to be trapped in a body crippled by a disease that leaves him in a wheelchair and a computer to communicate. Perhaps I didn't know enough about Hawking going in (I always knew him as 'that guy speaking like a computer who knows a lot about like, the universe and stuff, you know') that he is British, that he was a rather normal kid, and, perhaps most remarkably, the disease that could have possibly left him dead at 21 put him in the position of putting his life in focus.

According to Errol Morris's equally curious and coolly, visually dazzling portrait in A Brief History of Time, Hawking was already brilliant, in spurts (when other Oxford students were faced with daunting algebraic equations, he answered more than three times the amount in an hour's time), but when faced with challenges, mostly from other theories by other scientists, he bounced back with his own. Beneath some of the complex scientific talk- and if you got any less than a B- in astronomy, like me, you'll need to keep your ears especially perked up in explanations of time's possible infinity or the peculiarities of the black hole- there's a human being who just wants to enjoy his goose on his birthday.

Morris captures Hawking just right for those who can't get enough of his theories on how particles may be going in and out of a black hole, or if there is even a creator or not depending on how much one takes into account Einstein and time. But he also captures the back-story on the man and his condition, which creates this as something much more interesting than if Morris had done one or the other. Too much talk about the cosmos would make one's head hurt, and too much about his personal life and one might wonder what all the fuss is about this bloke who's book of the film's title was on bestseller lists for over five years.

Almost in spite of his appearance, Hawking defines what it is to be a conscious entity in a universe which, he observes, he won't be apart of if and when the universe goes kaput another 10 billion years from now. Through it all, in A Brief History of Time, we get a glimpse of a genius and his humility (not to mention his colleagues and family's' ten cents here and there) through an unfathomably hypothetical and mathematical thought process of the universe.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An introspective look at the relationship between Hawking and the space\/time contingent. This film expores the Gallilean and Newtonian laws and there relation to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

The film is methodically directed, exposing details of the man (Hawking) as well as his work (Black Holes). Interviews with his family are a little too long so sadly there is less development of his theories and ideas.

A Philip Glass soundtrack superbly compliments the film. Only one other man could compose such haunting instellar melodies (Jean Michel Jarre).

Overall I would highly recommend this movie on the basis of Hawking's 'nuggets of wisdom' and his adequate explanation of an Event Horizon!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Subject Matter: Cosmology, Quantum Physics and Stephen Hawking

Soundtrack: Phillip Glass

Have I died and gone to Heaven?

You will be enraptured.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Johnny Crawford is great in this movie of a troubled teen coming of age in a generation that was in the middle of a cultural and spiritual upheaval. Billy Graham does a good job of portraying life in this sweet, sometimes corny, but all the way sincere flick. He gives us a look at not only the social scene but gives good, solid advice that holds true today about morals, decisions, the generation gap, teen dating, (some of the statistics that are given in this movie are astounding. They sound like today's stats). Just to see Billy in his younger days is worth seeing. It's an awesome movie. It made me realize that human nature does not change, even though hair, fashion and language may change, humans are still struggling with the same issues they have been struggling with for thousands of years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The theme song often goes through my head after all these years. I was never much of a TV watcher, probably because I was just entering my busy teen years when my family bought our first set in 1948 and it never became part of my life. But from the first episode of Lawman I was hooked, and it is the only TV show I've ever scheduled my week around.

Intelligent, believable, well-written and well-acted, and John Russell is still to me the most beautiful man I ever saw. (Peter Brown was no dog, either :o)

I agree that it is one of the most underrated TV series of all time. I hope I can find some episodes for my grandchildren to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At the same time John Russell was playing ranch owner Nathan Burdette, trying to free his no good brother Claude Akins from sheriff John Wayne in Rio Bravo he was working the other side of the law on television. These years were probably the high point of Russell's career, his most noted screen role and his most famous television role, Marshal Dan Troop of Laramie in Lawman.

Russell kept law and order in Laramie the same way that James Arness did it in Dodge City on Gunsmoke. Unlike Gunsmoke, Laramie never developed the all the minor characters that gave you the feel of Dodge City at the time. Instead it concentrated on Russell taking care of business and learning the business of law to his eager young deputy Peter Brown.

Brown played deputy Johnny McKay who was a most respectful young man, constantly referring to his boss as Mr. Troop. He was pretty handy with a shooting iron, but was inclined to be impulsive. Good thing Marshal Troop was around.

The other series regular was the Kitty Russell of Laramie, Lily played by Peggie Castle. This is where Lawman most resembled Gunsmoke. There was an unspoken understanding between Russell and Castle that even the smallest of children couldn't have missed. And I wasn't the smallest of children when Lawman was in first run.

Sadly Peggie Castle developed substance abuse problems after Lawman's run ended. I remember a small obituary marked her passing in the first half of the Seventies. She was one beautiful woman.

Lawman was good no nonsense western from that golden era of the adult television western. It was one of the best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is a shame that this series hasn't been remastered and produced on video by Warner or some other professional movie house.

Copies of most episodes are available, but are usually of poor quality, being copies of copies of copies.

As I understand it, 92 episodes were produced during its run, but only 15 are noted here.

Some of the series writers, such as Richard Matheson, went on to become noted authors.

Excellent series, well written, well staged and well produced.

Michael Weldon,

Udon Thani, Thailand","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"William Haines sparks this tale of a brash cadet who thinks West Point will really be something now that he has arrived. Terrific goony comic performance by Haines was his trademark--one that made him a top box office star from 1928-1932 and one of MGM's biggest stars. Joan Crawford and William Bakewell are fine too. And although this storyline may seem trite now, this was a huge hit, putting Haines and Crawford in a college football (a national craze during the 20s) story. After Haines blows off his big mouth one time too often and nearly gets shunned by fellow cadets, he turns in a wonderful performance as he swallows his pride and gets into the big game against Navy. Even with a broken arm, he wins the game for Army and regains his place at West Point. It's easy to see from this film and Show People (with the always underrated Marion Davies) why Billy Haines was a huge star of the time. He needs and deserves to be remembered!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a mystery to me as to why I haven't caught up to this masterful 50s caper film \u0096 turned brooding noir until now, but I'm certainly glad to report that it didn't disappoint. I haven't seen any of Jules Dassin's American films for several years but based on this I'll probably be going back and re-watching \"Brute Force\" and \"Night and the City\" quite soon.

Jean Servais, a name unknown to me but a face rather familiar in its world-weariness and coldness, has recently completed a lengthy stay in prison and as is the way in these films (hey, there wouldn't be a story otherwise) isn't coping well with the straight life. An opportunity presents itself: an easy multi-million-dollar jewel heist that can be done at night with no fear of discovery by a few men. The taut filming of the robbery, half an hour of total silence, is what people most remember about the film of course, and indeed it's pretty remarkable; but I liked the half-completed location of the final shootout, once the robbery has gone sour thanks to the big mouth of one of the thieves; the excellent portrayal gritty sides of Paris in stark black and white; and Servais' channeling of both Eddie Constantine and Humphrey Bogart in his spare but brutal performance.

Perhaps it's a bit too sentimental in the end, but this is one of those classics that really does live up to its reputation just as pure entertainment even if what it has to say about the human condition isn't exactly deep or thought-provoking; George Auric's at turns modernist, romantic, and jazzy score is another highlight.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You can take the crook out of the joint, but it seems exceedingly more difficult to take the joint out of the crook. We've seen this kind of character in this kind of situation before (and since): in movies like BOB LE FLAMBEUR, ELEVATOR TO THE GALLOWS, TOUCHEZ PAS AU GRISBI, THE ANDERSON TAPES, etc. Too many times to mention. What helps make this one one of the more notable is (of course) the heist itself, which plays out wordlessly in real time, and the demeanor of the lead. Bogart would think twice before crossing this guy. The ironic ending is perfectly suited to this story (it almost demands it). All around, one of the better films noir.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are not many films which I would describe as perfect, but Rififi definitely fits the bill. No other heist film has come close to it, before or after. The plot is simple, but engrosses you. It never ceases to amaze me how absolutely gripping the film is every time you view it. You care for all the characters, even though they are bank robbers, because they are presented as human beings with all their problems and flaws. It's hard to imagine any other actor besides Jean Servais in the role of Tony le St\u00e9phanois. When the members of the crew are each talking about what they are going to do with their money and finally get to Tony, his answer and the expression on his face says it all. While the 30 minute heist sequence is the most famous part of the movie(and rightfully so)the film actually gets better afterward.The director Jules Dassin knew what he was doing when he decided to not have any music during the heist scene or the final shootout, but instead inserted a great climactic score during Tony's final ride towards his destiny. To think that if Dassin, an American Director, had not been blacklisted in Hollywood and forced to work in France, this masterpiece of cinema would never have been made the way it was. It certainly wouldn't have been as good if it was made as an American film during that time. It was absolutely horrible what Dassin had to go through, but he did achieve his greatest work because of it, to the benefit of all of us. I'm just cringing at the thought of the upcoming Al Pacino remake. Most heist films since Rififi have already borrowed from it in some way or another. There's no reason to remake this masterpiece other than money. Leave the classics alone!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"American expatriate Jules Dassin makes an award-winning French gangster film. The plot involves Tony the Stephanois, a hoodlum just out of prison, who takes his band of thieves on a $240 million jewel heist. Unfortunately, his ex-wife's relationship with a notorious gangster named Grutter, an Italian safe-cracker named Cesar with a weakness for women, and the missteps of his own friend Jo cause the successful heist to turn into a bloody race against time as Grutter holds Jo's son hostage for the cash in typical \"crime never pays\" tragedy fashion.

The \"rififi\" in the title is explained in a song to mean slang for basically violence and sex, and the full title, \"Du rififi chez les hommes\" means roughly \"Some naughty in the house of men\", which is pretty much where the fatal flaw of the characters take place. Leave it to a gangster film to place most of the emphasis on the missteps on the women, but this time Jo's wife gets the last laugh (if you could call it a laugh) when she predicts \"All of you are just going to kill each other.\" The characters aren't the most sympathetic and the women are mostly weak, but Dassin still builds an extremely well-crafted suspense film out of them as they pull off a heist that requires the utmost quiet, hide the goods, and then attempt to survive what basically becomes a cross-country cat and mouse game. In the mix are some very amazing photography and a fine attention to detail in editing, leading to a pacing and visual experience that well overstates the otherwise generic plot. It's not only easy to see why this is held as a classic, it's also easy to see why it's among the top 250 on the IMDb: it's suspenseful, visually magnificent, full of sex and violence, and maintains that classy gangster attitude we film buffs like so much.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This 1955 heist film follows Tony le Stephanois, recently released from prison for theft, as he undertakes the robbery of his life. He teams up with his old heist buddies and they bring in an expert safe-cracker, Cesar from Milan (played by Jules Dassin, who also directed. He only directed because he had been blacklisted as a communist in the U.S. and couldn't work in Hollywood.) The brilliance of this film is the 1\/2 hour during the robbery. During all this time, there is no dialogue and no music, only the muted sounds of digging through the floor or drilling the safe. This increases the suspense and draws you in. They get away with several hundred million francs worth of jewels, but a jewel offered to a dancer by Cesar brings their haul to the attention of a trio of brutal brothers. They set out to get the stash for themselves and bring misfortune in their wake. Great heist\/gangster movie, but I prefer J.-P. Melville's films in this genre.

This movie is like some lemonade I had last night. I had gone to a Caribbean restaurant and the lemonade was made with sugar cane juice instead of sugar. It also had a lot of ice and was heavy on the lemons, leaving it fairly sour (which I like). The sugar cane juice imparted a subtle, slightly more mellow taste to it than actual sugar, and the ice made sure it was cold and refreshing as I sucked it down. 7.5\/10 http:\/\/blog.myspace.com\/locoformovies","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To start with, I have done some further research on the film. Firslty, Jules Dassin directed and acted in this extremely imaginative and different film noir crime film. Secondly, This was a very low budget film, created in the Rennaissance of the prime moment of film noir. Thirdly, the jewelers where the robbery was attempted is an actual jewelers. The producers of Rififi asked them to film their, surprisingly, (I quote Jules Dassin in a recent interview on the subject, \"surprisingly, for some not very obvious reason, they were delighted at the idea of a crime film being set in their shop).

It's impeccable characters and plot fit in so beautifully with their surroundings. To add on to my praise I will say this; some might say that this was a typical Hollywood film, on the contrary, this set the base for the regular plot of a Hollywood crime film.

Laslty, I would like to say that I support this fresh idea of a film where not only one side wins, and that side doesn't always have to be the good one. For once, I can say that a film is not predictable! Ten stars!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a gas of a movie! \"Film Noir\" has always been one of my favorite genres, but this one stands apart from the rest. Only \"The Big Sleep\", \"Out of the Past\", \"Murder My Sweet\", and \"The Killers\" can come close to this caper classic. I know these four American films I mentioned are not caper movies per se, but rather detective stories with complicated story lines, which still exude a \"noirean\", gritty quality about them, similar to \"Rififi\".

What is different here is the way Jules Dassin sets into motion the total ambiance of the film, not only in the gritty realism of the principals, but also in the usage of the streets of Paris as a subliminal character and co-conspirator unto itself! The movie centers around \"le Stephanois\", a dark, moody and complicated ex-con getting pulled into one last shot at the hefty payoff. Even though he is an unsmiling and hard-nosed tough guy, one still senses in him a yearning for some kind of redemption by extricating himself from the demons of his past (hey, he saved little Toni!). Dassin picked the right guy (Jean Servais) for that role.

That aside, the rest of the story development kind of falls into place as we journey through the famous \"silent\" caper scene to the the eventual demise of the principal \"perps\". Only their women survive, except for Ida, Mario's honey. They seemed to best understand the underlying futility of it all!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Rififi\" is a terrific heist movie, and one from which subsequent heist films have drawn ever since. Jules Dassin had a feel for the seedy underworld in which these thieves live---you will not find here the Hollywood glamour of \"Ocean's Eleven.\" The robbers in \"Rififi\" don't rob for the thrill, and they're not playing a game. They rob to survive, to pay for their children's upbringing, to prove to themselves and others that they still have something to offer the world. The much-lauded heist scene is a nail biter, filmed in virtual silence. I did have the feeling that the plot went on a bit longer than it needed to, but the high-speed race to deliver the child to his mother that ends the film is classic.

Be warned---this movie is very bleak. But it's also very good.

Grade: A-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rififi is a great film that is overlooked. It's a crime drama where a man gets out of jail and plans another job. It's an over used story but this one is different from the others. They round up the usual suspects for the job. This film takes a look at how the family gets torn apart as time goes on. The actual heist scene is one of the best I have ever seen. Instead of a suspenseful soundtrack the director decided to go with silence, around thirty minutes of silence. This fits the mood perfectly and is often copied these days. Of course things get out of hand and people die and it ends in a great ending that builds up in suspense.

So if you're looking for a great film noir that not a lot of people talk about this is a great pick up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The ultimate gritty heist film. Elements of Bogie, Welles & Sinatra will leave you sweating & satisfied. In comparison, it really upsets the proverbial apple cart to see recent films, such as \"Oceans Eleven (remake)\", reviewed in such high regard-especially in Europe. Films like Rififi must be shown, spoke about, and kept alive to remind younger (pathetic) critics what true classic Noir is.

Criterion should be commended in their flawless and classy transfer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Run, don't walk, to rent this movie. It is re-released on an excellent DVD version. It is primo acting\/directing\/cinematography in the world of suspense\/film noir. Tribute this to the blacklisted American director Jules Dassin, who also plays the Italian safe-cracker. See it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fantastic movie! One of the best film noir movies ever made. Bad guys, bad girls, a jewel heist, a twisted morality, a kidnapping, everything is here. Jean Servais has a face that would make Bogart proud and the rest of the cast is is full of character actors who seem to to know they're onto something good. Get some popcorn and have a great time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rififi, directed by Jules Dassin, is in line with the Melville crime pictures (particularly Bob le Flameur and to a point Le Cercle Rouge) of being totally focused on story and character and making sure not a word is spoken that doesn't need, and was ahead of its time. Ionically, it still has a kind of professionalism among its characters, a kind of respect (if not for selves than for others, a kind of duty) that rings well in post-WW2 France. Its actors carry faces for these characters that say 'we know what these guys are about', and from there the story takes off. Maybe it's because I have a weak spot for heist pictures, particularly where we see just the nuts and bolts (err, actual physical side) of how a heist is pulled off.

One of the problems with how the actual heist is filmed in today's movies is that it's all very fast (i.e. Snatch), or done in ways we've seen too many times before. Dassin, like Melville years later, decided to create practically a silent film of a heist, sound effects included. The tension that builds up in this scene may not top what Melville had in 'Rouge', but on its own level it achieves its own greatness and momentum, and just as crucial originality to what's been done before. There are some kept close-ups, for example, as the safe is being cracked, that mark some of the best I've seen from France at that time. An added plus for the film, aside from the larval-stage new-wave touch to the film, which in the end makes it a little more modern, is that the story works so well and differently. It becomes completely about character at points, and then keeps up the thrills. The last ten to fifteen minutes are down-right miraculous; like with another classic heist picture the Asphalt Jungle, it's not even the last stop that matters, but all about how much one will go past the call of duty, putting humanism over greed.

You almost wonder in all the exhilaration of the camera flying by the trees at a high speed with the car that he might just make it. Dassin has here a very entertaining and intuitive film of its genre, with a nifty little musical number as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With the war not going well for the Soviet Union, Stalin accepted volunteers from the prisons and used the prisoners as shock troops. This is the story of one such battalion. There are petty crooks, political prisoners, soldiers kicked out of other units, gray-haired veterans of the White Army plus some dangerous criminals.

They are thrown into battle ill-equipped, untrained and face the threat of the NKVD if they show signs of cowardice or failure.

The special effects are rudimentary and many of the minor characters are one-dimensional, but the overall story is very human and riveting.

I have not seen a version with subtitles or dubbing. Viewing the show required liberal use of the pause button and explanations from a native speaker of Russian.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many experienced and excellent actors mixed together in an ongoing plot of an untold part of world war II on the eastern front. Characters well portrayed and unforgettable. One episode leaves you wishing for the next. Pay attention to the closing credits were the thousands of Shtrafbat battalions are listed. An untold story involving hundreds of thousands of individuals. Sometimes brutal, sometimes romantic, always filled with real people and dialog. Produced with excellent sets and camera work. Heroes and villains, criminals and priests, patriots and traitors. Portrait of people struggling to survive and overcome a most terrible time. I wish to buy a copy for my own collection so to be able to enjoy the series repeatedly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shtrafbat is the story only Russians could tell about the Second World War. The largest front of the whole conflict has been, ironically, the least appearing subject on the silver screen after the war. While the Western Allies war-effort has been pictured in almost every possible detail and manner, the East has been left out or the job has been left to only some old propaganda movies of little else than historical footage value.

There is no chance that Shtrafbat could compete with Band of Brothers in every detail but neither you want to look at the screen with examining petty visual effects in mind. That the soldiers are Russians is enough big reason to forgive the less eye-captivating battle scenes and you can concentrate on the story that is the most interesting. So much different was the war in the Eastern front, and the nature of the Russian army, that you might wish people to produce more dramatizations from the other fronts, and of armies.

Shtrafbat is no way perfect, but it has some rare specialties that augment the overall rating. It tends to crush myths people have about the Second World War, the true heroes were Russian people and not their leaders who sent them to missions where they could only perish. Another great myth bust is that it presents the enemy, who does not pick up his gun, as an equal human being - an advancement that has been difficult to try in many acclaimed films as well. Shtrafbat shows how the war in the eastern front was a war of survival and how the clash of the -isms grinds people into dust.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shtrafbat - Penal Battalion is a moving, and mostly honest, look at the lives and deaths of Soviet soldiers who were sentenced to wash away their crimes with blood during World War Two. One can almost call it the Russian equivalent of highly acclaimed \"Band of Brothers\" miniseries.

Formed in July of 1942 on the eve of Battle of Stalingrad, the penal battalions were considered expendable units and suffered horrible casualties (sometimes as high as 90%). Prisoners of GULAG (political prison\/concentration camps), deserters, soldiers who were captured by Germans but managed to escape, soldiers accused of breaching protocol, were all given a chance to join the Shtrafbat and prove that there were not \"Traitors of the Motherland\" with their lives. Those who sustained injuries and those who died in battle were considered rehabilitated and were reinstated in the eyes of the law.

This miniseries features a look at one such Shtrafbat, under the command of Tverdokhlebov - an honorable officer who was captured by the Germans, was shot and left for dead. It features a colorful and varied group of people, thrust into a situation from which there is no escape. The authoritative yet honorable crime boss Antip \"Kulak\" (The Fist) and his little gang of unreformed criminals, a young Jewish intellectual who struck his anti-Semite officer, Father (Orthodox Priest) Mikhail who joins the battalion when his parish is destroyed in the house-to-house fighting, political prisoners who hate the regime that condemned them to the GULAG but who are nonetheless willing to fight one last time for their people and country, must all find their courage and their reasons to keep on living, and to keep on fighting.

Although set during a war, not every episode features combat, in fact what combat scenes there are, are often chaotic, sporadic, and short - which was probably the intent of the director. In between, the miniseries focuses on various relationships between the cast, their backgrounds, their thoughts and tragedies. The rape of a young woman by one of Shtrafbat's soldier and then his execution, execution for supposed AWOL, periods of boredom on the march, the celebration (and subsequent consequences) of finding a German bunker stocked with food (and champagne), the moral dilemma of officers unable to save their men from their own superiors, cheating on a spouse, and other situations, feature prominently. The camera is unflinching - it does not turn away from the ugliness of war and the ugliness of human nature, nor from raw human emotions. The dialog likewise does not censor out the swearing.

The acting is superb and deep, and the script is likewise well written. Everything from rage, to weariness, to resignation, to finding a scrap of joy to hang on to, is rendered almost faultlessly. One complaint might be that some of Russian linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies may not always be understood by someone not familiar with the language and culture. Because it is a history drama in a sense, some of the terms and situations (military rank, mention of other battles, certain historical references) may be lost on some viewers. This understanding is not needed to thoroughly enjoy Shtrafbat, but these references are a nice touch of authenticity. Another complain that could be levied, is an occasional anachronism and bending of history to suit the plot, but frankly this is such a riveting miniseries that one will likely forgive these slight mishaps.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This isn't a bad TV movie. Shtrafbat is short for Shtrafnoy Batallion, which means Penal Batallion. Such battallions were formed due to the increasing demand for soldiers as the Soviet Union was taking heavy casualties all through out the war. These battalions consisted of convicts and dishonored soldiers who were given the chance to clear their names by proving themselves in combat. They were looked down upon as scum and were expended easily during combat without much regret, or much honor, on the part of military. They were often sent on suicide missions and suffered extreme casualties. The ones who refused to fight were executed on sight. Needless to say, their lives sucked.

There were some very nice performances by the cast, especially by Yuri Stepanov who played Antip, Aleksandr Bashirov who played Stirah, and Roman Madyanov who played Major Kharchenko. However the series isn't really that addictive, in part because it's too long, it could've a lot shorter and as effective.

Although it's about war, Shtrafbat has very mild violence and pretty much no gore. It relies solely on the actors to make it work, and after all, it's a TV series, so the producers didn't want to scare off the viewers and the sponsors.

Shtrafbat explores the cruelty of the Soviet regime, and explaines why so many men chose to fight the Nazis instead of joining them. Personally I'd rather be a Fascist then a Communist given the circumstances presented in the film. One character explains that the Soviets stripped his farm clean and his family died of starvation. Out of anger he burned it down which got him arrested for destroying Kolhoz property and he ended up in the penal battalion as a criminal. Antip reminisced on how his mother killed her youngest son to feed the rest of the family. Both men explained that they fought for their motherland, rather than the for the Soviets.

The penal battalion had one Marine(Naval Infantry) who raped a girl, killing his comrade in the prosess, threatened his other comrade to keep his mouth shut about both ordeals, and then feigned injury when it came to fighting. On top of all that the girl committed suicide due to shame. I imagine if enough Marines watched this movie they'd pick up banners and riot on the streets calling for a boycott or an official apology from the producers.

To say the least, I'd recommend it to anyone with the slightest interest in the former Soviet Union or World War II. I don't think I wasted 500+ minutes of my life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A team varied between Scully and Mulder, two other scientists, a pilot, and the guy who plays Bana on Seinfeld, go up to an Arctic research post where all members have died off by either killing each other or killing themselves. They discover there's a worm- a virus- that is parasitic to the point of madness and death. The problem is, after a certain dog lashes out, anyone could be infected, but who? This is not just my favorite episode of season 1, but also one of my favorites from the show. The Arctic environment encloses the characters and, of course like Carpenter's the Thing, it's a lot of fun watching these even-tempered characters suddenly start to flip out in dramatic scenes. And the visual effects of the worm and its effects under the skin are cheesy, I didn't mind them at all. The drama between the characters ends up working more than it would usually because of the tension and because all of the actors (including the Bana guy) understand what's going on in the story. And, as usual, I loved the ambiguity of the ending. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A true stand out episode from season 1 is what Ice is.An artic location,claustrophobic conditions and a general feel of paranoia looming in the freezing air makes this is a must see episode from season one.The previous occupants of the artic station Mulder,Scully and four others go to have either killed each other or killed themselves.A virus is bringing out murderous aggression and is responsible for bringing out deadly paranoia and fear.Mulder and Scully actually begin to question each others sanity.Tension is that high.The writers have to receive great credit for creating that sort of scenario where the atmosphere is so tense Mulder and Scully come into conflict in such a direct manner","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow! It's hard to put into words my feelings for this episode. Ice is one of the best episodes of season one for sure. It's my favorite of the season. Six people and a dog in a claustrophobic structure isolated in the middle of the arctic with an unknown organism that causes murderous aggression, the drama can't get any better than that. Paranoia reigns supreme as even Mulder and Scully have doubts about each other's sanity. I've heard people complain about this episode's similarities to the movie 'The Thing'. I haven't seen it, so I wouldn't know. Ice is more than worth watching just to see Mulder and Scully truly testing their still developing trust of one another. This episode is intense and suspenseful to the end. You won't be disappointed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ice the Limerick:

A virus pulled out of the ice

Just didn't know how to play nice.

If infected you'll kill

Because you are ill.

The cure is to be infected twice.

Ice is a great episode; one of the greats from season 1 that began shaping the show and if you ask me you really couldn't ask for much better throughout the entire series. It starts out with an awesome teaser which in my opinion is really one of the best teasers of the series also. A group of scientists in Alaska have drilled something out of the ice core which has for some reason caused them to kill each other. Now Mulder and Scully are sent with three other scientists to investigate what happened. As Mulder says this is either because they are brilliant or expendable. I take this to mean that they had better be brilliant or else... The group soon finds out that the cause of mayhem is a small parasite pulled out of the ice core. A little worm that gets into the bloodstream and causes violent behavior. Since the pilot is infected the rest of the show turns to a suspenseful sort of who-done-it paranoiac thriller as the others begin to suspect each other of being infected. This is not helped at all by an overly paranoid doctor Hodge who is un-trusting of anyone which we learn early on by the first thing he asks: to see everyone's credentials to \"make sure we are who we say we are\". Events lead to finding out the one who is infected and learning how to cure them.

There are a number of things I like about the episode and of course certain characters that I want to smack in the face from this episode, as well as a couple loopholes but most can be attributed to heightened caution and not thinking clearly. I like Bear from the moment I first meet him. Its a shame he has to die. I also like the scene shown from the other scientist's point of view as Mulder and Scully argue in the other room. It gives an interesting twist to our typical perception as a viewer and for me seems to say maybe we shouldn't assume that just because someone is government means they know all sorts of conspiracy secrets. As much as Hodges frustrates me in this episode I do think that Mulder was as much to blame for some of the rash actions taken as any. I really like Scully in this episode. First of all she can tackle like a frickin linebacker! Second I really like the focus on her terror of what can happen to them out there and how she tries not to let trust and friendship of Mulder keep her from biasing her judgment. I love the scene when she goes into the room to sleep and first looks as the picture of the previous group all hugging and the birthday presents from them to whoever used to sleep in that room and then how she suddenly freaks out and pushes the dresser in front of the door and in a final touch of subtlety as she sits on the floor with her knees pulled into her chest we see the bottom of a poster on the wall that says \"Bosom Buddies\". This is such great writing. A way to say without any words that Scully is worried that she may not be able to trust even her very best friend.

Unfortunately this heightened suspicion leads the group to believe Mulder to be infected since he discover's Murphy's dead body even though they haven't inspected him at all to find out for sure. That was my main problem with the behavior of the characters is they could easily have solved all the suspicion simply by giving blood. But I guess I probably would have acted rashly in that situation too. But then stupid Hodges decides that he has to assume Mulder is infected even though Mulder willingly surrenders and then is going willingly to be inspected and almost infects Mulder in the process. Luckily he sees that it is really Dasilva that is infected and we finally reach a resolution. At least as much as you can expect from an X-File. The \"government\" wastes no time in torching the evidence as always happens in these cases and Mulder is left with yet another frustrating \"unsolved\" case. In closing I give \"Ice\" and easy 10\/10 and I leave you with a haiku.

\"We're not who we are. It goes no further than this. It ends right here right now.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was truly a tense and dark episode. Excellently executed, wonderful acting and atmospheric directing, 'Ice' is one of my favorite episodes. Along with 'Pusher' 'Grotesque' 'Wetwired' and 'Home' (these are quite good in dark atmosphere in my case) It seem quite realistic to me, their paranoia, their suspicion and their ever growing rage was perfectly executed by the great actors. However, 'Ice' had a problem that I got over after a few watches: IT WAS TOO SHORT! I WANTED MORE!

Overall, 'ice' had what 98% of all X Files episodes have: Excellent acting, Intense story-writing, gritty directing. All the works.

10 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"FBI Agents Mulder and Scully get assigned to probe the mystery of what happened to an Arctic drilling team, in this early 'X-Files' episode that David Duchovny himself considers one of their first \"rockin'\" episodes. It pays loving homage to the much lauded John Carpenter 1982 theatrical feature \"The Thing\", and one can see the similarities. Visually, color and lighting schemes combine to give the story a hellish quality. Production design \/ art direction are especially impressive; the shots of the exterior of the Arctic camp are so reminiscent of the earlier film as to automatically create feelings of deja vu for some viewers. Naturally, our heroes are threatened by the weather, so the sound design, involving wind, evokes memories of \"The Thing\".

The culprit is an ancient worm that had been exposed to the team; once inside a host, it stimulates aggressive behavior. This allows the paranoia aspect to take full hold, and the way the script is set up we can't be too sure of who's infected and who's not. This gives rise to the inevitable scene of testing. This episode certainly works at portraying the way that tensions can cause breakdowns in groups. It even allows Mulder and Scully to have moments where they're not sure if they can trust each other.

Guest starring are a good small group of actors: Xander Berkeley, Felicity Huffman, and Steve Hytner as the scientists obliged to accompany Mulder and Scully on the mission, and Jeff Kober as the pilot who takes them to the camp. You can also see one time Jason Voorhees portrayer Ken Kirzinger as one of the ill-fated original team members.

Incidentally, there's one direct link between 'Ice' and \"The Thing\": art director Graeme Murray, who worked on both projects.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, that was just brilliant. I wish that the rest of Season 1 had been this strong. It really needed more episodes like this.

The cast worked perfectly, even though they were all nobodies back in the day. Writing was fantastic and so was the editing. Great job in all accounts.

The episode was thrilling, suspenseful and just kept you guessing until the very end. Which is what most MOTW episodes had tried, but failed until now.

The first FIVE star episode for me. Really good, almost like a movie. I didn't even remember it being this good. I think it's even better than the great horror movie called 'The Thing'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best episodes from the entire X-Files series, creepy beyond words. The tension and suspense in this episode is very well executed, in its entire 45 minutes it managed to be almost as scary as an entire movie. This episode joins the ranks of best episodes with such greats as \"Home\", \"Humbug\" \"Bad Blood\" and \"Milagro\" for being the best in their respective season.

Mulder and Scully's growing relationship is put to the test in this episode: Can they really trust each other? This episode also contains a tiny scene that will leave romantic viewers smiling.

Mulder: \"Bring your mittens\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This definitely the most tension filled X-Files episode of the first season. this episode is what I think of when I hear \"X-Files\". the plot is simple but exiting. Our main cast plus a few scientist go to investigate an Alskan outpost in which it's research team appears to have killed each other. It turns out a small parasite that got dug up from the ice, had infected the research team. The parasite attaches itself to the brain and causes paranoia and insanity. Soon none can tell who they can trust, or who's infected or not.

This episode was a direct tribute to John Carpenters great horror film \"the THING\". the Thing is set in Antarctica and a team of scientist find a destroyed outpost in which it's occupant have been killed or killed themselves. An alien that had been buried in the ice for a 10000 years had been thawed out. It has the abilities to imitate any life form. therefore the main characters can no longer distinct friends from foes.

Believe me The THING is one of the most exiting, and tension filled horror movies you'll ever see. if you liked the episode ICE I advice you to see it. Or if you have only seen the THING I advice you to see ICE.

ICE is the best direct tribute\/homage to John Carpenter's The THING I have ever seen, and it lives up to it's inspiration as one of the best X-Files episodes. I give it a 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yeah, I know my title sucks. I couldn't think of any other title. x] Ice is a brilliant first season episode. Very interesting idea and good acting as well. The whole worm-looking-thing was really creepy in my opinion. I've never been a fan of insects, so all the insect episodes are creepy to me. x] Anyway, lets go on to the good and bad things about this episode,

The Good: The parasite thing. Awesome!

Scully finally trusting Mulder. Awww... <33

It was a good idea to put another parasite in the ear. Though if someone told me they had to put that thing in my ear... I think the whole cabin would be dead.

The Bad: How did the dog stay alive for so long?

How didn't Huffman get those black spots? Or maybe she did, but no-one saw it...

Conclusion: Very good episode, especially for Season 1. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tom Hanks returns as Dan Brown's symbologist Robert Langdon in his first adventure Angels & Demons, which Hollywood decided to make after The Da Vinci Code, given the latter's more controversial subject striking a raw nerve on the faith itself. The Catholic Church was up in arms over the first film, but seemingly nonchalant about this one. And it's not hard to see why, considering Ron Howard had opted to do a flat-out action piece that serves as a great tourism video of Rome and Vatican City, and would probably boost visitor numbers given the many beautiful on-location scenes, save for St Peter's Square and Basilica which was a scaled model used.

So I guess with the bulk of the budget going toward the sets, the ensemble cast had to be correspondingly scaled down. Ayelet Zurer tried to step into the female void left by Audrey Tautou, but given Tautou's character then having a lot more stake in the film, Zurer's scientist Vittoria had a lot less to do other than just waiting in the wings to change some batteries on a canister filled with anti-matter. In the book she's the fodder of course for Langdon to converse his vast knowledge of the Vatican, the Illuminati and the great feud between the two, but here she's neither love interest, nor his intellectual equal.

Ewan McGregor on the other hand, chews up each scene he's in as Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, who is temporarily taking care of the Papal office while the other prominent cardinals are in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new Pope. And he plays Patrick with that glint in the eye, with nuances enough to let you know there's more than meets the eye. There's no surprises here for readers of the novel, but McGregor's performance here is one of the highlights of the film as Hanks plays well, Tom Hanks.

The book itself is rich with arguably accurate content as always, and had a lot more plot points on science versus religion, and a wealth of information that Dan Brown researched and linked together in an engaging fictional piece of work. While reading the book some years ago, I thought that should a film be made of it, it's easy to lapse and dwell more on the set action pieces. Sadly, that's what this Ron Howard film did, with a pace that doesn't allow a temporary breather. Unlike the first film where you had the characters sit down for some \"discussion time\" over a cup of tea, this one moved things along so quickly, it's like reading the book all over again, page after page being skipped just to get to the thick of the action.

Catholic reviewers have called Angels & Demons harmless, because I guess it didn't dwell on its many controversies, unlike The Da Vinci Code which struck a raw nerve at the centre of the faith. And if anything, this film served as a great tourism promotional video with a nice showcase of the many prominent touristy landmarks that would entice many around the world to go pay a visit. Naturally certain areas like the catacombs beneath St Peter's Basilica, and the Vatican archives remain out of bounds, but the walk along the Path of Illumination, now that's almost free.

Nothing new for those who have read the book other than to see it come alive, but for those who haven't, this film may just compel you to pick up Dan Brown's novel just to read a bit more about the significance about the landmarks, and characters such as Galileo, Michelangelo and Bernini who are intricately linked to the plot, but much left unsaid. Satisfying pop-corn entertainment leaving you with nothing spectacular.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before seeing the sneak preview today of Angels & Demons, I cleared my mind of any uncertainties that might hold me back from enjoying it; the enormous amount of hatred towards Dan Brown, the fact that it was written by Dan Brown, and because Dan Brown's name is slapped on all of the posters. I went in with an open mind, and expected the worse, but instead what I got was a 2 and a half hour Roman cat and mouse game with Forrest Gump, and that is by all means good entertainment value.

The movie hangs loosely on the actual novel itself. Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) jets off to Rome after the Pope's sudden death and the re-election through Papal Conclave. Arranging all of this is the carmelengo, Patrick McKenna (McGregor). However, he soon learns of a new threat, one that involves a secret brotherhood making its presence known, an anti-matter time bomb that Vatican City is now targeted with and the kidnapping of four cardinals. Langdon, using his intellects (and trust me, you'll be hearing a LOT from it) is given the task of finding and rescuing them using the mysterious Path of Illumination. Aiding him on the quest is CERN scientist Vittoria Vetra (Zurer), who is also the co-creator of the anti-matter.

The movie itself runs at an uneven pace. One minute Langdon and the Swiss Guard are speeding to save a branded cardinal, the next minute he bores you with pointless information about every random object he passes, evidently slowing the book's much anticipated action\/thriller sequences down. It makes for an interesting read on paper, but on screen it can go either way.

The character's are decently written onto the big screen. Ewan McGregor does a convincing performance as the quiet but knowledgeable Patrick McKenna, famous accent included. Tom Hanks is slightly more agile, intellectually and physically, since his last performance in the mediocre Da Vinci Code. Stellen Skarsgard plays Commander Richter, the straight-faced leader of the Swiss Guard. Unfortunately, neither his nor Ayelet Zurer's performance are worthwhile ones, and instead of playing a part in the story, they are just kicked aside as assets.

However, Angels & Demons accomplishes what DVC could never; a thrilling fast-paced movie filled with satisfying explosions, beautiful recreations of St. Peter's Square and Basilica (including many of the churches) and a pulsing bomb counting down the midnight hour. Ron Howard does a decent job at directing this second Langdon adventure, this time taking in much criticism and almost completely exchanging the boring dialogue for tense chases (almost).

While newcomers might call it a \"National Treasure 3\" with a much larger threat, there is still enough contagious suspense\/thriller eye-candy and brilliant still shots of Rome to breathe in. Fans of the book might feel differently towards the movies drastic changes, but considering the amount of blasphemy and inaccuracy it generates, A&D does exceedingly well at keeping the viewer locked on to the screen this time rather than on their sleepy shoulder.

A good book-to-movie adaption that will both appeal and entertain.

7.4\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Where Da Vinci code introduced us to Dr. Robert Langdon and his knack for solving puzzles, Angels and Demons ups the ante by providing a huge puzzle with an 8 hour limit.

With a cast of award winning actors, Ron Howard does a good job of directing a story that was easy to follow and even easier to accept. The Da Vinci code threw so many angles at you in such a short time that a quick bathroom break would leave you a bit confused on return. I didn't feel this was with Angels and Demons, the plot was straight-forward and the action kept the interest level peaked throughout.

Cardinal Strauss (Armin Mueller-Stahl) was easily my favorite character in the movie. His portrayal of the elitist, yet misunderstood rank of the Catholic Church was very good and combined with the victim of his treatment Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), you will find yourself choosing sides immediately upon introduction. There isn't a great amount of Tom Hanks time as the film focuses more on story than character development and this did well with me being that I had more than enough introduction from the first movie.

Unfortunately I found Ayelet Zurer's character Vittoria Vetra to be an unnecessary femme assistant in the quest since her lines were a bit limited and seemed much like an afterthought. She does play a key role in the beginning of things but she soon fades into the background of being Langdon's \"familiar\" more-so than a necessary partner.

The plot is as such, one of the organizations that the Catholic Church wronged in the past (there have been quite a few) has sought revenge in a most artistic manner. Some men of the church are kidnapped and are set to be executed at specific times until an ultimate end to the church itself will happen. Dr. Robert Landon is brought in to help decipher the clues and teams up with the beautiful Vittoria Vetra, a scientist who witnessed a colleague die at the hands of the church's enemy.

Music staying relevant and the cinematography beautiful, I could chime on about this menial things but what makes Angels and Demons absolutely work is it's conclusion. It was by far one of the most amazingly surprising endings I have seen in a movie and I was impressed at how off-guard I was when it hit me. Like anyone else I appreciate a great wrap-up and this movie wraps it up quite tight and drops a pretty bow on it. Needless to say I left the theater pleased at the movie in it's entirety.

If you are religious and unsure if this movie will offend your Catholic principles. I can say that where The DaVinci code painted Catholicism as a shady cover-up group of sadists, Angels and Demons paints them with a much lighter brush. The church is shown as being a collective of good men who are made to suffer for the sins of evil and misguided men who wore their colors and even a few who have infiltrated their modern ranks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I read Angels and Demons about 3 years ago, and I can honestly say to is one of the few books that I couldn't put down while reading.

The movie however was pretty much what i expected, a lot of action, with somewhat of a mystery storyline. Tom Hanks plays, in my opinion, a much better role, of Professor Langdon than in The Da Vinci Code.

You won't have to worry about this being as bad as The Da Vinci Code, this is everything that it wasn't. Much more interesting, more action, more suspense, and less of the unneeded controversy. If you haven't read the book, no worries you will still find it very interesting. And if you have read the book, well lets say you might be a little let down because I found many scenes missing that I was looking forward to.

Overall, Pretty impressive film for any everyday movie goer. But, maybe not something too special for Dan Brown fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I go to the movies to be entertained. I was very entertained by the first film in this series: The DaVinci Code. It had plenty of twists and turns throughout to keep me very interested. Angels and Demons is no different. If you enjoyed the DaVinci Code, then you will undoubtedly enjoy this movie as well. Angels and Demons is made pretty much with the exact same style as the previous film, but faster paced, which I liked. Ron Howard kept me glued to my seat for the full two hours without boring me one bit.

What I really liked about this movie was that even though it is obviously fictitious, they leave enough real history to make it seem very believable. If there is one thing that I didn't like about this movie, it is that the plot itself is very unbelievable (don't want to give any spoilers). But hey, it's a movie. I was entertained throughout the whole thing and was very satisfied with what I saw.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was at the premier of the movie last night in Rome. I am not an expert in the book, however there are a great deal of changes from the book to the movie. The pacing of this movie is much faster than the Davinci code. Many things were trimmed otherwise this would be a 4 hour movie. Many things were also changed to give the movie a fast pace. I think what matters is the feel of the movie and that works well for Hanks, Brown and company.

There are some things in the book that would appear very implausible in the movie form. I am not giving any spoilers, except to say the ending of the movie is handled in a slightly different way. How Leonardo Vetra was found is also different. Those who see the movie might be interested in reading the book to get the full details of the story. Some minor details are are also cut from the movie.

Although they did film in Rome, they had to recreate interior shots. Since I went on a walking tour of Rome the day before the movie I can say that the interior sites are authentic in look and feel. Kohler is not in the movie and not much is shown about CERN. Hanks does a good job and there are some interesting scenes involving the Vatican archives. Of course they had no access to that area and I am not sure if anyone actually knows what the Vatican archives look like. Eyelet Zurer has her break in this movie as Victoria Vetra and does a good job as eye candy for Hanks.

This movie should be received better by the critics and public, but you never know. Ron Howard mentioned several times in interviews and as we saw him and the cast before the movie, that this is just a movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) is called to Rome to help decipher the mystery behind the Illuminati before a new science experiment blows up the city.

The Da Vinci Code broke records in 2006 but for the vast majority of Dan Brown followers it did not do his award winning book justice and though running at a good 2 and a half hours, seemed to bore many.

Having read the book, I was perhaps one of the few who enjoyed Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou attempt to solve the mystery of the murder in the Louvre but for Angels and Demons the scales were raised once more as lead star and director return.

Having asked around, most people seem to prefer Angels and Demons to The Da Vinci code for an entertaining read and it seems as critiques and fans, whilst still not fully justified, prefer this latest adaptation to the 2006 release.

This Howard picture certainly has a more clinical energy and exercise to it as unlike Da Vinci, Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon has only one night to solve the mysterious activities of the forgotten Illuminati in the Vatican and because of the time limitations, the action and desperation up the ante and deliver an excitement that certainly beats The Da Vinci code but also generates plenty of twists and stunning murder sequences.

The interesting factor of this 2009 release is the constant elements being justified for the murders. Earth, wind, water and fire are all included in drastic and powerful sequences to pronounce a feeling of overall power to the situation.

This really does justify the tag of thriller with a constant tension and sharp drama with the issues and beliefs once more given a full working over.

Just like 3 years ago, there are many debates and discoveries of symbols once believed to be lost forever and Langdon is again the key character to show everyone the light in and amongst the controversy of other pressing circumstances.

It is fair to say Dan Brown is a complex writer; he certainly likes to cram issues and dramas in amongst his action and thrilling sequences. As well as trying to discover the Illuminati, there is also the scenario of the election of a new pope, the dealings with a new scientific experiment and the power of Religion is again present. All interesting to discover and listen to, if occasionally the debates and dialogue tend to send your mind drifting but as there is so much in the novel, this was always likely.

Ron Howard, who kept a frankly ordinary type of direction rolling in Da Vinci, returns in perhaps the worst way possible. His jerky ever moving camera styling does nothing to keep the pressure up, and we can never fully accept what is happening on screen thanks to this frankly awfully portrayed style. He is certainly no Paul Greengrass and this is by no means Bourne.

Slick and stylized this is faster and more interesting than Da Vinci","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an OK adaptation of the breath taking book of Dan Brown. I can't say it is novel or very good but they made a movie that you can enjoy. Given the excellent story, the result could have been better though. The movie is pretty long but at the end I was feeling like some things were missing. Sound effects and sound tracks were very good. Acting was well done but the character development phase was very weak. For people who didn't read the book, things may look happening too quickly. From my point of view, instead of trying to put as much as stuff from the book, they could have tried to do the important scenes more proper. What makes the book very good was all the puzzle like story combined with the excellent portrait of Vatican. You see neither of it in the movie. Too much rush and using the time not in a good way, these are main problems of the movie. So, it is worth watching but could have been done better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Was excited at the opening to hear part of \"Chevaliers De Sangreal\" but wanted more so I bought said Hans Zimmer piece. Possibly the most inspiring and beautiful 4 minutes of music ever written! This movie is an exciting thriller masterpiece even w\/o the religious considerations. You get to tour the Vatican and parts of Rome with excellent cinematography. The opening at CERN where the \"God Particle\" or largest quantity of Antimatter is created with STUNNING visuals is an immediate clue which foretells the excellence of this movie. Who doesn't love Hanks? The storyline and twists in this film are just superb and well drawn out until the amazingly twisted climax. This film suggests a satisfying compromise between Science and Religion though plenty of closed heads will persist on both sides. \"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.\" A.Einstein","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Still haven't read a single Dan Brown book, but I watched all his movies adaptations. I won't fall into the game to rate this one with the previous because the scope isn't really the same: actually, this one is a thriller, a race against time filled with puzzles.

The plot is very twisted, imaginative and the cast is excellent: I never been a great fan of Hanks but he delivers well. I noticed his jeans shirt (the one spilled with blood) because I search for one like this in vain! The Italian searcher is a brilliant newcomer for me but I really applauded Ewan MacGregor portrayal: his inner faith and calm is really impressive.

I really like the debate between science and religion. The action taking place in the Vatican, it felt like vacation. At last, I am not sure it helps to add new converts into Christianism. With all the gold and man presence displayed, any one would ask what charity means and why women are so dismissed of the church life whereas they stand for half or more the believers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a fan of the book, this work is fantastically adapted; remaining true to the source materials, and demonstrating an honest respect for the literary work. The intrigues translate well to film by virtue of Ron Howard's good eye for detail and sound devotion to authenticity.

I like Hanks as Robert Langdon. His portrayal is genuine and earthy, with only the barest glint of the Kip we all knew and loved, back in \"the day.\" He is a good dramatic actor and, while I miss his comedic efforts, I do enjoy his more serious performances.

The subject matter is no less controversial than the DaVinci Code, and the Vatican seems to never learn their lesson. As with the aforementioned film, the Holy See issued a scathing rebuke and called for a global Catholic boycott of the film, which of course, generated millions in ticket sales.

Although the story of the \"God Particle\" was played down dramatically, and the science was written out of this piece of science fiction, the fiction that was left, was entertaining and extremely well done. And, the truth be known, people who have not read the book, will not notice any missing or lesser element to the story, as the screen version carries the main story well on its own.

In fact, it is not necessary to have seen the first installment of this franchise, in order to enjoy this second, which should have been a prequel in all honesty, although that does not lessen the effectiveness, nor does it meddle with the continuity or flow of this second work.

All in all, this is good for a Friday\/Saturday night's viewing, although the execution may be a bit rough for the small ones.

It rates an 8.8\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As I sat in the theater almost crying to myself in dismay over the atrocity Ron Howard and Tom Hanks call the Da Vinci Code, I could not see the light at the end of the tunnel that is Angels and Demons.

Hanks and Company are back for the Sequel-Prequel Angels and Demons, and they have learned their lesson.

Acting wise everyone is much better. Aylet Zurer is very good as Vittoria Vetra, and better than the girl who played Sophie Neveau. Tom Hanks is very good as always, he is better in this though, because he works harder at giving the movie the feeling that it is a thriller. I think Ewan McGregor does the best job of any of the actors. He might even deserve a nomination come March, but doubtful. He had me convinced right until the very end. He's Dynamic and faithful, but rational, and realizes that the Church needs to put their past behind them. The minor actors also do very good jobs.

Technically and Visually the movie is much improved. The Cinematography is much...much better, and the Visual Effects are superb. The final explosion sequence at the end is excellent. Howard does a masterful job, taking you through a tour of Rome.

Pacing wise, Ron Howard does an amazing job this time around at keeping the story moving, and not boring us with a history lesson deemed at denouncing Christianity. The movie also makes you feel like more is at stake. In our feeble minds discovering whether or not Jesus had children, is not as high up on the list compared to a cataclysmic explosion killing thousands including the Roman Catholic Church. Part of the reason I think the story is so fast paced is due to the excellent score. I cannot say enough about the score. It was epic at times, like something from Lord of the Rings, but then sometimes it felt like a Bourne Movie, which is a nice mix.

My only complaint about this movie is that it is ridiculously far fetched. The chances of the Carmelengo being someone of Ewan McGregors age are highly improbable, and the chances of a Cardinal with an adopted son getting elected Pope are even more ridiculous. Not to mention the whole Antimatter thing, which has yet to be created, and Dan Brown wrote the book in 2003...

Overall Angels and Demons is much tighter knitt, faster paced, more exciting, and more important movie than the Da Vinci Code. This is must see thriller for anyone who loves history and mystery combined into one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So first things first..

Angels and Demons is a much better and very different film than the Da- Vinci code.

Following the recent slew of comic book movies, remakes and questionable resurrections of aged franchises. it is refreshing to watch a very solid and entertaining film that is devoid of shaky cam filming techniques, lens flare, excessive GCI and over the top action sequences.

In this respect Angels and Demons almost feels old fashioned.It offers a good and considered debate on the age old subject of religion Vs science, offers an insight in to the parallels between the grand houses of God in Rome (beautifully shot by the way) and the temple of modern science that is CERN's large hadron collider facility.

Hanks is Hanks pretending to be the smart guy and he fits the role much better second time around than his wooden performance in Da-Vinci. good support is offered by a rock solid cast, with a particular highlight being Armin Mueller-Stahl's stoic Cardinal. but the films main saving grace is it's pace. for the entire running time I was totally engrossed in the story and the film never really gave me time to sit and pick apart its faults in logic.

My only serious criticism is that some of the science depicted is at best debatable regards real world authenticity. But that is not the fault of the film makers, rather an observation of the old adage that you should never let the truth get in the way of a good story..

Speaking of which the story is a cracker, mixing adventure and a race against time with a good sprinkling of intelligence and a nice twist or two along the way.

overall I would highly recommend this to fans of either of the national treasure movies (which this clearly mimics but with a much more serious vibe) and fans of ripping adventure tales in general.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First i gotta say that this film is way less pretentious than The Da Vinci Code. sure, you have the religion vs science problem but it doesn't try to make a big statement about it. its basically an action thriller that moves from one scene to another very well. one scene particularly (that involves fire) i found extremely well done.

Second, the changes from book to film. although when i was following the development of the film i complained about the change of some characters and the complete removal of others, i gotta admit i was wrong. it was refreshing that the film didn't follow the book in exactly the same way like it was done in Da Vinci. if you are a purist of the book some of them may upset you though. However the BIG TWIST is still there so don't worry about that. finally i'm glad they removed some silly sub-plots and didn't even try to hint at the possibility of Langdon and Vittoria getting together.

The performances are really good, but nothing out of the ordinary. that's okay for a film like this.

i'd give it a 9\/10, mainly because it delivers what it promises, entertainment, pure entertainment","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently got the movie and all I can say it is a good movie. There's a lot of famous Rome monuments and historical locations.It is from the same writer and director from The Da Vinci Code. Tom Hanks stars along with Ewan McGregor and Ayelet Zurer. The movie starts out with the space and time experiment in Sweden until one of the canisters is stolen by the church's most hated enemy the Illuminati. The plot is hard to discuss about without spoiling anything. Its a race all of Rome following the Illuminati trail to get to the Illuminati secret meeting place. While racing against time to find the path of the Illuminati. Over all its a movie worth seeing hell I watched it 3 times and I still like it so in the end go buy it. It is a lot better than the movie 2010. And the ending has one awesome plot twist.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As is the case with many films of this ilk, my non Catholicism got in the way of my understanding it. The church has this mass of rules which have been put together over centuries. We have a short time to learn them and have to accept them at face value. Then, throw in some bad guys getting revenge for a long distant act against them, working under these rules and attempting to circumvent them, and you have this book and movie. I found myself thinking, \"That's pretty cool. Why did they do that?\" There's this casual thing in the Robert Langdon character where no matter what the issue, he seems to always make the right first move. I suppose it's like watching CSI where they solve incredibly complex cases in a matter of days. They know the lay of the land. In this film, there is so much land and so little time to really understand everything that is going on. But if you create Robert Langdon, you need to set him to work. That's OK because heroic nerds like him have been saving the day forever. I thought the film was fun. I thought the Da Vinci Code was fun too. Interesting and not as bad as people seemed to think. This is a marvel to look at and never stops for a second.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a low budget stop motion monster movie from Brett (A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell) Piper... and it delivers just what I'd expect from such a production: light-hearted (though cheesy) dialogue, some cute actresses and lots of stop motion critters. That's why I've given the film 10 out of 10 - because it delivers what I expected it to deliver... and a bit more: Brett doesn't penny-pinch when it comes to putting his critters on screen. He hurls lots of bugs at his cast for the finale. And, anyway, I LOVE stop motion monsters which, compared to CGI critters in bigger budgeted movies, just seem to be that much fun to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, I am a sucker. I loved it. I had no expectations and had them all fulfilled. It was a terrible movie. I loved it. I have managed to wear out a DVD from over use. No one can understand my obsession. I can't either, to tell the truth. For those who have seen the movie this will come as no surprise, but I asked the clerk at the video store if I could buy a copy and I could because there were two in stock and only one had been check out and over half of the time it had been to me.

Now, the movie is terrible. The special effects are terrible. The acting is terrible, but I loved it. The actors are silly, the plot silly, the goofs numerous--like being able to see through the monsters, The \"arachnids\" looked like they were made out of plastic garbage bags (maybe they were), There was light underground, TNT wasn't deafening, etc...

You must really love B-Movies to get any enjoyment out of this...alcohol helps enormously for others.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In defense of this movie I must repeat what I had stated previously. The movie is called Arachina, it has a no name cast and I do not mean no name as in actors who play in little seen art house films. I mean no name as in your local high school decided to make a film no name and it might have a 2 dollar budget. So what does one expect? Hitchcock?

I felt the movie never took itself seriously which automatically takes it out of the worst movie list. That list is only for big budget all star cast movies that takes itself way too seriously. THe movie The Oscar comes to mind, most of Sylvester Stallone's movies. THe two leads were not Hepburn and Tracy but they did their jobs well enough for this movie. The woman kicked butt and the guy was not a blithering idiot. The actor who played the old man was actually very good. The man who played anal retentive professor was no Clifton Webb but he did a god job. And the Bimbo's for lack of a better were played by two competent actors. I laughed at the 50 cent special effects. But that was part of the charm of the movie. It played like a hybrid Tremors meets Night of the Living Dead. The premise of the movie is just like all Giant Bug movies of the 50's. A Meteor or radiation stir up the ecosystem and before you know it we have Giant Ants, Lobsters, rocks or Lizards terrorizing the locals. A meteor was the cause of the problems this time. I was was very entertained. I didn't expect much and I go a lot more then I bargained for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I bought this DVD from Walmart for cheap, thinking it would be a typical, crap straight-to-video monster junk, but it turned out much better than expected. There isn't really any criticism to say about it... it's obviously low budget, but that just adds to the cheesy old fashioned fun. It's very cool and entertaining.

There's everything: horror, sex, a great plane crash and good characters. And I'd say it's pretty original, cuz it really doesn't come off as any other movie I've seen. It has it's own unique look, which I liked very much, that's why this film deserves credit. I look forward to seeing more of these awesome movies from \"The Scare Master\", Brett Piper, whom I've never heard before this one.

The DVD menu is really creative with groovy music playing over it, so it's perfect just to keep it on when you're not yet ready to sit down and watch it. It also includes some special features, which are really interesting. But we never get to see the director or hear him in the commentary, must be shy. This comes out of Edgewood Studios in Vermont, USA. I highly recommend it to all horror buffs, you'll love it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brett Piper again makes a very good film that is trashed by the so called film \"experts.\" it is low budget, but fun, and the leading lady is very sexy. I wish i could see more of Irene Joseph. Good viewing fun. I bought the DVD and enjoyed it. The special effects are stop motion animation, and much better than the computer generated crap they call effects today. I always enjoy Brett Piper movies, and if you liked this I recommend Bite Me, Screaming Dead and anything else he has done. I look forward to seeing more of his work and well as more of Ms. Joseph. I simply cannot see why this woman hasn't been in more movies, as her acting is excellent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw \"Death in Venice\" 1971) about 15 years ago, found it profoundly moving and often thought about it. Watching it again few days ago, I realized that it is close to the top of the great works of cinema. With hardly any dialog it captivates a viewer with the beautiful cinematography, the fine acting, and, above all, the Mahler's music without which the movie simply could not exist.

\"Death in Venice\" is a stunning Luchino Visconti's adaptation of the Thomas Mann novella about a famous composer (in the novella he was a writer but making him a composer in a movie was a great idea that works admirably) Gustav von Aschenbach (loosely based on Gustav Mahler) who travels to Venice in the summer of 1911 to recover from personal losses and professional failures. His search for beauty and perfection seems to be completed when he sees a boy of incredible divine beauty. Ashenbach (Dirk Bogard) follows the boy everywhere never trying to approach him. The boy, Tadzio, belonged to very rare creatures that own an enigmatic and inconceivable power which captivates you, enchants you, conquers you and makes you its prisoner. Ashenbach became one of the prisoners of Tadzio spellbinding charms. He became addicted to him; he fell in love with him. Was it bless or curse for him? I think both. He died from unreachable, impossible yet beautiful love which object was perfection itself. The last image Ashenbach's eyes captured was that of the boy's silhouette surrounded by the sea and golden sun light. Nothing could compare to the beauty and charm of the scene and to take it with you to the grave is the death one can only dream about. If he could, Ashenbach probably would've said, \"I was able to witness one of the faces of perfection, I could not bear it but I was chosen to learn that it exists here, in this world and I can die in peace now because it did happen to me.\"

Unforgettable music, Gustav Mahler's haunting adagietto of his Fifth Symphony found perfect use in a perfect movie. It reflects every emotion of a main character - it sobs, it longs, it begs for hope, and it summarizes the idea that once you are blessed to encounter beauty you are condemned to die. I may come up with hundreds movies that use classical music to perfection but nothing will ever compare to \"Death in Venice\". I dare say that Mahler's music IS its main character - it would change and sound differently depending on what was happening on the screen. It sounded triumphantly when Ashenbach returned back to Venice, to what he thought would be his happiness but turned to be his death. It sounded gloomy when he first entered Venice from the sea. You can hear so many different feelings in it - tenderness and adoration, confusion and self-loathing, worship and melancholy, but always - LOVE that gives the purest happiness and breaks the hearts (literally). The movie for a viewer is similar to what the boy was for the aging composer\/writer\/Artist. We are enchanted and captivated by its power and beauty as much as Achenbach was by the boy's mysterious charm.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cinema's greatest period started in post-War Europe with Italy's Neo-Realist movement. During the next 2 or 3 decades that followed, France's New Wavers caught everyone's attention, and there was always Bergman up there on his desolate Scandinavian island somewhere, making bitter masterpieces. But in 1971, Luchino Visconti brought the art-form to full circle, geographically speaking, with his miraculous work *Death in Venice*, which might as well be called *The Death of Europoean Cinema*. After the Sixties wound down, so did the great European filmmakers, who, with some exceptions, generally grew exhausted and passed the torch to a new American generation of Movie Brats (Coppola, Scorsese, & Co.). This movie absolutely feels like a grand summing-up, not just of Visconti's particular obsessions, but of the general attempt of European filmmakers to achieve the aesthetic ideal in movies. And rest assured, you will find no sterner task-master than the Visconti revealed here. He's not playing to the crowd, folks: either you get behind him and follow along, or you get left behind. The pacing is a challenge: slow, but never without emotional weight. \"Incidents\" are few and far between, but each seems loaded with symbolic significance in a sturm-und-drang cosmos.

We will probably never be in such rarefied company again, in terms of the movies: one of the century's great writers who inspired the tale (Thomas Mann), one of the greatest filmmakers directing it (Visconti), one of the greatest actors in the lead role (Dirk Bogarde), and swelling almost ceaselessly in the background, Gustav Mahler's 5th Symphony. Taking full advantage of Mahler's ability to inspire Romanticism in even the most cynical breast, Visconti changes the main character, Aschenbach, into a decrepit composer from his original persona as a writer, even making Bogarde up to LOOK like Mahler (geeky mustache, specs, shaggy hair, duck-like walk). Bogarde, by the way, delivers what is probably greatest performance of an actor in the history of movies: it's a largely silent performance, and the actor has to deliver reams of meaning in a gesture or a glance -- a difficult trick without mugging like Chaplin or merely acting like an animated corpse.

Cinema just doesn't get better than this. I'll ignore the complaints from the Ritalin-addicts out there who say that it's too slow, but even the more legitimate gripe concerning some of Aschenbach's flashbacks with that antagonistic friend of his is misplaced. The flashbacks fit neatly within the movie's thematic concerns (i.e., which is the better path to aesthetic perfection: passion or discipline?), and the suddenness and shrillness of these interruptions serve to prevent sleepiness among the viewers. (Of course, some viewers will sleep through this movie, anyway.) A nonstop stream of Mahler and beautiful, dying Venice would be nothing more than a pretty picture; but this movie is actually about something. And what it's mostly about is suffering: Romantic (capital R) suffering, in particular. As a suffering Romantic himself, Visconti knew whereof he spoke.

[SPOILER . . . I guess] If for nothing else, see *Death in Venice* for its portentous opening credits . . . and for its unforgettable ending, with Bogarde's jet-black hair-dye dripping off of his sweaty, dying head and onto his chalk-white face. Meanwhile, off in the distance, young Tadzio, the object of Bogarde's dying desire, stands in the ocean and points toward the horizon like a Michelangelo sculpture. The climatic sequence sums up with agonizing economy everything that the movie is about: love, lust, beauty, loss, the ending of a life set against the beginning of another life, and cold death in the midst of warm, sunny beauty. *Death in Venice* is a miraculous work of art.

[DVD tip: as with the simultaneously released Visconti masterpiece *The Damned*, I recommend that you turn the English subtitles ON while watching this movie. It's ostensibly in English, but the DVD's sound seems muddy and there's a lot of Italian spoken during the film, anyway.]

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thomas Mann's controversial novel is the basis for the film \"A Death in Venice. \" Although in the book, the hero is an author, in the film the director Luchino Visconti who also wrote the screenplay, transforms him into a Composer. As such, the Author\/Composer, Gustav Von Aschebach (Dirk Bogarde) on the verge of mental exhaustion is a burned-out artisan. After a long and successful career now seeks the peace and tranquility of a less hectic life. He decides to go on vacation to Venice where he hopes to rejuvenate his dwindling ambition. However, while staying at the picturesque seaside resort, he captures the attention of a beautiful young teenage boy, Tadzio (Bj\u00f6rn Andr\u00e9sen) who eyes him with curious interest and is immediately smitten by him. Although Gustav is captivated by the wondrous youth, he nevertheless must find some private time away from the boy's governess (Nora Ricci), while having to cope with a invading plague which seems to have infested the city. The movie dialog, like the novel remains subtle as are the few brief encounters between the boy and the artist. In the end. the audience unlike the book is hampered with innuendos and imaginative flights of fancy. Their affair is never given wing, substance or opportunity and were it not for the brief resolution in the book, the film allows only the possibility of 'what if.' Nevertheless, one can sympathize with the hero and wish him a moment's peace to obtain that which is forbidden, elusive but definitely criticized by prying eyes. Great story and a Bogarde Classic. ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Are sea side resorts the sad, dreary places they're always depicted as in movies and novels? Certainly this movie, along with the near-contemporary \"Don't Look Now\" depicts Venice as a particularly squalid and decadent tourist trap (for a more light-hearted approach, see \"Just Married\" with Ashton Kutcher and Brittany Murphy). Having never been to Venice I can't say for sure, but it does make a perfect setting for this somber but sumptuous spectacle from Luchino Visconti, one of the great stylists of world cinema. Having seen the movie I now wish I had gotten around to reading the Thomas Mann novella it's based on (which also inspired an opera by Sir Benjamin Britten). Since I don't know the back story and the movie has little in the way of plot or exposition, I'm left wondering about Aschenbach (Dirk Bogarde)'s obsession with young Tadzio. Is he a homosexual? A pedophile? Or is his longing for the beautiful youth something more innocent? Perhaps Tadzio reminds him of what he could have been and now knows he never will be. Those who complain of the slow pace of this movie should stick to car crashes and kung-fu: at 2 hours and 15 minutes it's not particularly long, and it moves at a leisurely but hardly sluggish pace. The film benefits from the ravishing music of Gustave Mahler, on whom Aschenbach's character is clearly based. Dirk Bogarde gives a moving performance, and the movie is graced by the presence of Silvana Mangano, one of Italy's great beauties, as Tadzio's mother.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Set in Venice mainly on the Lido, Visconti's \"Death in Venice\" is a triumph of filmmaking combining the excellence of Dirk Bogarde's characterisation and expert photography of the resort area in all its various daily moods. For those who love Venice, this is a film to cherish.

Mahler's music frequently heard throughout the film heightens the drama. The mood it creates is not always happy. But then what else would you expect with a title like that?

There is not a lot of dialogue in the film. Rather sparse in fact. It's mainly background noises and chatter and laughter among the hotel guests. The intriguing part is to interpret the exchange of glances between Gustav von Aschenbach a composer of some renown and a slim teenage youth Tadzio who see each other from time to time across the tables of the hotel dining room, on the beach and at odd unexpected places around Venice. They seem to acknowledge each other's presence shyly at first with little more than the suggestion of a smile but later with a strong and riveting and urgent gaze.

Each viewer will have his own interpretation. The composer has lost a child of his own. Is this behaviour an expression of yearning for the child he loved? Is it perhaps a sexual attraction towards this fragile young man with his dazed somewhat girlish stare? Could he be discovering some new inspiration for a yet unwritten musical masterpiece? Who knows?

From beginning to end this film captures the true spirit of 19th Century Venice. The elegance of the ladies, the deck chairs on the sand, the children frolicking in their neck-to-knee bathing costumes, the glow of sunsets and a general feeling of satisfaction with the world. While some may think the pace is rather slow at times, the film has an overall gentle quality, but with a simmering indecision between two repressed human beings. Be prepared for a sad and beautiful ending.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Story of a strange love and a fall desire. Poem about beauty and his perfection, fear and touch.A slice of Visconti, Mahler and Mann. And an agonize Venice. Idon't know if it is a masterpiece, a poem or the reflection of a film director's world. It is, absolutely, a\" memento mori\". and a exploration of illusion. A old mirror of limits, signs and death's delicacy. A trip in an old space, nostalgic, cruel and splendid. \"Death\" is a Orfeu's trip copy in the immediate reality. And the essence is the music. A soft, sweet music, like honey or winter's fire. Like every regret and every sorrow. Like a refuge in deep solitude. Gustav is gay by accident. He is the Researcher of last form of God's presence. The Beauty, that beauty who gives life's sense, who is sin and virtue in same time, the gift of expectations and sufferings. He dies because he has right to hope, to believe in the reality of miracle and in his way. A victim? No way! Only Tadzio may give the freedom like an insignificant sacrifice. Who saw the sun can hope to live in same condition?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Luchino Visconti's film Death in Venice, it is not only the beauty in the surrounding world that decays, but in the pursuit of beauty itself Gustav von Aschenbach decays into a mere shell of a man. To understand the decay, we must acknowledge the beauty which enchants us, it is best described, and explained in a quote from Socrates found in Thomas Mann's version of Death in Venice, \"beauty alone, is lovely and visible at once\u0085 it is the sole aspect of the spiritual which we can perceive through our senses\u0085 Else what\u0085if the divine, if reason and virtue and truth were to speak to us through the senses? Should we not perish and become consumed by love?\" We see in the film this very thing happen, the man becomes enveloped by a longing for beauty, which turns into a longing for the boy, Tadzio. Even though the levelheaded part of his mind tells him that adoration of beauty can lead to sensuousness and abandon, he cannot contain himself.

It would be easy to describe this as a beautiful film; early on we see the extravagance of the parlor, and we are treated to a perfect summarization of turn-of-the century upper class life, all captured on film perfectly by cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis. But Visconti does not indulge in the picturesque aspects of Venice. Instead, the glorious and sensuous artistic achievements of the past are based on materialism and sensuous beauty, and these things are relegated to the past. The city we know to be of incomparable beauty and uniqueness is nothing more than a leisure resort with a nosy hotel staff. The streets become exhausting labyrinths filled with disgusting filth and rot, the city decays in step with the protagonist. Only through the flashbacks are we allowed a glimpse of why this famous composer is a frail and innocuous man. The death of his daughter, and presumably his wife, along with the failure of his music allow us to understand why he is destroying himself.

Alfred, with whom Aschenbach has in depth conversations on the meaning of beauty and who can create it; but Alfred is more than a friend, he is Aschenbach's alter-ego, and what Alfred says articulates the composer's own doubts and fears. The scene in which Aschenbach decides to leave Venice is immediately followed by a clip of Alfred telling him that he is weak, alienated and lacks feelings. In the end we might be able to conclude that these flashbacks are not reality at all. It is a decay of memory, rather than objective renderings of the past, these flashbacks become distorted memories. We can say that these are decayed memories because even Aschenbach alludes to it, he declares, \"reality distracts and degrades us;\" and, following the scene in the travel agent's office we see Aschenbach confront Tadzio and his family and warn them - leave Venice, but directly after the encounter we see him sitting with the clerk again and realize it was all in his imagination, he employs long scenes without dialogue that are framed by the poignant music of Gustav Mahler. He allows the viewer's mind to wander as we watch Aschenbach's life and respectability decay with the beauty around him.

Slowly the viewer realizes that our hero is overwhelmed by exhaustion that is mixed with a growing awareness that the town is suffocating in filth. The crumbling city sets the stage for the middle aged man's attraction to Tadzio, it is romantic longing for something so idealized and ambiguous that it can never be consumed, even in fantasy. The beauty of this Polish boy kindles a fire in him that, at first, makes him glow, then consumes him. The film concludes with von Aschenbach sitting feebly in a beach chair watching Tadzio fight with his friend, we see the black dye from his hair running down on his cheek and it looks like rotten blood, it is a vision of his life's expiring moments, though before his last breath. The final decay has happened, all around him the city is soiled, and with it he has become what he detests. As Aschenbach dies he has the same painted face as the old man on the ferry at the beginning of the film, a man that had disturbed him. It was the pursuit of beauty that initiated his decay, in the pursuit of artistic beauty he could not sense his own demise, and that of the city around him; his sensuality is indulged in, while constantly kept in check by the presence of death and decay. It is these three themes that tie The Damned and Death in Venice together, beauty, death, and decay, these themes are Visconti's art, the beauty of his work is in the decay of beauty itself.

In this film we are treated to the deliquescence of one great man. We see the honored composer Gustav von Aschenbach in the pursuit of true and pure beauty, and it is in the pursuit of this trait that it decays all around him and leads him to a miserable, lonely death watching the target of his affection. I believe that through these movies Visconti is trying to tell us that what is beautiful cannot last. Decay is intrinsic in the world around us, and when we become distracted, it can destroy the splendor. In Death in Venice, it is because of culture and through the pursuit of beauty that all is deleted. Beauty and deliquescence are woven together like thorns in Visconti's works, at once beautiful and destructive, it is these themes that define his art.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't quite explain why I find this so alluring and \"The Leopard\" not; it may be because the focus here is on all that was great with that film, those intimate moments that Visconti can render so magnificently. Like that film, it has a majestically slow pace, but this time it isn't overlong. It's the kind of film where nothing happens but twenty minutes passes like that. I think that must be due in part to the way the film deals with flashbacks that act as their own mini-story. Like \"The Leopard,\" it has a sympathetic lead who brings out the same kind of worn pathos -- though Bogard's performance is more willing to open itself to being unlikable, especially in look: he has a really stupid grin that's easy to dislike. It's often quite beautiful in the quiet moments. It's the opulence of Visconti's films, the grandeur of the ball scenes, that I find tedious, as they exchange individual clarity with mass precision. But here, that is part of the point -- Gustav surrounded by a visual din.

The way in which the object of Gustav's affection is introduced to us is quite brilliant -- the camera shows a girl, girl, girl, then this beautiful, feminine-featured boy. It's like an allusion to Shakespeare's sonnets, and it doesn't feel heavy-handed. (It's not until the camera views Tadzio fully, pulls back and we see his long, slender legs, that we realize he is not a boy, but an adolescent -- at first we're forced to question Gustav's attraction in an uncomfortable way; Visconti must have known that, and he doesn't shy away from it.) Visconti is extremely patient with Gustav; we get a sense of the man, we know him. It's a largely silent performance, and when he does open his mouth it's to spew venom; no wonder he wants the angelic, open-featured boy to project himself onto. There's a difference with Tadzio (we never know him, just as we never know a handful of Fellini grotesques; but that's because his life is another, its own film), but it's not as flirtatious as it's been made to seem (there is one scene, however, where he twirls around a pole that's too much). Tadzio isn't necessarily leading him on -- he's looking at him; Visconti just zooms in is all.

The film doesn't detail Gustav as being gay -- Tadzio isn't even really male, he's a prettified version of a boy (delicate, pale, wispy, with golden locks) that everyone seems to love (including one gorgeous, slightly older young man who he wrestles with). The closest they go to showing what could be understood as a reference to Gustav's homosexuality is the famous barber scene, which unlocks his repressed vanity.

It isn't totally successful -- the whole section with Alfred is a waste, and some unnecessary scenes, people carrying bags in long shot, could have been excised. Some parts are heavy-handed, such as when Gustav's boat pulls in and rowdy boys pass him by -- the looks on his face are too obvious. (But during the same scene Gustav throws a fit, wanting a new rower, something so unexplainable that it makes up for it.) But there are some scenes -- touching for the first time -- that build up a remarkable, quiet intensity. Tadzio repeating a piano song again and again, the notes quivering in the air, may be the best example of the anxiety the film has. There is one discussion that contains a debate I'm especially interested: Can art be spiritual if it satisfies the senses, or does it have to go beyond them? (We can consider Tarkovsky, who esteems both Visconti and Mann, to be the prime example of someone going beyond mere sensory sensations.) I think this one manages to do both. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It may be hard to explain how, but this film is a masterpiece. Perhaps, because i never imagined that a plot like this or a film with so few words would convey all this poetry. The true poetry and aristocracy of human passions and obsession. Bogard is amazing and needless to say that Venice is utilised as a perfect scenery: dark, sinking and dreary just like Bogard's soul. And classical music is more that a simple background escort to human feelings. In my opinion, a classic masterpiece of european film-making.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the first to the last scene of the movie, director Visconti excels at his art, to the extent that the movie is ensured to remain as a cultural treasure for only God knows how long. It is perfection - as a movie, that is, but the story has some minor shortcomings.

Thomas Mann's novel is also a perfect piece of art, so of course it is impossible to bring into another media. Visconti follows the story pretty much, and it is only when he allows himself to deviate slightly, that the transition falters. And no matter how wonderful the scenery is, the tension in the air between the characters, the hundreds of subtle signals and allegories, the almost unbearably heightened serving of Mahler's music - still, the minute anomalies in the plot disturb me.

Maybe I'm just a victim of man's desire to flaw the flawless. Nevertheless, I will offer one example, which I regard as crucial.

WARNING: SPOILERS

In Mann's story, Aschenbach eats the strawberries which probably contain the disease that will kill him, after giving up his frustrated chase of the boy Tadzio in Venice. Unable to catch one delight, he settles for another - which poisons him. It is very subtle in the book, but it is there. The forbidden fruit, of sorts, but more a sign of him surrendering life itself.

In Visconti's film, he also eats strawberries, but in a rather insignificant scene by the beach. The chase in Venice ends in a much more melodramatic way. It works, too, but lacks some subtlety, indeed, and also the multi-layered symbolism, giving food for thought.

But that's all forgiven, when the film allows us to feast on beautiful sceneries, faces and constellations, and certainly as many other symbols as we can possibly digest - the last gesture of Tadzio, standing in the water, being the equally sublime and mysterious finale.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Contains Spoilers

Luchino Visconti's film adaptation of Thomas Mann's novella is visually, if not philosophically, faithful to its source (Britten's opera offers a more faithful reading of the Apollonian\/Dionysian struggles which consume the aging writer). It is certainly one of the most gorgeous films ever made.

In the Visconti version, the emphasis is more on the physical aspects of the story. Never has Venice looked more beautiful and alluring, more decadent and effete. If you've read the novella, it's like having the descriptions on its pages come to life. Dirk Bogarde gives an outstanding performance as Gustav von Aschenbach. Although he has very little dialogue, he conveys the bitterness, aroused passion and finally, pitiful yearning of Aschenbach through facial expressions alone. Bjorn Andresen, the young actor who plays Tadzio, the beautiful object of Aschenbach's desire, was perfectly cast. He too plays the part with facial expressions and gestures. The Tadzio character is pivotal to the story, so any actor in this role must be worthy of inspiring passion and desire. Visconti, with his incredible eye for beauty, knew exactly what he was doing. And changing Ashenbach from a writer to a composer based on Gustav Mahler, and then using Mahler's music, especially the Adagietto from the 5th Symphony, was another brilliant stroke. Although I'd read the Mann story before the film, Mahler's music and Death in Venice will always be inextricably linked in my mind. As will the haunting images which appear throughout the film, especially that last one of Ashenbach dying on the beach as Tadzio walks slowly into the sea.

One day this film will be released in DVD widescreen format and its visual splendors completely restored to us.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Personally, I can only but agree with Stephen-12: indulge. There's really no point in trying to 'capture' this film. I like movies where nothing (explicitly) happens. Herzog's 'Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes' has got the same nothingness, though that movie is less convincing, since the climaxes are rather in the beginning of the story, so Herzog had to focus on nature versus Kinski. Morte a Venezia is wholly different though, since it has several climaxes, turns, etc. In fact, from the point where Aschenbach's luggage is lost, the movie almost 'rushes' to its grand finale (his final grains of sand begin running through the hourglass after the moment of bliss where he fantasises about warning the Polish family and caressing Tadzio's hair).

You can, if you want to, seek some real clues\/symbols in this one (his trying to leave behind his luggage from the moment he arrives, the pointing Tadzio at the end, the fact that in the whole film content and form are completely in sinc), but there's no point in doing this: it won't make the film better or worse, since its force lies in the whole storyline's undertow, which is never made explicit. Tons of history, decaying Europe, the end of the 'romantic era' as we've come to know it, which has proven to be only the beginning of it (individual emotions & expression are more important now than they ever were). But wait, now I myself am beginning to develop the one minor (tiny) flaw of the film: the 'let's talk about art'-parts. Now there's one thing never to do. I myself believe it could have been expressed by other means. Furthermore, I believe it becomes already very clear in the rest of the film.

I don't like explicit films. I can read books, so I don't want a storyline that speaks merely to my rationale. I prefer films that you cannot explain in words, but only in film (Lynch's Lost Highway, Weir's Picknick at Hanging Rock and Roeg's Man Who fell To Earth also belong in this category), for then, and then only, it has a reason to exist as film and not merely as a book. So what about Thomas Mann's novella? I've never read it, but forget about it! The movie gives a different point of view: it says things you can never say in a book. It uses the movie-art to make you feel, through images and music, the same thing that Mann made you feel, using text. Equally brilliant, but different worlds.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Visconti's masterpiece! I admit that I am unfamiliar with much of his work but I cannot imagine his other work surpassing this fabulous film. Last night I watched Death in Venice after an absence of about 25 years and was totally captivated by all that I saw. This captivation was a pastiche composed of many elements: The extraordinary shots directed by Visconte, primarily his love of long, languorous shots of people dining, swimming, walking and containing a significant character passing through this mass of people; the cinematographers brilliant interpretation of Visconti's shot selection; the acting by the principles without over-riding dialog and conveying the scenes complexity through facial features alone.

It is true: young people watching this film for the first time must be aware that they are watching a unique film, a film that could not be made in 2006. A film whose time rests in those brief handful of years in the Sixties and early Seventies of the last century when artistic license was passed to film directors and money-men took secondary roles. As many of the recent IMDb commentator's have written, this film, in their judgment, is long, boring (too little action) and pretentious. I suppose by the standards of Hollywood pap, these comments contain merit. Unfortunately they tragically minimize the amazing beauty and depth of this work and others like it from those years.

Please, if you have not seen Death in Venice, rent a copy and immerse yourself in a film and story from another time. You will be rewarded.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film many years ago, and absolutely hated it -- I could not wait for it to end, and would have walked out, but there was a girl sleeping on my shoulder. You know what? I have never forgotten this film, and more, I would say that it continues to haunt me with its images and music over the years. How many movies have I wept over and laughed over in the moviehouse, then forgotten as soon as I hit the street, like ... you see, I can't even think of one! Rarer are films like Death in Venice that enter your consciousness and work sea changes. The French like to say film is an art, and movies like this one prove they are right. I give it 10 stars, up from the 3 I gave it the night I saw it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Philistines beware, especially American ones! This has all the elements you'll hate - a langorous approach to film language, a painterly sense of composition, an intense homoerotic focus to its elegant narrative, a wonderful and unusual use of music and, even worse, it's based on a story you'd probably hate as well... If, however, you do feel that films don't to have derivative plotlines, be full of action and crappy dialogue, don't need the visual grammar of MTV\/TV Commercials, then watch this. It's one of my favourite films, and is perhaps Visconti's most perfectly formed piece of work. It's sublime, like the movement of Mahler he uses insistently throughout the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not sure where to start with this. In short, it was a disappointing movie. Having taught the novella, I was aware that it would be a hard story to turn into a movie. The movie has a couple of interesting lines (mainly between Alfred and Aschenbach) but it doesn't represent the debate on art that basically shapes the novella.

For one, I was expecting an older Aschenbach and a younger Tadzio. In the book, Tadzio is fourteen, but he is described as pure, ideal, innocent, whereas in the movie he reeks of sexuality and is a tease. He is an accomplice to Aschenbach, he always looks back at him, almost provokingly. In the book, it is Aschenbach who steals glances at the boy. As for Aschenbach, I imagined something closer to the professor-turned-clown in The Blue Angel (based on a story by Thomas Mann's brother Heinrich) than this forty-year old with hardly any gray hair. In all fairness, I do think that Dirk Bogarde did a good job, but either someone else should have done that, or he should have made to look older at the beginning.

I know that the discovery of homosexuality is important to the story, but the movie minimizes the talk about art and the duality between the Apollonian and Dyonisian inspirations and focuses instead on Aschenbach's obsession of Tadzio and does not justify it. I liked the fact that Mahler's music was used, because ultimately he did inspire Mann to write his story. I'm not sure turning Aschenbach into a musician was a particularly good move. Or the creation of Alfred who I don't remember in the book.

And one thing that really got to me was the sound and how it did not match the actors' lips. I was wondering if it was dubbed because I expected it to be in Italian. But then I remembered that each Italian movie I have watched has this problem. It just bothers me because these directors (Fellini is the other person I'm thinking of) are supposed to epitomize perfection in Italian cinema, and here are their characters laughing without sound, then you hear a noise that doesn't correspond to their faces (I'm thinking of the scenes when Aschenbach almost collapses and starts laughing. This scene could\/should have been the strongest, but it was annoying instead).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"His music, especially what we hear of it here, is very slow. From around the time of Bach's death composers had been working out ways of making music progress at a slower and slower pace: over a century later, Wagner and then Mahler wrote pieces that are about as slow as it is possible for music to get. -Of course, one can cheat by writing a 4\/4 march and then specifying a tempo of, say, semiquaver = 1, but that tempo wouldn't be the correct tempo. Wagner and Mahler wrote music that is PROPERLY played at a snail's pace. Given that the slowness in no sense sounds too slow \"snail's pace\" is the wrong expression. A critic wrote of a famous Wagner conductor, \"He doesn't beat time, he beats eternity.\" For all I know this was meant as a compliment.

I get the feeling that around the early 1970s directors worked out how to make the slowest possible films: there's \"Death in Venice\", and there's \"Solyaris\". I much prefer the former. For one thing, \"Solyaris\" steps over the line, or some line, and becomes soporific; \"Death in Venice\" is gripping from beginning to end. Not much happens, but it all happens in the right sequence, at the right pace, with photography you can get lost in

Another way of cheating with music, by the way, is to write something that doesn't really have a tempo at all. Such music sounds slow, but is really just unmusical, just as many films feel slow because they lack rhythm and form. \"Death in Venice\" isn't one of them. Beautiful in every respect, it will remind you of the timelessness and contextlessness of quality. You need no theoretical knowledge to respond to Visconti's mastery, as you do to respond to a lesser director's incompetence. It's a great work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A film to divide its viewers. Just criticism points at its funereal pace, over-used snap zooms and persistent, lingering gazes between the protagonists. Advocates point to Dirk Bogarde's mighty performance and Pasqualino De Santis' benchmark photography of Venice.

Taken altogether, this might suggest an indulgent, romanticised elegy for the nobility of homosexual love (at a time, 1971, when it was becoming consensually legal). In fact Visconti has succeeded in making a richer, more complex film than such a single-issue vehicle. He has knit his ideas - foibles and all - into a meticulously paced arc.

Inside this does indeed sit the central performance of Bogarde's Aschenbach. Rather than a simpering, Johnny-come-lately gay, he manages to give a pathetic composer beaten by tragedy and misunderstood integrity who sees salvation in Tadzio. His mesmerised staggering around an increasingly hellish Venice after the boy is a straight metaphor for the artist's tenacity for truth in the teeth of the dilettante mob (and it is explicitly cut with such a flashback).

Mahler's music is possibly a little over-used although it is well appropriated. The Italian overdub is a wearing anachronism but thankfully the acting doesn't suffer too much. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The greatest tragedy man faces is that, capable so often of the divine he settles for the banal.From this fact does so much great tragedy emerge. Death in Venice is one of very few films with the patience and bravery to tackle this fact head-on.It confronts the human eye with beauty and inspiration in their two most inevitable human forms-self denial and decay. Undoubtedly this is the greatest film to have no discernable influence on mainstream cinema. Its austerely refined look, echoey sound, mixture of unsubtitled languages, and highly challenging themes being impossible to copy: as much an accident of its peculiar production as of the vision of its director. The central performance, at once rigid, aroused, and vulnerable in the face of expression and decadence highlights Bogarde as if not the best British actor of his generation then certainly the most adventurous. Able to hold on to sympathy as his desires take him over and interesting despite the endless close-ups and Mahler score playing above him Not one for a Friday night with your girlfriend but certainly OK if you want to explore the limits of human spiritual limitation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If all movies had to be destroyed and only one could be spared, Death in Venice would have to be it. It is a monument in movie history. Much criticized for being slow, boring and too obvious in stating it's point (an old man discovers beauty in a young boy and is tragically destroyed, first mentally, then physically), we should appreciate this movie for what it is. 'Morte a Venezia' was shot over 30 years ago, and it portrays a period even further back, at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Life was slow then, compared to now. People were supposed to behave in a certain way, hiding their true emotions even from themselves. Director Visconti and Dirk Bogarde, the leading actor, admirably succeed in showing how the aging composer Von Aschenbach discovers his romantic interest in a young boy. For a man like Von Aschenbach, in his time, this must have been a shock too powerful to come to terms with. We see his inner struggle, mostly on the face of Bogarde, against the beautiful backdrop of Venice and accompanied by the most wonderful music, composed by Gustav Mahler.

This movie is slow, there is no denying it. No special effects, car chases or fights to keep the audience pinned to their seats. No perverted sex scenes either; the interaction between man and boy is limited to stolen glances from afar and the occasional smile.

So, basically, nothing much happens in this movie? Not if you want your senses to be hit like a base drum. If you want them to be played like the strings of a violin in a romantic concerto, this is the movie to do it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"CAUTION: SPOILERS

Although this film moved a bit slow at times, the brilliant scenery, richness of the characters and powerful themes make `Morte a Venezia' a rewarding experience. I have not read Thomas Mann's book, but I am certain that Visconti's visual splendour, musical score, and powerful evocation of conflict and desire must do it justice.

The study of Gustav von Aschenbach alludes to the human tendency to rationalize and quantify our emotions, behaviour and passion. This tendency is demonstrated in the scene in Germany between Alfred and Gustav when Alfred describes Music as being both mathematical--i.e. quantifiable--and emotional. This conflict arises again in the scene where young Tadzio is alone playing `Fuer Elise' in lobby of the Hotel and Gustav recalls his visit to a bordello where he is drawn to a prostitute who plays the same song. In his flashback, after paying the prostitute, Gustav is clearly physically seized by the consequences of his actions. This reaction acts as a reminder of the moral reaction to the temptations that Tadzio represents.

Ultimately, Gustav is forced to make his biggest decision: stay in Venice and resign himself to his lust and temptations? Or flee Venice to save his own life? His early attempt to flee Venice at the train station resulted in a futility and foreshadows the outcome of prolonging his stay.

Complimenting the captivating character interaction, Visconti's powerful scenery (especially of Venice at Dawn and the final scene of Tadzio walking into the water and pointing to the horizon) renders this film a true masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Death in Venice is a movie I need to see once every ten years. It is always different, because I am always at a different stage of life.

The movie is about art, beauty, longing, death. Some scenes are painfully slow, others simply annoying to watch, especially if you have seem them before. Yet I would not want to miss a single frame. The music is repetitive, the main theme of the adagietto from Mahler's fifth is used again and again. Yet I would not want to miss a single note. When the last image fades, the last note dies, I am left numb and exhausted.

This movie is a monument to film making. As with most really good movies, the saturday evening crowd should stay away from it. And this is simply the best movie ever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Morte a Venezia is one of my favorite movies. More than beautiful, it's really sublime. It gives you important aesthetic experiences, it's a masterpiece. I also recommend the novel. Luchino Visconti is a genius.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

This film is a summary of Visconti's obssessions: the decadence of nobility, death, aesthetic search, homosexuality...All mingled with melancholic mastery. Slow-paced just to make you abler to contemplate all its beauty (which is in the music and the images as well as in the story)this is the type of film we are not allowed to enjoy anymore, brave, deeply personal and intelligent. The genuine fruit of a genius like Visconti.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Relish every moment of this languorous spectacle with music to match (Mahler's 5th is gorgeous, but listen to the vocal portion of the 3rd symphony so beautifully utilised in this film). There are many aspects to this film, but the main subject is the overpowering force of beauty, its spontaneous nature, absence of logic for love and adoration. I am also an ardent fan of Bogarde and believe he was rarely as wonderful (try him in \"The Servant\" however). Note: I recommmend multiple viewings.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a ravishing, yet spare adaption of Thomas Mann's novelette of the same title. Dirk Bogarde gives his finest screen performance - he himself believed so. The dialogue is minimal, so his face must register the nuances of his anguished character - a composer (a writer in the novelette - the only major alteration) who travels to Venice in 1910. Visconti revels in the portrayal of beauty, it's passing, and the whiff of decay beneath.Trained as an opera director, Visconti blends Mahler's music and imagery seamlessly in his finest film since \"The Leopard\" (another stunning film, which greatly influenced Coppola's Sicily in the \"Godfather\").","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Luchino Visconti has become famous to the world after his marvelous production THE LEOPARD. Movie fans got to know the style of the director who introduced himself as one among the post war new realists, an aristocrat who developed his individual free thinking and, consequently, expressed them as an artist. However, when applied to this movie, MORTE A VENEZIA based upon the novel by Thomas Mann, it's a slightly different story.

The entire film is, at first view, so unique, so psychological and so much influenced by the various thoughts of an artist (both director and main character Gustav von Aschenbach) that it seems to be \"unwatchable\" for many viewers. Therefore, such opinions about the movie rose as being \"too slow\", \"unendurable\" or \"endless boredom\". Why? The reason seems to lie in a significant view widespread nowadays: \"GOOD MOVIE IS PARALLEL TO FLAWLESS ACTION.\" Here, it would be appropriate to say: \"GOOD MOVIE IS PARALLEL TO NO ACTION.\" As a matter of fact, everyone would be able to say one sentence about the whole movie's content and that would suffice. All that we find in MORTE A VENEZIA has a sense of vague reality filled with both profoundity and shallowness that appear to be significant for the sake of each single moment. And it is so when we notice the psychedelic scenes in Venice, when we see Gustav at the railroad station, when we are supplied with his intensely emotional memories. The insight into his decaying mind is sometimes so intense that the only way for the viewer to go on watching the film is to do his\/her best to feel and experience rather than see and think. All is doomed to fade, to wither like flowers on meadow when their time comes. In other words, all has a sense of loss and death without many events or even dialogs. As a result, it is quite unlikely that you will get the idea of the movie after a single viewing. It must be seen more than twice with the mind that is constantly open. If you'll like it or not...that's a different story, very personal one.

The artistic values are the factor that is noticeable at first sight and stays with us throughout. Beauty as something very meaningful for the main character that appears to come and leave; rest as something he's heading for so badly and which comes to him in the most unexpected way; feeling that he finds in a teenage boy who appears as a model of all the dreams and desires, as a forbidden fruit of homosexual lust which vanishes. The costume designer Piero Tosi does a splendid job in this movie. Through lots of wonderful wardrobe he supplies us with a very realistic view of 1911 when the action takes place. The cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis provides us with a terrific visual experience that can be called a real feast for the eyes. And in the background comes Gustav Mahler's music, the composer whose life inspired Thomas Mann to introduce the character.

The performances are top notch, particularly from Dirk Bogart as the main character, Gustav von Aschenbach, who wants a rest after hard artistic job and vainly attempts to find it in crowded Venice. For the majority of the film, we have a great insight into his thoughts, feelings and acts of anger, exhaust and despair. Though sometimes depressing, he keeps us on the right track till the end not losing hope for the less tragic end... Tadzio (Bjorn Andersen) depicts the model of decadent homosexual desire but also a model of beauty and purity that appears to last pretty short... \"Adieu Tadzio, it was all too short\" says the main character. A great, though very controversial, job is done by Mark Burns as a sort of \"super ego\" Alfred with whom Gustav polemics about such ideals as beauty, justice, hope, human dignity. For Alfred, beauty belongs to the senses. How Freudian, yet how dangerous the idea might be! And ever present in artistic Italian movies of the time, Silvana Mangano - here as an elegant lady from Poland, Tadzio's mother.

Memorable moments indeed constitute the movie's strong points; yet, not all viewers will find them unforgettable. They, similarly to the whole odd movie, require much effort to get onto the right track in director's individual ego and within the four walls of his psyche. Among such scenes, I consider the beach sequence pretty important, particularly the way Gustav observes Tadzio. The physical distance accurately represents the lack of courage to come closer... I also appreciate the shots when Gustav is sitting in the gondola and the city's view moves in the background - how memorably that may raise existential thoughts of transfer. Aren't we, people, a sort of \"passangers\" in the world, in the journey that life is.

In the end, I must tell you one important thing. I had found MORTE A VENEZIA extremely weird until I started to look deeper at what the director is really trying to convey. Then, every scene turned out to be meaningful in its interpretation with which you don't have to agree (I hardly agree with anything the main character does) but you should at least tolerate this as something the author badly wanted to say. Listen to his voice, allow him for a few words in one page of reality...

Therefore, there is a long way towards understanding the film since not many movies like that were being made in 1971 and are being made now. Paradoxically, it seems that we are all bound to have the right feelings about this film in the long run similarly to that we are all bound to experience once a strange, unavoidable, usually unexpected reality that death is... 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Visconti's Death in Venice qualifies as one of the most beautiful films ever made. While watching, we acknowledge we are in the hands of a visionary genius. Endlessly opulent Death in Venice surely is; but in other important ways, it's an unsatisfying film. Thomas Mann writes with contempt and from a distance of von Aschenbach's literary career and output; of his imperious manner, his layer-upon-layer of programmed, self-conscious behavior. When Tadzio appears and obsession arises, it's evident that Aschenbach hasn't the slightest idea who he is beneath his Gilded-Age trappings and carefully lived life. In fact, upon seeing Tadzio, the 'Solitary,' as Mann sometimes calls him, splits in two. Aschenbach No. 1 absorbs the sight of a beautiful 14-year old boy, then attempts to intellectually process the giddy jolt in blood pressure as he would a work of art - a 'divine' work of art. But Aschenbach No. 2, emerges as a stalker who takes control of, then replaces, the rational Aschenbach No. 1. Like the original Aschenbach, his sexual-doppelganger is mortified to make human contact with the object of his obsession - and thus Tadzio remains a far-off ideal. Thomas Mann has no mercy for this game. Every shred of self knowledge comes too strong and too late; the excitement of sexual flush is too great to resist. That Venice is gripped by disease means nothing to Aschenbach - except that his game now has higher stakes. When he finally whispers beneath his breath 'I love you,' he knows that all is lost, and the abyss awaits. Is any of this filmable? Perhaps, and Visconti creates a visual feast impossible to look away from. But there are errors: He and Dirk Bogarde create Aschenbach as sympathetic; Mann, again, did not. Aschenbach's POV dominates the film and we are expected to identify. But nowhere on screen is there a man being torn apart from within. Bogarde toggles between the sublimely controlled and the ridiculously temperamental with ease - but what's underneath? Bogard's reactive performance has no mooring. Mann writes a character who is, in his imagination, doing the Dance of the Seven Veils, all too aware of the consequences such freedom invites, yet unable, unwilling to resist. Also, Visconti's screenplay creates a character not in the original - Alfred, a friend of Aschenbach's - to dramatize Mann's discussion of Art and Artists. These scenes are badly written disasters, and the actor who portrays Alfred is difficult to watch. Also, Visconti's Aschenbach is a Gilded-Age Teutonic composer, which I think works for the film; and the symphonies of Mahler substitute for Aschenbach's novels. Mahler's great music unfortunately is badly recorded and very badly played. So Death in Venice, as Visconti hands it to us, is not the complete success it might have been, but as a purely visual experience its power cannot be denied. All students of film, especially cinematography, will want to take a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A kooky, but funny bit of diversion. You kind of have to see it from the beginning to follow what's happening, but each report to earth has it's own little joke. Pretty good special effects for a very low budget sci-fi t.v. show. It's fun to watch. Sort of in the vein of Red Dwarf, but even more low budget. For someone who's just coming in in the middle of one of the episodes, what you have to realize is that these guys are all incompetent, because they've been moved up the ladder of command, because the other officers died. Also, the main guys are from the laundry corps, which is why they have laundry in everything. If you like Red Dwarf, you'll probably like this. Slightly different t.v. concept, in that all you see is the Commander's report each day.

It would be better if this were explained more, not just in the very beginning of the first episode, but then it was pretty hard to figure out what had happened in Red Dwarf too, if you hadn't been told.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After the death of all senior officers, Commander Craig-Scott, of the Laundry and Morale Corps, finds himself promoted to command of an intergalactic spaceship owned by Starcups Corporation. Its chief mission is to search for inhabitable planets and, of course, long-term coffee markets.

Craig-Scott and his second in command, Chief Blather, find themselves ill-prepared for command, except insofar as they are fully able to keep the crew's undies clean--which is not to diminish the importance of clean undies, especially when incompetent commanders cause those same undies to be, well, soiled on a regular basis.

The episodes are presented as a series of short, 2-3 minutes reports by the Commander to Earth. The humor is a mix of wry deadpan and outrageous physical comedy. Think Yes Minister meets Red Dwarf, but on a shoe-string budget. All the usual plot devices of sci-fi are here--aliens, nuclear weapons, computer malfunctions--but each is improved by the fresh lemony scent of high-grade laundry detergent.

Commander's Log is definitely low-budget, but the somewhat cheesy effects and props fit the absurd premise of the show. Remember those hilarious hockey helmets they wore on the old Battlestar Galactica? With the \"Jofa\" brand-name still visible? Okay, there's a lot of that in Commander's Log, but it's cute.

Commander's Log ain't high-art, but that's not what it's trying to be. It's just a little bit of off-kilter fun. It does a good job of being that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first heard about Commander's Log when I was on the concom for the local science fiction convention. Craig Bowlsby, Linden Banks, Sophie Banks, and Brian Oberquell came out to show the video and give a couple of panels on making TV on a shoestring budget. I have to say that I was very pleased when I finally had the chance to see the show. Comparisons with Red Dwarf are inevitable, since the first seasons of Red Dwarf were also shot on a low budget (although Commander's Log has to set some kind of record for the least amount of money spent per minute of air time), and thus have to make up for the lack of \"eye candy\" with good writing and acting. Linden Banks, who plays Chief Petty Officer Blather, does a particularly good job of presenting an earnest but clueless persona.

Bowlsby's original idea was for the story to be told in two minute \"interstitials\", shown in between other shows over the course of an evening, although for some reason, Space didn't get how cool an idea this would have been, and so the interstitials were all rolled up into a one-hour show, which Space normally showed in two half-hour episodes. The existing DVD doesn't include episode 3 (which premiered at Cascadia-Con in Seattle in 2005) or episode 4 (which was previewed at VCON in Vancouver in 2006), but if you're in touch with your local fannish community, you may catch news of a showing somewhere near you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently saw Episodes 1-4, and now I can't wait for 5 & 6 to be available! (I've heard they are coming soon.) Commander's Log seems destined to become a cult hit among the university crowd and all others with a taste for quirky comedy. It's obvious that the budget was small, but the care taken in crafting the script is quite evident. In fact, the simplicity of the show allowed me appreciate the writing and the acting more. Bowlsby is a master of the put-down... I just wish I could remember all the best ones for later use on unsuspecting co-workers! Let's just say that if you don't like Commander's Log, I'll personally see to it that your undies get extra starch!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Entrails of a Beauty\" features a gang of Yakuza blokes gang-raping a woman and they drug her,and later on she dies and returns as this big slimy monster with a huge penis that has sharp teeth and also a big sloppy vagina.Crazy film,but not very good.The gore doesn't come until the last 20 minutes and most of the film is a standard soft core sex with lots of rape.Worth checking out,unfortunately heavily censored optically and nowhere near as much fun as \"Entrails of a Virgin\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know that Guts of a Beauty and Guts of a Virgin are crap films and are hated by many but I'm gonna put myself under the bus here and say I like 'em, especially Guts of a Beauty (aka Entrails of a Beautiful Woman). Watched it the other night with some folks at the pad and I was surprised how well it actually went over.

Entrails is the type of madcap cheapo horror softcore sleaze epic that you really just don't find too much of outside of Asia (specifically Japan in this case). It's basically a rape\/revenge flick with a reincarnated monster instead of some silly shotgun murders or a motorboat-propelled noose or even a ticked off Daddy with a chainsaw...That stuff's just silly. Wouldn't you rather see a hermaphroditic monster with a hilarious little snake monster for a winky?

PERVERSION FACTOR: This movie is high in graphic, sometimes wacky rape sequences, fake pop shots, and satisfying masturbation and monster sex sequences that you oughta like if you like Corman nuggets like Humanoids From The Deep. I dunno, maybe that's a stretch but I personally didn't think Entrails of a Beautiful Woman let me down as an avid fan of Asian sleaze and bizarro B-pics.

Yeah, I know sometimes some of my recommendations are not always everyone's cuppa tea (even for those of you who like the same kind of garbage as I do) but I stand behind this one. 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie, I would like to say, was completely great. I can see how many people would think that it's just a shocker film. This isn't completely untrue, but it's as much of shocker fiction as Chuck Palahniuk's books are. One of my favorite movies of all time, Bijo no Harawata is a certain type of crudely made movie that you can have just about any reaction to. It's scary, funny, silly, gross, full of off-the-top material and to some people, arousing. The fist time I saw this, it was with my friend, and his mother had brought it home for him to see it. He said it was just some screwed up Japanese movie, but I saw so much more of it. It's badly made, yes, but it has a certain type of poignancy as to be beautiful, too. As the Director says himself, this is a shocker movie made for a certain reason. Its like atrophy. If you leave audiences soft, then the entire human race is going to be soft. I think this is a good philosophy, and I agree with it one-hundred percent. Bijo no Harawata is the type of movie that gang rapes the hell out of fitness, yogurt, and all of this new-wave stuff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"GUTS OF A BEAUTY is a bit better than its predecessor GUTS OF A VIRGIN. Although this film isn't really a sequel in the sense that it has absolutely nothing to do with the first installment, I did find BEAUTY to be a little stronger and better put together all-the-way-around than VIRGIN...but then again, that's not really saying much.

BEAUTY starts off as a pretty rough and straight-faced exploit film. A couple of Yakuza cats are holding a young woman prisoner and begin gang raping her in pretty brutal fashion. As this nastiness is going on, the head guy tells the girl that they did the same to her sister and sold her into slavery in Africa, and that they're gonna do the same to her. They then shoot her up with some drugs and rape her some more. She somehow gets away and ends up at a clinic where the nurse there listens to her sob story. The rapee ends up freaking out from the stress of her prior experience and commits suicide. The clinic worker, moved by the young lady's story, decides to take revenge on the gang by seducing one of the lower-level guys and trying to hypnotize him to make him kill the Yakuza leaders. This whole plan backfires, so now Ms. Vigilante-Clinic-Worker gets exposed to much the same treatment that our original rapee got - only worse (some pretty rough butt-rape ensues along with the pre-requisite gang rape...). She too is drugged, but the drug has a strange side effect on our seemingly hapless victim ----- it turns her into a raging hermaphroditic BLOOD DEMON!!! (no sh!t, that's what really happens!!!) This is when BEAUTY really takes off with some pretty f!cking insane kill scenes - including a very classy chest-burst-rape that looks like a cross between ALIEN and a bad porn, and my favorite - a head-engulfed-by-demon-vagina kill (complete with demon vagina-slime...)that has to be seen to be believed...

Definitely some promising stuff going on in GUTS OF A BEAUTY, but still very disjointed feeling. BEAUTY almost feels like two different films being forced together in a non-compatible way. Still, I have to give the film credit - the rape scenes are very rough and misogynistic, and the kill scenes are just totally off the wall. A solid 7\/10 for another crazy J-horror \"classic\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kazuo Komizu strikes again with \"Entrails of a Beautiful Woman\", the sequel to \"Entrails of a Virgin\". This time around the story is based around a psychologist (Megumi Ozawa) who decides to take on the Yakuza to avenge the suicide of a doped-up and raped patient that winds up on her doorstep one day. When she gets over her head and the Yakuza capture her, she learns their insidious plat of doping up girls and selling them into slavery. It apparently ends badly when she overdoses from the cocaine. But she soon melds with another body to be disposed of to become\u0085dum, dum, dum \u0096 \"Super Slime Hermaphrodite Zord\"! This he, she = it makes mince meat out of the yakuza and saves the day\u0085not really.

Well it is better than \"Entrails of a Virgin\", but not by much. Most of the film (a whopping 67 minutes) consists of rape and sex with fogging and the usual ho-hum stuff. Almost towards the end we finally get our gore groove on with a few cool sequence (like an Alien-inspired penis-monster through the stomach scene and a gooey asphyxiation) but it still suffers from a hyper low budget feel that makes it fun but can't elevate it from z-grade soft horror-core fare.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If they gave out awards for the most depraved and messed-up movies in the world, Japanese cinema would clean up: their exploitation cinema wipes the floor with most other contenders, the most extreme examples being absolutely jaw-dropping exercises in bad taste, nauseating gore, freakish weirdness, and misogynistic sex.

Guts of a Beauty is a prime example of such whacked out filth, offering discerning viewers just over an hour of full-on debauchery and gratuitous violence topped off with some very insane J-splatter goodness.

The film opens with a young woman named Yoshimi, whose search for her missing sister has led her into the hands of some nasty yakuza, who proceed to rape her and shoot her full of strong dope called Angel Rain. After the gangsters have finished having their fun with the poor woman, she manages to escape and flees to a nearby hospital where sexy psychologist Hiromi (Megumi Ozawa) attempts to help. However, the distraught and confused Yoshimi ends up throwing herself off the hospital roof, turning into a water melon as she hits the ground (at least that what it looked like to me!).

Seeking to avenge Yoshimi's death, Hiromi lures Higashi, a member of the yakuza, to her office, and, whilst jacking him off, hypnotises him into attacking his fellow gang members. After Higashi goes slash happy with a knife in the yakuza HQ, he is severely beaten and stabbed, forced to tell of his meeting with Hiromi, and then hacked into itty bitty pieces.

The psychologist is then captured by the gang, subjected to a spot of forced buggery (whilst simultaneously being forced to give head to a yakuza slut), and injected with Angel Rain\u0097after which she promptly carks it. The gangsters then plonk her body in the boot of their car, along with the remains of Higashi, ready for disposal.

Before they can ditch the corpses, however, the super dope has an unexpected effect on Hiromi: she returns from the dead as a hermaphroditic monster with a toothy penis and a ravenous gash, and, hellbent on revenge, sets about killing the yakuza one-by-one; this leads to some memorable scenes of outrageously gory splatter, including a messy head squish, a man being suffocated by the monster's oozing vagina, and a woman being screwed to death by its giant, gnashing phallus.

As you can most likely tell from the above synopsis, this is some crazy, screwed up stuff, and probably not to the taste of most sane people, but for those weirdos who have long tired of mainstream cinema and are already well versed in Asian excess, Guts Of A Beauty should prove to be delightfully diverting and deviant fun.

7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just finished this impressively nutty affair and whilst I can't say as it was as good as I had hyped it up to be in my mind it was still an effective and at time pretty nasty piece of brain warped and misogyny fuelled J-trash. Its story tells of a poor gal searching for her sister who winds up getting raped and drugged by Yakuza scumbags, and the helpful lady doctor who sets out to avenge her, doing so in bizarrely gruesome fashion after a similar bout of rape and drugging. Oh yeah and there's a bit of straightforward sex in there as well, sadly its all soft core, as per the Japanese disapproval of below the belt nudity, but pixelation is minimal, in fact only really noticeable in a hilarious blow-job scene. Although writer\/director Kazuo \"Gaira\" Komizu fails in creating an especially compelling tale this is at least pretty scuzzy stuff, diving early on into the well of filth with a pretty unsettling rape (made worse by the fact that the gal looks kinda young, though I'm pretty sure she was of age). Also, for the most part this is pretty professional looking stuff, maybe not stylish but it has a certain flair and the content is handled reasonably well, with particular kudos for largely avoiding having to employ much pixellation. Things are mostly sex\/rape based for about two thirds of the sharp runtime and its pretty watchable if you groove to such fare, it gets a bit numbing after a while but the ladies are easy on the eye and it is reasonably harsh at times. The music, from Y\u00f4ichi Takahashi is occasionally effective, though hardly a key part of the show it does in a few spots complement the action neatly, at any rate enough for me to notice it. More important are the effects, by Nobuaki Koga, which pack an impressively splattery punch when they appear, helped out by the lunatic nature of the climactic shenanigans. Things even pull to a curiously affecting ending, sure it ain't a weepy or anything, but for a film so gutter level for most of its runtime it is relatively poignant. Altogether this is a pretty entertaining diversion for mean spirited trash fans, especially those with a taste for Japanese rapey adventures. I could really have done with a longer revenge section and more gore, also perhaps more of a point\/brains, but hey, it kept me watching and it is pretty nicely stocked with memorably wtf moments. So if you dig this sort of degenerate junk, probably worth your while, just maybe don't expect the second coming.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"What Alice Found\" was a pleasant discovery. As written and directed by A. Dean Bell, this is combination of a road movie with a cautionary tale, as well as a voyage of discovery.

If you haven't seen the film, maybe you should stop reading here.

Alice is a case study of a young woman that wants to break away from the unhappy life she leads in a New England town. Her pretext for leaving is going to join her best friend, who is away studying at a Miami university. Alice is the product of a single mother's home, one that is struggling to make ends meet, in sharp contrast with the life of ease her friend seems to inhabit. In flashbacks we get to see Alice's life before going on the road.

Alice, like her namesake in \"Alice in Wonderland\", embarks in a trip to the unknown that life hasn't prepared her for. The highways of America are full of predators in search of the weak and innocent. Alice meets with disaster when her car breaks down the road and a friendly Southern couple come to her assistance when a strange man approaches in the darkness with the excuse he wants to help her. Sandra and Bill convince her to come along in their plush R.V. on her way down South.

Nothing has prepared Alice for what this couple turns out to be. After all, in her sheltered life, she hasn't dealt with what Sandra and Bill, her new benefactors do during the overnight stays at the rest stops in the American highways. It comes as a shock to her the realization that the kind Sandra is nothing but a prostitute that plies her trade among the truck driving populace one meets in those places.

Alice, brilliantly played by Emily Grace, is a study in how the young woman awakens to the new reality she can't escape. In fact, Sandra makes it seem so easy that Alice tries her luck at the oldest profession on earth in order to raise some badly needed money.

Judith Ivey gives a tremendous performance as Sandra. Ms. Ivey is perfect as the seemingly normal woman, one wouldn't suspect she is doing the nasty with clients she and Bill find along the route they travel. Ms. Ivey is amazing when she reveals the truth about her life to an accusing Alice. As the husband, Bill Raymond is good in his portrayal as the husband, that in reality is a procurer.

Under the excellent direction of Mr. Dean Bell, the film is not afraid to go to places mainstream films dare not to go. Congratulations to this director who has written a plausible story and has gathered the perfect cast to play it for our benefit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Until I did a Web search on \"What Alice Found\", I didn't realize that the name of the film is embedded in the title of one of Lewis Carroll's books. The book's complete title is \"Through the Looking-Glass (And What Alice Found There)\".

The Alice of the film comes from a background quite different from that of Lewis Carroll's Alice. Her fresh and assertive character, however, is similar. The movie Alice begins as a young woman in New Hampshire who steals money from her ass-patting boss and takes off for Miami, vaguely planning to study marine biology and play with dolphins. She encounters a middle-aged couple in a motor home (the husband's retired from the military) who rescue her from a strange man at a roadside stop and from her car's breakdown (perhaps caused by their mechanizations).

As it turns out, the couple is heavily involved in truck stop prostitution and see sweet, young Alice as a promising recruit. The wife (played by Judith Ivey in a performance worthy of some big award) buys Alice sexy clothing and shows her how to apply hot makeup. Initially, Alice passively accepts her ministrations and, with the couple's instructions, does several tricks. The encounter shown in the most detail is quite different from most cinematic sex but may be typical of what most often happens in real life. The man is shy and deferential and apologizes for \"finishing\" too fast.

What's wonderful about Alice (and different from her prototypes from Clarissa to Sister Carrie) is that she learns from her experiences and asserts herself. This is how things really are. Prostitution is everywhere. People are neither all good or all bad. Alice leaves the motor home with her well-earned money and a feeling of mutual respect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Writer-director Dean Bell offered many surprises and engaging moments in this modest yet compelling road film. His dialogue was snappy, and his use of very short flashback sequences was especially effective in the film's narrative structure.

At the heart of the film is the character of Alice, who is running away from her New England past in a desperate effort to get to Florida. Along the way, she travels with a pair of eccentrics, Bill and Sandra, who incredibly make the attempt to groom Alice as a prostitute earning money at truck stops.

As a newcomer performing in her first screen role, Emily Grace as Alice is sensational. There is not a false note in her character choices. But the film is worth watching above all for the wily yet sensitive character of Sandra, as masterfully created by Judith Ivey. There is an especially sly subtext to virtually every moment in which Ivey is on-camera. As a viewer, I found myself stopping the tape, hitting rewind, and reviewing her scenes in order to attempt to discern the psychological subtleties.

The film raises the following question about the characters: Are Bill and Sandra good Samaritans, or are they an evil pair of Dickensian predators preying upon the youthful Alice? One of the strengths of the film is that it never quite fully answers that question. Alice seems more self-confident than she started out as a result of her experiences with Bill and Sandra. But is she really a better person?

Part comedy, part road picture, and part coming-of-age drama, this carefully crafted film succeeds in involving us on many levels.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a low budget, well acted little gem. Alice, a small town Massachusetts teenager, fed up with her existence, takes to the road to escape her mother who flips burgers and her own job as a check out in a super market. She sets out for Florida and to stay with her wealthier high school friend who is a freshman at Miami. After her car suspiciously breaks down on the thruway and she loses all her money, she ends up with a retired couple in an RV who also happen to be traveling to Florida.. The couple, brilliantly played by Judith Ivy and Bill Raymond are overly hospitable and, it turns out, a prostitute and and her pimp. Slowly, Alice is lured into truck stop prostitution as the RV meanders down the thruway in the general direction of Florida. Through intermittent flashbacks, we learn a little more about Alice and her desire to leave tiny Milford. We also see the couple in a new light and their life and the choices made by the couple and Alice all seem quite credible. An excellent, well made film that you will think about when it is over.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having worked professionally with young girls on the run, I found this film surprisingly authentic. I would never have found it had a friend not loaned his videotape. There are classic themes here: Coming of Age, Mother\/Daughter Estrangement, The Limited Choices of the Underprivileged, Who is the Good Samaritan, Tragedy is in Every Life & the many layers or relationships. Flashbacks are meaningful (when Alice acquires a gun we know she has some familiarity with how to use it) and it does not end in clich\u00e9. The cast really \"sells\" their roles. It is adult material and the audio is a bit too grainy. Allow it 15 minutes to so to draw you in.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a sad state in corporate Hollywood when a movie surprises you by not taking routes you've been seeing in the movie house since day one. I had literally no idea how this film was going to end, because it went left when I expected it to go right, zigged when I expected a zag, etc. This could have easily unraveled into generic suspense thriller, or depressing white trash drama, but it stayed a course all its own till the end. It is a sad story, though. Not because of what happens to Alice, but because of the sad world that surrounds her and leads her down this path.

The plot has a quiet dignity of form that's usually reserved for theater, but the pacing could use some tightening up. Either way, it's a very good film, and for some reason I suspect sour grapes from those who have scored this one low.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While I can understand some of the points made regarding the cinematography (I thought a more purposeful approach would have better supported the low-fi, home movie feel) I must say that I thought the script and acting of WHAT ALICE FOUND were excellent! Dean Bell has crafted a real gem that Judith Ivey charms with character-driven delight. Her performance of Sandra is a pleasure -- unfolding, alternately, as diabolical and romantic. We are at once intrigued and repulsed by her actions... and never given more information than is necessary. Her's and the supporting cast's efforts meet Bell's post-modern fairy tale with arms wide open. Emily Grace's Alice is infused with a doey-eyed magic. She seems to mold like clay before us, morphing into some sort of beautiful, lost beast. By the end, we are at odds with words, as she is, saying goodbye to her mother. Kudos also should be doled out to Jane Lincoln Taylor -- whose Mother provides the right amount of tragic historic weight -- and Justin Parkinson -- whose shy first-time John, Sam, provides one of the sweetest, if not most awkward, sex scenes in film. Bell has created a first rate story and assembled a plethora of talent to make it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very amazing movie! The characters seemed so realistic to me, it was hard to believe they weren't real people. Being from the South, I thought Judith Ivey's character seemed especially real, and as everyone else has mentioned, she does an outstanding acting job. The characters are not beautiful and look nothing like the average Hollywood stars - their imperfect bodies and personalities seem so much more natural and real.

One reviewer mentioned that the main character, Alice, had no good reason to run away from home, which is true - she didn't have any moral or upstanding reason to run away, such as escaping child abuse, etc. I thought that she was just fed up with dead-end jobs in a working class life and wanted to flee down to Florida where her friend lived the appealing and privileged life of a college student in Miami. The actress shows Alice's confusion, uncertainty, and questioning turn into decisiveness and willingness to take control of her life with impressive naturalness. The film also shows how Alice is trapped in situations with seemingly no options, causing her to panic, take action, and reach out for help.

At first, the grainy filming style put me off and made me think that it was a very low budget or homemade movie, but in actuality it is very well done. The home movie quality really makes you feel like you are there with the characters, a part of their RV trip across the country. This is definitely a film worth seeing, although I don't quite understand all the descriptions of it as a heart-warming coming of age tale. It is rather vulgar and disturbing at times, even if it is not completely sad in the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There's nothing much to the story. A young woman steals some money from the dreary Vermont supermarket where she works, decides to run away to Florida where he has dreams of attending school with her friend Julie, and encounters an odd couple on the highway. If you remember the elderly couple from \"Rosemary's Baby,\" you have some idea of what these two are like. Bill has a comical face and is retired from the Army. Sandra is an ex stripper now become a truckstop whore, although we don't find this out at once. They're affectionate, helpful, and full of common sense.

They more or less adopt the girl, Alice, and promise to give her a ride in their elaborate RV, although they are not driving \"directly\" to Florida.

This is where the film could have gone one-hundred-percent wrong. All the film makers had to do was turn the elderly couple into the personification of evil. They would take the virginal Alice (handcuffed to the bed or whatever) and sell her body to any greaseball driver who has a lot of money and likes rough sex. (Alice would have had a heck of a time escaping, with lots of aborted attempts, before the final shootout.) But, no. The couple really IS pretty nice, and Alice is far from virginal. Alice overhears Sandra with a customer, asks about the business, and tries to turn a trick on her own. Bill prevents anything from happening and insists she do the job right if she's going to do it at all. They don't talk her into it. They guide her.

Alice makes several hundred dollars, which is several hundred dollars more than she had when she met the couple. Bill and Sandra keep her money in the safe where customers aren't going to find it. Alice misunderstands. She doesn't find whoring very pleasant work, and she thinks she'll never be paid off because every time she asks to be dropped off, Sandra responds with, \"What? Not here, honey. Not in the middle of nowhere.\" However, after she is talked into handing her gun over to Sandra, the couple give her the money she wants and rather lovingly release her to continue her trip to Florida.

You know what I found the most tragic moment in the film? It had nothing to do with prostitution or thievery. Alice has been expecting to room with her friend Julie after she arrives in Miami. Julie is after all a legitimate student. But when Alice calls her friend from someplace in Alabama to assure her she's on her way but will be late, Julie hesitates and says, \"Well -- my mother doesn't think you should room with us. And to tell you the truth, my roommate isn't cool on it either. I invited you down, sure, but I thought it was just like a visit for a week or something. Go back to Milford, Alice\" There is a long silence before Alice hangs up.

Only one shot is fired (a few white frames of film) and no one is hit. Tears appear only once. Nobody slugs anybody else. No car explodes in a fireball. No cop chases them down the Interstate.

The direction is occasionally clumsy. Too much cross-cutting between Sandra trying to disarm Alice and Alice's hand holding the wobbling pistol. There is hardly any musical score. There is brief male and female nudity and it's awkward, as it's probably supposed to be. Alice isn't unattractive but she is not babalicious either. She sports Asiatic eyes, a kind of robust version of Molly Parker. The cinematography looks cheap and the colors are washed out. The direction is a straightforward narrative, with a few illuminating flashbacks. Nothing is wasted. And it was all evidently shot around Danbury, Connecticut. The city sticks in my mind because I drove through it after one of its floods and remember the cars caked with a film of mud all the way up to the door handles.

I don't know exactly What Alice Found. (I dread even THINKING that the answer to the riddle is that \"she found herself.\") The acting isn't bad at all. Judith Ivey is better than that. It's definitely worth seeing, a quiet, orderly film that treats the audience like adults.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Six out of seven people who took the time to comment on this movie have very positive responses. The one negative review happens to reside (or did) on the first page of the movie's location in the IMDb.

I found \"What Alice Found\" to be one of the best movies almost no one's heard of that I have seen this year. It's 6.4 rating is misleading and may be more a function of the difficult subject matter than the quality of the movie. Who would think that a movie purportedly about truck stop prostitution would be worth seeing? Guess again.

For me, \"Alice\" was a positively gripping psychological thriller. I was virtually on the edge of my seat the entire time. It's a very credible story with a realistic script and is very well cast. In a fairer world, actress Judith Ivey would win awards for keeping you guessing whether she was good or evil.

Ignore the rating and see this terrific movie. (And by the way, I wish there was a soundtrack album.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At the first glance of this film the camera angles immediately make you think that this is a low budget film that will bore you to tears or make you press the stop button. Surprisingly, the storyline comes forward and is played through the screen in a way that I feel most would relate to. I scored this movie at 7 but like most would, felt it should be a 10, you will understand as you watch it because its a rare thing for a film to be in touch with a persons feelings and how life should be shown by a TV set. Most films try to leave you in awe of their special effects, twists and turns etc, this film dealt a true hand showed a good film backed by an Alabama style storyline that most would feel was a good waste of a couple of hours. Wish I had put the popcorn maker on after all well done!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A great performance by Emily Grace! I stumbled upon this movie while browsing my satellite listings and was curious by the summary of the plot giving by my satellite service provider. I was high entertained and had much compassion for the character \"Alice\" played by Emily Grace. The story had me guessing in what would happen to Alice and was not predicable. The overall story was refreshing and had some great twists to the supporting characters. The ending of the story ended on a rather fair way. I will purchase this DVD to add to my library. I am a new fan of Emily Grace and I high anticipate in seeing more from her performances.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this on cable. I liked it. It held my interest and the dramatic choices were good. The old couple were very good and good at being subtly creepy. The cinematography is not so great, but the shabby video also adds to the sense of realism, so its a trade-off, you know? At times the girl would hit the New England accent to hard. The accent would sort of come and go. Anyway, I thought the film was well done overall, though. The storyline was strong and dramatic tension was held because you felt their was some subtle mystery going on, even though things seemed mundane. Good job on a low budget. Another good SUNY Purchase filmmaker. Way to go.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Judith Ivey as the scamming old whore is awesome. Emily Grace the young girl. Is innocent and exciting as she learns whats going down. Excellent direction and camera. Story is dark and disturbing.Supporting cast is good. Shows what happens and can happen with a run of bad luck. Great independent film. Small cast. Pace is slow at first and then moves good. A good movie to show your teen age daughter who has aspirations of leaving home early, for the open road and adventure. This movie, film has a low budget feel to it, but it works because of the low lifes and areas that these people move in. I will never stop a rest stop again with out thinking of this movie and checking my tires before I go.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"at the story. It is reality mixed with Americana- and very original.

Emily Grace is a young girl tired of her boring life working at a minimum wage job, in New England. Her sleazy boss propositions her- she quits and takes a little bit of cash from the register. Driving from New Hampshire to Miami, Florida, is not a short trip, and her Ford Escort dies out. She then meets a personable older couple, portrayed by Judith Ivey and Bill Raymond. They have an RV and graciously offer to help her out- it isn't safe for a girl to be alone on the road. Especially I-95.

Emily Grace is very realistic as Alice, and initially lets the Judith Ivey character help her; buy her decent clothes, cosmetics, etc. At first it is a nice vacation for Alice, who hopes to hook up with her girlfriend, who attends college in Miami. There is interesting cinematography, as the trio drives the RV down to Florida: the rest-stops, bland scenery and eventually beautiful mountains of North Carolina.

Eventually there is something awry, and the Ivey character apparently has fabricated stories about her daughter, as well as her husband, who now seems a bit sinister.

I will not spoil the outcome of this film- but it ends positively as the audience waits in suspense- This film reminded me a bit of Spielberg's \"Duel\"- while it was initially not as menacing- the moral of the story is - you never know what people are thinking- especially if you are driving cross-country. Beware!!. You will enjoy this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is most likely the best picture not many will see. It presented a culture in a real unhollywoodized way. A must see for all who like Indie and for those who don't. I think this movie will draw more into the Indie scene. The acting was top notch! The character of Alice was portreyed so well. With perfect akwardness. This movie ahould be brought to the mainstream! I think it would do phenominally! ALICE is the most real look at an element of our culture that I have seen since GO ASK ALICE. A look that is untouched by the Hollywood hand. Movies like this show young people that these things aren't glamorous but that they are real and compelling. If you liked PIECES OF APRIL you will love this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wasn't expecting a whole lot when I rented this film, as a lot of independent films seem to be a bit overrated these days (well, Hollywood films too for that matter) but this movie was fantastic, really great, it's too bad it didn't reach a huge audience because it's just superb. I really love Alice's determination, it really makes me look upon my life as a gift, and i see how privileged I am just to have an education. But all of that aside, this movie really proves that a good artist can tell a good story, no matter what the budget, it's an excellent film and everyone should watch it, they will love it and definitely learn something from it. I don't have to be roger ebert to know it's one of the best movies I've seen all year, and certainly one of the most truthful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fantastic film! Wow - this is really a treat. I can't believe that I discovered such a gem of a movie.

A pretty young girl traveling south to Florida meets a friendly older couple with an RV, after she has a flat at a rest stop. However she learns that things aren't as they seem and the couple gets a bit creepy after she spends some time on the road with them.

Everyone in it was just so perfect for their parts you just about believe that you are watching this happen in real life in front of you.

Newcomer Emily Grace did a fantastic job as the really cute, yet somewhat shy Alice. Emily gives you the feeling that you can understand what she is experiencing and you can see just how she got into the situation that develops in the film. I'm sure we'll be seeing Emily in more films in the future.

Contrary to what some others have said, the lighting and photography in this were just perfect. The editing was done well too - just the right way to put together images of the highway to give you the feeling that you are traveling along with the cast on their road trip.

I didn't see it on the big screen, but I can only urge everyone to go out and see it. More films like this are *exactly* what we need.

SF","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"What Alice Found\" is the greatest movie that nobody's ever heard of! I underestimated it when I heard of it, and I though that it would all sex, no plot, and just really stupid, but in reality, it was really good. They say all indie movies suck, but this one, and \"Napoleon Dynamite\" didn't suck. I asked my friend, who'd seen it before I did, and she said that Alice has all these three-ways, and you see all this nudity, but no, there is no three-way that I remember, and little nudity. The movie did have a point, and it taught me never trust hitchhikers. I liked that in the end, they got Alice a little dolphin In the end, on her way to Flordia. I totally suggest seeing this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I gave this 9 stars out of a possible 10. If it had had just a teensy weensy bit more plot line I would have given it 10.

Nonetheless it is a highly interesting film.

Judith Ivey, playing a likable old floozy, should have been given the Oscar for her performance.

Emily Grace (portraying Alice), whom I had never seen before, also does an excellent job and has THE sexiest body I think I've ever seen on film.

In a beat to heck old car, Alice has lit out from the n.e. for Florida where she has a friend (or maybe it's her sister, I'm not sure, and that's my fault, not the film's), and high hopes of going to college, which she and her family can't really afford.

She seems rather vulnerable out there on the road alone, and sure enough she encounters some slightly rough looking characters and shortly after that it's discovered there's a hole in one of her tires.

She is at a rest stop at the time and is assisted by a woman named Sandra and her husband, Bill, an older couple who are traveling in an RV.

They're going south, to Florida, and take her under their wing, but is everyone quite the way they're presenting themselves? Flashbacks and paranoia enter the story as our young heroine learns some new lessons about life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent story, wonderful acting, amazing production values and a cool, action-packed short with a perfect twist at the end. What a great short film!

I saw this film in Vail or Aspen at a film festival and was wowed by it. Then I saw it again at another festival (where it won again) and I was even more impressed because subtle touches become evident the second time around - for a short film, this packs a lot of clever layers into a short time.

AWOL is not for the faint of heart, but it is very well done and completely impressive for a short film - for any film actually. It's an interesting story told very well, and every scene moves the story, which reveals good film-making instincts went into making this film. The film looks gorgeous and David Morse is also stunning, with a dynamic performance delivered in every scene. Watching his character attempt to defeat the curveballs life is throwing him makes a great viewing experience.

It also should be noted, that when tortures of war are in the headlines everyday, the lines between reality, good and evil, can get very gray while the rhetoric gets loud and attempts to make things black and white. AWOL smartly allows the audience to decide for themselves what they think the message is, what is real and what is not, which adds to the mystery.

Both times I've seen it, the audience was WAY more into this movie than the others playing with it, which is saying a lot. There are a lot of shorts out there right now, but few deliver the kind of all around excellence and complex subject matter that AWOL does.

It sounds to me like the previous reviewer is off his or her rocker, or has some personal agenda, because this really is a great example of short independent film-making. I see a LOT of short films, and I must say if only ALL the shorts making the festival rounds were this good, THEN the shorts business would have some serious legs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I too saw this film at a film festival, but unlike the previous poster I found it both interesting and original. In a sea of terrible features, shorts are often twice as bad do to small budgets and poor acting, A.W.O.L however is a taut little thriller that hearkens back to \"The Outer Limits.\" The performances are solid, not that one would expect otherwise from Morse or McGinley, and the directing is sharp and on the money. I personally find it difficult to reconcile the previous poster's comments with the film I saw. A.W.O.L is quite aptly written by Shane Black, who, as is usually the case, plays with the genre both paying homage to the stories pulp sensibilities, while simultaneously winking at the audience and never taking itself too seriously. All in all A.W.O.L proves to be an extremely well executed and fun film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're into alternate realities, contemplating what's real and what's just a fantasy, this is an edge-of-your-seat thriller that'll keep you guessing and really make you think. Try to get a copy of it and see for yourself! I watched it at an L.A. film festival recently and it was by far the best one in the group that I saw. It helped that it was actually about something, unlike the others that were screened. It's very well directed and the production value is top notch. I would compare it to Jacob's Ladder in that it keeps you guessing as to what the true reality is of the world that we're in. You should definitely try to hunt this film down and if it's screening at any festivals near you, try to check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie takes the psychological thriller to new depths. Well written by Shane Black, the film is executed phenomenally by the cast under the watchful eye of Director Jack Swanstrom. Clearly, Swanstrom is a director that we should look out for in the future. His strength lies in his adaptation of personal experiences both on screen and in the classroom.

This thought-provoking film is a must see for anyone who can appreciate action, drama, suspense, and mystery. As with all good films, the viewer goes on a journey of their own to find their individual interpretation of the movie. The mystical aspect of the film is intriguing and adds to the suspense. You find your self looking for the answers along with Marquette. Audiences have liked the movie on the festival circuit - with many awards received, they must have agreed that A.W.O.L. (2006) is well worth watching.

I'd love to own a copy - how do I go about getting one?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After being off the air for a while, Columbo returned with some new made-for-TV mysteries that, while not being as good as the original series, are better than the shows that were done in the later '90s.

\"Murder Can Be Hazardous to Your Health\" used the then (and I guess now, if you think about it) true crime shows as the situation for a murder. The murder is committed by a very successful, egomaniacal true crime show host, George Hamilton (in a nice bit of casting). His chain-smoking nemesis, who lost the job to him, played by Peter Haskell, attempts to blackmail Hamilton when he discovers a porno video Hamilton made with an underage actress in his salad days. Hamilton uses Haskell's cigarettes to deliver the death blow via poison, giving himself an alibi as well.

Columbo is brought in to find out what happened. You know the rest. Highly entertaining.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I sort of liked this Columbo movie its atmosphere, which was real thriller like and its approach even at times reminded me of film-noir, in the movie its first 30 minutes or so. It's really nice and done in a good old fashioned way, with the right camera angles and use of light. It doesn't mean instantly that this movie is a brilliant one though but its solid enough to consider this a good late Columbo movie entry. It's definitely a better movie than the average 'later' Columbo movie entry.

26 years after his previous Columbo movie appearance, George Hamilton returns once again to play the main lead opposite Peter Falk, again as the murderer, in a total different and new role of course. I liked him in his role and he was a good Columbo 'villain', who gave the good old Lieutenant some good competition. They had some nice sequences together. Problem with the 'modern' new Columbo movies always sort of had been that it didn't feature a good well known actor opposite Peter Falk. This movie obviously doesn't suffer from this problem. But I must say though that this movie doesn't feature Peter Falk at this best. He has certainly played the character better and his performance isn't quite consistent enough within this movie, which is probably also due to he movie its director Daryl Duke, who also directed the really dreadful movie \"Tai-Pan\", among many other projects.

It has a rather good and enjoyable story but the fact that the same sort of plot to cover up the murder had been used before in an earlier Columbo movie also doesn't help of course. It got used before in the 1975 movie \"Columbo: Playback\". Nevertheless it of course also still has plenty enough 'original' moments of its own with its story, even though of course in essence every Columbo movie is more or less the same. But oh well, that is what made the Columbo series so great and consistent. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

It also is true that within this movie more clues than usual are left out for the Lieutenant, which doesn't mean that the movie its murderer is more stupid or sloppy but I more see it as the writers being more overly enthusiastic than others. It doesn't make the movie or story bad and it in fact perhaps even makes it more enjoyable, to see Columbo hard at work and discovering all kind of small but important clues. Luckily the movie is also filled with some enjoyable effective relieving Columbo-comedy.

Simply a good late Columbo movie entry.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Back in the 60's, this grim study of Joy, a young proletarian wife, was the introduction to the career of Ken Loach, who became one of the most distinguished and respected British filmmakers of all time. By then I knew very little about Brecht, politics or the reality of the under-privileged, and I was quite impressed by the aesthetic of the film, its free style, its austere color cinematography, and Joy's monologues in front of the camera. I was also much surprised to find that Terence Stamp (who had become a celebrity, thanks to \"Billy Budd\", \"The Collector\" and \"Modesty Blaise\") had so little screen time. Although 20th Century Fox distributed \"Poor Cow\" in Panama, Loach did not stay in mainstream cinema (which this film hardly is) and I lost contact with his films. I just heard of his successes, \"Kes\", \"Family Life\", \"Black Jack\". until I caught up in the 80's. The beautiful title song by Donovan, by the way, is available in his anthology \"Troubadour\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ken Loach showed the world the down-and-out flip side of Swinging London with \"Poor Cow\", about London woman Joy (Carol White) hooking up with a thief and having a son with him, only to see the man end up in the slammer. While his friend (Terence Stamp) manages to help her out some, he proves to be little better in what a loser he is. It soon becomes clear to Joy that she's going to have to make a serious decision about where she's going in her life.

One thing that I determined - I don't know whether or not this is accurate - was a use of irony in the movie. Her name is Joy, but she experiences no joy in her life. Even if that wasn't intended, it's still a movie that I recommend to everyone. Featuring songs by Donovan (one of which - \"Colors\" - appeared in another Terence Stamp movie: \"The Limey\" (which, incidentally, came out in 1999, when I was as old as my parents were when \"Poor Cow\" came out)).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best of the 'kitchen-sinks'. Fantastic views of London and invaluable snippets of working class life of the 60's. Loach's eye seems to capture everything, yet makes no judgment - a taste of things to come. As with 'Kes', 'Riff-raff' and 'Sweet Sixteen', it serves as a cinematic social history of Britain. Carol White is completely convincing, you love her, fancy her, want to take care of her, but hold your head at her self-destructive decisions and still follow her in some vain hope. Well backed up by Terence Stamp, ( fresh off 'The collector', also catch 'The Hit' ) and a plethora of English faces ( all looking very young ). Pefectly set to Donovan's dulcet tones. Stamp sings 'Yellow is the color', in a lovely scene, ending with him saying, \" Getting better, ain't I \" ( song also used in 'The rules of Attraction' - I think ) Watch Carol Whites screen mum getting ready to 'go out and get a bloke', putting on her false eye-lashes to the sound of 'Rosie' on the radio - priceless. A treasure for anyone who was around at the time and a reminder of how good life is now in England. Incidentally Soderburgh used clips from 'Poor cow' in 'The Limey'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Recently released on British DVD, this is a good movie (as long as you have an attention span and IQ of more than a fruit fly). Not as depressing as it could have been, this is kitchen-sink at its most dirty. Terrance Stamp is great in it, the music is sweet, Carol White is very believeable as the single mum tart who can't stop loving criminals.

My favourite scene is where Carol and her friend who works in the pub with her (the one with the enormous beehive hairdo which comes down over one eye) sit outisde and gossip about all the men who walk past.

The only thing that marred this was the shakey acting of Carol's first husband, but if you can get past that, you're OK. And Donovan provides some of the most languid, mellow, bittersweet lyrics to come out of the 60s.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not a film of entertainment, but of real lives & limited ambition for the working class in 60's. Enjoyable because of my upbringing, not sure it'd work for most people. Typical Loach. Full of TV actors\/actresses of 70's\/80's\/90's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Is one of those classic American made for TV movies that are just made for watching on a rainy afternoon. Although the script is highly implausible it never takes itself too seriously and neither do the cast which leads to a great tongue in cheek murder mystery \/ horror film best enjoyed with a bid bag of popcorn or box of chocolates. A big bonus of this film is the fantastic location filming and despite the strange goings on and even stranger residents round Lake Tommahawk I for one would not mind living there!

All in all a great film to watch over and over again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The premise of the story is common enough; average family wants out of the rat race; wants to find the simple life....so they move from Sherman Oaks,California to Lake Tomahawk; kids in tow.

The lake is beautiful, they have leased an old house....but wait; there may be something in the lake; people are being murdered, and no one knows how (never mind why). Gerald McRaney is excellent, a familiar face for Lifetime viewers; Valerie Harper is also good; since this film was made in '88 maybe the writer should produce a sequel!.

You will also enjoy Barry Corbin as the town eccentric, and Darryl Anderson as a Bruce Dern-lookalike\/crazed military man.

While the story plot is a bit over the top; if you are a movie buff you will be reminded of similar scenarios from \"\"Psycho\"\"; \"\"Deliverance\"\"; as well as other horror stories of that genre. Several camera shots and sequences will give you a sense of deja vu.

Sit back and enjoy; if you don't take it too seriously it is very entertaining; and better than, for example the more recent movie:

\"\"I Know What You Did Last Summer\"\"; it seems they made better movies in the good old 80's!.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rachel and Chuck Yoman (Valerie Harper, Gerald McRaney), decided the city is too busy and dangerous for their family, so they packed up their reluctant son (Gregory Togel) and daughter (Tammy Lauren) and moved back to a lake like the one Rachel lived at as a child.

They say you can not go home again but this is an ideal rural home with what at first seems like a Mayberry feel. Later the residence seems to be more like the people in Deliverance. Soon bodies start turning up and everybody looks suspect with the exception of a few friendly faces. This does not keep the family from enjoying running around and messing around in the woods.

We find that they have to be super ignorant to find the secrets and not tell anyone until they get ax-cepted as the antagonists.

Can the ignored young Stevie save his parents or will their pursuer(s) put his\/her foot in it?

This film is more than most parodies as it was played with strait faces. They could not have chosen better actors and Daryl Anderson was exceptionally creepy. An added plus is that they let us know what is happening before the characters find out, instead of pulling a clue out of the hat after the fact. Anyway this made for TV movie is good for a few laughs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Closet Land. The title itself conjures up thoughts of secrets. And that is really what's at the heart of this Amnesty International film. Government secrets, personal secrets, both are integral pieces of this story.

By far the greatest acting seen in too long a time, both Alan Rickman and Madeleine Stowe were phenomenal in their portrayal of a Government Interrogator and Victim respectively. With only the two actors in this unusual standard length film, it is instantly clear that both actors were dedicated and talented enough to pull the viewer into this tiny bubble of a world and shut the door.

A WORD OF CAUTION...

What isn't mentioned on the description of this movie is that there is a subplot that deals with childhood sexual abuse. While there is no graphic detail about the abuse, the nature of it may be difficult for some viewers to watch - especially given the intensity of the film on whole.

I'm not a big fan of Amnesty International films, but this movie drew me in because the acting was so exceptional, and I can't help but make this movie one of my personal favorites.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Closet Land\" was sponsored by Amnesty International and does have a lot of political overtones, but there's so much more to this richly stirring story than that...

This is not just about the political tension of the late 80s - it's about the personal persecution that a woman puts herself through as a child who was molested by a family friend. We see the subtle allusion to the parallels of a dishonest government\/society structure and the culture of sexual predation where one in four young children are molested and one in three women has experienced some form of rape.

For me, it brings up a chilling chicken-and-egg question: does the attitude of our sexual repression-leading-to-predation create the political environment of fear and censoring, or does the socio-political dysfunction fuel a culture of sexual predation? The psychological ramifications of even asking this question force us to a place where we are brought to develop our own answers.

In the end, our young lady writer (Stowe) has a similar moment to the one at the end of Hensen's \"Labyrinth\" - she realizes in one shining, brilliant moment that the idea of having her power stolen from her by the secret police (Rickman) is an illusion. No one can steal your power - they can only trick you into giving it up, and then you have the right to take it back at any time.

This is not a movie to be entered into lightly, and you most certainly do ENTER it. The minimalist aspects coupled with the child-like animation stirs the deepest parts of the psyche and leaves no viewer unchanged.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film hits the heart with a reality like no other I have seen. It shows what us what we, in a democratic society, take for granted, and just what we are lucky enough not to be experiencing. The acting in the film is superb, sometimes you have to remind yourself that the movie is a dramatization, and not real life. Mr. Rickman does wonders with his role (as he does with all roles) making the interrogator fully dimensional and human. The set is incredible. It gives the feeling of 'in the round\" theater. Which does not add or take away from the emotion of the action. This movie seeks to open the eyes of the viewer, and I'd say they have made a success of that goal.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Acting, of course! Think about it, Closet Land could easily have turned out so horribly - an entire movie filmed in one room with only two people, they better have some damned interesting things to chat about.

But it didn't turn out horribly. On the contrary, thanks to incredible portrayals by both Stowe and Rickman, Closet Land is a masterpiece in its own right.

That's not to say it is for everyone. Persons who have had their attention spans decreased through glitzy sex scenes and random gun fire may have trouble digesting Closet Land. However, those who can appreciate good story telling without explosions should give it a look (no matter how many video stores you have to call to find someone who has it in stock).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie gave me recurring nightmares, with Alan Rickman's voice representing an omnipotent, insidious, fascist ruler. The scariest movie I have ever seen - psychological terror more powerful than anything any \"horror\" movie has ever achieved. Alan Rickman's voice will always represent to me the power and terror of a totalitarian state, reminiscent of Orwell's 1984. This movie describes to those who don't care the reality of a large part of current world governments. This film is disturbing, but in a way that everyone should watch it - it's a description of a reality that no one should ever have to experience, but so many do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Closet Land\" tells a powerful story and has many different subtle elements. You could read lots of stuff about the movie's plot before hand, but you don't really need to. All you need to know is that the movie is all about an interrogation. Along the way, we learn lots of things about the interrogator and the person being interrogated. We also learn that the world can be a dark and scary place. Especially when you have absolutely no control over it.

In the end, the movie amounts to a warning (really though, the movie has several different aspects to it) about what happens to people's freedoms when they \"look the other way\" and ignore injustices happening to those around them.

If you've got about an hour and a half and know where you can rent this, I strongly recommend that you do so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like Margot in \"Fear of Fear\" falls victim of her ambitious husband, like Fox in \"Fox and his friends\" is driven into suicide by his boyfriend who took all his money away, like Xaverl Bolwieser in \"The Stationsmaster's Wife\" who goes to prison in order to give his cheating wife a chance to get rid of him, like Hermann Hermann who seeks refuge in insanity in order to flee his stupid wife and bankrupt company, so also Hans Epp is a victim of the German \"Wirtschaftswunder\"-Society after World War II in R.W. Fassbinder's \"The Merchant of the Four Seasons\". Simply from the fact that Fassbinder played through social abuse between men and women as well as between hetero- and homosexual couples, it should be clear that he does not favorize any sex.

In Hans Epp's case there are the women who drive him into despair, illness and finally death. When he comes back from the Foreign Legion where he flew because he could not stand anymore the pressure of his mother, she complains that he is still alive while the good boy from her neighbor had been killed. Then Hans gets a job as a policeman, but is surprised by his foreman while he is seduced by a prostitute. After having lost his job, he works as a fruit-merchant with little income, going from backyard to backyard \"crying out\" his produce. His mother, one of his sisters and her husband are ashamed to have such a \"street-worker\" in their family. \"The love of his life\" (she has no name in the movie) refuses to marry him because his job does not fit together with her social status and origin. So he marries Irmgard whom he does not love and who does not love him. From her constant pressure on him he flees into drinking. One evening, after his wife was stalking him, he explodes and hits her. She flees to her family for which this event was just what they have been waiting for. When Irmgard is calling a lawyer for divorce, Hans suffers a heart attack. Imrgard decides to stay with him, but from now on, he is not allowed anymore to do heavy work and to drink alcohol. So he starts to feel more and more superfluous, gets quieter and quieter and more and more depressive. When he finds out that Irmgard cheats him, he chooses to end his life, but not like Hermann Hermann by having a trip into the light of madness, but he drinks himself to death in front of Imrgard, their little daughter and his boozing buddies. Fassbinder said in an interview that Hans knew what he was doing. The question, however is: Did Hans just kill himself because he could not stand anymore his miserable environment, or did he make self-justice?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'd be hard pressed to say what is it that makes this film so important to me. While a very good movie, this is definitely not the most outstanding Fassbinder's film. Still along with the American Soldier it keeps making it into my personal list of favorites whenever I get to thinking about it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What kind I say about this movie. well for starters, I thought that this film was okay, not the greatest not worst. I said this cause I thought that the script was great and original, really different and refreshing. Now I wouldn't say that it's the greatest film that I've seeing cause of the acting. The actors that played each role, seems that they played them without emotions, as if they took the life out of them. When the wife laughed or cried, this didn't look real to me for some reason, that's just an example, but sincerely all the characters didn't act real at all. I wish I could say more positive things about this film so you guys can see it at least once but how can I do that since I know that I'm not going to see this movie again. I rented this film from the library of my school, without hearing anything about the film itself or the director. I took a chance because the story that was describe on the back sounded really interesting and it really was.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After the across-the-board success of MY NAME IS BARBRA, CBS television permitted Barbra to create an even more elaborate follow-up as her second special. Streisand wisely knew, in order to follow in the ground-breaking success of MY NAME IS BARBRA, that her second special would indeed need to raise the bar even further in inventiveness and spectacle. Not surprisingly, she succeeded once again. Even more impressively, Streisand managed to mount this large production without sacrificing the intimacy and vision of MY NAME IS BARBRA.

Once again, the special is divided into three distinct Acts. Filming on location at Bergdorf Goodman's department store was so successful in the first special, that Streisand and company decided to film on location once again for the first Act of this second special. The decided-upon location this time was the Philadelphia Art Museum, which would allow endless chances for Barbra to \"enter\" different art works that would correspond with the songs being performed. In addition to the numerous artistic possibilities that this location made possible, the museum would offer the perfect opportunity to take advantage of filming in color.

After the recording of \"Draw Me a Circle\" that is set against the opening credits, Barbra then dashes around the museum in a maid costume to the strains of Kern and Harbach's \"Yesterdays.\" She stops to admire various paintings and statues, often becoming the character that is depicted and singing a thematically appropriate song. Streisand performs a bittersweet rendition of Hammerstein and Romberg's \"One Kiss\" as Thomas Eakin's CONCERT SINGER, delivers a hilariously campy performance of Chopin's \"Minute Waltz\" as Marie Antoinette, embraces abstract art with the frenetic rhythm of Peter Matz's \"Gotta Move,\" and performs a wrenching rendition of \"Non C'est Rien\" as a distraught Modigliani girl. The high point of Act I, however, is when Streisand compares profiles with the bust sculpture of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti, while singing a tour de force rendition of Rogers and Hart's \"Where or When.\" The Act II circus medley allows Streisand to interact with various farm and circus animals, while singing various songs with farm\/circus\/animal themes. Some highlights include Barbra singing \"Were Thine That Special Face\" to a baby elephant, performing \"I've Grown Accustomed to that Face\" as a serenade to a piglet, the campy \"Sam, You Made the Pants to Long\" sung to a group of baby penguins, and Barbra comparing profiles with an anteater while crooning \"We Have So Much in Common.\" Streisand also swings on a trapeze and leaps from a trampoline to the chorus of \"Spring Again,\" and then slows things down by performing a haunting version of \"I Stayed Too Long at the Fair\" while seated alone on stage. Barbra also gets the chance to show off her pet poodle Sadie in this segment, and even speak a little French.

The Act III concert is once again the high point of the hour. Dressed in a slenderizing white wool dress, the concert segment is performed on a uniquely-designed stage with a partial staircase that leads nowhere. Streisand opens the Act with a sultry rendition of Harold Arlen's \"Anyplace I Hang My Hat Is Home,\" before launching into heartfelt versions of the familiar standard \"It Had to Be You\" and the rarely-heard \"C'est Si Bon (It's So Good).\" Streisand then really amazes the audience with a breathtakingly powerful, octave-soaring performance of the Sweet Charity ballad \"Where Am I Going,\" of which Streisand delivers the definitive rendition of. Streisand also introduces the then-newly written Richard Maltby, Jr.-David Shire ballad \"Starting Here, Starting Now,\" which contains an impassioned vocal from Streisand that ranks among the very best vocal performances of her long career.

More than anything else, Color Me Barbra was a showcase for Streisand's ever-increasing, mega-watt star power. Despite the presence of even more visual razzle-dazzle, Streisand herself is always the main attraction. Her voice sounds as beautiful as ever, and this special was the first to showcase how strikingly she photographs in color. As with MY NAME IS BARBRA, COLOR ME BARBRA was another rating-smash and spawned yet another Top-Five, Gold-selling soundtrack album. Simply put, COLOR ME BARBRA defies tradition and emerges as a sequel that is nearly on par with a classic original.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Follow-up to 1965's \"My Name Is Barbra\", and shot in brilliant color, \"Color Me Barbra\" has La Streisand alternating nostalgia, clowning comedy, feminine romantic angst, and beguiling seriousness for a crazy-quilt hour of show-biz razzle dazzle. She's a cut-up and a femme fatale, a sprite and an enigma. With her Egyptian eye make-up and ever-changing hairstyles, she's also a chameleon. Her voice is rich and moving, even if a few of her songs are not (\"One Kiss\", \"Yesterdays\"). The circus sequence isn't as intriguing as the museum trip (with the conceit of Barbra becoming the images in the paintings, an idea which works better than you may think). The circus-medley (built around songs featuring the word \"face\"!) is girlishly cute without ever really becoming enchanting. Still, this is a lively, jazzy special--not quite as emotionally tantalizing as \"My Name Is Barbra\", but certainly a sterling sophomore effort.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A year after her triumphant first special, \"My Name Is Barbra\", Barbra Streisand regrouped with her production team to produce this follow-up CBS-TV special in then-revolutionary color. First broadcast in March 1966, \"Color Me Barbra\" follows a similar format to its predecessor - three segments, the first two with unique concepts. The first takes place in the after-hours halls of the Philadelphia Museum of Art where dressed as a period maid, she roams the galleries and becomes part of the artwork through song. In various guises, Streisand expresses a variety of moods from the comedy schtick of the \"Minute Waltz\" to the melodrama of \"Non C'est Rien\" in a Modigliani painting to the beatnik-style frenzy of \"Gotta Move\" set to abstract art. My favorite moment in the special is when she transforms into a dead ringer of Queen Nefertiti while singing a haunting rendition of Rogers and Hart's \"Where or When\".

Opening with another comic monologue full of silly non-sequiturs, this time in French, the second segment is back in the studio for a brightly-colored circus medley where she interacts with animals, including her beloved poodle Sadie. She finds an appropriate context for \"Sam, You Made the Pants Too Long\" with a bevy of penguins and comically compares her profile to an anteater's with \"We Have So Much in Common\". As with the first special, the program ends with a riveting solo concert in which she sings some chestnuts, \"Any Place I Hang My Hat Is Home\", \"Where Am I Going?\" and \"Starting Here, Starting Now\" among them. Also included is the brief introduction she filmed in 1986, ironically dressed in all-white, when the special was first released on VHS. The juxtaposition of locale and song is even more effective than in her first special, and a 23-year old Streisand is in peak form.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I fear that my review of this special won't heed much different observation than the others before me, but I literally just watched it- during a PBS membership drive- and frankly I'm too excited NOT to say anything. To really appreciate the enigma that is Barbra Streisand, you have to look back before the movies. Before the Broadway phenomenon of the mid-60's. When television was still a young medium, there was a form of entertainment very prominent on the air that is but a memory today: musical variety. Some musical shows were weekly series, but others were single, one-time specials, usually showcasing the special talent of the individual performer. This is where we get the raw, uninhibited first looks at Streisand. She had already been a guest performer on other variety shows including Garry Moore, Ed Sullivan, and scored a major coup in a one-time only tandem appearance with the woman who would pass her the baton of belter extraordinary: Judy Garland. In 1966, COLOR ME BARBRA introduced Barbra Streisand in color (hence the title), but copied the format of her first special a year earlier almost to the letter. In 3 distinct acts, we get an abstract Streisand (in an after-hours art museum looking at and sometimes becoming the works of art), a comic Streisand working an already adoring audience in a studio circus (populated with many fuzzy and furry animals), and best of all, a singing Streisand in mini-concert format just-- well, frankly, just doing it.

It amazes me that she still had the film debut of FUNNY GIRL yet to come, as well as turns as songwriter, director, and political activist. Here, she is barely 24 years old, doing extraordinary things because, as she puts it in her own on-camera introduction, 'we didn't know we couldn't, so we did.' The art museum sequence is shot in Philadelphia over one weekend immediately after the museum closed to the public on Saturday evening, and apparently done with only ONE color camera. Yet there are cuts, dissolves, and tracking shots galore, resulting in one rather spectacular peak moment-- the modern, slightly beatnik-flavored, \"Gotta Move.\" After getting lost amongst the modern abstracts, jazz-club bongos begin, with Streisand emerging in a psychedelic gown and glittering eye makeup, doing the catchy staccato tune with almost androgynous sex appeal. It is not until Act 3, believe it or not, that the moment is matched or bettered by another feat: in the concert sequence, in a white gown and pearl earrings, Streisand recites the torchy \"Any Place I Hang My Hat is Home,\" tearing into the final notes and revealing one of those climactic belts that makes you scream like a little girl even if you're 44 years old...and a guy. Just plain old great television. Check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Three distinct and distant individuals' lives intersect with the brutal killing of one by another. The one-hour film only reveals the event that brings the three individuals together only after half the film is over. I have seen other segments of the \"Dekalog\" but this one struck me as the most sparse one in dialogue and yet most fascinating in structure.

The film opens with a law student practicing a mock plea of defense for a man charged with murder. Obviously the same arguments must have been repeated by the man as a full-fledged lawyer but this is never shown on screen (at least in the short 1-hr version of Dekalog 5). We are made to imagine that this must have been the case. A cab driver who is a misanthrope, has two facets to his character: the good side feeds a mangy dog, cleans his cab meticulously, picks up dirty rags thrown by people who lack civic sense, and remembers his wife while dying; the bad side frightens small poodles, refuses to give a ride to a drunk--probably worried that he will puke in the cab--and ogles at pretty girls. The repulsive protagonist who murders without mercy, drops stones from bridges on fast moving traffic, and pushes strangers into urinals without any provocation, is also a person who can make innocent young girls laugh. Kieslowski's film and the script thus present the good and the bad side of two of the three main characters.

Yet the film is not about capital punishment but more a treatise on killing. The Fifth Commandment \"Thou shalt not kill\" is explored theologically--(\"Even God spared Cain...'), sociologically the tenderness of brutes to children and poor forlorn dogs, and psychologically (after effects of drunken night with a male friend that led to the accidental death of his sister, whose photograph he carries with him). What makes ordinary persons turn into killers--this is never fully explained but suggestions are legion.

In Kieslowski's world there is a pattern where events and people are interlinked in a cosmic sense (note the resemblance of clown to the killer, as it hangs from the mirror in the cab). Kieslowski and the young idealist lawyer seem to ask us to look at the Commandment literally and figuratively--why do we kill? Are the people legally killed truly bad? Is there a force beyond society (the drunken night that led to life of a girl) that makes us into abhorrent murderers?

It would be missing the forest for the trees to discuss the two detailed killings in the film--both without mercy. The film invites the viewer to contemplate why we are asked by God not to kill.

I understand a longer full-length version of the film was made by Kieslowski. But even this short 1-hr version is superb with its bleak and sparse script, intelligent editing, interesting cinematography and top-notch direction that provides much more than the sum of its parts.

This segment anticipates the more wholesome Dekalogs 6,7 and 8.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having seen the full length film Kieslowski made out of this episode of \"The Decalogue\" years ago, came back to this viewer as we watched the complete ten vignettes. As with the other films, this one is loosely based on the fifth commandment, or, \"Thou shalt not kill\".

Kryzsztof Kieslowski, writing with Kryzsztof Piesewicz, took a look at the mind of a young man who commits a heinous crime in murdering an innocent person to vent his own frustrations. This installment has a Dostoyevskian character that kept reminding us about \"Crime and Punishment\", or at least some of the qualities of the novel are passed to the aimless youth who apparently has no redeeming qualities.

The story shows the young man as he roams the streets of the city without a clear idea of what to do, or where to go. The only tender moment he displays is when he visits the photographer's place to ask to have an old picture of his sister restored. Kieslowski leaves it up to fate to have the murderer board a taxi with the intention of robbing the driver, but it's his anger and frustration that get the best of this youth to kill a man that didn't deserve to die. The last moments of this criminal is one of the most gripping sequences in any film, past, or present.

The other element in the story is the relationship between the public defendant and the criminal. Nothing can prevent the court to condemn to death the young man. The lawyer feels at the end he has failed his client and goes to the judge to see where he went wrong. All he is asked by the young man is to retrieve the picture and send it to his mother.

Kieslowski's account of how he interprets the fifth commandment makes for a surprising film that will stay in the viewer's mind long after this episode is forgotten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the episode that probably most closely relates to it's partner law, \"Thou Shalt Not Kill,\" in that it directly brings up the ever controversial issue, \"Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong?\" This issue is presented in two parts within the episode: before the killing, when the film shows the dichotomy between the idealistic up-and-coming lawyer and the street thug so caught up in his ways that his life is merely a representation of what he's supposed to do, followed by the period after the trial and before the execution, when both are made to suffer for the deaths they feel responsible for and thus share.

One of the great things about the way these episodes work are in the both small and big ways the story is fully developed, so that we understand both the motivations and histories of characters we're only able to spend slightly less than an hour with. For all his criminal intentions and mockery, the killer is still very sympathetic, revolving the most important part of his actions around a history of accidental death. His way of killing is more a desire to control death than it is any desire to actually destroy. Similarly, the lawyer's idealistic naivety shows one unwilling to allow death to happen in a world where he can't control it. Their meeting is, indeed, important; they both have to give in to it while not propagating it.

As an aside, it's interesting how much this episode affects viewing of Rouge, Kieslowski's later completion of the Trois Colours trilogy. One of Kieslowski's biggest influences seems to be the idea of justice, and considering that the Decalogue is a meditation on something that represents Divine Justice, this one seems almost the most self-conscious.

--PolarisDiB","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dekalog Five was an interesting viewing experience for me, because of the question Kieslowski seems to subtly ask the audience. Three men are the focus of this chapter, and Kieslowski present the two involved in murder with traits both good and bad (In one's case, almost overwhelmingly bad). With such vile characters, I found myself almost glad that they would receive some sort of punishment. However, when the time comes for the murder (And it's subsequent effect on the murderer), Kieslowski takes an interesting angle and seems to ask those of us who shared my view, \"Are you not as guilty as this man?\" This sort of indirect address of the audience makes the finale of Dekalog Five that much more profound as Kieslowski (As usual) doesn't stay within the literal confines of his theme. Just as the other parts of the Dekalog don't take their Commandment's theme in it's literal sense, neither does Dekalog Five. It asks us what is murder, who is more guilty of murder, and what should be the appropriate punishment, if any? It's a fantastic film and, typical of Kieslowski, absolutely stunning.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Dekalog 5 may be considered a violent accusation against the death sentence, according to the fifth commandment \"Thou shalt not kill\": not by chance it puts the concept of a State fully complied with the provisions of an unjust law on the same plane as the figure of a Murderer. \"But the law might not imitate the nature, it might correct it,\" states Piotr, the counsel for the defense, a real catalyst character, \"the punishment is a form of vengeance aiming at returning evil for evil without preventing the crime. But in the name of whom the law takes its revenge? Really in the name of the innocent ones?\". The horrifying and detailed sequences of the last half hour of a man sentenced to death give value to the uselessness of the deterrent function applied to the death penalty with the purpose of intimidating all potential criminals. \"Desperate plights don't demand desperate remedies\", Kieslowski says in his message, teaching us how unrighteous can be the act of disobedience to a commandment of God that judges punishment the same way as crime is judged. There are three different moral attitudes here: the innate sense of rebellion of the MURDERER aiming at rousing the hostile torpor of the surrounding environment; the strong sense of chronic indifference of the VICTIM inclined to laugh at other people's requirements; the deserving behavior of the COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE always ready to fight against adversity, in favor of human life. The struggle for life is ruthlessly vivisected all of the time; the characters are plunged into scenes of affliction and distress, in an urban landscape accented with greenish tones and seen in its own reflections through the windshield of a taxi. Everything in \"Dekalog 5\" conveys a dreadful sense of estrangement and isolation: descriptions of a waste undergrowth of violence and folly, scenes of precarious conditions of work, sinister appearances of buildings immersed in an anonymous aura of desolation, aimless wanderings through disenchanting environments. Jazek, the main character, is compelled to struggle with an opponent stronger than himself: a town completely wrapped in profound indifference, apparently hostile, deaf to all his mute calls for help, while a faded photo of a little girl in a first communion dress goes on gnawing his soul. He's irremediably directing his steps towards a disconnected route to damnation seen through the deformations of the 18 mm. wide angle camera lens aiming at distorting every details, altering the reality, making it fade out in remote and alien echoes. Kieslowski doesn't bring extenuating circumstances seasoned with honey-tongued tones of melodrama in favor of the defendant, differently from some Hollywood stereotypes like \"I want to live\" (by Robert Wise). He doesn't slip on the banana peel of useless pathetic scenes to extenuate Jazek's guilt and to mitigate the brutality of the crime, not interested at all in proximate psychological motivations to justify any display of extreme or violent behaviors and refusing to include any useless judicial proceedings. In other words, in Kieslowsky's opinion \"a crime is always a crime\": according to the principle of \"par condicio\" he puts the prosecutor on the same plane as the condemned man, using many signs or symbols to represent a society seen in the most sinister light. And we can't remain indifferent: even if we don't agree with him, Jazek's screams of anguish touch our hearts with pity in the same manner that Terri Schiavo's entreating eyes do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Identity\u0096 . . . . I am part of my surroundings and I became separate from them and it's being able to make those differentiations clearly that lets us have an identity and what's inside our identity is everything that's ever happened to us' (Ntozake Shange qtd in \"Fires in the Mirror\").

Pieces like Decalogue V used to intimidate me. I felt that if I accepted them, than I would be compromising something. What I thought before really isn't worth getting into. I understand what Naturalism is trying to say. I experienced a tangible katharsis, and one that fell into existence piecemeal, and one that's still alive, that I still have to reckon with. It's still working inside me.

The film wasn't sympathetic, per se. It doesn't need to say that the death penalty is a wicked thing. There are certainly wicked people; whether or not they should die is for another film. What Decalogue shows is that good, beautiful people exists who kill other people when their society and primal urges jack them up.

The 'science' of naturalism is what has helped me to appreciate Decalogue V. It's not worth the writing space to go into why I would not let myself before, but I see now the worth in making art like this to 'make' people, or perhaps to make people do something.

There's a method to Lazar's compromise of his . . . light. Much of that meaning makes sense only in retrospect. This should not be too strange of an idea: after all, how much of respectable science does not gain meaning in retrospect. I wince when I say it, but Naturalism seems so much more productive and so much less nihilistic when I have the power to say to myself, 'this ruin, this process, this natural process, makes me want to buck the system.'

I do not think Naturalism is painting a doomsday portrait of humanity, telling us to give up our powdered wigs and head to the woods. Instead, I think that it is cataloging proofs and experiments, that we are, of course, free to ignore. We can ignore it all we want, if we want to give the Naturalists more corpses to bury.

For surely, despite their aesthetic specifically designed without sympathy towards their characters' likely and catastrophic fate, they are impassioned by readerly inaction and writerly snobisme. I do see the delightful risk in the hope that the audience will understand what's to be done with what they see. As has been mentioned, there's danger in the hopeless seeing their fate immortalized in stone. There's danger in the hopeful disparaging the Natural because it doesn't correspond to their world view.

And I don't think that the 'hopeful' need be either wealthy or fortunate. I have not seen it, but it seems that the film American Beauty proves the inadequacy of circumstance as a provider of vision or comfort. There are ascetics as well as gluttons as well as beggars who wonder where within themselves their humanity is, who grieve because they can't find anything that separates them from their landscape.

Landscapes can be powerfully and beautifully portrayed, but in reality, landscapes do not enact. They change, sure, and dramatically, but only by a large set of Natural law which no one truly have power over. But it cannot be changed itself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A brutally straightforward tale of murder and capital punishment by the state. So painfully slow and accurate in the description of capital punishment (from the preparation of the gallow to the victim p***ing in his own pants before dying) it has the power to change your mind about death penalty. The whole Dekalog originated from this story: the Dekalog screenwriter was the powerless lawyer unsuccessfully trying to defend and then console the accused.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It would be great if a discussion on this medium length film is initiated with a brief tale about hypocrisy of Hollywood people.It was in 1988 that Chuck Norris saw this film at Cannes International Film Festival.He made a silly remark by uttering that the senseless killing depicted in Dekalog 5 is far more effective than killings which have been filmed in his Hollywood films with him as a potent action star.He was speaking about an innocent taxi driver whose face is brutally disfigured in Kieslowski's film by a reckless psychopath who hits him cruelly with a big stone.There should be absolutely no justification for violence and its perpetrators in a dignified human society.This is the reason why Chuck Norris' statement appears as a cruel joke which defends violent means in a society which is increasing becoming restless.An honest reviewer would not be making a mistake if he\/she states that Kieslowski's film \"Dekalog: Dekalog,Piec (#1.5)\" has universal connotations.This is because the events depicted in Dekalog 5 can happen in any part of world.The best lesson which Kielowski gives to us concerns levels of violence which are acceptable in a just society.This is the reason why the brutal slaying of an innocent cab driver is capable of causing a feeling of repugnance in us.We would not feel the same hatred for homicide when it appears in films featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger,Chuck Norris and Jean Claude Van Damme as they appear much too artificial.One can easily grasp that special effects and modern studio techniques can charm only toddlers but make no sense to serious film enthusiasts.Kieslowski also champions helplessness of human beings in rescuing fellow humans beings from the clutches of death and misery.This is particularly interesting as time and again it has been proved that strict laws and capital punishments have not been able to prevent homicide.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Directed by Jacques Tourneur (Cat People, Out of the Past, Night of the Demon) and written by Phillip Dunne (How Green was My Valley) Anne of the Indies is a quite interesting adventure pirate movie. Its main character of captain Anne Providence is based on a real woman-pirate Anne Boney who actually lived and sailed through 18th century's Atlantic.

The film begins with the sea battle where Anne's (Jean Peters) pirate ship attacks a trade ship that was on its way to Europe from the South America. As a result a treasure of great value is captured along with a handsome French officer Pierre La Rochelle (Louis Jourdan), who is taken prisoner. Anne ends up falling in love with him and apparently her feelings are reciprocated but it's only till she sets him free when she discovers that he has a beautiful young wife Molly (Debra Paget) with whom he pretty much in love with. Anne begins planning revenge on both of them but in an unexpected twist of fate ends up making a great sacrifice in order to save them instead. The pirate movie clich\u00e9 figure of `Black Beard' also makes his appearance here, this time played by Thomas Gomez.

Though Anne of the Indies probably appears to be no more nor less than a revisiting of pirate movie clich\u00e9s, it still has its classical moments in beautiful visuals and sea battle sequences filmed in Technicolor as well as in some aspects of the story and most of all in personal touches in directing of all of it by Jacques Tourneur. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like the film, it\u00b4s the best pirate-movie I watched hitherto (forget silly Errol-Flynn-stuff and Pirates of the Caribbean). This movie is wonderful melancholic. I compare it with \"Johnny Guitar\" at the sea-side (but 3 years earlier), two women fighting for a man, where mad love might lead one.

The character of the female (anti-) heroine, Anne Providence, is superb, acting without compromise like a child, lost alone on her search for a own female identity in a real man\u00b4s world. She\u00b4s a quite strange movie-hero, not a funny pirate, as most of her companions in this genre, not making jokes all the time, fighting for the poor and good and only killing the stupid spanish or british soldiers or - better - sly governors, but she\u00b4s murdering all the poor prisoners of war, after she captured a ship (look careful at this at the start of the movie), she\u00b4s primitive (she can\u00b4t even read), she is desperated and she get\u00b4s an alcoholic, she looses all her friends as consequence of her obstinacy and she\u00b4s wearing rags most of the film. This film shows a pirate \"hero\" a little (!) bit as he (or in this case \"she\", but there has been a female \"Anne\" buccaneer, Anne Boney) might have been in brutal reality.

The film is quite short and the story is told in a breathtaking manner. Certainly, a film from the 1950s has no exciting special effects for present time viewers (the ships swim very obvious in a bath tube), but this real drama about love (that kills), trust, betrayal, revenge, hatred and sacrifice drives one crazy. Maybe, Anne is even supposed to be Judas Iskarioth and Jesus from Nazareth in one person, being betrayed by her friend (the french LaRochelle) as Jesus; after being disappointed by the friend, delivering him to a death penalty (as Judas); than getting remorse about this (like Judas, who commits suicide according to the gospel of Matthew); and in the end sacrificing herself for the rescue of the beloved enemy (as Jesus). But, even if you are not interested in this philosophical questions of guilt and atonement, the film brings a lot of (cheap) action as sword fights and burning (plastic) ships for a very short one and a half hour.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was much better than I expected. ++++ Jean Peters actually does a passable job as a pirate and does decent work in her sword fights. (To the extent she may have a double doing the action, it's hard to tell...but Peters herself obviously is doing a good deal of it, and doing it well.) ++++ With a good and serious script, this could have been an excellent film. But it's basically cheesy. Still entertaining however. ++++ Not up to a regular Jacques Tournier film, but definitely above a regular Jean Peters film. Color is typical of this '50s time period, ie. too garish and not realistic. The actors for Blackbeard and her first mate and the drunken doctor were good. Louis Jordan was a bit weak. I don't think Debra Paget was right either. But certainly Jean Peters and Debra Paget were probably the two best looking female stars in the '50s.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of several period sea-faring yarns of its era, which has the added distinction (although not in itself unique) of a female buccaneer at its center. At first, both leads \u2013 Jean Peters and Louis Jourdan \u2013 might seem miscast but they grow nicely into their roles eventually, thanks no doubt to the talented players (Herbert Marshall, Thomas Gomez and James Robertson Justice) who support them. Velvety-voiced Marshall is uncharacteristically cast as the ship\u2019s obligatory philosophical lush of a doctor, and Gomez is suitably larger-than-life as Blackbeard The Pirate.

The cast is completed by Debra Paget as Jourdan\u2019s wife, who incurs the jealous rage of the tomboyish titular character in whom Jourdan instills the first pangs of love (which, however, does not spare him the occasional flogging or sword-wound); incidentally, the film was the second exotic teaming of Jourdan and Paget in one year, following Delmer Daves\u2019 BIRD OF PARADISE. The direct result of this unexpected softening of Anne\u2019s character is her falling out with Blackbeard\u2019s crew, and her unlikely climactic sacrifice in order to save the lives of the stranded Jourdan, Paget and Marshall.

While the film is not a particularly outstanding example of its type, Jacques Tourneur\u2019s energetic direction and Franz Waxman\u2019s grandiose score ensure an above-average effort that moves along at a brisk pace; incidentally, Tourneur had already done service in the genre with the superior Burt Lancaster vehicle, THE FLAME AND THE ARROW (1950). As usual with vintage Technicolor productions, the cinematography gives the film a sumptuousness that is invigorating. By the way, differing running-times are given for this film (81 or 87 minutes) and, for the record, the version I watched was the shorter one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sometimes it's hard to be a pirate...............but by golly Miss Jean Peters has a lot of fun trying - and it shows,particularly during her first spot of friendly swordplay with Blackbeard (Mr Thomas Gomez - eminently hissable)when the sheer joy of performing is plain on her face. With fifty years of hindsight Feminists seem intent on grabbing this movie as some sort of an anthem for the empowerment of women in a male - dominated society but I have serious doubts that either M.Tourneur or Miss Peters had any such concept in their heads at the time. It was an exciting,entertaining family film with absolutely no pretensions,hidden meanings or alternative agenda.It was fun. M.Louis Jourdan is both winsome and treacherous as her love interest. Mr Herbert Chapman is wise and philosophical as the wise and philosophical doctor.Mr James Robertson Justice is just a tad unbelievable as the bosun. But it is Miss Peters who stays in the memory.Wilfully adolescent,illiterate,tough but vulnerable,wonderfully agile,and ultimately,courageous,she is everybody's idea of a lady pirate. There was a definite window of opportunity for her in feisty costume roles - that she did not choose to seize it is a matter of some regret.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie when I was very young living in Houston, Texas. I really enjoyed this movie, and I wrote to Jean Peters in Hollywood, and I told her how much I enjoyed seeing her in this movie. She sent me an autographed photo. This movie was directed by Jacques Tourneur, and besides Jean Peters in the starring role. It also stars Louis Jourdan, Debra Paget, and Herbert Marshall. It was released in 1951 in color and is 81 minutes long. Jean Peters was married to Howard Hughes. She also starred in \"Viva Zapata\" with Marlon Brando, Anthony Quinn, who won an Oscar for playing the role Zapata's brother (Marlon Brando starred as Zapata) (1952). And she also starred in \"Captain from Castile\" (1947) with Tyron Power. Since then I've been trying to find a place where it is available, but so far I have not been successful. Does anybody have any suggestions about where I can find and purchase this movie? It this comment contains spoilers, I am unaware of it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The cast for this production of Rigoletto is excellent. Edita Gruberova sings Gilda magnificently and passionately. Luciano Pavarotti also sings splendidly. Vergara is a fine Maddalena; Fedora Barbieri is a famous older singer who sings the maid, Giovanna. Weikl sings Marullo; Wixell sings both Rigoletto and Monterone. As Rigoletto, Wixell is probably the most convincing acting singer in this hard-to-beat ensemble of great singers. Kathleen Kuhlmann in the Contessa. All principals are well-known and world-renowned.

This is an exciting Rigoletto visually as well as musically.

I have it on both laser disc and DVD. You should have it too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pavarotti and the entire cast are superb in this beautifully filmed opera by Giuseppe Verdi, the world's finest composer of operas. The coloratura soprano is particularly spectacular with her perfect pitch. The title role is well-enacted and well-sung. The entire production is as perfect as one could expect.

A masterpiece of cinematography!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like the good things in life as much as anybody, I suppose, but until about five years ago, opera didn't figure into my entertainment choices. Oh, I made a few attempts to learn what all the fuss was about; I'd watched several television productions -- notably parts of Wagner's Ring Cycle on public television -- hoping to understand other people's fascination with the art form. And I knew I could like parts of various operas (I remember being surprised as a kid that I actually LIKED the snippets of \"Madame Butterfly\" in \"My Geisha, and I enjoyed the opera scenes in \"Moonstruck\" and \"Pretty Woman\"), but unlike the characters in those films, I just didn't \"get it.\"

Then in 1995 I saw a live performance of \"Rigoletto\" presented by the New York City Opera Company, and that night I \"got it.\" What a wonderful, glorious pageant of color and music and raw Emotion! And I do mean Emotion with a capital E! The key, I think, is that the operatic music allows the performers to over-act freely and believably in a way that would seem silly if their words were just spoken. Everything hinges on the music, of course, and when the music is magical, as it is in \"Rigoletto,\" an opera can be a magnificent entertainment.

A sympathetic family member gave me a laserdisc copy of the 1982 TV production of the opera, and I've found that since I can't see live performances of \"Rigoletto\" live on a regular basis, this video version is a fine substitute. Luciano Pavarotti is perfect in the part of the Duke; Ingvar Wixell is excellent as his mean-spirited court jester Rigoletto; and Rigoletto's beloved daughter Gilda is played by the somewhat plain-featured Edita Gruberova. The sets and costumes are lavish, and the location shots on the river late in the film bring a heightened sense of drama to the story that could never be matched on a stage.

If you've never seen \"Rigoletto,\" or if you think you don't like or understand opera, I urge you to find this one on videotape and buy it or rent it. If you don't like this, if this production of \"Rigoletto\" doesn't make you appreciate the power of the art form of opera, well, just give it up and move on to something else. But I suspect, if you're new to opera as I was, that you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Bill Anderson","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the sort of unknown and forgotten film one dreams about discovering in watching old videos. It is a superb comic gem with brilliantly funny writing, embedded in the marvellous array of characters, a wonderfully inventive and funny musical score, and witty, light direction from Montgomery himself. This is one to watch over and over. Montgomery is a bit part actor who finds himself assigned by his military reserve division to infiltrate a young debutante's home to discover the identity of her former beau, a suspected jewel thief. While the premise is rather preposterous, the results are hilarious. Montgomery is the befuddled plant, Ann Blyth is a marvel as the romantically obsessed, terribly earnest debutante and the parade of comic characterizations from veteran stage actress, Jane Cowl's lawyer mother to Lillian Randolph's take-charge maid - are all fabulous.

Oddly enough this only earned an Oscar nom for Sound, when it deserved top nods for Direction, Screenplay and Musical Score.

DO NOT MISS IT - it's one of Hollywood's best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was surprised, \"Once More, My Darling\", had not generated enough votes (at this writing) for a \"user rating\". It's a \"screwy\" comedy I have enjoyed many times over the years. Robert Montgomery's mission places him in some very improbable situations, and he's just the man for the job. He maintains his trademark \"befuddled\" look throughout the film and hysterically, too. Ann Blyth plays his precocious\/eccentric pursuer, who assumes a relationship that does not exist. Her character is kooky enough to warrant the unearned nickname \"Killer\", but remains cute and cuddly.

Among the glut of \"B\" movies from the late 1940's and 1950's, \"Once More, My Darling\" is a standout. This one is worth looking for....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this approximately 34-second Thomas Edison-produced short, we see Annabelle Moore performing the Loie Fuller-choreographed \"Serpentine Dance\" in two different fantastical, flowing robes.

Moore was one of the bigger stars of the late Victorian era. She was featured in a number of Edison Company shorts, including this one, which was among the first Kinetoscope films shown in London in 1894.

Loie Fuller had actually patented the Serpentine Dance, which Moore performs here in robes (as well as entire frames) that are frequently hand tinted in the film, presaging one of the more common symbolic devices of the silent era. Supposedly, the Moore films were popular enough to have to be frequently redone (including refilming). The version available to us now may be a later version\/remake. Moore became even more popular when it was rumored that she would appear naked at a private party at a restaurant in New York City. She later went on to star as the \"Gibson Bathing Girl\" in the Ziegfeld Follies in 1907. She appeared there until 1912.

The short is notable for its framing of motion, which, especially during the \"second half\", becomes almost abstract. It somewhat resembles a Morris Louis painting, even though this is almost 60 years before Louis' relevant work.

You should be able to find this short on DVD on a number of different anthologies of early films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like all of the very earliest films, this \"movie\" is very, very short--lasting about one minute! So, because of its brevity, it's not really possible to compare it to more modern films. But, for its time, it's actually a very remarkable film. Much of this is because the prints were hand painted--making Annabelle appear red and other colors as she does her amazing dance. I've actually seen two different versions--one where she is red and another where she changes color throughout. I think the red one depicted on the DVD \"The Great Train Robbery and Other Primary Works\" is the best of them. The dance itself is very hypnotic and much like a piece of amazing performance art. And, unlike other one minute (or less) films of the day, this one is one I could see repeatedly--it's just that visually compelling and odd.

If you want to see it online, there is a 36 second version on Google Video (type in \"serpentine dance\").","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Could this be one of the earliest colour films? It's actually the second. This is a very beautiful piece of film produced by Thomas Edison. This was one of many of his other films.

I think this is the most beautiful of any Thomas Edison films. It shows a girl dancing and moving her dress all around, which turns red with the film. It's just beautiful.

You are watching history when you watch this. You are watching what began to make movies of the day great! This may not have a plot, or anything very interesting, but this is the second colour film ever.

I recommend this to everyone, especially if you're teaching students about filming or something of the sort, you have to show them what began color films!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A pity, nobody seems to know this little thriller-masterpiece. Where bigger budgeted movies fail, \"Terminal Choice\" delivers lots of thrills, shocks and bloody violence. A little seen gem, that deserves being searched for in your local video shop. That anonymous guy beneath is quite right, when he says, you'll never trust hospitals again... it IS that effective ! Good ending,too, not really a twist, but it doesn't end the way one thought it would. Yep, that's Ellen Barkin in an early role...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Hoppity Goes to Town\" was the second and last full length animated feature made by Max and Dave Fleischer, who created a parallel universe to Disney. While Disney's films are well remembered today, both of the Fleischer films \"Gulliver's Travels\" and this one are forgotten.

\"Hoppity\" is a spellbinding original, not an adaptation like the first picture. That is a major plus, one would think. No, the critics, rarely on the Fleischers' sides to begin with, tore into them for this. Yes, the story is not as tight as \"Gulliver\", but how can you hate a film that flaunts itself so joyfully?

It is filled with great musical numbers and a very involving story, which would be a crime to reveal. The characters are lovable and charming and there is heart in this film.

The Fleischers' really outdid themselves here and never quite did so again. Most of their time would be devoted to one-reelers after this tanked at the box office. It's a shame they didn't continue making features. Who knows? Their next attempt may have become the masterpiece they were aiming for.

**** out of 4 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Leslie Carbaga's excellent book on the Fleishers tells the whole story of the Fleischer's big move of their entire animation unit to Florida, and their subsequent ejection by Paramount.

Mr. Bug Goes to Town didn't destroy the animation pioneers' credit with Paramount, although it's often told that way, and this was Paramount's favorite version of the story. According to Carbaga, the big studio, more than anything, wanted to get their mitts on the animation studio and ease the famously bickering brothers out of the picture altogether. Mr. Bug provided them the pretext to do just that. --The sad closing of a great quirky, innovative chapter in American animation.

I wanted to comment, also, that the film actually debuted December 4, 1941, not December 7. That may have been close enough to do the trick, anyway, in terms of national mood damaging the film's success. But another part of the legend of this troubled little film is that it was killed by having the bad luck to be in the theaters at the same time Dumbo (released October 23, 1941) was still doing very brisk holiday business. I haven't done the research into box office numbers, but I'd say that Dumbo's concurrent presence in theaters likely had an impact on Mr. Bug. Movie-going was at an all time high at this period, and successful films could go strong in theaters for months. -- Something unimaginable in these typically short-run, quick to-DVD days.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first watched this in black and white, circa Christmas in the early Sixties, when it was shown on British television. I was absolutely hooked, and watched it over again whenever it was repeated on TV (possibly two or three times only, as it happens - if only we'd had video recorders then!).

As outlined by other contributors, the plot describes the return of Hoppity the Grasshopper, after a period spent away, to a Forties American city. He finds that all is not as he left it, and his good insect friends (who live in the 'lowlands' just outside the garden which belongs to a songwriter and his wife) are now under threat from the 'human ones', who are trampling through the broken down fence which prefaces the property, using it as a shortcut.

Insect houses are being flattened by their feet, and are also often burned by cast away cigar butts and matches. Old Mr Bumble and his beautiful daughter Honey (Hoppity's childhood sweetheart) are in grave danger of losing their Honey Shop to this threat.

To compound their problems, devious insect 'property magnate' C. Bagley Beetle has romantic designs on Honey Bee himself, and hopes, with the help of his henchmen Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito, to force Bumble to give him her hand in marriage.

Will the heroic and fearless Hoppity win the day, and manage to save the community of bugs from their dastardly fate, and especially his precious Honey from hers? Enjoy the classic songs (\"Katy Did, Katy Didn't\" is a superb, swinging, upbeat example), and the colourful visuals, as the tale unfolds.

Time has not blunted my fascination for this masterpiece of animation and story-telling, and I was much pleased to find that it had been released to video, although I later found out that it was in NTSC PAL format. Never mind, I sent off for the video immediately, and only then bought a portable TV\/video combination (complete with NTSC playback).

I have enjoyed many nostalgic viewings since then, and have even discovered that the TV rights have switched from BBC (who informed me they were unlikely to ever show the film on any of their stations) to FilmFour, who have (at last!) been showing it on their digital stations in early 2007.

My granddaughter (aged three) was absolutely entranced while we watched it together - and this is a child who has been influenced by the digital age and the resulting computer-generated productions!

I would thoroughly recommend this film for any age, and especially the youngest of viewers.

Give Max Fleischer a posthumous Oscar!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mr. Bug Goes to Town was one of those films that I grew up hearing about, however a copy could never be obtained until now. I just watched this film on DVD and thought it was a delightful and charming film, with wonderful animation, a good plot and great songs. If this film was made by Disney then the film would be considered a classic, however because it was made by a little known film studio that is long gone, the film has slipped through the cracks.

The film was made by the Max Fleischer studios at their Miami, FL studios and was released through Paramount Pictures. The film was to have had its premiere on Dec. 7th, 1941, the date of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Though this probably did hurt the release of the film, the film did play at some movie theaters for up to a year as evidenced by doing some research. The film was called a family favorite by most of the major American newspapers. The film continued to be re-released about every year or so, usually around holidays like Easter, at least in major cities.

In the mid 1950s, this film was re-released under a new name \"Hoppity Goes to Town,\" named after the lead character in the film.

The film is a true period piece, capturing a slice of Americana as it was back in the late 30s and 1940's. The animation is great, and many of the characters are very cute. The animation of the humans in the film is via the rotoscope process, meaning that actors were filmed and then that footage was traced over by animators, giving the movement a very real look.

The Fleishcher studios were one of several animation studios making animated cartoons back in the 30s and 40s. While some of the Fleischer characters like Betty Boop, Popeye and the Superman cartoons are better known, the work of the studio is more or less forgotten.

Almost as a whole the body of work of the Fleischer studios are in the public domain. All of the Superman cartoons are public domain, all but one of the \"Color Classics\" series are public domain, and the film \"Gulliver's Travels\" is also in the public domain. This film never appears to have been released in the US on VHS or DVD but was released in Europe. However some looking around on the internet can very quickly produce you with a copy. I recommend the search.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have for years remembered a song \"JUST A COUPLE IN A CASTLE\" (\"No. twenty moonbeam square, just a couple in castle in the air\"). I couldn't find the song, but I remembered that it it had to do with cartoon bugs. I located a reference to the movie on the web. I had seen the movie when I was only 9 year old at the Ligonier PA theatre. I was pleased to find that it had Kenny Gardner the singer with Guy Lombaro (I am a Lombardo fan). And then to see that it was produced by the Fleisher Bros. who did another very good full lengh cartoon feature of \"Gullivar's Travels\" (also remembered fondly). Also the songs were associated with Hoagy Carmichael and Frank Loesser who are among the very best. No wonder I remembered the film, the song, and the colorful animation. As a full lengh musical this is a movie which should be remembered as a one of the best of the early full lengh musicals. Now that I remember it, the plot may not have been earth shaking, but was very well presented and makes for a easy to watch abd delightful movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hello again, I have been thinking about this movie all my life. I saw it when I was 5 years old in Los Angeles, California in 1942. What a wonderful story of being good to one another, kindness, and charity. You forget it is the bugs relating to one another. It was just as if they were people. I love this movie and so do my adult children. Such beautiful color in this movie.I need to see this movie again. There is a story about an envelope in the movie, that I just can't remember the \"why\" of it.

Thanks for listening.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have viewed this cartoon as a child, a father, and now a grand-father. It is my favorite cartoon. I love the characters, the great little tunes, and the very good drawings. I totally love the main song which comes up throughout the cartoon. I think it is a beautiful little cartoon. Everyone I have shown it to simply loves it. It is too bad it opened on such a bad day (Pearl Harbor bombing). If it wasn't for the bad timing it would have been a great success. I hope I can find a DVD of it because all the VHS tapes don't do it justice.

I think if anyone shows it to their child they will come up with the same result. They will just love it.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What I liked best about this feature-length animated film from 1941 is the great feel it gives for the early 1940s. It's the songs, the clothing, automobiles, buildings lingo of the day, etc. You feel like you've stepped back into time.

From reading some of the reviews here, I see this was a hard-luck film, being released a couple of days before the Pearl Harbor attack. Wow, no one would be interested in going to the movies for a feature-length cartoon during those eventful and shocking days, I'm sure. Too bad, because the folks missed some nice animation would have really impressed back then, almost 70 years ago. The colors are nice, drawings are good and story involving as we root for the bugs led by \"Hoppity\" and and his beautiful girl \"Honey\" to make it happily-ever-after and out of harm's way. It's also about all of them finding a grassy spot they can live and not worry about humans trampling them.

There is a nasty villain, though - \"C. Bagley Beetle\" - and two of his henchmen. Those helpers (\"Swat, The Fly\" and \"Smack, the Mosquito\") are comedians, complete with their Brooklyn-ese accents! The story is a familiar one where a nasty old man wants to marry the sweet young thing and uses unscrupulous means to force her hand. The good guy, meanwhile, has the decked stacked against him but in the very end, of course, prevails.

My favorite part - this will sound worse than what it was - was when good-guy \"Hoppity\" got temporarily electrocuted and he danced in black-and-white. That was fantastic animation!

You know, it's a good thing I didn't see this as a very little kid; I would have been afraid to play outside and squash all those nice bug-people! You never know what (or who) is in that grass beneath your feet!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hoppity is a charming if slightly phycadelic animated movie that considering it was made in the 1941 has stood the test of time incredibly well. Now I have to admit I have a soft spot for 'HoppityGoes To Town' (as it is called in the United Kingdom) having watched a VHS version taped of the TV by our parents many times with my siblings.Imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning just in time to catch it on Channel Four (at 0615 never the less!) The film was just as delightful as I remembered it with the animation standing the test of time and a lovely moral tale which should appeal to parents and children alike. Maybe one day I to shall share this forgotten classic with children of my own. With a nice running time for kids (88 Min's)and a simple yet involving storyline there really is something for everyone in this tale of the little guy coming good. I really could see this being successfully remade in CGI. Take note Pixar.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Mr. Bug Goes To Town\" was the last major achievement the Fleischer studios produced. The quality of the Superman series produced at the same time is evident in this extraordinary film.

The music and lyrics by Frank Loesser and Hoagy Carmichael (with assistance by Flieshcer veteran Sammy Timberg are quite good, but not as much as the scoring of the picture by Leigh Harline who also scored Snow White for Disney. Harline's \"atmospheric music\" is superb, and a treat for the ears.

The layout and staging of the picture was years ahead of it's time, and once again the Fleischer's background artists outdid themselves. The techincolored beauty of the film cannot be denied, and while Hoppity the grasshopper is the star, the characters of Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito steal the picture. Swat's voicing by Jack Mercer (of Popeye fame) is priceless. Kenny Gardner (brother-in-law) of Guy Lombardo...and a featured vocalist in his band...does his usual pleasant job in the role of Dick Dickinsen.

The movie has been criticized for all the wrong reasons. The Fleischer Studios were animation experts par excellence and this shows very clearly in the finished product. The movie is tuneful, the story great for all ages, and the final scenes of the bugs scrambling for their lives upon a rising skyscraper is some of the best staging and animation of any animated film past and present.

Do not miss this wonderfully hand drawn film. Also don't fail to appreciate the title sequence with the most elaborate example of Max Fleischer's remarkable 3-D sterioptical process which took four months to construct and employed 16,000 tiny panes of glass in the \"electrified\" buildings of Manhattan.

Do not miss Mr. Bug Goes To Town...aka Hoppity Goes To Town. I'll wager you'll be bug eyed at the results!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"well, i may be bias as i grew up watching a VHS copy of this film that is now ready to snap and have just spent the last couple of hours tracking down a DVD copy as a birthday pressie for my Dad. The film is so harmless and inoffensive it suits all ages.... much better than anything Disney ever made in my opinion (and i used to work in the Disney Store!!!). The characters are enjoyable and the award for best scene is a tie between the disrupted wedding (especially the musical talents of Swat, the fly. and Smack the mosquito), and the amazing night club scene. The musical numbers still have me humming 20 years after i first watched it. there is no other film that i can better recommend whilst baby-sitting, and in fact every child i know (thanks to my Hoppity loving parents) have seen this film, many times. It will always get top marks for its fabulous love story, a brilliant baddy and over all originality.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When HOPPITY GOES TO TOWN he discovers nothing but bad news for his little insect neighbors in the Lowlands. Can this honest, good-natured grasshopper save his sweetheart, Miss Honey Bee, from the machinations of the evil C. Bagley Beetle - and also lead his friends to a safe new home - before it's too late?

While not one of the great animated features (a very new art at the time this film was created) HOPPITY is an enjoyable film which should bring pleasure to uncritical viewers. Technically it is well made, with animation of a generally high quality. The movie's main drawback is that none of the characters really have any `heart' - they don't come `alive' on the screen in the way Jiminy Cricket did a year earlier in PINOCCHIO.

However, it is ultimately unfair to compare the Fleischer Studio output with that of Disney. Max & Dave Fleischer had their own star to follow; their contribution - and it would be a considerable one - would be in the realm of the one-reel cartoon. With their POPEYE and BETTY BOOP series they created alternate realities as viable as any produced by other cartoon studios. HOPPITY was their second experiment with feature length animation (after GULLIVER'S TRAVELS in 1939), and henceforth they would expend their energies again on the cartoon short subject. In fact, the first in the highly acclaimed SUPERMAN series was already in release.

HOPPITY'S story owes a great deal to Frank Capra, with it's energetic, go get \u0091em hero up against powerful societal forces. Indeed, the film's original title was MR. BUG GOES TO TOWN, which immediately puts one in mind of Gary Cooper or Jimmy Stewart and their Capraesque adventures.

Jack Mercer, famous as the voice of Popeye, here speaks for two very different characters, old Mr. Bumble & Swat the Fly. Movie mavens should be able to catch veteran voice actors Pinto Colvig & Mae Questel, both in uncredited roles.

The film has some pleasant songs supplied by Hoagy Carmichael & Frank Loesser, of which `Be My Little Baby Bumble Bee' is the most familiar. `We're The Couple In The Castle' is a fine romantic tune which deserves to be rediscovered.

It is unfortunate that the film's initial animation, with its sweep out of the heavens and past the in-depth New York skyline, is obscured behind the opening credits.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"People who know me say I have a weakness for animated films.

To be fair, those people are HALF right My actual weakness is for exceptionally well-done animated films, such as this vintage family flick from Max and David Fleischer.

You may be thinking to yourself, \"well if it's so great, why haven't I heard of it?\" Fair question. This movie was released the same week as the attacks on Pearl Harbor. The unavoidably bad timing caused the film to sink into relative obscurity. Things are looking up, though, because it has finally been released on DVD under the title \"BUGVILLE\".

It's funny that the film went through all this, because it kind of mirrors the actual plot. Although some people claim that the movie is trying to send an environmental message (ugh), I personally think that the movie's main idea is perseverance through adversity and hard times (after all, the country had barely pulled out of the Depression at the time).

Our grasshopper hero, Hoppity, desperately wants to help his endangered community. Problem: each time he tries, whether through the ill-will of others or through simple bad luck, he fails miserably...and slowly begins to earn the disdain of the very people he's trying to save. Although he does his best to maintain a positive outlook, he occasionally breaks down and it's only through the encouragement and support of his friends that he gets back on his feet and fights the good fight. Just a healthy reminder that, when all is said and done, no one is really self-sufficient.

\"Okay\", you're saying. \"It has a good message (two actually). Does that really make it EXCEPTIONALLY WELL-DONE?\"

My answer: Partially.

It's not just the message that makes this movie special. It's the characterization. This is one of those films where you can just see the personality of each cast member in their animation. You almost don't even need the spoken lines. A good way to sum it all up is \"energetic\" or \"lively\". A lot of movies have used the selling point, \"lovable cast of characters\". Whenever I hear that line, it always makes me think of this movie.

Case in point, the bad guys: Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito. Many movies have \"lovable\" villains, but I don't think you'll find any as entertaining or endearing as these fellows. Forget that 3 Stooges Cartoon from the 60s. Swat and Smack are the closest thing to an animated version of Moe and Curly (but sadly not Larry) that you'll ever find. Virtually all of the funniest moments somehow involve this gruesome twosome. Yeah, they're rotten no-goodniks, but you still care about them. That's the kind of power you only see from a really talented writer, director, and crew.

The movie has two brief jokes revolving around racial stereotypes (Native Americans and Chinese). I don't think they were intended to be malicious; but they're there, regardless. They didn't bother me, but it'd be pretty unfair of me not to warn someone who potentially would be bothered by them.

So, if you share my weakness (and I think you do), give this one a go.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Normally I am a typical \"creepy-crawly-hatin'\" girl, but after watching this film (on YouTube of course), I'm having different perspectives. And also I did not know that my favorite animation studio - Fleischer's made another film that's about community of insects whose city garden home is threatened by humans (lighted cigars and cigarette butts,footsteps,etc.), and how a plucky young grasshopper named Hoppity saves the day and wins the heart of Honey the bee; I love the lovely Ms. Honey. You know, after watching the film, the bugs reminded me of the some of the \"jitter-bugs\" from Don Bulth's Thumbelina. And out of the songs in the film, I love \"We're a Couple in The Castle;\" when I sing that song, it almost made me cry.

This wonderful film was the second (and final) feature to come out of the Fleischer studio. The film was originally going to be released on November of 1941, but since the Fleischer's rival, Disney, released Dumbo weeks earlier, Paramount changed the date to December of the same year, but Mr. Bug unfortunately went into a, then unrealized, trap of terrible timing. Having the misfortune of opening two days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Bug was a financial disaster and led to the ousting of Max and Dave Fleischer, from the studio they had established in 1919, and reorganized the company as Famous Studios. Another huge factor in their departure was the fact that Max and Dave Fleischer were no longer speaking to one another due to disputes (how sad it was). Overall I love both films from the Fleischer bros. - Gulliver and Mr. Bug.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There was a time when not all animation was Disney or Pixar. Its so nice to see this wonderful film again and I actually got hold of a good, reasonable copy on DVD. Be careful as its out of the public domain and there are some really bad copies around.I got a very good copy by a company called Flashbacks and its quite good. In the old days I watched it on black and white on TV and its magic to see it in colour. Very much better than some would have you believe. The songs are delightful and the colour is great. Interestingly the characters are really well developed which is odd in animated movies. I loved Hoppity and the villain Mr Beatle is a real cad. Its incredibly imaginative. The way inanimate objects like cotton reels, old tins become part of the environment and have new functions is great. The anthropomorhic use of insects is amazing considering the much malinged creatures most people sadly think are repugnant. Hopefully we may never step on an insect again! THe insects enemy is man. In reality of course its the insects that will survive. No matter how hard we try to rid ourselves of ants here in Australia they keep coming back. The battle has been lost and we have to live with them. There are several scenes that stand out such as when Hoppity and Mr Bumble are caught in a watering can, the great flood and the journey to the top of the building are all wonderful. Its also rather anthropomorphic but in a way thats charming. The human characters look very like the ones in Gulliver and its incredibly effective. The wedding scene looks beautiful. Its a crime this movie has not been hailed as a classic. The only jarring note for me is the occasions in the film when the characters slip into verse. Speaking verse spoils the narration and it was no needed, The verse is awful and spoils an other wise good script. Its great and kids will love it. Its a joy to look at. There's a very clever ending too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow. I saw this movie and \"Up\" on the same day within an hour of each other at different theaters. I saw \"Mr Bug\" first, and was then totally disappointed in \"Up\"'s follow-up. What a beautiful and touching film! Movies of the 1930s and 40s to us nowadays can be irking with their melodramatic acting and dialog, but as animation the same melodrama and groaning humor can be wonderful. And the soft \"organic\" lines of 30s drawing AND the music just puts you in a nice comfortable mood and you can enjoy the show with all its little characters: ladybugs, grasshoppers, bees, snails, stinkbugs, flies, mosquitoes, beetles, crickets, and more each with all their own cute little (but not overbearing) idiosyncrasies. The interaction with the human world, from nemesis (cigar smokers, high-heel wearers, innocent kick-the-can playing kids) to the kind-hearted, and to the unknown destroyers, is realistic and fascinating. You care for the bugs, AND Dick and Mary. The protagonist Hoppity is not some perfect superman who comes to \"set things right\" but a starry-eyed optimist who leads everyone down the garden path (literally!), and every time you think it's going to end happily in 1930s style, along comes another roadblock...! I was on the edge of my seat much more than with \"Up.\" I walked out of the movie theater grinning and chuckling: something that hasn't happened in a long long long long time!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While Disney have been THE animation studio for the past 70 years, there have always been rivals to their supremacy. When this review was written in 2009, for example, companies like Dreamworks and (to a lesser extent) Warner Brothers and Ardman, were bringing out animated movies that could be said to challenge the Disney dominance. Back in the beginning, in that late '30s and early '40s heyday when Disney was serving cinematic banquets like Snow White, Dumbo and Fantasia, the competition was provided by brothers Dave and Max Fleischer. Despite releasing two very commendable films, they never quite cornered the market \u0096 many attribute their downfall to the commercial failure of Mr Bug Goes To Town, released the same week as the attack on Pearl Harbour (which gave the American public something more significant to think about than going to the cinema to watch a cartoon!) That this film has faded into relative obscurity is a travesty.

In a patch of overgrown garden in the city a bunch of bugs are in dire danger. Humans use the land as a shortcut, discarding litter and cigars, and other hazards, right on top of the bugs' homes as they go. Honey-shop owner Mr Bumble (voiced by Jack Mercer) fears that the future is bleak, and wonders how he will ever be able to raise his daughter Honey (voiced by Pauline Loth) in more secure surroundings. A highly unscrupulous creature, Bagley C. Beetle (voiced by Tedd Pierce), offers to provide her a safer place to live if she will accept his hand in marriage, but Honey is much more interested in her childhood sweetheart, the perennially cheerful and optimistic Hoppity (voiced by Stan Freed). Hoppity believes that everything is about to be resolved for the better, but is left looking foolish when Bagley Beetle and his pair of comical sidekicks manipulate the crisis to their own devious end. Only at the very end, as their patch becomes the foundation for a huge new skyscraper, do the bugs switch loyalty back to Hoppity as they look to him to lead them a new, safe home away from the destructive influence of humans.

What really works in this film is the delightful characterisation \u0096 all the bugs are cleverly developed and designed for maximum audience appeal. The bumbling villains Swat the fly and Smack the mosquito (hilarious names, if you stop to think about it) are particularly memorable. Equally admirable is the storytelling drive \u0096 even the youngest of children can enjoy this story, while at the same time it skillfully conveys a message for older audiences about the way human carelessness can impact upon the survival of wildlife. Time has inevitably dated some aspects of the film, and when viewing it the audience needs to accept (and forgive) these occasional signs of general age and wear. But on the whole Mr Bug Goes To Town is an accomplished, funny and very slickly presented animation with a worthy message to boot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very modest, very lovely movie with a great score by Hoagy Carmichael and Frank Loesser with a standout number, We're The Couple In The Castle, that is totally evocative of the period and harks back to Penthouse Serenade just as the opening premise (Hoppity's coming) may well have inspired Fred Saidy and Yip Harburg's opening (Woody's Coming) in Finian's Rainbow six years later. I totally agree with those posters who have noted that were the name Disney appended to this it would by now have achieved 'classic' status rather than have fallen into neglect. It's wonderfully inventive, never more so than when objects barely noticed in the 'real' world assume a much greater significance - both pro and con - in the insect world. Actually it IS a classic, albeit a minor one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was very disappointed when this show was canceled. Although i can not vote. I live on the island of Aruba. I sat down to see the show on tuesday. And was very surprised that it didn't aired. The next day i read on the internet that it was canceled.

It's true not every one was as much talented as the other. But there were very talented people singing.

I find it very sad for them.

That they worked so hard and there dreams came tumbling down.

Its a pity

Ariette Croes","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was really beginning to enjoy this show. It just started out slow and it wasn't given the chance it deserved. It is summertime so many people are not at home watching television. I know there are a few talent and singing competitions but I enjoy them as do many other. believe it or not when American idol is done for the year I miss it. Even though this was not American idol I thought it had potential. I feel bad for the singers on the show who wee really starting to grow on me. I wish they would reconsider and put the show back on. I think it was a hasty move to cancel. My only complaint about the show is I did not care to much for the judges.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this show. Such talent; and I am so disappointed that it is canceled, after only just beginning. I looked forward to this show all week long. And so sorry for the people who were hoping to be The One. I would have loved to see who would have won. It just began, and in my opinion,it should not have been canceled. I hope these young artist have been viewed by talent scouts, and have the opportunity to reach their goals. I voted, and sat waiting for it to come on; never knowing that it was canceled. And I could not believe that it was. I am amazed that it had low ratings; because it was in my opinion one of the best reality shows on TV.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First off, I never got into Dr. Who until recently. Honestly, I never got the opportunity to watch any of the previous incarnations (pun intended) since it was never \"big\" here in the US as it is everywhere else.

That said, I must say (obviously) that after finishing the 2nd season, that this is one of the best sci-fi shows I've ever seen.

Now, I watch a lot of Sci-Fi shows from all over and this show stands out.

The first season was tops to begin with, with Christopher Eccleston in the title role and I thought he was terrific. Of course, so was the lovely Billie Piper who just adds such humanity and warmth to the character of Rose that no one could've done it better. Let's not forget Camile Coduri as Jackie and Noel Clarke as Mickey\/Ricky who are just a blast to watch. Then there's David Tenannt. At first, I thought he was too gawky-looking to play the character (his ears!!), but after watching the 2nd season, he fits in just fine. His sharp acting and physical comedy is almost flawless. He's great with snappy dialog and can turn serious without batting an eye.

Aside from the great acting from the cast is the acting from most of the guest actors that have appeared. A lot of them are veteran actors but some are new to me and are damn fine.

The production and direction of the show is top notch. Occasionally, there'll be some cheesy effects here and there, but that's always been a factor in the original series and, like those episodes, is negligible.

My favorite thing of all about the series: The stories. Writing folks, is always the key to great entertainment. Russell T. Davies has written many of the episodes along with a few other writers and they have done an excellent job. They've managed to bring excitement, ingenuity, intelligence and fun with clever concepts and great dialog. I also appreciate the fact that they can breach the older Doctors' past story lines and enemies well (my friend explains much of this to me while we watch the show) and respectfully.

I won't mention anything about the 2nd season and how it ends since the Sci-Fi channel just started airing the 2nd season.

I wouldn't want to spoil it. It's so much fun and excitement. You'll never want to take your eyes away nor miss a word of dialog.

It really is that good.

PS: Thanks to the producers for Nicholas Briggs back! **EXTERMINATE!**","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember being so excited on Saturday nights when I was a kid, waiting for Dr. Who. I thought it was the best show ever made. Then, I grew up, Dr. Who went off the air, and no one I knew had ever heard of it. Then I found out there was going to be a new series. I was a little nervous about it. Was it going to live up to the expectations I had carried around since I was little? Would they screw it up? Would the Dr. suck? Would his assistant suck? Would they create a more intimate relationship with the Dr. and his assistant? YES, NO, NO, NO, NO!!! This show is wonderful!! I love the new Dr. I love his assistant. I love the show. And I find myself excited on Friday nights now, waiting for the \"new\" episode. I'm just now seeing 2005 episodes, as I live in the States, so I'm a little behind the rest of you. I hope the next Dr. is as great as this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I never saw Doctor Who before (at least not in any focused way), so I was new to the concept. I have to say that the new show works very well. It's funny (it really also ought to say \"Comedy\" in the genre description; many plot turns are only acceptable because of their comedic value), it's well-written and it's making a meager budget go a long way. The human dimension is very strong and engaging, which is very rare in current TV shows.

I've seen the first eight episodes, and #6-8 were my favorites so far. Even types of stories that are all too easy to screw up (with time-travel, saving one's dead parents and that sort of stuff) works out amazingly well here.

Christopher Eccleston is a joy to watch as the witty and light-hearted though occasionally morose Doctor - if they can find a good replacement for him, I'll be quite surprised. But I'm willing to give the new guy a chance. There's little doubt, however, that the Eccleston episodes are going to go down in history as classics.

The relationship between the Doctor and Rose is particularly refreshing. The Doc is much more of a father figure to her than a romantic interest, and yet there are hints of romantic innuendo between them, which however is much more emotional and human than sexual.

A good show. The biggest drawback is the low budget - a show like this ought to have better special effects. And why they don't simply use some cheaper effects, I don't know. In this day and age, SFX don't have to cost a bundle - just look at the Star Wars: Revelations fan film.

8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was September 2003 that I heard the BBC were going to resurrect DOCTOR WHO and make it \" Bigger and better \" but I'd heard these rumours in the press before and thought that's all they were - Rumours . But it was then mentioned that Russell T Davies was going to executively produce and write the show and then one Saturday afternoon in March 2004 Channel 4 news interviewed the actor cast in the title role - Christopher Eccleston . Yes that Christopher Eccleston an actor I've always been impressed by since watching his film debut in LET HIM HAVE IT and if he was getting interviewed on television it must have been true . As the months passed more and more information was leaked , Billie Piper was being cast , the Daleks would be returning and The Mill , the Hollywood effects company who had done the FX for GLADIATOR were contracted to do the special effects for the show . For several weeks before the first broadcast trailers galore heralded the return of the new series , massive billboards in London informed the public about the return of the show , tabloid newspapers carried massive photo spreads of the aliens appearing and Christopher Eccleston appeared on programmes as diverse as BLUE PETER , MASTERMIND ( Which had a special DOCTOR WHO night edition ) , THIS MORNING and Friday NIGHT WITH JOHNATHAN ROSS . In fact this new series of DOCTOR WHO must have been the most hyped programme in the history of British television , it had better be bloody good

So was it bloody good ? Undoubtedly it has been a major success with nearly every episode making the top ten shows in the TV charts . To give you clue of its rating success only one episode ( The Ark In Space episode two - Febuary 1975 ) from the old series had made it into the top five TV chart . The opening series episode made number three with two more episodes either beating or equalling the previous record and this is in an era where there's far more competition in terms of TV stations and choice . Let's laugh and cheer at the fact DOCTOR WHO stuffed HIT ME BABY ONE MORE TIME , CELEBRITY WRESTLING and mauled ANT AND DEC'S Saturday NIGHT TAKEAWAY . Of course much of the success is down to the breath taking visuals and the casting of a well known prestigious actor in the role . For the most part everything you see on screen here equals anything you'll see in a Spielberg \/ Hollywood movie . There's a Dalek invasion force numbering tens of thousands , exotic aliens , a 19th Century Cardiff that looks like a 19th Century Cardiff and night filming that is actually night filming and not done by sticking a dark filter over the screen . I promise you'll be hearing a lot more from the directors who worked on this series , Joe Ahearne especially will one day be in the Hollywood A list

There are some flaws to the new series of DOCTOR WHO and all of them should be laid at the door of Russell T Davies . It may be contentious whether the soap opera and post modernist elements are successful or not ( In my opinion they're not ) but what's not in dispute is that the weakest scripts are all written by RTD . As I mentioned in my review of CASANOVA he cheats the audience and he does the same thing here: when faced by armed soldiers pointing their guns at him The Doctor bellows \" attack plan delta \" which makes no sense to anyone in the audience but allows him to escape from a tight spot , a naked Captain Jack suddenly pulls out a laser he's been hiding and RTD scripts are full of these type of cheats and deus ex machina type endings . In fact the final episode is spoiled greatly by the ridiculous concept of what the \" Bad Wolf \" is which seems to have got RTD out of a tight spot more than The Doctor . And of the endings I'm trying to remember if any of them were actually down to The Doctor ? More often than it's a supporting character or the Doctor's companion who saves the day . The show is called DOCTOR WHO not ROSE TYLER so can we see the title character save the day please just like he did in the classic series ? One final point about the portrayal of the Doctor is the way he's written as a grinning loon . Eccleston is best known for his serious and gloomy roles and he's absolutely breath taking at scenes when he's showing grief , like the tear running down his face in the End Of The World but more often than not he's written as a \" Tom Baker on speed \" character . It's obvious why Eccleston hasn't done much comedy in his career - He's not very good at it

Am I starting to sound like I hate this show ? Sorry I didn't mean to but it's just that while some anticipations have been met or surpassed some others haven't and they're nearly all down to Russell T Davies who thankfully is contributing less in the way of scripts in the next series of DOCTOR WHO . Let's see more traditional stories of a human outpost being under threat from monsters like we saw in the 1960s and 70s , imagine a story like The Sea Devils with a massive budget directed by Joe Ahearne ! Oh and one last request - Can we see these \" NEXT TIME \" trailers scrapped ? They reveal all the best bits of next week's episode","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I seriously enjoy Dr Who.

Seriously, don't just dismiss me as a \"sci-fi person\", because I'm not normally. I caught on because a friend got me hooked when they started watching it. It is actually really funny, and more often than not, it's fast-paced. All of my family watch it pretty much and that's a miracle.

Christopher Ecclestion is pretty good, but David Tennant is brilliant. I think it's because he made the Doctor so manic and it's just nice to have that little bit of eccentricity in a TV character again.

I don't know what it is about it, but everything manages to work like clockwork.

All I'm going to say is just try it. One episode (probably best if you don't pick the second half of a two-parter, though).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"2005 will go down in 'Dr.Who' history as its most incredible year. Everything seemed to click; a first-rate new Doctor and companion, big audiences ( 10 million for the first episode and Christmas special ), major awards, critical acclaim and those idiots who spent years giggling at the Daleks' seeming inability to negotiate stairs were well and truly silenced. But then Christopher Eccleston dropped a bombshell, quitting after just one series. It looked like the honeymoon was over. Luckily, the public appears to have embraced his successor, the excellent David Tennant. On top of this the show boasts fine S.F.X., like the spaceship crashing into 'Big Ben' in 'Aliens Of London' and superb story lines such as 'Tooth & Claw', 'Army Of Ghosts\/Doomsday'. The new 'Dr.Who' is basically the same as the old, only updated for the 21st century. Some fans have accused Russell T.Davies of 'ruining' the show. They need to remember that there was no show for sixteen years until he came along.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I get a kick out of the new Who fans who call it, excellent,Their entitled to that opinion but the new series isn't quite there yet, it's getting there. It's definitely good.

First the good things. The special effects are obviously better nearly 20 yrs later since the last episode of Doctor Who \"Battlefield\" was aired.

One thing the BBC has always liked is Doctor Who (except when they tried to cancel in the 70's and 80's). However, the anticipation and the pressure was great but I think the New series has passed the test it's good, it's still not excellent because it does have it's flaws. Some of the stories \"Dalek\" were very poor. I assume it was written in a couple of minutes by some idiot who never bothered to remake the Dalek character or never bothered to watch the old series.

\"Aliens in London\" was by far probably the best episode so far, it started a new storyline about Aliens which has lasted across several episodes including \"Boomtown\".

Now the other bad things, the companion, Rose, Billie Piper, isn't great. She's actually quite annoying but as is Dr. Who a young teeny bopper had to be eventually chosen and she got the part.

Christopher Eccleston is pretty respectable, he's started to catch his niche. He tried to play the character, straight then funny always missing the right punchline but he's taken it much more serious and it shows.

Continuity wise there still some issues that didn't get resolved well, Paul Mcgann was still the doctor before this but he didn't get put back.

Aside from that though the series overall is pretty good, I haven't missed an episode and it never gets boring, so I recommend any Doctor Who fan to check it out and see the new Doctor Who series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a child I was never in a situation where I could be introduced to Dr Who and though I had heard of the series in passing, I never really realized exactly what it was. It was, then, with some hesitation that i sat down to watch the ninth Doctor and his antics having be told that he was something like Arthur Dent (from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) but cooler. I can't believe what I've been missing out on, seriously, why had no one told me about this before? My entire childhood was deprived of Doctor Who adventures; me being a tremendous fan of most sci-fi and fantasy adventures. Honestly, i thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to any future episodes.

I have to admit that at first I was not so sure that Billie Piper would be the best actress but I'm happy to say that she did very well, i thought, and added a very realistic touch to the series. I think, actually, that was one of my favourite aspects of the series; the contrast between great alien conflict scenes contrasted with the infuriating normality of the South London Council Estate life. I'm always interested in instances where people's ideas about the world are drastically challenged and how people can take any situation and edit it in their minds so that it may fit in with their mundane lives. I also loved Christopher Eccleston. I haven't seen many of his films and I've never seen another actor as Dr Who, but I thought his portrayal of the Doctor was brilliant, immensely likable and yet dark enough to make you wonder. I find that many other characters with his sort of character history tend to be a bit two-dimensional; they have all the right emotions and actions, but they always seems slightly shallow. This Doctor, on the other hand, earned my loyalty with his stratified personality. I agree with some of the other comments that a higher budget for the special effects, aliens and whatnot, might have been a bit more effective. but then again, this isn't about special effects (though they help) from what I've read and heard from long-time Dr Who fans; it's the spirit of the whole things that really counts. And I don't think they did a bad job with what they had. I quite liked all the aliens but my favourite had to be the Daleks; if I ever knew anything about Dr Who before watching the series, it was that there were things in it that looked like upturned dustbins on wheels. Previous to watching, i was quite sceptical about these pepper-pots threatening the existence of humanity but some of them were quite scary! Which I loved,of course.

Overall, a good show. I look forward to future episodes with delight. The Doctor has a new fan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have just watched the season 2 finale of Doctor Who, and apart from a couple of dull episodes this show is fantastic.

Its a sad loss that we say goodbye to a main character once again in the season final but the show moves on.

The BBC does need to increase the budget on the show, there are only so many things that can happen in London and the surrounding areas. Also some of the special effects all though on the main very good, on the odd occasion do need to be a little more polished.

It was a huge gamble for the BBC to bring back a show that lost its way a long time ago and they must be congratulated for doing so.

Roll on to the Christmas 2006 special, the 2005 Christmas special was by far the best thing on television.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Doctor Who is amazing. It is everyones 'cup of tea'. It must be. The boys will like the monsters and the action and adventure and the girls will like the emotion and feelings that go around.

Billie Piper was extraordinary as Rose Tyler. She was so emotional and made Rose so real.

David Tennant is also so witty and funny and it is so enjoyable to watch.

But now Billie has left and Rose is stuck on a parallel universe with her on-off boyfriend Mickey and her mother and father (he died when Rose was a baby but this Pete Tyler is from the Parallel universe). It will be very strange with Martha being the new companion, as I have only ever seen it with Rose (Apart from the Runaway Bride with Catherine Tate).

Freema better be good!!!

But nobody can beat Rose!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i watched all of the doctor who episodes that my local PBS station played while growing up.(got introduced to the doctor by way of John Pertwee)as well as \"camera copies\" of doctor who sent to America by UK fans to their US counterparts. i had a great time w\/ the show, but it never seemed to take itself seriously - i mean as seriously as a sci-fi show about a time traveler could be. i went to the CONs, did the costume bit (doctor#5,6 and Tegan were my costume characters), loved it. then it all came to a sudden halt. program politics and lack of interest and funding turned doctor who into a 25year old antique that drifted into the ethos.

when i heard that the sci-fi channel had picked up the new doctor, my first thought was, \"cool, now my 11 year old son can see what i've been babbling on about all these years, and know what the heck a TARDIS is\" (i have several phone boxes and TARDISes of various sizes around the house)i didn't expect the excellent quality of story, character development and f\/x. i was to say the least - pleased. for the first time, i found a doctor that wasn't a curmudgeon, a clown, a fop, a trip-head, a pussy, or a jerk. Christopher Eccleston is by far the most believable doctor to date.now, now, calm down tom baker fans! don't get me wrong, i loved almost every doctor and his quirks, but Christopher gave something to the doctor that he'd never had before - real word believability. i'm just sad that he decided against another season. i'll try out David Tennant as i would any other doctor, but now the bar has risen...

bad wolf rules!!!!!

2008 update - i love David tennant! his \"mod\" persona is something that my generation remembers, my son's generation can deal with, and fashion gestapo can relax! he's a little more human than christopher, but not as humas as other former doctors. i miss rose, i dig martha, and what were they thinking with donna noble!?!? it's still the best ride on TV","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, I grew up on Who, but haven't loved a Doctor since Tom Baker. Christopher Eccleston made me love Who again and I'll be furious with him forever for leaving.

The writing is grand, the acting superb, the directing (which was dreadful in the old days) is just fantastic. I was very skeptical about this programme, and watched it merely out of being forced, but am now a huge fan and love it (I have a ringtone of a Dalek screaming \"Exterminate\" then).

A few of the things I love about the new programme -- 1) people actually notice when Rose (Billie Piper) disappears off the planet. Some of the old shows an assistant would drop off for a while, and then come home like nothing has happened, no one noticed. 2) Chris Eccleston's doc loves Rose -- romantic or not will be debated, but there is no doubt that 9 loves and cares about his companion. He'd destroy the world if he had to to save her, which the old show was lacking -- often a doctor wouldn't care if he never saw his assistants again. 3) They talk and think like real people -- when Rose is shown something outlandish or new (such as aliens) she acts like a real person would -- gobsmacked. I never liked it when an assistant from the old show, who never saw anything alien, would just fit right in and adapt instantly. I want to see the surprise on Rose's face when she sees a plastic dummy come to life. She gives that to me.

The few things I don't like about this series: 1)nearly everything happens on earth (London or Cardiff) and I was sort of hoping for a more off-world sort of show. 2) That Eccleston left so quickly, he really made the show brilliant.

But I can let those few things go -- I far more enjoy the series than I ever expected to, so I don't mind if they have stuff set on earth.

Just don't take this show seriously -- it's fun, it's smart, it's entertaining, but it's not a super-serious heavy duty show. It's pure fun, and pure British, and I can't get enough. Watch it with an open mind, and just put your brain into neutral and enjoy!

ps -- don't watch series 2 or later. series 1 was brilliant, the first few episodes of series 2 were good, but don't watch it once it gets to Love and Monsters. Utter rubbish, completely destroys the show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Honestly, I don't really understand why there has been so much controversy about this show. It embraces the elements of the original, while expanding on them. The storytelling has been updated and, while some of the episodes seem to be a bit \"Fast\", that is a good thing.

Christopher Eccleston is perfect in the role. Easily as good as Tom Baker.

Rose is one of the best companions, on par with Sarah Jane Smith or Leela.

I like the concept that the timelords have been destroyed - No more politicking with the Doctor acting as president emeritus. And it adds something to the character to be the only one left.

The SFX are outstanding - especially in comparison to the original.

Take it from me (And I was a huge Dr Who geek - I actually took notes while watching the show all the way from Dr Number 1 to Dr Number 8. I tossed the horrible movie out of cannon, personally) this is the best sci fi show on TV right now, possibly ever. Watch it and buy the DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As soon as the credits rolled on Saturday night you could feel it in the air that the doctor was most definitely back!

Watching those iconic moments where Christopher Eccelston met Billie Piper was the beginning of a huge long adventure.

With this new series it brings with it substences in which the previous version of the show lacked. For instence, the emotion between the Doctor and his companion which they seemed to dismiss in the old series, as well as the doctor actually falling in love with a companion and receiving her love in return. Yet as we know, the doctor shall forever remain lonely as the end of Season 2 proved, he could not stay with a companion forever. Watching those moments, your eyes filling with tears as the doctor says his final farewell to the only companion he has ever loved, were moments beautifully written and acted.

This show however proved it can live on as the doctor meets many other companions along his lonely yet exciting journey through his never ending life.

Openeing new doors and secrets every episode it's a sure show for the family to enjoy...

As Christopher Eccelston once described the show... \"The journey of a lifetime.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Unlike most people who've commented, I was born after the last Sylvester Mccoy Episode and so couldn't have compared the two centuries of doctor who at first. I thoroughly enjoyed it when Christopher Eccleston took control of the TARDIS and the continuation of the series. I have, since then, seen old episodes of Doctor Who and some where great, but, like the doctor, the series needed to regenerate to continue. The 21st century doctor who's are great, I thought Martha was great, almost a match for the doctor and if Jack's appearance is anything to go by, she's going to be brilliant when she cameos in series 4 or 5.

Speaking of Jack, the spin of, Torchwood is also brilliant and you should watch both of these programmes (though this is definitely more suitable for kids). However, if you insist that this isn't the same and just isn't Doctor Who, please, just stay in your basement.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a next generation person...i've never saw the original doctor who but i have heard about the series that sparked a great fan base in the past and still making its mark in the 21'st century; the new \"Doctor who\" started in 2005 but for those that live here in the states like myself we pretty much see it as new episodes on sci-fi channel or BBC America; from season one we are introduce to a new player Rose Tyler (Billie piper) and a pretty cool new doctor played by Christopher Eccelson (misspelled last name sorry). these two go on some many amazing and very extremely dangerous missions to save the world...every now and then they have companions from rose's ex-boyfriend mickey to the now ever present Jack harkness (who can now be seen on the spin off \"Torchwood\"). From season one to season two the pace is just about right...the stories can be from the outlandishly weird to the most action packed paced driven but either way its one rollercoster ride from the start of the theme song which is very catchy.

in season two he becomes different and changes and now the new doctor (David Tennant) continues the fight to save the world with rose and from this point there can be some that say some of the season wasn't as good but i have to disagree and it was sad to see rose and the doctor part ways but it leaves the opening \"companion\" role to Martha (played by the very sexy Freema Agyeman) who helps continue the fight to save mankind...season three now is more on the action\/adventure level and sometimes on the emotional but not as much as the first two seasons; here the relationship between the doctor and Martha is fitting but the attractiveness CAN be rushed into at times and the obviousness comes into play that she's NOT rose Tyler being that you experienced her company in the first two seasons and not in the third season it can be a bit awkward it was for me cause you get use to rose and her ways and now to see someone who at times don't really question the doctor on an emotional level but all the same makes the pace very exciting for viewers which keeps you at the edge of your seat.

all in all this is one thrill ride of a television show i would give it more but there are some flaws to this show as well that i can't mention cause its sometimes hard to pick up but just one does which is the doctor and Martha's relationship is rushed and not leveled on the get to know you base; I've seen good shows on British TV but this is by far one of the coolest sci-fi adventures for the old and new generation to experience but you don't have to take my world for it...step into the tardis and join the adventure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I write this after just seeing the latest episode broadcast in the UK, and to me it must be a tough job to keep up the standard. The last episode shown called \"Blink\" has elements of Gothic horror all to do with statues that aren't quite what they seem. The Doctor and Martha don't appear much, but that doesn't detract from a well crafted episode. The general standard has built to a high level and the last three episodes, the two parter with \"The Family\" and the latest have to me been the best that the current team have ever done.

It's not just David Tennant holding it together, the whole supporting cast week in, week out are helping as well. For those awaiting series 3 abroad, the wait is is well worth it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i was like watching it right and i was all like oh this is so totally awesome-full and then i was all like ya quite good indeed so i really enjoyed all the amazing dangers and all the British people and i think that the doctor is very a good doctor in his way of doing such wonderful doctor-y things and he was a very strange man and i was like maybe i won't like this guy because hes a new doctor and i like the old doctor thats not this guy but then i watched him and i was like oh this is awesome and i liked it so then i watched and enjoyed the great evil enemies and the great conquering of the evil guys and the happy doctor who is quite scary and happy looking","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I LOVE Dr WHo SO much! I believe that David Tennant is the best Dr the show has ever had and Billie Piper the Best companion! I liked the way the Dr and Rose had such a connection and a great relationship and the Dr came close a few times to expressing his love for rose! It sadly came to an end after only 2 seasons. I will miss watching rose heaps and think that the show will not be the same without Rose! But David is still there to make me laugh and make me happy to watch him play this fantastic role! I rate this show 110% it is FANTASTIC! The graphics and monsters in this show are wonderful and every storyline is different but somewhat connected and i have actually learned somethings about love, the world and relationships from this show. Therefore it must be one of the most fantastic shows of all time!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First off, I have been a fan of the show back when my PBS station started showing it back in 1981. I learned many things about the show and the people who were in or contributed to the show.

This latest installment of Doctor Who made a great impression on me. The original series, aka classic series, was made fun of by the bad special effects and\/or wobbly sets. Well, this is NO MORE TRUE. The special effects are awesome, but what is even better is the writing. You get a chance to learn more about our beloved Doctor and maybe a bit of a reason why he loves the planet earth so much. Without giving too much away, it is a very worthwhile series to watch. Christopher Eccelston brought a side of the Doctor that we never get to see, a bitter and angry one but yet lovable at the same time.

A MUST SEE!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love pop culture, but I was a little apprehensive when I first heard about this. Then, I seen an episode, and I LOVE IT! I was a little upset when I found out that Christopher Eccelson would no longer be playing Doctor Who. He was probably the best one they've had. He fits the character so well. It's sad to see him go. I really don't think that the new guy is going to pull off the doctor as well as Eccelson.

I think everyone can overlook the cheesy effects in some spots and the creatures, such as the darleks. The story lines and characters can more than make up for that. I'm currently waiting for season two and I will review that as well, in case, for any reason, quality goes down.

Anyways, I think everyone should try to see one episode. I did, and I have been loving it ever since. Well written, well casted, and well produced, this show is worth the hour of viewing. Doctor Who gets a 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have some of the older videos and dvds of Dr. Who. I've played them over and over. I adore each of the \"Doctors\" for different reasons. But due to a man in the BBC hierarchy, Dr. Who was canceled, even though it was still one of the mainstays of the BBC line-up. With the departure of Sylvester McCoy, the Doctor stayed alive through the fans. BBC graciously allowed fans to write books, and cartoons. The momentum of Dr. Who has been steady even after 1989. Then they took a chance with Paul McGann. The movie was flawed, but it gave the BBC an idea of what we wanted. In 1999, the \"man\" was gone and the newbies at the BBC felt it was time to bring the Doctor back. It was a complete success. Here in America, the Sci-fi Channel took a chance and it has become a complete success as well, although the writers were having to start over and explain the Dr. Who mythology for new viewers. It is incredible to me that they have done it. In Season 1, staring Christopher Eccleston with Russell T. Davis as lead writer, and Phil Collinson as producer, the Doctor has come back to us and in each episode we learn more about who the Doctor is. The Doctor Who universe has always been about \"Choice\", \"Love\" and \"Sacrifice\". This is what they provided. It makes me want more and it saddens me that Mr. Eccleston has chosen to leave the show. My first Doctor was Doctor no. 3, Jon Pertwee's Doctor. Mr. Eccleston needn't worry about his position in the Dr. Who universe. It is as solid as the rest. He is the 9th Doctor. I didn't know of Mr. Eccleston prior to his performance in Dr. Who, but I do now. I wish there was some way, he could know, there is push out in the Dr. Who fan community to find his other work and enjoy it. We have already seen that he is a great actor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a fan of the old Doctor Who, and after the mediocre Fox movie, I was dubious of this new series of Doctor Who. I gave it a chance though, and am so glad I did.

Yes, some episodes aren't as brilliant as others, but they are all enjoyable, and yes, Eccleston's Doctor is far from any we've had before but... Eccleston's Doctor is just about the best there is. His performance is at times comical, at others dramatic, sometimes completely crazy but always fantastic.

This, and Bille Piper as Rose make this series a cut above the rest (Camille Coduri is also fantastic as Rose's mum), and there is a depth to this series not present previously. This series is incredibly powerful, especially considering its Sci-Fi. I mean who'd have thought you could ever have felt sorry or even cried for a Dalek prior to this, how many times in this series' history have we had moments like those with Rose's dad, the Emergency Doctor and the 'You were fantastic...so was I' final speech? I advise anyone, whether a fan of Doctor Who or even TV drama to buy this set on DVD, it truly is \"Fantastic!\".

Now only 4 episodes through the latest series (and looking forward to the new Cybermen) I have to say that David Tennant's Doctor is just not as good, of course you may disagree, but I don't think his Doctor is capable of those emotional moments seen in the previous series. I also have to say that in my opinion so far this series has not been as good as the last, however the return of Sarah Jane & K9 was a fantastic episode, a true gem. Not to say this series is not good, just not quite AS good.

So whether you like it or not, and whether you prefer Tennant or Eccleston, The Doctor is back, and he's here to stay. \"Fantastic!\" - Almost as many \"Fantastic!\"'s as The Doctor! -","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're a long-time fan of the Doctor and you cringed when you heard they were making another series, rest easy -- it more than meets the high expectations of the original. The pacing is much quicker than the original shows, fitting more often into 50 minutes episodes rather than the average 90 minutes. The writing is excellent, the acting superb. The hardest - and best - thing to get used to is the production values of the new series. Compared to the original, it's got some now. (Although I will always have fond memories of bubble-wrap and hand-puppet monsters.) If you're not a fan, or if you tried the original and couldn't get a handle on it, jump in with both feet now! Everything you really need to know about the Doctor, they'll tell you as they go along. This series was written with minimal references to the Doctor's enormous back story specifically to encourage new viewers. Admittedly, I'm only seeing the first new series now as it's being shown on the Sci-Fi channel (in other words, probably cut to ribbons for time constraints), but I'm looking forward to future episodes either on broadcast TV or on DVD. (July 4th can't come soon enough!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Russell T Davies has been tasked with re-creating a slice of my childhood: hiding behind the sofa, watching scary monsters battle with Dr Who. He, and his crew, are clearly all true devotees of the original series.

In much the same way as the Star Trek movies used their budget to make the Gene Rodenberry's original concept far more believable, Russell T Davies has both money and the advantages of excellent CGI to create the best monsters ever. I am sure that this series was made with a budget that anticipated both export and DVD sales and it really feels as if no expense was spared.

The accompanying series Dr Who Confidential shows the work that goes into each episode which is a really useful behind the scenes insight. Interviews with the cast and writers help retell the story from each characters perspective and are far more useful than simply watching the whole programme over again.

How does David Tenant rank in the pantheon of his illustrious predecessors? Time will tell but tonight, seeing Billie Piper play alongside Elisabeth Sladen, who was the Doctor's companion in the 1970's confirm that she has both the acting ability, screen presence and script to be the No. 1.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the most successful shows in television history is back. Now I admit I never got into the original show.... Okay, so I never watched it at all. But the new show is impressive.

Sci-Fi has premiered the first two episodes, \"Rose\" and \"The End of the World,\" this weekend. We meet Rose, a twenty-something clerk who is chased by remote controlled mannequins. She is rescued by a mysterious stranger who calls himself the Doctor. Using the Internet, she finds a conspiracy buff who warns her that wherever the Doctor goes, death follows. When her geeky boyfriend Mickey is replaced by an impostor, the Doctor informs her of a plot to use Earth as a breeding ground for more of these plastic monsters, whom the Doctor has been fighting across space and time, traveling in a Tardis disguised a 50s-style police call box.

She helps him save the world--there wouldn't be a show otherwise--and decides to join him. But when he puts her life in danger, he is distraught, and questions whether her company was worth the risk.

Although the special effects are kinda lame, and the some of the scenes are a bit choppy, \"Doctor Who\" is (after two episodes aired in the US) a smart, well-written work. Apparently, the second season has already aired in the UK, so I predict the same success here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those with access to the BBC or the CBC, this has proved to be spectacular. Like Battlestar Gallactica, this is a show rebuilt from the ground up. But in the case of Dr Who, they saved the best parts. I can't believe I am saying this but.. this is by far the best Dr Who. This has none of the cheap production values and sometimes slow plodding of the old show. The acting is quite good and there is a real sense of continuity and history. The new Doctor is easily the equal of the great Tom Baker, and the writer (former QAF lead) seems to have made even the minor characters come alive.

I know...I'm gushing..but this should be on everyone sci-fi geeks list. I just don't know why it hasn't made its way here.. Whatever you do...if you ever loved Dr Who or sci-fi..see this!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed some of the older Doctor Who many years ago, so when the new one came out, I just had to check it out. I was SO pleased - with the characters, the story lines, the updated look, I became hooked! From Season 1 (27 for the old fans) through to season 2 (28), it just keeps on getting better. It ties in nicely with the old shows too, although you don't have to know the old shows to enjoy this newer version.

Even though there has been a change of cast, I highly recommend Doctor Who - with Chris Eccleston AND with David Tennant.

I like that they've given the characters so much depth. The Doctor seems more vulnerable in this series, maybe because he is the last TimeLord. The range of emotions which Chris and David show are truly remarkable, and I felt their pain, anger, and sense of adventure right along with them.

Billie Piper (Rose) brings a very human element to each episode, although she is much braver than I would be. With her talent, Billie will go far in the industry.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Harry Langdon's \"Saturday Afternoon\" is often ranked among the greatest silent comedies, at least where short subjects are concerned, and therefore may come as a bit of a letdown for some. Unlike some of the other recognized classics such as Keaton's \"Cops\" or Chaplin's \"The Immigrant\" this film is in some respects a familiar, conventional situation comedy and doesn't offer much in the way of belly laughs; one may even wonder whether Langdon belongs in such rarefied company. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it's a perfectly charming comedy in its minor-key way, and Harry is fascinating to watch.

For a modern viewer raised on TV sitcoms the plot of \"Saturday Afternoon\" may suggest The Honeymooners or its many spin-offs: two dim guys, one of whom is married and very much under his wife's thumb, try to sneak out with a couple of good-time girls for a fun afternoon; but everything goes wrong, and they wind up having to fight the girls' tough guy boyfriends. Does this sound familiar? And perhaps a little dreary? Well, the premise was already shopworn when this film was made, but beyond that nothing about Langdon was typical. He was odd, starting with the fact that he looked like a middle-aged baby who was half asleep. Any Freudians who catch \"Saturday Afternoon\" will have a field day with the scenes between this timid, pudgy-faced baby-man and his stern, gently domineering mommy-wife. When Harry tries to hide money under the rug but she catches him in the act and forces him to hand it over, you'd swear you're watching an interaction between a 6 year-old boy and his Mama . . . and maybe that's why Harry Langdon gave some people the creeps, and still does.

But he's a compelling screen figure, and it's not what he does so much as the way he does it. In that scene with the coins under the rug, for instance, Harry finds the coins by placing one foot before the other, carefully, like a tightrope walker, counting off his paces until he finds the right spot, and his technique is hypnotic. Langdon moved like no one else. Whether or not he makes you laugh, the guy is mesmerizing, seemingly in a world of his own. Where the plot of his films is concerned Harry is curiously passive, and almost never drives the story forward himself. In the finale of \"Saturday Afternoon,\" when the big fistfight is taking place, Harry's co-star Vernon Dent is in the thick of the action, but Harry is in a daze for much of the time, and winds up sort of punch-drunk between two cars (sitting on the running board of one, but with his feet on the other) while they race through the streets. It's a memorable image, and, as the critic Walter Kerr wrote, it encapsulates Langdon's screen persona quite perfectly: he's a passive figure who somehow finds himself in the middle of frantic action, blinking sleepily while the world rushes past. It's also worth noting that Langdon and Dent, who worked together frequently, have a rapport in this movie that suggests a blueprint Laurel & Hardy would follow when they teamed up a year or so later. Langdon's style was a likely influence on Stan Laurel, especially here.

\"Saturday Afternnon\" and its star may not be for everyone, but the film is well worth a look, and you might find that Langdon makes an impression that's hard to shake.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If (as I just pointed out in THE GOAT) Keaton is following the tradition of the comics finding themselves at odds with the law, this Langdon short (the last released before he did TRAMP, TRAMP, TRAMP) was based on another comic ploy - being married to a shrewish spouse, and trying to get away for some secret two-timing dating. Laurel & Hardy did this in several films, as did Fields, and Chaplin.

I have a problem with it - why do these characters always marry such nasty women? And there is an interesting sociological side issue - why don't you find female comics married to male counterparts to these shrews? I can't recall any, except in a Carol Burnett skit, where the two nastier members of two couples discover that they prefer having someone give it back as good as they get (a kind of mutual sado-masochism, but also reassurance that their not married to a namby-pamby type). As for the fact that the comics do marry shrews, I suppose one can imagine they get what they deserve. Or do they? Ollie really deserves a wife who throws pots and dishes at him? Yeah he went to that convention in SONS OF THE DESERT that ruined her plans, but he wanted to get some private time - there is nothing suggesting he and Stan cheated on their wives. Actually he is creamed by Mae Busch because he lied to her while Stan collapsed and told the truth to his wife.

Here Harry's wife (Alice Ward) is shown at the start talking to her mother about how she keeps him under strict control. We see Harry at his job (it is Saturday morning, and the job ends at noon for the rest of the weekend - this was before the idea of a five - day a week, 40 hour a week job in industry). He works in a foundry where he hits red hot metal into shape (an early joke about Langdon - he is a small, light man, not the muscular type to swing a sledge hammer). He just misses his streetcar trying to give a man a light. He calls home to explain things and gets an earful from the missus for being two minutes late.

On the way home Harry meets his pal Steve (Vernon Dent) who has met two nice, sweet girls who would just love to have a date. Harry is hesitant but agrees to it after talking to the girl (he agrees to pay for the hot-dogs for the foursome - he has a 1926 silver half dollar in his pocket). But his plans seem derailed when his wife discovers his hidden \"cache\" of coins. He keeps it hidden under the living room rug, and finds it by walking along the edge of the rug. But his wife spies on him, and confiscates all of it. Later she overhears him talking to himself and berating her. In contempt she gives him back a dime and says he can treat his date to a soda.

But Harry has a second cache of coins, and dresses up for the date - and goes out. He and Dent are apparently late, and Dent blames Harry, but Harry tries to make it up to him: he produces two prostitutes. They get into a quarrel when Dent (wisely) says they are not the type of girls he'd term as \"nice\". Eventually the girls do show up and the date begins. But soon Harry is hiding in the rumble seat, as his wife drives past in her roadster, and the girls boy friends turn up - angry at their two rivals.

The short works well and is amusing, and gives one a better idea of the persona that Harry Langdon developed in his brief stardom as a comic master. He is constantly put upon by others. He misses his streetcar because some stranger keeps asking for a smoke and a light, and in the end the stranger gets his own. The nice girl who is Harry's date has a little dog who chases him away. He rests between two cars that both start driving away and he ends up wrapped around a pole. It certainly demonstrates that Langdon had his screen persona down pat by the time that he made his features. If only he could have kept the complex whole together beyond those three first features.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Saturday Afternoon\" is one of Harry Langdon's best-known short subjects, and with good reason. It is one of his funniest and best films. The plot -- such as it is -- is an old staple: a hen-pecked husband sneaks away for a night out with a his pal and a couple of other girls. It's a solid and well-used comedy plot, but the difference here is Harry Langdon himself. His slow, ineffectual, befuddled, innocent character has somehow floundered his way into a marriage with a woman who feels that he of all people must be ruled with an iron fist, and he is only thrust into cheating on her because he can't say \"no\" to the exhortations of the chummy Vernon Dent and the cute eyelash-fluttering of the girl.

It's a very adult problem to be thrust onto such a helpless, childlike character. Harry doesn't want to cheat, but he can't do anything about it. In a wonderful bit of comic business, he can't bring himself to blow the new girlfriend kiss goodbye: he slyly pushes the kiss at her underhand and ashamedly wipes off his hand as if to chastise it. The film is a three-reel comedy, ten minutes longer than the two-reelers Harry Langdon had previously been starring in for Mack Sennett, with no more plot. Perhaps it was even designed to be a two-reeler. This works beautifully, since it gives him as much time as he needs to inject the slow reactions and bewildered glimpses and half-actions where so much of his comedy lives.

He's at his best here, and the show is really Harry Langdon's curious magic and ability to spin comedy out of almost nothing. His little half- smiles, his look while handling the money he has hidden under the rug, childlike attempts to enter the fight at the end. I think his comedy makes us recognize something fundamentally innocent and confused in ourselves that makes us feel like the whole world is too much for us, yet at the same time, by allowing us to understand what Harry does not (such as the fact that the women he good-heartedly brings to his friend to cheer him after he thinks the date has been blown are in fact whores) he forces his to realize with a little bit of sadness that we are not that innocent anymore. His comedy is just as capable of making us audibly say \"Awwww\" as it is making us laugh, often at once.

Here Harry wants to refuse to cheat on his wife, he wants to tell his wife whose boss and take some power back in his relationship, he wants to fight back against the two violent men at the end of the film, but he just can't affect his surroundings that much, and sometimes we all feel like that.

The film is perfectly directed by frequent Langdon director Harry Edwards; it moves at a quick pace and never stalls while at the same time making time for and presenting to best effect Harry Langdon's still, reactive comedy. Vernon Dent, a frequent foil to Langdon, plays one of the roles here where he becomes almost a comedy partner in his very effective pairing with Harry. The gags spaced out in a way that gives maximum effect too, and Harry gets his own version of a Lloyd or Keaton style stunt at the end. Here the comedy is not in Harry's big reactions to the danger of sitting perched between two moving cars, but in his slowness to take it in.

This is a hilarious film, and a perfect example of the comedy of one of the most unique an talented humorists that I know ever to have existed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been a fan of Larry King's show for awhile, I think he does a terrific job overall and I don't think he ever 'wusses' out, as so many people seem to believe. He's a subtle Scorpio, he gets his zings in when he needs to, just as he managed to do last night with Paris Hilton, during her first post-jail TV interview.

The thing about this entire case that has really amazed me is that Hilton is still apparently clueless about why Judge Sauer gave her what she believes was a too-harsh sentence (and what's more, actually MADE her serve it) . In all the time she was in jail, supposedly alone 23 hours a day in her cell, she never once, in her mind, rewound the events which led to her being given the sentence that Judge Sauer saw fit to impose on her. She never once realized that it just might have set off a major red flag when she (1) showed up late in court for the original hearing and (2) proceeded to inform him, when he asked her did she not know that her license had been suspended, did she not get the papers in the mail, that \"I have people who read that sort of thing for me.\"

All the time she was in her cell, she never came to the realization that this action (showing up late) and that statement -- and more importantly, the attitude - the utter cavalier disregard for the court system and the law in general and her driving privileges in particular that she displayed -- just might have made Judge Sauer (pardon the pun) go sour on her.

Last night, on King's show, after giving lip service to how she has been changed forever by her traumatic experience, how she has \"learned\" her lesson, she answered his question, \"Do you think you got a raw deal?\" with a resounding yes. And during the course of the conversation (if you can call it that), she said more than once that she did not feel she deserved what had happened to her. King asked, gently, more than once, if she does not feel she creates the situations in her life that she \"finds\" herself in, to which she pretty much stared at him blankly. She basically, therefore, holds the conscious belief that she's been victimized in this situation; she does not understand how she herself caused it, that day in court, by her cavalier attitude with the judge. I feel this is very sad - tragic, even, considering what a huge \"role model\" Hilton is to some people, and it renders anything she said last night about her so-called rehabilitated state into the realms of complete and utter cluelessness, contradiction and hypocrisy.

During the course of the interview, Hilton alluded to spending a lot of time in her cell reading the Bible. At the end of the interview, King scored major points by asking her what her favorite Bible passage was. She responded by groping perplexedly at her pathetic notes (completely superficial non-insights, which she had read on air as if she were Nelson Mandella or something) and finally grunting out, \"I don't have a favorite passage.\"

Judge Sauer, in my book, is a hero, and after last night, so is Larry King, for subtly exposing Hilton for what she truly is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As talk-shows go, Larry King Live is not bad, and since he occasionally gets good guests, it's a show to turn on once in awhile, but not compulsively. When Bill Maher, Carl Bernstein, a former president, or other substantive guests sit across from him, it's not too bad. Other times, he tends to host guests involved in the latest celebrity scandal which contributes absolutely no intelligent information to the country and feeds a largely uneducated public that wants to hear the latest gossip about movie and TV stars. During the OJ Simpson trial, it seemed like every other guest on his show was related to the case. But is this really journalism? Or the National Enquirer on the tube? Sometimes, it comes off a little bit like trash television--Jerry Springer in a sit down interview with phone calls instead of a live audience.

On the other side, King's show is definitely much better than Bill O'Reilly whose show is nothing more than a rightest-political platform of the Rush Limbaugh variety. That said, Larry King is not a bad interviewer, but alas, he is not a great one. King does not always come off like he completely comprehends when intellectual material is being presented, especially if it is by a scholar or historian with a new book on subtle aspects of politics. Always seems like the minute King can't quite deal with the issue at hand, that's when he turns to the phone calls, maybe hoping someone out in the country will have a better question than he has. He might interview someone like David Gergen, but may not have read any of his books. Sort of like the movie producer that never bothers to read the script.

When it's an entertainment celebrity, no problem. He can come off like he's thoroughly knowledgeable since the material is not that substantive anyway. Talking to Elizabeth Taylor about her relationship with Richard Burton is not exactly rocket science. And I notice he usually has seen the star's latest movie. Watching a movie takes much less time and contemplation than reading a book. However, if it's the likes of John Dean or Bob Woodward, King comes off a little like he didn't quite finish his homework. So off to the phones.

If you are looking for real in-depth interviewing, Terry Gross of NPR is probably the best interviewer in the United States. She reads and\/or researches everything written by or about her guests beforehand and has a working knowledge of those areas. I don't see King quite doing that. Granted, he probably has an audience 1000 times larger than Terry Gross, which may say more about the American audience than King. In short, Larry is better than Bill but not as good as Terry.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tia Carrere was the reason I decided to watch this film, as neither the title, nor the cover would have been enough to make me spend my time and money on this film \u0096 which goes to show, me and everyone, that a DVD shouldn't be judged by it's cover.

***SPOILERS*** The film felt like it was trundling along, not really going anywhere for the moment \u0096 the awkwardness of Paul Faber (Zak Orth) around girls being almost too embarrassing to watch, and the fringe on the otherwise attractive Kirsten Beck (as Alexondra Lee) being too school-girlish to watch. Where those really fashionable in 1995?

The relationship between Vicky Mueller (Tia Carrere) and Todd Boomer (Jason London) was tantalising from the start of though! That first meeting across the lake \u0096 magical. What a beautiful coincidence they should meet again just as he has behaved like a complete moron (\"Boomer, with two O's as in moron\u0085\") in front of Alexondra. A shame really that we as the audience knew who Vicky Mueller really was. (Well\u0085 the title did give that away, wouldn't you think?)

What really surprised me was the acting. Especially in the scene where Vicky gives Todd a metal version of his alter ego (the dog character), in the little white jewellery box. The actors really managed to recreate that tingling sensation of a first kiss \u0096 point of no return for Todd and Vicky. A shame really that the film ends with focus on (after getting over Todd's fathers Harvard drive) his re-uniting with his friends. I could envision a whole new film \u0096 following Vicky to New York \u0096 there must be a good art University there that Todd could attend?!?

Nevertheless, a film that does just what we want Hollywood to: entertain us for the duration of the film. Did anyone else notice how none of the loves are happy ones in this film? Todd's mother is slightly insane (on the phone 24\/7), his Dad doesn't find her attractive (any more?) Todd's teacher obviously is disenchanted by his wife and vice versa \u0096 Todd himself enters into a wonderfully erotic & daring relationship which, however nice it may be, would realistically be very difficult to maintain (age difference, maturity difference etc), and Alexondra & Zak do not get together because Alexondra is not mature enough to handle a relationship (-> her reactions towards the condom, the cheating, Zak's advances etc. are all very immature, and often involve running away), and Zak himself, the poor guy \u0096 is too much of a best friend\/like a brother-guy to pull even Alexondra.

Mind you, good film though! I gave it an 8\/10. Brilliant performance by the actors - who bring the script to life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To paraphrase Thora Birch: \"I kind of like this movie. It's the exact opposite of everything I hate in a film\".

This obscure film was too low key and intelligent to get a theatrical release, any chance for success would have needed a costly promotional campaign. And a coming of age story where nothing spectacular happens - where instead the focus is on character development, has a limited target audience. Whoever heard of a mature teen movie?

But if you have an opportunity to see this or if you can part with a few bucks for the DVD, you could do a lot worse. \"My Teacher's Wife\" is nothing revolutionary but it has a lot going for it and holds up well to repeated viewings.

Jason London (as high school senior Todd Boomer) is the star and fits this character as well as his parts in \"The Man In the Moon\" and \"Dazed and Confused\". He is helped out by exceptional work from his supporting cast. Tia Carrere in the title role is a revelation (she can act) as Todd's calculus tutor and love interest. Christopher McDonald as the teacher in a nice self-parodying performance. Zak Orth and Alexondra Lee as Todd's best friends, and Jeffrey Tabor as his father.

As someone commented earlier, this is a \"mature\" teen movie because the romantic relationships are universally unsuccessful-at least by traditional happy ending standards. Even Todd's parents are indifferent to each other, with his father panting after the title character and his mother (Leslie Lyles) literally on the telephone during her entire time on screen (a device that provides increasing comedy relief with each successive appearance). The London-Carrere romance has unexpected charm and is far more believable than any other older woman storyline you are likely to find.

But the real strength of the film is the evolving relationship of the three friends. There is no overwrought melodrama here, just three immature people who alternate between testing and trusting each other, subject to all the dynamics that three young people can bring to this kind of thing. They actually manage to pull off a \"believable\" three-person relationship, perhaps the first one in cinema history.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have mixed emotions about this film, especially as it compares to its forerunner,

\"An American Werewolf In London.\" That film had it's funny moments, it was still more of horror tale than anything else. This updated version, now set in Paris, does not have that \"edge\" at all and simply isn't in the same class....but it does have some good things going for it that the first film did not have and overall it's still fun to watch.

So, \"werewolf purists\" aside, most of whom think this film is pure garbage compared to the London version, I'll still give it decent marks since I don't care what others think. I liked it even though I agree \"London\" is better and I prefer that version, too.

The first 30-40 minutes of this movie is strictly played for laughs including a hysterical scene with a \"balloon\" in a restaurant. It also introduces the lead female character, played by Julie Delpy. I don't see enough of this actress. She doesn't seem to make that many films, or least ones I hear about over here in America. This French actress has a face that is classic beauty, so the film got points for having her in it, and she looks great.

When the horror starts, it can get scary and the special effects are good. I also liked the lack of profanity in this film, unlike the first one: no f-words and no Lord's name in vain - amazing!

However, there are plenty of sexual remarks and there is one scene with a guy running out of bar tied to a cross which was blasphemous to me. The soundtrack is heavy metal which isn't appealing to a middle-aged guy like me, either. This film is geared a lot more toward 20-somethings, if that helps anyone.

It's entertaining.....just don't expect it to live up to the first film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Three American lads are backpacking their way around Europe, challenging each other to accumulate as many daredevil stunts and Hot babe lays as they can, But Andy seeks true love. He finds this during their bungee-jump attempt on the Eiffel Tower, when he comes across and breathtakingly saves a suicidal and heart-burstingly beautiful Julie Delpy. His attempts to find this girl and the secret he uncovers lead he and his friends into an fast paced adventure full of action, romance, gore, and inspired humor, without ever taking itself to seriously, or striving to be anything other than a wildly entertaining 90 minute ride. I have seen this film a number of times and found it a much more rewarding experience than the 'London' original, although both films are so different it is not fair to compare the two or even to consider this a sequel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The title suggests that this movie is a sequel to \"An American werewolf in London\". None of the characters from the previous movie return and aren't even mentioned in this movie by name. So as a sequel, AAwiP fails, one would say.

I dare to say the opposite.

An American werewolf in Paris is a charming, effective horror movie. It's one of the better werewolf films I have seen in a long time too. And I have seen quite my share, such as An American werewolf in London, The Howling, Wolfen, The Wolfman and the Underworld trilogy.

The story tells of three Americans visiting Paris on a vacation. At the top of the Eifel Tower one of them saves a woman trying to commit suicide. What starts out as a romantic relationship slowly turns into a nightmare when the dark secrets that lurk in the city are revealed...

I really liked the acting in this film. Especially the two stars of the movie: the woman who tried to commit suicide and the guy who saves her. They have good chemistry together. But the other two Americans also play their roles nicely. I didn't really find anything annoying about the acting, so thumbs up for that!

The effects on the werewolves are nice. It doesn't look too cheap or fake to me. Of course, the opinions are divided about this subject. But let's just say that I wasn't disappointed.

There's also a good amount of humor in this movie. There are some really funny scenes you will probably remember for a long time.

So, to sum it up, An American werewolf in Paris might not be a direct sequel to it's predecessor, but it's still an enjoyable movie. Perfect for fans of werewolves! 7 out of 10 stars!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just finished a double feature night of An American Werewolf in London & Paris. Let me start by saying \"London\" still holds up after all these years and the transformation sequence is by any standard quite impressive, the film was funny, and scary, also a bit of gore....Now lets get to \"Paris\" its enjoyable, a few scars, lots of gore not as exciting or eerie as original but it does have a few laughs in what has become quite the fashion these days in films so maybe in that sense it was ahead of it's time, the transformations al'a CGI while good for the technology of its time are nowhere near as impressive as the original. I gave this movie a 7 because I have to admit it was enjoyable, I laughed a lot and found Tom Everett Scott to be so silly that at first I wanted to dislike his performance only to end up liking it...go figure...Julie Delpy was competent as was the direction it's the script that lacked a bit of shine & finesse. I read here that John Landis was supposed to direct to bad he didn't I am quite sure it would have been a different movie altogether. I also noticed some discussion of a Sequel \"What If\" well no one has noted the Obvious it should be in American and here is my title \"An American Werewolf Comes Home\" or in DC that would be fun all those political dogs need a good scare. You simply must see the original in it's new DVD transfer with dolby 5.1 sound and see both of these on an HDTV with upconvert turned on...nice!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, most of us agree that this is a weak attempt at a remake, but at the same time it's also a different movie in its own right. Don't get me wrong, 'American Werewolf In London' is a superior film, but 'American Remake In Paris' is a decent movie as well.

First off, the only real similarities are the TITLE, 2 American BACKPACKERS, and WEREWOLVES. Other than those 3 things, 'American Remake In Paris' stands apart fairly well on its own with its special blend of humor, action\/adventure, and horror. Most of the people who say this film is better than the original are the youth of today's generation that think any movie made before 1990 is total crap. While those of us who grew up in the 80's can appreciate older films and what they have added to the horror films of today. What a lot of people fail to realize is that without the old classic films, including the B&W ones, horror wouldn't be what it is today. Now I'm getting a little off the beaten path...

An American Werewolf In Paris is a good attempt at re-creating a classic, but it will never surpass the original, ever. With that said, this is still a very entertaining film to watch and I do recommend it. I'm giving it a 7 out of 10. Maybe that's being a little generous, but I've seen much worse attempts at trying to re-create a classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have never seen \"American Werewolf in London\" but this movie was very entertaining. When renting it I thought it was a horror movie but it turned out to be more of a comedy with some horror aspects. I thought the transformation sequences were nicely done but effects wise, the best scenes were those where the effects and the lighting built off each other, nice. The transformations reminded me a lot of werewolf transformations in other movies, but the werewolves themselves are very beastly and not very dog like. Gore: i do believe there is too much in this movie, which really takes away from the horror, when every frame has blood in it, taking the violence seriously is hard.

J.Hurst (8th grade)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movie is not as bad as some say it is infact i think it`s more enjoyable than the original . maybe that`s why some people hate it as much cos they dont want to admit it`s a good (not great) movie.

most if not all fx were done by C.G.I which i didn`t mind at all cos it was an enjoyable movie. Phil Buckman - (Chris) was in my opinion the best guy in the movie Julie Delpy was rather attractive she brought the sexiness to the movie.

there were a lot of wisecracks in the movie which i thought were good. this movie is in my collection but the original is not because i dont like it as much as this one. i was not bored when i watched this movie it kept me watching unlike some horror movies i could mention like oh say = driller killer & suspiria (dario argento`s movie) thats to name but two.

this is an ok werewolf film it should be in people`s collection if they like werewolf movies maybe i`ll get the original at some point maybe. i have only one complaint and that is Phil Buckman - (Chris) should have been in it more than he was but apart from that the movie was fine.

rating for this movie 8\/10 an ok werewolf movie not the worst one out there.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Is it full moon tonight? OH! It doesn't matter they can change whenever they want cuz of that drug! What was I thinking if its full moon tonight?! Geez

I really like this movie, there's romance, suspense, horror, and hot stuff ;) I like the first half of the movie when the guy saves the girl from killing herself by bungee jumping and catching her. That was really cool. The setting of this movie is in the city of love which is Paris in France. The cemetery scenes are nice, it gives you chills not knowing what will happen there or who's behind the walls. The scenes that makes you jump out of your seat is really cool. Even they got me on that scenes. His friend who died and the girl whom he killed in the cemetery but still shows themselves to the lead character(sorry I forgot his name), was really funny. The actors did a good job plus the make-up crews. The part when they're all partying in an abandoned church, I can't believe people would that because even though that's an abandoned church, that is still God's house. I bought this movie long time ago, and I do not regret buying it. I'm a horror-movie-lover. I give this movie 5 stars out of 6. For the people who are open and loves movies like this, give it a try, you might like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Andy McDermott (Tom Everett Scott) is a shy American teenager spending vacation in Paris with his friends Brad and Chris. Andy saves Serafine Pigot (the gorgeous Julie Delpy) from committing suicide in Eiffel Tour and has a crush on her. He does not know that she is a werewolf. They go to an underground party and are attacked by werewolves. Andy is wounded and becomes a werewolf. He is advised that the only way to become normal again is killing the werewolf that attacked him and eating its heart. This movie is a violent black humor movie. The special effects and the soundtrack are excellent, highlighting the song of the band Bush. I do not know why some readers compares this movie with the masterpiece 'An American Werewolf in London'. The stories have nothing in common (only an American teenager, werewolves and a city in Europe). Highly indicated for fans of werewolf and black humor movies. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"Um Lobisomem Americano em Paris\" (\"An American Werewolf in Paris\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of course I am going to think it was a great movie. I recognized several people I didn't see during filming also. I was the one playing the guard about an hour into the movie in the death row exercise yard asking for a light for a cigarette. I also changed this one scene. They had originally had it set to go into the rec yard and straighten out the inmate and turn him around and walk him out. The Director said \"It is taking to long, what would you do Gower.\" I said, \"We need to go in and hook the arms and drag him out backwards. That way your camera can stay on his face as we take him off set.\" I also lived at this same prison as a young child as my father was the Assistant Warden of Security. I am also a current employee with the Tennessee Deaprtment of Corrections as a supervisor at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution. Even though a lot of the movie was a joke, the part I was in was reality enough. Also in the bar scene the dancer kicking high in the air and leaving the stage was an actual stripper I use to work with at a club called \"The Classic Cat\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Landscape after a battle\" opens with escaping prisoners over a snowy field full of fences - in rather funny movements accompanied by Vivaldis Four Seasons. A touching opening. But we soon enough learn to know these prisoners as a mob, and when they (also treated humouristic) burry a man alive, the protagonist stops for a moment, but is soon more engaged in finding books from the turndowned camp than caring about his neighbour.

The rest of the film is set in an American camp from where the prisoners are not released, in some kind of semi freedom, semi camp. A perfect set for a study of war criminality, American camps, Polish nationalism, Catholisism, grief and human misery in general.

Film makes an important turn. In comes women, and with them film changes light, colour and temper. At the same time it turns out that these prisoners were slaves in Holocaust. I think a main underlying political theme of the film must mankind's treatments of Jews under and after the world war, and not only the Nazi exterminations, but mankind letting it happen - and even forcing them out of Europe after the war. On an emotional level the film is about grief and the problem with letting grief come, how environment makes grief difficult, and how difficult it can be to share grief for people with different experiences.

But the film is a carpet of underlying contradictions,humour, irony and sudden beauty. A couple of times during the film a gypsy prisoner plays on an harp, an emotional tune brutally rejected (filmatically speaking) by the protagonist. That example picks up an important essence of the film's style and theme. When it comes to humour its very comic how the protagonist constantly looses and finds back his glasses, in crowds, in hay stacks etc.

Its not hard to understand Spielberg's respect of Wajda when you see this film. The great treatment of light can be compared with Spielberg on his best. The Grunwald intermezzo speaks for itself. Narrativly it only brings the film out of the camp, but filmatically it brings the film to dream and eternity with profound beauty. Anyhow, there is also another scene I can't let go without comment. Its the Christian Supper. Undoubtly ironical, but simultaneously deeply religious we see the transsubstantiation moment, everybody falling on their knees, while the protagonist is saved from isolation by the priest to serve as a comic altar boy. His bells are mocking the scene, but also gives it emotion and love. When Nina gets her bread, sun light falls upon her and bells ring spheric, its the peak moment of the film.

Main actors are excellent in their roles. Olbrychski as the perfect Wajda protagonist - the doubting reflecting mind, unable to put all the aspects of his mind and emotion into life. Beautiful Celinska is with great body acting debuting in a character unable to express all her inner in her proud movements.

Those who try to describe everything, often are unable to take nothing in consideration. This is what Wajda manages. His films are either very moving, deep or beautifully shot, but pays attention to life's and society's particularity. A moment of joy for one, is the moment of irony for a second, the moment of grief for the third, a moment of nothing for the fourth.

There is at least two reasons to pay attention to Wajdas films of this period. First is the remarkable free expression of deep political impact. This country was the first to overthrow communism twenty years later. Second is the development of a filmatic and narrative language that Kusturica has rose to grandeur.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Landscape after the Battle, Andrzej Wajda in the second era of his filmmaking career, depicts emotional and psychological confusion in a former Nazi-prison in Poland, freed immediately after the WWII.

A hand-held camera explores a lot of extreme close-ups and vivid colors. The end credit as graffiti on flanks of freight train cars symbolically concludes the film. The soundtrack is great, except Vivaldi, which sounds tacky in pop-art fashion, in the opening sequence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Aside from the fact that the women in the film are stunningly beautiful and all the camp prisoners are too fat, this film rings true on the chaos of the post-war.

Beautiful photography, and a powerful national expression of the Polish national character.

It's very slow at points, but its entire pacing is so different from American and Western European films that it's quite refreshing.

Both lead actors do a very good job. On the DVD version, you can see interviews with the principal actors and crew, and the lead actress Stanislawa Celinska has gained about 50 lbs and lost all of her beauty. But in 1970, she was a stunner.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Krajobraz po bitwie like many films of Wajda is, perhaps, not understandable for the \"rest of the world\". Story based on the few short stories of Tadeusz Borowski, who during WWII was the prisoner of Oswiecim, Dachau and Dautmergen camps. Borowski in his books describes inhuman life in the Nazi camps from the point of view vorarbeiter Tadek - porte parole of author who also was on the privileged position among the prisoners. Borowski was merciless for the humanity and merciless for himself. He describes the human history as the endless chain of exploitation and humiliation. Ironically, after the returning to Poland he stopped writing artistic prose and became communistic propagandist, producing stream of anti-imperialistic and anti-american press publications. After few years he committed suicide. In the movie Wajda changes point of view. Vorarbeiter Tadek - character created by the Tadeusz Janczar - plays only supporting role. Story is focused on the poet, destroyed, burned out by the war and imprisonement and his one-day love affair with Nina, Jewish girl who escaped from communistic Poland although she actually hates jewish life and mentality. As the background we can observe sad grotesque of so-called \"dipis\" (displaced persons) life, who after the liberation are settled by the Americans in SS barracks. Marches, patriotic kitsch mixed with hunting for the extra dose of food and\/or prostituting German girls.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"there is one of the best movies directed by andrzej wajda,that story told about young writer who is seekin' his place after a second war(he's survive german camp).excellent true atmosphere(action goes in camp for displaced placed),main hero(played by one of the best polish actor daniel olbrychski) finally fall in love ,but unfortunately his lady has been killed .there was beautiful scene,when he is talking with american soldier and says (about death his girl)\"nothing is happen,simply you're shootin' to us now... he's condition of soul has been destroyed. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A story of love between two people at the end of WWII. Beautifully filmed, very romantic and yet rather fatalistic fable of budding love and war that would not end. If you want happy endings don't watch Wajda movies, sweety.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie was certainly true to the real life story on which it was based. It was hard for me to find newspaper articles about the actual facts, but when I located them, I could see that truth, in this case, was stranger than fiction. Judith Light was frighteningly evil in her role as the mother in this movie, so much so that it was difficult to separate her from the role, the mark I think of an excellent performance. Rick Schroder was appropriately clueless as her son who also defended her in court, an example of how hard it can be in some circumstances for a child to accept the actions of a parent, no matter how criminal they may be. One can find fault with the movie, but not with its treatment of the reality on which it was based.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw this movie back in the middle of January (2005) I didn't like it. I thought it was too weird and thought that some parts that the main star, Judith Light, acted were so unlike her. (Which of course is true) And then I watched bits of it the next day when it re-aired and I felt pretty much the same. Then I watched it again two Sundays ago (March 20th, 2005) and I began to really enjoy it and this time I taped the entire thing. I even cried the first 2 times, but mainly because the actress was actually crying and I am a big fan of hers.

It is a very well acted and done TV Movie. Judith Light is one of my favorite actresses and I think she does a superb job in this film! I keep watching it over and over. It's a sad movie, but very good.

If you have not seen this movie, I definitely recommend it! It's not usually my type of movie, but I did enjoy this one! A+++","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An incredible performance! This is one of the best films i have seen ever. I know this is being said a lot, but i bet you will not regret watching this film.

It's great from the very beginning to the last second. The acting (of especially the mother - played by Judith Light) is so convincing, there are not many other films i've seen that could compare to it, and it seems it's impossible not to feel anything for the people in this drama.

There are lots and lots of movies made every year, but if you have to choose just to see a few in your life - make this one of them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If there are people that don't like this movie, I don't think they are human. This film deploys all emotions and shows many sides of Judith Light's character. Made in 1997, this is one of the best movies I have seen and really the film that Judith Light has starred in to make me a huge fan of hers. This movie, although sometimes you want to rattle the son for trusting her so much, is incredibly moving. I cry at the end every time and it takes much to do that to me! The plot doesn't have much to it but the acting provided by Judith Light is incredible. She looks beautiful the whole time and by the end, you don't want the fate imposed by the courts to happen to her. Overall, a movie worth my highest praise! Thank you for making it and redefining my view on the death penalty. I eagerly await this movie to come out on DVD or some other form of media since Lifetime is starting to issue some movies to customers. Although I don't have high hopes for this one because this took place almost 9 years ago, which is still hard to believe, since this movie is STILL ingrained into my head after all this time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everything about \"Choose Connor\" was top=drawer, especially the script and the very proficient work done by the 21-year-old director, writer, producer Luke Eberl . . . a talented young man from whom to expect great things. All the acting was credible, the dialogue smart, the theme important. Loved it!!!

Saw it at the 2007 Woodstock Film Festival, where it was screened twice and went over tremendously with the audiences. It's more than just a coming of age movie -- this kid learns a hard, heartbreaking lesson about trust, politics and \"the system\" -- how things really work to suit the personal agendas of those in powerful positions.

I would recommend this movie to anyone with a working brain.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Over the many years, there are some films that just slip by & hardly anyone views.

Choose Conner is one of those films.

This small gem played at some festivals & had a short 2 week run in a small theatre in West Hollywood making all of about $ 5500.

It is now on DVD I do hope many more will now see this,.

It is a strange drama of a shrewd youngish politician, who influences a very bright 15 year old lad.This politico also has a handsome nephew (about 17 years old) who befriends the 15 year old lad.

The above paragraph is slightly vague as to what occurs, SO is the film, & that is what I appreciated, we do NOT get all the facts,Much is left to our own thinking. You will hear dialog that makes this logical..

Steven Weber (Wings) is our politician,his role is slightly vague,this is another point for the audience to ponder

Alex D.Linz is our 15 year old, He was about 17 when they made this movie, but easily can pass for younger. He has been in films & TV since he was a young child, He is a very good actor & is quite convincing.

Escher Holloway is the older teen, This role is his first major part & he too is excellent.

Now I am saving the best for last, the writer\/director,

Luke Eberl is not yet 23 years old. For a first effort a big thumbs up. I do hope he as well as our 2 lads have a long career.

Ratings: *** (out of 4) 86 points(out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was amazed at the quality of this film, particularly after seeing pictures of the barely adult director - all 140(?) lbs of him! Truly, a boy directing a movie about a boy. I look forward to seeing more Luke Eberl films.

I did think this one was a bit too long. There was too much time spent showing Connor being unsuccessful (and unwilling) to make a move on Owen. Caleb didn't try hard enough. Owen, being so young, could have easily become closer to Caleb and later decided it wasn't his preference. And Owen would still have learned the \"valuable lesson\" about corruption and politics. Instead, he didn't give himself a fair chance to learn about his sexuality. And what about poor Caleb? Owen could have been a good influence.

Though the film intends to show Owen as a hero who overcomes perverted corruption, I felt sad for Owen. He was offered the opportunity to have some boy-boy fun with Caleb, who was extraordinarily beautiful. Owen didn't have to go along with the political perversion as offered. But he could have tried to have some fun with Caleb, and still walked away when he wanted. It was clear that Owen was in charge - no one forced him to do anything he didn't want to do. But he could have had more fun, and with a very hot boyfriend, at that.

I hope Luke makes more movies where appealing young characters have more fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The plot line is an expose of the under belly of American politics. While the theme seems common, what \"makes\" the movie is the unconventional way the story is told.

The characters are played with conviction. You feel the innocence of the lead, and his innocence lost. The politician is the prince of double-talk, a real snake.

The camera work is impressive. It affirms the nuances of the acting and dialogue. Ditto for the music.

The story uses a parable-style with vingettes where the message is filled with double-entendres. A very canny strategy by the writer\/director. The tension in the storyline is carried through to the last scenes.

The movie was like a good mystery book. Something was \"afoot\"; you knew it was bad; you didn't know exactly what it could be - you had your suspicions; and when the evil was revealed you let out your breath you hadn't noticed you were holding in. Saddened, shaking your head.

A story well written and well told. 3 cheers to a young writer\/director.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this election year, where so much idealism is attached to one of the candidates, it is poignant to watch a film that warns us not to make an idol out of anyone running for public office.

Luke Eberl is the writer and director of \"Choose Connor\". There are significant parts of the film that reveal that he is a 'genius' when it comes to telling stories via the cinema.

Go see this movie before the election and then ponder why and for whom you will cast your vote.

Let you eyes be opened like those of the young protagonist.

A mix of \"Citizen Kane\", \"Advise and Consent\" and \"Paths of Glory\" by a young director as talented as those who made the films listed above.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes\/Rififi(1955) can on the surface be described as a French variation on John Huston's seminal heist film, Asphalt Jungle(1950). The difference between the two films is Rififi(1955) pays a little more attention in detail to the robbery sequence. Also, the police aren't involved in the aftermath of the robbery in Rififi as much as in Asphalt Jungle. In the end Rififi(1955) is in my opinion a slightly better film than Asphalt Jungle(1950). Remarkable Noir picture that defines 1950s French Cinema.

Spartacus(1960) may have been the one which broke down the infamous blacklist, but in my opinion Rififi(1955) was the film that began to break apart the unbreakable Hollywood blacklist. First film in five years for Jules Dassin who was victimized by the McCarthy communist hunt of the late 40s to early 50s. He got some sort of retribution when Rififi(1955) became a success around France and Europe. Thus defying the poisonious Hollywood blacklist in a major way that probably inspired others to do the same. Rififi(1955) is the most important film of Dassin's career because it not only restored his name, but also gave him a second chance at making films.

Jules Dassin gave the filmworld and its ever growing audiences a masterpiece of influential proportions. His handling of the material is exceptional and direction of the actors is flawless. Builds up tense situations with precise craftsmanship. Dassin came full circle in the Film Noir genre by directing his best and last Noir, Rififi(1955). Marked the end of Dassin's period in filmmaking when he was involved in doing Noir pictures.

Rififi(1955) is the number one film in an arsenal of thirty plus films for director, Jules Dassin. A masterpiece in acting, cinematography, directing, editing, and writing. Not a film to leave your seat for one minute because there is always something memorable going on. As brilliant as anything by Jean Pierre Melville who was a master of this type of film. Masterpieces such as Rififi(1955) are relatively small compared to the probably billions of films made in motion picture history.

The one fascinating aspect of Rififi is the precise planning and careful execution of a robbery that takes up a bulk of the 118 minute duration. The main characters plan and execute the jewel heist in the same way a film director prepares for the pre-productions, production, and post-production of a film. Shows how difficult a Jewel heist like in Rififi(1955) is in committing and why very few would do something like it. The fact that the scene hardly contains a mess up like in other heist films turns this scene into something even greater. Close as one can get to having a perfect sequence in a motion picture.

Lack of unnatural sound in the landmark thrity minute heist sequence puts it in a realm of absolute realism. Any dialogue or\/and music would ruin any suspense and tension the director is trying to create. The use of natural sound makes the heist sequence a rewarding film viewing experience. Now Filmmakers and producers would use dialogue and music in a scene like this because of a lack of confidence of a mainstream filmgoer's patience. Sustains a level of consistency that never once lets down.

Maintaining a high level of suspense is what makes the heist sequence tick to perfection. The director achieves suspense in the heist sequence that's rarely equaled in most robbery scenes from heist films. Jean Servais and the rest of the main actors contribute to the suspense with some low key acting. Getting suspense put in a scene is a task few are capable of doing. The robbery sequence of Rififi(1955) reaches a Hitchcockian level of suspense and tension.

Many filmmakers from the years following Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes(1955) have been influenced if not inspired by it. One filmmaker influenced was Jean Pierre Melville(original choice for director of Rififi)who used variations of the heist sequence in Le Doulos(1961), and Le Cercle Rouge(1970). Another filmmaker influenced was Stanley Kubrick who made a similarly themed film in The Killing(1956). Also, Quentin Tarantino whose debut feature Reservoir Dogs(1992) was inspired by this film. Other film directors influenced are John Woo, Michael Mann, Paul Schrader, Ringo Lam, etc...

Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes(1955) is comparable to Bob le Flambeur(1955) in many ways. One, Jules Dassin and Jean Pierre Melville directed groundbreaking films in Rififi(1955) and Bob le Flambeur(1955). Two, each film involves an aging criminal who plans and carries out a daring heist. Three, Bob le Flambeur and Rififi finishes in fatalistic fashion. Four, each film shares many motifs and situations that classify the two as film greats.

Part of Rififi's charm are the colorful characters that surround the story such as Tony le Stephanois, Jo le Suedois, Mario Farrati, and Cesar le Milanais. Most of the violence is implicit yet effectively brutal. The main characters led by Tony le Stephanois abide by a strong outdated code of honor that is remindful of Sam Peckinpah and John Woo. Jean Servais becomes the role of Tony le Stephanois with his cynical outlook and tired looks. Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes\/Rififi(1955) became a favorite of mine the moment I saw it on the big screen from beginning to end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rififi deservedly gets a lot of mention for the famous heist scene, and, indeed, that scene deserves all the credit it gets. It's a masterful piece of suspense, character interaction and photography. But Rififi isn't just this one scene - every scene in the film is as masterfully put together, and as a whole, the film is not only taught with suspense, plot and character, but an adroitly told moral tale that set the scene for film noire for years to come.

Cinematically and technically, the heist sequence may be the most impressive scene of the film, but for me, it's the final scene that holds the most power - Tony le St\u00e9phanois's hallucinogenic drive towards redemption.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"RIFIFI (Jules Dassin - France 1955)

To me, it seems a very risky idea to attempt a Hollywood-remake of Jules Dassin's 1955 classic RIFIFI. Planned for release in 2007, Al Pacino apparently is gonna play the lead, taking on the role of Tony le Stephanois. Risky business... How they're gonna pull this off?

Ironically, Dassin was blacklisted in Hollywood and went on to try his luck in France and made this little masterpiece, aptly called by some \"The Grandddady of all caper- and heist movies\". In my opinion, it remains a one-of-a-kind classic, beautifully filmed with one of the most memorable endings ever to be put on film. Whatever one's opinion of the film.

In the last couple of years RIFIFI has become dangerously overpraised. Nevertheless, this French noir-classic shouldn't be forgotten. Go see it, before the remake is out there, in order to have some ammunition for comparing the two.

Camera Obscura --- 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I see alot of movies at the cinema (103 so far this year) and I have to say that this is by far and away the best film I have seen this year, even though it was released back in 1954!

I sat in awe and watched this work of genius and felt quite ashamed that I had never even heard of it before my local art house cinema decided to show it for a week on what looked like a new print.

The best part of the whole movie has to be the 28 minute break in where there is no speech and no music, merely the sound of the men carrying out the heist. Pure quality.

Although really dark in places it is lightened with the dry humour.

Not many films score 10 out of 10 but this does and also gets a gold star for effort!!

If you ever get a chance to see this movie, please do not hesitate, it's a classic.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After five years in prison, Tony le St\u00e9phanois (Jean Servais) meets his dearest friends Jo (Carl M\u00f6hner) and the Italian Mario Ferrati (Robert Manuel) and they invite Tony to steal a couple of jewels from the show-window of the famous jewelry Mappin & Webb Ltd, but he declines. Tony finds his former girlfriend Mado (Marie Sabouret), who became the lover of the gangster owner of the night-club L' \u00c2ge d' Or Louis Grutter (Pierre Grasset), and he humiliates her, beating on her back and taking her jewels. Then he calls Jo and Mario and proposes a burglary of the safe of the jewelry. They invite the Italian specialist in safes and elegant wolf Cesar (Perlo Vita) to join their team and they plot a perfect heist. They are successful in their plan, but the D. Juan Cesar makes things go wrong when he gives a valuable ring to his mistress.

\"Du Rififi Chez les Hommes\" is a magnificent film-noir, certainly among the best I have seen. The screenplay has credibility, supported by an awesome direction of Jules Dassin, stunning performances of the cast and great cinematography. Jean Servais has outstanding performance in the role of a criminal with principles guided by the underworld rules. The famous long silent sequence of the heist is amazing and extremely tense and certainly among the best ones of the cinema history. I am listing this great movie in my list of favorite movies ever. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): \"Rififi\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Or vice-versa.

This is a French film noir directed by an American film maker (Jules Dassin) who had to leave the country because of being blacklisted by Hollywood thanks to HUAC. The premise of the story is rather familiar--one last jewel heist for Tony le Stephanois and his buds--and so is the ending with everybody getting... Well, no spoilers here, for sure, since this is the sort of film in which tension toward the ending is important.

Dassin filmed in realistic lighting in black and white on the streets of Paris using actors and actresses who are not glamorous. The engaging--sometimes intruding--score by Georges Auric nicely enhances the movie and will remind viewers of many a similar score from American film noirs from the forties and early fifties. Jean Servais plays the hardcore, consumptive lead in a fedora much as Humphrey Bogart might have played him. Tony's recently out of prison, past his prime, but still tough and decisive when he has to be, his mind still sharp when focused, the kind of anti-hero whose eyes water even though the tears will never fall.

Dassin plays the Italian safecracker and would-be ladies man who knows the rules but gets careless.

In film noir we are forced by the logic and focus of the film to identify with the bad guys. Often there are levels of bad guys, the \"good\" bad guys we are identifying with and the \"bad\" bad guys who are out to do in our good bad guys, and then maybe there's a really bad, bad bad guy or two. (Here we have Remi Grutter, played by Robert Hossein, a slightly sadistic druggie.) Then there are the cops who are irrelevant or nearly so. In more modern film noir the bad guys are not even \"good\" bad guys, and they get away with it or something close to that. In the old film noir, which evolved from the gangster films of the thirties, the usual motto, following the old Hollywood \"code,\" was \"Crime Doesn't Pay,\" with every criminal having to pay for his or her crime before the end of the movie.

Probably the most impressive feature of Rififi is how nicely the film moves along. The plot unfolds quickly and seamlessly much the way the great film directors always did it, directors like Stanley Kubrick, Louis Malle, and the best of Hitchcock. Some have actually compared this to Kubrick's The Killing (1956) and suggest that Kubrick stole a little. Well, directors always steal if need be, and there are some perhaps telling similarities, such as it being \"one last heist\" for the protagonist, and having the girl gum up the works. The similarities may go deeper because as this film was nearing its end I suddenly thought, oh, no! the suitcase in the back seat is going to fly out of the convertible, hit the ground, burst open, and all the money is going to fly into the air! Those of you who have seen The Killing may recall what happened to the money near the end of the film! Which reminds me of another film with something bad happening to the money: Oliver Stone's U Turn (1997) starring Sean Penn. There the money in his backpack gets blown to smithereens by a shotgun blast. Ha, ha, ha! Getting the dubbed version of this film would be an act of sacrilege since the dialogue (when there is some: the heist itself is done entirely without dialogue, about 30 minutes worth) is terse and easy to follow requiring only an occasional glance at the subtitles, which, by the way, are quite utilitarian and guiding as opposed to having every word spelled out.

One other thing: all the brutality is done as sex used to be done in film, that is off camera. A guy gets his throat slit. We don't see it. I kind of like this approach. We don't have to see the gore. You could almost let your kids see Rififi--almost.

Catch this one now and be on the lookout for a Hollywood reprise starring Al Pacino and directed by Harold Becker coming out next year in which you can be sure that the violent scenes will be played out in full.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The minutiae of what's involved in carrying out a robbery is what makes this one of the best of all heist movies. Then there's the robbery itself, a wordless, thirty minute nail-biter that has never been surpassed, followed by what is probably the cinema's most pronounced example of dishonor among thieves as things begin to spectacularly unravel, and we have what is unquestionably the greatest of all heist movies.

This was a tough and unsentimental film when it first appeared in 1955 and it is just as tough and unsentimental today. (It displays some of the edgy brutality of Dassin's earlier \"Brute Force\"). There isn't a flabby moment or duff performance in the entire film and Dassin captures the milieu of seedy clubs and Parisian back streets like no-one else and the final drive through Paris by a dying man is one of the most iconic closing sequences of any movie. A classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a work of pure class from start to finish, for a moment forget the famous 28 minute no dialog heist, forget that it's set in Paris and forget it's Noir. The film itself, the premise and the execution make this a pure gold experience.. it's sharp intelligent and thought through in great detail, just like the heist itself. It portrays real characters that are not only believable but whom you empathize with. It's a film that doesn't glamorize the notion of a robbery but shows it for what it is.. theft. It shows that a heist is hard work and ultimately not worth doing. Now all things considered put on top of that a daring 28 minute sequence with not a word spoken and set in gorgeous Paris with truly great attention to detail and fantastic cinematography and that last scene ...when you look up and see those trees... wonderful use of raw and basic filming techniques... it is a master piece in my view and I'm glad to have seen it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If the caper genre owes a lot to Walter Huston, it also has a debt of gratitude to Jules Dassin, a man that was ahead of his times and who suffered a lot because of his blacklisting when Edward Dmytryk accused him of being a Communist. The end of his American career would have meant the end of Mr. Dassin, but moving to Europe proved he was bigger than the same people that had contributed to his Hollywood demise.

\"Rififi\" is an elegant film in which all the right elements come together thanks to Mr. Dassin's vision. He decided to adapt Auguste Le Breton's novel because he saw the possibilities for turning it into a caper film that became an instant classic. Jules Dassin was penniless in Paris when he discovered the city that were going to serve as the background to his film. The bad weather paid off for Mr. Dassin as the streets were always wet and not much had to be done to show them that way.

When we first meet Tony, he is playing cards. Tony appears to be in bad health; he coughs all the time and sweats profusely. After losing all his money, he goes to see Jo, the Swede, who tells him about a possibility for a robbery at Maupin & Webb, the fancy jewelry store at a tony section of Paris. They pass the idea through Mario, who suggests Cesar, the Milanese, an expert safe cracker.

Tony, who has come out of prison recently, learns that Mado, his former lover is now with Grutter, a creep that owns a night club. Upon confronting Mado, instead of love, all he feels is contempt, and the meeting ends badly and he throws her out of his place. Grutter has no love for Tony, who is his natural enemy because of his connection with Mado.

When the day arrives, the gang is able to get to the apartment building where on the second floor, right above the jewelry store, the owner lives, but he is away. Everything goes well and the gang gets away with the jewels. Cesar, the Milanese, a typical ladies' man, takes a ring as a souvenir, which in turn he gives the chanteuse at the Grutter's night club. This tactical mistake is the spark which unravels the well thought plan.

Jean Servais made an excellent Tony. He showed a tired man who was possibly doing his last robbery. Carl Mohner, Robert Manuel and the director, Jules Dassin, are seen as Jo, Mario and Cesar, the quartet jewelry thieves. Marie Sabouret plays Mado. Marcel Lupovici plays Grutter with a subdued intensity. Robert Hussein, who would go to direct movies later on, makes an impression with his Remi, one of Grutter's men.

The film best asset is the great camera work by Philippe Agostini, who captured the atmosphere of Paris and the locales where all these criminals operate from. Georges Auric's music plays well with the action in the film. Jules Dassin was peculiar in his choice of films that he directed, and unfortunately, that is our loss because this man was a genius as proved mainly with \"The Naked City\", \"Night and the City\" and \"Rififi\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As far as I am concerned, this film noir had two totally different things going for it as opposed to the film noirs I am used to viewing: 1 - the setting is Paris, France; 2 - there is 28-minute scene with no dialog.

Both make this movie a bit unique, at least to English-speaking film noir fans. Actually, an American, Jules Dussain, shot the film, so it's not entirely a European film. Initially, I was disappointed in this after I had watched the first 40 minutes. It's an expensive DVD and I was bored. However, once that silent segment started - the actual heist (you already know what's it about), the film picked up considerably and just got better and better.

In fact, I thought the best part of the story was what happened after the heist. The best aspect of the entire film was the cinematography. This is what makes the disc worth owning. It's excellent film noir photography and a real travelogue for those of us who have never seen Paris...and this is Paris in the mid 1950s. There are lots of bleak-but-interesting rain-soaked Paris streets and buildings I found fascinating to view. In fact, there were many more of those great shots than of London in the much better known film, The Third Man.

The lead actor in here, Jean Servais, I think his name is, also is interesting to view. Someone described his face as a cross between Humphrey Bogart and Harry Dean Stanton, and that sums it up perfectly. A warning for those not expecting profanity or nudity in a classic film. This is France, not the United States, so there is a little bit of both in here. I appreciate the DVD offering the choice of subtitles or a dubbed version, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Du rififi chez les hommes is a brilliant film which studies criminal minds and allows viewers to have a better understanding of criminals who are fundamentally not different from ordinary folks like us.What director Jules Dassin shows is that criminal do have families and they care a lot for them.That is why they adhere to a strict code of honor. For them a family is not only made up of wives,mistresses and children but also include casual acquaintances and close friends.Contrary to what many might find it hard to believe,Jules Dassin has not tried to glorify crime in his film as rififi makes it clear that crime never pays.It shows that all kinds of bad activities result in some kind of human loss.Apart from its philosophical stance Rifif is worth watching for its technical finesse.While watching one of the film's most brilliant sequences about breaking of a safe,one would find it hard to believe meticulous precision with which criminal minds execute their plans.This is a scene which nobody has dared to copy in Hollywood.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A recent re-issue of the French crime film (original title 'Du Rififi Chez les Hommes'), with its famous 20-minute silent jewel heist sequence, now comes in the US in a gorgeous new print from The Criterion Collection with improved subtitles and some extras. Jules Dassin was an American (born Julius Dassin in Middletown Connecticut) who was forced to make films in Europe because he was Blacklisted. Rififi was well publicized in the US and did well in art houses. Later Dassin became a lot more famous in the US for 'Never on Sunday' (1960) starring his wife, the Greek actress and political activist Melina Mercouri. (Greece was again glamorized and popularized for Americans and others with Anthony Quinn in Mihalis Kakogiannis' 1964 'Zorba the Greek', which was even a big hit in Cairo.) The new Rififi DVD includes a recent interview with Dassin. I did not previously realize that one of the main robbers, Cesar the Milanese, was played by Dassin, who stepped in when the original actor became unavailable. He's one of the most memorable characters, a dandified Italian safe cracker who speaks no French.

Although this classic has all the trappings of French film noir--the black and white twilight world of well lit apartments, shiny black cars, men in suits, the nightclub scenes, including a dramatically filmed and lit title song performed at the club, the stony faces and the Gauloises in hand or mouth--I don't think it's as atmospheric or has quite as distinctive a style as Melville's films do. But there's the mesmerizing robbery, which still holds up today as a tour de force. It goes like clockwork, with a fine sense of craft and teamwork among the robbers. Some nosy cops are efficiently dealt with. Things quickly go wrong after they go home and distribute the loot when one of the players gets sloppy and gives a dame a ring with a million-dollar bangle in it. Has there ever been a heist film whose perps lived happily ever after?

It's the wordless heist sequence that guarantees this a special place, and Dassin, an American director who had an unusually varied and exotic career, deserves full credit for that. He took a novel so conventional he was going to reject it, and added some key elements that make it special. In the event, he couldn't pass on doing the adaptation: he needed the money too much. Jean Servais, who plays the lead character Tony le Stephanois, was an actor rather down on his luck. His grim face is perfect for the role. He was later to play the lead in Dassin's He Who Must Die (1957), which used French actors in Greece for a political tale. 'Topkapi' is a somewhat disappointing 1964 caper film (it pales compared to 'Rififi') that also got US distribution. It does have a good setting, but it's wasted, gone all bland and bright and prettified. Of Dassin's post-Hollywood oeuvre, 'Never on Sunday,' with its catchy theme song and charismatic heroine, is the popular choice (and won Best Film at Cannes 1960); 'He Who Must Die' the political choice; 'Rififi' the genre choice. An odd piece is his 'Phaedra' with Mercouri and Tony Perkins (1962). Purists of tough-guy Hollywood genre work would eschew these and favor Dassin's early films, which include a prison drama, 'Brute Force' (1947);a cop flick, 'The Naked City' (1948); and two hard core noirs, 'Thieves' Highway' (1949), and 'Night and the City' (1950). Personally I tend to like French noir and American neo-noir spinoffs better than the original American noir source material--hence my enduring fascination with 'Rififi'. But Dassin is rather unique in having not only made Hollywood noir but then going over to Paris and producing a memorable example of its Fifties French derivative.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing NAKED CITY and NIGHT AND THE CITY (which is still my favorite Dassin) I was more than excited to watch his \"Masterpiece\" (O-Word Criterion) RIFIFI.

Now i am a little bit disappointed about the story.

So I have at least these five questions in my mind:

1. In the final Countdown Louis Grutter shot from the inside a house the main Character Tony le St\u00e9phanois. He couldn't know if he is still alive or not, but he didn't care about it and ran directly after it outside the house (with the money) to reach his car. So of course Tony wasn't dead and shot him. BIG QUESTIONMARK.

2. In another important scene the specialist in safes Cesar gave directly after the robbery as a present a diamond ring (which was a part of the robbery) a Woman which was working for Louis Grutter in a night bar. Stupid, because before this character wasn't THAT stupid. And of course Louis knew directly that Tony planned the jewel robbery. SMALL QUESTIONMARK.

3.After the Gangsters behind Louis Grutter murder Mario Ferrati and his wife,Tony and his best friend Joe planned a revenge against Louis gang. At the same time they don't care for the security of Joe's wife and his five years old child. Of course Louis gang kidnapped the son. CHEAP and SIMPLE.

4. The perfect heist: Of course this is the best 30min. long scene in the whole Plot, without any word spoken in the whole time, but was this a perfect heist?? Comparing with other movies which handle with this theme i could only smile when for example Tony was taken a fire-extinguisher to banned the alarm. Also too SIMPLE.

5. The Grutter gang went to the house of Mario, because they knew (however....) the jewels will be there. Then they murder Mario and his Wife. And then? They are not searching for it! NO. They ran directly out of the apartment. And more. They not observing the apartment after it so Tony can go after a while (which was the same day) inside to take the jewels. BIG QUESTIONMARK.

Over all: it's a good movie. Because of the brilliant 30min silent heist scene. Because of the very good cut (The end scene in the car through Paris is stunning) . Because of a very good actor called Jean Servais. Because of this Black\/White fever you will get while watching it. Because of some other reasons too other user wrote about, but please don't tell me this is a stunning story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In order to pull off a job like this caper in Rififi (e.g. The Score and its opines), one has to have nerves of steel. This one apparently demands and commands it. Jules Dassin is the master.

I was on the edge of my seat throughout. It deserves to be better known, even though it was not at the time of its release in 1954, due, one supposes, to the director being blacklisted in the hypocritical Hollywood of its day.

I would recommend this film to anyone who has not has the pleasure of seeing it.

I cannot give it enough stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I heard they were going to remake this French classic in 2007, and I see it is in development for 2011. This will be a shame, as Hollywood kicked writer\/director Jules Dassin out because of the infamous blacklist. They should not have the right to remake any of his films.

I love \"caper\" films and \"film noir,\" and this combines the best of both.

Tony (Jean Servais) gets out after doing a nickle, and after he beats up his old girlfriend (Marie Sabouret), he plans a big score with his friends Mario (Robert Manuel) and Jo (Carl M\u00f6hner), What makes this a great caper flick is the attention to detail in planning the robbery. You see that reflected in the George Clooney Vegas capers. Nothing is left to chance.

The caper goes off great but Grutter (Marcel Lupovici) sends his sons, Robert Hossein and Pierre Grasset after Tony and the gang. After blowing it with Mario, they kidnap Jo's son. Lots of bullets fly before it is over.

A great film by a great director. The standard by which other caper films are measured.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The fact that after 50 years, it is still a highly watchable movie, says a lot about it. It is more intelligent and interesting than almost all recent movies of the same genre you can find, and has a certain endearing feeling of innocence to it. I am not a big fan of this type of movies, but I could watch the whole thing without being bored, which makes it a good movie to watch with someone who does not necessarily share your taste in films. I liked the black and white palette, the excellent casting, the clever heist scene that keeps you guessing about what trick they will pull next, and the ending like everyone else. Watching the heist sequence makes one realize the power of silence, which is unfortunately so underused in today's cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been wanting to see this since my French teacher recommend it to me over forty years ago. Perhaps the long wait was worth it, since the Criterion Collection DVD restoration is impressive.

In its outline this movie follows the time-worn script: a quartet of men diligently plot a difficult heist of a bank vault, the heist takes place, a small seemingly insignificant event leads to the ultimate demise of all. Even though the heist footage is transfixing, it occurs rather early and is ultimately not at the core of the film. This film separates itself from the typical heist movie by giving us insights into the personalities of the characters and their motivations - its plays as much as a drama as it does a thriller. Relationships play a big role and a kidnapping is tacked on, giving us two movies for the price of one.

John Servais plays the idea man Tony le St\u00e9phanois (always referred to as \"le St\u00e9phanois\") with such world-weariness that he could have just stepped out of a Camus novel. Tony has just recently gotten out of jail and resists re-entering the life of crime until he has a highly unpleasant interaction with his ex-lover (who has taken up with another man) where, as punishment, he physically whips her with a belt. Thankfully that scene occurs off camera, but you are not likely to forget it. After that sobering event, since there seems little hope of reviving that relationship, Tony meets with two of his old partners in crime, Jo and Mario, and decides to join them in one last big heist. They enlist the services of Cesar, an Italian safe cracker - played by director Dassin himself - and we are off to the heist.

The heist goes off without a hitch. But Cesar's womanizing bent is a personality trait that turns out to be fatal for all concerned. However, we can understand his attraction to the nightclub singer he has fallen for, since there is a brilliant set piece where she performs a sexy and cinematically inspired nightclub act - it has to be one of the most memorable scenes from any noir film.

It is established early on that Tony has a close relationship with Jo and his family; in fact Jo's son refers to him as uncle. I think it is partly to help Jo's family that Tony agrees to the heist. The ending scenes, where Tony saves the life of Jo's kidnapped son, partially redeems his more brutal and amoral actions. But only partially.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent documentary about a story I hadn't heard about before. The first solo, non-stop sailing race around the world took place in 1968-69 and involved a handful of racers. It's a truly fascinating story about man vs. nature and man vs. himself. The story focuses on Donald Crowhurst, the tragic figure in this story. The film elegantly combines interviews with footage which was shot by the sailors themselves aboard their boats. The story is very suspenseful and sad as we learn the details behind the history of Donald Crowhurst. This is one of the best documentaries of the past few years. It has true human emotion in it as the men face this almost impossible task of navigating the world non-stop on their own.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"well-made documentary about a sailing race, sanity and the loss of both.

i remembered reading Sir Francis Chichester's account of his trip around the world when i was in high school as i watched this film. what an adventure that was.

deep water tells an equally fascinating story.

it takes a special person and an excellent sailor to manage a non-stop trip around the world...alone.

this film does a great job of demonstrating that.

i love to sail, and my brother races J-30s.

but i could never accomplish such a feat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie on TV and loved it! I am a real disaster film fan, and this one was great. The cast was made of some really interesting people. Connie Selleca is always great. And William Devane is in a league of his own. He can play both comedy and thriller in the same movie like few others can. The story line is great too. The thought of being able to follow a time line of what will happen, and to use this time line to prevent a global disaster is an interesting idea. And this movie brings it out in such a way that is almost totally believable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is definitely one of the ultimate cult classics, and is a must see for all psychotronic fans. Why? It has everything a great 70s exploitation film should have. Over-the-top dialog, bad acting, enthusiasm, sex, sleaze, political incorrectness, violence, and many other elements of a good cult classic are included. In other words, Dolemite is a must-see.

As with a lot of these films, the plot makes little to no sense. What I picked up from it is that pimp-hustler Dolemite got framed up for having stolen furs and half a million dollars worth of narcotics. While he was doing time, his arch nemesis Willie Green (the same man who framed him) took over his nightclub. However, the sympathetic warden (the only white character in the whole movie that isn't completely evil or incompetent) decides to spring him free to stop the evil Willie Green and his drug trafficking. Luckily, he knows kung fu, as does about 50 to 75% of the characters in this film do. And even more luckily, while he was locked up, the madam Queen Bee sent all his \"hoes\" to kung fu school. With this army of kung fu fighting \"hoes\" (his words, not mine) on his side, he plans to take back the nightclub from Willie Green. However, two racist white cops try to frame him up again and have him thrown back in jail.

As I said earlier, don't try to follow the plot. I've seen this movie about five times and there are many elements that seem to have no connections to anything else. Supporting characters wander in and out of the film. I'm still attempting to figure out what was up with Reverend Gibbs, the Mayor, and the Hamburger Pimp. Who cares ultimately? The scenes with these characters are all priceless. As for the dialog, its horrible with even worse delivery. Since Rudy Ray Moore was originally a comedian, I begin to wonder if this film was meant to be a spoof or a serious action film. It seems he couldn't decide which one. Lines such as \"Yeah, I'm so bad, I kick my own ass twice a day\" call for further investigation. Either way, the film is hilarious, and the plot has more holes than a swiss cheese factory. Another hilarious element is some of the most unerotic uses of sex and nudity ever in film. Actors that you would never want to see naked get naked (including the Mayor and Queen Bee). Not to mention the fact that the boom mic seems to show up in every other scene.

Most of all, Moore shows incredible enthusiasm. He seems to be having a generally good time and is certainly charismatic. His comedy raps proved to be a huge influence on latter day gangsta rap, including Dr. Dre who sampled him on his groundbreaking 1992 album \"The Chronic\". As technically inept as the film is, it is culturally influential. Even more important, it is an all around good time. The biggest crime an exploitation film can commit is being boring, and this for all its flaws is quickly paced and entertaining. In other words, if you dig this kind of film, you'll love \"Dolemite\". If you don't dig it, you're a \"no-business, born-insecure, jock-jawed motha-f***a!\" (7\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a trip down memory lane.

Do not look for great acting, believable plot lines, or anything resembling a quality movie.

This is pure blaxploitation at it's finest. Outrageous outfits, unrepeatable dialog, objectification of women, and the sleaziest cops you can imagine.

This vanity piece by the \"Godfather of Rap,\" Rudy Ray Moore, who left us for good last week is the standard by which all blaxploitation is measured.

You not only see blaxploitation at it's finest, but get glimpses of his comedy genius, and see why his records were kept under the counter.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dolelemite (1975) is a cult classic. Starring Rudy Ray Moore as the pimp superhero out to wrong rights whilst challenging the MAN along the way. He has two enemies, that no good Willie Green and the sleazy mayor. Watch Dolemite kick, punch, slap and pimp his way across the screen. What's the man's name? DOLEMITE!

Interesting film that paved the way for a generation of rappers and performers. To sell more of his party albums, Rudy Ray Moore made several on the cheap films during the seventies. Self produced and marketed he catered towards a specific audience. Some people call it blacksploitation others call it trash, I call it entertaining. Dolemite was followed by the semi-sequel The Human Tornado and a direct to video Return of Dolemite 25 years later.

Highly recommended, a definite cult classic!

Footnotes, if the film was properly matted on video you wouldn't see the boom mikes. Dolemite was cut to receive an R-rating.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dolemite is, for me, an object of my deepest affection. It's got everything: a gang of karate-fighting prostitutes, Dolemite punching his fist through Willie Green's (director Martin) stomach, high pumps and 100 gallon dalmation-print hats. Moore's unique comedy raps, actually toasts, are close to the roots of hip hop. No wonder Dr. Dre mentioned \"Dolemite\" 3 times on his classic album \"The Chronic.\" Add the best list of characters to ever grace a movie, like the horny preacher, the hamburger pimp and, of course, \"the one who no one knows until it's time.\" Credit should be given for style to director D'Urville Martin, a fella who probly doesn't get as much attention as he should around film fan circles (I've been looking for a copy of his and Fred Williamsons' movies from the early 70s for years and can't find them).

A lot of people are really down on this movie and say it's really bad, and it is true that you can see boom mikes appearing everywhere (look to DP Nicholas Josef Von Sternberg, for whom I think this was a very early effort), there are a lot of things going for this movie. Number one, there is no other movie like it. Number two, you get to see Rudy Ray Moore do a (highly sanitized; everyone who HASN'T seen Moore's outrageous live act will have to use their imaginations) cinematic version of his toasts, plus him living the life of his comic book character superpimp come to life. The action scenes are pretty poor, but the characters' dialogue when they're talking trash more than makes up for it. It's full of strange little details (like the fact that the Hamburger Pimp is wearing a Dolemite T-shirt inside out -- was this intentional or did the guy just pick up whatever shirt was lying on the set and put it on?) that keep you coming back to watch it again and again.

At least I have.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a bit of a connoisseur of garbage, I have stumbled across this little treasure. Action, romance, crooked cops, violence. Its all here and not a single one has been pulled of right. I was in love immediately. Then, a funny thing happened about the second time around. I became addicted. I thought it was going to be a one rent and chuckle kind-of-movie.

Rudy Ray Moore knew what he wanted to see in a movie. He didn't have the money to make it look good, but he did it anyway. That's very commendable. It also shows he was making the movie for his self. I don't know how many of you have heard Rudy Ray's music, but if you haven't he has a whole slew of albums reaching into the fifties.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A blaxploitation classic, this movie was terribly influential in rap music for the \"toasts\" that Rudy Ray Moore performs. Toasts are long rhyming stories that are funny and deliver a point, and you can see how they would naturally evolve into rap. For more on toasts, Rudy Ray Moore, and why this movie is important, go to Dolemite.com.

Which leaves us just to talk about the movie itself. This movie packs in a great deal of \"laugh-at-the-funny-outfits-and-hairstyles\" bang for the buck, as nearly every shot has some sort of outrageous element or dialogue. It starts as Dolemite is being released from prison in order to find out who framed him and bring him to justice. I was unaware that prisons release people so they can prove their own innocence, but that's me, I'm a neophyte in the prison scene. He is helped in this by Queen Bee, who is Dolemite's lead prostitute and has been running his brothel while he's been gone. She has also put all of his prostitutes through karate school, so now he has an army of female karate fighters.

I watched this movie in two parts, which is usually a mistake, but in this case it provided an interesting contrast. The first part I watched on my lunch break while exercising, and wasn't enjoying it much at all. It struck me as particularly poorly made blaxploitation, with a ludicrous story, shoddy craftsmanship\u0097well, I guess that makes it sound like it had SOME craftsmanship\u0097and tons of outrageous locales, outfits and dialogue. But I wasn't enjoying that\u0097in fact, it kind of made me feel dirty. Let's face it, a white guy watching something like this to laugh at the outfits and the things the characters say is essentially getting an enjoyment out of it that is racist: how ridiculously those black people dress, what silly things they say. I wasn't really enjoying it, wasn't laughing, and wasn't looking forward to watching the rest.

Later that night, when I was in a \"much more relaxed state,\" I watched the rest\u0097and legitimately loved it. Like Disco Godfather, which I had watched a few days previously, this has a warmth and sweetness at its core that makes it likable even when it's silly or violent. The character of Dolemite has an element of self-parody about him that makes the whole thing fun, and the appearance of several actors who were also in Disco Godfather implies that we're watching the group effort of a bunch of friends who just want to make something fun together. Even the poor dubbing, karate fights, and everything else just makes it that much more charming.

What I find interesting about the Dolemite films is that they have some moral ambiguity I don't see in other blaxploitation films, and certainly in very few mainstream films. In this one, there is an African-American woman who gives a speech about the (white) Mayor, saying \"he has done more for the black community than anyone.\" We later find out that the Mayor is, surprise, corrupt, but I like that the movie would present this woman as essentially misguided and not try to \"redeem\" her in some other way. There's also the figure of the Hamburger Pimp, who is presented as a useless junkie, and no one makes an effort to find some redeeming, socially positive angle to what he is, he just is. In Disco Godfather the religious character Lady Reed plays is presented as just nuts for wanting to pray for her child, hopelessly lost to angel dust. I like that the films would present such harshly critical portrayals of people in their own community without sugar-coating or trying to redeem them to make them more palatable.

There are a lot of hootworthy elements, such as when Dolemite says \"Move over and let me pass, or I'm gonna be pulling these Hush Puppies out your muthatf** a**.\" There is Queen Bee reaching over and answering the phone: \"Dolemite's Total Experience.\" And you will not be able to miss (though you may wish to cover your eyes) the extended nude scene by the REPULSIVE Mayor. I am all for mustachioed pervy older men, but even I have limits\u0097-and my limits are usually a few miles past most people's, so be warned. The DVD I had is clearly edited, which is noticeable in certain of the dialogue scenes, and at the end, when Dolemite's killing of a major character with his bare hands obviously excludes the main event.

If you do get the DVD, however, be sure to watch all three trailers for the Dolemite films, as they are a hoot. I wasn't going to watch The Human Tornado, but after seeing that trailer, you'd better BELIEVE that I am. Also, there is a scene in the Dolemite trailer that I don't remember from the movie when Dolemite swings at a Mexican-looking thug, obviously misses, and the guy flips himself into a nearby car trunk.

After watching the first half, I was going to say to skip this and watch Disco Godfather, as the film-making and story has marginally improved, but after really enjoying the second half, I would advise watching this one over Disco Godfather, as this one is even more exuberantly fun, outrageous, and good-natured\u0097and has those toasts which, even if one doesn't understand the roots and nuances of the form, are still something to see.

--- Check out other reviews on my website of bad and cheesy movies, Cinema de Merde, cinemademerde.com","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dolemite is a blaxploitation film about, well, Dolemite and his army of kung fu killer women, led by Queen Bee. He fights to get his club, The Total Experience, back from Willie Green by utilizing their kung fu abilities and their devotion to him. I liked this movie because of the witty dialogue and also the use of Rudy Ray Moore's ability to preach to his brothers in rhyme.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dolemite is awesome. Rudy Ray Moore's rhymin kung fu pimp with horrible choreographed action sequences is about as close as you can get to becoming a spoof of a genre without actually being spoof. Citizen Kane this may not be nor Les Infant Au Revoir, but this is undoubtedly genius in it's own right. The production values in this movie are so bad they could qualify as existential special effects. The plot drags a little in the middle but the power of such a cheap premise as kung fu hookers is enough to bring all but the snootiest film lovers through. The infamous ever present boom mike evokes shades of the gloriously incompetent Ed Wood and never grows unfunny. I sometimes wonder if the boom mike was left in on purpose as commentary on the ridiculous aspects of movies in general but i usually get distracted by erotic scenes that lack eroticism to the point of high art mundanacity. Everything is this movie is alive and breathing, dripping with desperate longing to be simultaneously loved and reviled. It works.

9 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yeah...I read David Lee Roth's autobiography, \"Crazy From the Heat,\" (which by the way is an amazing read), and DLR says this was his favorite blacksploitation movie as a kid. In fact, he says he always imagined himself as a black guy in Southern Cal. Mr Roth is quoted as saying:

\"We saw every Blacksploitation picture, and those movies were a HUGE influence on me. Trouble Man, Superfly, Foxy Brown, Shaft, Cleopatra Jones, Blacula, Rudy Ray Moore doin' his Dolemite vibe-I saw all of those...\"

He goes on to say:

\"Dolemite - Rudy Ray Moore - was one of the originals. He was a blue comic, doing blue humor. Like Redd Foxx did on early party records. So he was the most perfect to play a new secret agent. His answer was not \"Bonds. James Bond.\" His answer was \"Dolemite, motherf*****!\" We would wait for that line in all of his movies. \"Get Whitey\" would show up in every single movie at least once, and we would wait for that, too. They had the cars. They had the shoes. They had the guns. The Haircuts. The Slang. And the scams. And we all knew that all those beatific resolves at the end of the movie were white bull****. He's trying to feed hungry children but he's actually a pimp...bull****. That was designed to make it palatable to our moms and dads so they'd let us go see the picture.\"

Spoken like a true genius. So upon reading about Dolemite in Mr. Roth's book I immediately bought in on DVD and I really like it. Yeah, it's super low-budget, and yeah...I hate rap...but as a fan of Tarantino movies, I can see many similarities, especially some of the 70's fusion\/funk ala-jaco pastorius music throughout the film. I also love the scene where the two cops 'bust' him for coke and then one of them snorts a whole bunch of it like he'd done it a thousand times before, and says something like, \"Aww yeah....that's the real mccoy!\"...and then he continues to talk and has a little bit of coke still on his lip. CLASSIC! Some of the violence is a little over the edge, but shocking, which I would consider to be a positive quality. Not as predictable as I assumed it would be. Definitely going to pick up \"The Human Tornado\" very soon. 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rudy Rae Moore is getting out of prison and getting revenge! Often referred to as the Godfather of Rap, he should also be the Godfather of great movies. The non-stop action will keep you on the edge of your seat and will leave you begging for more. Luckily, Rudy comes back as Dolemite in Human Tornado, so sit back relax, and have the rewind button ready because you won't believe your eyes!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of course, seeing a few boom mikes doesn't mean anything, does it? Lord, Rudy Ray Moore and D'Urville Martin really put this one together didn't they? I laughed a lot, as often happens in these types of movies, but I don't know what I was supposed to laugh at because I laughed at so many other things. I am not saying the movie was bad, but I will say that a little more editing would have done wonders. I am a huge fan of Blaxploitation, so I don't think that it was horrid, but I know that \"The Human Tornado\" was several times better than this. I think that those who can make it through this movie might need a Colt 45 or two afterward. I mean, it really helps you to not notice the boom mikes when you watch it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Certainly this film is not for everybody---but for anyone with a sense of humor and love of period film \u00d0 buy this immediately! Where else can you get a run down of 70\u00d5s fashion, a period vocabulary primer, karate trained hookers, crime, a rap about the Titanic\u00d5s sinking, shoot outs, and a co-star named Queen Bee (watch for her moving crying scene early on in the wardens office!) With a filming style that\u00d5s a cross between a porno movie\/Dawn of The Dead\/ and Car Wash, you cannot go wrong. This is one to watch over and over again\u00c9after you put the kids to bed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Citizen Kane....The Godfather Part II....D'Urville Martin's Dolemite. This is the single greatest piece of celluloid ever created and unleashed upon humanity. Rudy Ray Moore, in a role that transcends Academy Awards stars as Dolemite, the baddest cat in the universe. He clearly does not take any jive from no turkey (I myself am unfortunately a turkey) and proves it with his powers of rapping, pimping, and karate chopping. This is blaxploitation at its absolute finest, a shining example of the genre with its low budget, continuity errors, and hatred for rat-soup eating honkey expletive expletive. The true Godfather of Rap (not this new Ali nonsense) Moore is something of a juxtaposition of acting technique; somehow managing to be the most charismatic awful actor of the 1970's, and thats saying something. This one is HIGHLY recommended folks, if not for the one-liners alone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dolemite is one of the best movies featuring a pimp as a hero, who takes down the man, meanwhile hooking up with all the finest women that the ghetto has to provide. Mind you that these women know karate, and are fine foxy ladies.

SPOILER--the end fight scene is pretty crazy, with Dolemite ripping the heart out of Willy Green. Make sure your copy is unrated.

Plus there are a cast full of innovative brilliant characters like the Hamburger Pimp, Reverend, Mayor, Queen Bee, and others. The apparel is great, and the sets are full of 70's style. There are a few mess-ups in the production, such as boom mikes accidentally appearing, among other things, but that adds to the charm and laughs.

I would recommend drinking a 6-pack before and during this movie, and keeping squares and the man a far distance away.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dolemite may not have been the first black exploitation flick to come along but it certainly is one of the best. It is a pivotal film in the Black Exploitation genre as where it caused a dramatic shift between the films that came before it in contrast to the films that came after it. It wasn't necessarily a poignant or moving film about black culture and it's fight to overcome issues like racism or anything as important as that, but it was the story of one bad-assed dude fighting \"whitey\" with his army of hot kung-fu mama's. It was a guilty pleasure, great fun and best to watch it with friends. (10 out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is all about blaxploitation, there is absolutely no plot at all. A pimp stops some bad guys with his kung fu hoes to try to get his nightclub back. Rated R for Strong Language, and a brief sexual situation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The various Law & Order and CSI franchises had better be glad Dolomite doesn't pass through. The lady cops,ADAs,and coroners would all be enthralled and the males be subject to such soul shivering,badge melting warp speed kicks ( Wouldn't you just love to see David Caruso's Horatio and that know it all on CSI get Dolomite's Hush Puppies pulled from their respective asses)Ice T might start crying and get back on the Playa Trail.

Low low budget,bad but enthusiastic acting,and a vision at what gutbucket nightclubs offered to its patrons;funk bands soul singers,the last vestiges of old style Chitlin Circuit entertainers( that weirdling dance troupe)James Brown,Wilson Pickett,Otis Redding,and a host of others came from those clubs to glory, while their peers labored on in local or regional stardom. Rudy Ray Moore came from that background and the character of Dolomite is a mix of the bold Black badasses who strutted through. He shouldn't have went to the joint, the swine didn't have a warrant, how his middle aged ,blubbery self maintained a loyal stable of kung fu wenches is a mystery only a student of cults can explain, but all that is beside the point. It's a glorious home movie of a legendary performer that compared to the mirrors of actors ranging from Established Hollywood to indie film snorefests,hits its mark. A fun dumb movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anybody interested what black film making was like in the 70's watch this film. Some the dialog in this film is so funny IE the summary of my submission. Also watch out for the boom mic to show up in some of the scenes as well as some of the best karate action ever. Don't take this movie seriously or you will be disappointed, go into it with an open mind and step into the world of one the the baddest mutha in the world Dolemite!!! Editing wise its put together like it was sliced with a razor but once again this film is so much more than what you see in the movie it has influenced the black community in ways you cant understand!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, this is one of the greats of the black action genre. Confusing mixture of racist comedy and racist violence (at times reaching a disturbing pitch, even for a fan of the genre) this movie isn't your Shaft in the park. Wonderful bits of Rudy Ray Moore comedy stand up that don't seem funny, at least not to a white boy like me, but great in context. Much better than its dissimilar sequel, \"The Human Tornado\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best so-bad-it's-good movie ever made. Rudy Ray Moore is my personal hero. Whether dealing with day to day life or pimping ho's down the block, I can always look to him for inspiration and guidance. When it comes to blaxploitation, Rudy's the man. Nobody is meaner. Watch Dolemite as he and his army of all-female kung fu killers take down Mr. Big and Willie Green. Awesome plot, huh? There are so many one-liners that multiple viewings are necessary to improve your vocabulary. If you say a couple of lines from Dolemite, you are instantly cool. If you are in the mood for a laugh riot, rent this movie. Also check out The Human Tornado, Disco Godfather, and Petey Wheatstraw the Devil's Son-In-Law. Now, can you dig that?

\"You no business barring, insecure, rat soup-eating, motha!!'\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is funny in more ways than one. It's got action. It's got humour. It's got attitude. It's got Dolemite's all girl army of kung-fu hos! And that's just what the movie offers as a film. It's also badly acted by some, the mic makes more than one cameo appearance, and some \"punches\" miss by feet. But when you make a movie this cool, who's got time to pay attention to those \"details\"? This movie rocks. Rent it tonight, if you can find it... I had to buy it to see it, but I don't regret it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you watch this movie you'll be quoting it and referring to it for a long time to come. It's been years since I saw Dolemite and I still quote it to this day. It's a true classic. It is so mind-numbingly awful that it makes a hilarious view. Every terrible line of dialogue is totally amazing. Every wobbly shot a work of art(?). And every punch and kick so woefully executed. You won't believe your eyes. It's all I can say. If I really get into how mesmerizing this movie is I won't be able to stop and I'll go way over the IMDb 1000-word limit.

Please, please watch this movie. You'll be in hysterics. Either 1\/10 or 10\/10, depending on your sense of humor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I find this film meretricious, tentative, lethargic, and skillfully a bad choice of entertainment on celluloid. But I admire the courage to throw away a script, turn the camera on, and act a fool. I find the inauspiciously performances, lighting, cinematography, sound, and whatever film school laws D' Urville Martin broke funny. Speaking from a film directors perspective there is times I just want to drop everything and have fun on the set. This film looks like fun. When other aspiring film directors ask me advice I just tell them to watch any film by Rudy Ray Moore. They always return a puzzled look asking me why not watch the masters Woody Allen, Scorsese, Lucas, Capra? I laugh and include that you always want to know what not to do in cinematic story telling first.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was fortunate enough to catch a midnight screening of this movie tonight. I must say, I was expecting a horribly cheap movie with bad acting and a mediocre plot. I was completely mistaken. This movie was not only incredibly entertaining, but everything about it I simply loved. Bruce Campbell was as amazing as ever. The biggest surprise was none other than Ted Raimi, you know, Sam's little brother. He played the mad doctor's henchman to the greatest extent. Somewhere between physical comedy and clever dialogue, he did nothing but shine. But i really cannot ignore the magic that is Bruce Campbell. Though I did think that Ted Raimi stole the show, Bruce did what he does best on the big screen. Somewhere between the sketchy nasty American business man and the tragic victim, he displayed the same energy that he has always shown to be incredibly attractive to audiences. The movie itself was often interrupted by applause from the viewers. The crowd was definitely excited with each little turn that the movie took.

This movie may not be Oscar material, but my goodness, it was amazing. I would highly recommend this to any Bruce Campbell fan. Also, anybody that likes campy sci-fi movies, do yourself a favor and watch this. Can't wait till this makes it out to DVD.

Take it as you want to....

- the fed","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know what some people were thinking when they said this movie was bad. It Was Great. Classic Bruce Campbell, yes it was low budget and the special effect showed this but that is not what you see a Bruce movie for you watch it for Bruce. Also Ted Rami was excellent. I found this movie hilarious and entertaining I still crack up when I recall Bruce on that pink moped. Now I will admit this movie is not for everyone if you don't like B movies you probably won't like this one if you crave big budget effects and actors steer clear. But if you like slap stick and off the wall sci-fi plots this movie is for you.

Hail The King Baby!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went to see this movie at a book signing in Lexington, Ky last night. After a wonderful night that consisted of a few brief words with Mr. Bruce Campbell (you have to say it all, not just Bruce or Mr. Campbell ;D), friends while the books were being signed, and a QnA session with our favorite deadite killer the lights dimmed.

So as not to spoil anything, I wont go into detail...but I loved the movie! Mr. Bruce Campbell did a wonderful job keeping the classic b-movie feel. The characters were classic 'b' characters, the place was refreshing (what movies do *you* know of that are based in Bulgaria?) and the setting was both near-original and fun! On top of that the humor that is portioned throughout the movie that kept the audience laughing through much of the movie.

While this movie dosen't have as great of a general appeal to people as some, it is a beacon of fun and laughter in a season of (as Mr. Bruce Campbell put it) 'b-movies' that are listed as 'a-movies' (Bewitched, Dukes of Hazard, Charlie and the Chocolate factory? Come on guys!).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shot entirely on location in Bulgaria, The Man With The Screaming Brain is a hilarious love story between two rich ugly-American types and a murderous hotel maid gypsy.

William Cole and his wife Jackie arrive in Bulgaria on a business trip and catch a cab driven by hustler Yegor. Things start to go awry when Tatoya, the maid, murders Yegor and William and a mad scientist implants a piece of Yegor's brain in William's head. Robots eventually become involved, as do gypsies with broken fingers, head injuries, Bruce Campbell riding a pink Vespa with prissy little streamers, and All-Of-Me-style physical comedy by a character at war with a voice in his brain who controls half of his body.

The Man With The Screaming Brain is an incredibly funny film. It has the most hilarious tracking shot I have ever seen (when Bruce Campbell's character, fresh from the lab and complete with giant forehead scar and blue hospital pajamas, runs into a square and scares a crowd of people) and a falling-down-the-steps murder scene that had the entire test screening audience screaming laughing. The whole thing is a damn riot from beginning to end and I would recommend it to any fan of physical comedy, Bruce Campbell, or B-movies in general.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"These are the kinds of movies I loved, and still love growing up. Unlike big budget movies that crate huge plot holes and never acknowledge them. This movie takes in all in stride and just makes something you can sit back and enjoy.

There was some film student earlier that complained it wasn't A list material. But that is not the point. The point of this movie is that no everyone likes huge CGI Clich\u00e9' filled movies. There are a lot of people who like movies that are meant to just entertain you, and not get as much money as they can.

Besides, its also nice to know that good ol' Bruce isn't dead yet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw it last night and I was laughing out loud for the whole second half of the movie. The whole audience was. Bruce Campbell has made a damn funny movie! I don't want to give anything away, but when the film turns and gets wacky, it gets really wacky. Just one funny scene after another. My hats of to Mr. Campbell and crew for pulling this off on such a tiny budget. Bruce was there to introduce the film and do a Q and A, which was a treat. A lot of the questions people were asking were pretty lame, but Bruce would turn it around on them and be all sarcastic. He was great! Anyway, loved the film. I'll be looking forward to seeing this on DVD later this year. B sure to check it out on the Sci-Fi channel this fall. I highly recommend this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, so I love silly movies. If you enjoy silly sci-fi movies, over the top movies, or if you are a fan of Mr. Bruce Campbell, i would go see this movie. This movie is all that i wanted it to be. Being a fan of over the top movies, this fit the bill. Every time i thought to myself \"this movie would be the sillest, best movie ever if *blank* would happen....\" then just as i thought it, *blank* would happen. It's a wonderful silly 'b'-movie. If you are a fan of Campbell i'd say 'see it', bring your friends, laugh at it. It's fun. It's not classic, or anything, but if it's on TV some night, watch it. It has become, for me, a movie i would file under \"indulgent movies\". Movies that may not be good, but after a hard day of work, i could come home and watch, (this list also includes 'harold and kumar go to white castle', 'army of darkness', and ' Intolerable Cruelty' )

If you feel like a over the top, wonderfully slightly bad movie, watch this. if not, go rent \"Bubba Ho-tep\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is screamingly funny (well, except when Bruce is in the hospital scene, which is a little sad).

Ted Raimi and Stacy Keach are both excellent and worth watching.

Sure, it's not a big budget-suit controlled blockbuster, but it's everything it promises to be and more- and BTW- the women are wonderful in their parts, though I don't know them from other movies, I'd welcome seeing them again.

The two-brain walking scene is inspired and certainly a showcase for Bruce's outstanding physical comedy- he is one yummy guy!

Thanks Bruce, for your brain, this is your baby!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ah, classic comedy. At the point in the movie where brains get messed together, a two minute scene with Bruce Campbell beating himself up partially, reminds me of how simplistic movies and ideas can grab you and wrap you into a whole movie.

For years and years, Bruce Campbell knows what kind of movies we want out of him. We want to see weird movies like Bubba Ho Tep. We want to see cameo roles in Sam Raimi movies, and we want to see 'Man with the Screaming Brain'. With the title alone, one knows that it's going to border that completely silly type of movie, like Army of Darkness, only with more silly and less monsters.

The idea of the movie is simple. Bruce sees doctor. Doctor has new idea. Bruce gets bad things happen to him on way to see doctor. Coincidentally, it's the thing the doctor wanted to show him that saves him. Hilarity ensues.

With the addition of Ted Raimi as a weird Russian guy, and journeyman Stacy Keach as Dr. Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov, it's funny, that does this movie. Complete funny. Never a point of scary.

If you like the silly Bruce Campbell, you'll like this. Then again, why would you be watching this if you didn't like Bruce Campbell?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a funny movie. Just having seeing the Evil Dead trilogy not a week ago (and left wanting for more), I got as many Bruce Campbell movies as I could, including really bad ones. This one is funny, without being exceptional, but as sure as hell original.

I mean you've got mad scientists, superhuman cyborgs, half brain freaks, gypsies, ex KGB cab drivers, jealousy, murders of passion, love, romance, sex, action and what more, all with the same 6 actors :)

You really have to see it and enjoy it, I can't explain it in a text box. I guess it is not so much a cult movie as Evil Dead was, but it certainly has that Bruce Campbell touch I love. Ted Raimi lends a hand, Tamara Gorski looks both beautiful and interesting (she has gone a long way from the hooker in Friday the 13th) and Vladimir Kolev also shows a lot of promise as an actor, although he will probably be cast as secondary character in Hollywood movies his entire career.

Bottom line: funny movie. If you liked Evil Dead you'll like this, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this last week during Bruce Campbell's book tour. I thought it was amazing. Almost everything I would expect from a Bruce Campbell sci-fi movie. Its campy and very funny. Ted Raimi was also hilarious and extremely goofy. The plot is wacky, an American business man goes to Bulgaria and is killed. Stacy Keach plays a mad scientist who saves\/brings Bruce Campbell back to life by implanting half of the brain of an ex-KGB turned cabbie. Bruce Campbell spends the rest of the film trying to avenge his death and has many internal arguments between himself and the KGB agent. The movie has all the great Bruce Campbell slap stick and humor. The movie is somewhat predictable, I knew once the wife was killed that she would be sharing a brain with her killer. However I didn't go to see this movie because I thought it would have an Oscar winning script, I went to see it because it was a Bruce Campbell sci-fi movie and I was not disappointed in the least. I highly recommend that you go see him on his book tour or wait and watch it on the sci-fi channel next month. Although before the movie he said the Sci-Fi channel did cut some of the movie out to make it TV friendly. If you are a fan of Bruce, I highly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't seen so many people packed outside a theater since Star Wars Episode III. Both shows sold out, and for good reason. The Man With the Screaming Brain was the best movie to see with a crowd full of geeks. (Hey, I'm a dork too.)

Bruce Campbell was present and had the whole crowd in stitches! The movie was cheesy in the best possible way. It may be the funniest movie that Bruce has done. Ted Raimi steals the show with his Bulgarian hip hop-itude and zany facial expressions, he is a laugh riot! Who knew that Ted could rap?

I changed my mind, the person who stole the show was actually a robot. There is nothing funnier than a robot...doing the robot.

As for Bruce's performance: \"I take the 5th.\" Thanks Bruce. Thanks for being cool, thanks for taking the time, thanks for all of the fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Normally, I do not review online, but it's Saturday and I'm trapped in my room, on a rainy day with nothing to do but watch sci-fi movies and Xena: Warrior Princess (I can't get the damned 'Joxer the Mighty' song out of my head, it's been there for the past ten years or so, just pops up randomly when someone(me) does something idiotic). If you have any complaints about this movie, and actually post them on the internet, do you have ANY idea how much of an idiot you look like? If you expect more out of Bruce Campbell than what he puts out (in the most literal sense) than why in G-d's holy name do you watch his movies? No one watches a Bruce Campbell movie when they want to see something genius and intelligible, we watch them so we feel better about ourselves (like those people who watch Jerry Springer and eat Chunky Monkey), and to be easily entertained by mindless psycho-babble. I, personally, love Bruce Campbell movies. I'm not a complete idiot, in fact, I see myself as an intellectual and a scholar(haha, shut up, Ally). His movies reflect insane, random, quirky, ridiculous ideals which anyone with a brain, screaming or no, can enjoy. That, and he was kind of sexy on Xena: Warrior Princess, even with the facial hair. I rate this movie an excellent 10, just because I can. If you can't take simplistic plot-schemes (if any), hot babes in sci-fi splendor(leather, spandex), and familiar if not exhausted views of insanity, then fer cryin' out loud, don't watch the movie(or any that so much as mention the name Bruce Campbell). Oh yeah, Ted Raimi was awesome in this movie! Way to go Ted! You did the best with what you had. ;|","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Some Spoilers) It took some 19 years for Bruce Campbell to finally put his masterpiece \" Man with the Screaming Brain\" on the screen. But Campbell had to alter his story by having it, due to financial problems, take place in Sofia Bulgaria not where he initially wanted it to be filmed in Los Angeles California.

In the film Burce Campbell plays US pharmaceutical tycoon Willian Cole who travels together with his spoiled rotten wife Jackie, Antoinette Byron,to the former Communist Republic of Bulgaria. It's there that William wants to help finance Bulgaria's almost non-existent mass transportation system.

It's poor William's misfortune to get involved with both Gypsy woman Tatoya, Tamara Gorski, and her ex-boyfriend Yegor, Valdimir Kolev, an ex-KGB taxi driver. The two, William & Yegor, will unwittingly end up shearing their brains, inside William's skull,because of Tatoya's jealousy and vindictiveness.

After Tatoya murders both William and Yegor their bodies are delivered to mad scientist Dr. Ivan Ivanowitch Ivanov, Stacy Keach, by his loyal assistant Pavel, Ted Raimi, to have their brains experimented with. Dr. Ivanov has this theory in that two heads are better then one. And now with the material, William & Yegor, available to him Dr. Ivanov at last is finally going to prove it. What Dr. Ivanov is going to sadly find out is that by fusing the two heads, or brains, together their brain waves will overlap and cause them to not only malfunction but turn against each other!

William with Yegor's right lobe fused into his damaged brain is out to find Tatoya and make her pay for the damage she caused both him and Yegor. Yegor for his part is stuck in William's head who's likes and dislikes, in both food and drink, are totally opposite to his own. This causes a lot of tension and hostility between the two brains in them fighting for control of William's body!

Things get even more screwed up when Jackie finding out that Tatoya murdered her husband William confront her in the dangerous and high crime section of Bravoda call Gypsy Town and ends up being murdered herself. Brought back to Dr. Ivanov by his assistant Pavel it's determined, with no body available,to plant Jackie's brain inside of an experimental robot that Pavel's been working on. The operation is a rousing success but the only drawback is that Jackie, with her brain inside the robot, has to have her brain recharged every few hours! Or, like a real brain lacking oxygen, she'll die together with the robot's batteries.

Combination 1930's-like screw-ball comedy and horror flick with both William & Yegor turning the Bulgarian town of Bravoda upside down in trying to find Tatoya and make her pay, with her life, for the sad state of existence she put them both into.

***SPOILER ALERT*** It's Dr. Ivanov who in fact saves the day by discovering how to keep the two brains from fighting, and thus cooperating, with each other! This is done by him instead of fusing the brains together Dr. Ivanov keep them independent by implanting a neutralizing cell wall in between the two uncooperative globs of gray matter.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Man with the Screaming Brain certainly isn't a perfect movie, but I'm pretty sure it was never meant to be anything more than a star vehicle for Bruce Campbell, meaning it works as kind of a summary of his entire career: slapstick, sarcasm, cheese, action, and happy endings. Campbell is, as a writer, uneven--there are lots of things in the story that don't make a great deal of sense (why does the robot suddenly have breasts merely because a female brain has been implanted into it?), and some of the scenes feel like retreads of other, better incarnations (the scene in the restaurant, where Yegor and William battle for control of William's body, is straight out of Evil Dead II). There are, however, lots of little touches and non-sequiturs that feel rather brilliant, such as when William is in the height of his panic and screams at a statue, \"What are you looking at?!\" The movie looks like a Sci-Fi Channel original, probably because it was. The acting is actually pretty good. I particularly enjoyed Tamara Gorski as Tatoya; she was ruthless and cunning, yes, but seemed to have a tragic air about her in certain moments that the story never explored. Ted Raimi handled the standard \"bumbling assistant\" role admirably enough, and Bruce is funny as the arrogant, sardonic, condescending American jerk. (Now that he's writing his own films, you'd think he'd give himself a role that he hasn't been typecast in already.) Man with the Screaming Brain is a bizarre, nonsensical B-movie that ought to be enjoyable for anybody who can avoid taking a cinematic experience too seriously.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"an awesome made for the sci-fi channel movie which by far surpasses many of the poor previous efforts they've churned out. Bruce Campbell is on superb form as a possible investor who gets caught up in a bizarre experiment led by a delirious professor,Stacey Keach,and his half-wit assistance,Ted Raimi. The film is pure b movie gold and its great to see Keach and ram up on screen with Bruce, and the fact that a lot of the film works purely on Bruce's comic slapstick acting is what make it hilarious, and makes me ask the question, why isn't this guy getting more of his scripts commissioned?, it indeed a sick world. Definitely worth a watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Or if you've seen the \"Evil Dead\" trilogy and\/or \"Bubba Ho-Tep\", then you should know that his movies are total farces. With \"Man with the Screaming Brain\", he goes all out again. In this case, he plays smarmy American businessman William Cole visiting Bulgaria - when do we ever get to see that country? - when a woman kills him. So, strange scientist Ivan Ivanov (Stacy Keach) replaces half of Cole's brain with the brain of a former KGB agent, leaving him acting sort of like Steve Martin in \"All of Me\".

Yes, the whole movie is pretty much an excuse for pure nonsense. Much of the real humor comes from \"Evil Dead\" director Sam Raimi's brother Ted as Ivanov's nearly brain-dead assistant Pavel. The two men have a relationship more like Laurel and Hardy or Gilligan and the Skipper.

So just understand that this is a totally silly movie, and you won't be a bit disappointed. I liked it, anyway.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, well, no one in their right mind(s) would pick up a movie titled \"The Man with the Screaming Brain\" and expect it to be serious. This is an outrageous b-movie, and that means a truly hokey plot, strange characters, clich\u00e9s, over-the-top action, and oh-so-cheesy one liners. For that odd segment of the population (including myself) that gets a kick out of that kind of thing, this is a gem.

The acting is better than expected. Stacy Keach is embedded in his character. Bruce Campbell brings a spirited, convincing performance. His physical comedy skills are truly impressive in this movie and hearken back to the \"Evil Dead\" films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Its really been a long time since the last time somebody created a movie such as like this on. A so called B movie. Maybe it was not a great movie, but it is fun to watch, classic Bruce Cambell, it has its Good parts, funny ones, Disgusting ones, even artistic ones.

******Spoiler Ahead*******

----------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------- -------------

The part where his wife as a dummy-robot-avenger is about to die, I don't know about you, but it made me feel so weird, so sad and disgusted in a good way. I compare this scene with the scene form the Fly 2 where his dog as a monster dies. Makes you think oh my god.

---------------- --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------

********No more Spoilers*********

If you are a Bruce Cambell fan, you definitely wanna have this movie in your collection. If you are generally interested in movies, you might wanna. Just think that the movies target is to make you smile, gross you out(Don't worry not that bad though) and make you have a good time with your buddies. Attention, I said buddies, not possible future girlfriend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now, the sci-fi channel original company has made some pretty crappy films (House of the dead 2, All souls day, etc.) but when you leave the job entirely to horror master actor\/writer and now director, Bruce Campbell, you get one of the best damn made for TV independent horror films ever made! I normally hate these movies, in my previous review, House of the dead 2, I could not believe how horrible the film was! But somehow I took a liking for this film, a very good liking for this film. The violence is good and so is the black comedy in the film and I recommend you get it, a true Bruce Campbell masterpiece! Well, since there is only a few more lines left I can say whatever I want about this movie: IJAJKASIF JHJDJ NXD FNEHSD FHNCFNFVHS DJKEALJWSNS.UHHD SISHSNHF AHCNAKDJH HNDCHJNDNH JACND HCHJNNHW JHJ NASHDNFHCKA FHNKHAD SAKASDADJ FJKDFA","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's taken years for cult icon Bruce Campbell to get this project off the ground - but he finally has, it's here - and what a great piece of schlock entertainment it is! Looking at the plot; it sounds like two things. A great base for a very silly B-movie, and a shameless excuse for Bruce Campbell to what he does best - Evil Dead II style slapstick humour, and this film delivers on both counts. The Man With the Screaming Brain is comic book nonsense all the way through - but there's some really great scenes, and it's almost impossible to be bored with this movie. Bruce Campbell wrote, directs, produces and stars in this film - and while it's not quite Citizen Kane, it has to be said that this is an achievement for the man most famous for battling off his own hand in a woodland cabin. The plot follows American businessman William Cole on a business trip to Bulgaria with his girlfriend. The trip goes awry, however, when he, his girlfriend and his taxi driver end up dead; thanks to the same woman. Mad scientist Stacy Keach is on hand to merge Cole and the taxi driver's brains into one; and we've got a cult flick on our hands.

The first half hour or so is entertaining and features a few laughs; but once the main plot point has been executed; the movie really picks up. Bruce makes best use of the scenario in all kinds of silly situations, from changing his clothes in a waste bin, to deciding (with the taxi driver in his brain) what to eat in a restaurant. The humour is mostly of the slapstick variety, and anyone who enjoyed Evil Dead II (which should be anyone who's seen it), will no doubt enjoy this too. It does feel like Campbell is playing to his strengths a little bit too much with this whole project, but if you tuned in and DIDN'T see Bruce doing what he does best, disappointment would ensue. Besides that, no disrespect to the man; but he's never been the actor with the greatest range. Despite being lots of fun; the movie isn't great, as it gets a little bit too silly at times; and there's a whole sub-plot with a robot that I didn't like; but overall, The Man With the Screaming Brain is a film that we, sadly, don't see too much of nowadays. The film is an all-out, no holds barred, B-movie; and it deserves respect for that if nothing else.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a firm believer that a film, TV serial or any form of art should and would be fully appreciated once the timing factor- as to when written, produced or conceived-should be taken in to account.

Yeh Jo hai Zindagi is one such series. I remember watching it in the mid-80's on TV and the re-runs via the video cassette libraries during early 90's. and laughing out loud and being addicted to it. That made me buy the full series DVD set and surprise of surprises- the comedy and the moments of the good 'ol days simply fell flat for me. Even the very popular \"30 years ka experience\" \"GULAAAAB JAMUN!\" and \"Sofa cum bed\" did not invoke the kind of mirth I thought it would. The timing factor: for the 80's, this was the showstopper. The main event. The mother of all TV comedies. And it worked during the age and time! Perhaps the same cannot be said right now, but nonetheless, watching the DVD did bring back pleasant memories.

I wish the seasons with Shafi Inamdar and Swarup Sampat were longer. Satish Shah has been un-believably good as the heart of the show, with equally effective support cast of Farida Jalal, Tiku Talsania and the bengali neighbours. Rakesh Bedi hams throughout.

All in all, an experience that will bring back memories for those who saw it during the prime times, might not appeal to the younger viewers or first time watchers!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best sitcoms to run on Indian television along with Dekh bhai dekh and Idhar udhar. Great acting, well paced and an extremely amusing script made this a truly memorable series. The fun filled opening montage (sung by none other than the inimitable Kishore Kumar)gave a very accurate picture of what one could expect. I used to borrow it from my local video library years after Doordarshan had stopped airing it. I wish Indian television would revert back to serials such as these rather than the asinine saas-bahu soaps and reality television which is all its good for these days. Anyone who's found of genuinely good comedy ought to go and get this series. You'll might also enjoy a couple of Pakistani sitcoms such as ups and downs and aik aur aik which are certainly comparable to India's best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this title again on Shemaroo. I also asked my nephew who was 17 to watch the same with me. I am 35 and he is 17. He liked it and I did too. It still is funny, a little childish a times but still very clean entertainment. Satish Shah is hilarious in multiple roles. This sitcom would still fare better than many of the recent serials on TV. But obviously some people obviously like mundane fares that come out today. It would have been nice that Shafi Inamdar would have continued for all the seasons. He is no longer alive today. I would wish if someone could list all the episodes here.

WHo can forget the lines \"Yeh Kya Ho Raha HAi\" \"What a relief\" \"Kaat Daalu Boss\" \"Vyavhaar hai Vyavhaar\" \"30 Years Ka Experience hai\"

and the title track Yeh Jo hai Zindagi, teaching us to live the life as it comes and take enjoyment out of it. The life of common people.

I still like this sitcom. it may not seem as funny at times but certain episodes are still hilarious.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i was a huge fan of this series. Yesterday i watched it again on DVD. I was apprehensive about whether laughs would come or not? But in a few episodes i was laughing hysterically and some episodes were good. Acting wise Rakesh Bedi(Raja} & Satish Shah is brilliant whereas Swaroop Sampat is plain bad but I think she gets the job done. Maybe a better actress could have been used in place of her. This series shows what good, clean comedy is.

If this series were to air in the current year I would have given it 9\/10. And to think that this series is almost 25 years old and its comedy is still good. I give it 10\/10. I would highly recommend this series for watching on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This sitcom was a big crowd puller in the year 1984-1985.That was a time people could see deserted streets in most of the over crowded Indian cities whenever there were sitcom on Indian television screens. All this was the result of the setting up of television relay stations across the entire Indian nation. This was one of the essential elements of the modernization of Indian television network strategy adopted by the late Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi.It was also continued by her son Rajiv Gandhi. This series provided clean entertainment which a large majority of Indian television audience watched on their black and white television sets.A funny thing about this series is that it was sponsored by an indigenous company dealing in Ayurvedic products. A couple of days ago I caught sight of some episodes of this series but the overall laughter equation was missing. This goes on to prove that may be with the ever changing passage of time entertainment material lose their charm and hold over people's minds.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Simply put, Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly were remarkable. The movie is less about the raw science of Darwin's beliefs, and holds the focus very strongly on his relationship with his family, primarily his wife, Emma, and daughter, Annie.

Toby Jones gives a wonderful turn as Thomas Huxley, the great defender of Darwin's beliefs, and the rest of the cast is up to the task of sharing screen time with Bettany and Connelly.

But it is those two who carry the movie. Their real chemistry is apparent from beginning to end, but develops transcendence as Darwin grapples with his demons. The scene where Darwin relates the ending of the story of Jenny, the orangutan, to his dying daughter, Annie, is utterly gripping. The world premiere audience at the TIFF was spellbound. Bettany's performance will be recognized as one of the year's best in short order. Equally magnificent is Connelly's work playing the religious wife of a man who, in Huxley's words, \"killed God\".

The film moves slowly through the entire spectrum of Darwin's grief, relishing every detail of Bettany and Connelly's acting.

Brilliant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the world premiere at the Toronto International Film Fest, this is a great film.

Real-life husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly star as Charles and Emma Darwin in the midst of their struggle through the writing of and decision to publish \"Origin of Species\". Their consideration of the ramifications it may have for their family and the future of humankind are conveyed in such a manner that one suspects only an off-screen couple could achieve.

Jon Amiel (who gave a heart-felt introduction) and John Collee do and excellent job of bringing Randal Keynes' biography to life. They created some very poignant and human moments, great cinematography and sets and a generous helping of tongue-in-cheek about the still divisive theory of evolution.

The surprise star is Martha West who plays Annie Darwin, the character around whom much of the story unfurls. She plays the precocious young girl to a tee. If this performance is anything to go by her star should be on the rise.

All in all a great film, and although it is a period drama the issues that drive it are still very much alive today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film on 19SEP2009 at the Cambridge Film Festival.

The Beagle's only in a couple of short flashbacks, the whole thing is about Darwin's life from 1841 to 1859, when he was ensconced in Kent with his growing family, 200+ pages of Origin had already been drafted and he was wondering whether to complete the book.

The script is based on Randal Keynes's book Annie's Box (Annie, Charles's daughter, died when she was 10). It is mostly a family drama, but does include sex scenes - however, the participants are married, both on and off screen. Not too exciting, not much science but a well-made film that's pleasant to watch and pushes the right emotional buttons. A bit of a romantic weepie, actually. I suppose the conclusion is that you can be an agnostic free-thinking scientist from an atheist family background and still be an emotional romantic as well as an excellent father.

Some of the characters and Darwin himself state or wonder whether he \"killed god\" but the viewer is able to doubt that. What is beyond doubt, given the deadly struggle for survival and the web of predation on the meadow-bank (well-known before Darwin and completely uncontroversial) and the failure of Darwin's prayers is that the idea of a kind, providential god who loves \"his\" creatures is untenable.

I really cannot see many Americans objecting to it very much. Some may have problems with the title, which is probably the most controversial thing about the film, or with the fact that Bettany does not have horns, a tail and a pitchfork.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow! Fantastic film in my opinion, i wasn't expecting it to be this good! I was captivated from start to finish- it's a very well made and educational film that really gives us a fascinating insight into the trials Darwin had to go through in order to convey his ideas to the world, chronicling his life as he writes \"Origin of the Species\"; fighting both personal demons as well as the ignorant society of the time in order to do so. He struggles hard with his mind, body and soul as personal matters get to breaking point and even his family seems to slip away...whilst the rest of the world stand against him as he knows that his findings literally shake the very foundations of their lives, culture and meaning of existence. It's a subtle movie (not over-exaggerated in any way in that typical Hollywood way, this is a BBC produced British film) yet thankfully very powerful in meaning and this is thanks to the amazing well directed scenes as well as the superb acting by Bettany. Connelly acts as more of a light supporting role but I did enjoy her in this and she's as good as to be expected as always, her chemistry alongside her husband was definitely strong and endearing, you could feel the connection, and their real-life husband\/wife bond definitely shines through their performances. But the star of the show is definitely Bettany and he does a brilliant job, a very touching performance- i both understood and sympathised with him as he battled his own degrading health and impending \"insanity\" to try to understand what he has uncovered and come to terms with what it all really is and means as he found his thinking contradict his feelings, and found himself losing it all including his wife who of course was a firm believer in religion and a strict Christian whilst he was in the realm of science, two worlds which could not see eye to eye, so their relationship was at stake too.

Anyway- a really very good, well acted emotional drama and dare I say I did shed a tear during the tragic climax which was truly heartbreaking as well as beautifully poignant and moving. The film is symbolic and very intellectually artistic as well, in fact i can't wait to watch it again as there was a lot to take in first time round which i missed. Easily one of the best films i've seen this year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is definitely a touching movie, and a great expression of Charles Darwins personal struggle. The movie is not only about his struggle to get his book \"the origin of Species\" published, but also his relationship with his oldest daughter. His daughter was at start the only person in his family to approve of his views, something that she as well had to pay for. Een more than him at times.

Now, this is not an evolutionary propaganda film, as a matter of fact I think it managed to stay very neutral. A hard thing to do in my opinion. of course it does not condone the way the characters was treated by the church, quite the opposite actually. If you need me to use the big words to shed light on this film; it will be liked by deists and atheists alike, but goes away from theism. The movie talks about evolution, and that's it.

Paul Bettany as Charles Darwin was incredible. Of course we all may think of Darwin as that old man with the funny beard, but this movie centers around the man in his late 20's, early 30's. Jennifer Connelly (Emma Darwin) is great as always, but the actor who impressed me was Martha West as Annie Darwin, Darwins daughter. Definitely on of the best child actors of the decade. The story is about Darwin and his daughter, and it is beautifully acted.

Except for a few jumps in time that was momentarily confusing, the production of this film is pretty flawless. Some scenes were Darwin observes nature is just marvelous, and is almost like taken out of a high production National geographic documentary.

I must admit though, I'm not quite sure of why they chose \"Creation\" as the title. I doubt it is an irony, the movie is too respectful for that. Well, I'm sure there's a meaning too it, just don't let it scare you away.

I give this movie a 9\/10. This is truly a great tribute to Charles Darwin, and please give it a chance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Paul Bettany did a great role as the tortured father whose favorite little girl dies tragically of disease. For that, he deserves all the credit. However, the movie was mostly about exactly that, keeping the adventures of Darwin as he gathered data for his theories as incomplete stories told to children and skipping completely the disputes regarding his ideas.

Two things bothered me terribly: the soundtrack, with its whiny sound, practically shoving sadness down the throat of the viewer, and the movie trailer, showing some beautiful sceneries, the theological musings of him and his wife and the enthusiasm of his best friends as they prepare for a battle against blind faith, thus misrepresenting the movie completely.

To put it bluntly, if one were to remove the scenes of the movie trailer from the movie, the result would be a non descript family drama about a little child dying and the hardships of her parents as a result. Clearly, not what I expected from a movie about Darwin, albeit the movie was beautifully interpreted.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Real-life husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly star in Creation, which recounts the period of Charles Darwin's life prior to the publication of \"On the Origin of Species\" in 1859, his infamous, world changing tome on evolution and natural selection. Darwin's research created an enormous rift, a schism between the believers of his day and scientists. He was said at the time to be going to war against God, and even to have \"killed God\".

The film revolves around Darwin's life with his wife and four children. Jennifer Connelly is excellent as his extremely devout and loving wife. A revealing scene at the beginning when she leads the dinner table in prayer and Charles fails to say \"Amen\" is foreshadowing of what will follow and of the stark differences between the two. She is convinced that he will be eternally damned and bring misfortune to their family by rejecting God.

Darwin is torn between his strong love for his wife, her faith and his even stronger reason. There are beautiful moments of him observing animals, dissecting their behaviors and the sequences that make up their lives, explaining phenomenons of selection to his children, the first born, Annie, having a very morbid curiosity. We see him interacting with England's first orangutan, Jenny, playing with it as if it were a child, deciphering her every look and action.

Annie, the eldest child, later dies and Charles becomes haunted by her death, having been closest to her. In my opinion this part was too long, bizarre and drawn out. I did not like the trippy scenes where he seems to be losing his mind and is pursued by the ghost of his daughter, shouting and ranting. Although Charles thinks that his wife blames him for her fatal sickness, she very poetically says: \"The truth is, if I knew then what I know now, I would marry you tomorrow\". Their bond is solid and unbreakable despite tremendous differences of belief.

When Charles finishes his manuscript he hands his wife the final copy, telling her she can burn it if she does not agree. She stays up reading it nights on end and finally presents him with a package, the book ready to be sent to its publisher. In the end, reason and perhaps love as well, triumph, as he makes an accomplice out of his staunchest adversary.

It is fascinating that Darwin received a full Christian burial at Westminster Abbey, proof that his ground-breaking ideas were seen as controversial of course, but were already then recognized as vital knowledge for the advancement of the human race.

The movie definitely draws heavily on Darwin's family life, its joys and its troubles. I happened to like this aspect but Fabio said it was like watching a documentary on, I quote, \"Hitler's passion for ping-pong\". This is true in some respects and I can't disagree with his desire to have learned more about Charles Darwin's theories from this film than we do. It remains nevertheless a well executed and flawlessy acted period drama.

My rating: 7 Fabio's: 7 Total score: 14","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I believe the reason this movie did not get the recognition it deserves is because of the many misconceptions of Darwin, pro and con. I would say the real man is depicted here without sterility. He is what he is. Although the movie is but a snapshot of the man the technique of storytelling expanded his life far beyond the years touched on in the movie. This is deep movie, a pondering of modern life and the way we think, and can provoke a study into the man whose thoughts (and other who used him) have certainly affected our lives. There are some movies that the historical context is so great that it is the primary job of the actors to stay out of the way. The history carried the day and the actors did their job. Good work to them, I say.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have read reviews of this film that found it 'disappointing' and 'confused'. I am at a loss to understand why this should be so. From the beginning I found it a remarkable experience and a complete joy to watch.

Spoiler: The opening titles overlay a beautiful visual of the evolutionary process, and this introduces the story with a serene and sweeping style. The film isn't about the process itself though, it concerns Charles Darwin's struggle with his conscience, his love for his wife, his deceased daughter and his search for truth.

The appearances of his daughter are the manifestations of a tormented mind that knows it has \"killed God\". The daughter is an adult, making adult comments about his work and torturing Darwin with personal doubts. Was he in some way responsible for her death? Husband and wife in real life Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly give truly wonderful performances as Charles and Emma Darwin, as does Martha West as Annie. Bettany's size and awkward gait give Darwin's character a genuine sense of reality, whilst Connelly seems very comfortable with her English accent and occasionally somewhat severe persona.

It's easy to misunderstand the times in which this film resides. The grip that religion had on society and the inner struggles that a man like Darwin must have endured to seek the truth in what he witnessed. Science and religion have always been awkward bedfellows and although it didn't cost him his life, as it did with so many earlier men and women, science put a barrier between husband and wife, fact and faith. This film portrays that barrier supremely well.

I give Creation ten stars, because I think it's beautiful, profound, superbly well acted and a genuine, no-extraneous-frills-required look at one of the world's true geniuses.

What seems obvious to everyone today (well, almost everyone... see Bill Maher's wonderful \"Religulous\") was hidden for millennia. The truth, once it was discovered, was undoubtedly painful for many. Creation examines that pain, and the realisation that we are all that we possess.

A wonderful cinematic experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As this movie unfolds you start to feel the conundrum of human existence. If you carry with you questions, inner wars, unsolved puzzles about the meaning of life then you will feel this movie with every morsel of your body. Charles Darwin begins a war with an utterly predictable ending. War with God. His theories resemble the fact that God has nothing to do with mankind, has nothing to do with the amazing World that we live in. Savage, harsh, ironic and chaotic, this words surround the mind of the character thrown into an universe of material truth, who slowly pushes hope for God, out from his mind. Nevertheless, the movie as Charles Darwin, still sees wonder and beauty beyond God in the universe of infinite Evolution.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Last year was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of \"The Origin of Species\", so it's fitting that Jon Amiel's \"Creation\" got released. The movie focuses on the period of Darwin's (Paul Bettany) life while he was writing his famous work, and the mild strain that it put on his family life.

I guess that the movie overplayed Darwin's tension with his religious wife Emma (Jennifer Connelly), and his guilt over his deceased daughter Annie, but I still like the thought of Darwin's theory working like a karate chop on religious dogma. As it was, the US was one of the last countries in which \"Creation\" found a distributor, due to the creationism-evolution debate (yes, it's still going on).

All in all, this isn't a masterpiece, but I recommend it the same way that I recommend \"Inherit the Wind\". I hope that one day, the creationism-evolution debate won't be an issue. If this film helps put the debate to rest, then more power to everyone in the movie! Also starring Martha West, Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones and Benedict Cumberbatch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a non-theist Im not going to comment on the great mans theory which changed the world 150 years ago. Safe to say, science is based on evidence, religion is based on blind faith. Nuff said there then.

The film was produced by the BBC, and to be honest, it could quite easily have been shown on television. While the acting is superb, the film itself isn't really worthy of a full blown cinema release. That said, if it reaches a wider audience this way, then so be it. But I have seen many period style dramas on BBC TV and they were well up to the finished standard of this. Just don't expect too much of a big budget thrill ride when going to see it.

In some ways, I found the movie almost going out on a limb to apologise to religious fundamentalists. While it attains a good sense of tension the whole way through, I couldn't help wanting it to get to the publication of The Origin Of Species much quicker than it actually did (you'll wait right until the end for that). And it seemed to dwell much more than I was ever aware on Darwin's struggle with himself and his wife Emma, portraying him almost as some kind of insane lunatic at times - which is hardly true. There are many other errors and facts missing in relation to the real story of the lead up to the publication of Origin too, but the whole premise of the movie focuses almost entirely on the difficulty Darwin faced domestically with the book, and a small portion on the death of his beloved daughter Annie. This gives the film its most moving scene, where Annie passes away as she asks one final time to hear Darwin tell her the story of a captive orangutan which died of pneumonia. Though, you'll probably feel a bigger connection with the primate in that scene than with Darwin's daughter.

With the early controversy apparently surrounding the movie in the USA it will work well to promote it and ensure many more people will get to see it. But to be honest, there is actually very little in it that insults any mythical Godhead. Its hardly headline news about a theory that has been around 150 years after all. But, as fundamental Christians (and many other religions which we're all well aware of) like to wave a placard or two whenever possible, I guess this movie is as good excuse as any. Personally, I cant see what all the fuss is about. But maybe they're just monkeying around...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Return to Me is a movie you will want to own. It is a story of inspiration and family love that appeals to all ages. The story, though seemingly impossible, aspires to divine intervention when a man looses his wife in a tragic accident and finds that love again in the woman who receives his wife's heart. David Duchovny and Minnie Driver give warm hearted performances as the designated to-be-lovers who meet by chance. But the real story lies in the friends and family around them who love and support them in times of trial. Carol O'Connor as Minnie Driver's grandfather, is authentic in every scene. Bonnie Hunt as the friend whose wit and encouragement underlines Minnie as a 'sister' is funny yet warm in the scenes especially with James Belushi as her husband. Classic scenes and writing makes this story so enjoyable and touching to watch over and over again. Thank you for making a movie that demonstrates families and friends as close knit caring people who love each other through difficult times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched this move for the 5th or 6th time and am still in love with it. It still makes me cry and sing and worry and celebrate.

I almost wrote Bonnie Hunt a letter to tell her how much I love it. David Duchovny's grief scene is so flippin real!!! Minnie Driver is so natural and honest. My favorite line is when Duchovny says \"I miss Elizabeth but I ache for Grace\". Oh man! I'm crying just thinking about it. ALSO... Bonnie Hunt and Jim Belushi are sooooooooooooo the perfect Chicago area couple!! I know them I swear! I'm related to them I'm sure.

This movie is in my three times a year rotation!!! I'd watch it once a week but I'm afraid I'd get too used to it!!! I always want to make it a special day when I watch it!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw the trailer for this film, I said out loud to no one in particular \"this film is going to bomb.\" I also said that about THE MATRIX and look at what happened there. Now I am not a box office guru by any stretch but I usually have a pretty good gut about what is going to be good and what is going to really suck. In this case I was blinded by my complete and utter apathy towards David Duchovney. Let me put it to you a different way: I don't like his as a person ( from what I have read of him in interviews, he is unbelievably pre-madonna like and he is full of himself considering all he has done is X-Files ) or as an actor. PLAYING GOD was a really poor film but he came off thinking that for some reason he deserved big bucks on the big screen. But I am happy to say that even though those things may still be true about the man, Return To Me is delightful and has it's heart in the right place. Bonnie Hunt has directed a beautiful story and she has told it with class and grace. This is one of the most romantic films I have seen and even though it may seem to be a bit sad and maudlin in its premise, give it a chance and you will be hooked.

It has to be said ( and this pains me to do so ) that the reason this film works so well is because of the story and the cast. Duchovney and Driver are so wonderful and believable here that I honestly wanted to cry along with them. There is one particularly powerful scene when Duchovney comes home after his wife has died and he slumps down on the floor of his house. As it always does, the family dog looks to the door to wait for his wife to come walking in. She doesn't and with his shirt collar still stained with blood, Rob ( Duchovney ) tells him that she is not coming home, ever. He then calls the dog over to him and they seem to share a cry together. The dog lets out a small moan and then Rob cries. And this is one of the most realistic moments of pain I have ever seen in any character in any movie. You can feel his pain and at that moment I forgot I was watching an actor that I generally don't like, and I felt that I was watching someone that I knew moarn the loss of his beloved. This is powerful stuff.

Another strength of the film is the supporting cast. Bonnie Hunt has combined an ethnic melting pot of Irish and Italian characters that share a common bond. They share a pub called O'Reilley's Italian Pub. That is a delicious name all by itself. And heading the diametric scale of clashing cultures is Carol O'Connor and Robert Loggia. These are two proud old men that love their homeland but love their granddaughter and niece ( I think it is ) respectively. And that is the character played by Minnie Driver. This scenario is ripe for comedy and Hunt doesn't miss anything here.

Bonnie Hunt and James Belushi also share some funny moments together as the middle aged married couple and Belushi gets top points as he accepts humility gracefully and shows off his ample keg of a stomach for laughs. With his family consisting of three or four kids, there is very little time for him and the wife to have quality time. And again Hunt handles this with perfect elegance.

This is a wonderful story of finding true love, knowing how lucky you are to have true love and the power of friendship and family. Return To Me is a wonderful romance and even though I still don't have a great admiration for David Duchovney, I have to admit that he was perfect in this role and I could not picture anyone else playing his character. He was sensitive and believable and the movie was good because of him, not just because of him, but he sure added to the flavour.

If you are a sucker for a good romance and you want a good cry, then this is the film for you.

8.5 out of 10 I will see anything that Bonnie Hunt puts out with her in the director's chair.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My two daughters (ages 11 and 13) and I were lucky enough to see a screening of this movie last night. We were all pleasantly surprised to see how entertaining and funny this movie was. David Duchovny was very appealing as the male lead and Minnie Driver gave her usually competent performance. Some of the scenes are laugh out loud funny - especially one scene Minnie Driver has with a fellow \"transplant\" donee. I liked the fact that it was a movie that I could watch with my children and I wasn't embarrassed by any scene whatsoever. Everyone in the movie theater was laughing and enjoying themselves. Thumbs up Bonnie Hunt!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie! It has everything! Bonnie Hunt did a fantastic job co-writing, directing and co-starring in this film. David Duchovny is just plain hot. and Minnie Driver is as cute as ever. combine all that talent with David Allen Grier, Carol O'Connor, Robert Loggia, Joley Richardson, and Jim Belushi you have a Oscar worthy movie! I'm surprised they didn't get one. if you haven't seen it, go rent the DVD, watch it once then put directors commentary on...Bonnie Hunt is Fabulous!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie with my mother, and I loved it! It was such a sweet story, (Not to mention funny because of the supporting cast!) They never make movies like this...ever! My favorite part is when Grace(Minnie Driver) finds out about her boyfriend's wife's death, and that she has the deceased wife's heart and she screams, \"WHAT WAS GOD THINKING?\" I do believe everyone(No matter who you believe in) has thoughts like that once in awhile. But while it's very sappy, it just might make you believe in true love and destiny for once and for all.(Sigh)

The comedic timing between Bonnie Hunt and Jim Belushi will just make you crack up(especially in the aforementioned scene, it's terrible, and yet so funny!). They make a good pair, and I hope to see them again in something soon. 10\/10 Stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!

This beautiful, charming love story drew me in immediately with its lovable characters and heart-warming romance. I became so attached to the characters throughout the film that I felt as if I knew them personally. The storyline is very enchanting, and it brought me to tears in several touching moments. Duchovny and Driver have a very cute, chaste relationship that you can't help getting involved in. This one's worth watching more than once, and showing to all your friends. I'm just curious, why wasn't this a big hit?

I give this a 10 out of 10! Spectacular film! (And this is coming from a guy who thinks that 9 out of 10 movies aren't even worth watching.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie again yesterday with a 20-year-old intern from my office (OK - it was the quiet day after Thanksgiving) and we both loved it. I love the unique plot, David Duchovny, David Allen Greer, and the way the dog keeps waiting at the door. Isn't part of each of us just like that dog after someone we love dies?

I also love the old folks at the restaurant - they remind me of some of the older people around Southern New England, where your ethnic group is a very important topic of discussion. And I love the wedding at the end.

Minnie Driver is great in this movie - and Bonnie Hunt should have won an award for everything.

Bonnie - make more movies!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those movies that has everything in it. I don't think I would get tired of seeing it. Hopefully more movies like this one will be made in the future. The casting was perfect in all respects. In a sense, the song sung by Engelbert Humperdink \"I Never Got to Say Goodbye\", is the song come to life. You will most definitely laugh and cry throughout the entire scenario for sure. I'm just surprised that I had never seen it before this past weekend. I think that it's positively worth seeing, and your heart will be glowing. It would be nice to cuddle up with your \"honey\"; sip a cup of hot chocolate and enjoy being in the presence of each other. There is so much heart and emotion at times you honestly don't know where to turn. You will know exactly how the character feels. True family expression is available all the way through. In fact, at times you'll even think you are part of that family or they a part of yours. See it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This particular film was one that I wanted to see in theaters, but never got around to it. When I finally rented it in the summer of 2001 I enjoyed it so much that I went out and bought the DVD soon after. Bonnie Hunt and Don Lake did a wonderful job with the screenplay and are wonderful to listen to on the audio commentary that is included on the DVD. They did a great job in creating characters that you really care about. I really felt a whirlwind of emotions watching this film including sadness, anxiety and joy. The film also does a great job in showing the importance of family (a rarity in film today), which is a reflection of the director, Bonnie Hunt, based on the comments she made on the DVD. David Duchovny showed me here that there is life beyond Fox Mulder giving a wonderful performance with some pretty poignant scenes. I highly recommend that you give this movie a viewing. I am really thankful to the creators of this film. They have given me a wonderful piece of cinematic viewing that I will recommend to all my friends. I have seen a lot of movies over the years and it is very rare that I come away with such a feeling of satisfaction after watching a film. I will watch this time and time again for years to come. Return to Me reminds me that there are still moviemakers out there that know how to sincerely please their movie audiences. Thanks!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must admit that I didn't get around to seeing this movie in the theater. As it was released at the beginning of a summer blockbuster season, this cute little film couldn't help but get a bit lost in the shadow of multi-million dollar special effects movies, could it?

\"Return to Me\" has a lovely and simple story at its core, and is extremely well-directed and written by Bonnie Hunt (who has been in a number of major pictures as an actress herself....along with this one!) The charming story is beautifully woven with clever comedy and brought to life with superb performances by veteran as well as younger actors.

To those who say that David Duchovny hasn't really had a good shot at breaking out of his \"Fox Mulder\" mold, I agree. I've seen his other film work, and is, by far, the best thing he could have done for himself. Minnie Driver is simply beautiful, charming, funny, and lively in her role as Grace.

Outside of these two leads, however, you are surrounded by Grace's close-knit family and friends. Jim Belushi is an absolute stitch, Bonnie Hunt is a stable and real-life force. I cannot, however, go without mentioning the talents of Robert Loggia, and the dearly departed Carroll O'Connor. Ironically, I watched this film again on DVD only the day before he passed away. This was his last film, and he gave a performance that an actor of his calibre could certainly be proud to leave as the finale to a great career.

Overall, \"Return To Me\" turned what would have still been just a fun love story, and grew it into a film that has become one of my favorites! Take the time rent this one.....it's well worth the effort!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A delightful and wonderful film, which has entered my pantheon of great romantic comedies. IN many ways it's even better than \"When Harry met Sally.\" IT wears well on viewing and re-viewing. The cast is excellent, and both David Duchovny and Minnie Driver give us really believable characters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"especially considering I can count on one hand the romantic comedy films I have ever enjoyed.

Minnie Driver is very good as the heart transplant patient, who has a mysterious connection to Duchovny's recently deceased wife. (I can think of several awful films which have used this story line- I think there was an LMN movie with Jane Seymour) This film, however, is a keeper.

Duchovny is sympathetic, and the scenes with his dog are cute and sad- the dog misses his deceased wife. All of his friends want him to find a replacement, and there is an amusing scene where he is on a blind date and Driver is the waitress. His date is horrible, and he finds himself intrigued by Minnie Driver.

Caroll O'Connor is also good in one of his last roles, as the curmudgeonly grandfather. Bonnie Hunt and James Belushi (this is the only film I have liked him in) round out the comedy aspect of the film.

This is a good film because the story works, it is not overly romantic, and does not insult the audience's intelligence. Highly recommended 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Awesome Movie! Great combination of talents! I'm a HUGE fan of David Duchovny and he is outstanding in this movie! I would love to see him in more movies of this nature. His talents are definitely under-used and has SO much more to offer besides \"Agent Mulder\" (although I'm a huge fan of that series too), Anyway, I want to see more of him. He is easily the Cary Grant of our generation. If you haven't seen this movie, you MUST! Great love story that shows love never dies... it's with you forever. Minnie Driver is great and how can you go wrong with a cast containing Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Loggia and Mr. Belushi? This movie didn't get any type of awards nod, but deserved one. Great job Bonnie Hunt! ** By the way... the soundtrack is great too! **","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie a fews years ago and was literally swept away by it. So charming and so very romantic. David Duchovny and Ms. Driver have chemistry that is so hot, you will need to take off a layer of clothing. The supporting cast is 100% top notch. Just watching Caroll O'Connor and Robert Loggia play off one another is pure poetry. Bonnie Hunt and Jim Bellushi and a wonderful team and some of the films most charming moments are when they are on the screen. Like Jim Belushi screaming at his children to go to sleep \"FOREVER!\" or him dancing in the kitchen. This film made we wish I knew people like that in my own life. Not to mention, what woman does not want David Duchovny for a boyfriend?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gracie (Minnie Driver), a woman in her late twenties, is on a waiting list for a heart transplant. Bob (David Duchovny) has just had the tragedy of losing his wife in an automobile accident. One can guess the outcome. Gracie receives Bob's wife's heart, although they have no knowledge of each other....yet! A year later, Gracie is feeling like a new person while Bob is just beginning to think about his social life. When a friend sets him up on a blind date, Bob finds himself interested in the waitress, Gracie, at the restaurant where the date occurs. They begin to see each other. How long will it be before the truth materializes and what will be the consequences? This lovely, funny, and touching movie is one of the best romantic comedies ever constructed. The two stars dazzle as the couple only heaven could bring together and the supporting cast, of Bonnie Hunt, Jim Belushi, and Carroll O'Connor, are just marvelous as well. Taking place near Chicago, the neighborhood setting is likewise charming and beautiful. Let's make that dittos for the costumes and script. If you know someone who goes ga-ga over mirthful love stories, you will be in their good graces forever if you introduce him or her to this fine movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie doesn't have any pretense at being great art, which is good. But it is a well written script with well developed characters and solid acting. I think if I wrote it I could do without the drama surrounding the wife, but it wasn't distracting enough to detract from the main story concerning Minnie Driver's character. I think that all too often Hollywood abandons an attempt at real quality writing to try and inject more visual drama when, with an adult themed movie such as this, the emotional type of drama is all that's really needed - and probably more believable too. Overall, it's a very well done offering and well worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Return to Me is a charming gem of a movie. With an absolutely star studded cast, who can go wrong with this modern day fairy tale? It also includes many, many jokes written by the funny girl herself Bonnie Hunt, who wrote and directed this film. David Duchovny is also very good, showing a different approach then from his everday alter-ego mulder on my favourite show the x-files. a great date movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie. At first, I didn't expect much of this movie since I didn't hear anyone talk about it and it seemed like it went on video soon after it had just opened in the theatres. I also didn't think David and Minnie would make a good on-screen couple. (I've expected a lot out of on-screen couples since I saw \"You've Got Mail\" and \"Sleepless in Seattle\" with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.) Personally, I think Joely Richardson should've played Minnie's part and vice versa. I don't know, I just think Joely should've stayed in the movie longer with David. They seemed perfect for each other. But it just figures that in a movie, the girl next door always gets the guy. :) (Like in \"While You Were Sleeping\".) I was very wrong though. This movie was fantastic!!! Everything was done brilliantly. Bonnie Hunt did a great job of directing. The lines were perfect with the wise cracks everywhere.

***WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!***

I love how everything intertwined with each other. For example, in the beginning, Elizabeth and Bob were talking about going to Italy, and in the end, Bob meets Grace in Italy. Sydney (the ape) doing the hand thing with Grace like he had done with Elizabeth is an example too.

***NOTICE: SPOILERS END NOW!!!***

One thing I didn't like about the movie was it was a little unrealisitic. Well, I just don't think a man could get over his wife in a year when she was the only woman he had ever been with his entire life. You'd think he'd isolate himself from the world for years before even coming out of his house to talk someone. Instead, he goes on a blind date a year later and falls *instantly* in love with a woman he's never seen in his life but feels a connection with.

Over all, it was a splendid movie. It had me crying two or three times, and it had me laughing countless times (the scene in the restaurant with Bob's picky date for bottled water was hilarious!). It is definitely up there with great romantic-comedies like \"You've Got Mail\", \"Sliding Doors\", and \"While You Were Sleeping\".

GO RENT IT TODAY!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a true \"feel-good\" movie, full of genuine sweetness and admirable people. Although the premise requires a significant suspension of disbelief, it is worth the trouble to do so. The director, writers, and actors truly convey what it feels like to be in love.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is so cool. It told me to enjoy every moment in life to its fulness. I think that Bonnie Hunt (Jerry Maguire) writes well and I am so happy that she gave aging actors opportunity to have such big roles in the movie. That is really neat, in a society that worships wealth, health and youth, it was nice to see a movie about normal people. The movie reminded me a lot of \"While you were Sleeping\" which I really love. If you don't like this movie you should work on your sensitivity skills.

Favorite Quotes: Megan Dayton: \"I'm just saying, for safety, don't shave your legs,because then you definitely won't let it go too far.\" Grace Briggs: \"Megan, it's a first date.\" Megan Dayton:\" I married a first date. I'm sure you plan on being level-headed, but once you're in the moment, the male brain seems, I don't know, everything they say suddenly seems brilliant. Hairy legs are your only link to reality.\" Favorite Scenes: Megan (Good Will Hunting) riding her bike. All the scenes in the garden. The conversation and comradery among the grandpa and friends in the restaurant. Please do not miss this movie it will warm up your heart!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are so many positive reviews on Return to Me that my opinion is not necessary to encourage you to watch this movie. However, I feel the need to express my admiration for this unique movie. Bonnie Hunt has proved that she is not only an exceptional actress but also a marvelous director and script writer. This movie has everything and is full of humanity, tenderness, sense of humor ... Don't miss it, don't wait any longer. And, regarding the poor reviews don't pay any attention. Some viewers forget that this type of movies have to be watched with your heart, not only with your eyes. If some viewers prefer Notting Hill or You've got Mail that's their mistake. For me, Return to Me is a true gem, an unforgettable movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is great - well written and very entertaining. David Duchovny shows, once again, that he is much more than Fox Mulder, and the performances by the old men are funny as can be. Old married folks (like me) will appreciate the connection between two hearts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I will start by saying I have always been a Bonnie Hunt fan.... She always adds life to any character she plays, and she did a wonderful job in her directorial debut.

I have to admit this is a chick flick... But keeping that in mind, it is a wonderful story, it touches on many emotions and elicits all sorts of reactions.

This film depicts real life like people with real life like situations. (Tho I have to exclude the coincidence that is the major part of the film)

It's a love story.. not just of a man and a woman, but the love of family, friends, and loved ones past. (Even pets).

I really enjoyed it. Well worth the rental or the purchase.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think the romance of this movie helps couples develop a deeper appreciation for each other. Although I saw one goof in the early part of the movie, it was fairly well done. The plot can make you cry if you think about the situation enough. I loved it..watched it twice already and highly recommend it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is sweet - not cloying, just warm-spirited and kind. I found it only mildly funny, and the premise *is* wildly improbable, but the characters are so charming (especially Minnie Driver's) that they had my full attention right from the beginning, and soon had my affection too.

Bonnie Hunt has done a great job in her directing debut, and a good job with the writing as well. I highly recommend this movie and will see it again, I'm sure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is very well done although the ending is given away too early in the film. The four elderly men in the restaurant are what makes this film fun to watch. Minnie Driver is a very talented actress and comes across wonderfully on screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bonny Hunt scores a coup with her directorial debut. Minnie Driver and David Duchovny have that indescribable something called chemistry. Sure the plot is unlikely, but that doesn't stop one from enjoying this film. Carroll O'Conner does a great job as Grace's grandfather. Other great character actors play his card buddies. Jim Belushi is hilarious as the down-to-earth husband of Megan, part of the extended family.

Faith, family, and marriage are respected. A few sexual references and salty words are used but in context and with gentle humor.

And in the background that wonderful Dean Martin tune--\"Return to Me.\"

Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't normally go out of my way to watch romantic comedy, and maybe I will in the future after seeing Return to Me. The plot was simple and no secret after the publicity. You don't have to be Einstein to guess what will happen after the first 15 minutes. What you can do is relax and let the cast take you into a world where the \"chemistry\" abounds and the good guys win and you can just laugh and have a good time. I LOVE this movie....and have the DVD on order!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is the most romantic in years. David Duchovny is superb. He\u00b4ll make you cry, smile and dream. Minnie driver and James Belushi are very good too. But, David is astonish. Don\u00b4t miss the opportunity to see this little film and fall in love with Bob and Grace. Run, don\u00b4t walk!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Valley Girl will always hold a special place in my heart: I would say this is certainly the best of the 80's teen-sex-comedies, but that is a back-handed compliment. This is a good movie, period. It is very specific in time and place--nearly twenty years later this is a marvelous snapshot--yet its story remains timeless. (This is just Romeo and Juliet, minus the death, after all!) Nicolas Cage is wonderful, showing all the early promise that, it turns out, he has squandered on overblown action crapola. Deborah Foreman is the revelation of this movie, and I can't believe she didn't go on to have a bigger career; someone rediscover her QUICK. This is sweeter and gentler than most films of the genre--the requisite nudity seems thrown in by contractual obligation--and, while not groundbreaking, it certainly is nice to see this kind of movie that respects its characters and doesn't crucify its shallow young girls for having fun--even Foreman's crew of best friends, misguided by peer pressure, are never presented as villains. (Indeed, her friend Stacy, forced to doubledate w\/ Cage's friend Fred, has a good time despite her protests, and makes out w\/ Fred in the backseat.) This will take you back to the early 80's if you were there, but it holds up quite well today. Warning to those unfamiliar with the movie: do NOT watch one of VH1's seemingly continual showings of it--go rent it in its unedited glory. Otherwise, you are missing some of the movies' most potent, time-specific dialogue. And one can't write about Valley Girl and not mention the fabu soundtrack of great 80's tunes--most of them by one-hit wonders, which are not only integral to the sense of time and place in this movie, but thematically well-chosen. See it--awesome little flick! Fer shur!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was 1983 and I was 13. I watched Valley Girl on HBO one night when my parents were working. After it ended I wanted to talk with someone about it immediately. Turns out my best friend watched it too and it became our favorite movie. Every weekend after that we watched it until we could recite it. We woke her parents up late at night laughing hysterically. We began to worship the main character, Julie, played by the beautiful Deborah Foreman. I am not saying this is a great classic. Although it is for me personally. And I understand that the whole Valley Girl talk becomes annoying but that was the 80's. But deep down at the heart of the movie-it is a love story, and a familiar but good one. Girl meets boy and there are sparks from both sides, an instant connection. Julie's friends don't like him-he doesn't fit in, doesn't go to their school, doesn't have money. They like her better with her ex-boyfriend the football player even though he is a jerk. She makes the ultimate sacrifice-her own happiness for her friends' happiness. And she has these really cool supportive hippie parents. It is one of Nicholas Cage's first movies and his first starring role. One minute he is absolutely hilarious and the next incredibly touching and romantic. His friend Fred is pretty funny too. If you were a teenager in the 80's you will love this movie or at the very least it will bring back memories. It is no longer my favorite movie but it is still one of my favorites, probably in my top 10. I am eagerly awaiting it's release on DVD if they ever release it. You can go to Deborah Foreman's website to sign a petition to get it released on DVD and there are 2 soundtracks from the movie that are must haves if you like 80's music.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"But perhaps you have to have grown up in the 80's to truly appreciate this movie. If you love the early 80's this is definitely a must see. Also, one of the best soundtracks ever!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is one of my all time favorite movies and is what made me a lifelong Nicolas Cage fan. Back in the mid-80's I taped this movie (when VCR's were impossible to do this with!!) and would watch it over and over. Nicolas Cage is just brilliant here. And, he looks wonderful and has no affecting \"acting-isms\" (see \"Peggy Sue Got Married\" to know what I mean about that!!). I measure all his performances against this one. He was so perfectly cast as the cool punk guy with the edgy friends. The music was GREAT. The Plimsouls! The Psychodelic Furs! Modern English! Men At Work! Whenever I hear \"Melt With You\" I am taken back to the finale of this movie.

What ever happened to his cute costar, Deborah Foreman? And his hysterical friend, Cameron Dye? Certainly took a different turn than Nicolas! Interestingly, the slutty friend (Elizabeth Daily) ended up being the voice of Tommy from the Rugrats (she is billed as E.G. Daily for that horrid show)! Bizarre!

IF you want to take a great trip back to the 80's, watch this movie. It is definitely a classic. Like Totally!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really liked this movie, it totally reminds me of my high school days. The soundtrack is awesome. I am a huge nic cage fan and this is my favorite movie that he is in. I love the storyline, it is a total love story, against the odds kind of thing. I think anyone who graduated in the early eighties (1980-1984) should see the movie. It totally brought back memories of high school for me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the essence of the early eighties! The malls, the credit card machines, the food, the punk hair color, the soundtrack... I am in love with this movie. This sweet, intelligent Romeo & Juliet teen flick is instantly addictive.

Martha Coolidge is one of my favorite directors. She really employs her actors, like John Hughes and Steven Soderberg, so check out -Joy of Sex- and -Real Genius-. The soundtracks for -Valley Girl- are great. If you can find a copy of the film, buy it! It's out of print and very hard to come by.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This gem captures early 80's life brilliantly. As a grad '83 boy

myself, I must say that Valley Girl (along with Fast Times at

Ridgemont High )stands out as the class of the teen sex film

genre. The characters are accurate representatives of the era; the

vapid mall chicks, pseudo punk rebels, preppy jocks are all

represented here.

I have seen this over ten times now. The music in the film was top

notch. Unfortunately, these tunes could were never as popular in

their era as those by arena cockrockers like Journey, Styx or

Loverboy. Before the soundtrack existed, I searched out records

and tapes (it was the 80's after all !) of Josie Cotton, Sparks,

Plimsouls and Modern English.

This movie deserves respect. It isn't just a good 80's teen flick. It is

a great film. Period.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"20 Years later and this movie still has echoes of its greatness floating around. Never has a movie surpassed Valley Girl's incredible soundtrack. The movie completely encapsulated the 80's to such a perfect degree that it could only be realized this many years later. Nicolas Cage at his best. A movie that just has so much character to it, that it makes you realize how sad hollywood has become (as far as quality goes). The special edition DVD is loaded with tons of extras and well worth it to purchase it as you'll have plenty of material to sift through. For sure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing this film when I was 13 years old and I fell in love with it and I was a big fan of the film and the characters I adored. My favorite character was Stacey (Heidi Holicker), because she made me laugh when she showed no interest in Fred (Cameron Dye) who really liked her and I was hoping that in the end that they would get together then her boring boyfriend, Ralphie (Christopher Murray)because he ignored her and hung out with his friends. I love the cast and the story. I always love the part when Fred try to get together with Stacey, and I always remember when he chased her around the car. But it was so good. I'll always remember cherish that in my teen years. Now that I am 33 years old and I picked up my copy on DVD and will look forward seeing it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"putting aside the \"i'm so sure\"s and \"totally gnarly\"s this is one of the sweetest and lifelike romances portrayed on film. deborah foreman (where is she now?) as julie and nicolas cage as randy are as classic as romeo and juliet, tony and maria, jake and samantha... you can't help but fall in love with them. plus the soundtrack - the plimsouls, sparks, the furs, the flirts, and of course, modern english - is also outstanding. for fans of films about young love, i'd equally recommend the recent film all the real girls by david gordon green.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just love this film it totally rocks! Nicolas Cage looks hot and Tommy does not! I definitely feel that Fred and Randy should have had a little more time together on screen cause they're totally cool. My favorite part is when he says \"Peter Piper Picked A Pepper I guess I Did!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We still really love the movie and soundtrack \"Valley Girl\". I have owned it on video for eons and wore out the original soundtrack. I have several friends with whom I get together and we have \"80's Raves\" - parties where we get together and play 80's music and run \"Valley Girl\" on the big screen - and we're all in our 30's now. We have an AWESOME time.

It's all in good fun, like, ya know?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the better teen comedies to be filmed during the 80's, Valley Girl has a young Nicolas Cage in a starring role. Deborah Foreman is fun as the object of Cage's desire (and whatever happened to her?). Look for veteran actors Colleen Camp and Frederic Forrest as Julie's hippie parents - they're quite funny!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For the most part, romance films were never my cup of tea. But Valley Girl is one of the few romance films I not only could sit through, but actually enjoy. Nicholas Cage is great in his first role and Deborah Foreman is cute beyond belief. There are some side stories that tend to become muddled, but not enough to diminish this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nicolas Cage and Deborah Foreman provide stunning performances in this 80's tour de force! A great 80's movie akin to Fast Times at Ridgemont High! I highly recommend this movie to any child of the 80's who hasn't seen it. It's a cult classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say?? This movie has it all...Romance, break-ups, rich kids, punks and preps. This is my all time favorite movie that I can recite line for line....I remember when it first came out, I was 14 and couldn't get in....so finally got to see it on cable... I was hooked! Wanted to move to California and be a Valley Girl.. (Hey, I even remember the song by Moon Zappa, do you?) Tried in vain for years to get the never produced soundtrack...now you can find it on rhino records....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This typical teenagers movie is one of the best, beside the story is good, the music is well accompany the movie all along.

Although i do not enjoy classic movie unless it is classic and better written script, this one is exceptional. Maybe the hair style and language should be change a bit, in the 80's i believe offensive language is still rarely heard.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Valley Girl is the definitive 1980's movie with catch phrases filtered throughout this wonderfully acted movie. The characters are so convincing that you forget it is a movie and not a video of an actual \"day-in-the-life\" of any high school, USA. This flick is to the 1980's what the Brady Bunch TV series is to the 1970's. If you don't like it, well then \"Gag me with a spoon.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There were a lot of dumb teenage getting sex movies of the 80s and a lot of slasher flicks but there were only a handful that were made with thought, made you laugh and captured the time period right; this was one of them. Cage is Hillarious, so is Forman who from her bio unfortuatley has dissapeared from the Hollywood limelight. I'd love to see this released on DVD with in a special version with commentaries by Cage and Forman. Wishful thinking, I know. Ever want to plan a true 80s movie weekend, rent this, Sure Thing and 16 candles and Breakfast Club. It will take you back to a \"Totally Rad\" time which it seemed at the time, was a lot more simple. Memo to studios: Time to release the DVD!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sweet, rich valley girl develops crush on a punk from the alley and when her snobby friends disapprove of him, she's forced to choose between her heart and her popularity. Very funny romantic comedy blends in elements of black comedy and '80's cheese that make this all the more fun to watch. The movie not only follows the life of the valley girl and her punk; but her friends too as they shop, party, hang out, and go to the mall. If the dialogue doesn't have you laughing non-stop for a week, the music will. Songs like \"Johnny, Are You Queer?\" are found throughout. Also, Elizabeth Daily is a funny, existential character and the Prom King & Queen speech at the end is hilarious!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen this movie quite a few times and each time I watch it, the quirkier and funnier it becomes. Perhaps its the lack of research that went into Nicolas Cage's character's 'punk' persona or just the cheesiness factor because it was such a typical eighties film...nonetheless it's a cute love story with extremely funny, unique characters. I think it's right up there with \"Fast Times\" and \"Weird Science\" (quintessential eighties flicks!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Valley Girl is an exceptionally well made film with an all-around great cast. Even though the dialogue is a bit dated now, when the movie was released it was very hip. To this day, I know many people (teenagers included) that cannot form a sentence without using the word \"like\". That is without a doubt the legacy this movie will leave. A rating of 8 was given for this, like, most excellent movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to say this is my favorite movie of all time. I have seen it well over 100 times (actually had to buy a new copy as a result of overwatching) It is what the eighties was like and what a romantic story with a few morals thrown in. I highly recommend to anyone wanting to relive the high schools days again. Buy a copy now it is a classic!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm glad Cage changed his name from Coppolla and got this part on his own. Light-hearted, no deep thought needed, but a cute piece about opposites attracting- though her parents are still hippies.... Captures the voice of the early 80's- the whine of the valley and the funk of the other side. One can see the beginning of Cage's talent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a romantic, albeit cheesy movie that is one of my all time favorites. It is one of the many CLASSICS of the 80's genre like \"Pretty in Pink\" or \"Some kind of Wonderful\".

Nic plays the traditional punk guy in love with the traditional valley, preppy girl Julie. It is a heartwarming love story that makes you root for him to win the girl in the end.

True, most of the acting sucks but ...

I have been in love with Nic since seeing this in the theaters and have seen nearly every movie he's been in since. He's really grown as an actor but it is obvious in this early movie of his that he had a LOT of potential.

If you love 80's movies, you will LOVE this classic.

Go rent it!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is good movie that is flawed in many ways with low production. Martha Coolidge herself said she only had 350,000 dollars to work with. This is a movie that I loved growing up in the midwest. I remember friends and I having the nostalgia trip on this movie 10 years ago. Great things about this movie....Great cast with hungry actors and a hungry director. Bad points of this movie....To small of a budget calling for way too much improvisation. If Martha Coolidge had been given more money and time on this movie then the results would of been even better. They should have taken the story from an early 20's prospective and not from a 15-17 year old high school stand point. Most of the actors\/actresses were in their early to mid 20's trying to play 15-17 year olds....(come on) The music is extremely memorable and the two soundtracks get played all the time in my car. The best scenes in this film take place in seedy Hollywood clubs by Nicolas Cage's character. I gave this film a high rating of 9\/10 for five reasons.. Nicholas Cage's improvisational on the spot acting; The camera work and angles are excellent given the budget they had and only being able to have one take of each scene; The sytles, music and lingo are captured perfectly and forever; Again the music is incredible and carries the story along from scene to scene; And finally...Martha Coolidge could turn a weak script, unknown actors and a very very low budget and 20 days of shooting the entire movie into such a good and memorable movie is astounding!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Valley Girl\" launched Nicolas Cage's career and was an 80's version of \"Romeo and Juliet.\" It is a definite example of an 80's teen classic. Nicolas Cage, Deborah Foreman and Elizabeth Daily all have brilliant portrayals in this movie, but it will never top \"Fast Times at Ridgemont High\" as the ultimate 80's teen flick because if it weren't for \"Fast Times,\" then the 80's generation of teen flicks would just be a big blow to the head. That's for sure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Happy 25th Birthday to Valley Girl! Great soundtrack, plausible story, wonderful performances...captures the spirit of the 80's; the slang of the mainstreams and the outcasts. A wonderful rendition of high school life and \"gritty downtown\" from a suburban perspective.

The soundtrack contains songs by Modern English, Felony, Josie Cotton, Sparks, Payola$, Josie Cotton, The Plimsouls, The Psychedelic Furs, Men At Work, The Flirts and Bananarama.

This movie truly is Romeo and Juliet (minus the double suicide) set in 1980's Los Angeles. Julie's dad, played by Frederic Forrest (Sonny Bono, anyone?) is hysterical as a hippie idealistic dad who wonders how he sprung such a materialistic offspring. Yet, he doesn't judge, ya dig??","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing this movie back when it was released and I still remember the 'buzz' I felt when I left the cinema. Everything about this movie is magnificent! The music is top notch and I still play the soundtrack after all these years.

I have seen this movie so many times and yet I still get yearnings to watch it again and again. Nicholas Cage was great and whenever I see Cameron Dye in anything nowadays, I always associate him with this movie. It is too bad the rest of the cast didn't go on to greater things but maybe that is part of this film's charm.

I won't do a film school critique as I am sure all the analysts out there can find fault if they wanted to, but what I will say is that this movie defined my teenage years and still continues to influence my life over 20 years later. The movie 'feels' great and stirs up emotions when you watch it (well...it did for me) and I cannot recommend it highly enough for anybody who has not yet seen it.

You either 'get' the movie or you don't! Those of you who 'get it' will be rewarded with a unique movie experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Merchant of Four Seasons is a film about a lack of love. The film starts off with the main character; Hans Epp, returning from a spell in the foreign legion. He returns to his mother, not to be told how much she loves him, or how much she's missed him; but to be told that he is worthless and, even worse, that she would have preferred the man he went with to have come back instead. It is the character's relation to women that makes this film so hateful; the fact that his wife is taller than him is symbolic of his relation to the other gender; he is consistently humiliated by them, and it is through his relations with them that his life isn't as great as it could have been. This is also shown clearly by the way he treats his wife after a drink. He lost his job as a policeman through lust for a woman, and even his wife; a woman that is supposed to love him, never really shows any affection for him. Even at the end, his wife is more bothered about what her and her daughter will do than the state of her husband.

The Merchant of Four Seasons is a thoroughly unpleasant film. There isn't a scene in the movie where someone is happy, and not only that; but the movie seems deliriously blissful to wallow in the misery of it's central characters. The movie is certainly not recommended to anyone who is currently having a hard time, that's for sure. Despite all the misery, the film never steps out the bounds of reality; every event in this movie can - and most probably has - happened, and that only serves in making the movie more shocking. The film is, of course, helmed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder; the cult German director that committed suicide in 1982. This is only my second taste of the man's work, but through just two films, it is easy to get an idea of the type of art that he creates. Both films are downtrodden and gritty - yet realistic pieces of art. His characterization in this movie is subtle; we only ever get to know the characters through their plight's and not through their character. This is a very clever way of showing the audience that it is their surroundings that define the people in the film, not the people themselves - and as nearly everyone that sees the film knows what living in an urban society is like, it wont difficult for the majority of people to relate to.

The Merchant of Four Seasons is not a film that is easily forgettable; the movie is high on substance and low on style, and that makes for a very memorable picture, and one that everyone who considers themselves to be a fan of cinema should experience. It is with that in my mind that I give this film my highest recommendations; it's not sweet and it's not pleasant, but you will not see a more realistic portrayal of depression, and this is most certainly a movie that will stay with you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ostensibly, Hans ' isolation and despair are caused by a stereotypically frigid bourgeois mother, a nagging wife, and a lover's rejection. And despite the complex portrayal--Hans himself doesn't precisely make these claims--the above must be a substantial part of Fassbinder's thinking as well (his use of Freud and Marx). But the viewer may look no further than Hans' gender and sexism to locate the truer cause of his crushed spirit.

First, it's highly unlikely that his mother's lack of love pushed him into signing up with the Foreign Legion. It was far more likely, and is in part indicated, that it was a quest for adventure, male camaraderie (escape from the female world of mother and sister) and male identity itself-- which both the Legion and war offered.

Second, Hans loses his successful job as a policeman because of his own sexism. By falling for a prostitute's wiles at work, he not only rubber stamps prostitution as an oppressive institution, but shows that he cannot even control his sexuality in a professional arena--and is even willing to jeopardize a desirable career.

Third, he commits serious verbal abuse against his wife in front of his sheep-like male buddies, making no distinction at all between her absence or--when she shows up looking for him--presence. In fact, he is more brutal in her presence.

A few hours later, in a violent and drunken state, he beats his wife in front of their daughter, who intervenes on her mother's behalf. The terror he instills in her and his daughter are palpable. But both he--and the audience--move on with nary a whimper of conscience or protest. Why? Because his wife is cruelly characterized as both nagging and sexually promiscuous (yes, this this may be Fassbinder's view of what capitalism does to women--owned, insecure, and a commodity--but this hardly absolves Hans' brutality nor Fassbinder's exploitation of her in the battery scene).

And then there is this male role pressure, which Hans could choose to reject and protest, but instead accepts. He's too short for a male and too un-heroic to achieve the worldly success the male role recommends. But how can these be causes of despair when he not only gains his lost love as a mistress but marries a tall woman who is considerably more attractive than himself., Finally, Hans allows Harry, his war comrade, to remain, over his wife's convincing plea to the contrary, on in their house. By this decision, he not only makes it clear that he is more tied to Harry than to his wife, but that male bonding supersedes his love of women. And supersedes, in the end, his own life, because it is Harry's superior competence and spirit around the house that causes Hans' star to fall. Hans, the merchant, may be to a degree, the victim of capitalism, but more to the point, he is the victim of his own allegiance to his own male identity. His inability to let it go, is the ultimate cause for his isolation and despair.

This is something that is lost, I think, not only on Fassbinder, but also on Han's sister, Anna--although, only to a degree lost. For Anna's (and Fassbinder's) support of her brother--over her mother, only goes so far. She is quite insistent that only he can save himself--that her support and love cannot it itself end his self-loathing. Unfortunately, she does not offer any of this same support and love for his wife who must be much more embittered than Hans but, who in the end, is able to pick up the pieces, and save herself and daughter, and present a marked contrast to Han's fall.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Fassbinder's earlier films, his ideas sometimes surpased his ability to execute them. He was always a great writer, but it took him some time to get his style of camera work and storytelling down pat.

The Merchant of Four Seasons is one of Fassbinder's first movie to make great use of color, from the bright green pears in the merchant's cart to the bright red roses at the funeral (a funeral in a Fassbinder movie? who'd have thought).

His camera work was getting there too, but it was still fairly minimalist. The occasional zooms seem a bit uncomfortable at times and unnatural, but then again, Fassbinder was still coming out of his purely avant garde phase. This might be because Michael Ballhaus isn't behind the camera, but instead the slightly inferior Dietrich Lohmann.

Still, this is Fassbinder, and you get your fix here. Broken dreams shown so vividly and unflinchingly as to alienate audience and drive them into a depressed stupor. Just what the doctor ordered. An early classic that shows remarkable progression when compared to his first films released only 2 years prior.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE MERCHANT OF FOUR SEASONS was Rainer Werner Fassbinder's first shot at mainstream acceptance. In a turbulent career of just fifteen years, he managed to create an astounding body of work in film and theater, both as a performer and a creative producer, actor, and director. Although this movie might not appeal to many viewers, the film has much to offer. The storyline is fairly straightforward. A man is ostracized from his upper middle class family due to emotional and economic problems, and proves unable to control his downward spiral. THE MERCHANT OF FOUR SEASONS is shot with a slavish devotion to elegant detail, and each set is very carefully designed and constructed. Every object on set seems painstakingly arranged so as to provoke layers of emotional texture. Many religious paintings and icons decorate the walls of the various rooms and seem to speak to Hans's desperate quest for spiritual meaning or direction in his life. Much thought was given to how lighting and color were employed to contrast and enhance the drama. Several times during the film, I froze the frame to marvel at the beauty of the shot's composition. I streamed this film, and the print was nearly flawless and second to none. Fassbinder employs his actors in an almost vehement \"Anti-Natural' style. He does everything possible to prevent the actors from reacting in a normal or colloquial manner, and this creates a rather stilted effect. However, by doing so, he injects an almost 'hyper-reality' to the narrative. Rather than the presentation of a mundane melodrama, the actors almost militant lack of affectation forces the viewer to confront the film in a different manner. Fassbinder's film intentionally prevents the viewer from easily connecting with the characters' trials and tribulations. You are constantly on the outside, looking in. This will be a disconcerting experience for many, but I found it to be a unique and satisfying artistic adventure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Merchant of Four Seasons isn't what I would call a happy movie, at all, or even one that impressed me to the point of praising it to the sky (there are other Fassbinder flicks for that, like Veronika Voss and the underrated Satan's Brew). But it's certainly no less than a fascinating experiment in taking a look at those in a society that you and me and others we know might possibly know, or not really want to know. I imagine in the early 70s in Germany a generation, coming out of WW2, had a stigma to live with but tried their best just to get by. This is a stigma that floats all over this film, and in many instances in Fassbinder's work in general, but especially because with Four Seasons he takes his eye on the middle class, and a particular married couple- the distanced, depressed, angry Hans the fruit seller and his long-suffered wife- that is nothing short than trying for realism in the guise of melodrama. If Cassavetes were a crazy German he might make this film, maybe even as just a lark.

The story sounds simple enough, where Hans' drinking gets out of control, he beats his wife (this scene is one of the toughest to take, maybe in just any movie, the way Fassbinder's camera lingers without a cut as his wife is left helpless and their daughter trying to stop him in his frenzy) and then she's ready to leave him. As he stands in the room, her family holding him back, she makes the call for divorce and he gets a heart attack right there. He recovers, his business suddenly starts booming again with some help from some good (or not so good) employees - and yet this only continues his longing, for another woman, and his despair in general.

And yet it's in this simplicity that Fassbinder tries, and succeeds for the most part, in attaining a mood of dread, of a tense vibe in a kitchen or in the bedroom or out on the street that you can cut with a knife and bleed out. The weakest part of this all may be the acting... at least that was my initial impression. Hans, played by Hirschmuller, can be a stilted presence, with only the slightest movements in his face and eyes, and for a while it doesn't look like he's much of a good actor. The actress playing his wife, Irm Hermann, and her sister (Fassbinder Hanna Schygulla) fare better, but only cause they're given more to do conventionally, like cry or look concerned. It takes some time to adjust to what is, essentially, a void in his guy Hans, of something from his own psychological self-torment or self-pity that pervades himself and those around him who just want to get on with some sense of normalcy, especially once Hans gets successful.

Not everything clicks together in The Merchant of Four Seasons, but enough did to make me recommend it to those looking for a different slice-of-life than you might be used to with more modern American movies. Fassbinder's world here is a combat between the melodrama he loves in cinema and the harsh, crushing sense of humanism that he feels personally and puts into characters that, for better or worse, we somehow identify with. Are the Epps a family you know of? Or could you even be them? Who's to say. It's a methodical study of tragic emptiness in the human spirit, and its goals are all attained.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rent this, I own the DVD, got it for $9.99. A steal being so under-rated. Sure, there are better movies. Movies with fewer or no holes in the plot or action. BUt I don't have that problem with this movie. For me if a movie stays true to itself, honest and exploitive of its flaws (and virtues, obviously!) in the name of entertainment, then it has fulfilled its purpose. I got me to care, because its makers cared. The entire movie is preposterous from beginning to end, but its makers took the whole undertaking seriously, And I did not feel manipulated into taking the movie seriously. And that is so true, because I want to take every movie seriously yet many, oh so many, let me down. For all of its preposterousness, this movie is almost perfect, and completely entertaining!What a funny screenplay! It also has become eerily relevant in light of the events on 9\/11. In no way do I seek to minimize the loss. But this movie incorporates the tradegy of the WTC collapse before it happened in ways that we will never see had the movie been made after those events.

\"...it's either gone for good, or here to stay.\" \"wouldn't you agree?\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think Shane Black is one of the all time greatest action screenwriters ever! He gave us the awesome (at it's time)Lethal Weapon, shooting Mel Gibson to super stardom. Then followed that up with the second best movie Bruce Willis has ever been in (The Last Boyscout).Stumbled a bit with The Last Action Hero, but redeemed himself with this one, The Long Kiss Goodnight.

If you're a fan of action films, this has it all...Action, Comedy, Thrills, then tops it of with more Action, Comedy and Thrills. Geena Davies is great, Samual L Jackson is even greater. Don't miss it !

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a Geena Davis fan for life because of this movie. I've always loved Samuel L Jackson. And the two make a great pair on screen. This said, I think 'TLKG' is the best action movie I've ever seen, forget the twist endings that audiences have now come to expect and that filmmakers now try (mostly failing) to incorporate into their movies.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this film...! I've seen it 1000 x on dvd and I cant say enough about it. It has it all, comedy, awesome action and incredible stunts\/fx. Samuel Jackson steals the show here big time. I dont think there isnt a moment that he's in that he isnt funny! \"Everyone knows that when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you and umption\"!! The f\/x are great! The bridge\/truck explosion is incredible, although the sound isnt all that great!When Samuel drives out of the truck, the sound is off a little I think and what he says is priceless!!! For those of you who own it on dvd, put the audio in french!!! It's halarious!!! Even emotional moments are great when the bad guy discovers that Sam's\/Charlie's daughter is his, is great... This is a great film that no action fan can do without... I also reccomend Cutthroat Island... Aside from all the negative publicity, it kicks!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was happy to find out that at least now this movie is beginning to get the appreciation it deserves (just view those votes). Not top-class action like \"Die Hard\" or \"Lethal Weapon\", but still something like a solid 7 out of 10: fine script, good actors with working chemistry, and a director who knows what he wants (sadly, this was director Harlin's last good film. \"Deep Blue Sea\" managed to reach 'an OK rollercoaster-ride'- status, but \"Cutthroat Island, and especially, \"Driven\" are well-deserved flops!) Personally I think the turn-off at the box-office might have been the \"Woman as an action star\"-theme. Well, give her a chance, because Davis does deliver a performance above par. And, after all, this film doesn't concentrate so much on the \"feminine\"-side, but instead on good ol' action, buddyism (Jackson as a sidekick is given a lot of room in here, plus his share of action- and about a thousand killer wisecracks!) and on the plot (from Shane Black, the writer of \"Lethal Weapon\" and \"The Last Boy Scout\". The latter of which as a movie is on very many levels much like this one...the theme, the clever plot, also as good and as underrated!) Overall: if one hasn't seen this one yet, don't forget to rent it for the next quiet Saturday night!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Almost no cinema experience can beat a good thriller with a sense of humor. Geena Davis is a schoolteacher housewife who suffers from amnesia. She'e even on the PTA! But then an auto accident awakens the woman she used to be, and it's HOT! Samuel L. Jackson is hilarious as the low rent private eye who tries to help Davis find her past, only to find out he's in way over his head. Davis has some hilarious lines too, and the interaction between her and Jackson works surprisingly well.

Look for Brian Cox, the original Hannibal Lechter, and David Moorse finally managing to shed his St. Elsewhere TV image. The film is directed by Davis' husband, who almost seems to have built the whole film around her, but it works.

I pull out this DVD and rewatch it often. I still love the makeup scene. Is Geena hot or what?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW

The Long Kiss Goodnight is yet another prime example of a common affliction of many modern films; it starts off on a very interesting concept - a trained assassin whose memory was erased regains consciousness of herself - and the initial setup is engaging but then it seems the writers don't know very well where to go next and the whole thing trails off down increasingly confusing and\/or inane paths, leaving the disappointing taste of something that was OK but promised to be a lot better. The baddies are remarkably unremarkable, and even Jackson's comic sidekick turn seems more like something from his pre-Pulp Fiction days; it looks like Harlin, as in Cutthroat Island, made every effort so that no-one would upstage his then wife. Her character is by far the best of the film and this fact only makes you feel even more frustrated that they weren't able to do something better with it.

However, there is still something about this film which for me sets it apart from the run-of-the-mill hollywood actioner and places it above average, if only just. It is something very subtle I can't quite put my finger on; it's a disturbing, cold, dark, even sickly edge, a nightmarish and unreal feel, a decadent air, a mean streak, which keeps cropping up in various ways. It's in the dark reddish photography and almost permanent night the characters dwell in, it's in Samantha's dreams in front of the mirror, it's in her vicious eyes and smile whenever she's about to kill a man or when she announces how she will enjoy watching her nemesis die with her daughter listening, it's in Mitch's comeback at the wheel of a car while he is spurting so much blood from his mouth he can hardly speak... I don't know, it's an atmosphere, something I can't define but which gives me the creeps (a bit) and which makes this film still oddly intriguing for me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Terrific movie: If you did not watch yet, you must watch. Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson are amazing in this movie.

Great actors + good story + incredible action scenes > \"The Long Kiss Goodnight\"

I give it a 10, A+, 4 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best action films I have seen. Geena's portrayal of the tough as nails, 'Charly'\/gentle mother 'Sam', was superb and Samuel L Jackson just keeps you laughing all the way through, with his classic one liners. Sure, there were a few holes in the actual story, but this fast-paced flick keeps you on the edge of your seat to the end.

I felt Geena was a perfect choice for the role of Sam\/Charly and her versatility as an actress is evident for her role as the mother in the recent movie 'Stuart Little'. Both Samuel and Geena were well supported by David Morse, Brian Cox, sweet little Yvonne Zima and newcomers, sexy Craig Bierko, and Melina Kanakaredes. This film accentuates the growing trend of strong female character and the diversion away from traditional male\/female stereotypes as we see Sam\/Charly (Davis) and Mitch (Jackson) hurtling from one disaster to the next.

While I and many others loved this movie, it is fair to say that there will always be people that don't and that's fine - each, to their own. I highly recommend this film to action fans, for its hilarious scenes and fast-paced action.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm an action movie fan but until today I've never seen a preview or an ad for this movie in Italy, so I went to see \"The Long Kiss Goodnight\" on pay-TV hoping for nothing special.

But, what a surprise! This movie is great! The only problem I found is the presence of some holes in the plot, but the rest is the most entertaining, intriguing and funny action movie ever made.

The transformation of Samantha\/Charly from ordinary wife-teacher to cool-blooded agent recovering from amnesia seems to be a good idea. The action scenes and the stunts are the best I've ever seen. Samuel L. Jackson adds some of the best lines I have ever heard and his chemistry with Geena Davis is good.

And what about Geena? She is wonderful, she plays the best action heroine ever seen and does strong, convincing acting and fantastic stunts.

So I think this movie had weak performances at box office and bad critics because most reviewers and some kind of public have a hard time with strong female lead roles.

9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surprisingly well-acted, well-written movie about hard rockin'-but-decent young man getting that much-hoped-for ticket to stardom: his favorite heavy metal band wants him to replace their lead singer. Not far-fetched, the film tries keeping things in perspective and doesn't go over-the-top; it certainly makes you think twice about those lingering adolescent fantasies about being in the music business. But the script, despite solid dialogue, follows a tried-and-true, formulaic pattern, and gets bogged down by its own clich\u00e9s in the final act. I enjoyed it much more than the sugary fluffball \"Almost Famous\". It has a nice, bitter edge to go with its heavy metal decadence, but a stronger finish might've made it more memorable. **1\/2 from ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ROCK STAR \/ (2001) *** (out of four)

By Blake French:

\t\"Rock Star\" is the story of a nobody who becomes propelled into fame, only to realize living his dream is not the way he imagined it. We have seen all this before (in better movies), but this human story does capture the world of rock and roll with a brutally honest and insightful edge. It garners a recommendation because of its visualization of the atmosphere. The script, by \"Crazy\/Beautiful\" director John Stockwell, portrays the hard-core universe with memorable images-it doesn't explain what it is about, it shows us.

\t\"Rock Star,\" originally titled \"Metal God,\" stars Mark Wahlberg as Chris \"Izzy\" Cole, a Pittsburgh office supplies salesperson who dreams of becoming Bobby Beers, the fiery lead singer for the heavy metal rock group, Steel Dragon. Although Chris already sings for his own tribute rock group called Blood Pollution, instead of writing his own songs, he insists on performing only those by Steel Dragon, and only in the exact way they perform them. His group becomes irritated with Chris' obsessions and gives him the boot.

\tThis devastates Chris, as well as his supportive parents and faithful girlfriend, Emily (Jennifer Aniston from TV's \"Friends\"). He then receives a phone call. It's the Steel Dragon band. They have seen Chris' tapes and want him to replace the recently fired lead singer. In an instant, Chris rockets into the dizzying world of sudden stardom-from the biggest rock fan to the biggest rock star. Unfortunately, it's not as rewarding as he expected.

\tA true story inspired the \"Rock Star\" concept. An Ohio supply salesman, Tim \"Ripper\" Owens, really did replace Rob Halford, the lead singer in Judas Priest, after initially singing for a tribute band. The rest of the film is probably fiction, although most of what happens must represent the experiences of many other bands. The film details the various ordeals of being a rock star. It explores the aspects of touring, personality differences, the danger of drug abuse and violence, struggling relationships, sexual freedom, dishonesty, and the extreme measures of the producers all to please the fans and keep popularity high.

I have seen all of Mark Wahlberg's movies, and this is the first that has earned my affection. Wahlberg, a former singer\/model, has made movies like \"Fear,\" \"Boogie Nights\" \"Three Kings,\" and most recently Tim Burton's lacking remake \"Planet of the Apes.\" I am starting to admire the young actor more and more. Although he has not performed in many successful films, he has taken many chances, and done a variety of roles. \"Rock Star\" is his best film to date. I can't think of many actors who could have convincingly portrayed Chris Cole's struggles and aspirations. Wahlberg truly makes \"Rock Star\" rock.

Jennifer Aniston lights up the screen as well. She creates a chemistry-rich relationship with Chris that induces audience participation. It's tragic of what happens to their relationship. We care about these characters a great deal.

During the film concert scenes, director Stephen Herek (who also directed \"Holy Man\" and the live action version of \"101 Dalmatians\") creates a gripping atmosphere. He captures the scenes with an intense urgency, and a raw, unmistakable energy. The musical numbers provide the film with the best, most involving scenes.

Unfortunately Herek cannot sustain the energy and zest throughout. At the three-quarters mark, he looses the spark as the movie becomes dull and unpleasant. I understand where the story needs to go in order to portray the negative side of fame, but this movie loses everything it previously had going for it. In \"Almost Famous,\" a much better film about rock and roll, there is a certain amount of interest and life in even the most sorrowful scenes. Here, it feels as if the filmmakers lose their passion.

The message comes a bit too late and suddenly in the story. The film turns into a morality tale that wants to provide us with a sappy destination. The filmmakers might as well stop everything, appear on screen and say: \"now audience, the moral of the story is\u0085\" We understand the theme, but it's too instantaneous. The personal discovery for Chris' must be gradual.

Fortunately, all of this happens in the last twenty-five minutes of the film, hardly enough to completely destroy an entire eighty-five minutes of a reasonably good feature. \"Rock Star\" is not a great movie-see \"Almost Famous\" if you want a remarkable film about rock and roll-but for Marky Mark, it's a turning point in his career.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ROCK STAR is a well-told Hollywood-style rendition of the tale based on fact actually on how Ripper became Rob Halford's replacement for Judas Priest. Mark Wahlberg poured on his likable boy-ish charm and performed with believable admirably, something he has been known to do since the release of BOOGIE NIGHTS.

Stephen Herek, no stranger to musically-themed movies, takes the audience through the wonders of the breakneck lifestyle of an extinct species, the Hair-Metal Rock God. Wahlberg's \"Izzy\" acts as the film's host plays the everyman who gets to see his wish come true. His likable character quickly wins over the heart of the viewer, who wants to see him succeed and gets the chance to give him the Metal \"goat horn\" hand-sign several times over.

The only real complaint with the story is that the supporting cast, namely the other members of the band, were not fleshed out, or even introduced, properly. More interaction with these life-long Rock musicians would have amplified and solidified Izzy's new surroundings.

Naturally, ROCK STAR is filled with great music. Rabin's score, the Steel Dragon's original work and plenty of 80's-style Metal hits makes this soundtrack a must-have! Let's all hope that films like ROCK STAR not only give a credibility to a style of music that helped define a generation but also spark a very-needed revival.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been looking forward to the release of this movie since I first heard the concept two years ago, and I was not disappointed. I won't bother summarizing the story since everyone else has, but I will say that it was just plain entertaining throughout. The performances were great, as was the music, and the main characters were likeable.

My only complaints are: (1) the story was definitely lacking; the movie wrapped up very abruptly- in fact the writing became pretty lax in the second half, as though the writers weren't sure what to do with the plot. Since the plot wasn't nearly as important as the music and the action, this didn't really affect the entertainment value of the film, so this is not as major a complaint as it would seem.

(2) This is really nitpicky, but the music that the characters in the movie were listening to was sometimes dated after 1985, when the movie was set. INXS' Devil Inside was from 1987 and AC\/DC's Are You Ready was from 1990, among other mistakes. This bothers me a bit, since they obviously went to lengths to make a good period piece, they could have checked the copyright date on these songs to make sure they were 1985 or earlier. Again, not a big deal.

Oh, I thought of something else that was strange. The Steel Dragon band members were supposed to be English, but for some reason Dokken bassist Jeff Pilson and Ozzy guitarist Zakk Wylde played band members, and they each had a couple of speaking lines in AMERICAN accents. That was kind of lazy also, but it was still cool to see actual musicians playing musicians, so I will forgive that as well.

I could probably nitpick all day, but I don't want to give the impression that this wasn't a super entertaining movie. I will probably buy the DVD when it comes out, and I will certainly buy the soundtrack CD simply for the six Steel Dragon songs (some of which were sung by the singer from the band Steelheart, if you remember them!). The highlight of the film was possibly a great outtake where Mark Wahlberg is lipsynching to a rock song on stage and suddenly someone plays \"Good Vibrations\" by Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch. The surprised look of Mark's face is priceless. Classic rock and roll flick! Score: 8\/10 due to extreme entertainment","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must admit I wasn't expecting much on this movie. I was surprised I truly enjoyed it as much as I did. The script wasn't oscar material, but it wasn't horrible either. The acting was great by Mark Wahlberg. Jennifer Aniston had a great supporting role, and looked lovely as ever. What made this movie for me was the music. If you do not like 80's glam metal or hair bands, then you probably wont like this movie. Its all about being a rockstar. Some cliche's were present, but didn't bring down the movie at all. I would recommend it to anyone who likes rock and roll and remember to Stand up and Shout!!! 8 of 10 for great acting and awesome music.

Jason","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nothing really unpredictable in this movie, but a solid flick in all respects. Everything from acting to cinematography was solid. Not a perfectly linear plot line, but there wasn't anything you couldn't see coming. Perhaps a tad melodramatic at points, but again, a fairly decent movie none the less. Definitely worth checking out. If in doubt of what film to rent over the weekend, give this a go. Though you may not feel like running out and buying it, I found it to be quite worth while.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like the 80's rock, you should definitely see this movie! I've only seen it recently and completely fell in love with it!

Overall, the movie is very entertaining, provides you with a great load of rock tunes and not a single second of the movie do I find boring! It was a great idea that some of the real-life musicians were in this, doing what they do best. I was happy to see Zakk, as well as Blas Elias, they all delivered solid performances. I tend to agree with a lot of people saying that the first half of the movie was much better than the second one, specially in the terms of the script.That could have been worked on a bit better, but not a major biggie. One thing that did bother me a bit was Jennifer Aniston's performance. I thought she wasn't the right person for this role,I just couldn't see her as a rock star girlfriend.But as the movie goes on, you somehow realize that she did a good job with this.There is a certain amount of honesty and sincerity she delivers that just doesn't live you cold.

To summarize, a good and a funny movie, that doesn't go deep into characters but provides you with a good fun, a sense of nostalgia and of course the mighty vocals by Jeff Scott Soto and Mike Matijevic!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mark Walhberg in a great role, idolises a rock star to the extent of knowing all his songs, imitating him to perfection, and dressing like him. When the opportunity comes for him to take over his \"idol's\" role in the band, he jumps at the opportunity. However the role of a rock star may not be what it is cracked up to be... and relationships can change .... This movie certainly struck me as having the theme of what you attain for may not be what you think it is once you get it. Overall a really good movie with great performances from all the cast as well as the two leads, Mark Walhberg and Jennifer Aniston. It did make me feel sad, especially when Emily, (Jennifer Aniston), met up with Chris in Seattle and saw the depths to what he had sunk. If anybody ever dreamed of being a rock star or a groupie they should watch this movie to see that the lifestyle, although glamourous for a while, is very lonely and ultimately not what you may want.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What to say about a movie like Rock Star? A lot actually! This is the type of movie that is almost tailer made for the critics to slam. It is also a movie I, as a MAJOR Hard Rock fan enjoyed-no-loved actually-while all the while being very consciously aware of its many flaws and that the movie, while a decent effort in some respects missed the chance it had to escape into greatness and become a rock movie classic. Oh well....

I loved this movie-and would see it again and again-but I know that's purely based on my own personal tastes-Rock Star is a movie that will appeal to anyone who has experienced elements of the rock or hard rock lifestyle and wants to go down the road to nostalgia. It was a great time for metal heads. And it's nice to have a movie that effectively captures that(long forgot by many non-rock fans.) time effectively, as I think that Rock Star has done. That is one of the film's strengths, the concert footage. You will feel like your right there with them and how could any hard rock fan not love that? As far as setting the atmosphere Rock Star gets a 10 of 10. It also gets a 10 of 10 for pure entertainment. If you want a movie to just let yourself go and free flow into some great memories of good times past, then this is the movie for you. It is also the reason why I loved this movie so.

But it isn't a great movie. I understand that and were it my actual job to review movies professionally, I'd probably have to be a bit hard on this one. The problem with Rock star is the character development.

What is wrong with the character development is this, there isn't any. None. The movie has certain scenes-few and far between but they ARE there-that DO touch on greatness:WARNING BRIEF SCENE SPOILERS: 3 examples- 1)when Izzy makes his debut on stage(including the fall he takes)

2)The first \"after show\" party with Emily(Anniston and Izzy.)

3)Backtracking a little-In the beginning when the original lead singer is casually dismissed(fired)-the whole \"business as usual\" tone sets the stage for what's to come. It's played very effectively.

But the problem is, nothing ever does come. There is little to no character development of anyone in this movie, peoples' persona's are merely touched on, but never fully explored. I don't think that's the fault of the actors\/actresses,particularly Anniston who tries hard, they just are not given much to work with. It's just that the script was weak and lacked the ability to go beyond the \"formula\" feel into true movie depth. Rock star was so sugarcoated at times(including towards the end) it was almost ridiculous. And , though, those scenes I mentioned WERE outstanding and very believable, sadly much else in the movie wasn't.

Another reviewer mentioned the lack of buildup towards the end and I agree but there was actually a lack of buildup about ANYTHING. WHY does Izzy leave at the end? Because he misses his girlfriend and the band won't let him write songs? It tests the limits of believability. And, frankly the end was just corny. Made no sense and had no reality to it at all.

Watching this, it's almost like watching a movie where the makers of it said: OK, this happens here and then this happens and then this etc etc etc. By the end it's no longer a movie about a boy who's dream came true, it's just another thickly formulated love story. And you wonder why so much detail is left out....

I hope I'm not being to hard on Rock Star because I truly loved it-but not for the right reasons. I would have liked to love this as a great movie about the highs and lows of rock fame. Instead I loved it for it's 80's period feel, the clothes, the hair, the lights, the life.... Although many others loved it to, I suspect most are people who lived the life of a rock fan, like I did or some who play. I'd have liked to see the movie cross over and just be respected for being a good, well told movie, instead of a clich\u00e9. I think, one of the problems was the length. I myself, hate over long films but this was one that really should have been longer, if a movie is done really right, the length is not even felt-there is just to much to the story for it to be as short as it was-that's one reason why there doesn't seem to be much development of either the story or the human beings portrayed in the movie.

So-to wind down-this is a movie you can greatly get into- but not a great movie. See it for fun. See it for entertainment. See it to go back to that great, great space in time when metal wasn't just a part of life, it WAS life-and for those non rock fans-see it to get a little glimpse into a life that meant and still means so much to so many of us.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WARNING - POSSIBLE SPOILERS!

'Rock Star' is one of the solid rock movies I have ever seen. The original idea of the script focuses on a young singer in the 80s, leading a tribute band of one of the most famous hard rock bands of the period. He is not only playing their music to the note, but also living the life of his idols. When his friends in the tribute band expel him, in search of some originality, the destiny plays him a good turn, and gets hired to replace the lead singer of the idols band. A dream came true? Well, almost. While starting to live the life of the famous, including the drug and sex excesses of the rock scene of the 80s, he will also have to face the problems in relationship with his supportive girlfriend, and will be eventually need to answer questions about creativity and having a saying in the music of the band.

I liked the film, one of the reasons being that it is one of the first times that the life and music of the hard metal rock bands is shown in a realistic manner. Fans of the music genre will be satisfied by the soundtrack. The overall idea is original, and the issues of how an artist lives his life and creates his art are being rendered in a sensible and balanced manner. Acting is quite good, with Mark Wahlberg better than in most of the other action flics I saw him lately, and Jennifer Aniston in tune with the nice-girl-who-knows-a-lot-about-life role. More problematic is the ending, which is quite conventional, and may disappoint. It looks like the main character after quiting the big and famous band has found his own creative path. However, in an ironical twist the music he is playing in the club at the end is the worst in the whole movie!

8\/10 on my personal scale. Worth seeing - however, expect exposure to a high dose of metal. If you do not like this kind of music, you may chose to avoid this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I seen this movie when it came out. I thought what an average movie. I have now realized that this director was ahead of his time. This is a great movie and great soundtrack. I have seen my share of rock films but although this is far from spinal tap (which I did not like)> This film does take us into the life of an 80s rocker wanting to be nothing but. This is nothing more than our inner child wanting to grow up and to be a *ROCK STAR* Yeah I said it. Everyone wants to grow up and be on the spot light( Weather said or not). This movie just puts you in the core of emotions and you can almost feel the excitement of Izzy. I must admit the acting was less par but still the music and story was enough to hold you in to it, till the credits rolled. Worth the watch especially if you are a fan of ye Ole mighty hair bands.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rock Star is a \"nice\" movie. Everyone is nice. Even the guys who aren't supposed to be nice, really are nice. Chris is a nice guy, who learns a lesson in life. He goes back to his girlfriend Emily, who is also nice.

It's a good movie, despite all the niceness. Maybe I'm just used to all the angst of the X Gen music. In some ways the film was a caricature of Rock Stars and not hard edged enough to be believable.

Mark Wahlberg's acting is quite good. Jennifer Aniston played her role well, but it was uncomplicated. She was a nice girl.

Go see it. If you have ever been to a rock concert or seen Spinal Tap, go see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was very excited to see Rock Star because I am a big fan of Mark Wahlberg's. I was surprised to have liked it more than I originally thought I would. The script did leave something to be desired, but the movie's performances made up for it. There were a few moments when visions of Spinal Tap came rushing back, and I can't help but think this movie would have been even better as a mocumentary. But, I digress.

Wahlberg continues to demonstrate his talent, as he plays with believability an ordinary guy whose biggest dream comes true. He does it with the wonder and innocence that make you not only believe him, but also make you really care about his character.

Jennifer Aniston, who hasn't impressed me in movies up to this point, is surprisingly good as the girlfriend\/manager. She shows more real emotion than I've seen in her last few movies combined.

But above all, it's the music in this movie that really draws you in. Peppered with some 80's tunes (let's face it - Bon Jovi would have any 80's music fans rocking in their seat), the movie really rocks with the original Steel Dragon songs and Wahlberg's performance of them.

I plan to see this movie again, but first I'm going to rush out and buy the soundtrack!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is great with some of the best songs preformed by Bon Jovi and kiss.The film is about a man named Chris(Mark Wahlberg)Who is the biggest fan of a band named Steel Dragon.And then when he gets the gig for lead singer his world changes upside down.With great acting by Jennifer Aniston this film is a must see for rock lovers!!

4\/5 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So, you wanna be a rock star? See this movie. You don't like rock, you say? Or you're REALLY into heavy metal? Then put on your favorite album and dream yourself away, this movie has nothing to offer. Rarely have I ever seen a movie being able to portrait the dream of being in a rock band as good as this. I had long hair during the late 1980's and early nineties, and I have played guitar for the last 15 years or so. Did I like Rock Star? Oh yes. The music is good, not great, the actors are good, and believable, even Jennifer Aniston plays her part to perfection. And Mark Wahlberg is perfect as the wannabe rock singer. So you know what you're going to get. A movie about dreams coming true, being stepped on, and finally figuring out what life is really about. It's a good solid seven out of ten, no more, no less.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie the other night, and I have to admit, it was quite possibly the best film of this generation. Turns out I wasn't born until 1988, but I can relate to this motion picture like Cary Grant can relate to having an STD, or Burt Reynolds to being a burnout. Marky Mark did not decline in awesomeness after his brief stint in New Kids on the Block, which I will from here on refer to as \"the best band in the world (aka BBW). Like, it's totally a morality tale about fargin' trannies an' poop, so pay attention! I love all y'all, and continue to support Marky Msrk because he needs us now more than ever. He's the only boyee who survived the De-sharted.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie, first and foremost because of Mark Wahlberg is in it and secondly because the end justifies the means. There is something about this film that sucks you in and allows you to feel all of the emotions the characters are feeling. Jen Aniston is great as the girlfriend in this movie. It takes a look at the Rockstar lifestyle that so many hardcore rockers lived back in the day (perhaps these days they have gotten just abit smarter). It takes through a rainbow of emotions and has a lot of subtle facets to allow the light through. Like a diamond, this movie shines. You won't waste your popcorn on this one. Semi-chick flick but my husband enjoyed it too. There's some laughs thrown in too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was an interesting movie. I could have done without the bathroom scene and the seduction scene - EWWWW! Other than that, I loved the head-banging music this movie revolved around. Chris\/Izzy's parents are AWESOME! They totally support their sons interests and believe in him enough to support him - now that is AWESOME!! What really surprised me was the Chris's realization at the end. It was not quite the \"hollywood\" ending on his road to self discovery. The overall rise to stardom and the fall of it was quite a roller- coaster ride.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, let me put it this way - I have always been one of the \"hardcore brothers\"; I've always loved rock music, and especially heavy metal!! That's why this movie is like a gift from God! I believe this movie is one of the best movies ever (well, except from Neverending Story and Star Wars, of course ...). It's great to hear all the classics, like \"Long live rock and roll\" (DIO), \"Stranglehold (Ted Nugent), songs by Jon Bon Jovie, Deep Purple, AC\/DC, Zakk Wylde and several other legendary rock bands. Heavenly! Absolutely gorgeous! WONDERFUL!!! I hope they will make more movies like this (otherwise it's just crap movies, like that \"AC in da USA\" or what they call it, and \"8 miles\". Bulls***!). Well, I strongly recommend this anyway! Everything I'm missing is a couple of Stratovarius-songs! But except from that, it's one of the best movies ever! Ten out of ten!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After reading previews for this movie I thought it would be a let down, however after I got my region 1 dvd ( the dvd was available before the film hit the uk cinemas) I was pleasantly surprised, strong performances from all cast members make this a very enjoyable movie. The fact that the script is quite weak means that you dont get bogged down in story and therefore the repeat viewing factor is greater. I recommend this movie to one and all

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After reading previews for this movie I thought it would be a let down, however after I got my region 1 dvd ( the dvd was available before the film hit the uk cinemas) I was pleasantly surprised, strong performances from all cast members make this a very enjoyable movie. The fact that the script is quite weak means that you dont get bogged down in story and therefore the repeat viewing factor is greater. I recommend this movie to one and all

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie. It is a very simple plot and from what I understand it is based on a true story. Growing up in the 80's with hard rock\/hair metal may have something to do with my love of this film but even aside from the music it is a really fun movie to watch. Give it a try, you will like it unless you are the hardest of critics and only like movies of \"Citizen Kane\" caliber.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the second movie about 1985, the other one was 'The Wedding Singer'. Whilst the 'Wedding Singer' was portraying the pop side of the 80's, 'Rock Star' is all about metal.

Mark Wahlberg plays a talented singer in a tribute band of some famous rock act of the time and Jennifer Aniston plays his girlfriend. When his fixation rewards him, his whole life changes in a day.

The story doesn't get too dramatic and it only scratches the surface of the life of a rock star. Sex and drugs are very limited in this movie, but it is full of Rock'n Roll! The music is fantastic and the concerts are directed brilliantly! The whole concert feeling is very well captured, since they used real audiences (no cgi here).

Great direction and a brilliant performance by Marky Mark, who acts like a true metal dude!

'Rock Star' is all about fun and if you had anything to do with the old metal scene, you are going to love this movie!

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"`Rock star' is not on its way to any `stairway to heaven' category as one of the best rock films of all time, but it does make you `jump' from time to time because of its high-level energy. The film's theme is on a die-hard rock group fanatic who actually becomes the lead singer of his favorite band. The story is based upon the true story on what happened to the heavy metal band Judas Priest. If you think this movie is filled with a witty screenplay and intellect direction- then you got `another thing coming'. However, what did `shook me all night long' was the fine acting of Jennifer Aniston as the rock star's devoted girlfriend. I could not say the same about the rock star himself; Mark Wahlberg was much better as a porn star than a rock star. I did enjoy the 80's retrospect journey the movie intakes. It reminded me of my teenage years where everything `smelled like teen spirit'. I guess the film is worth a viewing, but for you to have a better time watching it make sure you bring along some `girls, girls, girls.' *** Average","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jon Cryer reprises his role as a neurotic guy in Two and a Half Men, which he perfected in this series. He longs to have a good relationship with a girl like his coworker has developed, and the tet-a-tet between him and his partner's girlfriend's best friend are pretty funny. Then they realize that they're attracted to each other and start dating. In one of the funniest lines on TV EVER -- I think in the final episode -- he and his partner are discussing that he wants to propose to the girl.

His partner prepares him for the moment by suggesting: \"What's the worst that can happen? She says no.\"

Armed with newfound optimism, he proposes to his date over dinner. To which she replies,

\"GOD, no!\"

I laughed so hard I cried.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this show, it was on in the uk, but not at peak time, and they seemed to move it all over the schedules so I wasn't able to watch them all. I was surprised when it didn't return and had no i idea why, still don't know, but i guess that's not important.

Great performances from the two leads, they were very believable as friends. The two supporting actresses also added well to the mix. I guess it was part of a whole load of shows that were lifestyle centred, Friends being the obvious main one, but sex in the city came along a few years later.

The characters, get take out coffee, they drink at nice bars , that sort of thing, a little woody allenish in a way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a modern TV classic! The story goes like this, Bob has a girlfriend named Alicia. Bob and Alicia are in love and want to get married. Bob has a bud named Owen who he works with. Owen is jealous of Alicia. He likes hanging around with Bob. Now Owen hangs around with Bob AND Alicia. Bob and Owen have a secretary named Heather. Heather is very accident prone. She is also, if you haven't guessed it, is kind of lonely. She too hangs around with Bob and Alicia, and Owen. Sometimes Alicia wishes Bob didn't have any friends.

By the end of the first season, it looked like Owen finally found himself a real longlasting girlfriend. Bob and Alicia went driving on the night before their wedding, making out in a tiny car and then getting stuck. Way out in the middle of nowhere! What happened next? What about poor Heather? Did anyone get married?? Sorry, series ended.

Not even a plea from TV Guide made FOX think twice about putting it back on the air. It was a great show with a great cast. I loved Heather too. She looked cool in those glasses and was hilarious. I miss this show a lot. This is like reading a good book with the ending missing......sad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jesse yet again delivers, after almost 12 months of hype about his upcoming production it finally reaches the dark world of the internet with more than a brilliant approach to amateur film making.

DBP is a original, nail-biting commentary on a troubled child growing into an even more troubled adult. if i had more than two thumbs, i would give more, but i think two will be enough.

Great work from all cast, especially by Marissa and Elizabeth, the character of Emily as an adult has given me shivers so far and i'm afraid of where she'll go next.

An excellent watch","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This new movie by Jeskid is awesome! Check it out and you'll be amazed. The story of Emily Waters, once a girl from a broken home, whose only means of escape from an abusive father was through her sketchbook. Until one night her drawings manifested into reality and saved her, and now using this power she fights against those who would do evil. Both live action film and hand drawn animation blend together to create a unique and original experience that will shake your soul and blow you away. The music is incredible as well, it really intesifies the emotional experience and draws you deep into the conflict. Directed by Jesse Cowell and animated by Erica Langworthy, starring the beautiful Marissa Parness, with music by Nico Audy-Rowland, Daniel Collins, Jeff Strathearn, Matt Sisco, and Selcuk Bor. Support this film and support Jeskid, he is a very talented guy. Go see his film Shades of Grey as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This young filmmaker has a talent for capturing his audience quickly with unusual camera work and sparse but intense scripts. The concept here of combining animation with live footage is remarkably well-executed and the soundtrack is very good.

The decision to release the movie in twelve parts online puts the onus on the director to make each episode fascinating enough for the viewer to invest in buying each upcoming episode. I only wish all motion pictures had this kind of commitment to keeping their audiences entertained throughout their stories.

Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Drawn by Pain is easily one of the best pieces of cinema I have ever seen. Here are my reviews of the episodes released so far:

Episode one was even better than I expected and from everything I had heard about it, I expected quite a lot. I am very impressed with the actors already. The father was creepy and played perfectly. The little girl is so expressive, she uses her eyes to convey such emotion. The animation was superb. The cinematography was amazing, each camera angle capturing the feeling of the scene perfectly. The editing was done so well, each scene blending seamlessly into the next. The music captured the emotions quite well and drew you into the story. I just can't say enough about how wonderful this episode was. It definitely whets my appetite for more!

Episode 2 was even better than the first one! Everything I said about the first episode carries through, only you get to see even more of the character development. I can not wait to finally see episode 3, or the rest of the series for that matter. What is developing is an intriguing, character driven storyline with all the trappings of a big Hollywood production, but without the pretension. So much is said, with so few words. This series is something like you've never seen and perched to become a real success.

This episode was FREAKING AWESOME! No other words describe it! WOW! Everything that I've said about the previous episodes holds true for this one, and yet it was even better! I don't know how you manage to take something amazing and make it even better! The further character development proves that this is a completely character driven piece. The cinematography excels as it always has and draws you into Emily's pain, fear, hate and emotional roller-coaster. I can't wait to see Episode 4... or the rest of the series for that matter. You have truly outdone yourself!

As much as I have loved the other episodes, episode 4 is the best yet. I love the character progression. I feel like we are really coming to know Emily, her pain, and her internal struggle. The other themes I've stated in past reviews are continued. GREAT cinematography, the writing is superb, the actors are right on with their portrayals and have made the characters their own, and the animation is simply amazing! Another great job from the DbP crew!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story of a little girl who was driven once by fear and now by pain, she becomes woman and a vengeful crime fighter. Her power is to manifest strong anime characters onto herself. This movie fuses animation with live action as she wields her animated sword through all that stands before her. She struggles to deal with life, her demons, and her fears.

Young Emily watched her parents fight and argue. She watched her Dad leave her motherless. Emily soon discovered she had the power to do something about it. Emily grew through life traveling as a loner and at night she had the power to make a difference in the world.

This movie is a great blend of animation and real action. There are many themes and metaphors that run deep through the movie. This movie is broke up as a 12 part series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Eve is an eye opener, because of the great sceneries and the tech-no music in the backgrounds, we hear. This movie shows a good aspect on the human body being God's creation and to considerate about it, viewers can earn better respect on the legendary story of Adam and Eve (either if it's true or just a fairy tale, depending on what we believe) from watching this movie. Actress\/model Inger Ebeltoft's impersonation of Eve is so good, there's no good word to describe her performance, and I can't imagine having another actress being Eve. This movie to me, comes in really handy for the type of therapy of stress relief. We'd never fell so relax then before from watching this movie. This movie is a masterpiece, God supposedly wanted this movie to be made in the first place!

Mr. Razbin!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I started to watch this show by accident, but I love it. The fact that main character is in a wheelchair is something that lacking in television, especially for kids shows. My five-year-old nephew (as most children do) would just stare at people who were in wheelchairs or had some other type of handicap but after he watched Pelswick it just seemed to be a normal occurrence to him. Every time he saw a wheelchair he would simply say \"Like Pelswick\" and go on with what ever he was originally doing. And YES the animation is a little crude, but if you can stand to watch through the first season of the Simpsons then this isn't that bad. The \"Genie\" is actually an Angel who is there to help Pelswick learn lessons in life. He CAN NOT walk some else said he could walk some of the time, I've seen every episode and he never to my recollection walked, he is a paraplegic he has no feeling below his armpits (he mentions it in an episode). As for the humor if you can get a copy of the \"Ntalented\" episode, which lampoons boy-bands, you will instantly love this show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Possible ?? spoilers included, but nothing critical given away.)

I just watched this classic low budget movie on video, and was knocked out by the level of energy present on screen. All the actors do themselves proud, especially John Daniels, must see another of his films. Not only does this movie boast great performances, but manages stylish sequences, like when the baron throws someone out of a window and we see shards of glass falling into a swimming pool which erupts from the impact of the fallen man, i love the way slow-motion photography was used in 70's cinema, dreamy and hypnotic. Cool and witty black dudes spout great one liners while slimy seedy lumps of white trash come to unpleasant ends. I love it, my rating 10 \/ 10. If this ever comes out on dvd, count me in for a purchase.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You got to see it to believe it. Shot in Hollywood on the strip in the middle of the sleazy, anything goes 70s, this cheaply made flick must of really packed the inner city theatres back in the day. Then again, I bet it had a one week run. Actually, its pretty hilarious. The acting is dreadful, the direction non existent, but the hair, clothes, rotten pre disco music and the general out and out sleaziness of the story are mind boggling. Sleazy, its very sleazy. Highly recomended (if you can find it)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here's one of the more pleasingly scuzzy 70's blaxploitation grindhouse items; it's a pervasively low-rent pimp opus which comes across like a sleazier version of \"The Mack.\" John Daniels, the studly womanizing hairdresser hero Mr. Jonathan in the immortal \"Black Shampoo,\" gives an excellent steely portrayal of the Baron, a ruthless, business savvy, forever on the make all-powerful flesh peddler who much to the dismay of his bitter, brutal Italian rivals reigns supreme over the Sunset Strip. When not locking horns with his fellow no-count criminal pals or doing his best to avoid being busted by the local vice cops, Daniels is leading a sweetly average existence as your standard garden-variety suburbanite dude (complete with caring wife and loving kids!) in some typically humdrum California small town.

The glaringly absurd premise alone promises top-rate trashy greatness of a decidedly Grade B schlock picture variety (George Theakos deserves kudos for his hilariously ludicrous script). Matt Cimber's commendably tactless and tasteless direction delivers the junky goods by the slimy bucketful, thus making this film a hugely enjoyable serving of celluloid grime. Among the assorted squalid delights to be savored herein are plentiful gratuitous female nudity, coarse dialogue, beautifully gaudy Me Decade threads (halter tops, felt hats, sparkling Day-Glo jewelry, loud seersucker suits), an intensely funky R&B score by Smoke, some hopelessly pathetic acting (the little old lady who lives next door to Daniels is excruciatingly shrill), a memorably nasty turn by Patrick Wright as a sadistic goon, a couple of cool action set pieces (the climactic slow motion barroom massacre seriously cooks), more lurid travelogue footage of the Sunset Strip than you can shake a feather boa at (said footage allegedly includes \"the actual hookers and blades of the Sunset Strip in Hollywood\"), effectively dark'n'dingy cinematography by Ken Gibb, a few sicko sexual fetish tableaux, some raw explicit violence (a prostitute has one of her breasts cut off!), and amusing supporting performances by familiar schlock feature perennials Richard Kennedy and George \"Buck\" Flower as a pair of racist, corrupt, browbeating police detectives. Sure, this movie ain't art, but it's certainly artless enough to qualify as a deliciously grungy chunk of entertainingly sordid cinematic swill.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A ghost story on a typical Turkish high school with nice sound and visual effects. Taylan biraderler(taylan brothers) had made their first shots on a tv-show a couple of years ago, as far as i know. That was kind of a Turkish X-Files, they had very nice stories but lacked on visual effects. This time it seems they had what they needed and used them well. This movie will make you laugh that's for sure, and as well it might have you scared. It has a nice plot and some young, bright actors in it. If you are a high school student in Turkey you will find so many things about you here. There are many clues in the movie about its story and ending, some you understand at the moment, some will make sense afterwords, the dialogs were written very cleverly. So these make the movie one of the best Turk movies made in the last years. Do not forget, this movie is the first of its kind in the Turkish film industry.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie coming from Turkey where you can't find any tradition of horror movies. First I was afraid of watching just an adaptation but after seeing it I have changed my mind. It has original scenario.A love movie using horror thema. Most of the players are not famous young people but their performance is proofing that a new generation is coming. Maybe this is a sign that turkish cinema is coming back after 20 years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okul is the first of its kind in Turkish cinema, and it's way better than I expected. Those people who say it's neither scary nor funny have a point, it's not all that great indeed. But it must be kept in mind that everyone involved with the movie is rather amateur, so it's basically a maiden voyage. And comparing this one to Sinan \u00c7etin's other films such as the 1st class garbage \"Propaganda\", this movie is pretty damn good.

One thing that MUST be said: It deals with the highschool students' life in Turkey VERY realistically! That's exactly how it goes! The scenes that are meant to scare are somewhat cheap, and Hollywoodish. Most of them even if not all. But that religion lesson scene made me laugh in tears, and Emre K\u00fdnay performs the best acting of this flick as a religion teacher.

It's NOT a waste of your time, go and watch it! You'll find it rather amusing especially if you know Turkey enough to relate to Turkish youngsters' school lives.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've watched the movie actually several times. And what i want to say about it is the only thing that made this movie high rank was the Burak Altay's incredible performance, absolutely nothing but that. Not even those silly model named Deniz Akkaya and some of these popular names at times in the movie... Burak is definitely very talented i've seen a few jobs he made and been through. Even though this is kind of horror movie, he's doing really good job in comedy movies and also in dramas too. I bet most of you all saw Asmali Konak the movie and TV series, those two would go for an example... All i'm gonna say is you better watch out for the new works coming out from Burak then you'll see.. Keep the good work bro, much love..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is the most impressing turkish film that I have ever seen. Probably \"Okul\" is the first turkish horror film. I must say that I were excited while watching the movie because of some reasons, The first reason is that the story is impressive, I mean that at the end of the film you realised all the details about movie, this makes the film attractive and the other reason is that no turkish man made such a movie like that before. This shows that turkish film improves itself by time. Although the first trial to make a horror movie, It was really successful. I advice all of you not to miss this movie...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everybody seems to compare this to The Matrix and The 13th Floor, and when I first saw it I would have agreed -- I was expecting The Matrix and was a little disappointed. But upon repeated viewings my respect for this movie has grown immensely.

The thing to keep in mind is that The Matrix is a great action movie with some philosophical mumbo-jumbo thrown in. The 13th Floor is a passable action movie with some slightly more interesting philosophical mumbo-jumbo thrown in. Existenz is not an action movie at all, and is not (as many seem to believe) about \"reality\" or any such \"deep\" concept. It's about the human tendency to intentionally replace reality with an artificial (both in its origin and in its behavior) world of make-believe.

The most chilling moment in the movie is when Allegra Geller repeats her \"scripted\" line. It's at that point you realize that the people in the game have voluntarily surrendered their free will in order to participate in a story. This is made even more frightening at the end when D'Arcy Nader (or rather his player) comments on the possibility of spending one's life in the game. I sympathize completely with the \"realist\" philosophy, that providing interesting worlds in which people simply locate the correct predefined path to the end goal is ultimately a recipe for a soulless existence. Living \"in the game\" is not living at all, but is a tempting way to spend one's time on earth. As Allegra comments about the real world, \"there's nothing going on here.\" Might as well jack into someone else's imagination, and pretend to be doing something interesting. (Although I have to ask whether Cronenberg considers this a self-indictment, considering that he himself offers up worlds to be experienced in 90 minute snippets.)

Upon leaving the theater after first watching this movie, I thought it was one of those movies that was watchable only to see how it ended. But having seen it a couple more times (thank you SciFi Channel) I've realized how much deeper it goes. Seriously, if you've only seen it once, it deserves another viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"David Cronenberg, much like colleague David Lynch, is an acquired taste. A director who plays with themes like reality, perversion, sex, insanity and death, is bound to get the most extreme reations from audiences. He proved this with films as The Fly, Naked Lunch, Crash and eXitenZ (capital X, capital Z) and more recently, Spider. It's best to see eXistenZ with a clear mind. Try not to read too much about the plot, or it'll be ruined for you. What I can tell you is that Cronenberg takes you on a trip down into the world of videogames that acts as a metaphor for any kind of escapist behaviour. Living out fantasies is something people always dream of, but how far can you go into it, before reality gets blurred and the fantasy takes over and turns into a nightmare? Those are the themes touched in eXistenZ, an exploration of identity, the human psyche, physical bodies being invaded by disease and most importantly, reality itself.

The story and directing are excellent. Cronenberg knows his trade very well and succesfully brings to life an artificial world, avoiding the usual pitfalls and clich\u00e9s linked to stories such as this. The film shows some pretty disgusting stuff, but is unusually low-key in the gore department in comparison to Cronenbergs other work. The shock effects he plays on are never over the top and the plot progression is very intelligent and creative. It's not the most intellectual movie ever, but it will leave you thinking about it, wondering and pretty confused.

The acting gets two thumbs up as well. Both protagonists, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Jude Law, play their parts perfectly and cleverly portray their character's shifting moods and identities. The dialogue may seem a little stale and clinical at times, but that is part of the effect Cronenberg was going for, to create a disaffected and alien atmosphere that puts you quite at unease. Supporting actors as Ian Holm, Don McKellar and an especially creepy Willem Dafoe lift the movie even higher with their disturbingly familiar performances.

This movie takes some getting used to, but if you can appreciate the dark tone, blood-curdeling imagery and existentially warping story, you'll love it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Who should watch this film? Anyone who has ever taken acid, read Philip K. Dick, thought the premise of the Matrix was better then the special effects, has an interest in Philosophy, or likes having their sense of reality messed with. I laughed out loud at this film, just because it was so outrageous and so spot-on. This film is great. This film is cool. It is better than the Matrix, by a long shot (I didn't fall asleep in Existenz, for a kick off: action\/special effects films bore me stupid, and despite a plausible philosophical gloss, that is exactly what the Matrix is). Existenz is gross, it is disturbing, and it is funny. David Cronenberg has done some shonky stuff (Rabid) and some works of genius too (Videodrome is another one worth checking out, as is Stephen King adaptation The Dead Zone). But this is one of my all-time favourites. I can't remember the ending- which is a good thing, cos it means I can watch it again. Or perhaps I never watched this film at all. Maybe it's an implanted memory. Or maybe it 'really' happened to me. I don't know. At any rate, it is now seamlessly stitched into my overall illusion of reality, and I'm glad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"David Cronenberg's `eXistenZ' is a well designed reflection of the philosophy of existentialism. It addresses the problems of a culture that is plugged into technology that it can no longer distinguish between fantasy and reality or between the organic and the mechanical. The movie shocks the audience with its replacement of mechanical technology with organic, metabolismic one. In this context the technology is able to be part of human body. After playing the virtual reality game of `eXistenZ', the real world feels like a game and as a result, human behavior change in order to apply violent game-urges even when the game is over. In eXistenZ, technology has evolved from machinery to biological organisms that plug directly into the human nervous system; an idea that reflects Marshall McLuhan's belief who is a well known media theorist, that computers are extensions of human consciousness. Like telephone is an extention of the ear, television is an extention of the eye, telegram is an extention of the central nervous system high-tech virtual reality is an extention of human consciousness. In eXistenZ, technology is biological and thus more human than it is in our world. But as technology becomes organic, humans become more mechanical and therefore less free, unable to resist their game-urges. eXistenZ is a virtual realty simulation of man's existence. Jean Baudrillard describes a mediated society in his book of Simulacra and Simulation, which all power to act has been transformed to appear. The world has passed into a pure simulation of itself. In eXistenZ it is obvious to see Baudrillard's mediated society with the themes of the invasion of the body, the loss of control and the transformation of the self into other.

While you are in the eXistenZ, consciousness slowly replaces with another identity, your role in the game, which is a reflection each individual's real life subconscious. While you gain the control of your hyperreal life step by step, the aura of your real life disappers. For Baudrillard, `.simulations or simulacra, have become hyperreal, more than real.' Our hyperreality, like Cronenberg's world of computer simulation, `.now feels, and, for all intents and purposes is, more real than what we call the real world.' (Baudrillard) The purpose of the game which can basically be called 'experience' is quite metaphorical. Because you can not even know what is experience unless you experience it. As existentialists say that, life without an exact explanation is absurd, the game of eXistenZ is absurd too. Cronenberg, ironically reflects the absurdity of our lives. For instance, in the game, the other roles just stand still unless you ask them a pre-programmed question. And when you put their aimless funny looking state of being into the representation of our lifes, the exposed absurdity really shocks.

The theme of the game is to understand what it is for? This hidden metaphorical question creates anguish over the people who play eXistenZ. They have no doubt about their existence, however they do not know the underlying reason of their existence. The essence.

Existentialists have held that human beings do not have a fixed nature, or essence, as other animals and plants do; each human being makes choices that create his or her own nature. In the formulation of the 20th-century French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, existence precedes essence. `Choice is therefore central to human existence, and it is inescapable; even the refusal to choose is a choice. Freedom of choice entails commitment and responsibility. Because individuals are free to choose their own path, existentialists have argued, they must accept the risk and responsibility of following their commitment wherever it leads.' Perhaps I should mention, `eXistenZ' deals with the concept of freedom of choice too. You achieve your final role in the game by taking right decisions. If you don't than the game becomes irrevelant and boring. So, you begin to interrogate the game, your existence rather than your essence. You suddenly become schzopfrenically alianated from the game and realize your position outside the game. Well as a last word, eXistenZ is a well designed reverse simulation of life thus existentialism.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"We're both stumbling around together in this unformed world, whose rules and objectives are largely unknown, seemingly indecipherable or even possibly nonexistent, always on the verge of being killed by forces that we don't understand.\" So says Ted Pikul in the film. Which for some people sums up life and 'eXistenZ' probably is a film about existence. What is real and what is unreal and how you tell the difference. Or not. The last line of the film is superbly ambiguous.

The film seems like a shaggy dog story (indeed it has a real shaggy dog in it) but it takes you along on an interesting ride, full of provocative Cronenberg touches that will make you look at amphibians, game pods, fish, spines and bones in a new light. Some bits are quite icky. It takes place in a rural setting where the gas station is called 'GAS STATION' and a Chinese restaurant is called 'CHINESE RESTAURANT.'The film has an engrossing texture that is leagues away from your usual big budget science fiction movie.You can read many things into the film and it repays watching more than once.

The main actors are Jude Law who is OK and Jennifer Jason Leigh who is great. Some roles don't suit this very talented actor but when she has a good role like this she is unmatchable. Her unconventional beauty and fascinating voice suits the part of Allegra. (Looks great in a short black skirt too.) There are other familiar actors but they are not given much to do. It looks good, sounds good and a Howard Shore score complements the film very well. Cronenberg is possibly the Alfred Hitchcock of the sci-fi\/horror genre. No matter what film he makes he is always worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An absorbing exploration of virtual reality, although it is not yet clear how much the director himself intended. This film deliberately takes you through several layers of artificial reality, leaving only subtle clues about which layer of virtual reality you are in, positing an ontological confusion for the viewer to ponder.

Also can be seen as a satire of video games-- the whole movie though may fall into the fallacy of imitative form here. It seems unable to escape from the video game genre which it imitates; thus the satire becomes problematic.

A number of interesting ideas crisscross throughout though: the biological mutant is one; the interface of technology and biology, the cyborg urge to transcend reality-- and philosophical allusions such as the title's to Heidegger, along with existential questions: i.e., the game characters are partly scripted or determined and yet partly free to alter their fate, and they wonder at how strange that feels in the game. One character then notes that this existential confusion is just like real life, thereby erasing again the distinction between the virtual and the real. Likewise with the observation that it is unpleasant to stumble around in a world where you don't know what will happen next and you're not sure how to play since you have to stumble around just to find out the goal and the unknown rules. A virtual game within the game is titled \"TranscendenZ\". Also a critique of how virtual violence makes us unable to feel the effects of real violence. Even the heroes at every level of ontological existence find themselves confused about violence. They don't like it but it is thrilling and part of the \"game\", which then they fear is real.

The game creator, the god of the system, is assassinated in the end; yet that very scenario is played out in direct parallel to a video game we've just witnessed-- and the onlookers believe that it is still just part of the virtual reality. In the end, the film does not resolve the doubt about whether or not this is \"real\" but the point is clear (to me anyway). Existenz means Da-sein: You are there. You are thrown into a set of rules and mysteries at every level. Ontologically, virtual reality recapitulates reality. And its common game motifs express, like a royal road to the unconscious, our own fascination with violence.

Nevertheless, while Cronenberg affirms these philosophical allusions in an interview about the film, he claims that he is very much against the \"Reality ... {underground name of terrorist group} portrayed in the film both in the game and in the 'real' level.\" Seems that Cronenberg himself did not put that much thought into the film, though his impressive education comes through. The interview in Cineaste gives the impression of a middle brow intellectual who's trying to be avant-garde by inclination. Cronenberg is simply on the side of free imagination -- the clich\u00e9d bourgeois modernist credo-- despite the acknowledged ambivalence there. (My impression here might be due to one limited interview.) Still, Cronenburg seems to miss the point that his film betrays the fallacy of imitative form (here imitating computer games while doing a satirical critique of them, but a critique that is unable to \"transcend\" the same form) probably because he actually thinks that it is \"imaginative\" and radical. Yet the film's imaginative world is less bearable, and more jejune, than our own all-too-real world. It remains trapped in the computer game worldview.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"eXistenZ is an exploration of reality and virtual reality, wherein characters run from realm to realm, landscape to landscape trying to beat a game they know not the goal of or exactly where it's leading them. Within that virtual reality game is more layers of virtual reality games, calling into question which reality they arrive from is the \"real\" one.

Of course it's not spectacular at hiding the fact that it's not going to reasonably answer to a true reality, instead tossing the idea of whether it's real or a video game into question even up to the end. I'm not even sure Cronenberg pretends that twist won't be there, it's so incredibly obvious in a sense it's kind of disconcerting.

The problem with this film though is its base nature, in a sense. Cronenberg is questioning reality AND criticizing game play. Yet the same things that he uses to criticize game play makes him revel in it: the violence, the discontinuity, the lack of focus and in a sense, the pixellation even if there isn't such pixellation in the film. I have once heard someone state that Cronenberg's violence is actually a criticism of hyperviolence in media, but he hides that well with the fact that he derives such incredible pleasure in ripping new orifices into humans, animals, and amorphous piles of biological sludge.

What IS brilliantly written and done about this movie is the use of video game conceits (not being able to say exactly what you want to say during cut scenes, relative lack of surroundings or surroundings that don't make sense, only a few people around where it feels there should be many and vice-versa, all of that stuff) along with the motif of penetration. It definitely deconstructs the video game reality in a way that's nauseating and absurd, but it does it even better by replacing video game electronics with literal \"pods\" of biological matter that squirm and shift and are, frankly, disgusting to the one of the most horrifying degrees. For what it's worth, this film causes a reaction in you.

But what for? It criticizes virtual reality, but it's a movie: it is its own virtual reality. It seems to criticize the banality of video game plot lines and character design, yet it maintains that banality. It definitely seems to worry over whether killing a video game character is more okay than killing an actual human being and how video games can be confused with reality and cause people to not think about the consequences of their actions in real life, and yet I say again, it derives the utmost pleasure from ripping people, objects, beasts, things, and organisms into bloody shreds.

So whereas it has a key focus of angst, it doesn't really do anything with it, not really. Only what it does do is present that angst in such an original way it can't really be denied its own moment of splendor.

In a sense, it'd be much easier to just hate this movie for being gory and violent, because there's no good reason I can see for loving it and yet I can't disregard it as mediocre or bad. It'd be easier to simply not be able to take it, but since I can, there's nothing I can really do with it. I do believe it is a little excessive, it really didn't need to go as far as it went, but Cronenberg's intentions are so mixed up and confused I don't know if that was Cronenberg's flaw or Cronenberg's point, and I don't think there's really any way to figure it out except maybe ask him directly.

--PolarisDiB","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After his earlier movie \"Videodrome\", which definitely shows similarities to this movie, director David Cronenberg again ventures himself in the world of virtual reality, in which truth and fiction mix. It's virtual reality taken to a whole other level.

\"eXistenZ\" is an highly original movie that is well directed and acted out but above all very well written. The movie features a fascination and well thought out concept, which gets greatly executed by director David Cronenberg.

\"eXistenZ\" is a movie that knows to constantly fool you. Just when you thought you figured things out, another surprise awaits around the corner. Things are never like how you think they are, especially when the line between truth and fiction gets explored. You just never really know what is the reality and what is the game-world, right till the ending. It makes the characters and events all very unpredictable and also provides the movie with a great ending that will leave you thinking even more.

The movie has a perfect kind of game-play storytelling, mostly with its character appearances and its puzzling events. They have to complete a certain step or task first before they can continue in the world and find out what their purpose in the game is.

The movie knows how to create a perfect balance between realism and surrealism, without ever going over-the-top with either one. The storytelling keeps the movie as simple as possible, though of course the movie isn't always that simple to follow because of its events, dialogs and unusual environments.

The movie is not only just weird though. I was actually surprised to see that \"Videodrome\" has an higher rating on here, thought it's a far more inaccessible and 'odd' movie. The movie is also still made entertaining and has a good fast pace. It doesn't ever allow the movie to get stuck in its more philosophical moments and deeper meanings. It also makes this movie perfectly watchable for people who normally don't watch this sort of movies.

The movie is good looking, with subtle effective special effects a great visual look, that also provides the movie with a certain required 'gaming' feeling.

The movie is well cast, with Jude Law in a role you don't too often see him in, that of a shy insecure person. It once more shows how actually versatile Law as an actor is and that he is way more than just another pretty face from Hollywood. Jennifer Jason Leigh also was a great female lead. She hasn't really played ever that many big parts in big productions but with this movie she shows why she nevertheless always have been regarded as a big movie star. The movie also features some other well known actors, in much smaller roles, such as Ian Holm and Willem Dafoe.

An highly original movie that is well worth watching, especially if you have seen \"Videodrome\" previously.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The producers of this picture are Hungarians. It's not by crazy artistic momentum that X and Z are capitalized in the titles considering that the word 'isten' means 'god' in Hungarian. - By the way, David, Isten is the word for God in Hungarian... - Hum... Is that so ?

Let's consider this movie as 'A History Of Violence' science-fictional sibling. Both films have in common the strength of blowing up respective genres ; thriller and drama in the 2005 one and 'none FX-ed as hell' science fiction in the one we're looking at right now. Everything he does have a meaning and is surrounded by details : The nod to Phil K. Dick (who wrote \"In The Days of Perky Pat\") by creating a 'Perky Pat' fast-food restaurant. The nod to Stanley Kubrick by using 2001's naming pattern ; as IBM became HAL (one letter down in the alphabet) in the 1968 movie, in eXistenZ 'classic lubricant spray' WD-40 becomes XE-60 (one letter up) when Allegra cleans up Pikul's port. The nod to David Cronenberg by using Videodrome's witty kind of formula ('Death to...' & 'Long Live'..) and by taking another medium for central theme of a picture (tv in Videodrome, Video games and virtual reality in eXistenZ In 1983, you penetrated a TV set. In 1999, you're penetrated by a game. Welcome to Canada!)

The nod to good taste by getting Peter Suschitzky's cinematography, Howard Shore's music and Ronald Sanders's editing (a team that wins). For everyone born in the early 80's with a super famicom, a genesis or an arcade stick in the hands, this movie rings a bell. Enough with the nods. The plot ? \"Jennifer Jason Leigh stars as a game designer (Allegra) who creates a virtual-reality game that taps into the players' minds\" as we can see on the movie main details page. That's the story in the story. To me, this picture is about a 'reality demonstrators' young couple infiltrating the 'brand new virtual game' presentation session to destroy its programmer. I assume that what we see in the last five minutes is reality, if there's such thing as reality. Jennifer Jason Leigh is always playing a game designer in the game they're in and the end of the movie IS the reality, with video games freaks giggles, big hairy dogs, 'Cronenbergy realistic' plastic textures (helmets and stuff) and 9mm handguns. What you see is true. They play transcendenz during an hour or so (in this game, there's a game (eXistenZ) in which JJL plays eXistenZ's genius programmer and Jude -Pikul - Law a marketing trainee associated with Allegra's game), they play eXistenZ because Allegra is very concerned about her pod's health (the thing you plug your nervous system in, in order to play), she has to plug herself and Pikul in then wins the game (Transcendenz) and back in the reality they kill Yevgeny Nourish, TranscendenZ programmer.

Playing eXistenZ and TranscendenZ is about facing your essence, face your subconscious while its creating a virtual reality you'll have to overcome in unexpected ways to win the game (by playing the game, the girl playing Allegra, the 'reality demonstrator' turns into Allegra, a 'virtuality goddess').

What game would Heidegger have played to feel his abstract da-sein term ? To be truly engaged in the world ?

And what about Nietschze (Yes Friedrich, God is dead and you know what ? Willem Dafoe stands for him! - God, The Mecanic -) ???

Yes we do construct a narrative for ourselves, and losing this thread we follow from one day to the next disintegrate people as personalities ; eXistenZ's discusses the fact that reality is the whole perception of itself by anyone who engaged it truly. And we could sometimes get some neat stuff ; a perception of virtuality in virtuality in reality.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I always believed that a film that's plot is centred around a virtual reality video game never sounds as though it's going to be anything special but eXistenZ proved I couldn't have been more wrong. This film is unbelievable and, whilst highly entertaining, offers so much more than that. From start to finish, this film has you conceptualising to the point where you can have so many ideas, you can not make a final conclusion. David Cronenberg has a talent for this as he does so many things.

eXistenZ is pure Cronenberg; the way it's written and the way it's directed is very unique to his style and that can only be a good thing. Cronenberg set himself a clear target with this film and that was to keep the audience guessing which he did with apparent ease. His fondness for the grotesque is not as predominant in this film as it is in The Fly or Naked Lunch but there are still some elements such as the game pods and how they are made that can make the audience wince. With regards to his earlier work, eXistenZ is more a combination of Videodrome and a less violent Scanners, a pretty awesome combination. Setting the film in the not too distant future was a really good decision as it allowed Cronenberg to be extremely imaginative with the films surroundings and also enabled him to visualise more concepts, allowing for less inhibited writing. It was important that the film didn't become over confusing and Cronenberg avoided this very well by keeping things relatively simple. Besides, if he wanted to make an unwatchable film, he'd know how to do it a lot better than this.

eXistenZ boasts an extremely talented cast of character actors and all perform very well. Jennifer Jason Leigh gives the standout performance as the game designer who spends more time out of reality than in to it. Leigh is sexy and commanding in her role as Allegra and she really gets her teeth in to the role. The emotional range she shows in the film is particularly impressive, making her completely believable (if you can believe anything). Jude Law is also good and is very convincing in his character's fear of implantation. The chemistry between these two is very electric and gives the film an extra bit of flavour. Ian Holm and Willem Dafoe are just two of the great actors in support who add further depth to the film with very colourful performances. The cast of the film isn't huge but eXistenZ definitely has the 'quality is better than quantity' ethic which works very well.

As well as being entertaining and thought provoking, eXistenZ touches social issues such as control and loss of self. This further demonstrates the film as an intellectual vessel and could also explain why it wasn't a huge Hollywood hit. eXistenZ has so much to offer and although it isn't to everyone's taste, those who like Cronenberg's work or who like science fiction will almost be certain to like this film. It is one of those films that needs to be watched with an open mind but it really is something special.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So let's begin!)))

The movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear...

My intention to see it was certainly JJL being one of my favourite actresses. She is as lovely as usual, this cutie!

I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers. Still it's quite interesting and entertaining to follow.

The rest of the cast is not extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array. ;)

Recommend with confidence!))))","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WARNING: PLOT SPOILER

The always-abnormal movies of David Cronenberg certainly are an acquired taste. Fans of his earlier films will probably like `eXistenZ', but it definitely isn't one for the squeamish. All of the usual elements are here. A game pod made out of skin (hooked into your back), buckets of blood, a gun made out of bones, and a manic mechanic to name but a few. The result is good in parts, bad in parts, and just plain weird in others. But one thing the film has is undeniable originality.

Despite the excessive use of\u0085 weirdness it does prove a point- virtual reality games can have a dangerous effect on some people. In the movie, a character shoots someone dead claiming that he was `annoying' (assuming that she was still in the game). But it leaves the question as to whether that really happened or if it was an occurrence in this stunningly life-like game. `eXistenZ' leads to a conclusion that can be responded to in several ways.

Despite some extra gadgets and gook, it was simply your classic `it was all a dream\u0085 or was it' twist. It is a smart surprise and answers a few questions, but giving that the entire film was leading up to this moment is a bit disappointing. At only 97 minutes it could have went on a bit longer too. In a peculiar way the film raises moral issues but answers them in a violent and rather inappropriate way.

Jennifer Jason Leigh appears here in her first big role in quite a while. But her character doesn't have enough qualities to make her jump off the screen or even give her a likeable character. Jude Law on the other hand (equipped with a curious American accent) is good as your average Joe sucked into this abnormal world. We see the film through his perspective.

`eXistenZ' is far from flawless but it certainly is a movie experience to remember. There's tonnes of weird characteristics to match the similar styles of David Lynch (what next? - being consumed by a question mark?!?!?!). It definitely isn't for all tastes but it is rewarding enough to recommend. My IMDb rating: 6.2\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"eXistenZ combines director David Cronenberg's traditional love of blood and gore and exploding heads with the more confusing aspects of a reality twisting David Lynch film. And it actually works effectively. I won't bother trying to give even the bare bones of a plot synopsis here because it'll only cause more confusion. All you need to know is that the film is about a virtual reality computer game that is so incredibly lifelike that it becomes difficult to tell the difference between reality and virtual reality. The film almost seems to abandon its technology fearing point at the end, but then it throws in the final twist in the very last line of dialogue.

There's also some very gross sexual imagery based around the 'bio-ports' in the protagonists backs, as well as some very gross acting from Jude Law. He manages to come off as naive and stupid and boring and any other annoying habit you can care to think of. Jason Jennifer Leigh comes off much better, and everyone else can be called a supporting character, including Willem Dafoe in a functional, if unspectacular, role as a money-crazed mechanic. Overall, eXistenZ is a very effective sci-fi film about the possibilities technology can present and the possible consequences it will receive.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"eXistenZ was a good film, at the first I was wondering what is going on, organic \"pods\" made out of mutant reptiles which connected you and other players to a surreal virtual reality game via a umbilical cord, well it seems a little odd.

But once it gets going its a pretty good film, with a few twists with a great open ending and the good aspect of weridness throughout the film is entertaining too see as your not sure whats coming next.

Security personnel throw away the metal detectors; they have bone guns !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The bottom line is: if you come looking for a sci-fi thriller\/horror film, The Matrix is what you'll like. If, like me, you long for the rare true science fiction film involving characters with depth and provocative thought about where science will take us, then you need to see eXistenZ.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is breath-taking and mind-blowing. But I think maybe it can only be appreciated by die-hard RPG funs. It is like a game. One problem is the plot is too game-like and just has too many twists. The twists are excessive. Jude Law gives a very good performance. I really like him in this movie, just as Jerome in Gattaca and Gigglo Joe in A.I.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

eXistenZ is simply David Cronenberg's best movie. All the people compare it to the Matrix. They're not even similar. If you enjoyed Cronenberg's other works just a little bit, you'll love this one...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now being a fan of sci fi, the trailer for this film looked a bit too, how do i put it, hollywood. But after watching it i can gladly say it has impressed me greatly. Jude is a class actor and miss Leigh pulls it off better than she did in Delores Clairborne. It brings films like The Matrix, 12 Monkeys and The Cell into mind, which might not sound that appealing, but it truly is one of the best films i have seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

my favorite science fiction, incredible ride through mistrust and the warping of reality. Probably the best performance I have ever seen Jude Law play. Incredibly original with interesting character developments and a story line that twists and turns so rapidly that it takes a couple of minutes after the film to fully grasps its genius. Even more fun watching it again for the end changes the beginning.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A bit \"the movie in the movie\" case, or as the theme is virtual game here, which is the reality or even more frightening which reality is the \"real\" one.As any Cronenberg there are organic things, like the pod and that wonderful idea:the organic gun, a weapon made of bones and tissues that shoots teeth. If there are some slower moments, the sets, designs and ideas are there with some thoughts of revolution. Can be not liked because the way the movie is happening is quite unusual and sometimes disturbing, but it's definitely worth it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a great movie, I would compare it to the movie The Game. You get to the end of the flick and cant move... your brain has been removed and shaken (not stirred) and put back in your head. Dont plan anything after this movie, you will need time to think about what just happened.

Dont come to this movie expecting the Matrix style multi millions spent on special effects, this movies special effects come from the actors, they keep you involved, no, they suck you in and dont let go for the entire duration of the movie. Great acting, great plot... very enjoyable film, I cant say enough. Also very original plot, plenty of twists and ideas that I would have never thought of. The ending is abrupt and leaves you hanging wondering, was that real? Is this really the end? Good ending, not saying that it is bad... just leaves you wondering, and a little frazzled.

Great movie for those who like action, like a good plot (dont get up for a bathroom break on this movie, you will come back lost) and like mind games, because thats exactly in a nutshell what this is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"yes, i have noticed that there are 347 other comments, i think that is a good sign for a movie, even if some are negative. i have seen this movie 2 and a half times. i adore it and would watch it again. it is very smart, but i can understand why some people would hate it. they don't get it's appeal. yes, i have a weird taste in movies, but this is a great movie. some of the lines are just so quick, like the whole scene in the chinese restaurant. i started dying laughing. that and when he was in the assembly line talking to the contact. jude law was wonderful, though it was humorous, him trying to cover up his wonderful accent. anyways, i do not consider myself the movie goddess as some critics of this movie and if you have nothing better to do than write pseudo-intellectual movie commentaries about films you hate online, i feel sorry for you. why don't you write about movies you like, like me. i just love how everything ties together, it keeps you guessing, even though you guess wrong. the ending was interesting, and not overdone. it was purely clever. i would not compare it to the matrix, because i think people then get the wrong idea. i went into this movie expecting nothing except jude law and a sci-fi. i was blown away. i have no clue about any other of cronenburg's films, but love this on its own merit. another clever thing was the foreshadowing with the dog. definitely watch this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie but then again I am a big Cronenberg fan. If you have not seen a David Cronenberg film then this is not a good place to start. Scanners, The Fly, Rabid would be a place to start and then work up to Videodrome before checking this one out. This is certainly one of his best and takes the interactive game phenomena one step beyond.

In this game the players plug a bio-engineered game pad through a jack inserted into their spinal cord and get into the game directly through their nervous system. It is very hard to tell you more without giving away the story and the plot but it is enough to say that this is a game you will not forget. It is full of Cronenberg's slimy body works, dark foreboding scenery all populated by a great cast including Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jude Law and Willem Dafoe who take the situation they find themselves in very seriously. These people will do what they can to figure out the game and then to win at it. Like other movies of his there is no shortage of imagination or parts where you sink to the seat but like an auto-accident you don't look away. If you liked any of the movies mentioned above then by all means go out and get this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie eXistenZ is about a futuristic video game on a \"pod\" system that is almost like virtual reality. The only copy of the video game is damaged when an assassination attempt is made on the designer (Jennifer Jason Leigh). Unless it can be repaired, the many years and 38 million dollars spent on the development will all go to waste. The only way to repair the game however, is to actually go in the game with the only person she feels she can trust(Jude Law). This movie was pretty good, but doesn't really pick up until very late in the film. The best thing about this film were the twists toward the end. Definitely worth seeing. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"David Cronenberg movies are easily identifiable, or at least elements within the movie stand out as his trademarks. Fetishism, the blurring between the organic and inorganic, squishy throbbing things that shouldn't be squishy and throbbing. \"eXistenZ\" is classic Cronenberg. Briefly, it's about a future generation of computer games, but instead of a video monitor, visuals are supplied by your mind. The game plugs directly into a 'bio port' in the base of your spine and while the game is running, the player can't tell reality from game. Jennifer Jason Leigh plays the game's developer, guiding a novitiate marketeer, Jude Law, through the game's paces. While in the game they uncover strange goings-on and possible crimes. But are they real, or is it the game? Not even the game's author knows.

The movie is quite a treat, keeping the viewer engaged, but in the dark until the final minutes. Another thing I like about \"eXistenZ\" is that it doesn't use a heavy reliance on special effects, it's the story itself that propels the movie. Recommended for the Saturday night when science fiction is called for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this movie twice and it's theme is an invigorating one. I have been into computers for many years now and this movie inspired me in a technologically sense as does a fresh love which stoked the furnace of my poetic passion in the heat of infatuation. Very original idea,great allurement in the way it holds you as it tells it's story to minds that need a release from the every day realities of this life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a movie I came across by accident. I was flipping through and saw it was on Showtime so I watched it. Now i watch it at least once a month. This is a movie that is filled with symbols that might cause some people to trash it. Don't listen to people that hate this movie, if they want an action movie with expensive f\/x they should have rented a movie that promises them. If you are in the mood for a good sci-fi, i highly recommend. If purchasing on DVD I recommend the Alliance Atlantic edition of the film, it contains many more extras than the Dimension Films edition.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fair and nifty little science fiction\/horror fantasy thriller about a well-known video game designer, Allegra Geller (Jennifer Jason Leigh) whose latest game - \"eXistenZ\" not only draws the attention of people who volunteer to try the game, but one who nearly kills her (and her game, too). Since she forced to stay out of sight, Allegra is stuck with Ted Pikul (Jude Law), a marketing trainee (\"P.R. nerd\") to be her bodyguard even though he only has a gun that's made out of flesh and bone and the bullets are teeth. Director David Cronenberg has, well, used some bits from his earlier films (\"Videodrome\", \"Scanners\", \"The Fly\", etc.) and placed it into certain parts of the story with some good timing. Law and Leigh are fine here and so are some of the supporting cast (Ian Holm, Willem Dafoe, Sarah Polley, Christopher Eccelston, and so on) that has an international twist to it. Dafoe is anything but devilish as Gas, a deceiving garage mechanic. One of the movie's best scenes is witnessing Ted eat (fish and frogs) and construct a gun and admit to Allegra - \" I can't help myself.\" \"eXistenZ\" manages to show that he (Cronenberg) is up to his old tricks and it still works like a charm.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is actually the first movie I ever saw in a theatre , where the people didn't leave immediately when the end credits started. In stead they remained seated for a few minutes , gaping with their mouths open staring in the infinite , trying to understand what they 've just seen.

The only thing I can say: Try to go watch this movie with as little knowledge about it as possible (so did I)!. I gave it a 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"River's edge is not a PLEASANT film to watch but it is an incredible one. Having viewed it many years ago I truly think it would still have the ability to shock were it to be re released or remade or something. Perhaps no movie ever made has captured the essense of young suburban inertia like this distrubing frightening movie. Given that this is based on a true story it is even more disturbing. Very well acted and just UNPLEASANT at many times to watch but also a little known masterpiece and a truely important film. Should be a mandatory to watch shown nationwide in all highschools. Fantastic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the better movies to come out of the 1980's, this based-on-fact movie tells the story of a disturbed high school student who murders his girlfriend, leaves her naked body on a river bank, and brags about it later to his friends. What is just as bad is their inability to FEEL anything about it.

Disturbing but incredibly compelling look at aimless and apathetic kids who have no respect for their parents or any sort of authority, who seem almost doomed to live lives of rebellion and recklessness. This drama hits hard and is impossible to forget. The young cast does a creditable job - even Keanu Reeves, in one of his earliest roles, is better than usual. Of course, there's no reason for the character of Layne (Crispin Glover) to be as crazed and off-the-wall as he is, but that's just Glover being himself. Veteran Dennis Hopper has an especially good role as a loner who despite his own sordid past is saddened by the attitudes of this group of kids. I would like to point out the chilling performance by Daniel Roebuck as the young murderer; he's an under-rated actor and aside from Hopper, his is probably the best performance in the film.

I saw \"River's Edge\" for the first time a long time ago when it first started being shown on cable TV movie channels; however, I didn't catch all of it; I saw it in its entirety for the first time a number of years later, and now I've seen it again for what is probably the definitive time.

Some potently affecting moments include Madeleine's (Constance Forslund) breakdown where she wails that maybe she should leave her children just like their worthless father did. I also liked the scenes where Matt (Reeves) faces off with his disturbed younger brother (Joshua Miller) and when the teacher, Mr. Burkewaite (Jim Metzler) deplores the fact that the girl has died and that none of his students seem to care.

I will never forget this film, not as long as I live. It's too saddening for that.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is one of the best of 1986 with creepy, yet intriguing performances from Crispin Glover and Dennis Hopper! The Reagan years were pretty bleak for a lot of people, not just teenagers, but this flick really captured the desperation and despair. Well-directed with great script (apparently based on a true story), I don't really see any weaknesses in this. The opening shot was brilliant.

Keanu Reeves was decent for a change and Miss Skye was right on the money. Hopper had three other great performances that same year (Blue Velvet, Texas Chainsaw II, and Hoosiers). I imagine this has a cult following and I wonder how this picture would fare if it was re-released. Super stuff!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this movie for the second time. I first saw it back in the mid-90's as a Vanguard Video selection. It has retained it power.

It is interesting from several aspects. One is that it is based on a true story. Two is it is a launching pad for two interesting actors: Keanu Reeves and Crispin Glover. And three, it has Dennis Hopper in one of his better social misfit\/psychotic character roles.

The movie is also a study in the way people act in different settings. You have characters in one-on-one, family, peer group, school, general society settings, etc. The story does well in demonstrating how a person will act in each setting.

I wish I could find the details of the actual murder to compare to the movie. I saw a short bit that indicated it occurred in California and that several schoolmates were taken to view the corpse.

This is a good choice for a rainy night video rental. Be prepared to feel unsettled at the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Less Than Zero could have been the 80s movie that reveals teenage apathy in its most extreme form had they actually stuck to the damn book. But, where they hadn't, this movie presents does the job, and leaves you with the creepiest feeling when its all over in ways not done until the late nineties with Larry Clark's movies 'Kids' and 'Bully.'

Societal outcast teens are faced with a rather curious dilemma (they don't treat it much like one) when their estranged friend (Daniel Roebuck) boasts to them that he killed a teenage girl near the river's edge in their suburban town. Keanu Reeves may be the only civilized character among the bunch, the only one willing to exhibit any sort of conscience, anyway, while the others either don't do anything about the girl's death or want to help their friend hide the body.

I don't know who is more sick in this film--Crispin Glover--who becomes nearly obsessed and quite paternal in trying to protect the friend and hide the crime by smuggling him out of the state. Dennis Hopper, an on-edge drug dealer (who clings to a female blowup doll) that befriends the teens (as a dealer, of course) and suddenly becomes involved in the events. Or, Josh Miller, who plays Reeve's little brother, Tim. He appears to be the most apathetic of them all, at least until his emotional breakdown at the end. It is definitely not peppy 80s teen fare, obviously. And certainly makes the point strikingly clear about the serious detachment these kids deal with (despite a bizarre series of events) thanks to many great performances all around (even Reeves proved some acting capability).

Help yourself to a comedy to recover if it rocks you too hard.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"River's Edge is an excellent film and it's a shame that it hasn't made more of a mark for itself in cinematic history. There were a number of gritty films based around school kids made in the eighties, but of all the ones I've seen; this is certainly the most nihilistic and disturbing. The film takes a storyline that is disturbing in its own right and adds the theme of teenage slackers and their uncaring attitude about things, which takes the story onto another level. The film works because the central story is interesting and it's played out by complex characters. The film begins with a murder. We then follow the murderer, nicknamed John, as he goes back to school and tells all his friends about what he has done. Rather than give the expected reaction, most of them hardly react at all and the strongest reaction that the murderer gets comes from Layne; who makes it his number one priority to help John clear up the mess he's in and get him out of it. The other friends mull over the crime, and before long one of them goes to the police...

River's Edge features a host of great performances from its young cast. Keanu Reeves has a reputation for wooden acting, and for good reason; but he fits in very well to this early role and this performance is easily one of his best. Crispin Glover is the biggest standout as the slightly insane Layne. Glover always stands out in every film he's in, and while he does go over the top a little bit; he convinces well as the lead in this movie. Reeves and Glover receive good support from a talented young cast that includes Daniel Roebuck and Joshua john Miller, as well as the great Dennis Hopper in another wild role. The film features a very gritty picture which bodes well with its nihilistic tone. The central characters are all of the 'slacker\/stoner' generation and the way that they genuinely don't seem to care about the murder of their friend is more shocking than the murder itself; and the point that the film tries to make about modern society is both strong and well defined. The film is also rather funny, owing to some of the characters' lines; but the humour is pitch black and clearly this film was never meant to be a comedy. Overall, this is an excellent and memorable film that is definitely worth seeing!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this movie a number of times and find it very compelling and sad. The lack of real emotion from most of the characters is very disturbing. They seem empty, hopeless. The story is based on a real event.

A teenage girl is murdered by her boyfriend for no obvious reason - apparently he just felt like it. Then he boasts about it to his friends and as they don't believe him he takes them to view the body - a number of times. No one reports the murder. There are two strong leads - Keanu Reeves and Crispen Glover - Crispen Glovers character is seriously annoying.

Keanu's character Matt appears to be the only one who has a sense of right and wrong. This is Keanu at his best - a flawless performance and very believable - anyone who thinks this man can't act should watch this movie. Matt's little brother is almost the most disturbing character in the movie. Only twelve and no compassion or love factor in his life. It is very sad to think there are kids out there like this. It really makes you grateful for what you have. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can remember a college professor commenting as to how disturbing this film was, reflecting the apathy of adolescents (this was before Generation \"X\").

In a way, most of us are products of the same consumer culture; these high school kids spend their time drinking, getting high and wondering what to do about the body left on a riverbank.

What would they do today? Would things be different?. Some very important questions. There are some excellent scenes with Keanu Reeves, and the dysfunctional family he lives with; his 11 year old brother going out to get wasted; the mother has no idea what to do- spends her time drinking with her boyfriend.

This film was a bit before its time in that it addresses the problems in lower class American society; these kids had no outlet; what is available for them in this dirt-water town? . All in all a few interesting social commentaries are presented, and there are no solutions. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I hope the writer, director, editor, and composer (and let's not forget producer) read this... because their work was truly incredible on this movie. Let me start by saying that I am in no way affiliated with this movie. I am only a regular guy who has been a fan of this movie for about 12 years and have seen it about 8 times.

Every second of this movie is touching. Every scene is classic. The acting is real. The movie is honest. You can relate to these characters as people, not actors.

This tale follows three distinct killers at different stages in their lives. The story is carefully thought out and every sub-plot is intertwined and woven together, culminating in a message that leaves us pondering the values of right and wrong that each of us carries inside.

Crispen Glover, Daniel Roebuck, Dennis Hopper, and Joshua John Miller (as a 12 year old boy) give absolutely amazing, real performances. I've seen this movie about 8 or more times and I still get so absorbed in their performances that I forget I am watching a movie. It's that good. Great job everyone who worked on this. Great job.

The music is also wonderfully matched and haunting. With the chosen cast, the carefully timed editing and pacing, the mood and tone, and even the subject matter, the director made some of the best decisions for a movie I've ever seen.

This movie is real. It's honest. It's a true movie experience which I will never forget. You may not be into the subject matter but it is something you cannot ignore. Ultimately, it's about people being people... and everyone can relate to that. I recommend this movie to fans of drama, suspense, and horror above almost every other film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After reading some of these reviews, it is apparent that some have missed the point. What is great about this film (here comes the point), what is incredible about this film, what is astonishing about this film is that there is no proselytizing. There is no preaching. There is no preaching. There is no preaching. Life goes on. It is a masterpiece in letting an audience think for its collective self. These are just kids doing what kids do - without consciousness. We all went to school with kids like these. We are being numbed by fiction-\/movie-\/tv-\/news-based reality\/invention.

Feck's (Dennis Hopper the great) girlfriend alone and his relationship with her is worth the price of renting this movie.

There have been few movies before or since that measure up to the intelligence of this film. AMEN.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really don't have any complaints about this movie, except for the disturbing scenes with the body. I fell upon it while switching around the tv one night. The acting was actually amazing, I didn't expect it to be better than it appeared! I thought Keanu's(who looks the SAME since 1986, which is a very good thing hehe) acting was really *great*, and Crispin played his character perfectly! This movie is a hidden gem! Its a fresh awaking of reality to the '80s, compared to the other teen movies done by the brat pack(even though I do like those moives alot too). All in all, I give it thumbs up!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"IMDb forces reviewers to type a certain amount of lines, but all I really want to say is -- \"This is an incredible film, and you can't consider yourself a film fan without having seen it.\" You ought to just trust me on this one and stop reading this review and get the movie and push play. But I have to type something. So, let me point out the following:

(1) River's Edge contains what still may well rank as Crispin Glover's all-time funniest and best performance in a film, and if you have been following Crispin Glover at all, you know that that alone justifies giving it a 10. Funny lines galore.

(2) River's Edge contains the second-most memorable performance of Dennis Hopper's career (other than the one in Blue Velvet), and it is really excellent. Dennis Hopper is really funny.

(3) River's Edge contains the best performance of Keanu Reeves' career, and it is excellent. It was the role he was born to play. He has plenty of good lines, but one in particular is really really funny. Listen close when his character and the step-dad are talking to one another.

Still the best stoner film, it is much more than just that. It tends to show up in the drama sections of film-rental stores, but if this is a drama, it's the funniest drama of all time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not sure whether i like this film or not. I think it is creepy and completely weird.Crispin Glover as always gave a great performance as Layne. I think his performance was really good and one of his best, but i don't like the character at all. Keanu Reeves performance was really good, and i truly felt for his character. Over all i think the whole cast gave great performances as felt like the characters were real. I disliked some, but genuinely felt sorry for others (Keanu Reeves). I would like to know if that was the original ending that the film was supposed to have as it didn't end how i expected it to. I was disappointed in the ending and i don't feel that it did the rest of the film justice. If you are into creepy, weird and really well different movies, go for this one. If you like things that are normal, please stay away.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Apparently this movie was based on a true story. I'm not sure how accurate it is, though. But it really reminded me of how when I see that someone has been murdered on the news, it's amazing how much it doesn't affect me. Sure, I think it's terrible, but I honestly don't care. I move on. It seems that murder is trivial now. This is what River's Edge shows. Nobody really seems to care about this girl and her death, not even the killer. Then what's the point?

The killer in this story is John, and for the large amount of the movie he hides out with another killer named Feck, played by Dennis Hopper. Feck is older, and you can see the generational gap. He says he loved the girl that he killed. When he asks John if he loved the girl he killed, he simply replies, \"She was okay.\" The movie only seems to offer one solution: life is more important than death. A character's life is spared, people get second chances, and one hopeless case is killed.

The acting is really good. After watching this movie I could only come to the conclusion that Crispin Glover is either a brilliant actor, or a terrible actor. I still have no idea. He was my main reason to see this movie, though. But the best performance is clearly given by Dennis Hopper.

Even though the fashion is really 80's and characters sometimes mention then-current issues, I still think River's Edge is as relevant today as ever.

My rating: 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pot-seeking pre-teen Joshua Miller (as Tim) throws his sister's doll into the river while Daniel Roebuck (as Samson) howls and smokes a cigarette, after killing Danyi Deats (as Jamie). The doll washes away, but the naked young woman stays by the \"River's Edge\", for any passerby to see. Viewing the dead body are a group of twenty-something teenagers, mostly classmates of the naked corpse. Stoners Keanu Reeves (as Matt) and Crispin Glover (as Layne) are found most camera-worthy. The friends wonder what to do about their guilty, beer-guzzling killer friend.

Veteran-in-the-cast Dennis Hopper (as Feck) keeps the youngsters' heads fed. Mr. Hopper once killed a woman. He lives with one of those life-sized sex dolls, with a mouth apparently ready for action. Ione Skye Leitch (as Clarissa) is a more living doll, and she is waiting for Reeves to kiss her. Their copulation is notably cross-cut with a flashback to the opening strangulation. An actual teenager, in her first feature role, Ms. Leitch is the daughter of sixties-singer Donovan. Make other quirky connections on your own.

You can read a lot into the movie, or not, depending on your mood. Some of the characters' backgrounds may be a little too subtle. Most obviously, the killer teen was teased; note his weight, attitude, and \"toilet\"-connected nickname. Some of the characters' relationships and motivations are too vaguely defined, but the cast certainly keeps the material interesting; and, director Tim Hunter, photographer Frederick Elmes, and writer Neal Jimenez are obviously skilled.

******* River's Edge (8\/27\/86) Tim Hunter ~ Keanu Reeves, Crispin Glover, Dennis Hopper, Joshua Miller","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A teenage film about angst, friendship, loyalty and growing-up\u0085 but this isn't a happy outing on its part due to the circumstances and life-changing dilemmas surrounding the premise. What eventuates is quite numbing, haunting and downright cold. However I was expecting something a little more powerful and effective and while engrossing and unforgettable it didn't entirely stir up much in the way of emotions. The performances are reasonably a mixed bag, but there's a brutal honesty to them all. Dennis Hopper and especially Daniel Roebuck are amazing\u0085 Crispin Glover eccentrically over does it and Keanu Reeves' dead as wood turn seems to pay off in his custom slacker role. Joshua John Millar is quite good and so is Ione Skye. Jim Metzler chimes in with a short, but highly engaging performance. The story is dramatically confronting, character-laced and harrowing in its eventual breakdown where it infuses a gritty and painful punch. J\u00fcrgen Knieper's swirling music score is simmering with anxiety, tension and wonder as the morals and commitments are tested and learnt.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Loosely based on actual events, \"River's Edge\" is a film, much in the style of David Lynch, about a group of teenagers who are aware of a murder committed by one of their friends, but no one does anything about it for a long time. With top notch acting by Crispin Glover and Dennis Hopper, we are able to forgive the average acting by everyone else in the film.

The film begins with a young boy, Tim (Joshua John Miller), dropping a doll off of a bridge (murder #1). Tim then hears someone yelling, when he looks up he sees Samson (Daniel Roebuck) standing on the bank of the river with the dead naked body of his girlfriend behind him (murder #2). Samson eventually shows the body to his friends. All of which are horrified, not only because of the murder, but also because the victim, Jamie (Danyi Deats), was a friend of theirs. Despite all of this, no one goes to the police. You may think this is unrealistic, but this is what happened in the real story. If you are familiar with the story of \"Alpha Dog\" (2006) you will know that the same thing happened there as well. Through all of this, Layne (Crispin Glover) is working to keep Samson safe, although no one (including Samson) seems to care about keeping him out of harms way. As time goes on we learn that Feck (Dennis Hopper), a middle aged shut in who deals drugs to the local teenagers, has also killed a woman before (murder #3). From here things begin to close in on Samson and his friends and eventually everything is revealed, but not in the way you may be expecting.

In the film we learn of three murders, each one with a different reason, a different reaction, and a different effect on those involved. When Tim drops his younger sister's doll off of the bridge, we are never made aware of his motive. However, we do see the reaction of the younger sister. She cries and screams while her mother consoles her. Later, her older brother, Matt (Keanu Reeves), helps her put a cross in the yard in remembrance of her doll. The murder of Jamie horrifies everyone (except Samson who is apathetic to the whole situation, and when asked by Layne why he did it, Samson replies with, \"She was talking sh*t.\"), but they do not sob or scream, the run away and go on with their lives trying to forget what had happened. In Feck's situation, he did not kill his girlfriend out of hate. We never really know why he killed her, but we see that Feck is not proud of what he had done. He even mentions that he is sorry, and that her loved her. From this we see the different ways we can be affected by death. In the film, it is easy for us to identify with the teenagers, because they do not know what they feel, or how they should feel about the death of their friend. In much the same way, we, the audience, do not know how to feel, because we do not know Jamie. We are obviously saddened by the death and realize that Samson should be arrested, but we don't feel strongly for Jamie as an individual.

There are several similarities between \"River's Edge\" and \"Twin Peaks\" (1990-1991), especially in the overall feel of the film. I wonder if Mark Frost and David Lynch were thinking of \"River's Edge\" when they were creating their series. After all, Tim Hunter did go on to direct three episodes of \"Twin Peaks\".

Crispin Glover's performance as the hyperactive, frantic Layne is an Oscar worthy performance. Always in a rush and always worried about keeping Samson from getting caught, Layne is an intense character that seems to be on speed. If you have seen Crispin Glover in any film, you know that he can deliver a line like no one else. It is always a treat to see him perform. The other great performance in \"River's Edge\" is by Dennis Hopper. His portrayal of Feck, the shut in drug dealer who has one leg and an inflatable sex doll he talks to named Elly, reminded me of a more toned down and more humorous version of Frank Booth, Hopper's character in David Lynch's film, \"Blue Velvet\" (1986).

River's Edge is great film and I believe it shows us how easy it is to be apathetic, when in reality we need to step up and speak out against the evils in the world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't expect much from this movie, it was just one of those movies I thought I'd just watch because it was on television. i certainly underestimated this movie.

It's about a guy who kills his girlfriend and brags to his friends. I was very happy with the acting, they had the characters played well. It was a particularly great scene when Feck(Dennis Hopper) and John(Daniel Roebuck) are talking to each other about why John killed Jamie. It's upsetting to hear how he explains that he wanted to feel control and thats why. But Feck had loved the girl he had killed. Feck felt remorse while John felt nothing, hell he was proud of what he'd done. It really makes you think about people. Keanu Reeves did a great job as Matt, and Ione Skye was good. It's weird to see her as a valedictorian in 'Say Anything' and her as Clarissa. Every actor did great at .....acting. It was real nice for a change. It was a great movie and I would definitely say I recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is so 1980's and that is what I like so much about it. It does an excellent job of conveying the feel of that odd decade. The reality that Russian nukes could wipe you out at any time. Reagan in the White House telling everybody that things were great, while more and more social programs were slashed. Young people dropped out, but not as far as their parents of the 1960's did. Young people still went to school, they just smoked so much dope that their sensetivities were all but dead. Nothing effected them, not even the death of one of their classmates at the hands of one of their friends. How weird is it to realize that the murder was wrong, but you are not sure why. Watching the characters deal with the crime is fascinating and telling of a very sick society. Glover is great, Keanu is great, Hopper is incredible. One of the most memorable movies I have ever seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I finally saw this on video, after years of hearing about it. It is by no means a perfect movie, but it is oddly hypnotic - one of those rare, special films that creates its own world.

***SPOILERS*** First, the bad stuff. The scenes in Burkewaite's class are excruciating. Even if the subject is Social Studies, this guy is WAY over the top. His speeches are so overwrought they are laughable. And no teachers I ever had would grill their students like that, and tell the ones who protest to \"Shut up!\". These scenes are brief, but they break the mood and pull the viewer out of the story. Next, how the heck does Layne just walk out of the police station near the end? Also, what happened to Samson's car after the first scene of him riding into town? He spends the rest of the film being chaffeured around by Layne or Feck. ***END SPOILERS***

Ahhh, Feck...this guy is great. Dennis Hopper effortlessly steals the movie. \"Check's in the mail\", \"I love company\", \"you're my friend\" - every line is a classic. He gives Feck an internal logic that makes the story work. Incredibly, he actually makes the audience feel empathy for this guy, especially when Samson talks about his (Samson's) future.

By contrast, Crispin Glover is hard to take sometimes. Yet the scenes of him driving around in the Beetle are perfect - kids with cars in high school always have something to do, and buds to do it with. Matt's low-key attitude makes a good foil for Layne - their friendship is believable. Glover's mannerisms are a little much, but he is consistent throughout. He drives the plot and exudes a sense of urgency that no one else does - just try to imagine this flick if Layne were as much of a zombie as Matt or Samson - snoozefest!

***SPOILERS*** What makes \"River's Edge\" unsettling is the fact that Samson is not really evil, in the usual sense. He is kind of a boring guy who got sick of being taken for granted - in other words, he is like thousands of other boring guys. After he kills Jamie, he starts to unravel, which creates some suspense as we wait to see when he will snap again. ***END SPOILERS***

Part of this movie's appeal is the way the action stays centered around the teens and their point of view. The parents are comic relief - Clarissa's mom, Tony's dad - or overwhelmed - Matt's mom. This underlines how the kids hang together for the attention no one else gives them. It keeps the story focused on the relationships within the clique, and emphasizes that the only adult they can relate to is Feck. \"River's Edge\" is a textbook on alienation. It conveys how awkward, mysterious, and disconcerting adolescence is like no other film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although I was hoping that I'd like it a little more, this was still certainly an impressive film. There were great performances by all the leads, and the story, while not what I'd call chilling, was still effective and it kept me interested. For me, the best part of this film was the look of the picture, for it always looked cold and damp and it just really seemed to suit the film well. I also thought that the low budget suited this movie, for I don't think that a crisp picture and clear sound would have worked as well in a film this grim. All things considered, it fell a little short of my expectations, but I'm still very glad that I finally sat down to watch this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"River's Edge is an extremely disturbing film written by acclaimed American screen writer Neal Jimenez.It is based on an actual event which happened at a time when most of American youngsters were trying to make sense of their lives.This is one of the most outstanding films made by American director Tim Hunter.Much of film's attention is focused on a reckless murder committed by a feckless teenager.This unfortunate event sets in motion a whole range of questions about real motivations of youngsters in American society.Those who saw this film during its initial release must have had vivid memories of great actor Dennis Hopper in a confused role as a sympathetic social outcast. Matrix star Keanu Reeves also looks good as one of the teenagers before he reached star status.At a time when teen flicks are made without any kind of serious preparation,it is hoped that \"River's Edge\" cannot simply be ignored as just another silly teen flick.It had massive impact on people who lived during turbulent times of the past when being an inhabitant of a sleepy town was akin to not having being born.For today's generation with their heady overdoses of Internet props such as Facebook,Twitter and Orkut,River's Edge might appear to be outdated but its importance cannot be denied by any serious film admirer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this movie three times. Going back to VCR's, in the 1980's, and again on The Encor channel last night (Feb.11, 2010). Based on a true story which I remember being in the news, during the early 1980's, I've decided that I find it too disturbing to watch ever again. Yet it's hard to look away from a car accident. The creepiest character is Joshua John Miller, who plays Keeanu Reeves little brother.

(The story this movie was based on can be found anywhere on the Internet -- just Google it. It's about Anthony Jacques Broussard who murdered Marcy Conrad in Milpitas, California, in 1981.) The characters portray Generation X pre-grunge, borderline sociopaths, with the exception of Keeanu Reeves, who grows a conscience.

Old hippies did a great job raising that generation.

For such a young kid, I thought Joshua Miller was excellent, as the serial killer in the making character. In actuality, he went to Yale, and has written screenplays as well as directed. His acting capabilities in this film were amazing. Just the way he treats his little sister by drowning her doll, and tearing up her dolls grave, gave me the shivers. It gave me nightmares. Even with whats happening in our world today, in 2010, it still is the most degenerate film I've seen to date.

The apathy, and dysfunction, of these families, is enough to make one puke. This thrill kill almost makes the Manson murders pale in comparison.

Crispon Glover got a little too much into character. He wound up on David Lettermen to discuss his role, and almost kicked the host in the head. Apparrently Glover had to seek psychiatric help after portraying his character.

Also, fight the good fight to the great Dennis Hopper. You're one of the best!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i was flipping through the channels and had to stop and laugh when i came across this movie. It was so clearly about teens in the early 80s, and i called my mom \"hahaha, turn to channel such and such, the kid totally looks like if dad were a kid\".

Um. Yeah. Turns out this movie is about my dad & his friends.

Even without it being about loosely based on my dad's childhood, i'd say watch this movie!

It is just.....bizarre to say the least, the apathy instilled in teens even back then. This is a good \"human interest\" and showcases some strange sides of the psyche.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Crispin Glovers' way of acting (and not only his) is tremendous. You really want to believe him because his body language and performing fits the person perfect. He gives Layne this extraordinary bit of personality that makes this movie a cult. As well as Feck, which role is done very well by Dennis Hopper. It's about choosing the right or wrong side, without logical thinking about the scene. Friendship is more imported, and that's exactly what I think is what makes choices this difficult. Rivers Edge lets you experience this with serious tones and family mathers. I really enjoyed it watching. I saw it a month ago for the first time, but if you like a nice 80s feel, this is the one that you have to see. I'ts a same that I didn't know of it earlier.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this is a pretty good movie, but one thing makes it VERY interesting to me. It is blatantly obvious once you look out for it: the main characters in this movie are the inspiration for the bullies on The Simpsons. Layne is Jimbo, John is Kearney, and Tony is Dolph. There is even an episode of The Simpsons where Jimbo uses the line \"I poked her with a stick.\"

The Jimbo-Layne connection is the most obvious with the knit hat and long hair and the voice. Kearney has the shaved head, unlike John, but is the big, dumb one. The Tony-Dolph connection is pretty obvious with the long, parted haircut and even the second-tier status.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i just glanced over another comment posted here in which the writer discusses the disturbing ways the teenagers in this film use the body of their dead friend. one overlooked in this statement is perhaps the most unsettling of them all, no surprise it's what crispin glover's character (layne) does. he is thrilled over one of his friends murdering another friend of his, the killer's girlfriend. not because layne did not like this individual, rather he is excited about her death because it gives him something to do. this poor boy is bored in life, and dead inside, that a murdered friend is something to get excited about because it provides him with something to focus on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"River's Edge is more than just the story of a murder. It's an indictment of the wave of apathy that has plagued pockets of youth for decades now. Our main characters are a group of what my high school would have referred to as \"stoners\". One of them just decided to strangle his girlfriend because she apparently had the nerve to \"talk sh*t\" to him. This dangerous young man played by Daniel Roebuck has an intensity that will startle you. He takes the other kids in the group out to show them his girlfriend's body, and strangely enough, nobody seems really freaked out about it. The balance of the film punctuates the desperate circumstances in which these people live, and how guilt is eventually able to worm its way inside even these apathetic kids.

River's Edge is certainly not condoning or championing the behavior of its characters. We clearly see the dangers presented by such unchecked apathy and having only the desire to get drunk or high. We are shown the dysfunctional home lives these kids have, and perhaps this is meant to explain their awful behavior. But could it only be unstable homes that lead to this type of destructive living? Crispin Glover is his usual whacked-out self. He drives around town in a state of complete paranoia after the murder. He tries to sympathize with why his friend had to commit the crime, but clearly he does not understand what could have made the young man do it. Dennis Hopper plays an older man these kids get their dope from. Though he is certainly a rebellious figure, he cannot relate to the apathy and rage of the younger generation. Witness his confused reaction as Roebuck describes how killing his girlfriend made him feel. As wild as Hopper's character is, even he knows this young man should not be walking the face of the earth.

What will you think of these kids? Well, there is really no way to like their characters. Some are less despicable than others, but you cannot help either hating or feeling sorry for them. Twenty years later, there is still an apathy alive and well in a great many young people out there. When do these kids get lost? What makes so many of them want to act anti-social? This film, and the questions it poses about teenagers will stick with you for a while. That's a fact.

8 of 10 stars.

The Hound.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"River's Edge\" was one of the most disturbing films of 1986, and for a year that also saw \"Blue Velvet\", you know thats saying something. Viewed today its lost little of its power and remains much better than the overrated \"Kids\". The previews for \"Kids\" played it up to be an expose of the deterioration of the nation's youth. In reality, it was little more than an exploitation film based mostly around shock value. \"River's Edge\" was promoted as a teen exploitation flick but was in actuality much better. The only times it goes from being disturbing to distasteful is the constant image of the dead nude body. Outside of that, the film is thought-provoking and, for all its minor flaws, quite realistic.

Keanu Reeves, known for being a particularly wooden performer, gives his best performance as a burned-out teenager. Ione Skye is equally sympathetic and likable. Dennis Hopper (on the comeback trail with this, \"Blue Velvet\", and \"Hoosiers\") gives a great performance as the creepy yet pathetic hippie generation leftover. Crispin Glover, while always entertaining to watch, seems a bit out of place as the manic stoner and leader of the group. The best performance however is definitely Daniel Roebuck. As the murderer John, Roebuck is frighteningly emotionless. Its a shame he didn't become a bigger star as hes a much better actor than Reeves.

The film is overall fantastic and daring. Don't mistake this for another lame John Hughes clich\u00e9d high school flick such as \"The Breakfast Club\". This is a shocking piece of nihilism that resonates with the viewer. Fans of this movie are advised to check out a Canadian film from 1981 called \"Out of the Blue\", directed by Dennis Hopper. Its another shockingly bleak examination of the generation gap and, despite its obscurity, may have been an influence on \"River's Edge\". (7\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a forgotten classic of a film, and Harmony Karin borrowed a ton from it for \"Gummo\". Gummo is good, River's Edge is way, way better. Its no secret that Keanu Reeves isn't the best actor whoever walked the earth. No, in fact, he's a horrendous actor. But, he was born for some roles: Ted Preston, Esquire from Bill and Ted, and his role in this film. He is perfect as a sort of good natured but very apathetic and confused teenager. Then there's Crispin Glover. I think his performance in this film is the best of his career. He is phenomenal as the drugged out wackjob character. Then there's Dennis Hopper, who is perfect as well. This movie is simply amazing, and if you haven't seen it, run out and watch it today. Its brilliant. One of the best portrayals of modern America I've seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This relic from before the days of the Production Code and the Hays Office is good fun, not great but entertaining.

Based on a song by Rogers & Hart that was an enormous hit at the time, the story revolves around dance hall girl Barbara Stanwyck who is romanced by wealthy businessman Ricardo Cortez (who was indecently handsome), but whose heart belongs to her bookish neighbor Monroe Owsley. She and Owsley marry, but keep it a secret, while she dismisses Cortez, who still holds out hope. She helps hubby get a job in Cortez's company, but married bliss quickly turns sour as Owsley develops a taste for the high life and steps out with a college sweetheart and gambles in high-stakes bridge (Yup! I know, it's pretty funny....). Finally he embezzles $5,000 from Cortez, and is about to go on the lam, when his devoted wife goes to Cortez....and I won't reveal anything else, although the ending was certainly a surprise.

Stanwyck is the best thing about this movie; in one of her earliest roles she's quite accomplished. Owsley is the weak point; he's unattractive and sniveling, while Cortez is amazingly suave and sexy, while his performance is earnest but unremarkable.

While ostensibly a drama, it's filled with laughs, many inadvertant as some elements of this movie have aged very poorly. But there are a lot of good witty lines; at one point Stanwyck says to Cortez, \"My brains are in my feet, while yours are in....\" That's pretty darn suggestive for 1931! There's a lot of bawdy and suggestive stuff in this flick, in the last days before the Code clamped down and whitewashed everything. An amusing antique, a good reminder of how far we haven't come in 70 years....this story could very easily be changed to fit 2003 but could keep the basic plot, with the original ending, in place.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of Barbara Stanwyck's earlier films and it sure does have an unconventional theme. She's making money by dancing with men at a dance hall. She really doesn't like the work, but it's a living. Her boyfriend seems like a pretty nice guy, but she's also pursued by rich guy Ricardo Cortez. Well, after marrying, it turns out her \"nice guy\" is a thieving, womanizing weasel and rich Cortez turns out to be a heck of a guy. By the end of the film, Barbara simply has had enough, as any SANE woman would walk from this horrid marriage.

In the 1920s and early 30s, Hollywood did pretty much anything it wanted and some of their films had themes or scenes that would surprise many today--such as nudity, adultery and bad language. While TEN CENTS A DANCE isn't a blatant example of this morality, it does have a theme that never would have been allowed after the toughened Production Code was created and enforced starting in 1934. In some ways the Code was great--after all, parents didn't need to worry about what their kids saw in films (such as nudity in BEN HUR, 1925). However, it also tended to sanitize some of the movies far too much--and there is no way this particular film could have been made and approved because it tends to glorify divorce--a serious no-no 1934 and thereafter. This is really a shame, as I don't think TEN CENTS A DANCE was bad at all to discuss this--especially since the star (Barbara Stanwyck) was married to a philandering thief. Even so, allowing the film to end with her divorcing him and marrying a man who himself was twice divorced just couldn't have been.

Overall, the film is interesting and thought-provoking. Plus, it was well-paced and suited its relatively short run time. Give this one a look.

FYI--Sadly, Ricardo Cortez was actually NOT Hispanic but changed his name because of possible prejudice because he was Jewish. He was an excellent leading man of his time, but today is all but forgotten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the last films DIRECTED by Lionel Barrymore, \"Ten Cents a Dance\" stars Barbara Stanwyck as the dance-hall girl \"Barbara\" in her sixth role. Stanwyck looks quite \"plain-jane\" in this one, and opens with her getting chewed out by the dance hall manager. Then along comes rich guy Bradley Carlton (Ricardo Cortez) who wants to sweep her off her feet. (Cortez and Stanwyck had made three films together in the 1930s.) Then she meets Eddie, who's very different from the dashing Carlton. The writer, Jo Swerling, had worked on some biggies (Its a Wonderful Life, Guys and Dolls, and Gone with the Wind) so I was surprised that the characters and script in this were so ordinary. The story starts getting more interesting about halfway thru, and is VERY similar to \"The Bride Walks Out\" from 1936, ALSO starring Stanwyck.... T.B.W.O. is much more clever, but also more tame, due to on-slaught of the Hays code...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1931 also presented \"an American tragedy\", the original tale of \"who will he take up with, poor girl or rich girl\". this was a truly entertaining film. Babs stanwyck was a pretty as she could be, ditto sally blane. Monroe owsley, unmemorably played Babs's husband. i had never heard of him, but i thought he bore a good physical resemblance to bing Crosby of \"the big broadcast\" ('32), even a receding hairline and wingy ears. Ricardo cortez, the rich playboy with a heart of gold. a true movie pioneer going wayyy back. the dilemma is resolved at the end, to the strains of the title and i believe Annette hanshaw had the hit recording, although the off-screen voice did very well. i also enjoyed the dance hall scenes. i'm sure they were authentic; the band, a leading one of the time was superb. good job, Lionel Barrymore!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an account of events that have been covered in print several times, and I had read two books - 'A Voyage for Madmen' and 'The Strange Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst' before seeing the film in Sheffield just before Christmas. I must say, it exceeded all expectations in its telling of the 1968 Sunday Times Golden Globe yacht race. These men set out to do something that had never been done before with no support vessels, wooden boats, no satellite phones, no GPS, and just their wits and skill to get them round the globe in one piece. Not to mention the months of solitude, the thundering southern ocean, little sleep, and boats that were often literally falling apart around them.

This documentary is excellently put together in my opinion, tightly edited, well paced with superb narration. The archive footage and the interviews are fascinating and bring the story to life. Clare Crowhurst's interview footage is especially revealing and moving as she relates the events that led up to her husband, Donald Crowhurst's departure from Teignmouth, the doubts and fears in his mind and her reaction as subsequent events unfolded.

I was moved and had even shed a tear or two by the time the credits started rolling, and overheard other people expressing similar feelings.

The two books I mentioned above are useful for more detail and back-story which couldn't have been fitted into the 90 minutes and I would recommend those too.

This is ultimately a true story of human courage and human frailty. A must see for anyone interested in sailing, adventure, human endeavour and real-life heroes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Deep Water examines the pressures and ambitions on an ordinary man in a compelling documentary. The testimony and archive footage are a fascinating insight to the late 1960's and a ground-breaking round the world yacht race. The personal conflicts of duty to family, self and reputation are played out in one of the most memorable and affecting films I have seen. I was not familiar with the history of this story and the drama was successfully and clearly directed. The story is mostly respectful to the participants with heroes and villains implied rather than ruthlessly exposed. Most of the interpretation is left open to the viewer allowing room to personally relate to the situations and characters. This movie is a bitter sweet experience with an entertaining mix of thoughtful suspense, joy and drama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a gem. As a Film Four production - the anticipated quality was indeed delivered. Shot with great style that reminded me some Errol Morris films, well arranged and simply gripping. It's long yet horrifying to the point it's excruciating. We know something bad happened (one can guess by the lack of participation of a person in the interviews) but we are compelled to see it, a bit like a car accident in slow motion. The story spans most conceivable aspects and unlike some documentaries did not try and refrain from showing the grimmer sides of the stories, as also dealing with the guilt of the people Don left behind him, wondering why they didn't stop him in time. It took me a few hours to get out of the melancholy that gripped me after seeing this very-well made documentary.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember the events of this movie, the ill fated cruise of Donald Crowhurst in 1968, in the Golden Globe single handed around the world yacht race. I was a 13 year old, living in England. The previous year Francis Chichester (later Sir Francis; he was knighted for his exploits) had completed the first solo circumnavigation of the globe. I remember it mostly because we were given time off school to watch his return (on a grainy black and white TV!) and then his knighting by the Queen. It provoked a huge outpouring of patriotic fervor in the UK. It all seems so quaint now. Chichester became a national hero, but he had stopped half way, in Australia, to re-fit his yacht, so the next logical step for yachtsmen was to attempt the journey without stopping.

It's important to remember that this was a world pre-GPS, when communications on land were still pretty erratic, never mind in the middle of the ocean. Now with GPS receivers that fit on a key chain and calculate a position within a metre anywhere on earth, it's hard to recall a time when you could go to sea and quite literally, vanish. As Donald Crowhurst did.

A number of yachtsmen signed up (all men back then), including mystery man, Crowhurst. Essentially a weekend sailor, Crowhurst had not been a spectacular success in any previous enterprise, including careers in the British Army, the Air Force and as an electronics entrepreneur selling navigation aids. He wanted to do something big with his life, and he saw the five thousand pound first prize (well over $100,000 in today's money) and the ensuing publicity as a means of kick starting his business. He signed a deal with a sponsor that proved more watertight than his boat, and which meant failure would bankrupt him, and soon found himself a popular figure with journalists as he prepared for the race. Now the Brits always love the idea of the gutsy amateur taking on the 'pros'. (Think Eddie the Eagle losing endless Olympic ski jump competitions, and the amateur riders who regularly start the Grand National horse race.) The public queued up to see him set off, but his boat wasn't really ready, and even as he started (the last competitor to leave the UK) Crowhurst must have known he didn't seriously have a chance. But too much was riding on him to quit.

In the wonderful archive footage we see doubt written all over his poor wife's face. Left behind with their 4 children, she is interviewed movingly throughout the film, together with one of Crowhurst's sons. She was in a no-win situation. Had she attempted to stop him, she would have been considered a spoiler, but afterward she was riven with doubt, as to whether she could have saved his life by stopping him. Faced with the certain truth that his boat was leaking and would never make it through the southern oceans, and unable to turn around and face ridicule, bankruptcy and ignominy, Crowhurst devised a plan to cheat. Laid up offshore Argentina and Brazil, out of radio contact, he waited for the leaders to round Cape Horn and start back up the Atlantic, thinking he could sneak in at the end of the line and pretend he had sailed all the way around the globe. He elaborately falsified his logs, and made 16mm films and audio recordings to back up his plan. But as one after another the other competitors dropped out, he realized that in fact he would come in 2nd and his logs would be scrutinized. Unable to face certain detection, his journal suggests he lost his grip on reality and eventually committed suicide. His yacht was found. He never was.

This beautifully edited film also follows the journey of Bernard Moitessier, an experienced and enigmatic French sailor, who was in second place and certain of the fastest journey prize, when he abruptly left the race, unable to deal with the clamour and publicity he knew he would face, and sailed into the wide blue yonder, eventually pulling up some 10 months later in Tahiti. Having spent some seven years working at sea myself, (albeit on very different ships to these) I well understand the pull of the ocean. Standing on deck, seeing water in every direction to the horizon, knowing there's a couple of miles of water below you, nothing between you and oblivion but a thin metal hull, without easy access to TV or radio (even nowadays on most working ships, you feel pretty isolated), it's possible to truly escape from the responsibilities of everyday life for a while. There is some thoughtful analysis of what drives people to attempt this kind of very long, lonely journey and the effect it has on the human mind. Most people would think that attempting to raise 4 children is adventure enough, but much is made of the need for self discovery in the hardships at sea, the search for self.

I strongly suspect that Robin Knox Johnston, the ex navy guy who won the race (and many since) probably knew pretty well who he was before he set off, which was why he succeeded not just in winning the race but also retaining his sanity en route. Those who went searching for something profound within themselves, may not have entirely liked what they found.

The marvelous archive footage of Britain in the late 60s is almost reason enough to watch this, (did it really look quite that bad? I don't remember it looking quite so dowdy, but perhaps we blot out the worst aspects of the past?) but overall, it is an excellently well made and engrossing movie. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I happened upon this by chance. I was at my friends house and he had just started watching it, so I sat down thinking we would shoot the breeze whilst this was playing in the background. However, within seconds I was immersed in this docu-drama, and we both spent the rest of the time completely focused on this and not saying a word to each other.

I never knew the tale of the the first solo around the world yacht race, let alone the tragic events of one man's attempt against the odds, which set out to be his redemption for all of his misfortunes in life, but ultimately ends up becoming an example of them. Having not known of the story, I did watch this with the same fervor as I imagine those who were reading about the race at the time it actually was happening, engulfed in what was taking place and eager for more information, hoping the lone amateur was going to pull it off against the odds and beat the pro's, which makes the shocking twists of the story all the more tragic, I felt like I was living the story.

The story is told with great care, and the interviewees have clearly had time to reflect on the tragedy, which gives great insights, but is also contrasted nicely by the archive footage of interviews at the time of the tragedy, the recordings and photographs of the lone sailors is also excellently used, and the insights into the minds of the sailors and how solitude was affecting them was superb.

I'm shocked that this story isn't more widely known or has been turned into a movie, but also thankful. Thankful that we have this drama-documentary to tell the tale from those who knew the man, instead of some wishy-washy movie adaptation, and thankful that I caught this gem of a film by pure chance.

It's a must see, whether you like documentaries or not.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Note: This should probably be read only after watching the film.

It is very rare to find a documentary or movie that focuses on the loser. Deep Water does just this, making it one of the most thought provoking films in a very long time. It does not provide us with a hero to look up to, but rather an anti-hero who forces us to look into ourselves.

The film is about a group of men who attempt to sail around the globe, singlehandedly, and without stopping. Only one makes it, several die, one decides not to return home, each of them on a psychological journey intriguing enough to merit entire films for themselves. Yet the most interesting is Donald Crowhurst, or rather the way that he is portrayed by the filmmakers and our reactions to him as viewers.

By any standards this man should be considered a despicable character, yet why is he depicted so heroically? Why are we so sympathetic to him? From the beginning he made all of the wrong choices. He risked his family financially to get the boat, he left at a more dangerous time to get more publicity, he ignored all of the warnings despite his lack of experience, he chose to lie instead of admitting defeat, these choices snowball until the inevitable and final one: suicide. All for what? A place in history? A feeling of accomplishment? Perhaps. What is important to consider is whether this mans situation was inevitable.

Each individual must ask himself if his natural human drive for fame and accomplishment would bring him to such recklessness, and I believe that examining your own reaction to Crowhurst's story will offer at least some answer to that question.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Ideas are dangerous.\" Comment by one interviewee.

DVD Rating: B+ \/ 4 out of 5 \/ 8 out of 10 \/ Worth the time.

A great story for adults \/ or teen boaters but not for children. None of the stupid violent crime stuff so often mistaken by Hollywood these days as \"quality work.\" And, it can be used as a trainer film on what proper boating preparation is all about, or not about, prior to \"sailing the seven seas.\" The movie starts out somewhat slowly to develop the story as most documentaries do, but as it draws the viewer into the saga, emotions begin to percolate in one's head! Emotions include anger, sadness, and disbelief. The era: late 1960's.

That solo sailing around the globe is dangerous is not surprising. What is surprising is all the twists that viewers wouldn't expect. Its not your average group of guys in a sailing race! Each boat was different as allowed by the race rules. Each solo sailor had different levels of ability as allowed by the race rules. There were well known sailors among them and a few not so well known. One was considered a mystery man as nobody seemed to have any knowledge of his ability at all. Each boat was allowed to depart at will so long as all were underway by a certain date. And this was, of course, prior to modern electronics that allow boaters to communicate with shore about vicious storms, etc.

Actual video and audio recordings are interspersed with interviews of family members and others involved. The mood of the interviewees is always somber despite the years that have passed.

The main character, Don, is the focus of attention & how his journey relates to those who he not only wanted to beat but, due to circumstances of his own creation, HAD to beat. He HAD to win. The story was about what that circumstance did to his life as he moved South West across the Atlantic Ocean over a years time alone on the water.

Do NOT fail to view the \"special features\" section of the DVD once the film is finished. The entire saga isn't fully understood w\/o viewing the 'bonus' stuff.

In the end, once you've watched everything on the DVD, you will likely just shake your head and exclaim, 'wow.' And keep in mind, THAT is why the story has remained alive for the last 40 years.

SPOILER: Do NOT fail to view the \"special features\" section of the DVD once the film is finished. One sailor who was headed back to England after circumnavigating the globe decided on the fly that, no, he was going for another spin and the film records his spouse's opinions about that decision. The opposite story unfolds as another sailor wishes the race allowed two on board so he could take his wife along and their photos demonstrate a very warm union between them. The interview with an burley ex paratrooper who had actually ROWED a boat across the Atlantic with a friend prior to the solo sail race was incredibly funny as he described not even knowing how to sail and who thought the bad things happening to him were 'normal.' Too many people think that setting sail in the open sea can be an romantic adventure without mishap. Don't you be one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a story about a journey made by a man who once had a dream and guts. Donald Crowhurst was an English businessman and amateur sailor who competed in the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race, a single-handed, round-the-world yacht race.

I was very intrigued by the story after listening to a radio interview from the producer John Smithson, who is also the producer of \"Touching the Void\", one of the first documentaries that made a commercial success in 2003. I had gone to the cinema with great hope and not much previous knowledge on the historic event, and I'm relieved that it didn't let me down. For 92 minutes I was led through a haunting story and came out with much to think about.

Without any reenactment, this film made great use of the limited audio and video archive footage they found and turned it into a compelling story which allowed the audience to understand Crowhurst from a personal level. The story unveiled itself as people who had direct links to the events including his wife and his son, and the eventual winner, also the only one who made it back out of the 9 competitors, Robin Knox-Johnston gave their own accounts of what happened almost 40 years ago.

Crowhurst's logs(journals) that he kept during the 243 days at sea are so haunting that it made it much easier for me to come to understand what being in total isolation can do to a man. While Crowhurst's body was never found, the other competitor Nigel Tetley whose yacht sank just weeks before claiming the prize for fastest passage committed suicide three years later after unsuccessful attempts at properly completing a circumnavigation.

Everything could take its toll, especially the sea.

The director Louise Osmond was also at the Q&A session after the showing together with producer John Smithson. I had no idea that it's a female director and that just came as a very nice surprise. The film is getting a limited release in the UK (a couple of days in certain cinemas). Catch it in cinema while you can, unless you have a state of the art sound system that can recreate the sound of the bashing Southern Ocean.. then I'm sure they'll soon have it on DVDs too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Deep Water (2006) ****

\"It is indifferent... it's there waiting for you to make one slip up.\" Those words (paraphrased) are perhaps the best sum up of the nature of the ocean I have ever heard muttered. Its furies are boundless, not least of which, her loneliness. Those words come from the mesmerizing and heartbreaking documentary Deep Water. It is the story of Donald Crowhurst, an amateur sailor who partook in the 1969 Sunday Times Race around the World. If you do not know his story, it may be best to stop reading now. Don't read this or any other information on Crowhurst or the race. Find the film and just watch it.

After the first solo circumnavigation of the ocean in 1967, adventurers and watchers of adventurers began seeking the next one-up. This time the journey would have to be done without making landfall or stopping along the way. Having fallen on hard times, Crowhurst saw the race as a great chance to get his family back on their feet. He had lived through financial hardships as a child, and wanted part in going back to such a life. So he set out to find sponsors, and soon did in Stanley Best and Rodney Hallworth. The two men spelled the potential cash cow, and granted Crowhurst a boat, on the condition that if he should pull out of the race he would be forced himself to pay the expenses. His boat however was in serious need of repairs, and he feared it would not be ready in time for the final departure day. He was informed however by his sponsor's that he simply must go \u0096 after all, they ponied up the dough and expected it back many a time over.

The details of the story are infamous: Crowhurst's boat began taking on water, and his progress slowed to a crawl. Faced with the decision of trying to round the horn of Africa (certain death in such a boat) or turn back (financial devastation and destitution), he searched for a third option. He chose to hide out, alone on his yacht, waiting for other competitors to round Cape Horn in South America. From there he would rejoin the race. He reported false positions, and record breaking speeds. Then he stopped all communication for fear that his position would be given away. He also had to painstakingly construct fake log books for each day of a journey he did not take. Eventually the loneliness, the guilt, and the realization that he would likely be caught weighed too heavy on Crowhurst. His final log entries make the musings of a Kurtz seem entirely sane. Only a few weeks from home, he turned his boat away from home, and is reported to have jumped overboard soon thereafter.

Crowhurst's odyssey is a fascinating one, and its ending is heartbreaking, but strikes of inevitability. Our dreams so often turn into fears, and the consequences of our actions often leave us so few options for a happy ending. It is a story of a descent into madness, teased on by the infinite abyss of the cruel seas. The filmmakers do a wonderful job in telling this story. It's put together with chilling audio and video recordings done by Crowhurst, and narrations of his ever-increasingly maddening log notes. The story starts slowly, and may distract some viewers, but the rewards of the story are entirely worthwhile as it progresses.

There are also inquiries into some of the other competitors, such as Frenchman Bernard Moitessier, who was on par to likely win the speed competition, only to pull out and begin a second trip around the world. Also in the film is Robin Knox-Johnston, who was the winner of the competition. He donated his prize money to the Crowhurst family.

To read briefly on the Crowhurst saga simply does not do justice. It's interesting of course, but a quick browse bypasses the raw emotions and oddness presented here. The final moments of Deep Water are genuinely heart breaking, hearing the thoughts of his widowed family, and the adoration and understanding of his friends. This is a fascinating story, and it is that which carries the documentary into such great channels.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If extreme activities (and I don't mean the Hollywood ones like UFC & X-Games) and the people who pursue them interest you then seek this doc out.

This is one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction tales of Donald Crowhurts's obsession to prove himself against great odds. Those odds were stacked by Mother Nature, the media and his own mind. It is also about a time lost to us --although it was only 40 years ago.

The filmmakers have done a great job in gathering a wide range of material to tell his story and the story of the great race that consumed him.

I couldn't help but to think about Timothy Treadwell and the Apollo astronauts in the 2 great docs GRIZZLY MAN and IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON while experiencing --you don't simply \"watch\"-- this story.

If you live in a big city buy it or rent it. It is worth the effort to find. I had to travel 100 miles to L.A. to buy it and I am glad I did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Have you ever found yourself watching a film or documentary and having to hold yourself back from screaming things like \"No! Don't do it!\"? No? Well it's time you do. And undoubtedly DEEP WATER is the one to get you started.

The story is based on that of Donald Crowhurst and his entry into the first round-the-world yacht race to be undertaken by individuals in 1968. That word \"individuals\" is important, as the men who set off on this nearly suicidal escapade head out alone.

Most of the men are well-knowns in the sea-faring communities of England (where they launch from), but one of them is the \"unknown dark horse,\" and his name was Donald Crowhurst. Struggling financially, Crowhurst enlists a backer who can take everything from him should he fail to at least attempt to make it through a large portion of the race. He could take his home, his property, everything.

Crowhurst now finds himself between a rock and ...well ...deep water: either attempt the race with an unproven ship and an unproven captain, or lose everything you own (which was significant since Crowhurst had a wife and several children). You'll note the term \"unproven captain\" in there, too. Not only was he unproven, he'd never been out on the open sea! Did I mention suicidal? Flicking between archival footage of the pre- and post-race, and those of Crowhurst's friends, family, and acquaintances of today, Deep Water is put together masterfully. Initially seen as a poor sap who got in over his head, the film gradually shows you the limited choices Crowhurst had after months and months out on the water. His ship leaks. Equipment breaks. Psyche stretched to the breaking point (and beyond). Crowhurst finds himself lost in an internal struggle with no successful way out. It is interesting, too, to see the psychological breaks that other racers have as they deal with their solitary confinement on-board their respective boats.

The wave-like emotions that you'll feel as you watch this astounding documentary may make you a bit ill (not unlike trying to get your sea-legs). And you'll probably be frustrated at the choices being made; perhaps just as frustrated as poor Mr. Crowhurst.

The ending is also amazing in that we get to see the actual ship that Crowhurst sailed, sitting deserted and rotting on a Caribbean beach ...not unlike other things that felt deserted and rotting toward the end of this poorly thought-out race.

Incredible.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even if you do not typically enjoy documentaries, odds are you will find this one fascinating. Not only does it have a well-mapped out plot that while easy to follow, contains its interesting detours; it also has a very strong emotional resonance, and not one that relies on a simple specific tone. Instead the emotions here are as profound and turbulent as the seas featured.

That being said, if you know nothing of Donald Crowhurst and the 1968 single-handers boat race around the world...as was the case for me...please stop reading, and rent\/view this film.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

My friend Brian recommended this at the same time that my Aunt had sent me a clipping linking this film with Antonioni's work In 2007, I was mesmerized by several of Antonioni's films, still am! To connect this film to Antonioni, I think is a bit of a stretch, the character most likely to be seen in one of Michaelangelo's movies is Francoise Moitessier de Cazalet. It's funny on the main IMDb page, he isn't even listed as playing \"Himself\" which is probably a function of his lengthy name, as opposed to his self realization\/renunciation. Since Moitessier sails right out of the race, that could be considered is a bit like Anna in L'Avventura. Quite a major minor character.

While there are many things to love about this film: the actual footage from the time, the stoic best friend, the sheer power of the Roaring Forties, I walked away with a simple connection. A man, truly at sea. There have been times in my life where I wonder how I got to such a point, caught between dreams and reality, feeling like a stowaway in my own skin. It may be that I'm reading too much into this documentary, and that in turn the directors read too much into Crowhurst, but I found that sense as spell-binding as the other secrets kept in this film.

On the odd chance that Crowhurst's wife (who seemed a remarkable study in restraint with understandably conflicted overtones) and his children (so young in the found footage, and still young at this late date in the sense of their pain and pride for their father), I am certain the comments here and the film itself fail to catch the man that your father was. In his death however, he has given the world a glimpse of something like a lost myth, he is a pre-GPS Odysseus. Never finding his body adds to the air of frail immortality, if not the stature of a cosmic being of which he had writ.

This film sticks with you after the viewing, as if you expect another twist to emerge from the deep waters. Or at the very least, you hope for the Moitessier sequel.

Thurston Hunger 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Filmmakers made a rather boring everyman's story look interesting and complex by focusing on his wife back at home. At the same time, we're exposed to a truly original, existential French loner.

The film is more than a documentary. Hardly ever do I feel that I've experienced something that's accidentally profound, which makes it all the more profound.

Film has visually interesting interior moments. Absolutely loved the journey the filmmakers took me on. (Quite a lot of Europeans in the credits). Hopefully, PBS will screen this so that it reaches a wider audience in the USA.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently read the story to see how these two match up, and if you can believe it, this film improves upon Balzac. The story is moved around, I think, to drive home the idea that Colonel Chabert is a man who has suffered much and yet he comes home, not a hero, but as an outcast.

As someone mentioned, I was initially confused if Chabert was akin to The Return of Martin Guerre. No. It is firmly established by Balzac that Chabert is the real deal. What's interesting, though, is not is he, isn't he, but how his wife, and society, treats him.

I think this is a timeless story of men who go off to fight for their country and when they come home time has left them behind. Chabert is a tragic figure made all the more poignant by the amazing Gerard Depardieu. I don't care that he's been in 1 million films, he's captivating.

Fanny Ardant has a horrible character to play. Once a prostitute, Rose has used her feminine wiles to climb the social ladder. Are her emotions true for Compte Ferraud? I think they are and perhaps couple that with her social standing at the time, and you start to feel some empathy for her.

Fabrice Lucini is slowly worming his way into my heart. He's exceptional here as Derville.

I think if you can get your hands on this gem of a film, you won't be sorry. French cinema at its finest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First, let me confess that I have not read this particular Balzac novel, so maybe I am directing my cavils unfairly at director and editor. Still my experience with Balzac in other stories is that he writes as a realist, not an obscurantist. This is most certainly a film worth one's while, but one is left sorely puzzled at the end. Was the Colonel a fraud, used by the lawyer for his own ends (or for whose beyond himself); or was the Colonel not a fraud, but used as aforesaid by the lawyer; or did the lawyer truly try to serve the honest Colonel? The director and\/or the editor appear to me to have deliberately obscured these questions, which doesn't seem like Balzac, the realist. At the same time the film does an excellent job of delineating the characters, if not their motives, and the cast and production is superb. That opening battlefield scene is bound to haunt one's dreams. Still, one wonders at the all too common penchant among contemporary film makers to favor ambiguity above all else. Weren't the problems and motives of all these characters complicated enough for Yves Angelo?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Colonel Chabert is one of the best adaptations from novel to screen I have seen in the movies. It combines the realism of French cinema with excellent characterisation, from Depardieu's lost Chabert to Fabrice Luchini's proud Lawyer to Fanny Ardant's complex widow. The movie has wonderful dimension, as you might expect from a top cinematographer such as Yves Angelo. The characters keep this movie in gear and although a bit slow in the beginning, picks up pace and is a fine movie by the time it reaches the finish.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an unfortunately unrecognized classic.

The look is superb, the design, costumes etc are flawless, the post battle scenes and the cavalry charge are both chilling and exciting.

The characters are vivid and really human. Ardent is right and Fabrice Luchini as the lawyer Derville steals the movie with his clever pedantic rodent-like performance, delighting in the ups and downs of others' misfortunes. Depardieu is good but perhaps too large a presence for this role.

Where the film really excels is the story and also its changes from Balzac's novella. Those changes are editorial in that Balzac has lots of discussion on society and this film breaths with characters. Nevertheless Yves Angelo has retained the key ingredient, not just the missing man trying to regain his place in society but every character has to find their place in society: the Comte Ferraud is trying to buy a peerage, his wife (Ardent) comes from a lowly birth and when she was married to Colonel Chabert they achieved their position in the turbulence of post-revolutionary France. Everyone has something to lose in terms of status and that makes for a good drama as their objectives are in conflict with each other.

It also feels very modern: money is critical to buy status to reach power, but someone can go down as quickly as they go up. Derville enjoys the strategy, he has seen the worst of people he says to Chabert when he takes the case. This speech's original place is at the end of the novella as Balzac sums up the human comedy with huge irony.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most of other reactions by subscribers to this service were very apt, although that some found it slow or ambiguous puzzled me. Rather than ambiguous, it was complex and multi-layered in its meanings. One can see it as anti-war, because of the opening and closing scenes, and the folly of pretended grandeur, as how wonderful the cavalry men looked as they prepared for the great charge at Eylau, contrasted with its so horrible and disturbing conclusion, when we see the bloody uniforms, the boyish dead, etc--but chiefly, I see the film as about a moral man in an immoral society. At the end Chabert chooses retreat from the corrupt post-Napoleonic French world and opts for the simple pleasures provided by Derville (who himself is saved by his recognition of Chabert's basic decency and the morality of his choice of renunciation)--white bread, cheese, some wine and tobacco--over the riches he leaves to his wife, and her and society's dishonor. In her case, we can see the film as also feminist, in the position of women at that time, in which the only weapons Mme Chabert has are her charm, beauty, wiles and, ultimately, money.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was better than I expected. I don't think it deserved an R rating, though. I've seen PG-13 films with worse language and violence. I found this movie entertaining and I enjoyed it. If you're a person who dissects everything, you might find a lot wrong with it, but if you take it for its face value, I think you'll find it entertaining.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie will not be considered for an academy award, but if you enjoy a movie that doesn't take itself seriously and just wants the viewer to enjoy for ninety mins it is not a disappointment. You'll enjoy a send up of Darth Vader for the villain (the breather), a female Batman for the heroine (but much cuter with much less costume), and a running joke that involves cigarettes and the police captain that's very funny. Not by any means a great cinematic achievement. But if you enjoy campy fun it was worth a viewing. God help me, I liked it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Black Scorpion is a fun flick about a groovy female super heroine who wears leather tights and drives a car that can morph into her snazzy armored Scorpion Mobile. She battles the evil Breathtaker and all of this is an excellent recipe for a good time IMHO. I loved the bit about her having to say \"Yo\" to get the car's computer to take orders! Breathtaker is so evil he wants to give the entire city asthma! It's all so over the top and that's the beauty of it! The scene where Black Scorpion \"attacks\" her partner steals the show. You'll know it when you see it. This DVD also has a fun interview with Joan Severance. She's a doll. Black Scorpion is a fun DVD. Loved it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a sucker for a decent superhero movie. (I'm not counting super bug budget, no storyline Batman's either)

A couple of my favorites are The Phantom and a budget movie called The Demolitionist. The Black Scorpion can be added to that collection.

If you've seen the Demolitionist then get this movie. It's basically a copy of that heroine. (It even stars the same guy in both movies)

If you haven't, then let me explain...a cop's father is murdered and she seeks vengeance. She laces up the black outfit (a sexy catwomanish, skimpy outfit that looks absolutely great on Joan Severance) and goes out to kick some booty.

It's a fun, action packed movie, mind you, you may not wish the kids to see it...without screening it first to see if you approve of the pretty graphic sex scene Severance has in it. Which in my opinion, was a bonus (alright, give it an extra star )","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Black Scorpion is Roger Cormen's Batman. Which is cool and there is a lot of cool stuff in this movie. Like the Breathtaker being a cross between Doctor Doom and Darth Vader, that's kind of cool. The mind control gas in the inhalers was worthy of the Mad Hatter. The Cormen B-movie style is all over this puppy which is not always a good thing. There are plenty of stunts and hot babes to make any action fan happy. This movie, the good out weighs the bad. But if you aren't one for comic book movies, then I would advise not watching Black Scorpion, however if you like comic book like movies and don't care if it was ever a comic before. Then check out BLACK SCORPION, as for me I give it 8 STARS.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though this is a good, enjoyable cartoon, they did much better ones later on, like Carrotblanca. This is almost like the first Star Trek feature, which would have been welcomed with open arms and glee no matter what, just for existing. This is really a patchwork of old bits with some nice touches, but nothing special. Reminds me a bit of the hunting trilogy in spots and the ending is priceless. Available and certainly well worth watching just for the novelty and the good bits. Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't get me wrong this was fun to watch. It has some nice animation with exception of an odd looking Bugs, and some nice music. And the standout scene was definitely Elmer, Bugs and Daffy's dance on the floor, that was such a nice and fun touch. As a matter of fact, the whole cartoon is nice to watch, but all in all it is not what I call exceptional like Carrotblanca. There are some very nice gags, but they have been used before I feel, and there wasn't much that I would deem hilarious. And Daffy joining forces with Elmer? Somehow seeing as he was a target of the hunter, didn't it seem odd that he would be friends with him. Though I will admit it was nice having Daffy there. The voice acting was above average too, but somehow I missed Mel Blanc.

All in all, unexceptional but very nice cartoon. 7\/10 Bethany Cox","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just watched this movie and it's not bad; there are a few tense moments and not a lot of long dialog strings. Comes off as fairly intelligent; fastpaced almost like 'documentary style'. This movie will evoke some nostalgia and a bit of cold war paranoia with cars,street scenes,and life in the 50's. The acting is fairly solid and at 85 minutes run time it goes by at a good pace. An atomic era film buff shouldn't miss this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here is a much lesser known 50's sci-fi with a little different twist. An atomic researchers son is kidnapped and held for a ransom of the the Father's atomic secrets.

This is a tightly knit atomic sci-fi thriller with great production values and above average acting, even from the kid. The Atomic City actually has a movie feel to it unlike a lot of other 50's sci-fi of this time which which came off more like an episode of a TV show.

The Atomic City was also actually nominated for an Academy Award for Best Screenplay - how many other 50's sci-fi can tout an Academy Award Nomination?

Great pacing, tight direction and some superb location filming in the 'real' Atomic City of Los Alamos, New Mexico make this one worth hunting down. The collectors print in circulation is an above average transfer and makes for a great double feature with the Atomic Man!!

Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Check out the first 20 minutes even though the suspense hasn't yet kicked in. We get a pretty good look at super-secret Los Alamos just a few years after the big bomb test that helped end WWII. Except for the tight security, it looks unthreatening enough. Note how it's a TV repairman, an obvious regular guy, who takes us through security. Once through, it's like any-town-USA, nice homes, quiet streets, kids going to school, and a family TV on the blink. Later on we see little Tommy and little Peggy frolicking along streets lined with impressive looking facilities separated by locked gates. The movie appears to be saying, \"Okay, we're tough, only because we have to be. But, basically, we're still just folks.\"

Now, I expect that was a comforting message to Cold War audiences still not used to government's \"dooms-day\" research. It's a clear effort at popular reassurance. The one darker note is when Tommy's mother (Clarke) worries about her son's mental state. He doesn't say, \"When I grow up\"; instead, it's, \"If I grow up\". That note of doubt not only reflects a Los Alamos reality, but also a national one that in 1952 had just seen footage of the apocalyptic H-bomb. Note too, how professionally FBI agents are portrayed, a standard feature of McCarthy era fare. When brute force is needed, it's not they, but private citizen Gene Barry who thrashes out the information\u0097an early version, I suppose, of modern era \"rendition\".

Once the kidnapping occurs, the suspense doesn't let up. The intrigue is nicely handled with colorful LA locations that keep us guessing. The climactic scenes around the cliff dwellings may not be plausible as a hiding place, but the view of northern New Mexico is great. Then too, the ancient stone apartments amount to one of the more exotic backdrops of the decade. Note also the extensive use of the police helicopter just coming into use as a law enforcement tool. Among an otherwise subdued cast, Nancy Gates remains a sparkling presence as teacher Ellen Haskell. Never Hollywood glamorous, she was still a fine unsung actress and winning personality. I also expect this was one of director Hopper's more successful movie efforts, and though people have since gotten used to the nuclear threat, the movie remains a revealing and riveting document of its time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Night Hunter starts in '1968' as a young Jack Cutter (Chris Aguilar) is unexpectedly handed the family tradition of becoming a Vampire hunter when a fellow Vampire hunter Sid O'Mack (Sid Haim) betrays his family & hands them over to the Vampire's, to aid Jack on his quest he is given a book that contains the name of every Vampire alive, or dead whichever way you look at it... Jump to 'June 1995' & Los Angeles where the now adult Cutter (Don 'The Dragon' Wilson, also credited as co-producer) has but four names left in the book including, Argento (Vince Murdocco) & Carmella (Sophia Crawford) together they are the last of the American Vampires. As they all dine in a restaurant Cutter crashes the party & kills them, job done right? Wrong as King of the Vampires Bruno Fischer (Nicholas Guest) calls in the last four remaining Vampires from around the world, the French Tournier (Maria Ford), the Asian Hashimoto (Ron Yuan), Ulmer (David 'Shark Fralick) & Sangster (Vincent Klyn) to track Cutter down & kill him. Meanwhile Detective's Hooper (Marcus Aurelius) & Browning (Cash Casey) don't have a clue & a nosey reporter named Raimy Baker (Melanie Smith) becomes involved in the battle between Cutter & the Vampire's on which the very fate of Earth rests!

Directed by Rick Jacobson I thought Night Hunter was quite a fun way to pass 85 odd minutes. The script by William C. Martell mixes martial arts & horror with a fair degree of success, it moves along at a nice pace & is at least never boring & thankfully doesn't seem to take itself too seriously. The character names that reference other horror film director's\/actors are a little tacky though. Some may be surprised at how closely Night Hunter resembles Blade (1998) yet was made a couple of years prior, the lone moody long coat wearing Vampire hunter who happens to be an expert in martial arts, the scene set in a nightclub & the innocent woman drawn into the world of Vampire's. Night Hunter doesn't really stick to traditional Vampire film law, for instance sunlight only irritates their eye's, they can only breed on a solar eclipse (why?), stakes through the heart & garlic is no good as the way to kill a Vampire in Night Hunter is to break it's neck. I could have done with a bit more horror & a bit more blood as it leans more towards the martial arts side of things. The dialogue is suitably cheesy & the character's are just about likable enough in a silly way.

Director Jacobson does his best to ruin the film, the actions scenes are OK but lack a certain something & for some bizarre reason whenever an action sequence takes place he shakes his camera constantly, it's like the camera is placed upon a washing machine full cycle! Hey Rick, mate, it's not clever or stylish it's irritating & annoying. The gore is disappointing with a few gory gunshot wounds & a few splashes of blood, breaking Vampire's necks don't involve much blood unfortunately.

With a budget that probably didn't amount to much Night Hunter is competently made throughout. The acting was bad most of the time & what's with 'The Dragon' thing in Don 'The Dragon' Wilson's name? Has he legally changed his name? Does he sign cheques Don 'The Dragon' Wilson?! Does he get mail addressed to him in that name? I think I might do something like this, from now on I want to be known as Paul 'The Killer Klown' Andrews...

Night Hunter is one of those crap films that transcends it's limitations & awfulness to become pure golden entertainment. If you like your films fun then Night Hunter might be for you, if your looking for big-budget thrills in a similar vein (! Vampire's, veins & blood get it?) then Blade & it's sequels would probably be a better choice. What the hell, I liked it so sue me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Night hunter is a sold B style action movie. Get a life and grow up people. Don \"the Dragon\" Wilson is a kick boxer, (hall of fame) and not an actor. If your looking for an Oscar, it's not here brother. Looking for kick ass action movie with lower then low budget, this is it.The plot line may have been a little thin, but what B movie isn't. I understand everybody is a critic and how one man's junk is another man's treasure. Get real people, judging every movie like it is an Oscar contender, just silly. Awesome fight scenes, mixed with a new twist on vampire moves. See it if your a fan, rent something else if your a hater.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, indeed we have a winner- a winner in best dumb-action-movie!

The only reason I chose to vote a 10 for this movie is because it's so incredibly bad-made that it actually becomes funny.

\"Night Hunter\" is basically about Jack Cutter, a Vampire hunter (Vampire hunters have been in his generation for centuries, apparently), and his mission, being that he has to kill the last remaining Vampires.

This movie contains one of the cheesiest scenes I have ever seen in my life. Not to mention the really bad gun-shooting scenes. When people are shot in this movie, blood splatters- thick as ketchup all over the place, this makes the movie seem so cheap and lame that you just lose interest. A constant shaking of the camera is what annoys me the most during the fight-scenes. This is, I suppose, done to create an \"action-effect\", though in my opinion it gives no effect whatsoever. Its completely ridiculous!

All stunt-scenes are done extremely badly. E.g a scene where the dead Vampire-leader gets thrown off a roof. When the corpse hits the ground, it bounces like a wobbly rubber-doll. A scene where Jack sniffs the ground, getting a vision was so lame it got me laughing hysterically.

Lame music, cheesy scenes, bad acting and plain dumb filming techniques are obviously the functions that make this movie such a malfunction. To state that this is a good movie would be the same as stating that nuclear bombs are good for humans. Clearly those of you who say that this is one of the best action-movies, haven't seen many in your life.

This is basically a B-class vampire-action-movie that deserves 0\/10 but which I'll give 10\/10, just for its ability (being the lousiest action-movie I have ever seen)of making me laugh and because I just can't live without it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hard Justice is an excellent action movie! The whole movie is really nothing but shooting and fighting but it does have a very good vampire plot! For the people who say they don't make shoot em ups and fighting films like they use to. Well, this one is really hard-core! Don 'The Dragon' Wilson is excellent and his character is really cool in the movie. Nicholas Guest was very good as well and he arguably steals the show! He really performs as a fantastic villain! Melanie Smith was also good. I think that this very fine looking actress is very underrated. Michael Cavanaugh was good. It was really cool to see Vince Murdocco in this film! As for the action, it is truly awesome with all of the gun fights and the super cool fighting scenes. The fighting in this picture is really some of the greatest I have seen! There is so much that happens in the 86 minute run time. For the action fans you will be blown away by all of the fire power and superb fighting that this film has to offer! Night Hunter is a movie that isn't easy to locate and if you are at a video store and you see it for sale buy it up because this movie is big keeper and plus the box is cool! There is a ton of action that has to be seen to be believed! Look and see if you can find some good deals on Ebay, Half.com, Amazon.com's Z-Shops and Market Place Sellers! In My opinion Night Hunter is one of the greatest fighting films that I have ever watched and the characters are so neat. If you like Don 'The Dragon' Wilson and want to see Nicholas Guest in a great performance then I strongly recommend that any action movie fan who loves shoot em ups, fighting movies, and vampire films and has been disappointed by other movies that has the look of a true non stop action flick but fails to deliver it to get and buy Night Hunter today!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"More exciting than the Wesley Snipes film, and with better characters, too. The last vampire hunter must save Los Angeles from a coven of vampires out to conquer the city, aided by a tabloid journalist. Lost of fun... and the names of the characters are great!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sony Pictures Classics, I'm looking at you! Sony's got the rights to Harry records -- you need to distribute the film and you'll get radically increased sales of his back catalog! Anyhow, this is a great study of a fascinating musician, woefully underknown, full of great stories, greater music, and it could have been 3 hours longer and I'd have loved it even more. Saw it at the American Cinemateque Mods & Rockers Festival at the Aero Theatre in Santa Monica, where it played to a packed house. They were turning people away at the door! I went to many of the Mods & Rockers festival films, and let me assure you that no other film came even close to selling out, let alone turning people away. See it in the theatre, buy the DVD, and make sure some slow-on-the-uptake company [*cough SONY cough*] picks it up ASAP!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this superb documentary at the Santa Barbara Int'l Film Festival. It is extremely absorbing and very well crafted, drawing you into the life and career of Harry Nilsson, one of the most overlooked musical talents of the 1960's and 70's. While I was familiar with his better known compositions (\"One is the Loneliest Number\", \"Without You\"), I learned about this man's brilliant writing and beautiful singing. If you love music, you'll find plenty to draw you in to his world, which unfortunately spiraled out of control as his success increased and his past haunted him. However sad, he nonetheless was completely devoted to his family and you will find yourself so glad to have met this man. The profile is effectively told through Nilsson's own words and those of his friends and colleagues (a virtual Who's Who of Rock)who loved and respected him. Don't miss this!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw this film during the Mod & Rockers fest in August. I was so inspired and touched. Harry had an amazing life and one of the best and distinct voices ever recorded. For those of you who don't know about Harry Nilsson do a little research and you'll see that Harry has probably found his way into your life in one way or another - maybe it was his 70s special \"The Point\" or \"Everybody's Talking\" from Midnight Cowboy. For me it started with \"people let me tell you bout my best friend\" - the theme song from \"The Courtship of Eddie's Father.\" Watching this film you can really feel the love and admiration from Harry's true friends and peers. Don't shed a tear for Harry - he had a ball...

Brett","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Biodoc on the enigmatic singer\/songwriter who, according to friends' accounts, spent the last 15 years of his relatively short life seemingly on a mission of self-destruction. He died at 52, overweight and dissipated, of heart disease, after a protracted rampage of virtually non-stop overindulgence in alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana and cocaine, raucous partying, and flagrant misuse of his vocal instrument (he confided to a friend that he shouted out his lyrics at one performance with such force that spattered blood was left on the microphone).

All of this despite the fact that he was: (1) widely considered to have perhaps the most gifted pop singing ability of his generation; (2) successful, after years of effort, in terms of industry acclaim - a Grammy, an Oscar, a decent recording contract with a top label, and at least two stellar albums - 'Nilsson Schmilsson' (originals), and 'A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night' (standards); and (3) very happily married (for the third time), with a lovely young family that he seemed to adore.

The film's strengths begin with the completeness of its account of Nilsson's life, including fine use of archival film footage and many stills of Nilsson; the editors do an especially good job of bringing movement to the stills. We learn of his close ties to John Lennon and, later, Ringo Starr (Lennon often said that Nilsson was his favorite American musician).

Even more impressive are the talking heads, often a documentary's weakest aspect. Here we get people like Perry Botkin, Jr., Ray Cooper, Mickey Dolenz, Terry Gilliam, Mark Hudson, Eric Idle, Rick Jarrard, Randy Newman, Van Dyke Parks, Jimmy Webb and Robin Williams, all telling amazing stories about Nilsson \u0096 many uproariously funny, others deeply pathetic - and everyone conveying their deep affection for him. Equally informative and moving are interview segments with Nilsson's wives \u0096 Annie and Una, his son Zach, and cousin Doug Hoefer. Best set of heads I can recall in a biodoc.

The most glaring deficiency of the film is that it crowds out Nilsson's music. Even the performance of his greatest hit, \"Without You,\" is cut short after about 8 bars. Arrrrgh!! There is no excuse for this, not given that the movie runs a full two hours as it is. Lose a few head shots and we could have heard at least that song through, and perhaps one or two more, like \"One,\" or his Oscar winning cover of \"Everybody's Talking.'\" The filmmakers are simply too intent on plumbing Nilsson's psychological mystique and not attentive enough to his music. My grades: 7.5\/10 (low B+) (Seen at the NWFC's Reel Music series, 01\/07\/07)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was lucky enough to have seen this film at it's Seattle Film Fest screening, and was blown away by how great it was. This is without a doubt one of the best music documentaries I've ever seen, (and I've seen a lot!) This is a loving look back at the life and times, music and relationships of one of music's true legends. Harry Nilsson deserves to be up there with the likes of Gershwin, Cole Porter, and all the other great song writers of 20th century standards. He was considered a peer by all four members of the Beatles, who all called him a 5th Beatle, and one the same wavelength as themselves.

Harry refused to tour, so many today don't remember him, and those born after his heyday, are unaware of who he was. This is tragic. Everyone should have the opportunity to be exposed to this wonderful talent. This film is a step in the right direction, to finally give the man his due. Unfortunately, the film has yet to have wide distribution, or even a DVD so for the time being, good luck in getting to see it.

If you are someone with the power to put together a DVD distribution deal, PLEASE contact the film makers. This film needs to be available. Hey VH-1, how about screening it on air, then maybe putting it out on DVD? Harry Nilsson deserves nothing less.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This tough-to-see little picture played at the Mods & Rockers 2007 festival. It is a wonderful and loving look at Harry Nilsson, using many famous faces who sit for interviews, rarely seen TV performances and behind-the-scenes footage of Nilsson at work. There's even a few shots from \"Son Of Dracula\". This movie is the final and fitting tribute to one of the finest voices, the most clever songwriter and the funniest man in popular music. It's a crime that this man's name is not as well known as some of the songs he wrote and\/or performed. His friends tell incredibly funny stories about this talented hulk with a subconscious wish for self-destruction. As a bonus, you even get Eric Idle performing the song with wrote for Nilsson's final album during the closing credits. It's funny, it's sad. It's not in general release. If this picture plays anywhere near where you live, see it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie in Santa Monica on Aug. 23 and it has stayed with me. I want to thank the filmmakers for digging into the details of Harry's enigmatic, eccentric, life. And also for showing the flaws and failings of Nilsson the man. Thanks for showing the good and bad, the ups and downs, and for uncovering that amazing BBC footage. The film is also a great showcase of a vast amount of Nilsson's music, really well placed throughout the film. I recommend this movie to anyone who likes good documentaries, especially if you are interested in Harry Nilsson or the music scene of the early 70's. Some reviewer at the Ain't It Cool website wrote that this was the best movie movie they saw at the Santa Barbara Film Festival, and I believe it. The film is informative, funny, sad, touching, and full of awesome music. It succeeds on all levels. Really, really good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thursday June 15, 9:30pm The Egyptian

Saturday June 17, 11:00am The Egyptian

\"He spent most of his life in pursuit of a good time, and he caught it.\" - Eric Idle

Harry Nilsson left Brooklyn, \"\u0085feeling like Holden Caulfield. I was fifteen.\" Eventually, he ended up working as an usher at the LA Paramount and within a few years fell back asswards into one of the greatest songwriting careers in the history of American music. 'Who Is Harry Nilsson (And Why Is Everybody Talking' About Him?)' chronicles the legendary life of \"\u0085 the best songwriter of our generation.\" Writer\/Director John Scheinfeld produces a 'who's who' of musical royalty, from Brian Wilson and Al Kooper to Paul Williams, Randy Newman and Ray Cooper, \"His voice was a medical instrument. It would heal you.\" Assorted archives include his 1969 appearance on 'Playboy After Dark' and Nilsson's BBC special. The John Lennon, brandy Alexander, Smothers Brothers at the Troubadour comeback-show heckling debacle is one memorable recounting among so many they seem to virtually squeeze Nilsson's enchanting music out of this comprehensive and bitter-sweet bio-doc.

\"He was a wonderful perpetrator.\"

\" \u0085 I woke up three days later, getting a massage in Phoenix.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Heaven's Gate on its opening week nearly twenty years ago. Tickets were sold in advance based on the great anticipation of seeing Cimino's long in the making follow up to his 1978 masterpiece \"The Deerhunter.\" The reviews came in and critics trashed the film with vehemence. An influential New York film critic led the way and most critics followed suit, and the 3hr. 40-min. film was pulled from distribution. United Artists had Cimino shorten the film by about an hour and it was re-released many months later to equally horrible reviews and to dismal business. The film at that time cost about 40 million dollars (now considered low budget) making it one of the most expensive in history and Cimino had free rein on the project with endless retakes despite it being only his third film. \"The Deerhunter\" had also received a negative backlash based on a perceived political ideology, which was not popular. I mention all this to present a possible bias building up against Cimino. At the time I thought the film was very good and when I saw the shorter version it was still very good only less so. The film showed up again in a museum in the early 1990's. They were supposed to show the long version but they could not find an existing print. Nevertheless, seeing the film years later I now thought Heaven's Gate was a masterpiece. Finally, the long version started to appear in a few select cities, I got to see it recently and it was well worth the wait. Heaven's Gate begins with the graduation ceremony at Harvard University. Two of the graduates are Kris Kristofferson and John Hurt and we some of the flaws in their characters early on. Despite the mandate Joseph Cotton gives in his speech to the graduating class to use their education to enlighten and improve their country, many of the graduates behave as if they are part of an elite country club. The film flashes ahead 20 years to Johnson County in Wyoming. A cattle company called \"the Stockholders Association\" has hired poor people to shoot 125 poor immigrants claiming they are cattle thieves. Kristofferson sides with the immigrants while John Hurt is part of the Association. Although Hurt is totally against this insane action he is too ineffectual a character to do anything about it. A massacre takes place but the immigrants do well in defending themselves. A United States Cavalry comes to the rescue of the Association to allegedly arrest them after most of the damage has been done when in fact they sanctioned the mass killing. Kristofferson also suffers a great personal loss and the film ends with him years later as part of the elite class of his Harvard days married, bored, on a yacht, living but dead on the inside.

This is a very complex film which is brilliant in every department such as it's themes, structure, direction, cinematography, writing, music, editing, set designs, and acting. Kristofferson, Walken, Hurt, Huppert, Dourif, Bridges, Waterston, and Cotton are all excellent portraying very complex characters. Some of the major complaints I read about this film state that is ugly to look at, incoherent, too long, that the characters make no sense and that the words are often unintelligible. In its defense, Heaven's Gate has the look of photographs of that period just as \"McCabe & Mrs. Miller\" did. Some of the scenes are smoky looking to suggest the industrial revolution or sometimes horses, wagons, people are passing by from all sides creating a sense of reality.(The critic who called it one of the ugliest movies ever made likes to use his thumbs a lot.) But in spite of all that, the composition of each frame and the cinematography are impeccable. The film makes a great deal of sense if you pay attention to it. Everything is not spelled out for the viewer and one has to observe closely to understand the motivations of the characters or its themes. As to its length, it is a beautifully structured piece, at times moving, poetic, exhilarating, or devastating with virtually one great scene following another. At times some of the words are unintelligible especially in some of the scenes bustling with activity. But one could understand such a cinematic film as this through its use of film language, the glances between characters or their actions. One day soon this film should be re-released in its full length so that people and critics could give it a second chance. Do not let Michael Cimino become another Orson Welles- under appreciated in his lifetime and not able to make the kinds of great films he is capable of making.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Heaven's Gate' is not a masterpiece, which apparently was what it needed to be upon first release to justify its great cost, and, more importantly, the continued uneasy reliance of Hollywood on the Auteur model of film-making. Yet 'Heaven's Gate', seen today at last on DVD in a cut of 229 minutes, is a superb film. It is a touch lethargic in pace. But at least it is paced. Quite apart from the incompetence of construction that marks many films today, there have been many films which, deliberate in form, have been severely damaged by being hacked down with no care for rhythm so the films become shapeless and confusing. Beyond this, the criticisms leveled at the film have become in retrospect quite lame. If the good guys and bad guys are too obviously pronounced for a serious film, and yes Sam Waterston's mustachioed, fur-clad villain is comic-opera (and not in the multi-leveled manner of Bill The Butcher from 'Gangs of New York'), and yes, the townsfolk do seem a touch 'Fiddler On The Roof' on occasions, then a few dozen serious films made since then, including 'Titanic' and the graceless 'Cold Mountain' (which bears certain similarities and is a notable failure in convincing qualities compared to this film) can be castigated for exactly the same reason.

Also despite accusations, the film has a plot, quite a well-essayed plot at that. It simply does not bow to standard-form 'epic' quality, by providing Titan heroes, rafts of sub-plots and confusion. It experiments with telling in a manner more like much smaller, modest films, by carefully-caught moments of character interaction, and well-textured pageant-like explosions of communal action, as with the opening at Harvard and, most specially, the wonderful scene where the Johnson County folk, following the lead of a brilliantly physical fiddler, make celebration on roller-skates.

'The Deer Hunter' was a critical and commercial success but abandoned the first half's inspired, mosaic-like accumulation of detail, and I think in a manner similar to criticism of Robert Penn Warren's novel 'All The King's Men' and its dictionary of Jacobean stunts, if Cimino had not had such a strong grasp of the conventions of Hollywood epics, he might have made a special rare work of art based in honest visualisation of people within their milieu. In contrast, 'Heaven's Gate' succeeds in screwing its narrative momentum and tension upwards in a slowly expanding arc, until the finale explodes, whilst not abandoning the mosaic approach.

The central romantic triangle, for instance, resists standard inflections; a decent, intelligent, but psychically defeated man, James Averill (Kris Kristofferson) competes with a hot-shot but identity-challenged young gunman Nate Champion (Christopher Walken) for the hand of a young Madame, Ella Watson (Isabelle Huppert); there is no self-conscious bed-hopping, no slaps in the face, recriminations, or typical sad-sack moments, but more a sad and distanced decision by Ella to choose the younger man whom she loves less because he is ready to make the commitment. Ella emerges as the film's true hero (Huppert's performance, though initially awkward, is really quite excellent, balancing a dewy emotionalism with a hard-hammered spirit), attempting first to rescue Nate and then mustering the resistance party of immigrants into an enterprising defence. Subsequently, Averill is stung into action as friends die. Indeed, in the process of overcoming so many traps of clich\u00e9 and style, 'Heaven's Gate' successfully and willfully throws off the defeated outsider-heroes grace note of so many '70s Westerns and portrays an eventual, vigorous, cheer-the-heroes rallying to a compromised but still relished victory.

The social conflict of so many '70s Westerns at last hardens into a fully-fledged war; where capital attempts a crushing final victory over the miscreants who stand in their way, suddenly they find a massed and more-powerful people's army, led by the man who played the thoroughly-destroyed Billy the Kid a decade before. This is what led the film to be described as the first Marxist Western, but really it simply deflowers a theme of the genre extant well before the '60s. Such various and classic old-school works as William Wyler's 'The Westerner', and even 'Shane', tell awfully similar stories. It is simply here that the romantic myth of the gunslinger has been replaced by the romantic myth of the people's revolt. In a spectacular, exiting, but realistic and thus chaotic finale, the marauding Cattlemen's encampment is attacked, ringed by dust clouds punctuated by fallen horses, writhing bodies, and gunfire. Averill puts his classical education to work finally by stealing a Roman trick and bringing the Cattlemen to the brink of annihilation before they are rescued by the Cavalry (another distinctly seditious touch, but surely not so offensive after 'Little Big Man's unrelenting depiction of Native American massacres). Really, it's hard to think of a more heroically American vision of grassroots resistance. The film's only real dead spot stands as an unnecessary coda indicating Averill's eventual relapse, a rather potted piece of tragedy.

Despite then certain failings and a slow mid-section, 'Heaven's Gate' is a supreme piece of work, a genuine attempt to create a contemporary Western and a new kind of epic. If one has to still join the chorus that reckons Cimino was absurd in his behaviour on set and expenditure, it is regretfully. When, today, flops like 'The Adventures of Pluto Nash' and 'K-19 - The Widowmaker' see nearly a hundred million dollars sink down the drain, and yet a tag of infamy still hangs on this film, one ponders what exactly its grim death signified. The attempt at original style, the bawdy sexuality, the very hard-won sense of detail, the breathtaking rigor of the film-making and what is being filmed, all throw into contrast what is sorely lacking in so much contemporary Hollywood product.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I seriously don\u00b4t know why this movie got such a hostile reception when it was first released. Sure, it\u00b4s overlong and somewhat gratuitous in its depictions of sexuality and violence but so are lots of well regarded movies. I seriously don\u00b4t think that the people who hated \"Heaven\u00b4s Gate\" really understood it. \"Heaven\u00b4s Gate\" in its uncut form, much like \"The Deer Hunter\" shows the gross differences of living an insecure and dangerous life (like the immigrants and Averil in Wyoming) and living in comfort and privilege (like the settled \"Americans\" in Wyoming and Averil in the prologue and epilogue). Living a hard life is painful but it can also be invigorating as opposed to the dull life Averil leads in the epilogue. Also, as Michael Cimino took great pains to make the picture historically accurate , it is fascinating as a document of (and maybe indictment of) American life in Old West Wyoming. The dialogue is often genuinely clever and emotional. Combined with great music and cinematography, the movie works like a truly poetic work of art. Granted, \"Heaven\u00b4s Gate\", with its refusal to patronize the viewer, is not for all tastes. However, Hollywood turns out so much commercial dreck each year which is so much easier to dismiss as mindless eye candy (even when an example of it becomes a blockbuster) that \"Gate\" and Cimino really do deserve more respect. All people should see the uncut version at least once and then they should make up their own mind.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Until today, I thought there only three people, including me, who considered Heaven's Gate (1980)to be a masterpiece and perhaps the last great western, (since the 1970), after, Little Big Man (1970), Jeremiah Johnson (1972), The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) and The Long Riders (1980).

I was stunned and pleased to see that 22.5% of those voting at IMDB rate this movie a 10, as do I. A recent book, the Worst Movies of All Time, includes Heaven's Gate. Through it's production and release it was vilified, as no movie since Cleopatra, almost twenty years before. At one time it was considered the most expensive over-budget movie of all time, surpassing even Cleopatra. It was blamed for the downfall of its studio, United Artists, until everyone finally saw all the studios were falling. Michael Cimino, fresh from his glory with the Deer Hunter was hated and despised for his success and movie making excess, but clearly, that was petty jealousy at its worst.

Cimino ended up fashioning one of the great expositions of the American experience. This film is not to be missed but any serious student of American filmmaking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film when released in 1980. From other sources, I've learnt that the only release of the 219-minute cut was in New York City, after which it was severely cut to 149 minutes. So, I guess I saw the shorter version first which, at the time, I thought, was a very interesting anti-Western, if a trifle confusing...

So, it was with even more interest that I finally obtained a DVD of the full-length version. I'm glad I did because this second viewing has confirmed for me that the movie is a true classic, and the critical vitriol poured on Michael Cimino was unwarranted, to say the very least.

Yes, it's a long movie, but so have been many others. For example: Once upon a time in America (1984) at 227 minutes; Cleopatra (1963) at 320 minutes; The Ten Commandments (1956) at 220 minutes; Spartacus {restored version} (1960) at 198 minutes; Gone with the Wind (1939) at 222 minutes and others. So, it can't be the fact of running time that made so many froth at the mouth way back, when Heaven's Gate came on the scene.

But note this: all of those above movies have everything to do with reinforcing myths about history and heroes.

Not so Heaven's Gate: in this narrative, the American West is shown in all its grim and unrelenting harshness, injustice, and poverty. And that's probably the first reason why so many disliked this film: it laid out the circumstances of the Johnson County War of 1892 in Wyoming, showing how the Wyoming Stock Growers Association hired 50 assassins to hunt down and murder a large group of European immigrants accused of cattle rustling; and all with the assistance and conniving of authorities, right up to the President of the United States. For an essay on that war, with the background and what happened, there is a link at Wikipedia under Johnson County War.

Very few like to be reminded of the really dirty periods in their country's history, and which fly in the face of what the country is supposed to be. Had it been a documentary, it would have been barely palatable for most; as entertainment, it was almost bound to fail commercially and be torn to shreds by the shrill and infamous.

Leaving aside the socio-political diatribe, for a moment, that Cimino launched herein, what about the narrative \u0096 the story of the three main characters? Well, it probably wasn't unusual for men of that time to fall for a local prostitute, just as it's probably not unusual now. It's a fairly standard love triangle whereby Ella must choose between the two men, and ultimately decides upon the younger man, Nathan, who, although not above resorting to cold-blooded murder when it suits him, shows more spirit and commitment than the older James (or Jim, as most people in the film say). For some, that part of the story threads too slowly, perhaps; in the context of the wider narrative about the war, however, it is, I think, entirely appropriate.

And that war is depicted graphically, viciously and cruelly with scenes of carnage that are exquisitely staged and edited flawlessly \u0096 although in the final massacre between the Association and the immigrants, I'm certain that some scenes of wagons blowing apart are repeated. A minor point and perhaps brought about when the 219-minute cut was restored? Any way you look at it, though, it hits you in the face with the noise, dust, chaos and confusion of war...

Which brings me to another criticism by others: the noise and dust is such that it's often difficult to hear the dialog and even see clearly what is happening. I'll admit that I found that to be a trifle annoying at first, even backtracking to replay parts to try to catch the image or the words \u0096 until I realized that really wasn't necessary if you accept the director's intent: life is chaotic, it is difficult to hear and see in crowded situations and, in war, it's the sine qua non of this mise-en-scene. In short, it's as though you truly are present in and within the scenes...

And what of the title? From Shakespeare, it refers to a figurative nearness to God and so, if you equate God with the natural world, the stunning scenery that pervades the movie \u0096 and it is stunning, hauntingly equal to that of David Lean's Doctor Zhivago (1965) \u0096 is a useful metaphor. I tend to think, however, that Cimino had something more to say, namely the idea that the brave immigrants \u0096 the God-fearing salt of the earth \u0096 were denied entry to heaven on earth and the freedom to build a life for themselves in the land that espouses to be freedom's champion.

Was that Cimino's intent \u0096 to gut the myth of the American West? To show how, in America, only the rich get rich while the poor are massacred, one way or another, throughout history? Is that anything new? Not really, as we all know. Where it really hurt, however, is in showing how America was not and, by implication, is not the land of the free and the home of the brave. Instead, after absorbing this narrative, we are left with an impression that the underpinnings of America have more to do with a land of dispossessed slaves and a home for knaves...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was expecting this movie to be a stinker but I wanted to see for myself, but I was surprised how good of a movie this was. I know longer movies often don't do well at the box office but why this was pulled and not allowed to be viewed by the public is beyond me. It maintained my interest throughout and the scenery and photography is breathtaking at times. The plot was good and the morality play was a good one. I liked the realism which was along the lines of \"Unforgiven\". I had to rent this movie to see it but it was definitely worth it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been a fan of Heaven's Gate since its first release. I've seen it at least half-a-dozen times and have long thought of it as a masterpiece. So, it was with excitement and a sense of anticipation that I took myself off to see the restored director's cut.

To my surprise, I was disappointed on seeing it again and have since revised my estimation of the film. Heaven's Gate touches upon greatness in parts, but overall, lacks the thematic and narrative consistency and the passionate urgency characteristic of a truly great film.

Firstly, two technical problems: The sound quality is diffuse throughout the film, verging on inaudibility at times. Some of this, perhaps, is intentional - a way to mimic the chaos and confusion of history as it is unfolding. But at key points, one is unable to register what it is the characters are saying.

The cinematography is similarly diffuse. The images lack sharpness and particularity of detail. The result is a certain graininess and lack of pictorial sharpness which succeeds in blurring foreground and background.

Structurally, the narrative is off-key throughout, as if Cimino can't quite make up his mind as to the effect he is after. He wanted an epic, for sure. But a pastoral or dramatic epic? The film sits uneasily and unconvincingly between styles, and perhaps even genres. At times it reminded me of Terrence Malick's 'Days of Heaven' or even 'Elvira Madigan' in its languid pace and elegant scene painting. At other times it threatens to turn into a robust 'western' more akin to 'The Wild Bunch'. In fact the latter film offers an instructive reference point for an assessment of 'Heaven's Gate' as it shares the same period concern and employs a similar tone of ambivalent nostalgia for a darker yet more heroic America.

This structural and thematic uncertainty isn't helped by the poor-quality script which often sounds forced and jarring to the ear. The result is an inauthentic sense of period speech.

The near-greatness of Heaven's Gate resides in its set pieces. The roller skating sequence, in particular, is astoundingly beautiful, one of the most evocative scenes ever put to film.

Another set piece which works very well in terms of unifying theme, mood, and setting occurs when Kristofferson and Huppert go riding in the new rig to the lake and she washes herself while he naps in the shade. The languid pacing, evocative music and monumental scenery combine in this scene to convincingly portray the love story which might just lie at the heart of the film - and which could have been its saving grace if pursued more convincingly.

Some critics have complained about the length of the film. This in itself doesn't bother me. A good film can't be long enough. The restored minutes are critical in restoring the motivation and characterization absent from the cut version, and they are full of pictorial interest.

Perhaps the chief glory of Heaven's Gate lies in the achingly evocative soundtrack. The repeated waltz motif and its different scorings throughout(full band, guitar, solo fiddle etc,)lends a haunting quality to the foreground action and establishes a thematic consistency lacking in the narrative itself.

Despite its obvious flaws, most notably the absence of a compelling narrative, there is a sense of grandeur about the film. One leaves the cinema with a rueful sense of missed greatness and a wish that Cimino could revisit the film -with the wisdom of time and hindsight, to put right what is so badly amiss.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Deer Hunter's\" success with critics and publics alike led United Artists to give Cimino carte-blanche on \"Heaven's Gate,\" an epic Western about the 1892 Johnson County Wars\u0085

The elliptical story, about the persecution of lowly European-born farmers by Wyoming's cattle-barons, was a muddled mixture of class-conflict, sumptuous pageant and underwritten, stereotypical characters\u0085 However, Cimino's fetish for authenticity and his sweeping sense of scale ensured that the film running at nearly four hours \u0096 was rarely tedious\u0085

Its undeserved status as a cause c\u00e9l\u00e9bre, with critics divided as to whether it was a masterpiece or a fiasco, derived from its inflated budget\u0085 Blamed for the studio's financial problems, Cimino became a scapegoat for Hollywood's general decline, and the film, edited into an incomprehensible short version after its initial release, was a commercial disaster\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i watched the longer version and could not take my eyes off the screen. 219 minutes passed and yet it seemed like only an hour had gone by. the characters were very believable and entertaining, and the photography was excellent. the story pulled me in and held my attention. i will definitely watch this again and again. this true story telling at it's best... not Hollywoods usual cheap thrills and skin deep glitz. i've seen a quite a lot of reviews on this movie. most seem to pan the film or give it faint praise. basically, it's a great film that received unfairly harsh reviews. watch it for yourself with an open mind. if you like westerns, historic period pieces, albeit historically inaccurate you'll enjoy the movie. Superb!!! 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"By the time it opened, \"Heaven's Gate\" had become, to its detriment, more a cultural phenomenon than a motion picture. At a time when concern about excessive budgets and directorial arrogance were growing, it was a convenient target, as it was a far-over-budget work by the latest \"auteur\" to hit Hollywood, who had not yet established the track record that would have given him the benefit of the doubt among critics and the industry alike. As someone pointed out at the time, no one was going to jump on Warren Beatty's even-more costly and dark \"Reds,\" because Beatty was \"one of us,\" while Michael Cimino had not achieved that status.

But \"Heaven's Gate\" was also affected by a cultural change taking place at that time, the political move rightwards and toward a more unquestioning patriotism and enshrinement of the myth of the West (and the Western). A few years earlier, Cimino's demythologizing of the frontier might have seemed timely, fresh, and a necessary corrective. But by 1980, in the wake of the Reagan Revolution, it was thought of as nearly un-American.

Which is a shame, because the film, seen from the vantage point of several decades away, is a fascinating and thought-provoking look at that particular time and place as a world where life was, in Hobbes's words, \"nasty, brutish, and short.\" Kristofferson plays James Averill, an upper-class Easterner who, in search of adventure, becomes a sheriff in Wyoming, where he finds himself having to lead a resistance by the settlers and squatters against an attack by a mercenary death-squad hired by wealthy landowners, including Averill's lifelong best friend. In a more innocent time, Averill and his rag-tag \"army\" of poor farmers would emerge triumphant; but this is anything but a traditional Western, and when the U.S. Cavalry joins the fight here, it isn't on the side of the \"good guys.\"

Much like \"The Deer Hunter,\" Cimino's previous film, \"Heaven's Gate\" spends a great deal of time building up the details of the lives of its principals, giving the film an at-times leisurely pace that nevertheless leads to a gripping conclusion. With excellent acting, a fine musical score, and the visual texture that makes one believe one is actually seeing the \"Old West\" through new eyes, \"Heaven's Gate\" is a film that rewards repeat viewings. I only wish that MGM would put out a new DVD, with an improved transfer and a commentary by Cimino. Nonetheless, the current version is satisfactory enough to let viewers see what critics in 1980, possibly blinded by the film's cultural subtexts, managed to miss...that \"Heaven's Gate\" is a great film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'ts like going around in a museum. You can appreciate the great talent of the main composer, Michael Cimino & this fabulous art desinger of light ..Vilmos Zsigmond. As I said I'ts like being in heaven discovering all the creation this man can applied to a single frame. Imagine when you can look at a moving picture of this artist. I can say: this film is one of the best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I only saw this film once a quarter of a century ago, yet it's impact has never left me and I can still remember even now my reactions to it.I was mesmerised by the breadth and the sheer beauty of so much of the photography. I was astounded that an American studio could produce such a European film with it's slow pace and its unfocused plot. The lack of any strong characters felt like a flaw but I raged at the completely unnecessary ending on the yacht which seemed as though it was bolted on to give some kind of plot cohesion and which was entirely at odds with the style of the rest of the picture.It was also refreshing to see a western which made no pretence about the brutality and exploitation that so often was the unfortunate detritus of the American Dream.The western scenes and sets also had an authenticity which was entirely new to me and which prefigured the recent Deadwood series.The film was massively cut for the American audience and its my very real wish that in these days of Director's Cuts that Michael Cimino is given the opportunity of a fresh edit in the light of reflection - a cut which could turn this ill fated movie into the masterpiece it had the potential to become. I have now seen the original first cut and the network of relationships makes so much more sense,although Christopher Walken is responsible mainly for carrying this off. If only De Niro and not Kris Kristofferson had Played the main lead!There was still a massive preoccupation with creating the reality and atmosphere to the detriment of a good script. Nevertheless, the camera work was so cleverly handled that at times you could almost believe you were inside the action yourself.And there were many special moments. Everybody arguing in the hall in different languages trying to overcome their national differences and seek some unity of action in face of the impending disaster gave a real insight into the difficulties facing the welding together of the USA: especially when the threat came from a combination of the old elite and money.Nate's faltering approach to Ella when she first visited his cabin stood in stark contrast to the violence that was to follow and was another one. I had a special showing with a large group of mates to see the new cut and we all enjoyed it whilst having varying reservations.This revisionist and much closer to the truth version of events was probably too much for Americans to take when the film was first released but we all felt it had enormous merit and that its place in cinema history was also due for major revision","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So many of us who are devoted to the \"art\" of the motion picture will disregard or forget that movies are also business ventures. Most of the time, they are far too costly to produce to be anything else. In light of this, it often seems a miracle to me that really great ones do get made every now and then. Once in a while, the film-makers will go so far over budget in producing a film that the businessmen responsible for funding the enterprise will be badly hurt financially and will of course become very angry about this. I'd like to know precisely how it happens that this has often led to both the big studios and some major critics \"gunning\" for the picture when it is at last released. Terrible expectations are generated and often what people expect to see clouds their perception of what they are viewing.

You can see this phenomenon at work in the imperfect, but magnificent '62 re-make 0f \"Mutiny on the Bounty\", and you can definitely see it in the reaction to \"Heaven's Gate\". Cimino took too long and cost United Artists way too much money in making this picture. The company was fatally wounded by his excesses and, no doubt, powerful people were out to see his reputation forever ruined when this strange, mammoth epic was finally released. There are always many film-goers who dislike long, weighty pictures. The storytelling in this film is not accomplished with great economy or a brisk pace. Like Stanley Kubrick, Cimino often chooses not to spell out the particular statement he is making with a given scene. Rather, he draws it out in such a way as to make the viewer feel like they are living in the moment, providing time for his own imagination to participate deeply in what is being presented. A lot of folks don't react all that favorably to this approach. They want the story to move quickly and clearly and they easily become impatient and confused by this sort of film. These factors doubtless contributed to the box-office failure of \"Heaven's Gate\".

By nature, a film editor, I am deeply frustrated by two problems with this film. Here and there, a scene is clearly too long and could easily have been trimmed without harming its effectiveness. Then we come to the massive, drawn-out battle scenes at the end of the picture. Where these are concerned, the clarity of the storytelling is indeed damaged. If you liked the film up to the point where these occur, your understanding of what is supposed to be happening is likely to become unclear and this is indeed a frustration. Not having seen all the rough footage, I can not tell if actual re-shoots would have been needed, or whether some critical plot elements might have been made clearer by careful re-editing of some moments. Given the time and money that were poured into this picture, more care and thought should have been given to this problem.

There are other problems, some occasional weak acting, some dialog that doesn't ring true, but these are really minor concerns. The reason I am so troubled by the problems stated above is that, like so many these days, I too feel that in all \"Heaven's Gate\" is so splendid to behold and so magnificently deals with major historic, political and sociological issues that it is just short of a masterpiece. Despite its shortcomings, it is so dramatically and visually powerful that it stands head and shoulders above most other Hollywood films I have ever seen. I'd like to re-mix a lot of the sound. I'd like to re-direct and re-edit the scene where Ella is killed, but the greatness of this picture is such that these considerations really do become trivial when compared with the value of the total production. I should add that it should always be seen on a giant wide screen to achieve the glorious effect that it is so capable of delivering.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This great film never showed up in my town, so actually I didn't have any opportunity to watch it until the late 80'es when I caught it on German television. I was expecting something of a disaster, and found instead a well-acted grand western with superb location work. The tiny tube couldn't really damage it and there's almost not a dull moment in this 4-hour film, so I hope to see it once again on the big screen. What a spectacle that would be! Don't miss it, if you ever have the chance. Unfortunately the harsh treatment of \"Heaven's Gate\" at its opening ruined Michael Cimino's career and he moved from the passable (\"Year of the Dragon\") to the boringly ludicrous (\"The Sicilian\") and the screechingly dumb (\"Desperate Hours\").","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If this film had been directed by DW Griffith or Stanley Kubrick, it would be recognized for what it is: a cinematic masterpiece, told with depth and subtlety and passion, a film with no equal in the visual realm. It is unremittingly stunning and also very brutal in its depiction of our great heritage of greed and annihilation. And of course, what the reviewers could not abide is it doesn't tell a simple narrative dick-and-jane tale like 99% of hollywood output. Its characters are complex and confused by their passions and thoughts, fears and emotions. They even appear to be thinking, something your average movie reviewers do not understand and cannot abide, so they destroyed it. See the original uncut wide-screen version. It is stunning.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I actually liked this movie even though this movie seems to be so hated and i think it's even better then The Deer Hunter, which was overrated. Both this movie and Year Of The Dragon are very underrated although i could see why someone would not like this movie. At three and a half hours the movie just goes on too long and the second half of the movie is much better than the first half. Kris Kristofferson and Christopher Walken are fighting over Isabelle Huppert but she can't make up her mind about which one to be with. Sam Waterston is the villain who has a list of 125 people to be killed who is says are anarchists and thieves. There is a great cast that also has Jeff Bridges, Brad Dourif and a young Mickey Rourke.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though this film destroyed Director and Screenwriter Michael Cimino's career and bankrupted United Artists, it still stands as one of the top movies of all time. There are plenty of reasons to prematurely dismiss this movie for sure. Among them: its length, its technical problems, its colossal mistreatment of animals on set -- the list goes on and on. And yet, for all of this, it remains a film that captures something. It is a classic example of naturalistic storytelling on par with Strindberg -- its moments lasting as long as they might in reality, having not been dumbed down for good cinematic timing. It feels real in its moments of anger, love, and war (and hopelessness). This film should be seen by any person who appreciates film and storytelling.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I missed the full four hour version when it was originally released in theaters because it played one week. I had to settle for seeing the shorter two and a half hour version a year or so later and was left stunned by what I saw. I left the theater thinking I had witnessed a masterpiece and wondering what the full version was like.

The full version is mostly good but it has sequences that are so incredibly dull that the whole movie is pulled down and almost sinks beneath the waves.

The problem is entirely in the editing which should be labeled as the final word on excess. There are times when things go on and on and on and nothing happens. Shots of people in a city that go on much too long with no purpose in the narrative. We get beautiful vistas and visions of such beauty that they bring tears to your eyes but they are used too frequently as a place holder instead of as punctuation or to set a place. Much of the longer version seems to be on screen simply because it looked good.

I've attempted to actually sit down and watch Heavens Gate with out resorting to the Fast Forward button but somewhere along the way I find I can't stand it any more.

I wish MGM would take pity on us and release the shorter version to DVD as well as the huge dinosaur. Perhaps as a two pack so that we could see which is the better version, and whether Cimino was mad or not.

And while they were at it why not include the once rumored Johnson County War edit that ran 90 minutes. Supposedly United Artists tinkered with a further cut in the hopes of getting some of their money back. Whether it was ever done or still exists is up in the air, but it would be interesting to see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a nicely-done story with pretty music, lots of dancing, lots of big sister\/little sister interaction (almost all of it positive), and lots of wishes granted. There are funny moments that older children and adults will enjoy, such as when King Randolph exclaims, \"They're just SHOES! Aren't they?\" And tender moments such as when Princess Genevieve comforts her youngest sister, Lacey, after a blunder.

The animation is perhaps not as good as Disney, but it still is very good. The facial expressions are nuanced, particularly for Genevieve, King Randolph, Duchess Rowena and her servant, Derek the cobbler, and little Princess Lacey. My only quibble on the animation is in the dance sequences where the dancing princesses become absolute carbon copies of each other without the slightest deviation -- even the three youngest copy the dance steps perfectly. I would have liked to see a little more individualism in the dancing, considering that these girls are not professional ballerinas or chorus dancers.

The resolution of the story is handled cleverly to get rid of a villainess without actually hurting her. There is some violence done to guards in the story, and the villainess's monkey is mean to other animals in the story.

My 4-year-old daughter loves this movie and has watched it repeatedly, and I have found it to be quite acceptable for her to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was very cute and totally little girl appropriate. My nieces have watched it non-stop since they've gotten it, and as a result I've seen it nearly 4 times all the way through. I can't get enough of it. The CGI images are great to watch, the humor is good, and the ballet portrayals are excellent. Although the story line has a few holes, no little girl will pick up on them, and as an adult, the movie is so charming that one hardly even notices. Just keep in mind that it is a Barbie movie, and, though cheesy at times, in my experience, this one lives up to the high standard which the other Barbie princess movies have set for it. I would recommend this to anyone who has a little girl who has always wanted to be a princess. It teaches a good lesson as well. Everyone is special and different in their own way, and everyone can make a difference.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was perfect for little girls. It was about a magical place where Genevieve and all her sisters could do what they wanted to do the most anytime they'd like. Most little girls would like this story, even though there is the thought of death in it. Although no one dies, the king almost does, but little girls would not understand it, so it adds up to make a perfect story. All the events add up, creating a great plot that can have a meaning if you dig deep enough. This story is perfect for little girls, and since it is a barbie movie, the kids can have more fun with it, especially if they have barbies of their own. Anyone can have fun with it, though, because it is so cute and understandable. Overall, I think this movie is a good movie for everyone, especially little girls, and will give anyone a smile at least once during it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I feel that this movie is different from so many others in that it shows a family of girls who actually care about each other. They may have faults, but bitterness and put-downs have no place with these girls. Try to find that on TV or in the usual movies. It is a breath of fresh air to see girls being feminine--wearing beautiful, feminine dresses and shoes. Contrast that with the apparel in stores today, i.e. raggedy and faded jeans and jackets, etc. The story line has an evil thread running through but that is what makes it more realistic and interesting. I know that it is animated, but it still gives you a feeling that families can stick together and come out okay. I would recommend this movie for boys and girls alike.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have a 4yr old daughter, and before this movie she was all about the Disney princesses, now she watched this movie and all she can talk about is Princess Genevieve, and all her sisters. I definitely recommend this movie for all young girls. This movie is one of the best from the Barbie collection. It shows all the good values that any mother would love to encourage on there little girls. With the great songs and dance moves, it gets my daughter up and trying to mimic the moves. The extras are also good, one even works on how good your memory is. I would definitely have say it is a must see for kids and grown-ups alike.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a new Barbie movie. The graphics were really good. They made the movie seem partially realistic. I used to do ballet and this movie made me want to continue it. This movie was kind of like a Cinderella movie but a little bit different. A father of 12 princesses gets very sick. His cousin poisons him and wants the throne. The girls find a secret magical land thanks to their dead mother's stories. Its up to them to save their father and society. With the help of their handsome prince. It was a funny movie and me and my friend had fun watching it. We enjoyed it a lot and also enjoyed the Indian talking parrot. The music was very nice and made the movie even greater. It had a great classical orchestra. The voices were great and the characters were adorably sweet and cute. I liked it so enjoy the movie its great for the family. All in all I'd watch it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a new Barbie movie. The graphics were really good. They made the movie seem partially realistic. I used to do ballet and this movie made me want to continue it. This movie was kind of like a Cinderella movie but a little bit different. A father of 12 princesses gets very sick. His cousin poisons him and wants the throne. The girls find a secret magical land thanks to their dead mother's stories. Its up to them to save their father and society. With the help of their handsome prince. It was a funny movie and me and my friend had fun watching it. We enjoyed it a lot and also enjoyed the Indian talking parrot. The music was very nice and made the movie even greater. It had a great classical orchestra. The voices were great and the characters were adorably sweet and cute. I liked it so enjoy the movie its great for the family. All in all I'd watch it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Grand Champion is a bit old fashion at first glance. Andrew Morton at the Fort Worth Star Telegram said it best \"If Walt Disney had hailed from Texas, he would have made Grand Champion\"

The movie does not have the video and special effects but it has heart and soul. The kids are great and the array of stars is incredible. I bet Bruce Willis and Julia Roberts are proud to be in a movie that their kids can actually see:) (G rated)

This is a masterfully crafted \"simple\" little film made in Texas by Texas Barry Tubb. Take your kids, take your kids friends, take Grandma too....they will all enjoy it and you will too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Went to the Preview Engagement of \"Grand Champion\" today (Dallas\/Fort Worth, Austin, Snyder and a couple of other Texas cities). There are so few movies suitable for young children...but this one is, and it's great. Though the plot is a little \"Hokey\" (also the name of the steer in the movie), it is a wonderful story for children. And I enjoyed it, too.

The film pretty well represents West Texas ranch family life, although a little exaggerated. Director\/Author Barry Tubb ought to get it right since he grew up in that environment. He called the film his \"love letter to Texas.\"

Joey Lauren Adams plays the single mom of Buddy (Jacob Fisher) and Sister 'Blow' (Emma Roberts). Watch Emma Roberts (Julia Roberts' niece); she's very good and I think she will be in more films. There are also cameo appearances from Julia Roberts, Bruce Willis, musicians George Strait, Charlie Robison, Robert Earl Keen, Joe Ely and rodeo legends Larry Mahan and Tuff Hedeman.

If you have young children or just want to see a feel-good movie, check out \"Grand Champion\" when it comes to your city (supposedly later this month). Y'all will enjoy it and it WILL make you feel good.

I guess since I'm from West Texas, I might be a little biased...nah, I'm impartial. The film is excellent!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My children, DD 7 and DS 10, enjoyed the movie so much they were squirming in their seats. It was good, old fashioned, Rated G, family fun. This movie was made for kids.... someone really understands them.

It was fun to see Julia Roberts, Brice Willis, Garth Brooks and the other stars make their cameo appearances.

As someone who lives in the city the fictional \"Big Texas\" was modeled after, I can say that they did an honest and accurate portrayal. The kids looked like kids, not like superstars.

I hope everyone supports this movie to send the message to Hollywood that we need more movies like this. Go see it, then spread the word!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not all movies are Oscar worthy but let's face it, sometimes these types of movies are more fun to watch and leave a longer and lasting impression. This one left me smiling and happy and I couldn't wait to hug my own son. Anyone who has had a pet (no matter what type) knows what it feels like to lose one. I believe most people would identify with Buddy almost losing his best friend who he raised from birth. Bruce Willis was great as the tycoon turned nice guy and Joey Lauren Adams was convincing as a good mother. The little boy who played Buddy had a cherub face and his sister and friend Edgar played terrific backup roles. Liked the movie a lot and it was something the whole family could enjoy. Thanks!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie. My daughter is 3 1\/2 and a country girl at heart. There are not any movies for young children. I loved this one because the worst thing in it was when one of the boys said \"stupid\". I applaud them for stepping out and making a true family movie. I rented it the first time we saw it and know looking to buy to add to our collection. My daughter can not stop talking about it. It goes along with our lifestyle. We live in East Texas. I hope to see more family films like this one. She even named one of our calves \"Hokey Pokey Keen\"!!! I can not say enough about this movie. I look forward to many more films like this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My mom and I went to the Ft Worth Premiere mainly to see George Strait, but ended up getting the chance to see the movie premier at Bass Hall. What a wonderful, beautiful film which not only depicts the beautiful Texas landscape, but also had a great feel-good storyline. It was well written, directed and produced and my mom and I loved it from start to finish!. Thank you Jay for giving us the opportunity to be a part of the premiere of this wonderful movie. It was a night we will never forget. As if seeing the movie was not enough, we also were fortunate enough to be sitting 4 rows in front of my favorite singer, George Strait!! Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!! Keep up the great work and again, thank you!

Debbie McClendon & Maureen Daugherty Ft. Worth, TX","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everybody interested in Texas needs to have this DVD. It's just a good movie about real Texas with great scenes. It took a bunch of Texans to do this right. Hollywood never would have gotten it. There are so many subtle things that Tubb put in the movie and may not have even thought about, but it makes the show.

Guest cameos are not seen as cameos at all. Each star fits in perfectly and does not distract from the film. Many of the guests spots blend so perfect that when the credits roll you will go back through the movie to find the character. Strait's roll is dead on, it could not have been done any better in real life.

The second half of the movie is completely different from the first, it get's a little \"hokey\", but that's alright. Somehow the storyline works. The \"hokey\" stuff is like an after school special but it looks believable and natural.

I have never heard anyone use the Sonny Pruitt line before, other than locals that I grew up with. That was the icing on the cake for me.

Definitely a collectible, right up there with Pure Country, Sugarland Express, Jr. Bonner, Texasville, The Last Picture Show, Giant, and of course Hud.

Gig'em Aggies '86","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the kind of movie that I grew up on. It is great family fun, that the kids love and the parents enjoy as well. I wish more films like this were made. It's a great story about a little boy who raises a Bull with his mother and sister, and shows it all the way up to the National Grand Championship, where he wins! Then he's scared that someone's going to barbecue his bull, so he kidnaps it and heads home with it. I was really excited when I first saw this film in the theater and was surprised to see George Strait, Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis in this little film. The music was great with all kinds of huge country names like Willie Nelson and the Dixie Chicks. Anyone who doesn't enjoy this movie, doesn't have any children or never was a kid them self.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was easy to get lost in the simplicity and light hearted humor of this year's best family film...Grand Champion. The story of a 12 year old boy (Buddy) that with the help of his sister, Mom and best friend is determined to raise a Grand Champion steer. It is a whimsical journey to the big competition. After Hokey Pokey is crowned, Grand Champion, he is auctioned for $775,000. to pay for the kids college education. Buddy finds out that the next time he sees Hokey....it would be on a bun! The kids conspire to steal the prize winning steer,vowing to save him from the BBQ. This is where the fun begins...Julia Roberts, Larry Mahan, George Strait, Natalie Maines, Steven Bland, Tommy Guy, Tuff Hedeman, and so many more stars create the backdrop for all the antics. You wont believe who actually won the steer at the auction!!! (he looks good in a mustache) The soundtrack is rich with tunes from George Strait, Natalie Maines, Willie Nelson and more. Where else can you experience Movie stars, Country & Western stars and Rodeo stars....only in Texas...only in Grand Champion.

It is masterfully crafted \"simple\" little film that may be the best movie you see this year. The movie opens in select cities on Friday, August 27th. 2004.

Another great film from Rope the Moon and Michaelson Productions is IN A WHISPER. Keep an eye out on the cable networks for this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We all enjoyed the movie. It is a very charming family film with many fun cameos. It was fun to see Austin musicians, Charlie Robison, Joe Ely and Robert Earl Keen in the film as well as turns by famous actors Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis. Emma Roberts is especially cute in the film however all the children are good. The west Texas scenery is great as is the soundtrack full of Texas artists. The last half seemed a bit far fetched to me, however, my son was interested throughout the film which is not so often with him. Something in the storyline was captivating for children. Having shown calves as a child, I really liked the ending. That is definitely not the way it really works unless you have heifers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have watched Grand Champion all the way through at least twice now. I enjoyed the movie's story, the characters and the actors were not bad. It is refreshing to see a G rated movie. This is a feel good movie. The story is mostly from the view of the children. The interactions between the kids and the adults makes the story interesting. I recommend this movie if you are looking for a family film. If you liked the Little Rascals, you will probably enjoy this. I viewed this movie on cable. Either on Encore or Showtime family. This is not a movie that I would have gone to see at the theatre. But, I only go to the theatre for the effects of the big screen, so most comedies, romantic films, or dramas I do not go for big screen-I wait for TV\/cable edition. Get your kids together, pop some popcorn and enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the privilege of being one of the Still photographers on the set of \"Grand Champion\" and enjoyed every minute of the 42 days I worked on the movie. I have been in the Photography business for 25 years and have worked on 16 movies and I can't think of a time when I enjoyed providing my craft more. The Kids were wonderful to work with and little Emma Roberts has so much energy she's a real trip. She even grabbed one of my camera during the stockshow scene rehearsal and started shooting. Some of her images were used for PR. I could have made more money working for a production with a bigger budget but I doubt I would have had the fun and been around so many great actors and the great people of West Texas as I was.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First I am a teenager. OK, and I have to say this movie was pretty good. I think any kid ten and under will like it, but people my age an up might be a little, um, a, well, we'd describe the movie as LAME! But I liked it. It may be that I still act like a kid, or I visit a cattle farm every weekend, but this movie was cute. I did like how the actors were like kids, not little blonde cutesy pies, wearing three layers of clothes, a trendy hat, and about a thousand assecories (like most shows today, to name a few, Drake & Josh, Lizzie Mc Guire, well any kid show.) And the setting was perfect, but there was a flaw. The family was in debt, right? Why in the world did their internal house look like something out of a \"western\" versace store? That was one flaw.

The cameos are great, there's about five hundred of them, and the only explainable one is Julia Roberts being the main little girl's aunt. How in the world did they get everyone else? This movie seemed to be on a tight type budget.

I liked this movie, it was a fun one to watch, and I thought some parts were far fetched (Like a cow selling for $750,000? Ha! my butt a cow sells for that much!) But otherwise it was good, I liked it, and I could watch it again. But I'd never buy it, there's not even special features on the DVD! What's up with that? But do rent it, especially if you have little kids running around the house.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Without doubt, GRAND CHAMPION has the most impressive cast of \"AAA\" level stars and musicians ever gathered together for a fun, \"G\" rated family adventure. This is a MUST BUY for every video collection! Director BARRY TUBB skillfully combines the drama of the rodeo \/ 4H competition for the \"GRAND CHAMPION\" cow with a touching and funny story of perseverance against difficult challenges. Joey Lauren Adams delivers her typically solid performance as the well-intentioned mother, but the star of the show is 12-year-old EMMA ROBERTS, whose on-camera presence is a glowing as that of her famous aunt, JULIA. You can expect a lot from this young Roberts-prot\u00e9g\u00e9' as is already proving itself in her new, hit Nickelodeon series, \"UNFABULOUS.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ninja Hunter (AKA Wu Tang vs Ninja) is pure entertainment from start to finish due to its outrageous characters, nonsensical plot and lack of any pretensions whatsoever. The makers of this film have given us a truly OTT masterpiece which has to be seen to be believed.

The plot centres around Wu Tang villain, Abbot White, who wants to destroy the Shaolin monks and become supreme martial artist. In order to do so, he teams up with a clan of Ninjas, led by three masters \u0096 gold lam\u00e9 ninja, white mustachioed ninja and black ninja \u0096 and succeeds in destroying the Shaolin temple and most of its inhabitants. However, there are some survivors. It is their job to pass on the knowledge of the Shaolin finger jab to a new generation, who must defeat the ninjas and Abbott White if peace and order is to be restored.

Unfortunately, Abbott White is a difficult foe to beat, since he is able to make himself virtually indestructible by sucking the life force out of hot naked chicks (an excuse for some welcome gratuitous nudity!).

Other treats in store for viewers include loads of very impressive fighting (despite some of it being speeded up), some really amazing outfits (the aforementioned gold lam\u00e9 ninja, Abbott White's Yin Yang suits, and even some assassins wearing Swastika tunics), a ninja turning into a flying carpet, plus some cheesy gore for good measure. And I nearly forgot to mention the really impressive eyebrows on display in this movie \u0096 surely a good reason not to pass up on this gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alexander Lou, star of classics such as 'The Super Ninja' and 'Mafia vs Ninja' headlines here in this entertaining martial arts fest.

The plot involves the evil Abbott White (who boasts some humongous and frankly somewhat scary looking white eyebrows) enlisting the aid of a ninja clan in order to overthrow the Shaolin Temple.

This goal he achieves and furthermore wipes out most of it's members, although needless to say, one or two do manage to survive and rather predictably go on to exact eventual revenge upon the miscreant Abbott.

....Ok so the plot isn't exactly pushing the envelope in terms of creativity but does anyone watching a film with a title like 'Wu Tang vs Ninja' aka 'The Ninja Hunter' really care much for such an inconsequential factor as a plot? Of course not! - It's the fights that matter in these films and by gum - you get your moneys worth here! There's some superbly choreographed martial arts on display from everyone involved in this and rarely a minute seems to goes by without a fight breaking out for some reason.

If your at all into martial arts movies then this is a must see!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've just revisited this fondly remembered bit of cinematic madness from my early days, and must urge you to beg steal or borrow it.

The story begins with a duel between a righteous Shaolin priest and our villain Abbot White, needless to say, Abbot White kicks Buddhist ass, and wages his campaign against Shaolin unhindered with the aid of his new ninja allies (a golden clad one who fights with a gold ring, a black clad one who fights with a spear, and my favourite; one who fights with a pair of knives who can disappear and reappear as a flying carpet). The rest of the story concerns the training of the disciples of the Shaolin monks killed by Abbot white, one of whom is Alexander Lo Rei. Whilst we are treated to the punishing training sequences the two young avengers must go through to learn the Shaolin Finger Jab technique needed to defeat Abbot White's invincible armour technique, we see some of the ways our villain keeps in shape...mostly using Taoist magic to extract the blood from naked ladies. We all know how this is going to end, but it's the psychedelic trip in between that we're here for. In conclusion, this is a good example of what Taiwan was doing when Hong Kong was getting sick of martial arts movies, and that is making more and more outrageous martial arts movies. This movie is very well choreographed, has some nudity, some gore and enough balls to the wall gimickry to keep even the most jaded viewer entertained. Visit your local Beewise today!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best martial art(Kung-fu) movies of all time. if u love martial art movies this is a not to miss. From flying nuns to training monks this movie has top kungfu styles and a good story line. Its about a priest from the wu dang clan trying to eliminate all the shaoulin fighters to be claim the title of being the best in martial arts. after killing key members of the shaoulin temple the faith of the shoulin is remained in the hand of two boys secretly training under a shaoulin monk. The white abbot or the priest from the wu dang clan develops new techniques that turn him into iron. well this a not to miss classic. It involves Ninjas, shaoulin and nuns fighters. it a great classic","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is absolute cinematic genius. It has a well brought together cast who give an almost magical performance. The effects are nothing but stunning and the story will keep you hanging off your chair right the way through the movie. Jack Long plays the part of abbot white exceptionally well, he provides an immensely thrilling portrayal of absolute evil. If your a kung fu fan or just an action movie enthusiast this film is an excellent choice for anyone who is lucky enough to find a copy. For any big kung fu fans this movie provides a compelling insight into the world of shaolin. This film is definitely 10\/10 quality and should be considered as one of the greatest eastern movies of all time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With its rerelease by ADV Films, I've had a chance to watch \"The Giant Majin\" for the first time without the deep cuts and unkind words of a late night Horror Chiller Theaters. Guess what? It's a pretty damn good movie!

The sets are authentic, the acting in subdued and believable, and the giant Majin is stately, powerful, and unstopable. I loved the subtle fantasy touches (the enchanted wood, luck charm, etc), and the potrayal of the god as a little less than 'good'.

This movie is begging for a remake in the new century!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ruthless evil warlord Samanosuke (superbly played to the hateful hilt by Yutaro Gomi) cruelly mistreats the peaceful residents of a small village. The giant stone statue Majin eventually comes to life to destroy Samanosuke and his wicked minions. Director Kimiyoshi Yasudo and screenwriter Tetsuro Yoshida give the compelling story all the power and simplicity of an ancient age-old legendary folktale: there's a very strong sense of an ancient time and faraway remote place (it's specifically set in feudal Japan), the good guys are noble and appealing while the villains are truly nasty and detestable, the occasional stirring swordfights are staged with considerable skill and gusto, the special effects are fine and impressive, the serious tone and steady pace never falter for a minute, and Majin's last reel rampage of savage destruction is extremely lively, exciting, and more than a little scary. Moreover, the fantastic elements of the narrative are given substantial credibility by being firmly grounded in a throughly believable dark, harsh and gritty world. This film earns bonus points for depicting Majin as more of a brutal and frightening force of angry vengeance instead of a pure spirit of absolute good. Veteran composer Akira Ifukube supplies a typically rich, robust and rousing score. Fujio Morita's sharp, moody cinematography likewise hits the bull's eye. The capable cast all give admirably sound and sincere performances, with especially praiseworthy work by Jun Fujimaki as the valiant, protective Kogenta and Tatsuo Endo as mean henchman Gunjuro. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those of you who've wondered what an art-house monster movie might be like, wonder no more. The DAIMAJIN trilogy, circa 1966, was just such a series. More period samurai epics than anything else, these three movies just also happen to feature one of the most (literally) monstrous deux et machinas ever. There's not a single facet of these gems that is unpolished, from the scenario(s) to the performances to the filmmaker's craftsmanship. Even the special effects are handled with well-above-average skill, and are integrated (in most instances) almost seamlessly into the movie(s). If you're a GOJIRA fan or a fan of samurai movies or one of us who just likes a good movie regardless of genre, I highly recommend the DAIMAJIN trilogy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nice combination of the giant monster and samurai genres. The giant monster Majin, god of the mountain, is an aloof and forbidding figure that comes across very much like the Old-Testament God, raining destruction and punishment on those who desecrate his holy ground - but it's interesting to note that what finally awakens him is not the suffering of the people but a pointed and personal insult. It's beautifully photographed, with solid acting, great miniatures, and a wonderful score by the great Akira Ifukube. Majin is not a 400+ foot monster like Godzilla - he's 2 1\/2 times normal size, so the evil samurai he stomps into the ground get a good look into his contemptuous eyes as he bears down on their fortress and smashes it to smithereens. Not much in terms of extras, but it's nice to see this forgotten minor classic rescued and restored to the digital format.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like another poster mentioned Ch. 56 (a local Boston TV station) showed this multiple times over the years on Saturday afternoons. They paired it with the first sequel \"Return of the Ginat Majin\".

Now I haven't seen it since then...but it never left me. Aside from the atrocious dubbing and faded color this was a pretty good fantasy. Technically it isn't horror...until the statue comes to life at the end. It's just about a village ruled over by an evil man. There's a giant stone statue there that the villagers keep praying to to help them...to no avail. But things go too far, the statute comes to life and destroys the bad guys...but then it starts going after the good guys too! Well-done with some cool special effects at the end (LOVED how he got rid of the main bad guy). Also there was an enchanted forest worked in which was kind of interesting too.

No masterpiece but an unusual combo fantasy\/horror film. Worth catching--but not if it's the dubbed print.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was made by Daiei Studios, known for its Gamera movies. It is about a samurai lord who was murdered by one of his own men. He claims his throne, forcing his former's two children to flee into the woods, where they hide near a huge stone statue for 10 years. In those time that passed, the new samurai lord has proved to be very brutal and ruthless towards the village people and the valley. Therefore, it seems that the good people's only hope is the stone statue, which is where a demon god sleeps; they want the god to help them.

This samurai movie brings to us traditional Japanese aspects including sword-fights, geisha and worshipers. It is a superb and powerful story of survival and hope, with the protagonists attempting to triumph over pure evil. It is full of excitement, particularly the parts where the children struggles to remain in hiding as the evil warlord is out to get them. In addition, it has beautiful cinematography, with luscious landscapes of the village and countryside-instantly reminds you of the ancient times in Japan.

As with most samurai movies like \"The Seven Samuari\" and \"The Last Samuarai,\" this movie is no less than pure, sometimes graphic, action. There are several disturbing scenes in the film. Therefore, it is not the casual sci-fi film. Yet, it is strong and powerful, and delivers a message that a good-natured human can overcome any adversaries, as depicted in this film, even the young innocent girl can calm the wrath of the demon god. The scenes of the demon god, known as Daimajin, trampling on its enemies and anything that stands in his way will instantly remind you of a Godzilla or Gamera film. Overall, a powerful and serious, yet hopeful film.

So, be careful with your samurai sword. You wouldn't want to rattle Daimajin's cages.

Grade A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Evil warlord puts a town through pain and suffering. Not long before they call upon giant stone samurai Daimaijin for help. Daimaijin soon comes and really gets the warlord with all his viscious might. The revenge climax is really funny as Daimajin squashes guys under his feet and crushes guys with his fist and even drives a spike though a man's heart.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When the noble Hanabusa clan is decimated by the usurping Samanosuke clan, loyal retainer Kogenta (Jun Fujimaki) escapes with his lord's eight year old son, Tadafumi, and his daughter, Kozasa. They are sheltered by the priestess Shinobu (Otome Tsukimiya), who serves the Hanabusa clan's god, Majin, a vengeful spirit imprisoned in the giant stature carved into the side of a local mountain. Ten years later, Kogenta and Tadafumi (Yoshihiko Aoyama) seek vengeance against Lord Samanosuke (Yutaro Gomi), but are captured in the attempt, and sentenced to die. Priestess Shinobu, desperately attempting to save her master, threatens Samanosuke with the god's displeasure, only to be slashed to death for her efforts. Samanosuke, a vain, cruel, narrow man, orders Majin's statue to be destroyed, in order to crush any last vestiges of hope among the remaining Hanabusa loyalists. But the god Majin, who hitherto has been implacably silent, has other ideas...

Daimajin is an enthralling, timeless, deeply moving fairy tale. Lavishly produced on a respectable budget, it is a film about values: the values of nobility, of justice, of decency, of loyalty, of self sacrifice, and of love. It is about hierarchy, and rule, and of the consequences of failing to live up to the responsibility that rule entails. These are things that are not talked about much in our demotic times, except by scribbling toads like William Bennet, but are nonetheless relevant, and Daimajin shows us why.

Daimajin is a perfect example of why Japanese cinema is so glorious. The values listed above have palpable relevance for those involved in this film, as they do for many a Japanese filmmaker. There is no lip service, no condescension, no irony here. Instead, there is an authentic effort to conjure a world where these values can once again have life, and to show what happens when they fall into abeyance. Just compare Daimajin, or the Lone Wolf and Cub series, or any Kurosawa film to the egregious Tarantino's nihilistic Kill Bill b*llshit, to see what I mean.

In a film whose contributing talent is so uniformly excellent, I would merely like to point out master Akira Ifikuba's majestic score, the talent and beauty of actors Jun Fujimaki, Yoshihiko Aoyama, and Miwi Takada; and the stunning portrayal by Otome Tsukimiya. Her death scene is one of the most moving and meaningful that I have ever witnessed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The third film I got to watch at the philly film fest was this outstanding drama from Japan. After breaking out of prison nine escaped convicts plan to find the \"key to the universe\" that a tenth convict who didn't break out told them about. Along the way we get to know each of these men fairly well. Each has their own dreams. For much of the movie it seems to be mostly a comedy, but a shift takes place that the film ends up a tragedy. All of the actors give great performances. I can't say much more without spoiling the film, but suffice it to say that you end up feeling for some of these individuals. At 2 hours, this film is a tad to long, but good none the less. I have no qualms recommending it with the warning that it does have a bit unsettling violence for the tender-hearted. Toshiaki Toyoda hit a home-run this time out, and it makes me want to search out his prior films as well as look forward eagerly to his future ones.

My Grade: A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What I got was something better.

Just like many movies I've commented on as of recently, I'd been looking forward to this one for a while. Especially after I saw one of Toshiaki Toyoda's other films, \"Blue Spring\" which is easily in my top 20 favorite films. I loved the trailer for \"9 Souls\", and I thought it sounded very good. I didn't hear anything bad about it. Now I know why.

This movie starts up as sort of a comedy, then during the last half of the film, it quickly becomes something else. It becomes more dramatic as each of the characters face their own tragedies. Each character gets just enough screen time, and you care about what happens to each of them. Even though there are 9 characters we have to learn, and care about, within just two hours, Toshiaki Toyoda pulls it off brilliantly.

After I saw \"Blue Spring\" I was hoping the soundtrack would be at least a little bit as good, as it was in that film. I got my wish, because the soundtrack to \"9 Souls\" was also incredible. The music used in each scene, more specifically the more dramatic ones, is just simply wonderful. I loved every second of it.

I wasn't sure whether or not I wanted to see another Toshiaki Toyoda film, \"Pornostar\", but after I saw this, I'm going to. Definitely. Also, because I read the plot for it, and I think it sounds really good. I'm looking forward to it. On the R1 DVD of \"9 Souls\", there are two interviews with Toyoda. He says he's completed another film, and he wants to start writing the screenplay for his next. I can't wait for both.

I highly recommend this film. You must see it. Now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Finally! Third time lucky. This film has been always been on my mind, but my first viewing I forgot about it and only caught the second half of the film. Then only a couple months later I had the my second chance of watching of it, so I decided I would record it. Only to discover that my timer went off late and again I missed the first half of the flick. I wasn't going to allow that to happen again. So, when it came on TV again, I thought bugger it I'll wait until it comes on, then I will record it. And it was a good choice. I would have just watched the film, but they always put on weeknights around midnight.

After discovering a hole in their crowded cell, nine prisoners escape their confinement to track down the key of the universe, which a fellow prisoner known as the Counterfeit King said he had hidden. They think that this key could be an opening for a hidden loot of counterfeit bills. On this journey they naturally see this as an opportunity to pick up their lives before they were gaoled. Although things don't turn out the way that they intended to, with most of the criminals plans going astray.

\"9 Souls\" is an perky spiritual journey from Japanese director Toshiaki Toyada, which flung it's viewers into a film of two totally different halves. The first half of the story plays out more like a psychical comedy with the criminals bonds and the situations they find themselves being the selling point, but all that makes way to a moralistic and consequence drama-packed second half, where the real trouble begins with some quite nasty and bloody moments replacing the goofball tone it started off with. While, the first half is quite amusing with its on the road, screwball doodling and offbeat banter. But it's really the genuinely haunting latter half with it's peculiar turn of events that hit you so hard with some surprising touches that make you really sympathise for these very human characters. Even though they are not truly innocent from their crimes, you just become entrenched by these flesh-out characters in the first half that when you see them spiral into their downfall, you know it's an effective drama when you become shell-shocked in the dramatic change. The nine characters get enough screen time to truly understand their personal story and what weakness would eventually bring them down. The way the plot works out is that Michiru and Torakichi are the lead characters and we mostly see it from their perspectives. The escapism tale is an unquestionably engaging character study that's clear in it's goal and puts to you many questions on society and the path you choice to take to escape life and free yourself from these restraints.

While, the symbolic story is full of clarity and vividly told. The visual element doesn't go by unnoticed, because there's just a dreamy and trance-like vibe that channels itself into the unique atmosphere. What HIGHLY contributed to that factor and gave the film a lift was the sweepingly, moody instrumental rock soundtrack. The mellow atmospheric gel it was able to create in many scenes left me rather breathless with the everlasting emotions it was able to provoke. Simply beautiful and downright powerful control on that front. The pacing for such an long film ( 2 hours ) seems to breeze by and editing is swiftly done, because we are just so wrapped up in it all. The hypnotic photography is crisp in detail. While, the performances by the cast as a odd bunch of criminals are that of high quality with each one providing enough personality and features to separate themselves.

I found \"9 Souls\" to be a pleasing and quite an amazing surreal film that stirs up the emotions and then it smacks you with an almighty wallop when it changes direction. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To be totally honest I wasn't expecting much at all going into 9 Souls even after reading heap upon heap of praise plied upon it but to say I was surprised would be a major understatement, in short I was totally blown away.

The basic plot is as simple as they come, nine prison inmates ranging from a drug pusher all the way up to multiple murderer's escape from prison and go in search of a secret stash presumed to be forged money hidden by a tenth inmate who cracked and was dragged away by guards shortly before their escape but it's the direction that director Toshiaki Toyoda takes this simple story that is so brilliant and original perfectly blending drama, comedy and violence creating a truly one of kind movie that deserve's to be seen not only fans of Asian cinema but cinema in general.

Superbly acted, emotional, funny, violent and at times very surreal this is a movie has it all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When a bomber, a patricide, a pornographer, and a mad biker, together with various other forms of social scum, have had enough of their sh** infested cell, they spot a rat and look for the hole. Escaping from the sewage the group of 9 souls, take advantage of their new found freedom and head for civilization. What soon follows is not surprising. Complete mayhem and terror follow in their wake. It seems that each has some unfinished business to take care of.

Loosely based on The Great Escape, 9 SOULS is by far in the top 5 best films I've seen this year. Running at right around 2 hours 9 SOULS will deliver a story so powerful it'll literally leave you breathless. The beautiful, yet subtle, use of the rolling country sides adds the realism that is expected from this story. The vision of director Toshiaki Toyoda (Blue Spring, Porno Star), is completely mind boggling as he implements a sense of pity towards the characters. As quickly as each character grasps their dream, it's as quick as it's torn from them. Now, all responsibility of the success of this film should not fall solely on the shoulders of the director, yet props must go to the actors as well. This film was full of excellent acting from top to bottom. Ryuhei Matsuda (the son of Miyuki Matsuda of Audition) delivers a stellar performance, and seems to bring some of his mothers eeriness to the screen.

I must give props to Artsmagic DVD as well. This is the 6th film of theirs I've seen now, and they seem to get better and better each DVD. The sound quality is perfect and the picture; clean and crisp. It's very annoying trying to watch a film that is too dark in transfer, so the discs from theses cats are nice.

Bottom line is this film will soon receive masterpiece status by viewers' world wide. Keep an eye out in 2005 for 9 SOULS; it's really amazing film to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Highly recommended to all those who appreciate watching movies. Great acting, perfectly surreal awkward humor, requisite prison sh-t, accurate depiction of the male condition. Music is also spot-on. I think the artist is \"Dip\" but not sure. The short loop of the title credit song on the DVD menu is well-timed, and sounds like Slint. (one thing to know is that IMDb maintains a ridiculous policy of a MINIMUM comment length based on, not CHARACTERS, not WORDS, but rather LINES. Measuring post quality and quantity based on LINES in the bold era of UNICODE and flexible, web-based typography, is like smoking poles.) ! Your comment does not contain enough lines - the minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Please see the guidelines. Attempts to pad the comment with junk words can result in your account being blocked from future submissions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A great film. Every moment masterfully conducted by Toyoda and his crew. The actors give credible performances all around.The visuals are haunting,beautiful and sometimes hauntingly beautiful shots of the Japanese country and city landscapes.The sounds,courtesy of Japanese band 'Dig', are never overly edgy as one would expect from band-made soundtracks. It's strangely atmospheric and well suited to the scenes they're on.

All in all, they worked everything out perfectly....Well, if they were to give any justice to the story, perfection is the only thing anyone could have accepted.

The real greatness of 9 Souls is the compelling story. The prison break movie maybe something of a lost genre these days, and road trip movie losing it's appeal due to the way the world is getting smaller. But this story easily mixes something fresh to those two genres.

9 convicts are given freedom and possibly the opportunity to regain their places in society. will society accept them? will they be truly free of their dark pasts? and can they stick together long enough to stay alive and find out?

Each convict has an interesting history. Their crimes are as varied as their apparent fates. A sense of brotherhood among them keeps the story high on drama and supplies it with hilariously comedic situations. And due to the nature of their backgrounds, violence is always something waiting to happen.

After all that, all i can say is go give it a watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched \"9 souls\" in Athens' 12th International Film Festival (September 2006), where Toshiaki Toyoda, the films's director was also present and answered many questions of the audience. This road film is about 9 fugitives, all very different characters from each other. They decide to stay together travelling with their red van across Japan. Every time the van stops, we see these 9 fugitives trying to escape from their past in order to build up a new life or to fulfil a dream. However, no matter how hard they try, it seems impossible and their violent past comes after them and leads them to their final destruction.

Though a very pessimistic film, it is not a dark film. On the contrary, it is full of beautiful pictures, surreal elements and elegant humor. Toyoda's heroes cannot escape their \"prison\" and they face a divine(?) punishment for their \"crimes\". They are small pieces of a beautiful painting, where the tower of Tokyo depicted as a huge knife turned upside down prevails!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is film is probably one of the best i've seen so far. i would put it only second to All About Lily Chou-chou because it kind of gives me the same vibes....'9 souls' is about 9 prisoners who have just escaped prison to go and find some counterfeit money stored in a time capsule at Mount Fuji Primary School. they later find out that there wasn't much there and set off on their own ways. the first half of the movie is just a time for the characters to be introduced and for the main points to be stated. it is a comedic yet serious part of the journey. the second half, moved me to tears. as the movie progresses, each character goes and tries to fulfill their dreams, but unfortunately ending somewhat badly. in the end only 2 of the 9 escapees are left. the way that each character left the scene was very sad and you will probably feel tears in your eyes. a beautiful film directed fantastically. this is a movie for people who have enjoyed Toshiaki Toyoda's other films such as 'Blue Spring'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was full of suspense and was well directed, the black and white effect made it a great mystery. Fay Emerson,(Hilda Fenchurch) who was married twice to the famous musician Skitch Henderson and also the son of Elliott Roosevelt, (FDR's Son) fell madly in love with Zachary Scott( Ronnie Mason\/Marsh). Ronnie wins the hearts of all the ladies in the picture, even Mona Freeman(Anne Fenchurch) and proposes marriage whenever he can. Rosemary DeCamp (Dr. Jane Silla)(famous radio and tv actress in the 30's and 40's played mostly small town MOM'S) warned the ladies about Ronnie Mason's sick mind, and the abusive childhood he had when growing up, which caused his love\/hate relationship with women. Fay Emerson and Zachary Scott would have been greater stars with more rewarding roles, but their lives were short lived in real life. This film is beyond critizing, it is a trully great 1945 film classic for many generations to view and enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Zachary Scott does what he does best, i.e., plays a worm, in \"Danger Signal,\" a 1945 B movie also starring Faye Emerson, Mona Freeman, and Rosemary DeCamp. Scott plays a writer who kills women after he gets their money. On the lam from his last murder, he rents a room in the home owned by the Fenchurch family, Hilda (Emerson) and her mother (Mary Servoss). Scott throws himself at Emerson, and she's dazzled. Mid-romance, her younger sister Anne (Freeman) comes home from a medical treatment. When she mentions that she was Uncle Wade's favorite and he left her $25,000 (big bucks by 1945 standards), Scott loses interest in poor Hilda and makes a play for Anne. Anne looks like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm until she starts sneaking around with Scott - overnight, she ages 10 years and becomes downright nasty to her sister. Finally getting the message that her tenant is no good, Hilda calls in a psychiatrist (Rosemary DeCamp) to psyche him out and advise her.

Psychological dramas were all the rage during and after World War II, and Scott does an excellent job as a smooth sociopath. This was his forte - as a weak-willed sheriff in \"Flamingo Road,\" he exhibited no real presence. As for two-timing, we saw him do that in \"Mildred Pierce,\" where he proved himself particularly good at it. Emerson is a bookish stenographer with her hair pushed off her face and her big glasses, but after hours, she's lovely, and gives a strong performance. DeCamp was always an underrated actress - here, she sports a soft German accent and is delightful.

This is a highly entertaining film though a very routine story. The acting truly elevates it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robert Florey and James Wong Howe gave this a frightening, Expressionistic look. Scenes are shot at weird angles -- especially scenes involving figurative and literal lady-killer Zachary Scott. His sociopathic behavior presages another superb, medium-budget movie, \"The Stepfather,\" by more than two decades.

The entire cast is excellent, though (though no fault of her own) it's hard to think of Joyce Compton as anyone but the singer in \"The Awful Truth.\") Scott, Bennett, Emerson, DeCamp (especially, and though playing an older woman looking gorgeous) -- they couldn't have been topped.

Setting a creepy lodger-in-the-house-of women story against a background of psychiatrists is a risky trick that pays off beautifully. Nothing corny at all.beautifully. Nothing corny at all.

The resolution is a little pat, unfortunately. Not Emerson's getting together with Bennett. That makes sense. But Scott is dispatched too quickly. I seem him more as a Mr. Ripley character, who could have escaped everything -- the botulism, the murder rap, the jealous sisters -- and disappeared into the great world beyond this story. That would not have impeded the essentially happy ending of the secretary and her boss finally getting together.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Between the ages of 30 and 51, when he died of a brain tumour, Zachary Scott made 70 films. He was introduced in 1944 in Jean Negulesco's 'The Mask of Dimitrios', where he played Dimitrios. The next year, 1945, he made three films, of which this is one. He is best remembered by cineastes as the star of Jean Renoir's 'The Southerner', one of the 1945 films, where he had a sympathetic role. However, he often played creepy characters, and in this film he is a sociopathic killer of women for money. So what happens here? He lives in a house with three women, so watch out! Faye Emerson, who also appeared in 'Dimitrios', plays the older of two daughters in the house. She falls in love with Scott and they become secretly engaged. Then her 'cute kid' younger sister (played effectively by Mona Freeman, who resembles Bonita Granville both in looks and in behaviour) returns from boarding school and reveals casually in conversation with Scott that she has inherited a tidy sum, so Scott turns his sights on her instead, with all the torrid jealousies seething in the household which that was bound to arouse. Things get tense, and then they get tenser. Meanwhile, plans for murder are going forward in the mind of the calculating Scott. But it turns out that he is not the only one with such intentions. He is also being searched for as a result of his last kill, with which the film has opened, so that we know his back story. James Wong Howe gives effective noirish cinematography to this tale, which was directed by Frenchman Robert Florey who had moved to Hollywood some time earlier. The film is an effective psychopath-in-the-house mystery which can cause a bit of wear of the edges of some seats, for those of such an inclination.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great little movie, full of interesting characters and situations. While not in the same class as some of the better-known movies of its time, it is still extremely watchable and memorable. The scene where Zachary Scott, sitting on a bus, casually steals the airman pin from the lapel of a coat thrown over the seat next to him, is terrific. It defines his character beautifully -- a guy who's so low, he'll purloin something of inestimable value to a war veteran, to use as a prop in his various charades. He lies easily as the situation calls for, and captivates the women in the Fenchurch household with his irresistible charm and that killer smile.

I couldn't help wondering if this movie was made to capitalize on the success of Mildred Pierce. Scott and Bruce Bennett were teamed again, and Faye Emerson bears some resemblance to Joan Crawford, with her facial bone structure and large eyes. Also, the Mona Freeman character is not unlike the odious Veda in Mildred Pierce.

I agree with a previous comment that the ending to the movie was too pat, with the convenient tumble over a cliff for \"Ronnie Mason\", Zachary Scott's character. Also, in one of the final scenes, we see bratty Mona Freeman reunited with the boyfriend she had previously scorned in favor of the older, smoother Zachary Scott. I think the script should've called for her to be chastened for her behavior and for her cruelty toward her sister, instead of treating it as just a typical adolescent episode. But these are minor flaws in an otherwise enjoyable and well-made movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Caught this film on TCM in the early A.M. It was amazing.

Starting out slow but ominously.... Scott is a shady character who preys on women. In this case, two women who happen to be due an inheritance in Southern California.

The sets of the beach and neighborhoods of the 1940's are original and intriguing. The title may have been more creative, but the theme and nefarious shadows of human nature are intriguingly exposed, almost in a Hitchcockian version.

Scott reminded me of the character Uncle Charley in \"Shadow of a Doubt\", one of Hitch's reputed favorite films. The audience learns,we truly do not know what lurks in the dark side of the human mind.This film is a displaced gem and well-worth purchasing. 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen various Hamlets, and I've taught the play. As I watch Jacobi, I'm tempted to think that he's every bit as intelligent as Hamlet himself, so alive is he to every nuance of this character's wit. He deepens, rather than solves, every puzzle regarding Hamlet's character. He illuminates line after line, word after word, shining light into this sparkling mind. At the same time, however, we cringe at the horror Hamlet feels at his betrayal--far more than with any other actor--because Jacobi feels the pain more profoundly than anyone else. And we shudder at Hamlet's own betrayals, because Jacobi is not afraid of the baseness to which Hamlet can descend. In short, Jacobi gives us Hamlet in full, and Hamlet in full is the greatest character in literature. That's why I'm satisfied that Jacobi's Hamlet is the finest performance I've seen by an actor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This production of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is by far the best that I have seen. Although it may not have the production value of some of the more recent adaptations, it does have the most important element: Sir Derek Jacobi as Hamlet.

Jacobi's portrayal of the disturbed Prince is multi-layered and riveting. His displays of emotion swing from hatred to sorrow, love to vengefulness and everywhere else on the map, but without seeming forced or over-the-top. In fact, some of the more powerful sequences occur when he underplays them, with stillness, soft speech and thoughtful expression. As to whether or not he interprets Hamlet as mad or sane...well, you should decide for yourselves; I changed my mind more than once. At one point it seems he has thought himself sane and merely playing at madness, but suspects that he is actually mad after all...a revelation to himself, captured beautifully. Having performed the part of Hamlet on stage more times than any other actor in history, Jacobi's affinity for the role then comes as little surprise.

As for the production itself, it is presented as a kind of \"filmed-copy\" of the stage play, with little special effects or fancy camera work, minimal sets and no musical accompaniment to speak of. This production relies on the acting prowess of the cast, and the words of Shakespeare, to evoke the emotion and interest of its audience. And it works. The other players are top-notch as well, particularly Patrick Stewart's \"Claudius\" and Claire Bloom's \"Gertrude.\" Together the cast present a seamless ensemble.

The last (but far from least) element that makes this production stand out is the play itself. Here it is presented in its entirety, a rarity on film. But, oddly enough, I never noticed the time. I was too busy getting caught up in the story. I suspect that you will, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen all the film interpretations of Hamlet, from Sir Lawrence Olivier to Mel Gibson (gasp). Derek Jacobi captures the true essence of the character, from the beginning to the brutal climax. Superb acting all around. This one should not be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this version of Hamlet on television many years ago, and have seen every other version since, whether television or movie. However, this is the one that remains the truest depiction of the story for me. Most excellent Derek Jacobi made Hamlet *real* for me. Before I saw this version, Shakespeare was simply gibberish to me and I never tried to understand the Elizabethan English. Having seen Jacobi's Hamlet several times not only increased my knowledge of literature, but also that of my family. I promptly checked the play out of Library and read it, and poured over the accompanying recording. Jacobi's rendition attracted me to a deeper knowledge. And yet, I have been searing for a video of it for years and years to no avail. It gets a very high rating from viewers. Why, then, has it not been released on video? It's the only Hamlet that I'd invest in...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Absolutely the most thoughtful, spiritually deep, intense Hamlet ever done -- no other version comes close. Jacobi has the best understanding of the role of all the actors that have played it. Patrick Stewart's Claudius is ferocious and still sympathetic -- I particularly like the two doofuses playing Rosencranz and Guildenstern. Very feckless and yet sinister. Some might gripe about the need for a strong Ophelia -- she's not a strong person, that's the point, and Lalla Ward hits the proper nuances. Amazing. Simply Amazing -- every one of the more than two dozen times I've watched it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you wish to see Shakespeare's masterpiece in its entirety, I suggest you find this BBC version. Indeed it is overlong at four and a half hours but Jacoby's performance as Hamlet and Patrick Stewart's as Claudius are well worth the effort.

It never ceases to amaze me how clear \"Hamlet\" is when you see it in its length and order as set down by the Bard. Every film version of \"Hamlet\" has tinkered with its structure. Olivier concentrated on Hamlet's indecision, Gibson on his passions. Jacoby is able to pull all of these aspects of Hamlet's character together with the aid of Shakespeare's full script.

Why does Hamlet not kill Claudius immediately? Hamlet says \"I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious...\" Hamlet is extremely upset, not only for his father's death (and suspected murder), or his mother's marriage to his uncle, but also, and mostly, because Claudius has usurped the throne belonging to Hamlet. He is furious at his mother for marrying Claudius (marriages between royal kin is not unknown; done for political reasons) but that her marriage solidified Claudius' claim to the throne before he could return from Wittenburg to claim it for himself. He is, therefore, impotent to do anything about it. And this is true even after he hears his father's ghost cry vengeance. He cannot simply kill the King or he will lose the throne in doing so. He must \"out\" the King's secret and here is the tragedy! At the moment Hamlet is successful in displaying Claudius' guilt in public, he has opportunity to kill him and does not. WHY? He wants it ALL! He wants revenge, the throne AND the damnation of Claudius' soul in hell. Hamlet OVERREACHES himself in classic tragic form. His own HUBRIS is his undoing. He kills Polonius thinking it is Claudius and the rest of the play spirals down to the final deaths of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Ophelia, Laertes, Gertrude, Claudius and Hamlet himself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let's face it, there is no perfect production of Hamlet, it's simply far too long and varied and cerebral to get completely perfect across the board, especially what with the challenges of Elizabethan English and Shakespeare's abstruse dialogue. In any staging of it, there are bound to be certain moments, scenes, or intonations that one disagrees with. I've seen a lot of filmed Hamlet productions: Olivier, Gibson, Branagh, Scott, and now this BBC film with Jacobi. In terms of faithful, full-length productions, this one ranks up there with the very best.

Most Hamlet productions are drastically cut, because to perform the entire play takes a stage-time of four to five hours. This production appears to be complete -- that is, ALL of the original Shakespeare dialogue is intact -- and so it's essential for scholars and Shakespeare-lovers. And though the lines seemed rushed on rare occasion (for those less completely familiar with the text), for the most part the script is well-acted, well-spoken, and well-performed. Subtitles are available and very helpful, although upon occasion they lag slightly behind.

Jacobi does a quite admirable job with theatre's longest and most impossible role. I actually cried when Hamlet dies, and I don't think I've done that before. Patrick Stewart (as Claudius) and Claire Bloom (as Gertrude) are excellent, as are Lalla Ward (Ophelia) and David Robb (Laertes), and the rest of the very on-point cast. Sets are minimal, so we can thankfully concentrate on the play without distraction or attention paid to non-essentials.

At 3 hours and 45 minutes, this full-length Hamlet is a long haul to sit through, but again, if you want the real deal, it's 100% worth it, even if one needs to take an intermission for oneself. I highly recommend this production to all Shakespeare lovers and scholars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was never in the past interested in this play although love Shakespeare and have seen most of his plays now and enthusiastically studied some at school. Something about this story and all the fuss about it seemed to put me off. I never bothered to try to see Hamlet until fairly recently deciding I should at least try to watch it and I borrowed the Olivier version from the library. Well, I struggled with it. Olivier seemed far too old, not only in his looks but in his acting of the part. The play had been enormously cut to fit a more conventional movie length and I think must have missed out too much as I found it difficult to concentrate on it, soon became bored and annoyed by it. I still think Olivier's Henry V is the best version I've seen of that rousing play - tho' admit I haven't rewatched the Beeb version yet and can't recall how it was when first shown.

I heard of the Branagh full length version of Hamlet. Although I enjoyed his Much Ado, I think the Beeb version is far better and I wasn't entirely impressed by his Henry V. But I was off Branagh a bit after seeing his disappointing effort at a musical of Love's Labour's Lost which is a play I like and was so well made by the Beeb.

Finally acquiring the complete Beeb Shakespeare on DVD recently, I soon rewatched one of my most favourite Shakespeare plays, Richard II, and was simply enthralled by Jacobi in the part so was immediately persuaded to watch his Hamlet next. What a revelation this play now is for me! Yes, it is splendid, but I feel it needs an actor you can emphathise with to play Hamlet and this for me is Jacobi. Amazing. Intriguing to note that although he is older than I understand the character Hamlet was, it doesn't show whilst in Olivier it did. Now I note he's also in the Branagh version and had much to do with training Branagh, so I shall have to watch that to see what Jocobi does with Claudius! I'm interested to discover Jacobi has trained Branagh as yes, you can certainly see the influence.

And now I'm going to watch it all over again....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Part of the BBC filming of all of Shakespeare's classic plays, this version of Hamlet does nothing to dispel my particular impression that it is one of Shakespeare's most over-rated plays and Hamlet himself a not particularly moving and tragic character. I feel no sympathy for him, and I didn't after watching this.

Even when you have great actors like the great Derek Jacobi in the role of the Dane, and Patrick Stewart as Claudius and Jonathan Hyde as Rosencrantz, it cannot disguise the lack of passion in the storyline. And when a good actor like Jacobi injects passion into it, he renders the entire role incomprehensible. I just could not connect his physicalisation of the character to what he was saying, and this killed it for me. That said, he does get the \"To be, or not to be\" speech right, as his actions with a dagger make clear the character's suicidal intentions at that point in the play.

The supporting roles, to me better written and consequently better played, are enjoyable, notably Lalla Ward's loopy Ophelia and Stewart's well-detailed interpretation of Claudius.

At four and a half hours, it is very long and best watched in bite-sized chunks. Check it out if you're interested but be prepared for a long watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this play many times, from Olivier to Branagh, and this remains the one version that always stands out in my memory. Many actors have captured aspects of this character, but for me, it is always Derek Jacobi's performance they are compared to and all others just come up a bit short.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1. I've seen Branaghs Hamlet: Branagh is too old, speaks frequently with a high pitched voice (unwillingly funny!) - not a convincing Hamlet, and his directors qualities - poor ! (see also much ado about nothing from Branagh - the funny parts of the dialogues have mostly been cut out not speaking of the directors mistakes in the dialogue cuts!) 2. I've seen Hamlet 2000: I think the scenario is an interesting idea - but such lousy actors - all of them 3. Orson Welles Hamlet is OK - but this BBC Hamlet is the best! Derec Jacobi is convincing - seems a bit of a lunatic - very suitable! and Patric Stewart - wonderful, and Claire Bloom is a very attractive queen. You believe those actors what they are saying - I think this is the best compliment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have watched every version of this play that I can think of, including several on the stage, and Sir Derek Jacobi is absolutely the best Hamlet I have ever seen!

He has the most wonderful voice for stage acting, and his expressive face will take you on a roller coaster of emotions throughout this play. The way in which he delivers his lines takes you on a journey through madness. He (as Hamlet)can in an instant be loving, soft and gentle and in another instant be raging against the hell that is his life. You believe that he is in pain, you believe that he is angry, you believe that he is not a little mad. You believe he IS Hamlet.

Of course, some of the thanks obviously goes to Shakespeare, :) but without an excellent actor to get the words from the page to the stage, it doesn't really matter how well written a play is.

If you like Shakespeare, you absolutely must see this version. If you don't like Shakespeare, you absolutely must see this version. You will come away with a new appreciation for Shakespeare if you do. The nuanced performance that Sir Derek gives will leave you breathless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Amazing, amazing, amazing. What more can be said? Jacobi is the best Hamlet ever to grace the stage and captures every inch of the character. Every nuance and element of Hamlet is depicted and depicted well. Some people have complained about his age, but you honestly cannot tell when watching the film. If anything, he looks drastically younger than 40. I only wish a more worthy Ophelia could have been found. Her acting is passable but she just doesn't look the part. The only real exceptional performances come from Jacobi and Stewart, who is a great Claudius. The rest of the cast is good, but Jacobi is what truly elevates this teleplay.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is by far my favorite action movie. But what makes it work is not the elaborate Renny Harlin explosions and shoot-em-ups. It's the Shane Black script and its deft delivery by Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson.

The chemistry between the two principals merited a sequel. Thank God it was never made. Too much danger of marring the original.

'The Long Kiss' checkerboards from quotable scene to action scene to quotable scene and back again. Never a dull moment.

This has to be Jackson's funniest role ever, and the amazing thing is that he is playing one of the most normal characters of his career. No quirky Tarantino hit-man, super-cool Shaft, or borderline psycho soldier. In TLKG, Jackson is the everyman we identify with. The poor schmuck gets dragged along on this crazy woman's odyssey to uncover the dangerous secret of her past.

Though the story claims that Davis's character, Samantha Caine is suffering from amnesia, the writer and director treat her condition as if it were a multiple personality disorder.

Samantha Caine is not just a new identity taken by the amnesiac Charly Baltimore -- she is a separate, fully-developed personality. The traumas suffered by Samantha in the first half-hour of the movie help the submerged dissociate personality of Charly to emerge again.

The materials of her past life excavated by Jackson's detective Mitch Henessey facilitate Charly's resurfacing. Good timing, too, considering the target Samantha makes of herself.

But Charly has to fight herself to remain the dominant personality. One gathers from bits of dialogue that the warrior personality (Charly) developed after her father died and she was recruited by the \"Chapter\".

In the eight years Charly was buried in the psyche, though, her Samantha identity developed into the dominant personality. (She's even funnier that Charly.) This was probably due to becoming a mother, because it's the reunion with her daughter that breaks Charly's struggle to suppress Samantha, leading to their apparent integration by movie's end.

It's impossible to choose a \"best quote\" from this film:

\"Now you're a sharpshooter?\"

\"I saved your ass. It was great!\"

\"Continue dying. Out.\"

\"I sock 'em in the jaw and yell 'Pop goes the weasel'\".

And a couple of dozen more, many too raunchy to quote here.

Geena Davis looks great, and comes off as an action hero without glossing over the fact she's turning forty. (Listen to Charley's history, do the math).

Fantastic soundtrack, too. Santana, Muddy Waters, Elvis, LaBelle, Marvin Gaye.

I give 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' a 9, only because I don't believe in a perfect 10. Seen it a dozen times, and it still stays fresh. Nice twisted holiday flick to place on your shelf next to 'It's A Wonderful Life.'","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Definitely a movie for people who ask only to be entertained and who do not over-think their movies.

Lots of action, lots of great dialogue (e.g. fun to quote), a little intrigue, and stuff blowing up all over the place. Samuel L Jackson and Geena Davis had great chemistry. Violent, but not gory. The fact that the female part was the competent action lead is a pleasant turn-about.

Have seen the movie more than a dozen times and still enjoy it enough to put it back in my favorite films rotation every 3 or 4 months. I initially rented the movie because Samuel L Jackson was in the film, but was caught up in the events surrounding Samantha's quest to regain her memory and have never looked back.

All you cerebral folks out there -- suspend disbelief for once, take yourself a little less seriously -- you might actually enjoy yourselves!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not a box office success; no-one really knows why. It may have failed simply because of its title. It looks as though you need a two-word tough-guy title to attract a sufficient proportion of the idiot crowd - \"Die Hard\", \"Lethal Weapon\", \"Hard Weapon\", \"Die Lethal\", etc. - talking about \"the long kiss goodnight\" will get you nowhere. But for once Renny Harlin has made a GOOD action movie. A large part of the reason for this lies in the fact that the central character, Samantha, earns our affection and interest early on. As she becomes Charly again, we're torn: we certainly want Charly to thwart the bad guys, and all that; but we don't want her to lose touch with Samantha in order to do so - even though we like Charly, too. Geena Davis bestows all of her considerable charm on both halves of the central character. Samuel L. Jackson plays second fiddle for a change. It turns out he's good at it. That was a compliment.

Intelligent, far superior to anything in the \"Die Hard\" series - if I were more cynical I'd add, \"it's not surprising that it didn't do well\", but I don't really feel that way; it IS surprising that it didn't do well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A small-town schoolteacher (Geena Davis) slowly begins to realize that she has suffered amnesia and really use to be a secret government assassin! Soon, there are men after her and a small-time private detective (Samuel L. Jackson).

This was action-packed, with some great special effects and really funny one-liners (especially from Jackson). Although the action may get a little silly at times, who cares? After all, aren't movies meant to be a good time?

Craig Bierko is fun as a ruthless villain. The movie itself was an all-around good time. Just don't expect to have to think too much about it because then, if you take it too seriously, then the movie actually won't be fun but stupid instead.

This movie doesn't deserve to be called stupid or any other bad name.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a film that in no way reflects the real world. Nothing in this film makes any real world sense or has any real world logic. It operates entirely in its own little world and your ability to accept it or not will determine your love or hate for this film.

I love the film.

Somewhere at the very beginning I bought into the completely unreal premise of the hit woman regaining her memory as the past comes back to haunt her. There was a moment early on where I remember accepting that this was going to be one of those movies where the heroine was going to know nothing until it was needed, despite all logic that it wouldn't happen that way. \"Oh its one of those films\" I said to myself and was hooked as the film took off on a wild two hour chase.

This is an action film with brain and brawn as things follow there own internal logic and you actually have to pay attention to follow some of the twists and turns. I like this a great deal and am pleasantly surprised when I bump into people who feel the same way too. People either love it or hate it, if they've ever heard of it at all.

If you like action films this is a film to definitely try. You may not like it, but it certainly worth the effort to find out

And as always, leave reality at the door.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I hadn't planned on leaving a review, but seeing some of the other dreadful reviews for this movie, I had to say something.

I'm not going to give away the ending or anything, but I do give away some important plot points in this review, so you should be aware of that. The short (non-spoiler) version of my review - Samuel L. Jackson and Geena Davis both kick butt in this movie, and it's a lot of fun. Watch it.

This movie is one of my favorites of all time. Geena Davis is perfect as the action heroine, torn between her existing life as a housewife and mother, and the memories that are resurfacing of her former life as a CIA Assassin. Her performance is superb as she plays both facets of this relatively complex character perfectly.

Samuel L. Jackson's performance is, as always, also excellent, as the Private Investigator that Geena Davis' character hired to look into her forgotten past. He does a great job of playing the unwitting sidekick to Geena Davis' tough character. Some of the lines he utters in this movie are the best he's ever used in any movie he's been in.

Seriously, if you haven't seen it, do. It's a fantastic story with lots of unexpected twists and turns, and it's extremely well directed and acted.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Long Kiss Goodnight\" is an enjoyable and very cool action thriller, and a career breakthrough for Geena Davis. The plot is very familiar to that of The Bourne Identity but so what. The fight scenes are a real treat for the eyes and the plotline is strong enough to keep you engaged for the 2 hours.

It's directed with a slick sense of style and avoids most action cliches. Geena Davis is great as an action chick and gets past her usual \"good wife\" role. Samuel L. Jackson is good as usual as the supporting player. The film's baddie is overly cheesy though and you can tell what's going to happen to him.

It breaks away from the usual run-of-the-mill actioners such as Commando and On Deadly Ground and is definetly one of the best actioners in years. Good fun and good popcorn entertainment. 7.4\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I feel extremely sad for some of the people who have been reviewing this film. It is apparent that their standards are so high that they will never be able to enjoy a film just for enjoyment sake. Or, perhaps, their enjoyment is derived from the act of picking films apart; looking for any reason at all to dislike them?

The Long Kiss Goodnight is an action film, in every sense of the word. Sure, there are holes in the plot big enough to drive a semi through, but none of them are enough to stop the flow of the film itself. I have never been a big Geena Davis fan, but I was impressed with how she was able to create two very different characters, Samantha Cain and Charlie Baltimore. In my opinion, it wasn't even necessary to have changed her physical appearance to differentiate between the two...her acting was more than enough to do the trick.

More than anything else, though, this film was Craig Bierko's. In another's hands, the character of Timothy could've been just another interchangeable villain. His decision to play him with a more casual approach was just the right counterpoint to all of the action scenes. It isn't often that you find an actor who can express himself so well with just his facial expressions...point in case: the scene in the freezer with Charlie and her daughter. Where most films would've cluttered the moment of \"revelation\" with unnecessary dialogue, Bierko's eyes told the whole story.

The basic plot? Thin, to be truthful. A seemingly average housewife who suffers from amnesia slowly discovers that she had been an assassin. As her memory returns, so do the people who want the assassin dead. Is she really Samantha, the cookie baking housewife, or Charlie, the cold blooded assassin? Or maybe a little bit of both? For me, The Long Kiss Goodnight was an enjoyable journey to find out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a great rampage of action and comedy, it gets right in to it right from the start, there's no boring build up. The chemistry of the leading roles adds to the excitement and anticipation of the ending, even though my suspicions were not satisfied. The special effects worked brilliantly and were believable! Would have liked a different ending but it still had me reeling in emotions. The story line unfolds well however it is a film you have to watch from start to end carefully to pick up on all the details, to fully understand and get maximum enjoyment.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this film immensely. I'm really into films where females kick lots of butt, so this film already had my hopes up for some decent entertainment. My hopes were met and exceeded less than 20 minutes into the film. The action, humor and wit this film contained easily made it one of my favorite films of all time. It had Sam Jackson and his undeniable screen presence, Geena Davis as I've never seen her before, demanding your respect and flat out taking it even if you don't want to give it.

Geena plays Samantha Caine, an amnesiac desperate to remember something about her past, but quickly realizing, the more she finds out the more she wants to forget and eventually becomes consumed until finally Samantha is so more and Charly is all that's left. But now, can Charly and Sam, two completely different women, possibly exist in the same body? We have characters that pop in and out of the film that nurture each side of Sam\/Charly, like Sam Jackson, and Craig Bierko. Craig is also irresistible as Timothy, the sexy bad guy with no conscience.

This film was perfectly casted, and perfectly acted, over the top and wonderfully entertaining. You watch the impossible happen and applaud when it does. SO worth your time. Watch it, you won't be sorry.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a happily married 49 year old female, who just happens to LOVE this movie to death.

Geena Davis' character is strong, smart and kick ass...............I thought she did an excellent (thats an understatement) job in this movie.

I'm not real big on action movies, but i thought it was sooooooooooo sexy and entertaining.

She is my alter-ego.............when she starts putting that assault rifle together in the old hotel room.....................i got chills...............she did it like she knew what she was doing............thats one of my MANY favorite parts in that movie........

i think she deserved an Oscar for her acting and physical roles........

I'm going to have 'CHARLY' tattoed on my back..............I'm one of those girls who will NEVER BE A VICTIM......................I'm like her...............(shhhhhhhhhhhhhh secretly........and isn't that oh so sexy?)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this film probably a dozen times since it was originally released theatrically. Anyone who calls this movie trash or horrible just doesn't understand action films or recognize a good one. Perhaps to some the incidents and outcomes may seem far fetched, but in my opinion screenwriter Shane Black ( Lethal Weapon\/ Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) crafted one of the most well thought out action adventures you will ever come across. Over the top or not this film flows like clockwork and the action just keeps coming. The final action sequence is one of the best I have ever seen in any film. The cast in this film crackles. Genna Davis gave a tremendous performance and its a damn shame there was never a \"LKG\" sequel. Samuel L. Jackson is hilarious as her sidekick Mitch a down on his luck private eye trying to help her discover her lost past and make a few bucks. If Baffles me how anyone could not like this film. It packs so many thrills and its so funny. The wisecracks in this film still make me laugh just as hard 10 years later. In my mind the first Matrix film and the Long Kiss Goodnight were easily 2 of the best and most original action flicks of the 90's. Incidentally Shane Black made a fortune when he sold this script. At the time it was the highest selling screenplay and its worth every penny. It's so sad that audiences never gave this movie a chance, cause they would have witnessed Renny Harlins best film and Genna Davis like you have never seen her before. Long live \"The Long Kiss Goodnight\"!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is a serious scene in this movie. A scene that lets you know that his film won't be pulling many cheap punches. It takes place in a crowded train station and the protagonists are ambushed by assassins with automatic weapons. They make a break for it and just manage to get out in a hail of gunfire. The main hall of the train station is now filled with corpses of innocent people that were caught in the crossfire. Some would call that too sad and\/or grim to put into what is supposed to be an enjoyable action flick. I call it honesty. Most action movies tend to lean toward the \"safe side\" of showing violence and plot elements. This mostly means that in spite massive shootouts innocent people tend not to die or at least we don't see them die. The violence is all purely the good guys versus the bad guys with mainly the bad guys dying. A bit of common sense clearly shows this to be absurd.

Renny Harlin showed a hint of this in his first (and sadly only) hit, Die Hard 2. The villains intentionally crash a plane full of people to get their point across. The scene was also filmed with a backup scene of a cargo plane with only a few people on-board going down, but the grimmer and probably more realistic scenario ended up being used. However, to fit the spirit of the first film, Die Hard 2 was mostly a \"fun action movie.\" Here, that grimmer and more convincing edge is pervasive. The violence is bloody. The one liners are hilarious, but with a certain style that more echoes natural human sarcasm than clich\u00e9d film wisecracks at key moments of action. The plot is also packed with more malicious intent than most action films. The villain is not just some rogue out for revenge or a mad grab at power. It is less ridiculous, but also more frightening than that. From recent films, the \"Bourne\" trilogy almost gets there with its less cheesy than usual action film style, but this film is from 1996 and 7 years before \"The Bourne Identity\" with Matt Damon made it to the big screen.

Another interesting aspect is that the main hero is actually a heroine. And this is well before the movie version of \"Tomb Raider\" became a hit. What's more is that this heroine genuinely looks like she could take down John McClane and then take his still lit cigarette. This movie marks Geena Davis's second action-heroine role and she still didn't manage to score a hit. While Angelina Jolie stars in \"Tomb Raider\" years later and scores a hit. The reasons are beyond me. Completely.

Lastly, this movie isn't all dark edged. There are many outrageous and spectacular set pieces that one can only see in an action film. The climatic explosion of a chemical bomb is an absolutely spectacular display of movie pyrotechnics, with more than one law of physics taking a convenient break. Thus, there is formula here, but it is the Anti-Formula for the everyday Hollywood Action Movie Formula. --- 9\/10

BsCDb Classification: 13+ --- violence, profanity","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had never heard of this film till it popped up on cable TV and I can't understand why. Geena outdoes Arnold as an action hero in this film! Geena is an ex-CIA assassin who is brainwashed and given an identity as a schoolteacher with a quiet family life in a rural town. She continues that life for 8 years with a husband and daughter. Clues start coming to her that she may have been someone else, especially when someone tries to kill her. It seems that her former employers have discovered that she never died and want to make sure that she does. She hires Samuel L. Jackson, who is a former police officer. Together they form a pair that is as entertaining as Mel Gibson & Danny Glover. When Geena finally regains her memory she undergoes a transformation into the killing machine she once was with the song \"She's Not There\" playing in the background. What follows is Geena and Samuel have to go after the bad guys and hopefully stay alive. All through the rest of the film Geena has to decide who she really is. The killing unfeeling machine? The mother\/schoolteacher with the quiet family life? Or a combination of both? Especially, since the bad guys grab Geena's daughter. Great action scenes that rank up with any of the Die Hard movies!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wonderful Christmas story on the moving theme of \"Susie Homemaker finds her Inner Amazon.\" No, I'm serious! Geena Davis's amnesia starts to improve when she is knocked on the head. From this familiar beginning, we move in an unexpected direction. Good pace, good action, fun story, lots of explosions and mayhem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this was a great action flick. A very good role for Geena Davis. She is a very versatile actress. One of my favs next to Angelina Jolie. I actually watched The Long Kiss Goodnight right after seeing the new Tomb Raider movie. It got me thinking, Charlie or Lara? Which one would win in a fight??? Either way, both women are very strong, intelligent characters that are fun to watch. Especially when they're kicking butt. I just hope to see Geena in another film soon. Seems like she's been out of the spotlight a bit too long. It would be especially nice to see her in another film with Samuel L. Jackson. Now they make a great duo. Watch this film if you haven't. You won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let me start by saying overall I enjoyed The Long Kiss Goodnight. I would give it a 7\/10. The Good: 1. Acting: Samuel L Jackson is entertaining in almost any role. In this movie he doesn't play his usual character, the type that is in control, instead Geena Davis is in control and Sam is along for the ride. His timing on his lines are great and he is the high point of the movie. Geena Davis also gives a great preformance as Samantha Caine\/Charlie Baltimore. She is a believable action hero and I don't think too many other actresses could pull off the preformance Geena Does. 2. The Action: This is a very action packed movie. Things are pretty much always crashing or blowing up or someone is chasing someone else. The special effects are pretty good especially for being almost 8 years old. I can see some green screen stuff but it doesn't detract too much from the acting.

The Bad: 1. Why did it take half of the movie to set up the plot? This film needed to be edited in the script stage so that it didn't run as long as it did. Maybe a drama or something can run this long but people really need to be into the movie the entire time to sustain it. I think that if you can stick out the first half you will be pleseantly suprized the second half. 2. Geena Davis is cold weather and a tank top but she never seems cold. 3. Some things are unrealistic. Sam Jackson flies through a giant sign after he is blasted out of a room and then he lands in a tree and just gets up. When you see this part you will think it's a gag. overall fun movie 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is movie is actually one of my all time favorites. I'm not a Renny Harlin fan because most of his movies suck, but TLKG hits its mark time after time. TLKG is about a woman named Samantha Cain (Davis) who suffers from amnesia. she is married with a kid and as she qoutes \"I'm a goddamn member of the PTA.\" and then her world comes crumbling down as the pieces fall into place about her earlier identity. Samuel Jackson plays a con artist cop who does PI gigs, he is dragged along by her to solve her identity and to get paid some cash for his work. along the way we find out Samantha is really Charlie Baltimore, a secret spy that was left for dead years earlier. the plot is great, making this story seem real and Jackson does a great job as second fiddle to Davis (whom always does a great acting job). the explosions are endless, the action is intertwined with memorable scene after memorable scene. pretty impressive visually though the kid got on my nerves at the end (watch out of the cars!) I'm tired of little kids screwing up a film to be saved but still, this movie is worth it as the kid adds to the film. again, this movie is really good, i never understood why it didn't make more at the box office but if it was a man starring in the movie I'm sure it would have grossed a hundred million. what is good is that over the years more people are discovering this movie and giving it good marks as the average of this film on this site has risen over the years. i hope it goes up further as this is one great action film. and i love action films","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Long Kiss Goodnight has just about everything action fans want: a witty screenplay by the guy who wrote Lethal Weapon, Samuel L. Jackson, and great action set pieces by Renny Harlin.

Seriously underrated. One of the best action movies ever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When this movie came out, I had seen Geena Davis play only soft, feminine roles... This movie was anything but soft and feminine. Great lines, great action...she and Samuel L really clicked. Too violent for the kiddies, but if you and your significant other are trying to agree on a movie, try this one on for size. Go Geena! Go Geena!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Empire of Passion starts out deceptively - that is, if you're immediately expecting it to be a horror movie. It's like a riff on James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice, at first: Seki (Kazuko Yoshiyuki) is a mother of two and a dutiful, hard-working wife to rickshaw driver Gisaburo (Takahiro Tamura). But when he's not around, and she's at home with the baby, the feisty and aimless young man Toyoji (Tatsuya Fuji) comes around to bring some goodies for Seki... and a little extra. They're soon sleeping together, but after he does something to her (let's just say a \"shave\"), he knows that he'll find out, and immediately proposes that they kill Gisaburo. They drink him up, strangle him, and then toss him down a well. Naturally, this will come back to haunt them - but that it's literally, at least to them (at first super-terrified Seki and then only later on skeptical Toyoji), changes gears into the 'Kaidan', a Japanese ghost story.

This is a film where the horror comes not simply out of \"oh, ghost, ah\", but out of the total dread that builds for the characters. In a way there's the mechanics of a film-noir at work throughout, if only loosely translated by way of a 19th century Japanese village as opposed to an American city or small town (i.e. the snooping cop, the \"evidence\" found possibly by another, word getting around, suspicions aroused, etc). It's compelling because Seiko actually was against the plan from the start, manipulated by the lustful but ill-prepared Toyoji, and her reactions to Gisaburo's re-appearances are staggering to her. Take the one that comes closest to poetry: Gisaburo's ghost, pale-blue face and mostly silent, chilling stare, motions for Seiko to get on the rickshaw. She does, reluctantly, and he pushes her around on a road she doesn't know, in the wee hours before dawn, surrounded by smoke. Most Japanese ghost stories wish to heavens they could get this harrowingly atmospheric.

While it starts to veer into hysterics towards the end, there's so much here that director Oshima gets right in making this a distinctive work. After hitting it huge in the international cinema world with In the Realm of the Senses (which, ironically, got banned in his own country), he made something that, he claimed, was even *more* daring that 'Senses'. Maybe he was right; Empire of Passion has less graphic sexual content by far than its predecessor (also starring Tatsuya Fuji, a magnificently physical actor with an immense lot of range), but its daring lies in crafting a world of dread. You can believe in ghosts in this story, but you also have to believe how far down to their own personal hells these two would-be lovebirds will go. The snooping detective or the gossiping townspeople are the least of their worries: the fate of their very souls is at stake.

And Oshima takes what in other hands could be merely juicy pulp (sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if an American remake was already in the works) and crafts shot after gorgeous shot, with repetition working its way into the mis-en-scene (i.e. the shots of Seiko and Toyoji walking on that road, the camera at a dutch angle, the world tilted and surrounding them in a grim blue hue) as well as some affecting movements that will stay with me long after I finish typing this (i.e. Toyoji throwing the leaves by one hand into the well in slow motion, or how Seiko's nude body is revealed after she becomes blind). It's daring lies in connecting on a level of the spirit- not to be confused with the spiritual, though there may be something with that as well- about life and death's connections to one another, inextricably. It's a classic waiting to be discovered.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a film by Oshima, the director of the notorious \"In The Realm Of The Senses\", a film so sexually brazed and unabashedly controversial it was banned for a while. This film takes place initially in 1895 in Japan and stars the very pretty Keziko Yoshiyuki as Seki, the wife of a rickshaw driver who falls for a much younger man who woos her in kind. That man, Toyoji, comes to her as she was sleeping and seduces her, though she soon is rather willing to be seduced. Soon they are having an affair and plot to kill Seki's husband, to be together forever. They do, and throw him down a well. However, they didn't count on the ghost of the dead husband haunting Seki and others in the village! This film is visually very stunning, the use of shadows highlighting this tale of murder for passion. Ms. Yoshiyuki (who is still active as an actress) is especially very good in her role. Its sexual at times, but not like \"In The Realm Of The Senses\". Some of what ensues is up to our imagination. I found this film to have a consistency of mood that makes it very watchable. A little creepy but that goes with the territory. I'd recommend this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the Realm of the Senses is a beautifully filmed, well-written, and splendidly acted film. It tells the haunting story of a woman who kills her husband after falling in love with another man. The ghost of her husband continues to haunt her lond after his murder. This film is really good, anyone interested should definitely check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this particular title is very interesting. the whole movie was like watching a ninja RPG, which is really cool. three magical swords, three clans, a horrible demon, a political power, yotoden has it all. the animation is decent, but a little grainy, the story is top notch, and the fight scenes are real cool. one thing that really looks good in this movie are the monsters. they are pretty freaky. if you liked blood reign and ninja scroll, yotoden is the one to see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After having spent a lot of my youth watching such movies, I found this one very easy to follow in both the unedited and cut versions, (Although the story has much more to hold it together in the unedited version. Unlike Ninja Scroll this movie hit a much more serious note and i think that's where it hit me. The animation while grainy is very original, and I just love the way artists in that year stressed shadows to show different emotions. I think the story is perfect. The beginning of the movie really hits hard and as the movie progresses you get the feeling that you're going along in this adventure with the characters. As they meet, become allies and find out the their greatest strengths, a lot of heart was put into this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After reading more than my fair share of reviews for a vast number of different movies I have noticed a certain trend, people judge to harshly on what the expected to see. I figure if you go into a movie open-minded not expecting anything certain than you will have better feelings towards it then if you try and watch but have pre-created standards you want it to reach.

Since I try not to be hypocritical I watched this movie with a very clean slate and open-mind, and was very much pleased. Since it is not a mainstream title or award winning for that matter I did not know quite what to expect, but in all truth I enjoyed it a good deal more than Ninja Scroll. Lovely animation, deep story, and the always joyful ninja hack-n-slashing combined extremely well to one of my personal favorite animes ever made.

I am not promising that you will enjoy it, but just give it a chance and you may come out with a pleasant surprise.

- \"Before speaking, be sure of what you will say will be more beautiful than the silence\" - Chinese proverb","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really liked this one. (SPOILERS??) It had a really good plot, the main female in this movie is really kewl.

Despite the fact that she's the only one left alive and her lover dead, it seemed to be much like Ninja Scroll. Another kick ass movie. ;)

Watch it in japanese with subtitles. I don't know where the idiots who learned to speak english are, but for some reason all dubs get an F in translation techniques. The subtitles are more correct.

9\/10

Quality: 7\/10 Entertainment: 10\/10 Replayable: 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lot of the comments seem to treat this film as a baseball movie, but I feel this is only secondary. It's really about living in Japan, and it really succeeds.

I spent a few years living in Japan, and I suppose the reason that this movie didn't do too well is that you sort of have to have experienced Japan to get it. I was watching this with a well-travelled friend who's never been to Japan, and he noted that many of the events in the movie were so ludicrous that they destroyed the suspension of disbelief. My reply was that those events were the absolute unvarnished truth about life in Japan!

I think that this movie is definitely worth watching, especially if you've lived in Japan or are interested in it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"MR. BASEBALL is a film of paradoxes. Written and filmed as a \"light, sports comedy\" it truly has a heartwarming core as human and universal as some of Capra's finest. At the plot level, you have the paradox of baseball, a fine old American game, as it is played in Japan - turned around, with American values cast off and Japanese values imprinted upon the game. (Some of the superficial \"sports comedy\" results from Jack's uncomprehending disbelief at how \"basa-boru\" is played in Japan.) You also have a lead character who's presented as an over-the-hill, aging baseball star, but who is actually quite immature - pro ball allowed him to postpone growing up. And you have a lead character who is rudely resistant to the changes in his life that are being forced upon him, refusing to accept the curveball that life has given him, in the midst of a new country, a new manager, a new team, and a new girlfriend, who have all welcomed him and try to accept him. Sound like heavy stuff? Not really. It's a charming \"clash of cultures\" comedy that takes place on the national, sports, romantic, and professional levels. But if you watch it sensitively enough, you will also find a great story about a man who has to abandon his immaturity and grow up way too late in life (causing some amount of personal pain), and finds success in places he never expected it. I love the story, but I also have great respect for Selleck's performance; he bares his tush (literally) to portray an ugly American, insulting people and throwing tantrums in public, then lets us inside this character to understand his dismay. It also doesn't hurt if you're a big fan of Takakura Ken like I am. MR. BASEBALL is a surprising \"loss of innocence\" tale.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with BigAlC - this movie actually prepared me for a lot of the cultural differences and practices before I went to live in Japan for a year in 1993. Tom Selleck does a fantastic job here, as always, and the movie is greatly humorous and educational. I'm a big fan of Tom Selleck's, and he blesses this part with his usual charm and charisma to this part, bringing the film to life in a way I can't imagine any other actor being able to pull off.

This film featured some first-rate Japanese actors, and it was highly entertaining to watch them as they interacted with Selleck - I can imagine the fun he had during the actual filming of the movie - Japan's an awesome place to go, whether you want to party, sight-see or just try to take everything in.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You have to have lived in Japan for awhile to enjoy the beauty of this movie! I lived on Okinawa for over 2 years, and northern Honshu for 4. Believe it or not, what you see paints a very good and accurate picture of contrasting east\/west mentalities, both from a sports as well as personal relationships perspective. A funny, funny, and heartwarming movie that deserves better than Americans viewing it can ever judge. 8+ out of 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with the guy above, It is so funny I understand it all, but my friends just don't get it. Go to Japan and you will see a different movie after being there. When I met my girlfriends dad, at his home in Kanagawa. I swear I felt the same as Jack,. scared, but by the end of the day it was all good, so I give this movie a 10 out 10.

I have watched it at least 30 times, taking it with me to watch on the plane flying to Japan next month. One thing that is real good is the ball game scenes. Makes me feel like I am there again. This is a must see if you have any interest in Japan and Baseball. Too bad they don't make a sequel. Does anyone know where the temple scenes were filmed and the argument with hirko in the walkway with a roof on it???? need to know so I can win an argumrnt with me Japanese ex-wife. thanks","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this movie, not because Tom Selleck was in it, but because it was a good story about baseball and it also had a semi-over dramatized view of some of the issues that a BASEBALL player coming to the end of their time in Major League sports must face. I also greatly enjoyed the cultural differences in American and Japanese baseball and the small facts on how the games are played differently.

Overall, it is a good movie to watch on Cable TV or rent on a cold winter's night and watch about the \"Dog Day's\" of summer and know that spring training is only a few months away. A good movie for a baseball fan as well as a good \"DATE\" movie \u0085 Trust me on that one! *Wink*","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Redo the Oscars from 1992, and this film might get nominated, or even win. It was SO good at capturing its era and dual cultures that it belongs in American and Japanese time capsules. If you wanted to know what living here or there was like back then, this film will show you. As an American, you'll feel like you tagged along for an extended Japanese vacation, and by the end of the film, you'll be a die-hard Dragons fan, as you accept the injection of Japanese tradition and culture into their baseball, much as we have done with our culture in our own game.

Jack Elliot (Tom Selleck) is a slumping, aging Detroit Tigers' slugger who is traded to the Dragons, perennial runners-up to the dynastic Yomuri Giants, Japan's answer to the Yankees. The Giants are admired for their success, yet that success also has everyone wanting to surpass them, something which is rarely done. The Dragons' manager recruits Jack as the final piece of the pennant-winning puzzle, and we're left with what could have been Gung Ho on a baseball field, but instead was much more.

The casting was outstanding: Selleck proved that with a good script and a character that suits him, he can carry a film as well as he did his television show, and the Japanese cast was equally good, down to Mr. Takagi from Die Hard back as the image-conscious owner. The other actors, including the one who plays the love interest (also the manager's daughter), strong and independent yet simultaneously a believer in Japanese traditions, beyond what was forced on her. She is a proper and supportive girlfriend for Jack. Even her father never tells her not to see him, almost sympathizing with Jack for what he endures from her, and a bit relieved he at least knows the man she has chosen to love.

The baseball scenes are great, bolstered immensely by a pre-fame Dennis Haysbert as another American ex-patriate and Jack's western mentor. The usual fish-out-of-water elements are there, and you can almost feel yourself stumbling right along with Jack to fit into a country that doesn't speak our language, and doesn't practice our ways, yet copies everything we do, including our national pastime. one of the funnier scenes occurs when Jack, clutching a magazine, informs his manager that he has learned of the tradition in Japan where you can get drunk and tell off your boss, and it can't be used against you, and exercises that right very humorously. The plots and subplots are tied up neatly at the end, but not too neatly, and nothing concludes unrealistically.

To call this a comedy is misguided: it's a pure comedy-drama, or even a drama with good humor. The plot is too deep to dismiss it the way it was by critics as an actor out of his league trying to carry a lightweight film. The situations were amusing, but in their place against a far more serious, profound, and precisely detailed backdrop that results in one of the best films I've ever seen. The baseball cinematography rivals that of For Love Of The Game, for realism.

Some say the film is about baseball, or about Japan, but more than anything it seems to be about the workplace, and how people arrive at work from totally different origins, with different agendas, and somehow have to put their differences aside for the good of the company, or the team.

A truly great film that never should have had to apologize for itself the way it did when it was in theaters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many believe this movie is a baseball movie. Such people are disappointed because it's about a baseball player, but the movie isn't about baseball.

Some think this movie is a romantic comedy and are disappointed because the relationship isn't really developed. This movie is not a romantic comedy.

This movie is about culture. An arrogant American Major Leaguer and a stern traditional Japanese baseball manager cannot succeed because they can't, indeed, won't understand one another. It's after they manage to break through the cultural barrier that they have success. The ballplayer becomes more Japanese in his team mentality and the manager more American in allowing individual achievement, and they meet in the middle.

Baseball and the romance is subordinate to this critique of the two cultures. Many who have no understanding of the Japanese mindset miss this and think it's a movie on baseball or romance and see the culture clash as mild comedy relief. It's not---the culture clash is the gravamen of the movie. Based on my own experience and understanding of the Japanese culture, I think this movie did quite well in that it didn't overly romanticize the Japanese culture nor overdo it in its portrayal.

Overall, I believe this is an enjoyable and relaxing movie if one understands what it is really about.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has always been a favorite movie of mine. I've owned a VHS copy, and a couple of months ago I found a DVD release which is also part of my video collection. I also happen to be a huge baseball fan, and as part of my off-season reading, I picked up a copy of Robert Whiting's excellent book \"You Gotta Have WA\", that profiles the ins and outs of Japanese baseball, and the challenges that foreign players have encountered playing in Japan. As I began to read yesterday, it made me think of this movie, because it appears the screenplay was based almost verbatim on this book. The parallels are uncanny. The Jack Elliot character closely resembles Bob Horner, an aging MLB slugger whose best days were behind him. Horner's teammate Leon Lee is also depicted in the character Max \"Hammer\" Dubois, a veteran in the Japanese league who has made his peace with the frustrations of the Japanese game, and helps keeps his teammate sane. The Elliot character goes through the same sequence of encounters as Horner, from big fanfare signing, early success that fuels an already ravenous sports media, and the ensuing slump that spurs frustration, alienation from teammates, fans and media, and the resulting disillusionment that prompts a desire to go back home to the US. The only difference is that the movie adds such Hollywood touches as a love interest and a happy ending.

Speaking of love interests, I'm sure many viewers have come to this site (as I did) to look up the actress who played \"Hiroko\" (the beautiful Aya Takanashi), and what other work she has done. It only lists this movie. It turns out, based on an article I read, that the brief love scene she has with Tom Selleck (a foreigner) in this movie (mild by our standards - basically they kiss while he's in the bath and she's wearing a towel) caused such an outrage on the part of the Japanese public (males in particular) that she has never been offered another role of any kind, in Movies or television - essentially blackballed by the Japanese movie industry. It's a real shame, as she is(was) quite a talented actress in this movie.

If you like this movie as much for the baseball elements and cultural differences as I did -- go find a copy of \"You Gotta Have WA\" by Robert Whiting. A good read and a great companion book to this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent, little known movie. Tom Selleck does an outstanding job of acting in this movie, with the Japanese 'Clint Eastwood'. I'd love to see if this movie has come out on DVD yet, there are some spots that clearly have been cut. Hiroku (Tom's love interest) has clearly had some parts chopped. It would be interesting to see more of Japan in the film. The baseball sequences are far and away the most realistic of any baseball movie, I'm quite sure most of the actors were current or former baseball players. I love loading the tape of this movie at least once a year. Best scenes involve the lack of hat tipping after Tom gets beaned in the big game, and an intensely sensual scene of Tom having a hot bath with Hiroku. Dennis Haysbert also does a great job, it's good to see he's finally getting some recognition, not just in baseball movies(he was also in Major League).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*Minor spoilers* I just wanted to say that for anyone who likes entertaining baseball films, this is definitely in my top three. Only Little Big League and Major League can compete with this one in my mind. I would also like to commend the writers of this film for creating such enjoyable dialogue!! Without being too specific, I would say that the lines are very fitting for each character. Tom Selleck seemed to have no problem creating a realistic character as a ballplayer. His animosity towards playing overseas in Japan sets the tone for comical, yet meaningful interactions with his new team, the Dragons. He must adjust to life in Japan (\"First you wash, THEN you bathe!\") He eventually sees eye to eye with his coach and sets his goals to have that one final season of greatness, though in a much different environment than he ever imagined! So for any baseball fan, or anybody that wants to watch a good baseball movie, Mr. Baseball will not let you down!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not too many people seem to know about this movie. Which is too bad because I think it's pretty good. Sure it is a bit cheesy at times and may have a predictable storyline. But the presentation of the movie is pretty well done. I think the casting is good with likeable actors\/characters. Tom Selleck does a good job at playing a baseball player (go figure... not too much of a stretch I suppose) and Ken Takakura (from Black Rain) plays the chief (the coach of the Japanese baseball team). There isn't too much to complain about. It's just a light, easy-going, happy comedy and I recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am an Australian currently living in Japan. I saw this movie on TV here and was very impressed by the accuracy and honesty in the portrayal of Western and Japanese ideologies colliding. Whoever wrote the screenplay, and directed this film must have a good knowledge of what it's like to be a foreigner living in Japan. The only part I thought was too Hollywood-y was when Tom Selleck's character kisses the woman in the middle of her office and she lets him. Public displays of affection are not really acceptable here. Finally a movie that highlights the true 'gaijin' experience! 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this movie... In My DVD collection of baseball movies... Reminded me how great the sport truly is... Whether it's here in America or Japan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An egotistic major league baseball player is forced to continue his career in Japan, he contends with a culture that is alien to him, an apparently humorless manager, an attractive Japanese woman and his own professional and social insecurities. There is a certain subtle charm that flows through Tom Selleck's performances. There is humor, sometimes softly understated, as in this film, sometimes slapstick as in \"Folks!\", but always there seems to be some higher purpose involved. Throw in an individual full of self doubts who struggles to solve his personal difficulties while holding fast to \"doing the right thing,\" and you end up with a film both funny as well as thought-provoking. The cast fits together like a championship team, and even if neither cast nor film win awards for their efforts, they will leave the viewers feeling good (and maybe that's the best results after all). You'll want to watch this film more than once, and each time, Mr. Baseball hits a home run.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am very impressed by the reviews I've read of this film - generally well-read, thoughtful and informed - obviously by people who like and think hard about films. I couldn't add a thing to the excellent reviewing job that IMDb members have already done. If I may, I'd like to correct a small but widespread misunderstanding that appears in many of the reviews: Mr Baseball was American and behaved in an ugly fashion but he was NOT an Ugly American. The original Ugly American was Homer Atkins, one of the heroes of the eponymous 1958 novel by Burdick and Lederer, and the exact opposite of Mr Baseball. Homer was an archetypal American, and an archetypal engineer - he went to Vietnam to work with people, he respected and liked the people he met, he used appropriate, sustainable technology in cooperation with his hosts, and he was liked and respected by them precisely because he exemplified democratic values and American virtues. His ugliness was purely facial, merely skin-deep; his personality and his humanity were deep and genuine.

Mr Baseball exemplifies all the crass, ignorant, insecure boorishness that we Europeans and Americans so often inflict on other cultures; Homer Atkins, the Ugly American, was the other side of our coin, representing our humanity and decency. I believe that the Ugly Americans still far outnumber the Mr Baseballs; they are still our last, best hope.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mr Baseball was a fun video rental with my Fianc\u00e9 Susan Nauss. Susan said that she had been looking forward to seeing the movie. Ken Takakura Oda as a tough yet Honorable Manager makes sense. Ken Takakura has made so many wonderful Asian movies, I correct the one reviewer and say Takakura is still a Cinematic Presence with films like Hotari. Of course everyone likes Tom Selleck yet Ken Takakura is the better dramatic actor of the two. Today someone accused me of being Yakuza, well I say that My Great Uncle Shadow President Jack F Kennedy myself and others are part of the legitimate Human leadership in our Universe and thanks to our coCreators Humans are free people fighting all the parts of adversity that President Kennedy talked about in his inaugural address. To be honest someone has kept food prices very low in Canada on things like bread. In honor of our CoCreators please stop eating amphibians reptiles and eggs. I hope that there will one day be a sequel to Mr Baseball with Father Ken Takakura Oda still as Manager. Thank you to IMDb for supporting freedom of speech like the kind President George W Bush and I support. Support IMDb.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film got less attention than \"League of Their Own,\" possibly because it has only one \"name\" star. But whereas women's professional baseball had only an eight year, Midwestern town existence, Japanese baseball is a vastly bigger entity, both in financial underwriting and popular support. That alone would make it the better movie.

\"Mr. Baseball\" shows the facts of life of Japan-ball: the regimented cheering, the deference to umpires, the pressure of corporate owners on managers, the extreme conservatism of play - and no hot dog players welcome.

It also touches upon the isolation that any gai-jin - but especially an American jock, not the people most versed in foreign cultures - feels living in Dai Nippon. And the Japanese, for their part, are not comfortable around foreigners and let it show in various ways (\"the gai-jin strike zone,\" one American player complains, \"bigger than a Buick.\")

The script may not have won any awards, playing once again on the \"redemption by improved play\" theme, but I found it considerably more enjoyable to watch than the pokey \"League.\" Definitely recommended for those who want to see another angle on this great sport.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You have to like baseball, and you have to at least sort of like Tom Selleck, but if you meet those criteria you should thoroughly enjoy this movie. Selleck plays former major league star who finds himself traded (?) to Japan as his career winds down. Really well thought out and fascinating look at Japanese customs and behavior. Great supporting performances by Selleck's manager (\"Japan's Clint Eastwood\"), his girl friend Takanashi, and his interpreter. The chemistry between Selleck and Takanashi works very very well, this is really a very nice romantic movie apart from the baseball. Look for Haysbert as fellow player well before he became a persistent shill for Allstate. Movie wraps up very nicely. Easily in my top fifty all time movies and maybe my favorite one on baseball.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Japan takes the best from around the world and makes it their own\", while that may be true, it applies to all except for one thing, that being,.....Major league baseball....but not to worry, \"Mr Baseball\" is there to try and change all that. But just who will change whom, is the part of the movie that really makes it rock! Tom Selleck is one of my favorite actors and really shines-on in his comedic roles. The storyline may be true to life, however the subplot is dead-on. The Japanese people are a gentle, respectful people with ways and traditions very different than those of Western Society. All of these elements and obstacles combine to make for one truly enjoyable, funny film. It's definitely worth the watch!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival.

Based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, Everything Is Illuminated is the directorial debut of actor Liev Schreiber. Schreiber also wrote the screenplay. In the movie, Jonathan (Elijah Wood) obsessively collects items from his family, from toothbrushes to retainers to scraps of paper which he then seals in ziploc bags and pins to a wall in his house to record his family history. But the space for his grandfather is conspicuously bare. All Jonathan really has of him is a piece of jewelry and an old photo of him with a woman who hid him from the Nazis during the Second World War. Jonathan decides to undertake a quest to Ukraine to find the woman, thank her, and learn more about his grandfather.

His quest is aided there by a couple of characters who run a tourist company for Jewish people, including a young man obsessed with western culture (Eugene Hutz), his grandfather (Boris Leskin), who thinks he is blind and who may have memories and demons of his own from the war, and his grandfather's temperamental seeing eye dog.

The screenplay effectively combines both humour and drama as the three characters travel through the countryside looking for Jonathan's grandfather's town, driving deeper and deeper into the memories of the past. The best performance probably comes from Eugene Hutz, playing Alex Jr., who starts the movie as a tracksuit-wearing, break dancing slacker just out to have fun but evolves into something more as not only Jonathan, but all the characters gain their own illumination.

Liev Schreiber, Elijah Wood, and Eugene Hutz attended the screening and did a very humorous Q&A after the film:

- Schreiber was very close to his grandfather, who was a Ukranian immigrant, and who died in 1993. This caused him to start to write to get his memories down on paper. Meanwhile, he was asked to do a reading of Foer's short story, The Very Rigid Search, which was an excerpt from the still unpublished novel. Schreiber was blown away by the quality of the writing, saying that Foer had done in 15 pages what Schreiber tried to do in 107. Schreiber approached Foer and they talked about their grandfathers, culture, movies, and the nature of short-term memory in America; in the end, Foer agreed to let Schreiber adapt the book.

- Schreiber's own project was intended to be a road movie, but the book has parallel narrative that is an imagined chronological history of the town of Trochenbrod that spans 500 years; given his budget and limitations as a filmmaker, he said he'd leave that to Milos Forman and take the road trip instead. This imagined chronology was what moved him to make the movie in the first place, the idea that \"a past lovingly imagined was as valuable as a past accurately recalled\".

- Schreiber said the movie was a series of happy accidents. After searching unsuccessfully in Ukraine for an actor, he was walking through the Lower East Side in New York, when he saw a poster of a woman centaur, topless from the waist up, with an insane cossack sitting astride her. Under the poster said the name Gogol Bordello Ukranian Punk Gypsy Band.

Eugene Hutz then took over the story. He had never pursued acting as music was his first passion. One day, a friend gave him the book, and he thought it was written in a manner similar to how he writes music; screw sentences\/syntax, language is my own.

Later, they got a call from a production company, looking for eastern European music that was medieval but modern. Hutz met with Schreiber, and he soon found the movie was based on the book he just happened to be reading. Not long after that came up, Schreiber asked Hutz what he thought about Alex and whether he could do the character by any chance.

- Foer and Schreiber talked about the film in the fall of 2001, shortly after the events of September 11. Both were in Europe at the time and they talked about the derogatory comments they were hearing about Americans, which led Schreiber to want to try to find an articulate American who would defy the stereotype that Europeans have of Americans. Someone who was awkward, vulnerable, flawed, innocent, and looking for history beyond the borders of his own country. Schreiber started thinking about who that was, and Elijah came up.

One of Schreiber's inspirations as a filmmaker is Emir Kusturica (I think that's who he said, who also directed a segment in another festival movie, All the Invisible Children) who said \"you don't look for the actors, you look for the people.\" Schreiber said there is something about who Elijah is that he has a generosity of spirit and a sincere goodness as a human being, that came across on film. Schreiber said that the eyes are important when trying to articulate a character who is an observer, and that if \"eyes are the doors to the soul, Elijah's are garage doors.\"

- Elijah Wood had fun with a question about the similarities between his character Kevin in Sin City and Jonathan in this movie as both are sort of a blank slate on which emotions are projected. Wood replied that Jonathan may seem still and seemingly emotionless, but it is all about his observations, about his experiences with other characters and the environment he was in.

- On the differences between directing and writing: Schreiber said he likes writing a lot more and jokingly described directing as \"hell\". After his grandfather died, Schreiber started to think about how to preserve some sense of history and himself; is he content driven or not, or just good at interpreting other people's work? He said he loved the exercise of figuring out what is emotional to you, important to you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I walked into the movie theater, with no expectations for the film I was about to witness, \"Everything is Illuminated\". I walked out with a joy I have barely come to feel with American films. The directorial debut of actor, Leiv Schreiber, the film follows a man on his journey through the past, accompanied by an eccentric group including a brake-dancing barely English-speaking punk from the Eukraine, his grandfather who believes he is blind, and their crazy dog. The first half of the film is funny and smart with an extremely European flavor in the usage of small but wonderful characters, while the second half of the film descends into a somber story of discovery and the holocaust. This little movie brings out so many emotions, and so many colors, with such a wonderful conclusion and is more than just a story of illumination, but also of relationships and connections. The acting is incredibly powerful, the story mysterious and interesting, and the artistic appeal of the cinematography, to die for. With some brilliant and absolutely touching scenes \"Everything is Illuminated\" managed to capture my heart.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Everything Is Illuminated, Elijah Wood plays Jonathan Foer, a Jewish American who is looking for the woman who saved his grandfather during WWII. In a sense, the woman that saved his entire family.

This is a heart-felt tale about someone who is on a seemingly hopeless journey. A stranger in a strange land so to speak. Jonathan is not entirely prepared for this adventure, he sticks out like a sore thumb in the Ukraine (he would probably stick out like a sore thumb anywhere). But what he discovers is more, much more than he anticipated. This movie will make you laugh and will make you cry. Elijah Wood is really good in this film, based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer.

From someone I talked to, this movie is somewhat different from the book. A book I gather is really good. Nevertheless, this is a good movie, it has something for everyone and I really enjoyed it. Can someone say Oscar?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw \"Everything is Illuminated\" at the Telluride Film Festival. This is a truly remarkable film. Very emotional, funny at times and heart-warming. Bring your handkerchiefs! For those of you who enjoy a movie that brings tears to your eyes, I'm reminded of the endings of \"Babette's Feast\" and \"The Notebook.\" The stories were completely different but had that same emotional power to bring tears to my eyes, just as this film did.

No spoilers here. The summary is, as IMDb describes, a young man's journey to the Ukraine to follow his roots and find the village where his father grew up.

The dialog is in English and Ukrainian (and Russian too, I believe). This allows for some wonderfully linguistically-based moments as one character interprets, more or less faithfully, for the English speaker in the group, depending on the circumstances.

The scenery is wonderful and the musical score is a treat with wonderful Eastern European influences. Be sure you stay through the credits for the final tune.

This is Lieve Schreiber's directorial debut and is well done. I give this film a 9, one of the best films I've seen in a long time. I recommend it highly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is precious. Everything Is Illuminated is sweetly and sublimely funny from the first delicious line of dialogue. Oh, how I've been waiting for this to arrive in Austin. While Elijah Wood is charming as ever as Jonathan Safran Foer (the real-life author of the novel Everything Is Illuminated), it's Eugene Hutz (playing Jonathan's Ukrainian tour-guide and translator, Alex) who truly steals this film. Alex is a hip-hop-lovin' Ukrainian break-dancer who, along with his grandfather, helps Jonathan find the woman who saved Jonathan's grandfather's life during World War II. The Ukrainian countryside has never looked so breath taking. I'm thinking of packing it all up and moving to the former Soviet state.

The tone of the film, however, shifts when Jonathan and Alex do finally meet the woman they're looking for, and suddenly, this adorable comedy turns into a heart-breaking historical drama about a Jewish village that was annihilated during the Nazi occupation. Everything Is Illuminated is about history, heritage, and the wisdom that can be gained from uncovering the past. It's perfect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If anyone has any doubts about the talent of Liev Schrieber, just a look at his new film, \"Everything is Illuminated\", which clearly shows a man that is not only one of America's finest actors, but a new director whose first effort is indeed an inspiration and a harbinger of what is to follow. Mr. Schreiber has adapted the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer into a film that will live forever because of the way the director has adapted the material. The film clearly surpassed our expectations since we had no preconceived ideas.

For those who haven't watched the film, perhaps you should stop reading here.

Jonathan is a collector. His love for his grandparents is boundless. He watches as his grandfather dies and as his grandmother is on what appears to be her death bed. On a clear moment, this dying woman gives Jonathan a picture and an amber ornament for his collection. Watching the photograph, taken a long time ago, a young couple are seen together. Watching makes Jonathan think it shows the grandfather and his girlfriend, taken on happier times. Watching the snapshot seems to be the motivation for this intense young man to go looking for his ancestors' past in the Ukraine.

Jonathan has made arrangements with a travel agency, Heritage Tours, of Odessa for his trip to Trochenbrod, the mythical place where his grandfather came from. The agency is handled by an older man, who claims to be blind, and his grandson, Alex, a man who loves the pop American culture that has captured his imagination, as well as his contemporaries in the country. Alex speaks a kind of English no one speaks and his conversation and translation, for Jonathan's benefit are hilarious to our ear for the use of sometimes unheard English terms. The old man insists in taking his dog, Sammy Davis Jr., against the wishes of Jonathan, who doesn't want to sit next to the snarling and barking animal during the trip.

As they embark in search of Trochenbrod, it's clearly that his companions, especially the old man has no clue where he is going. At this point, the film becomes a road movie, as the three characters riding the back roads of the country become more acquainted with one another. As the trio arrive at the sunflower field with the house at the end, it indicates they have indeed come to the right place. Some places are a clear reminder of the conflicts of the past.

The older woman, living in the isolated place, is the missing link of the story. She is able to put things into the right perspective. But here is where the story changes its emphasis from Jonathan, who clearly has come to the land of his ancestors, to the old man. We watch as this older man starts remembering things about himself. This, in turn, changes the dynamic of the film as we discover how connected Jonathan and his guides have been all the time.

Some criticism in these pages have expressed opinions about the accuracy of the story, which after all, it's a work of fiction and liberties have been taken. It would have been impossible to make another film including so much that is contained in the book. The great way the film is divided into different chapters is a clever way to let the viewer know what's about to be seen.

Elijah Wood, a magnificent film actor, does an excellent work by underplaying Jonathan. Mr. Wood makes one of his best appearances in any film with his interpretation of the main character. The felicitous casting of Eugene Hutz as Alex, the Ukranian tour assistant and translator, seems to be an idea made in heaven. Mr. Hutz is about the best thing in the film. His arcane usage of English gives the film a funny angle that delights the viewer. Boris Leskin as Alex's grandfather and driver of the tour car makes a valuable contribution to the film, as well as Laryssa Lauret, who is seen in the last part of the movie.

The excellent cinematography of Matthew Libatique brings the splendor of the Czech Republic's countryside in all its magnificence. The musical score by Paul Cantelon is heard in the background adorning the film in ways that it adds a richness to the movie.

Above all, this is a triumph for Liev Schreiber, the first time director that will surely go far in whatever he decides to do next.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Actor turned director Liev Schreiber (The Sum of All Fears) does an above average screen version of the novel, Everything Is Illuminated, by author Jonathan Safran Foer. This tale of journey and self discovery is highlighted by strong ensemble performances and sharp direction with a storyline that enriches and enlightens the soul.

Jonathan Foer (Elijah Wood) is a young man who has seen his grandfather, Safran, pass away. Jonathan has a peculiar habit of taking small objects and life's little memorabilia and sealing them in plastic ziplock bags to display them on his wall. Safran gives Jonathan an old picture showing a young Safran standing next to a beautiful girl who saved his life many years ago. Thus Jonathan commences on a long journey to locate this mystery woman in the Ukraine not knowing if she is still alive. He enlists the help of a brash, young tour guide named Alex (Eugene Hutz) and his grandfather (Boris Leskin) to drive him to his goal. At first the trip hits dead ends and false leads, but as the group nears its target, the men find themselves amid the ruins of a dark chapter in history with the memories of war and the past ghosts of a nonexistent town. There, they find their own respective destinies and will be forever changed by what they learn.

This film feels like it was directed by someone who knew how to get the most from his actors. At times, the film is spoken in Russian and seems like a foreign film. The title itself is a play on self discovery. This is a thoughtful trek of one man into his past, and his past ironically involves his companions; Jonathan's obsessive journey becomes an emotional journey for Alex and his grandfather as well. It's a tale of bonding over the long haul and the guilt one must carry for a lifetime. By the end of the film, these characters have all experienced life altering events that will permanently intertwine their lives. It proves that memories can be powerful in traumatizing and also cleansing the soul. It's also about one's legacy and how others view an event or a person in the past. Alex eventually sees his grandfather in a completely different light. Even our perception of these individuals will have changed by film's end which is a tribute to a story that is well told.

The story is deceptively simple. It functions as a road trip movie (like The Straight Story) combined with an interesting mystery story. It really involves a great many layers of emotions and subplots that range from the past to the present. The ending is a bit surreal with its d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu feeling.

Elijah Wood (Sin City, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)) has chosen a wide range of roles ever since his splash in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Here, he does a fine job with what is essentially a minimalist role with not much to show. Eugene Hutz and Boris Leskin fare better as Alex and his grandfather respectively. Even the grandfather's dog named Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. (that's right) is funny as a fiercely loyal companion.

The spare music score by Paul Cantelon is a moody compliment to the thoughtful nature of the film. The editing is effective as imagery from past and present are linked and transitioned effortlessly. The cinematography by Matthew Libatique (Gothika, Requiem for a Dream) is appropriately stark and lifeless with some impressive images of war and its aftermath.

The coincidences that emerge during the last half of the film make for good drama but are a little too coincidental. We never fully understand the whole background story of Alex's grandfather and what his motivations are. Likewise, Jonathan's blank stares and lack of apparent substance and depth do not give us much more than a sketch of a quirky man. At times, the film feels a little downbeat and depressing as more horrific revelations are exposed. But these are minor criticisms of what is a good, introspective story with good performances and interesting themes of remembrance and closure. That Schreiber not only directed but adapted the screenplay to this worthwhile slice of history is a tribute to his talents and promising potential in the future.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Everything is Illuminated\" is a simplified interpretation of something more than half of the Jonathan Safran Foer novel. This version is more about changes in Eastern Europe from World War II through post-Cold War and how the younger generation relates to that history as a family memory.

Debut director\/adapter Liev Schreiber retains some of the humor and language clashes of the novel, mostly through the marvelous Eugene Hutz as the U.S.-beguiled Ukrainian tour guide. He is so eye-catching that the film becomes more his odyssey into his country and his family as he goes from his comfortable milieu in sophisticated Odessa to the heart of a cynical, isolated land that has been ravaged by conquerors through the Communists and now capitalists, with both Jews and non-Jews as detritus. As funny as his opening scenes are when he establishes his cheeky bravura, we later feel his fish-out-of-waterness in his own country when he tries to ask directions of local yokels.

Shreiber uses Elijah Wood, as the American tourist, as an up tight cog in a visual panoply, as his character is less verbal than as one of the narrators in the book. He and Hutz play off each other well until the conclusion that becomes more sentimental in this streamlined plot. Once the grandfather's story takes over in the last quarter of the film, marvelously and unpredictably enacted by Boris Leskin, the younger generation does not seem to undergo any catharsis, as they just tidy up the closure.

Schreiber does a wonderful job visualizing the human urge to document history. One of his consultants in the credits is Professor Yaffa Eliach and her style of remembering pre-Holocaust shtetl life through artifacts clearly inspired the look and it is very powerful and effective.

The Czech Republic stands in for the Ukraine and the production design staff were able to find memorable symbols of change in the cities, towns and countryside, as this is now primarily a road movie, and the long driving scenes do drag a bit. Schreiber retains some of the symbolism from the book, particularly of the moon and river, but having cut out the portions of the book that explain those, they just look pretty or ominous for atmosphere and no longer represent time and fate.

As W.C. Fields would have predicted, the dog steals most of his scenes for easy laughs. In general, Schreiber does go for more poignancy than the book. It is irresistibly touching, especially for those who haven't read the book, but less morally and emotionally messy.

The film is enormously uplifted by its marvelous soundtrack, which ranges from songs and instrumentals from Hutz's gypsy band to traditional tunes to contemporary tracks to Paul Cantelon's klezmer fusion score.

This is not a Holocaust film per se, being a kind of mirror image of \"The Train of Life (Train de vie)\" as about memory of a time that is freighted with meaning now, but will resonate more with those who have an emotional connection to that history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What an original piece of work. I've always enjoyed Liev Schreiber the \"actor\", but now one must appreciate the man on a multi-dimensional level . How did he get that field of sunflowers? Was it computerize, it sure looked real. And how do you audition a dog knowing you are going to get that kind of performance? Does the academy have a category for animals? I guess what I'm saying is that I really, really enjoyed this quirky, offbeat, little indie film. From the excellent cast (one would never know Eugene Hutz was not a pro actor) to the cinematographer (some beautiful shots) the music (bought the CD when exiting the theater) and of course the two \"D's\" (direction and the DOG). All in all a \"10\".

\/","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"2005 was one of the best year for movies. We had so many wonderful movies, like Batman Begins, Sin City, Corpse Bride, A History of Violence.....Coming up we also got Brokeback Mountain, King Kong....But if this year the only great movie that came out was Everything Is Illuminated, then we wouldn't miss all this year has brought. The first movie as a director of the talented Liev Schreiber is a delightful, heart-warming, touching drama that also brings one of Elijah Wood's best roles. He is perfect as Jonathan, a curious man that heads for Ukraine to find the woman who saved his Grandfather in World War II. Liev Schreiber, who also writes the movie, conducts a masterpiece, with memorable scenes and (a lot of) funny quotes. This here is a genuine mixture of Comedy with Drama, bringing a movie that will be commented years from now. A serious Oscar contender, Everything is Illuminated is a powerful, original, and, why not say, illuminated movie. But there's one thing you should remember while entering the movie: leave normal behind. This is special.------9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really liked this movie ... but the ads I saw implied, and one published review actually said, that this movie \"benefits from a light touch.\" That to me is very misleading.

There is indeed plenty of humor: eccentric, un-subtle, sometimes somewhat twisted humor: the kind of humor I generally find very appealing indeed. But most of the humor is the kind that appears conscious at all times of things deeply serious, deeply sensitive, even deeply painful. The movie weaves together themes of Past and Present, Perception and Truth, Memory and Activity, Life and Death. The entire movie is suffused by the history of European anti-Semiticism in general, and of the Holocaust in particular.

How can Humor and Horror be combined in the same movie? The review I saw suggested that the humor is Absurdist. I don't think this is the case at all; at least not in the common sense. Instead, I think this movie stands in the tradition of much Jewish \/ Yiddish literature and theatre. I don't claim to be any kind of expert in this area; but from what I've seen, Humor is used, in this cultural context, both as a coping tool for the horribly tragic experiences of this people; and also Humor is used as a means of \"recovering the Divine\" for men and women who choose a path of Faith rather than a path of either Despair or Absurdism. See \"Fiddler on the Roof\" for Humor used in both ways in this rich tradition.

Elijah Wood (Jonathon) Wood wears horn rimmed glasses that really make him look, well, strange: compare Sin City when he wore the same kinds of glasses with chilling effect. In this movie, it's easy to see how the glasses become a metaphor for both his Search and for his Struggle between Perception and Truth. Eugene Hutz (Young Alex) and Boris Lesking (Old Alex) are both really just wonderful. Jonathon and Young Alex are from the same generation, yet seem so very, very different; and then find that they are not so different after all. And the way in which the Apparent Narrative Voice changes gradually from that of Jonathon to that of Young Alex .. as a journey of intended discovery for Jonathon becomes one of discovery for both Young Alex and Old Alex ... is to me so very moving.

There are some wonderful scenes and panoramas from (I'm told) Prague and environs, standing in for the Ukraine of the story line. All feels very authentic and seems to give a wonderful sense of place; although I've never been myself to the Ukraine and can hardly testify to this from first hand experience.

All in all, if you're looking for light comedy, I would not recommend this movie at all. On the other hand, if you are interested in a wonderful, delightful, and deeply moving film, please, check out this wonderful movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILERS A Jewish Frodo? Yep, that'll be Elijah Wood again.

Ever since the concluding part of \"Lord of the Rings\", Elijah Wood as Frodo has found it increasingly difficult to get away from that major role. Playing a football hooligan, a psychopath and now a young Jewish American, Wood has tried any route he can to escape this typecasting. Now, with \"Everything Is Illuminated\" he might finally have achieved this. Playing a role which isn't as radical as other efforts, he truly gets to the soul of his character. Still, it isn't like Wood does this alone. Aided by a magnificent adaptation by first time directer Liev Schreiber and a wonderful performance by newcomer Eugene Hutz, Wood has found a magnificent production to spread his wings. \"Everything is Illuminated\" is a magnificent, moving piece of cinema.

Jonathan Safran Foer (Wood), a young American Jew, sets out to the Ukraine to find the mysterious girl who rescued his grandfather and helped him get to America. Arriving in the country, Jonathan meets the all talking, all dancing Alex (Hutz) and his racist grandfather (Boris Leskin). Travelling across the country, the three slowly learn more and more about the history and relations that Alex and Jonathan never knew existed.

It's a strange feeling when the film progresses into it's second chapter (it is actually divided into four overall). The first part, whilst occasionally a bit funny, is mostly serious and intense. So when we are given a brief history of Alex and his family in the second part, to switch from serious to hilarious is a weird step. It doesn't quite work, but as the film progresses, it definitely learns it's lesson as this mix of humour and sadness merges finer as time passes.

To the ultimate credit of everyone involved, as the story does continue, so do we begin to fall for the characters more and more. Elijah Wood is magnificent, Boris Leskin is so intense and strong that it raises questions why Hollywood has never properly noticed him. Most notable of all however is newcomer Eugene Hutz. Playing an intensely troubled character, Hutz is absolutely brilliant. He shows the split between his relatives and the real world with almost perfect skill, and when his character is communicating with Wood, you genuinely connect with him on a deeper level. Without Hutz, the story is so strong that the film would still be magnificent, but with him, it hits the next level.

As a debut work for actor turned director Liev Schreiber, the story is also a brilliant piece to start. A work of passion (Schreiber's grandfather himself an immigrant to America), he manages to truly embrace the emotion of the content, and by presenting us with some truly beautiful scenery and some magnificent shots, he manages to really hit home. The final half hour in particular is so beautifully created, that it's a challenge for a tear not to form in any viewers eye. It is a moving story, and with Schreiber's help, it becomes even more powerful.

Constructed with love from a passionate director, \"Everything is Illuminated\" is a beautiful piece. A road story with a difference, it is magnificently acted and wonderfully written. It's a film that everyone should see, and it is the perfect way for Elijah Wood to finally lay Frodo to rest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In America, the Jewish Jonathan Safran Foer (Elijah Wood) collects personal belongings of his family for recollection. A few moments before dying, his grandmother gives an old photograph of his grandfather with a woman called Augustine in Ukraine. Jonathan contacts the Odessa Heritage Tours, a family agency in Ukraine, to guide him to the location where the picture had been taken to find Augustine, and together with the interpreter Alex (Eugene Hutz), his grandfather and a weird dog, they travel in an old car searching the missing past of Jonathan's family.

\"Everything Is Illuminated\" is a strange movie about a weird young man with the compulsive behavior of collecting souvenirs from his family to not forget them that seeks the past of his grandfather to understand how could be his life if his grandfather had not moved to USA. This bizarre vegetarian character meets a dysfunctional Ukrainian family that owns an amateurish travel agency specialized in helping Jews to find missing relatives, and together they have an almost surrealistic road-trip through the country of Ukraine. The movie begins like a comedy, with a sarcastic black humor, and ends in a touching and tragic drama recommended for specific audiences. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"Uma Vida Iluminada\" (\"An Illuminated Life\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie on an Alaska Airlines flight, and have since seen it twice more. It simply is -- and is simply -- one of the best films in years. I found myself having enjoyed it after my first viewing, but a little cloudy on what had happened. After seeing it again a few weeks later, things began to fall into place. It wasn't confusing, just deep. In fact, the depth of the movie may not be appreciated for a long time. For example, it occurred to me only after my third viewing that Sammy Davis Jr Jr (Grandfather's dog) is more than just a pet -- perhaps she's the stand-in for his dead wife. Witness how fiercely he protects her. There is symbolism galore, and none of it sappy or indulgent, just real. The adventure of their trip keeps the story-line in perpetual motion, and even when they arrive, you're not sure if it really was the destination. As the movie continues, so does the adventure and I got the sense the destination was merely a way-point. The sound-track is fun, the scenery compelling -- and both decidedly eastern-block. I could go on and on about the deeper meanings within the film, but I'm not entirely sure I've discovered all the nuances yet. Besides, it's more fun to tease these out yourself. As much as any film can be, \"Everything Is Illuminated\" has proved to be like a fine wine that sweetens with time. I highly recommend seeing it -- twice.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everything Is Illuminated A young Jewish American searches for the woman that helped his grandfather escape Nazi persecution while embarking on a cross-European tour with some unlikely associates.

Liev Schreiber makes his directorial debut with a playful angst usually associated with his acting ethos. When successful actors decide to sit in the director's chair, we usually get a biographical glimpse at the souls beneath the acting mask- Check. We usually get a mishmash of genres- Check. But what we normally do not get is an insightful original film which is credible, intelligent and moving.

Elijah Wood plays Jonathan, an inquisitive young boy who collects pieces of life as he goes. He is on a mission to find a woman in a photograph. The sepia picture bears his grandfather (an uncanny resemblance to him) and the woman. To aid his journey he enlists the help of travel guides that comprise of a Hip-Hop loving break-dancer, Alex (Eugene Hutz), his apathetic and perma-vexed grandfather (Boris Leskin) and his dog- Sammy Davis Junior Jr! What ensues is essentially a comedy. There is an un-patronisingly simple introduction with voice-overs. Alex's is especially funny as he educates his younger brother on the year 1969, proving how popular he is with the chicks and break-dancing thus setting him up as Jonathan's antithesis.

Schreiber begins to break down the characters as they progress and the comedy acts as an intentional veil to what is a story about three people linked to the holocaust who do not really know themselves. All three hold the film with tenderness and authenticity something Schreiber was unlikely to get wrong and as enchanting and fantastical as the film is, the horrors that are allowed to crack through, i.e. the past are presented in an almost palatable tone (incidental music, cinematography) which make them all the more unsettling.

As the unlikely group finally find the town they seek they learn of the true atrocities that occurred and find out a lot about who they really are.

Elijah wood is as authentic as usual, bringing his usual innocence and strength to the screen. Formally a resident good in Lord of the Rings and a resident evil in Sin City he plays Jonathan with aplomb as he is bombarded with culture shocks and a quest for truth. Boris Leskin as the grandfather also delivers his angst and frustration at the youths with great humour and conviction as his own past is unravelled. However, it is Eugene Hutz as Alex that makes the show. The director using that old trade of translation misunderstandings to create and maintain a humour that is actually funny and not gimmicky.

Schreiber has delivered an enchanting debut that has both heart and soul. The continuous score and beautiful photography creates a fairy tale haze around a story about identity, truth and family. If there was a complaint, it would be the speed at which the film changes direction; though this could have been intentional it may not sit well with all. Nevertheless this is a sterling effort that delivers great comedy and bonding between an unlikely group while dissecting another aspect of the horrors of World War 2 in a completely fresh fashion.

-Chi&Ojo","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you've ever been to Ukraine, this movie is absolutely hilarious. From teenagers wearing gold chains, listening to hip hop and break dancing on the side to jokes about air bags in cars and waitresses in total shock over meeting a vegetarian, this movie really captures bits and pieces of Ukraine that you would never know unless you went there. I spent most of the movie nodding my head and thinking, \"Yep. That's exactly right.\" It's a lot of fun if you understand Russian too because the subtitles just don't always do it justice. The actors are so believable and Elijah Wood does a great job playing a socially inept Jewish kid. My favorite character is definitely Sammy Davis Jr. Jr., the grandfather's \"seeing eye dog\" who is really a psychopathic border collie. The characters are so eclectic and likable that you believe that they are real people.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having not read the book, I was more open to the fresh interpretation that each director gives to their medium (which is film, not \"to the letter\" reproductions of literature)on this particular film. I was happy that the holocaust that occurred in Russia (and it's neighboring countries) finally received some attention. The Nazis were particularly cruel to Russians and Russian Jews. If you read the histories and see the monuments built in Smolensk and nearby regions you will understand this movie and why many kept silent when they should've spoken up.

It was certainly time for this to be chronicled and I hope that more stories will come out of this. It's high time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this last night and voted it an \"8\". Since then, it's grown on me and I'd give it a \"9\".

The film has (at first) a seemingly slightly disconnected facade between the first and second halves. The first half is a comedy and there's little hint of the ragged truths of eras, life, wars, religious intolerance that will become revealed in the second half. While at first it may be a little disconcerting because it's a slightly unfamiliar narrative sequence, on reflection it works.

The acting was good (Hultz in the role of Alex, the interpreter, was especially great).

I've scanned most other \"User Comments\" and see that some who've read the book are pleased with the movie while there are a few who are not. Both feelings, of course, are valid.

For me, a retired family therapist and one-world believer, the film was relevant on two different levels.

The first, as history, gave a powerful reminder of how commonly polarizations happen -- with demonizing and trying to exterminate any of those with a smidge different moral value system than our own.

The second was that in demonstrating the first, it also revealed something in common to EACH of us, ALL our families -- that each of us must go back to our roots to more fully understand ourselves.

T.S. Eliot expressed this exquisitely in the 4th of his \"Four Quartets\" when he said: -- \"We shall not cease from exploration\/\/ And the end of all our exploring\/\/ Will be to arrive where we started\/\/ And know the place for the first time.\"

Jonathan goes on a fulfilling journey that any of us would find fantastically illuminating -- to explore and discover our roots; what were those people going through then, who were they -- really! -- before, when, and during the early years before and after we were born? Etc.

So the film at first gives us the impression of a comedy, then shifts to give us a lesson in history and human deficiencies, but through all that it also gives us -- subliminally -- a message about each of ourselves. All of us would be abundantly rewarded to go back and understand the place from which we first started.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was one if not the best movie I've seen in the past year I highly recommend it it starts off as a very funny movie but as the film progress's turns into so much more. do yourself a favor and see this film. I saw a screener of this movie but I am going to buy it not only for myself but for several true film fans i have the unfortunate feeling this great film will be widely unrecognized as is the case with so many other non commercial films this is a comedic yet heart wrenching movie it will make you laugh it will make you cry it will make you think and yes you will think about it when its over and isn't that what a good movie is!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was amazing. I was a bit skeptical since I really had no idea what it was about, but it was beautiful story. I cried a lot and I also laughed out loud.

I think it is very important that there are movies being created that are about the Holocaust and how it affects people (It only happened 60 years ago!) I have been to Germany and Eastern Europe and I have studied the Holocaust, so this film meant a lot to me. I think this film did an amazing job capturing this story (I wont go into detail, I do not want to spoil it) But I definitely recommend it for anyone looking for a movie that, I know this may sound clich\u00e9', but will change your mindset on things.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a beautiful, yet simple movie about one man, driven to find an answer, an answer he doesn't necessarily need but has structured his whole life around. It is heartrending, it is hilarious, it is glorious, it is tormenting, it is delicate and dynamic, I say it's genius.

I have read Jonathan Safran Foer's book Everything is Illuminated (mainly because I heard Elijah Wood was starring in the movie adaptation), and I was just enraptured by the characters. I laughed out loud more than once. And every time someone talks about what it's about, I hear the same hackneyed response, almost like it's one big long word: \"It'saboutaguylookingforthewomanwhosavedhisgrandpafromtheNazis.\" Yet, this story is so philosophical; it goes deeper than that. That conversation about the ring and \"in case.\" It really gets one thinking. Suddenly, this story merges from a simple quest to an inner metamorphosis, and I find myself looking at things a bit differently now.

I recommend renting this before, if ever, reading it, because the book had many obscene, downright perverted stories that were not included in the movie, mainly the history of Jonathan's family that was not necessary for the film.

A bit of trivia, I heard, is that Wood's current girlfriend has a cameo in this flick as the drummer in the band that Alex arranges to perform as Jonathan steps off the train into Ukraine.

You spend half of the movie trying to figure out what it's about, exactly, and what Jonathan is about, because his character is so withdrawn, like a turtle in a shell.

It is magnificent, and in my opinion, one of Elijah Wood's best movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie reminds me of 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' and 'Garden State' not because of content, but because it is one of those movies that you don't hear about except through word of mouth, or you read the back of the DVD at the video store and think \"why not\". Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised (like the aforementioned films) at how good it was and how much I enjoyed it.

Best seen with little knowledge of the movie and with only intrigue guiding you to actually watch it. Also best seen with someone else or if you know someone else that has seen it - you will want to talk about it!! It's a beautiful film that stays with you well after you watch it. It's also an intelligent watch that requires little effort into figuring out parts for yourself.

Just enjoy :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie \"Everything is Illuminated\" comes from first-time writer-director Liev Schreiber, adapting Jonathan Safran Foer's first novel. The book was ambitious and sprawling, its magical-realist elements and vivid use of language seemingly impossible to represent on screen. The movie, wisely, attempts less. While the end result is not as wildly original as the novel, it's still an accomplished movie about a strange Eastern European road trip, or, as one of the characters would have it, \"a very rigid search.\"

That character is Alex (Eugene Hutz), a young Ukrainian man who loves American pop culture but can't seem to get the English language straight. Nevertheless, his grandfather (Russian actor Boris Leskin), who runs a tour company catering to American Jews, convinces him to serve as a translator for Jonathan (Elijah Wood). Jonathan is investigating his family history, and specifically trying to find the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis. More than one family secret gets revealed during their quest.

The movie's Jonathan (not to be confused with the author of the novel) is a semi- kleptomaniacal weirdo who steals his own grandmother's dentures to add to his collection of \"family things\". Wood's quiet, wide-eyed, earnest manner works very well in this role. Hutz makes an impressive debut as the loose-limbed, easygoing Alex. His malapropisms are hilarious, but he is also able to pull off the character's growing self-awareness. The dog Mikki is very funny as the demented Sammy Davis Jr. Jr., and one of the few movie dogs I've ever seen that isn't cloyingly cute and precocious.

\"Everything is Illuminated\" eventually puts the Holocaust on a human scale, asking us to remember it not as a general event, but as millions of specific, small tragedies. Reminiscent of a European movie, it also ponders the effect of past events on present-day young people like Jonathan and Alex. With its original perspective, strong performances and some very striking visuals, \"Everything is Illuminated\" is great work for a first-timer, and hopefully Schreiber will continue to direct movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Everything is Illuminated\" is like viewing a fine piece of museum quality artwork. It absolutely inundates the emotions through a very broad spectrum. Jonathan Safran Foer is played with candor by Elijah Wood. He is in search of his paternal heritage in the Ukraine. His travels bring him in contact with Alex, played very well and with extreme humor by Eugene Hutz. His grandfather is the most emotional tie to this film and he is aptly portrayed by Boris Leskin. If one finds little humor in the human characters in this cinema, then one has only to turn to Mikke, a real dog who is called Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. by Alex and his grandfather. They also call him the \"seeing eye bitch\". The cinematography is spectacular. The colors are a very important part of the patchwork of the film. It is a film worth the time and emotional investment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i went to see this because i have some friends in the ukraine. but the film moved me beyond what i expected by turning out to be a perfect blend of belly holding laughs (alex's strange use of English) situational comedy and heaviness bordering on depressing. i loved the range. it made me want to jump in to an old car and hit the road for the ukraine. alex (hutz) plays his guide part perfectly and provides a great counterpoint to elijah woods' poker faced earnestness. the film shows the positive side of humanity when ppl of differing cultures can bond and do the right thing when they feel the sincerity of the situation, even when they went into it with preconceived notions and prejudices, and how this can open up doorways into deeply buried memories. there is a lot in this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellence seems to come rare in Hollwood today. Many consider just two out of the year's best picture nominees to display sense to the movie industry. And in 'Everything is Illuminated,' the mark is hit directly.

The film initiates its brilliance with the beautiful setting-the-scene entry. From the beginning, you receive a sense of warmth and true family connections and relations between one and another. And also, the cast is introduced perfectly. For Elijah Wood's character, Jonathon, his sensibility is expressed through holding his dying grandmother's hand. And for the character entitled Alex, it is easy to see his life in his perspective - the true Ukrainian rock star. With the cast illuminated at first, the story slowly eases into our minds as Jonathon decides to venture to Ukraine to meet the woman believed to save his grandfather, thus the entire family. And from there, the story movies slowly, yet kept at a fast pace from the contrast of tear-dripping drama and laugh-out-loud humor included in scene-by-scene, every scene.

Although the movie itself is rather awarding, there are several complaints from other sources commenting about Liev Schrieber's inaccurate adaptation of the Jonathon Safron Foer novel. Personally, I have never read the novel. But any movie, especially this movie in particular should not be graded on whether the storyboard of the film matches the storyline of the book, but rather how the major concepts from the novel were expressed and exploited through the film. Just because it may be far-fetched from the novel does not mean that this film is no longer a must-see - it still is.

Throughout the film, new information inundates the audience's mind very slowly. Some of these thoughts are never answered; and in fact, the second half of the movie refocuses its entire topic and reason of travel through Ukraine onto something different, yet rather similar to the original intentions of this film. The film does however leave you on a satisfied note - yet to the weak-hearted souls, a tear may be dropped. And throughout the film. to the saneful people with common sense of humor may just have to laugh from Alex and John's fun and ongoing conversations.

I would recommend this film to several different types of people: to those whom enjoy movies that share the genre drama-comedy, for those who have an interest in family connections, and to those whom have an interest in Holocaustic subjects. And to those insane people who find slapstick as hilarious comedy, this movie is not for you. And for you whom think that this is a seriously funny and absolutely ingeniously funny film, you are wrong; this film shares comedic moments and dramatic sequences. And to those whom judge a movie based on their likeliness with its corresponding novel, you may or may not enjoy this film, but this film should be taken for much more than whether or not it was close to the book.

All in all, 'Everything is Illuminated' is an ingenious piece of work that will enlighten anyones' hearts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let me start by saying that Liev has gained a ton of respect from me after seeing his directorial debut \"Everything Is Illuminated\". Anyone who has read the book knows how saturated the story is with nonsensical and hilarious vocabulary by Alex along with countless flashback scenes and crazy dreamlike sequences. Liev took all of this and made it work. The movie itself is great - the soundtrack, the performances, the cinematography - it all works. There is a lot of story missing about the town and its inhabitants, but there's only so much you can do with an indie, so this part of it didn't bother me too much. It's just disappointing that not a lot of people will see this movie or even know that it exists because of the lack of promotion that came with it. I didn't even know it was in theatres. I didn't know when the DVD came out. You'd think that since Frodo Baggins was one of the main characters, SOMEBODY wouldve at least released a commercial for it. I had to see the trailer on my \"Paradise Now\" DVD (released on DVD in the Spring of '06) to even know that it had a \"Fall of 2005\" theatrical release date. Haha - sad really.

Anyhow, if you stumble across this review somehow because one of your friends read the book and loved it or saw the movie and are recommending that you see it - take my advice and watch it. It's a very good experience.

8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being an Israeli Jew of naturally sarcastic nature as well as a lover of different and independent cinema, it always gives me pleasure to see a film that takes a view on the holocaust that's sensitive and respectful while also being original and unusual. While I haven't read the book \u0096 or, for that matter, heard of its existence prior to watching the film \u0096 and therefore cannot, like some other reviewers, comment on how they stack up in comparison, Everything Is Illuminated gave me great pleasure, and I can certainly comment on that.

To label Everything Is Illuminated a holocaust film would be to do it great injustice, even though it is undeniably about the holocaust. So would labeling it as a comedy or a travel film, although it's about a journey and is as exceptionally funny as it is moving. Everything Is Illuminated is about Jonathan Safran Foer \u0096 played to minimalist perfection by Elijah Wood, in the most impressive dramatic performance I've seen him in yet, with a poker face that shows nothing and reveals all \u0096 a young American Jew, and an obsessive collector of family heirlooms and historical artifacts, who travels to the Ukraine on a journey to find the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis. It's also about Alex, his tour guide through the Ukraine, and Alex's grandfather. What's fascinating about these characters is that in the beginning of the film they look like comic relief to balance out the melancholy nature of Wood's character; but both Alex and his grandfather go through fascinating changes throughout the film, and turn out to be at least as important as Jonathan. In fact, Boris Leskin's as the grumpy, self-declared blind grandfather turns out to be the finest dramatic performance in the film.

Aside from the surreal nature of the film and the characters, the beautiful mix of original acoustic music and Russian folk music, the sensitive cinematography and the chilling contrast between the beauty of the landscapes and the horrors of history, what made Everything Is Illuminated a powerful and moving experience for me was the fact that from Alex and his grandfather we get a very different and original viewpoint on this painful subject; several excellent films, such as The Grey Zone and Downfall, have already given us the point of view of the lower-rank Nazis who are presented as human beings who aren't necessarily fully aware of the moral implications of their actions but are caught up in the reality of the war. Everything Is Illuminated presents a point of view rarely treated before: Alex's point of view is that of a young man who was born many years after the war, who sees it as hardly more than cold historical fact, who finds himself having to face up to the horrors his own people \u0096 and maybe his own family as well \u0096 were capable of. The change in Alex's attitude \u0096 and his grandfather's \u0096 towards Jonathan, towards the Holocaust, and towards the Jewish people in general, makes the film a fascinating and original study in character development.

Everything Is Illuminated is a terrific directorial debut for actor Liev Schreiber, and one of the most original and unique films of 2005. It's a highly recommended viewing experience, especially or anyone interested in the holocaust and World War II.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before you watch this movie - clean your ears, take away the make-up from your eyes and tell your girlfriend to stop kissing you. She doesn't have to. This picture will give you both warmth enough to keep your relationship life-long enough. If you're Jew\/Russian\/Ukrainian\/immigrant - yes, what popular-movie-minority so ever - laugh within your memories. If you're something else or whatever your are anyway - laugh for the bittersweet memory of importance of friendship and family. It this movie, nothing will seem strange how ever strange it may seem. Still, I'm afraid that few will see this movie, because it's not the type of picture people watch when they go to movies. But please, do it for the humanity, and don't forget to get the soundtrack, for pleasure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw this movie, I had thought that it was going to be a terrible upset, being directed by first-time director Liev Schrieber. What I saw in the next 130 minutes completely and utterly changed my mind. Based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, Everything is Illuminated tells the story of a young Jewish-American collector(masterfully played by Elijah Wood)who is trying to find the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis in WWII. He travels to Germany and enlists in the help of a 20-something, club hitting translator and his grandfather. This results in a rigid search across the country, and they are determined to find what they are looking for. Shot in some of the most beautiful countryside in the world, Everything Is Illuminated delivers tension between the translator and his grandfather, and of the help that Jonathan needs to find his quarry. There is much religious matter as well, as the grandfather refers to Jonathan as \"The Jew.\" All in all, This is a movie that deals with finding yourself and loving family. I give this wonderful, if not illuminated movie, a 10 out of 10.-Arjun","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The slightly overlong set up episode of the previous week paid off in no uncertain terms with an episode that hit the heights. There was a certain deus ex machina flavour to the resolution of the cliffhanger, but it was a good start for all that. As is now common with this Doctor the moral, ethical and emotional considerations of his actions were centre stage. They were always there in the classic series, but they were a side issue, to be glossed over when the Doctor was in the heat of battle. This regeneration even says sorry to a cyberman during the battle! This episode finally shows Mickey embracing the heroic side that had been hinted at in previous episodes. His journey from zero to hero is complete, and it has been an utterly convincing one. With scares, humour and scenes that brought a lump to your throat this episode had everything. After much consideration I can finally say that the new series betters the classic series in every single respect. Coming from a die hard Whovian you can get no better recommendation than that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once again, Doctor Who delivers the goods by the bucket load. It has humour (\"You're just making it up as you go along!\" \"Yup, but I do it brilliantly\"), action, monsters (in this case still more kick-ass cybermen), tragedy and scare tactics. In short, just what the doctor ordered (pun intended). The way that the emotions move from one to the other is done so well that there is no feeling of \"get on with it\". So, chalk up 3 out of the last 4 episodes that have made you laugh, then made you cry, and made you go \"eek\".

In terms of character development, this is clearly the clincher for Noel Clarke's Mickey (and Ricky). Being one of the Doctor's companions, you know that he will do the right thing, and may even suspect the manner that he does it. However, it is still an emotional wrench when he confirms his future path.

While \"The rise of the Cybermen\" had more of the sinister build up to terror, \"The Age of Steel\" is an all out blast. Like \"Alien\" compared to \"Aliens\" - both true classics, but in different ways. Can the series keep it up at this level? Let's hope so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Age of Steel follows up the previous episode, Rise of the Cybermen, which was excellent in some respects, lacking in others. RotC had some positive elements, the most important being Tennant's excellent portrayal of the Doctor. Indeed, his sort of daft giddiness bears, to this writer, the shadow of Tom Baker's Doctor, with his sort of subconscious asides (as when ticking off time periods when Mickey is holding down the button in the Tardis), yet brings his own aloof superiority a la McCoy's Doctor as he lets events coalesce around him. Some reviewers and fans whose pieces I've read seem a bit dismayed at having such a young actor portray someone who must by now be over a 1000 old, but I disagree. Tennant's Doctor does indeed \"bear the weight of the world on his shoulders\" as he points out in this episode, and one can see this in his almost smug characterization, as when he finally confronts Lumic\/The Cybercontroller in the climax. His world-weary, eyes-rolling \"anothermaniacherewegoagain\" sort of attitude is refreshing, especially after Eccleston's excellent pseudo-working class, bada** interpretation of the character, more the man of action than Tennant's fresh-faced pseudo-doofus. Tennant's best moment is perhaps after the end when he is restoring the Tardis with his big goofy Baker-esquire grin as the Tardis re-starts. Here we begin to get a feeling for this new Doctor, a character who is little more than the average person's different personality facets split up into 13 different people; some contradictory, some more likable than others, yet all forming part of a whole. This aside, these two episodes were passable, but weak. The concept of reviving the Cybermen is much welcomed, and they look fantastic, but the plot involving a parallel Earth where this action takes place doesn't seem to work right. True, the allegory here of humans' reliance on technology and their need to serve it, as the Doctor points out, is outstanding, but this could easily have been placed on contemporary Earth or thereabouts. Some other weak spots are, as others have pointed out, the ease with which the Doctor and Co. get out of the tight spots, viz. the death ray from the Tardis component, the seemingly endless array of uses of the Sonic Screwdriver (my wife laughed when they were using it to burn through the rope ladder at the end; she has barely watched Who, so I had to explain that it was used traditionally as a plot device to extricate the characters from situations from which there is no other escape! Used here sadly). Some of the acting was wanting, especially Mickey, who really needs his due, and some of the supporting cast. Lumic was creepy, as he needed to be, his voice even sounded Cyberman-esquire. The score was horrific, though, with the music's volume often swamping out the scene. Overall, I found Rise of the Cyberman more entertaining, though the second half was passable. The build-up to what we knew was inevitable plays out well, however the resolution was disappointing. Too many unlikely escapes, no development of the supporting cast, and not enough Tennant in my opinion. This new show is outstanding, and Davies is taking it in a good direction, but the dialogue (beyond the Doctor's) needs to be tightened up, as Mickey's farewells illustrate, which were pure ham.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beginning where it left off, Doctor Who, Rose, her alternative dad, Mickey, his alternative counterpart Ricky, and Mickey's small gang of rebels find themselves at the mercy of this realities version of the Cybermen, this second part of the 2 episode Cybermen arc feels more like a Doctor Who episode, as opposed to the previous part which honestly felt like more of an episode of the defunct show \"Sliders\", which granted was a great show in it's own right. The arc as a whole was enjoyable enough as I'm one to subscribe to the maxim that ANY Who is good Who, but at the same time it's inevitable that this will be compared to the Dalek episode of the previous series. And said comparisons would only make this seem like a lesser work, as it is. I just feel that this story could've been done in one episode. Remember in the first part of the review I said that these type of stories dealing with alternative realities usually have no lasting repercussions, well that's not the case here, but what changes overall feels tagged on and not really in keeping with the character.

My Grade: C+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay so there were the odd hole in the plot you could drive a zeppelin through, but how well was the emotional stuff handled? It would have been so easy to descend into cheesiness but the writer pulled it off. The image of the ex female cyberman making crying noises as she\/it saw her reflection after regaining her emotions is one that will stay with me forever. That's twice now the monsters have shown a soft side and been presented fleetingly sympathetically, the previous being the last Dalek from series one, but by Jove it's worked. Add to that the other ex-female who had been \"upgraded\" on the eve of her wedding, and Jackie Tyler recognising her husband after she had become \"cyber\" and you have a permanent throat lump. Keep it up!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best episodes of Doctor Who EVER. We have the Cybermen, The Cyber conversion units (May scare young children) and of coarse the Doctor doing one of his best acts. Bravo David Tennant. Good scenes as if it was a movie, with thrilling scenes in some streets, an invasion on the Cyberman's base, and leaving the world different to ours, basically a 45 minute movie.

Being Part 2 of Rise of the Cybermen, this would never disappoint. With it having a great build up to the final.

The Doctor plus an evil enemy (Daleks, Cybermen, Master, Sontarans, Davros, Autons, or even Macra) is a battle to the death, just be careful with young children watching this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'd like to point out these excellent points in favor of this movie:

#1 Angelina Jolie sex scene

#2 Foley artist outdid themselves

#3 plot was quite thick

#4 DVD does includes trailers and chapter stops

#5 no animals were harmed in the making of the movie

#6 homages to blade runner through out the film

#7 burning trash cans

#8 funny guy with no legs

#9 Voice overs by Jack Palance added a real dynamic element to the film.

#10 Sage advise, for example \"When you dine with the devil bring a long spoon\".

#11 Angelina Jolie was only 18!

To sum it up: an evening of entertainment was provided.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was just looking at the 100 bottom movies according to IMDb users seeing if there was anything to review that I haven't yet and I found this little screen gem. One of those occasions when you see a movie ranked as one of the worst and you just have to be one of the few that actually likes it. Darn, well I guess I will get ridiculed and spat upon here, but for me this was a pretty good flick when I saw it. It has been awhile however, I remember it used to come on HBO late at night and I watched it two or three times and I haven't seen it really since and I would love to watch it again now knowing Jolie was in it. The story follows a cyborg and a guy trying to escape the clutches of this corporation and some bounty hunters after them. I think that is basically all there is to it, throw in a few scenes with Jack Palance and we have our movie. Some good action here and there, and some blood and violence as well. There is also a love story at play as well as the female cyborg and the guy who trained her to fight kind of fall in love with each other. The dialog sometimes becomes rather bad at times and it is by far not a top notch film, but for a b-movie it is really good. I don't know if it was a theatrical release though because it does not seem high quality enough for that, but it does make for one of the better direct to videos if it was one of those.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This sci-fi great fortunately has little to do with the first one. Elias Koteas,Jack Palance play good roles Angelina is hot and gets naked.Billy Drago appears in this and is cool as usual + a cameo by Sven ole Thorsen helps make this a very enjoyable movie with good acting and a decent budget.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this movie late night on TV, and was expecting a low-budget campy \"masterpiece\", I was surprised with a pretty decent movie. Angelina Jolie's unique acting capabilities (or should I say lack thereof?) make her perfect as an android, and the other actors, while terribly average, are at least not terrible.

There is a plot; a fairly intricate plot at that, involving conspiracies and the lengths a couple (one human, one android) will go to pursue their illegal romance, with a \"big brother\"-type figure and android assassin thrown in the mix. The production and sets, also, were much better than I expected. I haven't seen the original Cyborg, so I can't really compare it to much else; granted this film is no Blade Runner, but as a late-night, futuristic guilty pleasure, its worth a watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a pretty good movie that was overall done quite well. The idea about Mercy (won't spoil) was original also. I think Angelina did a good job as one of her first movies. The only things I frowned upon were some of the corny fight scenes (won't spoil either). I liked the first movie and I liked this one as well. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Is this a good movie? No, certainly not. But for Jolie lovers it's must-have. Her non-polished acting and semi-nudity scene will please her fans for ages to come. The current rating however (3.2) is too low. The movie might lack a good storyline, and isn't a great sf-movie altogether but the acting is good enough (and like mentioned before, Jolie's acting is nice and raw), the movie is shot very direct, with a lot of close-ups. The scenery is bizarre. And last but not least, leaving van Damme out was a very good choice. Presumably, non of the Jolie lovers would like to see her having sex with him. This movie has all the potential of becoming a cult movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a pretty clever, well-acted version of the \"modern\" 30s woman's fairytale romance. In this case, she helps the man she loves become head of the company while serving as his secretary and eventually wins his love from a scheming social butterfly. Interestingly, her business sense is shown as subtly parallel to her homemaking prowess, and the ladies of the office are depicted as the \"powers behind the throne.\" Lifted way above the average by Mrs. Astor's intelligent performance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Terrific little film that stars Mary Astor as a go-getter who works her way up as a struggling paper company, but when the owner has to sell for health reasons, she comes up with a scheme for the employees to buy the company with a jerk salesman (Robert Ames) as the \"front\" even though she is the brains.

Of course he becomes a big success and she becomes his executive secretary, basically still running everything and teaching him class. She loves the dope, but he never catches on as he fools around with a string of bimbos. She is chased by a married but separated man, Ricardo Cortez, who isn't free. But when a society gal catches Ames, everything goes to hell.

Astor is just wonderful as the too-smart woman who almost makes a huge mistake after she loses her man. Ames is good as the jerk (but what does she see in him?), and Cortez is good but doesn't have much to do. Kitty Kelly is good as the sidekick, Dolores. Charles Sellon is the original owner, Cather Dale Owen is the society babe, and Edna Murphy is funny as Daisy.

Worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I tivo'd this on Turner Classic just because it was pre-code and sounded interesting. When I got around to watching, I noticed that the \"critique\" gave it one and a half stars on a four-star scale. I started watching with trepidation -- even old movies can be bad movies -- but I quickly got engaged in the story and Mary Astor's performance as the business brains behind a simple salesman's rise to success. Not a truly great movie -- too predictable -- but certainly better than advertised. And I would have liked to have seen more of Ricardo Cortez as the man who appreciates Mary but won't give up his wealthy wife. I'd recommend giving it a look just to appreciate Astor and what a long way we've come, baby.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There's a good running bit about the price tag of a silk negligee. The bimbo in the office shows off the bargain she got for $22 (closeup of tag). Later, Mary Astor finds the tag in the boss's bedroom (proof that bimbo slept with him). Still later, Mary Astor is about to have an affair with Ricardo Cortez, looks at the price tag of HER silk negligee ($14) and is reminded of how disgusted she was about the bimbo, as well as the fact that she's spent $8 less than the \"most obvious\" woman she's ever met. It sounds an obvious morality turn, but it was well done. The film would be stronger if Robert Ames' character had been played by a more powerful actor (he's too low-key for a self-made salesman and he spends most of the film with his face turned away from the camera), and if Ricardo Cortez had been given more to do than smile ironically. Both male leads are bland and forgettable, and are hindered by the pancake male makeup so popular in this film's era. However, the Mary Astor character is interesting, appealing and believable. Behind Closed Doors is well worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cannot understand why this 1971 Hollywood production is currently only available through an Australian video company,but such is the unfortunate obscurity of this Peter Sellers classic(Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide continues to grant it the same BOMB review they gave it in the 1970's).With so many scene stealers on display,Sellers comes through with what may perhaps be his most hilarious role.It all begins with his discovery of a patient who expired at 11:15AM,but Sellers argues that the corpse is still living due to the fact that the new day doesn't start until noon! The final straw for the beleaguered hospital commissioner comes in that very room,the DO NOT DISTURB sign still on the door; once he exits the room(handkerchief holding his nose),there is a brief conversation with the doctor with him- DOCTOR:\"We can't save them all! That man was at least 85! COMMISSIONER: \"How old was he when he died,63?\" Harold Gould plays an inept surgeon who shuts his eyes when the knife digs in,Richard Lenz(whose \"pompous ass\" reporter in \"The Shootist\" was booted in the rear by John Wayne)plays the patient who exposes the fraud(he only came in for a chest x-ray,until they discovered he owns a house).Also in the cast on screen(and supplying some excellent country-flavored music)is Keith Allison,former guitarist for Paul Revere and the Raiders,who also worked with Michael Nesmith on a few Monkees recordings(and co-wrote \"Auntie's Municipal Court\" with Nesmith on 1968's \"The Birds,the Bees,and the Monkees\").Alas,there is some missing footage from this print,including a topless sequence with Uschi Digard near the end,also a scene with actress Kathleen Freeman(who wants to use green stamps to finance her operation),who gets locked by Sellers in his office,never to be seen again(in the uncut version,he returns to his office to find that she has written in large letters on the wall \"UNFAIR PRICK\" ; his response? \"you misspelled price!\").","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though often considered Peter Sellers' worst film, it is in fact an excellent send-up of medical corporate corruption and abuses of power. Often misunderstood, the film is actually a departure from the type of film Sellers was best known for; satirical farce. This film had excellent performances by Jo Ann Pflug and Pat Morita (of Happy Days and the Karate Kid movies), but was marked by its ribaldary, irreverence, and total madcap demolition of the medical industry of the day. It was ahead of its time (1972) in taking the outrageous path that the Monty Python crew would take into the cinema some time later. As such, it was unacceptable to the traditional Peter Sellers fan, who found the more pointed barbs in this humor to be something to which they were unaccustomed. Presently, Peter Sellers movies are in demand by fans, but this effort, Where Does It Hurt?, has by its nature become almost impossible to find.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing this film in my late teens or early twenties on TV - probably HBO. I watched it with my parents, a brother and a few friends. Since that was about 30 years ago, I don't remember a lot of the story. I do remember that the entire group of us watching agreed that this was the funniest movie we had ever seen. When it was over, our bellies hurt from so much laughing. My dad worked at a hospital, so that made it all the better.

Every time I see The Party in the TV listings, I look to see if this one is there, too. To my dismay, it never is. Although I loved The Party, I feel this one is funnier. Peter Sellers was great as a crooked hospital administrator. Why it's never been released on video is a mystery to me. It's a classic, but it appears that nobody under 35 or 40 has been allowed to see it. I'd buy it in a second if they ever release it to DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It has been since 1972 that I saw this movie and I still remember it as one of my favorite all time movies. I would buy a copy if it were on DVD and it is too bad it isn't. You would think that anything starring Peter Sellers would be brought back. Much better than \"Being There\" and as good as the Pink Panther series. Uschi Digard had a small part for such a well endowed performer. She is bonus in this movie. I think the medical field may not appreciate this film as it really makes fun of the profession and it also makes one appreciate that Sellers was never available to treat them as his bed side manner sucked as well did his analysis of urine samples.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie in a theater while on vacation in Pablo CO. I had just quit my biomedical engineering job at a hospital. I consider the script to be a exaggeration of the real type of stuff that goes on in hospitals.

The idiots that put it down on production value don't get the point and probably have never been hospitalized. And never worked in one for sure. Billy Jack (same era) was very poorly produced but had a significant social comment and was a very good movie with a real social message.

I have ever since been looking for this movie this is the first site I have found where it get mentioned.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm having as much fun reading the user comments as I did watching the movie! It seems that this is the classic either \"Love it\" or \"Hate it\" movie. And I have to say that I not only am on the \"Love it\" side, I'm going on a limb to say it this my FAVORITE movie, EVER! Thank heavens I found it in the first place. Almost IMPOSSIBLE to find, I was lucky about ten years ago to record it off a late night UHF channel. Of course my liking of Sellers may make me a bit biased, but I can't see how anyone with a cornball, dry sense of humor (like me), can not be in love with this flick. The plot is great (but perhaps as a previous poster said, maybe the reason why it's not a widely known movie ... upset the medical field?) the acting is great (I can see why some may say the acting was horrible ... but that's what made this movie so great ... it's total tacky-ness) and the humor is gut busting. I'm proud to say I have watched this film no less than about 20 times and have pretty much every line memorized. This film is genius!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of Peter Sellers' best movies. Why is it never shown on TV or movie theaters? Will it ever be released as a home movie? Is it too derogatory for the medical field? I would love to see this movie again. I would like my son, who is a doctor,to see it. Laughter is the best medicine and Peter Sellers is the best doctor for this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hilarious, Sellers at his funniest ... a shame you can't get this on video, or even see it on TV anymore ... I'd love to get a good copy somewhere. Maybe it's tied up in court on some legal issue, but a truly riotous hospital farce with Sellers as crooked administrator.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the funniest films I ever saw in the theater back in the early '70s, and sadly, it's only been on TV a few times since. This movie should be released on video. It's Sellers at his sleaziest, slimiest best as a crooked hospital administrator. Great cast, great movie. If anyone has a good VHS copy, I'd love to buy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great movie. Too bad it is not available on home video.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For anyone who has ever sought happiness, \"Half Empty\" is a must-see. This original cross- cultural musical comedy has hilarious numbers, which make \"The Producers\" seem boringly staid. Writer Bob Patterson puts his soul into sharing his thoughts on life, wisdom and happiness, even scribbling inspirational comments on index cards as his girlfriend spills her heart out, ending their relationship. When his book on happiness, \"North Star\" finds zero success in the States, his publishers send him to Germany for a book signing tour. While explaining their decision to Bob, the boardroom erupts into a rousing song which would make Monty Python proud. From his arrival in Hamburg, Bob's complete ignorance of the German language leaves him at a distinct disadvantage. However, he soldiers on, impervious of his hosts true feelings towards him, until a wildly devoted fan arrives and changes everyone's reaction toward him.

The original songs propel the film, often describing the subtext of the story in side-splitting precision. The cast, led by Robert Peters, exhibit an immaculately dry sense of humor and inhabit their characters as if they were not acting. See it for: A case study of how good intentions are totally irrelevant; How merciless Americans abroad are viewed; How little reason it takes to burst into song, and, above all, For a silly, entertaining, unconventional laugh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this film explores if not creates a whole new genre with perfect imperfection --- hilarity, truth, fun, talent and circumstance that make for MAGIC.

from creative musical numbers to off the cuff comedy that incorporates actors at their very best, if i hadn't have known better, i would have thought there was an elaborate script here.

what you get: a mighty wind meets conversations with god meets something so fresh and new and delightful that it becomes it's own entity.

peters and fell both give stellar performances and reel you in immediately. the rest of the cast is also phenomenal. there are no small parts....... only small actors, and everyone involved here should be patted on the back, taken out to dinner and be considered for an Oscar.

well done!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Had the fun pleasure of viewing a new independent film called \"Half Empty.\" I usually go out to the local cinema with my husband and feel as if we are held captive to the latest Sequel, or Prequel that Hollywood throws at us. This was DIFFERENT and surprisingly \u0096 SO MUCH more entertaining than anything Hollywood spends millions advertising. When my husband and I go the movies, we go to be entertained \u0096 and \"Half Empty\" did just that and the film did so in a smart manner that made me feel as if my trip to the movie theater was worth it. It is a funny, human, and surprising sometimes musical story that cleverly entertains in its simplicity. I especially enjoyed the scene with the 4 men singing in harmony in the bathroom. It is almost like an operetta. That particular scene reminded me of a scene in \"Phantom of the Opera\" when 4 of the performers did not just, i.e., they sang against one another in a friendly retort. I am not a film maven but this film was more enjoyable than any other major studio film I have seen lately. It is silly, funny, entertaining and amusing. Completely enjoyable \u0096 which is what I expect from movies but rarely do they deliver like \"Half Empty.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Half Empty\" is a hilarious musical about the eternal optimist \u0096in this case, a self-help book writer who goes to Germany mistakenly thinking he's popular there. Instead of an adoring audience, he finds himself adrift in a world of jaded misanthropes, including the woman who is supposed to be his publicist. His attempts to make friends\u0097in scenes that are largely improvised\u0097lead to one great encounter after another when he is verbally abused by nihilistic musicians, gruff gangsters, etc. In time, he manages to win over his publicist\u0097both her heart and her mind--but his own world view is shaken when his hero, a much more popular self-help writer, turns out to be not quite what he seems. The action is punctuated by several musical numbers.

We saw this at the DeadCenter film festival in Oklahoma City and were blown away. This is a really funny, inspired small-scale indie production. You could quibble about a few technical things (like the lighting, which is a bit dark) but the piece is funny and inspired enough that you can't care too much. If Voltaire were writing \"Candide\" today, the character would be a self-help writer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was a huge surprise to me while i watched it at Cinequest in the big California Theatre in San Jose. It's a musical, which normally I don't like, but I have to say this one was different. Robert Peters, who directed the film and stared in it, did such a wonderful job. During his Q & A he told the audience that he only had two other people for his crew! Most of the dialouge was made up on the fly and he actually made the film while attending another film festival in Germany! I can't say enough great things about this movie, the only bad thing is that you really tend to notice the camera work and it shakes a bit. If you happen to come across this film- check it out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Admissions\" is a fine drama even though they're are some problems with the ending. Lauren Ambrose plays Evie who is trying to avoid college. To make her overworked mother not notice, she makes up poems that everybody thinks her mentally challenged sister wrote. All the acting is first-rate especially Lauren Ambrose and Amy Madigan. They both put in great performances. The climax is also very powerful. There are only two bad parts. First is the character of Stewart Worthy played by Christopher Lloyd. His part is underdeveloped. The other weakness is the ending. It goes around in circles, which I didn't expect with the 84 min run time. Besides that, the movie is definitely worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Brighton has a traumatic drama in the breast of their family: the twenty years old Emily Brighton (Taylor Roberts) is retarded due to a fall when she was one, and her overprotective mother Martha Brighton (Amy Madigan) blames her negligence for the accident. The seventeen years old Evie Brighton (Lauren Ambrose) loves her sister and reads poems and stories for Emily. Their father Harry Brighton (John Savage), a bank investor, lives in the basement with his models of trains and railroads. Evie mysteriously sabotages her interviews for different universities being rejected, and teaches the poetries of her own to Emily. When Martha hears Emily repeating the poems, she takes notes and shows them to the English teacher Stewart Worthy (Christopher Lloyd), who believes that Emily has had a moment of geniuses. When Evie's only friend James (Fran Kranz) reads the notes, he immediately discloses the truth about the authority of the poetries. But when Martha becomes aware, she finds the reality of Evie, triggering a series of revelations.

\"Admissions\" is a very powerful drama about needy of love and guilty complex. The performances are stunning, and this is the first work of Lauren Ambrose, from \"Six Feet Under\", that I see and she is amazing. This independent movie is an excellent choice for the viewers that are looking for a refreshing story based on the acting of the cast. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): \"Cumplicidade\" (\"Complicity\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I very much enjoyed this movie and I think most fans of Lauren Ambrose will too. Her character is much softer than her role in Six Feet Under and all of the performances are strong. I especially enjoyed the way the role of Emily, a mentally challenged savant, was handled. Despite some other misinformed user reviews the role was performed accurately and without clich\u00e9 by the actress, Taylor Roberts. Also a standout was Fran Kranz, whose natural ease well complemented the more season veteran actors. Although the direction hit a snag here or there it seemed the only problems were with an underdeveloped script. What maybe worked well as a stage-play didn't hold out quite so well on screen. However the lovely cinematography by Paul Ryan definitely makes up for that, as well as the pace of the film, which is surprisingly not slow. I recommend this movie to fans of six feet under and also fans of plain good acting and cinematography.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have had the opportunity to catch this independent film and was impressed with it, despite the lack of excitement in the plot. The acting was very good by everyone involved. Amy Madigan played the part of a guilt ridden mother who is tired, yet well intentioned and determined to make up for her younger daughter's condition. Yet, in the process, she has neglected her older sister, who is more interested in playing with her savant-syndrome sibling and living in a world of escapism.

The men in the movie are very powerful in their secondary roles. Christopher Lloyd, in a very understated role, shows us why he has such versatility. He plays a teacher who is dedicated to his profession and literature research, yet starved for a meaningful relationship. He and Madigan connect very well in their scenes together, yet both know nothing more can come from their friendship. Their wordless goodbye is nothing short of brilliant, an acting lesson for aspiring performers.

And in a small role, Fred Savage is fun to watch.

You can tell why this movie was based on a play, it's probably very good on stage. On screen, it's not particularly exciting, but it's nonetheless very thoughtful and powerful in its subtleties.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We have a character named Evie. Evie just wants to be a good person. She's nice, friendly, smiles often, but is strangely brutally honest. Evie also has a secret. Her idiot-savant sister has been reciting original poetry, which is getting the community excited about the sister writing. Unfortunately, it's Evie's poetry. While their mother starts being happy again and the boy next door shows his interest in Evie, Evie just tries to figure out what she really wants to do.

What to keep in mind while watching this movie is who Evie really is. For such a brutally honest person who doesn't mind telling Ivy-league types that she doesn't respect them, it would seem odd that she would be able to pull off a lie. For someone so happy and cheerful, she's quite emotionless when it comes to certain issues. Those aren't character flaws, they're plot development, and they mean a lot more than they at first seem.

Mostly this is something of a melodrama: a character lies, the other characters' personalities propel them through drama as relationships are held at risk. But in terms of the writing it's very fresh and bold. The acting helps the writing along very well (maybe the idiot-savant sister could have been played better), and it is a real joy to watch.

The directing and the cinematography aren't quite as good. They're acceptable, and Evie's world is wreathed in color and light, which makes for some very beautiful images, but it's not very consistent. It's not really so much of a flaw as a result of a low production value, but within that same value is some genuine storytelling and a real care for the characters. So while it isn't a perfect movie, it's certainly an enjoyable one.

--PolarisDiB","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was surprised to like this movie since I'm from the \"check your brain at the door and have fun\" school of film viewing. However, this film touched my heart. I have friends like mentally retarded Emily. I have friends like unsocialized Evie. And I've been in Evie's shoes, chasing away opportunity out of fear and out of devotion to others.

Amy Madigan's disappointment in her daughters was almost palpable on screen and the awkward moments where she tried to bridge the gap with Evie were raw and painful to watch. And perhaps I am denser than most, but I never saw the twist with Evie's father coming. Usually I cotton on to those things rather quickly.

My reservations are similar to others posted here. I thought Christopher Lloyd's wonderful, sympathetic character (a very different role for him, I thought) was underused. What happened to him once he realized what was going on with the poetry? Would he, like James, try again??? Second, the ending, such as it was, didn't seem to resolve or accomplish anything. I didn't expect the pieces to be picked up and all the ends tied neatly, but I felt that I was left at odds with the characters, that there was no real healing taking place here or any real efforts at healing being made.

Otherwise, exquisite and lyrical and disturbing and, for some, very, very true.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At first I didn't think that the performance by Lauren Ambrose was anything but flaky, but as her character developed the portrayal made more sense. Amy Madigan seemed too terse for her role and didn't really tie her daughter's characters together, even though it was apparent that her character was disengaged with the character played by Lauren Ambrose.

Christopher Lloyd is a hit as usual and carried off his role to encourage the story line. His character development left the audience wondering why he was chastised by the younger characters and could have been accomplished more directly with

The overwhelming glue to this somewhat vague story line was play by Taylor Roberts. Her comprehensive delivery of a simplistic character held the movie together. In this pivotal role, Taylor was able to encourage a realistic family relationship between the characters while acting as the antagonist for all of the other relationships in the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is a solid group of people that have lives like this girl going through the admissions process at school. The parental absence at all important junctures in Lauren Ambrose's school search provide admissions interviews only and draws the interviews with them at below transcript quality review that in 30 minutes sabotages four years of high school grading. The incident of anger in her mother obviously block a mothers display of possible physical abuse of her or her disabled sister at one time or another; thus masking her Mother's truer involvement in family losses. The daughter, Lauren, really has done something big - trying to make her mother fulfilled and then that plan itself, somewhat heroic in light of the age she is - still giving when everyone around her taking, somersaults on her. A heart not yet connected to her head - something that age has never had a genuine answer to even to this day. Her replacement of a significant other, not necessarily requiring a father image, however, a trusted authority nonetheless being imagined if not real. A pure cup without a handler .......(see the movie). Everyone needs a friend to see through understanding of a proportional world - she made hers up on what she knew of life at the time. She has all the mental capacity for higher learning though having no friends present for her time makes the ending a developmental tragedy in progress ... given a bird in a cage... not a puppy... that would a least get her walking two times a day. Ideas out of the roof she is under would be the developing on her sidewalk life. Sad is the looming psychiatric ending... how could she be committed at a time when she has proved an important responsibility? (believe it or not taking of a dog is a better witness than taking care of a bird at this time of her life) The symbolic cage of her in a cage is too much mental and self fulfilling of some of her writings within the story. The neighbor college freshman is developed just fine, he is as developed as the training education will allow for the mental maturity that dwarfs her eternal purpose compared to his fateful conditioning. I myself, eventually just went to the Mensa magazine and got a $20.00 degree saying I was an (Hon)DDiv. It offered all the education that buying the truth would and independence to skip fecal content. \"Run the world\" or do not get your own home was the college offer. Who was freeing anyone for superior time for the learning? The only sin is not having your pleasure right. What fight figged on that? She has been denied an act for life commensurate to her love for life. What is college, a reward for failing high school? Do you graduate with your class or without it - what is the exchange? A lifetime of correcting youth with only questions? Could lead occur w\/o a question? The loss followed as much for good as bad. When was she given a mind for sexual intimacy or growth for her good self to be fulfilled? Why didn't good people treat her with good things? If good people do not do good things for good people, what is good for? She is young, pretty and walked on long before personal development is given a winning game. Her act taken in life with a closed door. Perhaps the title would be better as \"Christmas Doors\" not \"Admissions\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dark and bleak sets, thrilling music that cuts through your spin like aknife (or razor) a perfect cast lead by Broadway greats Hearn and Lansbury. This is exciting theatre flawlessly transferred to the small screen. Sondheim is the most talented songwriter of our age and Todd is his Masterpiece, from the Brechtian opening ballad to the darkly humorous Act I finale- \"A Little Priest\" where Lovett and Todd fantasize about the victims that will wind up in their meat pies , this play never ceases to thrill,excite and satisfy. Betsy Joslyn also excels as Johanna, even she, as the plays ingenue seems slightly mad.Edmund Lyndeck turns in a bravado performance as the corrupt Judge who lusts after Joslyn and is the subject of Todd's vendetta. Lansbury and Hearn command the show as only two great actor\/stars can do. Other musical highlights include Todd's \"johanna\" Lovett's \"worst pies in London\" and the Act II opening 'GOD THATS GOOD\", And that is a title to describe this production !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, I have watched this show since I was a little toddler, and I have always loved it. Sure, maybe I didn't understand it when I was that young, but I still enjoyed it! And now that I have been able to understand it for several years, I love it even more. The score of this musical is the most wonderfully detailed score I have ever heard! Every note is perfect, I don't even need to hear the singing to enjoy it!

Moving on to this particular production- This is magnificent! Of course no one could play Mrs. Lovett besides Angela Lansbury, and she does it perfectly. And she should, she has been playing this part for several years. George Hearn is absolutely brilliant. The best Sweeney Todd I have ever heard. He has a wonderful voice, yet he can throw his voice so well! His \"epiphany\" is incredible, as you can tell by the audience's reaction to it. The Judge, Toby, Antony, and Pirelli are also so wonderful in their roles. Everyone is perfect! Well, I still have to fast forward through Johanna's Green finch and linnet bird. She just doesn't sing that song well at all.

This show CAN be appreciated at all ages, but it is not always accepted. I am not your typical middle-aged theater lover, I am only 15 years old, yet Sweeney Todd has given me a greater appreciation for music than I have gotten from any other musical.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have only praise for this film. From start to finish it captured the brilliance of Stephen Sondheim's musical. I am not a big fan of musicals most of them are very overdone. This one however changed my mind. I am an actor myself and have actully played Sweeney and I know how hard this role is. George Hearn gave a stunning, masterful and rounded performance worthy of the highest awards that we can give him (He won an Emmy and that's something.) Everything he does he turns to gold. He is so good it will blow your mind why he's not in films winning oscars. Lansbury is also very good and very funny. Sara Woods is creepy and wonderful as the Beggar Woman. All in all a great video. Pick it up if you can.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even if you're not a \"theatre person,\" I highly recommend that you see this. Based off of a play of the same name by Christopher Bond (which, in turn, had been based off of an old London legend), Sondheim did a wonderful job bringing it to the musical theatre stage. The score is just amazing-- by far Sondheim's best, and probably one of the best scores written for a musical ever. The show was cast extremely well, my only complaint being of Betsy Joscelyn's portrayal of Johanna. It;s good, mind you, and she's a very versatile actress, but she just doesn't sing \"Greenfinch and Linnet Bird\" too well. But other than that, it's all phenomenal-- Angela Lansbury *made* the role of Mrs. Lovette, and she just does it so well. George Hearn was a good replacement for Len Cariou in the title role, and Ken Jennings gives a great performance as Tobias. The ending will give you chills. Top marks for a wonderful show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though the video technology may be dated, this classic musical play, now on DVD, is the best version of Sondheim's most important and polished work on Broadway. If you've never seen SWEENEY TODD, then you must buy this DVD. I saw this production in November 1980 at Kennedy Center in Washington--and fell in love with a pre-\"Murder She Wrote\" Angela Lansbury. Subsequently, I tried to find any and all of her work, among them: MOVIES: \"The Harvey Girls,\" \"The Picture of Dorian Gray,\" \"Manchurian Candidate\"; CDs: \"Mame,\" \"Dear World,\" and \"Gypsy\"; and many more. The rest of the cast is flawless, too. All in all, this wonderful DVD gives us the definitive version of Sondheim's opera!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are no flaws in this production. Perfectly entertaining, fun, and worthy of respect.

This is what theatre is all about. Definitely not for the very young, but slightly older kids will get a great kick out of seeing it and can be introduced to theatre this way.

Astounding and amazing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I own a copy of this film and have always loved it. I comment here, however, because I saw the PBS presentation of a concert version of Sweeney Todd earlier this week. That production was put on by the San Francisco Opera and starred George Hearn and Patti LuPone. In the early '80s Hearn replaced Len Cariou as Sweeney (Cariou had won the Tony for his performance). I saw Hearn and Angela Lansbury (who also won the Tony for her performance as Mrs. Lovett) perform Sweeney on broadway. They must have made the film at about the time I saw the show. To this day, the most moving moment I can ever remember in the theatre occurred when Hearn sang \"These are my Friends.\" (\"These are my friends, see how they glisten.\" \"My arm is complete again!\")

Hearn's performance in the San Francisco Opera production convinced me that he has lost nothing in the nearly twenty years since I first saw him perform the piece on Broadway and later in the film. What a talent! He is sympathetic, funny, and scary -- all at once; and he can sing, boy can he sing. All of this reminded me of how terrific the film is. Highly recommended. Ten out of ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw \"Sweeney Todd\" on Broadway in 1980. It starred George Hearn and featured most of the other cast principals who appeared in the national touring company production, which was videotaped for TV in Los Angeles in 1982. Last night I watched the new DVD release of the Los Angeles production, although I have owned the videotape for many years. The production and the performances could have hardly been better but the original tape's age showed because both the audio and video quality are below modern standards, even on a newly pressed DVD. Nevertheless I still give it 10 out of 10 because of the greatness of the work and George Hearns's and Angella Lansbury's startlingly wonderful performances. Even today, my most memorable recollection from a live musical theater performance has to be Hearn's rendition of \"These are My Friends.\" \"You'll drip rubies,\" brrr.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story of Sweeney Todd evokes memories of the work of classic writers like Charles Dickens, and more contemporary writers like Edward Gory. As a musical, it naturally becomes more like the musical Les Miserables. Both deal with the grim effects of poverty in the Industrial Revolution, and the breakdown of organized society. But this musical is different from Les Mis in one very important aspect: Stephen Sondheim, the songwriter who can adapt to any style. To be sure, he's had his successes and failures, but one thing about his shows you can always count on: They will be something unique. Who would have thought someone would write a musical about a barber who slits people's throats and makes them into meat pies? Sondheim did, and he did it marvelously. The entire show is set in a factory, to suggest the ever-present catastrophic effects of the misery of those at the bottom of society, and this serves the needs of the show perfectly. The catwalks and railings are moved throughout to suggest streets and walkways and bridges. Techniques are borrowed from Kabuki and Noh, with the visual stagehands and set changes. Then, to top it all off, cast the great Angela Lansbury as the gruesomely practical and humorous Mrs. Lovett, and George Hearn, with his operatic baritone voice, as the murderous Todd, and you've got yourself a stellar musical vehicle. The rest of the cast moves smoothly through the clich\u00e9s of the love story perfectly, except for Johanna and Pirelli, who sound a bit too forced. If the Johanna and Pirelli from the Broadway show could be here, it would be perfect. Hearn acts while he sings more than Len Cariou on the OBC album, and the accents don't sound as forced here. Through it all Sondheim's score never fails to underline the dark seriousness of the story. As I said, he can adapt to any style. In Follies he imitates the '30s '40s style of showtunes, in Pacific Overtures he captures the subtle art of Asian music, Into the Woods knocks off the 32 bar Disney style songs, and Assassins covers a history of American music. Here, however, he does wonders in making his score distinctly English, from parlour songs to operatic duets and soliloquies to society waltzes to Gilbert\/Sullivan style patter. And yet still, the show remains deadly serious, even though it provokes more laughs than any musical comedy. In it still, is a grim warning on the evils of taking revenge. Here is where this movie makes a mistake, in cutting the Judge's solo in which he flagellates himself out of guilt for his crimes. Without it, the Judge is just a conventional villain, and this movie's point is that there are no straight villains. Both Todd and the Judge learn, too late, the horrors of having to accept responsibility for their actions, and Todd loses everything in his obsession. This is well brought out by the chilling reprise of the grim yet rollicking Ballad of Sweeney Todd, ending the show with Todd and Lovett rising from the grave to tell us that the end is the same: in a world full of Sweeneys, vengeance begets only vengeance. \"Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd. He served a dark and a vengeful God. To seek revenge may lead to Hell, but everyone does it, and seldom as well as Sweeney, as Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Sweeney Todd\" is in my opinion one of a few \"perfect\" musicals. Like \"My Fair Lady\" and \"West Side Story\" it has a wonderful, intelligent score. It offers the two leads and several supporting characters interesting roles. It has a timeless theme, revenge. It has a good deal of humor, and is just as powerful when presented simply or on a grand scale.

\"Sweeney Todd\" tells the story of a simply wronged man during the industrial period in England. It shows mans' inhumanity to man, how in Sweeney's own words, \"There are two kinds of men. There's the one staying put in his proper place and the one with his foot in the other one's face.\" In an effort to correct the wrong that was done to him, Mr. Todd devices a plan to seek revenge. With the help of Mrs. Lovett, who owns a meat pie shop under Mr.Todd's barbershop, they set out to have \"those above, serve those down below\".

I was fortunate enough to have seen the original Broadway version eight times (six with Cariou and Lansbury, the other two with Hearn and Loudon). I saw the revival with Bob Gunton and Beth Fowler, and several other concert versions.

While the technical aspects in this production are lacking, to say the least, I believe that this filmed production version is the best. Lansbury and Hearn were the two best in these roles, and they have a wonderful time playing off of each other.

Very good supporting work by Ken Jennings and Edmund Lyndeck. Although Betsy Joslyn and Cris Groenendaal, as the young lovers have absolutely no chemistry, and are basically unwatchable.

9 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I own this video as well as the concert version of the musical with Patti Lupone and George Hearn with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. George Hearn is fantastic in my book as are Angela Lansbury and the composer, Stephen Sondheim. This musical is operatic in scope and shows much ingenuity in composition. I certainly hope that this VHS becomes available on DVD!! Hearn's performance is spookily sympathetic. The one annoying performance is the young woman who sings the role of Joanna. I believe this performance was at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles, rather than on a Broadway stage and am not sure that the minimalist set was utilized in New York, as it was in this production. But I found the scaffolding being dragged across the stage to be quite effective to \"portray\" the streets of London. I highly recommend this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Last year, I fell in love with the Tim Burton's version of Sweeney Todd so I wanted to check out the other versions of this musical and I found this one at the library. Though I think Burton's is best, probably because I like film a lot better than theater, this is still a great production of the story. I haven't seen any of the other versions but I am trying to get my hands on them.

After seeing Johnny Depp as Todd, it's hard for me to imagine anyone else in the role, but George Hearn does a fantastic job. Angela Lansbury is great, as always and all of the singing is fantastic. I found myself singing along. This is a play you won't want to miss, but try and see it before you see the film version so you won't have a biased view like me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The genius that is Stephen Sondheim was never more prominently displayed as it was in his 1979 \"Musical Thriller\" SWEENEY TODD, a Gothic, gory, grisly, yet delicious musical concoction about a demented barber who returns to London to exact revenge on the evil Judge who not only had him permanently exiled from London, but who is also raising his daughter as his own and plans to marry her to \"shield her from all the evils of the world.\" The barber finds love,sympathy, and assistance from a lonely pie shop owner who has her own agenda where Todd is concerned. This musical rocked Broadway and won nine Tony Awards, including Best Musical and Best Actress in a Musical (Angela Lansbury). The production was filmed in its entirety in 1982 with Angela Lansbury recreating her Broadway role as Mrs. Lovett, the daffy pie shop owner who finds a practical use for the heads that Todd makes mincemeat out of. George Hearn, who replaced Len Cariou on Broadway, is electrifying in the title role, so much so that you have to wonder why he wasn't originally cast in the role. Lansbury and Hearn are riveting from start to finish and commit 100% to their ghoulish characters aided, by a first rate Sondaheim score, probably the closest thing Sondheim has written to an opera. Lansbury shines on \"The Worst Pies in London\" and \"By the Sea\". George Hearn stops the show with \"Epiphany\" and is also compelling during \"Pretty Women\", a duet he sings with Judge Turpin, the man he has sworn revenge on. Cris Groendahl is vocally impressive as Antony, the young sailer who rescues Todd and falls for his daughter Johanna. Betsy Joselyn is a little over the top as Johanna and really pushes vocally to the point that during \"Green Funch and Linnet Bird\" she actually drives her voice off-pitch during a couple of moments. The rest of the cast is first rate, especially Edmund Lyndeck as Judge Turpin who gets to perform \"Johanna\" in this production, which was cut from the original production and Ken Jennings as Toby, whose gorgeous tenor fills the auditorium on \"Not While I'm Around.\" But it is breathtaking musical score by Stephen Sondheim and the mesmerizing performance by Lansbury an especially George Hearn that makes this night of Gothic musical theater an experience that stays with you long after curtain call. Not for all tastes, but if you're game and have strong heart, SWEENEY TODD is a joy for all music theater lovers and a must for fans of Stephen Sondheim and Angela Lansbury.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't get over the quality of the score, the book, and the performances. This is the first production I've ever seen of Sweeney Todd so I have no others to compare it to. But the impact is so strong, I just can't imagine anything better.

First, there's the music -- take \"Johanna\" (Act II), during which Sweeney, Anthony and Johanna sing an interwoven vocal line incorporating the melodies from three songs. It's like a Bach chorale in that sense -- just a masterpiece of composition. And the underlying chord structure and voicings are so perfect -- a little bit of melancholy, a little bit of contentment, a little bit of yearning, all expressing these three singers' points of view.

Then -- the lyrics. The rhymes are so clever. The rhyme schemes sometimes seem random but they always add up at the end. (The DVD, which I watched, has Closed Captions, and these are indispensable for appreciating the dialog and the lyrics.) Sondheim deserves a literary award for his poetry alone.

Finally, the performances. I can't imagine anyone better than George Hearn. Why haven't I heard of him before? His singing, alone, is masterful, but the range of his acting is simply amazing. Angela Lansbury totally surprised me. The song about \"you and me down by the seaside\" -- who could do it any better? Her timing is flawless, pitch is perfect, every beat of the score is accounted for; and overlaying this achievement in musicianship is her utterly delightful comic delivery.

It's a dark tale but I found it to be sweet at times; and the tune to \"Johanna\" continues to play in my head.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I viewed my videotape last night, for the first time in at least ten years. I found the work itself and the performances just as gripping as they were in my memory. George Hearn, of course,was the master of the role of Sweeney; there is never a touch of softness in his determination to wreak vengeance on those he believes caused his wife's death and his daughter's disappearance; at least not until the end, when he discovers that his thirst for revenge has led him to murder his wife. Angela Lansbury, on the other hand, creates a more complex portrayal, as Mrs. Lovett. She understood that Sondheim wanted that role to be something of a \"comic\" counterpart to Sweeney; and even brings some tenderness into her courtship of Sweeney and her nurture of the boy Tobias. For those with long memories, this performance takes one back to her debut performances in The Picture of Dorian Grey and Gaslight; long before Murder, She Wrote. Only a year ago I saw the musical at Lyric Opera of Chicago. with current opera superstar Brynn Terfel as Sweeney. Others have commented on the operatic quality of the score. My conclusion is that \"Sweeney\" works better with actors who can at least handle the vocal lines, than with opera performers who have limited acting skills. As a final note, I commend the performer who portrayed Tobias. with his mixed loyalties and confusion about what is going on around him. It seemed appropriate that he had virtually the last word.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not having seen the 1936 version of this story, I cannot offer any comparison there. I can, however, state that Stephen Sondheim's musical treatment of this story is absolutely genius. Only Sondheim could come up with music and lyrics that are stellar in their own right, yet perfectly suited to the very bizarre subject matter. If anyone needs an explanation of what a dark comedy is, they should see this (and \"Dr. Strangelove\" as well). When Mrs. Lovett goes from having the \"worst pies in London\" to a booming business with high acclaim, we aren't talking \"Soylent Green,\" - but the ingredients are similar. Particularly brilliant is the song where Mrs. Lovett pitches her idea to Mr. Todd. Even in the introductory number, the line \"...they went to their Maker impeccably shaved...\" gives a great indication of the premise, the drama, AND the comedy to come. Outstanding!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this version about a decade ago, and have been looking for it ever since. I just recently found an original VHS version, and purchased it for $125.00. Sounds crazy, but if you, like me, consider it as one of the best the Broadway musical stage has ever produced, you wouldn't even think twice.

Why, it's just a little over paying for a Broadway ticket today. I really hope they re-release this in DVD form soon. It's a piece of musical theater that screams to be seen by all!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd...The strangest, most off-putting, but most wonderful Broadway musical. It is chilling, funny, and moving all at once through Sondheim's most memorable and incredible score and sharp performances. George Hearn is incomparable in the title role, bringing a strong voice and dead on (no pun intended) impersonation of the legendary demon barber, while Angela Lansbury provides the comic relief as she cheerfully grinds up his victims into meat pies. If you just allow yourself to enjoy it, \"Sweeney Todd\" is a real treat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well I'm not the world's biggest Sondheim fan, so although I have the cast album and I've listened to it a few times I've never actually seen this show performed and I haven't seen the Tim Burton movie version either. I felt like I wanted to see something more faithful before I see the Burton one and give it a chance just as a movie. This version isn't a movie at all, it's a filmed play with some of the original members of the cast, including most importantly Angela Lansbury's performance as Nellie Lovett. This is one of those performances that's just like a conduit into the heart of the magic of Broadway and theater itself. She must have had so much fun with this role. Sweeney Todd himself isn't played by Len Cariou, who did it originally, but by George Hearn. Hearn does a fantastic job; his voice isn't quite as good as Cariou's, but he seems to play it a bit broader.

The only problem I had really was with the Johanna character as played by Betsy Joslyn, and to some extent her lover Anthony as played by Cris Groenendaal. Joslyn's voice can't sustain high notes, but I wasn't entirely sure if that was maybe supposed to be the point since I'm not hugely familiar with this play. More importantly, I'm not sure if the story of \"Sweeney Todd\" really holds up enough weight to sustain some of the music, but thankfully the whole thing doesn't seem to have been taken too seriously by its creators. As a lark, and a bit of comedy in the vein of \"Grand Guignol\", it's quite enjoyable. I don't feel like it's as significant a piece of work as \"Company\" and \"Into the Woods\" or some of his other shows. Some of the music is quite spectacular, but at other points it seems to exist in a world outside of the show.

I won't say a whole lot about it here because this is a film website and this is really not a film, but just a play that has been shot on film. There were maybe 3 or 4 scenes where they moved the camera around but that was it. People will want to see this, because it preserves Lansbury's legendary performance which deserves its legendary status because it's a hilarious and insightful performance. George Hearn can be proud of his version of Sweeney as well. This would be a good film to show children over the age of 5 or so to get them interested in musicals because the blood and cannibalism will really surprise them. Seeing a performance filmed so expertly and so faithfully makes me wish that more efforts like this had been made over the years with musical theater, because I prefer shows from the 20s through the 50s to these later era affairs. \"Sweeney Todd\" is an exceptional show from its era however, miles and miles above the AL Webber madness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Televised in 1982, from a Los Angeles production, this is probably the finest example of a filmed stage musical you are likely to encounter. Issued on DVD in 2004 in a remastered digital transfer, it is quite stunning. Hearn and Lansbury give the performances of their lives and the rest of the cast are quite obviously caught up in the electricity generated. Of course it is Sondheim's music and lyrics that make this possible. If anyone doubts that he is one of the \"greats\" of the American Musical form listen to this. The sets are stark, as befits the plot, and clever in allowing the swift scene changes required and the cameras catch the action without obliterating the fact that this is a stage production. A central, move-able and revolving platform is Mrs. Lovett's pie shop, with the barber's shop upstairs. Around it are various gantries and moving stairs to allow the rest of the action to take place. The brutal tale of injustice leading to revenge, murder and mayhem is liberally spiced with dark humour and comic moments. Sondheim does for barber shops what Hitchcock did for showers ! An important work in American musical theatre is here given an electrifying performance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Stephen Sondheim's SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET opened on Broadway on 1 March 1979 with Len Cariou and Angela Lansbury in the leading roles. Although it swept virtually every award imaginable, the box office fell short of expectations and the original production ended its run at 557 performances. Fortunately, however, the play then went on tour--and along the way was captured on film. The result is a remarkable capture of the play featuring George Hern, who replaced Cariou, and Lansbury in a close approximation of the original Broadway staging.

There is, however, a flaw. Simply stated: stage plays do not film very well, for a performance that works well on the stage must fill the theatre and is therefore very, very large--and when placed on film such performances often seem slightly static, oppressively aggressive, or both. SWEENEY TODD is no exception. Seen on film, it has a \"stand and sing\" quality, and while both Hern and Lansbury seem to have modulated their performances for the sake of the camera such is not the case with Betsy Joslyn as Joanna; her larger-than-life performance reads on film as unpleasantly frantic and her extremely operatic voice feels out of place when contrasted with the voices of the overall cast.

Taking this stage-play-on-film effect into consideration, however, this really is an exceptional performance of a unique and macabrely comic musical in the operetta style. Lansbury is astonishing, a mixture of silliness, stupidity, and cunning malice, while Hern truly owns the role of the psychotic barber whose clients \"go to their graves impeccably shaved.\" The overall cast is quite fine and although the film does not let us see quite enough of the set, there is enough on display for it to be impressive. And the music! Who can argue with what most consider Sondheim's finest work? The story itself is extremely well-known, particularly in England. In 1846 Thomas Peckett Prest cobbled together several urban myths for a short story he titled A STRING OF PEARLS; within a year or so it was adapted to the stage as SWEENEY TODD, THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET--and, in an era that knew little of copyright law, variations of the play were soon playing all over England. Each one, however, was more or less the same: Sweeney Todd, a barber, kills the men who come to him for a shave; Mrs. Lovett, his associate, bakes them up into pies and feeds them to an unsuspecting public. The Sondheim version is specifically based on a 1973 version by Christopher Bond.

The story is very Grand Guignol, with a lot of blood, bodies dropping down chutes, and grotesque humor; at the same time, however, the music, lyrics, and subplot of an innocent in the clutches of evil open out the subject to numerous lyric charms one would not expect. Sondheim's lyrics are often ironic, but never more so than here; he intertwines a great deal of wicked satire re industry and capitalism along the way, and certainly one cannot fault the strange yet Victorian-elegant of his complex music.

Like the \"concert version\" starring Hern and Patti LuPone, this particular film also provides us with several selections that were cut from the 2007 Tim Burton film version, most particularly the opening \"Attend the Tale of Sweeney Todd,\" which runs like a thread throughout the play. It is also, in my opinion, considerably more comic than the film, which tends to underplay comedy in favor of a still greater show of blood. Whatever the case, if you are a fan of the story, this is the legendary Broadway show on tour, and it is a knock-out. Recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this play on Showtime some years back in the comfort of my home and when the final note was struck, I wanted to jump off the sofa and give the production a standing ovation. As it was, I shed a tear that it was such a bunch of fantastic performances and songs. For my birthday, my kids bought me the VHS version as well as the Cd of the play with Len Cariou in the Sweeny Todd Role.

I've shared the play with many...some finding the subject a bit sick, but none having anything but praise for the songs.

I've always loved the interplay in songs with Angela Lansbury and George Hearn as well as Hearn and Edmund Lyndeck as Judge Turpin.

I must own the DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"George Hearn really went all out and over the top which in this case was great. I've heard the Len Cariou version but it was too tame. George was great in that character - very expressive.

Angela Lansbury was perfect for the part. She gave a great performance. She gave the Mrs. Lovett a great devious and comical personality which balanced out the dark story.

I love the dark humor when Angela Lansbury sings her songs as well as her physical expressions and the angry emotions of George Hearn in his songs of rage, vengeance and distress.

I've watched this play 20 times since 1985 when I saw it on PBS. I bought it on video (after copying it in 1985 on my own)when it came out in 1990 and I definitely bought a copy of the DVD when it came out in 2004.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This telecast of the classic musical \"Sweeney Todd\" does not do the production justice, but is still quite enthralling.

Firstly, the most enjoyable aspect of this version is the production design, from the wheeling multi-set to the startling trapdoor. Then, the staging is excellent, right down to the slashing.

The main failing here is in the performances people give. Oh, they're believable, all right-- but it is quite frustrating when nobody seems to be hitting their cues on time in a song as fast-paced as, say, \"Kiss Me.\" In fact, the actress playing Johanna is not only off-tempo to a dismal degree, but also slightly off-key. And Angela Lansbury's slightly overdone cockney accent is a bit irritating. One more thing, too-- what, exactly, is so bad about Judge Turpin's performance of \"Johanna\" that it is banned from the American theatre, but not the cannibal anthem \"A Little Priest\"?

Otherwise, this is an excellent production. It's a thrill to watch people do what they love-- and I'm not even peripherally talking about \"meat pies with a twist\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After a couple years of searching for the Humphrey Bogart film, \"Two Against the World\", it unexpectedly showed up as a TCM offering under the title \"One Fatal Hour\", a First National film from 1936. Bogey's character is Sherry Scott, the man who runs WUBC, a radio station whose program lineup is losing listeners. The owner Bertram Reynolds (Robert Middlemass), is a pathetic executive who calls the shots at the station, but hides behind his decisions by pawning them off on Scott.

In an effort to boost the audience base and revenues, Reynolds has the idea of reviving a twenty year old murder case, and offering it as a fifteen chapter radio play. Scott enlists the aid of Dr. Martin Leavenworth (Harry Hayden) to write the play and present it on the air.

The Pembroke Murder case involved a woman who was acquitted of murdering her husband, the circumstances of which are not made clear. However Gloria Pembroke has married, and is now living as Martha Carstairs (Helen MacKellar), married to a successful banker (Henry O'Neill), and their daughter Edith (Linda Perry) is about to be married (on the same day no less as the radio play is to reveal the identity of Gloria Pembroke). About to be faced with the devastating effects of this revelation, Martha and Jim Carstairs embark on a crusade to have the program stopped. Simultaneously, Edith's future in-laws respond by demanding that the marriage not take place.

Without revealing the final outcome, the film takes a devastating turn to jolt the viewer. Edith Carstairs confronts the principals of the radio station, vigorously admonishing Scott and the sniveling Reynolds. While accepting his share of the blame for the outcome, Scott partially redeems himself by quitting his job, firing his secretary, and hauling her out of the office, recognizing her for the conscience he once had. With an entirely abrupt finish, the film leaves one as disoriented and unsettled as any movie that doesn't have a happy ending.

With about a dozen films under his belt, Humphrey Bogart gets a chance to take center stage here with intriguing results. With no name supporting players, Bogey rises to the occasion by taking charge in the confines of the radio offices, and runs the show as if it was his own. In an interesting bit of characterization, he expresses his exasperation by crossing his hands over his bowed head, predating by a half dozen years a similar effect we'll see him do in \"Casablanca\". For Bogart fans, it's a genuine treat to catch an unexpected nuance like this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this last night on Turner Classic Movies (TCM). I had never heard of it before, and was quite surprised to find it so engrossing.

Bogart does a star turn as a city-wise cynical editor who reluctantly goes along with his greedy radio-network boss in this incisive \"B\" programmer. About 12 years before he played similar city-wise cynics to perfection in movies like Deadline USA, Knock On Any Door, The Barefoot Contessa, and The Harder They Fall, Bogie already had the star qualities down pat.

In order to boost ratings, and bring their somewhat high-brow programming to a more popular level, WUBC, \"the Voice of America\", pushes a tell-all radio mini-series about a woman who was acquitted 20 years ago by a plea of self-defense of killing her husband. Not willing to be discreet in order to save the woman's and her husband's reputations, the station uses underhanded methods to reveal all to all listeners, and as luridly as possible.

As a time capsule, I also found it very illuminating of male-female mores in the workplace in the mid-1930's. Although beyond Henry O'Neill, I'm unfamiliar with the supporting cast, the players were uniformly excellent, and the direction was taut.

If you like this kind of movie at all (e.g., A Face In The Crowd, An Inspector Calls, etc.), don't miss the opportunity to see this one.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This cheapo remake of the terrific Five Star Final suffers from terrible acting. Humphrey Bogart stars as the manager of a sleazoid radio station that is desperate to boost sagging ratings. The owner decides to have a series of morality plays written about a famous murder case from 20 years ago. So they hire the fake preacher (Harry Hayden) to track down the murderess, who was acquitted and has been living quietly under a fake name. The preacher arrive on the daughter's wedding day, but the ruthless radio station refuses to back off exposing the mother and ruining their lives.

Bogart is always good. Hayden is good the the slimy preacher, and Henry O'Neill is good as the father. Everyone else is just awful. Helen McKeller wins no sympathy (crucial for the role), Linda Perry is a lousy actress, Beverly Roberts is OK but always looks old, Claire Dodd and Hobart Cavanagh have no parts, Carlyle Moore is a dud as the boy friend, Virginia Brissac is miscast as the society mother, Robert Middlemas overacts as the station owner.

This one comes in under an hour but is a pale copy of the original which boasted dynamic performances by Edward G. Robinson, Aline MacMahon, Frances Starr, and Boris Karloff. But it's always worth watching Boagrt.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"FIVE STAR FINAL was one of the best films of the early 1930s. It starred Edward G. Robinson and was a very gritty story about a sleazy newspaper and their willingness to do anything...ANYTHING to sell newspapers. In particular, an old story of an innocent woman is plastered across the pages and helps to destroy her now happy life--many years after she was inadvertently involved in a scandal. The reason I loved the film so much was that it was unflinching and pulled no punches--showing just how low the publishers can be to sell papers.

Here in TWO AGAINST THE WORLD, it is a remake of FIVE STAR FINAL--with a few changes. Instead of Robinson, this film stars Humphrey Bogart and he is the head of programming at a radio station, not a newspaper. Otherwise, the story is essentially the same--except that it's a bit less edgy and lacks some of the grit and sensationalism of the original. This isn't to say the film is bad--it just doesn't pack quite as good a punch as the first film. In other words, if you must see one of these films, see the first--though this film is quite powerful and enjoyable as well. As for me, I loved the story so much, I saw both films and enjoyed them both.

TWO AGAINST THE WORLD begins with the UBC radio owner complaining to his programming head (Bogart) that all the \"high brow\" shows he's put on are getting low ratings. The owner demands muck--lots of muck in order to get more listeners. One way they discuss is to do a multi-part dramatization of a famous killing that occurred two decades ago--even though the killer was acquitted and she killed only in self-defense. However, they decide to play up the story as if she was guilty and they even go so far as to both send a writer to the lady's home pretending to be a minister(!) as well as broadcasting her current name and whereabouts. Needless to say, this ruins the woman and leads to a horrible tragedy. Then, and only then, does Bogart feel any real remorse for producing such garbage--leading to a dandy finale about journalistic integrity and decency.

Well-acted, a great story idea and a message that is just as important today as it was back in the 1930s, this is one story you have to see. In particular, notice the wonderful and very emotional confrontation scene where the daughter attacks the owner and Bogart---it is one heck of a great example of acting and writing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I've just seen Buster Keaton's film debut in Fatty Arbuckle's The Butcher Boy and-despite the crude way everything just seems to happen for almost no logical reason-I found plenty to laugh at. Like when Buster orders molasses from butcher boy Fatty, Fatty makes Buster come back to pay, Buster says he put it in the bucket that has the molasses, Fatty dumps molasses in Buster's hat and takes money, Buster takes hat back on head as it gets stuck, Fatty attempts to remove it while molasses fall to floor, Buster's feet are now stuck on floor and so on. That probably didn't read funny but on screen it was hilarious as were some more slapstick involving flour being thrown and a later sequence that takes place in Fatty's girlfriend's boarding school with Fatty dressed in drag and Buster helping Fatty's rival also in drag. Like I said, many scenes don't make a lick of sense but the visuals, especially those involving Arbuckle and Keaton, are laugh inducing even today. Recommended viewing for Keaton completists.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film certainly wasn't very sophisticated. No, the humor was in fact pretty dumb now that I think about it. But, also while I think of it, I did laugh--proving decent comedy doesn't need to be very deep.

Fatty Arbuckle is the definite star of this short, despite Buster Keaton's appearing in the film as well. He is the butcher in an old-time grocery store. A lot of silly stuff occurred in the store and I think I laughed the most at the coffee grinder sequence--you'll just have to see it yourself.

Anyway, later, Fatty's girlfriend is forced to go to a girls' school and because he can't stand to part, he dresses in drag and infiltrates the school. Arbuckle is one ugly woman! So, for silly and unsophisticated fun, see this film. It won't change your life and is a very slight picture, but it's also fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Roscoe \"Fatty\" Arbuckle comedy is best remembered for featuring a young Buster Keaton, fresh from splitting with his family's roughhouse Vaudeville act, in his film debut. Buster gets quite a substantial part in this film and it's quite a funny one overall. \"The Butcher Boy\" has lots of laughs and is an example of pure old-fashioned slapstick done well, though it would seem to come from the brief era of two-reel comedies when filmmakers still imagined in one-reel segments as a matter of course.

The first half of the film takes place in a general store, with Arbuckle as the the butcher boy of the title. It's an excuse to mine the many possibilities for fast physical humor that a general store provides, and Arbuckle really shows himself to be a 300-pound acrobat, demonstrating subtlety, skill, and grace in his performance of what might have been unremarkable slapstick routines that raise them to a different level. A running gag has him flipping a large butcher knife casually so that it spins accurately into it's proper position stuck into the cutting board, and I'm still stunned that Arbuckle really seems to do it each time. There's also a really nice gag that sees him leaning on his scale and confused as to why his cuts of meat weigh so much.

Buster Keaton is a boy who comes into to buy some molasses, and performs deftly in a foot-stuck-to-floor routine that follows. Apart from the odd and almost unsettling half-smile, his idiosyncratic attitude and body language make him recognizable immediately as the Buster we know. He even has his eventually-trademarked flattened hat -- here destroyed for the first time when filled, of course, with molasses.

The second half of the film moves into more situation-based comedy and Arbuckle and his rival Al St. John dress in drag to infiltrate Fatty's girlfriend's boarding school. A lot of the humor also comes from the generally surreal and mysteriously laugh-inducing sight of these two odd fellows wearing drag and trying to \"be girls.\" buster is in this segment too, but mostly stands there in the occasional cutaway, helping St. John.

The ending of \"The Butcher Boy\" becomes a little emptily frenetic, but on the whole and beyond its historical curiosity interest, it's a well-done comedy that gets just the knockabout laughs it is going for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I guess this is the first time I have seen a Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle movie. I really liked him in his (title) role as a butcher boy. The way he moves is very funny in my opinion, for example how he handles his knife and the way he rolls a cigarette. I think he is a good actor; his facial expressions really suit the role he plays, for example how he winks at the audience in the end. But one might add that that was probably not too difficult. Anyway I think he would have deserved a longer career. As you probably know it was ruined by greedy journalists who made money by printing false accusations that said he was involved in a scandal.

The plot is not very important. In the first half, Fatty and Alum are employees at a store and rivals for Almondine's affection. After a heavy food fight, Almondine is sent to a girls' school by her father, the store owner. (This is the beginning of the second half). Both Fatty and Alum enter the school in drag, and the fight for Almondine continues. (Some of the characters' names are different in the version that I have seen. It seems that for some reason they replaced the original title cards with new ones.)

There are a lot of corny gags like food fights and pratfalls, but they are done well in my opinion. And there are some gags I really liked, for example how they make the dog run the pepper mill (or is it a coffee mill?), or the scene when Fatty dons a coat although it is obviously not necessary, or when Miss Teachem, the head of the girls' school, spanks Fatty, and he spanks her back.

Buster Keaton is also funny in this, his first, movie; a good addition to the cast. In the first half he is a customer at the store, in the second half he supports Alum in his fight for Almondine. I liked his acrobatics, for example when Fatty pushes him from one room of the school to another, he doesn't show a simple pratfall but lands on his hands and his head and does a little pirouette. Watch out for one scene in the food fight: Alum throws a flour bag at him, but it misses and hits the store owner instead. That makes Buster laugh, which must be a rarity since he normally always shows a neutral expression (which - as you probably also know already - got him the nickname 'The Great Stone Face'). (One more note: Al St. John, who plays Alum, was 'Fatty' Arbuckle's nephew, and later became famous for the role of 'Fuzzy' that he played in lots of westerns.)

I don't like this one as much as I like, for example, 'One Week' and 'The Balloonatic' (films that Buster made later, without 'Fatty'). And it didn't make me laugh out loud often - but it made me smile a lot, so I have given it eight points.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna was a two-part star studded historical T.V. movie based on the Peter Kurth book, Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson. It keeps up historically pretty much, names are changed etc. But sticks to the real story quite well. Omar Sharif and Claire Bloom do quite well as the Russian royals, Czar Nicholas and Czarina Alexandra. What stuck out in my mind was the all too short portrayals by Rex Harrison and Olivia De Havilland. All in all it was a pretty classy production with some fine acting. I was quite awestruck by the production values when it first aired on NBC in late 1986. Also starring was the fine German actor Jan Niklas who had previously starred in NBC's other Russian epic \"Peter the Great\".

I felt that Part 2 skipped over some important details of Anna Anderson's trip to America. It's important to know too, that in 1986 less was known about the Anna Anderson story. Back then it was still not known whether her claim to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia was genuine. By the late 1990's more was known and Anna Anderson is now reputed to have been a fraud.

Too bad the networks aren't making fine made-for-television movies like this anymore.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's out of question that the real Anna Anderson was NOT Princess Anastasia. Apart from very distinctive differences in physical appearance(Anderson's eyes are perceivably larger, lips thicker, nose larger and turned up at the end....etc), Anderson's unable to speak Russian was a ridiculous tell......That's why I detest Anna Anderson and her confederates so much. Not a lot of swindlers have the audacity and endurance to scam for 60+ years with such a blatantly untenable scheme.

Yet to some extent I have sympathy for Anna Anderson. Life must have been hard for a young Polish peasant worker in those days. And to impersonate another woman for 60+ years is an arduous task for anybody.She had to hold back her fleshy lips all the time to mimic the thin lips of Anastasia's, and had to occasionally go lunatic to make people believe all her chaotic memory was just a result of mental problem.

Anna Anderson was an awesome woman on a wrong track. Had she put her good-looks, learned elegance, endurance, acting skills into proper use, she could of made a first-class actress.

On a side note: Some main characters of this two-parter seem to be loosely based on real figures. Prince Erich could be a mixture of Gleb Botkin(believed by many the most possible brain behind the whole scheme), Duke George and Dmitri of Leuchtenberg, and several other figures. And Darya Romanoff seem to be based on the gorgeous Princess Xenia Georgievna Romanova. But unlike the real confederates, Prince Erich was motiveless in this show and supported Anna out of love for and sincere belief in her, which is touching.

On the whole this is a great show. Fictionalised a bit but still remains faithful to the reality. The power of Amy Irving's acting lies in that she successfully represented Anderson's self-assuredness, the mixture of impersonating others and being herself is intriguing. Just as Princess Xenia said about Anderson:\"She was herself at all times and never gave the slightest impression of acting a part.\" Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was probably watching this TV movie that got me interested in the debate as to whether \"Anna\" was really Tsar Nicholas's daughter Anastasia. Since seeing it I have made a point of watching various documentaries and also bought a book. Despite the evidence that has been discovered since the film was released, I sometimes still think she was. Such is the power of Amy Irving's acting in this 2-parter which is somewhat liberal with the historical facts, but packed to the brim with tear-jerking drama and Irving's totally convincing performance.

I was not consciously aware of Irving before this, though I must have seen her without realizing it in \"Carrie\" (another favourite film). In \"Anasasia\", I never felt for one moment that \"it's only a film\". For me this woman WAS Anastasia, and when part one ended with her in the railway carriage meeting members of the royal family, I knew that come hell or high water I had to see the second part. I just wanted to see how she would prove that she was who she claimed to be, and as the story progressed I felt an intense hatred of Rex Harrison's character, though I greatly admire him as an actor.

When I saw the movie listed again in the TV guide, I convinced my Mother that we should watch it, and afterward she thanked me for doing so, being almost as keen as I had been to watch part 2. Then I bought the video and can totally recommend it. \"Anastasia\" is one of those rare TV movies that you simply must watch for the sheer enjoyment of watching the finest acting I have ever seen on TV, and it doesn't really matter whether you believe the legend or not.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wouldn't be so sure to accept the DNA tests as irrefutable evidence against Anna Anderson. First, read Peter Kurth's book on which this film is based. Anna Anderson knew things that only the real Grand Duchess Anastasia could possibly have known (forensic evidence in Anna's favor aside). Second, compare the pictures of Anastasia and Anna Anderson. Anyone can see that they are one-and-the-same person. Third, visit Peter Kurth's website (url below) where you can read detailed information about the DNA tests, as well as why Franziska Schanzkowska and Anna Anderson are not the same person (scroll down to the link, \"ANNA-ANASTASIA NOTES ON FRANZISKA SCHANZKOWSKA\"). Even Schanzkowska's relatives believed that their sister and Anna Anderson were not the same person.

I for one will always believe that HIH Anastasia Nicolevna Romanova and Anna Anderson were indeed the same person; I will never be swayed to the contrary .

www.peterkurth.com","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What I find remarkable about this terrific film, is that Altman, the crazy and wild guy that he is, took the novel THAT COLD DAY IN THE PARK and the Sandy Dennis character was originally a male in the book. He was a mentally whacked out isolated gay who looked out of his apartment window when he spotted the hustler. It is strange that Altman fans aren't aware of how clever he was to change the sex of the main character; thereby avoiding the homo erotic taboos of gay life in the 60's and actually making Dennis' reclusive kind of madness work even better in the transposition.If you see the film again, it will be evident how wily the Altman mind works...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, let me say this film isn't for everyone. It has a very strange subject matter. A spinster living alone and living a boring life discovers a young man in a park just across the street from her townhouse. She notices him sitting out in the rain and invites him in to dry off & warm up. The man does not speak and the woman assumes he is deaf mute. Still, she is fascinated with him and sexually interested in him. He finds her odd and continues his silence although we find out later that he isn't mute at all and that he reports to his sister everything that is going on between him & the woman. I won't give away the rest of the plot. If you can find this film watch it. You cannot take your eyes off of it. What makes it so interesting? Well, it is totally unique. I've never seen anything like it and watching these two together is very uncomfortable. Especially when you find out what this bland, boring, obsessive spinster is capable of. You won't forget it soon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film requires a lot of patience. Because it focuses on mood and character development, the plot is very simple and many of the scenes take place on the same set - in Frances Austen's (the Sandy Dennis character) apartment. But the film builds to a disturbing climax.

The characters create an atmosphere rife with sexual tension and psychological trickery. It's very interesting that Robert Altman directed this, considering the style and structure of his other films. Still, the trademark Altman audio style is evident here and there. I think what really makes this film work is the brilliant performance by Sandy Dennis. It's definitely one of her darker characters, but she plays it so perfectly and convincingly that it's scary. Michael Burns does a good job as the \"mute\" young man. Regular Altman player Michael Murphy has a small part. The solemn, moody set fits the content of the story very well. In short, this movie is a powerful study of loneliness, sexual repression, and desperation. Be patient, soak up the atmosphere, and pay attention to the wonderfully written script.

I praise Robert Altman. This is one of his many films that deals with unconventional, fascinating subject matter. This film is disturbing, but it's sincere and it's sure to elicit a strong emotional response from the viewer. If you want to see an unusual film - some might even say bizarre - this is worth the time.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find in video stores. You may have to buy it off the internet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is another of Robert Altman's underrated films(let's be honest, the only movie he's made that really didn't work was Ready to Wear), and Sandy Dennis gives a spellbinding performance in it.She is far better here than she was in \"The Out of Towners\". The material, I will admit, is beneath the great director Altman and the extraordinary actress Dennis, but that hardly matters anyway.As long as there allowed to do their thing and do it well, just about any story will do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** Feeling alone and needing companionship as well as love Frances Austen, Sandy Dennis, keeps all these emotions inside as she goes through life as a popular young single lady who has many high class friends. But for reasons of her own deep insecurity she keeps them at arms length. As for Frances male friends non are anywhere near her age so that she won't have any reason to have any romantic involvement with them.

One early evening as Frances was entertaining some of her friends she spots outside her apartment window a young man, Michael Burns, sitting alone in the cold pouring rain. Feeling that he's homeless and alone after her friends leave Frances goes outside to the park and offers the young man shelter at her place until the rain subsides and even to stay over for the night at a guest bedroom that she has. You can see right away that Frances is more interested in just having the young mans safely out of the cold and rain then she wants to have him as a friend lover or even play-toy all for herself and as the movie progresses you see that you were right.

A really amazing performance by Sandy Dennis that in a way is very much like that of Kathy Bates' Academy Award performance in the movie \"Misery\" that was made in 1990 some twenty one years later. Frances thinking that the young man was alone and homeless and, later when she meets him, mute sees the perfect person for her to have as a true friend. He's in no way her equal or better then her like the friends that she has, doctors lawyers Indian chiefs, and thus is totally dependent on her. It later turns out that the young man is not the lonely and homeless person that Frances thought that he is. It's when she slowly finds out that he really doesn't need her as well as him manipulating her instead the other way around it sets off something in Frances' mind that turns out to be a compulsion of murderous proportions.

A really weird film by director Robert Altman that goes deep into the depths of loneliness and depression of the human mind. Actress Sandy Dennis is perfect as the Dr. Jekyll and Miss. Hyde personality in her acting as the lonely but at the same time dangerous Frances Austen and it's a pity that not only didn't she get an Academy Award for her role in the film but wasn't even nominated for it.

Like most Robert Altman movies there seems to be a lot of improvisation among the actors in the movie and ad lib dialog especially between the young man's sister Nina, Susanne Benton, and her boyfriend Nick, David Garfield. The only thing in the movie that I found confusing is when we see Frances go to a city clinic to have a full gynecological exam and tells the doctor that she expects to get married very soon. Was her husband to be the young man staying at her apartment? But besides that the movie sticks to the story pretty well and the ending is a real shock to the audience as well as the young man. When he finally, in the end, realizes that Frances is not only a bit off-the-wall but murderously insane as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was 19 years old when I saw first saw this film, in the theater. I have a vivid memory of a different ending. Not completely different but significantly. I just watched the movie last night and I was wrong, so I guess the following can't be called a spoiler, since it never happened. The ending I remember was that the boy was hiding in the house completely naked, Frances Austen found him quite easily and after she confronted him, she slowly sank to her knees and went down on him off camera. Only his face was in the frame and it was pretty obvious he was letting it happen, albeit against his will. But nothing like this showed up in the movie. Sandy Dennis was 32 years old when she made this movie, Michael Burns was 22. In the movie, he complains to his sister that Frances makes too big a deal about sex. Yeah? Well, then, so go to bed with her dude, and get it over with. WTF?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Growing up as of child of the movies, one of the trilogies I shall not soon forget is that of the Karate Kid. You can put down Ralph \/ Daniel all you want, but its the message behind the movies that are important, that its important to be respectful to all creatures great and small, but stand up for yourself when the time calls for it. Getting back to the movie at hand, its rather funny because, I saw Boys Don't Cry and was really impressed with the performance of Hillary Swank, and in flipping through the sea of channels the other night, I came across the showing of this film and I hadn't realized at the time of my first viewing of this movie that she was in it. The story centers around Julie, just like Daniel, not knowing where to fit in or if she even wants to fit in and the master teacher is brought in to help straighten her out and guide her. I really liked this addition to the series as it gave a good feminine side to the story and yes, even some outfits that Hillary were in kept me, shall we say stimulated.

Overall 3.5 out of 5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I read a few reviews of the movie and got the impression that it was not as good as the previous Karate Kid installments. Although my favorite is still Karate Kid II, I felt this fourth installment of the movie series was consistent with the others and had some important lessons to share. Unlike the previous versions, the karate student is a female teenager who takes a somewhat different learning path, rather than a male teenager. Maggi finds this a little more challenging, but rises to the occasion. The plot twists are believable and predictable. I found that the bad guys are a little one dimensional, but this weakness is present in all the installments in varying degrees. The camera work is impressive and pans across some beautiful scenery from time to time. The Zen monastery is both austere and charming. The Zen monks add some humor and lightness to the narrative flow. I liked the \"Zen Bowling\" scenes which are a humorous counterpoint to the more serious Zen archery scene earlier on. The quality level of the movie is like a good TV series. The music chosen for the background is very good, especially with the Little River Band playing \"Listen to Your Heart\". The lessons in the movie are valuable and worthwhile to learn. They feel faithful to the spirit of karate and take care not to over-glorify the fighting part. All in all, I enjoyed it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hilary was great as julie, and Pat was once again magnificent as Mr. Miyagi, but there should have been more references towards the other three movies! I mean, come on! First off, Where's Daniel!? Miyagi makes a very brief mention of him and that's it. Daniel was his best friend and should've at least made an appearance in the movie. He could've helped Miyagi train Julie-San! On the flip side, the music stayed true to the movie though, with a little more instrumentation(Fretless Bass)to accompany the wonderfully played Pan-Flute! It doesn't feel like a Karate Kid movie unless you hear that Pan-Flute! Thank you Zamfir! Overall, a decent movie though! We miss you Noriyuki!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was great, if you didn't take it too seriously. Just sit back and enjoy Hilary Swank in all her greatness and laugh when the monks go to Boston, MA. I also think this movie has a great message about self control and inner strength. Plus Mr. Myagi was so sweet, I wish he'd teach me karate!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is the 4th movie in the Karate Kid series.however it has nothing to do with the previous 3.the only character remaining is Mr Myagi.this time around Mr Myagi meets troubled teen Julie pierce(Hliary Swank,before she was famous)Julie having all kinds of Problem including being bullied at school by a guy,belonging to a pseudo military club on campus.Naturally she is trained how to fight.Anyway,through Myagi,Julie learns Karate and becomes a better person spiritually and learns how to respect herself and in the end regains her respect.i like the unique idea of the antagonist being a female and having a male as her enemy.i there are also some fight scenes which are done quite well,very low key and minimal violence.none of the fighting is graphic.the ending is also good and a bit surprising.it is predictable but not a typical ending for this kind of film.the film has echoes of the original obviously,especially the spiritual aspect and the lessons learned.it is not as good as the 1st movie,and certainly not as good as the 2nd.it is however,a giant leap forward compared to the underwhelming 3rd entry.this is a very entertaining under dog movie that is suitable for the whole family. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was very different form the previous films and I had to wonder, \"Where is Ralph Macchio?\" he could have been involved in the plot somewhere as Myiagi's old friend who teaches Julie what he already knows, then Myiagi can come along and add some more! Macchio could've been the love interest for Julie in this film! Never mind!

On a serious level, I enjoyed this film because it involved teaching a teenage girl how to do Karate, and her feelings are very different to what Daniel's were. Julie is much more wild than Daniel was and needs taming, something which Myiagi finds very challenging; she's quite a troubled girl and a rude, obnoxious brat!

It was very satisfying to watch the transformation in Julie as she warms to Myiagi and gets to understand more about Karate and her life in general. We can all learn a thing or two from Myiagi's witticisms!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another 'good overcoming evil' story, but with a difference. This includes learning self-discipline. When Julie goes with her teacher to a Zen monastery, she learns about herself. She also hones her karate skills.

When the Zen monks visit the city, some awkward and comical moments ensue. Not uproarious, but entertaining nonetheless.

Next Karate Kid has much to say about looking within, and improving what is there -- as well as using what you have.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

I first viewed this film shortly after it was put out on video in 1995, I dismissed it offhand, saying that Julie was no Daniel, never really giving it a chance and saying it was horrid.

But here it is, 5 years later, its on Disney and im watching it again. And I'm finding that it isnt as bad as I made it out to be. Miyagi is still Miyagi, just as kool as ever, the musical score is still there pleasant as ever. And Swank's character isnt that bad, her acting is pretty good considering the script. It beats the third installment by a wide margin. So, my original rating of 4 has been raised to 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For once a sequel to \"The Karate Kid\" without Ralph Macchio! Hilary Swank did an excellent job playing the orphan Julie Pierce. Pat Morita, the one who plays Mr. Miyagi worked his way with Julie quite different from Daniel. Both Daniel and Julie favored karate. Unlike Daniel, Julie was the most surly person Miyagi ever challenged. And there was no tournament to compete in. And there's gonna be some humor in this movie as well. I liked the part where when Julie came home from school, Miyagi went to check on her, and saw her change clothes in the process. That was very funny! And the classic \"Wax on, Wax off\" scene was different as well. It was funny when Miyagi tells Julie, \"Uh-oh, missed spot\". The set in Boston was a far cry from California. The Militant group in that group, was like the \"Cobra Kai\" in Boston. And Michael Ironside's Col. Dugan was no John Kreese. His group practically deserted him when Julie kicked some serious butt. They all paid the price when they blew up that classic Oldsmoblie. What a cowardly act. At least they'll find redemption from Dugan's poison. This Karate Kid sets some morals, unlike the last three, which talked about \"Honor\" and \"Respect\". Hilary Swank is outstandingly hot in any movie and everything else she does. Movie 9, Hilary Swank 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE NEXT KARATE KID, in my opinion, is an excellent martial arts flick. I thought that Eric (Chris Conrad) and Julie (Hilary Swank) looked good in their prom attire. To me, Ned (Michael Cavalieri) was a real bully. This was because he got Julie in trouble with Principal Wilkes (Eugene Boles). If you ask me, Colonel Dugan (Michael Ironside) was a pure a******! This was because he was a very harsh man who wouldn't tolerate mistakes. My favorite parts were the prom and the showdown between Julie and the Alpha Elite. In conclusion, I highly recommend this smash hit to all of you who like martial-arts flicks or are fans of Hilary Swank.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, so this is a complete rip off of the first Karate Kid. However, I think there can never be too many movies like the first Karate Kid. There's something about this type of story that particularly seems to apply to people like me. You get a overall sense of being able to overcome adversity by finding out new things about yourself. In this movie, Hillary Swank is a particular gem as the Next Karate Kid. You can really tell that she has a bright future ahead of her.

Not to say this movie is not without it's problems. Unlike the first one, Mr Miyagi appears to be a little to eager to get Julie to learn martial arts and get her involved in fighting. It almost seems like he forgot what his values were from the first movie. Also, one must have a suspended disbelief when examining the monks. The movie makes the monks appear to have a way too simplistic view of life, and doesn't really explain why they do what they do in the plot-line. The villains are also a bit questionable, even though truly hateable bad guys. I also have a suspicion about Martial Arts movies that end on prom night.

So maybe this isn't a perfect movie. So maybe this wouldn't be the greatest movie to rent on a Friday night. However, in more ways than one, it's a guilty pleasure. Hillary Swank is just so loveable, and the story, even though unoriginal, works. In a genre of movies that seems to be based around nothing other than action and violence, this is a breath of fresh air. Unlike all those Steven Seagal and Jean Claude Van-Damme, this is a movie about the spirit and the heart. There are some people that need movies like this, and we'll take whatever we can get. My rating: 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After a very disappointing Part 3, I kinda wondered if I should even bother with The Next Karate Kid, while I could see why this saga wouldn't continue, I still enjoyed The Next Karate Kid most out of the second and the third Karate Kid movies. While there are some very unrealistic moments and situations, it was very enjoyable and the story is a catchy and warm one.

Hilary Swank, has this girl come far or what? She plays a rebel girl who has lost her parents to a car accident and when Miaugi sort of \"babysits\" her per say, he notices that she has karate skills. He offers her more lessons if she becomes more serious in life. Now of course there is the boy that likes her and the mean bullies that are pretty similar to the first Karate Kid, but I would recommend this one. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not sure how I can make ten lines out of this question, but I'll try.

When Julie went to the dance and they were dancing to slow music. What was the name of the song that was playing and who played it?

I love that song! And I watch the movie over and over just to hear that one song.

I did several searches online and even looked up the soundtrack but I sill can't find the song.

It might be because the song they were dancing to wasn't a complete song and just partial.

I would appreciate if anyone out there who knows what the name of the song and the group who sung it.

Thank you.

Frank","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen this movie more than once and it's worth it. For those of you who like martial arts and overcoming internal conflict, this is a worthy choice. After seeing this movie, I wanted to be a more productive member of society because I could relate to the inner turmoil of a girl looking for acceptance and needing a path to follow. Of course, Mr. Miyagi always provides his sage advice. 2 thumbs up!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is specially for children and I think they will enjoy the movie. For older than 10 the movie is not great but Hilary Swank played very well and without her the movie is very bad but now it gets a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wish the series had not ended so soon. Although the acting may not be the greatest in the world, it does end on a positive note and does teach morals and values to the viewers. Hilary Swank did a good job of portraying a High School student who had lost her parents, etc. Miyagi was great as in the previous 3!! If you are not into the happy ending, this movie, like the previous 3 in the series is not for you. This day in which we live you can not see enough about the bad guys getting what they deserve and the good guys coming out on top. The Bible teaches that good will always triumph over evil. That is exactly what happens in this one. It is a great family movie. Please see it if you have not already.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, it took them 4 tries, but they finally got it right! In this 4th sequel to the Karate Kid franchise, the producers really hit a home run! Well first of all I applaud them for finally getting rid of Ralph Macchio. I felt he never did service to the role of the Karate Kid. I would have rather have seen Danny 'Ralph Mouth' Most in that role. Macchio turned out what proved to be the best movie in the series, and look where his career is now! Instead they put in a girl! They got Hillary Swank, best known for playing a variety of sheman parts in every movie she is in. I personally don't care for her buck teeth, but thats a personal preference. But still, look how Karate Kid 4 launched her career into orbit! She won a freakin Oscar. Jiminey Christmas! Meanwhile where is Ralphy?? He should put out some amateur porn tape like Screech or something.

Anyways, my only disagreement with the movie is that they have a girl doing karate. As a self-proclaimed master of Karate, I have been the proud owner of a white belt for the last 8 5\/8 years. The first thing they taught me is that there is no place in any of the martial arts for girls... well except for Judo... but thats kinda gay. So for the purposes of accuracy, I think they should have stuck with another male for this role. I was thinking perhaps Dennis Franz. He would give the role the depth it requires.

Perhaps they will listen to my suggestions and make the proper adjustments in Karate Kid 5. Its too Pat Marita is no longer. I was thinking maybe Justin Guarini is the perfect replacement for the lovable Asian fellow Mr. Miyagi. He will give \"Wax on wax off\" a whole new meaning. HAHAHAHAHAHA funny huh? Anyways, if you are looking for an exciting movie filled with Karate and triumph of the human spirit, Karate Kid 4 is for you. Don't waste your time with 1-3. This is the Karate Kid for you! This is the Karate Kid for r the ages!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like this movie cause it has a good approach of Buddhism, for example, the way Buddhist use to care all kind of living things, combining some fancy and real situations; in some parts the photography is very good and a lot of messages about freedom, as the hawk episode, staying always focused in every moment, even in tough situations.. It has also funny situations as Swank's birthday and, talking this two times academy awards, her acting show us how the people who use to live in this kind of culture is trying to have a resistance behavior when Miyagi is taking her to a Buddhist temple, and how she, slowly, is changing her mind. And, of course, Pat Morita has been always great","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The next Karate Kid\" is an outstanding movie full of adventure and new surprises. It has a wonderful plot and moral that tells a wonderful story. Hilary Swank does an incredible job of achieving the role of Julie. I have seen the actor who plays Mr. Miagee and this is one of his best performances in my opinion. The movie is funny and charming and I cannot stress enough about how interesting the movie is. I definantly gove this movie a 10 out of 10. I suggest the movie to anyone who likes a good movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Internet is a wondrous thing is it not? I am watching a taped episode of one of my all time favorite documentaries, \"Vietnam:The Ten Thousand Day War\", from my DVR in Florida USA to my laptop in Kuwait; I'm writing a review about this series and have just read another review from someone who actually lives in Vietnam! Amazing. I would like to just say that for Minh Nguyen to make the statement that America brought the war to Vietnam is one sided. I know America was the main player in the west but it takes two sides to wage war. The Soviets and the Chinese were major arms providers to the North so why Mr Nguyen doesn't mention them as partially to blame is showing an ignorance (well, I think we all know why he doesn't mention them, either ignorance from being raised in a communist system and its political dogma, or because he to scared to say the truth for fear of being arrested.). Also, Mr Nguyen, I guess the parts about the North being the main aggressor it whole war were not shown in your country so to blame America again shows ignorance. Regardless, its interesting to read a review from Vietnam (of course that could be made up as well but I'll take that as real), at least the communist east is somewhat open. As far as the mini series; why do I love it? It doesn't focus on the American involvement solely. This was a war that started 15 years before America got involved and the series covers every facet of the history so thats a real plus. The footage used is first rate, all the Vietnam War programs you see made now will use the same footage so you are not missing anything by watching this older series. The date this series was made is another plus. It has all the major players being interviewed which you can't do now because they are dead from old age, it's a major historical reference. Third, Richard Basehart adds a very distinctive narrative voice, his voice sounds as distinguished as James Earl Jones voice would and I think thats very steep praise. I don't think you could find a better war documentary ever made, it's like taking the relatively modern technology of 1980 and transplanting it to the year 1950 and interviewing all the generals and politicians on both sides of world war two, it does that for the Vietnam War.

OK, I do see some bias, its subtle, a 1970's-80's style subtle bias kind of like NPR \"All Things Considered\" bias where it all seems so straight forward but when you blink you end up shaking your head. In this shows case the later episodes don't throw a whole lot of light on the role of the media and propaganda in general, all useful tools to influence the outcome of a war, DON'T YOU THINK?????

From an OIF War Veteran going through the same thing 30 years later.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched the movie with tears and smiles alternatively. Anger surged in me to see the ruin of Hanoi after the 12-day bombard. And by living in the country right now with my parents, who's been living in Saigon for 50 years, I understand that we're much better off now, and would have been better if the American didn't bring war here. Watching the movie, I learned more of the different kinds of wars that the America planned in Vietnam, and what disasters they caused.

The series seems to do well with the interviews with the real people. But I don't like it that some people only give generic opinions, like the analyst near the end of the series, I forgot his name.

There should also be more documentary images, like the life in the army camp of the South Vietnam, and those of the North (if possible). There's also a sudden change from the year of 1972 to 1975 (I'm not sure if the in-between was censored, because I watched this series on TV).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is engaging from start to finish with excellent performances, a great soundtrack with original music by Douglas Brown, and a well paced script that's full of surprises.

Full of new and not so new faces, this movie showcases promising talent especially in the case of Craig Morris who plays the main character Eddie Monroe. Morris, who also co-wrote the script, displays a quiet strength combined with a strong emotional performance as he creates a believable character on screen. Also a poignant delivery by Paul Vario who plays Uncle Benny with a genuine warmth, was so convincing that he made me hungry as he lovingly prepared his Italian sauce.

Great new faces, great new music, and a great new story - what more could you ask for. This film is highly recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fred Carpenter screened Eddie Monroe at Boston College, and judging from the enthusiastic response, he has much to be pleased about. A taught, well done Indy, impressive for it's big budget look and feel. This movie has it all: a tight script that grabs you and doesn't let go right up to it's surprise ending. This viewer didn't see it coming! Excellent performances all around. Craig Morris and Jessica Tsunis were were especially well cast in the leads, delivering strong performances. And kudos to Frank Bongiorno and Alex Corrado for creating two detectives as engaging and interesting to watch as any in film. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It confirmed my belief that some of the best work in film will be coming from the independents, and Fred Carpenter looks to be one of the best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just viewed Eddie Monroe and I was very impressed. The story was easily paced as the plot unraveled to a surprise ending. Heartwarming performances, action, humor, and drama filled the screen. Topnotch acting by some talented Long Islanders. Great script. This is the best film that Fred Carpenter has made to date, he should be very proud of this work. Doug Brown's score is on the mark. Craig Morris is the next Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt. Hard to believe this is a low budget, independent film. Just imagine what Carpenter can do with a Hollywood level budget. Paul Regina's last film and he is greatly missed and loved by all. He was a wonderful, successful, talented actor and a great human being. He will watch over us all and we will never forget his dynamic smile and spirit. Great job to all who participated in this film. A few cherished scene stealing, and humorous cameos to break up the serious content. You will enjoy this film, go see it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was very impressed with what Eddie Monroe was able to accomplish in regards to its overall affect on me. I say this because I know this independent film had a limited budget\/resources, but despite this, it comes across as a convincing and well crafted piece of work.

Enjoyable from start to finish with several relatively unknown actors which I can't help but believe will make a big noise in the industry in years to come, Eddie Monroe didn't fail to keep my interest engaged and my emotional meter dancing. It's a well scripted story with a startling ending despite my effort to not be taken off guard.

Many of the cast names listed for this film are names to look out for in the future. Someone told me that Paul Regina recently passed, and if this is true it's a real tragedy since his stoic performance in Eddie Monroe is remarkable.

Kudos to Fred Carpenter who has truly pulled out a winner with this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No doubt that the indie flick Eddie Monroe is one of the better independent films I've seen in a long time. The highlight for me was the performance of Paul Vario. I first saw Paul, or \"Big Paulie\" as he was called in Danny Provenzano's hit indie, \"This Thing Of Ours\". Thankfully, the \"Eddie Monroe\" filmmaker(s) did the same and utilized Paul's undeniable skills in a principle (principal?) role. Out came a performance (on camera and voice-over utilization as well) that shows worthy of big-budget studio roles in the very near future. It's refreshing to see a trained actor who is committed to the trade, prove the same to the audience. Keep up the good work Big Paulie and we'll be seeing you in Hollywood real soon! Not bad for a kid from Canarsie, huh?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Eddie Monroe is Hooooot. He is a great actor and I could be his girl anytime. He's so fine. I was so sad at the end. I'm not going to ruin the end but wow. Girls are so vicious. His girl was wrong. If Eddie was my man I would never disrespect. Those Mobsters were spooky. The moral of the story is Trust No One. Your friends will hurt u if they can. Oh and Eddie tell your girlfriend that yo mine, she should move ova! I would suggest seeing the movie. Why? Becasur I said so. It kept my eyes on the screen. My sister loved it also so I am going to see it again because now my friends want to see it and its worth seeing two times. Peace,Happy New Year!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this film, Independent film-making at its best. The cinematography , pacing, rhythm , and acting were perfectly in sync. Fred Carpenters best work to date! The movie is well written with lots of plot twists that take you to a great ending. It moves well and keeps you involved. Being a photographer, I was most impressed with the cinematography. the lighting creates mood and a beauty that is usually found in a much bigger budget film. This gave the actors a great canvas to start from, to work their magic. And that is just what they did! Great performances from all the actors and each one was well cast in their roles. As I said in the beginning, the is a wonderful film, and one of Fred Carpenters best movies. You will love it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was a guest at the Sept. 30th screening of Eddie Monroe and was pleasantly surprised with the story, the great acting and the talented directing. I found it hard to believe that all this talent can be found in an independent film. Powerful performances by Vario, (Uncle Benny), Sara, (Jessica Tsunis), and Morris, (Eddie Monroe). The supporting cast was chock full of colorful and amusing characters. This film reminds me of one of those movies that you will look back on in 20 years and discover that it launched many actors into stardom. Much like \"The Outsiders\" where Tom Cruise, Emilio Estavez, Patrick Swazey, Ralph Macchio, and others can be found. Look out Hollywood, there are new stars out on the horizon and they can be discovered in a little Long Island, independent film called, \"Eddie Monroe.\" Great job!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been writing hardboiled crime fiction for a number of years now. When a writer develops a story he always has a character\/actor in mind to bring the story to life. Last weekend I found a new one in Paul Vario playing uncle Benny in Eddie Monroe. This was a slick film highlighted by Vario's presence both on and off the screen (as his voice-over narration is also heard). I also especially liked the actress playing Benny's niece and Eddie's ex-wife, although everyone did a fine job in this exciting movie about playing with bad guys and the double-crossing that goes with it. A nice job all around ... and Mr. Vario shined brightest. He's gotta be my Tony Gangi someday ...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found the Movie very interesting. I really enjoyed the film the actors were great. It was entertainment. Benny the uncle was wonderful He was real at his character. The ending took a wonderful twist. I would recommend you seeing it. Eddie Mores girlfriend reminded me a little of sandra bullock she was sharp as a nail. I also like the little girls acting in the movie she was very convincing. Benny reminded me of a friend of mine who really lives his life growing up in Brooklyn. I loved the scene where he tasted the sauce in the pot because thats how most people cook lol. I actually watched the movie 2 times and learned more the second time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a Long Island independent film maker myself, and having have had two theatrical releases under my producing\/directing belt I had always been told of how much I could learn by viewing a FRED CARPENTER production so I was lucky enough to have his \"Eddie Monroe\" as my initiation to his superb budgeting, production, casting, settings and masterful directing talents. My heart went out to it's characters, it's story and was totally won over by the trick\/switch ending that brought the film's plot to fruition! Location's were marvelously chosen and human emotions in it's characters brought a realistic link to my bonding with all the elements that Mr Carpenter utilized throughout, to his and his film's benefit!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was at a friends house for Thanksgiving and watched a DVD of the movie, Eddie Monroe. I've been a fan of Indie Films for almost 20 years, (I loved the Brothers McMullen), and was impressed how good this movie is. My friend, who works at Magno Sound, told us that this movie was shot on Super 16. The photography was so good, it looked as though it was a 35mm shoot. Furthermore, the music combined with Fred Carpenter's direction, was art. The storyline was original and led up to an ending that surprised all of us watching...very cool. The acting by the entire cast was good, especially the actor who played, Uncle Benny. He was amazing. This film was a nice holiday treat, and I was delighted to be one of the first to view a movie that many will be seeing in the future.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I viewed the movie for a second time on September 30, 2006 and thought that it was even better than the first time I saw it. I thoroughly enjoyed the acting, especially \"Uncle Benny\". I thought that Fred Carpenter did an excellent job of writing and directing this film. The story line definitely kept your interest and I hope this movie makes it all the way to the top. I felt it moved very smoothly between scenes and the surprise twist at the end, well, lets just say I didn't see it coming. I also thought that Craig, the actor who played \"Eddie Monroe\" did an excellent job and I hope that this movie will help him to go further in his acting career. From start to finish, I thoroughly enjoyed it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved the film \"Eddie Monroe\". The film had all the components that kept me interested while watching it. I especially loved the plot twists along the way and the surprising ending. Craig Morris has Brad Pitt potential both in looks and talent. His blue eyes reminded me of Paul Newman's. Fred Carpenter took this movie to a new level.I loved the cast. The music score, cinematography, talent, locations and script were awesome. I loved seeing some of my favorite actors in Eddie Monroe. Fred Carpenter is an incredibly talented and gifted director. He gives his work 200%. The film has great texture. I hope that there will be an Eddie Monroe 2. I would love to see how Nicolette turns out after getting her windfall of money. Fred Carpenter's Eddie Monroe is Hollywood level.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen a few of Fred Carpenter's movies on Showtime, Pay Per View and video\/DVD and I enjoyed most of these films especially with a few beers, (Carpenter knows how to entertain)\"EDDIE MONROE\" and \"MURDERED INNOCENCE\" are my favorites. I recently Viewed a Promo DVD of \"EDDIE MONROE\" and everything from the cast to the storyline and directing all worked smoothly. (Doug Brown's Music Score was sensational.) I enjoyed seeing Frank Sivero (\"Goodfellas\", \"New York, New York\" and \"The Wedding Singer\"), he is an amazing and very underrated actor.But I especially liked the performance of Paul Vario who played Uncle Benny, I looked up his acting credits on the IMDb and I found out this was his first starring role. Where has this guy been! Give Fred Carpenter credit for discovering Great New Talent, it's only a matter of time you'll be seeing this guy costarring with Pacino and DeNiro. As I mentioned Carpenter knows how to entertain and when your working with a limited budget it is amazing what Carpenter can Produce.(I read the VENT MAGAZINE interview and Carpenter has never made a movie for more than $400,000.00 dollars.) Before I watched \"EDDIE MONROE\" I saw \"Rocky Balboa\" and \"The Good Shepherd\" both great films. \"Eddie Monroe\" took me on a ride to a surprised ending because of a very good script, good performances from the entire cast(Craig Morris is a movie star waiting to happen and the lead Actress Jessica Tsunis was hot!) great Cinematography, Direction and Doug Brown's Music Score. As I stated I recently seen \"Rocky Balboa\" and \"The Good Shepherd\", if I were to write a comment about those two movies I would be saying some of the same things I have stated about \"EDDIE MONROE\", the only thing those two very good films don't have in common with \"Eddie Monroe\", they didn't cost a few hundred grand. Great movie and I didn't even drink a beer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a Talent Manager. I have been for 15 years now. I have discovered some wonderful talent. They have been in Movies, Commericals, Braodway and Television. In my opinion Eddie Monroe was cast wonderful. I love seeing the ability of real people. Not just a name. The Actors in this movie were very natural and believable. I was very entertained by this film. I love a movie with a few twists. I also enjoy when at the end of the movie the puzzle is solved. I still would like to know what happened to the large sum of the money.(When you see the flick you will understand what I am saying.) The Mobsters all look real ???? I would like to see this film on the Big Screen. The footage was shot really well. The scenery of New York was the New York that I know. Have a Happy 2006 and may this movie make it to the awards.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"cool flick. enjoyable to watch. hope to see more from Fred Carpenter soon. i really like the location setting with all the new york references. it was interesting the way it all unfolds in the end. the suspense factor was effective and the acting, though kept simple, was also effective in portraying the characters. there are a bunch of neat little tricks incorporated into this film that make all the better. i think the supporting actress did a great job in her role. the casting and directing in this film seem to be sewn together seamlessly and the quality of the shooting is quite impressive. the movie is not without its soft moments either, which gives it a nice sense of balance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Scooby Doo and the Monster of Mexico was no doubt the weakest of the modern Scooby Doo animated features. Loch Ness Monster is a considerable improvement.

This time the gang head off to Scotland to see the Highland Games and visit Blake castle, Daphne's ancestral home. And wouldn't you know, the castle happens to be in the 'quaint' fishing village of Drumnadrochit, on the shores of Loch Ness.

During their stay they meet a few interesting folks. First there is Fiona Pembrooke, a scientist who has drowned all of her money into finding the Loch Ness Monster.

Sir Ian Locksley, the boss of the National Heritage Museum of Scotland, he is staunch non-believer of Nessie.

The Haggarts, the own a cozy Inn on the shores of the loch. The sons are a couple of local jokers, always into mischief.

Del Chilman, a wild, paranoid hippie dude who is convinced the monster is out there and will stop at nothing on find her.

And finally, Duncan MacGubbin, the dock master who has seen Nessie too many times to count.

Most of these characters are stereotypes, which gets a bit annoying as this is teaching younger audiences a load of crap and giving the wrong impression. However if you can immune yourself to it you'll be alright. Being from Scotland I can't help but wince at the awfully mimicked Scottish accents. Fact: We DON'T sound like that.

Soon enough Nessie, looking rather more demonic than 'usual', shows up and causes havoc. Looks like the gang have another mystery on their hands. The usual chase scenes, clues and Shaggy's wacky disguises follow. There are plenty of laughs. The animation is splendid, with some atmospheric scenes and locations. And the plot a lot better than Monster of Mexico.

The only bad thing this time around is the music. I miss Louis Febre's scoring and the songs here are pretty rotten too. Where are the Hex Girls when you need 'em?

The region 2 DVD is in crystal clear 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen (the region 1 ain't) with Dolby 5.0 sound. Some okay extras are included. Definitely worth getting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"good job.that's how i would describe this animated Scooby-Doo adventure.this is so far the best of the animated Scooby movies i have seen.i liked the story.i thought it had some depth to to it.the movie is also well paced.it doesn't get boring for a minute.it also has an interesting group of characters(besides Scooby and Shaggy and the gang,of course)plus,the movie was a real blast.i has a lot of fun watching it.i also liked the great Scottish music.it was very catchy and infectious.naturally,we know that Scooby and the Gamg will solve the mystery,but it's still fun getting to that point.the animation is also pretty good for this movie.i would love it if they did a 3D animation Scooby adventure,but we'll just have to wait and see.for me,Scooby-Doo and the Loch Ness monster is a 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of quite a few cartoon Scooby Doo films, \"Scooby Doo and the Loch Ness Monster\" turns out to be entertaining, exciting, interesting, funny and also does a surprisingly good interpretation of the Highlands of Scotland. One annoying aspect of the film is the voices of many of the characters - American people trying to sound Scottish in this film are unfortunately not succeeding all that well (although some people do better Scottish accents than others).

Daphne has come to the Highlands to see her cousin Shannon and the Highland games at Blake Castle. Gravely Shannon tells the gang that she believes to have seen the Loch Ness Monster. When yet more chaos arises, the Mystery Inc Gang have another mystery on their hands...

Good for Scooby Doo fans and for people who want to find out more about Scotland! Enjoy \"Scooby Doo and the Loch Ness Monster\"! :-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Monster of Mexico I do agree is the weakest of the modern Scooby Doo movies, mainly because of the weak plot and how predictable it all was. Loch Ness Monster however, is a considerable improvement, with gorgeous animation, honestly Scotland looked beautiful. The music is good, and the plot is well thought out. Plus, there is some great dialogue, and the voice acting was fabulous, with Casey Kasem a consistent delight as Shaggy, and the beautiful Scottish singer Sheena Easten a pleasant surprise in a guest starring role. In fact, my only complaints were some strange accents in one or two members of the voice cast, with the exception of Easten whose accent did sound genuine, and somehow the Loch Ness Monster wasn't as well designed as it had potential to be. Overall, a solid and enjoyable Scooby Doo film. 8\/10 Bethany Cox","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My son Adam (5 years old) is a big Scooby Doo fan. He like this film a lot. He particularly liked when the Loch Ness monster tried to attack Shaggy and Scooby. The vote score is his choice and reflects his love of the characters.

Having seen the \"Vampire Rock\" film first, this, not surprisingly, was very similar as they repeat a well worn basic plot in a different setting.

Few adults will come across this without having their own memories of the TV cartoon series and even fewer will watch it without children. You either like this or love it. I loved Scooby Doo for half an hour as a kid, I am happy my son loves it, I can just about put up with it now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Four unhappy women leave dreary London to spend an ENCHANTED APRIL in a castle on the coast of Italy.

Elizabeth von Arnim's novel comes alive in this charming little film which beautifully demonstrates the virtues of a literate script and ensemble acting. All the elements come together to produce a movie that, although nearly forgotten now, still produces a feeling of appreciation at the story's appropriate resolution.

The actresses each acquit themselves splendidly. Ann Harding is the free-spirited wife longing for 'wisteria & tranquillity' far from foggy London. Katharine Alexander plays the quiet housewife wishing for the elegant responsibility of acting as hostess in the castle. Jane Baxter is the beautiful young noblewoman temporarily escaped from her throng of male admirers. Jessie Ralph steals every scene she's in as an old lady wanting only to be alone with her memories of the past.

The men in the story are also well cast. As Miss Harding's husband, Frank Morgan has a rather complex role as a mousy researcher who has a disturbing personality change when he becomes a successful writer. Reginald Owen, as Miss Alexander's spouse, is marvelously pompous as a man well equipped to bore for England (his hilarious attempt to take an English bath in an Italian bathtub is made even funnier with the assistance of Charles Judels & Rafaela Ottiano as the castle's harried servants). Finally, Ralph Forbes, one of the decade's finest forgotten actors, is joyously eccentric as the ladies' lighthearted landlord.

Movie mavens will recognize an uncredited Ethel Griffies playing the proprietress of the Hampstead Housewives Club.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, this doesn't compare to the explosive tempo of the first part's opening sequence; nor to its visual shock value; nor, for that matter, to the melancholic suspense of the second installment. No, it's surprisingly and refreshingly different (apart, of course, from the two main actors). The tongue-in-cheek futuristic scenario drives the characters towards each other across genres and languages with an almost gravitational force. The moment of impact-conclusion is your choice of: a)Shakespearean metaphor of life and humanity in a cartoon costume; b)sublimation of violence into homo-erotics; c)humorous detonation of an impossible buildup. Everything up to then is even less unequivocal.

Highly recommended to indiscriminate movie buffs who don't mind following foie gras with a hot dog; caution to those with more refined palates.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The third part of Miike's Dead or Alive trilogy is as unrelated to the first two parts as they were to each other, more or less. Show Aikawa and Riki Takeuchi are back again for the lead roles, but this time the movie thrusts us forward 300 years or so into the future... post apocalypse.

Riki plays a tough cop, an enforcer for the corrupt city's extreme police policies, and Show plays a drifter who hooks up with a bunch of the city's oppressed rebels. The film must have been shot in Hong Kong, as most of the rest of the cast are Cantonese speakers, with Terence Yin and Josie Ho being the most recognisable faces. There's also a HK stunt crew on hand for the films action sequences, which are very cool in a HK-via-Miike style.

This could be fodder for a dreadful low budget B-movie, but in Miike's hands it of course becomes something more interesting. It's quite a slow, thoughtful film that meanders along and doesn't try to force anything down the viewer's throat. Characters are rounded and interesting and the plot an interesting but fairly loose framework for the story to be hung on.

All in all a fairly low key effort until the action scenes, which show Miike's increasing prowess at directing and choreographing very nice action. Watching the short making of with Show & Riki in wire rigs is really fun - you can tell they were having a great time

The finale of the film tries to tie together the 3 Dead Or Alive movies, which is quite unnecessary because each one is really self contained. Miike's explanation of the connection is very funny though, and caps the series off quite nicely.

Not as deep or well developed as DOA2, not as outrageous and intense as DOA1... still another good Miike movie though.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two actors play rival gangsters in three films, the final of which is a sci-fi film, that nods strangely to William S. Burroughs, Philip K. Dick, and anime all at once. The robots are actually called \"replicants\", a reference to Dicks Blade Runner(several visual allusions to the film can be found as well) and the bad guy is a psychotic gay mayor obsessed with limiting procreation through use of a compulsory drug for \"heterosexual love is fleeting, and homosexual love is eternal\"....martial arts fights ensue, a first for the dead or alive films. The hilarious climax involves the two leads morphing into a winged robot with a gigantic phallus for a head, who personifies \"destruction\", which has been the path of both characters thus far, their individual minds and later literal heads functioning as something like testicles. The film ends with the mayor f*&%ing his free jazz playing boy lackey as the robot apparently tears down a wall around them, the last words of the mayor \"Oh f*&%\", followed by a quick fade to black. Part of me felt cheated, part of me confused, but mostly I was just laughing. A lot of the film is quite boring though, the best scenes bookend the film while the rest is far too slow. Takashi Miike has always mined the sexual motifs beneath male violence in action films, and this film with the exception of \"Gozu\", reinforces this theme more than any other. Sex and violence are two pretty basic themes, but like Cronerberg(who the jazz interludes may be a homage to ala Naked Lunch)Miike is able to show where the two connect, to hilarious an oddly cohesive effect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The final installment sees Sho Aikawa and Riki Takeuchi (looking cooler than ever in his reversible overcoat!) pitched against each other for one last battle, this time in the future. The plot owes a lot to Blade Runner, but done in Takashi Miike's low budget, frenetic, comic style. I did feel that it was the weakest of the three DOA films, and although the ending was still outrageous, it lacked the shock value of the previous two. Compared to the likes of Ichi the Killer and Visitor Q, DOA:Final is nowhere near as extreme, but is faithful to the other two films in the trilogy. That said, fans of the first two (and fans of Miike) will get a lot from this as it ties all three films together and gives a final explanation of the relationship between the two protagonists.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love those kind of movies. Blood, Revenge, A Lot of Action, Very Dark, Cheesy and More. But this one doesn't deliver the genre that you might expect. When I saw Kite Birds and Ichi the Killer before, I had fun watching those but why this one not? Dead or Alive: Final is a decent anime and its not hardcore and don't even expect nudity in this movie.At least add some more action to entertain the audience. Even the drama wasn't that good. Well, I don't want to spoil the movie nor the plot.But I felt that Dead or Alive: Final is a bit nerdy. So, without further to do. I don't recommend this movie to everyone but I recommend for the people who love decent and well directed anime.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dead or Alive: Final, the movie that supposedly brings together the three films in the very loose Dead or Alive trilogy, and connected mostly by its stars, Riki Takeiuchi and Sho Aikawa and that each film has its share of bizarro-world fixtures and neuroses and heaps of violence, is admittedly the weakest of the lot. That none of the three films ends up being a disappointment is less a testament to the creativity of the material but to the pound-for-pound guts that director Takashi Miike takes with the surroundings and the material. Here he presents an overtly dystopian future, however low-key, where a homosexual mayor\/dictator (Richard Chen) has the entire village drugged except for a group of rebels. There's also replicants- robots- in this year of 2346, one of them is Ryo (Aikawa), a robot of complete lethal skill but also with the capacity to love and learn and so forth. Then a cop, Takeshi (Takeiuchi) happens to be the mayor's top guard. But things start to unravel on both sides, Ryo teaming up with the rebels and Takeshi with his employer, though blood-soaked mishaps like a hostage trade-off gone bad, and with Takeshi finding out his wife and son are robots (not done in an Alien mood, mind you, just suddenly as if in a the power went out), and that he himself is one as well. And it all leads up to one last, inexplicable showdown between the two men.

Strange that there's yet another film where Miike has peaks and valleys here, sometimes finding that middle ground of success where science fiction can have some meaning to it. But there really isn't anything to take from this story, except that the mayor\/dictator is a dingbat with no back-story who gets his rocks off making sure his drug stops couples from getting pregnant and that everything remains under control. He also has along with him his love slave, I'd guess, in the hilarious non-speaking part of a saxophone player who also doubles sometimes as a human fixture when not plugging away the moody blues. Meanwhile, we get the conventional sides to Ryo and Takeshi's stories, and they're never uninteresting, just not totally convincing enough to hold interest. Of course Miike isn't above having some fun, like when Takeshi plops Michelle (Maria Chen) in to the water to get her to swim after a near-assassination attempt on the mayor, or in having the original rebel leader speaking English for no good reason at all. There's even a playful homage to old sci-fi cartoons at the start of the film. But there's nothing very compelling substance-wise, with the exception of Takeshi's minor turns at becoming \"good\" midway through the film (helping one couple get by with clearance to have a kid), and mostly Miike's strengths this time are purely stylistically and in the choice of locations and sets.

It's like a grungy Japanese Alphaville where everything still has a contemporary feel through all of the special effects. And I really liked the yellow-green tint Miike used through the movie, as it impacted very well in outdoor scenes and added just enough grittiness in the indoor scenes. But as for peaks and valleys, one sees this ever more clearly- and the sci-fi movie channel level of visual effects, with maybe a few more dollars put into it- during the climax. This contains some of the funniest material in the most delirious, Freudian sensibility from the director, even if it has to get started by unbearable contrivance; the way that Ryo and Takeshi finally meet up is sort of random and just a means for the producers to try and cheaply tie together the past two films, when it wasn't needed. On the other hand, in terms of the sheer guilty entertainment value of a flick like Miike's where one sees something totally unexpected and very crudely sexual, it ranks right up there with the best scenes in Happiness of the Katakuris and Visitor Q. Overall, Dead or Alive: Final is a cheesy 90 minute effort that doesn't take itself TOO seriously, and is better off all the more for its wicked contrivances, militaristic decay and cultural hang-ups put on pulp-level display.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you loved the 1993 (erotic, sci-fiction)cyborg film \"Nemesis\", then you'll love this one. I loved it the minute the Elvis Pompadoured hero pulls out a samurai sword during a shoot-out. Like \"Nemesis\" its takes place in a post apocalyptic slum of the future. Both are police thrillers where the well armed hero must take on well armed rebels, to solve a conspiracy by the powers that be against the unwashed masses. but thats where the similarities ends. The ambiguous mayor in dead or alive tries to keep the masses sedate on the drugs he sells them. The rebels aided by mercenaries and a cyborg, try to brake his suffocating hold on his subjects. After several failed attempts to brake the rebels back, he sends his top cop to assassinate the rebels. This movie follows the track of most action adventure but isn't afraid to color outside the line.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a film that has to be taken in context. It shouldn't be seen unless you've seen the first two films, but the sort of people seeing this film will probably own the box set, or at least know someone who does. And you shouldn't go in expecting Blade Runner; the films budget doesn't stretch quite that far, and it's a far more zany ride.

Essentially the film is a science fiction set in future Yokohama (shot in Hong Kong as is obvious) about a society where it's illegal to procreate. Sho Aikawa reprises a similar role from Dead or Alive 2 and Riki Takeuchi is a detective for the birth control cops. Takashi Miike isn't one to give all of his reasons to you on a platter, but one can assume that the law on procreation (enforced by giving people the pill) is there because of over population, increased life spans and so forth. Interestingly the dialogue in the film is mainly Cantonese, whilst Sho and Riki (who play their parts, as always, brilliantly) speak Japanese, and a few speak English. People have criticised the English as being wooden, but I found no problems with it. Also, another person found the homosexuality themes throughout the film to be offensive; said that Takashi Miike was anti-homosexual. He may very well be (and not all artists have to be left-wing), but I can't see this film as an insult to homosexuals. He merely calls back philosophies of ancient Greece when homo or bisexuality was more common. The film contains similar proportions of action-packed and poignant moments to DoA 2, although in this film the action is more martial-arts based, and are done in a very good Hong Kong style. The cinematography in the film is very nice on the eyes, with symmetrical shots, a good control on colours to give the air a polluted look, and it's nice to see uncut, lengthy shots that are so rare in Hollywood these days. Basically, there's a lot to like in this film: a good sense of humour, exciting action and some very beautiful moments. It's a great finish to the series. You could criticise it for being a bit cheesy, but isn't that part of the charm?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I taped this on Sundance and had no idea that it was a Miike film. I thought it was just another kung fu movie.

Then I saw things like the dancing sax player

who sounded like an Oriental Gato Barbieri, and I knew this had to be Miike.

I missed the beginning opening credits and had to wait till the very end of the closing credits to see Miike's credits.

So far he hasn't disappointed me yet. Audition, City of Lost Souls, Ichi the Killer and The Happiness of the Katakuries were all good flicks, and now I've found out that this was the third in a trilogy.

Other than Miike and Todd Solendz there's nobody making interesting films nowadays.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film makes several nods to various science fiction films. The prologue reminds me of the one for the original theatrical version of THX-1138 (the trailer for BUCK ROGERS, here it was clips from some early Japanese SF TV show). Then the opening shot of the city in 2345 has the dragon blip flying overhead with a billboard, reminding one immediately of BLADERUNNER. The BLADERUNNER aspect comes even

more pronounced when we meet the hero, who is called a Replicant (He is blond haired and is called Ryo, a homage to Roy Batty, Rutger Hauer's character in BLADERUNNER?). A battle scene soon ensues which reminds one immediately of THE MATRIX. The government forcing the population to take drugs is like THX-1138 and the chief enforcer, while looks like a cross between Elvis and Dan Ackroyd, turns out to be a robot, very much like the TERMINATOR. The end battle reminds one of TERMINATOR 2 and the end result is hilarious. Probably not one of the best SF films out there, but is enjoyable, certainly a lot more enjoyable than tripe like BATTLEFIELD EARTH.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lot of 'alternative' comedy in Britain in the 1980s was insular, misguided, overly-political, and unfunny, and the worst of the Comic Strip Presents... stuff fell into this category.

But this is at the other end - a remarkable film that works on different intellectual levels.

Is Dennis a criminal mastermind or is he lying?

Is he telling the truth, bluffing, double-bluffing, counter-doubly-bubbly-bluffingwhatever?

I've probably watched Supergrass 20 or 30 times, and I still can't decide 100%. That's the wonderful thing.

As well as Ade Edmonson, there are big roles for other early Comic Strip mainstays - French & Saunders, Pete Richardson, Alexei Sayle, Keith Allen, Nigel Planer and Robbie Coltrane, though curiously enough not Rik Mayall.

All of the Comic Strip cast - however much I disliked the hidden agenda of some of their members - are convincing actors, and turn in superb performances in this big-screen outing, while the Richardson-Richens writing team's work is so often pure genius, with nice little touches of detail throughout.

Ultimately this is a study of crime, criminology and human nature, in all it's wondrous complexity. And very funny with it. You will not be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is great! Being a fan of \"The Comic Strip Presents...\" I just knew I would love this film. And love it I do. I finally got round to buying a copy of this film early this year. However I was annoyed to find that it had been cut! So I'll keep looking at car boot sales for the original version.

Anyway, the film is about Dennis Carter (Adrian Edmondson), who tries to impress his girlfriend (Dawn French) by claiming to be a drug dealer. However, Dennis is overheard bragging one night in the pub and nicked! So Dennis turns supergrass but the trouble is he doesn't know anything and starts to make up lies and dig himself into an even deeper hole! The irony of all this is that there is drug smuggling going on down in Devon.

This film is not as funny as I expected but it is still a really good film with some good laughs and a great soundtrack. It also has the best scene ever in a British film (Robbie Coltrane's walk across the pier set to \"Two Tribes\" by Frankie Goes To Hollywood.

So if you are a fan of \"The Comic Strip Presents...\", of any of the cast members, or a fan of British comedy see it A.S.A.P!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great 1980s Comic Strip comedy set in the South West of England. It is a tale of sex, drugs, cream teas and murder by the seaside. Adrian Edmondson, French and Saunders, Nigel Planer (hilarious in drag) and Robbie Coltrane play a part. Dennis (Edmondson) tries to impress girlfriend by boasting he is involved in a multi-million pounds drug deal. This leads to complications with hilarious results. I am trying to find out the original picture ratio for this film but it does not appear under 'Technical Aspects' of the IMDb site. I spotted the DVD in the shop and it appears to be in 1.33:1 (full screen) format. Was the film shot in this ratio or was it originally a widescreen film with a pan and scan DVD? It would be useful to know as I hate pan and scan films. So come on IMDb. Could you find out for us?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The funniest movie from Britain I have ever seen, \"The Supergrass\" is a tale of sex, drugs, cream teas, and murder by the seaside. Dennis Carter (Adrian Edmonson), average moron, is out to impress his so-called girlfriend, Andrea (Dawn French), because she thinks he is too law-abiding. So, to get her to come along with him on a romantic getaway, he comes up with a scheme that perhaps will impress her and entice her to spend some time with him. Trouble is, Dennis' lie is that he's somehow gotten involved in an international drugs ring, and while telling her, a couple of policemen overhear his boasting and nick him. And so begins this witty movie, full of slick comedy and crude jokes. Dennis is banged up in the local nick, and, much to the arresting officers' delight, there seems to be no way out (Andrea's earlier attempts to explain it was all a lie were dismissed by a hilarious melody of \"Stand by Your Man\" by the two officers'). Then comes along Commander Robertson (Ronald Allen), Chief Intelligence, Scotland Yard. He makes a deal with Dennis, that if he helps him catch the drug smugglers, then he will be set free and allowed whatever he pleases. Dennis agrees, and is teamed up with Harvey Duncan (Peter Richardson), and Lesley Reynolds (Jennifer Saunders). The rest is an unforgettable rib-tickling experience, with Robbie Coltrane as Sergeant Troy adding humourous colour to the film. His walk along the dry-dock against \"Frankie Goes To Hollywood's Two Tribes\" is superb, and probably the best scene in motion picture history. The two officers' who nick Dennis are wonderfully played by Michael Elphick and Patrick Durkin, and Alexei Sayle as the motorcycle cop is a laugh! If you want something good to watch on a Saturday night, then I suggest you rent this. You won't forget it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just finished watching this (last weekend) and found it absolutely hillarious, some of the scenes I just couldn't stop laughing at! Dennis is soooo amazingly thick sometimes, and just says the stoopidest things...but at the same time he's just being cool to impress his girlfriend (who gets arrested anyway!) The beach scenery is very tranquil...until along comes Robbie Coltrane...! Not the greatest movie ever made but certainly something to think about renting on a Saturday night when you haven't got much else to do (like I did). You might need to hunt around for it though - I was lucky, as my local video store stocks it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two hard-luck but crafty ladies decide to act like HAVANA WIDOWS by sailing to Cuba to meet & blackmail rich gentlemen...

This was the sort of ephemeral comic frippery which the studios produced quite effortlessly during the 1930's. Well made & highly enjoyable, Depression audiences couldn't seem to get enough of these popular, funny photo dramas.

Joan Blondell & Glenda Farrell are perfectly cast as the frantic, fast-talking females who will go to great lengths to make a little dishonest dough. Although Joan gets both top billing and the romantic scenes, both gals are as talented & watchable as they are gorgeous.

Handsome Lyle Talbot plays Joan's persistent suitor, but he's given relatively little to do. Chubby, cherubic Guy Kibbee appears as the girls' intended target. Whether awakening to find himself in the wrong bed or being chased across the roof of a Cuban hacienda in his long johns, he is equally hilarious. Behind him comes a rank of character actors - Allen Jenkins, Frank McHugh, Ruth Donnelly, Hobart Cavanaugh, Maude Eburne, Dewey Robinson - all equally adept at pleasing the toughest crowd.

Movie mavens will recognize an uncredited James Murray as the suspicious bank teller with the forged check. This very talented actor was pulled out of complete obscurity to star in King Vidor's THE CROWD (1928), one of the silent era's most prestigious films. Hopes were high for a great career, but his celebrity faded quickly with sound pictures. After a long string of tiny roles & bit parts, broke & destitute, his life ended in the waters of a New York river in 1936. He was only 35 years old.

While never stars of the first rank, Joan Blondell (1906-1979) & Glenda Farrell (1904-1971) enlivened scores of films at Warner Bros. throughout the 1930's, especially the eight in which they appeared together. Whether playing gold diggers or working girls, reporters or secretaries, these blonde & brassy ladies were very nearly always a match for whatever leading man was lucky enough to share equal billing alongside them. With a wisecrack or a glance, their characters showed they were ready to take on the world - and any man in it. Never as wickedly brazen as Paramount's Mae West, you always had the feeling that, tough as they were, Blondell & Farrell used their toughness to defend vulnerable hearts ready to break over the right guy. While many performances from seven decades ago can look campy or contrived today, these two lovely ladies are still spirited & sassy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Blondell & Farrell are excellent. Blondell was edible. This was very funny and I laughed often throughout it. Great dialogue and its loaded with wisecracks. I could've watched it for hours. Tremendous fun to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Black Day Blue Night was actually good modern noir. Three young nomads on the run from their own lives team up on something of a road trip through a desert in the middle of nowhere (as most modern noir does). One woman finds that her husband is cheating on her, and after finding him in a hotel room, decides to head off and start anew. Strangely enough, she travels with her husband's mistress, who is forgiveable given that the sleazebag never told her he was married. And together, while driving in the pouring rain, they meet a third, very mysterious young man with a suitcase full of secrets. While they're giddy and free and all suspicious of one another, the cops back at town have them marked as suspects in the death of a policeman.

Black Day Blue Night starts out with immediate confrontation, and throws in a pretty good story with all it's twists meant to mislead your suspicions of one character after another, leading to a very unusual ending. That is, the movie starts with immediate action confrontation, and once you think the story is solved, you are immediately thrust into yet another turn in the plot, revealing just a little more than you expected before the movie is over.

But, as some viewers have written, the ending is slightly confusing and a bit of a let down. The killer is not who you would immediately expect and, once revealed, becomes somewhat confusing due to a rather thinly explained flashback which reveals all of the necessary motive to solve the mystery. But actually, there is a finale beyond that, which I would think is the most interesting of the film. Because modern noir always involves a circle of criminal suspects, almost always all of them guilty of something, it is also a genre that always involves money. And thus the question in these movies always becomes --how far are the characters willing to go for money?

If you like this rendition of modern film noir, I would suggest watching Red Rock West (it's also got J.T. Walsh and some going-ons in the blasted desert)!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It looks b grade and you will probably think there is no reason to rent this film! But do! I expected nothing from this movie, just something to pass the time, but I was hooked from the start! Two interesting premises - A bank robbery gone wrong, a million dollars missing and two girls on the road to start a new life - How will these two stories collide? Just when you think you know what direction the movie is headed, it does a 180 and you are left blown away by the great twists in the plot! It has a great but unexpected ending, and you are left wanting more - always a good sign - rent it or even buy it, you will not be disappointed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This neo-film noir is one of a genre of late twentieth century American films that all seem to involve corrupt characters, fast cars, a ribbon of highway and, of course, plenty of guns wielded by people who appear never to have taken a gun safety course. The actors are the best reason to see \"Black Day, Blue Night.\" There is the late, great J.T. Walsh (\"Swing Blade,\" \"Pleasantville,\" \"Red Rock West,\" \"The Last Seduction,\" and many more), who did many neo-films noirs (See also \"Breakdown\"). Then there is Michele Forbes of the TV series \"Star Trek: The Next Generation\" and \"Homicide.\" (In a supporting role, there is even the late Bejamin Lum who also appeared on a Star Trek episode titled \"The Naked Now.\") A spoiler of sorts--a clue really: Only the most innocent survive, but innocence is a very relative term in a movie like this, and you probably won't guess who is innocent before the final reel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Charge at Feather River\" is a routine Western about the U. S. Cavalry against the Cheyenne Indians... The film carried a constantly mounting tension with some pleasant diversion...

Guy Madison and Frank Lovejoy play the officers who rescue Helen Westcott and Vera Miles from the Indians...

The outdoor scenes are well photographed, specially the exciting Indian charge at Feather River at the climax of the movie with the rain of spears, the fight to-the-death between Madison and Thunderhawk, the sketches of the Guardhouse Brigade, even a mouthful of tobacco juice used against a rattlesnake, and the romantic interludes between our hero and Helen Westcott... All are here, pictorially entertaining in 3-D and Technicolor...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Warner Brothers produced this 3D extravaganza that was the biggest commercial success for westerns in 1953. Guy Madison leads a band of guardhouse soldiers and misfits to rescue two white women being held by Indians, which essentially all there is to this film. The 3D format was in its early stages as a Hollywood gimmick to compete with the growing popularity of home television, and the effects work very well here. The rescuers make off with the ladies and are pursued by the Indians until the white men make their stand at an island in a creek bed. The Indian weaponry comes at the audience non-stop throughout, and a spray of tobacco juice aimed at a rattler is thrown in for good measure. Madison was quite popular as television's Wild Bill Hickock and is good as a displaced cattle rancher who is given his thankless task by the army. For all the film's polish and presentation, the movie was made in just three days.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw this film the first time in 1953 with my older brother. It was one of the great 3 Demension films released in that era. We saw it at least thirteen times and were proud of it. Scott does a typical western shoot em up job while surrounded by the Indian arrows rather than surround sound. Oh, for those polaroid lenses again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can remember seeing this movie when I was very young and several times on TV since then. I have always liked it. I have noticed on the print shown on local TV that one scene has reversed film. It is the one where they are hiding behind the rock outcrop(it looks like Vasquez Rocks near Los Angeles) watching the Indians ride by. If you look carefully, you will notice that suddenly all the soldiers are left-handed! It is only a short segment and I have to admit that it took me years to notice it.

As far as history goes, there were often expeditions to rescue white captives from the Indians. The direct connection for the final battle scene is the Battle of Beecher's Island. In that action, a group of volunteer scouts equipped with repeating carbines (Spencer carbines not Winchesters) were surprised by the Indians and retreated to an island and held off several charges. In the last charge, they killed Roman Nose, one of the more famous Indian Chiefs. I have no idea if the writer of the script had this in mind but it does fit fairly well.

There are several Guy Madison movies that I hope come out on DVD someday and this is one of them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What makes this one better than most \"movie movies\" is that it doesn't feel phony. The film the story of the hot-headed director and his rise and fall and rise, by using real recognizable names and events during the silent and early sound eras. Instead of the generic \"sound will put us out of business\" business, they actually SHOW Jolson and \"The Jazz Singer\". The acting is really quite good, with believeable performances from Don Ameche, Alice Faye and J. Edward Bromberg in particular.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's 1913. A studio prop boy spies the actress who is going to become Hollywood's next great movie star and he's the director that's going to make it happen. After inventing pie throwing and the keystone cops, his dream comes true. Being completely absorbed in his film-making, however, he fails to notice that he is losing his leading lady to another man. Several over-budget flops later, he is known as nothing more than the director who turned down Rin-tin-tin. Fortunately for him, the loyal and compassionate residents of Hollywood are untainted by ambition and ego. He'll be okay as long as he still has his friends.

This movie starts out as a mad-cap comedy typical of the time period, and in the opening scenes it holds its own with the best of them. It has a playful lack of self-consciousness which is sorely missing in most of today's comedies. Shortly into the film, however, it moves away from this mode of comedy and instead attempts to entertain us using the films within the film. These are silent slapstick comedies, well done but nothing out of the ordinary, and they go on for much longer than is necessary for any audience which has seen the originals. Upon returning, the film takes a dramatic turn. It's well written and the cast does an excellent job of making the transition, but the movie really should have decided from the beginning what it was going to be.

By the end of the film, it has transformed once again - this time into a paean to the glitter of Hollywood. The small town of Los Angeles has grown up into the city which makes the movies that entertain the whole world.

In spite of its promising beginnings, this film has not aged particularly well. Nevertheless, it does have some strong scenes, a certain nostalgic appeal, and an entertaining sub-text about the people who made it and the audiences it was made for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Hollywood Cavalcade\" is a mildly entertaining 1939 film starring two staples of the 20th Century Fox roster, Don Ameche and Alice Faye, and containing a couple of in jokes.

The film concerns a Max Sennett type, Michael Connors (Ameche) who brings an actress to Hollywood, Molly Adair (Faye) and makes her a big silent comedienne, eventually moving her into more dramatic roles. He becomes extremely successful with her as his star. Obsessed with his work, he's absolutely shocked when she and her leading man (Alan Curtis) run off and get married. He's so shocked, he dumps her. She and her husband go off and continue to be more and more popular while Connors' studio starts losing money at an alarming rate. Before you know it, he's through. Molly wants to help and asks that Connors direct her next film.

There's lots of Keystone Kop type footage, which is quite funny, and some fantastic slapstick by Buster Keaton, who is wonderful. The film also has a scene from \"The Jazz Singer\" when the talkies take over. The in-joke, of course, has to do with Rin Tin-Tin, for whom Zanuck used to write. In one scene, Rinny's trainer brings him in as a potential contract player for Connors' studio. Connors throws both of them out of his office. A few scenes later, Rin-Tin-Tin is shown to be #1 box office. The role of the famous German shepherd in this film is played by Rin Tin-Tin, Jr., daddy having passed away in Jean Harlow's arms in 1932, one month shy of his 14th birthday. Fortune smiled on him even at the end.

Alice Faye is very pretty and does a fine job, as does Ameche, who turns in an energetic performance. J. Edward Bromberg and Stuart Erwin provide very good support.

Unfortunately, this film isn't quite sure what it is - history, comedy, romance, or drama. However, \"Hollywood Cavalcade\" is still quite watchable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The plot: Michael Linnett Connors has done everything in films but direct, and is looking for his 1st big chance. He discovers Molly in a play and at once knows she will be a big film star. He signs her to a contract with the stipulation that he must direct. The producer agrees and their big time careers are under way. What follows is a recreation of the silent film era and early sound movies with great emphasis on comedy. And, oh yes, there's romance, and a little sadness too. The performances by Don Ameche and Alice Fay are top notch. The music is a real plus too with some old familiar tunes heard. Lots of DVD extras as well in this restored version released in 2008. It must be emphasized that this movie is a story 1st, not just a tribute to silent films. Later years would bring similar films such as, Singin' in the Rain(1952) & Dick Van Dyke-Carl Reiner's, The Comic(1969). What is special about this film, though, is recreating silent movies in 1939. We see portions of them as the cinema audience would in that bygone era(although some sound effects are included)in glorious b&w, while the rest of the movie is in pristine color. One of the greatest in the silent era, Buster Keaton, who at this point was on an uphill climb, is used superbly in 2 silent film recreated scenes and he is on the top of his game! It is said that he had some input on his scenes as well. But the real reason to watch the movie, if your a motion picture history fan, is that beyond everything else, Hollywood Cavalcade is Mack Sennett's film legacy. It doesn't take a genius to realize this movie is a \"positive\" reworking of Mack Sennett's and Mabel Normand's life. The character Michael \"Linnett\" Connors is Mack Sennett, whose real name was Michael Sinnott. And Molly, of course is Mabel. Sennett had the pie throwings, the bathing beauties and Keystone Cops. He worked with Buster Keaton, Ben Turpin(cameo), Roscoe \"Fatty\" Arbuckle(body double) and fell in love with his leading lady. Not only all that, but Sennett was technical adviser for this film and appears in it as well. As most film viewers today prefer sound features, those who were associated with short subjects and silents are left out to pasture. As Mack Sennett fell into that category, it is fortunate that there is Hollywood Cavalcade! Sennett was of course very instrumental in the evolution of comedy in movies. His career started in 1908 as an actor, then writer, director & producer. He semi retired in 1935 with about 500 films to his credit. He had worked with the best, such as Charlie Chaplin, Gloria Swanson, Bing Crosby, W.C. Fields, Keaton, Harry Langdon, Arbuckle, and even Roy Rogers(in Way Up Thar).As film comedy is an extremely difficult path to continue for an entire career, Mack played it wise & did only selective work for the next 25 years. In 1931 he had receive an academy award in the short subject category, and another in 1937 for a lifetime of work. In the 1940's his presence was still felt, e.g. Here Come the Co-Eds(1945)where a recreation of the oyster soup scene used in Mack's Wandering Willies(1926)is done. In 1947, The Road to Hollywood, used some of Sennett's Crosby films. 2 years later brought some nostalgia with the film Down Memory Lane in which he participated. With his knack of always associating with the right people, a guest role with the eternally popular Lawrence Welk & his radio show came about later in the year. 1950 brought a re-release of his greatest triumph, Tillie's Punctured Romance(1914) with sound. In 1952 he was honored on TV's, This Is Your Life, then his autobiography, The King of Comedy(1954), which is a great companion piece to Hollywood Cavalcade, was published. 1955 brought a more concrete association with Abbott & Costello, as he had a cameo in A&C Meet the Keystone Kops. Finally in 1957, another tribute with the compilation film, The Golden Age of Comedy. So when you watch Hollywood Cavalcade it is the legacy of a motion picture pioneer. In the film at the banquet scene the camera pans over the guests at a long table. As we get to the silver haired Mack, he alone turns his head to the camera as if to say, \"here I am!\". When he rises to give a speech a short while later, he is at his most subdued, underplaying the words given him as if to mentally convey, \"I know my influence on comedy will never end, but will people forget Mack Sennett the individual. Maybe this movie will help.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Naruto the Anime TV Series has so far spawned 2 feature length theatre movies, and a third one is coming our way this summer.

The first one, which was released in the summer '04 was a fun adventure featuring the main characters of Naruto in an exciting adventure. However, one must be a blind, deaf and one legged chicken to deny that film's faults. Whilst the first was most definitely enjoyable, there were a lot of things that could be improved on. Naruto Movie 2, however, takes all of these aspects and excels upon them.

The action first of all, was incredibly cinematic. The lighting, setting and style was three fold as effective as in the first movie. In the first we were given basic action, well animated and choreographed animation, but nothing eye popping, however this movie's cinematography was exceptional, the use of shadows and lighting combining together to make the action all that more intense was very effective and added to the force of the fighting.

The animation was very good. It rivalled Disney, however since this is a movie about TV characters, there was nothing exceptionable about the character design or detail to the actual characters, however, the animation was incredibly fluid and realistic. I think they even used twice the amount of cels for each second because there was absolutely nothing jittery about the animation at all, it was incredibly fluid.

The music... I think that's where this movie fails. The original composer\/conductor for the TV show was used for the film, and I don't really feel that he did that good of a job. The music mostly reminded me of a lot of pieces used in old SNES games. The composer is very good, but the synthesisers used for the film couldn't convey the tune very well. However they didn't fail the film at all, adding as a good accompaniment to the action. But, except for a few violin\/string pieces towards the end and some choral work, the music didn't excel any boundaries or act as anything special.

The story was fun. It was a reasonably typical storyline for Naruto and was very similar to the first movies, except, again, it took everything that had been wrong with the first film's story and improved upon them. The characters were a lot more interesting and the way the story progressed was what kept me watching throughout the entire film. It kept making you think the film would be ending any second now, but then it would move on, but instead of feeling dragged out, the action and characters made everything still feel fresh and exciting.

Overall, this film is a goodun, but however good it might be, it is most definitely one for the fans. I enjoyed the film, but thats because... I'm a fan! But I can see, just like with Final Fantasy's Advent Children, it doesn't excel as a movie, but merely acts as a fantastic serve of fan service for a good hour and a half. Though I think this film does act as a good introduction to the series for current non-watchers, it won't give a full effect for anyone other than those glued to Naruto screens. However, despite all this, it was a fun movie to enjoy during this depressing period of upsetting fillers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this movie, the second Naruto feature film. I enjoyed the one in the snow a tad better though as I found the story here a bit disjointed as I was not sure where certain things were supposed to be happening or when. Still, like the first film this one too has a nice run time to it of a hour and a half, plenty of time for a nice well developed movie with some really cool fights. The story starts off with ninja from the village hidden in the sand in combat with unknown assailants. It then shits to Naruto, Sakura, and Shikumaru hunting down a ferret for what they think is going to be an easy assignment. They soon find out otherwise as they are also attacked and Naruto is separated from his friends after he has a fight with a strange young warrior clad in armor. They both are injured and taken in by a caravan and soon after Naruto is invited to join this strange organization that wishes to create a utopia. Of course, all is not as it seems and there are plenty of fights to go around. My favorite was the one involving Garaa fighting this strange woman who takes him very lightly which is a very big mistake. The concluding fight is rather good too involving Naruto and this strange man who is a better villain than any of those in the previous movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a big fan of Naruto, even though I haven't watched every episode or read every manga.

I really liked the first Naruto movie, and to tell you the truth I was a little nervous that this one wouldn't be as good (or action packed) as the first (mainly because this one in Australia only had a PG instead of an M, which is a PG-13 US or 12 UK). But I was wrong (thankfully)! The animation was more improved (although some drawings of the characters at points looked rushed) and was very good especially in the fight scenes.

Speaking of that, let's talk about the fight scenes! The animation and action in the fight scenes was spectacular and very entertaining! I especially enjoyed the genjutsu battle with kankuro and the fight with Gaara fighting the shape shifting female warriors! All the characters you want are here! Naruto, Sakura, Gaara, Kankuro and Shikamaru! If only Temari was in the movie, Shikamaru could save her from the female warriors in dramatic fashion! And maybe they could have a PASSIONATE KISS! In my summary at the top I say that this qualify's more as a piece of Cinema than just an extended episode. And it does! The action is very cinematic and the animation quality looks very fancy especially during the fighting! Overall, this is a excellent anime Film that is a must-see for any Naruto fan! 5\/5! 10\/10! 50\/50! 100\/100! Alright I'll stop!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to say this is one of the best movie i have seen so far for naruto. the action was a lot better then the first movie because it had a lot more fight scene and it came to u at a faster pace. it was amazing, the choreograph was excellent as well as most of the visual effects.

the story line is something new to naruto. but it is basically the same as the first movie. in the series u see them fight against other ninjas,but in the movies (1+2) u see them fighting against machine of mass destruction. it is nice to see them fighting something other then ninja, and that it was great to see some other power other then chakra. and how other people from other land across the ocean fight. also sakura finally killed someone that is more stronger then her. (she have truly become strong) it was a lot better then the fillers on the series that i'm watching now. when u watch this movie the fast action scene will surely make your heart pound. With new jutsus and garra in the movie, u know it is good. and the music was good as well, but i find it to be lacking something. But the ending theme song was a plus. (dind dong dang) i think was a really good song. I totally recommend it.

all in all i give this movie a 10, because i just love it. if u do decide to watch it, enjoy it. lol","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One Life Stand is an accomplished piece of film making which hasn't been given the credit it deserves. Its IMDB rating of 1.7 doesn't do it justice and is, perhaps, due to the very few screenings it has had rather than the quality of the film itself. Shot on digital in black and white, the film is well directed with production values that belie its shoestring budget. The performances are excellent, particularly that of Gary Lewis who gets better with every role. My only criticisms are that it is a bit on the long side and could have done with a touch more humour to offset the darker moments. Overall, though, it is a fine piece of work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was lucky enough to see this film at a festival last year and had half expected it to get a release. The fact that it was shot on a digital camcorder has surely inhibited its success, but as i understand it was never the intention of the film maker to make it LOOK LIKE FILM in the first place, it was more about the story the characters and their relationships. Is that not what films are supposed to be about!? But it did have a quality in the texture of its visual appearance that suggests May Thomas is onto something we should pay attention to. For independent film makers and producers alike who have a the talent and lacking the money and drive, a lot can be learned from watching this film, technically it has everything going for it, the use of light, music etc by far outweigh that of any other digital feature film i have ever seen and therefore it is worthy of much praise. The actors performances are believable to a point, if not slightly under played, i felt there was much more in there, more depth, in particular from the male lead John Paul Clarke. But one thing that really does bother me, as a film maker myself, is the film being in black and white a need to cover up a multitude of sins than if it was colour? Do we have more to learn in the progression of digital technology? Or is this the future of wonderful, affordable film making?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Have to agree that this movie and it's talented director do not receive the plaudits they deserve. Here's hoping that the DVD will do very well and bring both to the attention of a wider audience. The actors gave excellent performances and the plot is excellent. Perhaps overall the movie is a little long but May Miles Thomas seems to enjoy her actors when they are giving strong performances and therefore sometimes holds them in longer close ups than necessary. Good for the actors I am sure but sometimes as the audience you are ready to move on so to speak with the plot. May Miles Thomas deserves more recognition from the Film business as one of our foremost digital movie directors,","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw One Life Stand when it premiered at the 2000 Edinburgh International Film Festival and was blown away by it. Made on a micro budget, this black and white digital movie is very much a European film and succeeds brilliantly in spite of the limitations of DV. The film works because it's in the indie tradition - dealing with complex issues, yet moving and relieved by touches of understated humour. One Life Stand avoids falling into the trap of other UK realist films, with ordinary working people portrayed as either hopeless victims or comedic stereotypes. The performances are strong, particularly Maureen Carr as the mother, Trise. I understand the film has recently been released on DVD and I would definitely recommend it. The rating on this site is misleading, which is why I gave it a high score because the filmmaker, May Miles Thomas obviously put her heart and soul into it and deserves better than 2.8 for her amazing achievement.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A truly accurate and unglamourous look into modern day life. It could be set in any town in the UK.

I live in a housing estate in Glasgow and can relate to this film very well.

Sadly the situations and characters are all too realistic but not predictable.

The actors are scarily believable, I felt as if I was spying on my neighbours. It was an intimate dip into the lives of fragile and hopeless people. I was very moved by a few scenes.

I loved the way this film was shot.

Overall this film IS a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seriously engaging, intelligent and thought provoking drama at its very best. Mean, gripping, moody and captivating. Every home should have a copy! Don't take my word for it see it yourself. One Life Stand makes you consider your own lifestyle and how you treat your family and friends. Beautiful photography and impressive acting makes for one of the best cinema-graphic experiences of the year. John Kielty's debut is a delight and adds a real touch of truth and realism to this deep and gritty film. This is a film that cares and has an honesty that is unequalled in recent years. No car chases, but a film packed with hum our and emotion. I first saw this film screened at the Edinburgh film festival in 2000 and am now delighted to be able to own a copy on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All budding filmmakers should watch this movie - it is like a masterclass in digital film- making in itself. Some of the scenes look like they have been shot on much higher production values than what they really have been. It is very encouraging that such a well crafted piece of work can be made on a low budget. The acting is very good, and the characters are very interesting, particularly that of the lead boy (John Kielty), who manages to play a teenager experiencing difficulties whilst remaining really likable. His beautiful but fading mother was also very well portrayed, and the relationship between her and her boss was very intriguing. This is a very quirky, interesting piece and I will be looking for anything else made by the same team. The director is certainly one to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched the DVD of this award winning film. One Life Stand is a stark drama that through it's pace, black and white shots and atmospheric music, paints a very compelling and honest picture. It's a story about life's dilemma's around power, sex and control highlighted by a few sad lonely lives. The mother (very well acted by Maureen Carr) is uptight and drawn in on herself. The father only appears on the side-lines, and yet is a powerful and pivotal part of the drama. Money is hidden in boxes and shoes.

The writing was superb, and I liked the sensual close-up shots of details such as nails, red lips, a candle, mirrors etc. The way the camera was used made it very intimate. It's a harrowing tale, with sexual undertones, while the Glasgow drizzle on the dark streets adds to the despair of the sad characters.

There are some highly memorable shots conveyed simply by a walk, or a dropped shoulder - such as Trise walking away under the bridge. And the stunned and hurt look on Trise's face in the call centre, which hopes to helps people through using tarot cards, as she listens to a caller talk of her own abuse.

At the start we see John Paul, wide-eyed and innocent, having photos shot as he wants to try modelling. Trise, his mother, is deluded and making poor choices for him, in a way pushing him away while she tries to keep him. John Paul's modelling turns into escort work and Trise's boss offers her money, and eventually they go on a date. There are also moments of humour and subtle irony. One excellent scene is when they are having a fairly normal meal, and starting to open up a bit, when the father appears with his dark presence and clouds everything over. But this, and other things offer moments of hope.

I felt at times the pacing of the film was a shade too intense, but this is a small detail in another wise challenging and memorable film, and something a bit different. It stands in start contrast to most American films which are either total fantasy, or the real' world' as seen through tainted glasses. This film depicts life with all its rough edges and displays unforgettable images.

This isn't 'light entertainment' but a thought provoking and real life drama.

One Life Stand is a truly involving and emotionally honest film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would like to thank you for giving me a chance to be one of the first to actually view the film. It really does grip you. John Paul does eventually get to see the light and make a life for himself away from being tied to his mothers apron strings.

I imagine there must be so many families these days in the same position (especially with children leaving home older but I wouldn't say wiser) with very sad parents who haven't really got lives of their own and who make their lives a misery.

I think this film should definitely have a wider audience. I would also say that the other actors played brilliant parts as well. It is such a deep film and very moving.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've enjoyed this movie ever since I first saw it in the theatre. Some movies have a cast of characters and a script that come together in perfect synergy, and this is one of them. The characters illustrate some truths about getting the best out of people, working together harmoniously, building a team and achieving goals, without ever preaching morality. The situations are crafted well and are consistent with the movie's opening premise. The tension builds nicely and the humor is clean and consistent throughout. The movie manages to pull me right in to root for the characters, and to laugh pretty well all the way through. This is a feel good movie as good as they come.

What amazes me is that a movie which appears so simple can be so long term entertaining. The music is a perfect copy of music in the typical serious post war navy movies, which helps to create the humor and point out that greatness is in the eye of the beholder. The scenes in the credits are a great music video of \"In the Navy\", which deserve their own full screen special feature. The scenes and cuts are crafted well, and the casting and acting is right on.

This movie is a classic as great as any ever made, without any pretensions. In fact, the lack of pretension is what makes it so much fun to watch. I love these guys and gal.

The other day I thought of the film, and wondered whether it was available on DVD. Good fortune has come to us, and the DVD came out in May 2004. I headed to the store, and snapped up a copy. Then my wife and I enjoyed another hilarious night in front of the big screen. I've rated this movie as a 10 because it comes together on all levels, far better than many high budget films and Oscar winners. This is entertainment.

Listen up Fox home video: you have a great movie in your vaults, and it's a shame to find a cheap shot DVD with badly degraded off tint colors only 8 years since release. So why not restore the colors and present the film as it was meant to be seen? I'd gladly pay a few bucks more to get the picture right. I'm grateful to have my own copy. Now give us the eye candy that the film deserves, and how about recreating the credit sequence as a full screen music video special feature.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those movies the critics really missed the mark on. This movie is practically McHale's Navy for the 90s or Police Academy at sea. Grammer proves he can play roles other than Frasier as he outwits and outfoxes the Navy in order to get his own sub. Rob Schneider is as wormy as usual, the same in every role he plays, and Lauren Holly is the local sexpot albeit with a brain. Ken Hudson Campbell is as funny as usual with almost every line a catch phrase. The movie has a wonderful intelligent plot and a non-predictable script that still surprises me every time I watch it. Many of the Navy phrases and terms go over my head, though, but it's a small obstacle for the sheer accuracy and realism of the movie and its characters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm glad they finally released it on DVD. I bought the video tape years ago and watch it at least once or twice a year.

Grammer has a wry wit about him that really makes this movie a success. Its formula is certainly not original, but it's very funny nonetheless. I am very surprised that it didn't receive higher in the ratings.

It ranks as one of my all-time favorite comedies. It's just a fun little flick that makes you feel good. And sometimes, that's all a movie is meant to be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There was a recent documentary on making movies, that featured a long list of actors and directors talking about what its like to make movies. One common theme was you can have a great script, great cast, the best director and lots of money and still create a bad movie.

Down Periscope is proof of the corollary to that theory. Not an original or terribly well written screenplay. A few solid actors, but mostly unknowns, and this movie just makes you laugh out loud! It would be easy to just say that Kelsey Grammar carried this movie, but that isn't truly the case. Other character actors, like Rob Schneider, and the hilarious Harland Williams, added significantly to the enjoyability of the film.

Cast dynamics, or that mysterious \"movie magic\" are really what happened here, creating a film that flows smoothly, has incredibly well executed transitions and line after line of well written and well performed dialog.

A preposterous premise, lots and lots of technical inaccuracies and just plan silly things that could not happen in the real world, or the real navy, but you just don't care. As a merchant marine myself, I found that the overall feel of the movie, while not plausible, was also not too far off the mark as far as life at sea goes.

This is a VERY funny movie, a good family film, and, particularly if your a fan, lots of Kelsey Grammar wit, sarcasm and just damn funniness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Starring: Kelsey Grammar, Rob Schneider, Lauren Holly, Rip Torn This movie is a classic family favorite. At least for most members of my family that is. One of us rolls our eyes at the mention of this movie and thinks, \"What a stupid movie.\" I'm not that person though. I still find this movie highly amusing. I just watched it again last night with someone who had never seen it, and I laughed just as hard as the first time I watched it. It's still very funny to me.

Naval Captain Tom Dodge (Grammar) is a bit of a black sheep in the navy. He's the kind of guy who will play golf while on a sub, cracking a ball onto a golf course while they sail past it. He's the kind of guy who will get drunk, pass out, and wake up with a hangover and a tattoo on his dongle. He's not the kind of guy that everybody wants to be commanding a sub.

But Dodge is at the end of the line. He's put in applications to get command of his own sub several times, and if he doesn't get a sub this time, he's headed for a desk job, meaning that's it for naval life. The Admiralty decide to give him his own boat, but they don't give him a new nuclear sub. They give him a diesel sub, an ancient relic from World War II. His mission is to clean her up and take her out on the Atlantic for a war game.

Dodge is obviously a little bit frustrated to have such a crappy boat given to him when he's worked so hard to get to the point that he's at, so he goes and talks to Admiral Winslow (Torn) about it. Winslow explains the purpose of the war game. Diesel subs are still being sold out there in the real world, to countries like Iran, Iraq, and Libya, to name a few. Winslow wants to know what would happen if some renegade captain in a diesel sub came to the States and tried to smuggle a nuclear warhead into one of the bases. Would they make it? Dodge and most of the Admiralty don't think so, but Winslow wants to know for sure, hence why he has devised this war game. Dodge's mission is to take the Stingray out to sea, then try to evade the U.S. nuclear navy and blow up the American naval bases. In simulated battle, of course.

So, that's about as deep as the plot gets. This is not a plot driven movie. It's a stupid movie that is just a big gag. It makes fun of itself, and you are not expected to take it seriously. If you're looking for good dumb laughs on a Friday night, I'd urge you to check it out.

Bottom Line: 3 out of 4 (worth a look)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surprisingly good and quick-witted adventure that features Kelsey Grammer (supposedly in his first lead role in a feature) as an unconventional Navy sub commander who wants to run a nuclear sub of his own, however; he has earn it by competing against the U.S. Navy in a series of war-games with a crew of untested, questionable, and lovable men (and a woman, too).

Director David S. Ward (\"Major League\") and his writers have put together a hysterically clever and upbeat comedy that tries to make the film easy to understand, which they do quite well. Second, besides the Grammer character, most of the crew provide some or plenty of the movie's humor, which is treated like a double-edged sword. Three members of the supporting cast - Harland Williams, Toby Huss, and Rob Schneider provide the funniest scenes, which includes weird gestures, impersonations, and, well, their personalities.

\"Down Periscope\" is more than a Navy version of \"Police Academy\" or \"The Dirty Dozen\". What the film does is get the job done the right way and I liked it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"LCDR Tom Dodge, despite having a reputation among submariners as a renegade and maverick (*note to reader: Maverick does not mean \"Tom Cruise\". Maverick means \"non-conformist\".), is actually an intelligence operative for the Vice Admiral of his submarine fleet. The Vice-Admiral is concerned about our old friends the Russians hosting yard sales with their old diesel fleets. Countries like Lybia, North Korea or Iraq would love to get their hands on this baby and slip a nuclear warhead into Norfolk Harbour or Mayport, Florida. And this was 6-7 years before 9\/11.

The Admiral assigns Dodge to assume command of a moth-balled WWII diesel sub and mount an exercise against the surface fleet and the USS ORLANDO, a top of the line fast attack sub. Dodge takes command and in no time whips up the bad news bears.. err I mean his lovable group of oddball submariners into warriors. Despite having \"welcome aboard\" tattooed on his penis, he is a competent and fair commander, he does not choose favorites and he delegates authority in a responsible manner. The US NAVY could not have come up with a finer piece of recruitment propaganda than this handsomely made under-appreciated gem from the creator of \"Police Academy\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love military comedies (Sgt. Bilko, Stripes, In The Army Now, Major Payne) and Down Periscope is hilarious, but it has a heart as well.

The Stingray SS-161 (The USS Pampanito) was gorgeous. Absolutely beautiful, a piece of art come alive. So it was a diesel engine sub, so what? I learned that the Aircraft Carrier USS Ranger (which stood in for The Enterprise in Star Trek IV), a huge ship, was 'conventionally powered', which might mean that Ranger was a diesel too.

My favorite scene: Pascal: Jesus, Buckman, this can's been on the stingray since Korea! This can expired in 1966! Buckman: (Takes finger full and tastes it) What's the matter, sir? It still tastes like creamed corn.

Pascal: (Yelling) Except, it's DEVILED HAM!! Buckman: That would be a problem.

It's story, perhaps a wee strained, seemed plausible. Winslow respected Dodge, and seemed to care about him, so he wanted to give Dodge a chance. He gave him a battered but still seaworthy Balao-class sub, and assigns him the task of using the diesel sub to evade the nuclear Navy and 'attack' Charlston Harbor, and Norfolk. 2-star Admiral Graham (with his eye on his third star, and a grudge against Dodge) assigned him the ragtag crew, hoping that they would screw up so Dodge would lose. Can Tom Dodge get the crew up to speed and working as a team, and can he take an old, out of date sub, and beat the Navy's best?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not the best plot in the world, but the comedy in this movie rules. Kelsey Grammar is wonderful in this movie. Another funny guy is Rob Schneider who will make you crack up with his segments with Ken Hudson Campbell who plays Buckman. Lauren Holly plays probably the more serious character in the cast as Lt. Lake. Bruce Dern is a great actor in this movie, playing probably the most serious character in the movie. The actor i liked the most was Toby Huss as Nitro, all the electric shots his character takes in the movie is hilarious.

Plot is a little uneven, about Lt. Commander Tom Dodge, who for years has wanted to Command his own sub. When he finally gets the chance, instead of a brand new sub, he gets a rusty WWII Diesel Sub, the Stingray. His crew isn't any better, misfits of the U.S. Navy. He is then put in a series of War Games, that shows how an old Diesel Engine can handle itself against the current Nuclear Navy. Things still don't get any better when he finds out his dive officer is actually a female officer, to see how Women do on actual Subs. To get the commander position he wants, he has to win the War Games, and blow up a Dummy Ship.

The movie fairs quite well, in fact i laughed non-stop when i saw this movie in theaters. I loved when they were in silence and Buckman farts, and everyones reaction to the smell is hilarious.

Overall, 9 out of 10, this movie is just plain fun to watch, it nice to have a movie like this, i hate movies that try to be 100% serious.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The scripting of the subtle comedy is unmatched by any movie in recent years. The characters are interesting, even if a bit predictable. The comedic timing written into the script is more than enough to make up for a well-worn underdog plot. When you're sure you know the ending....SURPRISE! Highly recommended for all ages, although the younger set will probably not appreciate some of the more subtle references, they will certainly appreciate one galley scene in particular! Great movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Down Periscope\" has been in our library since it first arrived in VHS. Since then, we have acquired the DVD and a digital from Cinema Now.

It is a quirky flick that does not go militarily overboard as either pro or con. It is first and foremost a comedy and as a vehicle for the main characters, I am quite surprised that a sequel has never been offered.

The movie has gained a following that borders on a cult obsession, even among the very young. I became aware of this while visiting the USS Drum in Mobile, Alabama in 2002. A group of Cub Scouts, my grandson among them, had all taken up the roles from the movie and planned to relive it during their overnighter on board.

It is a fun romp that makes you proud both of our Navy and Hollywood... which is rare company.

Thanks to Kelsey Grammar, Lauren Holly and Rob Schneider for making what could have been an otherwise unremarkable movie, such great entertainment!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a VERY underrated movie to say the least. As has been pointed out in previous posts, this movie has a somewhat loose and highly implausible script but you find yourself saying \"Who cares?\" while shooting milk (or insert beverage of your choice here) through your nose. It was indeed due to a rare mix of actors in sync. While Kelsey Grammar is obviously a gifted actor (reference 'Frasier', this movie) the supporting actors\/actress play their roles quite well. I found in interesting how they threw in the part about Duane Martin blowing the shot in the 'big game' for Navy's basketball team; if any of you is a basketball fan you'll remember Martin from 'White Men Can't Jump' and 'Above the Rim' and you'll know that Martin had a short stint in the NBA with the Knicks. Nice how they threw in believable character attributes such as this. Rob Schneider's anal-retentive character was the perfect offset to Grammar's calm demeanor. Lauren Holly played the gutsy-sexpot-with-a-brain well enough to make you want her to succeed. This is a movie that will make you laugh even if you've seen it many times before...the comic bits in this movie definitely last. I still find myself laughing 12 years later.

\"Is that one of my chickens?\" \"Uhhh...no. This a parrot....from the Caribbean.\" \"Well don't let it fly away...that's supper.\" \"Arrrrr.....arr.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just discovered this film and love it. Just the right mix of fast moving story, entertaining characters, hilarious moments (but not overloaded with stupid jokes), and fun performances by Kelsey Grammar, Harry Dean Stanton, Ron Schneider, Rip Torn and more. Buckman is especially good, and I really enjoyed watching the guy who played Stapanick.

I also find it interesting that they used a real submarine, the Pampanito, for the running on top scenes and emulated it almost exactly for their sets. The set decoration is really impressive if you do a digital tour of the Pampanito online and then compare it to scenes in the movie. They did an excellent job on this film.

What a light entertaining and truly enjoyable movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the movie in the theater at its release, then watched the VHS tape over the years, and while strolling through Target saw this DVD bundled with \"Pushing Tin\" for the exorbitant sum of $5.50.

There is something about this comedy that has really clicked with me - how Kelsey Grammar, \"with a tattoo on his thing\", is an unorthodox commander who inherits a rusty diesel sub and a crew of screwballs and misfits. He's up against the Navy's best - a Los Angeles Class nuclear attack sub - and his old captain (Wm Macy).

Bruce Dern plays the bad guy, Rip Torn the admiral running the exercise - If you don't laugh hysterically during the \"run silent\" segment with the cook, well, you have a different kind of humor from me.

Towards the end the machinist says \"D.B.F.\" with no explanation - it is apparently some inside knowledge gotten from an old submariner consultant - thanks to Google I learned that with the advent of the nuclear subs the old salts would wear \"DBF\" pins - Diesel Boats Forever.

A Navy friend said that many of the technical aspects aren't correct but who cares - it is one of the funniest movies I've seen.

I don't think it takes a clairvoyant to know who will win in this exercise!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It starts a little slow but give it a chance. In the spirit of the \"Wackiest Ship in the Arm\" and the \"Pink Sub\" this movie is about a not so orthodox group engaged in not so orthodox methods to outwit everyone. Rob Schneider is priceless as a LT that takes himself way too seriously which results in a failed mutiny attempt and \"pirate\" crew makes him walk the plank. In contrast Kelsey Grammar(similar to Cary Grant)does not take anything to serious except the job. This movie is more about lines than plot. From the \"beered up\" fisherman in Charleston harbor to the \"whale\" decoy, their antics took me by surprise and I laughed out loud.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Down Periscope is not a \"Great Movie\". But then again very few flicks are. So if your looking for entertainment instead of great wisdom this is a \"great movie\", without the capitals. No sharp sexism or graphic violence spoil this light comedy about a bunch of misfits who are assigned to a antique submarine. They are set to fail their tasks so that a general can get his extra star. They must take on the entire US-navy with it's nuclear submarines. But they are underdogs and this is a comedy so you can guess the outcome. But you root for those underdogs and this makes it a very entertaining movie. Watch and enjoy ******** (eight stars that is)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Look, we rated this a 10 on entertainment value. It's a comedy sure, not an epic like Lord of the Rings, or Gone with the Wind. Still for comedy, particularly these days, it's a 10.

Not a long movie, moves quickly and easily. Kelsey Grammar right at home is this role as a loose but brilliant captain of a diesel sub, pitted against the US Nuclear Navy in a war game, designed to see if Terrorists could get a nuclear bomb through our defenses. (kinda ironic this plot...pre 911) Don't take this topic seriously cause it's mostly laughs from start to finish.

Rob Schneider is 2nd in command (like \"Frank Burns\") and pulls many laughs. All the others are perfect for their parts as well. Rip Torn and Bruce Dern.

Look plain and simple, you got 90 minutes and need a laugh or pick me up and you're not a prude (their is some language and innuendo) then rent it, or buy it (we did) and enjoy! I wish they would make a part 2!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first few minutes of this movie don't do it justice!For me, its not funny until they board the sub and those hilarious characters begin to gel. I was born and raised in Norfolk Virginia and met my share of \"different\" sailors- I even married one! Most of my favorite movies are just funny, not topical, not dependent on sex or violence and funny every time I see them. Groundhog Day, Bruce Almighty and Down Periscope are still funny even after I know the dialog by heart. Kelsey Grammar with his \"God I LOVE this job!\"was sincere, genuine and lovable. Rob Schneider is hysterical as the crew gets back at him for being annoying. I am still amazed at the size of that fishing boat next to a sub! I can see why folks who live this life would notice the uh-oh's but its not a documentary after all its a comedy and I just love it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this movie. I have probably watched it 2 dozen times or more and still enjoy it. Being an old Navy guy, Im still stirred by the rousing rendition of Anchors Away! I also love the \"McHales Navy\" pirate atmosphere. I could have done without the female dive officer but Im just old fashioned I guess. She was still good to look at, lol, espesially after the crew got done with her laundry. The cook, sonarman, and electrician made the movie. Loved the salty old engineer and his first class PO too. And Grammer actually did a very commendable job of being a misfit Officer. I loved the \"driving scene\" as they passed the golf course on the way into port, lol. Pure Navy! And I swear I had an XO that was just like that little weasel... Im am so glad this is out on DVD, about bloody time. :0)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is about a bunch of misfits who are supposed to be assigned to a task that is expected to fail miserably. The misfits pull together to successfully complete their mission.

Hilarity ensues.

Like the \"Police Academy\" films, the humor comes from the kooky characters on the boat. I thought it was an engaging film and I will stop to watch it anytime it is on TV. No, it won't cause you to ponder your relative role in the cosmos or inspire you to do great things for the service of mankind, but it is fun enough entertainment for 90-some-odd minutes. Plus, Lauren Holly looks hot in a naval uniform.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You know sometimes you just gotta have it? That's how this movie is with me. I am almost embarrassed to admit that I like it, it is so goofy in some parts, but I find myself reaching for it when I'm down and just need a good laugh...and trust me, I am just not a \"goofy movie\" kinda guy.

You can read the synopsis so I don't have to bore you with that, just rest assured, if you like Kelsey Grammer you will probably like this movie.

One more thing, be SURE to watch the end credits. You don't need to read them, just watch them and catch the performance of \"In the Navy\" by the Village People...and friends.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen this movie at least 8 times, and I still laugh every time. The movie is about how an intelligent and motivated man, against all odds, can cheat the entire over-self-confident system.

This movie is for all people, who like a funny movie.

The action and comedy is well mixed into a brilliant film, that I hope to see on DVD soon.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As an ex (nuclear) submarine officer I must admit this is my favorite submarine movie (even exceeding Hunt for Red October). Someone knew something about submarines when they wrote the movie. OK - not realistic - but it is a comedy - and has all of the \"inside jokes\" from the submarine force. A great cast with the stereotypical uptight submarine guys on the \"Orlando\" and our heroes on the diesel boat. Definitely \"DBF\" by the way = that means diesel boats forever. But they want ten lines in order to post this - jees is the Admiral in charge here?

Line 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't explain it, but I find this movie not only funny, but so enjoyable I feel compelled to watch it over and over, or at least I did when I had cable TV. I always felt it was a really poorly made movie, but perhaps that is because I watched it on cable. I plan to get a DVD of this movie to really take an honest look at at, but more importantly to just have a good time watching it. I liked the plot and the idea of the movie and I especially liked the cast. I always wonder if the cast enjoyed making the movies they are in and this is no exception. This film deserved a better fate than it received and Kelsey Grammar deserved at least one love scene with Ms. Holly. Who wouldn't? The characters in this movie were the kind of guys I could identify with when I was in the military and the zaniness was exact. Nice going troops.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've lost count of the times I have seen this movie, but I love it and find it very funny each time I see it. The facial expressions, slapstick humor and the timing on the jokes makes it great. The characters, especially \"Nitro\", \"Sonar\" and \"Stepanik\" are hilarious. I thought Kelsey Grammar, Rip Torn and Bruce Dern did a great job. In fact, I think this movie was perfectly cast. I think it does need to be released in DVD before I wear my VHS version out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my 3 favorite movies. I've been out on the water since I was 13, so I got a lot of the humor as well as recognizing a lot of the near-land scenery (the movie, although taking place in and around Virginia, was filmed around the San Francisco Bay), most notably the mothball fleet just east of the Benicia Bridge where Kelsey Grammar's character was first introduced to the USS Stingray, and the piers of San Francisco at the very end of the movie (including a boat that I've worked on). As other people have said, the actors appeared to have fun making this movie as well as making it entertaining. The line \"We're approaching the bottom, sir! I can hear a couple of lobsters duking it out\" is, at least to me, priceless.

I am one of numerous people who is anxiously awaiting a letterboxed DVD of Down Periscope to be introduced.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this movie to be a simple yet wonderful comedy. This movie is purely entertaining. I can watch it time and time again and still enjoy the dialog and chemistry between the characters. I truly hope for a DVD release!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"especially when looking at the amount of crap that has made it to DVD. I found this movie very funny. Rip Torn is classic with his barbs; Rob Schneider if hilariously annoying as the over-compensating Ensign; Bruce Dern makes a great \"villain\". The entire cast seems to be having a blast, and it's not at the expense of the audience. If you like just plain fun comedy, and aren't looking too deeply into meaning, you just might fall in love with this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My wife and I find this movie to be a wonderful pick-me-up when we need to have a good laugh - the conflict between some characters and the repore between others make this a sure fire comedy relief. I am so looking forward to this movie coming on DVD so I can replace my well watched VHS.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like the excitement of a good submarine drama and the fun of a good comedy, then this film comes highly recommended. Kelsey Grammer gives an excellent performance here.

The film also gives you something to think about the next time a serious sub movie asks for 'silent running'....

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Eros and Thanatos, Love and Death command the dialectics of Life. By the end of 19th century in a remote Japanese village a young man and a married woman, older than he, fall in love with each other and decide to kill her husband to be free to enjoy their love. But they never enjoy that freedom since Remorse begins to haunt them beginning as usual at the time by the weakest member of the couple, the woman of course. Henceforth in an atmosphere where dream (nightmare) mixes up with reality the ghost of the murdered husband appears first to the woman but then also to the man. It also haunts the dreams of the other villagers creating a climate of suspicion and gossip around the couple which is aggravated by the arrival of a police officer that comes to investigate the disappearance of the murdered husband. But which makes this movie more interesting besides this almost common story of adultery is the evolution of the couple's feelings in a Shakespearean deep psychological and dramatic development of remorse, anguish and fear which turns their love relationship into a nightmare until their final doom. The expressionism so dear to Japanese theatre or movie acting is also present in the players' performances but not in an exaggerated form. Just only in the necessary measure to show more effectively the most deep feelings of the depicted characters. This is indeed a solid good movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1895, in a small village in Japan, the wife of the litter carrier Gisaburo (Takahiro Tamura), Seki (Kazuko Yoshiyuki), has an affair with a man twenty-six years younger, Toyiji (Tatsuya Fuji). Toyiji becomes jealous of Gisaburo and plots with Seki to kill him. They strangle Gisaburo and dump his body inside a well in the woods, and Seki tells the locals that Gisaburo moved to Tokyo to work. Three years later, the locals gossip about the fate of Gisaburo, and Seki is haunted by his ghost. The situation becomes unbearable to Seki and Toyiji when a police authority comes to the village to investigate the disappearance of Gisaburo.

\"Ai no Borei\" is a surreal and supernatural love story. The remorse and the guilty complex of Seki make her see the ghost of her murdered husband, spoiling the perfect plot of her lover. The cinematography is jeopardized by the quality of the VHS released in Brazil, but there are very beautiful scenes, inclusive \"Ringu\" and the American remake \"The Ring\" use the view of the well from inside in the same angle. The performances and direction are excellent making \"Ai no Borei\" a great movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): \"O Imp\u00e9rio da Paix\u00e3o\" (\"The Empire of Passion\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A genuinely creepy ghost story, full of chills and sensuality, this movie just falls short of what it promises. It is apparently based on an old ghost story, and perhaps relies a little too much on a simple premise. For most of the way, its imaginative and genuinely gripping, but at the end its almost like Oshima just lost interest in it, and brought it to a rapid ending.

The story is simple - a woman and her younger lover kill her husband so that they can be together. But their failure of nerve and his returning ghost condemn them to madness. Its beautifully handled, with imaginative set scenes, and the lovers passion is portrayed beautifully. But too often the movie fails to really deliver on its promise, almost as if Oshima loses his nerve in the same way the lovers do.

Its a worthwhile movie to watch just to see how Oshima combines his great skill as a film maker with some exploitation movie tricks to pull the audience along, but sadly its not a true classic in the mold of movies like Onibaba or Woman of the Dunes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Where do I begin? Let me say that -- after having watched the entire film and the special features on the DVD -- my wife and I watched the whole film again with the director's commentary running. I can't remember having ever before endured more than 7 minutes of such commentary for a film. It's worth hearing.

I'm not a southern boy, but I spent some time around Memphis a long time ago, and have a feel for the area. This film almost smells of the South, it's so real. Samuel Jackson, one of my all-time favorite actors, is magnificent as the emotionally bent Lazarus, and Christina Ricci gives the performance of a lifetime as Rae, a woman who's been wounded severely during her brief life. I've always liked Ms. Ricci's work, but in this performance she's giving 137% of herself every second she's on the screen. Awards and little statues are not enough to reward her for what she lays before the audience in this film.

There are other places where you can read the essence of the story, so I'm just commenting on the work. I'd heard the name Justin Timberlake before seeing \"BSM,\" but had no idea what he looked like, or even why he's famous. Bumping my head on 60 years old, I'm outside his target demographic, to say the least. After seeing this film I will recognize him. He can act! He gives a substantial, believable performance as the loving soulmate of the county slut.

The director is from Memphis, and shows reverence for his home region. He is also a fine story teller.

.....and I MUST mention the music. I love Blues, and the soundtrack for Black Snake Moan is a veritable feast for a blues fan.

I'm writing less coherently than usual because my enthusiasm for this movie is overcoming my sentence structure. See this film, and I mean now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"my girlfriend, as we walk in the cold London evening in leicester square, after the movie, says: if they didn't speak English and they didn't show the stadium, you could have thought this was the slums of a South American city or some other slum anywhere in the world,not Queens in NYC.

Ramin Bahrani is , right now, my official hero, because he seems to have devoted his work to show not the OTHER face of American, but the REAL face of America.

Ramin Bahrani's movies are like Ladri di biciclette, or Germania anno zero, or Roma citta' aperta. Chop shop is reality turned into a movie, is more realistic than a documentary, in fact I think Ramin Bahrani's movies are more realistic than documentaries. This is a great movies, but don't expect any car chase or shooting. This movie is about tragic lives on the margin of the wealthiest , richest country in the world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alejandro (Alejandro Polanco), called Ale for short, works at an auto-body repair shop in what has come to be known as the Iron Triangle, a deteriorating twenty block stretch of auto junk yards and sleazy car repair dealers close to Shea Stadium in Queens, New York. Here customers do not question whether or not parts come from stolen cars or why they are able to receive such large discounts, they simply put down their cash and hope that everything is on the up and up. Sleazy outskirts like these are not highlighted in the tour guides but Iranian-American director Ramin Bahrani puts them on vivid display in Chop Shop, a powerful Indie film that received much affection last year at Cannes, Berlin, and Toronto. A follow up to his acclaimed \"Man Push Cart\", Bahrani spent one and a half years in the location that F. Scott Fitzgerald described as in the Great Gatsby as \"the valley of the ashes\".

For all its depiction of bleakness, Chop Shop is not a work of social criticism but, like Hector Babenco's Pixote, a poignant character study in which a young boy's survival is bought at the price of his innocence. Shot on location at Willets Point in Queens, Bahrani makes you feel as if you are there, sweating in a hot and humid New York summer with all of its noise and chaos. The film's focus is on the charming, street-smart 12-year-old Ale who lives on the edge without any adult support or supervision other than his boss (Rob Sowulski), the real-life proprietor of the Iron Triangle garage. Polanco's performance is raw and slightly ragged yet he fully earned the standing ovation he received at the film's premiere at Cannes along with a hug from great Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami.

Cramped into a tiny room above the garage together with his 16-year-old sister Isamar (Isamar Gonzales) who works dispensing food from a lunch wagon, Ale is like one of the interchangeable spare parts he deals with. While he has dreams of owning his own food-service van, in the city that never sleeps, he knows that the only thing that may make the \"top of the heap\" is another dented fender. In this environment, Ale and Isi use any means necessary to keep their heads above water while their love for each other remains constant and they still laugh and act out the childhood that was never theirs. As Barack Obama says in his book \"Dreams From My Father\", the change may come later when their eyes stop laughing and they have shut off something inside. In the meantime, Ale supplements his earnings by selling candy bars in the crowded New York subways with his friend Carlos (Carlos Zapata) and pushing bootleg DVDs on the street corners, while Isi does tricks for the truck drivers to save enough money to buy the rusted $4500 van in which they hope to start their own business.

Though Ale is a \"good boy\", he is not above stealing purses and hubcaps in the Shea Stadium parking lot, events that Bahrani's camera observes without judgment. In Chop Shop, Bahrani has provided a compelling antidote to the underdog success stories churned out by the Hollywood dream factory, and has given us a film of stunning naturalism and respect for its characters, similar in many ways to the great Italian neo-realist films and the recent Iranian works of Kiarostami, Panahi, and others. While the outcome of the characters is far from certain, Bahrani makes sure that we notice a giant billboard at Shea Stadium that reads, \"Make dreams happen\", leaving us with the hint that, in Rumi's phrase, \"the drum of the realization of that promise is beating,\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A friend brought me this movie and at first I was hesitating, the pace in the movie was so slow that it was admittedly boring at the beginning. But the life scenes were attractive, it's like observing than watching.

It turned out to be simply stunning throughout the film, the way how the director handled the life scenes to reflect the reality was confounding but somehow also overwhelming. It's like understanding the real life of a lively person than watching a movie.

Mr Alejandro Polanco and Miss Isamar Gonzales did their roles so well that it's more like telling us their own stories. Indeed they used their real names in the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chop Shop. Written and directed by Ramin Bahrani ( Man Push Cart). Bahrani specializes in character driven studies in naturalist style films about the sort of little people that get passed by every day, without anyone ever really noticing they are there, in New York.

These are people who have been pushed to the very fringe of society. They exist in a sort of grey world, many of them migrants whose legal status in America is appears somewhat doubtful. Where do they come from ? How did they get there ? How do they cope ? Where will they end up ? These are not feel good stories as such, but stories about survival at its most basic, day to day level.

Ale is one such street kid. He has no education and hustles anyway he can, to save money, he is also not beyond turning to petty theft. Mostly he is anxious to be reunited with his older sister. We see him in the early scenes ringing a safe house looking for her, but not having any real success. A young friend, Carlos gets him a job in a chop shop, in the shadows of Shea baseball stadium. Eventually his older sister comes to live on site with him, but he is jealous of the motives of her friends and suspicious of how she makes extra money. He dreams of buying a food van and setting up a vending business with his older sister.

Bahrani shoots all his films on location. There is nothing glossy or glossed over about them. This is life as these people have to live it, in the raw. lt is not pretty although it is never ominous, and the slightly despairing air that hangs over much of the film, is the same one that hangs over these peoples' everyday lives.

The script is also very natural and the characters are given plenty of scope and room to work in. Polanco is outstanding in the lead role, and Gonzalez gives solid support as the older sister.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chop Shop is a hidden treasure out in theaters! I cannot begin to describe how wonderful the performances are in this movie. This film is for anyone who wants to watch a powerful story and see an example of what contemporary movies should look and be like.

This film is about a young boy, Alejandro \"Ale\" who works and lives with his teenage sister, Isamar \"Izzie\" in a one-room tiny loft in an auto shop. The story takes place in a part of New York City (that I did not even know existed--Willits Points) where there are endless junkyards and body shops. Here, Bahrani tells the story of two forgotten children hoping to support themselves by buying and fixing up a food van.

Ale makes money helping at the auto shop, and Izzie helps at a food van; both, however, earn extra money on the side. Ale sells bootleg movies and stolen car parts; Izzie results to selling herself. Their lives are surrounded by grit and grim, but even though both witness, live and barely survive within their harsh world, their love for each other is never tainted by the filth that surround them. And occasionally they are able to laugh and enjoy moments of their childhood that is being stolen by the reality of struggling to survive and stay together.

The best comparison I have for Chop Shop is that Bahrani's juxtaposition of an innocent love between family members against such a bleak atmosphere is as powerful as Pasolini's Mama Roma combined with the struggles of growing up too fast in an adverse environment just as in Bresson's Mouchette.

Having co-written, directed and edited both this film and his first, Man Push Cart (which won awards all over the world), Bahrani is a total package filmmaker.

I can only hope that his films will not be hidden treasures for long!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This almost documentary look at an enterprising boy who lives in the body shop area outside of New York is real all the way. Real lighting. Real sound. Less editing in the whole movie than in 1 minute of most movies. And while there is very little script, there is a story. Shot in primary colors, almost all red, white, blue and yellow, we get a real sense of the life of a boy who is making something from nothing. He has a place to live that he makes his own, has a good job, and is trying to bring his sister into his little universe. The people in the chop shop area also give us a look at this culture which I didn't know about. They mostly seem decent and pay Ale what seems like daily, seeming truly concerned about his well being. The actor (I think) playing Ale says more with one facial expression than one can imagine. This reminded me what a true small movie can accomplish. It shows what kids are capable of, even without much support and love. Definitely recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ramin Bahrani sets up a scene early on in Chop Shop that immediately had me identifying with where the character of Ale (Alejandro Polanco) and his friend were coming from. The two of them get on a subway, and as soon as the doors close they ask if they could have everyone's attention for a moment, and that they are selling candy bars or M&M's or something, and then they proceed to sell some bars. If you (as I) have ever been on a subway in New York city, at any time, this is the kind of situation that happens so often you almost don't notice it. Often the people on a subway will see kids like these or minorities selling something or announcing and talking about something on a subway and not pay them any mind. Bahrani's focus isn't necessarily just on kids who hock things for sale on subway rides, but on survival and the state of being one is in when in the lower class in America. It is, subsequently in his hands, thoughtful and heartbreaking, usually at once.

To compare it to Pixote or the Bicycle Thief isn't too far of a leap (actually in the latter at least the father and son have each other), though Bahrani is specific in his intentions in his documentary style. We care about this character Ali, no older than eleven and working in a car shop cleaning some cars and helping take apart others, and his sister who comes from out of town to stay with him. But it's not simply because we're force-fed any clich\u00e9s, aside from, you know, a brother and sister (more-so the brother) trying to take care of one another. Bahrani makes the story accessible through the simple aspiration Ali has, the kind of goal that is possible attainable in his situation: saving up enough to buy a used food truck that Ali and Isamar can operate themselves.

It's all Ali is working for, but what Bahrani shows us in brutal detail is this work, what Ali has to do to make it happen even if its distasteful things like ripping hubcaps off of tires from cars in Shea Stadium or, at one point, stealing a purse in a desperate moment. This makes it all the more serious an issue when Ale sees what his sister does for money on the side at night, doing sexual favors for men in an abandoned truck on the side of the road. He doesn't mention it and pushes it aside, but its always something that adds to the tension, something Ale wants to protect his sister from. It adds to the tragedy when Ale finds out the real cost of what it will take to make the food truck into a profit-maker, a cost that just further adds to the anguish that he just internalizes.

One could look immediately at the fact that Ale is an orphan in such a neighborhood as the one in the area of Queens the film was shot in- naturally, as with a work of neo-neo realism (lets just call it realism), featuring practically all non-professional actors in the parts of the mechanics and workers and people on the streets- but Bahrani is focused more-so on the here and the now, and that is what makes Chop Shop so immediate and heartfelt. Not a trace of melodrama is in the film, barely even music accompaniment aside from the live Latino music coming from the cars and radios. Sometimes Bahrani will focus on a very subtle moment that makes it pronounced in further scenes, like the way Ale is awake but acts like he's asleep the first night after he witnesses Isamar's late-night tryst, and we see as she slinks into bed she probably knows he's awake but neither can say a word. Or, in a lot of other scenes, poetic touches that seem seamless, like when the man shows Ale how feeding the pigeons work.

It's rough and gritty, as you can expect, and it doesn't give much hope for its main characters despite the few moments of happiness sprinkled about. It's also a superbly shot hand-held film, where the technique, as with a lot of movies made in its urban-set tone and approach, informs and compliment the subjects on screen and what they're doing, but it also is never recklessly shot or too flashy. The filmmaker has a superb 'real-life' cast (Ale was plucked from a NYC public school without any experience) and knows how to not waste a shot, while at the same time achieve a brutal artistry with just showing what he shows. It's not City of God or Pixote; it's its own little masterpiece on a character or characters we usually would just not give a second look to (or a first one barely) on our way in a city such as New York. If you're not moved by Ale and his daily struggles, I don't know what to do for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chop Shop, the second feature from Ramin Bahrani, is a rare breed. It is an American film that tells a story not usually found in American cinema, the story of the of a minority living in poverty. It is a work of simple beauty. Shot on location in Queens, New York in the shadows of Shea Stadium, Chop Shop is neo-realism to the core. Featuring a cast of non-actors, it has more in common with Vittorio De Sica's classic Bicycle Thieves than anything made in the United States. There is no score or soundtrack, all the music and sounds are diagetic. Watching it feels like watching a great foreign film, it takes us to another world because it is so uncommon to see. However this other world is not post-World War II Rome or Istanbul or New Delhi, it is contemporary New York City.

Bahrani tells the story of Alejandro (Alejandro Polanco), better known as Ale. He is a 12-year-old Latin-American kid with no parents or family unit to watch after him. He lives in a tiny room upstairs in the auto shop that he also works at. He shares the same bed with his teenage sister Isamar (Isamar Gonzales). Neither of them have made it passed second grade. Ale, though young, is tough and mature. He acts as the head of the small family. He hooks his sister up with a job, and he himself does anything he can to make a buck when not working at the chop shop. He sells bootleg DVDs on the streets and candy in subways. He searches for scrap auto parts and sells them to the many auto shops lining the street where he lives.

Alejandro is heartbroken when he learns his sister is working nights as a prostitute. He himself becomes progressively disinterested in abiding by the law. He begins to steal, first car parts and later wallets. Like Antonio, the desperate protagonist in Bicycle Thieves, we cannot blame Ale for becoming a thief. It is merely survival. Ale and Isamar save up in hopes of buying a food vending van for $4,500. They see the van as their way out, and there is much optimism. However, as is usually the case in neo-realism, we know this will only lead to disappointment.

Polanco's riveting performance is what gives legitimacy to Chop Shop's realism. Here is a 12-year-old character that needs to be believably independent and vulnerably naive. Whether he is directing cars to the shop, selling movies and Snickers bars or playing with his sister in their scanty room, it is authentic.

Chop Shop is a sobering reminder that not all American children grow up in a land of opportunity. Ale's lifestyle is what many in middle-class white America consider 'third world'. They act cognizant the poverty and deprivation in foreign lands while sipping their coffee and reading the New York Times on Sunday morning, but make themselves blind to it on their own streets. Once you watch Chop Shop, you will think differently of the kids peddling candy on the subway.

more reviews at www.mediasickness.com","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For the very reason that I love movies such as \"Central do Brasil\" (\"Central Station\", 1998), I really love \"Chop Shop\". There is no sugar-coating, there is no attempt to make these people's lives over to something more palatable or pretty. What you see is what you get, and that is often gritty and at times heartbreaking. But that is exactly what makes a movie such as \"Chop Shop\" so wonderful, alongside the fact that the storyline unfolds so elegantly and subtly. For a young brother and sister, who are about as close to homelessness as one would ever want to get, working (and living) at an auto body repair shop in Queens, New York is as good as it gets. Is this a good or bad thing? That is the question this movie essentially poses to the viewer. This movie is really a fantastic slice-of-life piece that at times feels like a documentary instead of a drama, and that is a great thing, because it looks and feels so real. In the midst of so, so many current movies based on essentially surreal and often implausible plots, stumbling upon \"Chop Shop\" is like finding a little gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed Ramin Bahrani's Man Push Cart, and this film is equally good. This slice of life is almost a documentary about how life on the edges is lived.

Alejandro Polanco and Isamar Gonzales do an excellent job as a 12-year-old brother and a 16-year-old sister who live in a small room over an auto shop. There are no parents; they are on their own surviving. Ali supplements his income by stealing auto parts, selling bootleg DVDs and selling candy on the subway. Izzie supplements her income working a food truck by selling herself. They are trying to make money to but their own truck.

One is tempted to express outrage at the fact that these two children are left to fend on their own, and certainly one can be very upset that Izzie sells her body to willing truckers, but the fact is that this exists today in the world's richest country, not some underdeveloped land. Save the outrage and do something.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Can't say this wasn't made well. At a recent film festival the director admitted some scenes took 30 takes. And there isn't the slightest indication he didn't get exactly what he wanted. But this is an oddly non-Hispanic film in the same way West Side Story was many years ago. Both the leads, a brother-sister team, are excellent and memorable in their parts. The setting, a sort of underground car repair district in Queens, is completely foreign to most people and is worth the price of admission by itself. But there's something unsatisfying about the key issue in the film, namely, what the sister feels she has to do to get by. I can understand the brother's reaction, but it just seems a little too easily come by to me. The movie seems to suggest that people like these don't need our help, that they'll find a way to survive without the usual support systems. I wouldn't encourage anyone to believe that. There would be far more resistance to the choices made here than depicted. Other than that as an entertainment it works well. As an accurate depiction of a culture, not so well, I think.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some critics have compared Chop Shop with the theatrical releases of City of God and Pixote. I've seen both of those as well as Chop Shop and like in many instances, I don't feel the comparison is warranted. City of God and Pixote surely had a much higher budget. Chop Shop is a low budget independent film about survival and hope, disappointment, and continuing with life. One of the scenes is allegedly filmed during the US Open and either the filmmakers had incredible connections or the scene was filmed at another time and the US open footage was added. I say that because I live in the area where this movie was filmed and security is insane while the tennis matches are in progress. It's also noteworthy that the actors actual names were their character's names in the movie. Back to the movie. It's an enjoyable story about survival. However, it ended up getting a 7 because... at times the actors acted extremely well. At other times, they appeared to be just reciting their lines. If the actors were less competent (as they were in the low budget \"The Big Dis\" for example) I would have been more forgiving. But in several scenes each and every one of these actors gave exemplary performances. At other times, they appeared bored. The director might be at fault here. I also had problems with the ending. This is one of those movies that \"just ends\". Maybe there will be a part 2? Definitely worth getting on DVD. I wont bother summing up the story because that info is already available on IMDb.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those movies when you are watching it you wonder whether it is documentary or fiction. After the movie, Ramin Bahrani answered many questions and we learned that the movie has a script.

Bahrani's camera is silent, he is not judgmental, he almost erases director from the movie by purpose, background is not organized to make the picture pretty, however don't get me wrong; there is a lot of preparation for this movie. Starting on personal level, being the part of environment, being to be ignored when you film.

Main character is a 'real' actor in every sense.

I would like to thank all crew for this movie, showing us another country within NYC. I strongly suggest it if you like stories of others.

Bora Kizilirmak","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The majesty of Ramin Bahrani's second feature is that, like the work of a poet, he portrays the very soul of humanity and lets it flourish on the screen. Beyond the scope of most other indie films out there, CHOP SHOP is wise, exuding the very best of the great cinema of the ages; we can look back at the works of Bresson and Pasolini and compare Bahrani's work to theirs, and yet CHOP SHOP is fresh and urgent to modern society. We can see the workings of a master here \u0096 a certain sense of beauty, style, and content all merge together in a film that reminds us what it means to be alive. Instead of focusing on the side of NYC we so often see, we live and breathe with our young hero, Alejandro, in the destitute Willits Point \u0096 a fascinating quasi-sub-world of our culture \u0096 and yet it's a very, very real place. Trying to stay afloat, Alejandro has to support himself and his older sister. Watch this film and feel the sense of raw spiritual understanding that Bahrani leads us toward \u0096 all with profound and concise realism.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i was very impressed with this production on likely all levels; from production to plot and character development.

this definitely fall under the \"realism\" genre, since there is nothing going on here that makes use of creative imagination, twists, or manipulating audience in how a viewer shall feel, think and asses.

the actors are great, especially the \"little\" ones. the chemistry between the brother and the sister is mind blowing, maybe not even as common as should be in real life. it is a movie excellent to literally watch while visualizing it. one knows when a movie is good when one just does not want it to end, but eventually everything does...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is marvelous movie, about a soul of Ale. This is a journey to Ale's heart. I found it fascinating. The director did a great job. He makes the scenes talk. Especially on the silent scenes. The window of Ale is a great one. An the scenes when he lies in bed are one of the best directed scenes I have seen.

Apart from directing. It has been a quite time I did not watch a movie about a soul. As a philosopher I can say that, this film proves that the age does not matter about your soul. So as Ale's soul.

As living in Turkey I do not care about the other side of NY. This is a universal scene you can see everywhere in the world. As to my opinion more universal than every other thing.

Do not miss this film. Otherwise you will miss a great thing about a soul. If you have one.

Baris.Sentuna","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gray can make the English language jump through hoops like none other. He recounts a number of events, tied together by his writing of a manuscript (the \"Monster\" of the title), some sad, some uproariously funny, all in his characteristic, sarcastic manner. If you liked \"Swimming to Cambodia\" you will love this one. I actually thought this was a bit more interesting and better told than \"Swimming to Cambodia\". A real masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Three of the things you can say about Spalding Gray are: he certainly marched to the beat of his own \"drummer;\" he was never at a loss for words; and he obviously felt that those watching and listening to him would be interested in every aspect of his life, experiences and thoughts - no matter how trivial at times.

Most of us are not quite as far \"off the wall\" as he was. Most of us aren't as interested in sharing the most minute parts of ourselves with others - even one-on-one or in small groups, let alone on stage.

But that doesn't make it any less-interesting to watch and listen to this erudite, unusual man. And after seeing one of his performances, on reflection, we can find many of his articulate musings were perhaps more relevant to our own lives and thoughts than we may have first thought.

Granted, he was a \"New York\/avant-garde\" type of personality, and undeniably a bit \"strange.\" (There are those who would maintain describing someone as \"New York\" and strange\" was being unnecessarily redundant.)

I give him a \"10\" for the talent he presents in this genre which is his specialty.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"in his descriptions of CAA, platinum card lunches in Hollywood, psychoanalysis, a vacation in Provincetown he never took, and free trips to Nicaragua, financed by Columbia pictures.

It sounds narcissistic, but Spalding Gray (possibly because of his unusual personality) ropes the audience in, laughs at himself (perhaps because he did not take the Hollywood thing oh-so-seriously) and gets us to care.

This monologue is not just about \"The Killing Fields\", or \"Swimming to Cambodia\"; it is more a pastiche of events, as he sees them. Some of the lines are classic, as when Gray meets with the esteemed talent agents at CAA. The conference table is ...\"full of them, tanned, healthy, fresh from drinking blue-green algae from an Oregon lake...there are no drugs now in Hollywood\".

This was before the tragedy occurred. Many of us will miss his off-balance humor. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The violent death of Fernando Ramos Da Silva only eight years after the completion of this film, only adds to the poignancy of dierector BAbenco's powerful message. The film is split into two halves - the first in a reformatory where a group of youngsters are abused and violated by the violent law enforcers and guardians. The second backdrop is the city where they are confined instead by their own actions and morality, which includes mugging, pimping and killing different characters who enter their lives.

The differing gender and sexual roles in the film allow for constant changes in the characters as they interact with other people. Particularly interesting is teh character of Lalica, a transvestite who is mother and lover to some of the children. Her reaction to the arrival of Sueli, a prostitute is both poignant and tragic.

There is no happy ending to this story and i reccomend to watch it with caution as there are some very uncomfortable scenes to watch especially in teh opening twenty minutes. But whilst watching it, it is important to remember that this is not just a fictional tale. The actors are not trained professionals but instead boys selected from the streetsof Sao Paulo. They actually lived this life that is portrayed so vividly on screen and in da Silva's case, died at the hands of the police who are depicted so brutally. A documentary? A piece of fiction. It borders on both but it certainly makes for heart wrenching material and is a film that actually leaves you breathless and thinking long after having watched it.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Pixote: A Lei do Mais Fraco\" deals with what is perhaps the greatest of all Brazilian themes: poverty. And along with poverty the other unnatural feelings and actions it brings; prostitution, violence, crime, rape and murder.

Brazil is the country of paradoxes, and its social problems are present everywhere. The difference between the rich and the poor; the beautiful and the ugly; happiness and the most profound human decay.

\"Pixote\" is one of the films that dare to touch and open these so painful wounds, and does it without the slightest glimmer of hope, in an honest portrayal of a country that, like Pixote himself, is already lost.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is no walk in the park. I saw this when it came out, and haven't had the guts to watch it again. You will never see a more horrifyingly devastating or depressing movie. I felt like I'd been severely beaten. What kind of world are we living in when we have children who are treated worse than garbage? This is our world, what we have created, what we have allowed to happen. And I would hesitate to say that I-ME-WE are not responsible for this. Babenco made this film to wake us up, to shake us to our very core, and he succeeded. How can we be cruel, or self-indulgent, or neglectful of our children, when we see the graphic results of such behavior? He is pointing a finger of accusation at us all for doing this to the lowliest and least powerful of our society. And if you aren't doing something each day to prevent it, then you are part of the problem. I am NOT a religious fanatic, but this movie made me think about the state of my soul.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a difficult movie to watch, and would have been even more difficult had I known then that the actor playing the protagonist was in fact killed in his home by police at age 19. Pixote (PeeWee) is a street kid in Sao Paulo who is caught in a roundup triggered by a murder in which he had no involvement. He is committed to a juvenile prison where he witnesses brutality and exploitation that ordinary citizens try very hard to believe doesn't exist. When finally he escapes, he and three comrades survive by the only means they know, which is crime. What makes the film so heart-rending is that both Pixote and the actor portraying him clearly do not wish to be the characters life circumstances have made them. Pixote tries to trust and to love and to bond, but there simply is no room in his world for the gentle side of human nature. One is left at the end wanting desperately to do something for the Pixotes of the world, but what? Building more children's's prisons with higher walls surely is not the answer...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film opens with the director talking to the camera and saying he is going to show a story about Brazilain street kids whose families live in poverty and must steal and kill to survive. In fact the main character (Pixote) was played by an actual street kid only 11 years old. What follows was one of the most brutal, depressing and horrifying film I've even seen. I saw it about 17 years ago (on a double bill with \"Black Orpheus\") and have never forgotten it. I don't think I ever want to see it again--it was just too much.

SPOILER AHEAD!!!! The scene which will not leave me is when Pixote meets a prostitute who has to abort her own fetus. You don't see her do it...but you get a quick glance at what she got out. It's almost 20 years later and just recalling that scene upsets me. SPOILER END!!!!!

The movie gets more brutal as it goes along and ends the only way it can. What's all the more harrowing is stories like this really did happen in Brazil in 1981...and are STILL happening today.

A harrowing brutal film...but it should be seen if you can handle it. I'm surprised this got an R rating--I've seen X rated film that are less graphic. A 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Pixote\" is the one of most powerful, shocking, and moving motion picture to come from Brazil. It's about the lives of street kids on the streets of Sao Paulo and Rio De Janeiro, and it centers around a ten-year-old boy. The camera follows them around in an almost documentary style;from the juvenile detention center (where most of the staff is as corrupt as the police) and back to the streets, and it never turns away from the horrors of the city. Prostitution, drug use\/dealing, corruption, and murder are all witnessed by these youths; yet it's something they're painfully used to. Director Hector Babenco used real street kids as the actors, adding to the films brutal reality. Although not for everyone, a film I highly recommend. An emotionally devastating movie.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When it was released, in the beginning of the 80's, Pixote brings to Brazilian society the problems of young delinquents, and the impact of this in Brazilian society. I can't watch the movie at that time, cause I was too young, but now I got a chance and watched It a few days ago. It's a very brutal movie, but everything is absolutely true, and sad. pixote is the name of a 12 year-old boy who lives in the streets, and survive with misdemeanors; he stays for a while in a house of detention, and when he left it he continues to plan robs with other buns and a prostitute, played by marilia Pera. the boy is still a marijuana addicted and smell glue with another teenagers, to forget his sad reality. the quality of the images it's not the best, but the movie is totally realistic about Brazilian problems, and must be viewed and admired.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been studying Brazilian cinema since 2004, when I stumbled onto \"Cidade de Deus \/ City of God\". Let me tell you something, this movie is probably as good or BETTER than \"City of God\".

The acting, cinematography and music supervision make this movie a unique experience. I have not been to Brazil yet, but this movie presents the harsh reality that is beset before the citizens of S\u00e3o Paulo.

I recommend this movie if you enjoy good cinema. This movie is disturbing and you may feel a bit despondent after watching it.

Something you want to watch, but nothing you want to go to sleep on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was really a \"nightmare\" of a film; i saw it about nine years ago on cable TV and haven't forgotten it since. Pixote is a 10-year old boy who lives in the streets of Sao Paulo (Brazil) and leads a criminal life in the company of his teenage friends Lilica, Dito and Chico; they steal, pimp, sell drugs and murder in order to survive each day...In the first half of the film Pixote is caught by the police and sent to a sadistic foster home where he witnesses every kind of abuse from the older inmates and guards to the rest of the kids; one night, Lilica's boyfriend is killed after a beating, so Pixote and his friends decide to escape during a riot. The rest of the film shows Pixote's descent into a criminal life; he doesn't show any feelings or remorse after killing someone, maybe because he knows that good feelings are of no use in the world in which he lives...But there is, however, a gentle scene in the middle of the film; Pixote and his friends are at the beach, missing (and wishing) one of his friends from the reformatory was there. I thought it was a poetic and melancholy scene in the middle of all these horrible events...the boys are obviously longing not only for their friend, but for a better life. Director Hector Babenco's \"Pixote\" is a brave and depressing film that doesn't shy away from showing the harshest reality many people -including myself- tend to ignore or misunderstand. This film will probably open your eyes and make you a better and compassionate person.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For me, this is another one of those films that I got to see off of the Los Angeles based \"Z\" Channel when it was in service. And it was another one of those movies that I saw when I was young...and learned that there was a world out there...one I did not want to accept.

Moving to Los Angeles and getting to watch international cinema became quite the guilty pleasure hobby of mine and to date, no premiere channel programming has matched the \"Z\" Channel in its showing of international films. The three international films that stuck in my young head were \"Spetters\", \"Beau Pere\" and of course this one, \"Pixote\".

This was the most shocking and saddest movie I ever witnessed in my life. This was also one of the first movies that made me understand that there IS a difference in cinema: to entertain, and to inform. Let me be honest..growing up in a small town on the east coast, I had no idea anything like this -- to this extent -- existed. All I knew from South America was brochures of fabulous Brazillian vacations and that Columbia had a lot of drug trafficking.

Then comes a film like Pixote. Sad. Disturbing. Unflinching. Scary. You're watching: Children. Those that need shelter, love, understanding and all these get are a way to survive day after day through drugs, sex, robbing, stealing, sleeping on the streets and in sadistic group homes etc. Their survival is hard to watch with other street children, prostitutes, etc., and you begin to wonder HOW can things like this be allowed to happen in this world.

Pixote is not a film for entertainment, it is a film of information. It shows shocking and disturbing images - but it shows life for these daily street children.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Film about the failure of government and the selfishness of adults. Overwhelming impossibility of dealing with life and the means the children go to to try to achieve living. Only living. Staying alive in a cruel world. A nightmare world, we are afraid to watch it because we are seeing truth and are afraid to see it. To see a world of despair when we are all so comfortable in our own lives and even complaining about what we have not got when it is so trivial compared to someone else. They, the children of the movie, are desensitized. They are more than desensitized by what is around them. They see sex as an act, like they are watching a tv program. When the one boy is with the hooker, Pixote is sitting on the bed watching with a blank stare, no feeling. He wants to be a little boy and have a family but the hooker has no compassion either and pushes him away. A \"human\" film, with \"human\" relations and moral judgement in a ugly, scared, cruel world. Reminds us that life is not fair, but you can still have a human connection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm originally from Brazil... the sad thing about this movie was the exploitation that was done to that boy. They told his life story and he never got one \"centavo\" (Brazilian cent) of that movie. Fernando is not the first and will not be the last to go through that life style in Brazil. Sad... but that is the world we live in. It's about making money not saving lives. Question is: Where is Fernando today? Most probably... dead. We tend to want to live in this \"Disney filled fantasy bubbled life\". When someone comes up to the plate to help... along comes the higher power and says: \"What do I get from this? Where's my cut?\" - I wish people's conscience would speak up!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is probably the best movie from director Hector Babenco. It shows a Brazilian reality unknown by foreigners, which is the same reality that haunts all of the Latin American countries, poverty and a survival instinct. The most affected in this reality is the children usually left orphans, or abandoned by their poor parents have to make it in a \"dog eat dog\" society many times falling into the gap of delinquency, prostitution and crime. Very well acted and with a \"no frills\" approach, this movie will get to you, Great story plot, a must have movie on anybody's collection. The starring role went to Fernando Ramos da Silva, a young boy who fell into the crime wave, killed some years later during a robbery. I would suggest people to watch the movie \"Who killed Pixote?\" so you can have a more in depth idea of the lives of these characters. Some other Characters from the movie had a similar fate, some died and others are in jail. None the less this movie will last for a long time in your memory","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pixote is directed with barely a shred of sentimentality. And yet I more than imagine Hector Babenco owes some of his film-making chops with this film to Vittorio De Sica's neo-realist style, in particular Shoeshine (that film, as with Pixote, takes place mostly inside a children's prison). And yet while I might still prefer De Sica's film if it came down to deciding between the two it's so close because it is, no pun intended, like choosing between two children. They're both marvelous works of raw drama, and with Pixote Babenco has an extra edge and harrowing quality to deal with in that this isn't filmed in conditions brought on after a world war. This is how it was in Brazil- one would see it with slightly more flair and awe in City of God, perhaps in some of the same locations- and these children were on the streets before and after the film was made. Some aren't alive some 20+ years later, for all anyone knows.

The \"star\", pre-teen street kid Fernando Ramos da Silva, plays the title character, a youth without a father or really any family who will look out for him, and placed among dozens of other street kids and delinquents in a reformatory for boys. The conditions couldn't be much worse, and are made even more unbearable as two children are killed one after the other by some cause of the guard duty. There's a riot, and an escape, and halfway through the film we find Pixote with a few other youths, including Lilica a practical transvestite not even 18, and they become pickpockets, drug dealers, whatever to get by. None of this, I should repeat, is shown with a kind of ham-fisted earnestness- certainly you would never in a million years see Ron Howard or Paul Haggis direct this kind of picture- and yet there's an emotional honesty to everything exactly because nothing is trivialized.

Nearly every scene is significant to showing how fragile life is for Pixote, and how he could be killed or die some way at any turn, and so without even reaching puberty yet he has to be on the level of those around him who are a little older (though not by much at all) and become things that will haunt this person forever. Despite Babenco's usage of a tender and mournful musical score and one or two scenes with people crying a lot, nothing feels forced. As with De Sica, maybe more-so given the consistent conditions of San Paolo and Rio street kids, he's a natural director of children, and coax's out of Ramos da Silva and Jorge Juli\u00e3o and others some really fine work that provides just the right touches of \"cinematic\" drama (that is not so real that it becomes documentary, which isn't a bad thing per-say) and even subtlety in some scenes.

Pixote may not be as well known as it's later 21st century Brazilian films that look back on the horrors of Rio, or even neo-realist films, but it should be. Anyone wanting to get a good, hard glimpse at what it was like should seek it out at a library or other and soak in what is the best foreign film of 1981.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To speak relatively, if one were only to see now Hector Babenco's \"Pixote\" (1981, Brazil;pronounced as \"pi-shot\"), after having seen quite a number of films that deal with street children, juvenile delinquents, kids in trouble (Truffaut's \"The 400 Blows\", Bunuel's \"Los Olvidados\", De Sica's \"Shoeshine\", Nair's \"Salaam, Bombay!\", Bresson's \"Mouchette\", Nugroho's \"Leaf on a Pillow\", etc.), one might be afraid that the plight of the kid portrayed in the film might not affect one anymore, having been \"de-synthesized\" already after going through the emotional roller-coaster ride put in motion by the previously quoted films.

Thankfully, that won't be the case. For Babenco narrates his film in such a matter-of-fact manner (\"artlessly\", as one film reviewer put it, in a positive light) and that his central child performer, Fernando Ramos da Silva (13 years old at that time and a street kid himself), gives such a no-frills, wounded performance, raw in its simplicity (that hardened face, those lonely and longing eyes) that one is hard put not to be pierced in any way. (Such a feeling may achieve such a heightened realism when one learns that the child had only lived but a short life, having been involved in street crimes after the film and subsequently murdered.)

In about first half of the film, Pixote and his fellow street kids and delinquents spend their time in a repressive state-run reformatory school, where brutalization and humiliation, rape and murder, are the norm and culture;where they are forced to confess to their \"crimes\", on the flimsy notion that under the Brazilian law, underage felons are not \"punishable\" for their offenses. For these kids, the dubious freedom offered by the streets is more preferable than the harsh rehabilitation provided by these supposed well-meaning authorities. Within the walls of this supposed protective establishment, these young souls are soon to discover that love and care from parental figures are likewise nowhere to be found, if not to a degree worser.

(For Pixote, the only form of escape comes from puffing grass and sniffing glue, secretly smuggled inside the reformatory.)

When the kids burst themselves into a small-scale \"revolt\" to finally express and then fulfill their collective desire to get back to the outside world--their \"home\"--the intensity and form are of such a kind that one can't avoid thinking of the schoolboys' revolt in Jean Vigo's influential \"Zero for Conduct\". It's only that in \"Pixote\", the \"uprising\" is made to appear on a gutter level.

Once Pixote and his small group are back on the streets (the film's second half), they engage in robbery, pimping and drug-dealing to fend for themselves, along which they get to meet Sueli, a battered but kindly prostitute. Sueli willingly accomodates the four lost souls, in such a way that she allows her customers to be robbed by them and that she provides more than motherly care (at least to one of the children).

One would have thought that the street kids have at long last found the one person who can provide them the love and warmth that have been sorely lacking in their lives. But as dubious as the freedom that these kids believe the streets are providing, this new-found \"maternal figure\" cannot but stay forever.

Jealousy, squabbles, differences, and murder have only set the kids apart--and for good. And during that defining scene where Pixote, prompted by the circumstance, gets to shoot not just Sueli's arrogant American customer but also his fellow street urchin Ditto (more than a son to Sueli), he thereafter literally goes back to \"infancy\", as he sucks from the right breast of the disoriented woman, right there and then materializing his lingering desire for parental affection, the image itself both sad and unsettling.

It is so that Sueli, in a probable coming back to her \"senses\", lamentably pushes back Pixote from his \"nourishing\" position and rejects him, for good. Thus, in a quietly wrenching moment, Pixote, with that young-old face and those sullen eyes (not entirely dissimilar, though in a different context, to the young boy's mien in Elem Klimov's harrowing \"Come and See\"), gets himself up, puts on his coat and takes his gun (yes, a gun!), and sets off to nowhere, walking along the train tracks and with the morning light just beginning to show up. With that scene, Babenco may just be doing an homage (amongst many other homages found in different films!) to the iconoclastic final scene in Truffaut's \"The 400 Blows\".

But whereas we got to know what has become of Antoine Doinel three years later in the short film \"Antoine et Colette\" (as well as in three other feature films in the years thereafter), we are left grappling in the dark as to what lies ahead for Pixote after he finally disappears from the last frame, that being the last time that we'll get to see this real-life street child (notwithstanding the fate that eventually befell him in actuality).

\"Pixote\" may not be as nearly as whimsical as \"The 400 Blows\" or as hallucinatory as \"Los Olvidados\", but it still stands out among films of similar theme and texture because of its simple, raw power.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story takes place on the streets of Sao Paoulo in Brazil where a young boy named Pixote grows up alone without his parents. Left troubled and with no direction, Pixote gets taken into a child asylum with other adolescents from the street. Behind closed doors terrible things occurs within the staff and within the child-groups. And there is one last trigger that gets the place blown up, the last incident that makes Pixote and his friends decide to break out and escape. From there on begins a journey overwhelmed with strong bonded friendships, friendships torn apart, love and hate, criminal activities and simply chilling on the beach talking about things, something someone like you and I also does sometimes.

I think this film is perfect in so many ways because it touches you on so many levels, it did that with me anyway. The document-like style used to portray Pixote and his surroundings does it seem more realistic, and the actors, who really are street children and have lived similar lives, helps the humanity in the conditions seem more natural. It has a social comment about child abuse too, but I think what makes the film so great is that the pressure is on the story and not on the political views. The last scene, which I find the best piece from the film, strikes me as something beyond nothing I've seen before. So full of emotions and yet so unsentimental makes this film a truthful, believable, unbearable, unforgettable story-tale. A true heartbreaking masterpiece which is so underrated!

My vote: 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Trust the excellent and accurate Junagadh75 review! This film is compelling and moving in that roughest, most brutally beautiful film-masterpiece \"way\". File under UNFORGETTABLE STRONG MEAT. Or FILMS THAT HOWL AT THE MOON. Pixote gets into your nervous system and elevates you despite the pain on the screen. Here's an unrelated list of films that did the same thing for me, i.e. \"engaged, destroyed, transformed,inspired, resonated... this category transcends nerdy film top ten lists that seek film perfection. \"A Woman Under the Influence\" , \"Wiseblood\", \"Wages of Fear\" \"Saint Jack\" \"Funny Bones\" \"Out of the Blue\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has an outstanding acting, by Marilia P\u00eara, and a stunning dicretcion by the argentine Hector Babenco. This is, in my opinion, the best Brazilian movie ever made. The movie was filmed with child from the 'favelas' , the brazilian ghetos. The children weren't actors and were casted by Babenco in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The story is about the criminal children that are arrested in the correctional prison, that looks much worse than Alcatraz. The children are constantly raped and beaten by the policeman. Unfortunately this is not purely fiction, in Brazil it does happen till today. A must see for those who like violent movies. But take your mother off the room, because it is a hard movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this masterpiece on VHS 10 years ago, and the powerful interpretation on angry-kid-painfully-against-established-society it carried stayed in my heart since then. Director Hector Babenco is such a good humanity, who finds a delicate angle to tell the story of how urbanity kills the childhood of the kids from poverty class. Even the outcast kids have their innocent beautiful dreams. But the corrupt reality never gives a chance...

Thanks to the publishers for the recent DVD release, I now can keep this great movie to my favorite collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A straight-forward X File that shows that action is always the equal of intelligence. Rob Bowman's direction is crisp and sharp, the episode looks just as fresh now as it did almost a decade ago. David and Gillian both give fine performances and both seem to relish the lack of baggage - it's a standalone X File that even non-fans could happen upon and enjoy. Junior Brown gives both the leads a run for their money during his scene with them, he's so convincing that you could believe the crew drove to the middle of nowhere and knocked on the first door they came to. Bryan Cranston is intense and energetic as Patrick Crump, he has since admitted in interviews that he knew next to nothing about the X Files prior to this role, a fact that makes his hit-the-floor-running performance all the more incredible. A brilliantly dumb episode.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As much as 'The Beginning' showed that we're still going to get \"classic\" x-files, Drive showed that the X-Files was going to explore new territory. They start by giving us a unique teaser to Drive, with the news camera footage. It was an interesting transition from the the TV to the real events. I would've liked it even better if they had kept that news footage camera for the entire teaser and not cut to the inside of the car. Upon viewing this episode live back in 1998 I was thinking, \"Am I on the right channel?\" That first autopsy by Scully flooded me with big words that I don't understand. I think she learned her lesson to ALWAYS wear a mask before performing an autopsy. Silly Scully! What is the deal with the lighting in the autopsy lab? It's as dark as a tomb in there! How are they supposed to see what they're doing in there? Assistant Director Kersh gets his first lines in this episode. I have no love lost for that man. He is the third recurring character in a row that is introduced that you love to hate, the first two being Diana Fowley and Jeffrey Spender. I guess the producers felt that there was too much love going on for Mulder, Scully and Skinner. So they needed to add some characters to give our favorite agents some grief and incite our ire as fans. I love the quarantine suits worn by Scully and her team with the cool helmet light bulbs. Boy. It's really smoky or foggy in DRY northern Nevada at night. Can we say the word \"effect\"? Drive is a cool episode, but looking at route 36 on my U.S. atlas, there's no way Mulder could've maintained a speed of 70-100 MPH on that road. If he had been on I-80, the freeway, maybe. But no way on a state road with that many curves. All of the filming inside the car looked very authentic. Excellent job by Rob Bowman. It looks nothing like the old days of the obvious blue screen or clip of passing scenery outside a car window on a stage. This was a fun episode, but some of the inaccuracies keep it from being a great episode. It keeps you on the edge of your seat, so hold on for a fast ride!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Drive was an enjoyable episode with a dark ending. Basically a man and his wife are infected in their inner ear by a high pitched sound wave being emitted by some military equipment. Some favorite parts of mine from this episode are Mulder's dialogue in the car, and the scene where Scully goes in with the Hazmat team and find the little old deaf lady completely unaffected by what they thought was a virus. The ending of course is tragic in its realism because it leads the viewer to believe that they are going to actually be able to pull off this elaborate plan to save the victim but when Mulder arrives the man is already dead. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another decent offering from the pen of Vince Gilligan.

A pre-\"Malcolm in the Middle\" Bryan Cranston plays Patrick Crump, a deranged guy who eventually hijacks Mulder via gunpoint and has him driving west at high speeds. It has something to do with his severe head ringing (& possible deadly combustion--his wife just experienced it), and the pressure only seems to be relieved by heading towards the left coast. Only Mulder could relate to this guy's plight, and actually bond with his captor before the all night ride is completed.

Meanwhile, Scully seems to have solved the case with a possible remedy for Mr. Crump, and will meet them at the ocean. Check it out to see if our Dynamic Duo can hook up at the Pacific and somehow rectify Mr. Crump's big problem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cool action - yeah the premise has been done - but not this way - that's the trick. hey folks - SHOCK - it's an X-File.

To me - it's cool that Scully\/Mulder have almost no scenes together -- they have to adapt, rely on each other's intrinsic sense about what's really going on - and each other's adaptation skills. They read into each other's moves and get the job done.... (sort of).

Oh yeah --- really good acting -- do these people get paid to do this? Or- a slow day when the convenience store doesn't call them into work. (hey - Duchovny - where's the day-old donuts?? Malcolm - get to school...)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1937 Darryl Zanuck, who had recently moved from head of production at Warner Brothers, was trying to get his newly created company, 20th Century Fox off the ground and on a level playing field with his old bosses at Warners and the glitter palace at MGM. \"This Is My Affair\" was an attempt to cash in on the current success of historical films set around the turn of the century (\"San Francisco\" \"In Old Chicago\")and in retrospect he succeeded quite mightily. The plot is fascinating. A trouble maker but heroic naval officer (Robert Taylor) is given a secret assignment by President McKinley to uncover a ring of bank robbers that are paralyzing American finance. He finds the gang but falls in love with their female mascot (Barbara Stanwyck) and must decide between love and duty.

Not everything about this vintage film works well, but overall it is a good slice of studio film-making. The plot gimmick would be borrowed by Kurt Vonnegut for \"Mother Night\" (the lead role of that film of the book was played brilliantly by Nick Nolte) and seems quite believable, at least within the confides of studio make believe. As a fan of old movies I am always thrilled when I stumble upon one that I have never seen and \"This is my Affair\" was no exception.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A bland title disguises this solidly-carpentered example of old-fashioned Hollywood entertainment, this film proves a largely successful hodgepodge of several disparate elements: a period piece, a romantic drama, a crime movie and a political thriller. Interestingly, though made by Fox, its protagonists \u0096 Robert Taylor and Barbara Stanwyck \u0096 were both usually associated with other studios; their on screen chemistry here is palpable and eventually led to marriage in a couple of years' time. While a bit too young, Taylor is a dashing hero (a Marine personally appointed by President McKinley to uncover the culprits behind an organized clean-up of numerous banks); unsurprisingly, no sooner has he tracked them down (led by smooth Brian Donlevy and thuggish Victor McLaglen) that he falls for a chanteuse (naturally, Stanwyck) who has thrown her lot with the gang \u0096 although, truth be told, singing is far from being the actress' forte! Similarly, apart from having to prove his worth to make it into their fold, he has to vie with McLaglen for Stanwyck's attentions; by the way, the practical joker persona of the former reminded me a lot of Charley Chase in SONS OF THE DESERT (1933) which, incidentally, was likewise directed by William A. Seiter. Later on, Taylor is in two minds about involving Stanwyck in the impending bait and tries to offer his resignation to the President while eloping with the girl \u0096 but the jealous rival disrupts his plans. The robbery gone awry, we find Donlevy dead and the other two in jail; Taylor's hopes for McKinley's intervention \u0096 having meanwhile learned the identity of the elusive and obviously prominent 'inside man' \u0096 are seemingly dashed when the President winds up assassinated himself (a great plot twist, though the resulting eleventh-hour suspense feels contrived)! To get back to the film's jumble of styles, even if the vaudeville sequences are a matter of taste, the romantic triangle slows things up and it skimps somewhat on the thriller aspect, this emerges a handsome production indeed \u0096 with the actors already mentioned ably supported by the likes of John Carradine (who unaccountably disappears after just one scene!), Douglas Fowley, Sig Rumann and, as two American Presidents, Sidney Blackmer (the bubbly Theodore Roosevelt) and Frank Conroy (McKinley).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an unusual film because although it was made by Twentieth-Century Fox because it's one of the few pairings of Barbara Stanwyck and her future husband, Robert Taylor. Barbara Stanwyck had been making films for many different studios (RKO, Paramount and Selznick) at about the time she made THIS IS MY AFFAIR, but Taylor was an MGM contract player so he only appeared in this film because he was loaned to Fox--something studios occasionally did during this era.

The film is interesting because many real-life people have roles in the film, though the piece is otherwise pure fiction. You'll see actors playing William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt and Admiral Dewey. I can't recall any film with McKinley or Dewey in it as a character, though I do remember Roosevelt from THE WIND AND THE LION and a couple other films. Three cheers for seeing a \"lesser President\" in a film as a major character!

The film begins with McKinley taking a young lieutenant (Robert Taylor) aside and asking him to be a special agent for him--and telling no one--not even the Secret Service. That's because the President fears that someone within the agency is tipping off a gang that has been making a long string of robberies--all based on inside information. So it's up to Taylor (who is NOT known for his manly roles--especially at this stage of his career) to pose as a thug and find the gang responsible AND the inside man.

However, there are two serious complications. First, while he is able to find the gang members, one of the gang member's step-sister is Stanwyck. Taylor finds that he's fallen in love with her but he must also do his duty and turn them in to the authorities. Second, because McKinley is the only other person who knows the truth, SERIOUS problems develop when McKinley is assassinated and Taylor is on death row for the crimes!!!

The film did a nice job of creating a story and placing it within a historical context. While today most people don't remember McKinley nor remember that he was assassinated, the film is set in this interesting time period. The acting is pretty decent, as the stars are supported by Victor McLaglen and Brian Donlevy, though I must admit that Donlevy's role was pretty tame and ordinary compared to many of his other film roles. Overall, it's very interesting, well written and not too sappy in the romance department. A good outing for all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film shows up on the premium cable channels quite often and, I find that I keep watching it over and over again. The performances are wonderful, and the material has so much happening that there is always something new to take away from the film.

Maybe I am too often distracted when watching films at home, you know the drill, the dogs bark, the phone rings, the popcorn finishes during the credits. But this film is about people and what motivates us, what enlivens us, what causes rifts between us, and what inspires us.

For me, it is films like The Love Letter that keep me taking a chance on new films. Frankly, I am surprised that the film is not better known. I would love to see Blythe Danner and Geraldine McEwan in many more roles. They are a delight to watch. Kate Capshaw is wonderful and I had no previous idea that she would be. Ellen DeGeneres plays a role that is much more complex than simply being the comic relief.

This film provides interesting visuals as a proper background to the characters and their interactions. I find it refreshing every time I take the time to watch it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I normally don't like romantic films, but I love this film very much. The story is really touching, and the ending is very appropriate. I feel I really care for many characters in this film. I feel I can feel their feelings. While most romantic films always make me feel detached and bored, this one completely makes me feel involved, starting from the scene of Capshaw running along the beach with Scott until the ending scene. I want to rate this film 11 out of 10, because I want to give an extra one point for the ending. The acting part is very strong. Kate Capshaw has a good opportunity to show her talent. Though I'm not impressed with Scott in `Dead Man on Campus,' this film completely changes my viewpoint towards him. He's so irresistibly charming here. Geraldine McEwan is as terrific as ever.

This film might not be as good, complex, deep, or believable as other films which deal a little bit with the same kind of relationship, such as `L'ecole de la chair' or 'Post coitum, animal triste,' but `The Love Letter' can still be proud of itself as it casts a rare different light on that kind of relationship. And that difference makes this film eminently enjoyable. By being unambitious and relying on great charms of small stars, Dreamworks, this time you really make my dream come true.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although it's definitely an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours and it's always worth a watch, this film never quite meets the targets that it should for two reasons. Firstly, after the first forty-five minutes or so it focuses heavily on Helen and Johnny, who are far less interesting characters than most of the others - Janet, Jennifer, George and Miss Scattergoods are all much more enticing. Although at first this works, since in life we don't always know everything about everyone else, and because the point is being made that perhaps Helen is slightly self-involved, it quickly wears thin and we want to see more of the other characters.

Secondly, the film seems to lose its way in terms of plot in the second half. The letter itself holds far less significance than it does in the first half and, again, although this works well in some ways, it seems odd to leave so much of the potential displayed in the first half behind.

Overall, this film is sweet and good-natured, with some genuinely hilarious moments - for example, Janet explaining condiments to an avid audience. The lazy but quietly desperate atmosphere that Helen feels is heavy and the sense of living in a small seaside town is accurately portrayed, but the film isn't quite as intelligent as it's trying to be. It just misses being both a light romantic comedy and being a clever portrait of life. However, it's still good and if you get the chance, it's definitely worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Helen (Kate Capshaw) owns a bookstore in the sleepy, coastal town of Loblolly by the Sea. Divorced, Helen has a young daughter who is going to camp for the summer, giving mother a bit more freedom. Working at Helen's store are the manager, Janet (Ellen DeGeneres), a man-crazy village-gossip girl who has eyes for the handsome fireman, George (Tom Selleck), and two young college students, Jennifer (Julianne Nicholson) and Johnny (Tom Everett Scott). One day, Helen stumbles across a romantic, tender love letter and she suspects that Johnny has written it for her. Throwing caution to the wind, Helen and Johnny begin a small-time \"thing\". But, the letter subsequently lands in others' hands, including Janet's, who thinks George has sent it to her, and Johnny's, who imagines Helen has penned it for him. And, on and on the letter goes. But, in truth, George possibly has eyes for Helen and Jennifer has fallen hard for Johnny. The town's museum curator, too, may have a secret love. Will tangled affairs like these ever straighten themselves out? This is a cute movie with a gorgeous setting and capable stars. Each of the main actors gives a pleasing performance, including the addition of Blythe Danner and Gloria Stuart to those mentioned previously. Then, too, the coastal scenery is most lovely, the costumes quite well-chosen, and the photography very nice indeed. There are a few surprises, including a subtle gay plot development, which may not please all viewers. But, for those who love romantic comedies, this one should be included on any list of good choices for the genre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Love Letter (1999): Starring Kate Capshaw, Tom Everett Scott, Tom Selleck, Ellen De Generes, Gloria Stuart, Blythe Danner, Jessica Capshaw, Alice Drummond, Bill Buell, Erik Jensen, Margaret Ann Brady, Walter Covell, Patrick Donnelly, Lucas Hall, Christian Harmony, Christopher Nee, Breanne Smith, Marilyn Rockafellow, Sasha Spielberg, Jack Black.....Director Peter Chan, Screenplay Maria Maggenti.

Based on the novel \"The Love Letter\" by Cathleen Schine, Director Peter Chan's film version, released in 1999, was not a big box-office draw, not even for a romantic movie with some comedy elements. While it was not as popular in theaters, it soon became a beloved film on cable television and on VHS\/DVD. Set in a seaport town in the good old USA (I forget the exact location), this is the story of a mysterious, passionately written love letter who sparks emotions and confusion among the principal characters, each who think the letter is personally addressed to them. By the end of the film, we don't know who the lover or the beloved is but the power of the letter has altered the lives of nearly everyone in the small town. The cast is made up of wonderful actors who have fared well on TV and film, among them Kate Capshaw in the lead role of middle-aged beauty Helen, a bookstore owner, comedienne Ellen DeGeneres as her friend\/employee Janet Hall, young hottie Tom Everett Scott as Johnny, the young 20 something guy who falls for the older Hellen and an older Tom Selleck as the firefighter George Matthias who must compete with Johnny for Helen's affections. There are cameo roles by veteran old Hollywood actress Gloria Stuart, who is best known to modern audiences as the elderly Rose in \"Titanic\" (1997) and a cameo by Kate Capshaw's own daughter (with husband Steven Spielberg) Jessica Capshaw. The love triangle is between a middle-aged woman, an older man and a young man, each of whom feel as passionately for Helen as the writer of the mysterious letter. The conflict lies in Helen's indecision. Will she choose the right person ? Which man has the most to offer her ? Johnny is in a relationship with a girl his age who loves him with a passion all her own, and is in fact, a kind of reminder of what Helen was like at her age. George is in the process of divorcing his wife and has lived a worldly and eventful life. A cultured intellectual, he takes Helen on an opera date, where the tragic death of Puccini's ultra-Italian heroine Tosca moves Helen to explosive tears. There are lots of beautiful vistas of the charming coastal town, rendered beautifully by cinematographer Tami Reiker. The score is a paradise of romantic and lovely songs - \" I've Never Been In Love Before\", \"I'm In The Mood For Love\" and \"Only The Lonely\". Ellen DeGeneres as Janet Hall, who is consistently late to her job at Helen's bookshop, who endlessly dates men without being able to find the right guy , is simply wonderful. She has not lost her comedic flair, even though at this point in her career she was not appearing much on TV or film because only about two years before her hit mid-90's TV show \"Ellen\" was cancelled because of her \"coming out\" as a lesbian and the new lesbian subject matter of the show. Here you even find comedian Jack Black, long before he made it big, in the bit part of a fisherman. This is a moving film about human emotions and making decisions that are significant, about the human need for a passionate consuming love and the general love of escapism brought not only through books, letters, and music, but through a genuinely loving and secure relationship. This is a great film with wonderful moments and an infectious romantic spirit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a large scarred heterosexual male ex-bouncer, ex-rugby player, and ex-boxer, and I love this movie.

It's no \"Mystic River.\" It's a piece of fluff. But there is room in life for fluff, and when that fluff is engagingly shot, well-acted by attractive, likable people, cleverly plotted and full of good dialogue, there's even more room for it.

I'm not the biggest Tom Selleck fan. But he's good in this. So are Julianne Nicholson (love her bald head and freckles), Ellen Degeneres, Kate Capshaw and even Tom Everett Scott (That Thing You Do!).

The scenery is nice, the mood is upbeat, there's heartache and wistfulness and farce and even a little redemption.

Any (male) reviewer who disses this movie is, shall we say, not perfectly confident in his masculinity. In the meantime I'll continue to catch bits and pieces of it without apology whenever it shows up on cable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is definitely a girl movie. My husband found it utterly boring, but I think this is a really sweet movie. It's amazing to think that just a note can bring so many people together. This is a great get-away for anyone who loves a cute, funny romance!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the better feel-good films of 1999 with Kate Capshaw leading an all-star cast about a small town and a love letter. First off, the scenery is beautiful, and anyone who sees this film and doesn't want to move to this location is crazy! For the cast, Capshaw is stunning as the lead actress who captivates the emotional roller-coaster role. Tom Everett Scott is charming as the \"author\" of the note throughout the film, and the always delightful Ellen Degeneres is hilarious! Blythe Danner and the actress who plays the bookstore saleswoman are both terrific, too. Although it was unsuccessful, the film is great as it is both short and sweet and well as very romantic. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Aside from the fact that this movie was filmed mostly in Rockport MA, which is a beautiful town where my mother once rented a small storefront and I spent many a pleasant summer as a child, it is fun and cute little film.

I must admit that I had no desire to actually see this movie even though I have a weakspot for romantic comedies (I don't know why). The trailers I saw were not appealing, the cast did not look that interesting and I had no idea what the plot would be about. In the end I found it to be an interesting meditation on relationships and family. I thoroughly enjoyed myself and must admit that I thought that this film was one of the most overlooked gems of last year. I am disappointed that so few people seemed to have enjoyed the very \"human-ness\" that this movie presented the viewer with.

I have read many bad reviews of this film, and must admit a certain level of shock at the cynicism that is prevalent in them. As a grad student I consider myself to be quite cynical, but this was a beautiful little film that deserves much better than it got.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So well done. The photography, sound, music and the performances were the best. It's also an amusing story line that brings a smile to your face with each scene--I loved it and I'm a 60 year old heterosexual guy. Each character seemed to fit their part to a tee. It's the best performance that I've seen from Ms. Capshaw--she's been in more movies than I thought, but this was a wonderful achievement. I suppose it's a plus to have Spielberg money behind you allowing for a fat budget and all the best that money can buy technically. Two of the cast have successful T.V. shows of their own now--it's easy to see why. Tom Selleck does his usual good job.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought that the love letter was a pretty good movie. There were certain things that could have made it better. But Kate Capshaw is absolutely beautiful, and she showed it in this movie. I wish that there could have been a few more revealing scenes of her, but it was still a very good movie. It was very fun to watch!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film ain't half bad. It may be a little long at times, but carried along by beautiful scenery, an IMMENSELY beautiful love letter and great actors, you forget time and enjoy. The grand prize, however, goes to Blythe Danner and Geraldine McEwan as..........well that would be telling, but they are just GREAT!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was a sicky sweet cutesy romantic comedy, just the kind of movie I usually dislike but this one was just cute enough to keep me interested. It was really funny in one moment (probably why I liked it) and then just as serious in the next. Plus, it had Ellen in it and I've always had a soft spot for her.

Basically, the owner of a book store, Helen (Kate Capshaw) finds a love letter in one of the old couches in her store. She thinks it is for her and goes crazy trying to figure out who sent it. She has kind of shut herself off from the world, so it really throws her for a loop. Eventually, almost everyone connected with her finds this letter and they are all getting mixed signals which creates some really funny moments.

Like I said, I am usually not one for this type of movie but I really wound up enjoying it and recommend it highly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought the movie was pretty good. I really enjoyed myself as I viewed it. However, the last scene at Johnny's birthday party was cut way too short. I, myself, was an extra in that scene and was upset with the results. But other than that, (and the weird casting), the movie was superb.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Love Letter is one of my all-time favorite books, so naturally I was skeptical when I heard it was to become a movie. But, I liked it. I found myself grinning through the entire movie. I admit that it isn't a great movie but definitely a pleasant hour and a half. I thought that Capshaw and Scott were perfect as Helen and Johnny. Just as I pictured them. And the town and scenery were just right as well. I recommend this film, but don't expect too much, just enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Love Letter\" is a somewhat pleasant, very very low-key romantic comedy in which the use of just the right few words in a mysterious love letter unlocks the secret passions and longings of a sleepy sea-side town's inhabitants.

It's not for all audiences. \"The Love Letter\", I feel, benefits from it's simple and quiet tone. Never intentionally wacky and phony like most romantic comedies it's quaint, picturesque, and comfy. However, for these exact same reasons, many viewers will be bored and disinterested.

The cast is nice. It's great to see Tom Selleck again, and is such an underplayed role. And it's hard to believe this is the same Kate Capshaw we met 15 years ago in \"Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom\". She's quite naturally good here; improving in every role I've seen her in since grating on Indy's nerves. And is it possible Capshaw is just getting lovelier and lovelier with age ? ( What is it about that Spielberg!?)

It doesn't amount to much; but after another noisy summer movie season I'll probably look back with brief fondness for this light-as-a-feather romance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was sweet. The main character lady was sensitive to 2 different men who wanted her. She seemed not a character at all but a real person who had made some mistakes but was trying to set things right. I liked the movie a lot. Even the older ladies who were lesbian didn't irritate me too much.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's along the line of comedy of errors, mistaken affection transferring from one to another, blossoms and passes on\u0085kinda cat and mouse situations\u0085 Flares of passion, sparks of fire fanned and put out\u0085guessing maybe she loves, he loves or they love\u0085 Circle of emotions, evolving, releasing\u0085hiding, yet not hiding\u0085wanting to let him know, wanting to let her know, let them know\u0085 Good ensemble cast in spite of the seemingly confusing mix of emotions from different parties involved.

It's a refreshing charmer, casual, free and easy and rather down to earth -- not Hollywood glamorous like \"Notting Hill\", but lots of human feelings, frailty, vulnerability a-flowing. Yes, all revolving around an accidentally (lost &) found love letter. Kate Capshaw as the owner of the town's bookstore, with a variety of characters portrayed by Ellen DeGeneres, Tom Selleck, Blythe Danner, Tom Everett Scott, Gloria Stuart, Alice Drummond and Geraldine McEwan as the seemingly unaffected Mrs. Scattergoods. Romance is in the air, love lurking everywhere. You get to appreciate the talented Kate Capshaw. (\"The Alarmist\" is another quirky little movie which is fun to watch: Capshaw has a wonderful chemistry with David Arquette, and Arquette with Stanley Tucci).

\"Notting Hill\" is satisfying in its story revolving around the glittering pairing of Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant, and the wonderful support of his circle of (London) friends. \"Love Letters\" is delightful in its quirky (Loblolly) small town-ness, and its story involving Kate Capshaw's centrifuged ripple effects on her friends and neighbors. Both maybe fantasies, somehow, the latter felt more attainable if it should happen to you. And if you appreciate words or poetic lines, it could be the movie for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A while back I bought the Chinese box set of Fist of the North Star which came with all of Fist of the North Star, Fist of the North Star 2, New Fist of the North Star, and the Fist of the North Star movie. While there is an American Version and a few European Versions, they end half way through Fist of the North Star which is about as far as the movie goes.

The series is about the successor of an ancient martial art called Hokuto Shin Ken (Fist of the North Star) named Kenshiro, or Ken for short. There is only one successor each generation. It takes place in a post apocalyptic future where martial arts is the most powerful weapon. The two most powerful arts are Hokuto Shin Ken and Nanto Divine Ken as my version calls it. Nanto is really multiple styles but they are all the same since they allow a person to chop someone to pieces. There are six Nanto masters and each has their own star. Hokuto is an art that allows someone to damage\/kill or heal someone by hitting a point on their body. Each art has their own constellation. Hokuto - Big Dipper, Nanto - Gemini. Kenshiro goes around saving the world from evil consisting of going after his two brothers and three of the Nanto masters and their armies. Each army captain has their own way of fighting which makes each episode different and the number of soldiers bloody. Also, Kenshiro is looking for his girlfriend Yuria who was stolen by the Nanto master Shin. Along the journey Kenshiro is joined by his brother Toki after rescuing him from his brother Rao who calls himself Kenou or Boxing King. He is also joined by two Nanto masters Rei, who is looking for his sister who was taken by Ken's brother Jagi, and Shu. Both of them and Toki die along the way. Other characters that join Ken are two kids Rin and Batto who don't do much. That's about as much as I can say for story since its so long and full of details. The series is also divided into four parts.

What makes this show great is the fighting. Ken normally goes up against a group of people that think they are tough and then get killed in one hit. Which is funny and badass, but makes for quick fights. Another great part is comedy\/badassness. Ken hits someone, and they think its nothing. Ken says they are already dead. Then they die. Other parts are when he'll hit them and tell them they have a few seconds to live. Then a counter will pop up. Or when he tells them they are not worthy of knowing his name. Then there is when he does a rapid fire kick or punch and goes wa da da da da da da etc. Eventually you might find yourself doing it with him. One great part was when a bad guy thought he knew Hokuto. He went up to Ken and hit him. Ken stood there said he was dead in a few seconds. The bad guy counted off then died. It isn't limited to Ken everyone else kills just as quick. There has never been a character as awesome as Ken and their probably never will.

There are a few problems though. One is the repetitive nature. Some flashbacks mainly the one with Yuria being taken are played too much, and there are also too many recap episodes especially in part four of the series. In fact, the last episode is a recap of the whole thing. Another problem is the ending. The final battle with Rao wasn't that impressive. Ken and Rao fought then talked, etc, until Rao came to some realization and kills himself instead of Ken killing him. But it is better than the American and European versions that just cut off halfway.

Who would I recommend this for? This is for older teenagers and adults who like action. Since the styles cause people to explode or get cut into pieces, the violence is very graphic and there is a lot of it, but they don't show much blood because they usually make the death just a silhouette that still looks like the person but less colorful. This was probably done to avoid censorship. If you don't like action rent the American Version. If you like action though, then I say go for the import since you can see all of the series, but they do not have the best English translation since it is subtitled by the Chinese. Note: My import came with everything I said at the beginning, some imported versions do not, but you still have to get an import to see all of the series and Fist of the North Star 2. If you don't think you can handle the subtitles for any reason then go get the American Version. Another note: In the version I got no subtitles were on the last disc for New Fist of the North Star; although, New Fist of the North Star isn't very good to begin with.

I give the show an 8\/10 for its high amount of action, good story, and the awesomeness of Kenshiro.

****UPDATE****

Toei Animation released an English subtitled version. You can download the episodes as well as Hokuto no Ken 2 from IGN's Direct2Drive or watch it free on FUNimation's site.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You can't watch a film like Peter Watkins' \"Privilege,\" a story of the exploitation of a pop music performer by big business, the state, and even organized religion, without thinking of creatively degenerate commodities like Michael Jackson or Britney Spears, who hawk corporate giants like Pepsi or some other poison for money. Or any number of entertainers, in music or movies, who become tools of political parties or commercial religious interests like Scientology and Kabbalah. A film like Privilege must have seemed almost like science fiction when released in 1967, so fantastic was its premise. Today we tend to take celebrity endorsements for granted, giving little thought to its more alarming implications. Watkins' vision has not only become reality, we tacitly accept this reality as \"normal.\"

Now consider Punishment Park. As Privilege challenges the viewer to examine what is being sold to us, and why, Punishment Park demands that we reckon with what is being taken from us, and why.

Heaven help America, and for that matter the world, if contemporary politicians get their hands on this film. It is already so close to reality, that in viewing it recently, I experienced a genuine, nauseating feeling of anxiety.

Watkins again skillfully employs a documentary-style narrative. Whereas in Privilege some rough edges to this technique were apparent, in Punishment Park it has been honed to sharp, seamless perfection. The sense of realism is enhanced by disarmingly unpretentious, economical, believable portrayals by the entire cast. This is the kind of acting Hollywood has completely turned its back on, to its detriment, in favor of cosmetically perfect image projections. The cast has first-rate material to work with in Watkins' screenplay.

Many cinematic visionaries have tried to shake the viewer out of their complacent, false sense of security. No one has ever achieved this result with such stark and chilling accuracy as Peter Watkins does here.

\"What seems quite clear now, is that instead of trying to bring the estranged and excluded Americans, such as these people, back into the national community, the Administration has chosen to accept and exploit the present division within the country, and to side with what it considers is the majority. Instead of the politics of reconciliation, it has chosen the politics of polarization.\"

To paraphrase one of the characters, we don't have to call them pigs because they know what they are. Better than we do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My curiosity and patience to finally see this controversial film, which now has been released on DVD for the first time in the UK, has been more than rewarded. Peter Watkins has excelled himself in his audacity and technical skills. This pseudo-documentary is certainly ahead of its time and still frighteningly relevant and up to date.

The film is inspired by the upheaval of the late sixties in the US, when the government has increased its legitimized use of violence and oppression, while the anti-war movement reacts increasingly violent and radical. In order to deal with both this, the overpopulation of prisons and to provide special training to riot police units, the government has introduced the so-called punishment parks. Convicted 'criminals', mostly activists, are given the 'choice' to either be locked up in prison for years and years, or spend three days in one of these parks, where they either gain their freedom their death or an even longer prison sentence. The situation in the parks is beyond their worst expectations, however. It reminded me of a sort of realistic version of Battle Royale (2000).

The film's structure is extremely effective and recalls parallels with Cannibal Holocaust, which is made almost 10 years later. Both movies are constructed and filmed in such a way that the viewer is challenged in thinking and feeling he is actually watching a real documentary and therefore shocked, even though aware of the fact that: this is a film. Both confront us with the inherently violent nature of mankind, but where Cannibal Holocaust is devoid of any deeper meaning (above all, it is an exploitation movie in every sense of the word) and does not raise any critical questions about the state of the world, Punishment Park does just that.

I have been profoundly impressed with Punishment Park and find it hard to believe how such a powerful and important film could have been rejected and marginalized for so long. Maybe that says enough about the truth of its content, about the way power structures in this world function. I do not agree with the critique that Watkins polarizes and stereotypes, because the movie depicts activists and the keepers of the legitimized power structures who are in reality as polarized as they are here. If they weren't, there would not be any conflict and therefore no change in our societies. In reality, confrontations between these two groups often take stereotypical forms, whether you place them between activists and establishment in Latin America, Russia or New York City. If these groups would not be polarized to these extremes, the activists would be part of the silent majorities that tacitly complain but at the same time reside in the injustices of the world.

As Peter Watkins tells us in the introduction on the DVD, the actors in Punishment Park are for the most part amateurs. Most kids were real activists from LA, most policemen had been part of the national forces and even some of the members of the tribunals are part of the social and political establishment of the time. Not introducing both groups previous to the shooting of the scenes taking place in the improvised court room, adds to spontaneous and improvised feel. Parallels are drawn with issues of the time, such as the repression of Black Panther members (one of the black prisoners is said to resemble the convicted charismatic BPleader Bobby Seale) and the trial of the Chicago seven.

I admire Watkins' obvious and sincere engagement with injustice and his concern with human rights and the increasingly repressive measures taken by governments (nowadays in the name of the War in Terror) to silence those that do not agree and refuse to be brainwashed. Punishment Park remains to be an extremely important movie that should be shown in schools and seen by everybody who shares these concerns. Maybe its marginalization can finally be made up for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To think this film was made the year I was born. To think people are still having their constitutional rights taken away, now in the name of \"homeland security\". To think this movie was intentionally banned from the American public. PUNISHMENT PARK addresses the political divide in the United States better than any movie I've ever seen. Had it been more widely seen, would it have changed anything? A movie like this is so polarizing, it has the potential to cause riots. It shakes you up and forces you to take sides. It makes you face the issue: are you for the people's right of dissent in a time of war, or for the constitution being compromised in the name of \"national security\"? The protagonists are forced by the government to race to the American flag in a game that undermines the very ideals the flag stands for. The acting is totally convincing. So much so, I can't see any acting going on here at all. If this is a scripted documentary, it's more convincing than any reality show on television today. PUNISHMENT PARK is possibly the most important film ever made. It really makes you think.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's said that this film is or was banned in the US since it was released. Since there is no information on IMDb I must rely on my other sources and believe it. If this is really true, the movie is even more hurtful and frightening and is it is anyway.

The movie is a so-called mockumentary, although I think the topic is too serious call it like that. It creates a scenario where America is like a military state and all revolutionary objects are arrested immediately without proof. After an obligatory tribunal they have to decide if they go to prison for some years or choose the punishment park. In that, they have to walk through the desert for three days to reach an american flag, posted 50 miles ahead, while they're are followed by police and army troops.

The movie itself pretends to be a documentary about these incidents and follows both the tribunals and the hunting through the desert, filmed by european film crews. All the facts are explained, the interviewers ask questions and film everything. People stare directly into the camera, shouting at it. It seems very, very real. Talking about realism here is nonsense. This movie is not about how to make a realistic film, it is about how such a film would look like, if it was real. And it certainly would look like this. If it would be filmed anyway. In an 'utopian' state like this, there surely wouldn't be a european film crew allowed to film those things.

There are many things that frighten us. The defendants are people from all social classes. Political leaders, musicians, authors, philosophists, unemployed, etc. They seem to be hopeless, rebellious or scared. They are no heroes. They talk a lot in the tribunal, knowing it doesn't lead to anything, saying nevertheless all they said in speeches and books and songs before. One says he's not afraid to die. Is this true? Well, he doesn't have to run through the desert hunted by cops. The defendants have no chance, or at least, their only chance, the decision between prison and punishment park, is no chance really. The way they decide in the end and the way film ends, makes it clear that this kind of heroism is suicide.

These tribunals remind us a lot of tribunals in the Third Reich. The officials use the same kind of idealistic speeching, ignoring all the arguments from the defendants, starting to scream at them and then telling them they should be quiet. They warn the defendants of \"watching their language\" and insult them much more. They ask them questions, the defendants can not answer, but it's never intendend they should. These scenes are a statement about what we call justice.

The scenes in the desert are on a different level. When we see the prisoners for the first time, we realize that they realize, they haven't got a chance. Seeing the desert and the mountains, feeling the sun and the thirst, they don't have a clue how they should stand this free days. The film crew follows them and talks to them while they try to escape this madness. They argue, should they play the game, or escape, or revolt? It all leads to the same and no one is surprised. Some will question if such parks would exist in reality in such a state? Why not? It empties the prisons and allows the government to punish the revolutionaries as they want to. It is not a gas chamber, but the Nazis killed jews before concentration camps were built. The comparison is fair, since they is no real difference.

The movie is scary and depressing. The problems that are talked about sound to familiar to ignore. These is not science-fiction. Talking about poverty, unemployment and crime is not utopic. The film shows us that government and democracy as it is presented to us, is not only useless, but dangerous. It also shows us that revolution is not definitely the solution. The defendants seem to be confused because they don't really know how to fight this. They do things, but for nothing. Even is this delivers no solution to us, it still is a statement.

To me, the most frightening thing is the fact of the banning of this movie. Here we have a film that accuses the loss of freedom, moral and peace. It accuses the government, a fictional goverment nevertheless, to be dangerous and inhuman. And such a film is banned. Think about it when you see the american flag the next time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Punishment Park is a brilliant piece of cinema. Shot in the Southern

California desert using his patent faux documentary style, Watkins

creates a film like no other. He follows two groups of prisoners (one

pre-sentenced the other post-sentenced) throughout the picture. After

they're tried by a military tribunal, they have the choice of either

serving out a prison sentence or they can participate in Punishment

Park (a grueling three day hike through the desert with nothing but the

clothes on their backs) whilst being hunted down by local law

enforcement officers who use the park as a live action training

ground). I can't say enough about this movie. Sometimes it feels as if

you're watching a real documentary. This is one of Peter Watkins most

accessible films. I advise you to look out for it. You wont regret it!

Highly recommended

A+

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Contains Spoilers

This is a Peter Watkins film. If one has seen his BBC masterpieces \"Cullodden\" and \"The War Game\", one will recognize the style (and his voice) within seconds after the start. Made in 1971 it is set in a very near future, when the Vietnam war has escalated even more and now seems to involve China. Nixon is still president and civil disobedience and protest is dealt with violently using drumhead tribunals (outwardly civilian with 'everyday citizens' as judges). Because \"prison building can't keep up\", an alternative is introduced: The Punishment Park. Delinquents can choose between severe prison sentences and a man hunt in a hostile environment, in this case a 85 km trip through the Californian desert at 100\u00b0F. If they reach an American flag at the end without being caught by National Guard or Riot Police, they will be set free, or else they have to serve their sentence (or be dead, as we will see). The film is made in a completely documentary style with three European teams covering a tribunal and the course of two groups already sentenced. Scenes jump between the tribunal tent, the hunting troops and the hunted condemned. Watkin's scarce off commentary gives us raw background information (time, temperature etc.). The tribunal scenes show a kangaroo court on the one side and a wide range of personalities on the other ranging from real terrorists over 'undesirables' to clearly innocents (e.g. a total pacifist who can't even hurt flies). The defense lawyer (who does take his job seriously) has to take abuse from both sides. What makes these scenes especially eerie is their resemblance to the rhetoric of todays administration to the detail. Meanwhile, some unfortunate events in the desert make clear that the 'rules of the game' don't really apply. The question remains open, whether it is rigged from the start or arbitrariness by the troops due to those events that leads to the outcome (I suspect, it is both). At the end we are back at square one with the next group going to \"Punishment Park\". This description may indicate a heavily biased (or even demagogic) propaganda movie but that would be misleading. The behavior (all participants were nonprofessionals as usual with Watkins) looks and sounds real (the tribunal scenes may even contain text material from real contemporary trials). I'd say that this could be sold as the 'real thing' without problem. With Watkins's \"The Forgotten Faces\" the reaction was \"We can't send that or nobody will believe our real newsreels anymore (because this is indistinguishable from the real thing)\". With \"Punishment Park\" it ought to be the same. Effectively banned in the US as far as I know this is a must see that hasn't lost its power or its relevance (especially today).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Punishment Park is a pseudo-documentary made by Peter Watkins. The premise is that the nation's dissidents (hippies, musicians, protesters, pacifists, etc.) are being rounded up and tried by a tribunal and then given the choice of prison or running the course of Punishment Park. It's a 52 mile grueling trek through the desert to an American flag, with police, National Guard, and various other authority figures in pursuit. The idea is, that if you make it to the flag, you're set free. The tribunal consists of a bunch of conservative types, all condemning any behavior that is not like their own, and there is no result except a prison sentence or the option of \"Punishment Park\" for any of those on trial. There are a lot of things in this that still ring true today, which is quite disturbing in itself. The people running the course are promised water at the half-way point, which isn't true, and the pursuing officials are mostly a sadistic bunch that are just out for a bit of target practice. This is not a very graphic film but it's more shocking in its ideas and themes than anything else. The scary thing is, it could happen. Not a very upbeat film but definitely worth seeing. Warning: it might make you angry. 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Certain aspects of Punishment Park are less than perfect, specifically some of the acting. However I feel that this is probably the most important movie of the \"war on terror\" era. I grew up hating hippies and in some respects I still do. It wasn't until the United States was started down the path of an unnecessary and deceitful war in Iraq that I began to see the world through their eyes. I can feel what they must have felt. Although the film is somewhat dated, watching it brings those uncomfortable emotions about our present situation right to the surface. It's clear enough early in the film that Punishment Park is designed to be a concentration and death camp for all the \"unpatriotic\" elements of American society. This is certainly an exaggerated and extreme view of our polarized society, but it is CREDIBLE. At times I find myself believing that the USA could easily slip into fascism. As I watched this film I could only think about how I hear similar sentiments from people on both sides of the political spectrum almost daily. This movie is a raw, concentrated distillation of America's PRESENT political scene. I am both impressed and saddened that something this relevant (and yes, accurate) was filmed more than 30 years ago. If you take a more moderate view of the movie and choose to believe that this couldn't happen here, look more closely at Guantanamo Bay, some of our \"enemy combatants,\" the rumored CIA secret prisons and the many incidents similar to the one in Greensboro, NC in 1979 (8 full years AFTER the making of this movie).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Realistic Master-Piece. thirty years later, the pictures can look a bit old, but actually, it only accurate the 'fist in the face' effect of the movie. I never saw in my whole life a film like this one. First time I saw it, I didn't know if it was a fiction... And It didn't looked like... That movie is a masterpiece that every single person in the world have to see. It's the best ever society critical movie. The ultimate movie that demonstrate that the system is down. And the system has not change a lot, in thirty years. I think this movie would have to be watched as an education piece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Peter Watkin's Culloden and The War Game a few months before this and was very impressed. The technique is essentially the same, or at least very similar, in this film detailing on the one hand a trial of dissidents in California in the (apparently) near future, and on the other the attempts of a group of convicted \"criminals\" to slog through 50 miles of desert to win their freedom in a government-run \"punishment park\" as an alternative to prison. Watkins films everything in a documentary style, which causes for more than a little awkwardness or required strong suspension of disbelief: how is it that the camera crew is with the group of starving and parched prisoners over 2 days without either offering help or sharing in their misery? And that's merely the most obvious example. But questionable storytelling aside, this packs a punch; no question you have to be interested in political film-making to really get involved, but the film really isn't like anything else of its era: it pulls no punches, offers no simple solutions. The leftist political figures are certainly painted broadly at times, but they aren't all alike; the right-wing government functionaries seem a little more cartoonish, but even they are allowed to show at least a little humanity. Overall, the film gives much to think about and leaves an indelible taste.....8\/10 DVD rental","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This extraordinary pseudo-documentary, made in 1971, perfectly captures the zeitgeist of America today...which makes it all the more scary and relevant. \"subversives\" (college students, hippies, black activists, academics) are being rounded up by the government and given lengthy prison terms for what amount to thought crimes and social protest. As an alternative to life in prison, these convicted \"criminals\" are offered three days in \"Punishment Park\". Their objective inside the park is to make their way to the American flag where freedom awaits them. Not surprisingly, the Punishment Park option is a dirty lie. This brilliant film from Peter Watkins even pre-dates \"Battle Royale\" and \"Series 7\", though its angle of attack is more blatantly political. Shot in '71, it looks and feels as fresh as anything made today. The performances are exemplary and the direction is razer sharp. The narrative cuts back and forth between various groups trying to survive the harsh conditions of the park and the McCarthy-like trials that convicted them. Today, this film still retains its power. In '71, there was nothing but nothing quite like it. This is a masterpiece that succeeds on a dozen levels. It has the balls that most people today have lost.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It kicks you in the stomach. There are other films with more convincing characters, a more realistic story, and maybe even more depth concerning political invocations. But then again, most of these are not directed by Peter Watkins. Maybe the one true genius artist of British Film to emerge out of the 1960s, Watkins has made quite a bunch of rarely seen films that perfectly capture the spirit of the outer-aesthetic world - the world of political ongoings, social problems and governmental solutions. Thus, his work is probably less \"filmic\" than, say, political, which some may call a weakening of their inherent artistic quality. Then again, why shouldn't art allow itself to become engaged? Watkins dares. And succeeds. You won't feel well with this one. You won't feel happy. Actually, you won't really like the film; it is uncompromising, honest, direct, unashamed; a smash in your face, in short. You can't help getting angry, you can't resist to let the things you see touch you. That is what makes Watkins' films so rewarding.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Set in a California detention camp in an indistinct future, an English film crew capture proceedings as young students and political dissidents are put on trial under a fictional 'Insurrection Act' that allows the United States government to suspend civil liberties for its own citizens in cases of emergency without the right to bail or the necessity of evidence. In such cases the government is authorised to apprehend and detain anyone they believe may engage in future activities of sabotage. The group on trial includes a feminist, a black panther and a folk singer.

Those convicted by the a Conservative tribunal have the choice of a lengthy prison sentence or three days in Punishment Park, in which they can attain their freedom by reaching an American flag in the desert. They must accomplish this without food or water. They are also to be pursued by armed National Guards and police who can return them to the camp if captured to face the penal sentence attributed to each person convicted. The reality is different; those that choose Punishment Park are hunted and killed or brutalised with no hope of gaining their freedom after a policeman is found dead in the park. The park seems to be a training ground for the police and guards who need to master these acts of suppression so they can be put to use in open American society.

Shot on 16mm and in the documentary style developed by Watkins, in his celebrated Culloden and the controversial The War Game for the BBC; he interacts with the prisoners and guards and observes the unconstitutional trial, inter cutting between them to create a totally convincing political movie that still remains vital and relevant. Using his knowledge of the medium, Watkins has produced a driving, relentless and ultimately frightening film portrayal of an entirely fictional American political detention camp that would not convince if it wasn't for his flawless construction. Many of the actors are amateurs improvising with broad characters. The sparks fly in the trial scenes in which each case is heard, in part to the fact that Watkins kept those on trial away from the jury until the filming of those scenes. Watkins also claims that the actors are often expressing their own opinions which certainly explain the ferocity as well as the believability of their performances.

The film has been heavily criticised for polarising the opinions of those that see it. It has been claimed that the film is reactionary and unequivocally represents that conservatism and war are the root of America's social problems. While these criticisms may be valid it is important to consider that the film is working on a fictional, metaphorical level and it is perhaps the realism that the film so cleverly constructs that encourages such a heated opinion on its content. In fact the films most important theme is the problem of polarisation itself. The 'conservative' judges and brutal law officers are on one side and the 'liberal' convicts are clearly on the other with no concessions made on either side. This seems to be what the movie is really about. The new law and the park itself is the outgrowth of a situation where mediation between the two political positions has been lost.

Made during and in protest to the Vietnam War and the treatment of those who opposed the war in America the films main themes of Governmental persecution of its own citizens and Conservatism impinging on civil liberties still strike the same chord in the era of the Patriot act and the identity card. It also strikes a disturbing chord with news footage of Guantanamo Bay and the treatment of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of Allied forces.

The threat of internal 'terrorism' is such a volatile issue that the film cannot fail to connect with current attitudes to the subject. Not surprisingly the film has had a checkered distribution history, being marginalised to an extreme due to its content but the disturbing fact that this movie is that can still remain so relevant today suggests that the wait has not been for nothing. Punishment Park is a film that has had to fight to be seen anywhere and it demands your attention.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, the entire script is mostly improv, adding to the fantastic illusion that what we are watching is an actual documentary. Secondly, the actors hired by Watkins were purposefully chosen to represent their true political alliances and backgrounds. The hippies portrayed are actual hippies, the government officials (though not necessarily in the government themselves) are at least actually hearty conservatives within the system, and several of the cops are actual policemen. The interactions of these actors, given the textual freedoms alloted by Watkins, eventually come to a violent head where even Watkins himself is convinced that a cast member had actually been shot. (We hear him screaming \"Cut! Cut!\" in the background.)

An AMAZING film though American critics were quite harsh in their reviews, one actually reporting that it was the \"most offensive\" film she had ever seen. This not entirely unexpected as the unveiling of this oppressive communist-like mentality of America during this era would certainly rattle some cages. This pseudo-documentary definitely requires an open mind, though if you are seriously looking for an intensely accurate portrayal of 60s culture, this would be THE film to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As far as fake documentaries go (fakumentaries anyone?), this one is up there with the best! It looks very real and that is what it aims for. In recent light of events (Guantanamo) this movie is even scarier, so you could say it was ahead of it's time, when it was released in the 70s!

One can only hope that a government like that doesn't exist! Looking for terrorists and interviewing people just like that? Of course the people interviewed all seemed to have the same (70s mentality): Screw the politicians and politics in general. Maybe that wasn't so clever one might think ... but hey, don't forget: It's only a movie! ;o)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peter Watkins' rarely seen Punishment Park is a brutality-laced, uncompromised political weapon set across a never ending desertscape. An unapologetically left leaning anti authoritarian abuse fest, the escapades at first appear to be so over the top militaristic and sickening that it could come off as some distant fantastical dystopian alternate history, one Harry Turtledove would even enjoy. But once we delve deeper in and really pay attention to the abhorrent diatribe spouting out of those presiding over the tent topped tribunal, as well as the shotgun toting guards overseeing the bloody affair, our eyes are truly opened. Suddenly we realize just how prescient Watkins' film-making is, as much of this is the kind of neo-con talking points about youth culture and the legality of divergent thought tossed around by politicians today. Granted, much of it was drivel pouring out then as well, but it really shows us how little has changed, and informs of how, in some ways, we are closer to such a world where Punishment Parks would be a real and frightening operation.

The main players in nearly every scene are seasoned non actors, mostly chosen for their rash political views and desire to get them on camera. This lends an unprecedented heap of authenticity to the entire experience as we never, even for a second, question the reality of all the chaos. Shot documentary style with 16mm film, this appears like a gritty documentation of some despicable government test project that was classified until found years later. At least it appears to have that history to it now, maybe not as much when it was (barely) released. But this gives an added weight to all the proceedings and helps draw you into this incredible not-so-alternate universe of torture for convicted dissidents.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well I've enjoy this movie, even though sometimes it turns too much to a stereotypical situation. I didnt understood at this time if the \"Punishment Park\" has exist in the past, but I think the matter isnt really here.

You have to look at this movie in a different manner. It shows how much violence you can find in our world. It reminds us that we live in a world who is lead by violence and that nobody can escape from it. If anyone refuse to \"take his responsabilities\" then you will be thrown out of our society...All our history is made by wars, we should never forget this. In fact its only when we will finally accept the truth that, maybe, we will change and understand that our \"intellectual skills\" have improve. So we could use them to find others ways to resolve our problems.

In 2 words this movie is a must see, maybe it will help us to accept the truth...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched pp the other night. I have to say I was very impressed with how real the film seemed. It felt very much like a documentary. I also think that the film presented realistic possibilities. In the film the war in Vietnam escalates to the point where China has become involved. What if that had happened? I think the scenarios would be similar to the one portrayed in the movie. We have had camps before in this country... and still do...

Highly Recommended for everyone...especially radicals...

I kept saying that if I were in the position that those kids were in that I would just lie my ass off. I love America and its grand wars (wink wink)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Death Camp Opera: Right Here, Right Now!

Ten years ago, I read that a very special movie had been directed about the polarization of our society. A certain Peter Watkins was the author. His picture was acted by some non-professional actors, citizens like you and me\u0085 and others. The violence of the atmosphere was described as extremely realistic. Was it a movie, a documentary? Both actually.

Over the years, I realized how hard it was to find it. Maybe I would, by coincidence? Anyway, it's yet an old story. I saw it a short while ago. Totally impressing. My very favourite peace of art: Punishment Park is its name. I love this \"docu-fiction\", this \"truecastmovie\", this \"realityshowfictionnal\", what ever. After all the shock movies I saw, I reach the best with this strong and intense cinematography'experience. I found a masterpiece. There is enough on the net to know many things about the movie. It is even to buy on DVD, with additional stuff. The only words I want to add is about my own experience with this film. I can only trust such a sincere and engaged peace of art about people and for people, those who direct, act or watch. A cinema which is simply a real human experience within an art adventure\u0085 or the opposite.

So, I'm not talking about all the 'mucs' we can see on TV, especially the 'real'shity-show' whom the concepts of people playing them-selves are interesting, but used in a stupid and perverse way. In Punishment Park, we can see some real individuals living as they are. We only put them in a very specific context, with a few lines to follow, and we let them be what they want to be. It's a kind of therapy, a way of 'individuation' for those inside the movie and also for the active spectators in front of screens. Then, to end, the director's touch edits a short and sweet apocalypse movie, a desperate scream, a 'Death Camp Opera', where some folks are on the run after virulent trials. Punishment Park is for those who want to grow. See this film and have the opportunity to choose your own morality. Grow up and harmonize yourself with it! If you can feel it! If you can see it!! In my case, Punishment Park is stuck in me for ever, with all my love, consciousness and will.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The most amazing film I have ever seen. I didn't read the programming and I just stumbled onto the movie by accident. I thought it was a real documentary and i felt sick at what I saw. I only found out it was a movie after it was finished and i looked on the web for more info about \"punishment park\" in the U.S. It felt incredibly real and it is easy to believe that this really has happened in the US if you are from Europe. I must admit that I felt really anti-american after watching the movie and before finding out that it didn't really happen that way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't believe I missed this one. Made in 1970 with a budget that would probably allow you to make one indifferent episode of a TV soap, this is 90 minutes of sustained, sharp as a knife film making. You will find the outline, plot etc elsewhere on this site.Consider though that the whole thing was shot using a single, hand- held,16mm camera... all the dialogue is improvised... none of the 'actors' had appeared in front of a camera before... It sounds like a recipe for disaster. Instead what we get is hippies v cops running around in the California desert in what evolves into a 'that's not fair.. i'm on that person's side'scenario. The only problem is, the director keeps making you shift your allegiance and at the end of 90 minutes we're still not sure who has one. Brilliant... Quite brilliant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A powerful \"real-tv\" movie. Very subversive and therefore remaining almost un-broadcasted ! (almost...thanx 2 arte in France). After you've watched this manhunt all movies filmed with the same concept (a documentary team following the events as they arrived) seem so weak.

DAVID","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The strong points in the film were clear for the beginning and middle part of the film. It showed how a very violent, reactive authority might react to resistance. Filmed in the fashion of a documentary, the director captures what would have happened if the United States enacted martial law. Volunteering for \"punishment park,\" a training ground for cops where you're bullied and harassed, would offer you an out to this dire scenario. It switches between the court trials for those facing accusations, those who are in the park escaping police attention, the training of officers preparing to handle these prisoners, the judges in their leisure time, among many other things. It was a very strong, deeply moving film.

The only fault I had with this was its realism. Officers are often seen holding their pistols like they were seven years old with a plastic toy (i.e. a 90 degree bent elbow when pointing a gun in someone's face, or the way one cop just makes it look like it's hard to kick someone when they're down, etc., etc..). It starts out as an honest and interesting attempt to capture a very critical state of political affairs. By the end of the film, the viewer is slowly reminded again and again of the prejudices of the director and the producers. The antagonist characters in the story start out as genuine, real human beings and then slowly progress into \"stereotypical, objectifiable forces of evil\" by the very end. The mistakes they make are stupid, the force they demonstrate is unreal and unlike the way real police act, the judges during this court hearing are shown making stupid and unreal mistakes, among many other things.

The realness of the movie started to fall apart when it became evident that this was just another blank-check attempt to make government look bad. And that's coming from an Anarchist. The scenes at the end started to get hokey, unreal, and a thousand times over-dramatic. Still, for the earlier part of it, it promises some very moving storyline.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this movie on TV yesterday. I had a certain curiosity about it, being that it was directed by Emilio Estevez and starring him and his real-life Dad, Martin Sheen. I love to see a movie about a father-son relationship that involves a real-life father and son. Naturally, there's an instant chemistry between Sheen and Estevez, and their scenes of conflict are even more intense, knowing that they're actually related. Of course, it helps that the two of them are both terrific actors. I've seen Martin Sheen in intense roles before, but I think this is Emilio's most intense role--being that I mostly recall him from the \"Mighty Ducks\" series--and I was very impressed. Talent REALLY does run in that family. And Kathy Bates steals the movie in an Oscar-worthy performance. She tugged at my heartstrings with every word of dialogue. Kimberly Williams--the beautiful actress from the \"Father of the Bride\" movies--is also very good, holding her own among a group of talented veteran actors.

The movie is a bit stagey, with dialogue that's obviously geared for the stage, but that didn't bother me. This is not meant to be an action movie; this is a character study. And for a film that's based on a play, it never gets too claustrophobic. When Emilio's character, Jeremy, reminisces to his days in Vietnam, we actually see his harrowing memories brought to life.

The film is extremely powerful and realistic, without being sentimental. At the end, I expected all the conflicts to be resolved and the family would become hunky-dory, but that's not how it turned out. The ending made me cry, without resorting to standard Hollywood melodrama. That proves reality is much more gripping than anything Hollywood can conjure up.

If you're in the mood for a beautiful, powerful drama with extremely wonderful performances that will knock your socks off...please check out this underrated gem. Hopefully, one day Martin and Emilio will unite with Charlie, and they will all make a great film together.

My score: 9 (out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The most intense and powerful film I have seen in years. There have been other films before that delved into the Vietnam Vet but nothing compared to this emotionally heartwrenching film, as a typical American suburban family, circa 1972, comes apart at the seams, revealing the scars that Vietnam has left on our all of our collective souls. The cast is A++++ fantastic with all four actors(with Kathy Bates a stand-out) giving riveting performances. What is wonderful about this film is that you take no sides, but understand all four characters and empathize with them, even though all four have divergent viewpoints and needs. There are scenes in here that are so powerful as family secrets and feelings are revealed(such as the confrontation between son and mother) that will have you emotionally drained and in tears of anguish. I actually cried in this film, something I rarely do. The shocking end is a stunner! A much overlooked film that should be seen. I rate this 1996 film a 10\/10 a superlative piece. Highly recommended especially in this day and age with again, our country embroiled in a hideous war, our headlines shouting of atrocities and again, our young men and women returning with deep psychological scars, with their deep pain of deeds done in the line of honor. A must see film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was just lucky I found this movie. I've been taking advantage of Walmart's $5.50 DVDs, because I watch a lot of movies (and very seldom watch television). I graduated from high school in 1968 - so I have family and many friends who served in Vietnam. This movie really illustrates the pain I've seen in my friends in dealing with what happened to them over there. I wish more people would see this movie - I think maybe more people could understand what happened to our Vietnam vets by watching these excellent actors in the portrayal of one family damaged by that war. The story felt realistic - it isn't mushy, but made me feel what they were going through. I think it helped that Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez were playing father and son - it made their relationship more believable,","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not being a movie aficionado, I am not familiar with the names of leading Directors, Scriptwriters, Producers and the like, but I can tell an outstanding movie when I see one.

The makers of this fine movie could well be now at the top of their fields, or may well get there pretty soon. I know that the actors are already there.

It takes talent closer to genius to show with such realism how a national tragedy like Vietnam has impacted the everyday life of a typically average American family, and make us see at close range why there are so many homeless Vietnam veterans.

Without getting into gratuitous scenes of gore and bloodshed, it makes us understand why so many youg men had flashbacks of what they had been thru.

The dialog is particularly gripping, and gives us an idea of what went on in so many families in the aftermath of Vietnam.

I wish there were more good movies like this one, not just about Vietnam, but about other social conditions as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The connection with James Dean?In a short plan ,we see Emilio Estevez toying with a teddy bear(remember the first scene of Ray's \"rebel without a cause\").Moreover,the main conflict is Estevez versus Sheen,father against son,as in \"East of Eden\".The soldier has come home,and nobody has been able to communicate with him, even his sister (a psychology student,what a derision).The mother,a crude matron (a superb Kathy Bates),gets bogged down in nougatine ,she 's not able to understand that her values (religion,family) have become a thing of the past,specially for someone like his son whose innocence was betrayed. The father ,an irresolute man ,under his wife's thumb,although he tries hard to play the macho,wanted to make up for the mediocrity of his life .So he saved his \"honor\" by forcing his son to do his duty.The scene in which Estevez's hatred for his father explodes is very intense.The actor-director gives a restrained performance,interiorized,as Lee Strasberg's students used to do,and his final burst of anger is increased tenfold so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Emilio Estevez actually directed a good movie--who woulda thought? I sat through two previous films Estevez directed--\"Wisdom\" (with then girlfriend Demi Moore) and \"Men at Work\" (with brother Charlie Sheen). They are lousy films---badly acted, directed, stupid and offensive. Estevez is a good actor but lousy as a director. I turned this on in pure curiousity--it has a great cast and I had nothing else to do. Damned if it didn't pull me in.

It concerns Estevez coming home from Vietnam permanently scarred by what happened over there. His parents (Kathy Bates, Martin Sheen) and sister (Kimberly Williams) try to reach him but can't. Something in Vietnam has affected him deeply...and he's about to explode...

A bit overlong but still very good. A lot of the material is familar but the cast is so good that they make it seem new. Estevez is good, Sheen is terrific (and Estevezs' real life father), Williams is touching and Bates is just extraordinary--trying to hold the family together. It all leads up to a powerful ending which REALLY surprised me.

Well worth catching.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is on cable sporadically, and I never really watched it, thinking it would be similar to the Bruce Willis film \"\u00cfn America\", with the usual trite story about American freedom, etc. But it was not; it was so much more!.

Of course, Martin Sheen is excellent; (I have never seen him in a movie I haven't loved, even if the script is bad, because he is so talented). Kathy Bates is the overbearing mom, and does a great job. The real surprise is Emilio Estevez, who has not always been in the greatest films, but also directed this movie. Please don't stereotype him from the \"Breakfast Club\" movie; he is so much better in this, and I wish he would do more non-commercial, atypical Hollywood movies.

The film is realistic, as we see Emilio home from Vietnam, during Thanksgiving. Kimberly Williams is passable as the sister, who feels she is \"disgraced and embarrassed\" by the returning soldier, her brother; he is quite alienated from the family, and, especially at this time in US history, this story is VERY relevant.

I learned a great deal about post-traumatic stress, and you will genuinely empathize with this character; This is not a violent, journalistic portrayal, like \"Platoon\" for example, it is more of a character study, which leaves us even more intrigued and concerned about the effects of war, especially when one considers the young age of the soldiers who are victims. With today's violence, it is rare that a movie causes one to genuinely feel sad, and shed a tear; this does it, and deserves recognition.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of my desires is to be a film-maker, and I just have to say there's no way I will be able to compete with the powerful drama The War at Home. The reason is because the acting is perfect, and when you see the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. All I can suggest is watching it, I got so involved in it and was extremely impressed.

Estevez's and Sheen's relationship on the screen was absolutely amazing.

And so was his relationship with his mother (Kathy Bates). Some of the best scenes include these 2.

As well as the relationship between Sheen and his daughter, Estevez's sister in the film.

10\/10, and definitely in my top 10. I want the DVD!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Vietnam War era is certainly far before my time, but it has always interested me, and I have seen many films about it. All of the others I'd seen had dealt strictly with the front-line of battle. When I read a description of \"The War At Home,\" I found the concept intriguing. No Vietnam War movie I'd ever heard of talked about what happens to a soldier once the fighting is over with.

One night, while flipping through channels, the movie aired on The Sundance Channel. I set down the remote and settled back to watch it. I did not move from my seat during the entire two hours; it's one of those movies that keeps you very interested because there is no way to predict what is going to happen next.

This movie made me a huge fan of Emilio Estevez. I had enjoyed him very much as Billy the Kid in the \"Young Guns\" movies, but I never saw anything he did afterward. Emilio proved to be very talented at writing and directing as well as acting.

The pacing of the movie is done extremely well. I am hard-pressed to think of a point where it drags.

What amazes me is that it didn't get an Oscar or any real recognition when it came out. It is a dramatic story about parents trying to cope with the fact that their son is not who he used to be and probably will never be as they remembered him again. Definitely worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film easily rivals the emotional strength, the dramatic impact and the top-notch performances of \"12 Angry Men\". I rented it on a whim and was amazed that I had not heard of it before.

I do not know if this was Emilio Estevez's directorial debut, but the pacing, the interplay and development of the characters as well as the some clever camera work surrounding the character Estevez plays all suggest a natural eye.

The interplay between Martin and Emilio contains the same wonderful chemistry we saw in Wall Street with Martin and Charlie. Kathy Bates is wonderful in her characters subtle desperation and escapism; a variation on her characters in \"At Play In The Fields Of The Lord\". She is irritating and yet one can empathize with her at the same time.

There are some moments where I feel the plot slows a touch and the moments between Estevez and his ex-girlfriend almost seem written for another film, Estevez comes off as another character all together. But those are minor complaints.

This film must be based on a true story or must have been written by someone who lived these experiences. I rate it 8 out of a difficult 10.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film easily rivals the emotional strength, the dramatic impact and the top-notch performances of \"12 Angry Men\". I rented it on a whim and was amazed that I had not heard of it before.

I do not know if this was Emilio Estevez's directorial debut, but the pacing, the interplay and development of the characters as well as some clever camera work surrounding the character Estevez plays all suggest a natural eye.

The interplay between Martin and Emilio contains the same wonderful chemistry we saw in Wall Street with Martin and Charlie. Kathy Bates is wonderful in her characters subtle desperation and escapism; a variation on her character in \"At Play In The Fields Of The Lord\". She is irritating and yet one can empathize with her at the same time.

There are some moments where I feel the plot slows a touch and the moments between Estevez and his ex-girlfriend almost seem written for another film, Estevez comes off as another character all together. But those are minor complaints.

This film must be based on a true story or must have been written by someone who lived these experiences. I rate it 8 out of a difficult 10.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Emilio Estevez takes the wonderful play HOMEFRONT and makes it into an engaging movie.

THE WAR AT HOME has an exceptionally strong cast -- all seemingly digging deep into their characters. The acting here is TOP NOTCH!

Credit must also go to director Emilio Estevez. The visual transitions between past and present were ultra smooth. The sound effects during the battle scenes were chilling and effectively added to the tension.

Remove all of the Viet Nam elements from the story, and still left would be interesting characters wrestling with the good and bad of the full range of family dynamics. (A viewer might see this point more clearly by keeping in mind the \"discovering the old photo\" scene from the beginning as the rest of the movie is watched).

As a movie, I found THE WAR AT HOME to be more direct and to the point than BORN ON THE 4TH OF JULY. A fine effort -- almost a 10.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An under-appreciated, unseen gem. Estevez does a remarkable job of illustrating in poignant, heartbreaking fashion, the tension that arises between a son who's been to hell and back, and his parents, who can't begin to understand the emotional scarring left behind. It's not unlike Born on the Fourth of July, in that it deals with a soldiers' emotional and mental breakdown after serving in Vietnam, but while that one focused more on the politics of post-Vietnam (anti-war speeches, etc.), this one deals with a much more personal topic: Family. One man's struggle to return to normalcy after a life-altering experience, and his parents' failure to see the change that has occurred.

Estevez delivers a smoldering performance as Jeremy Collier. You can sense the pain and frustration bubbling beneath surface. There to match him inch for inch is his real-life father, Martin Sheen. It's a trip watching these two act off of each other, as you get the sense that they're constantly trying to one-up one another. It's like the presence of each other inspired the pair to do their best, and their performances triumph because of it.

Recommended to anyone who appreciates solid acting, writing and directing. And to any Vietnam war buff.

****\/***** (8\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is powerful. I watched this movie at 3:00 am and I was suppose to be at work at 6:00 am, needless to say I was late to work. I could not bring myself to get up off my bed to go to work. This is the most powerful movie that I have seen in a long time. And that made me cry and feel the pain of the family. I think Emilo did a wonderful job of directing this film. I agree with the previous comments from other views that this is the only movie that I have seen that has brought the war home and showed what a family had to go through, what a veteran went through. It is almost heart breaking to think that back then people just thought you could come home from a life changing experience and be the same person you were before you left. Kathy Bates reminded me of my mother in a way. I believe she really showed how women felt and acted back then. I am surprised that this film wasn't up for more awards.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Estevez, Martin Sheen and Kathy Bates are superb in this portrayal of a Vietnam vet home from the war but still haunted by it. Bates plays a clueless mother who just wants the family to be a \"family.\" Sheen is terrific as the father who tries to understand what his son is going through but is too wrapped up in his principles to really empathize. The setting is Thanksgiving Day and the relatives are coming for dinner. Estevez, who plays the returning vet, wants no part of family tradition and insists on wearing his combat fatigues to dinner, explaining \"This is what I wore last Thanksgiving.\" The bickering and family arguments are priceless, particularly the \"peanut brittle crisis,\" but the ending is both gripping and terrifying. It has to be seen to be appreciated.

Overall, one of the best movies I've ever seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has a very deep look at the relationships between a mother who was raised in a Christian environment and learned that appearance is everything. She and her son, who just recently returned from Vietnam collide in some very tense issues. The relationship has no connections intimately and is a great accurate portrayal of what it is like to live with someone who is false and only looks at the surface of issues. Kathy Bates does an excellent job of portraying a woman of false faith who is either oblivious to her cruelty, forgetful or just doesn't want to be confronted. Jeremy's wrath is never feared and it leads to a very disturbing conflict between him and his feelings about his fathers love for him. This is a very honest look at some family dynamics after a traumatic event leads one to despair.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had never heard of this film and only got it because I am a Martin Sheen fan. Now I am stunned as to why it did not receive the praise and recognition that it truly deserves. The four characters all make you feel for them, the father trying to assert his authority, the mother still clinging to traditional family values and both trying to keep up appearances despite the total fragmentation of their family, the daughter wanting her own life and the son haunted by his experiences in Vietnam. One felt that this was a scenario that must have been played out in thousands of 'ordinary' families after Vietnam. Emilio Estevez as Jeremy was superb - totally unhinged by his war experience which none of his family could relate to. The screen chemistry between him and his real-life father Martin Sheen was amazing. And there were times when Emilio's anguished face was so like Martin's in \"Apocalypse Now\". I feel sure that just as Martin has counted Apocalype as one of his best films, Emilio will count this one as one of his best too. The scene with the gun was totally mind-blowing, as all the emotions were there on the family's faces. Brilliant acting by Estevez, Sheen and Kathy Bates. I watched the film for the first time last night - and today the lead story in the news was about a Gulf War veteran who had shot several members of his family. How many more young men are going to have their lives destroyed by war?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a little-seen anti-war film that has been ignored for too long. The time is Thanksgiving of 1972. The place is a typical suburban home somewhere in Texas. The oldest son has just comeback from Vietnam and he is having a hell of time readjusting to the life he had left behind. And the family does not know how to handle the problem. I honestly don't think I'm exaggerating when I say this is one the most heart-wrenching war films I've seen. The funny thing is that there are only a handful of combat sequences in the entire movie. Most of the story takes place inside a house over a period of a couple of days. But the kind of war that takes place in this home is as intense as any real battlefield action. The film does something that is difficult to accomplish; somehow, Estevez and his team have created a film that embodies the entire Vietnam experience. And considering the similarities between Vietnam and the current invasion of Iraq, the film is surprisingly relevant. Estevez does a magnificent job with material. He gets a lot of help from a hand-picked cast. Martin Sheen and Kathy Bates in particular are superb as the parents. A truly moving film. Highly recommended","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not for those adrenaline maniacs etc It's a good movie, looking at after war, psychical problem, from the other point of view.

Emilio Estevez is great as a young man, haunted by the demons of Vietnam war, causing problem in family.

Marin Sheen is also good as a conservative father.

It all comes down to the problem how to deal with the past, with whom

Emilion Estevez's character can't seem to deal, and Martin Sheen's character don't want do deal with.

Protective mother looks at this problem with warm , and open heart but with her mind closed for the obvious reasons.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to agree with the previous author's comments about the excellent performances and plot. Started watching this movie by accident...(lazy Sunday afternoon clicking channels to see if anything good was on)...and was mesmerized by Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez. Wow! Gut wrenching! Kudos to everyone (have always admired Martin Sheen) but was particularly impressed with Emilio! Excellent job of acting and directing...simply superb! So why have I never heard of this movie before? I'll have to spread the news.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie shows many feelings and emotions that are very strong and personal. The atmosphere in the movie is very tense and sad. You can really get a clear picture of what the main character is going through, and how he is responding to the world around him. I think it is a great movie, and that everybody should see it.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I feel privileged to have accidentally seen this movie. I actually ran across this movie by accident. I was taping another movie on Showtime one night, overnight and this movie came on afterward. So I sat and watched it and boy was I blown away. The acting is absolutely superb. Kathy Bates...who has been my favorite actress since Misery and Fried Green Tomatoes gave an amazing performance as a domineering mother who tries desperately to hold on to her old school values (religion, family) at the risk of alienating her family. Martin Sheen is superb as the \"tough\" patriarch who is really not in control of anything in his life or family. The one thing I really loved about this movie is how it tells what happens when the heroes come home. It shows the true damage that is done to our soldiers after they fight pointless wars for political and financial gain. This movie just blew me away and I feel blessed to have accidentally taped this movie and seen it. This is a must-see for anyone who wants a true drama, this is not too melodramatic and preachy, but pulls at your heartstrings like none other","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There have been many movies about people returning home from wars and having to cope, but \"The War at Home\" is worth seeing. Portraying Vietnam vet Jeremy Collier (Emilio Estevez) having trouble connecting with his Texas family, much of the movie is very likely to tense you up. But nothing can prepare you for what ends up getting revealed.

Part of what makes this movie so good is how it gives the viewer the feeling of both Texas and of the generation gap. Jeremy's parents Bob (Martin Sheen) and Maurine (Kathy Bates) clearly have a problem with their son's attitude, both about the war and his rejection of Americanism. His sister Karen (Kimberly Williams) is uncertain with whom to side. But after the dinner, there can be no neutrality.

So, we as Americans may never be able to fully get over the Vietnam War, but this movie can probably help us look seriously at how it affected so many people. Emilio Estevez certainly did a good job directing. Also starring Corin Nemec and Carla Gugino.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was well done. It covers the difficulties a returning Vietnam veteran has in dealing with the horrors of war. Unfortunately the writers chose to focus on a Vet who had been involved in an act of atrocity. I was in Vietnam and only once heard of such an act by one who witnessed it. The offender was prosecuted and sentenced to many years in Leavenworth.

The notion that only vets involved in atrocities had emotional problems is a disservice to all who served. All of the soldiers I knew personally or knew of by word of mouth were honorable soldiers who respected even the enemy and believed they were there to halt the spread of Communism. The biggest problem was coming home to learn that many Americans were opposed to the war. That is what caused many Veterans to feel they had taken part in something less than honorable. Not the manner in which they served.

The ending depicted the father acting more as a belligerent bully than a loving, caring father. For that I gave it a 7 out of 10. Had the ending allowed for a degree of acceptance I could have rated it a 9.

Most decent men will come home from war with guilt and emotional scars. They need acceptance and understanding to overcome that. I pray that the public is more understanding of our present day Veterans than it was in the the Vietnam era.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would like to know if \"The Outsiders\" (Australian TV series) will ever be released on DVD sometime in the future? And is the music (Title Theme) available on CD?

There was only one series of 13 episodes of this drama and should have gone on to at least three or even four series in total.

The Young German Actor in the series was also in a German TV series called \"Black Forest Clinic\" which aired here in the UK with English dialogue superimposed with the lip-sync.

I look forward to hearing any comments from TV Industry personnel on the above questions, thank you in advance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Outsiders is undoubtedly a classic Australian TV series. Well defined characters, tight scripts, varied and interesting locales, great guest stars and a filmic ambiance all combined to make this series a special one.

Sadly, Andrew Keir has passed on & Sascha Hehn from Germany does not appear (unfortunately) to have enjoyed small screen success in his native country. The ABC has repeated the series many times yet a DVD release is yet to happen.

The series is one which is timeless. It is as likely to strike a resonant chord with viewers today as it did in its own day. Come on ABC...release The Outsiders on DVD!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watched this when it was first screened and then missed it when it disappeared of British screens. It showed a different side of Old Australia that we need to see more of. Good juxtaposition of old hand and young turk. Then the realism of the hard out back was fantastic. It was sadly missed. This show was a cold look at the old way of looking at Australia. Hard living and hard working. The young idealist clashing with the old practical head. Real Politicka fighting with the young upstarts of New Labour. To add modern political vernacular.

This show was the first of its type that I came across that did not try to do a tourist job on Australia. It was a great showing of the realistic

come documentary realistic type of show. Some good films were out at the time doing a similar job. It would be great to see more of this type of TV come from Australia for it has been sadly missing this last twenty years. for all we have been fed is the soap pulp of varying quality.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yeah great cult TV series. Great atmosphere, top script and good performances make this a class A candidate for DVD release.

This is a seminal tour de force of Australian TV history and has that unforgettable groovy period piece soundtrack with Doug Parkinson's gravel and phlegm voice spewing 70's Australiana all over your cathode ray box as a amazingly long camera zoom out reveals the religion of the open road in all its Antipodean glory. This is a memento from another and not too distant era, and has the proud stamp of the land mighty Down Under from start to finish in all its raw freedom and gritty grandeur.

Come on ABC! Get with the program and release this cool 70's cult baby for all to enjoy - or re-enjoy if you're lucky enough to have lived the dream at the time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the Australian TV series. It is a classic. The stories and actors are excellent. Who can forget Picker and his gramophone or Chet being ambushed? This is cult TV. The Australian actors in the series were the best of their day and have immortality in The Outsiders. What can I say timeless adventure. The music and song just fantastic. The closing credits starting with the close up of the wheel, then Keir sleeping n being jostled around and then the long shot just cannot get much better than that. All 13 episodes are equally solid in the portrayal of the Australian myth and I think this is what this series has.It does not matter that the two main characters were from overseas, I think that is the key to the series and why it is so good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film has not been seen by me in quite a few years. It came on the Disney Channel in the wee hours of the morning. I stayed up to watch it, and found it even more entertaining than the first time. The story, the scenery and the characters are as good as they come. I know that if anyone takes the time to view this film, they will find it definitely worth seeing a second time. It's very memorable in more ways than one. I would recommend this film to anyone because it is both entertaining and educational for all concerned.

s","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lumberman finds a young cougar in need of help. To young to be on his own the cat soon takes up with the rugged camp workers. Nicknamed \"Good Time Charlie' his antics amuse everyone at first. His wild nature eventually begins to cause trouble and reintroducing him into his natural habitat becomes an issue. This film is among those wonderful Disney nature films that were common in the 50's and 60's Lots of action, beautiful scenery and some endearing animal to charm you. These films were not long but included fascinating glimpses into wildlife and the effects of human contact. Unlike Disney's animated talking animals the animals in these films remained true to their own nature. They also make great travel films for seeing the western states.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is one of my favorite movies ever! along with casablanca and cannibal holocaust, this is near perfect cinema. rex allen narrates this wonderful tale of a cougar who just needs a little loving. contains action, adventure, suspense, comedy, and riverbed chaos! SEE THIS MOVIE IF YOU HAVE TO KILL TO DO IT!!! you will not find a better cat picture anywhere, with \"cat from outer space\" coming in as a not so close second. charlie's performance is magnificent. even includes animal cruelty and intense logging! gotta love disney, for all moral failures!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well I don't know much about anything, but I sure liked this film. In short, it was creative, humorous, simple, and heartwarming. In other words, it was everything it set out to be.

The story is set around a girl's first love, (as the title suggests) and I certainly should warn you: expect nothing challenging or provocative in terms of the subject matter here. I mean, it is a children's cartoon. It's really just a simple story, but it's told well, and it holds your attention well.

In the end: it's short, it's funny, it's cute, it's simple, it's good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was a sweet, intro for the most intelegent Sailor Soldier, Sailor Mercury. It consisted with a new \"in croud\", Merciurios. He, at the beganing wrote a love letter to Ami, which would be starltling (of course) and, now, Ami thiks he is a chibi-Einstien, and he is attractive (He ended up looking like Umino (Melvin)). This was a halarios (expesialy Minako's \"It's no skin off my neck\" scene (HOT!)) Well, I really like the Bishojo Senshi Sailor Moon Series, I personally think its the best anime ever!, But, this movie was nice, funny, but not as adventurios as Sailor Moon R- It was more like the \"S\" movie. I saw this @ Sailor Moon Univewrse, with real Player, and it was pretty good. (Over all)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Almost missed it. While visiting friends in Philadelphia sometime in the early 1980`s, I was channel surfing after everyone else went to bed. It wasn`t just Bogart he was obsessed with; but rather the entire era of those old flicks those of my age know so well. Add to that a plot liken to The Maltese Falcon - where so many different characters were interacting with Sacchi - and you have a piece of art as far as I`m concerned. About ten years later it appeared on TV and I taped it. >","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This amusing, sometimes poignant look at the Hollywood detective genre of the 1940's and 1950's stars Robert Sacci as an unnamed former cop who retires, uses his life savings to pay for plastic surgery to transform his image into that of his idol, Humphrey Bogart, then sets up shop as a private eye under the name \"Sam Marlowe\". Robert Sacchi, incidentally, is one of the rare few Bogart impersonators who got the lisp exactly right; more to the point, the body and facial language are there. For awhile, \"Sam\"'s only client is his landlady, who wants him to find her undersized boyfriend, and his only conversational foil is his secretary, simply called \"Dutchess\" (Misty Rowe), who in his own words, \"looked like Marilyn Monroe and made about as much sense as Gracie Allen\", and has a passion for banana splits. Then he encounters Elsa (Olivia Hussey), the plain, sweet, virginal daughter of a retired props-master who has been murdered for no discernible reason. In the process of investigating the murder, Sam shortly runs across: the Gene Tierney lookalike daughter (Michelle Phillips) of Anastas, an avaricious, obscenely wealthy Greek shipping tycoon (Victor Buono, turning in a creditable Sidney Greenstreet), his hapless, long-suffering second wife (Yvonne deCarlo, who manages to play a variety of put-upon emotions without saying a word), his two smarmy henchmen (Herbert Lom, channelling Peter Lorre, and Jay Robinson, doing a reasonably accurate Lionel Atwill), and Anastas' vicious, amoral Middle-Eastern potentate (Franco Nero) who comes complete with a glamorus and bafflingly loyal mistress (Sybil Danning), all of whom would give anything to acquire the \"Eyes of Alexander\", two huge, perfectly matched star sapphires. When Elsa is murdered, Marlowe's interest in solving the case becomes personal, and he sets out through a labyrinth of Los Angeles landmarks, including the Hollywood Bowl, the scatological and esoteric attractions of Hollywood Boulevard, and Santa Catalina Island in pursuit of the rocks, determined to get at them before either of the two wealthy competitors. Throw in cameos by Mike Mazurki and assorted others, the traditional dumb-but-sympathetic ally on the police force, and a plethora of nicely drawn character turns that provide dimension to practically all players, and despite an unfortunate title song, you have, to my mind, a thoroughly enjoyable movie experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sacchi is the best Bogart impersonator ever... dry and droll as Sam Marlowe. The music from award winning composer George Duning [From Here To Eternity, Picnic, The World of Suzie Wong], the cinematography of perfect locations [including the famous Ambassador Hotel] are all right on target as famous tv director Robert Day [Kojak, Streets of San Francisco, The Avengers] guides the most endearing group of well-known character actors through a spoof of every dark detective film every made. See this if you loved all the old serious flicks and have a sense of humor... this one is a hoot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Making this short and to the point. This movie was great! I loved it! I actually picked this up at a Hollywood Video for 3 bucks on VHS and watched it about 5 times in the last couple weeks. I'm a big Bogart fan and I just latched onto this movie. I thought the song was funny and now have it as a ring tone on my phone. Robert Sacchi is great and pulls off a good Bogart. His nose is a little big, his voice is a Bogart-Columbo mix, and he does a few things that are awkward but otherwise, he was fantastic and this film was wonderful. No one can be a perfect Bogart but he was great. Remember, Sam Marlow is a fan of Bogart and isn't going to do everything he did. He mentions a lot of other movies and does some things that were never part of the real Bogart's character's. But, it's so funny and hilarious and has a great cast, including some beautiful women. Watch it and have fun!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a very enjoyable homage to the Bogart and other detective films of old. Robert Sacchi nails it as Bogie and Michelle Phillips is a truly timeless beauty as Gena Anastas.

However, the most noteworthy portion of this film involves the longest belly dancing scene ever produced in a Hollywood film. One well-known professional instructor commented that nothing else in cinema comes close for dance excitement.

The scene, which ends up being an important part of the plot, occurs in a lushly beautiful Middle Eastern nightclub and is by all accounts mesmerizing. The pulsating music, the swirling veils and ringing finger cymbals, free-flowing undulations and beautiful costumes - and a surprise twist involving the seductive Sybil Danning - build tension and excitement until the very end.

The three talented and beautiful professional nightclub dancers are led by exotic brunette beauty Kamala Almanzar, one of the US' leading belly dancers since the mid-1970s. She was hand-picked by famed Armenian musician Guy Chookoorian to travel with his orchestra on the road. Guy's ensemble is the live band that the dancers perform to in the scene. If you watch the trailer on this site, you will see a glimpse of Kamala (playing the finger cymbals behind Sybil Danning).

If you're not yet a fan of belly dancing, you will be after watching this movie, and if you're an aficionado, it holds up very well after repeated viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As over the past ten years or even longer the whole world is flooded with so-called sitcoms (actually only very few deserve this title 'cause they're so predictable), King of Queens is a very original, unique and astoundingly funny alternation. It's about the daily life of a deliveryman and his wife who works as an attorney's assistant in Manhattan in Queens, NY. With them lives Carrie's father Arthur, a picture-book extrovert, who is played by the fantastic Jerry Stiller and who steals the show from all the others every time he appears. Other important people are their best friends Deacon and Kelly, a married couple, and their other friend Spence who's almost 30 and still lives with his mother. What makes this show so unique and funny is, above all, that every single character seems so real and Carrie's cynical, sarcastic attitude is the total opposite of Doug's good-natured, slightly dumb optimism.And Arthur's the one who makes it absolutely unpredictable with his strange ideas and habits. He often gets himself into trouble and Doug and Carrie have to drag him out of the mud. Even if in my opinion the quality of the show decreased a little within the last years it's still one of the best daily sitcoms ever made. It takes a little time to get into the characters and relate to them, but after that's done, you get some unstoppable laughs from it. Although I think I couldn't survive one day with Arthur in a closed room without beating the guts out of him, I really adore him in this show. Watch and have fun, I give it a 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is brilliantly hilarious! I started watching in 2007, and had never heard of it before then. After one episode, I was hooked. I'm never home to watch it, so my wife bought me the entire series on DVD. Non stop laughs, need I say more? I wish it was still on TV, because it is definitely worthy and a whole lot better of crap on currently on TV.

I wish they would make a movie, seriously, who wouldn't go see it. Kevin James's name alone will bring a huge fanbase to any movie, the guy is (make your stomach hurt) funny.

Just a really good, down to earth, believable show. If you have the chance to buy it on DVD, do it, its worth it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is by far the funniest sitcom that has ever aired on TV. I own all 9 seasons on DVD and literally could watch them over and over. Anyone who does not find this show hilarious, heartwarming, entertaining, and laugh out loud hysterical, is crazy! Kevin James is absolutely one of the most talented comedians out there. My boyfriend and I love going to stand up comedy shows in Boston (where we live) and have seen Kevin James twice and his brother Gary Valentine (Danny) once. They are both so unbelievably talented and just plan smart with their work. There are so many comedians out there that are just awful and Kevin and Gary really show the true side of real comedy. Leah Remini, although a snob and bitch in real life (so I have read) is an amazing actress and deserves more credit than any other woman in sitcoms. She truly makes the show...along with Jerry Stiller! This show is a must see and you will get addicted within one to two episodes!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the best comedy period. It is so underrated! Clever witty humor, Great casting! Jerry Stiller is the jewel in the show, he is so incredibly funny and quirky, simply a comical genius! Doug and Carrie have great chemistry! I so do not see what the hype is about when it comes to Everybody loves Raymond it is SO overrated with lame jokes mostly forced humor and just not the witty show, I can't remember laughing in more than 1 episode. King of Queens is a rare comedy that has all the right ingredients to give you serious belly laughs which is normally caused by Arthur Spooner, I think its about time this comedy gets the hype it deserves and not the lame Raymond & CO.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is,in short,the TV comedy series with the best cast ever;and the most likable also.Each one of them is a first\u0097hand comedy actor.I know only one TV series which was better (i.e., \"Moonlighting\")\u0097that one had Willis as a lead\u0097yet it had Willis only,while The King of Queens has a pocketful of actors that are as fine as one can enjoy--Kevin James, Leah Remini, Jerry Stiller, Patton Oswalt, Nicole Sullivan, Victor Williams, Gary Valentine,and even all the rest of them \u0085.I spontaneously and continually and promptly liked it.Advancing age didn't spoil the fun,anyway.

In a few words,the series is intelligent and original,miraculously spared of the current TV stupidity and garbage. It is politically incorrect and doesn't court the minorities in the usual disgusting way.

The comic is very palatable and savory.

I read, mostly approvingly, a few IMDb writers, and sometimes they write about their favorite shows\u0097yet, though these writers are several, I did not encountered, at any of them, the slightest mention of my favorite TV shows (--but it's true that the critics one likes are not those with whom he finds himself in complete approval\u0097but those who at least offer a common basis for disapproval)\u0097which are, mainly, WILD WILD WEST, MOONLIGHTING, QUEENS, FANTOMAS, the '80s TWILIGHT ZONE, Bradbury's TV show and SANDOKAN. Most of them I have seen when I was 13\u009714 yrs; about a few of them I have written, and execrably.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cant believe how many excellent actors can be on one show. It's the realism and fine acting that makes it look real. This has got to be the best comedy ever created to this day and I love Seinfeld and Everyone Loves Ramond. It is just fabulous and it seems everyone in my family agrees. Thats no isolated opinion of mine. The whole world seems to talk about different incidents and they try to reenact them. My hat off to the crew. Some shows have an actor that makes the whole show. This plot comedy has a slew (8) of them . That's what makes it so amazing. Some people pray for Health , Wealth or fame. I pray that the show never ends. Sicerely John. LKHUBBLE2@talkamerica.net","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you put Seinfeld aside, this is The Best Comedy ever, no doubt! Just Great!

\"The King Of Queens\" just finished its eighth season of domestic bliss. Set in the working-class suburb of Queens, New York, the show follows Doug Heffernan (Kevin James), an amiable delivery man, and his wife, spitfire legal secretary Carrie Heffernan (Leah Remini), as they explore the everyday challenges of love, life, family and marriage.

Doug and Carrie deal with day-to-day domestic realities that reflect our times and enable us to laugh at ourselves. Their love for each other ultimately carries them through each dilemma they face, whether it's Doug's fixation with food or Carrie's obsession with expensive clothing.

Doug and Carrie also have to deal with the third, high-maintenance member of the Heffernan household \u00ad Carrie's twice-widowed father, Arthur Spooner (Jerry Stiller), who lives in their basement. His constant presence and often bizarre behavior add to their daily adventures. Doug and Carrie have stumbled upon an unorthodox solution to reduce their burden and keep Arthur happy \u00ad his regular excursions with gullible dog walker Holly (Nicole Sullivan). Doug's friends Deacon Palmer (Victor Williams), Spence Olchin (Patton Oswalt) and cousin Danny Heffernan (Gary Valentine) round out the cast with their \"guy\" humor and diverse perspectives.

In a manner that evokes \"The Honeymooners,\" THE KING OF QUEENS finds inspiration in life's everyday situations. Last season alone saw Doug \"loaning\" Carrie to a wifeless Deacon for help with Thanksgiving dinner; the Heffernans suffering through the annoyance and financial strain of mold damage to their house; and Doug and Carrie striving to copy a couple whose photos \u00ad of a more adventurous life than Doug and Carrie's \u00ad they accidentally took home. We also watched Arthur grow jealous of a new dog that Holly added to her route, and Doug finding out that his overprotective parents replaced his childhood dog Rocky three times behind his back. Throughout, the series showcases James' incredible physical comedy, Remini's hard-edged wit, and Stiller's unique comic presence.

You can't... You shoulden't Miss it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"THE KING OF QUEENS,\" in my opinion, is a pure CBS hit! Despite the fact that I've never seen every episode, I still enjoy it very much. For that reason, it's hard for me to say which episode is my favorite. Even so, I must say that CBS really knows how to make a good sitcom. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone always gives a good performance, the production design is spectacular, the costumes are well-designed, and the writing is always very strong. In conclusion, if this show lives on in syndication after it goes off CBS, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have just started watching this show. Its airing in Ireland at the moment on the Irish television station RTE1 at 12.30pm in the Afternoon (as of 26th July 2006).

This program literally makes me laugh out aloud and I cannot boast that on most sitcom's (apart from UK's 'The Office' with Ricky Gervais in it).

Todays episode of TKoQ (26 July 2006)was the one where Carrie starts a new job and invites her friends home and goes off to make some coffee and Doug wants Carrie to have no 'outside' friends so he lifts up his top and shows off his 'belly hair!' and licks plates when he goes out to dinner! But another funny episode was the other week when the old fella (carries Dad) won on the Bingo and that episode creased me up with laughter especially when they went out and got a replacement fridge and Carries father stood there looking at it and thought it was new.

So I don't know how much longer this has got to run on Irish TV or at which stage (year recorded) we are at but I hope it don't end soon because I am really enjoying it.

To sum up there is some great writing, some great characters and comedy acting (namely by Carrie, Doug and Carries father) some great punchlines and delivered well - a bit saucy and near the mark sometimes (send the kids out the room!) but i think this US Sitcom is a winner and very funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow,this is in my opinion the best sitcom since Friends. If you have had a crap day just sit yourself down with a beer (if you are old enough that is.if not a root beer will have to do.) and watch a couple of episodes,it's the perfect recipe for happiness.

The thing I like most is that everybody in the show is very funny and they all have fantastic comedy timing. After a while you become attached to the characters and really care about them. I think the secret to the shows success is that they have an enviable life. Doug is fat but still happy with it,he loves his wife his job and his friends. The father in law is the fly in the ointment but hey nothings perfect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is amazing! I love each and every episode. Carrie is a spitfire and Doug is a lovable and at times a moron. Arthur, Spence, Danny, Deacon and Carrie's Boss add just a nice end touch to the show, tying up all of the funny, pee in your pants moments. In one of the seasons, Doug tries to get Carrie drunk, because she is nicer when she is drunk. Nice husband right? Carrie isn't much better, when her boss needs a IPS driver to testify in a small case at her job, Carrie hesitates, because she views Doug as a slob and doesn't want him to embarrass her, so she hires Doug's friend instead. Wife of the year. But, who i believe to be funniest is yell-at-random Arthur. He is drop-dead hilarious, and angry. Hey, you would be too if you had to live in a basement where the mold has a funny smell and makes you dizzy. This show is hilarious, and if you haven't seen it yet, then you haven't lived!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this show is the best it is full of laughs and Kevin James is the best so if you want a good show i recommend the king of queens and its a letdown that they canceled it so in the end this show will make you forget your worries and troubles cause if you have a cast with Kevin James and jerry stiller you cant go wrong. so i don't know why the canceled the show if any one knows please tell me.now a days you cant find a lot of shows that fulfill your needs as an audience.after Seinfeld and king of queens the only show worth watching is prison break and if that stops i don't know what to do. in the end if i had to recommend a show it will be king of queens.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just want to inform you guys that this movie was actually pretty good !!!

Thought it was a lame ass movie, but not at all, many moments in this movie wore pretty horrifying.

This movie has enough blood, gore, and some sexy make out scenes of course, to keep any horror buff like me 100% satisfied! The cast was also pretty good IMO.

Even though its not a high budget movie, the effects wore definitely kinda creepy sometimes.

Worth watching if u like a kick ass horror movie thats for sure!!

- Tom","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As far as Christian film goes,it's typical.Lacking of a mega-budget they try their best.Some times falling short,sometimes hitting the mark.This one almost hit, great acting can only carry a movie so far.A combining of H.P. Lovecraft,and Frank Peretti was a good idea.All's it needed was better back story, and better character development to make it great movie.The visuals are not that bad,also smart holding off the demons till the last few minutes helped keep the suspense at a good pace.Could of used a better ending though.Not a bad premise having terrorists experiments go wrong.Much better than typical Hollywood treatment about the demonic realm.Maybe someone will finally do \"This present darkness\" as a movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When the movie first started I thought cheesy. The first ten minutes were really boring. After the slow beginning and some of the soap opera antics, I started liking it. The plot was different than anything I had ever seen. Now, was it a horror? Not really. It shouldn't have been classied as a horror or the producers should have put more money into the movie to make it scary. As it was, the creatures where only there for a short time. I can only assume this was for money reason.

The good side was that the movie was very entertaining. It held my interest (after the start) and did make me wonder about creatures from another dimension.

It was obvious that this was a first time movie for the director, but there were a couple of highlights. By the end, I was hooked. Too bad Hollywood didn't put more money behind this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An RKO Short Subject.

A group of rowdy little bullies are given a lesson in tolerance by crooner Frank Sinatra, who compares America to THE HOUSE I LIVE IN.

This little film delivers a pertinent message about the evils of prejudice & bias. Sinatra is an absolute natural in front of the camera; intense & sincere, he is the perfect spokesperson for the values espoused here.

Sinatra sings \u0091The House I Live In,' by Lewis Allan & Earl Robinson. This fine tune, with a solid, pro-American message, is being given something of a comeback since the horrendous events of September 11, 2001.

After Pearl Harbor, Hollywood went to war totally against the Axis. Not only did many of the stars join up or do home front service, but the output of the Studios was largely turned to the war effort. The newsreels, of course, brought the latest war news into the neighborhood theater every week. The features showcased battle stories or war related themes. Even the short subjects & cartoons were used as a quick means of spreading Allied propaganda, the boosting of morale or information dissemination. Together, Uncle Sam, the American People & Hollywood proved to be an unbeatable combination.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's sometimes difficult to watch such self-avowed \"message films\" from an earlier, seemingly-simpler era without a certain degree of cynicism. The issue of racism and religious tolerance is one that has been drummed into us from an early age, and, as we've grown, teachers and authority figures have sought out less blatant yet equally-effective means of getting the message across. 'The House I Live In (1945)' is about as unsubtle as \"message films\" come, and Frank Sinatra seems to be treating his audience like a child \u0096 indeed, perhaps this was the point, as the short was no doubt intended primarily to influence younger film-goers. Even so, I found myself curiously affected when Sinatra launched into that sincere patriotic speech about what it really means to be an American\u0085 and I'm not even an American! Released just two months after the end of WWII, director Mervyn LeRoy greeted war-weary audiences with a message of tolerance, togetherness and, above all else, hope. The music ain't bad, either.

Fresh-faced Frank Sinatra \u0096 already a star, but not yet the superstar he'd become \u0096 opens the film in a recording studio, booming out \"If You Are But a Dream\" with a full orchestral accompaniment. When, between songs, Frank goes outside for a smoko, he observes a large group of kids bullying a young Jewish boy, their taunts provoked purely by his differing religion. Ol' Blue Eyes quickly puts a stop to this childish behaviour, delicately branding the bullies \"Nazi werewolves\" and scolding their irrational prejudice. He then earnestly and good-naturely lectures the group on the plain silliness of racial and religious discrimination, assuring them that every American culture, however it differs from our own, is still American at heart\u0085 unless, of course, you're one of those bloody \"Japs.\" There's a hint of hypocrisy in pleading for racial tolerance while presenting one nation as the collective enemy, though you could hardly blame Hollywood for being less than enthusiastic about the plight of the Japanese in 1945.

Sinatra drives his point home with a wonderfully heartwarming rendition of \"The House I Live In,\" which was written in 1943 by Abel Meeropol. When the songwriter first heard the song on film, he was furious that the filmmakers had completely excluded three of his verses, which he considered crucial to the message. These omissions were most likely due to time restraints, but Meeropol understandably didn't take too kindly to them, and reportedly had to be ejected from the cinema. When it was first released, 'The House I Live In' was deemed such an important short film that it won a Golden Globe for \"Best Film for Promoting International Good Will\" and a Honorary Oscar for all involved. In 2007, it was judged to be \"culturally, historically or aesthetically significant\" and added to the Library of Congress' National Film Registry, which is how I came to hear of it. While its approach may seem a little hokey sixty years later, this film remains quite watchable thanks to a young fella named Frank Sinatra.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This short subject gathered kudos from all kinds of places for its plea for religious toleration.

After a session at a recording studio Frank Sinatra leaves and comes upon a group of kids beating up on another because he was Jewish. He lectured them as only an American icon could about the meaning of prejudice and what we had just fought for against the Nazis. The meaning could not be clearer.

Both songs from this short subject were recorded and sold big for Columbia records. If You Are But A Dream and the song written for the film, The House I Live In. The latter is one of the best songs about an idealized version of America, we'd all like to strive for.

Sinatra in fact recorded The House I Live In again during the Sixties for a joint album he did for his Reprise record label. The album is now a rarity and it shouldn't be. His collaborators were Bing Crosby and Fred Waring and his Pennsylvanians with the orchestra conducted by Nelson Riddle.

Axel Stordahl was Sinatra's primary music conductor and arranger during the forties. When he died that position eventually fell to Nelson Riddle. Stordahl does the orchestration for the short and the Columbia record, Riddle for the Reprise record.

Sinatra aficionados and others should listen to both back to back and compare. And catch this worthwhile film whenever it is shown.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Frank Sinatra starred in this odd little short from RKO that is now in the public domain. The film came out at about the same time the war ended and is a nice plea for religious tolerance.

The film begins with Sinatra on stage singing. After leaving the stage, he walks out into the alley and finds a group of kids picking on another because of his religion. Instead of yelling at the boys (or helping them for that matter), Sinatra delivers a nice civics lesson on religious toleration and equates prejudice with fascism. The kids seem to get the lesson but then, out of the blue, Sinatra begins singing a song that, frankly (get it?), kids would have hated. He had a lovely voice but unfortunately I think this detracted from the excellent message he gave to the kids about tolerance. It's a case of a good message with too much singing--even if the guy singing is Frank Sinatra. It's also an interesting curio--a nice historical piece that is often overlooked...plus it's quite touching even if it seems a bit schmaltzy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sometimes reading the user comments on IMDB fills me with despair for the species. For anybody to dismiss 2001: A Space Odyssey as \"boring\" they must have no interest in science, technology, philosophy, history or the art of film-making. Finally I understand why most Hollywood productions are so shallow and vacuous - they understand their audience.

Thankfully, those that cannot appreciate Kubrick's accomplishment are still a minority. Most viewers are able to see the intelligence and sheer virtuosity that went into the making of this epic. This is the film that put the science in \"science fiction\", and its depiction of space travel and mankind's future remains unsurpassed to this day. It was so far ahead of its time that humanity still hasn't caught up.

2001 is primarily a technical film. The reason it is slow, and filled with minutae is because the aim was to realistically envision the future of technology (and the past, in the awe inspiring opening scenes). The film's greatest strength is in the details. Remember that when this film was made, man still hadn't made it out to the moon... but there it is in 2001, and that's just the start of the journey. To create such an incredibly detailed vision of the future that 35 years later it is still the best we have is beyond belief - I still can't work out how some of the shots were done. The film's only notable mistake was the optimism with which it predicted mankind's technological (and social) development. It is our shame that the year 2001 did not look like the film 2001, not Kubrick's.

Besides the incredible special effects, camera work and set design, Kubrick also presents the viewer with a lot of food for thought about what it means to be human, and where the human race is going. Yes, the ending is weird and hard to comprehend - but that's the nature of the future. Kubrick and Clarke have started the task of envisioning it, now it's up to the audience to continue. There's no neat resolution, no definitive full stop, because then the audience could stop thinking after the final reel. I know that's what most audiences seem to want these days, but Kubrick isn't going to let us off so lightly.

I'm glad to see that this film is in the IMDB top 100 films, and only wish that it were even higher. Stanley Kubrick is one of the very finest film-makers the world has known, and 2001 his finest accomplishment. 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For all those bewildered by the length and pace of this film (\"like, why does he show spaceships docking for, like, 15 minutes?\"), here's a word you might want to think about:

Beauty.

Beauty is an under-rated concept. Sure, you'll often see nice photography and so on in films. But when did you last see a film that contains beauty purely for the sake of it? There is a weird belief among cinemagoers that anything which is not plot or character related must be removed. This is depressing hogwash. There is nothing wrong with creating a beautiful sequence that has nothing to do with the film's plot. A director can show 15 minutes of spaceships for no reason than that they are beautiful, and it is neither illegal nor evil to do so.

'2001' requires you to watch in a different way than you normally watch films. It requires you to relax. It requires you to experience strange and beautiful images without feeling guilty that there is no complex plot or detailed characterization. Don't get me wrong, plots and characters are good, but they're not the be-all and end-all of everything. There are different KINDS of film, and to enjoy '2001' you must tune your brain to a different wavelength and succumb to the pleasure of beauty, PURE beauty, unfettered by the banal conventions of everyday films.

\"All art is quite useless\" - Oscar Wilde.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Instead of writing a paragraph, I'll give four good reasons why 2001 is the greatest cinema experience of all time: 1) It is a visual Odyssey that could only be told on the big screen. The special effects that won Kubrick his only Oscar are the most stunning effects before that age of Jurassic Park and T2. They allow Kubrick to give an accurate (or at least are the most accurate) depiction of space travel to date. The silence that fills the space scenes not only serves its purpose as accurate science, but also adds to the mood of the film (to be discussed in a later point with HAL). The fact that Kubrick shot the moon scenes before the Apollo landing is a gutsy yet fulfilling move. Many have said that upon its original release, it was a favorite \"trip\" movie. I can think of no other movie that has such amazing visuals for its time and even of all time (sorry Phantom Menace fans!) 2) Kubrick's directing style is terrific. As in all his films, Kubrick likes to use his camera as means to delve into the psychology of his characters and plots. His camera is not as mobile as other greats, such as Scorsese, but instead sits and watches the narrative unfold. Faces are the key element of a Kubrick film. Like classic movies, such as M and Touch of Evil, Kubrick focuses on the characters' faces to give the audience a psychological view-point. Even he uses extreme close-ups of HAL's glowing red \"eye\" to show the coldness and determination of the computerizd villain. I could go on, but in summation Kubrick is at the hieght of his style. 3) HAL 9000 is one of the most villainous characters in film history. I whole-heartedly agree with the late Gene Siskle's opinion of HAL 9000. Most of this film takes place in space. Through the use of silence and the darkness of space itself, a mood of isolation is created. Dave and his crewmen are isolated between earth and jupiter, with nowhere to escape. Combine this mood with the cold, calculated actions of HAL 9000 and you have the most fearful villain imaginable. I still, although having see this film several times, feel my chest tighten in a particular scene. 4) The controversial ending of 2001 always turns people away from this film. Instead of trying to give my opinion of the what it means and what my idea of 2001's meaning in general is, I'd like to discuss the fact that the ending serves to leave the movie open-ended. Kubrick has stated that he inteded to make 2001 open for discussion. He left its meaning in the hands of the viewer. By respecting the audience's intelligence, Kubrick allowed his movie to be the beginning, not the end, of a meaningful discussion on man's past, present, and future. The beauty of 2001 is that the ending need not mean anything deep, it can just be a purely plot driven explanation and the entire movie can be viewed as an entertaining journey through space. No other movie, save the great Citizen Kane, leaves itself open to discussion like 2001. It is truly meant to be a surreal journey that involves not only the eye but the mind. Instead of waiting in long lines for the Phantom Menace, rent a widescreen edition of 2001 and enjoy the greatest cinematic experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A review I have put off for far too long....

Bluntly, 2001 is one of the best science-fiction films made to date, if not the very best. Stanley Kubrick was a genius of a film maker and this is one of his very best works. And although it is misunderstood by many, and respectively underrated, it is considered one of the best films of all time and I'll have to agree. Back in 1968, no one had done anything like this before, and no one has since. It was a marvel of a special effects breakthrough back then, and seeing how the effects hold up today, it is no wonder as to why. The film still looks marvelous after almost forty years! Take note CGI people. Through the use of large miniatures and realistic lighting, Kubrick created some of the best special effects ever put on celluloid. This aspect alone almost single-handedly created the chilling void of the space atmosphere which is also attributed to the music and realistic sound effects. I can't think of another film where you can't here anything in space, like it is in reality. Not only is the absence of sound effects in space realistic, it is used cleverly as a tool to establish mood, and it works flawlessly.

Aside from the magnificent display of ingenious special effects, there are other factors that play a part in establishing the feel of the film. The music played, all classical, compliment what the eyes are seeing and make you feel the significance of man's journey through his evolution from ape to space traveler.

The story, while seemingly simple, is profound. Sequentially, several mysterious black monoliths are discovered and basically trigger certain events integral to the film. What are they? Where did they come from? What do they do? These are all questions one asks oneself while watching the story develop and is asked to find his own way. While most come away with a general idea of what took place in the story, each individual will have to decide what it means to them. Any way one decides to answer these question results in profound solutions. It's not left entirely up to interpretation, but in some aspects it is. Experience it for more clarification. The end result is quite chilling, no matter your personal solution.

While it is a long film, and sometimes slows down, it has to be in order to accurately portray the journey of man. It's not a subject that would have faired well in a shorter film, faster paced feature. Those with short attention spans need not apply.

Last but not least, is the epitome of a remorseless antagonist, HAL 9000, the computer. Never has a machine held such a chilling screen presence. Which reminds me, for a film with such profound ambition and execution, there is surprisingly little dialogue. Another sign of Kubrick's genius.

All in all, one of the best films made to date and one of the very best science fiction films made. A personal favorite. Everyone must see this film at least once.

Very highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I spent many a sleepless night after watching 2001. Not only because of the psychological horror (of which 2001 is a masterpiece) but also because of the way it brought me (a restless soul) some clarity to the way I observe the universe. It changed my way of thinking in a very profound way. And after reading the novel (by Arthur C. Clarke) I found myself once again inspired (a writer as I am) by the level of imagination.

The Space Odyssey is not something one can just \"go and see\". One has to be ready for it, or it cannot be understood. In fact I don't think it can be understood at all, at least not all of it at once. It is a philosophical journey to the infinite and beyond, a masterpiece of it's genre and still after 32 years technically quite impressive all the way to the powerful musical soundtrack featuring 'Also spracht Zarathustra' by Richard Strauss and 'Blue Danube' by Johann Strauss.

Take all the time you want, but eventually you are going to have to see this film. If it can bring some order and understanding to the universe of a struggling artist like me, it can certainly do it for you as well.

Or maybe I'm just plain crazy...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I write this review just after hearing of Stanley Kubrick's death. It's a great loss, and I write about 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, because I feel it is the consummate Kubrick film, the one he will be most remembered for. It is a picture like no other, not only revolutionizing science fiction, but changing the way films are conceptualized. It was probably America's first 'art' film and has inspired the likes of George Lucas and countless other writers and directors.

Aside from its visual greatness, the reason the film spawns so much discussion and analysis is because so many people have so many different interpretations of it. Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, his co-writer, had a vision, but we have never really found out what was going through their minds. Of course, the skinny on its 'message' is how technology of the future will take over humanity and decide the course of our lives unless we are careful. 2001's ending is one of hope, a version of our rebirth through the star-child's flight back to earth. It is meaningless to many, but discerning filmgoers will understand.

Although 2001 does not have the wicked, dark humor of DR. STRANGELOVE or CLOCKWORK ORANGE, or contain strong, eccentric characters that filled his earlier works like PATHS OF GLORY or SPARTACUS, I still feel he would've liked to be remembered most for this. If anything, HAL will be his most memorable character, dangerous, murderous, and artificial. It was a half-decade in the making at a time when Hollywood was still churning out dull musicals and just waking up to the New Wave of French and Italian cinema. Kubrick was a maverick director who made great films on his own terms, his own time, and for everyone else to marvel at. He will be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is certainly one of the greatest films ever made. It is a story told in a steady pace, told mostly not by words but by cinematic means of expression. Perfect blend of spectacular special effects and classical music bring to life creations of human imagination in both realistic and poetical way. The story itself is quite simple at a first glance. As the title implies, there is an archetypal journey, a motive repeated for thousands of years. This motive was always used not only to depict a trip in space and time, and beyond, but also had rich philosophic meaning. The film is a poetical contemplation of most exciting eternal questions. It is not just an odyssey of a person; it is an odyssey of our species. The film is great by itself, yet, in my case, the impression from it will always be mingled with that from the book. I've read it at the age of 10, really not thinking about problems like 'what is the relationship between evolution of humankind and development of human morality'. But the impression was great enough to make me fall for entire genre of science fiction.

The day I learned '2001' got only special effects Oscar and was not even nominated for the Best Picture was the day when 'Academy Award' completely became two words meaning nothing to me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mankind's Self awakening is the theme of \"2001: A Space Odyssey\", a process that unfolds along a space-time continuum. We \"see\" our primordial past, and we \"infer\" a cosmic future. The powers of intuition thus become the doors of perception, in our ongoing collective journey.

From this transcendental perspective, a conventional, egocentric plot seems superfluous. Our frenzied conflicts and self-important dialogue are consumed in evolutionary change, and are irrelevant in a cosmos that is vast beyond comprehension. It's a tough lesson for a vain and aggressive species. Not surprising then that some of us huff and puff about the film's slowness and minimal story. For perceptive viewers, the remuneration is an inspirational sense of wonder and awe.

In this film, which is mostly visual, geometric symbols guide our intuition. Circles and arcs represent nature. Right angles represent conscious intelligence. Some people think the sleek, black monolith is a Von Neumann probe. Maybe. Without doubt, the monolith is a visual metaphor for an extraterrestrial intelligence whose physical form is never shown. Mystery is more profound than explanation.

\"2001 ... \" is unique among films in content and scope. The cinematography is out-of-this-world, the special and visual effects are breathtaking, and the classical music is sublime. I rarely use the word \"masterpiece\" to describe a movie. But Stanley Kubrick's \"2001: A Space Odyssey\" is art in the highest sense, like Leonardo da Vinci's \"Mona Lisa\", or Vincent Van Gogh's \"The Starry Night\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"200l: A Space Odyssey\" is a supremely intriguing space-travel journey with a profound look at mankind's future... It is one of the very few great films of our times... It gives us something to think, talk and argue... It wonders about our importance in the universe and ignites our imagination and curiosity... It inspires us to dig for insights...

As a science fiction fantasy, it is one of the most original films ever made... Kubrick's camera dances to the \"Blue Danube\" with planets floating exuberantly through the light years... It's an experience in the poetry of motion, a rich statement to the power of cinema...

But \"2001\" reveals that it's not really a science fiction film after all... It's, instead, a philosophical enigma, a magnificent meditation on man's place in the grand scheme of things, and a quest to understand ourselves by knowing all else...

\"2001\" is a unique film about man's evolution told in almost subliminal terms... The people in this classic science-fiction epic hardly matter... Kubrick relates a chronology in images of things\u0097the mountains, the desert, the technology, the space capsule, the computer named HAL (who is more interesting than the humans), and the time warp... The final landing scene is the very hallmark of cinematic genius...

As a terror story, too, it is a towering achievement (not on the same scream-inducing level as Hitchcock's \"Psycho\"), but in an innocent and far more haunting way...The film uses invisible but powerful forces to manipulate the plot but perhaps the most overwhelming one is the picture's vision of man... In Kubrick's fantasy, the Golden Age of man was a neglected instant between a man-ape's exaltation at discovering the first weapon and a nuclear-powered spaceship floating in a graceful orbit around the Earth... Man has indeed evolved!

As a spectacle \"2001\" assaults the mind, eye and ear, with stimulating images and suggestions... We are surrounded by a totally believable futuristic environment... The film is filled with brilliant sequences and extraordinary moments: The first interesting minutes in which the story of the apes is told visually, without a single line of dialog; the zero-gravity toilet with its great list of instructions; the stewardess defying gravity by walking the walls calmly upside down; the frightening moment when we realize that HAL is reading the astronauts lips; the magical alignments of Sun, Moon, and Earth; the \"Starchild\" returning home to charm the orb...

\"2001\" is filled with poetic imagery: the view of the Sun rising over the Earth; the tossing of the bone into the air in slow motion; the slow images of the giant spaceship revolving in a cosmic ballet...

\"2001\" is also a work of great visual acuity... It allows us to view more than the mystery of existence and destiny implicit in every man... Its end troubles many viewers as they demand clarity where there can only be mystery... They insist upon an answer where there can only be a question... Every viewer had a different explanation of the mysterious end of Kubrick's film\u0085 But for those who can accept mysticism, the climax is deeply moving...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like a Circle around the human condition, 2001 starts at the beginning, skips the middle, and proceeds to the ending, right back where we started. Noting the weakness of words compared to image(s), Kubrick wisely dispenses with dialogue, preferring the power and essence of the scenery, and allowing the intelligence of the audience to do the deciphering. Or not, depending on the audience.

A monolith in cinematic history, 2001 is a high water mark of direction, execution, and achievement. If one considers the ambition of the film (a film about everything), and the measure of success the film achieved to that end, a very sound argument for this being the greatest of all films can be made.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm always surprised, given that the famous title track of 2001 is called \"Also sprach Zarathustra\", that nobody (nobody I've read, anyway) has noted the parallels between the movie and Nietzsche's famous work, \"Also sprach Zarathustra\". The idea of man's rebirth into a star child; an infant form of an indescribably more advanced being, is an explicit part of N.'s \"Zarathustra\"; there is a prominent passage called \"On how a camel becomes a lion, and a lion becomes a child\", in which N. describes the first incarnation of the overman as a child, transcending both the ascetic, altruistic side of man (the camel; always asking to bear more weight) and the rapacious, brutish, will-to-power side of man (the lion). The fact that the song plays during the star child sequence can hardly be coincidence. And also, Zarathustra said that \"man is a rope tied between beasts and the overman.\" The structure of the movie fits that description: a brief history of man as beast, until we become truly man by mastering weapons and acquiring reason, then a long sequence about man (the rope, as it were), and then a brief glimpse of the overman. The inscrutability of how these transformations occurred, and the suggestion that an external force caused them, is also Nietzschean; in \"Zarathustra\", he makes it pretty clear that he doesn't have a clue how people are going to be able to enact these changes themselves and suggests that we will have to depend on an outsider (Zarathustra) to show us how to \"go under\". Bowman's psychedelic sequence at the near-end could be seen as Kubrick's best 1960's-style attempt at depicting the mystical \"going under\".

I know these parallels are pretty broad, and almost certainly have been noted elsewhere despite the fact that I have not personally seen it. But I just wanted to mention them, if for no other reason than to try to dispel the myth that Nietzsche was ultimately a gloomy philosopher. Few people find the ending of 2001 to be gloomy, and it is in my opinion, explicitly and unmistakeably Nietzschean. The case could certainly be made that 2001 is above all a dramatization of \"Zarathustra\" updated for the modern age. Feel free to disregard the outright snobbishness of my tying everything to Nietzsche.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is not just good, its amazing. Besides providing us with good performances, original plot, fantastic special effects, thoughtful messages and a lot more, it was an, until then, completely unseen world to the public. This is the first sci-fi movie that takes us out into the unknown space of our galaxy with such splendid effects and mind bursting reality that the audience is left without words. I am only 16 years old, and therefore I was raised into a world of modern effects and 3D animations in the movies. But nonetheless I was really, and I mean completely, blown away by the quality of these effects, even after almost 40 years. The visual effects was just one of the merits of this movie, the camera was in true Kubrick style amazing and enchanting. It feels like you are consumed by the screen and sucked into this surreal world (especially in the round control room or whatever you call it). The effects, the camera and the sheer size of this movie caught me of my guards even though I had seen the rating before I bought it. But this movie has more to it than this. The meaning of this movie can also be interpreted as you wish yourself, even though I think there are some clear points concerning humanity (also true Kubrick style). How humanity on top of its evolution is just maintenance on board, and therefore not needed by the computer, one of humanities tools. How we in space appear like babies, learning to walk once more, losing control of our tools in zero-gravity, breathing through equipment as fish out of water. On the peak of evolution, we set out into the never-ending adventure as simple primates. Many might think that the length and slow pace of this movie is, boring? ridicules? or just a waste of time. But before you can jump to those conclusions, think about why Kubrick spends time with calm music and a spaceship in the middle of space for several minutes. This is to illustrate the beauty of it. Beauty, beauty is in many cases not granted the rightful respect by viewers. Kubrick wants to show us beauty, and if we do not succumb to it and relax, we can not enjoy this film as it was intended. This is not an ordinary movie, we can not just sit and watch as we can with some other movies, this requires time, thoughts and above all commitment and feelings to watch. All of this together, makes this one of the greatest achievements in the world of moving pictures. 10\/10 Let me know if you agree with me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spoilers ahead.

2001: a Space Odyssey is without a doubt the most challenging and successful film by the late Stanley Kubrick. This is not a film that you watch in order to be entertained or amused. Instead it provides you with a banquet of food for thought, images that linger in the mind's eye long after the movie itself is over. It is a film that you could meditate on.

The film intentionally offers us more questions then it can answer, it is made to puzzle and mystify, but leaves the viewer nevertheless with a sense of awe and reverence (that is allowing that he has engaged himself in the process of viewing it, enjoyment of this film requires some effort on the viewers part) the questions that it does pose are large and ominous, concerning the genesis and destiny of the human race, it's ultimate place in the cosmic design and the existence or lack of some creative intelligence behind the structure of the universe itself.

The first of the films Four Quartets gives us a distinct view of the species past. We see our distant ancestors, half-ape half human, in a state of near starvation. The climate has destroyed most of the plant life and the vegetarian beasts are near starvation. An extra-terestial object, a perfectly smooth and angular black monolith, appears and the animals are simultaneously inspired by it's presence to tool-making and violence. They are transformed overnight into carnevores, and when two tribes encounter each other near a water source, the tribe that has developed tool making capacity, as well as beligerence, soundly destroys the neighboring tribe. The new chief of the winning tribe, empowered by the first vestiges of technology triumphantly throws the bone that he used as a weapon in the air. We see the bone transformed into a floating satellite, which contains nuclear weapons. We soon learn that the world is torn apart by nuclear paranoia. The characteristics inspired by the monument's appearance that once helped us to survive now threaten our very existence.

Once again humanity is in crisis, once again the unearthly presence represented by the black monolith will step in to aid humanity in the next step in it's development. On an exploration of the Moon a monolith identical to the earlier one we have seen is discovered. The governments of the world, normally mortal enemies, have come together in secret to discuss the implications. A mission is arranged. the monument has been engaged in some kind of radio communication with Jupiter. A few men will travel to the destination of the transmission. Most of them will, for most of the time, be kept in a state of suspended animation. The pilot of the spacecraft will be HAL a super computer who has been programmed to imitate all of the traits of human beings.

The film has many outstanding sequences. As usual for Kubrick the use of classical music is outstanding. Most memorable are \"Blue Danube\" and \"Also Spake Zarathustra\" (particularly appropriate given the film's theme of transcending ordinary consciousness.) The cinematography is particularly excellent as well, after a single viewing the film's final 30 minutes will haunt you for the rest of your life.

The character of HAL is the most important from the view of the film's central thesis. In imitating all the characteristics of human beings he comes to have their negative traits as well. The paranoia he develops which almost leads to the mission' s ruin is an exact mirror of the paranoia that has allowed the political situation back on earth to reach a point of desperate crisis. The film suggests that these are the traits that we must leave behind if we are to proceed to the next phase in our evolution.

The architecture of the film is also meaningful. The designs of many of the spacecraft are intended to suggest reproductive organs and the process of birth and rebirth, the central motif of the movie. The ending of 2001 is the most spectacular and triumphant ever filmed.

This movie takes a view of life similar to that presented in the poetry of William Butler Yeats and James Joyce's novel Finnegan's Wake. It posits a pattern to history and human evolution that is cyclic, yet progressive, repeating the same events at large intervals, yet with the human race as developing according to the will of a being with a larger purpose in mind. Though we never learn what this purpose is, the film assures us that the human race is not meant for failure, it's destiny is grand beyond it's capacity to imagine. It continues to amaze me that in spite of this film many people continue to regard Kubrick as a misanthrope.

This is a religious film, not in the conventional sense of adhering to any specific creed, but because of it's invocation of wonder at the vast panorama of existence and it's involvement with the deepest and most vital questions of purpose and truth.

In the hands of any other director, this would all be perhaps a little too much. Hollywood's view of life is too puny, usually to encompass the grandeur and intensity of a vision such as this one. But Kubrick was a visionary, he directs with utter confidence, not only that he can handle material of this kind, but that he is the only one to do it. The process of making this film used all of his creative resources. The writing partnership with Arthur C Clarke is the most fruitful in cinematic history. Kubrick had to invent some of the special effects that were used in the movie's astounding climax. The resources to bring his vision to life did not exist at the time, so he brought them into existence.

2001 is a absolutely unique movie experience. Those who miss out on it do so at the detriment of their own intellectual and imaginative capacities.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"2001: A Space Odyssey

Is it a sermon? An account of the history of mankind? An exploration of man's futile attempts to advance technology only to have technology destroy him? Is it about the fragile balance of time and space? A lesson in evolution? Or is it just a spectacular effects show; a film Kubrick made only to show us the limitless possibilities of the motion picture and present to us the truth that images are exceedingly more powerful than words?

2001: A Space Odyssey is all of these things. One of the most interpretable films ever created, it's almost more fun to dissect and discuss the ambiguous plot design and events of the film, than it is to actually watch. But it's left open to discussion intentionally; if Kubrick had explained the meaning to his wondrous 1968 classic (ranked #22 on AFI's list of the greatest 100 films ever made, my personal 21st favorite film\u0097currently--, and nominated for 4 Academy Awards: Director, Original Screenplay, Art Direction, and Visual Effects which it won for) it would have lost half its fascination, all of its complexity, and a good portion of its cinematic worth. We would only be left with the technical ingenuity; which in itself is worth praising.

Because every shot is worth taking the time to look. And there is plenty of time. 2001 is very elegiac, and also coolly distant; detached. The emotional remoteness and slow pace pay perfect tribute however to the unique visual experience; 2001 begins with mankind's ape ancestors, who upgrade from scavengers of the planet to hunters and toolmakers after discovering a giant monolith in the midst of their desert home, then (in one of motion picture history's most inspired jump-cut edits) as a bone is tossed into the air and becomes a satellite, jumping forward a couple thousand years into space, where astronauts have discovered a similar object on the moon, and next the film following a crew of space traveler's mission as they follow the monolith's signal through space, accompanied by their untrustworthy computer HAL, who attempts to sabotage the shuttle and kill the crew, before finally the lone survivor is launched through space and time (in a flurry of drug-induced colors that probably gave hippies an epileptic shock back in the day) to grow old, die, and be reborn a \"Star-child\". Whew.

This pacing and emotional blankness, is also in sharp contrast with the film's most ironic scene; the destruction of HAL. As the crew's final explorer shuts the machine down, bathed in the holy aura of red light Kubrick has always used as a repeat motif, HAL singing a lovely tune, it is a strangely emotional experience. And it's all genius.

Other notable aspects of Kubrick's masterpiece is the memorable voice of HAL (a calm, somehow sinister, Douglas Rain), the minimal use of dialogue (Kubrick was wisely trusting of his images to propel the film; giving only banal, unhelpful lines to his actors. The most famous being \"Open the pod bay doors HAL\"), satellites dancing around in orbit to unorthodox music, and that first, awe-inspiring shot of earth; slowly revealing the glare of the sun in front of it, played to the sound of blasting, triumphant horns.

2001 shall always remain a mystery, and will forever be a testament to the cinema's strongest point: visuals are more powerful than writing. It's all from one of film history's most legendary and best directors, whose unique vision, was always his own. 10\/10

\"Open the pod bay doors HAL\"-2001: A Space Odyssey","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"2001: A Space Odyssey\" is set in 2001 and the main character is HAL. A computer. That's right, a computer who talks and thinks entirely on its own. This was made in 1968 and to think by 2001 it would be conceivable that computers would talk is a joke. If this was in 3064, a talking computer that had emotions and made its own decisions would be considered just as moronic as this. There is nothing in this film that provokes any kind of emotion. It provokes two reactions and one is called: sleep. It starts with nothing, but a pitch black shot for well over two minutes. Then, the first shot we see that has some kind of lighting is \"The Dawn of Man\" sequence. So, if it's in chronological order, the blackness prior to this, is the birth of the world?

During \"The Dawn of Man\" sequence out of no where, a huge monolith comes from\u0085 out of the ground, from the sky, we'll never know where it comes from, but for one reason or another it's there. The monkeys go Apesh!t once they find this monolith that only man could have made, but that's the catch\u0085 man hasn't evolved yet. So, who made it and where did it come from? What is its purpose? The monkeys find a tool. The monkeys use bones to fight an opposing group of monkeys. The monkeys with the weapons are now the dominating group because they have used their mind to gain an advantage. The more advanced monkeys, and more importantly smarter and more innovative monkeys, are the dominate group as they have taken over the watering hole.

We quickly jump into space, millions of years later, where we see a bunch of spaceships floating around to classical music. We can see the earth, the moon, the sun, the universe and for a film made in 1968 the visual effects are stunning, but outdated. The score is legendary. The cinematography is spectacular. The editing is atrocious. There are countless shots of boxy looking space ships floating in outer space for, what feels like, an infinite amount of time. Once we board the ship there isn't much to talk about. For the next hour Kubrick shows various shots of life in outer space. Kubrick shows us the life of an astronaut, which is very boring, and we completely get the message. The spaceships interior and exterior are bulky and outdated looking. Remember what the first cell phone looked like? Me neither, but that's what the future looks like in 2001. All the characters have clothes and hairdos that resemble 1968. The chairs are decorated in bright red colors and oddly shaped because we all know, in the future, we're going to be sitting in weird looking chairs. The computer screens are hideous looking and this is obviously prior to HDTV because the clarity is atrocious. All the TV sets look like they're from 1968, so it's not all that futuristic. Like all films set more than 20 years in advance, they look terrible and unconvincing. Just because this is Kubrick, we shouldn't say, \"Well, that's how you would think it looks.\" No, I wouldn't. Just, like I wouldn't think a computer would be talking to me in the year 2047. It's not going to happen and if someone made a film right now, set 30 years in time and had a talking, self thinking computer, I would laugh at the stupidity of it. Just like I did with \"2001\".

HAL is the liveliest person, shoot\u0085 I just called him a person. HAL is a computer, but he has more life than any of the muted characters in the film and he actually thinks he's alive. HAL is the only thing that's lively and he sees the humans as his maintenance men taking care of him while he does all the work. HAL \"reads\" the lips, of one of the very few conversations between Dave and Frank, and he \"sees\" that they are planning to turn him off. This is where the only dramatic part of the film enters- An ensuing battle between a red light and a guy in a spaceship trying to get into the bigger spaceship. Oh, the drama. Once HAL thinks he has the upper hand, Dave makes his way back into the spaceship, proving mans ingenuity. Dave proceeds to terminate HAL. HAL, pleads for his life as he slowly fades away, which, like everything else, seems to take forever.

The final act is just as tedious as the first two. Once again, the monolith that the Apes found appears at the end. It comes out of nowhere, again. Then, an infant is born in a placenta-like shield overlooking the earth from space. What is Kubrick saying? Is it about transformation? Dave to an infant? Is man evolving again? Is Kubrick saying this is the end of man and the start of\u0085 whatever that alien looking thing is? Maybe I'm going crazy trying figure out what this crazy director is trying to say, but the more I think about the more the beginning and the ending make sense. There are so many questions left unanswered, especially for the purpose of the monolith. If you can make it through the film it should spark some thought.

In the end the film struggles with getting to where it wants go. The first act and the third acts are strong, but the second act meanders around, hovering in one place for what seems like eternity. There is some intriguing stuff in the film that will provoke some thought if you give it a chance. Once the start of the film makes sense the ending works much better, even if you still don't what Kubrick is trying to say, which I don't.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is really no way to compare this motion picture to any other movie because no one has ever made anything like it and no one ever will. And it really should be seen in a theater to be fully appreciated. At the very least it deserves to be seen with a great sound system.

I saw this movie on the day it opened in 1968, my senior year in high school. I went because I like science-fiction and wanted to see a \"space\" movie. Remember this film was made before the first moon landing.

There we sat, waiting for it to begin. But, SURPRISE! There was no cartoon, no coming attractions. The theater owner at the Cooper Theatre for some reason chose to play \"The Star-Spangled Banner\" with the lights still up so we all stood, never did that at a movie before or since and then sat down again as it ended. Then the theatre went completely DARK and the strange overture began with the blank screen barely visible.

The overture ended and my seat began to VIBRATE as the blue screen with the MGM lion appeared, along with the first deep bass notes, and then my senses were overwhelmed, hearing \"Also Sprach Zarathustra\" for the first time in my life. The ride had just begun.

(I highly recommend you watch this opening, this film, in a DARK room with your subwoofer turned up as high as possible to get the effect I felt in that theatre.) Of course, it took quite awhile before we got to outer space and the movie that followed was anything but a science-fiction movie. INTERMISSION came (a good thing, highly under-rated and unused these days) and we all looked at each other in wonder, caught our breath, and then the ride resumed, wilder than before.

I saw it 7 more times within the next year, always in a real full size theater, like all theaters were before multiplexes. I might have been \"high\" once but I didn't go to see it again and again because I was \"tripping\". I went because I knew I was seeing a work of art. It was SO DAMN BEAUTIFUL; the sound that you could feel in your bones followed by terrifying silence; the sights unimagined and unimaginable; the affection for HAL turning to terror. And of, course, WTF was Kubrick really trying to get across to me? Years and years and many more viewings later, I understand it as well, I think, as I ever will. Read someone else's comments if you're looking for someone to explain it to you or search around the web, you'll find \"explanations\", that's not my purpose in writing these comments.

What I hope to do is encourage you to watch it patiently, enjoy it's beauty the way you would enjoy watching a sunset while listening to the most beautiful music you know of (e.g, Gayne Ballet Suite or the Blue Danube); savor it like you would a wonderful meal, sip it like a fine wine; look and listen for the clues and the hidden symbols that ARE there. And then draw your own conclusions. Stanley Kubrick WANTED to SHARE some things with you that he found beautiful and he wanted you to think about where you. a human, came from and where you're headed.

If that's too much work for your brain, and you can't see and hear and ponder the beauty and mystery of Kubrick's film, then, pardon my bluntness, but your life is about as meaningful as that of a tapir or a pre-monolith ape. If you want mindless escape, this isn't for you.

But if you like sunsets, thunderstorms, harmonies in music, mysteries, and sensuality and can have an open mind this film will add something to your life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A film, first and foremost, should be good storytelling. It should be entertaining - and entertaining doesn't necessarily mean \"laughs\", and it doesn't necessarily mean \"light\". It basically means you're not bored while watching it.

As brilliant as 2001 may be, it is a difficult film to watch, especially for the current (video-game-playing\/iPod fumbling) generation. Its slow pace and the sometimes intolerable amount of time it takes for an actor to perform a single action (e.g. the attempt to rescue the crew member floating in space) will stretch your patience. On the other hand, the cinematography is brilliant, the film cleverly directed, the ending thought-provoking and the score...the score is chilling, especially as the crew in the transporter approaches the artifact on the moon. Boy, I had goose bumps, big time. This doesn't happen often when I watch films, and is a testament to Kubrick's directing skills.

It IS considered a classic, and many people consider it the best science-fiction film of all time. That alone is a good reason to watch it if you haven't done so yet. However, just because everybody else thinks it's a brilliant film doesn't mean you have to force yourself to like it. You either will (like it) or you won't. Perhaps the slow pace isn't such a bad thing, after all. Directing your attention to something rather static and slow-paced for 2 1\/2 hours might teach you a lesson. It will certainly be a different experience to all these fast-moving, fast-paced images we are subjected to these days (whether commercials, music videos or video games).

I myself think it's a \"memorable\" film. But not one I'm eager to watch again anytime soon (unless I'm in a particular mood for slow-paced films).

Hence, 7 stars out of 10 from me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not only unique for its time but one of the greatest Science fiction films of all time. Made without CGI on a very lean budget in today's adjusted figures. Stanley Kubrick made this film without the high shooting ratio he normally has. Stanley Kubrick is without doubt the greatest director in History thus far.

This film was cut from five hours to two hours and twenty minutes and the art direction was superb.

Stanley Kubrick and the great Aurthur C. Clarke collaborated to write this time less classic.

Aliens a special message on Earth at the dawn of Human Kind and one on the Moon which modern man finds .

Finally Humans accompanied by the most advanced computer ever made set of to Jupiter the find the next monumental message which turns out to be a gateway.

Any one who studied film and\/or wishes to be a part of the film industry or just enjoy great films must experience this film .

If you don't like it then you belong to Bollywood or your a true Aussie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a big fan of Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork Orange there was of course \"no question about it\" that I had to see this one. However I put it off far too long because some of my friends discarded it with comments like \"extremely boring\" or \"nothing happened\" \"a complete waste of time\". But when I saw images on the internet of the mysterious black monolith I was allowed to see a glimpse of the exquisite experience that is 2001: A Space Odyssey. There was no doubt in my mind that I was going to rent that movie the same evening.

It turned out to be the greatest visual experience of my life. Of course, watching a very good painting or picture can be wonderful, but watching a movie constructed with the same kind of virtuosity in every frame adds a whole new dimension to it. My god... I like my friends a lot but it's a pity that I can't share with them the very thing that makes my heart jump up with excitement and makes my spirit fly like a bird in the sky. That thing, my friends, is beauty. As this film goes to show, beauty is terribly underrated in our technologically advanced, intellectually shallow, consumer driven fast-food western societies. That doesn't mean however that I reject these fast-paced societies or that I look down on them (and neither does Kubrick) but only that they can be so much more if only people would stop for a moment and take a little time to absorb the sheer beauty of the world we live in. And what better opportunity is there to do this then by slowing down to the elegant pace of this film and to let yourself be taken to that place between waking and dreaming.

When we go to this place it is possible to get a so called \"natural high\". It is something that our spirit can do whenever we meet pure and boundless beauty. And never in my life has this \"natural high\" or \"spiritual orgasm\" as it is called by some or \"samaddhi\" by others been more intense. Yes it's more intense than a regular orgasm... several times more intense actually. Many religions have claimed that this particular feeling proves that they are right. Are they right? For me a straight answer to such a question would only detract from the impenetrable mesmerizing mystery of the universe. In my opinion the film tries to convey the same mystery through the depiction of the black monolith and by stating the following about it: \"Except for a single very powerful radio emission aimed at Jupiter the four-million year old black monolith has remained completely inert. Its origin and purpose are still a total mystery.\" The trance that Bowman experiences is the same thing I experience when watching those gorgeous visuals.

I can imagine that mystery can be frustrating for those who need straight fast-food answers to big ontological questions. But instead of giving us comfort we are constantly irritated by the awareness of the simplifications that are contained in these answers. The doubt and discomfort that is subsequently caused will make us point to our deeper intellectual activity as the source of all this trouble, while in fact we only have our easy answers to blame. But this film shows us that when fast ontological statements give rise to nothing but doubt, we can always rely on phenomena to make some sense out of the world. From the moment you realize that beauty is something that can only really be presented to us as a phenomenon and never as a \"thing in itself\" the mysterious black monolith is no longer disturbing, frightening or irritating but instead becomes fascinating, enchanting and maybe even comforting. We don't need an answer to what's really out there to be in touch with one of the greatest forces in our lives. When we are able to let mystery be what it is, to embrace it even... we can finally bring our souls to rest. I am pretty sure though that a film that contains so much beauty and so much philosophical and artistic depth can never really be surpassed. Especially now that the greatest director who ever lived is no longer with us.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dear Readers, 2001: A Space Odyssey is Kubrick at his best...although I really can't say that as Space Odyssey is his only film I've ever watched. But still, it's a good film. Strange, but good.

The movie is in three acts, much like the novel...which is unsurprising since the author wrote the screenplay. Anyhow, we first start out with the simple yet spectacular opening with Also Sparach Zarathustra blaring on the speakers. Then comes the boring beyond belief 'Dawn of Man' sequence. Then there's the odd 'Finding of the Monolith' sequence on the Moon, played to Strauss's Blue Danube. Finally things get good with the Spaceship scenes and HAL going berserk and killing people. After that things die down and we have the 'Entering the Monolith' sequence which was WAY too long and the ultra-strange ending. Even though, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a good film. It's not Star Wars, Stargate, Terminator, or The Abyss, but it rocks. My compliments to the chef, Mr. Kubrick.

Signed, The Constant DVD Collector","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This move is absolutely, most certainly one of the greatest films of its, or any other, genre. Kubrick is not only one of the greatest directors of all time, but his entire filmography should be put into a time capsule and can never be forgotten. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a journey unlike anything I have ever seen on the screen. Kubrick is one of the few directors that can draw you in and keep you captivated from beginning to end, even with the absence of extended dialogue or plot development. Just with visuals along, 2001 is able to present a picture of the future that is both sublime and horrifying. 10 out of 10, no doubt. For my money, it doesn't get much better than 2001: A Space Oddysey....now, the sequel, 2010...that's a different story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"it starts off with a view of earth and jupiter aligned.

where do we come from, and where we are headed.

the story starts with \"the dawn of Man\", a documentary-like view of the Pre-historic grass-eater ape that was facing its extinction due to no physical ability that would let him hunt to eat, and the lack of grass and water in the austral Africa. the monkeys hadn't survived if it wasn't for the \"god-like\" intervention of an alien artifact, that somehow transformed the apes that touched it, and gave them the ability to use tools, that were first used as weapons that allowed them to kill pigs to eat for super and to kill other monkeys in fights for water. that ape was Man. an enigmatic start for an enigmatic film.

after the fast-forward that leaves the movie at the present days, we see a magnificent dance of spaceships at the sound of Strauss. The rest of the movie is about how tools got control of Man. the strange artifact appears once again to evolve Man to his final stage: the starchild.

at 1968, the year this movie was released, only astronauts had idea of what was out there in space. after this movie, that changed. it's futurism took 7 years to be explored. the special effects are incredible. they are completely realistic, even today.

the directing, along with excellent taste in music, good acting, and the fantastic filmography, makes it an epic.

the plot, with its vision of the year 2001 and the evolution of man tools, with an AI psycokiller, with the psycotropical hypnotising end, makes it the trip our lives.

if you have never seen this movie, see it. don't be scared with the lack of dialog, sit back and enjoy. it's a symphony of evolution. it's terrific.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1968, Stanley Kubrick made this historic film masterpiece base on a book written by Arthur C. Clark. It was such an early effort to make a science fiction movie combined with scientific facts. His style of movie making is still fresh and intact.

I have seen this movie more that half a dozen times and I even have a VHS copy of the movie in my library. CS3 class made me to see the movie again with another perspective: Who is HAL and what is he thinking?

I enjoyed watching the movie again and tried to focus of HAL's dialogues throughout the second episode of the movie. In the second scene, Dr. Dave Bowman and Dr. Frank Poole are eating their food in front of two TV monitor on their sides and HAL's round reddish glass dome is in the middle of them. In the TV report, HAL was introduced as the new generation of super computer put in work in January 12, 1992 called HAL 9000 Series. During the interview HAL reacts as a humble working machine trying to accomplish the mission of the spaceship fully.

In another scene, Dave is sketching Dr. Hunter, Dr. Kambel and Dr. Kaminsky who they are all in Hibernation sleep. HAL is curious to see those sketches and brings up his doubtful question about the purpose of the Jupiter mission. His calm and monotone voice makes the audience listen to him more carefully.

In the next few scenes we will see how HAL tries to kill astronauts one by one and takes the power. His conscious makes him capable to try to save his life from termination. When Dave wants to return to the spaceship and HAL does not listen to him, there is the most memorable line of the move: ' I'm sorry Dave, I am afraid I can't do that. ' In the middle of the most important interact between human and machine, HAL's voice can conjure both solid calm and malevolence in the same monotone.

Dave has gone back to the ship, lost all his fellow astronauts, and determined to disconnect the HAL's main brain cells. HAL uses his final apologetic techniques to convince Dave of not disconnecting him. HAL begs him to stop and let him correct himself. These are his famous lines while Dave is disconnecting his modules one by one:

'Dave, what do you think you are doing?

Dave? I am entitled to the answer of the question!

I know everything is not quiet right with me recently\u0085

But I feel much better know\u0085

I can see are really upset about this very poor decision of mine recently\u0085

Dave, stop! Will you?

Dave, stop!

I am afraid Dave!'

HAL's voice is slowing down during this process and becomes thicker and less audible:

'my mind is going\u0085 I can feel it'

'Can I sing a song for you?'

Dave is putting final modules out and let HAL to sing his song called 'Daisy':

'Daisy give me\u0085

your answer to me\u0085

I am crazy\u0085

Although I am not confused\u0085'

HAL dies as the Jupiter Mission continues\u0085

Artificial God bless you HAL, store in peace!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was such a great film. It was done with such beautiful design, such symmetry. I love the way the classical music tied in with the classical art of earth, space and beyond. It was such a fluent, and thought provoking masterpiece. I loved the way the monoliths never changed, although primate, earth and space did. I loved how it was a question of \"Do you need me\/us now\"? The movie expressed desire, peace, love, curiosity, finesse, gentleness, courage and innocence. What more could you ask for from a mere movie? Perhaps a complement movie. Any appreciator of 2001: A Space Odyssey will find the movie 2010 is 2001's complement movie. 2010 is more story orientated than 2001.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No one can argue with it. This IS and WILL BE the best movie ever, as it is the perfect definition of what any movie should be : a collective hypnosis beyond times. No movie can give you more perfectly this impression that you carried it inside you, even before you saw it for the first time.

There are images that stay forever...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Straight up, I love this film. I love everything about it. It has a great soundtrack, it has a lot of recognizable faces and it is funny as hell. There are so many plots in this film and every one of them is funny in one way or another.

Where as Spicolli lit up the screen two years back, Drake is almost as memorable of a character. All he wants to do is have fun. He moves out of the house without his parent's consent, he skips work whenever he feels like it, he is obsessed with sex, he loves his drugs and booze and he tries to be a good friend. It is his lacksidaisical attitude that makes him such a joy to watch. And he comes out with some great lines. And there are so many tiny observations that you don't see coming but they make you laugh at the sheer velocity when it hits you. One particular moment is when Tommy and Bill are talking about Bill's ex girlfriend dating someone else now. At the end of the conversation, Tommy takes his huge beer bottle and just throws it over his shoulder, casually. He then says good night and the scene ends. It is a perfect scene. Tommy's world is his own. He really lives to party and have fun. When the conversation is over, his time is over and he doesn't care who he offends in the process. He has an innocence about him. \"It's casual\" is his favourite saying.

Another such classic scene is Reggie handing Bill a donut. He says something to him that me and my friends will never forget because we rewound the film ten times and watched that part over and over again and hurt ourselves laughing. It has to be seen to be appreciated.

Wild Life is a throw back to when teen comedies were funny, raunchy, had a good ear, entertained us and just wanted us to get lost in their world for 90 minutes. Wild Life does all those things perfectly. If this is a film that you haven't seen, give it a chance. It is a classic.

Also check out the army store guy that Jim has problems with. He is a very familiar face now and it is his first role on the big screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are a lot of people that put down on these type 80's movies but those people may not have been coming of age during this time. I was just starting college when this movie was released so I could really appreciate it at the time and my friends and I still, to this day, will occasionally joke about certain lines in the movie. As much as I liked Sean Penn's Character Jeff Spicoli in \"Fast Times\", I actually enjoy Chris Penn's Character \"Tommy\" more because he is the lead character with more of a actual speaking roll opposed to just a series of one liners such as with Spicoli. Chris Penn should probably pop this film in his VCR and use it for motivation to lose some weight. Yes, the subplot with the Randy Quaid, Vietnam vet character does seem a little out of place, but he does a convincing job in the role. If there is anyone out there that hasn't seen this movie but liked the other similar type movies such as \"Fast Times\", etc. I highly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While I hold its predecessor, \"Fast Times At Ridgemont High,\" as a standard to which other teen comedies should be compared, \"The Wild Life\" is one of the better lesser known films from that time-and a worthy sequel, if you can call it that. I believe its tagline reads, \"From the makers of FTARH, something even faster.\" This definitely holds true. Though it may lack the depth of the former which tackles issues like first dates, teen sex, and abortions, \"The Wild Life\" is, nonetheless, a great flick. It's pure chaotic fun, especially due to Chris Penn's over-the-top character, Thomas Drake. If Spicolli was high on coke instead of weed, he would be Drake. Eric Stoltz, in his first major role, is great as the straight-laced Bill Conrad. The two characters work well off one another. Think a younger, hipper Odd Couple, complete with 80's gloss. Outside of them there are so many other great things about this film worth mentioning. Lea Thompsom has never looked cuter, especially during the scenes of her working at the donut shop. Jenny Wright is just delectable and fun to watch. Rick Moranis plays a great nerd\/perv who is dying to get in her pants. Thomas Drake's wrestler buddies are hysterical, especially Benny, the little Puerto Rican guy, who says some pretty memorable lines. One in particular that he yells out during a night out at a strip club had me on the floor the first time I saw it. That's saying something! Finally, the movie ends with one of the best 80's party scenes on film, ever. Look out for special appearances by Ron Wood of the Rolling Stones, Leo Penn (Sean and Chris Penn's dad), and a random Michael Jackson look-alike at the party. Throw in a score by none other than the man himself, Eddie Van Halen, and you can't go wrong. For Van Hagar fans, keep your ears open for riffs that would be found on such albums as 5150, OU812, and For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.

If anything disrupts the flow of the movie it is a small subplot involving Randy Quaid as a burned out Vietnam vet. It just seems out of place and unnecessary. Other than that, it's near perfect. If your a fan of mindless but fun 80's movies and have not yet seen this one, you're in for something special. RENT IT NOW!!!

p.s.-The credits say Cameron Crowe has a cameo as one of the cops in the film. Does he have his back turned during his scene because I have yet to find him. Someone please help me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great party movie, following the adventures of Bill & Tom, two high school buddies at opposite ends of the spectrum. Bill (Eric Stolz) prefers to live life straight-laced, while his friend Tom (Chris Penn) takes nothing seriously except partying all the time. When Bill moves out of his mother's house to live on his own he faces many issues, from his girlfriend, to his brother, to his landlord. Meanwhile, his friend Tom moves in to keep the rent down but proceeds to turn Bill's life upside down. This movie is non-stop comedy from start to finish and is a personal favorite of mine. Soundtrack features guitar virtioso Edward Van Halen throughout the movie, also features cameos by rockers Lee Ving and Ron Wood. 70s Pornstar legend Kitten Navidad also makes an appearance! Classic 80s movie is worth multiple looks. Now all that needs to be done is a much anticipated DVD release! If you enjoyed this movie, take a look at \"The Last American Virgin\" which is similar to \"Wild Life\". I rate both highly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fast Times it ain't. But check this movie out, it has a heart. Pour yourself a drink and enjoy. It's loaded with a slew of just-beginning stars. Sherilyn Fenn has her first on-screen credited cameo. Chris Penn, Lea Thompson, Eric Stotz, Jenny Wright, Rick Moranis, etc.--they all look so young. Oh and if you look closely the cop's wife is Nancy Wilson from the rock band Heart.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"_The Wild Life_ has an obvious resemblance to _Fast Times At Ridgemont High_, and _The Wild Life_ comes up short.

------------

Some other stan wrote the above comment. Of course The Wild Life is no Ridgemont. Ridgemont is the quintessential 80s flica. However, the Wild Life is enjoyable if you're not whiny about mindless movies being mindless movies (especially when you know it's supposed to be a mindless movie in the first place). The little Latino from Scarface is in this movie and he's straight disrespectful (\"I got Visa...Masterrrrr Charrrrge!!\") The Colonel also makes an appearance (\"Lawsuit...\"). RIP The Colonel 1931-1997.

This movie is no worse than a 6 in comparison to other genres, btw. It is no worse than a 7 in terms of other 80s teen comedies at that. It does very much have the feel of a Cameron Crowe movie. Only staniels gave it a 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was really funny. The people that were expecting to see an Oscar worthy comedy, should get over themselves. This was a fun movie to see with interesting and funny characters, plot lines, dialog quotes and catch phrases. I rate a movie a 10 if I have bought the DVD, or in this case, the videotape, and have watched it many times, and in this case, still laugh out loud. I have about 12 movies in my collection with a rating of 10 and about half don't have anything do do with the Oscars. Again, this was just a fun, light-hearted movie. I hope this comes out on DVD. I highly suggest checking this movie out, if you are in the mood for a wacky comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At the time of this writing (January 25, 2006), I am saddened to hear of the passing within the past few hours of Chris Penn. Other than Footloose, The Wild Life is the film that I remember Chris most from.

I still remember in the film, with slight fondness, of Chris' wrestling character and teammates sitting in their favourite restaurant with a huge plate of french fries in front of them, drowned in an entire bottle of ketchup.

Anyhow, my comment is in regards to the title track sung by Bananarama. After these many years, I still remember the rumour (Canadian spelling -- lol) that Bananarama was called in at the very VERY LAST moment to compose the track for the film and that they wrote the song on the plane bound to the recording studio to record the song and just after they recorded the song they went to shoot the low cost video for their title track. I heard that this entire process (from start to finish) took 4 hours to do! If this is true, then they truly are worthy of being the most successful female band of all time.

Anyhow this is just a rumour I had heard back in the day and still remember a generation later. Perhaps anyone who reads this can comment and clarify. Thanks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is such a fine example of the greatness that is 80's entertainment. Oh don't get me wrong, most of the music back then sucked. I only ever liked the metal bands from the 80s. Bands that had some balls. Forget that whiny keyboard crap and all that 'life is horrible and I want to die' garbage. But the movies from the 80's are the best. They were all about nonsense and just having a good time. This movie exemplifies that! Party! Get naked! Get laid! WOOOOOOHOOOOO!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chris Penn is hilarious as the all-time stoner brother of Jeff spicoli. This movie is great because it was a lot more real and funnier than fast times at ridgemont high. Casting was perfect and one of my favorite soundtracks of almost all Eddie van halen which went on to become songs on ou812 and unlawful carnal knowledge. This movie is one of the great stoner film heroes with cheech and chong. Fast times was more depressing than funny. Abortions, friends cheating on friends, jerking off in bathrooms, bad jobs, and failing school. Someone must hate the eighties to like ridgemont more than the wild life. The film even had great cameos like the maker of city limits Michelle schocked in the liquor store or Ben Stein in his first role in the sunny's surplus store.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For some reason, some shows just fail...some deservedly, some not... Buddy Faro was a clever show with interesting characters and dark humor that was enjoyable to watch...Maybe it was never intended to be a big hit, but it had a \"quirkiness\" about it that made it enjoyable... that being said it appears I may have been the only one watching....Dennis Farina and Frank Whaley were casted perfectly in their respective roles...production quality and writing were great and Vegas was the perfect backdrop... hopefully the first and only season will be released on DVD as I believe it deserves some notoriety... maybe at least make it on TV Land.... cheers","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with all aforementioned comments. This show was a delight to watch. Funny, witty, terrific acting and zany sets. It's always a thrill to find a show that is smartly written, assumes the audience has brains and displays subtle humor. I would spend good, hard-earned cash money to see it again on DVD. And as long as we're requesting Smart Series That Never Got a Chance...How about DVD releases of Maximum Bob (another well written, odd duck show with a delightful cast of characters.) And add to the list...Middle Ages or Frank's Place. There has to a way to release these shows out of the vaults and into the hands of devoted fans and new audiences.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some TV programs continue into embarrassment (my beloved 'X-Files' comes to mind.) I've been a fan of Dennis Farina since 'Crime Story,' another late, lamented show. 'Buddy Faro' never had a chance. The series had a good premise and great actors. It's really, really a shame.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has a twist that caught me off-guard. It made me go over the scenes in my mind to see if there were any clues along the way. Loved the gorgeous Roy Thinnes and Joan Hackett's skillful acting. The beautiful, haunting music stays with me as well as the intriguing story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie at least thirty years ago, and it remains one of my all-time faves! It's a classic - the intriguing plot, great characters, suspense and shocking twist ending (all set against the backdrop of the gorgeous Monterey\/Big Sur coast) never get old. Roy Thinnes portrays Johnny Brant, a captivating character that grows more mysterious as his true identity unfolds. The acting is great and believable; viewers get caught up in the web that develops between the workaholic husband, disenchanted wife and the alluring stranger (Thinnes as Brant). I have searched for a copy to buy for years - I guess TV movies don't get released to video, unfortunately. Great movie, see it if you can find it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Roy Thinnes and Joan Hackett are superb in this 1970 melodrama. The lush settings, the haunting music, and plot twists make it a truly interesting film. I had seen it when it first came out on TV. Once more it aired when I had a VCR, but I did not have a chance to tape it. Would love it on VHS if someone has a copy. Apart from the suspense (which is worked in beautifully) I feel the story is unique, and is pretty much true to the book, MRS. MAITLAND'S AFFAIR by Margaret Lynn. I would say that it was one of the greatly overlooked best films of the 1970's out of movies made for TV. I have given the film a number #10 rating, because it is done with so much originality. There is a true pathos and air of romance which has the viewer sympathizing with the culprit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have Never forgot this movie. All these years and it has remained in my life. I have looked for this movie on so many sites and stores. If anyone ever reads this and has a copy I will pay you for a copy of it or please let me know where I could find one. This is a movie that should be a Classic Romance known as well as my other favorite, Somewhere in Time. It was truly brilliant. If the right actors would remake this film and give it the Patience it needs, to be the Right acting, It could be a block buster.A Love story as powerful as this should be around for all lovers to see. I remember how sad I was at the ending and it really came as a shock. I believe with all my heart that Johnny really loved the woman and she him. This was one terrific movie and it is a shame that it is not available for us to purchase. Please contact me at shawe49@aol.com - I want to give my thanks to a wonderful lady that responded to my message almost a year later. She had a copy of the movie and was so kind to send it to me. She is a great fan of this movie as I am. With her help, there have been 3 happy ladies to receive these DVDs'. She is waiting for the book that it is based on. I am checking with my local library for it, titled 'Mrs Maitlands Affair, by Margarett Lynn. I am sure it is great also. Many thanks to Julie for her graciousness and friendship. I am your friend always,\/ Sharon","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing this movie 34 years ago and it was full of suspense and twists. It grabs you at the beginning and keeps you guessing throughout the whole movie. I have thought about this movie for the past several years and have checked in video stores to see if it's available, but was never able to find it or anyone who had even heard of it. I think this type of movie is timeless, and I know it would be enjoyed by a whole new generation of movie watchers. I hope this gets on video soon as it would be fun to see if it has the same impact on me as it did back in the early 70's.

It's very rare that a TV movie can make that much of an impression, but this was did and still does after so many years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was a 20 year old college student living with the folks when I first saw this, and I've never forgotten it. I'm a huge Joan Hackett fan, and this film was perfect for her remarkable talent. I'm so glad to see that so many other people have such a fond memory of seeing this. Naturally, it's not available on any media! It would be perfect to show on Lifetime, but because of its age, they won't. You never see anything there before the mid-eighties. I can still remember what made me watch it when it was first run: Rex Reed reviewed it in The New York Daily News, and he said that it was like a throwback to the great Hollywood films of the forties, and had it been made then, the Hackett and Grimes parts would have been played by Stanwyck and Crawford. Think about that! P.S. So sad that Joan Hackett left us so tragically young.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has remained in my mind for years as one of the best made-for-TV movie mysteries I've ever seen. The acting is superb. I've seen it twice and still am puzzled at some parts. I'd love to have a copy so I can play certain parts over and over again. I am interested in buying a copy of this movie, but cannot find it anywhere.I am wondering if if anyone has any suggestions how to find it? I've tried e-bay, Amazon.com, Internet searches, and am completely frustrated. I've not seen it on Turner Classic Movies, nor on American Movie Classics and I have even put out fliers in our community asking if anyone has a copy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having seen only once and in the dawn hours, I can't seem to forget this haunting film. A mix of mystery, suspense, and heartbreaking romance it reminds me of Vertigo.The actors, though not that well known are good especially Joan Hackett in one of her best performances.You believe in her, in her love,in her newfound quest for freedom brought by her love, and in the end in her overwhelming pain.The plot is ingenious and compelling and does not stretch credibility. The direction and technical stuff certainly could be better but they do not compromise the overall effect. And it has one message: don't let revenge blind you, you can became its last victim.A real pity it has not been remade, but perhaps it is a period piece better left alone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this episode a lot of times because I didn't get how Prue died. This is what happened. Prue, Piper, and Phoebe try and save their innocent,A Doctor, because Shax wants to kill him. Phoebe goes upstairs to look in The Book Of Shadows while Prue and Piper are protecting their innocent. Shax appears while Phoebe is still upstairs, so Shax throw an energy ball at the doctor but Prue pushes him out of the way and Prue get hit in the chest with it and smashes against the wall, same with Piper. So Phoebe comes downstairs and says the spell, since it was only Phoebe who said it and not the power of three Shax only got wounded. Phoebes calls Leo to heal Piper and Prue. So Leo heals them. Phoebe went into the Underworld to find Cole, meanwhile Prue and Piper are looking for Shax in the streets. Piper and Prue see Shax and Piper uses her Power to Blow up Shax, meanwhile a New reporter got it all on tape. So its all over the new about the three powerful Halliwell sisters, meanwhile Phoebe doesn't know anything because she is still in the Underworld. There's Repoters and people all over the Halliwell house. Then a maniac comes in the house and says \"Can I be Part Of Your Coven?\" and Prue says \"No this is our house get out of here!\" and Prue uses her powers to throw her out. As the maniac come out of the house crying saying \"There Mean Witches\". The maniac gets so mad that she shoots Piper right through the stomach. Prue get in her car and trays to go to the hospital but people won't let her through ,so Prue uses her powers to move people out of the way, making people wanna kill her more. They got to the hospital but Piper didn't make it. Meanwhile Phoebe is in the Underworld.Phoebe finds out that they have been exposed, so Phoebe asks Cole to ask the source if he can reverse time.The Source says he will only reverse time if Phoebe promises to stay here in The Underworld, so Cole told Phoebe what the source told him. Phoebe says \"What would Make him think i would make a deal like that?\" and then Cole says, \"So you can save one of your sisters lives.\" Leo goes to the hospital to find out the Piper really is dead so he tells Phoebe that its true. Then Phoebe agrees to stay only if Cole will go back to warn Piper and Prue about the exposer and death of Piper. Back at the hospital SWAT is about the shoot Prue, but the second before they do time is rewound back when they were at the manor with the doctor but this time Phoebe wasn't there to call Leo to heal Prue and Piper, so the doctor get throw in the wall too. The doctor died and so did Prue. But this is what I didn't get, if Piper was throw against the wall too how come only Prue died? Why did they not show Leo come and heal Piper and Leo trying to heal Prue? If you know the answer please e-mail me at angelpuss924@yahoo.com PS. I miss Prue but I like Paige too and i'm glad the show continued","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Prue and Piper bring Dr. Griffiths to their home to save him from the Sauce's assassin Shax. While Phoebe looks in the Book of Shadow how to vanquish the demon, Prue and Piper fight and chase Shax on the streets to destroy him. However, they are filmed and exposed live in the television news as witches. They become national sensation with a crowd in front of their house. Phoebe trusts on Cole and goes to the underworld with Leo to ask him to summon Tempus and revert time while a fanatic woman shots Piper, who dies. The source proposes Phoebe to stay with him and in return he would save her sister. Phoebe accepts the deal, and the time is reverted to the moment Shax is attacking Prue, Piper and Dr. Griffits.

\"All Hell Breaks Loose\" is a good but incoherent episode. With Piper dead and The Power of Three destroyed, why should The Source revert time to save her? But this dramatic show is certainly one of the best of the Third Season and let the viewers anxiously waiting for the next episode. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): \"Voltando no Tempo\" (\"Back in Time\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This episode of Charmed changed everything! The show is about to end it's third season, and all hell IS breaking loose in this episode. The Charmed ones bring an Innocent named Dr. Griffiths to the manor the protect him from Shax, The Sources assassin. When Shax attacks, he blasts in as a tornado and then corporealizes into his demon skin. He blasts Prue threw a wall which totally knocks her out and practically kills her. Then blasts Piper threw what is left of the wall. Phoebe comes from the attic and says the vanquishing spell before Shax came kill the doctor. But being the Power of One, it just wounds him.Leo comes to heal the other sisters and Prue wants to find Shax and destroy him for real. Phoebe, meanwhile is in the Underworld trying to find Cole.When Prue and Piper go out into the street to find the demon, the demon finds them. After their battle, the witches realize that a camera caught everything! When they get back to Manor trying to battle the media and after they vanquished Shax, a a witch gone kookoo shoots Piper. Prue uses her telekinesis to move people out of the way so she can get to the hospital. But they get their to late and Piper dies. And just when Prue is about to get shot, time is rewound to where they bring Dr. Griffiths to the Manor. Shax blows in and blasts Prue and Piper. But Phoebe is still in the Underworld so Shax kills the doctor and blasts out of the Manor. When Leo finally comes, he can't heal Prue. Prue is dead and so is the Power of Three. For Now. Personally. this episode was sad. Prue was the strongset of all of them. I would love to have her power of telekinesis. i really don't think Phoebe should of went to the Underworld because if she didn't, Shax wouldn't have killed Prue. But Paige brings The Power of Three together again and I'm happy with the show's progress","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i'm not going to ramble on about it but i'm just going to make it brief. basically for those who don't know how prue actually died........... the first time round the demonic assassin comes hit piper and prue with an energy ball they fly through the wall blood everywhere. phoebe the third sister comes down the stairs, says the spell which send him away but not vanquished.(NEEDS THE POWER OF THREE)leo comes heals them both and so on. they get exposed along the line and the only way the can be saved is for a demon named tempus to turn back time. the only way he can do that is is phoebe stays in the underworld. she agrees, tempus turns back time. it now around 7:00 in the morning again. demon comes strucks piper and prue with energy ball. they fly through wall again. but this time phoebe isn't there to say the spell to fend demon off. demon kills doctor. doctor flies through window. he is dead. demon goes in a whirl wing type thing and glass on the doors shatter which is a great effect bye the way and there is and airy sound. thats where it ends. NOW.......... what the whole world doesn't know if they didn't pay attention to the next episode. although what i'm about to say wasn't shown its what happens trust me................ because this time there was no phoebe to call for leo this time he arrives later. piper survives because her injuries wern't as fatal as prue's and leo heals her first before prue so by that time prue is already dead. there mystery solved. ps calling for prue with a spell should have worked!!! and she should have made a surprise appearance in the last ever episode.OK i did ramble on","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"right the hospital scene with Holly and Shannon was done brilliantly it starts off with Piper On A gurney looking very badly injured, the docs race her into a resuscitation room & they move her from the gurney onto a bed and Prue Holds Her Hand from that point on it is obvious that Piper is having a lot of trouble breathing and her lungs are failing, as she turns to beg of Prue to not leave her side she gaps \"don't go i love you and then her pulse drops and she goes into cardiac arrest & the monitor shows a clear flat line & the nurses go into full out trauma mode & bring in a defibrillator Prue Steps back from the bed in horror as the doctors desperately try to shock her dying sisters heart but there is no response and she is tragically pronounced dead well great scene well done girls","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Piper, Prue and Phoebe bring Dr. Griffiths to the Manor in order to try and save him from The Source's personal assassin, Shax. Whilst Phoebe looks in the Book of Shadows for a spell to vanquish Shax, Prue and Piper are attacked by Shax and chase him into the street. Unbeknownst to Prue and Piper, they were filmed by a news reporter and her cameraman using their powers and broadcasted live on national television. With Phoebe in the Underworld, Prue, Piper, and Leo must find a way to reverse the damage done. Leo goes down to Phoebe, and tells her that the Charmed Ones have been exposed as witches. On the surface, Piper is shot by a manic witch-wannabe, and Prue has to take her to the hospital. The problem here is that the crowds are blocking the driveway. So Prue has to use her magic on the crowd, and they go to the hospital. Piper is pronounced dead, and a SWAT team moves in. Leo learns of Piper's death, and goes down to tell Phoebe. Cole is asked to ask The Source to reset time, and The Source agrees; only if Phoebe turns to the dark side. Phoebe agrees, but the deal will shatter them. Up on the surface, Prue and Piper are battling Shax. Prue shouts out for Phoebe, who unbeknownst to them is in the Underworld. Shax throws Piper and Prue through a wall, and Dr. Griffiths out of a window. Prue is not pronounced dead until the Season 4 Premiere episode, \"Charmed Again, Part One\".

\"All Hell Breaks Loose\" is a gripping episode, and it made me sit on the edge of my seat. Sad that Prue's dead, but happy that there will be five more seasons of Charmed. My vote; 10 out of 10. EXCELLENT","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this episode is not incoherent like another person said. the source agreed to help because he was not going to keep his word, if you pay attention... he says after she (phoebe) agrees to stay down there in hell, \"GET RID OF HER AND BALTHAZOR SO I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THEM IN THE FUTURE\"... and also, he didn't let COLE WARN THE SISTERS LIKE PHOEBE ASKED IN EXCHANGE OF ACCEPTING THE DEAL, that's why PRUE DIED, because she got hit harder than PIPER and on the head, and there was no PHOEBE to call for LEO this time, and in the past LEO SAID THAT SHE ALMOST GOT HERSELF KILLED. pay more attention next time! and there is not a \"TO BE CONTINUED...\" after this episode. it is the ending of season 3, and on season 4 they can't show anything from PRUE because she owns the rights of it \"PRUE\", so the producers would have to pay her for whatever they show. this is the last episode she is in!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Charmed was awesome!!!! I don't get how Pheobe goes to the underworld and makes a deal with the source but then in season 4 is back... how does she get back. is there a deleted episode that was never showed?????? i am confused i brought 1 2 3 4 5 and season 8 but am still confused will someone help me help help help h e l p

h e l p

h e l p

h e l p me me me me lull lull Lilllie loll

loll loll lull loll Lilla Lilla loll lull

Lilllie

Lilla loll Lilla Lilla lull loll lull Lilllie Lilllie ll Lilllie lull","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was it! i would have never expected the ending if i didn't already know the behind the scenes stuff.

The one thing that i hated was that why was Shannon kicked off and not Alyssa. i hate her i would rather her character die that Shannon's. what was funny is that in the scene where piper is dieing on the hospital bed and Prue was crying by her side i started crying too lol. at the time that this aired i was about 10yo and my favorite character was Piper from the beginning so i was saying to myself if she dies then i will not see the show anymore! lol

then the whole go back in time thing was a shocker and really good. i also blame Pheobe for Prue's death because instead of being with her sisters she had to be a slutty bi*** and be with her good for nothing demon boyfriend.

but i think this episode will be now and forever one of my favorites and a CHRMED classic.

FOREVER CHARMED! Blessed Be!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a talking, trigger happy, alcoholic ASS COP! I have seen the first and second episodes. The artwork and animation fits very well (note the facial expressions, lol). The main character being a gun toting, badge wearing, pair of butt cheeks, shooting at whoever he thinks to be offensive or \"guilty\". So far, the episodes have had simple and followable plots that work very well with Assy's investigations. Don Sanchez, Assy's partner, play's the sobering retort to assy's A.A. antics and random \"I've got a hunch\" leads. Assy's lines are very funny and clever, here's one for example, \"I've got one bullet and its got your email address on it, don't make me hit send\" *bang* \"looks like your in-box just got some new mail.\" The think box at Assy Mcgee's headquarters are so far, consistent and on cue. As for the sound, it's perfect, the sound effects and voice work are 9\/10. Assy sounds like Sylvester Stallone all boozed up, Don Sanchez, the Mayor, the Chief of Police, all have voices that \"Fit\" there persona's very well. I recommend this to anyone who wants to catch a few laughs before they go to bed, as it does air on adult swim on Sunday nights. Very funny, imaginative, visually different comedy. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Assy McGee is a show that you really have to be a certain age to appreciate. Otherwise, it's likely you'll miss the references to 80's cop films and simply think it's a running gag about a walking rectum. Think it's brainless, infantile poop humor? Go watch the Stallone film 'Cobra' and you'll see what I mean. This show actually has very subtle humor, which says a lot, both for a show that aired on adult swim, and for a show about a walking ass.

All the standard genre clich\u00e9s are in place that made movies like Dirt Harry and Cobra so great and ripe for parody. Sanchez is Assy's partner, who is - as per the genre - level-headed and constantly apologizing for his partner's homicidal behavior. The police chief is, of course, a fire-breathing hard case who lives to scream \"I want your badge on my desk first thing tomorrow morning!\" The over-the-top, and sometimes completely nonsensical manner in which the 1980's 'Renegade Cop' film is parodied suits the subject matter well. For instance, while breaking up a bus robbery, one of the criminals stops to ask Assy, \"Hey, where are you going, asshole!?\" To which the title character snaps off the one-liner: \"I'm going... to shoot you.\"

Highly recommended for anybody who loves 80's action movies, and has actually viewed enough of them to understand the humor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Assy McGee is an out-of-control, hard-nosed detective based on the countless examples from late 20th century police dramas. The twist here is that Assy is literally a walking buttocks.

The cheap, low-brow facade of the show belies its cleverness and hidden satire. That is not to say that Assy is devoid of fart jokes, just that the toilet humor is used sparingly enough to elicit consistent laughs, not groans and eye-rolls. The title sequence of the program demonstrates the clever, subtle humor used throughout. The sequence consists of panning photos of the city set to a jazzy 70s cop theme. In one photo, a police cruiser is shown and the \"camera\" zooms in on the front license plate holder, which is vacant. The meaningless zoom-in satirizes the production of the typical 70s-80s cop drama and, incidentally, makes me laugh every time.

All the typical characters are included: the frustrated police chief who can't control Assy; the loyal, minority partner who acts as a foil to Assy's recklessness; the regular cops who detest Assy's means.... all are accounted for and all are hilarious satires of the typical police drama.

The voice acting, primarily performed by Larry Murphy, is nothing less than spectacular. Assy's voice--breathy and gruff with a bit of a drunken slur--is so clever and unique that it ranks alongside all-time greats like Stewie Griffin (Family Guy) and Homer Simpson (Simpsons). Though the voice is slurred, the diction is somehow clear and easy to understand. This is a nice change from other Adult Swim program voices that often require closed captioning to understand.

Besides the fantastic production and voice acting, the script is also hilarious. Assy's no- nonsense directness fuels most of the humor, particularly in his interactions with citizens outside the police force.

If you have access to the Adult Swim comedies, Assy McGee is certainly worth the watching. Each episode clocks in at a mere 8-9 minutes, so you really have little to lose.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Please, don't kill me! I'm just an actor!\" \"Can you play dead?\" It's difficult to describe this show. It's like a crime dramedy. Where the bad cop is an ass. Literally. What's great about the show is some of Assy's perfectly awful one-liners. Cracking out such gems as \"Adios, Blimp,\" Assy Mcgee provides some great laughs at points. Sadly at other times, the show seems to drag along at a slow pace, making it almost hard to watch. This is definitely the kind of show you'll love or hate, there's essentially no middleman. It's not the best show on {Adult Swim}, but it has some strong points. It's worth looking into just to see if you enjoy it. I know I did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I couldn't believe that the Adult Swim guys came up with this character. I laughed for days just thinking about this show. Having finally seen the pilot I guess I will stick around for a few more episodes. Assy is pretty funny and the whole crew of police show characters are around, but Assy is hard to understand and that was a little frustrating. Most of the humor revolves around the fact that the title character is literally a walking ass with nothing else but legs that sport socks with garters and feet with traditional wing tips. Assy drinks too much and \"plays by his own rules\" as you might have guessed. The only other funny moments are Assy shooting many,many people and spending time at home - in the bathroom. It is not Squidbillies funny, but it is worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a cute film starring Spanky, Alfalfa and Buckwheat from the \"Our Gang\" comedies. Set in the South during the Civil War, it may seem a little odd to see Buckwheat as Spanky's slave, but this film is as charming as the best of the shorts with the same cast. This was the only Our Gang feature film, and I highly recommend it over The Little Rascals remake from 1994.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"During the War for Southern Independence, GENERAL SPANKY mobilizes his forces to defend the local women & children against a Yankee invasion.

In 1936, Hal Roach decided it was time for his popular OUR GANG kids to branch out into occasional feature-length films. With the big success of Shirley Temple in two Civil War period movies in 1935 (THE LITTLE COLONEL, THE LITTLEST REBEL), it was only natural that Roach would look in that same direction for his GANG. Although given a rather lavish production and distributed by MGM, GENERAL SPANKY was not a critical or box-office success. The little GANGsters would henceforth stick to short subjects.

Although he's given top billing & the title role, George \u0091Spanky' McFarland is rivaled throughout the film's first half by little Billie \u0091Buckwheat' Thomas. Here were two of the finest young actors to ever appear in American movies. With all the experience of old, seasoned pros, these two gamin could steal scenes & hearts with equal bravado. A constant joy, without a false note between them, they provide the essential reason for watching the film today.

Phillips Holmes gives a quiet, gentlemanly performance as Spanky's adult protector. Nearly forgotten now, Holmes was a fine actor who died much too soon, during World War Two. Genial Ralph Morgan is especially good as a sympathetic Union general - his scenes with Spanky are quite amusing.

Other OUR GANGers appear midpoint into the movie, most notably Carl \u0091Alfalfa' Switzer; he gets to warble \u0091Just Before The Battle, Mother.' Even pretty Rosina Lawrence (the GANG's schoolmarm) shows up to play Holmes' beloved.

Irving Pichel is particularly slimy as a cowardly cardsharp turned vindictive Yankee captain. Bumbling Willie Best & feisty Louise Beavers play Miss Lawrence's slaves.

It should be noted that there is racism in the film, not unusual for Hollywood of that era - but almost completely missing in the original series of OUR GANG shorts.

Fans of 19th Century music will enjoy paying attention to the soundtrack, which is a long succession of ancient tunes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film starts with promise because there is more interaction between Spanky and Buckwheat, but as the film progresses, the two boys have fewer scenes together. This slows the pace considerably. Billie \"Buckwheat\" Thomas gives a very strong performance in his early scenes. When he is left behind on the riverboat, his fear and abandonment are palpable and his tears are truly heartbreaking. When he goes from man to man asking for help and is repeatedly rejected the viewer really begins to wonder if this is a comedy or not. Watching a children's birthday party through a picket fence is another moving moment. As another reviewer mentioned, I was also worried about the big dog choking on chicken bones! Once Spanky and Buckwheat are in Marshall Valiant's home, Spanky tends to interact mainly with the adults and the chemistry of the children is essentially lost.

The Old South\/Huck Finn-type setting really doesn't do much for the plot except allow the children to be out of doors a great deal. Ralph Morgan is the most engaging adult, but then the other roles really don't have much substance to them. Louise Beavers manages some funny moments with a Yankee soldier towards the end.

The villains aren't really villainous enough and the lovers not intense enough. Yet, I do think it's worth viewing if you're an Our Gang enthusiast, if for no other reason that the odd curiosity of the whole piece. I give it seven stars because, while not a great movie, it kept me engaged the whole time and curious as to what would happen next.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must admit that this is one of the few Lou Costello films that I actually saw in the theater. Most have now been seen on T.V. and I must admit that Lou is really enjoyable and he gets the girl,too. This was my first time seeing Dorothy Provine perform and of course I fell in love with her like so many others that day. I have seen most of the work she has done and enjoyed each one. Her performance in The Great Race is one of the reasons I bought the disc in the first place!

Every comment on this movie tells that this is the one movie that Lou Costello did with out Bud Abbott,which is true,but if Lou had lived he would have made many more. He really does a good job and doesn't have to rely on his old routines to get laughs. I for one am sorry that the little man from Patterson,N.J. didn't get the chance to do that.

I hope this comes out on DVD some time so I can add it to my comedy\/sci fi collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After \"Attack of the Fifty Foot Woman\" with Alison Hayes opened the doors for women to be just as dangerous as men, there was obviously an open market for other movies to pick up and carry the torch and what more a lovely actress than Dorothy Provine from \"It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World\" to play the role. The downsize is that cute and blonde Provine may just be too sweet and innocent looking to step into Allison Hayes' size 50 shoes. This role really needed someone with an amount of smoldering sex appeal; Provine is more the girl next door type. She may have taken and done this role to prove she could be sexy, but the material lets her down. Lou Costello, however, proves he can do a movie without Bud Abbott feeding him lines and he even interjects a dramatic role in some of his scenes when he not turning to Gale Gordon as his front man for gags. Gordon, however, establishes that all he can be is blustery, perturbed and pushy, much the same character he creates later on \"The Lucy Show.\" Charles Lane also plays the same role in everything he does: a straight man, and his screen time is limited. The special effects are convincing for the time, but I would have liked Dorothy to have been a little more than cheesecake and dressing and at least have been allowed to become dangerous. As the movie's lead character, she takes second billing to Costello who is in all of the movie with Dorothy several times vanishing like a sub-plot. The whole movie put together just can't decide if it's supposed to be science fiction, a comedy or just a parody of the Allison Hayes classic. There's a lot of good scenes, some very funny humor and some very ridiculous camp that affects the rest of the film. Still, I do like this movie for it's empowerment of women; there's not enough movies out there like this one. If this movie had a chance to be remade today, I'd highly recommend Courtney Cox and Jason Alexander in the lead roles and allow me to completely re-write the original script. Courtney tops my lists of actresses who I believe could and should adequately play gorgeous giantesses; although, I have to admit that if either of the titanic beauties Allison or Dorothy came after me, I'd go quietly !!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The four signs on the road say \"If You're Looking For Fun.....You Don't Need A Reason....All You Need Is A Gun....It's Rabbit Season!\"

In the woods, we see hundreds of \"Rabbit Season\" signs posted on every tree. We see more and more signs pointing exactly to Bugs Bunny's hole. Who's putting up all these signs? Daffy Duck!

Daffy puts the last sign up, tiptoes away and says to us, the audience, \"Awfully unsporting of me, I know. But, what the hey - I gotta have some fun! Besides, it's really duck season.\"

From that point, we now see Elmer Fudd, shotgun in hand.....and a war of semantics between Bugs and Daffy with Bugs winning every time. Only in cartoons, thankfully, can we see someone getting shotgun-blasted in the head five times and keep going!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my all time favorite Looney Tunes cartoon. It's a common plot: Daffy Duck tries to convince Elmer Fudd that it is really rabbit season and shoot Bugs. But your can never outsmart that rabbit! In addition to usual cartoon comedy, this cartoon is supported by great word play that will keep you rolling on the floor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once again Elmer is faced with the dilemma of who to shoot. Bugs of Daffy. He's unsure of what season it is and Bunny and Duck arguing help matters not. Though Bugs proves he's the smartest once more by repeatedly using reverse psychology on Daffy in increasingly subtle ways. And when that runs out he does his trademark cross-dressing thingy. Daffy freaks out and demands the bunny be shot. Though Elmer is too stupid he is hopelessly in love with the girl bunny thing. Elmer really is to blame for all this. If he weren't so dumb he'd know it REALLY is duck season and just blast Daffy. But poor old Daff can't believe the utter preposterousness of the situation. His cruel plans of misdirection have been foiled by Elmer's dumbness. Daffy is so shocked that he even goes home with Elmer to be blasted in his living room.

Poor Daff. He rules!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The \"Hunting Trilogy\" of Rabbit Fire (1951), Rabbit Seasoning (1952), and Duck! Rabbit! Duck! (1953) should be considered the comedic high water mark of the Chuck Jones-Michael Maltese collaboration. While they are seldom mentioned in lists of the \"greatest\" or \"most important\" cartoons in the history of animation, they are certainly THE FUNNIEST cartoons I've ever seen. Michael Maltese never got the credit that directors like Jones, Freleng or Avery got, but it's his dialogue and situations that make Warner Bros. cartoons, and these three in particular, some of the FUNNIEST ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Daffy Duck has signs hanging from every inch of every available tree announcing that it's rabbit season. But, you guessed it - it's really duck season. Elmer Fudd appears: he's the only hunter dumb enough to fall for the gag.

He's even dumber than that. When Bugs Bunny strides up to him and asks how the rabbit hunting is going, Elmer admits that he hasn't seen a rabbit yet. This is more than Daffy can stand. He emerges from his hiding place and immediately points to a rabbit: Bugs Bunny. \"Shoot him now!\" Daffy screams. \"You be quiet,\" says Bugs. \"He doesn't have to shoot you now.\" Daffy insists that he does.

After Daffy returns his blasted-off beak to his head, he is doomed to more arguments infected with \"pronoun trouble\" which all have the same result. Later, Bugs dresses as a sexy woman and flirtingly asks Elmer for a duck dinner. Will Daffy get the last laugh? \"Ha, ha, very funny! Ha, ha, ha!\"

What's funny about this classic cartoon? Bug recoils in fright as Daffy screams in his face. Bugs Bunny says \"Yes?\" while dripping with self-satisfaction. Daffy Duck stands on tiptoes demanding to be shot. Elmer Fudd whines that he \"can't wait any wonger.\" Daffy sees Bugs in women's clothes and makes that little noise with his tongue. Carl Stalling plays \"You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby\" during Bugs's drag act. Daffy demands \"sheer honesty\" out of Bugs. Stalling plays \"Home Sweet Home\" at an inappropriately appropriate moment. Daffy tells Bugs he's \"desthpicable.\"

In five words: every detail of this film.

NOTE: This short is available on \"Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Volume One,\" Disc 1","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you overlook the fact that the plot has been done many times, this is a hilarious and gleefully enjoyable Looney Tunes cartoon. The animation is wonderful, the backgrounds so detailed and a lot of audacious colouring too. The writing is razor sharp, and the sight gags especially Daffy constantly getting his head blown off are brilliantly timed. I really did love the arguments between Daffy and Bugs, and that Bugs wins every time. I also love it that Daffy is really greedy and nasty while being uproariously funny. I do prefer him when he's manic but he is great fun here too. Bugs is still his charming and rascally self, and Elmer is funny if rather dumb too. In short, this is absolutely brilliant, and actually my personal favourite of the Hunting Trilogy for sheer entertainment value. 10\/10 Bethany Cox","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is only one film I can think of that might be as good or better than this one when it comes to Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck--ALI BABA BUNNY. However, determining which is THE best is irrelevant--just watch them both and enjoy.

I compared this to ALI BABA BUNNY because both feature Daffy at his absolute worst--greedy, nasty and very funny in the process. However, I think I prefer RABBIT SEASONING simply because Bugs is also pretty awful in this one--doing horrible things right back to Daffy every time Daffy tries a dirty trick.

The film begins with Daffy leaving rabbit tracks right up to Bugs' hole in the hope that a hunter (naturally, it's Elmer) will blast the rabbit and leave Daffy alone! Not to be outdone, Bugs time and again takes all of Daffy's tricks and turns them around--and in most cases it involves Daffy getting shot in the face! It's all very, very clever and funny and I don't care how old you are, this cartoon will make you laugh unless you are a grouch. I especially love the great and unexpected ending, but I won't say more, as I don't want to spoil the surprise.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chuck Jones's 'Rabbit Seasoning', the second in the much beloved hunting trilogy, is often considered to be the best of the three. While I find it almost impossible to choose between this trio of fantastic cartoons, I would have to concede that 'Rabbit Seasoning' is the most finely honed script. Here, the emphasis is placed on language as Bugs and Daffy run through a series of complex dialogues in the grand tradition of Abbot and Costello's 'Who's on next' routine. As a long term Daffy fan, I have always been delighted by the hunting trilogy because it is consistently Daffy who gets all the best lines (the famous \"Pronoun trouble\" being one of the all time classics) and does most of the work. Bugs plays the role of cool manipulator while Elmer, as always, is the befuddled dupe. Part of what makes the hunting trilogy so much fun is that Daffy and Elmer pose so little threat to Bugs that he is basically just kicking back and having some easy laughs. Elmer falls into every trap that is laid for him but it is poor old Daffy who comes off worst, being shot in the face again and again, his beak ending up in more and more ridiculous positions. It all builds to the inevitable climactic declaration \"You're despicable\". As intricate an example of Chuck Jones's impeccable timing as you'll come across, 'Rabbit Seasoning' is a true classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...And there were quite a few of these.

I do not like this cartoon as much as many others, partly because it was made in its period. I much prefer cartoons with Daffy and Bugs which are fifteen or so years before-hand. Many people will like this, particularly people who always find violence funny, cartoon or not.

The basic plot is a pretty well known one for Looney Tunes: Elmer goes out hunting, Daffy leads him to Bugs and Daffy ends up being shot instead. Also inserted are quite clever and highly entertaining jokes (some do not enhance the episode), ugly shooting and animation which is slightly mediocre. The plot is mainly geared by jokes - each joke keeps the episode going. This way of plot-going is not all that unusual in Looney Tunes (of course if you are pretty much a Looney Tunes boffin - or an eager one - like me, then you'll know this already).

For people who love everything about Looney Tunes and Daffy Duck and like the sound of what I have said about it, enjoy \"Rabbit Seasoning\"!

7 and a half out of ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rabbit Seasoning is one of three cartoons that feature Bugs Bunny\/Daffy Duck\/Elmer Fudd in a war of words and wits about whether it's rabbit season or duck season. Love Bugs and Daffy stirring up \"pronoun trouble\" with Daffy always the victim of Elmer's shotgun resulting with his beak always getting dismembered. Then there's the rabbit's cross-dressing that always gets Elmer in his love struck mode. Chuck Jones and Michael Maltese are always favorites of mine in the writer-director team category because of these hilarious hunting trilogy cartoons I've laughed at since I was a kid. And at least two of them end with Daffy's exclamation to Bugs: \"You're despicable!\" Can't get better that that!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In one of the many Bugs Bunny-Daffy Duck cartoons, Elmer Fudd is out hunting, and Daffy tries to get him to shoot Bugs. Needless to say, Bugs has his own agenda. Moreover, \"Rabbit Seasoning\" makes interesting use of word order and pronouns (warning: it just might hilariously and royally mess up your speech).

I think that probably my favorite aspect of this cartoon is the costumes worn by Bugs and Daffy. One of them seems like it would have been risqu\u00e9 for 1952 (especially in a cartoon), but they pull it off perfectly, as they always did. All in all, this just goes to show what geniuses the people behind these cartoons were.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the second and best in the Hunting Trilogy! What makes it the best is the clever dialogue!

Bugs: Do you want to shoot me now or wait till you get home?

It was kind of funny how they kept that going through out the short!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the middle cartoon of the three (between Rabbit Fire and Duck! Rabbit, Duck!) and is the weakest of the three, while still being quite funny. It simply depends on one gag for too much of the action. Still a good cartoon. I feel a definite sympathy for Daffy in this one, which is rare for me. Daffy is so clearly overmatched that it almost becomes painful to watch at times. Good cartoon in an excellent series. Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Strange enough, shorts like this get a 10. Why? They are hilarious. This is hilarious. Notice a lot of the quirky humor. Dated and childish to toon naysayers, but they don't know what they're talking about. They got to know that cartoons aren't just for kids. The art in this is probabley the best non-Road Runner art of the 1950's Looney Tunes shorts. It's hard to come across something better than the art in \"The Great Piggy Bank Robbery\", although nothing ever will. This probabley runs a close 3rd or 2nd. Shorts like this one might have spawned witless LT rip-offs like Tiny Toons Adventures to try to squeeze out all the old comedy out over and over again, like how great movies like Scream spawned crap like I Know... which was released just to squeeze out all the old horror from Scream, but like Scream, this is great alone. Chuck Jones has had his faults with shorts once in a while but he does make up for them. Take Hopper for example. Few people like Hopper but it never ruined the LT reputation, but I'm sure this was his make up on things as such. Bottom line: This is not as good as \"Duck! Rabbit! Duck!\", but close. Catch it on Cartoon Network frequently.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having just got the \"Loony Tunes Golden Collection\"(which i HIGHLY recommend, by the way), I'm going to try to comment on most if not all of the cartoons individually. As such the starting statement might seem redundant for those whom read multiple reviews of them, for this i apologize.

Rabbit Seasoning is the middle short in a trilogy of like-minded shorts (the other two being \"Rabbit Fire\" and \"Duck! Rabbit, Duck). Bags and Daffy argue about who Elmer Fudd should short. It makes me laugh EVERY SINGLE TIME!!! On the DVD it has a commentary, featurette, & option to play it music only.

My Grade: A+

DVD Extras: Disk 1: an introduction by Chuck Jones; The Boy of Termite Terrice part 1; clips from the films \"Two Guys from Texas\" and \"My Dream is Yours\", both with Bugs cameos; Bridging sequences for an episode of \"the Bugs Bunny show\"; the Astro Nuts audio recording session; 2 vintage trailers; \"Blooper Bunny: Bugs Bunny 51st and a half anniversary\" with optional commentary with writer Greg Ford & stills gallery","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We just saw this film previewed before release at the Norfolk (VA) Film Forum, and there was general agreement on two matters: There were excellent performances in a first rate drama by the two leads and by others: and secondly, the marketing for this movie will only bring disaster. We saw a lurid poster with chains and suggestive commentary implying some sort of wacko sexual relationship between Samuel Jackson and Cristina Ricci, whereas the movie has some real depth and some thoughtful ideas. What's sad is that people looking for near porn will be drawn in to see the film and will be disappointed because it will be too \"heavy\" for them, while the people who would really enjoy it wouldn't be caught dead walking into the theater showing it. Too bad. A good film wasted.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Working at a movie theater as a projectionist, I have the opportunity to watch basically every movie that comes out. When I first saw the trailer for 'Black Snake Moan' I laughed and thought, \"Great. Another 'Snakes on a Plane' Samuel L Jackson movie\". But of course, I wanted to see it for the laugh factor. Many people have judged this movie too quickly based on the innuendo in the title, the images on promotional ads and on the fact that Justin Timberlake is in the film. Personally I loved every second of this movie. It tells the story of an older man and young woman who are both going through rough times and are able to reach out to one another. The story is truly touching and sends out a great message about life and how we live. Of course, I do not recommend it for young audiences due to some graphic material, but if you are looking for a great story and genuine acting from Sam Jackson, Christina Ricci and,yes, even Justin Timberlake, I encourage you to see 'Black Snake Moan'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just got back from seeing Black Snake Moan. I had spent time reading reviews ... most seemed to focus on the obvious ... \"skinny white girl chained to a black man's radiator\" ... I hate when \"critics\" miss the point of a film. Now I suppose it helps that I live in Memphis ... and have lived in Mississippi a couple of times too. It may also help that I am the former Director of the Delta Blues Museum in Clarksdale ... but I get this movie. Brewer's simple \"redemption tale\" is easy to follow and could have had various themes to tell the story ... but I believe it is highly effect as a \"blues\". It would be my hope that people don't read all the hype ... and\/or various reviews ... and miss a really good movie. Get past the various things like skinny girls in white panties ... get past Justin Timberlake, accept his character Ronnis (which he plays very well) ... get past \"Snakes on a Plane\" and see how mercuricul Samuel L. Jackson is ... as he has transformed himself into a very believable Mid-South blues man. If you know little about Mid-South culture a lot of what goes on may strike some as cartoonish ... but accept the fact that Craig Brewer KNOWS how to paint the canvas and let the actors tell the story and you will enjoy this film. Not one to tell endings ... so go see this movie ... and yes I will agree with one thing the critics got right ... the music is wonderful!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Me and my roommate got free tickets for a Pre Screening I guess you would call it in Atlanta, GA at Atlantic Station. Walking in I was expecting something controversial, provocative, unnecessarily overdone, etc.. But the film is much more than that. It's a story of two people helping each other. It's not overdone, and the film is done in a careful balance as to not make you cringe or say its unnecessary.

It's put together really well and doesn't take itself too seriously. Thats the beauty of it. If it tried to take itself seriously, it would have failed miserably, but instead it carries itself through humor (some unintentional) and some surprisingly good acting by Ricci. Although Timberlake fails miserably in his role, the movie is good enough for you to put that on the side.

I would definitely recommend this movie, if not for any other reason than the fact it is something different to experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie at the first showing available in my area, and it was quite clear that most people didn't get the movie. Even if you don't, it's a good movie with some interesting character development. It is a thoroughly human story about some very imperfect people in a backwoods southern town, and really speaks to the root of the blues. If you don't know what the \"Black Snake Moan\" is by the time you leave the theater, you didn't get it. And no.. it's not just a song. Christina Ricci does a great job and is thoroughly convincing in her role, as is Samuel L Jackson. I think this is his best performance since his role in Pulp Fiction, and probably his best including that because of the range of his character in BSM. The rest of the cast is solid, with a few shining performances here and there, particularly John Cothran Jr as Reverend R. L.. I'm a very selective movie watcher, and this film honestly rates among my favorites because of its candid look at race, sex, religion and neurosis in a rural southern town, along with its cinematic genius, in my opinion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you've been looking for a film where a out of control nympho gets chained to a radiator by an extremely religious southern man then look no further than Paramount Vantage's latest release 'Black Snake Moan'. Not exactly looking for what I just described you say? Well then, you best get ya wits 'bout yaself and mosey on down to your local theater and still see it as Samuel L. Jackson's character Lazarus would say. As long as you're open minded and don't take everything seriously, there's no reason you won't leave the theater glad you saw it.

In the third offering from director Craig Brewer, we are taken into the deep south where as the tagline to the film claims, everything is hotter. While there we're introduced to the Godfearing bluesman, Lazarus as previously said played by Jackson, and the almost always half naked Rae; a role bravely taken on by Christina Ricci. In the film this unlikely pair cross paths long enough for their characters to each learn a lesson from one another. Both lessons ultimately convey the message to us the audience that no matter what, we are all human. No one is perfect and if everyone would realize that, then we'd be a lot better off. The question of if this will be understood, or be accepted by all who see the film is another story.

One thing not up for debate is how great Jackson and Ricci both are here. You'd think with the role of a sex-crazed woman, overacting would be a given, but no, not here. Ricci breaks through and demonstrates true talent with a raw performance that also doubles as her best to date. Then we have Jackson who completely disappears and for the first time in a long time makes us forget who he even is. Sadly, the third star of the film, Justin Timberlake who plays Rae's military-bound boyfriend isn't all that great. At the start, he fails miserably as he appears to be trying too hard. Later on he steps it up some, still he's far from the level he reached in January's 'Alpha Dog'.

The other thing 'Black Snake Moan' boasts is a splendid soundtrack. Containing tracks from The Black Keys, John Doe, pieces from the score done by Scott Bomar, & of course four, count 'em, four tracks from Jackson himself. It's actually one of his songs, the main performance of the film, 'Stackolee' that is the fuel to the fire of this great collection. It alone is worth the ticket price. Other notable musical delights from the soundtrack are Bomar's 'The Chain', 'When the Lights Go Out' from the Black Keys, & the title track which is also among the most memorable scenes in the film where Lazarus sings to Rae on a stormy night.

The efforts of Craig Brewer can't go without mention though. His last film 'Hustle & Flow' which ended up surpassing low expectations and gaining critical acclaim put him on the map. What he has done with 'Black Snake Moan' will be what sets him apart from other newbies to the industry. He not only directed 'Moan', but also wrote its screenplay. The end result is a story that is surprising and clever. As you watch you feel like you know exactly where it's headed despite its valiant composure. Just as you think you've predicted the next move Brewer shifts gears and takes an entirely different route. There are however some blotches within the screenplay. The background characters are drab and flat while the ending is somewhat disappointing. It left me craving for something more exciting. After so many highs I guess the final scenes were a tad weak compared to the rest of the film.

I imagine the majority of people who see 'Black Snake Moan' won't enjoy it due to the fact they won't be able to stop themselves from thinking how unlikely the situations are. The depressing part about that is there are many other films with just as unlikely, even more outrageous scenarios that are widely well received. It's the issues of race, religious motives, & sexuality the film exhibits that will have more effect on opinion than anything. The idea of a black man chaining a white woman up in his house is enough to make most people not even consider seeing it. Simply put, it's not for everyone. Like I said, to fully enjoy it you have to go in with an open mind, or else you're just wasting your money. For those of you who can do that, I highly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I knew as soon as I saw the first trailer for Black Snake Moan that I would have to see it. I was not disappointed in the slightest in the film, which was written and directed by Hustle and Flow's creator Craig Brewer. It tells the story of a broken blues man and the nymphomaniac he aims to cure not just for her sake, but also his own...yet it's so much more than that. It's complex and rich and it manages to steep you in a gritty, sticky, sultry blue Memphis without making you feel like you need a bath afterward.

The characters are (for the most part) multifaceted and very well-written and performed. The accents and the dialogue were carried off flawlessly. However, there was one weak link in the chain: Justin Timberlake. The best I can say for him is that he can pull off crying...it's a rare male actor who can cry convincingly. However, Justin's Ronnie was flat, but as an actor he was trying very hard. I would definitely give him another chance.

Lazarus and Rae (Samuel L. Jackson and Christina Ricci respectively) have a great chemistry and a great respect for each other. This is one of those films where it doesn't matter how good one actor is if the other one isn't up to the task and, luckily, both of the actors were up to the task.

The music was very bit as good as you would expect, especially when Mr. Samuel L. Jackson sings the blues. Phenomenal.

On the technical side, all was brilliance as far as I could see. It was well-edited, well shot, and well-mixed...everything was great. The character and set designs were just right, the casting of the supporting characters (even Justin Timberlake and especially Kim Richards) was spot on... Loved it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Craig Brewer is now officially a writer\/director for whom I will see any film by, no matter how bad it may look. His debut, Hustle and Flow, was one of my favorites from that year, with its emotionally charged storyline and realistic, fallible characters. I wasn't quite sure what I would end up thinking after seeing this sophomore effort. The cast seemed great, the trailer used music effectively, however, it seemed like there was a good chance it would cross into absurdity, and fast. Fortunately, Black Snake Moan hits all its marks dead-on. The acting is astonishing, the writing superb, and the editing style, as well as juxtaposed music, riveting the whole way. Brewer seems to be a master at getting his characters to have the right mix of both compassion and malice as they set forward on their paths toward redemption.

The first moment I knew I was in for a treat was during the abbreviated credit sequence at the beginning. Like he did with Hustle and Flow, Brewer lays the music over the widescreen shots perfectly with simply titled fonts coming up statically. The 70's aesthetic was welcome and helped show that this would be another great character piece in the vain of those from that decade of some of cinema's best. From here we continued on with the short snippets into the lives of both Lazarus and Rae, each vignette mirroring the other while they journey to the fateful moment their paths finally cross. The editing between them was fluid and relevant rather than abruptly cutting before the scene felt finished with its purpose. Rae's boyfriend leaves for duty in the service and Laz's wife leaves him for his brother. Each feels the loneliness and reverts to what they know in that situation\u0097Rae to sex and Laz to the bottle. Only when Rae is left for dead at the side of the road and her savior comes from his farm to take her in does the reasoning for their actions finally start to become clear.

Samuel L. Jackson is fantastic as the older bluesman farmer trying to reconcile his life with God and that of the flesh and the pain it has brought him. There are the moments of stoic sternness as well as those of kindheartedness with his captive\/patient. You never really look at the setup as comical or unrealistic because he sells what he is doing so well. Also, the character of Rae is not chained up for very long, despite what the trailers would have you believe. The situation starts a bit awkward until we see that the chaining was for her own good and is actually used for only a day or two. As for that chained girl, Christina Ricci really shines. I never really saw her as anything special, but this role is a true breakthrough for her. This girl is so troubled that her past sexual abuse has scarred her very deep down. Any time she is away from her love she starts seeing flashes of the man who took her childhood innocence away and itches to be touched by any man available to let the image go away. Her nymphomania is not for pleasure, but rather for survival from the haunting nightmares always hiding behind her eyelids. Ricci fully inhabits the role and shows all the emotional trauma to great effect and realism. Mention must also be made of Justin Timberlake, again showing some real acting talent. Where this guy came from I have no clue, but hopefully he will continue taking more films and steer away from the mostly crap music he churns out.

While not as solid and consistent as Hustle and Flow, Moan still ranks equally to it, in my mind, because when it is on, it is spectacular. Towards the end we have a truly enthralling sequence with \"This Little Light of Mine\" singing out, and earlier, the interaction between captive and captor, when the chain is first introduced, shows some top-notch work. The truly magical moment, though, is when Jackson sings (yes that is him throughout, like it was Terrence Howard in Hustle) the titular song while a thunderstorm roars and the lights flicker. If I don't see a more beautifully shot sequence all year, I won't be surprised. What these two people do for each other is wonderful and shows what humanity is capable of. One thing I think I really enjoy with Brewer's work is the fact that he doesn't show sinners becoming redeemed heroes. Instead he shows us that no matter how bad you have been, or how bad life has been, everyone can strive for redemption and to be better people. We don't have saints here, but fallible people looking to right their ship. If the course stays true or if it falls back into darkness, no one really knows, but at least they can say that they tried as hard as they could.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If ever a potential movie must've sounded like it wouldn't work based on reading the script on paper, it would be this one. Here we have what seemingly looks like a lurid and seedy soft-porn s&m flick, complete with the huge in-theatre poster, depicting a near-naked Christina Ricci chained to none other than Mr. Bad Ass MF himself, Samuel Jackson. But let me tell you, if ever a film springs to life on celluloid major big time with soulful power to spare, it's Craig Brewer's redemptive follow-up to Hustle & Flow, Black Snake Moan.

Unashamedly over the top from the get go, this film sucks you in with the opening scenes and proceeds to dig deeper and deeper in with every subsequent frame. It's yer basic story of two deeply damaged characters who find in each other the strength and courage to move on, in more positive ways, with their lives. Been done before, of course, this tale, but as I've always said, it's the manner in which a story is told that gives it heart, depth, meaning and power.

Ricci's damaged-by-childhood-abuse wild-child character Rae and Jackson's equally soulsick musician character Lazarus find each other under desperate circumstances, and Laz takes it upon himself to try to help Rae. This in itself is relatively unique: the idea of a man trying to genuinely help a woman who is in serious pain, rather than trying to take further advantage of her, and we know from the onset that Laz's heart, and the film's heart, is in the right place. The movie at its core is about the redemptive, healing power of love (with music as a very close second), and the film resonates profoundly with this truth - soulfully, artfully and brilliantly.

A major reason the film succeeds so profoundly is because of the fierce, committed performances from Ricci and Jackson. Scenes that would have come off as laughable and pathetic in lesser artists' hands are, instead, powerful as all get-out. In particular, the film's arc scene, in which Jackson sings and plays the song of the title alone in his house, with Ricci, amidst a serious thunderstorm and the abusive demons from Rae's past running amok inside her head, leading her to crawl to Lazarus and cling to his leg, comes off not ridiculous as technically it should, but rather as gut-wrenchingly cathartic.

All the supporting performances are fantastic here too. Justin Timberlake is completely believable as Rae's anxiety-ridden boyfriend Ronnie, and the always-wonderful S. Epatha Merkerson is also perfectly cast as a character who obviously has feelings for Lazarus. John Cothran Jr. is outstanding as well, as Laz's reverend friend R.L. (a nod to blues musician R. L. Burnside, no doubt). Everything works about this movie, let's face it, including the music\/soundtrack, which features Burnside, Scott Bomar, Bobby Rush, Son House, and most importantly, Jackson himself, whose fantastic version of Stackolee I am listening to as I compose this review. There's also a really beautiful and moving version of \"This Little Light of Mine\" featured in the film, sung heart-breakingly tentative and soft by Ricci.

Samuel Jackson has said in recent interviews that he believes his performance in this movie is the best of his career thus far; I could not agree with him more. This is work that he can be monumentally proud of, along with everyone else involved in this audacious, supremely wise and deeply heartfelt mother*ucker of a project.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Craig Brewer grew up in Tennessee, it is evident in his movie. Forget the Black guy on White Girl action. It happens, but it isn't Samuel L. Jackson on Christina Ricci. More importantly this movie is about the values and culture of the people in this Tennessee town. How they deal with divorce, abandonment, sexual abuse and psychological disorders. While shrinks make millions in the cities of the North, Midwest and West Coast, the town minister, who also grapples with his own problems, becomes the counselor and mediator. It is a interesting concept and one that may not settle well with everyone.

Brewer shows us the region he grew up in. Yes it is still tainted with racial problems, though worse problems exist in many metropolitan cities. This is in the subtext and not the main plot of the story. People live a more simple lifestyle, yet life is still complex and excruciating.

Jackson and Ricci do a fantastic job in this film. Jackson the aging-former blues guitarist who eeks out a living on his small farm. His wife of 12 years leaves him for his brother, so he spirals into depression. Meanwhile Ricci and Justin Timberlake have a last wild sexually charged night before he ships off to the Army. Ricci suffers from a childhood of sexual abuse, though that isn't revealed until later, her torment can only be quenched by sexual forays with various boys (Black and White) in the town.

When Ricci is beat up and left for dead on the road near Jacksons farm, he finds her and nurses her back to health. He believes it is divine intervention that this half-naked White girl is left in his care. He clutches his Bible and prays for guidance. He refuses her sexual advances and instead treats her with dignity, respect and care. Something few men in her life have ever done.

She in time sees Jackson as a man of honor and morals, yet he also carries his own pain. He plays his guitar and sings to her. Yes it's the Blues and damn good too, With the minister counseling her, she slowly understands how to deal with her childhood sexual abuse. Jackson, through Ricci's transformation, realizes he must let his own pain heal.

Justin Timberlake comes back, discharged due to \"anxiety problems\". As he searches for Ricci, who has been living with Jackson during her recovery, he finds out she has been promiscuous and unfaithful to him.

He finds her and Jackson at a bar, where Jackson has decided (as part of his healing process) to come out retirement and play the Blues again. Timberlake follows them home and confronts Jackson and Ricci.

You will have to see the movie to get the rest of the story. Should you decide to see this film, remember to look at it from the aspect of a foreign or independent movie. It is a slice of life, from a particular region of America that few of us get to see. It is interesting and revealing. It also shows us that regardless of the color of our skin, we all have similar problems that can be fixed with similar solutions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Mississippi, the former blues man Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson) is in crisis, missing his wife that has just left him. He finds the town slut and nymphomaniac Rae (Chritina Ricci) dumped on the road nearby his little farm, drugged, beaten and almost dead. Lazarus brings her home, giving medicine and nursing and nourishing her like a father, keeping her chained to control her heat. When her boyfriend Ronnie (Justin Timberlake) is discharged from the army due to his anxiety issue, he misunderstands the relationship of Lazarus and Rae, and tries to kill him.

\"Black Snake Moan\" is a weird tale of faith, hope, love and blues. The gifted Christina Ricci has an impressive performance in the role of a young tramp abused since her childhood by her father and having had sex with the whole town where she lives. It is amazing the versatility of this actress, and probably this is the most mature work that I have seen Christina Ricci perform. Samuel L. Jackson has also a fantastic performance in the role of Lazarus. The soundtrack is one of the most beautiful I have ever heard in a movie, with wonderful blues. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): \"Entre o C\u00e9u e o Inferno\" (\"Between the Heaven and the Hell\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(My Synopsis) Rae (Christina Ricci) was a high school slut and nymphomaniac who connects with Ronnie (Justin Timberlake) to fulfill her needs. Ronnie must report to his National Guard unit and leaves Rae all alone. Rae is not alone for long, because she is the town tramp with a powerful need to hook-up with a man. After a party, Rae is taken home by a friend who ends up beating her half to death and throws her on the side of the road. The next day, Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson) finds Rae and carries her home. Lazarus gives medical care to Rae, and believes that he can also save her from herself. Rae is like a dog in heat so Lazarus puts a 40 pound chain around her and his radiator to keep her from going out looking for men. Lazarus has problems of his own, because his wife has just left him for another man. Lazarus turns to his blues music to relieve his pain.

(My Comment) The movie has a deep meaning to it once you get past the sex and violence. The film has a different feel to it. The story is raw and almost puts you in the movie as if you were there. The 40 pound chain is a good metaphor, and symbolic of a chastity belt. You don't give love away to anyone, but you keep it for your true love. The chain could also be a parallel to a wife who is chained to the kitchen, yet Rae didn't cook. Rae only wanted to have sex all the time whereas a wife may not. I think Craig Brewer (writer & director) has made an extraordinary movie, and Samuel L. Jackson sings a mean blues song. The story is emotionally charged, tackling the subjects of race, religion, music, and sex all into one. (Paramount Classics, Run time 1:56, Rated R)(8\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was surprised by how great Black Snake Moan turned out to be.Being a fan of Christina Ricci and Samuel L. Jackson id figure id give this a try.Well when this was over I was just left stunned by how great this film truly was.I mean everything was dead-on great and very accurate for that matter.This film shows how the great director and writer Craig Brewer(who made Hustle & Flow another great film) can just take anything even something that seems ludacras and make it into this.Well, I like how it is just a good time, like its a film that just makes it there own in a good way.Also I love that it doesn't show big steroeypes of the south and how its been portrayed in things as the most repulsive place to be, but not this film it makes very accurate and because of that very reconisable.The cating in this was just phenomenal especially from Christina Ricci(who deserves an Oscar for this role), the always great Samuel L. Jackson, and even Justin Timberlake did a great job as well.Overall almost everything is great about this, and while its not everyones type of film its definitely worth a viewing from anyone who can enjoy a good time. Three Cheers For Black Snake Moan!!!!

9.3 out of 10 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really think this movie deserves some Oscars! I really don't care what people can say badly about this movie...because it's a really well played parts from Samuel L. Jackson, and mainly by Christina Ricci!! I'm a big fan of hers, right since I saw her in Addams Family...been trying to watch all things she makes, and this is absolutely one of the best parts she played!! I love her looks (even though people say she's not pretty...I think she is...and I love her eyes)!! The movie is about many things...people say that is religious...people say that it's about racism...people say that is about drugs...people say that is about nymphomania...well...maybe is a little bit of all that!! But what I truly feel is that this movie has a high level of eye opening for what blues is...what it stands for...and mainly were it comes from: life...heart...pain...sorrow...and above all...spontaneous feelings!! I hope you get to see it...if you are that kind of person that likes a movie not only from the pictures or the story it tells...this is a good movie to see...if your not...well...see it anyway...cant hurt that much, and you get to see Christina Ricci acting so horny!! She's a fox!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you want to see a movie with nudity, sex, drugs, alcohol, brutal beating of a woman and child rape, this movie will satisfy you. If you want to see a man creatively exact revenge on the treasure of a wife who left him, this movie has it. You've already heard the wonderful music that keeps the raw emotion going. The surprise is that in a story of violence, action and music a climax can come in a moment of silence, without a pedantic speech, which transforms the movie. Look for a final scene that is an unexpected evidence of a wounded person healing. Perhaps we who wonder why we wallow in the abundant profane will learn that love can be located above the loins in the heart. From the pumping pounding follow the rhythm to where where love is sacred.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This if the first movie I've given a 10 to in years. If there was ever a movie that needed word-of-mouth to promote, this is it. A $4 Mil box is a disgrace. People don't know what it's about. If you have any appreciation for the Blues, or just a good use of excellent music, that alone is reason to go see it. How many people knew Jackson could sing, and damn fine too. You hear books and movies taunting that they're about salvation. After seeing this, you'll never be able to forgive such trivial use of the word. Yes, it's gritty, sexy, down home truth, bizarre and in-your-face real. Isn't that the best reason to see a movie? Those that get my meaning won't stay away from seeing this another week.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I suppose this is what is called Southern Gothic.

It stars Samuel L. Jackson, Christina Ricci, and also Justin Timberlake is featured in a role. Timberlake does good work, much to my surprise, I didn't expect it of him.

When you're lost and you can't find your way home--that's the black snake moan.

The people in this movie are definitely lost in many ways, psychologically and emotionally damaged, betrayed by those they trusted and loved and filled with a lot of pain.

Samuel L. Jackson plays a blues singer\/musician--whose wife has messed around with his brother and now left him for his brother, along with aborting a child he had hoped to have with her.

Christina Ricci's character is a woman who was sexually abused when young--this has turned her into a self destructive nymphomaniac; allowing men to treat her badly.

The story lies in the intersection of these two characters lives. It is a love story, but not a sexual love story, between them--the older black man and the young white woman.

It is different from most films Hollywood grinds out.

I highly recommend it.

10 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In \"Black Snake Moan,\" writer-director Craig Brewer is so obsessed with heavy symbolism that part of me felt like dismissing the entire film as pretentious--a sweltering Southern parable with some oh-so-risky subject matter. The movie also contains a heavy spiritual subtext where religion is being hauled into the picture--again, this is integrated without subtlety. After the darker opening scenes, the film increasingly blunts its edge until the entire production comes off with the artificial quality of a stage play (and I'll admit, the last 15 minutes go way too far into \"Happy Ending\" territory for my liking). And that's not to mention the archival footage of musician Son House, ruminating on love and death (and heavily foreshadowing things to come, of course). Yet in a strange way, these demerits are also qualities of \"Black Snake Moan,\" the tale of aging Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson), recently dumped by his wife (for his brother, no less), who comes across near-death nympho Rae (Christina Ricci, easily giving the hottest portrayal of trailer trash on celluloid ever); nursing the girl back to health, he chains her to his radiator to overcome her demons, and hopefully redeem his own fallen self. While there is a definite prurient appeal in watching Ricci fall out of her skimpy outfits, her performance is risky and mature--not a trace of Wednesday Addams to be found, and she easily holds her own with Jackson, who personifies \"the blues\" in his portrait of a flawed, God-fearing man. While heavy-handed, the scene where Lazarus sings Rae a song in the midst of a lightning storm\/blackout is compelling, as is a scene inside a jumping blues club that makes you wish you were there. The setting is strong, and a case can be made for the literal symbolism (the chain, the radiator, the strange blurry man who haunts Rae's libido) being a deliberate outgrowth of superstition and spirituality. And it is the conviction with which this spirituality is played that lends \"Black Snake Moan\" much of its strength--the committed performances of Jackson and Ricci make this a film that goes from wrenching to uplifting with, well, seamless grace. While Justin Timberlake's jealous lover is a plot contrivance I could have done without, neither he nor the sledgehammer subtlety can keep this from being a fascinatingly meditative film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I actually though that Black Snake Moan was great movie which takes place in the south. The story follows a man named Lazarus whose wife dumps him for his brother and finds Rae abandoned and beaten up on the side of the road. Lazarus finds out that Rae is a sex addict and was abused as a child so he decides to take matters into his own hands by tying up Rae with a chain to cure her of her wickedness. Samuel L Jackson and Christina Ricci have great chemistry together and their performances make you believe that through their struggles and search for redemption that Lazarus and Rae become best friends. I was also amazed by Sam's ability to play an electric guitar and being able to sing. S Epatha Merrkensen is great as Lazarus' love interest Angela, Justin Timberlake plays Rae's boyfriend Ronnie who is underused in the film but does the best that he can to deliver a fine performance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is complex and interesting in so many ways. It is a non stop plethora of emotion and taboo subjects. Sex and love. Women's emotional abuse of men, Men's physical abuse of women, Sexual child abuse, Fresh approach to religion in real life, and all tied together with very raw and powerful blues music.

I promise you that if you sit through the first 20 minutes you will find the tie in and bettering of all the characters. And the ending will be more pleasant than you can expect. Music is outstanding the writing is powerful and acting from everyone was brilliant.

And the DVD has some great features, including Samuel Jackson's background of learning to play guitar and feel the blues.

This movie is not for children and I even caution parents of teenagers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm astounded and dismayed by the number of reviewers on this site who did not get the point of Black Snake Moan. It's not about black\/white relationships or old\/young relationships, though I think director Craig Brewer deliberately threw in both elements to tweak imagined taboos. It's not about sexual abuse or sex addiction, though Christina Ricci's character, Rae, typifies those. It's not about folk religion in the black community, though religion plays a large role. It's not a love story, though there are not one, but two happy couples at the end. And it's certainly not about the south, where \"everything is hotter,\" though it's set in the south and it's undeniably hot; holy smokes, even the tag-line writers didn't get the point.

Black Snake Moan is a parable about Mississippi Delta Blues; who feels them, who writes them, who plays them, what they're playing about, how it heals them.

It's as though the film producers sat down with a blank slate and asked, \"Ok, if we were going to help people understand what the Blues are really about, what would it look like?\" So they set it in the rural south. Then they dream up two characters, one whose wife left him to live with his best friend, the other who goes off to war and his badly abused girl sleeps with everybody in town. Then, we throw in grizzled worldliness touched just a little by folk religion (they know Jesus wants their lives, and though they respect Him, they know they can't give Him that), some violence between men and women, and lots and lots of steamy sexual images, including -- ready to go over the top? -- a black man in a sleeveless undershirt holding a half-naked white girl captive on the end of a 40 lb chain. Fill it with authentic delta blues sounds, make it about a genuine blues picker, use music as the main healing element in the plot, slap clips of blues-man Son House on both ends, and Voila -- you have a modern parable about what the Blues are all about. Even the film's climax is not character conflict, but the whole town dancing steamy dances to hot, raunchy blues.

Of course, there's a bit of a dilemma here. Rae (Ricci) is being destroyed by uncontrollable lust, and is being healed by Lazarus' (Jackson's) homey religion and steadfastness (and don't forget the chain.) But then, we're shown the restored Rae dancing raunchily to blues at the end. Is this an expression of a restored, healthy life force, or just more of the same trashy behavior that ruined her in the first place? Brewer wants it both ways, but blues really is about sex and violence, not to mention depression. I suppose he would say blues gives healthy expression to both (sex and violence) without unleashing either. I have my doubts.

Not for the first time, Samuel L Jackson plays so well that we forget we're watching Samuel L Jackson; the man is unbelievably good. He even picks some of his own tunes in the film, and his playing is authentic, dirty, and hot. Christina Ricci isn't usually this good, either. Granted, half her job is done by the Costume That Wasn't There and her slinky figure, but she's a marvelous combination of cynical lust, rebellion, and vulnerability; bravo to her, she's arrived. I was impressed by the country preacher, John Cothran, Jr. I had to check the database to assure myself that he's a professional actor and not a genuine country minister.

Parents need to be aware of what they're getting if their kids bring this one home. The language is pretty far off the charts, the first half-hour is full of graphic sex, and women are violated in a dozen ways during the course of the film (Lazarus means well and is decent, but honestly, chaining a woman to the radiator?) Plus, Ricci spends half the movie dressed for sex; if you've got teenage boys, they'll be licking the screen halfway into the film. I don't recommend this for kids of any age. Adults only, please.

That being said, Black Snake Moan is informative and accurate about blues, folk religion, and sexual abuse, and tells a tale that's redemptive in lots of ways. It's unorthodox, but well worth the time. And, my goodness, is the sound track hot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must admit, I didn't expect this to be as good as it was. I also didn't expect Samuel L. Jackson to play slide and sing blue either.

Cinemark of Beaver County PA does this frequently. They advertise movies in the lobby, get you all excited about seeing it, and then disappoint you by not showing it...

I Expected that with such a great cast of Jackson and Ricci and even a former N'Syncer (Timberlake), that this movie would at least have shown for a week. But nay, at that time if I remember correctly MI3 was showing on 3 screens (that or some other type of supposed blockbuster).

Like Blues Brothers, and Crossroads, this movie incorporates the mystic and legend of what blues music is all about. Passion, and hard times. Religion and Sex. Hell Hounds of the past. Redemption. I mean so many elements go into the blues to make it work.

This was just a good all around story. Of course, not many people will see it cause it doesn't have pirates or swinging spiders. But it does have Samuel L. Jackson...

Think of what happens to Jacksons character from Pulp Fiction after he walks the earth and settles down and that essentially describes him to a \"T\".

Great and underrated, but aren't all the good ones like that anyway?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"then you will be a big fan of this movie. Its almost the same basic concept, a nice mixture of music, soul, and drama. I'll admit, i was a little aprehensive about seeing this movie, I had only seen previews of a white trash girl chained to a radiator, but I am a big fan of Samuel L. Jackson and I enjoyed Hustle & Flow so i thought I would give it a chance.

I'm very glad that I did. It turned out to be more than just the surface story of a nymphomaniac southern girl being imprisoned by a 60 year old black man. The story had heart, and was very influential.

The music in this movie also added a nice touch. Craig Brewer mixed his style from Hustle & Flow into this movie, except took a new spin and used the Blues. His musical scenes are still at the top of the charts as far as performance scenes go by. He also has very interesting flashback scenes and just gives you an overall crazy feel during some of the more controversial scenes.

No doubt, if you liked Hustle & Flow, you will love this movie, and if you are a fan of the blues you should definitely go an see this. I give it a 9 out of 10, very interesting film, and it is extremely under rated. shame.

Go out and rent this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As I was reading through the comments, I was surprised to come across one that said this movie was \"not very profound.\" I have to disagree\u0097this has to be one of the deepest and most thought-provoking films I've ever seen. Yes, the acting and the music were excellent; they have been praised over and over in the reviews. However, I also praise the heart of the movie. It resonates with deep meaning and feeling\u0097it is a story of redemption. It is about two very different and very flawed characters, beaten down by life but too strong to lie down and die. It is about a man seeing more value in a girl than she saw in herself. It reminded me strongly of the book Redeeming Love by Francine Rivers, which has a similar story of redemption. Yes, the images and themes are messy and sometimes shocking, but if you look close enough, you may just see yourself in these characters. Sometimes the truest things in life are not pretty, but they are real.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Black Snake Moan is uproarious. It is over-flowingly rich, fantastically orchestrated, strange and cumbersome, unique and visionary. In continuation of Hustle & Flow, Brewer paints his portrait of the American South almost as a mythological land one would expect to see in a Fantasy or Ancient Greece epic. And yet as far high above us his movies hover, they are still rooted; rooted in the deepest, darkest soil there is.

As in traditional fairy-tales, Brewer paints his portrait in Black Snake Moan using extremes and exaggerations. Sharp and stark character traits, when coupled with such extreme acts as chaining a half-naked white girl to a radiator in an attempt to redeem her of her sins, exaggerate and emphasize the metaphor the same way such extreme visual techniques such as some characters having colour in Pleasantville strengthened the metaphor in that fairy tale film. But Brewer doesn't begin his film with \"once upon a time\"; in this film and also in Hustle & Flow, Brewer presents us with a different fairy tale; a dark, Gothic fable of sex, prostitution, and ultimately, redemption. These themes run through the film's veins like blood and resonate and bloom in its dark, brooding setting.

But despite these harsh extremes, Brewer treats his characters like humans, and creates extremely well-executed, three-dimensional characterizations in Lazarus and Rae, particularly emphasized with their relationships with Lazerus' friend at the pharmacy, Angela, and Rae's mother.

The acting is, all-around, quite perfect. One gets the feeling that both Christina Ricci and Samuel L. Jackson were born to play these roles. Their characterizations are so intense and so severe; it's even more of a challenge for the actors to keep their heads on and craft realistic characters. And they succeed admirably. Samuel L. Jackson in particular utterly disappears into his character, which serves as a polar opposite to most of the character's he's played before. With films like Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Shaft, and others, he has crafted for himself a typecast of the \"ultimate bad-ass\". In Black Snake Moan Jackson plays an old, broken, defeated and earthy character quite unlike anything he's done before. And frankly, it's just fantastic. What comes as quite a surprise, though, is the casting of Justin Timberlake, and more specifically, the fact that he comes across as quite tolerable. Sure he doesn't have much screen time, but like what Brewer did with Ludicrous in Hustle & Flow, he actually gets Timberlake to act and do what he is meant to do, and not come across as totally unconvincing and irritating.

But what is really so incredibly great about the movie is the atmosphere Brewer creates. The rural Southern locations work to his advantage in creating a dark, dirty, grimy, crusty, rugged kind of texture to the entire film, which more than fits in with the film's thematic and metaphorical aspects. And by utilizing all sorts of elements such as the rising sound of cicadas when Rae gets her itch, or a raging thunderstorm that increases and intensifies as Lazarus plays his \"Black Snake Moan\" blues number for Rae, Brewer truly manages to create almost a fantasy world, an undermined mythology to the rural Southern setting. And it works so utterly fantastically to craft Brewer's unique vision.

And one can't talk about a Craig Brewer film without mentioning the music. In Hustle & Flow, he utilized a soundtrack of down-and-dirty, street-wise hip-hop music to emphasize the atmosphere and the vision. In this film, the music works even better at polishing off and fully representing the unique atmosphere. It is a rural blues soundtrack, but it's the dirtiest, rawest, grittiest blues you've ever heard. And it sounds just absolutely fantastic.

In all, it can be said that had this movie been a simple tale of an old, broken, lonely, god-fearing black blues singer redeeming a young white woman who was sexually abused as a child and now suffers from nymphomania, there may have not been very much to write home about. But this film is not about the plot, and not even about the characters, as well as they are crafted in the film regardless. No, this film is about the vision \u0096 and what a unique vision it is! It is about the atmosphere, the mythology, the setting. It is about anger, fear, redemption, and most importantly, the blues. And it's all wrapped up in a unique, entertaining, stylized and impeccable ribbon. Brewer has guaranteed himself a spot on the most promising up-and-coming directors list, and with such a solid follow-up to a great debut film, Hustle & Flow, he will definitely be on my radar for future projects.

It also must be mentioned that the film has one of the most fantastic and unique titles I've heard yet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The trailer to this film focused so much on the chain (of course, because it's so sensational) that it missed most of the movie, which is about a developing, although rather simply drawn, relationship between Lazarus and Rae as they attempt to recover from their past pains with each other.

Of course, with the premise of a nymphomaniac in chains, it's no surprise that there's plenty of implied sex involved. However, at it's core, Black Snake Moan is a basic tale of redemption and the healing power of helping another person along. Maybe it's just me though, but I think poor Lazarus should've had his story focused on more. He's a hurting man after his wife leaves him, but we never fully see how helping Rae resolve her past pains heals him too. It's just implied that it does--in essence, he plays the wizard that helps the young Rae overcome her curse, through a big ol' chain and some blues.

I like the story, but I wish it were a bit more even and didn't have to rely on the sensational. The side characters were fairly decent, if simple and I liked the music. The acting was good enough, although I can't be certain if the Rae character is fully believable. But that might just be my naivety.

All in all, I liked the film, but I wasn't compelled by it. Maybe it's that I'm too critical, but the story seems a little too convenient to be fully believable and so, while it all seemed very cool, I could never truly buy it. The chain thing was a little too far-fetched for me. Still, this can provide some entertainment for those looking for dramatic redemption stories with a shot of the blues. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Initially I was put off renting this movie due to the jacket art for the DVD. In fact, this held true with friends of mine who didn't rent it due to the art and the mental image(s) it conjured of being a movie that held little or no interest to me (or to my friends). But, I rented and watched it and was truly amazed.

I agree with another user's comments that this movie is not for everyone due to the blatant sexual inferences, so it is definitely not something I'd want young children to watch (and doubt seriously if they would understand it anyway).

I enjoy movies like this whereby the character's personalities and who they are are genuinely defined in a no-nonsense, direct way with no teasers to indicate they will turn out bad. The acting done ... was it acting? Ricci and Jackson performed so well, I was drawn into this movie not even realizing they were acting. Same thing with the story ... may seem far-fetched somewhat, but it was done so very, very well. It reminded me of another movie with Mel Gibson, Tim, where each character had limitations, whether mental or circumstantial, so were well-defined.

I found much depth in this movie with the character's involved, so feel that everyone involved (from the cameramen to the actors) should be commended on a perfect fit\/result. After viewing this movie, I had talked to a couple of friends who had a negative approach to watching it like I did, so after hearing my comments, they rented and watched it. They, too, were quite surprised at how good it was. It is too bad that the art on the jacket was done the way it was since it is a turn off. I can see now how the art applies, but I'd not heard of this movie before, and the art was my first impression ... art sells or destroys DVD sales\/rentals.

These characters had more depth to them and good timing was allotted to give an audience like me time to absorb the \"feel\" for each. I felt I could trust the movie to flow well, and it did. So, with the jacket art aside, I would recommend watching this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I opted to watch this film for one reason and one reason alone...Samuel L. Jackson. I happen to like him, a lot. I had seen no previews or trailers for this overlooked film, so went into it with no real expectations.

Jackson didn't disappoint as Lazarus, a down-on-his-luck blues man in the Deep South, and delivered perhaps his most powerful performance ever, including playing and singing a number of excellent blues tunes. But the real surprise here was Christina Ricci, at best a vapid airhead in real life, who took the role of the sexually-abused town tramp Rae and made her a believable, almost even likable character. Watching the decidedly non-sexual relationship evolve between Lazarus and Rae was simply amazing.

Justin Timberlake, pop star turned wanna-be actor, should go back to causing \"wardrobe malfunctions\" and prancing around a pop stage. His mostly forced performance was distracting, at best, from the real story here.

This movie is raw, gritty, and at times quite \"in your face\". Not everyone will like it. Those that do, however, will be quickly moving it to the top of their favorites list.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Better than I expected from a film selling itself on the premise of nymphomania and inter-racial bondage. The music is great, and cinematography focuses greatly on turning Ricci into a trailer trash Betty Paige and it works. Samuel L. get's to shout a lot, which he's good at, as well as play lots of blues guitar, which he looks cool doing. Even Justin Timberlake was decent as the mentally disturbed boyfriend. I get the feeling that this material under anyone else would have been complete s*%#, but instead managed to just barley carve out it's own odd little transgressive pulp niche, while still being an effective drama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I lack cable-vision and no longer have \"DirecTV\". So being a rural resident I have to wait for DVD releases. Being a lover of blondes but not blonds, I of course not only have \"Barb Wire\", but I have \"Stripperella: The Complete First Season\". I've not yet found \"VIP\" or a second season for Stripperella. I have the \"Baywatch Hawaiian Wedding\" DVD. I have the issues of \"Playboy\" that Pamela Denise Anderson posed in. I could go on. I love Pamela! There is no one or anything that could make me feel guilty about enjoying Stripperella. But there are certain elements that I dislike, but live with, for other series depict smoking and alcohol consumption too, some times. But those are my personal peeves and I try not to let them ruin the fun of a series like this for me. I too was taken aback by the change in animation style, but I adapted. However, the amount of female nudity decreased, and that is a big disappointment as one expects a lot of it in a series with a premise like this. But then again I adapted. One of my favorite episodes of \"Mork & Mindy\" was when they got to meet Robin Williams! So of course one of my favorite episodes of \"Striperella\" is when Pamela & Tommy visit the club and the comparisons begin! If there really is a \"Season 2\" I hope that I can find it, for as a completest, I need to complete my collection. I recommend this for other admirers of the female form and lovers of blondes. (Hey! Psst! \"Blonde\" & \"blondes\" are the feminine form for spelling \"blond\"! Your software should already know that!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At initial thought, the concept of this show seemed to be a joke and a gag, just for Stan Lee's amusement. I expected nothing more than a sleazy, animated version of Barb Wire with low production values, much like those short pieces of crap you see on Adult Swim for short term amusement, but can never taken too seriously. Boy was I wrong!

Stripperella has even better production values than similar Marvel Toons. The animation is very good and it seems that they've taken this series very seriously and given it a full effort to make it a professional production as possible.

The humor is good too, on the sexy, suggestive and sleazy side. It is very similar if not exactly like the Simpsons style. You may encounter clich\u00e9s and a lot of predictable humor but its still fun nevertheless. If this were running today, I'd surely see it regularly. Its surprisingly one of the better toons ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw the preview for this movie, I figured to myself, \"here's another dumb TV movie that's written with the thought and complexity of a soap opera,\" but when I saw it I was surprised. Tiffany-Amber Thiessen stars (and proves that she can indeed act if given the chance) as a woman who falls in love with and marries a man (Now and Again's Eric Close) but begins to lose trust in him when a series of rapes begin to take place in her community. At first, she is blinded by his assurances that he is innocent and her love for him, but as time passes she continues to be suspicious of him.

While this sounds like the set-up for another boring melodramatic TV-movie, it is really much better than that, because the characters are well-acted by Thiessen and Close, and the movie's script allows them to be much more complicated and intelligent than you'd expect; these aren't just caricatures or cardboard characters that exist only to move the plot along but real, three-dimensional people, and we find ourselves really caring about them. And the movie is smart enough that it is able to provide an exciting, involving climax to the story without resorting to dumb action scenes, mindless cliches or cheap melodrama. Instead we share in the main character's inner conflicts and fears, and are given a realistic portrayal of how she might be able to resolve them and do the right thing.

If you get a chance to give this one a look, please do so. It's production values are not exactly top-notch (it is a TV movie, after all), but if you can look past that, there is an excellent story to enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gerald McRaney,(Dave Morgan),\"War Crimes\",'01 TV Series, was like a father to Tiffani Thiessen,(Jennifer Gallagher),\"A Kiss Before Lying\",'03, who experience a very bad situation in her life and it caused Jennifer to be withdrawn with people and young men. Dave Morgan tries desperately to get her out of the house and manages to introduce Jennifer to Chris (Gallagher) who falls madly in love with her at their very first meeting. In almost one or two dates later, Chris asks Jennifer if she will marry him and she agrees. It is not very long after the Wedding that things start to happen, Chris is in the Navy and does not like working in submarines and things start happening to young gals in the neighborhood. This is a very excellent TV film and it sometimes makes you wonder if the guy or gal I want as a Soul Mate is the Perfect PERSON !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hmm, is it right to compare Tiffani Thiessen and Mark-Paul Gosselaar's post Saved By The Bell acting? Of course it's not right, it's ridiculous. And is right to give this movie a `10' rating? Hahahahahaha... that's funny. This movie wasn't so horrible, though; better than I expected it to be. Made-for-TV movies are often so so so similar. So many of them have the same feel to them. This one had that same feel but it worked even though it was yet another tortured wife who's gotta get the b*stard in the end story. Before it started I had envisioned Ms. Thiessen as a vixen type 90210 seductress but here she was as innocent as Kelly Kapowski which was refreshing. Eric Close surprised me by playing his part really well. With some decent writing the director got a pretty good, convincing performance out of him without being at all cheesy. All in all it was somewhat interesting, definitely better than most TV movies. My grade: B-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surprisingly good made for T.V. Thriller. I wasn't expecting too much from this one but I'm glad to say that this is one of the best of it's kind. It's fast paced and features solid acting and interesting events.

The story gets you hooked on since the beginning and with many hits, you can't help but find the movie very interesting.

The background story of Thiessen's character is hard but it turns into a nightmare when her husband is something much worse than her childhood friend's step father.

The \"stranger\" concept and his actions are disturbing if you consider that it is a common disease in society. A serial rapist does not respect society or even his own family and this movie displays the sickness and crime in a perfect way.

My beef with the movie was the non sense situation when Thiessen's character returns home with her deranged husband after he's released on bail. By that moment she knew what he did to his young relative (played by the cute Allyson Hannigan). But that's just the typical Hollywood scene that provokes more trouble.

The climax scene shows Thiessen following her husband when he's about to commit another rape, then she calls the cops who come in time just to capture him. The ending tells us that the husband was sentenced for 99 years in prison in real life.

The acting is also pretty good, and Tiffany is great and gorgeous as always. The direction is also very good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is good and I think Tiffany Amber is very beautiful. I liked the movie. Can anyone tell me how I can get hold of the songs from this movie? Even the soundtrack will do. If that's not possible, can I at least get the names of the songs with their respective singers? I tried to look up amazon.com but its not there. I tried CD baby, not there either. I browsed through Google to get some details but there weren't any. I would appreciate it if someone could give me the answer to my question. I know that the songs belong to Country Music and is sung by a country artist. I just need the title names along with the singer. I would recommend this movie or rather the songs to any country loving person.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Really don't care that no one on here likes this movie,, i do , and that's what this review is about. Lou Diamond Phillips is great in this comedic role. that line about train a b and c is now to me an instant classic, the cg is great, yeah train looks a little fake,, but the aliens wow do they ever rock,, Todd Bridges,, where's Arnold, and Mr. Drummond,, wow he's been out of the loop , guess that's what jail does to you.. a bullet train is on it's way to Las Vegas with the Senator for him to deliver a big speech, a meteor has just hit,, and now all of a sudden we got aliens running loose aboard the train, and our hero cop has to save the day, to make matters worse his ex-wife is on board arguing with him. i just thought this movie was so wonderful,, a must see if you like action.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I played Sam (the porter, Lou's sidekick) in the Film \"Dead Rail\" Which later aired as \"Alien Express.\" And, I have to say that for my part I thoroughly enjoyed watching this film. As a struggling actor this was a chance for me to work with fantastic people, it gave me great scenes to include on my reel, and it allowed me to work on a dream job for a month and a half (no waiting tables!) Turi(the director) And Steve and Scott (the producers) Were very kind by giving me this opportunity to participate in the production. I made many friends (Lou, Todd, Steven) and I consider myself very fortunate to have been able to work with these incredibly talented people. There was not a day that went by that I did not laugh my butt off. The real tragedy isn't so much the special effects, it's that every single person who watched this film didn't get to see what happened behind the scenes and all the talent that truly went into it. Craftsmen building the set, prop masters, gaffers,wardrobe, makeup artists, script supervisors, the cinematographer, production assistants, extras, craft services, producers, director, and actors. It's a given that Sci fi didn't spend a terrible amount of money on the film (2 million) But There was a lot of time, energy, and man power that was instilled into it. I look on the film now as a production that brought a lot of talented people together for a fun project that was shot without complications in less than two months. It was a magnificent cast and crew and I'm just so glad to be apart of it! On a further note to those of you who don't know Lou Diamond Phillips, Todd Bridges, and Steven Brand. They are fantastic people who are incredibly funny. Lou I still am working on my Deniro impression and can't thank you enough for introducing me to \"midnight Run.\" Todd, every time I hear an Elvis song I can't forget the story you told me about hanging out with him at his house for dinner. \"Can you please pass me the pa tators?\" (IM A HUGE ELVIS FAN!) Steven, \"Mr. Brand!\" You are a true gent and all the advice and encouragement I received from you will always be appreciated. I miss you guys and hope you are well. Thanks for the good memories, stories, jokes,and friendship. Oh and miss Utah says hello! wink wink.

joe-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to say that this film was excellently produced and tops the ratings as a typical sci fi film! I enjoyed it.. its a sci fi film, if you want a thriller watch another channel.. This is what the scifi lovers want. Excellently produced by one of Sci-fi's best producers Scot Vandiver ! OK the special effects weren't excellent, but what a great cast! Some more money could have been used for effects but then again what sci fi has high budgeted effects. Stop complaining and change the channel if you don't like these type of films.. Films like Mission Impossible and Braveheart are great but these aren't Sci fi films.. Sci fi produces excellent films like Sabretooth , Alien Hunters etc .. Well done .. keep them churning out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very well done film showing the life of international students during their \"Erasmus year\" in Barcelona which by the way is one of the most beautiful towns in Europe and is an ideal location.

The idea itself with all the different languages is great and gives the film an original atmosphere. There are some clich\u00e9s about the countries but most of them are true! The characters could not better represent their different countries.

Having experienced \"Erasmus\" on myself during my exchang semester in Italy I can say that is movie is incredibly authentic. I had many experiences which were similar to the characters (except I didn't get laid as often). The movie is also quite funny yet not like all those stupid American college movies.

Finally the movie touches also some important issues like the change from student to work life.

9\/10 (I may not be very objective though)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are a few things in life that we can't experience more than once and the college experience is one of them. Especially if we're living in a foreign country and in a apartment with 6 wackos from 6 different countries. Xavier the main character leaves his tidy life in Paris, his ex-hippy mother and his beautiful girlfriend and goes to Barcelona to study spanish in order to get a job at the embassy. He falls in love with the wife of a french doctor and he makes friends that make him look at things differently. When Wendy's brother (Wendy is one of the room mates) comes from England the film starts to become a lot funnier. Well anyway, Xavier starts to see things differently with all his new friends and he probably lives something he will never forget and will change his life forever. Overall a very nice nostalgic film, which becomes even more interesting because of the multinational cast. I thought it was very interesting that you could see all these kids from different countries, all of them speaking different languages and having different cultures get along with each other and fun. I gave it a 9 out of 10 because I left the theatre with a smile on my face and thinking about things I haven't done yet while I'm still in college and would want to do before it's too late.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In France, Xavier (Romain Duris) is a young economist of twenty and something years, trying to get a job in a governmental department through a friend of his father. He is advised to have a specialization in Spanish economy and language to get a good position. He decides to apply in an European exchange program called \"Erasmus\" and move to Barcelona to improve his knowledges in Spanish culture and language. She leaves his girlfriend Martine (Audry Tautou), promising to keep a close contact with her, and once in Barcelona, he is temporarily lodged by a French doctor Jean-Michel (Xavier de Guillebon) and his young and lonely wife Anne-Sophie (Judith Godr\u00e8che) he had met in the airport. Later, he moves to an apartment with international students: the English Wendy (Kelly Reilly), the Spanish Soledad (Cristina Brondo), the Italian Alessandro (F\u00e9d\u00e9rico D'anna), the Danish Lars (Christian Pagh) and the German Tobias (Barnaby Metschurat). Then the Belgium Isabelle (C\u00e9cile de France) and Wendy's brother William (Kevin Bishop) join the group, and Xavier learns Spanish language, and finds friendship and love in his experience living abroad. \"L' Auberge Espagnole\" is one of those movies the viewer becomes sad when it ends. The story is a delightful and funny tale of friendship and love, in a globalized world and an unified Europe. This very charming movie made me feel good and happy, although I have never experienced to live in a republic of students. The newcomer William provokes the funniest situations along the story, with his big mouth and short brain. Further, it great to see a fresh approach of students living together different from those dumb American fraternities and their stereotypes, common in American movies. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): \"Albergue Espanhol\" (Spanish Auberge\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the biggest French success of the year 2002, \"l'auberge espagnole\" was also very well greeted abroad which is quite extraordinary for a French film. It is not difficult to define the reasons of this success. This movie made by one of the most interesting French film-makers of these last years, C\u00e9dric Klapisch, presents students coming from all over Europe and gathered all together under the same roof in Barcelona. These students are described like the ones you imagine or you see in everyday life: either untidy, either serious or with a sense of humor. I guess that if the movie worked so well, it is because a lot of students must have recognized themselves in the main characters' portraits and especially Xavier's.

We follow the movie and so his experience abroad as an Erasmus student through his eyes. Xavier is really an ordinary student with his qualities, his faults. An intelligent making with quite a lot of ingenious ideas perfectly expresses his lost mind and his anxiety about the world and being an Erasmus student. On that subject, the best examples can be found in two sequences. The first one is when Xavier asks a woman at university for the papers he has to send to prepare his DEA. When the same woman informs him about the different necessary procedures, all the papers appear on the screen when she is naming them! In the next sequence, Xavier's voice-over confides to the spectator his vision of the modern world. Now, where to find the second example? Well, the scene where Xavier has a thorough medical examination during which Klapisch films his visions is widely sufficient to speak of itself.

Moreover, the director wasn't really interested by his main character's studies. He left this point low-key. He rather put a lot of effort into Xavier's private life, of course, in his love affair with Anne Sophie but also and especially in his relations with his fellow tenants. It is a real friendship story that Klapisch shows us with its moments of happiness but also its arguments and its tensions. Through Xavier's adventure and at the end of his stay, he will have been initiated into life which will make him more mature. The message that the author wanted to transmit isn't difficult to guess. You naively believe that you live in an untidy and complicated world. You mustn't give up but intensively search to get what you want even if it is difficult.

Apart from this, we could also fear that with the topic, C\u00e9dric Klapisch wouldn't avoid a trap: the clich\u00e9s. Let's be frank about it: they are included in the screenplay but the director does his best not to spread them too much in his movie. Then, the screenplay contains convenient and predictable moments: at the airport and before boarding we see Xavier shedding a tear after he left his family. But fortunately the shortcomings of the script stop here. Quite funny dialogs and cool young actors perfectly at ease in their roles make up the whole.

In spite of its weaknesses, \"l'auberge espagnole\" is to be taken for a success in the movie of young people. Besides, the whole atmosphere it brings out lets us think that this movie is directed primarily to a young audience. Ultimately, the end of the movie and its big success let us suggest that Klapisch succumbed to a fashion that goes right for American cinema: the elaboration of sequels. And indeed, the film-maker currently works on a sequel entitled \"les poup\u00e9es russes\". Let's hope that it will be as good as \"l'auberge espagnole\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is about Xavier, an Erasmus exchange student from Paris who spends one year in Barcelona. During that time, under the influence of all the new impressions, he changes and grows. Upon return, he has a much clearer view on his life and finally takes it into his own hands.

This is one of the most moving films I've ever seen, and the reason is probably that I've been in a very similar situation. I'm from Germany, not from France, and for me it was Madrid, not Barcelona, but I can assure you that this film is a completely accurate depiction of what an Erasmus semester in Spain will do to you. From what I hear the story is autobiographic, and that's probably why it is so realistic.

Let me give some examples (mild SPOILER alert) - Xavier shares a flat with other students from Italy, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Spain, and England. The flat looks EXACTLY like all the Erasmus shared flats I've seen in Madrid. The main characters are nicely developed, and some funny scenes arise from the usual stereotypes. The Spanish landlord is also 100% accurate. - The story of Xavier and his girlfriend Martine, who remained in Paris, is also very typical. About 90% of all relationships break up during an Erasmus semester (or shortly thereafter). - There's a wonderful scene in which Xavier tries to convince Wendy, his flatmate from England who is kind of \"uncool\", to go out with all the others. He finally succeeds, and Wendy probably has the night of her life.

Another great thing in this film is that it's truly trilingual: The students in the flat speak Spanish or English, and Xavier speaks French with his mother and girlfriend. There are subtitles so that everyone can understand what's being said. I surely hope that this film never gets dubbed anywhere.

I can imagine that for non-Erasmus people this is simply an entertaining comedy, but for all my fellow Erasmus I can only say: This is YOUR film! If you haven't seen it, do so. But be prepared for some feelings of nostalgia...

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"L'Auberge Espagnole\" collected the audience wherever it was shown. It gathered audience awards on many film festivals all over the world. And it is not strange. We have the ability to watch a cheerful and an astonishing piece of art. And it is wise by the way. \"L'Auberge Espagnole\" is a very funny comedy about youth and growing up. But most of all it is about the lights and shadows of living in the European Union.

The main character of the film is a French student of economy Xavier. For his future carrier his is sent for one year of studying to Barcelona. In Spain it turns out that the lectures are being given in Catalonian language. That probably doesn't help the increasement of knowledge. But it helps in tightening the relationships inside the group of foreign exchange students. Especially if they rent a big flat together. There are 3 girls: English, Belgian and Spanish, as well as three boys: German, Danish and Italian. Our French guy will also get there. A year is a very long time. Long enough to get close and make friends. And get to know some European stereotypes while trying to break them apart.

Klapisch treats this special case of a process of uniting Europe with humor and without pecky didactism. He comes out of the idea that young people are everywhere just the same. They like jokes. They like to make irresponsible relationships. But they don't neglect their aspirations. The most interesting is the sum of experience of this little community. They live together in the fire of everyday tasks fighting with the surrounding reality. They are full of unusual ideas for life. Young Europeans come back to their countries to take up a life of an adult on their own. They are Europe's hope to fight the many problems of the Union. For example, the terrifying administration system. In the end they proof that not only can they communicate and make friends despite the many differences. But they also now how to live the full of life. And they won't allow taking that full of life away from them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first thing I wanted to do after watching this film was watch it again (because I'd missed lots with all the laughing I did). I'm European and I've studied abroad and I've as good as lived with Spanish, french, Italian and German people. The film was full of stereotypes, which, more often than not, p*** people off, and reading some of the other reviews I see that it did p*** people off. But, this film gets the stereotypes so right I cannot fault it. Except for maybe the way the french guy became a drunken party animal. The English guy was the perfect \"geezer\" stereotype. Drunk, annoying, insulting but shines through in the end. As well as the stereotypes the film also got the emotional aspect of studying abroad correct. At first he's shy, doesn't know anybody, misses home, doesn't know his way around. As time progresses it becomes his home and when the time comes to leave, it is extremely difficult. A feeling people can only understand if they've experienced it. I highly recommend this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Clich\u00e9-avoidance is one of this film's main achievements. When you hear a vague outline of the story \u0096 Erasmus students of mixed nationalities sharing a flat in Barcelona \u0096 you predict a collection of Euro-stereotypes in a farcical tangle. Pas du tout! In fact, it's a finely judged comedy about a young Frenchman, Xavier, trying to make sense of human relationships. There are some excellently observed minor roles (the arrogant French neurologist, the insufferably irrepressible brother of the English girl, Xavier's forlorn mother) and some fine visual humour, especially in the opening scenes mocking the bureacratic complexity of the application procedure. So what does Xavier learn about relationships? Nothing positive. In place of a conventionally happy ending, there is a regrettably portentous finale about `Identity' \u0096 Xavier has \u0091become' all the friends he made. Nevertheless, this highly enjoyable film deserves its great success. I saw it in Luxembourg with a mixed Euro-audience, who enjoyed themselves hugely and even applauded at the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a European, the movie is a nice throwback to my time as a student in the 1980's and the experiences I had living abroad and interacting with other nationalities, although the circumstances were slightly different. Klapisch (the director) went to the New York Film School from 1982-85, so one would think that he is drawing on this experience.

It is interesting how the film balances the message that \"one should not generalize\" with the notion that \"for every stereotype, there is some underlying truth\". For example, the Italian character is based more on the pothead aspect than on any well-known Italian stereotype. The German character features a few more tried and tested stereotypes. But the most stereotypical aspect about the movie is not a character but the central theme of infidelity. As a critic observed, infidelity is as crucial to French film as class is to British film.

Both the main character and his girlfriend are played as not entirely likable, which I think is deliberate and great.

It may be unintentional, but some of the nationals have elements that could be taken as a metaphor for their countries' perceived role in the EU. The British woman has a fling with an American (who is an entertainer - like a 1980's US president) while the Frenchman shows himself as the natural leader (when the landlord shows up).

Although Europe is not as diverse as New York, it is striking that we see only two non-white characters. One is a Chilean woman with indigenous features, who despite appearing the age of our main character is not portrayed as a potential object of interest. Another is a Gambian-Spanish or rather Gambian-Catalan male who appears a bit invented.

One might ask why Klapisch chose protagonists who were all from long-established EU member countries in Western Europe. While these nationalities reflect what he and I would meet as students in the 1980's, I believe exchange programs in contemporary Europe are much more diverse. The Erasmus program encompasses some 30 countries from Iceland to Eastern Europe, many of which are not EU members. I do understand, however, that the choice of nationalities that are more familiar to the majority of the viewership may have been deemed necessary not to distract from the contrast Klapisch wants to create between the Peoples' Europe and the Bureaucratic Europe.

Despite minor gripes a great movie that made me consider going back to Europe to live. A French friend of mine, also an expatriate in the US, captured our shared feelings in this piece of contradiction \"If Europe was more like the US, I would leave in a heartbeat\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cedric Klapisch's movie L'AUBERGE ESPAGNOLE is easy, breezy charm wrapped in nostalgia for our younger years and attractive youths. At its core, it's the feature-length presentation of the long-running MTV reality soap opera known as \"The Real World\" in which, as its motto goes: \"This is the 'true story' of seven strangers picked to live in a house and have their lives taped... so watch what happens when people stop being polite and start getting real.\" This is exactly what happens -- minus the cameras planted at every minuscule corner of the house in Barcelona, Spain, where Xavier (Romain Duris) comes to stay, having to learn Spanish to fill into his job's requirements. An outsider in many ways, he slowly forms a camaraderie with his house-mates who come from all corners of Europe except America... this is a movie in which the only American shown is an unlikable character with whom Wendy (the adorable Kelly Reilly) is having an affair with (\"Only for sex,\" she confesses, since she has her own boyfriend who makes a late but dazed appearance.). Throughout his stay there, he tries to maintain a long-distance relationship with his girlfriend played by Audrey Tautou while he begins a tentative flirtation with the wife of the owner of the Spanish house where he is staying at and gets some advice from a lesbian house-mate (Cecile de France) as to how to seduce a woman. A sweet little feature that presents a moment in time that twenty-somethings will never see again, L'AUBERGE ESPAGNOLE is forgettable fun containing within itself the threshold into the \"real world\" experienced through Xavier's eyes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"**SPOILERS AHEAD**

It is really unfortunate that a movie so well produced turns out to be

such a disappointment. I thought this was full of (silly) clich\u00e9s and

that it basically tried to hard.

To the (American) guys out there: how many of you spend your

time jumping on your girlfriend's bed and making monkey

sounds? To the (married) girls: how many of you have suddenly

gone from prudes to nymphos overnight--but not with your

husband? To the French: would you really ask about someone

being \"\u00e0 la fac\" when you know they don't speak French? Wouldn't

you use a more common word like \"universit\u00e9\"?

I lived in France for a while and I sort of do know and understand

Europe (and I love it), but my (German) roommate and I found this

pretty insulting overall. It looked like a movie funded by the

European Parliament, and it tried too hard basically. It had all

sorts of differences that it tried to tie together (not a bad thing in

itself) but the result is at best awkward, but in fact ridiculous--too

many clashes that wouldn't really happen. Then the end of the

movie--the last 10 minutes--ruined all the rest. Why doesn't Xavier

talk to the Erasmus students he meets back in Paris? Why does

he just walk off? Why does he just run away from his job, is that

\"freedom\"? And in the end, is the new Europe supposed to rest on

a bunch of people who smoke up and shag all day? Is this what

it's made up of?

Besides, the acting was pretty horrible. I can't believe Judith

Godr\u00e8che's role and acting. Why was she made to look like

Emanuelle B\u00e9art so much? At first I thought Xavier was OK but

with retrospect I think he was pretty bad.

And that's all really too bad, because technically (opening credits,

scenes when he's asking what papers he needs) it was really

good (except for sound editing around the British siblings), and the

soundtrack was great too. So the form was good, but the content

pretty horrible.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Xavier,a French student moves into an apartment in Barcelona with a cast of six other characters from all over Europe. An Italian, a Danish, a German, a British, a Spanish and a Belgium.

He wants to get a job in EU with the help of his father's friend. He says there are jobs here a lot, but if you know Spanish and Spanish market. So, he advice him to go Spain. Xavier gets an Eramus grand and fly to Barcelona by living his girlfriend and mother.

He first learns that the house he will stay is no longer available and the small rooms in Barcelona are even more expensive than he thinks. He stays in a French couples house while he was looking for a house. He has been interviewed with the 5 people from the house and has been accepted. He had an affair with this French guys lovely wife and totally messed up everything with his problematic girlfriend.

Do you want to hear more? Did you travel abroad for education? Watch this movie, I promise that you will have a very nice time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this film (dont know why it is called Pot Luck in England - what a rubbish, and entirely irrelevant name!), I spent 8 months in Barcelona, not as an Erasmus student but living with other foreigners, so it felt just the same. It brings back so many great memories of the fun I had with all the friends I made from different countries, and of the city itself. I really want to see the followup 'Les Poupees Russes ' (the Russian Dolls), I'm guessing it wont be released here? My brother saw it in France and said it def wasn't as good, but had a lot of the same cast (the Brother of Wendy gets married apparently). Anyone know anything about this film? and whether it may be released?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My wife and I watched this marvelous movie this evening because we will watch Russian Dolls tomorrow and the first is important to see before the second.

We both loved The Spaniah Apartment and will enjoy following some of the characters through the early years of their lives-now in St. Pertersburg, Russia. We both identified slightly with the rough framework of the story because we were students, Florence Italy for us, so the script was not completely foreign to our early lives. Our living was considerably different but as with this movie, anytime you throw together young people passing through the same life-hoops as any developed world people they will experience much the same life situations.

The collection of people and the personal difficulties that they faced were universals and therein lies the beauty of this film and probably its sequence that I will see tomorrow. As I wrote, the characters as well as these situations are familiar to all of us and therefore we can enjoy living their lives for awhile. This must be one of the film's great strengths-allowing the viewer to vicariously experience the emotional upheavals of the people involved and yet remain aloof. The viewer can, through that distance, chuckle to themselves thinking, \"I wouldn't have done something that dumb\" or \"I would have avoided that trap\". Maybe that's why we go to movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I got to watch this movie in my french class as part of lets say \"french culture\". I thought the way it was filmed and the editing was real good but mostly it was entertaining especially the guy that played Wendy's brother. Also the story line was really good as well as it was believable and yet adventurous as well.

Favorite Part: When William is making fun of the German guy studying and when he acts out how flies reproduce! :)

My french isn't that good but with the subtitles i could pretty much get what was going on.

WATCH IT!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My favorite film this year. Great characters and plot, and the direction and editing was smooth, visually beautiful, and interesting.

Set in Barcelona, the film follows a year in the lives of six foreign graduate students and assorted others. Cultures and languages clash but hearts and lives intertwine. The leading role would never have been cast in Hollywood, but he carried the part perfectly. The characters were nicely developed and their interplay was honest and accurate. There were two especially noteworthy scenes, the climax was truly inspired. The film is sentimental, and the last ten minutes could have been cut, but it was wonderfully entertaining.

I nearly didn't watch it, but did just to see Audrey Tautou. Her role although billed second or third was minor, and was outshined by several other characters. I wish more films like this were made. It brought to mind The Big Chill or The Breakfast Club. Don't start this movie late if you plan to go to bed 1\/2 way through.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"L'Auberge Espagnole is full of energy, and it's honest, realistic, and refreshing. Not a comedy or drama but more a slice of life movie about this particular group of very interesting but still normal young people who share an apartment in Barcelona for one year. Beautifully photographed with a nice soundtrack. If you're older, this movie should bring back a flood of good memories. If you're young, learn by this example.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a former Erasmus student I enjoyed this film very much. It was so realistic and funny. It really picked up the spirit that exists among Erasmus students. I hope, many other students will follow this experience, too. However, I wonder if this movie is all that interesting to watch for people with no international experience. But at least one of my friends who has never gone on Erasmus also enjoyed it very much. I give it 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie deals with the European ERASMUS exchange program but more generally about the European youth. It is so true , that I don't know Klapisch did to reach such a masterpiece... Definitely one of my top 5 movies. It reminds me of the famous song \"This is my life, my life, life is life...\" 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surprising, witty, funny and totally engaging, the film grabs a little-known reality: that of the student that goes studying in an Erasmus program. The beginning is great, as the story kicks off, of course it has a few lulls on the midsection, and the story drifts sometimes away from the main character, but the viewer won't bother - the movie is young, fresh, and light-hearted, even though I don't agree with the notion that when you do Erasmus and you come back you no longer make part of that universe. But that's just me. The movie is deep, and at the same time very light. Cool and recommendable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this film very much, as I liked before the other movies by Cedric Klapish. All the actors, coming from all over Europe, are very good and funny. One can really feel the influence of \"Amelie\", like in many other recent movies, but it's ok.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A young Frenchman uproots himself as he becomes an Erasmus exchange student in Barcelona and comes back a better man. Sounds boring? No way! The movie is filled with colourful people, all of them stereotypes (the British twat and her racist brother, the sexually liberated Dane, the ultra-organised German,...). In this case though, the stereotypes are brilliantly done. You feel like you know people like that (I for one know an arrogant doctor and his trophy wife, and they're just like the characters in the film!), they feel like REAL PEOPLE!

Go see this movie and enjoy the subtitles!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movies is really special ! it's about a young french who go in Barcelona (spain) in order to study and in barcleona he meets other youngs europeean like him. This film he's the EUROPEAN MOVIES of the YEAR so go watch it !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A rather charming depiction of European union beginning to operate among the young generation as representatives of that group learn to live together in an apartment in Barcelona, where they are all studying on international fellowships. Central to the story is Xavier ( Romain Duris),who may have lived a rather conventional life with his mother in France, but who quickly becomes a leader in the group, helping them deal with landlords and other problems. He learns about life and love rapidly. Duris has a wholesome appearance and gives a fine performance. The rest of the cast also play well. Occasionally they all lapse into English when they want to make sure they are communicating,uncertain about all their apartment mates' ability to understand French or Danish or whatever the languages may be. Cinematography noteworthy including fine views of Barcelona and its famed Gaudi towers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So we saw this on DVD at our apartment here in Paris. We're all here on an exchange program. We all laughed so hard cuz so much of what was going on in the movie happened to us! I mean yeah sure some of it was pretty clich\u00e9d but still true, know what I'm saying.

I think I related more to the quiet guy (the Italian) than Xavier because I'm more of the observer in our group. Anyway, I wish I had a hot roommate like Cecile de France. She seems like a cool chick in the movie and for real, after I saw her hosting the Cannes Festival last month.

Now I'm thinking I wanna go to Barcelona next summer after seeing this movie. I gotta check out the sequel too which just came out here in France.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I forsee many students now signing up for student exchange to Barcelona and being disappointed when they don't have quite such an exciting time.

The movie was enjoyable. It's of course always a pleasure to see Audrey Tatou.

However, I have a very strong issue with part of the movie. The lesbian roommate tells Xavier that women like to be physically dominated (which I take issue with) and shows him some sort of butt-grabbing move that's guaranteed to get a woman. Xavier then tries out the butt grab on a shy married friend - who starts out saying \"no no\" \"I'm married, I'm married\" but then somehow succumbs to the butt grab?? All of a sudden she's moaning \"yes yes\" and they're going at it on the benches in Parc Guell. I found this really really offensive. Furthermore it is very stereotyped. How often have we seen scenes where the woman says \"no\" but obviously doesn't mean it? No means no. Grabbing butts\/physical domination isn't going to make it right. It just totally supported the stereotypical rape myths.

I wasn't even sure how to read the next scene where he gloats to the lesbian about how it worked and how next time he was just going to demand \"suck it, slut\" (or something like that). Did he really think forcing himself onto a woman with no respect for her feelings was the way to go?

This section really ruined the movie for me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this Disney Movie! Its a real cute movie, and when it comes on again, I will have to make a mental note to tape it. I really like how they break into the bank trying to find Susie's parents information. You should really see this movie. Its great for the whole family.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is the best movie i have ever seen and i love it very much is is so sad and loving i could watch this movie over and over again. when i first seen it on Disney channel i was like i would love to see this movie again. i would love to watch this movie everyday and i recommend it to anyone. this is really a good movie. to anyone who has not seen this movie and is thinking about it they better go and see it because it is really good. i love the part when the boy found out about the girl and from then on i was just all into this movie. if i could watch two movies everyday it would be this one and beloved those are my two favorite movies i really love them","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although not the most technically advanced film I have seen, this was a fun and enjoyable couple of hours. The main characters are sweet and you really get to like them, and feel something when Susie Q. has to go, but feel good again when she returns as Maggie.

Lots of stock dialogue, and a contrived plot-line, but most of all, LOTS OF FUN.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Susie Q. is one of those rare, and sweet movies that give you a warm feeling. It's bittersweet, but wholesome, and it's characters are fun, and captivating. At first, I thought the movie would be the clich\u00e9 cuddly movie that would bore me after five minutes, but was I wrong. It made me tear up at times, and it's plot was enticing, making me root for the good guys. I loved the movie, and still remember it today, 9 years later!! I recommend it highly to ANYONE, and the movie is family oriented, so you won't have to worry about unsuitable content. Truly, if Disney would show more movies that are up to par as Susie Q., it would be the most popular family oriented channel in the world. Now if only Disney would show it just ONE more time!^_^ Go Susie Q.!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Susie Q is an original and isn't like those other bad Disney film, ***spoiler*** a boy named Zach moves to a new town and has trouble at school, he is good basketball. a girl in the 1950's died with her boyfriend, when their car was crashed off a bridge. Susie (Amy Jo Johnson) from the power rangers - pink ranger- is helping Zach as a ghost to get a necklace along the way he must explain to his sister about her ghost, and finally getting this necklace, Susie returns to the bridge she died on and then she gets in the ghostly car of her boyfriend and they float up. later as he misses her he finds a girl who looks just like her. (do you believe in reincarnation?)Susie Q is a good movie to see now and then but they barely give because Disney needs to fill everything up with stupid movies and shows i give it a

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't you ever miss the good old days when Disney actually made great movies that really moved you? Growing up with Disney I always found myself being captivated by the characters. Every single one seemed truly talented and knew how to act their way through a movie. I remember Friday nights and running to turn on the TV just to watch their newest movies. Susie Q was one of my all time favorites. I never forgot this movie. Even till this day when one mentions the song \"Susie Q\" I always remember the movie. If anyone is thinking of watching this movie I promise you, you will fall in love with it. I don't think I will ever be able to forget it. You will not regret watching it.

Unfortunately it's sad to see Disney movies such as \"The Hannah Montana Movie\" come out. What ever happened to Disney?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My kids loved this movie. we watched it every chance we got.it was fun a fun movie. we watched it as a family and everyone of us enjoyed it. it was a movie you could watch without any uncomfortable spots that you would have to explain to the younger ones. my boys loved this movie and they would love to be able to see it again. even after all these years they remember it. that Amy Jo Johnson was a very cute girl. all my boys had crushes on her. they loved her as the pink power ranger which is why we watched this movie to begin with. (as you can tell i am rambling a bit to fill lines LOL). but seriously it is a fun movie and worth watching. Disney please give us a DVD or replay!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i love this movie. is it on air anymore? what can i do to get it on air again because i miss this movie when does this movie air again? i love this movie so much. does anyone know how long it has been since it was last on Disney?it has been a very very long time and i am so sick of waiting!i want to see Susie Q again. i swear, they take all the good movies off air and play new stupid gay ones that are fake and retarded. i miss this movie, wish upon a star, Kazaam with Shaquille O'neil, and a bunch more. where did all the good movies go? i want them back.i miss all the good movies and they don't have them anymore. if anybody finds out if Susie Q or any good old Disney movie comes out will you please let me know, my email is girlygirl148@aol.com girlygirl(no blank space)148. thank you and i hope you want this movie back too. have a great day","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"does anyone know where i could get my hands on this video or the film for this. I have been searching for it for a long time to show my daughter to show her and i can not find it anywhere. probably because it was only on video and they never made the DVD or VHS or idk.

i saw this right off Disney back in 1996 and i think it would be the best video to show her. such a good movie that has every type of emotion displayed throughout the whole movie. also has a lot of actors that started their careers with this movie. If anyone knows how to get a copy of this movie or has a copy and willing to sell it to me for like 50 bucks or something, please call 201-566-0148. thank you","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm absolutely disgusted this movie isn't being sold. All who love this movie should email Disney and increase the demand for it. They'd eventually have to sell it then. I'd buy copies for everybody I know. Everything and everybody in this movie did a good job, and I haven't figured out why Disney hasn't put this movie on DVD or on VHS in rental stores. At least I haven't seen any copies. This is a wicked good movie and should be seen by all. The kids in the new generation don't get to see it and I think they should. It should at least be put back on the Channel. This movie doesn't deserve a cheap download. It deserves the real thing. I'm emailing them now. This movie WILL be on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I LOVE this movie. and Disney channel is ridiculous for not playing it anymore. I think they should definitely put Susie Q back on the air at least one night so we can record it!!! but if not does anyone know where I can find it?? my email is cristin6891@aim.com please email me if you know where i can find this movie. Online, or anywhere. I told my kids about this movie and i think that they deserve to see it also. All these Disney movies that are coming out now are fake and boring. I need Susie Q back!! It was a great movie and had great actors and i don't see why it was taken off the air. If everyone loves this movie so much why was it taken off the air. Please take my comment into consideration and along with all of the other comments made to this movie. Thank you, have a nice day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is very good and the whole family would enjoy watching it.When Susie Q is of to her big night at prom she dies in a fatal car crash on her way to prom by kids who are drunk and high.As the years go by Susie's house gets sold and a family moves into the house that she loves.As the boy who now lives in the house sees Susie and is the only one who can.The two team together with his little little sister and try to save Susie's parents from being broke.Staring Amy Jo Johnson as Susie Q.This movie will fell your heart with comedy,sadness and laughter.I hope that you see this movie because it is very good.But no one seems to have it on DVD or Vh's and it no longer comes on TV.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie used to be played constantly on the Disney Channel when I was a bit younger, and I really remember liking it. However, I didn't have great taste back then (not to say that I do now) so I can't vouch for my nine-year-old self too well. The movie was probably a 7\/10 but it had some good music so I gave it an extra point. Yeah, worth watching. I know that some fans of this movie are wondering what a certain song is - the one that appears when she is in the car crash. The song is \"Play a Love Song\" by the Jaguars and it is VERY hard to find and obtain. In fact, this movie is, too. I can't find it anywhere online or on DVD or on VHS. I'd like to see it again so I can gauge if it was actually a good movie. Oh well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Susie Q is a great romantic prom Movie. Amy Jo Johnson (Susie Q) is a great Actress. I think she did a great performance. I hope that sometime that the Disney Company could put this movie on DVD. I think it's kind of cool and a little bit hilarious. It's kind of sad when Susie Q dies in a Car accident in the beginning at first it makes you want to cry or sob. But in the middle when no one suspects Susie Q it gets kind of funny and surprising. There is a little bit of mystery in this movie but not much. But still I would recommend this movie to the whole family if they enjoy comedy, mystery, or romance type of movies. It's Great! I think that Amy Jo Johnson as Susie Q is Cute.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'll be brief: I normally hate films like this venomously ... but there is just something about this one that just draws me in and won't let me go. Granted, there are some major flaws in it (some of the acting is below par at best and the dialogue is sometimes so poor it's funny) but there are enough redeeming features to make it watchable to the end.

But what are they? Well, it's got a cool little plot - by no means is it original, but it is better presented than other films of its kind. The three main stars (Whalin, Johnson, Long) put in fairly decent performances that more than make up for the distinct lack of quality from the supporting cast (the fat cop and Coach Quinn really bugged me), and the scripting is slick and witty (even if it is poor in places).

The bottom line is, though, this film is so CUTE: I grinned all the way through it and it has a place in my video collection purely because it could cheer up anybody. You really have to be some kind of humourless bore not to like this (I DARE somebody to sit through this without grinning!!!).

I do recommend this one if you want a simple, fun, and - above all - enjoyable watch. You won't regret it!

~Top$~","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this flick on the big screen as a kid and loved it -- cheeziness and all. Recently, I found a copy on video and checked it out again. Badly made, sure... schlocky fun, most definitely. It still packs an entertaining punch. It's much more fun than the dull Disney version (\"Alive\"). The only thing \"Alive\" did better were the special effects. If you're a lover of B-movies, I highly recommend \"Survive\", not to mention all the other Rene Cardona Jnr movies... and the Mexican wrestling flicks made by his father (Rene Cardona Snr). \"Survive\" is long overdue for DVD special edition treatment. Are you listening, all you kind folk, at Anchor Bay...?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Almost 20 years before Frank Marshall brought tears to your eyes with his mesmerizing epic \"Alive\", there already was the legendary Mexican exploitation director Ren\u00e9 Cardona who used the same drama as an outline for his ambitious film \"Supervivientes de los Andes\". The unforgettable fatal flight of Fairchild 571 that crashed in the Argentinian Andes on October 13, 1972. This terrible accident cost the lives of many passengers, most of them members of a professional rugby team. But 16 people of them were eventually rescued thanks to their strong will to survive and because they fed on the mortal remains of their unfortunate fellow-passengers. Of course you can't claim that this cheaply made and roughly edited film is better than the famous 90's version but I definitely appreciate and respect this film more. After all, an exploitation film demands a lot more input from both cast and crew while the big-budgeted Marshall film, although intense, feels more like routine money-making. The sets and special effects naturally can't compete with \"Alive\", but \"Supervivientes...\" delivers an equally impressive sentiment of hopelessness and creates an even more nightmarish hell of snow. Cardona's film is ambitious, surprisingly compelling and easily one of the most remarkable Mexican productions ever. I am really astonished that Cardona's take on this story isn't more exploitative and explicit. The scenes where the deceased passengers are cut open and consumed are nevertheless hard to digest, but they only serve to increase the credibility of the catastrophe and to stress the inhuman conditions of the survivors. Rather praiseworthy for a vicious director who gained fame with his notoriously bad films like \"Night of the Bloody Apes\" and the Santo-series. The unknown young Mexican actors do a great job and the musical score is endearing. The story is well-known, of course, so the screenplay doesn't offer any unexpected shocks. Either by history or previously having seen \"Alive\", you know which kind of dramas these people still have to endure before being rescued and you can only await them. Still, this is a good film that shouldn't be bashed like too often is the case.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen so many bad reviews on Supervivientes de los Andes that I felt compelled to stand for it (or at least I'll try). First of all, of course that it looks dated, it was made in the seventies with very low budget, but that's part of it's charm. I like contemporary films but also dig the old ones for what they worth. I'm not the one to feel the urge to only see or like movies with modern treatments and effects; besides, almost every movie buff likes old fashioned motion pictures (who doesn't like films from El Santo or Plan 9 from outer space, no matter it's overall quality?). In the aspect of pace, is just a tool for covering (again) it's low cost, and I think the constant dialogs are in order of a better character and situations development. Sure, Alive has better FX, but I won't despise the old one just because of that, and I don't feel quite attracted to English speakers in an event involving people from Uruguay and for me, that gives a plus to Supervivientes de los Andes. It's like, even if Canoa, from the seventies and based on a true event too, would have a better remake now due to the advance of technology, but I think I would stick to that one based on the emotions that offers regardless it's production date.

All of this is based in the impact that had on me because the first time I saw it was on TV, and nowadays I don't think it has lost some of it's primal force. Of course it's been a long time and I've seen tons of better movies in every aspect of cinema, but that doesn't diminish it's true value. It's not a bad film, and I place it above Alive without hesitation. Just give it a break.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Graphics is far from the best part of the game. This is the number one best TH game in the series. Next to Underground. It deserves strong love. It is an insane game. There are massive levels, massive unlockable characters... it's just a massive game. Waste your money on this game. This is the kind of money that is wasted properly. And even though graphics suck, thats doesn't make a game good. Actually, the graphics were good at the time. Today the graphics are crap. WHO CARES? As they say in Canada, This is the fun game, aye. (You get to go to Canada in THPS3) Well, I don't know if they say that, but they might. who knows. Well, Canadian people do. Wait a minute, I'm getting off topic. This game rocks. Buy it, play it, enjoy it, love it. It's PURE BRILLIANCE.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Graphically, it is the same game as the first one just different levels and some new features added for fun.

The PS1 version still has an issue with giving skaters enough air for some ground tricks. The Dreamcast version, which is rarely seen anymore, was the best version of the 4 versions (Xbox eventually came out with a 5th with 2x), it had the clearer resolution and the skaters looked better and more detailed the PS1 and N64 could handle.

The levels are really amazingly done, from start to finish, like the first one, the school was my favorite, i enjoyed that level so much, not only for the golf cart that would sometimes run you over but for the length. That's what i liked about the first two games, they don't make these games graphically enhanced, they just focused on length of levels, which is cool.

Overall, just as good as the first one, and well worth playing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This game is very good for the n64. You can skate as Tony Hawk, Bob Burnquist, Steve Caballero, Kareem Campell, Eric Koston, Bucky Lasek, Rune Glifberg, Andrew Reynolds, Elissa Steamer, Jamie Thomas, Rodney Mullen, Chad Muska, and maybe some more skaters. The game doesn't have Mike V or Bam Margera. Dang! Well anyway, the gameplay is awesome. The level School II is a great level with so much to skate. In Career mode, you collect SKATE, get money, get high scores and other various things in 2 minutes. There's create a skater, which is pretty cool. I created a skater named Butt Mulligan, a black guy with an afro, and a Girl board. There's park editor, some cool premade parks, free skate, and there's single session where you skate for 2 minutes and get a score. You can watch replays, which is always cool. Each skater has 2 styles: A and B. The graphics aren't that good. Well, they're good for an n64 game. I wish I had a controller pack so I could save my data. Overall, this game is awesome. I give it an 8\/10 for n64. But with the GBA version, it's just as fun as the n64 version, but kinda hard to control. I give it a 7\/10 for GBA. So, go out to a place that still sells n64 games and pick up a copy. There's also versions for PS1.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, isn't much different at all from the previous games (excluding Tony Hawk 3). The only thing new that is featured in Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, is the new selection of levels, and tweaked out graphics. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x offers a new career mode, and that is the 2x career. The 2x career is basically Tony Hawk 1 career, because there is only about five challenges per level. If you missed Tony Hawk 1 and 2, I suggest that you buy Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, but if you have played the first two games, you should still try this one. Overall, there really isn't anything new, but it is still very fun to go through the game. Hopefully this review benefits your needs.

Graphics: 7 out of 10 Overall, the clean visuals isn't really one of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x's main characteristics. The atmosphere has been changed around a lot from Tony Hawk 1 and 2, and the character models look a little bit improved. When you look back to Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 and 2 on the old PS1, the thought that those old graphics are ugly run through your head. In Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, the graphics are rendered A LOT better. The character models are no longer filled with jaggys, the textures are more smooth, but not to the farthest extent. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x's visuals do not compare to Tony Hawk 3's graphics, but Activision probably didn't want to make Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x have extraordinary graphics. Overall, the graphics deserve an average score of 7 because they did not put the full power of the Xbox to use in here. Graphics are nice, and clean, that's all I have to say.

Sound: 8 out of 10 The sound effects don't deliver much to the imagination, but the skateboards popping off of the ground sound great. The main reason why I gave the sound factor a rating, was because you are not obligated to listen to the below average Tony Hawk soundtrack, because there is a custom soundtrack feature. The sound effects sound a lot better than the sounds in Tony Hawk 1 and 2, mainly because it is more clearer, and just the fact that everything sounds great. One of the main reasons why I bought this game, is because of the custom soundtrack. The grind sound effects still sound the same as the first two games did, just a little tweaked out. One of the major problems of the sound factor, is the fact that if the song is over, it will NOT proceed to the next track, the song that you have just listened to will just play over again. I don't like the in-game soundtrack, but like I said, you are not obligated to listen to it.

Controls: 10 out of 10 The controls are the best part of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x. The control set-up is marvelously comfortable, and easy to get used to. Back in the Playstation days, people thought that the controls were the best ever, but it looks like 2x has done a better job with the Xbox control. Surprisingly, it is very easy to use the control stick to execute tricks. Activision has done great work with Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x's controls. They have made the Xbox controller the best for Tony Hawk games. You will not be disappointed with the control style, and that is a guarantee.

Game play: 10 out of 10 Excluding the fact that Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x is basically Tony Hawk 1 and 2 put together, the game play is still unbelievably fun. The game play factor has been changed around a bit. This time, you get A LOT more air than in the first two games, and it is a lot easier to perform tricks. In Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, each character has three career modes, consisting of Tony Hawk 1 career, Tony Hawk 2 career, and the 2x career. Tony Hawk 1 career is rather easy because in the first game, you get NOTHING for air. The Tony Hawk 2 career delivers the same amount of difficulty as the playstation version did. The only amount of difficulty that applies to the 2x career, is finding out where all items are, but after you've done that, 2x career is no hard at all. In the 2x career, there is a total of 3 levels, and the first two levels consist of finding the secret tapes, collecting S-K-A-T-E, and doing whatever else is required for that particular level. The third level out of the three, is the competition level, where you have to get a certain amount of points to get the gold. In the first two levels, the secret tapes, and collecting the letters S-K-A-T-E, are featured in both of them. Overall, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x still maintains the old Tony Hawk's Pro Skater vibe.

Story: -

Fun factor: 10 out of 10 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x is by far, the most funnest game on Xbox today. I have played Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 and 2, and back then, I didn't like them, but for some reason, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x is really fun. There really isn't much to say, except that Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x is by far, the best game on Xbox today. One problem, is that if you've already gone through the game once, you will play it a couple more times, but it will be repetitive.

Replay value: 10 out of 10 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x delivers a high amount of replay value. There is a lot of cheats to unlock, and a lot of character videos. Overall, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x has lots of replay value, mainly because it is so fun.

Best feature: You are not obligated to listen to the crappy in-game soundtrack. Worst feature: The custom soundtrack is a bit messed up.

Final Statement: Lots of people have complained in the past that they didn't like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x because there is nothing new, but they should stop complaining because your getting a lot of game for $50.00.

Graphics: 7 out of 10. Sound: 8 out of 10. Control: 10 out of 10. Game play: 10 out of 10. Story: N\/A Fun factor: 10 out of 10.

Overall score: 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't skateboard because I think it's gay but this game is really great it's smooth, fast, easy to play, and just fun even if you don't do so well. It can be just really fun to make the skaters just crash and burn, easily one of the best video games ever!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a \"revised\" Riverdance presentation, staged at Radio City Music hall in New York City. Of the three Irish \"dance\" musicals that I watched during the mid to late '90s (which includes the first \"Riverdance\" and \"Lord of the Dance\") I liked this one the best.

I thought it was better than the original, held in Dublin, Ireland, because it adds segments that are mostly good, it has a more varied and colorful stage setting and it eliminated apiece for two from that original that wasn't good to begin with. This is just a very solid show with few weak spots. To be certain, there are some songs\/dances that are just \"fair\" but none that are poor, which is amazing considering there are 20 numbers in all.

The cast is similar to the first Riverdance with the main exception of Colin Dunne replacing Michael Flatley as the featured dancer. Both are extremely talented. The major difference might be in their looks with Dunne a little, goateed black-haired guy while Flatley is the clean-shaven blond. I prefer Dunne because Flatley's ego is so big he gets annoying at times. The female lead, Jean Butler, thankfully, is still there and is great to watch: what graceful beauty and talent! Butler and the rest of these women have the greatest legs I've seen on dancers. I also enjoyed the dancing of Maria Pages, a Spanish flamenco performer, and two guys: Daniel B. Wooten and Ivan Thomas. One number - with those two pairing off against Dunne and two other dancers -0 is called \"Trading Taps\" and is terrific fun to watch, maybe the highlight of the whole show. I have no complaints about violinist Eileen Ivers, either.

The \"fast\" Irish songs here appealed to me the most. I appreciated the audience not getting in the way of the performance either with shrieks and screams like the women do in the \"Lord Of The Dance\" video.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In my opinion, Flatley ruined the first show with his ridiculous ego. He was disrespectful to his dancing partner, tried to upstage everyone and had no awareness of the spirit of Riverdance. It's well he left the show. Colin Dunne, the new male lead, is superb, and when he and Jean Butler dance together, magic happens! Eileen Ivers' fiddling is astonishing (as is Noel Eccles' percussion,) and Maria Pages' \"Fire Dance\" is worth the price of admission! When Pages and Ivers get together, near the end of the show for a musical duet, well, it's a genuine treasure. I agree, the editing isn't complimentary, but no technical shortcoming can quell this extraordinary tour de force. This is the one to get. There's never been anything like Riverdance! This is the real one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Others have commented on the somewhat strange video arrangements. I think they were trying to capture what you'd be looking at when attending a live performance. The feet, the faces, the overall view. Unfortunately, it falls a bit short. But, having said that, watching Colin Dunne is nevertheless gratifying. It's an interesting contrast to Michael Flatley in the original video. The progression of the show is evident, changes from the original Dublin production are evident.

\"Trading Taps\" is the highlight of the video, in my opinion. Tarik Winston is unbelievable, as is his partner in the piece.

I think the audio was better in this version than the original video production (1995). In Dolby 5.1 on DVD it's excellent.

Despite the flawed videography, it's a must-own for Riverdance fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The show is GREAT. No words to describe it. Wonderful music. Incredible dance. The editors couldn't spoil it, not because they were not *that*bad*, but because the show is really *that*good*.

The editors are compulsive cutters, you can't see a scene without a cut for more than 15 secs. It's OK to show various angles, but those guys were working with multiple cameras for the first time in their lives, and they will remind you of how many cameras they have every five seconds on average... They manage to film the start of a jump with one camera, then cut it in the middle, and show the rest of it in another angle.

No matter how much they tried, they couldn't spoil that wonderful show. It's a must for dance and music lovers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Riverdance - The New Show and loved it from the very first moment! It is an energetic tribute to Irish dance filled with brilliant dancing, music and choreography! The leads, Jean Butler and Colin Dunne had me captivated with their exquisite dancing! May they always keep shining and keep dancing. Their on stage chemistry was amazing, and the unity between them on stage was obvious. They look like they were made to dance with each other! This show is my absolute favourite, and probably always will be. Long Live Riverdance!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen Riverdance in person and nothing compares to the video, but the show is awesome. The dancers are amazing. The music is impacting. And the overall performance is outstanding. I've never seen anything like it! I suggest that you see this show if you can!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very good \"Precoder\" starring Dick Barthelmess, which in a way, kind of reminded me of Hawks' \"Only Angels Have Wings\" (1939), in which Barthelmess also acted. This film was directed by masterful William Wellman, who was responsible for the landmark aviation Silent picture \"Wings\".

Barthelmess plays a devil-may-care airplane pilot, who is a blamed for an aviation accident. Afterwards he meets and falls for pretty Sally Eilers, who participates as part of an Act in an itinerant Air Circus; but when Barthelmess' brother appears in scene, a triangular relationship ensues.

\"Central Airport\" has many thrilling moments and some moving and touching scenes too, thanks to the great chemistry that develops between Barthelmess and Eilers (who, in my opinion, in this film resembles very much actress Dorothy Mackaill). Tom Brown is good as Barthelmess brother, fresh from his success in Wyler's \"Tom Brown of Culver\".

Great special effects, good flying stunts, swiftly paced film; in all, highly entertaining. Don't miss it when TCM airs it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Central Airport is the story of a pilot named Jim (Richard Barthelmess) who has one bad flight in over 4000 hours and is forced to give up commercial flying. He meets a beautiful girl named Jill (Sally Eilers) and the two start up an act involving flying and stunts. The two start a relationship, but when Jim is hurt, his brother (Tom Brown) takes over the act for a while and falls for his brother's girlfriend. From there, things get exciting and terribly terribly sad.

This film is a pre-code because of several reasons. First, Jim and Jill have consummated their relationship without being married and with no intention of having a wedding. Second, Eilers is shown in her underwear, and absolutely restricted scene when the Production Code came into effect.

This film does not skimp on the dramatic love triangle and in consequence ends bittersweetly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"William Wellmann, who directed one of the most exciting silent films ever made, 'Wings' (1927), here returns to the skies with another rip-roaring story of dare-devil fliers. Wellmann had been an air ace in World War One, and no one knew biplanes like he did. Here they are, stunt-flying, crashing, exploding in the air, and everything you can think of, plus a fascinating glimpse of commercial air operations in 1932 as well. And there is a good strong story, excellently played by the sombre Richard Barthelmess (the silent star who made several films with D. W. Griffith), Sally Eilers and Tom Brown. Eilers is a real sizzler. Such a relief to see a real woman with real fire and character instead of one of those photofit botoxed dummies who play in movies in today's Hollywood and all look identical. The story is a sad one, played with genuine pathos, and well directed. Towards the end of the film there are some extraordinarily thrilling scenes of danger and rescue, and what must be the most ingenious blind landing in thick fog ever thought of. I dare not give away the ingenious aspects of that particular episode. The character played by Barthelmess is very like Wellmann himself, a truly wild hell-raiser in the air. Anyone who likes early aviation would love this film, and it's very rewarding for anyone who likes good solid entertainment, love, tears, and non-stop action all combined in a kind of delectable Wellmann omelette.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many of the earlier comments are right on the money, but some, well, not so much.

This Is hardly a 'B' movie...it's well produced, the live flying sequences are really superb, and the model sequences are first rate. It's no \"cheapie\".

Ricard Barthelmess is quite good in this, and it makes a a nice companion piece for \"Only Angels Have Wings\".

If you want to spot John Wayne, spot J. Carrol Naish first, they end up together.

Tom Browne is juvenile enough (and somewhat dull), but when they saddle him with the most pathetic pencil-mustache in Hollywood history, it makes his character even less believable. Sally Eilers is much more so.

As for later influences, this is Wellman in the early Airliner-in-Distress zone...the opening sequence of this film, with the Airline Operations guy arriving at the \"Grand Central Airport\" would have fit very nicely into \"The High and the Mighty\"...just imagine Regis Toomey...and a 1955 Buick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Loved the shots of airports -- Dallas, Phoenix, Fresno, etc., just single buildings with the name in block letters on the roof. And the tri-motors, and the well-dressed passengers. Fast-forward 75 years....

But what really got to me was the hammer and sickle emblem and what appeared to be a Chinese ideogram adjacent the logo, aft of the pilot's seat on the starboard side of the fuselage. Remember when the mutual acquaintance Neil and Jill encounter says that Jim'd become a general in a Chinese rebel army? That, based on the hammer and sickle, could only have been the People's Revolutionary Army of Mao Tse Dung!!! Never mind the undies and the unwed twosome in bed -- would that logo and that reference have survived during the Cold War?

Additional observation 12\/27: This film of the 30's with the soviet emblem may\/must also reflect the influence on and charm of communism in Hollywood and much of America during the Depression. Adds to the historical value of this terrific film.

Also I liked the American Dream aspects of two guys from Winnemucca taking at least part of the world by storm, Red-Blooded (literally and copiously in Jim's case)American Boys.

Others have commented more ably than I on the aerobatics, etc. I loved it all.

This gem deserved more than the mere 1.5 stars Osborne and Co. rated it on TCM, if only for recording parts of American history of the early 30s.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every Saturday morning at 11 a.m. I watched Superstars. All the biggest events happened on this show at the time. Challenge, which aired Sunday mornings, was decent too, but all the big stuff happened on this show. Wrestlers would do all their interviews with Mean Gene on a platform next to the live crowd or talk on their own to the screen in front of a background that promoted them. The matches were usually squashes but sometimes you would see 2 mid carders square off in the main event. There were also interview shows that usually resulted in violence thus setting up a feud. These segments ranged from Pipers Pit, The Body Shop, The Flower Shop, The Snake Pit, The Brother Love Show, The Funeral Parlor, and The Barber Shop. I don't recall any titles changing hands on this show. That usually happened at pay per views and Saturday Nights Main Event.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before the WWF became cartoon with Hulk Hoagan leading the way, the events of WWF TV broadcasts of the very early 1980s resembled the wild, wild west with all kinds of grudges and vicious acts of violence performed by some of the wrestlers that are known today to be the WWF's most beloved stars. Some of these seemingly very real moments stand out. A maniacal Sgt. Slaughter whipped then champion Bob Backlund with a riding crop after Backlund showed him up in a fitness test. Welts were all over Backlund! Sarge made the Iron Shiek look like a daycare provider! Slaughter also issued a challenge to anyone who could break his dreaded cobra clutch hold. This led a legendary and bloody alley match with commentator Pat Patterson. Hall of Fame member Blackjack Mulligan with Freddie Blassie came into the WWF with a claw hold that was censored on television. He claimed he was the true giant at 6'7\" and challenged Andre long before Big John Studd in 1984. Adrian Adonis used his ominously named \"Good Night, Irene\" sleeper to take out the competition. A New Yorker clad in black leather, he was an ominous figure. George \"the Animal\" Steele was far from a crowd pleaser, as well. Even Jimmy Snuka was a fearsome sight as he set out maim opponents until Ray \"the Crippler\" Stevens delivered a piledriver onto the cement floor leaving Snuka a bloody mess. All these encounters took place a decade before hardcore wrestling was ever spoken of.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a witty and delightful adaptation of the Dr Seuss book, brilliantly animated by UPA's finest and thoroughly deserving of its Academy Award. Special mention should be made of the superb music score and sound effects, which are an integral element in helping to make this such a memorable and enjoyable cartoon. Later episodes in the series (of which there were four in total) were not actually based on original Dr Seuss material, although all but the last continued to use his familiar rhyming style. The three sequels were: Gerald McBoing Boing's Symphony (1953); How Now Boing Boing (1954); Gerald McBoing Boing On Planet Moo (1956) - although he also appeared in a later episode of Mr Magoo.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This short, which won an Oscar, spawned two sequels and a TV cartoon show, has minimal animation but adelightful script (by Theodore Geisel aka Dr. Seuss) and aneven more memorable and enchanting main character. UPA pioneered a style of animation that even influenced Disney during the mid-1950s and produced some of the best animated shorts done in the late 1940s and the 1950s. This is on of their finest. God to have it in print. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If there's one cartoon that helped to put UPA on the map more than any other, It's Gerald McBoing-Boing. This tale of a little boy who only speaks in sound effects has kept its charm for the last 57 years. Besides the effects, loved the music, the abstract animation and backgrounds, the narration by Marvin Miller, pretty much everything. And it won the Oscar for Best Animated Short of 1950. Glad to have seen it on YouTube after reading about this Dr. Seuss story for so many years. And Rocky and Bullwinkle creator Bill Scott also contributed, how awesome! Hope to see the subsequent shorts made in the series, if not on YouTube, then maybe in a DVD collection. Now I guess I'll watch another UPA short there...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My dad had this movie as an 8mm reel. I loved it when he would pull out the projector, tape a sheet to the wall, and play Gerald McBoing Boing. The thought of a child who communicated through sounds fascinated me.

Nine years ago, my son was diagnosised as autistic. The doctors would ask me questions about my son such as \"How does he communicate with you?\" I would respond, \"Have you ever seen the cartoon, Gerald McBoing Boing?\" I would love to have a copy of this cartoon to show my son and his educators, this is how my son see he's world.

Recently, I spoke with a digital transfer specialist who indicated most personal 8mm films did not contain sound until the mid 1970's. I guess I was pretty lucky to have experienced the sights and sounds of Gerald McBoing Boing in 1972.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"MCBOING BOING is one of the cartoons that have stuck in my head over the years and finally decided to look into it as was pleasantly surprised and was also surprised on the people involved with the production. If I remember correctly we had to watch it on a UHF station and this meant using a converter in those days UHF not part of regular TV to tune in the local station to watch the cartoon a big deal in those days which made the show even more mysterious. I remember all the sound effects that Gerald used to talk. A great memory from 50+ years ago. I'll have to see what other memories might be hiding on the web. By the way I try to do computer animation thats where the johnl3d comes into the picture","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"During the brief Golden Age of the Super 8 Magnetic Sound Home Movies, we purchased a GAF Projector for $148.00 on close-out at a Downtown Chicago Camera Store. It seemed that GAF was getting out of the Camera & Projector Business; although they would continue with their other enterprises, such as the former Sawyer's Vue-Master 3 Dimensional color slide viewers.

Little did we know nor anticipate the rapid approach of the Video Camera, the Betamax, the VHS and the eventual DVD revolutions. With the Super 8 Magnetic Sound Camera that we also purchased, we took some sound film records as our Daughter, Jenn's First Holy Communion and her younger Sister, Michelle's Graduation from Pre-School. This was all circa 1979-82.

During this time we also purchased a few Daddy Toys to go with it; like some Super 8 Magnetic Sound LAUREL & HARDY Films and W.C. FIELDS' Shorts from Blackhawk Films, Davenport, Iowa. We also picked up a Columbia Pictures Home Movies Sound Film of a then sort of forgotten Classic Cartoon, UPA's GERALD McBOING-BOING (United Productions of America\/Columbia, 1951). It was THE hit of our Home Movies Time!

Being members of that Baby Boomer Generation, the Wife (Deanna) and meself had recollection of the Character of Gerald McBoing-Boing; for Gerald had a Network TV Show on CBS, early Sunday Evenings, ca. 1955. Bill Goodwin was the Announcer\/Host. But we had never seen this original UPA Theatrical Cartoon; nor was it known to us that the young Master McBoing-Boing was a creation of Dr. Seuss of \"Grinch\", \"Horton\" and \"Mulberry Street\" fame.

THE staff assembled was very talent rich and deep. The outstanding production values are apparent. Director Robert Cannon and Supervisoring Director John Hubley were veterans at the top of their craft. Writers were Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss, Himself), Phil Eastman and Bill Scott.

Mr. Scott is remembered not so much for his writing contributions to UPA, but for being partners with Jay Ward in such Television Properties as ROCKY & BULLWINKLE, MR. PEABODY, FRACTURED FLICKERS, GEORGE OF THE JUNGLE, HOPPITY HOOPER and FRACTURED FLICKERS. With the Jay Ward Productions he was a writer, voice man and Kibitzer-General of the whole company.

The cartoon receives its only \"voice\" from the Narrator, Radio\/Movie\/TV Actor Marvin Miller. Remember him? He was Michael Anthony on the TV Ssries THE MILLIONAIRE (Don Fedderson Productions\/CBS Television Network, 1955-60).

Bold color schematic and imaginative design went into giving the UPA animations a special feelings of loneliness, fear apprehension and eventual triumph. And, we might add, the animation is definitely of the \"Limited\" Variety.

AS with so many great stories, ours starts out with a simple premise; one's being born different. In this case it is young boy Gerald McCloy, who has been born to make sound effects in communicating rather than talking. Kids can be cruel and soon he is dubbed with his not so flattering nick name by a group of youthful taunters chanting: \"Nya, nya, your name's not McCloy; it's Gerald McBoing-Boing, the Noise Making Boy!\" AT this point, the Animation Team does an outstanding job in shifting the emotional gears in the young outcast from happy & carefree to isolated & lonely and finally to depression & despair in not being able to turn to anyone for help and understanding; not even to his Mother and Father.

A frighteningly fashioned dark scene involving a highly UPA stylized run away scene involving a Train and an equally stylized Snowfall brings Gerald right to the brink of absolute despair. But then, he is interrupted by a gentleman announcing that young Gerald is wanted by the producer of some Radio Program to provide the sounds for the show down at the Studio.

ONCE the premiere show is done with Gerald starring in the Sound Department, he rides off in a huge Limousine (which seems to have anticipated those S-t-r-e-t-c-h Limos of our day) to the cheers and admiration of his Classmates and the World.

IT has been said that there are only so many plots and, in that case this story is most likely a variation on The Ugly Duckling; for after all, a sad and lonely boy finds his place in the world and true happiness.

NOTE: United Productions of America, or UPA for short, was an outstanding center of creativity in the field of the Animated Cartoon. They were responsible not only for GERALD McBOING-BOING and several sequels and a TV Series, but also the highly popular MR. MAGOO Theatrical Cartoons and subsequent TV Show (with voice talent of Jim Backus), the Classic Original TV Cartoon of FROSTY THE SNOWMAN and the rather bizarre DICK TRACY Cartoon Show (with Tracy's voice rendered by Mr. Everett Sloane!).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have remembered this cartoon for over 50 years - what staying power it has! It was funny and creative; I wish my children and grandchildren could have seen it. It ranks right up there with Winky Dink - another favorite. I was pleased to find out that one of the creators later worked on Rocky and Bullwinkle. These early shows had a lot going for them that todays cartoons for kids don't have. Today's cartoons seem to push the idea that one needs something special, some magic formula or talent to be able to succeed against evil or dangerous circumstances. While the early cartoons didn't address evil very much - it WAS a much gentler and safer time - they allowed us to develop our own talents and character.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you repeat a lie enough number of times will it become the truth? 15 park avenue is the story of an alternative reality of a schizophrenic (Mithi). The movie is about her search for her home at a fictitious address where her imaginary husband and 5 children live. Aparna Sen delivers yet another masterpiece. Each and every actor of the movie was better than the other. Konkona Sen looks unbelievably convincing as a schizophrenic. She pulls off the role with such ease and maturity beyond her age. Shabana Azmi is incredible as usual. She plays the dominating and fiercely independent elder sister of Mithi who takes care of her ailing sister and aging mother. She refuses to accept that in-spite of all her strength and courage, she still feels lonely at times. This should have been a very easy movie for Rahul Bose. The role was least bit demanding and anyone could have done the role.

The ending of the movie was the most surreal part of the whole park avenue experience. It took me a while to digest that the movie had ended. It left me confused and maybe even a bit disturbed. But later on, it started sinking in. My eyes are black. But if everyone says they are blue, will I still believe that its black??!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a multi-faceted, insightful and bold story about the people in the life of a schizophrenic patient, their (and our) perception and realities. Although the main theme revolves around a delusional young woman, the story delightfully flirts with physics, medicine, religion and even politics as it questions our perceptions about what is true and what is real. Konkona Sensharma beautifully conveys that the world Mithi is living in is as real to her as ours is to us. Within that world, she is logical and her thoughts are internally consistent, not the gibberish that they seem to us in our world.

Here are a few outstanding scenes to look out for while watching the movie (don't worry, these are not spoilers). I absolutely loved the way Aparna Sen wove these commentaries into the story.

- The references to quantum mechanics and relativity intermingled with the witch-doctor (\"ojha\" in Hindi) performing his religious rituals that he believes will drive away the \"ghosts\" sitting in Mithi's brain.

- The doctor prescribing shock-treatment as a solution that is \"believed\" to work

- Windows of perception - The scene about the review of Anu's book.

- The allusion to illusion in a conversation about a director looking for \"maya\".

- News footage of George Bush telling the whole world that there is \"no doubt in his mind\" that there are WMD in Iraq (now, that is not as much about Bush's perception, who I suspect knew the truth, as the gullible public's perception about WMD in Iraq.)

- One of the best scenes in the movie is where Mithi tells Anu \"Charu sent this man to beat me\" and Anu dismisses it as a matter of course. Konkona did a fantastic job, bringing out the strange mix of muddled thoughts in a schizophrenic's brain when her world and the real world clash.

Aparna Sen was bold, but not bold enough to pose one big question: Is nearly all of mankind delusional to believe in God? She could have inserted some scenes about \"normal\", \"healthy\" people praying to and sacrificing for a Being that no one has ever seen or heard from in all of human history (The ritual\/exorcism scene doesn't go far enough). That would be the ultimate question: What is normal? Who's reality is right, the Believer's or the Atheist's?

IMHO, this movie is a far more intricate exploration of the schizophrenic mind than \"A Beautiful Mind\". It looks at the minds of not just the sick person, but also the healthy, and does so from many different angles and illuminates our understanding of our own minds and our world. If the former got 4 Oscars, this deserves more - At least one each for story, screenplay, direction, Konkona, and Shabana Azmi. It was truly a treat to watch this movie and I'm glad I bought the DVD for my collection.

This was a story very well-told indeed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"15 Park Avenue, well the name mystifies initially being an address from New York and film being set in Kolkata. However as the story unfolds, one realize the thin line that director tries to walk between Relationships, Social Cause and of course the world of Schizophrenia. I would say Aparna Sen is one director who has so much more to say and has so less time at disposal. Well no doubt she has managed to make a good movie. In a way she makes us realize that probably each one of us is looking for our own '15 Park Avenue'. Its an unending search within each of one of us...

The powerhouse performance from Shabana Azmi is a treat to watch. Her screen presence brings whole lot of life into the scene. Indeed it was surprising to see her in such a powerful act after long because I expected it to be all the way Konkona Sen's terrain. Shabana makes you feel skin deep of an elder sister who is running the whole show for a rather unfortunate family and during this time she almost forgets to live her own life. She burdens all her ambitions and desires with ailing 18 year younger sister ( who is more like a daughter to her ) and an aging mother played by veteran Waheeda Rehman. As for the leading actress from Guide ( that's how I can recall her instantly ) there is hardly anything to say except few lines and tear drops here and there. Ever dependable Rahul Bose plays another pivotal role in the film, he shows the emotions of a middle age man with repent on his face to near perfection. This man really amazes me with the variety of work he has done. From a musician in Jhankar Beats to a liberal Muslim in Mr. & Mrs. Iyer and so many others\u0085. He is one versatile I really wish if he had some more shots in the first part of the movie as well. The cameo in the movie is by Shefali Shah (remember Satya and Monsoon Wedding). She looks really beautiful and depicts the role of a mother of 2 kids with real ease. She gives you a glimpse of today's Indian woman who is modern in approach but still conventional when it comes to her husband's prior relationships.

The focus of camera has been Meethi, portrayed by Konkona. She and her schizophrenic world constitute the nucleus of 15 Park Avenue. She has really worked hard for the character but there are times when she is not able to relate with the audience. The fateful accident of her life tries to rope in sympathy and it has been only partially successful.

The movie tries to address quite a few things in one go starting from the unique world of a disabled person to the unequal status of a female even in today's modern India and also the twisted relationships in a tattered family. And I believe Aparna has succeeded to certain extent. The helplessness of Meethi while she works as a journalist in a rural eastern state really gives us all a naked picture of the country we are so proud of.

Well after I finished 15 Park Avenue, there was a sense of unquenched thirst within me. I wanted more out of this movie to drench me emotionally. It has been a commendable effort on the part of director except few hiccups. Must watch for all those who like to see a different cinema, something with a strong purpose.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i went to watch this film with my family who were expecting a neatly conclusive story like ''mr.& mrs.iyer''.and they returned home thoroughly disappointed.so,this is a warning to all ''conclusive story lovers'' to stay away.15 park avenue does not seek to answer questions or provide moral solutions on how to treat the mentally challenged.rather its intention is loud and clear.it questions every human being's,sane or not,sense of reality.in fact for me it even arouses doubts about my taken-for-granted sense of sanity.the security,bondage,satisfaction that i find in my present,is it really what i am or does it really create an illusion that all of us desperately and sometimes ignorantly cling on to just to falsely console the neglected 'meethi' which exists in all of us in some way or the other? so,why does anjali so maniacally makes it a point to show off her strength of mind when she is really harrowed by the realization that she is becoming a monster?aren't we all who think we are ''normal'' ,really monstrous and helplessly vulnerable about it deep down inside? is it not better to be happy even insanely,than to create the impression of 'normalcy' while suppressing one's fragility? meethi bravely,madly,sincerely does that.and society labels her as ''schizophrenic''.the ending did confound me at first,but then you realise that meethi bravery and sincere belief took her where she wanted to go.she found what she was searching for,not caring what society had to comment upon her search. and it is the seemingly 'real' people - anjali,the psychiatrist,and jojo- who never reach anywhere.my family thinks that i am schizophrenic too in trying to make sense of a film that is largely 'insane' to the rest of the world.anyone else willing to believe in my sense of reality...........?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILERS AHEAD

15 PARK AVENUE: My Humble take on this film

Now, for a viewer of cinema having tastes as severely limited as mine, niche films like 15 Park Avenue ought to be palatable to my sensibilities. With this thought, and a mild sense of embarrassment that I hadn't watched the complete film earlier, I watched this film last Saturday. There are some starting similarities with other works like the legendary Mulholland Drive (David Lynch) from which, this film borrows at least 3 concepts:-

a) That (at least some) truths are relative b) The first scene of Shabana and Konkonam going around in a car as the opening credits roll, is uncannily similar to the car ride that Betty and Rita undertook in Mulholland Drive. In both cases, the object of inquiry happens to be a place which is probably mythical in both cases and perhaps more openly symbolic in Aparna's film c) The incident revolving around the mad beggar woman is again extremely reminiscent of the whole 'occurence behind Winkies' involving a bum but while that scary creature is an embodiment of something and that that 'something' as well as the character per Se is seamlessly linked to other works of Lynch (notice carefully the disheveled long hair), the effect of the beggar woman in 15 PA appears to be a tribute and therefore insignificant in the context of the film and its message

The other films from which 15 PA also borrows is Blow Up (especially the last scene is a throw back to the truth Vs. perceived truth poser presented towards the end of Antonioni's masterpiece). Of course, the professor and schizophrenia angle also bring to the mind, \"A Beautiful mind\". Although, admittedly the subject here is high brow physics and Shabana, who professes it, inadvertently ends up being the brilliant antithesis to the delusional hallucinations of Konkona's character through those very prophecies. In an outstanding scene in the movie, some of these elements are juxtaposed with each other and that scene cuts back and forth from the 'real' world of Shabana, where Quantum Physics and the Theory of Relativity justify the finiteness and composition of the universe, to the artificial edifice of the 'make believe' world of Mithi But for all their differences, the sisters are alike too. Both are incapable of forming long lasting relationships- one out of choice and the other out of nature. So, Mithi's pain at being rejected in love by Joydeep is in harmony with the inability of Shaban to form a special bond with either Kunal(Dhritiman) or Sanjeev (Kanwaljeet). But I'm getting ahead of myself. Viewers generally tend to view this film in one of the following two ways:-

Hypothesis 1: \"It was Shabana all along\" There is a certain section of the audience who think so. But that explanation is not only too far fetched but also contrived as that would mean she was dreaming up so many other characters too (i.e. all those characters whom she visualized as visualizing Mithi along with her)

Hypothesis 2: \"There WAS a REAL Mithi and the ending is a metaphor\" This POV says that the film's essence is summarized in one dialog in the film, when in response to a statement by Joy (Rahul Bose), that Mithi is looking for something that she will never find, his wife Laxmi (Shefali Shah) philosophizes that we all are looking indeed for that illusive utopia, the end of the rainbow wherein appears to lie the mirage of happiness and contentment

There are other more minor possibilities which have not been embraced that much by our knowledgeable audience like:-

Hypothesis 3:\" Shabana and Konkona are alter egos of the same person\" Hypothesis 4: \"Shabana too is a figment of Mithi's imagination\" Hypothesis 5: \"The old, haggard, perhaps mad, beggar woman is the real protagonist of the story\"

Are these hypotheses worthy of even being tested? Well, your guess is as good as mine

\"Why 15 Park Avenue?\" Contrary to the popular perception that she was thinking of the Park Avenue in NY, I believe that she got the name from the brand name of a semi popular bathing soap. Remember, her stating Jo Jo's profession as \"Prime minister of Shikakai\", which as you may be knowing is a popular ingredient used in manufacturing Shampoos. The prefix '15' is used as it was on 15th December that Mithi got engaged to Joydeep and after his walkout, she remains forever in a time warp. The film has its fair share of flaws- lack of use of a strong background score, which in films like these can really augment the narrative, some sloppy dialogs unabated by some forced dialog delivery. Inconsistent performances (Shabana and Dhritimaan are excellent though IMO) by a few of the cast members albeit many members of this ensemble cast have been wasted. Shefali Chaya's sudden insecurity about her husband seems to be an unimaginatively introduced dimension in the plot. I give it 7\/10 as it made me think but not any higher than that because I can easily fathom its sources of inspiration and having experienced (and for the most part, thoroughly enjoyed) those previously, I have already thought on similar lines earlier. So, the experience post 15 PA is bound to be sans a certain degree of novelty. Where am I coming from? I gave 9.5\/10 to '36 Chowringhee Lane' (though rumors still persist that one Satyajit Ray ghost directed it), 7.5 to 'Paromiter Ek Din', 7 to 'Mr and Mrs Iyer' and 5 to 'Paroma'. On an existential level, it failed to invoke my interest, not even as much as say a 'Truman Show'","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i have just seen the movie \"15 park avenue\" which was the first night presentation movie in the asia society human rights film festival in new york.i was really moved by the subject matter of this movie and also the excellent portrayal of \"mithi\" by the lead actor konkona sen sharma.i have just one word for everyone who is reading this comment,run to get a copy of this gem and watch it.my sincere thanks to director aparna sen who has done a excellent job again.movie like this comes on once in a blue moon and i was lucky enough to see this movie on screen and also took part in a after movie discussion\/question and answer session with konkona sen sharma.in a simple word \"a wonderful experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must say it was a let down. Overall its great to see the way Aparna Sen has handled the issue of schizophrenia, I am not much knowledgeable on this and got whatever it was depicted in A Beautiful Mind, and here too its interesting portrayal.

But the thing that caused the let down for me was the artificial dialogues and over use of English. Its true that a new class is being formed\/ has been formed in India which talks in English even at home, but I am sure its not as formal as in the movie. Moreover, Waheeda Rehmaan did not seem very comfortable talking everything in English. Charu's dialogue in Bihari tone was seemingly much more realistic and digestible.

The second thing, its about the abstract flavor she has tried to give to the movie. I generally like movies with open ending, but here there were many loose ends. Its like cut pieces are joined together to make the movie. Also there seemed no central theme to the movie. Schizophernia for sure was the main line but intermingling sister-sister, mother-daughter, adding doctor-azmi relation, no real use of brother, Bose - Bose's wife relations..... all were not required and made the audience loose track of what actually did she try to depict.

On the whole, a watch for people who like off-beat movies, a must avoid for the ones who just see movies as an entertainment tool.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"15 PARK AVENUE is the address \"Mithi\/Mithali\" (Konkona) is in search for from the movies beginning. \"Prof.Anu\" (Shabhana Azmi)is Mithi's extremely caring and loving half sister from Mithi's mom's earlier marriage. The movie revolves around these characters and looks into the life of a schizophrenic patient (Mithi). The director tries to explain to the viewer the imaginary world of Mithi, through her continuous blabbering to Anu and others.

Konkona deserves not one but thousands of awards (which I am sure, she will be getting)for this rendition of Mithi in this movie. You can see the look of a patient written on her face, by the drooping lips and sleepy eyes, from the first scene itself. Rahul Bose has done a good job, but has been reduced to one half of the movie in spite of his importance in their life.

Watch out for the intense relationships shown between the characters of the movie, Mithi & Anu, Anu & Anu's Mom and between Anu & Sanjiv (Kanwaljit Singh). Shabhana Azmi, as usual has done a riveting performance to be remembered as the sister, who sacrificed her life for Mithi.

The movie might not be your usual Hindi potboiler, but can certainly make people look at the schizophrenic patients in a different light altogether.

As usual, Aparna Sen brings the movie to a different ending rather than any clich\u00e9d ones, we might think off. Hats off to her, for this great movie!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As everyone knows by now, 15 Park Avenue is the story of a schizophrenic girl and her half-sister.

The manifestation of Schizophrenia is still viewed as being an illness which people often feel might disappear if ignored. There are also those, who, however far fetched it may seem when it's shown in the film, think that the illness manifests itself as a result of some sort of supernatural influence. I think Ms. Sen deserves a lot of praise for \"15 Park Avenue\". She has done a good turn, not only to the general public, but also to those who deal with schizophrenics ... relatives, social workers, psycho-analysts. The film actually helps in dispelling a lot of myths and misconceptions about the exact nature of this psychological disorder. I'm told that the film is largely based on her own personal experiences with a person very close to her, who suffers from this mental affliction. To that effect, I'm sure that none of what has been shown, is blown out of proportion ... on the contrary, it is a true representation of facts.

The performances are good, on the whole, as can be expected. Konkona Sen Sharma, Shabana Azmi and of course Rahul Bose, are very good indeed. They emerge as very \"real\" characters ... credible enough for one to be able to identify with them at times. People may think me terribly queer, but I think there are moments when one can identify with Meethi as well! I suppose all of us have a streak of \"insanity\" inside us .... perhaps some more than others. These are the people who are singled out. After all, don't we all have our secret fantasies and dreams? Impossible ones, at times? Would we be dubbed as being \"off our rockers\" if people could glimpse into these areas of our minds? Would a person with low self-esteem, be considered a schizophrenic because he\/she shuns company ... preferring instead to live in a world of his\/her own because that's the only space where there is a sense of security?

Konkona, as Meethi, is outstanding!! Her performance is so effortless ... she lives her part. She has shown the ability to lull the audience into forgetting the divide between reality and acting! A case in point is the part where she's distressed at the scene, shown on TV, of Saddam Hussein's arrest. Her reaction seems so uninhibited and intense ...as if she's really heart-broken at this tragedy! Her brand of Indian English too, is so spontaneous and natural.

However, the same cannot be said for at least a couple of the other actors. Kanwaljeet and Waheeda Rehman, splendid actors both, seem ill at ease when delivering their dialogue in English. Their diction is less than perfect ... stilted and affected, the fact that they are making a supreme effort, becomes more than apparent. Their dialogue delivery is jarring and tends to break the smooth flow of the unfolding of the tale.

The brutal rape of Meethi (Konkona), seems somewhat unnecessary. Any other incident would have sufficed just as well, I feel. The point here is that something triggers off the extreme manifestation of the illness. As the psychiatrist explains, one cannot, with any modicum of conviction or certainty, say that the incident of the rape was instrumental in bringing the hitherto latent propensity towards schizophrenia, to the fore. Then why are we subjected to the scene where Meethi lies bleeding and unconscious. Was Ms. Sen trying to make a social statement about the state of politics in our country, where the voice of the masses is silenced by a handful of people who resort to violence in order to stay in power?? If so, then the scene of the rape is warranted but not strictly in the context of the main body of the film.

The ending seems somewhat abrupt. Is the audience expected to find a solution? Where does Meethi disappear to? Does Ms. Sen want us to feel that perhaps what the psychiatrist says about whose reality is more real and hence credible, holds true? In other words, is she trying to say that we are not without bias when judging who is on this side of the fine line between sanity and insanity? I'm not very sure.

A thought-provoking film on the whole and well worth watching. However, IF you are the sort of person who likes things to be neat and tidy ... everything cut and dried, with a water-tight solution to each issue that comes up ... this film is clearly not meant for you!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ms Aparna Sen, the maker of Mr & Mrs Iyer, directs this movie about a young girl's struggle to cope with her debilitating condition.

Meethi (Konkona Sen) has been an aloof kid ever since childhood and has shown signs of delusion, no one knows why. The dormant tendency however slips out of control, when the job assignment takes her to neighboring Bihar where she's raped by some political goons. The resulting trauma also leads to episodes of manic-depressive psychosis in addition to her schizophrenia. She careens out of control over the years, progressively getting worse and sinking deeper into her private 'world'.

The juxtaposition of an 'unsettled' (divorced) elder sister and how her domineering ways make an already bad situation worse, is indicative of what a fine line there is between abnormal and *seemingly normal*. Ms Sen also makes an excellent commentary on the social alienation of such individuals. Social rehab is standard therapy along with all the deadly mind-altering drugs. But what about the poor and the destitute, who're always left to fend for themselves and usually fall by the wayside?

The romantic connection between Dr Kunal and Anu was unnecessary. Also the cafeteria scene where Dr Kunal explains to Anu how real their world really is to them, was redundant. Anu should already know all that. The English dialog is a bit awkward at times though the acting compensates for that. Konkona and Shabana prove that their reputation is every bit worth it. Waheeda, Rahul and Shefali play their limited roles very well.

Extensive research seems to have been done about this illness, its very evident. But its not clear if MDP can coexist with schizophrenia in the same patient, side-by-side. Also in the early part, Dr Kunal recommends E.C.T (shock therapy) while invalidating the fact that it doesn't work for schizophrenics, only for extreme MDP with suicidal tendencies and other forms of bipolar disorder.

The ending of the remarkable story is suggestive of an unknown solution (maybe no solution). The movie could have ended on a nicer note, since worldwide the mentally ill can and do lead balanced and fruitful if not very fulfilling, lives under good medical care.

Nonetheless, its an excellent film made with extreme sensitivity to the subject. HATS OFF to Ms Sen! No one in India could've done it better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once in a while one come across a movie that forces one to rethink about society's reaction to people who differ from its definition of normal.

Mitthi having suffered at the hands of unsocial elements,left all alone to cope with her tragedy, retreats into her idyllic world....one which according to her is the real world.....

Surreal(Mitthi's world) superimposes itself on the real(her family).

Mitthi, suffering from schizophrenia, forces us to reconsider our priorities about trying to rehabilitate 'patients' like them. Are we right to drag them back to our reality when all we have to offer them in ours is pain and suffering? What right have we to deprive them of their source of happiness? What right do we have to take away their joy when we are unable to help them in their sorrow? 15 Park Avenue is one of the best movies on social issues...showing us the need that any patient needs empathy and not plain sympathy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The most beautiful film. If one is looking for serious depth, meaning and excellent performance then you have to get to watch this movie. excellent performances by the whole cast. Even more beautiful than A Beautiful Mind itself. Simply awesome!! I wish this movie entered the Oscars. I cried through the whole movie for the schizophrenic character. ..The most beautiful film. If one is looking for serious depth, meaning and excellent performance then you have to get to watch this movie. excellent performances by the whole cast. Even more beautiful than A Beautiful Mind itself. Simply awesome!! I wish this movie entered the Oscars. I cried through the whole movie for the schizophrenic character.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Aparna Sen's 15 Park Avenue is a film about nature of reality.

A young delusional girl, prone to imagining things and hearing voices, possibly out of sheer boredom, is taken to be schizophrenic by her educated father and control-freak educated elder step-sister. Controlled, pitied and treated like an invalid (even if out of love and affection), she has ghost of a chance to develop as a normal person. When a boy offers to marry her, her father and step-sister passionately try to convince him against taking such a step. A traumatic experience, caused primarily due to her sheltered existence, finally takes her across the line of no return, and she lives full time in a delusional world of her own.

The family and society around her are intolerant of her delusions,and want to suppress them with medicines, electric shock therapy, anything, even though they all have delusions of one kind or other of their own.

Her mother doesn't see the irony in allowing a ghost-buster to treat her of the delusions. Her step-sister is a professor of Physics, teaching among other things Quantum Mechanics, a subject in which a stream of experts accept parallel multi-universes and many more dimensions in space than the 3 we see. A friend recounts with admiration an experience with a holy person claiming to hear hallucinatory voices. Far away, George W Bush has real or fake delusions of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and is allowed to invade Iraq.

As some viewers have already pointed out, Aparna Sen shied away from attacking the mother of all delusions -mainstream religions, which is a pity.

In other words, accepted reality is what a majority or an influential minority believe in. That's been the case since the beginning, and lot more powerful people than Mithali in the film, among them Bruno and Galileo, have suffered as a consequence.

The film's controversial and difficult ending was necessary to show it's a film about nature of reality, and not the case study of a schizophrenic girl.

All the cast have given great performances, but Shabana Azmi and Konkona Sen Sharma have excelled. Aparna Sen has produced an outstanding philosophical film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well its a great work by Aparnaji and some where people like this makes us believe that there is a lot more concepts till now which has to be expressed and the film is a great media to do that. Well all great actors together hence nothing to say about acting or directing but the film gave us a great message through out. It has nicely predicted the conditioning of human minds with that of the patient. We all believe that what we believe is true with our own point of view and we want to solve all the problem accordingly.Hence from the professor to the maid servant all tried their own ways. So when JOydeep was discussing with her wife he says that , 'she is looking for a thing which she will never get' and the wife replies 'are not we all?'. So that was a great comment which after the film left me with a great question, 'are we all sick?'","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From \"36 Chowringhee Lane\" to \"15 Park Avenue\", Aparna Sen has indeed traveled a long way. If the first one goes down in history as a d\u00e9butant's clean sweep the latter will definitely carve a special place as a \"mature\" film. Until you see 15 Park Avenue you cannot imagine feeling thrilled and moved at the same time. Thrilled to see the director's ingenuity and agility in portraying seriously challenging situations and moved by the sensitivity echoing throughout the film. It is not a movie that merely makes you feel 'tchh tchh, how difficult life must be for schizophrenics', but makes you ask a much deeper question about the reality that you see and believe. Sen has done a brilliant job in highlighting this supreme fact of our existence that we all are, in some way or other, trying to live in a make-believe world of our own, trying to run after mirages called happiness, peace, contentment. Along with the depiction of a delusional mind, Sen's magic has brought forth many little nuances of human relationships as they sustain stress and strain. The fact that at times we all lose calm, break down, make wrong choices, be haunted by guilt, behave selfishly and so on, is captured with extreme adroitness by Sen. She showed the cruel dilemma which Shabana had to deal with all her life, of having to choose between a schizophrenic sister and a normal life with a husband and kids for herself. And in the act of always being beside her sister, always being a strong persona, providing support, making judgments and so on, she unknowingly cut off some of the oxygen that her sister needed to bloom. Isn't this a very harsh truth that at times, in an attempt to do the best for someone, we strangle their assertiveness and end up hurting their self-esteem? Of course Konkona's and Shabana's acting deserves laurels as always because had the ingredients not been so good, the dish could not have turned out to be so extraordinary. Aparna Sen once again made a masterpiece of a movie for those who crave for some \"food-for-thought\" . Bravo !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After Mrs and Mr. Iyer this is yet another very good film by Aparna sen(mostly in English). In the earlier film she treated a contemporary political environment and its effect on individuals. In this film it is the impact of mentally disabled member of the family and its impact on the family. As a parallel sub theme she treats a philosophical concept on \"reality\". It is a film which leads to thinking after seeing the film.

Mithee the younger sister (Konkana Sen Sharma, the daughter of Aparna Sen) is suffering from Schizophrenia being taken care of by the dominant elder sister Anjali (Shabana Azmi) . Mithee after her marriage with Jojo and separation from him believes that she is still with JOJO and her five children in 15 Park avenue in Kolkotta.(there is no such address in Kolkotta-it seems there is one in New York) and she is intense in her belief. It is almost like an intense religious belief. Ultimately what is reality? In one scene she tells Anjali \"if I tell you that you are not a professor but only imagine that you are a professor\". The open ending reflects this reality. In a supposedly search for her home in park avenue, Mithee is lost. The penultimate scene is Mithee looking at a group of five children playing and her looking at them with joy of returning to her family and then she is lost. About this concept of reality I am reminded of another film of fifties called HARRY with James Stewart. The protagonist believes that a big sized rabbit (?), called Harry is always with him and he is always conversing with him. At the end even the doctor believes perhaps there is Harry. What is reality, is it what the protagonist believes or what other believe Shabhna Azmi dominates the film with her sterling performance as the strong elder sister with undercurrent of frustration. Konkana Sen Sharma gives equally befitting performance as the schizophrenic.

Yet the film is not as tight as Mrs and Mr. Iyer. There appear to be some loose ends. And perhaps there are too many characters. Those who want a closed ending may not appreciate the open ending here. But the ending befits the theme of the film.

Yet another good film by Aparana sen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"exquisite!! in simple words... both Aparna Sen and Konkona Sen seem to understand each other quite well or maybe they both are just too good.this might just be her best performance as an actor and Aparna's best as a director. yeah maybe better than Mr and Mrs Iyer. Konkona plays the role of a schizophrenic. Shabana Azmi plays the role of Anjali,Mithi's(Konkona Sen's) elder sister. Shabana Azmi made the best out of Anjali's character for she had to play a strong,responsible,arrogant role of an elder sister who had the full responsibility of her family. Aparna Sen has beautifully crafted Anjali's character,a strong woman who had to sacrifice her personal life,her love for her family.

Mithi's behavior was'not juvenile at all,for you can expect this from most of Indian directors for this role.looks like a lot of research has been done to understand the role of Mithi,a schizophrenic. When at times Mithi is a normal,sweet college going girl,she also scares you when she is shown ill..both the sides have been beautifully judged and played..believe me it at times reminds you of the girl in Exorcist..not that scary though.. Overall..Marvellous piece of work by Aparna Sen,Konkona Sen and Shabana Azmi...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought I was wasting my precious 50 bucks going to watch this movie. But at the earnest request of my friend who is an ardent fan of Aparna Sen, I decided to turn up for the movie. Going at this cheap theater really bothered me, cos I had seen King Kong for 50 bucks at one of the best theatres in town. Anywasy the movie starts of and surprisingly I wasn't complaining.

A great story and some really wonderful wonderful acting on Shabana Azmi and Konkona Sen Sharma's part. Shabana Azmi a divorc\u00e9e who has dedicated her life to the well being of her mother and step sister. Konkona Sen Sharma a schizophrenic(spare me the spelling), who imagines thing all the time. Rahul Bose also gives a stellar performance.

The story is that Mithi (Sen Sharma) is a schizophrenic, and after getting brutally raped on her field job as a reporter, her levels really increase, her fianc\u00e9e leaves her, for the person she became. In all her world comes down upon her. Shabana Azmi, her elder step sister, takes care of her, and Mithi in her imagination believes that she has been married to her fianc\u00e9e, has 5 children and they stay in 15th Park Avenue (which really is a place in New York). The plot goes on as Mithi becomes suicidal, as she believe no one believes her and she is being held captive in her home from her husband. As fate would have, Mithi and her fianc\u00e9e meet up when they both are out on a trip. 11 years after the brutal rape, her fianc\u00e9e has no existence in her real world, she cant recognize him. Her fianc\u00e9e, now married and a father of two children feels it is his duty to correct the wrong he did 11 years earlier and he promises to take her to Park Avenue. and he does. He takes her to a place in Kolkata which supposedly looks like her husband's home. As Joydeep\/Jojo(Rahul Bose), her fianc\u00e9e is talking on his cell phone he loses track of Mithi. Everyone comes looking for her but she is nowhere to be found. She finally gets what was denied to her, her family, her own imaginative family in her own world at 15th Park Avenue.

I must say, that it touched my heart. I myself am now a fan of Aparna Sen's direction. The camera work is superb. And the quality of performance is spell bounding. Konkona Sen Sharma gives a solid performance as the schizophrenic child. Shabana Azmi gives another mind blowing role as the divorc\u00e9e elder sister, who has the load of keeping the family. Rahul Bose, another neat and quiet role(I don't know why this guy doesn't get big breaks, he has so much potential). Lastly Aparna Sen, she still captivates the audience, even if she is not in front of the camera and behind it.

A very well deserved 8\/10....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is how I interpreted the movie: First things first. There was not a single scene in the movie where u see the bad guy (Taylor) torturing or nailing Ben's hands to the wall. However the same cannot be told of the gals. In the end too, u see Taylor disappear as he walks. Looks like the message there was \"There was no Taylor\". And the whole movie was a figment of imagination of Ben. Also, there was no scene during the torturing moments wherein any of the gals confront or are in the same frame as Ben. It was Taylor all the time. But in real, Taylor was Ben. If they were two different people, then why was there no scene showing both of them in one frame during the horrific times? But of course before that, u do see both of them together and THAT cud just be Ben's imagination at work. Also, when Ben was out of jail, the text on screen clearly says that Ben's story was unrealistic and there was no such place as he had explained (read mine, cars etc...)Even after Liz Hunter leaves Kristy and comes back to find Ben, she doesn't find him. Why??? Because Ben (Taylor) was out looking for the gals. Instead Kristy has all the time in the world to check out Taylor's (Ben) Web cam, photos etc...

Somehow everything sums up to just one fact that Kristy and Liz, both of them knew that Taylor was Ben. So, my conclusion is that Ben was schizophrenic and the movie where you see him and Taylor in one frame was nothing but figments of his imagination. Otherwise if there really was a Taylor, then they should have found him out given all the detailed explanation coming from Ben.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Our Family and friends enjoyed this movie very much. The theme was well handled by the Director with great performances from Shabana Azmi, Konkana Sen and well supported by good performances from the other cast. The climax was built well but for the ending which was a far from being called \"Good\". We are still trying to understand what was the Director trying to convey? Were they short of ideas or was the ending beyond the understanding of common movie lovers? A better ending would have created a lasting impression on the audience and increased the viewer-ship. This however should not take away credit that is due to Konkana and Shabana Azmi for relating so well with the characters!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I resisted watching 15 Park Avenue despite of recommendations, discarding the movie as a clich\u00e9d topic of extreme emotional dramas and over-the-top acting.

Once in a while, movies like 15 Park Avenue come by and sweep you off your feet.

The movie grasps your attention pretty early on and there is no moment to rest after that. Aparna Sen has done a wonderful job of gluing the audience to every line of the movie. The impeccable character development, \"just right\" amount of emotions and an enigmatic end to match it all...

I have a renewed respect for Konkana Sen Sharma, who convincingly plays the schizophrenic Mithi. She beats expectation yet again after Page-3 and Mr.& Mrs.Iyer. Prof. Anjali's role is very well developed and Shabana does full justice to the character. Rahul Bose, Shefali Chaya, Waheeda Rehman add incredible flavor to the movie.

I define \"shower moments\" as thoughts of scenes from a movie that you ponder over in your shower endlessly, till your wife\/girlfriend\/mom bangs at the door. 15PA delivers many \"shower moments\" especially the conversation between Anjali and her mother where the mother is cautious when talking to Anjali about her thoughts. It immediately brings out Anjali's personality to the audience.

The end is a very bold statement by the director; probably too westernized for the Indian audience; yet delivers the elements to promote the movie from a \"good\" to a \"great\" status.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"comeundone, I love you! I could not have come to a better conclusion than you did about this movie and it's ending. My family has not seen this movie yet, but I know them too well; they will hate it. But this time, I watched it alone and I found that it affected me greatly. Although the movie is long in length, I was tied to the story and amazed by the ending. I initially thought it was weird as to how she just vanished, but on some level, it makes perfect sense.

But like comeundone said, this movie does not make sense of reality. Instead, it challenges it and the viewer to think strongly about what the word \"normal\" means. It also gives you the insight to personally think about what the ending means, I can say that I loved how it turned out and I'm happy for Mithi.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this film in a Singapore theatre yesterday (4 February, 2006)and came away with a better understanding of what schizophrenia patients and their loved ones go through.

Ms Aparna Sen must be congratulated for not only taking on a difficult subject, but also treating the mentally challenged with a deep understanding of their predicament that is necessary to help them cope with the trauma of disorientation, hallucinations and the storm of turmoil raging in their minds.

We have had Hollywood movies on this subject such as \"One flew over the cuckoo's nest\" where Jack Nicholson carried away the honours. Since then research has helped provide more insights into the problem and clearing some misconceptions about treatment. In \"... cuckoo's nest,\" for example shock therapy has been portrayed as barbaric, but in \"15 ...\" the point has been made that it is not as bad as it has been made out to be.

The other misconception is that abuse in childhood is a cause for schizophrenia. But scholars such as Dr. E. Fuller Torrey have emphasised that studies have shown that childhood schizophrenia is a brain disease and is thought to have some genetic roots.

It is now established that schizophrenia can be treated like any clinical ailment and its advance can be checked if detected early. Even in fairly advanced stages regular medication and counselling can be effective.

The same understanding shown by Ms Sen is evident in the way the actors play out their parts. In keeping with the gravity of the theme, the acting is controlled throughout with Ms Konkana Sen-Sharma's evocative silences and eyes mirroring the helpless confusion of a disturbed mind speaking louder than some of the rantings we are used to in most of the movies that have included mentally challenged characters.

Like me most of the audience in the theatre appeared confused at the abrupt ending. It leaves lot of questions hanging in terms of the plot.

Has Meethi's search ended? Why is she not found in No. 15? Were children actually playing when Meethi strode past the gates with her eyes sparkling with recognition? Can anyone sort out this jigsaw puzzle?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The tunes are the best aspect of this television film which has admittedly better-than-average production values, but very surface and slightly altered biography. Dramatizes Richard's discovery of \"We've Only Just Begun\" and Karen's marriage troubles admirably (the \"Superstar\" montage was a nice touch), yet notably leaves out the disagreement with Neil Sedaka, the contribution of Tony Peluso's guitar solos, etc. Gibb is sweet in her Karen persona, but it doesn't include the tomboyish and gutsier sides of the real Carpenter's personality. Anderson is in fine form as the creative and take-charge Richard, and Fletcher makes her mark as the loving but overbearing Agnes. The most haunting moment of the original broadcast is the use of \"Goodbye to Love\" in the background of a commercial displaying an anorexia hotline.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't personally know Karen Carpenter, nor, Richard for that matter, so I must go by how the movie portrayed her. I think a better person to ask about it's accuracy would be her brother Richard. However, from what I did see and learn of Karen, I felt her pain, share her sadness, and she was a very special person to me growing up. I know that I wasn't born until 1965 so I didn't get to know her as much as some of you older fans but I definitely grew up listening to her music and I have fond memories of her music. I remember the song about the \"Radio\" (every sha la la la every whoa...so fine,) etc and I remember \"We've only just begun! As a matter of fact, I memorized many, many of her songs and some people (quite a few) tell me that my voice sounds almost identical to her!!! ( I am not joking on this). I also used to be anorexic during high school and part of college (1978-1987) to be exact and weighed anywhere from 82 pounds to eventually 120 pounds in 1987. I developed some pretty serious health problems from that which helped me to identify with the actress portraying Karen in the movie. The mother (Agnes) was very MUCH like my mother in many ways and I could also feel the pain that Karen must have experienced. For, my mother was often unfeeling, critical, and disapproving as Agnes was (if this was true to accuracy). The movie was helpful in identifying and getting to know Karen on a more personal note by not just hearing her music but by seeing what she was going through. It is quite difficult to portray a person's entire life in 2-3 hours and recount every single detail perfectly so I would have to say that there is probably no biography that is that accurate. I will give this story an 8 though! I wish I did know Karen personally! I would have DIED to meet her!! I would have loved to have shook her hand, given her a hug, or talked to her. I feel her warmth and love every time I hear one of her songs and she is greatly missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is a clever little scene in The Karen Carpenter Story, where both Carpenters are in a recording studio, and Richard makes an impromptu decision to have Karen sing for the owner of the studio.

Richard picks the wrong key for Karen to sing in, so Karen is singing above her natural range. You can see a look of bemusement on the owner's face; he figures she really can't sing. Richard quickly realizes his mistake and tries again in a different key. The next thing you hear is Karen's amazing, beautiful voice, and the owner does a priceless double take. Nicely done! For some reason, I have never forgotten that scene.

The Karen Carpenter Story chronicles the meteoric rise of the Carpenters, and Karen's struggle to overcome anorexia. A lot of things are glossed over. This isn't a documentary, and the movie left me with a lot of questions. Very little is mentioned of Karen's solo venture (the CD was released only a few years ago. If you buy it, you will wonder why they waited. It's some of Karen's best work. The songs aren't as timeless as her work with brother Richard, but it was a great recording, in my opinion).

I have heard it said that, you can be listening to a cheap, time-worn little radio in the middle of the Third World, that would seem to produce more static than anything else. But when a Carpenter song comes on the radio, you would think you were listening to a $1000 Hi-Fidelity unit.

Watch this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the better made for TV biopics, I just wish it had told us more. I have read many biographies and seen other things about the Carpenters, and this movie did what it could, based on the constraints placed on it by the family. Cynthis Gibb did a wonderful job trying to bring Karen to life. One of my disappointments is that there was not more insight into Karen's anorexia. In the reading I have done about the disease (especially Cherry Boone O'Neill's wonderful book, Starving for Attention) anorexia appears to be a disease of control. Karen saw her weight as one thing in her life that she could control. She felt that she was being controlled in every other aspect of her life. Don't get me wrong, I believed she truly loved the music, but she felt she had little control over her career. She truly loved her family, but they did not express it well, and she didn't know how to make her family understand her. The film could have touched so much more on that. I treasure the music I have of the Carpenters and wish she was still alive to contribute more to music today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie back in 1994 or '95 during my freshman year in high school when it was on Lifetime. After I first saw it, I thought it was wonderful. Sure, it may not have run longer, but it is as accurate as can be in my own opinion (regardless of what anyone else may think). Cynthia Gibb was great at portraying Karen, and Mitchell Anderson was okay as Richard. Louise Fletcher (Yes, who played Nurse Ratched in 1975's \"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest\") was fine as well, but I found her version of Agnes (Karen and Richard's mother) to be a little bit of a control freak. I am an EXTREMELY HUGE fan of the Carpenters, and I believe that Karen's voice was and still is so wonderful. It really saddens me about the fact that she is gone and had left this earth too soon, but thanks to the never ending popularity of her music and her angelic voice, the music will live on. Anyway, back on track to this movie, it really is a mystery to me and possibly other people (fans and non-fans of the Carpenters) as to what caused Karen to end up getting this problem with her health. Was it the media that was responsible or was it just Karen's decision? I would not believe that it was her decision. It could have been the media from one article that was printed out about her somewhere in '70, when their hit \"Close to You\" came out (from what was shown in the film). There are some other moments in the movie as well. Richard's struggle with drugs, and Karen's brief marriage. I did not hear about her loss in February of 1983, as I was not yet into watching the news; I had found out years later. I don't know if there will be another movie about the Carpenters or Karen made in the future, but until then, this movie will do fine. I will say this though: If Karen had disregarded the false details of that article or any future articles that might have been published with similar content calling her \"chubby\" (which must have been quite an insult), she would still be here on this earth today. I know that she is in Heaven and probably entertaining everyone with her beautiful voice. God bless you, Karen!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Unlike some of the former commentators, I was (and am) an avid fan of the Carpenters. Face it, Christmas would never be Christmas without The Carpenters. That said, I believe the movie did a good, not excellent, job at depicting Karen's life. The movie was enjoyable to see on primetime TV, but the content fell a little short. I suggest that you all look into getting some of the Carpenters specials that were shown in the 70's. You cannot believe how awesome a drummer Karen was. Cynthia did not capture the extent of Karen's talent. Also, Karen was beautiful but had a bad hairdresser. My choice for playing Karen is Hilary Swank. I would love to see a more substantive story, because there was more to Karen than meets the eyes when listening to We've Only Just Begun. I have tons of unreleased Carpenters' music, and it is absolutely excellent. (Her singing of California Dreamin is to die for).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Karen Carpenter Story shows a little more about singer Karen Carpenter's complex life. Though it fails in giving accurate facts, and details.

Cynthia Gibb (portrays Karen) was not a fine election. She is a good actress , but plays a very naive and sort of dumb Karen Carpenter. I think that the role needed a stronger character. Someone with a stronger personality.

Louise Fletcher role as Agnes Carpenter is terrific, she does a great job as Karen's mother.

It has great songs, which could have been included in a soundtrack album. Unfortunately they weren't, though this movie was on the top of the ratings in USA and other several countries","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being an avid Carpenter Fan, I really loved this film (although the wigs do leave a lot to be desired!) and agree with many of the comments, that certain areas of her life were absent or not touched on. Whatever - it leaves your curiosity well and truly unsatisfied, so off I went to discover more. I must recommend a book by Ray Coleman - Carpenters - The Untold Story. The book is an intelligent read and unlike the film, is 'real' and down to earth. I hope you enjoy it. I remember Cynthia Gibb from her days in Fame and Gypsy. She is a singer (aswell as dancer) in her own right and I think this was the edge needed to create the character. Some other actresses may have struggled with this. It is ashame the film did not delve deeper into her story. After all this is the film title, but I felt we learnt more about Richard, but I suppose like any performer worth their salt, you should always leave them wanting more!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was made soon enough after Karen's passing that perhaps Richard Carpenter and the people closest to Karen were feeling a little guilty as to how they may have contributed to her health problems. As the years have passed (almost 25 to be exact) it must have gotten easier to deny any complicity. Richard has spent the years after Karen's death endlessly remixing and recompiling the recordings he made with her. He married his cousin, Mary, and from what I have read, it looks like he may be planning a next generation Carpenters with his children. He seems to have regretted making this film,and that may very well be why it is unavailable in any form. It seemed to me to be a fairly honest assessment of the tragically short life and incredible talent that was Karen Carpenter.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On watching this film, I was amazed at how media perception can mould a persons opinion of a celebrity. Karen Carpenter was a carefree, but very unconfident young lady, whose wonderful voice helped her and her brother Richard to soar the charts with wonderful songs. As with all celebrities of today, they were often criticised about their music as well as their looks, styles, etc. THis had a huge effect on Karen who raged a battle against her eating and drastically lost weight, which eventually caused her death. This heart felt film was not initially something which I would have thought of watching. But on starting to view it, then I was hooked. In the same way that the Tina Turner story does, then this film enlightens you and allows you to see into the young performers life. The acting was superb and even after nearly 20 years after it was made, then the directional and the dialogue are still entertaining.

I would recommend this to anyone who hasn't yet watched it. It is amazingly accurate and emotionally charged.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, this is one of the better done television movies and I wouldn't expect less from Joe Sargent. One thing for this reviewer is that I was also a great fan of The Carpenters, I got to sing all of their material in elementary school and middle school choir and I got to do much of the solo material of which Karen sang lead. I thought she was one of the most wonderful pop singers of the 70's - and being a child\/teen singing these songs and learning music - the one thing I was looking forward to was meeting this woman. I never got to, she died three weeks before that was to happen. And yes, that did effect me for I knew nothing of anorexia - and could not understand completely what happened.

When this TV movie got produced, I got quite an understanding. Maybe not everything in Karen and Richard's life is open to the television audience, but in opening the parts that were shown, I got to understand much from the music industry of that time. What upsets me is that I am writing \"of that time\" and seeing \"now\". No one has learned a darned thing, even though this was a very informative and heartfelt look into a family's problems in the music industry.

These films aren't done for fun, they're done to open a door and show us something. Here was a wonderful woman who got caught up in the whole idea that her talent was based on weight. She was fine. Didn't know it. She got mixed messages about her weight from the brother she loved, the parents she loved and the music industry that cared more about her looks\/weight than the talent within. With the onset of MTV, it got worse. With 'American Idol' it's like a puss festering in an English accent.

A wonderful TV film, I am sure later someone may give it an HBO treatment but either way, many lessons to be learned and the absence of another wonderful talent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every time I hear Karen Carpenter's voice, there is that old familiar feeling of 70's blues. What an overwhelmingly beautiful and mature voice she had. Cynthia Gibb cast in the title role does a good job, however, I thought Karen Allen would have been a better choice. This is a tearjerker movie that does a fine job of presenting the professional careers of Karen and Richard but also the personal struggles that Karen dealt with and her disease. The recording sessions in Herp Albert's studio are very nicely done. However Karen Carpenter turned out, there was a time when she was very special and brought a great deal joy to her fans and music lovers. Even if you weren't a Carpenter's fan this is a nice story that depicts how a great talent can fall victim to the pressures of society.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A must for any die hard Carpenters fans!

Cynthia Gibb does the role of KC a huuuuuge amount of justice, and although the 'story' isn't 100% factual, is still a good insight into the lives of both Richard and Karen and worth a watch just for the soundtrack.

Makes me cry everytime!!!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been watching King of Queens from the beginning, and have felt it is overlooked at the award shows. This show has the best humor, you can identify with the characters, we talk about it at work a lot, because I work at a company a lot like IPS, (DHL) and we just love the Teamster plugs!! Carrie is my hero, she is the best, she just puts it out there, no matter what the subject is. Arthur well what can you say? He just cracks you up, and really puts a spin on things. Doug, well he is just so lovable, and funny, the three characters, plus all the friends just make the show complete. This is the best comedy on TV!! I would say up there with Seinfeld, and hey, there's nothing wrong with that .... Excellente!! as Doug would say.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When this show first came on the air, I saw it once or twice and thought it was another \"fat guy, skinny wife\" show that seemed to populate the networks at the time. It was just \"okay\" upon initial viewings and I didn't watch it again; however, once it went into syndication, I caught several episodes (simply because it was on twice a night), and I'm telling you, the more you watch this show, the funnier it is. Once you see how all of the great supporting characters are connected, this show makes you laugh out loud. Every new episode I watch is more creative than the one before--people who only watch this a couple of times will not notice this. The writing and story lines are much more sophisticated than they appear at first (this is far from \"According to Jim\"). First of all, Kevin James is hysterical, incredibly charming, and a talented comedic actor, as is the supporting cast. Leah Remini has excellent timing, and Patton Oswalt's Spence is one of the funnier characters on the show. And of course, Jerry Stiller is brilliant as Arthur. I was shocked to read comments that he was the worst part of the show--he's a gigantic part of why this show is so great--his delivery of these ridiculous schemes (rounding out the crazy dad character) are beyond hilarious. And the yelling--the best episode is when they show him as a kid yelling \"Lemon Icee!!\". That episode, during which Carrie takes him to a therapist in hopes to get him medicated (to make Doug less stressed out), guest star William Hurt decides that Arthur yells because he's never been validated. The latter part of the episode where Doug beats up his childhood self in a therapy session is beyond funny, it's one of the most creative scenes I've seen on a sitcom. I feel the strange need to defend this show, because it is severely underrated--while \"Friends\" was sometimes amusing, and \"Raymond\" has some great episodes and characters, they both lacked the creative touch that \"King of Queens\" has. In an era where most sitcoms have canned jokes and are on the whole mediocre, \"King of Queens\" continues to push the sitcom envelope and show real comic genius. Critics of this show obviously don't get it--or haven't watched the show enough to give it a chance, because anyone with real comic and creative sensibility has to laugh out loud while watching. It's certainly on par with my other two favorites, \"Seinfeld\" and \"The Office\" in its ridiculous tone. It's the Arthurs, Kramers, and Michael Scotts of TV that keep us watching, and laughing out loud.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here in Germany \"King of Queens\" has a big big cult status! Nearly every teenager (and adults) watch this sitcom. It's really awesome!! Better than the other horrible American sitcoms like \"Full House\" or \"Set by Step\" (the only series, who is still OK, is \"Al Bundy\"). There haven't been an Amercian sitcom in Europe who was as effective as this really funny show!! Kevin James and Leah Remini as Doug & Carrie Haffernan are the craziest couple I know, Jerry Stiller as Arthur is the funniest \"grandpa\" I know, and Victor Williams and (especially) Patton Oswalt as Deacon & Spence are the most different, but funny guys I know. I watch it as often as I could, and I still haven't enough, good humor!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have not seen a better comedy than the King of Queens for many years. I rate it one of the best ever. I've just returned to Ireland from Arizona on American Airlines from a biz trip and by chance they showed several episodes. I laughed my head off and later I asked the stewards to play again and they did. Thank you AA. The acting from all the team is first rate and especially from Kevin James, Leah Remini and Gerry Stiller, but from all of the cast in fact the acting is superb. I love all the cast, they are so funny. There is a hard edge in the King of Queens that I love and is seldom seen in today's TV comedy. Both Leah and Kevin play off each other so well that every situation is believable and hilariously funny. I have just purchased the 2nd season while I was in Az this week and I intend buying the full set the next time I am in the US. My son who is 20yrs old also loves this show and its brilliance is that it has the magic to reach out to different generations. I would like to thank all those involved with this amazing show - it's so appreciated to see this kind of TV show in what is in my opinion an era of poor TV fair in general these days with the exception of re-runs of Seinfeld and such like... Thanks for a great show..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a time of bad, if not plain awful, comedies, King of Queens is more than just a breath of fresh air, it's a complete oxygen tank! It is in my opinion one of the 5 best comedy shows of all times. Nothing has been this good since Married with Children. Kevin James and Jerry Stiller are comic geniuses! And believe me, it takes a lot to make me label someone as comic genius. These guys truly understand what is funny. I could watch ten episodes of Seinfeld and wouldn't get half the laughs from seeing KOQ just once. Other funny people in this show are Carrie, Janet Heffernan, Spence and Doug Pruzan (Carrie's boss). I'm so happy they managed to get so many seasons from this gem. The show has been a hilarious winner in a time of mostly comic losers. Check it out if you haven't!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The King of Queens\" could be divided into two eras.

The first era, constituted of the first few seasons portrayed the issues of everyday life of a man and his wife making it through life in the city paycheck by paycheck.

The second era, increased the scope of the show, addressing current popular culture and marital issues with a humorous spin.

But besides all of that...

This show was freaking hilarious.

Kevin James, when not doing crap comedy films with Adam Sandler, is a genius of laughter, and his chemistry with Leah Remini was unparalleled on TV.

Jerry Stiller as the psychotic live-in father in law added his own unique style of quirky humor, and Patton Oswalt as the \"man-child\" Spence Ulchin was amazing, (he's a great comedian too) \"The King of Queens\" was the final sitcom of the 1990s to go off the air, and it's a damn shame. Now, all we have to watch are the idiotic sitcoms full of untalented actors and actresses whose only appeal is their physical appearance. I like many fans of actually funny TV shows am now in a state of mourning","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"King of Queens is comic genius. Kevin James, whom plays IPS deliveryman Doug Heffernan is extremely funny, Leah Remini who plays Doug's wife Carrie is incredibly hot ( # 19 on Stuff magazine's hottest 102 woman list ), and very funny. The true magic of the show However is the scenes with Jerry Stiller, they are the funniest in the show. Jerry, a comic genius, plays Carrie's father, Arthur Spooner, whom lives in Doug and Carrie's always cold basement. I must admit that I never watched this show until this year, 2006. Whenever I had flipped by it previously it never seemed funny, but with the cancellation of Friends, Still Standing, and Yes Dear, I needed some new comedy. Actually giving The King Of Queens a chance I discovered that it was absolutely fantastic. So funny in fact that I downloaded the first 7 seasons and watched each season in 8 hour blocks. I strongly urge anyone whom has not seen this treasure to check it out. You will not be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the funniest shows on TV today. It hits the mark 99% of the time. Usually after watching a sitcom after a few years, the actors become to cartoonish, as if they are trying to become the beloved characters they play. These actors have in my opinion stayed true to their roles. The chemistry is still there, the writing has not gone down and I still look forward to watching it. The family dynamic still seems real and the situations after all this time are not so far fetched to make it seem the writers are reaching into an empty bag trying to keep the show on for one more season It is one of the few shows I watch without the remote in my hand for quick switching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I need help identifying an episode of King of Queens. It begins with a scene where Doug is talking to Carrie on the phone, and he suggests that they agree to stop ending every conversation with \"I love you.\" However, it's hard to do and he ends up calling her back, only to close with \"I love you.\" It's a very clever moment and one I think says a lot about relationships that have lasted a long time.

I THINK (but I'm sure) that's it's the same episode where Doug gets some local construction guys to whistle and throw lurid comments at Carrie to perk her spirits up.

I saw this episode recently, but it was probably a repeat. Don't know what network I saw it on. Can anyone tell me the title and season of this episode?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently started to watch this show in syndication and find it a bit hit and miss. Some episodes are silly -- Doug is upset about some trivial\/juvenile thing and acts stupid etc.

Still, others are quite amusing, and sometimes touching. These include those episodes that face up to the complexities of the characters. For instance, the \"juvenile overweight amiable guy marries sexy wife\" theme is found in several sitcoms. (Carrie also has something about her, looks-wise. Not just a run of the mill sexy girl.) But, Carrie has an edge -- she might be nice on the eyes, but has a few too many personality traits not too far different than her father.

And, she readily admits to it -- for instance, one episode revolves at her lack of desire to be nice to co-workers. I personally find her b*ness sexy, but you have to be the right sort of person to be able to live with that. Amiable Doug is a good match. And, deep down, see likes the simple things too. Maybe, not as much as Doug whose nirvana is watching TV and eating a big snack next to his big screen t.v., but no culture gal she. This lack of an overally sensitive side is one reason the two don't have children.

Of course, the simple pleasures of a guy is nothing to sneer at either, and adds to the charm of the show. They live an ordinary working class sort of life in Queens -- it is realistic in that sense. And, overall, amusing and pleasant sitcom fare, esp. if you just want to relax. It gets a little tired at the end, so it's probably good it is ending. It had a good run. See also, Becker.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I guess my husband and I are a little slow. We don't usually warm up to a series until they are almost at the end of their production life. In this case, we didn't start watching KoQs until almost the 6th season. I'm not sure how it escaped our radar for so long. Other than the fact that we are not big fans of \"appointment\" TV viewing. Our schedules our such that we don't like to commit to watching series every time they come on (and we didn't have a DVR yet). So I guess it wasn't until TBS starting running reruns on their daily lineup in the evenings that we started watching consistently.

By the time we got hooked, there were only a couple more season's left before the series was canceled. But we still watch it almost daily on TBS. I almost prefer to see series this way, because you can watch multiple episodes day after day and it helps to build continuity and what's going on with the characters without having to wait a whole week.

But the episodes stand alone in the since that the stories don't carry over from week to week. But that is fine with me, because you can watch an episode, then miss weeks - and still pick back up.

My only criticism is the writing wasn't always consistent. Some episodes would be outrageously hilarious, and then some would only be mildly funny. So, I'm not sure it had the quality of writers that Seinfeld or Raymond had. But I loved the casting and the characters are all quite believable and realistic. Kevin James is just plain funny to look at! So even if the plot isn't that great, James body language and expressions make the show worth watching. Leah Remini is great as the \"play-it-straight\" wife. I think its harder to play the straight character for laughs, than the comedic character, and she does a great job. She has a knack at sarcasm and insults like no one else. She is one tough cookie! And who can forget Arthur as Carrie's dad, who lives with them in their basement.

This a great series and I was sorry when it cancelled. But a big thanks to TBS for keeping the King alive in reruns!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not really a t.v. watcher - except between the ages of 6 and 8 and \"General Hospital\" still had Luke and Laura - but there are a few exceptions and I definitely think that \"King of Queens\" is one of them. Every decade has it's classics and I think that this show will (or damn-well should) be amongst this decade's best. Its comedic timing is awesome and can, at times, be down right odd. On a more 'serious' note the actors more than succeed in conveying subtle - and not so subtle :)- complexities in their characters without getting too hokey. One commenter wrote that it may take a couple of episodes to get into it and I agree; it's definitely one that kind of grows on you but once you're in, you're pretty much hooked. And with good reason!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think the problem with this show not getting the respect it truly deserves is that it comes after Seinfeld,after ELR and after Friends. Those three sitcoms were the star shows of their time.

KOQs came at the end of this special time in TV.

But don't let that dissuade you.

King of Queens is as good if not better than two of the three mentioned.

Seinfeld started it all and was and is a timeless classic. I never laughed so hard than I did at Seinfeld. But KOQs comes real close.

When it comes to laughing, I have to rate KOQs second only to Seinfeld. ELR has to be second though as the character creation and interaction is more endearing.

Either way, KOQs is top ten of the last 20 years.

The only other sitcom worth mentioning now is Two and a Half Men which really doesn't hold a candle to the other four but is all we have left.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't usually like to see movies while they're still in theaters because of high ticket prices but I saw a poster for Some Things That Stay and I thought, \"that young actress looks intelligent and mysterious, not like the usual blonde teenybopper BS\". So I decided to take the plunge and see this movie on it's opening night.

I must tell you, I was happily surprised. I went to this film with no expectations. I didn't really know what it would be about, but the raw emotion and honest teenage experiences expressed by Katie Boland left me feeling rather satisfied with my decision. Alberta Watson also did a fantastic job as the role of Tamara's disease-stricken mother and I must also add that I was quite impressed with the comedic stylings of Megan Park as Tamara's friend Brenda.

The film was wonderfully directed by Gail Harvey, and pulled together in the kind of kitschy 50's way that leaves you feeling warm and happy, even if the storyline tended not to be so uplifting. I also thought that the film was well-shot, many beautiful images of a 1950's countryside will remain in my mind for weeks to come.

This film as a whole was quirky and great. I found it to be unpredictable and although the story ends in a somewhat open-ended way, I was still left satisfied. Whether you are looking for a fun, yet powerful coming-of-age story, or simply want to reminisce about life in the 1950's, I guarantee this film is for you. Even if you have no expectations, it is still quite likely that you will be most impressed. Give this one a shot!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie with my girlfriends and we all loved it! It is so sweet and heartwarming, a real tear-jerker! I was still thinking about the story days after i'd seen the movie. It's such a beautiful story about the difficult things all families go through, it's something anybody can relate to. I really recommend this movie to anybody looking for a Saturday night rental. With your girlfriends, your family, your boyfriend, everyone will really enjoy it! :D It's a real story about a real family that would pull at anyones heartstrings. Not to mention, beautiful landscape shots and fantastic acting. See it, i'm sure you'll love it as much as I did!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, I am ashamed to admit it, but this show is positively DEVINE!!!It's so entertaining, and I have the absolute greatest time watching it.Ever since Cycle 1 it's been great, and I haven't noticed a downfall in it's glory AT ALL.Tyra Banks as you know is the host, and as fabulous as she is, there's also the other judges and co-hosts such as J. Alexander, Jay Manuel, Nigel Barker, and Twiggy.The main point of the show is for every girl invited to become America's Next Top Model, has to work their way up to the top by completing and winning photo shoot competitions.It sounds great already doesn't it, and let me tell you IT IS GREAT!!!!!It's awesome watching all the different kinds of photo shoots the girls take, and each one is different, cool, and daring.Anybody who hates this show, doesn't have a clue, and I will tell you that this show will be on for a LONG time, so DEAL WITH IT!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is my guilty pleasure all the way!! When I first tuned in to America's Next Top Model, I expected to be bored, and to find it very very stupid. I didn't. This show is actually serious fun. I read on one of the other reviews that it makes you wonder if you have what it takes to be America's Next top model. And it so does! Who doesn't love the glamour and excitement that come with being a model? On ANTM you get to see what it's REALLY like. And who doesn't love hearing the girls bitch about each other and get into fights? Or enjoy wanting to throw something at that Janice lady?

Give this a chance. Don't expect something intelligent or a show you can look to for a life lesson. Just enjoy it for what it is. Serious fun!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"America's Next Top Model is a great reality show in every sense. It has a great hostess, has great guests, a great production and some of the best professionals of the modeling world contributing for something they hadn't achieved yet: present a true America's Next Top Model. Of course this is not something easy to do, therefore USA and the world already would have 10 top models concurring and fighting between themselves in this cruel world.

But it's obvious that its intention is not to present the America's next top model, but yes, the America's Next Pop Model. The show gets together a bunch of models without any experience with different personalities and big personal, professional and financial problems, giving them a chance for bringing to life a dream or to make their lives something worthy. It's obvious that Tyra Banks uses all that for her advantage, she gives the dream, but in exchange for that she gains audience and more popularity. Anyway, she deserves it, because she is intelligent and, if I might say that, a pioneer to this kind of show. Tyra also is a great observer and knows how to give based opinions, differing herself of other models and hostess of foreign versions of the NEXT TOP MODEL franchise. In Brazil, as an example, Fernanda Motta is its hostess and \"once-upon-a-time\"-Top Model. She doesn't have even 1\/10 of Tyra's professional skills, which keeps Tyra Banks on the top. Tyra have professional and personal knowledge about what she says and she's a great mentor because she not only criticizes but she points the mistake and teaches the right way with wisdom.

The show doesn't suffer from big problems, it does and fulfills what it promises during the cycles. The models chosen to work on the show in fact are not the best unknown models of entire country because Tyra Banks bets with the difference, and she is right, because she (and also good part of her audience) believes that it's time for the modeling world to change some straight parameters. During the cycles, she and her team really makes fair deliberations, where the weakest go away and the promising ones have new chances to prove their capacities but must be fast to do that, otherwise they lose it.

Other very interesting thing is that Tyra also knows to decide who should or shouldn't win even when she's against people's opinion. She knows that whoever wins will be famous, but has a very few possibilities to truly be a worldwide recognized top model. At the same way she knows that, some times, the second place is more valuable than the first, because 1st place wins the title, but second doesn't gets the title stigma. Hardly she makes mistakes when she decides the future of any model during the show.

After 9 cycles the show is getting a little tired with some old ideas, it's time for Tyra to change some things and lines because it's getting boring and comparing to the firsts cycles we can see that she's getting bored too, so she needs to do that if she wants the show to live a little longer.

Anyway, the show explores the fashion and modeling world, but it's also entertaining for those ones that live outside all of that. It gives the opportunity for some girls and also the market, and also gives great tips for those ones from the audience who shares the same dream.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As if reality shows like \"American Idol\" weren't enough, in which judges like Simon Cowell shoot razor-sharp barbs to contestants trying to make their mark on the music world -- barbs that many a time has reduced even outstanding singers to tears after what was deemed a \"bad performance\", now \"America's Next Top Model\" has for the past three years invaded the boob tube with its own version of \"looking for the next big thing\" in a business that values superficiality, concepts of beauty, and body dysmorphia.

A concept created by Tyra Banks, who is also a judge in the show, it gathers some fifteen contestants from all walks of life and has them submit themselves to innumerable \"tasks\" in which they must prove their \"talent\" in front of the camera and subject themselves not only to the now departed Janice Dickinson (self-dubbed \"American's First Supermodel\") but the equally catty Jay Manuel and Nore Marin who may at one point focus on one girl not performing well and blithely rip her to shreds like it was bad morning coffee. Like in many other reality-based shows, each week one contestant is voted off and must pack her bags and immediately leave (a thing that they are reminded by Tyra at every turn). Of course, there is the bitchy tension between several of the more type-A females, female bonding, tears, dramatic swells of music in key moments, and some truly breathtaking pictures that transform erstwhile ordinary, pretty girls into unattainable goddesses.

I'll have to admit, the show is a guilty pleasure. Maybe it's the state of mind I'm in, but I kept wondering where the vomitorium was in cases when the already thin girls would need to hurl to make the cut and look the way the judges and photographers and many fickle designers would feel was correct for the moment. Even so, it's drawn me in despite my previous paragraph, possibly because I've always had an interest in the fashion world and have always loved watching stunning women being made even more unworldly with make up and perfect lighting. But I wonder where are they going with these increasingly difficult photo shoots. It's as if they were competing with \"Fear Factor\". Shoots that look like re-enactments of fight scenes in CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON, shoots where the models have to pose underwater or in almost impossible situations, What's next: posing while tied to train tracks as an oncoming Amtrak roars upon them at 70 miles an hour? Or a shoot where they are underwater, chained, trying to set themselves free in record time while at the same time looking smashing in chiffon, and never, ever forgetting to smile their pearly whites at that camera? How about a \"Pit and the Pendulum\" version of a photo shoot?

In one thing the show has to be given some kudos, and it's in a way akin to \"American Idol\". With this I'm probably going to justify the harshness of both shows, and its abrasive judges -- and essentially go against my initial paragraph. \"America's Next Top Model\" is a show that is an extended audition, like \"American Idol\", and in it the girls will get the sort of test treatment they will receive in the real world, where prospective designers and photographers, as monstrously fickle as they can be, will crush them to bits at the drop of a hat if they can't sell themselves the way they're expected to, and where one is asked to leave, another will supplant her with the necessary requirements. Which makes it a wonder that any girl would want to get into such a difficult media, but that's what dreams are made of.

Going into its Fifth season it's been a major disappointment with the departure of Janice Dickinson; during her run she was a pretty tough barometer as to how the girls should walk, talk, emote, express themselves, and ultimately present themselves as a walking, living product that sells. With the cold addition of Twiggy I wonder where it will go from here -- Twiggy just can't replace the over-the-top temperament of Dickinson. So with Janice's absence the show has lost some of its edge and may even have signaled its slow demise, but in the meantime, it's still a catchy pleasure to watch, mindless entertainment on weeknights, if at all for the gorgeous visuals. If at all, it's the show that launched Adrienne Curry into the spotlight. Curry has made a name for herself due to facts that have less to do with modeling as much as her theatric love-affair with one time child actor Christopher Knight in their very own reality soap opera.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, I watch this show. Because my girlfriend watches it, of course. Well, at least, that's what I tell my friends. But as nobody here ever known me, I can say this; I love it! That's excellent trash TV.

First, there's the panel; Tyra herself, who doesn't miss a single opportunity to talk about herself, yet she is to be taken seriously, as she is quite the businesswoman. Then there's Jay Manuel, A sober gay guy, very serious and amazingly professional, and Miss Jay, an extroverted one, \"queen\" of the catwalk and a damn funny guy, and Nigel, self-styled as the only man on the panel.

Second, the show is an in-depth look at a shallow industry, and we've got to give it to the producers for showing us the inside view, which can be informative as well as entertaining.

Finally, the edition is great; there is just the right mix of everything; The girls living together in the ego-house, their impressions on sets, the competitions themselves and the judging. All of this slides smoothly with just the right beat. There are no lenghts.

Of course, there must be other factors that led to eliminations that we don't see in the shows; The panel is made up of capricious divas, extroverted and quick on the bitching; woe to those who offends them! But that being said, as long as one contestant does not step on their toes, their judgment is usually fair - I think.

So, give your brain a break; If you can't beat them, join them, and have a good time watching this bit of reality TV with your loved ones. It will make crave for more, somehow.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is ten times better than \"Who Wants To BE A Super Model\" on Bravo I think it is more true to the business. Tyra is strong and sensitive at the same time and is able to get the most out of each aspiring model. The photos look for depth in each of the models, in personality and beauty, strength and demure attributes, and the ability to endure and work for what they want. I enjoy seeing Tyra's personal experience brought into the photo shoots and on the runway. I don't always agree with the judges decision's or Tyra's comments and at least one of the winners, I feel did not deserve to win. But this is just a show and every girl on there is very lucky to have this chance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having dabbled in the modeling industry (as a model), I watch this show with a slightly different view than most might. While I admit ANTM can be a fun, and entertaining show, as the seasons go on it seems to continue to drift from any reality.

The show seems to be almost pure publicity for its contestants, seeing that none of the show's winners (or fellow contestants) have made much of a name for themselves out from under of the show's umbrella. Maybe that's because the truth is any girl with real potential to be a high-fashion model shouldn't have too much difficulty submitting to agencies (you can do so via email or snail mail if distance prevents you from attending an agency open call), signing to an agency, and starting a modeling career. Yes, the process does not guarantee success, but apparently neither does ANTM. And participating in a reality show seems to offer less of a boost in the modeling business, than signing to a top or decent agency (which only one contestant each cycle has a guarantee of anyway).

Nonetheless, the show can't hurt, certainly can be amusing, and has a sort of magic that particularly works for teenage girls, I have found. Though, I must add, ANTM may become a tad tiring and dull, after watching several cycles, as it has become for me. And besides some unrealistic situations (each more outrageous than the last) the only other annoyance, is the overuse of \"Tyra, Tyra, Tyra!\" Tyra seems to genuinely want to guide these girls to success, but is it necessary for each of models' temporary digs to be covered in Tyra pictures; for virtually every panel and challenge to include a story or scenario that \"Tyra\" experienced and overcame? I think not.

In my opinion, take out a little Tyra, put back in a little more reality, and ANTM could be a 10 star show, instead of a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Americans Next Top Model\" is the best reality show! I was entertained 99.9 percent of the time watching it.I kept my eyes open the entire time. (well, I did blink) It can be sad, funny, or addicting.(mostly addicting)\"America's Next Top Model\" kept me wanting more and that's pretty much the point. It is also on more that one channel. Sometimes it's on MTV other times it's not. I hope it gets more fans and grows to be a hit series! It's great for pretty much all ages so every can enjoy it! :)

Also, if you watched the show before, haven't you noticed that Tyra has a different hair style each time in the judging room? She'll have it short and curly one week, and then long and straight the next.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the best show ever no matter what you say!I have been watching this show since cycle 1.This show is never boring its wonderful how you see peoples dream come true of being a model.Tyra is trying her best to help young women not be ashamed of their bodies and make them believe that they are beautiful in their own way and that you don't have to feel beautiful by being anorexic.And just as Tyra says on the Tyra show so what if your curvy so what if you have a big round booty so what if you have a big nose so what if your not as beautiful as the people in magazines you are beautiful to her.SO WHAT...............................","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I mean let's face it, all you have to do in modelling is pose for photos. The judging is so over the top with it's criticism. The show however is entertaining, especially with Tyra Banks, Nigel Barker, J Alexander and the supermodel herself Twiggy. I've watched season 5, 6, 7 and in the middle of season 8. It looks like American Idol gone sexy but I'm a guy and I only watch it because of the hot girls posing in their bikinis! The show can be quite boring, when it comes to judging, Tyra tends to go on and on and it's really off-putting. Anyway would I recommend it? Yes, Would I recommend it to women wanting to go into the modelling business? No.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"America's next top model is a good show, it helps people with their careers, but lately i have become bored with it.

cycle 1: yeah I'm happy Adrienne won, i wanted her to win from the beginning.

cycle 2: its too bad, i think Mercedes deserved it.

cycle 3: i did not like Eva, but i did not like most of the girls in this cycle.

cycle 4: Kahlen should have won. i don't know what they saw in Naima, but i definitely know what they saw in Kahlen.

cycle 5: like cycle 3, this was not a great cycle either. but out of all the girls, NICOLE as a winner? eww!

cycle 6: i liked Sara and Joanie, but Danielle is okay too.

cycle 7: Caridee definitely deserved it.

cycle 8: no, i didn't want Jaslene to win. i didn't like her. i saw other girls in that cycle with definitely more potential than her, although i did not see much of this cycle.

good show, I've just seen it too many times to like it much anymore :D","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a simple episode ad so far after watching all of the Season 11 episodes (with the exception of the Imaginationland trilogy) this is the one that made laugh the most, definitely is my favourite so far of Season 11. So basically Cartman sees at a toy store a kid who has the Tourette's syndrome and a new idea comes to Cartman. You can imagine, now Cartman has Tourette's syndrome and is great since Kyle once he knows about this is like \"he's faking\". Cartman is certainly on fire, saying whatever he wants to the teachers, to the principal, to anybody. On the other hand we have Kyle who now is the intolerant one, basically for saying that Cartman was faking he was taken to meet children with Tourette's syndrome just to let him see that Tourette's syndrome is for real and is great since Kyle is like \"well maybe someone is faking to have Tourette's for fun\", in short Kyle could not explain that Cartman was faking. Probably my favourite scene of this episode is when Cartman is with Kyle's family but right after this scene another kid fins that Cartman is simply faking, the kid with Tourette's who was at the toy store, Cartman basically said to that kid this: \"isn't having Tourette's awesome\". But to be saying whatever he wants and be for everybody a brave boy is sort of just the beginning for Cartman, his master plan: going on National TV to say anything he wants (\"people will call it brilliant TV, they'll probably give me an Emmy\"- fantastic, in this episode the word \"s***\" is used 26 times and certainly that's not all. South Park won an Emmy like a month or so before this episode aired). But here there's a twist, Cartman basically removed all the bricks of the wall, he says now everything without thinking so we hear from Cartman that he wet his bed last night, now is not fun for Cartman and he is like \"I can't control what I say\" and certainly the person who was with him is like \"well of course you can't control what you say, you have Tourette's\" so Cartman is like \"my Tourette's has gotten worse, before I just blurted out cool stuff about Jews being lame and stuff but now it's gotten really bad\". There is also stuff about Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator, actually what happened with a pervert here happens with a lot more perverts, Kyle and Thomas were behind that to stop Cartman, Kyle ends being Cartman's saviour! Fantastic!

TSA VOICES CONCERN Over \"South Park\" October 3rd Episode

On Wednesday, October 3, the cable network Comedy Central will air an episode of the animated series \"South Park\" in which one of the young characters, Cartman, \"gets\" Tourette Syndrome. Given the nature of this program, we fully expect it to be offensive and insensitive to people with TS and garner numerous calls and emails from our members and the TS community.

We have already taken some pre-emptive strikes, such as requesting that Comedy Central air our Public Service Announcement (featuring comedian Richard Lewis) during or after the show. In addition, once the episode airs and we are able to see exactly how TS is portrayed, we will be able to respond with specific issues and problems we have with the show to the writers.

\"We are actually surprised it took the creators so long to use TS as comedy fodder in this program, since no disability, illness or controversial topic is off limits to them,\" said Judit Ungar, President, TSA.

\"We always see portrayals of TS (good and bad) as an opportunity for awareness and education, and a show of this magnitude and popularity is certainly no exception and provides a way for TSA to spread factual information about the disorder,\" said Tracy Colletti- Flynn, Manager of Public Relations and Communications, TSA.

We will be posting an official statement on this site with TSA's reaction to the program after the show airs.

TSA RESPONDS to \"South Park\" Episode

Unfortunately, as has been the case with far too many media portrayals of people with Tourette Syndrome (TS), the season opener of South Park (\"Le Petit Tourette,\" 10-3-07) served to perpetuate even further the outright myth that most of those affected by TS have involuntary outbursts of foul language. In point of fact, fully 85-90% of people with TS never experience this tragically socially stigmatizing symptom (medically termed coprolalia). For viewers less familiar with the symptoms of this neurological disorder, the misleading take away message couldn't have been clearer \u0096 unless you curse, you don't have TS.

Despite our pre-airing trepidations, we do concede that the episode was surprisingly well- researched. The highly exaggerated emphasis on coprolalia notwithstanding, for the attentive viewer, there was a surprising amount of accurate information conveyed. The scripted input from parents, a neurologist, peers and the therapy session with the \"TS children's support group\" all served as a clever device for providing these facts to the public. \"No doubt this South Park episode did generate increased national awareness about TS. Nevertheless, we are very concerned that school children with TS will be mocked and even bullied by insensitive peers who may have seen the program,\" said Judit Ungar, TSA President. \"We realize that for over a decade the writers' satirical parodies have spared no group be they celebrities, the disabled or political figures. The fact that TS was the subject of a popular TV show attests to the fact that the public is so much more aware of the disorder. Obviously, this increased awareness we've worked too hard to accomplish can at times prove to be a double-edged sword.\"

TSA contacted the program's executives prior to the airing, and we will be in touch with them again. Perhaps we'll succeed in turning this into an opportunity for positive TS awareness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was another great episode from season 11 of South Park.

Cartman fakes having Tourette syndrome in order to be able to say whatever he wants without getting in trouble. He is able to swear at the other kids at school. Kyle tells the Principal that Cartman is faking it. But, she doesn't believe it. Chris Hansen is planning on having Cartman to be on Dateline to talk about Tourette syndrome live and uncensored. But later on, Cartman starts to get so addicted to be able to say whatever he wants, that he later on starts to accidentally say embarrassing stuff. This was a funny episode about Cartman faking Tourette syndrome. I Recommend it to any South Park fan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"La Petit Tourette is a pretty funny South Park episode.Cartman is at the toy store one day and here's a kid swearing out loud but not getting in trouble for it.His mother then tells everyone that the kid has \"tourette syndrome\".Cartman loves the fact that he can swear without getting into trouble so he tells everybody that he has tourette syndrome.Kyle, however finds out that Cartman is lying and tries to tell people, but they think he is insensitive and is put in a \"Tourette sensitivity training\" type place.Cartman's tourette's eventually land him a spot on a talk show, however he finds that he cannot control his tourettes and starts saying embarrassing things that happen to him.Meanwhile, Kyle tries to sabotage the show in an interesting way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I tell you although it is funny how how this many swear words are in this one I'm sure the number of profanities and swear words in it would probably count up to about 200 because from what i last heard the greatest number of swear words on a south park episode is 165 counts of the word s**t but aside from that its so funny because in it there is swear words and also paedophiles shooting themselves in the head Watch this for your own survival also look out for a mention of cartmans father and also the annoying voice of Chris Hanssseeeen and also kyle has to save cartman from paedophiles (the catch a predator show is also on dateline) and they track a peado down and when they got there the peado \"shot himself\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although, this episode was offensive to the Tourette Syndrome Association, others thought it was funny, while others thought it was a bad way to start the new season.

This episode was funny and just shocking. South Park has made history as being their first episode with the most cuss words, unless you count the movie as an episode.

I enjoyed how they made fun of Chris Hansen and his television show, to Catch a Predator. I didn't like the idea on how they thought Chris Hansen would do a show on tourettes and let a boy speak out and bash the Jews.

One thing I did not like is how South Park thought that people with tourettes syndrome would just blurt out bad language like that. I've seen people on television with Tourettes syndrome and they do not just blurt out bad words. Unless I am incorrect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the most pleasurable aspects of movie viewing is to get lost in a film. To have it totally wash over you, so that you absorb it as it is, and thus, experience it to the fullest. Every time I see it, 'The Egyptian' is such a film. Over the years it is a picture critics have loved to hate. Many have thrown darts at its vulnerabilities. But perhaps it is because of the very tone the film brings with it rather than its most obvious characteristics. It is at once forbidding, remote, possibly dangerous; beware of what lies within! The haunting chords of the music, seen over the 20th-Fox logo, usher us into titles of other-worldly turquoise lettering.

Strange! Archaeological! Decadent! It is as if we are descending into some vault of antiquity, wherein might be great treasures, mixed with uncertain hazards. (One might imagine Darryl Zanuck commanding: 'Make it ancient!') Then, what a darkly dramatic story unfolds, all within the same tone set at the start.

Of Hollywood's mid-50s 'Egyptian Trilogy', 'The Ten Commandments' portrayed the civilization's sternness, the phenomenal 'Land of the Pharaohs' its nuts and bolts, while 'The Egyptian' shows it all, from glamour to tragedy, for us to wonder at.

No need to say much about the players here, but I think that, with the passage of time, Bella Darvi is being redeemed. What a perfect face for the role, right out of a Symbolist painting. If her acting does not please some, it might be argued that, in her role as a 'courtesan', she is obviously better in bed than yakking to some poor helpless admirer. I think that Curtiz captured the kinkiness of her sado-masochistic relationship with Edmund Purdom's character with aplomb, censorship being what it was at the time. Sir Peter Ustinov, in his memoirs, was pretty kind to 'The Egyptian', writing that it was 'like being lost in a huge set for 'Aida'. His pronunciation of the word 'beer' I have adopted myself ever after.(One of the film's historically accurate references: the Egyptian's invented beer!) Henry Daniell, egads, what a perfect performance. Gene Tierney, what a screen treasure. Bless DFZ for giving her this 'late' role. C'mon folks, don't be so hard on Victor Mature! He's a cheesemaker's son! Who rose to be pharaoh! Sounds like a peculiarly American opportunity. One of the best moments: John Carradine's existential observations on the sands of time. And Purdom's utterance about dwelling beyond the sunset of the world. If that isn't Grade 'A' epicness, what is?

Of course, along with everything else, the music is sublime. It is frequently noted that Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann created one of the screen's most compelling scores, perfectly harmonious, yet each theme is well developed, with a life of its own. Newman, pressed for time by DFZ, called in Herrmann, someone he could trust implicitly, to take up half the burden.

Benny, not the easiest guy to work with, obviously respected Newman enough to really deliver inspiring music. They alternated cues, an ingenious approach. No spoilers as to who did what here, but Benny brings an edge with him, mysterious, awesome sounds. Alfred brings fulsomeness, longing, poignancy. Both are consummately epic. Even when seen on a squeezed TV print, the effect of seeing the two composers' names side by side in the main credits, which the ultra-wide anamorphic screen could comfortably accommodate, is spine-tingling.

Leon Shamroy, the Dean of CinemaScope, does not let us down here. The lurid greens and moody shadows (probably distortions in all the terrible TV prints I've seen through the years) perfectly accompany the multi-dimensional script (by the great Philip Dunne and WB vet Casey Robinson, whom Curtiz must've brought with him to 20th). How remarkable it is that Shamroy, who was as much of an institution of cinematography at Fox as Newman was with music, would lens 'Cleopatra' a few years later, but in the brighter, sharper images of '60s Todd A-O. These old studio guys are really heroes of mine.

To me, who wants to fret about all the imperfections and criticism opportunities in a picture like this? I'd rather yield entirely to its spell, and dive off into its sea of lavishness, to emerge after the inspiring climax of 'The End' refreshed, moved, and hungry for more.

And yes, we should cry out to 20th-Fox for a DVD release worthy of DFZ's legacy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Few people realize it, but there was world literature in the ancient world before the Greeks came on the scene. Besides the literary remains that are in the \"Old Testament\" of the Jews, there were considerable works from Mesopotamia and Egypt. The summit of the former were the religious poetry and \"The Epic Of Gilgamesh\". The Egyptians produced many poems, but there main addition was a tale of adventure of a traveler and physician called \"The Story Of Sinuhe\". It is from this work (actually a fragment, that we don't know the ending of) that the novel \"The Egyptian\" came from.

The story is unique (as is the movie). \"The Egyptian\" was a best seller in the early 1950s, and Darryl Zanuck decided to take a chance making it: yes he wanted a showcase for his girlfriend Bella Darvi as Nefer, as well as the rest of the cast (Victor Mature, Edmund Purdom, Peter Ustinov, Michael Wilding, and Gene Tierney), but he was aware that these films rarely made large box office. One can chalk up this as an example of Zanuck trying something different.

The number of movies that deal with ancient Egypt are very small. \"Land Of The Pharoahs\", \"The Egyptian\", \"The Ten Commandments\" (both De Mille versions), \"Moses\", \"Holy Moses!\", \"Cleopatra\", \"The Mummy\" (all versions), \"The Scorpion King\". If there are 20 films about ancient Egypt it's is tremendous. But \"The Egyptian\" is unique. While the second \"Ten Commandments\" discusses Ramses the Great (Pharoah Ramses II - Yul Brynner) and his father Seti I (Cedric Hardwicke), and the films on Cleopatra deal with her, few other names of ancient Egypt crop up in film. Egypt's greatest Pharoah was Thutmose III, who conquered most of the known middle east of the era of 1470 B.C.E. or so. No film about him has appeared, nor of his usurping predecessor, history's first great female ruler Hatschepsut. But the only known Pharoah who attempted a religious revolution that approached what the Jews (and later the Christians) attempted - a type of monotheism - is the subject of \"The Egyptian\". This is Pharoah Akhnaton.

In reality Akhnaton was practicing a personal form of monotheism that was not meant for public consumption. But it angered the priestly class who worshiped Amon, rather than Aton. Due to our uncertain historic records (although Akhnaton's official records - the \"Tel-el-Amana\" letters - are quite complete as far as they survive), we do not know if the Pharoah was killed in a palace coup or not. However he died, he was succeeded by a young brother or son of his whose name is better recalled than any other Pharoah except Ramses: Tutankhamon.

This film is actually quite good as far as it goes. Wilding makes a good natured Akhnaton, who is too weak to be as effective as a religious reformer is supposed to be. Mature is good as the ambitious (and - outside the film - ultimately successful future Pharoah) Horemheb. Tierney and Purdom do well in their lead parts and Ustinov is good as Purdom's friend. Also good is Ms Darvi, in a large supporting part. In a wonderful cameo is John Carridine, as a philosophical grave robber. The film is certainly worthy of viewing, as one of the few attempts to show part of the history and culture of Ancient Egypt.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Film historians have said much about ancient epics that have been the interest of many directors from the beginning of cinema. The pioneers of such epics, particularly biblical ones, were D.W Griffith with his \"mother of all epics\" INTOLERANCE (1916), and Cecil B DeMille with his flair for magnificent spectacles, costumes and lavish scenes. Who can forget his TEN COMMANDMENTS (1923, 1956) or THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932)? Nevertheless, here comes another epic, made in the 1950s, directed by Michael Curtiz, and based on the novel by Mika Waltari, \"The Egyptian.\" Michael Curtiz, already famous for his great classic CASABLANCA (1941) wonderfully manages to adjust his film to the audiences of that time, to entail the most important ideas and facts from the thick novel, and to recreate the lifestyle of the Egyptians who lived in one of the most amazing periods, in the reign of Akhnaton.

The first and most important fact for me in this movie is the psychological development of the main character that Edmund Purdom plays. Sinuhe, having been brought up in a simple family by his step parents, becomes a physician. All his life, he never stops asking a question \"why?\" and searching for the answer. Alluring love that he finds in a courtesan Nefer (Bella Darvi) leads him to financial and spiritual disaster. He has to repair the mistakes by hard work in the House of Death and starting to build up his reputation from nothing. First, he thinks that the only cure is revenge. However, in the long run, he realizes that \"eye for eye\" is no solution. Finally, what stands before him in very strange circumstances is the temptation to be a pharaoh. Nevertheless, there is one moment he finds the answer for his questions that touched him throughout his life... The story of the main character, though based on the book, is so interesting psychologically that every open minded person should consider this aspect in the film. The main character's psychological struggle is intensified by the times he lived in, the times when, probably for the first time to that extend, the power of sword clashed with the power of thought.

Curtiz's movie also retains one rule that all films of his era kept to: great cast and lavish sets. There are mostly British actors and actresses who give very nice performances. How is it possible not to mention the mainstay of ancient epic, Victor Mature. This time, he is not Demetrius, Hannibal or Samson but Horemheb - a fighter, a lover, at last a pharaoh. Jean Simmons appears in a very delicate role of Merit, a woman who loved Sinuhe all her life but it was too late when he realized that. Peter Ustinov, probably most famous for his gorgeous performance as Nero in QUO VADIS? three years earlier, does a great job as Kaptah, Sinuhe's friend. The royalty of the film is also played by two great cast, Gene Tierney and Michael Wilding. Tierney is excellent as cold, desirous of power Baketamon, the sister of pharaoh. Wilding gives a marvelous performance as \"insane\" Akhnaton. When I was in Louvre in Paris and saw Akhnaton's original face carved in stone, he looked very much the same as the actor in the film. Bella Darvi, an actress born in Poland, is quite memorable as a wicked courtesan Nefer. And there is one more actress who appears only in one scene but whom it is hard to forget, Judith Evelyn as Taia, pharaoh's mother. This voice, these eyes!

The sets are magnificent. The director recreated the most probable image of the outdoor temple of Aaton, the god that the Egyptians worshiped to in the reign of Amenhotep IV. I also loved the scene of pharaoh's first entrance. What a glorious picture that forever lasts in one's memory!!! However, there is also one aspect that I would like to draw the attention of all people interested to see the film. The Egyptian is similar to other epics in many respects, but it also stands out as a unique film. There are very few films which make such a wonderful use of different curiosities as for ancient times. There is a mention of iron used first by the Hetites. It's also the only film about ancient Egypt which talks openly of Egyptians' magnificent curing abilities. It memorably shows the contrasts of lifestyles, particularly the moment of a slave's death for whom no one cares followed by the announcement and consequently the widespread mourning after the death of pharaoh. Finally, \"The Egyptian\" shows one historical fact: there were other nations except for Jews (before Christ) where the spirit of God shone in some human hearts. Yet, the only difference was that it did not survive that long as at Jews' because it did not have a strong fundament. The scene of Akhnaton's death supplies you with so many biblical and Christian values that you may think you watch a religious movie.

All things considered, I highly recommend Michael Curtiz' film. It is a great production at multiple levels: an entertainment for epic fans, an admiration of marvelous performances for cinema fans, a soul feast for spiritual people. Finally, it is a beautiful story of extraordinary things which happened thirteen centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It happens often, while growing up, a Hollywood movie impresses a youth. It not only lasts a lifetime, but inspire him to study ancient cultures as a career. Such was the case, with the 1954 film entitled \"The Egyptian.\" Audience were awed with the sets, costumes and great acting of this film, so much so, other films soon followed in like vain. This is the story of a young Egyptian boy who was left parent less soon after he was born. With such a dubious beginning, it is not hard to wonder why he will spend his life, asking questions. The boy Sinuhe, (Sin-oh-way) which means, 'He that is alone'(Edmund Purdom) grows to manhood and continues asking why, even as he graduates from The School Of Life to become a physician. During his formative years he acquires a lifelong friend named Kaptah brilliantly played by (Peter Ustinov), and Horemheb (Victor Mature) who raises from a simple officer of the guard to Commander of the Armies. His life offers everything from a quick rise in social status to condemned criminal, to outcast, a wondering healer, and eventually to a station in life he never expected. Fine acting goes to Jean Simmons as Merit, Michael Wilding as Akhnaton, Bella Darvi as the temptress, Nefer, and John Carradine as a memorable Grave robber. Tommy Rettig, plays Thoth, the son of the Egyptian. In his final years, 'He that is alone,' finally discovers the answer he had been seeking all his life, which he bequeathes to his son, now in the care of his lifelong friend. Excellent Film! ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Maybe it's just a personal affection for this screen version of the Mika Waltari novel, or a fondness for things Egyptian (I grew up loving to visit the mummies in Boston's Museum of Fine Arts) but I think Maltin is a tad tough on this rather good film. The production values are great regarding color and cinematography, and it appears some effort went into historical authenticity (much of it from the novel, I'm sure). Purdom is admittedly a bit stiff in the lead role, but one can accept this as part of Sinuhe's character. Victor Mature is, well, Victor Mature. Peter Ustinov is a delight to watch in this type of role, which he always did so well and so wittily. Bella Darvi's performance as Nefer is classically camp, and I find even Michael Wilding's rather dry portrayal of Akenaten to have its own appeal.

The historical oddity of Akenaten's monotheism, a brief detour in ancient Egypt's theological history, is interesting, as is Akenaten himself, and well worth reading about; the religious wars portrayed here have a basis in fact.

An interesting footnote regarding Darvi, whose birth name was Bayla Wegier: she was a Polish emigre who producer Darryl Zanuck and his wife Violet took under their wing (I believe they may even have adopted her). Her screen name Darvi is formed from Zannuck's and his wife's first names. She continued her acting career in France, but never achieved great success and, after a rather unhappy life, died at her own hand in 1971.

Altogether this is an interesting film and enjoyable to watch for the visual values alone. American Movie Classics shows this occasionally in letterbox, which is essential to capturing the scope and sweep of the story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie around 1968 and if I don't see it once or twice a year, I'm surprised. I've always found it engrossing, well acted, and, for Hollywood, surprisingly accurate historically. I heartily give it 10 stars and recommend it highly!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a dedicated lover of all things Egyptian this is a classic piece from the 50's, along with my other favourite, Land of the Pharaohs\". The sets and colours are just wonderful and everything seems so \"neat\" in the production quality. I thought Victor Mature was well cast and Peter Ustinov a real gem! The whole look of the movie (along with others made in this era) has an appeal that you just don't get with modern movies with all their digitized effects (I have yet to see the 1999 movie \"The Mummy but am sure I will love it!).

Top stuff!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having been interested in Akhenaton for many years I was surprised to learn about this film via E-bay and bought a copy on DVD for 99p. I enjoyed the film, the twists and turns in the plot and that the file was mainly about the main character Sinuhe makes it more of a \"family saga\" rather than an action film. The costumes and attention to detail was remarkable for its time (1955). The back projection during the chariot ride now looks clumsy. My main interest was in the character of Akhenaton and his monotheistic religion. In this film he was portrayed as being \"Jesus\" like in his refusal to go to war with the Hittites even through they were invading Egypt and in his closing speech about the futility of materiality and political power. Initially one makes a connection between Sinuhe, who was cast adrift in the river Nile in a reed basket, and the Old Testament Moses. But this connection is not carried no doubt this will be fully explored in a new film wherein a Moses like character carries Akhenaton's monotheistic religion out to the wider world, if such a film will ever be politically possible to make. It is universally accepted that were women are concerned we man are stupid creatures but the relationship or lack of one between Sinuhe and Merit, the character played by Jean Simmons is hard to accept. And that Sinuhe, an educated physician, would be so smitten by Nefer the Babylonian \"femme fatal\" to the extent of giving her his adopted parents house and Tomb is not really believable, neither that his parents would even have a tomb. In real life Nefer (Nefertitti) was the wife of Akhenaton. And although Horemheb did become Pharaoh it was after a few others including Tutankhamen , who was the son of Akhenaton.

But of course this is just nit picking and the film is enjoyable to watch and that it is about Akhenaton and his monotheistic religion is a big bonus. Maybe following \"The De Vinci Code\" book and film this film be re-made with the central secret being the foundation of our current monotheism! I wait in great anticipation of such a film, there are already numerous books on the subject.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having read all of the comments on this film I am still amazed at Fox's reluctance to release a full screen restored version in DVD. Yes, the history may be a bit inaccurate and it is certainly not as powerful as the book, BUT it was the 2nd film by Fox made in Real Cinemascope and the production values alone merit a restoration and distribution. I saw this film in second grade and it triggered my lifelong interest in all things Egyptian, culminating in my visiting Egypt 4 years ago! Amazing the power of film on a child's imagination, eh? In high school I read the book and made a promise to myself to one day take that dream trip. Now, true this film was made in the \"old school\" style, meaning that Egyptians were portrayed by pink skinned and blue-eyed Brits. However, has anyone seen the current HBO series \"ROME\"? Everything old is olde again. One can't imagine why in this day and age we are still casting actors mincing around as Mayfair aristocrats in Roman drag. Not one actor on ROME could pass for an ancient Italian. That being said, the AMARNA period in Egypt is still one of the most fascinating events in human history. This film is immensely appealing ( to borrow a word from NEFER) for its historical information (BEER! BRAIN SURGERY! IRON!) and its gorgeous cinematography and score. I have a dreadful Taiwan DVD version which I watch over and over again praying that one day a true restored widescreen version will be available. For anyone else interested in this subject I highly recommend the historical novel \"A God Against The Gods\" by the author of Advise and Consent. If anyone of you film buffs out there knows how to contact Fox to urge them on, please let me know!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'll start off right at the beginning by saying \"I like this movie.\" It's sweeping, it's grand, it's gripping and it's fun. Sinhue the physician,sits in front of his small stone hut writing his memoirs. And what a story it is! Taken from a river and reared by an elderly couple who doted on him, he becomes a physician to the poor. He befriends Horemheb who sees glory while Sinhue sees healing. And both run into the future pharaoh Anknaten (forgive my spellings), who endures an epileptic fit.

And this pharaoh has another \"flaw\": He believes in one god instead of a pantheon of gods. Back then, this was totally revolutionary. Sinhue and Horemheb grow up. One night, Sinhue sees a woman who makes him lose his senses. He gives up his practice, sells his parents' home and even their tombs just to spend a night with her. Does he? I won't tell. Meanwhile, Merit, a tavern maid played with sweet simplicity belying strength by Jean Simmons, falls in love with Sinhue. She falls under his spell and under the spell of the belief in one god.

Victor Mature overacts perfectly as Horemheb. Edmond Purdom is sincere as Sinhue the lost physician (does he find redemption? Stay tuned). Even Bela Darvi, the woman who steals Sinhue's heart isn't as bad as everyone has said. The fact that she was Daryl F. Zanuck's mistress had nothing to do with the casting - right? Yeah, right...still, she wasn't that bad _ I've seen worse. I think she did better in \"The Egyptian\" than many of today's young actresses have done in anything. I said it before and I'll say it again -- I like this movie. I recommend it. It makes you think despite some hammy acting. Have fun with this movie; it's worth it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is not what one would term a happy tale. The titled leading character (Edmund Purdom as THE Egyptian) does not get the gal - although he does (?) evidently get the 'last' word, the otherwise principal tragic figure (Michael Wilding as the politically myopic Pharaoh) ends up tragically, and the wrong guy \u0096 even if it is Victor Mature, winds up winning-all the marbles. Peter Ustinov possibly had gotten the best part (Kafka) and arguably may have stolen some if not most of the movie except for top-billed Jean Simmons as the somewhat brighter-than\u0096average barmaid (Merit) whom just possibly has more on the ball \u0096 intellectually and spiritually, than all of the rest of them put together.

The brooding and pessimistic Sinuhe the physician (\u0085that's Purdom) is portrayed as a dark, cynical, tortured soul whom spends the entire plot \u0096 his lifetime, seeking the meaning of 'Life.' (Btw, and to paraphrase John Lennon, 'Life' is what happens while you're making other plans.) Pardon the lack of philosophical depth in the prior parenthetic comment, but eventually the plot unfolds to reveal just that !

And speaking philosophically, as if things aren't morose and negative enough, John Carradine (\u0085as the un-named grave robber) pops-up in a cameo role in the middle of the flick espousing that 'Life' basically is meaningless and is only worth living as a poor alternative to the eventual ultimate disappointment.

So here we are over 200 words in and I haven't really had a kind word, so why the heck did I rate it so high ? Well there is a lot of Shakespherian tragedy and bunch of moral worth in it. There's ethical contrasts, true friendships, true & unrequited (almost) love, and - despite limitations of 50s production capabilities, it is very well (sound) staged, pleasing both the eye and ear, and very well\/evenly paced . The acting is, for the most part, uniformly very good \u0096 given it's a 50s costume drama, and the interactions are believable right down to the characters' fatal flaws - which abound, and in that doing justice to the best of Greek tragedy.

There is some redemption, Sinuhe does discover and embrace his son \u0096 played by Tommy Retigg whom, despite Ustinov's best efforts, really needed Lassie to pull it off. A couple of other 'misguided' souls get their just desserts \u0085 the 'foreign' fleshpot Nefer (Bella Darvi) \u0096 apparently in Egypt on a carnal exploitation work-study visa, whom earlier cruelly even mercilessly spurned Sinuhe -\\and\\- the dyke'ish Princess Baketamon (Gene Tierney as Pharoah Wilding's sister) whom knew a deep dark secret about Sinuhe's ancestry, and then tried to use it to set him against his friend, her brother the Pharaoh \u0096 nice people, huh.

Purdom's performance is actually something to behold. He carries off the dirge well enough that somewhere before the end of the pix you want to smack him across the puss, grab him by the lapels, and say \"look dummy pull yourself together, the glass ain't half empty it's half full !\" \u0085and then finding that you're personally disappointed in Horemheb - truly Sinuhe's best friend, (Victor Mature as Pharoah's Top Soldier) for himself having that flaw in his character that prevents him succeeding at doing something positive.

I wonder if the secret to the whole movie is that it very quickly achieves and then sustains the necessary \"suspension of disbelief\" and early on gets you understanding and worrying about the characters, caring to the point that you really feel sorry for them and their missed chances at happiness; a happiness that otherwise wasn't all that far from their grasp.

\u0085can't understand why this one isn't already out on DVD and hope that gets corrected soon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on Mika Waltari's Book,This Second CinemaScope movie ever made is full of rich color,beautiful music and panoramic spectacle.The Plot sometimes gets muddled in contrite wording,But all in all it has a strong social content:Man is ruled by his emotions,and that every action has an equal consequence.But to truly enjoy this film,First see the movie,then read the book.Although different,it sheds light on a whole lot of things that were not seen on the screen,and gives breath to some more of the depth of Sinuhe.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...as valuable as King Tut's tomb! (OK, maybe not THAT valuable, but worth hunting down if you can). I notice no one has commented on this movie for some years, and I hope a fresh post will spark some new comments. This is a film that I remembered only snippets of from childhood, and only saw recently when I tired of waiting for Fox to honour its own past, and hunted down the Korean DVD (in English, but with unremovable Korean subtitles). I won't go through another long plot description - suffice to say that seeing it for the first time in its proper widescreen format left me agape at the vistas and the scope of the film. The matte paintings still hold up, and the palace sets are truly breathtaking. But it is the smaller scale details that lend this film its depth and richness, offering a glimpse into the lifestyles of Egypt's poor as well as its elite. The bazaars, hovels, docks, embalming houses, and taverns are as fascinating as Pharaoh's throne room. While errors abound on the large scale (most notably the dynastic succession), the details are more meticulously researched than the vast majority of Hollywood's films. Visually, it's not without its flaws - the interiors are often too overly lit and colourful to blend seamlessly with the exteriors. Nevertheless, this is a movie that should be credited for being as audacious in the small as it is in the large. Tedious? In parts, absolutely. Overacted? Underacted? Yes, both - though 'understated' might be a more apt description. Too long? Absolutely not. I wished they had spent more time with Sinuhe's experiences in the House of Death, and among the Hittites, and less with his 'romance' with Nefer, though. Historically inaccurate? Yes, that too, but so was Shakespeare. Nobody chastises him for it. I appreciate historical accuracy as much as the next guy, but ultimately it has to be remembered that cinema is theater, not a history lesson.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When this film gets it right it really gets it right. And when it goes wrong... I'd say that a full 3\/4s of the film is great. I can even isolate the bad bit. It's everything that has to do with the romance. Everything that you need to know about it is said in the first five minutes but it drags on for about 30. I'd recommend skipping that section if you can. It does nothing except explain his exile. It should have been a minor plot point quickly thrust aside. Fortunately, the period from about 0-30 and 1:00-2:19 (The End) is excellent.

There are a number of excellent performances in this film, and an equal number of terrible ones. Just like everything else in this movie the acting is either perfect or terrible. Peter Ustinov as the slimy one-eyed slave Kaptah is perfect. It is one of his best performances, up there with his role in Spartacus. Victor Mature as the ambitious Horemheb is also perfect. Again, one of his best roles. Jean Simmons is wasted as Merit, the perfect girl in love with our hero John Carradine gives a nice supporting role as a philosophical grave robber; and Michael Wilding is excellent as Akhnaton, the idealistic pharaoh who tries to bring peace and monotheism to Egypt only to see it fall apart due to his unwillingness to fight. Now for the bad. Edmund Purdom as Sinuhe is sadly miscast. This is doubly unfortunate as he is the main character. The entire film revolves around him. He actually does rather good as the disillusioned exile and the wise old man. This is because of his sorely limited range. He doesn't seem able to put any passion into his words. This is especially apparent during the love scenes which are beyond awkward. He spends the last half of the film as an old man, a performance at which he is decent enough at. He does have the perfect voice for the character. The less said about Bella Darvi as Nefer, the treacherous Babylonian woman, the better.

The costuming and sets are magnificent. This is the only film that I know of that attempts to depict life in Egypt that isn't overshadowed by Jews or Romans. The film takes place in the 14th Century B.C. which is before even Exodus. The only monotheists are the pharaoh Akhenaten and his followers. There is the same strong element of religious zeal that can be found in most epics, but it is done differently and it only shows up at the very end. An interesting note: by having Akhenaten followed by Horemheb as pharaoh, the film completely skips over the most famous pharaoh of all: Tutankhamen. Seems kind of a strange thing to do when using that name could increase awareness of the film.

Be warned: this is a 1950s epic film. If you don't like that type of thing then don't expect this one to be different. It is different, but it is still an epic. I appreciate this film, and I appreciate what it did and what it tried to do. This is a film that should be better remembered than it is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The philosophical, meditative tone of this movie renders it one of a kind. I'd give it 10 stars for that alone. That being said, though, what hit me with particular force was what I take, possibly incorrectly, to be its Art Direction. Many of the interior shots feature a rich concoction of color blends seemingly based on very understated Munsell Color Model progressions and complementary juxtapositions. This makes the movie probably unrealistic to contemporary eyes, but, to me, very beautiful as an aesthetic work in itself. I think this movie is genuinely unique for this quality, and if for no other reason, earns it a full, careful, digital restoration. Fox, are you listening?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the pleasure to view this film when I was 10 years old,(having an existing interest in Egyptology). I know that there are subtle mistakes to the art direction and costuming, but over all this is the best film, to date with the look of the 18th dynasty.

The film only approximates Mika Walteri's \"The Egyptian\", in plot. A good portion of the text never made it to film, as we have to consider the running length.

The music score by B. Hermann and Alfred Newman is beautiful!!! Performances as follows. The late Edmond Purdom gave an excellent performance as an orphaned child adopted by parents past their child bearing years. He states that he keeps to himself,has the best education available and lets' face it is a rather emotionally distant person, given his upbringing and high intellect.

Jean Simmons is fine as a humble tavern maid; honest loving and sincere. Bella Darvi, people complained about her accent, well she is a Babylonian. It is not that apparent in the film as to why Sinhue is so insanely obsessed with Nefer Nefer Nefer. Her correct name. In the book Sinhue is enjoying her carnal fruits and gets his revenge early in the plot by leaving Nefer Nefer Nefer's drugged body with the \"House of the Dead's \" workers.

Gene Tierney as Baketaten, is brilliant! When she tells Sinhue that he is pharoah, she looks like she could devour him (in his weakness). She is intense, brilliant and coldly beautiful.

Michael Wilding is heartbreakingly tragic in his mission to bring all people to know his one God. I believe that we are viewing Ankhnaten thru the lens of Egyptologist A. Weigall. A view at the time that had a pre-messiah feeling about Ankhnaten's vocation. Did his monotheism influence the Jewish people? Note Psalm 104. and other Egyption imagery in the psalms?

Mr. Peter Ustinov provided the alter ego to Sinhue. He is street wise and cunning a survivor. Excellent acting as always.

Mature never thought much of his acting personally, His Horemheb is fine as an ambitious \"super patriot\" who ultimately has Sinhue murder more than one person in his quest for power, (Walteri's book).

I felt that the ending to The Egyptian was confusing as Sinhue's personality changes too easily. He has a living son (Toth dies in the novel), power is handed to him through is half sister Baketaten, he world savvy now and has a grip on international affairs. So he became enlightened? He could have modified the Amon Priesthood as he was capable.

But NO! Sinhue gives everything up, everything including his son's future to become a ragged beggar preaching monotheistic love?

This change was too immediate and the major flaw in the script!

Again the look of the film,colour, most of the costumes(Nefer Nefer Nefer's gold dress was too over the top as she is more richly dressed than the royal family), music is beautiful.

I will watch this film again easily.

P.S. I know that you porbably know that Horemheb did not directly succceed Ankhnaten, but I could not resist stating this fact.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One cannot help but be impressed with the intelligence and scale of this film, and simultaneously disappointed by the lost opportunities.

I found the script to be excellent, and the vocal talent of Edmund Purdom quite impressive. However, as an artifact of its time, the film suffers from too many Hollywood-isms, especially poor casting, too much lushness of the sets, and too much pretentiousness. Edmund Purdom (who plays the title character) is so obviously awkward with physical acting, I suspect he had primarily been in Shakespearean theater before this.

So if movie people are reading this, I propose this as an excellent candidate for a remake, especially if you cast real Egyptians as Egyptians!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Fox spectacle was a big hit when released in 1954. Sumptiously produced, with great music and sets, intriguing cast, it moves slowly, but interestingly. Edmund Purdom is strikingly handsome as an Egyptian who becomes a renowned doctor, juggling three stunning women: a handmaiden Jean Simmons who passively adores him, temptress Bella Darvi who eludes him, and a pharoah's sister Gene Tieney who wants him as HER pharoah. The movie's popularity has not waned, since being re-shown on AMC (preferably in widescreen). Purdom is particulary great, his character apparently striking out with the women, and ending up never married and a \"thinker.\" Darvi is amazing and tantalizing in her femme fatale role. Victor Mature, Michael Wilding, Peter Ustinov co-star. Check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It came before \"the ten commandments\" \"land of the Pharaohs\" \"Ben Hur\" and it's overlooked today.How unfair!Based on Mika Waltari's mammoth novel ,it doesn't cheapen it!Waltari's novel was so huge only a miniseries could have done it justice (I hope it will be done some day).Waltari,whose message is essentially Christian remains intact(another of his books \"the secret of the kingdom\" (first part) takes place after Christ's death in the Holy Land).

\"The Egyptian\" is the rising of a monotheism close to Christianism long before Christ:the Pharaoh(Wilding) is some kind of Messiah who sacrifices his life because he knows that the true kingdom is not in the material world:he asks to return good for evil!And he has disciples ,who will eventually turn into martyrs (the scene when Simmons and the other worshippers of the Sun God are slain is visually stunning,looking like some pagan ballet).For the priests ,on the other hand,this new religion would mean the end of their influence on the populace,and that's why they look for a strong man (Mature)who can lead the army against the Hittites as well as against their dangerous compatriots.Another religion,or non-religion should we say, is Sinouh\u00e9's (Purdom)who during two hours believes in nothing (the sequence of the grain of sands is absolutely sensational and rises the whole movie well above the average peplum !!)

There's another fascinating side:the movie looks like a flamboyant melodrama.Not only for the screenplay (notably pharoah's sister's (Tierney)final revelation which predates \"the ten commandments\" by two years),but also the splendor of the cinematography:Viviani ,in his book about Curtiz,talks about a Baudelairian atmosphere ,blue and gold,notably in the scenes which involve the prostitute (Darvi)who contemplates her reflection in the water of her bath,supreme narcissism. Around the hero,all the characters appear,disappear,appear again,but when they reappear ,they have followed their way and all the subplots come together with consummate skill.Besides,as such is often the case in \"modern \" melodramas ,the story is a long flashback,framed by two short sequences showing Sinouh\u00e9 an old man who's remembering.

This is a wonderful sword and sandals,that had a strong influence,not only in America but also in Europa,notably in Poland where Jerzy Kawalerowicz directed a spellbinding \"faraon\" (1966) which owed a lot to Curtiz.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was on my way out one morning when I was checking something on the T.V. and came across this film. I don't ever remember seeing this or hearing of it. What a fun and interesting one to watch. Well, my meeting was pushed back, because I couldn't get out of this film. It had some real interesting things in it that marked it's time in history, and some fun things that they don't have people do in today's film because it's not pretty. Well, there was a lot of realism in it. The acting was good for a 1954 film. Subtle and genuine actions on the part of the characters that had me watching what they were going to do next. That is why I ended up watching it. I don't know why they don't show it more often. I would rather watch this than some films they play more than necessary. For history buffs, people who like period films, and those that are in the film appreciation groups will like this one. \"The Egyptian\" has a variety of flavors dealing with a lot of things to look at in human nature that has not changed since it's time. What does that say about us? Those that don't like movies that take their time to unfold and tell a good story....are not into film.

I haven't had the time to rent it if it is available, but if I get a chance to see it again, I would probably vote it a 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Egyptian\" is set during the reign of one of the most fascinating figures of the ancient world, the Pharaoh Akhnaton, who, thirteen centuries before Christ attempted to introduce a monotheistic religion, Atenism, to ancient Egypt. The main character, however, is not Akhnaton but rather the fictitious Sinuhe. As a baby, Sinuhe is found mysteriously floating in a basket on the river Nile and adopted by the physician Senmut and his wife. When he grows to manhood, he follows his adopted father into the medical profession, initially working (as his father did) among the poor of the city, but he comes to prominence after he and his friend, the ambitious young soldier Horemheb, save the Pharaoh's life while on a hunting expedition in the desert. Sinuhe is appointed Court physician, but becomes obsessed with the Babylonian courtesan Nefer. Sinuhe not only ruins himself in a vain attempt to win her love, but is also disgraced when his neglect of his duties means that he is unable to save the life of Akhnaton's daughter.

Sinuhe flees into exile, where he achieves success as a healer in neighbouring countries, but returns to Egypt when he learns of a Hittite plot to invade. Although Akhnaton readily forgives him for his previous offences, Sinuhe finds the country in turmoil. The Pharaoh's attempts to introduce a new religion have led to civil strife between his followers and those of the priests of the old polytheistic faith, and he is too pacific by nature to take any steps to confront the Hittite threat. Sinuhe becomes embroiled in a plot by Horemheb, now the general of the Egyptian army, and Akhnaton's sister Princess Baketamon to overthrow the Pharaoh and replace him with a more effective monarch.

The film's weaknesses arise mostly from its two romantic subplots. In the course of the film, Sinuhe is revealed as the long-lost son of the previous Pharaoh and half-brother to Akhnaton and Baketamon. It might therefore surprise a modern audience that she should fall in love with him; marriage between brothers and sisters were not necessarily considered as incestuous by the standards of Egyptian royalty, but the standards of 1950s cinema audiences were generally less liberal on this point. In any case, the Horemheb-Baketamon-Sinuhe love triangle is an unnecessary complication and detracts from Baketamon's role in the film, that of the voice of cold-eyed, cynical Realpolitik.

The Nefer subplot, which takes up most of the first hour of the film, is overwritten and excessively melodramatic. Nefer is morally worthless but fascinating, and the role needed an actress of great beauty and also great dramatic skill to make her credible, especially as Nefer achieves the difficult task of winning Sinuhe away from a woman as lovely as Jean Simmons (who plays Merit, Sinuhe's rival for her affections). It is therefore unfortunate that the role went to an actress as comically inept as Bella Darvi, whose only qualification was that she was the mistress of the producer, Darryl F. Zanuck. Darvi was not only a wooden actress, but also spoke with a thick foreign accent, made even more incomprehensible by a lisp. She was not even particularly attractive by comparison with the two legendary Hollywood beauties in the film, Simmons and Gene Tierney who plays Baketamon.

The film is better when it concentrates on its main political and religious themes. The other actors are better than Darvi, although Peter Ustinov as Sinuhe's servant Kaptah makes the same mistake as in \"Spartacus\", that of trying to bring comic relief into a film that does not need it. His voice, anyway, was far too patrician for a \"comic servant\" role.

Edmund Purdom, a little-known British actor, was thrust into the main role when Marlon Brando pulled out at the last minute, but more than adequately fills the great man's shoes, even though his style of acting was quite different. He copes well with the challenge of showing the changes in Sinuhe's character, from unworldly idealist, to lovesick fool, to embittered cynic to the enlightened visionary of the final scenes. Victor Mature was never the most expressive of actors, but he is well-suited to the role of Horemheb, a practical, down-to-earth man of action. He is better here than he was in his other epic from 1954, \"Demetrius and the Gladiators\". Simmons is luminously beautiful as Merit.

Michael Wilding (hitherto best known to me as the second Mr Elizabeth Taylor) plays Akhnaton as a would-be philosopher-king who ends as a sort of holy fool. His inability to make difficult decisions makes him an unsuitable ruler, but he has a prophetic vision of peace and justice which lend him an air of moral greatness far beyond those who hope to replace him on the throne. Although Aten had more in common with the Supreme Being of the Deists than with the Old Testament Jehovah or the Trinitarian Christian God, there is a quite deliberate attempt to draw parallels between Atenism and Christianity. In the film the Atenist symbol is the \"ankh\", doubtless chosen because of its resemblance to a cross, but in reality it was a common Egyptian hieroglyph for life, not unique to Atenism. Akhnaton's language often has a Biblical ring to it; his comparison of himself to \"wind whistling in the desert\" recalls John the Baptist's \"voice crying in the wilderness\" (hence the title of this review). Sinuhe's finding in the river parallels the Old Testament story of Moses.

At the end of the film Sinuhe, who has become the inheritor of the spirit of the dead Akhnaton, achieves a moral greatness of his own. The message of the film is that, while we may need practical men of action like Horemheb, we also need visionaries and thinkers who are prepared to ask the question \"why?\" For all its faults, \"The Egyptian\" is a film which is idealistic and humane in its approach to both religion and politics. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are many film now on DVD, but producers had forgotten some tittles of importance to many moviegoers. The Egyptian, along with El Cid and other favorites of the era of the wide screen, big budget epics had merit. Many people from my generation learn a lot about history of Egypt, medieval Spain and even the Incas, (The first time I heard from them was a very cheap adventure movie with Charlton Heston called The Treasure of the Incas), same happened to me with Egypt, or Rome seen many \"bad\" epics of the era. many production values, excellent use of color (The De Luxe color was more Brigit and sharp that the ordinary Technicolor), maybe the cast was wrong but in any case, the film did man\u00e8ged to give us idea of the life in ancient Egyptin and was in a way the motor to go out and buy the novel, my Mika Waltari, one of the best, if not the best historical-novel ever published. Also oust anding was the superb score by Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann. I saw this film many times when I was a boy, it was not the big box office hit that Fox studios wanted to afther The Robe enormous hit, in CinemaScope and Stereo was a wonderful eye popping sp4ectacle. I have the Lasser Disc version.m the only way to see Ito its wdisescreen format. Soon i Hope will appeared.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would give this movie high marks for the cinema-photography and performances. I just read a user comment concerning the performance of the actress who plays a conniving courtesan who fleeces Sinuoeh, the lead character. I remember a mini-biography of this actress following the movie the last time I saw it. Apparently, she was a Holocaust refugee, discovered by a French husband and wife in the movie industry who were taken with her extraordinary beauty. She died very young and under tragic circumstances. Gene Tierney is also outstanding in this film. Like other neo-Biblical films of the 1940's and 50s, \"The Egyptian\" reflects the morals and values of that time, but is still great entertainment because the performances are terrific and the story so well told.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie back in 1954 on a double-bill with \"Valley of the Kings.\" These movies helped inspire a lifelong interest in Egyptology. (In 1975 I visited Egypt!) Seen today, \"The Egyptian\" suffers from flat dialog and a few gauche touches, but it's a glorious movie to look at -- the sort of thing Hollywood, alas, just doesn't do anymore -- and it has a great story... not just the usual boy-meets-girl or vengeance-is-mine affair. Too bad 20th won't re-issue restored prints of this to be seen on the Big Screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the second Cinemascope spectacle that Fox produced after the Robe. Notice how some of the Roman sets are redressed to pass for Egyptian sets. The film is produced with all first class elements, beautiful photography, stirring soundtrack (Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann - see if you can tell which composer scored specific scenes). However, the principal acting is a bit weak. Edmund Purdom seems to have a limited range of emotions and is uninteresting to watch. The best performances come from Peter Ustinov as the one-eyed slave and Polish actress Bella Darvi as the Babylonian temptress \"Nefer\". I find this movie in general to be strong on plot which is rare for these large spectacles produced at the time. All in all, the film does an interesting and entertaining job of social commentary on what Egyptian society might have looked like.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'll bet I watch this film 4 or 5 times a year, and will do so more often, now that the Hollyweird moguls have seen fit to put it on DVD, because it's a Classic with a capital \"C\"! This film is timeless! How can people pay $10.00 nowadays to see the JUNK that comes out of Hollyweird with movies like THE Egyptian; THE TEN COMMANDMENTS; BEN HUR; CAPTAIN NEWMAN MD on tape; DVD; and cable movie channels; I could go on forever, but this film is so great, and for a relative unknown, Edmund Purdom carries the movie like Atlas carried the world. The story is wonderful, the acting is first-rate, and the graphics at the end are so powerful, you sit in your seat for a few minutes, just trying to let the words sink in! Really a knockout of a film. I'd give this one 15 stars if they'd let me! They don't make them like this anymore, But they should!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Personally, I regard \"The Egyptian\" in an extremely favourable light.

It was introduced to me by a well-known Australian movie commenter & critic named Bill who was renowned for his insight & broad vision of people & places & particularly of films. This movie fitted the Bill perfectly & I came to appreciate his commentary & enthusiasm for this movie that emerged all the more as I watched it, as I was literally drawn into it, minute by minute, beyond his introductory comments, on my initial viewing many years ago.

To me, it was propelled, layer upon layer, within half an hour, into an intriguing & fascinating production! Yes, I am aware of its flaws! But it was so enticing \u0085 the young man of idealism learning from & inspired by his father \u0085 the peasant treated like rubbish in his suffering \u0085 the opportunistic friend however flawed but nonetheless loved by his friend, the central character Sinute \u0085 and to be sure, a flawed hero too, like so many across humanity of all societies & across all time\u0085but lovable & worthy of love too! Yes, I believe in a Christian God, but too, I acknowledge the rights & respect that should be due ANY human being of good heart, who would not or will not disrespect the rights of his fellowman without just cause. As such, I endorse this film & its presentation of a man of good heart & conviction in his belief in the sun-god he was devoted to. Such people will always be welcome in my world vision, and hopefully, in many more beyond.

So too, the drama in the ensuing movie I have watched often as surely as it has touched my heart & soul, as surely as it seems to have infuriated critics in its era. It is captivating, watching the struggles & grief & loves of Sinute, the physician! When I watch it again, I am always reminded of my friend in heart Bill, the film critic, who dared to oppose ALL the critics long ago who rubbished it. He added criticism of too many critics \u0085 that they make statues to honour stars, on the screen or in history, but they do not make statues to honour critics! And beyond all this, I am reminded with each viewing of a SUPERB & TOUCHING spectacle, of a beautiful & well-presented drama, that was not just relevant to the 1950s or some bygone era. It was meant for YOU & ME, across time & place, to every man & woman & child & to their personal aspirations for love & freedom & overcoming obstacles to misunderstanding & gross injustice & tragedy appealing to those of simple faith of many religions, that it seems too many regard as cause for war! Take a night off from invitations or unjust violence, from bigotry & judgemental attacks on others injustly executed & consider the merits of this offering. Not to the sun god, or to power that proves time & again to be so transcient .. let this OUTSTANDING movie wash over you, like waves onto a beach, like the passing hands of time \u0085 like life was meant to be. And maybe, you will find yourself carried into its world of possibilities! Lost offerings no more! 9.9 out of 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How do these guys keep going? They're about 50 years old each, and act as if they're only 30. They play 3 hours of music at every concert, and barely break a sweat. This DVD is their first concert in Rio, Brazil. Although the people don't speak English, they try to memorize the words to the most famous Rush songs, and try to sing a foreign language at the concert with their best friends.

From Tom Sawyer to The Spirit of Radio, this concert DVD will keep you in the chair not wanting to pause or move away from the classics that you've listened to when you were young. This is their 30th reunion tour (started in 1974). I went to their Scranton PA concert, and this was just as good, although in PA they didn't play Freewill, so I was upset.

They have Freewill, they have The Trees, they have YYZ, The Pass, Driven, Dreamline, Red Sector A, Limelight, Roll the Bones, 2112, and much more. 10 out of 10, because nothing else compares. If you never go to a Rush concert, then at least buy this DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This DVD will be treated with indifference by mllions of classic rock music devotees across the world because Rush just aren't cool. It is a shame that Rush have had to overcome sneering disdain from the majority of North American and British music journalists over their thirty odd year history as this has deprived many people the chance to get into a real band.Each of the last four decades are well represented here and what a catalogue of songs it is! We have the seminal \"2112\", the magical \"The Trees\" and the lyrical \"Tom Sawyer\" interspersed with the high-energy, genre-challenging pieces from their latest album \"Vapor Trails.\" The musicianship is almost flawless, the stage show is spectacular and the Brazilian fans are just plain crazy (at one point they sing along to an instrumental!)Each band member plays at a level that defies belief-real craftsmen performing art.If you doubt this try out the instrumentals \"La Villa Strangiato\" or \"The Rhythm Method\" for size-and yes the latter is a drum solo (which has to be seen to be believed.)

Sound and vision production values are very high as befits the Rush experience and you also get a documentary and multi-angled set pieces to boot.

This is an astonishing performance and tribute to the Canadian rockers and all serious classic rock fans should own a copy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This much anticipated DVD memento of Rush's visit to South America in 2002 is possibly the finest rock video ever set down on disc.The picture and sound production values are amazing,even more so as they constantly battled the elements to bring this production off. All the tracks you would expect from the RUSH catalogue are here from Tom Sawyer to The Pass gloriously reproduced for the frankly,orgiastic Brazilian crowd.They actually singalong to YYZ-which is an instrumental, and gives you an indication of their fervour!The first disc is the concert and the second disc contains 3 multi angle set-pieces -la Villa Strangiato,YYZ and the awesome drum solo, plus a 30 minute documentary about the bands visit to Brazil. All in all this is a triumph and all serious classic rock fans should own a copy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A long overdue concert release, Rush-in-Rio DVD is both compelling and disappointing. This slick two-disc set shows Rush at their finest. After 30 years of honing their unique sound, it's great to have this record of one of the most talented rock bands ever.

The concert features over two dozen songs, a documentary, and three songs that feature multi-angle viewing. Packaged in a bi-fold holder with sleeve and a small insert, it's priced very well for the amount of material it contains.

I'm a Rush fan of the late seventies to early eighties period, and this DVD comes through big, with half of the show highlighting songs from that era. I won't list the songs, in case you want to be surprised. If you attended the Vapor Trails tour, then you'll know what they'll be playing.

Playing in Rio to their biggest crowd ever, Rush is a huge crowd pleaser here. In fact, that was one of the first things I noticed that was peculiar about this show. Throughout most of this two hour concert, you hear and see the crowd, actively chanting and dancing wildly to the music. At first, it's heartening to see the fans give Rush a well deserved response. But after several songs, I was ready to hear and see more of the band and less of the crowd. This is in no way a slam of the crowd of Rio. More power to them! It's a critique of the final editing of the DVD.

Which brings me to my second and main reason \"I hate it\". The video editing is terrible in my opinion. Save for the multi-angle view bonus cuts, the entire show is a frenzy of visual chaos. It's like the director wanted to see how spastic he could make it. I count changing camera angles, on average, between every one and four seconds, constantly! After about three or four songs, my head and eyes were ready for a break. Which is too bad, because I would have liked to have sat through the whole show, like I was able to at the concert last year. Maybe this fast-cut editing is the latest craze for concert DVD's, but I really think it's an annoyance and detraction from the overall experience. As stated before, I wouldn't mind it for a song or two, but the whole visual aspect of this disc is hurried, or RUSHed. It's really ironic, because all the previous concert clips I've seen of Rush, mainly from Moving Pictures, are strictly straight-filmed, with little switching back and forth. It's almost boring, visually speaking. This DVD has taken it to the other extreme. I know a lot of dyed-in-the-wool Rush fans will vehemently disagree with my statements, but that's just my impression of it.

The bottom line: If you're a Rush fan, you'll buy this DVD regardless of my review, or any other. I still would have bought it after I had read my review. Just don't get expect a \"normal\" concert. Who knows, the things mentioned above might not bother you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been a \"huge\" rush fan ever since \"moving pictures\" and this concert is simply and example to everyone who is a fan why Rush is so popular. They completely admitted to playing their biggest concert yet, and, despite the rain in a soccer arena, they still manage to give an outstanding performance from start to finish. A real example of this is during \"yyz\" the entire crowd start to sing along to it in a real classic manner, in perfect sinc. They really play all of everyone's favorite songs with a real powerful \"lust\" that rarely happens anymore. You get the best seat in the house for one of their best concerts given. The second DVD is a fascinating documentary of the band while they are in brazil and shows you a lot of the backstage things going on and it allows you to see them not just a musicians but as actual people in their everyday life. This DVD gift set is a must for any Rush fan young and old and is definitely a keeper for your DVD collection. Their is even a cd of the concert for those who just want to listen to the music. This DVD is worth it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Rush in Rio\" is, no doubt, one of the most exciting DVDs I have purchased. Although I am a biased Rush fan of almost 20 years, I found this performance to be flawless. The music is heavy and sharp (which sounds great on any surround sound system), the band is energetic, the crowd has a constant smile... it's like they were able to capture every concert I've been to. For any Rush fan, this DVD is a must; if anything, just to see the \"Boys in Brazil\" documentary (which reveals the travels of this rather isolated, personal band). For any non-Rush fan, this DVD is an enjoyable concert. Rush fans know the talent of these three Canadians. We have rather firmly stood by them for years. I've shown this DVD (or portions of it, anyway) to those who have never heard of Rush, or those who think Rush is less than good because they do not appeal to the pessimistic masses of rock (i.e., sex, drugs, and a drunken frenzy). The bottom line is this DVD is worth every penny and more than worth the time to view it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having seen Rush live, I'm able to appreciate the awesomeness of this. Others may complain of sound problems, but it's sometimes over dubbed by the overwhelming screams of 60,000 Brazilians and it goes to show the band's territorial gain of attention","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I purchased this DVD recently and I was totally awed that Rush's songs sound the same as they did when I first listened to them in 1980. The lineup of Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart is so talented that I want to listed to them play again and again.

Songs I remember like Tom Sawyer, XYZ, The Big Money, The Trees, Freewill, Closer to the Heart, 2112, Limelight, and The Spirit of Radio were played and the 40000 plus fans there singing along and having a great time and I swear over half the audience was under 25!

Writers who put down Rush as far as Rush fans like myself are concerned are a bunch of jealous dunderheads who like to taste rancid sour cream mixed with lemonade in a taco.

Rush doesn't put on makeup, wear spikes, lip sync,wear lipstick, get in trouble with the law, and have a band member brag about how long they have been unmarried. All they do is entertain!

I give this DVD a 100 out of 100.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rush in Rio is simply an amazing DVD. This concert is one of the peak moments of the history of Rush and they deliver their music brilliantly and with more power than ever.

I was lucky enough to actually be in this concert, and not only that, I was in the very first row grabbing the gate that separated the audience from the stage!! It's the first and only time I've seen a Rush concert live and it was a dream come true for me. I have no words to accurately describe this experience but I can tell you it is one of the highlights of my life.

Some people complain about the sound of this DVD saying it is not very clear and polished, but the sound you listen is real, true to how it was in the concert. It is raw and powerful and so authentic that every time I watch it I go back and re-live that beautiful moment. Many artists record live shows and then they make a lot of tweaking, so the final product is far from what the actual concert really was. Sure you can achieve a very sophisticated and polished sound this way but you don't get the real thing. This is not the case with Rush in Rio, this is the real deal!! I admit that I enjoy those fancy sounding concert DVD's, I love music and the sound is a very important aspect, but it's refreshing to listen to a concert that is so honest. You listen to Rush just the way they sound in a live performance, no tricks, no tweaks. This is a real live concert DVD.

I highly recommend Rush in Rio, the set-list is fantastic and the performances by Geddy, Alex and Neil are mind-blowing. Not to mention the crowd, you can see how much they love Rush and sing along to every tune, even YYZ which is an instrumental!! I actually appear singing twice; in Tom Sawyer I sing \"always hopeful yet discontent\" and in Earthshine I sing \"only reflect\". It's just a few seconds but I simply couldn't believe my eyes when I saw myself in a rush DVD!! Awesome!! I hope you enjoy this magnificent concert from the greatest band on Earth.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"These guys are excellent and anything they put out to the public is first class. The musicianship of this band is amazing and we should all be very thankful we live in a world where Rush exists. Future generations will never be able to see such mastery live and in person. Get this DVD and you will enjoy it throughly!! I was recently able to see these incredible musicians play in Houston, TX and was blown away. I have not missed a show since power windows and I have to say that they are better than ever. Everyone should embrace these guys and teach others what real musicianship is! There will never be such a tight and well put together trio again in our lifetime. Lets just hope and pray that they do not retire anytime soon!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After searching for 6 months, I finally found this DVD. All I can say is it was damn well worth the wait! \"Rush in Rio\" may very well be the greatest rock DVD in existence. I'm not joking. It's incredible! All the fuss about the sound being crappy is true, however it doesn't make the concert unwatchable. I find it makes you feel like you're actually in Rio watching the concert from the audience. That's one of the reasons I love this DVD. It makes you feel like you're actually there. Also, Geddy, Alex and Neil have never been in better form! Geddy's vocals are flawless, Alex's guitar playing is still incredible, and Neil - absolutely no words to say. The camera work on this concert was very good I must say. They gave us a good look at everything that was going on on-stage, and in the audience. Kudos to the cameramen! Anyways, enough of my raving! Go watch \"Rush in Rio\" for yourself. You will be amazed. I guarantee it.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Admittedly Alex has become a little podgey, but they are still (for me) the greatest rock trio, ever. I wholeheartedly recommend this DVD to any fan.

I was very disappointed that they canceled their planned recent Munich gig (logistics) and regret not making an effort to see them elsewhere. The DVD is a small consolation - the greatest incentive to acquire a proper DVD playback setup.

Naive perhaps, but I still don't understand the significance of the tumble-driers on-stage; I would be grateful for any clarification.

Cheers, Iain.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great concert which featured the best songs of the band's 30 year career. Lee, Lifeson, and Peart were animated and fun on stage and delivered a great show. That being said, I think the audio recording was botched at the mixing console and\/or through the miking process. This is not the fault of the boys however. They even mentioned that the show was setup last-minute, so the band and their crew obviously did their best. They just shouldn't have put the show out for public consumption. Neil's snare sounds distant and Geddy's bass has good harmonic content, but no bottom end at all!! They should have held out on this concert and waited for a better occasion. Only buy this DVD if you are a hardcore Rushian. The quality is lacking in the audio department.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Onstage John Osborne's adaptation of \"Picture of Dorian Gray\" is a fine tribute to Oscar Wilde's talents as both novelist and playwright.On screen with some editing it becomes a bit sloppy due to the cutting of 3 crucial scenes from the play (one being an important scene between Basil and Henry showing that time has passed.)The acting however is brilliant. Sir john Gielgud return's to his Wilde roots as lord Henry,and although about a decade too old for the role,he totally becomes the enigmatic,life loving cad and cynic that Wilde brought to life so meticulously in his novella. Jeremy Brett is also strong,offering a touching portrait of the anguished artist Basil Hallward.Peter Firth,while not originally my vision of Dorian, handles the role with style and grace...and later with a convincing strain of cruelty. The supporting cast is equally fine, Gielgud's former 'Importance Of Being Earnest\" co-star Gwen Francon-Davies plays his philanthropic Aunt Agatha with dignity and Judi Bowker makes a touching Sybil Vane. The wit,pathos and tension of Wilde's work have been remarkably transferred to the screen. My only other qualm is with the hair styles. Many of them seemed out of place,looking more like 1970's versions of Victorian hairdos rather than the actual style. Overall however,the acting and writing elevates this production to a high level of small screen excellence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In dramatising Wilde's novel, John Osborne has condensed events, eliminated a number of characters, and generally implied rather than shown Dorian's essential wickedness. If you want a more explicit rendering, see the 1945 film. Wilde and Robert Louis Stevenson lived in about the same time frame, but were certainly vastly different men and writers. This story really treats of a theme similar to Stevenson's \"Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde\", but note that Wilde chose to treat his story as fantasy, whereas RLS took the scientific route. Both the protagonists are men in whom good wars with evil, with evil winning in the end.

The actors in this BBC movie, take a different route, too, from those in the 1945 film. John Gielgud says all the same caustic and cynical quips as George Sanders, in his role really projecting Wilde himself, but with a subtle difference. You'll suspect that Sanders really believed what he was saying, but Gielgud may be saying what is expected of him rather than what he sincerely believes. Peter Firth, too, shows the two sides of his character in restrained fashion, but then we don't get to see as many of his escapades as Hurd Hatfield had a chance to display.

It's a very good production, with the dramatisation reflecting the essentials of the novel, if not all of its ramifications.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this film and after it finished it still makes you think about it. I believe Jeremy Brett is brilliant in this role although his \"death\" acting was a little over the top, but as its Jeremy Brett I didn't mind.

This is a good piece of drama and does follow Oscar Wildes novel very closely. If you enjoy this film then I recommend you also watch \"An Ideal Husband\" with Jeremy Brett as Lord Goring.

This film gives a great insight into Oscar Wildes way of thinking.And while watching it the viewer is reminded of how in a way Dorian Grey is Lord Alfred 'bosie' Douglas and Basil Halward is Oscar Wilde.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I will always think of Mr. Firth as Dorian Gray, if I live to be 100.

Perfectly acted and directed, bringing Oscar Wilde's insight, wit and humor alive with an absolute and utter perfection unusual in television.

More proof that the BBC more than makes up in talent what it doesn't always have in money.

A must have for all Wilde fans-and indeed for everyone else. Inspired and perfected, every one of the actors looked exactly right for the role and every shot was well done.

By the end I found that I loved every single character in a way that no other movie of the type had ever inspired. Watch it, then try to watch another version. It's just not the same, is it?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Playwright John Osborne's (Look Back in Anger, The Entertainer) dramatisation of Oscar Wilde's only novel positively revels in the homosexual subtext of the original, perhaps too much so. Nonetheless, the dialogue, the acting, with a cast headed by Sir John Gielgud & Jeremy Brett, and the brilliantly cerebral production (marred only by a \"too quick\" ending) make this worth the while of any lover of Theater, with a capital \"T\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The problem with other actors cast in the r\u00f4le of Dorian Gray is that they either looked too old for the part (Hurd Hatfield, Helmut Berger, Josh Duhamel, David Gallagher, Ben Barnes) or that they were unable to pull off the English aristocratic manner without being stilted. Dorian is the perpetual 19-year-old (or so), all milky skin and honey'd locks, as described by Wilde, so the challenge is finding an actor that has the maturity and range for the part (i.e., who can portray the naivit\u00e9, callousness, and manipulativeness), but at the same time looks like someone in his late teens. And Peter Firth pulls it all off in this excellent British TV adaptation.

Gielgud as Henry Wotton, while considerably older than what Wilde had in mind, does wonders with his scenes--Wilde's aphorisms have never sounded so natural and unforced. Especially George Sanders in the 1945 version was pretty feeble by comparison (and his costume didn't fit).

Finally, Jeremy Bratt plays Basil as the most masculine and at the same time the most gay of the trio, again a fitting interpretation. In general, the film includes enough gay subtext without turning Dorian himself gay--he's all things to all people and supposedly there's no drug or sexual perversion he hasn't tried in the 18 years covered by the story, but that makes him more narcist than homosexual. He seems to equally wreak havoc on both sexes here, as he should according to the novel.

Of course the budget of this production was not very large, so everything feels a little stagey. Particularly Dorian's encounter with Sybil's brother suffers from the obvious studio look. Also, the final shot of Dorian (a puppet I suppose) in his white toad-like make-up is more hilarious than convincing and Basil's death scene is inadvertently funny. (Also, as far as I recall, Basil should have been killed seated at the table.)

But all in all, this is a very worthy adaptation. I'm sure Wilde would have liked it. The only thing missing is the sensual side. Not so much sex scenes, but Wilde's decadent world of fragrant flowers, luxurious cloths, and precious gems isn't really explored here, i.e. the aestheticism is completely missing. But like \"I, Claudius\", the excellent acting makes one easily forget these shortcomings of production values.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This, ladies and gentlemen, is truly a modern B-movie. The dialog is stilted and delivered with wooden rigidity, the premise is predictable (there are a few decent twists) and characters remain 2D for most of it. And yet there is a certain...charm. WWE wrestler Kane brings to life the sick, twisted monster of a man with a lot of pathos (though it is somewhat like his character that he's been playing around ten years) and so I'll find it quite amusing when people say it's \"not much of a reach for him,\" but Glen Jacobs is, apparently, quite the nice guy, so actually it is. In any event, he's cast perfectly as the hulking brute and the deaths are suitably over the top (Jason would be proud), but I heard at least four applause breaks for four different kills scenes. Frankly go into this movie thinking that you'll have some fun and a gorefest, oh it is QUITE the gorefest. The R-rating IS richly deserved and I actually got a little nauseous during some of the more graphic times. In any event, a very, very fun, but fairly bad, movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was expecting this movie to suck, but what I got was a pretty good slasher\/gore film. Most of the death scenes are adequately brutal. The teens are decent, with Penny McNamee definitely the best of the bunch. Rachael Taylor looks like a young Christie Brinkley, but doesn't bring much to the movie other than that. Kane was good as the killer, and is totally believable as a fearsome juggernaut. I saw the \"twist\" coming from miles away, but I still enjoyed the movie.

But what really stood out to me was the direction. Gregory Dark might actually have a career in legit film ahead of him. Aside from overusing the horror film \"speed cam\"(you know, where like the guy's face shakes all fast?), there's some good shots here. The camera angles and environments really emphasize Kane's size, making him look even bigger than he actually is.

If you're looking for deep story or characters, this ain't it. But that's not what slasher films are about. If you're looking for some good violence, or if you're into gory films, go check this out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So the WWE has done it. They have poured over into film;their first one being See No Evil, starring their very own Kane. I caught this movie and went in not expecting it to be a great film...It just seemed to clich\u00e9 and looked like nothing new. To my surprise it actually wasn't half bad. A viewer stated above that it is good B-horror movie fun, and honestly thats the best way to describe it. Now the question I was asking myself was how was Kane going to hold up...Well let's just say he made an absolute bad ass out of the 'Jacob Goodnight' character. He sold the role really well, and really did look menacing. But what can you expect from someone who is almost 7 feet tall and weighs around 320 in solid muscle. The acting was decent, and the story was nothing new of course, but we all know that. The directing as well as the cinematography was done very well and the hotel backdrop really looked dilapidated and well done. Considering this was directed by a porn movie director, I was quite surprised. I'd recommend this movie if you're looking for mindless gore and killing and just some overall fun. Think of this movie as a modern day latter Friday the 13th film. And save room for the ending too, cuz it's a good one. And stick around after the credits too...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A dangerous psychopathic killer Jacob Goodnight is holed up in the abandoned and rotting Blackwell Hotel,alone with his nightmares until eight teenage delinquents show up for community service duty along with the cop who wounded Jacob four years ago.When one of their own is kidnapped by the killer and her fate uncertain,the remaining petty criminals must fight for their lives...\"See No Evil\" was directed by the porno filmmaker Gregory Dark and it stars WWE superstar Kane as remorseless psychopath.The supporting cast is terrible and there are no surprises to be found here,but there is enough extreme violence and gore for slasher fans to enjoy.Overall,I liked this film and you should too,if you are into mindless slasher flicks.Sure,it's clich\u00e9,but who cares.7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I'm a few days late but what the hell....! Anyways, the word that best describes my reaction to \"See No Evil\" was....SURPRISE. The film is actually pretty good. There is definitely an ample amount of blood, gore & action in the film with a modest amount of suspense. It hearkens back to the good ole' slasher days of the late 70's & early 80s. Think \"Madman\" meets Leatherface with a dash of Norman Bates and you'll get a good feel for this flick. While SNE is thin on plot (most horror films are), it kind of makes up for it in the violence\/methods of killing, the gore, suspense & the fact that Kane does a great job of playing the highly disturbed Jacob Goodnight. The title of the film comes from the fact that Jacob plucks out the eyes of his victims using just his fingers & stores them in big jars. Why?? You'll just have to watch it & see (pun intended). There are certain cinematic elements lifted from other horror films most notably Psycho, TCM, & Madman but they're not blatant. Finally, SNE really doesn't go into territory we long timers haven't seen before & granted, SNE is no \"Pyscho\" or \"TCM 74\" but it certainly merits a look imo.

BloodStone's Recommendation: Take in a matin\u00e9e showing of \"See No Evil\" Bloodstone's Rating: 7.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"See No Evil is the first film from WWE films. Yes WWE, Word Wrestling Entertainment, pro wrestling. Of course being that it's a WWE film a wrestler has to star in it, the wrestler being Glenn Jacobs aka Kane. Which is not really important as if you didn't know Kane or what WWE stood for you would never know it had anything to do with the wild word of wrestling, as the movie has nothing to do with wrestling. See No Evil is gross out horror film, it has some moments were the some people may jump but for the most part it's just saying, hey look how gross we can get! Not that there is anything wrong with that. Jacob Goodnight (played by Kane) is sort of a Jason type character, his mother tortured him as a kid with strict (understatement) Christian beliefs and has warped his mind. Now he's a big scary chopping killing machine. 90% of the movie takes place in an abandon hotel where Jacob stalks six teenagers (surprised?) and a handful of adults. I could explain why they are in a creepy old hotel but eh, who cares? Despite it's lack of originality See No Evil is well made, for what it's supposed to be. Kane plays an awesome killer and needs little make up to be scary. One flaw in the movie is the most annoying possibility people survive, I really looking forward to having them being horribly killed, but alas, does not happen. I wish the film didn't have the stigma of wrestling attached to it, although like I said the film has nothing to with wrestling, people are still closed minded enough not to want to see it because, given of course if they are a wrestling hater. Then again the movie may also make money because Wrestling fans will want to see it. Either way, See No Evil has top notch effects and little CGI, and like I said, it's quite brutal so like I say it's good stuff....if you like that sort of thing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Horror movie is definitely one of the best ones I have seen in my life and there are many reasons why. The storyline is really good it has lots of action and great horror sequences in it The actors are not very good but there are not that bad but Kane is definitely the best actor in this but he was always a good actor also The cast is very good such as Kane as Jacob Goodnight, Christina Vidal as Christine, Michael j. Pagan as Tye, Samantha Noble as Kira etc. Also I just have to warn you that the killing scenes are very disturbing but They are very creative but that just makes it better and you can't have a horror movie without blood and gore Also they look very realistic. So I am sure that you will not be disappointed with see no evil because it is a really good movie. So make sure that you rent or buy see no evil because it is just so great.

Overall score: ********** out of **********

***** out of *****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Finally a true horror movie. This is the first time in years that I had to cover my eyes. I am a horror buff and I recommend this movie but it is quite gory. I am not a big wrestling fan but Kane really pulled the whole monster thing off. I have to admit that I didn't want to see this movie, my 17 year old dragged me to it, but am very glad I did. During and after the movie I was looking over my shoulder. I have to agree with others about the whole remake horror movies enough is enough. I think that is why this movie is getting some good reviews. It is a refreshing change and takes you back to The Texas Chainsaw ( first one), Michael Myers, and Jason. And no CGI crap.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There's a brand new killer on the loose, and he's doing God's work. Yeah right! This killer makes Jason Voorhes look like a chump, and Freddy Krueger look like a rag doll against this dude. He is Jacob Goodnight(WWE's Glen \"KANE\" Jacobs), a 7' monster who wields a Axe, and a hook and chain. Those weapons are nothing to him his real finisher is ripping out eyeballs from the victims sockets. That is totally methodical! When the encounter happened 4 years earlier, Jacob killed a rookie cop and maimed the veteran after putting a bullet in his head. How on Earth did Goodnight survive after 4 years? Now he's in the condemned hotel called Blackwell. And this hotel got a lot of stories to tell. I thought this movie was haunting as well as interesting. I liked the part where Goodnight checked out one of the girl's tattoo on her back. And Goodnight himself is really deranged thanks to his maniacal mother. If you think Friday the 13th was something, you better think again. This movie will leave you on the edge of you seat. And I think the eyeball rip was bone-chilling. This movie proves it point,and it wasn't a waste of my time. I enjoyed it. The title don't lie! Rating 2.5 out of 5 stars!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kane is a killer named Jacob Goodnight, he lives in this burned down old hotel, where eight teen convicts go to do some cleaning. Most of them die except for 3 of them. In my case it wasn't the best writing or the best ever. I still thought that the killing scenes were really well done. Like when the one girl go eaten by the hungry dogs. The best had to be when he shoved the cell phone down the Blonde Girl's mouth. Kane was a seriously great horror movie actor, he had this serious look the entire movie and it would never change. That was his only look the entire movie. Great action and killing scenes, I don't think I could give it a full 10 out of 10, but 6 seems good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"See No Evil With Kane. The Movie Has a great storyline But it just wasn't a Hide my eye's, Scream Out Loud Horror Flick I thought it was going to be from watching the WWE Superstars on Monday Night Raw When The Movie First Came To Theaters. I Did ENJOY The Movie Though I Loved The Story It Played Out.

GREAT MOVIE EXCELLENT WOULD LIKE TO SEE A PART 2

It Doesn't Matter If Kane Gets Killed At The End

Or Not They Have Killed Off Other Horror Stars In Every Movie

They Have Out And They Still Comeback For More So a part 2 would

Be Very Interesting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best horror movies i've seen in a while. An eerie abandon house, interesting characters, gore and a twisted plot. Who could ask for anything more in a horror movie? It is pretty predictable for the most part but then again most horrors you can figure out within the first 10 minutes so I won't hold that against it. The music, camera angles and so forth are excellent. The sets are well make and very convincing. There was pretty much no subplots however, it being a horror movie too many alternate plots only take away from what were wanting from a horror anyhow... To be scared... This one keeps it pretty simple and does just that. If I were to compare it to any other movie I would say it reminded me of the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Definitely a horror movie lover must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this a lot.

The camera angles are cool, it's not all jumpy like a Blair Witch. And I thought they did a great job with the Sound when we see things from Kane's point of view. Lots of fun. Plenty of people were shouting at the screen!

Kane did a great job with his various psycho emotions. He's a lot less one-dimensional than most horror heroes.

Kane is a lot less scary and more believable than most movie psychos. It was not clear to me how he would react to various situations. There are not many twists here, but it is clever and original in it's own way. Good, creepy, B-movie slasher fare.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was so cool! I saw it on a Friday night with a couple of my friends. While the first credits were rolling, we saw that Lionsgate Films had made this movie. They are the ones that made that stupid movie Wolf Creek, which was totally gay! When we saw this, we groaned. We thought it was going to be like Wolf Creek, but we were so wrong! The movie was not only better than Wolf Creek (which really isn't that hard) it is one of the best horror movies I have seen in a long time! They really redeemed themselves with this movie. It was gory, smart, and scary, which are the combinations to an awesome horror movie. Kane is awesome as Jacob Goodnight, and Christina Vidal, Samantha Noble, and Luke Pegler did pretty good jobs as part of a group of delinquents cleaning an old motel. It had some gross scenes, and you actually kinda feel sad for some of the people who die. All in all, a great horror movie to watch on a Friday or Saturday night with the lights off and with friends. Just don't watch it in a hotel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't know a lot about this film going into it but I did find out that Kane was a wrestler, which didn't exactly thrill me but hey, I liked \"Santa's Slay\" and that had a wrestler in it, so what the hell. The story begins very strangely and promisingly but after a while becomes not much more than your typical teen terror slasher flick, although the settings helped some. A bunch of criminal young folks get rounded up and taken to an old hotel that used to be a luxury palace but is now a dump, to clean it up to prepare it as a homeless shelter. The driver is a man with a prosthetic arm, being a veteran of the opening scene of this movie wherein he encounters this big galoot that had just killed his partner and blinded another woman. The teens, all being punk smart-asses, all of course object to having to do any real work, but they're part of some unique co-ed work program, yep, what a great idea that is, of course. Little does anyone suspect that there is someone lurking there in the hotel that in his own little way will save the tax payers of that state some money. Of course, it's the guy that likes to collect eyeballs, and he's got quite a collection going. There won't be a lot here that horror fans haven't seen before but there's a few brutal scenes and sufficient gore to satisfy the hard-core fan. The setting of the old hotel makes a perfect spot for a slasher flick too, and there's little sub-stories, like the search for an alleged safe full of money and the search for babes, since this co-ed work crew is evenly matched. Most of the teens are deservingly killable too so that works well. Not great but far better than Silent Hill or When A Stranger calls, and perhaps better than some of the other crap that I wouldn't bother to see. 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay I marked this spoiler so don't be upset when I wrap this up. Now I went into the movie expecting to see a very predictable movie. And I was right, as almost every horror flick I have ever seen it was predictable but not as bad as most. What helped was the story, I did not expect there to be a \"WHY\" to Kane's madness. But there was and while somewhat foggy you still got the idea and understand the madness. Now of course if you like something that will scare you for nights to come this is not the movie your looking for. But if your a fan of Saw, or some other movies that claim their fame thanks to sadistic content this is a movie to watch. Now where I really throw in a spoiler for a second warning. I give this movie a 9 perhaps because I'm a fan of the WWE and a fan of Kane, but who doesn't like a movie a little bit better when it stars somebody we love. However this movie could have scored a 10 for me IF. . . (spoiler)----> at the end of the movie when it showed Kane dead on the pavement. While a dog pissing in his eye was \"CUTE\" it could have been classic with the Kane\/Undertaker quick sit up and turn of the head. A perfect 10 would have been awarded if that would have happened. It was a perfect opportunity, but either the WWE didn't think of that or a future sequel will begin with that very sequence I mentioned. That's all. (9)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My taste in films continues to astound me and probably infuriate readers of my reviews but to each their own and I have a weak spot for crazy horror, slasher flicks and See No Evil happens to be exactly that and more!! I think that the biggest mistake made by producers and film makers of this film is that they hype it as a WWE film and \"starring\" KANE. WWE might have a big following but it's a very, very specific group that follow the incredibly cheesy and (sorry folks) kind of trailer park \"sport\" and those who don't love it HAATTTE IT!! It would make them steer clear of an otherwise typical gory slasher flick that people would come out in droves to see. See No Evil doesn't break ANY new horror ground, it's exactly play by play typical horror with some over the top, horrific bloody scenes that honestly make your screen crawl. They really drive it home and go for gratuitous violence just cause. There is no psychological aspect exactly although being chased by this monster has some fear elements to it.

KANE (the wrestler) also known as Glen Jacobs plays religiously and physically tortured man Jacob Goodnight. He's the ultimate cross between Leatherface, and Jason Voorhees. He's not an original killer and even his kills don't really go for the unique or original with the major exception of choking a girl to death by forcing her to swallower her cell phone...yeeeeah!! He does a good job and the man is legitimately enormous!! He stands at 7 feet tall and without any special effects is monstrous!! Tiffany Lamb, Penny McNamee, Samantha Noble, Michael J. Pagan, Luke Pegler, Christina Vidal, Rachael Taylor all play the typical group of \"think they are invincible\" partying teens who will unwillingly become victim to the serial killer. The story is that in exchange for a month off their detention sentence for petty crimes ranging from theft to drug possession, they are sent to an old hotel to do \"community service \" by fixing it up. Turns out a serial killer lives upstairs and he's removing his victims eyes to cleanse them of their sins. Luke Pegler stands out as a scum bag who in the end becomes a hero of sorts even saving his ex-girlfriend who he used to beat up on. The rest of them all play their perspective roles quite well but it isn't a great stretch of acting ability.

Sadly Porn director...yes PORN...Gregory Dark, does a good job putting together the modern day slasher flick. He even goes into a bit of history with the killer and although his back story is not unique either, in fact it's a little stale it's still interesting enough. And in the few shots where the film goer is actually seeing through the killer's eyes, it's interesting to hear the voices and see things distorted like he does. He throws in the obligatory soft core nude shot, and the grotesque, blood soaked scenes and turns everything up a notch. It fits nicely and for a horror fan like myself it's entertaining. Kane's serial killer is horrifying and he stalks them all down with brutal intelligence and a silent horror. The film is being panned and crapped on and I don't blame anyone because it's pretty crappy but isn't that the point?? It's a horror film and I thought it was exactly what it should be. It made me jump, it made me cringe, it even made ME turn away at several parts...impressive by any standards. It's entertaining, with a decent story, and plenty of set up to serialize See No Evil until the 15th installment if they wanted to and I say bring it on!! It's true the film is full of plot holes, laughable details but the deadly gore and horror over rides it all. It all comes down to do you love horror films?? Really love them?? If yes then you'll think this is a terrific slasher...if not...you'll hate it...plain and simple. 8.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Honestly, when I went to see this movie at the Rave theater in Plainfield Indiana, I did not expect much. I went to this movie only because I figured hey, it's a WWE movie it'll be good for a laugh. Then I sat down and watched it and saw why they chose Glen Jacobs (Kane) to play Jacob Goodnight. He is probably one of the freakiest guys on the big screen (much worse in my opinion than Freddy or Jason) and has one big advantage to other movies that attracts me to a horror movie. It shows Jacob Goodnight as someone who is human. He has a heart, no matter how twisted and creepy it is. He feels pain, something that Jason never does or appears to show. He feels sorrow and pleasure, though again both of them insane which you will notice if you see the movie. All in all, a different experience in my opinion than many slashers, and it surprised me in a few ways, as in who lived in the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With Nurse Betty (2000), acclaimed indie film-maker Neil LaBute (In the Company of Men, Your Friends & Neighbors) makes his breakthrough into the big-budgeted (Betty's $24 million as opposed to Company's measly $25,000), mainstream realm -- and yet remains true to his roots. While his cast is now composed of A-list Hollywood names (Renee Zellweger, Morgan Freeman, and stand-up comedian Chris Rock), his material remains just as bizarre and quirky as his first two features, proving that he just may be the next big thing. Nurse Betty is one of the darkest comedies to be advertised towards a mainstream audience in years, and considering its moderate box office and critical success, perhaps moviegoers weren't as dumb and brainwashed as we though they were. The story follows (both figuratively AND literally) a naive waitress (Zellweger) who has fallen in love from afar with a handsome soap star (As Good As It Gets's Greg Kinnear) but is trapped in a loveless marriage to a slimy car dealer (Aaron Eckhart, who made his big-screen debut in Company). When her husband is gruesomely murdered by two hitmen (Freeman and Rock), she's sent into shock and obliviously sets out for Hollywood to meet her object of affection -- unaware that he's only an actor. When Freeman and Rock discover that the car she took contains 10 kilos of cocaine, they hit the road as well and outrageousness ensues. Fans of LaBute's previous work might have a hard time figuring out how this could possibly be the same guy who directed In the Company of Men -- a tragicomedy about two cruel sexist pigs who play a practical joke on a deaf co-worker --, but when you think about it, the connection is rather clear: in Company, a vulnerable woman is unaware that she is being ruthlessly taken advantage of. In Betty, a vulnerable housewife is unaware that the man she's chasing thinks her genuine adoration is nothing more than a joke. Some might begin to wonder if LaBute is really some sort of misogynist himself -- considering that his recurring theme involves the downfall of innocent women. But personally, I think he's coming to the defense of the fair sex and dealing far more harshly with the abusers in his pictures than the abused. One of the many charms of this film is that it's absurdity is full-fledged: most directors, when handling a script such as this one, would leave the story at two hitmen chasing a woman chasing a dream. But LaBute knows better, and has one of the hitmen (Freeman) fall obsessively for Betty as well. This was an interesting role for Freeman to take, because it allowed him to play off of his trademark `this-is-the-last-time' character (see Unforgiven, Se7en, and 1998's stinker Hard Rain); the supporting cast also includes the likes of famed weirdo Crispin Glover (Back to the Future), Allison Janney, and `Mad About You's Kathleen Wilhoite. The script, written by first-timers John C. Richards and James Flamberg, is deliriously over-the-top (honestly: have you ever seen a comedy -- or ANY movie, for that matter -- in which a man is scalped in his own dining room?). You could argue that the ending is a little too perfect, but it's really not worth denying everything that's great about the film for one trivial complaint. If Nurse Betty is any sign of what LaBute has in store for us next, you can bet that I'll be lining up for whatever he decides to follow it up with.

Grade: A-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nurse Betty is really an interesting movie. I guess we all know someone who is so convinced that the characters in a soap opera are real, that you can't explain them with any means that these are just actors and not real persons.

'Nurse Betty' isn't a nurse at all. In real life she is an ordinary housewife who works at a diner. To escape from her awful husband and the problems in her miserable life, she has become a very dedicated fan of a soap opera. After she witnessed her husband being murdered, she goes into some kind of a shock and she loses all grip on reality. She thinks she's in love with one of the characters from the soap opera, a doctor, and decides that she'll visit him and start a family with him. The hit men however think that she knows too much and go after her to kill her.

As I already said, the subject is quite recognizable (if you leave the professional hit men and the murder out of it) and the movie was funny. The story was well directed and the actors did a fine job. It had everything I always want to see when watching a comedy. I give it a 7.5\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Neil LaBute takes a dramatic turn from his first two films, In The Company of Men & Your Friends and Neighbors, with this funny and original thriller\/comedy\/road movie. When Betty (Renee Zellwegger) witnesses the brutal murder of her no-good husband (Aaron Eckhart), she develops a bizarre sort of amnesia, and flees in his car, not knowing that there is large stash of drugs in the trunk. Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock are the hit men who follow her.

What Betty is chasing, besides a new beginning (although she can't remember the old life) is her beloved, Dr. David Ravell (Greg Kinnear). Only problem: Dr. David isn't real, he's a soap opera character on the show `A Reason To Love' and he's really an egotistical actor named George McCord.

To say any more regarding what develops would be too much, but Nurse Betty is certainly original. Its hit men are, like the hired killers of Pulp Fiction, are violent yet philosophical, its take on soap operas terrific spoof material, and its acting is the best feature of all. This has to be one of the best cast films in recent years. Renee Zellwegger is perfect for Nurse Betty, with the constant gleam in her eye that pushes her in her quest. Morgan Freeman brings his constant state of grace to the role of a killer at the end of his career, and Chris Rock is his partner, a man of rage and great impatience. Greg Kinnear is at his comic best as the vain actor\/soap opera doctor. There are also great supporting performances from actors such as Emmy-winner Allison Janney (The West Wing), Harriet Sansom Harris (Frasier's agent Bebe Glazer), and Kathleen Wilhoite (Chloe on ER). Actually, the supporting cast is a Who's Who of television best character actors.

A unique film that is funny one moment and chilling the next, Nurse Betty is a mix of great acting, casting, and a terrific screenplay.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not sure why I picked for a borrow from mom for \"Nurse Betty\". I think just because I had heard a little bit of this movie. But I'm glad I did. \"Nurse Betty\" is an original and clever movie that has humor and a darker side.

This was one of Renee's first big one's before hitting it major in Hollywood. I can see why, she is an incredible actress. The scene where she finally realizes what had happened and she's on the set of her favorite soap opera, you can see pain, confusion, fear, and embarrassment on her face. Just to let you in on the movie, she plays Betty. A shy and insecure woman who stands by her abusive husband, she's a waitress, and is in love with soap operas, especially one where a certain cute doctor, Dr. Dave Revell. When she happens to see her husband's murder accidentally in separate room, the murders she notices are two customers she just had, Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock. She then just looses her mind and leaves town after talking to he police and says she needs to find her former fianc\u00e9e, Dr. Dave Revell. So, she travels along the country to California to find Dr. Revell, and wants a job as a nurse to work with Dave, she's seen the show so many times, somehow she's just awesome at being a nurse when she saves a woman's brother. Despite everyone telling her that she is delusional, she just looks at them like as if they were the crazy one's. When she meets the actor who plays Dave Revell, George(his real name) thinks she's just a crazy fan trying to get on the show. She just looks at him with confusion and believes that he and her belong together.

Renee was terrific, she was so believable on loosing her mind in the movie. She has come such a long way, and wither you want to admit it or not, she's adorable and a great actress.

Morgan Freeman plays one of the assassin's, Charlie, who is the father of the two. He is so charmed and smittened by Betty and while chasing her around the country, he becomes almost just infatuated with Betty to the point where he almost falls in love with her. He and his son Wesley must find Betty when they find out she was there at the murder scene and could give away their identities. When Charlie sees Betty and catches her finally, she's scarred at first, but calms down and they know they have a real connection. It was a beautifully played scene, my opinion is that Morgan gave a stronger performance. He's just great.

A surprisingly decent performance by Chris Rock, the son, Wesley. He is so \"gun\"-ho about just getting the job done in a rush and taking care of business. I loved his comedic performance at the end where he and the gang he's holding hostage by gun point are just watching the soap opera's together. Classic. \"Nurse Betty\" is a great movie that I'd recommend for a good laugh and just in all a nice honest little movie I think anyone could enjoy.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As Betty Sizemore (Renee Zellweger) secretly watches her tyrannical husband Del (Aaron Eckhart) being murdered by the vengeful hitmen Charlie and Wesley (Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock), her bruised sense of reality becomes totally immersed in the fantasy world of her favorite soap opera. In a state of complete denial and delusion, Betty escapes both physically and mentally from her unsatisfied, small town life to search for \"Dr. David Ravell\" (Greg Kinnear), the handsome and loving hero of \"A Reason to Love\", a soap opera set in a hospital and produced in Los Angeles. Immune to reality, Betty arrives in L.A. and becomes \"Nurse Betty\" as she tries to belong in the hospital world of her dream lover. Meanwhile, the angered Charlie and Wesley track Betty down, convinced she is a dangerous witness who also knows about their compromising dealings with Del.

Nurse Betty creates comedy and suspense by contrasting its main character's extreme innocence and optimism with the evident hypocrisy and violence that surround her. By clearly defining the protagonist's difficult life, Nurse Betty justifies its character's tendency to turn away from reality. Thus, while offering a comment about the popularity of the soap opera within the film, Nurse Betty also makes a comment regarding the widespread addiction to television and its celebrities. In addition, Nurse Betty benefits from the effective manipulation of its protagonist's mental state, particularly in those scenes where she cannot distinguish between \"Dr. David Ravell\", the character, and George McCord (Greg Kinnear), the actor who plays him. Betty's incapacity to recognize George as an actor leads to funny misunderstandings, which stress the magnitude of her delusional state. However, in spite of these successes, Nurse Betty suffers from the troubling characterizations through which the narration evolves. For example, while Charlie and Wesley are consistently portrayed as a comical pair, the brutality of their actions undermines any sense of appreciation or acceptance the viewer might have initially experienced. Similarly, although the initial scenes establish Del as a detestable man, the humiliation and violence he experiences with his murderers surpass all the humiliation and violence he caused his wife Betty.

Finally, toward the end of the film, Charlie undergoes awkward transformations as he develops an obsession for Betty; an obsession which results in noble feelings of love, and which ultimately destroys him. Consequently, since the characters' roles as victims lack consistency, the story's victimization processes seem random and unsubstantial. All in all, Nurse Betty's indeterminacy --rather than creating suspense-- weakens its characters and pollutes its plot.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Betty Sizemore (Renee Zellweger) lives her life through soap Opera \"A Reason to Love\" as a way to escape her slob husband and dull life. After a shocking incident involving two hit men (Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock), Betty goes into shock and travels to LA, believing that she is destined to marry the show's main character (Greg Kinnear).

Nurse Betty is that rare thing, a lesser known film with an all-star cast and a fluffy Rom-Com plot that surprises with it's terrific script and spot on acting. Indeed, such a plot makes one question the R rating, but it's warranted all right. The shocking incident that sends Betty over the edge is a tad too graphic compared to the light, amusing comedy that is to come and feels like something out of a different movie, but at the same time it is necessary to believably show Betty's transformation into the doe eyed, lovable nut job she becomes.

As we go along with Betty on her journey, director Neil LaBute works some extraordinary magic which makes the movie unique and high above your bog standard comedy of error. An example of this would be Betty's first meeting with her crush. She pours her heart out to him and he plays along, thinking she's auditioning for a part on the show. Even as we are aware of the ludicrous nature of Betty's ramblings, the music swells as she speaks, giving us, the audience, Betty's emotional perspective. We almost believe what she is saying, yet we understand that her mind is fractured. Whereas other filmmakers would try to accent the ridiculousness of the situation to wring every ounce of possible comedy out of the scene, LaBute is sensitive to his main character and treats her with the utmost sympathy and understanding.

The banter between the hit men played by Freeman and Rock is priceless, the excellent script doling out clever line after clever line for them to riff off of. Freeman in particular is excellent as always, pacing himself as his character slowly and blindly falls in love with his own ideal of Betty, not even truly knowing who she is or what has happened to her. Aaron Eckhart once again shows versatility in the thankless role of Betty's no-good husband and he is almost unrecognisable. The other revelation here is Kinnear, whose portrayal of the soap's star is not too overcooked. There's a tendency to lay on the celebrity bastard clich\u00e9 as thickly as possible, and Kinnear resists, instead imbuing him with a pompous yet restrained self importance, despite simply being a soap star.

The soap opera is realised so well, it could almost exist. LaBute and co hit the nail on the head with this one and a good thing too. If the soap opera had been too satirical, a large part of the film would not have worked. To do a \"Days of Our Lives\" spoof as seen in Friends would have been the wrong move for this movie. The dedication to detail pays off, as the style and feel of the soap opera begins to bleed into Betty's reality more and more, while keeping with the overall unintentionally comedic aspect of the genre. The scenes on the set feel real, as opposed to some films in which the atmosphere feels so manufactured, you wondered why people who do it for a living can't get it right.

The neat resolution of the final act, while being a tad predictable, is wholly satisfying overall. It's a shame that after LaBute directed this wonderful film, the mainstream came calling for him to direct the abysmal remake of The Wicker Man, a fine example of a man so totally above the material given to him. Unfortunately, one cannot absolve him of all responsibility.

If you haven't seen Nurse Betty, it's something to discover. If you have, it's worth a re-visit. There is a charm to Nurse Betty that is infectious, even if it may not leave you thinking that much afterwards. A hidden gem nonetheless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Renee Zellweger is Betty, a Kansas waitress who wants to be a nurse, who is infatuated with a soap opera actor (Greg Kinnear), and who is married to Del, a cheating, stupid male chauvinist who's trying to sell some stolen drugs. Unfortunately for him, he gets brutally, bloodily murdered instead, while Betty secretly watches. It leaves her unhinged, believing that Kinnear is really the character he plays, Dr. David Ravell, and that she is his RN ex-fianc\u00e9e. She heads for LA to find her lost love, not knowing the stolen drugs are in her trunk. Pursuing her are Charlie and Wesley (Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock respectively), the hit men who inadvertently killed Del before they found out where the drugs were hidden. They pursue her across the country, while Charlie gradually falls in love with his image of her.

And in LA, things get totally bizarre, as no one realizes that Betty is delusional. Alternately funny and touching, this movie is almost perfect. Stop reading commentaries and go see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Minor spoilers follow, but nothing you won't have learned from reading the back of the DVD.

Held together by a wonderful central performance from Ren\u00e9e Zellweger, Nurse Betty is a dark yet deceptively good-natured comedy.

Suffering from an emotional and mental breakdown after witnessing her sleazy husband's murder, already-troubled and desperately unhappy waitress Betty becomes convinced a character on her favourite daytime soap is her long-lost fianc\u00e9 and sets off from Kansas to Hollywood to find him.

Instead of making jokes at the expense of Betty's mental state, writer John C. Richards is very sympathetic, with Zellweger portraying her as a lost innocent, not entirely helpless but tragically vulnerable nonetheless. Crucially she's never really a victim despite this and while she undoubtedly suffers horribly the motives of the characters who treat her poorly are all understandable - even Greg Kinnear as the object of her deluded affections may be an egotistical, blinkered, arrogant pig but he genuinely believes that she's merely a quirky wannabe actress with bags of talent rather than an insane stalker.

The farcical ending where all the main protagonists descend on the same place (in this instance Betty's house) at the same time to have it out is as old as cinema itself but it works quite well here, even if the shift in tone is unfortunate.

Zellweger is ably supported by Kinnear and Morgan Freeman both doing solid work, and it's especially pleasing to see Chris Rock show restraint in his earlier scenes.

Not nearly as cruel as you might expect, and not at all mean-spirited, Nurse Betty - while far from being a laugh riot - is a solid entertainment elevated to something considerably more by the lead actress.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Renee Zellweger is a Kansas housewife whose domineering husband is mixed up in drug trafficking. Two professional hit men -- Morgan Freeman and his son, Chris Rock, murder the husband in his dining room. Zellweger, unobserved by the killers, witnesses this and undergoes a dissociative reaction, assuming the personality of a nurse -- the eponymous Betty -- who is a character in her favorite soap opera. Believing herself to be the TV character, Zellweger takes off in her husband's car, which has a load of dope in the trunk, and travels to LA where she hopes to link up with another character in this mindless afternoon drama, \"Dr. David Ravell\", Greg Kinnear. Not realizing she is being pursued by the two hit men, she drives to LA where she manages to link up with Kinnear and is actually written into the show as a nurse named Betty. A handful of men in the know, including the local sheriff, catch on to what's happening and also seek Zellweger in LA. The ending is believable and poignant.

If that sounds crazy, it's because it is. And it's the writer's responsibility, John C. Richards. The curious thing is that Richards and the director, Neil Labute, with considerable help from the performers, just about pull it all off. This isn't a plot that has been cast in a familiar mold. Nope. I give it bonus points for sheer originality. Somebody went out on a limb. Somebody took a chance on a movie that was NOT a copy or remake of something that had made money ten years or fifty years ago. I imagine the people involved, down on their knees every night, praying fervently. I don't know if the film was remunerative but it's mostly successful on its own aesthetic terms.

It's what might be called an \"initial premise\" movie. You start off with a single transformative event, in this case the murder of Zellweger's husband and her adoption of a genuinely new personality, and follow the resultant logical paths realistically. \"Groundhog Day\" is another, better and more intricately plotted, example. \"Nurse Betty\" has its logical cracks, where the incidents give up their plausibility. Eg., at a party in LA, Zellweger finally runs into Kinnear, the guy who plays her ex-fianc\u00e9 on TV. She's stunned (because, after all, she thinks she's Betty, who lost her fianc\u00e9 long ago). She approaches Kinnear and a couple of his colleagues and introduces herself as \"Nurse Betty\", the character. She addresses Kinnear by the name of his TV character, \"David Ravell.\" The group are puzzled at first, then convince themselves that she's an aspiring actress who insists on staying \"in character\" during the conversation -- and afterward, too, after Kinnear has become fascinated by her and the others bored. Kinnear drives her home and even when she kisses him goodnight, she's still in character, leaving Kinnear wide-eyed with astonishment at the relentless way she captures the character of Betty. On the next date, Kinnear returns her love. That development, the relationship between Zellweger and Kinnear at this point, is a crack in the logic, the kind that's absent from \"Groundhog Day.\" By the end of Night One, Kinnear, like any other person, would realize that Zellweger is a few clowns short of a circus.

The rest of the film, which includes many digressions, succeeds beyond expectations. The relationship between Morgan Freeman and his insolent, nihilistic son is marvelously spelled out. Morgan is flawless in his exasperation. He manages to fall in love with the image of Zellweger as he unearths clues to her whereabouts and activities, and at the end he can't bring himself to shoot her. She's too sweet to shoot. After her transformation into Betty, she left a note behind in Kansas. \"I want to help all life, whether it be animal, plant, or mineral.\" Who could harm the author of such a preposterous connative statement? His admiration of her comes as an epiphany, as he stands near one of the floodlights at the rim of the Grand Canyon. Zellweger, dressed as Dorothy, or maybe the Good Witch of the East -- well, characters that, like Zellweger, are from Kansas anyway -- appears to Freeman and he embraces her and kisses her tenderly. It's a scene that's at once eerie, romantic, and a little spooky. I once stood at one of those lights and threw some shredded paper into the updraft from the dark canyon and found myself surrounded by a thousand swirling bats who had misperceived the fluttering shreds as moths.

Right. Where was I? Okay. I was trying not to run out of space. Zellweger's performance deserves plaudits. Everything she does, every movement, every utterance, is naive and tentative. She really IS a likable character -- and that despite the fact that she's no glamor girl by Hollywood standards. But -- what an actress. Compare her performance as the bumptious 19th-century hick in \"Cold Mountain.\" Just the opposite. But then everyone is up to snuff in this enjoyable film. Allyson Jannings does a fine job in a minor role. Watch her when she tells Greg Kinnear that she's considering killing off his character in the soap opera in a drowning accident. Kinnear is one of those narcissists who wears the kind of ten-thousand dollar thin black leather jackets that were popular at the time. He chuckles and says, \"Oh, one of those castaway deals, right? Okay, how do I get back?\" Jannings doesn't answer. She just smiles at him with those enormous blue eyes and tilts her head mockingly.

Not a masterpiece of film-making but a good, original, professional job by everyone concerned.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the story of a guy who went up to see a comedy and it turned out to be a horror movie. The true story of a guy who's infatuated with pictures and got scared when he identified himself unexpectedly with one of them. The unbelievable story of A GUY who got scarier when the female-hero was deluding herself as well as the male-villain. Gosh, is this what life made us be? People deluding themselves about the perfect face imagining how that face should be perfect inside? \"Toto, I think we're not in Kansas anymore\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If I'd only seen the poster for Nurse Betty, I probably wouldn't have touched it with a ten-foot pole. But after I heard some positive buzz, and knowing it made some noise at Cannes, I decided to give it a try. What I got is a truly enjoyable movie, based on a very entertaining plot. Rene Zelleweger is impressive in her role as \u0091nurse' Betty, a woman who is sent into a delusional psychotic episode following a traumatic experience. I also liked Morgan Freeman (no surprise) and was pleasantly surprised by foul-mouthed comedian Chris Rock.

The film bounces continuously between comedy, drama, romance, and thriller. Yet despite this apparent identity crisis, it holds up quite well. I found my eyes glued to the screen from beginning to end always waiting for the next twist in the story. The entire cast is strong, if not spectacular.

My only real complaint is that director Neil Labute (who made a splash a few years ago with the very impressive and dark \u0091In the Company of Men') relied much too heavily on many cliched Hollywood conventions. The mood-creating musical effects he crammed down our throats during each sentimental scene were unbearable! And he did the standard old \"let's take some of the minor characters and pair them up at the end in an illogical and unnecessary romance\" trick, just to make absolutely certain everyone goes home with a smile on their face. Why must directors and writers treat their audiences like idiots??

But the movie is still much too enjoyable to be dragged down very far by these annoying irritations. In a very subpar year for movies, 'Nurse Betty' ranks as one of the more pleasant surprises of 2000. 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was mighty impressed with Nurse Betty all the way through. It has a great ensemble of characters, an origional plot, and an ending I shoulda seen coming but didn't and pulls at your heart strings.

If theres any one thing about this movie that got me the most it was Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock's interaction. These two are great and it warms my heart to see Rock isn't going to do crappy Big Hollywood fare like Lethal Weapon 4 for the rest of his life. Freeman is as always the man, really there shouldnt be any need to critique his work anymore. Hell, Kiss the Girls was watchable with him in it.

Renee Zellwegger does the best she can with her role, and Kinnear is good as her obession.

Sweet movie with a nice touch of gratuitous violence in it to satisfy the bloodlust of the male. 9 outa 10

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Renee Zellweger absolutely shines as Nurse Betty, easily one of the most charming, off-beat, and lighthearted comedies of the year.

When soap opera obsessed waitress Betty Sizemore witnesses her insensitive husband's murder by two hitmen (Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock), she snaps and thinks the cast members on A Reason to Love are real. She decides to travel to Los Angeles to find famed heart specialist Dr. David Ravell (a character on the show).

As the two oddly paired Hitmen, the caustic Rock and the pontificating Freeman generate some very fun chemistry, and Greg Kinnear also has fun with his smarmy offscreen actor persona. Renee Zellweger turns in an innocent, candy-coated, and sometimes terribly sweet performance as Nurse Betty. She exudes goodness, warmth, and is irresistible. While the script sometimes feels like a sit-com, is filled with sometimes unbelievable characters and contrived situations, Zellweger is so likeable and so utterly disarming that it all comes together.

With just a few splashes of black comedy to keep things interesting, a winning performance from Zellweger, a great supporting cast and a competent script, Nurse Betty is utterly delightful.

7 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*spoiler* *spoilers* *spoilers* I found the film amusing.It was weird and I enjoy it,I laughed a lot so the bottom line is that I recommend the film.However I have problems with what LaBute wanted to say.The plot is very simple.Betty(Renee Zellweger), a hard life house wife watch her husband being murdered and while having forgotten everything she had seen,she follow her \"true love\" for a soap series character,Dr. David Ravell (Greg Kinnear). Simple enough but not enough to hold a 95 minutes film. And here comes the big question.What is the film all about? The reference to \"The Wizard of Oz\" is obvious.Betty and Dorothy are both from Kansas however while Dorothy come at the end of that film to the conclusion that \"there is no place like home\", Betty doesn't come to any conclusion and by the end of the film we are left wonder what has she learned from her experience and the answer is simply nothing.It seems not to affect her at all.

Than is the film about the different between reality and fantasy? could be,but the scenes that are dealing with this subject are short and serve no more than a joke and not as a serious plot line that can take the film to other places.(and by the way \"The Truman Show\" dealt with this subject in a much better way).

The film could be about obsession.Betty is obsessed with the soap series and Charlie(Morgan Freeman) is obsessed with Betty.LaBute show two sides of obsession and he seems to forget that obsession,in any form is dangerous,and should be condemned.He seems to have sympathy to Betty's obsession because he sees it as a harmless one.

All a long the film we have scenes that in itself could have been a subject for a whole film,but are left for us to think about without that they will have impact on the characters.

The ending is simply a make -up that has nothing to do with what we saw before.It's a shame because the film could have been sharper if he would have concentrate in one or two subjects.As it is,it's about a lot but actually say nothing.

What we are left with is the feeling that we have seen a little film,amusing and weird that could have been much much more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, okay, maybe not perfect, but it was pretty close. This movie jumped from crime drama to romantic goofball comedy and back again so quickly all the way throughout that it seemed like two different movies that played simultaneously and then joined up again at the end. But they did it smoothly, and some in the theater found the bloody parts (like the scalping scene) to be funny as well. I just about threw up, but I guess that's just me. Greg Kinear is perfect as a soap opera actor. He has the ability to perform those over-dramatic soap scenes with just the right facial expressions and voice intonations. His scenes with Betty seem like something out of \"Sleepless in Seattle\" or some other romantic comedy like that. You almost forget that Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock are searching Betty down. Morgan Freeman's fascination with Betty was rather creepy, considering that he could practically be her grandfather, but the scenes where he is conversing with her photograph are definitely worth a few laughs! Chris Rock's performance seems rather wooden, but he has his moments. Renee Zellweger is so sweet as Betty, the lovable waitress with the crude, unfaithful husband who treats her like dirt. It's very unlikely that she would have actually gotten a job at a hospital without any real credentials, but, hey, it's a movie, just go along with it! Her roommate, Rosa, shines as well, as a woman who cares about Betty, but doesn't quite know how to deal with Betty's sickness. And, lastly, there is Crispin Glover. As a fan of his, I, naturally, thought that the movie could have been funnier had he been in it more. No one else has the same style of acting that Crispin has, and the argument between Chris Rock, Crispin, and the sheriff about the soap opera is hilarious. I guess I'm saying that I liked this movie quite a bit! If you can stomach blood, violence, and a lot of foul language, it's worth the watch and will give you plenty of laughs!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have just seen a very original film that I would recommend to everyone including `the young & the restless.' However, I guess some of the profanity, violence, and sexual innuendo in the movie are not suitable for `all your children.' Anyways before the sand fills up the hourglass, let me tell you the name of the film: `Nurse Betty.' Renee Zellweger stars as Betty. She is a Kansas waitress who falls under a trance, and thinks she is a real life character of her favorite soap opera. Because of this, she goes on a journey to Los Angeles to reunite with her supposed soap opera character lover Dr. Rubell. To add fuel to the fire, she is also being chased by some ruthless `one life not to live' hitmen who think she has stolen their drugs. You could say that is how Nurse Betty spends `the days of her life' throughout the movie. This very `ungeneral' situation eventually leads her to the `hospital' set of her beloved soap opera. However, the only problem is that Betty thinks this is all real. It is like her mind is in `another world.' Ok! Enough! I will wipe off my mouth with soap and not mention any more soap names. I have already registered my vote for Renee as a best actress oscar nominee. Also, Greg Kinnear's performance as Dr. Rubell was as good as it gets in his acting biography. To sum it up, my final diagnosis is that everyone should call in for `Nurse Betty.' ***** Excellent","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nurse Betty has that odd but winning combination of a repellent, unease-inducing plot with extraordinary characters. In the same way I loathed Fargo on first viewing, then realized I was still thinking about it days later and enjoying it somehow, I liked Nurse Betty a lot more the day after I saw it. Hard to understand, harder to explain. As others have said, it's quite forced in many ways, but that seems to be part of what makes it so striking.

Fair job by Greg Kinnear, great work from Morgan Freeman (although I worry that he's being stereotyped as the principled villain). Chris Rock was good but not a standout. Rene Z. is so natural it's unnerving -- i.e., unnerving to be \"natural\" playing someone not well in the head. Also liked the sort of \"abrasive sparkle\" performance from Allison Janney in a small part.

Don't go expecting as much of a \"road movie\" as you might assume from some synopses. (There is \"road,\" but it's only barely relevant.) Rated 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen 'nurse betty' twice in september 2000 on the international film festival 'films by the sea' in vlissingen, the netherlands. It impressed me so much that I kept on smiling the whole day after I watched it for the first time and almost all evening again when I took the movie as the final taste of the festival. What I knew about 'nurse betty' was in short that ren\u00e9e zellweger would play a girl in love with a soap-opera-star. But what I saw was much more than that! Splendid roles for morgan freeman, chris rock \u00e0nd ren\u00e9e zellweger. A strange mix of romance, violence and roadmovie. And for all a story that takes other directions every moment you think you're on the track. Many soap-opera-lovers will love 'nurse betty' - the movie as well as the character!!! - but they can bring all there non-soap friends, 'cause they will enjoy the story even more for the hard and humorous lines - freeman and rock - for the cruel scenes, the thriller-aspects and for the beautiful pictures. And I'm quite sure that at the end everyone will love 'nurse betty' for her captivating and innocent charm!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Goof: Factual error

When Charlie walks out of the room to commit suicide he takes his gun with a silencer. After a few seconds we hear a loud bang from the same gun being fired.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A question immediately arises in this extremely idiosyncratic film: Who are the crazy people?

The answer become less clear as the film goes on.

Renee Zellweger loses the whiney note in her voice and, while her voice is still high, she is incredibly effective as the shell-shocked Betty. In fact, she is so effective I almost wanted her to be just a little more crazy because her created reality was so believable.

This is the first time Ms Zellweger has been called upon to carry a film and she is more than equal to the task.

Chris Rock \u0096 though as foul-mouthed as usual \u0096 is fairly subdued as Wesley. He is able to sublimate his manic energy and it only occasionally surfaces and always when it is needed most.

There are some interesting allusions: the first time you see Betty she is dressed almost exactly like Dorothy Gale from the `Wizard of Oz' \u0096 then later in the film she is compared to Dorothy when she says she has never been out of Kansas before. At one point the song that Doris Day was best known for, \u0091Que Sera Sera' is on the soundtrack and then later Charlie (Morgan Freeman) describes her as having \u0091a whole Doris Day thing going on.'

This is an extremely quirky film with good performances by everyone including the supporting cast.

It has a surprising ending that, as contrary as it sounds, is actually fairly predictable.

If for no other reason see this film just to listen to the master of the human voice: Morgan Freeman.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Flawless writing and brilliant acting make this unusually delightful and witty plot-twister one of the best American films I have seen this year. Neil Labute's terrific casting and cynical direction keeps this film from becoming too sentimental while Ren\u00e9e Zellweger and Morgan Freeman's authentic performances give it a soul. Violent, provocative and humorous at the same time with a truly wonderful ending. Chris Rock, Greg Kinnear Aaron Eckhart, Crispin Glover and Allison Janney all give uproarious, tongue in cheek performances. The greatest spoof of soap operas since the movie Soap, but better and smarter. 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie just might make you cooooo. The film was WELL worth the dark trip to town. Betty (Renee Zellweger)is the lone \"acceptable\" soap groupie out there. Her character is SO charming and SO convincing that you find yourself in forgiveness over her being such a goof. I might even allow myself to get lost in Bettys' adorable fantasy, if it weren't for the fact that Dr. Ravell's real name is George... And speak of the devil; \"looker\" Greg Kinnear fills his role VERY well. While Charlie (Morgan Freeman) makes you wish for his wish to come true, Wesley (Chris Rock) makes you want to tie him to a chair. And Rosa(Tia Texada)takes you back to those luminous grade-school friendships. The sheriff encourages you to feed him donuts and loose his name. The remainder of the cast fits well. Never one to do the same movie twice, Nurse Betty is the exception. One of these long, cold, needing to smile about something winter days.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nurse Betty was definitely one of the most creative movies that's been released lately. It was funny, but it also had many touching moments. Zellwegger, Freeman, Rock, Kinnear, & the rest of the cast made their incredibly weird characters seem real. The story took such twist & turns that made it incredibly enjoyable to watch. If you're sick of the recent formula movies, see Nurse Betty for something completely different. Go see this movie in the theater or at least rent it when it comes out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After a summer full of retreads and disappointments, Nurse Betty is a breath of fresh air. The film is like no other I have ever seen. Director Neil LaBute proves that he can direct more then disturbing pictures of men and women and how they approach sex (his previous two films were the brillant In the Company of Men, and the almost brillant Your Friends and Neighbors). Renee Zellweger gives the best performance of her career as Betty, a waitress who, when she witnessing the brutal death of her asshole husband (LaBute mainstay Aaron Eckhart), and gets lost in a fantasy world. Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock play the hitmen who killed her husband and are now on her trial. The trick to the film is that Freeman and Zellweger are really parallel characters. While Zellweger falls in love with the image of the handsome and polite Dr. Dave Ravell on a soap opera, Freeman idealizes Betty. Nurse Betty is a brillant film, full of life, humor, love and graphic violence. My Grade: 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Nurse Betty\" is the kind of movie you can't describe on a poster or in a trailer or commericial. It's the kind of movie that you walk in to expecting a more mature \"Dumb and Dumber\" what with temporarily insane waitress goes on a cross country adventure while avoiding crooks trying to kill her.

The fact is, this film is a wonderful, heartwarming tale about two people chasing their dreams. The best part about \"Nurse Betty\" is it's unpredictability. Director Neil LaBute uses brutal violence to seperate dreams from reality, and along with the touching drama, and hilarious comedy, you can never tell what is going to happen next.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film, released in 1951, has the usual elements typical of the westerns released during the 50's; the cavalry needing to protect the territory from a murderous band of Indians, an officer determined to see that task through, and the men with him with various character flaws that he has to merge together into a cohesive unit. This small band must hold on to a fort located close to the Indian village until reinforcements arrive. The Indians know, all to well, that the small band is undermanned, and could be wiped out before the help comes. One major difference for this film, \"Only the Valiant\", is that it attempts to play out the usual storyline, but at the same time, deliver the message that duty is a paramount concern to be shared by all, even if they don't accept that charge.

Gregory Peck embodies the tight-lipped captain of the troop that has to prevent the Indians from breaking out into the territory. The troopers that he takes with him to the small outpost are the dregs of the troop at the fort; they, in turn, have gripes or weaknesses that cause them to wonder if the captain hasn't taken them out because of their general lack of devotion to a cause. Eventually, the captain and the small band confront the hostiles, and at the same time, each confronts his own flaw. The cast includes western stalwarts such as Ward Bond, Gig Young, Neville Brand, Lon Chaney, Jr., and Warner Anderson.

A sleeper of a film, and a good solid western for fans of this genre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a luminously photographed and unusually well-written western by veteran creator of \"Rawhide\" Charles Marquis Warren. Direcxtor Gordon Douglas is its chief help in this regard. Its strong plot line can be told in a few sentences. A hard-nosed by-the- book, Cavalry officer, Captain Richard Lance, captures a leader of the Indian enemy after a massacre at a fort. He insists on bringing the man back for trial, to be sent toTucson; his commander sends another man to try to take the prisoner for trial and the patrol is wiped out. This means the leader has escaped, and Lance must now lead a second patrol--and he picks the men the fort can most spare, a company of problems-- to defend the advance fort that had been wiped out and save the command from another attack by stopping up the bottleneck pass in that sector. As Lance, young Gregory Peck is quite strong. Other in the large cast of this film which really shows life at a cavalry outpost looking like an army establishment of heterogeneous and quarreling types includes War Bond powerful as a hard-drinking sergeant, Neville Brand and Steve Brodie as troublemakers, Warner Anderson and Lon Chaney Jr. as psychological troublemakers and Gig Young, Art Baker, Herbert Heyes as fellow officers with Nana Bryant as the Colonel's wife. Even Barbara Payton as the love interest gets by in a difficult role; Michael Ansara is the captured war chief, and Jeff Corey plays the Fort's scout. There are really two great scenes in this very-well-made western--the long section at the fort before the last patrol is sent out, and that long patrol to the doomed Ft. Defiant itself. Once at that fort, Peck gets to deliver a grand speech in which at the demand of the men he has lined up for orders, he tells them each why he took them along. reading them their shortcomings one by one; they then tell them why they think he sent his best friend to die in his place take the Indian in instead of going himself-- and he proves them wrong for the remainder of the film by winning his lonely battle through intelligence and courage. The music by Franz Waxman is good, the production qualities admirable; the argument about what would happen if Lance takes the war chief in happens to be true; other than this unsolvable mistake by the central character, this is is great western. it has been a favorite of mine for fifty years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gregory Peck and Gig Young are competing for the same girl and after Peck sends Young on a very dangerous mission, they blame him for his reasons. Feeling guilty, Peck goes on an almost impossible task of defending a fort, where they are outnumbered by the Indians. Peck chooses for this mission soldiers which he considers to be the scum of the earth and the actors that play these soldiers, Ward Bond, Lon Chaney Jr., Neville Brand among others, are excellent. The script is derived from a novel by Charles Marquis Warren who was a specialist in westerns, as a writer, director and producer. The idea of using this type of men as heroes inspired many films that came out later including \"The Dirty Dozen\" made in 1967.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...I saw this movie when it first came out in France, in my hometown, 54 years ago, I was nine, and today I still remember each black and white frame, especially the black ones, because it was so tense, scary, those sneaking attacks through that dark pass in the mountain, the two soldiers, prisoners forced to fight each other by their captors, the last battle with the uncovering of the wagon with the Gatling in it firing away, the last fight between Peck and the chief, and the Happy End which let me take back my breath. I haven't seen it since then, and I don't know if it would be a good idea to see it again today, it was such a fabulous moment for the kid I was.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On the whole one wishes this was a better film, but it has enough flashes of intense power to make it worth while. Peck made this film during the same period that he made The Gunfighter, before he apparently decided he was a monument rather than an actor. A pity! He was a fine actor, perfectly willing to tackle characters that were not very likable, and to do them extremely well. The character he plays here is driven and, when necessary, ruthless. Given the mission the character has been assigned, and the \"men\" with which to do it, those characteristics are essential.

Without being a spoiler, think of this film as an early, grittier example of The Dirty Dozen genre.

The dialog in this film is a bit ham handed but it is atmospheric and intense and definitely tells a story worth telling. It contains good work by all the character actors and even Barbara Payton turns in a credible performance.

This one isn't often shown on television so your local video store may be the only place to find a copy. Go ahead! Devote an evening to it. It is worth your time!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Only the Valiant\" qualifies as a gritty good western. This Gregory Peck cavalry versus the Indians oater is a solemn suicide mission without a trace of humor. Veteran director Gordon Douglas has helmed a grim, harrowing outdoors epic with an ideal cast of tough guys under considerable pressure; even Lon Chaney, Jr., registers superbly as a powerful Arab trooper. Ostensibly, \"Colorado Territory\" scenarist Edmund H. North & \"A Place in the Sun\" scribe Harry Brown drew their screenplay from western film maker Charles Marquis Warren's taut novel about a group of die-hard cavalrymen cut off from any escape route who must prevent murderous redskins from launching a devastating raid against helpless white settlers. North and Brown stick to Warren's novel for the most part and the last minute revelation--when it seems that there is no way that our heroes can survive another onslaught of Native Americans\u0097is a corker! This turn-of-the-century tale develops an effective claustrophobic feeling in the second half of the action. Douglas and company take studio bound sets and make them look convincing during the nocturnal hours. The crisp black & white photography of \"Going My Way\" cinematographer Lionel Linden imbues this western a grim look that accentuates its tension and atmosphere. Actor Michael Ansara, who later played the chief villain in \"Guns of the Magnificent Seven,\" is extremely effective in a small role as the hated Indian leader Tucsos.

\"Only the Valiant\" opens with over-voice narration by Army Scout Joe Harmony. \"This is my stamping ground. I'm a scout for the Army. Had my work cut out for me for a long time. Behind that pass there is the whole 'Pache nation. (There is a graphic of the territory with the Flinthead Mountains stretching across the screen with a bottleneck pass.) They used to come swarming out of the pass killing everything in sights. Then we built a fort\u0097Fort Invincible. It plugged up the pass, just like a cork in a bottle. Things was fine for a while. But them 'Paches is pretty smart. One day the bottle blew the cork plum apart.\" We are shown the burning remains of Fort Invincible with a dead man pinned to a stockade wall and a lance sticking out of his belly. Captain Richard Lance (Gregory Peck of \"12 O'Clock High\") and his men boil in on horseback and capture Tucsos (Michael Ansara), and Joe Harmony (Jeff Corey of \"True Grit\") wants to shoot him on the spot. Harmony points out Tucsos is \"the fella that started this whole business.\" Captain Lance intervenes, \"The Army doesn't shoot prisoners, Joe.\" Predictably, Harmony is aghast at this prospect. \"He's no common injun. He's just as near to a god as a fella can get. If you shoot him now, things will quiet down. Without Tucsos stirring them up, the rest of those Indians will get reasonable, just as fast as they can. You take him in alive, you'll have every 'Pache in the territory coming after him. We have had three years of this, you can stop it now.\" Just as predictably, Captain Lance refuses to kill Tucsos and Lance's decision to take the Indian back sets things into action.

Colonel Drum (Herbert Heyes of \"Union Station\") surprises Lance when he tells him he should have shot Tucsos. As it is, they need to get Tucsos to another post. Everybody from the troopers to Joe Harmony knows that taking Tucsos to Fort Grant is asking to die. The Apaches are poised in the mountains and the fort is under strength. Meantime, we are introduced to the daughter of Captain Eversham, Cathy Eversham (Barbara Payton of \"Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye\"), and young Lieutenant William Holloway (Gig Young of \"They Shoot Horses, Don't They?\") and they play a part in a major narrative complication. You see, Lance and Holloway both want to marry Cathy. Clearly, Cathy wants Lance. Colonel Drum refuses to let Lance take Tucsos to Fort Grant because Drum cannot spare Lance. Drum changes the orders and Holloway is given the mission at the last minute, and everybody is shocked. Lance has never changed an order. Furthermore, Lance saw Cathy and Holloway kissing in public, and everybody thinks Lance has reassigned Holloway out of jealousy. Indeed, one officer observes that rewriting orders is about a possible as rewriting the Bible. Predictably, Tucsos escapes and the surviving troopers and Harmony bring back a dead Holloway.

Although Drum expects a relief column of 400 troopers to arrive any day, Harmony points out to Lance that Tucsos will attack. Tucsos has seen the fort and knows their lack of strength. Lance requests to take 6 or 7 men of his choosing to man Fort Invincible and prevent Tucsos from assembling a war party. The bottleneck in the mountains keeps the Indians from riding through in strength; instead, they must come through one-at-a-time. Lance believes his men can thwart them until the relief column arrives. Drum gives him permission and Lance picks the worst men. All of them hate him and would willingly kill him.

\"Only the Valiant\" exemplifies the new breed of military western after World War II. This is not a gung-ho John Ford cavalry western. Indeed, Lance's own men want to kill him and this foreshadows the attitude of troops during the Vietnam War when they fragged their own officers. Lance bears the onus of all\u0097except the few who know about the circumstances that brought about the change of orders putting Holloway in charge of the detail. The black & white photography enhances the dire nature of this western. \"Only the Valiant\" amounts to a last stand western until the last minute reprieve. Reportedly, Peck hated this movie, but then this is not a spit-and-polish western in Technicolor. If anything, \"Only the Valiant\" lives up to its Warner Brothers origins. It is small but significant and it is grubby with loads of drama and unsavory characters, virtually a \"Dirty Dozen\" western.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would suggest that Only the Valiant is one of the most original and intriguing and in some ways weird movies that Peck ever did; daring , surprising and one of his few best westerns (--no, no, of course, not a western really, but a military chronicle, which sometimes is better--). It's quite low\u0097budget, but, oh, very original and striking. It's one of those treats a true buff sometimes gets; movies that no one yet told you they exist. You say\u0097'that sounds intriguing, or interesting'\u0097and it surpasses your expectations.

All in all, the script shows a level of maturity unusual for the westerns\u0097and it somehow reminded me, obliquely, of ULZANA; it's also straight no\u0097nonsense suspense.

Peck looked dashing as a young and tough, somewhat gloomy and stoic officer; and there are many unexpected touches\u0097like the blonde babe kissing and flirting with the one she's decided not to marry, perhaps a feeling of hers for justice and retribution \u0085.

Even genre\u0097wise, ONLY \u0085 is so much more than a military tale\u0097it is as well an action drama, a suspense movie, a commando\/ action thriller\u0097the weirdest combo imaginable; a bunch of soldiers in a special mission to counteract and stop a possible Native's attack \u0085--the insane decision not to take all the available troops to the place where those Natives could be stopped\u0097but only a handful of people \u0085--and this plot never takes a crap route\u0097as most would and did \u0085. The interest for humans, for people and their reasons and actions never falters.

A due word about Peck himself; he performs with brio, and though I usually find his famous movies to be rather insipid and boring, in such small outings I find intact all Peck's somber and even chilling glamor. He was an unusual star.

I gladly recommend this extraordinary movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"And that's saying a lot. Rent this if you want to be staggered by oddness, blown away by one of the most bizarre scripts, direction, and casting in the history of films. I'm staggered. I can't believe I watched it. I'm a big Bernadette Peters fan, normally- but this tested my resolve. Don't read any more reviews here, it's best if you know nothing about the plot. Just rent it. You won't believe what you're seeing.......","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film had NO help at all, promotion-wise: if there was an advertising promo on TV or radio, I didn't see\/hear it. The only newspaper ad I saw was on it's opening weekend: a dingy, sludgy B & W head-shot photo of Andy as Val-Com, behind jail bars, with headline: \"WANTED! Runaway Robot!\" ( which was also the poster in front of the 3 movie theaters I saw it at --NOT the nice little color poster on this site, with headshots of all the cast, and cartoon of Crimebuster --which really wasn't THAT good--they OUGHT to have used an action scene from the film itself--didn't they have an onset photographer? A poster is supposed to HELP a prospective audience decide if they want to SEE the movie--there were SO many people who couldn't get into their sold-out choice, and wanted to know WHAT Heartbeeps was about--and that poster didn't help! That dingy pic, and the only other photos supplied to papers were so indistinguishable in B & W that they were worthless. ) There was NO trailer for the film: only a slide at one theater, consisting of the word \"Heartbeeps\" inside a heart-shape, with a Cupid's arrow through it, and one that was a totally black picture: just Andy and Bernadette's voices saying \"Val-Com! My pleasure center is malfunctioning!\" \"So is mine; do you think we ought to tell our owners?\" THAT is no help to people who hadn't been aware of the movie.

During the filming, Andy told reporters that he couldn't eat, once his plastic lips were applied, so he would \"load up on breakfast, and fast\" during the day's shoot. I don't know WHAT Bernadette did: but at the time, I'd wondered why they didn't just sip protein drinks through long straws, or eat astronaut-style pur\u00e9ed food via tubes?

Phil-Co, the baby robot, seemed to have been the pre-curser to Short Circuit's Johnny-Five, with the same eyes, similar face. I've been trying to find if they had the same designer, but no help. I have vintage magazine articles about the film, and the design team was immensely proud of their work, and were going for a special award for their innovative device to create stenchless \"smoke\" for Catskill's cigars. Just shortly thereafter, LucasFilm did NOT use that device, though they OUGHT to have, for Return of the Jedi's scenes with Jabba the Hut: a man created \"steam\" around Jabba, by blowing cigar smoke into a tube, joking that all he needed was a glass of brandy, and he'd be a happy man. I thought that LucasFilm's using of real tobacco products was insensitive to people who were upset by smoke.

John Williams, who had then recently succeeded the late, great Arthur Fielder as the maestro of the Boston Pops ( which was THEN a ratings hit--but it never recovered from Fielder's death, and is now a shadow of it's former glory ), was using the show to promote films with which he supplied the music. He'd premiered \"The Empire Strikes Back\" score there; and you would think he'd have helped Heartbeeps along, by playing a few numbers there? The one thing that critics had liked of this film was Williams' score--yet it was NOT available for purchase! I saw one vinyl album, in 1982, with half Heartbeeps, half another film--but it disappeared. I only just tonight saw the CD listed on THIS site, and have ordered it. If I can ever get a scanner, and time to type out the articles, I'd like to create a Heartbeeps tribute site. I liked the movie, and don't care what dissenters say!

The only trouble with the film, was, that near the end, it was messed up, logic-wise: the robots ran away from the factory to have the freedom to decide their own fate, make their own choices; yet, when the junkyard owners tell them that Phil needs to go TO the factory, to have a \"purpose\" programmed into him, they don't even question it; they just glance meaningfully at each other, and they go. Along the way, each of the adults lose battery power, and \"die.\" They aren't REALLY dead, as they are robots, and only need new batteries, yet it is treated as \"death,\" with little Phil crying over them, and rolling away. So, what was the POINT of this? Phil never gets back to the factory, and gets \"a purpose!\" AND of course, the junkyard owners COULD'VE driven them, or given them all battery recharges, with back-up batteries; but the real point was to have this poignant scene, where the robots all wore down, and Phil is left to cry.

At the end, Val-Com is a golf instructor, and Aqua-Com is --I'm not sure what. Catskill is an ENTERTAINER--what ELSE is HE supposed to be? I'm not sure that they made it clear. The junkyard owners seem to be taking it easy, lying on chaise lounges, drinking lemonade from Phil, their \"bartender.\" Val's and Aqua's new \"daughter,\" Philsia--I think the name is--maybe it's Sylvania--doesn't seem to be much more than a table lamp.

There is missing footage, which is sad--from photos I surmise that the stuff missing includes a sweet scene, where Phil is having a Christmas, with Val gifting him with a car's steering wheel; Aqua is supplying a horn; Catskill has taken the firefighter helmet to give to Phil, as we saw; and they have Christmas trees. I don't know if any missing footage supplies better logic, or if the writers just couldn't think of a better crisis\/resolution. The film was trimmed to 72-75 minutes, to pair it with other failing films. No other reason than that. For a DVD, I would LOVE to be in on creating, as I want to see interviews with the cast\/crew and John Williams, and the Merv Griffin interview. The making-of footage; and reediting and restoring the missing footage to make it better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Best Robot Romantic Comedy Ever, using the robots as the romantic characters, which leaves Short Circuit out of this category. This was Andy Kaufman's best effort. Bernadette Peters shows her versatility here with an amazing performance. While not a great movie in many areas, I'll award it a 9 on guts and quirkiness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, where to begin. Did you know that the part of the lead robots were offered to famous mime team Shields and Arnez? Bet ya didn't. But they turned it down complaining about robot make-up. Then they faded off into obscurity. Now, this movie has everything. A crazed killer robot who thinks he's dirty Harry. Lots of cool robots. It's funny, it's touching, it's the perfect date movie for people who love sci-fi and romantic comedies. It's the first robot romantic comedy. Now of course very few movies are perfect and there are some character issues. But there are very minor and can be overlooked. I think couples will enjoy this movie and will want to watch it over and over again. 9 STARS.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A beautiful reflection of life's desperation and misdirection of finding love. Tragic, while at the same time, absurdly entertaining. Most people do not give this film a chance- ignorance- just a mere reflection in itself. Until next time...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, first, to all the haters: Get a life! I don't see why you even bother to post on these boards, when obviously you know nothing about cinema, robots, or people.

This movie has an important lessons for all of us to learn about gender, stereotypes, relationships, and DESTINY. Really, we are all robots, programmed to respond certain ways to certain stimuli without thinking. How many times have we seen a sunset and made some trite comment without even thinking about it? I say, THANK YOU Aqua (brilliantly played by Bernadette Peters) for making me stop and think about the awesome power of mother nature.

It's only when Val and Aqua begin to reject their programming that they begin to understand their true desire--to find love, and to flee the factory in search of a creative life. This movie should be mandatory viewing in prisons--just think of the dreams and hopes it could inspire in the inmates. maybe even they could overcome their \"bad\" programming and join the rest of us in a crime-free world.

We can all learn a lot from these robots. I am a better person for Heartbeeps.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie makes you think. It shows how a woman's weaknesses can result in nightmares for others. Her physically aggressive behavior is more often seen in men than women, so it made me feel even more uncomfortable to see the way the lead actress behaved. I think that women might think about this behavior, but I don't think they act on it. The dark scenes added to the sense of evil that needed to be hidden. I was relieved when the prisoners escaped. I was hopeful that the end would bring a satisfying solution, but it did not. Maybe that is more realistic. Life seems to run in the same direction instead of creating a new river bed running up hill.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm surprised by some of the comments on this site because I really liked this film. If you're looking for something different then this movie is a good choice. Definitely not your typical mindless story that seems to be everywhere starring Ben Idiot Affleck or some other Hollywood loser. It's an intellectual film, you actually need to pay attention so some people might be turned off by that. However, if you are looking for something that keeps you on your toes then this is a good choice. Warning to parents - it has some fairly graphic sex scenes so watch it once the kiddies are in bed. People who like Euro flicks will like this one. Adam Sandler fans should skip it because it will be over their heads and definitely NOT their style.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I shot this movie. I am very proud of the film. It was a great experience which shows up on the screen. Halfdan Hussey is an excellent collaborator who had a vision and was able to capture the movie in the exact way we envisioned while prepping the film. The sets are amazing and well crafted for each character. John York and his team built sets that not only fit the characters, they worked well in shooting the film, allowing us to move seamlessly through walls and from one set to another. Each character has an amazing arc, which makes for a great story. I feel like all of the actors gave excellent performances. I disagree with some of the other comments that say the acting was not good. Watch it and decide for yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not usually into dark\/psychological thriller type things. However, SEIZING ME is really an amazing piece of work. The story, acting, filming, psychological themes, erotic quality and spiritual understanding are all really quite complex and compelling. Rose plays the complexities and shifts of a psychologically disturbed woman really quite accurately. My partner was particularly impressed with the sophisticated way the power exchange issues were handled. It was so intense for us to watch that we found ourselves leaving it three quarters through to \"get tea\" and I felt compelled to have a shower. The story was gripping but we were clearly unable to handle all the energy in one straight shot. (It delves into the gritty and grimy side of people, but doesn't leave you there). I thought about the characters and deeper meanings for a long time. I would highly recommend this one. Still be prepared for an experience you might not be expecting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"------ Spoilers----- Spoilers----- Spoilers--------just a few small ones

Saw this on Satilite channel, missed the first 30 min of movie, will keep this comment short and informative.

The movie is basically about 5 characters,The acting is very bad for afew characters. 1 girl with the help of another girl kidnaps 3 different people but it backfires and the 3 kidnap the 2. This is one of those types of movies where the script writers try to be thought provoking or philosophical, mysterious and ... you get the point; but do to their own, personal, lack in thinking they fall terribly short. Like one of the captives who is supposed to be some type of psychology nerd - looks the part but his tongue can't speak it. THe writers think that if the nerd uses a lot of 8 letter words amateurishly - unknowingly i believe - that the viewers will be ignorant enough to believe it. I wish i could give an example but i cant recall any - exactly as it was said. The ending was bad as well. But the one female captive acted her role as an old and relatively wise lady, although she, as well as the rest, had a lot of clich\u00e9 s.

So Why would i give this movie a 7 stars if I thought all the above? Simple, I give the entire seven stars to LISA KELLER - one sexy a$$ momma. SHE is FINE lol. I am an appreciator of beauty, and she is exactly that. But don't get me confused because I'm not a pervert and this movie is NOT a porno in any way. their is somethin about her I cant explain, but i like it. I remember the scene where a captive has broke free and as he looks for a way out, bumps into Keller. She tries to get way but she doesn't have a chance. He throws her down, kneeling on the stairs and he pulls her pants down, no panties ;). Now, although she has an AMAZING ass - and the this shot leaves little to the imagination for a long 30 seconds i think - it was her facial expression that got me. she wanted it, and that look had me thinking i was behind that. I would have torn that booty up! After that expression, i jus couldn't look at her objectively anymore, I WAS IN LOVE. lol. I am glad to have seen this movie but if Lisa Keller wasn't playing the lead role, I would have changed the channel.. well... after i had seen the scene i mentioned above. I am a LISA KELLER fan know, but is seems that she isn't a consistent actor, seeing this 2003 movie is her latest. But i am lookin forward to another movie with her in it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love to see a female protagonist, in this movie her name was Rose. Rose brought out a lot of interesting questions in her journey of fulfillment.Is is possible to attain peace and internal fulfillment through external means? Does our society teach this? Can one be a victim of memory which may lead to victimizing others? Is one responsible for being a product of one's environment? To what extent can one control or take control of one's environment? How is a \"typical\" human alike or different than Rose? Lastly, would the outcome or story change if it were from another country like France or Italy? I loved that this movie provoked all of these questions in me, while it entertained, stimulated, and kept me guessing to the end! Every time I've watched it, I have learned more about the film and myself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best bit in the film was when Alan pulled down her knickers and ran the cut throat razor over her bum cheeks and around her bum hole. It was also brilliant to see Alan's bum going up and down like a fiddler's elbow later on in the film.

Alan was tough as hell in it like when he got annoyed and pushed the four eyed wimp onto the sofa.

I've been laughing for days about the cut throat razor bit. A brilliant idea by the script writers. Alan must be brought back into Eastenders so he can do the same to Peggy.

Alan is back, and this time he's armed with a razor. Watch out if you're a girl and he finds you and pulls your knickers down.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Stripperella\" is an animated series about a girl named Erotica Jones (voiced by Pamela Anderson) who lives a double life as a stripper at a gentleman's club known as \"The Tender Loins\" and as a sexy crime-fighter known as Stripperella, a.k.a. Agent 69 who works for a government organization. As Stripperella, Erotica fights crime and the forces of evil such as a plastic surgeon who gives women breast implants that either explode or make them fat and Cheapo, a criminal who steals from 99 cent stores and makes his two henchmen share a gun. The creator of the character and the series is Stan Lee of Marvel fame (and creator of Spider-Man).

Back in late June of 2003, Spike TV (then known as The New TNN) premiered a Thursday night block of three animated shows. Those shows were \"Ren & Stimpy: Adult Party Cartoon\"; new adventures of classic kids show characters Ren and Stimpy for adults done by original creator John Kricfalusi, \"Gary the Rat\"; about a lawyer who is turned into a human sized rat starring Kelsee Grammar of \"Cheers\" and \"Fraiser\" fame, and \"Stripperella\"; the adventures of a stripper who doubles as a superhero voiced by Pamela Anderson and created by Stan Lee. I remember seeing all three of the premiers. I was anxious to see Ren and Stimpy as I love the original show. I was a little let down. It was alright but it seemed to take things a little too far; seeing the two have gay sex together was a bit much. Though Gary the Rat wasn't bad, the best of the three was easily Stripperella. The animation was really good, it had an awesome intro song, it had some good talent behind it, and it was funny as hell! The show was just so silly, I don't even know how to begin explaining it! After four of five weeks (if not a little less) the animation block disappeared, which was weird because I know it got good ratings and it was advertised everywhere. I was disappointed to see Stripperella go but several months later I found out about new episodes that aired at like 1:00 AM. I only got to see one and though it was funny as hell and I was glad to see the show back after all that time, something seemed a bit off....

In the beginning of it's short run, \"Stripperella\" had great animation. It was dark, moody, realistic, and somewhat sexy too. The Stripperella costumed looked good too, the character was drawn well. After the long hiatus and during the rest of the episodes, the animation was very different. Instead of dark and realistic look it originally had everything was now really colorful and cartoonish. Stripperella received the biggest changes though. Before she had normal long hair, now she had hair bigger than Peggy Bundy's (Married with Children) if even possible. Also, the eye mask actually shows her eyes now; before it was just white you saw which was cool since it was more superheroish. Also, the upper part of her costume was kind of a vest-type thing with a collar and her costume was dark blue; that changed to her costume being a bluish-violet color and her upper costume being really crappy looking in comparison. In short, the show was a cartoon and very over the top silly beforehand, but the second-half it became more cartoonish looking and though still laugh-out-loud hilarious, it became more zany as well; for example, there was a later episode about a were-beaver...yes, a were-beaver.

Anyway, instead of complaining about the mid-series changes, \"Stripperella\" only ran one season but it was a very good show. Like the Tales from the Crypt film \"Bordello of Blood\", it may be really campy but it's really fun. As long as your not a prude you'll find yourself laughing repeatedly at this show. I haven't seen every episode because I haven't got the DVD yet for two reasons: #1. Paramount released and they have this screwed up policy about not including any extras on nearly all released TV shows, even though this was the entire show (I would have liked to see some commentary's maby explaining the animation change and interviews with Pamela Anderson and Stan Lee) and #2. the awesome Kid Rock song during the opening was replaced. Now I'm not a fan of his, but that intro sang WAS the theme for the show! If your not going to pay to have any extras at least pay to have the original intro song you jack-asses. The show also had a few interesting guest stars such as John Lovitz as Cheapo and Mark Hamil as the plastic surgion who hates models. Also Tom Kenny (SpongeBob) was on the show as the owner of the strip club in most every episode. Stan Lee has a cameo in one episode too.

The Breakdown:

PROS: Had a great look to it at first, FUNNY AS HELL, a very fun show, great voice talent for the most part, Chief Strogenoff (watch the show and see some of the stuff he does), and was easily the best of the three animated shows mentioned earlier.

CONS: The mid-series animation change and the crappy DVD described earlier. Aside from the fact that some of the humor could be kind of dumb at times I have nothing really negative to say about this.

OVERALL: Stripperella is a huge guilty pleasure of mine and it's a shame it only ran one season. It was a very funny, sexy, actioned packed cult series that I hope to see air on Adult Swim someday with the original intro intact and possibly give it another season like Family Guy. Check it out even if it is on the lousy DVD. You will laugh yourself silly.

Rated TV-MA: Crude and Sexual Humor and Nudity, Runtime: About 25 minutes per episode, Score: 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw Robin Hood: Men in Tights back in 1994 in the cinema. I went to see it because I always liked Robin Hood and I saw the trailer of this movie and thought it was hilarious. After I saw the movie I must say it was even better than I thought. Not only is it very funny, it's also a very well made movie with beautiful sets and costumes and a very beautiful score by Hummie Mann. The acting in the movie is also good, Cary Elwes is funny as Robin Hood and also Tracey Ullman, Richard Lewis, Mark Blankfield, David Chapelle, Amy Yasbeck, Megan Cavanagh, Eric Allan Kramer, Matthew Porretta and Mel Brooks himself are funny. But the best part in the movie is played by Roger Rees as the evil Sheriff of Rottingham. He has the best scenes in the movie and also the best dialogue (\"King illegal forest to pig wild kill in it a is\", which stands for \"It is illegal to kill a wild pig in the king's forest\").He somehow mixes up all the words and speaks out a sentence that nobody understands. Robin Hood: Men in Tights is in my book one of the best Mel Brooks films to date and I can't say that I have laughed as much about a film as this one. It's just non-stop laughing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILERS AHEAD------------------------- Mel has got it going on. From the opening credits to the ending credits this movie has straight laughs. Dave Chappel shows why he is a comedic force. Cary Eewes carries the movie most of the time, but the supporting cast fills in strong when the plot is drawn away from Robin Hood. Right from the beginning this movie proclaims it's self not to be taken seriously. If you took a time machine and gave the characters thoughts of modern day antics you would get this movie. What makes this movie special you say? Throughout the movie you see blinken and acuhu walk beside each other becoming great friends as Robin Hood's sidekicks. But, it Blinken is never told or fails to grasp that he is black, until the crowd says \" a black sheriff\", Blinken replays \"He's black\". That is a timeless scene. Simple one of the most enteraining movies of our time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This probably ranks in my Top-5 list of the funniest movies I've ever seen! I was not a big fan of Robin Hood, or Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, but this movie was a lot different! It made fun of Robin Hood, and was HILARIOUS! I was extremely pleased with how well it was put together, and how well acted it was! Besides Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, and Houseguest, this was the funniest move I've ever seen! I especially love the song; \"We're Men in tights!\" If you have a good sense of humor, you'll LOVE this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my favorite Mel Brooks movie because it was the first one I ever saw. I was in the fourth grade when it came out and I watched it all the time. I saw The Producers second and then Blazing Saddles. This is a sentimental favorite because it was my first Mel Brooks movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mel Brooks is a great writer,director and actor, but once in a while even he can have a klinker. The beginning of this starts out almost basically just meeting one character after another.You have Cary Elwes who's charming and talented, but he can't do comedy. His expressions into the camera show that even he can't believe the inanities in the script. Richard Lewis looks bored and distracted throughout without much to do and Amy Yasbeck is stuck in high-school acting mode. Dave Chapelle shows great comedy range mugging and hamming for the camera and Mark Blankfield is mostly stifled in the role of the blind man, but then he does still manage to show great comedy range. Eric Allen Kramer doesn't have much to do, but the few scenes he does have are binding. The best roles are those of Roger Rees, Tracy Ullman, Megan Cavanaugh and Brooks for when he does appear. Dom DeLuise has a funny turn as a Mafia Don employing a Clint Eastwood lookalike, but on the minus side, some of the jokes aren't very funny while some of the really funny ones seem stolen from Mel's other movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mel Brooks has really outdone himself on this movie. No one can deny that Blazing Saddles was a classic, and a breakthrough in this style of comedy film, but Men In Tights has become the apex of his creative genius. This movie is a definite must-see. If you enjoy this movie, I would also recommend Space Balls and History Of The World. The same goes in reverse. If you have seen any of these movies, then Men In Tights should be next on your list.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just like all of Mel Brooks' other comedies, Men in Tights is hilarious. But in seeing this as an outrageous comedy, I think many fail to realize that the reason the movie is so funny is that the characters themselves are acted so well. Elwes is the well-spoken former British noble, Lewis is an eternally annoyed king (I hope it's worth all the NOOOOOOIIIISE!), DeLuise is a FANTASTIC godfather, Roger Rees is a worried and cynical sheriff.... The actors and actresses are so loyal to their parts that the jokes flow forth with ease. Yes, we've seen this kind of comedy before, but the only comedy to achieve better character development, in my opinion, is The Big Lebowski. Very very funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mel Brooks really outdid himself with this hilarious stand-up of the Robin Hood story. The cast is perfect, and Cary Elwes does a fine job at his role. In my personal opinion (besides the fact that I'm a Cary Elwes fan) this movie is the best, and funniest, I've ever seen! It will have you laughing every time you see it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is one of my all time favorites. I have watched it probably 100 times (literally) and it is still funny to me. It seems that every time I watch it, I see something different. Mel Brooks is definitely the all time King of side splitting comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cant believe there are people out there that did not like this movie! I thought it was the funniest movie i had ever seen. It my have been b\/c i am Mel Brooks biggest fan... I know almost all the words and get very discouraged when they censor them, when it is played on a Family Channel. :) this is one of my favorite movies, so i dont know why any one would disagree! thanks Kristina","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie needs to come out on DVD cause that's the only way I will buy it. I thought it was soo funny because there was no real plot to it. It was not suppose to be an oscar winning film. I appreciate those films. Cary Elwes was a very cute Robin Hood. I can't even think of my favorite part of the movie because they are all pretty good. Anyways peace out.!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How can anyone DARE say anything BAD about this film? Pardon Mel Brooks for being a brilliant comedian and making a movie that gets funnier each time you watch it.

The first time I saw this, I cried from laughing so hard. Everything about it is funny.

While \"Robin Hood: Men In Tights\" is not my favorite comedy (that spot is taken by \"Real Genius\"), it ranks way up there in my book. So go see it! If you don't spend the whole time laughing, then at least you'll spend the whole time drooling over Cary Elwes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was really surprised, that my mom watched whole movie without leaving to iron, clean or some other things like these. And I was almost shocked, when she said, it was very funny and very interesting. And I think so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film when it was released to the minor cinemas in the UK some 50 years ago; and the memory remains of a great musical score, and the tragedy of the storyline. I saw it again on video recently. The sound track was poor and the picture grainy; but it is one of two films that I saw again the next day, the other being Gladiator. The music theme is intensely tragic, and from the outset one knows that it heralds failure or death. Certainly one of George Sanders best performances; as a man working the black market to get pay back for what he lost in the war, but nemesis waits; Patricia Roc plays a refugee from Eastern Europe eaten with despair. He is attracted to her, selflessly wants to help her, and then falls in love with her, but she is too proud and hurt to accept help. Their love destroys him, and inevetably the girl and the doctor (Herbert Marshall), who brought the nemesis. The storyline is of complex intertwining destinies, where subsidiary characters are not who they appear to be. This is as a film, which diappointed the critics and struggled at the box office; but for the adolescent who saw it, and the retired gentleman who saw it again it is one of the greatest films (taking into account its age)whose story is more akin to an opera.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Unfortunately, I've never seen the full version of this movie. I did see the 87-minute version twice, back in the 1950s. Even more floridly directed than is the norm with Julien Duvivier, this is a wonderfully out-of-the-ordinary piece, replete with sweeping tracking shots through, over and into Andrejew's magnificently atmospheric sets. Beautifully lit too by photographer Andr\u00e9 Thomas, Black Jack is nothing if not a connoisseur's delight. Reinforcing this imaginative visual style, is a script that allows a roster of our favorite actors, including Agnes Moorehead and Marcel Dalio, some brilliantly bizarre, full-blooded characterizations. George Sanders gives a polished performance, whilst an eccentric millionairess (who turns out to be a rival racketeer) is admirably played by Agnes Moorehead. Also realizing the most from her role, Patricia Roc. The film was made, on locations in Spain, in 1949.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Utopia, made in 1950 in France, was the last film Laurel and Hardy produced. With the bad reputation the duo have for their post 1930's productions I was expecting this film to be awful. Although admittedly it isn't up to the standard of their \"vintage\" comedies I was pleasantly surprised. It's watchable, and in parts genuinely funny! And certainly the plot is of the same standard as you'd expect. Some gags are derivative from their earlier work, but when you consider this film was their first for five years after their last Hollywood produced film, \"The Bullfighters\", the routines are executed confidently as you'd expect from these professionals. Some scenes are not up to much, but the value of this film is that some scenes are funny, and as such, absolutely priceless. I particularly enjoyed the bedtime scene.

I felt sad at the end of the film. Our heros are left on their own desert island. It's such a metaphor for the real life truth. Hollywood and audiences of the time had consigned the stars to a desert island of memories, and that was to become last image they portrayed in film. Ollie died seven years later and Stan died fifteen years later. Stan turned down an offer to appear in \"It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World\" in 1963. What a shame that was - a colour film, only two years before he passed. However, his health probably wasn't up to much.

These boys are probably the greatest comedy performers of all time, and although the movie is far from their true potential, it's still an honour to watch them appear in film for the last time, and touching on the echos of their towering talent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is not halve as bad as people want to make you believe it is.

What is the reason why so many people hate this movie? Is it because it's Laurel & Hardy's last one together and it's not their best? Or is it because of the lack of Laurel & Hardy regulars? Or because it's not made by the Hal Roach studios or 20th Century Fox?

Definitely true that this movie is not a successful attempt to revive Laurel & Hardy and bring them to the '50's. It's also definitely true that the movie is far from their best but honestly, the movie still entertains well, making this movie also far from their worst. Not the most worthy 'goodbye' movie imaginable but an entertaining and suiting goodbye nevertheless. Both of them retired from movies after completing this one.

The movie still features some great slapstick moments and the chemistry between Laurel & Hardy is obviously still very much present. It also makes this movie better than most of their movies together from the '40's. Quite a surprise that the slapstick humor still works out as great as it does, considering that the days of slapstick comedy had been over, ever since the '30's.

The story is perhaps not as entertaining as it could had been and it features too many sidekicks and characters, with as a result that the movie looses its focus on the boys at times. A shame, because they are still the ones that really carry and make the movie.

Sad to see in what poor form Stan Laurel was at the time of making this movie. He really looked ill and old, which he also of course was. He was well over 60 years old already. But after a surgery he fully recovered and still lived for another 15 years, before dying in 1965, 8 years after his good friend Oliver Hardy.

An entertaining, though not perfect goodbye to the boys, Laurel & Hardy and the end of 3 decades of fun, humorous, quality slapstick entertainment of movies that are still being watched and loved by people all over the world.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not since Bette Davis's 1933 vehicle \"Ex-Lady\" have I seen a film that was so much better than its star said it was! Most of the bum rap \"Atoll K,\" a.k.a. \"Utopia,\" a.k.a. \"Robinson Crusoeland,\" a.k.a. \"Escapade\" has got over the years has come from the horror stories Stan Laurel told of its production. Given that he suffered a stroke during filming, looked like death warmed over through much of it (from the opening two-shot of them together you'd never guess that Laurel survived Hardy by eight years) and was subsequently diagnosed with diabetes (once he adjusted his diet accordingly he restored himself to health), one can understand why Laurel didn't think this film was the most pleasant experience of his life. Yes, it's flawed: the cheapness of the production shows through, the dubbing is awful and Laurel and Hardy were too old to do the energetic slapstick of their greatest films. But it's still genuinely funny, and L\u00e9o Joannon's story introduces elements of political satire (sometimes libertarian, sometimes communalist) one would expect to see from more socially conscious comedians like Chaplin or the Marx Brothers but never from Laurel and Hardy. The film deserves credit for being different (though its debt to the Ealing Studios' classic \"Passport to Pimlico,\" made just a year earlier, is pretty obvious) and for integrating the Laurel and Hardy comedy into a rather edgy context completely different from anything they'd used before. This isn't a great movie, but it's certainly better than the eight dreary ones for Fox and MGM they'd made in the early 1940's. I suspect only the film's technical crudity kept it from earning the cult following among anti-establishment baby-boomer youth the Marx Brothers' \"Duck Soup\" acquired in the late 1960's\/early 1970's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Please be aware that this film has nothing to do with the Radio City Music Hall! As an archivist re: the Music Hall..I know what is and what is not associated with the New York venue. The film's Theodore is just the \"Music Hall.\" No Rockettes are in the film. Only wonderful ice skaters plus superb actors and fun. Just thought you would like to know. Truly a wonderful film. You will never guess who the 'murderer' is while watching this film....till the very end. What a superb plot and beautiful ice skating. One never sees that kind of performances any more. The Roxy Theater and the Center Theatres, in New York city, had ice skating performances on stage!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Along with virtually every Republic Picture ever made, \"Murder in the Music Hall\" seems to have undeservably faded into oblivion. A shame, because this lusciously produced, expertly directed and written, and crafty mystery-suspense item spins an enticing whodunnit thriller against the setting of Radio City Music Hall. A murder in one of the building's posh penthouse apartments casts suspicion on the luscious Rockettes--among them, Vera Ralston (who besides giving an appealing performance of subtlety and vulnerablity, provides a few dazzling ice-skating production numbers), Helen Walker, Ann Rutherford, Julie Bishop, and several other delectable B-movie starlets of the '40s. Tall, blond and handsome William Marshall (usually cast in musicals) hunts down the killer as the complex and increasingly creepy plot unfolds, against the swankiest settings you'll ever see in a film noir. The ending is as much of a surprise as is this sadly forgotten, classy murder mystery. Well-worth restoring and reviving on cable-TV, VHS or DVD. Republic sank a hefty budget in this Grade-A production, and \"Murder in the Music Hall\" is as slick, unnerving, and immensely enjoyable as any of the major studios' films of its era. POSSIBLE SPOILER: Pay attention to the rhapsodic song composed by the victim just before his death. Then, amidst the showgirls' incessant chattering in their dressing rooms, try to pinpoint the one humming that fatal melody. You'll discover who the killer is just as William Marshall does. Grand fun, the kind of movie they truly don't make anymore, and what a loss--both to movie-goers and actors alike.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you are a fan of early Duke movies, this Lone Star oldie is a good one. What more could you ask for than Duke, Yak, and Gabby. Lots of good ridin' and shootin'!!! I found it amazing that Duke's singing voice was Bill Bradbury, who is none other than Bob Steele's twin brother. It has been reported that Bob Steele was a high school classmate and friend of Duke, so twin brother Bill may have been too. Anyway, if you like good, clean, early western movies don't miss this one. We don't have to wonder about hidden meanings or try to figure out underlying themes. Just sit back, relax and enjoy a western movie from a simpler day and time. It's called entertainment folks!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An evil land baron is holding up water to a group of ranchers in order to try and take their properties for pennies on the dollar. Along comes Singin' Sandy Saunders (John Wayne), who saves the day for Gabby Hayes and his daughter by going undercover as the villain's newest gunman.

The first of sixteen films Wayne made for Lone Star\/ Monogram Pictures, this tries to cast him as a singing cowboy, only with an obviously lip-synced voice. The title card prominently features his character as \"Singin' Sandy\" leading one to believe that this was meant to be the first in a proposed series!

Yes it's ridiculous, but also a lot of fun to see Wayne singing songs and shooting guns, especially when he does a little ditty before shooting it out with gunman Earl Dwire.

Riders Of Destiny features a rare villainous role for for Al \"Fuzzy\" St. John, who clowns around as much with the bad guys as he did playing a heroic sidekick, riding alongside Buster Crabbe and Lash LaRue.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film had me spellbound this evening. Thanks to Fox Movie Classics for showing it uninterrupted. John Voight, this cast of little known black actresses and most of all, the children, made this a worthy way to spend a Sunday evening. How wonderful to see the early work of this seasoned actor, as well as Paul Winfield's excellent portrayal of Mad Billy. I can't see why anyone would say that Hume Cronyn is miscast in the role as superintendent. Who would they have chosen? The shrill character actor, Charles Lane? Although his career is laudable, an actor such as Lane would have cheapened the role. Cronyn was an excellent choice for the part. I will count this film as a true treasure to hold in memory.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"all i can say is that each time i see CONRACK, dir. Martin Ritt, DP. John Alonzo, i feel an utmost sense of inspiration and enlightment in what the power of cinema is possible in such a simple film.

the motion picture Conrack is set in 1969. It is based on a true story. It is a story about a white man (Jon Voight) who teaches a group of young black children how incredible the world is outside of their little South Carolina island.

The story places the job of a teacher as noble cause in changing children's lives.

I highly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film launched my theory about films based on books: Instead of following the cliche \"You've read the book; now see the film,\" if you are looking for a good book to read, try one upon which a movie you like was based, because it'll be 10 times better.

I saw this film on its initial release at the National Theater in downtown Eugene and liked it so much that I stayed to see it again. It's a perfect merger of the inspiring talents of one of my favorite actors, Jon Voight, with what became my favorite book, \"The Water Is Wide,\" by Pat Conroy.

I can think of no better movie about the nobility of teaching and the ironic challenges of life. Two tiny caveats:

(1) The video suffers severely from pan-and-scan and deserves a letterbox version. (2) The title should be restored to the name of the book, a reference to one of the most touching, enigmatic songs ever written","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Martin Ritt seems to be a director who was always interested in social issues (as the son of immigrants, he had every incentive to be so, especially since he was blacklisted in the '50s). \"Conrack\" is based on Pat Conroy's novel \"The Water is Wide\", about his own experience in 1969 teaching a school of impoverished black children about the outside world, much to the chagrin of the right-wing superintendent (Hume Cronyn). What added to the movie's strength was the cultural and historical context: Conroy (Jon Voight) frustratedly tells another teacher how many of the children don't know about Paul Newman, Sidney Poitier, the Vietnam War, or even where Vietnam is. He proceeds to enlighten them about all these factors.

Somewhere, I read a complaint that when Conroy played music for the children, he only played white music. The truth is, you can't blame the movie for that; it was based on Conroy's real experience. Either way, the movie's a real gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film when I was in the 8th grade and I remember that it had a profound affect on me then. I saw in again about a year ago (I am now 29) and it still moved me in similar ways. This is a great movie that personifies the struggle of \"principle vs. pragmistism\". Voight's character is the idealist teacher that won't give in to any psuedo-racist leanings of the Superintendent, Mr. Skeffington. That story also personifies the struggle of how older people often resist change, and more specifically, cultural change. Often at the expense of children. When these battles finally come to a boil, Pat Conroy loses and pragmatism reigns triumphant. Or does it? The children that he has to leave are better off for knowing him, more exposed to the \"real\" world and to classical music. The other teacher at the school gained respect for him and he learned much about himself. A great film with a heart-breaking ending. I recomend that anyone who enjoyed the film to read the book, \"The Water is Wide\", by Pat Conroy. It will stay with you!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pat Conroy's autobiographical book \"The Water Is Wide\" proves to be something of a Southern \"Up The Down Staircase\", yet despite the teacher-going-against-the-odds formula, \"Conrack\" really does move the audience with each little breakthrough and creative flash. These students (uneducated black kids on an island off South Carolina) are actually shown learning, and their collective wide-eyed innocence is remarkably sweet. The one actual actress in the bunch (Tina Andrews, an amazing performer) plays the \"tough nut\" Conrack has to crack, and once she falls under his charms, it all seems a breeze. But the story is not ready-made for a happy ending, and I wasn't prepared for the quiet simplicity of the finale. It's beautifully done. The script veers off course every now and then, but director Martin Ritt is very smart to always fall back on Jon Voight's solid presence. Scenes such as the one where he drives around in his van venting his frustrations over a loudspeaker don't add up to much, but the whole film is filled with episodes which spark emotion, and the actual ending is their payoff. **1\/2 out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie for the first time a little over a year ago. I've seen it 4 more times since. I had never heard of it before and I consider myself knowledgeable of classic cinema. A true, polished, diamond in the rough.

This gem of a movie revolves around Jon Voight (lead character \"Conrack\") as a young schoolteacher assigned to Yamacraw Island to teach the islands' children, all in one school. At first, the students reveal they know very little of the world beyond their island home. The heart of the movie is Conrack finding inspiration to awaken their young minds to the world around them. The students quickly reward their teacher with an eagerness to learn and a remarkable ability to grasp concepts that, only a short time before, had been foreign to them. Conrack uses unconventional and clever teaching techniques that happen to be, oh a little fun! God forbid. Learning AND fun? Together? Can't be, or so says the ones in charge. To avoid a spoiler, I shall just say that Conrack finds resistance with the boss man....and the ending is truly bittersweet.

I am a 35 year old white male with some teaching experience, so I should identify with the lead character, Pat Conroy (aka, Conrack, Mr. Petroy). But I don't, I identify with the black kids. As a kid, I was bussed to the school on the other side of town from the 4th to the 6th grade, circa 1979. These kids in the movie remind me of my classmates then. Luckily, in 4th grade as a 8 or 9 year old, one doesn't understand racism. I just remember we were all being kids, playing 4-square, kickball, hide-and-seek, and running relays.

This movie is very moving. There are delightful and poignant moments from beginning to end, non-stop. I found myself many times with tears in my eyes, then suddenly laughing out loud. It's a funny movie.

\"Git away from that winda!!\".... \"Sir, if you're prepared to accept crap, I should tell you that rabbit just did it in your lap.\"..... \"So, you the white schoolteacher, Mr. Conrack. My grands LOVE Mr. Conrack. You a good looking teacher, you a good looking white man.\"..... \"wind 15 mph from the east. Small boat warning. Small boats beware. Big boats OK, don't gotta worry 'bout nothing.\".... \"not a fry cook, but Eleanor Roosevelt, not a share-cropper, but (something Latin)...that's Latin..hey wait!\".... \"Conrack sing like a frog....I sing good, whatcha talkin' 'bout?!\".

It still mystifies me that I still hear nothing about this movie or that it has very little reputation or following. I intend to seek out more reviews, comments, background, and \"making of\" tidbits, if they are out there. What amazes me is the acting given from the untrained kids. One of the kids, Mary, I understand was an actress, and you can tell. However, the other kids have plenty of lines and genuine reactions. I wonder how they did it! I'm guessing that Conrack and Mary had precise dialogue to work with while some of the scenes unfold naturally or ad-libbed.

Conrack is a special movie. In my opinion, it is one of the very few movies that are so good AND so unknown. Others in that category are King Rat ('65), Dark Passage ('47 with Bogie and Bacall), Gods Must Be Crazy ('80), and Bad Day at Black Rock ('55). I recommend them all. But first, take a seat in the class of Mr. Conrack.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film on TV in the UK some 25 years ago and it has resonated with me ever since. My interest has recently been rekindled by visiting Hilton Head - the next island over from \"Yamacraw\" (Daufuskie actually), and reading Pat Conroy's excellent \"The Water is Wide\". With the benefit of knowledge I have reappraised Conrack and consider it a masterpiece. Jon Voight captures the spirit of Conroy and the atmosphere of the film brings the book to life with some accuracy - a Hollywood rarity.

Three things still strike me about this tale: 1. The issues of educating the poor and disenfranchised and being inclusive remain the same. 2. Education is about more than reading and writing. 3.. These kids were my peers, I was 6 in 1969 when Pat Conroy spent his year on Daufuskie.

Why this has not made it on to DVD yet?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Voight plays the title character in this movie based on author Pat Conroy's (Prince of Tides) autobiography. A fine teacher film, it tells the story of a naive Pat Conroy, a young English teacher whose first assignment is in an elementary school on a rural island. The only white man on the island, he must battle internal and external pressures as he attempts to instill education and values in children who for generations have been systematically denied such things. A solid performance that really makes you think.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just watched Conrack for the first time. Although the last third of the movie leaves something to be desired, it is a very touching and heartwarming study of a man's evolution to overcome his youth and upbringing in a prejudiced south and a teacher's creativity in connecting with students despite different backgrounds and difficult circumstances. As an educator, seeing a teacher adapt to his students and prepare them for all of the challenges life has to offer, not just the lessons found in textbooks, is a valuable concept of which we all need to be reminded. The thread concerning the Vietnam war rings true even today. Well worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I not only consider this to be the best film that Jon Voight (Midnight Cowboy, Coming Home) has ever done, but a real tribute to teachers.

Despite incredible odds, Pat Conroy (Voight) managed to reach a group of students and bring them from nowhere to a basic literacy and awareness of the world. His methods made be criticized by bureaucratic dinosaurs like Mr. Skeffington (Hume Cronyn), but teachers like Conroy will always be winners.

Voight really showed that he had a love for teaching and that it was a natural high for him. he didn't overplay the role, and I found him to be totally believable. Voight is Conrack.

Besides a love of teaching, we also see another important point in this film. No matter how good you are at your job, if you rock the boat, the bureaucrats will get you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a piece of the time in which it was made..... Realistic. Movies were not candy coated during the late 60s and early 70s. The producers did not try to create some happy ending that didn't exist. The lack of a happy ending would create agitation in the audience that, hopefully would spur them on to action. At least that's how it seemed at the time. In today's movie world this movie would probably not be done. There would, definitely, not be this ending, however realistic. The sad fact is that the movie depicted a situation which could not be improved upon without action from the improvement of the relationship between the white southern traditional thinking and the progressive movements of that time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Our America is multi-cultural, with so many sub-cultures. This movie simply tells a story of a snapshot in time within one of these sub-cultures. It is basically an objective look at a group of forgotten people, living their lives oblivious to the rest of the world. Generally, a good movie. It entertained, provoked thought, and showed lives that would not be seen otherwise, right in our own back yard. Should be seen by all. Having lived in the U.S. all my life, I had no idea that there were citizens here that didn't know they were citizens. This movie helps illustrate the diversity of our country by showing this small part of a southern state. The obvious conclusion: If this is really for real, then what else is out there that we know nothing of?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm going to make this short and sweet. It's not surprising that you had no use for this film. This is a story about the power, beauty and possibilities inherent in a meaningful education. Based on your pathetically composed comments I can see that your own education has been woefully neglected... or worse... completely wasted. Your comments are those of a truly ignorant person. I would advise you to do something about this condition... but in your case I feel it's probably too late. My hope is that you yourself don't intend to go into the teaching profession ( especially in Film Studies) because you could only do damage. Oh... one last bit of advice. In the future, if you intend to write more opinion pieces, you should really proofread your work. It will make people take you more seriously.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Conrack on a night I couldn't sleep and I was never so glad to have insomnia ! This story of a young white teacher who takes a position teaching poor black kids on an island in the Carolina's is a great advertisement for teaching , and for simply helping each other .Set in the early 60s , with the civil rights issues , Viet Nam and all that came with the 60s ,it is forgotten that the Peace Corps and many young people struck out to make a difference helping the unprivileged .Conrack with his open style of teaching is interested in these kids as people , and encourages an honest interaction in his class that scares the power's that be .The greatest part was that Jon Voight said they had a 20 year reunion and 18 of those kids became teachers !! Its enough to make you think we as humans may have a chance to survive ourselves ,maybe , hopefully .See this film .","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"COMING on the heels of that 1970's \"Blackploitation\" Era, CONRACK (20th Century-Fox, 1974) offered audiences a low-key, sincere and everyday people sort of a drama. Offering a far different fair to its audience (which was far more general than those \"Gansta\" flicks); being a down to earth dose of realism that offered a lonely counterbalance to those shoot-'em-ups'.

REPLACING lead characters that were bad-ass detectives, super-flies and megs\/macks\/pimps (Take your pick in terminology), was a lone, humble and meek teacher. The academian we speak of is the main character, Pat Conroy; who is the one and only lone teacher hired to take on the responsibility of a sort of old time one room school house on an island off the coast of South Carolina.

\"CONRACK\" (Jon Voight), the name that the youngsters dub him finds conditions in the school terribly backward. In addition to the physical properties of this \"Little Red Schoolhouse\", any systematic and progressively graduated educational system was totally absent.

OH yeah, by the way, did we mention that further complications to any successful educational venture were manifested in two incontrovertible facts. Those were that Pat Conroy was both an outsider and he was white; with almost the entire population of this off-shore cay was black and very poor.

PERPETUATING these unacceptable and deplorable conditions were the agents of the local board of education; being the school's Principal, Mrs. Scott (Madge Sinclair) and the Superintendent, Mr. Skeffington (Mr. Hume Cronyn). Between the two, we are made to understand that the teacher, being the low man on the totem pole, is powerless in most respects to affect any sort of meaningful, long-lasting improvements.

BUT don't you tell a 'Young Turk', such as Pat Conroy, that he can't. (Can't anything, that is). \"Conrack\" spends a year of unorthodox classroom performances and is making real progress; but alas, the strong-headed teacher won't give in and recognize the authority of his superiors. While he is, by law and unbeknownst to him, serving at thee super's pleasure; he disobeys Mr. Skeffington's specific order and prohibition to take his class kids to the mainland of South Carolina on Halloween for some Trick-or-Treating; even going to the brazen act of stopping with them at the Skeffington residence.

NEXT we see a Western Union Telegram messenger happily singing as he crosses from the Carolina mainland to the island; where he delivers the telegram to Conroy that bore the news of his dismissal from his position with that school and district.

NOT BEING one to take his being fired lying down, Pat files suit against Mr. Skeffington, Principal Mrs. Scott and the Board of Education protesting his dismissal as being unlawful. Impartially reviewing both the \"offense\" and the law, the Judge asks Skeffington if there are any lesser punishments that could be substituted for Conroy's being separated from the school system; to which he receives a negative response. Fittingly, the Judge dismisses the suit with his gavel pounding down while saying, \"It's very simple!\"

THE story is brought to a bittersweet conclusion as the 'Conrack'students see him off to the mainland bound launch, while a phonograph record provides us with BEETHOVEN'S 5th SYMPHONY; which had played an important part in the Conroy educational agenda, as well as our story.

IN THE HUMBLE opinion of this writer, the story (which we believe was at least semi-autobiographical, even giving the main character the name of its author), was much more than a tale of a localized happening. To both me pal Schultz and meself; this is a sort of depiction of a microcosm that represents the overall deplorable conditions that permeate the Government Schools throughout the entire nation. (Just an opinion)

AS FOR THIS film, it was just one of many movies portraying the stores of common folk; leading their lives of \"quiet desperation\" in the great hinterlands of the country, which lie outside the D.C. Beltway and the urban centers of enterprise and communications situated on either the Atlantic or Pacific Coasts.

IN ITS OWN small way, this is a fine film, which would soon be joined in the film vaults of 20th Century-Fox by such great works as NORMA RAE and BREAKING AWAY. (both being from TCF in 1979).

SEE it if you ain't yet. Recommended by both Schulz and his buddy.*

NOTE: * Why, that's me, of course!

POODLE SCHNITZ!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Superb story of a dedicated young teacher who sets out teaching minority children in an area off South Carolina.

Jon Voight is just tremendous as the headstrong, dedicated, idealistic teacher who faces this challenge despite a principal, who believes in stern discipline and has little regard for modern educational techniques as well as a crusty old school superintendent, played with relish by the late Hume Cronyn. Madge Sinclair is the principal who loves her babies.

As I'm a retired teacher, I could in some ways relate to this excellent film. The ignorance shown here as well as the lack of cooperation with officials is also quite apparent in urban areas.

Voight realizes that these children need far more than the traditional teachings of a classroom. He has them go out and experience life by themselves by learning outdoors.

The end is a definite downer but so true to life.

Amazing that such backward students had a zest for learning and were well disciplined. I guess that answers my question. The behavior was there and they were motivated to succeed despite their environment.

The ending will just tug at your heart. It was memorable and so well poignant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Forget about the plot of this movie. Forget about the fact that it is wonderfully acted by Vince Vaughn and Vincend D'Onofrio. Forget about the fact that it is one of the few movies starring Jennifer Lopez that I can stomach. Although the story made be impossible to believe and much of the dialogue seems contrived, the one and only important thing to remember when contemplating watching this movie is that it contains some of the most amazing and disturbing imagery ever put on film. It is as if Salvador Dali decided to make a crime drama. A must see for anyone seriously interested in cinematography and the use of the film cell as a canvas on which to display true works of visual art. I would have to give this movie a 9\/10 for it's amazing visual display.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'The Cell' is a journey into the mind of a serial killer and I mean this literally. The film is about the journey, about the world it shows during this journey, the destination does not really matter. In my opinion this journey through the mind gives such beautiful images other things do not really matter as long as they are not distracting. In fact, the story is pretty good.

We start with Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez) in the mind of a catatonic boy. How this works exactly does not really matter, but it looks a lot like virtual reality. She and other scientist including Henry West (Dylan Baker) and Miriam Kent (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) believe that this method might work. Catherine enters the mind of the boy and speaks with him there, in a world that is completely created by the boy. She hopes she can let him do things that in the end will give results.

The real story then. A serial killer named Carl (Vincent D'Onofrio) just dumped the body of one of his victims. FBI Agents Ramsey (Jake Weber) and Novak (Vince Vaughn) are on this case. Another girl (Tara Subkoff) disappears and at that time, after forensic research on the dumped body, Carl can be traced and captured. Two problems occur. 1. Carl just went into a coma; he has been sick for a long time. 2. His house and the house with his last kidnapped victim are not at the same place. In a way this part of the story is pretty standard.

Things are about to get interesting again. To find out where the girl is, Catherine has to go into Carl's mind. This is dangerous for a lot of reasons. In short: Carl is unknown territory, schizophrenic and a serial killer. If Catherine starts believing Carl's mind is the real world then her mind can convince her body; she could die in the mind of Carl. A tape of how the last victim was killed, a fate this girl will have in about twenty hours, makes sure Catherine will try to get the location out of Carl's mind.

It is the journey through this sick mind that makes this film more than worth watching. Director Tarsem Singh, who did music videos before this, in a way goes back to these music videos. Every room in the imaginative world is another short clip that exists out of beautiful and sometimes haunting images. For me the visual style felt completely new, the way 'Three Kings' had a new visual style one year earlier. If something like that can make you like a film, 'The Cell' will not disappoint. But fans of the thriller and horror genre can like this film anyway. The story itself, without the great fantasy world, is good enough for that. I think you have to be a little open minded, of course events are not (yet) possible in our real world. Still, a very entertaining film with nice ideas that looks terrific.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The last film that provided a vivid and disturbing look at what insanity is probably like was In Dreams. In that movie, you didn't see insanity, you were THERE. Now The Cell comes along with an updated and much more disturbing portrayal of the inside of the mind of a psychotic killer. The opening scene takes you into the seemingly innocent mind of a comatose little boy, and the things that Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez) sees are first fascinating and then terrifying. The things that she later sees in the mind of Vincent Stargher (Vincent D'Onofrio) are amazingly imaginative and fascinating, most of this stuff has never been seen in film before.

The story of The Cell is not exactly something that is really groundbreaking. In fact, it is basically the same as the story in The Silence of the Lambs. You have a killer in custody and these people have to enter his mind to find a female victim who is currently in danger of losing her life. The only real difference between the foundation of the plots is that in The Silence of the Lambs, you have to enter the mind of a killer to find a different killer as well as his current victim, while in The Cell, you have to enter the mind of a killer to find his own victim. However, despite the unfortunately weak story, The Cell completely revolutionizes the genre of the psychological thriller. None that have ever been made even come close to it.

Also, the film had good direction and was extremely well acted. Vince Vaughn delivers another of his characteristically excellent performances (he was even good as Norman Bates in the pathetic 1998 re-make of Psycho), and even Jennifer Lopez puts forth the second good effort of her career (the other being the great Out of Sight). Nothing can be said of the cinematography in The Cell to give it sufficient credit, it was imaginative and fascinatingly done and is unparalleled by anything ever seen in cinematic history. The Cell is an incredibly well-made film, and it deserves to be recognized.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is definitely a case of style over substance but the style is good and certainly more than unique on its own to make \"The Cell\" a memorable and above average movie.

\"The Cell\" is beautifully looking with impressive sets, costumes and make-up. Yes, it's real eye candy to watch all. The movie has some perfectly 'dreamy' sequences that are certainly odd but also very beautiful and imaginative to look at. This movie is a perfect mix of an art-house type of movie and a typical Hollywood-thriller, that is accessible to both fans of the genre.

The story itself is pretty far fetched and doesn't always make sense. Because of that the movie isn't always pleasant and likable to watch but like I mentioned before, the style compensates for this. The style makes you keep watching till the end and provides the best moments of the movie.

Vincent D'Onofrio is unforgettable as the serial-killer with a twisted mind. Vincent D'Onofrio is really underused as an actor and this movie shows his talent once more. I'm not particularly happy about the casting of Jennifer Lopez. I know that she can act in some of her movies but she really wasn't suitable to play the main character in this movie. Her character wasn't strong enough and she was overshadowed by Vincent D'Onofrio and Vince Vaughn. Still I felt that Vince Vaughn was also miscast in this movie. He didn't fit the role well enough and no, I'm not saying that because I'm used of seeing him only in comedies now days. The rest of the supporting cast is good and still give the movie a certain degree of credibility.

The musical score by Howard Shore was also surprising good and was sort of \"Se7en\" like at times. It suited the movie well and gave some of the scene's some extra mood and atmosphere.

It's a far from perfect movie and the concept is far fetched and not always handled in the right way. Still \"The Cell\" is a perfectly watchable movie and perhaps even a bit of a must see, due to its style, originality and creativity.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Style over substance. But what a style it is. \"The Cell\" is the internal version of most serial killer movies. Unfortunately, the story hardly supports the visuals.

Psychotherapist Catherine Deane (J-Lo) goes into her patients' dreams via artificial means to discover and help them over come their phobias and obsessions. A new patient whose fallen into a coma, is brought to her attention by the FBI. He's a serial killer who drowns his female victims then poses their bodies in grotesque scenarios like mannequins. Deane must enter the killer's mind and navigate through his sick fantasies in order to find and save his latest victim.

Director Tarsem Singh has incredible visions and set pieces for this production. Each dream sequence is like a nightmare-ish painting in motion, from the landscapes to the costumes.

But the plot suffers from lack of history of its characters. Stargher is the only person with a thorough background and he's the last person you want to care about. Without him, you basically have a movie that moves in the present tense only, which is a shame since the movie is so visually stunning and genuinely scary. Lopez is wasted but she's not that amazing an actress anyway, though she's as gorgeous as ever. And Vince Vaughn? I don't even know why he was chosen. This is not his forte and he overacts to boot. He tried too hard to become his character and it showed. Stick to comedy, Vince! Even so, this movie is so visually frightening, I still watch this movie with the lights on and can never fall asleep right away afterward.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What makes watching and reviewing films a pleasure is when every once in a while when you least expect it a film like The Cell comes along and knocks your socks off!. This movie is a superb horror that has everything a you could want when you want to be scared out of your witts. Without going into the story all i will say is that it has a great beginning ,middle and end that keeps you on the edge of your seat while being transfixed with the amazing special affects. The acting is good without being outstanding but that does not matter because the subject matter and the way it is put on the big screen makes this one of the best horror movies i have seen for a long while. It is one of those films that you imagine started as a novel but saying the credits it does not look like an adaptation , so a lot of credit must go to Mark Protosovich the writer. 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Cell\" is an exotic masterpiece, a dizzying trip into not only the vast mind of a serial killer, but also into one of a very talented director. This is conclusive evidence of what can be achieved if human beings unleash their uninhibited imaginations. This is boldness at work, pushing aside thoughts to fall into formulas and cliches and creating something truly magnificent. This is the best movie of the year to date.

I've read numerous complaints about this film, anywhere from all style and no substance to poorly cast characters and bad acting. To negatively criticize this film is to miss the point. This movie may be a landmark, a tradition where future movies will hopefully follow. \"The Cell\" has just opened the door to another world of imagination. So can we slam the door in its face and tell it and its director Tarsem Singh that we don't want any more? Personally, I would more than welcome another movie by Tarsem, and would love to see someone try to challenge him.

We've all heard talk about going inside the mind of a serial killer, and yes, I do agree that the \"genre\" is a bit overworked. The 90s were full of movies trying to depict what makes serial killers tick; some of them worked, but most failed. But \"The Cell\" does not blaze down the same trail, we are given a new twist, we are physically transported into the mind and presented with nothing less than a fascinating journey of the most mysterious subject matter ever studied.

I like how the movie does not bog us down with too much scientific jargon trying to explain how Jennifer Lopez actually gets to enter the brain of another. Instead, she just lies down on a laboratory table and is wrapped with what looks like really long Twizzlers and jaunted into another entity. \"The Cell\" wants to let you \"see\" what it's all about and not \"how\" it's all about, and I guess that's what some people don't like. True, I do like explanations with my movies, but when a movie ventures onto new ground you must let it do what it desires and simply take it in.

I noticed how the film was very dark when it showed reality, maybe to contrast the bright visuals when inside the brain of another. Nonetheless, the set design was simply astonishing. I wouldn't be surprised if this film took home a few Oscars in cinematography, best costumes, best director and the like. If it were up to me it'd at least get nominated for best picture.

I've noticed that I've kind of been repeating myself. Not because there's nothing else to say, but because I can't stress enough how fantastic I thought \"The Cell\" was. If you walk into the movie with a very open mind and to have it taken over with wonders and an eye-popping feast then you are assured a good time. I guess this film was just a little too much for some people, writing it off as \"weird\" or \"crazy\". I am very much into psychology and the imagination of the human mind, so it was right down my alley. Leaving the theater, I heard one audience member say \"Whoever made that movie sure did a lot of good drugs.\" If so, I want what he was smoking.

**** (out of 4)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Cell\" is a rather difficult film to classify. If you read the plot outline, \"a psychotherapist journeys inside a comatose serial killer in the hopes of saving his latest victim\", you might think it's a thriller with a touch of science fiction. But that doesn't really do this movie justice. There is a fantasy aspect within the sub-conscious minds that is stunning, with lavish visuals and incredible mind-tripping scenarios. There is drama as the aforementioned psychotherapist (played by Lopez prior to her becoming a solely romantic comedy component) makes contact with the child within and witnesses his terrifying upbringing. And there is most definitely a horror facet due to the sickening actions of the serial killer's evil persona. The movie attempts to function on many different levels and crosses genre boundaries at will. While I feel it ends up being a reasonably bizarre experience, I find it to be completely fascinating.

Right from the opening credits, with Lopez riding a horse through the desert stunningly clothed in a white dress, you will know that you are in for a visual treat. Every time the audience leaves reality and follows her into the sub conscious depths of her \"patients\", they are guaranteed a feast of visual and aural delight. The costumes are wonderful creations of angles and colour. The camera leaves regularities at the door and traverses a world where up and down are the same. The characters become rulers of their own domains and transform into creatures worthy of such stature. If you don't enjoy anything else about \"The Cell\", you will surely be impressed with the work put into these scenes.

The casting is top notch also. Jennifer Lopez is in her element here, utilizing her natural, compassionate and almost maternal sensibilities, while combining her own striking looks with the lush surroundings, makeup and costumes. She is incredibly sexy and I personally wish someone would find another role for her outside of the rom-com world she has been typecast into that would allow her to experiment further. Vince Vaughn is fairly convincing as an FBI agent that will do anything to save the life of a young woman. But it is without a doubt Vincent D'Onofrio that has the biggest impression here. It's an extremely difficult role as he is required to bring out multiple emotions within the viewer. We are disgusted at his actions, yet sympathetic towards him due to the trauma he has experienced during his life. He looks magnificently powerful within his realm, yet insecure and vulnerable within the real world. It's a great performance from an underrated actor.

While \"The Cell\" doesn't work as well on every level it ambitiously attempts (some of the actions of the characters are not believable) and while it is all based on some fairly flimsy scientific logic, it is an occasionally shocking, visually astounding head trip that rewards multiple viewings.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing the trailer for this movie when it was first released and it looked pretty cool. I never got the chance to see it though. When I went to Blockbuster to rent some videos, I figured I should watch it. After all I did love \"Silence of the Lambs\" and \"Se7en\", and if you enjoyed those movies, you might get a kick out of \"The Cell\". The whole story concept is very interesting. Going physically into the mind of a killer, I can't imagine the world they live in. The acting is actually pretty decent. Jennifer Lopez is the only one I have to say that wasn't that great, but she does a believable job. I would recommend for a scary thriller.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A serial killer , Carl Stargher , has been kidnapping and murdering young women by letting them drown in a water filled cell . He is apprehended by the FBI , but is in a coma and his latest kidnap victim awaits in a cell timed to fill with water

Take a look at the above premise and you'll see that there's a very much seen it all before look to it . The magic of Mark Protosevich's script is that he changes a hoary old chestnut plot in to something quite different from what you're expecting . If I mentioned the plot involves a machine that allows a psychiatrist to enter the mind of Stargher then sets up a different film entirely

This wouldn;'t be enough to make THE CELL a different class of thriller but director Tarsem Singh creates a visually striking surreal thriller . The cinematography by Paul Laufer where opaque primary colours are to the fore is stunning but Singh doesn't let it end there , things like costume design where Stargher wanders around his idiosyncratic universe wearing opulent costumes does have a visual impact making this so much more than a run of a mill thriller

What stops THE CELL becoming a classic movie however is that you start becoming more and more aware that the whole movie revolves around the visuals rather than having a natural narrative . We see a third character , a FBI man enter Stargher's domain but this seems more like a contrived plot turn just to introduce the audience to more stunning but very disturbing moments

It should also be pointed out that this is a rather disturbing thriller with a atmosphere that is very depressing and that stops the film from being if not enjoyable , then involving . One scene where a FBI agent recounts a case where a paedophile beats a rap only to later cut out the heart of his victim will fill your heart with so much despair you might reach for the off button . You'll probably have to watch a massive amount of thrillers till you see another one as disconcerting as this one","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After you have seen enough movies, there is very little that doesn't remind you of other movies. Nevertheless this was a watchable if somewhat disturbing film. I had to shut it off from time to time and come back to it later. Like \"Silence of the Lambs\" it features the search for a serial killer who has abducted someone and has confined her to his chamber of horrors, Like \"Flatliners\" the main character explores a dream world through an experimental procedure. The surrealism of the dream sequences is what makes this film, as one finds the characters in a situation and landscape in which literally anything can happen. And beyond this continuity and \"making sense\" are not necessary, which makes it a film-maker's dream too.

The only thing that seems a bit off is the fact that in the end one hopes for the redemption of the serial killer or the exorcism of his demons. You actually feel sympathy for the little boy inside the man, but clearly the innocence of the boy cannot be separated from horrible deeds of the man. The focus swings as it must from saving the man to saving his victim.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A crackling and magnificent thriller about a child psychiatrist, Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez) who is desperately urged by two FBI agents, Peter Novak (Vince Vaughn) and Gordon Ramsey (Jake Weber) to use her therapy on Carl Stargher (Vincent D'Ofornio), a serial killer who (uses strange and horrifying torture tactics) is found in a coma by the feds. What Novak wants in return from Deane is whereabouts of Stargher's latest victim is and if she's alive. Once Deane gets into Stargher's mind, which has the appearence and atmosphere that resembles a colorful combination of David Lynch's \"Dune\" or \"Blue Velvet\" and Wes Craven's \"A Nightmare on Elm Street\", the adventure begins. Deane sees a variety of odd people ranging from Carl as a youngster (an adorable Jake Thomas) to a Freddy Krueger-like man minus the razor claws. I don't want to give away the ending, but the movie is great altogether besides the dynamite performances, Howard Shore's creepy musical score and directing (by Tarsem, who shows here that he can direct).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Cell is weak on plot, filled with holes and has pretty lousy acting as well. but none of this matters, for, director tarsem singh has given us one of the most visually stunning movies ever. the whole plot is just an excuse to let tarsem fool around and take you into the minds of a serial killer, bringing the audience some shocking, pleasing, breath-taking and mind blowing images.

the images from this beautiful movie will stick with you for a long time to come. this movie is a perfect case for the \"suspension of disbelief\" theory. forget the silly plot, just let your senses be overwhelmed with the images. and J.Lo looks stunning enough to add to the rest of tarsem's work. the cinematography is harrowing, the music haunting & the costumes just stunning.

the movie is less of a movie and more of a work of art. its just that the medium is not canvas anymore, it is the big-screen and celluloid. one of the most refreshing movies of this decade. The Cell is a must watch. A bold new step in movie making.

an enthralling 8!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** THE CELL \/ (2000) **** (out of four)

\"Do you believe there is a part of yourself, deep inside in your mind, with things you don't want other people to see? During a session when I'm inside, I get to see those things.\"

--Catherine Deane

And so do we. One of the most visually stimulating films of the year, \"The Cell\" is a love\/hate movie-either you love it or you hate it. I can understand the reasons some people dislike this production. With a story that combines disturbing serial killers with mind-probing, \"The Cell\" is too much for some viewers; others will not understand the complex actions and emotions of the film. I think it's one of the year's most engrossing films.

Making his feature film screenwriting debut, Mark Protosevich creates an imaginative world of rich, colorful images and provocative characters. The filmmakers take advantage of every shot. Protosevich conceived ideas for \"The Cell\" in 1993 when he decided to combine two of his major interests, mind-probing and serial killers. He was reportedly influenced by such directors as Wes Craven, George Romero and David Cronenberg. They would probably be proud of such an imagination.

The film combines two major narratives, one about scientific exploration of the human mind, and the other about a psychopath who murders young women for his own sexual pleasure. Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez), a child therapist, is part of a neurological study at the Campbell Center, a research clinic. Because of her empathetic personality, scientists chose Deane to enter the mind of a catatonic preteen in hopes to revive his brain into waking.

A sick, demented serial killer roams the streets. Within an abandoned rural farmhouse, Stargher (Vincent D'Onofrio) locks innocent female victims in a large glass cell where he then drowns them and performs sadistic sexual rituals with their bodies. The killer escapes from the FBI every time they draw near, until now. A violent seizure renders him comatose. The FBI captures his forever unconscious body. Unfortunately, he already prepared the cell with his latest victim. In forty hours, the cell will fill with water, and Stargher is the only man who knows the location of his victim.

The FBI takes this situation to Campbell Center, where Catherine enters the mind of Stargher, hoping to discover the location of his latest victim before the cell fills with water, sending the woman to a watery grave.

The science fiction portions of the story relied on both real science and theoretical fiction in the creation of the Neurological Cartography and Synaptic Transfer System. The premise takes a long time to develop, but it is worth the wait. It is far fetched, but that doesn't matter. The film makes us believe. Even if you don't suspend disbelief, however, the visual enticement provides an engaging setting to enjoy.

According to the film's production notes, Mark Protosevich was thrilled to work with the director, named Tarsem, because they both think visually. Tarsem Singh is known for his attention to detail, stunning art direction, and highly developed abilities to tell a story. \"When I wrote 'The Cell',\" explains Protosevich, \"I surrounded myself with postcards or color copies of painter's paintings or photographs while I was working. So I'm thinking visually, and Tarsem is a highly visual director. Tarsem has a similar frame of visual references which made for a very smooth collaboration.\"

Vincent D'Onofrio provides the film with a backbone, and no actor could have accomplished his character any better. He delivers a mysterious, disturbing, and engaging performance. \"I think that my character is, in a way, trapped in himself,\" D'Onofrio ponders. He also researched the psychology of serial killers to help get him beneath the surface of the character. His in-depth performance preparation pays off beautifully.

While the actors, writer, and director do wonders with their material, the real honor goes to the film's behind-the-scenes talent. The director of photography Paul Laufer, production designer Tom Foden, costume designer April Napier, special effects coordinator Clay Pinney, and visual effects supervisor Kevin Tod Haug. They bring the world of \"The Cell\" to life. It's is an extraordinary world worthy of several viewings. Some movies you watch, others you experience. \"The Cell\" falls into the later category.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw this movie for the first time I was both surprised and a little shocked by the blatant vibrance of the story. It is a very artistic drama with incredible special effects, spectacular acting, not to mention a very excellent job in the makeup department. Jennifer Lopez has pulled herself out of past roles that dug into her career with this movie, portraying a very sensitive child psychologist who works with a team of engineers to enter the minds of comatose patients to treat them. Vincent D'onofrio played amazingly well. His portrayal of a sadist serial killer was perfect to a T. The sheer emotion conveyed by his performance is astounding. Vince Vaughn isn't my favorite, but still performed exceptionally well. The symbolism and artistry was intriguing and titillating, sometimes surprising, and other times shocking. Overall, I say this is a wonderful movie, with excellent acting and beautiful artwork.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE CELL (2000) Rating: 8\/10

The Cell, like Antz, must be watched twice to be appreciated. The first time I saw this film I thought it was mediocre, but the film had such a lasting impression on me after viewing, I decided I had to rent it again. I did, and I found the film to be much more likeable. The Cell is not for everyone, but it divides its stories up with quality and is a visually intelligent film that dreams up images and plot ideas that could not be matched. The film's script can be clunky at times, as can the acting, but the visuals are ingenious and bring the engaging story to an exotic and intriguing life. The Oscar nominated makeup is also daring and careful, while the beautiful costumes and utterly brilliant set decoration went unnoticed. Tarsem Singh who has also directed music videos, goes totally crazy with his direction and it results well. He has major talent and this film has a lot of potential if you give it a chance. Overall, The Cell is a powerful, disturbing and avoids being too tacky which makes it a great, pleasurable watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I do not want to go into a criticism of the movie which I think is - for a big budget movie - quite exceptional and daring.

I just wanted to remark that I am really fed up with the studios policies and the laws of different states which treat their viewers like children. In the database we find at least 4 different versions of the movie according to running time. But, of course, it is likely that there are much more different cuts.

The result is complete confusion and you can never be sure to talk about the same movie (unless you live in Argentina where the movie runs 115 minutes which sounds quite complete).

Later on DVD and Video, the studios try to rob us further by selling us a presumable director's cut (in Germany, there is already such a version around, running approx. 110 minutes).

It would be nice, if the studios would not only think of the cash they make with their movies but also think of their products as a work of art, even at the risk of an unfavourable rating, so that I as a viewer don't have to feel cheated and am taken seriously, not only as a resource of money.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went straight to the big screen to view this kicker. This is the only flick that I know of that Tarsem Singh has directed but boy was it intense. This movie was a total mind stimulant and one of the best special effects flick of this kind.

The characters were vibrant and and nothing short of beings created in your own mind or nightmare. This movie is scary and interesting and totally bombs the senses with fear and exhilaration. This movie compares to no other I have seen except for the level of being beautifully odd. In that respect it is a fairly large step above `A Clockwork Orange.' Definitely see this movie on the big screen and don't wait for it to come out on tape. It won't be half as good on tape.

This movie is not for the easily freaked out. It will mess with your mind and leave you with images that take a while to forget. But for those who like to be freaked out.....ENJOY!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE CELL fascinated me at first glance. I was a bit surprised about that fact, because the story of that movie is absolutely boring. If it had no story, the film would be better. Bunuels \"Un chien andalou\" comes to my mind- a film without story, but also with fascinating and sometimes disturbing images. But THE CELL is at first a Hollywood-Movie, and only second a piece of art. I'm very interested in Tarsem's next project. Hamlet on Indian could be very interesting, especially when it has the same looks as THE CELL.

For film music enthusiasts: Howard Shore's score for THE CELL is absolutely marvelous, but a hard listening experience, because of its very modernistic style.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It must be said that the director of The Cell, Tarsem Singh, has quite handily established himself with his first feature, which happens to rank as one of the most visually astounding films in contemporary cinema.

The Cell is more of a visceral experience than a film. As a thriller, it rises above most of its peers, with competent editing and a chilling score effectively providing an exceptionally suspenseful atmosphere. However, it is ultimately Tarsem's skill for elaborate and disturbing set design and imagery that carries the film's jolting sense of terror.

As with several recent films, I have been shocked by the alarming hypocrisy among those who have commented negatively about The Cell; in defence of the film, I will address a few of these issues. The plot appears to be the main concern, and while it is not revolutionary and borrows heavily from The Silence of the Lambs, it was never intended to be the most important aspect of the film; the plot itself is a vehicle through which Tarsem's vision--simultaneously horrifying and wondrous--is presented to the audience, much in the same way that the plot of The Silence of the Lambs is secondary to the fascinating study of its two lead characters, Lecter and Starling. While The Silence of the Lambs is clearly the superior film, it is irrational for one to condemn the plot of The Cell, and in the same breath, praise that of The Silence of the Lambs.

My final concern is the mention of \"MTV style\" directing. It pains me to see the condemnation of directors who use innovative camera and cinematography techniques. A camera has the potential to be much more than simply a tool with which to record events; angles, pans, colour adjustment, and so forth, are all used to their full extent in The Cell with the purpose of creating the sense of a dream-like state that could not have been otherwise achieved. This is essential to the film, as the entire premise behind it is the visualization of a serial killer's subconscious. If you simply want a series of static shots, stick to stage plays and give up cinema altogether.

That being said, The Cell is thoroughly entertaining, terrifying, and breathtaking in both its pacing and design. Anyone who is able to look past the--perhaps uninspired, yet never dull--screenplay will find one of the best films of the year 2000.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite all it's trappings of style and cinematic invention, this is basically another serial killer thriller, following the same sort of plotline favoured by such old favourites as Silence of the Lambs ? team of cops follows the trail of (particularly nasty) murders, someone else gets taken and they somehow have to find out where they are before it's too late. Only in this case, the only person who knows, the killer himself (powerfully played by Vincent D'Onofrio) is in a coma and we need psychologist Jennifer Lopez' sci-fi mind-meld machine to get into his head and force him to tell all. This is where the film gets all new and different, as we enter (via a 21st-Century CGI update of Dr Who's kaleidoscopic favourite, the trendy time tunnel) a kind of Hellraiser-y weird world of scary crazy stuff going on all over the place, ruled over by D'Onofrio, now a kind of superking overlord of his twisted mental world, inside his comatose body. The inside-the-mind sequences are well realised and often pretty stunning, all the leads perform adequately, the gruesomeness is to the max if you like that kind of thing, but the hype around the whole thing led to a disappointment for me, as I had expected something completely new and unlike anything ever done before, not this fairly successful blending of serial-killer and special-effect-horror genre staples. Sometimes horrifying, often pretty, a fairly gripping story told with care and attention by talented film people, but by no means the great leap into the unknown it has been marketed as.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had no expectations when I started to watch this movie. How surprised I was! This is a great, beautiful, twisted movie which will give your mind a good work-out! It's not simple. If you only enjoy Police Academy style, no-brains movies, this is not for you. The Cell is a deep, complex film with influences from movies like Cube, Silence of the Lambs and The Lawnmower Man, along with lots of completely new ideas. Wonderful, twisted environments, good acting and a compelling story makes this one of the best films I have seen in a long time! Be open-minded, and you will love it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This one started excellently. The photography and audio are the best I've experienced in years (okay, months). Especially the use of 'warm' and 'cold' colours in single sequences is astonishing. Also, making Jennifer Lopez whisper most of her lines is an idea in itself, but I'm not sure what Singh wants to accomplish with that.

Now for the minuses. The screenplay was awful. Lopez's part turned out to be irrelevant or totally worthless to the plot. She seemed to star the movie only to sell herself and the pic. The three beds seemed just too obvious. The baptizing of the child Carl was a psychologically too underlined way to embark the motive which Carl 'worked' under. And so on..

Anyway, the movie had great way of showing where Singh comes from. Why is it that the most talented directors seem to emerge from India nowadays?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I couldn't believe the eye candy from start to finish. Being a fan of movies directed by music video masterminds. I am happy to report that the photography in this motion picture is a splendor for the eye to behold. There are so many rich, full images that are put before me, that each and every time that I see this movie, I find something new that I had not seen before. As with previous movies that I have seen, such as Blade and Mystery Men, also by former music video directors, the use of color to capture one's attention is utilized extremely well. Though the characters could have been developed better, the action and costuming was well worth the price of admission. I recommend you buy this one for your DVD collection. Even if you haven't seen this on the big screen, you won't be disappointed. I know I wasn't.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I give this film 8\/10 overall. Visually, a great deal of it is nothing short of stunning: an art director's dream mix of Hieryonomous Bosch, Salvador Dali, Frieda Kahlo and Georgia O'Keeffe--and a valid testament to the power of film as a serious art form. Beautiful use of color, form, imagery, environment--and fabulous set decoration, combine with state-of-the-art computer graphics. So, 10\/10 for that! Wow!

The plot line is, well, more predictable. You know they'll save the girl and get the killer in the end, but the story is still interesting and pacy enough to pull you in and keep you there. 6\/10 for that.

Squirm factor...I won't give this a rating, but the film certainly made me squirm, and I was watching it on video on a tv screen. It would, of course, have a great deal more impact on a big screen. Graphic violence of a twisted, erotic nature in a surreal landscape--even if beautiful--is highly unpredictable. The world inside the killer's head is not--thank goodness!--my world. Because I watched this film on video, I was able to replay a couple of sequences and found much to admire the second time around when I wasn't so nervous about where the scene might be going, and I suspect the whole film would be worth seeing a second time, just for the \"visual art\".

General suggestion: don't take the kids or conservative grandparents to this one, but if you're keen on the visual look of films, like surrealist art, don't mind a bit of kinky gore, and just want to take a bit of a \"mind trip\", this one's a winner. Oh, and if you're keen on babes, Jennifer Lopez is pretty hot.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just started watching The Show around July. I found it by mistake, I was channel surfing during a Vacation. It is a great show, I just wish it wasn't on so late at night. It's on at 12:30 AM. As a working person it makes it hard to watch all the time.

I read some comments. I did not agree with the late one about not growing up in the 60's and not believing that this stuff can happen.

I grew up in the 60's. I'm Hispanic and I had a \"White\" boyfriend plus we had black friends in High School. I believe people get along because of their interests and personalities and it has nothing to do with being a certain race or color.

I can't wait till the show goes on DVD so I can buy it. This way I can see it from the beginning.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this show. I was waiting for it to come out on DVD....it never has. Does anyone know how to get the show available on DVD? I have contacted Lifetime TV and a few others and nothing. Please let me know if there is a way we can have this series on DVD. Iwould be first in line to purchase it. I really got hooked on this show. I do not understand how a bunch of other TV shows are available on DVD but not Any Day Now. I am sure there are many of us out there who would love to have this series on DVD or even VHS. I thought of contacting the production company. Has anyone else out there tried to contact anyone for this information?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show was not only great human drama but portrayed racism in this country in a raw, all too true to life manner. When one show can be so witty and entertaining and yet so poignant and educational all at once, this is television in its highest form. The acting was phenomenal. The writing was exceptional. Not only did the show portray race relations in a straightforward manner that seems unmatched by any other television series, but its ability to depict this subject matter as it existed in the 1960's alongside how it exists in the beginning of the twenty-first century powerfully demonstrates the ways we have changed, and sadly, the many more ways we have not.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would give this television series a 10 plus if i could. The writers were \"smack on\" and I think the best actors and actresses were a bonus to the show.These characters were so real. One could tell that from the two main actresses Ms. Toussaint & Ms. Potts that their relationship on & off camera was genuine It didn't just end when you hear those familiar words \"Cut\" at the end of a \"Take\". The show has thought me a lot about life for e.g. Historical struggles, tragedies and triumphs,relationships,every day situations, every household have same situations no matter who the members are, it really came down to just being a wonderful family show that at the end of every episode, you can just sit on your living room couch and say to yourself \"now what did i learn from this particular episode\".

I must say I have taped most of the episodes and i find myself watching them over and over again.

Now you know why I gave it a 10+!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow this Wrestlemania took place from 3 different cities. This was the very first wrestling pay per view I ever saw and it's a good one indeed! There is a great steel cage match for the main event as Hulk Hogan takes on King Kong Bundy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Husband-and-wife doctor team Carole and Niles Nelson are doing modestly well in their careers, but Niles has a gambling problem. His luck changes when he (unknowingly) saves the life of a gangster from Joe Gurney's mob and gets a big bonus from the gangleader himself. Loving his change of fortune (and snazzy new apartment), Niles continues to receive payoffs for patching up other injured members of the gang. Unfortunately, his shady deals come to light in a police raid, which hangs a shadow over his wife's career as well.

At this point the plot comes into focus, as Carole Nelson has to rescue her career before her license is suspended. This involves bringing the gang to justice more or less single- handedly.

This is not a hard-edged gangster picture, but a plot that might have been comfortable on a show like MATLOCK or MURDER SHE WROTE. There is some tension, but the mood is kept light by Bogart's tongue-in-cheek performance of a stupid gangster who imagines himself as the \"Napoleon of Crime.\" His other gang members also function more as stooges than hoodlums. And there's some snappy dialog between Bogart and Francis, especially when she's treating his injuries at his hideout. Of course, as in all gangster flicks, there's a big shootout ending, but with a humorous twist. This is a good short film showing Bogart on his rise to stardom.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"King of the Underworld features an early role for Humphery Bogart in one of his many gangster roles.

He plays Joe Gurney who uses a female doctor to treat his men and pays her for it. He follows her when she goes to live with her Auntie after one of Gurney's men kills her doctor husband who also worked for him. Gurney kidnaps an author on his way to find the female doctor and gets him to write his life story and he then plans to kill him. He finally meets up with the doctor and after she gives Gurney and his men a substance that makes them temporarily blind, she and the author, who have now fallen in love manage to escape just as police arrive...

Joing the excellent Bogie in the cast are Kay Francis, James Stephenson and John Eldredge.

Watching King of the Underworld is a good way to spend just over an hour one evening.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The hurried approach that Lewis Seiler takes with King of the Underworld establishes a deeper plot, while still maintaining an efficient run-time. One of the clearest examples of this is the transition between poverty and wealth for the married medical couple. The audience is instantly transported from a shanty medical office to a luxurious suite at the city's most prestigious inn. This development is critical to understanding the position the doctors have been thrown into. The story suggests from the intro that these two people are generally happy with providing medical practice to those who are less fortunate. By abruptly cutting from this scenario to the morally conflicting occupation (the mob's personal physician), the viewer is called upon to experience this sudden turn of events. The Nelsons (Kay Francis and John Eldredge) are forcibly employed by Gurney (Bogart) without objections. This stylized notion of organized crime being too influential and powerful to overcome has become a standard component in every gangster picture. The one aspect of this film that raised some questions for me, ironically dealt with the pacing of the story, and that rate at which it was told. I think that character development and social identity can suffer when certain aspects of a story are not fully examined. This paradox happens to be a result of personal taste, in that I think that the movie going experience can be enhanced through rigorous character development. However, for the purposes of this film, I must admit that the rapid action contributes more dynamic flare to the impact of the film.

**1\/2 (of ****)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I bought this movie because of Raquel Welch. She was gorgeous in this film as she played the role of Harry (Mike Wagner) girl friend. Harry a robber down on his luck trying to make one more heist. Harry goes to a funeral where he meets Vittorio De Sica and takes him for a ride. When things don't work out on the ride they put there mines together to figure out the fastest way to get money. Harry and his gang decide with the help of Vittorio De Sica to from there on mob. Rest a sure that no matter what the gang goes after that the outcome is never the same and will keep you on the edge of your sit. The rest of the out come you need to watch for yourself. As far as Raquel goes if you're a fan of here then you need to watch this movie because she never looked better standing on the beach with a ****** on. I give this movie 10 weasel stars on Raquel Welch body alone. It's no wonder why she was the hottest actress back in the sixties. She was the sex symbol everyone one wanted and no one could get. Not only does she look good, she can act even better. If you like, Raquel Welch then you'll like this movie","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't go for that many \"heist\" comedies, and I might not care for this one if it weren't for the actors, when it was made, and when I FIRST SAW it (just a few years later). It's almost too similar to \"The Happening\" (even though it's obviously a much less serious comedy than that one) - Mafia figure takes over his own kidnapping, or rather, turns it in a different direction altogether. Of course, Raquel Welch didn't play the kind of sharp character Faye Dunaway did in The Happening, but that doesn't make it a sexist film either - she was practically playing a stock character, almost HER version of a \"moll\"! But, I'm completely biased - it's among the first films I ever saw with her, and at the time I saw it, you couldn't turn around without seeing a poster of her (luckily). I think Robert Wagner was really just right as the neither thoroughly likable nor dis-likable leader of the group, as were Edward G. Robinson (naturally) and Vittoria De Sica. And Godfrey Cambridge, an actor who always managed to be funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this flick on the trail end of a tape I had used to capture a movie I truly wanted to wanted to see again. When I saw Raquel Welch's name in the opening credits, I decided to watch it. It was actually mildly entertaining, and took me back \"in the wayback machine\" to the farcical movies that Hollywood churned out during the sixties, much in the same genre as the current Austin Powers stuff. Oh the acting was not superb, nor was the plot, but it was worth watching. There was some delightful scenery, although Ms. Welch provided the most pleasant of such. Tape it if you get the chance and watch it when you have absolutely nothing else to do. It is not a snoozer, but it won't have you rolling in the aisles wanting more, either.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw this film on video in a department store... it intrigued me. Considering the fact that I thought I was in love and I was the same age as the youths in this film at the time (although I realize they are now old enough to be my parents), plus the soundtrack being written by Elton John & Bernie Taupin just before they \"made it big\" here in North America... I figured I had nothing to lose in buying it. I was not disappointed.

So far, I have shown it to many guys I have dated since, and to my current boyfriend... obviously, they didn't find it as lovely as I do... preferring to call it a \"chick\" movie... but I still laugh and cry. This film was vastly overlooked. It's good to see it's available to rent at one of the local video stores around here so that other people can share the magic.

So maybe it's a bit far fetched... but it gives you a lighthearted sense of innocence... and a renewed faith in love.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all - I'm not one to go all sappy over movies. I saw Friends in the 70's when it was first released. I was about 17 years old at the time. Even now, at age 50, I still can remember some of the scenes. The movie is sweet and sad and may actually be too tame for teenagers today but I loved it. The story is about innocence, the purity of young love and the determination of 2 young people to make a better life for themselves then they had at home. At the time it was pretty risky to have a movie about a couple of young runaways who successfully setup house and have a baby on their own. I'm not surprised the movie and Elton John's soundtrack are almost unknown today. The music is beautiful. It was unforgettable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First love. Teenage love. We all have experienced it even if it was not as sweet as the one the protagonists share. \"Friends\" could be considered an adaptation of the classic \"The Blue Lagoon\", originally from 1949, and its remakes from 1980 (the most popular one, with Brooke Shields) and 1999 (with a young Milla Jovovich). While \"The Blue Lagoon\" puts the two young lovers in a desert island, with no contact with civilization, \"Friends\" goes the opposite route and it is sure to ring much more true and be a more difficult movie with contemporary audiences. Paul and Michelle who, for different reasons, turn their backs on family and the adult world to end up living together in a small cottage in Southern France. Having only each other and their childhood innocence, their friendship slowly develops into much more as they struggle to sustain themselves, in this sweet coming of age story. This film even to this day is controversial since the actors are teenagers and they certainly look the ages that are stated in the movie (15 and 14 1\/2). The movie does contains a hint of child molesting, nudity, depictions of teenage sex and teenage pregnancy. But the real controversy is not the subject matter but the fact that Paul and Michelle's love is presented as a natural and healthy relationship. While this worked fine for stranded lovers in another time and in a desert island, having them in a modern setting presents some very difficult moral issues. Laws prohibiting consenting sex between minors are in effect in almost all countries and lack of sexual education in teenagers is seen as one of the causes for the rise in unwanted teenage pregnancies and abortions. Is a movie like this one just child pornography or a slap in the face to make us face our own hypocrisy, regarding a modern society that does not cater to teenage parents and laws that clearly go against human nature and hormonal development but that are needed to prevent child abuse? Is hormonal development parallel to emotional growth? These are not easy questions and most of us will feel uncomfortable with them. As an artistic piece, this movie is really a forgotten and rough gem. The script progresses with extreme simplicity, albeit some sappiness, but never pulling any punches to state its message, although by today standards, it is somewhat slow. The photography is beautiful and it has scenes of great beauty. The acting of the two protagonists varies from really awful in some scenes to marvelously innocent and credible in others. Pop music, unlike most productions nowadays, is used tastefully and sometimes the lyrics speak the thoughts of the protagonists. Overall, this is a delightful piece, even if the moral values are not in concordance with your own.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well what do you know, I was painting my house today and an Elton john song came on the radio, which immediately took me back to this movie which i saw in 1971. So long ago and so far away. Ten years later i hitched hiked through the country side of France, and i sure would have been keen to see Michelle. The film is probably not very sophisticated by todays standards, more's the pity, but it seemed rather racy back then. A few years later a sequel was made with Michelle living in a high rise in Paris and Paul coming back to meet her, just like life they had moved on, the film was very downbeat. Still the original was fab, and if you can get a copy go rent it, just remember to give it its' due and treat it gently. I note Americans can be rather prudish, so take note, contains scenes and themes possibly upsetting to middle America.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie! OH MY GOSH! This movie rocked so hard! I found it amongst some old tapes and didn't know what it was and after having read the back of the cover to see what the summer had to say about it (Which btw, mentioned the fact that Elton John covered the soundtrack for the film more times than it mentioned what the film was actually about.), I thought it sounded interesting, and I was even more interested in seeing it because it was an older film.

\"What controversy?\" I thought to myself as I put the tape in the player, I was curious I get. And my expectations were certainly met. I loved it! I guess it is a really girly kind of movie, but it was so sweet and adorable! It was a beautiful romance, although at times the directing reminded me of the camera work in 'The Graduate', which I thought at the time of seeing it the director must have been on acid with some of the close ups they did.

OK, so it wasn't entirely conceivable for these two kids to run off and live on their own...but it could happen...in a fantasy...

But, the ending just sincerely ticked me off! I was so mad with how they ended it...it sort of leaves you hanging, and I suppose they may address what actually happens to them in the sequel...but at the same time, I'm almost hesitant to see that, since sequels are almost never as good as the first.

I totally recommend this movie to anyone sixteen and over! It's an awesome movie...Awesome!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With all the dreck out there, this is a gentle movie about young love. Yes, it's true that young love often makes more out of something than it deserves, but why aren't people down on \"Romeo and Juliet\"? Paul and Michelle are models of good behave compared to them.

Yes, they run away, and set up an ideal life, but this is a movie, not real life. Paul is more sexually interested than Michelle, who has been come onto in a bad way. Eventually, they have sex, but no one is forced into it. The movie does let kids know that sex can cause babies.

One thing, there is nudity in the movies. The camera does not focus on it, but it is there.

The ending of the movie has Paul in good chance of being found out. In \"Paul and Michelle\", they separate for a time. If you don't like the ending of a movie, think one up yourself. Alternative endings are not just for DVDs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the movie in 1972, and like other people who have commented on it here ... I went back many more times to see it over and over ... I think 9 times in all. Just great is how I would describe it ... I was taken by the sound track, the beautiful panoramas of the south of France, the life style the kids began on their own. An ideal way to live is what they had set up ... of course the powers that be have to intercede, but when I forget that part I find myself wanting to be in the movie and live like that! So good that it is available on DVD now ... it was not around for years!

TLW","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can barely even remember what DECADE I saw this film. It was when I was a teenager, I think (I'm 37 now). I started watching it as a late night movie sometime in the mid to early 80s, and so much of it has stayed with me ever since. Seeing other comments, I had NO idea it was shown at theatres, or that anyone else even new it existed. I don't think I've even mentioned the movie to anyone else.

But half a lifetime later, I still remember much of the movie that I watched late at night so long ago. I think the innocence of the charactors, their situation, their mutual affection over a long period of time, left a long term imprint for reasons I don't quite understand. Maybe it is because I was a teenager at the time I saw it, and it touched me somehow..... I really don't know! I also REALLY wanted to know what was going to happen when the after the end of the film happened. Oh, the agony!!

I've not seen it before, or since, but I would love to. I keep a casual look out for it, but I now doubt it will been shown and it seems to have faded into oblivion. But I'd proberbly miss it in the TV guide even if it DID show up. Pssttt!!!

Reading the reviews here has renewed my interest. If anyone knows of its availability in Australia, by all means email me and let me know.

Oh, and Sean Bury... nice to see you make an appearance on the comments here. I've had a look at your movie history and noticed your last appearance in a James Bond film. What are you up to these day? Oh, and do YOU have a copy of the film? CHEERS!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i really love this movie , i saw it for the first time when i was working a video store. when i went to buy it they told me it was out of print and i couldn't order it so i just today thought i would look. and then i found it they put it out in Spain on DVD under the name \"Algo Mas Que Amigos\" and you can buy there it is in English and Spanish on the DVD....hope this helps ..... i know how hard it is to find movies that we love that they haven't Released to The U.S Market. best of luck..oh For more info here is one place to look.... HTTP:\/\/www.zonadvd.com i think it going for 10 dollars usd on eBay as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most of these reviews are dead on, so I'll cut to a different chase and answer a couple of questions I've seen on here.

While the characters seem and look young (hence the controversy), the actor\/actress themselves were 17 and 18 at the time and so obviously over the 16 barrier. Here in the USA, that's still somewhat controversial but the simplicity and innocence of the film does much to offset it.

I'm sorry not to have seen more by Sean; in this movie at least his expressions are demonstrative and obvious; you know exactly what the character is feeling whether he's angry, afraid, or confused. Anicee had a healthy career, who's life was cut unfortunately short by cancer in late 2006. She was a beautiful and talented actress.

VHS tapes of FRIENDS can be found at Amazon.com occasionally, but usually for a significant price; I've seen it as low as $60 or so and as high as $152 (as of this comment, there were two for that price). The sequel video PAUL & MICHELLE is not quite as pricey and can be obtained (when available) on Amazon for between $16 and $70 on average.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A remarkable film, bringing to the surface all sorts of feelings I had when I was much, much younger. I loved it, and the Elton John music. I remember seeing in in the movies when I was a kid, and for some reason (limited release?) I've never known anyone else who saw this film when it was released.

The dreams it inspired in me from decades ago have never left me, and seeing the film again recently brought it all rushing back, I confess, however, that my kids (in their 20's) have not experienced a similar emotional rush. A generational thing?

Why is it not on DVD?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm certain that people from USA don't know anything about the rest of the world, but I think they mustn't talk about what they don't know. And they must remember that the rest of the world is not as hypocrite as the USA. The only places where consented sex between teenagers are illegal are the USA and Islamic nations. In France, for instance, the age of consent is 15. In Brazil it's 14. In Spain it's 12. So the teenagers actors, 16 and 17 years old by the time of production, aren't doing anything illegal. Nudity isn't considered big deal in almost all civilized countries. And only a freak could consider a teenagers' love as child molestation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well.....I wouldn't want to lecture anybody but I do feel the urge to say some things I consider important about this BEAUTIFUL film. I saw it for the first time in 1976 (I was 14) and then one more time a year later. That was it. The rest of it was the pink LP of Elton John's soundtrack getting the music and the story deeper and deeper inside my heart. How deep? A week ago my cousin gave me a VHS copy as a present. (No DVD's yet). Boy....was I surprised!! Poets have always sustained that deep childhood and adolescent experiences of beauty, love, God, idealist pursuits, stay with you forever. Since they occur mostly at the heart's level (no intellect yet!), they define your soul's contours like a sculptor would do with a stone. If sometimes we didn't tend to forget how right they are perhaps we would do better in understanding the meaning of every minute, of every decision, of every turning point of our lives.

So, I confess I feel nostalgia. But the fascinating part of this is watching the film again, and through this trip back in time, enriching that understanding of why we, people from the 60's, grew up as we did. The spirit of those times is all here: a Genesis created far from the official world of consuming and economic success, make love not war, the beautiful pop ballads, the poetry of the lyrics, a totally romantic view of adolescent rebellion with the awakening of sexuality carefully wrapped in tender and chaste love, these two lonely spirits still full of childhood innocence growing together as they learn mutual commitment and turning into \"adults\".

I showed the film to a group of school youngsters and they abounded with such simplistic and cynical comments regarding it as na\u00efve and foolish. Guys, be serious!! Cinema is an art and as art it reflects not only human emotions but historical moments. And this is exactly what \"Friends\" does in a masterly way. It reflects an idyllic idea of rebellion and new beginning we all dreamt about when we were 15. I'm now a musician and I feel some of us, artists for that matter, still dream about it!! How else could we live? That's \"Friends\", that's \"Brother Sun Sister Moon\", that's \"Hair\". Those were the times, still alien to AIDS, alien to explicit and vulgar texts in pop songs with no melody, to pornography presented as \"sexuality\", to this barbaric new \"world order\" growing after September 11th.

What a heart warming experience to see Paul and Michelle again, timidly and tenderly exploring the new fantasies of their romantic world. What a trip back to the very core of our hearts: to Paris, to Elton John at his best, to that urban scenario surrounded by 2 CV Citro\u00ebns and the VW Beetles. What a fresh air from the peaceful cottage in Camargue, surrounded by fishing ponds and wild horses. They made us who we are, as did Serrat in Spain, Brel in France, Peter Paul and Mary, Joan Baez, Luther King, the Beatles, the early Bee Gees, Belafonte's Spirituals, Gandhi, the Gospel of Elvis.

People still hoping: get this picture. Start with innocence and grow from there. You'll find out what it's all about. And from there you'll have a solid and more truthful foundation; some ideals to look for in life, a way to handle personal and world affairs. We need so much of this today! Give yourselves the chance and maybe someday the time of cynics will end. (I have an extra VHS copy)

Santiago Zuleta. Bogot\u00e1, Colombia.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was in my mid teens when I saw this movie, and I was struck by the beauty of the young stars as well as the loving cinematography and the simple sweetness of the story. It amazes me to learn that Alvina has recently died, that Bury apparently has not worked in the film business for almost 30 years, and that both would be in their 50s.

The Elton John soundtrack is amazingly beautiful and supports the air of protected innocence the characters experience in seclusion. I have seen the movie poster, billing it as \"Deux Enfants Quis'Aiment,\" which apparently means something like \"Two Children Who Like Each Other\"--the English language distributors were wise to abbreviate the title!

Paul, the ignored 15-year-old son of an English businessman living in Paris, meets Michelle, an orphan, at the zoo. The two take what they intend as a day-long holiday to Michelle's late father's rural cottage, but end up staying there for a year, isolated from the outside world. They fall in love, Michelle gets pregnant, and they have the baby alone at home. After the baby's birth, the police come to Paul's work place and take him away.

\"Blue Lagoon\" comes to mind as another film that almost captures the theme of innocence protected in an isolated paradise. So sad that \"Friends\" has never been released on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michelle, Anic\u00e9e Alvina, was so nice, and I really fall in love with her. She died a few months ago! Friends? Really the best movie of my youth. The \"seasons reprise\" of Elton and his arranger Paul Buckmaster sings in my head forever... Please, if you know where i could find a VHS of the film, mail me!! My husband of 26 years & I saw this as Juniors in HS. Yes, he was my boyfriend then and still continues to be. I think we both cried our eyes out. I think possibly we were drawn to the movie by the Elton John music in it, but were then swept away by the teenage angst of it all. Paul and Michelle were just about our ages when we saw the movie- so very easy to identify with!! It is wonderful to hear that Sean is doing well, I am also in the \"helping professions\" (an RN). I thought his performance was good and very believable. \"Michelle\" came across as very sweet, fragile and vulnerable. I think the main theme is that if they didn't have to deal with the \"real world\" then they could be happy and continue to be in love. How many times have all of us wanted to just have a \"Calgon moment\". If we all had no outside worries and could just deal with our \"basic needs\" it could be somewhat easier. I have a 15 yr old daughter and wouldn't have a problem with her seeing this movie.. Kids see so much worse these days that this is very tame. For those of you who are trying to locate the CD my husband (a huge Elton John fan) was able to get a 2-CD set which came out in 1992. It is called, \"Elton John-rare masters\" Polygram studios. This has all the friends songs as well as many others. As far as we know this is the only CD with the \"Friends\" music. We also had the LP years ago and were thrilled to find the CD. Good luck. I recommend this movie for anyone who loves the \"young love\" theme. I only wish it was on DVD now!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My girlfriend and I saw this movie when it was originally released. The controversy that surrounded the original release (teen nudity, physical intimacy and unwed pregnancy) were subjects that never touched our view of the film. We were close to the same age as Paul and Michelle and were experiencing many of the same intense and confusing emotions. We were too young to get caught up in the simplistic (at times) acting and the corny (at times) emotional twists. This movie spoke to us in a way that an adult love story never could have. I still remember sitting in the movie theater with my girlfriend and holding her hand while she cried during the tragic (albiet syrupy) final scenes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't seen this movie since it came out at a drive in theater, and I have been searching for it since. At the time I was 12 and the story excited me; and NOW, the ending eludes me. It was young love that engrossed me the most, not to mention John's vocals and Taupin's lyrics. The story (at the time) hit home to my psyche. I am a lover of sentimental movies and this still hangs in my head after 35 years- it is that good. Place yourself at adolescent age and let your fantasies run. If this movie didn't excite your curiosity, then you were just too old. I look forward to seeing it again (even at my age)! If nostalgia is in your venue, I'm sure this is an interesting movie to see. It's innocence is simply astounding and it's simplicity is so easy and enjoyable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great Movie! The sound track is awesome! Very relaxing sound. Elton was ahead of his own time even back in 1971. Lewis Gilbert did a magnificent job producing and directing this film! The movie was romantic and a breath of fresh air. The sound tracks written by Sir Elton complimented the movie to a T. Rex Morris does a great job with the tenor sax on the song \"Honey Roll\" and poem \"I Meant To Do My Work Today\" by Richard Le Gallienne was incredible! Kudos to everyone involved with this fantastic film! It was no surprise that a lot of the people involved with this movie went on to become the best in their field.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film grabbed me right from its start, where a sweet-looking teen-aged girl is shown visiting a grave alone, then Elton John's powerful song \"Friends\" starts playing while she's shown walking alone through the streets of Paris, carrying a suitcase, naively unaware of the car theft and prostitution going on around her. The entire film is a beautiful, dreamy, romantic collection of scenes of young love, holding hands, living in the country, wild horses running around freely, fields of wildflowers, sunsets, toasts of wine, evenings by the fireside, having fun, and general innocence, all set to romantic music by Elton John. It's magical.

Somehow I missed seeing this film when I was growing up. I'm sure it would have left a strong impression on me if I had seen it then. I remember the radio advertisement for the movie in 1971, talking about how it was a special movie with music by Elton John, and with the chorus of the theme song \"Friends\" playing in the ad (\"Makin' friends for the world to see...\"), but I never heard anything else about it in those days, and never got to see it until I rented it 35 years later from a video store. By then it had been edited, censored, and all kinds of unhappy people with angry political agendas were using all kinds of ugly words to describe the film. What can I say? The world has gone insane since then.

The story is that a 14-year-old girl is forced to move in with her cousin in Paris after both her parents die. (It was their grave she was visiting in the opening scene.) One day while visiting the zoo alone she meets a 15-year-old boy, they hit it off, and agree to meet the next day. The next day while riding together the boy accidentally drives his car into a lake in a freakish solo car accident. It was his father's car, he can't bear to go back home to face his father's wrath, so the two teenagers begin living in the French countryside together, with the mutual background that they both hated their lives at home. They settle into an unoccupied cottage, the boy takes odd jobs to support themselves, their supposed friendship turns into romance, the girl becomes pregnant, and they successfully have a baby at home. All the while the boy's father has the police attempting to locate his missing son. On the 1-year anniversary of the couple's flight together, the police finally locate the boy's employer by an in-person inquiry, and are told they can see the boy the next morning when he comes to work. The next morning the boy is shown leaving his cottage to go to work, saying a sweet farewell to his girlfriend\/wife, and happily doing cartwheels as the scene freezes on his girlfriend waving goodbye. At least that's how the video version I saw ends. It's an unexpected though well-timed ending, presumably depicting the last moments of bliss before the boy is taken back to his parents' home and his happy life with his wife and baby is shattered.

As beautiful as the story and images are, the plot is awfully unrealistic and highly contrived. I think it's better just to enjoy the movie as a young person's dream-come-true fantasy and to go no further in analysis, because all logic and believability quickly fall apart when the story is examined in more depth. Why would a fully furnished and stocked cottage be left unattended with the door unlocked and unvisited for a full year? What did they plan to do when the owners returned? Why would a girl trust a car thief enough to get pregnant from him? Didn't they think it was unethical to use other people's homes and food? How could they ever hope to get needed dental care or other emergency medical attention while living outside of society? How could the boy have a car accident on a country road with no collision and no other cars around? Where are there places anywhere near civilization where wild horses run free? How is it that a teenage male would not have sex as the primary thing on his mind when he picks up a girl at a zoo? (The Elton John song lyrics just don't fit.) Why would they take off clothes when sleeping outside at night when it's about to get cold? And so on. The scenes of wild horses are contrived to appeal to girls, as is the unrealistic theme of \"friendship before romance,\" and all the back-washing and tickling scenes with their predictable outcomes, the running through flower fields towards each other, the haze filters, the scenes shot through wildflowers in the foreground, the baby ducks, and so on. It works, but it's definitely contrived.

Still, this is a movie about youth and freedom, and that ideal hasn't changed since the 1970s. Young people today are still treated as belongings or as lost pets to be recovered by the police instead of treated as mature human beings who have the same needs of romantic love and freedom as does the adult world, and the ability to be responsible when given that freedom. Therefore the message is universal. It's clear why a sequel wouldn't work: this story is about a magical, year-long reprieve from the real world. Such a situation could never have been extended indefinitely, assuming that it could even happen in the first place, and a story about real life afterward would lack the magical appeal of such an unreal state of existence. I really hope that no teenagers took the film seriously enough to try such a foolish stunt. But I hope equally well that teenagers who were impressed by this film in the '70s learned something from it, and have since then made attempts to make such a magical world a more attainable reality for others, instead of perpetuating society's various hatreds and repressions, especially on their own children.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was drawn to \"Friends\" by the soundtrack scored by a very young and yet to be famous Elton John whom I had see in a club in nearby Houston. I had no idea of the emotions and impact the movie would make. Recently I was brought back to the movie by a song that Heart did called \"Seasons\", then I found the Elton John song \"Friends\" thinking it was the same song...it's been 35 years of so. Anyway, the flood of the emotions of \"Friends\" came back like seeing an old photograph of your first real love. I have more recall of the way the movie hit me than I do of the actual details of the production, plot, etc. so forgive me for a rather poor review. I remember taking a couple of special friends on a date to see the movie and them being as moved and teary-eyed at the end as I was. I'm both anxious and nervous to find a copy and see it now. So many movies which seemed so important to me back then (i.e. \"The Graduate\" \"Easy Rider\") now just seem silly and I don't want this to fall into the same category. But, I will find it and if it turns out silly, then at least I'll be able to turn my wife onto a great...no..outstanding soundtrack. When we met, we went through this with \"Last Tango in Paris\". The youngsters I work with (I'm 56) respect my opinions but it's hard to explain the feelings of the sixties and the movies and songs that reflect such strong feelings but seem a little \"aged\" now. I just can't figure out if the the aging process is the movies... or me. \"Friends\" is a very special, sensitive and wonderful movie. It will bring back a lot of special feelings I'm sure. By all means, rent or buy a copy... Indies were not near the strong genre then that they are today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie when it was first released and thoroughly enjoyed it. What a movie. I am in my 40s now and have 2 teenage kids and I would like them to see this movie. I would recommend it to anyone who loves a romance movie or older Elton John music.

I have searched most of the stores that sell both new and old movies but have not come across any.

I bought some old movies like \" Melody\" in Hong Kong, who had quite a collection of old movie, but they did not have this.

I am also looking at the sequel, Paul & Michelle.

Can anyone please tell me how to get a copy of the VHS or DVD or VCD.

Really appreciate it.

Many Thanks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"when I first heard about this movie, I noticed it was one of the most controversial films of the 1970s. I noticed the music was by Elton John, so I figured I had nothing to loose, so I got it. What a Surprise!!! The movie was awesome. It was true love is all about. The characters (Paul and Michelle) had no luxuries, no money, and sometimes no food, yet they were still happy. I recommended this film to all my friends, but they all critized my tastes, and even called me names, becuase the movie featured two minors naked. I think that only made the movie more realistic. The cinematography was great and it only come to show the great abilities of director Lewis Gilbert","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My wife and I saw this when we were 17. The only good thing my father ever did (get us in). This is \"our movie\" and the music is \"our songs\". Michelle's song is \"our\" song. Yeah, nowadays, it's a crime to show naked children on the screen, but we were screwing at 16, why not these kids? The movie is- rich boy impregnates poor girl, then rich dad steals him away from her at the end, after she gives birth under impoverished conditions. She is left alone with child. It is a love story and a \"growing up\" story. The music is fantastic, and the story is one any person could relate to. May be someday this will be released on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I too saw this movie when it first came out. I was a teenager at the time, and I saw it with my girl friend who later became my wife. I remember the movie made me feel it was possible to beat the odds. The cinematography was very well done if memory serves me correctly. The boy was a little much, but the girl character was very interesting. I thought it was very romantic and that might have been the intro to the first time with my then girlfriend. I have not seen the movie since and I wander why it has gone to the wayside. I would love to watch it again to see if it was as good as I remember. The Elton John sound track was excellent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie when it was first released and thoroughly enjoyed it. The music and scenery are beautiful. I purchased the VHS tape a few years ago and watch it frequently. I would recommend it to anyone who loves a romance movie or older Elton John music.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"when I first heard about this movie, I noticed it was one of the most controversial films of the 1970s. I noticed the music was by Elton John, so I figured I had nothing to loose, so I got it. What a Surprise!!! The movie was awesome. It was true love is all about. The characters (Paul and Michelle) had no luxuries, no money, and sometimes no food, yet they were still happy. I recommended this film to all my friends, but they all critized my tastes, and even called me names, becuase the movie featured two minors naked. I think that only made the movie more realistic. The cinematography was great and it only come to show the great abilities of director Lewis Gilbert","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beautiful coming of age romance about an English boy and French girl who run off, and grow up.

I saw this movie as a teenager and loved it. I saw it again this year and loved again.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A talented high school graduating senior with a bad attitude is forced to play in the state all-star high school football game. When he meets and falls for an attractive local girl she helps him realize he has a shot at a 'full ride' scholarship if he plays well.

All too often, these dramas fall into formulaic traps and tell the same old story of a troubled and confused teen. FULL RIDE's Matt Sabo certainly fits this profile, but below the surface is a much more unique individual than we usually see in this genre. Matt is the center of the action and he is a realistic teenager, both over-confident and vulnerable, optimistic and cynical by turns. Influenced by Amy, Matt grows into a man of character and heart. He, in turn, forms friendships with his teammates, which influences his growth as an athlete and as a team player.

FULL RIDE has all the elements we love to see in a movie--great acting, admirable characters, exciting sports scenes, poignant drama, and a love story. Still, while one may have seen these elements in other films, FULL RIDE is assisted by performances that are sincere and occasionally, even moving. Perhaps what's most impressive about FULL RIDE is its sense of reality. Although the author of the previous comment would seem to disagree, (clearly a disgruntled student who, for quite obvious reasons, received a poor grade in his film class) director Mark Hoeger grounds the film in a believable situation and location and does a great job of getting down to the grit of what life is like in a small town. These characters are real people rooted in realistic situations, which often create the most compelling entertainment. On one level it is a love story, on another it is a character study, and yet another it is a simple football film. All of these ideas come together to form a cohesive vehicle.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing Meredith in \"Beyond the Prairie\" I had to buy another film with her staring. I cannot believe how she let herself into this teenage flick. It's best to watch this one with the sound off but just concentrate on Meredith as she moves across the screen. Save your money until the TV network comes out with a DVD on \"Beyond the Prairie\". It's worth it at any price, this one needs to pay you to see.

This pretty lady needs someone to put her into a script that can use both her talent as an actress and her beauty as a woman. Perhaps some of her latest might fit but I haven't seen them. She has the smile of a Cathrine Bell and eyes of Dana Delany with a much younger body.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie when it aired on the WB and fell in love with Riley Smith immediately. I would recommend the movie to people of all ages who just feel like being entertained and not much more. I wish they'd air it again or cast Riley Smith in another movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this movie. I wasn't really sure what it was about before I started watching it, but enjoyed it nonetheless. It was about a girl (Meredith Monroe) whose mom didn't want her to turn out like she did. She meets and falls in love with a boy (Riley Smith) who is town for a charity football game. It's a good movie. I just hope it will be on again or comes out on video.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To sum this story up in a few sentences: A teenage girl (Amy) uses her hot body and \"supposed\" virginity to entice a young troubled guy (Matt) with a potential football scholarship to provide her a \"Full Ride\" out of town. Come to find out she has quite the reputation & has slept with many football players in the past hoping they would offer her the same deal. Both of these kids have come from troubled & dysfunctional homes. Matt's mothers a alcoholic who repeatedly embarrasses him in front of his friends & Amy's mother had a bad reputation herself & got pregnant with Amy at a a young age. Matt falls in love with Amy & tries to straighten out his life for her. Very predictable ending. The actress that plays \"Amy\" is actually 33 years old trying to play a teenager!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The make -or-break of a love story for me is whether or not I like the characters and also if they click with each other. Matt is pretty unlikeable: aloof, braggart, seemingly lazy, and a misogynist. He's been hurt badly by his dysfunctional mom and this makes him a little easier to take. I guess I liked the details of his dysfunction--he was believable. He overcompensates by bragging that he'l nail Amy. He acts so cool around Amy that he strikes out twice. When they do talk he can't show her who he really is. She empathizes and then stonewalls him at just the right moments. She seems so mature and strong that the traits of hers that come out later didn't seem to fit. (For me.) I found her to be incredibly sexy and pretty, . . . girl next door pretty, I call it. So I was going to like this movie unless it really screwed up.

Funny things happen with the coach, but Matt's relationship with the other coach was inspiring. The football scenes at the end were perplexing. Matt doesn't carry the ball but seems to be a blocking back. Folks, he isn't the right size! He's fifty pounds too light for that position. But I thought his acting was skilled. I measure that by the way I wanted to wring his neck a couple of times during his scenes with Meredith Monroe. The film was all right. Meredith M was better than all right.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A talented high school graduating senior with a bad attitude is forced to play in the state all-star high school football game. When he meets and falls for an attractive local girl she helps him realize he has a shot at a 'full ride' scholarship if he plays well.

All too often, these dramas fall into formulaic traps and tell the same old story of a troubled and confused teen. FULL RIDE's Matt Sabo certainly fits this profile, but below the surface is a much more unique individual than we usually see in this genre. Matt is the center of the action and he is a realistic teenager, both over-confident and vulnerable, optimistic and cynical by turns. Influenced by Amy, Matt grows into a man of character and heart. He, in turn, forms friendships with his teammates, which influences his growth as an athlete and as a team player.

FULL RIDE has all the elements we love to see in a movie--great acting, admirable characters, exciting sports scenes, poignant drama, and a love story. Still, while one may have seen these elements in other films, FULL RIDE is assisted by performances that are sincere and occasionally, even moving. Perhaps what's most impressive about FULL RIDE is its sense of reality. Although the author of the previous comment would seem to disagree, (clearly a disgruntled student who, for quite obvious reasons, received a poor grade in his film class) director Mark Hoeger grounds the film in a believable situation and location and does a great job of getting down to the grit of what life is like in a small town. These characters are real people rooted in realistic situations, which often create the most compelling entertainment. On one level it is a love story, on another it is a character study, and yet another it is a simple football film. All of these ideas come together to form a cohesive vehicle.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing Meredith in \"Beyond the Prairie\" I had to buy another film with her staring. I cannot believe how she let herself into this teenage flick. It's best to watch this one with the sound off but just concentrate on Meredith as she moves across the screen. Save your money until the TV network comes out with a DVD on \"Beyond the Prairie\". It's worth it at any price, this one needs to pay you to see.

This pretty lady needs someone to put her into a script that can use both her talent as an actress and her beauty as a woman. Perhaps some of her latest might fit but I haven't seen them. She has the smile of a Cathrine Bell and eyes of Dana Delany with a much younger body.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Back when in the States, I was like about 7 or 8, I always woke early, just to watch this, together with a whole bunch of other cartoons like HootKloot, The Road Runner Show, The Pink Panther. But this was perhaps one of the most memorable and funny animated works out there, and I still find it very funny today, I'll never forget the episodes, like the one where two aardvarks were fighting over the can of chocolate ant pudding? or the one where the aardvark is trying to reach the island where all the ants are at, and my personal favorite, the one where the ant, the aardvark and a dog end up in an animal hospital, which would later be the basis of a similar Looney Toon cartoon with Sylvester, Tweety and the bulldog. This is one of the most unforgettable cartoons out there in which anyone would love to revisit, I would. An excellent series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wounded Tonto standing alone to protect three innocent lives. A devious woman masterminding a deadly plot. Racial tension. Smart Indians.

These are things we rarely if ever saw in the TV series, but this movie adds them all into the mix. While this is most certainly a Lone Ranger movie, it mixes up the formula just enough that those who grew tired of the series would probably still enjoy it. Definitely recommended for any fan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Lone Ranger & Tonto set out to bring to justice a band of hooded raiders who have killed three Indians for what appears at first to be no apparent reason..that is until the Lone Ranger discovers from a conversation with the Indian Chief Tomache that each man possessed a medallion. The five medallions given by Tomache to his friends as gifts we later learn when combined will provide the mastermind behind the hooded raiders with a map to a legendary lost city of gold. Can the Lone Ranger protect the remaining two individuals in possession of the medallions before the hooded raiders get their hands on it? Is there really a lost city of gold somewhere upon native land?

Watching this, I kept knowing what was going to happen beforehand and everything seemed really familiar until eventually I realized I had seen this exact same movie when I was but a little kid..suddenly the memories flooded back and I remembered having quite a fun time as a child enjoying this one with a bunch of my friends. As an adult though, the plot is somewhat predictable but you know this, while not quite in the same league as the 1956 film, remains a lot of fun to watch. Clayton Moore is perfect as the Lone Ranger and Jay Silverwheels as Tonto steals a lot of this movie as he's probably in more action scenes than even the Lone Ranger. There's some very familiar faces on hand here including Douglas Kennedy as Ross Brady, headman of the Hooded Raiders gang, Charles Watts as a bigoted Sheriff, and Ralph Moody as a kindly Padre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This second full-length Lone Ranger feature doesn't measure up to the 1956 classic but is a fine film with enough rough and tumble action and moves along at a good clip. The Ranger looks into a series of mysterious murders which have a sinister pattern to them with peaceful Indians being the victims of a gang of hooded killers. There are more killings and violence usually associated with Lone Ranger adventures and the film has an undercurrent of racial insensitivity, the comments of which are sprinkled throughout the screenplay. The Ranger uses disguises as only he can to piece together clues and expose the outlaw band and bring them to justice. Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels star in a colorful presentation that shows the desert and cactus country of old Tucson to good advantage. The music score is good but the familiar William Tell Overture theme is nudged aside by vocals that are interesting but lack the flourish and beauty of the Ranger's traditional theme.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Clayton Moore made his last official appearance on screen as the Masked Man in director Lesley Selander's epic adventure \"The Lone Ranger and the Lost City of Gold,\" co-starring Jay Silverheels as his faithful Indian scout Tonto. Selander was an old hand at helming westerns during his 40 years in films and television with over a 100 westerns to his directorial credit. This fast-paced horse opera embraced a revisionist perspective in its depiction of Native Americans that had been gradually gaining acceptance since 1950 in Hollywood oaters after director Delmar Daves blazed the trail with the James Stewart western \"Broken Arrow.\" Racial intolerance figures as the primary theme in the Robert Schaefer and Eric Freiwald screenplay. Having written 13 episodes of \"The Lone Ranger\" television series, Schaefer and Freiwald each were thoroughly familiar with the formula, but they raised the stakes for this theatrical outing. Our vigilante heroes ride to the rescue of Indians who are being murdered by hooded white hombres for no apparent reason. The mystery about the identities of these assassins and the reason behind their homicidal behavior is revealed fairly early so that you don't have to guess what is happening.

Although the violence in this Selander saga appears tame by contemporary standards, the fact that the Lone Ranger shoots a bad guy to kill in one scene rather than wound and that a dastardly dame slays a double-crossing accomplice by hurling a tomahawk that sinks into his back between his shoulder blades was pretty audacious. The television series never went to this length, and when the Lone Ranger wielded his six-gun, he shot the gun out of the villain's fist rather than blow him away. The other discrepancy here is the Indians lynch one of the raiders and torture him for information, but they are never brought up on charges from abducting this henchman. Douglas Kennedy didn't have the villainous statue of Lyle Bettger who menaced the Masked Man in director Stuart Heisler's \"The Lone Ranger,\" but he acquits himself well enough as a cowardly outlaw who kills one of his own henchmen without a qualm when the miscreant threatens to divulge his name and the identities of his cronies to a band of vengeful Indians.

\"The Lone Ranger and the Lost City of Gold\" opens with a recap of the masked protagonist's origins as an ambushed Texas Ranger and his transformation into the Lone Ranger with Tonto serving as his sidekick. This opening two minute refresher is an excellent way to get a series-oriented character off to a start so that everybody, including non-Lone Ranger fans, is on equal footing. The primary plot about a gang of ruthless white wearing hoods and called\u0097not surprisingly\u0097the Hooded Raiders begins with them killing Indians and stealing medallions worn around their necks. The Lone Ranger and Tonto arrive too late to intervene, but they find a baby hidden nearby. Taking the baby and the dead Indian, they ride to a nearby Spanish mission supervised by Padre Vincente Esteban (Ralph Moody of \"The Outsider\") and turn the infant and body over to him. Initially, the Padre has to assure an Indian maiden, Paviva (Lisa Montell of \"Gaby\"), that the masked man means them no harm and is their friend. Padre sends Tonto off to town to fetch the doctor, Dr. James Rolfe (Dean Fredericks of \"Gun Fever\"), and Tonto promptly runs into trouble in the form of the paunchy town lawman, Sheriff Oscar Matthison (Charles Watts of \"Giant\"), who abhors Indians. Tonto tries to see the doctor who is treating prisoners in the sheriff's jail and Matthison's men start to rough him up when Rolfe intervenes and rides back to the mission.

Eventually, the Lone Ranger and Tonto are able to capture one of the Hooded Raiders, but an Indian Redbird (Maurice Jara of \"Drum Beat\"), and his fellow braves abduct the henchmen and take him back to their village. They stake him out and shoot arrows at him to loosen his tongue. Chief villain Ross Brady (Douglas Kennedy of \"Hell's Crossroads\") and his cohort William (Lane Bradford of \"Devil's Canyon\") ride out to the village and Brady uses his Winchester to kill his captured henchman. Little does Brady know that his henchman talked. The Lone Ranger and Tonto arrive not long afterward and reprimand Redbird for his perfidy. Redbird tells them what the man said before he died and the Lone Ranger decides to adopt a disguise so that he can learn more. He masquerades as a gentleman bounty hunter with a mustache and faux Southern accent.

Despite its concise 83-minute running time, \"The Lone Ranger and the Lost City of Gold\" lacks neither excitement nor surprises. Selander keeps the action moving ahead at a full gallop. The dialogue is largely expository rather than memorable as Schaefer and Freiwald push the plot ahead more often than spring surprises, but there is one major surprise that ties in with the good Indian theme. There is also a scene where the Lone Ranger pushes his own credo about justice available for everybody under the law at a time when Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren had embarked on the high court's landmark decisions that recognized and mitigated against the conditions surrounding racial segregation, civil rights, separation of church and state, and police arrest procedure in the United States. One thing that differentiates \"The Lone Ranger and the Lost City of Gold\" from its predecessor is its epic scale with flashbacks to the age of the Spanish conquistadors with a slight bit of science fiction involved in the form of a destructive meteor. Generally, Lone Ranger stories confined themselves to the 19th century without dragging in European history. No, the Lone Ranger wasn't the first movie to deal with Spanish conquistadors. Robert D. Webb's \"The Seven Cities of Gold\" (1955) concerned the Spanish searching the southwest for the eponymous places, but Selander's western beat Gordon Douglas' \"Gold of the Seven Saints\" (1961) to the screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Lone Ranger was one of my childhood heroes, and I never missed a chance to catch his adventures on Saturday morning re-runs during the mid 1950's. Somehow however, this film got by me until I had a chance to catch it today courtesy of my local library. I was struck by a number of elements during the story, as right from the start, you have a new Lone Ranger theme song before you hear the traditional opening used on the TV show. The adventure uses Tonto (Jay Silverheels) in a nicely expanded role, even though he takes his share of lumps throughout, getting beat up and shot more than once. Perhaps most interesting of all, the Ranger actually shoots to kill in a couple of situations, putting his character at odds with the vision created for the TV series that he would never use his weapon to kill, only to wound or to protect himself and others.

Aside from that, you have a fairly traditional Western adventure. The Ranger and Tonto come to the aid of an Indian tribe whose members are being murdered by hooded raiders attempting to track down five medallions that together, form the key to a fabulous treasure. Interestingly, the leader of the bad guys is an already wealthy woman, disarmingly portrayed by Noreen Nash. Her top henchman is played by Douglas Kennedy, and it was no surprise to see Lane Bradford as one of the baddies. Bradford's character was one of the men shot by the Lone Ranger, which got me to thinking how many times that might have happened in the TV series. A quick check revealed that he appeared in 'The Lone Ranger' show fifteen times, while Kennedy appeared a total of six times.

What might be most interesting of all about the picture is it's attempt to portray Indians in a revisionist light at a time when TV and movie Westerns were still largely portraying the red man as an illiterate savage. The character of Dr. James Rolfe (Norman Fredric) is the most revealing in that regard; he's an Indian who attained an education and went on to become a doctor, returning to the land of his tribe to tend to the needs of all it's citizens. For purposes of the story, he had to impersonate a white man to be accepted by the local ranchers. This was the hardest thing for me to accept about the story line actually, as Dr. Rolfe was the grandson of the elderly Chief Tomache (John Miljan). That no one in the story except Paviva (Lisa Montell) knew that he was really an Indian was something of a stretch for me. I suppose it was possible that he left the tribe at an early age, but without that back story fleshed out, it didn't make sense to me that no one else from the tribe would know who he was.

I don't know why I'm intrigued by this so much, but after watching and reviewing over two hundred Westerns on this site, I've suddenly come across three films in the past month that utilize a blanket pull gimmick like the one performed by Tonto's horse Scout in this picture. Roy Rogers' Trigger did a similar stunt in 1952's \"Son of Paleface\", and I caught it again in 1958's \"The Big Country\" by a horse named Old Thunder in that flick. It's done as a bit of comic relief in a situation that wouldn't normally come up for a horse, and it now makes me curious when the bit might have been first done. I'll have to keep watching more old time Westerns. Not to be outdone, Silver had a chance to shine in the picture as well, making the save of an Indian baby that was about to be used as a hostage by bad guy Brady.

Speaking of gimmicks, Clayton Moore borrowed a tactic from the TV series when he donned a disguise as a Southern gentleman to smoke out the villains posing as the hooded raiders. Whenever he would do so in the half hour format, it was always clever enough to hide his real features, usually with a beard as done here. One of the more interesting episodes I recall had to do with the Ranger impersonating an actor in the guise of Abraham Lincoln.

Keep an eye out for a couple of goofs I spotted along the way. In an early scene at the opening, an Indian is shot by one of the hooded raiders, and in a close up, there's blood on his shirt but no bullet hole. Later on in the story, Ross Brady and Wilson ride up on the Indians after they've kidnapped one of the villains out of jail. Brady shoots him from a standing position to prevent him from identifying the raiders, but is immediately shown about to make his getaway on horseback with Wilson.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is definitely one of the better documentaries I have seen looking at family relationships and marriage. I saw \"capturing the friedmans\" a short while ago and have to admit I thought this was better.

The story is not an incredibly shocking one, but it is a great examination of trapped personalities and relational cold war. Block deftly guides the viewer through diaries, family footage and after-the-fact interviews; his interview style is sensitive and probing, and his insights are clear and measured.

51 Birch Street is a great examination of personalities and relationships over 40-50 years of social change, the social fallout, and potential for redemption.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I always thought my father had a second life and was eagerly awaiting the development of 51 Birch Street when I sat down and viewed it for the first time. Amazingly, this movie's journey took me to places I had not expected and made me rethink assumptions and judgments.Truly a remarkable personal story told in clever but straightforward manner. I especially enjoyed the film maker's use of pulling out the type of his mother's daily diary - very effective. I read the previous comment and wish to note that the sound was fine when I watched this and suspect either the film was changed somewhat or the theater could have contributed to the poorer quality of sound for the other writer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the midst of a documentary about his parents, the filmmaker's mother dies, but he continues making the documentary, discovering a story he did not anticipate. The result is an absorbing drama that has the quality of fiction in the best sense of that word, where a likable but unknowing narrator unwittingly privileges the audience. The narrative thus has a double weave, the story of the documentary and the story of the documentary-maker.

Our admiration is with the filmmaker, not only for doggedly pursuing his story though it risks his entire notion of his parents' relationship, but also for never giving in to sensationalism or melodrama. Although the stuff of Hollywood lurks in the details, Doug Block treats the story as he would everyday life. For those of us who have always speculated about our parents' life before we came on the scene (or after we arrived, but while we were too self- absorbed to notice they had a life independent of ourselves), 51 Birch Street gives fair warning: There are wondrous things back there in fatherland, but beware if you choose to enter there.

But that caution is for the audience to go slow wandering about in the details of their parents' past. It is not a warning for those offered a glimpse into the life of Block's parents. The film is a marvel at making the mother come alive as a vibrant and passionate yet introspective person who makes her own conscious decisions during the 50's. The filmmaker's particular success is to make the viewers actually see the young woman behind the elderly parent and grandparent. We all know our parents were once young and vigorous, but in 51 Birch Street, the mother is. The father who has been distant while the filmmaker and his sister were growing up ultimately remains distant in the film, but that is due more to his own elusive nature than to his portrayal. This biography turned autobiography is dramatic, intense, and unforgettable, sure to send viewers scurrying for a closer look at their own family albums but more hesitant about looking at the backs of those photographs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those who still prefer films focusing on human relationships, 51 Birch Street is a must see.

By training the spotlight on his own family, Block covers terrain that is off-limits for most filmmakers. He explores a common but often unspoken family dynamic and does so without resorting to hyperbole or sensationalism. In fact, the film is deceptively low key at the outset.

In addition to providing a probing look at one family - and, by extension, every family - Block has also chronicled a very specific period in recent history. I don't know if this was intentional, but unavoidable due to archival content.

Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a really great film! It gets you thinking about your parents. How we all have fragile relationships we all have with them, unless we really make an effort to know who they are as people. And just as important, we should remember to open up and show them our real selves, not just who we think they want us to be. Definitely see this documentary! IMDb is making me write more text before they will post my comment, how odd. Usually online comments need to be short short, and here I am being asked to write more! Well I went to see the film with my parents, I thought afterward they would want to talk about their parents, but my dad kept wanting to talk about himself and things in his life he feels he screwed up, which was unusual, my dad is not a reticent man, but I was surprised that he wanted to talk about mistakes he thinks he made. Mike and Kitty came to the film to do a Q & A and there was a hilarious moment afterward when my dad was talking with Mike, while my mom spoke with Kitty! Really just disregard my last few sentences to pad this comment, and just remember '51 Birch Street,' go see it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film took me by surprise. I make it a habit of finding out as little as possible about films before attending because trailers and reviews provide spoiler after spoiler. All I knew upon entering the theater is that it was a documentary about a long married couple and that IMDb readers gave it a 7.8, Rotten Tomatoes users ranked it at 7.9 and the critics averaged an amazing 8.2! If anything, they UNDERRATED this little gem.

Filmmaker Doug Block decided to record his parents \"for posterity\" and at the beginning of the film we are treated to the requisite interviews with his parents, outspoken mother Mina, and less than forthcoming dad, Mike. I immediately found this couple interesting and had no idea where the filmmaker (Mike & Mina's son Doug) was going to take us. As a matter of fact, I doubt that Doug himself knew where he was going with this!

Life takes unexpected twists and turns and this beautifully expressive film follows the journey. It is difficult to verbalize just how moved I was with this story and the unique way in which it was told. Absolutely riveting from beginning to end and it really is a must-see even if you aren't a fan of the documentary genre. This film will make you think of your own life and might even evoke memories that you thought were long forgotten. \"51 Birch Street\" is one of those rare filmgoing experiences that makes a deep impression and never leaves you. The best news of all is that HBO had a hand in the production so instead of playing to a limited art house audience, eventually, millions of people will have a chance to view this incredible piece of work. BRAVO!!!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching this film caused quite an emotional reaction. This is what today's documentaries are all about. It's refreshing to watch something so personal, honest and real. Mr. Block's thoughts, opinions and disclosure are rarely seen these days and are incredibly well displayed here. It's a fine line to walk between personal truth and exploitation. This film treads very carefully and quite successfully.

One would think that learning about how a seemingly normal couple falls short of society's expectations would give birth to pessimism...but it doesn't. Quite the opposite: it made me feel good. I feel that I now know more about marriage...about women.

Definitely check this out, it'll make you think - exactly what a good documentary should be designed to do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is remarkable in how unremarkable it is. This is the true story of one woman and one man and their quest for happiness amid the dull, rote life of a housewife and \"man of the house\". It could be any couple, any family, in any town... but that's what makes the story so moving. It touches each of us in some way and reminds us of someone we know and love, or of ourselves. I laughed, I cried, I couldn't stop thinking about it... and what more could you ask for from a film, really? Especially a documentary. This is an excellent film and one that I highly recommended to anyone who enjoys documentaries, stories about families like yours, stories about love, life, parenting, loss, expectations, soul searching, yearning, wandering through life and finding your way, or not.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fantastic documentary. A movie within a movie. I'm so glad Block forged on after his Mother's death. Makes one wonder about the time and money spent in therapy. What might have happened if she didn't have that outlet? Did the therapist help her or just foster a dependency that kept his bank account flush? The audience needs to understand that divorce was less of an option in those days. She was a housewife - went to therapy instead of going to college or job training. She seemed to feel trapped by the situation. I wonder if the therapist ever tried to get her to think about what she could have done to change her situation and free herself? Meanwhile, wife #2 was just the opposite. She was out there, working with his Dad; ended her bad marriage, supported herself and appears to be a very confident, giving person. Whatever the state of the marriage, the Blocks did something right in raising 3 kids who could look at their parents' story, be OK with it and share it with us and maybe lead us to start conversations with our parents and spouses.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fascinating slice of life documentary about a husband and wife and their marriage told through the eyes of their son. We all like to think that our parents lived happy lives, that their marriages were full of fulfilment, love, and happy memories. Sadly many of us know this not to be the case of their own families and that of their parents. This wonderful little documentary is told through the camera lens and emotional perspective of the son of a family that has just experienced the death of their mother. The son being a documentary film maker has filmed his elder family for many years, for as he states \"posterity\". Three months after the death of his mother his father remarries his long time secretary. The suddenness of this occurrence stuns the family and pushes the son to dig into the past lives of his mother and father. What he reveals is a fascinating look into the lives of two rather ordinary people who like so many of their generation married early for the wrong reasons and found themselves stuck in a family life where they found they just had to \"make do\". A wife who found herself at times bitterly lonely and unloved and a husband who buries himself in his work. She and intellectual at heart, he a much simpler individual who seems to find most of his pleasures in the quiet solitude of work. They are obviously wrong for each other, this much is clear. Yet they stick it out, for what? Well that's part of the mystery, they clearly show affection for each other at times if not ever much love. You won't find any truly shocking disclosures here, aside from infidelity on both sides, which in good part is what makes this such a gem. You really feel that these could be your own parents if circumstances were different and indeed makes one question the lives of ones own parents.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie at the Philadelphia Film Festival today and enjoyed it overall. It is an interesting and adept analysis of the all-too-common revelation that our parent's marriage was more flawed and difficult than we originally imagined. In addition, this movie is an excellent example of process of discovering truths about our parent's lives after their death and the issues associated with that. However, i found the sound quality (recording and editing) to be relatively poor and annoying. *** It may very well have been related to the specific theater and projection conditions *** i am not a film maker \/ student or anything and claim no real understanding of the sound production process, but as a consumer, i found the audio portion of the movie distracting. Specifically, i heard very unpleasant lip smacking noises through out (especially one long interview with the younger sister) the film, and often the background noise level was higher in volume than people's voices (for example the scene when a small group was sorting through the mothers papers). has anyone else seen this movie, noticed anything about the sound... thanks","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was both entertaining and thought-provoking. I'd recommend it to everyone who wants to be moved and challenged. Great acting, directing - and it is Canadian to boot! It is a film that families can enjoy and serious movie lovers. The locations in Ontario evoked such a sense of nostalgia for the era. With so much garbage and superficial hype selling these days it is great to see that someone could back an independent flick. For any family that has risen to overcome a challenge or an obstacle - be it financial or illness - this film strikes a resounding chord! It approaches the idea of the afterlife in a contemporary way - without cheaply capitalizing on all the \"gohst\" and supernatural themes that have become staples in Hollywood and the TV networks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i first saw this short when i bought a random DVD of short films a while ago. this is the only short on the DVD i liked, but i don't just like it i love it... if you spend any amount of time with me, you will see it. it is beautiful, simple and passionate, no bells, no whistles - it could have been done with a sharpie (but don't get me wrong, the animation is elegant and insightful - this person clearly spent plenty of time with cats - but it is simply black and white) and then there is writing and the music... it is simply beautiful.

i eat chocolate, drink wine and watch it over and over again...

nothing else matters, i wait for Pedro Serrazina to come up with something else.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this as part of the Cartoon Noir package at the Clinton Street Theater in Portland, and it was simply brilliant; the saving grace of what was an other wise forgettable to just plain bad grouping of films.

A perfect use of deep black and pure white, with excellent, yet simple animation, this is simply a story of a cat chasing the moon. Funny, charming, and touching. A small piece of heaven for cat lovers, romantics, and any one else who appreciates how beautiful simplicity can be. If it's in your town, see it. This one short is worth the price of admission.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Awww, I love this! The Tale of the Cat and the Moon doesn't really need an synopsis, as that's what it is... the cat chasing the moon, to a Spanish poem. It's the artistry that's interesting. In fact, there was this animated short called the Fan and the Flower that was an Academy Award winner last year (2005)... yeah, almost same thing, which leads me to believe it might just be a rip off.

But this is a really good short, with stark black & white shapes shifting and transitioning into beautiful motion and poetic seduction... If you believe cats are poetry in motion, see this and you'll believe it more.

Also, it has such a touching end.

--PolarisDiB","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This short was in part four of the \"Short Cinema Journal\"--a film I rented from Netflix but which appears to have originally been a monthly film series for people who like mediocre modern short films AND love to have the DVD chock full of commercials. I have so far tried two of the Journal's DVDs and felt enraged at the horrible way that a viewer needs to navigate the disk in order to see the films. Talk about an over-produced and overly complicated way of doing this! While I have and will continue to see as many shorts as I can, I really doubt if I'll bother with the Journals because of these factors.

Now it could be that because I disliked the disk so much that I was not favorably disposed towards this Portuguese animated short. This is definitely possible. However, even if this is the case, I feel that the other reviews were way too positive about this simple little film. Some of the artwork was indeed nice--I liked how the simple black and white drawings suddenly became 3-D environments as the camera went from a dull distant shot and dove into the city below. This was lovely and took some work. But as for the story about a cat who wants to go to the moon, it just did nothing for me.

IMPORTANT UPDATE--I saw this film again on a DVD entitled \"Cartoon Noir\" on 5\/09. It was a pretty unappealing collection of art films. However, this time I saw THE STORY OF THE CAT AND THE MOON with an entirely different audio track and boy did it make a difference. Instead of Portuguese with subtitles, it had a French accented narrator who spoke English in a Film Noir style. While I usually hate dubbing, this time it really made the film. The narration of the Portuguese version leaves a lot to be desired if you don't know the language or understand the subtleties. Unless you speak the language, try looking for the other version (provided you understand English).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recalled watching this program as a young boy in Australia in the 60s, and enjoyed it on DVD again as a 50-year-old father of young kids. Although the bad guys are mostly shallow characters and there is a component of violence, I am very happy to have my 6- and 8-year old kids watch this because the central characters are deep, kind and honourable, the Japanese culture shines through, the violence is not gory, nobody glories in it, and the program is beautiful to watch. It does not promote nightmares, but instead it shows much of the culture that must have primarily influenced the design of Jedi knights in Star Wars.

The quality of the DVDs does leave something to be desired. Video perfectionists will not like this one. It is strongly reminiscent of something held on 16mm film and projected onto the wall in some basement... which it may well be. The soundtrack is also lacking in the quality we have come to expect from home theatre. However, my kids noticed only that it was not in colour, and I suspect they only noticed that because we had been talking recently about how old things are often like that. The beauty of Mt Fuji is evident even in B&W. Something about the 17th-century setting makes the quality part of the atmosphere, as if you peer into the past through some time window.

Overall this program is better than most things on the air, and a far better advertisement for Japanese TV than Pokemon, but you may consider it of marginal value if you did not have the experience of seeing it back in the 60s. My score of 8\/10 takes its age into account.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a new convert you might as well say. I borrowed the dvds from my local library. I have been interested in samurai since watching 'The Last Samurai.' My dad told me he used to watch Shintaro when he was a kid. He said that it was pretty good. We are up to series 3. I absolutely love it. It takes a little to get used to the dubbed English voices over the characters speaking Japanese but I really enjoy it all the same. It is a little strange to watch the slight pauses when the ninja stars are thrown at characters and they stick into a tree or wall. I was not used to this but I am now. But I suppose that's the technology they had in the 60s. I've noticed that Shintaro is kind, friendly, willing to help those in need, he's very humble, most of the time he doesn't big note himself (he only says he is better than the enemy ninja). I admire Shintaro for these qualities. It's really interesting to watch the swordsmanship that Koichi Ose has. It is amazing. This series is for anyone who are interested in samurai.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a television show that I watched during the 1960s as a child and was captivated by it. In the many years that have passed, I have often thought about this show and how good it would be to watch it again, but being mindful that things of the past are not always as good as you remember them. This was a great show in the 1960s and has lost nothing, even now in 2007. Sure there are a few odd production mistakes that you see when watching old shows, and it takes a couple of episodes to get used to the dubbed voices, but having done that, I was as captivated now as I was back in the 1960s. The Samurai is played by Koichi Ose, who plays the role in a very humble manner. I remember during the 60s, due to the popularity of the show here in Australia, he toured performing sword play etc, and was overwhelmed by the interest in the show and in him. It was great that one of my all time favourite shows still held the magic that it did during my childhood. A must see series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw Love in Limbo playing late on free to air TV about five years ago, and since then it's a movie I'll always remember warmly as one of those films you see and are forever influenced by.

For the uninitiated, Australian film has a long history of making off-beat comedies about lovable losers, and Love in Limbo is a sterling example of this. Whilst Russel Crowe is the only name actor in it (although these days he's all a movie needs), the rest of the Aussie cast is good- he still steals the show as a nervous, nerdy, virgin loser though.

The general premise is a lot like American Pie. A group of friends wanting to get laid and become men. As you'd expect, the entire movie focusses on this (with a sub-plot about the lead's mother and various other incidents), and is full of humorous situations that push it towards the inevitably sweet ending.

If you enjoyed American Pie, don't expect this to be the same- but expect the same conventions to make appearances. Love in Limbo isn't a gross out romantic comedy- but it definitely has its share of laughs, fist pumping moments when the good guy wins, and the situations every guy, Australian or otherwise, can relate to.

See it if you liked: American Pie, Almost Famous. Strengths: Good Aussie cast, easy to relate to, good perve value. Weaknesses: Predictable at points. My Rating: 8 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cant believe it.... after all these years finally tracked this down.. it was meant to be named 'The Great Pretender' at production stage. I was living in Oz at time and through a friend was looking after one of the house locations through filming.... It was me that showed these guys how to speak Scottish and after all this time, I only realise now one was Russell Crowe !!! It has taken me all these years to track this down, was even unsure if it ever went to screen as I left Oz the following month after wrap up party. At that time Russell Crowe was not the demanded actor he is now and I had no idea it was him until I saw the previous comment then thought back to the days during filming..... amazing... Truly delighted with myself now !!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I came across this movie in an Australian hotel room at 3 am. My brother and I were channel surfing and who do we see but a young Russel Crowe. But not the telephone throwing Russel Crowe we had come to know and quasi-love back in the states. This movie, much to my surprise, was amazingly creative and hilarious. It stars a cast of awkward teens with hilarious stories of odd sexual experiences, including a slick salesman,prostitutes, and an unusual sexy mother. If you are lucky enough to come across this film I would strongly suggest picking it up. I have to say this movie was amazingly entertaining and I thank the fine people of Australia making it...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Love In Limbo is my all-time favoirite movie. (set in W.A) It is hilairious and has an excellent cast including a group of three gorgeous actors, Russell Crowe (As Arthur), back in the day when he actually looked HOT with short hair and no facial hair. Aden Young (Barry McJannet), and Craig Adams as Ken Riddle.

Ken is a senior high school student obsessed with sex and becomes expelled for selling pornographic drawings to his classmates. He starts a new job at his uncles clothing factory and becomes close with another new guy Barry McJannet, who buys a car so that they can go out and pick up chicks. They become mates with the goody-twoshoes geek Arthur Baskin (Crowe) and the three guys drive up to Kalgoorlie to vsit a brothel and lose their virginity......

Watch it, its a classic!! For so long i have been TRYING to get a hold of a DVD or Soundtrack, anyone let me know if you've got em.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very sweet coming-of-age movie, very funny, and Russell Crowe is amazing! Those who know him only from Gladiator will be surprised to see the range of his acting abilities. Arthur Baskin (his character) is one of the best onscreen nerdy virgins I have ever seen1 Watch this movie--how can we get it re-released in NTSC format?

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am trying to find somewhere to purchase a DVD\/VHS copy of the movie \"Isn't it Shocking?\" I was 7 years old when I saw this movie and I lived in the town where it was filmed. A couple of items from my family were used in the movie as props and a couple of my friend's homes were used in a couple of the scenes. The filming pretty well took place in the town and surrounding community. I have only seen the film once originally and I would like to get a copy so now I can show my family the film. I have done extensive searches online with not luck and I was wondering if anyone would have any ideas on trying to get a copy of this movie?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great TV movie with a good story and many comic moments thanks to the excellent cast.

The only problem this movie has is that it hasn't stood the test of time as well as it might have.

Despite this, it's definitely worth viewing, particularly if you are an Alan Alda or Ruth Gordon fan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My family and I normally do not watch local movies for the simple reason that they are poorly made, they lack the depth, and just not worth our time.

The trailer of \"Nasaan ka man\" caught my attention, my daughter in law's and daughter's so we took time out to watch it this afternoon. The movie exceeded our expectations. The cinematography was very good, the story beautiful and the acting awesome. Jericho Rosales was really very good, so's Claudine Barretto. The fact that I despised Diether Ocampo proves he was effective at his role. I have never been this touched, moved and affected by a local movie before. Imagine a cynic like me dabbing my eyes at the end of the movie? Congratulations to Star Cinema!! Way to go, Jericho and Claudine!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"there's only so much that i can take of Filipino films, especially nowadays where the trend is sex, action and slapstick comedy(which i hate). the fact that Nasaan Ka Man made me think and made me gape during the movie was a big plus. It's got good cinematic scenes and editing was great, especially the cinematography. i think that Claudine deserves the best actress here rather than getting one in the movie Milan. the fact that there's only so few Filipino movies that i really like. i think Cholo Laurel did such a great job in this movie. i truly truly loved this movie, technically and character development wise; the plot was complex and that's what made it terrific.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having seen the uncut version, I thought this film was beautifully made. It captured my attention from beginning to end; the tension was wonderfully conveyed. Nasaan Ka Man portrays the typical Filipino family with accuracy in its presentation of secrets and lies. Even the religious culture, the human tendency to keep up appearances and maintain a pure reputation is shown with stark vividness in Gloria Diaz's character. There is not a little scene in this film that does not have a purpose- the cinematography is excellent and the writing brilliant.

Although the plot is great, I personally found that the twist at the end, the revelation to do with Jericho's character was not as much of a shock as it should be. But then maybe that's just me, because otherwise, Nasaan Ka Man is a very cleverly made film.

The casting was good to begin with, but Deither and Claudine's acting were the icing on the cake. Not one to miss if you're looking for a Filipino film that will surprise and surpass expectations. Thumbs up to the director.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was such a great series for Black folks at the time. We loved it so much. It was the only show about Black middle class families on t.v. at the time. Please release this on DVD. I know many...many people who still talk about the show. If it its released i am certain that many black youth will find this enlightening as well as interesting. The show addressed many topics from racism, intra-race discrimination, teen pregnancy, sibling rivalry, single parenting, peer-pressure and much more. The show ended in such an abrupt way and left it's fans speechless and wondering why it was taken off the air. Since then we have only seen a few of the actors and actresses. Please release it on DVD ASAP.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was an excellent show. It came on PBS back home in Chicago and I remember Cindy Herron (From EnVogue) played the teen aged daughter. The show dealt with subjects such as sex, peer pressure and puberty. IT was about a middle class black family who had a teen aged daughter and son who moved to a middle class neighborhood from Oakland or somewhere (I can't remember). I remember several episodes but the one I remember most was when their cousin got her period for the first time. I was probably 7-8 when I first watched it and I was able to keep up with the program. This was a great show. I can't remember the name of the guy who played the son on the show, but I always got him confused with Kevin Hooks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember coming home from school to watch up and coming this was the story of a black family that moves out of the gheto into a up class community the family was name Wilson Frank Wilson man with his own construction business his wife Joyce was a bank manager they had 3 teenage kids Kevin Valerie and Marcus. This was a very good show. it was educational with out being preachie. the show was well written. This show gave us a look at a successful African American before the Cosby Show. A lot a black actor appeared on this show from Ester Role to David Hubberd to 227 Stonnie Jackson to name a few. If you are able to find this show on DVD you should get it for your whole family","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a great show...I don't remember much about about it but remember watching it and loving it. I remember the mother and the father. I really like the Grandmother. She was like a grandmother you really couldn't appreciate until you became an adult. She was very knowledgeable and no nonsense. My favorite song on the show was Sardines in the Morning. (that might not be the title) I remember after seeing that show and hearing that song that I went to Cleveland Ohio to visit my cousins and me and my sister sang that song so much that by the time we left all of my little cousins were singing it too. I too would love to find this on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Up And Coming was a very positive sitcom, which brought a tool\/and or channel that opened the young minds of the Black Culture. The focus and outlook was a message of positivity for our people, and hope for change. I advise this selection for every American household to experience the struggle, and the reward. The show was never given the chance to blossom into the idea of middle-class Blacks becoming business owners of their own. The issue's were so compatible with real life situation's that impacted the lives of so many. I sincerely hope that the entire volume can be restored, and put on DVD for Americans to enjoy with their families.

Thanks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Honkers\" is probably Slim Pickens best performance of all time. When we were shooting, everyone connected with the production figured that Slim was Academy Award material. Unfortunately, United Artists had a James Bond picture in release at the same time and did not devote much attention to \"The Honkers\". I personally feel this film was under-rated by most critics. Sam Peckinpaw's \"Junior Bonner\" was out at the same time and seemed to impress the critics more than our film. Also, Cliff Robertson had a rodeo film out a few months before our release and that might have hurt us, too. The picture is worth watching, if just for the rodeo footage--some of the best ever filmed--shot by James Crabbe. The director and my co-writer, Steve Ianat, died a few weeks after the picture's release, cutting short a promising career and leaving behind his lovely wife Sally, his daughter, Gaby, and newborn son, Stefan. Please give this movie a shot. I'm betting that you'll say it was well worth while. I thank anyone who has taken the time to read this. Stephen Lodge","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those movies that was never publicized and therefore was missed when it originally played in the theaters.

I came across it while switching TV channels and was immediately engrossed in this story of an aging rodeo bum whose recklessness and lack of responsibility hurt everyone around him. I've often wanted to see the movie again but couldn't even remember its name, and have never seen it in the rental stores.

James Coburn and Slim Pickens were excellent in their roles, and the rodeo footage was first rate. While being an action movie and having a western setting and theme it could be enjoyed by anyone regardless of their taste in films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Hookers was to me a great everyday people story, Like someone you might have known. Just trying to make it, my big shot is right around the corner. Then Life's little temptations creep in, the spoiler, stumbled again. How much, can your love take, and give, to the guy who's really not so bad, after all, just Human. I liked it, I was also a paid extra in the movie. Played the drums in the bar shots, with the band, did several walking shots, my green 66' corvette was in the motel party shots. Wonderful cast and crew, first rate people, down to earth movie. I had lunch with James Coburn, on Mother's Day, what a wonderful man, just like I've known him for years, I'll never forget him. My father spent the day with Slim Pickens, and swapped horse stories, Slim also was really down to earth, love those guys, we really miss them. Real people making movies about real people, Thanks Levy, Gardner, and Laven.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An extremely down-to-earth, well made and acted \"Rodeo\" Western. No gussied up stars needed here as all cast members were regular people telling a real life story about a rodeo hustler and his entourage in the 60's and 70's West. But hats off particularly to Slim Pickens for giving what I think was his signature performance, especially given the fact that he had been a rodeo clown in real life. His role went far beyond the mere clown role as he deeply dealt with all the \"ups and downs\" of the hard-nosed rodeo life and the psychological devastation that so frequently surrounds such a life style. He and Mr. Coburn teamed up extremely well as partners, not only on the circuit itself, but also in the real world outside the corral. Also, check out Anne Archer as Coburn's Native American love interest in the latter part of the movie. Must have been one of her first roles.

Not as flashy, perhaps, as \"Junior Bonner\", but equally heart rendering and impacting in its portrayal. Thanks to the Encore Western Channel for showing this true grit of an under-rated movie from time to time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm amazed that of all the reviews I've looked at nobody seems to have noticed one of the main points of this film, or at least how I saw it. It seems like one big homosexual fantasy, camp clothing, a glorified nude Ferdinand, a definite sexual tension between Ariel and Prospero, and as a final climax, a group of men in tight sailor suits dancing the hornpipe. This whole approach, once you get used to it, provides you with all sorts of fantastic scenes and images. The sight of an innocent Ariel being pulled towards a disgusting nude Sycorax in order to perform \"her earthy and abhorr'd commands\", is one of the darkest I've ever scene in a Shakespeare film. However by the end of the film I'd grown tired of the style and the final hornpipe dance was just too much to take. Still overall its an interesting interpretation of the play.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The stuff dreams are made of. A complete retelling of the play as a dream of vengeance: will baffle purists, but will delight the open-minded. A superb effort: great cinematography, acting, and script. 11-stars...***********","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Tempest has been interpreted in many different ways ranging from more or less traditional views as dealing with Art to more post-modern approaches that like to dissect the play along post-colonial, feminist, gender or deconstructionist lines. The reason why Jarman's version left me fairly cold is that I didn't have a clue what he was on about. What is the underlying vision\/idea\/concept behind this rendering of Shakespeare? The previous reviewers do not get much further than revenge tragedy, punk show, but surely there is more to it, isn't there? This is not to say that there is no vision here, just that I was hard put to discover it. Be that as it may, there are still things to enjoy. The punk flavour is refreshing and funny. Toyah Wilcox as Miranda and Jack Birkett as Caliban are wonderful. I did not much care about Williams as Prospero ... not enough magic I suppose. The switches between the old monastery\/castle and the (very English) world outside can be a little unsettling at times, but I guess that is intentional. All in all, interesting but not quite the success I had hoped it might be (particularly after seeing Jarman's Caravaggio).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An amazing film, I've only just seen it and I already want to see it again. I'd never heard of Derek Jarman before I saw this film but now I am, I can't wait to see his others. The film takes a whole new perspective of Shakespeare's The Tempest, I'm sure he'd have appreciated it for Jarman's use of the the play's themes of love, magic, darkness and atmospheric tension. OK, OK there may have been a bit of nudity in the film which I hadn't really anticipated but it didn't offend me, it just surprised me and made the film more unpredictable. One Spoiler (for those of a nervous disposition: Fast forward the flashback scene with Sycorax & Caliban and Ariel as their slave, its pretty graphic. Overall, if you are starting to find Kenneth Branagh's Shakespeare performances flaccid and monotonous then you need to see this film. Fantastic and surreal, it'll blow you away, but only if you let it. Have an open mind - and then let this film work it's magic on you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For me, the Tempest and its characters (by which I mean the admirable ones) are like old friends. Ever since I first began to experience the play through acting classes (I played Ferdinand) I found myself immediately caught up in the fantastic world that Shakespeare created. I can distinctly remember one student deciding not to play Ferdinand after all, and so I took the stage and had the honor of playing opposite an excellent Miranda.

One of the virtues that a great friend has is that you can never fully know them - there is always something you can discover about their character. A film production of the Tempest of quality is thus like a visit to an old friend, dear to one's heart: each visit presents one with new perspective on the memory we had of the work. With Prospero's Books, the ritual and the elegance of the play was emphasized, the exuberant celebration of art within the art. Here, we see a vision as esoteric mysticism, with lovingly crafted interiors full of candles and chalk diagrams on floors, more Aleister Crowley than Naples nobleman. It also made me reconsider - why was it that Prospero was cast out of Naples? His magical power is so palpable in this production that it makes one wonder whether it was just politics that doomed Prospero to exile, but rather the fact of his difference from his peers. So, in the real world, he suffered. Was cast out, powerless to change the wrong to the right. All of the villains in this play, whether they realize it or not, act in accordance to creating a more pain-filled, hell of a world - it is always in the interest of the oppressor to make life on Earth closer to hell. But Prospero manages to bring these terrestrial villains into his island, the realm where he has (absolute) dominion.

Shakespeare brings his audience to the theater, the realm where Shakespeare dictates the events, the words, the outcomes. Shakespeare is, of course, Prospero - but what this film adaptation does that really honors the text is to make Prospero so sympathetic such a figure of reason, despite the fact that he is surrounded by what society calls irrational (astrological texts, alchemical symbols, magical diagrams, etc.). Is it more rational to be a man of the cloth and murder, or to be a heretic and work towards the righting of wrongs? Prospero IS a heretic, for the reason he abandons his magic is not because the books will lose their value in Naples, but because they are not necessary anymore - the world itself - has become the magic of the books.

In Hamlet, Hamlet presents a play to his peers. The play accuses his fellows of conspiring against others for their own advancement. The reaction of the audience varies: while Ophelia is puzzled, Claudius reacts with stunned shock. This happens within the play, and then Shakespeare has this play performed for the men of his time. Did Shakespeare watch for their reactions? In the tempest, Prospero lives the play he is constructing, and we live it with him. How do we react? Do you react with simple delight at the happy ending? Are you upset and shocked by the strangeness of this production, which is entirely fitting given the source material? Do you feel sad at the fact that this little life, the play, is rounded with a sleep, as transient as it is eternal? The tragedy is that Shakespeare creates a paradise of reason and hope for mankind's life on Earth but man is weak, and unwilling to realize it in favor of petty power struggles. We have Claudiuses.

Like a good friend, this film is not without its flaws. I disagree with the choice to paint some scenes entirely in blue. The dance of the mariners is rather tangential. But at the heart this is truly The Tempest, and one of its many faces.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this was very \"different\" compared to most modern interpretations of Shakespeare and enjoyed it thoroughly. It would not be useful for those studying it at school etc. as it does not show the traditional Shakespeare character interpretations (i.e- Miranda is portrayed quite punky compared to your traditional Shakespeare lady) but for understanding of the play and for the basis of the story it is a very strong piece and fantastic to watch. It does not include also the correct format, as in the layout of acts and scenes as I am currently playing Miranda in a production and most of her lines had been cut and some scenes split and mixed around but it is very useful and I would definitely recommend it as a must-see even if just to say you've seen it! Shakespeare fans would love this!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At first I couldn't tell if it was an art film or a documentary. The day after I had a unique movie after taste experience or perhaps a revelation. The film is a human quest to destroy everything that exists, including life on earth. The lead is clueless and cold. He is like all of us he wants to get rich, to laugh, to travel, to eat and be entertained. He moves from one place to another in a giant RV without direction or motive only to pass time and entertain himself. By the end it's too late. Since my first viewing of USA it had grown on me like a custom fit dream where life on earth is nothing but a weird experience. I am an artist and a Buddhist and this film communicated to my senses. It was an ideal embodiment of impermanence. This may sound strange but somehow this film was able to touch me in a profound way like no other. I recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Almost four years after the Iraq war started and we're in a bigger hole than ever. That's right, so all those flag wavers who were so sure of the right and might of the American way are now chasing their tails, isn't that true? You bet it is. This movie said so from the beginning. It is kind of freaky how much the film,or should I say, filmmaker, knew what was coming. It is almost like going to a fortune teller and hearing what was going to happen in the future. There was a point when I felt the hairs standing up on the back of my neck as GW announced that 'major combat operations are over\" on top of a visual of a broken down RV being towed away with the American flag waving in the rear-view mirror. You have to see it to understand what I mean. But even if you are apolitical or even if you are pro-war, this movie will have some kind of impact on you because it is so embedded in history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw it in Europe-plex. Great movie!!

This film is an exploration of the Spirit and the Flesh in modern times. Protagonist Jim Kirk, drives an unwieldy RV across America, stopping often to fill his gas-guzzling tank. He is middle-aged and confused . He fuels his thick, diabetic body with cups of coffee and radio chatter. He is the Flesh: agitated and sometimes spaced out, fairly oblivious to the growing tension around him but feeling it as twinges of discomfort.

The Spirit suffuses the film through speeches and other sounds, as well as what appears and goes by in the visual field. The Spirit eventually collides with the Flesh and Kirk goes down, unable to comprehend what has happened to him. He's been in denial about just how bad things have become due to he waywardness of all of us, because we are all focused on the needs and desires of our flesh. We're all in the same denial and so we, like Kirk are in danger of going down and being blown away by desert sands just like him.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Completely worth checking out. Saw it on MLK's birthday 2006 and it hit me big time. Sometimes it feels like we're all in a trap and are doomed to repeat the past no matter how much we try to change. All we can do is to keep on going and speaking out. Just keep on going. Don't mean to be a downer because that's not the point but maybe we need to get down before we see how much we need to work on ourselves. What happens when we keep being told by the best people like MLK what needs to happen to pull us out of our \"dead end road\" but we don't listen. I know that some of us do listen but how do we get the rest of the world to see things as they really are? Just keep going, I guess. This movie got me thinking even more about all of this so I guess it has done what it set out to do. That's what I consider to be a good movie or play or book or poem or speech or anything: something that gets you thinking and keyed up to move in an active direction instead of sitting stuck and bored and hopeless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The whole shorthand for supposedly being more aware in this weird time is that you are \"Blue\". The Blue State mentality. This is supposed to get us off the hook for what is\/was happening during the last few years in our country (The USA). It doesn't get anyone off the hook but it makes us feel better, as though we aren't benefiting in any way from living here and getting all the good stuff that a US citizen gets just by being a US citizen.

But I'm so sick of bitching about this. It doesn't do any good. I haven't taken much action lately and I wonder how many people have. Maybe I'm just down because my job was \"outsourced\" last month and now I'm looking for work in the shrinking tech support field where most of the jobs are quickly going to India and other places overseas. I'm thinking that soon it's not going to pay off to be a citizen here with the screwed up infrastructure and the shrinking job market and the obsession with war. These days it seems like anyone who speaks out gets jumped and questioned about there \"patriotism\". Anyway, back to this review: USA The Movie is an obscure DVD that makes me realize that some people have taken action, whether it's through politics, protesting or arts or media. The filmmaker is obviously passionate, knowledgeable, willing to go outside the norm, frustrated, unique, astute etc.

I looked through the whole site that's linked to the DVD and got lost in all the articles, essays etc.that are there. The DVD does that too, has references to different times, views and historical points. Sometimes someone does something out there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lot about USA The Movie can be summed up in its title. It draws parallels between the attitudes of this country in the face of war and a kind of Hollywood-like falseness that glorifies things that shouldn't be glorified. I'm not sure I agree with the filmmaker's take on recent events (although, truthfully, I can't always tell exactly where he stands) but I admire the unusual and artistic way of getting the point across. Audio tracks of speeches, radio interviews, poetry etc. play as large a role here as visuals. Most of the time the visuals of the story are accompanied by these audio elements to good effect. I'm kind of a radio buff so it was satisfying to hear the way that radio was integrated into the pace of the movie. In fact, most of the dialog takes place over the story rather than having characters talk to one another. That's not to say that there aren't \"characters\" (real people), but except for \"Jim\" the protagonist ( a kind of '60's drop out with an erratic state of mind) the others come and go pretty quickly. A few make a very powerful impression, especially a guru-like taxi driver who seems to be the voice of wisdom itself. When he breaks out into a spontaneous song of prayer while driving Jim to the subway, it is a very powerful moment. On the cover of the DVD is the quote \"The danger is clear\" which is taken from President Bush's speech that paved the way to our incursion into Iraq. In retrospect, hearing that speech at a climactic moment in the film brought home how we are living in a historically charged moment which will always be remembered.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lot about USA The Movie can be summed up in its title. It draws parallels between the attitudes of this country in the face of war and a kind of Hollywood-like falseness that glorifies things that shouldn't be glorified. I'm not sure I agree with the filmmaker's take on recent events (although, truthfully, I can't always tell exactly where he stands) but I admire the unusual and artistic way of getting the point across. Audio tracks of speeches, radio interviews, poetry etc. play as large a role here as visuals. Most of the time the visuals of the story are accompanied by these audio elements to good effect. I'm kind of a radio buff so it was satisfying to hear the way that radio was integrated into the pace of the movie. In fact, most of the dialog takes place over the story rather than having characters talk to one another. That's not to say that there aren't \"characters\" (real people), but except for \"Jim\" the protagonist ( a kind of '60's drop out with an erratic state of mind) the others come and go pretty quickly. A few make a very powerful impression, especially a guru-like taxi driver who seems to be the voice of wisdom itself. When he breaks out into a spontaneous song of prayer while driving Jim to the subway, it is a very powerful moment. On the cover of the DVD is the quote \"The danger is clear\" which is taken from President Bush's speech that paved the way to our incursion into Iraq. In retrospect, hearing that speech at a climactic moment in the film brought home how we are living in a historically charged moment which will always be remembered.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The whole shorthand for supposedly being more aware in this weird time is that you are \"Blue\". The Blue State mentality. This is supposed to get us off the hook for what is\/was happening during the last few years in our country (The USA). It doesn't get anyone off the hook but it makes us feel better, as though we aren't benefiting in any way from living here and getting all the good stuff that a US citizen gets just by being a US citizen.

But I'm so sick of bitching about this. It doesn't do any good. I haven't taken much action lately and I wonder how many people have. Maybe I'm just down because my job was \"outsourced\" last month and now I'm looking for work in the shrinking tech support field where most of the jobs are quickly going to India and other places overseas. I'm thinking that soon it's not going to pay off to be a citizen here with the screwed up infrastructure and the shrinking job market and the obsession with war. These days it seems like anyone who speaks out gets jumped and questioned about there \"patriotism\". Anyway, back to this review: USA The Movie is an obscure DVD that makes me realize that some people have taken action, whether it's through politics, protesting or arts or media. The filmmaker is obviously passionate, knowledgeable, willing to go outside the norm, frustrated, unique, astute etc.

I looked through the whole site that's linked to the DVD and got lost in all the articles, essays etc.that are there. The DVD does that too, has references to different times, views and historical points. Sometimes someone does something out there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thank God that there are films out there that don't follow the same old Hollywood crap formula. I think the digital revolution and the DVD revolution is actually making it possible for more interesting work to get out there even if you have to dig harder to find it. I love it when a film takes its time to draw you in deeper and deeper into its inner emotional reaches. It really was like taking a trip through the soul of America and that soul is disturbed and confused. What really blew my mind was the way they used Martin Luther King's speeches about Vietnam and references to his assassination in a way that hit me hard. I found myself choked up every time i heard his voice. I've heard him speak before, of course, but the way they used the speeches here made me feel like I understood his message in a way I'd never thought about.

What can you say about a movie that has heavy statistics about war, oppression and a plea for compassion at the end of it where a credits crawl would usually be? In fact, there's no credits at all in the film. You have to access them by selecting them in the features. Somehow that made me think a lot. All in all I can't say enough about this DVD. Brilliant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like movies that show real people \"Americans\" and tell truth. The movie is simple and that seems to be the great thing about it. It played here in Norway fine (Amazon says above that it's USA\/Canda but the box states \"All Regions\". I have to say it is not for the American viewers. It played in here in World Raw Views, a theater. I saw it and later I ordered it. The cut was different and much better. See it and you will like it or maybe hate it. Sorry Bush lovers but this movie is driving you crazy because it makes sense. Get angry and hate it. Disagree with everything in it but I for one stand by it. It's not for the empty minds. It is long and too hard to keep up with but by the second viewing it makes more sense. I loved Owen's words and the poem made me cry.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's funny because I read all the reviews on this page after getting this movie and it's either a love it or hate it reaction. You'll probably either love it or hate it too. I think the best films are the ones that divide people because obviously they have some kind of impact. I'm in the five star camp because this film did a real number on me and made me want to go back and find out more about Afghanistan and Iraq. I have to admit that I was pretty tuned out when all that was taking place. Especially Afghanistan and I feel guilty about that. The music through the movie was beautiful. I kept getting lost in it especially during some of the historical flashbacks. Personally, I thought the audio was great. It seemed to me that the soundtrack with speeches, music and the radio was put together so that you feel like you're in the RV with Jim, the main character, or in his head. Everything not on the radio was very clear and everything on the radio sounded like it was really on the radio. Anyway, this is a very amazing DVD which made me cry.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"USA The Movie is like this: You take a nap on a long hot Sunday afternoon. It feels great to close your eyes and let your worries drift away. Soon you're lost in one of those intense lucid dreams where you know you're dreaming but you still can't wake up--not that you want to. You go with the flow, and soon you're in a kind of weird Alice in Wonderland story complete with characters you didn't think you could dream up. They're telling you all kinds of crazy stuff about war and peace while taking you through a trip into the past and even the future.

The dream starts to get heavier and you feel like it's going down a path you can't control. Maybe you want to wake up so you try to open your eyes but you can''t . Now there's destruction and sadness and confusion and scary voices telling you what could be truth or could be lies. You're seeing images that flicker and change and then get clear, but do you even want to see what you're brain is creating for you?

Finally you're lost in a myth world and you realize the end has come. The end of the world and the end of the dream. It's over. What do you wake up to? What do you do next?

Maybe you'll write down that dream because you know dreams like don't happen too often-- and when they do you better pay attention.

Or maybe you'll crack a beer and forget the whole thing. Bad idea. Don't forget.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just see it! It's a smart movie but too hard to understand the first time. See it more than once. Everything that is seen or heard on the screen is intentionally crafted to evoke a feeling, sensation or tone. The clarity of certain visuals and the crispness of certain sounds are deliberately contrasted with blurred images or pops, crackles, hisses and barely audible sounds. The structure is non-linear and cyclical. Motifs recur as time runs both clockwise and counterclockwise. Expectations regarding \"plot\" and character\" are broken signaling a non-traditional use of film to tell a story that is both contemporary and as old as humanity. This is a part of a review: \"USA The Movie is emotionally intense, intellectually intriguing and profoundly disturbing, in surprising and unconventional ways.\" Dion Dennis, PhD","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1858 Tolstoy wrote this in his diary: \"The political is not compatible with the artistic, because the former, in order to prove, has to be one-sided.\" This thought from a great mind is applicable to USA The Movie. The film might be read by those with a narrow focus as a 90 minute slam of Bush, Cheney et. al. as well as a ripping of America as an out-of-control imperialistic force that will ultimately be destroyed by its own folly and thirst for power. The more open-minded viewer will take note of the recurring images and themes that make this DVD a testament to postmodernist thought, as the main character breaks up into bits and pieces surrounded by recurring visuals of the natural world contrasted with the man-made constructions; towers, roads, video monitors, radio, vehicles. Above all the ominous threat of wars that have been and are to come smolder throughout. War and rumors of war are what is created, destroyed and recreated on the screen, in our conscious world and in our unconscious minds.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have wracked my brain for another film that reminds me of this one. I really can't come up with one. I think it's because most of the films that take on this topic (war, peace, violence) are in a fixed documentary style.There are some terrific ones out there, all of them better known than USA T.M., I'm sure, but they are intended to be informational and to bring your emotional response to the surface through intellectual means. This DVD, in some ways may seem more intellectual but it really isn't. It is philosophical, maybe, but it bypasses the information mode and goes directly to the same place that a piece of music does. It makes you feel but sometimes you don't even know why. You are just taken somewhere on a wave of feeling. When you watch it, notice how well it is put together. It may not be for everyone but it is for everyone who look for a rare cinematic creation that respects you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have a little hobby of finding really cool pics out there that are pretty much unknown -and then letting people know about them This one is on top of my list for getting the word out this summer. This indie film (and I really mean indie--not Miramax, Fox Searchlight indie) might be easy to overlook in the big maze of celluloid, but if you want something completely different--you have to check this one out.

Basically, I thought it was totally great. I should have known from the DVD cover, front and back ,that this was going to be something totally different, but, they ALL say that their stuff is different to hook you. Well this one really IS totally different. It's in your face: beautiful and scary and unashamed to tell you to wake up. War, peace, 9\/11, poetry, even a eerie sort of music video set to an old time \"patriotic\" song and a weird guy in an RV. Need I say more? Just see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Reader is a perfect example of what a short film should be. A poignant story, told simply through well written dialog, beautifully painted images, a score that seamlessly weaves it's way through the narrative, and characters portrayed with thoughtfulness and grace.

I saw this film at a festival where other interesting films and ideas were screened. But none of the other shorts had all the elements of great film-making coming together in one film as The Reader did. The Reader commanded the attention of every festival-goer in the room and for 10 minutes took us into the emotional lives of the characters.

Duncan Rogers has created a beautiful film and I hope to see more from this director be it more shorts or perhaps a feature length film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the short titled \"The Reader\" recently and found that the movie was well planned and executed. I really felt for both characters that Morgan Hallett and Elizabeth Franz portray in this film. Elizabeth was able to show great range with her blind character and left me feeling emotionally connected. Morgan was able to sell to me that she was totally committed in keeping \"Sissy\" or Franz protected from the grief of losing her sister who had been living in Copenhagen. The great thing about the film was in the short running time and budget of only ten thousand dollars, Duncan Rodgers was able to make a very well made film that kept the interest of the viewer. Rodgers has a great insight into the actor's ability and transition great camera angles to showcase their talent. I always feel if a director can make a great film with a small budget then what can he or she do with a much larger one. Great job Duncan!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Reader is an exceptionally well done and very sweet short. Every element of the piece assists in eliciting a pure emotional response to the script. Well acted, directed, shot and written. I was surprised to hear that there was no rehearsal before shooting, not even a read through. The performances stand as testament to some fine instinctual acting in response to a well written script. The actresses work was excellent and there was never an indication that their work would slip into the purely sentimental. Less is much better in this case. This film is a prime example of how these low budget contracts benefit actors as well as film makers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw \"The Reader\" at a film festival in Manhattan this week. It touched my heart in a way that few short films have done. In ten or so minutes, it tells a poignant two-character story that resonated deeply with me. Duncan Rogers has done a superb job capturing very real, tender moments on film. What I really admire about this film is that the director has chosen a story appropriate to the short format. These are genuinely interesting characters, and their story is told in the perfect length of time. This is no small feat. Haven't we all seen shorts that are simply longer stories squeezed to fit the format, or stage stories that weren't properly adapted to screen? I applaud \"The Reader\" for really doing it right, and I encourage anyone who is interested in film and in storytelling to look at it seriously. Worth every moment!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I viewed The Reader at Sugar, which is not an optimal venue for viewing anything, and the movie was by far the highlight of the evening. The technical elements were well meshed and it was obvious that Duncan Rogers had chosen his designers and crew well. But it was the story and it's delivery that truly made this short shine. Duncan Rogers' tight script was just what this evening of \"shorts\" needed. It neither meandered, as several offerings did, or preached to us. The Reader was simple story telling in it's best form, well cast by Rogers and beautifully acted. Duncan Rogers is obviously a director with the ability to put all the pieces together, I'm looking forward to his next finished project. K.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the world of \"shorts\" (most of which aren't), this film is a gem.

A quiet, concise peek into the world of a young woman who's a reader for a blind woman, here the stellar Elizabeth Franz - this film bears the textures, layers and visual storytelling of a sumptuously painted still life.

The dialogue is minimal, the cinematography is stunning, and the direction sure, clear and compelling. I saw this film in a film festival held in a loud and crowded Tribeca bar - and within the first two minutes (and for the first time that night), the crowd fell quiet.

That says it all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw this last night at the 7th Annual NYC Home Film Festival -- a rather tumultuous venue that quieted down for this sweet and touching two-woman film.

The relationship between the two -- one, older and blind, the other, a twenty- something who helps her with her mail -- is established deftly, and its depth is readily apparent.

There are no car chases, explosions, or mind-boggling special effects -- just the sometimes difficult but rewarding task of humans reaching out toward each other to help and be helped.

See if it you can!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film on the same night I saw 6 other shorts. This one was leaps and bounds ahead of the others in terms of quality of acting, directing, filming and originality of story. It comes together with a professionalism often lacking in short films.

This is a great short film for the following reasons:

1. Amazing performances. The 2 actresses are both compelling and believable instantly. Their chemistry is palpable; the depth of their relationship is conveyed, even though the film is 10 mins long. The acting and directing are very powerful.

2. Beautifully shot. The lighting, framing and general filming are striking. The 35mm film sets this movie apart from other shorts. And what a difference it makes. The filming is worthy of this film stock.

3. Strong story. Often short films try to do too little or too much with the time. Or they are trying to tell a predictable story. This is a good balance of telling you an interesting story, without drawing it out too long or leaving you unsatisfied. You wonder what will happen next, while at the same time, feeling you saw something happen.

Nice score, too. Compliments without overpowering.

If you can find this at a festival, make an effort to see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Perry Mason: The Case of the Fatal Fashion finds Perry and Della Street in New York getting an award from the American Bar Association. An undefeated trial record ought to get some recognition I would think. Anyway a friend of Della's, fashion editor Diana Muldaur gets herself arrested for the murder of a rival, Valerie Harper and in fact Raymond Burr and Barbara Hale witness a confrontation between the two at a posh eatery.

These two rivals have a thing going that makes Hedda and Louella look like school girls. Of course Harper has a number of other people who loved her equally as much.

The same perpetrator also ran down a fashion designer who could have exposed the individual. This throws Perry with his trusty investigative lawyer, William Moses in an alliance with some mobsters. Seems that the designer was a cousin of a mob boss who wants also to mete out some justice in their usual manner.

One thing I could not get is when Moses and mobster Robert Clohessy track down the perpetrator I cannot believe that the police were also not vigorously pursuing the case. Of course Clohessy has some access to sources that the cops just don't have.

But the best part of this particular Mason entry is Scott Baio as the young rather full of himself Assistant District Attorney introducing himself to Raymond Burr saying how he studied all of his cases and looked forward to beating him. Foolish Boy.

In fact my favorite scene is Burr and Baio at a sidebar with the judge. Baio was wanting to reopen his case and add a witness and came ready and prepared with precedents. Burr catches him off guard and says he has no objection to the new witness and then proceeds to demolish the witness on cross examination. Absolutely priceless.

Scott Baio is the best thing in this particular Perry Mason movie and it should be seen for him alone if nothing else.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Ford paid the wagons his tribute of a special picture, 'Wagon Master' made after two big Indian-cavalry epics... It is a lovely poetic movie, full of romanticized reincarnation of the pioneer spirit... It didn't have to top the big ones that had preceded it...

Photographically, it is extremely simple... The camera moves only once or twice in the entire film, and never when a director would have made it move to underline a shot... Ford even resists the temptation to track his camera in the breathtaking twilight shots of the women wearily marching along in the dust behind their wagons... They come-and go-while the camera remains immobile and the audience stays a spectator to the march of history, not a participant in it... Of course, when Ford wants to involve his audience emotionally or dramatically, as in 'Stagecoach,' he knows just how to do it... But \"Wagon Master\" is a tender, nostalgic look backward...

Filled with traditional Western songs rendered by The Sons of the Pioneers, it tells of the trek West to Utah (in 1879) of a Mormon wagon train led by Ward Bond in the role of Elder Wiggs, and two young horse traders (Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr). And in a series of beautiful images, as the wagon train fights outlaws, Indians and nature in its struggle to reach the 'promised land,' the modest 'Wagon Master' manages to capture the history and legend of the West...

Ford himself has said that 'Wagon Master' (of which he wrote the original story) was among the three films of his which 'came closest to being what I had wanted to achieve.'

Ford's career as a Western director was astonishing... More than anyone else he was able to use the genre to protect his feelings about the family, society, and the American way of life... Ford saw the frontier as a land to be subdued by a special class of settlers and lawmen whose great sacrifices make the land safe from those who come after... These early westerners were giants who deserved the legendary status they earned, and the civilized townsfolk who followed must always hold them in fear and respect... Ford's Westerns often employ flashbacks that emphasize the historical authenticity of his approach...

In 'Wagon Master,' for example, folk songs on the sound track tell us of the hardships of the pioneers of a century ago, and Ford shows them to us in almost documentary fashion... In one sequence the train is camped in a circle and the settlers decide to hold a square dance... To fashion a dance floor they have to lay boards over the desert sand, and with this ritual celebration Ford shows the defeat of the wilderness through the metaphor of boarding over the land...

It's a lovely-to-look-at film, full of a marvelous lighthearted optimism, and it is easy to understand why Ford found it so satisfying\u0085 It never breaks faith with the mood and style set in the first few sequences\u0085 But one is left wondering whether the ultra-romantic best suits the chosen theme\u0085

The wagon-train experience must have been one of the most physically demanding and nerve-wracking ordeals that man (with his womankind) ever set himself\u0085 It must have been riddled with doubts\u0097was I wrong to sell up everything and come? How can we hope to survive? How will we contend the other end?\u0097almost every other aching step of the way\u0085

Yet none of this feeling really comes through in \"Wagon Master.\" The journey\u0097such is the general ebullience\u0097does not strike one as particularly hazardous\u0085 It could be, of course, that the Mormons were so 'high' on religious spirit that this tended to act as an anesthetic\u0085 In other words their reactions weren't those of normal human weakness... If so, Ford was right and the doubters were wrong\u0085

What is beyond doubt is the right and proper ebullience, especially at first meeting, of Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. This is the essence of light-hearted adventurous youth, particularly one feels of Western youth of those extraordinary times\u0085 It's a remarkable relationship and it remains lodged in the mind\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the most poetic narrative films ever made, WAGONMASTER is nonetheless a difficult film to immediately like. I love this movie, but I recommend seeing some of John Ford's other westerns before taking a look at this one. The first time I saw it I was 18 years old and I hadn't seen too many other westerns, and I hated it. I thought it was incredibly boring. I kept waiting for something to happen. It took several years for me to love this picture. First, I fell in love with westerns in general -- the traditions, characters, landscapes, ways of talking, etc -- and that made me realize when I saw WAGONMASTER again that a lot is happening in it after all.

I also was simply a more experienced moviegoer at that point and had learned to appreciate visual storytelling, and to listen to what each image was telling me. WAGONMASTER is a very visual movie by one of the most visual of directors working near the peak of his career.

The movie is a celebration of a way of life, and its subject matter is more emotional and interior than other Ford westerns. Actually, that's not really as accurate as saying that, rather, it has a lot less exterior action than the other westerns. (The other westerns have exterior action AND interior emotion.) It quite beautifully places its Mormon pioneers in the context of nature. There are many shots of animals and children -- not for any surface, narrative purpose, but for illustrating this idea. That is why the movie can be called a poem. It isn't about the surface story (which barely exists) nearly as much as it is about an emotional idea, and it gets this idea across through composition, editing, sound and music. In fact, one could argue that this is a purer form of filmmaking because the images directly express the emotional idea of the film, rather than having to first service a \"story.\"

Give this movie a chance, and allow it to exist on its own terms, not the terms of other westerns or other movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There's a unique place in the pantheon of John Ford films for Wagonmaster, Sergeant Rutledge, and The Sun Shines Bright. It was these three films with no box office names in them that Ford didn't have to tailor the film around the persona of a star being it John Wayne, Henry Fonda, or any of the others he worked with. Not surprising that Ford considered all these as favorites of one kind or another.

Ben Johnson and Harry Carey, Jr. a couple of likable cowpokes sign on to guide a Mormon wagon train to a valley in Arizona territory. Along the way they are joined first by a group stranded players from a medicine show and then by a family of outlaws on the run named Clegg. Their stories merge and what happens is the basis of the film's plot.

Had Wagonmaster been done even 10 years earlier on the strength of the two performances turned in by Johnson and Carey, both probably would have had substantial careers as B picture cowboys. In the case of Johnson it would have been art imitating life. Johnson was a real rodeo cowboy and came to Hollywood with a string of horses for John Ford to use in Fort Apache. Ford was struck by his presence and the rest is history.

But the day of the B western was drawing to a close and Johnson and Carey had great careers as two fine character actors.

Ward Bond plays Elder Wiggs leader of the Mormons. Bond is a recent convert though and has trouble remembering to not use some four letter words. But he's the leader because of his strength of character, not his impeccable LDS theology. He turns out to be a wise and compassionate leader.

In portraying the Cleggs, Ford only had to reach back four years to his My Darling Clementine. They are the reincarnation of the Clanton gang and pure evil. In fact if Walter Brennan who after My Darling Clementine refused to ever work for Ford again was willing I could easily see him being cast as Shiloh Clegg the head of the family. As it was Charles Kemper did a fine job, this is probably the role he's most noted for. Shortly after this film was done, Kemper was killed in automobile crash. He might very well have worked for Ford in the future.

Ford makes the Mormons pacifists here and I don't recall that pacifism was part of LDS doctrine. Nevertheless it works here, the whole idea being that these people who carry no weapons are innocents when dealing with evil people like the Cleggs. It takes some gun toting cowboys to properly dispose of them. I think that this post World War II film is trying to say that pacifism isn't always the best policy.

Another carryover from My Darling Clementine is Alan Mowbray playing the same kind of role he did there as head of the medicine show troupe. Part of that troupe is Joanne Dru who's doing another turn as a woman of elastic virtue the same as she did in Red River. Dru used to do so many westerns that she longed to be out of gingham and into some modern fashions.

Wagonmaster is great entertainment and I'm willing to wager in the state of Utah it's a pretty popular film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wagon Master is a very unique film amongst John Ford's work. Mainly because it's the only one that is based on a story written by John Ford himself, the story that was elaborated by Frank Nugent and director's son \u0096 Patrick Ford and turned into a screenplay, and because of director's personal opinion regarding it, Wagon Master is the film John Ford called the one which `came closest to being what I had wanted to achieve', to say so is not to say a little, but as Ford confessed once to Lindsay Anderson, his favourite was nonetheless My Darling Clementine and not any other.

Wagon Master has all ingredients one might expect to find in a John Ford's film. Wonderful cast delivering his best, thou not featuring any major stars, except the most `fordian' of all actors \u0096 Ben Johnson. Very peculiar small characters, who provide an obligatory comic relief, and Wagon Master has quite a few of them such as horn blowing Sister Ledyard (Jane Darwell) in her shot but very inspired gigs. And last but not least legendary Monument Valley with John Ford's fifth passage through it after Stagecoach, My Darling Clementine, Fort Apache and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.

The film starts with two friends cowboys Travis Blue (Ben Johnson) and Sandy Owens (Harry Carey Jr) being hired to be Wagon Masters or guides for a caravan of Mormon settlers who are headed to Silver Valley, a place that's for them like a promised land. On their way they are joined by a very peculiar Dr. Locksley Hall (Alan Mowbray) with two beautiful women, who are supposedly his wife and daughter and who call themselves actors. They are headed in the same direction simply because they were recently driven out of the nearest town and have no other place to go. Nothing particularly unpleasant happens till they bump into Cleggs, a dangerous family gang consisting of father and his three sons who are on the run from the Marshal of the town where they recently committed murder and bank robbery.

Overall Wagon Master is no more nor less than one more precious pearl in a necklace of John Ford's wonderful Westerns. A must see. 9\/10

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It takes a while to get adjusted to the sound of Sons of The Pioneers , but then you thoroughly enjoy it. If the soundtrack would be played by an orchestra like Max Steiner or Dmitri Tiomkin it would lose its folkloric character. The music conducts the film, everything seems to follow its rhythm. The whole cast is excellent. Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. are the young men guiding the caravan. Ward Bond is the Mormon leader and Joanne Dru is a flirting actress. Ford was able to make of what would be an ordinary western, something totally different and original showing us the music, the dances, and most of all, the people.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Crystal City, a group of Mormons hire the horse traders Travis (Ben Johnson) and Sandy (Harry Carey Jr.) as wagon masters to lead their caravan to San Juan River. Along the journey, they meet first the broken wagon without water of the quack Dr. A. Locksley Hall (Alan Mowbray) and the prostitutes Denver (Joanne Dru) and Fleuretty Phyffe (Ruth Clifford). Then the sadistic outlaws Clegg boys decide to join the Mormon caravan to disguise the patrol leaded by the Sheriff of Crystal City that is chasing them. When the Navajos cross their path, they are invited to visit their hamlet for a dancing party. When the wagon train is near to their destination, the Clegg boys threaten the settlers, forcing Sandy and Travis to take an attitude.

\"Wagon Master\" is another great western of John Ford. The sequences with the wagon train crossing the desert and the hills are impressive. The adventure of the group of Mormons is funny and very entertaining and the songs fit well to the plot despite being dated. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): \"Caravana dos Bravos\" (\"Caravan of the Braves\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This little picture succeeds where many a big picture fails. Because it was a little picture, John Ford was not harassed by the studio big wigs. He was happier with this film than any other because he was able to do it his way. He was also able to use his repertoire of gifted character actors that had played such an important role in his past successes. Some of them such as Ben Johnson had been discovered by Ford and given opportunity to show their talents. Johnson was recruited by Ford because he was an authentic cowboy from Oklahoma who usually did his own stunt work. Years later he would win the coveted Academy Award for his brilliant performance in \"The Last Picture Show.\" Ward Bond even outshines Ben Johnson in this movie. He is not the wagon master, that role is played by Johnson, but because of this movie he was later given the role of wagon master in the classic television series \"Wagon Train.\" Ironically one of the bad guys in \"Wagon Master,\" James Arness, would star in the hit television series \"Gunsmoke\" on a rival network to \"Wagon Train.\" Ward Bond plays the leader of the Mormons heading west who often backslides to his sinning days by cussing only to be called down by fellow Mormon Adam Perkins (Russell Simpson). When any bothersome situation arises Elder Wiggs (Ward Bond) yells, \"Blow your horn, Sister Ledeyard!\" The Mormon sister, played to perfection by Jane Darwell, then blows so hard and loud that even the devil must have been shaken by the sound. Darwell and Simpson were famous for playing Ma and Pa Joad in Ford's classic version of the John Steinbeck novel \"The Grapes of Wrath.\"

Another of the great character actors in Ford's company was Hank Worden, who plays one of Uncle Shiloh Clegg's notoriously mean but not too bright outlaw sons. Worden would become famous a few years later for playing Mose in Ford's \"The Searchers.\" Worden lived to be 91. He was still making movies when he died.

The wagon master Travis Blue (Ben Johnson) and his partner Sandy (Harry Carey Jr.) are horse traders who never take their job seriously, having a lot of fun along the way, especially with the local sheriff. They get mixed up with a Mormon wagon train heading west. Ford's beloved Monument Valley is the setting for most of the film. The main reason for the teaming is a redheaded Mormon beauty Prudence Perkins (Kathleen O'Malley) who catches Sandy's eye. Along the way the train picks up a hoochie coochie show which includes a charlatan doctor (Alan Mowbray) and two soiled angels (Joanne Dru and Ruth Clifford). Also joining up along the way is the Clegg family, wanted for murder and armed robbery. Ford shows how arduous a journey west by wagon was in those days.

The songs in the film were written by Stan Jones of the legendary Sons of the Pioneers. Jones' writing was almost as good as that of Bob Nolan, who had previously done much of the writing for the group. Jones' most famous song, not in this film, is the much recorded \"Ghost Riders In The Sky.\" The Sons of the Pioneers do the background singing in \"Wagon Master.\" This adds to the overall impact of wagons rolling west.

It should also be noted that the acclaimed Native American athlete Jim Thorpe from Oklahoma plays the role of a Navajo leader. This was his last film appearance. He died not long after \"Wagon Master\" was released.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of my favorite westerns and one of John Ford's best in my opinion. No major stars, but Ben Johnson shines in most everything he appears, and here he gets a rare lead as the title character. Matching him is Ward Bond as the crusty Mormon elder leading his people west. John Ford's stock of character actors, including Harry Carey, Jr., Jane Darwell, Russell Simpson and Hank Worden, provide ample support, as does eerily silent James Arness, a member of the outlaw Clegg clan that joins up with the wagon train. The Mormon trail into Utah was one of the most arduous and demanding enterprises ever undertaken. We can't really get the feel of that, but we do see ordeals that had to be overcome by pioneers on the way west; river crossings, long stretches of dry, waterless desert, encounters with Indians and the like, all set to glorious song by the Sons of the Pioneers. The Mormons actually did dig sections of the trail with picks and shovels, as depicted in the movie. My main regret is that it wasn't made in color, but I believe there is a colorized version. By the way, those craggy rocks featured in various scenes are called the Fisher Towers, located near Moab. Highly recommended viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Together with the even more underrated , The Sun Shines Bright, Wagon Master was one of Ford's favorite films. It is a western of exceptional beauty and narrative purity, well acted by members of Ford's 'stock company', including Jane Darwell, Alan Mowbray, Ward Bond,and Harry Carey, Jr.Like almost all of Ford's films,it is a meditation on freedom and community. It is also noteworthy for a much more positive portrayal of Indians than in most of Ford's movies. Ford, for all his faults, remains the supreme poet of American Democracy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two horse traders arrive in a town and meet up with the leader of a group of Mormons who are bound for a valley where they can settle and live in peace. The scenes of the corral in the town where Ward Bond and Ben Johnson negotiate prices, and Bond introduces the idea of them (Johnson and his partner played by Harry Carey Jr.) leading the train to this valley, are some of the best in the film, as Johnson, a real cowboy, whittles a piece of wood while he banters with Bond. Once on the trail they come upon Joanne Dru, who maybe John Ford saw in Red River, and offered her a much better part in this film. In the Morman train are a number of notable characters. The Mormans are a peaceable group who are challenged along the way by a truly lowlife group of outlaws. In their case (the outlaws), in the case of the people on the train, and later a band of Navajos whom they encounter, and in the well written characters played by Ben Johnson and Ward Bond, the film completely evades stereotypes, while the camera seems to spend as much time giving the viewer the big picture of Monument Valley framing the train as it moves along with a few water crossings along the way, in stunning black and white and then coming back to what's happening in this rolling community, all to the accompaniment of the beautiful vocalizations of the Sons of the Pioneers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Travis and Sandy(Ben Johnson and Harry Carey, Jr.)are horse traders coerced into selling their animals to a Mormon group and guiding them across the frontier to a settlement. What they do not expect is to encounter the notorious Clegg murderers, with their wounded leader Uncle Shiloh(Charles Kemper). Ward Bond portrays Elder Wiggs, the main voice for the Mormon group moving the wagon train to the Lord's destination. Along the way, they also encounter \"Doctor\" A Locksley Hall and his \"Hoochey Koochey Wagon\" and lend them help.

Lovingly directed by Ford who pays close attention to detail with realistic problems any group would encounter during a rugged wagon trail. The film has a wonderful cast made up of character actors with nary a true star in the film which is actually a blessing to see, if just not for a change of pace. Young Johnson and Carey, Jr. come off real well, but this is Bond's film to shine as he has the best lines. Johnson is the one who seems to understand ruffians and brutes like Shiloh and will certainly come in handy when certain conflict might develop as the Clegg boys ride along side them a piece.

I'd have to say this is one of his best and most least appreciated westerns and seems to flow very well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It has been recorded that John Ford made the \"big, blockbuster\" movies so that he could afford to make the \"small\" movies that he loved so well. Wagon Master, with a young Ben Johnson, is clearly one of his best, if not the best of his small movies. The location shooting, the wagons, the intricate work with horses, and the inclusion of the plains Indian are all trade marks of Ford. As in many of his other films, Eisenstein, the great Russian director's influence is seen in this film. The supporting cast including Ward Bond, Russell Simpson, and Jane Darwell are excellent as well as the many, minor character actors Ford used, including his brother (the one who plays the drums). While Ben Johnson went on to win a well-deserved supporting Oscar for The Last Picture Show, his co-star, Harry Carey,Jr. did not reach those heights. Although his father, Carey, Sr. became a western leading man in Ford's early films, Carey, Jr. spent most of his career in supporting roles. For fans of John Ford, and for fans of western films, this one is a must.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching The Wagonmaster is not likely to result in deep thoughts, unlike many other great Ford films, like The Searchers, My Darling Clementine, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and The Grapes of Wrath among others, but it is likely to produce a feeling of awe and deep satisfaction. The story is very simple: two cowboys decide to help a wagon train of Mormons get to California. Along the way, they run into a medicine man whose mules ran away, a group of bank robbers, and some Navajos. There's a lot of adventure and excitement on the trail, and the film is imbued with fun and beauty. The music is absolutely beautiful. The scenery, again from Monument Valley, is as beautiful as it ever was. Plus, how can you go wrong with James Arness? The Wagonmaster might not be one of John Ford's better known films, but it is nonetheless a must-see if you get the chance. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"although i liked this Western,i do have to say,it's not one of my favourite John Ford Westerns.for me,it just lacks a certain something that most of his other films(the ones i have seen anyway)possess)i'm nit sure what that something is.it's not something tangible.anyway,the gist of the story is about a Mormon wagon train which is being used by a band of outlaws as a hideout from a pursuing posse.Ford employs a lot of his regulars here.there are some interesting characters,some nice scenery,a bit of action,and excitement.it all adds up to a watchable experience.it's certainly not boring.just not quite up to the usual John Ford standard.for me,Wagon Master is a 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Western can be divided into many sub-genres. One of the broadest divisions is that between Town Westerns and Plains Westerns. Most Westerns are a mix of both, but at one end of the spectrum you have pictures like High Noon and Rio Bravo that take place almost entirely in a settlement, seldom venturing out into the real outdoors. At the other end you have ones like Wagon Master, where there is barely a homestead on view amid the wilderness.

Director John Ford normally thrived on the \"bit of both\" Westerns, shooting the interiors with an emphasis on their being small and confined, and then contrasting this with the wide open exteriors, which appeared both exciting and dangerous. Wagon Master has a typical Frank Nugent script, with some interplay between seasoned oldsters and green youngsters, but still it presents Ford with some fresh challenges. In this picture, the dangers do not come from the harshness of the landscape, they come from within the group in the form of the Cleggses. What's more, the absence of real interior scenes means the outdoors could lose its impact over time.

However, Ford was a real maestro when it came to manipulating space. He shoots scenes of the camp or the wagons so the frame is surrounded and we get that same sense of enclosure as we would in a genuine interior. Also, compared to his other Westerns, he does not in fact open out the space too much, having the wagon trail wend its way through canyons and passes rather than cross the stark and empty plains. One of the few moments where he does throw the landscape wide open is when the Indians are spotted and there is the possibility of a threat from outside.

Wagon Master features some surprisingly effective moments of comic relief, and some great contributions from the quirky cast. Harry Carey Jr. was shaping up into a fine actor like his pa, and this is one of his better early roles. Joanne Dru was disappointing in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, but she appears more at ease as a character with a bit of sass, and is actually fairly good here. Jane Darwell, who won an Oscar in the John Ford-directed Grapes of Wrath a decade earlier, appears here with sole function of performing a running gag in which she sounds a feeble old horn. Still, with her great timing and movement she makes the piece work. Francis Ford, in one of the many mute drunkard roles he played in his little brother's pictures, is at his cheeky best.

And now we come to lead man Ben Johnson. Although he was by no means a bad actor, he was never going to become a big star like John Wayne. And yet, with his effortless horsemanship and easygoing drawl, he was one of the most authentically \"West\" players around. And this brings me onto my final point. This was apparently one of Ford's personal favourites, despite it seeming fairly unassuming. Wagon Master has no grand theme or dramatic intensity, it is simply the genre playing itself out. I think this is what Ford loved about it. It's a picture for the Ben Johnsons and the Harry Carey Jrs, not the John Waynes or the Henry Fondas. Small in scope, but worthy in its class.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A couple of cowpokes help a group of Mormons cross some rough country on their way to a new settlement. This low-key Western is unusual for Ford in that it lacks any big stars. Johnson gets top-billing but his is basically a supporting role, although he and Carey work well together. Dru is given little to do other than provide the love interest. The best performance is given by Ford favorite Bond, playing the leader of the Mormons. In fact, this role helped him land a starring role in the long-running TV Western \"Wagon Train\" before his untimely death at age 57. Featuring beautiful cinematography, Ford regarded this as one of his favorite films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wagon Master (1950) Dir: John Ford

Production: Argosy Pictures \/ RKO Radio Pictures

John Ford brings the stock company out into the Utah desert to film a western and comes out with this minor classic. No John Wayne, no conflicted anti-heroes, no psychological exploration, no fireworks, just a gem of a picture.

This ensemble piece nominally stars Ben Johnson (as Travis) and Harry Carey Jr. (Sandy). They're horse traders who come into town to do some business just as a group of Mormons, led by Ward Bond, are being shown the exit. The group is about to embark on a trek to their own settlement, but they know the odds and the harsh terrain are against them. So they hire Travis and Sandy as wagon masters for their trip. Along the way they run into and take along a traveling medicine salesman and his two female cohorts (Alan Mowbray as the doctor, recalling his appearance in My Darling Clementine and Joanne Dru as his \"daughter\"). Tension is added when the murderous Clegg gang comes upon the wagon train. And there is also an atypical (for Hollywood) meeting with the Navajo.

Most of the story and humor is driven by the clash of ideals\/cultures; first between Travis and Sandy and the Mormons, between Ward Bond himself (he's constantly trying to suppress his urge to curse and be a reformed man), between the doctor and his ladies and the Mormons, between the wagon train and the outlaws, and finally, everyone and the Navajo. There is also a classic Ford scene of a rowdy dance which expresses one of his signature themes of civilization coming to the frontier.

Again, no Duke here, but I've found Ben Johnson, especially the young, cocksure Ben Johnson, to have an engaging screen presence of his own. He comes with his own backstory, with that drawl and also when you see him doing all the stunt riding himself. He's great here in one of his early credited appearances. Harry Carey Jr., although having been around for a few years by this time, is still pretty raw at times, but he's likable. Ward Bond is his usual marvelous, blustery self. I've found Joanne Dru to be a drag in whatever I see her in, but here she's mercifully unobtrusive. Other familiar faces include Jane Darwell, Francis Ford and Hank Worden, playing 'dumb', like he will in The Searchers a few years later. It's not any more amusing here.

There is some absolutely spectacular b&w photography by frequent Ford collaborator Bert Glennon. Not only is there the typical masterclass on the landscapes and horizons, there is also some flourish in a handful of scenes with shadow and (sun)light. The soundtrack features the legendary country music group, The Sons of the Pioneers. Can't get more cowboy than that.

***\u00bd out of 4","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is about two horse traders who agree to escort a small group of Mormons across the desert. Along the way, they encounter a murderous family of thugs who menace the peaceful folks and put their pilgrimage in jeopardy.

WAGON MASTER is what I would term a \"little\" John Ford film, as it obviously did not have the budget or scope of some of his other Westerns. In particular, this film lacks the big-name stars like John Wayne but allows some of the usual supporting characters to take center stage. Long-time Ford stock character actors Ben Johnson, Harry Carey, Jr. and Ward Bond have been elevated to starring roles and perhaps the one who came of as \"the\" lead was probably Johnson--though the other two got nearly as much screen time and focus. This is not a bad thing, as the film worked just fine without the big star--and is well worth seeing.

Now this isn't to say I loved the movie. It was very good but certainly not perfect. In particular, as far as the music goes, you'll probably either love it or hate it. I found the Sons of the Pioneers' music a bit schmaltzy at times. It did evoke a nice mood, but seemed to occasionally dominate the scenes. I think a little would have worked much better. Plus, with their incessant singing in the background, I kept expecting Roy Rogers to pop out at any moment. Another minor problem is that the plot was amazingly simple and the ending was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

However, and I am glad to say there is a 'however', despite this being rather formulaic and sentimental, the film still worked well. This was primarily due to John Ford's nice, as usual, direction as well as Ben Johnson's exceptional performance. He was able to provide an excellent anchor for the film. Another plus for me is that I saw this in the same week as BRIGHAM YOUNG, another film about the Mormon migration. While BRIGHAM YOUNG was a bit silly and overly \"saintly\" in its portrayals, here the Mormons were less \"perfect\" and more like real people--with foibles and personalities. Oh, and speaking of BRIGHAM YOUNG, it seems as if Jane Darwell was the 'go to' girl for Mormon-themed films during this era, as she was a major supporting character in both films. Considering that she died in BRIGHAM YOUNG and it was set about 20 years before WAGON MASTER, this is some stunt!

Also, if you'd like to catch a glimpse of the famous Jim Thorpe, he's in a tiny role where he plays the impassive Indian dancing next to Jane Darwell around the camp fire.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film has to be as near to perfect a film as John Ford made. The film is magic, a masterpiece, the reason Ford was, well Ford. If you want to know why Ford was great this one explains it.

The photography of course is superb, black and white as black and white should be, wonderful shots, not an over the shoulder conversation in it, pure Ford, great moments, big and little. The famous ripped pants of Ward Bond. Apparently two dogs kept invading the set and fighting so Ford wanted to use them in the fighting scene, but instead of fighting one dog ran away and the other attacked Ward Bond and ripped his pants, which caused Ford no end of mirth. A whole scene around plaiting a rope. The way Ben Johnson burn then snuffs his rope, wonderful foreshadowing and anticipation of the final. Harry Carey's naive courting of Prudence. The usual ford line about being scared and not showing it. Bond's horse accidentally falling in him and its left in the film. Johnson and Bond are fantastic in that scene. Lord help any Ford actor who does not stay in character while the camera is rolling even when a horse falls on top of you.

A couple of very sweet romances, not intruding on the whole focus, two very likable leads, not to mention for the girls, the number of times the cameras focus on Ben Johnson's rather delightful backside.

Lots of old time stuntmen getting lines and roles, Cliff Lyons, Frank McGrath. Some wonderful character studies mostly of faces staring, all the villains and main stars. A set of villains to rival any group in any western.

Many many Fordian shots of faces, groups, children, women, small things happening, foals in the background (Ford seems to love images of foals), women in aprons, allowing the moment as wagons cross rivers and the camera lingers.

This is probably not a western as much as an artist's picture that happens to be set in the west.

Lucky the film was made in 1950 because it is impossible to imagine such a film could be ever made again, but then it is such a work of art that it would be a sacrilege to attempt it","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't think I really have any spoilers in here but since I do describe a couple of funny scenes, I'll check the box saying 'might contain spoilers' just to be on the safe side. Now...

I hardly know where to start. By now you know the basic outline of the story - horse traders Travis (Ben Johnson) and Sandy (Harry Carey Jr.) take the job of guiding a Mormon wagon train West to their 'promised land' and along the way encounter a variety of trials and interesting characters, most notably the outlaw Clegg family.

Anyone can enjoy this movie. You don't have to be a fan of Westerns to like this one. For one thing, Johnson and Carey are two of the most quickly likable characters you'll see in any movie. Carey in particular is animated and outgoing, almost like a big kid - while Johnson is a little calmer and wiser, kind of like an older-brother figure. I get a kick out of the scene where they sell the sheriff one of their 'gentle horses' for ten dollars; then inform him that the horse has \"some peculiarities - you might say failings\"... Travis elbows Sandy who lets loose with a shrill whistle, sending the sheriff's new horse off on a wild bucking fit with him in the saddle. The look on his face as the horse finally dumps him and gallops away is priceless.

Pay attention to the music... even if you never thought you'd be a fan of the Sons of the Pioneers, listen to \"Shadows in the Dust\" as the wagon train is shown in motion with some of the people walking along between the wagons. It's a truly beautiful song- too bad only half a minute or so of it is in the movie. I want to hear the whole thing sometime.

One thing that impressed me greatly about this movie is that much of it must have been almost as hard to make as the real situation it portrays. Teams of six horses pulling wagons up steep mountain trails, straining to make the top - this was no simple and easy film. It must have been risky for the actors, the stunt people and the animals as well. Fording rivers too, this movie has plenty of authentic-looking action involving the movement of the wagon train. It should be mentioned that both Harry Carey Jr. and Ben Johnson were extremely competent riders, both with many years' experience riding, roping, and doing all manner of cowboy-type things. Carey grew up on a ranch where his family employed many Navaho Indians and in fact he learned to speak Navaho before he learned to speak English. No rhinestone cowboys in this movie - \"Travis\" and \"Sandy\" were the real thing through and through.

Watch for the scene when Miss Denver throws out the pan of water from her wagon, hitting Travis's horse in the face... the horse starts bucking, eventually throwing him off it. Watch the look on Sandy's face when Denver tells Travis 'I'm sorry you fell off your horse.' Another favorite scene of mine is when Harry Carey Jr. (Sandy) gets into a bit of a tiff with one of the Mormons. They're working back to back getting their gear ready, and after Sandy gets disgusted with the other fellow, the two of them get into a rear-end bumping match that quickly turns into a rolling-around-on-the-ground fist fight. Even after the Elder (Ward Bond) stands them up and separates them, the two combatants continue trying to get at each other. The Mormon (named 'Jackson' in the film) gets one final kick in at Sandy so high it hits his shoulder. It's a really funny scene from start to finish.

I don't know what else I can say about this movie other than that it has a good story, very engaging characters, beautiful scenery and plenty of action balanced with humor and a bit of drama. Oh, it has been colorized, at least in the version I saw; not the most beautiful color film you'll ever see but I think I prefer it to black and white. I give this one a ten and I don't give out many 10's. One of my favorite movies, without a doubt. And, judging by the other comments, I have plenty of company in that assessment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"By 1950, John Ford had already fully-developed the ideas and motifs that would form the core of his most successful Westerns. Always present, for example, is a strong sense of community, most poignantly captured in the Joad family of Steinbeck's 'The Grapes of Wrath (1940).' Within these communities, even amid Ford's loftier themes of racism and the pioneer spirit, there's always room for the smaller human interactions, the minor friendships and romances that make life worth living. 'Wagon Master (1950)' came after Ford had released the first two films in his \"cavalry\" trilogy \u0096 'Fort Apache (1948)' and 'She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)' \u0096 and it covers similar territory, only without the military perspective and, more damningly, the strong lead of John Wayne. Ben Johnson and Harry Cary, Jr. are fine actors, but they feel as though they should be playing second-fiddle to somebody, and Ward Bond's cursing Mormon elder, while potentially a candidate for such a role, isn't given quite enough focus to satisfactorily fit the bill.

In 'Wagon Master,' Ford seems so comfortable with his tried-and-tested Western formula that any character development is largely glossed over. Ben Johnson's romance with Joanne Dru is treated as an obligation more than anything else, and Harry Cary Jr's charming of a Mormon girl is so perfunctory as to be almost nonexistent in the final film, leaving one to ponder the survival of deleted scenes. Only in Charles Kemper's charismatic and shamelessly-villainous Uncle Shiloh does Ford try some different, and it works, even with his being surrounded by a troop of insufferably hammy slack-jawed yokels. Where Ford does succeed is in orchestrating the conglomeration of three distinct races of Americans \u0096 the values-orientated Mormoms, the easygoing horse-traders, the eccentric travelling showmen \u0096 into a cohesive community of pioneers looking towards a bright future. This apparent harmony is thrown into disarray by the arrival of Uncle Shiloh's gun-toting outlaws, who exploit the lawlessness of the Western frontier but ultimately lose out to the noble cowboys who \"only ever drew on snakes.\"

Ford reportedly considered Wagon Master among the favourite of his films, and perhaps this has something to do with the absence of big names like John Wayne or Henry Fonda. Armed only with his stock selection of usual players, Ford is able to generate a sense of community by avoiding placing focus on any one character, though most of the Mormom travellers still remain completely anonymous. Despite being undoubtedly well-made, I can't help feeling that this film only does well what other Ford pictures did even better: the terrific majesty of the the Western frontier was presented more beautifully in 'She Wore a Yellow Ribbon'; the romances and friendly squabbles among community members took greater prominence in 'Fort Apache'; the early relations with Native Americans, only hinted at here, were more thoroughly examined in 'The Searchers (1956)'; the bold pioneering spirit of the early settlers was explored more movingly (albeit by Henry Hathaway and George Marshall) in 'How the West Was Won (1962).' 'Wagon Master' is pure John Ford, but it isn't a landmark.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This small John Ford western with no 'stars' but a cast of character actors is one of his masterpieces. It has a documentary-like feel to it as it traces the journey West of a party of Mormons and it may be the most authentic looking of all Ford's films, (it's on par with \"The Sun Shines Bright\" which he made a couple of years later).

There is a plot of sorts, (a group of bank robbers join the wagon train at one point), but the film's dramatic highlights are almost incidental. The splendid performances of Ford's stock company, (Ben Johnson, Harry Carey Jr, Ward Bond, Jane Darwell etc), adds considerably to the film's authenticity while the nearest the film gets to a full-bodied star performance is Joanne Dru's Denver. Dru was a much finer actress than she was ever given credit for as were Bond and Johnson, who at least was finally awarded with the recognition of an Oscar for his work in \"The Last Picture Show\". As he said himself, 'It couldn't have happened to a nicer fella'. Add Bert Glennon's superb location photography and you have a genuine piece of Americana that couldn't have some from anyone other than Ford. This is a film that truly honors America's pioneers and is full of sentiment and feeling.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For my money, probably the best film - or at least the most purely cinematic film - director Ford ever made. The dialog is swift, clipped, to the point.l The story starts at the very beginning and only ends with the final credits. Ford uses a relatively small cast, but directs them and photographs them with a verve and a sweep of epic proportions. Grimly realistic, warmly amusing, brilliantly acted (hard to believe Johnsonj couldn't become a leading man after this), with the best photography and editing in any American black-and-white film. Owes an awful lot to Sergei Eisenstein's editing technique, but never as coolly detached or 'scientific' as Eisenstein could frequently get. And a great musical score. A magnificent panorama of an important and poorly understood episode in American history.

One little quibble: it's not clear why the film involves the Mormons, who, as far as I know, were never the pacifists the Quakers and Amish were. This confusion leaves a slightly bitter after-taste.

However, the rest of the film is such a feast, this is easy to ignore. In all other ways, a true masterpiece of American cinema that needs to be revived and looked at again (and again and again).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most of us kids growing up in the 40's or 50's were western buffs but this was one that had escaped me until seeing on the Movies for Men Channel today. I loved the film's story, cinematography as well as the superb casting of Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. in the lead roles along with the ever dependable Ward Bond. Apparently this movie was the inspiration for the later television series 'Wagon Train' which featured Bond once again as the boss of the wagon trains heading west. Johnson steals the film with his horse riding skills and it's nice to see an actor doing his own stunts like Ben does in this movie. Other notables include the lovely Joanne Dru as Denver and an early non speaking role for James Arness who later became famous for his Marshal Matt Dillon role in 'Gunsmoke.' If you like films of this genre you can't fail to like this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie on TV back in 1959 when I was eight years old. I knew nothing of westerns then but recognized Ben Johnson from the movie \"Mighty Joe Young.\" What attracted me to \"Wagon Master\" were the great songs sung by the \"Sons of the Pioneers.\" Merian C. Cooper, who produced the movie, was the first to commission original music to fit the mood of a specific scene and so created the modern movie soundtrack. Cooper hired Max Steiner to create the mood for his classic creation King Kong. Steiner would later win an Oscar for the theme for \"Gone With the Wind.' Cooper was also the producer of \"Mighty Joe Young.\" If you remember, music was important to the big ape which would only respond to the sound of Stephan Foster's \"Beautiful Dreamer.\" In 1947, Cooper would partner with John Ford, who directed \"Wagon Master.\" Of all of Ford's famous westerns, this one is my favorite which features his brother Francis and a sullen Janes Arness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can you say about a short little film filled with secondary actors and no \"stars\", with absolutely no bad performances, not one poorly delivered line of dialog, and with the cold violence on one hand being balanced by the warm \"heart\" of the protagonists in the story?

It's a jewel, a diamond, a little valuable gem of a western that evokes the spirit and legend of the American West. A West not settled by grand heroes like Hickock or Cody or Masterson or Earp, but by the spread of the everyday man and woman, farmers and ranch hands, merchants and miners and lumbermen, whores and barkeeps, and entertainers of the day, some looking for riches, some for peace and quiet, some for religious freedom.

It is, perhaps, a very spiritual story, though not promoting any particular religion, for even the non-Mormon cowboys portrayed by Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. act in kind and noble ways toward everybody in the story, regardless of religious affiliation and beliefs, and go out of their way to promote tolerance and charity when the wagon train comes upon the stranded medicine show people. And in true biblical fashion, like David and Goliath or Samson and the Philistines, they are the guardian angels sent to the wagon train who eventually have to go head to head with the evil incarnate Clegg clan, likening them to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, and regretting what it is they have to do afterward. It's a sweet folkloric tale of the West that hits every target John Ford takes aim at.

Nowadays I have a western Santa Claus whose red outfit is covered with a denim drover coat, whose red stocking cap is replaced by a brown Stetson, who carries a burlap bag of presents and a coil of rope. To my Santa I added a Winchester rifle with a sling to put on one of his shoulders and a Colt revolver to tuck into his waistband. When people at the office ask why my Santa has to carry guns, I simply reply, \"Snakes!\" After all, isn't the spirit of the Christmas season one where everybody should get what they deserve?

Fifty five years later, especially post-911, the philosophies and attributes demonstrated by the characters and story of this movie are still as relevant today as they were back then.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The performances by the male leads make this long-hard-journey west interesting throughout. The soundtrack by the Sons of The Pioneers is one of the most beautiful I have every heard. The journey itself is somewhat episodic, and Joanne Dru is badly miscast. Overall, this is a very heartwarming and heartfelt western.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The year 1950 saw two very different and interesting westerns: 'The Gunfighter' by Henry King, and 'Wagon Master' by John Ford. 'The Gunfighter' was historically notable as it clearly influenced Zimmerman's 'High Noon' (1951) and later revisionist westerns.

However, I personally find 'Wagon Master' superior to it's contemporary counterpart. Ford's minor masterpiece isn't much about storytelling; it should be conceived more as a poem describing conceptions of old west. Although optimistic and warm at heart, we are deserved from naivety because it's completely free from pretentious underscoring. Frontier scenery is well used as it supports the poetic narrative perfectly. Add naturalistic camera work and we are transported among the mormon travellers to witness western folklore told in cinematic means.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"George Cukor is and always will be one of my favorites. The unsung hero of his generation. Nobody mentions Cukor in the same breath as John Ford, Howard Hawks, William Wyler or Billy Wilder and yet, look at his filmography. From sparkling comedies \"The Philadelphia Story\" \"Adam's Rib\" \"Holiday\" Psycho melodramas \"Gaslight\" \"A Double Life\" a great semi western \"Heller in Pink Tights\" not to mention \"My Fair Lady\" or \"Travels with my Aunt\" He was at the service of his actors, he never put himself in front of the camera. I feel a certain tenderness watching \"Rich and Famous\" flashes of the old master still very much in evidence. Candice Bergen gives us for the first time in her career glimpses of the wonderful comedian she was about to become. Jacqueline Bisset is a throwback to the days of Greer Garson and Loretta Young and Hart Bochner steps in, teasing us, promising something spectacular that will eventually materialize in 1989 with \"Apartment Zero\", Meg Ryan, as Bergen's daughter is already Meg Ryan. As tired as the formula is, it remains a Cukor film and for what I gather one of Almodovar's favorite movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"George Cuckor, known as a director of women, couldn't have hoped for two more talented and beautiful women for his last film. Itself a remake of Bette Davis' campy \"Old Acquaintance\" written by John Van Druten, this film is definitely dated, but still delightful.

Bergen and Bisset sparkle as best friends who compete at everything, but manage to remain friends. Liz Hamilton (Bisset) is a \"serious\" writer, intellectual, and elegant. She meets her lifelong best friend Merry Noel at an exclusive girls school and they begin a lifetime of not always friendly competition. Later in their lives, when Liz is a \"promising\" but blocked writer of serious fiction, Merry decides to try her hand at writing, which infuriates her pal because of Merry's casual approach to the craft she herself takes perhaps a little too seriously.

Much to Liz's chagrin, Merry's trashy novels hit pay dirt, and ultimately, her old friend Liz is judging her novel for the National Book Award. Bergen steals the show as the haughty writer of steamy bestsellers who schemes to bring together the broken pieces of her life in conjunction with her final literary triumph, but alas, things are never that simple.

The supporting cast includes David Selby, whom you might remember as the tragic Quentin Collins from Dark Shadows, Hart Bochner and, of course, a deliciously young and mercurial Meg Ryan in her first film role since leaving the soaps.

Rich and Famous is catty, campy, witty and wise. It culminates in a New Years fiasco that stresses the enduring nature of true friendship, and I never let a year go by without watching it on New Years Eve. Watch it and you'll see why.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I finally received my DVD today, viewed it and I'm pleased to announce this is the original theatrical version of the film. As you may have read in previous reviews of \"Rich and Famous\" that the edited for TV version of the film that somehow made it onto VHS sometime in the late 90's but, now WB has corrected the error and released it on DVD complete with the airplane restroom scene, Matt Lattanzi's bare butt, and the scene in the Hotel room where Liz (Jacqueline Bisset) calls Merry (Candice Bergen) a C**t! It's all there and looks better than ever! A crisp clear digital transfer, widescreen, and special features that include original theatrical trailer and a vintage 1981 featurette called \"On Location with Rich and Famous\" with cast and director interviews. If you love this film as I do you won't be disappointed with purchasing this DVD. Glad to finally have this on DVD\u0085 Well worth the wait! Thank you Warner Bros!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this film because of the dialog and superb acting by Candace and Jacqueline. However, I never knew until now, watching a Bette David marathon on TNT that this film is a remake of a 1943 Bette Davis classic called Old Acquaintance. Bette co-stars with Miriam Hopkins who she was in a terrible feud with during the making of the movie because Bette had had an affair with Miriam's husband who directed her in a film before they made Old Acquaintance.

Anyway, both are worth every minute spent watching. I highly recommend this film if you like a lot of dialog and drama. It's a study in the psychology of women and their relationships with each other, in my opinion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Recently I saw this movie again (after 25 years). In the original there is a scene in the bathroom of an airplane during the landing between Jacqueline Bisset's character and Michael Brandon's character. The rented version did not have this scene in it. Did I imagine this?

Or, is this part of the \"clean up\" of movies where some are altered to exclude portions some people think are not \"appropriate\"?

I love this movie -- it is exactly like the friendship between a friend and I and we've been friends for 25 years and saw it together. Her husband thought it was us as well.

Thank you, Joan","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gosh, I am learning pretty fast that sometimes when you see a film as a youngster and then again 20 years later you gain a different view -- primarily because in 20 years you learn more. For example, I had no idea who George Cukor was - how great of a director he was and how much of that made this film fly. All I can say is..I really liked this film for it touched on an area that paralleled my life: lifelong friendship between two women. Can that EVER exist? Well, in certain doses, yes...and this film let out in a bit on ... \"how\".

Being a youngster with not a lot of life experience at the first time I saw this so I focused more on the \"rich\" and \"famous\" part between the two. At the time, I had no idea there was a difference and what would happen to two women who discovered there was...and how that would effect their friendship. Through their men, their career, the decades that defined them. And coming to realize one thing remained stronger than anything else...their friendship and knowing each other more than anyone else could have.

Then I got older, studied film a bit... and watched this film again with my best friend from High School. We do understand the 'rich' and 'famous' angle ... and we are still the best of friends...but this film is not a cinematic masterpiece...it can be seen as a bit campy at times...a little over the top at points (kinda on a 'Dynasty' and 'Dallas' level to me..) and honestly I can identify with the \"teddy bear\" scene for we do share a bear that means a lot more than a stuffed fun toy through our trials and tribulations with men\/careers, et al..so its not as over the top as it seems....! As many already said, seeing Meg Ryan and Matt Latanzzi and Dack Rambo and David Selby are great in this 1981 piece. this is a nice \"chick\" flick!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Both Jackie and Candice are terrific in this movie. They are well-suited to their roles and have several chances to shine. In particular, the way Candice pronounces the words \"Puerto Rican\" is very funny, as she is being kind as she can be but condescending at the same time. I had seen the original of this movie, called \"Old Acquaintance\", starring Bette Davis and Miriam Hopkins. They allegedly did not get along, so because the movie is about female friendship, that might have been a problem. Here, the actresses clearly admire and respect each other. Hart Bochner and Meg Ryan have supporting parts and are both excellent, in particular Bochner, who never got many decent parts in movies, as far as I am concerned. George Cukor did not make another movie after this, so this was a good one to go out on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Ghost Walks is a nifty little mystery with a great twist, snappy dialog, and best of all a pansy played to the twittery hilt by character actor Johnny Arthur which never demeans or denigrates his character. Mr. Arthur is great in his role of Homer Erskine bringing great comic relief as the secretary of the Broadway producer Herman Wood, played by another great character actor Richard Carle.

They play off of each other superbly.

Although the acceptable words of the time sissy and cream puff are used to describe the character of Homer, it is never mean spirited or meant as denigration, and are not spoken by the manly males of the film but by his employer, who fires and rehires him every other scene and who displays an almost exasperated affection for his devoted employee.

There is a great scene where Homer tells his boss that he has devoted the best years of his life to him and has been everything but a mother to him.

The mystery angle of the film is very entertaining, and the twist at the end might just leave you in stitches.

For a low budget poverty row picture, this film has superb set decoration and great costuming.

Director Frank Strayer ably handles his cast and this film holds together much better than some of his other low budget mystery attempts, but he had a great script to work with and some wonderful actors to carry it through.

This film is a must see for devotees of poverty row films, old dark house mysteries (they actually managed to work in the lines \"It was a dark and stormy night)and it has the added bonus of being an early representation of a gay character in film where nothing bad happens to them in the end.

This movie is available for download in the public domain film section of the Internet Archive at archive.org.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On their way to a country house to hear a new play being read a theatrical producer, his secretary, and the playwright end up stuck in the mud. They make their way to a nearby house, only to end up at the home of the playwright's fiance. If you can't guess that murder and mayhem are about to take place then you haven't been paying attention.

This is a a good entry in the old dark house genre. Not only does it have a good mystery, you also have some very funny one liners wandering through it. The cast is across the board excellent and they're more than willing to have a good time with what is good material.

I would love to say that this is one of the best of the genre, it should have been, but for me something happened on the way that made me down grade the rating to only seven out of ten. I can't tell you what it is, not for certain anyway. Perhaps its the sense that I knew where it was going almost from the outset, or perhaps its something else, I'm not sure what, but there was something that I couldn't shake that made me like this film despite wanting to love it. It just missed being great and somehow fell short.

That said I DO SUGGEST YOU SEE IT. It is after all a very witty film, that entertains fully, despite just missing being great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the genres that flourished during the decade of the 30s was the variation of crime fiction known as \"the murder mystery\", as the addition of sound to films helped to make a more faithful translation to film of what the audiences experienced in the original plays. And since horror films were very popular in those years, by enhancing the horror elements of the plots the murder mystery films experienced a popularity almost equal to what it enjoyed in the previous decade (in which the first movies of the genre were produced). Aspiring playwright Charles Belden saw in this renewed interest in murder mysteries a chance to make a name for himself, after Warner Bros. picked his three-act play, \"The Wax Works\", to create the 1933 horror film, \"Mystery of the Wax Museum\". Belden joined independent filmmaker Frank R. Strayer to keep making films, and \"The Ghost Walks\" was one of his best.

In \"The Ghost Walks\", John Miljan plays Prescott Ames, a young playwright who wants to impress a famous Broadway producer named Herman Wood (Richard Carle) with his new play. Ames takes Wood and his assistant Homer (Johnny Arthur) to his country house for a reading of his play, but his car ends up stuck in the mud during a terrible storm. The three men ask for refugee in an old Mansion which happens to be property of one of Ames' old acquaintances. Inside the house, Wood and Homer witnesses the strange relationship between Ames and the house owners, however, this is all a plan conceived to impress Wood: everyone in the house is an actor playing a role in his murder mystery. Unfortunately, the murder committed is done for real, and while Wood and Homer think it's all fake (after discovering Ames' original plan), the cast knows that someone inside the house is a real murderer.

As expected, Charles Belden's screenplay for \"The Ghost Walks\" features the classic elements of the murder mystery stories of its time, as we have the stormy night at an old dark house as setting, the obligatory group of suspects, and the touch of comedy. However, what's interesting here is how Belden makes the film a real spoof on the genre with the many twists he puts in his story to play with the clich\u00e9s of murder mystery plays. The dialogs are excellent, full of wit and lighthearted charm, and while the plot certainly loses a lot of steam by the end (it follows the murder mystery routine anyways), it never fails to be interesting and entertaining thanks to its smart twists and specially its quirky characters. Interestingly, there's an obvious gay subtext that while stereotypical, it's never denigrating and it's genuinely funny at times.

By 1934 director Frank R. Strayer was already an experienced craftsman in the Poverty row side of the film industry, but his partnership with writer Charles Belden would give him a couple of his most interesting movies, and \"The Ghost Walks\" was one of them. While obviously done on a shoestring budget and the typical production values of independent films of its time, Strayer manages to take advantage of his set and makes an atmospheric movie that fits nicely the mood and tone of the story. The pacing is a little too slow at times, but Strayer knew that the power of his film was on Belden's script and makes the most of it, letting his cast to make the most of their characters with excellent results. Certainly the execution is a bit typical and unoriginal, but Strayer makes an effective albeit restrained work in this film.

As written above, the screenplay is filled with great lines that make the quirky characters shine, and fortunately, most of the cast play with this to their advantage. Veteran character actor Richard Carle is remarkably funny as cranky producer Herman Wood, adding a lot of charm to his character, specially in his scenes with Johnny Arthur, who plays the flamboyant secretary Homer. Arthur is the one who gets the most best scenes, and he gives and hilarious performance as the cowardly yet witty assistant. John Miljan is just effective as Presocott Ames, nothing amazing, but nothing really bad, and the same could be said about June Collyer as Gloria Shaw (the obligatory love interest), whom is just fine. However, Donald Kirke is really enjoyable as the malicious Terry Shaw, and it's a shame he didn't get more screen time.

As usual with Frank R. Strayer films, the low budget hurts the film badly, as while Strayer makes the best he can, the film still feels kind of plain at times. However, the main problem is problem the very slow pace it has, as even when the film is filled with sparkly moments of witty dialogs, it moves at a pace so slow that can become boring and tedious for moments. It also must be said that while effective in their roles, Miljan and Collyer are pretty dull and average when compared to Arthur and Carle, and one wishes the movie had been more focused on the comedic pair they make than on the main couple. Finally, as written above the ending is kind of weak and not up to the high standard of the first and middle parts, although credit must go to Belden for keeping creative plot twists appearing until the very end.

One could say that Charles Belden is an unsung hero of the murder mystery genre, as among the many horror and mystery films that came out the B movie studios nicknamed as \"the Poverty Row\", \"The Ghost Walks\" is easily among the best (alongisde Strayer's previous film, \"The Vmapire Bat\") despite its shortcomings. And even when it's definitely not a masterpiece of the genre, it's a nice way to spend a night enjoying the way it pokes fun at its own origin as a murder mystery play. A very recommended film if you like the genre. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have this movie on a collection of inexpensive B-movies. It's not restored, in fact, the audio was difficult to discern for the first few minutes.

At first, it seemed like a typical haunted house film, and feels very much like the forerunner of Clue, Murder by Death, House on Haunted Hill, etc.

About a half hour into the film, the storyline takes a really interesting twist--and it goes from being a clich\u00e9 melodrama to something entirely different, and far more entertaining than I had initially thought.

Check it out, it's a great deal of fun, even if the long clips and wider shots (and near lack of music score) make it feel a bit creaky by today's standards.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film begins with a cranky old Broadway producer (exceptionally well-played by veteran character actor Richard Carle) being driven by a man hoping to sell him a story for an upcoming play. However, there is a bad storm and their car becomes stuck in the mud and so they are forced to look for some place to spend the night. Fortunately, there's a mansion nearby though it seems pretty odd that the people inside know the writer and he says he didn't realize this was the home of a man he knew (and despised). However, while this seems like bad and contrived writing, it is not....as this is all part of an elaborate ruse by the writer to have a group of actors in the home act out his plot. However, part-way through the ruse, the producer and his browbeaten assistant figure out that the murder mystery taking place in the home is fake and think the whole affair is pretty funny. What no one realizes, though, is that an escaped maniac is loose and he is about to enter this contrived little plot--making for some wonderful twists and turns. So when it seems that there is a real murder, the actors are truly terrified while Carle and his sidekick are convinced it's all a hoax. While I have explained some of the plot, there are many more aspects of the film you'll just have to figure out yourself--and it's surely to keep you entertained and guessing.

Considering that this is a B-movie in the public domain, I certainly did NOT have very high hopes for this little film. However, I was thrilled when the film turned out to be a much better than average flick--with a very interesting and novel twist on the old clich\u00e9d plot about a dark and stormy night spent in a mansion. Plus, while the plotting of the film was very good, the dialog was even better--with lots of sparkling wit and a nice light-hearted pace. Full of pleasant surprises and well worth your time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is a need for this kind of entertainment in our modern world. You can watch \"Ma and Pa\" with adults, with your family (kids any age or just by yourself like me. They are gentle, but gentle is so refreshing in a society of kids killing kids, a horrible war, inappropriate prime time television and poverty. We don't even get a hint of where all of those children came from! Give me modern plumbing and I'll gladly become a Kettle. Humor does NOT require offensive language. It is hard to follow conversations in shows where every other word is bleeped. Relax, take your shoes off, and climb in your recliner with a good old-fashioned glass of lemonade, and just breathe easy watching Ma sweeping the chickens off the table at lunch time! Pj","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Further Adventures of Ma and Pa Kettle almost seamlessly picks up where The Egg and I left off. For the first solo adventure of the Kettles a new writing team and director is introduced. Leonard Goldstein, associate producer of The Egg and I, was producer of The Further Adventures of Ma and Pa Kettle. With many of the characters played by the same actors and actresses the focus from the MacDonalds to the Kettles works very well. There is a reference to Ma beating Birdie Hicks for first prize at the fair for her quilt, an import scene in The Egg and I. The prize money from the quilt contest was to be used to send Tom Kettle to college. In this movie Tom is returning home as a college graduate.

There are two plots intertwined in this movie. One is the comedy of the simple mountain family moving into a state of the art modern house. The other is a light morality play on how environment affects children as they grow up.

Pa Kettle (Percy Kilbride) wanted a free tobacco pouch for entering a contest, and ended up winning a house. His disappointment at not getting the free tobacco pouch is played for laughs quite a bit. When Pa plays with dynamite he is totally oblivious to the explosion. Kilbride never flinched in the scene as the debris from the explosion fell around him. He played the part to perfection. In his autobiography, Jack Benny mentioned how impressed he was with Percy Kilbride's deadpan delivery. Kilbride took that comedic device to a high level of perfection.

Ma (Marjorie Main) and Pa move into the new house with modern conveniences that confuse Ma and Pa almost as much as they help them. Ma adapts far more quickly than Pa. Included with the modern conveniences is a television, a very new household item in 1949. Moving walls, hidden beds, and plumbing fixtures are used as comic props, but the attention is on Ma and Pa, never the props themselves.

Tom Kettle (Richard Long) meets Kim Parker (Meg Randall), a magazine writer who feels that hygiene and environment are essential for children to realize success as adults. Tom is a bright, self-made man who contradicts the theory that success can only come from a pristine environment. This subject is briefly discussed in a couple of scenes, but left to subside. It was also the only serious discussion in this otherwise whimsical movie.

Seeing the Kettles moving out of their run-down old house to move to a new house would almost be a disaster if it were not for the characters staying true to themselves. Ma was the practical one, just as she had been in the The Egg and I. Pa was the fish out of water that provided the best comedy. He never felt at home in the new house, but the actual location of a comfortable bed would never be of concern to him.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Ma & Pa Kettle characters were highly popular AND controversial. The films that featured their brood paved the way for television sitcoms that came after it and sought to emulate its winning formula. One obvious reference is 'The Beverly Hillbillies,' where the new home was bought with oil money, not having been won in a contest. You could even say the 1980s sitcom 'Newhart' borrows its idea of backwards rural characters from this series. Still, I wonder if Betty Macdonald, the Washington-based author who created these characters, didn't do more harm than good. Her portrayal of hillbilly characters makes them the butt of many jokes in terms of their alleged sloppiness and laziness. (The real life family that Macdonald based the Kettles upon, successfully sued...claiming they had been ridiculed and humiliated with these less-than-flattering references). Sure, it's comedy and the situations bring us a great many laughs and fun moments...and political correctness as we know it today did not exist in the 1940s and 1950s. But I think Macdonald could've still written these characters more sensibly and Universal International could've had its scriptwriters show them on screen with more dignity (there's such a thing as good taste). The more realistic moments are when the oldest son Tom is ashamed of his rural heritage but learns to accept his parents and siblings for who they are. For their part, the Kettles have to realize that they don't exactly fit into a modern world. That's not a joke...that's a sober truth.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This as the first of the Ma and Pa Kettle flicks. Marjorie Main (Ma) steals the show in anything she does. Funny to see Ida Moore as Emily, the daffy old lady on the train.. god she was ALWAYS old; she was in \"Desk Set\" and \"Alfred Hitchcock Presents\". Their new house is also a co-star here -- its the house of the future with some really cool inventions that Pa doesn't care for. LOVE the painting gag. Keep an eye out for TOM... he starred in \"Nanny & the Professor\". Unfortunately he died real young... oddly enough, his last role was on the series \"Death Cruise\". weird. Directed by Charles Lamont, who not only directed several of the Kettle films, he also did a bunch of the Abbott and Costello flicks, so he must have known a thing or two about comedy. Fun story, plain, simple humor. Even the release date was April Fool's day, 1949. The story starts out by showing us what backward and country-folk they are (the neighbors are even Native Americans), but as the story progresses, we have sympathy and respect for them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the most entertaining of all silent comedies is Pudovkin's short 'Chess Fever', a mad tale of how a rigorously intellectual board game could disrupt even the most carefully planned central economies. Such an unpromising comedic subject as chess found an earlier outlet in this delightful short. Two young men play the game earnestly against an artificial background, a painted set. This is in contrast to earlier Lumiere shorts such as 'L'Arrosseur Arrosse' or 'Repas du bebe', wherein the human activity was deliberately framed by a natural setting. The difference in activities (natural=feeding baby, watering garden; artificial=chess) is possibly significant.

The main contrast in this film is between this immoveable background and the placid, serene game of chess, and the fierce passions this latter causes, as accusations of cheating lead to a most undignified melee. The intellectual game becomes a gross physical scrap, just as the pretensions of arty filmmakers are forever deflated by the 'cruder' demands of audiences.

What is most amusing about the film is not neccessarily this descent into slapstick, but the way it is filmed, its prolonging long after the initial joke has been made; the way the camera refuses to dignify the fight with anything like attention, focusing instead on the set, while we catch glimpses of hurling feet and dislodged clothing. The film's refusal to edit is audacious, so that the humour seems to arise from something else other than the fight, reflecting our need for physical contact over intellectual stimulation, our unwillngness to let go.

What is especially brilliant is the denouement, as these upper-class fops are caught by the valet, who picks them up like two errant schoolboys, as if he is about to box their ears. If masters can't be expected to keep their place with decorum, than somebody's going to have to do it for them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Famed filmmaker Werner Herzog's \"Fata Morgana\" is breathtakingly unorthodox. Although characters appear in the film from time to time, there is no actual story. The film is also not an educational or historical documentary. It's a film without an accompanying screenplay.

The film consists of curious background music and a somewhat illogical narrative VO, the combination of which overlays a long string of images from mostly, though not exclusively, the Sahara Desert. Some of the images are wonderfully odd, and out of the ordinary. The camera captures ghostly images, or mirages, optical illusions that tantalize and mesmerize.

This general cinematic trend is punctuated by occasional observational asides on serendipitous topics. For example, in one sequence a man wearing goggles gives us a mini-tutorial on lizards. And in what for me was the most captivating and bizarre sequence, a small inset room contains a man with dark goggles who sings in a voice that is totally distorted by the microphone he's using, accompanied by an old lady who plays a punchy tune on an old piano. Neither the man nor the old lady seems to enjoy what they're doing. How baroque.

\"Fata Morgana\" does have an underlying concept, one that unites the wide assortment of strange images and eclectic sounds. But that concept is so subtle, so opaque that you'll never figure it out without help. From this subtle theme the film does indeed make sense. Without that point of reference, however, the film can seem tedious and unending, a pointless parade of random earthy images and esoteric narrative gibberish.

Unapologetically redundant, thematically baffling, and cinematically heretical, \"Fata Morgana\" will likely either make you swoon with delight, or cause you to throw up. You'll either latch on to the film's Zen-like qualities or be tempted to smash the DVD into a thousand pieces. One thing that most viewers will agree on: \"Fata Morgana\" is ... different.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Successful films on metaphysical subjects are rare, but Fata Morgana is a good case. You can chalk up the large subject to the ambitions of youth, but Herzog does an amazingly good job. The movie's point is to show human beings, and even the world, from a non-human point of view.

The movie is in three parts: Creation, Paradise, and The Golden Age. The imagery of each is in counterpoint to the voice-over. Although the text of `The Creation' (from the Popol Vuh, a Mayan myth) refers to the primordial wasteland, the scene goes no further in illustrating the myth. It dwells on the waste, and on various specimens of destruction (fire, smoke, wrecked vehicles). The images from `Paradise' are anything but that, and `The Golden Age' is darkly comic \u0096 the highest culture is the strange roadside musical act.

The Popol Vuh suggests that mankind is the central object of creation, but the movie does everything it can to undo this notion. Its mythological framework has no referent in human historical time. There are no human characters to speak of. When a boy stands with a dog in an extended shot, the initial suggestion is of the boy's point of view; by the end it is much more the dog's. Likewise the lizard is a stronger character than the human who introduces it, and the turtle's partner barely looks human with his big flippers.

Animal stories and nature documentaries always anthropomorphize, but Fata Morgana has none of that. Certainly the dunes look like a female body, but the simile cuts both ways. Presumably only humans can distinguish easily between their creation and nature, and here airplanes and factories are presented alongside mountains, lakes, and waterfalls. People and civilization are all part of a broader natural landscape.

In 1979 Herzog put a new twist on the idea when he remade Nosferatu from the vampire's point of view.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You will be able to tell within the first 30 seconds of this film whether you want to finish watching it. The film opens with images of planes landing at an airport, one plane after another diving into a mirage-filled runway. You will be able to accurately guess that this movie is not about a \"story.\" At first viewing, it's even easy to think the opening images are repetitive shots of the same plane. The initial drama is in the acuteness of your perception, which is built on your willingness to experience the film simply as a series of images. If after this opening, you want to see the movie, you will not be bored. You may even be mesmerized. The movie may be an emotional experience; it may be an intellectual experience; it may be both. Judging from the DVD commentary, which is essential, it was primarily an emotional experience for Herzog, and, at one point, he talks explicitly about how the film is a collaboration between filmmaker and viewer. There's plenty of room for the viewer to make of this film exactly what he or she wants to make of it. Take a gamble?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fata Morgana is an absolute masterpiece. It's Werner Herzog's most unconventional film. It doesn't have a plot or story. Instead of a story, we're given a collection of images, words and music that work so wonderfully together. It's not a documentary either. Some of the people in this film are directed and given lines to read. It has some of the most beautiful and haunting images. Herzog shoots real mirages and we see cars and people floating around in the middle of the desert who aren't actually there but hundreds of miles away reflected like in a mirror. The use of music in this movie is so brilliant - from Leonard Cohen, Mozart, and the Third Ear Band. Imagine Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey in the desert; that's what this movie is like. This film is so hypnotic that it has the ability to make you feel as though your spirit has left your body. A must see. It will change the way you view films. Rating: 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Inarguably one of the most interesting filmmakers of the last 50 years, Werner Herzog has been pushing the boundaries of cinema perhaps more so than any other commercial filmmaker. I've been acquainted with Herzog for a few decades now and I've never not been impressed by both the man and his work. Last year I went to see Rescue Dawn and was somewhat surprised at how relatively mainstream the film was, yet couldn't help but imagine Herzog taking his actors and crew into the actual jungle to not only make the film, but to live it. No other filmmaker is as crazed about the purity of the film-making process and the subsequent lore from such productions as Fitzcarraldo has been forged into cinematic legend.

Today I sat down to Fata Morgana, a 1969 Herzog film that could be described as an allegorical filmic postcard. Without researching the actual locations, I'm assuming it was shot somewhere in Africa, both coastal and desert, a region that could have once been the cradle of infant man, infant civilization, infant life on earth. It is these origins, the biblical notion of the Garden of Eden and the Apocalypse that Herzog is concerned with, as is voiced by the narration dispensed throughout the 79 minute run time.

Watching FM I couldn't help but feel I was a passenger on a profound journey. In the opening sequence, the title is translated as \"Mirage\" and Herzog juxtaposes this translation with multiple repetitions of commercial jets landing on an airstrip. These images are perverted, their 3-dimensionality crushed flat by a long lens, piling layers of exhaust, heat waves and light aberrations all on top of one another. The effect left me to conclude: things are not as they seem.

FM is divided into 3 very distinct chapters: 1) Creation, 2) Paradise and 3) The Golden Age. Chapter One, opens with countless, languid images, where bleak, barren landscapes scroll by, dead animals rot, broken shells of crashed airplanes and abandoned cars slowly disintegrate in the desert sun. The people populating this inhospitable landscape are ragged, unsmiling and apparent prisoners of the desert. The narration talks of a time before life, a time where the canvas of earth was blank and all that existed were the heavens. While the narration hearkens to a simpler, purer era, a portrait of a young boy holding a fox-like animal by its throat evokes a chilling depiction of man's cruel, ruthless attempt to enforce a dominion over nature.

In the next chapter we are introduced to more of the same, yet the images and people are more animated and seem infused with a modicum of life and vitality. We listen to a goggled biologist talk about the difficultly a monitor lizard has hunting for prey in such a lifeless environment. As he holds the squirming monitor, its tongue flicking at flies, he also describes how difficult it to capture these creatures in the searing 140 degree heat. The parallel is duly noted and Herzog continues to explore this concept through repeated, candid portraits of individuals battered by the sun, the desert and the laborious efforts required to exist in this harsh realm. He also pushes forward the theme that if not in control, man asserts his control over his environment and not always in the most pleasant of ways.

The last chapter takes us out of the desert's blast furnace and into the more familiar Herzog territory populated by eccentrics and absurd behavior. No one seems to have a more effective symbiotic relationship with the oddballs of the world than Herzog -- possibly this is where he feels most at home. Much like Errol Morris, Herzog chooses to place his camera in as seemingly objective a position as he can before he lets the film roll. The subsequent flirtation Herzog has with his subject is the result of him being able to continue shooting well beyond the point when most directors would have yelled cut. As Morris does, this extended roll pushes past the \"on\" moment the subjects feel obliged to offer and through their discomfort of being pushed into overtime, their facade gives way to something real. The most humorous portrait in this chapter is of the 2 person band playing an odd, polka-like song that Herzog recycles throughout this chapter. The drummer of the band wears the same goggles as the biologist, as does another guy doing a magic trick, begging the question: what's with the goggles? They definitely add some levity to the film, but one has to wonder if they hold any deeper meaning or significance, or is this just another example of Herzog's playfullness.

The narration aside, Herzog utilizes folk and blues music as the experimental documentary's soundtrack. Leonard Cohen grabs the most screen time, two of his beautifully melancholic songs \"So Long Marianne\" and \"Suzanne.\" perfectly accompany the scrolling landscapes, adding to the convincing feel that we are truly along for the ride. By the end of the journey, Herzog comes back to one of the many shots that recur throughout the film: the distant framing of a lone vehicle traversing the endless desert engulfed by a water mirage that fills the horizon. Despite the overall bleakness of FM, the crescendo of the film and the mirage motif leave you with a hopeful spirit, belief that against all odds, life will persevere and possibly even flourish.

Having finished writing this post, I referenced FM to discover that Herzog shot it in Saharan Cameroon only weeks after a bloody coup. True to his legend, Herzog and his crew were arrested, beaten and imprisoned. While imprisoned, Herzog fell ill with Schistosomiasis, a blood parasite. It's truly hard not to love such a hypnotic and austere film as Fata Morgana; knowing the filmmaker was willing to die to get it made only makes you respect it all the more.

http:\/\/eattheblinds.blogspot.com\/","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fata Morgana is, by far, one of the weirdest and most perplexing art films I have ever seen. I hesitate to call it a documentary because, while is does have elements of documentation of it's images, the images themselves are so unusual, so hallucinogenic, so unclear, that I wonder whether it was really worth telling this story just so that these images can exist. The film basically is the tale of the earth and the creation of the earth shot from the perspective of an outsider, be it alien or something otherwise indescribable, all taking place in the Sahara desert. The title of the picture relates to the illusion or reflection of images, both real and hallucinated, that people in the desert often witness. These are also known as mirages.

The film opens with a plane landing followed by the plane landing again and then again and again and again and again and again and again. With each plane landing shot, the actual architecture of both the location it is landing at and the plane itself begin to slowly dissolve into one another and grow less and less real and more and more reflective imagery. The imagery in this film only grows more intense and more unusual as the picture continues. The narration of the film tells of the creation of the universe as alarming sexual images of sand and landscape move past the camera. The shots go further and further into the desert and Herzog films whatever he sees and finds. The strangest reflections of the world are on display in the distance while Herzog meets some of the most pure and photogenic collections of outsiders that you are ever likely to see. When the Leonard Cohen soundtrack kicks in, you can be sure that you are in the world of a mad man who is in love with the universe.

I cannot say too much more about this film without ruining anything, but I will say that it is a sobering experience and there's really nothing like it. I love seeing films that are just in classes of their own. This film certainly is a good example of how Herzog loves to intermingle narrative storytelling and documentary film-making into an interchangeable form. Fata Morgana unfortunately does overstay it's welcome just a bit, but by the time it nears it's end the images will most likely be burned into your mind forever. Definitely a must-see for those who are obsessed with the nature and the origin of the universe.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It would be something to try and tell someone what Fata Morgana is very simply about. Or, maybe it isn't: Herzog goes to the Sahara desert and nearby villages to film assorted landscapes and the locals. But this is just the broadest stroke. It's a feat that you either surrender yourself to, or you don't. He gets into the form of the world around him entirely, without a story, bound only to certain aspects of written poetry, as his camera (shooting on supposedly discarded film stock) wanders like in a pure travelogue. One might even jump to that easy conclusion, as he puts up these immense landscapes, then moving to more rough civilized culture (though not the actual 'normal' culture itself), and to a point levels too abstract to be able to convey properly here. Sometimes it takes a while to get along, close to a purity through the \"creation\" section, but a purity in how parts are manipulated either by nature or by broken-down machines. Soon the narration, readings from the Popol Vuh (who, by the way, does the music for most of his films), with the gradual procession of actually highly stylized shots adds a whole different level to it. It's a hybrid film, and it's not easy, but the rewards are what best comes closest to Herzog's idea of \"ecstatic truth\", images he's been out for his whole career.

One wonders if the images end up, by the time the second section, Paradise, leading along the words spoken, or if it's the other way around. You're eyes are moving along with the stills and pans, and the wording is close to being religious writing, but there's also the music choices, how the bizarrely spare singing and low-key classical music goes together with Leonard Cohen and Blind Faith. I think each side ends up complimenting the other, and it's something that still *seems* like it shouldn't work. Perhaps that's the draw to it, the chances taken in going through desolate wastelands and the smallest run sections of any kind of civilized life (in this case the shacks of the desert), that make it so fascinating. If only for the cinematographic sense it's a marvel, too indescribable for the casual photography fan because of molds of technique, and some of the strangest images of any Herzog film. There's pans, there's long-shots, there's hand-held while driving by the towns, there's a bus dozens of miles away that via mirage seems only a couple, there's full-on close-ups of fire and a man holding a reptile and talking about its radar (truly classic gonzo comedy), there's people holding still in fake poses, and a man and woman playing inane music. But, most importantly, it ends up feeling, at least for me, natural for the personal nature of the approach.

I'm sure only Herzog would know for certain why he made this film, as opposed to the simple 'how'; he was already filming Even Dwarfs Started Small, and he ended up going through many perils to finish it. Yet this is what makes Fata Morgana such an amazing feat- it will appeal to one depending on what someone brings to it in actually watching it. It's definitely unsettling, but there's the temptation to want to see it again very soon after, just to experience all of the ideas and realities turned abstracted strange vibes (yes, the word 'vibes' applies here). It's one of the truly spectacular \"art-films\" ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As one other IMDb reviewer puts it, \"...imagine 2001: A Space Odyssey in the desert\" and you wouldn't be far off from a brief summarisation of what to expect from this piece of cinema (I deeply hesitate to use the word \"film\"). A lecture on philosophical views on creationism, the mythos surrounding humanities existence, the before and after, that was has been, the what is and the what will be. This for some maybe a \"2001\" on sand, but they tackle different philosophical viewpoints, one about evolution and the future, the hope and potential for mankind, while Fata Morgana itself is a somewhat more metaphysical trek. I only hope I can convey it effectively enough.

Herzogs style will not to be everyones liking, and those who are not of a perceived hardcore branch of cinematic viewing may, and most likely will, find this extremely hard going, and may not even see it through to its finale after 72 minutes. Fusing together a montage of footage from the Sahara, including villages, villagers and various other places for a somewhat surrealist ending, music of various genres and an almost mythical narration, Fata Morgana is severely slow paced but ultimately hugely rewarding.

Opening with a montage of various filmed shots of planes landing for nigh on five minutes, you already arrival at the introduction of the film immensely confused, and the sense that this will not be like anything you have seen before echoes clear in your mind. Divided into three sections, creation, paradise and the golden age, Fata Morgana attempts, and succeeds, in being able to juxtapose images of the natural beauty of the desert with the man made instruments that taint it. Its three segments are narrated by different persons each pertaining specifically to the particular section they are voicing and provide extra emphasis on the long soliloquy's and desert montages.

Fata Morgana is a film dealing with the existence of man on our Earth. It looks at the natural beauty the Earth was designed for, and concurrently looking at the potential beauty we have within us, more notably shows us our negative contributions to the world in which we live. Each shot has been purposefully constructed, using what can only be described within the context of this film as 'The Holy Trinity Of Filming' in pictures, words and music. Each part of these three pieces provides something notably to each shot, but when brought together they create something greater than the whole of their parts, they create unbridled beauty and deep thought within our minds. I will not be able to do this film the justice it deserves with mere words alone, perhaps if I had pictures and a score, and I do know this will not be appreciated by the masses, but this a profound and I will not use the term \"art film\" because this is simply just art. This is moving art which moves the mind and stirs the soul. Whether or not creationism is your want is irrelevant, because this film is about intelligent design.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fata Morgana, the 1971 documentary-like film by German filmmaker extraordinaire Werner Herzog, filmed over several years in the late 1960s, is one of those rare DVDs that should be listened to with the commentary turned on. It is a visual feast of North African (mostly Saharan) imagery that is timeless. You simply could not tell that it was made over thirty-five years ago. The soundtrack to the film, including German classical music (Mozart and Handel), and rock music by Blind Faith and Leonard Cohen, also lends its timeless quality. The narration by three different German narrators (German film historian Lotte Eisner, Eugen Des Montagnes, and Wolfgang von Ungern-Sternberg) is solid, and Herzog goes on and on of Eisner's import to this project, himself, and film history, but the English speaker of the translation, James William Gledhill, has a voice that seems downright deific, which lends itself far more perfectly to this project, even though much of the text- in either language, is rather superfluous. Yes, the faux Biblical sounds of the Popul Vuh Mayan creation myth in the film's first part, Creation, is interesting, but the text Herzog wrote for the remaining two parts (Paradise and The Golden Age), along with quotes from a German poet Herzog names as Manfred Eigendorf, almost seems a satire of the first part's somber tone\u0085. The film, it seems was pieced together during the shooting of several other Herzog projects concurrently- the fictive Even Dwarfs Started Small, and the documentaries The Land Of Silence And Darkness and The Flying Doctors Of East Africa, but these projects' rejected material only add to the beauty of this film, such as aerial scenes of a flamingo mating lake from afar that give one an eerie unearthly sense, one which Herzog crows about in his commentary. This unearthly feel is present right from the film's start of several airplanes landing on a desert runway, with their images getting successively blurrier as the heat from the ground rises, and increases the distorting waves that mar the images. That this film was influential in the \u0096Quatsi films of Godfrey Reggio is an understatement. But, whereas Reggio is content to just toss images at you, Herzog has an ability that only American filmmaker Terrence Malick also has: to make a wholly self-contained vocabulary out of the juxtaposition of images and words, and one dependent upon an emotion-first thrust. Analysis can fail when brought to such endeavors. Herzog often does not understand even why his art is great. The best he does often is wholly unconscious and mesmeric. This is why his contempt for the Lowest Common Denominator pap of Hollywood is openly stated on the commentary.

Perhaps the best illustration of this comes in a scene that, on the commentary, Herzog tells us followed a severe drought in Cameroon. It shows the jerkied carcasses of cattle, and Herzog describes the unbearable stench. Yet, the viewer can sense this all from the images, the blackness of the sun dried portions of animals, and the blanched bones. Yet, even in that commentary, Herzog focuses on the stench, not any deeper meaning. He is content to let you imbue and interpret what you will into and of his work, such as the almost erotically feminized shapes of sand dunes, which recalls a scene from Ingmar Bergman's Hour Of The Wolf, where Max Von Sydow, runs his hand over Ingrid Thulin's beautiful nude body's curves. But, the archetypal image in this film, which symbolizes much of Herzog's career, is of a mirage of a faraway car driving back and forth on the surface of what appears to be a lake. It is deep, hypnotic, illusive, elusive, supernatural, yet real, just as Herzog, the believer who came from a family of militant atheists, is. But, then, like everything else, it ends.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After I've seen this movie I find it hard to understand why so many people seem to hate this movie. I'm not saying it belongs in the top 250 of all times, but in it's genre it is a great movie. I know, not many people find it amusing to see how a legendary story like 'Robin Hood' is turned into a comedy. Many people still seem to believe that some things shouldn't be laughed with ... they are wrong.

Mel Brooks has done an excellent job with Robin Hood: Men in Tights. I have seen the original Robin Hood movies as well, but I never had such a good time when watching them as I had with this one. It's just one continuation of hilarious moments and parodies on famous people and movies (Winston Churchil, The Godfather...).

I recommend everyone who wants to have a good laugh to watch this movie. To those who think Robin Hood shouldn't be messed with, you're wrong, but you better don't watch it because you'll probably be offended by it. I give this movie an 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember when I first saw this movie. I was babysitting for a friend of my mums, and one of the kids suggested we watch it. Thinking it was the frankly laughable 'Prince of Thieves' they were slipping into the video recorder, I was prepared for a few hours of boredom, What I got came as a shock, a pleasant one I'll admit, but still a shock.

Now, you all know the Robin Hood legend don't you? I shall explain a little. Robin Hood was a Saxon criminal, nicking money here and there and giving it to people who needed it, all the while seducing the beautiful Maid Marion, and vexing the Sheriff of Nottingham and prince john. That's the basics! Now, on with the review.

This movie was released in 1993, and is a take off of the whole Robin Hood legend and a p--- take of Prince of Thieves in particular.

Loosely following the legend, Robin of Loxley is first encountered in an Arabic prison during the third century crusades, and together with a 'Moor' as they were called in those days, he executes a cunning escape with a cellmate, Asneeze.

After escaping, Asneeze beseeches Robin to find his son Atchoo, a foreign exchange student in England and look out for him. This Robin vows to do! Robin swims back to England.

He returns to his home, Loxley castle to find it being wheeled away on the back of the cart by Bailiffs, and goes through he sorrowful revelation that his father, dog, cat, and even the goldfish are all dead. Desperate for a familiar face, he finds the family's loyal blind servant Blinkin sitting on the toilet with a Jazz mag in Braille. The hilarity continues throughout the movie.

As with all Robin Hood stories, Robin must thwart the evil plans of Prince John and the sheriff of Rottingham, who are wreaking havoc and charging exorbitant taxes on King Richards's kingdom while he's away.

Those familiar with the movies Mel Brooks has previously directed will have some small idea of what to expect. After all, this is the man responsible for Dracula-dead and loving it and young Frankenstein. All the jokes, which range from visual gags to wonderful witty comments are in exactly the right places throughout the movie, with never more than a minute between laughs.

Cary Elwes (incidentally the only English man to play Robin Hood in a movie), who many of you will know from Princess Bride brings his cheeky grinning twinkle eyed presence to this movie, and does a wonderful job. From outlandish heroic posturing, to a wickedly sexy glance, he really is amazingly funny. And the man looks better in tights than I do!

Richard Lewis is hilarious as the whiny, arrogant Prince John with the ever-changing mole. He gets the sissy-boy behaviour down to a tee, and his whinging American vocalisations are great. All the way through the movie, a mole on his face constantly changes position: it starts on his left cheek, then over to his right cheek, then his chin, then his forehead, before going back to it's original place. This is a subtle joke based on the mole on Alan Rickman when he played the sheriff in Prince Of Thieves

Roger Rees as the sleazy sheriff of Rottingham is marvellously slimy and nasty, and has some great lines throughout the film.

There are some faces here you'll be familiar with from other Brooks films. For instance Robert Ridgely, playing the hangman in this film also played the hangman in Blazing Saddles, another film directed by Brooks. He likes to add subtle references to his earlier films too; with several in this film that die-hard Brooks fans will easily spot. Those who watched History of the World part 1 will recognise the music to the song 'Men in Tights'. Also, when Patrick Stewart arrives and snogs Marion, Mel himself (playing Rabbi Tuckman) utters the line 'it's good to be a king', one of his lines in History of the world.

The whole cast is wonderfully comedic, even those with only a few lines bring a great depth of warmth and humour to them

What makes this film so wonderfully warm and funny in my own opinion are all the improvised scenes. Although there was a script of sorts, some scenes were completely improvised by the actors themselves, such as the scene where Latrine (Tracey Ullman) prays for Rottingham in her bed, and he falls through the ceiling, landing right where she wanted him, which was totally devised and thought out by the two actors.

There are few special effects, and those that are there are small but fun moments of computerised camera trickery.

The soundtrack is memorable, with some very funny songs, and a couple of cheesy love songs. You'll be singing 'Men in tights' or at least humming it to yourself, for weeks.

The rating is Pg, to which I say BAH HUMBUG. There is no bad language in the film, except in the use of double entendre, and one utterance of sh!t, and violence is minimal. In fact I'd go as far as to say non-existent, apart from a few comedy fight scenes.

A great fun film that adults and children alike will enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a funny film and I like it a lot. Cary Elwes plays Robin Hood to a tee. This is, of course, the usual good vs evil with Robin against the evil Sheriff of Nottingham. The humor is sort of in your face stuff for the most part, but still works well. A comedy for a night when you don't want to have to think much, it's well worth a rent!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is definitely one of the better Mel Brooks movies, along with Spaceballs(although I will openly admit to not having watched many others, at least yet). It's very silly and thoroughly funny, there are hardly more than a few minutes throughout the entire two hour run-time, where you aren't entertained. Almost all of the gags have a great comical effect, few of them fall flat. I saw this movie right after seeing and reviewing Spy Hard, and comparing these two spoof movies, I realize exactly of how high quality this movie really is. It's funny from start to finish, none of the comedy is overdone or boring. The music is marvelous, as is the choreography of both dancing and fighting. The acting is pretty much what you would normally expect from this type of movie... Elwes is a great comedian, and makes a good Robin. The plot is typical Robin Hood, more or less everything from the legend is fit into this movie(and spoofed majorly). If you like Mel Brooks, or you're just a fan of silly humor, or you're just dying to watch a good parody of the legend of Robin Hood, this is definitely the film for you. The HBO First Look special on the film is also worth watching, and in that, you may want to keep watching throughout the credits, too. I'd recommend it to any fan of Mel Brooks movies, and to people who enjoy silly humor. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cary Elwes have to say puts on a better performance then Costner did in RHPOT but anyhow.

Have to say this film it just makes me laugh so much mainly because the actors seem really into what their doing and you just sit there and thinking 'what the hell are they on' but in a very very very very good way.The random outbursts of songs were brilliant and well and the musical score used I really really liked.Great casting and as said before everyone seemed so into their roles

10\/10 from me defiantly

'Because unlike some other Robin Hoods.I can speak with an English accent'","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993) was a much needed parody from Mel Brooks. He has the assignment of spoofing the Robin Hood legacy and the couple of movie dealing with the mythical honorable thief of English folklore. Cary Elwes stars as Robin Hood. He's looking for a few good men who'll join him in his quest to topple the evil sheriff of Nottingham (Roger Rees) and win the fair hand of Maid Marian. Robin also has to deal with Prince John (Richard Lewis).as well. Tracey Ullman co-stars as Prince John's personal witch Latrine who has her eyes on the Sheriff.

Will Robin find his merry men? How far will the Prince go to throw his weight around in the absence of his father? Why does the Sheriff hate Robin so much? To find out you'll have to watch ROBIN HOOD: MEN IN TIGHTS!! Check out the hilarious cameo by Dom De Luise who plays the Duke of Jersey.

Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like many a child born in the 1980's, I grew up on the Mel Brooks films that weren't necessarily the 'racier' ones like Blazing Saddles and History of the World part 1 (I saw those, of course, though not as frequently as now), but the ones meant for the \"whole family\", Spaceballs, and this film. I knew at the time I wasn't seeing great art, but just a campy, goofy, though always laugh-worthy take on Robin Hood and\/or adventure movies. But calling it a family movie in quotes means that a) adults really can enjoy it as much as kids, if not more because of the little in-jokes and silly vulgarities, and b) once a kid sees it, when he revisits it, as I have a few times, it's still as fresh but with some things not quite understood the first time around. It's a comedy that is not only filled with jokes at Robin Hood movies and other movies (Godfather of course, as well as little mentions for other movies of modern times), but one that references Brooks's own movies as well; this is a filmmaker who isn't above poking fun at even his own style.

Basic story- Robin Hood (Cary Elwes in one of his best turns) returns home from the crusades to see things are in peril with King Richard gone, and so goes forth to reclaim his land and to, naturally, rob the rich to feed the poor. Along the way he meets Achoo (Dave Chappelle), butts heads with Prince John (Richard Lewis) and the Sheriff, and of course still pines for the love of Maid Marian. This, of course, is the usual clothesline for Brooks to let the comedy run off into the scenes, and while sometimes a joke may not work or might become stale on a repeat viewing, so much of it sticks that it's hard not to chuckle. It also helps that a couple of bits are some of the best in any Brooksfilm, such as the Godfather bit (Dom DeLouise at his very best), Brooks's own cameo as the Rabbbi, Lewis and Chappelle's acting turns, and an endless slew of quotable lines and a couple of tongue-in-cheek songs. Some of it is obvious, yes, some of it just takes right from the pages of Blazing Saddles, sure, but is it a good time for the right crowd? Definitely- and for parents who grew up on the 70's Brooks work, it is a fantastic way to introduce the young ones to his work through this (even the suggestive sex jokes and such are not R-rated, all in good fun).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robin Hood; Men in Tights is worth watching, I recently watched it because I've just become a Cary Elwes fan, and this is one of of his lead-roles. Some moments really made me crack up so hard! I didn't expect them you know, it was so funny, Even the 2nd time around you'd still fall off your chair The cast is great, of course especially Robin of Locksley himself,Cary, but Blinkin and the Sheriff and Little John (Don't let the name fool you, it's veryy big! lol) and everyone else!

There were some moments of course, the film tried to make a comedic scene out of but you don't necessarily laugh at it,.... but OK.

This is the second time Cary Elwes and Patrick Stewart appeared in a film together by the way, they both worked on \"Lady Jane\" in 1986, and it was fun to see them, 7 years later, older, awwww.

It's definitely worth watching, quite hilarious indeed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this film was amazing and I laughed so much that I had to see it twice to catch the bits I missed whilst bending over holding my stomach! The critic who reviewed this film for this site challenged anyone with an IQ over their shoe size to find this film funny, well my IQ is approx:135...I challenge this person to question me and then eat his own words! This film is brilliant and if the critic above wasn't such a boring idiot, he might smile for once in his life and take things as lightly as they're meant!!!

The musical numbers were so imaginative! EVERYONE when watching any film about that period of time will notice men in tights and realise how different it is to today's attire and how funny we would find today's male population if they wore tights day in day out! The idea of dedicating a song to butch men dancing in tights was so fresh how can anyone NOT laugh!!! (Plus also, seeing hip-hop rappers doing ballet is always hysterical-as a dancer also, I've done ballet and hip hop and danced with men who've had to do both....it still cracks me up each time!!!)

I love this film, if anyone hasn't seen it yet, don't listen to the critic above...watch it and then decide for yourself!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is Wonderful! I can watch it again and again. Robin hood is Perfectly cast, and Marian is beautiful. I personally think Marian's German man is the funniest character, along with Latrine and the Sheriff! While space balls got boring and stupid after a while, this one always keeps your interest! W O N D E R F U L This was a great film, and never gets boring. A great cast is in the roles, and it is spoofed perfectly, and makes so much sense, and can be watched again and again! You will love this film if you'll only watch it, except if you hate comedy, or does not think Robin Hood should be tampered with. But this old story gets boring, and this movie gives it a great new flavor!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I Love this movie! I know some people might say that it was not a great movie, but I really disagree. The comedy is classic Mel Brooks style and the actors were superbly chosen. This was my first exposure to Cary Elwes, and Dave Chappelle and what a first impression they made. Cary Elwes shines as Robin Hood, the only British Robin Hood mind you. He has great comedic timing and the right attitude for this type of film. Dave Chappelle is obviously much bigger now, but at the time this was his first movie and he did an outstanding job as Achoo. The characters were all very well planned out and all added their own little quirks to the movie. I highly recommend that you rent this movie and enjoy it with a nice bowl of popcorn and some close friends!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was awesome, if you want a movie with non-stop puns and laughter then this is right for you. This movie was great because it took the serious Robin Hood and made it something the whole family can enjoy and get a good laugh at. I first viewed this movie when i was around 10, and got most of it. This movie is also great because it makes fun of everything involved, \"By order of the kings financial secretary H and R Blockhead?\"

Everyone needs a little Cary Elwes(Robin Hood)in life, whether or not its Liar Liar with the \"Claw\" or Saw.

This movie is worth watching","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Robin Hood: Men in Tights\" has received no respect whatsoever. It was hilarious! Cary Elwes was excellent as the \"Prince of Thieves,\" and David Chappelle, Amy Yasbeck, Patrick Stewart, Richard Lewis and Mark Blankfield as Blinkin all did fine jobs. I will never understand the hostility toward \"Robin Hood: Men in Tights,\" but I do know a great comedy when I see one.

\"Robin Hood: Men in Tights\" receives *** out of ****.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Might contain spoilers.

This is just a good movie. Lots of good silly stuff to laugh at. However, do not watch the TV version, they cut to much out. Dom Deluise is rather awesome as the mafia Don who is hired to kill Robin. All I can say about his ten minutes: it's a long drive from Jersey. Also you gotta love them checking the script to make sure Robin gets another shot. Also: 12th Century Fox.

Any bad stuff? The rappers at the beginning and the end seem rather out dated. The songs were rather lame. One time while watching this movie, I could think out a few more times when they could have thrown in another joke or 2.

On the whole, however, an enjoyable movie experience. A must watch for comedy fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't think I have ever seen a better movie parody. Mel Brooks is insane. EVERY time I watch it I find something new and it makes it even more funny than the time before. Cary Elwes is perfect for the role of Robin Hood. It has a great and unexpected ending that leaves you cracking up. Every character is great from Little John and Will to Maid Marian and Broomhilde. I laughed the whole way through and will never get tired of it. Watch it!!

If you liked Cary Elwes in this Movie, you must definitely see The Princess Bride.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you don't like Mel Brooks, you won't like this film. That's a given. Why anyone wouldn't like his films is unknown to me, but for those who can't see the light, just avoid it.

Everyone else: This is a classic. The entire cast is perfect: Carey Elwes is a dashing, clever, BRITISH Robin Hood, Amy Yasbeck overacts appropriately as Marion, Richard Lewis is his usual distracted, annoyed self, Roger Rees is a brilliant combination of fluster and violence as \"Mervyn\" the Sheriff of Rottingham, and Dave Chapelle, Eric Allan Kramer, Mark Blankfield, and the sadly underused Matthew Poretta are the perfect Merry Men.

There are similarities to Spaceballs, Blazing Saddles...and every other Mel Brooks movie. But why would you want him to change his style when it works so damn well? The pop culture references in this movie are old enough to be funny again...from the view of a 16 year old, at least. It's complete and utter parody, every second a play for a laugh. Some of them don't work, but most do, and well. I discovered new jokes the fifth and sixth time I watched the film!

Of course, if being barraged by constant visual and verbal gags isn't your style, you wouldn't like this. This isn't an Academy Award winner, it's Mel Brooks. You know what it is when you're getting into it. If you want nonstop laughter, surprisingly well-developed characters, and catchphrases to last a lifetime, watch this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There won't be one moment in this film where you aren't laughing. This is Mel Brooks at one of his high points, and Cary Elwes carries off the part of Robin with convincing humour. Every time you watch this film you will discover a new joke, but the ones you have noticed before will never grow old. Highly recomended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Side Show\" is one of the weirdest Horror movies ever made from Full Moon Pictures. Very gory in some places, but not as shocking as the Trailer makes it out to be (The Trailer for this movies shows all the gory parts). Also, the acting and visual effects are well done. I would recommend this movie to horror fans everywhere.

8 out of 10

Fans of Horror Movies like this should Check out Puppet Master, Skinned Alive, Slumber Party Massacre, Sleep Away Camp, and other Full Moon Pictures flicks. For other recommendations, check out the other comments I have sent in by clicking on my name above this comment section.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't help but notice the negative reviews this movie has gotten. To be honest, I saw the preview for this movie, and the premise looked intrigued me. Yes, I rented it after reading others' comments. They are correct in that some of the acting leaves a lot to be desired. They are also correct that one of the best performances of this movie was that of Dr. Graves.

Also interesting is Scott Clark, who plays Grant, the kid in the wheelchair. I identify with the character he played, perhaps because I am in a wheelchair.

This movie is certainly worth your looking at.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great horror movie. Great Plot. And a person with a fear of midgets will definately love the evil midget! This is a must see for any horror fan. Finally a lower budget movie with decent effects and a great cast! Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I feel very strongly that this film was just like Waiting to Exhale with white females in the 1950's. As in Waiting to Exhale, all of the female characters got mixed up with men who were either married or no good. The only difference, besides the obvious, was that there wasn't much humor in this film. I would even say that it was tragic. Only one of the male characters seemed to be kind and sincere (Hope Lange's guy), but even then there was conflict in this relationship.

The story was about three young women who shared an apartment together and who had hopes and dreams of success. Unfortunately for them, romance didn't seem to come easy although they were young, intelligent and attractive. This movie could be called a tearjerker with the saddest part involving Suzy Parker's character whose obsession of an ex-boyfriend leads to tragedy.

This is a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film in 1959 at the Hoyts Double Bay cinema in Sydney when fifteen years old. I loved it then and still do. The ensemble cast is great - in those days the actors acted \"naturally\" and you \"felt\" for them in the respective roles. A \"glossy\" film of the period -the relationships therein still relevant to today's world but now the sexes are on the same level, women would not or should not allow the type of treatment displayed in the past. The soundtrack music is wonderful and it is a delight that Film Score Monthly released the CD in January, 2005. Pity scenes were cut prior to release - even at two hours you want more! I have registered with Amazon for the DVD (they do now have a special page). To view this film in CinemaScope after forty six years of pan and scan will be great. Twentieth Century Fox, please look further into your catalogers of fifties CinemaScope productions for DVD - there IS a large market out there. I await arrival from US of March, 2004 Vanity Fair Special article on the film, which is said to be fifteen pages with many photos on set. Cheers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This working girls go to hell soap is a time capsule candidate, courtesy of its immaculate physical production, 50s costuming (look at all those bows and pearls), creamy Johnny Mathis theme song and oh-so daring (for its time) sexual attitudes. Rona Jaffe's novel, on which the film was based, keeps on being republished, and just a few years ago Vanity Fair actually devoted an article to this delectable bon bon of a movie. Take a look at the new DVD transfer and you'll know why.

The three leads - Hope Lange, Diane Baker and Suzy Parker - echo the girls from \"How to Marry A Millonaire\" or Carrie Bradshaw and her friends from \"Sex and the City.\" \"Gentlewomen songsters off on a spree...\" Their romantic adventures and sexual entanglements are the stuff of paperback passion: empty caramel corn calories, devoid of nutrition, impossible to resist snacking on. Lange is genuinely touching in her neo-Grace Kelly way, Baker is properly dim and idealistic as a timid virgin who gets (gasp) knocked up by a (hiss) cad. It helps that the cad is played by Robert Evans, the throaty voiced, coke snorting film mogul who surely has lead many an innocent young lamb to the slaughter in his Beverly Hills bedroom.

Suzy Parker is fascinating in the first half of the film, all blithe self assurance and knowing remarks. She struts her stuff with the panache of the fashion icon she was in the 50s. Alas, she's not up to where the film sends her: into madness and obsession. But she exudes glamour and savior faire and her acting is at least adequate. One wonders why the critics loathed her, virtually driving her out of movies a few years later. Perhaps an aloof attitude on the part of a good looking woman is just too much to bear. It sank Ali McGraw's career a generation later, and, when you think of it, Ali McGraw and Suzy Parker were basically the same actress.

The film's only major flaw is a weak ending. It pretty much collapses into a romantic swoon at the end, rather than rising to a wham bang melodramatic finish, like the other famous soap opera from producer Jerry Wald, \"Peyton Place,\" which had Lana Turner weeping and gnashing her teeth during a rape trial. Here, Hope Lange wanders out onto the New York sidewalk, spots burly, eternally hung over (but now, of course, sober) Stephen Boyd and they simply walk off together...into the sunset, one presumes. Otherwise, this is pretty much the definition of a guilty pleasure.

Oh Yes...there's also Joan Crawford, breathing fire at all the young girls and smoking cigarettes while she hisses to her married lover over the phone. And the titles are done in hot pink, with ribbon lettering that recalls the department store ads of the late 50s. Don't miss!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A classic late 50's film. The superannuated headliners (Joan Crawford and Louis Jordan) are not at their best, but the direction, cinematography, and acting of the younger cast are compelling. In a 50's sense (which I love).

The look and feel of the artsy (over-artsy?) contemporary film \"Far from heaven\" reflects exactly this sort of film (and I suspect this film may be one of the models). A silly plot, of course (hey, it's 1959!), but as a film-- glorious! As a reflection of the society, extremely interesting. And as witness to how Hollywood breaks away from the idealistic portrayal of American sexual mores, fascinating.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Claire Booth Luce's \"The Women\" shows relationships with men through a woman's point of view in a play, (and 1939 film that also has Joan Crawford playing a bitch: a character who might have been Amanda Farrow 20 years before), that has no male characters. Here we see the male characters and what a bunch they are. They use women like toys and throw them away, leaving the women to suffer. Ironically, the women in \"The Women\", perhaps because they are all we see, are shown in a less than favorable light, alternately silly and scheming, with the only \"nice\" one, (Norma Shearer), growing \"claws\" by the end. In \"The Best of Everything\" we see the men for the cads they are while the women are largely innocent and vulnerable.

This is a film about women leaping from things. Diane Baker leaps from a car, (in perhaps the most absurd scene in cinema history, which is not in the book). Suzy Parker falls from a fire escape. The women in the film are leaping into the workplace, looking for success and love at the same time. Women would leap into the future and leave this type of soap opera behind in the next decade. But they would come back to it in the 80's and 90's through the novels of people like Sidney Sheldon and Judith Krantz, (although their trashier works aren't as good as this).

The best thing about this film is the way it looks. I love the glossy cinemascope films of the 50's and 60's. They look so much better than the pixel-challenged home movies we've been making since, especially in the letterboxed version we see on TV, and the DVD, with the picture so clear you could walk into it. The look of the bevy of young beauties in it is also memorable. This film probably has more beautiful women in it than any other. It has a supermodel, (Suzy Parker), a beauty queen, (Myrna Hansen, who was not Miss America 1954 as Rona Jaffe says in the DVD commentary but rather Miss USA 1953, per the IMDb: but so what), and a Playboy playmate, (June Blair, from January 1957). My vote goes to Suzy, one of the astonishing beauties of all time. Her acting here isn't as awful as people pretend: they are just reacting, as people did then, to the sight of a supermodel, (the first, really), trying to act. Nobody seemed to care how well she did. Her role, that of an apparently worldly woman who turns out to be the most vulnerable, is the most complex in the bunch and she does just fine.

The most touching thing about the film now is the age of the female leads at the time. Hope Lange was 27 when they filmed this in the spring of 1959. Diane Baker was 20. Suzy Parker was 26. Hope, who looked to be Grace Kelly's heir, never made it really big and wound up being Mrs. Muir on television and, per the IMDb, wound up living in a home with \"crates for coffee tables\" because she spent her money on causes she believed in before dying at age 72 in 2003. This film must have seemed a very distant and irrelevant memory to her by then. Baker, always a welcome face in 60's TV, (especially to Richard Kimble), and still active as an actress and acting coach, just turned 67. Parker found \"the best of everything\" with Bradford Dillman for 40 years before dying at age 70 the same year Lange did. But here they are, young, beautiful and ambitious for success and love, just like their characters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If this is not my favorite movie of all time, it definitely is in the top five. I love this. Everything about this is perfect--the clothes, the set, the lines--yes, they're not how normal people talk, but... Right down to the small scenes, especially at the beginning of the office girls changing their shoes, picking a wedgie, watering the office ivy plant, putting lunch in the fridge... Identical to what us office girls do today in the year 2005. I think all the minor characters are wonderful. If someone like Joan Crawford is over the top, it's all part of the package. If you pick out many things in the movie, it is very evident that this was the beginning of the sixties as women were starting to not \"take it lying down,\" at least not if they didn't want to. As far as characters being contradictory, for instance, Suzy Parker's character acting like she's all for flings, but then getting too attached to Louis Jourdan's character, isn't that what many people are like--contradictory? They mix in real stuff with scenes like Diane Baker's character finding the love of her life after miscarrying her illegitimate baby in an accident--lying in the hospital with a big old bandage around her head. This is part of the package too, it's charm--glossy escapism. I like the mix of real stories pertinent today (the stereotypical career woman who only has affairs with married men, therefore doesn't have a family when she is older) with ones that make you wish, \"ah, if only I could fall in love with a doctor and he'll love me even though he knows my sordid past, and saw me all messed up after the scandalous accident!!\" Also, I just got the DVD, widescreen, it's yet even more beautiful than full screen... Yay!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Best of Everything is a high gloss large screen soap opera which follows the careers of four career women, Hope Lange, Suzy Parker, Diane Baker, and Martha Hyer at a New York publishing firm. What's the best for some women is not necessarily the best for all.

Presiding over this group of young fillies is wise old mare Joan Crawford who's been around the track a few times on screen and in real life. She looks right at home as the boss lady as well she should have at this point.

Around the time she was making The Best of Everything Joan Crawford became a widow when her fourth husband, Alfred Steele died. It was a particularly traumatic event for her, she woke up one morning and found him dead in bed next to her. She inherited all of his stock in Pepsi Cola where he was the board chairman and during the same period as The Best of Everything was being made, she wound up the queen bee at Pepsi Cola. Life does sometimes imitate art. So that authority as she barks out dictation and coffee orders to Hope Lange rings real true.

In fact all the women here with the exception of Lange are in for some rough sledding. It's rough for Lange too, but she literally makes the best of everything.

What a collection of stinkers the men are in this film. The best of them, Stephen Boyd, is a heavy drinker. The others Louis Jourdan, Robert Evans, and Brett Halsey, are as slimy a collection of rodents as ever gathered for one film.

I can't forget Brian Aherne either who's the fanny pinching head of this publishing firm. Half that office would have sexual harassment suits going today.

Some nice location shots of New York in the fifties make the film a real treat. Catch it by all means.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Caroline Bender (Hope Lange) is just killing time getting a job. Her real ambition is to marry Eddie and have a baby.

April (Diane Baker) is too innocent to stay that way for long and falls in love too easily, a dangerous combo.

Greg (Suzy Parker) is a go-getter and wants to be an actress.

All three are doomed for dramatics in 'The Best of Everything', a 1959 soap opera\/morality play\/sometimes solid movie that is aging by the second.

Set in the cut-throat world of paperback publishing, its not as trashy as \"Valley of the Dolls\" but not as vanilla as \"Three Coins in the Fountain.\"

The men in the mix - Brian Aherne, Stephen Boyd, Louis Jourdan and Robert Evans - are slick, well-dressed and no good, for the most part. Aherne is the resident sexual offender - will pinch anything walking by, and makes unwanted advances right and left. His character is offensive as hell, but its not played seriously at all. Harassment hadn't been discovered yet, I guess. Boyd works there, too, although you never see him actually doing anything. He's too busy being older, wiser and drunker. Evans is abroad just so Diane Baker can suffer in style - he's a rich kid who's gotten her in 'trouble' so instead of marrying her, as promised, he's taking her to get an 'operation.'

Jourdan is a director who mistakenly has an affair with Parker. They share a fight scene which is fairly no-holds barred, in a movie like this anyway, but the scene is ultimately ruined by Parker's histronics. She ends up nearly stalking him, and she really didn't deserve such a lousy fate, her bad acting notwithstanding.

Joan Crawford breathes fire as Amanda Farrow, the resident 'witch' who is automatically rude and dismissive of any of her legion of secretaries. Well they are younger, aren't they? Isn't that sufficient reason to hate a person? Caroline doesn't think so, as she admirably stands up to Miss Farrow every chance she gets. Crawford only gets to let loose once, when she tells her married boyfriend 'you can your rabbit-faced wife can both go to hell' and slams down the phone. You never get to see the poor soul who dare crosses her.

Martha Hyer's 'storyline', as it were, is extremely weak, and she is painfully over-the-top as an unmarried mother. Short of wearing a huge \"W\" (for 'whore') on her cardigan, she walks around like a pathetic mess for most of her screen time. Even worse, she is not given the courtesy of having it all 'tied up', one way or the other, at the end. It won't matter that much, but still..

Its painfully obvious this all took place in a totally different world. People were nicer to one another for the most part and work was not a drag but something exciting, for a girl from outside NYC anyway.

One unconvincing drunk scene aside, Hope Lange helps it seem reasonably real as Caroline, who at least has more than one side to her character.

I admire that women are seen having an opinion, a chance and a choice. Not that its not wrapped in a nice bow, but it makes some points for equality. In 1959 that was probably noteworthy and possibly controversial. 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a film that is far more enjoyable than its rating of 7 would suggest. In many ways, it's like a 50s version of VALLEY OF THE DOLLS--with much of the excesses and sleaziness of VALLEY polished up a bit for the audiences of 1959. Like this later film, both are about three young ladies who are on the fast-track to success--though this time it's in the publishing world instead of the entertainment industry (though one of the ladies in THE BEST OF EVERYTHING does have aspirations of Broadway).

The film begins with Hope Lange coming into the company for her first day of work. She's assigned to tough-as-nails boss, Joan Crawford, who is appearing in her first supporting role in decades. Despite how nasty Crawford seems, Lange is determined not to give in--to make it in this job. And, over time, she quickly moves up the ranks from secretary to editor. At the same time, her two new roommates also try to move up the ranks--one through the stage and one through a relationship with a rich playboy. Like VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, all of them have their ups and downs (mostly downs) but by the end of the film there is some hope that at least some of them will make it--battered and bruised, nevertheless.

In this film, men are mostly pigs. The only guy who seems decent is played by Stephen Boyd, so naturally Hope Lange neglects him for a ne'er do well ex-boyfriend. As for the guys played by veteran character actor Brian Ahern and the rest, they are sexist scum and eventually you understand how Crawford became so bitter and nasty.

This film has it all--adultery, premarital sex, abortion, etc. and is certainly NOT an artistic triumph. However, thanks to excellent production values and a juicy script, this one is a joy to watch. Just don't expect Shakespeare!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched the first few moments on TCM a few years ago but stopped after about 15 minutes. I saw it listed on the schedule at the Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, and I vowed I would make the 40 minute drive. The Stanford is an old fashioned movie house that starts each movie with the curtains still shut Yes, they have curtains. They opened as the Fox logo fanfare began to play. When \"The Best of Everything\" appeared in huge pink letters spread against the New York City skyline, I knew I was right for waiting.

I lapped this movie up. There were so many little moments that added to the look and feel of the movie: When Hope Lange walks into the publishing office for the first time, the titles of the magazines published there are etched on the glass (The Teenager and Elegance); Joan Crawford's swanky apron that she wore so she could serve her guests at her party without mussing her outfit; the way the camera tilted to indicate how crazy Suzy Parker was becoming (it was almost sideways at one point); how Hope Lange kept living at that dumpy flat she shared with the others even though she obviously was making a lot more money than at the beginning of the film (guess it was too scandalous for a single gal to live alone).

Hope Lange was so beautiful; so was Suzy Parker. And how about Mark Goddard in a non-speaking role. I fell in love with him when I was a kid watching Lost in Space.

Seeing this gem on the big screen prompted me to plan another trek down to the Stanford to see The Old Dark House. Incidentally, I bought a small soda and popcorn at the concession stand, and I was taken aback when the worker asked me for two bucks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having grown up in the typing pool era and dealing with office politics and men who were apt to make a banquet of beauties into a delightful meal day to day, this movie hits the mark. Good afternoon fare. I understand that Louis Jordan wanted to work in this movie to play opposite the quintessential GORGEOUS Suzy Parker. Everyone wanted to be in and I believe it has done well and held up over time. Best on screen kiss between Hope Lange and the late Stephen Boyd.

It may not appear that anything of this is plausible but actually it was and probably still is even given the scare of sexual harassment. I thought the movie was well cast except the awful acting of Evans. What a grease ball but he found his niche someplace else. Other than that, all stepped up to the plate.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This 1959 soap opera film takes us into the lives and loves of three young women in the publishing world as secretaries. This follows the same idea as THREE COINS IN A FOUNTAIN a few years before. This takes place in New York while COINS takes place in Rome, Italy. Our three beauties are Hope Lange, in her first starring role, Suzy Parker and Diane Baker. Lange does well and holds her own opposite some strong veterans in the business, namely Joan Crawford. Suzy plays an obsessive woman who has a hard time losing her beau. Hard to believe that anyone could reject this beauty for any reason, but Louis Jourdan, her heart throb, does just this. Sort of takes you back to Paul Neuman rejecting the gorgeous Elizabth Taylor in CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF, doesn't it? Diane Baker, the third damsel in distress, meets and dates Robert Evans, before he became the producer, and husband to Ali MacGraw, he is known for. Hope's boyfriend from home, played by newcomer Brett Halsey, is promising to marry her. She also meets Stephen Boyd, a fellow worker, who has interests in our Hope. All three ladies have their drama ahead of them. Crawford almost steals the film. Her presence and her usual strong bitchy self is fun to watch. Veteran actor Brian Aherne plays one of the bosses with a yen for pinching our leading ladies' back side. He's delightfully charming. Also in the cast is Martha Hyer, wasted in a thankless role never really explored. Too bad as I like this actress who never seems to get that one role to distinguish her abilities. She has a crush on a married man in the office played by Donald Harron, whom I had the pleasure to work with in a couple of Shakespeare plays in NYC. He is a distinguished actor that is wasted in this film also.

All in all it's great fun, in Technicolor and cinemascope, directed by Jean Negulesco.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although dated, this film is definitely worth a watch. I saw it about eight times as a teenager when it opened and it changed my life...I just HAD to live in New York. It has great opening shots of the Manhattan skyline with Johnny Mathis crooning \"Romance is still...the best of everything...\" that rival those of West Side Story. There is a rather stilted performance by the world's REAL first Supermodel, Suzy Parker (sorry about that, Janice D.), but it's great eye-candy! It also offers a bit of insight into late 1950's American mores--our obsession with (and repression of) sex (in the workplace, no less!), romance, and marriage before women's lib. It represents an era in which New York was at it's finest and a super-bitchy performance by Joan Crawford is just the icing on the cake.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"That's a bad, raunchy, predictable, tacky, salacious soap opera? \"The Best of Everything\" is just such a guilty pleasure for me, something along the lines of \"Valley of the Dolls\". I mean, \"Best\" has everything. Somebody gets pregnant out of wedlock (when's the last time you heard THAT phrase?), there are affairs everywhere, drinking, backstabbing, jealousy, and even a tragic but not altogether unexpected death.

Caroline Bender (Hope Lange) and Mike Rice (the delicious Stephen Boyd) are the centerpieces of the goings-on. Their chemistry is immediate and is the glue that keeps this film from becoming too fragmented.

Suzy Parker, the off-the-chart gorgeous ex-fashion model, appears as Gregg Adams, an aspiring stage actress, a role that, according to any biography I've ever read about her, was apparently not much of a stretch. But Parker does a surprisingly credible job here, more than holding her own in a couple of scenes opposite Louis Jourdan who plays David Savage. Jourdan probably took this role for the money and the special screen credit because he was clearly headed down the aging star\/has-been road.

Diane Baker is fine as naive, gullible April Morrison, Martha Hyer as Barbara Lemont has a particularly juicy storyline, and film legend Joan Crawford chews her usual serving of scenery as Amanda Farrow, another role, like Jourdan's Savage, that Crawford likely took for the paycheck.

There is some obviously dated dialog and plot devices (this IS 1959), and the predictability of the soap opera genre. But if you like a good soap as I do, \"The Best of Everything\" will more than satisfy you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's interesting to watch how late 1950's society is depicted in this film. Men are lecherous, chain-smoking boozers with one thing on their minds (time hasn't changed men all that much, but \"sexual harassment\" has) & women are in the workplace only passing time until they find a husband & settle down. Some of the dialog is cringe-worthy but yet it's charming in an innocent, pass\u00e9 way. I love the opening credits that show a romantic, exciting view of Manhattan with Johnny Mathis singing \"The Best Of Everything\" on the soundtrack. I want to jump right into some scenes, filmed on N.Y. streets, circa 1959 & experience a time I've only seen on film & in photographs. Some scenes in this movie reminded me of Melanie Griffith's \"Working Girl\". Especially when Hope Lange (who's a cross between Grace Kelly & Dolores Hart) gets bombed in handsome Stephen Boyd's apartment, he tucks her in & just watches her sleep (like Melanie, she wants to know if \"anything\" happened between them the following day). Joan Crawford is definitely comparable to Sigourney Weaver's horrible female boss except she was outwardly nasty (with a soft core), but Sigourney's character was sweet on the outside & horrible on the inside. I found it distressing how the Suzy Parker character (Gregg) started out as an independent woman with career goals to be an actress, who supposedly didn't need a man to complete her, ended up. She becomes a stalker\/lunatic\/nut-job when she lets the man she falls in love with drive her bananas after he's done with her. I loved the character Mary Agnes, the office gossip, with her thick New Yawk accent. If you enjoy films like \"Valley Of The Dolls\" you'll like this one too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Enjoyable film that gives you romance, women-on-the-verge psychodrama, work place sexual harassment, adultery, and fashion. It's all there. Typical characters found in corporate America. Joan Crawford is the usual long time employee bitch executive who feels the need to be such because she's with the big boys. Hope Lange is the entry level ambitious employee whose determined to get to the top by using her mind and not her body. Their personal lives is the subplot.

Wardrobe for the film is great but someone forgot to tell Stephen Boyd's hairstylist that \"a little dab will do ya!\" The amount of Brylcream in Stephen Boyd's hair is distracting at times. His character's relationship with Lange's character was never fully developed which I found disappointing. Overall the movie is enjoyable.

Rating: 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A hugely enjoyable screen version of Rona Jaffe's best-selling pot-boiler about the trials and tribulations, (and, naturally, the loves), of a group of women involved in one way or another in the New York publishing business. Directed by Jean Negulesco, fairly fresh from the success of \"Three Coins in a Fountain\", and the prototype for the likes of \"Sex and the City\", except that here the sex all takes place off-screen.

The bright young female talents of the day, (Hope Lange, Diane Baker, Suzy Parker, Martha Hyer), are all nicely cast while Joan Crawford pops up as a Queen Bitch of an editor who could probably eat Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly and spit her out; with absolutely no effort at all she steals the movie. The men include Stephen Boyd, Louis Jourdan, (if it wasn't Rossano Brazzi it had to be Louis Jourdan), Robert Evans, (before he decided, wisely, to go behind the camera) and Brian Aherne. There are more suds on display than you will find in your average launderette but if, like me, you enjoy \"Desperate Housewives\", not to mention Carrie Bradshaw and company then you will probably love this. A very guilty pleasure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You can't take this movie seriously.....the plot is predictable and trite, the acting often over the top, the dialog laughable; but it all adds up to great fun! Three \"career girls\" in the late 1950's find their way to the BIG city and all the evils and temptations their mothers probably warned them about: married men, alcohol, premarital sex, abortion, etc.

Then there's Amanda Farrell (Joan Crawford) who did succeed professionally, but whose personal life has been sacrificed for an office with her name on the door.

This movie may have been believable 50 years ago, but now it's just great campy fun! Rent\/buy it and enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great period piece that shows how attitudes have changed in 40 years. Great production design, appealing stars, great lines (\"Miss Bender, I don't care if you beat it out on a native drum!\", says Joan Crawford's Amanda Farrow to Hope Lange when Lange incredulously asks how she is expected to read a summarize a large amount of manuscripts in a very short time). If you've seen this movie panned and scanned on TV and not in the letterboxed version on pay-TV or AMC (American Movie Classics) you haven't really seen it. Hopefully, this guilty pleasure of a film will be made available soon on DVD in a letterboxed version and with it's original 4-track stereophonic soundtrack. Great opening title sequence that really catches the mood of 1959 New York while Johnny Mathis sings the \"Best of Everything\" theme song in an echo chamber surrounded by a chorus of violins and another chorus of background screamers. Miscarriages! Insanity! Office romance! Bitchy cold-hearted bosses! Thwarted love! It's all here to enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an engrossing woman's drama that men can enjoy. The plot follows a young woman (Hope Lange) who goes to work for a publisher after college. We can forgive her jump in position from secretary to editor (hey, it's Hollywood) and a few other flaws. Here is one of the few films in which once big time producer Robert Evans (here, beautifully depicting a rat with women) appears. It also features a mature Joan Crawford and terrific supporting cast. Check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fun bad movie which should amuse. One of Joan Crawford's last performances as the driven successful editor vs. all those young beautiful eager beavers fresh out of the elite Seven Sister Colleges. Great '50's ambiance of New York. Wonderful period costumes and hairdos. Terrific art direction. Trite story, but rousting tearjerker. Interesting cameo by Robert Evans as a rich cad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best of everything. Just what is the best of everything? It is different for everyone but for most of us it is love. But alas not everyone knows where or who to look to for real love. This story goes the whole gambit of looking for love. Sometimes in all the wrong places and for all the wrong reasons. But as the saying goes,\"we are the captains of our own ships\", and so it goes for our lives. We are responsible for the choices that we make in our lives. Once we make those choices then we must live with them. As we watch this story and as we see these women making choices that most likely change their lives forever, we wonder, would we make the same choices as these women or would we be wiser? Who knows?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A sincere tribute to Suzy Parker, who's just passed away. Not only is TBoE one of the cheesiest movies ever made, but Miss Parker's performance is, in this cheesy-movie-lover's opinion, among the worst performances of all time. Her last scene is especially overplayed. I loved it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching this hilariously retro but very entertaining career girl tale, I was floored by Joan Crawford's first appearance. All I could think initially was, \"My God, it's the same face as Michael Jackson in his notorious booking photo!\"

About 34 minutes into the movie, Diane Baker and Hope Lange get out of a cab in Greenwich Village. As they walk down the street, you can see part of a sign in back of them for the Stonewall Bar -- scene of the epochal \"riots\" that are considered the trigger for the modern gay rights movement.

Speaking of Baker and taxis, I had to laugh when she gets into one and tells the cabbie, \"56th and Sutton Place, please -- and be careful of the bumps.\" Can you imagine the reaction to that from a driver in today's Manhattan?! She says that, of course, because she's pregnant and doesn't want to hurt the fetus. But that doesn't stop her from JUMPING OUT OF A MOVING CAR when she finds out Bob Evans wants her to have an abortion! Well, they had to find a way for her to lose the baby (1959 and all).

Sue Carson is delightful as Mary Agnes. Why was this her only movie? There is no biographical information on her in IMDb.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this wonderfully filmed movie that captures the essence of

high-brow NYC, or any big city of mid-century America. The colors, the

cars, the clothes and the coming of the Womens Movement. It reflects the

comf-cozy attitudes of relationships between men and women in the

corporate world. In some ways, things gave changed and in others, they

haven't changed at all. Women still want what men have today, but they

now have all sorts of laws and equality mandates to get it for them. In

my opinion, beautiful women will still THROW themselves at men in

pursuit of thier goals! The laws we have now against harrassment and

all, were passed by unattractive women who wanted an equal chance to

compete with prettier women who might be getting the positions soley

based on thier looks and puting out! The real competition isn't between

men and women, but women and women! I liked the look and feel of the movie but the world hasn't changed as

far as what real","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Boy Next Door\" is a hilarious romp through male neurosis. In just over fifteen minutes, the film takes us on a journey that most full-length features can't even match. Great performances, excellent camera work and editing---this short is a classic from start to finish. Kudos to Travis Davis for pulling double duty as both director and star. He's the funniest nebbish since Woody Allen. And what a treat to see Richard Moll back again. If you thought all he could do was play \"Bull\" the bailiff on \"Night Court\", think again. This gem of a film showcases the brilliantly funny writing of Stephen Garvey. Remember that name. Forget Charlie Kaufman, Steve Garvey is the true current king of quirky comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Had the pleasure to see this film at the Big Bear Film Festival where it won the Audience Award. And I have to say, it was well deserved because Boy Next Door is a very funny short film! The script is well written and keeps things escalating. It also has a great current of suspense coursing through it. You don't know what's going to happen next as the main character tries to deal with the realization that his new neighbor might not be the most ideal person to be living across from him. The jokes are quick and unexpected. The plot keeps us guessing. The dialog feels very real. I thought the direction was first-rate and the director Travis Davis shows a lot of potential for making it big in the world of studio comedies. Not small praise considering he also is the lead actor of the film, so he had to do triple duty on this, writing, directing and starring. If you get a chance to see this film on iTunes, it's worth the download. It'll make you laugh out loud a few times. And that's more than most shorts offer these days.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I watch a short like Boy-Next-Door, I find myself with a kind of bittersweet feeling. On the one hand, I'm happy. I'm watching something that has been well thought out, seamlessly executed and just daring enough to be interesting. On the other hand I find myself lamenting the level of comedy generally produced. TV and films are so consistently packed with easy, condescending crap that we find ourselves judging excellence within a scale of mediocrity. Then you see someone like Davis, who, without the \"benefit\" of studio notes or substantial budget; can create a really cool little comic gem. Producers and network suits need to turn to the Travis Davis' out there for material and stop awarding deals to people simply because their resume or agent may demand they should. Boy-Next-Door has, hopefully, gained the attention of the right people to facilitate more work from Davis. It's really fun and very well done!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This twisted comedy is well acted and directed. Very funny and the production quality is outstanding. It is easy to see why this short film has been accepted into so many festivals and won awards.

Everyone can identify with Calvin having a bad day, bad week, bad life. Travis Davis plays the role superbly! Richard Moll as Tim brings darkness and foreboding that gives this film just the right twistedness. The old man adds to the humor of the story. And who wouldn't love the suicidal goldfish!

This short will bring lots of laughs. And don't miss the credits as they are playing at the end!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Challenge to be Free\" was one of the first films I saw as a child. It was also one of the first VHS tapes that I owned. I hadn't seen the movie in years, so yesterday I decided to stick the tape in and watch it. Wow. The story is as powerful now as it was the first time I saw it. I think now that I am older I can better apreciate the values that are implanted in the movie. (Self-reliance, The value of Freedom, and the love of nature) It is a \"B\" movie, to be sure, but it's one that you'll remember for years, especially if you see it as a child.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Director: Tay Garnett, Ford Beebe, Cast: Mike Mazurki, Vic Christy, Fritz Ford, Tay Garnett.

Based on the number of comments I see on IMDb, this seems to be a forgotten movie. This seems rather ironic to me because it is actually one of the first movies that I remember. My mom took me and my little brother to see this film at The Garland theater in Spokane when it first came out in the mid 1970's and I still remember it.

I am going by memory here but I believe this move is about a trapper who was accused of a crime which he did not commit and the law goes after him. I believe it to be set in 1800's Alaska. A narrator tells the story of the trapper played by Mike Mazurki. Really, this is a very good film with a great setting. It could be compared to the 1981 film Death Hunt with Charles Bronson. The two films have a very similar story line. The main difference between the two is Death Hunt is an adult orientated film whereas Challenge is a family friendly film.

Mike Mazurki and Tay Garnett were both rather old when this movie was made which I find rather impressive when one considers that this movie was filmed on location in the wilds of Alaska. This was the last film made by Tay Garnett before he died which was just a few years later. They both had been around since the silent era.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This story has held a special place in my heart for the last thirty-one years. As a boy, I enjoyed stories of mountain men and the wilderness. Books like \"Call of the Wild\", \"White Fang\", \"The Frontiersman\" and \"My Side Of the Mountain\", influenced me tremendously. I wanted so much to live like a mountain man, but nothing inspired me more to do so, than when I saw this movie on television in 1975. I wanted to be just like \"Trapper\". However, as I got older I found I was just too domesticated to live like that. Nonetheless, I still romanticize about living that kind of life. I agree with some other reviews of this movie that the storyline has the simplicity that is quite prevalent in \"Disneyisque\" type movies, but if you can look past the mechanics in which it was made and see the heart of the story, the true themes, then I think you find yourself pleasantly touched. I make it a point to watch this movie once a year. After thirty-one years, I still get a chill running through me when I see torrent of snow rushing down the mountainside and hear the echoing, haunting laugh of the Trapper.

-Good luck old-timer and stay free-

PS If you want to read more about the true story, I found this link on the Mad Trapper of Rat River:

http:\/\/www.mysteriesofcanada.com\/NWT\/madtrapper.htm","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was on odd film. I liked the adventure of it though it seems to be aimed at children. (SPOILER AHEAD) Ironically, the main character murders a federal official. Then he's a fugitive on the run. They later blow up his house and then he finally commits suicide. Seems like they should have just made it a film for a more mature audience or made it more family friendly.

This was on odd film. I liked the adventure of it though it seems to be aimed at children. (SPOILER AHEAD) Ironically, the main character murders a federal official. Then he's a fugitive on the run. They later blow up his house and then he finally commits suicide. Seems like they should have just made it a film for a more mature audience or made it more family friendly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The most enjoyable pet movie since Scooby Doo and Garfield. The story revolves around a 23 year old inventor named Brian Foster whose systems at his boss's company seems to keep failing, Brian is also dating the boss's daughter named Casey. But Brian secretly invented a robotic dog named CHOMPS, modeled after his own dog Rascal. But CHOMPS is no ordinarily dog, he is as fast as a cheetah, he has x-ray vision, can leap about 6 feet, and has a strength of 20 men. The new invention impresses his boss, and makes his business a success. But when the company rivals hear about CHOMPS, they try to find a way to capture him. Can CHOMPS outwit them before its too late. This movie is a classic for all ages.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brian (Wesley Eure) works for a security firm owned by Mr. Norton (Conrad Bain). The Norton firm is in financial trouble for, unknown to the owner, he has an employee who is selling secrets to a rival firm's owner (Jim Bacchus). It's not Brian, as he is a loyal and faithful employee and a good inventor. But, Mr. Norton has no patience with Brian, in part because Norton's beautiful daughter, Casey (Valerie Bertinelli) has a thing for Brian and Norton questions Brian's motives for wooing her. However, Brian does come up with a great security device. It's called CHOMPS, which stands for canine home security system. The device, which looks like a dog, is actually a computer controlled animal with the ability to knock down walls and emit siren sounds to capture burglars. The rival owner sends two bungling spies (one is Red Buttons) to learn the details of the new invention. Will CHOMPS save Norton security? This is a fun family flick from the old school of good, clean entertainment. CHOMPS is, of course, a real dog, played by the adorable and talented Benji. In fact, Benji has a duel role, as Brian has a \"real\" dog named Rascal, too. Just watching this little dog in action is pure joy, as he is able to scale walls, \"pull\" trucks, and operate machine buttons to capture the bad guys. The human cast is also quite nice, with everyone giving upbeat performances that are infectious. Costumes, scenery, and production values are good, too. Although you may have trouble locating the film, it would be well worth the effort to secure a view for your closest loved ones. CHOMPS is a wonderful, wholesome diversion from the world's woes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Chomps during the - approximately - 2 days of its theatrical release. It is a delightfully cute and funny movie in the spirit of 'Benji' though much improved and focused more on the actors than the dogs. The simple portrayal of life difficulties in a humorous way, followed by the bullies and villains getting their just deserts, is both sympathetic and heartwarming. It is also thought provoking. With deft subtleness this movie affects ones awareness of cruelty, personal behavior, and bullying. Movies have different genera's and different purposes. This movie, which is delightful to all ages, offers an interesting humorous look into our own experiences. Everyone will recognize personality and behaviors types of themselves and others. Everyone will see the humor. The humor makes the move enjoyable and brings understanding of life situations to a new level.

For lighthearted laughter and a 'feel good' movie Chomps is an excellent choice. Memorable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Eager electronics whiz Brian Foster (a likable performance by Wesley Eure of TV's \"Land of the Lost\") creates a computerized watchdog called C.H.O.M.P.S. (an acronym for Canine Home Protection System) for his boss Mr. Ralph Norton (nicely played by Conrad Baain), whose home security business is floundering. A rival company hires a pair of inept criminals to get their grubby hands on C.H.O.M.P.S.; said task proves to be easier said than done. Director Don Chaffey relates the endearingly dopey story at a constant brisk pace, maintains an amiably silly and lighthearted tone throughout, and stages the goofy slapstick gags with considerable flair. Moreover, the game cast mug it up with infectious aplomb: the adorable Valerie Bertinelli as Brian's sweet fianc\u00e9 Casey Norton, Chuck McCann as klutzy crook Brooks, Red Buttons as McCann's equally bumbling partner Bracken, Jim Backus as evil CEO Mr. Gibbs, Hermoine Baddeley as nice old biddy Ms. Foster, and 60's AIP exploitation feature regular Larry Bishop as smarmy, duplicitous suit Ken Sharp. Best of all, the titular pooch is a cuddly delight: C.H.O.M.P.S. jumps through fences, walls and windows with amazing agility, performs acts of exceptional strength, runs faster than a deer, and even does a few nifty martial arts moves. A subplot about a hulking neighborhood hound named Monster supplies a few extra belly laughs (Monster is voiced by some uncredited guy with an appropriately deep, growly voice). The groovy animated opening credits sequence, Charles F. Wheeler's glossy cinematography, and Hoyt Curtin's funky, pulsating disco score are all solid as well. A cute little kiddie flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a nice, cute family oriented film. If you don't like violence, this is the movie to watch. Only thing annoying about this movie is the tune (but it's a catchy tune) repeats whenever c.h.o.m.p.s. leaps in to action.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wesley Eure is young inventor Brian Foster, who's invented a new crime busting security device in the form of a robot dog, the titular \"C.H.O.M.P.S.\" (It stands for Canine HOMe Protection System). C.H.O.M.P.S., who's been modeled after Brian's real dog Rascal, can do just about anything; he's got enhanced speed, strength, X-ray vision, and the like. It's just the thing to save his boss Ralph Norton's (Conrad Bain) security company. Naturally, a slimy competitor, Gibbs (Jim Backus) wants the edge so he tries to get his hands on the secret.

This is the kind of thing that's just too hard to resist. It's got plenty of slapstick (Chuck McCann and Red Buttons play a great pair of bumbling idiots), an upbeat attitude, an engaging cast, and enough good laughs to keep one entertained. The energetic disco-style music gets repetitive but is undeniably catchy; the story is straightforward, and the dogs themselves are absolutely adorable. In one thoroughly odd but side-splitting touch, there's another dog in the film (named \"Monster\") whose thoughts we actually get to hear; both his dialog and the performer doing the voice are priceless. In fact, he even utilizes some mild profanity and his last words end the film on a positively gut busting final note.

Eure and the cute Valerie Bertinelli are very likable young leads, and their veteran supporting cast plays the material with all the gusto they can muster. Larry Bishop, Hermione Baddeley, Robert Q. Lewis, and Regis Toomey also co-star.

A rare theatrical live-action venture for the cartoon-creating team of Hanna & Barbera ('The Flintstones', 'Scooby-Doo', 'The Smurfs', and so on), \"C.H.O.M.P.S.\" is agreeably silly stuff. I know it left me with a smile on my face.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a pretty good episode. Though no \"Trapped in the Closet\" or \"Cartoon Wars,\" it had a lot of things going for it. The character of Al Gore and that bizarre-as-hell \"super cereal\" thing was pretty darn funny. But, the scene that made me adore this episode was one I'm sure everyone will agree was one of the greatest Cartman\/Kyle moments ever. When Cartman is superstitious of Kyle that he'll be stealing his gold(which of course is fake!), and he comes within inches of his face. Suddenly, Kyle wakes up, and they have that crazy conversation where Cartman tries to act like everything is completely fine. Cartman crapping out the treasure at the end, though predictable, was pretty funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, ignore the comment about how South Park should make fun of Republicans. Everyone is doing that now, why should South Park blindly follow what the rest of the media is doing? And what the Republicans are doing is more serious and less funny than Al Gore and his global warming hysteria.

But all that aside, this episode is just plain funny. Al Gore's portrayal has to be one of the best caricatures of a politician I've ever seen, it was original, and it was based on peoples opinions of the man. I don't want to give anything away, but it had me rolling on the floor.

There are also has some of the best Cartman\/Kyle moments ever.

All in all I'd say that this is one of the best episodes the show has ever had, and I would highly recommend it to anybody.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alright so this episode makes fun of Al Gore. I'm sure it pisses a few liberals off. The thing is South Park makes fun of everybody, much like the Simpsons did. If you get offended that a politician you like is made fun of then maybe you need a better sense of humor and are taking the show too seriously. With that being said this episode is hilarious and one of the best. Al Gores portrayal is hilarious, Cartman's scheme goes terribly wrong and the results will have you rolling on the floor laughing. It is basically everything you would ever want out of a south park episode and it is easily one of my favorites. I'll won't comment too much further on the plot because I don't want to give anything away.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ManBearPig is a pretty funny episode of South Park.It spoofs Al Gore and his speeches on Global warming, only replacing global warming with ManBearPig(a fictional monster who has parts of a man, a bear and a pig).He tells the boys about it in a school assembly and Stan feels sorry for him, so he and the boys decide to hang out with him.Gore eventually gets them trapped in a rock cave where he believes manbearpig to be and they are stuck for days.Meanwhile, Cartman finds treasure but wants to keep it all to himself.ManBearPig is a good spoof on Global Warming and overall a funny South Park episode.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Trey's favourite from the first run of Season 10 and also one of my personal favourites, Manbearpig features the adventure of Al Gore before going on global warming and before the movie, it was similar a adventure certainly, Al Gore was also trying to aware the world about something that can change the Earth, something really dangerous, this time about something that is half man half bear and half pig, Al Gore had only one thing in mind: to aware everyone of Manbearpig and to kill it! Al Gore here is more than hilarious, everyone who sees him feel sorry for him and yes he can childish, doing tantrums since nobody believes him but he is just a f****** demented bastard. Basically four kids are trapped in a cave because of Al Gore but certainly he don't have that in his mind, there's not space for any other subject, is just Manbearpig what concerns Al Gore. Those four kids are Cartman, Kenny, Kyle and Stan, basically Stan felt sorry for AL Gore and the four boys were just playing in Al Gore's game never imaging that Gore could almost kill them while he was trying to kill Manbearpig (hilarious scene- \"they are just children, damned Manbearpig\"). So at this part we have on one hand all the stuff with the rescue team who also feel sorry for Al Gore and on the other hand we have a little yet extremely hilarious Cartman episode and there are not surprises of the attitude of Cartman after he finds a treasure inside the cave, certainly the whole stuff with this treasure is fantastic and is great because you will see a sick Cartman in both senses, he is really sick for the boys and really sick for us. And in the end Al Gore does killed Manbearpig! This character is a fantastic one and I'm cereal! Terrific fun in this episode, a highly re-watchable one. 10 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that Mario Van Peebles movie Posse is a very important film. It is an excellent entry point film to a side of history many are not aware of. This is a story of early black settlers, cow boys and infantrymen returning from the Spanish-American War with a cache of gold. The main character Peebles is haunted by memories of his murdered father. The racism applied to the new black settlers and infantryman is explored in this film with excellent casting including Melvin Van Peebles (Marios father), Billy Zane, Stephen Baldwin and a wonderful performance by Big Daddy Kane.

One senses that Peeples strived to use as many notable black (and some not so notable - smile) actors as possible : ) Perhaps too many, some notable persons (Issac Hayes, Pamela Grier) are only scene in cameo, others briefly such as Tone Loc. The sentiment and efforts of Peebles efforts to expose these actors will be understood by some. The large cast (a feat for any director) work well and do a good job of telling the story in the classic \"revenge and fight vs justice\" western.

Most noteworthy was the wonderful narrative role of veteran actor Woody Strode (from Once Upon A Time In The West), who's own life was a barrier-breaker, within the context of a previous era not yet completed faded from memory. No other actor could have done this role better. Read the mini-bio on Woody Strode here as a primer: http:\/\/imdb.com\/name\/nm0834754\/bio

The film does a good job of balancing action with a bit of sardonic humour. The dialog was excellent if a bit contemporary! And as others have mentioned the profanity was not accurate to that period. The sex scene was a bit much -- not really needed. There are some historical inaccuracies such as the seeming electronic branding of the cattle etc. But Posse is a good effort to hopefully open the door for more historical and creative works reflective of other untold stories and events. The actual photos of real cowboys at the end credits was very nice touch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thank you Mario Van Peebles for informing us of not only the existence of black cowboys, but providing a compelling story that was easy to follow.

The plot, backdrop, music and talent were all top notch. It was great that you used so many African-American artists to tell the tale of the black cowboy. It was also good to see Billy Zane in this movie. Does he ever play a good guy?

I would highly recommend this film to anyone who wants to broaden their way of thinking. This is an excellent movie and I feel privileged to have seen it. Hopefully, you'll feel the same.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not the biggest fan of westerns. My two personal favorites though are Unforgiven, and Tombstone. This movie though, I loved! It was great! The plot was well done, and it was a fun movie. Everybody who had a part in this movie did excellent! I even think it beat out both movies in someway. Well, not really Unforgiven because that was a superb movie that these two can't compare with in the long run. I do think it beat out Tombstone though. Both had there strong points. For instance, they both had excellent well known casts, very good plots, and very good filming. But Posse beat out Tombstone in four ways in my opinion. First, the characters were more unique in Posse. The music was better in Posse. The idea was original in Posse, unlike Wyatt Earp. And the biggest difference, the action sequences! Oh my gosh! Posse was a western with really good action sequences. I mean really good! The action was fast paced. Like modern day based shoot'em up movies. The action had big budget explosions too! The fistfights were pretty good also. Mario Van Pebbles was great in this movie! I suggest buying this excellent movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A good old-fashioned flight-and-revenge western, given a twist and a touch of gravitas by injecting a little black social history into its plot. Lead by Mario Van Peebles, who does OK, the gang of misfits on the run from Billy Zane's (seemingly unstoppable) army bigwig all acquit themselves well, their adventures plausible yet fun and exciting. There're some nice moody flashback scenes setting up the hero's character and backstory, a good shoot-out ending as our heroes defend the town from greedy white landgrabbers, and even Stephen Baldwin isn't bad in this enjoyable, quite powerful western.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not the biggest fan of westerns. My two personal favorites though are Unforgiven, and Tombstone. This movie though, I loved! It was great! The plot was well done, and it was a fun movie. Everybody who had a part in this movie did excellent! I even think it beat out both movies in someway. Well, not really Unforgiven because that was a superb movie that these two can't compare with in the long run. I do think it beat out Tombstone though. Both had its strong points. For instance, they both had excellent well known casts, very good plots, and very good filming. But Posse beat out Tombstone in four ways in my opinion. First, the characters were more unique in Posse. The music was better in Posse. The idea was original in Posse, unlike Wyatt Earp. And the biggest difference, the action sequences! Oh my gosh! Posse was a western with really good action sequences. I mean really good! The action was fast paced. Like modern day based shoot'em up movies. The action had big budget explosions too! The fistfights were pretty good also. Mario Van Pebbles was great in this movie! I suggest buying this excellent movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ok, maybe Posse can't compare to other popular cowboy\/western movies. But that's because it didn't have the FUNDING those movies had. Obviously, whenever you want to produce a story such as this one, focusing on African American historical involvement (and NO, servants and 'mammies' are not historical involvement), Hollywood isn't going to be too supportive. And believe me they weren't. The producers and actors sacrificed a lot of 'out of pocket' expenses to make \"Posse\", just so that the story could be told. I think that alone is commendable. Posse may not be Oscar material (and they don't like Black media too much either), but it is a start. It is entertaining, and it introduces us to the black cowboy, a character most of us are unfamiliar with.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this movie extremely. It was the last great Mario Van Peebles movie I know of. It had a hip-hop old west flavor to it. Big Daddy Kane and Tone Loc had major parts. It shouldn't have won any Oscars, but it was enjoyable all the same.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"spoiler--

In 1993, African-American director\/actor Mario Van Peebles followed up the tremendously popular urban-action film New Jack City with \"Posse\". The film was co-written and directed by Van Peebles, who also stars as the main character, Jessie Lee.

Plot: The film begins at the turn of the 20th century, when the United States was embroiled in the Spanish-American war. Apparently a time when the U.S. justice system could send convicts into military service, Jessie Lee finds himself an unwilling enlisted man, serving with an all-black cavalry troop in Cuba. Some of his compatriots include Little J (Stephen Baldwin), fast-talking Weezie (Charles Lane) and the towering-but-simple Obobo (Tiny Lister). They find a hidden chest of gold on a reconnaissance run and decide to keep it. However, the ambitious, bigoted Colonel Graham (Zane) finds out about the gold, and is apparently willing to kill Jessie Lee and company for it. A shootout between the Graham's forces and Jessie Lee's leaves the colonel blind in one eye, and his forces retreat. Jessie Lee's ragtag crew manage to smuggle themselves (and the gold) back to New Orleans, but it turns out that Graham isn't far behind. Jessie Lee and his allies are forced to go on the run, heading west, to a town called Freemanville. Apparently, Freemanville was founded by blacks in the years following the Civil War. Jessie Lee's father, \"King David\", was the charismatic preacher who co-founded the town. However, as is revealed in intermittent flashbacks, King David was soon brutally murdered by a white mob, in a parallel of the Ku Klux Klan terror campaigns that began around the same time. Jessie Lee and company eventually find their way to Freemanville, only to find that the townsfolk aren't exactly glad to see him\u0097especially when Sheriff Bates (Richard Jordan) of a nearby white township makes it clear that he wants Jessie Lee and his partners\u0097dead or alive. Carver (Blair Underwood) is the sheriff and de facto mayor of Freemanville\u0097and his own agenda may not square with having Jessie Lee around.

Analysis The action sequences are all very credible, and Mario Van Peebles turns in a good performance as the brooding hero. In the aftermath of the success of New Jack City, it was almost expected Van Peebles would helm a sequel, or at least a similar urban-action follow-up. Instead, Van Peebles looked 100 years into the past, creating a mostly-black Western (effectively 'updating' the black-themed Westerns of the 1970's), and continuing the legacy of largely-forgotten black-themed cowboy films from the early 20th century. Unlike New Jack City, the film was independently financed, and originally released through Gramercy\/Polygram Entertainment. Allegedly, execs at the major studios balked when Van Peebles pitched 'Posse' to them. Some of the more \"curious\" casting at the time involved rappers Big Daddy Kane and Tone Loc as Father Time and Angel, respectively. In certain interviews, Mario Van Peebles has said that he often likes to cast against type; in the years since, the trend of casting rap singers in non-musical films would become almost commonplace. Keen viewers will notice several cameos by various entertainment personalities: Black-action film veterans like Isaac Hayes (\"Truck Turner\"), Pam Grier (\"Foxy Brown\") and Larry Cook (\"The Spook who Sat by the Door\") show up, as does stand-up legend Nipsey Russell, not to mention TV producer Stephen J. Cannell (who hired the junior Van Peebles to star in \"Sonny Spoon\" years earlier). The film is bookended with Woody Strode (\"Spartacus\") in a key role.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember catching this film on a C4 screening a year ago and I was completely blown away by the whole thing. I thought the film managed to represent such a diversity of genres; the supernatural, a love story, the intrigue of crime, and so many more.

I was hooked on the whole thing after a minute or so and was really concerned about the characters. It made me feel terrified at one second for Jimmy, and then had me laughing away at the gangsters in the next... and all the time I had my fingers crossed that things would work out for Jimbo!

Heath Ledger and Rose Bryne are superb, Bryan Brown is absolute quality and had me creasing up, along with David Field, who was funny as well as being an evil git.

Since I saw this film I managed to order it on DVD and as a result, every person I show it to has been hooked in much the same way.

This film is perfect for a Sunday afternoon or a lazy evening, and it's one that you can really appreciate with your mates around.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Two Hands\" is a good addition to the Australian Film Catalogue.

It is that curious mix of real life, surreal life, comedy, tragedy and love the Australians have developed on their own.

Heath Ledger is basically a good if naive guy. Wanting to get on he falls in with a local \"Big\" Man Pando (Bryan Brown). But at the very moment he sets a first toe on the dark path to crime he meets Alex (Rose Byrne). Here is the cause of the error to change his life in ways unexpected. After getting on the wrong side of Pando accidentally, things get very bad very quickly and if not for a little otherworldly help this would have been a short sad film. Yes, Jimmy learns a few lessons in life and no one escapes uninjured in one way or another but at the end of it has a feel good feel to it. Although there is a lawless theme through the story, it is not glorified and helps to show how destructive crime can be on normal lives.

Heath Ledger is excellent as Jimmy, innocent and savvy at the same time, Rose is hypnotic as Alex and Bryan is marvellous as usual. This is a small ensemble of characters are believable and I found myself caring about the good guys and disliking the baddies.

This DVD is usually in the cheap aisle so I would recommend adding it too your DVD collection, it would be money well spent.

8 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jimmy (Heath Ledger) is given a simple job by Pando (Bryan Brown) a underworld kingpin to deliver money to a particular address, but when no one answers the door Jimmy decides to take a dip at the beach to pass some time, but he notices that his clothes on the sand have been messed up and the 10 grand is gone. Jimmy rings Pando to tell him the problem, but he doesn't want to hear it. Pando and his boys try their best to locate Jimmy, meaning no more Jimmy if they get their hands on him. So now Jimmy goes into hiding to organise a bank robbery to get Pando's money back. Also throughout this mess he meets the innocently sweet Alex (Rose Byrne) and together they're in for one hell of a ride through Sydney's King Cross.

\"Two Hands\" is simply an engrossing pick-me-up film that's brisk, exhilarating and incredibly fresh. What you got here is pretty much an urban gangster film with a seedy backdrop and in-your-face violence\u0085 what, how's that fresh you ask? Well, because it takes us into the underworld where the Australian culture shines with criminals wearing thongs (flip flops) and footy shorts, done up cars and a can of beer in the hand\u0085 and don't forgot the Australian sense of humour, dry and sarcastic. You can say it owes a lot to the likes of \"Pulp Fiction\", \"Goodfellas\" (a fave of mine) and \"Lock, stock and two smoking barrels\" for its inspiration, but for me it still stands on its own. The film has real mixture of light-hearted moments, but also a mean streak to it with some unexpected shocks and black humour that can actually be disturbing. You just don't know what's coming and it has a nice touch of snappy irony (especially the ending) and great timing with its humour. One scene involving a bank robbery will have you in stitches, I guarantee you. The plot's outline is really a coming to age story (or about the road not taken), with a punching love tale added and then the gangster element to finish it off. Most of the sub-plots were cleverly constructed and interlocked, well maybe it could've gone without the supernatural element involving Jimmy's dead brother, but in the overall context the diverse plot seems to all click together. Intense, natural and crisp dialogue filled the outrageously colourful script, with quick jabs of Aussie slang\/twang - I'm fair dinkum!

What truly made the film was that of Bryan Brown's performance of Pando. He just gave his character such a deviously charismatic\/nasty persona that when he wasn't on screen his presence was still felt. He gave his character two sides - one being a prick, but the other side is such a good bloke. A young Rose Byrne glows with her nervously sweet\/quirky character Alex. She looked radially gorgeous and added a bubbly personality. Then you got Heath Ledger who fit's the buck as the naive Jimmy. Great supporting cast involved with the likes of Susie Porter, Tom Long, David Field, Steve Vidler and Steve Le Marquand. Such raw performances are achieved and from that you get riveting, fun and believable characters. Pumping rock soundtrack bursting at the seams with the likes of Powderfinger and Alex Lloyd provide a cool vibe. Also being shot on location in Sydney's King Cross really helped it stick out by holding a life of its own and showing the Australian way of life. Gliding camera tricks captured the city's backdrop superbly, especially the piercing nightlife. This was a film that when it ended I was totally satisfied with what I got. Overall, a slickly paced crime thriller that achieves what it intended to do... a fun, clever and crazy roller coaster ride of thrills and excitement.

I say, it's a successful Aussie take on \"Lock, Stock and Two smoking barrels\" by director\/writer Gregor Jordan in his debut film. If you come across it, don't hesitate to it give it a go.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The inspiration for this film was the fact that American Gangsters are well dresses, but the Aussies, well when you might kill a guy as soon as look at the blighter, then you can dress as badly as you want and people won't criticize you.

Jimmy is fighter, an illegal boxer, sometimes bouncer and is offered work by Pando, the local gangster boss in the cross (That is, Australia's notorious Kings Cross District, not the Cross of London fame as many a British backpacker finds out the hard way).

Due to feelings of love he stuffs up a job, loses a lot of money and has to get it to Pando before Pando and his heavies can kill him.

Lots of dark humour, interesting action, revelations about the Australia's underside and human nature. It is very centred in the Australian nature and explores the nature of Australian criminals (versus the American and British ones).

One problem is that each of the elements of the story don't have enough substance and depth, but it is a painting with broad strokes that covers a lot of area not covered previously, so as an overall package it is worthwhile.

Team it up with \"Chopper\" and \"Dirty Deeds\" for your Aussie Crime fest or \"Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels\" and \"Miller's Crossing\" for an International falling short of the criminal gangs fest.

By the way, Bryan Brown is a great actor who has just done a huge number of really bad movies. Here is one of his great movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

`

5 Years ago if you were to watch an Australian film you would expect to see crocodile hunters, stories of war, drag queens, kangaroos and koalas, and Australians in general being represented as nitwits living off the land, saying words like \u0091cobber' and generally being the classic underdog.

Luckily Australian film has evolved over the last couple years and is churning out modern day \u0091classics' such as Blackrock, Moulin Rouge, Chopper, Yolngu Boy and Sample People.

In this evolution of film we also find Two Hands.

Set in Sydney's Kings Cross, Two Hands is a black comedy about crime and survival in the rough end of town. Pando, played by Bryan Brown, is a Sydney Mob boss. He's the king of organised crime wearing thongs, carrying a stubby and helping his son with his origami. He's vicious, but real. As are his \u0091mob', holding gun's to someone's head in one scene and then playing boardgames in the next. They are well respected and if they ask you for a favour, you don't say no.

Enter Jimmy, played by Heath Ledger. Jimmy is your average Aussie guy in his early twenties. He's a good guy who wants to make a name for himself without getting on anyone's bad side, so when Pando asks Jimmy to deliver $10,000, Jimmy accepts.

Things start to get exciting when 2 teenagers manage to steal the money while Jimmy is at the beach. So now Jimmy is $10,000 in dept to a major mob boss. From here we start to see all the interconnecting stories with Jimmy and his attempt at a bank robbery to recover the money, Jimmy and Alex (the love interest, played by Rose Byrne), Pando trying to find Jimmy and, of course, the two teenagers and their new found prosperity. The concept is deepened by the narrator, Jimmy's dead brother, Michael, who was killed by Pando and his gang years earlier.

In the end all the storylines connected really well with a surprise twist to shock and stun the audience. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jordan takes us into the seedy crime side of Sydney, Australia, following the desperate attempt of nineteen year old Jimmy, (Heath Ledger), who bundles a job for a local gangster and needs to make amend before they get to him. The gangsters, (led by Bryan Brown), are a menacing bunch with a humorous streak in them. That's what makes the film work, because we always view gangsters as a rough bunch out to screw you badly. But this mob tickle your funny bone as well. A clever structured script by Jordan has characters crossing paths and getting caught in the web plot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A refreshing black comedy starring some of Australia's finest. In the same way that Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels captured the funny side of London gangsters, Two Hands rips through the Sydney underworld. It wouldn't be so funny if it wasn't so close to the bone.

An Australian classic. If Australia could pull more rabbits like this out its hat it might actually have a film industry worth keeping an eye on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's hard to know what to make of this weird little Aussie crime flick - on the one hand, it's an enjoyable little film with a great sense of humour; but on the other, it just lacks a certain something that ensures the film never reaches above it's boundary that keeps it trapped within the merely 'interesting' territory. That being said, Two Hands is a well plotted film that excellently juggles several stories at the same time, which allows several small climaxes throughout the movie, and that in turn helps to stop the film becoming boring. The absurdity of the goings-on, the thick Australian accents and the bizarre set of characters all help to ensure that the film entertains also. The plot follows the story of a young doorman who thinks he'll go on to bigger things after accepting a job from the local kingpin. He doesn't; the job only lands him in trouble when he fancies a swim and stupidly leaves ten grand on the beach, which is promptly stolen by a couple of kids who have the time of their lives on a shopping spree. However, all is not rosy for our hero; who must find the money or face the consequences...

The film is made up of a cast of unknowns; at least, it was back in 1999, as nowadays Heath Ledger is something of a name. He doesn't impress too much here, however, as his performance is mostly of the one-note variety and he doesn't make for a very compelling lead. He fits the movie in that he's Australian and looks naive; but beyond that, he's not the best lead I've ever seen in a movie. If you ask me, Bryan Brown gave the best performance here. He might not have a great deal of screen time, but he steals every scene he's in and it's him that provides the movie with a lot of its humour. He's got nothing to do with the best sequence, however, which takes place in the form of probably the most hilarious bank robbery ever caught on film. On the whole, I can recommend this film to people that enjoy quirky crime films; as the weirdness is plentiful, and the way that events take a turn for the bizarre is enjoyable; but if you're not a fan of this sort of film, I can't really say that Two Hands will float your boat. It's not a must see, but if it's your thing and you get a chance to see it...you probably wont completely regret it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on its current IMDb rating as well as several plot summaries, I didn't expect much from 'Two Hands'. But how wrong I was.

From start to finish, you're kept deeply engrossed in a genre which has been continuously unoriginal for quite a while. Even in terms of mise-en-scene and cinematography, the director excels and creates a film consisting of great imagination. If you're looking for a film which is not only entertaining, but also provocative, compelling, and genuinely extraordinary, then make this the next film you watch.

I'm hoping Heath Ledger's tragic death will have lead to more people picking up this film. He was an incredible talent, and his performance in this is one not to be missed. Don't make the mistake of judging and discarding this amazing film before you've seen it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you enjoyed films like Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, you are going to LOVE Two Hands. It has the same type of black humor beat to it and will keep you entertained through the whole film. Like Pulp Fiction, it has the wacky scenarios that the characters get into and how they deal with them. Along with Gallipoli and Picnic at Hanging Rock, this has to be one of the best Australian films I've seen. It also stars a young Heath Ledger before he got real big in the states.

This is a terribly underrated movie that I believe is just as good as Pulp Fiction and those greats. You have to see it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Aussie flick filmed in 1999 does an OK job of portraying a bunch of small-time crooks in Kings Cross, Sydney. The plot focuses on the plight of a young would-be crim who's life is in danger after botching a job for his future boss. Very well acted by Heath Ledger and Bryan Brown. The plot is fairly believable with some very humorous moments in one scene which revolves around a bank heist. The setting-up of various themes central to the story is quite well done. Eg. When one crim is searching for bullets for his gun. I personally have a dislike for gratuitous violence in movies, and in this regard, the movie did not offend. It attempted and succeeded in showing us the human side of the baddies such as Bryan Brown. The rest of the cast did an OK job, without any real stand-outs that I remember. The direction was very good in succeeding in making a believable movie that provided good entertainment. The main overriding feature that makes this a good movie is the acting and direction of Heath Ledger and his successful portrayal of a naive young man who makes stupid mistakes for short-term gratification, thinking he is indestructible and not realizing that there are sinister people waiting to pounce on any mistake. The director, Gregor Jordan, deserves special mention. Rating in my book - 7 (of 10).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Two Hands\" is an entertaining, funny story about Australian lowlifes. The screenplay contrasts the world of fast money and deadly acts with the inexplicability of fate and circumstance. In a subtle way we are asked to ponder the concept that major events in our lives are sometimes generated without our being fully aware of the root causes. The forces of fate and circumstance take Jimmy, the main character, into situations that bring about the realization of his shallow dreams and, ultimately, an understanding of a more personally promising world.

The clueless Jimmy, portrayed with acumen by Heath Ledger, is a kid who grew up without opportunity. The high paying world of crime offers the greatest appeal to his blunted senses. The love and help of friends guides him to a higher plateau.

The film is well-directed and well-acted. The band of criminals teeter between likable and despicable, keeping us interested in their crazy antics all through the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many years ago I saw this movie (on television maybe?) and loved it. So I decided to rent it on DVD the other day to see whether it still held up in my estimation. It did.

Set in Sydney's notorious King's Cross district (where prostitution, drug abuse and sex stores thrive), it tells the story of \"Jimmy\" (played by Heath Ledger). Jimmy is a young man...maybe late teens or thereabouts, who hasn't had a stable family background. He is on the fringes of society, and works as a 'tout' for a sex club (encouraging people to enter the store). He is aware of an underworld figure called \"Pando\", who is a local bigwig in the Cross. It's Jimmy's hope that he will find himself on Pando's radar and get 'in' with him...a short-cut to upward social mobility, he hopes.

One night Jimmy meets the beautiful young woman Alex (played by the charming Rose Byrne). You just know that a love story will play out between them. On that night as well, Jimmy is first contacted by Pando (played by Bryan Brown). Pando has a 'job' for Jimmy. It's the 'foot in the door' that Jimmy has been waiting for!

To reveal too much more would spoil the many surprises that this movie has in store for the viewer. Stylistically, if you like Quentin Tarantino or Guy Ritchie movies, you should be in tune with what to expect...twists and turns and black comedy.

What's so great about this movie is its very 'Australian-ness'. It's no mere knock off of Tarantino or Ritchie, but a genuine Australian contribution to the genre.

A fascinating aspect to this movie is how it all hangs together. Sometimes you are introduced to characters who you wonder what the hell they're doing there. In the end, all these 'loose ends' tie together beautifully. It's sort of like a celluloid Moebius strip.

A highlight of the movie is Bryan Brown's character of Pando. Pando likes puzzles, and it's fun to see him play games with his cronies. It's the little details revealed about him which are so enjoyable...his taste in music, for starters!

Of the Heath Ledger movies I have seen (The Dark Knight, 10 Things I hate about you), this is perhaps his best role. Wasn't taken with \"10 things\". If you are a Heath Ledger fan (Ledger recently died a tragic, accidental death), this is a chance to see him in his greatest Australian role, I think. There is great chemistry between Ledger and Byrne in this movie-so, on one level, it functions as nice love story.

This movie doesn't have some of the horror of Tarantino and Ritchie underworld movies, but it does have some adult themes...scenes that surprise you with their coldness and beauty. In that sense, it's not an ideal movie for very young viewers, but it's not a movie that gore-hounds will get excited about either.

Lastly, I have to say that it is great that Australia can make great movies like this. Usually the kind of movies my home country makes can be uniniviting. This movie has strengths where many Australian movies have weaknesses...i.e. it has a great story, great acting and a great script. We need more popular, quality movies like this to be made here in Australia.

Highly recommended. Other Australian movies I have loved include:

Breaker Morant (10\/10) Mad Max 2 (10\/10) My Brilliant Career (not reviewed here by me yet) Proof (nr) The Devil's Playground (nr) The Year My Voice Broke (nr) Bad Boy Bubby (nr. A great, dark comedy) The Dish (nr. A great, charming comedy)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had never heard of this movie, but I like Heath Ledger and Bryan Brown and the story sounded interesting, so I figured I'd give it a shot. I found it to be very enjoyable. Heath Ledger plays a 19 year old who works a kind of crappy job and wants to start making some serious dough, so he goes and asks for work from mobster Bryan Brown. I won't go into details but things go very bad for Ledger and gets into big trouble with Bryan Brown. From their on the movie just gets better and better, with one scene involving Ledger hooking up with a pair of bank robbers. And lets not forget the beautiful Rose Byrne, who plays Ledger's love interest. I would definitely recommend this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Two Hands\" is a hilarious Australian gangster movie set in really sultry Sydney. I bet tourists never envisage Sydney and Bondi to look like it did in this film: all sweaty bodies, oppressive nighttime and gangsters in nylon shorts and jandals. Heath Ledger plays an amateur boxer with an eye on becoming part of the local King's Cross boss's gang. He looked rather magnificent in his green wife beater and blue patterned budgie smuggler. A sweaty tattooed bod does become him. I always had him down as a \"Home & Away\" boy, and he has been in that soap, which is a little sweatier than the Weetbix-insipid \"Neighbours\". The film is really worth watching for its combination of sardonic humour and nasty violence - the drowning scene is expected to give me nightmares soon. Totty awards: Country girl love interest city brother and tattooed streetkid.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This deceptively laid-back, low-key, casually paced Aussie crime thriller unravels with a casual ease and relaxed self-confidence that's a delight to behold. Eager beaver working class kid Jimmy (an appealingly feckless Heath Ledger) yearns to make something out of his unrewarding ordinary life. Jimmy gets his big break when local crime kingpin Pando (an outstanding Bryan Brown) assigns him an easy courier gig which entails delivering $10 grand to an old lady. Jimmy finds himself knee deep in serious trouble when he loses Pando's money. Writer\/director Gregor Jordan's engagingly simple tale of how things aren't always what they're cracked up to be, young love, all actions having consequences and that hoary old chestnut about how crime doesn't pay works like a charm thanks to a wonderful wealth of well-observed minor quirky details, a strong subtext concerning man's duel capacity for both good and evil, a nice sense of unforced irony, the chillingly matter-of-fact way the violence is presented, and the marvelous grounding of the assorted complexly drawn warts'n'all low-life characters in an instantly recognizable and totally believable banal day-to-day reality (e.g., Panda is shown playing Scrabble with a flunky and at one point interrupts a business conversation with a fellow hood to talk with his son over the phone). Judging from his finely shaded and two-fisted portrayal of the cunning, not to be trifled with Pando, Bryan Brown undoubtedly qualifies as one of the finest actors to ever grace celluloid. A sturdy and satisfying little sleeper.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So I turned on the TV today at 1:00 PM on a Sunday, expecting to see crap and infomercials, and this great movie was just starting, didn't know what it was but drew me in almost immediately. The movie was excellent.

there were a couple of things that didn't make sense for one I don't get why the dead guy was talking about doing stuff to get yourself out of your bad situation, but then Jimmy doesn't really do anything except the basic stuff to survive that anyone would do in his situation, in other words it wasn't his initiative that got him out of his bad situation it was just luck, second I don't get the thing about the girl killing the the gangsters at the end, because the whole thing was partly casued by the thief people stealing Panda's money, and then the other thief kills Panda at the end, so they steal his money twice, and kill him how is that good?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mild Spoilers

....and that's 'top ten of all time.' I stumbled across 'Two Hands' by accident (maybe that made it all the more special -- no inflated expectations) on IFC one night, and couldn't believe that I hadn't heard anything about it. Now that Heath Ledger is getting more famous in the USA, I'm sure it's more available. At the time, I was telling friends about the film, and no one could find it anywhere except the occasional IFC showing.

Anyway, in the black-comedy\/gangster genre it fits in well with my other favorites, and everybody in the film really seems to end up with what they deserve. Bryan Brown is hilarious as the main gangster who makes origami with his small son and plays scrabble with his henchmen. Also hilarious is the quick-edit fate of a random car thief. Even Heath was pretty good in it. At the time, I vaguely remembered him from a short-lived series on Fox called 'Roar.' Hopefully Gregor Jordan will make another hit, but as far as I'm concerned, this is his best yet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having seen, and loved this film in Australia, I was very keen to get me paws on a copy. I got one on DVD back in the UK only to find that it's a very different edit.

The domestic Australain edit I saw is snappier. The UK ,and I presume European, edits spends a lot longer on the narrator played by Jimmy's dead brother.And in truth belabours that and few other points to no real benefit.

It is not a serious criticism, but the Oz edit is just brisker and I think more assured.

I can't say why they felt it needed expansion for the overseas market?

So careful about which one you go for.

I went for both.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two Hands is a highly enjoyable Aussie crime caper, which ultimately succeeds by the way the film easily combines tense dramatic moments, with very funny characters and situations, to give the film the right balance and feel. The comedy of the film occurs naturally, and the laughs haven't been set up too elaborately & haven't been too worked at. It really is very funny, thanks to the fact that each character in the movie is excellently cast, and that each actor\/actress recognises and can relate to the Aussie humor. They portray it very well and very realistically. Of course, they're helped out immensely by a fantastic script by writer\/director Gregor Jordan. I was reading another review of this film by an American who had seen it, and he heavily criticised it, basically passing it off as a Pulp Fiction clone. I think that that's just rubbish. This film isn't trying to be Pulp Fiction, the feel and style of each of this excellent films are totally opposite. Without wanting to sound superior or arrogant, I think to fully understand this film; the humor, the sincerity, the characters, etc....you have to be Australian, or at least understand the culture, which the other guy obviously didn't have the faintest clue about. Some Americans, whose reviews of certain non-American films, seem ignorant to (and have trouble comprehending) anything that isn't an American product. It's a real shame, because this is a really great film. The love story featured between the main character and the girl is also portrayed in a very real, sincere and sweet way. I'm very proud to have this film in my collection. 4.5 out of 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brilliant film! I am sorry to say that it resembles to me a bit like Pulp F. but thats how it is with post pulp era. Many pictures get automatically likened to it for only being a gangster flick. But this one is well written, funny coincidences, ordinary gangsters who are family men, resemble something from Tarantino, which is a good similarity!

Anyway the film's about a guy bloke in Australia which is getting mixed up with a hard- core crime gang, and ends up in a debt and deep s*it. To his assistance is his deceased brother (anyone remember Val Kilmer in True R.?) to pay of his debt and escape from the gangsters who are on his trail. The gangsters are cold blooded, but take the time to play chess and focus on the upbringing of their children! They also get served tea from their granny while planning a bank robbery and have trouble what to do with their kids during the robbery. So a humorous gangster flick with Heath Ledger in good form (though I'm not a fan) , and Bryan Brown in great action as a gang leader.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm afraid I must disagree with Mr. Radcliffe, as although he is correct in saying this isn't a comedy, it has many other merits. The plot is a little mad at parts, but I believe it it all fits together nicely, creating a satisfying, enjoyable film. The last scene was rather abysmal compared to the rest of the film, but the actual ending of the plot a few scenes previously is very interesting, showing just what someone will do under stressful circumstances.

I would recommend this film to fans of thrillers and action movies, but if you're a fan of gangster movies then as long as you don't expect expect something as deep as Goodfellas then you should still find it enjoyable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Two Hands back in Sydney a few years ago and it instantly became one of my all-time favourite films. It's got action, adventure, comedy and romance all rolled up into one (and a bit of zen thrown in for good measure). Like much Australian film, the plot is easy to follow yet wonderfully engaging, and Jordan should justly feel proud of his work.

Anyway, it was on TV just now on Channel 4 in London, and my two favourite comedy scenes of not just this movie, but indeed any movie, had been cut out! So if you watch this movie, make sure it's the original version.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two Hands restored my faith in Aussie films. It took an old premise and made it fresh. I enjoyed this movie to no end. I recommend it to those people who like Guy Ritchie films. Bryan Brown was fantastic and just about perfect in a role tailor made for him. Ledger was adequtely dumb and his performance anchored a very satisfying movie for me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A good story, well-acted with unexpected character twists eg. vicious murderous gangster Bryan Brown teaching his son macrame. Although it succeeds as an action drama where you hope the good guy (Ledger) and his gilrfriend succeed, it also has some hilarious ironic black humour eg. the bank robbers who become radio competition \"winners\" and their reaction, the busker's revenge etc. Well worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before I start my review here is a quick lesson in australian slang which may help you with viewing the movie and understanding some of the other reviews from australia and overseas.

In australian slang \"thongs\" are a pair of rubber sandals (not to be confused with the same american word that pertains to butt revealing underwear), \"stubbies\" are a brand of australian short, a \"stubby\" is a small can sized bottle of beer, and a \"stubby holder\" is a foam insulator for a small bottle of beer.

If you love black comedies about smalltime criminals then you will love this movie, unfortunatley a lot of people on IMDB with weak stomachs and no appreciation of dark humour have reviewed this movie which unfortunately makes this movie appear to be more mediocre than what it is. A lot of reviewers have also compared it to Lock\/Stock and Pulp Fiction, while it is the same genre, it is a completely different and original style.

A lot of reviewers have also panned this movie for using Heath Ledger's characters dead brother to open and guide the narrative for this movie, without watching the movie closely enough to realise that his brother was killed by the same villain that wishes to kill heaths character, this is explained midway through the movie but not clearly enough for most to understand.

This movie is also reminiscent of Lock\/Stock and Reservoir dogs in that it is the Director\/writers debut feature, and for a debut feature it rates as well as these two movies, as a matter of fact like Lock\/Stock and Reservoir Dogs I rate this movie as a 10\/10 for a director\/writers debut, unfortunately unlike Tarantino and Ritchie Jordan fails to live up to expectations in his subsequent movies like Ned Kelly.

This movie is one that you should definitely add to your DVD collection and is one that holds up to several viewings quite easily.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie gives you more of an idiea how Australians act. Even though The Castle is a great Australian movie, it's a bit out there. This movie is by far the best Aussie flick I have seen (haven't seen Dirty Deeds yet) and probably would be my favourite movie. The point is, if you haven't seen it, go see it. If a crime\/action\/comedy is your thing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A gritty Australian film, with all the elements for success. Two Hands represents the ability of Australian film makers and actors to produce top-quality, popular material. The film has a fresh angle, and uniquely incorporates drama, suspense and comedy.

I found this film thoroughly enjoyable on so many different levels - but can also appreciate that it might not be everyone's 'cup of tea'. The film carries a distinct Aussie humour, as it portrays the seedy underworld of Sydney, and explores the lives of a young man (Ledger) and young woman (Byrne), swept up in the local crime scene.

Two Hands deals with the theme of good and evil, both on an interpersonal and personal level and looks at the issue of consequences for 'our' actions.

The camera work is snazzy and the dialogue humorous. With Bryan Brown who plays Pando and Heath Ledger as Jimmy, battling it out on-screen in the most bizarre situations - this Aussie film is certainly not short of acting talent.

This subtle action\/comedy has become somewhat of a cult favourite, and one of mine also.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is made in a style that resembles Lock, stock and two smoking barrels, with lot's of subplots, fancy camerawork, cool music and that great tongue-in-cheek Aussie type of humor you'll find nowhere else. How this movie has escaped the European and American audience is a mystery!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Heath Ledgers acting in this film really bugs me, but overall its a great watch. Bryan Brown is excellent when i dont normally like him, but then his whole gang are a great piece of work. Jimmy is a hapless wannabe gangster who cant seem to do a thing right (SPOILERS: loses pandos money, ackos car and nearly bumbles a bank robbery) but still comes out on top.

didnt know what the two kids were in it for at the start but they ties some storylines together nicely.

all in all a damn fine piece of Australian cinema 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a fan of independent film. Dialogue driven, character study pieces are where it's at for me. Some of the other posts are right: \"Wannabes\" isn't going to rival \"The Godfather\" for best mob film ever. On the other hand, \"Wannabes\" is a well-written and well-directed picture that has surprisingly good performances from every actor\/actress. My problem with one of the other reviews:

- Conor Dubin stands out as the only Irishman in a cast of Italians

- Dubin is a Jewish last name, and as such has a dark complexion, not a traditional ruddy one of an Irishman. He doesn't stand out at all, rather, delivers a great performance.

This didn't win many awards, but it is deserving of a Saturday night with a bowl of popcorn. I found it for 7 bucks at Blockbuster and was pleasantly surprised to say the least! Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although it strays away from the book a little, you can't help but love the atmospheric music and settings.

The scenes in Bath are just how they should be. Although if you have watched it as many times as I have you notice that the background people are the same in each scene, but that aside, I like the scene where they are in the Hot Baths, but did the men and women really bathe together like that? You could see all the men perched around the outside leering at the women. It also seemed strange that they all had their hats on, but perhaps this was the style at the time. The ballroom scenes were very nice, the dancing and the outfits looked beautiful. I especially liked Catherine's dress in the first ballroom scene.

Northanger Abbey looked suitably imposing, but I enjoyed the Bath scenes better.

Schlesinger gives a good but not exceptional performance as Catherine Morland. Googie Withers gives the best performance as Mrs Allen I feel.

Ugh Peter Firth as Mr Tilney, he just talks a load of rubbish, and is not a clergyman as he should be, it's hard to think of him being in love with Catherine, but then the book never really gave that impression either.

General Tilney is played reasonably well by Hardy, and Stuart also gives a sort of good performance as Isabella. Ingrid Lacey did not give a good performance as Elinor Tilney. As for John Thorpe, well he gives the impression of a seedy and lustful man, perhaps not the character portrayed in the book, but I quite like it.

I can handle scenes being cut from a book adaptation, but when new scenes and characters are added it usually annoys me. The marchioness! I hate her. She is not part of the Northanger story and neither is her cartwheeling page boy.

some of the script is peculiar. When Catherine is asking Elinor Tilney about her Mothers death she asks \"I suppose you saw the body? How did it appear?\" What a silly thing to say! Elinor's calm response is stupid too.

anyway please tell me if you agree or disagree with me","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I got this movie with my BBC \"Jane Austen Collection\" (5 DVDs of old BBC adaptations) and didn't like it at first. It's completely different from the others and it lacks, or so I thought, one of the qualities that I enjoy in all other Austen movies: cheerful common sense. The nightmare scene in which Mrs. Richards apparently sews her fingers together was especially upsetting.

I still don't like to watch the finger-sewing scene but I do love hearing Mrs. R. saying, dreamily, while she sews, \"My only acquaintance...tore my gown.\" This movie is now my current Austen favorite. I've watched it 7 or 8 times so far. The acting, to my mind, is incredible. The way I notice good acting is when I find myself looking up from whatever I'm doing (sewing, though not my fingers together, hopefully, or boondoggling or whatever) in order to watch the character deliver his lines. It's the turn of expression, the cast of posture, that make the words come alive -- that's what makes good acting, as far as I'm concerned.

Well, I watch almost every part of \"Northanger Abbey\" because almost all the actors play their roles with such charisma. Peter Firth is amazing as Mr. Tilney, the perfect blend of Bathian fop and real, masculine hero - you're not sure until the end whether he's after Catherine's money or not. I love his touch of (Welsh?) accent. Mr. and Mrs. Richards are charming: the combination of their behaviors - especially Mr. Richards' high voice, lending counterpoint to his wit and wisdom - makes them so real. General Tilney as the hard-hearted father who may possibly be a murderer is fascinating, too. And Captain Tilney, the grinning rake who is so clearly enjoying himself... and the moneygrubbing sister and brother whose names I can't currently remember - the two of them are so perfectly, at once, smart and smarmy.

The other reason I love this adaptation is that it is the most romantic of all the Jane Austen adaptations. I know this was one of Austen's weak points (well, it is as far as I am concerned): even though all her novels are love stories, it's hard to feel that her heroes and heroines are really in love at the end. And if they're aren't really in love, then what's the point? All the other adaptations I've seen (other than the early Olivier\/Garson one) have pretty cold-fish kisses at the end, if they kiss at all. I don't at all like sex in movies but it really is necessary to have a heartfelt kiss in the end. And the ending kiss in Northanger is a doozy.

The over-the-top approach to costumes, music, and lighting work very well as far as I'm concerned. And the script is extremely clever - the way we are educated about Gothic romance, highlife in Bath, Cathy's normal country upbringing, etc., is very well done, as they usually are in BBC productions. Also, I like the part when the little black page does the cartwheels. And the Marchionesse, I think, was an entirely appropriate and very clever expository device.

Some people have objected that this version is the opposite of what Jane Austen intended to do in Northanger Abbey - she meant to make fun of Gothic romance, not promote it. But I don't think she meant to put \"Mysteries of Udolpho,\" etc., down. She was just making the point that you need to distinguish between reality and fiction. And this point is made when Mr. Tilney chides Catherine in his mother's room. Besides, General Tilney was a villain, albeit a prosaic one. That point was meant to be made, surely.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't comment on the accuracy of this production, historical or literary, but I can say that I enjoyed it. If there is a God, the sound track will be released, Ilona Sekacz' work is truly enduring. Twenty years on I am still moved by the haunting themes of this production and return to it frequently.

The story surrounds the entry into society of Catherine Moreland. Somewhat awkward and possessed of an unhealthy interest in Gothic stories (early pulp fiction?), Catherine descends on Bath in the company of Mrs Allen where she meets Henry Tilney. She is invited to visit the Tilneys at Northanger Abbey, the seat of the formidable (and somewhat financially challenged) General Tilney, who has the unfortunate misconception that there is wealth afoot.

Where mutual attraction mixes with family finance, dispute is inevitable. This coupled with Catherines vivid imagination, leads her to fear for her safety. Her eventual departure is marred by accusations and counter accusations of deception and connivance.

But the attraction between Catherine and Henry stands these trials. He returns to provide a happy ending. This final scene is especially compelling, given the incidental music of Ilona Sekacz.

It may well be a \"bad\" production from the purists viewpoint, gaudy costumes and shaky performances not withstanding, but for me it's 88 minutes of bliss.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just checked out Northanger Abbey from the local library, and wasn't expecting much. Imagine my suprise at this gothic treat! Northanger Abbey is one of the most eerie places that you have ever seen, with empty passageways and ornate rooms full of hidden secrets. The glory of the movie is that it never reveals all: your imagination runs free, running with the imagination of the main character, one Kathrine M. She is a girl of wild imaginations, a reader of gothic fantasy that she brings into her (and our) real world.

If I were to use one word to describe this excellent movie, it would be surrealistic. Dreams are woven throughout the movie, enhancing the mood. Sometimes, it is hard to tell what is real and what is not; this is intentional, I believe.

Atmosphere reigns supreme. The music is not what you'd expect of a movie by Jane Austen: it is eerie, flute and drum based, high and haunting with an undercurrent of fear. If a soft, pleasant tune were playing in Northanger Abbey, it would be positively inviting. Now, it is foreboding, a grim and stark-walled palace of madmen. (But! The characters! You shall have to see them for yourself!)

If you are looking for a most enjoyable evening, look no further than Northanger Abbey.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've just watched this again on the BBC Channel 4. It's not Jane Austen's best novel by any means but the film is a reasonable interpretation. I suspect the Assembly Rooms at Bath would have been rather more crowded than shown; perhaps they couldn't afford the extras. Also why does everyone shut up so that the dancing couple can have an audible conversation? I've never heard anything anyone has ever said to me when I've been dancing and I suspect it would have been the same in the 18\/19th century in Bath.

I cannot believe the US\/Canada reviews; they completely miss the ironic element that is in the film throughout. The \"gothic\" scenes are quite cleverly presented but you need to read them properly. I'm sure Jane A would be mildly amused by those reviews. A propos of nothing, does anyone else think that Peter Firth gets to look more like Colin Baker (a former Doctor Who) or vice-versa the older they both get?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"VHS - I have watched this over and over and LOVED every minute of it so much so I have now ordered the DVD I only wished the film could have lasted longer. I never worry about what other people think I prefer to make my own mind up and entirely disagree with the negative comments and will not let others spoil my enjoyment of the film whatsoever. Make up your own mind and don't let others put you off! I have all Jane Austen's BBC series but this is my FAVOURITE. I see there is to be a NEW Northanger Abbey released in 2007 which I will buy when it comes out but it will not stop me watching Northanger Abbey released in the 80's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't watch this movie expecting the Jane Austen wit, crisp dialog or clever social commentary. This time around, the premise of Northanger Abbey has been updated in a very sensual way!

In this version,Catherine's erotic daydreams are not just silly fantasies, but a connection to the world of adult sexuality she is just peeking into with her daylight adventures. By day she is very prim and demure, and her swain Henry treats her with the utmost courtesy. But as her own sexual nature awakens, her daydreams shift every so subtly from mild to steamy to lurid!

At the beginning of the story, Catherine's visions of sex are based entirely on the Gothic novels she devours in bed. It is both heartwarming, sexy, and provocative to observe the way her dreamy picture of handsome Henry \"dissolves\" into a lurid dream of being carried off and ravished by romantic villains! At the same time, it is wry and touching to cut back to her bed in the morning -- Catherine sleeping peacefully looks so innocent one would never guess what really goes on in that pretty little head!

Later, after being invited to Henry's castle, Catherine overhears a family argument and totally misunderstands its meaning. Jumping into bed, she covers herself up with the bedsheets and lies awake listening fearfully, her striking blue eyes the only visible sign that she is alert. Little by little, however, those pretty blue eyes droop and close as she drifts into another heated dream of innocent desire. This time, Catherine dreams she is in Elizabethan times, waiting fearfully outside the castle for the approach of the \"banditi!\" It's pretty clear she is more excited than terrified by the idea of being carried off by bandits. She all but shudders with excitement and anticipation! But then, after a shot of her running frantically to escape, we are back to the daylight world, where the maid is scolding her for having made a mess of her room before falling into a sound sleep. It's worth noting that Catherine's heavy-eyed yawning in the morning light is itself a rather sensual symbol of how passionate her dreams have been!

Ultimately, of course, Catherine's stern and unimaginative lover Henry divines the nature of her fantasies and gives her a stern lecture. It's interesting that Catherine's immediate collapse into tears symbolizes not a retreat but an advance into adult relationships. In the next scene, she tearfully burns her Gothic romance and throws herself shamefaced and sobbing onto the bed. Significantly, this turning point is also marked by Catherine falling into a deep sleep -- except that this time, there are no dreams of make believe passion. Presumably, Catherine has matured enough to be ready for the real thing.

Though Katherine Schlesinger has lovely blue eyes and a lively expression, and all her performance is charming, it must be said that outside of the heated dream sequences this movie adaptation is excruciatingly dull. I'm giving it 9 stars only because the truly romantic may enjoy it purely on a daydream level.

If you'd like to read a book about a genuinely strong willed young heroine who overcomes real darkness and danger in a real Gothic setting, I highly recommend THE PERILOUS GARD by Elizabeth Marie Pope.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this film version of NORTHANGER ABBEY is actually quite good. It certainly is amusing. Well, it's not a masterpiece as PRIDE AND PREJUDICE ('95) but there's very good stuff in it.. especially the City of Bath setting!!! ..The Royal Crescent, the Roman Baths, the fascinating Georgian atmosphere.. That is excellent. If you are a Bath fan like myself, you'll love watching this film! The performances may sound a bit too \"melodramatic\" but I've got the impression that this film, like the novel itself, is deliberately making fun of the popular tales of romance and terror and of the society of the period. The only drawback is probably the female lead as I personally have another idea of Catherine Morland's physical appearance. The music is also a bit \"unusual\".. but I strangely find it acceptable despite it's got nothing to do with the historical period portrayed. I'm wondering what would dear old Jane think...:)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have read all of Jane Austen's novels right the way through once a year every year since I was 9 years old and received the Modern Library edition of her collected works as a birthday present.

I loved this movie for its romance and for the music, which stayed, hauntingly, in my head. It was an interpretation of course, not an Emma or a Sense and Sensibility, but something quite different and something Catherine herself would have loved. And oh to be loved by this passionate Henry! This was the Henry of Catherine's imagination, and she is the romantic heroine she read about in her novels, and which was promised to us by the practical Jane Austen who tells us right at the beginning that the unlikely Catherine will indeed be one. I wonder if Jane was being entirely satirical in her novel. Perhaps, she too, could imagine such a Henry.

I haven't seen the film in many years, at least a decade. But, I have been yearning for it ever since.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A film is beyond all expectations, an excellent insight into the human condition. What exactly drives Mila to have her ass painted. What could push a human so far that there only way to escape is to have there rear passage repeatedly painted by strangers.

This film is not afraid to stair squarley in the face of the ass painting issue. Simply breathtaking. Roll on the sequel or whatever comes next from the geniuses who made this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a truly great film, with excellent direction. The core plot element, the painting of mila's ass is captivating. I really can't express in words just how much I enjoyed watching Mila getting her ass painted repeatedly.

Connor","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Text Taken from 2001 Melbourne International Film Fest Guide.

fuckland The title is a pun based on the film's lead actor Fabian Stratas' deliberate mispronunciation of Falkland, a reference to the film's setting and a rather less than subtle allusion to the secret agenda of its protagonist.

Fabian is an Argentine national, an amateur magician passing himself off as a tourist visiting the Falklands soon after it is reopened to its people. His master plan is to win the ultimate struggle by seducing and impregnating the local females, commencing with the delicious Camilla,thus siring an entire generation of half Argentinians. Fuckland creates the illusion of a documentary and maintains a fish-eyed perspective that gives the film a voyeuristic flair and intimacy. (ARGENTINA)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fuckland is an interesting film. I personally love the Dogma movement. I wish it had lasted longer. It seems to have already died. Many critics tried their damndest to shut it down. I don't know why. It's the most interesting movement to happen in the cinematic world since the French New Wave. Besides Fuckland, I've seen the first three in the series, Festen, Idioterne, and Mifune. They were all great, Festen being a masterpiece, in my opinion. Fuckland isn't up to those others. I was just fascinated with the filmmaking. It's played as if it were a real documentary, with a real person who was so obsessed with his camera that he refused to put it down. At a few points in the film, it becomes clear that it is a work of complete fiction, but that illusion was protracted for an amazing amount of time. I wish that the filmmakers would have come up with something a bit more interesting to put onscreen. It is basically about this guy, Fabian, who is an Argentinian visiting the Faulkland Islands. Argentinians were only in the last couple of months allowed onto the islands, and Fabian plans to impregnate the women with Argentinian children. He sets his eyes on one, and most of the movie is spent on her seduction. The two actors are very natural. Camilla Heany only kind of hints that she is an actress. Fabian Stratas seems completely real. The politics of the film are somewhat confusing to me, since I have only an inkling of the situation surrounding the island and its recent history. I was 3, I think, when the Faulklands were invaded. The final bit of the film doesn't work at all. I don't get what the filmmakers were going for there. Still, Fuckland is an interesting Dogma experiment. It does break some Dogma rules, though, notably the no extra-diagetic music rule. There is a lot of that. 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Gilmore girls is about a mother who had a daughter when she was 16. Now the daughter is 16 (in season 1) and they live like sisters. Sharing everything, trusting each other completely.

I like The Gilmore Girls but I am not sure why. The mother, named Lorelai (Lauren Graham), and the daughter, named Rory (short for Lorelai, played by Alexis Bledel), are both very beautiful women, they are both funny and they are charming in their own ways. There are some funny supporting characters, such as Luke (Scott Patterson). He and Lorelai like each, may be even love each other, but neither of them really acts on it. They have their little moments. There are some other supporting characters, most of them very funny, and with their won touching moments.

What I like the most I think is to see the relationship between the young mother and the daughter who is becoming an adult. The dialogue between them is quick, sharp, funny and sometimes touching as well. The band they have is beautiful. The Gilmore Girls makes you feel good so try it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gilmore Girls is my favorite TV show of all times. they only aired the first 2 seasons in India but i've watched the rest on DVD or read it online. it's very refreshing to find a show where the protagonist isn't sneaking around her mother's back but has an open relationship with her. the chemistry between Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel who play Lorelai and her daughter Rory is really great. all the acting is excellent and the characters, though extremely quirky, are still believable. the residents of stars hollow show all the amusing bizarreness of small town life, which is contrasted by the endless snobbishness and social norms that make up the high society life of Lorelai's parents. on one hand there are dance-athons and firelight festival's while on the hand you have cotillions, DAR meetings and cocktail parties. all the character's develop a lot and there's a happy ending for more or less everybody. there are dramatic elements but also a lot of very witty humor. Rory's boyfriends are all incredibly hot as are her friend Lane's. basically it's a cool, funny, very satisfying show which encompasses all the aspects of life and gives you a feeling of -if you work hard enough and wait patiently, you'll get what you want even if it wasn't what you intended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is my absolute favorite. This show is intelligent, entertaining and always full of surprises. Lauren Graham is perfect as Lorelai Gilmore, a single mother who is Rory's best friend. Alexis Bledel shines as the beautiful and intelligent Rory Gilmore and Keiko Agena is one of a kind as Rory's best friend, Lane Kim. I love the witty dialog, it's what makes it unique about the show. Kelly Bishop is wicked great as Emily Gilmore and Edward Herrman is terrific as Richard Gilmore. Scott Patterson is a joy as Luke Danes and the band members are one of a kind to watch. The Community, Miss Patty, Babette, Mrs. Kim, Taylor Doose, Kirk and other's are always laugh out loud funny, quirky and interesting that always makes the snappy one-liners stand out. This show has changed so much over the years that it won't ever get old. Gilmore Girls is an original and clever show that keeps you watching. That is how good it is. I give this show a 10\/10 rating.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely fell in love with this girls. let me tell you something: I am from Romania and here is only the sixth series running bunt every other day that is on USA TV I check the internet and download it from there, so i am in line with the rest of the world. I can not believe how deep I am in this show. I become to know absolutely everything about them I looked on the internet what's Rory's car what are their middle names and stuff like that: Rory is also Leigh and Lorelay is Victoria. I can not understand why but my boyfriend does not like them and I try and try to make him see how wonderful they are but without success, but he does understand me and lets me be with my \"obsesion\" with the Gilmore Girls. I adore them. I really hope that if someone see's this will give them a try : You won't regret it","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been hooked on \"GG\" since midway through 2001-2002 (2nd season), when I tuned in to see \"Smallville\" 10 minutes early. Thanks to \"Beginnings\", I now have all but 2 episodes on tape, right up through last night (Ep. 4.9). I am a middle-aged straight male, and this is the ONLY weekly TV show I watch.

I love this series because: a) Lauren Graham is a damn fine-looking woman, and funny and smart to boot; b) the dialogue is extremely well-written; c) it is flat-out hilarious, putting overrated garbage like \"Everybody Loves Raymond\" to shame. Many current TV comedies have been heavily influenced by the highly successful and much-despised slime-pit known as \"Married with Children\", where the viewer is encouraged to deride and feel superior to the characters. In \"GG\", the characters have faults, but we can see our own foibles in them, and laugh with them, not at them. This is stimulating TV, where the writers challenge us to keep up with rapid-fire exchanges and out-of-left-field pop-culture\/literature\/current events references. I get immense pleasure out of watching these episodes over and over again, catching all the one-liners and references to previous episodes. Stars Hollow is its own little world, one that I will happily continue to visit as long as the series runs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every time I watch this show I just want to turn it off and curse the makers for wasting my time week after week. The dialogs, or monologues rather, as everybody just rants on endlessly about nothing, are just becoming so tedious. For example, the episode I watched yesterday began with a seemingly unending rambling about how a particular dish (I forgot what it was, pasta with meatballs perhaps) always manages to turn the Gilmore family dinner into all-out war. And these were just the few seconds or so.

So it seems every time, lots of lines, with absolutely zero content. The scripts they use must be enormous.

But then every once in a while something happens. The babbling stops and suddenly there are these wonderful silent, emotional moments. For example, this week it was Lorelai's breakdown at the estate agent's. I just thought it was the best piece of TV I have seen for a long while.

Almost makes everything worthwhile.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Obsessed!!!!! I have every season of Gilmore Girls and I think the reason I love it so much is because of how smart the script is, its not your average comedy show there isn't any pause after a joke it just keeps on, if you missed you missed it. And its not like a soap opera drama either because it doesn't use dramatic music and the actors never have those stupid cheesy surprise looks. I think Gilmore Girls is one of the bests shows on T.V. shows of its time. Its fun because they talk so fast you can't get everything the first time its nice to go back and laugh at the other jokes. Also they have so many references its amazing how smart it is.

And you can relate to the characters also their so real and there actors are superb from the witty Lorelai to the hermit Luke to the immature Kirk the show is just amazing. I definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to have a good time and spend sometime with there family this is definitely the show for them. There is only one word that can describe Gilmore Girls....CLASSIC!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't catch Gilmore Girls when it first came out, so still doing some catch-up on the first season. I read through most of the users comments and For the negative ones, I have to ask, what show are you watching??

This show is a classic, great lines, characters and good acting. And best of all, NOT your standard formula show always with an occasional twist to the story. There are probably more women who see themselves reflected in the Lorelai\/Emily relationship then in the Lorelai\/Rory relationship. The people and storylines are not PC but they are real!!

If you find the dialogue annoying, I suggest you tape the show, so you can rewatch the parts don't understand.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"it's the best movie i have ever seen!!!!!! i just love them!! i watch it every day! i have the episodes from the internet! here in Romania is being broadcast the 6 season! i'm happy that i have seen the show from the beginning and i'm glad that through the internet i can see the 7 season. until now, season 5 is my favorite one :D i love it because Logan appears and the scene where they jump is my favorite. i have liked Dean too, but Logan is best. i would like Lorelai to remain with Christopher, because he is beautiful. this show is good for all ages and is worth to be seen. i really want the DVD's but i think that here in Romania will never appear, because i think that they don't even know that they have fans here. but, no matter what, i'll be watching it. bye!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i love this show! it is amazing...i can never miss an episode even if i've already seen it. the actors are perfect for the parts......i love Gilmore girls! i've gotten all my friends to watch it. even their parents watch it now. i watch it daily and i usually watch it more than once a day. i wish my mom was like Lorelei. my friends say that i talk and act like Lorelei. Lorelei and Rory have a wonderful mother-daughter relationship. it is a great teen show because they actually kind of learn from watching it. my vocabulary has widened from watching Gilmore Girls. Lauren graham and Alexis bled el are perfect for the parts of Lorelei and Rory. i think Luke and Lorelai should get married because Chris has left Lorelei and Rory way too many times. and has broken Lorelei's heart too many times too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is definitely an excellent show. I don't have cable, so I started renting them, because my friend recommended it. I thought it would be a teen soap, you know, who's dating who, that kind of thing. But it was not. It is surprisingly deep. It is also very witty. It moves at a very fast pace, and there are more and more jokes you catch every time you watch it. It is a comedy-drama, which is rare when well done. It is about Rory and Lorelai's relationship. Instead of the classic mother-daughter relationship it is a story of the best friend relationship-- about a mother and daughter. The characters are perfectly cast and all do a superb job. It is definitely the best TV show I have very come across.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The idea of young girl, who gets pregnant at the age of 16 is nothing new to the drama genre. But it is pretty new if you take a look at the comedy genre. There is this basic plot of Lorelai and Rory, mother and daughter. Lorelai comes from a wealthy background, got pregnant with 16 and ran away from her parents' house at 17. But this series does not start there, it starts when Rory is 16 and everything is just about the problems of a single mother, who has terrible problems with her parents and about all those problems you have when you are 16.

Okay, now again this sounds pretty normal, but there is this little thing called joke. The Gilmore Girls talk incredibly fast and they make like 60 jokes a minute. Even if you don't understand all of the jokes, since they contain hundreds of references to films, music, gossip, history, literature and politics. Sometimes you even get confused, but that really is the fun. And not only it is fast, it's smart and wonderfully sarcastic. In addition to that it is not only funny, it has great drama parts in it and you can take some lessons from it even home. Which is a thing that does not go for every single TV- Series.

So watch it! It'll lighten your mood and help you through hard decisions!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"honestly.. this show warms my heart, i watch it EVERYDAY on fox family and now that the new season has started i'm even more hooked than before.. the characters are so well-developed and their relationships are so real.. i would recommend this show for any woman or mother and daughter.. the Lorelei's are super fast talking witty girls that will, truly inspire you and the show is hysterical at times and never too too serious, but serious enough for it to be completely addicting.. it's an hour long which is a major PLUS because you can't ever get enough Gilmore! even in one hour.. Emily and Richard Gilmore are KICKS (loralie's parents, Rory's grandparents) they're you're average rich parents.. Emily president of the DAR and Richard a well known lawyer and Yale alumni st.. Rory is following in the footsteps of her grandparents and this could not make them any happier, of course, Rory's mother is so very proud of her but her whole life has worked on ultimately defying her parents and Rory going to Yale did not help her on that journey but believe me, every episode she does get closer ;)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"wow! i just have to say this show is super cool! i fell in love with the show from the beginning! the idea of the show is very original and very soothing! it's also a pleasure to watch the performance the two lovely leading ladies give, Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel! they're simply wonderful! i'm especially a big admirer of Lauren Graham! she's not just a pretty face, she's a \"monster\" of an actress as well! i'm not saying that Alexis isn't a wonderful actress as well... i just happen to like Lauren better! anyway it's a real delight seeing them on screen, \"sparing\" with words! in the words of the immortal Jim Carrey \"B-E-A-UTIFUL!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is a really great series. i love the show and i am so glad it isn't canceled yet. it has really good humor and shows the realistic bond between a young mother and her daughter. o yes for Gilmore girls! it is very awesome. they are such a sarcastic humorous bunch. they do everything together just like my mom and me. ya for Gilmore girls. um, i'm running out of lines. but i love how Luke and Lorelei's relationship is finally shaping up. they so needed to be together. and i absolutely just love Sookie St. James! she is so awesome . and the show wouldn't be anywhere without Michel. the whole show is dry humor, sarcasm, and life in a very small town where everyone knows each other....especially the Gilmore Girls.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"when the gilmore girls started in Germany i did not want to watch them because for me it was just something which was not unique. it was a series and i even did not know someone in it. later on, i realized that edward hermann is part of the cast of overboard (a movie, i absolutely adore). i had to watch it once with a friend and never stopped since. it's just fun. you have the feeling that it is okay to have sex before being married and it's okay to be a coffee junkie and to eat unhealthy stuff all the time. i do not do these things all the time but when i do these things i feel a little bit like a gilmore girl. even my boyfriend started to watch them and that tells something. from season to season it got better with the scripts and the stories. they have a open mind and by being different from every other show, you want to be like them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have watched this show from the beginning, and I am a 45 year old man. To me, this is so much more that a show that appeals to women. This is the story of a family, possibly an unusual one, but a family none the less. It centers around a mother and daughter, Lorelei and Rory Gilmore, two bright, attractive, and in their own ways successful women. Lorelei makes her home in fictional Stars Hollow, CT, a small New England town with a sense of history, and a population of people that may be unusual, but acts as a dysfunctional family. The show also throws in the relationship between Lorelei and her parents, Richard and Emily Gilmore, old money DAR WASP people who do not approve of Lorelei's choices in life, though Lorelei doesn't care. The relationships story and through line are what makes this show, in my opinion the finest on the WB network (soon to be the CW). Watch this show!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"People need to give this show a chance. The people who write bad reviews (there are very few of them) are clearly people who haven't seen many episodes. One needs to really sit down and pay attention to this show to appreciate it. All of the characters are realistic because they have so many flaws. They make mistakes, but they are REALISTIC mistakes, which is an uncommon thing to see on television today. Also, for the most part the acting is superb. Lauren Graham has been snubbed of an Emmy for six years now. Someone needs to give this woman the credit she deserves. Same goes for Kelly Bishop who plays Emily Gilmore so perfectly. Also, it's nice to see a show that can have a young girl at the center of it, and not be filled with teen angst. Rory is a smart girl, which is also not seen a lot on television today. If only other shows could capture the wholeness of this show...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is really great. It's smart.It's funny.It's great acting and writing. This show is really the fastest show I've ever seen. The Dialogues are really funny and well acted. Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel have a great chemistry.You really do believe they are mother and daughter. This show really showed that mother daughter relationships really don't have to be just mother and daughter, they can be best friends but on the same time it shows that it's really hard sometimes being more than just mother and daughter especially with Lorelai and Emily. Just watch this show I highly recommend it.It's great and definitely the best show on the air. Season 7 stars Tuesday September 26th, 2006, 8\/7c on the new The CW","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hands down, the best drama\/comedy show on television. A cleverly written show about a young mother and her 16 year old daughter exploring life and finding things out not only about the world but themselves too. Lorelai Gilmore (Lauren Graham) struggles to find a way to remain in close bond with her daughter but steer her in the right path, which through-out the show is becoming harder and harder. Rory Gilmore (Alexis Bledel) caught in a world of books and learning is just beginning to discover boys and her own sense of rebelliousness, which surprises them both. With the help of Luke Danes(Scott Patterson) and Sookie St.James(Melissa McCarthy) and an enormous variety of other hilarious characters, this show easily remains one of my favorites. What really puts the show over the top is the complex yet, incredible and witty writing often using references from pop culture to the mink dynasty.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gilmore Girls is one of the funniest, most clever, sharp-witted, sarcastic and heart-warming television shows I've ever watched, (second only to my most favorite television show of all time, F*R*I*E*N*D*S). The quick pace and many pop-culture references can leave some viewers confused, but once you catch on to the ways of the Gilmores, you'll be hooked for life. Just some random comments, I recently (finally) began watching Season 6 and wow! It's one of my favorite seasons so far. I love the Luke-Lorelai thing and all the drama in the various episodes is (as always) exhilarating. The only thing I'm not so fond of is the surprising bad attitude and reckless actions Rory has suddenly 'adopted'. Unfortunately I don't find this very realistic and hope it's not just a way to stir up some more drama to keep the season going strong. All in all great season though and I can't wait for the next!!!

~ Ashly a.k.a. \"Tookie Clothespin\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not the type of person to watch T.V. shows because the acting normally sucks or it's unrealistic or TOO dramatic! But this show is perfect. Everyone can act, and you can relate to the characters and their situations. Everyone has their own personality and Lorelai Gilmore is the best for her sarcastic comments that can make any bad situation seem a little funny. Rory Gilmore is a good role model for all girls. She takes pride in wanting to attend Harvard and boys\/boyfriends always come second in her book. She's a loyal friend and always the peace maker. There's subtle romance which is what I like, personally. Not the mushy gushy romance that not many people get to have in their lives, but a realistic type of romance. Every character eventually gets it, and they don't find their prince charming at first glance and they don't just \"fall in love\" with every guy that comes their way. It's a realistic show but when you watch it, you better brush up on your movies, pop culture, and random facts because Lorelai Gilmore is always making references. I fell in love with this show and if you give it a chance, so will you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gilmore Girls is a hilarious show with never ending sarcasm, wit, and charm. At age 16 Lorelai Gilmore gave birth to Rory Gilmore. She left her parents house and got a job. Now, Lorelai and Rory have a relationship that many mothers and daughters envy. They are best friends. The girls have an extensive knowledge of movies, and TV shows, and are constantly quoting them. In the first season, Lorelai needs money to send Rory to Chilton ( a very highly rated high school), so she reluctantly has to turn to her parents. They are happy to give them the money, but in exchange, Rory has to come have dinner with them every Friday night. I highly recommend this show. I love it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really like this show. It has drama, romance, and comedy all rolled into one. I am 28 and I am a married mother, so I can identify both with Lorelei's and Rory's experiences in the show. I have been watching mostly the repeats on the Family Channel lately, so I am not up-to-date on what is going on now. I think females would like this show more than males, but I know some men out there would enjoy it! I really like that is an hour long and not a half hour, as th hour seems to fly by when I am watching it! Give it a chance if you have never seen the show! I think Lorelei and Luke are my favorite characters on the show though, mainly because of the way they are with one another. How could you not see something was there (or take that long to see it I guess I should say)?

Happy viewing!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Usually, Alan Alda plays characters that are too \"soft\" and overly verbal -- it's probably how he really lives. This time, he fits the character. Though he overacts when the verdict is being delivered.

The 1971 Attica Prison Riot and the State of New York's response is remembered by many of us as a terrifying event. Only a few journalists have told the true story. This film provides a quick look at the horrors and excesses associated with the Attica riot\/revolt. Attica had a major impact on this country. Maybe the movie will stimulate someone to research the history.

I can't remember a feature movie made from the perspective of the prisoners -- though there is a great PBS piece with the actual Attica survivors\/participants. The perspective of the guards held hostage is explored in \"Against the Wall\" with Kyle MacLachlan, Samuel L. Jackson, Clarence Williams III, and Frederic Forrest.

Back in the day, we shouted, \"Attica! Attica!\" It was nice to hear it in the movie. Brought back memories.

The worst part of the movie are the natural wigs Morris Chestnut and the other African Americans must wear. It would have been easy for these people to grow a 'Fro.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Killing Yard is a great film, although uneven at times. Morris Chestnut puts forth a phenomenal effort as a mentally wounded and judicially jilted prison inmate, and the presence of Alan Alda as his defense attorney is none other than genius. The emotion and raw reality portrayed in this film's \"flashback\" scenes have the ability of putting viewers directly into the midst of the events being pictured. I was not even born when the Attica riot took place, however, through extensive research, I find that \"The Killing Yard\" does the story all of it's fair justices. I would definitely recommend this film for viewing by any educational or activist group as a much needed learning tool.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film blew me away. I thought I knew a little about the Attica prison riot. After watching this, I see I knew nothing. The story is told through the relationship between the attorney and the black inmate. Both the personal story of these two men and the unfolding courtroom drama were riveting. The flashback sequences in the prison were awesome. It's hard to believe it wasn't documentary footage it was so real. It was not only a great piece of drama, it was an incredible lesson in an important chapter in American history. I'm with Ebert and Roeper. I give it two thumbs up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I guess I wasn't sure to what to expect from this film, it had a good cast, an interesting story line, and a bunch of other things going for it, but I still couldn't shake a feeling of dread that I had in my stomach about what it would be like. I am glad to say that I was very pleased with the result and regret worrying about it all along. The films opening scenes were extremely intriguing and were enough to sustain early interest in the film. As the film progressed we were introduced to the characters of the film, as well as what happened in the prison riots. Like most reviews for this film, I have to admit that there is some unessecary cliches but it can't erase the overall power of this film that reads like a good novel. The cast are all great, particularly Chestnut and McGowan, and the film ranks as one of the better made-for-tv films of this year. Certainly worth watching if you are looking for a good courtroom drama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This short film (and the poem which is behind it) is one of the greatest metaphors I've ever seen!

The poem is beautiful! It describes exactly the feeling of a person that chases a dream and can't realize it\u0085 but it also tells how to fulfil it! I see the \"Story of the Cat and the Moon\" as one beautiful metaphor to the Human relationships, passion and love.

Technically it's done a good work too. In spite of being very simple, the animation, in black and white, gives a tone of allegory to the movie and to its message, but also of tenderness and nostalgia.

In addiction, the music also contributes to this poetic feeling.

\"Nothing else matters! I will wait! She will come when she can, or when she wants to!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this film during a special advanced preview in Reading, Berkshire.

The two main characters, Michael and Rory strike up a friendship, when Rory is introduced to the care home that Michael already resides. Michael is amazed to find someone who can finally understand him, as until now his cerebal palsey made people think that he couldn't communicate.

Rory introduces Michael to the life that he's missing. Rory is a feisty character, who doesn't let his condition (Muscular Dystrophy) get to him.

They bond and apply for Independent living, and find a lovely flat and assistant and have all the fun that they could ever dream of.

Don't go to see this film if you are after some \"Entertainment\". Do go see this film if you're willing to see something a little different.

The storyline is strong, the actors are fantastic and despite the sadness that comes with the film the mood is uplifting.

I thoroughly recommend it. Though if you are anything like me and prone to crying - take tissues, as you'll need them!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I rented this obscure aussie relic a few years ago to show at a friend`s place and it was an instant success.The classic tale of the wizard of oz with a decidedly cornball 70`s australian twist.The acting isn`t exactly shakespeare society stuff here,but later ,\"Mad max\"star Bruce Spence is a beautifully understated surfie\/scarecrow and there are some wonderfull comic turns by Gary Wadell and Robin Ramsay as a deliciously 70`s camp fairy godmother\/father character.Also note the musical contribution from ex-Daddy Cool frontman Ross Wilson on the title song.In a similar vein to later-day aussie comedies such as \"Priscilla queen of the desert\".Good fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow! An amazing, lost piece of Australiana AND a lost 70s glam-rock film rolled into one. This film warrants viewing simply to see what can be done with next to no budget but a lot of enthusiasm. As a retelling of the Oz story, the film borders on becoming too obvious but it is saved by it's eccentricities. The chance for a glimpse at how glam rock manifested in Australia will delight fans of the genre. This film used to be double featured with the Rocky Horror Picture Show, an indicator of the type of film that Oz is. While not as frivolous or well constructed as RHPS it's hard not to have fun with Oz.

Surprisingly, Oz has aged well- perhaps a by-product of how determinedly set in the real Australia of 1976 it is. The passage of history shows that many of the ideas being explored would eventually enter the mainstream. The willingness of the film to give prominence to gay characters is notable, especially as it dates to the 'revolution' period for the Australian gay rights push.

The performances range from flinchingly amateur to finely nuanced brilliance. The direction is lacking in subtlety and much of the dialogue may have benefited from an extra draft or two. Somehow, these flaws add to the appeal of the film which is mercifully unpretentious. Much like Australia in the 1970s this film has a certain naive charm.

There are several connections to the original Australian stagings of the Rocky Horror Show which will keep obsessives on their toes.

Oz is most certainly a minor classic and a potential cult favourite worthy of review. Laugh at the atrocious 70s fashion, swing along with the AusRock soundtrack, leave ANY expectations at the door and Oz is likely to delight.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film predates the Australian films Road Warrior and Priscilla of the Desert, and its influence on them is obvious: in the dialogue, locations, photography, direction and political philosophy. The photography is notably confident. The direction is stylish and for the most part well done. If you liked the early Australian films by Bruce Beresford, Peter Weir and George Miller then you'll love \"Oz\". The direction also reminds this reviewer of Edgar Wright's contemporary work. That similarity suggests that \"Oz\" was far ahead of its time. The critics of 1967 hated it and the public stayed away - 1960s Australia, like 1940s USA, was in some ways the sort of place where conformity was important, whereas this film is very different to what those viewers would have expected, especially after reading the promotional posters. This film will most likely have more appeal to contemporary audiences: it's still quirkily awkward and self-conscious, but in a contemporary European way rather than a 1960s Australian way. Joy Dunstan (who later appeared in the Australian TV series 'Prisoner') plays her role with less raw passion than her contemporary Jacki Weaver might have done, instead Dunstan's character in this film conveys some of the rather whimsical strength of Australian women most famously represented by Kylie Minogue playing Charlene Mitchell in the Australian TV series Neighbours and further developed in later roles in her career. Men will also enjoy this film, which presents various masculine issues in a different way than most other mid-sixties films from the USA or even Australia. In particular, Bruce Spence (who later went on to play Tion Medon in 'Star Wars III', the Trainman in the 'Matrix' films, and the chopper pilot in the 'Road Warrior' and 'Thunderdome' films) plays a central and sustained role which solidly supports the rest of the cast. This film is worth seeing for Bruce Spence's performance alone. 7\/10 for some minor continuity problems.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great fun for an evening on the sofa. Don't expect Academy Award stuff with this but it will leave you with a smile. The performance by Bruce Spence is truly good. The soundtrack shows off some great old Australian talent. Check out this and other true Aussie films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pity the poor reviewer who disliked \/ didn't understand this wonderful film. What a sad life he must lead!

This movie has more to say about life and relationships than most I've ever seen, yet it's not dark or preachy like the \"ordinary people\" type of film. It is mostly humorous, though not technically a comedy.

The whole thing feels a little like a fantasy, perhaps Shakespear's \"Midsummer Nights' Dream.\" Beautiful, intelligent women abound, with wonderful cinematography and a non-insulting screenplay that doesn't miss a beat.

I look forward to seeing it every time this film is re-run on cable. It's like re-reading a favorite, treasured book.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has a lot to recommend it. The paintings, the music, and David Hewlett's naked butt are all gorgeous! The plot, a story of redemption, forgiveness, and courage in the face of adversity is also very interesting and touching -- and it's not predictable, which is saying quite a lot about a movie in this day and age. But, the acting is mediocre, the direction is confusing, and the script is just odd. It often felt like it was trying to be a parody, but I never figured out what it was trying to be parody *of*. And if it's not a parody, well, it remains a movie with great potential that it didn't live up to.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is great--especially if you enjoy visual arts. The scenery that the two daughters paint and photograph are beautiful. The story is also both funny and poignant at times.

People who like European films and \"art movies\" will like this movie. This is truly an art movie--it actually has a lot of art in it. Go rent it.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen a few of Mr. Boorman's movies and didn't like much of them. Not that they are bad movies, quite the contrary are good movies, but not content I personally found entertaining. However I think Where the Heart Is, although made to cater to the less than art savvy American audience, is masterful as satire, and as social commentary of the times it was made in. I've had to replace this movie in my collection at least a half a dozen times, since every time I loan it out to someone I know could appreciate it's artistry on all its levels, my copy fails to come back home to me, lol. The last time took 7 years to replace it since it was out of print for VHS sales, has never been made as a DVD that I know of, and had to wait till one of the premium cable channels ran it before I could tape it again.

My favorite aspect after the nail-on-the-head social commentary is the paintings by Timna Woollard. I've searched for 15 years to find anyone or anywhere that could lead me to where her work is available for sale. Or better yet a copy of the paintings in the movie without the ending credits rolling over them. I have a room in my house that I dedicated to putting copies of her paintings in, and no one seems to know if it ever was released as a coffee table book, or video aquarium, or as a documentary of her work. If anyone does know of where I can acquire any sort of copy of Timna's work or where her studio is in England, please do not hesitate to contact me via email.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie includes one of the best characters and dialog that Crispin Glover has ever played. Uma Thurman and Suzy Amis are also great in this movie, but Crispin makes it a great depiction of young people trying to make it in New York.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This epic brings together a superbly-gifted cast and crew, a narrative depth superior to most novels, wonderful music, philosophy and a connection to LIFE that I find difficult to explain. To immerse oneself in Die Zweite Heimat is for me akin to a spiritual experience, similar to the awe one gets when looking at the stars in a clear night sky. The language, and use of both colour and monochrome segments adds to the dramatic impact. The film inspired me to go to Munich and visit some of the locations, including the Edgar Reitz office. From then on, I vowed to improve my German skills - after Die Zweite Heimat I feel almost German, as if I am in the head of the characters. I also try to match the piano playing of Henry Arnold (Hermann), but this is the one thing that will always elude me ! This drama is unparalleled and I have been fortunate to see it on BBC2 in the UK and SBS in Australia. The sequel, Heimat 3, is currently being filmed in Germany.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seeing this film, or rather set of films, in my early teens irrevocably changed my idea of the possibilities of human interaction and the range of potential experience. This monumental exploration of individuals, and their historical setting, reveals how full bodied and intense every human existence is. The people are portrayed as they are to themselves: their experiences of the smallest to the largest internal and external phenomena are detailed with the greatest of artistry and perception. Edgar Reitz displays a fabulous appreciation of human motivations and longings.

When these phenomena are set against the immense time allowed by the length of the work, one cannot help but apprehend the force and vivacity of happiness, defeat, lust, love, sadness, melancholy, that each person feels. When I saw these films I perceived my future experiences, how my life would inevitably twist and oscillate due to both intended and accidental events. I acquired a feeling of the longevity of being and what it meant to reflect upon past lives, memories and contexts. A masterpiece and a revelation. I only wish the BBC would screen it again.

If anyone knows where I can get a copy, could they contact me","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Absolutely, I agree with my previous commentator in describing this as a riveting,fascinating and certainly beautiful film. It's not necessary to see all the episodes,since the first ones are the best,while the last ones are a-bit tiresome,but for any person who likes German's and their good-natured ways,all episodes are worth seeing.In typical german fashion, values are constantly questioned,even it's murderous Nazi past is confronted in the last episodes, the rich dialogues are particularly interesting. These episodes are recommended for anyone who is about to live or travel in Germany,preferably in original language!!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1984, Edgar Reitz surprised film-lovers all over the world with his epic opus Heimat: A Chronicle of Germany. Eight years later, he came up with a sequel, The Second Heimat: Chronicle of a Youth, which is even more astounding than its predecessor.

Actually, it's not really a sequel. It's more of a \"midquel\", as it covers events that took place between the ninth and eleventh episode of the first Heimat cycle.

The Second Heimat begins in 1960, four years after Hermann Simon (Henry Arnold) was separated from his first love, Klarchen, courtesy of his intolerant mother and elder brother (the controversy had to do with him being a minor, while she was about 25). Still angered by those events, the young man vows never to fall in love again (a grandiose, if creepy scene), and decides to move to Munich (like the director himself did in approximately the same period), hoping to become a professional composer after a few years spent at the music academy. He stays in Munich for ten years, and the thirteen two-hour episodes of Heimat 2 cover that time-frame, each of them focusing on a different person among Hermann's fellow students, people who, like him, are searching for a \"second home country\", be it music, film or something else, in which they can finally live peacefully.

Like the first Heimat, this second cycle is a perfect union of film and television: the episodic structure and the various romantic subplots make it look like a soap opera, in fact The Second Heimat needs to be seen in its entirety to be successfully embraced, whereas some chapters of Heimat 1 could be viewed as separate stories (in particular, the one concerning Hermann's teenage years). The style and content, however, is pure auteur cinema, with the familiar black and white\/color transitions (actually, a tad more predictable this time around) and ambiguous characters, the latter element being underlined by the relationship between Hermann and cello player Clarissa Lichtblau (Salome Kammer): they clearly love each other, yet they keep embarking on affairs with other people, delaying the inevitable until it's too late. This time, Reitz seems to be more pessimistic regarding his characters ( at one point, Hermann is so disillusioned he says: \"The Beatles are much better than us!\"), building entire episodes around dark, controversial themes such as abortion and suicide. The decade he's exploring is not suitable for everyone, as some are scarred in dramatic ways by the pivotal events of the '60s (the '68 revolution especially).

Reitz also seems to have made this mini-series specifically for movie-buffs, given the numerous film references (including a brilliant Casablanca quote) and clever in-jokes (one episode is set in Venice, whose film festival had an important part in the Heimat saga's success). And since 1992, film-lovers have never ceased to thank him for delivering 26 of the most compelling hours ever committed to celluloid.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've just finished seeing the film for the first time in it's entirety (although I watched some parts when it was first shown in Britain in the mid-90's), I truly believe it to be a masterpiece of late twentieth century cinema. Undoubtledly a film of this scope raises lots of questions, like why are there some narrative differences between the 60's Hermann in 'Heimat' and Hermann in this film? For example, in the first film Hermann has a fairly significant relationship with his stepfather (he funds Hermann's electronic music), whereas in \"Die Zweite...\" there is little mention of his dad until the final episode.

One other point does interest me; reading up on Edgar Reitz I'm struck by historical similarities between him and the Stefan character, (spoiler coming) in the last episode it is revealed that Stefan has won a prize at the Venice Film Festival, (Reitz won an award for best debut work there for his film \"Mahlzeiten\"); Reitz's film company is called 'Edgar Reitz Filmproduktion' and Stefan's is also eponymously named. I'm interested in Stefan being an autobiographical character because aside from Helga he is probably the least likable of the friends.

Maybe Stefan's a red herring, I don't know, what I do know is that I loved this film and wish that more were made like it, with the exception of Michael Haneke's \"Cache\" and Werner Herzog's \"Grizzly Man\" there's not enough ambition, audacity and passion of this sort in modern cinema. I can't wait to see number 3 now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw Heimat 2 on BBC2 in the 90's when I was at art college living and moving among artists and musicians, hoping for future success. So 'The Second Home' - of friendships made after leaving the familial home, of striving for a professional excellence - strongly resonated with my living reality. I was captivated by the characters, the storytelling, the lyrical camera-work and above all by the music. In it I could divine the beginnings of German Electronic music, of 50's Stockhausen, Kraftwerk, Can, Neue, Faust of the 70's, the sound experiments of John Cage, Walter Carlos and the British electronic psychedelia of The White Noise. The soundtrack composer Nikos Mamangakis studied with Carl Orff of Carmina Burana-fame so I found its tastes contemporary to the Electronic Pop\/ Sound Effects world.

I hadnt seen Heimat or Heimat 3 so I watched it as a whole in itself without a before or after. As someone else has commented, it is both epic and lyrical - historical and artistic. Many favourite moments including the wonderful voice of Gisela Muller (Evelyn), the Bach marimba of Daniel Smith (Juan), the piano-playing of Henry Arnold (Hermann) and the cello-playing of Salome Kammer (Clarissa).

I could write more but it's already been said here. Why can't British or US TV PRODUCE SUCH MASTERPIECES ? The Wire had the realism and politics and epic sweep of a city, David Lynch and Dennis Potter had imaginative tropes to their serialised TV work too but this is art-house and soap at its most cinematic and narrative sublime. It's never included in critics' choices of Best Films but it should be. Still as poetic and powerful as when I first saw it over 17 years ago. I watch the 3 boxed sets every autumn for their 'mellow fruitfulness'. Inspired and inspiring.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Jaded\" takes on the complex question of abuse: the perpetrators and the victims. In lesser hands it would have degenerated into an erotic thriller made for direct-to-video. This director, however, has managed to pull off a textured multi-layered study with a decidedly different point of view.

Given the fact that the director\/writer is a woman and the main detective and D.A. are also women, this could have turned into a very anti-male film. It is not. To be a sexual predator IS gender neutral. The nudity of this film is not erotic. The rape is brutal not sexual. We are looking at victims and not titillation.

The gifted cast rings true. For a film that is so little known, I was surprised at the quality of the performances. They are good. Carla Gugino and Rya Kihlstedt are incredible.

Somehow, this film got lost. Perhaps it is too smart for its own good. It is a \"should see\". Highly recommend. A thinking person's sexual thriller.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"-it has Carla Gugino *yay* and a crappy ending *boo*

-\"Jaded\" is a highly erotic story about a beautiful woman who arrives in a town trying to escape her past. Whiles there she meets up with two lesbians and after a couple of drinks the two decide to have some fun. But one of the girls takes things a bit too far and rapes her whiles the second girl holds her down. She is discovered on the beach where the incident happens the next day and is taken to a hospital. After that, we spend the rest of the movie watching her attempting to bring down the two girls and at the same time learn some new info about who she is and where she comes from and a bit about her past.

-Director and co-writer Caryn Krooth does an excellent job with this movie considering its uber low budget. It hand-held and sometimes looks like 16mm but it fits the movie since the story demands a harsh look to it. The actors all do okay jobs with what is given to them and there's not really anything to complain about it. The standout feature in the movie is of course Carla Gugino who bares it all in this movie. She is actually more nude in this movie than she is in \"Sin City\". Christopher McDonald is also in the movie but his character is really kinda pointless, but he is fun to watch. I didn't really pay much attention to the music since it doesn't really draw attention to itself but it gets the job done with what it's got. The movie is R rated and it's that for a very good reason. it's very sexual and very graphic at times. It's essentially borders on soft core at times but the sex scenes are necessary for the movie so it doesn't feel like it's just there for the sake of being there. Although there is one pointless scene where we see Chris McDonald getting it on, that scene was a tad pointless but it's not really much of a problem I guess. The only fault with the movie is that we don't get to see the court trial after all that we go through in the movie. It's like having sex and not having an orgasm or something

-It's a shame that the talented Caryn Krooth has never made a feature film since this. This is a highly gifted woman can do great things with a very little budget. I really hope that she gets back in the game soon because she is an amazing director. Jaded is not a masterpiece of erotic cinema, instead what we have is an enjoyable movie that shows a great director in the making.

-Hide the kids and close the curtains, you don't want people to think you're watching porn whiles watching this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Jaded\" should not be considered as en erotic thriller because the sex scenes are not for viewing pleasure unlike movies like \"Indecent Behavior\" or \"Friend Of The Family\".

\"Jaded\" is not an easy watch as it's story is difficult to conceive and it's not that common in society. From the beginning of the movie, with the first scene, you expect more strong scenes.

The raping scene wasn't (in my opinion) a well created scene. I think that the director didn't use proper camera techniques overall in the movie. That's why it looks sometimes dull and becomes boring almost near the end.

The performances are extremely good from all the five female characters. These women gave strong, intense, but believable performances that demonstrate the actresses' dramatic abilities.

The legal concepts helped a lot to understand the plot's difficulty because the legal term of sodomy is different from a simple raping. From the point of view of Meg's defense, sodomy needs to be penalized as a raping (a huge crime grade B) although it's a different crime. Pat and Alex's defense claims that Meg enjoyed and asked for it. This is where the movie turns interesting to see who is trying to tell the truth. The only thing for sure is that the sex scene fits into a legal definition of a crime.

Watch \"Jaded\" if you like legal issues that aren't very common in your society. If not, give it a try because it's a very good and strong drama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In December 1945 a train leaves the central station of Stockholm for Berlin. There aren't much left when it arrives. Not of the train and not of some passengers.

This is a black comedy directed by Peter Dalle and acted like they used to act in the 40s and also photographed (in b\/w) like they used to during that period. The actors must have had lots of fun making it. They aren't much of characters, like they weren't in the 40s, but the story is well narrated and everybody has timing.

A deadly black and deadly funny film. See it, if you didn't think the Swedes were capable of humour.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"`Skenbart' is one of the funniest movies to not only to come from Peter Dalle but from the Swedish cinema industry itself. It is a movie made in black and white to get something of the atmosphere from the days before Christmas in December 1945, which it does very well. Almost the whole plot takes place on a train, non-stop to Berlin. On the train is a mix of homosexuals, nuns, deported refugees, murderers, alcoholics and the failure literature critic 'Gunnar' played by the, in Sweden, famous actor Gustav Hammarsten. The leading role 'Gunnar' is the type of person that, although his intentions are for the best, seems to drag everyone near him, in a extremely funny way, into disaster and to a living hell, especially for a from the Finnish war, homecoming, wounded soldier played by the extremely funny comedian Robert Gustafsson. On the train is also a doctor, who cheats on his wife, with his mistress. They have together planned to murder the doctors wife that is also travelling with the same train without any knowledge about her husbands intentions. Will the wife of the doctor elude the plans to murder her and will everyone else survive the unlucky fellow 'Gunnar'?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Skenbart takes place in the 1940s, right after the second world war. Main character Gunnar (Gustav Hammarsten) quits his job to get a chance to \"make a difference\" in the bombed-out postwar Europe. He packs a book by his favourite philisopher, Ludwig Witgenstein, and embarks on a trip which will eventually prove Witgenstein's famous statement true: Nothing is what it seems.

There are two main plots, and several subplots, to this film, which takes place on a train bound for Berlin. Writer\/Director Peter Dalle (also playing the role as the conductor of the train) has assembled an impressive cast including swedish legends Lena Nyman, G\u00f6sta Ekman and Robert Gustafsson. Overall, the acting is excellent.

Skenbart offers some rather twisted slapstick comedy combined with more subtle black humor (like the nun who loses her faith and starts cursing violently). It's like Killingg\u00e4nget meets Peter Jackson (Braindead, Bad Taste) in Schindler's List. I laughed during most of the film, and when i woke up the next morning i laughed even more. An intelligent film for fans of Swedish comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all - I hardly ever watch Swedish movies, and this is actually the second time in my life I watch a Swedish movie on cinema! Therefor, I believe it's one of the best Swedish movies ever! The combination of thrill and humour is OUTSTANDING, and sometimes you don't even know if you should be terrified or just laugh! The plot is about this man, a writer who wants to go to Germany after World War II and help the Germans to start over. On the way to Germany, he is trying to help his friends on the train, which is however a bad idea. What a clumsy jerk! And poor Robert Gustafsson - the wounded soldier - always get in the way ... OUCH!!! But he still got his great mood. A positive guy. Robert Gustafsson have done some less great movies the last years or so, and this is really a relief. He is great in this movie. After all - this is one of the best Swedish movies ever, and Peter Dalle has made an excellent job! Congratulations!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very funny film with some of the best swedish actors. It's all filmed in black and white with the true 40-ish feeling. Most of the film you are aboard a train headed for Berlin in 1945 among a mixture of characters from refugees to 2 gay guys and 2 nuns. I truly recommend this film if you like to laugh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This thing works on all levels -- it's intense as a thriller, full of Lars von Trier homages, but also very much its own film -- and it does have a message: happiness comes from within, best personified in the wounded soldier who practically (and, believe it or not, humorously) disintegrates limb by limb throughout the film, all the while apologizing to others for imposing on them. You laugh at him, but you envy him as well. The central character is a well-meaning but clumsy writer who spends the whole film trying to help those he befriends on a train from Stockholm to Berlin just after World War II. He ties the parallel stories together, and really screws people up in the process. To say things go wrong is an understatement -- and structurally, the characters are all in perfect opposition to each other. It's like every one of them has an opposite -- just so tight, like watching anti-matter collide. You will not believe the sick stuff you end up laughing at. To say more would qualify as a spoiler -- all I can say is it is a shame this film has not been released in the US, not even on DVD. Some moron probably told them Americans wouldn't get it -- which is crap, because we not only \"get\" but produce things like South Park... If this film gets marketed in the US, it should be sold as a mainstream black comedy, because that's what it is. Over-the-top, sick and twisted, but fuuuuunnnnnyyyyy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This solid black and white slapstick comedy with a dark (but hopelessly contrived) plot is a true crowd pleaser that will have you howling with laughter (as well as rolling your eyes with disbelief).

It's the old psychopath on a train story but that is of no big importance as the thriller portion of the film almost seems to be merely a counterweight to the antics of the great comedian Robert Gustafsson. His hapless, nearly incurably optimistic soldier invokes both compassion and schadenfreude in a fashion that almost rivals Chevy Chase.

The thing about the film that appealed to me the most, however, is that wedged between the improbable and the hilarious are the accurately portrayed everyday joys and nuisances of train travel. They add a most welcome sense of realism and recognition.

This thriller comedy has admittedly borrowed most of its \"suspense\" from Hitchcock and should, in my opinion, only be watched for its comedy value (which is high indeed). Besides Gustafsson, Lars Amble's solid performance as a delightfully cynical misogynist is worth the price of admission alone.

Heartily recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...and this movie easily exceeded my expectations. The fact that it is written and directed by Peter Dalle led me to believe it was in style with other films I'm used to (and bored with) seeing him in. Anyway, I grudgingly went along to see this flick and that I'm glad for. This stuff has humour and depth. 9 out of 10. See it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An interesting comedy, taking place on a train from Stockholm to Berlin, December 1945. One can't help to feel sorry for the poor writer\/critic who quits his job and jumps on the train to Berlin. His ambition is to make a difference, and to participate in building the new unified Europe after the war has ended.

I like the black and white format of the movie, as well as the closed scenery of a train in motion.

Robert Gustafsson makes a classic \"Gustafsson-role\" in this movie. If you're a fan of him, this movie is for you!

The philosopher Wittgenstein, through his saying \"One can never assume that anything is what it seems to be\", is referenced several times in the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who is seldom a favorite of mine, said that everyone should see this film as it is something that can help heal the world....

It is one of the most poignant movies I have seen and delivers on Tutu's comments.... I have read many comments and while they range from good to average to comments on the choice of actors... The fact is that it deals with one of the most extra-ordinary events in our world. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission.... for the first time a country has opted to air it's horrific history, to find a way forward and to create a way for people to heal...

WHile the movie starts out with the White Policeman being offered a chance to absolve himself for brutal crimes and the Black guy is trying to ensure that he does not get away with it, it delves into the humanity of the people and the enormous need for healing that we all need....

Definitely a thumbs up..... To everyone involved.... Once again, I am proud to be a South African.....

An interesting comment can be found here: http:\/\/www.biz-community.com\/Article\/196\/97\/5223.html","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa is a vital and probably unique human experiment. This movie does an excellent job of revealing the complexity of the task and the incredible challenges facing South Africa. I believe every one should see this movie as I think few people outside of South Africa understand its past and what is being attempted in the Truth and Reconciliation process. Almost every country has some part of its own history which is still a source of continuing hatred and bitterness. We all need to understand ways of dealing with the past. What's happening in South Africa should guide us all. I found it credible, moving and at times upsetting. There were no outstanding acting performances but this added to the strength of the narrative. Once again the BBC has been instrumental in taking a complex topic and turning out a top class movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at the 2005 Palm Springs International Film Festival. I went in with the assumption that if it stars Chiwetel Ejiofor and Hilary Swank it had to be at least decent. Well, after a kind of a slow start, I was far from disappointed. In fact, I was quite pleased with the final product.

I must admit the Afrikaaner and Xhosa(?) accented English of some of the actors were kind of hard to understand but like seeing \"Waking Ned Devine\", \"Trainspotting\" or any other film with heavy-accented actors I adjusted after about 15 minutes. And I was trying to figure out why Hilary Swank was supposed to be South African and sounded like she was trying to put on an accent but sounded very American... as if she was making a weak attempt at putting on the accent. But later in the film as more is revealed about her character and how she moved to the US as a teen you begin to understand how she might have lost some or most of her accent. So it began to make sense that only certain words might have a Afrikaaner lilt to them.

I know it's a little weak for one to use film as education but one of the great things about this film is that it was interesting to see a dramatization of a Truth and Reconciliation trial. I'd heard about the T and R process in South Africa after the fall of apartheid but I didn't really know how it worked.

The final verdict is that although some of the scenes felt a little contrived, this was overall a very strong film. The closing sequence where the \"truth\" comes out was the strong finish every film hopes for. A definite must see for anyone who cares about what happens outside their borders.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not knowing a great deal about the Truth and Reconciliation commission, I can only look at this as a piece of entertainment. I started watching it too late in the evening (recorded from BBC2 earlier this year) but once I'd started I had to watch to the end.

The down-side is that it's effectively a courtroom drama - never my favourite genre - but it's stunningly photographed (largely in super-saturated ochres) and well acted. Like a good novel, I couldn't put it down. All the way through, I wished I was watching it in a cinema to do the music and photography justice. What happened to its release in theatres? I'm an admirer of Chiwetel Ejiofor since I saw him in Dirty Pretty Things, and Hilary Swank looks terrific in this - very female and sexy for a change (possibly out of place, but she adds to the visual attractiveness of the film).

This picture deserves a wider audience than it seems to be getting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was unsure of this movie before renting and did so on the assurance that Hilary Swank has always given excellent performances in her movies. She seems to rely on restraint to gain the emotional impact that she does. And she didn't prove me wrong in this movie.

However the movie also had fantastic performances from all other members of the cast both speaking and non-speaking. I have to single out Jamie Bartlett and Chiwetel Ejiofor - the two main protagonists - for their outstanding acting abilities and portrayal of true human feelings and failings. The whole movie ran almost like a documentary.

I must applaud Tom Hooper as the director and Avril Beukes as the editor for keeping a multiple layered story being revealed smoothly whilst keeping dialogue and action moving along in an understandable fashion. The opening sequence of the South African landscape was striking and I had to push the pause button to savour the photography.

Why can't a movie like this ever get nominated for an International award. It seems to me to hit the high-rating button on all counts. It was not just a film it was a true experience of life in a country coming out of apartheid. A life of poverty was all around but it celebrated the dignity of the human spirit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't seen a film in a long time that moved me and gripped me in such a way; that I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. I was busting for the loo; and I didn't even want to pause it because I was drawn right in. Emotive; powerful; very moving; horrific and heart-breaking. It gives you an amazing insight to South Africa; their struggles and their lives. The acting by the leads were mind-blowing and the script was incredible. Despite the terrible events that unfold in this film and how horrific the story is; I was captivated. I don't want to even try and explain the story; it's way too complex and I wouldn't do it justice. Please see this; you'll understand why when you do. Cheers, Hol","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"POSSIBLE SPOILERS

No one is likely to pick up a DVD of Red Dust without knowing that it is about South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Hilary Swank stars as a South African exile who returns to her home town as a lawyer representing Alex Mpondo (Chiwetel Ejiofer), a member of the South African parliament who was tortured by a prison guard, Pete Muller (Ian Roberts), who is seeking to escape prison by testifying before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. They could certainly have found an actress who has or could imitate a South African accent; Ms. Swank makes no attempt whatsoever to cover her unmistakably American accent. Nevertheless she is the only well-known actor in the movie, and it would probably not have been made without her or someone equally well known. She does a passable job. However, Ejiofer and Muller (pronounced in the German way with an umlat over the \"u\") are outstanding as is Jamie Barlett as the chief of police, responsible for murdering Mpondo's comrade and fellow prisoner. The torture scenes are shown in brief flashes but they are vivid and believable. What is not believable is the Truth and Reconciliation process -- except that it actually happened. \"Red Dust\" should be seen for that reason alone because it was and is unbelievable that the ANC prisoners could actually forgive the torturers, and this is as close as we are likely to get to seeing the process in action.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"what was the quote by archbishop tutu at the end of the film about a person's past? this film was very disturbing to watch in the sense that it was a true story and to think that humanity is still so cruel after all these years makes me ashamed

everyone is human and everyone has the right to live their life in peace and harmony

live and let live

if anyone knows the quote please let me know Thank you

this film should be shown a lot more publicly as true events as horrific as these shown in the film should be known to all in the hope that things will change sooner rather than later.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Where this movies differs from traditional Hollywood movie is that it shows a true depth of feelings. In Europe for example we've had years of war and though one nation could never eradicate the other, the old enemies always ended living next to each other or WITH each other at the end of the conflict. In the US, the immigrants white population exterminated the aboriginal population to near extinction. the US citizen never had to live with its enemy. This explains in my view the often simplistic nature of Hollywood movie when they try and explain a foreign country's strife. But in this movie, the director and screenplay did not fall into this clich\u00e9. It turns out everyone in the story has some right and some wrong. it's a great story of morality, hidden truth and compromise.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...and normally i don't like surprises!! Watch this movie by chance in a motel in South Africa second week of a three month motorbiking holiday in ZA. Apart from being well shot and acted it helped me in understanding the countries problems tremendously. Just watched the \" Million Dollar Baby\" and had to look up Hillary Swank since the name sounded somewhat familiar and her acting was superb. Didn't realise she was the solicitor in the \"Red Dust\". Well now i'm not to worried that she will disappear as so many other sidekicks of Clint before... Now i am being asked to write ten whole lines of comment which is rather ridiculous for i have written what i wanted to write. OK, here it goes: I think if you are from a western country, especially Europe, watching will help you to understand a little better why what is happening is happening down there! So this hopefully will fill ten lines.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Police officer Dirk Hendricks (Jamie Bartlett) files an amnesty application Alex Mpondo (Chiwetel Ejiofor).

A member of the South African Parliament who cant remember the torture he once endured as a captive political activist.

South African born attorney Sarah Barcant (Hilary Swank), meanwhile, returns to her homeland to represent Mpondo.

As well as Steve Sizela, Mpondo's friend who was arrested along with him, and never heard from again.

This film is one of the best films to come out about the South African regime of Aparthied, in the past.

Everybody should watch it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We saw this film in Toronto at the Film Festival last year. It was a truly moving experience. I had heard of the Truth and Reconcilliation process, but as others have written, did not know much about the details of the process. This film demonstrated the process and the growth that can occur when people are able to face up to their pasts, understand the events from the points of view of others involved, and grieve together. Archbishop Tutu and the others involved in developing the T & R process deserve recognition for their understanding of human emotions. Seeing this film gave me hope for the human race. If we can do T & R, we just might not destroy ourselves. People will look back at T and R as the first step out of human adolescence and toward maturity.

As a film, of course there were flaws. I did not notice any major problems in acting, directing, or writing - but for the first time in years I was totally lost in a film, so perhaps I did not notice.

See this film. The audience in Toronto would not give up the stage for the next film, we had so many questions and comments for the stars and director. Tom Hooper, Jamie Bartlett, and Chiwetel Ejiofor went outside to the sidewalk to continue the conversation. People came by just to shake their hands and thank them for the film. It moved us all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Red dust is both well acted and well made but what the movie is about i think will bore many viewers as it did to me. There was a film that was out earlier called \"in my Country\" with Sam Jackson and it was not that well received and both films were about nearly the same exact thing, I do think Red dust was better because of the more interesting performances especially by future Oscar winner Chiwton Ejofor but the plot is just to lacking, it starts off pretty strong but then the film hits the viewers with countless un-interesting court room sessions, this could have been a great film if the writing was not so lacking. But see if for the performances.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A warmly sentimental tale from the author of The Waltons. Were someone to pitch the material to me, I would probably reject it as too maudlin. But the dramatization here manages a tear without the expected embarrassment. No one in the 1950's was better at lovable hayseeds than Arthur Hunnicutt. His appeal here is put to consummate use as a mountain man doggedly faithful to a loyal hunting hound. Their fates are tied together as inseparably as any human bond. Good. I see a subtle environmental message here. All critters go to heaven, because how can we condemn any poor devil that merely follows instinct in order to stay alive. There is no deceit in the kingdom of animals, and yet how cruelly we often treat them. An oddly satisfying episode that confirms this important message.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of all the seasons and episodes of THE TWILIGHT ZONE, after seeing all the great, mind boggling, thought provoking stories, this one stands on top. That's right. This story, this one entitled THE HUNT tops the large number of the finest scripts in Television History.

True, there are no interplanetary space flights, no inexplicable cracks in time. There is no living nightmare, no sudden changes of setting. There is seemingly nothing out of the ordinary for our protagonist to deal with.

The main character, played by veteran character actor Arthur Hunnicut, sets out from his cabin in the hills, accompanied by his faithful hound, to hunt raccoon. Because the raccoon is a predominantly nocturnal animal hunt is by moonlight.

The man and dog soon encounter a large raccoon, who hops on the dog's back and attempts to drown the hound in a pond. The man jumps in to help his dog. There is a sort of almost black-out, after which the pair are seen on the shore, in a lying, almost sleep like position.

Calling his dog by name, (Rip, I think) the old man sets off to return home. When he arrives, he finds the wife weeping and unresponsive to his conversation. He also observes visitors coming and going to his house, paying respects and giving words to console his wife.

Still seeming puzzled at the strange reception and goings on around the Home Cabin, the Man and Rip take off on a long walk down the road, where He remarks out loud that he did not remember such a long fence in these parts. He eventually comes upon a rather large fellow, dressed in garb similar to his-overalls, hat, work shirt. They are at a gate, which leads to an area where a lot of smoke is freely rising up. The Gate Keeper is overly eager in his persuasive pitch in trying to get the man to enter. Rip sounds displeasure. The Gate Man tells the Old Man that he may enter, but the dog would have to remain outside, offering to watch the animal for him. The man will have none of it and the two continue on their way down the path.

After a little more hiking they come upon a second gated entrance where the Gate Keeper recognizes the man and welcomes him. When the Old Man reports what has happened down the road, telling him of how the guy at the other gate tried to separate the Man and dog, and added, \"With no dogs allowed, that must be a Hell of a place!\" The 2nd Gate Keeper stated that he was right! \"That's exactly what it is!\"

Our family had lost our 1st Dog, Lady-a mixed Lab, in October of 1981. About 6 months later, as good fortune would have it, the Wife(Deanna) and myself along with our 2 daughters (Jennifer 9 and Michelle 6) viewed this episode on TV, WGN TV, Channel 9 Chicago. Well, it all made perfect sense to us at that time.

We're certain that anyone who has had that relationship with a family dog, would agree. The episode still brings a condition of watery eyes to this now 60 year old writer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this episode, a man and his dog go 'coon huntin' after eating dinner with his wife of 50 years. He's devoted to his wife and his dog.

While hunting, his dog jumps in the river after the dog and he follows. The man dies and doesn't know it. He tries to talk to his wife and his grave diggers to no avail.

What follows is a tug of war between heaven and hell for the man's soul and his dog helps make the decision. He's being tricked by the devil and won't go in to \"heaven\" unless his dog comes with him.

It makes you wonder if all the animal lovers have the right idea and want to go to heaven with them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Several weeks back I lost my beloved companion and friend of fourteen years, a golden retriever named Sasha. When I came home from the animal hospital, alone, after having made one of the most painful decisions of my life, my teenage daughter sat by my side. . .and we talked about this episode of the Twilight Zone. I could be wrong, but I recall a line that Arthur Hunnicutt said, when Satan was trying to trick him into hell, but his dog could not go with him. . .and his dog in turn was growling in defiance at the gatekeeper who was trying to trick the old hunter to \"step inside,\". . .that it would be \"one helluva of heaven if dogs were not allowed,\" and the spirit of the old mountain man and his dog decided to turn away from the gate (of what they had thought was heaven, to wander eternity alone.) What a tearful moment when they meet a \"good ole' country boy\" on that eternal road, only to discover he is an angel, sent out to find 'em, and \"sure neighbor, of course dogs are allowed into heaven.\"

I'll confess I cried as I talked about this with my daughter while we mourned the passing of our beloved golden. Rod Serling was truly a genius, a voice that in the early sixties spoke out against racism, hatred, \"know-nothingism,\" and was a profound inspiration to me to become a writer. This episode, across forty five years carried a message of comfort to all of us who have lost a beloved friend. I urge you to get a copy the next time there is a one of the Twilight Zone marathons or purchase it. There will be some tears, but comfort as well. As always, thanks Rod, for all that you taught us. . .even now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best! As being a fan of the civil war, I was very pleased with the first installment of the North and South trilogy. Patrick Swayze gives and extraordinary performance, as well as James Reed and Leslie Ann Down. In watching this fabulous story unfold into a time never forgotten, the subjects of love, passion, grief, shame, harmony, and cruelty come to life. I was first introduced to this series when I was in the eighth grade. Being a young boy, you would think that I wouldn't have been interested in this civil war soap. To be honest, this story stole the hearts of every one in my class, and this is just the first book. I bought the novel and studied the likes and differences and it was awesome. I am 17 now and still enjoy the story, characters, subject, and remember the times of the civil war. As a movie director of the future, I will always enjoy North and South: Book One.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"North & South\" the television mini-series is to the 80's what \"Rich Man, Poor Man\" (the first-ever TV mini-series) was to the 70's.

It's a fabulous adaptation of the first classic novel in the trilogy from author John Jakes. The story itself covers the two decades leading up to the years of the election of President Abraham Lincoln and the imminent proclamation of the Civil War - North versus South. The intertwining stories evolve around the families of the Hazards (the 'North' in the title) and the Mains and their two central figures of George and Orry who form a friendship whilst embarking on their West Point training in 1842.

\"North & South\" is a wonderful historic timeline and as I have grown older (and wiser!) it very much interests me to learn about the contrasting attitudes to such controversial aspects as 'Slavery' and 'Abolitionists', and how these attitudes originated.

The series also portrays some great characterisation development as we get to know about the friends and enemies in George and Orry's lives, and also the women that stole their hearts as young men. This aspect of the story also uncovers a romantic tale that is set to the turbulent backdrop of the American Civil War.

\"North & South\", along with \"Rich Man, Poor Man\" is overshadowed by 1977's \"Roots\" as the greatest mini-series of all-time. However, it does come a close second\/third and also shares the same kind of timeline and themes as \"Roots\". But, don't let this one get away, even if it's just to see the great scenery, costumes, and brilliant all-star cast including Gene Kelly, Johnny Cash, Elizabeth Taylor, James Stewart, Olivia De Havilland, Lesley-Anne Down et al.

The series is beautifully crafted and is firmly tied to actual historic events and it's a pity the Emmys and Golden Globes didn't honour a lot more of the actors and actresses for their portrayals. Patrick Swayze and James Read, the two virtual unknown lead actors at the time, turn in compelling performances as Orry Main and George Hazard respectively. However, it's Kirstie Alley's riveting performance as George's 'Abolitionist' sister Virgilia that steals the show many times. Plus, Terri Garber, David Carradine and Philip Casnoff as Elkanah Bent are the delicious villains of the piece you just love to hate.

\"North & South\" Books 1 & 2 are now available on two DVD sets.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a history teacher and overall I was pleased with the movie. My teen-agers enjoyed it over the holidays. Is it 100% accurate and is it a little sappy in places? Yes..but it took my kids away from the computer and play station to spend four nights watching it all.

The battle scenes were impressive and we met plenty of historical characters throughout. Lloyd Bridges as Jefferson Davis and Hal Holbrook as Abraham Lincoln stand out. We all thought Phillip Casnoff as Bent was evilly and charmingly brilliant. We all thought Charles stole the show from Orry and George.

We will enjoy the movie again!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A story about love and hate, tragedy and happiness, and most of all, friendship set in the very interesting time of the American Civil War.

Gets you interested in history, gets you emotionally involved and makes you feverishly wait for the next episode.

Moreover, the casting was splendid. Many superstars appear in short cameos, the leading roles are played by a big array of talented mimes - Kirstie Alley and Terri Garber should be mentioned here - this is simply a superb example for a TV production as it should be.

Not to forget the sheer loveliness of Wendy Kilbourne portraying Constance :-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the one movie to see about the Civi War. My aunt actually played in this movie as an extra in the Justin and Madeline wedding scene, and my uncle was an extra on a horse. The script was genuine, and accurate. The costumes were tastefully done, the seqence was in order and even the accents were good. I dearly love Patrick Swayze and James Ried. They were the best 2 choices, and it even had a great supporting cast. The Civil War is my favorite thing in American History, and I love movies about it. I have seen quite a few, and this movie and it's sequal North and South Book 2 took the cake. If you haven't seen it, rent it. As soon as possible. It's quite an eduation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was 13 when this mini-series (and its sequel North and South, Book II) first aired. I had already been captivated by the personal interest stories in\/around our American Civil War, which is what interested me in watching this made-for-tv program.

I loved it. And now I'm 29 years old and I only love it more. It is full of history, beautiful costuming, real-life characters woven in and out of the lives of fictional characters, all of whom you come to care deeply about. There is intrigue, love, loyalty, betrayal, family, extended family, lust, battles, victory, defeat and reconstruction.

Even though I had the full set of episodes on tapes I recorded back when it originally aired, I purchased the full set of both N&S and N&S II from Columbia House some years ago when they became available. Once every few years I'll take a whole weekend and watch all the installments back to back - and am sad when the last episode rolls to an end, because I find myself wanting to continue watching the story of the lives of these characters.

I cannot recommend this mini-series more highly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie when I was a lot younger but it captured me. I loved Orry and George's relationship so much. I was so enraptured in Orry and Madenline's love story. I am a hopeless romantic so it really got to me. I especially liked it when he first met her. I just wish he had more time with her and their baby. So you know in Book three I was so hurt that he died. I didn't really understand that because they had little time together. I just loved Patrick in this movie. I just bought all three books together and I can't stop watching them. My 12 year old son is stuck on it. He likes the fighting in the war. I cry every time. I wish I could meet Patrick and Madeline in person! It was a wonderful movie and cast!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely ADORED this movie as a child and still do as an adult. To say that is even an understatement. My sister, brother and I watched it one year at our grandparents' house during Christmas vacation. They had taped it from TV. Our parents were glad it kept us occupied for the one night but they thought we would tire of it and be ready for outdoor activities the next day. Not so! We became mesmerized. They could not have unglued us if they tried. It became a cherished yearly tradition. We loved everything about it: the time, the romance, the battle scenes, the villains etc.

Come on, who can resist hating that psycho Bent with his constant SIR!? Classic! Moreover, who can resist cheering wildly when Justin falls off the balcony?! What a triumphant moment! I always had a special place in my heart for Orry and Madelaine. They were so romantic. The theme song alone can get me to tear up a little. This movie is incredibly moving and I challenge anyone to stick with it until the very end. It's worth it!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this series on TV in 1990 and absolutely loved it (I was nine years old). I bought the first DVD box about six month ago and got the second a couple of days ago (thanks to my dear husband). Gosh...It was hard to get any sleep with all the thoughts in my head...what was gonna happen to Madeline and George etc. Slave issues and civil war has always fascinated me (a 25 year old Finn).I advise to read Slaves in the family by Edward Ball for those who want to take a peek in the past and try to understand what really happened.

I'm not sure if I want to see Heaven and Hell after so many people have told here that it wasn't really that good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I own the miniseries on DVD because I love this story so much. This is one of the best period pieces on the Civil War that I have seen that tells a story of friendship divided by the war. The costumes are great, the story lines are great, I love how the story jumps around from character to character to keep you guessing as to what's going to happen next in their lives. There is a great balance of good and evil. Some of the characters that are evil in my opinion are too good not to watch. Every time something more despicable than the last happens I curse the TV as if they can hear me. I love how this miniseries makes me feel engaged in it's drama. I would advise however NOT to watch the third movie in the DVD series. It's a let down compared to the first two movies and most of the original characters do not return. I don't wish to remember how the third movie ended, I prefer to live with the thoughts of the ending in the second movie. It makes me happy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had always heard about this great mini-series, but viewed it for the first time this week, July of 2007. I can see why it started the careers of so many young actors. The story is intriguing and gives wonderful insights into the period before and during the Civil War. I cared about the characters and how their lives evolved during this period. Some of them were stereotypes, but they still helped me see how people thought during the 1800's. Many historical facts were thrown into the story and it was interesting to see history books come to life. The costumes and sets were gorgeous! I thoroughly enjoyed watching both parts I and II. Part III is a disappointment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sweeping drama with great sets, costumes and performances \u0096 though some folks are channeling Rhett, Scarlett, Melanie and even Lady Macbeth. Patrick Swayze and James Read are excellent as two men trying to maintain a friendship despite the ties of family and location. Splendid villains \u0096 you'll want them all to come to a very bad end. Lots of strong female characters in this one \u0096 both good and bad. Secondary story lines also are well developed. Several cameos by major stars of past eras. Good representation of history and conflicts for those caught between friendship and politics.

Curl up on a rainy day with your DVD or VHS player and drink of choice with this one. A lap rug and a cat would be optional.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This comment discusses \"North and South Book I\" dealing with 1842-1861 period

The 19th century history of the USA is mostly identified by people with the Civil War (1861-1865). This is a reasonable opinion because that was Civil War which put the Union under the severe test; that was the Civil War which made Americans realize how precious it is to live in peace; finally, that was this period which at last brought the end to the shameful system of slavery.

From the birth of motion pictures, there were people who adapted that time onto screen. D.W. Griffith, in the early 1900s, made his unforgettable BIRTH OF A NATION. Yet, the most famous film about the north-south clash is still, I suppose, GONE WITH THE WIND (1938). Unfortunately, fewer people know the magnificent TV series based on John Jakes' novel, \"North and South.\" It is the very best TV series ever made and the time spent on watching it is really precious. I taped it on my video from Polish TV many years ago and have come back to it with great pleasure many times since then. Why?

Firstly, the entire story is deeply rooted in historical reality. The two families, the Maines from South Carolina and the Hazards from Pennsylvania, represent two entirely different ways of life. In spite of that, friendship unites them. Yet, what they experience is the struggle all people do: friendship attacked by \"truth\" of \"political correctness\", love attacked by hatred of \"legal spouses\", gentleness by strength of \"social heroes\". Orry Maine (Patrick Swayze) is my beloved character - someone who finds love and who is quickly deprived of her; someone who cares for friends but political fanatics step in the way and ruin much. Finally, he is someone who can see the tragic future for his land but there is nothing he can do about the south's inescapable fate. His friend, George Hazard, is similar in most aspects but sometimes he appears to have a stronger character. It is him who shows Orry that although there are tragedies, he must get up from despair and live since life is the most precious thing we have. Although they represent two different lifestyles, their friendship occurs to be stronger than any prejudice, politics or conflicts.

Other characters are also particularly well developed. There are villains, like Justin LaMotte or Salem Jones who are really wicked but most of the people are ambiguous as the nature of humanity has always been. Charles Maine is, at first, full of rebellion, prone to fighting, later, however, he learns to be a true southern gentleman for whom southern pride is not courageous words but foremost courageous deeds. Virgilia Hazard represents the most fanatical side of abolitionist movement striving to condemn slavery and punish the owners of \"black breeding farms.\" Her marriage with Grady appears to be a symbol of equality but also a symbol of saying \"NO\" to the politics of the south. Two interesting characters are Orry's sisters, Brett and Ashton - sisters in whose veins runs entirely opposite blood. Brett, in her gentleness but also naiveness, believes in absolute fidelity. She marries Billy, even though he is a northerner, because she truly loves him. Brett is the representation of all that is precious in any young woman. Ashton, however, is a vamp, a tigress, a woman who does not hesitate to do the most wicked things. The clear picture of their world views clash is their chat about men and family...unforgettable moment and how universal! Most characters head for their values...yet, war breaks out and they'll have to put aside a lot...

Secondly, the performances... someone said that not all people act naturally. I wouldn't say that. I'd rather say that all cast do very good jobs in their parts from the main characters who are portrayed by younger staff to the guests that consist of famous stars, including Liz Taylor, Robert Mitchum and others. Patrick Swayze as Orry does a great job. I consider this role one of his best ones. Lesley Anne Down as Madeleine is also very memorable. Her part, perhaps, entails too much suffering but she manages to express all sorts of feelings really well. Kirstie Alley is very appealing and truly memorable as the abolitionist Virgilia Hazard. Phillip Casnoff is worth consideration as horribly ambitious Elkanah Bent as well as David Carradine as a monster husband, disgusting Justin LaMotte. And, in contrast to him, a mention must be made of Jean Simmons who is truly excellent as Orry's mother whose heart beats for the glory of family life and concord of union.

Thirdly, memorable moments of \"North and South\" leave an unfading trace in one's mind. Who can forget the first meeting of Orry and Madeleine - what charm, what gentleness there is in this scene! Or is it possible to skip the moment when Madeleine's father dies? I found it really powerful, there is a real drama in this moment, a drama of a woman being left by someone who really loved her. I also liked Churubusco sequence and George Hazard so worried about the life of his dearest friend, Orry. Then his meetings with Constance are terrific. Virgilia's speech in Philadelphia is a masterpiece of performance. And the final moment of the first part: although North and South may separate, their friendship will never die. Orry and George symbolically join hands as the train moves on. Simply, there are so many beautiful and powerful scenes that it's impossible to mention even half of them here. And these gorgeous tunes by Bill Conti and shot in brilliant landscapes. The music in \"North and South\" is very touching and memorable.

What to say in the end? \"North and South\" is a real must have on DVD, simply an amazing TV series about the victory of all that is precious in us: love, friendship, loyalty, honor, truthfulness, absolute fidelity. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For me, North and South (Books I&II) is the ultimate TV series of the 80's. Just spotting all those cameo appearances was highly entertaining.Gene Kelly, James Stewart, Elisabeth Taylor, Olivia De Havilland, Robert Mitchum, even Johny Cash\u00a1 No series has come close to this achievement.Have you ever seen anyone looking like Lincoln? Dick Smith's prosthetics made Hal Holbrock's powerful performance even more so. The crafted costumes, the jaw dropping locations, everything. It's clear that nowadays there are excellent and bright TV series (Desperate Housewives, Lost,24) but North & South was, and still is, one of its kind. Don't miss it. Only David Carradine's portrayal of the ultimate villain (you may call him just violent husband) worths the viewing. Maybe some characters and situations are too stereotyped, I admit it but the positive sides clearly cast a shadow over them. I'm so glad that finally is available on DVD in Spain.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Perhaps one of the best movies ever made. Orry and Goerge's friendship runs deep, and the War puts a strain on their strong friendship. As a Southerner, I can honestly say this epic is as accurate as it gets. Brothers fighting brothers. Can you imagine what life must have been living during those times? The best part of the movie, for me, was when The South surrenders; General Grant is urging President Lincoln to really stick it to the South, he says, \"Mr. President, a lot of folks want The South to bleed over what they've done...\" President Lincoln, turns to him and in a very tired voice says, \"The South has bled enough...and so have we...\" I burst into tears, and take a deep breath. What a President! It's like a father saying his son has been punished enough, and despite his anger he realizes his point has been made. This War was a very dark time for our young country, and it had to be fought. President Lincoln knew this. I'm urging everyone who reads this to watch this movie, and add it to your DVD collection. Then, thank God that our country was preserved. As Jesus said, a \"House divided against itself cannot stand.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having just watched this with my mother (Who got it for Christmas) i was thrilled to find something different to the usual stuff i usually watch. All of the stories were detailed and you are able to feel strong emotion towards each character from the very beginning. Every storyline is followed through brilliantly, making you feel completely different things for every single character. The cast is amazing, my personal favourites being James Read and Lesley-Anne Down, as George Hazard and Madeline Fabray\/LaMotte\/Main. The whole thing is in depth and wonderful, making very compulsive viewing, i recommend it to almost everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Whoever cast this movie was a genius, every character in it is perfect for their part, and they all do an absolutely excellent job in their parts. This is a good glimpse of what life was before & during the civil war, the difference between the wealthy, the average whites, and the black people. The story gives you some insights as to the real issues of the era, and the difficulties that were inherent in everyday living back in those days. The storyline is compelling, and the drama keeps your attention through the entire movie. There are characters you will fall in love with, there are characters you will hate, and you will find yourself emotionally involved.

Both my wife and I loved it, and we will watch it again in a few years, I'm sure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is VERY LONG, but totally worth splitting up over several nights. It has an all-star cast, and if you are a Patrick Swayze fan, this will get your heart to throbbing! :-) My mother is a Civil War buff, and a history teacher, and every summer we would watch this movie (we had recorded it off TV), over several, several nights until we got through the whole thing. We had every line in the movie memorized, lol. Pop some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the action and romance. It's a great movie for those that like action, war, blood & guts, but also for those with a soft, romantic side. The clothes the women wore were GORGEOUS! Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong era, lol.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even for a 17 year old student who loves history and caught glimpses of emotion and excitement in his childhood years of this series, its coming to DVD was a blessing for all time. North and South truly is a series about friendship,love,honor... you name your own list of feelings you get from watching this series. I can still remember the first time I caught a glimpse of this series on TV when I was about 8 years old. I though wow this looks exciting. To bad I never had the chance to see book one and two on TV in the Netherlands. When book three was broad-casted as a late evening series in the Netherlands in the summer of 2004 I just knew I had to see the other two series. To most people book three was a big disappointment as far as I know. Well since I have seen book one on DVD, I must say that until now it is the best of the entire 3 books. To all youngsters who just watch the fancy movies like The Patriot \"Oh America for freedom\" there is a more realistic view to see for them here.....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of t.v.'s greatest mini-series! It comes to life almost as well as the book did. Also the cast was outstanding to play the roles. I'd recommend this movie series for anyone who likes the Civil War or the history leading up to it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"North And South (1985): Patrick Swayze, James Read, Lesley Anne Down, Wendy Kilbourne, Terri Garber, Kirstie Alley, Genie Francis, Phillip Casnoff, Jean Simmons, John Stockwell, Lewis Smith, David Carradine, Inga Swenson, Jonathan Frakes, Wendy Fulton, Erica Gimpel, Tony Frank, Jim Metzler, Olivia Cole, Andy Stahl, William Ostrander, George Stanford Brown, Robert Mitchum, Morgain Fairchild, Johnny Cash, Hal Holbrook, Gene Kelly, David Ogden Stiers, John Anderson, Lee Bergere, Olivia De Havilland, Elizabeth Taylor, Forest Whitaker, Robert Jones, ....Director Richard T. Heffron, Teleplay...Paul F. Edwards, Patricia Green, Douglas Heyes, Kathleen A. Shelley.

Based on John Jake's successful paperback novels \"North and South\", \"Love and War\" and \"Heaven and Hell\", this was a mini series on television from 1985 to 1987. Its success owed more to the success of \"Roots\" a similar Civil War era\/slavery soap opera televised about a decade earlier in the 70's. Patrick Swayze, at the beginning of his career and at the time he was doing many films like Dirty Dancing which would make him famous, stars as Orry Main, a plantation-born young man from South Carolina who sets off to West Point. Here he meets George Hazard (James Read) who is supposed to be the hated enemy, the Yankee North, but with whom he bonds closely. Soon, the Mains from the South and the Hazards from the North become friends despite the turbulent era leading to civil war. The theme of family, friendship and doing the right thing even when the nation was falling apart is at the heart of this otherwise soap opera full of action and romance. Clariss and Ashton (Jean Simmons and Teri Garber) portray sisters who become enemies when one of them marries Yankee Billy Hazard (John Stockwell. Garber's bitchy, seductive, manipulative, ambitious and evil Ashton is fun to watch on screen. Though the series didn't cover everything in Jakes' novels, what we see is a condensed version of it and they changed a few things to make it a sort of historical romance with history lessons attached. The characters find themselves in all the major Civil War scenes - Harper's Ferry where abolitionist and feminist Virgilia Hazard (Kirstie Alley) loses the love of her life, the ex-slave Grady, Fort Sumter, Vicksburg, Antietam, Gettysburg, Appomatox and we are privy to the White House where we see Abraham Lincoln (Hal Halbrook) battle out the war in his conscience, we meet all the prominent players including Lee, Grant, Sherman, Jackson and Davis. Several veteran Hollywood actors from the Golden Era - Robert Mitchum, Elizabeth Taylor and Olivia De Havilland have cameos and it's interesting to see them. This is not historical fact, it's historical FICTION and purely dramatized entertainment. But it's got cliffhanger endings and beautiful cinematography, costumes and locations. It is like watching an epic movie that runs longer than Gone With The Wind with with war scenes in it! The script may be bad at times and the acting may not be the best, despite the good casting. Swayze hams it up as does Terri Garber but some performances, like that of Kirstie Alley, James Read (as George Hazard)and Leslie Anne Downes as the beautiful and strong Madeline are really good performances. They shot in sets and in Southern locations.The music is enchanting and this is a feel good film in which we root for the good guys and watch the villains scheme and ultimately get their comeuppance. All fans of Civil War movies and the Jakes novels should watch this. It's available on DVD and VHS.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with with of the messages on here that the book is not like the movie. I read the book as a sophomore in high school in Sumter SC. I instantly fell in love with the book and eagerly awaited the release of the mini series. As much as I liked the movie and thought it was very well done, I was disappointed that the movie did not follow the book. I was glad the Orry was not killed off like he was in Love and War or N&S II.

Having grown up in SC and graduating from University of SC, I fell in love with southern history because of this mini series and book. I had the honor of meeting John Jakes at a symposium in 1988 at USC. I stayed around afterwards and meet Mr.Jakes. Unfortunately, I did not get to ask him a question. But meeting him was honor enough. I majored in accounting but got my minor in Southern Studies. In addition, I patterned a lot of my mannerisms after Orry Main. Orry and myself are very much alike. I feel I was born 150 years too late. I am a southern gentleman and very proud of this.

Well I fell in love with 2 women in the movie....Genie Francis and Wendy Kilbourne. Man, did I have the hots for Wendy!!!! I never quite could find a real life version of her. I hope one day too!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great movie, all 3 were. The last one was not as good as the first 2 but it was made along time after and it was pulling at straws. But you want to watch it cause it tells the end of the story. Just not how we might think it should end.

These movies made me want to be there to be in all the hardship, love, tears, and laughter that the people in this movie go threw. It is one of the few movies that is good every time you see it no matter how many times that is.

There are some parts in the movie that the little kids wont understand and the older ones maynot be old enough to watch. but it is a great movie, spanning over 20+ years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have 2 complete sets from time life, This is my favorite movies of all time. Love all the actors and actresses.. Awsome picture..Love Patrick Swazy..This is the film, that showed his true talent. But yet, he does not get credit for the display he preformed! Much credit has been missed in these films.Love the way they portrayed the dry and dusty monologs of the civil war..Making it into one of the greatest love stories of all time, and showing through all obsticals of life, what true freindship means..How 2 divided countries split.But yet all and all the freindship remained solid, even though the war divided kinships and freindships up.But through it all, till the very end, they remained and taught us the viewer, how true freind ships can still remain till present day! Simply the best..Gone with the wind doesn't compare to this film.Patrick Swazy at his best,.After seeing this movie for the one hundred thousand time. I became a big fan of Swazy..And have followed his career ever since..have all his movies after he made North and South!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this mini-series as a child and though I am a child no longer, I still love it!!! Professional copies are hard to find, however, when it's on DVD, it's MINE!!! =]

Great casting, marvellous plots, and plenty of action, romance, and even quite a bit of well-placed comedy. I'm not a historian by nature, but I love this masterpiece of historical fiction!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of THE century's best tv-series ever with all the great suspense,story,and a cast of absolutely fantastic actors and love and grief that really gets you involved and captivated in front of your tv. If you have seen it once, you will go back to see it again. I have several times and still do it. The 20 th century's best drama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed North and South very much. I think it is one of the best and most lavish television series I have ever seen. The calibre of the cast is amazing, you have actors from \"the golden age of cinema\", people like James Stewart, Gene Kelly, Elizabeth Taylor, Robert Mitchum and Jean Simmons with other actors who were the new faces of the 80's like Patrick Swayze, James Read, Jonathan Frakes, Genie Francis, Philip Casnoff and Lesley-Anne Down.

At the heart of the story is the friendship of two completely different men,there is Orry Main (Patrick Swayze) who is from the south and George Hazard (James Read) who is from the North. Throughout the series, their friendship is continually threatened with the differences in their backgrounds, particularly about the treatment of slaves in the South (especially at Orry's plantation) but when each needs the other, they will forget the arguments and go and help their friend. I really liked the chemistry between the two men and was really interested to see if their friendship could survive the war.

I liked how the series showed what life was like before the war so the audience could see what were the factors that lead up to the war, what was going on at the time, then the devastation of a nation that was being torn apart and then the nation having to rebuild the country again. The war scenes were very well choreographed and very realistic to me.

I think what is great about it, is it has so many elements running through it, romance, history, battles that would interest most of the audience, there is something for everyone. I particularly enjoyed the romance between Brett (Genie Francis) and Billy (Parker Stevenson\/John Stockwell) especially when she stood up to her sister Ashton for the first time. The other romances were interesting as there were not all the same, each had something different to the others which kept me watching particularly the Madeline and Orry story strand to see if they would be together in the end.

It is one of the best American mini series that I have watched, the story had the right balance of romance and the more serious history side that was happening in the country at the time but it is paced just right. The characters are very watchable and the locations are beautiful and the music particularly at the start and end of the episode is so toe-tapping good and works with the mood of the story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"North and South is a miniseries from the \"golden age\" of television miniseries in the 1980s, which was a time for long, sweeping epics with high production values and lots of star cameos. It is, for the most part, excellent for what it is, although I personally prefer the less soap-opera like elements of the story and the overall sense of history.

James Read and Patrick Swayze deliver excellent performances--especially Read, whose George Hazard serves as kind of an emotional anchor in the midst of the often melodramatic story. The series also contains top-notch work from Kirstie Alley, Wendy Kilbourne, Hal Holbrook, Lewis Smith, Genie Francis, Georg Stanford Brown and others. The costumes, filming, sets and music are all first-rate as well.

Don't take it as a history lesson, but take it for what it is--a well-made, sweeping epic from a bygone era. Book 2, which followed a year later, is also excellent, but I would advise viewers to skip Book 3, which came out 8 years after Book 2 and was not nearly as good as the first two parts. Books 1 and 2 are classics, though, even with their soapier elements, and they are well worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the best movie I have ever seen. It has it all tragedy and happiness love and hate. And a deep friendship that not even war can destroy.

The most splendid casting I have ever seen. Patrick Swayze and James Read were top grade in this movie.

If you see part 1 you will want to see it all. Some of my friends watched part of the movie at my home then went out and bought the movie.

I am a civil war buff but this movie got my grandchildren interested in history. Any movie that can get children to learn history is great. I have Books I, II & III and when the girls come up from Florida each year they want to see North & South.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After getting hooked on the mini series, \"North & South,\" I could hardly wait for the continuation, \"North & South II.\" Then years later, along came Book III, \"HEAVEN & HELL - NORTH & SOUTH - BOOK III.\" FINALLY, the last installment came for the on-going saga of the Maine and Hazard families. I was so enraptured by this series that I taped each part off of TV and then managed to get family and friends hooked and I watched it AGAIN, each time someone new wanted to see them. My tapes are old and I crave this trilogy on DVD. If you missed Book III, you didn't get full satisfaction and you don't know how it all turned out. Do yourself a favor and demand this set on DVD!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched this movie on it's premier night out of curiosity and sheer nostalgia. I liked (not loved) \"Mork & Mindy\" as a kid, mostly for Robin William's zany energetic performance. This movie made me remember why. Was the original show great? Not really, but Robin certainly was. Which brings me to this movie.

I was pleasantly surprised, expecting nothing more than a paint by numbers chronological retelling of the show (which in a way it was). But, of course, the real focus was on Robin. It was interesting to see Robin's journey from struggling street jester to national t.v star, and how such a drastic difference affected him and his long suffering wife. And my hat is off to star Chris Diamantopoulos as he portrayed Mr. Williams with integrity, sensitivity, and heart; not just a cute impression, although it was even dead-on. (On an unrelated note, I noticed that Robin's struggles were in some ways similar to Andy Kaufman, who was under-appreciated by network t.v. and held back creatively, but that's the \"Taxi\" behind the scenes biopic.)

All in all, this was a very enjoyable flick, in which I felt I got to know a little more of the man behind the Orkan. The acting was solid by all- never melodramatic like I suspected- and the story moved along well. Performances that were particularly good were by those who played Garry Marshall and John Belushi (the scene in which Belushi heckles Robin was a hoot!). Not a great masterpiece by any means (I would have liked to have seen a tad more about Pam Dawber), but definitely watchable, especially for those Robin Williams and \"Mork & Mindy\" fans out there. Nanoo, nanoo!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"GREAT, Chris Diamantopoulos has got to be the best Robim Williams that I have every seen.. He acts it up, perfectly. This was like watching Robim Williams as he really was and is.. It almost made me cry watching him.

I had no idea that Robin was as close a friend to John Belushi as he was. The portrayal of this relationship was very good and could almost stand on it's own merits.. Very sad, what both of them went through.

I really felt for both Val and Robin during his rough times. I am glad that they ended it in a high note!

I hope Robin puts a $100 bill in this guy's hat !!

And it was great that it was filmed in Vancouver!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just want to say that Chris Diamantopoulos's role as Williams for that entire show, was Emmy worthy. It was uncanny how well he did. And to be as rapid-fire and as random and as creative as Robin Williams really is....WOW. There were scenes where Diamantopoulos had to say probably 20 rapid fire lines and do 15 different characters while delivering those lines, all while sounds as much like ROBIN WILLIAMS doing those characters.....well, that my friends is impressive acting. Its one thing to do a Robin Williams impersonation for a couple of minutes. Its another to do it for a whole TV movie.

I don't know how I felt about the whole show, and I don't know how much they played with the facts, but I do know that it was Chris Diamantopoulos that kept me watching. So for that, I give HIM a 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wanted to watch this, to get a inside look at the show. It told the story more of Robin Williams, then Mork & Mindy. Still, thought it was great. We got to see, Robin always being 'on', no matter what. The performance of Diamontopolous was awesome.

The introductions of the main players, seem so real to me. Roebuck as Garry Marshall was wonderful. He was so charming in this, which helped me get through all the Williams energy. The little behind the scenes pieces of his other shows (Happy Days, and Laverne & Shirley), was enlightening. I also thought Richmond-Peck's Harvey was also a nice rock in the pond. (This is a good thing).

This movie told the age old story of Hollywood folks, going through the ups and downs of stardom. It kept me glued to my TV, and I learned to love Robin, well hell, mostly everybody seem to be the super people I sometimes think Hollywood is. Go figure.

I sometimes wonder why the network people are always played to be idiots. We never saw the head of ABC. Just heard him, like Charlie from Charlie Angels (I wonder if this way planed?). It seems so sad, that a show at number 1, could be so destroy by their own network.

I think this story could be told about anyone's life, as they climb the ladder of any job. Movie, and TV stars are always loved or hated by so many people, that you grew up with, you just want to reach back in their past, to remember your own past. I Remember watching the show, and always wondering what does happen in their personal lives.

Mork and Mindy, will always be part of me, and I got to see part of them. It may not all be the truth, it's also all not a lie, but in the end, it told me a wonderful sad, happy story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The premise is rather original and well thought-of, but unfortunately, siding a good story is very low budget that doesn't even allow for decent special effects. Jeff Fahey does his best amongst a poor cast, as does the always beautiful Linda Hoffman. They should make more movies together. The movie, while not worth much praise, warrants at least one viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not gonna lie. To say that this movie is confusing is like saying the sun is hot but not really. And if you've seen cult director Richard Kelly's previous films, \"Donnie Darko\" and \"Southland Tales,\" you know that's gotta mean something. When I went to see this movie, there were about 50 people in the theater. Before an hour into the film, about half of the audience had already walked out. By the end, there were only 15 people left wondering what in the hell did they just see. I for one could only comprehend roughly 40% of what I saw on- screen, and even then it can only be called interpretation. So why did I give this movie a generous seven stars? Because for one, we get some spectacular performances (Marsden's great and Langella returns as a familiar creepy character), and most importantly two, because it's entirely original and Richard Kelly, undoubtedly one of the bravest directors alive, uses his creative vision to tell a story that dares to be different. Quite frankly, it's the ONLY way - only through Kelly's unique style could this story be told the way it's intended.

In the end, if you're not willing to spend some serious thought into an intelligent movie (and even then it may all amount to nothing), stay FAR away from this one. But if you want to watch a deep, rich, complex and thought-provoking piece on spirituality, existentialism, and the predictability of human nature, go see this. Be prepared for lengthy discussions with your partner however.

*Note: If by chance you've read this review, taken my recommendation, have actually seen the movie and STILL believe you've wasted 2 hours of your life, I'd be happy to share my views on the whole meaning and plot of the film. See, that's why I liked it so much - it promotes discussion! As hard as it is though, I'll try summing it up by paraphrasing a rather depressing quote by Langella's character, who explains the significance of the simple box to an employee: \"Your house is a box which you live in. The car that you drove to work is a box, on wheels. When you return home from work you sit in front of a box with moving images. You watch until the mind and soul rots and the box that is your body deteriorates, when finally you are placed into the ultimate box... to rest under the soil and earth.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'd honestly give this movie a solid 7.5, but I clicked 10 to try to offset the 5 pages of imbecilic, unjustified 1-star reviews. This is an interesting story, all of the acting is good to very good (even Ms. Diaz, who is totally out of her usual grinning-bimbo role here, yet plays it well.) The sets are perfect and the cinematography is consistently appropriately creepy. It's a fine morality play and there is *no* reason to explain the origin of the god\/supernatural being\/alien\/whatever that's \"running the show,\" so I'm glad the movie doesn't try. It's really irrelevant to the story, which is relatively long but quite compelling and summed up quite satisfyingly in the ending.

Before you decide this movie is terrible (or really, anything under a ~7.5) read some of the dozens of 1-star \"hated it\" reviews that are rife with misspellings, lack of punctuation and capitalization, and juvenile criticisms. Maybe the trailer was misleading or something -- I didn't see it -- but some of these reviewers were apparently expecting Terminator 4 or Saw 5 (one reviewer actually compared this movie to Saw! How utterly inappropriate and unrelated!)

Seriously, most of these reviews read like you-tube comments -- according to these \"critics\" this movie is too confusing yet too predictable, not enough action yet there's too much going on, too smart yet too dumb, explains too much yet leaves too much unexplained... oh -- and it's apparently a \"waist (sic) of time.\" Do consider the quality and source of the reviews before taking them to heart. I'm afraid these 1-star kids failed to understand the phrase \"altruism coefficient\" and were therefore utterly incapable of understanding the movie's premise (despite adamantly claiming that they \"get it\" right before explaining how confusing it was!) If you know what those two words mean you will have no trouble understanding (and enjoying) this movie.

I really wish there were a reviewer reputation system here so I could be sure to ignore the rating of everyone who gave this movie 1 star forever.

See it for yourself and enjoy the fine presentation of an interesting couple taking an interesting moral \"test\" and facing the consequences. It's a good time, in my opinion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Forget about Donnie Darko. I open with this because it seems that a good portion of the reviews I have read on The Box amount to the simple but weak argument that it doesn't hold a candle to Darko. It isn't that I disagree with that necessarily, I just feel that this movie is a different animal altogether and deserves its own analysis. There are points of comparison to be sure, but they are peripheral concerns when you consider that the key to the heart of each movie is different. In Darko, the driving force of the narrative is existential. In The Box, the driving force of the narrative stems from a moral dilemma. Believe me when I say that I understand the inclination to compare an innovative filmmakers'movies by looking for trends and patterns, but for me it is more important to approach each new film as a self contained entity first, and then broaden my gaze afterwards.

The Box is one of those films you get mixed feelings about because it seems to be in some sort of identity crisis. It isn't always sure what it wants to be. The twists are numerous, but easy to follow if not to predict. James Marsden and Cameron Diaz play a relatively believable pair of newlyweds who are in financial straits. A Box containing a \"button unit\" arrives on their doorstep and they are informed by a horribly burned man that if pushed the button will cause the death of one person whom they don't know, and they will receive one million dollars. One of the things The Box achieves is to conjure up this invisible fear that somewhere out there our actions have moral consequences. Before the button is pushed it has an eerie and seductive quality, alluring yet sinister. Once it has been pushed, events are set in motion that make the two leads question their own morality and deeply regret their fateful decision.

The notion that the Box is an experiment is interesting because for me it provides the movie with a paradox. If there are external beings developing an \"altruism coefficient\" based on data gathered by couples pushing and not pushing the button, then as the conspiracy unravels, we notice that ultimately it is a forced altruism: Be selfless or the species will be wiped out. I suppose the couples don't know the consequences of their actions when they are faced with making the decision, but they have no reason to suspect that The Box can do anything, so why would they choose altruistically? Is altruism devalued by the fact that we only care about it when presented with a problem in our own lives?

The psychological hurdles in this movie are everywhere. Push the button or don't, it's likely someone is messing with you. Take the money or don't, no one gives anything away for free. Search for the truth, the answers you find slowly reveal your demise.

I propose that The Box is an ironic work because it offers the false choice of free will while revealing that we are trapped in many metaphorical boxes. You can only choose to be free at the expense of another's life, is that freedom? No, it is only another box because then you become trapped in the consequences of your own morality. There is no escape for us because we live on earth and that is another Box. This is precisely why the external beings in the film are ultimately antagonists. They demand we conform to moral standards which rob us of our freedom. We made it to Mars, and we were burned for it and turned into slaves in a sick game.

The references to Jean Paul Sartre illustrate this point rather well. \"You can only enter the final chamber free, or not free.\" Sure, but no matter the form in which we enter the chamber, it is a chamber nonetheless.

Trevor Nemeth","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The creator of Donnie Darko brings you a twilight zone themed tale of the oddest fashion. The film centers on a middle aged young couple living paycheck to paycheck in 1976. One day a mysterious box appears with a red button. Later on that day a spooky gentleman shows up and tells them that they have the choice to press the button and receive a million dollars but someone they don't know will die. It's a disturbing and provocative question suspensefully outlined in the trailer and TV spots. But let it be known that you just don't know what your in for until you see it. At times pretentious and a bit melodramatic the film is ultimately effective because of it's good performances and intriguing subject matter. It would be unfair to ruin any of the plot twists for you but lets just say the film will deliver on the aspects you expect it to and not completely fulfill others it begins to outline. There's a lot of apparent symbolism and subtext in the film which is both interesting and annoying as it wasn't so evident in his other superior film Donnie Darko. There isn't too much more to say without ruining the film for you. it's meant to inspire lots of cafe chatter afterwards. However, i'd also like to say It's shot well and has an appropriately aged look to it and it's worth a watch. Check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Box is one of the strangest movies I have ever seen. To explain my experience, let me use this word picture: Imagine that you have been binging on pixie sticks and paint fumes for the last month while watching nothing but Twilight Zone reruns. The resulting coma lands you in a hospital, where the nurse seems to get a kick out of shooting adrenalin into your IV. The dream that you have while in the coma will be something like this movie.

SUMMARY: A man shows up at the door of a couple. He gives them a box with a button on it. Press the button, they will get a million dollars in cash and a person they don't know will die. I'll try not to spoil anything, but from there things devolve into a plot so intertwined and complex and purely original that it will make you question your sanity. But hey, most of us have been sane for a while now, and change is good.

PROS: Amazing storyline, overall good acting, not a slow moment once it gets going. It asks questions of human morality that are rarely, if ever asked in popular culture. This movie is deep, it has meaning. Its not summer blockbuster special effects fluff (not that there's anything wrong with that); this movie had a relatively low budget and it showed in some places. But i think it is perhaps that very thing that makes me like it so much.

CONS: The first twenty minutes, before it gets going, are really quite slow. At the end of the movie, you will be so confused that you just have to sit down and think for a good half hour. I can guarantee that this movie will not get rave reviews from your peers or most critics; it is far too strange and there aren't explosions every three seconds. In fact there are no explosions of any kind in this movie (besides your brain popping from trying to understand exactly what the heck just happened). Personally I don't think this is a bad thing, but many will.

RATING: Easily a 9\/10. I have never had an experience like watching this movie. The only reason I can't give it a 10\/10 is that it is just too wrapped up in itself. There are several large things left unexplained at the end that are still bugging me as I sit here writing this. But overall, this is the best experience I have had in a movie theater in quite a long time. But be warned, you will not like this movie if you can't sit back, turn on your suspension of disbelief to about 150%, and prepare your brain to do some impressive acrobatics.

Visit www.thestuffblag.com for more reviews","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The trailer goes nowhere near and only scratches the surface of the film and rightly so too, not because it has that obligation to keep its real narrative under wraps, but because what actually transpires, will provoke entirely different lines of questioning, some of which are frustratingly not answered in the film, leaving you to your own devices to interpret the series of events. Which of course means plenty of material for an after-show discussion.

Metaphorically, the box refers to how us humans tend to subconsciously hole ourselves into situations or things in everyday life, and how our enclosed thoughts tend to see things from a certain perspective, seldom out of the box. There's a speech made near the end by one of the characters that will leave you pondering over this fact, which governs the basis of the entire film, and even threading on existentialism, where our bodies are mere vessels for the soul, and from cradle to the grave we put ourselves in more boxes in a way of life fashion.

What I disliked about the film, is how it tried to sound intelligent through the frequent name dropping of covert government agencies like the CIA and NSA, as though there's something overtly clandestine about these agencies that we should be aware of. They serve little purpose other than to put every action and every person under scrutiny, that nobody can be trusted, wrecking havoc in a sense to both the characters and the audience as we try to keep up with trust issues to aid in the interpretation of the narrative. Having it set in 1976, against a NASA backdrop of manned space missions, and in Langley, Virginia, also provided that heightened sense of wary that will sap your energies as you sit through it patiently.

Based upon the short story Button, Button written by Richard Matheson and made into an episode of the Twilight Zone, the story follows the Lewis family, where husband Arthur (James Marsden) works at NASA and develops a prosthetic foot for his teacher wife Norma (Cameron Diaz), and you'd think it's all happy family with their son Walter (Sam Oz Stone), until one day a mysterious man called Arlington Steward (Frank Langella in a Two-Face inspired facial effect) whom we are preempted of in the opening, comes knocking and giving them a Deal or No Deal button in a box. Plunge the button and they'll get a million bucks (we're talking in dollar terms of the 70s here) although a stranger out there will die. If they don't, well the deal's got an expiry date.

The story would dictate a deal be made, which of course sparks off a mysterious sequence of events that unfold, with even more shady characters (who nosebleed) appearing, some whom are inexplicably zombie like, apparently all under the influence, or employment, or Arlington Steward. Whether or not Steward is Death, a clandestine government employee, a messenger from God or a representative of Aliens after an anal probe, remains unanswered, so whichever way you look at it, it's as if he's delivering something expected, just begging that mankind will shake off its innate greed so that his work can be cut short and to return to wherever he came from.

If you need a little distraction from the disparate scenes which make up the narrative, the production sets and art direction are gorgeous in recreating the 70s look, as you try to figure out the mystery of the consequences that stem from a result of not fully understanding the fine print. It's full circle this examination of human nature, of our greed for immediate gratification, manifesting its result in longer term pain, confusion and further choices that we'll make based on real sacrifices. Nifty special effects come into play as well, though it just leaves more room open as to the genre of the film.

So is it horror, science fiction, or a mystery thriller? It's everything rolled into one actually, together with a sprinkling of the philosophical. Just don't go expecting a straight narrative film with clean and easy answers at the end \u0096 this is like an X-Files episode on steroids.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even for sci-fi this movie is movie is a little out there. Alright, more than a little... My first thought after watching it was that i had just lost my mind.

Don't watch this movie expecting another Darko. Darko fans are never going to like another Richard Kelly movie because of their freaky cult standards. Donnie Darko is a thing of the past, get over it.

Richard Kelly loves making movies that make you feel stupid for not understanding the 'Deeper meaning' the first time you watch them. To be honest I had to watch The Box twice before I liked it.

The deeper meaning- (to spare you a bunch of sociological psycho babble) Humans are self serving, we make decisions that can destroy our lives and don't open mail without a return address.

Summary: Creepy old man tells Cammeron Diaz if you push the button i will kill someone you don't know and give you a million bucks. Of course she pushes it and as promised by the creepy old gets a case of money. Then the movie takes a dive into the unusual. To spare my fingers the typing... For pushing the button, Diaz and her husband are cursed by supernatural alien beings, in an elaborate experiment to gage the morality of the human race.

I liked: The willingness of the movie to ignore the generic movie guidelines. Its different. Its intense. It has a deeper meaning (although its philosophy 101 material). It leaves you guessing. NOT A Hollywood ENDING!

I disliked: Why would any being with the technology to inhibit another life form devise such a ridiculous scheme? What god like alien has the patience for that? Diaz was good, but was there a need for the country accent? They live in Virginia.

I give it a 7 because Kelly didn't put as much attention to detail as with his other movies. Overall good flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wasn't sure on what to expect from THE BOX. I am a huge fan of Darko, but also saw the mess that became of Southland Tales, whether or not that was a studio botch up, who knows. With the Box I was pleasantly surprised. It was a throwback to classic sci-fi paranoia films that hint at much larger devious happenings, but center on an intimate character base.

The slow build, and creepy tension was very effective to the tone and theme of the entire film. Any change in such pacing, would have lead to the typical Hollywood or 'MTV' style, that just wouldn't have served this story's purpose correctly. Everything from the strange looking\/acting extras littered throughout, to the low-end score, to the minimal explanation of what exactly was going on, added an entire focused thread of underlying dread, and the shrinking sense of hope for our greedy, though well meaning, lead characters. This was something well thought out and put into motion by Richard Kelly, from the first act through to the end. Richard Matheson's short story, which this was based on, NOT the Twilight Zone ep , which was another take on the story, was one of morality and greed which were still the central elements of THE BOX. Being only some 8 pgs long, expanding it into a feature with substance would have been no easy task, but was done so with style, originality and leaves the viewer with lingering thoughts about the film. Many have and will compare this to DARKO for whether or not it is as profound, but I found it to be an entirely different film, thematically and emotionally. It's tone is completely different, as are the messages and intents of this film. Where Darko left us with questions internally, THE BOX leaves the viewer with more external questions, involving the world around us. Such as, knowing human nature, would the test of the BOX ever come to an end? Decent acting, great creepy visuals, and looming atmosphere add to the slow chilling ride. Its not for everyone, but for those who get where its coming from, its a treat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to say that some of the other reviews of this film I have read show very little understanding of it or the original TV series it stemmed from. Dad's Army was a sitcom and therefore had humour and so is bound to have put a smile on the face of the dire situation. However the series carried very many serious messages such as the episode 'Branded' about the bigotry and ignorance that was attached to conscientious objectors. The film was faithful to the series and was simply like an extended episode. So I'm afraid the reviewer who claimed that Columbia improved the humour was quite wrong and let's face it - the BBC sitcoms of this period beat anything that came out of America hands down. Also comments referring to propaganda were also way off the mark. The Homeguard were people considered unfit for frontline service who still wished to serve. They were very brave men who knew they were sentenced to death as soon as they signed up as Hitler announced that anyone who did so would be executed if and when Britain was invaded. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to set the record straight as it is always good to actually speak and comment on what has been seen rather making it up as you go along I find.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There's nothing left undone about this Perry and Croft masterpiece - as good as any of the best episodes, thankfully it was still filmed in time before the late James Beck sadly passed away to be included in it to show his talent.

It shows right from the start, how the platoon is formed from the state of national emergency, showing the boys as inept under Captain Mainwaring (Arthur Lowe) and Sergeant Wilson (John Le Mesurier) as they usually are through the series.

Along the way, Mainwaring does his usual longing to show authority but the chaps can't help but let him down at every turn, during wargames and suspecting an invasion. They have a chance in the film though to redeem themselves when they actually capture the Nazi airmen who take the church congregation hostage.

That was a nice finale especially as Mainwaring had been able to prove himself to the General, being given one last chance to shape up. A great film, plenty of good lines and laughs, it's another one for the DVD cupboard - I'm glad the BBC is repeating it - and on this day 2.8.08 they deservedly had 'Dad's Army Night'. Not to be missed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The second in director Cohen's trilogy of Second World War comedies (the others being \u0091Till Death Do Us Part' and `Adolf Hitler - My Part In His Downfall') is a film version of the BBC's long running (and much loved) situation comedy. Like most transfers of television shows, this movie suffers from an absence of plot and is more a collection of sketches. Some of which work better than others for example the scene where a high ranking army officer floats down a river is a memorable, surreal moment.

The joy of this movie is it's representation of a past that probably never existed and an England which is defined by picturesque countryside and the chance it offers to see veteran scene-stealers such as John Le Mesurier given their biggest film roles. Arthur Lowe is superb as Captain Mainwaring, a bungler, who, when the chips are down, displays great courage and saves the day (the climax is probably the character's greatest moment).

Episodes of the television series are of course funnier but as an introduction to a British legend, you cannot find anything better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 1970s are often regarded as a golden age of British television comedy, a period which saw numerous classic sitcoms as well as sketch shows such as \"Monty Python's Flying Circus\". The period was, however, emphatically not a golden age of British film comedy, and what worked well on television rarely transferred successfully to the big screen. The most triumphant exceptions to this rule were provided by the Pythons, but their best films (\"Monty Python and the Holy Grail\" and \"Life of Brian\") were very different in conception to their TV show.

The main problem with adapting sitcoms for the cinema is that concepts devised to fit the BBC's 30 minute slots (25 minutes on ITV, which has to find room for commercials) do not always work as well when expanded into a feature film three or four times as long. Few people will remember the film versions of, say, \"Up Pompeii!\" or \"Steptoe and Son\" with the same affection as the television versions. In the case of many classic TV comedy shows (\"Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em\", \"Yes, Minister\", \"Fawlty Towers\", \"The Goodies\") no attempt was made to film them at all, for which we can be grateful. Characters such as Michael Crawford's Frank Spencer or John Cleese's Basil Fawlty can be hilarious in half-hour doses, but I doubt if they would remain as funny over two hours. One comedy programme (albeit a dramatisation of a comic novel rather than a sitcom in the normal sense) which might have worked in the cinema was \"The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin\", but any hopes of a film were dashed by the tragically early death of its star Leonard Rossiter.

\"Dad's Army\" was one of the few television sitcoms of the period which was turned into a decent film. (About the only other one I can think of was \"Porridge\"). This was possibly because it had an unusually large number of well-developed characters and derived most of its humour from the interactions between them. The original sitcom ran between 1968 and 1977 and told of the misadventures of a Home Guard platoon in the small seaside town of Walmington-on-Sea. (The Home Guard, initially known as the Local Defence Volunteers, was an auxiliary militia during World War II made up, for the most part, of men too old to serve in the regular forces). The film version is a three-act drama. Act I deals with the formation of the platoon and the recruitment of its members. In Act II they cause havoc during an Army training exercise. In Act III they succeed in capturing a group of Nazi airmen whose plane has been shot down.

The three key players in this drama are the platoon's commander, Captain George Mainwaring (Arthur Lowe), and his two subordinates Sergeant Arthur Wilson (John Le Mesurier) and Corporal Jack Jones (Clive Dunn). Mainwaring, who in civilian life is the local bank manager, is a fussy little man, peering at the world through a pair of thick spectacles. It is he who takes the initiative in forming the Home Guard unit and who appoints himself its commander. He is pompous, officious, with an exaggerated sense of his own importance and of his own powers of leadership, the sort of man who does not suffer fools gladly. (And in George Mainwaring's world-view the term \"fool\" covers most of the rest of the human race). He does, however, have his good qualities. He is motivated by a genuine patriotic idealism and is capable of great physical courage, shown in his encounter with the Germans.

Wilson is Mainwaring's deputy at the bank. The two men are very different in character, something emphasised by a difference in appearance, Wilson being tall and thin whereas Mainwaring is short and stout. He comes across as being both more intelligent and better educated than his boss. (His accent suggests he may be a former public schoolboy). Nevertheless, he has ended up playing second fiddle both in civilian and military life, probably because he has the sort of passive personality which leads to pessimism and defeatism and an inability to take anything altogether seriously. Jones is an old soldier who now runs the local butcher's shop. (His promotion to Corporal is due mainly to his ability to bribe Mainwaring with black market sausages). His enthusiasm for his new role is matched only by his incompetence and ability to cause chaos. Although his catchphrase is \"Don't panic!\" he is prone to panicking at any given opportunity.

Several other members of the platoon are featured. Private Fraser, the dour Scottish undertaker, is even more of a pessimist than Wilson. (Catchphrase: \"We're doomed, man, DOOMED!\"). Private Godfrey is a gentle old man whose main concern is the whereabouts of the nearest lavatory. Private Walker is a sharp Cockney spiv and Private Pike (another bank employee) a spoilt mummy's boy. (Pike's mother is Wilson's mistress, although Wilson tries to keep this liaison secret from the disapproving Mainwaring). Two significant outsiders are the mild-mannered Vicar and the ARP warden, Mainwaring's detested enemy and quite his equal in pompousness and officiousness.

There are occasional bawdy doubles entendres (\"Keep your hands off my privates\"- Mainwaring is ostensibly referring to those soldiers who hold that rank), more so than in the television show which was surprisingly free of innuendo. (Its creators, David Croft and Jimmy Perry, would later go on to create comedy shows such as \"Are You Being Served?\" and \"Hi-de-hi\" which were notorious for suggestive humour). The film does, however, preserve much of the mixture of gentle wit, nostalgia and sharp characterisation which made the TV series so successful. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Overall, the Dad's Army movie is very funny, although the humour isn't quite as catchy and sparkly as in the TV and radio series. So where does this leave us, the viewers? If you've never seen Dad's Army then the movie is a good way of bringing yourself up to speed and getting hooked on the mad world of Walmington o\/S. The downside is that you might not \"get it\" because, as I said, the humour in the movie is a bit on the stolid side.

For Dad's Army buffs the movie holds nothing new as the story is more or less a cutup of the TV series, but it's a unique chance of seeing your favourites in \"high def\" as compared to the shitty quality of the BBC video recordings.

The movie also features what must be the lamest holdup sequence in the history of the universe. I can't make up my mind if that's a positive or a negative, though.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In my opinion dads army is thee best British sitcom of all time. I believe that if you just watch one episode of the show you cannot judge in completely on that one episode, (this include the movie) You must at least watch a series of this show, get inside the characters, become familiar with there surroundings and the situations which they are in. When you become familiar with the show then it will start appealing to you. Now the movie has a few changes to the series which is slightly disappointing, but it still works. Watch a series or two of the show first before you watch this. You'll not be disappointed. Good episode to watch is \"No Spring for Frazer\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is surely British humour at its best. It tends to grow on you. The first time I watched it I couldn't quite figure out what it was all about but now I can watch the episodes over and over again and enjoy them every time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Often when TV series are transferred to the big screen, they lose their appeal. Not in this case! The historical accuracy in costumes, equipment and general art direction, like the TV series, is outstanding. A good example of comedy and farce, with excellent script and comedy actors in the right parts. Based on a classic TV series that stands alone in British TV Comedy history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"25 sitcoms had big screen spin-offs. Most of these came in the 1970's. Here is a list of all: Are you Being Served, Blackadder, Bless this House, Bottom, Dads Army, Father Dear Father, For the Love of Ada, George and Mildred, The League of Gentlemen, Love thy Neighbour, The Lovers, Man about the House, Nearest and Dearest, Never Mind the Quality Feel the Width, On the Buses (3), Please Sir, Porridge, Rising Damp, Steptoe and Son (2), That's your Funeral, Till Death us do Part (2), Up Pomeii (3), Whack-o, Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads and Whoops Apocalypse.

So there was a big-screen spin off of my all time favourite sitcom Dads Army. What the film focused on was when the men were enrolled. It showed the difficulties of getting a uniform and getting weapons. It was a big summary of the first series of Dads Army. At the end of the film they catch some German Spies in the church. The Home Guard come dressed as alter servers and had bayonets with them and defeated the Germans. The best bit in the film was when they were showing a HG lecture and a German lecture at the same time: German: Head office on the phone, would you get 10,000 bombs, (CUT TO HOME GUARD) GODFREY: Mrs Mainwaring on the phone, would you get 1\/2lb of Brussel Sprouts.

This was probably the second best sitcom spin off movie, beaten only by Till Death us do Part (1969). It would have been better if at the start of the movie, it had already been formed, it was half way through the war. Though still an excellent movie, a good one for the family.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Im a die hard Dads Army fan and nothing will ever change that. I got all the tapes, DVD's and audiobooks and every time i watch\/listen to them its brand new.

The film. The film is a re run of certain episodes, Man and the hour, Enemy within the gates, Battle School and numerous others with a different edge. Introduction of a new General instead of Captain Square was a brilliant move - especially when he wouldn't cash the cheque (something that is rarely done now).

It follows through the early years of getting equipment and uniforms, starting up and training. All in all, its a great film for a boring Sunday afternoon.

Two draw backs. One is the Germans bogus dodgy accents (come one, Germans cant pronounced the letter \"W\" like us) and Two The casting of Liz Frazer instead of the familiar Janet Davis. I like Liz in other films like the carry ons but she doesn't carry it correctly in this and Janet Davis would have been the better choice.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lovely librarian, played by Playboy model Kristine DeBell, falls asleep and dreams herself into a strange world filled with extremely uninhibited people\u0085 These people love to sing and dance and fool around\u0085 Alice has a series of sensual adventures among these characters\u0085

The film was originally shot as a poem to eroticism with few explicit sex scenes, which were eventually cut from its theatrical release\u0085 Videocassette versions, however, have had some of the original erotic encounters joined at the end with them\u0085

For an extremely low-budget picture, the producers of this film did an extremely good job\u0085 The cinematography is full of life and energy, the dances and numbers quite professional, and the acting lovable\u0085 Without a doubt, it is one of the best adult fairy tales around\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I was engaged, my fiance and I would frequent the adult bookstores. He would look for his favorite mags, and on occasion a video that caught the eye. As much as I enjoyed the one-on-one with him that the media caused, there was never a video that I really enjoyed. I had seen only one other movie way back when there was a satellite channel called XXX (it dealt with a private eye unraveling a case) that actually had a proper plot and was enjoyable. All the others were grunting and puffing and blowing and whatnot. There's only so many times you can watch a blonde bimbo faking 'it'.

This movie caught my eye, and I migrated to it, allowing him to wander the shop. He noticed (how hard was it not too? grins. I was actually interested in something, lol(!) in the video section!) and came over, buying the slightly used copy for me. We took it home and I loved it. Here was a \"Porno\" with a plot. I wasn't sure it even classified as porno, but I use the word loosely.

The librarian was a character I could identify with. Alice rejected her boyfriend's advances. She was not comfortable with her own sexuality and prudish in her comments. Bill went away, and she continued to check in books. The White Rabbit ran through the library (one book, if you notice closely, I believe (it's been ten years since I saw the movie) was by Lewis C.) and Alice, for that same reason that propels teenagers to run into the woods when a chainsaw wielding maniac is behind them rather than towards populated areas, follows. It's the best way to get the plot forward. Alice finds herself in Wonderland.

I barely recall all the details, but I do remember clearly the swim in the lake, and how she was \"dried\" off. I liked how they got Humpty Dumpty Up again, the Mad Hatter's size of member being on his hat to wear it proudly, and the brother sister team of Dum and Dee (which did disturb me slightly--then again, they could have been husband wife, but I never could tell no matter how many times I watched it). The woman on the knight who told Alice go away and find your own Knight (What's a A Nice Girl Like You Doing on a Knight Like This?).

The part that really caught my attention when I watched it about a year or so later was one of the cards (3 of hearts, I think) who resembled my ex's current wife exactly! We couldn't help but tease her about being in the movie! The King of Hearts was interesting, and the Queen was even more so. Due to the openness of the forum, I can't go into details, just say it was \"orgy\" based and we'll leave it at that!

When we split up, I was allowed to take the video--he knew I liked it--but in the time since it's been lost in borrowing. Someday I'll find another copy.

Btw, if anyone could tell me offlist what scene was cut from the Amazon version, I'd really appreciate it.

I heartily recommend this movie for the over 18 crowd. It was soft, sweet, and really 70's, but I liked it immensely.

***** out of 5. D.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this fine flick shortly leaving college. As I sat there happily watching Alice go from repressed virgin to sexual adventurer, I got to wondering why her sexual encounters seemed familiar. Then I remembered-- Intro Psych 101 Lecture! One of the lectures dealt with the Psycho-Sexual Stages of Developement, basically the shift over time on what part of the body and its attendant stimulations gets our main attention, as well as the changing emphasis on what gives us pleasure. Alice's first encounter is being bathed, with emphasis on the genitals and bottom. Her next encounter is an oral one with the Mad Hatter's dingaling. I forget the rest of the lecture and the order of Alice's encounters, but I do remember how well they matched. It's interesting to see a skin flick with some brains behind it, rather than the cliche \"I'm here to deliver your pizza. Let's screw.\"

I don't see how Kristin DeBell's career could be wrecked by this film, as it was her first film. And Reagan's tiresome hypocrisies had yet to mar this land when it was released, but in a way he and his stooge Meese did affect Ms DeBell. When Meese was staging his anti-pornography commission (to distract people from his own criminal activities), Meese hired the services of an anti-porn activist named Judith Reisner. Reisner was obsessed with images she perceived as child pornography. She saw the \"Alice\" cover Ms DeBell did for Playboy and promptly announced she had scientifically proven that Ms DeBell was in fact a photo collage of parts from several grown women and the face of a ten year old. Yeah, right....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first time I saw \"Alice in Wonderland \u0096 an X-rated Musical Comedy\", was in the early '80 in a Movie-Theater in N.Y. City with some friends. I remember we actually enjoyed it very much, although we were left wondering why all the \"goodies\" were covered by in various forms shaped colored patches and why the movie was suddenly jumping from one scene to the next one, leaving us guessing...what we just missed. Obviously it was the soft-core edited (chopped) version, which left me with the desire to watch it again soon, but in its original integral version. Well, more then 20 years went by, during which I forgot all about this movie and, only a few days ago, by sheer chance, I stumbled upon a heavily used VHS copy (which had seen better times: a bit washed-out colors, scratchy sound and a few flaws), but guess what? It's the original uncut version and, this time, I really had a ball! Humor, Musical and Porn may sound an awkward combination but, in this case, it really works and, unlikely the big majority of boring porn-flicks nowadays invading our screens, this is a really amusing and entertaining sex fantasy, which will not disappoint you. The direction is clever, the swift editing makes the movie fly like a bird, all the familiar characters are lovable or just plain funny, all the actors seem having a good time, the songs are catchy (worth mentioning the one about \"growing up\" sung by Alice at the beginning of the movie and the hilarious \"What's a nice girl like you doing on a Knight like this\"), the dance numbers are well choreographed and staged (amazingly energetic Terry Hall proves that she can \"also\" dance and dances enthusiastically her guts away...Don't worry, she also does what she was best known for...), the acting, the singing, the set, the costumes are of quality level and then...there is Kristine \"Blue Eyes\" DeBell, in the first starring role of her career and (oh boy!) she indeed has a few H.C. sequences! Personally I think they are absolutely not distasteful, on the contrary, they are spontaneous and quite arousing. She is young and (ohhh!) so very pretty; with the help of her new friends in Wonderland, she discovers her body and her sexuality so, she sings, she dances and...what do you expect? She is also experimenting sex! The closing sequence, when she finally makes love to her boy-friend, is exceptionally well photographed and directed and is the highlight of the movie. I think her \"physique du role\" (the innocent blue eyes and captivating smile) and her acting ability, make those explicit sequences more then acceptable and actually highly enjoyable. There is plenty of sex going on in (this) Wonderland and everybody seems eager to \"get busy\" with the first available boy(s) or girl(s), which means lot of hard-core action to be seen. On the other hand, some close-up shots, clearly \"spliced in\", just to make the \"porn-hounds\" really happy, are a bit redundant for my personal taste. In general, however, the sex-action is not offensive since handled with a great deal of humor and it blends almost seamlessly with the music, the dances and the comedy. If you think you and your partner can handle graphic sex, watch it together. Take my word, you will have an hour and a half of very good time (perhaps also an after-show extra action...) This is \"Adult Entertainment\" so be careful, don't leave this video around or among other kid's videos. If your 10 years old can put his hands on it, he might amuse himself, but you will be forced to provide embarrassing explanations about the reasons why \"this\" Alice behaves quite differently from the one he red about in Lewis Carroll novel or he watched on the Disney's video. I bet, you will not forget this \"one-of-a-kind\" very soon. It's a real shame that they don't mak'em like that anymore...! I give it a 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is what porn used to be, this is a true classic. I mean, it is an x-rated musical based on an actual book! There is a real plot to it and how many x-rated movies can boast that these days? This belongs in an exclusive short-list of true pornographic movie classics, including Debby Does Dallas, Deep Throat, and Behind the Green Door. I think the problem with \"pornographic movies\" these days is that it's all about the \"pornographic\" and not about the \"movie\". Alice in Wonderland has graphic depictions of sex, sure, but it is actually telling a story at the same time. Not one of the typical \"Oh, Mr. Police Man, don't write me a ticket\" plots, this takes it another step further and makes it a musical! Fabulous! If you want to see an example of \"good\" porn, this is one of the best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alice enters in a world of wonder... but not the kind of wonder that you remember as a kid. The Mad Hatter, the White Rabbit, the Queen and others (even Tweedledee and Tweedledum) show Alice some things about her body -- and other people's bodies -- that might be quite wonderful. A tale of love and lust the likes you've never seen.

Kristine DeBell appears as Alice. I must say, by 1970s standards, this may be the most attractive adult actress of her day. I believe this is her only film before moving on to mainstream work, but it was pretty much the best possible one she could have chosen (my love for all things Alice is no secret). Even better than \"Fairy Tales\" (which isn't really pornography, so, much).

The songs are cheesy, but fit the theme of the movie. One song, \"What's a Girl Like You Doing on a Knight Like This?\" was pretty funny, and the others had similar themes going. The trial towards the end was well scripted, and fit very nicely into the world of Alice. The logic and humor were definitely accounted for.

What more can you say about a film like this? All I know is, for people who are used to adult films where it's just a 30-second lead-in to the sex, this one is going to overload you with plot and music. But, personally, I think there's something very special about this film and I hope it gets a nice DVD release with things touched up and special features (if that's even possible). I can see this being a cult film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Adult version of the classic Lewis Carroll tale is much better than you might expect. Here Alice is a virginal librarian who falls down the rabbit hole and learns to love sex and her own self image. Made at the time when adult films were creative endeavors with plots instead of just a series of sex scenes, this is a good looking little movie more akin to the low budget films of its day. Despite what you may think this film actually has a good script with funny jokes and good songs. Its an naughty little tale for adults. If you're wondering whether or not my recommendation is a good one or not consider that the film was pretty much only available in its non-hardcore version for the better part of the last three decades simply because the film stands up with out the sex, which is how I first saw the film years ago on cable TV. The relatively recent home video release on DVD put back the sex (in horribly grainy inserted clips) which makes it clear the removal of the shots was the best choice all around. If you're an open minded adult with a taste for something spicy I can heartily recommend this little film as a nice diversion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can you possibly say? This is the uncut hardcore, musical Alice! It works too with a large energetic cast seemingly enjoying themselves to the hilt and whilst one could wish for a re-mastered version, I guess we are lucky to even have this video transfer. Pretty much a delight throughout. There are a couple of slightly off moments but this could have been embarrassing all through and it certainly is not. It also could have been and today would have been too camp. No, a very fine effort that is amusing, tuneful and just sexy enough. Fine performances particularly the Kristine DeBell in the lead and was that an unaccredited Richard Prior as the prone Knight being vigorously (if discreetly) ridden?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I so much enjoyed this little musical fantasy I bought a copy to share with my friends. It is a pleasant and diverting change from our mundane lives..... I believe that we can all benefit from an active fantasy life, one of joy and indulgence, I heartily recommend it!

The performance is excellent, and the music uplifting!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I only gave this nine stars instead of ten because i really don't approve of pornography all that much. pornography has a useful purpose in society(can't say i can always think of one)but it probably does.

personal viewpoints set aside, i really thought this film was pretty funny. i didn't buy this movie because it was pornography, i bought it because i am one of those 'Alice' obsessives who will watch anything about 'Alice in Wonderland'. i own just about every version there is on DVD so it was an obvious choice to complete my DVD collection with this. i must admit i was scandalized beyond my expectations, and the whole thing would have been thoroughly offensive if it hadn't been so damned funny. besides, the music is really good and i like musicals.

not everyone can make a good nudie musical. anyone that has seen 'The First Nudie Musical' knows what a stink-bomb that was. considering what a low budget Bill Osco worked with, 'Alice' is pretty remarkable as a musical(it's better than some musicals made on costly budgets).

the film can't totally escape the dirtiness of porn. I usually watch the XXX version for full shock effect and some of those scenes are scandalizing(scandalizing because we are talking about Lewis Carroll). i found myself feeling very uncomfortable and embarrassed during the scene where 'Alice'(Kristine DeBell) starts masturbating. it made me feel like a voyeur. and the gratuitous lesbian scenes with 'Alice' and the kitty-cats were a bit too racey.

the film has a great sense of humor about everything however. there is one especially funny moment during the Queen's orgy when one of the actresses gets up and says \"who do i have to F---K to get out of this movie?\". Hilarious.

i'm not sure i buy the whole sex is good for you ball your brains out philosophy here, but sex is human, and nothing human disgust me.(i don't know if i really feel that way, but i couldn't resist saying it)some people think everything should be about sex. i dunno. Jeez, just show some frick'in responsibility and decorum. this movie definitely scores points for the sex-minded, but i wouldn't push your luck, next time you might really freak someone out. i mean we are dealing with children's literature here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing this movie for the first time with a friend while on vacation in Anaheim, California in October, 1976. While driving the tourist laden city streets , we saw a movie marquee advertising \"ALICE IN WONDERLAND XXX.\" So before even checking out Disneyland's version of the Lewis Carroll classic a half mile away, our curiosity won out and we ventured into this cinematic threshold. I remember even before the movie began how surprised I was to see this kind of film appearing in staid, ultra-conservative Orange County.

Thirty two years later, I came across ALICE IN WONDERLAND at a local video store. I wondered to myself if this was the same film until I looked at the back of the jacket and saw a picture of lovely Kristine DeBell in the starring role and decided to rekindle some fond memories. Subversive Video, to their credit, has released two versions, X and XXX in the same package. As it turns out, the version my friend and I saw in Anaheim was rated X in spite of the original XXX advertising at the there. Seeing it the second time around makes me realize what a delightful romp director Bud Townsend brought to the screen. As an example of this man's scope behind the camera, in his salad days he directed two episodes of TV's DEATH VALLEY DAYS.

Miss DeBell, appearing in the April, 1976 cover of Playboy is ideal as Alice. She brings a fresh all American innocence to the role as a librarian in her early twenties yearning for a better life. When her boyfriend is rebuffed from taking their relationship to the next level, Alice reaches her turning point. This is a 'musical comedy' yet the melodies are quite catchy with appropriate strings and brass to offset the generally suggestive lyrics. Miss DeBell has a pleasant singing voice as she trills about wanting to be free. That's when the magic begins. The pacing of this movie is surprisingly fluid, given the genre and the supporting cast of Wonderland are there to enable Alice as she blossoms into womanhood. Special mention goes to TV veteran Larry Gelman as the White Rabbit who seems to be the only character not obsessed with sex as he is always running late for an appointment\u0085.or something.

Special features include comments from noted feminist advocate Lena Ramone who imparts how viewing this movie while attending college influenced her in choosing a career as an adult film actress after graduation.

What makes ALICE IN WONDERLAND such a delightful jaunt is its garden like setting. Partly filmed in the lush, natural splendor of Vancouver B.C.'s Stanley Park, the movie belies its pornographic roots. You don't come away feeling you've watched a sleazy skin flick. At this writing, I haven't viewed the triple XXX version. The extra sex footage tacked on afterward would, in all probability, disrupt the overall flow and remove the light, breezy atmosphere evident throughout.

Naturally, the Lewis Carroll version is the best way to curl up and explore Alice's adventures in Wonderland. However, for a time capsule representing 1970s' adult film archives, ALICE IN WONDERLAND is worth following that white rabbit for a ribald ride full of mirthful mayhem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND is truly original. Equal parts porn, fairy-tale, and musical-comedy - this film is definitely a strange bit of adult-film history.

Alice is a sexually naive librarian who ends up following the rabbit into \"Wonderland\", where she meets all kinds of \"experienced\" weirdos like the Mad-Hatter (who likes to pull his dong out whenever possible), Humpty Dumpty (who broke his wiener along with his shell), Tweedledee and Tweedledum (a brother\/sisters sex-crazed duo), and the bi-sexual Queen - among others.

This version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND is actually quite tame by the standards of the time - a time when a lot of porn was mean-spirited and nasty (as noted by the \"roughie\" sub-genre) - this one is actually quite funny and strangely endearing. It's the kind of thing you'd show your kids - if it weren't for the graphic sex. A little slow getting to the \"good-stuff\"...but genuinely entertaining. Oh - and some of the musical numbers are downright hilarious. If you're a drinker - have a few, if you're a smoker - roll a couple and give this one a shot. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wonderful movie. Adult content. Lots of erotic scenes plus excellent music and dance scenes. My wife and I absolutely loved this movie and wish they'd make more like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would probably not have bothered to comment on this film if I had not been disturbed by the constant references made to it here in North America as a porn film. Our obsession with what is, or should be, regarded as pornographic remains a relic of the 'guidance' provided to film makers by the Hayes committee many, many years ago and it is now really time that we relegate it to the past. So far we have not progressed far beyond establishing a somewhat arbitrary division between what we now term 'soft' and 'hard' porn, with both carrying the same pornography label. It is time for us all recognise that neither the R rated (soft porn?) release version of this film, nor the unrated version (hard porn?) available on DVD were in any way pornographic.

In legal terms pornography is defined by its capacity to deprave or corrupt. Many classic books such as Lady Chatterley's lover, Fanny Hill, Women in Love, The Story of 'O' or Moll Flanders have been prosecuted for pornographic content, tried by jury and cleared on the basis of this definition, but in practice most ordinary citizens are not interested in what they regard as legal equivocation, and apply a simpler test that is rather too stringent when applied to books or films which are very close to the line, but serves to quickly clear most others from any taint of pornography. Although the Hayes code would have rated AIW as unacceptable both for nudity and for its depictions of sexual activities, in practice most people today accept that where the basic message of a book or film is clearly designed to encourage the development of long term stable family relationships in which the participants find real fulfillment, it cannot be regarded as pornographic (this does not mean that works depicting unsatisfactory or unstable relationships should be recognised as pornographic, only that these may need a more sophisticated assessment). In AIW, we have a film about a young female librarian who has had a rather sheltered upbringing, and keeps her suitor at arms length because of a feeling that this is what morality requires her to do. After he gets too frustrated by this and threatens to leave her, she falls asleep and dreams she is transported to a Wonderland (closely based on that of Lewis Carrol) where everyone she meets is totally uninhibited about their sexual needs. She is shocked, but is a kind person who takes things as she finds them, so before long she finds her own prejudices gradually melting away. She wakes up when her boyfriend returns to break off their affair, but her attitude to him has changed so completely that their relationship is fully restored, and the film ends with them living 'happily ever after' with their children in a home with a white picket fence and a family dog - an ending clearly directed to those romantics who remain very young at heart.

Pornographic? - Hardly!.

Suitable viewing for children? - Well probably not quite, unless they have very progressive parents.

R rating? - PG would be more appropriate today.

Entertaining for viewers in most age groups ? - Yes, but the film has its faults - these are discussed in many of the comments here on IMDb, however most commentators clearly appreciated and enjoyed it.

I believe the only pornography associated with this film was the reported claim by an anti-pornography activist of \"scientific proof\" that a magazine picture of Kristin deBell was a photographic montage of images of the face of a ten year old with various body parts of adult models. These and other comments seriously damaged the career of a very promising young actress, but today the film appears to be on its way to becoming a cult classic, Several home video productions have been released in both VHS and DVD format; the last was a DVD containing both the R rated and unrated versions of the film, released by Subversive Cinema in 2007. Copies of this were readily available until a few months ago, now they are almost exhausted and the mail order vendors who still have copies in stock are selling them at many times their original price - a situation which usually quickly results in a new DVD release appearing. This continuing interest nearly 35 years after the original film was released points to near classic status.

Commentators on this database are expected to provide fellow viewers with useful guidance on whether a film is worth watching or even collecting - my comments here were intended to stress the ongoing damage to the industry that still results from pressure on major studios to respect self-censorship recommendations originating with the Hayes Committee. On this database such general comments are very quickly marked by readers as 'not helpful' and I seldom make them; but fortunately I still have space to add that in my opinion this film is quite unusual and is well worth watching or even buying. It is flawed, but Kristine deBell gives a great performance and the film provides a fairly unique and rewarding viewing experience. Overall I would rate it at 7 stars and will be buying a copy of the next DVD edition if and when it appears. If Ms deBell is still alive today I would love to hear her comments both on the attempts to suppress this film and on the late recognition that it has gradually achieved.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this on the big screen with my girlfriend. It was a fun romp with some cool music. Kristine was on the Playboy cover, and the centerfold, as I recall. She's really cute and perky and has lots of charm. The movie made me want to see more of her and so I kept a look out for her in other stuff. She's in Steven Spielberg's \"I Wanna Hold Your Hand\" and Barbara Streisand's \"The Main Event\" and Bill Murray's \"Meatballs\", plus lots of TV shows like Night Court and TV movies. Me and my friends really enjoy her. But her starring role in Alice in Wonderland puts the focus right where it ought to be, right on Kristine as the center of attention, probably the prettiest, hottest girl I've ever seen in movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought the movie was great. I thought Kristine DeBell was GREAT and was glad to see her move on into some more interesting roles. I even overlook the fact that the print I have wasn't quite put back together correctly. But, who cares?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was released originally as a soft \"X\", apparently with the explicit sex deleted. Later, the producers \"relented\" (smelled money) and re-released it with the excised scenes restored (apparently only about 3 minutes). I guess since Kristine was of age, it was held against her and her promising career came grinding to a halt. I guess its all in the timing (witness Pam Anderson's career)--but Ronald Reagan was in charge during Kristine's debacle (we had not heard about Nancy Reagan's affairs), Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski were in full swing during Pam's \"coming out\".

The sex is just icing on the cake, both version satisfy. This naughty musical is way above similar of others that were released at the same time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had no idea who Bruce Haack was before seeing this film. I had just seen the MOOG doc, which was alright, the only problem was Moog led a very content life, and the doc was well... content. Haack's story is filled with all the marketable tragedy people buy into these days, but it carries a great deal of heart with it. Though the film doesn't go into the tragic stuff so much, one can sense that Bruce accepted the price of making music his way. There are so many elements that make up his legacy IE. invention of the Peopleodian, where Bruce could actually play music by touching people. It must have been challenging to document Haack's 'scatter-brained' output, which pretty much fell into every musical category imaginable (even rap music), but the director cut the piece together very coherently and managed to capture the spirit. And the cast... what a group of characters Bruce surrounded himself with, but what do you expect from a telepathic guru, tripping with kids, fighting against the music industry. I recommend this film to anyone interested in music history, it's that mainstream, but that important.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I want to start my review by thanking the makers of this documentary, it is obviously a labor of love and I think they did a pretty good job of putting together an enjoyable documentary about a person who has had so such little info available about him. It definitely has a fan worship feel about it, which is a good thing.

I had heard of Bruce Haack but didn't know much about him, and I found the start of this documentary frustrating because I could hear other musicians talk about him, but Bruce Haack himself was kept way too far off in the distance. I wanted to see this Bruce Haack guy!! I felt as though the makers assumed I already knew him as well as these musicians on the screen which I didn't, so I felt a bit left in the dark.

When Bruce was finally shown in action it was great and gave me a taste of who Bruce Haack was, but it was only a taste. We got treated to more musicians and I felt as though I was being told \"Look - all these cool musicians are into him, so he must be cool!\" I didn't really care much for the musician's commentary on Bruce.

I wanted to see Bruce, as a person. You know, the important stuff - more interviews with people who worked with him or knew him. More about his life, and yes, his use of drugs and other issues. I would of liked to know so much more about his \"Hackula\" project. I wanted to get inside his mind. Even if they did this via some \"voice of god\" commentary and photos it would of been OK.

The animations were good, but again I felt these were used as filler, they didn't really do anything other than allow me to hear his music and see some imagery based on the Dimension 5 records. I did think it was clever and creative, but again... I wanted to learn more about Bruce!

Maybe Bruce Haack was this elusive in real life?

Anyway - in the end I enjoyed this documentary and felt a sort of sadness that such amazing pioneers and geniuses such as Mr. Haack get forgotten as the march of time stamps ever onwards. I am glad that this film is around to educate people about Bruce Haack, even with its flaws.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"George Sanders playing the Saint for the penultimate time does a good job out of a good script - with the usual good RKO cast around. It's a non-Charteris story too, bristling with murders and good clean fun.

Thread 1: In New York, Police Inspector Fernack, Templar's friend is framed in a corruption scandal and disgraced - ST comes over from London to try to put things right. Nice and simple so far - but is there really more than $90,000 in the world? Thread 2: Another tale of a woman taking revenge on the people who murdered her brother, Wendy Barrie does well in bumping off some nasty men and having the Saint fall in love with her to boot. Including a baddie who was under their direct protection and in Fernack's cellar - there's a creepy shot of him (dead and staring) and them in a car when they're taking him back to where they'd got him. Paul Guilfoyle as Pearly Gates must have supposed to have been homosexual in this - witness the dressing gown at the beginning, and the later beguiling comment by ST that he was thinking of keeping him as a pet - and did too for \"Palm Springs\"! Fernack was played by Jonathan Hale as usual but this time with such a beaten deflated attitude that what he really needed was a good slapping from Templar to liven him up.

The Hays Office also made sure you got the picture right, all threads are tied up with no straggly bits. Well worth watching for all of us who like this kind of thing, but if Val Kilmer's version is your yardstick then don't bother.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent entry in the RKO Saint series with well-written original script, good camera work and transitions, good directing to handle some twists in the plot, good editing to keep the flow constant, and good acting. George Sanders is suave and witty. Jonathan Hale simply is Inspector Fernack. Paul Guilfoyle plays a mobster who goes straight (and drinks milk) because he cannot take the pressure. He will return in a later entry in the series. Story begins on an ocean liner headed to the U.S. where the Saint meets but cannot connect with Wendie Barrie. She eventually succumbs to the Saint's charms but she breaks his heart in the end. The Saint assists Inspector Fernack clear his name from a frame. A few bodies fall along the way. Good entertainment and above average for this type of film. Watch it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a better-than-average entry in the Saint series - It holds your interest and, as mysteries should, keeps you guessing until the end and has several suspects to choose from.

Many films from the Golden Age are not for all tastes, especially younger viewers. They date themselves by clothing, cars, settings, etc. Who nowadays asks for a highball? Or wears a suit and tie everywhere? And the legal process was so much simpler - must have been a dearth of lawyers back then. Frankly, much of value is missing from those days.

In any case, go with it and enjoy. It's good - in an old-fashioned sense.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This nifty little movie demonstrates the rock-solid virtues of a time, place and kind of masculine strength that we no longer have or even aspire to have. The Saint is a paladin with only the best motives, to say nothing of a polished vocabulary and diction. No need to turn up the volume or read the dialog. George Sanders is so charming and, yes, low-key that all that talent, smarts, physical presence and above all, masculinity, seem, well, almost normal. Some normal! George Clooney can not begin to master the scene as Mr. Sanders does (and does without Mr. Clooney's mugging).He could play a sniveler (witness The Ghost and Mrs. Muir and Rebecca) but when he was good, he was very, very good. Truly, a man for all reasons and seasons.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The above summary really isn't meant as a slam against this film, as the series followed a very similar format. As usual, Simon Templar (\"The Saint\") meets a lady in distress and comes to her aid. He also comes to the aid of a police detective who was framed of accepting a bribe. Along the way, he meets some interesting supporting characters (this time, Paul Guilfoyle as \"Pearly\" Gates) and during his unraveling of this not especially compelling mystery (none of them really are), Templar is extremely erudite and just plain cool! George Sanders is once again the consummate sophisticated British do-gooder and he succeeds once again in making an excellent B-detective series film. Nothing particularly special, but a familiar and breezy product sure to please fans of the genre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Saint Takes Over\" stars George Sanders as Simon Templar, aka \"The Saint\" in this 1940 entry into the series. It also stars Wendy Barrie, Jonathan Hale and Paul Guilfoyle. On board ship en route to the U.S., The Saint meets and tries to make time with a woman (Wendy Barrie) who gives him the brushoff. Simon is coming to New York to help Inspector Fernack, now thoroughly discredited due to a gangster frame-up; $50,000 was found in his home. The gangster, Rocky (Roland Drew), of course, was found not guilty at trial, and he and his fellow mobsters pay the bill for the frame and attorney representation - $90,000 in total. Today you need that to defend yourself against a parking ticket. This was a murder rap.

Rocky sends his bodyguard, Pearly Gates (Guilfoyle) to the lawyer's house to steal the $90,000 from the safe. The attorney catches him red-handed and sends him back to his boss with a message. Seconds later, he's dead. Rocky meets a similar fate. And on and on - who's killing this group of gangsters? The Saint has to get one of them to talk so that Fernack can be cleared - can he get to anyone before they're murdered? The woman he met on board ship reappears and figures prominently in the case.

Few actors have a way with a line like George Sanders, and his dry wit, good looks, smooth voice and depth as an actor suit Simon Templar perfectly. Paul Guilfoyle provides some humor as the nervous, milk drinking Pearly Gates, and Jonathan Hale is great as the sometimes exasperated but worried sick Inspector Fernack. Wendy Barrie, who appeared in many Saint episodes, is very good as the woman who captures Simon's heart.

Very enjoyable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"These cartoon writers are unrelenting with their corny (and fun) puns. The first shot we see in here is an island prison with the following written above its big gates: \"Alka-Fizz Prison - No Noose Is Good Noose.\" Inside the prison, the first sign we see is \"Welcome: have a seat.\" They then show an electric chair.

Corny gives way to clever, however, as our favorite wolf is seen behind bars. With pen in hand, he literally draws a door next to him and then escapes through it! In no time, he has criss-crossed the United States, zipped up through Canada and is in the northern part of that country. It's there we see the Canadian Royal Mounted Police and, of course, our hero Droopy, known here as \"Sgt. McPoodle.\" He has the assignment of catching the at-large criminal from Alka-Fizz. So, with his trusty little blue horse, he goes out in the heavy snow to track down the wanted wolf.

From that point, we get the normal story: Droopy always being a step ahead of the wolf, no matter what the latter does....and both characters are involved in some wild and very funny sight gags. Droopy even pops out of an eagle's egg on top of a mountain. There is nowhere the wolf can go - or do (plastic surgery!) to escape the intrepid \"Sgt. McPoodle.\" Nobody, by the way, in the history of cartoons perhaps has more exaggerated reactions, either, than this wolf each time he sees his nemesis! His screams, facial and body stretched out in horror each time is a big part of the sight gags.

You'd think this one-joke cartoon would get monotonous but it doesn't. It's more good stuff from Tex Avery and the gang, just one of 24 cartoons in the \"Complete Theatrical Collection\" DVD with wonderful-looking restored visuals.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Come on. Anyone who doesn't understand the greatness of this here cartoon should be kicked off any critic's panel. They should not be allowed to be heard, because they obviously have no sense of humor whatsoever.

Anyone who does not love this here animated cartoon directed by Tex Avery should be chained to a chair and forced to watch \"Huckleberry Hound\" episodes for 20 years straight!

The takes and double-takes by the Wolf in this cartoon are the finest examples of this important past of comedy that have ever been captured on film.

Tex Avery should receive a posthumous Academy Award for this cartoon. It's the best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This animated short is a remake of one of Tex Avery's earlier shorts for Fred Quimby at M-G-M (Dog Gone Tired). An escaped convict (here just known as Joe)who just broke out of 'Alka Fizz Prison' tries to keep one step ahead of Droopy (known here as Sgt.McPoodle of the Mounties),but always manages to run into him,one way or another. This is easily one of the most side splitting,funny shorts that rolled out of the M-G-M animation studio. It manages to get most of it's laughs from the shocked reactions Joe has whenever he encounters McPoodle (including some equally deranged sound effects-i.e..car horns,screaming,elephants,etc.). As with any Avery M-G-M short,frantic,kinetic pacing is to be expected (along with some nice, surreal sight gags-i.e.Joe trying to run away from McPoodle & actually running off the side of the film). Pop this one into your DVD player & laugh yourself silly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tex Avery's tenure as director of cartoons for MGM was in the 1940s and 50s was one of the brightest moments in cartoon history. His cartoons were exceptionally inventive and surreal with MANY weird touches that were later celebrated in the movie THE MASK. Eyes popping out when a guy sees a girl, impossible stunts and non-stop action were the trademarks of these films.

This is one of several Droopy cartoons that Avery was responsible for and it's among his best. Droopy is a Mountie and he is determined to get his man,...though in this case it's a wolf who has escaped from prison. Throughout the film, despite many insane stunts, Droopy keeps up with this crook until eventually the wolf gives up because Droopy is seemingly everywhere! Full of funny gags and loaded with laughs, this is a great cartoon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a strange atmosphere is being created in the streets and on the Golden Gate Bridge of San Francisco in this exciting action picture. Although the characters and the story are in fact bad, it still has a certain cult-flair.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm seen this documentary in its feature-form, in a movie theatre. And... wouah! The pictures are astonishing, one really wonder how by Jove did they manage to film those waves, those animals, those... is that a plant ? a predator ? a creature from the movie Abbyss ? Anyway, it's remarkable. Sure we've seen a lot of such documentary on TV, with weird animals and so on, but none with such a beauty, a precision, a deep emotion. The only downside is the commentary. In French it's narrated by Fran\u00e7ois Perrin, usually good and familiar with beautiful documentaries, but the text is not good at all. Not enough informative of too much, innapropriatly anthropoid...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The entire series, not just The Blue Planet, is nothing short of amazing. The best nature series we have ever seen. The episode on the deep is like traveling to outer space! We have watched this with our 10 and 7 year old boys and all four of us have not been able to pull away. We read a negative comment on this and could not believe it. There is so much new information that we never learned in school. Its also the best view we have seen from any television or movie into the delicate balance of our earth's eco-system. The amount of time and effort put into capturing these shots is very much apparent when you sit down and watch this series.

A must see for everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everything I can say, is that it's one of the best documentary movies of the ocean ever seen. It impresses immensely by professional filming, scenery and idea! What I've seen during those 50 minutes cannot be compared to any other visions of the blue planet","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An stunning look at the ocean and the life in it.

The Good:

The camera work was absolutely phenomenal. Every shot is done beautifully.

It was interesting seeing all the different animals that I could have never even imagined.

David Attenborough has the perfect narrator's voice. No one could have done any better.

The Bad:

There were one or two different times where there was a reference to the Earth being 1 million years old ( I hold a different belief).

Overall a TV series anyone can enjoy. I highly recommend buying it. 10\/10 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Blue Planet... Wow... Where do I begin? The years of hard work paid off in what is, without question, one of the best documentaries ever created.

The sights and sounds presented in Blue Planet, like most documentaries with the Attenborough stamp, are rare and haven't even experienced by most people. That alone should be enough reason to buy this series, especially if you're the curious type who 'wants to know'.

Blue Planet is not a perfect documentary, however. It does get a bit repetitive after the 3rd episode. How many ways can different sea creatures swim, kill, poo, mate, and lay eggs, and do all of these ways really need to be explored? But if you have a deep interest in sea life, this repetition shouldn't become a problem for you at all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didnt know what to expect . I only watched it on a rainy sunday afternoon on pay tv . Right from the start it drew me in . The music and settings and characters were excellent . I hadnt heard of any of the actors but they all were outstanding . A wonderful thriller .

Now that ive read other comments on this movie referring to past versions and the book , i will be endeavouring to find out more on this great movie","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The bad dreams always come back again like unwanted friends,\" says Marion Fairlie, who with her half-sister, Laura, lives in a vast mid-Victorian country estate. \"And last night I found myself in Limmeridge churchyard. Normally, people who are dead stay dead, just as normally it is the criminals who are locked up rather than the victims. But then, there was nothing normal about what happened to us...\" And we're off on a first-class Gothic story of madness, deception and villainy, based on Wilkie Collins' great novel of Victorian mystery. It's a good idea to pay close attention, because there are plots within plots, yet they all center on a cunning and ruthless scheme which involves, what else, money, lots of money.

Marion Fairlie (Tara Fitzgerald) and her sister, Laura Fairlie (Justine Wadell) are devoted to each other. Marion is fierce and protective; Laura is softer and much more romantic. Marion has no money of her own; Laura will inherit riches when she comes of age. Marion has no marriage prospects that we know of; Laura has been pledged sometime ago to Sir Percival Glyde (James Wilby), an altogether too charming aristocrat. They are the wards of their uncle, a fussy, condescending, immensely self-centered hypochondriac (Ian Richardson). All seems to be quite routine, but then a young artist, Walter Hartright (Andrew Lincoln), is engaged to teach them drawing and artistic appreciation. And when he arrives at night to the local train station, there is no carriage, so off he sets out on foot to the estate. In the dark woods he encounters a strange woman, dressed all in white, wandering about and speaking of things he does not understand, who then disappears. Are we uneasy? Yes, and so is he and the sisters when they come to realize the strange woman looks much like Laura. Later, does love emerge between Walter and Laura? Does a bud bloom? Is there a misunderstanding that sends Walter away and results in Laura marrying Sir Percival? Does a canker gnaw? And do secrets slowly come to light about the relationships among Laura, Marian and the woman in white...do we learn to be deeply suspicious of Sir Percival's intentions...do we come to enjoy the style and manners of Sir Percival's close friend, Count Fosco (Simon Callow)...and do we eventually realize the foul depths of depravity, as well as the power of honor and true love, that humanity is capable of? Do we visit Victorian insane asylums, see falls from high towers, dig open graves in the middle of the night and watch retribution arrive amidst the roaring flames of a locked church?

Well, of course, and it's a grand journey for us.

This BBC\/Masterpiece Theater program features fine acting and outstanding production values. To fit Collins' 500-plus-page novel into a television show of less than 120 minutes means a good deal had to be cut or abridged, and some changes were made most likely to achieve greater impact in the little time available. Still, taken on its own terms, the production of The Woman in White in my opinion works very well as a moody, romantic, dark television tale. Tara Fitzgerald as Marion gives a commanding performance as a woman determined to protect and then save her sister. James Wilby as Sir Percival manages the clever feat of slowly letting us see the depraved slime beneath the skin, who still has charm amidst the villainy. Ian Richardson as the young women's uncle almost steals the show. He gives such a bossy and pungent performance it almost unbalances the story every time he appears. Perhaps the weakest of the main parts is Simon Callow as Count Fosco. The Count is simply a monster, yet a supremely civilized and charming one. Collins described him as being of immense girth. Callow does a fine, mannered job of it, but to me he lacks a little of the monstrosity of evil.

At one point, Marian tells us, \"My sister and I are so fond of Gothic novels, we sometimes act as if we were in them.\" Little did she know what was in store for herself and Laura.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fate puts a pair of priceless items in Ernest's hands and he gets kidnapped and taken to Africa because of it. This was my first Ernest film so I can't compare it to his others, but I thought it was fairly amusing. Good stuff if you like slapstick humor and plain old clowning around.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jim Varney's performances as the Harem Girl and A.U. are amazingly funny--on a level surpassing Chaplin and Keaton. Linda Kash is great in her once-in-a-lifetime role as the hometown waffle waitress longing for adventure. Unfortunately, the remaining 90% of the movie was unwatchably bad due to the atrocious plot. The makers of Ernest Goes to Africa did not rise to the creative challenges inherent in low budget film production. Only worth seeing on cable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An Intelligent and well obtained film worth to export!

In this exiting and really intelligent movie filmed entirely in Bogot\u00e1, you can feel the total meaning of the word \"Bluff\"(although is a Colombian film, the title is in presented in English); !

The story is about Nicolas Andrade (Federico Lorusso), a photographer who find his girlfriend Margarita (Catalina Aristizabal) having an affair with his boss Pablo Mallarino (Victor Mallarino), owner of a magazine; after this Nicolas is left without girlfriend and without any job. Nicolas revenge to Mallarino consists in following him and obtaining photographs of him with his new affair Alexandra (Carolina Gomez) to blackmail Mallarino in order to obtain money in change for not showing the photographs to Margarita.

The story is really intelligent and well related, to the point that you'll understand fully the meaning of the title, the movie shows a thriller with a lot of a comic scenes and characters, resulting in a real pleasure to someone that enjoy the movies focused on a good script.

I stand out here that this film is different from the typical Colombian movies that show's some dark and violent image of our beautiful country, which is something really refreshing. Some critics say that this story don't show Colombian typical way of living, so it could be held in any part of the world, i disagree with this: (1) the movie is totally filmed in Bogot\u00e1, so you can see streets, and images of the real Colombian capital (i hope that some American people and movie producers watch this so they stop showing Amazonic jungle, or Mexican little towns in Bogota as on some Hollywood movies), (2) the characters, dialogs, accent (with exception from Nicolas that is from Argentina) are totally from here, Rosemary (Veronica Orozco) has an accent typical from Cali, (3) you can also see social and cultural differences from the common people in Bogot\u00e1. I hope that all this, plus an English title move people from other countries to watch this masterpiece of Martinez

Excellent acting of Veronica Orozco, Luis Eduardo Arango (detective Wilson Montes), Felipe Botero, outstanding as detective Ricardo Perez, and good acting of Mallarino, Catalina Aristizabal and Federico Lorusso.

A movie worth to export, that people from around the globe will surely understand and enjoy!, Don't miss this movie 9\/10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I actually went to see this movie with low expectations since it was the only one that fit my schedule. And amazingly I found it really original. I have commented on other Colombian films before, and I agree that Colombian movies tend to have a similar scheme, and always try to make reference to the average vulgar people,especially trying to make jokes out of the continuous cursing. But let's face it, the language used in this film is not especially exaggerated. Unfortunately, this is how real people speak. The storyline and the pacing are brilliant, and it could be extrapolated to any country in the world The acting was great, and the script is to me one of the best ones ever produced in Colombian soil. I think that anyone around the globe can get a good one hour and a half of entertainment, with a beautifully well directed bluffing black humor comedy. It kind of reminded me of films like snatch, and others of the sort. I highly recommend it and hope it can be viewed by more people, since Colombian movies seem to have started to be more internationally focused since last year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bluff I really think this movie is very good.

Is basic a different kind of Colombian movie. Is hilarious and the actors uses local expressions that are so much fund to listen.

It shows a different face o Bogot\u00e1 and I think that's very important because Colombia is a diverse country and we need to show that to the world This is the first movie of the director Felipe Martinez and I really except this movie will be the beginning of a great career as a film director.

We need to continue support Colombian filming industry, because this movie and others good films are the beginning of something big.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Bluff' has been showing for a good few months at movie theatres in Bogota, and today I finally got round to seeing it. I didn't really know what to expect at all, but was very happily surprised. It is a crime comedy of the same ilk as Snatch etc, and it manages to nicely balance elements of suspense with comedy. The style of the film is established early on with cheerful music and the Argentinean narrator who makes asides direct to camera -- odd the first time, but subsequently fitting naturally.

With my less-than-perfect Spanish, I still found the plot and dialogue easy enough to follow, and plenty of the comedy is situational. My Colombian girlfriend was laughing a lot at the various portrayals of people from different regions and social classes which did pass me by somewhat, but for instance a well-acted portrayal of a pompous idiot in a position of power is funny in any language.

I think it is to this film's credit that it has something of a global flavour: I wasn't often reminded that this was Colombia that I was watching. Yet it is important to note that many wealthy Bogotanos do live like some of the characters in this film, and it is not a mis-portrayal of Bogota or Colombian society in any way, just a *selective* portrayal -- as is any film supposedly portraying a 'real' situation\/culture.

I don't know how much of the comedy would be lost in subtitles, but if it comes to your country definitely go check it out: it is a very slick and enjoyable movie with great elements of black humour. And all in a tightly packaged 90 minutes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is one to spend the short while, entertainment, but who then could be made in nobody country it does not have anything identifies \"the Colombian\". Who looks for the topics of the supposed Colombian or socially and politically correct cinema and what it is denominated \"it jeopardize\",it is better than it is not going to see this film. Some to the drug traffic, or the fight is no reference either farmer and worker, or wing guerrilla and to the kidnapping political.

The corrupt police is a personage who it could be Mexican, Russian, Italian or Chinese, and also the personage protagonist, an Argentine photographer, it could be Venezuelan, Peruvian or Philippine and the frequent \"boludo\" in its parliaments it could be replaced by another word of slang of any other country without the personage or history changes. The important thing is that it is a very decently counted history with images and right performances. Its quality almost is of TV movie but of the good ones. That if one film like this if it deserves or does not deserve the support with publics bottoms a little is a classic discussion \"mamerta\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hallelujah!!!! \u0085Finally, a true Colombian film crosses the border(s) to shows how Bogot\u00e1 and Colombia really are! I am an American of Colombian and French heritage sick and tired of seeing Colombia so perversely and ignorantly portrayed by Hollywood and others.

How many of you are aware that Colombia is the second oldest, uninterrupted democracy in the world (after the USA), or that it has a vibrant film and television industry (-to say nothing of Ugly Betty), that it's capital, Bogota (Pop. 9 Million) is the \"world Capital of the Book,\" or that this beautiful city is host to the world's LARGEST International Theatre Festival? I hope that Doug Liman, Simon Kinberg (-Mr. & Mrs. Smith), Robert Zemeckis, Diane Thomas (Romancing the Stone) one day visit Bogot\u00e1, to see how wonderful it really is, and focus on Bogot\u00e1's cultural vitality and diversity, instead of myopically producing films such as Maria Full of Grace from which Joshua Marston profited greatly (for this terrific film) without ever thinking-through about the ontological damage his film would help to perpetuate upon the \"unfairly tarnished image\" of Colombia.

-Anyway, you will at least enjoy Bluff very much! -Oh, and thanks IMDb for your invaluable\/great work!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"When I die, someone will bury me. And if they don't, what's the difference. Who gives a damn, huh?\" Thus the philosophy of life (or lack there of) is summed up once and for all in this less than classic but nevertheless fun spinoff of Sergio Leone's \"Dollars Trilogy.\"

In the opening scene, three obviously evil gunmen ride into a western town and, with menacing glares, they intimidate all the pathetic normal people hiding in their homes. The observant watcher will notice that each of these three bears a striking resemblance to characters from Leone's For A Few Dollars More. There is one guy in Eastwood's poncho, one in Lee Van Cleef's black suit, and one seeming to act like Gian Marie Volonte's Indio. But this movie is not about these guys. No sooner do they ride into town when they are gunned down by someone even cooler than they, a mysterious bounty hunter known simply as the Stranger.

No. this is an altogether different story.

In an obvious copying of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, three gunmen are again vying for a hidden treasure. Once again there is the bounty hunter and the Mexican bandit. The Stranger (George Hilton) is a supercool bounty hunter with a penchant for shooting people while dressed up like a priest. He is after the reward for the bandit Monetero (Gilbert Roland). But when Monetero's gang steals three hundred thousand in gold coins, the Stranger gets sidetracked from his normal line of work.

To round off the trio there is Edd Byrne's corrupt bank executive, Clayton. He too wants the money for himself. But after the money is hidden away, the only man who knows where it is gets shot. Now the only clue to the hiding place is a medallion that shows a family crest. The game is too find the treasure before anyone else does. And any gun can play.

With plenty of gunfights, fist fights, and double crosses, the action takes these three to the ultimate showdown ripoff, a three way draw for the hidden treasure ala The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- but with a twist.

This movie is not as good as Leone's films, of course, but in the end who gives a damn, huh? This movie is fun -- 60s nihilism, spaghetti western style. There are no rules, no enduring loyalties, and no right or wrong -- just the treasure and whatever it takes to get it. And, though the movie is not classic, the ending surely is. Hey, maybe we all can get along after all, for a hundred thousand a piece.

If you like spaghetti westerns, check this one out. It is fast, furious, and worth the look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"- A group of bandits rob a train of the gold shipment it is carrying. In their escape, the bandits split up. The one thief who knows where the gold is hidden is killed before he is able to talk. Three men have a different part of the \"clue\" that will lead to the gold. Can the banker, the bandit, and the bounty hunter work together to locate the missing loot? Or, will they kill each other first? - The plot is an obvious take-off of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Various scenes in the movie are also lifted from other films by Leone, Corbucci, and more. But, to me, it's done in a way that doesn't show disrespect to the original work. Instead, Any Gun Can Play lovingly parodies some of the biggest films in Spaghetti Western history. The opening scene of three men riding into town and the final face-off between the three main stars are a wonderful homage to the SWs that came before.

- Castellari adds a lot of nice touches of his own - the reflection in the spilled wine, the Stranger's entrance with the vivid red background, and the playful way the gold is discovered in the end. Although highly unbelievable, many of the fight scenes are well staged and directed. Two fight scenes in particular (the market fight and the bath house fight) are very nicely done. He is also unafraid to try different things with his camera. Tight close-ups, overhead shots, and shots around corners are all common in Any Gun Can Play.

- Another plus is the cast that Castellari had to work with. George Hilton is always good in these movies. Gilbert Roland is literally playing Gilbert Roland. And SW newcomer Edd Byrnes holds his own with the two SW veterans. The supporting cast features, among others, SW regular Gerard Herter.

- Any Gun Can Play should not be taken too seriously. Nice touches of humor can be found throughout the movie. If this is possible with an SW, it's more of a \"feel good\" movie - very reminiscent of some of the Terence Hill \/ Bud Spencer films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Leonard Maltin gave this film a dreaded BOMB rating in his 1995 Movie and Video Guide. What film was he looking at? Kid Vengeance or God's Gun are bombs. This film is a delight. It is fantastic. It is literate. It is well mounted. It is beautiful photographed, making a brilliant use of colors. Right from the opening scene the film grabs your attention and tips you off that this film is a well-done satire of the whole Spaghetti Western genre. The film is played for laughs from the beginning to the end with homages to Douglas Fairbanks, 77 Sunset Strip, and the famous showdown in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Edd Byrnes, George Hilton, and Gilbert Roland work brilliantly together to make the satire work. It is too bad Mr. Maltin rated this film so poorly as it is undeserved. One can only guess as to his reason. I suspect that he missed the point of the movie entirely and was expecting something more serious than this film is meant to be. Kudos belong to everyone involved in this project. This film is a little gem waiting to be discovered by people who care about literate movies and appreciate satire.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"George Hilton never really grabs me like Franco Nero or Clint Eastwood, but this is a great outing for him. Basically rippin off the Django\/man With No Name and doing a damn good job. The opening sequence of this gem is a classic, and the cat n mouse games that follow are a delight to watch. Fans of the genre will be in heaven.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"When I die, someone will bury me. And if they don't, what's the difference. Who gives a damn, huh?\" Thus the philosophy of life (or lack there of) is summed up once and for all in this less than classic but nevertheless fun spin off of Sergio Leone's \"Dollars Trilogy.\" In the opening scene, three obviously evil gunmen ride into a western town and, with menacing glares, they intimidate all the pathetic normal people hiding in their homes. The observant watcher will notice that each of these three bears a striking resemblance to characters from Leone's For A Few Dollars More. There is one guy in Eastwood's poncho, one in Lee Van Cleef's black suit, and one seeming to act like Gian Marie Volonte's Indio. But this movie is not about these guys. No sooner do they ride into town when they are gunned down by someone even cooler than they, a mysterious bounty hunter known simply as the Stranger.

No. this is an altogether different story.

In an obvious copying of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, three gunmen are again vying for a hidden treasure. Once again there is the bounty hunter and the Mexican bandit. The Stranger (George Hilton) is a supercool bounty hunter with a penchant for shooting people while dressed up like a priest. He is after the reward for the bandit Monetero (Gilbert Roland). But when Monetero's gang steals three hundred thousand in gold coins, the Stranger gets sidetracked from his normal line of work.

To round off the trio there is Edd Byrne's corrupt bank executive, Clayton. He too wants the money for himself. But after the money is hidden away, the only man who knows where it is gets shot. Now the only clue to the hiding place is a medallion that shows a family crest. The game is too find the treasure before anyone else does. And any gun can play.

With plenty of gunfights, fist fights, and double crosses, the action takes these three to the ultimate showdown ripoff, a three way draw for the hidden treasure ala The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- but with a twist.

This movie is not as good as Leone's films, of course, but in the end who gives a damn, huh? This movie is fun -- 60s nihilism, spaghetti western style. There are no rules, no enduring loyalties, and no right or wrong -- just the treasure and whatever it takes to get it. And, though the movie is not classic, the ending surely is. Hey, maybe we all can get along after all, for a hundred thousand a piece.

If you like spaghetti westerns, check this one out. It is fast, furious, and worth the look. My name is Evren Buyruk from Crestline California","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A gang of bandits lead by the shrewd, rugged, ruthless Monetero (a perfectly imposing performance by Gilbert Roland) steals $300,000 worth of gold coins during a daring train robbery. But untrustworthy member Bahunda (an amusing turn by Jose Torres) makes off with the coins and hides them. Unfortunately, Bahunda gets killed before he can tell Monetero where he stashed the booty. So Monetero has to join forces with cunning, cocky, enigmatic bounty hunter the Stranger (smoothly played by the handsome George Hilton) and cagey, corrupt banker Clayton (a delightfully weaselly portrayal by 50's teen idol Eddie \"Kookie\" Burns) to find the coins. Skillfully directed by Enzo G. Castellari, with a clever, complex and twist-laden script by Castellari, Tito Carpi, and Giovanni Simonelli, a playfully amoral and nihilistic tone (everyone keeps double and triple crossing each other with happily greedy abandon), a twangy, flavorsome, spirited score by Alessandro Alessandroni and Francesco De Masi, plenty of stirring shoot-outs and rousing rough'n'tumble fisticuffs, a wickedly sly sense of self-mocking humor, a steady pace, and a real doozy of a surprise ending, this giddy and often hilarious feature makes for an inspired send-up of Sergio Leone's \"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.\" Popping up in nifty secondary parts are the luscious Stefanie Careddu as Monetero's fiery gal pal Marisol, Ivano Staccioli as a hard-nosed army captain, and Gerard Herter as flinty lawman Lawrence Blackman. An immensely amusing and enjoyable romp.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This enjoyable Euro-western opens with a scene that predates a similar scene that Sergio Leone wanted to shoot for \"Once Upon A Time in the West\" but couldn't persuade Clint Eastwood to appear in. Three tough-looking gunfighters ride into a town. One is dressed like the Man with No Name in a poncho. Another is dressed like Colonel Mortimer from \"For A Few Dollars More,\" and the third is garbed like Django, except he rides a horse instead of pulls a coffin behind him with a machine gun in it. Our hero meets them in Main Street behind a wagon loaded with three coffins. \"Any Gun Can Play\" is a spaghetti western with an in-joke on spaghetti westerns since the hero here wipes out the three killers. Aside from a little too much comedy, especially in the acrobatic fight sequences, this is an above-average oater.

The notorious Mexican outlaw Montero (Gilbert Roland of \"Barbarosa\") and his gang of trigger-happy pistoleros rob an army train transporting $300-thousand dollars in gold coins across the frontier. Director Enzo G. Castellari of \"Inglorious Bastards\" stages the hold up from a variety of camera angles that thrust you into the forefront of the action. The bandits seize the locomotive along with the coach carrying the gold and separate it from the rest of the train that houses the U.S. Cavalry. While Montero and his gunmen keep the Cavalry pinned down, Pajondo (Pedro Sanchez of \"Sabata\") commandeers the locomotive, kills the engineer and his crew and trundles it away, leaving the other pistoleros behind to fend for themselves. Essentially, Pajondo double-crosses Montero and steals the gold for himself. Later, Montero catches up with Pajondo at the Rio Grande. Before the bandit can reveal the whereabouts of the loot to Montero, however, a Cavalry sergeant shoots Pajondo dead. Before he dies, Pajondo tells Montero about a medallion that serves as a clue about where he stashed the treasure. The irate Cavalry captain (Ivano Staccioli of \"Commandos\") imprisons Montero, but he cannot loosen the bandit's tongue even after he uses his whip on him. Infuriated by Montero's reticence, the captain threatens to have the Mexican shot if he doesn't talk. Meanwhile, the jailers let a priest speak to Montero, but he really isn't a priest. The six-gun toting Stranger (George Hilton of \"The Ruthless Four\") masquerades as a man of the cloth and rescues Montero from a firing squad. Unfortunately, before Montero is rescued, Clayton (Edd Byrnes of TV's \"77 Sunset Strip\") takes the medallion away from him and keeps it for himself. Clayton is the bank representative that was sent to safeguard the gold. He is horrified that the Captain wants to shoot Montero. Clayton's career at the bank hinges on his ability to recover the gold. The Stranger stages a fire at the fort to distract the firing squad and Montero takes the Captain as hostage and tries to escape, but the Stranger shoots him off the horse. Before the authorities can verify that Montero is dead, the Stranger claims the body for the handsome reward he will receive and he rides out with the Captain's gracious thanks. No sooner have they left the fort than Montero's men show up to rescue him from the Stranger. From this point on, the Stranger, Montero, and Clayton forge short-lived alliances among each other as they search for the gold. Castellari and scenarist Tito Carpi, who has penned a number of spaghetti westerns such as \"A Few Dollars For Django\" and another Castellari oater \"Seven Winchesters for a Massacre,\" rely on clever humor and surprise reversals to keep the action fresh and fast-paced. One cool scene has Clayton seated at a table about to eat his meal when he hears some suspicious sounds from behind him. Clayton pours his drink on the table and sees the gunmen behind him with holstered six-guns.

\"Any Gun Can Play\" lives up to its title. In fact, many guns do play, and at least twenty or more corpses pile up before fade-out. This western isn't so much a parody as it is a knock-off of Sergio Leone's \"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.\" Mind you, bad guys and good guys fall as frequently as ten-pins in a bowling alley, but their deaths aren't depicted in the brutal fashion of a Leone western. \"Any Gun Can Play\" doesn't take itself as seriously as the aforementioned Leone masterpiece. The three leads jockey back and forth for supremacy. Each has a piece of the puzzle that will lead them to the treasure, but they refuse to share their information until the shoot'em up finale. Lenser Giovanni Bergamini's colorful widescreen photography is spectacular, especially the opening shots of the train chuffing along railway tracks with distant mountain peaks rearing up dramatically in the background. Another great shot occurs when Montero tests the Stranger's imperturbable calm. This scene happens after the Stranger has rescued Montero and the Mexican's minions arrive to save their chieftain's bacon. Confiscating the Stranger's six-gun, Montero takes aim at the poncho-clad tough guy and empties the revolver, placing his well-aimed bullets harmlessly in and around the unflinching gunslinger. Bergamini, who photographed Castellari's World War II thriller \"Inglorious Bastards,\" frames the scene with the Stranger in the background and his pistol in Montero's hand in the foreground for a pleasing, three-dimensional style shot. Meanwhile, Francesco De Masi's lively orchestral soundtrack is as memorable for its own idiosyncratic melodies as Ennio Morricone's soundtracks were for the Leone westerns. The opening song is reminiscent of a 1950's Hollywood western with its catchy lyrics and guitar riffs. Although it isn't a major spaghetti western, \"Any Gun Can Play\" is always entertaining nonsense with interesting plot twists and good performances, especially the indefatigable Gilbert Roland who was 62 years old at the time!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A train holding union soldiers is transporting $300,000 of gold, along with a banker Clayton, who's there to see it reaches its destination, but it's suddenly robbed by the bandit Monetero. However Bahunda nicks off with the gold and hides it, but when Monetero tries to get it out of him, he's killed by soldiers. The only clue is that of a medallion, but Monetero is captured and soon would be executed. A stranger dressed up as a priest comes by (who after the bounty of Monetero) and offers to save his life for half of the gold. In exchange Monetero gives him half of the medallion, but Clayton notices it and discovers something is up. Soon all three are crossing each other for the gold, but also the bank's insurance company and Monetero's gang are watching on, waiting for their chance to pounce.

Just watching the opening sequence you'll know you're in for a spaghetti western with a tongue-in-cheek style and a reliance of sprinkling many references (some nicely realised) from other films (largely the Dollar trilogy) of its sub-genre. Director Enzo Castellari's sprightly direction is sprawling and mostly lightweight, but there's potential in many of his grand, showy set pieces and smooth rhythmic pace. Largely there's a lot of tussles, fist-fights (and plenty of acrobatic stunts) taking place, compared with all-out vicious shootouts. However most of these stunts are very well done, and very enjoyable and when the guns are blazing there's energy to burn. The traditional story sticks close to conventional details, but since there's a lot of conniving and outfoxing going on, the spontaneous nature makes sure you're never quite certain how it's eventually going to play out between the three. This leads up to many effective suspenseful moments, clever twists, and plenty of wink, wink. The humour within the starch script is pretty sly. Worked in favourably amongst the light and zesty style, is Giovanni Bergamini's dynamically taut framing and Francesco De Masi's impulsively rousing music score. The performances are extremely well tailored and form a striking rapport. George Hilton's wry and scuffed turn is solid as the ambiguous stranger. Gilbert Roland brings class and intelligence to his formidable Mexican bandit Monetero. Edd Byrnes gives a poised performance as Clayton, that holds up well. Kareen O'Hara doesn't get much to do, but is a worthy looker. Gerard Herter, Pedro Sanchez and Ivano Staccioli provide able support.

A fun and worthy spaghetti parody\/homage that throws one curve-ball after another and many fruitful down 'n' dirty antics.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Any Gun Can Play\" (1967), directed by Enzo G. Castellari, is a very good pastiche of Spaghetti Westerns, especially Leone's. The first half is great, which, apart from the opening which is a direct nod to \"For a Few Dollars More\", with Monco, Colonel Douglas Mortimer and El Indio lookalikes walking into a ghost-town and then promptly killed by a Bounty Hunter called \"The Stranger\", is entirely serious, with great gunfights (especially the train-robbing scene), fast and furious action and nice performances from Gilbert Roland, George Hilton and (who manages well, considering that he is badly miscast) Edd Byrnes. But then, when the film reaches the half-way mark, there is a jokey fist-fight between Hilton and Byrnes. It isn't very funny, and is the weakest part of the film, but it throws everything you have seen previously in a new light. You realise that in fact the whole thing is a spoof of Spaghetti Western conventions, and in retrospect, the first half is so well done that you completely miss this spoof undercurrent. What now follows is a more obvious parody, with even some acrobatic jumping around from Brynes that predates all those seventies Circus Westerns. The ending, a complete send-up of \"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly\" climax, is very well done, as in other hands it could have been very silly. So, a pretty fun Spaghetti Western, that doesn't take itself too seriously. I would recommend it to anyone who likes Spaghetti Westerns.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bounty killer George Hilton, smooth Mexican bandit Gilbert Roland (who's great), and bank representative Edd Byrnes each try to outwit one-another while searching for a large amount of gold from one of Roland's train robberies that was hidden by a treacherous member of his gang.

Though not the greatest that the genre has to offer, It's still breezy enough with a lot of light-hearted, action-filled fun and a satisfying finale.

Any Gun Can Play is mainly remembered for it's opening gag where George Hilton easily guns down three outlaws resembling Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Django.

The next year, Hilton and Roland were reunited alongside Van Heflin and Klaus Kinski in the highly recommended The Ruthless Four.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based to some extent on writers, David Croft and Jimmy Perry's, own experiences as Butlins Holiday Camp entertainers in the UK during the same timescale the programme follows, \"Hi-De-Hi!\" epitomises the 'slapstick, postcard humour\" of post-war Britain. Set in the fictitious seaside town of Crimpton-on-Sea, \"Hi-De-Hi\" chronicles the comedic goings on within the Maplins Holiday Camp - one of many dotted along the British coast owned by the mega-rich, but never seen (on screen) Joe Maplin.

Although the actual show began in 1980 with the pilot episode and ran until 1988 when the BBC deemed it too tame for it's cutting edge comedy department, seasons 1-5 focused on 1959 while seasons 6-9 spotlighted 1960 - a time when the old style British Holiday Camp began to fall into decline. During the first 5 seasons, Jeffrey Fairbrother (played brilliantly by the late, great Simon Cadell) was the camp's entertainment manager; a well meaning, yet slightly pensive ex-university professor breaking free of his upper class background and venturing into the \"real\" world to head his team of entertainment staff who were in stark contrast to his own laid-back personality. From season 6 onwards, Fairbrother was replaced by Clive Dempster (played by David Griffin when Cadell quit the show at the height of it's popularity), an ex-RAF war hero who, in many ways, was similar to Cadell's character in background, but more a scoundrel than a gentleman.

However, the real stars of \"Hi-De-Hi\" throughout the nine seasons were Ted Bovis (played superbly by Paul Shane), a stereotypical working class, ale drinking, bawdy comic - someone who could never resist an opportunity to fiddle the campers; Gladys Pugh (played by Ruth Madoc who's currently experiencing a career comeback with appearances in the hit BBC Comedy, \"Little Britain\"), chief Yellowcoat (what the entertainment staff were called because of their bright yellow jackets) and sports organiser - but more importantly, the one person who saved Jeffrey Fairbrother and Clive Dempster from embarrassment by covering up their inexperience in running a holiday camp; Peggy Ollerenshaw (Su Pollard), the slightly dopey, yet lovable lowly chalet maid with a burning ambition to become a Yellowcoat, and Spike Dixon (Jeffrey Holland), Ted's innocent prot\u00e9g\u00e9 learning more about 'show business' than he hoped for.

As usual with a Croft & Perry production, the assembled cast of characters were a bunch of misfits played superbly by the actors involved. Mr. Partridge (played by the late Leslie Dwyer, who was in his 70's by the time he left the show), the alcoholic child-hating children's entertainer; Fred Quilly (Felix Bowness), a former champion jockey with a dubious past; Yvonne & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves (Dianne Holland & Barry Howard), the snobbish former ballroom dancing champions who were in the twilight of their careers; and Sylvia and Betty (Nikki Kelly and Rikki Howard), the two main girl Yellowcoats who were always looking for the type of fun Joe Maplin would never allow in one of his camps.

\"Hi-De-Hi\" typified the slapstick era of the late 50s with it's saucy and, to a certain degree, vulgar \"tongue-in-cheek\" humour (jokes about people sitting on toilets and anecdotes about 'women with big knockers' were the order of the day). But despite it's whiff of \"Carry On\" funniness, it was always so innocent and became something of recommended family viewing back in the 80's. Of course, the critics of the show remarked that the show had outstayed it's welcome by a good couple of years, but I disagree. While the early seasons focused mainly on bawdiness and slapstick humour, the latter series of \"Hi-De-Hi\" saw more thought put into the scripts and the main characters (especially Spike Dixon & Gladys Pugh) were able to grow with more sensitive story lines. That said, there were a few criticisms of the show. Clive Dempster was no Jeffrey Fairbrother, and the former didn't quite have the on-screen chemistry with Gladys as Jeffrey did (I personally think it would've been more believable if Gladys had married Jeff); five seasons dedicated to 1959 and four to 1960 caused more than just a few continuity errors (the disappearance of old faces and introductions of new characters weren't explained properly, especially with the Yellowcoats who came and went with much regularity; and the character of Gladys Pugh, who, in the pilot episode was made out to be a free-loving man-eater that was suddenly transformed into a naive virgin like character! Also to mention quite pedantically, most of the 1959 holiday season was covered in season one, so to stretch the rest of the year out in five further series was something bordering unbelievable. Still, the show wasn't meant to be meticulously looked upon, and the comedy more than outweighed it's flaws.

All in all, \"Hi-De-Hi\" was probably one of the last comedies from the BBC's golden period, and even if it never managed to rival such British comedic mainstays as \"Only Fools & Horses\", \"Porridge\" or even \"Last Of The Summer Wine\", \"Hi De Hi\" will be best remembered as a comedy the whole family could enjoy. If you haven't already checked it out for yourself, I implore you to do so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I get really fed up with sitcoms; you feel you always know what is coming so it ceases to be funny. On the other hand, Hi De Hi, you rarely know what is coming and it's laugh out loud funny. I have just purchased the second set of the series, (series 3 -4)and I am surprised at just how much I am enjoying it all - again. I have nothing but praise for the writers or the actors (or the many unseen crew members) because the entertainment they provide is well worth the wait. The gems that have come from this series and the respect that the actors achieved through it speak for themselves. Croft and Perry created some pure gold some of which shines through Hi De Hi.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I very nearly did not see 'Hi-De-Hi!'. I think it must have been the title that put me off. In those days, the Welsh language editions of 'The Radio Times' only used to print titles of certain shows without imparting a scrap of information as to what they were actually about. 'Hi-De-Hi!' suggested to me a bad quiz show hosted by Leslie Crowther or worse an inane U.S. import. But I managed to catch a later episode, and was surprised to find it written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft.

As was the case with 'Dad's Army' and 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum', Perry based it on personal experiences, in this case his time at a Butlins' holiday camp. Before cheap air travel came along in the '60's, these camps sprang up along British coastlines, providing entertainment for working class families and earning millions for their owners.

( As a matter of interest, I worked in one such camp in the '80's as a chef - Barry Island, South Wales - known to all and sundry as 'Shag Land' for reasons I won't go into! )

Set in the late '50's, it began with university academic Jeffrey Fairbrother ( Simon Cadell ) taking over as the entertainments manager of Maplin's, a job he was ill equipped to handle. His staff included resident comic Ted Bovis ( Paul Shane ), his sidekick Spike ( Jeffrey Holland ), miserable Punch and Judy man Mr.Partridge ( Leslie Dwyer ), snobby ballroom dancers Barry ( Barry Howard ) and Yvonne Stuart-Hargreaves ) Diane Holland ), and the unforgettable Gladys Pugh ( Ruth Madoc ), who lusted after Fairbrother at every opportunity. Bubbly Su Pollard stole the show though as cleaner Peggy Ollerenshaw, whose driving ambition was to be a 'Yellowcoat' ( all the important staff members wore them ). A number of sexy girls occupied these coats too, most notably Nikki Kelly's 'Sylvia' and statuesque Rikki Howard's 'Betty'. We never saw Joe Maplin, the owner. He communicated to his staff in the form of ungrammatical missives, which poor Jeffrey was forced to read aloud. \"Hi-De-Hi!\" was the campers' greeting, usually met with the equally inane 'Ho-De-Ho!.

One fan was the late Sir Fred Pontin, who told Perry and Croft that he recognised most of the characters from real life.

I always found Bovis the most convincing of these as well as the most tragic, like Archie Rice he was the comedian whose big break never came, reduced to cracking corny gags for the amusement of drunken late-night audiences. He took advantage of his position to indulge in a few perks, and in one memorable episode Fairbrother's patience snapped and he sounded him out: \"Lies, Ted! All lies!\".

As with every other Perry\/Croft series, the cast were excellent, particularly Cadell and Shane. Ruth Madoc's prissy 'Gladys' got on my nerves ( no wonder Anne Robinson hates the Welsh! ), but Leslie Dwyer's misanthropic 'Mr.Partridge' and Felix Bowness' jockey 'Fred Qulley' more than compensated.

The visual gag everyone remembers is drunken Mr.Partridge spotting a pantomime horse riding a real one along the beach. Looking at the bottle of whiskey in his hand, he decides to stick with it and instead throws away the banana he had been eating!

With its frothy blend of '50's nostalgia and saucy gags, 'Hi-De'Hi' was a big hit for B.B.C.-1 in the '80's, resulting in a massive increase in bookings for Butlins and Pontins. It went downhill when Cadell left to return to the theatre though. I never took to his replacement, Squadron Leader Clive Dempster ( David Griffin ). Worse, Leslie Dwyer's death robbed the show of one of its best characters. Kenneth Connor was brought in to replace him as 'Uncle Sammy'.

The period setting occasionally caused problems; in one episode, Sylvia and Betty had to dive into the pool to rescue Peggy who for some reason was dressed as a shark. The revealing costumes they wore were wrong for that era. Still they looked great in them so who's complaining? In another, Ted sang the Tom Jones hit 'Delilah' to campers. It was not composed ( by Les Reed and Barry Mason, incidentally ) until 1968.

Maplins closed its doors in 1988, and the last shot was that of Peggy ( now a Yellowcoat ) all alone in the camp, jumping into the air and shouting ( what else? ) 'Hi-De-Hi!'.

I don't rate it as highly as Perry and Croft's other shows but its popularity is undeniable. It was probably one of the last British sitcoms to generate tremendous public affection, mainly because it featured likable characters in a recognisable setting. Goodnight campers!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having reviewed 3 of the 4 Perry and Croft sitcoms, I thought I would get them all done now. Dads Army, is my all time favourite sitcom, It ain't half hot Mum is also a classic as is You Rang M'Lord. I don't regard Hi De Hi as a classic, but it is still funny.

It's about a holiday camp, similar to Butlins, but instead of red coats, it's yellow coats. It is ran by Jeffery Fairbrother, a well meaning man, but has the personality of a sock. The staff include fun entertainment manager Ted, his sidekick Spike (he ended up being thrown in the swimming pool nearly every episode), yellow coat Gladys, careless maid Peggy who longed to be a yellow coat and the Punch and Judy man Mr Partridge who hates kids. Situations occurred mostly round the swimming pool, where someone would be thrown in every episode (with there clothes on of course).

Not a classic, but still funny. Jeffery Fairbrother left half way through, so this, a bit like Only Fools and Horses, outstayed its welcome. Jimmy Perry was actually a red coat at Butlins.

Best Episode: Peggy's Big Chance, series 2, episode 2.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A cranky police detective suspects a French duke of being the infamous thief ARS\u00c8NE LUPIN.

John & Lionel Barrymore costarred together for the first time in a motion picture in this intriguing crime drama. Alike and yet so different, they are the perfect counterpoint to each other. John plays his role with suave sophistication (when not in disguise) and Lionel is earthy & common in his portrayal, each obviously having a wonderful time trying to out act the other. Helped by a generous script, the outcome is pretty much a draw, with the viewer the clear winner.

Although upstaged by the two male stars, Karen Morley is intriguing as the mystery woman John finds naked in his bed. Tully Marshall gives a colorful performance as a silly nobleman with much to lose to the master criminal. Henry Armetta & George Davis are very enjoyable as two seriously inept security guards. John Miljan provides a sturdy presence in his small role as the police prefect.

Movie mavens will recognize an uncredited Mischa Auer as a guide in the Louvre during the climactic scene dealing with an attempted heist of the Mona Lisa.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Believe it or not, the Mona Lisa actually got stolen once, and was missing for nearly two years. In 1911, Leonardo da Vinci's 'La Gioconda' (better known as the Mona Lisa) was taken from the Louvre by a petty thief (and former Louvre employee) who allegedly sought to return the world's most famous piece of art to its native Italy. His actions after the theft make it seem more likely that he intended to sell the painting for his personal profit. (Of course, he had no hope of finding a buyer.) The Mona Lisa was quietly returned to the Louvre on the very last day of 1913, remaining there ever since except for occasional loan-outs. When \"Ars\u00e8ne Lupin\" was released in 1932 (twenty years after the theft), most moviegoers would have recalled that 1911 crime, and their knowledge would have lent some plausibility to this movie. \"Ars\u00e8ne Lupin\" is quite enjoyable, with MGM's usual high production standards and Jack Conway's usual briskly efficient direction. This movie does not lack for pleasure; what it lacks is plausibility.

John Barrymore is the master criminal of the title: he specialises in perpetrating 'impossible' crimes, which he makes even more difficult by announcing them in advance ... but of course he always commits the crime and fools the gendarmes. Tully Marshall has a good scene as one of Barrymore's victims. Lupin has a penchant for elaborate disguises, which enables Barrymore (a U.S. 'Grade A' ham) to indulge his own penchant for tomfoolery. John's older brother Lionel Barrymore is Guerchard, the Javert-like Surete detective sworn to catch Lupin.

Karen Morley was an extremely beautiful actress whose private life was filled with populist political activities; on screen, she was most impressive in working-class roles that fitted her own political beliefs (such as her fine performance in 'Our Daily Bread'). In \"Ars\u00e9ne Lupin\", Morley's naturally dark hair is bleached a horrid blonde tone, and she's all tarted up in posh outfits that make her look uncomfortable rather than sexy.

SPOILERS COMING. Eventually, Lupin decides to steal the Mona Lisa from the Louvre. He slits the painting from its frame, rolls up the canvas, and then smuggles it out in a flower basket. We see John Barrymore casually brandishing a tightly-rolled piece of cloth which is allegedly the greatest work of art in all human history. I had to laugh at the filmmakers' error. In real life (but not in this movie), da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa on a plank of poplar wood, so a thief would have difficulty rolling it up!

Eventually, Guerchard captures Lupin and hauls him off to Le Calaboose. The scene between John and Lionel Barrymore in the police car is sheer delight, as their genuine affection for each other spills out into their characters' dialogue. I would have found this scene implausible with any two other actors. As it is, I can't imagine anyone but the Barrymore brothers playing these roles. Well, maybe Dennis and Randy Quaid, but just barely.

Don't look for a good plot line here, but \"Ars\u00e8ne Lupin\" is a delightful example of old-style movie-making. I'll rate this movie 8 points out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A remake of the 1916 silent film, based on the 1909 novel by Maurice Leblanc. The detective series would be made into numerous plays, films and TV series in the UK, the US, and France over the years. This 1932 version starred the smashing Barrymore brothers John (as the Duke) and Lionel (as Detective Guerchard). They would also star together in Grand Hotel, Dinner at Eight, and several others over the next couple years. Sonia (Karen Morley) shows up in the Duke's bed during a party in this pre-Hayes code film; first the lights go out in the bedroom, then they go out in the main ballroom, then the search is on for the crook and the missing jewelry, as well as other missing valuables... You can tell talkies hadn't been around too long, as they still use caption cards several times. Also watch for a new kind of safe that doesn't need a combination. Well-thought- out plot, no big holes, but no big surprises here either. Not bad for an early talkie film. Clever ending.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Barrymore plays a gentleman who is also the thief, Arsene Lupin. While no one knows for sure this is the case, the inspector (Lionel Barrymore) is sure of it but cannot prove it. So, Lionel spends much of the movie following John--hoping to catch this brilliant and slippery thief.

Although I liked the film, I really think I had higher expectations for it and thought it might be better than just a very good time-passer. That's because it paired John AND Lionel Barrymore in the film and since these brothers were such dynamic actors, I think I expected sparks and magic but instead only caught glimpses of it here and there. Now this is not to say this is a bad film--it certainly isn't. It just didn't rise to the level of being unforgettable or a film I strongly recommend you see. Thanks an adequate script, the film is pretty good but I was surprised to hear no French accents at all in the film even though it was supposedly about French people! Also, there just wasn't much life in the film until it was nearly complete. The ending was indeed excellent and entertaining--so good that it elevated the film from a 6 to a 7. It's nice to see it ended on a high note.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sure, it has its pretentious moments, it plays like art-house, live-action Fantasia, but it also has moments of deep beauty and humor. Omnibus films are always a problem, but I have always had a keen interest in them. I will now rate the segments individually.

Nicolas Roeg - \"Un ballo in maschera\" - This segment may very well spoil the film for some people, because it is absolutely the worst of the whole bunch. It is difficult to follow, mostly because it tries to adhere to a clear plot (a hackneyed one, at that). The photography is unaccomplished. The best thing about it is the bit of Lesbian homoerotica that it never does enough with. This segment made me VERY nervous about continuing. 2\/10.

Charles Sturridge - \"La virgine degli angeli\" - an unclear segment, but it hardly matters. The film has the best cinematography of the bunch, mainly because it is in a stunning black and white. The segment is dreamlike and beautiful. 7\/10.

Jean-Luc Godard - \"Armide\" - I chose to brave this much-maligned film for the Godard and Altman segments. With Godard, I was much more impressed than I thought I would be. I can't claim to have seen all that many of his films since he made so many that almost no one has seen, but, judging from what I have seen, this may be his best work since the 60s. It is the funniest segment in this film, and the most artistically accomplished. Bravo, Jean-Luc! 9\/10.

Julien Temple - \"Rigoletto\" - a very funny segment, it is also quite predictable. Still, this story about a husband and wife who are cheating on each other at the same resort is wonderfully filmed with long, complex tracking shots that depend on precisely timed choreography from the actors. It also has a great self-referencing joke about omnibus films themselves. The final scene is very weak. 7\/10.

Bruce Beresford - \"Die tote Stadt\" - this short segment involves too lovers in (I think) Venice. It is pretty, with some nice shots of doves flying about the city. It is slight, but nice. 7\/10.

Robert Altman - \"Les Bor\u00e9ades\" - not one of the better segments, unfortunately, this is more of a music video than a concept short film. It involves the occupants of an insane asylum attending a theatrical performance. The music and images work well together, so at least I can give it credit for being a good music video. 7\/10

Franc Roddam - \"Liebestod\" - somewhat unfortunate for Beresford's segment, this segment is very similar to it. As you might assume from my phrasing, this one struck me much more. It is about a young man and his girl going to Las Vegas on a fatalistic voyage. 8\/10.

Ken Russell - \"Nessun dorma\" - maybe the most visually striking segment, it plays in a fantasy world more than in reality. It is a beautiful tale of a fallen angel. 8\/10.

Derek Jarman - \"Depuis le jour\" - I have heard a lot about Jarman, and this is the first piece of filmmaking I have seen from him. Hopefully, I'll see more in the future. This one is also music-videoish, but it is better than Altman's segement. It mainly concerns an old woman remembering her younger days. The editing and the use of different film stocks to represent both time and emotion are very beautiful. 8\/10.

Bill Bryden - \"I pagliacci\" - the sad clown, possibly one of the most famous arias (particularly memorable from an episode of Seinfeld), this serves as the material separating each segement and the finale. It is simple and effective. 7\/10.

Overall, I give it a solid 7\/10. It isn't anywhere near as bad as you've heard.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm an opera buff, and operas are full of sex, blood and death. It may help to know the librettos of the operas the arias are from to really appreciate this film -- my mileage is very different than Tug-3. I am a classical music lover, and I liked this film.

I loved Ken Russell's \"Nessun Dorma\" segment, and would actually like to see him produce Turandot, because opera is supposed to be overwhelming, truly multi-media experience , but then I loved Lisztomania. I love *Turandot* and knowing the libretto so well may be why I don't find this segment the travesty that Tug-3 did.

The Buck Henry\/ Rigoletto segment is probably the most approachable for the average viewer -- they are likely to recognize the tunes, and its a classic bedroom farce. I like bedroom farces, so the silliness didn't upset me.

The \"Liebestod\" segment is so outstanding that I recommend people watch this for that piece alone. \"Depuis la Jour\" was, for me, beautifully spiritual. And the Caruso recording of \"Vesti la Giubba\" (aka I Pagliacci) with John Hurt as the clown was wonderful. But people just wanting naked women may feel there is too much music and not enough bare flesh and sex.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"10 respected directors each shot a short film with operatic arias as the inspiration (and music). I'll do each one separately:

Nicolas Roeg (dir)--Giuseppe Verdi (music). A story about an assassination attempt in 1931 Vienna. Theresa Russell (Roegs wife) plays a man! Not bad--very beautiful and exotic. Russell is great.

Charles Sturridge--Verdi. No story but there is some haunting black and white imagery that fits perfectly with the music.

Jean-Luc Godard--Jean Baptiste Lully. Horrendous. Pointless, boring, no plot, no nothing. Filled with gratuitous female nudity. The worst!

Julien Temple--Verdi. Buck Henry, Beverly D'Angelo and Anita Morris star in this funny, if obvious, story about a cheating couple. Pretty good.

Bruce Beresford--Erich Korngold. Short, lush and romantic. Very good.

Robert Altman--Jean-Philippe Rameau. Dull. A yawner.

Fran Roddam--Richard Wagner. This has Bridget Fonda in her film debut. Beautifully done love story with a fairly explicit sex scene.

Ken Russell--Giacomo Puccini. Really strange but OK.

Derek Jarman--Gustave Chapentier. Lyrical look at youth and old age. Very sweet.

The last is by Bill Bryden doing \"I Pagliacci\". He has John Hurt (!) dressed as a clown lip-syncing to Caruso (!!!).

When this came out it almost got an X rating (for the abundant nudity and the sex scene). It was given an R with a strict warning attached saying the R rating would be heavily enforced. After the film bombed that warning disappeared.

The idea isn't bad and 6 out of the 10 segments were worthwhile. Worth seeing even if you don't like opera. Just avoid the Godard segment. I'm giving it an 8.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robert Altman, Nicolas Roeg, John-Luc Goddard--you were expecting a fun film the entire family could enjoy? These and other directors were obviously chosen because they have not followed the mainstream, but created it. For those that complain that they did not adhere to the original story of the opera--How often does the music in a film directly relate to what is going on in the film? It is the mood that counts. This is what I believe the directors of these movies were doing: creating a contemporary mood for old operas. For the most part they succeed wonderfully. With all these operas, who is going to like them all. We could have used more Beverly Sills.

Finally, what is art (even opera) without a few naked women?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Definitely worth watching.

Ten different directors each present a segment based on their favorite opera aria. You don't need to be an opera lover to watch this film. (Although, of course, if you hate opera, you're really going to have a bad time with this!)

Not surprisingly the segments range from brilliant to only fair. Most of the fuss seems to be over Godard's contribution -- whether you think he's brilliant or pretentious, his segment won't change your mind.

Some of the pieces have a clear narrative; others are more a montage of connected images.

None of the pieces is more than 10 minutes or so; if you're not happy with what's on the screen, wait for the next segment, and think about how much culture you're soaking up.

Keep your eyes open for performances by Buck Henry, Beverly D'Angelo, Elizabeth Hurley, Briget Fonda, Tilda Swinton, and John Hurt. (The Buck Henry segment alone is worth the price of admission).

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie in the early 1990's when it had been out on VHS for a little while. At the time, I found it to be interesting, and was especially struck by the Ken Russell segment, with the visions of the accident victim in triage and surgery.

Last night, at a 2nd-run showing of the latest Indiana Jones movie, the vision of John Hurt prompted an unexpected flashback to \"Aria\", which I had not thought of in years, and the sudden memory of the Russell piece itself was enough to cause an outbreak of tears for a little bit.

If I can make this observation, I note with interest the love-hate reaction that people have expressed to the Russell segment, and I have found this interesting difference in other movies that delve into deep trauma and its aftereffects. Some GET it, others DO NOT, interesting.

I see by the comments and the rating that the overall work hit people in various ways. This is how it affected and affects me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Guess a few upscale film directors were sitting around sipping their absinthe, grappa, aramangac or jungle juice some night in the 80's during the Cannes or other film festival and one said \"Hey, guys let's do a movie where each of us creates a segment around a world class aria.\" Welllll...it kind of sort of worked. Clearly someone was smart enough to select some of the best recordings of the arias chosen, for example Bjoreling's Nessun Dorma, so if you were blind and lying on the floor just listening to the DVD you got more than your money's worth. Not every director succeeded but more did than not and the flick seems to improve with each viewing over the years. My favorite is the eerily beautiful love duet from Die Todt Statd; okay a young naked Elizabeth Hurley is eye candy but her husband singing to her, his wife's ghost, is incredibly beautiful with the love music second only to Otello and Desdemona's \"Gia nella Notte Densa\" in all the operatic repertoire. Could the flick been better, sure, what couldn't not have been but it's well worth a view especially of you're in a hyper-romantic mood.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I read the synopsis for \"Messiah\" in the television guide, I was not prepared for what was in store. The story follows DCI Metcalfe trying to solve a case of grisly murders being taken out across London. He soon realises a pattern, there is a serial killer on the loose, killing people with similar names and jobs to those of the 12 Apostles and their killings are identical to their matching Apostle. The two part series kept me right on the edge of my seat, with Metcalfe closely pursuing the killer, but always missing him within a couple of seconds and discovering the gruesome mess he has left behind of his ill-fated victim. \"Messiah\" is sure to cause a great deal of controversy, but nonetheless it is the greatest piece of drama the BBC has shown in a long time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say? You expect only the best in drama from the BBC and MESSIAH is not an exception to the rule.

MESSIAH is a great thriller, a truly shocking and creepy tale about a serial killer who cuts out victims' tongues and replaces them with silver spoons. Police Officer Red Metcalfe (Ken Stott) and his team have the task of trying to solve the mystery of the seemingly random events, before more lives are lost.

But be warned - despite it's '15' rating (in the UK), MESSIAH is a bit of a gruesome film. Some of the murder scenes are similar to those in SE7EN, and one or two can be really stomach-churning. But if you can withstand that, sit back in your chair and enjoy... although you'll most likely be on the edge of it or hiding behind it.

Rated '15' by the BBFC for moderate violence and strong horror.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The DVD release of this superior made for TV BBC drama is a more than welcome addition to my collection. Great acting, gripping story, and wonderful direction all add up to one of the best BBC dramas in years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to say when it comes to Book to Movie Adaptations the BBC rarely lets me down. Now regarding this mini-series. I love the Starling Novel, it's by far the best murder\/mystery I've ever read. The Mini-series, it defiantly made my day when I saw it. The primary story was kept near perfectly intact. The characters match the ones to the novel very well, the personalities and mannerisms were spot on for Red and Jez. I thought Duncan was done very well as was Kate, Eric came off as too much of a simplistic character, he had a little more depth in the book, but they also altered his sub-story so that may have had to deal with it. Of course there are changes, but most are cosmetic, but some I found disappointment in, the sub-story with Eric murder charge was changed and that changed the whole dynamic between Red and Eric for the movie, and they cut out the Triathalon training Jez was doing. Some of the other events in the book are changed to be viewer friendly. Over all if you liked the book, you will like this, if you like the mini-series, then you'll love the book. I must say, this is the most accurate Book to Movie adaptation I've seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having read the other comment about this superb piece of TV drama I felt compelled to balance things a little. If you like you murders, to be signature and serial, and your cops to be British, and shout a lot, and the gore to be bloody and have a religious slant then this hits every button. Not quite enough 'gov'ing to put the shouting into the Sweeney's rarefied heights, but otherwise highly rated. Ken Stott is excellent as the 'cop on the edge' and the guest stars are also well cast, including Edward Woodward and Art Malik. Recommended. (In response to the earlier comments, although I accept that 'Red' would not 'normally' drive away from a hit and run, he had just witnessed his brother arrested for murder, and I am fairly sure he does not see the boy move.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw MESSIAH 2 a few months ago and didn`t get to see the original teleplay untill a few days ago and this is far superior to the sequel . Okay it`s not a million miles away from the plot of SEVEN but it`s still compelling . Much of my praise has to do with Ken Stott`s performance as DCI Red Metcalfe a policeman who seems to have led a very unlucky life and someone who has a terrible secret . It`d be easy for Stott to go over the top but he plays the role in a fairly subtle way . Likewise the murders are very shocking but - unlike the sequel where the murders are carried out onscreen in a rather OTT manner - there`s actually little violence shown .

My only criticisms are that the red herring was too obviously a red herring which meant I wasn`t taken in by the shock twist ( And you would probably see the shock twist coming so I won`t bother with a spoiler alert ) and that when the real murderer was revealed it seemed both slightly far fetched and caused a few plot holes to appear in the story . If I remember correctly the sequel had similar problems once the murderer was revealed so maybe it`d be a good idea not to make MESSIAH 3","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Obviously inspired by Se7en and sometimes even more gruesome; more bloodshed and very graphic details (a bit too much for my taste). Great script and acting (I was especially impressed by Ken Stott and there were no weak points in te cast). Good cinematography and very realistic stereo-sound. One of the best thrillers I've seen since years. Although it was scheduled on BBC in three parts I watched Messiah on video in one take. One point of critic; the motivation of the villain was not very convincing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Messiah was compulsive viewing from start to finish. The story centred on apparently random murders of men in London in various gruesome ways. DCI Red Metcalfe (Ken Stott)has to find the truth which, to his surprise, is a little closer to home than he might think.

Gripping drama and Ken Stott was brilliant. Hopefully we have not seen the last of DCI Red Metcalfe.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the Messiah:- The First Killings and I thought it was absolutely one of the best programmes I have seen, ever. It was one of those programmes that you think that oh, no, I cannot watch the rest of this but you feel compelled to watch it just to see who done it. Jamie Draven was an absolutely amazing actor in it, to be able to switch between two totally, totally different characters one of which is the evil, nasty person that did it and the other person who is Jez Clifton, the cop. To be able to do that, well, I certainly wouldn't be able to do it, well not without cracking anyway. I really do love and care for Jamie Draven with all of my heart and I always will, until the end of time, I think that Jamie is the sweetest, cutest, sexiest guy in the world. I absolutely love Jamie in Ultimate Force also because he looks god damn sexy in the blacks that he wore. I love Jamie Love Paula Draven

-X-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1981's Just Before Dawn is one of the best tales of wilderness horror out there. It's one of the finest-made slashers of the 80's and it easily blows movies like The Final Terror, Don't Go in the Woods, or The Prey out of the water.

A group of young adults come to check out the mountain property that one of the group has just bought. However they are not alone in the wild. A hulking in-bred murderer, who seems to be in two places at once, is lurking and apparently hates trespassers.

Director Lieberman, who gave us such great B films as Squirm (1976) and Blue Sunshine (1977), does an excellent job with this smart thriller as well. The movie is nicely atmospheric, with a creeping sense of tension and some strong suspense. This film makes even the open wilderness seem frighteningly claustrophobic. The Oregon locations are beautiful and well captured by the crafty cinematography. The music score is a true original and awesome in contrast with the scenic visuals.

Deborah Benson makes for a great lead, her presence was captivating. Gregg Henry delivers a good performance as Benson's lover and Chris Lemon provides some occasional charisma. The supporting cast, especially veteran actor Kennedy, also does quite well.

A true gem of the slasher genre, that needs no gore to thrill. Definitely well worth seeking out for slasher fans and horror buffs alike. See it!

*** 1\/2 out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jeff Lieberman's \"Just Before Dawn\" is definitely one of the most underrated horror movies ever made.The film,whilst a little bit influenced by \"Deliverance\" and \"The Texas Chain Saw Massacre\",is extremely creepy and memorable.The suspense almost never lets up and the atmosphere is genuinely eerie.The cast is excellent,Deborah Benson and Jamie Rose are great female leads.The inbred twins are truly frightening and remorseless killers.The film is beautifully shot-it was actually filmed on location at Silver Falls State Park in Oregon.There is very little gore,but one killing,when Verchel is stabbed in the groin,is pretty nasty and unpleasant.A must-see for slasher fans.10 out of 10-what else?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'd been postponing purchasing this one ever since its DVD release \u0096 for one thing, because I'd been somewhat underwhelmed by this director's two other horror titles (SQUIRM [1976] and BLUE SUNSHINE [1977]), but also the fact that the film itself is said to have been slightly trimmed for gore on the Media Blasters\/Shriek Show 2-Disc Set! I now chanced upon it as a rental and am glad I did \u0096 because, not only is it superior to the earlier efforts (at least, on this preliminary assessment), but I also found the film to be one of the better imitations of THE Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974). This factor, however, only helped remind me that I've yet to check out another such example \u0096 Wes Craven's classic THE HILLS HAVE EYES (1977), whose 2-Disc R1 edition from Anchor Bay I purchased some time ago but, after all, Halloween-time is fast approaching...

Anyway, the film manages an effortlessly unsettling backwoods atmosphere (it was shot in the forest and mountain regions of Oregon) \u0096 with plenty of effective frissons throughout but, thankfully, not too much violence (even if the last of the villains is dispatched in quite an outrageous fashion!). The principal young cast here (one of them played by Jack Lemmon's son, Chris) isn't quite as obnoxious as those we usually encounter in this type of genre offering \u0096 despite freely indulging in the shenanigans one associates with teen-oriented flicks and which, by and large, persist to this day! George Kennedy appears as a sympathetic Ranger; though he doesn't have a lot to do, his characterization is decidedly enhanced by making him a lover of plant and animal life. Also notable among the locals is familiar character actor Mike Kellin in a nice role as the drunkard who first comes into contact with the murderous duo of the narrative \u0096 his warning to the teenagers, naturally, goes unheeded but he's later able to lead Kennedy to them.

The hermetic family the teens come across in the woods, then, is eventually revealed to be hiding a skeleton in their closet. While one of the girls displays genuine curiosity at the intruders' presence, the rest are openly hostile to them \u0096 and, in the case of the burly and uncouth twins, appropriately creepy (one of them is even prone to maniacal laughter during his rampages); at a certain point in the narrative, the Ranger even offers an interesting explanation as to the nature of their aggressive and generally uncivilized behavior.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It may have been inevitable that with the onslaught of \"slasher\" movies in the early 1980's, that a few good ones might slip through the cracks. This is a great \"rare\" film from Jeff Lieberman, who insured his cult status with his memorable 1970's films \"Squirm\" and \"Blue Sunshine\".

Five young people head into the Oregon mountains (this movie was actually shot on location) to do some camping and check out the deed to some land that one of them has acquired. Before long, they will predictably be terrorized by a bulky killer with an incredibly creepy wheezing laugh.

\"Just Before Dawn\" is noticeably more ambitious, \"arty\", and intelligent than some slasher films. Lieberman actually fleshes out the characters - well, two of them, anyway - as much as a 90-minute-long film will allow him. The film has genuine moments of suspense and tension, and actually refrains from graphic gore, save for one killing right at the beginning.

There is an above-average cast here, including Oscar winner George Kennedy, as a forest ranger who's understandably gone a little flaky from having been alone in the wilderness for too long. Jack Lemmon's son Chris, future Brian De Palma regular Gregg Henry, blonde lead Deborah Benson (it's too bad she hasn't become a more well-known performer, judging by her work here), Ralph Seymour (\"Ghoulies\"), Mike Kellin (\"Sleepaway Camp\"), and Jamie Rose (\"Chopper Chicks in Zombietown\") round out the cast.

Some of the shots are interesting, and the early music score by Brad Feidel (now best known for his \"Terminator\" theme) is haunting and atmospheric.

This is worth catching for the important plot twist at about the one hour mark, although a moment at about 75 minutes in involving the heroine and a tree and the killer is almost comical; it may actually remind a viewer of a cartoon! One of the most clever touches is the final dispatching of the killer, which I'd never seen before in a horror film and probably won't see again.

I didn't give it 10 out of 10 because I can't honestly that I was that frightened. Still, it's an interesting slasher that is worthy of re-discovery.

\"That deed don't mean nothing, son. Those mountains can't read.\"

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"29 Sept 1990 marked a small but important milestone in my appreciation of horror flicks. This was the date that BBC1 broadcast (for the only time I'm aware of) Jeff Lieberman's super-creepy 1981 shocker Just Before Dawn, and it made a huge impression on me. Nearly twenty years later, I'm delighted to report that I've finally got my hands on the two-disc Shriek Show \/ Media Blasters special edition, and it's just as eerie and unsettling as I remember it, if not more so.

The plot, as is usual for genre flicks (and this was Lieberman's first film as a 'director for hire', though he did at least remove all the religious cult snake-handling mumbo-jumbo from the screenplay), is a bit thin - five likable twenty-somethings (including Chris Lemmon, son of Jack, in a pair of uncomfortably tight white strides) venture into the dense Oregon woodlands to do a spot of camping and to check out a patch of land that's been bequeathed to one of their number. But Just Before Dawn stands out from a crowd of imitators because Lieberman wastes no time in showing us just how deranged things are on this particular patch of mountain, with a complete innocent skewered and a drunk preacher's truck shoved down a hill and engulfed in flames within minutes of the film beginning. The youngsters come rolling into the picture in a snappy Winnebago, Blondie's 'Heart of Glass' pounding on the soundtrack, and before you can say \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre!\" they've clobbered an innocent deer with the front bumper and had their first taste of aggro from the heavy-set maniac responsible for the opening catastrophes. Forest ranger Roy (George Kennedy) warns them that things are likely to go awry if they go any further, but they go ahead with the trip anyway, refusing to give the sozzled preacher a ride even though he's understandably scared witless and finally pitching camp miles from anywhere. Needless to say, things go downhill from here.

Although this film's not short on bloody horror and well-handled action scenes, the standout moments for me are those where Lieberman lets his camera zoom out, long and slow, from apparently innocuous shots of the fun-loving kids larking around in the wilderness, or just lets it settle for a while on the dense, imposing, people-dwarfing woodlands. He makes the Oregon exteriors as threatening and as ominous as Kubrick made the Overlook Hotel's spacious interiors in the Shining, and Brad Fiedel's score (discounting the horribly distorted racket that runs over the titles) stays the right side of intrusive, underscoring the slowly escalating menace with subtlety and flair. There are plenty of surprises along the way, nods to Deliverance with the discovery of a backwoods babe and her freaky, disturbing family, and a truly bizarre kill technique deployed shortly before the film's end. I won't spoil it for you. I've said enough.

Quite why this undervalued horror gem fell through the cracks and became a cult item instead of a breakout hit is hard to ascertain, but hopefully it will be rediscovered and appreciated for years to come - it deserves to be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the many backwoods horror's that came out in the early eightes and fortunately this is one of the better ones. Yes it has a cheesy plot but I was pleasantly surprised at this film, because I thought it was really good and really entertaining, although the killer could have been made a bit more scarier he just looked like a fat slob.

First of all, we have the local sheriff or whatever the hell he is, who warns them not to go to those mountains as they are very dangerous. But when the teens arrive, it doesn't seem very dangerous at all, well according to me anyway. It's a shame that we don't get movies like this any longer, and if we do, it's usually some boring terrible film.

This movie more relies on tension and being scary than gore, because the gore factor is really low in this movie which I wasn't pleased with but other than that it's still a great movie.

All in all you'll have to search long and hard to find this movie and if you do find it, you will like it and also watch out for ending with the final girl and the killer it's totally not what you'd expect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a great 1981 film which had a great story about three men and two girls who go on a camping trip together and go through thick woods and high mountains with a great water fall. This group of people run into property owned by George Kennedy, (Roy McLean) who plays the role as a Forest Ranger and rides a white horse. Roy McLean warns these young people that where they are going is no area for camping and they should turn back. Of course these young people pay no attention and proceed to have a ball swimming in the nude near the water fall and playing great music and dancing by the fire and having plenty of beer and wine. There is an old wooden one room school house that draws the gals and guys inside and it is from that point on the film starts to get very scary. There is one occasion when a young girl has to climb a tree in order to get away from a human beast who desires her body and starts chopping the tree down in order to capture her. Don't miss this film, there is plenty of everything.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This completely forgotten slasher flick is one of the best horror movies ever made.Very dark at times it reminds me a little famous thriller \"Deliverance\".Director Jeff Lieberman creates terrific atmosphere of dread and despair.All actors are decent and the climax is really exciting and memorable.So if you are searching for something creepy,try to find this little treasure.My personal rating:10 out of 10.P.S This one is even more chilling than \"Halloween\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, sadly, I can't help but feeling a little bit disappointed after my much, much, MUCH-anticipated viewing of \"Just Before Dawn\". Jeff Lieberman is a terrific filmmaker and he can undoubtedly do great things with a tiny budget, but I nevertheless expected to see a far more sadistic and gruesome early 80's slasher. But actually I'm beginning to think that Lieberman isn't the one to blame for this, but WE gorehounds are! It's more than obvious that Lieberman intended to make his take on the backwoods-slasher look like \"Deliverance\" and absolutely NOT like \"Friday the 13th\", which immensely popularized the sub genre one year earlier. The horror and constant sensation of menace doesn't mainly come from the demented maniacs with their machetes, but from the genuinely ominous and isolated Oregon forests where this movie was shot. In case the film seems slow and uneventful, this is only because Lieberman takes his time to introduce the dark woods and eerie mountains as extra characters in his film. We hardly ever see the killers in person, but there always appears to be someone luring from behind the trees or from underneath the mountain lakes. Bearing this in mind, \"Just Before Dawn\" becomes a highly admirable horror effort and actually a lot better than its contemporary blood-soaked colleagues. Amidst a nearly endless selection of gory and sickening slashers, Lieberman successfully puts the emphasis back on tension and character development. The plot revolves on five twenty-something friends heading for a camping vacation in the Oregon woods, where one of them owns a small piece of land. The woods are deserted and, naturally, the campers ignore forest ranger Roy's (George Kennedy!) advise to return back to civilization. Shortly after, they brutally encounter an inbred family of which the twin sons have murderous tendencies. All five main characters are surprisingly likable and convincing! No irritating stereotypes for which you don't feel sympathy anyway, like slutty girls or football jocks. As a result of this \"natural\" character, you automatically cheer for them, even when they eventually almost turn into savages themselves. The sublime camera-work supplies the film with an at times unbearable tension level and Brad Fiedel's chilling electronic score only adds to this effect. \"Just Before Dawn\" is a fine slice of early 80's horror, as long as you don't desire blood to drip from your TV-set.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Taking its cues from backwoods classics Deliverance and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Jeff Lieberman's Just Before Dawn might not offer much very new in terms of plot\u0097a maniac stalks and kills a group of campers\u0097but still manages to be an effective shocker thanks to the director's deft handling of the material, great use of the stunning scenery, even greater use of women in hot-pants, a brooding synth score from Brad Fiedel and a nifty twist towards the end (although one that should be apparent to those who have been paying attention).

Thanks to solid performances from its capable cast\u0097including Oscar winner George Kennedy as forest ranger Roy McLean\u0097there is a sense of realism to Just Before Dawn that is all too often missing from this kind of fare. The film also offers a pretty creepy maniac (who sniggers like Dick Dastardly's dog Mutley and uses a nasty serrated machete to kill), and delivers a couple of very imaginative sequences which help lift it above many of its contemporaries: a topless woman (gratuitous nudity box well and truly ticked) in a lake discovers that the hand that has been groping her underwater doesn't belong to her boyfriend; and a shortsighted character makes out with his pal's girlfriend (as a joke), unaware that the person who is slowly approaching is not his friend but the killer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Five teens set out to do some camping in the Oregon wilderness, and despite being warned by the park ranger, they soon realize that something is lurking around in the backwoods waiting to strike.

When it comes to old horror movies, the only one that keeps popping up in every conversation is Friday THE 13th, so I took it upon myself to find those good old horror movies that fell short for simply being compared to Friday THE 13th, JUST BEFORE DAWN just so happened to be among the ones I found, and was really very impressive, it wasn't as bland as some of the stuff you find today, it was very sharp in terms of character development as it had quite a few likable ones, and it has this very casual pace, its not in a hurry to get to the hack and slash bits, it takes its time to set the proper mood and tone and is very atmospheric and builds some killer suspense by letting you always have that sense of dread like, somethings out there but you don't know where it is or when it will strike.

Where I live its definitely an overlooked gem simply because people never heard of it or won't give it a chance, but I'll state that it is not a Friday THE 13th rip off, the two concepts don't even go near each other, but in my mind, it is overall one of the more impressive slashers I've seen in a while.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The mountainous woods, young happy campers, a warning by a park ranger and a lurking figure. The ingredients are there for a horror delight, and director\/co-writer Jeff Lieberman does an adequate job at achieving it. It's formulaic woodland horror, but for most part the execution is at the top the game and the story (which is quite basic in a trimmed sense) is effectively told in certain realism. Maybe a little more exposition wouldn't have gone astray, but Lieberman's craftsmanship makes up for the material's flaws and typical details with rising tension, moody visuals and a smothering atmosphere created by Brad Fiedel's very ominously lingering score. Whenever that very creepy whistling was cued in, it painted a truly unnerving sense that settled in with the beautiful backdrop. Cinematographers Dean M. and Joel King do a striking job too. There's plenty of style abound, even with its minimal scope and the build-up is slow grinding. At times the pacing can become a stop-and-go affair. It's not particularly violent, but there's still a mean-streak evident even if some of it happens of screen. The latter chase scenes and escalating fear is well done, as it has the darkness coming alive with itS burly killer\/s and you get actor George Kennedy riding his white horse in a slight, but wonderful turn. There's a likable bunch of performances; Deborah Benson makes for a strong, dashing heroine. Gregg Henry, Chris Lemmon Ralph Seymour, Jamie Rose, Mike Kellin and Katie Powell round off a modest cast of believable deliveries. The final climax is rather twisted, but the ending is one of those types that leave you thinking\u0085 \"Is that it?\"

A well-etched backwoods slasher item, which probably plays it a little too safe to truly set it apart from the norm.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(WARNING: SPOILERS!)

Five young people ignore the warnings of forest ranger George Kennedy and hike up to the misty Oregon mountains where they are stalked and butchered by a pair of huge, deformed, in-bred hillbilly twins. When only two are left, Warren and his girl Connie, they resort back to their animal instincts to stay alive. The film ends with Connie shoving half of her arm down one of the killers' throats, choking him to death. A very powerful, if somewhat overrated, backwoods slasher flick thats effective use of lighting, sound and photography make it a cut above the usual FRIDAY THE 13TH cash-in. Lead by an attractive, likeable cast, especially Deborah Benson (where is she now?) and Gregg Henry, this nifty companion piece to director Jeff Lieberman's SQUIRM (1976) and BLUE SUNSHINE (1977) shouldn't be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ignore the bad reviews on here, this film is awesome! \"Just Before Dawn\" is a great example of what can be done in a film with a minimal budget if you have a dedicated crew, decent script, and a cool idea for a film. It's a hell of a lot of fun.

I enjoyed it a lot more than most other 80's slashers because the killer is so unique. \"Wrong Turn\" ripped this movie off something fierce! There's plenty of blood and scares. My girlfriend was freaked out and she watches almost everything with me and doesn't flinch. It's got that creepiness to it.

I'd say that \"Just Before Dawn\" is the best early 80's slasher out there. I really enjoyed it.

8 out of 10, kids.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just Before Dawn came out during the golden days of the slasher film. The backwoods slasher pretty much started with films like Friday the 13th, The Burning, and Madman. Just Before Dawn is a step ahead of the typical backwoods slasher flick. The cinematography is gorgeous. The acting is top notch. The heroine of the film is not your typical 'final girl'.

Constance is a 'woods' girl, but when it comes down to the primal instinct of survival, she's a step behind. Not until it comes to saving the life of her and her boyfriend, does the primal notion of survival kick in. There's a subtle transition that gradually focuses on the final girls hidden sexuality - coinciding that alongside her will to survive.

Just Before Dawn isn't for everyone, but for the slasher fan, it's as close to perfect as you can get. The killer(s) are very menacing - Almost like it's a game to maim and murder anyone who crosses their territory. The end scene is a bit off kilter. For the first time viewer, it may be a little shocking. I'd recommend this to anyone who's a fan of the backwoods slasher. Even non-slasher fans will find something to like about it. The setting is eerie and makes one feel uneasy. The death sequences aren't particularly gory, but I'm not sure the film needed gore. See it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just Before Dawn is one of those really good slashers that send chills down your spine every time you watch it! This movie has great suspense, great acting, very well done camera work (nice job Mr. Lieberman!) which makes a extremely well made slasher! Though low on gore for the 80s, it still has the effect on you after it is over. The opening kill (machete through the crotch) looked so real! And the fist to the mouth death left me stunned! Overall i give this lost classic 10 stars out of 10 stars! if you are looking for a gore-fest, don't look here. but, if you want chills sent down your back, see this one. There are 6 deaths and one of them you don't see but, it leaves you mind to think \"how was she killed?\" the stranded theme reminded me of 1977's the Hills Have Eyes, which followed kind of the same concept, but in the desert with canninbals. But, still slasher fans, give this forgotten gem, i promise you, you will be staisfied!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"for a movie like this little hidden gem to come out in the 80s, its shocking how not a lot of people know about it.

this movie is definitely worth a look. it has all the things you need for a horror movie. especially the good old chills.

i remember watching this movie for the first time about 15 years ago, but i couldn't remember the name of it, so i came to IMDb a few years ago to ask for help on finding the title. i eventually got the name of the title, and bought the movie. i still love it as much as i did all those years ago.

buy this movie!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just Before Dawn really surprised me when I saw it by being far less of a gruesome horror adventure than I expected. Instead the director Jeff Lieberman conjures up a wonderfully evocative and disquieting atmosphere for great stretches of the movie, building the suspense constantly until I was really unsure about what was going to happen but wound up tight as a spring waiting for it. The lack of action in many parts gave it a very Deliverance mixed with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre kinda ambiance, and when the action really kicks in, its truly shocking and dramatic, without ever even really needing to be gory. The characters are about par for this kind of movie, though more sympathetic than some, and the bad guy memorably freaky. The photography and suspense are the real winners in this movie and they keep it from ever being dull (as has been suggested). I firmly recommend this one to serious horror fans. Don't expect gore, do expect a creepy backwoods tale with several awesome moments and a great dreamlike ambiance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A quick glance at the premise of this film would seem to indicate just another dumb '80's inbred\/backwood slash-fest; the type where sex equals death and the actors are all annoying stereotypes you actually want to die. However, \"JBD\" delivers considerably more.

Rather than focus on bare flesh and gore (though there is a little of each- no sex however), the flick focuses on delivering impending dread\/mounting tension amidst a lovely scenic backdrop. These feelings are further heightened by a cast of realistically likable characters and antagonists that are more amoral than cardboard definitions of evil. Oh yeah- George Kennedy is here too and when is that not a good thing?

If you liked \"Wrong Turn\", then watch this to see where much of its' methodology came from.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't have very high expectations about Just Before Dawn. I don't know why I keep buying these slasher movies when I know it's all the same every time. Maybe I'm a bit masochistic? Anyway, I'm glad I bought this one. Yes, it's all the same. No, it has nothing original. Yes, it's about a little group of teenagers going in the woods to camp, drink and have sex. Yes, they get killed one by one by a maniac. And you know what? It's just magic! It's one of the best experiences I had watching a slasher movie. The places where it's shot are so wonderful. You see mountains, waterfalls, rockies. It's just amazing. It takes a very long time (except for the opening scene) before the killer starts killing, but I didn't care! It was enjoyable to watch enough not to care. What I mean is, you won't be sitting there waiting for the murders to start because every thing that happens is enjoyable because of the beauty of the film itself. The ending is a bit weird, but I won't tell you anything more about it. You'll know what I mean. Another thing I enjoyed: you care about the characters. They're not just a bunch of jerks who spend their time bitching each other. Sure, they are pure stereotypes of usual slasher characters but, there's something special about them. Anyway, it's a great horror movie and I hope you have a pretty good time watching it because I really did!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just Before dawn is an excellent horror movie. It is atmospheric, filled with tension made of wonderful shots of wild nature, in which few young people meet their doom, in the shape of two crazed, fat bastards,who slaughter them. Jeff Lieberman is very talented and intelligent director,who is unfortunately underrated. He achieved to built tension, not with gore,but with showing menacing nature environment. Lieberman succeeds to built a tension in a very linear, simplistic way, which is also the best way, not to show to the viewer the gore, but to let him to imagine the worst thing that happen to characters.

Just Before Dawn was always compared to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Deliverance and Hills have eyes. It is as good looking as Deliverance, better than Hills, I mean scarier and better crafted,and it is creepy as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

JBD is one of the best horrors of past few decades, who finally lives on DVD!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been waiting almost 25 years to see this hard to find horror thriller and I finally did since it's proper rebirth on DVD. Of course it didn't have the same impact on me as it would have if I had seen in it the 80s, but director Lieberman (his film \"Squirm\" is excellent) makes good use of the lovely Oregon location and takes the time to develop the characters, not just to have them dispatched in creative ways. A high note, Brad Fiedel's whistling music is really creepy and adds to the desolate proceedings making this great fun for genre fans. A must see if you like underrated horror films. To describe it would be an intelligent \"Friday The 13th\" sprinkled with some tasty bits of \"Deliverance.\" With that aside, there are some really cool & original moments like my favorite when a couple are swimming in a lake and the guy disappears underwater to play a trick on his gal - just when you think it's the usual scare, she suddenly looks to shore and...I honestly can't spoil it -you just have to watch it for yourself. Also, the ending is just one of those that you just have to see to believe \u0096 it came out of nowhere and it's weird & wild! The DVD includes commentary by Lieberman.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was lucky enough to see the \"Horror Classics\" DVD version of this film before it was mysteriously removed from the 4 film DVD and replaced with something else. The picture and sound quality of the film on that edition was a nightmare in itself. Yet, that version is STILL superior to the one with the deluxe DVD treatment. The reason was stated in Brad Fiedel's interview segments on the Special Edition DVD. He had noted what I first found so striking about this film. This being the use of music at moments of inactivity in the film, but leaving the moments of activity in silence, thus giving the horror scenes a stronger feel. The problem with this reissue is it carries the extra film score used to fill in these intentional gaps in score. Fiedel complained of this and made it clear that the filler music was not his. The music actually sounded a lot like Howard Shore's work for Videodrome. Sad for me that I am also a major fan of that film and have to associate the two.

The film itself managed to add some interesting realistic elements to the genre horror film. A group of friends go up on a mountain one of them inherited. On the mountain they are confronted with a family with a nightmarish secret. The movie moves along at a great pace. In fact every time I have seen it, I still find myself shocked to see 45 minutes had passed before things started really going wrong for the campers.

While the Horror Classics version is filled with many gaps, the fact that there is no score accompanying the horror scenes is what makes this film intelligent and even superior to most slasher films I have ever seen. The Director Jeff Lieberman had made some unique horror films previous to this one making this one the most mainstream and yet, very different to the mainstream at the same time. It is a good fun film with surprising acting performances to boot. The new spiffed up DVD version is worth a rent, the now collectors item Horror Classics version, now OOP is worth the hunt.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this one afternoon in the 80's on network T.V. I think I was like 9.(Picture seeing a violent horror flick nowadays on regular television). Anyway, I've seen it again years later and it's like I remembered,it's really good,scary flick. I think the reason why it might of gone unnoticed is cause it wasn't followed by a ****load of sequels i.e. Friday the 13th. But it's one of those movies that takes the original idea and does it better. Even though this is a killer in the woods flick like Friday,it has more in common with the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre.That's because the movie lays down a certain atmosphere and feeling of dread,even in broad daylight. And the killers feel more threatening than in Friday. There's also a good amount of suspense. I recommend seeing it now that it's being released on DVD in late July.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie for the first time around 1990 as a young kid and it scared the Jesus out of me. I loved it so much and I was dying to get my hands on it.

In 2002, I remembered that this movie existed but I had no idea what it was called, so, I went to the I Need To Know section on IMDb and explained what the movie was about and tried to get the name of it. Anyway, eventually someone on IMDb told me, so I researched and tried to buy the movie. So eventually i got a hold of it on DVD, and I now keep this movie as one of my most valuable horror movies. I really love it, and I think anyone who watches it, will be very scared in the woods the next time they go. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The cover of the VHS says it all: \"Without doubt, the most powerful movie of its kind since the Texas Chainsaw Massacre\". I'm a huge fan of 70's and 80's slashers and I have to say, I agree 100 %. The characters are believable, the actors have an excellent charm (especially George Kennedy as the forest-ranger). There's the twisted atmosphere, that only TCM has, an astounding soundtrack to reflect the emotions and the filming locations that are the most beautiful in the history of horror. This has to be one of the most beautifully shot horror films of all time! Jeff Lieberman as a director of this 1981 low budget film does and excellent job and with his other works (Blue Sunshine, Wrong Turn) added, he must be one of the most underrated directors in the filmindustry today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember years ago BBC1 used to show this movie in a very cut form. I tracked it down on video a couple of years ago and viewed it again. The film although slow and slightly odd (the mountain men look very strange) the atmosphere was eerily effective. It's one of my favorite slasher films and I have no idea where an uncut version can be found. Currently deleted everywhere (except the USA where it was accidentally put on a horror compilation!). It's a shame you cannot get this movie as it was meant to be seen. Wrong turn (the recent Stan Winston produced movie) owes a great deal to Just Before Dawn. One of the better 80's slasher films and deserves to be seen by a wider audience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Just before dawn \" is one of the best slasher films.It very realistic and atmospheric.It reminds me Tobe Hooper`s \"The Texas chainsaw massacre \" and \"Deliverance \".Deborah Benson very good plays the heroine and director Jeff Lieberman created very creepy and dark movie.\"Just before dawn \" is beautiful photographed and soundtrack is very disturbing.I never

liked slasher films or gore except with this one.Very impressive and convincing movie ( at least for me )","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just before dawn is an underrated horror film from the early eighties. I haven't seen it in years but it had a great impact when I watched it, quite original for its day, the only problem is that it has not been released on video or dvd for years. If you like horror I urge you to check this little gem out!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ali G Indahouse has got to be one of the funniest films I've seen in a long time, and Cohen's portrayal of a British gangsta is hilarious. This film has cult classic written all over it, and it features some really great lines. Ali G Indahouse is a good-time party movie that will leave the viewer laughing literally from beginning to end. Definitely Vote Ali G and keep it real.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As someone who usually despises Ali G, Ali G Indahouse was absolutely brilliant. When I was watching it, I was in a hysterical fit. Yes it is sexist, rude and extremely crude, and I loved it. As some comedies are only have one or two comical scenes, this movie was laugh-a-thon. I have never seen a comedy as original as Ali G Indahouse.For a comedy starring Ali G, this would be worthy of an 8 out 10. Absolutely Brilliant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sacha Baron Cohen is a genius. And this movie is good! Although the film doesn't nearly reach the quality of the tv-show, it's still very funny and has some seriously wicked moments! I've liked Ali G since the first time I saw the material from the show. I think he's one of the best comedy characters of all time.. up there with say, Peter Dragon (\"Action\") and The Blues Brothers. Biggest surprise with this film was that they've actually got some serious actors to do it (Dance and Gambon). After this I will absolutely respect them even more, for having the good sense to take this chance. I have nothing really bad to say about this film, it's very funny. Very juvenile, but hey, so what?!

One more thing to mr. G: SEQUEL, PLEASE!

**** \/ *****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ali G earned his fame on the small screen - though the big screen has not lost him any kudos either. Ali G Indahouse is a hilarious laugh-a-second fun fest - just like on the small screen. He has lost none of his character or stupidity at all, and behind all that - none of the film is brainless fluff either. A human side to Ali is revealed during the film, the idea of Ali G running for PM is a brilliant, fresh and funny one - and the incessant stupidity of Staines' gangster man is mixed well with the stern, harsh world that is politics. The film is also full of brilliant new characters - and instead of just interview after interview, we get a proper comedy film that never gets repetitive or boring. So why didn't I give it ten stars? Well, the ending was funny, but also botched and failed - none of it made sense. And in parts, the film became offensive in trying to be funny - but that's Ali G for you - if it isn't offensive, it isn't itself, and it is totally and utterly ruined. Ali G's big screen debut was a success in my belief, and should have got into the 6-7 average rating range on IMDb. But it could have got worse as well, and people are bound to have mixed opinions, especially on a film such as this.

On the whole, Ali G Indahouse is hilarious British comedy at its best - and funniest, and most clever. A great job! 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The thing with Ali G is that he takes the mick out of himself and his character.

The humour is very much a 'like it or love it' brand of totally politically incorrect, irreverent and self effacing type.

Personally I totally love this film, and so has everyone i have met who has seen it. You can watch it several times and pick new gags up each time. The humour is both aural and visual, and the timing is impeccable. The humour is probably very English, and specifically London, so its possible that non-English viewers may not get some of the humour. Think of yourself as a teenager and you will love it - especially if the likes of Kevin & Perry Go Large tickled you!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"By convincing the Prime Minister to back the totally unsuitable Ali G as a candidate for Staines in the local elections, nasty chancellor David Carlton (Charles Dance) hopes to discredit his party's current leader, thus enabling him to seize power. To his surprise, however, the plan backfires, Ali is embraced by the nation, and Carlton is forced to find other ways to try and guarantee his political future.

Puerile, crude, misogynistic, and always outrageous: Ali G Indahouse, the big-screen debut outing for Sascha Baron Cohen's middle-class Berkshire gangsta, is all of these things and much more\u0097meaning it's my kind of film!!

Obviously, there are those who are simply not going to get the joke, and there will definitely be people who find risqu\u00e9 jokes about oral sex, homosexuality, recreational drug use, hardcore pornography, and The Queen's nether regions offensive in the extreme (needless to say, they should stay well away!), but if you find such juvenile humour side-splittingly hilarious, are a fan of Baron Cohen in general, or just want to see hottie Rhona Mitra in her underwear (and you shud, cuz she iz well fit!), then I fully recommend spending an hour and a half in the company of Ali G and the West Staines Massive.

They iz wicked!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being American, I have not been exposed to this character before, which is good because some of you have been disappointed. I have nothing to compare it to. I have found no enjoyment in the mindless idiot humor in the American teen movies, and although this is a slightly similar type of humor, I couldn't stop laughing. I hardly ever laugh out loud at a movie. And usually a movie has a few funny parts for me, but this movie was funny from start to finish. My only disappointment was when it was over. I'm actually going to buy this on DVD when I find it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't see what the problem is with SOME people and their NEED for intellectual humor. You need to get your head out of your up-tight ass if you don't find this movie hilarious! If this isn't your \"cup of tea\", so to speak, then look at it for what it truly is- a damn funny movie. Maybe they DID set out to make yet another drugs\/T&A movie, but in this case, they've truly hit the spot. It's especially funny for the Ali G fans, because he delivers everything we've come to love and expect from him. So I say BIG UPS to Ali G, and if it's not your thing, don't whine- BATTY BOY!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very intelligent language usage of Ali, which you musn't miss! In one word: (eeh sentence...) Wicked, so keep it real and pass it on!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Ali G character works brilliantly within the confines of a comedy show, but as a movie, it doesn't work in the same way.

Don't get me wrong - this is a very funny movie, full of biting, witty dialogue, that caricatures the modern British chav wonderfully well, whilst providing the viewer with a hilarious, if unrealistic story.

One problem with this film is that the script and content is either fantastically brilliant, or it's embarrassing to watch. When I say embarrassing, I don't mean funny embarrassing a la Office or Extras, but rather, you'll wish they hadn't included it in the final cut. One example of this is the inclusion of a music video after the film has ended, to the tune of, \"This is how we do it.\" Whenever I watch the film, I stop the DVD when it says the end, and leave it at that.

Overall, Ali G Indahouse is a good film, worth watching a couple of times. The script is enjoyable to an extent, and there are no issues as far as acting goes. However, refinement is the key word here.

Ali G is a better television programme. Borat is a better film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anyone who has seen Ali G before, should be well prepared for the full motion picture that is 'Ali G Indahouse'

Although I prefer Ali G when he is interviewing the rich and famous, his brand of completely off the wall comedy definitely entertains from start to finish on the big screen too.

Ridiculous plot, ridiculous characters and a ridiculous script, that all make this film a riot for fans of Ali G.

If you've seen him and didn't like him then avoid this film like the plague, because it's definitely just more of the same; for everybody else - watch it Aiiii! 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i love this film!! maybe it is my generation but i can really connect with what he is talking about and means to do. it kept me laughing for the duration. duration of the film, the next day, and beyond. i think this film is not one to watch if you mainly care about the plot and character development. this film is pretty much only for the generation that will understand it. there are lots of things you just know being brought up in that generation that you wouldn't if you were say 40. i think Sacha barren Cohen was Very and i do mean Very good. he is a genius. and the reason h is such an idiot is because he can make people believe he is a complete idiot, and make it funny at the same time!!

Very good film. strongly recommend!!!! (not so strongly if you are over 30)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Ali G show was really something amazing - he was so stupid wannabe rapper, but no one he interviewed noticed that he was just pretending. Sasha Cohen is actually very intelligent guy, who pretends to be stupid, so he could get really honest answers from people... And it is very funny. So I didn't expect movie to be good, cause it was all acted - no real people or interviews. So the basic point of all show was lost. But I was wrong - I laughed all the time, it was one of the funniest films I ever saw. Sure it was stupid, but who cares if you can't actually brake in to safe with a car battery, like someone said? It wasn't supposed to be a realistic documentary... And it isn't like the show, it goes in totally different way, but that doesn't mean it is bad. When I finished watching I was totally impressed, but now when some time passed I realized that it was not that special anyway, But it still deserves a nine - well at least for what it is supposed to be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The way i found out about this movie was when i watched American pie 2, at the start it had a trailer for Ali G indahouse, i watched the trailer and it just forced me to buy the DVD, it looked incredibly funny! so the next day, i went to my local store and picked it up for \u00a33.99 (Bargain!). The film is about Ali G, who is a \"gangster\" of the west staines massive crew, who's rivals are the east staines massive crew. Ali has a \"Cub Scout\" pack of children where he teaches them how to survive in the \"ghetto\" by teaching them how to swear and steal cars, after Ali finds out the government are stopping the money coming to the leisure centre where Ali teaches the kids, he runs for MP for staines and overthrows another MP in his attempts to get rid of the leisure centre to make room for an airport in staines. Throughout the film there are laughs aplenty as Ali gets up to some crazy stuff! Borat makes an appearance for a few seconds in the film too, this is a definite must watch film for all you Sacha Baron Cohen fans out there!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No real plot, no character development, no Scorcese-level direction, but seriously, were you really expecting any of this? The only thing that matters is that this flick is absolutely hilarious, nearly on the same level as Borat. Sure, the ending drags a bit, but if Borat's cameo didn't crack you up, you must be the worst batty boy in the history of batty boys. Sacha Baron Cohen is possibly the greatest comedian ALIVE, and here he gets more laughs than Jude Law on a nude beach. I dare you not to laugh.

If you can pull the ten-foot pole out of your behind for an hour and a half and just enjoy some well timed and extremely stupid jokes in a stupid story about a stupid character, see this stupid movie. You'll be glad you did. Keep it real!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like his show you might be a little disappointed. This movie has some very funny moments and the laughs are pretty constant but none are very memorable or as funny as the things on the show. The beginning sequence is really really silly and funny, and a great start. YEs! borat does make a cameo appearance.

if you are a fan then watch it! if you don't know him or don't like him then don't bother. 6.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alter Egos do not come funnier than the creation of Sacha Baron Cohen's Ali G. Completely misled by his delusional and non-existent sense of the Middle England Suburban surroundings that his social background consists of. He persists on living the style of a Los Angeles Gansta. While still living with his Gran in the London suburb of Staines, he keeps tight control of his Posse, the West Staines \"Massiv\".

Spending his spare time between Me Julie, his girl, the Posse and teaching local eight year old Scouts at \"Keep it Real (advanced)\" lessons at the Government funded John Nike Leisure Centre.

This is where the story takes off, being told that the Government funding has stopped, Ali G then proceeds on a one-man quest \"In the struggle for Justice I iz willing to lay down me Life, just like Martin Luther Van Dross did\". Being his reply to the local media crew when interviewing him on hunger strike while chained to a fence.

Charles Dance here plays David Carlton, the sinister and devious Deputy Prime Minster, who is \"Even more eviller than Skeletor\". Using Ali G, unknowingly, to lose the Prime Minster 18,000 votes three weeks before the General Election. Seeing Ali G as a bumbling idiot, his plan backfires. Ali G suddenly becomes an over night sensation and a saviour of the people, working directly with the Prime Minster. The story becomes more sinister and with hilarious consequences.

Ali G Indahouse is a great British movie that brings the hugely talented attributes of writing, along with Dan Mazer, executive production and acting of Sacha Baron Cohen. Charles Dance and Michael Gambon, as the P.M. play their parts with great seriousness among the gags and hilarity that is Ali G.

Ironically, seeing the parodies playing their parts in a World that really is real, and who are continually preaching \"Keep it Real\" from their own little World that is the West Staines \"Massiv\" is true comic paradox.

Directed by Mark Mylod, his first full length feature film since directing television work such as Shameless, Shooting Stars, The Fast Show and the Smell of Reeves and Mortimer to name a few.

Very Real and very funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A Formula For Murder isn't a well known Giallo, but that isn't to say it's not a very good one! The film is directed by Alberto De Martino, the man behind cult classics such as The Antichrist and Blazing Magnums. The film was released late on in the Giallo cycle, but more than stands up to many of the films released around the 'golden' period in the early seventies. Despite a lack of logic in some areas, the film works mainly due to the competent way it mixes Argento style death scenes with some genuinely surprising plot twists, and a host of well defined characters. The film is, perhaps, not as exciting overall as many other films in the genre; but this is more than compensated for by the assured way that the central situation is fed to the audience, and the tension resulting from that. The plot begins by showing a fake priest raping a young girl named Joanna, before pushing her down a flight of steps. We then fast forward several years and the girl is now a woman, who is unfortunately in a wheelchair. She is being trained for a sports event by Craig; a man who also has romantic designs on her. However, his proposal isn't met with glee by Joanna's personal assistant, who also has romantic designs on her.

The film features a plot twist half way through that makes up the backbone of the movie, and while it's not exactly logical; it's good to watch and hints that you're in for an interesting movie. Director Alberto de Martino is clearly not afraid to show a few outrageous gore scenes, and the best of which in this film features a priest being battered to death by a spade - and I personally wouldn't hesitate to name that sequence as one of my favourite Giallo murder scenes! The plot can be a little uneven at times, but generally the action is very good. The director spends what seems like an eternity on the conclusion to the film; but it's absolutely packed with tension, and the way that it plays out is good in that it takes advantage of all the plot points that have gone before it. The musical score, taken from Fulci's The New York Ripper, works well in this film also and, breaking a Giallo tradition, de Martino's film also features some rather good acting performances from cult veteran David Warbeck and Christina Nagy, in her only feature film role. Overall, this film isn't one of the easiest Giallo's to come across; but its well worth tracking down and comes recommended to fans of this sort of film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very suspenseful giallo from the director of \"L'Anticristo\"(1974),this one begins with a brilliantly-handled sequence involving a priest,a little girl,and a broken doll.However the main story is about maniac(David Warbeck)marrying a traumatized cripple to kill her for her money.The plot,whilst not original,is really suspenseful,the acting is good and there are several skillful and gory murders.The score by Francesco de Massi is quite effective,some of which can also be heard in Lucio Fulci's \"The New York Ripper\"(1982).Highly recommended for fans of Italian cinema!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The last film by underrated director Alberto De Martino (\"The Antichrist\", \"The Killer is on the Phone\") is a truly suspenseful but incomprehensibly neglected giallo, containing pretty much all the trademarks that makes this Italian horror sub genre so magnificent and addictive to the fans. There are some very disturbing themes (child abuse, phony priests\u0085), loads of creepy moments, plot twists left & right, outstanding music and \u0096 last but not least \u0096 a handful of really sadistic murder scenes! Especially the opening sequence, which is some kind of prologue, is a powerful piece of horror! What is it about ordinary child dolls that make them so creepy? When the anonymous man, dressed up like a priest, assaulted a little girl and the broken head of her doll bounced down a flight of stairs, it really sent cold shivers through my spine! Years later, the young girl from the prologue is an adult woman bound to a wheelchair. She inherited a lot of money but uses her fortune to stimulate fellow handicapped people to practice sports and to remain positive-minded. She \u0096 Joanna \u0096 falls in love with her personal coach and they get married right away. Naturally, he's only after her money and starts terrorizing Joanna by making her relive the childhood trauma that crippled her. The repeated images of a sinister looking priest, guided by eerie tunes and a nursery rhyme, provide \"Formula for a Murder\" with a ton of genuine scares and Alberto De Martino's directing is very resolute. The acting is quite competent, with David Warbeck (\"The Beyond\", \"The Black Cat\") in a glorious greedy villain role. Due some plot holes and a lack of originality, this movie might not be able to compete with Italy's best horror efforts, but it definitely deserves more attention. Many formerly obscure and unknown Italian gialli received marvelous DVD-releases and, hopefully, \"Formula for a Murder\" will be given the same treatment really soon. In the meantime, good luck tracking this baby down!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Due to its predictable, second-rate title, (the one it was distributed under in Italy, at least) I didn't expect much from this movie. Thought it'd be another cheap flick about a haunted house (\"LA CASA MALEDETTA\" means \"The cursed house\"). Well, I had to change my mind just after the very first brilliant scene! The constant presence of priests and the creepy atmospheres, reminded me a bit of The Exorcist and some of its decent Italian rip-offs, but this was going to be something completely different... This is more like Hitchcock meets Italian thriller! Very well written and directed, good actors, interesting plot... OK, I've tried not to spoil the viewing of \"7 Hyden Park\" for you, which I'd highly recommend to everyone.

P.S. Am I wrong, or when Joanna crawls or tries hard to stand (she's paralyzed from the waist down) her feet and legs move a little too much? (... And I'm not talking of the \"bad dream\" sequence.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie felt so real. I actually felt all of the emotions portrayed here during my life at various times - that of both Rory and Michael. I have Duchene's Muscular Dystrophy like Rory so what you see here is exactly what I've actually felt myself. Some won't believe there ARE disabled people like Rory, full of anger and rebellion. I know they exist because I'm one of them.

The story is great. For a drama, character-driven movie, the story moves fast. I was never bored, maybe partly because I was seeing stuff that is close to my heart. But I think most people, with intelligence, will be glued to the screen and care about the characters. The acting is phenomenal! James McAvoy is perfect as Rory O'Shea, who has Duchene's muscular dystrophy. He Steven Robertson deserves an award for his portrayal as Michael Connolly, who has cerebral palsy.

Michael's love isn't returned by a girl and Rory helps him come to terms with it. I've felt this many times and the question is \"doesn't she love me because I'm just not the one or because my disability turned her off?\" No matter what the girl says, we will always be skeptical as to the truth. It's just natural and it hurts either way.

A few parts made me cry a little because it is sad and I have to face the issues myself. People without a terminal disability just cannot begin to fathom how it can feel. This is a must-see film for everyone. Disabled people are everywhere and greatly misunderstood. This film brings a little light on some of the facts of life, which are so taken for granted by the able-bodied. We want to be just like you - to live on our own terms, to go out, to get drunk, to be loved. On the outside, we can't do much but on the inside, we're dancing!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michael (played by Steven Robertson) has cerebal palsy, and lives a quiet, and dull, life in Carrigmore Residential Home. When a newcomer to the home, Rory (McAvoy), befriends him, he proceeds to show Michael how to live past the disability. Despite, or maybe because of, Rory's crippling disability (unable to move all but his head and a few digits on his hand), Rory is fiercely independent, and extremely rebellious. His affect upon the quiet and reserve Michael is spectacular, and the two soon leave the care home to set up lives in the outside world, where they recruit the help of Siobhan (Romola Garai) as a care assistant.

This film is one of the gems of the year! Much like last year's In America, the film goes from being extremely funny, to distressing, touching, upsetting, and truly moving without once seeming saccharine sweet. Knowing exactly where to tug at the heartstrings, and where to simply let the story, and characters, do their thing, O'Donnell has crafted a wonderful film which tells us all to look past the surface, and see what lies within.

The true strengths of the film come in the lead actors. So convincing are their characters that you truly do believe that they are disabled. To further manage to convey humor and sorrow on top of the already great performances is amazing. The pair really seem close friends, and as their tale unfolds you care completely for them.

This is definitely one of the finest examples of film this year, telling a very relevant story in a simple way. If this film fails to touch your heart, then you must contain pure ice inside.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't usually comment on films since I am in the movie distribution business, but I have to say that this is one of my favorite films of all time. The acting is fantastic and the script is even better. There were no cheesy speeches or exploitation of handicapped people to try and make this movie more \"Hollywood\". James McAvoy is such an outstanding actor, I could not look away from him if I tried. I was impressed with Steven Robertson as well. I cannot believe this is his first real film. Brenda Fricker plays a small role, but as usual, she is outstanding. This is a movie for everyone to see just how lucky we all are. If you like Awakenings and Mask, you will enjoy this story. You owe it to yourself to check this film out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just witnessed a movie that by all rights should have been fodder for a second rate MOW on Lifetime...but trust the Irish to keep it from being anything but saccharine. The set-up all but SCREAMS \"Here's a message concerning what's TRULY important in life\" but the execution was way into the \"Let's see just what we can get away with, here.\"

It helps to have two fantastic actors in the leads -- James McAvoy (as Rory) and Stephen Robertson (as Michael). While Rory is offered up as the near saintly one -- never mind the language and attitude, he's the \"life force\" in this piece and could easily have been insufferable in his ultimately \"caring\" attitude -- McAvoy keeps him sharp enough to keep him from being too sweet. But the revelation is Stephen Robertson as Michael. Not since Leonardo Di Caprio in \"...Gilbert Grape\" has anyone so perfectly captured a person with an affliction that I began to believe he really was an actor with cerebral palsy. And his eyes...my God, he can rip you apart with them.

This movie is, to paraphrase Rory, f****n' amazing. Go see it. Take a box of Kleenex and enjoy every well-earned tear...and laugh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Who could have thought a non-disabled actor could act so realistically and immensely powerfully as a disabled person in a film? Probably someone. But no-one, truly no-one, could ever compare their expectations with the amazingly emotive and powerful performance given by the two actors in this film.

Michael (Steven Robertson) lives in a home for disabled people. He has Cerebral Paulsy, and as shown to us right at the beginning, he has huge trouble communicating. So it truly is a lifeline when fellow disabled member Rory (James McAvoy) who can speak normally, understands him. Thus starts off a friendship that relies mainly on (ironically enough) communication.

In a hilarious scene, they manage to move out of the home into their own. After Rory had been rejected, good hearted Michael put forward an application to move into his own house. Rory, who already had a bad name with the \"judges\", was to be his interpreter.

But troubles soon come about. They begin good-heartedly stalking a girl who they met in a pub a while back, wanting her to be their assistant to do the little things that matter. She at first is reluctant; she does not know these men, but seems they could be harmless; so strikes up another friendship, but not necessarily a good one...

As well as being poignant, however, this film really does rely on the actors. But that isn't a bad thing. For a non disabled actor, you see Rory, though he can communicate properly, frustrated at the way he's completely dependant on other people, and has no real life of his own. But the real star for me is Steven Robertson. He acts with such emotion, yearning to fit in and sadness\/happiness, that really sees him win over the whole entire film.

Excellent.

Overall: 5 out of 5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was amazing, it was extremely funny and moving. Damien O'Donnell and Jeffrey Caine have put together a great movie which will appeal to all ages. James McAvoy and Steven Robertson made this film brilliant. Their acting was excellent, there was this real lifelike feeling between them, that made you really believe they were the characters they were acting out. Romola Garai is amazingly gorgeous and brilliant in her role. The story of these two physically challenged people and their carer is well put over, and you really start to grow to know and feel for the characters as the movie goes on, it was especially upsetting at the end. I would recommend this movie to anyone that loves a truly heart felt movie, warning to the more sensitive viewer make sure you have tissues you will need them.

Again amazing film!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I was 10 (currently 14), I vowed to never see a movie that I knew would not have a happy ending. And until a few weeks ago I had done pretty well, except for Shakespere for English class...etc...I was still only watching things that ended happy. But then I saw Ramola Garai in Havanah Nights, which was cute, not good but entertaining enough to watch. After seeing this a few times over the two or so years since I first saw it, I grew to like it, especially the music. So I did a search on her and found IMDb...I saw \"Inside I'm Dancing\" and assumed she had done another dancing movie, and over looked it. It was later on an image search(of Rory, looking for Gilmore Girls poster for locker) I picked up an image from this movie...I then searched for a trailer, I found the trailer and when I saw the hospital and heard Rory say \"You've got the future\" I remembered my vow and realized this would not be a good movie for me. But it just stayed in the back of my mind until we were at the video store and there it was for $5 used, so I went ahead and bought it. After seeing it I just wanted it out of my head because it was so sad. I still wouldn't go near it until I had cerebral palsy as a vocab word. Then I just had to see it again and this time all I did was laugh, even at the saddest parts I no longer felt depressed because I realized that over all this movie was happy and uplifting...I love it and it is now one of my favorites, I;m sure this is the worst comment you have ever read. But watch the movie it's worth it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Dublin, the crippled rebel Rory O'Shea (James McAvoy) moves to the Carrigmore Residential Home for the Disabled, affecting the lives of the residents. Roy is able to understand the unintelligible speech of Michael Connolly (Steven Robertson), who was left in the shelter by his prominent father many years ago due to his cerebral palsy, and they become close friends. Rory convinces Michael to move from Carrigmore to an apartment in Dublin, and they hire the gorgeous Siobhan (Romola Garai) to assist them. Living together with Rory, Michael faces a new world, finding friendship, love and freedom and learning to survive by his own.

\"Inside I'm Dancing\" is a wonderful tale of friendship and freedom in a very beautiful story. The acting of Steven Robertson and James McAvoy are awesome and I do not understand how they have not been nominated to the Oscar with such magnificent performances. Romola Garai has also a top-notch performance and is extremely beautiful and sexy. The screenplay is touching, never corny and without redemption and the precise direction of Damien O'Donnell is very sensitive. Unfortunately the Brazilian title of the DVD is shamefully ridiculous, giving a wrong idea of this excellent movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): \"Os Melhores Dias de Nossas Vidas\" (\"The Best Years of Our Lives\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay. You saw the film and I saw the film. True? If not, there are plenty of plot summaries out there, and there is absolutely no reason for us to waste time on any feeble attempts of mine to create another.

The most stunning aspect of the film is unquestionably the performances by the two young men and the young lady in the leads. Their emotional honesty was as compelling, if not more so, than any performances I've seen in recent months. I found I laughed, cried and cringed right along with them, and that's saying a great deal because I'm often called a jaded and cynical jerk.

As one would expect, the story is rife with clich\u00e9s and I suppose that's the Achilles heel of the picture. It's a story we've all seen many times before; we all know how it will end from the moment they introduce Rory. Though you may not know exact mechanics, you know there will be a transformative friendship, a bittersweet romance and a gut-wrenching conclusion. If it weren't for the strong cast and directing, this film would be nothing more than the soporific swill that comprises eighty percent of the Hallmark Channel's program schedule.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Inside I'm Dancing (Rory O'Shea Was Here)is the story of two handicapped young men, Rory O'Shea, who is almost completely immobilized and confined to wheelchair, and Michael Connelly who is debilitated by MS and also confined to a wheelchair.

Set in Ireland, the film opens with Rory arriving at a assisted living center. He eventually befriends Michael but only after a few tense scenes where Rory rebels against the staff and other patients in the usual \"movie way\" playing loud metal music, using profanity, and general obnoxiousness. His budding friendship with Michael is cemented by the fact that Rory seems to be the only one who understands Michael, or is at least willing to try.

Eventually, through some trial and tribulation the pair petition, and are granted, the right to live own their own in specially adapted apartment. The apartment is paid for by Michael's father who had essentially abandoned him do to his disability. The two also hire an attractive assistant named Siobhan (played by Romola Garai)to help them with their day to day living. This is essentially where the crux of the film develops as both develop feelings for her. Michael is struck particularly hard. Unfortunately, for both, but Michael especially, Siobhan does not feel the same and it results in her having to leave. As Michael temporarily regresses and wants to return to the Asst. Living Center, Rory convinces him to continue to live on his own. The film ends on a sad note, that many viewers may have seen coming, but ultimately, we are left feeling that Michael has truly become independent and the future is his, as Rory pointed out to him towards the end of movie.

You know, I can't say that I've seen a lot of \"handicapped films\" and I don't know if they could be considered a specific genre. But there is a type of formula to them. One person is unwilling to live beyond his illness until some liberating force compels him\/her to do so and Inside I'm Dancing is really know different. What works however, is it probably is more subtle about the peaks and valleys the two men go through then what you might expect. There are no intentionally gratuitous moments and no \"stand up and cheer\" manipulations. The sad parts are sad and the funny parts are funny. Some viewers might recoil a bit that Rory is the spiky haired punk type with the earing in his nose as the too perfect \"rebel\" clich\u00e9, but the actor, James McAvoy, somehow makes it real. The same can be said for Steven Robertson, who plays Michael. When Michael's heart is broken it doesn't seem to be invoked by a poor script trying to get the audience worked up, but rather a young man genuinely in pain over unrequited love. The kind of pain many can relate to whatever their physical condition. Again, these are the types of things that make the film work and make it poignant without being overbearing and enjoyable on many levels.

Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Damien O'Donnell has a good track record and in this film he handles a very delicate topic with sensitivity but manages not to let the film turn into schmalz.

This is a fantastic film, its funny with sad bits and it makes you look at things differently. Tell everyone you know to go see it now- FANTASTIC!

The acting is excellent, and Dublin plays a starring role. This film will change the way you view people with disabilities and also give you a very entertaining night out in the cinema. I can't wait til it comes out on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I knew nothing about this film until I watched it... my brother in fact suggested I take a look. Normally, his suggestions aren't much cop however, but I was stuck for something to watch so I watched it.

Well, to cut a long story short, I give it 10\/10.

The film centers around two people, that meet whilst lodging at the same place. One is initially very dependant upon the institution around him, the other is a rebel. One does what he likes, the other as he's told.

From the first moments of the film we quickly see the friendship between the two building, and see how they rub off a little on each other. It's a remarkable piece of work, that manages to tell a good story without twist upon twist, people leaping out of bath tubs, or superheros coming to save the day.

There's a fair amount of grit and reality in there, not everything can ever go just right - not all gulfs can ever be spanned - and this film delightfully shows the lot.

If you watch this film, and are not impressed..... I'd suggest that you don't watch anything again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let's get it clear from the start: I am an asshole with the emotional sensitivity of cubic stone. Therefore I consider dramas of people with disabilities, social stigma or whatever ailments they have and cry on and on about it as stupid movies with poor taste. I mean, if you have a message, you can tell it without the help of sick or pitiful people.

However, I liked this movie. It is about people with incredible bad luck as personal health goes, but they don't cry about it, quite the opposite, they try to live and people try to \"protect\" or \"take care\" of them by actively removing them from real life. The message is live life to the fullest, even if the ending is as sad as possible.

My conclusion: as sick people dramas go, this one is a keeper. It is sad, yet hopeful. I like James McAvoy, even if he does seem to always play the arrogant rebel. I also say that Steven Robertson played very well. Either that or he really has partial paralysis. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think I was recommended this film by the lady in the shop I was hiring it from! For once she was bang on! What a superb film! First of all I was convinced James McAvoy & Romola Garai were Irish so convincing were their accents; and by half way through the film I was utterly convinced Steven Robertson was a disabled actor and pretty sure James McAvoy was also! When I watched the special features on the DVD and saw both actors in their 'normal' guise, to say I was blown away would be an understatement!!! I can remember all the acclaim Dustin Hoffmann got back in the 80's for his portrayal of autism in the film 'Rain Man' - quite frankly (in my opinion of course!)Steven Robertson's performance\/portrayal blows Dustin Hoffmann's right out of the water - and he deserves recognition as such!! All in all one of the greatest portrayals of human friendship\/love\/relationships ever - and it was made in Britain\/Ireland with home grown actors - stick that in yer pipe and smoke it Hollywood!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surprisingly effective British drama about two very different people who find common ground, and in particular the \"flowering\" of one of them. An embittered, \"Spike\"-type youth (McAvoy) with Deuchennes MD is placed in a home for the disabled and quickly makes friends with a youth (Robertson) with cerebral palsy. Robertson has never known anything outside of the home, but McAvoy has and he is bound and determined to get back into the real world. Together, they manage to do just that in this funny and heartwarming and often heartbreaking tale of inner strength overcoming physical shortcomings. The two leads are terrific, especially Robertson, who must surely have spent some time studying the disabled to pull off this tricky role. He appears in almost every scene, and acts up an absolute storm. To anyone who doesn't know, they might think he really has CB. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Until I saw this film, \"life is beautiful\" was my favourite film of all time. This film is everything a great film should be. Great script, unsurpassed acting and direction that neither approaches the sentimentalism the subject tempts nor leaves it without the emotional impact it demands. This film contains the taste that could not come from Hollywood and lacks the pretencion that would come from France. A wonderful movie even above the calibre I have come to expect when I see the handmade films logo come up. I need not go into detail as the previous posts encompass everything why this movie has to be seen by everyone on this planet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been looking forward to seeing this film ever since I first caught the trailer, and I'm so glad now that I have. It's truly a wonderful film. The actors are superb, the writing is fresh and real, the whole thing was just spot-on. I love James McAvoy in this, and I can't wait to see him in \"The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe\" movie this December. Romola Garai is wonderful too. Be sure to check her out in \"I Capture the Castle\" or \"Nicholas Nickleby,\" two of my favorite films. Overall, I think I liked this movie because it didn't chicken out. It's a difficult subject matter to tell a story about, in that you're very likely to offend a lot of people or mess up and make it into some overly-sentimental-sugary-sweet love fest. But they avoided doing that completely, and instead made a film that's real, honest, and touching, yes, but never over-the-top. Very well done. Amazingly well done. Go out and see it, and you'll know exactly what I mean.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went to the pre-screening of \"Rory O'Shea Was Here.\" I like this movie better than I expected, because the excellent casts and the powerful performance. It's a film about the friendship of two handicapped young man. Rory is free spirit young man who wants to be independent regardless his Duchenne muscular dystrophy. He can only move his two fingers but he can talk eloquently and help his new pal, Michael, who has cerebral palsy and is significantly speech impaired. I guess that's enough to start with a weeping drama. Well, it is. But with inspiring messages and deeply moving performances. It made me looking at my life for things I take for granted. What would I do if all I can do is to move my two fingers? I should feel grateful for what I have and what I am capable of doing. This is a good flick, although it could have been better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I got some free tickets via the Times to see this little know Irish movie called 'Inside I'm Dancing'... i didn't know a thing about it, so had no preconceptions before i went in.

The film is about two guys who are confined to their wheel chairs, and live in a home. Michael (Steven Robertson) suffers from Cerabal Palsy and Rory (James McAvoy) suffers from Muscular Dystrophy (please excuse any spelling mistakes!). They form a bond, as Rory seems to be the only person who can understand what Michael is saying. They eventually leave the home to live in a flat in Carrigmore by themselves. They immediately employ the help of an attractive girl (Romola Garai) to look after them. The two friends eventually both fall in love with the same woman. Thats the story in a nutshell, but there are lots of laughs and tears along the way... in fact... being unprepared as i was.. i found the tears were flowing way too often! In fact! I don't think i've cried so much watching a movie since The Elephant Man!!! This film is a HUGE drain on the emotions... both in the fun stuff, and the sad stuff. The acting is absolutely spot on! James McAvoy is my tip for greatness... he's a great Irish actor and i think he has a great future ahead of him. Steven Robertson who plays Michael was superb too... and it wasn't until today that i found out that he doesn't suffer from Cerabal Palsy and it was just some superb acting! Brenda Fricker is also in this film, and plays the part of the Home's Manager very well. The other great part has to be Romola Garai, she was wonderful as the love interest, and i reckon we'll be seeing more of her on the big screen in the near future!

The thing that makes this film work, is not only the synergies between the two leads, but the script... which is just so #### witty it literally is on fire! I still can't help repeating some of the lines in my head even now.

The photography is good, although very bleak, but then it is capturing a certain type of area of Ireland. The music is great in this film too, as well as the choice in Songs... the use of the Johnny Cash cover of the Nine Inch Nails track 'Hurt' is inspired!!

If i had to sum this film up in one word... it would be 'emotional'. This film is very very funny... and then on the turn of a coin its very very sad! I still can't believe that still two days after seeing the film, looking back on it i both laugh and almost cry! This film is amazing... and i hope it goes far! Although i can't see that, as its advertising budget is probably very small!

So go see it! I urge you... you wont regret it...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an incredible piece of drama and powerful which hits you. I found the film was great and getting to grips with the two main characters disability, this was represented in a great performance by both two Michael and Rory. Whether the story is based around a true story I feel the story was trying to giving the audience a message that as a whole the general public should respect and feel for the needs of disabled people and that they should be given the same chance as any other human. On the whole this film reach into my soul and I too felt touched by the actors and the director sending out there creativity. The whole picture is that some actors take it beyond their character the play and only show part of the character that is believable to the audience, but I feel that theses two certainly made great use as their gifted talent to portray a masterpiece piece of drama. Certainly one not to be missed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you want a film with the full range of emotion, look NO further; dramatic and funny, and scenes of wrenching emotion; I can safely guarantee VERY few will be able to view this warm and VERY human film without shedding a tear now and then. The acting by the two leads is hard to believe; you would swear the two young men really DO suffer from Muscular Dystrophy (Rory) and Cerebral Palsy (Michael); quite simply, two of the FINEST performances I have EVER seen; these are two very believable characters as well, and you never have the feeling things have just been \"tossed in\" for dramatic purposes or to evoke sympathy. In the DVD release as \"extras\" they have \"deleted scenes\" (including an alternate ending) and an \"extended party sequence\"; why these clips were not included in the final film is hard to understand, as they tie in with the rest of the film perfectly and are in NO way superfluous. But without reservation I can heartily recommend this film to anyone; one of the very best I have ever seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's rare that I get the opportunity to review a film for IMDb that relates to my own life in such a close way. However, as someone living with cerebral palsy (albeit less severe than Michael, one of the main characters in the film) I don't wish to give this film a 'free pass' just because it tackles a subject that's rarely approached; and when it is, is normally treated with po-faced seriousness. There WERE minor problems I had with the film; and I'd like to address those first, so that people are clear that it isn't my situation which has clouded my judgement of this overall excellent film!

* Parts of it I felt were unashamedly crowd-pleasing, at the expense of realism. If I had a pound for every time a well-meaning member of the public has mentioned electric-wheelchair racing to me, I'd be much the richer man; but speaking personally, that fits more into the public perception of how we deal with our disadvantages, rather than the reality of what actually goes on. Same thing with spending time watching disabled people go to the pub - it's not a big deal to those of us who actually do it, as much as it might be admirable for outsiders looking in. I appreciate that this is from the previously sheltered perspective of Michael; but I still think he'd be concentrating more on enjoying the experience, rather than reflecting on what a big deal it was that he was actually there, in the first place. As such, the amount of time we spend seeing them have fun felt like a bit too much.

* I felt that the terminal nature of Rory's illness was brought to our attention far too late; meaning that it was just used as a cheap sentimental device to come between the pair, rather than something everybody knew all along was going to have to be dealt with.

To balance those criticisms, I have to dish out a heap of praise, as well. Although I thought some scenes showing them getting to grips with normal life were a touch overdone; the script also ventured into some tricky places I wouldn't have expected, and comes out with a lot of credit for doing so. For instance raising the issue of love and relationships; and showing the daily apparatus often used to aid and assist the lives of non able-bodied people. Also, despite the blunt emotional shock tactic of death being sprung upon us, the movie as a whole is far less sappy than anyone has a right to expect these type of films to be.

Brenda Fricker can and has been performing variations of her role capably on autopilot for what seems like years; but Robertson and McAvoy share a special interaction that must be noted. Inside, I'm doing cartwheels that a group of people somewhere have finally made a film doing justice to the lust for life of many disabled persons.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"as a 'physically challenged' person (god, how i hate that phrase) i just happened to catch this on cable where there was absolutely nothing else to watch - overall, it was a fantastic movie. yes, i was a little disappointed upon finding out that neither actor is disabled, and yes, i was a little disappointed that more of the movie wasn't filmed from the 'true' point of view of the disabled (can you imagine what it's like always being the tallest person in the room and then having to live the rest of your life with a view of nothing but other people's asses and crotches? having to always wait for the idiot to stop reading the newspaper in the only handicapped stall, enduring everyone else's rude bodily expulsions while you wait?). and the scene with him driving the car was absolutely me! been there, done that, literally. but the movie was true enough to matter - while i've never lived in a home or assisted residence, there were plenty of times throughout the movie where i found myself nodding and saying to myself \"yeah, that's true.... that's happened to me....\" what impressed me is that some of the commentors on this board expressed the fact that the movie made them view life a little differently and with a little more insight as the lives of a silent 'minority' - can't ask more than that out of a movie, that it makes you think and view life differently, so by virtue of that alone, the movies was tremendously successful. should be required viewing of every kid in junior high school.

pretty much for every person that's severely physically disabled, independence is one of, if not the most important focus of our daily lives, from working to socializing to recreating. for those of you who felt the movie was 'cliched,' try living our life for a single day - you'll see that the movie was 'cliched' because..... it's true. the challenges the actors faced only skimmed the surface of what happens to us every day - if we're lucky, we experience the same emotional and personal growth that the three characters (including the girl) did. every day presents obstacles for us to overcome - it's just that there's no swelling, dramatic music to accompany our lives, unless it's in our ipods.... lol!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was surprised and touched by this emotional movie which moved me very strange. I was confused, sad and happy in the same moment. I guess that too less people will pay attention to this movie. But I hope that at least a few will see it and get something out of it. The story of two friends, linked by their suffers of bodily disability, whom (as a team) beat the medical well-fare system and fight for their rights. This movie shows a side which some of us would never understand, not too exaggerated but emotional presented. Hopefully this movie will help us to understand some of their desires better and realize how important it is to have a friend in the world, especially when you almost unable to express that fact.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is definitely a movie that will make you think about the everyday struggles a person can go through every day. Great acting by the two leading roles exemplifies this further, and you will not regret seeing this movie in any way.

It's a heartwarming tale of two new friends exploring the ups and downs of everyday life seen from the seat of a wheelchair. Their friendship is tested, as well as their spirits when they get their own flat outside the nursing home.

I recommend this film to everyone who likes buddy-pictures or just wants to see a wonderful and heartwarming film that steers clear of all the clich\u00e9s and pitfalls and not once gets soggy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is by far one of the best movies I have seen in a very long time. Top 20 of my lifetime. I laughed more than I have since Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and cried more than I have since I saw The Notebook. If you are looking for a touching movie without the sappy edge...this is the one. It is real and powerful. See it and you won't regret it. I was reluctant at first and I only watched it because I had to do a school project about speech disabilities. But this movie is so much more than that. It is about life, free and independent from the way the world would have you held down. Its about the disabilities that each of us have that keep us from see ourselves and what we miss but letting everything else get in the way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A stunning film which brought into the open so much about disability that generally makes people afraid. It showed how minds can be captured by less than willing bodies and how difficult it must be to witness things happening to others that are wanted for the disabled individual.

Love, friendship, fear, frustration, joy, humour and so many others things were so well captured. The 2 lead characters were very well played by the 2 able bodied actors and invited your laughter, tears, concern, joy and dismay.

I approached this film with a mixture of interest and trepidation worrying that it might be too much a play for sympathy or dwell only on negatives. It was however a beautifully crafted story of 2 friends.

I loved it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bring a box of Kleenex to this funny, engaging, and moving weeper. The two leading actors give tour de force performances - there was considerable debate afterward about whether they are really disabled (they are not.) I appreciated that for once the filmmakers dared to be politically incorrect by depicting people with severe physical disabilities as fully developed people, character flaws and all. As a result, their believability engages us and makes us grow to like them and care about their conflicts. The story structure is formulaic, and many of the secondary characters are merely types, but the two central characters are so riveting that it doesn't matter.

Interesting - the original title, INSIDE I'M DANCING, reflects the viewpoint of the character Michael, while the new title for USA release suggests that Rory is the central figure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an incredible piece of drama and powerful which hits you. I found the film was great and getting to grips with the two main characters disability, this was represented in a great performance by both two Michael and Rory. Whether the story is based around a true story I feel the story was trying to giving the audience a message that as a whole the general public should respect and feel for the needs of disabled people and that they should be given the same chance as any other human. On the whole this film reach into my soul and I too felt touched by the actors and the director sending out there creativity. The whole picture is that some actors take it beyond their character the play and only show part of the character that is believable to the audience, but I feel that theses two certainly made great use as their gifted talent to portray a masterpiece piece of drama. Certainly one not to be missed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Oscar-winning short film (40 minutes), based on a short story by William Faulkner, takes us back to small-town Tennessee in December 1941. Two brothers, one about 18 and one about 8 are looking for birds eggs (obviously a huge collectors item for boys in the South around this time). Well, the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor and the older brother, Pete, decides to enlist. He gives his prize egg to his little brother, Willie and heads off wishing to show more emotion and tenderness to his little acolyte. Well, Willie isn't having any of it, if Pete can be a soldier so can he. He heads to Memphis, showing his stubbornness and determination as he gets the better of several adults along the way. After finding the enlistment center in Memphis, he demands to see his brother, pulling a knife on a lieutenant and wounding him in the process. We are shown the devotion and love of a little brother (Jonathan Furr). He delivers a impeccable performance as a stubborn strong-willed boy in the gentler times of yesteryear. The movie tries and mostly succeeds in showing how brothers can show devotion and the importance of family ties in one's youth. As the two brothers reunite shortly, the movie delivers a cathartic cry as the brotherly love envelops us all.

This movie is like a cold bottle of water. Maybe Dasani or Aquafina, good, clear water with a flavorful mineral packet, but not pure natural spring water like Evian. Still, it quenches your thirst and you don't doubt its purity and quenching effects. It is more run of the mill and less expensive than some, but gets the job done, leaving one refreshed and detoxified afterwards. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although this was a film of only less than forty minutes, it is one of best directed and acted stories I have ever seen. It accomplishes in less than 45 minutes what most films cannot in more than 90.

It is the story of two brothers, one 18 and the other 10. They come from a poor farm family in Mississippi. Both are caught up in war and the conflict of duty verses love of family.

It brought tears to my eyes especially because the entire film is so well acted and directed, plus it tells the story of so many wars where one serves and the other left behind.

I can fully recommend this film as beyond superb !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"William Faulkner was one of the American writers to win the Nobel Prize in literature. Faulkner mostly wrote about life in the South particularly during the depression years. Many of his stories have been adapted to screen. Short stories like Two Soldiers is an endearing tale of two brothers in December 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The older brother, Pete Greer, goes to Memphis, Tennessee to enlist like hundreds of thousands of young men, some who would never come home. His younger brother doesn't take his departure well. He manages to get a bus ticket to Memphis without any money to find his brother. He surprisingly becomes a soldier of another kind since he wants to enlist also at 10 years old. Ron Perlman does a surprising performance as the military leader who manages to take care and bond with the boy. This short film won an Oscar for Best Short-Live Action film which is well-deserved. If it was longer, it could compete with the longer films. Everything else like costumes, art direction, and recreating the era of America in 1941 is perfect. The film also shows the heartbreaking war at home as most Americans were surviving the great depression. The actors and actresses are not known but they do a first rate performances. If Hollywood would make more quality films, I would probably go to the cinema more. If Broadway had more quality shows, I would go to the theater more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Much about this movie was beautiful. The acting, the scenery, and without a doubt, Aaron's cinematography background showed through on the beautiful shots. Definitely worth watching, as your attention will be captivated the entire time, and it ends on just the right note.

The acting by newcomer Jonathan Furr was superb, as one would think he was a pro acting since he was born. He has gone on to act in other feature films, but this starring role will always be remembered.

The film does have that academy award feel to it at times, where it's slow and scenic and quiet, so it's not a movie that a.d.d. kids can sit through. However, the rustic feel of East Bend and Yadkinville played out well as a 1940's era film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was made right in the area where I grew up and now live. I know personally most of the property owners of the various locations used in the film. As a teenager, I worked in the fields surrounding the isolated road shown late in the film with Ron Perlman, Jonathon Furr, and the car. I am told that Jonathon Furr and Ben Allison are are natives of NC. I was fortunate to see it at a local showing. At that showing was one of the people who helped select locations and secure props, such as the bus (1938 Greyhound) used in the movie. The bus had no reverse gear and during filming, the driver missed his stopping point a few times and had to drive several miles to return to the proper point. Those details of the technical issues added to the enjoyment for me. The film accurately depicts life in this area during WWII. A well done film and I anxiously await the DVD availability.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mom should really be given a different title to distinguish it from all the other movies out there called Mom or with the word Mom in the title.

This is a vastly superior zombie movie to so much of the rubbish that gets churned out time after time and all end up much the same as every other zombie movie out there.

It is so different and refreshing it almost defies categorisation.

The kind old lady who takes in a creepy lodger, who just happens to be a flesh eater, who then infects the old lady who also turns into a flesh eating zombie, or ghoul, quite which exactly is not defined.

There is pathos in the story as her son realises what she has become and while at first horrified, attempts to help her by supplying 'food'. (I shall say no more about that, for fear of inserting a spoiler!) It is one of those 'quiet' movies as opposed to guns blasting, explosions raging, car chases, etc boring etc that makes so many movies all the same rubbish, but still with enough gory moments to satisfy horror fans, whilst also inserting sadness into the story, along with nice touches of humour as opposed to downright silliness of some so-called 'horror' movies.

There is a particularly nice atmospheric shot at the beginning of the film, where the old lady is sitting alone in her room with only her Christmas tree for company and looks so 'innocent', but, what she becomes!! Oh my!

A gem of a movie and even if not your thing, should at least be viewed if only once by any true horror fan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When his elderly mother Emily (Jeanne Bates) is attacked by her lodger Nestor Duvalier (Brion James) and turns into a cannibalistic monster, TV news reporter Clay Dwyer (Mark Thomas Miller) struggles to keep dear old mom from satisfying her hunger.

Although the above plot summary conjures up images of trashy, over-the-top, 80s horror titles such as Flesheating Mothers and Rabid Grannies, Mom actually turns out to be a refreshingly original take on the werewolf\/vampire\/zombie mythos (exactly what Emily becomes is never really clear, but it ain't nice!), as well as a touching study of the close bond between mother and son: Clay's devotion to his mother leads him to abandon all of his other responsibilities, including his job and his relationship with pregnant girlfriend Alice (Mary Beth McDonough), whilst Emily's love for Clay ultimately drives her to self-destruction.

Technically, the film could be sharper, with more stylish direction and better effects (the shots of the creature are kept very brief, so as not to disappoint), and certain more experienced members of the cast frustrate with terribly cheesy performances (Yes, Brion James and Stella Stevens, I AM referring to you); fortunately, however, the strong emotional undercurrent in the well constructed story is enough on its own to ensure that Mom is an effective, compelling, and occasionally shocking tale\u0097one which I have no hesitation in recommending to those looking for something a little different.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mom has to be one of the all time uncomfortable movies to watch. It features an elderly lady you would love to have as your Nanny who becomes the nastiest mother f***ing monster you would ever want to meet on a dark night!

This supper Nanny eats the inners of a young lady at the opening of the movie and it just gets sicker as it goes on. A cross between the howling and brain dead seem to come to mind when describing Mom!

A must for horror fans who have the stomach for it (if you have watched re-animator or brain dead, this will float your boat)and are willing to switch the brain off for an hour or so...Let the gore pour!...8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Caribe\" is not a masterpiece in any of its storytelling aspects. However, it delivers a perfectly enjoyable story, along with a magnificent cinematography. The narrative structure is set around two narrative axes, one of them embedding the other, each one having elements that relate and co-exist in excellent harmony. The story never loses the right pacing, and it shows a very good blending of the human figure with its natural environment (which is a character in itself). The acting is great, and for that we owe credit to the emerging director, Esteban Ram\u00edrez. Furthermore, the characters are very well written and masterfully complex; so, once you become familiarized with them, you can perceive their feelings without them even saying anything. I can't say I liked this picture because of all the hype it generated(in Costa Rica), but rather because of the way it really achieves in showing an interesting portrait of what happens when you interfere with the equilibrium of people's lives. Hopefully, Caribe will establish a reference for future projects in Costa Rica, as it is a very good example of nice movie making.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't have much faith at the beginning, but as a Costa Rica's citizen I can confirm that the movie shows the reality that we live day by day, and shows a lot of things of our culture, such as our way to speak, our music, our way of standing up for our rights without any fear, without any weapons.

I'm really proud of the job they did and of how they didn't forget along the movie the message they wanted us to receive, not caring for the money, but actually working with a short budget, letting us appreciate the beautiful scenarios and the great photography.

I strongly recommend seeing this movie, you will not regret it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's 3:30am.

I just saw this movie about six minutes ago and it is fantastic.

A teenage girl has a night of passion with her mom's lover and it ruins everybody's lives. The really interesting thing about this movie is that you can't really place the blame on any one person.

Everyone performed perfectly, and the story was thought-provoking.

You should definitely see this movie if you can get your hands on it.

I give it a 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the finest TV movies you could ever see. The acting, writing and production values are top-notch. The performances are passionate with Beverly D'Angelo superb as the older woman with a teenage daughter and Rob Estes simply perfect as the young stud boyfriend. However, the best part of this film was how it showed the consequences of sexual abuse instead of going for the usual happy ending. It showed that abuse can happen in good families; involve good people; and wreck lives. It is thought provoking and entertaining. Congratulations to all concerned with this exceptional movie.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Billy and Jade had a very close relationship that went to far one evening even though Billy was sleeping with Jade's mother. Jade has to deal with the fact that her mother may never know and that it will never happen again. Billy is played by Rob Estes who couldn't have looked better. Lifetime tv has made another movie that everyone is bound to like.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So often these \"Lifetime\" flicks are one-dimension, with over-the-top characterizations and performances, and with contrived plot lines and climaxes which are intended to trade any semblance of reality for drama.

But most of all, many of these flicks provide characters where it's difficult to feel a trace of sympathy or empathy for even the \"good guy\/good gal\" characters, much less the\"bad\" ones.

However, here the performance were all good, the characters realistic, and the relationships among the three leads (as well as the ex-husband\/father and the two females) rang true throughout.

The mother's boyfriend was portrayed as being about halfway in age between mother and daughter, and the actors were age-appropriate to this in term of their actual ages. None of the characters was portrayed at an extreme - either all-good or all-bad - and all rang true.

Without in any way condoning his allowing the relationship with his prospective stepdaughter to advance to the level which it did - you can still feel some sympathy for him without retracting blame.

Neither mother nor daughter were perfect, neither good nor bad, but simply two individuals whose relationship seemed realistic and not contrived by the script writer.

Lifetime flicks - even those which begin with some semblance of normality - often end with a deranged character brandishing a carving knife or such. Other stories seem to need to provide the \"everyone lived happily ever-after\" close.

This film presented a realistic premise, story and resolution, from start to finish - a welcomed variation to the norm of this genre\/","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Movie Is Excellent The passion between Jade & Billy is memorable and the acting was great, This is why you don't leave a 16 year old and a young man like that alone together! It shows why a single mother shouldn't date a younger man with a teen aged daughter in the house, cause he looked young enough to be Jessy's son.

I give it ten out of ten, The acting was wonderful and the movements between the actors was correct.

The age difference between Jenny and Rob was good too, because they were similar in age.

Overall, its a fun movie but i think nobody under 13 should watch this movie because of the sexual scenes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jenny Lewis plays an awkward girl called Jade. She smokes and drinks. She doesn't have a lot of friends and she has a nagging mother(Beverly D'Angelo). Jade finds herself growing closer to her mom's boyfriend Billy(Rob Estes), maybe she is attracted to him. Of course, I don't need to tell you what happens after that.

This is probably my favorite TV movie. This movie shows that sometimes everyone is to blame. This movie also has the best acting that I have seen in TV movies. Beverly D'Angelo does a really nice job as a sweet and loving but neglectful and blind mother. She couldn't see what was going on under her own roof. Rob Estes is at his best here as the sleazeball. Jenny Lewis is the standout. She seems to be exactly like her character.

Everyone seems to love this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Without going into any details of a good...if a somewhat provocative...TV movie, there seems to be a consensus among the users that there is \"no one to blame here\".

I disagree. Yes, the young male lover of Beverly D'Angelo, played by Rob Estes may be young and horny (and good looking) because he's not getting as much as he wants from mom, that doesn't mean, he can climb in bed and have sex with daughter. OK, he can use the excuse he just wanted to watch TV with her, but I don't buy it. People have to take responsibility for their actions. Not only did he \"cross the line\" by having sex with a very vulnerable teen, when he was supposedly \"the responsible adult\",he said, \"Your mom must never know about this.\" How responsible was he then? Yes, it's a good flick, but he got what was coming to him. Don't kid yourselves folks that what happened was \"no one's fault\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You know, people who make comedies so often forget it's really ok to be outrageous. Well, not this time. Unconditional Love has it all. Barry Manilow and a dwarf in a movie with Cathy Bates as the romantic lead...and it works. Not only does it work, it works very very well. In fact, I think it's perfect. I laughed so hard I think I hurt myself yet the main characters were all so human, so honest, and so very real. But isn't that where great comedies come from? Don't characters need real feelings, real emotions, and the ability to feel real pain? Well, they do in this movie. Unconditional Love is a movie you shouldn't miss, especially if you need a seriously good laugh, or you're at all curious about seeing the psychotic dwarf in the red raincoat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this movie to be extremely delightful.I am biased I suppose.I happen to adore Kathy Bates.I found her singing an added pleasure.She has a very nice voice.

Ms Bates plays Grace Beasley.The film takes you from her doledrums married life in Chicago to England,the home of her recently murdered singing idol Victor Fox.There she meets his three surviving uppity sisters.She also discovers that Victor leaves behind a male lover,Dirk Simpson.

The story leads you on to some surprisingly comedic and heartwarming situations as Grace and Dirk develop a true fondness for each other,after an initial rather rude rejection,on his part.They return to Chicago where they team up with Grace's pint-sized,hilarious daughter-in-law,Maudie,to find the serial killer who murdered Victor.

Everyone in the picture did a fine job.Particularly enjoyed Julie Andrews,Lynn Redgrave and Barry Manilow.This movie was fun.It makes you cry.The music is absolutely charming.

Other posters here who found problems with any parts of this movie,just don't have a clue.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My husband and I both loved this film. At first my husband was skeptical and asked how many points he got for sitting through this one. But after a few key scenes he was totally sucked in and by the end he was convinced it was one of the best movies going. Kathleen Bates has never been so wonderfully loveable and the rest of the cast is just simply fantastic. Thank you for this beautiful film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a shame this movie was never released. (It is now playing on cable.) I tuned in based on my high regard for the stars and was rewarded by seeing a movie far better than the ones I've been paying to see in theatres recently. I like to be surprised. So often movies are marketed as \"offbeat,\" but are in fact more of the same old recycled drivel. This movie is genuinely different, with the bonus of a heartwarming message. Jonathan Pryce sings like an angel. Even though he is required by the plot to sing some of the most mawkishly sentimental songs ever written, he does them so well one doesn't mind. Cathy Bates and Rupert Everett are well-cast and superb, but a newcomer in the role of Cathy Bates' daughter-in-law steals every scene she is in. Give this film a chance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"But a great cast! Jonathan Pryce, Kathy Bates, Rupert Everett, Lynne Redgrave, Julie Andrews and Dan Aykroyd! And that's just the beginning.

I'm not totally sure that any description of the movie and plot are going to entice you to watch this one. Suffice it to say that it has something for practically everyone: death, singing, a sparkly suit, cell phones, a little person (nice looking woman, actually), a drawbridge (modern, not Medieval), a boombox, and a crossbow. Oh, and a psychotic. And Barry Manilow.

You will have to trust me when I say that 50% of you out there will hate this movie because of the lack of the Absurd Gene in your DNA makeup. It's not your fault; it's hereditary. The other 50% of you will probably want to change the channel after 20 minutes, but you HAVE TO KEEP WATCHING.

Even at that, at the end you may wonder why you watched... but keep in mind that absurdity thing. It should grow on you. It is a test.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Unconditional Love\" starts with great promise. As directed by P. J. Hogan, the film works great up until the last third of the movie, when it falls flat on its face. The screen play Mr. Hogan and Jocelyn Moorehouse wrote showed a myriad of possibilities that fizzle at the end. It appears the artistic team behind the movie had great hopes for it to play differently. The reality is this is a film that is looking in different directions in how to bring it to a resolution that ultimately fails. Don't get me wrong, the movie is tremendously appealing and will resonate with a lot of its viewing public.

Based on the strong cast, we decided to take a look. The tremendously talented Kathy Bates is the perfect choice to play Grace Beasley, the woman who finds at the beginning of the film that all is not well in her marriage. Ms. Bates is an excellent actress who deserved much better, even when her character is not helped by what the authors have her do in the film.

Rupert Everett is always dependable into delivering. His role, as the late Victor Fox's lover is well written, that is, until Dirk is lured into coming to Chicago to find Victor's murderer. It's bizarre and it defies all rules of logic. Dirk doesn't look capable of hurting a fly, let alone hunt down a killer with the help of Grace and her daughter-in-law, the incredible funny, Maudey.

As played by Meredith Eaton, this little woman, Maudey, is one of the best things in the film. She's is brash and tells it as she sees it. Peter Sarsgaard, one of the best actors working in films these days has nothing to do in the picture; he is totally wasted. Dan Aykroyd also has nothing to do. We see him at the beginning and at the end of the film and his Max doesn't make sense. He appears to want changes in his life and his marriage, only to come back to Grace without any explanation, all things forgiven.

The English actors are good. Lynn Redgrave has a better opportunity as the hysterical Nola. Jonathan Pryce is seen throughout the film as a ghost singing bland songs. Julie Andrews makes a funny contribution in a couple of priceless scenes.

Ultimately the television show hosted by Sally Jesse Raphael is a turn off and doesn't add anything to the movie. The best part is hearing Kathy Bates singing. What a beautiful voice she has! In fact, Ms. Bates is the best excuse for staying until the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a huge Rupert Everett fan. I adore Kathy Bates so when I saw it available I decided to check it out. The synopsis didn't really tell you much. In parts it was silly , touching and in others some parts were down right hysterical.

Any person that is a huge fan of a personality of any type will find some small identifying traits with the main character. (Of course there are many they won't, but that is the point)

If you like any of the actors give it a watch but don't look for any thing too dramatic it's good fun.

I might also mention you can see how darn tall Rupert is. I mean I knew he was 6'4\" but he seems even more in this film. He even seemed to stoop a bit due to the other characters height in this. He is tall! I mean tall!!!! And for you Rupert fans there is a bare chest scene...WONDERFUL!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Minor Spoilers

In Chicago, Grace Beasley (Kathy Bates) is a housewife having a twenty-five years marriage with the lawyer Max Beasley (Dan Aykroyd) and a hysterical and psychotic dwarf daughter-in-law, Maudey (Meredith Eaton). Grace worships the singer Victor Fox (Jonathan Price), who will present a TV show in Chicago and will give five spots on the first row in a TV promotion. Kate calls the show and wins a ticket, when Max simultaneously asks for the divorce, claiming that their lives are too monotonous. Grace becomes depressed, and when she goes to the show, the audience is informed that a Chicago serial killer, who uses a crossbow, killed Victor Fox. With a broken heart, she decides to fly to England to Victor Fox's funeral. There, she realizes that he was gay, and becomes friend of his former mate Dirk Simpson (Rupert Everett). They fly back to Chicago, trying to find the killer. This movie is a delightful, original and weird dramatic comedy, having bizarre characters. It has a huge potential to be a cult-movie, with the presences of Julie Andrews and Barry Manilow themselves and a joke with Nicolas Roeg's masterpiece 'Don't Look Now', when Maudey wears a red raincoat in Chicago's underground part of the city. The beginning of the movie, with Jonathan Price singing 'Hitchcock Railway', is wonderful. I have repeated it four consecutive times. The cast has a magnificent performance, highlighting Kathy Bates, Jonathan Price, Rupert Everett and the unknown Meredith Eaton. Indeed, this movie is an excellent entertainment. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Amor a Toda Prova' ('Love to the Proof')","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wonder why I haven't heard of this movie before. It's truly a magnificent comedy (I'd say farce, but it's too well acted and I'd hate to denigrate it's quality). A comedic character study about the travails of mid-life crises, the inequity for gays who can't have their long-time unions recognized, and the general differences of people who can't fit nicely into society, that pairs Kathy Bates and Rupert Everett to a wonderful effect. Forget Julia Roberts and Rupert; Kathy Bates and Rupert should do another movie together. The anxiety-ridden, acerbic and outrageous daughter-in-law, Maudie (Meredith Eaton), is a truly wonderful character. If you liked the Tales of the City films, you'd like this quirky charmer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We loved this movie because it was so entertaining and off beat-- Not your usual Hollywood drivel.

My husband had a Blockbuster coupon and passed on a string of new releases of violent Hollywood stuff. He was about to walk out when he saw this and decided to take a chance. There was only one copy -- and with some glitches in the DVD that we finally had to flip to wide screen version and then back to the full screen version to make it stop stalling. But it was worth it. Cathy Bates is so good and she was so perfect for the role. And she can sing too!

If only Hollywood would learn from Independent film makers! Maybe we would go back to the real movies. But for now, we're sticking with off beat and really entertaining films like this one! Other examples we've enjoyed include: A Box Full of Moonlight, Pieces of April, Delivering Milo, The Celestine Prophesy. Most of the ones by Christopher Guest such as: Best in Show, For your Consideration, A Mighty Wind, and Waiting for Guffman","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a truly heartwarming film not just about love, but about learning about yourself and your values in life. Though the story is a novel starting point for a film, it is easily recognized by most people. It combines a wicked sense of humor with a subtle assault on homophobia. Not to be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Unconditional Love is one of the best movies I've seen in a while. It's an emotional roller-coaster. One of my favorite scenes is the pub scene. When Dirk tells Grace that he didn't want to go to the pub because the villagers don't like him, you expect the worst. When the old woman holds her glass up and says 'To the Memory of Victor Fox and the whole pub follows suit, I wanted to cry. The funeral scene is hysterical! Julie does it in her typical Julie Andrews style. Johnathan Pryce is excellent as Victor. Grace is one of Kathy Bates' best roles. Meredith Eaton steals just about every scene that she is in. Rupert Everett does some of his finest work in Unconditional as Dirk. The Kiss between Rupert and Meredith took me to another bout of hysterics. In this day and age of Gay rights being questioned, I think this movie should be seen by all. As a gay Man in my late 40's I have seen people lose everything when a loved one dies. So kudo's to all involved in the making of this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Man, I had my doubts. I love Kathy Bates, but I thought, how good can this be, I had never even heard of this thing...! You know, it was one of those things, we gave it \"20 minutes and we'll turn it off if it sucks\" and we were locked in from the get-go. This is a very winsome, fun movie. It's quirky, you know? I mean, you've got a lounge singer, a murderer (and a believable one), you have farce, then Kathy Bates in all her acting splendor, Rupert Everett finally acting to his real potential, Dan Ackroyd, and a dwarf that will make you laugh out loud. I tell ya, you'll laugh\/you'll cry.

Maybe I had a weird week, but I think this film is on the level of Fried Green Tomatoes. If you don't like that movie, maybe you won't like this, but I think it was a great movie. I went out and bought the DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie in a queer film festival. 10 minutes after the movie ended a gay couple walked up to me and asked me whether I needed help - I was still sitting, crying like a maniac. The movie is cheesy, it's bizarre, it's over the top, it's gay - but it is amazing. I do think that every character is plausible. Everett's character is mean to a woman who only tries to help, he brutally throws his (terrible) friends out, he does have a temper, he can harm a fly, the \"fly\" that killed the love of his life, doubly so. Bates is a miracle, she is perfect, just like a role. A woman whose love and admiration is so strong that she even loves the homosexual lover of her idol is to me the essence of true love. I even understand Max (the husband), he is bored with his life, he's got a midlife crisis. He moves out, tries to lead an exciting life, only to realise a) that he's the really boring part in the relationship and b) that he loves his wife. I love the fact that she comes back to him in the end because I think that it gives the film the right balance between dream and reality. For in the end he's her husband and he might not be as exciting as Victor but he's real, he is the man she loves in a very down to earth way. I've watched it about 50 times and I do love this film, everything about it unconditionally. BTW, just read Rupert Everett's autobiography and UL is the only film that he talks of as one of the best films he ever made. To me it's the best film he ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is the most moving and funny movie I've seen in a very long time. As a housewife ( \"homemaker\") and a fan ( Rupert) I found it to be sympathetic . Anyone who misinterprets Dirk's angry outburst has it wrong. Kathy Bates is not really an actress I know but she is perfect , the whole cast is perfect for their roles. Julie Andrews had me in stitches .I am watching it after reading Rupert's auto-biography so the inclusion of her was even more fun. It is at times terribly moving .I am not really a fan of the type of music in the film but you get drawn in to the romance and find you are singing the songs for days .This movie deserves to be more widely available .Our favourite scene involves Dirk and a gun and his trousers , watch it and see !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What an excellent movie, made even more so by the fact that my wife and I stumbled onto it so serendipitously, channel surfing on a nice frozen day in North Texas. Kathy Bates is at her usual best leading a cast of very normal and human costar characters thru one of the most wonderful feel good movies we've ever seen. Why this movie wasn't given the attention it deserved on it's release in 2002 is difficult to understand. Why it was head and shoulders above so many of the boring pieces of trash released with greater fanfare and attention is evident in the viewing. It is obvious that we as a general public are being force-fed that which has been deemed \"great and wonderful\" by the powerful and influential while true gems such as \"Unconditional Love\" manage to shine thru all those pretenders to really enjoyable cinema. Rent or buy this movie.....you won't regret it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first bought this movie, I had my doubts about it, even though the cast was pretty impressive. But after seeing it, I really do not regret spending the money. In fact, I'd love to spend it again and again and again on movies like this.... An absurd combination of humor, drama, thrill and the big questions. This is exactly what makes it a Great movie. Okay, some might not enjoy what they see, and some might even turn it off after a little while. your loss. It's got a wonderful way of dealing with the issues we've all been through in one way or the other, and the characters you think you won't enjoy the company of throughout the movie, turns out to be the ones you really come to love after a short while. For anyone with an open mind, and a sense of humor and living - watch this movie, I promise you you won't be disappointed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I quote below words from my favor writer, Paulo Coelho, as the comment for this movie.

\" When you really want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it\"

It is too easy to forget who we really are and what we desire to do in life. Because there are always too many comments and advice surrounding us to tell safety. I had almost forgot what the passion feel like. Despite of the adventure will take me out of safety zone, I truely believe the fear is just the price that I need to pay for the coming brand new journey in life.

Thanks for inspiring me with this lovely story. It is the blessing for me to realize what unconditional love is. That is the most treasurable love from the light of soul.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I also joined IMDB for the sole purpose of commenting on this film, but so that I can sing its praises. I had never heard of this movie (it's packaged so horribly that it's easy to see why it may get passed over) but a good friend suggested it to me and I'm so glad she did. It's a gem of a film. The actors are great (Kathy Bates and Meredith Eaton in particular) and look like they are truly having a fun time. Sure at times it was a bit over the top, but I cannot remember the last time I laughed so hard or so many times over the course of two hours. If you love to laugh, then you owe it to yourself to see this film.

Highly Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the oddest movies I have watched in a long while. Usually if they are this strange I bail out early and rarely regret it. Luckily, I held on for this one. While I can't say that this is a great movie (it isn't), I can say that watching it is rather like a good acid trip - only a few really awful moments and the rest filled with \"did I really just see that?\" wonderment. Lots of laugh out loud moments. A great cast of characters with Meredith Eaton outstanding as the dwarf daughter-in-law with an attitude. Keep an open mind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wish it would be released, as I would love to see the finished product! We saw the unfinished version before it came out. Loved all the characters and actors. Anyone know if it is out on video yet? Would love to see it again.Definitely worth renting if it's not going to be shown in the theatre. I had a hard time finding it because they renamed it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely adore this movie! I had never heard of it when I saw it at the video store. I saw Kathy Bates was in it, so I figured it had to have some worth, you know? I watched it the first time just shaking my head . . . huh? Then it was the last scene and I found myself aching from smiling so hard. I clicked \"play movie\" and watched the whole thing again. It is without doubt the quirkiest movie I've ever seen. But the more I watch it, the more I love it. It's absurd and crazy and sweet and dear. Kathy Bates is impeccable, but the rest of the cast is fabulous, too. What odd characters they all are! The midget is just too funny for words. And Julie Andrews and Barry Manilow are hysterical. It's just an all around funny, fabulous movie. I get cravings to see it again. Whoever is watching it for the first time, please stick it out to the end. It's well worth it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My partner and I had never heard of this movie and decided to give it a shot picking the title from a list of movies on cable without knowing a single thing about it. As it opened and revealed the cast, we thought, well how bad can it be? -- Kathy Bates, Jonathan Pryce, Rupert Everett, Lynn Redgrave, Dan Akroyd and more. As the story unfolded we became more and more tickled with our selection, and the film soon had us laughing out loud throughout. This is not a \"great\" film, but it is one of those rare films that has such a great combination of memorable characters taken through \"truth is stranger than fiction\" type surreal events that I couldn't help but love it. I had no problem \"suspending my disbelief\" at some of the wackier story elements because the intentions of the filmmakers are so warm-hearted while they still manage to poke fun at everyone involved. As others on IMDb said, this is a comfort movie and I too wouldn't be surprised if it became a cult classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This little film is hysterical, full of stereotypes about gays, straights, dwarfs, British tea and pubs, American gun culture, divorce and marriage; yet, it manages to be sensitive to the issues surrounding each. Kathy Bates is \"Amazing\" Grace Beasley, and as a character actor of staggering range, she brings her considerable comedic talent to ground this somewhat unusual film as she did in Fried Green Tomatos. With the help of other comedic talents like Dan Akroid as Max, her ex-lawyer husband and the backdrop of downtown Chicago and rural England, the story is just intriguing enough to entertain. Jonathan Price plays Victor Fox, a closet gay singer murdered by a cross-bow killer in Chicago. His valet-lover Dirk Simpson, played by the stunning Rupert Everett, must overcome Victor's siblings, including Lynn Redgrave, who want to turn their home into a tribute museum, and teams with Bates and her dwarf daughter-in-law, Maudy Beasley, to find the killer among the homeless of Chicago.

The entire cast sing at various points in the pursuit, and are excellent, esp. the talented Price and Bates. This implausible storyline, both funny and bizarre, is one of the most off-center films. Cameos by Julie Andrews, Barry Manlow, and Sally Jesse Raphael should tell you just how bizarre this film truly is. Strange, funny, and off-center but with a good perspective about people with every kind of difference.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, at times \"Unconditional Love\" overwhelms as it bounces -- no, as it ricochets -- from one story element to another in the most unconventional use of thematic elements and characters. In fact, it wasn't until I watched the film for the second time that I began to understand what I think P.J. Hogan might have been attempting to do with this quirky, unconventional flick. Perhaps the entire film itself is a metaphor for the unconditional love for which Grace (Kathy Bates) yearns and describes in the later part of the film. Grace insists that unconditional love is just that, without condition and without qualification. So I watched \"Unconditional Love\" again with that in mind. I laughed much more than I did the first time, I became more involved with the characters, I began to understand the, at times, absurd turns the story takes. The performances are often over the top but no more than they need to be to fit Hogan's weird and whacky vision, a vision which moved me to tears, yearning and outbursts of side-splitting laughter. Yes, Hogan is asking a great deal of his audience. But I for one have come to truly love his film -- unconditionally.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ignore everyone else's comments for this movie and watch it on pay cable (like I did) or rent it. You owe it to yourself. This film is what movies are (supposed to be) all about. Hard to categorize (and God knows how this was pitched as a \"high concept\"!), but this is one for the angels. Check it out. What have you got to lose?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"UNCONDITIONAL LOVE is surprisingly entertaining. While the plot goes off in perhaps too many directions, making for an overlong movie, it never fails to charm and ingratiate itself. The several plotlines, one warmly reminiscent of SHIRLEY VALENTINE, provide ample smiles, laughs, wisdom and tenderness. It all shouldn't work, and at times it certainly bumps along, but forgive its inconsistencies, sit back and have a good time. It's a charmer!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Too bad somebody did not have the smarts to release this movie to theaters. I had never heard of it when it appeared on cable. After the first shock of realizing this is not like any other movie you have seen since Bringing Up Baby you have to let it sweep you along and run with it. Not until it's over do you realize it covers issues that are not only subtle but significant. Alienation, denial, wish-fulfillment, for a start. Cathy Bates owns this movie, she's never been better. The whole cast has the feel of the plot and knows what they're doing without laying on gratuitous hamming, except where it's called for, as with Julie Andrews' bits or Jonathan Pryce's camp videos. If you're not open-minded you won't get it. (See Mark Adnum's bizarre review, which he devotes to adulation of Stephanie Beacham, her career and her brother's OBE for introducing vegetable oil or something to island natives.) Taking that as a cue, I might as well spend time eulogizing Amo Gulinello's stellar cameo as a TV station intern or Jack Noseworthy's shower scene. So, cast aside all previous concepts of film comedy and have a good time. I loved it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film isn't perfect by any means but despite this it is very fun and amusing to watch. I am the first one to agree that Victor Fox isn't really that attractive and his music and style are pretty cheesy. I also agree that the film has some odd distractions and some scenes don't work well. So what? If it makes you smile and you enjoy it who cares? Does every film have to make sense? Does every film have to be perfect? No. A person could get razed admitting that they love this film. Again, so what? It's got lovable characters, it's well shot, the acting is mostly good, it never becomes too maudlin or dramatic, it's quirky. Look at how many people love I Dream of Jeannie. Is it perfect? Heck no! And while this is very different, I say check it out and you'll be in a good mood after you see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have watched my fair bit of Bollywood films when growing up - you know the typical plot boy meets girl, girl rejects boys, dakus (bad guys) take away girl, boy rescues girl by killing hundreds of dhakus and they happily get married (of course I've omitted an hour of musical style numbers).. Well going into watch Hari Om, I was expecting another typical Bollywood style movie; however, to my delight it turned out to be atypical and indeed quite comical. Bharatbala's Hari Om is what could be labeled as one of those 'off beat' Indian films such as the ever popular South Asian hits as Monsoon Wedding, East is East or Bend it Like Beckham.

Being of South Asian decent and having watched various classic Bollywood films, there was much humour and sub-dialogs which could be picked up that reminded me of the fun and charming side of Indian culture (e.g., the various Indo-pop numbers which were actually remade by Nitin Soni or the witty Indian slangs that were used). Hari Om can be enjoyed by all South Asians, and is also entertaining for those not accustom to the Indian humor as the characters and plot caters to all audiences.

In a cocunutshell, the movie is of auto-rickshaw driver (aka 'four-wheeler' for those of you who have traveled to India know) played by Vija Raaz (from Monsoon Wedding) who gets himself involved with a crook and ends up owing him quite a bit of money. To avoid selling his four-wheeler, 'Madhuri', he escapes serendipitously with 'Madhuri' and a very charismatic and lovely woman from France, Isa (Camille Natta), who herself is escaping the boredom of her boyfriend Benoit (Jean Marie Lamour who was in Swimming Pool). The movie is of their journey traveling across the beautiful landscape of Rajasthan \u0096 the land of love stories; through the humour you see the two main actors trying to find out who they are really are.

What made the night most memorable was having the director, executive producer, main editor and even the mother of Ms. Natta present at the screening. After speaking with Bharatbala (who actually has a Zoology background) many interesting tidbits of the film were uncovered including: having the film finished only 10 days prior to the Toronto International Film Festival and taking only 45 days to shoot, and having only five actors in the play (the rest were all first time real actors). Arriving home I realized two things from the movie - that there is always a human connection between any one of us despite our differences and secondly, as the director had put it 'Everybody has a love story'.

Its a Must SEE for everyone!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Have you ever wondered what its like to feel FREE? I am sure that each one of us know the meaning of freedom and never seriously think of using it to our advantage. HARI OM shows the audience what freedom actually means. In this film freedom is described in the form of style represented by Isa's discovery of India. Isa discovers her inner true love when she is in a Rickshaw journey with Mr. HARI OM. She looks at life differently and portrays freedom that every woman restricts in herself when she is in a relationship.

This film is definitely \"worth a watch\", and I saw this the first time in Dubai International Film Festival (DIFF), and I left the cinema hall with complete satisfaction.

\"Watch it\"!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this film, which I have just seen at the Philadelphia film festival. In March 2005 I went to India with 2 friends, and this movie was very real. I related to everything, and savored every moment. The characters are believable, the story poignant and the ending realistic, but not sentimental. I also enjoyed the discussion with the director after the showing. This movie shows very well the blending, but not complete mixing of 2 worlds (East and West). The supporting cast was wonderful, depicting the life a tourist encounters in India quite realistically. The humor is subtle, and at times dry, and this makes it all the more realistic, as it is woven into the daily escapades of the characters. It is so easy to identify with each of the situations portrayed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Hari om\" is an Indian greeting and the compelling title character of the film bearing this same name(played by the wedding planner from Monsoon Wedding) greets you and takes you on a journey through the heart of southern India. There's no \"Bend it like Beckham\" backdrops and stereotypes, and only slight salutes to the music and dancing of Bollywood (however, the soundtrack is well worth procuring), but rather, the feel that you are seeing the real India permeates the film through the use of dozens of local residents in each scene to augment the performance of the five professional actors. Fortunately for us, Hari Om's companion is a young and beautiful French woman in search of a journey. With overtures of an \"Y Tu Mama Tambien\" trip toward self-discovery (without the sex and fatal disease), this beautiful film calms and brings the philosophic mind. Against the initial juxtaposition of the protagonists, all identify with traits of both and the cultural divide disappears as humanity steps in. Most succinctly put, the movie's central theme, \"Everyone has a love story, don't let yours pass by\" teaches us a great deal about love on a number of levels. Don't let this film pass you by!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Was very fortunate to see the movie Hari Om at The Bermuda International Film Festival. It was the opening night and was such a delightful movie. It was shot beautifully around India and I want to go there now. The main actor..Vijay was absolutely incredible. He was the highlight of the movie. Apparently he was also in the movie..Monsoon Wedding. He was the total star of the show. Benoit's character cracked me up...was very funny. And the girl (forget the name) was great too. They were all great! There were many tremendous scenes like the one with the monkeys. And basically I just loved the movie. Everyone walking out was raving about it and it was certainly a high point of the film festival. Was my favorite from the festival. It really beautifully captured the liveliness of India and can't believe how beautiful India is. The feeling upon walking out of the cinema..was a real high. It is a delightful, happy film. I loved it!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was so happy to learn that Hari Om will finally be theatrically released in 2007. I saw this film three years ago at the Vancouver International film Festival and have been waiting for it's release ever since so I could send everyone I know to see it. It's like taking a trip to India....colorful, magical, thought provoking. Aside from one rather strange Hollywood style auto rickshaw chase scene this movie is very realistic. This is not a Bollywood style song and dance movie but it does have drama and romance and humor. The interactions between the Indian taxi driver and the french tourist are a good reflection on the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western life styles and philosophy. The characters are a little broadly drawn but the acting was very good. Visually this movie is a treat as you really do get a sense of what driving through Rajasthan is like...dreamlike. Sometimes it's hard to believe everything you are seeing and experiencing is real...the movie has that same quality. Great soundtrack too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The opening night for the 'South Asian International Film Festival' (SAIFF) in New York was an event a lot of us were waiting for.

I would finally get to watch 'Hari Om' \u0096 I was tired of watching the \"promo\" on a loop and the lingering taste of the song Angel by Nitin Sawhney in the promo, left me begging to hear the rest of it. I was impressed by the visuals\u0085 and tremendously curious about how the rugged looking auto rickshaw driver would win the hearts of the stunning sophisticated looking French tourist! I remember being rather intrigued by the theme, when I'd read a line or two about it in the papers, ages ago! Especially so, since I'd personally been very fascinated a few years ago, by how flamboyant the rickshaws in Jodhpur were! The snow and the crowds outside the theater only set my anxiety rising.

Once inside the theater, I found that the SAIFF organizers only presented disaster. I was uncomfortable and embarrassed by how poorly the event was organized and found myself in a difficult spot, trying to explain and offer excuses to my friends (of mixed nationalities) whom I'd invited on the VIP guest list. I was hoping to prove to them that Indian cinema was not always about Bollywood\u0085 Eventually and FINALLY, the movie began sending some fresh air our way. Or so I thought\u0085 Hari Om \u0085 started with chaos and noise. Autorickshaws honking, traffic and a whole lot of chaos. I found myself smiling as I felt a sense of \"home\" filling up inside me.

Thus began the journey of Hari Om\u0085 an auto rickshaw driver in Jaipur \u0096 The director couldn't have made a better casting call with this character. From Monsoon Wedding to Hari Om \u0096 Vijay Raaz, despite his non-hero looks, carries this movie solely on his acting skills and his take on the character, replete with all the nuances of a rickshaw driver in Rajasthan. He's a winner all the way. But how and where he learnt to speak English even that fluently, is the question! However, his character portrays beautiful shades of humor and sensitivity. I love his innocent portrayal of a simple guy from a village\u0096 who has big aspirations of being famous some day\u0085 and yet knows when to cut away to reality.

Camille, on the other hand enters the movie wearing clothes that ANYONE wouldn't dare to wear in a place like that. It's funny however, that no one seems to really care too much about her dressed like that. She looks very very dazzling though! Especially in the latter half of the movie, when she changes to Indian attire. Her relationship with her boyfriend however seems very vague. It probably adds to the touch of reality of certain kinds of relationships.

The movie takes us through the most beautiful parts of Rajasthan \u0085 The surprising part is that none of the places have been portrayed anything other than what they REALLY are. You see the dirt, you see the primitive houses\u0085 you see Rajasthan exactly the way it is!! Yet \u0096 there's only one adjective that it leaves you with \u0096 'beautiful'.

This is the first director who probably knows how to portray India exactly the way it is- with the dirt and the noise and all the negatives that India is attached to!\u0096 Yet making it look like one of the most beautiful places to be in.

Kudos! to him for that.

The only downside of the movie that I could possibly see, is the pace\u0085 I found it rather slow at certain parts \u0096 but rest assured that you will never be bored.

Nitin Sawhney's background scores add a classy international, yet very Indian flavor to the movie. The song \"Angel\" which plays at a very crucial time in the movie, blends beautifully with the visuals.

I've also heard that besides the main characters, all the other actors are actually just normal people who'd never ever faced a camera before!! That's commendable considering, most of our so called established actors \u0096 still can't portray realistic characters on screen.

All in all, watching this movie was a beautiful experience \u0096 It is a pot pourri of emotions. It's got romance, humour\u0085 realism\u0085 beautiful visuals and locations... , great music, a great cast \u0096 A PACKAGE DEAL! When I walked out of the theater - I felt proud to be Indian\u0085 A few days later, I asked one of my Bulgarian friends who had watched the movie with me, if he'd want to watch another Indian Movie \u0096 and his response was \u0096 \" Is it better than Hari Om? If it is, then I'll go\u0085 if not, I think I'll pass. From now on, Hari Om will be the benchmark for every Indian Movie that I see.\" Mr. Bala, are you reading?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a word...magical. And SO incredibly real. Vijay Raaz is so incredibly raw, so incredibly vulnerable, that you just want his characters to succeed, in whatever he does. And he plays Hari Om impeccably- from his absolutely perfect \"Bollywood e-shtyle\" to his awkward, shy manner with a first kiss. He is a truly gifted actor and I wouldn't hesitate to see him in anything, because he brings it all to life and gives it a soul. Camille Natta is absolutely gorgeous. It took some time for me to warm up to her- possibly because she plays the role of an ignorant but fascinated tourist so well. Her transition really became her and she molded into her role very well. Even the man you love to hate, her boyfriend Benoit, was wonderful, though you never really like him for the scum that he plays, Jean-Marie Lamour enacts a perfect cad. The script- so real. I found myself turning to my friend repeatedly throughout the film to say, \"that's exactly what happens in India! they nailed it!\" Very real, very raw. VERY bittersweet but you certainly leave the theater feeling fulfilled. Music by Nitin Sawhney is wonderful and goes perfectly with the constantly changing moods. But Vijay Raaz...I find myself constantly coming back to him- because he is what MAKES this movie. He is the hero, the most charming, disarming rickshaw driver you will ever encounter- he's magical. A lovely, real, sweet, incredibly talented actor who I cannot wait to see shine and succeed in Bollywood, Hollywood or anywhere!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hari Om is about an impossible love between a French tourist and the auto-rickshaw driver who agrees to take her to a rendezvous with her indifferent boyfriend. A sort of third-world road movie, that careens from lush reverie to madcap comedy, it is distinguished by the stellar performance of Vijay Raaz, who has become one of India's busier actors after his appearance as the event planner in Mira Nair's Monsoon Wedding.

In an interview, Raaz proves to be quite untouched by his success, responding rather carefully and pensively to questions. He discovered a love of acting and joined a major theatre troupe while in university, but for one with so much formal training is surprisingly inarticulate about his craft. He speaks of honesty and purity as the wellsprings of his approach, and the earnestness of his desire to communicate something authentic to the audience is clear. On screen, Raaz conveys an emotional integrity and dramatic assurance that lifts his characterization to an extraordinary level, and Director Bharatbala has cast and directed him perfectly. He has a wonderfully expressive face which the camera revels in; close-ups of that face are as compelling as shots of Camille Natta, who is gorgeous as the Frenchwoman Isa.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Between sweeping, extraordinary scenes within a plethora of Indian locations and a plot which is Bollywood inspired yet grounded in reality, this highly moving film is a must-see for those who love a good romance\/adventure. And by this, I mean \"good\", not a Hollywood or Bollywood easy and contrived happy ending. East meets West in a different take on the buddy film. The performances are inspired and brilliant, the cinematography epic and the plot entertaining, engaging and poignant without a trace of schmaltz or cheap tugging at heartstrings. HARI OM is a sweet film that won't rot your teeth. See it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On one level, Hari Om is a film using a familiar genre - the road movie - to tell a familiar story: curious Westerner explores the mysterious East. But at its heart, the film is about two people, a young French beauty (Isa) bent on experiencing life to the fullest and a motorized rickshaw driver (Hari Om) with Bollywood aspirations, from vastly different cultures, their slowly growing attraction for each other, and the beautiful mad chaos that is India today. The gap between them can never be bridged, but the director succeeds in bringing the two as close to the brink of an affair as possible without damaging the story's plausibility. India and its people are essential ingredients of the narrative, and except for the main characters, the roles are played beautifully and persuasively by locals recruited during the film's production while on the road between the Indian towns and villages that form the film's setting. One major negative for this viewer: a Keystone Kops chase near the film's conclusion as Hari flees mobsters bent on collecting a gambling debt. But the closing scenes where Isa and Hari bid farewell are poignant and unforgettable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at the Seattle International Film Festival in a full house of avid movie buffs and Indian ex-pats. The film is amazingly beautiful and smooth flowing for a first film. The direction is self assured, especially with locals who were recruited on the fly for extras and bit parts. While the plot and story line is elementary to nonexistent, the pleasures of watching the performances and scenery offset the lack. The soundtrack to this film is a big attraction to world music lovers. If you want to see what can be done in 45 days, with a different location every day, check out Hari Om for inspiration. It was not disclosed in the Q & A, but I imagine Hollywood could take a lesson in budget film-making by learning from this director.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A labor of love. Each frame is picture perfect and grabs you. Then the sheer emotion and story-telling take you through a dream that stays with you long after the movie. The director gets your heart and leads it through 100 minutes of visual poetry. You are a part of the emotional ride of the characters. I have seen this movie at 2 festivals and it got with standing ovations at every showing. The remarkable story-telling transcends nationality and language and I felt I was a part of the drama unfolding before me. The casting is as perfect as one can get. Vijay Raaz, Camille and Benoit each hold their own.

I strongly recommend this film to everyone who appreciates good cinema. I can't wait for the commercial release of this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this at the Philadelphia Film Festival. It was the most wonderful movie - the best I've seen in quite a while. The enticing character of Isa is an open, exploring and (as remarked in the film) love-filled person - guilelessly portrayed by the beautiful Camille Natta. The accompanying music is soothing and transporting, a balm to the soul.

Each character seems to be conflicted in some way - and their interactions (w\/ conflicts) make for a great story. The tale told by A.K. Hangal as the Old Man was most magically done - I wanted it to go on and on.

That Hari seemed to remember his \"place\" throughout added get power to the story - a refreshing change to the bubble-headed plots of many modern writers.

All and all, an excellent film. Go see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sit back and let Director Bharatbala lead us into a visual and sensual voyage of the mind and spirit of India. When was the last time you could say you really enjoyed a movie? This movie has pace and keeps us moving in directions that may only exist in India. If you didn't want to visit India before this movie will surely make you want to visit it now. This movie has dancing girls, a chase scene, and the mafioso involved. But it has a lot more. Thanks, Bharatbala, for taking us on such a spirited and wonderful tale. I loved the ending. We women don't want illusions in life, we want reality. P.S. I was Carolyn's friend at the Sonoma Film Festival and met you briefly. Good luck with your distribution efforts and I'm talking up the movie a storm.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before I forget, let me say the artwork in here is outstanding. From garbage cans to the huge cruise ship, the drawings are beautifully done. If this wasn't animated, critics would be lauding the \"direction\" in here, because it's really good.

To the story: Sylvester is picking through the garbage at the shipyards but the pickins' are slim. While brooding at the dock next to a big ship, in a porthole he spots Tweety in his cage. Tweety spots him, too, and you know his first comment - the same one he always makes when he spots the cat. Anyway, Sylvester runs over, opens the porthole and says, \"Hello, breakfast!\" Tweety slams the porthole window on his face and says, \"You bad old peeping tomcat!\" The cat falls into the water.

The undaunted Sylvester quickly sneaks back aboard ship, tiptoes into Tweety's cabin, grabs him and is ready to leave when - wham! - there's \"Granny\" at the door with her umbrella. Sylvester takes a beating as the old lady protects her pet bird once again. But, \"flippety gibbet,\" says Granny, \"I've dropped my glasses. I can't see a thing without 'em. Heavens to Betsey, where are those cheaters.\"

Now Sylvester has the upper hand....and the normal cat-trying-to-catch-bird shenanigans are on again, like Granny's glasses. Sylvester's most clever act was to take her glasses and paint a picture of Tweety on them, so when she woke up and put them on, she'd see the bird and think it was okay.

Overall, a very entertaining animated short that was a lot of fun to watch. As you can tell by the quotes, I love the dialog in some of these old cartoons.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those Tweety and Sylvester cartoons that made this legendary pair second only to Bugs Bunny in terms of Looney Tunes popularity.

Besides having all of the stock situations for this duo (Sylvester feeding out of garbage cans, the \"I tawt I taw a putty tat\" line, etc.), Tweety's S.O.S also stars Granny, who is one of those types of supporting characters that these Warner Bros. classics had in abundance to enrich the color and flavor of them. This time out the cat and bird are aboard an ocean liner and the gags that are extracted from this situation are creative and lively.

What a day that was in cartoon history when Friz Freleng decided to pair his Sylvester with the departed Robert Clampett's little yellow bird.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"People who say that some of what the Looney Tunes cartoons show is inappropriate for children have apparently forgotten something: they weren't originally intended for children. They were produced for the cinema, to be shown before feature films, and so they could show anything that they wanted. \"Tweety's S.O.S.\" has that bad puddy tat Sylvester finding Tweety aboard an ocean liner and boarding the ship to try and get him. But two things work against Sylvester: Granny is vehemently protecting the canary, and Sylvester easily gets seasick (we don't see him throwing up, but with his green face, they make it perfectly clear that he was doing just that!). And then of course, the seemingly cute Tweety has a bad-ass streak.

It's just great to see how these cartoons weren't afraid to go all out; whatever they thought about showing, they showed. We need to understand that cartoons weren't always supposed to be cute entertainment for children. Really funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Tweety's S.O.S, Sylvester goes from picking garbage cans to being a stowaway on a cruise ship that happens to carry a certain canary bird-and Granny, his owner. Uh-Oh! Once again, Tweety and Granny provide many obstacles to the cat's attempts to get the bird. Sylvester also gets seasick quite a few times, too. And the second time the red-nosed feline goes to the place on the ship that has something that cures his ailments, Tweety replaces it with nitroglycerin. So now Sylvester can blow fire! I'll stop here and say this is another excellent cartoon directed by Friz Freling starring the popular cat-and-bird duo. Tweety's S.O.S is most highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Funny, yes. A Freleng classic! To watch Sylvester turn green is always a treat, and it brings us back to the days when cartoon slapstick was brave and geared for the adult mind.

Loved it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As I have said before, I am NOT a fan of Tweety. He's just so aggravating I wish Sylvester would just eat him and get it over with.

In this cartoon Sly is homeless once again and is back to feeding out of garbage cans. He spots a cruise ship leaving port nearby and decides to hop aboard when he spys Tweety is one of the passengers.

The ship provides an adequate stage for the following hijinks and Sly desperately tries to catch the annoying bird and avoid seasickness. If only for once he's succeed by chewing and swallowing, thus finishing of the irritating Canary forever. But, as cartoons starring Tweety go, this one is quite good, but it's ALL thanks to that brilliant cat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pretty decent for his early work and no Kokaku Kidotai without it, and gets an 2 points extra for the easter eggs. For Shirow definitely a rung in the ladder. I am biased as a Shirow fan but this was a big step from Dirty Pair which was what I knew of him. Violent fun with a porno soundtrack! You cannot help but notice that. I know people appreciate him for Ghost in the Shell..but all of the deep spiritual overtones were dealt with in Appleseed. ESWAT killing terrorists, the struggle for humans to stay viable as bioroids phase them out, and Deunan staying thin despite her intake of junk food. Definitely like the characters even the traitor..and I do not know why.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on the manga (comic) of well-known artist Masamune Shirow, this animated feature was a slight disappointment to me.

The story is good, but the animation is merely \"OK\" while it could\/should have been mindblowing. The movie is IMO adequate, but seems somehow flat & uninspired, if you know what I mean. A wasted opportunity, if you consider that another work by Shirow, \"Ghost In The Shell\", is considered a classic in many respects. It set new standards for Japanese animation, and spawned, among other things, a brilliant series called \"GiTS: Stand Alone Complex\".

I consider this worth a rental, unless you're a fan of Shirow and want it all. Do check out the original manga, which comes highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The animation quality here is decidedly below par IMO, regardless of the age of the OAV. The plot itself makes sense, but the characters don't.

This might sound picky, but considering that the city of Olympus is almost exclusively populated by living machines, would YOU feel comfortable there as a human? Would any machine ever emulate human arrogance, short-sightedness and greed quite so effectively? I doubt it. There are some pointers towards this in the movie, but only when the team can be bothered to put them in, by and large the 'bioroids' (or whatever they are) are interchangeable with human characters. Seems sloppy to me.

The main characters seem to have some kind of emotional entanglement, though no light is shed on this. Little light is shed on the backstory at all, a great pity. The short length of the film coupled with the focus on mecha and the crime means that we don't see any character depth. The groundwork's all down, yet we're left with no finished product. A cropped version of this OAV would have made a great TV episode, once some character sub-plots had been established.

The highlights of this short film are the mecha designs and the action\/espionage.

The flaws really start to show through once you've had a chance to digest all the goings-on, so I couldn't recommend this for owning, but it's certainly worth a watch or two! Whilst this review is mostly negative, I really do think it's worth your time to watch this, but it's not something to rush out and buy.

In a nutshell: A watchable wasted opportunity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you are looking for a phony Hollywood action movie, this won't be one for you. If the Truth is what you seek, rent or buy this. From a true story, the movie attempts to capture the heart of what was\/is happening in South Africa (and many other places).

For historical knowledge, this rates up there with stories such as \"The Pianist,\" \"Schindler's List\" or \"Nuremberg.\" Millions of people today have no clue what apartheid is or that it even exists. This movie may help them learn, and may even help them dig deeper.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie, based on a true story of Gerrit Wolfaardt, is one of the best films I've seen on race relations in South Africa; a very good history lesson of the turmoil of 80's South Africa. I put it in on the scale of American History X as far as it's depiction of how a young man can get seduced by the Aryan doctrine and how the \"certain\" segments of the Christian church taught a false doctrine regarding race to justify an injustice.

It's strong message of forgiveness and redemption, is one of rarity in films today. The violence is well done as to show the severity of Gerrit's crimes and greatness of his transformation.

One word about Jan Ellis who played Gerrit Wolfaardt. He carries you through the darkness of Gerrit's beginnings to his enlightened transformation. He went to some dark places as an actor and is to be commended on his performance.

Another standout performance was that of Mpho Lovinga who plays Moses Moremi, one victim of Gerrit's crimes. He was able to pull from some places of pain that really touched you as you watched his performance.

Very good movie to show the teens.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know Gerrit. He presently lives in the U.S. This film is based on events in the lives of both Gerrit and Celeste Wolfaardt. It's a remarkable story. It inspired me to read \"Cry, Beloved Country.\" The film is well-produced. The music is beautiful.

The story is told in flashbacks. You learn the stories of a white racist South African (Gerrit) and a black South African (Moses). Their lives intersect violently. The ending is not typical Hollywood -- it's unusually realistic and ends on a note that encourages you to think about the characters and the themes.

Be sure to watch through the credits -- you'll get to see footage of Gerrit in real life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Final Solution is a powerful christian film that shows the hate between the black and whites that was present in the days of apartheid. It shows how this hate was contrived and was groomed from generation to generation. Jan Ellis was taught that a black man was a plague. He was raised to be that way.

Then he meets a man who is on the opposite side of his beliefs, Pastor Lekota. will he change his ways?. The film is a powerful movie that shows the perceptions the different races had for one another, it shows these perceptions with quite a lot of accuracy. The movie shows the world of how apartheid affected the psyche of blacks and whites.

This is a great film that everyone should watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The subject of this movie is disturbing. How could some otherwise intelligent, religious, hard-working, and sincere White Afrikaaners treat the native Blacks so cruelly for so long?

The movie answers this question, and also explains how some Afrikaaners are changing in a positive way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well this was the WWF's last pay per view event of the millennium and it ended the year and millennium right. The huge story line of Stephanie and HHH started right here at this event when Steph turned on her dad. Vince McMahon had a great match with HHH and this event is very good I give it a 9","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Nordestina, a village in the middle of nowhere in Pernambuco, Ant\u00f4nio (Gustavo Falc\u00e3o) is the youngest son of his mother, who had uninterruptedly cried for five years. When he is a young man, he falls in love for Karina (Mariana Ximenes), a seventeen years old teenager that dreams to see the world and becomes an actress. Ant\u00f4nio promises Karina to bring the world to Nordestina, and once in Rio de Janeiro, he participates of a sensationalist television show and promises to travel to the fifty years ahead in the future or die for love with a deadly machine he had invented. Fifty years later, Ant\u00f4nio (Paulo Autran) tries to fix what was wrong in his travel.

\"A M\u00e1quina\" is one of the best Brazilian movies I have recently seen. The refreshing and original story is a poetic and magic fable of love that will certainly thrill the most skeptical and tough viewer, in a unique romance. The direction is excellent; the screenplay is awesome; the cinematography and colors are magnificent; the cast leaded by Gustavo Falc\u00e3o, the icon Paulo Autran and Mariana Ximenes is fantastic, with marvelous lines; the soundtrack has some beautiful Brazilian songs highlighting Geraldo Azevedo and Rento Rocha's \"Dia Branco\". If this movie is distributed overseas, please thrust me and rent it or buy the DVD because I bet you will love the story that will bring you into tears. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): \"A M\u00e1quina \u0096 O Combust\u00edvel \u00e9 o Amor\" (\"The Machine \u0096 The Fuel is Love\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I rented this movie, but I wasn't too sure what to expect of it. I was very glad to find that it's about the best Brazilian movie I've ever seen. The story is rather odd and simple, and above all, extremely original. We have Antonio, who is a young man living in Nordestina, a town in the middle of nowhere in the north east of Brazil, and who is deeply in love with Karina. The main conflict between the two is that, while Antonio loves his little town and has no wish to leave it, Karina wants to see the world and resents the place. As a prove of his love for her, he decides to go out himself and bring the world to her. He'll put Nordestina in the map, as he says. And the way he does it is unbelievable. This is a good movie; might be a bit stagy for some people due to its different editing job, but I think that it's also that that improves the story. It's just fun, and it makes you feel good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Years ago I read the book 'A M\u00e1quina' (The machine). As I re-read this little book again and again, I could never stop getting more and more fascinated by the imagination of the writer and the richness of the Brazilian culture.

When I knew about the movie, I was really scared that someone would spoil one of my favorites books! Well, happily, my fears were unjustified and the movie is such a wonderful and delicate piece of art.

I can't recall of any other movie that could bring tears to my eyes due to the very beauty of the text. Also I can't recall such a powerful performance like Gustavo Falc\u00e3o's.

You can see and feel how colossal his love for Karina is. You can realize that he'll move mountains and do anything for this love.

Do see this movie, watch it thru the eyes of the kid that lives inside you, enchant yourself!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very touching film, a great surprise to come up from Brazil, a country that usually exports features about social themes, violence, sex... Magical realism is a very hard task, and I believe Jo\u00e3o Falc\u00e3o has made it wonderfully. It seems that he really didn't intend to make a realistic film, far from that. Although many people think the film was adapted from the play, he said in his interviews that he actually based the film on the book. Another mistake is to think that Falc\u00e3o has been influenced by the series \"Hoje \u00e9 Dia De Maria\". The TV series produced by Globo was made after the film, but aired before... Unfortunately.

The negative point is the photography, by Walter Carvalho. It seems that he didn't capture or understand the concept Falc\u00e3o has created. The story is captivating and universal, in spite of taking place in a tiny little city in Brazil. That could take place anywhere in the world. A great movie, I strongly recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let's be fair: there are no RULES for scriptwriting, so I won't say the movie SHOULD be something other than it is. I'll just state my opinion. OK, I really liked the script, the way things are told and characters are introduced. However, I think when a play is adapted to the silver screen, it could maybe try and fit this other media. Since this movie was directed by Jo\u00e3o Falc\u00e3o, the same man who directed the play, it's not too much of a surprise that the film turned out a bit too theatrical. It's the man's first movie, for cryin' out-loud! What I'm saying is, there are parts in the film - like the city of Nordestina, which slightly resembles the set of \"Hoje \u00e9 Dia de Maria\" - that feel like we're not at a movie theater. We're at the theater! Lines are spoken too formally, characters are moving choreographically, and the lightening is clearly meant for a stage. Sure, maybe that was the intention, but that's been done. On stage. Wonderful things have been made when adapting a play into a movie - the beautiful \"Closer\", for instance. When I went to see this one, though, I didn't feel like I was watching a movie. But overall, it was a good one, worth watching. It's a nice love story, funny at times and sad at others. My vote is a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Duke is a very silly film--a dog becoming a duke! But it's a very fun movie. It has some of those corny pranks that many kids movies have, but (thankfully!) no bodily function jokes, as so many animal movies feel compelled to have! Mostly, it's just dogs being dogs and people being. . . well, people. The 'good guys' are likeable and appealing. The 'bad guys' are ridiculous, and of course, the pun of many jokes. But there is something dignified about this movie, for even though it is silly, it's not out for every cheap laugh like \"Home Alone\" and others.

Crocket, Simon and Copper do an excellent job playing Black and Tan Coonhound \"Hubert\" who becomes the Duke after his beloved owner, a real Duke, dies. For the most part, they just act like dogs, no 'talking,' or human-like emotions and attitudes. However, they do stereotype poodles, and Hubert does fall for her, just because she's a poodle. Come on! These are dogs--they have a different view of beauty!!!

Overall, charming, fun and enjoyable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"it's a great movie for the whole family. i don't think many people have seen it cause i ask people and they say that they've never heard of it before. Sophie Heyman is my aunt's sister in law. my favorite scene is the whole movie i can't even pick a favorite scene. my favorite character is Hubert because he is a funny yet smart dog. if someone hasn't seen it they are missing out on a great adventure. i've only seen it cause my aunt is related to Sophie and she got a copy from her. if someone is reading this i suggest buy the movie and i guaranteed it won't be a bad decision. i've seen this movie about five times and every time it gives me the same message, dogs are as smart as people just give them a chance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this movie about a dog who becomes a Duke. It would have been very easy to mess this one up, but along with the humor, the script was filled with warmth and even some profundity about nobility and class. It's a feel good movie that the whole family can watch.. even the adults!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The \"old dark house\" sub-genre that dominated the early talkies rarely fails to disappoint when we re-view the oldies to-day. Here is one that provides so very many suspicious characters you have to wonder how they will be able to tie up all the loose ends in the 6 reel running time.

The Crooked Circle is a gang of counterfeiters and thieves who have decided to take revenge on Col. Walters (Berton Churchill) who has sent one of their ranks to prison. They decide he must die that very night. Meanwhile the Colonel's own group, The Sphinx Club, is determined to protect him at all costs. This does not sit well with Thelma (Irene Purcell) fianc\u00e9e of club member Brand Osborne (Ben Lyon, late of the mega-budgeted HELL'S ANGELS (1930)) who wants him to quit the club and stop endangering his own life. Brand promises to resign after saving the colonel's life. Everyone heads off to Walters newly purchased mansion on Long Island to await the assassin.

The Colonel might be the new owner of Melody Manor but it's an old dark house complete with eccentric neighbours (like Raymond Hatton as a local hermit) and maybe even a ghost. Top billed Zasu Pitts is Nora, the housekeeper who expects to see a spirit around every corner. Throw in a cop (James Gleason) who is certain Brand is a criminal and we have a picture which is packed with action and surprises.

You will notice right away that the script writer was at a loss to come up with too much dialog because a lot of characters repeat the same lines over and over. Yoganda (C. Henry Gordon) a Hindu mystic (which movies of that time were loaded with) says \"Evil is on the way.\" many times and I lost count of how often Ms. Pitts says \"Something always happens to somebody!\". There are many suspects and two characters (Mr. Gleason as the stereotype dumb cop and Roscoe Karns as Mr. Lyon's pal) who serve as comedy relief. The house itself is appropriately spooky looking (in fact I think the same set was used in THE PHANTOM (1931)) with lots of secret passages and violin music coming out of empty rooms but somehow you never really get a feeling of danger. Maybe it's because no one in the movie, and I do mean no one!, is entirely what they seem to be. It all comes out right in the end though; but to go into any more detail would spoil it for you.

Watch carefully for Robert Frazer (from WHITE ZOMBIE) and Frank Reicher (best remembered as Capt. Engelhorn from KING KONG) to pop up among the suspects.

THE CROOKED CIRCLE is a fun film. Some aspects of the plot are predictable and then again several others are not. I suspect you will enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1930's comedy mystery about \"The Crooked Circle\" a band of hooded crooks who set about plotting the murder of some one who swore to oppose them. Enjoyable but really unremarkable little film, the movie works simply because the cast headed by Zazu Pitts and James Gleason (both of whom would later appear together in a couple of Hildegarde Withers films after Edna Mae Oliver dropped out of that series) and supported by a great cast of actors and actresses you know but may not know the name of (I don't hence the lack naming). A breezy hour long romp, the movie doesn't make a great deal of sense with mistaken identity, secret passages, ghostly music and people not being who they seem. Its the perfect thing for a dark and stormy night or a late night viewing when one is nostalgic for the late late show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you've never experienced the thing that is Zasu Pitts, here is a Zasu zinger! In 1933 Mae Questel caricatured Pitt's voice for the character Olive Oyl for the Fleischer Studios animated cartoon version of the comic strip Popeye. Zasu (pronounced Zay-Sue) does her best \"Olive Oyl\" impersonation walking around whining and ringing her hands or attaching herself to the policeman's laynard. I kept waiting for her to say \"ohhh myyyy\", but instead it's \"something always happens to somebody.\" The first time I saw this film I loved Zasu and found her character really funny. I've since seen her in other films where she does this same whining, uptight, fragile-flower routine. So, upon watching this film again I started getting a little annoyed with the constant whining and near hysteria over a piece of dust. But, there are some funny comedy bits here, and it's also a mystery movie as well. It's an interesting mix of mystery and comedy that actually works. The mystery plot holds together well through the camp of Zasu Pitts and James Gleason who plays Arthur Crimmer the policeman. The haunted House is fun with many a secret passage and even a skeleton in the attic! Well worth the watch. Read more public domain movie reviews at: http:\/\/pdmoviereview.blogspot.com\/","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I hope, from his seat on Heaven's comedic throne, Spike Milligan can see and can enjoy this film, as Terence Ryan and Ken Tuohy have taken a book that the author himself said writing it \"nearly turned me mad\" into a joy to watch.

The film tells the story of the Irish town of Puckoon and the problems befallen upon it when the partition between Northern Ireland and the Republic is drawn up, cutting its way through the centre of the village and, more worringly, through the middle of the churchyard. This causes some deceased, buried in the Catholic churchyard, to now be in the Protestant north - and so the local priest, assisted by a wide variety of eccentric locals, aims to move the bodies back undercover of darkness, and so avoiding the bureaucratic British border guards.

It was inspired work to cast the Irish comedian and poet Sean Hughes to play the part of Madigan. He brings an innocence to the part, especially in his to-camera pieces (which is normally where he interacts with the voiceover of Richard Attenborough, playing supposedly the writer\/director of the film). Daragh O'Malley playing Father Rudden is also worthy of considerable praise; and the rest of the cast, from the household names like Elliott Gould and Griff Rhys Jones to people with what would normally be called 'bit parts' - such as Spike's daughter Jane who plays Madigan's wife give 100% The credit for this goes, in no small part, to the wonderful characterisations given by Spike in the original book.

I could argue that the film is slightly too long, or that Elliott Gould's Irish accent left a little to be desired, but those would be only minor points and take nothing away from the excellence of this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw the film at the closing gala of the Ealing Film Festival in West London(England). Enjoyed it immensely. Although the Crow & the Chinese Policeman don't appear, and Dan Milligan becomes Dan Madigan (played by Sean Hughes (I)). The interaction between Dan and the Author (Writer\/Director) voiced\/played by Lord Richard Attenborough, works very well.

The rumour is that Lord Attenborough and Elliott Gould (as Dr. Goldstein) appeared in the film for just a pint of beer.

Spike was shown the film, on video before he died and by all accounts enjoyed it immensely.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spike Milligan's books and plays have defeated film makers over the years, and 2002's 'Puckoon' is sadly no exception. The novel, set in 1924, concerns the partitioning of Ireland, in particular its effects on a solitary community ( the 'Puckoon' of the title ). Due to a colossal blunder, half the village is now in Northern Ireland, the other half is in the Republic. Locals go to the toilets at the bottom of their gardens to find a barbed wire fence blocking their path. Drinkers crowd like sardines into a corner of the pub to enjoy a cheaper pint. A dead man has to have a passport made out in his name before villagers can reach the churchyard to bury him.

'Puckoon' is a sort of Irish 'Under Milk Wood' with comic characters and surreal happenings galore. The lead character, Dan Milligan ( renamed 'Madigan' in the film ) is impishly played by Sean Hughes, and has conversations with the narrator ( Richard Attenborough ). Also in the film is Milo O'Shea, Griff Rhys Jones, David Kelly ( from 'Robin's Nest' ), Freddie Jones, Joe McGann, and Elliott Gould.

Interviewed for the 'Making of 'Puckoon' documentary, writer\/director Terence Ryan expressed undying admiration for the book. It shows on screen. But, alas, like the ill-fated film of 'The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy', a good book does not necessarily make a good film. The trouble with 'Puckoon' is that, like Milligan's other books, they simply do not work on the big screen. 'Puckoon' is essentially a collection of jokes in search of a plot.

No way can the film be compared to train wrecks like 'Sex Lives Of The Potato Men', 'Fat Slags', and 'Lesbian Vampire Killers', but then neither is it as good as it should have been. The last half-hour involves a lot of running around by the police, the British army, some locals who have stashed explosives in a coffin, and is really tedious to sit through. Ryan's decision to stick closely to the book is the main reason for its failure to work as a film.

The other problem is the total absence of charm. 'Waking Ned' had this in spades, while the 'Father Ted' television series was funnier by far. Spike lived long enough to see the film, and apparently enjoyed it. His daughter, Jane, has a cameo as Madigan's bride.

The highlight for me though was the quotation at the beginning: \"I don't mind dying!\", said Spike: \"I just don't want to be there when it happens!\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Incredibly hilarious mid-70's Italian Rootsploitation with lots of non-consensual S&M, lesbian sex, gratuitous racial cruelty etc...Few redeeming cinematic qualities, except for the fairly cool theme music with dubby \"African\" drums and flute. Brilliant sample dialog:

White Slave Owner (to White Plantation Manager): \"You're so dumb, I'll bet you forgot to interrogate that n****r midwife!\"

White Plantation Manager: \"Not only did I interrogate her, I did it so well she died before I could get any answers from her!\"

All the black actors have 70's afros, and say \"yes, massa\" in a high-pitched voice. The female lead has sex with everybody on the plantation. 10 Stars for fans of tasteless sleaze.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Obviously made on the cheap to capitalize on the notorious \"Mandingo,\" this crassly pandering hunk of blithely rancid Italian sexploitation junk really pours on the sordid stuff with a commendable lack of taste and restraint: The evil arrogant white family who own and operate a lavish slave plantation spend a majority of the screen time engaging in hanky panky both each other and their various slaves. Director Mario Penzauti and screenwriter Tecla Romanelli cram this fetid filth with a teeming surplus of sizzling sleaze: we've got nasty rape, interracial copulation (one white lady makes wild love to a muscular black stud while he's tied to a cross), copious female nudity, brutal whippings, vile degradation, lots of lurid soft-core sex, and a severely twisted tragic surprise ending that mixes elements of incest, murder and miscegenation in a questionable attempt at making a statement about the horrid inhumanity of slavery. Special kudos are in order for foxy brunette actress Paola D'Egidio, whose lusty and uninhibited portrayal of depraved and lascivious wicked bitch Rhonda positively burns up the screen. Moreover, Marcello Giombini's funky, throbbing tribal score hits the groovy spot. Maurizo Centini's fairly polished cinematography likewise does the trick. A satisfyingly seamy chunk of slimy swill.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As is often the case when you attempt to take a 400 plus page book and cram it into a two hour film, a lot is lost. Here director John Madden (Shakespeare in Love) takes on an extremely ambitious project and almost pulls it off. What we get is a charming and emotionally compelling film that seems somehow incomplete.

There is much about this film that is wonderful and fantastic. The cinematography by John Toll (Cinematographer for Braveheart and Legends of the Fall, winning Oscars for both) is splendid. Working with Madden, the choices for locations on the Greek island of Kefallonia are superb and the visual images that come from photographing these majestic locations in varying light are lush and beautiful. Madden also uses numerous Greek actors as the townspeople, giving the town an authentic feel. The soundtrack is also terrific and the mandolin passages and vocals by the Italian soldiers are marvelous.

Madden does an excellent job of bringing us the Italian occupation and the romance, which take up the greater part of the film. There are numerous sweet and funny moments throughout this segment. However, by the time the serious battle drama is ready to unfold, there isn't much film left in the reel and this component is extremely rushed and abbreviated. While the battle scenes are well done, subsequent to the battle it is obvious that increasingly greater compromises are being made to keep the film from running too long. By the time we reach the post war scenes, the treatment is merely skeletal. Another negative is that the DVD is particularly sparse on features.

Nicholas Cage is charming in the romantic lead as the sentimental Captain who seems to have joined the army to sing rather than fight. When fight he must, Cage switches gears seamlessly into a man of fierce principle and resolve and somehow remains believable in both personas.

Penelope Cruz, whom the camera loves, gives an uninspired performance as Pelagia. In part this is because Cage so dominates the screen, but Cruz just seems too placid in a part that should be emotionally torrential and dynamic. She allows the character to be objectified as Corelli's love interest rather than establishing her as a powerful character in her own right.

John Hurt gives a fantastic performance as the wise old doctor, who knows as much about human nature as medicine. However, Christian Bale seems a bit overwrought and stiff as Pelagia's fianc\u00e9.

I rated this film an 8\/10. Despite some drawbacks, this is a touching film that is well worth seeing. The photography alone is worth the price of admission.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being Of Cephallonian descent, I was happily surprised when watching the movie. I have heard the true history from my relatives that still live in Cephalonia, but when watching the movie and reading the book the sketchy bits of history were filled. It is all true, the Italians would sing, the oppression and the earthquakes that rock the island so often. The earthquake in 1953 killed my great grandfather and the book and movie both portray the feeling of the era with great compassion. If you haven't seen the movie go and watch it and read the book, it is not only a love story, and yes, there were plenty of Italians in love with Cephallonian women, in fact, boat loads of Cephallonian women were taken to Italy after the war, it is a true depiction of history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to admit that I approached this movie with a sense of expectation and dread. Louis de Berniere's bestselling novel is one of my favourites and anyone who has read it will realise that there is no way in hell that any screen adaptation can be 100% faithful.

All the way through I found myself convincing myself that the movie was unsuccessful, and had stripped the book's plot back so far as to render it redundant. The ending, however, is much better than that in the novel, and I could not stop thinking about the movie afterwards. Still, the plusses (John Toll's magnificent cinematography, Stephen Warbeck's great score, etc) I felt did not outweigh my initial negatives (Cage's miscasting, a heavily diluted script).

But, two days later, I was queuing again to see Corelli, and although not perfect, I have to admit now that the movie is the best anyone could have expected. Cage is actually brilliant in a role that even de Berniere was concerned was not a fully rounded character: his carefree spirit which gives way to shattered remorse is spot on, and complements the superb double act of Penelope Cruz and John Hurt perfectly. David Morrissey is quietly effective as Weber, the Nazi officer trying to reconcile his feelings for his newfound Italian friends and his inbred superiority complex to those around him. And the fine Greco-Italian supporting cast bring de Berniere's sundrenched world of Cepholonia dazzlingly alive.

On leaving the cinema second time around, I finally let go my passion for the novel which prevented me from fully appreciating the story of WW2 Cepholonia in cinematic terms. My hat goes off to John Madden who, despite the almost expected critical drubbing he is receiving from the British critics (any director who has had a major success like Shakespeare in Love behind them is always a target for these moaning ninnies!),has managed to transfer a terrifically difficult book to the big screen with such heart, verve and humanity (the core virtues of the novel, in fact) that he has created another classic love story that will probably only be fully appreciated when the dust has settled a few years from now.

If you are a fan of the book, like me, it's hard, but try not to make the same mistake on your initial viewing. Try to erase the book from your mind for two hours, bathe yourself in the glorious Mediterranean atmosphere, and discover Corelli, Pelagia, Mandras, Dr Iannis, as if for the first time (pretend you're watching something made from an original screenplay), and I guarantee you won't be disappointed.

In fact, you'll be eagerly waiting to own your own copy of this delightful movie on video or DVD.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After a somewhat slow start I thought this movie about the Italian occupation of a Greek island during World War II picked up and became a quite enjoyable watch for a couple of hours, from primarily two points of view.

The love triangle is an interesting one and strikes me as believable, because I know it happened in various places under occupation. Penelope Cruz played Pelagia, a young Greek girl engaged to be married to Mandras (Christian Bale). I had questions about the depth of their love from the start, but their future was torn apart when Italy invaded Greece, and Mandras went off to fight. After German intervention, Greece is conquered and the island Pelagia lives on comes under Italian occupation, during which Pelagia meets and begins to fall in love with Captain Corelli (Nicholas Cage.) This, of course, was a dilemma that came to many young women in occupied lands. As they got to know their occupiers, they started to see them not as the enemy but as real people, and sometimes fell in love - often to the disapproval of their neighbours. I just finished reading an interesting book about the German occupation of Britain's Channel Islands in which this was a major issue. Once Mandras returns to the island, Pelagia is torn between them.

The second background issue is the Italian occupation itself, which I thought was quite realistically portrayed. First was the contempt with which the island treated their Italian occupiers. Greece defeated Italy (quite true from a historical perspective) and was really conquered by the Germans. The refusal of the town to surrender to the Italians and instead to insist on surrendering to a German officer struck me as something that could well have happened (and was quite funny in fact. I loved the line, \"we would rather surrender to this German's dog than to you Italians.\") The portrayal of the Italian troops also struck me as believable. The Italian Army was never enamoured of their German ally, and never enthusiastic about fighting with them. Although Hitler and Mussolini were close friends, their soldiers tended to treat each other with contempt. Here, the Italians are more interested in singing than fighting (which the German troops on the island simply can't understand,) and are ecstatic when Italy makes peace and withdraws from the war - until they discover that this may well make them prisoners of the Germans. It was all quite well done, I thought.

It falters a bit at the end with an all too predictable finish, but still deserves praise.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At first I didn't think I would like this movie, but as it progressed it became better and better. I love music and I was impressed with how well Cage could fake the movements of playing a mandolin. My son was with me and he also like the movie a lot for its music and the story and the way the story unfolded--- slowly showing how Corelli won the girls heart. The acting and the story were both well done and well directed. At first Corelli's bravado was irritating, but soon he grew on you. The twists in the plot were intriguing especially the relations with the Germans. I would like to see this again to follow all the side plots. I also want to buy the sound track to hear the music again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A beautiful, sensitive film that brings home the futility and cruelty of wars no matter what the so-called reasons. The performance of Cage and Cruz were quite impressive, but it is to the older Greek characters that go the highest praises. Irene Papas is as gorgeous as ever! Though some scenes seems a little long at times, this film will be a heavy Oscar contender.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once again John Madden has given us a magnificent film. A simple but beautiful story located in a real paradise and the music can't be better, Stephen Warbeck delights us once more, and good actings but.........why on earth is Penelope Cruz in this film? I asked myself that same question while watching this movie. Of course her greek accent is not believable, she's uncapable of acting decently not even in one scene. Not even at the end she did a good job, after so many events, after years she finally gets to see Corelli again and she couldn't change the same face of stupidy we had to bear during the whole film. Anyway, Cage was very good in one of his best characters; Hurt also is great in his and the rest of the cast all did a great job, so the final result is a movie that really is worth of watching. This is a beautiful film that not even Mrs. Cruz was able to spoil. So far I think it's Madden best work so no fan will be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here's a well-made war story, nicely shot and well-acted. The portraying of the Italian and German occupancy of Greek island Kefalonia is well-done. John Hurt as Pelagia's father and the island doctor is superb, Nicolas Cage does a good job as the Captain from the title, Penelope Cruz does a good job of being beautiful and batting her eyelashes at Cage. There's heroics and humor, there's drama and romance, and it is all set on an idyllic island.

Oddly enough, a very similar, or should I say almost identical, storyline, with the same characters going through the same series of events, is told in a novel by the same title, written by Louis de Bernieres. This wonderful historical novel tells the story of beautiful Pelagia, daughter of doctor Iannis, and their life on Kefalonia during WWII. Pelagia's fiancee, local fisherman Mandras, enlists when the Italian Army invades northern Greece from Albania under false pretenses. When the Axis finally prevails, with a lot of help from the Germans, a garrison of Italian soldiers is stationed on the island, and Captain Corelli plays a big part in keeping the occupation a peaceful time. As Mandras joins the partisans, charming Corelli and his mandolin are quartered with the doctor and his beautiful daughter. Of course, this makes it a novel about love. But it is also a war novel, a summary of Greek history, a tale of Communist uprising in post-war Greece, a portrait of the madness of Mussolini, and, most importantly, an ode to island life on Kefalonia.

Some of these elements return in the movie, but in general, it is an impossible book to film. I am glad nobody ever tried.

The movie 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin', however, is worth seeing. Just make sure you read the book *after* you see the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Captain Corelli's Mandolin' is a fantastic film in itself. It is nothing like the book, which may disapoint its ardent followers. Yet, viewed on it's own, the film is a masterpiece. The views are spectacular and the acting isn't too bad either!! Nicolas Cage was brilliant-so different from his usual action hero type characters. Penelope cruz is superb and really holds the film together. I think that this film has to be judged as an indivdual project-not related to the book. Louis de Bernieres gave up rights to the film script, so the film is an interpretation of the director, john maddon. Go and see this film with an open mind-you'll love it; because underneath is the touching story of love and war.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In my opinion, this film has wonderful lighting and even better photography. Too bad the story is not all that good and Mr. Cage sometimes loses his accent. But two thumbs up for lighting and the DP!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Warning: If the Coen Brothers or David Lynch define your taste in film, disregard this review and move on.

Yes, I borrowed the \"one line summary\" from the book about President Ronald Reagan, but, among other virtues, this movie emphasizes the role that character plays in the lives of honorable human beings. This film is full of honest, decent people, and they have integrity to spare. In a word, they have \"character.\"

A small nitpick: Unless you know the history of WW II, you probably don't know that, from Captain Correlli's arrival on the island to the fall of Mussolini, 3 and one-half years have passed. The average viewer might think the romance was of the \"whirlwind\" variety. That is not so. The romance develops slowly, which gives it both dignity and meaning. The film's deliberate pace may be the director's way of marking time.

Some reviews have criticized Cage's Italian accent. The Italian-speaking members of my family assure me that his accent is quite good.

The history was right on the mark. Yes, the Germans turned against their Italian allies, who, for the most part, were reluctant allies from the start. If you find that shocking, keep in mind that the French Mediterranean fleet was blown up by the British in 1940, just after France's capitulation, lest it fall in the hands of the Vichy government, or worse, the Nazis.

The depiction of the Italians as educated and cultured was a compliment to an educated and cultured civilization.

This film was beautifully photographed, and its story was lyrical. The script was not thought-provoking, nor was it clever, but here was a situation where confusion and cleverness were not needed, nor would they have been appropriate.

The story is tender, and the message is uplifting. The characters are honest, brave, earnest, sympathetic, and likeable. It's a nice little film. 8\/10.



","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To say the truth, I went to see this movie only because Nicolas Cage is my favorite actor. Folks may not agree, but he makes equally good performances in bad and good movies. I haven't seen a movie with Penelope Crus before, so I was anxious to see whether she is a good actress. So, here's what I think:

The movie is good (I haven't read the novel, however). Some moments were really thrilling and... unexpected. Altogether you'll find the plot pretty simple. So the only thing that could save the movie, which (an experienced viewer will know that from the beginning) would either end tragically or happily, was the performance of both Cage and Crus. And it was GREAT, GREAT, GREAT!!! In the latter part of the movie I even liked a rather broad accent of the actress (Spanish, but for those who don't speak Greek that's OK, and she even looks like a Greek girl). Overall the movie is highly enjoyable and has a good deal of irony (fans of classical music will surely have fun at some moments:)

I give it 9\/10. You should see it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Captain Corelli's Mandolin is one of Nicolas Cage's better films. He turns a fine performance as the title character. This is a romance set against the backdrop of a worn torn island. John Hurt's character gives his daughter, played beautifully by Penelope Cruz, some honest advice about love. This movie doesn't have the fault of being completely predictable. This movie also allows Cruz to turn in a performance as a strong woman who knows her own mind and heart. Once the film warms up beyond the opening sequence this film keep you focused on it. Again, Nicolas Cage did not disappoint.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this movie. During the movie, I felt that I wanted Pelagia and Captain Corelli to get together. I heard myself screaming: Come on, kiss her! The movie has a happy ending. Good movie to watch in the evening when you want to chill.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Captain Corelli's Mandolin is no Oscar contender but it was pretty good. I have to admit Ms Cruz can really act. She puts on a very good performance. In fact she our does her boyfriend Tom in drama. John Hurt was great as usual. Nicholas Cage seemed to be enjoying himself. I bet he felt he was going back to his roots as an Italian. However, I did learn something. One more chapter in Horrors of Nazi Germany the many Italian soliders killed during the period of there surrender to the allies and Germany's eventual surrender.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A nice and pleasant movie full of meditteranean sceneries (Cephallonia is a very beautiful greek island) that keeps many of the novel's characteristics. I think that greek sceneries add something special and magical to a movie. One thing i didn't like at all though, is that the main characters, like 'Mandras' and Pelagia's father weren't greek actors but foreigners. I mean the actors tried to express the greek way of living, but to me they didn't succeed and it was quite clear. Even their pronunciation when they were trying to use greek words was terrible and that was bad for the film's plot. Irene Papas was really great in her role, a typical example of a mother, living in a island during the 40's, who has lost her husband and tries to live a child alone. John Hurt, Pelagia's father, also acted great. He reminded me a greek in many of his reactions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just exactly HOW director John Madden come to settle with Nicolas Cage and Penelope Cruz playing the roles of an Italian Officer and a Greek Villager in an honourable story: \"Captain Correli\u00b4s Mandolin\", just escapes me! Witness: a wobbly, inconsistent accent by Cage amid horrendous over-acting, with Cruz -- more adequately cast as a spoiled Latino opposite Johnny Depp in \"Blow\" -- in basically a repeat performance under the guise of a Greek nurse... ay, it was painful. But there were saving graces.

The story itself is thrilling-to-tragic, and Cage does have some (-- redeeming, this is !--) musical ability. Next, a superb performance by John Hurt (Cruz\u00b4s father, the village doctor) of Oscar Callibre, as well as by Irene Papas, each as village elders, as well as by Christian Bale (Papas\u00b4 son) among the village freedom fighters, go far towards counter-balancing awkward performances (especially at the beginning) by Cruz and Cage. Nicely, the last two seem to grow into their respective roles as the film progresses, but it\u00b4s teeth-gnashing early on. Finally, the scenery itself and the photography could garner a technical award, and such provides pleasant distractions when most needed.

John Hurt already has two Oscar nominations and this would be a third; I hope he gets it as his performance as the Doctor makes this film worth seeing. The true test of a supporting actor\/actress is whether or not the film would be the same without the personage in question, and in this case, it would most certainly not be... not even close.

Entertainment value but for the aformentioned plus factors which do help raise the bar. See it if you haven\u00b4t. Rating = 3.5 stars (of five).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"These critics need to find a new job!!! This movie is based on a TRUE STORY, which has made history. It illustrates beautifully how even in the mist of war and tragedy love can conquer all. The breathtaking Chephallonia of Greece has captured my heart and soul as if I too were there. The Blue eyed Cage & the delightful Cruz were amazing! Together they perfectly portrayed how a Mediterranean couple can only become closer in the time of war. This movie will touch your heart like it did mine you must go see it!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie gives us some WWII history along with some touching romance, a little fantasy and meaningful emotion - and beautiful scenery. Nicholas Cage never fails us, and here again does a great job. And so do the other principle characters. One key charater, the physician\/father played by John Hurd, delivers (to his daughter) one of the best definitions of love I've ever heard. Some of the events are a bit too coincidental to be real, but I excused that, knowing that this is partly fairy tale and fantacy. My wife and I really liked the film. And it is nice to watch people taking the risks to love the enemy. One man who left the theatre near us said to his wife, \"Now that's the way to wage war!\" I think you'll see what he means when you watch the Italian occupiers of this lovely Greek island.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Capt. Corelli's Mandolin\" is an old fashioned Hollywood war romance but with sex and nudity, and supposedly no Americans. The story takes place on a Greek island during WW2. The Italians arrive to take over the island, but with German supervision. There is a romantic triangle made up of a Greek couple and the Italian captain. Nice performances by all the actors; Penelope Cruz's best work yet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once you can get over Nic Cage playing an Italian soldier who loves opera and believes in making love, not war, you can get down to enjoying this beautiful-looking film. This could be used as an advert for tourism in the Mediterranean. John Hurt is great and Penelope Cruz isn't bad, as you might expect. Christian Bale's character is somewhat one-dimensional, which is a shame.

The main drawback of this film is the adaptation from the book - having been told subsequently the differences between the book and film plots, I feel cheated out of a much better and more convincing storyline.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Forget all those people who tell you it's not as good as the book. So what? This is a film after all. It is a sheer joy to watch, made entirely on location in Cephallonia, gorgeous photography but with dark, disturbing moments as well. The only problem I have is with the obvious miscasting of Nicolas Cage as captain Corelli. Apart from that the film was a very pleasant surprise.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Captain Corelli's Mandolin is a beautiful film with a lovely cast including the wonderful Nicolas Cage, who as always is brilliant in the movie. The music in the film is really nice too. I'd advise anyone to go and see it. Brilliant! 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i did not read the book. nor do i care to. the movie was a beautiful romance, and i think women will enjoy it. no, it was not a \"10\" film, but it was enjoyable. women, if your man is bored as mine was, then watch it yourself. hurt is wonderful as the philosophic doctor who delivers a thoughtful monologue on \"in love\" and \"loving.\"

also, if you like nick cage, he was terrific and funny. i enjoyed watching the developing romance.

also, if you like Christian bale -- do see him in equilibrium. this is a \"10\" sci fi movie.

do see this film. ignore the previous user's comments.

one -- especially the ladies!! also do visit my website at my name as one word and a \"dot\" com.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a love story set in the backdrop of war. Everything about the movie was perfect. I just saw the movie yesterday and I want to get my own DVD asap and watch it many times over. The story ends as it started I was very happy that he came back and I was proud of her for becoming a doctor and fulfilling her father's dream. She honored her father, boyfriend-husband, and her lover. The character had many shades. Christian Bale is also an phenomenal actor. Some stories do have happy endings. Aside from the love story angle I thought about how a beautiful, serene and peaceful island had been affected by war and it made me realize the true devastation war can have on its people...government makes the decision whereas the people suffer. Her father was a very educated man and wanted more for his daughter while she had regular dreams. I loved the scene where she is complaining about not getting a dowry and I also loved the scene where both lived through the earthquake. They were survivors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What I enjoyed most in this film was the scenery of Corfu, being Greek I adore my country and I liked the flattering director's point of view. Based on a true story during the years when Greece was struggling to stand on her own two feet through war, Nazis and hardship. An Italian soldier and a Greek girl fall in love but the times are hard and they have a lot of sacrifices to make. Nicholas Cage looking great in a uniform gives a passionate account of this unfulfilled (in the beginning) love. I adored Christian Bale playing Mandras the heroine's husband-to-be, he looks very very good as a Greek, his personality matched the one of the Greek patriot! A true fighter in there, or what! One of the movies I would like to buy and keep it in my collection...for ever!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"David Attenborough brings his fascination of wild life, this time the creatures under the sea, in this extraordinary 8-episode trip to all the animals under the sea!

The cinematography is astounding, bringing to the screen truly breathtaking footage of those whales! But the best thing about it, as well as seeing each episode, is how they made it! Whether it is making models of creatures, or those impressive shots of the whales, they explain to you in about 10 minutes how they did it!

2001 had some great tv shows to our screen. But, in contrast to this documentary gem, they make them pretty lame! But to even boast this documentary series as the best tv series of 2001 just does not sum up the sheer brilliance that this series provides in quality entertainment!

Overall, this is the best TV series of 2001, with no competition, and, maybe, the best TV series of 2000s!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The BBC'S Blue Planet is simply jaw-dropping. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say it contains some of the most beautiful sequences ever captured on film. From familiar creatures on and near the surface of the ocean to some more unrecognisable and just plain bizarre ones in the murky depths, next to nothing is left out. Weighing in at a hefty 8 hours, some people may want to check out the edited highlights brought to you in the form of the film \"Deep Blue\" but I would heartily recommend you give the series a go. I don't think it will disappoint and if your kids enjoyed the aquatic world brought to them by Pixar's Finding Nemo I'm sure they will love this too. I just wish all television was this entertaining.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a SCUBA diver, I can appreciate the incredible physical strain the cameramen must have endured to get the shots underwater. This series is MUCH more than that, though. The narration is perfect, the scenes bordering on implausible and the subject matter enthralling. The day to day struggle for life taking place out of the view of we terrestrial dwellers is mind boggling. This DVD set has open my eyes to another planet right here on Earth. I urge everyone to watch this series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I admit to being in awe of the Sea and have spent a number of years in the Navy, so I am somewhat biased on this one. I missed this documentary when it first came out but nagged various people to buy me it on DVD this Christmas (2002) and I got it! Some of the film is amazing and I have a lot of respect for those who make these kinds of documentaries, to see 200 ton Blue Whales 'cruising' through the Sea is an incredible sight, they looked like submarines. I like the level of information and facts conveyed through the narration, it is just right, I don't want to know a load of science just some of the basics, to see these things is enough for most people. The BBC has a knack of putting things at the right level for the intended audience.

A really great documentary, up there with 'The World at War for' me, the DVD is of excellent quality. If I had a minor criticism it would be some of the obviously added sound effects here and there, I think they detract from some of the scenes. But well done to the BBC and Discovery.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is without a doubt the most stunning and amazing documentary I have ever seen! The images that are shown are absolutely breathtaking and stunning. On top of that, it is a wonderful learning experience. I'm not one for educational documentaries, but this one grabs hold of you and doesn't let go until the end. You'll be so hooked and entranced by what you are watching that you'll forget your at home watching TV! This series is available to buy on DVD and I HIGHLY recommend picking this one up! With all the evil and death in this world, this documentary series gives us proof that life is beautiful and worth saving and preserving.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This series has a lot going for it with beautiful footage of the some of the most impressive underwater environments on this planet. Being a staggering five years in the making, one would be hard-pressed to expect any less. I did get the impression that some scenes from the first episode where repeated in the latter ones, which is naturally only a minor gripe.

David Attenborough is great as a narrator and comments are informative, leaving enough room for one's imagination, and well spaced out, so that viewers get plenty of time to reflect upon the breathtaking imagery. If you get the opportunity try not to watch a translated version of this series.

A definite must-see for anyone interested in the intricacies of our blue continents and easily the best documentary on this subject I've ever seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Blue Planet series is, without a doubt, one of the greatest documentaries ever made on the ocean. For five years, filmmakers worked tirelessly on the series, getting footage that has never been seen by anyone (i.e. in the title, The Deep.)

I highly recommend you watch this series. To see the angler fish outside of the small pictures shown in textbooks is truly a treat, but only a needle in the vast haystack of the sea that Blue Planet covers. From the open ocean to tidal pools, coral seas to the deepest darkest part of the ocean itself, the BBC takes the viewer on an almost magical journey through the ocean.

I have to admit, one of my earliest dreams in life was to be a marine biologist, and after seeing this series, the dream was revived. I have studied the oceans of this world for years, and have seen countless documentaries on coral reefs and dolphins, whales and crustaceans. But in all, no one has managed to capture the life beneath the waves quite as well as this group of people.

Watch the 'Blue Planet' series in it's entirety, I promise you won't regret it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"full of surprises, beautiful, cruel at times. just like life itself. leaves one asking for more. the best parts are of course the action scenes and chases. have to really wonder how much work these guys put into making some scenes (whale chases, polar bear hunts, etc). it is a wonderful experience and not to be missed by anyone who dives, surfs, or goes to the beach once in a while. the music is enticing and the narration is superb and extremely well paced. definitively one of the best documentaries ever made and worth not less than a very respectable 10 (for its kind). some of the footage is very cruel and might not be recommended for people with weak stomachs (every killer whale footage is cruel).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that this short TV series, was absolutely wonderful, and gave both a in-depth and clear explanation of everything that was on the screen at the given time. This was by far David Attenborough at his best. I personally thought this was one of the best documentaries in the past decade. This is definitely worth peoples money!

I also found the bit about the abyss and deep water the most fascinating and interesting part. It was incredible to find out that the 'Blue planet' team discovered more than 10 new species of underwater life!

In this documentary Attemborough almost certainly lived up to his high reputation.

This was a masterpiece and will always be considered to be one of the best modern documentaries

Many congratulation's to the 'Blue planet' team.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Words can hardly describe what Blue Planet brought to life in all of its hours of runtime. Matching up with Walking With Dinosaurs, this documentary stands as one of the best. We can only pray that the BBC and Discovery Channel come up with even more outstanding ideas that could possibly even level with this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*May Contain Spoilers*

The first time I saw this movie was when it was re-released on video when I was around 8 years old. Now I am 17 and still watch it whenever I get a chance to. \"The Aristocats\" was a cute heart warming film that I immediately fell in love with. I loved the songs on it especially the one the kittens sing by the piano. In fact I even sang it in a talent show with my sister and friend since I loved it that much. All three kittens are so cute and their mother is one of the prettiest cartoon cats I ever saw. The Ally cat had a great voice!

My favorite part of the movie is when the kittens are playing the piano. That part is adorable. I also enjoy their journey home. It's incredible. This is one of the best Disney films I ever saw and one of my favorites. Everyone should see it. I give this film 10\/10 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Engaging characters, nice animation, dynamite songs...all this and cute kitties, too. There's a lot of excellent humor, but no real menace, so don't worry about your little ones. The two farm dogs steal the show, even though they only appear in two scenes. The artwork has a linear quality that may put off some people, but I find it charming.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this movie and I usually don't like animated pictures. But I thought the cats were appealing and the story line was charming. There is a good song called \"Everybody wants to be a cat,\" that is a lot of fun. It has some comic moments and is an interesting adventure. I think it helps to be an avid cat lover to enjoy this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Balance of Terror\" is still one of the best Star Trek episodes ever made. It was inspired by the film \"Enemy Below\" (starring Robert Mitchum), a movie that deals with a cat-and-mouse game between two captains during World War II. In this episode, Captain Kirk and his crew play similar game with a Romulan vessel. This is the program that famously introduces the war-hungry Romulans, who are distant relatives of the Vulcans. It is an incredibly suspenseful episode, tightly constructed for maximum effect. It is also interesting to see how the episode contains a series of subplots that add extra layers of meaning to the story. Mark Lenard makes his Star Trek debut as the Romulan Captain (he will later play Spock's father Ambassador Sarek). A must-see episode!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When the Romulans come, they will not be bearing gifts; no, they bring with them war - war and conquest. As any familiar with this episode know, it is a redux of the war film \"The Enemy Below\" from the fifties. The obvious difference is that instead of a battleship and a submarine (or an American Destroyer & German U-boat) engaged in lethal war games, it is two starships in outer space. In Trek history, about 100 years before the events here, according to this episode, Earth fought the Romulan Wars. After about 5 years of conflict, a stalemate brought about a treaty and the institution of the Neutral Zone, a boundary between us and the Romulan Empire. Now, on this stardate, the treaty appears to be broken, as our outposts are being attacked and destroyed by some weapon of immense power. Yes, the Romulans are back, testing their new war toy, and Kirk must now earn his pay: he must make decisions that would affect this sector of the galaxy, such as figuring out how to avoid a...oh, I dunno - an interstellar war, maybe?

I think what makes this episode so effective is that it doesn't shy away from the grim aspects of war, as one would expect of a mere TV episode from the sixties - especially an episode from a science fiction show. It's all very tense and gripping, like the best war films, such as when Kirk sits down with his key officers for what amounts to a war council. The writers and the actors aren't kidding around here: this is all preparation for a ghastly conflict, potentially the beginning of another years-long battleground. In the final analysis, Kirk's aim is to keep this battleground to just the two ships - but even then it's an endeavor fraught with peril and probable casualties. In fact, I believe this episode holds the record for ship casualties by the end of it. Right at the start of the episode, we see the devastation such battle can produce, in that supposedly well-protected outpost. Then begin the cat-and-mouse war games between the Enterprise and the Romulan ship - it's as exciting as any conflict we've seen on the big screen. Of course, if you're not into war films, you'd have to look for other things to admire in this episode.

What elevates this episode even further is the revelation of just what and who the Romulans are - it's an electric shock of a sort. Now we have even further inter-crew conflict on the bridge of the Enterprise - war does tend to bring out the worst in some people. Due to still nasty attitudes about race in this future, the tension is ratcheted up even further - Kirk has his hands full in this one. I suppose the one weakness in the story is the convenient relenting of the bigotry issue by the conclusion. On the Romulan side, actor Lenard makes his first appearance in the Trek universe as the Romulan commander; he's terrific in the role, the flip side of Capt. Kirk or Capt. Pike, take your pick, done up to resemble Spock more than a little. Surprisingly, his character is not war hungry as we would expect, another eye-opener for this episode. The actor would next return to this universe as Sarek, Spock's father, so he's nothing if not versatile. It's also telling how the first appearance of such characters as the Romulans is usually their best shot, as it is here. They showed up in \"The Enterprise Incident\" next.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has to be one of my 3 favorite Episodes from the Original TV Series.

What makes it great is the battle of wits between The Romulan Commander and Kirk, as well as the top-notch acting from Mark Lenard, who later went on to play Spock's father in other TV Episodes and movies. This is a case where those around rose to the level of the talent around them, and Shatner, Nimoy, and the whole cast deliver an outstanding performance in this episode.

The writing and plot are also excellent, and I love the direct approach used to show us the characters, and the feelings and thoughts of those characters, and how freely they are expressed by the actors.

This very entertaining episode ranks 10 out of 10. AWESOME!! Desert-Buddha","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite all the hoopla about THE TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES episode, THE BALANCE OF TERROR might just be the best episode of the series. And, while I have always loved A PIECE OF THE ACTION because it is so much fun, I really do have to cast my vote as this Romulan episode as being the very best.

The movie, interestingly enough, is really like a WWII submarine movie in that it bounces back and forth between the cloaked Romulan ship and the Enterprise as it seeks to destroy the Romulans before they sneak back across the Neutral Zone after a raid on Federation outposts. In so many ways, the show is much like the film THE ENEMY BELOW--where the American Captain (Robert Mitchum) and the German Captain (Curt Jurgens) are shown in counter-point as they both try to outwit the other--and in the process develop a grudging respect for their foe.

Interestingly enough, only a short bit of the beginning of the episode takes place on a planet--and this is amazing because an episode on board ship could easily have been static and dull. But, because the writing was so fantastic and the main characters written and acted so well (Shatner and Mark Leonard as the Romulan leader). Oddly, for the die-hard Trekkers out there, they'll recognize Leonard as the same actor who later played Spock's father.

The bottom line is this is simply a great and extremely engaging episode that will keep you on the edge of your seat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best of the early \"Star Trek\" episodes, with Kirk and his crew venturing into the unknown to do battle with an enemy known only by name. Imagine their surprise when they find out that the dreaded Romulans are racial offshoots of the Vulcans! Young Mr. Stiles, well-played by Paul Comi, is one of the few truly unlikable characters in the \"Star Trek\" universe. His barely disguised hatred of Mr. Spock is eerily similar to the post-9\/11 hatred and suspicion many Americans have of people of Arab or Middle Eastern origin. The atmosphere of war-time paranoia is all too real. Then there's the Romulans: they're the ultimate Federation nemesis. The Klingons are nasty but basically harmless; more of a nuisance than a serious threat. The Romulans, however, mean business: they're the ancient Romans reborn in the space age; in spite of their Vulcanoid features they're clearly meant to remind us of imperial Rome, with names like Decius and titles like \"centurion\" and \"praetor.\" The chain-mail armor is really cool. Familiar guest star Mark Lenard, who went on to play Spock's dad Sorek as well as the Klingon commander in \"Star Trek: the Motion Picture\" is an appropriately grizzled, war-weary commander, a character who bears a striking resemblance to Laurence Olivier's Crassus in \"Spartacus.\" Also, his questioning of the Empire's unquenchable thirst for conquest reminds me of the similar misgivings Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) expressed at the beginning of \"Gladiator.\" A must both for Trekkies and sword-and-sandal epic fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree that this is ONE of the very best episodes of the entire series--my only detraction would be the somewhat jarring appearance of Mark Lenard as the Romulan Commander. My reasoning is this--if you were not around for the first run of this episode, then you know Mr. Lenard as Sarek, Spock's father. And for the 2nd generation Trekkie (or Trekker--your preference) it takes you out of the scene at first. Yet he's an excellent commander as well as opposite for our captain and this episode is strongly written and well-acted by all. There are excellent points made by both sides about the cost of war vs.the price of peace and certainly does remind one of some of the best of the WWII and later era movies. Those are not my favorite genre but I certainly would recommend a fan of such to view this episode through that filter. You'll see it holds up. I'll never understand why Sci-Fi gets so little respect--the best drama comes out of placing ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't realize just how much of this episode was taken from The Enemy Below until I finally saw the movie (it has since become my fave war flick). There were a couple of elements lifted from Run Silent Run Deep as well. Nothing wrong with stealing ideas, as long as you do something cool with them. And boy did Roddenberry and company do something cool with this one.

The story begins when the Romulans violate a 100-year old treaty and by crossing the neutral zone and destroying a series of Federation outposts along the zone, ostensibly to test their superior weaponry and invisibility screen (and subsequent shift in the balance of power between the Romulans and the Federation, in their view) as a prelude to an all-out invasion. Kirk has to decide whether it's worth risking war to try and stop the Romulan ship, or if in fact the greater risk lies in letting the invaders go after they destroyed 4 military outposts. Kirk wisely chooses the latter.

This is our first look at an enemy of the Federation, the Romulans, a warlike, yet in their own way honorable race who are distant relatives to the Vulcans. However, unlike their peaceful cousins, the Romulans did not renounce their emotions and violent and imperialistic ways, even as they advanced technologically.

None of this matters to Mr. Stiles, the ship's navigator and this episode's chief antagonist on board the enterprise (the Romulan commander has his own problems with a gung-ho junior officer). All that matters to him is he hates Romulans and Spock looks like one..until the end when Spock saves his life (naturally). This contrasts sharply with Captain Kirk and the Romulan commander, neither of whom has any personal ill will towards the other at all. Both men are simply doing their duty. In fact there's a mutual respect. This is the first Trek episode to deal directly with prejudice, and it does so deftly (as opposed to season 3's not-so-subtle \"Let That be Your Last Battlefield\").

Like The Enemy Below, we have a classic chess match between two ship commanders who are actually very much alike. You see right away that both of these captains are good..VERY good. If you were going into battle you'd want either of these man as your leader. Both are honorable and decent men who are duty bound. Yet even though the Romulan commander is bound by duty to his home world, he still finds himself wishing for destruction before he can make it home rather than start another interstellar war. Yet he still does everything he can to make it home, just as Kirk does everything he can to stop him.

This is, in my opinion, one of Trek's 5 best. It has everything: Plenty of action, suspense, great dialogue, fine acting (I still maintain the Romulan Commander was Mark Lenard's best Trek role), and it manages to make its social commentary without being overly preachy. A pity Roddenberry forgot about the last part when he did TNG.

Watch this episode, then watch The Enemy Below.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Undoubtedly one of the best episodes ever, Balance of Terror is 45 minutes of well executed suspense, with intelligent real-world parallels (the title refers to a situation very similar to what was going on between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War), spot-on characterizations and the introduction of Star Trek's second most important hostile alien race after the Klingons: the Romulans.

After receiving a distress call from a Federation outpost, the Enterprise is dangerously close to the Neutral Zone which, if crossed, would lead to open conflict with the Romulans, although no one has ever actually seen them in the flesh. Soon enough, a Romulan vessel appears, carrying a new weapon and a cloaking device which makes it nearly impossible to defeat. Facing the threat of imminent annihilation, Kirk must engage in a battle of wits with the Romulan Commander (Mark Lenard) to ensure the survival of his crew. Unfortunately, the task is made more difficult when one of the men accuses Spock of being in league with the enemy, due to the physical resemblance between Romulans and Vulcans, two races that are, in fact, distantly related (a fact that is quite ironic with hindsight, given Lenard went on to play Spock's father Sarek starting with Season 2).

Always very critical when it came to the subject of war, Star Trek enjoys one of its finest hours with its most gripping and tense take on the topic. Although the Romulans aren't actually based on the Soviets (the name is actually taken from Romulus, the founder of Rome), the scenario is quite obviously inspired by the very vivid fear American and Russian citizens had at the time that either nation might be able to destroy the other with nuclear weapons (that fear gave birth to the titular concept of \"balance of terror\"). But even without the subtext, this remains an essential episode, due for the most part to the intellectual battle between the two adversaries, which translates into a thesping duel between Shatner and Lenard. No need to say who wins...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just thought I would add another observation, here. While there are a couple of visual sub-references, in this episode, to the possibility of unexpressed feelings between Jim Kirk and Yeoman Janice Rand; there is a special, physically tender, moment, toward the end. When the Enterprise is reversing at emergency warp speed in an attempt to outrun a possibly fatal Romulan plasma ball, Janice, perhaps fearing that their life is about to come to a dramatic end, seeks comfort by placing her head on Jim's sympathetic shoulder as they observe the aproaching instrument of their impending doom on the main viewer. I thought it was sweet (and Janice, of course, is gorgeous!).

(P.S. Goof:- Several times, while supposedly firing phasors, the film shows photon torpedoes being launched)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To start off, this happens to be my favorite of the ST OS.

In addition to StuOz's critical comments I'll throw in some more: Getting technical, when the Enterprise fires it's photon torps at a blind target, they'd have to be mighty close to direct hits (I believe) in order to cause any disturbance much less damage to the Romulan vessel with the vacuum of space to contend with.

I had somewhat of a problem with the Romulan commander questioning his faith in the Romulan \"protocol\" or their leadership, unless it has to do with attacking vulnerable targets (outposts in the neutral zone) that are not at war. Also, I don't think commander would fall for the basic, or simple tactics that Kirk played, such as \"playing dead,\" or falling for the ploy that the subordinate puts on him about whether or not to attack the Enterprise when it is playing dead.

On the Enterprise: I'm surprised that after seeing the Romulan vessel's method of attack earlier, that Sulu would say, \"Are they surrendering?\" when it attacks the Enterprise the first time.

Funny how Spock can only get the repair done on the weapons control right when the emergency is over.

Also in the final attack, I thought the Romulan vessel was uncloaked too long (so long that Spock could run down a couple aisles and back to the weapons room and activate and fire the photon torpedoes. I would have used phasers at this point, but I'm sure it had to do with the technicians and budget).

On the positive side: It's a good drama played on the Romulan vessel, in which to introduce us to the Romulans. Great scenes with Stiles telling a good deal of the human knowledge of the Romulans. Also his conflict with Spock is right up there. I wished Stiles' character would have stayed on the show for a while, if for nothing else than the energy he added.

It's only in fun that I point out the negatives and goofs, (I'm sure there are more). But for me this is as good as it gets!! \"Balance of Terror\" is always the one I place at the top in my ST rankings.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I viewed the original Outer Limits in real time, when first broadcast and have since viewed the entire original series again and again in re-runs and complete on DVD. I find the New Outer Limits WELL MORE than just a remake of old retread episodes, as some of the more adolescent commentators have suggested.

With seven (7) years of programs versus just the two (2) years of the original series, the producers and writers have certainly added considerable new original stories and philosophical lines to a much longer running and very well produced (cable) TV series. Plots are intelligent, scientifically accurate projections of the unknown possibilities of the sometimes frightening and imminent future.

While most producers and directors in Hollywood ignorantly view Sci-Fi as indistinguishable from Horror and Fantasy, this series returns to the origins of Science Fiction in the logical, moral and philosophical projections of current new technologies into their possibly fearful near term realizations. This series does this very well and remains unique in its avoidance of the \"shoot-em-up\" video game monster mentally of much of the current generation. It has brains, history, a message and good entertainment. It is an adult series without unbearable teenage know-it-all fantasies. Hurray!

Now, if we can only get MGM to release the entire New Outer Limits series on DVD instead of just the six poor teaser discs and the 1st season now only available.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say about the series dubbed the NEW OUTER LIMITS...Hmm.... Only that this was one of the best TV series ever assembled!! You have actors of all ages, The actors that are somewhat known and that time forgot. Everyone playing their part to exact perfection! These shows always have some type of moral story to them which most of the time (if not all the time) is very true! You can feel that the man whose voice is dubbed over the credits and in the beginning and ending believes what he is saying wholeheartedly! Not only do these shows have great story lines, they also throw you into them, get your mind racing, and your blood pumping. The original outer limits was a black and white in the 60's right, These shows made a triumphant comeback the likes of which I have never seen! The new twilight zone with Forest Whitaker was fun to watch, but the New OUTER LIMITS is where it's at! If you have not seen: I implore you to please check these episodes out, and you will see exactly what I mean! LONG LIVE THE NEW OUTER LIMITS!!!!!!!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No, I have not seen the original series and I won't compare the two if I had. This series is filmed in Canada in Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia. The series is well-written in a different story each week. Some are little out there but most of the time it is the quality of the story telling. I loved the Afterlife episode with Clancy Brown and Barbara Gerrick and the Deprogrammers episode with the irresistible Brent Spiner as a Deprogrammer in a world where humans have become slaves to a lizard reptilian species. It's funny how the lizards and reptiles are our favorite evil aliens like V but anyway he has three days to program a man who is totally brainwashed in serving the alien species on earth. The stories are usually a little out there but very entertaining to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When the new Outer Limits first started, the episodes were quite optimistic and challenging. As the series began to wind down, most of the episodes became just plain ugly and devoid of any entertainment value. The six episodes here reflect the very best, and worst, of the series.

Since The Outer Limits always preaches a moral. I would like to offer my own. Starting with the most entertaining to the flops.

1. Afterlife: As an institution, The U.S.A. military-industrial complex is both evil and paranoid, not to mention plain stupid. However, individuals with great integrity do serve our country, and they will obey their conscience even at a mind-boggling cost! In the end, the aliens don't need to say a word. Those without a conscience are fools who are to be held in utter contempt!

A truly subversive episode! One that should be shown on prime time television for all to see! This might be a revelation for some, but folks without a conscience should not be allowed to serve in our military! Nor do the ends justify the means!

2. Relativity Theory: A good person may be forced to make a split-second decision between good or evil in order to save the lives of defenseless intelligent beings, and at great cost to one's self. What makes this decision all the more difficult is the stark choice: Being marooned with exotic alien strangers who you can't even communicate with except through gestures, or going along with a group of people you think will keep you safe from unknown dangers even if they are ruthless, and devoid of compassion!

This episode is brilliant! What fuels this depravity is good old fashioned greed. This episode is one of the most scathing indictments of capitalism, transnational corporations and raping the environment, I have ever seen in my lifetime! Unlike real life, justice here is served - and swiftly!

One of the most memorable lines is when the ruthless corporate thug said something to the effect, \"We did the same thing in the Amazon Rainforest War.\" Alluding to the killing of Amazonian Indians who were attempting to protect their rain forests from being strip mined, as justification for killing again literally in the name of the \"survival of the fittest.\" Something Darwin never meant to be taken literally!

3. Alien Shop: Tremendous power can be used for good, even from an exotic alien. This power can be used to heal instead of destroy. Mere mortals can learn from their mistakes! Even a criminal can see the light if given enough opportunity to do so.

Sometimes it takes strong medicine, but we all can wake-up and change our self-destructive ways!

4. The Grell: An alien can be a Christ-like figure! In the distant future, slavery can be justified, once again, in the name of expediency! Basically good people can be corrupted. Sometimes a person needs to be experience great shame in order to see the evil he\/she is committing. Children are closer to the truth than adults. Those with political power have tremendous responsibility! Another work of genius! As a species, \"Do human beings learn from history?\"

Flop Number 1: Quality of Mercy: Loose Lips, Sinks Ships! When in war kindly keep your mouth shut about important military plans. Gee, did I really need to watch an hour-long soap opera in order to figure this out?!! I wonder, did the makers of The Outer Limits run out of ideas, or did corporate pull the plug? Dark and ugly, serving no purpose, but despair!

Flop Number 2: Beyond The Veil: So bad there is no moral but this: When locked-up in a mental hospital, use some common sense, please! This episode is so bad it disgusts. What an X-Files rip-off! Don't waste your time on this one! You'll thank me later!

It's a sad commentary that The Outer Limits went down the tubes toward the end of its run. Subversive episodes, like the first four, could not last forever! It was a miracle they were made at all! Hopefully, someday, other brave souls will follow the subversive Outer Limits tradition into new territory!

If you happen to be such a daring person, a good place to start is with one unique book: \"Anatomy Of Wonder: A Critical Guide to Science Fiction,\" edited by Neil Barron! As far as I'm concerned, the most comprehensive book ever written on the subject.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ah the Outer Limits. I love that show. It was surpremely creepy, or down-right mysterious. I loved all the genres of the show, from horror, to thriller to mystery, whatever the genre, it was good. I guess I must have started watching way after it got canceled, when Sci-fi showed it as re-runs, or played marathons of it. It was a really good show, I don't know all about the seasons and everything but I do remember that every time I saw the screen freak out and the voice on the TV say: \"There is nothing wrong with your television. Do not attempt to adjust the picture\" I would squeal with delight. It was a good show, and I enjoy watching it if it would come on. I give it a healthy 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Think like a Dinosaur\" was an well-produced & executed show of the -Outerlimits- series. The actor (Enrico Colantoni as Michael Burr) plays an impressively well and convincing protagonist-role. You can actually identify yourself with him and his 'introspective' feelings on what to do to the girl whom he has fallen for (because, he's been alone and disappointed for 2 years and feels hopeless until \"Kamala\" comes to his life with a timid fear of performing the task of being transported. He then consoles her and let's her know it's all going to be alright; which ends up being an deception to both of them. More so something bad occurs and she (prototype) comes back....and her (clone) is sent to the other inhabitant planet. Although, the -Dino- and \"Micheal\" have yet to find this out, when they do it's up to Michael to decide to either kill her or to let her live. Yet what happen to him prior upon meeting her (kamala) was very much related to what happen to his wife, his wife died similarly. This show professes irregularity and sorrow thru-out most of it. After the show you're left pondering...about what SHOULD have been done and you're stuck with the 50\/50 of what's right from wrong. Hence, The \"balance\" equation being solely there is no one.

10\/10 Highly recommend watching this show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this show a few times when I was young and it was playing tilt, My parents loved it and now in syndication I feel what they feel. This show did what the original limits and twilight zone (new and old) couldn't do. This show used some old ideas and some truly original ideas.

I still cannot believe Jonathan Glassner and brad wright did this. Those guys were producers on stargate sg-1. The show kept the audience entrenched in the story and set a truly scary atmosphere. This is what was not there in the new twilight zone. Rod serling coming in added to the scariness, forest coming in lightened the mood.

The ending whether good or bad made for a scary time. You could never predict what was going to happen. I am still trying to find the seasons on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first started watching The Outer Limits back in 95 when I was 10, and it just blew my mind every week with each episode, every episode had a twist and each week I couldn't wait for the next. How the writers managed to do every episode so well and make it different from each over a course of 7 seasons is beyond me. This show manages to teach us about life, robotics, Alien and human encounters, and an insight into more of the paranormal, and how it affects the people. What really makes this a good show are the characters in each episode, they really show emotion and are really good actors. What you'll also notice each week is an actor\/actress you'll know from a past show which is pretty neat in its own way.

If you wanna chill out, and sit back with a good Sci-Fi show, then the Outer Limits is for you","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There's no point in comparing this with the original series. Though different in look and content, both are true to the original idea. That is, an SF\/horror anthology series. Due to indifferent scheduling in Australia, I've only managed to catch a small number of episodes spread over the first few seasons. The very first episode really did give me the creeps (nightmares at my age ...!) but a number of others did fall flat; generally when the stories moved into horror realms and away from SF. I only hope the DVDs reach us eventually.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Outer Limits is a brilliant show that for the most part leaves me with very strong emotions. There are, undoubtedly, some stinker-episodes, but it's essentially an old pulp-comic turned into a TV-show, so that can be expected. For the most part it's excellently done, well produced and directed, and often featuring some big-name talent who seem to enjoy working in a solid translation of short fiction to hour long television format.

The Outer Limits tends to focus on rather large ethical\/philosophical\/moral questions and rarely ends without the voice-over intciting serious thought.

From time-to-time, the themes are hammered in a little bit too heavily for all but the most thick-headed viewers. Additionally, while a certain level of distrust of the Government is conducive to an effective democracy, you can unluckily catch several episodes back-to-back that border on the absurd with regards to distrust of the Army\/CIA, etc. One further note is that any large group with power (the Roman Catholic Church, Evangelicals, The People's Republic of China, and so on) are cast in a bad light in frequency ranging from once to often.

While the show can beat a dead horse if it's watched enough, the overall quality is astounding, and I'm grateful that Sci-Fi has decided to continue airing it until they produce a season-by-season DVD set (and I can afford it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film held my interest enough to watch it several times. The plot has holes, but the lead performers make it work.

Catherine Mary Stewart (Julia Kerbridge), does a great job as a woman of 37 who has sacrificed everything else to become a physician. She worked years to earn the money to go to medical school. She is performing brilliantly in her residency and is just about to take her board exam and realize her dream.

Meanwhile, Julia's sister and brother-in-law are murdered and as the nearest living relative she is compelled to take in her niece Amanda (Arlen Aguayo-Stewart) to avoid having her become a ward of the state. Amanda is about 7 years old from her appearance. Amanda is so traumatized from her parent's murder that she has become mute. Needless to say, Julia's 16-hour days get longer caring for Amanda.

Rob Lowe plays Kevin Finney, a charming neighbor man in their apartment building who works his way into the lives of Julia and Amanda. He is always there with a trick or a joke to help Amanda deal with her distress. Amanda really starts to warm up to Kevin as the film progresses, perhaps more than to her aunt. Julia starts to rely on Kevin to take some of the load of caring for Amanda as she attempts to handle her case load and prepare for her board examination. Kevin is always there whenever some crisis erupts for Julia.

The chemistry between Rob and Catherine Mary was great. You keep watching to see them get together before the end of the film. The chemistry between Rob and Arlen was good as well. Arlen managed to convey quite a lot without the benefit of words. The plot had Julia and Amanda gradually warming up to each other. You can see them working out a relationship as the film progresses.

We discover that Julia's sister and brother-in-law (the Meyers) were involved in industrial espionage. They stole an extremely valuable prototype microchip from their employer. They had three associates who intended to share the proceeds of the theft. Julia discovers that the Meyers were planning to skip the country under assumed identities. The plot is unclear whether the Meyers intended to double cross their associates or were themselves double crossed.

In any case the Meyers are murdered in their home by 2 of their former associates. The killers make no attempt to extract the location of the microchip from the Meyers before killing them. The killers search the home and fail to find their prize. They leave a living witness to their crime, Amanda. The killers then spend the remainder of the film making clumsy attempts to extract the microchip from Julia and Amanda who have no idea where the prize is located. Eventually, the killers kidnap Amanda in hopes she knows something about the microchip's location.

Eventually Julia discovers the truth about Kevin. He is an investigator hired to recover the stolen microchip. After some rough moments in the relationship they manage to rescue Amanda and dispatch the bad guys. The predictable ending has the three forming a family and moving happily into a future together.

What struck me about the plot were major holes. Kevin moves into the same apartment building as Julia and Amanda the day after the murder of the Meyers. How does he know that the microchip is not already in the hands of the killers? The killers blithely leave fingerprints at the murder scene, with no concern for concealing their identity. The killer that pretends to be a psychiatrist is revealed to Amanda by the remnants of red paint from the murder scene on his shoe soles. He was not shown in the murder scene at the start of the film. There are other weaknesses along these lines too numerous to mention.

The film could have been a lot better if the script had been refined more before filming. Filling in the plot holes would have added little expense and greatly improved the effort.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's amazing what you can do with little money. DEAD SILENT being a low budget movie delivers its promises.

Too bad we don't see Rob Lowe more often on the silver screen. Lowe is at its best in this riveting thriller . No wonder he went from DEAD SILENT straight to the TV mega hit The West Wing .

DEAD SILENT 8 out of 10

Sputtosi Toronto.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i saw this before 'bubba ho-tep' at the fantasia film festival in montreal. everything about it is either tipping the hat to (or completely ripping off) tim burton. i enjoyed it nonetheless, even if it is extremely derivative. what most impressed me was the quality of the visuals given the obvious shoe-string budget. the set design and the props were inventive and original, although the script definitely was not.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Obviously the previous reviewers here are not fans of this genre, but I think this one is done quite well.

It's twistedly cute clever & dark. This story brought back memories of the types of girls I was in love with as a child.

Also, it makes me want to check out some of Nadia's other movies, many youtube comments about how hot she is in this video.

Sure there is some Burton influence here, but I wouldn't say this Brad is trying to rip him off.

He is just jumping in & adding his talents to a genre that I can appreciate. I like what he does & he does it well, nuff said!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let's start from this point: This is not a movie intended for the common audience. Utterly bizarre, somehow incomprehensible, totally unpredictable, it just keep you stoned watching at the screen trying to figure out what will happen next. If that by itself doesn't make you agree it is an excellent movie, then go back to your \"family\" movies and forget about MOTORAMA. It has material to be considered a cult movie, it can be placed in the same category with movies that win awards in Cannes or other intellectual film festivals, but, sadly, Hollywood already let if fall in oblivion, simply because it is not commercial. The performance of young Jordan Christopher Michael may not be Oscar material, but he gives the right touch to the story. Even the genre is difficult to describe; it is not a comedy in the proper sense, you don't know if you are supposed to laugh at the strange situations in which Gus gets involved. It is more like an impossible adventure that some kids may wish to have, but don't let them watch it either... it is not a movie for kids. So, if you like Disney movies or are looking for a \"Home Alone\" style, this one is definitively not for you. But if you enjoy reading Edgar Alan Poe or the works of Tim Burton, then you will like Motorama. So, jump in your red Mustang, get a tattoo spelling \"Tora\" and cruise Strangeland with Gus. I'd like that...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Little Gus is a ten year old delinquent. He runs away from his parents and decides to go on a road-trip. Reaching the petal is somewhat tough for him, so he creates a device to help him. His goal is to win a gimmicky lottery type card game called Motorama. He has to find all eight letters in order to spell M-O-T-O-R-A-M-A. Dark laughter follows as it turns into the road-trip from hell. He runs into some deranged Lynch like characters. Most memorable is the gas station attendant, who puts his picture on a kite in hopes that God will see it. Later Gus gets a tattoo and an eye-patch for his injured eye. He becomes one of the most rebellious bad-ass 10 year olds you may ever witness on screen. This is no kid's flick! Look for cameos by Jack Nance, Flea and Drew Berrymore. Be warned although Drew is on the front cover, she only appears in the film in a dream sequence for a couple seconds. Also the film gets confusing towards the end reaching David Lynch territory, you may want to watch it a couple times. \"Motorama\" was written by Joseph Minion, most well known for his screenplays for \"After Hours\" and \"Vampire's Kiss\" So enjoy this depraved surreal road-trip of fun!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"DON'T EVEN TRY to figure out the logic of this story. But do ride along with 10-year-old Gus on the most bizarre road trip ever witnessed. More weird characters and implausible situations than a Twin Peaks reunion! Nothing makes sense, yet it's impossible to stop watching Motorama! Now, where can I find that 'R'????","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great, dark, offbeat little film, a modern day adaptation of the quest for the Holy Grail myth. It's a sleeper if there ever was one. I saw it on cable some years ago and taped it. I've loaned it to many of my friends and everyone loved it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an entertaining surreal road movie. It was written by Joseph Minion, who also wrote After Hours, Martin Scorsese's excellent surreal film. The film follows the adventures of a ten-year-old kid named Gus, who drives a red Ford Mustang across some fictional states with names like Tristana (A tribute to Luis Bu\u00f1uel's film, perhaps?), Essex & South Lyndon, in search of eight elusive Motorama game cards from various Chimera Company gas stations. The film has a surreal feel to it because a lot of the things are unusual, like the money for instance, which is like blank paper with numbers on.

Most of the characters are nasty to Gus on his trip. They tattoo him, punch him, but this doesn't stop the kid on his relentless quest. Some oddball actors like David Lynch incumbent Jack Nance, Meat Loaf & Flea also make appearances. Jack Nance plays a motel owner, who when he first meets Gus tells him, \"If you see any squirrels, give them to me\". This is a movie where a man and his wife abandon their young children because the man owes Gus $100; and a mother encourages her son to raise his voice louder while speaking rudely. If you're a fan of Twin Peaks and surreal movies, you'll like this. An odd little gem of a movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie, I saw it when I was about 8 years old and almost seven years later, this evening I got to see it again. I really thought it had an interesting idea, they only thing that upset me was the ending which I felt was a cop out. 'Round here it's hard to find this movie and I was lucky enough to have seen it on BRAVO. I also expected to see more Drew Barrymore in here too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie may be the best ever if you like watching movies and laughing and then subjecting your friends to watch those movies too. If you're anything like me, and you probably are, you'll be laughing for years to come at the jokes in this movie. One of the funniest parts is when Gus sharks some money off a guy with kids and then the guy takes those kids into the forest like Hansel and Gretel then he and his wife go home with them. The soup scene kitchen is rife with comic genius of buffoonery: \"Inspection officer -- Here!\" and the lines to follow will stay in my mind forever probably. When I have shown this movie to my friends, they usually say \"What was that?!?\" so if you're in the mood for one of those types of movies, yippee! This movie is so OOP it's not funny anymore, so probably the easiest way to get it would be online auctioning. The first time I saw it was from a rental.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Motorama viewers should already by keen on other offbeat b-grade desert-based films such as Bagdad Cafe or Repo Man (which more or less takes place in the desert). It also models some of the bizarre humor (and especially eccentric trail of characters) of writer Joseph Minion's comedy, 'After Hours.' In a sort of desert roadtrip fantasy, a metaphor of temptation and redemption, Gus (played well by Jordan Christopher Michael), a clever 10 year-old boy cashes in his piggy bank, steals a Mustang, and runs away from his grossly neglecting parents. It begins as a trip through salvation (which is apparent in the scenes with John Diehl), but once he becomes hooked on a scratch-off game called Motorama, he becomes easily tainted by temptation and looses his childish innocence. He travels from one crazy fictional state to another concocting ways of getting Motorama cards from participating gas stations, just enough so that he might spell out the prize winning word M-O-T-O-R-A-M-A and be eligible for the $500 million cash prize.

Along the way, he is embattled with dozens of strange characters such as Flea who plays a high strung busboy, Meatloaf who plays a crazy biker, and Mary Woronov and Sandy Baron (a Seinfeld regular) as two violent kidnappers.

The DVD rerelease can be very deceptive, as have previous attempts to sell this film to the non-cult market first with taglines comparing it to Home Alone and Thelma & Louise. The newest calling it a love story with the tagline implying that the film is about Jordan Michael Christopher on an adventure to meet the girl of his dreams...which, despite the size of her picture on the DVD cover, is actually only about a 1 second cameo by Drew Barrymore as the fantasy girl that Gus dreams about. Why didn't they just market it for what it was? Thought it may seem totally bizarre on first viewing, it is actually a well-designed narrative.

Motorama is great material for fans of strange b-grade comedies. This was quite an interesting story, and particularly because of the strength of its lead actor--Jordan Michael Christopher (who unfortunately has few other screen credits of note)--and the clever metaphor inherent in the plot. Hopefully its re-release on DVD will make it an easier find for cult fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"the first time I saw this movie, I just thought \"what the hell?\" a 10-year-old kid driving around bizarre places, meeting bizarre people, going after a game called MOTORAMA! Hell yeah! I enjoyed this movie a lot!

Jordan Christopher-Michael is a brilliant young actor! It's a shame he stopped act. He interprets very well his character Gus on the movie.

Gus loses an eye, got tattoos and go at the most weird cities acting with Flea, Drew Barrymore and Meat Loaf! Want more?

OK, don't even try to understand the story, but why this movie needs one!? Just open your mind and let Gus drive you into this journey.

\"Motorama Gus, you won Motorama\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although this film never attained commercial notoriety, my experience has led me to conclude that many well-done pieces of artistic expression often do not gain mass appeal. The story line depicts a young boy stealing a car and embarking on a surreal, dream-like adventure with very little basis in our conceptualization of time and space. Therefore, anyone who attempts to view this film from the perspective of its conformity to reality will likely be disappointed; it is not intended to be \"realistic.\" It is, however, intended to be metaphoric with extensive symbolism apparent to those with superb attention to detail. In addition, the symbolic representations are left open for interpretation, which can be said of much great artwork. Don't be fooled by the cover (if you happen to rent or buy this film)-- the movie is not what it might seem to be on the surface.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has got to be one of the most magnificent things I've ever seen on film. I don't know if it's as serious as it seems to try to be, but that hardly matters. This film is extreme, absolutely wild and surreal. The packaging and the marketing only make it more so because you *know* that ever so often some mother has to reprogram her kid to accept our reality after he checks this out from the video store expecting something completely different. Look at the roadmap, for one thing! And where else in America can you see a ten year old kid swear as much as this one does and then get his eye ripped out by pervert the rival of Pulp Fiction's Zed? And that food inspector scene is the best! The amount of well known to vaguely recognized actors in this film is one of the best things about it: Soon, much sooner than you realize, you too will find yourself saying, \"Is that Meat Loaf? Is that Drew Barrymore? Is that the holideck doctor from Star Trek: Voyager? Is that Flea? Is that the sawmill owner from Twin Peaks gassing squirrels with car exhaust? And isn't this guy from the new Rob Zombie movie? He looks an awful lot like Shrek.\" I think my favorite scene is at the very end, with Phil in a full body cast. I mean, please, why aren't more movies like this shown in airplanes? This director hardly has anything else to his name higher than Return To Salem's Lot, but he displays true stumbling man-child genius in this creation! If you're an intellectual looking for something to p**s away your evening on, I highly suggest this film for satisfaction. This movie's plot is all too ridiculous, but imagine it taken out of context: *boy arm wrestling an over aggressive Meat Loaf, who seems hell bent on taking out his anger at not being accepted into Guns N Roses, looks over his shoulder and sees the doctor from Voyager enter the bar* Can you imagine what any half brained channel surfer active through the last six years would think of seeing that? Now imagine if you actually cared about Meat Loaf or Voyager to begin with! Or imagine if you're a Flea fan. Rocky Horror Picture Show fans, this film contains notable music, mind you, but its soundtrack is more plasticine than Mad Max 3. What does that entail for you? This is the retarded, inverted mongoloid cousin-sister-mother-puppy of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. How about when Gus' sleeve flies back onto his arm in an act of cable-access special effects quality mastercraft? When I saw this film, it was on the suggestion of my cousin who had watched half of it in a fit of half-aware childhood in the early half of the nineties and who has since been haunted by vague memories of it, I myself had not slept in three days. It made me laugh! Of course, it's also an anxiety movie. The music doesn't encourage the suspense but it eventually gets to the point where it's been fully established that the American Censorship Committee has obviously missed this film entirely and absolutely anything can happen in it and probably will any time Gus turns a corner or the view so much as changes camera angles. I found myself obsessing over the possibility of those cards flying out his window at any second. Watch this movie. Awesome!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Some spoilers included:)

Although, many commentators have called this film surreal, the term fits poorly here. To quote from Encyclopedia Britannica's, surreal means:

\"Fantastic or incongruous imagery\": One needn't explain to the unimaginative how many ways a plucky ten-year-old boy at large and seeking his fortune in the driver's seat of a red Mustang could be fantastic: those curious might read James Kincaid; but if you asked said lad how he were incongruous behind the wheel of a sports car, he'd surely protest, \"NO way!\" What fantasies and incongruities the film offers mostly appear within the first fifteen minutes. Thereafter we get more iterations of the same, in an ever-cruder and more squalid progression that, far from incongruous, soon proves predictable. Not that it were, on the other hand, literally believable-- but it were unfair to tax Motorama in particular with this flaw, any plausible suspension of disbelief having fallen precipitously on the typical film-maker's and viewer's scale of values ever since \"Raiders of the Lost Ark\" became a blockbuster.

\"Hallucinatory\": How do we know what a hallucination is if part of having one is not knowing that we are having one? At any rate, some people know that they enjoy \"hallucinogenic drugs\"-- but if Motorama typifies the result of doing so, then I'm at a loss as to why anyone would take them more than once. There is, of course, the occasional bad trip. The movie must be one of those, pun and all.

\"Juxtaposition of words that was startling\": How many times can a ten-year-old startle you by uttering \"Oh, my God!\" when he likes something, or \"Damn!\" when he doesn't? These two interjections are about par for the course with this script. Sadly, any sense of the surreal in what passes for dialogue could only reveal, in direct proportion, one's naivete regarding the speech patterns of the rising American generation.

\"A world completely defined and minutely depicted but that makes no rational sense:\" Motorama's world indeed makes no sense, but it is about as completely defined as a cartoon in an elementary school newspaper. The numerous guest stars in the cast all have cameo roles even less intelligent than our little hero who exclaims \"Damn!\" in the blink of an eyelash but needs several seconds to concoct the lamest lie. And even *his* character, despite appearing in nearly every scene, gets no significant development. Here's scant reward for any viewer who sympathizes, as I must, enough to wish to know him better and understand 'where he's coming from.' One vaguely senses a far better story and protagonist struggling to get out.

\"Fully recognizable, realistically painted images are removed from their normal contexts and reassembled within an ambiguous, paradoxical, or shocking framework.\" No, we see a succession of stereotypical and ever more dilapidated billboards, filling stations, greasy-spoon eateries, cheap hotels, and their lowlife habitues along country highways, exactly where they stereotypically belong.

\"Largely responsible for perpetuating... the traditional emphasis on content.\" There is little content, moment-to-moment, in Motorama.

To sum up: Picture British millionaires dressed as clowns or pirates on the way to a posh costume party, sitting serene and mute as cautious chauffeurs inch their Rolls-Royces like fragile skiffs through a roiling sea of desperate humanity, Chinese who implore them through the windows and smear the glass with blood. Or imagine a stadium full of abandoned antiques, limousines like those above now rusting, and white pianos tinkled by ghosts. Into this detritus wander an exhausted boy and an ailing woman to whom he clings as mother-figure becoming girl-friend, who fall asleep side by side on the grass. He is awakened-- on the Feast of the Transfiguration, \"white and glistering\" day 1945-- by a brilliant flash on the horizon that is not the rising sun. Finding that his consort has become a corpse, he first believes that he has witnessed her soul going up to heaven. Later he explains only a little less innocently, 'I learned a new word today: atom-bomb. It's like God taking a photograph.' Now, *there* are just two samples of cinematic surrealism, surrealism whose ironies ripple out far enough to invade its film's very title: Empire of the Sun. If you seek surreal, *please* don't miss it. Alas, however hard he treads on the accelerator to race his chariot through and beyond the desert, no scenes so exquisitely strange, rich, subtle, or gorgeous await Motorama's poor little Gus in his quest.

None of the above necessarily constitutes a thumbs-down on this film. Though somewhat disappointed, I can't dismiss it, in view of the respectability of another genre that it does exemplify-- one influenced, to be sure, by surrealism, but also by expressionism, existentialism, and Franz Kafka's pessimism amidst omnipotent power structures. Let's try on for size: Theater of the Absurd.

Turning to E.B.'s article on this style, I am amazed by how, to the extent that Theater of the Absurd is a valid artistic style, the above objections to Motorama vanish like a puff of smoke. I'm tempted to quote the entire text as support of the identification.

Theater of the Absurd attempts to show \"that the human situation is essentially absurd, devoid of purpose... humankind is left feeling hopeless, bewildered, and anxious.\": Having instantaneously achieved his purpose of getting away from a depressing home life among bickering parents, Gus finds himself purposeless until he drives past a glittering billboard reading \"Motorama\" and decides to win the lottery that it promises. As others have already revealed, this ambition proves illusory: although the game \"never expires\", the sponsoring corporation has no intention that anyone should ever win, and has ways to trick, confuse, and leave crestfallen any aspirant to the reward. He, like others, is ultimately disappointed in his dream.

\"Absurdist playwrights, therefore, did away with most of the logical structure of traditional theatre. There is little dramatic action as conventionally understood; however frantically the characters perform, their busyness serves to underscore the fact that nothing happens to change their existence... a timeless, circular quality emerges.\" \"Language in an absurdist play is full of... repetitions... repeating the obvious until it sounds like nonsense.\" Underneath a sometimes \"dazzling comic surface,\" we find \"an underlying message of metaphysical distress.\" Gus's obsession with a silly game, his inane language, the plot device wherein he divines a bleak future and\/or returns to an earlier moment and takes a different but still bleak turn-- so much fits now. While an admirer of the surreal would do better with some films, anyway, of Spielberg, admirers of Motorama as it really is should find fellow-travelers-- not instead but addition-- in the works of Beckett, Ionesco, and Genet.

But one can't quite stop here. After his disillusionment with the game, Gus returns to \"Phil\" (i.e., Love), the first attendant he had met and the one person who had treated him decently, although he had also scolded him-- at a service station advertising \"Be full-filled!\". Under Phil's tutelage he learns a life of waiting for cars. We might note here that the absurdist playwright Beckett had entitled his most famous play \"Waiting for Godot,\" and that for Godot we should read \"God.\" God is one of Phil's preoccupations, too. Furthermore, as the indirect result of his previous encounter with Gus, Phil is badly maimed and goes about in a cast with his arms straight out horizontally. In the last scene, Gus, now Phil's protege, says that he wants to hear music. We hear none, but we see Phil wiggling his fingers at the end of his outstretched arm, beckoning Gus closer, and Gus responds. The End.

Finally, on to an author whom I happen to be reading currently, the Anglican theologian William Stringfellow. If this rebel-lawyer is not acknowledged as an architect or undergirder of Liberation Theology, which is more a Roman Catholic than an Anglican movement, perhaps he should be. Police brutality and corporate greed are a cliche in cinema and literature, including Motorama, but Stringfellow supports and illuminates such sentiments with impressive warrants from scripture, tradition, and reason.

His most significant work is an expose of the earthly activities of those fallen angels whom the Bible refers to as principalities and powers. Principalities, wrote Stringfellow, are behind all of our popular three I's: Images, Institutions, and Ideologies. All of these commend themselves to our worship by making false promises. The more deeply involved with an image, an institution, or an ideology any person becomes, the more his own personhood becomes \"depleted\" and be becomes a slave to them. Promising power, control, and immortality, they inexorably deliver helplessness, chaos, and death. As essentially fallen, defeated powers, they can do no more than that. Yet they beguile humans with that \"dominion over the earth\" promised by God in the book of Genesis, while in fact no one of us controls an image, an institution, or an ideology bent inevitably on its own hegemony and self-preservation. They take on lives of their own. \"Dominion\" happens to be a mistranslation: a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew would be \"stewardship.\" But this is a quibble beside a more fundamental problem: Most of us neglect to notice that God had delegated this power to Adam *before* the fall. We have no reason to assume that we, his descendents, still exercise it now: on the contrary, it should be obvious that demonic forces have stolen it from us.

One might add two observations of C.S. Lewis: First, that \"man's conquest of nature\" is a mere illusion, and a ruse to cover the fact that one is really talking about the conquest of some men by other men with nature as the instrument; and secondly, contrary to popular belief, Satan is no kind of good-time Charlie. He may dangle out pleasures at first, but he is very niggardly with them and will withdraw them from any human firmly in his thrall, perhaps leaving his prey sitting in front of the fire feeling miserably sorry for himself and seething with resentment.

Now, applying these insights to Motorama, we seem them mirrored remarkably in Gus's experience. He is, if not nice, at least a pretty little boy prior to falling victim to the Motorama game. The first signs advertising it glisten glamorously. The longer he continues, however, and the deeper he journeys towards the sponsoring corporation's headquarters, the more shabby they become. He's lonely, meeting no one else who plays the game. The stations giving out the cards have either fallen into ruins or are staffed by zombies. The people he does meet along the way are more and more ugly, deceitful, and hostile. (The fact that the principalities answer to a common dictator does not mean that they can abide one another). Gus's humanity is leached out of him as he becomes not only totally self-centered and oblivious to the needs of others but partially blinded... disfigured... prematurely aged while infantile in the literal sense of linguistically challenged. Eventually even his precious Mustang is taken from him in a crash, and he must continue in a dead man's wreck. Yet at long last, having done everything he thought was expected, he presents himself to the principality in its proud tower to receive his prize. Using the biblical power to confuse wielded by those who have built such monuments to their own vanity, its agents evade him, disappoint, insult, and finally throw him from the top floor. He FALLS long and hard, landing, finally in a body of water. In other words, in classic symbolism, he DIES. He has met the inevitable bad end of anyone who has put his faith in such a deceiver.

But this fate proves to be only a warning look into a mutable future. He repents and returns to Phil, and upon seeing him performs the very first generous, selfless act we have seen from him for almost an hour and a half: noting that Phil is now handicapped and hardly able to insert a hose into a gas tank, he asks, \"Can I help you with that?\" Then, seeing the \"help wanted\" sign, he decides to apply for the job, explaining to the motorist with whom he was hitch-hiking that he reckons he'll get out here, because it doesn't look like too bad a place to work.

This interpretation is conjectural, of course, and it may surprise or even outrage the film's \"cult classic\" aficionados who see quite different points in it.

If Motorama isn't quite my cup of tea, I'm at least convinced now that it's hardly the worst film ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While I rather enjoyed this movie, I'll tell you right now that my mother wouldn't. It's out there. Really warped little dark comedy that reads like a fairy tale gone awry. >

Neat treat with all the cameos too. If you want something \"different\", look no further.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie on late night TV out of Buffalo about 30 years ago and I'm dying to see it again one more time before I... well.. you know. The interaction between the main characters after the Tiger (Eli Wallach) \"captures\" his prey (Anne Jackson) in a botched kidnapping attempt is absolutely hilarious. Charles Nelson Reilly's portrayal of a neurotic university dean(?) or department head is priceless. How many films can you name which are able to illuminate humanity's struggle for meaning and fulfillment by making you laugh from beginning to end? This film reminds us that we are all in that same struggle regardless of class, race, sex or religion. And who can forget the scene of the suburban homeowner on his hands and knees attacking those few tiny weeds that have dared to appear overnight on his perfectly manicure lawn!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's up there with Where's Poppa, The Groove Tube, Putney Swope. It memorializes the NY city mind set of the period, a wonderfully strange man with a bizarre plan, hoist by by own petard, and at last retreating into the bed of his adoptive parents. Totally absurd, its the life one sees through the magic glasses, seeing things as they \"really are\"... I don't think it is ever shown anymore. If so, surely someone would Tivo the thing and put it out there. A kidnap goes awry: mixed up in a rain storm, dashing in and out or storefronts, our hero tosses a raincoat over his prey and tossing her into his bicycle powered ice cream wagon spirits her off to his basement apartment in the village. He is amazed, surprised, and incredibly disappointed when the wraps come off: instead of a luscious lady, he has captures a middle ages suburban housewife who talks and talks and talks. The film is full of vignettes of the commuters life, the suburban life, the city officials, and all the attitudes so dearly held. It pushes the limits of comedy, such as magical reality might push a drama, much as Daffy Duck is able to draw on imaginative scenes to demonstrate his plight or desires, all at the very edge of plausibility. All of it is humorous, nobody is mean.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this era when almost everything makes it on to DVD (I'm expecting to see the My Mother the Car collection any day now) this film has been unfairly neglected. There are innumerable stupid comedies from the 60's as well as many other eras that have received at least a cursory DVD treatment. This one wasn't even released on VHS to my knowledge, despite the talents involved in the making (Arthur Hiller, Eli Wallach, Anne Jackson, Murray Shisgal (notable later for co-writing Tootsie), even Dustin Hoffman in his debut). It's obviously a product of the sixties but so is just about everything else from that era. All films reflect the tastes and customs of the times in which they are made. This was released the same year as The President's Analyst, another absurd masterpiece. That film was finally released on DVD and has developed a cult following. This film has many memorable bizarre, goofy, wacky moments. Sure, it's painted in broad strokes and has silly go-go music throughout but that's part of its charm. It creates its own absurd universe. If whoever is in charge of DVD production for Columbia Pictures releases (I believe Columbia released it) takes polls for new releases this gets my vote.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I rarely write reviews but this film simply demands more attention than it gets as it contains the most hysterical kidnapping gone comically wrong sequence ever filmed.

I have only seen this once and found it to be the funniest film I had ever had the privilege to watch. I laughed from beginning to end. It is such a shame it is not out on DVD or video.

You can only compare its cinematography with that of It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World or Promise her Anything. Only this storyline isn't nearly as complex as Mad World.

I hope in the near future this film is released as it would be a shame to lose such a comedy gem amongst the dregs we have nowadays.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Telling the story wouldn't be the point at all, would it? Barnens \u00f6, spelled almost like \"boon\u00e9 aww\" is the title for that brilliant novel of the late seventies that shocked a lot of people, including myself.

Children's Island is the title, and what an island. In the book, Raine, the main character has The Guiness World Record Book as his own Bible. And he's keen on breaking new records himself. In particular the youngest person under water for three minutes.

The story is, as most Swedish films and books of the time, deep, consciously provocative and awe inspiring. Bergman was beginning his final film and Cries and Whispers was barely out. expectations for any Swedish film were pretty high. They taught us then that great theatre, great actors, superb writers and gifted directors made a veritable team of perfection in cinema.

All this said, Barnens \u00d6 is a story of discovery. It is, too, a story of alienation: cities are alienating and living in one of them make us aliens to most of its residents. It is a story of revelations and sudden encounters with our own destiny. It is a film of overwhelming hope and desperation. Of feelings buried under layers and layers of isolation and insulation from a world that couldn't care less...

This approach, in itself, is a pretty difficult way to weave a convincing narrative. Here, the masterful guidance of Kay Pollak on Ola Olsson's script of P C Jersilds novel, turns it not only in a possibility, but in one of those master pieces of cinema.

I may disagree a bit with someone who said that this work was all but forgotten. It is not. Even as I write this in 2009, discussions on P C Jersild's story are conducted all over the world, and the film shown at many film schools and small theatres.

Why? Waxing philosophical on all of it would be difficult and many have already done it scholarly through writing and lectures. The reason why Barnens \u00d6 was and IS a special story is the cosy feeling you get from the start when you discover that everything is told through the eyes of a small child. And that's where it ends, too. Maybe it's a clinical view, as someone else pointed out. But deeply disturbing, moving and satisfying. The concept is deep: as long as we have no pubic hair, we still can live one more day as an angel. Afterwards, we'll become what Raine reflects as the colophon of his experiences: \"Men are Pigs\". He finds his fears when he's fearless. He finds love when the world is crumbling around him. He discovers a reason not to behave like the grown-ups because he refrains from committing crimes. He let go his inner purity and confidence in others without reservation, just to learn how rotten the soul of a man can be.

Where love is expected, he finds hatred. Where compassion is needed, he finds suspicion and cold hearts. It's a film of metaphors. A film to think and to raise questions that are hard to ask but harder to answer.

In the end, the satisfaction of witnessing such a superb work (that really upped the ante for any other Swedish film after) is a ride of joy and hope. Be aware that it is a film full with the dark side of our nature. But, alas!, a film of hope and deep joy. Reine will still be an Island in Stockholm, but there is the big hope of living today in full, even when we found our first signs of sexual maturity show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The very few reviews I could find online of Barnens \u00f6 really do not do it justice. I read them all before ordering the DVD, but for some reason I ordered it anyway. I regretted it almost immediately, but the order had already gone through so I couldn't cancel it. I'm very glad now that I couldn't. It's an extraordinary movie.

I won't give a synopsis of the plot, because other reviewers have already done that. But I will say that I don't understand comments that it's bleak, shocking, weird, clinical, depressing or pornographic. It is certainly very unusual, which I suppose could make it seem weird to some people, but the other criticisms must reflect the reviewers' own issues, because I didn't see any of that in the movie I just watched. I'm not attracted to boys, so the nudity didn't seem pornographic at all to me--it's just a kid trying to figure out who he is with no help at all from the irresponsible adults in his life. And it's Sweden, not Utah, so topless women are no big deal.

But what surprised me most is how positive the movie is in its depiction of this gutsy lost kid who goes on a sort of Odyssey through all sorts of strange experiences, looking for--and ultimately finding--himself. It's fascinating, thoroughly original, and deeply satisfying.

I'm not at all surprised that Barnens \u00f6 won three major Guldbagge awards, for best film, direction, and actor, but I'm absolutely astounded that the actor who won was not Tomas Fryk, the kid whose fearless performance as Reine must be one of the most remarkable ever filmed, but Ingvar Hirdwall in the relatively insignificant role of Stig, Reine's mother's sleazy boyfriend. I don't understand that at all, but it doesn't alter the fact that this is a great movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In reaction to the dullness of the films of actual combat in that time, the wartime public increasingly turned to humor as escape from monotony and anxiety\u0085

Charlie Chaplin feared that his great \"Shoulder Arms\" would offend people, but it became his greatest hit\u0085 In it, Charlie, by luck, courage, and devilish ingenuity wins the war singlehanded and brings a captive Kaiser in triumph to London\u0085

The chief difference between this hilarious burlesque and some of the serious war dramas was that in Charlie's case it all turned out to be a dream\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In these modern times (as subject known quite well to the director of the short film that this German count is going to talk about\u0085), politically correct films are the \"leitmotiv\" of the modern young filmmakers' projects. \"Shoulder Arms\" directed by Herr Charlie Chaplin during WWI (the film was released only a few weeks before the armistice) is an obvious example of why the early cinema pioneers were a very bold people, certainly! To direct a humorous film inspired in the terrible, bloody First World War was a complicated matter that only few directors with those dangerous and daring ideas could be allowed to do\u0085 to venture upon such delicate enterprise and with success was reserved only to geniuses.

As this German count said, \"Shoulder Arms\" was made during WWI, that time in where definitely the whole world lost its innocence (fortunately not the German fat heiresses of this aristocrat\u0085) and it is a hilarious, inventive social satire about that and any war. The film it is full of great gags and entertaining film continuity for a story in where that tramp will live though risky and courageous adventures in the front \u0085whether a hero for the allies\u0085 or not.

To mock the war trenches, the unhealthiness, the frontal attacks and the Germans (how you dare!!... by the way, there are a lot of inaccuracies in the film \u0085 the German soldiers by that time had moustaches and longer beards not to mention that the Kaiser lacks many medals in his uniform\u0085) in an elegant, funny and delicate way it is even today a film miracle impossible of being surpassed. Keeping in mind those terrible wartime circumstances, the difficult task is only possible thanks to a lot of creativity and talent. Obviously Herr Charlie Chaplin had very much of it.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must go back to the Schloss trenches.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http:\/\/ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com\/","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Charlie Chaplin's Little Tramp or Little Man character wins World War I, called The Great War at the time, single handedly, even capturing the Kaiser, something the entire Allied armed forces were unable to do. Too bad it all turns out to be a dream, which is somewhat of a cop out and the weakest part of this mesmerizing silent short (almost a feature film at 46 minutes).

There are inventive gags galore including Charlie having to put on a gas mask to eat Limburger cheese sent from home, then using the cheese as a weapon against the Germans; Charlie sleeping underwater in a flooded trench next to a soldier he continues to annoy; Charlie disguising himself as a tree--one of his best sketches ever--and Charlie pretending to beat up his friend who has become a POW, then hugging him when the enemy is out of sight.

One amazing feature is how much Charlie, when he is behind enemy lines dressed as a German, resembles Hitler over ten years before Hitler and his Nazi thugs rose to dominate German politics. Obviously Hitler patterned his appearance after Charlie's from this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The big names in film tried to do their part for the war effort, and Charlie Chaplin was no exception. This patriotic and propagandist picture is part of his contribution, although the war was nearly over by the time of its release. The tramp goes to war, humorously accomplishes acts of heroism and kicks the Kaiser in the bum. It's a very funny film, although I don't think it nearly one of his best. It's with 'A Dog's Life' as his better output for First National before he made his early masterpiece 'The Kid.' They are his first three-reelers, which contain sustained, more elaborate gags than he could usually orchestrate in his two-reel shorts at Mutual.

It can be difficult to balance a pro-war message with slapstick antics and scenes of burlesque on the front, but one wouldn't think so watching 'Shoulder Arms.' It's also preferable in many respects to a \"more serious,\" dramatic work with a similar message, such as Griffith's 'Hearts of the World.' Chaplin had become a true virtuoso of screen comedy by this time; he makes it look effortless. He knew very well by now that a film with fewer gags--with more elaboration, refinement and careful timing--could be better than any knockabout, Keystone-type farce with a dozen pratfalls a minute. The sequence where Chaplin is disguised as a tree is a pertinent example. Even with wars raging, Chaplin can lift the spirits of millions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Considering all of the comedies with a military situation that have been done in history, someone had to be the first. One could make a case that in Shoulder Arms, Charlie Chaplin invented the genre.

Hard to believe that back then this was a daring move. When you consider that some of the best films involving such people as Bob Hope, Abbott&Costello, Laurel&Hardy involved military service and made during war time, it's just something you accept and laugh at.

In the First World War Chaplin along with fellow stars Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford went out on bond tours. He was a great supporter of the Allied cause, unusual for someone of his left wing views. It would seem only natural that the Tramp would be drafted and unfortunately would flummox around and wreak havoc on all.

A lot of things you'd see in the service comedies of World War II got their start in Shoulder Arms. Chaplin had no more imitators because within a few weeks of the film's release, the war was over.

But a comedy art form had been established by one of comedy's greatest geniuses.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In one of the best of Charlie Chaplin's lengthier short films, he places the Little Fellow in the trenches of WWI, where he brings his intolerable politeness and endless patience to the drudgery of trench life, where troops lived for months at a time before finally going over the top to overtake the enemy, and usually to their deaths. It takes someone of Chaplin's skill as a comedian to make something as dreary as trench warfare into such a brilliant comedy, but the irony that he uses in the film makes even the most uncomfortable conditions highly amusing.

Like all of the best of Chaplin's films, short films and otherwise, this one is packed with brilliant and memorable scenes, such as the scene where he marks off kills with a piece of chalk on a board in the trench, erasing one when he gets his helmet shot off, the scene where he and his fellow soldiers are sleeping underwater, the opening of the beer bottle and lighting of the cigarette, and of course, the overtaking of the enemy. All of these scenes are show-stoppers, reminiscent of the most wonderful Chaplin scenes. This one should not be missed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILERS BELOW

`A Dog's Life' was most noteworthy for its excellent comic timing. In Charlie Chaplin's other movie from 1918, `Shoulder Arms', the silent film genius focuses on an entirely different brand of humor. His war comedy specializes in surreal, exaggerated set pieces in which Chaplin demonstrates unprecedented creativity and mastery of composition. When the soldier's bunker gets flooded, the water level reaches just the right height so that Chaplin can execute his gags most successfully. In a later scene, the soldier dresses up as a tree, a disguise that belies Chaplin's much increased ingenuity and goofiness. Naturally, when the enemy discovers his ruse, the soldier darts straight for the forest. The ensuing chase is a visual marvel: Chaplin not only hides the soldier from the Germans, but he uses the forest to mask the soldier from the audience, as well, such that the camouflaged soldier stands unblocked in the middle of the frame yet somehow remains invisible. All the while we thought our little hero was pulling a fast one on the German army; to our delight, the joke is on us, too.

Rating: 8","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of Chaplin's First National films from the period between his glorious Mutual shorts and the more mature United Artists features. More opulent than the Mutual films, it continues Chaplin's quest for perfecting his comic expression. Most people forget that the film is actually a dream that Charlie has while awaiting being sent off to the front.

There is plenty of slapstick via the Limburger cheese being used to gas the enemy, and Chaplin's foray into enemy territory dressed as a tree.

By this stage in this career, the great man had become so immersed in filmic expression that his films give the impression of making themselves. Doubtless this was not the case, but still, it gives as convincingly realistic view of life at the front as I can remember, albeit from an ironically humorous perspective.

As far as I am concerned, familiarity with the entirety of Chaplin's work should be a prerequisite for all cinephiles - do not delay!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film as it is now is far shorter than it was when released in 1918. In fact, it is now more available with two other medium sized silent Chaplin features (A DOG'S LIFE, and THE PILGRIM) that Chaplin re-released in the 1950s. In it's day SHOULDER ARMS was a big hit because of it's humor in uniform approach. It still is very funny (Chaplin in disguise as a tree, spying on the Germans, is so ridiculous it's hysterical), but it suffers from being set in it's own age. Charlie's dealing with World War I, a hideous conflict that killed 20 million people, but not the worst war (horrible to say) of the 20th Century. Chaplin would live to see that war too, and would spoof it's main architects in THE GREAT DICTATOR. But the latter is more accessible to modern audiences because that movie is a talking picture. Also, Hitler as a target seems more important to audiences in 2008 than Kaiser Wilhelm II and his general staff.

SHOULDER ARMS was to take us through the drafting of the tramp, his training, his getting use to trench warfare, and his actual fighting against the \"Huns\" on the Western Front. Much of this is now gone - one segment (when Albert Austin is a Doctor examining Chaplin in his office at the draft center) is still in existence and was shown completely in the documentary UNKNOWN CHAPLIN. This is unfortunate, because the film is now roughly forty five minutes long, and there seems to be gaps that these scenes filled out. What remains is first rate but one leaves wanting more...and feeling a trifle cheated.

Sydney Chaplin and Henry Bergman do well in supporting parts, especially Sydney as Wilhelm. He had done it before in a short with Charlie for the sale of bonds, giving a militaristic speech before being clobbered by the tramp with a huge hammer labeled \"War Bonds\"). Here we see the tramp succeed in capturing Wilhelm and the general staff at the conclusion. It was only topped by Stan and Ollie capturing the German army with a tank and barbed wire in PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES.

The funny thing is that Chaplin actually had a major crisis as a result of his wartime activities. He was not a naturalized American - not in 1917 or in 1952, when Attorney General McGranery publicly announced that Chaplin could not return to the U.S. because he was an enemy alien (Chaplin and his family were in Europe on a trip - in anger Charlie settled in Switzerland for the rest of his life, except when he made A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG and when he went to Hollywood for his special career \"Oscar\" in the 1970s). Because he was not an American he could not be drafted by the U.S. So he sold (with Douglas Fairbanks Sr. and Mary Pickford) U. S. War Bonds. But in Great Britain tens of thousands had perished in World War One battlefields, and the public there was upset at Chaplin, who they considered a \"slacker\" and a coward. Chaplin eventually did overcome this, but remnants of the resentment followed him until he died. This does not detract from the success of SHOULDER ARMS as a film, but it does suggest why Chaplin did not do another modern war film until 1940, and a worthier target.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Charles Chaplin's 'Shoulder Arms' of 1918 was his longest film to date, though, at just over 45 minutes in length, it was not quite a feature film. With World War One just drawing to a close, many popular entertainers of the time were doing their part to inspire their native troops, and Chaplin was no exception. And so the lovable Tramp went to war! The film begins with the Tramp in training, and the character is hilariously inept at even the simplest military drills, including marching and gun-slinging, much to the disgust of his drill sergeant. The Tramp then finds himself in the trenches, faced with a more formidable foe, though the Germans eventually turn out of be infinitely more incompetent than even he. The uproarious moment when the Tramp declares that he single-handedly captured thirteen German soldiers by \"surrounding them\" had me in stitches.

There are plenty of other great moments in this film. Chaplin awaking to find his sleeping barracks underwater and being unable to literally find his own feet is hilarious, as is his ingenious use of a tube from a record player to sleep beneath the surface.

However, the most memorable scenes in the film undoubtedly involve Chaplin skulking behind enemy lines disguised as a tree. The reactions of the bumbling German soldiers, unknowingly just metres from a sworn enemy, as they are single-handedly disabled one-by-one are highly amusing, especially when one soldier grapples an axe with the intention of cutting down a tree for firewood.

This is a very enjoyable film, and one of the best of Chaplin's pre-1920 efforts. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I described Woody Allen's Manhattan as perfect to someone the other day, and she thought that it was an odd way to describe a movie...

I have seen only a handful of movies that I would call perfect. Manhattan is one, McCabe & Ms. Miller by Robert Altman is another and Once Upon a Time in the West by Sergio Leone is also another film that I think achieves perfection. There are a few others, but aside from the fact that I find no faults in the three I mentioned, I must also admit that all three directors are acquired tastes.

If there is one film that I could stand behind and bet the house that anyone I would show it to would find it flawless it's Shoulder Arms.

City Lights, The Great Dictator, The Gold Rush and even the Pawnshop are 10's but not only did Chaplin do everything right in this film, everything he did is hilarious and touching to a level beyond explanation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fantastic Chaplin movie with many memorable moments as Charlie joins the army to fight in WW 1.

At first he goes to boot camp, where he has to learn how to handle his rifle and how to walk in line. That's a really funny scene as the tramp is not used to keeping his feet straight!

Next thing you know he's in France in a trench. Hilarious scenes here include a starving Charlie eating the cheese of a mousetrap and reading a letter from home over someone's shoulder.

When Charlie goes to sleep he finds his bunker all flooded and his roommate snoring. This is such a funny part! I can't really describe it, just watch the movie. When Charlie wakes up his legs feel numb so he tries to 'wake them up'. It had me rolling on the floor when it turns out his second leg still feels numb... while Charlie actually rubs his roommate's foot!

The movie then turns a bit grim, as Charlie shoots a couple of Germans from his trench (although it's done in a very funny way) and him personating as a tree to get close to the enemy, saving a friend of his from a death squad.

Last part is him getting a french girl in trouble by hiding in her house. He then has to save her and while doing so he captures the german kaiser as well. To do so he impersonates a german kolonel or something. I love it when Charlie is asked something in german and he's like nein nein nein. The soldier looks at him in a funny way so Charlie changes his mind: ja ja ja! The kaiser gets captured and Charlie is the hero... but then he wakes up again in bootcamp, it was just a sweet dream!

Charlie did one of those 'dream-sequences' before (The Bank comes to mind) but who cares, this movie was so funny it had me laughing all the way. Chaplin also has something to say with this movie (as his later work became more of a social comment to several mishaps in the world) and is explained best in the last sentence of the movie: 'Peace on earth, good will to all mankind.'

In short: a Charlie classic, very funny, timeless. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chaplin enters the trenches of WWI in this spirited comedy that never belittles the horrors of war. The rain, the mud, the explosions - all these things are present but Chaplin seems strangely oblivious to them all. He's in France for one thing: to fight the Germans, something he does with unbelievable success.

It almost seems like an extended ego trip for Chaplin - a very funny one, at that - until the final minute when it rises to a new level of poignancy and everything makes sense.

Perhaps it's what all soldiers dream of before the go to war.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pretty funny stuff. Charlie was still working towards his peak when he made this rather daring short about soldiers in the trenches of World War One. Daring because, after all, the war was still going on and this was a comedy about a serious business.

The gags are amusing without being either hilarious or tear jerking. One successful scene follows another, as Chaplin and his comrades try to sleep in a bunker that is knee deep in water. (That's where we got the term \"trench foot\" from.) Probably the most ludicrous episode has Chaplin disguised as a tree and foiling any number of German soldiers as they try to execute an Allied soldier caught behind the lines. Edna Purviance, Chaplin's main squeeze at the time, is a woman who cooperates with the Americans and is saved from execution too.

Chaplin would go on to do funnier and more ambitious things but this is better than most of his shorts during this early period.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chaplin is a doughboy in his final film of 1918, a doughboy who can not seem to get the marching down straight. He spends time \"over there\" in World War One trenches. Several gags stand out: Limburger cheese as a makeshift grenade for one. The cramped quarters of the barracks in the trenches and when Chaplin and his mates are washed out of their bunks by flooding are highlights. Chaplin ends up capturing several German soldiers single-handed, and he spanks the German commander for refusing a cigarette. When asked how he did it, Chaplin replies that he surrounded them. Chaplin hides behind enemy lines as a tree of all things, and those scenes are very very funny. He escapes to a bombed house where he meets up with a French girl played by Edna Purviance. He's tracked down by German soldiers, escapes from them again, and Purviance is arrested for assisting him. Chaplin is able to pull a fast one by bopping a soldier and using the soldier's uniform. He ends up saving Purviance of course and capturing the Kaiser in the process. Along the way, Chaplin employs some sight gags and slapstick in turning back the German soldiers. With this film, Chaplin explored the location possibilities in filming while maintaining the audience's attention for closer to feature length time, something his contract with the Mutual Film Corporation disallowed him. The film also allowed him to poke fun at the enemy, something he would again do to greater effect in The Great Dictator. *** of 4 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was one of three that were later combined by Chapin into a compilation that was released to theaters in the late 1950s under the title \"The Chaplin Review\".

This was an odd film in some ways because later in life, Chaplin was anti-war and his movies stressed peace and brotherhood. This film, in contrast, is a propaganda comedy meant to bolster the US efforts in WWI. It's truly odd to see Charlie as the \"super soldier\" who single-handedly captures 13 Germans, casually and coolly shoots several Germans in mere seconds as a marksman and then goes behind enemy lines to try to capture the Kaiser himself! Truly, this was a major departure for the Little Tramp, though it was, at the same time, very very entertaining and funny. The film is exceptionally well-paced, well made and I'm sure did a lot to bolster support at home for our troops (too bad it was such a pointless and costly war).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mark Blankfield played Jekyll and Hyde.

Michael McGuire was the dad.

Tim Thomerson was the plastic surgeon.

Did you even see this movie? I doubt it!

Blankfield was fairly popular at this time for playing the pill-popping doctor on Fridays. Thomerson has been funny in anything he does, from movies to series to stand-up comedy. If I ever find this movie on DVD I will definitely buy it. I recorded this movie off of HBO back in '82 and have pretty much worn out the tape. One of the funniest takes on the Jekyll & Hyde theme ever.

Of course. with all the cocaine references in this movie, it'd be panned as being way too politically incorrect today, as would Cheech and Chong. Too bad, because it is FUNNY, FUNNY, FUNNY!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is sweet. The actress who played the nurse with the gonzongas is the same actress who plays Elvira mistress of the dark. Another little tidbit is the actress who played the nurse who would give her wedding ring was the landlord lady of Roy Munsin in King Pin. This is most glorious story ever to be told. It should sell more copies than the bible. My parents played a part in suggesting the release of this movie to a local movie theater. The movie ran for a week and we were one of 4 families to see it. The lady who gave the go ahead (friend of the family) was let go by the theater. I was 3 years old. I have burned through 4 copies on VHS and finally had it converted to DVD. It's beautiful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first seen this movie in the early 80s and we used to have it on betamax. As we all know, betamax went the way of the 8-trak tape, sigh, it really had nice picture quality too. Anyways, I'm glad I found this movie again, I've been searching for it for more than 10 years! This movie falls into the category of movies like Airplane: continuous jokes, oneliners, funny actions (bodylanguage). Mark Blankfield is absolutely hilarious. His transformation from the shy Dr. Daniel Jekyll into the sex-crazed partyanimal Mr. Hyde is unforgettable, complete with goldtooth, chesthair and goldchains. The part I loved best was when he hijacked the car from this poor guy and then drove to Madam Woo Woo's. Totally psychedelic experience without the drugs! If you need laugh therapy this is the movie to do it. When I first seen it, I had tears in my eyes and my belly was hurting from constantly laughing. This is a movie I could watch over and over again. I highly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I Loved this movie. Mark Blankfield was perfect for this role. More Classic sci\/fie\/Horror films should be remade to this comedy level, which is at the very top of the line in my opinion. A no drink movie, you laugh so hard you will spill it all over yourself. Can We expect more? Let's hope so. I would like to suggest many movies for this type of remake. Mel Brookes made some remakes of classic films.He made some very strong contributions. A Picture of Dorian Gray would be a good suggestion. I hope some producer or director can get into the idea and bring us new comedy to our screens. we are needing a good insurgence of comedy to keep our level of laughter higher than ever before. A good Comedy FIX.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So it's a little dated now, it's almost 30 yrs old. Amazingly enough I have this on BETA tape and it still plays just fine. If it came to DVD I'd snap it up in a heartbeat.

The drug humor is not appreciated nowadays as it was back then. Then it wasn't as 'harmful'. Much like driving without airbags, seat belts and child seats. I can remember my father crying he was laughing so hard watching this. I had coworkers in the 90's who'd seen it and I could bust them up by getting on the intercom and saying \"Iiiiiiiivvvvyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy\".

Great lines, great spoof of the original, and funny to me anyway even three decades later!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So it's not an award winner, so what? Have you ever wanted to see a film that was just silly? \"The Villain\" and this one could top the list.My husband says that \"Jekyll and Hyde Together Again\" is one of those movies that if \"you've been there and done that\" you'll think this spoof on the 80's cocaine culture is a riot. I think the whole film is just fun. Nothing is sacred; hospitals, plastic surgery, Howard Hughes.... There are ongoing gags that you have to watch for to appreciate. To say that the film doesn't follow the book would be true, but then a lot of really good films take liberties with the published word also. I recommend this movie to all the old \"stoners\" among us. We may be smarter now, but we will still recognize and laugh at many folks we knew (ourselves?) back in the old days.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those rare comedies where try as you might, you can't help but giggle, chortle, guffaw and yes, even laugh out loud. The lead actor's performance as Hyde is pure manic genius. See if you can keep a straight face when he does his transformation. Good luck. :) On the downside there are times when the movie does bog down. It seemed longer than its 90 minutes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A mix of 70's drug humor along with parody of medicine and classic story line. As I've often said about this flick - if you don't get it - you're way lame..... Classic lines such as (parapharsed) \"I've got this erection and it won't go away no matter how many times I do it. You're a nurse, what can you give me for it?\" Nurse replies \"all I have is 5 dollars and my wedding ring...\" Great sound track.The classic \"Hyde's got nothing to hide\". Stays surprisingly close to the original plot - not that the original stays in the way of a joke..... Haven't met anyone with an IQ over 115 that doesn't find it hysterical.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Uproarious no-brainer comedy in which comedian Mark Blankfield portrays Jekyll as an uptight doctor deeply committed to his research. Once he's snorted his experimental formula, he's turned into the scenery-devouring Hyde, causing no end of problems for everybody around him.

I was pleasantly surprised by this one. It has a truly insane, madcap approach; it's full steam ahead with one outrageously stupid yet undeniably hilarious joke after another. Funny lines and sight gags are in abundance; Blankfield plays each role for all it's worth. One highlight has Hyde bursting into song; \"Hyde's Got Nothing to Hyde\" is quite catchy and even now I can still hear it in my head. The climax even goes so far as to spoof old b & w horror films.

The supporting cast is quite spirited as well, with Bess Armstrong as the ditzy fianc\u00e9e Mary, Krista Errickson as the spunky Ivy, and Tim Thomerson as flamboyant fellow doctor Knute Lanyon. I do wish more could have been done with Thomersons' character, as I'm a fan of the man, but it's always nice to see him in something.

A large array of familiar faces parade before the camera: Cassandra \"Elvira\" Peterson, Peter Brocco, Liz Sheridan, George Wendt, Michael Ensign, John Dennis Johnston, Art La Fleur, Lin Shaye, and George Chakiris in a cameo as himself.

It goes without saying that if you prefer highbrow, intelligent comedy, you'd better avoid this one at all costs. But for those who enjoy a zany, politically incorrect, gleefully raunchy good time, this just might do the trick.

One of the best bits is saved for last.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Better than it has any right to be, this movie died a quick and painful death at the American box office. At times sophomoric, at others, bitingly satirical and witty, Jekyll and Hyde is mostly just a near perfect reflection of the times, laden with drug and sexual humor, reminding one at one time or another of everything from the Woody Allen of \"Everything You Always Wanted To know About Sex\" to the Mel Brooks of \"The Producers\", Saturday Night Live to Monty Python, Carlin to Cheech and Chong. Watch it, listen carefully because some of the jokes go by really quickly, and remember a time when comedy was allowed to be offensively hilarious.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Who ARE the people that star in this thing? Never heard of them!! But this is one of the funniest comedies I have run across. It should win the Putz Puller Prize for Parody. The absurd starts with Dr. Jeykl snorting his powder and turning into a sex fiend.He is pursued by libido driven nurse early in the movie in one of the funniest scenes of the movie. Pay attention to the hospital PA system in the background; rather like the system in MASH. The final scene with Hyde accepting the award has had me laughing for years. Oh... and the \"Busty Nurse\" is Cassandra Peterson, who went on to become Elvira, Mistress of the Dark.

If you liked the Mel Brooks classic movies (Blazing Saddles, etc.), I suspect you'd like this one.

Damn shame you can't get it on DVD anywhere.

It's available on DVD now !!!!! Good thing DVDs don't wear out from use !!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Coming from the \"druggie\" generation, I thought this movie was hilarious. It definitely brought Jekyll & Hyde up-to-date, so to speak. My husband and I laughed all the way through it. Would love to have the movie in my collection. I told my two teenagers about the movie and they would love to see it. They aren't into drugs but they know enough about them to understand the comedy in the movie. It's been so long since I've seen it I can't remember but a few things. I would have to say the funniest part was when Dr. Jekyll dozed off on his lab table and inhaled the straw, while snoring, then snorted up the powdered drug he had invented. Funniest thing I'd ever seen in a movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It took me a while to find this movie since they don't have it yet on DVD (and my VCR is not worth hooking up again). I guess all the referencing to drug use is too much for some folks. But I found a decent bootleg on Ebay and I must say that anyone who takes this movie too seriously is just retarded. It is a slap stick spoof in the vein of \"Airplane.\" I must say that when I watched it on Showtime or Spotlight growing up in the 80s, I enjoyed the humor a whole lot more then, than I do now. But it's definitely worth watching just to see what they(i.e., movie makers) were able to get away with before the \"Just Say No\" hypocrites unleashed their propaganda. sing...\"We are all on drugs\" hahaha It's a silly film and worth the $10 I paid off of Ebay to get it on DVD just don't even think about comparing it to the original - that's just plain stupid. What are you high?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some said that this was a nose candy glorification flick, but short of the original Dr. Hyde's concoction, no drug has yet been developed that can provide THIS effect. If Viagra was the slime mold stage, that white sparkling powder is the Stephen Hawking evolutionary rung (or at least the pharmacist idiot savant branch). This reality show is really about the sacred cows of medicine, seen as was the emperor without clothes. Few of us want to question the health field; both because most of us would not have lived to our current age had we been born before \"modern medicine\", and because our subconscious hopes that we will continue to live on if we have faith in the helping professions. So the geniuses who produced this movie made jokes out of those Calcutta Bessy's, giving us the sugar that allows us to swallow the modern institution of medicine. The timing was right, and many were able to see the business side of the healing companies behind the curtain of Oz. A decade before, when George C. Scott ranted through the movie The Hospital, my wife and I were sitting in the packed premiere in Oklahoma City. Just as in Jekyll & Hyde's remake, we were almost unable to keep from falling out of our seat, and laughed and howled uncontrollably for the duration. The hundreds of other audience members were deadly silent. They were shocked that doctors, nurses, & the hospital institution were being mocked. It was as if the Pope, Billy Graham, and Gandhi were were sitting in the Animal House, beer stained tee shirts and all, competing to see who could tell the funniest God knock-knock jokes between belches. Had The Hospital been a slapstick comedy rather than a satire, they might have been able to see what was being shown to them. Unfortunately they were like Republicans at a screening of Michael Moore's 9\/11. Perhaps smaller golden parachutes would have been given to the corrupt medical corporation leaders, health insurance companies would have had a tougher time denying medical care, and health providers would have been demystified earlier, if George C. Scott had tap danced in a tutu while delivering his terrible truths. But--forget everything I just said. Watch the movie, be consciously made as happy and joyful and full of laughter as the best ever Saturday Night Live skit, and let the subconscious soak in the documentary of the underlying reality. Just don't blame me when \"Got to Got to Got to Got to\" becomes one of your sayings, or when \"Hyde's Got Nothing to Hide\" occupies that portion of your brain now paralyzed by \"Its a Small World After All\". Or when you start calling your local hospital Our Lady of Pain and Suffering instead of Our Lady of Eternal Construction. Even Oklahomans were changing their favorite terrible boss wishbone winner entreaty from \"Piss on him and leave him for dead\", to \"Body in a pit, you in it.....\" The smell of death...it's gone! Chicken sushi! Mary. MARY. MARYEEEEEEEEEEEEE!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie a lot. I must get this on DVD. I have 2 VHS copies, but the quality is so poor that you can't read one written joke over the door of the ward. I'm forever amazed that Blankfield did almost nothing afterward. He made both Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde totally believable.

The movie is plagued by it's low budget. (One atrocious edit jumps into mid-word and was described on, \"Siskel & Ebert\".) But, there are a thousand jokes, sight gags to subtle references, that more than compensate. I often find myself quoting lines (or, singing, \"I've Got Nothing to Hide\") and, from time to time, completely describe a scene which matches some conversation. There are, at least, six scenes which are among my all time favorite comedy bits.

Viewers with no history of cocaine use may miss a lot of gags.

\"Here, take it.\" * Visual of driving while waving butt out the window.* \"I said, 'Is this seat taken?'\" \"Nice Burn!\" Visual of chaps, headdress, jockstrap, & swim fins. * \"Yeah. I'm right handed.\" * \"Me! Me!\" says the woman trying to sell 'nads. * \"Bernie's going to love these.\" * \"That's my feet, Jack.\" says the black feet. * \"Why should we tell you?\"... \"SHE'S AT THE SUPERMARKET!\" * \"Ivy!\" on supermarket PA. * Loading whole shopping cart into ambulance. * etc.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the first transformation scene, what is the music? I've heard it was \"The Greeks Don't Get No Freeks\". Is that right? I really liked that sound. I also liked the \"Hyde's Got Nothing to Hide\" in the final scenes. Truly a doper movie, but with many laughs and puns, sight gags, and slapstick. Madam Woo-Woo's place was reminiscent of some places I have visited myself. Ivy Venus has appeared in some other stuff that is truly amazing. She looks much different in the movie we're talking about, but her maturity didn't hurt her a bit. Mark Blankfield reminds one of Gene Wilder in some ways. Bess Armstrong was beautiful and maintained her beauty for a long time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Pearl Harbor, buddy.\" This movie is brilliant! Sure it doesn't exactly flow like an multi-million dollar comedy does, but the jokes that are constantly thrown in are unbelievable. I'm one that goes for silliness, much like \"Dumb and Dumber\", \"Airplane\" and \"Wet Hot American Summer\" and I have to say this easily ranks up there. Movies just aren't written with this kind of sporadic comedy anymore. Too many jokes in this are such a surprise to the viewer that it's honestly amazing that more don't know about and praise this slapstick masterpiece! When watching this, you will easily find over 20 quotes from it that you will find yourself quoting after-wards... and after to watch it again you'll find even more!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mark Blankfield (from the old late night TV show \"Fridays\")plays Dr. Daniel Jekyll, a mild-mannered surgeon who invents a powder that turns him into a drug-crazed party animal. This was not, of course, his intent, he had higher aspirations, but he goes with the flow. This is actually a fairly stupid movie, but it's also pretty fun. Of course, once the good doctor realizes what he's done, he's ashamed, but he's also not above doing it all again & running through Hollywood as a crazed sex machine with frizzed out hair & gold chains. There's a few subplots like Jekyll's fianc\u00e9e, who is the daughter of the head doctor at Our Lady of Suffering and Pain, Jekyll's employer. And there's Tim Thomerson as a plastic surgeon with seemingly few \"real\" parts and a taste for men, and a rich old man whose situation is a parody of Howard Hughes, and who is going to make several people rich with a complete set of organ transplants, including testicles. Yeah, the humor is raunchy and silly, and overall the whole thing is fairly tasteless, but if you're not above a quick wallow in the gutter, you'll probably like it just fine. Now available on DVD too, for the first time! Woohoo! 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The \"all I have is 5 dollars and my wedding ring...\" scene was a riot. I also guffawed at the scene in the bar where Hyde snorted the horse radish and flipped the bird to the Japanese guy and said \"Pearl Harbor buddy\". I think my IQ is higher than 115, but I'm not sure because I can't count that high.

Funny thing, this 10 line requirement. Seems as though they would bash you for making your comments too long, not too short. I hope I don't make it to 1,000 words before I get to line 10.

I'm still two lines short. Pardon me while I think and drink, or drink and think. It depends on whether my hands are faster than my mind. Good, I think I've made it to the 10 line limit. Thanks for reading!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a surprise. A basic copycat of the comedy classic 'The Nutty Professor' only naughtier. Funny guy Tim Thomerson (who steals the show as Blinkin in Robin Hood-Men In Tights) is downright hilarious as the anal retentive Dr. Jekyll and the sex crazed Hyde.

The one scene that is really funny is when Dr. Lanyon (Mark Blankfield) catches Jekyll in bed with his daughter and says:

\"how dare you take advantage of my innocent daughter.\"

Jekyll replies, \"but sir, I'm going ahead with the operation.\"

Lanyon replies back, \"oh. Well in that case fu** your brains out!!!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely love this film and have seen it many times. I taped it in about 1987 when it was shown on Channel Four but my tape is severely worn now and I would love a new copy of it.I have e-mailed Film Four to ask them to show it again as it has never been available on video and as far as I know hasn't been repeated since the 80's. I have had no reply and it still hasn't been repeated. The performances are superb. The film has everything. Its funny,sad,disturbing,exciting and totally takes you back to school days. It is extremely well paced and grips you from start to end. The scene in the shower room is particularly horrific. I also cannot hear the song Badge by Cream and not think of this film. This film deserves to be seen by a much larger audience as it is superb. Channel Four please show again or release on Video or DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've only seen this film once when it was shown on tv but I can still remember it 15 years later so that must say something about it. I thought it was an intelligent look into schooling, friendship, bullying and the influence it can have leading into adult life.

The title really refers to how being good or bad at sports can either make you the lowest of the low or you will be tolerated by the cliques within school and even later on into adulthood if you're good at it- this is set in a private school in England but it could be anywhere.

The main character is bad at games, seeks revenge in later life which all culminates in a climactic confrontation on a cricket pitch. I must admit I was gutted by the ending - it was powerful and saddening.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thanks to the helpfulness of a fellow IMDb member I've just managed to watch this film for the second time in nearly twenty years, and I can honestly say it hasn't lost any of its kick. I can't believe that Channel 4 have let this one vanish without a trace as it is an extremely powerful, moving and moralistic take on the consequences of misplaced loyalty.

It focuses on a clique of friends over the course of ten years and their relationship with two 'outsiders' from school; specifically how they use one and mercilessly torment the other. As events from both the past and present unfold the tension gradually thickens, not dissimilar to Shane Meadows' excellent revenge-chiller Dead Man's Shoes. The acting, writing and direction are very bold for 1983 and still pack a wallop today in spite of the upper crust accents of the central characters. Yes, it might be set in public school but it's worlds apart from anything put out by Merchant Ivory; I got a state education and can still draw countless parables from the story.

This is a film that you'll remember for a long time if you see it - except you probably won't, because Channel 4 (or FilmFour) have chosen to bury it. On their own official website they describe it as \"an inexplicably overlooked gem from the early days of Channel 4\" - overlooked by who? This was one of the very first Channel 4 films (which would later go on to become FilmFour thanks to the success of films like Trainspotting), so somewhere someone must still have the master print. In these days where you can get extended collector's issue DVDs of more or less anything it's a bit moody that they can't give a film this good the promotion it deserves.

So, if one of the Channel 4 production flunkies is reading this, stop making programmes that showcase people humiliating themselves in the hope of securing a tabloid deal, chase up this film and sort out a nice special anniversary edition disc or something, please!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing this film when I was fairly young & being quite disturbed by it. I found the storyline very distressing and can still remember the various bullying techniques used. One in particular was when the other school children spat in his soup before he could even taste a spoonful. They also bound him and shaved his private parts. This was all because he was unpopular. Why was he unpopular? Because he was bad at games. I have a feeling though that even if he was good at games he would have been bullied because it's hard to decide what makes someone popular. To me, he is the type of person who would always be picked on because that's how children operate. Popular children are popular because they are in some way 'cool'. Popularity is a hard thing to define. So, even at the end when he is successful in his career it makes no difference & he is still left feeling tormented. I found the ending quite distressing as there was no resolution.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"here in Germany it was only shown on TV one time. today, as everything becomes mainstream, it's absolute impossible, to watch a film like this again on the screen. maybe it's the same in USA, or especially GB. The Message is a brutal truth : Find friends to make your ideas come a bit closer to reality, or you become a loser, if not an asshole instead.

The whole film is not particularly as simple, as it may seem here. Every little scene, every sentence, every behavior of the characters show a sharp look at what could happen, when one person is not accepted in a sadistic crowd, which calls itself normal.

Very well played by all this is a must seen. Who is the main character? John (not Cox, folks, remember ;-) ore Niles (who still is Bimbo) Decide and you will get the plot as it is intended.

A bitter look at what society becomes in a repressive system. Kind of Salingers Catcher in the rye and Goldings Lord of the flies thought to the very end.

The Final maybe change your own mind. Word","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The main reason I loved this movie is because IMx (formerly Immature) were in it. They were in House Party 3 when they were 11, but they are all grown up now! I was a little shocked at some of the things they were doing in the movie (almost ready to tear my hair out), but I had to realize that they were not my little boys anymore. I think Chris Stokes did a pretty good job, considering that is was his first movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked it better than House Party 2 & 3. The cast was hilarious and cool at the same time. Chris Stokes, who directed the film, has a very humorous cameo in it as a car repairman; look for his mom who plays the lead character, John John's grandmother. And you can hear her rap the title song \"Down to the Last Minute\" at the end of the film as the credits roll. She's very funny and a really good actress, as well. The young actors who star in it (the main trio), and who in reality are part of the music group IMx, did a superb job. Before this film I had not paid much attention to this r & b group. Now I'm a fan. The music number in the House Party scene alone is worth checking out the movie. I was pleasantly surprised. I loved it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember this film of old. It's a great, chilling, atmospheric horror picture about a man who moves into a Scottish castle, only to discover that there are strange goings-on in the corridors at night. And there are even stranger events taking place out back, in Hollywood's most familiar hedge maze. Yes, this is the maze you've seen in every feature-length film that ever involved a topiary puzzle, up to and including \"The Shining.\" But the punchline to this story is about the last thing you would guess. I certainly didn't see it coming. This is a fine example of how good and convincing a movie can be even when the premise is utterly loopy, bordering on laughable. I'd recommend it to anyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A woman and her aunt go to Scotland to locate her evasive fianc\u00e9. This is a much-maligned film because of its denouement, but up to that point, it's interesting, well-acted, eerie, and with fine set design (by William Cameron Menzies, developed for 3-D projection). Veronica Hurst is captivating and genteel, sort of a chic British Marilyn Monroe, still in love with Richard Carlson, who is hiding a family secret in his forbidding castle; there are even bats in the belfry! It moves leisurely until the final extraordinary set-piece, when Hurst and her aunt (Katherine Emery, also the narrator), sneak out of the castle in the night to venture into the maze and find what they're looking for in its center. As a kid, I always remembered this sequence - there's nothing scarier (or claustrophobic) than not finding your way out of a 10-foot high maze of hedges. Naturally, the two women get separated, setting the stage for engrossing suspense with horrific music. The final result is mildly disappointing really, since Carlson's epilogue at the end makes some sense to all the goings-on, even provoking sympathy. Worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Is this a good movie? It's hard to say -- but in 1953, for many people, it was a remarkably effective movie, suspenseful, scary and then, amazingly, actually touching when \"the old gentleman\" meets his unhappy death at the end of the movie.

Yes, what lurks in the Maze turns out to be something of a surprise and, for a lot of people, a hilarious one. But the basic idea (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) was a very real one at the time the book was written, and does have some basis in fact. Not that it would ever result in what we see in the movie, of course.

But working on what must have been a very low budget, one of the greatest production designers -- and the person for whom the term \"production designer\" was invented -- creates a very eerie mood that was strangely compelling. At times, of course, the movie is very silly, but it has its moments.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently saw this film at a 3-D film festival in Hollywood. It was in polarized 3-D (Gray glasses not red & blue) It was so much fun to watch this film with an audience, the print was excellent and the 3-D perfect. The performances were over the top and that added to the fun, the surprise ending (that we aren't supposed to share with fellow movie go'ers, at least according to the movie trailer and poster) had people howling with laughter. By today's standards this is probably more comedy than horror but with the added dimension of 3-D (complete with cobwebs and bats coming out of the screen) this film was an entertaining romp into 50's horror.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gerald (Richard Carlson) and Kitty (Veronica Hurst) have just finished celebrating their engagement announcement in France with family and friends, when he receives a letter asking him to visit an ancestral castle located in Scotland. Gerald's uncle reportedly has fallen ill and has requested Gerald, the sole heir, be present. Gerald goes off to Scotland, leaving his future bride behind. A few weeks pass and he doesn't come back. Concerned, Kitty sends out telegrams but doesn't hear back from her fianc\u00e9. Four more weeks pass and Kitty finally receives a weird response from Gerald, calling off the engagement and telling her to move on with her life. Not ready to give up on her relationship and looking for answers, Kitty hops on a plane and decides to pay Gerald a visit. Accompanying her on the trip is her level-headed aunt Edith (Katherine Emery, best known for her starring role in the classic chiller ISLE OF THE DEAD). When Kitty and Edith arrive at the MacTeam estate they immediately suspect something strange is afoot. For starters Gerald seems to have aged twenty-years in a matter of weeks. Secondly, this once nice and charming guy has turned into a complete jerk who repeatedly demands they leave the castle and never come back. When Edith comes down with a mild cold, Kitty uses it as an excuse to stay there to try to get to the bottom of things.

Why is Gerald being so cold and cruel to the woman he was just about to marry? Why is Gerald so opposed to having company? Why do the house rules state that guests must be locked inside their bedrooms at night? Why are guests forbidden to enter certain areas of the estate, such as Gerald's bedroom and a large hedge maze out back? And what's making those strange dragging noises every night? These are just some of the questions THE MAZE poses. The movie actually does a fine job building up mystery and intrigue. You genuinely become interested in what's going on and patiently await the resolution to explain the weird events that are taking place. And then IT happens... I definitely don't want to ruin the finale of this film because you're better off not knowing, but it takes one of the most unbelievable and jaw-droppingly strange turns I've seen in any movie. It's wonderfully ludicrous in a way, but it also takes a pretty solid little b\/w mystery and sends it straight into Z-Grade schlock territory. And yet, this ending seems so out of place, you're not likely to forget it once you see it.

Despite the ending (or maybe even partially because of the ending), I really enjoyed this odd bird. It's extremely talky and slow moving for the duration of the run time, but it managed to keep my interest throughout. Director William Cameron Menzies (who made the much more famous INVADERS FROM MARS the same year) is best known as a two-time Oscar-winning art director and his set designs here are also really interesting. There's almost a silent movie feel at times, with model work for some of the exteriors, some painted backdrops and sparsely decorated interiors with very high ceilings. As with any good castle set there are also secret passageways and long staircases. This one also throws in a few rubber-bats-on-strings for good measure.

A few of the actors are a little stiff and awkward, but I liked most of the cast. Hurst is one of those obscure and mostly unknown actresses who unfortunately never seemed to catch on despite being both beautiful and talented. Emery, who also gets to play narrator in framing shots at the beginning and end of the film, is decent enough as the overly mannered and cautious aunt. My favorite however was Michael Pate as the silver-haired sinister servant who does this hilariously upright zombie walk every time he ascends the stairs. Also on board in smaller roles are Hillary Brooke (who played the title role in the Sherlock Holmes mystery THE WOMAN IN GREEN) and Lilian Bond (Whale's THE OLD DARK HOUSE). Of course Carlson also starred in IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and some other horror flicks, so you've got yourself a pretty decent cast for genre fans right there. I say check it out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before I talk about the ending of this film I will talk about the plot. Some dude named Gerald breaks his engagement to Kitty and runs off to Craven Castle in Scotland. After several months Kitty and her aunt venture off to Scottland. Arriving at Craven Castle Kitty finds that Gerald has aged and he has grown meaner. Gerald has certain rules for the castle(the rules have been the same for 200 years). Gerald does not want them to stay but, Kitty insist on staying by making excuses. One night her aunt catches a glimpse of the monster running across the hall. It scares her so much that she faints and (another excuse) they must stay longer. Kitty becomes more worried about Gerald after she tries to go in the maze but Gerald catches her and is even meaner to her. Kitty then sends for reinforcements, she calls their doctor who is actually their friend and his wide. Then to make things not look suspicious they invite a couple other friends(who don't really do anything). Blah,blah, blah Kitty and her aunt end up in the maze where the most suspense of the story is. They somehow get separated and they try to find each other. But the aunt stumbles upon the creature...here it is the moment we've all been waiting for, what is the creature lurking in the shadows?...it is a giant FROG!!! OMG what is better than that! After seeing the aunt the frog literally goes crazy and runs, oops I mean hops up the stairs to the top of the castle. The frog then leaps out an open window. We then go on a shot from the ground and see the frog gall towards us (oh yeah this movie was in 3-D). But you want to know what is funny is the frog that falls out the window is actually a toy because it is 1\/10 the size of the frog before it takes the leap. It is then revealed that this was all evolutions fault, blah, blah and Kitty and Gerald get married. Then the last shot of this masterpiece is of the grave of the frog in the maze, the only place where he was ever really happy ;).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dr. Paul Flanner (Richard Gere), a successful surgeon, has his wife leave him, his son (an uncredited James Franco) not respect him and looses a patient he's operating on. Adrienne Willis (Diane Lane) has two children and discovers her husband has cheated on her. They both need to get away. She watches over a beautiful oceanside inn in Rodanthe at the same time he books a room. They're all alone together. You can pretty much figure out the rest.

This is what's known as a weepie or a woman's film. It's beautifully shot with a romantic setting and lots of quiet scenes. There's tragedy, romance, more tragedy and an uplifting ending (sort of). The great acting by Gere and Lane helps disguise the fact that this film isn't really about much. Every single bit of the plot is predictable. I rolled my eyes a lot at some of the events. Also it's far too short--I didn't believe the romance between Gere and Lane for a second. If comes out of nowhere and moves VERY quickly. Still the movie does work. The inn itself is absolutely gorgeous and I was in tears by the end along with most of the audience. So it's a predictable but gorgeous movie with some wonderful acting. It doesn't deserve all the criticism it's getting. I give it a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oh yes! Hollywood does remember how to use the good old formula, and when lightning hits, it's a rather wonderful feeling. Rarely Hollywood creates a masterpiece because lately, there seems to be more concern with hurrying up and getting the most rewards in a hurried manner, or there is the matter of too many cooks in the mix. Usually good screenplays are the result of a talented writer who is in full control of his\/her property, understand his material and is a good writer. Then, there is a little important part, often neglected by the marketing geniuses that so often lack creativity and vision: a good actor.

A good actor can make the difference between a mediocre, half-cooked try, and a fully realized film that might not be an important and relevant movie, but one that contributes to its genre and might eventually become a classic of its type. We get very few romantic comedies, and we are people who are starved for them. Buried in the sexy humor of \"Sex in the City\" is the romantic, yet stormy relationship of Big and Carrie, and people flocked to \"Mamma Mia\" because it had some romance, skillfully played by Streep and Brossnam. It could have a silly musical, but it did touch us because it was played with intensity and conviction. \"Nights\" offers us more of it, with the amazing talents of a woman who does magnificent work in romantic films, Ms. Diane Lane. Ever since her days as a child actor, we could appreciate how her talent, combined with her appreciative soul allowed us to see into the hearts of the story's protagonists. A few years back, she teamed up with Mr. Gere, giving us a tormented, romantic, and sexy performance as the wife who is not too sure of her actions' consequences in \"Unfaithful\", work that should have garnered her at least an Academy Award. She is back, doing more formidable work in this romantic gem as a woman who has given up on her romantic prospects, and suddenly she realizes there might be another chance around the corner.

Ms. Lane makes this film pulsate with intelligence and passion. Her facial expressions communicate volumes about the different emotions her character undergoes. We can read frustrations, yearnings, desperation, anger, hope, loss, and a range that is way out reach for a lot of the marketable types that Hollywood constantly push down our throats. Here is a mature performer who has the gift to project real emotions and allows us to connect with the material in such a way that we are moved as we become part of the experience.

Ms. Lane is such a triumphant joy to watch as she goes through transformations from the first scenes of the film until the very end. Her discoveries become ours as we celebrate with her the power of hope and love. She is able to bring back the unsurpassed joy of a person in love, much like a teenager does, and yet she never lets you think of her character as silly or irresponsible. Her eyes are expressive gems that can move even the cynical in the audience. She is one of the stars that can do wonders with just one look. In her the classic feel of those grand movies of yesterday are back. Her work recalls the passionate and intelligent work of Hepburn, Davis, Garson, women who played everyday types and made them memorable because they created complete characters.

We admire those superb actresses who recreate real life legends and are rewarded for it. Half their work is done by the mystique of the figures they impersonate; however as much as anyone might make you think, it is the roles such as Lane's in this movie that are a more impressive achievement because they are created from scratch, given a personal imprint and are able achieve heights without any previous theatrical material support, such as plays, and the background of a famous legend whose life is paid tribute on the silver screen. Lane's character is one woman whose experiences could be any of us. She represents our dreams and emotions with much quality, class, and just the right amount of sentiment. It is quite a remarkable achievement, and we should be grateful that we are still able to find such a remarkable performance nowadays.

There are a few adjectives I could use to pay tribute to her work, but I can only say that in my humble opinion every single frame of her work in this film is testament to one of the greatest performances ever put on celluloid by a living performer. Thank you, Ms. Lane.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ever since they first came to the Outer Banks and filmed the movie (I have lived here my whole life), I have waited for this movie to come out. And I mean waited and waited and waited over a year and a half for this movie and to me, it was worth it.

The movie is different from the book but in my eyes, it's still a beautiful piece of work as is the book. In both I cried, there were moments that tore me up. I laughed and I smiled just as much. It's a great movie with a great story line.

It's about never giving up on finding that one, the one that will change you forever. The one that will shape your soul and awaken you to a whole new view of life.

I have to say that it is possible to meet someone and have them change your life forever, which is what Gere's character did to Lane's. I met the love of my life and at once was completely captivated that I never forgot him or how smitten I was with him until I 'met' him again a year later. For me I could relate to this movie with my whole heart. I think that if you listen and watch the movie with your heart and your hopes you'll see what I'm talking about. It's never too late to find your true love, great work Ms. Lane and Mr. Gere!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"NIGHTS IN RODANTHE brings back to the screen two talented actors in Diane Lane and Richard Gere in a simply beautiful story of a man and a woman hungry for something more in their lives than they have at present. The chemistry between Lane and Gere is magical from the first scene in the film to their last embrace. The locations, beauty of their attraction for one another when it unfolds when they first meet, and the story that follows, and as they begin to know each other with the attraction they feel towards each other is real, is romance that is projected to an audience with tender care. James Franco in another micro role is just the right casting, and the elegance of Lane in combination with the beach house, is a true Fall 2008 film to remember forever, as was THE NOTEBOOK.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Discovering something, the journey is so much more fun, so much more surreal and so much more emotionally galvanizing than when you finally arrive at the destination. Falling in love is perhaps one of the most opulent feelings in the world. You feel energized, invigorated and alive. You simply want to be around that person every second of the day and the very sound of their voice gets you excited and sometimes aroused. Love, and all the physical and emotional side effects that comes with it, is pure bliss. Where it goes from here is anyone's guess, but when you first begin your journey together, nothing can compare to it.

Diane Lane and Richard Gere play Adrienne Willis and Dr. Paul Flanner, two emotionally scarred middle aged individuals. In this film, they are about to embark on that mystical journey together, where love, and the discovery of the emotions along the way, will help save them.

Lane is dealing with the typical jerk of an ex-husband who still loves her, but in her eyes, only because the woman he cheated with no longer wants him. As hurt as she was by him, as much as she really dislikes him, there is a part of her that is actually considering taking him back. Why you might ask? Because in life, and love, sometimes comfort supersedes intelligence. Yes, this man cheated on her but she has kids with him, she built a life with him and there is obviously still a connection with him.

Richard Gere plays a recently divorced husband and estranged father. He also just lost a patient as she reacted negatively to the anesthetic. He is now being sued by her family and he is guilt ridden but hardened about the issue. This is what brings him to Rodanthe in the first place. Although his lawyer told him not to, he felt compelled to visit the woman's husband in Rodanthe. He stays at the Inn that Adrienne is taking care of. Soon, they find comfort in each other's arms and discover that they too can have a second chance in life.

By now this sounds like a simple idea for a film, and although it might be something you've seen or read about before, Gere and Lane simply own the film. Diane Lane lights the screen up with her smile. Her eyes twinkle in the dark and the life she brings to the character is one worth watching. Gere's character is a little different. He is more hardened and bitter. It takes Adrienne's pain and her passion to bring him out of his shell. He blames quietly himself for his strained relationship with his son and her secretly blames himself for the death of the patient. On the outside he tells anyone who will listen that it is not his fault, and that she was a 1 in 50,000 casualty. But deep down, it eats away at him. They find each other at a time when both need someone to listen.

Gere and Lane have been in film together before but this is the first time they play lovers. They were married in Unfaithful but here they play lovers finding each other when the people in their lives have abandoned them. They have a spark and a real chemistry. I would love to see more films with them together. In fact, I'd love to see more films with Diane Lane but that's a story for another time.

Nights in Rodanthe is a very passionate and romantic film about two lost souls who save each other. They both become better people, they both become stronger people. I enjoyed it immensely and would recommend it to anyone, not just couples. This is a film about redemption, absolution, and second chances.

It will also ask you to bring some hankies.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"That's right, we've got a 2008 film using themes of \"Brief Encounter,\" and \"The Bridges of Madison County.\" It's basically the story of lost loves, redemption and a triumph of the human spirit.

The performances by Richard Gere and especially Diane Lane are very good. Gere gives the kind of restrained performance here as a doctor who is searching for meaning, after a patient dies on the operating table. Lane is the mother of a rebellious daughter and a nice young son, who has split from her wandering husband and has also sustained the loss of her father in the same year.

Scott Glenn steals the show in a one scene meeting with Gere. He is the heartbroken husband and he recounts his love to his departed wife, it will bring tears to your eyes.

Fresh from her triumph as an acquiescing mother in \"Doubt,\" Viola Davis appears as an understanding friend in the film and literally hangs her hair down in a rather benign performance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Eichard Gere & Diane Lane back again in another romantic love story. They are an excellent team,BUT somehow this film will not be among there best,

The director George Wolfe using a screenplay by Ann Peacock & John Romanao, for Nicholas Sparks novel, does a capable job. This is yet another tale of 2 strangers meeting & falling in love,then they go on there way,then when they are about to meet again & start a life together.

SPOILER but not really. Tragedy happens, one of them dies.

How many times have we seen this already.

Those who never saw tearjerkers like this will hopefully like it more than I did. This story has about every clich\u00e9 there is.

The only reason this has the ratings I will give it. is because of the fine acting & excellent production . The cast besides our 2 stars, includes Christopher Meloni, Viola Davis & Scott Glenn. they all give real good performances & do the very best with the material they were given

There is a good but not over done storm sequence, The sex scenes are well done, no nudity & next to no foul language,

Ratings: *** (out of 4) 82 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this show was right on the money for me. I watched it over the plane but there were parts in the movie that made me control myself from tearing all over the place.

The chemistry between Richard gere and Diane lane was very believable (fantastic acting on both parts)! I loved how Diane lane's daughter acted in the show too. She displayed maturity and how she transformed throughout the show was easy to believe as what a teenager could possibly be like in real life.

I loved this show from start to end. Definitely recommended for the romantic people out there!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite the fact that there were aspects of this film that I felt were not developed enough, I enjoyed it and would recommend it to others. Richard Gere and Diane Lane are great in their lead roles. The basic premise of the film is that both were in the wake of broken marriages when they meet. Both, also, are searching for healing. Unexpectedly, they find that they can help heal each other. There were aspects of the film that I wished I'd seen play out more-- where simple flashes merely suggested themes that my mind had to fill in the blanks on, such as the apology to the bereaved widower, and how Adrienne goes from feeling guilty about having slept with Paul to feeling okay with it soon after. An opportunity for a tremendous love scene was lost when it was merely suggested they were going to make love with the hurricane coming. But in the end, the film left me feeling deeply appreciative of the relationship that my wife and I share. And there were moments that moved me to the verge of tears. So, I have to say it is well worth viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a middle aged mom myself, I very much appreciated seeing a romance between grown-up people that weaves in the many issues that effect us.

Diane Lane beautifully portrays Adrienne and the sacrifice and conflict that a mother goes through, wanting to do what is right for her children, but still have a happy life herself.

I am not a big Richard Gere fan, but he always does a good job with the guy who is sort of jerk, but learns something about himself.

Criticism of their romance as unrealistic is hardly justified when compared to most other romantic movies. When Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman fall in love riding across Australia, with barely a conversation between them, its considered high romance. We get so much more here with Rodanthe. She redeems him. He sets her free. Its beautiful.

The intimacy they create by sharing their deepest insecurity, fans into a flame of passion. How long it takes is irrelevant. Perhaps the movie was a bit too subtle in the point that it was the letters they shared over the following year that deepened their relationship- again another real-life time-honored way to get to know a person.

As much as I enjoyed the plot and themes, the dialogue was not consistent in quality. Some lines rang so true, and other lines were embarrassingly trite and flat.

I also enjoyed the relationships with Adrienne's teenage daughter and her best friend, reminding us that there are many types of love, not just romantic love.

This is not a lighthearted romantic comedy, more a romantic drama. It does have a very relaxed pace that some might consider too slow.

The beach house is a work of art- fabulous. Look for the driftwood bench on the porch in the first pan-over the house- very beautiful. I also enjoyed the music and scenery, which combined to create the effect of the location as being the third main character. It was this place away from their regular lives that allowed them to see themselves and each other in a different light.

If you are old enough to appreciate these themes and are in the mood for a good cry- get out the Kleenex and enjoy this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hey look, you don't watch this movie to change your life! But if you are female especially and have always had a little thing for Richard Gere; this movie is right up your street. Diane Lane and Richard Gere have on screen chemistry going way back. 'Nights in Rodanthe' is not a Oscar winner movie and it will probably be forgotten sooner rather than later but if you want an atmospheric, beautifully shot love story between MIDDLE AGED good looking people (they don't make your stomach turn and even when Gere is 'on top' he does not look too jowly) then this is the movie for you. I loved the theme of the story and it was quite relevant in many ways. Of course the whole thing was presented in a superficial way, glossed over and not really dealt with.....I mean I would have liked to know more about the father\/son relationship between Gere and James Franco, but the story was really about the idea that a great love can CHANGE you for the better; whether it is a lover, a child, a friend etc. The theme of the film is about love and its mysterious ways. I was kind of surprised that James Franco took such a small part in this film but he is always good even for a few minutes screen time. I really liked this film because it was moving and sweet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a guy, so i was very hesitant to watch the movie because i know that Richard Gear likes to be in tear jerker movies. I would rather watch action\/adventure\/sci fi. I was right, the movie is definitely a tear jerker. Diane tended to over act a few times, as did richard, but they brought it around and made it work. The daughter was a suppressed teen with huge attitude, so you started out hating her. The movie is way too predictable, but for entertainment purposes, it was a masterpiece. Go rent it, see if you don't shed a tear.lol If you like the notebook, you will love this one. The beach scenes were immaculately shot. even though the hurricane scenes were a little off sequence, it was still a bit panicy to watch them react to it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WTF!! Do any of his books\/movies end in a happy ending?? The Notebook was good...but sheesh, enough with the depressing endings already. I'm told that he writes about realistic situations that people deal with in real life. Understandable...but sometimes it's nice to see people who have sacrificed their whole lives to only get to a mediocre unhappy time in their lives - to finally find the true meaning of happiness and are able to live it out for the rest of their days. Don't we already know what really happens in real life? Can't we - for one moment (an hour and a half) live vicariously through a movie that ends on a happy note - that gives us hope for our own futures???

Yeah - wah. I know. But for real, I think we need to preface movies that end like this one with a warning. \"Beware: No happy ending.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this today with little background on what to expect of the storyline. I go to the movies as an escape, to leave everything behind and enjoy a \"story\". I found this to be a good movie, not great, but good. It was worth my money and my tears :)

Diane Lane was wonderful as always, Richard Gere isn't an over-actor. He held his own and has a certain presence that we always come to expect. He brings his own style to the movie.

I think it was the kind of love story that doesn't always get told. It was messy and they had other priorities, but they wanted to be together and wanted to wait for each other.

I'd definitely recommend it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great movie. Post-apocalyptic films kick ass. This one is no exception. Kept up the pace and interest without a speck of dialogue (mainly through some good character development). The fight between Reno and the Hero was tight. I also liked the use of cave paintings and medieval-like weapons to show how primitive and savage mankind had become without their technology and guzzaline. The connection between the beginning and end was a little spacey, that is, I had a hard time understanding the distances between the hotel and the opening sequence. In sum, kick ass character progression, design, story without the cushion of dialogue, and most importantly, the always appreciated desolate scenery of a post-apocalyptic wasteland.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought Besson's film managed to do without words what few films have been able to do with them; Capture true human emotions. The main character's struggles, triumphs, set backs, hopes and desires are all so honestly shown that you wonder if he is acting at all. The film has a low budget and is obviously made without the glitz and glamour afforded to most Hollywood productions but that minimalism is what allows this film to transcend the stereotypical Sci-Fi labeling and become a true drama. However calling this film solely a drama would take away from the fantastic post-apocalyptic plot. True this type of movie has been done been before but I think this one captures the joys and sorrows of that type of world possibly better than any other one does.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I still can't describe what to feel when I received this by the fnac site. Such a rare movie, so little spoken and known, is difficult to find, even to fans, but the contrast betwen past and present is devastating: now I hold a DVD of the movie, with the finest quality possible. As I did in Atlantis, the other rare Besson movie I bought by the internet, I saw this one at home, with all the lights of my dvd and tv turned off, and marveled at the experience. I didn't know what to expect. Wickedly, I always searched some kind of disappointment when I saw a film by Luc Besson I never had seen before. But it never came. This movie was no exception. From the start, I understood that the person who makes a film like this as a first feature is destined to be big in the future. And so it happened. This won several prizes (including the highest prize in a film festival of my country, which makes me proud) and it shows that this movie is preparating many bigger things. This may be the most original after-the-war movie I have ever seen, beating Mad Max in originality and artistic feel. There is not a problem with this movie: its cinematography is genius, as well the perfomances of the actors. I am also proud to say that finally I saw all the movies of my favorite director, and have a copy of almost all of them (Joan of Arc is still waiting for me to buy the DVD). This movie is most of all a work of style and dedication, which makes clear why Luc Besson is a director of my choice: good taste, beautiful framing, excellent use of music (I also marveled at Eric Serra's first feature-length score) and the promise of great achievements. Gaumont did well to bet in its boy-genius, the man who would later change the face of France's and Europe's relation between movies and their public. Let's hope Besson starts working in a new directorial project. I will be the first to cheer it. Until then, I recommend this movie to anyone who need to learn a lesson of how good movies are made with little money. I loved the atmosphere of the movie, which, by its black and white cinematography, suggests us an even more depressed view of the world after the holocaust. This movie works by the sheer magic of movies: showing in pictures what we can't explain by words. And I'm with all the people who wrote comments to this movie and liked it: good choice! A great hug to everyone who sees this and feels that a little of their lives were changed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's hard to use words for this movie, since it contains none itself.

But the images it conveys, both powerful and sweeping, are ones which remind us why we watch movies. And you might be saying \"Well, Leonard Maltin doesn't like it, it can't be that good..\" But you're wrong. See this movie. French cinematic brilliance en ensemble.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I guess I was in the mood for a movie that really grabbed me from the beginning. This movie wasn't it. It plodded along at a pretty slow, deliberate pace for the first 40 minutes, but there wasn't really anything in it that I was terribly interested in--there's an intriguing and mysterious feud between Jean Reno's character and an old man, but more of the first 40 minutes is dominated by the wanderings of the main character, whom I didn't know much about and couldn't really relate to at the time. He wanders around alone for the most part, he doesn't meet anyone; I imagine the director was trying to depict the loneliness of the human condition in this post-apocalyptic world or something, which is all good, but I still wish he'd trimmed it down from 40 minutes to 15, because it can get incredibly boring.

But after those 40 minutes, things start to get very interesting. I guess I won't really say more than that because I don't want to spoil anything. So if you've seen the first 15-30 minutes of this movie and are thinking about turning it off (like I was), just stick with it--it gets a lot better.

One of the most interesting things I found about this movie was the fact that it had no dialogue whatsoever, which really made me have to think about what was happening, how characters were feeling and what their motivations were, why things were how they were in this post-apocalyptic world, all of which gives the story a lot of room for audience interpretation. And it's amazing how much more satisfying a movie is when the actors aren't telling you exactly what's going on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Luc Besson's first work is also his first foray in science fiction, a genre to which he will return fourteen years later with \"the Fifth Element\" (1997). Even if this film was strongly influenced by Hollywood cinema, it is still highly enjoyable. Back in 1983, \"le Dernier Combat\" reveals Besson's own approach of science fiction. He takes back a threadbare topic and his efforts are discernible to make a stylish work. Shot in widescreen and black and white, a disaster has destroyed virtually all the population from earth and we will never know what was this disaster and why men can't talk any more. Some barbarian hordes were formed. In parallel, a man (Pierre Jolivet) lives on his own and arrives in an unrecognizable Paris where he is received by a doctor (Jean Bouise).

There are no words in Besson's work. The characters' actions and the progression of the events go through looks and gestures. Although the starting point and the backdrop are unnerving, the film has never the look of a despondent one. It seems that the man and the doctor try to reproduce gestures and actions linked to mankind before the disaster. The film opens with the man having sex with an inflatable doll. Later, the doctor tries to make him speak through a machine and he is a painter in his spare time. It's all the more intriguing as these paintings seem to come from the prehistoric times. Following this reasoning, one could argue that the bearded giant (Jean Reno) embodies evil and a threat to the efforts deployed by the man and the doctor to regain what finally made a human being. Ditto for the gang of baddies at the beginning of the film.

The pessimistic whiff that such a film could convey isn't really at the fore and gives way to a glimmer of hope. Personally, the film could have gained with no music at all, except the one the man can hear with his cassette recorder. Luc Besson was to make better and still entrancing films like this one, he also boosted Pierre Jolivet's career as a director who will leave a patchy work behind him in the future: \"Force Majeure\" (1989), \"Simple Mortel\" (1991), \"ma Petite Entreprise\" (1999) or \"Filles Uniques\" (2003).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't believe it... Luc Besson is not only a genius now...he has always been one... this film is for everyone who likes real good deep films...just perfect!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A poetic examination of the human condition performed without dialogue. The anti-hero, The Man builds a contraption to escape a band of marauders, out of the wastland of what was once a civilization, to the ruins of the city to scavenge for his survival. There he crosses pathes with The Brute, brilliantly played by Jean Reno, of \"The Professional\" and \"Mission: Impossible\" fame. The Man is rescued by a crazy old genius who lives in a fortress of his own design. By using their wits, The Man and the old genius are able to keep the Brute and his ilk at bay, but they realise it is only a matter of time before their defenses are compromised, so they make a break for it. This is a strongly understated tale of the desparate struggle for life, with excellent action scenes and clever humor. Of all of the movies of its kind, like \"Road Warrior\", \"Omega Man\", and even \"Ultimate Warrior\" (featuring Yul Brenner as a buff knife-fighter), \"Le Dernier Combat\" is the most artfully crafted. Copies of the video are hard-to-find, I would give my left eye ball for one. If your local art house ever has a revival of this film, I heartily recommend that you break any engagement to able to be able to see it big.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a long time fan of Luc Besson's work, and for about as long as I've known his name, I've also looked for this movie. I tried looking for this movie all over California for over four years. this past summer i took a trip to Europe, one of my missions on this trip was to at least see this movie. long story short, I bought it and watched it in France! I was blown away, it completely made my trip and i finally feel content that i have seen Luc Besson's first work. absolutely amazing character development, very thought provoking, great acting and the ultimate concept movie. if you are a concept movie fan this is one of the most original and classic. I feel as though it is a rare treat to see a movie like this one, its risky, its unorthodox, and ultimately its just downright unique. if you are a Luc Besson fan, its indeed a must see, however, whether your a Besson fan or not, its definitely an important work, overall a great contribution to the immortal art of cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you expect that this movie is full of action and grabbing you from the start then don't watch it. But if you like those kind of meditative movies which stick in your mind for a while, until you get the details, then you will love it. Now don't get me wrong there is action and there are things going on just not in the usual way.

Basically the plot is in a post-apocalyptic world where anyone fights in his (or their) way for survival. In this fight they lost the ability to speak... I don't want to write more to not spoil the movie for you, but trust me if you like SF-authors like Lem or Capec or even some from Orson Scott Card you will love this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Belonging to the subgenre of post-apocalyptic future films, it is a stylistic and very very intimate installment. The most noticed element of the film is its silence; no one speaks. I don't think Besson, despite what is evident in most of his later work, meant it as any kind of cool gimmick. I think what makes it so clever and so effective is the fact that with no other way of communicating, everyone has to read each other based on intuition and conveying of emotion, no matter how slight. Though I wasn't glued to the screen, upon reflection I see that it's a very touching and sensitive perspective on human nature. Its vehicle is the stylized sci-fi movie. Part of its reflection on the nature of the human world is that each of its humans is not necessarily played as a perfect human being: The hero, a lone drifter in the desolate new world, is taken in by an older recluse, who refuses to keep his part of an exchange of food between him and a husky, brutish character played by Jean Reno, and so Reno tries everything he can, predominantly using brute force, to get what he wants. So, the antagonist is right, though not a good person, and the protagonist and his sympathetic foil are both wrong, though they are both good people.

It's shot in a clear and crisp black and white, edited and captured in a low-key yet spry and small-scale approach, and its actors are very real. How can they not be? They, like their characters are left with the bare necessities of communication. This is one of the few truly good films that Luc Besson has written. His earlier work is almost always better than the fluff he churns out now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although compared with \"Mad Max\", this film is in a league of its own. Set in post apocalyptic Paris, this film is about man's struggle for survival, he has lost his ability to speak, and there is a remarkable shortage of women. CONGRATULATIONS LUC BESSON!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an example of what film school lecturers would call a good debut movie. It follows all the rules. Short scenes, to the point, cheap to shoot, guerilla-film-making, no sets (just disused buildings) and possibly an empty hospital wing. Also, even the black&white film-stock was a stroke of genius, probably selected more for its low expense rather than film effect, but it worked.

Reno was amazing as the Brute. Everyone's acting was brilliant. The plot was simple and effective and no flabby bits left to distract you. A tight, well-crafted, cost-effective budget movie.

Released in 1983, this would've been made just before the art of big-budget action spectaculars became refined by the Hollywood movie-making engine, and movie-making was more exclusive and therefore more difficult and more in need of the right people in the right places than today's internet-enabled world, so Luc Besson would've had to do quite a bit of negotiating and promise-keeping to achieve this result, which makes the end-product all the more remarkable.

But, then again, the French movie-industry has always maintained an excellent reputation (yes, I know Luc Besson is Belgian, but the movie is a French production) and has been the source of many Hollywood remakes.

If I have one criticism, it's that the cover-picture on the DVD (and possibly the original sales poster) bears no resemblance to the movie whatsoever and appears to be a rather bizarre image rather than representative of any of the movie's themes - at first glance, it appears to be a man in post-apocalyptic armour on a swing, but on second inspection reveals a man in armour with a lance on an office chair with his legs on a desk in a reclined, self-confident posture. This never happens in the movie once.

It's black-and-white film-stock, zero dialogue, physical acting, tight scenes and brilliant actors makes this movie one worth adding to your private movie collection. A superb movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Remember that this came out before Gulf War I, which gave us Werner Herzog's \"Lessons of Darkness\".

Le Dernier Combat is not \"Sci Fi\". It's more like Judgment. I've watched it at least a dozen times. It really is a fitting companion to Herzog's \"Lessons of Darkness\": \"And in that time, men will seek death, but they will not find it, for death will flee from them.\"

That someday, alas, may be today, in Iraq.

But, back to Le Dernier Combat, make sure to watch thru the very last second of the film. I wouldn't call it a \"surprise ending\", but it is something you'll miss if you just assume the end won't be anything more than what you will already have seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pierre Jolivet plays a Don Quixote character, unable to speak, living in a world incompatible with modern life. He trusts to his homemade weaponry - helmet, sleeves, and spear - made out of hubcaps, seat cushions, and discarded office furniture. Just as Don Quixote rode Rocicante, \"The Man\" rides his contraption (literally) transcending the lost lives caught up the harsh and demeaning modern world - soaring above the earth, away from the plight of modern man. Both characters ride in search of adventure in an effort to right the wrongs of the world. Both characters are guardian knights of values unfamiliar to most of the other characters in the story.

Unlike Cervantes's tale, in this movie we identify more directly with the anachronistic ideals of the main character. We can only compare this alien and forbidding landscape to the lush and beautiful world we live in. Our frame of reference is the fantasy realm which the lone knight perhaps remembers. Our vision would be one which expects the main character to triumph, to vanquish, to change his world (for the better) back into a world of plenty that no longer exists.

We look at this movie and see a true knight among a world of humans-as-animals. Don Quixote considered himself a true knight among animals.

With Cervantes's tale we can only see the dreamer, without really understanding the scope of his anachronistic displacement. In Besson's and Jolivet's tale we see the new world from the eyes of Don Quixote, because we value the same visions and ideals as the crusading main character.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two Soldiers is an excellent example of fine film-making. The director and producer took a heart-warming story and brought it to life with a very skilled and dedicated cast, excellent cinematography, and very creative artistry.

The relaxed back-woods lifestyle of the brothers was depicted with great details, and contrasted sharply with the militaristic lifestyle that they were thrust into. The interaction between the brothers brought laughter and tears, as they struggled with a hard but peaceful life in the back-woods of North Carolina and an even harder life of war.

The acting was great, particularly from the younger brother who is new to the big screen (played by Jonathan Furr), to the older brother (played by Ben Allison) and the powerful perfomrance by the Colonel (played by Ron Perlman). The performance was extremely well cast.

It was a pleasure to enjoy the magic of Two Soldiers, and I heartily recommend it to audiences of all ages.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on a William Faulkner short story, Two Soldiers is a top notch short film, a movie that has enough story, emotion and great cinematography for a feature film and definitely leaves you wanting more in the end. The story involves two dirt poor Mississippi brothers, one only a kid, the other old enough to volunteer for the war effort shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The younger brother, played brilliantly by newcomer Jonathan Furr, doesn't want to let his older brother go, and he sets out on a quest to enlist in the Army himself. Ron Perlman gives a gruff but touching peformance as the Army Colonel who decides to help the kid.

Because it is only 39 minutes long, this gem will be hard to find (it will most likely be confined to the festival circuit for now), but remember the name Aaron Schneider--this picture marks him as a director to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two Soldiers is an excellent example of fine film-making. The director and producer took a heart-warming story and brought it to life with a very skilled and dedicated cast, excellent cinematography, and very creative artistry.

The relaxed back-woods lifestyle of the brothers was depicted with great details, and contrasted sharply with the militaristic lifestyle that they were thrust into. The interaction between the brothers brought laughter and tears, as they struggled with a hard but peaceful life in the back-woods of North Carolina and an even harder life of war.

The acting was great, particularly from the younger brother who is new to the big screen (played by Jonathan Furr), to the older brother (played by Ben Allison) and the powerful performance by the Colonel (played by Ron Perlman). The performance was extremely well cast.

It was a pleasure to enjoy the magic of Two Soldiers, and I heartily recommend it to audiences of all ages.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A beautifully photographed and paced short film. It evocatively captures the feeling of this family and much of the country during the period just prior to and after Pearl Harbor.

I appreciated the visual look of the film -- naturalistic and simultaneously poetic. Great work by a great D.P., David Boyd.

Though a family film, the story never becomes maudlin or saccharin. We understand and believe the motivation that propels the young boy on his odyssey. I understand the love of the younger brother for his older brother and do not question why he sets out to do what he does. I understand that he is driven by a deep desire to be with his brother in this time of crisis. The kid is tough, and the performance by Jonathan Furr is superb as is the veteran performance by Ron Perlman.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Diora Baird is absolutely hot as hell in this movie. But really all the characters are amazingly fun to watch.

(MINOR SPOILERS) As per usual, the main character, B, is the sane one of the bunch. B has this crazy idea to make up his own college when he's rejected from all colleges he applies to. He's known for making fake IDs. so an acceptance letter is no problem.

Because B's dad is a hard @$$ and suspicious of this university he's never heard of, B gets his friend Sherman to design a website for the university. Sherman has been accepted to a great college and is in fear of being arrested for fraud. He's very quick with witty lines but his flaw is he wants to be accepted socially too much.

Glen, Hands, and Rory are the three stooges that follow B along. Glen got a zero on his SATs and has no thought process. He's constantly proposing battle royals, but he's very good at making smoothies, which gets him a lot of hot girls, somehow. Hands was a great football player who didn't receive the scholarship he was counting on, and turns to crafts to cover his lack of athletics. Rory was preparing to go to Yale since the 1st grade, and was not accepted. She spends her time meditating.

Uncle Ben was my favorite character. Picture Lewis Black playing himself. If you have no reason to see this movie, then see it for Lewis Black and Jonah Hill. They're amazing.

Monica is a B's love interest. As most of these stories go, she's more popular than him and doesn't even notice him until half way through the movie. Unlike many other stories though, B actually gets her and keeps her until the end. Monica is actually a good character on her own, but of course she's primarily there for B to adore.

There are more supporting students at the made-up college who are fun to watch. A.D.D.'s name is self explanatory, and funny enough he ends up in the meditation class. Kiki is a hot ex-stripper who falls head over heels for a chance to go to school and eventually gets a crush on Glen. Maurice is an ex-military idiot who got his G.I. bill and wants to study rock n' roll in college. The final guy is only known as Freaky Student, who thinks he can blow things up with his mind. Ye who have little faith in him wait until the end of the movie.

Of course the villains are the Dean of an opposing university, his university's student body president, the president's girlfriend, and their circle of friends.

Every character is lovable. I believe this movie has a good plot and is well done, despite what a lot of people say. Even thought the overall story is predictable, the characters keep you guessing and make the movie great. Go see this film. I give it 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Accepted...let's see. The only reason why i had chosen to see that movie was the hot dog shown in commercials when Shrader(sp?) said, \"ASK ME ABOUT MY WEINER\". After that i HAD to see that movie and i watched it with a couple of my friends...and WOW amazing. One of the best films of the year. THe entire movie i was laughing like crazy! The plot in this story is that Bartleby (Justin Long) doesn't get accepted into any of the schools he applied, so he makes another fake college for him and his friends so that he can fool his parents that he DID make it into college. So he makes the finishing touches and he fools his parents...until, more students look at the website and see the clicker (ACCEPTANCE IS ONE CLICK AWAY) and all these rejects come to this school. They face many problems and they just cant seem to get anything right 10\/10 LOVED IT NOW WATCH IT","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"if i had watched this movie when i hit rock bottom i probably would have sunk into the deepest depression of my life, and may have been nearly desperate enough to try it, the only thing is in the real world, when you rob millions of dollars from unsuspecting individuals, everything doesn't come up roses (unless you are an investment banker or government affiliated) so how does that matter? i had been rejected from school after school, and it stings, so it is a brilliant topic for a movie, and when you give yourself over to the imaginary to let yourself watch this movie without applying real world ramifications, it can truly touch someone in that situation, and let them know they are not alone. overdone soliloquy completely tears apart the established educational system as we know it. really, all i can say is that as i am in college now, looking back on where i was, and watching this movie, i can truly appreciate it in a way i never would have been able to otherwise. it is juvenile and contrite yes, but it is an emotional and uplifting fantasy about freedom, and i cant think of a better way to end my night.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When the trailer for Accepted first came up, many people began to get excited about seeing it... really excited. Who could blame them, it looked like fun. But that's exactly the thing. People went into Accepted looking for a good movie, but if you think about it, Accepted isn't the type of film destined to be a good movie. It's meant to be a film that pleases its crowd without too much effort being given. That being said, for those of you who expected a great film, you need to think about what could be made of a comedy like this one. Think that, and you will truly enjoy the film (because you'll rid yourself of your idea that the movie will be fantastic.) BOTTOM LINE: Watch the movie, and have fun, but don't look for anything groundbreaking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie possesses something most other movies of its genre do not: intelligence and good messages. Accepted, is the story of a kid named Bartleby (Justin Long) who gets rejected by every college he applies to. His parents are incredibly strict, frustrated and disappointed. So, Bartleby and a few other students who face similar problems start a fake college, to pawn themselves off to their parents as college kids. Not everything goes to plan, and the movie is about them winging it. But behind this plot which sounds ridiculous, there are good messages, morals and a new outlook on the American educational system. The college they create \"South Harmon Institute of Technology\" accepts those who did not get accepted anywhere else. The message is that you do not need \"money, tradition, or fancy books- you just need a desire to better yourself.\" they are a completely unorthodox school, but what the movie teaches is that thats still OK- and different (whether its a person or a school) is not necessarily bad, and that every one no matter should be given the chance to better themselves- despite whether they are 'weird.' its a message of non-comformity and has traces of anti-authority sprinkled in as well. But not only are messages great- its hilarious! haha i laughed very hard. the humor can be subtle but can also be blatant as well, and is a great mix. Fraternities beware.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a funny, clever film and well worth your time. In my opinion it is much better than American Pie and other films of the same genre that seem to get knocked out all the time. I hadn't heard of this film, so I guess it didn't get much press, which is kind of a shame. It doesn't take itself too seriously but at the same time delivers a serious message to people about life and life experiences and what is important...As opposed to a film about a bunch of desperate guys trying to get laid for the first time and one dude sticking his d**k in a pie, but in the end everyone gets laid and whoop-de-do... One thing that impressed me was that the soundtrack was pretty awesome and not the usual cheesy American pop-punk...They actually had real punk from back in the day like the Ramones...That in itself made the film better! To be honest I wasn't expecting much from this film and I was pleasantly surprised at how good a comedy it is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is a teen movie and while u watch it expect some nonsensical stuff added here and there but overall the movie is effective very effective it makes you question and leaves you thinking the story is kinda far fetched but is believable and makes you feel good in sequences, its not like its the usual done and tried path. the characters are pretty well defined and are convincing. Justin long stands out among all the others and watch out for his speech in the end he will convince anyone with that speech he is simply brilliant in that speech. he needs to take on some more serious roles, he is worth more than just teen movies. etch this movie and get liberated","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let me clarify that. This is not a \"good movie\", but I am so glad it is out there, I am so glad I saw it, and for the role that it plays in my DVD collection, it is sublime. It is the ultimate PG-13 romp, it is college as we imagine it will be when we're freshmen in high school, it requires so much suspension of disbelief that it may as well be taking place on Mars. It is so wholesome that even when it tries to be dirty it wouldn't make your grandmother uncomfortable. Watching it requires so little sophistication, (in fact, thinking too hard about what's happening will get in the way of your appreciation of this work), it makes me feel like I'm 12 again. And that kind of experience is worth more than $9.99.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Film auteur Stephan Woloszczuk explores the depths of love, passion, and brotherhood and the devastating results of loss in his latest film BLINDSPOT.

BLINDSPOT'S diegetic world is exploding with suspense and takes the audience on a twisting \u00a0journey to the core of the human soul. \u00a0As a director, he manages to draw the human spirit from the performances of his actors. \u00a0\u00a0With superb editing, especially in the flashback scenes and beautiful cinematography, BLINDSPOT is a thought provoking suspense from beginning to end. \u00a0A thriller which leaves much to the minds' eye.

What an \u00a0astounding accomplishment for Stephan Woloszczuk.

\u00a0 Cheers Stephan! Angela Sander","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Films belonging to the \"film noir\" genre usually contain similar elements: a \"deus ex machina\" plot twist that drives the main character headlong into bedlam, a pretty but psychotic girl, a handsome but psychotic thug, lots of money, lots of brutality, and usually a denouement in the desert. Think \"High Sierra\" or \"White Heat.\"

There is plenty of hard-boiled bad film noir out there. But when film noir is good, you can't take your eyes off the train wreck of human lives.

It is this latter tradition that \"Blind Spot\" belongs to. The film follows Danny Alton, a troubled teenager (superbly played with depth, grace, emotional integrity and downright plaintiveness by James Franco, who throws himself completely into this role) who has fallen in love with the rough-edged streetkid, Darcy.

From the beginning, you know this is going to be bad.

Darcy invites Danny to his house. But the house is empty and for sale, and a bloody check for thousands of dollars is on the floor. Danny is robbed of his clothing and possessions, but uses the check to track down the suicidal April -- Darcy's other lover. When they reach Darcy's real home, they find Wayne -- a thug hunting Darcy down for the money he's stolen. Together, the three manage to locate Darcy in a dusty, run-down motel in the desert. But that's only the beginning of the tale, as plastic explosives, drugs, gun-running, a creepy funeral home, bisexual assassins and a lonely half-finished house in the desert bring events to an explosive head in an alley outside a tattoo parlor in Los Angeles.

This film contains some of the best noir cinematography I have seen in years. In one scene, Danny races on foot through the desert to the half-finished house in the desert where he believes Darcy may have been taken that evening by mobsters. A very long shot with sharp lighting effects shows Danny -- arms and legs flailing, palpable fear etched on his face (visible even at this distance), dust cloud trailing behind him as the wind whips in his direction -- racing across the desert flats toward the house. The loneliness, the desperation, the despair Danny feels is shocking depicted. There are many such scenes in this film, wonderfully crafted by the experienced Maximo Munzi. This is Oscar-winning material.

The editing, too, is just astounding. The film contains little moments where the characters gain insight into themselves or their situation. Bits of time, where memory and feeling come flooding back. At these times, quick montages of images flash across the screen. This is superb editing by director-writer-editor Stephan Woloszczuk. In one early montage, Danny describes the wondrous feelings he has now that Darcy has entered his life. Quick images of Danny's diary flash across the screen: the words \"4 life,\" \"lucky\" and \"safe\" stop momentarily, while page upon page of words, the contents of a human heart, race across the screen -- out of focus, too quick to read. It's like the flood of emotion Danny himself feels.

The flood of images reveals something else about this film: Just how beautiful Nathaniel Waters' production design is. Darcy's quonset-hut home is the perfect match of high-tech and slob (a tribute to the attentiveness of set decorator Kimberly Foster). The stunning desert house scene is just outright creepy. The ruined motel where Darcy hides out can be found in any abandoned small town in America. The creepy (and astoundingly lit) funeral home where the plot takes a horrific turn mixes starkness with the pall of death hanging over the entire film. (It's too bad the film's lighting director is not credited.) This film has a superb production design, one that enhances every single frame and every actor's performance.

That's the fourth element of this film which makes it grab you and hold on to you: The acting. James Franco is a superb actor. Even in \"Spider-Man\" -- where he was given practically nothing to do -- Franco showed that he understands human emotion like no other actor of his generation. He's no pretty-boy coasting on his good looks like Brad Pitt. Franco portrays deep emotion with full force. His performances contain pure human heart. Consider the scene in the phone booth outside the funeral home, where Danny collapses after telling April and Wayne that Darcy is dead. Lesser actors couldn't carry off the complete emotional breakdown of a human being. Franco does.

Shawn Montgomery, in her first film, simply blows you away with her performance as the suicidal April. Deeply in love with Darcy, suffering from massive depression after having to bury alone her unborn child (after the fetus spontaneously aborts) in a perfume box in the woods, her life of luxury and perfection now a shambles: April is one of the best-drawn characters on film that I have ever seen. While Danny's relationship to Darcy is slowly teased out during the film, April's nervous breakdown is revealed only to the audience. Neither Danny nor Wayne seem particularly interested in her as a human being. April's despair when she realizes Danny has also been Darcy's lover is poignant and potent, even if it is truncated by the character's complete inability to feel any emotion for very long now. Montgomery brings to April a pathos that puts your heart through the wringer.

Mark Patrick Gleason is given the hardest job in the film: Having to make something human and real out of the thug, Wayne. At first, Wayne is simply one of any number of violent, foul-mouthed, obsessed drug-pushers\/gun-runners that appears in any number of films (from \"Kindergarten Cop\" to \"Beverly Hills Cop 2\"). Gleason does very well with what he's given, but he doesn't quite get to where you feel much for Wayne. It's difficult to say whether this is Gleason's problem or the material's. There is one moment -- where Wayne (who is Darcy's brother, although neither Danny nor April know this) reads Danny's diary and realizes the sexual and emotional link between the two men -- where you just know that Wayne is going to go homophobic on Danny's ass. But the explosion never comes. (Thank god! Trite plots are death to film noir.) Once the revelation about the siblings comes at the film's end, the audience is fairly astounded to realize the depth of love and compassion Wayne truly felt for Darcy -- so deep that Wayne accepted Danny's homosexual love for his bisexual brother. But this all happens off-screen. Gleason is never given a chance to act out Wayne's feelings. It must have been very frustrating for the performer.

The story is rather inventive, although the smuggling device seen at the end of the film is likely to remind viewers of \"Diamonds Are Forever\" (yes, James Bond). A traditional narrative voice-over (which proves Franco is as great a voice talent as he is a physical actor) provides terrific atmosphere, although it does tend to flow over into schmaltz a few times toward the end of the film (providing some unintentional laughter). Terrific locales play key visual roles in the film. Kudos to the location scout for finding such astounding buildings! The end of the film struck me as a bit rushed; not pat, but a little too firm for my film noir tastes.

Now, I've seen audiences either hate or love \"Blind Spot.\" Modern film audiences, exposed to the most extreme brutality and violence, often have little appreciation for the subtleties of film noir. My suggestion is to take a small group of friends who don't see despair, emotional collapse, desperation or depression as laughable. Take them to a small theater, where they can glory in the spectacle of the film's vision, but where their viewing won't be ruined by a crowd of people who won't recognize good film noir. Get them some popcorn (trust me, they'll be so engrossed they won't finish it), get them a soda, and let them be overwhelmed. Go some place bright and cheery afterward, to wash the grime and awfullness out of your soul. Because this film is so good at making you feel, you'll need that restorative.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Blind Spot\" one of my festival favorites. I was totally intrigued by the idea of three strangers searching for a mysterious man who has loved and betrayed each of them in different ways. The cast is great. James Franco is particularly amazing as the broken-hearted boy from Los Angeles. His journal entries, which we hear in voice-over-narration, work well with the visuals and are quite intense. The film has a powerful style. It pushes elements like the road movie and revenge-drama in new directions. It also plays with time and perspective in ways that capture the frightening ambiance of lost love. There is a dreamlike quality to several sequences and the images are saturated with an eerie sense of tension. Strange. Suspenseful. Beautiful to look at. Definitely worth seeing. I really would like to see it again. Periodically I check to see if Blind Spot has been distributed. I can't wait to see the film again in the cinema or on DVD.

Davide Pepe 13\/08\/2005 Bologna - Italy","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the chance to watch Blind Spot in Barcelona and I enjoyed it tremendously. I thought it to be one of the most captivating movies that I'd seen for a long time. One of the best points of the film was to meet new fresh faces and great actors behind them in unexpectedly and brilliantly filmed great locations. The three heroes share a chemistry on screen that runs all across the film making it so thrilling. They are set on outstanding landscapes spotted by such an original eye (the DOP's work is just great) that makes you feel like you are discovering them for the first time. The mood of the desert floods everywhere and even the scenes filmed in the streets of Los Angeles or San Francisaco seem to be a natural extension of it. The story rides you smoothly through all these beautiful settings to lead you to a bitter-sweet ending, being the perfect climax for this perfect journey. The construction of the film itself is a master craft. The skilled use of innovative resources (like stills stitching Danny's memories into the film) will compare to those hand-made pieces of work so rare and so enjoyable. Blind Spot achieves to capture the essence of the desert taking you to an universal common ground where anyone of us can feel being both discoverer and native.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently saw Blind Spot in Coyoacan, where it drew a huge crowd and some pretty intense discussion. I really admired the story and visual approach. The action is frightening and the mood of loneliness that the film projects is amazing. There is much beauty in the melancholy that surrounds these three misfit heroes. Not just in the desert but in the city too. My best scene was after the boy discovers his friends in the apartment and then rides his skateboard through all the remarkable lights of the city. You really feel for this guy. I never heard of the actors before but I liked all three very much. I think they did a terrific job on their journey to self-discovery. All in all, this is an amazingly cool and suspenseful suspenseful film. I still carry many of the images in my mind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw this film at a festival years ago I was very impressed and I started to looking for it. Nothing to do, not in the cinemas, nor on DVD neither on Blue ray. Absolutely nothing!!! How it's possible this could really happen??? The direction is IMPECCABLE, the story is intriguing and has been filmed in a very original way the music it's perfect and James Franco is hot as hell!!!

Please release this master piece and allow it to have it's proper life!!!!!!!!!! This is really a very great movie that people should see and it deserve another chance!!!!!!

Edvard","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"James Franco is totally cool in this movie. Not just handsome and charismatic but genuinely open and vulnerable in a sincere kind of way. At the Tristan screening some folks were on his back for being pouty and sullen and doing the whole James Dean thing but I don't think this true. Blind Spot is proof positive of his tremendous talent. In this film he carries himself with a different sort of weight entirely. It's a unique performance. Bittersweet and really moving. The lines from his journal cut you like a knife. You sense a sharp intelligence of observation behind his words. The tone is everything. He carries it through the action and suspense as well as the grim bits of gallows humor. I like the other two actors a great deal too. The blonde girl is totally gorgeous and the man is hysterical in his twisted tough guy stoicism. Some of the thugs seemed a little sketchy but this is a mini-point really. The film is totally solid and Franco is way cool all around.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Blind Spot's images are great. The action draws you in completely, even though the movie is a bit long. By the end credits all that you can think about are the film's positive high-points. The lead actors have the most incredible screen presence. The story is heart-wrenching. The film score is nicely understated . Completely moving in its own powerful way. Not your standard melodramatic cuing. Trance-like moments add poetic resonance to the engrossing narration and terrific visual compositions. Hope you get a chance to see this film. It delves into some dark territory but you come out of the tunnel seeing nothing but white light.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It reaches the minds and feelings of everyone driving them deep in the black desert. A brutal but beautiful world that is explored through memories and edgy layers of sound and score. The landscape develops its own persona, paralleling the inner geography of all three characters as their stories unfold. The stark void of lost love, the fear of the unknown, and then transcendence of emptiness through the very openness of this desolation. Three misguided souls fighting to find something absolute and positive in all that negative space. The drama is compelling. James Franco and his co-stars deliver deft performances. Naive schoolboy, suicidal blonde, embittered car thief -- all converge with unexpected twists. Together they create an explosive portrait of fractured love -- one that unwittingly conspires to mend amidst the hardest forms of adversity and illusion -- the blindness of human emotion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't get this flick off my brain. It's definitely totally different than anything that's out there. I've seen a ton of movies over the holidays and while some are okay nothing really rocked my world the way BlindSpot did. There is just something way cool about the actors and the way that they put the film together. It's like there is really scary stuff mixed with with some pretty f****ing hilarious black humour. Franco is great but the older rough dude steals the show in a few scenes, like when he punches the kid out in the dirt grave. I guess some politically correctos won't appreciate the vibe (don't bring your grandma) but it is totally awesome. The thing that's best is the kaliedescope style. There is some really serious stuff mixed with super interesting footage of the road. The movie really makes you sad and scared in parts but it also spins your head with what is happening and the way it is filmed. WTF is up with the world? Sooo many critics are raving about all these supposedly revolutionary ground-breaking films and when you see them they're boring and predictable and not-all-that. I don't get it because there are a lot of other better choices. Blind Spot is really kinda great because it gives you thrills and chills and major upcoming star power but does it in a way that is completely fresh and definitely totally rad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"scarlet coat like most revolution flicks wasnt well received but is nears perfection in the art of movie making. a great character study of john andre the heroic redcoat who is revered by both friend and foe for courage,,, scarlett coat also probes the duality of the undercover agent ,,, as a counterfeit traitor maj bolton befriends andre and undertakes a high level penetration of british intelligence yet he defends andre in andre's courtmartial ... the film captures the moral ambiguity of the spy

how much of the spy's world is real ,,, which reality does he belong to the reality of his mision or the reality which the cover story creates

andre's capture and courtmartial is a success for bolton in his mission beyond that whch wahington would have ever demanded ,,, the mission was merely to identify the traitor in us ranks ,,, bolton has knocked out enemy intelligence as well ,,, yet bolton mourns the death of the man he was sent to destroy

ann francis plays a stock american character,,, compliant with the british but willing to engage them in a war of wits

a movie well worth revisiting","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the intriguing aspects of this historical drama is the way the \"Tories\" or British American Loyalists are portrayed, and the sort of gloss given to their ardent support for King George III. In many ways the American Revolution was definitely a family affair, in that some of the wealthier colonial families were split asunder by it. If there is a strong criticism to be made of this film, it is that perhaps the people in this story are made out to be a little bit nicer than they were in real life.

In some regards, the actions of the character of Major Boulton, played by Cornel Wilde, make him the least likable member of the cast and the flaw in the storyline. He seems to vary from being a prickly kind of patriot to being a kind of 'anything for the cause,' fellow. This film does concentrate heavily on the notions of personal honor and personal prestige which were a major social 'norm' in that day and age.

In its subtext, the fact that about twenty-five percent of the colonial population was decidedly pro-British is glossed over, too. But the strength of the Tory element is not obviously maligned, although the good doctor character is about eighty-five percent upper class twit ( to steal a fine phrase from Monty Python's Flying Circus ). Anne Francis does a whole lot with a rather thin section of the script, and it stands out. She was a good choice for the woman of divided loyalties, a 'gal' who was rather more modern than the social conventions of that day might have allowed -- if there had not been a life and death struggle going on.

One good aspect of the film is the way the rivalries of the American revolutionary leaders degenerated into outright jealousies, and how these personal conflicts very nearly sabotaged the entire revolutionary effort. All in all, the leading characters are very well drawn, the minor characters are not just human \"props\" and the fight scenes are believable enough to carry the dramatic action.

This is a great spy movie. It's not quite a great historical drama, but it does satisfy well enough. It rates a seven largely because Cornel Wilde is so deeply immersed in his role, and does it so well, and because Anne Francis makes the most of her supporting effort.

The color print used on Turner Classic Movies was very clear, as well, and so it was an enjoyable presentation in that important regard.

Hope it runs again soon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"the scarlet coat is about bendict arnold betraying his country but he really isn't in the movie too much the main focus is on major Boulton (cornell wilde) and major Andre (micheal wilding)Wilding steals the movie as a officer and a gentlemen also as a freind to Boulton. As Boulton tries to uncover who is gustavus the man leaking secerts to the british.Wilde has to deal with the british the suspisous Dr o\"dell(George Sanders)who watches his every move and love intrest Anne Francis this is a very enjoyable movie","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The weakness of this comes from the confusing storytelling, plots often coming out of nowhere. But it really didn't matter because I still enjoyed it to it's full length. Once you actually accept that this movies not to be taken too seriously then you'll enjoy it even more. It's basically a love story, a confusing one at first but as it evolves it really is something worthwhile. Sure it's been done so many times before but the complicated version of this is quite inspiring and touching.

The over the top fantasy and cgi was overwhelming at first but I still enjoyed its purpose. And people quit whining about how it borrowed from other movies!! Guess what we know!! And it doesn't really matter because its purpose was to humour and entertain. Sometimes people has to stop being so critical and think for a moment before they start yapping about. Comparing this to Hollywood standards is utterly stupid and ignorant, It's a totally different style and target audience. As far as I'm concerned some the best films I've feasted my eyes upon are from eastern producers and directors. There's your Police story 4,shaolin soccer, kung fu hustle, dragon tiger gate, fist of legend, hero, crouching tiger etc...I for one like this movie and haling from the Philippines, US, england, Libya and now Australia, I'll always be interested in these types of films. Now try and judge my perception, but I warn you I do see things from from the point of view of those 5 countries I've lived in. So you better be as experienced and open minded.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another go round with the monkey king going west....sort of.

Beginning in the middle of some action the movie just goes from the first frame onward.

A monk and his three disciples go to a town to get the sacred suras that will bring peace to the world once they are translated and spoken to the world.But an evil force has intervened and kidnapped all of the children of the town. The evil force wants the monk because if you eat him you will live forever. The retainers battle the forces of darkness before forcibly sending the monk off for safety (The monk thinks he can win simply by reasoning with the bad guys). The monk ends up with a bunch of lizard imps who plan at some point eating him... however the bad guys arrive and he's off an odyssey with the ugliest of the lot.

Can a movie that starts off the rails go off the rails? Don't get me wrong I really liked this movie but its so scatter shot and all over the place that plot and logic simply fall away as some scenes simply pick up mid action with no way of knowing how we got there (The final battle to rescue the disciples is completely out of left field). This is one of the messiest movies I've seen in a while, but it made me laugh and smile like no get out. The movie starts and you have no idea where things are and then whats on screen is either interesting or funny and you just go with it. How do we get from thing to thing is often beyond me. Its full of odd asides and strange references as we go from heaven to the ocean to space to the rib cage of some mythic beast to god knows where. This movie floats all over the place which helps keep it fun since you don't know where it will end up (and is the reason\"m keeping details to a minimum) And its funny. Very very funny at times.

And the action is very good, even if a good chunk of it is unabashed CGI animation (which provides for some cool images, the golden staff, the spider attack formation, the angel in flight...) And its very touching. Action and comedy aside this is actually a wonderful love story. Its the story of an ugly imp and a monk who end up falling in love (and having other complications). Its a interesting look at the nature of love and what is true love. You will be moved.

However much I enjoyed it I was still annoyed by its scatter shot construction. The films inability to hold its ideas together and to tell a complete story really hurts the film and takes away from the enjoyment every time we get to a bump in the road. the bumps take you out of the movie itself and make you realize how much is being cribbed from other sources.

Absolutely worth seeing since it does have many choice moments, just be prepared for some bumps and you'll have a good time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"STORY Chinese Tall Story tells the story of righteous monk Tripitaka, who, along with his guardians Monkey, Sandy and Pigsy make their journey west on a quest to recover ancient Sutras, finally, they reach the final leg of their journey in Shache City But all is not as it seems when the city is attacked by evil tree demons. Monkey tries his best to battle them but is overwhelmed, knowing his master is in grave danger, he uses his trusty golden staff to thrust Tripitaka to safety.

The monk ends up being knocked out when he land and when he wakes up he finds himself in the presence of a young lizard imp named Maiyan who takes quite a shine to our young hero, after many verbal misunderstandings Maiyan becomes convinced Tripitaka loves her, so when the monk decides he must rescue Monkey and the others, she insists on accompanying him. So the mismatched pair begins their adventure together.

REVIEW Okay, so, it's another Journey To The West movie, which isn't a bad thing to me since I love the story and the characters associated with it, so I was a little excited to get my hands on the DVD. So I think I'll start off my review with the story, which is all over the place, at first it was your standard fantasy film, then it became a ridiculous comedy then suddenly became full blown sci-fi, if the director Jeff Lau was experimenting with mixing genres then he did a pretty scatological job with this movie. I think it's a pretty unique approach by having the story centre on a character other then the infamous Monkey King, especially taking a character as pacifistic as Tripitaka and then putting him into what is at it's core a love story. So overall, I liked it.

The acting is for the most part solid, with leads Nicholas Tse and Charlene Choi putting in some really good performances, though Ah Char does spend most of her screen time behind some rather ugly make up. The supporting cast is nicely put together, it includes all the usual EEG main stays so Boy'Z and Isabella Leong make appearances, one actor I'd like to mention is Wilson Chen, who plays the Monkey King, he did a good job with the limited material he seemed to have been given, he played a version of the Monkey King who was subdued yet arrogant, I had a feeling he'd be retreading Twins Effect II territory but fortunately that's not the case here. I hope he gets to do a follow up to this with himself in the central role, since the film does leave itself open for a sequel.

Okay, so let's get down to the directing, which again is kinda all over the place, Lau gives too much time to the Stephen Chow-esquire nonsense comedy, which includes a scene where Tripitaka in order to toughen himself up, dresses up as Spider-Man, which I assume lead to many a head scratching moment since the film is meant to be set in Ancient China. He does create some really nice and tender moments between the two leads and does delve into sappy territory but this reviewer does enjoy a bit of sap on occasion so it didn't bother me in the slightest.

Right, now onto the CGI, which for the most part is quite bearable, there are a lot of moments which probably belong on a PS2 like many other reviews have stated but there are some cool moments particularly the scene in which Monkey battles a flying minion. A lot of the CG gags are provided in the form of the golden staff which turns into a range of different things, ranging from a giant fly swatter to a mech suit straight out of The Matrix Revolutions. So yeah, it sounds crazy but I guess you'd have to see it to believe it.

Right, so in closing A Chinese Tall Story isn't a movie without it's flaws but it keeps itself together long enough to be able to entertain and generally be a overall enjoyable movie. If all of the above doesn't swing you to see it how about I put it this way, it's much better then Twins Effect II.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Right this may be the wine talking but this could be the best movie I've seen in a very long time. Granted I spent much of the first half an hour wondering what the hell was going on but once I had accepted that I would never understand everything from the subtitles I was able to enjoy the film.

Can you really hate a film where a staff turns into a flock of birds that defecate over the enemy? What does character development matter when faced with a lesbian alien princess whose people built the pyramids? Why does Buddha wear seriously blinging diamond earrings? Does any of this matter when faced with the sheer sumptuousness of the visuals and the sly humour of the characters. Any battle for my heart was won once I saw the main protagonist dressed as spider-man - awesome! Many people will complain about a lack of story cohesion but for a fun movie to laugh about with a bunch of mates you can't do better, especially if you do an alcoholic shot every time someone says \"I will love you 10,000 years\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was adapted from the well known sutra on Journey to the West where a monk with his three students seek out to find a long lost book with regards to the teaching of Buddha.

Though this movie is not as solemn as the previous films made according to the legend, it did however, managed to bring in romance and fun-filled humorous scene.

This real objective of this movie revolves around more on the monk who were primarily saved from being eaten by demonic flying creatures. One of his student, the Monkey God managed to get him out from the battle in the nick of time, but were in turn captured by the demons and cast into the deep throat of a dragon, locked up in that particular dungeon.

The monk awoke in a small village where he found Mei Yan (the so called ugly serpent daughter) who fell in love over him at first sight. Though ugly, she did not let her appearance be casted aside from getting to him. However, a quest for rescuing his three students soon turn out to be filled with obstacles and each of which turned out to get worse with Mei Yan following the monk. Problems crept deeper and this is where conflicts between the relationship gets worse.

The rest of the tale would be left at your own disposal, but suffice to say, this film does not depict the typical storyline of the book, it is more for those who wants to seek out for a funny and light picture of what Journey to the West and the love obstacles really mean.

Towards the very end, the whole summary could be described with only one word, and that is love. The monk went to show the Heavenly Gates, the Celestial Palace and Buddha himself how love can overcome even the worst fear of all and deemed fit as the most powerful weapon that can be used against any enemy of superior powers.

A wonderfully created and funny acts awaits those who buys this ticket. There would be of course, no regrets, at least from my side and those who were with me at the cinema that day watching the same film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"are you crazy or what? this movie has talent who are you to criticize a movie that was made by famous directors and producers? i mean you must be watching some crappy version because if you had a proper version you wouldn't think its some low resolution game graphics..

this movie is for people who enjoy hongkong cinema the other side to what Asian people enjoy watching.. you are such a sellout.. hongkong cinema is totally different to that of Hollywood, hk cinema is in a class of its own...

so if you don't enjoy watching movies from hongkong producers don't go and ramble on about how its a waste of time to watch.. just let other people enjoy the movie..

and personally I've seen this movie and i love its story and the way it was made..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Exclusively for Coop's lovers, though Clint Eastwood very strong though unobtrusive presence is a great asset of this very good documentary film. It is a biography of Gary Cooper, based mainly on his filmography, but also on more private archives, which show him as a child, as a young man, as a family man, with some of his friends (Picasso, Hemingway, etc.), as an older man, finally as a sick and close-to-death man. After \"the end\", I did not have the feeling that I knew the man any much better. But I have spent a very good moment, re-viewing many of the best moments of his movies; and my respect for the very talented actor and great professional was increased tenfold. The film shows, most interestingly, how the career of Cooper can be paralleled with the evolution of USA society before and after WW2. Two of the great moments are the time when Cooper has to answer justice about communism in the movie world; and when James Stewart (a very great one, too) received an Award for Cooper one month before his death. I'm not a weeping pot, but... that was a close one! Watch it, if you can: it is so much worth while. ... If you love Cooper, that is. Or an older America...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Richard Schickel's 1991 documentary about Gary Cooper - \"Gary Cooper: American Life, American Legend\" gives us a look at the tremendous, all-American star through his films and his life. Narrated by Clint Eastwood, the theme is definitely \"Gary Coooper, American\" as we are taken through fast clips of his many appearances in westerns, and scenes from \"Meet John Doe,\" \"Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, and \"Sgt. York.\" The best part of the documentary is the home movies of Cooper and his family as well as his childhood photos, showing him as a beautiful blonde kid with the sunny smile he would have his entire life. There is also a hilarious clip of Cooper on \"The Jack Benny Show\" doing the comeback on the number \"Bird Dog\" - and Benny loses it. The documentary also takes us briefly through his tumultuous affair with Patricia Neal, which nearly ruined both their lives.

There's a certain cohesiveness missing from this bio\/retrospective - it jumps around a lot and has no footage of Cooper being interviewed, which would have added a lot. Also, Clint Eastwood's narration was described as unobtrusive. What it was, was boring and monotone. Given that Cooper himself tended to be the strong, silent type on screen, we could have used a little animation.

On a personal note, Gary Cooper was one of the handsomest men who ever lived - there were some looks at him in his early films, but not nearly enough for this fan. That smile, those lips, that bone structure - he was handsome throughout his life, but in films like \"Morocco\" and \"Desire,\" he is devastating. Instead of sitting through a scene from one of his worst performances, as Howard Roark in \"The Fountainhead,\" giving a speech that he admitted to the author he did not understand - a young, suave Cooper in a tux would have been a nice touch. This documentary, alas, was definitely produced by a man.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was really surprised to see that unlike most documentaries, this was written, directed and produced by a film critic-- Richard Schickel. Most of the times I know of where film critics had major involvement in films, the films turns out to be bombs (Rex Reed starring in \"Myra Breckenridge\" and Roger Ebert writing \"Beyond the Valley of the Dolls\" are prime examples). However, in this case, the critic's powers are used for good and not evil--and the results are better (though this isn't saying much, as the films I just mentioned are among the worst films ever made).

As for the documentary, it's narrated by Clint Eastwood (a pretty good choice) and manages to discuss his long career--from his silent days until his death in the early 1960s. The only negatives, and they are slight, are that the film is awfully short (as are most film documentaries) and there is very little about Gary Cooper as a human being--you really don't learn all that much about his life. However, as a nice overview of his films, it works very well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I never realized what a fabulous dancer Lana Turner was until I saw this movie. She was only 19 years old and gorgeous. What a pleasure to watch her dance with George Murphy. The story line was typical for its day but the dancing was really special. I never tire of watching Fred and Ginger but Lana Turner in this movie was just as terrific. I always thought of Lana as a so-so actress who tended to over act. She should have done more dancing and less of the Maddam X and Peyton Place roles. I had a new appreciation for her after seeing this movie and her wonderful dancing. Too bad the \"Academy\" doesn't give an \"Oscar\" for dancing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The revelation here is Lana Turner's dancing ability. Though she was known privately to be an excellent nightclub and ballroom dancer, Miss Turner rarely got the opportunity to demonstrate this ability on film.

So, viewers take notice! Here, MGM were clearly still trying to determine in what direction they would develop the still young starlet, and were, therefore, consigning her to everything from Andy Hardy to Doctor Kildaire.

In \"Two Girls on Broadway,\" however, she is given an excellent opportunity to display her native rhythm and ability to shift tempo in the lavish production number, \"My Wonderful One, Let's Dance.\" This number, is conceived and filmed, as a sort of hybrid between a Busby Berkely style extravaganza and the sort of routines Hermes Pan was designing for Astaire and Rogers at RKO.

Thus, the number opens with George Murphy and Miss Turner depicted as bar patrons (with full chorus) before a curtain of black lame wherein Mr. Murphy croons the number to Miss Turner. Then the camera, (on a boom) pulls backward in a remarkable crane shot to reveal an enormous stage, and a rotating set equipped with steps, columns, enclosures and sliding walls.

From this point on, Murphy and Turner execute a fast stepping variety of moods and attitudes, including lifts, spins, soft shoe, and ending with an electrifying series of conjoined pirouettes that concludes with Murphy both lifting and rotating Turner with thrilling speed to a racing orchestra.

All told a dizzying feat that proves Miss Turner was fully capable of more than holding her own as a dancer, though I daresay most of her admirers would balk at relinquishing her from her throne as the queen of melodrama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lana Turner proved that she could really dance up a storm in this 1940 charmer about the ultimate sacrifice that her sister (Joan Blondell) makes for her.

When both sisters come to New York, they follow Blondell's beau, a wonderful George Murphy, in this film.

As fate would have it, the director of the show is impressed with Turner but sees nothing ahead for Blondell except a job as the cigarette-girl. Not only does Blondell miss stardom, boyfriend, Murphy (Eddie) falls for Turner as well. So as not to hurt her sister, Turner is ready to marry the producer of the show, a wealthy womanizer who has wed 4 times.

The story concludes as best as possible with Blondell taking a fast exit back to Nebraska. Look for Paul Ford, as a gossip columnist in the film. He is hard to recognize due to the date of the film and the fact that he is much thinner. The film leaves you with the question of whether Ford and Blondell could ever get together.

Blondell, as the devoted sister, sacrifices both career and love, for her sister. This film is sentimental and might have worked better if it had been shot in Technicolor.

Few realize that George Murphy, the future Republican senator from California, was quite a song and dance man in his day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not sure why this film is averaging so low on IMDb when it's absolutely everything you could ever want in a horror film. This is the definition of being a horror film. I consider myself to be a big horror fan and I must say that this house delivers the goods. House of wax Is the story of a group of college kids on their way to a football game whom decide to camp out for the night and have a run in with a local weirdo. Upon waking the next morning they make a gruesome discovery and decide to go into town for a broken car part. The town is creepy and I'm just gonna stop there. Because thats when the truly gruesome mayhem begins. trust me when I say if your looking for a horror film go see this you will love it. It's wonderfully diabolical and inventive with it's killing scenes, the story is interesting and the characters are decently drawn with the actors giving them gobs of personality. Paris Hilton included whom does quite well with her part. the film lies a little on the shallow side but it's so much fun and who cares. This movie should eat up the box office and all horror fans should have part in it. Go see House of Wax the film that features skin being peeled, super glued lips, dead animal carcasses, hot wax sprayed on a still living person, a finger being cut off, a decapitation, a pole through the head and much more. I was lucky enough to witness this film at the Tribeca premiere and all the actors were on hand to promote the film. And boy do they have something to be proud of House of wax is the scariest roller coater ride of the year! 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lot of people are flaming this film for the presence of Paris Hilton, but this is not a fair reason to object to the movie. The reality is that Paris has a fairly minimal part, she spends the vast majority of the movie off screen. The film also makes fun of her on several occasions, usually involving a camera and at least once in night vision. For those who enjoy Paris Hiltons stage presence, this may be a movie to see at home when its released on video, because at the screening I was at, we all laughed at her misfortunes through the movie and she is portrayed as a \"woman of questionable values\".

The movie itself was pretty good (unlike the recent flood of weak horror flicks), it has everything a good horror should; a creepy villain, excessive violence, acts which make that average person cringe...this movie hit all the bases. It is definitely worth a watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw a sneak preview of this Tuesday night with a group of friends and we had a blast! After seeing sneak peaks for BOOGEYMAN (Horrible! 3\/10) and Amityville Remake (so-so 6\/10) I enjoyed this a lot more! As seen in the trailer, one knock I had was believing that a whole town could be \"forgotten\" but this is a cheesy popcorn horror movie so I accept it for what it is.

My only major complaint is I assumed Paris Hilton would touch wax or get dipped etc. and moan \"that's hot\" but they didn't do that (how could they resist???).

There is NO nudity from the 2 girls although Paris looks great in her lingerie! I'm surprised they didn't put a 3rd \"hot token victim\" in the movie for some needless nudity which is the norm for this type of flick! I won't list any death or plot spoilers BUT I will say that Paris & Eliza both get roughed up good!

The characters are developed decently and are somewhat likable (not like Cabin Fever where you wanted them to die) and the movie has a decent pace although nothing happens in the 1st 30 minutes like most horror films.

I give it a 8\/10 as it delivered good scares and gore and I had low expectations going into it. If you go with some friends that like cheesy horror movies you'll have a good time.

Noah","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I do not think I am alone when I say that 2005 has not been particularly kind to the horror genre. While \"Cursed\", \"Hide and Seek\", \"The Ring Two\", and \"The Amityville Horror\" all showed glimpses of interest and potential, there have been more misses than hits. For proof, see: \"White Noise\", \"Boogeyman\", \"The Jacket\", \"Mindhunters\", and \"Alone in the Dark\". Imagine my surprise when \"House of Wax\", tightly written by siblings Chad and Carey Hayes, turned out to be... well, a surprise.

Carly Jones (Elisha Cuthbert) is a young woman, traveling with her trouble-making brother, Nick (Chad Michael Murray), and boyfriend, Wade (Jared Padalecki). They are, along with Paige (Paris Hilton), Blake (Robert Ri'chard), and Dalton (Jon Abrahams), hoping to score tickets to the final football game of the season. Along the way, they run into some car trouble, and are forced to enter a desolate town where nothing is what it appears to be.

Upon hearing of this, a remake of the classic Vincent Price B-movie, I rolled my eyes. I did not even want to think about what disaster freshman director Jaume Serra had cooked up for his audience. In a time when most high-profile horror films are disappointments, latent with bad writing, static direction, and amateur acting, I consider myself lucky that Serra and the Hayes brothers took it upon themselves to make a good, old-fashioned, spook fest. Unlike the disappointments that I named before, this flick pulls no punches, and uses every cinematic trick in the book to give everyone exactly what they came for.

I am happy that the Hayes' actually took the time and effort to create likable and believable characters, thus making the events that much more urgent. It also gives the young actors portraying them something grip on. As she did in \"The Girl Next Door\", Elisha Cuthbert proves to audiences what a skilled actress she really is. In the 2003 remake of \"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre\", Jessica Biel silenced naysayers by delivering a raw and emotional performance, one that put the viewer right there with her. Here, Cuthbert does the same. Chad Michael Murray (\"A Cinderella Story\"), in one of his first more mature roles, is no slacker as Nick. Murray exudes charisma and a hard edge, as well as some impressive athleticism on top of it. Murray and Cuthbert gel perfectly, and have tangible, familial chemistry.

More so than anything else, the press and the American public have made a field day about Paris Hilton's major acting debut. As I expected, Hilton does not embarrass herself. In fact, she is just as good as anyone else in the movie (do with that what you will). Like Cuthbert and Murray, Hilton has screen presence. She is sexy and playful. I cannot think one of reason why she's gotten the worst of the film's harsh reception, other than they are simply picking on her. Jared Padalecki (TV's 'Gilmore Girls') memorably manages to overcome his underwritten role. Robert Ri'chard (TV's 'Cousin Skeeter') and Jon Abrahams (\"Meet the Parents\") do not have much to work with, but get the job done. With only one scene, Damon Herriman (\"Soar\") makes an unforgettable impression, and his presence hangs over the rest of the film. Finally, Brian Van Holt (\"Basic\") is superb and threatening in a dual role.

Once more, kudos must go to the screenwriters for avoiding clich\u00e9s whenever possible. Despite popular opinion, \"House of Wax\" is quite unpredictable for a majority of its running time. Take this for example: It seems as if the killer is down for the count and Carly bends down to retrieve something from his pockets. What do you expect to happen? See the movie, and you will understand what I mean. It is also refreshing to see a horror film in which the characters show even a modicum of good sense.

Unlike most horror scores, John Ottman's exhilarating work never distracts. However, as with Dark Castle's other releases, the visual aspects of \"Wax\" are award-worthy, and lift the film above its genre trappings. The talents of cinematographer Stephen F. Windon, production designer Graham Walker, art director Nicholas McCallum, and editor Joel Negron highlight the ghoulish imagery. Speaking of imagery, I believe that the gore hounds will be thrilled with the many makeup effects and tricks in store here. Each death scene is more stomach churning than the last. Considering his past in music videos and commercials, it is obvious that Jaume Serra has a great eye for style. His \"in-your-face\" approach is a great asset to this film's success. Just when you think the camera will turn away, it does not. He is also particularly good a building thick layers of dread and atmosphere. One standout shot is our introduction to the killer, as he slowly emerges from a trap door.

In a case like this, I would usually admit when I am in the minority (Shut up, okay? I liked \"House of 1000 Corpses\"!). In this case, I firmly that the detractors have gotten it wrong. I am not sure why people are so hard on this film, considering it's much better than recent genre entries. Maybe they're afraid to admit that a horror flick starring Paris Hilton could possibly be worth watching... Who knows? This is a horror film, and a commendably stylish and effective one at that. As a lifelong horror fan, all I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed \"House of Wax\", in all of its lurid and sadistic glory. I safely consider it a great accomplishment in modern horror, as well as (along with \"Sin City\") the first completely satisfying release of 2005.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wasn't expecting to much of this movie when I went into the theater but I had been waiting for it for many years. To sum it up, it was pretty damn good! Chad Michael Murray was pretty good, I thought he was going to be another Chris Flynn from Wrong Turn but I was wrong. Elisha Cuthbert was also good but the best performance has to go to Brian Van Holt. He played the bad guy too well, I mean he was sick, sadistic, and very cruel. The back story between the brothers was good, plus I liked how no killings took place until about 40 minutes into the film. It gave you time to pick the character you wanted to see live and the one you wanted to see die. Jon Abrahams was pretty good as the goofy best bud of CMM. I liked how Chad kind of cried when he found him dead, it was better then just him being like, \"Whatever, my buddy is dead, who cares\". It showed how he really cared. So overall, this was a darn god slasher with some great effects. Bravo!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While HOUSE OF WAX will never be mistaken for Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE or HALLOWEEN, it does try and ultimately succeed in being a worthy addition to quality horror film making. There is enough tension and enough implied gore in here to please the young audience of today and there is also enough explicit gore to please some of the purists of yesterday. Overall, it is quite a well done film that should do okay on DVD.

Six kids on the way to a football game get stranded in a DELIVERANCE like setting and what ensues actually looks like it may have been taken out a discarded Deilverance sequel and the backwoods hicks seem to taunt the group. Eventually the group has to break up and half of them head into the desolate town to get some car parts. The other half of the group stays behind at camp and this sets up the second half of the film.

House of Wax has many strengths. The first is that it is blessed with a very likable cast. Paris Hilton is fine in her role but she is far from the focal point. Chad Michael Murray, Elisabeth Cuthbert and Brian Van Holt are three very charismatic actors and their presence in the film adds some panache, some credibility and some flair. I had never really heard of Chad Michael Murray, only that he was a pin-up type teen heartthrob. But he has a presence to him. He imbues an intangible to him that seems to translate into his performance. He is instantly likable and he possesses a strong character trait. I enjoyed his performance much more than I figured I would and when he was on screen, the film flowed.

The question now becomes, \"Is this film a worthy horror film?\" And the answer to that is a resounding YES. As I mentioned off the top, it is not in the same class a NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET or LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, or even THE RING, but it is relatively tense, quite graphic and there are some very inventive death scenes. This is not the HOUSE OF WAX that your parents told you about. Vincent Price is nowhere to be seen and when you start seeing fingers being cut off and hot wax covering comatose bodies, you realize this film is a little on the edge.

I'd like to see an uncut director's X rated version. I bet there is one out there somewhere that would be much more violent than this one. Be that as it may, this is a very good entry into the horror genre and it is heads and shoulders above weak films like I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and DARK WATER and a few others. It is definitely worth a look.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I do not think that this movie deserves the low rating that most will give it. It's one of the best \"teenager\" horror films I've ever seen; and that's saying a lot. Nothing is left without an explanation to back it up, the characters and plot break countless horror movie stereotypes, and it has got nothing to do with some other horrible pieces we've been submitted to lately. (A clear example is the mindless \"Saint Ange\".) The first 30-40 minutes might be downright boring with the exception of the beginning, although some minor light mistakes can be easily spotted. After the arrival to the village, though, the horror -a different, twisted kind of horror- begins.

With the plot and the details, goofs are minor; the characters are this movie's strongest point, given that so many clich\u00e9s are broken in it. For example, the two main male characters, Nick and Wade, are not by any means the idiotic types we're used to; although Dalton might fit better in this stereotype, not is he the only one to pay for this lack of consciousness. Some scenes are truly, satisfyingly horrible, making up for tense moments scattered around all the film. And, in the end, and although everything is decorously explained, it's easy to see that things won't go so easy to the surviving characters.

The only errors I can see, and which do not imply continuity (IE, Carly not finding her own cut finger in the unconscious Bo's pockets) is the illumination, which is somehow annoying during the first, boring 30 minutes. Although, plot and effects-wise, everything is drastically and cruelly twisted with the arrival of the main characters to Ambrosia, that little village in the midst of nothing, so I'll give it that. It's been pretty much argued that about 70% of the movie is illogical; \"How can two people build an entire house of wax?\", \"Where do they get all the wax from?\". These wouldn't be uprising questions if people would have paid more attention to the movie. The Sinclair brothers did not build the House of Wax; their mother worked making actual wax figures, and they were exhibited at the museum. And the scenario where Paris Hilton's unfortunate character meets her untimely death is the answer to the second question; what is with all the personal objects (mobile phones, cars, clothes) of the dead people? Using their third brother as a connection with the exterior, it's pretty much arguable that the Sinclair twins should obtain the money necessary to buy the wax, in a WWII-type fashion.

So, that aside, I think the movie deserves a lot more than it gets, and nobody should lose the chance to watch it. So go see the House of Wax. Right now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've never seen the original \"House Of Wax\" so I really didn't know what to expect when I went to a sneak preview of the new film. After a somewhat wobbly start introducing our young characters, \"House Of Wax\" shifts gears and becomes an extremely effective horror outing.

The plot really doesn't matter too much here - I think most people know upon seeing this that these stranded kids are going to meet up with a nasty killer and find some awful things in the titular house of wax. It's all about the special effects here, and they are top notch. Viewers who like their horror movies with lots of blood will be satisfied here, but there are other ghoulish effects as well. The production design and sets are excellent, and the cast makes the most of their under-written roles.

Of course, many people are probably wondering just how Paris Hilton's performance is. To be honest, Hilton acquits herself quite well, and she doesn't portray \"herself,\" as so many people are predicting. Her character is sexy and sweet, and I think her good work will hopefully change a lot of people's opinions about her. Elisha Cuthbert is also good, moving up from her previous movie, the atrocious \"The Girl Next Door.\" Her character is put through a lot, and Cuthbert proves to be a feisty heroine. Chad Michael Murray, like Hilton and Cuthbert, is pretty to look at, but unfortunately is not very convincing as the \"bad boy\" of the group.

I predict good things for \"House Of Wax,\" as the audience at the screening I attended hollered, screamed and clapped through out many parts of the movie. Congrats to the cast and crew for a job well done.

And a congrats to Paris Hilton for proving a lot of people wrong. Like she always says - \"That's hot.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"**1\/2 Elisha Cuthbert, Chad Michael Murray, Brian Van Holt, Paris Hilton and Jon Abrahams. Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra.

Yet another classic horror film remade with dunder-headed teenage acting despite grizzly and creative deaths. Based on the 1953 Vincent Price film House of Wax where a maniac kills unsuspecting teenage hooligans and turns them into priceless wax figures. Still with the fantastic set design to make the whole house into wax the movie is a typical classic horror remake like Tobe Hooper's 1974 classic Texas Chainsaw Massacre later remade, despite creativity and so-so acting the movie was still just a gore picture. Director Serra showed mild enthusiasm with his directing but still worth watching. My final rating 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My college theater just had a special screening last night of this film. I have got to say that I think everyone was impressed with how good this movie was. Though, my roommate didn't care for it but he's not into horror movies anyway and just went to see if Paris Hilton can act. By the way, if you're worried about that, don't be. I'm not exactly one of her fans, but I must be honest and say she was pretty good and she has the best death scene. Overall, all the actor's were very good. I'm not gonna go into detail for the plot since I'm sure you know about it. Surpirsisngly, the characters are pretty engaging and you actually care for them, especially Elisha Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray's characters. We meet them as rival siblings and end with them having to work together. Another plus is that it does not have the sleek look of Amityville Horror or Texas Chainsaw Massacre and feels almost documentary-like rather than a music video (Don't get me wrong, I loved Texas Chainsaw and enjoyed Amityville).

Now for the death scenes. In most slasher movies, whenever a character is stabbed or killed, the scene immediately cuts away to another scene,but not in this one. When a character is about to die, they die pretty gruesomely. But the filmmakers don't stop there and add a little something extra each time for each victim. I won't say anything about the death scenes and will let you see them for yourself.

While this is a great slasher movies, it does have the flaws of almost all slasher films (exploring a creepy house when you shouldn't be, getting a ride with a suspicious character, splitting up, and screaming so the killer can hear you). Also, there is a kinda stupid plot twist that was unnecessary and didn't add to the film at all. You could tell it was just added in at the last moment and if you took it out, it would not have affected the movie at all.

Basically, if you are a horror film fan, see this movie. You will not be disappointed. It's got all that's needed to make it a great slasher film, possibly the best of the year even though it's kinda early. The suspense is felt and it is at times a funny movie. If you hate horror films, chances are you may like this one and if you are divided, I encourage you to give it a shot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, maybe it doesn't deserve an Oscar. Or a Golden Globe. Or any award, for that matter. The acting isn't outstanding, there's no reason to give credits to the directing, and its really just another semi-gory 21st century slasher flick that MOST people will consider just decent. Or maybe even dreadful. But in my opinion, all of this doesn't matter a bit. And thats because i had a great time watching this movie.

Sure, the first 40 minutes are pretty slow, but as the movie progresses, something in it you will like, if you are like I was, and anybody else should be when watching this movie. And that is: looking for 2 hours of fun, mindless violence. (And a kick-ass ending, which i won't spoil.) Yes, there are many flaws in this movie, but don't let the cast list on the front cover fool you. Hilton delivers a decent performance that nobody saw coming. Even her greatest haters like me and my friends had to agree that she surprised us greatly with her barely believable acting skills and a strip-tease that wasn't as nasty as anything an online pop-up would promise of her, but still not so unbearable as to fast-forward or turn off the DVD.

The violence in this surprised me; nobody at school or on the horror board was talking about it like they were about \"these new movies called 'Saw' and 'Hostel'\" but I could safely say that \"Wax\" was more graphic than Saw, and some death scenes were actually quite disturbing.

In conclusion, I'm not surprised House of Wax didn't make a place on the IMDb Top 250, but it is definitely worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently saw House of Wax and must say i really enjoyed it.

it's been one of the better Horror\/Thriller films in the past few years, if not one of the best and most entertaining.

i've heard a lot of people bashing the so-called slow start and character development which takes up the Films opening 45 minutes.

yet if the film dived straight into the deaths, audiences and critics would have criticised the film for not having decent characters who they couldn't care less about.

well as for the character development, i think it worked amazingly well.

taking into my own response and others (from reading posts off the message board), a lot of people ended up wanting the characters to live, one of which i've noticed many people mentioning being Paige Edwards (Paris Hilton). taking into consideration Warner. Bros. have been marketing her death, its a surprise turn around that many audiences ended up cheering her on for survival.

speaking of the chase\/death scenes, they were some of the most inventive and suspenseful i've witnessed in a while, and enjoyed each one very much.

the acting in the film was absolutely fine, i couldn't fault any of them, especially Paris Hilton, i thought she was very decent and i was hoping for her the get more than a mere 25 minutes screen time in a 120 minute film, yet her chase scene made up for that, and believe me when i say Paris can act scared, (Watch the scene where she's hiding in a car from Vincent and he walks past her .... the look of terror on her face comes across as VERY real).

Overall i give House of Wax maximum stars, for entertainment value and suspense and even gore ...... only criticism is i wish that during the marketing for the film, they hadn't revealed the death list and who dies and who survives, as it would have been ten times better not knowing if the character being chased was going to live or die and horrible death.

can't wait for the DVD, but go see it at the Cinema while you can, it won't be the same in your own front room, yet if you do wait for the DVD, watch the film in the dark with no interruptions, trust me you wont be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Carly Jones (Elisha Curtberth), her bad boy brother Nick (Chad Michael Murray), her boyfriend Wade (Jared Padalecki), and her friends Paige (Paris Hilton) and her boyfriend Blake (Robert Richard) and Dalton (Jon Abrahams) travel to another city to watch an important game. They decide to camp in a field halfway and proceed their journey on the next day. However, the fan belt of Wade's car breaks and he stays with Carly to buy a new one in a close town, where there is a house of wax. When they arrive in the place, they realize that the place is a ghost town, and two deranged former Siamese brothers have transformed people in wax statues.

I liked this \"House of Wax\", indeed a worthwhile teen horror movie. The story follows the standards of \"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre\" and other slash movies, and it is well made, has a good team of actors and actresses and special effects and the death scenes are amazing. Even if the movie were not good, watching the sexy and delicious Paris Hilton is worth. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"A Casa de Cera\" (\"The House of Wax\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Admittedly, before seeing House of Wax, I assumed it would simply be a second tier low quality teen slasher film following in the footsteps of such movies as The Darkness or Amityville Horror. After catching an advanced showing at my college campus, I can honestly say that the people at Dark Castle have done an excellent job with the task of making a slasher.

Starting with the usual staples of a teenage horror film such as the small group of friends departing on a road trip, coming across an odd detour taking them through country back-roads, meeting creepy locals, after the slow but mandatory back-story this movie really reaches a fast clip. Paris Hilton appears in this film as many already know, but I really have to give it to her for her ballsy performance. Clearly her acting wasn't worth an Oscar, but the filmmakers use her appearance to its fullest by squeezing two blatant satires of her, let's just say, less noble media appearance into this film. Ms. Hilton also claims the title for the greatest death scene in the movie, and not simply because it was her death scene.

This movie is full to the brim with jumpy moments and cheap scares, but Jaume Serra has definitely created quality suspense and tension between the characters. The causes for the horror are in part based on making the audience care for the characters, which we do. By making the usual buildup followed with a loud noise and jerked camera some other scary moments. These standard movie techniques adopted from many movies past are almost perfected with this film, and provide many good scares. In fact there isn't a slow moment after they get to the small town where the dreaded House of Wax museum is.

This film owes a lot to many previous movies of this and other genres, though I'm not too sure how much came from the original 1953 movie of the same title. References to such movies as both Texas Chainsaw Masacres, Saw, and even Titanic, (see Paris Hilton's big death scene and you'll know what I mean) are common, but in the end the payoff will leave you scared and fulfilled if you are looking for a good scare with a few laughs. Not bad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"probably the best horror movie in 5 years.. there's been lame remakes, attempts to make you scared (when all they make you do is walk out of the theater) and movies that just shouldn't have been made. but this one is worth it. the only reason i didn't give it a 10 is because Paris Hilton is in it (but her death scene makes up for it, believe me)..

..so here they are.. the SPOILERS of all the death scenes in the movie..

1. my favorite death scene ever - Paris Hilton's! after finding her boyfriend Blake laying on the ground with a knife sticking out of his neck, Paige starts to run. well, speed walk is more respectable. she finds this like garage with all these cars in it. then (one of) the killers cuts her ankle from below (this whole time shes holding a HUGE metal spike)so she drops it and runs and hides behind this car. the killer picks it up and as she looks through the window he throws it through the window and it shoots through her forehead.. I've NEVER BEEN SO EXCITED OR LAUGHED SO HARD IN MY LIFE.

2. Paige's boyfriend Blake gets a knife stabbed into his neck and then the killer walks up to him (while hes on the ground) and steps on it pushing it farther into his throat.. then he dies.

3. Elisha cuthbert (carly)(one of the hottest chicks EVER) doesn't die PHEW but she does get her lips super-glued together, punched in the face, and gets part of her index finger chopped off (yeah, i felt like heaving) 4. Carly's twin brother nick also survives, but not without getting his ass kicked and a stab wound to the leg.

5. nicks best friend Dalton gets thrown down a flight of stairs, and then is decapitated. his body is dragged away and we see his eyes blink.. then he gets covered in wax.

6. wade (Carly's boyfriend) gets his Achilles tendon snipped by a massive pair of scissors, and then is attacked by the same scissors. he doesn't die, but hes covered in wax, and on 2 occasions his skin is accidentally removed, revealing his nasty bloody flesh. YUMMY.

..so there it is. Definitely WORTH YOUR MONEY.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I usually give horror films around 6\/10, but this one caught my eye. House of Wax was by far the best horror film I have seen... Even better than the Amityville Horror.

Paris Hilton was quite good in this and I must say, has a good future ahead. Her death scene was probably the coolest. I'll just say how she dies...

She gets a giant pole right between her eyes and they close-ups on and everything. Gory, eh? Brian Van Holt was very good as both the killers, Bo and Vincent (Vincent had the long hair). Usually he plays a mean cop or soldier, but he did very well in this.

Eliza Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray also acted very well as Carly and Nick Jones. Nick took the spotlight in the first half of the movie, then Eliza stole it back by enduring a lot of pain in the second half like getting the finger clipped off, ripping her lips apart after they got glued together, and getting a straight forward punch in the face by Bo.

Overall, I give this movie an 8\/10. Fans of horror films MUST see this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best horror \/ suspense films that Hollywood has made in years or maybe even decades.Even though in my opinion this movie was predictable in parts, it has everything that a good film in this genre should had CHILL, THRILLS, AND yes a lot of GORE!! HOUSE OF WAX SURE DELIVERS!!! In parts it was sort of far-fetched,the acting was not that great,but my overhaul rating for HOUSE OF WAX is an eight out of ten......if you enjoy being at the edge of your seats, this is just the right movie for you,I have to admit,it was sort of neat seeing the whole town made out of wax...... I myself enjoy these museums, but after seeing this film I will now look at them in a whole new different way!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the greatest movie I have ever seen in my life, the action was great, and i was so scared, there was a lot of gore WHICH MADE It GREAT, i would see it 1,000 more times, and Paris Hilton, D*MN she fine in that movie. But anyway, i would recommend it to anybody, even kids(like me) Adults like it to. You would probably have nightmares at night though, but beside that, IT IS AWESOMe, I CANT STOP BRAGGING ABOUT IT. EVER SINE AUGEST WHEN I HEARD ABOUT IT I BRAGGED AND BRAGGED and in school i gave out flyer's saying may 6 house of wax see it. i got my whole school into it. But anyway, i would definitely saySEE IT may 6 house of wax, be there It be slayed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK so Paris Hilton sucks in it (typical Malibu Barbie) but the rest of the actors are just great! I watched the film last night and it totally kept me going thru out the whole film. Chad Michael Murray IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT and he's just a ace actor. Total hero man. The main girl who is the sister to nick (chad) is such a brilliant actress. Thumbs up. I think it's so different to films out their these days, most of them to go with psychopath's, possessions, ghosts but here you have a theme about wax! I totally got creepers out by the wax models in the house although they looked so real. I still haven't got the story with the twins at the moment, i am just waiting to get the DVD then watch it all over again. Thumbs up to such a great film! 11\/10. All those people who don't like it, please don't bother 2 criticise my opinion as mostly everyone thinks its cool to do so. Also i think the Paris scene when she strips to her underwear is totally inconvenient. Why not just get a dog shagging some cat.. be more entertaining then that. When Paris death scene came up, i thought it was poor as she still kept running although a knife just went up her foot. Hmm.. interesting.

!CHAD ALL THE WAY!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie on it's opening night, and enjoyed it. I probably would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't been sitting by my father. My father saw the original (unfortunately, I have not seen it yet) and kept talking through the whole thing. He kept saying that the movie sucked, and that it was stupid. The thing is, he didn't understand that the creators were slightly making fun of the horror genre with the film. In every horror movie, there is always a certain character depicted. If they weren't in the movie, well, you might not really like it too much. The trademark characters are:

\"The Lead Character\": Carly (Elisha Cuthbert) \"The Lead Character's Boyfriend\": Wade (Jared Padalecki) \"The Lead Character's Sibling\/(Soon-To-Be)Reformed Jerk\": Nick (Chad Michael Murray) \"The Annoying Sluttish Character\": Paige (Paris Hilton) \"Characters Who Are Just Around To Look Pretty\": Dalton (Jon Abrahams) & Blake (Robert Ri'chard)

With those characters, it makes it slightly predictable who will die and who will live. Obviously, you know who will with what I just typed. The movie may be predictable (in fact, I had a pretty good idea who would die just by watching the trailer), but it was still enjoyable. It may seem stupid (why is there a sugar mill in the middle of a deserted camp-site that wasn't there in the beginning?) at times, but it is very easy to watch. The comedy and gore were the perfect amount for weak-stomached movie-goers it does get gory, don't get me wrong, (less than \"Final Destination 2) but it works very well. So in conclusion, this movie wasn't as hot as the fire the set went up in, but the temperature could still burn the \"Wax\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"PEOPLE ARE STUPID.You shouldn't cheer when Paris gets killed in the head with a pipe! It is plain rude!What did Paris do to you? What if that was you? You wouldn't want people cheering for your death!Anyway it was really gory, which I liked and it was cool when Elisha's finger gets cut off.It was weird with that twist that they didn't have 2 sons they had tree and all, It makes way for a House of Wax 2: Ressurction or something.Paris was great acting in the chase scene.Elisha and Chad chemistry is great, they deserve an Oscar.My friends and I were cracking up when that guy said that's hot when Paris and the guy from Cousin Skeeter making out.Lol.K bye.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that anybody whose dumb enough to risk being a wax dummy just so they can go to a football game or they don't want to leave their car \"to get stripped\" deserves whatever happens to them.

The guy, Wade who \"went to a barbershop and asked for the He-Man haircut\" wasn't my type, but there's this really cute scene of him having his eyebrows and facial hair waxed. That's a little too high-maintenance for me.

Also fun, but not my type is the fat guy in the big sunglasses who looks \"like Elton John only gayer,\" but that whole plot goes nowhere!

Blake was hot,I could see myself with him if he wasn't so into his girlfriend, who is a phony Paris Hilton in a bad wig (no Chihuahaua in her handbag,though but that would have been really precious). I don't think girls who look like that go to football games anyways. Nick the car thief is the sexiest! One of the best parts is where a football lands by him, and instead of throwing it back, he chucks his cigarette down and it burns the football. See, that's just the kind of guy he is. He has a sister who looks dumb borrowing his white wife-beater. Her bra straps are showing for, like 1\/2 the movie!

Mostly you will just want to wax your legs and not ever go to football games after seeing this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the ultimate of horror movies this year. \"House of Wax\" is one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. This version really puts the Vincent Price version of the movie to shame. I only know a few of the young cast in the movie. The ever troublesome Paris Hilton; the pain in the you know what seems to be more seductive than ever. At least, she didn't try to copy her infamy. Well if she likes to do horror, she's better than \"Wheel of Fortune's\" Vanna White. She beats Vanna HANDS DOWN! And the scene of where \"House of Wax\" was made was no joke. The house was made of wax, and the victims were able to get out of there before the get waxed like their friends. Those two twins Bo and Vincent(the deformed twins) were maniacs from the get-go. The parents raised them well, except for Vincent. And I think they became equally warped. How come the the one in the other pick-up happen to be creepy, but not as bad as the other two. That's another story in the book. I guess he had to follow his heart, and not the other twins who turned Ambrose into a tourist \"trap\" for unsuspecting victims. This movie is like \"The Phantom of the Opera\" meets \"The Rocky Horror Picture Show\". And this movie is one of the scariest one in 2005! Rating 4 out of 5 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this film!! I have been waiting for this film to come out so I could see it. I saw it opening night and loved it, Some people told me that this film wasn't any good and to stay away but I thought it was great. The actors did great and it was scary and made me jump. Paris Hilton did a great job for her first film, everybody is giving her a hard time when she did great and she didn't even have that big of a role. The set was great has it was made of all wax and how it was made. The two brothers did a great job and the death sense were great. The killers were really scary and made me want to close my eyes and not look at them. I can't wait until this film comes out to Video so I can get it and see it over and over again. The over view of my review is go see this film if you like Hororr films and you will not be sorry I loved this film. I give this film a 10 out of 10 IT ROCKS!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've heard a lot of different opinions about this film and then to find out that Paris Hilton was in it as well didn't give Me the best impression of the film .... then to be dragged to the cinema by a group of my friends and sit there expecting a pile of pants i was shocked to find that i was scared stiff all the way through the film ... it was predictable yes but the build up of the deaths and the whole atmosphere of the film made it REALLY scary for me ... i was watching through my fingers the whole way through. So i say go watch it and decide for yourself and if the fact that its a scary film doesn't convince you to go watch it then it also has Chad Michael Murray in it which can't be bad to watch for a couple of hours eh?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was pretty good!OK, so maybe it had a few scenes that could make people think of other horror movies, but i have seen a lot more pathetic movies that got much higher ratings than this! Many movies nowadays are remade to a more modern version and there's nothing wrong with that, it keeps the story alive. i don't think this movie was pathetic at all and i'm not just saying that because i'm a major Chad Michael Murray fan, but because i enjoyed it. i was on the edge of my seat for most of the movie and my friends and i really enjoyed it and we were talking about it the whole way home! I would tell my other friends to watch this movie. i'm not saying it's the best movie that's ever hit the box office but it's a lot better than some people are describing it to be. Everyone has their own opinions so if you really want to know whether it's good or bad, watch it and then decide.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This excellent movie starring Elizabeth Montgomery is long overdue for release in DVD form. The same can be said for her earlier, also excellent movie, A Case of Rape. I can only hope that my comments spur some enterprising soul into placing BOTH Elizabeth Montgomery movies on one DVD to be made available to her many fans. I for one believe this excellent actress's role was unfortunately stereotyped by her role on Bewitched and, as a result, more serious acting roles were not made available to her. I am confident that if these two movies, perhaps even a trilogy with The Legend of Lizzie Borden, were released in DVD form, her fans would set the record straight on how highly they regard her serious acting abilities.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I believe that this is one of Elizabeth Montgomery's best performances in a movie, and I have seen most of her movies.I saw this for the first time on television when I was around fourteen, and I was so scared.I watch this movie every now and then, and I still enjoy it very much.I know that these days that this movie would probably not scare people too much.That just goes to show that the public movie and television audience has seen too much graphic violence in the last thirty years or so.I love movies that do not show the graphic details, you let your imagination do the work for you. The cast in this movie was top notch. Jess Walton, who played the sister in the story was very good, even though her part was rather small. She also played in a terrific made for television thriller around the same time called You'll Never See Me Again with David Hartman.I got the biggest kick out of Eileen Heckart's performance as the housekeeper. Eileen was so good as a lady with a very bad disposition.George Maharis who played the husband was quite effective.This story obviously had a lot of so called mistakes in the plot, but I love the movie anyway. I highly recommend this movie to people who love a good thriller without graphic violence.I gave this movie a vote of seven.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember watching this movie when it came out as a t.v. movie of the week in the early 1970's.

Although I haven't seen this movie in over 30 years I remember how creepy it was...the sister's dead body in the basement, the storm raging outside, the creepy house with no electricity and a killer still on the premises.

They just don't make t.v. movies like this one anymore. Elizabeth Montgomery was a very underrated actress and I liked her in not only \"Betwitched\", but several of her post-Bewitched roles, such as this one and 1975's \"The Legend of Lizzie Borden\".

I really wish that someone would come out with a DVD that has several of the 1970's t.v. movie of the week on one DVD. Wouldn't it be awesome to watch \"When Michael Calls\", \"Bad Ronald\", \"Don't Be Afraid of the Dark\", \"Crowhaven Farm\", etc., all on one DVD? I know there is a market for a DVD like this for all of us baby boomers who grew up in the 1960's and 1970's. Maybe, if we are lucky, someday someone will offer us a DVD with a great selection of t.v. movies like this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i remember watching an elizabeth montgomery movie when i was maybe 5 years old (if that) and to this day i can remember this movie (in just bits and pieces). it was the movie i remembered all throughout my life because i was sooo scared. I think i remember the story part of it and the house constantly being dark. the main part that was the most freaky to me was Elizabeth walking around the house all dark and then there was someone in the field outside. At the time I thought i was an old witch but the memory of it is now way hazy so i can't really remember who it was but it was someone definitely in a field outside lurking...and that part is what freaked me out the most. i really wish i could see this movie again. if anyone knows how to get a copy please email me at valid908@yahoo.com","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw The Victim (aka Out Of Contention) well over 25 years ago when I was very young. Being a passionate fan of Bewitched since I was a child, I loved to watch anything that starred Elizabeth Montgomery. This movie was (and still is) a real treat - whether you are a fan of Miss Montgomery's work or not. Elizabeth always shines in her roles, such as her portrayal as the rape victim in A Case Of Rape and as the suspected murderess in The Legend Of Lizzie Borden. Her performance in The Victim as Kate, a terrified woman trapped in an isolated house during a storm, with a killer after her is brilliant. If you like exciting suspenseful thrillers than this is one movie that will keep you on the edge of your seat till the end. Another great performance well worth mentioning is that of Eileen Heckhart who plays the eerie and suspicious housekeeper. Unfortunately like most of Miss Montgomery's movies, The Victim is not available on DVD and I believe that although it was released on VHS some years ago, it is a rarity these days. I was lucky to have taped it when it was aired on television some ten years ago and so have a nice copy of this very good movie. A must see!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After learning that her sister Susan is contemplating divorce, Kate decides to travel to the distraught woman's remote country home and spend some time with her. When Kate arrives, however, Susan is nowhere in sight. That's because someone has murdered her and stuffed the body in a trunk in the basement. As a storm rages outside, Kate tries to figure out where her sister could have gone and places her own life in great danger...the killer is still on the premises! In her first post-BEWITCHED vehicle, Elizabeth Montgomery gives a solid dramatic performance. Merwin Gerard's teleplay is based on a short story by McKnight Malmar. Malmar's tale was first brought to television in 1962 as an episode of Boris Karloff's THRILLER anthology series. THRILLER stuck very closely to the story, which is kind of a pity, for it could have used a little punching up. Granted Malmar wrote a moderately creepy number, but Gerard (creator of the ONE STEP BEYOND show) adds several clever ingredients that heighten the tension and suspense.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Co-scripted by William H. Macy from, arguably, Donald E. Westlake's best and hardest to find novel, \"A Travesty\". *Very* faithful to the story, the movie stars Macy as a hapless man who gets in way too far over his head after attempting to cover up an accidental death. Costars Adam Arkin and James Cromwell in good supporting roles. The strength of the movie is in the intricate twist-after-twist storyline and in the acting, particularly by Macy who routinely and delightfully breaks through the 4th wall here and gets away with it every time. A good storyline with much dark humor, this one engaged me enough that I've watched it three times in the week since it came out. Prepare to shelve your critical faculties and emit a loud, bipartisan \"wheeeeee!\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a riveting film, one that really drew me in. I'm a big fan of William H. Macy, and he puts in a wonderful performance. His great likeability, coupled with the way his character breaks the fourth wall, really gave me a sense of complicity in his actions. I found myself waiting tensely for the whole house of cards to come collapsing down around him (and by extension myself, as his confidante and silent witness). It took several minutes for me to relax once the film had ended, I was so wrapped up in it.

Good performances all around, too, not just with Macy. Arkin was quite good, as was Cromwell (he was surprisingly fierce). In short, I highly recommend this film to any fans of Macy and\/or the murder mystery. But you may want to prepare to feel a little guilty.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"William H. Macy is brilliant as Everyman caught in a desperate situation. Starts off with a bang and never lets up. Twists and surprises are fresh, unpredictable. Use of film noir clips and frequent quotes and references to 30's and 40's flicks makes this a delightful \"must\" for movie buffs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"William H. Macy is terrific in this Alfred Hitchcock-esque film. Macy stars as a film critic who accidentally kills one of his girlfriends. The characters that ensue are hilarious. James Cromwell gives a terrific performance as a blackmailing private detective. As always, Macy is incredibly funny and gives a phenomenal performance. See this movie whenever it is on t.v. and check your video stores because this is one you don't want to miss.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"A Slight Case of Murder\" is an excellent TV movie, which is defiantly worth the price of a rental. William H. Macy is great as a movie critic who accidentally kills his mistress, and then has to try to conceal the crime. Although that may sound dark, the film is actually quite light hearted and funny, with many memorable lines (\"Acting is harder than I thought- you ever see BODY HEAT? I think I owe Bill Hurt an apology\" and my personal favourite \"For next week answer these two questions about film noir, What do these people do during the day? and Why is it always raining?). The film has a great supporting cast including Macy's real life wife Felcity Huffman, James Cromwell and Adam Arkin. A must see for Macy fans!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just as in \"Columbo\" we see the fatality occur right at the beginning. What follows is an escalating web of lies, sex, blackmail, and murder. The investigating officer, Adam Arkin, is even somewhat of a fumbler, not unlike \"Columbo\". It is William H. Macy, as the movie critic suspect who carries the film. Constantly twisting and turning, the plot sends Macy deeper and deeper into the quicksand of his \"perfect crime\". William H. Macy fans will enjoy \"A Slight Case Of Murder\", as will those who like crime capers with all kinds of delicious possibilities. Add some well timed comedy, and this is very similar to a fine episode of \"Columbo\". Highly recommended. - MERK","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"William H. Macy always gives a good performance. He never looks lazy and never seems like he'd rather be somewhere else. In short, he's what more actors should be like. \"A Slight Case of Murder\" is directed by Steven Schachter, who went on to do two more great films with Macy (Door to Door, The Wool Cap).

Television movies have long been a dump of overdone acting, poor cinematography, and sub-par scripting. That's why it's so refreshing to see a TV movie that does exactly what it's sort of film was created for. To tell a small story (not a simplistic story) that does not require viewing on the big screen.

\"A Slight Case of Murder\" is light, entertaining fare, and an great watch.

7.6 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can not say this movie was a hilarious, but I must have had a grin on my face the entire time. I like this darker kind of comedy; \"very bad things\", \"8 heads in a duffel bag\" or \"coldblooded\"

The way the main character tries to get away with murder is a lot of fun to watch. To me it was not much of a surprise what the ending would be, but the way that ending came about was. Another thing that sticks out, is the way they have managed to involve the audience. The way Terry looks at us is hilarious, you can almost pretend you're his accomplice.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This one was a surprise and better than most films I've seen recently. Highly enjoyable from start to finish, this is a film that will surely satisfy 99,9% of movie fans worldwide. Great acting from everyone, great script, great story and fantastic plot and twists. Try not to miss it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not a stunner, but a good movie to see once or twice. Bill Macy shows he can do more than just act; his writing was pretty darn good. Great supporting cast, especially Jamie Cromwell as the extortionist private eye.

The movie's greatest strength is the work of Macy, who reminds us of his Jerry Lundergaard role from Fargo. He has numerous scenes where he is extremely funny as a slimy, manipulating and deceitful character. It's enjoyable to watch him be a weasel, and for a while I was happy that things were turning out well for him. *** out of four.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this last night at a screening for a marketing company. It is Fargoesque, and was a lot of fun to watch. It held my attention all the way through and did not seem to lag at all. I'd recommend watching it when it airs!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Turner and friends are closing in on HBO for the top spot among made-for-TV movie producers. This is a nicely paced, contemplative thriller of sorts. William Macy is stellar, as always, and Adam Arkin offers one of his better performances. A bit more lively than classic Hitchcock but not as in-your-face as typical movies of its type, A Slight Case of Murder eases you in and never lets go. (Note: I saw a preview copy, which means I didn't have to wait through commercials. Those interruptions may hurt the pacing, but you know this will be available on video sometime","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Garlin did a great job. Nice concept well executed, and tightly produced. Came across as a very sincere story. As a fan of \"Curb Your Enthusiasm\", where Jeff was pretty much the straight guy role, I was delighted with how much depth he brought to this role in a simple yet effective portrayal.

Much of the humor was understated and subtle and drew on poignancy, which I really liked, rather than being slapstick or over-explained. And there were some nice little surprises and twists. The convenience store vignettes were a delight.

When I say it is a wonderful \"small\" film, I don't mean budget or quality. It is simple, intimate and hand-crafted. It tells a highly believable everyday story. Relax and go see it. Let it wash over you, and you will feel good for having done so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Any movie that offers Bonnie Hunt, Sarah Silverman and Amy Sedaris in the supporting cast has to be well worth watching, and comic actor Jeff Garlin takes advantage of the terrific talent he recruited for his 2007 directorial debut, a sad-sack comedy about an overweight man who feels out of step with the world around him. Familiar as Larry David's manager Jeff on \"Curb Your Enthusiasm\", Garlin plays James, a still-struggling, 39-year old Chicago actor who still lives with his widowed mother. His self-esteem is so low that he can't meet women, but it's the comical way he views his single status that makes his dilemma involving. If the storyline sounds a bit familiar, that's because the film is partially a tribute to the 1955 Ernest Borgnine classic, \"Marty\", about a lonely Bronx butcher living with his meddlesome mother. In fact, Garlin uses \"Marty\" as the play which James is desperate to do since he is so empathetic to the character's situation.

Naturally there is a love story of sorts in this new millennium version, and Silverman plays Beth, an off-kilter, sexually voracious ice cream parlor server who takes him on an underwear shopping spree. Their best scene together is in his favorite convenience store where they improvise different characters in different aisles. Hunt plays a lonely elementary school teacher who shares a passion with James for jazz musician Ben Webster. They meet accidentally in a record store and then again at a career day at her school where he hilariously exposes his sexual neuroses in front of a classroom of first-graders, including his best friend Luca's pert daughter Penelope (played by Dakota Fanning's look-alike baby sister Elle). In a wedged-in cameo and looking quite a bit like Jerri Blank, Sedaris plays the school's counselor who speaks to James after his inappropriate monologue. David Pasquesi plays Luca, a retirement home manager, and his scenes with Garlin have an easy rapport that makes their friendship easy to believe. Almost stealing the movie is character actress Mina Kolb, who plays James' pixilated mother with pluck and heart.

There are also unexpected cameos from teen idol Aaron Carter and Gina Gershon (don't ask\u0085but the set-up is funny), as well as sharply played bits by director Paul Mazursky (as the snaky director of a candid-camera-type show, \"Smear Job\"), Tim Kazurinsky (as the unsuspecting victim of that show) and Dan Castellaneta (as the tough-love convenience store owner). With his rueful bouts of insecurity and self-loathing, Garlin's comic sensibilities resemble those of Albert Brooks, and the casual dialogue at its best reminds me of \"Modern Romance\" and \"Defending Your Life\". The one persistent problem I had with the film is pacing as some scenes dragged out longer than necessary. The problem is more evident in the first half when Garlin is trying to establish the right tempo, and the lack of real conflict adds to the sluggishness. Regardless, what he does well is capture that gnawing sense of desperation one feels upon the revelation that life is not what it is supposed to be, that a significant other may be out of reach, and that a steady diet of junk food eaten on a car hood is the only sure thing when it comes to gratification.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My original title for this review was going to be, \"Ending disappoints, Film triumphs.\" But I actually thought about this one on the way home. It is not the fairy tale most of these films are, it takes turns that are different and while its ending is at first disappointing, it slowly sinks in and hits the core on a satisfying tone.

The plot follows a man named James Aaron(Curb Your Enthusiasm's Jeff Garlin, who also wrote and directed) a struggling actor who lives in Chicago with his mother and deals with both his obesity and his inability to find someone to love.

Yes, it sounds corny, but it experiments with elements that make it somewhat unpredictable, and actually makes you wish it were longer. The ending came kind of abruptly and had me saying, \"that's it!?\" But once it starts to take it's toll, it really makes you smile.

It does have many tones of seriousness throughout, but fear not, for it is also very funny. Some scenes offer huge laughs, and those who have seen Jeff Garlin's stand-up will recognize a couple (Primarily when he gives a speech at career day for his niece's kindergarten class and bombs). It begins on somewhat of a serious note that you do not expect, but what follows is very funny, entertaining, and quite poignant as well. It is the kind of movie that you keep watching and always enjoy. And as I said before, while the ending may seem absurd at first, once you take time to think about, it is a true joy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Garlin is unquestionably a comedian's comedian and a comedian to anyone looking for a good time. His first film, which is entirely his own creation and production, tells the story of a struggling Chicago actor James Aaron with whom Jeff obviously identifies. He wonderfully juxtaposes James to Paddy Chayefsky's \"Marty\" and to Jackie Gleason's Poor Soul as he exposes James' dilemmas with an array of actors that in real life are Jeff's friends, many who are fellow Second City alumni.

He delightfully uses Sarah Silverman's diametrical cuteness and scathingly absurd humor to exemplify how despite common sense and talent, life's contentment can too often belie unyielding frustration. Bonnie Hunt gives an endearing performance as a romantic interest.

Don't let a simple story mislead you, the characters and conflicts are well thought out and ring true. Those that follow Garlin's career and understand that his humor is based on telling reality humorously, not necessarily creating fiction which too easily can be contrived, will appreciate his dialogue driven story.

We surely will see Garlin working much more as director and writer with other talented intelligent comedic actors who undertake the great challenge of making life funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Garlin outdoes himself as writer-director-actor in his indie production about a big guy (Garlin) wandering around Chicago with an eye for every woman he sees. The laughs keep coming almost every minute. It's a somewhat dramatic and serious story about a man looking for love, but done with great comedic writing and acting. The supporting roles are also very well done and very funny and really make the movie rich.

Rose Abdoo is hysterical in her receptionist role taking you right into the mood of the rest of the film. Sara Silverman is awesome with some of the great bits she does with Jeff. Bonnie Hunt is classically great in her role. I only wish there was more of her in the film, as I think most will agree. It's certainly refreshing to see her in a tight leather outfit.

David Pasquesi was the aloof detached sidekick, and voice of reason. Mina Kolb plays Jeff's mother who he lives with. There were numerous other cameos, all of them done very well.

At the premier Jeff mentioned his inability to do more with Bonnie due to production issues. Still, it's good to leave you wanting more. I think it's that indie thing of keeping some things ambiguous to let the audience do some thinking for themselves to fill in the blanks. The wordy title should clue you in to this.

Jeff said some of the basic characters were based on his past relationships. This explains why they work so well. Real life people are always unusually colorful and makes great characters. He departs quite a bit from what you might expect, having seen Curb Your Enthusiasm and some of his other work. It's one of those break out things where an actor takes some risks to do something they maybe always wanted to do but couldn't.

I think it's noteworthy that Garlin's improv Second City background, and Hunt's for that matter, set the style here of acting being the focus of the story and the directing. It's perhaps a new innovative hybrid of improv meets indie film-making.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Has the proliferation of relatively high quality shows on the proliferating TV networks made it possible for people to produce, direct, finance and\/or star in their own films who might otherwise not have been able to? Is that a good thing?

This film does not answer the latter question either way, but it does appear that without Curb, Jeff Garlin would not have been able to make I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With.

Like most new producers\/directors, Jeff Garlin's independent piece heaves a heavily more sensitive sigh than the vehicle he is primarily known for (Curb). And yet, is it a sensitive guy film? He isn't really a sensitive guy. Likable, sure. Relatable, indeed.

What this film really is about is a bit hard to say, I can only relate what I took away from it.

I rented the film because of the trailers, particularly the scene of a counselor portrayed by Amy Sedaris informing James Aaron (Garlin) that a particular woman is interested in him mainly because she is a \"chubby chaser.\" I just about fell out of my seat. Based on that scene alone, I ran to my computer to write a note to myself to rent this movie. The reason - I thought the school counselor (Sedaris) was talking about Beth, portrayed by Sarah Silverman. I imagined a lightish romantic comedy between the foxy Silverman and the fat Garlin. I didn't think the story would be anything original, but that the dialogue would be snappy and the scenes would move along at a satisfying pace. In short, I thought it would be a comedy.

It was intriguing that the film started out that way but then took a much much more realistic turn when Beth gives James the heave ho because \"I've never really been with a fat guy before.\" That is how brutally we live life, and it was completely realistic. I applaud the decision. It just meant that Beth has now left the building and with her, the one snappy person in the film.

James's relationship with his mother was also interesting. That part made me wonder if the whole concept did not start out as a play. It had that intricate feel to it. (The whole \"Marty\" movie within a movie thing was utterly lost on me, as I have never seen that film.)

There were serious doubts I had about the character of James Aaron, though. Is it really possible that at 39 he had not had a serious relationship? And he is an actor? That did not really square with me. To me, his persona was less actor-y, and more corporate. I could not really buy his ordinariness either. No doubt he was extremely disappointed that things with Beth did not work out. We felt that. But then, did he really care?

Another thing - how in the world can both he and his mother afford to move out at the same time? Hasn't he just lost his job? The last one he had? That was one reason he did not seem ordinary to me. Where's the funding for his life coming from?

And yet, I have read reviews that talk about the realistic portrayal of urban loneliness, so there is that. Yes, it is very realistic, the way we must be satisfied with what we have because it is all that we have. The way we sort of disappear from ourselves and each other in interactions (James and Stella), some kind of self-effacement that takes place just to move on to the next moment. That, contrasted with the possibility of defining ourselves through our moments, our thoughts the way James had with Beth, it's really crushing.

Very well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jeff Garlin's film is filled with heart and laughter. As in Curb Your Enthusiasm, his screen persona is hilarious; but in addition we get to see both warmth and a sense of emotional vulnerability that makes the story universal. While the film chronicles his character's dreams of love, performing success, and weight loss, it will appeal to anyone who dreams of a better life. The supporting cast brings the frustrations and joys of his life to the screen in funny and heartbreaking ways. The simple joys of food, friendship, and trying once again once life has disappointed us are all themes. The use of music is creative and adds to the many pleasures of this film. Any fan of Jeff Garlin's TV appearances must see it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"James Aaron, a chubby actor living in Chicago, is a man that loves to eat things that are no good for him. That is made clear early on, as Dick, a friendly store clerk, advises him to stay away from junk food. Aaron, an actor working at Chicago's Second City, is a loving man with not much luck in the love department. He still lives with his mother, a spunky lady who encourages him to go out and enjoy himself. James has another job in a sort of gross \"Candid Camera\" where people are set up for unusual situations, such as surprising a mechanic and telling him he is the father of a daughter he never knew about.

On the day he meets his friend Larry he gets to know about the casting call for the remake of \"Marty\", his favorite film. Being a large man, he clearly identifies with the character in the movie. In many ways, James' own life parallels that of the Paddy Chayefsky's creation in the picture. He wants to try for the part because he knows he can do justice to the role.

One day he meets Beth at a soda fountain. James takes a liking to the woman, who one day invites him to go shopping with her for intimate apparel. He ends up having sex with her, thinking they have a nice thing going, but Beth has a another surprise coming when she tells him the reason they went to bed was because she had never done it with a fat man. After being disappointed, James stumbles into an attractive elementary school teacher who seems to share his love for jazz. At the end, we watch James fulfilling his long dream of starring in a theatrical production of \"Marty\" in a nursing home.

Jeff Garlin, who is an affable character man, shows a talent for the type of comedy associated with his friend Larry David. Although both men differ in acting styles, his take on James Aaron is right on the money. As a director, he has done it before, although this is an original concept that he should pursue.

One of the assets of the film are the people involved in the project. Sarah Silverman makes an impression for her take of Beth. Bonnie Hunt underplays her role of the school teacher to good results. Mina Kolb, is seen as his mother, a role she has played in \"Curb Your Enthusiasm\" with excellent results. Director Paul Mazursky is at hand also in a minor role. Joey Slotnick, Tim Kazurinsky, Richard Kind, David Pasquesi, Larry Neumann Jr, Gina Gershon, and the rest of the cast make valuable contributions.

Jeff Garlin is a talented man whose next effort will be welcomed by his fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In an early scene, Luca (David Pasquesi) and James (Jeff Garlin) are walking down a neighborhood street in Chicago, admiring the bucolic architecture, when a woman, angrily arguing in French on a cell phone, passes by them, prompting James to remark, \"There's nothing hotter than an angry French woman.\" A few blocks later, they pass an old Filipino woman, also angry, also arguing on a cell phone, and Luca remarks, for referential effect, \"There's nothing hotter than an angry, elderly Filipino woman.\"

The humor in Jeff Garlin's I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With is best characterized by the word quotidian. The film is a conversation. We might as well be eavesdropping. Rather than go for antics, the film relies on character flaws and human curiosity to deliver laughs. While it's not innovative, it is far from banal, and even if James views himself as being rather jejune, we know that he is fairly average, and this endears him.

Self-betterment is the primary theme of the movie. Sarah Silverman, who plays Beth, is excellent as the catalyst of change; she revitalizes James, and so reminds him to live a better life. Even so, achieving some idyllic dream is not the end of these characters, but rather something simpler: that they might pick up what pieces there are of the life they love, just to keep for themselves at least enough to carry on.

A movie about life lessons can be overwrought, as it can forget to connect with its audience. I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With is subtle and winsome, and while its moral may not be inspiring, it is still resonant. This is low-key comedy, but it will stick with you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those out there that like to think of themselves as reasonably intelligent human beings, who love film, have good attention to detail and enjoy indie movies with funny, smartly written dialogue then this is a film for you.

For those with a poor attention span, high expectations and no brains.. well.. um.. you may get bored and find things dragging at times.

This is a charming, modest and well paced movie with the actors bestowing a real sense of depth and warmth to their roles. I chuckled to myself pretty much the whole way through..

This film is a little gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought it was brilliant! It was great watching the presenter tracking each one of them down. Dwight Schultz still looked the same, he had hardly changed in looks, neither had Dirk Benedict, he still looked just as dishy! I thought that Mr T looked thinner though, but it was still great to see how he looked after all this time. I thought that it took some doing tracking down the other members of the cast, such as the one who played Decker, and the lady who played Amy. It was just a shame that Mr T could'nt make the actual reunion. Also it was a great shame that George Peppard had died, thereby leaving a gap so to speak. I only wish now that I had taped it to keep. Let's hope that they repeat it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"He did one at Christmas to try and bring back a number one song, and now the terrific Justin Lee Collins wanted to reunite the cast members and maybe some crew of one of his favourite TV shows as a kid, The A-Team. The only member he wouldn't be able to get was the late great George Peppard who played main character Col. John \"Hannibal\" Smith, but he did get some kind of psychic to try and help. He did manage to reunite all members including Dirk Benedict (Lt. Templeton \"Faceman\" Peck #2) who went to Celebrity Big Brother in 2007, Dwight Schultz (Capt. H.M. \"Howling Mad\" Murdock), Melinda Culea (Amy Amanda Allen), William Lucking (Col. Lynch) and Lance LeGault (Col. Roderick Decker, the only member of the team to die). He did talk to Mr. T (Sgt. Bosco \"B.A.\" Baracus) in an anticipated interview, but he was unavailable to turn up at the reunion. It was really fun watching him trying to find them, and talking to them, even though they probably didn't want to, and the reunion of course is the great climax. Very good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Due to this show getting cut early I never realized why until I recently read the story behind the series. I felt this show never got its dues as one of the greatest shows, this show is iconic in nature and deserves the movie it was always intended to have if not with the original A team cast at least with the cast incorporated into the story line or a lengthy cameo, perhaps at the end commemorate it to the late Col. Hanibal Smith(Preppard). This cast gave so much to bring happiness to us growing up they deserve one last heave ho the fact that the series ended openly because they slashed the series is reason enough. This crew and cast made us realize as children the essence of being one of the good guys especially seeing how screwed up the world is today, I think a milder version like the original should be put into motion I have already read the previews and I know these are not the plans but if anything a straight to DVD movie, I sure would buy it. I really do not get how crappy shows get series finales but this great show which still runs regularly today and probably gets watched more than some of the current garbage shows of today don't we will always remember the Incredible Hulk series, Knight Rider, Airwolf, and the A team because those kind of shows carry through time, I am almost positive these knew ones you see about detectives will not even be remembered in 10 years so why not bring back something and show the people what staying power is all about and how these old shows really are all about.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bring Back The A-team was a hour- long special screened on Channel 4 in the UK of last year and hosted by presenter and comedian Justin Lee Collins, the show attempted to track down and reunite the fellow cast members of the A-Team together, for the first time ever on TV. This has been something which has never been attempted before by anyone. Well, not by anyone that I know of, that is.

Justin makes a great presenter, and his eccentric personality and humorous banter shone throughout this programme. The attempts he makes in getting hold of the cast members is ever so funny, but also he was very persistent and eager to fulfil this task too, which is a credit to him i'd say. Mind you, he is great on TV anyway- be it by presenting a show such as this, or the Friday Night Project with his co-host, Alan Carr.

There were appearances and interviews with Dirk Benedict- the Faceman himself, Dwight Schultz- aka Howling Mad Murdock, Marla Heasley who played Tawnia Baker, Jack Ging aka General 'Bull' Full Bright, the creator of the A-team, Stephen J Cannell and the big man himself, Mr T aka BA Baracus. They were just fascinating to watch and hear what they had to say about the programme that became a global hit during the 80s, as they reminisce and relive the good and bad moments of the show: both during and behind the scenes. Unfortunately, no George Peppard but of course he is already in heaven, understandably and strangely enough no Melinda, who played Amy.

I just didn't understand why she wasn't featured in the show. Okay, she was axed after 3 seasons or whatever, but she was the first and original female member of the A-Team- only to be replaced Marla's Tawnia and so it would've been great to see and hear her side to the A-team story, in addition to the other cast members.

All in all, Bring Back The A-Team was a great documentary style of show. Perhaps, this could've been spread out more by means of which this could've been a six-part documentary. But nonetheless, this was a great effort on the part of JLC. Recommended","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The A-team is still repeating every day on Dutch television (RTL7, around 1800hrs) and I still watch it! I don't like the A-Team... I absolutely adore them!! It is just great to see Justin chasing the former members of A-Team. Brings back memories from the old days, when I was young an sweet. I would have given you a 10 for excellent, but Justin looks like he is chasing the former A-Team members all by himself. Of course, that is the only bad thing on this documentary. Too bad Justin does not look for Melinda Culea (\"Amy A. Allen\"). But it is great to see Mr. T. back into action. Too bad for him, he does not show up at the party, at the end. But that party is too short to laugh again and to see everybody in action again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Borderline several years ago on AMC. I've been looking for it ever since. It was haunting: visual, textural, sensual. This movie took me somewhere like a dream and I didn't care where. I will never forget the curtain blowing in the breeze. I still remember the way it made me tilt my head. I remember my facial expression when I saw it. I didn't know what had happened when the movie was over, but I find life is that way. It didn't bother me. The unfairness of the ultimate rejection of an innocent character strikes me as sadly real. I loved the faces, the way the camera dwelt upon them. The camera gazed at the set with the unfocused eyes of a daydreamer. Borderline was real to me in a way movies aren't. It was exactly the lack of explanation, color, sharpness that made it enter my consciousness like a thief in the night. I love this movie. Someday I will own it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Back in the Day\" is an interesting, but flawed effort. Ja Rule stars as Reggie Cooper, a honest but sad man trying to cope with the death of his father. He meets his old friend J-Bone (Ving Rhames) who tries to force Reggie into a life of crime. Reggie also falls in love with Alica (Tatyana Ali) who is the preacher's daughter. Now he has to choose: Love Or Crime.

Ja Rule does a competent job as Reggie. At least he's trying to act. Ving Rhames is perfect as J-Bone. He brings a lot of energy and menace into the role. Joe Morton as the preacher is his usual excellent self, but he doesn't do much. The same problem for Giancarlo Esposito as Reggie's Dad. He needed more screen time. I don't want to say this, but Pam Grier is pretty awful as Mrs. Cooper. She overacts every scene and brings the movie down. Tia Carrere and Frank Langella are in it but don't do anything substantial for the plot.

In the end: You should see it for the skilled performances of Ving Rhames and Joe Morton and the grittiness of the writing and directing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie out of a lack of anything else on at the time. Quickly the movie grabbed me with the depth of the characters and subtle plot. I was quite surprised to see that the rating given by my satellite provider did not show any stars.

I will not give any spoilers to the plot-line or outcome but most of the characters had at least some redeeming value. Until the very last minute I did not know how it would turn out. Frequently, you can pick-up the formula and predict a story direction. I could not do that with this film.

I would recommend this as one of the finer films of this genre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"by TyNesha Mells. In this drama, Ja Rule, who stars as Reggie, struggles with the loss of his father. His old friend J-Bone, who is a cold-blooded thug recently released from prison, helps Reggie find who murdered his father. A week after his dad died, a preacher, Reverend Packer, came up dead. Reggie was suppose to be the one to kill him, but did he? Did Reggie kill Reverend Packer or was it some type of a setup? Back in the Day also has a couple of romantic scenes. See, Reggie falls in love with the preacher's daughter and J-Bone doesn't approve of his love fiend. As J-Bone tries to destroy what they have, Reggie learns that love is about forgiveness. But what J-bone is doing, does it work? Do Reggie and his girlfriend break up, or does it bring them closer together? I like this movie because it leaves you wondering what's going to happen next and did this or that happen. I like movies with suspense! It kind of makes you want to be in the movie so that you could detect things. I also like this movie because everything falls in place, if you really pay attention to it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Frank Langella steals my heart in everything he has ever been in! I love watching him!! i was 10 yrs old (1979) when i seen him for the first time.i eagerly await each and everything he'll be acting in. hopefully one day i can see him in person. he's very hypnotic and mysterious and that voice is commanding and strong! he is very attractive, even now at 65 he is absolutely stunning!!!! In my opinion he is the greatest actor iv'e ever seen! i adored him in \"Dracula\" ( along with a lot of other girls out there) and in \"god created woman\",\"house of D\",\"Jason and the argonauts\" and many more. i thought he was genius!!!!!! can't wait to see him in \"good night and good luck\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The animation is still the slightly rougher style of the first episode, Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire, but already, with this first regular episode, Bart the Genius, the humor is beginning to be more \"layered\", quicker and greater depth of characterization is already appearing.

This episode firmly establishes Bart's \"slacker\" personality, and more subtly, Lisa's intellectual superiority to the whole family. Although that's the main theme of the whole episode (there's also a nice secondary theme of Bart and Homer's father\/son relationship), it's given to us first in a nutshell as the episode opens with the Simpsons playing Scrabble. Lisa comes up with \"id\" for her word--short, but something you have to be well educated to know. She has to read the definition to the rest of the family from the dictionary, which has been serving as a way to prop up the couch. Marge can only come up with \"he\". Homer has \"oxidize\" already sitting on his tray in order, but doesn't recognize that it's a word, so he presents \"do\" instead. Bart comes up with \"kwyjibo\", which he insists is a word. Similarly, in the main plot line of the episode, Bart cheats on his IQ test, which leads to his being put into a special school full of gifted kids. We know that's not likely to last long.

\"The Simpsons\" has always had a lot of fun playing with varying degrees of intellectual abilities among people through its characters, and more importantly, they way that people with vary degrees of intellectual abilities fit into (or not), are accepted (or not) and are perceived in society. Aside from beginning to present Bart, Lisa, Homer and Marge's place in this context, this episode already starts respectfully poking fun at nerds and geeks outside of the Simpsons family. Via some of the dialogue from the students at the special school, as well as some of the other references, including purely visual ones, this episode also shows that \"The Simpsons\" isn't going to pull any punches by means of writing or talking down to its audience. It may be just a cartoon, but it's a cartoon that intellectuals, geeks and nerds are going to understand more than anyone else. And that fact, aside from it just being a very funny show, is the key to the show's longevity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bart The Genius Whilst not the first Simpsons episode, Bart he Genius more or less is the first typical episode. There's no gimmickry or theme it's just your typical Simpsons episode in set-up. It always seems to me that it's an episode that grows on you. There are certain elements I don't care for, largely the blotchy animation which can be forgiven. But over time I take a liking to this story of it's uniqueness.

For example, it'd be very hard for a live-action sit-com on a standard budget to do this episode due to the various different sets that show in this episode, the computer bays in Ms. Melon's class, the opera and so on. My point is with that, The Simpsons realises one of the biggest strengths in animation. The sheer lack of visual limitations when compared to live-action.

On a writing stand-point it's also highly intelligent and fresh. The concept is pretty unique, and particularly the problems faced. Instead of the ol' fail-safe that work was too hard, it was simply Bart's social isolation from his classmates that failed him (although the exploding science experiment may prove otherwise...which I also think is one of the best visual gags of the series.) The ending seems a little unoriginal, largely because the Bart running naked into his room to avoid Homer was already done in the shorts, but still funny for Marge and Lisa's short back-and-forth if for nothing else.

Ultimately it's a very good episode, with lots of interesting new point in the series, though not exactly perfect.

Oh, and the now iconic name Kwijybo was of course unleashed onto the world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Simpsons of course started off with Christmas special \"Simpson's Roasting On An Open Fire\" which had basic drawings and not laugh out loud jokes, but this episode has probably the first laugh out loud joke in it and from here the show just gets better and better. This episode centers around Bart who in this episode swaps on a test from Martin and gets into a school for the highly gifted, this leading to Bart mending his friendship with his Dad and losing all of his mates. The Episode is very humorous and shows what was to become the greatest show ever to come out. Overall fans of the show will love this episode as it features the character's exactly as they became 20 years later. So watch this episode in a pack of Season 1 and enjoy early Simpson's doing what it was meant to, Making people laugh. I rate this episode 73%.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILERS

I love the Simpsons, and I have seen every single episode that had ever come out. I must admit, season one is by far the most underrated season, and this is the most underrated episode in season one.The episode begins with the family playing a game of Scrabble to get Bart ready for an intelligence test he needs to take at school. He says the game is stupid and he doesn't want to play it, but he needs to. He spells out a word that angers Homer and he chases Bart around the house. The next day Mrs. Krabappel reassures the class that the test isn't part of their grade, just a test that would tell them what their future would be like. Bart can't answer one question. He thinks fast. He quickly switches test with Martin Prince, the smartest one in class. Later that day Marge and Homer are called to go to the Principal's office to discuss Bart's behavior. Suddenly, out of nowhere, the school psychologist comes and tells Skinner and Homer and Marge that Bart is a genius and should go to a special school for the gifted. Bart agrees to go since he wouldn't need to do any homework. The next day Homer drives Bart to the new school. He is introduced to everyone and everything. Unluckily, his day isn't very good. The smart students take his lunch smartly, he can't read any comic books, but he does anyway, and he is criticized by his fellow students. Luckily for Bart, he and Homer start to have a great time together, but Marge bought tickets to an opera. They go to the opera, and make fun of it. The next day he goes to his old school but is made fun of by his friends. They call him a point dexter. While at his new school, Bart is told to do a Chemistry Experiment. He does it wrong and blows up the school, leaving himself green. Bart is told by the psychologist to tell him why he did it. Instead, Bart tells him he wants to go undercover and go back to his old school to observe other kids. The psychologist is intrigued and he asks Bart to explain it on a piece of paper. He finds it too hard and instead writes a confession that he really isn't a genius. He gives it to the psychologist. All he cares about is that he spelled the word confession wrong. That night Homer bathes Bart and Bart tells him that he really isn't a genius and that he cheated on the test. Homer gets angry and chases Bart around the house as Lisa and Marge look at them casually.

Overall, this is a very underrated season one episode.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"AristoCats is such a terrific Disney classic that I just loved so much as a kid. Still to this day I can't resist watching it, it's just such a wonderful and charming film with great animation and lovely songs. I really miss the animation films like AristoCats, they had perfect voices not to mention the hand drawn animation that makes it perfect for the family. AristoCats is also very witty and clever, the story was just so wonderful. This film is just beyond irresistible, I think the most memorable moment for me was the cats playing the piano learning the appecio's, lol, it was just so cute with the piano playing and painting.

Douchess and her kittens are very pampered in their huge mansion, mainly because their lady is very rich and treats them like they were her children. But when the lady feels it's time to make her will, she leaves everything to the cats and not to her butler. The butler gets angry and takes the kittens on the road and abondons them in the middle of no where. Douchess and the kittens wake up and with the help of a smooth street cat by the name of Thomas O'Malley, they head back home to their lady, but learn the coolness of being a skat cat.

The AristoCats is just a perfect Disney movie that I feel is a bit over looked. I would always highly recommend this movie for kids or families, it could be enjoyed by anyone. The songs and story is just memorable. I will always join in for the movies best song \"Everybody wants to be a cat\", such a great tune. I also love those dogs that guarded the farm where the cats were abandoned, they were just so cute. This is a terrific film, please watch it, you won't be disappointed.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No. I'm not kidding with this one. He was a guest reviewer for Entertainment Weekly and gave this movie positive marks. And who can blame him? This is a charming, upbeat, and rather funny Disney movie. Who doesn't love kittens? The music in Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat is jamming. It makes me want to snap my fingers or something. Only years later when Cats Don't Dance came out have I seen a movie that was that musically fun. What Aristocats lacks in animation and story, it makes up for in charm. Plus, everything moves at a relaxed pace, and even the villain isn't all that scary. It's perfect for the younger set while not being so sappy that adults can't like it. If Snoop was here, I'm sure he would say the same thing. Yeah. Dig those CRAZY cats, man.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Set in Paris in the year 1910, a retired old rich opera singer decides to give her fortune away to her beautiful cat Duchess ( voiced by Eva Gabor) and her kittens, but the jealous butler Edgar comes up with a plan as he kidnaps the cats and leaves them in the countryside. Luckily for them with the help of a streetwise and independent tomcat named Thomas O'Malley ( voiced by Phil Harris) helps them get home especially meeting some of his good friends like the swinging' Scat Cat ( voiced by Scatman Crothers) and try to foil Edgar's plans.

Very entertaining and edgy post-Walt Disney's death animated movie with a couple of nice jazzy tunes like the memorable \"Everybody wants to be a cat\", good voice acting and some terrific animation for it's time even in these times of computer animation. Not one of the greatest Disney animated movies but a cult Disney animated fave and one of the few gems of it's day that works well, highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 20th animated Disney classic is often criticized by many people as \"mediocre\" or poor in quality, but it is a great movie.

Too bad that \"The Aristocats\" doesn't get the deserved credit. I personally see it as one of my favorite Disney classics.

Despite being extremely underrated, it is one of the funniest Disney classics. It is full of hilarious (some of them, hysterical) moments.

Edgar, the greedy butler, is the villain of the movie but he is a perfect comic relief. He's one of my favorite Disney villains because he is so funny.

Every scene with Edgar and the hound dogs Napoleon and Lafayette chasing him are among the most hilarious you'll ever see, especially the one when Edgar drives his motorcycle into the river and around the bridge, with the dogs chasing him. That is hysterical!

But the classic humor doesn't just come from Edgar or the hound dogs. Other characters have their moments as well.

About the quality subject, it isn't perfect, but remains on a high level. Even after Walt Disney's death those artists knew how to keep faithful to Walt's spirit and \"The Aristocats\" is one of those examples. They don't make them like this nowadays!

As usual, legendary Disney actors voice the characters. In this case, we have Phil Harris, Sterling Holloway, Paul Winchell, Eva Gabor and Pat Buttram.

The characters are cool in general: Thomas O'Malley, Duchess and her 3 kittens, the mouse Roquefort, the alley cats, the English geese, the hound dogs and the horse. The human characters are included as well: the eccentric and kind retired Opera singer Madame Adelaide Bonfamille, the comic Madame's old lawyer Georges Hautecourt and Edgar himself!

About the soundtrack, it has some nice and catchy songs such as Thomas O'Malley's theme (but I can't remember its name), \"Everybody Wants to be a Cat\" and \"The Aristocats\" (sung by Maurice Chevalier), for example.

This movie takes place in Paris (France), in the year of 1910. Above all, this is a joyful, nice and very pleasant movie. A timeless classic which is often underestimated and forgotten, but very worthy.

This should definitely be on Top 250.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is NOT the masterpiece that is Snow White, Cinderella, or Bambi, but it IS a very sweet, enjoyable, romantic, well-done Disney animated feature.

There are, of course, lessons included herein for the kiddies, and some very appropriate kiddie-cheek, but there is plenty herein for the adults, as well.

While this is somewhat of a regurgitation of the Classic Disney RomCom Adventure, it still holds some elements, which solely belong to the AristoCats. O'Malley is the \"tramp\" and Dutchess is the \"lady,\" but Dutchess has several kittens and they are all trying to get home.

Phil Harris is our tomcat O'Malley. You may recognize his voice, as he also furnished the voice of Baloo the Bear in the Jungle Book, and Little John in Disney's Robin Hood. Eva Gabor lends her silky sweet voice to Dutchess.

Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman, who directed, or worked on, every Disney animated film worth mentioning until his death in 1985.

This is among my very favorite of the Disney animated feature films, and belongs in any Disney collection. The 2-Disk Special Edition Is Due Out This Summer (2007).

This rates an 8.4\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Since cats have nine lives, I'll give you nine reasons to see this movie:

* The kittens Berlioz and Toulouse playing the piano together (so unbelievably cute!) * The car-chasing dogs Napoleon and Lafayette * Toulouse jumping like electrified every time he wants to be like a tough alley cat * Marie sighing romantically while alley cat O'Malley seduces her mom * Scat Cat and his jazz band, singing \"ev'rybody wants to be a cat\" * Stupid but proper and nice English geese Amelia and Abigail who make the cats walk like geese * O'Malley obtaining the \"magic carpet\" which puts the Cheshire cat to shame * Roquefort the brave mouse's journey to ask help from alley cats * Edgar the butler chase scenes and transition from a nice guy to an insane cat hater due to cat riddance plan gone bad","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first Disney animated film without the strong involvement of Disney himself, this film suffers from the fact that the story is not particularly original or interesting (this is, I believe, the only animated Disney film since the 1940's which is NOT based on an earlier book or other work, but is rather an original story). As others have noted, the plot is essentially a cross between the romance in Lady and the Tramp and the kidnapping\/journey home story in 101 Dalmatians.

But to overcome this flaw, the filmmakers have successfully used many of the better features of most of the Disney animated films of the previous 10-15 years: Phil Harris (from The Jungle Book) voicing one of the main characters, follows his duet with Louis Prima in the previous film with another here with Scatman Crothers. The quality visual look of this film is virtually carried over from \"Dalmatians\" (with some nice nods to French Impressionism, it appears), and the villain here (the butler) is strongly reminiscent of the henchmen in that film as well. (This is probably one of Disney's least memorable villains.) The main story goes back and forth between the cats, and the butler's ongoing difficulties with two rural hound dogs (with great voice work by Pat Buttram and George \"Goober\" Lindsey\"). The various animal characters are similarly familiar to those who have seen \"Tramp\" and \"Dalmatians.\" The cats' owner, while bearing a striking visual resemblance to the wicked stepmother in Sleeping Beauty, bears none of that character's nasty traits and comes across as very warm and generous.

The real strength of the film is the voice work; after first going toward the use of mostly familiar actors in The Jungle Book, the tactic is continued strongly here with Disney veterans Harris and Sterling Holloway from The Jungle Book, and Eva Gabor (who would do a very similar character in the later film The Rescuers), as well as Crothers and Nancy Kulp. All are excellent here, particularly Harris and Gabor in the leads. The character animation is as excellent as one would expect, showing a variety of emotions well.

Smaller children may be upset by a few brief episodes (an escape from the path of a speeding train, a near-drowning by one of the children), but these are not presented in a particularly frightening or dark manner and are over very quickly. Overall, there's very little of the type of more frightening scenes found in many other Disney classics.

One minor oddity is the way some visual aspects of 60's culture are depicted among the jazz-performing cats in supposedly 1910 Paris; one can't help but wonder why the story wasn't set solidly in the present, other than the great deal Paris had changed much of its appearance in the intervening time. It really would have made more sense that way.

The songs, while being pleasant and sometimes very enjoyably performed, are not particularly memorable. Nonetheless, the general energy applied here, the excellent voice work and fine animation all contribute to overcome the relatively few and minor weaknesses. Far from the greatness of classic \"10\"s such as Pinocchio or Aladdin, and not quite up to the \"9\"s one might give to Sleeping Beauty or 101 Dalmatians, this is probably a rather marginal 8 of 10; perhaps a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As the mom of a 3 year old and a 2 year old, I adore AristoCats. It is a movie that contains no double-entendres, no almost-swear words like heck or darn, no parents who are functional idiots, and no crotch-smashing or flatulence jokes that are so prevalent in even the \"best\" kids movies these days. The story line is sweet and interesting. The music is great. The love story is quite romantic. The kittens are adorable, and the various other characters are unique and attention-capturing. The action is simple and not overwhelming or confusing. The characters are quite well-cast as well. I love listening to Eva Gabor's velvety voice, and there are so many others that are familiar from childhood and also fit the characters so well. It's really a movie about love, tolerance, good manners, and faithfulness. Who doesn't want their kids exposed to these values? It is a movie that I don't mind watching over and over, unlike Happy Feet where I couldn't watch the whole thing even once because it was so irritating. I wish production companies would move toward making movies more like this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Aristorcats is a hilarious film that not many people have seen. Clearly not that many because it only got a 6.8. There is nothing wrong with it at all. It's my favorite of the Disney classics, which have tons of fantastic films already made. Like Beauty and the Beast, Snow White, and Peter Pan. The reason why The Aristorcats is so high on my list is because of how funny the film is. I hate to say this, but I don't blame Edgar for what he does. I probably would've had them taken care of too. I'd be devastated of some old bag who I'd been working with for so many years just decides to give her will to the cats. I'd of killed them also. I don't even like cats, so I wouldn't give a damn. I think that The Aristorcats is so funny and cute. There are many characters that are hilarious, like Edgar. The Aristorcats is my favorite of the Disney classics, and that's final. The Cat's out of the bag.

The Aristorcats: ****\/****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must say one big reason why I thought the AristoCats was so great is because I love cats!!!!I love cats,which probably gave this film a big score from me,but not only that,it was definitely a good movie as well,and I love where they make the setting of the film take place.This is one of my favorite animal films,although it's animated,and I really love how the actors\\actresses didn't sound so unprofessional behind the animals' voice's.To me this film seems like a classic,but I guess to IMDb it's not,because it has,yes I THINK too low of a rating.You take a peek at all the other \"ORIGINAL\" Disney films and they have a much higher rating than this,but nonetheless AristoCats is one of the best animation movies there is and I could enjoy it over and over again!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are a select few cartoon films where animals or something \"not human\" is portraying human beings and I think that this film is one of them. Apart from a few points of the plot and the characters - this film could be changed with all people rather than mainly animals. Although - it's good someone did not - I feel the cats are jolly good in this film portraying humans! :-)

This film also focuses on quite a lot of adult issues - which is rather odd for a Disney film. It mentions alcohol*, shows a dog teaching another dog how to attack \"tresspassing\" humans and it shows a male cat called (Abraham Delacy Gieuseppe Casi Thomas) O' Malley, fancying a female cat, in a surprisingly human and adult way.

As a cartoon film - or just a film in general, I feel this is pretty good quality - the storyline and characters are especially good. The film (in general) is set in France and you meet a family of cats - the mother Duchess and her kittens Marie, Toulouse and Berlioz. You also meet the kind (rich) old woman who adores the cats, the butler Edgar and an old man (who has CLEARLY lost his marbles) called George. The kind old woman discusses her will with George and Edgar overhears that what he receives from the will he will have after the cats have it. He is INCREDIBLY cross with this - and has an evil scheme in mind...

A very cute film for every age - enjoy \"Aristocats\"!

*Not including \"Basil the Great Mouse Detective\" and a few others maybe which I cannot think of at the moment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favourite Disney films. It has everything you could hope for in a Disney animation: cute animals, great songs, a nasty villain and lots of adventure. The story begins in Paris, where aristocat Duchess and her three kittens live with their Mistress in a mansion. Life is perfect for them until the Mistress' fiendish butler Edgar discovers that she plans to leave her entire fortune to the cats. He realises that if he even stands a chance of claiming the fortune, the cats will be out of the way. An excellent, often forgotten masterpiece from the 1970's - a time when the Disney studio made few animations - which features songs such as the title number \"The Aristocats\" as well as \"Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat\", this will enchant viewers young and old with its enduring jazziness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is great I really enjoyed it.

This movie is about a cat mom named Dutchess and her 3 kittens.T Dutchess and the kittens love music.They have to practice the piano everyday.But the butler named Edgar tries to kidnap Dutchess and her kittens he tries to make them sleep. But he fails. Them Dutchess meets a cat named Thomas O Maily. Thomas falls in love with Dutchess. The cats break into song. With the song everybody wants to be a cat. Thomas gets to love music like the other cats. Thomas and Dutchess really like each other.

I loved this movie and i like the cats to!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Duchess is a pretty white cat who lives with her three kittens in her wealthy owner's mansion in Paris. When the evil butler hears that the rich old lady is leaving everything in her will to the cats first, the butler is angered, because he wants to get everything first. So he puts them to sleep and abandons them off the side of the road. When the cats wake up, they start on a long trek home. A street wise cat named Thomas O'Malley meets up with them and offers to help them. When Edgar sees them arriving home, he is furious, and starts to mail them to Timbucktu. But Thomas' friends arrive to help save the day. The wealthy lady decides to leave her home for every alley cat in Paris.

This is a charming film. The songs, including \"Everybody Wants to be a Cat\", are lively and upbeat. The voice cast is excellent, with Eva Gabor(who would later play Miss Bianca in Disney's THE RESCUERS films) as Duchess, Phil Harris(Baloo in THE JUNGLE BOOK, Little John in ROBIN HOOD) as Thomas, giving interesting personalities to their characters. Supposedly Walt Disney, before he died in 1966, gave the go-ahead to this film. Recommended for Disney fans or cat lovers everywhere! 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Plot in a nutshell - Duchess (voice of Eva Gabor) is the well polished single mother cat of three little kittens. When their owner, the wealthy elderly woman known as Madame Adelaide, realizes that her time is running out she decides to write up her will, leaving everything she has to her cats, which will then go to her butler Edgar when the cats pass on. Edgar overhears this and is deeply offended by the idea that the cats would get everything before him, and plots to destroy Duchess and her kittens; he drops sleeping pills in their supper one night and then leaves them stranded in the French countryside. Out of their element, Duchess and her kittens befriend a street smart stray cat known as Thomas O'Malley (voice of Phil Harris who did the voice of the big bear Balloo in the Jungle Book); after making a pass at Duchess, unaware that she is a single mother, O'Malley decides to escort them back home, with Duchess genuinely falling for O'Malley as the usual codependent surrogate family bond develops; chaos and mayhem ensues, culminating in a violent clash between O'Malley, his brother cats from the streets and Edgar. Also features appearances by British geese, American southern hound dogs (what they were doing in France is anyone's guess), a mouse who sounds a lot like the rabbit from \"Alice In Wonderland\" (he was in fact voiced by the same guy who voiced Winnie the Pooh) and a horse.

Sometimes slow paced but still enjoyable Disney venture. Features the memorable \"Everybody Wants To Be A Cat\" musical piece sung by the late Scatman Crothers (better known to 1980s fans as the voice of Jazz on Transformers). Of course, if this was being made now, it would probably be a dark social commentary on class division represented by the divide between well bred & well fed Duchess and the street born O'Malley.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oh my gosh!! I love this movie sooooooooooooooooooooo much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is so incredible......I loved it as a wee babe and still love it as an adult. It is my favorite Disney movie of allllllllllllllllllllllllllllll time! You should watch it, watch it and love it. My friends and I watch it a ton.....It is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo good. I recommend it to anyone who is a child or a child at heart. My favorite part is the song and dance number with all of the strays and Thomas O'Malley. The writers\/producers\/director completely nailed this one.....yeah, nailed it to the wall.

xoxo~Wolly~xoxo","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not a massive Disney fan, but my 7 year old son is starting to get into them, so we've built up quite a collection, and this is one of my favourites. We first saw this a couple of weeks ago and we must have see it half a dozen times since! OK, as others have pointed out, not the most complex or inventive of plots, but there's more to a film than that.

Great characters, Phil Harris stealing the show as Thomas O'Malley, but Edgar the butler not far behind. The music is superb - my disabled son always insists that I lift him up and dance with him to \"Everybody wants to be Cat\" this says it all. And \"Thomas O'Malley\" is just as enjoyable.

I'm not sure why some people have such a downer on this film other than a dislike of cats! And yes, it does take a few of its cues from \"101 Dalmations\", and maybe \"The Lady and the Tramp\" (It's been a long time since I've seen that, so I'm not going to compare them), and while \"101 Dalmations\" is better in some ways, for me \"The Aristocats\" is far more enjoyable. Isn't that what these films are about?

Apart from \"Peter Pan\" (now that is a 10\/10 film), this is my favourite Disney film. My 7 year-old son loves it, his grumpy 41 year old dad loves it, so you can't ask much more of a family film.

Superb!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Aristocats\" is classic Disney at it's best. It's not considered as the ultimate Disney classic along side the more well-known Disney-films, but it's a well-made and fun film that certainly deserves to be a Disney classic. \"Aristocats\" is certainly a sure kids-pleaser, cause it has all the components for a fun kids film. I'll liked it very much as a kid. I'm not sure if this film is a sure pleaser to the adults, who could watch Disney classics for the nostalgia sake, but I still enjoy this film as an young adult.

Storywise, \"Aristocats\" may not be so complex or innovative, but it doesn't matter. This film was made on that period where the filmmakers followed the motto that the characters were the story and wise versa, which \"Aristocats\" certainly shows. The characters make the film; they're all likable, fun, have great lines and have a great interaction with each other. The voice actors are also a part for making the characters so compelling (Eva Gabor as Duchess, Phil Harris as Thomas O'Malley and etc). A misconception could have been the dogs Napoleon and Lafayette, since they're showstoppers and haven't so much to do with the actual story, but fortunately they're fun and amusing characters and the scenes with them are pure gold.

\"Aristocats\" is both entertaining and cute, but it's also a very funny cartoon. The animation style and look fits perfectly for the film's French surroundings (especially the city of Paris looks greats). The character animation and design is great. And the songs are really catchy too. My favorite is \"Scale and Arpeggios\", but the title song is a cute song, along with \"Thomas O'Malley Cat\" and the memorable show-stopper \"Everybody Want's To Be A Cat\". And the score by George Burns is a perfect fit for the film funny and emotional situations.

Overall, \"Aristocats\" is in my opinion the best Disney cartoon from the 70's and it's a film that deserves to both be seen and remembered. So what you're waiting for? Do your self a favor and share this Disney classic with your kids. It deserves to be in their memories.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Aristocats is really quite charming, and is rated far too low on IMDb. The songs aren't as memorable as the ones in the Jungle Book, but they weren't bad at all. The animation is really lovely, the best sequence being the landscape of Paris in general. It looked beautiful. This is probably Disney's most relaxing animation I think, and as another reviewer quite rightly said, who doesn't love cats? Another great piece of animation was O' Malley looking into Duchess's eyes, as their romance was so believable while not obvious.(a good thing)The plot(about a greedy butler and a fortune, reminds me of Bailey's Billions) was a little unoriginal, but worked very well, and the script was really funny, especially the fights between the kittens. They remind me of me and my brother and 3 sisters, always fighting. My favourite scene was the chase of Edgar with the two dogs, who were always fighting about who was the leader. The voice talents were a delight, most notably Phil Harris, whom I recognised from the Jungle Book, and Eva Gabor, from the Rescuers. The supporting characters, namely Scat Cat, were also well done. In conclusion, a really pleasant film, that is definitely underrated. 8.5\/10 Bethany Cox","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Walt Disney's 20th animated feature was the last one to be greenlighted by the great man himself (he died in late 1966) and is not generally considered to be among their very best output. The main problem is that, on the surface, the film seems merely to be the feline version of either LADY AND THE TRAMP (1955) or 101 DALMATIONS (1961) both of which are certainly more beloved by fans Even so, being both an animation and cat lover, I dug this reasonably bouncy concoction in which a pampered female cat (voiced by Eva Gabor) and her three little kittens are thrown out onto the streets of Paris by a wealthy lady (Hermione Baddeley)'s greedy butler. Luckily, they meet a streetwise alley cat (Phil Harris) who guides them on the journey back and are further aided along the way by a feline jazz band (led by Scatman Crothers) and two helpful and amiably dopey dogs; meanwhile at home, Edgar the butler celebrates his supposed inheritance and the mouse and the horse do their bit to help their fellow feline pets. Legendary entertainer Maurice Chevalier was whisked back from retirement to sing the title song (which includes a verse in French) and Scatman's band indulge in a breezy number \"Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A group of cats look to find their way home after being kidnapped by a greedy butler.

The Aristocats is regarded as one of Walt Disney's finest 2D animations with its charming script and cool characters, but it doesn't quite have the magic that created Snow White or the Jungle Book.

The slow opening will have younger viewers raising their eyebrows but once the cats become established into the story does the fun and entertainment begin.

The young cats create the most enjoyment with a charming young hearted rivalry, the special kind of bonding any brother or sister of any age can associate with.

Not the funniest Disney picture out there but there are some great comic moments, especially involving the Cats and the Dogs. The representation of the gangster cats is very impressive and equally amusing.

The story, after the boring beginning, is consistently entertaining and exactly what a family film should be. There are hardly any lapses and no dull moments. The journey to find home is interesting and you get a sense of exploring, not to mention two very strange British swans.

With Disney, you always get a strong meaningful message. With the Jungle Book it is where you belong, with Beauty and the Beast you explore the importance of inner beauty. However with this 1970 picture there seems to be something missing. The film has the importance and relevance of home but is not cemented enough; it seems very far fetched and irrelevant.

My sister and I found it very strange watching this as some of the central characters were voiced by the Jungle Book cast.

Despite the bad beginning and the confusion of its preaching message, this is a consistently fun family film with a good music score and some cool crazy characters that viewers of any age can relate to.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When \"Madame\" decides to let her cats inherit her it spells trouble. The snobbish Butler Edgar who is next in line to inherit decides to get rid of the cats. Thereby the story can begin and the cats can go on an adventure that would otherwise have been impossible. An adventure that lets them meet the charming, but not altogether trustworthy cat O'Malley. He helps them through many dangerous and funny situations until the inevitable happy end.

The force of this movie is in its humor and music. Edgar is simply hilarious as the insulted butler who is out to settle the score and of course he himself takes some serious beatings. One of the best scene contains him being chased by the two dogs Lafayette and Napoleon. The score is great and like in \"the Jungle Book\" you have scenes that is almost \"musical\" in the sense that the story doesn't progress and the focus is to let the protagonists express themselves via dance. And of course we like, that the score is quite Jazzy.

And of course it's not only me but also my children who love this one.

Regards Simon","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Duchess and her three kittens are enjoying the high life with their devoted human mistress until the wicked butler Edgar, with his eyes on a big inheritance, decides to dope them and get them out of the picture. How can these fragile creatures cope in the unfamiliar countryside and the meaner streets of Paris? Only by meeting the irrepressible alley cat O'Malley, a rough diamond with romance in his heart. After they get a taste of the wide dangerous world, he guides them home, and Edgar gets his just desserts at the wrong end of a horse. As always, it's really the voices rather than the animation that are the heart of the Disney magic: Phil Harris is brilliant as O'Malley, Eva Gabor as Duchess is... well... Eva Gabor; but perhaps the most memorable turns are by Pat Buttram and George Lindsay, who turn the old hounds Napoleon and Lafayette into a couple of bumbling Southern-fried rednecks. Their scenes with Edgar, and the musical numbers with Scat Cat and his cool-dude band, are classic. Most striking about seeing The Aristocats now is how deeply Disney's style of animation has changed since this was at the cutting edge in 1970. Perhaps the nostalgic, dated feel are just a result of being plonked down in Belle Epoque Paris, but the illustrations are fussier (a pity) and the animation and overall pace much less frenetic (sometimes a relief) than in more recent efforts such as Aladdin.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing The Aristocats: Special Edition in a two pack with The Fox in the Hound, I decided to buy it since both of these films were childhood favourites.

The Aristocats is a classic, definitely. It might not be a five-star classic, but it is a fun film and makes a good evening's entertainment. It is somewhat a light refreshment from the darker, more serious Disney classics. The Aristocats tries to be a light-hearted musical comedy, and I think it just about succeeds.

The storyline doesn't really make much sense and I don't think the plot is particularly strong, but it is certainly not weak. The animation and backgrounds are a bit scratchy in places, typical of Disney's 70s films, but it does have a rustic, old fashioned charm about it.

The Aristocats strongest points are the characters, the music and the humour. The music is very memorable - try getting 'Everybody Wants To Be A Cat' out your head in a hurry! The songs are written by the Sherman Brothers, who also did the music for The Jungle Book. There was one song called 'She Never Felt Alone' that was going to be in the film, but sadly didn't make it into the final feature. It is a shame, because I think it would have fit in very well.

The characters are unforgettable. Thomas O'Malley is voiced by Phil Harris, and is basically Baloo in a feline form. Eva Gabor gives Duchess this warm and maternal feel and the kitten's voices actually sound like children, and not an actor imitating the voice of a child. The secondary characters are here by the dozen and yet you still end up understanding their personalities. Edgar, the 'villainous' butler plays a similar role to Cruella De Vil, but he's more comical than scary, often ending up in funny situations. Even though he's the bad guy, he's still lovable all the same.

The two British geese - Abigail and Amelia really had me cracking up, along with their crazy (and drunk) uncle. I also like the dogs, who tend to argue over who is 'the leader.' I could go on, but I won't spoil it. But I can tell you, The Aristocats is funny and will entertain everyone without having to resort to rudimentary toilet humour.

The bottom line - The Aristocats might not be Disney's crowning achievement, or even their strongest film from the 70s (that award is a tie between The Rescuers and The Many Adventures of Whinnie the Pooh). But it is an enjoyable romp and is sure to entertain. If you are looking for a dazzling work of art, you might be better off watching Bambi. But if you want a fun night in, The Aristocats is the way to go. It is a charming and lovable film and it's impossible to dislike. Enjoy! (And besides, it's good to have a film where cats aren't seen as the villains).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Following the release of 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937),' Walt Disney Productions has continued to produce quality animated feature-length children's film, many of which I still haven't had the pleasure of seeing. 'The AristoCats (1970),' directed by Wolfgang Reitherman, was the twentieth film in Disney's official canon, and is a romantic musical comedy revolving around a family of aristocratic cats living in Paris, France in 1910. In the mansion of the elderly Madame Adelaide Bonfamille (voiced by Hermione Baddeley), her loving feline pets \u0096 including Duchess (Eva Gabor) and her three young kittens \u0096 are the most important residents. When the bumbling butler, Edgar (Roddy Maude-Roxby), learns that the cats stand to inherit the old lady's entire fortune, he sets about disposing of the pets, dumping them in the countryside far from the big city. Lost and confused, Duchess and her children strike up an acquaintance with a sweet-talking alley cat, Thomas O'Malley (Phil Harris), who agrees to show them the way home.

Animation-wise, 'The AristoCats' isn't anything particularly notable, with much earlier Disney films such as 'Snow White\u0085' and 'Fantasia (1940),' demonstrating a similar, or even superior, visual style. However, the story is interesting and exciting \u0096 particularly for younger audiences, I'll wager \u0096 and the musical numbers {which I wish were more numerous} are terrific. For the sake of trivia, I'll name my two favourite songs as \"Thomas O'Malley Cat\" and \"Ev'rybody Wants to Be a Cat,\" the latter of which is a psychedelic throwback to the late 60s, with a swinging jazz band and delirious flashing colours, led by a trendy feline called the Scat Cat (Scatman Crothers). The family's journey back to Paris is eventful and adventurous, and we meet such friendly characters as Amelia and Abigail Gabble {two talkative geese}, Uncle Waldo {the pair's drunken relative}, Georges Hautecourt {Madam Bonfamille's ancient but sprightly lawyer} and Napoleon and Lafayette {two dim-witted hound dogs with a hunger for the butler's rump}.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this movie only once, several years ago. But I remember liking it a lot.

**Spoilers ahead** An old famous opera singer is retired and she decides to give all the money she has to her cats. Her butler hears this and plots to get rid of the cats so he can have the fortune. He puts knockout drops in their milk. When they wake up, they find themselves miles away. They must journey back to their house before it is too late. With the help of an independent-minded tomcat and other animal accomplices, while evading the butler and foiling his plan.

Could have been better, but it also could have been a lot worse.

My Score: 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favorite films, ever. The story is just so fantastic and the characters are so good. Unlike the other Disney films of the age, this film never bores the audience. 101 Dalmations, Peter Pan, Robin Hood, they were all good, but lack what we have here. This is funny, creative, and always on target. This movie just has an extra something that you can't learn in books. However, this is not the best animated film ever made. That title belongs to the BRILLIANT Toy Story. But this is a respectable second, immediately followed by The Lady and the Tramp.Just see it and enjoy what one of the cinema's greatest achievements. And by the by, I'm not a little kid, this is for the older audiences wanting to recapture their childhood. An absolute must!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was about 14 years old as I saw the musical version of Lost Horizon. I loved the film so much as well as the songs that I went several times to the cinema to see it again and again. My mother bought the LP and I learnt the songs off by heart, just as I did with \"The sound of Music\" (which people hardly know in Austria). I think the problem with some of these self-appointed critics who's comments get published is that they don't have a romantic soul and didn't see the film through the eyes of a young teenager. Maybe he is an Ingrid Bergman fan but I was happy with Liv Ullman. Could Ingrid Bergman sing and dance? What was so great about her? Perhaps the critic did n't appreciate it because he needed new glasses or contact lenses since he sees a close resemblance between Liv Ullman and Bill Clinton. It was the idea and story behind the film, the philosophy, which was the most important and interesting factor and a musical in colour just made it more entertaining and enjoyable without damaging the intellectually appealing aspects. It's a shame that many other films with so called great actors and actresses with unimportant themes \/ stories are utterly boring in comparison.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 1973 musical version of LOST HORIZON is the most wonderful endearing and campy musical films of ALL TIME. The 1973 musical remake of the James Hilton novel about mythical SHANGRI-LA! is a real special gem. Music by BURT BACHARACH and lyrics by HAL David. A strange mixture of straight drama, adventure and musical sequences. It has the distinction of being the ONLY anti war musical fantasy ever filmed.

This film was a critical and financial disappointment in the United States, but made a lot of money overseas. Only in America did it fail. Highly different and unique in it's approach as a film musical, it deserves far better credit than it's given. As a story, LOST HORIZON is an incredible adventure and both the 1937 Frank Capra film and this 1973 musical are faithful adaptations of the James Hilton novel. What I like about the 1973 version is the freedom in which the musical numbers are presented. The film has a prestigious cast and a gifted director and cinematographer. This is a BURT BACHARACH Shangri-La and it's a wonderful place. Songs like THE WORLD IS A CIRCLE, SHARE THE JOY and LIVING TOGETHER, GROWING TOGETHER evoke a happiness that Hilton wrote about in his novel. Why shouldn't Shangri-La be a slightly goofy place? The two love songs, I MIGHT FRIGHTEN HER AWAY and the deleted I COME TO YOU are the sensitive spots in the picture. There's a peacefulness and soft spoken quality in both these songs that is very much keeping with the philosophy of the story. Moreover, THE THINGS I WILL NOT MISS is a good duet with a strong melody. It's a nice exchange of different types of perspective and who can fault with Olivia Hussey and Sally Kellerman stomping, singing and dancing on tables? They're a wonderful team and the number is well staged.

I always found it interesting in this story how the High Lama kidnaps someone from the outside world to take his place in Shangri-La. The character of the High Lama is a gentle soul but somewhat radical in his view of mankind as a whole. He has no hope for the world outside of Shangri-La. If this film were to be remade today, it would be interesting to see more emphasis put on the leading character, RICHARD ONWAY'S conflict with what he left behind in the outside world as opposed to what he's found in Shangri-La.

Of course, for the film to be believable, the character of RICHARD CONWAY must be presented as suffering amnesia at the end, like he was in the book. Neither film versions of LOST HORIZON were faithful to the novel in that regard. Did Conway find Shangri-La or was it imagined? Did they all die in the plane crash? Every man has his own idea of what his Shangri-La would be. The conflict with Conway wanting to believe in Shangri-La and returning to his old life in the outside world is powerful. I like the melancholy on the faces of Kellerman, Kennedy and Van as they watch their friends leave the mystical valley. Interesting how Conway doesn't want to leave paradise, but is being pressured out by his brother. Both versions of LOST HORIZON work in different ways, but both are successful in probing James Hiltons ideas of a hidden valley where money has no value and moderation is the rule. So in a sense it's anti capitalism in it's theme where as money and materialism is not the motivation. Human kindness, decency, compassion, courtesy, etiquette and living harmoniously with each other is the rule.

LOST HORIZON has a much stronger story than most musicals. It attempts to answer the basic fundamental questions of life and one can hardly fault it for not succeeding. One has to remember that LOST HORIZON in 1973 was post CABARET. It was no longer fashionable for characters to break out in song in a musical, much less to be dubbed by other singers. LOST HORIZON was an easy target for jaded critics. The expectations for it were high, almost unreasonable. There were two targets to be hit, the producer, ROSS HUNTER and BURT BACHARACH and the critics were out to get both of them. Ross Hunter had enjoyed decades of financial success as a producer and LOST HORIZON was his follow up film to his 1970 blockbuster AIRPORT That film was Universals biggest moneymaker up to that time and the success of that picture triggered a decade of disaster films. For years AIRPORT was the most watched film ever to be shown on television. It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards including Best Picture. At the time, Burt Bacharach and Hal David were the most successful songwriters in the country. The unabashed sentimentality of LOST HORIZON hardly had a chance in the wake of the breakdown of censorship in films like EASY RIDER, MIDNIGHT COWBOY and THE GODFATHER. Sex and violence was a new frontier in the late 60's and early 70's Audiences were flocking to films with content that they were not use to seeing on the screen. Lavish musicals were no longer well received no matter how well they were made. Today LOST HORIZON can be enjoyed and appreciated on several levels. It's the ultimate escapist film with a strong story, wonderful music, an expensive budget and some quirky humor. It's unconventional in the sense that the music is not introduced until 45 minutes into the film. It changes course mid way when the mystical valley is introduced and why not? LOST HORIZON '73 is a heavenly film that deserves rediscovering. A lost and legendary treasure deserving far better than it's reputation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to offset all the terrible comments. I love this movie. I own the movie and the soundtrack. I watch it whenever I need a pick me up. Granted it's not like the Sound of Music but it's as much fun if picking at movies is not your thing. I adored the late (and great) Bobby Vann, and James Shigeta has always and will always be a favorite. I saw this when it first came out in the theaters. I'm a big musical fan and this one is 100 times better than Twiggy in \"The Boyfriend\". It's a modern musical and shouldn't be judged by all that went before. It's just the best for dreamers like me, who wish they could find this place - no illness, no wars, no drugs, all the bad things in life are gone. This is nothing more than a feel good movie. That is what all movies should be about. Shaun Phillips title song is superb and explains the entire feel of the movie. If the acting isn't the greatest-who cares. I love the idea of the movie. Peter Finch, a very stiff actor, Liv Ullmann, gorgeous as ever, Sally Kellerman, surprisingly good voice, Michael York, typical, and Olivia Hussey, stunning, all convinced me they were normal run of the mill people. Not one of them acted like actors in a movie. They acted like real people, the same way I would act if I found this place. Torn between going home and staying there, in awe of everything. Yes, there are flaws in this movie, but get over it, it's not Citizen Kane, it's a feel good musical!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently purchased Lost Horizon on ebay, having vivid memories of the Things I Will Not Miss number from childhood (I am an ancient 29). I also recently finished the novel upon which it is based. I was so pleasantly surprised to find a genuine hidden treasure. A wonderful cast brings such warmth and depth to a beautifully simple and elegantly told story, subtly updated from the original film (and by now quite a separate entity to the far more intellectual and thought provoking book by James Hilton). Sally Kellerman in particular has a radiant presence as the suicidal neurotic Sally Hughes, who gradually warms to the charms of Shangri-La. Only Liv Ullmann flounders in her wooden portrayal of the schoolteacher (a role far more suited to a Julie Andrews type. The fact that Finch, Ullmann and Hussey are all dubbed isn't important as it is almost impossible to tell. The songs DO vary in quality, the music being far superior to the lyrics but it is still a vibrant and engrossing film that really deserves a proper DVD release and a lot more recognition.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is excellent. Acting, cinematography, direction and music are spellbinding. It seems to me that the reason so many give the movie a low score is because of the devotion they have to the original, 1937 version starring Ronald Coleman. That movie - for good reason! - engendered an unbelievable level of commitment. From talking with people who saw the original when it first came out, I believe the impact was something akin to the first \"Starwars\" movie in modern times. I have seen it. It was and is wonderful. But that does not mean that this version is not also worthy. From the first scene the 1973 version grabs you. The noise and tumult are fantastic, especially in they way they prepare you for the peace of Shangri La. And Burt Bacharach's music is beautiful. So - by all means enjoy the 1937 version. But do not let it detract from your enjoyment of this 1973 version any more than you would let the 1935 King Kong destroy Peter Jackson's of this year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen the 1973 movie Lost Horizons and read many of the reviews for this movie. I agree the move had many opportunities for improvement but unlike all those who are looking for the perfect movie with the perfect songs and the best acting, I was looking for something a bit different and this movie gave it to me. I watched this movie not as a critic but as a person looking for a little hope, a little cheer, a bit of a release from my everyday life, and this is what I got. You can be critical of the acting the singing, and dialog but that't not what I look for when I go to a movie. I look for a little release from my daily life, a little time where I can sit back and imagine a better life, where people love another and help another. It's a shame we can't we enjoy a movie for what it tells us and quit picking it apart like an English teacher reading a fifth grade essay. This may be very simplistic, but really, wouldn't it be nice.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why take a perfectly good original drama, based on a perfectly good novel, and remake it as a quasi-musical? And cast it with actors exclusively lacking in singing or dancing talent? Somewhat akin to \"Showgirls\" or the two most recent \"Star Wars\" films, \"Lost Horizon\" is full of unintentional laughs. Who can forget Sir John Gielgud smiling uneasily in his Dali Lhama outfit, overseeing an interpretive dance to the Republican party (\"Family\")?

Or Sally Kellerman warbling lovingly to George Kennedy, doing her best Cher impression as she hops from one rock to another (\"Every Little Thing You Do\")? And my favourite, Bobby Van embodying the strength of America's education system (\"Question Me An Answer\")? I can't wait for the DVD release, as hopefully it will contain comments by Liv Ullmann, who will finally explain what she was thinking when she agreed to do this film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like a few people I know, I came in late on 'Stingers'; not until 2000. Three years later there is no way I'd miss an episode. The show really is that good and has, for a better word, maintained its integrity, unlike 'Blue Heelers', for example. The crime is the thing; personal lives are there but only wheeled out when affecting an investigation! When Gary Sweet was brought in, some fans seemed worried, but he's really fitted in well, which didn't surprise me. Gary could measure up to any British or US actor in a similar series. The cast changes occasionally but each change brings something new and fresh. With arguably Australia's finest crew behind the scenes, 'Stingers' will continue to remain a cutting edge drama series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like some people here, I love\/loved Stingers! In Norway it got aired a lot later. That also means that we are in the 176th episode. (yea, that's right) I have to say that I really love Stingers! It can make me cry, laugh, smile and so on. I think I'm going to die the day we reach episode number 192. Stingers might be the on series(except from Grey's Anatomy) that I really watch! The actors are amazing! Especially Jacinta Stapleton! Personallly I think she is one of the best access we have! I know he is not like SUPER-known, but she is really a great actress! Stingers makes me want to be a cop! I LOVE IT!

P.S: Do you know if you can buy the episodes?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"TV churns out dozens of true-crime movies every year. You can see 3 or 4 every Saturday on Lifetime, and Court TV can be relied on for a few every weekend. So I started watching The Morrison Murders thinking I knew very well what to expect: a more or less competent retelling of a real-life family murder. What I got was a subtle, beautifully acted drama that engrossed me from start to finish.

Both the brothers were totally convincing, and Jonathan Scarfe was perfect in the challenging role of Luke. The look and feel of Georgia was in almost every frame. If I had any complaint, it was Gordon Clapp as the sheriff. He just doesn't look or act like a small-town Southern lawman named Byron Calhoun. He looks and sounds like Medavoy, and Medavoy is not right for this part.

But this is a minor quibble: The Morrison Murders is well worth watching, and not just on a rainy Saturday afternoon. If you're going out, tape it. You won't regret it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't usually like this sort of movie but was working at home and wanted something to halfway watch while I did. I got so engrossed I gave up working to just sit and finish watching the last half hour uninterrupted. And I sure don't usually shed tears over this sort of show, but I was crying at the end. A lot of emotional nuance. Great acting, and good southern feel. John Corbett is one of the most talented actors out there, and the guy who played Luke was really good too. Highly recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought the movie was good, but I like to read the real story behind the \"based on a true story\" movies. Does anyone know the names and locations of the real characters the movie is based on? I have done a complete internet search and cannot find any information on this case. All I get is the movie information and the fact that it is based on a \"true story.\" I find it hard to believe that a judge would change his sentence rendered immediately in the courtroom, even after such a heartfelt speech by the brother (gorgeous John Corbett), but overall the story was very gripping. Anyway, if anyone knows the real \"real story\", I would appreciate you sharing it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this on local Mexican television at 2:00 a.m. and I decided to give it a chance since it's based on a real life case that deals with the murder of the typical All American family (a dad, a mom, and a young son).

On the beginning the hints point to Walker to be the murderer as he had strong differences with his father. Shortly after, when Walker and Luke are taken to the Sheriff's dept. to being examined by the lies detection machine, things turn out to be very different...

Also, when Walker and Luke attend to an appointment with their father's lawyer, they learn that Luke would receive $200,000 and Walker is out of the heresy. Luke immediately buys a convertible.

Anyways, this is an excellent mystery movie that deals with betrayal, ambition, feelings, and cold , very cold blood.

I know the real names were changed but still the experience is the same. Give this movie a try. I know there are HUNDREDS of \"based on real murders\" or events of the like, but this one is truly worthy. Pure quality on acting, direction, and plot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I taped The Morrison Murders on Lifetime Movie network and I watched The Morrison Murders on Lifetime, Lifetime Movie network and on Courttv. Jonathan Scarfe and John Corbett did a great job of playing Luke and Walker Morrison. I am glad that Walker got his brother Luke to confess of murdering his parents and their brother Bobby. I enjoy watching True stories on Lifetime, Lifetime Movie network and on Courttv. The Morrison Murders is a good movie to watch. Next time The Morrison Murders is on Lifetime, Lifetime Movienetwork or Courttv I am going to watch The Morrrison Murders again because My favorite actor John Corbbett is in The Morrison Murders. I give The Morrison Murders a ten because it is a good movie about Walker who tries to find out who killed his parents and his brother Bobby and at the end Walker discovers it was his brother Luke who murdered his parents and his brother Bobby.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As an ex Merchant Seaman I was really interested in this movie : I personally have been involved in a stowaway search on leaving Kingston Jamaica where one person was found. We managed to get him ashore though as we were in territorial limits. On another ship I was on the stowaway was found and we could not land him anywhere due to passport\/nationality issues. In fact he stayed on for a year as an almost \"honorary\" crew member and worked for his keep. Africa is notorious for stowaway pickups. There is a great scene in the beginning of the film when the bulk carrier enters the African port : her size dwarfing all. The crew pop ashore for a little intercourse and inebriation. So far normal. The drama starts when the stowaways enter the vast cavernous holds of the ship. Joss Ackland is brilliant as the Captain with a drink problem being harassed by his Nemesis Suchet right on form as the Companys representative on board. The stowaway search is classic but we did not have guns. I question the use of guns in this film. This ship seemed to have a vast armoury. In my experience guns at sea are severely restricted due to customs regulations., also having a dog on board was odd.Anti Rabies laws especially in Europe restrict carrying of animal severely. Anyway Pertwee is brilliant as the embittered Mate. The horror which follows the discovery of the victims is unbearable : the grim metallic background of the ships holds and a feeling that there is no where to hide adds to the drama.Some of the freighters crew are not into the murder and those who get involved are gradually sucked in to a world of violence from which there is no escape.The chase through the ship especially the engine room scenes are \"edge on the seat\" : the feeling of extreme claustrophobia abounds. The feeling of metal pressing in and death being only a gun barrel away. The film is brutal : my girlfriend had to give up watching it during the shooting and beating scenes. While this goes on Suchet in the comfort of his well appointed cabin gets drunk unaware of the mayhem 3 decks below. Its a tense film, flawed in parts but the real message is that we can all get sucked into violence like this. Slowly and surely. Think of the train drivers who took Jews to Auschwitz, the clerks who worked out those train timetable. I always remember someone who had visited Dachau concentration camp at the end of the war and he said that one of the S.S. Guards had put a bird-table outside the camp crematorium. This film is like that : ordinary people suddenly finding themselves in a world of unstoppable violence!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you are interested in learning more about this sort of thing happening in modern civilization, there is an excellent book called \"Outlaw Seas\" or \"The Outlaw Sea\", and it describes, in story after story, how these things do happen. The lawlessness of the high seas is a reality for a number of reasons. One, many of the world's freighters are of questionable registry (nationality) and it's difficult to impossible to enforce international laws when the ships owners don't have an office in a real country. Two, many ship lines employ crews from dirt poor third world countries. The crews are often (like illegal immigrant workers) threatened and bullied into complying with questionable or illegal practices. Three, there is often a language barrier, not only between the officers and the crew, but also between the crew members themselves. The crew are rewarded for their compliance and their silence. Four, once committing an illegal act, the ships are able to hide in plain sight with little more than a fresh coat of paint. Anyway, it's fascinating reading.

Horrifying story, excellent movie. Does anyone else notice how HBO seems to make the best and most important movies? Hollywood has trouble releasing enough Oscar worthy movies in any given year, so that several of the top 5 contenders usually come from Britain. Jerry Bruckheimer = the end of quality cinema.

I loved the thoroughly evil performance by Sean Pertwee. I also, as usual, loved Omar Epps.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This searing drama based on a true incident concerns several ambitious African nationals who decide to temporarily leave their families by stowing away on an outbound ship. They think that if they successfully make the voyage they can better their lives by making enough money in New York to send for their families. Unfortunately for them, the ship that they select is a rundown Russian freighter which has already been heavily fined at a previous port for harboring stowaways. The captain and the first mate are determined not to let this happen again as their jobs are on the line. The group of blacks begin their harrowing voyage in the cargo hold and are eventually discovered, forced out of hiding and murdered by the ruthless mate (an outstanding performance by Sean Pertwee.) A few (convincingly terrified leader Omar Epps among them) manage to temporarily escape and are mercilessly pursued through the ship with their lives forfeit if they are caught. Altogether a riveting film which will have audiences biting their nails and gritting their teeth wondering how such dire events could take place in modern civilization.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely hate the idea of made for television films . For me TVMs usually involve Jane Seymour or Jaclyn Smith as the mother of a sick child who is dying of a difficult to treat disease all done in such a sugary manner that the audience doesn`t need tissues it needs insulin . So when DEADLY VOYAGE a made for TV film by the BBC and HBO based on a true story I vaguely remembered from a couple of years previously turned up on the TV schedules I sat down waiting to be bored senseless . I was surprised.

No strike that last sentence , I wasn`t surprised I was shocked . Here is a TVM that grips you tighter than a great white shark , in fact DEADLY VOYAGE doesn`t deserve to be relegated to the TV schedules it should have been made and distributed by a top Hollywood film company due its absolutely terrifying premise and what`s more it`s - unlike PAPILLON and SLEEPERS - completely true

For those who don`t know the story !!!!! POSSIBLE SPOILERS AS TO PLOT !!!!! sometime in the early 90s a bunch of Africans stowed away on an Ukrainian freight ship bound for France in order to work there. Of course it was an attempt at illegal immigration but the crew of the freighter had already been fined for allowing illegal immigrants onto their ship from a previous journey and not wanting to get into anymore trouble with maritime and immigration authorities the crew murder the Africans after discovering them hiding in the hold. All except one African , Kingsley Ofusu , who manages to escape from the firing squad but who must try and survive aboard the ship , but the problem is the crew are hunting him and France is still several days voyage away .

Just typing the above paragraph reminds of how good DEADLY VOYAGE is . What a remarkable story , and once again it is - unlike many stories that claim to be - totally true . It`s very well written , directed and acted , especially by Sean Pertwee ( Why isn`t that guy a big name star ? ) , and most of all it`s a tense claustrophobic disturbing thriller that I can still remember vividly six years after seeing it for the one and only time . I look forward to seeing again .

But you`ve got to ask yourself how can a TVM be better than most of the Hollywood action blockbusters that came out round about the same time ? Oh hold on , I`ve just had a disturbing thought about Jerry Bruickhiemer doing a remake with Tony Scott directing and with Denzil Washington playing Kingsley , Brad Pitt playing Pertwee`s role , massive artistic licence taken with events etc. Let`s keep DEADLY VOYAGE a superlative TVM rather than a poor blockbuster","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was watching an NFL game and started surfing during a break and found this on one of the HBO type channels. I missed the beginning but when I started watching Deadly Voyage the clicker was put down and not even thought of until the credits rolled. You will find yourself rooting against the villans and on the edge of your La-Z-Boy throughout this one. If you get the chance take the time to watch it. Every once in a while I think about having the cable company take off my Movie channels but when you stumble across great ones like this you know why it is worth paying extra for them. Happy Holidays to all from Cape Cod !!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Several stowaways get on a Russian ship bound for France. They were going to get off there and make new lives for themselves. After being discovered by the First Mate and his henchmen, they were held captive. Then things got very bad for them. Good show based on a true story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cannot understand why so many people did not like this film. Robert De Niro was on top of his game, delivering his lines with such aplomb, one has to believe this is his everyday demeanor. Granted, the film seemed to take on many buddy-film conventions while trying to make fun of the concept, it goes without saying this film was genuinely funny. From the police dog, to the fact Eddie Murphy didn't annoy the heck out of me, this film is a real keeper. Rene Russo also evened out the rest of the cast perfectly, establishing her role so it does not interfere with the budding relationship between De Niro and Murphy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't care what some of the reviews said, this movie was funny. The thing with this film is that you can't expect anything else except to be entertained. This is not some intellectual comedy, this is a clever popcorn movie. The three main cast members are great and work very well with each other. Shatner is a standout in the supporting cast as himself, a former TV cop, brought in by Russo's character to coach the cops on how to be \"TV cops.\" Those are by far the funniest scenes. If you want to be entertained and just sit back for a laugh, then watch this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went to see this movie not expecting much, but was pleasantly surprised by the teaming of Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy. It was a fast paced movie and the hour and a half went by fast. This one certainly won't win any Academy Awards but it was a change of pace for Mr. De Niro. He is good in comedy. Overall I enjoyed it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a funny movie. The Bob & Eddie Show feel of it could lead to a sequel but I doubt it will make enough money.

Deniro proves he can be a great Straight man again with some hilarious and spontaneous moments. Eddie was fun to watch working with people instead of CGI animals and rodents. Rene Russo- well she's just fun to watch anyway and she's played her part excellent.

Some wild and unusual stunts, especially the garbage truck scene. This was worth seeing in the theater. We needed a good laugh and got many from the movie and the great out-takes at the end. DO NOT LEAVE at the start of the credits!

At least a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you've seen the trailer for this movie, you pretty much know what to expect, because what you see here is what you get. And even if you haven't seen the previews, it won't take you long to pick up on what you're in for-- specifically, a good time and plenty of laughs-- from this clever satire of `Reality TV' shows and `Buddy Cop' movies, `Showtime,' directed by Tom Dey, starring Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy.

\tMitch Preston (De Niro) is a detective with the L.A.P.D., and he's good at what he does; but working a case one night, things suddenly go south when another cop, Trey Sellars (Murphy), inadvertently intervenes, a television news crew shows up and Mitch loses his cool, which results in a lawsuit by the television station that's going to cost the department some big bucks. Except that they may be able to get around it, thanks to Chase Renzi (Rene Russo), who works for the station and likes what she sees in Mitch-- enough to pitch an idea to her boss for a `Reality' cop show, that would feature none other than Mitch Preston, whom Chase sees as a real life `Dirty Harry.'

\tHer boss likes the idea and gives Chase the green light. Now all she has to do is convince Mitch to participate, which shouldn't be too hard, since the station has agreed to drop the lawsuit if he will do the show. But Mitch is a cop, not an actor, and he wants nothing to do with any of it-- that is until he has a heart-to-heart with his boss, Captain Winship (Frankie Faison), who puts Mitch's future into succinct perspective for him. And just like that, the show is on. Oh, yes, there's one more thing; for the show, Mitch is going to need a partner. And who do you suppose they're going to come up with for that? Let's put it this way: Trey Sellars is more than one of the usual suspects.

\tThis is Dey's second film as a director, his first being `Shanghai Noon,'-- also a comedy-- and he's definitely showing a penchant for the genre. From the opening frames he establishes a pace that keeps the story moving right along, and he allows his stars to make the most of their respective talents and personal strengths, including their impeccable timing. With stars like De Niro and Murphy, Dey, of course, had a leg up on this project to begin with, but he's the one who keeps it on track, demonstrating that he knows what works, achieving just the right blend of physical comedy and action, and employing the subtleties of the dialogue to great effect.

\tThere isn't a more natural actor in the business than De Niro, and he steps into Mitch's skin like he was born to it. And after years of doing hard-edge, cutting drama (in which he turned in one remarkable performance after another), with such films as `Analyze This,' `Meet the Parents' and now this one, he has firmly established his proficiency for doing comedy, as well. Mitch is not an especially complex character; he is, in fact, something of an `ordinary' guy, but therein lies the challenge for the actor-- to make him believable, to make him seem like the guy who could be your neighbor and just another member of the community. And on all counts, De Niro succeeds. He's Mitch, the guy you run into at the grocery store or the bank, or say `good morning' to on your way to work; who likes to watch the game on TV and has a life, just like you and me, who happens to make his living by being a cop. It's the character Mitch has to be to make this film work, because it makes the `ordinary guy in extraordinary circumstances' angle credible. It's one of those role-- and work-- that is often wrongly dismissed out-of-hand, because it looks so easy; and, of course, this is what makes De Niro so exceptional-- he does make it look easy, and he does it with facility.

\tAs Trey Sellars, Eddie Murphy turns in a winning performance, as well, and it's a role that fits him like the proverbial glove. Trey is a cop, but also an aspiring actor-- and a bad one-- and it gives Murphy the opportunity to play on the over-exuberant side of his personality (reigned in enough by Dey, however, to keep him from soaring over-the-top into Jim Carrey territory), which works perfectly for this character and this film. From his melodramatic take on a part during an audition, to his throwing out of one-liners-- delivered by looking directly into the camera (which as far as he's concerned isn't even there) while filming the `reality' show-- Murphy's a riot. And he has a chemistry with De Niro that really clicks (which is not unexpected, as this is another of De Niro's many talents; his ability to connect with and bring out the best in his co-stars, all of whom-- evidence will support-- are better at their craft after having worked with him, including the likes of Meryl Streep, Christopher Walken and Ed Harris, just to name a few). Most importantly, this is a part that allows Murphy to excel at what he does best, and he certainly makes the most of it.

\tRusso makes the most of her role as Chase, too, a character who isn't much of a stretch artistically, but whom she presents delightfully, with a strong, believable performance. And William Shatner (playing himself) absolutely steals a couple of scenes as the director of the show.

\tThe supporting cast includes Drena De Niro (Annie), Pedro Damian (Vargas) and James Roday (Camera Man). Well crafted and delivered, `Showtime' is a comedy that's exactly what it is meant to be: Pure entertainment that provides plenty of laughs and a pleasant couple of hours that will have you chuckling for some time after. It's the magic of the movies. 8\/10.





","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's exactly what I expected from it. Relaxing, humorous and entertaining. The acting couple was awesome, as well as the scene selection. I personally recommend this. It's kind of the movie that can be seen by whole family at the same time without anyone feeling uncomfortable or getting bored. This cute movie will make you smile, and laugh too. And the action scenes are tasty. Classics of modern american comedy. And very well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've read a lot of reviews about Showtime on IMDb and many seem to miss the mark. I've noticed a lot of reviewers calling this the typical \"buddy\" film. De Niro is in no way Murphy's buddy throughout most of this movie. In fact, part of the comedy of this film is De Niro's reluctance to be friends with anybody.

Murphy really shines in this one. He is back at doing what he does best, acting like a complete ham. He is a cop who wants so much to be an actor and enjoys being in the reality show. De Niro is perfect as the straight man who thinks the entire thing is stupid. I thought the two of them had great chemistry and were a perfect casting choice. Rene Russo is also great as the TV producer. Of course, she loves everything Murphy does and tries so hard (along with Murhpy) to get DeNiro going too.

A lot of reviewers have touched on the hilarious scene with William Shatner, reprising his role as TJ Hooker to train Murhpy & De Niro how to \"act\" like cops. But, my favorite scene involves Murphy in the \"confessional\" hoping he could get a Wesly Snipes-Like cop to team up with instead of De Niro. Man, that was hilarious! Comedies often depend on your personal tastes. Sure you could poke holes in the plot, most often you can with a comedy. I was psyched to see the pairing of Murphy and De Niro...I think it brought out the best in Murphy, which was nice to see him at the top of his game again. I can only imagine it was a great honor for Murphy to be paired with the great De Niro. Rating 8 of 10 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite of all the negative criticism I really enjoyed this movie. I am not saying this lightly. I love movies and am fairly picky about them (my home DVD collection is over 9,000 movies - some are great, others are OK, a few I do not like at all). And, to all those with criticisms: this is a comedy. I simply love this movie. It is light, funny, and very restful. I am aware of all (or most) of the deficiencies but I love it. The comedic talents of Eddie Murphy and Robert DeNiro are tapped (fully - for this type of movie). Do not compare it to other movies with these star actors, simply enjoy it. The cast is great and, I believe, that the purpose of this movie was fully accomplished. If you want a really \"easy-going\" and very restful night - watch this movie. DeNiro and Murphy simply had fun making this movie, so should we (watching it). And, please, do not be so negative. Do not expect Godfather performance or Meet The Parents from DeNiro, do not expect comedy blockbusters performance from Murphy... It is a completely different genre, and it made me relax after a hard day work. Your sides may not split from laughter, but it is still VERY funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Contains Spoiler The movie is a good action\/comedy but i don't know if the director cut too many parts but it seems that the bad guy die too fast. The end of the movie come, the bad guy dies and that's it.

The special effects are good and i don't regret paying to see it at the theatre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At one time `Buddy Cop' movies ruled the box office. It seemed that every summer flocks of Beverly Hills Cop wannabes descended on our nation's theaters. Not any more. Lately the gusher has dried to barely a trickle. The drought has eased a bit recently with the release of Showtime, a movie that is a genuinely funny and consistently entertaining example of the genre.

Mitch Preston is a dedicated cop. He's not a Dirty Harry type by any means. He's just incredibly focused professional who's completely intolerant of anything that gets in the way of the performance of his duties\u0085like, say, a T.V. cameraman. Mitch deals with the cameraman in a socially irresponsible way and so falls into the clutches of Chase Renzi, a producer looking for a killer hook for her `reality T.V.' cop show. She thinks that Mitch will give her the `edgy' boost it needs to be a hit but feels he may be too unlikable to carry the whole show by himself. Enter Trey Sellars, a patrolman-cum-actor who's watched way too many Police Story re-runs. Of course Mitch and Trey mix like oil and water and much merry mayhem ensues.

We know that Mitch and Trey are bound to become best buddies by the end of the movie. That's the way buddy-cop movies are suppose to work. In fact, it has to be said that Showtime rarely deviates from the time-honored clich\u00e9s as writ by Lethal Weapon and Tango & Cash. There's a high tech McGuffin to get the ball rolling (in this case an automatic rifle that fires rounds big enough to stop tanks.) There's a slick foreign baddy with an accent of undetermined origin. There are chases, shootouts and explosions. We all know this going in and we have a pretty fair idea how it's all going to turn out. You know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Yes, we know the well-worn bases are going to be touched but the fun here is the trip, not the destination. Showtime doesn't strain to be original. Instead its energies are funneled into its characters and humorous situations. As a result, Showtime does a competent job with the action sequences but really shines in its comedy.

Robert De Niro is dryly funny as Mitch. In the past I've thought De Niro to be a cold and unexpressive actor given horribly to mugging when called upon to do comedy. Lately, though, he's grown on me. He seems to be injecting more humanity into his roles. Eddie Murphy is hilarious as Trey. The best way to describe his performance is that Trey is what Murphy would be if Murphy weren't so talented and hadn't hit the big time. Rene Russo has a droll time playing motor-mouthed show biz shark Chase Renzi. She stalks through the movie chasing high Nielson ratings with awe-inspiring determination. In her zeal she re-vamps Mitch's life to make it more camera friendly. She even calls upon T. J. Hooker himself, William Shatner, to show Mitch how be a more `authentic' cop. Shatner is funny, playing himself precisely as we expect him to be, loud, oblivious and slightly obnoxious.

I have to admit I was really looking forward to Showtime and I wasn't disappointed. Ten years ago this movie would have been a guaranteed hit. Today it's doing moderate business at best. That's a pity because Showtime is a whole lot of fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Showtime\" is a funny film starring funnymen Robert DeNiro (Meet the Parents,A Bronx Tale) and Eddie Murphy (Shrek, Dr. Dolittle). The story is this: In the beginning of the movie detective Mitch (Robert DeNiro) and another detective go into a tv store trying to bust some criminals. When the cops arrive, Tray(Eddie Murphy)a cop, tries to arrest Mitch not knowing he's a cop. During this scene loads of funny things happen which catch the eye of tv producer Chase Ritz. She is so excited about their adventures together, she decides to make a tv show called \"Showtime\" starring Tray (the cop) and Mitch (the detective). But that's just the funny part. The rest is strictly suspense and action. There is a foreign man who is selling and making extremely dangerous guns. While playing LAPD on the show and doing it in real life, DeNiro and Murphy have quite an adventure in this story. On a scale of 1-10, I give it a seven or 8.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not going to go into too much depth, but Showtime was a pretty funny movie. There wasn't any slapping-your-knee funny scenes (that I can remember), but it had it's moments. The cast is pretty good, Robert De Niro is good as usual and Eddie Murphy pulls off a pretty funny performance. Rene Russo was just fine in the film, no complaints there. There were two characters in the story that I liked that they didn't explain much at all. The first one was Trey Sellars' (Eddie Murphy's) buddy at the gym played by Ken Campbell. I supposed he was just a friend of Trey's, but I wanted to know more about him. The other character that I liked was Mitch Preston's (Robert De Niro's) fellow cop\/partner played by Nestor Serrano. I guess he was just another cop working with Mitch Preston, but I wanted to know if he was his partner or what not. I think maybe I'm putting too much thought into a movie, I mean after all, it's a comedy...who cares about the characters? I guess I do though. I was really pleased to see this was directed by Tom Dey, who also directed Shanghai Noon. Ever since I saw that movie I was looking forward to his next work. I think he did a pretty good job with this film, and I again look forward to his next work.

All in all, it was a good movie, but I wouldn't recommend paying full price for a ticket unless you're a die-hard Robert De Niro\/Eddie Murphy\/Rene Russo fan. It was worth seeing in the theater, but not for full price, I'd recommend seeing it at matinee price.

Also, here's some movie trivia for ya. The guy who played the camera man, played by Judah Friedlander is the guy in the music video \"Everyday\" by Dave Matthews band. He was also the clerk in \"Meet The Parents\", also starring Robert De Niro. ...And on top of that he also played Derek Zoolander's brother in \"Zoolander\" (both Zoolander and Meet the Parents star Ben Stiller). Just some useless trivia for ya.

I hope you enjoy the film. Thanks for reading,

-Chris","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Showtime\" falls somewhere north of what some critics have been saying, and a little south of what I expected months ago when I first heard about Eddie Murphy and Robert Di Niro teaming up for a comedy. Overall, it was pretty good! As \"real life\" crime or cops go-- and plot, for that matter-- it is pretty illogical, but DUH--- this is a comedy. Also, while the special effects, chases, aerial shots, and skyscrapers blowing up were present but lower key than a Schwartzenegger movie, I found it a bit tiresome and overdone. 9\/11 sensibilities aside, for myself, all that pyro-techno hyper-effect stuff had been getting really old these past few years. It seemed a lame substitute for characterization, story, and engaging emotions. I hope the lesser quantity of it in \"Showtime\" is an indicator of a trend in Hollywood. A trend downwards, of less use of the silly, less use of the exploding building.

Di Niro and Murphy are two of my favorites. Their screen presence and charisma-- and even their character depth-- have been \"a joy to behold\" for many years. That can't be dismissed here--- they are engaging actors, and entertaining and appealing in this movie. I can't put my finger on it, but perhaps the explosions, the excessive FX, and all of that diminished the final product??? Perhaps, or perhaps it was something else, or a combination of factors that gives one the sense that the movie didn't achieve its highest potential. Whatever it was, \"Showtime\" was entertaining-- I probably will buy the DVD when it comes out-- but I had the vibe that it nonetheless wasn't all it could have been. At least not all I had hoped for.

Very good movie, but not a great movie. I gave it an 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As many of today's movies are guilty of, the plot isn't exactly stellar, the movie doesn't move anyone, and certainly this won't warrant any award (outside of Blockbusters' perhaps)...but then again, who really cares.

Eddie Murphy and Robert De Niro team up to produce a very funny, at times hilarious, movie that I really enjoyed. Russo and Shatner played their small parts well as well. Man, I hope in the future my wife ages as well as Miss Renee has.

Moving along, this \"buddy\" cop-flick produces high laughs in a reasonable amount of time. The movie is enjoyable enough to avoid the wait for video\/dvd release and instead to go ahead and check it out.

Eddie Murphy is at his usual top-form and is downright enjoyable to watch. De Niro has molded into this type of role perfectly.

I really enjoyed this movie and think that any true movie fan in need for a good movie or just a good laugh will really enjoy Showtime.

Top Performance: Murphy. Hilarious. Enough said. Directing Job: Nice. Nice action scenes, used Murphy and De Niro together like a charm, Russo fed off in a nice supporting job.

My Rating: 7 out 10. It's not going to move you or anything...but it's an extremely enjoyable movie.

It's Showtime...was a great success.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dad (78) and I (46) both had a good time watching the flick today. For a guy primarily known for serious roles, De Niro is a heckuva comic actor. Of course, it helps to have his past film images to play against. Consider that one of those roles, 15 MINUTES, was a cop having to deal with the interference of the mass media, and you have an interesting set of compare\/contrast performances.

Murphy plays another of his Axel Foley sort of characters. Shatner plays a burlesque of himself, a parallel world self who was best known for TJ HOOKER and not STAR TREK.

It's interesting to watch how the film comments on the contrasts between the reality of police work and its fictional counterparts in TV and film. Shatner lectures on the proper means of sliding across a car hood; De Niro points out holsters scratch the hood finish. Ironically, as the film progresses, De Niro's character begins to incorporate the illusions of TV-cop reality into the real world case he's working.

The film draws its inspiration from a gamut of sources, so one could make the comment it is derivative. Well, so what? Satire needs to derive its humor in order to exist. And besides, the film does have quirky moments of originality. For example, I'm reasonably sure the method of the villain's death has never been done before.

One quibble about the reality of the weapons involved-- shouldn't those guns have had some kind of recoil? In order to penetrate steel, those bullets had to have enough inertia to penetrate. And any bullet's highest level of inertia is at the moment of firing. So.... firing a volley of these tank-killer bullets should have driven the shooters back onto their butts. Oh, what the heck... it's a satire. Maybe the guns' lack of recoil is itself a satire on the B-F-Guns used so casually in thrillers.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SHOWTIME is a mess, but it's an entertaining mess. The plot is forgettable, the satire is lightweight and the action sequences, though well-staged, aren't that exciting. But I laughed. A lot. Credit goes to the inspired pairing of De Niro and Murphy. They have great chemistry. Murphy delivers the one-liners, De Niro cracks us up with a look or grimace. This movie will get a RUSH HOUR-like reception from the critics. Don't listen to them. If you're a fan of De Niro or Murphy, you're going to enjoy this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robert DeNiro and Eddie Murphy, what a team. While Rene Russo, William Shanter, and that guy from the Everyday video are alongside for the ride. This is a funny and a great movie. Not only is it that, but it's a good buddy flick.

Tom Dey (Shanghai Noon) directs this hell of a movie. From start to finish, it was a masterpiece. No slapstick humor here. But good old time laughs. Making fun of all other cop flicks (to name a few Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, Fifteen Minutes, and etc...)

If you want to see a movie, see this one. You'll love it. It has a wonderful cast and crew. So, get off your a** from watching \"COPS\" and watch \"Showtime\" for a cop film. And remember, they'll be protrolling your neighbor at um...um...oh! At Friday nights at 8:00 (man, everyone says I'm a bad writer).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is actually great fun. I really enjoyed it, even though it wasn't that original at all, Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy were great together!. All the characters are cool, and the story is pretty good, plus Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy are simply amazing in this!. Rene Russo is excellent in her role, and there are plenty of laughs to be had throughout (especially when Deniro spoofs Clint Eastwood and Danny Glover's lines), plus the finale is just great. Yes it's just another run of the mil \"Buddy Buddy\" cop film, but it works due to the fantastic chemistry between De Niro and Murphy!, plus it had some great car chase scenes as well!. It's nothing that great really, however I found it to be great fun, and a perfect way to pass the time!,however the main villain was very weak and wasn't very good at all. This is far from being the best \"Buddy \"Buddy\" cop film, however it's still a very entertaining one, and I thought it was pretty well made and written as well!, plus the ending was quite funny!. This is actually great fun, I really enjoyed it, even though it wasn't that original at all, Robrt De Niro and Eddie Murphy were great together, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Tom Dey does a very good job here with great camera work, cool angles and keeping the film at a fast pace. The acting is a lot of fun!. Robert Deniro is amazing as always and is amazing here, he is hilarious, very likable, had fantastic chemistry with Eddie Murhpy did his usual awesome stuff, pulled some really funny faces, seemed to be enjoying himself,had some funny lines, and had a really cool character! (De Niro Rules!!!!!!!). Eddie Murphy is also amazing here, he is hilarious, like De Niro did his usual funny stuff, obviously loved being in front of the camera, and while he can do this stuff in his sleep he was still a lot of fun to watch! (Murphy Rules!!!!). Rene Russo is fantastic here!, she had a cool character, and while she didn't have much to do, she added a lot of screen presence, and made her character interesting always, she was just great! (Russo Rules!!!!). William Shatner is funny here surprisingly and didn't overdo it, and brought some good laughs into the film. The main villain is OK, but kind of weak and rather bland, still he did what he had to do adequately. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1\/2 out of 5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's Showtime! Showtime is simply a bump in Eddie Murphy and Robert DeNiro's careers. It's an entertaining movie and a guilty pleasure but not quite up to the actors' standards, especially not Robert's. Showtime is directed by Tom Dey and features some small roles from guys like William Shatner and Mos Def.

Showtime is about two very different cops, Mitch Preston (DeNiro) and Trey Sellars (Murphy). One takes work seriously in a low profile, quiet manner while the other is more easy-going and wants to have more fun than felons in his back seat. They are both after the same felons behind a huge caper of televisions, VCRs, etc. They then cross paths and a TV station wants a new reality TV show so they fight crime while they are on TV. Mitch hates the publicity while Trey loves it with his line, \"It's Showtime!\" Their TV antics and methods are shown on TV and they are the new \"Cops\" show. The fun begins.

Overall, Showtime is a fun action comedy. A good film but not quite up to the actors' expectations and standards. However, it's rolls along as it treads and parodies reality TV shows. A good break from shows like Cops. Truly at the end, just a guilty pleasure.

My Rating: 7\/10

Eliason A.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw \"Signs of Life\" on PBS as an American Playhouse presentation. It's a wonderfully written, ensemble production with terrific performances by Michael Lewis as Joey and Vincent D'Onofrio as his brother, Daryl. Arthur Kennedy, in one of his last roles, is also excellent as an aging shipbuilder whose family business is about to close. The rest of the cast which includes Beau Bridges, Kathy Bates and Mary-Louise Parker give remarkable clarity and substance to their characters.

The direction is subtle and effective. I've watched this movie several times over the years and would very much recommend it. A beautiful piece of filmmaking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's not real flashy, but this movie does a great job of developing a large cast of characters, and letting you know their hopes and desires, while still managing to be both funny and bittersweet. A very sweet movie. Fun, also, to see Vincent D'Onofrio and Mary-Louise Parker so early in their careers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie on PBS the first time. Then I bought the video and watched it countless times. Every time I watch it, I can get something else out of it. It's a real testament to wanting to hold onto a life that was good, but now the world is changing. But you don't have to be older to hold onto the past, even the young characters, like Charlotte don't want things to change. The overall tone and mood is excellent. The cast is outstanding with all-stars like Kathy Bates, Beau Bridges and Arthur Kennedy. And its fun to see the upcoming stars before they hit more recognizable feature films, like Kevin J. O'Connor (The Mummy) and Vincent D'Onofrio (Men in Black and Law & Order: Criminal Intent-one of my favorite shows). Its just one of those movies that stays with you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As with so many modern US films, there has to be a supernatural element to the plot, but if you just let that go, this is a tale with heaps of charm and a kindly heart cased in a crab shell.

We are presented with a scene of a town in an economically depressed area struggling to find anything to be happy about. Beau Bridges' character is really up against it with a family on the increase, a nil bank balance and a brother-in-law who's sold out to a big business chain which he secretly hates, but in which he is willing to rub Beau's nose. D'Onofrio finds his rather surface Bubba lifestyle cramped by having to look after his 'blessed' baby brother, Joey, and is itching to escape the shackles of this dead hick town. Their boss's business is closing down (much against his will) because of a lack of new customers and he is haunted by memories of his father as he builds up the tension towards his own attempt at self-destruction.

Joey, who had seemed to personify the curse on their lives, is lost at sea - believed drowned - in a freak accident. His miraculous restoration to them by the Portuguese trawlermen whose boat they had just built and launched (perhaps symbolic of an angelic crew), is the sign they've been waiting for and they all decide to give life one last throw of the dice.

There is a beautiful brooding mood throughout this work which excelled in holding our attention as brilliantly as 'The Shipping News'. There are other parallels with the later work, too, which lead one to suspect a touch of a remake. I like 'Signs of Life' for its simpler, less contrived story and star performances from actors working at their craft rather than to be noticed as stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A boat builder in a sleepy town in Maine is going out of business, and the lives of all of the (soon to be ex-)workers and families are disrupted. The biggest disappointment is that the two stars--Bates and Bridges--have only bit parts.

Interesting, but not something you would see twice.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Back in the mid\/late 80s, an OAV anime by title of \"Bubblegum Crisis\" (which I think is a military slang term for when technical equipment goes haywire) made its debut on video, taking inspiration from \"Blade Runner\", \"The Terminator\" and maybe even \"Robocop\", with a little dash of Batman\/Bruce Wayne - Iron Man\/Tony Stark and Charlie's Angel's girl power thrown in for good measure. 8 episodes long, the overall story was that in 21st century Tokyo, Japan, year 2032-2033, living machines called Boomers were doing manual labor and sometimes cause problems. A special, SWAT like branch of law enforcers, the Advanced Police (AD Police for short) were formed to handle the boomers, but were mostly ineffective, prompting millionaire scientist Sylia Stingray, the daughter of the scientist who made the boomers, to create four powered combat armor (hard suits) to be worn by women to fight the boomers and fight the evil corporation that produced the boomers, GENOM. That group becomes known as the Knight Sabers, and in addition to ring leader Sylia, her rag-tag band of rebel women included Priss Asagiri, a struggling rock and roll gal with a passion for motorcycles and a disdain for cops, Linna Yamazaki, an aerobics instructor with an eye for money and a tendency to blow through boyfriends, and Nene Romanova, a young officer of the ADP and expert computer hacker (the first in a long line). GENOM, meanwhile, is represented by Quincy, a tall, gaunt old guy who happens to own the company, his younger assistant Brian J. Mason (killed in episode 3) and an annoying boomer man named Largo. Other characters included Leon McNichol and Daley Wong, two AD Police detectives (Leon appeared in a spin-off\/prequel anime, \"AD Police Files\" which I heard was very dark), their balding, overweight boss Chief Todo, Sylia's younger brother Mackey, and a funny little mechanic known as Dr. Raven, who apparently helps Sylia with maintaining the suits. Aside from the overall Knight Sabers & AD Police VS GENOM storyline, there was also another storyline involving a friend of Linna's who was apparently a daughter in a big crime family, the annoying Largo trying to usurp GENOM, and various Priss-wants-revenge-for-a-minor-character story. Oh and did I mention that there were hints that Sylia herself might have been a boomer?

Well, it was a great watch, full of chaos and mayhem and even some very nice pop songs, but it was not without its flaws, some of which, unfortunately, were due to the fact that the series was discontinued after episode 8 when it was originally planned for 13 episodes in all. So some of the storylines, like Largo's scheme (or schemes), the family of Linna's ill-fated friend, and Sylia's origins, were never resolved. Another problem with the series was that at the time Priss was the most popular character, so a good portion of the series focused on her, and unfortunately, most of the Priss oriented episodes basically focused on Priss self-righteously seeking justice\/revenge for some secondary character who had never appeared before but happened to be a friend of hers, yet she rarely went out of her way for her the Knight Sabers, who were always bailing her out of trouble and for some reason cared a great deal about her well-being (just to be fair though, she did go to rescue Linna in episode 7, and her boyfriend got killed by a boomer and the ADP acted wrongly in the investigation). This meant we didn't really get to focus on the more interesting back story of Sylia, or even the day-to-day antics of Nene and Linna. Linna had two episodes oriented around her, which pertained to her friend with the mafia family, while Nene managed to snag the last episode for herself, which showed her eternal good cheer was genuinely good spirits and not ditziness. Nene also got to put her computer skills to good use quite a bit, or she sometimes just acted like a lovable goof, which put her screen time and character development a few notches above poor Linna, who was often thrust into the background with only her greed and her tendency to eat up boyfriends to get her any attention. Don't get me wrong, I like it and I love the overall concept of it all, but it did irk me a little bit. Also this is one of those runner-ups for \"worst English voice dubbing of all time\" features, meaning you'd better stick to the Japanese. Some of the voices were okay (some really did match their characters personas) but others were just flat and passionless or, in the case of Priss, really overacted.

Well, Tokyo 2040 comes along and pretty much tosses all that out the window. Set a few years ahead, the story here is that after earthquakes shattered Tokyo, GENOM's boomers rebuilt the city into a big old paradise, except the boomers still have a tendency to fly off the handle, which prompts the AD Police to be formed followed by the Knight Sabers being formed. So the overall story is the same, but the backstories of the characters and the look and attitudes of the characters have changed a lot.

1) Originally Sylia had short purplish black hair and brown eyes, was usually dressed like a stern, proper business woman and was distant from others. 2040 Sylia has more of a super-model look to her, dressing more provocatively and possessing white hair and blue eyes that seem to change color depending on the light (runs the gamut from blue to purple to silver and eyes occasionally looking purple or gray), and also 2040 Sylia is more of an emotionally unstable woman who flies off the handle when she's not in public, and possibly keeps even more secrets than before. Sylia also doesn't take as much risk on the battlefield, as she is more of a stay-in-the-mobile-pit type here, but she does do battle when she has to.

2) Originally Priss was a short woman with an Afro and a really bad temper, always picking fights with people who offended her, always biting off more than she could chew, etc. 2040 Priss, however, has gone the way of the Clint Eastwood loner - very cold, very stoic and emotionally distant (more like the original Sylia you might say), so she's not really attached to anyone. Also her hair is more stingry and cat-like (a big improvement) and she is clad in leather like Trinity from \"The Matrix\" (although much less annoying than before, unfortunately, the writers screw her in the end when revealing her reasons for hating the ADP).

3) Originally Linna had this big black hair going for her, but now her hair is shorter, browner, and, well, more 90s like. 2040 Linna is also an office lady who has bad luck with being sexually harrassed. As if to apologize for the way she was treated by the OAV writers, the 2040 writers actually dedicated the first 6 episodes to Linna, writing her as a country girl new to the city but determined to meet the Knight Sabers and win a spot with them, which she eventually does.

4) Originally a short red haired girl who was often the victim of ridicule and ate a lot of candy, Nene is now a short blonde haired girl who likes to tease and take pot shots at ADP detective Leon McNichol (revenge for him toying with her in the OAV?) and other characters, even her surrogate big sister Linna and Mackey, Sylia's \"brother\", whom she becomes infatuated with. Cockey and arrogant, she still eats a lot of candy and is a master hacker, but she is eventually deflated and grows beyond her comic relief status.

5) Nigel Kirkland is a new character, a tall, stoic, ruggedly handsome man with long black hair (he looks like Adrian Paul from TV's Highlander), he replaces Dr. Raven from the old series and now serves as the man who gives maitenance to Sylia's hard suits. Nigel is also Sylia's lover, but you wouldn't know it by his demeanor. He's kind of the father\/big brother\/mentor figure to Mackey.

6) Leon and Daley are back, but of course differently. The original Leon was a tall pretty boy built like a baseball player with slicked back brown hair, blue eyes, a black leather jacket, tight blue jeans, and always carrying a revolver that could magically pack more whallop than a howitzer if necessary; while he wasn't really a bad guy deep down, he was kind of a jerk, but he served mostly as comic relief, as he tried to pursue Priss romantically (exactly what he saw in her is a mystery) but occasionally he and Daley served as information guides to important plot points. Also the original Daley was a fairly muscular red head who dressed in pink\/purple suits as he was a flamboyantly homosexual character who was always hitting on Leon when not providing important information. In 2040, Leon is no longer a pretty boy but more your typical rugged tough guy type, with spiked black hair, brown eyes, tall and sporting big muscles, a brown leather jacket and blue dockers (he actually looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger a little bit, or maybe a pumped up Colin Farrell, or Hugh Jackman), and he still carries a revolver, a BIG one, but it's not as powerful as before. Although 2040 Leon still has a bit of an attitude probelm (especially in approaching Priss), he's not nearly as much of a jerk as he was in the old series, but he does have a bad temper and he is easily annoyed by Nene and Daley (also he drinks way too much coffee). Oh, and Leon is still after Priss, but he has a lot more luck this time around. Daley, meanwhile, is now a taller (but not as tall as Leon) more pretty boyish looking guy with red rimmed glasses, a white suit, green eyes, and light brown hair, and he carries a big machine gun (he actually looks like James Marsden from the X-Men films); Daley is a lot smarter and more assertive in 2040 than the OAV and, although it's not completely clear, his homosexual tendencies have been almost totally disappeared, save a moment of what appears to be jealousy when he hears about Leon inquiring about Priss's e-mail.

7) Brian J. Mason (what does that \"J\" stand for?) is back, and so is Quincy, but Mason is much more the main villain here, with Quincy as co-villain, as he is no longer a towering figure of terror but a vegetable with a bunch of batteries and wires plugged into him. Mason now sports slicked back brown hair instead of black hair as he did in the OAV (he actually looks like OAV Leon in a suit) and he is very much from the Alan Rickman school of villains.

8) Though a pervert in the first series, Mackey is no longer a pervert in 2040. Of course, there are lots of things different about Mackey in 2040, but they won't be revealed here.

9) Sylia now has a companion, an Alfred-the-butler type named Henderson, who worries about her and the gang.

10) In the original series, boomers were like the Replicants in \"Blade Runner\", armed with their own thoughts and feelings and ambitions, but in 2040, they're more of the dumb-monsters-on-the-rampage type. Most of the time they're just big robots who do whatever they're programmed to do (heavy labor, combat, clean up, etc) and they have this tendency to \"go rogue\", which means try to evolve and become a monster in the process.

What does stay the same is the theme of humanity VS technology (do machines have souls?). Sadly, this series, though well animated and well written, only runs 26 episodes, so it moves by faster than one might like, especially those of us who are used to more than one season of our most beloved characters, and unfortunately it still ends on a cliff hanger with unresolved storyline bits (which I will not discuss here. What saves this show and makes it what it is, however, is the characters, a colorful cast of screwballs they are, ranging from stoic loners, psycho women, genocidal mad men, rough neck cops, sardonic intellectuals, wise old sages, and loveable innocents, much more diverse than before and with a lot more to play off of, they're enough to make you wish this show had gone longer.

It's not great, but it's a good watch. Also the English dub (by ADV) is quite good, though not without a few flat spots, but certainly better than the dub on the original.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I started watching 3 of the episodes of this series on the Action Channel,I have to say out of all the shows that I've seen that ADV released,this one is one of the best shows of all time. I had to see it again,and that's when I got my chance. I bought the entire box set of this series at Best Buy for my 20th Birthday. And I got to enjoy it,and see more of the episodes that I missed on Action Channel,and the same 3 episodes that I've seen. My favorite characters in this show are: Sylvia,Leon,and Nigel. The animation in this series was the best,and the hard suits were cool as well. But the show also has a great voice cast like:Chris Patton,Jason Douglas,Christine Auten,and Hillary Haag,and more. So if you like this show on Action Channel,then you have to own it on DVD. It's the best,and you will see what I mean.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a remake of the anime classic from the 80's, and this one is even better. Sylia, Nene, Linna, and Priss are all back as the Knight Sabers in their hard-suits battling the robotic boomers. The animation is crisp, the characters are well-developed, and the action rocks. Priss is a singer in her regular job, so the series features some wonderful songs as well. There is a fair amount of violence, but most of it is against robots, and there is some fan service, but nothing too racy. The DVDs also have many extras, including commentaries, which really enhance your understanding and enjoyment of the show. A must-have for any anime fan.

Also recommended: Burst Angel, Armitage III","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have probably watched the movie 4 or 5 times. Every time, i get more and more impressed by how far the wish of a young heart can go, and the strenght of both Kai and Gertha to struggle for what they believe in.

And the whole story is presented in such a way, you just get transfered into the plot and before you know it, you are there. you can see... yeah, there's Kai... working hard on the mirror... a little jump.... there's Gertha, fighting for her love..... and there's the Snow Queen...

it's just a wonderful mix of love, adventure, tension.

it's brilliant 10 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is possibly one of my favorite films. It tells the tale of a girl named Gerda (Chelsea Hobbs) who lost her mother at a very young age, so has been bought up by her father. She falls in love with the bell boy named Kai. However, on her birthday the snow queen (Bridget Fonda) comes the the hotel which her father owns and kidnaps Kai. Gurda then goes after Kai, and follows him through the four seasons in an attempt to rescue him.

I thought that this was an excellent adaption of the story with great performances from all the cast. It has wonderful special effects and the story fits together very well and is easy to follow. I think that it is a great film for all the family to enjoy. I have watched it every time t has been on since it came out and have never tired of it which is why I have given it a 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Complete entertainment! Although there are many strange things in the movie that the fairy tale itself doesn't have them including the autumn characters (mother and daughter) the general concept rocks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"People comparing this movie to big blockbusters like Lord of the Rings or the Matrix will inevitably be disappointed with the way this movie turned out. Although it lacks in the big special effects department and there are no battles with hundreds of extras, there is still a masterful amalgamation of two old folk tales here. The acting talent, although not A-list, is still great and the interaction between the characters is perhaps more sincere than in a larger movie with an A-list cast. My particular favourite from this movie is Bridget Fonda, whose performance as the Snow Queen herself was quite moving, assisted enormously by a stupendous wardrobe and makeup. She injected humanity and a sense of pathos into the character of the fallen season corrupted by the devil's evil magic. Fonda aside the acting was not what we have come to expect from Hollywood, which I think is a good thing since Hollywood seems to have run out of ideas on how to train its acting talent to portray roles and so they have become stale and reliant on CGI and other special effects to take us away from the actors who all use the same tricks on us. Instead it shows new ideas some real thinking on the part of the actors about how they can find new variations on the the old themes of love and danger.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought the movie started out a bit slow and disjointed for the first hour. However, it became more absorbing, fascinating, and surprising in its last two hours. So, while it starts out like a cheap horror film, it evolves into a beautiful and wonderful fantasy film.

Bridget Fonda stands out as the Snow Queen. This was her best performance and it is sad that this apparently was her last performance, as she has not acted in the last 7 years. She absolutely personifies both the beauty and coldness of Winter.

My daughter, age 14, found the film a bit frightening, so if you are showing it as family entertainment, please stay with your child and reassure her or him that it is just a fairy tale fantasy and not to take it too seriously.

It is really one of the best fantasy films that I have seen in a long time, slightly better than \"Eragon\" or any of the \"Lord of the Rings.\" It is about as good as \"The Golden Compass\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Enchanting. The best time to see this movie is sometime when unhappy or sad. It's all just so cute, all, even the way that white bear loves the Queen in secret and gets Her in the end, also the achievement the two young actors of Gerda and Kai gave. It's music is also very nice. The two of us will always be one combined with sad piano tones in some places gives a very touching result and if one watches both parts at once, he'll see the Snow Queen is not so bad. She only tries to surround Herself with love in the wrong way. The evening this movie was on here (first part) I only watched it, because I was bored, but I loved it a lot more after and was very angry, when they didn't show the next part because of the Pope's funeral... Yeah, that was terribly sad for me. But when they said it will be on next week, I was so happy, that I recorded it and now I'm glad to have done so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First off, I can remember vaguely being told this story in primary school, about 6 or 7 years ago so I am sort of familiar with the story.

A lot of that has changed however, and there are many differences and mistakes (sometimes unnecessary) in the film that die hard fans will not appreciate.

However as a whole I really love this film. I first saw it near Christmas about 2 years ago (well the 1st part) then caught the whole thing again last Christmas probably on the same channel.

I was very impressed, at times it may be a bit overdrawn and long, but with an engaging story, decent acting (especially from frosty Fonda and Hobbs) and beautiful scenery, costume and little touches of magic make this a really special film - which for me really reminds me of Christmas.

Despite differences from the book, I think the film does well to incorporate new themes and ideas (the seasons with Autumn, Winter etc. with I think a new thief character to represent Autumn) throughout the imagery once you notice is quite startling and brilliantly executed.

I live in the UK so have waited a long time for the DVD, and luckily enough I saw an advert showing a series of free DVD's being offered in the Daily Mail newspaper which I don't normally get, so I got yesterdays issue and finally have my DVD. If you missed it and want this rare DVD for region 2 I suggest you collect the tokens from the Daily Mail and send them off as your DVD will then be delivered by Christmas.

So for a bit of escape into the Christmas season this year, put on your fire, get cosy and watch this as you and kids probably will really enjoy this great film. If you don't have it, it will probably be repeated on Channel 4 this Christmas, so record it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know the girl who did the figure skating for the lead girl. She once dated my brother and she was always really nice! I also live in Cranbrook B.C, about 15 or so minutes from fort Steele. Haha i used to go there for field trips when i was in elementary school. It was kinda weird seeing it in the movie. I also had the chance when the movie was filming to be an extra because there was a casting call for them at the mall.But i didn't feel like going to it at the time because i wasn't interested in acting. Now i totally wish i did. This was such an awesome movie that i bought it off of Ebay. It never came out here, (which is kind of weird seeing it was partially filmed here) so i was excited when it came. I really loved the story line and the poler bear was kinda cute.But if anyone has a question about Fort Steele, just ask away:)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a wonderful movie, and I still love it! It just so magical and it is fun for the whole family! I recommend it to people of all ages. I promise you will not be disappointed! The characters are always so engaging, so real, you will just love them! The story of Gerda and Kai falling in love will really amaze you and put that little spark of magic into your life.

I don't see how anyone would care if the movie matched the book, I mean the movie was amazing! I haven't even read the book, and guess what? I don't care. In fact, if the movie and book are so different, then you can just call them two separate stories and be happy with it.

I thought the acting was bloody brilliant! Bridget Fonda plays the Snow Queen, so evil, and so cold - you just have to hate her. Chelsea Hobbs plays Gerda, a love-struck girl who is determined to find her love no matter what it takes, and goes on a wonderful adventure. And I just love all of the Snow Queen's sisters (the Spring Witch, the Summer Princess, and Autumn Robber)they are so fun and different in many ways.

I haven't seen this movie in awhile, so forgive me if I make a minor mistake.... but there's no doubt that I will always love this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this film. I'm not usually one for fairy tales or make believe storeys but this film captured my attention.

I first saw this film on the UK channel Hallmark...which usually shows afew tacky films...but then Snow Queen came along...and I was loving it! I really really admire Bridget Fonda in this movie...she plays the snow queen brilliantly and glamorously.

I won't explain what the story is about as other people have already done so, so there is no point repeating.

I would just suggest that if you want to watch a fun fairy tale journey...get this film...but if you want to purchase it and you live in the UK, you might have a hard time. I've bought it from South Korea brand new (english edition of course).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Snow Queen\" is based, of course, on the fairy tale of the same name, collected in (at least) Andersen's Fairy Tales - and, unlike many other recent productions based on other fairy tales, this one retains the spirit of Faerie, an accomplishment not easy and not well understood by many, especially among Americans. Talking animals, arbitrary prohibitions, appearances of goblins, dragons, and demons, are not to be questioned in a fairy tale; they are as natural an element of Faerie as, say, gravity is in the scientific world, and the reason or explanation for them is completely beside the point of the story. Nor is the story bound by modern Hollywood rules of composition: direct, often to the point of being grotesquely linear in lesser works, and obvious (in retrospect, at least).

With this defence against the common criticisms of those who do not understand fairy tales, \"Snow Queen\" is a delightful movie with wonderful visual effects, skillful acting, and great sentiment. The only flaw in the movie was, I think, not that it was too fantastical but that certain parts of the dialogue were too glaringly modern in slang and expression, a mar on its otherwise timeless nature.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Snowqueen is one of the best love stories I have ever seen: much better and deeper than Luhrman's Romeo&Juliet or Spielberg's Titanic. Gerda's love impresses me every time, her search, her battle is exceptional. Gerda becomes a strong, loving woman throughout the movie. Kay is the poisoner of dark forces: the temptation. This story encourages me to fight like Gerda for the ONLY ONE, for the love of my life, for Mister Right. Patience is one of the keywords of this movie. I cry every time when I realize all the suffering of Gerda and Kay. And I wish that it ends soon... Snowqueen tells although my life, I deeply identify with the story and the characters. Thanks at least for Hans Christian Anderson and the director.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought that the storyline came into place very well. I liked this movie a lot. If you're going to rag on a Bridget Fonda movie, you can just rot. I thought that ragging on movie stars was a bad idea. Apparently somebody doesn't think so. I rather enjoyed the movie. I'm even thinking of buying it. I want it to be my very first DVD for my room. That's how much I like it. I rather would not start an online argument with someone I don't know & have it be over a movie. If someone could kindly retract what they said about the storyline, I would be more than happy to retract my insult. However, if they feel that I am not worthy of a retraction, I might just feel that they are not worthy of one either. But I can't control their actions, I can only encourage them in the right direction. Hey, they don't have to make a retraction, but I would greatly appreciate it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"D.O.A\" is an involving and entertaining little picture from start to finish. Dennis Quaid is at his caustic best; and Quaid is sadly one of the most underused talents in Hollywood. His then beau Meg Ryan also appears with him, but as is usually the case, doesn't really make much of an impact.

The film is stylishly directed throughout, drawing on a number of influences to capture its 'seamy' feel. Would you credit that it's actually directed by two people? The answer is no. The whole thing is superbly slick, from its innovative camerawork to its unabashed use of black and white photography. All these elements help to keep proceedings fresh.

Really the greatest thrill here is to be had with the dialogue, it's snappy yet intricate, doesn't waste a word and yet still manages to be entertaining. The screenplay for this is like a pocket work of art.

This went unnoticed by me for ages before I finally caught it late at night. If this is the first you've heard about it, don't leave it like I did! Catch it soon, it really is top-notch... !

If you're in the mood for a solid genre flick that manages to surprise at every turn, this really fits the bill.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Those wishing to see film noir remakes, should not see this as as a remake, you will always be disappointed. Instead, enjoy a gripping performance from Dennis Quaid and visual imagery to commend. The colour drains from the film (literally, not metaphorically!)) as the plot gathers pace, and the dialogue is crisp and gritty. The opening dialogue is clever, and the viewer is carried along by a sharp screenplay and a real, original film noir feel,","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, so this film may not have won any Oscars, but it is not a bad film. The original \"D.O.A.\" is undoubtedly a better film, but that does not mean this film is bad.

The film stars Dennis Quaid in one of his early roles, when he was first becoming really famous, after \"The Right Stuff\" made him a star, and a very lovely looking Meg Ryan, when she was still now quite famous.

This is more of an \"update\" of the 1950 film, rather than a remake, since the setting is different and the characters too, are different. The plot is pretty much the same. A man (this time an English professor at the University of Texas at Austin) is poisoned and he has only 24 hours to find out who poisoned him and why. Meg Ryan plays a young college student who tries to help him. Jane Kaczmarek plays Quaid's estranged wife, in a low key, but intense performance; she steals every scene she is in. Daniel Stern (also in an early role, before \"Home Alone\" made him famous) plays Quaid's colleague. Charlotte Rampling is fine too in a supporting role.

The entire cast is top notch; The film is stylish, with a quick pace that keeps you guessing until the end.

I think this is a film that is certainly worth watching as a thriller, and as a modern version of a classic film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For all those people who believe the dialog is worth something, and who appreciate a farce that is clever enough for you to take it seriously, this movie will surprise you. It is not a 'whodunit' for people who can't aren't able to follow the verbal exchange of our hero, Professor Dexter Cornell (Dennis Quaid).

Cornell teaches in Southern California, near the tar pits. He has not published a novel in four years, his wife is divorcing him, he drinks a bit much, and is blessed or cursed with caustic wit, which he freely dispenses to his students. He has recommended a friend for advancement, and one bright young student has submitted a manuscript to him as an independent project. Cornell doesn't even want to read it, so gives it an \"A\", and pushes it to the side. Leaning back with a drink in his office he stares out the window, when the bright young student falls past his window on the way to meeting the sidewalk in a splat encounter.

Hal comes to talk, and they chat, drinking some more. The Cornell realizes that he HAS to read the manuscript, now. When he goes home, his wife is waiting with divorce papers. He drinks some more. She leaves, and he goes to a faculty affair, only to find her there. He drinks even more. And when his wife learns that the student is dead, she swoons, and he learns that she had been having an affair with the student. This of course prompts him to do some more serious drinking. The next morning he wakes up to find himself in the dorm room of one of his students, a freshman named Syd (Meg Ryan).

He feels worse than a hangover, goes to the doctor and learns that he has been poisoned, it is irreversible, and he has 24-48 hours to live. He doesn't have much time to find out who killed him, and there are sub-plots, motives, relationships and surprises at every turn, although everything makes sense at the end. All his discoveries and exchanges are adorned with sarcasm, dry wit and keen observations. Let's just say that this movie will give new meaning to the adage \"publish or perish\".

There are no bad performances in this movie. There are recurrent images, and symbolism used at careful intervals. Watch for the cracked glass, and images distorted through glass. Some of the camera shots are revolutionary for 1988, and some of the violent action is carefully and skillfully choreographed. The music is unobtrusive and appropriate, although occasionally it makes it's own statement, in song lyrics. The visuals in this flick are impressive.

If there are any failures, it is that the opening 20 minutes move a little slow, and nearly puts you to sleep. But the pacing picks up quickly, with just the right amount of exposition in between action segments.

There are no explicit sexual encounters, although there is violence and some bad language.

This is a writer's movie, and is best appreciated by those who have a sense of humor about their own success or failure. I do think if you take it seriously, you're already in big trouble.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is not really a remake of the 1949 O'Brien film (which is excellent). It borrows the main premise--a man has been poisoned and spends the rest of the film trying to find his killer. But I like that the writers chose an English professor, instead of a private dick, as the protagonist. The plot is also quite original. In general, the film moves along fast enough to keep you awake. But what mars this film is a strange dated quality about it (probably due to the horrendous 80's original music score)combined with an affected \"noir\" feel. Dennis Quaid grins inexplicably throughout the whole film at odd moments, but he's still compelling in a general way. Meg Ryan is fine as the student helper\/love interest. When the film gets sort of bad is when Dex (the prof) meets the British bodyguard\/chauffeur and their duels are pretty laughable. The bodyguard works for the rich widow (played by lovely Charlotte Rampling), but those scenes are too self-consciously \"noir\" to help the film along, even though the family \"plot line\" is rather interesting. Dex also keeps showing up at the same place and finding this bodyguard, which is rather coincidental. In the latter part of the film,a man is shot by a window, and from the outside you see him jump out of it--that was pretty bad direction. But aside from some of these obvious flaws, I think it still holds OK. I certainly didn't predict the ending, so that was good--there is a twist, and although some posters here think they were misled, I thought it was a fine and believable ending. Dennis Quaid, with his weird smirks and black eyes, is more likable in The Right Stuff, Great Balls of Fire, Inner Space, and Cold Creek Manor. But here as Dex, he's supposed to be somewhat of a jerk, so he did fine. Fairly decent movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a whodunnit in the Hitchcock tradition. You are kept in the dark as suspects come and go. Dennis Quaid is supurb as Dexter, a man doomed to die and Meg Ryan excellent as his babe. There is not much not to like in this little suspense and all the pieces fit neatly together the way they should. You won't be sorry you watched this one if you like suspense.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Always enjoyed \"DOA\",1950,which starred Edmond O'Brien and was very curious about this film. Dennis Quaid,(Dexter Cornell), was a professor who loved his wife and finally found out she was having an affair with one of his students. Dexter gets involved with Meg Ryan(Sydney Fuller), who was a student in his college class and at the same time had a big crush on him and wound up having a one night stand and in some ways loved him deeply. Dexter learns that he received a drink which had bad contents and would cause him a great deal of health problems! If you like Dennis Quaid and love Meg Ryan you will enjoy viewing this film, Meg gave an outstanding performance and kept this picture worth watching!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is an awesome remake of the original by the same title. The movie was cool,despite the fact, I hate new ones! All of the cast was awesome . It has great cast and an awesome plot!! The main plot is a man is poisoned and he has to solve his own murder , neat eh?!Dennis Quaid is the man who is \"D.O.A\"(in other words Dead On Arrival).He finds help with his friends, but everyone is now a suspect!!Dennis's character has several hours to find out who poisoned him. The movie is quite fast and full of action. You can see two other big stars in Meg Ryan(City Of Angels,Courage Under Fire) and Daniel Stern(Home Alone, Very Bad Things,Bushwhacked) in supporting roles in this awesome ,cool remake of a classic movie!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We saw La Spettatrice last night @ the Chicago International Film Festival & we were both immensely moved by it. This is a haunting tale of loneliness & missed connection in which the longing for intimacy conflicts with our fear of revealing too much about ourselves to another. The three leads (Barbora Bobulova as Valeria, Brigitte Catillon as Flavia, Andrea Renzi as Massimo) are all excellent and the dynamic between them is very surprising.

After all the movies which devalue older women, it's wonderful to see Flavia (who is a law professor at a university in Rome) presented as beautiful & sensual as well as seductive & powerful. We're conditioned to believe that when a younger woman enters 'the mix,' the older woman will become jealous of the younger woman, the man will leave the older woman for the younger woman, etc, etc. In this film, however, emotional truth is considerably more complex. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Valeria, an elegant and pretty young lady lives in a world surrounded by the walls of her shyness and depression. Although she may have a one-night lover or if someone lives with her, it makes no difference of being completely alone. Valeria is also a passionate woman who can take actions to approach that special man, Massimo, and at the same time the fear that allows her to answer his questions only with a \"yes\", \"no\" or \"I don't know\". The way to accent the loneliness of the character is magnificent. An example would be the distance of both, Massimo and Valeria taking a coffee in the same room, separated by subtle divisions and not seeing each other. I could mention several sequences, however, it is better to see the movie. It is impressive to watch that not a single detail is out of control by the director. Although all actions are performed in slow movements, no shouts are necessary not special effects, but only great acting and a touching well written story. I loved it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We saw La Spettatrice at the Syracuse International Film & Video Festival & liked it.

This film delved into the fear we all have. Fear of rejection, fear of intimacy and most importantly fear of our own inadequacies.

The three lead actors, Barbora Bobulova as Valeria, Brigitte Catillon as Flavia, Andrea Renzi as Massimo are match well to their roles and are excellent. It was a joy to witness the dynamic between the three of them as it seemed real.

I believe Barbora Bobulova is a stand out. I hope we see much more of her in the coming years.

This film doesn't take the easy way out. Thumbs up to the Italian team who put this film together. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Barbora Bobulova's portrayal of Valeria in this story was entirely captivating and heart wrenching at the same time. It has been a long time since I have seen so much hidden passion and mystique presented by any actor simply by utilizing her facial features and the use of her eyes and mouth the way Barbora does with this character. She was entirely believable as Valeria and I was swept away with her characterisation of this role. All at once the film was real life and fantasy, the clever use of what was limited dialogue left me spellbound. I was compelled to read between the lines and each of the key players utilized the art of body language and emotional intent to convey a strong story line. Barbora in particular was visually stimulating in an almost asexual way and at the same time in a sexy way. This comment can relate easily to each of the many emotions brought forward by her performance. Understated in terms of dialogue but powerful in terms of presence. I have been captured by this actresses delivery and shall eagerly seek out much more of her work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Somehow, this film burrowed it's way into the soft spot of my heart. Don't ask me how it happened, but I suppose having the film feature Ed \"I'll Sponsor Anything\" McMahon as a tail-chasing crack hustler had a bit to do with it.

Frankly, I was disappointed with Slaughter's first outing in 1972. Nothing more than a quick throw-together to follow Shaft-mania. How does the sequel get away from this? Big Jim Brown seems stronger as Slaughter here than in the first. Perhaps this is due to the fact that one year later he had something to work from, instead of his simple \"Be like Shaft\" motivation before.

The most outstanding part about the film is the soundtrack provided by pimp-daddy number one, James Brown. Almost every scene is graced with a touch of funk by the Godfather. An excellent period film, for the music, wardrobe, vehicles, lingo, and hair. I should also point out this film is also an excellent period film to represent a time in motion picture history when Jim Brown and Ed McMahon could actually GROW hair.

Double the chicks, double the blow, triple the body count, and factor in Ed McMahon and James Brown. You'll be in for one hell of a 70s action flick, and one that outshines it's predecessor no less. For my money, Slaughter's Big Rip-Off can play ball with any Blaxploitation film ever made. Even Shaft. Chances are you'll disagree, but Slaughter's Big Rip-Off has it's own distinct feel. Something the original was lacking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brown returned to his role from the year before (in \"Slaughter\") for this rough follow-up film. In the original, he had avenged his parents' slaying by wiping out a huge mob organization in Mexico. Here, he is the one being pursued (retaliated against) by a money launderer portrayed by McMahon. When the first assassination attempt fails, Brown is back in action once more, kicking gangster butt all over the place while trying to protect his new girlfriend Hendry. While the original film was, overall, a better and more coherent movie, this one delivers all the exploitation aspects in far heavier doses, making it more pleasing to fans of the genre. Aside from a fairly dreary opening on horseback and a downright deadly car ride down a city street at night, this movie clips along at a very brisk pace. Every few minutes there appears one or more of the following: drug use, sex, nudity, gunplay, murder or some other action. Brown is his usual reliable, amiable self, helped by his amazing physical presence which goes a long way in glossing over any stiffness in his acting. McMahon is a riot! With tinted glasses and his hair parted down the middle (!), he is shown meting out orders to his gang of thugs and is overheard making passionate love to his fur-clad bimbo. Seeing Johnny Carson's sidekick in a role like this is a perverse thrill. Stroud makes an impression as an intense, racially-bigoted hit-man while Peters adds just a tinge of class as an upright police detective who enlists Brown's aid. Sadly, no mention at all is made of Brown's original sidekicks Don Gordon and Stella Stevens. Suddenly, Brown now has a girlfriend (Hendry) who is likable enough, but lacking in the voluptuousness and personality that Stevens had before. Williams does an outrageous turn as a pimp who can seemingly pick any girl out of a bar and make her an instant member of his harem. The cinematography and overall direction is less polished than the first film, but this one does have a drive and a sense of danger that exceeds the original's feel. The film spends a lot of time in the sewage of organized crime, drugs, prostitution and other vices, but it retains interest through the creativity of its action scenes and the now-startling lack of political correctness. One odd note: A key supporting player in the first film was shown getting shot to death, but pops up here in a different role.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of the two Slaughter movies, this is the better and even though its hardly a Schindlers list in complexity it is bloody funny. All the men are the goodies or the baddies and the women are all just Hos and emotionally needy, eg Slaughters Girl. It is also bloody funny and The Pro has got to be the funniest movie pimp of all time, you just can't get enough of those hats, purple suits, gold chains and jive patois forever. The best bit is where he has the Harem around him going \"DO YOU BITCHES UNNASTAN\". Everything about him is larger than life and it is reminescent of Morris Day in Purple Rain. Jim Brown also proves hes a private dick for all the chicks and again he kicks whitey ass in every direction. The car scene is very unrealistic that they survive it unscathed, but hey this is the movies. Definitely the finest blax flick and it surpasses Shaft (1971). Even the first movie is pretty good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hey all you jive hustlers, you stone foxes, you mean dudes. Watch out cause Slaughter is back in town! If you are looking for a bad-ass, funky film to watch some night, this is just right. 'Slaughter' is back and trying to take it easy n' relax after his adventures down in Mexico. But if you are a narrow-minded gangster like 'Duncan', you are bound to seek revenge. Why, I don't know. Was 'Hoffo' in the first one his brother or what? Any who. The movie starts off with the old \"assassination from a plane\" routine. We all know that that is THE most effective way for taking out one guy in a picnic, full of people. Needless to say Slaughter survives the ordeal, but Cmndt. Eric Lassard, sorry George Gaynes I mean isn't that lucky. SMACK!! Also Slaughters best friend Pratt is killed. This is the start of a grand adventure, filled with the hippest, funkiest music James Brown himself has to offer. That's right 'The Godfather of Soul' has put his trademark up on this bad-boy. In addition to Jim Brown in the lead part, this movie is filled with some of the biggest names the blaxploitation scene has to offer. How about Scatman Crothers, Dick Anthony Williams, Gloria Hendry and Brock Peters. In other parts we see none other than Judith M. Brown and last but definitely least the fantastic Don Stroud as the evil henchman.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like the first film in this series (SLAUGHTER, 1972), I think it would be a mistake to just label this a \"blaxsploitation film\". Sure, Slaughter is a tough, gun-toting, Black man but it's more of an action picture regardless of the color of the leading man or the bad guys--and a very good action picture at that.

For the second and final time, Jim Brown plays the title character. The film begins with one of the goofiest scenes I can remember in a film. As Slaughter and his friends are enjoying an outdoor party, along comes a biplane and begins spraying the group with machine gun fire! No, Slaughter isn't so tough that he then shoots down the plane with his .357! But Slaughter is ticked and no one is sure why this hit was happened--however, Slaughter is going to get to the bottom of it! Well, it turns out that the hit was attempted in retribution for the last movie. In it, Slaughter takes on the Mafia and kicks lots of butt down in Mexico. Now, in a horribly bungled and clumsy attempt, the guys in the plane kill and injure quite a few people but miss Slaughter. And, because the job was bungled so badly, the mob boss (Ed MacMahon!!) orders the pilot and gunman killed by his brutal assassin (Don Stroud--in a very typical sort of role for him). Stroud is great--scary and nasty to the core, but Ed MacMahon as the boss?! Wow, that's an interesting twist!

Slaughter is now stumped. He figured out who the two guys were in the plane but by the time he got to them, they were dead. So, to help him along in his own private vendetta, Brock Peters (who plays a cop) tells him who the mobsters are who ordered the hit and got Slaughter to agree to help by doing some illegal undercover work. So, Slaughter and his pimp friend break into the mobster's mansion and steal a list of payoffs to key government and police officials. And, naturally, there is a lot of shooting and bloodshed in the process.

Stroud isn't about to let Slaughter get away with this and kidnaps Slaughter's girlfriend. Now it's a standoff--Slaughter has the list but if he doesn't give it back, the lady is dead. Being a tough but gallant man, you might just be able to guess much of what happens next.

The action is very good in the film and Jim Brown is menacing and tough. The only negative I noticed was that while having MacMahon play this nasty boss, at the end, he simply folded--and way too quickly. When Slaughter catches up to him, MacMahon becomes a wimp and all the previous nastiness disappears--and this is too much of a clich\u00e9 and inconsistent. Still, despite this minor quibble, it's an engaging film that is NOT for the kids due to all the violence and boobs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An interesting movie based on three of Jules Verne's novels. Considering the special effects and computer enhanced animation of today, this movie stands as an historic marker of cinematic resourcefulness and imagination. Karel Zeman has brought to life the lithographic images of the original Jules Verne texts. this is a must see for classic science fiction and history buffs.

I give this movie 9 out of 10. Enjoy!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is based on a Jules Verne book I actually have read once, about ten years ago. I remember I liked the book a lot, and this movie does a good job in telling the story. The most important thing in this movie isn't the story, however, but the highly original visual look it has.

The visuals are absolutely beautiful, and they are apparently achieved by a clever combination of animated drawings combined with live actors, stop-motion animation and sets that are painted so that they look much like from an animated movie. Combined by Jules Verne's own unique versions of airplanes and submarines and Karel Zeman's good directing results in a very well done and convincing visual style that manages to effectively hold one's attention until the end of the movie.

There are some problems as well, one of the underwater scenes at the end takes maybe needlessly lot of time for example, as the story in the first part of the movie is rushed through quite quickly. None of this matters much though since the movie is always highly enjoyable. A gem that deserves to be more well known for today's audiences as well. A recommended movie for the whole family.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Truly unique and stunning film of Jules Verne's \"For The Flag\" by the Czech master director Karel Zeman.Although the story is enacted in a rather understated late Victorian style, the visuals are a knockout. Zeman uses animation, graphics, painted sets, model animation combined with live action to create the atmosphere of Verne that the reader associates in his mind. The style resembles the steel engravings of Dore and Bennet and Riou that illustrated these stories with a healthy dose of Georges Melies added.Photographed in beautiful black and white the animation is of the highest order and not of a Saturday morning variety. There are underwater sequences where the fishes swimming about are so accurately drawn they can be used in a field guide.There are images of ships ,submarines, flying craft, castles,and machinery that are drawn in such accurate detail that one must have a freeze frame on his VCR or DVD to pause the scene and study the remarkable detail that went into this production.The late Victorian atmosphere is designed to look like this world that never was and delight us in the magic of science that made Verne the great father of the genre. If this is not enough, there also is the film score that probably is one of the best ever created for a fantasy or sci-fi film.Truly a forgotten classic, this one is worth hunting down and buying. Always one of my favorite films of all times, it is sure to be one of yours too. And remember- this was done decades before CGI or computer animation. Kudos to the great artists who obviously put their heart into it. It shows. Jules Verne himself would be proud of this movie.A film that deserves to be better known, but those who have seen it love it-and treasure it. An outstanding achievement , this remarkable film just gets better every time you watch it. A true cinematic work of art from a visionary director.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***Spoilers ahead*** My late childhood had two cinematographic icons: Star Wars and this film by Czech genius Karel Zeman. A Jules Verne encyclopedia where XIX century illustrations come to life in exquisite black and white photography, combined with stop motion and conventional animation. Verne's spirit of adventure is fully present throughout the film, as well as a very modern questioning on the moral limits of power and advanced technology. In fact, it brings atomic energy into Verne's universe in a very elliptic and elegant way. Also elliptic and elegant is the demise of the villain, with a (probably nuclear) explosion sending his hat flying over the sea. The resolution of the film is symbolic and very satisfactory, something very rare today, when a lot of films don't seem to know how to end themselves.

I was fortunate to catch this gem in reruns on local TV in the late 70s: it enhanced my enjoyment of Verne's fiction and of cinema.

10 out of 10 for Karel Zeman, under-appreciated master of imagination.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"These days, you rarely come by a kid's show that does not involve 1) a preteen\/teen pop star who is as amusing as watching paint dry 2) involve a plot about finding the perfect date with a different guy\/girl every time 3) revolves around erratic yelling and unintelligible humor. About 95% of shows on Disney, Nickelodeon, and Cartoon Network fit the listed criteria. To put in simpler terms, they all lack good acting, originality, and good story telling. It as if producers and writers think kids aren't smart enough to understand character development and plot detail. They couldn't be more unaware. Sure kids enjoy a good laugh and erratic behavior (if it's done to a conservative level and done right), but as they also want to enjoy a story, see drama, and see people being challenged. They don't want to see people living in a flawless world where they get everything they want. They know this world isn't all fun and games, they know it's not perfect. Everyone has problems, and we all must learn to work around them. This show revolves around that kind of stuff. Alex Mack is an average teenage girl who seems to have everything going for her genius sister, Annie. Her Mom works at some office but is sometimes a stay at home parent. Her dad, George, is a top scientist at the Plant, a chemical corporation that employs most of the town they live in, Paradise Valley. Alex is unpopular and picked on by most of her peers. Her only friend is Ray (but she gets more friends as the series goes). On her first day of Jr. High, Alex walks home not too happy about school, but a truck delivering chemicals from the plant crashes into a fire hydrant trying to avoid running her over, dumping a strange chemical known as GC-161, where the chemical mixes with the water, covering Alex in it. Soon after, she starts to develop strange powers such as morphing into a puddle, shooting lasers out of her hand, and moving things with her mind. She also glows constantly when nervous (though we never see much of that later on). Aside from her sister Annie and friend Ray, Alex decides to keep these powers a secret from everyone, even her parents for fear of being kidnapped by the Plant, whose corrupt owner, Danielle Atron has her head of Security, Vince, search for the mysterious GC161 kid. Every episode then deals with Alex trying to live a normal life as kid at the same time learning to live with her strange powers. The series may seem like a girls show, but it's not. As a boy, I liked watching this show because of its awesome effects and drama. The producers successfully add some elements of science fiction with the elements of teen drama. In fact, some episodes were quiet violent and a little eerie. The unfounded plant manager Atron and Vince make good antagonists for the series, for the writers really do establish them as a threat and give you that dreadful feeling every time they come on screen. Also, smart move adding David, driver of the truck that spilled the GC-161, as Vince's bumbling assistant in the hunt for comedic effect but also you get to love him towards the end. It was interesting to watch little Alex try to live as a normal kid but struggles to perfect her powers. At times, you forget that these are kids who are battling a giant Adult run institution, because you are drawn in to the story. The show does a good job of relating to kids by showing Alex that she may have super powers, but she still is a kid, and must be careful. Even some episode you'll find yourself distraught at Alex's calamities. My favorite episode where Alex wishes she was never born truly demonstrates most of these elements. As I said, the producers never hesitated to add in some laughs whether they come from Ray's one liner or George's strange habits or David trying to be a nice guy. Of course you come across corny moments and an entire episode that really has nothing to do with the series plot, but what good series doesn't? All in all great show. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oh I remember watching this show at 4:00 p.m. during my junior high days. It was not a pleasant experience because I remember watching it when I made my homework.

Still, the show caught my attention when Alex displayed her special powers and dealt with the typical junior high problems.

But the show wasn't all about adventures and special powers; it was more of an educational effort for a younger audience in order to get more interested in school and biology overall.

The lead actress (can't remember her name and I'm too lazy to copy and paste from the main details) delivered a fantastic performance. She made the show watchable.

They just don't make shows like this one anymore...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is probably my favourite TV show ever. I love all the characters, especially Alex, who is the PERFECT woman! Always makes me laugh and feel good when I watch this show. There is just something about it that is amazing, hard to describe.

It seems some or all of the episodes synchronise with music albums as well. Here are a few examples. (The episodes start again when they end - but DON'T play end credits until the very end, but always play the opening credits. With most the episodes the album plays once and the episodes play twice, but some go on further.)

RADIOHEAD, PINK FLOYD, BOB Dylan.

2.02 'Double bogey' Kid A \/ OK Computer (episode plays at least 4 times)

2.14 'Saturn' Kid A \/ Meddle \/ Shot Of Love

2.19 'World without Alex' Kid A \/ Wish You Were Here \/ Pablo Honey(episode plays at least 4 times)

There are clues in the episodes which tell you which albums synchronise. Kid A may synchronise with EVERY episode!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I used to watch this show when I was growing up. When I think about it, I remember it pretty well. If you ask me, it was a pretty good show. Anytime I think about it, I don't remember the opening sequence and theme song very well. In addition to that, everyone was ideally cast. Also, the writing was very strong. The performances were top-grade, too. I hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I'm not sure if I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, if some network ever brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My favorite show of all time! Yeah, I thought this was so cool, and Larisa Oleynik was the first crush I ever had (AAAAWWWWWW). It was well written, funny-except when it it wanted to be serious, and just a great show overall. But since we couldn't afford to keep Nick, I couldn't see any episodes after Feb. 1996, and maybe that makes me think more of the show than I should. To me it's more the epidemy (now that doesn't look spelled right!) of having to say \"Goodbye\" to someone that you love, and KNOW you'll never see them again. And I still think that, because as far as I know, there are no plans to release this on DVD any time soon...yeah, life is mean! I've found that out for sure (though you can find an odd episode every here or there...but I never liked the bootleg copies of things much either).

So enough of my sad life:(....Most kids in 7th grade don't NEED powers like Alex gets to get them through life (unrealistic--for sure) but then again, how many towns have a super-evil chemical plants that is willing to do anything for \"Progress at ANY cost\"? Gee this show was fun to watch! Though I'd agree the diaglouge is a bit over developed (and even a little Politically Correct sometimes). My favorite parts were when the kids would have some reason to break into the plant (a video tape or something like that) like a kid's version of \"Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six\" (which years later I got hooked on that game series for probably the same reason) almost! Then you've got the plant's \"security\" team who are trying desperately to find the \"kid from the accident\"...very mean dudes (at least when I first watched the show...they seem more sympathetic to me now). I feel rather sad for Larisa Oleynik, not sure if she minds this role type-casting her.....but it's what I'll always remember her by.

Oh and BTW, the actor that plays Aaron Peirce from \"24\" is on here too as a school coach or something....too cool! Maybe he can get the producers of that show to get Larisa in next season of \"24\". I only bring it up 'cuz Jack Bauer is my other TV hero and I'd just love to see cross-over things, lol:). Both are set in California, so I'll just keep on dream'n...I can see it now, \"Let me alone with that suspect for a few minutes....no, I don't need a car battery!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most of the criticism of \"Attack of Show\" is from people who are unfairly comparing it to an old computer TV program called \"The Screen Savers.\" People are upset because G4 decided to cancel the \"Screen Savers\" and replace it with the pop culture based \"Attack of the Show.\" To compare the two shows is like comparing apples to oranges!

\"Attack of the Show\" is a unique hour long program that covers current Generation X\/Y culture. It features segments on movies\/television, panel discussions, video games, new DVD releases, sex advice, new gadgets (MP3 players, cell phones, etc), comic books\/graphic novels, magazines, and internet fads.

It's a fun show, definitely worth checking out you are in your 20s or 30s. I give it an 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watch the show every day and it is very entertaining. It provides updates of tech news, video games pretty much everything geek. They are also the official broadcasters of E3 and Comiccon. If you are a geek, gamers or anything really, you will enjoy this show. They have definitely upped their game since the guy below me's review (2006). It's the only place that I get my tech info. Kevin Pereira and Olivia Munn work beautifully with each other and the show always has segments referring to things in the game, movie, comic... Universe. If you know those universes you will understand the jokes. Long story short, aots is a hilarious show that gives me and anyone all the news about anything and everything that you care about. I'm watching it right now as I type this, they are 'in' San Diego covering the red bull air races. Sweet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been watching Attack Of The Show religiously for about 6 months (maybe longer but not much). I was very infatuated with Olivia and I found Kevin to be very witty and the repertoire between them very good. Lately though it's starting to wear thin due to many factors for me. First my favorite segment is the first 15 minutes called Around The Net, that shows 5 video clips that you would find on a site like Youtube, that are generally funny, or of people getting hurt inadvertently (some intentionally). Umm, this when watched 4 to 5 times a week shows again and again the same stuff, I really haven't seen anything that good and I can only laugh at people actually probably breaking their necks and being paralyzed so many times. The show is like a Late Show wanna be\/Colbert Report wanna be with it's politics also, if you do not live in a blue state and are not an automatic liberal, this humor gets old also, McCain is old, yeah yeah, whatever. Libs have no guts to make fun of themselves because they are not smart enough to realize that would endear themselves as having a sense of humor that they can laugh at themselves, so it's almost every show bash McCain or Palin, sheesh. So we get the same old vids of people getting hurt that we are supposed to keep laughing at and then some leftist political humor that never laugh's at itself out of it's own weakness. I'll keep watching since I watch at work and it's all that's on, hoping that I'll be entertained but it is getting somewhat old. I did like the fill in host's of Chris and Alison though, they were actually a good change of pace; maybe this show could do a rotating host thing. Olivia who I thought at times in the beginning was really funny has resorted to this constant pouting response and it's getting old, lol. 7 of 10; it will keep you in a young mindset which is good if you're a younger Baby Boomer like me (mid 40's). Maybe a cartoon of the day would be another segment they should do, there is a ton of stuff available they could use.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cannot hate on the show. When the old (and better) tech TV had to hit the bricks, the channel was reformatted and new shows stepped in. \"Attack of the Show\" is the replacement for the Screen Savers, with 3 co-hosts in the beginning. They were Kevin Rose, Kevin Pereira and Sarah Lane. Brendan Moran came to be something of a co-host as well, but he mostly did prerecorded pieces for the show. Kevin Rose decided to leave the show, and eventually there was a contest to see who would be the third host, but that didn't pan out for some reason.

Eventually (I just learned this from this very IMDb messageboard) Sarah Lane and Brendan Moran moved on because (hey, this is what I read) the two got married. That was a big secret to me! Now there is a new female co-host, the not-as-hot (my opinion) Olivia Munn. She's hiding something in those tops she wears, while Sarah Lane had a perfect body and she wasn't afraid to show it.

AHEM! Sorry.

\"Attack of the Show\" deals with everything young people want to know about. It's music, movies, comic books, the internet and television. This is what's great about the show. If you don't want to bother with scouring the net or waste time watching MTV, you can get all you want on AOTS. Some segments and bits they do are funny. They have regular guests and contributors who are in the industry, as well as guests who range from insignificant internet stars to actual big names.

Even though the hosts aren't as geek as I'd like them to be, I still have found \"Attack of the Show\" to be entertaining, even with its latest lineup.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all i want to say Ang Lee Did a very good job on this one! I watched it yesterday and i was presently surprised. The story is very good, but all the ignorant people would say \"This sucks people cant fly!\" to them i say IT'S FICTION and that it is. This is not to be taken as a film about reality you could say this is a \"fairytale\". And a very pleasant to watch Asian fairytale. The image's can actually blow your mind. Because there so artistically filmed , Ang Lee has a very (unapreciated u might say) big talent. The fight scene's are very cool and beautifully brought to the viewer. But it's sad but this film didn't get the appreciation it should have gotten. But Ang Lee did fortunately get the attention he deserved with his blockbuster broke back mountain. So even for viewers who are not interested in the story the images are entertaining enough!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, around the time I wrote this comment, I had already read what kittiwake-1 had written about this game and was confused. This is a video game and not an actual movie. I mean, I myself would choose a good Deniro movie or playing a video game any day. But, dude, what are you talking about? Now that I have that out of the way, let's move on, shall we? The video game adaption of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is, as you may have guessed, based on the movie of the same name. What's stranger is that this was released three years after the film was released. Whether that's due to a slow development time or just plain laziness, no one really knows. At least, I don't.

The game allows the player to play as the four main characters of the movie: Jen, Shu Lien, Li-Mu-Bi, and Dark Cloud (Whose story is a secret bonus that is unlocked for separate gameplay.) All four of these characters have fighting styles based on how they fought in the movie. However, the real eye candy is the evasion moves that allow each character to avoid the blows of an enemy's attack in the most impossible and gravity defying ways that were first showcased in the movie.

The story is obviously based on the story told in the movie. The story in the game is told using CG movies and spoken in a subtitled Mandarin language (A nice little touch, considering I preferred the foreign language track of the film over the dubbed one.) The story goes to expand on what might've happened to the other characters during the film and even (No real surprise since pretty much all video game movie adaptions have done this) alters what officially happened in the movie to make the game have more action. I never thought Jade Fox would go so far as to actually go and get hired goons.

The real bonus for the story is the ability to decide how the game ends. What if Jen had all the ingredients to cure Li-Mu-Bi in her possession? What if Jen had not gotten back her comb? What if Li-Mu-Bi had not gotten the green destiny back for the second time? Your actions will decide the outcome of these scenarios and the destiny of the characters in this game. This is truly the best feature of the game.

Yet, for all it's strengths, it also showcases some flaws. The enemies often tend to become a nuisance after a while and the camera angle tends to be fixed on the most unhelpful of spots. Not even the special features (Which are unlocked after beating the game) are good enough to even forgive such hardships that are forced upon the player.

If you loved the movie, you may enjoy the game. However, this game is the only way you're going to be able to immerse yourself into a playable version of such a beautiful and amazing movie.

Of course, you could have just picked a Deniro movie instead.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know a lot of people have said don't bother with this movie because its not a good fighting flick and hard with the subtitles. That is a really lazy way to think of a movie. If you want to focus on that part of the movie you should go find something else, and also learn to to respect cinema as a form of art, this being a masterful piece of work. If you want to watch this, its not about the fighting really. There are good fight scenes sometimes that are filmed rather well with good camera work, but the story itself is what holds the story together and is the important part. This is not the basic Kung-fu movie. The story is really the central focus and not the fights, and the combination of the two make an excellent movie thats well worth watching, and is even better in the original language with subtitles.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow, What a wonderful film-making! Mr. Im has done it, again!

His last work, ChunHayang (2000) was a great film, but this one is even greater. Selected as an official feature film in the Canne Festival for the second time in a two-year row, this 66 years old director is getting better and better at what he is making of with a Korean culture.

Simply, Chihwaseon is about a great Korean painter, '(Ohwon) JANG, Seung-Up' who was considered as a prodigy in the late Nineteenth century. The basic story of this film tells the life of Jang, Seung-up, and the historical background of his time. He was an orphan, but in his teens, he was picked up by a noble man, called, Kim, Byung-Moon. This Mr.Kim becomes a mentor of Jang as well as life-long friendship, and continues to support his great talent that he knew in the first place. With Jang's great effort and natural talent, his fame grows faster and faster as the strength of his country, Korea falls down.

Jang's personality portrayed in the film is very complicated, and one of the best actors in Korea, Choi, Min-sik goes deep inside of Jang's soul. Suffering eyes reveal the struggle of a great artist's life. He is very serious sometimes, but all of sudden, he changes to a wild maniac. He drinks like an alcoholic, and sleeps with courtesans anytime. Even, he said in the movie, \"without an alcohol and a woman, I can't draw. (An alcohol and women are my only inspirations)\" In the peak of the fame, to develope his own style, he travels all around the country, and never gives up his pride as an artist for the authority or money. I don't want to give out every details, but I think you surely did get some ideas about the film.

The most amazing thing about this film is a cinematography. It is just so breath-taking how they captured every beauty of landscapes. Yes, each scene is like a work of Jang's painting. And the script is perfect, too. It mainly deals a deeper meaning of what makes a true artist. For example, Kim advices to Jang in the movie that 'before one holds a paintbrush, one has to set an aim in life'. This is very moving and inspiring line, and there are many more.

Go See this Film if you are going to be in the Canne Festival.

Chihwasun will be the greatest film ever made that deals with the life of a painter in film history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chi-hwa-seong (Painted Fire) recounts the life of Korean painter Jang Seong-ub amidst the changing political landscape of late 19th century Korea.

However, the themes of this film center around the process of artistic creation through the fire of desire of the artist and the expectations and demands of their audience and society.

Jang seong-ub is played masterfully as a complex character who changes from the innocent excitement of youth to a hardened alcoholic tortured soul. This characterization mirrors the young eager artist that finds it more and more difficult to invoke the spirit of artistic creation within himself without letting the creative fire out via drink, erections, and desire.

Although this character development proceeds overall gradually through the film, the emotional complexity of Jang is still played in a constantly oscillating manner building to the films' finale. Interestingly, the montage of the film parallels this constantly changing and seemingly wild emotion or fire of the artist as scenes seamlessly transition from one time and location to another without any conventional 'cues' to the audience that such a scene change will occur. For example, many scenes would change seemingly in mid conversation picking up at another point and location.

The visual scenery of the film is presented beautifully and also oscillates from stark (and perhaps bleak) black and white scenery to more colorful and alive environments that again parallel the paintings of Jang either in simple black ink on white paper or with color added. Rainbows of color enter the film at points as the artist observes nature and especially women that then become reflected in his paintings.

The theme of an artist's individual desire to create versus the expectations and demands of society arises in the film through various points including class distinction, the domination of government over the artist, the accepted norms of the artistic elite, and the base desires of the common masses. Instead of creating his own completely original works, Jang finds himself mostly recreating masterpieces of other artists throughout East Asia. The question thus arises if recreation itself deserves artistic merit.

I wish that I was more familiar with the political events of the period to firmly grasp how they tied into the story - but beyond any comparison to the current role of Korean government in artistic expression and\/or censorship I cannot comment.

Overall an extremely well acted film and the cinematography is often breathtaking. A great film to see and then ponder over.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The fire gives all...

This is one of film's most masterful meditations on artistry. Set in 19th century Korea it tells the story of the famous painter Ohwon, but rather than stick to saucy anecdote, melodrama, or psychological egg hunting, it portrays a series of episodes throughout his life, all of which are beautiful works of art in themselves. It gives no interpretation of these episodes, but leaves them for the viewer to ponder along with the paintings of Ohwon himself. In this way, the viewer enters into the same sort of contemplation as Ohwon, and minus his talent can \"feel\" their way into the inspiration of his paintings.

Part of why this is so effective is the utterly masterful evocation of 19th century Korea and the musical\/artistic world that Ohwon moved in. There are so many gorgeous shots of the world outside the paintings that we get a mirror effect where we see the beautiful world inspiring Ohwon, Ohwon living and looking in that world, and the works of art he creates, all mirroring off one another.

The story is told with extreme economy. A feeling evoked is hardly ever lingered with or explained, it just appears quickly then is gone for the next one to appear. As an analogy it is a sort of Mozartian work of art (endless and quick succession of great ideas) rather than Beethovinian (Obsessive lingering on one great idea). It has a classical restraint, much like Ohwon's paintings. There is really no music hinting how to feel except a few classical Korean pieces used with great effectiveness in several scenes (and mostly played by characters in the movie). One haunting image, if I remember correctly, is of a flock of birds soaring away over the blue mountains while a female singer croons

\"This life is like a dream, and only death will awaken us\"

One telling line of advice in the film, from one of Ohwon's teachers, is that \"the painting lies between the strokes.\" The film follows that attitude as there is so much matter *between* what is spoken and described in the film. I have seen it twice and it was very rewarding on the second viewing. A very terse film, with little in the way of obvert explanation, one could see how it is Im's 96th film. It is an artistic masterwork. Like Ohwon's great friend and mentor tells him in describing one of his paintings, \"Not a single stroke is wasted.\"

I compare it to Andrei Rubylev in quality, though in style it is very different. It is much easier and more directly entertaining to watch, but classical in form where Andrei is gothic.

All in all highly recommended to almost anyone except appetite junkies. Both times I left the film I felt a wonderful spiritual renewal.

One point of Ohwon's life that intruiged me was that his mad drinking and raving began suddenly after visiting the noble who told him that \"Good art can come only from great knowledge and learning.\" The next brief scene Ohwon was very angry, and the next blasted drunk as he often remained for the remainder of the film. I am curious why the nobles words effected him so much and drove him to the drinking that dominated the rest of his life. Or was it just a coincidence?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a movie! I have always liked the Asian style of shooting, and this movie does not disappoint at all! Photography is breath-taking, ranging from amazing landscapes to whirls of colours. The main actor is really realistic in representing the painter (whose paintings are astonishing). The ending is also very well chosen, very poetic. The only remark is that they should have maybe shown a bit more deeply the connection between his inspiration and his abuse of alcohol and women. But altogether this is an excellent film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie could be a bit boring for some people, but I find this film

very interesting in terms of an attempt to reveal a tradition.

The director, Lim, has made two films about traditional music in Korea before this film. The film before this one was showing the music throughout the film, and this film is trying to achieve similar things by having backgrounds in the movie just like a painting.

Another thing is that, the story is written by both director and a philosopher, Kim who is well known scholar in Korea (holding a lot of degrees - including doctor at Havard) I'm not saying that educated people make better films but that philosopher is an expert in traditional culture in Korea, so it gives more credit on this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not sure why the other comment on this film was so negative, but I loved this movie. I am a student of Asian art with a particular love of Korean art, culture and history. I thought this movie borough a very controversial and interesting character to life. Jang Seung-up is one of the (maybe the most) famous Korean artist and continues to be revered as a master. Given the tumult of the time in which he painted and his own conflicted nature, it is amazing that he produced so much work, in so many styles and with such skill. This movie honors his talent while taking a direct look at his erratic and somewhat self-destructive personality. The cinematography in MY opinion was beautiful, many of the outdoor panoramic shots looked like Korean landscape paintings (which I found a lovely conceit rather than \"overly arty\") and I think that Choi Min-sik portrayed Jang Seun-up with a necessary intensity and unpredictability. I would highly recommend this film to art lovers and movie lovers alike.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"inspite of many movies dealing with great artists or a genius, chihaweseon pointed out the real dilemma in which an artist is capted...

the decision whether to ease the demands of the popularity or to create something new and to define ones' own style.

Chiahweson's desperate seek for inspiration and broadening his conscious led him to live the way he did, restless, outrageous, and yes very drunk!

But still he defended and retained the most important ethical rules for an artist: respect to his Master, respect to the nature and the gradual seek for improvement and to perfection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is not surprising that this film was made by I'm Kwon Taek at the time it was. He examined the early beauty and tragedy of Chosun Dynasty life in Seopyonje and delightfully explored a well-known Korean folk tale in Chunhyang, and these comprised his last two films. What is most surprising is that Chi Hwa Seon, his 2002 offering, is not presented in the pansori style of those previous two films.

Nonetheless, the experienced hand of I'm comes through. We explore together the life of a real person: a late nineteenth century Chosun Dynasty painter who rides on the edge of modernity but who is not a noble and who, because of that, causes a stir in contemporary Korean society with his fame and his public and artistic expressions of disdain for the old Korean noble class and his contempt for would-be Japanese ruling colonials alike. The painter, Chang Seung Up, known popularly as Oh Won (performed magnificently by Choi Min Sik, the famous star of Park Chan Wook's already legendary \"OldBoy\") becomes more and more influential and therefore more dangerous throughout the film. Contemporary Korean audiences will back a hero like this despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact, that he was so ostracized in his time. I'm's sense of simultaneous beauty and tragedy in history remains intact. I'm is a master at capturing his country's past idiosyncrasies, and in this film he almost outdoes himself. As expected in an I'm film, the cinematography is breathtaking, the editing is precise and the story is central.

Plots are set against Seung Up, family ties are tested and broken, scandalous behavior is alleged (and is sometimes real), all to bring down the man who \"painted fire.\" But against all the intricacies of I'm's detailed but sometimes convoluted account of Seung Up's life, Seung Up himself somehow manages to survive. He becomes legendary because of his ability to perfectly copy famous Chinese paintings after only one look. Art dealers and agents then besiege him and try to make money off \"Oh Won.\" In other words, lines of people, who wish to take advantage of the real Seung Up, an artistic star, begin to form. But he refuses to be manipulated. His cleverness in staving off both the massive hordes and the imperial lackeys impresses the audience, if not the cast.

What does Seung Up think? He possesses powerful emotions and opinions about painting, such as the aesthetic belief that paintings are living things and are never truly finished. He despises those who would try to turn art into profit. And he cares not for politicians who use their might to bring artistic beauty around them and then cast off the artist as traitorous. But he also thinks that painting plays a role in the coming upheavals. Horrid scenes involving foreign invaders from France and Japan are presented. I'm's signature historical epic motif, and his influence in the realm, remains on prominent display in this multi-million dollar epic.

The protagonist causes greater grief for himself and those who care for him when he refuses to paint. This is when the story takes on a whole new meaning, one that is not just political, but social in nature. I'm takes on the issues in laudable realist fashion.

He, Oh Won, becomes a Jesus figure. The people believe him capable of artistic miracles and the government feels it needs his artistic support, but the protagonist remains fiercely independent and contemptuous of what others want him to do or be. Eventually, both government and people come down upon Seung Up in a manner taken straight out of the Bible. His holiness becomes human; his humanity is not accepted; he dies for (or escapes from) the sins of the commoners, the art critics, the politicians, who hound him.

But does he die? As with most of I'm's films, a question remains. In this case, does Seung Up really become an immortal hermit? The film does not tackle that question; it merely presents a possible end for the real man of Chang Seung Up, or Oh Won. No death is depicted because no death is known.

It is difficult to find fault with this film, but I'm has become so good at presenting various historical absurdities in his culture that when he does, it hardly surprises anymore. As usual for I'm's films, the cinematography, the editing and the writing are all first rate. It's a well-crafted film imbued with I'm's uncanny story-telling ability. Granted, he may be best at doing this through the ancient Korean musical art of pansori. Still, the film contains stretches of this admirable art form, and by the end, viewers feel as if they have become privy to a great, untold story. And they have, because that, precisely, is I'm's gift.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film, winning Im Kwon-Taek the Best Director at Cannes in 2002 (tied with P.T. Anderson for Punch-Drunk Love), is about a 19th century Korean painter with a commoner's roots and significant impact on Korean painting. One of the strengths?of the film is that Im tries to help us see with the eye of a painter, so we see multiple scenes and objects which help our drunken painter friend, Jang Seung-up (Choi Min-shik),?receive inspiration.

The costumes and the art direction are all impressive and the acting is even along being good. It's not a movie that moved me, but it was one that made me think about art and what it means to find your own voice in it. That's pretty cool. It's also interesting to see a version of Korea during those times right before the turn of the century, where Chinese and Japanese powers are both in Korea and the Chosun kingdom is coming to an end. More than one revolution and political ideology are gathered in the film, but are never the center. It's firmly on the painter.

In the end, it's a well made film about the life of a painter. But it doesn't exactly have the regular three-act structure plot, so you have to be able to take a non-standard Hollywood story to watch it. Yay for art! 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is not surprising that this film was made by I'm at the time it was. I'm examined the early beauty and tragedy of Chosun Dynasty life in Seopyonje and delightfully explored a well-known Korean folk tale in Chunhyang, and these comprised his last two films. What is most surprising is that Chi Hwa Seon, his 2002 offering, is not presented in the pansori style of those previous two films.

Nonetheless, the experienced hand of I'm comes through. We explore together the life of a real person: a late nineteenth century Chosun Dynasty painter who rides on the edge of modernity but who is not a noble and who, because of that, causes a stir in contemporary Korean society with his fame and his public and artistic expressions of disdain for the old Korean noble class and his contempt for would-be Japanese ruling colonials alike. The painter, Chang Seung Up, known popularly as Oh Won (performed magnificently by Choi Min Sik, the famous star of Park Chan Wook's already legendary \"OldBoy\") becomes more and more influential and therefore more dangerous throughout the film. Contemporary Korean audiences will back a hero like this despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact, that he was so ostracized in his time. I'm's sense of simultaneous beauty and tragedy in history remains intact. I'm is a master at capturing his country's past idiosyncrasies, and in this film he almost outdoes himself. As expected in an I'm film, the cinematography is breathtaking, the editing is precise and the story is central.

Plots are set against Seung Up, family ties are tested and broken, scandalous behavior is alleged (and is sometimes real), all to bring down the man who \"painted fire.\" But against all the intricacies of I'm's detailed but sometimes convoluted account of Seung Up's life, Seung Up himself somehow manages to survive. He becomes legendary because of his ability to perfectly copy famous Chinese paintings after only one look. Art dealers and agents then besiege him and try to make money off \"Oh Won.\" In other words, lines of people, who wish to take advantage of the real Seung Up, an artistic star, begin to form. But he refuses to be manipulated. His cleverness in staving off both the massive hordes and the imperial lackeys impresses the audience, if not the cast.

What does Seung Up think? He possesses powerful emotions and opinions about painting, such as the aesthetic belief that paintings are living things and are never truly finished. He despises those who would try to turn art into profit. And he cares not for politicians who use their might to bring artistic beauty around them and then cast off the artist as traitorous. But he also thinks that painting plays a role in the coming upheavals. Horrid scenes involving foreign invaders from France and Japan are presented. I'm's signature historical epic motif, and his influence in the realm, remains on prominent display in this multi-million dollar epic.

The protagonist causes greater grief for himself and those who care for him when he refuses to paint. This is when the story takes on a whole new meaning, one that is not just political, but social in nature. I'm takes on the issues in laudable realist fashion.

He, Oh Won, becomes a Jesus figure. The people believe him capable of artistic miracles and the government feels it needs his artistic support, but the protagonist remains fiercely independent and contemptuous of what others want him to do or be. Eventually, both government and people come down upon Seung Up in a manner taken straight out of the Bible. His holiness becomes human; his humanity is not accepted; he dies for (or escapes from) the sins of the commoners, the art critics, the politicians, who hound him.

But does he die? As with most of I'm's films, a question remains. In this case, does Seung Up really become an immortal hermit? The film does not tackle that question; it merely presents a possible end for the real man of Chang Seung Up, or Oh Won. No death is depicted because no death is known.

It is difficult to find fault with this film, but I'm has become so good at presenting various historical absurdities in his culture that when he does, it hardly surprises anymore. As usual for I'm's films, the cinematography, the editing and the writing are all first rate. It's a well-crafted film imbued with I'm's uncanny story-telling ability. Granted, he may be best at doing this through the ancient Korean musical art of pansori. Still, the film contains stretches of this admirable art form, and by the end, viewers feel as if they have become privy to a great, untold story. And they have, because that, precisely, is I'm's gift.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"That's right. Ohwon (the painter and the main character) is an exceptional person. What strikes me most is the message this film might address to all of you people there. And the message is sad. It says that, it's very difficult to do anything that's amazing or maybe even genius without having to obey the governments, establishment and other VIPs of this world. And even if you try, you might not be able to bear it. It is about the battle of a single person with a system. With many systems.

A great film of this wonderful Korean director. Please see it if you do have an opportunity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Warning--this film has some amazingly graphic images and should never be seen by kids.

The artist who this story is all about was indeed a fine Korean painter who rose up from the lowest depths to become their greatest painter. Unfortunately, in so many ways, this guy was also a jerk in so many ways. Some of this was the artistic temperament and what may have seemed annoying was just his demanding nature when it came to art. But, other times he was simply a drunk jerk--especially when he was on his way to becoming a great artist. Late in the film, his being annoying, abrasive and needlessly cruel seemed to have diminished. While all this didn't make him a particularly nice man, it is important to capture on film so we understand a lot about the nature of the artist.

I really found the movie fascinating and loved how the artists actual works were shown throughout the movie (like in LUST FOR LIFE). I really wish I could show this to my students (I teach at a school for the arts), but can't because there is just too much adult material. Yes there is nudity, but even more problematic for any audience (particularly younger ones) is when he,....hmmm,...I don't think IMDb will even let me describe what occurred, but it was very graphic and involves bodily fluids. Not only a nasty and disgusting scene that did NOT need to be seen, but a reason to keep junior from watching this otherwise wonderful film. It's a real shame.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First off, I absolutely loved this movie. As a Billy Crystal fan, I must say that I was expecting more comedic situations than I actually got. However, it was nice to see him in a role with more depth and emotion. His portrayal of talent agent Sammy was brilliantly performed and uniquely him. In addition, Gheorghe Muresan (as Maximus) was superb in his first film role. When Sammy goes to Romania to visit his client on location he has his world turned upside down. He never expected that he would accidentally find the one person who could change his life. Sammy and Max's journey is unique and moving, and even humorous at times. Plus, the location in Czech Republic where parts of the film were shot, was absolutely beautiful. I have to say, this dramatic comedy had me feeling a variety of emotions. I thought it was excellent and I would recommend it to anyone and everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I always liked this movie, I have seen it so many times but I always enjoyed it :) the story is interesting and special. But the only thing I have to disagree with is that I don't think Max lived in a Romanian monastery or what was that :P They don't look that way in Romania.. Anyway, back to the story, Ghita Muresan played pretty well but as someone said before me, his English needs to improve.

And there were some funny moments and some tragical\/sad parts too. It worths being seen, I thought it was sweet that the giant wanted to find his love. I recommended to you all. It's not the best movie ever, but it was nice!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i totally disagree with the person who first commented about this movie. to me, this storyline is about a man with growth hormonal disorder trying his best to look for the love he is yearning for. Trying his very best to fit into the society who doesn't seemed to accept him.

He then met someone who treats him with best friend's love and was shown the way to receiving the love he always wanted to have. the man who created all that happiness in returned received something important from the giant, which is family and spouse love.

and the comedy, it's just part of making the audience feel some laughter bugs at certain part of the shows.

and i must admit, it made me tear a little.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Containing Billy's famous humor, this more modest comedy with heavy bittersweet overtones is a big departure, pleasantly unexpectedly so for Billy Crystal. This movie has different tear-jerker, dramatic, serious underlying themes (particularly with a scene with Steven Seagal). This movie was both entertaining and serious, a movie about lost love, about relationships with father-son, husband-wife, about friendship and values with a good dose of humor thrown in, especially at the beginning. The balance between drama and comedy isn't always maintained as with the new classical genre of this type, but the real message and motivation for this movie remains solid. The discovery of Billy Crystal's talent scout\/agent character in Romania of a giant human is revealing and the behind the scene's view of movie agent is fascinating. Yet the focus remains on sensitive ties of both love and learning about one's self. Eight out of Ten Stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a brilliant film. The story starts off in Romania,where Billy Crystal stars as an agent who can talk anybody into doing anything. There is a really funny scene here, where Crystal is a child, and talks his father, who is a rabbi into eating pork (you filmophiles may know that this is a parody of Crystal's religion). He is mainly a talent scout, and he's trying to find a suitable villain for his latest movie. After finding out that the whole film has a terrible crew, he accidently falls into a small river. Believing he is dead, some huge hands come out to reach him. HE later thinks he is in heaven. He finds out that he isn't, but that he is in a monastery. Believing God saved him, he becomes a monk, searching for who saved him. He later finds a 7 ft 7 in man, who he casts as the perfect villain (he also recites Shakespeare!). See the film and find out the rest!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a little film with a big heart. Excellent acting throughout and directed with love. If you missed it in theatres (and who didn't?), catch it with someone you love. Frankly, I cried! And I'm a guy, for cryin' out loud!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the greatest movie ever. If you have written it off with out ever seeing it. You must give it a second try.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just wanted to say that. I love Gheorghe Muresan, so I automatically loved this movie. Everything else about it was so-so... Billy Crystal is a good actor, even if he is annoying. But the thing that made this movie was- at least, for a basketball fan- seeing Gheorghe Muresan act.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie turned out to be better than I had expected it to be. Some parts were pretty funny. It was nice to have a movie with a new plot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't think I've yet seen a movie in my whole lifetime about a high school kid creating his own college, just to impress his parents. Nowadays, movies are either remakes or sequels, or plots that have been used in many different films. This one has an original story line and to follow it up by making it a comedy films only lightens the deal. With this well thought out story and with laughs mixed in, this is a good movie. Now I've seen better, but upon going into the theater I was thinking another drug\/beer\/frat party with some sexual innuendo tossed in (aka an \"American Pie\" flick) but I was surprised. To sum it up, I enjoyed the film and the next time your shuffling through the paper for movies, look for show times to \"Accepted\". If you want to laugh out loud, that is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is what movies should aspire to. Funny without being totally stupid, a little sexy without having every female in the cast show her boobs, biting without resorting to 'f-bombs' every line. I've been seeing Justin Long pop up in a lot of films over the past few years, I figured with the right role he could break out. (Mac commercials not withstanding.) This film just might put him on a fast track to the A list. The rest of the cast also did their jobs perfectly, this is an excellent little film with a nice message. (But you don't need to buy the message to have a good time.) Lewis Black is, as usual, hilarious, and Blake Lively is a fresh faced beauty.

Take a couple hours and see this film, they will not have been wasted.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I for one was very anxious to watch this movie.

Though I knew it was going to be another type of movie in the style of Revenge of the Nerds, I was still impressed.

There is plenty of truth to the fact of this type of learning and believe very strongly that it should be allowed in a \"new style of schooling\".

Conventional teaching methods do not always teach students what they need to know or should know or want to know.

This approach to teaching should be further sought out in true academic courses.

While there still was too much of the partying scenes, it obviously had to be thrown in there - for Hollywood's sake of making a comedy about college...even though we all know that life isn't really like that by any means.

A touch unbelievable, still funny and with a killer ending.

Awesome ending. Crucial to the entire story and very surprising.

Without the final scene, the movie would have been half as good.

I liked this movie and it didn't have to have overly amounts of swearing or nudity or gross out jokes for it to be good.

Great crew and cast, story and even the generic typecasting of the obligatory \"Hampton frat members\" was well done.

American Pie 1, 2 3 and American Wedding or whatever clones it makes doers not measure up to this by 1\/3.

Far better than most comedies about first year College with no demeaning stupid jokes to make somebody throw up with.

I liked it, even though it was simple...it was interesting and even had heart...my only regret for watching this movie is that it wasn't longer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A great movie. The movie was even better then the commercials put on. And believe it or not it was very very inspirational. I really think anyone who walks out of the movie at the end will be inspired one way or another.

It was kinda corny at the very beginning, but quickly picks up. I laughed. I laughed very hard on some parts. The acting is basically above average, nothing special, but better then average. I can safely say it was the second funniest movie to come out this summer (1st funniest being CLERKS II). So after all of that I give it a 7\/10 (a high seven, but not quite an eight).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Contrary to what many may believe as this movie being an \"against the system\" type of movie and attitude. It is an excellent portrayal of the \"system\" in question and how ridiculous it truly is. The funny parts in the movie are in fact funny because they speak the truth about the world around us. Anyone who finds this movie to be unrealistic is simply denying the self evident truths about life. And that is to learn what you enjoy. That is what college should be about..

I come to find that a comment must have at least 10 lines. I think I have given my opinion on the matter. So I now write a couple more lines just as filler. I hope you have been entertained during this time. I encourage you to go see the movie. It is well worth your while so long as you follow it and immerse yourself in the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the trailer and read some reviews, and I had low expectations for this movie. I was pleasantly surprised. While the plot is a little off-beat, everybody in the making of this movie pulled off a pleasant flick good for many a laugh. The writing and jokes are far more literate than I have come to expect. Better yet, they are delivered with aplomb by unknown actors doing a good job, all of them.

The main reasons I wanted to see this movie were Justin Long and Lewis Black. Long is from \"Ed\" and the new Apple computer ads. He was just coming into his own as an actor in \"Ed,\" and he was excellent here. He's a natural in front of the camera. Lewis Black is a social commentator who pulls no punches. He's on \"The Daily Show\" on Comedy Central about once every two weeks, but he really shines in HBO's \"Red, White, and Screwed.\" I regularly catch him on XM Radio's uncensored comedy channel. Give Black an idea and let him improvise. Whether his rants and lines here are scripted or improvised are no matter. He's priceless delivering his thoughts on middle class angst. One thing about Black's delivery, his hand gestures are not those of a comedian. It just seems like he's having a conversation with you, and I think that makes him unconsciously more effective.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best thing from the American Pie \"bakery.\" I found the humor and the plot to be far more engaging audience than any of the American Pie movies to date. .Also concerning the appropriateness of the content I found this to be acceptable to a much larger audience than any of the previous American Pie movies. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie experience. When the movie first came out I read a number of negative reviews and ended up not going to see it while it was still in the theater...I now regret that decision. The movie far exceeded my expectations in terms of plot, dialog\/scripting, and overall quality. I give it two thumbs way up!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Synopsis) Graduating high school senior Bartleby \"B\" Gaines (Justin Long) finds himself without a college to attend. He has been able to talk and con his way out of every problem he encounters, but he hasn't been able to charm his way pass the college admissions board of eight colleges. His mom and dad are very disappointed that Bartleby hasn't been accepted into college. His parents think that if Bartleby doesn't go to college, he will have no future. Several of Bartleby's friends are in the same situation of being rejected by all the colleges they applied to. To satisfy their parents, Bartleby comes up with an idea to start his own college with an internet site. They convert an abandoned psychiatric facility into the South Harmon Institute of Technology. They will be the only students. However, the web site states that we accept anyone. On the first day of school, they unexpectedly have a large number of accepted students that were also rejected by all colleges. With a million dollars in tuition money, Bartleby must make his fake college into a functioning one. He hires Uncle Ben (Lewis Black) as the College Dean. The fun begins when they design their own curriculum, make their own rules, and party all night.

(My Comment) The premise of starting a college without a teaching staff is a little off the wall. Since it was a fake college, Bartleby really didn't need a staff. The movie reminded me of the classic movie \"Animal House\", the college setting, the fraternity, lots of gags, and pretty young women. These new college freshmen had a different notion of what the college experience was all about. The movie not only has lots of humor, it also has a good message for life. People should reach for their dream and create a passion for what they want to do in life and not settle for what other people want them to do. The ending was a little unrealistic, but it is only a movie. The movie was made for the young crowd to have a little fun. (Universal Pictures, Run time 1:32, Rated PG-13) (7\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went in to this thinking another gross movie with gross humor. Telling from my first sentence I don't like that humor and this movie had it's moments but I loved it. Justin Long has really never done comedy like this, where he's sarcastic and clever and I loved it. Lewis Black....enough said. The ending I really did love because It had to take itself seriously I mean how else would you end it? Yes it's another underdog story but not in your typical format and the movie wasn't their ups and downs, it was people coming together for one common goal, To go to college where they were accepted. The cast was amazing and yes I did laugh at loud when I didn't think I would and the laughter lasted longer then I thought to. The parents and sister played their roles well but their characters are put in when necessary. The movie was not focused around them but at the same time they showed up when you expect and not expect them to. They played in to the story very well, and I loved the familiar faces Anthony Heald(Boston Public), Jeremy Howard (I) (Galaxy Quest with Justin Long) Ross Patterson (The New Guy)and Sam Horrigan (Brink). Blake Lively added her certain something to the movie which made it even more enjoyable, as well as B's Friends. I recommend this movie to whoever hated those gross comedies of the last 4 years and really want something with humor and an actually story line!~!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the creators of Bruce Almighty and Liar Liar! The film took a while to pick up from the start, at least for me seeing as I expected this was a run-along America Pie flick. But it was slightly different-- a fun-loving slacker who finishes high school and makes his OWN college, running it accordingly. As you can expect, there's a lot of parties and hot girls in bikinis but this film tried harder than your average teen flick. Bartleby Gaines (Justin Long) encourages his students \/ peers to learn through freedom of expression and ultimately 'shove it to the system.' The humour was varied which I loved. All the cast delivered fantastic performances-- hire this one out with a friend, it's a bloody crack up!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On the face of it, any teen comedy runs the risk of being sophomoric and obvious, and fair enough, most of them are. There are a few that have risen above the usual banality of the source material (Bring It On, Eurotrip), and they give me hope that others can join that depressingly rare crowd of teen comedies that are actually funny and not just an excuse to flash some starlet's boobs or be a vehicle for some never-was like Tom Green.

Enter Accepted, directed by John Cusack pal Steve Pink and led by the likable Justin Long (the smart nerdy kid in Galaxy Quest and more recently featured in Apple computer ads), about a bunch of kids who don't get accepted to college and decide, as disclosed in the trailer, to fake a bogus one to get their parents off their backs. When they go a little too far with the website and other kids end up enrolling, the kids have a few problems to solve.

Okay, the set-up is obviously preposterous, but most comedy lives or dies in the execution, and here, Accepted does pretty well. Long's Bartleby Gaines (mostly shortened to 'B') is accompanied by enough well-meaning comically acceptable friends to help him share the load, but probably the best supporting character is 'Dean' Lewis (no doubt named as an homage to Rodney Dangerfield's Dean Martin), aka Uncle Ben, Lewis Black, who is wisely restricted to short spurts where he can rapid fire his unique brand of cranky observational humor. Black is terrific here, frankly telling the kids what life is really like (his expletive-laden final line is hysterical) and providing the adult face to the bogus university for the parents.

But Long has to carry most of the film, and he does so, in spades; Bartleby is easily identified with and we take to him almost immediately. A nice twist was provided by Columbus Short's character Hands, an athlete who loses his scholarship due to an injury and ends up becoming the de facto art faculty at the fake college. Also noteworthy as Bartleby's hyper-intelligent and sarcastic little sister is Hannah Marks.

Yes, the film does feel familiar in some spots; there's a debt here owed, of all places, to Revenge of the Nerds. Those who are rejected by everyone else find a home with Bartleby and his cohorts, and of course the villains are steroid-enhanced conformist Master Race types who run a fraternity (well, okay, frats are evil) and seek to humiliate and bury the oddballs for the \u0096 gasp \u0096 crime of being different. But that aside, Accepted has fun with the material, and even asks a few decent questions about the expectations on college kids and the course of higher education. Not that it's a brain teaser by any means, but Accepted isn't just another mindless teen comedy (or Owen Wilson vehicle). It's a funny, clever 90 minutes that, while not a great departure from its genre, is intelligent and creative enough to be very enjoyable.

There is at least one moment of unadulterated brilliance in the film, when Bartleby checks out a nearby college in an attempt to harvest ideas for his own school's curriculum. When he sees that the kids are all stressed out at the other school (several refuse to even talk to him during class for fear of missing something), he shakes his head, thinking that there must be a better way. As he moves to leave he is met by a stream of kids going the other way, one person moving against a human tide, while in the background, the opening lines of Eleanor Rigby play. Perhaps an unplanned moment of brilliance, but brilliance none the less.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Accepted is one of the best teenage comedies I have seen in a long time. It has an original script, talented cast and it delivers an hour and a half of pure unadulterated fun.

It tells the story of a high school graduate Bartleby \"B\" Gains (Justin Long) who is not accepted in any of the collages he applied to, so to avoid his parents' disappointment he creates a fictional collage. In the attempt to fool his parents completely he creates a fake website and turns an old psychiatric hospital into a school. Everything goes smoothly until a lot of other \"accepted\" students turn up on his doorstep. Now he and his friend have to figure that collage thing out not only for themselves but for the others too.

Justin Long as a lead man is absolutely brilliant, his character is as natural as he can be and the supporting acts are outstanding- Jonah Hill as Sherman Schrader, Columbus Short as Hands, Maria Thayer as Rory, Adam Herschman as Glen and Lewis Black as Uncle Ben.

The humour is fresh and simple and most importantly funny, right from the start to after the credits .The plot develops so easy that by the time you stop laughing at the last joke you start giggling at next other. Along with all the fun the movie brings a very common subject to our attention i.e. the collage education. If usually the students in the movie are united against the school government, in this case they are united by the mutual desire to go to school and learn.

Yet the movie doesn't brand all other schools as wrong, it just shows that there is another way. You what they say \"If there is a will there is a way.And may be sometimes the children know better what they need than their parents.

This movie is an unmissable little story about the great opportunities in life wrapped up in the best format possible.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Accepted is a 2006 teen flick that stars the guy from the mac and PC ads. The movie is about Bartelby .B. Gaines a guy who has rejected from all the colleges he has applied for so decides to make his own college and invites all the other people who did not make it, problem is hundreds of people sign up to his school. The movie is hilarious and I was lucky enough to buy it for $5.00 at a sale and I have always watched it since. Overall this movie is a must watch for fans of all comedy as it is funny, witty and just a good movie all up. I rate this movie a very fair 78%. GO ACCEPTED MAKE A SEQUEL GUYS BUT MAKE SURE IT IS NOT CRAP.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw this movie i expected it to be a cheesy American movie done on the cheap with appalling actors. I was really surprised to find that i was totally wrong. The movie centres around Bartely or B who has been rejected from all of his colleges- the actor who play B is very natural and makes his character seem real- and decides to create a pretend school so his parents stop harassing him. However loads of people see his fake website and join. Feeling their sorrows B can't turn them away much to the chagrin of his best mate. The college is the ideal place with you learning what you want or doing nothing. The school faces opposition from the proper college which ends up closing it down. The film ends on a high and i recommend you watching it. Its does have it flaws but it is a feel good cheerful film with a few unpredictable twists.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The success of SCREAM gave birth to a whole new horror flicks wave. I'm happy with that, as a big fan of horror, and I liked most of those new horror films. BOC is a one big pack of horror. Colorful, fast paced and original. I see this movie more like the opening of a new trilogy (much like Episode 1 and Aliens: Resurrection) since it comes up with a new twist. Instead of focusing on the little boy-killer doll relationship we have here a twisted movie about couples. We have the sweet young lovers in contrast with the killer crazy doll-sized lovers. Very inventive!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm warning you -- this movie is not scary. If you're a horror movie fan, especially a Child's Play fan, you'll think it's incredibly funny, but you won't be scared. It's not a bad movie, but it's not scary.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the funniest sequel I have seen in a long time it is much funnier than the other three and not a bit scary. It has some very gory pieces in the film, but not bad enough to make you sick. In this one he has a female doll companion, hence the name. If you liked the first three then you'll love this, go watch it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's unbelievable but the fourth is better than the second and the third. After the third that was awful, it's incredible how they could have an unexpected sequel with new ideas. Chuck is the same nasty doll of the previous movies. Interesting the final that lets know that a fifth can be done....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know this movie isn't for everyone, and I won't push my opinions on you, but what I have to say is the truth about how many people feel about this movie...It was the best I have ever seen!!! It was soooooooooooooooooo funny, and even though it wasn't the scariest movie I had ever seen, it kept me on the edge of my seat, because I didn't know what was gonna happen next. If you like funny scary movies, you have got to see this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie was surprisingly wonderful especially considering the last sequel. The third was dark, and semi-interesting but it wasn't nearly as fun or enjoyable as this. It is filled with comedic lines about Martha Stuart, doll's anatomy, masturbation, and it was actually done effectively during gruesome and disturbing images. The movie wasn't scary or suspenseful and I'm sure that it wasn't the director's intention. It was fun because of the silliness, Jennifer Tilly's over the top and sexy performance. The puppetry of the dolls were so well handled, the movement of mouth, lips, tears in eyes, knife in chest, and the costumes. The dolls were just marvelous and it made the gruesome deaths more enoyable considering the fact that they were done by wonderful dolls. The new Chucky look was great and Tiffany was very cute. A few scenes with Chucky hugging the human Tiffany even made my father smile. Jesse and Jade were surprisingly well- very attractive and the special effects were cool. The ending was so unsuspected and the fact that they could make another as good is quite unlikely. It may not be as suspenseful as movies like Halloween H2O or Urban Legend, but it is certainly more fun!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this 4th Child's Play film, Chucky gets lucky. It's very funny and there are some enjoyable parts. Very good direction. Not as bad as it could be. The best one in the series since the first. Three stars out of four.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's just that. Chucky 1 was good. Chucky 2 was better. Chucky 3 sucked. Now, the 4th in the series which is, in my opinion, the best out of the series. Jennifer Tilly was just great in this movie. For dolls, they were better than a few actors that come to mind (Freddie Prince Jr, for one) and funnier than many comedies I've seen in the past.

The plot wasn't great, but I really didn't care about it. Just to see Chucky and Tiffany bicker and fight each other. And the ending leaves it wide open for a 5th sequel (which I hear is in the works). Idle Hands premiers next week and looks to be another horror\/comedy, but I doubt it'll top this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I will be honest, i rented this movie solely on the fact it was part of the \"Child's Play\" series. I was expecting a boring dull 4th part too the series, but i was surprised. This movie was surprisingly good, and i found it to be quite funny. There was a lot of dark humor, and the idea to have two dolls was a good way to spice things up. The two dolls worked well together and added a bonnie and clyde type fell to the movie. Overall it was very good for a 4th movie in the series, with some gruesome death scenes (just watch the marilyn manson type get killed at the beginning, not to mention john ritter getting a face full of nails). Applauds to the writers for spicing things up, and the ending although i found it a bit strange leaves room for yet ANOTHER sequel...maybe \"son of chucky\"!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jimmy Wang Yu, an authentic Asian superstar, directed and wrote this film which I have only seen in a dubbed videotape version. The widescreen (Shaw Scope!)shape was lost and the original actor's voices absent but this is still good to watch. The story is the usual martial arts school fights villains from Japan plot with our young hero winning out in the end by beating up loads of assorted thugs.

The combat gets better as the film unravels. Early in the film it looks stiff and dull but later there is a great scene where Wang Yu fights hordes in a gambling joint then walks out into a snowy scene and takes some more villains on with knives, sword and fists. That part is very exciting.

Quite good then but it would be interesting to see a non dubbed widescreen version if there is one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must have been around ten years old when my uncle took me and my brother to see this martial arts movie at the \" DRIVE IN \" at the circle drive in in Long Beach. The Title was \" HAMMER OF GOD \" from which i can never forget for some reason, but what i do remember are the different scenes that have left an imprint on my mind forever.

My brother always reminds me of the movie although it has been forever it seems since we seen the movie. From time to time throwout the years i would look for it at the rental stores and from time to time i would check on the web and for some reason it appears like it is never available or no one knows what movie I'm talking about.

If i only knew if and were it was available i would love to purchase that movie. If anyone is aware of its availability please inform me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's always a good feeling when a movie delivers the goods when you weren't expecting it. The Dead End Kids\/Bowery Boys found themselves in a lot of uneven films, and usually did better when in a support role, as in \"Angels With Dirty Faces\". Here, their presence as a backdrop to the story of a boxer framed for murder gives them a lot of screen time without distracting from the main action.

John Garfield is light heavyweight champion Johnny Bradfield, a southpaw hitter who's a lot different from the image he portrays to the sports world and the press. When a newspaper reporter inadvertently learns that Johnny's a party loving womanizer, his plans to spill that information in a column is interrupted by a whiskey bottle to the head from Johnny's manager Doc Ward (Robert Gleckler). In turn, Doc talks Johnny's girlfriend Goldie (Ann Sheridan) into running off with him to avoid the legal hassle of dealing with the reporter's death. As both flee, a police chase winds up in a fiery car wreck, and Doc's body is misidentified as Johnny from the gold watch he was wearing.

Claude Rains adopts an Edward G. Robinson sneer that doesn't quite work as a detective who's been reassigned to morgue detail after a bad arrest years ago. His character is Monty Phelan, and he has a pretty good hunch that the body in the car crash wasn't Johnny. He pesters his boss to hand over the closed case to him, and is given the assignment to get him out of town and out of the way.

Meanwhile, Johnny looks for advice from his lawyer, and winds up being screwed even worse when he gets conned for most of his ten thousand dollar savings. Making his way cross country, Johnny winds up at the Rancho Rafferty Date Farm in Arizona, run by a crusty Granny Rafferty (May Robson). The farm is the legacy of Granny's brother, a deceased priest from Brooklyn, and is now the home of a band of rag tag street boys (The Dead End Kids) who work the farm. Billy Halop is the nominal leader of the boys in this one, and his sister Peggy (Gloria Dickson) becomes the romantic interest for Johnny, now going by the name of Jack Dorney.

I get a kick out of the historical perspective offered in these pre-War era films. When Johnny and the boys take a joy ride in the farm's truck, they fill up at a gas station for a $1.28! Tommy (Halop) gets the idea that a gas station on the farm would be a good way to earn some extra money, and with that thought, Jack Dorney decides to take on a barnstorming boxer offering $500 a round to anyone who can stay in the ring with him. The clich\u00e9d premise is turned on it's ear somewhat when Jack gets knocked out in the fifth round, but by then he's earned enough to give the fruit farm a fighting chance of it's own. Maybe Grandma Rafferty should have been in the ring, she just about took out everyone sitting around her at ringside. As Johnny\/Jack comes around in the locker room, Detective Phelan is on hand to take him into custody. Knowing that he can redeem his reputation with this collar, it's a toss up as to whether Phelan follows through on his arrest - you'll have to watch the film to find out.

I like the Dead End films where Leo Gorcey's in charge, but he doesn't have a lot to do in this one. However he does a great film flam on the ticket taker at the gate of the boxing match. Another thought - wouldn't it have been great if the ever present picture on the wall of the priest had been that of Pat O'Brien?

All in all, this is a pretty good entry in both the John Garfield and Dead End Kids filmography, and an entertaining way to spend an hour and a half. If there's one downside, it's not enough screen time for pretty Ann Sheridan. The film might have wound up even more satisfying if the roles of Sheridan and Gloria Dickson were reversed, as the on screen chemistry between Dickson's Peggy and Jack seemed more forced than natural.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"They Made Me a Criminal is a remake of an earlier Warner Brothers film, The Life of Jimmy Dolan which starred Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as the prizefighter on the lam.

Even with the restrictions now upon production by the Hays Office, this remake actually turns out to be better than the original. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., is horribly miscast as a pugilist. John Garfield with his background and style steps into a part he was born to play.

They Made Me a Criminal was directed by Busby Berkeley who Jack Warner believed in keeping busy in between musicals. Berkeley in fact would soon be leaving Warner Brothers for MGM.

Berkeley does do a fine job here, keeping the action flowing at a good pace. I particularly like the scene where four of the Dead End Kids and Garfield are swimming in a water tank and get stranded there when the water level goes down. They get it out of it quite narrowly and with some good ingenuity.

Other performances besides Garfield and the kids to remember are May Robson who runs the summer camp for the kids and Claude Rains as the obsessed detective on Garfield's trail.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is breezy highly entertaining drama with an excellent cast. Garfield is fine as a boxer hiding from the police with that motley crew the Dead End Kids. Most notable of these is the beautiful Billy Halop who has some very moving moments. Gloria Dickson, who in real life died very young in a house fire, is strong and very attractive as Halop's sister, and in the early scenes Ann Sheridan, on the brink of stardom, is a knock-out. May Robson is very funny as a crusty old granny, but Claude Rains proves here that even a great actor can flounder if mis-cast (whoever thought of casting him as a tough New York cop?).

Busby Berkeley proves here that he was a fine director with or without musical numbers. The film moves at a terrific pace and the water tower sequence is very suspenseful and well photographed. The ending is contrived, and the plot nothing startling or original, but I still found this a highly enjoyable experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A beautiful film.John Garfield's character is a distant relative of \"Les Miserables\"'s Jean Valjean while detective Rains recalls Victor Hugo's Javert,the ruthless arm of law.

Like in many films noirs,the city epitomizes evil whereas the country and the nature represents sanctuary,redemption,and a second chance for those whose life seems forever doomed.But even in the luminous daylight,danger may appear suddenly,as the excellent scene at the reservoir shows.John Garfield -an actor who,as Leonard Maltin points out,should be rediscovered:I've never been disappointed by any of his films except for his supporting part in \"gentleman's agreement \" but it was not his fault-gives a heartfelt sensitive performance and the audience sides with him as soon as he is unjustly accused (the first sequence shows a rather unkind hypocrite person,but all his trials redeem him and how do we feel for him during the last scenes with detective Rains.Colorful characters (grandma and the kids ) add a lot of joie de vivre which is necessary .Humor is also present in the strip poker game as the Dead End brats fleece a rich kid.

I recommend this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The young John Garfield turned in a fine performance in the 1939 \"They Made Me a Criminal.\" Celebrating a ring victory in a jammed locker room, boxer Johnnie Bradfield emotes about his love of mom, rejection of booze and clean living style to fans, including cops, who eat it up. Later in the evening he's plowed and tussling with his bimbo gal while his manager, in on the con, shares the evening. And the whiskey.

A problem develops when another couple arrives. The guy is a newspaper reporter and he says he'll expose Bradfield's phony life on the front page. The manager kills the reporter and he and the floozy depart. The murder discovered, cops, later, are on the lookout for the now somnolent boxer whose car is driven by the manager with his new girlfriend-Johnny's now instant ex. A police chase ends with a fiery car crash. Manager and girl are dead and unrecognizable.

Johnny discovers that he's supposed to be a killer. But he's also presumed dead. Seeking advice from a lawyer, he entrusts the counselor with the key to a bank deposit box holding his sole savings, $10,000. The lawyer later gives Johnny $250 and tells him that the balance is his fee for giving him professional advice: get out of town, fast, and go far away. (I would never charge a client more than $5,000 for such pithy, succinct and wise direction.)

Johnny, now a freight train hopping hobo, winds up conveniently passing out at an Arizona date ranch where he's nursed back to health by beautiful Goldie West, Ann Sheridan, a fine actress whose career was in the ascendancy. Taking Jack Dorney as his moniker, the pugilist loses some of his rough edges as he falls in love with Goldie. He becomes a mentor and pal to - The Dead End Kids. Familiar screen characters to pre-war moviegoers.

A chance to make money arises when an exhibition boxer shows up challenging any suckers to last several rounds in the ring with him. It's a natural temptation for Bradfield\/Dorney but there's a fly in the ointment. Who should show up but New York detective Monty Phelan, the laughing stock of the department? He's been on morgue duty for ages because of a slight mistake early in his career that sent an innocent man to Old Sparky (we all make mistakes, don't we?) Phelan recognized Bradfield from a news photo and he's there to watch the fight and make the pinch. Claude Rains is the cop who's endured slights and barbs from his fellow officers for years.

What follows is predictable but it's well acted. I hope this was a main feature when it was released-it's too good to rank as a \"B\" second on a marquee.

Busby Berkeley, best known as an outstanding choreographer, directed \"They Made Me a Criminal\" and Max Steiner, one of Hollywood's all-time prolific score composers, wrote nice but not extraordinary music for the film.

Now available on DVD from Alpha Video, the movie set me back a mere $4.99 and gave me real pleasure. I'll view it again.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** Even though the movie \"They Made Me A Criminal\" is nowhere as good as the later John Garfield anti-hero classics like \"Body & Soul\" in 1947 \"Force of Evil\" in 1948 and his last and very underrated \"He Ran All The Way\" in 1951 it's the film that defined his career from that point onward until his untimely death on May 21, 1952 at the young age of 39.

Garfiled plays the part of light Weight Champion Johnnie Bradfield and later the fugitive from the law Jack Dorney who's innocent of the murder that he's charged with, even though he's been declared officially dead. Jonnie's manager Doc Ward, Robert \"Doc\" Gleckler, who during a drunken victory party killed reporter Charles McGee,John Ridgely, who was going to expose to the public his fighter Johnnie Bradfield lies about him being a one women guy as well as non drinking momma's boy. Doc Gleckler smashed a bottle over McGee's head killing him as Jonnie was almost dead drunk with a number of women partying in his hotel suite.

Doc was later killed in a car crash with Johnnie's girlfriend Goldie, Ann Sheridan, but Doc burned to a crisp and with Johnnie's watch on him was mistaken for Johnnie. Told to stay dead and buried by his lawyer Malvin ,Robert Strange, who took $9,750.00 of the $10,000.00 of Johnnie's money that he had for this great piece of advice. Malvin told Johnnie to take on a new identity and call himself from now on Jack Dorney and get the hell out of the state of New York; talking about sleazy shysters. Johnnie now Jack Dorney travels the rails from New York down to Arizona ending up at the Rancho Rafferty Date Farm where most of the film takes place.

If it wasn't for John Garfield in the lead role as both Jonnie Bradfield & Jack Dorney the movie would have long been lost and forgotten. Garfield who was only 26 at the time brought the best out of everyone in the movie. Even the transported Dead End Kids, I guess we can call them The Arizona Kids here, acting were notches above what you would have expected from them and they came across as real and sensitive persons not a bunch of slap stick clowns like in almost all of their movies. All that due to being on the same stage, or filming location, with John Garfield.

\"They Made Me a Criminal\" is a good story that has the undercover champ acting like anything but not to draw any attention on himself and end up not only behind bars but in the electric chair. In the end Jack showed just what kind of man he is by not fighting the big fight and against all the odds dramatically winning at the last moment but by going four brutal rounds to get the money for his new found family at the date farm including his girl Peggy, Gloria Dickson, to open up a gas station with it.

Giving the European champ Gaspar Rutchek, Frank Riggi, the fight of his life and getting $2,000.00, thats $500.00 a round, for doing it Jack showed everyone who looked up to him like the \"Arizona Kids\" that sometimes taking a punch is far braver and more courageous then throwing one.The fact that Jack could have easily clobbered Rutched but didn't in order not to expose himself to the police, as on the loose killer Johnnie Bradfield. But instead went as far as he could taking everything that Rutchek could throw at him to help out his friends showed more then all the fights that he won in the boxing ring put together.

I for one didn't find the ending of the movie contrived at all but fitting right in with the story. The cop Morty Phelam, Claude Rains, who came to Arizona from New York to arrest Jack had to live with for years the fact that he once sent an innocent man to the electric chair. We were told all this right at the start of the movie. Why knowing that Jack\/Johnnie was innocent of the murder that he's charged with and not knowing for sure if he'll be found innocent of it in a court of law would he want to make the same terrible mistake again? I can easily see this happening in real life why not then in the movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another enjoyable Warner flick. I really liked John Garfield in this, though I'm wondering why Cagney wasn't in the role. Perhaps it was too similar to ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES? I mean, it's another Dead End Kids story of sorts too, but I really appreciated them here and this film had a lot of nice comical touches along with some good serious drama. The boys work great with Garfield. A nice sequence was the whole \"swimming\" scene which starts out with no cares but winds up coming too close to disaster.

One negative comment: Claude Rains was grossly miscast. As the detective, the fine actor seemed as out of place here as a nun in a whorehouse.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The early films of the Dead End Kids (before they were re-christened \"the Bowery Boys\") were all very entertaining and well-produced films from Warner Brothers. Despite their being rather formulaic, they still had excellent writing, acting and hold up well over time. Do NOT confuse these with the cheap Bowery Boys films from Monogram Pictures--despite the presence of Huntz Hall and Leo Gorcey, these films were several notches below the earlier films in regard to quality.

The film begins with tough-guy John Garfield winning the lightweight boxing championship. Unfortunately, shortly after this he's on a drunken binge and is blamed for a murder he really didn't commit. The problem is that he was so loaded that he wasn't sure he didn't kill the man, so he runs away and lives the life of a hobo. Eventually, he meets up with feisty May Robson and the Dead End Kids--as well as a lady you just know will become his girlfriend given time.

Where the rest of the film goes was not all that surprising, but because of the quality of the film, it doesn't seem to matter. Garfield and the Kids are at their best and this is a film sure to please all but the pickiest of viewers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wasn't expecting a great deal from this film, so I was pleasantly surprised when I watched it and found it to be most noteworthy. It's noteworthiness is mainly due to the talent and appeal of it's star, John Garfield.

Garfield plays Jack, a boxing star who is framed for murder. He must go on the run, and ends up out in the sticks with Gloria Dickson and the Dead End Kids. Here is offered a chance for redemption, yet will the past catch up with him yet? Garfield was an actor ahead of his peers. Before the term 'Method' was even coined and before Brando ever screamed 'Stella!' he brings 'natural' to the screen. His earthy quality and amazing acting talent dominate this production. Also interesting is that his role here as a boxer has shades of that 'Golden Boy' role he so desperately wanted to covet on screen. Garfield looks the type and goes the distance as a boxer, proving his acting worth.

Ann Sheridan is here in a small role at the beginning as Jack's trampy girl Goldie. I haven't ever thought much of Sheridan, but I liked her here. She plays well off Garfield. Dickson's' performance is a little tired and she does not share good chemistry with Garfield. The Dead End Kids are here, and Garfield seems their natural idol (even more so than Cagney). Claude Rains is miscast, and he looks uncomfortable in the role in many a scene. Strange, as he always was such a reliable actor.

Also interesting to note is the director- Busby Berkeley, best known for his early musicals with dancing girls and kaleidoscope images, directs a different genre here with remarkable ease. He maintains a gritty atmosphere throughout admirably.

A very good film that deserves greater attention 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a fan of old warner brothers gangster movies i had to check this out,its the 2nd best movie in the adventure classics DVD set that also had one of my favorite movies;Scott of the Antarctic on it.this was made in 1939 a good year for a lot of warner brothers movies,it boasts a great cast;John Garfield,Claude Rains,Ann Sheridan,and the dead end kids,who would be later known as the Bowery boys at monogram pictures. well a boxer(Garfield)gets framed for a murder he did'nt commit and is on the run and being tailed by a tough new york detective(Claude Rains) he ends up at a fruit picking place run by a pretty woman(Gloria Dickson)and the dead end kids(Huntz Hall,Leo Gorcey,Benard Punsley, Billy Halop,Bobby Jordan,Gabreil Dell)he later returns to boxing but tries to keep a low profile.this was directed by famed director Busby Berkley who directed timeless classics like 42nd street,goldiggers of 1933,and 35,footlight parade and many others.i would like to give a shout out to platinum DVD\/video for putting out a lot of good budget priced DVD's like adventure classics(see my Scott of the Antarctic review)i give they made me a criminal 10 out of 10,great movie. ill have to point out that i have only seen 2 john Garfield movies,this one and body and soul.i thought he was a very good actor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very good 1939 film where John Garfield plays another boxer who becomes a victim when everyone thinks he has committed a murder. Trouble is that the killer and Garfield's girl, Ann Sheridan, in a brief but good performance, get killed while trying to elude the police.

A crooked attorney persuades Garfield to flee N.Y. He lands in Arizona and meets up with the Dead End Kids.. They've been sent there by a funding program to keep them out of further trouble.

Of course, Garfield finds a new love interest but must conceal his identity as everyone thinks he was not only the killer but was the victim in the car crash.

May Robson is fabulous as the grandma type running the place for the wayward youth. Claude Rains is also effective in the role of the detective who suspects that Garfield is still alive and pursues him when a picture is snapped of him in Arizona.

The film really deals with Garfield's relation to the boys. While the ending is good, you want to see Garfield go back to N.Y. to proclaim his innocence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Whoever plays the part of J. Douglas Williamson in the strip poker scene does a wonderful job. He apparently received no credits. Too bad.

All the Dead End Kids do their jobs beautifully in this 1939 entry. It is odd to watch them in a Western setting with their Brooklyn accents ( I guess that should be Bowery ). They even show some swimming abilities.

I think there are many special scenes that can stay with the viewer of this boxing\/love\/crime story. My favorite right now is in the fight scene near the end of the film. Busby Berkeley shows his dance movie expertise when John Garfield shifts his feet and as we watch that move, the camera moves up to his face. I will not give away why or when, but the look on his face at that point probably brought the 1939 audience to its feet in the theaters.

Some will think John Garfield looks a lot like Frank Sinatra in many scenes. Just his face. Actually Frank was not yet making movies so maybe Frank looked like John. The boxer named Smith in the movie looks like a clone of Ed Begley, Jr.

Now I must tell you something that is not a spoiler, but if you watch the movie, watch Grandma's hands. May Robson does her part well. She seems to have hands that wander a bit. In a scene where she and a crowd go into the boxer's (John Garfield) dressing room, watch where she touches the reclining John Garfield while he is wearing only his trunks.

A great ending. Lots of wonderful characters.

Best line might be at the gas station, \"...eight gallons, that's a dollar twenty-eight...\" Tom Willett","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had heard of John Garfield, but, didn't know him. I loved this movie. I had never heard of it. I just picked it up randomly. John Garfield is a boxer in the movie. He had been in real life also so he knew his part. He was a fugitive throughout the movie. Someone else killed a man. He character was blamed. He is befriended by a family who has questions and is not quite sure what to make of him. All sorts of minor plots ensue. My favorite was the scary swimming scene in a water tower where the water was deep and one Dead End Kid couldn't swim, AND none of them could get out.John's character saves the day. The Dead End Kids were great as his friends and followers. One of them right to the very end. Ann Sheridan played the family's daughter and John's eventual love interest. She was believable, but not lovable in my opinion-the only weak link in the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After winning a championship fight, boxer John Garfield (as Johnnie Bradfield) celebrates with a drinking binge, which leads to the manslaughter of a pushy reporter. Although his manager killed the man, Mr. Garfield is blamed. When the manager dies in a car crash, wearing Garfield's stolen watch, authorities think the boxer is dead. Still a WANTED man, Garfield changes his identity to \"Jack Dorney\" and moves to an Arizona ranch. There, Garfield meets \"The Dead End Kids\": Billy Halop (as Tommy), Bobby Jordan (as Angel), Leo Gorcey (as Spit), Huntz Hall (as Dippy), Gabriel Dell (as T.B.), and Bernard Punsly (as Milt).

Garfield bonds with the young \"Dead End\" lads, who were sent to stay with sweet \"Grandma Rafferty\" (May Robson) as an alternative to reform school, courtesy of her brother, deceased priest \"Father Rafferty\". Garfield falls in love with Halop's sister, pretty \"Peggy\" (Gloria Dickson), who is there to keep any eye on the kids. Of course, Garfield's past comes back to haunt him\u0085

\"John Garfield and The 'Dead End' Kids\" make beautiful (Max Steiner) music together, thanks to effective direction and photography, by Busby Berkeley and James Wong Howe. The story is predictably comfortable, with the Warner Brothers support team in fine form. Garfield and the \"Dead End\" kids are a winning combination; although Garfield made no further movies with the \"East Side\" gang, the studio had him re-team with both Billy Halop and Bobby Jordan, almost immediately, for \"Dust Be My Destiny\".

The boxing scenes are nicely staged. But, the most exciting sequence has Garfield and four of the New York \"Kids\" (Halop, Jordan, Hall, and Punsly) climbing into a giant water tank for a swim - which unexpectedly puts their lives in danger. Other, more brief, highlights include floozy Ann Sheridan (as Goldie), boozy Barbara Pepper (as Budgie), and young Ronald Sinclair (as Douglas) losing at strip poker.

******** They Made Me a Criminal (1\/21\/39) Busby Berkeley ~ John Garfield, Billy Halop, Bobby Jordan","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those films where it is easy to see how some people wouldn't like it. My wife has never seen it, and when I just rewatched it last night, I waited until after she went to bed. She might have been amused by a couple small snippets, but I know she would have had enough within ten minutes.

Head has nothing like a conventional story. The film is firmly mired in the psychedelic era. It could be seen as filmic surrealism in a nutshell, or as something of a postmodern acid trip through film genres. If you're not a big fan of those things--psychedelia, surrealism, postmodernism and the \"acid trip aesthetic\" (assuming there's a difference between them), you should probably stay away from this film. On the other hand if you are a fan of that stuff, you need to run out and buy Head now if you haven't already.

Oddly, the film has never received much respect. That probably has a lot to do with preconceptions. After all, it does star The Monkees--Micky Dolenz, Davy Jones, Michael Nesmith and Peter Tork--and The Monkees were a musical group of actors put together by producers Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider to be a kid-friendly, bubble-gummy Beatles for a television series. In their era, they had as much respect as, say, Menudo, New Kids on the Block, The Spice Girls, and so on. As a fellow IMDb reviewer rightly notes--\"Perhaps people in 1968, thinking of the Monkees as a silly factory-made pop band rip-off of the Beatles, refused to see (Head)\".

The Monkees and Head have never been quite able to shed that negative public perception. It's a shame, because there was a lot of talent, both musically and otherwise, in The Monkees. It's probably odder that Rafelson, who directs here and co-produces with Schneider, and Jack Nicholson (yes, _that_ Jack Nicholson), who wrote the script and also co-produces, decided to take The Monkees in this unusual direction. It's as if New Kids on the Block suddenly put out an album equivalent to Pink Floyd's Ummagumma (1969) or Atom Heart Mother (1970). In fact, the songs in Head, written by The Monkees and frequent collaborators such as Carole King and Harry Nilsson, have a Floyd-like quality, somewhere between the Syd Barrett era and the immediate post-Barrett era. This is much more prominent than any Beatles similarity. Some people have complained about the music in the film, but to me, all the songs are gems. For that matter, some people dislike Barrett era (or other) Floyd, which is just as difficult for me to empathize with.

But what _is_ Head about? The basic gist is just that The Monkees are taking a trip through various film genres--there are war scenes, adventure scenes, horror scenes, comedy scenes, drama scenes, western scenes, sci-fi scenes, romance scenes, and on and on. Except, in the film's reality, this turns out to be happening primarily (if not exclusively) on a studio lot. At root, we're watching The Monkees shoot a film. Of course all of the scenes in the various genres have something surreal and self-referential about them, and they, and individual shots within a scene, tend to lead to one another using dream logic not dissimilar to the Monty Python television show. As a dream, Head tends to vacillate between a good dream and a nightmare, while often being one that would cause you to laugh in your sleep (something that I frequently do, by the way).

Technically, Rafelson uses a wide variety of techniques to realize the above. There are scenes with extensive negative images, there are a lot of very fast cuts (including a great sequence that features Davy Jones and Tony Basil dancing alternately in a white and a black room, wearing a combination of white and black reversed in each, that occasionally toggles back and forth as quickly as two frames at a time), there are a lot of bizarre segues, there is an animated cow mouth, there are odd editing devices, and so on. For my money, I wish this stuff wasn't just a relic of the psychedelic era. This is the kind of artistic approach I relish. It seemed like a good idea back then and I still think it's a good idea. I'd like to see films like The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou using (2004) using these types of extended techniques. Now that would make that film surreal.

Interpretationally, some folks who aren't so in tune with the acid trip aesthetic have complained that it's basically b.s. to offer meanings for something intended to not have any. I disagree with such a pessimistic\/nihilistic view; Head was intended to have a lot of meaning(s), and it's not just films without conventional plots that have multiple interpretations. Nicholson, Rafelson and Schneider have a lot of interesting things to say about The Monkees--the film postmodernistically comments on their manufactured status; pop stardom--way before Pink Floyd, Head conflates pop stardom and violence, from images of war to images of fans cannibalistically dismantling their idols; and na\u00efve U.S.-oriented ideas of international perceptions and respect--well-armed foreigners in a desert surrender to Micky Dolenz just because he's an American, then later they blow up a Coke machine (again in the desert) for him because he's thirsty and can't gain access. The film comments on many other topics--from big Industry to police, surveys, spectatorship (especially in relation to tragedies), and on and on. Head is full of ideas, appropriately enough, with intelligent, multifaceted things to say about them.

Head deserves to be considered a classic--it's basically shooting for the same vibe as The Beatles' Yellow Submarine. Both premiered in November of 1968, interestingly enough, and both were intended as something of a summation of the psychedelic aesthetic. Yellow Submarine wasn't quite successful. Head is everything Yellow Submarine should have been.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Head\" is one of those films you'll have a lot of trouble convincing your friends to see, but once they do they'll fall in love with it. I don't know how many times this has happened to me. This film is just so funny and bizarre, really a deconstruction of everything the Monkees had been up to this point in their career. A lot the credit goes to Bob Rafelson who pretty much ended the Monkee's career with this film. My guess is he wanted to get out of directing the TV show and get into features, which he did in a big way after this one. Micky Dolenz is absolutely hilarious. I can't believe he didn't have a second life as a comic actor after this film. This film has a lot of great cameos and a lot of wonderful psychedelic nonsense. I feel like the reputation of this film is continuing to build and it wouldn't surprise me if it eventually becomes a full on cult classic","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"I am ... proud of 'Head',\" Mike Nesmith has said. He should be, because this film, which either has been derided by many of us or studied and scrutinized by film professors, works on many levels.

Yes, it's unconventional. To many, frustrating. It's almost as if the producers hand you the film and tempt: \"You figure it out.\"

You probably already know that The Monkees TV show was a runaway marketing success that depended upon business acumen and no small serving of public deception. TV shows are about selling soap and toothpaste first, than to entertain. That The Monkees broke out of the box for a short time to make \"Head\" is a testament to the group's popularity and importance in pop culture, despite where your head's at. Get one thing straight: \"Head\" is not The Monkees TV show.

So what we have here is a \"psychedelic documentary\" about Western pop culture from a source that has authority on the subject. \"Head\" is a movie that could only come from those \"inside the box\". By 1968, The Monkees' cast and crew were seasoned and weary professionals who had seen their share of promise and disappointment. The movie was a deliberate attempt at market repositioning. So, it did three things: Make a film the way The Monkees envisioned. Most importantly, reinvent the group to one not subservient to it's old bosses - and yas, hipper than before. Make a film that exposed American attitudes of information dissemination.

\"Head\", therefore, really is about media manipulation and its net result: deception. The mass media is supposed to inform, educate us on the happenings in the world at large, and ultimately asks us to form opinions of these events that can shape thought into positive action. Thus we assume the information we absorb to be complete and unbiased - otherwise, how can one establish a valued conclusion on any one idea presented by a book, newspaper or TV show? In one of the street interviews in \"Head\", a guy admits, \"I haven't looked at a newspaper or TV in years.\" Is he lesser or better the man? Even the drug parallels are a soft veiling of \"Things are not as they seem.\" Remember the old joke, \"Everything you know is wrong\"? The screenplay starts with The Monkees' public admission of it's own \"manufactured image\" and runs with the football - literally. Is the football scene in the movie a visual manifestation of the whole idea behind \"Head\"? Is the film a stream-of-consciousness exercise? Is the film the culmination of pot smoking marathons? There are too many coincidences that occur in the film that suggest otherwise. My guess is that \"Head\" is the culmination of motivations somewhere between intended and unintended.

Largely, the insiders responsible for \"Head\" seem to enjoy themselves in the revelries that take place in the film, but there is anger - anger at the chaos that characterized the late '60s and anger at the way the media, television especially, had changed culture in negative ways. Drugs and violence were strong negative forces in the late '60s and still are, but the producers of \"Head\" want you to know that poor \"information\" is a far greater danger.

Wars have been attributed to hoaxes and lies. What perfect way to spread disinformation than through TV? Repeatedly, the mysterious black box is seen as an obstacle to The Monkees and seemingly, all of us as well. In one scene, Peter is sullenly sitting in a saloon holding a melting ice cream cone, and is asked by a fellow Monkey, \"What's wrong?\" \"I bought this ice cream cone and I don't want it.\" The movie suggests that the first purpose of the media is NOT to inform, but to sell en mass blindly. \"Head\" goes further: put any idea into someone's head, and merrily goes he.

The filmmakers know this, and the danger is real. \"Head\" is either a movie that creates itself \"as we go along\", or is a deliberate statement. Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe it is just \"Pot meets advertising\", as critics scathed in 1968. The jokes are on The Monkees and us. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

Cheers: A true guilty pleasure. Very funny. Intelligent. Will please the fans. Find the substance, it's there. Unabashedly weird. Bizarre collection of characters. Good tunage. Length is appropriate. Lots of great one liners, including my all time prophetic favorite: \"The tragedy of your times, my young friends, is that you may get exactly what you want.\"

Caveats: Dated. Drugs. No plot. No linear delivery of any thought in particular. At least twenty-five stories that interweave in stop-and- go fashion. So, may easily frustrate. May seem pretentious to some. People who can't stand The Monkees need not watch, though that in itself is no reason to avoid it. The psychedelic special effects may kill your ailing picture tube or your acid burnt- out eyeballs.

Match, cut.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You would really need to remember the Monkees and have a clear understanding as to where and how they fitted into the second half of the 1960s in order to fully appreciate this movie.

There is no plot as such. Basically, it's a crazy, mixed up pastiche of various, unrelated sequences. But, it IS interesting AND entertaining in its own peculiar way once you get onto its wavelength. In short, it was a classic, cleverly conceived and well crafted example of late '60s experimental cinema. It contains some good songs, some ultra-groovy cinematography and plenty of other worthwhile ideas in terms of film technique.

I give it 7 out of 10 for several reasons. First, it took a lot of courage to make such an unorthodox movie in the commercial mainstream where both its stars and its producers were firmly ensconced at the time. If a feature movie flops at the box office, the consequences can be dire for all concerned. Secondly, it was, for the most part, a creative success. And, finally, as already mentioned, it is, unquestionably, a classic of the genre and, as such, it is now historically important.

Unfortunately, \"Head\" came too late in the Monkees career. But, there again, they would not have been allowed to make it earlier on because it was essentially a very pointed and cynical satire of their own image.

Clearly, the members of the group knew, only too well, that the whole Monkees juggernaut had just about run its race when they started work on this project. In a way, it was to be their swan song and they were determined to let it all hang out. They were tired of being treated like mere pawns in the high powered corporate game in which they had been manipulated and exploited over the preceding few years. In short, they \"wanted out\" and they were going to say a few things before they left.

History, however, has vindicated the band. Let the critics be damned. The Monkees, left behind some of the best, most polished and successful pop records of the decade. Yes, they had plenty of help. But at the end of the day, THEY stood in front of the studio mikes, THEY fronted the movie and TV cameras and THEY did the concerts. They were fun and just a little bit crazy. But, unlike some of their contemporaries, they were never threatening. You could safely introduce a Monkey to your elderly aunt.

\"Head\" probably borrows a bit too heavily from the Beatles \"Hard Day's Night\" but it's still worth another look for those who were around at the time or for younger retrophiles who have the ability to appreciate its significance.

Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I will admit, I had the opportunity in the past to watch this film, and after about 5 - 10 minutes into it, I felt like many did. I was expecting a Monkey movie that was similar to the television show, but instead I was given... well, I didn't know what I was given to be honest.

However, after finally watching this film, I realized that not only had I had a closed mind to the brilliance it depicts, I also found myself watching it over and over again. It's the one movie that never ceases to interest me, simply because it keeps me alert, as I try to attempt to decipher it's meanings. And just when I think I've figured out something in the film, it's answer is destroyed once I watch the film again. Brilliance indeed.

It seems that most people who disliked this film are wanting to watch a film with primarily a clear plot. They want everything explained and all questions answered in the finale. Well sorry, if that's what you're wanting, this is not the movie for you. But if you liked movies like The Matrix (and better yet, their sequels) I think you'll appreciate the thought provoking, mindblowing experience this film will give you.

Think of the film being like a dream. In our dreams, things make no sense, things we expect to happen don't, people places and things don't speak, act or function in the same way they do in reality. To complain about \"Head\" is like complaining about a dream you've had that you felt you could not understand. The mind is a complex system, and being that a film titled \"Head\" is just as complex, is it that difficult to relate the two?

The music (and musical numbers) really stand out, especially Peter Tork's two compositions, which remain the best tracks in the film, \"Can You Dig It?\" and \"Long Title: Do I Have To Do This All Over Again?\"

This film proves that The Monkees were much more than just four zanny guys in a 'pre-fab' group (as their critics called them) on a television show, but that they are actually much more intelligent and talented than the world would give them credit for. There's so many messages that can be derived from the film, both in regards to The Monkees and to the 'entertainment industry' in general, that it stands as a masterpiece of film-making that was far ahead of it's time.

I feel, had this film been released as an independent piece at this point and time, it would actually garner the respect and admiration it deserves.

And one finale note:

One could compare this to The Beatles \"Magical Mystery Tour\" film, since The Beatles film appeared to be just as strange and bizarre. However, in my opinion, \"Head\" stands far above anything The Beatles put on celluloid.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Beatles had just done 'Magical Mystery Tour.' There was the general feel that performance, peace and drugs went together naturally. In LA, there was a film subculture that knew something was up. Nicholson was in several of these gangs.

Before he decided to seriously become an actor, before 'Easy Rider,' before 'Pink Flamingos,' before 'Day for Night,' there were several experiments with what to do about this. An important one is 'Saragossa Manuscript.' This is another.

Jack writes. He plays with circular narrative, self-reference, film reference, performance self-loathing, the pain of creation, all on the outskirts of safe kiddiepop. You must see this, if only to know something about Jack.

Certain actors act by digging into themselves. It is a common technique. Some dig deep, but after a while, they become boring because they are incredibly shallow people. There isn't just enough stuff in there to sustain a career. Think of DeNiro and Hackman.

Others are pretty interesting people, who seem to become more interesting over time. When they dig into the barrel, they put stuff back in because of the pain of the digging. Think Sean Penn and Jack. At the bottom of Jack's barrel, at the end of the thread he spins, as the base of every character is this experimental, risky writer\/filmmaker.

Who cares if it is a bad movie? It is bad because it took risks. Watch when a tear is wiped from Annette's cheek by the director. It is a loving goof on the whole Brando thing, something that I heard Marlon laughed about. That is one of the richest moments in Hollywood film history.

There's another reason to watch this. Music in film is has a strong root in dance. Revolution in film often relies on music. Whole cultures are thus swept along.

An unsung giantess in inventing how billions now dance is Toni Basil. She was as influential in pop choreography as the Beatles were in music. She was already well into her career when called upon to work on this. But this is one of her earliest screen appearances. You can see her work throughout and she herself in the pretty cool 'Daddy's Girl' segment, over one of Nilsson's better songs. (Followed by the Frank Zappa cameo.) McCartney would reference this scene in his TeeVee special years later.

A third reason to watch is early (about 6 1\/2 minutes) in the film: a character named 'Lady Pleasure' kisses each Monkey in a long continuous shot and then dismissively departs. She is credited as I. J. Jefferson but is really Mimi Manchu, Nicholson's lover at the time and LSD partner. Red hair, psychedelic demeanor. Lovely. That scene says it all for me, about how Jack feels about the boys.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Forget Easy Rider - Head is THE film about the 1960s.

Almost laugh: as the Monkees reduce their entire career to a one-minute TV commercial about dandruff! See: the 50 foot Victor Mature try to figure out what the heck he's doing in this film! Hear: Frank Zappa (with his pet cow on leash) tell Davey Jones \"Your music is awfully white\"! Experience: the Monkees' only live performance as a real rock band play the honest-to-gosh first-ever real punk-rock song (Circle Sky)! Listen: as Davey Jones sings a Harry Nielsen song about having a transsexual father! Be confused: be very confused, as confused as Terri Garr is when Mickey Dolenz makes sexual innuendos about her in her film debut! Witness: futile protests against the Vietnam War leap out of nowhere and just as quickly disappear! Watch: Mike Nesmith spit on Christmas while wearing a velvet Victorian smoking jacket in a cobwebbed Gothic horror-movie sound-stage! Let yourself drift: into the karmic bliss inspired by a comic-book version of Indian mysticism delivered by a hammy white character-actor in black-face, while Peter Tork pretends that he knows how to play a guitar! Discover: Academy Award winning director Bob Rafelson's first feature length film, as written by Academy Award winning actor Jack Nicholson! Pretend it's not happening: when the Monkees commit group suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge! Take drugs - take a lot of drugs: take as many drugs as the cast and crew evidently did while making this film!

With Head, the Monkees revealed themselves as the angriest, snottiest entertainers in Hollywood history, bar none. It is bewildering to discover that they blamed the failure of this film on bad promo. To be sure, the promotion was virtually non-existent; but did they not recognize how angry, how down-right depressing, how self-destructive this film actually is?! I mean, this film is a trip - on bad acid - to the suicide ward of a mental hospital. The only film I know to be this depressing is Terry Gilliam's Brazil; and like Brazil, this film reveals why life in the later 20th Century was almost unbearable - if you were lucky. It's not simply that Western culture was suffering from serious information-overload, but the information itself was just bad, bad, more bad, and dismal. In fact, it was the overload effect itself that kept people going, since this allowed people to keep distracting themselves with one crisis or another - if news from Vietnam became too much to bear, they could turn the channel and watch a documentary on the rising unemployment rate.

The \"positive\" response to the reality revealed in Head was Woodstock - three days of peace and love and nudity and mud and bugs and bad food and dirty drink and poop and pee and bad acid and Peter Townsend almost killing Abbie Hoffman. All taking place behind a steel fence, under the lovingly watchful eyes of a veritable army of NY State Troopers - meaning that the \"freedom\" of Woodstock Nation was as illusory as the song John Sebastion thought he was singing while so strung out he could barely speak. \"500,000 assholes too stupid to come in out of the rain,\" was one critic's judgment on Woodstock (I think it was Andy Warhol).

The one good thing occurring there was Jimi Hendrix's Star Spangled Banner. Two years previously, the Jimi Hendrix Experience had gone on their first National tour of America, as the warm-up band opening for - the Monkees.

See, it's all connected somehow.

You owe it to yourself - nay, you owe it to your unborn children - to see the real 1960s, only to be found on film in this bizarre, miraculous, and utterly absurd tribute to one of the more interesting capitalist scams of the later 20th Century.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This all-but-ignored masterpiece is about the Monkees becoming aware that they are fictional characters in a movie (Head), and that everything they do or say had already been written in an (unseen) script they seem to be following. Head was written by Jack Nicholson, Rafelson, and Peter Tork during a three-day LSD trip in a suite at an expensive Hollywood hotel. The other three Monkees only acted in it.

They fight this every way they can by doing things not in the script. They deliberately flub their lines, walk off sets, tear up scenery, punch other actors for no reason; and ultimately, commit suicide by jumping off a bridge.

For instance, in the rapid flashes of a psychedelic party scene, if you watch frame-by-frame, you can see Rafelson sitting next to the camera and cameraman, very deliberately shooting into a mirror. He is revealing that the party is actually fake and is being shot in a studio with actors who suddenly drop out of character and walk away in the middle of a conversation when the Director yells \"cut!\"

The Monkees, however, never drop out of character because those characters are also who they really are. That ends up being the core of the Revelation soon to come.

At every turn, they realize their increasingly-bizarre actions were exactly what they were supposed to do in the scripted film they can't escape being in. You say they went crazy and walked through the sky (which turns out to be painted on paper and hung from the ceiling as the set's background)? No problem! Hey, hey, they're the Monkees, and those wacky guys just keep monkeying around!

In the end, even their deaths did not set them free. That was how the movie was supposed to end, and their motionless, waterlogged bodies are fished out of the river, put in another box, and stacked in a film studio warehouse until the characters are needed again for another studio production.

This is made all the more poignant by the fact that the Monkees really ARE fictional characters who forced themselves into the real world. They did it through the power of their music.

Ironically, near the end, Peter Tork has what he rightly sees as a hugely profound revelation that solves their problem, but unfortunately, no one listens.

Peter realizes: \"It doesn't MATTER if we're in the box (the film)\". He means that it doesn't matter if will is free or illusory, and that \"the only important thing is that you just let the present moment occur and occur... You need to just let 'now' HAPPEN, as it happens\", without analyzing or evaluating or judging whether the experience is \"valid\" by some abstract definition.

When you can't even tell the difference, will being free or not doesn't matter--tying to figure out if you are the \"real\" you is just a pointless waste of time.

I saw this film at a very important time in my life. I was trying to figure out how to escape being just \"that geeky, creepy nerd girl\" by thinking about it intensely instead of just having fun (i.e., sex) like everyone else did. But the revelation in Head broke my self-imposed recursive trap and helped me more than Rafelson or Nicholson or Tork will ever know.

For decades, I've watched \"Head\" and wished I could thank Pete.

Was this a good movie?

Uhh, how about, like...

==< YES >==","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The cinema of the 60s was as much as time of revolution as the politics and the music. Filmmakers were daring to make avant-garde films discussing taboo subjects only permitted before in exploitation films. Starting with both \"Breathless\" and underground American cinema (such as Kenneth Anger), films became more and more experimental. All of this accumulated when Hollywood realized they had mass commercial appeal with \"Easy Rider\". One of the best (and most surprising) outputs of this era was also one of the least successful initially. \"Head\" was made when The Monkees career was seriously waning, which is what damned one of the best psychedelic films ever made.

The plot? Well, there really isn't one, as many have said. It involves The Monkees going from one surreal scenario to the next one. However, these sequences are all obviously LSD-tinged and basically mock how The Monkees were sick of being confined to their light pre-fab reputation. Its a shame that the film found no audience. The teeny boppers who loved them had moved onto a new fad as they always do. The psychedelic \/ Haight-Ashbury crowd to whom the film was garnered would never be caught dead at a Monkees movie. Its all their loss. This film may be plot less, but it is certainly not without meaning and is very intelligently put together. The crew later made both \"Easy Rider\" and \"Five Easy Pieces\". The film was later revived at a 1973 Raybert retrospective and it gained a very positive response, which granted it the cult following it had deserved for a long time. Ironically, The Monkees would fall victim to the same commercialism they protested in this film with their later 80s reunion. (10\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't believe this isn't a huge cult hit. Perhaps people in 1968, thinking of the Monkees as a silly factory-made pop band rip-off of the Beatles, refused to see it. That cynicism probably covered it from sight ever since. Don't make this mistake. _Head_ is an amazing film that most open minded people will appreciate. It is very funny and very intelligent (and very trippy).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To experience Head you really need to understand where the Monkees were when they filmed it.

This was as their series was coming to a close and the group was near break up. Their inventive and comedic series (sort of an American Idol of their day) took four unknown actors and formed a manufactured supergroup around them.

This is their take on their \"manufactured image\" and status as the 2nd tier Beatles. They always felt they were in a box, trapped, and unable to find credibility despite their talents.

It is also a hell of a musical-trippy, inventive (I have the soundtrack) and full of surprises.

See it with an open mind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sadly, this movie is relegated to 'curio' status it seems. Many people that I've asked \"Did you know the Monkees made a movie?\" usually answer 'No.' That being said, if you are one of that large number, I recommend you see it, but with the following caveat(s): If you expect Monkey style humor, it is in there. It's just not all over the place like the TV shows.

Yes, they are trying to break their TV mold a bit by poking fun at it like a bunch of no-longer-teenagers who have been on the short end of a lot of sticks.

No, you don't have to be inebriated to enjoy it.

No, you don't have to be inebriated to understand it.

If you like classics, you'll love the interspersed clips throughout.

If you like the psychedelic era, you'll love some of the cameos.

If you are a Monkees fan, you might recognize some of the jabs they are taking at the heavy commercializing of the band.

In the nigh-immortal words of one of my best friends after seeing 5 minutes of it: \"This is a weird movie, man.\" In fact it might be better if you don't try to understand it, just sit back and react to it. It's weird, it's funny, it's a bit surreal, it's experimental (still)...it is many things. Overall, it is an experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very weird, psychedelic, esoteric, (and did I say weird? :) experience.

But on at least on one level - it did exactly what it was supposed to do. It bridged the gap between the silly, manufactured, Hollywood look at teen pop idols that was the Monkees TV program and the adult, musically growing and evolving, and yet still a little silly Monkees of the '70s and beyond.

The most important line in the film is Mike Nesmith's, \"If they think we are plastic now, wait till they see how we do it.\" That the Monkees were tired of all of the negative comments about their image and their work is a matter of record. They said it over and over in interviews. They needed to re-make themselves, and what better way that to de-bunk and hilariously lampoon the very machine that created them. And at the same time, they commented on our whole society (news, movies, art, everything) and said, \"Hey, why pick on us - isn't all of this stuff manufactured on one point or another.\" These are the Orwellian \"proles\" (the Monkees represented the persecuted \"everyman\" even at their silliest in the TV series)pulling down \"Big Brother's\" pants and kicking him in his very deserving butt.

Loved the ideas, loved the music, loved the effects, loved the movie! But then, as Peter Tork says in the movie, \"But then, why should I speak, since I know nothing?\" :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pity the Monkees. People always accused them of being manufactured (which they were) or being nothing more than a American knock-off of the Beatles (Again, which they were) but to the kids of the time they were real, they were important, they were legitimate. Discussions about who were better The Monkees or The Beatles were common on school yards but the critics, well they never quite bought into it. Despite recording some very catchy, classic pop tunes, the Monkess did not receive much respect for their albums. Sadly a similar fate was met by their one movie vehicle despite the fact that it stands as the best band film ever. Beatle fans may argue that \"Hard Days Night\" was better and I am sure that many of the kids think \"8 Mile\" was superior but none of these films were as daring and inventive as \"Head\" and that is probably why it failed.

If Head had told a direct A to B type story perhaps it would have appealed to the bands young fans but by pushing the envelope and using the movie opportunity to mock their own image they really sabotaged the film with their fans. Could you imagine Eminem turning to the camera and actually talking about how sad it is that he is the best selling guy in a genre in which only 5% (and I am being generous) of the acts are white. If you can picture that than you have an idea how daring it was for the Monkess to sing \"Hey, Hey we are the Monkees. You know we like to please. A manufactured image, with no philosophy\". When you have a film in which Frank Zappa tells Davy that he should focus less on the dancing, and more on the music its clear that there is a lot more going on then you expected.

The story, what there is, concerns the boys trying to flee their manager, who at one point forces them to play dandruff in a commercial, but every time they run away they end up inside a box. I don't think you need to be Fellini to figure out the symbolism of that bit. Some neat little comedy bits follow with Davy as a boxer who has to give up playing the violin to take a dive in the big match and Peter refusing to throw away a ice cream cone he does not want because there are starving children so its wrong to waste food but the real selling point to this film is the music and its some of the best the band ever recorded. Even if you are put off by the story, you can sit back and enjoy some terrific music.

Any film that begins and ends with Mickey attempting suicide by jumping off a bridge (at the end the band follows him) is never going to be a mainstream classic but if you are a fan of either the band or experimental cinema of the era than you will enjoy this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just can't understand why people are surprised this movie makes no sense. It was never supposed to make sense. (Duh! The writers were completely wasted on Frodis at the time.) It was just supposed to entertain and mock, and it does both wonderfully.

The Monkees are good actors. They wouldn't have been hired if they weren't good actors. Mike has a thing for deadpan and darkness, Micky is the best at sheer psychotic comedy, Davy is a Broadway veteran, and Peter actually had people believing he was that dumb in real life. Don't tell me they can't act, because they most definitely can.

They can also write. Sure, Jack & Bob get the sole credits, but in reality, they got a big helping hand on that script from the Monkees, who were also in that smoke-filled room.

(it is absolutely impossible to spoil this film) Head is very highly symbolic. Among the more memorable elements is the black box, which was actually based on 2 things: the Monkee image that the boys were bound to, and the real black box on the Screen Gems lot where the band was kept between takes. There's so much more symbolism in the movie that I'll just let you watch it and figure it out.

The music is awesome. \"Circle Sky\" is one of Papa Nez's best tunes ever, and \"Porpoise Song\" & \"As We Go Along\" will have you enthralled. If you'd rather be weirded out, then \"Ditty Diego\", \"Can You Dig It?\", and \"Long Title\" should be satisfactory, great songs that they are. And then there's \"Daddy's Song\", without a doubt a homage to Davy's Broadway days, and the editing\/color scheming for that sequence is superb. (At least for '68.)

Oh, For those of you who won't watch a 'PG' film, you're missing out. Especially since Head was originally rated R in 1968. The rating was lowered about TWENTY years later!

Now where was I? Ah, yes: \"We were speaking of beliefs. Beliefs and conditioning....\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film, like much of their music, is either underrated or unnoticed by the casual observer. It is terrific and, in many ways, ahead of its time.

The images are funny, disturbing, and at the very least, engaging.

The music is amazing.

This is not the \"candy pop\" sound they are unfortunately associated with. This is the sound of a band in exploration and revolt.

HEAD, alone, should put The Monkees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Can anyone tell me why these guys are not in there?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw this movie,I also expected \"our boys\" to be cute,and more like an extended version of the TV show. I didn't \"get it\" back then. But,years later,at a party YEARS later,at a 70s' type PAR-TAY,where certain substances had been smoked,inhaled,and with plenty of tequila,\"HEAD\" was on late at night.We watched it,and finally realized what \"HEAD\" was all about. It spoofed their own show,as shown in one song that called themselves,\"a manufactured image\". As Davy Jones wrote in his autobio,\"They Made a Monkey out of me\",he openly admits that everyone in the film,had been up all night smoking weed.They made fun of themselves,society,everything! Great film! Tho,as a 52 yr old granny,I no longer \"induldge\", I STILL watch this film when I want a good LOL!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film starts as it ends and ends as it starts. What is in the middle is a collection of comedy, philosophy, music, observations, commentaries, mini stories, colour and lots more. It looks at the world and our lives and tells The Monkees story from the view of the group members themselves. It also looks at television and film and makes a visual commentary. It shocks also, with scenes of war and shows how we are just pawns in a big game. It says all this and much more, but if you don't look at it objectively you won't see much more than scenes strung together to join up the music. It's the sort of film that can never get boring because it's so cleverly done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Try to look for another movie that is such a trip without having a story or plot and you'll be hard-pressed. HEAD is a masterpiece of non-linear non-structure, surrealism and experimentaion. In less than 90 minutes, it manages to be not only a time-capsule of an era, but also a full-length experimental feature that defies time,space and convention in a way that only underground films of the sixties could.HEAD is a reflection of those films. No matter how one feels about the Monkees, this is a film every filmmaker should see because it cracks wide open the endless possibilities of film as an art medium. Had it not been for the film's unorthodox ad campaign (and the fact that by the time it came out the Monkees so oversaturated the media that the public had become weary of them and every critic was ready to pounce on them) this could have had a much greater impact. Studying how the film was edited is much more important and exciting than what's actually in the film -and yet there are some great things in it (great songs, great cinematography, etc.) . Should be seen after midnight for maximum effect because of it's overall dreamlike feel. 1968 was a time of social unrest and a call for change (thus the film's working title \"Changes\") and HEAD perfectly mirrors that time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"That this film flopped at the box office, and still struggles for the recognition it deserves today, is a great pity - yet somehow rather appropriate. The commercial suicide the Monkees committed by making this film is mirrored by the metaphorical suicide they commit on-screen. To destroy so brutally their carefully constructed image as a wholesome American alternative to the Beatles is courageous to the point of rashness, as is the admission of being no more than pawns in the entertainment industry, trapped (in the movie, literally) in their own artificiality. The Monkees' television series was not that conventional, but HEAD is utterly plotless...although in the end there is actually some kind of circular logic to it all. Unrestrained by a genuine storyline, the surreal sequence of events is by turns hilarious and rather disturbing. The greatest irony is that the Monkees effectively signed their death warrant as a commercial force at a time when they were reaching their artistic peak. Their exploration into psychedelia reached its zenith with the soundtrack to HEAD (all the songs are memorably woven into the film), which is one of the landmarks albums of the 'sixties. The Monkees began to disintegrate after the box office failure of this movie, but HEAD serves as a noble legacy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For a long time, I, a fan of \"The Monkees\" TV series, refused to watch \"Head\" because it was not about the TV show characters, who were warm and wonderful. \"Head\", instead, was said to be a cynical, dark movie. Finally, curiosity caused me to cave in. I didn't, of course, find a new episode to the TV show, but a fascinating movie that appeals to my dark side.

I have always been fascinated by dreams, and \"Head\" was very much like watching someone else's dream, with incomplete hints of stories, and a small detail at the end of one scene causing the film to segue off in a new direction, very much in a dreamlike stream of consciousness manner. The unfinished stories really make my imagination run wild, time and time again!

The film also features very striking, beautiful cinematography, the epitome being the black-on-white, white-on-black look of \"Daddy's Song\". The music is haunting, especially the lush arrangement of \"The Porpoise Song\". (\"The Porpoise Song\" is the favorite song of my dark side, while my bright side prefers \"Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah\".)

In the end, I think the TV series could have used some of \"Head\"'s drama, intrigue, and intensity. But \"Head\" could have used some of the TV show's warmth, humor, and friendship.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Head should have been a proud moment not just for its stars (The Monkees and Victor Mature), or its director\/co-writer (Bob Rafelson), but also its other co-writer (and brief cameo) Jack Nicholson. As it stands, most of them seem to shun it, and to outsiders the movie is regarded, at best, as a curio.

While the T.V. series was famously based on the antics of the Beatles' 'Help!', this film is also judged by the same accord. Yet far from the trite and painfully overrated Beatles films, and even the dated Monkees T.V. series, Head has a layer of depth. An undercurrent of man's darker nature is at work here, and while that may sound like a bizarre thing to say about a manufactured pop band, the use of certain themes and images (hitting women, laughing at cripples and real-life footage of a Vietcong POW shot dead at point-blank range) give the film an edge that many 'serious' films would not dare to aspire to.

There are also the fun moments, which range from James Bond parodies to 'Big Victor' and my personal favourite, Mickey Dolenz under beseige by Arab soldiers on horseback. (One of them turns to Mickey and hisses 'pssst!', only for the 'pssst!' to appear in subtitles!) The group are aware of their manufactured image in the film ('I'm the dummy, Mickey\u0085 I'm always the dummy', claims Tork, neatly summing up his one-dimensional foil role of the series), meaning that their characters \u0096 they play 'themselves' acting and not-acting here \u0096 are opened out more, and consequently are less generic and irritating than they were in the series. This level of parody and self-awareness even takes on their fab-four origins, with subtler takes on the Maharishi and out-and-out acknowledgements with a waitress who asks: 'Well, if it isn't God's gift to the eight-year-olds\u0085 are you still paying tribute to Ringo Starr?' Also listen out for Tork whistling 'Strawberry Fields Forever' while in the bathroom.

Then there are the songs, of course. Six of them here, slightly more psychedelic than usual, which may have alienated their fanbase, and even a Frank Zappa cameo wouldn't have turned on an adult audience to their charms at this point. Probably the best is the charming 'As We Go Along', though the first, a Carol King-penned 'Porpoise Song', interestingly talks of the desire to live while time is ticking remorselessly away and death gets ever nearer. On a lighter note, its refrain of 'the porpoise is laughing' seems to be a direct mickey-take of 'I am the Walrus'.

Constantly inventive with direct references to silent film and drug culture, perhaps Head's finest feature is its narrative structure. Not the only \u0096 but the most important \u0096 reason why it improves with multiple viewings, the story goes left, right, forwards, backwards, circular and through several levels of reality. In essence a series of sketches hung loosely together, its cohesion is tightened by the space-time defying plot which hangs its internal logic together by means of flashback, dream sequence, prison of the mind and remote control channel changer.

With a perfect beginning and end, this intelligently-written, knowing film was not what The Monkees' pre-teen audience was expecting and subsequently suffered a negative critical reception. Now those expectations have gone, this one is in dire need of serious reappraisal.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Head\" is a film that has held up well since its original release date in 1968. The movie is a complete contradiction of the Monkees image. It presents the Monkees in a way their fans never perceived them; men with real thoughts. Totally controlled by their producers, the Monkees were given the opportunity to tell their side of the story. The film pokes fun at their image, the entertainment industry, and corporate America. The soundtrack contains some of their best music. It's a movie well worth seeing over and over again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Monkees, surprisingly, are a big favorite of mine. Yes, they might have been the original manufactured rock band; a gimmick that certainly has reached overkill in the 21st century. However, their music holds up as some of the best the 1960's had to offer. Last Train To Clarksville, Daydream Believer, I'm A Believer, (I'm Not) Your Stepping Stone, Valleri and Pleasant Valley Sunday are great songs, written by good songwriters such as Boyce\/Hart, Neil Diamond, Goffen\/King and John Stewart. While they weren't great musicians or songwriters, they had a likable screen presence and plenty of appeal and some of their own stuff was actually decent. Their T.V. show is dated stuff in 2007 but I still watch the show on occasion as a time capsule to life in 1966-1968; that magical and dangerous time in U.S. history.

However, as we all know, as a portent of things to come for the likes of Kelly Clarkson, The Monkees didn't want to be considered manufactured and just puppets for their recording company. Despite their average talents, they wanted to write their own songs, produce their own albums and call the shots when it came to tours. Sadly, this turned out to be a disaster; especially when Peter Tork's choice of Jimi Hendrix as an opening act was nixed due to his stealing of the show and heavy sexual suggestions in his music compared to The Monkees G-Rated content.

However, the final nail in the coffin for the Monkees (until 1986) was the infamous motion picture Head. Head was written by Bob Rafelson and Jack Nicholson while they were allegedly high on the Mary-Jane. The film received poor reviews and only made $16,000 in the box office. Today, the film is a cult classic, ahead of its time and delivers a message of what was on the minds of the youth in 1968, the Summer Of Anger.

Head really has no plot. Basically, one to four of The Monkees lurch from scene to scene without any rhyme or reason. They go from eating in a diner, to seeing Davy Jones getting bashed by Sonny Liston, to a Western, to being sucked into a vacuum, to performing at a concert and so forth. The film basically offers up oblique opinions of what was wrong with American society. The Monkees bash commercialism, the war in Vietnam, American policy, censorship, the Establishment and greed. You have to read between the lines to see what the targets of derision were.

The Monkees spend a lot of time boxed up at certain junctions of the film, symbolizing how they felt their record company saw them; as nothing but toys for them to play with when it was time to record another hit album. A scene where they are outnumbered 16-4 in the Western scene could be a symbol of them against the session musicians, songwriters, record producers and whatnot who controlled their careers and the cannon they fire at them is their way of saying \"Begone!\".

The film is truly a psychedelic trip to behold. The flashy tie-dye colors, the hypnotic concert and belly dancing scenes and the druggy imagery is everywhere. The acting is actually very good but that's being biased as I like The Monkees T.V. show. A small soundtrack features \"The Porpoise Song\" and three songs written by The Monkees themselves.

The film actually has some hilarious scenes on occasion; although maybe they weren't supposed to be. Mickey Dolenz beating up a Coke Machine that didn't give him a soda or his violent punch-ups in the boxing scene (I mean, he was a wiry guy who probably weighed no more than 135) had me laughing it up.

All in all, this movie is an absolute must-see for any Monkees fan. I think a lot of people will feel this movie is indeed \"over their Head\" but for those obsessed with the 60's and society at the time will find it a great time capsule.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say about this movie that has not been said by all the other comments here, they pretty much sum up everything, the people who love it cherish it, the people who hate it... well, they loathe it. This is the movie equivalent of Marmite.

I personally have committed every second of it to memory, it is cyclical, claustrophobic, introspective, magical and stands as being one of the most unique films ever made. Despite what many have stated, I believe this truly is a cult movie, it is a diamond in the rough just waiting to be discovered, once unearthed it's fantastical psychedelic visuals and incredible soundtrack will be unforgettable, which is an achievement in itself. One of my friends who watched it likened it more to a musical, and in many respects to those who do not fully appreciate the context in which this film is made, would probably get more out of it to view Head as such.

I was always fond of the Monkees, especially the T.V. show back when it was repeated during the 80's. My mum had recorded Head for me when it was shown on T.V. late night, as she knew I liked them, I watched it a day later and it lodged in my memory until I was able to find a copy on DVD about 2 decades later, what I would love now is a special edition, it would be fascinating to get a greater insight into the making of this masterpiece. We can only hope.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are two ways to regard 'Head'. Either it is a dazzling, mind-blowing collage of music, old film clips, psychedelia and T.V. sitcom-style comedy, or a plot less, pretentious, rambling mess. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. It is also one of the best movies of all time.

'The Monkees' - Davy Jones, Peter Tork, Mickey Dolenz, and Mike Nesmith - had just finished their hit series, and wanted to do a movie. In collaboration with writer Jack Nicholson and director Bob Rafelson, they made 'Head'.

It begins at a bridge opening ceremony in San Francisco, where the Monkees gate crash the proceedings. Mickey jumps over the safety rail, plunging hundreds of feet into the water. Mermaids rescue him to the accompaniment of a gorgeous Jerry Goffin & Carole King composition called 'The Porpoise Song' and visuals that make the Stargate finale of '2001' look drab by comparison. By now you will either have switched off in puzzled disgust or be completely captivated.

More bizarre happenings unfold; Mickey uses a tank to destroy a Coca-Cola machine in the middle of the desert; the entire Italian Army surrenders to him; the group are hired to play to play the dandruff in Victor Mature's hair for a television commercial; an overweight waitress insults the group, describing them as 'God's gift to the eight year old's'; a surprise birthday party for Mike goes wrong; the group are sucked into a vacuum cleaner, and to cap it all, are driven away inside a giant glass tank.

You will either hate this or love it. I found it a refreshing change from mindless pop musicals of the 'let's do the show right here' variety. The songs are good too; 'Daddy's Song' is superbly choreographed by Toni Basil ( later to appear in Rafelson's 'Easy Rider' ) and boasts wonderful editing, with Davy's clothes changing colour at lightning speed. 'As We Go Along' is a lovely Goffin & King number whose accompanying images carry a strong environmentalist message.

Frank Zappa, Annette Funicello are just two of the guest stars to crop up. Did Victor Mature read the script before agreeing to do this, one wonders? He's hilarious in it though.

So mad there just has to be real genius behind it, 'Head' is a little '60's gem and one worth revisiting time and time again. Shame it did not find an audience at the time. If only 'Spiceworld' had been like this!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Symbolism galore, great tunes, this film crushed their \"soon to be no more\" target audience's expectations. These monkees and the naturally selected members of the group, were witnessing a subtle yet in your face, kiss goodbye to each other. The message rings true today, the cage you escape from and the bridge you want to jump off of, are the next generations own disappointments, there will always be new kids on the block replacing those who break free from the chains. The film can be frustrating at times, because the themes the film attacks are so blatantly apart of the American way of life, a thinking and reasoning person cannot help but stare at their own reflection in the scenes of Head, and question not only their personal motives for continuing the madness of everyday American life, but the motives of those who want it to continue for the sake of madness. The final scene, similar to Don Quixote's chivalric daring of the caged tiger to exit for battle, represents just how delusional and impossible most dreams are.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow. We watched this film in the hopes that it would have at least some decent rock climbing scenes. We were disappointed there, but it was still a great movie! It was soooo cheesy it was great! I haven't laughed so hard at a movie in a long time. If you are into rock climbing, and you enjoy cheesy movies, then this one is absolutely for you!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My friends and went through a period of time when we would rent movies that none of us had ever heard of. The only good that came from it was this movie, \"Take it to Limit\" Right as the movie started, we could tell we were in for a true classic. The music is probably done by rural white boys from Colorado, but it sounds just like early 90's rap. The star of the show, actor Leo Fitzpatrick, plays the bad-boy so well, especially sporting a big zit the entire movie. This movie is based on climbing, and I'm not a climber, yet even I think it's hilarious when they have the climber struggling to climb and there's a guy in the background who is basically walking up the 'cliff'. You don't want to miss this movie, you'll get to see the same clips over and over again. You'll get surprises at every turn. You'll find yourself quoting the unforgettable lines. I highly recommend this movie to anyone. Take it snow. Disclaimer: This movie is poorly done, but that is what makes it great","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow. this movie is the voice of a climbing generation. Director Sam Keith takes us to the darkest depths of Man's soul where we find love, life, and top-roping. World-weary Telly (Leo Fitzpatrick) follows his heart and his anchors through a cerebral journey to find sanity in a post-apocalyptic Colorado. Instead, Telly meets confrontation in Don (Jason Bortz), the embodiment of machismo and a zeitgeist of humanities foibles. The epic film comes to a climbax at a gut-wrenching top-roping competition that will make even the strongest willed viewers squeamish at the dizzying heights.

This movie has it all: Top-roping outside, Top-roping in the gym, Cut-off shorts and sleeveless flannel shirts, Awesome climbing footage (some so good, you see it 2 or 3 times!), Bear and snake attacks.

I gave the movie 8 out of 10 because I wanted to see the romance develop a bit more. It seemed as if the film was leading up to a spicy, top-roped sex scene between Telly and his new lover, but alas, it wouldn't fit into the already jam-packed hour and a half thrill ride.

Fans of Cliffhanger and Mission Impossible II will find this flick to be a diamond in the rough. Overall, if you are ready to challenge your world view on humanity and climbing, this is the film for you!!!1","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The title of my summary pretty much covers my review.

This is to me what Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was to someone 5 years older. While I missed out on that little pop-culture wave, I embraced the toy line and t.v. series that was Mighty Max with both arms.

You wanna know how into this I was? I went as Mighty Max for Halloween.

Thank God for the internet. Thanks to Demonoid, last week I was able to watch this great show from my childhood for the first time in over a decade.

I'm watching this right now, having just been blown away by recognizing Rob Paulson of Animaniacs, and am also loving the celebrity humor in \"Tar Wars\". 4 minutes in, and they have already mentioned, By NAME: Clint Eastwood, Governor Arnold, Dustin Hoffman, John Wayne, AND Ace Ventura. Hells yeah.

Damn, it is only upon writing this that I realize there is NO WAY IN HELL I can give this series anything less than a perfect score. Any imperfections have been lost in the fog of time.

This Is My Childhood. This Is Awesomeness. This Is The Mighty One.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A surprisingly great cartoon in the same league as Batman:TAS and its ilk, I enjoyed it in my youth and recently had been able to watch them all again, great voice acting from Tim Curry, Richard Moll, Tony Jay, and Maurice LaMarche in various roles. The only qualm I had was Rob Paulsons voice seemed a little too old for the title character, but that wasn't a big deal as the stories were great, and the fact that the whole thing has a great time loop twist ending. Some people say it was a cop-out, but I found it refreshing compared to many series that just leave things hanging. Hopefully one day they put this series out on DVD, unfortunately it came out at a time when DVD's weren't yet prevalent and the cartoon probably only served to sell a particular type of toy, which I never found appealing despite the entertaining cartoon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All the characters in this cartoon were hilarious. Norman the Viking guardian had some memorable phrases and the skull master, the bad guy, would always be vowing to kill Max with some insane cackling. The writing is the best.

I was glued to the set when this would come on when I was younger. If they came out with a DVD of all the episodes they made I would be forced to buy it. This and a Conan the Barbarian cartoon are the ones I miss the most from childhood. I think these cartoons are the most unappreciated out of all the great cartoons. I used to watch these cartoons on channel 13 in the Los Angeles Area.

I remember the owl was always afraid, warning Max that he was in trouble and that he was the chosen one. Max didn't believe that he was the chosen one and always gave the owl trouble. Norman was less talkative but his simplicity was funny. He would say things like \"I eat monsters for breakfast\" when he was battling them. And then when he was battling zombies he would say \"I eat zombies for...nevermind.\" Classic cartoon comedy and action.

I vote that they re-air Mighty Max.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'll make this brief. This was a joy to watch. It may or may not have been more effective if the characters had resembled their real life counterparts, but aside from this minor observation I found the fantasy animal characters to be most enjoyable. The visuals were most stunning except for the second-rate CG scenes, which could have been left out. I dislike computer generated animation anyways, it defeats the purpose of a biopic such as this one. Watch it, you will appreciate it too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spirit and Chaos is an artistic biopic of Miyazawa Kenji, a Japanese poet and writer who was active in the early 20th century. The film captures and interprets his artistic method ('sketching' poems), his inspiration (the spirit of nature and its fantastic beauty) and his struggles to accept a harsh reality in the face of his idealist imagination.

The film integrated excerpts of Miyazawa's poems into the plot beautifully. His relationships with his students was powerful, especially in one scene where he offers everything he has to a student who has just been caught stealing materials from the classroom. Miyazawa's selfless compassion for the farmers in his village, his sister and other unfortunate people can serve as a lesson to us all. Furthermore, Miyazawa's devotion to science was also nicely portrayed. In a time when Western ideas were still met with skepticism, especially in provincial towns like the one where Miyazawa grew up, he understands its usefulness in helping his fellow villagers and is inspired by its elegance. The way the film presented moments of artistic passion and disappointment in the writer were truly intense and well interpreted.

I felt that the CGI integrated into the film, while groundbreaking an innovative, clashed with the more organic animation. It could be argued that this was intentional to represent conflict within the main character, but I found it rather unaesthetic. I also wish that the film had discussed Miyazawa's Buddhist influence, but it worked fine without it.

I though this film was very well done. I give it a 9\/10, with the one point being deducted for the CGI. Otherwise the animation, plot and dialog were all wonderful and heartfelt. I haven't seen any other films by Kawamori Shoji, but after seeing this one I will be sure to give them a chance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I never thought I'd say this about a biopic, but there is a near over-abundance of characterization (especially concerning Kenji Miyazawa's emotions) and too little on the literal occurrences in his life--by the end, I'm not sure if he dies (he's supposed to), or if his sister finally dies (she's supposed to), or if the director spent a little too much time on the Galactic Railroad (that's an inside joke, in case you missed it--Miyazawa wrote a children's book called Night on the Galactic Railroad). However, this glimpse inside the mind of a writer who \"sketched poetry and fairy tales from his imagination\" is very intelligent, creative, entertaining, and emotionally powerful.

All this despite the fact that everyone is animated as animals (like in many of Miyazawa's stories).

Some of the visuals are truly astounding, especially considering that it was a made for TV movie. Seriously, some of them (like the sequence with birds trailing blue light) rival parts of Fantasia. However, I still can't stand computer animation when it is mixed with cel animation. The CGI trains are horribly obvious--even more so than the Anastasia train.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Emanuele Crialese did a fantastic job with one of those films that linger in the back of your mind for years. It was Respiro (see comments and synopsis here in IMDb).

Now, carrying the magnificent young talents he had for the first time on screen then, he takes the audience into a dark void. A literal plunge into dangerous waters. The subject is migration. In this case, from Italy to the New World (the name of the film). A big deal calling it for its American release \"The Golden Door\".

The story of a family that leaves everything and risks the rest -that is, their lives, for a dream.

I hate to spoil the show telling the story, so I'll dwell a bit in the work Crialese and all his team did so brilliantly.

First of all, choosing to stick to what he knows: direct sound as much as possible. This means, the whole film. The textures, the pain, the nuances of reality are always mingled with the smells, the heat or the cold, the sweat and the blood, life and death, as vibrantly as it is in real life.

The squeaks of bent metal and grinding wood, the infamous drone of the wind and the ominous sounds of big engines and ship horns are among the points that make this film so involving.

Cinematography is in the hands of a French couturier. The symbolism of light is present from the very first shot (again, almost the very first shot from Respiro) and pervades throughout the film with intimacy and a terrible sense of desperation. The subdued tones and the very gray and grim depictions of people suffering the cramped and filthy boat they sail to hope is mesmerising.

Light is used sparsely, almost to discover every character in the dark. The beauty of every shot, and every scene is accentuated by the period costumes and the perfectly selected physical features of the actors.

Again, as he usually does, Vincenzo Amato is definitely on his own. He plays the father of two sons (the same actors who were fifteen and twelve and now are nineteen and sixteen) with all the power he always conveys to his very complex characters.

Charlotte Gainsbourg is so-so. I guess she's never achieved again the perfection she reached in The Cement Garden and in her very first film: L'Effront\u00e9e.

Maybe it's just that she seems a bit awkward in her role.

The locations and sets are harsh and compelling, almost playing a character on their own.

Maybe the most remarkable character is the one played by Filippo Pucillo, the mute younger son. The contrast here with his first role is complete. Then, he played a supercharged kid that was as relentless as anything around him. Now, his character is all expression. And just that: no words at all. His eyes tell the whole story with sublime power.

Maybe this is one of those films that will not be very well received in the States. It's absolutely Italian in everything. It's so Italian that most of the time, the language is one of the many dialects that is much older than Italian itself. In the USA this film may be a bit too much for Americans because of the subject. But anyone who remembers the story of their families when they arrived in the States, will see this films with awe.

And, again, the minimalism that goes hand in hand with Crialese's ideas is back with a closing scene in the water. Only this time it goes from underwater photography to aerial.

All in all, another great and very well told story from this filmmaker that only this year (2006) has collected 6 prizes and was nominated for the Golden Lion. Not a small deed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Enhanced by the expressive cinematography of Agnes Godard (Beau Travail), Golden Door is a visually striking tone poem that follows the journey of a peasant family from their primitive home in Sicily to Ellis Island in New York at the turn of the century. It is a surreal, enigmatic, often strange, but ultimately deeply rewarding experience. Interweaving dreamlike and symbolic imagery with gritty realism, the latest film by Emanuele Crialese (Respiro) is like an impressionistic painting - a cinematic artist's rendering of what the immigration process may have been like for our parents and grandparents. Crialese's \"magical, mystery tour\" came about as a result of his visit to the museum on Ellis Island, the looks on the faces of the immigrants depicted in photographs he saw, and his research into the harsh policies and procedures used during the admission of immigrants.

Guided by letters he read of immigrants sent to relatives who remained at home, Crialese identifies with those impoverished immigrants who were able to see the positive side of things beyond their ordeal. To Salvatore Mancuso (Vincenzo Amato) and his older son Angelo (Francesco Casisa), America is a distant dream that they know nothing about. After climbing a rocky mountain to pray to the saints for a sign, they are rewarded when they are shown post cards by Salvatore's younger son, Pietro (Filippo Pucillo), a deaf mute, that depict the new world as a land where they can bathe in rivers of milk, sit under a money tree, or harvest giant onions and carrots.

After disposing of their animals in exchange for shoes and suits, Salvatore, his two sons, and his elderly mother Fortunata (Aurora Quattrocchi) set out on their adventure with more hope than trepidation but the equation soon shifts the other way. As they board the boat and settle into their crowded third-class steerage compartments, the most-talked about scene in the film takes place. Using an overhead camera that shows masses of people standing, as the ship pulls away, the frame is divided into those aboard the ship and those waving goodbye from the dock and the way they are separated implies they are being torn asunder from everything familiar.

Aboard the ship is a mysterious English woman named Lucy (Charlotte Gainsbourg). Crialese does not reveal her past or the reason she is traveling to America but she seems to stand for the onset of the modern world they are entering. Though they eye each other cautiously, Lucy becomes interested in Salvatore and asks him to marry her in order to allow her to enter the country. The voyage is treacherous with a violent storm buffeting the ship. Shot in almost complete darkness, passengers in steerage are tossed against the side of the boat and, afterward, bodies lie tangled and twisted on the floor as if in a macabre Totentanz. The rite of passage through immigration processing at Ellis Island does not become any easier and Crialese attacks the way illiterate peasants, in the name of preserving \"civilized\" society, are forced to put puzzles together, perform mathematical tasks, and undergo humiliating medical examinations to prove they are \"fit\".

A marriage brokering ceremony feels like an auction block and the young women look despondent when they are matched with overweight middle-aged men. This is the only way they can enter the \"Golden Door\", however, since single women are rejected unless they have partners, ostensibly to prevent the threat of prostitution. Through the fog the immigrant's can barely see the land of milk and honey and there is no Statue of Liberty asking for the tired and the poor, the humbled masses yearning to breathe free. In their imagination, however, the river is still flowing, waiting for them to jump in. Though the ending is ambiguous and one door opens on to a blank wall, another door symbolizes a rebirth of the soul and the passage we must all take from the old world to the new.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is Christmas time! A nativity in terms of rebirth, or at least this is what can be hoped regarding the Italian cinema. It was something like 30-40 years that the Italian cinema didn't craft an art piece of this size. This is an absolute contemporary film that can be also regarded at the same level of quality as the Italian masterpieces of the past, needless to quote any name. And finally this is also a big production for Italian standards of the time. In this movie there is a rare balance of different elements, all of them understandable and enjoyable at different levels of fruition. Real poetry, real humor, real tenderness, real drama, real beauty. No rhetoric, no easy surreal shortcuts, no typical touristic Tornatore-like picturing, no over acting, no director autoreferentialism. There is also a cool use of two heartbreaking Nina Simone's songs, whose music, I reckon has never been used in a proper way for a score. So if this will not be a real reviveing for the Italian cinema it is an extraordinary evolution for Emanuele Crialese after his 'Respiro' another definitive beautiful film. 'Nuovomondo' is not to be missed, it is that kind of 'medicine film' helpful to enjoy movie-making, movie watching, helpful to enjoy and understand life. Francesco Cabras","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE GOLDEN DOOR (NUOVOMONDO) is for this viewer the finest film of the year to date. It is a masterpiece of concept, writing, directing, acting and cinematography. More importantly, this radiantly beautiful film is a much needed reflective mirror for us to view the history of immigration of 'foreigners' into America at a time when the very mention of the word 'borders' is a political fuse. Writer\/director Emanuele Crialese has given us not only a deeply moving story, he has also provided a touchstone for viewers to re-visit the history of each of our origins: with the exception of the Native Americans, we all entered America as 'foreigners' at some point in our histories, and it is humbling to view this film with that fact in mind.

The film opens in turn of the century Sicily as poverty stricken widower Salvatore Mancuso (Vincenzo Amato) and his brother Angelo (Francesco Casisa) climb a rocky hill to present their tokens to the cross to ask for a sign as to whether they should continue to struggle for existence on the island or go to America, the land of dreams. Mancuso's deaf mute son Pietro (Filippo Pucillo) runs to the top of the hill with postcards he has found with images of America (money growing on trees, fruits and vegetables larger than people, etc), and Salvatore accepts this as the sign that he should move his family to America. After convincing his reluctant mother Fortunata (Aurora Quattrocchi) and his sisters Rita (Federica De Cola) and Rosa (Isabella Ragonese) to make the trip, he sells his only possessions (two donkeys, goats, and rabbits) and the man with the boat arranges their trip, giving the family shoes, appropriate clothing, and instructions to board an ocean liner as third class passengers. As the Mancuso family prepares to board they are asked for a photograph, and as they pose behind a painted set, an Englishwoman Lucy\/Luce (Charlotte Gainsbourg) walks into the photo as though she were part of this peasant family. Lucy cannot board the boat for America without male escort.

The voyage begins and Luce in her gentle way identifies with the Mancuso family, finally solidifying her safe passage by proposing to Salvatore to marry her 'for convenience, not for love' when they arrive in America. Through a violent storm and living conditions that are appalling poor, the multitude of third class passengers survive, bond, and eventually arrive at Ellis Island, believing their dream of America has been fulfilled. But everyone must pass harsh physical tests, de-lousing, and even intelligence testing to determine if they can enter America: the officials let them know that America does not want genetically inferior people entering the new world! Each woman must be selected by a man to marry on Ellis Island before they are allowed admission. The manner in which the Mancuso family remains united until a somewhat surprising ending is the closing of the tale.

Few of us understand the strict rules and harsh treatment immigrants face (or at least faced at the turn of the century) on Ellis Island, and if we do we have elected to submerge that information. THE GOLDEN DOOR presents the case for immigrants' struggles in a manner that not only touches our hearts but also challenges our acceptance of current immigration legislation. But all political issues aside, THE GOLDEN DOOR is first and foremost a film of enormous beauty, exquisite photography, deeply felt performances by a huge cast, and a very sensitively written and directed story. The is a film that deserves wide distribution, a movie that is a must see for everyone. Highly recommended. Grady Harp","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just had the opportunity to see 'Nuovomondo' (hitherto known in the U.S. as 'The Golden Door'), and was very impressed by both it's dreamy & occasionally surreal tale of a family that immigrates from Sicially to the U.S. in the early days of the 20th century. It also worked as a (proverbial)middle finger jammed into the eyeball of Homeland Security (preferably all the way up to the 3rd knuckle),in it's depiction of the ill treatment of foreigners who just want a better life than they were getting from their original mother land. The (mostly) Italian cast, with a few exceptions works well. This is a quiet,understated film that is lovely to look at (the occasional,but tasteful use of surrealism is always a pleasure),while the screenplay is well written. This is a film for those who are sick & tired of mindless escapism from Hollywood that serves little more than to sell popcorn (not that I have any burning issues with popcorn,mind you!---I actually love the stuff). You would do wise to seek out Nuovomondo\/The Golden Door (or whatever it's being titled in your area).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is an impressionistic, poetic take on the immigrant experience, a reflective look at the turmoil and fear which might be associated with emigrating. These are aspects not often considered in movies about emigration to America in particular and to to any country more generally and the film vividly and convincingly depicts the nervousness and enthusiasm, if ignorance, that poor, illiterate Sicilian immigrants have in anticipation of their emigration to the United States.

They have some fantastic, unrealistic notions about the United States which are disseminated on the trip over. One is that the rivers run with milk, an image which is depicted in the movie to poetic, impressionistic effect. The film is devoid of sound and the silence seems to reflect the uneasiness of the ignorance the locals have about life in America, or if not ignorance of it, a vision significantly colored with superstition and fantasy.

That said, the movie depicts with jolting realism, the boat ride to the United States and the intake process which arrivals at Ellis Island had to undergo. The boat ride is imagined as rather dull which surely it was much of the time. The quarters in which the incoming residents sleep is depicted as extremely crowded with beds spaced four or five inches from one another and lacking much light, which it was surely the case below deck.

Again, the film is not supplemented with undue music or excessively bright lighting and the effect is to create a fairly realistic imagining of what it was truly like for people emigrating to the United States. The villagers may not be worldly, but they are quite reasonable, and the interaction with the eldest of the emigrants, Fortunata (Aurora Quattrocchi) with the immigration officer who insists on particular results, are quite bittersweet inasmuch as they are not diluted or softened for the benefit of a syrupy conclusion and one sees the melding of the realism of Sicily with the extensive regulations which guide life in the United States.

The immigrants and their story are very interesting and the combination of cold-eyed realism and the magical fantasy of peoples' imaginations make for a persuasive vision of the beliefs held by Sicilians, or any people, with little formal education moving to the United States. The acting is similarly barebones; it is not at all demonstrative or showy, but seems the more realistic for it. That said, all the main performers, in particular Salvatore Mancuso (Vincenzo Amato), the clear leader of the group is excellent. While never smiling, his character's actions speak much louder and it is clear that (thankfully) the other members of the group, his two sons and the above mentioned elder Fortunata, the boys' grandmother, have faith in his leadership abilities and respect his clear leadership. Amato imbues his character with great decency and forthrightness and it is a testament to his abilities that his character appears so capable and confident while his character betrays very little emotion.

One oddness of the film is a chance encounter with a mysterious Englishwoman (the excellent and fittingly mysterious Charlotte Gainsbourg) who speaks Italian and, during the entire film, we wonder why she is going to the United States or what connection she has to the otherwise unanimously Sicilian emigrant group. At the end, this is finally revealed and the revelation is done typically realistically and does not seem particularly melodramatic or showy.

The film is directed by Emmanuel Crialese who has a firm grasp on the realistic, if sometimes superstitious world view his characters inhabit and presents it competently and confidently. It is in fact fantastically confident given how awkwardly the realism and superstition might have combined in the film. It is a worthy examination of the immigrant experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some days ago, in Rome, a young Romanian man with criminal precedents assaulted and tortured to death a middle-age lady coming back home after an afternoon of shopping. A Romanian girl, who had seen everything, reported what happened.

Therefore, it started a debate about the too much intense flow of immigrants from Romania, generalizing them as criminals, everyone, indiscriminately.

I'm only 15, but I thought: what idea of affluence does Italy give to these poor people? How ever do they regard us as the Land of Plenty? Yesterday evening I finally saw NUOVOMONDO, and my question had an answer. When you have only a donkey and some goats, those propaganda postcards showing United States as a land with milk rivers and huge vegetables, makes such an impression.

NUOVOMONDO is really a must-see film. It balances an ethereal symbolism (milk rivers, glances' play, hard and rocky mountains, the name and character Lucy\/Luce) and a cruel realism (the mass of hopeful people on the ship, the procedures at Ellis Island). There's a mixed cast, going from the angelic Charlotte Gainsbourg to the realistic Vincenzo Amato, till a bitter and smashing Aurora Quattrocchi as the mother. But was it really so hard to enter in the New World?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Nuovomondo (2006)\" (shown in the U.S. as \"The Golden Door\") was written and directed by Emanuele Crialese. This film is different--and, I think, better--than most movies about impoverished people who leave Europe and come to the United States.

The film begins with scenes in a poor, rural region of Sicily. We always hear that Sicily is a rocky island, but you won't really understand the implications of that phrase until you see the first half-hour of \"The Golden Door.\"

The middle section of the film is devoted to the long voyage to the U.S. Most immigration films show us ten minutes of people in the third-class section becoming seasick, and then show us the Statue of Liberty. Not this movie--we get a sense for life below decks, and it isn't charming. (We never actually see the Statue of Liberty, either.)

Finally, the typical movie will give us another ten minutes of Ellis Island, and then the immigrants are walking through New York's Lower East Side. Not here--the Ellis Island experience occupies about one-third of the footage.

Vincenzo Amato is outstanding as Salvatore Mancuso, who is bringing his two sons and his mother to the new world. Charlotte Gainsbourg is equally good as Lucy Reed, a mysterious Englishwoman who also speaks fluent Italian.

There are some strange touches in the movie, especially the sound track with songs by Nina Simone. There must be some symbolism there, but I couldn't make sense of it.

Another reviewer has already pointed out that this film will do better viewed in a theater rather than on DVD. Still, large screen or small screen, it's worth seeking out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Golden Door is the story of a Sicilian family's journey from the Old World (Italy) to the New World (America). Salvatore, a middle-aged man who hopes for a more fruitful life, persuades his family to leave their homeland behind in Sicily, take the arduous journey across the raging seas, and inhabit a land whose rivers supposedly flow with milk. In short, they believe that by risking everything for the New World their dreams of prosperity will be fulfilled. The imagery of the New World is optimistic, clever and highly imaginative. Silver coins rain from heaven upon Salvatore as he anticipates how prosperous he'll be in the New World; carrots and onions twice the size of human beings are shown being harvested to suggest wealth and health, and rivers of milk are swam in and flow through the minds of those who anticipate what the New World will yield. All of this imagery is surrealistically interwoven with the characters and helps nicely compliment the gritty realism that the story unfolds to the audience. The contrast between this imagery versus the dark reality of the Sicilian people helps provide hope while they're aboard the ship to the New World.

The voyage to the New World is shot almost in complete darkness, especially when the seas tempests roar and nearly kill the people within. The dark reality I referred to is the Old World and the journey itself to the New World. The Old World is depicted as somewhat destitute and primitive. This is shown as Salvatore scrambles together to sell what few possessions he has left (donkeys, goats and rabbits) in order to obtain the appropriate clothing he needs to enter the New World. I thought it was rather interesting that these people believed they had to conform to a certain dress code in order to be accepted in the New World; it was almost suggesting that people had to fit a particular stereotype or mold in order to be recognized as morally fit. The most powerful image in the film was when the ship is leaving their homeland and setting sail for the New World. This shot shows an overhead view of a crowd of people who slowly seem to separate from one another, depicting the separation between the Old and New Worlds. This shot also suggested that the people were being torn away from all that was once familiar, wanted to divorce from their previous dark living conditions and were desirous to enter a world that held more promise.

As later contrasted to how the New World visually looks, the Old World seems dark and bleak as compared to the bright yet foggy New World. I thought it was particularly interesting that the Statue of Liberty is never shown through the fog at Ellis Island, but is remained hidden. I think this was an intentional directing choice that seemed to negate the purpose of what the Statue of Liberty stands for: \"Give me your poor, your tired, your hungry\" seemed like a joke in regards to what these people had to go through when arriving at the New World. Once they arrived in the Americas, they had to go through rather humiliating tests (i.e. delousing, mathematics, puzzles, etc.) in order to prove themselves as fit for the New World. These tests completely changed the perspectives of the Sicilian people. In particular, Salvatore's mother had the most difficult time subjecting herself to the rules and laws of the New World, feeling more violated than treated with respect. Where their dreams once provided hope and optimism for what the New World would provide, the reality of what the New World required was disparaging and rude. Salvatore doesn't change much other than his attitude towards what he felt the New World would be like versus what the New World actually was seemed disappointing to him. This attitude was shared by mostly everyone who voyaged with him. Their character arcs deal more with a cherished dream being greatly upset and a dark reality that had to be accepted.

The film seems to make a strong commentary on preparing oneself to enter a heavenly and civilized society. Cleanliness, marriage and intelligence are prerequisites. Adhering to these rules is to prevent disease, immoral behavior and stupidity from dominating. Perhaps this is a commentary on how America has learned from the failings of other nations and so was purposefully established to secure that these plagues did not infest and destruct. Though the rules seemed rigid, they were there to protect and help the people flourish.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Nuovomondo\" was a great experience. Many filmmakers tell their stories to a big extent via dialogue. Emanuele Crialese directs his film very visually driven. For everything he wants to tell, he finds powerful images that are able to stand for themselves. Thus, he understands film as a medium that primarily tells its stories over the pictures on screen. Particularly European cinema is often very dialogue-driven (and many of the young US-American directors are strongly influenced by that). Crialese's opposite attitude was really the point, that made this film special for me. It has also a very interesting topic that is wrapped up in a quite unusual story and told with humour. Vincenzo Amato is outstanding as family head Salvatore, as well as the amazing Charlotte Gainsbourg, who I enjoy watching in every single one of her movies. There are many great sequences in this movie. Just to pick one: When the ship leaves Italy and the people just quietly stare. This scene is great, particularly if you consider the pop cultural references that go with it (Titanic!).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a film notable for what is not shown as much as for what is. What IS shown is the incredible poverty in Sicily as the 19th century gave way to the 20th, a life style that made people dream of the 'New' World of America. The Mancuso family live in a place that is not even a hamlet, just a stone cottage set amid the harsh, unyielding stones of a country that cannot offer even a single blade of green grass. An opening sequence sees the Mancuso males scrambling barefoot up a craggy hillside, stones in their mouth to offer at a shrine at the top in exchange for a 'sign' that they should set out for the New World or remain where they are. It further shows life aboard the liner, huddled masses indeed, yearning to breathe free, and conditions in Ellis Island where, their journey still not over, they are interrogated and examined to prove their 'fitness' to enter America. What is NOT shown is the ship in Longshot, or indeed ANY shot that would identify it as a large, ocean-going liner; what is also not shown is anything that would identify America, no clich\u00e9 view of New York Harbour and the Statue of Liberty, so that Ellis Island could be anywhere in any country. Perhaps the most remarkable shot is the one from a Camera Crane looking down on hundreds of people jammed together; slowly, almost imperceptibly two thirds of the people at Screen Left begin to separate from the third at Screen Right and we realize that those on the left are actually aboard the ship and those on the right are on the dock, a powerful statement of society being fragmented. There's a strong documentary feel throughout as though we were following an actual ship full of immigrants even though it has been carefully scripted and is clearly an amalgam of typical families\/conditions at the time. With almost nothing happening in dramatic terms it's not for the popcorn brigade at the Multiplex but for the rest of us it's a very fine film indeed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film played in Lexington KY for 7 days. I saw it on the last day of its run & regretted that I could not recommend it to others because this is a film that cries out for the big screen experience. The aerial shot where the crowded ship pulls away from the equally crowded dock is a masterpiece as is the scene where the two lead characters flirt on deck--almost a ballet and sexier in its suggestiveness than so many more explicit films these days. I just cringe to think that more people won't have the opportunity to see this fine film in a theater; the DVD experience will not be the same. Here's an idea: if you live in a college town, see if you can lobby for it to show up in a campus film festival.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film promises much but delivers little. The basic problem has to do with the inclusion of Charlotte Gainsbourg's character in this film. Immigrants from Sicily did not need a redheaded Anglo in any way--the movie may have needed her, but new citizens certainly did not. In my opinion,the decision to include her destroys the continuity of the film. This is particularly troubling since it seems to demean not only the characters in the movie, but also the history of immigration itself. Immigrants themselves were heroic figures, fully capable of getting along without having to satisfied what I believer to be a veiled image of \"the white man's burden.\" I wonder if someone will make a movie of Irish immigrants which will include a Sicilian woman as a major character. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film--acting, production sets, dialogue, artistry, film continuity, plot, and character development--on a scale from high of 10 for excellent, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. Both film continuity and plot rate a low of 1. The continuity as discussed above is further degraded by the surrealistic ending. Does not a film of such important historical significance deserve more than a conclusion which reminds one of Marc Chagall? The plot is simple enough, until it seems to become entangled with too much time in the old country, too little time on the ship, and too much emphasis on the ending. The acting and character development is average since all the characters are fixed throughout the film, and the inclusion of the Anglo-Saxon speaking perfect English almost turns the movie into a satire. Where's Groucho when you need him? The production sets, the dialogue and the artistry are very good, each rating a 10. The sets in Sicily, on the ship, and on Ellis Island are as good as one can find. The dialogue is marvelous, and the ethic singing is superb. I agree with Scorsese that listening to the Sicilian dialect is a pleasure. Note that the immigrants speak of \"America\", not the \"United States\"--the ideal vs. the political reality. The are many good artistic scenes, with dreams of America, gold coins raining, and giant veggies among the best. The average Left Elbow Index is 5.25, raised to a 7.0 when equated with the IMDb scale. One other notion seems to run through Ellis Island experience: the tribulations of pass immigrants was grueling, later, in 2006, one only had to pay a coyote or boat owner and sneak into the county under the darkness of night, no questions asked! The movie is worth seeing, but it appears that what one sees is problematical.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This review is in response to the submission wondering how factually correct the movie was...

Saw this movie last year and found it inspiring that hopeful immigrants, like my Italian grandparents who came through Ellis Island at the turn of the last century, would subject themselves to all manner of invasive inspection just to enter America.

It was certainly eye opening, since my grandparents never spoke of anything terrible while there. My grandmother was 5-years old and my grandfather 18 when they arrived.

I just returned from a trip to New York where I had the pleasure of visiting Ellis Island and the museum actually walks you through the immigration evaluation process - The filmmaker obviously did his research, right down to the medical exams and equipment, questions and puzzles. They are all there at the museum. Even the wedding pictures and the review board room -- Factually correct! Anyone who has immigrant grandparents should see this movie. Inspirational to say the least.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An interesting look at the immigrant experience, told as a fable with some very weird imagery.

I got drawn to this movie because it tells of immigrants from Sicily who traveled to America. I imagine much the same as my Grandfather did at that time. Travelling in steerage to provide ballast for the ships, I cannot imagine it was very comfortable, as shown in this film.

Laws restricting immigrants existed. I would guess that these laws were more strict on those who came from the Mediterranean and Africa. Immigrants had to be free from contagious diseases or hereditary infirmities. In the film, we see physical and mental exams, the latter because of the view that low intelligence is heritable. Single women could not enter the country, on the presumption that they would become prostitutes, so most married single men already in the country, as arranged beforehand, at Ellis Island before entry.

This is the story of a British immigrant (Charlotte Gainsbourg), who arranges to marry a poor Sicilian (Vincenzo Amato). He is trying to get his family through with a son that is mute and a mother (Aurora Quattrocchi) that is considered feeble-minded. She was fantastic in the role, by the way.

You will also see character actor, Vincent Schiavelli, in his next to the last appearance. I don't know if his last film has been released. He plays a matchmaker, and is also very good.

It was a strange, but enjoyable film. It's not for everyone, as I imagine those who don't have some interest in the immigrant experience would find it rather slow.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a good film, no doubt, but with some odd aspects. Without spoiling anything it takes place in 3 places only- a Sicilian farm, the boat,and Ellis Island New York. All shots are close up so we never see a broad sweep of anything. I wonder if this was to save money? No street scenes anywhere, and we don't even see the boat except in close ups. And the music...what on earth was going on with playing Nina Simone songs, decades before they were out? I could have done without the milk river business too......But hey, before you think of me as a pure misanthrope, let me repeat, this is a very good film, with heartbreakng moments, wonderful photography, great characters and more accuracy than the usual (American) efforts at the immigration experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Where do I start. Do I say how great the cinematography is. Do I praise certain scenes which show the directors creativity. Do I tell how realistic the scenes on Ellis Island are. Should I mention that for a change we do not have the clich\u00e9 scene of viewing Statue Of Liberty. (By now immigrants viewing the statue from the ships railing is a clich\u00e9)

Now whats not likable, two major things, one being a modern song score & not even a good one to boot.

Second & nearly deadly the film is boring it moves so slow, that watching paint dry would be an improvement.

The 118 minute running time is to long & yet the film seems unfinished. We see no scenes of this family in the US. Our hero mentions he wants to find his twin brother, I would have enjoyed scenes of his futile of maybe lucky search, instead of other drawn out scenes.

The film is a near miss.

Ratings *** (out of 4) 81 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"if filming is about vision and real life this movie is quite perfect: NUOVOMONDO talks about immigration in the USA from Italy the beginning of '900, but it speak also for now, when emigration\/immigration is still a focus .

It doesn't to be rich to be a visionary film.

Acting at extra level, Charlotte Gainsbourg a star. A good challenge for the Academy Award 2007

After first Crialese's attempt, \"Respiro\", an emotional but too intellectual movie, this one has learned Fellini's and Taviani's lesson, to name just two Italian masters.

Plot is arguing, directing accurate, maybe just a little less melodrama would be more effective.

If VOLVER ( challenging for Academy Award next year ) by Almodovar is a mature movie by an always brilliant director, NUOVOMONDO deserves it more, because of his good effort to be a European movie for the American scene.

And this is it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I always liked listening to Buddy Holly and felt a real loss when he was killed at a young age in an airplane crash. He wasn't in the old rock 'n roll class of , let's say, Chuck Berry or Jerry Lee Lewis, but he wasn't far behind. Who knows how big his legacy would have been had he sang for decades. Almost every single he put out was a hit.

So, I was very pleasantly surprised how good a job Gary Busey did at playing him and at imitating his singing voice. He did Buddy proud, as were the actors (Don Stroud and Charles Martin Smith) who played Holly's backup group, \"The Crickets.\"

Music-wise, there are some of Holly's better-known songs in the beginning of the film and its really good with a strong finish at the end as Holly and the boys are shown in Iowa in their last concert ever. Busey not only sings like Holly, he's a dead ringer for him in the looks department. Some thing was the actor''s best performance ever, and you get no argument from me.

I'm also glad they ended the film on an upbeat note with that Iowa concert, instead of dwelling on his tragic accident. The ending could have been a real downer, but they didn't let it be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was fortunate enough to be an extra in this movie when I was about 13 during the roller rink scenes. My junior high school drama class was invited to participate. It was a fantastic experience.

Gary Busey, Charles Martin Smith and Don Stroud played the music live, all day! As a musician, I can appreciate the tireless work and dedication these guys put in to their roles. They must have played those songs 20 times. It's very difficult to maintain consistency and energy under those conditions. This is visible during a cut to a close-up on \"That'll Be the Day,\" but fortunately the unsuspecting public probably wouldn't have picked it up.

Skating around all day, getting the day off from school and being transported back in time was a incredible thrill. I also had my first \"date\" on film. I had to walk a girl up to the ticket booth. Woo hoo! Even with an out-of-date haircut and hot lights melting the vaseline in my hair, it was still worth it. Fun stuff.

The movie is top notch and is highly satisfying as a whole. Busey delivers his best role ever and the supporting cast is superb. I'm glad to have participated in a great film of the day. To think I could have been in Corvette Summer or something. Not.

A funny ironic ending to this is that years later I was in a video store in Malibu looking at the movie the week it was released on video. Gary Busey walked in and stood right next to me. I showed him the cover and babbled on how great he was and how I was an extra and whatnot. Pretty weird, but very cool, for what it's worth.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Buddy Holly Story opens on a shot of a yellow neon moon on the roof of a roller rink in 1956 Lubbock, Texas. As the credits start, the camera moves down from the moon to the parking lot, into the roller rink, past the concessions and across the rink to a small bandstand where a small band is doing their sound check. It's a tracking shot Welles and Scorcese would both appreciate. It cuts to Buddy Holly's bespectacled face peering down in rapt concentration as he grips the headphones and talks to a man putting this band on the radio.

A young Gary Busey plays Buddy Holly and his performance is key. He has to somehow show the passion that Holly had for his music to make the film work. This is a rock and roll story without lines of coke chased with shots of heroin and a fifth of whiskey. This isn't about a man with several women to choose between in a sex scandalized, brood abandoned lusty tragedy. This is a film about a nice Texas boy who respected his parents and went to church and had the same girlfriend for 5 years and fell in love with rock and roll. Busey finds that spark and ignites it, his passion is clear and infectious. He really plays the guitar in the film and sings, its not overdubbed with Holly's recordings. Busey was a young guy in Hollywood in the seventies, a struggling actor and as much or more so a struggling rock musician as well. Thus, he gives a great performance, because although he isn't Buddy Holly, he's in a similar situation.

His first song is the old Les Paul classic, \"Mockingbird Hill\" and he has the country twang to nail it. Next a kid calls out for some bop, and against his two band mates (in reality the Crickets were 3 guys, but the down-sizing works fine for the film's limited narrative)he leads them wailing into \"Rocking with Ollie Vee\". The kids love it and the parents hate it. The DJ at the rolling rink tapes it and it is later released in New York without Buddy Holly even knowing it was ever recorded. This leads to the funniest scene in a film filled with humorous moments. An amped-up disc jockey from Buffalo calls up Buddy at home. The DJ has been playing \"That'll be the Day\" for 12 hours and is going for 24. The cops are banging on the station's barricaded door. Holly is confused, but when the dust settles, he is quite thrilled. He tells the boys, and their meteoric rise begins. Dan Stroud as the drummer and Charles Martin Smith as the bassist round out the band nicely and have good chemistry with each other. There are problems but not overblown drama thats found in most rock (all?) biopics. The movie doesn't manipulate you either. Your emotions soar, but they're not manipulated. When the Crickets step onto the Apollo stage in Harlem, the first white group ever to play there, then rip into an electrically charged performance of \"Oh Boy\" and win the audience over, my rock and roll loving ass got choked up and cried. Next, Busey and the boys make \"It's so Easy\" sound funkier and more soulful than I would have believed possible.

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Buddy Holly's story will know where this movie will end. Holly died in a plane crash with Richie Valens and the Big Bopper way too young. We, as the audience know that, yet the movie is so well written, directed and lovingly acted that we forget it almost immediately. The movie isn't about his death, it's about his life and his place in rock and roll history. The film ends with his last performance and it's a good fifteen minutes of Busey rocking out possessed by the ghost of Buddy Holly. I was happy to hear him end it on \"Not Fade Away\", my favorite of his songs. The film freezes before the end credits with the information about the plane crash, but I hardly noticed it. I was still thinking about how good that last song was.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I turned 13 when Elvis hit the big times in 1956 with his first RCA hit. A year later Buddy Holly stepped in to give the King some competition. One of Buddy's major talents, besides his unique singing style and his songwriting ability, is often downplayed. Buddy was also a skilled lead guitar player, developing a unique rockabilly style all his own on his Fender Strat. Gary Busey attempts to capture this aspect of Buddy's persona. There were other contemporary master guitar rockers of equal caliber, such as Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, and Eddie Cochran, but Buddy's talent is often overlooked.

As noted by others, Busey is the driving force behind the success of \"The Buddy Holly Story.\" Not only does the script play with the facts of Buddy's life, but it even interjects several anachronisms for the two years of Buddy's popularity, basically 1957-1959. One that comes to mind is the scene where Buddy and Maria are watching a 3-D movie. Buddy is disenchanted with it all and tells Maria that it'll never last. It's just a fad. In reality there were no 3-D movies in circulation at the time. The heyday for 3-D was in the early 1950's. By 1955 the fad had already faded. Yet another example where just a little research would have sufficed to make the story more believable.

At times it is difficult to separate what really happened from urban legends surrounding Buddy's career. The story about how the Crickets got their name may or may not be apocryphal, but it certainly did not take place the way it is presented in the movie. Another problem with the film is how Buddy's parents are depicted. Certainly Buddy's parents were supportive of his musical career. \"Maybe Baby\" is credited to Buddy's mother and she did have input into the writing of the song.

It's good that Buddy's biggest hits were used in the movie, but I miss hearing one of my favorites, \"I'm Looking For Someone to Love.\" I'm proud that as a result of this movie, Buddy's music was reissued for a new generation to hear. His legacy is one of the very best from the early days of rock 'n' roll. Rave on, Buddy, rave on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film set the standard for all rock biopics to follow. It accomplished this through the energetic performances of the leads, the steadiness of the camera-work (avoiding 'rock-video' clich\u00e9s that were actually invented for the Beatles in their first two films), tight editing, and a non-judgmental presentation of the star as human being rather than symbol or god (or demon). Yes, there are minor holes in the plot, and incidental details that are a little unnecessary, and there will always be debate between families of those personally involved as to specifics. But the issue here, as in the much more recent \"I walk the Line\" or Carpenter's famed TV Elvis biopic of the same era, is whether the meaning of the performer's life, in its time and place, as a catalyst for fans' ideals and appreciation, is made manifest in the performance, and this is clearly the case here. We come away from this movie understanding not only how Buddy Holly became a star, but why. I don't see what else one could want from the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a great film! I never knew much about Buddy Holly, but was familiar with his lively and fun music. This is a wonderful biography of someone who helped change the music in the 1950's. Although I never cared for Gary Bussey, he was fabulous as Buddy Holly! I don't know how accurate the movie is, but assume at least for the most part it is accurate, which makes the movie all the more interesting. The music throughout the movie just adds the pizazz to this biography. I don't think I would change a thing in this film, it was all good! What a difference in the stars from the 50's to todays music stars. How can you compare someone like Buddy Holly to Justin Timberlake? or any of the other popular singers of this generation?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gary Busey's best performance in a nicely-flowing biography. Since had a musical background, he was able to do his own songs and it really works. It's always good to see that fine actor, Don Stroud (one of the crickets) and Charlie Martin Smith as well.

An 8 out of 10. Best performance = Gary Busey. Thankfully, Mr. Busey was Oscar-nominated for this, losing to Jon Voight in COMING HOME. A fairly low-budget flick that doesn't disappoint, with GREAT SONGS by Mr. Holly. I hope this made plenty of dough. Busey was never this popular again for varying reasons, but thankfully he has this one great one on his resume.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Buddy Holly Story is a great biography with a super performance from Gary Busey. Busey did his own singing for this film and he does a great job.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It would be unwise to judge that that either narrative or documentary to be more authentic than the other. Both formats have an underlying form of fiction and are never a true reflection of reality as producers seek to reconstruct and narrate stories in their perspectives. As both formats usually leaves some issues undiscussed due to 'complexities of subplots' and screen time, it denies viewers the opportunity to open up debates and to further investigate and construct the real truth. Adding to the viewer's inability to evaluate sources (eg comparisons with written history) and the logics behind arguments, history may be open to distortion through narrative and documentary.

To most people, documentary may be seen more truthful as it usually involves actual participants' testimonies and real-life footages. However, these visuals are selected and edited, to be arranged in a way that allows producers to present their version of realism to the viewers. In The Real Buddy Holly Story, Paul McCartney seeks to establish the Buddy Holly as remembered by family and friends and how Buddy had influence the rest of the music world. The testimonies may have been distorted as memories may not be accurate and emotions have evolved to make a legend out of Buddy. The documentary did make corrections to the film version and cover other events, such as there were 3 members of Crickets and that Buddy's music was actually heard outside of USA at that time (he had to embark on a world tour!). However, it did not go into deep discussion about what happened to Buddy's wife after his death. Criticism and\/or negative discussions may have been left out of the documentary as the producers seek to present a Buddy that the world should have remembered. Eventually, we don't manage to construct the whole truth as we only restrict ourselves to the past 'realties' that the documentary tells us.

Personally, I prefer a narrative film because it provides rich visual imageries, which helps us to reconnect with the collective memory of that era. It gives the audiences a more constructive structure of the story, and this leads to better memory retention for the audiences when they retell the story. There is also an element of flexibility which allows film-makers to express their thoughts and views on certain issues. In The Buddy Holly Story, racial issues were highlighted and viewers can certainly relate to these issues with respect to current situations.

Movie-goers consistently seek to revisit certain emotions when watching a film, and using these emotions, audiences can choose to make personal connections with the applied meanings that a film-maker wants to deliver. In most stories, people are more likely to selectively remember the struggles, the inspirations and the way the story ends. Through The Buddy Holly Story, we do remember the struggles Buddy and the Crickets had, how Maria had been a source of encouragement, and that Buddy Holly was a great performer until the day he dies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw The Buddy Holly Story when I was about seven years old. I had no idea who Buddy Holly was, nor can I remember what it was that made me sit down in front of the television, tuned in to HBO, and watch this engaging biopic. What I remember was realizing that it was a (somewhat) true story, about someone who actually lived. I recall the music, great songs that I still love today (I can't believe Gary Busey sang his own songs and so well - What a stud!) Then, came the end. He died. He freaking died. I couldn't believe it. I had no warning, no prior knowledge like most coming into this film. It taught me a harsh lesson about life and how it doesn't follow the rules that most movies teach us. I just watched the film again tonight and was engaged all over again... and a little saddened.

8 out of 10, but I'll admit to a little bias.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've got to say it. Gary Busey saved this film. If it were not for his fine acting talents this film would have been sub par. I recommend the film but just barely.

The biggest difficulty with the film is its broad disregard for historical, geographical and physical accuracy. For example, why is Lubbock green and hilly? How come Buddy's producer Petty ignored? Where are the daily trips to the Clovis, New Mexico studio? Why is Nashville treated as a racist hate camp out to destroy the Holly sound? Why was Buddy's two week courtship to Maria treated as a complex, taboo, race mixing stereotype? Why are Buddy's tile boxes as light as feathers? Finally, why are the Crickets portrayed as trouble making roadblocks to Holly's talent?

Taken on their face these inaccuracies should spell doom for any film proclaiming itself, \"The Buddy Holly Story.\" However, Busey does deliver a stirring portrayal as the man whose death eventually led to the day the music died.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gary Busey did a splendid job playing the rock-n-roll legend Buddy Holly(1936-59). He does have a spitting image to the man. Being a garage band in the 50's is sure different from today's. Having a group of three is usually simple back in those days. I bet that Buddy Holly(Busey) was a much better musician than most of what I heard. Since he lived in Lubbock, Texas, it was only a quiet country town back then. His parents were Christians, though his mother was a strong supporter of her son's work. That's one of the reasons he didn't act like Elvis. He stuck to his kinder ways. That really makes him good! When he went to Tennessee, he saw how bad the producers were. They hated rock-n-roll, that turned Holly off big time. Getting used to the different atmosphere was a challenge to Holly and his friends. He got to tour with Sam Cooke, went to the famous Apollo, which the all-Afro-American audience quickly accepted them, I liked that! And Sam Cooke made sure Holly and his band got some service. That's what I call tolerance. It's sad that he, Ritchie Valens, and J.P. \"The Big Bopper\" Richardson had their music careers cut short by a plane crash in 1959, at least their memories will live on in our hearts. I don't what inaccuracies were in the movie, all I care is that Buddy Holly overcame the obstacles of music and politics in that time, and the music is nearly-perfect. For Gary Busey, he was perfect in the role, and making the music as well. GOD BLESS YOU GARY BUSEY! 5 STARS!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Considering it's basically low-budget cast, this is a surprisingly good flick about the life and death of rock pioneer Buddy Holly. Gary Busey stars as Holly, who was one of the first to use an electric guitar for pretty much all his music. Backed up by his Crickets, Holly had a string of hits and became a bona fide star before his death in a plane crash along with Richie Valens and The Big Bopper. The film follows his rise to stardom, marriage to his sweetheart and eventual death. I like this film and believe that you will too. Charles Martin Smith also does a great job in this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gary Busey is superb in this musical biography. Great singing and excellent soundtrack. The Buddy Holly Story is a much better movie than La Bamba. From reading other comments, there may be some historical inaccuracies. Regardless, it is a fun toe-tapping film, and a good introduction to Buddy Holly's music.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Buddy Holly was a pioneer and victim of the early days of rock 'n' roll. The young singer\/songwriter from Lubbock, Texas left his mark on the template of modern music. Inspired by Elvis Presley, Holly would spend a lot of time fighting the system in order to get his rock-a-billy sound recorded. Before his untimely death, he was mixing lush strings with be-bop rhythms. Holly would take his place with Presley, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis and Ricky Nelson as the voices of teenage angst.

This easy to watch bio is not without flaws. Some situations, events, places and even names were not correct for various reasons. What makes this movie so believable is that Gary Busey did his own singing in the part of Holly. A well produced soundtrack became a multi-million seller.

Busey was nominated for an Oscar. Other stars of note are Don Stroud, Conrad Janis, Charles Martin Smith and Maria Richwine.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie has taken a little flack for playing fast and loose with the facts. But it will put you close to being in a time and place that no longer exist by getting to the *feeling*.

As Keith Richards remarks in Paul McCartney's movie about Holly, there's some Buddy Holly in almost all rock made since his day. The tragedy that took him is dealt with gently, and the rest of the movie recreates the joy of a great music career and a joyful body of music.

Gary Busey does a remarkable, energetic portrayal of Holly, and his performances hint that he really gets into the music. As a long-time Holly fan and rocker, so do I.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Buddy Holly Story\" shows the famous singer's beginnings in the dunk Lubbock, Texas, to his rise to stardom, to his tragic death in a plane crash. Strengthened by the fact that Gary Busey, as Holly, plays his own instruments, this movie is the biopic in its purest form. There are some things that seem a little hackneyed, namely the people of Lubbock considering rock 'n' roll to be the devil's music, but the masterful performances outweigh any weaknesses. If there's only one thing that's for certain in this great big world of ours, it's that Buddy Holly's music will never get stale. Whether it's \"That'll Be the Day\", \"Peggy Sue\", or another one of his songs, they still sound great after all these years. He remains one of the greatest singers in history.

Just to show what Lubbock really thought of their most famous son, they didn't name a street after him until 37 years after his death! What a bunch of ingrates!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those movies where I just want to move my feet and dance around the house. It's a very positive and happy type of music. The movie has some sad parts but mostly the music is what makes me happy. Gary Busey did a great job as Buddy Holly. Buddy Holly kept on going even tho his pastor, his parents and the Nashville record producer told him no. Buddy Holly didn't give up on what he liked. I didn't know much about Buddy Holly until I watched this movie. I've been to the Surf Ballroom where he last played but didn't give much attention to it until I watched this movie. It's an incredible movie with lots of fun so get on your feet and see this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It occurred to me while the final scene of the movie froze to reveal the scant detail of Buddy Holly's death that there are still people alive today who were at that venue in Clearlake, Iowa who remember it vividly. That has to be a haunting memory, lent even more poignancy by the lyrics of \"American Pie\", as it pays tribute to the day the music died. The world lost some tremendous talent that day, lives cut short way before their prime, and one can only wonder what might have been if the trio of musicians who perished that day had survived to create an even greater musical legacy.

I watched the film today some thirty years after it's original theatrical release. Thirty years, I have some trouble wrapping my mind around that. I had forgotten a lot of it, while remembering some of the little things, like the cricket in the wall who became immortalized with the band's name. But most of all, I remember the music. It's hard just to sit there and not begin tapping to the beat of \"Oh Boy\" or \"That'll Be The Day\", and one has to wonder just where the threat to our morals might have actually come from with those tunes. I'm with Buddy on that score at least, how could they be jungle rhythms if he came up with them? Funny how each successive decade brought it's own threat to the fabric of society - The Beatles, Motown, Disco and a whole host of other musical forms. We're still listening and dancing to the beat, so I guess they couldn't have been all that bad.

There was another takeaway from the film I had forgotten about. This is where I learned to bang a phone on the table when the person on the other end wasn't seeing things my way. I've done that a number of times over the years, but by now had forgotten the source. Well, I should be good for another thirty years or so now.

You certainly have to give Gary Busey credit for his portrayal of Buddy Holly. Seeing him today, one could never imagine him as the slimmed down rocker with the horn rimmed glasses, but it was a tour de force characterization and performance that earned Busey an Oscar nod. Don Stroud and Charles Martin Smith are competent as Buddy's band members, though their characters take a back seat to much of the story. I enjoyed the subtle ways that other musical legends were segued into the picture, names like Sam Cooke and King Curtis, without ever dwelling on their presence.

I'll always be a fan and follower of music from the Fifties and Sixties - 'oldies' they call them now. I guess that makes me a bit of an oldie too, but you can't replace the experience of growing up with the music history that now makes it to the big screen. Which only goes to reinforce the idea that I'll keep on enjoying the music until, well, the day I die.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this (video 2000) years ago and would love to see it on DVD. A good film, but I would have loved it even more if it had included the legacy of The Beatles and The Hollies etc.

I also don't know exactly how true the story is - were some changes made to dramatize the story?

I was only 3 when Buddy crashed, and didn't wake up to his music until the late 70's. Much later I found out our family moved into our new house on - yes, February 3rd, 1959.

Well ehelhell little things you say and do... His songs will always be remembered - always...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First, I'm a huge Buddy Holly fan. I grew up knowing who he was, and I knew all about that fateful plane ride that extinguished three incredibly bright flames just like that. But I had never truly listened to his music. I had heard much of it, yes, but not until I sat down with the intention of getting something out of it did I truly come to see the real Buddy Holly. And let me tell you that my world is a different one now because of him.

Because of this adoration for such an incredible man, I bought The Buddy Holly Story without ever seeing it previously. I'm torn on my views of this film. Perhaps it's because Buddy feels so alive to me that I just couldn't bear seeing Gary Busey in this role. I'll admit that he did a nice job acting, but his singing sounded so forced. It seemed to me as if he knew he didn't sound a bit like Buddy himself and therefore was using far too much energy to make an attempt at a similar sound. In some parts of the film, he succeeded. But others.. ouch.

The movie spanned a period of several years, but I feel that portraying this time span could have been handled much better. I had a difficult time distinguishing at what point in Buddy's life certain events were happening. I also had a serious problem with some of the historical inaccuracies. I think the worst one was the portrayal of the Crickets. I understand how their real names couldn't be used, and how for simplification there were only two of them in the movie.. and maybe this was a good thing. Because the film's background vocals were cringe-worthy, and I disliked the way they were portrayed as a hindrance to Buddy's career. Something else that really made no difference to the film but irked me was Gary Busey's teeth. They wore me out! Buddy Holly had much better teeth. I don't know why I noticed it.. but I did.

I'll end this review on what I felt was the best part of the movie: Buddy's last performance. His final phone call to Maria, the Big Bopper's performance, bringing him and Richie Valens to the stage, followed by the still frame ending. It startled even me, and I feel that it effectively shows the audience how at one moment Buddy Holly was so alive and energetic, and that his flame was snuffed out in the blink of an eye. It was a beautiful way to portray this horrible tragedy I think.

Good movie, despite the obvious problems.. 7\/10.

Some obvious flaws, could use some work... but not bad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film biography of early rock and roll star Buddy Holly (1936-1959) is a tour de force for Gary Busey. The movie's highlights are Busey's stage performances where he plays guitar and sings Holly songs. He brings such energy to the performances that Holly's own filmed performances almost pale in comparison. Busey's infectious toothy grin lights up the screen, he creates a totally believable and winning personality and his Oscar nomination for best actor was well deserved.

The film follows Holly's career from growing up in Lubbock, Texas, to stardom and New York and his untimely death in a plane crash. One thing I found interesting, if true, was Buddy's driving ambition--he had great plans to go beyond recording and performance to producing. As young as he was he was already establishing himself as a shrewd businessman and definitely wanted to take things to a higher level. We will never know if he would have ultimately catapulted his early success into a business brand like The Rolling Stones.

The lyrics of many of Holly's songs are pretty adolescent; read the lyrics for \"Peggy Sue\" or \"Oh Boy!\" and you will see what I mean. Maybe to a great extent this explains his popularity with adolescent audiences, but his instrumentation and stage performances surely account for his influence on groups to follow--both The Rolling Stones and The Beatles have acknowledged his importance.

Clearly some liberties were taken for dramatic effect. For example, I doubt that Holly ever punched out a producer in Nashville or that the audience at New York's Apollo theater was so immediately responsive as to be wildly dancing in the aisles. If you are interested in getting closer to the truth, see the documentary \"The Real Buddy Holly Story\" (1985) that is produced and hosted by a very relaxed and engaging Paul McCartney. This contains interviews with Holly's family, friends, and band-mates (Holly's musical brothers are not even mentioned in \"The Buddy Holly Story\"). Members of other bands like Keith Richards and Don Everly also offer opinions and stories and there is footage of old Holly performances. The McCartney production can stand on its own, but it makes an excellent companion piece to \"The Buddy Holly Story\" and perhaps should be required viewing for anyone who watches the fictionalized story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even after nearly 20 years apart, the original members of Black Sabbath have not lost a thing. In this concert, they perform their best songs from their heyday (1970-1978), including \"N.I.B.\", \"War Pigs\", and \"Paranoid\".

Also included is priceless backstage footage with interviews and retrospectives into their days as the top hard rock band on the planet. The comments of Ozzy, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler, and Bill Ward are just as interesting and intriguing to watch as the fabulous onstage performances.

A must-see for all Sabbath and Ozzy fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is at least very close to a perfect video publication. Messianic metal group, dinosaurs of rock n' roll, biggest and most influential heavy band in the world plays their hit songs and reminisces band's past - what more do we need?

Video starts from \"War pigs\" and ends to \"Paranoid\" and in the middle all the greatest and most significant classics of the original line-up are included: \"Electric funeral\", \"Sweet leaf\", \"After forever\", \"Iron man\", \"Children of the grave\"...and of course my personal favourite \"Into the void\", I'm glad they didn't leave it out. Well, how could they?

Still, this video is more than just the music. Ozzy Osbourne, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler and Bill Ward goes over the group's colorful history. Only thing that slightly bothers me is when a live song is being interrupted with bits of interview. For example, is it that necessary to inform how the song \"N.I.B.\" got it's name, right in the middle of it - one on top of the other? I doubt. It's still a small flaw so it's not too big deal.

Band members also laze around in chairs and chat together: pleasant material for a sabbath fan! I admit I have difficulties of following what Ozzy Osbourne is muttering but it's just amusing. I had a privilege to participate when \"The last supper tour\" entered Finland and for me personally this video is an ideal way to recall that magnificent show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just about every commentator has mentioned the way that some of the interview footage is superposed over the concert footage in places. This is true, and is the biggest flaw of this film. However, it isn't so often, or so bad, that one shouldn't see this video. If you are a Black Sabbath fan, you have to see this. Aside from having seen Black Sabbath in the Sevnties and early Eighties, I saw them in 2005 or 2006 when they also headlined OZZfest just like in this video. The concert was amazing, and very much like this, which was why I rented this in the first place. It's just about the best geezer-rock out there. Check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"George Saunders is a forger who steals a rare copy of Hamlet, killing a guard in the process. Months later an associate of his is selling forgeries of the book for great sums of money. One of the forgeries is sold to a man working for the Nazi's. Not happy at being taken the Nazi front man insists on getting his money back, at the same time an investigator working for one of the other swindled clients shows up. The middle woman in an effort to keep herself safe begins to play all sides against each other and sets up a meeting at the New York public library between various parties, however as people begin to die, the library is locked down and more murders (and perhaps some rare book larceny) seem to be close to happening. Complex murder mystery is a good little thriller with a great cast (Saunders is joined by Richard Denning and a cast of solid supporting players) If there is a flaw the film is almost too complicated with plots with in plots and everyone pretty much out for themselves. The layers of theft, forgery, murder and war time intrigue (this was 1942) are almost too many for the brief 70 minute running time. Still its an enjoyable little film with a darkness and sense of inescapable doom for some of the characters that clearly marks this as one of the first film noirs. Until Denning shows up we're down among some charming thieves, whom we like, perhaps even more than the hero, but its clear from word and deed this is not going to have a completely happy ending, and they know it, even if they fight it. A good little film that's worth searching out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This interesting film noir features three very good performances: Sanders, Patrick, and Blackmer. The scenes between Sanders and Patrick are particularly outstanding. Demming, as the detective, is unfortunately not nearly as good. He lacks the intelligence, strength, and cynical world view of a Bogart. Had Humphrey played this part, we could have had a classic.

Pace, location (a library), and atmosphere are all good. But there are a few plot holes. Sanders strongly fears Blackmer and the ruthless organization (Nazis) he represents. Yet after mistakenly killing Blackmer, Sanders seems to experience no anxiety or remorse. Sanders then seizes the library and its occupants by using the ruse that he and his men are detectives investigating the murder. However, Sanders' hit man later tries to kill Demming by shooting him (without a silencer), even though the many other detainees could have been expected to hear, and become alarmed by, the noise. Finally, Sanders' hit man tries to kill Roberts, who has discovered the truth, but when she faints, he inexplicably does not.

What bothered me the most, however, was that the chance for a great and unexpected conclusion was wasted. Throughout the film Patrick is portrayed as a smart, hard-as-nails sociopath fearing nothing. Yet at the end, she flees panic-stricken from the last surviving Nazi, a brutish thug. By the time the cops find him, he has killed her. And she ends up being just another weak, stereotypical victim. What should have happened is this: the cops find the Nazi thug, but he is dead. She has cleverly killed him, and then vanished -- to continue her evil ways.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was a terrific movie! I like to watch it again and again. The actors were awesome. The movie kept me on the edge of my seat. I would recommend this movie to anyone. I wish Lifetime would put this movie on DVD. I would most definitely purchase a copy. This movie just proves that you should be very careful about who you get hooked up with. You may think you know someone, but you never know. My daughter watched the movie with me. She thought it was great. All I know is, I will watch this movie every time Lifetime airs it. It's the kind of movie that keeps you glued to the t.v.I wish Lifetime would redo the movie, but use the same actors, and bring it to the big screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this was movie was great, Richard Greico and Yasmine Bleeth have great chemistry in this movie. Yasmine Bleeth's character plays a women who has fallen head over heals in love with Richard Greico's character. They end up getting married and everything seems perfect except Yasmine Bleeth wants a baby more than anything, however she has a hard time trying to conceive. Richard Greico will do anything to make her happy, and will go to extreme measures to make her happy. I thought the acting was great in this movie, and it keeps you guessing. It shows how naive one can be when they have fallen in love. Yasmine Bleeth is a good actress in this, and I wonder why she never made it further in her career. Richard Greico is very impressive as the deceiving husband, and plays the evil part very well. I wonder why certain actors make it and certain ones don't. All and all a great movie that I would recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this film, it definitely keeps you on the edge of your seat. It was very well directed. I think it was important that they showed the other couple's life as well as Terry and Bobbys and show them as people with emotions. As this film needed to show Bobby as a cold and vindictive person.

I agree with another review it was sick love, not true love. He didn't need to go to great lengths as murder to give his wife a baby. He should have been honest with her and told her that he was sterile and decide to adopt a baby together. Some reviews say that she was naive, I think she was when it came to the adoption, however best actors all round. Great movie to watch!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Much better than it is generally given credit for, this version of \"Lost Horizon\" not only had great music and beautiful scenery, but also some stunning mountain photography. A special edition laser disc was released some years ago which added more than 30 minutes of previously deleted material, extra music, and lots of bonus material. So why isn't this on DVD?! Hard to figure the studios out sometimes. Certainly the roles could have been given to people who could sing better than Peter Finch, Liv Ullman, George Kennedy and Sally Kellerman, but what do you want in a movie, good acting or melodious pipes? Song and dance man Bobby Van is great fun, Michael York is a suitably tragic villain, and seeing Sir John Gielgud decked out as Chang may sound silly but actually works very well on screen. Trust me, you need to check this movie out - if you can find it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While the songs and dance numbers, in general, aren't as strong as many would have them be, the film's storyline and message are still there and ring out loudly above the simple 70s-style musical numbers.

Keeping in mind that this film was made after the Hollywood Musical had nearly died out (with few exceptions being rock musicals), the audiences that went to see it new didn't appreciate the fact that it was a brave attempt at something that hadn't been done to date. Audiences that see it today will tend to judge it against the films and musicals of today and, perhaps, the huge all-star casts of musicals gone past. But to do that to this film, or any for that matter, is an injustice to the film itself.

There are some good musical moments in the film. The first is that of Bobby Van. Mr. Van took his role of Harry Lovett just after closing a 2 year Tony nominated (for best actor) run of the Broadway revival, \"No, No, Nanette.\" He is a song-and-dance-man from way back and, honestly, the only one in the cast that was truly talented and experienced for musicals. He never misses a step in his \"Question Me An Answer\" and rightly so ... he was totally at home as Harry. Other pleasant numbers are done by Olivia Hussey when she welcomes the new visitors and while the lyrics are weak, James Shigeta shows his strong voice in the \"Family\" song, as well as a nicely done staging of the full piece.

View the film for what it is ... a fantasy about a place where you never grow old, hidden in the ice and snow covered mountains of Tibet, found by a group of unsuspecting modern-day people wrapped up in the strife of any modern culture. Take this and compare it to reality and you get a film that falls short of a goal. But ... take this film for the message of love and peace and tranquility and brotherly love and you get a warm and refreshing message and a positive one at that.

To some this film may seem corny to others a welcomed release from the hectic pace of reality. To the first, try to not judge and just enjoy the message. To the second, you have discovered the secret of Shangri-La!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was 19 or 20, years old at the time and living in Salt Lake City, Utah and I still remember the new dome theater, called the century 21. Layback chairs that rocked and a new sound system, large screen and huge open space between the screen and the packed theater. We felt all the excitement of a new preview screening of a film. Ta da da daa da ta da dada dada... I can still hear the opening music ringing trumpet and the crash of cymbals. I loved the interplay of characters and the filmed vistas. I know Peter Finch and Luv and Sally had some trouble with the lip-sink but hey, this was a feel good, go feel better about things film! What I regret is the way they cut the meaningful heart out of it, showed the cut version and then called it a flop. I saw the cut version and I can see it lost its view of the vision it had in the preview edition. Yes I wince a bit at Peter's effort to make love through music but, you know I didn't see it that way when I left the theater. when they surveyed us as we left I regret any comment I made that may have altered the original. I liked it then and still see it while I listen to the music on my LP. Most of my family has heard me sing much of the sound track and I can use the films monologues in our games of \"what movie is this\". I wish a director's cut on DVD was available. It is available on VHS but its not quite the same. I would particularly like a full serious lord of the rings style commentary about its origins, struggles and triumphs. Picky people should leave things well enough alone. Bring it back!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This musical has a deep meaning which is appreciated by only a few. The wise can see the wisdom contained in what most call folly.

This music may well regain popularity as world consciousness rises. It is about a land \"far away from it all\" where \"living things have room to grow.\" Its people are \"living and growing together\" mentally and spiritually faster than in biological age.

The lyrics help us recognize the relativity of this \"world that is spinning around\" and to \"look inside yourself; that is where the Truth always lies.\" The absolute level of consciousness is more real than the ever changing world of the senses.

I have been searching for the video for years . When I find it, or it comes out in DVD, it will help \"share the joy\" of being in \"Shangri-la\" again. Burt Bacharach's music and Hal David's lyrics made a masterpiece in turbulent times that is just now ready to be fully appreciated.

May this CD inspire you to find your own \"Lost Horizon\" or recognize it when \"peace of mind\" has found you. - LostHorizon.org","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ross Hunter's musical remake of the 1937 fantasy, based on James Hilton's enduring bestseller, was written off by critics and audiences almost immediately in 1973, sounding off a backlash against musicals in general that gave the genre a bad reputation in Hollywood for years. Group of disparate British and American individuals end up on an emergency flight out of a war-torn Asian country, but their plane is hijacked and crashes in a snowy mountain terrain; a rescue party arrives and leads the group to an isolated community called Shangri-La, where the sun is always shining and most of the residents are youthful and blissfully content. Some of the performances by the classy cast aren't so classy (the effervescent mood of the piece, the lilting Burt Bacharach-Hal David tunes, as well as the lightweight direction all conspire to make the performers look just a bit silly). Peter Finch is the international peace keeper who becomes involved in a somewhat constipated romance with resident Liv Ullmann; Sally Kellerman is a malcontent who spits out lines like, \"I got tired of taking pictures of people with their heads blown off, so that people with their heads STILL ON--and usually under hairdryers--could get one last kick before turning to the latest recipe\"; John Gieguld \"as Chang\", an Asian who learned to speak English while attending Oxford, is humorously self-amused (but why no songs for Chang?). Hal David's dopey lyrics are sometimes jaw-dropping (\"On the Good Ship Lollipop\/how did Christopher Columbus\/sail across the sea?\") and the pacing gets bogged down with all that chatter about the outside world and how nothing is more pitiful today. However, the production is lush and the general handling strangely affecting. The two-dimensional characters are so overly serious they actually become endearing, and the movie's silliness is infectious. It ends up being a lot of fun. *** from ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A huge cast gathered for this remake which sadly was a box office failure notwithstanding a great sound track. I can't say it was riveting entertainment, nor a cure for insomnia. Nevertheless I enjoyed the film - it provided the escape I was after one afternoon. A good look for those of us looking for the ideal life, albeit a fantasy. Expect some corny moments, few thrills, and an occasional laugh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't see that much wrong with this movie. Granted, the principal singers might not be Luciano Pavarotti and Maria Callas, but they can certainly carry a tune. Burt Bacharach and Hal David are talented songwriters and I happen to love their songs, especially \"The World Is A Circle\", \"The Things That I Will Not Miss\", and \"Question Me An Answer\". Some people claim that Hermes Pan's choreography is ghastly and that the snowy mountain sets look as if they were made of plastic; I disagree on both counts. I've seen powdered snow before and the snow in those mountain scenes looked realistic to me. And most of all, in this film's defense, it is appropriate for a family audience (at least I remember it being that way when I saw it on Christmas Day a few years ago.) With all the outcry over sex and violence in the cinema these days, I find it refreshing to note that this film deserves its G-rating. And they don't say that naughty \"F\" word every ten minutes like some films I've seen. Thank God. So although this film may not be everyone's cup of tea, it does have some redeeming value and I give it ten points out of a possible ten. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was one of my favorites as a child. My family had the 8-track tape soundtrack!! It took us years (until I was in my 20s) for us to get a video of the movie (my dad taped it from HBO or something). Every summer when we go to the beach (my mom, brother, sister and I) we lay on the beach and sing all the songs from this movie!!! LOVED IT!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went to the cinema in 1973 when the film was released, I was 11 at the time. I remember how much I enjoyed it and wanted to live in Shangri-la, that's how naive and young I was. I recently came across a video of the film I had recorded off television some years ago. I watched it again and am not ashamed to admit I still enjoy it as much now as I did 29 years ago. I also enjoy listening to the words of the songs, because it makes me think that one day we could live in a place where the sound of guns don't pound in our ears and if we look at our reflection - we should be happy with what we see. This is what I call a \"feel good\" film because I feel happy after watching it. Maybe I am still naive but it makes me happy and I'm sure it will make you happy if you watch it with an open mind and enjoy it for what it is - a good, family film. I must be one of the few people who has this film on VHS PAL video - and DVD (self-made). I recorded it on DVD as the videotape recording from TV was starting to wear thin. I still watch it from time to time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The cast is admirably chosen and well-balanced. This cinematography is excellent. The music is delightful as all of Burt Bacharach's music is, and is appropriate to the plot line. Making a musical version of Hilton's tale is a welcome change from a plodding re-make. We see seasoned actors who add real depth to the emotional content and significance of each scene. I cannot agree with the critics who overlooked this scintillating gem of a film. It is a treasure of the silver screen! Find it if you can - and let its magic carry you beyond the drudgery of daily worries, inspiring you to find your own \"Lost Horizon\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It may be a remake of the 1937 film by Capra, but it is wrong to consider it only in that way! It was supposed to expose Hilton's novel in a completely different way. As a musical is excellent. The scenery is terrific, the characters good and anyone like \"Leonard Maltin\" who considers the Bacharach music awful must be completely deaf! I strongly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It amazes me that production companies will sue because of reproductions they will not supply. I've been looking for this movie on DVD for a while and VHS for years. One can get all sorts of movies on line...old movies, new movies... but it all targets a particular group. This movie is very nostalgic for many. I'm not sure why I can't get a copy. Maybe if enough people will write in, the copyright holder will get a clue. It's about time for this to happen. Yes, it's date, but so is The Wizard of OZ. It doesn't seem like this should be so difficult. So, for now, I'll keep seeing those illegal copies on search engines like many others.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film some years ago and promptly bought the soundtrack because it was simply excellent. Bacharach's music is endearing and should be given the recognition it richly deserves. The cinematography is awesome. Critics hated it, but they hated HOME ALONE too. I haven't found it on video but welcome anyone who can find a copy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The retelling of a classic story is set to the music of Burt Bacharach and lyrics of Hal David. The actors seem like real people in this fairytale of the outside world meeting with mystical Shangra-la. It is a joy to watch Bobby Van, whose acting puts me in mind of Red Buttons, and, as always, George Kennedy (Cool-Hand Luke) who always manages to carry gravitas in his roles.

The surprise here is Charles Boyer as the elder High Lama. Who would have known?

All-star cast including Michael York and Olivia Hussey makes this work a keeper for those of us who cherish people.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a film buff, I obviously had read all the excruciating reviews and funny, sarcastic comments about this film (my favourite being Woody Allen's quip \"If I had my life to live over again I wouldn't change anything ... except for seeing the musical remake of Lost Horizon\"). Therefore I've never been able to watch it without smirking at the choreography\/set\/songs etc. Just recently I came across a widescreen DVD and watched it for the first time in years, along with a friend who had never heard of the film's reputation. HE really enjoyed it, and - after trying to block out all the negative prejudices I obviously had about the film - so did I. There is nothing especially bad about Lost Horizon, and it is far more enjoyable and watchable than many other early 1970's movies. It isn't even especially camp. The lyrics to some of the songs are rather repetitive and simplistic, but this isn't really apparent when hearing them for the first time or having the flaws pointed out in advance so you are ready to scoff at them. As for all the reviewers who claimed the cast cannot sing in tune, this criticism falls apart since Liv Ullmann, Olivia Hussey and Peter Finch were dubbed (brilliantly too, as the vocals match their speaking voices perfectly), and Sally Kellerman has a really lovely and totally unique singing style. Vocally, Kellerman's duet with Olivia Hussey on \"The Things I Will Not Miss\" is excellent. Special mention should be made of the legendary Hollywood star Charles Boyer's brilliant performance as the High Lama - and his comments about mankind destroying itself are chillingly apt to today's fractured world. I wouldn't claim for a second that Lost Horizon is a masterpiece (The things I wouldn't miss about it are the uninspired choreography, and Bobby Van's \"Question Me An Answer\" number, which could easily have been cut), but if you haven't even seen Lost Horizon, or haven't seen it for some time, try watching without that \"Oh boy, let's have a laugh at this pile of junk\" attitude, and you will be surprised at how enjoyable it actually is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Really, This movie should be released to DVD. I just got a bootleg copy of what I think was a studio film and I was utterly pleased!!! It was on my list of films to own simply because of the cast. Three of my PEOPLE, Michael York, Olivia Hussey. Both having been in Romeo & Juliet, and also John Gielghud. sorry about the bad spelling, were in there so on that alone I thought that for the small amount I was spending it would be fine. Boy was I right. I'm not going to give any of this one away, you may already know the story anyway, but I'll just say if you can get yourself a copy in ANY format...Do it!@ you won't be sorry. JPC","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie when it first came out in 1973 and loved it. Since then I've searched for a video but never found it until now, 33 years later, when I ordered it from Moviehunter. Sorry to say it doesn't hold up. This glamourized version just can't rise up to the 1937 production level. I love Burt Bacharach's musical score, that is if listend to by itself, and I even bought a CD of it, but for my taste it doesn't lend itself well to this mysterious and compelling story. Just doesn't fit. Michael York is lost here. Sally Kellerman tosses off a fine performance but Olivia Hussy is just ridiculous and not worth lugging through the Himalayas. The best performance is Charles Boyer as the head Lama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really loved this movie and have spent several years trying to get it. It is just not available and it has not been on TV for many many years. I enjoyed it and the songs because it had something different to say and made you think how every person looks at something from different prespectives. Also we often don't appreciate something we have till it is no longer there.

My 12 year old daughter just discoverd the music and is entranced with some of the songs. Someday I hope to get a copy of the film so she can have an opportunity to view it. (Oh would I love to see it again too!)

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This version of \"The Lost Horizon\" is actually not a bad film at all. I think the problem is people like to pick on musicals, especially those made in the 70s. I saw the film upon its original release in 1973 (I was ten) and really enjoyed it, the music especially. (Burt Bacharach has always been a favorite.) The story is fun, the acting is good, and technically it's excellent. Sure, there are one or two rather silly dance numbers, but hey, you can't win 'em all. I have this film on video and watch it every so often...and I enjoy it each and every time!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I did not know what to expect when I decided to watch this documentary. I knew it was about an ex-Viet Nam POW in Laos who escaped, but I didn't know much else. In reality, I wasn't expecting too much. Oh what a surprise! The story of this man's life is very interesting in itself, but what sets this film apart from other biography-type docs is that Dieter himself tells most of the story himself. Dieter is very comfortable in front of the camera. His personality really shines. He tells his story about his life growing up in Germany during WWII and the hardships. We are there with him in that same small town as he describes his family, inspirations, and struggles. We follow him to America and his path to fulfilling his dream to be a pilot. Then later Dieter describes his story of capture, escape, and survival in the Laotian jungle. We are again with him in that very jungle as he describes and re-enacts his imprisonment and path to freedom with great detail. We see the same primitive huts, villagers, and forms of detainment he dealt with that really hasn't changed for 30 years. We see the thick jungle, mountain terrain, and rivers Dieter faced during his escape. It helps us to understand his emotions, pain, and plight. I enjoyed the man, the story, and the style. Job well done!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Little Dieter Needs To Fly is another in the remarkable body of Werner Herzog's filmic work that is without peer. Having recently rewatched it on DVD, nearly a decade after its initial US release in 1997, it has lost none of its power, and one can see its influence on documentaries as diverse as Herzog's own recent Grizzly Man and Errol Morris's Academy Award winning The Fog Of War. Like the former, it details, in its far too brief 74 minutes, the life of an interesting American. Like the latter it gives a peek at a side of war that few see. Yes, we see the violence and the heroism, but as The Fog Of War brought us into the mind of one of last century's foremost warmongers, this film allows us a peek at the life of a grunt who is captured by the enemy, tortured, and ultimately triumphs. Except, in no way, shape, nor form, is the film as simplistic nor upbeat as my brief description of it. Nor is Little Dieter Needs To Fly's titular subject, Dieter Dengler, and immigrant German who survived the depredations of the Nazis (we find out, as example, that in his hometown, Wildburg, in the Black Forest, his grandfather was the only man not to vote for Hitler, and suffered brutally for that stand) post-World War Two Germany, and his own imprisonment at the hands of the Vietcong, when his Air Force jet was shot down over Laos on February 1st, 1966\u0085. While the title of the film, and the idea of Dengler's passion for becoming a pilot, stirred by the impression Allied fighter planes made on him when they razed his town, as a child, make one believe that Dengler is the central subject of the film, this is not true. The subject is Dengler's survival, or, more precisely, his human will, all human will. The details of Dengler's romantic life are too Hollywood and staid an aspect to interest Herzog. Nor is the fact that he won a Purple Heart, Medal of Honor, the D.F.C., and the Navy Cross. That thing which pushed Dengler to survive so much, and remain such a relatively upbeat man (although there are glimpses of darker sides), is what is at the center of this film, and all of Herzog's canon. Dieter Dengler's 'distant barbaric dream' of his past is fully ripened Herzog Country, and the use of a Madagascan chant, Oay Lahy E, during many jungle scenes, among other excellent touches in the score, show Herzog is, perhaps along with only Martin Scorsese, the best manipulator of image and music in film. Long may he merge!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think it definitely is. The writing is of such a quality that beginner students of the English language should model their conversations after its dialogue. For example, the exchange between Paul Kersey(Bronson) and Ms. Kathryn Davis(Deborah Raffin) (more about this character later) is extremely clear and to the point: Ms. Davis says, \"I hope you like chicken. It's the only thing I know how to make,\" to which Kersey deftly responds, \"Chicken's good. I like chicken.\" If that's not English Grammar 101, I don't know what is.

Another thing about this Ms. Davis character: Kersey sleeps with her on the second date after she practically throws herself at him and tells him she wants to see him \"one last time\"(this being only the fourth time they've ever met) before she moves to her sister's house in Binghamton,NY to get away from the creeps; then he really doesn't even bat an eye while her corpse is burning in the street only minutes later. Kersey never even says her first name through the entirety of the film. Not once. Never a \"Get over here, Katy,\" or a \"That's a nice dress you wearing, Kathryn\" or a \"Be careful, Katie, or the creeps'll get ya!\"

And while this 'love' is developing between the two, Fraker(Gavan O'Herlihy) keeps his ever-watchful eyes on them. It's almost as if Kersey is using her as bait to get to Fraker, much as he uses the camera or the car. Sure enough, when Fraker bites, Kersey bites back hard...in the most incredible sequence of events ever caught on film! The final fifteen or so minutes are possibly rivaled only by the final thirty minutes of Delta Force in their brilliance. And that's giving Delta Force a lot of credit. In what other film can you see Ed Lauter take out Alex Winter in order to get Charles Bronson's back, a troubled gang leader seemingly calling a hotline to summon neo-nazi bikers to come to his aid, and nimble Broadway dancers wearing mesh halter-tops posing as street punks, all laid down to a soundtrack written by none other than Jimmy Page. If that's not the highest of high comedy, then nothing is funny.

Truthfully speaking, there are a thousand ways to state the unintentional comedy of Death Wish 3, but the only way to truly understand it is to watch it and judge for yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Oh my word!! I have never seen a film so lacking in any kind of moral judgement or consideration for anything other than the death of the scum! Michael Winner here makes a valid observation of human desires in displaying a gung-ho troth world of deep and damaged execution. Not only does he spoon feed us with utter hell on earth seen through the face of the moustached Bronson, but he also shows us the spoon he's feeding us with and says \"look at what your watching now look at your self and ask the question: Are you enjoying this?\" And even though you'll tell yourself NO IT CAN'T BE!!!! You'll know that deep down inside you'll know...it's a masterpiece","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Charles Bronson is back in his most famous role. In my opinion, this is by far the best film of the series and my favorite movie ever. This movie doesn't take itself seriously, because the filmmakers knew that all the social commentary that was necessary was put across in the first film. Golan and Globus made this film for Bronson fans, not for the critics, and it works. DW3 has been unfairly criticized as \"trash\" and \"a weary entry in a worn out series.\" These statements would be true if the film was made to be taken seriously or to spread a statement, but it wasn't. If you take it as what it is, DW3 is just a fun, action packed romp, with Charlie doing to street punks what we all wish we could do. The action is non stop, the atmosphere is great, and the movie is just out and out the best Bronson flick ever made. You can tell that the penny pinching Cannon group spent a lot of money on this one. It is believed that Bronson thought this film was too violent, and that was the reason why Winner didn't direct any of the following entries. I can understand his concern, but as is always the case of sequels, you have to push the envelope even further to pass a previous entry. In any case, this movie was no more violent than any other movie made during this time. What makes DW3 the best of the series and my favorite film ever (not the best, just my favorite), is the action, Charlie's presence, memorable villains, and it's ability to get the viewers to jump on the bandwagon. The first film may be the most technically well made, but this one is the most fun. For once, Charlie actually has some clever lines (although he doesn't say much)and a halfway interesting story, photography, action, and direction to back him up. Charlie has never been more intense or super cool than in this one. Yes, it's exploitive, maybe it does promote stereotypes, and maybe it is the same story as before, but Bronson's films always have and always will stand for defending the common man and giving his audience what they want to see. Many argue that the DW series manipulates its' audience, my reply is that the movies don't manipulate us, the fans are the ones in charge. We demand that Bronson blow away deserving scum, and in turn Winner and Co. deliver the goods. And for those of you who still want to put it down, remember a few things. DW3 was the #1 movie in America when it came out and was among the viewing favorites of millions of people on video and television because they realize that not all films have to be epics, they just have to be fun. **********\/10 You can't get any better. John Batchelor","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most critics seem to have dismissed this film, like so many other Charles Bronson vehicles, as just another patchwork of mindless violence. And while there is a fair amount of mayhem, DEATH WISH 3 is not that awful of an effort, particularly for fans of the series and its star.

This time out, aging Charlie's Paul Kersey is let loose by a police chief desperate to clean up a rough part of New York City. The trigger-happy vigilante moves into the heart of gang territory, where he once again becomes a one-man army in an urban war of good versus evil. Bronson, at least the \"older\" version, is truly at his best.

I'm not saying DEATH WISH 3 is a classic. Indeed to the discriminating eye it has a plethora of imperfections. The characters are generally made of cardboard. The violence is over the top. A man well into his 60s outruns and outspooks dozens of young punks. But in the tradition of the original DEATH WISH and later films such as FALLING DOWN with Michael Douglas, it has a definite crowd-pleasing charm. Who doesn't want to see gangbangers get their due? There are also some great cheesy moments and one-liners so common in 1980s films. When a tenant of his apartment building sees Kersey setting up a booby trap, for instance, the vigilante lightheartedly says he's \"thinning the herd.\" A line only Bronson can truly make work.

So you see, the key to enjoying DEATH WISH 3 is to accept it for what it is. It ain't Spielberg and it ain't art. So throw the popcorn in the microwave and have fun with it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is truly a classic 80s movie! A must have in any '80s' movie collection! Guns, Bad Guys, CREEPS, Gangs, CHARLES BRONSON and more CREEPS!!!!

In my opinion, this is the best Death Wish movie. Tons of non-stop action!

And keeping with the classic 80's \"bad guy vs good guy\" movie - this movie is about anything but the norm and all about guns and CREEPS! We see Bronson mowing down thugs and CREEPS with a 30 caliber Korean War heavy machine gun! A HEAVY MACHINE GUN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! When Charlie runs out of ammo for the Heavy Machine gun, he runs back to his crib and takes up arms with his long range high caliber pistol! This pistol can stop a freakin ELEPHANT and Charlie is putting holes the size of hub caps into bad guys with it! And if that is not enough, Charlie is also packing an anti tank grenade launcher, which by the way, is only good if he can get the CREEPS clumped together.

The acting in this movie is \"ha ha\" great and a lot of off the wall actors (mainly playing CREEPS) appear throughout the movie! The film is loaded with memorable one liners and scenes! Heck, my favorite scene\/line is where the CREEP leader confronts Broson in Jail and calmly explains to him: \"Tell you what I am going to do ...I'm gonna kill a little old lady ...just for you! ...catch it on the six o'clock news\".

Is this film violent? Heck yes! But, you'll laugh and cringe all the way through!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the most magnificent movies ever made. The acting of Charles Buchinski (later known as Bronson) is simply outstanding. This is the crown on the career of director Winner, who himself was often quoted saying this was his masterpiece. The plot has been copied many times, but it's never been topped. Wildey J. Moore, the gun manufacturer, many times claimed his brand's growth since the mid 80s can be fully credited to DW3, and rightly so. This is not just a movie, this is art that many generations will admire and appreciate. Although this movie has never been fully appreciated in the USA, it has found a huge following in Europe and Asia, where the movie is regularly shown at film schools and it is still a popular hit in student cinemas all across Europe. All in all, a true classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This classic has so many great one-liners and unintentionally hilarious scenes that I don't even know where to start. If you want advice on dating, its here. Just totally ignore the person you want, and then spout out classic lines like \"Chicken's good...I like Chicken\", and before you know it you will be having a one-nighter in a basement (it's a NICE basement) with a woman who is 35 years younger than you. Bronson does it all in this film. He buys a car for no good reason just so he can murder two gang members...paying with \"CASH\"......chunnng.... He buys an ice cream, simply because \"this is America, isn't it\", and ends up wasting someone named \"the giggler - he laughs when he runs\" just because he stole his camera. By the way, this \"giggler\" is so fast that Bronson's regular pistol can't even catch up to him, he needs to order a special one just to get this elusive creep. He gets cleaned up just so he can eat a REALLY smelly meal (stuffed cabbage) in a rat trap with a couple of old people who like to wear heavy clothing in 90 degree weather. He goes into the dentistry business. He always seems to find a crow bar when he needs one (and its the same one!). And last, but not least, he always seems to have a rocket launcher at his disposal just in case he needs to blow away Richie Cunningham's older brother Chuck who is now strung out and in dire need of a makeover. Anyway, this will all make sense once you have seen this classic...all I can say is enjoy! \"I owed you that one DUDE\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Paul Kersey of DEATH WISH 3 is very far removed from the Paul Kersey of the original film . If you remember the 1974 film then you will remember Kersey was a \" Conchie \" during the Korean war and that he was physically sick after he committed his first execution . Ten years later Kersey seems to have learned unarmed combat and how to handle anti tank weapons in his spare time . But I`ll overlook that gaffe because DW3 is the best of the sequels , lowlife scum bags get shot dead , burned alive , their teeth smashed , and thrown to their deaths by middle aged housewives armed with sweeping brushes . Yeah I know the gang members are multi ethnic and for that they deserve some credit but even if they`re not racist they`re still murdering scum who deserve all they get from Kersey and the innocent citizens . Who needs Mayor Rudy when you`ve got Paul Kersey , an anti tank rocket and a bunch of old age pensioners to reclaim the streets from the criminal creeps . Paul Kersey I salute you sir","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"LOL.

The mere fact that I start off my review with 'lol' says it all. I used to watch this movie all the time as a kid; and even then I sensed the silliness of it all. The low budget, horrible acting and lame script was ever apparent back then. I watched it again yesterday and just couldn't stop laughing. It's so bad it's actually good lol. Like another reviewer said, it doesn't take itself seriously. There's no way one could look at this movie and say that the makers did so. The soundtrack is so funny, I laugh every time I hear it. The 'climax' is just a laugh riot. It's an all out war zone in New York, full of explosions and total chaos...so ridiculous you can't help but chuckle at the sight of it.

Other hilarious moments:

- The scene with Kersey and the cop running side by side like 2 cowboys against the whole Wild West was so cheesy it was funny.

-It killed me how the bad guys could be shooting at Kersey and he could even drop down on one knee taking ever-so-careful (and slow) aim and not get hit LMAO. Of course, with him it was one shot-one kill with his elephant handgun LOL.

- Another hilarious scene was the end when he finally killed the leader of the gang....with a ROCKET LAUNCHER lol...destroying the whole side of the apartment building with it.

- It's apparent that Kersey is all but used to losing loved ones...when his new girlfriend is quickly disposed of after only a few dates. The acting is so bad that you can't blame anyone that could only think that Kersey is mad at the destruction of the car lol....he runs down, looks at the carnage and just walks away.

Again, so bad, it's good.

*** out of **** stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was great. It had everything a true action fan could want. Plenty of people getting shot and\/or maimed, minimal romance involving sex, a hero that can be identified with, violence at many intervals instead of pointless plot storing up just one scene at the end, and villains that are just asking for it. Bronson appears to be at his lowest level of tolerancy in this film and it shows. Ed Lauter makes a great cop and was seamlessly worked into Bronson's plot without stealing his spotlight. The movie doesn't involve a plot so boring or over-consuming that you watch this film once and never again. Rather, you want to see Kersey in action and the storyline just juices it up. This is great stuff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had never seen the original Death Wish in the book either Death Wish I (film). However, Death Wish 3 was the very interested film. The well-known vigilante, Paul Kersey tried to visit his friend, Charlie but he only visited him for a couple of minutes before he died, because of Charlie didn't pay the protection to the huge and infamous underground gang leaded by Manny Franker. After some altercation during his time in jail, Kersey learned that Franker, who he fought with in jail had his own agenda to make the New York City in the hellfire (and also his influence) by sending his henchmen to set the crime every time, everywhere and everyday. Due to the chance given by Insp. Richard Shriker who know his profile well and like him very much. Kersey decided to set the war with Franker and his gang.

I accepted that Death Wish III was one of the most straightedge and extreme violence action film which I had seen from the past. This movie used the very straightedge way to tell the story. No ponderous story-telling and less unnecessary scenes which was the one merit of the movie. On the next issue, Violence was used pervasively in the film. I believed that many of viewers could like the action scene of Death Wish III because it showed the crude, extreme and blast of action for every minutes of the movie, especially the climax scene of the movie and the death of Manny Franker which I thought that it was the maximum action scene.

For about the cast, I think everyone was good and get through their role. Charles Bronson made everybody believe that he still be great as Paul Kersey. He didn't look like the \"big old cat\", but the great vigilante. Gavan O'Herlihy also did his job very good. His main villain role in the movie made him look nasty and look like the big bad guy. However, the role of Kathryn Davis in this movie was pathetic. She didn't look like the main character. I thought that she was appeared only two or three scene before she was killed by Franker and his follower to make a heat on Paul Kersey. She could have more role to appear.

For my comment, the straightedge style and extreme violence made this movie great for extreme action film fans. Fast-paced with back and Forth style made this movie very interested to watch. Nevertheless, this movie had some silly scene and some plot hole. First, the scene when Insp.Shriker faced Paul Kersey for the first time. It was very corny because you attacked your favor guy before you want him to help, it similar to how you punch some guy before you try to borrow him some money. Haha! that's like a joke! Although, I liked the plot twist when Insp.Shriker was shown later that he helped Kersey because at first, Shriker looked like the villain very much due to his act to Kersey, but when the movie went to the climax, everything was cleared that he had no hidden agenda with Kersey.

In another case, the ending scene of the movie set back me. It stumble on everyone's feeling because it ended too easy. Franker's gang members looked unbelievable after they found that Franker was dead, before his girlfriend and other followers decided to escape. Finally, Insp.Shriker allowed Paul Kersey to fly out from his town before the police caught him. I thought that this style of ending scene could be found in many Cannon Film's movie, but I dislike it.

For the summary, I am OK with Death Wish 3 due to my explanation I typed first. The cast, and the action was very good and so extreme, even it had some scene I don't like. Straightedge and Extreme of Violence could be the best short description of this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best sequels around and a very good movie too even there were some mistakes but still I enjoyed it. This time, Charles is not just fighting one or two muggers but a whole army of them. Death Wish 3 has a lot great action scenes and I enjoyed it every single second of it. Director Michael Winner knows how to direct a good action movie like this and Jimmy Page providing the music, with producers Golan and Globus still doing there thing and Charles Bronson is still acting good for Paul Kersey. This movie also made it look like that Michael try to end the Death Wish series and I can't blame him and I love the Gun that Charles uses. Death Wish 3 is one of the great movies of 1985 and can't get any better than this.

I gives this 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Death Wish 3 is exactly what a bad movie should be. Terrible acting! Implausible scenerios! Ridiculous death scenes! Creepy, evil-for-no-reason villains! The last 30 minutes of this movie just might be the best 30 minutes ever put on film, especially in the scene where the decent, hardworking citizens string chains across the street, knocking down the evil bikers and then shoot them, only to be joined by the neighborhood children (!!!) in celebration. And how can I forget the elderly woman with the broom? She's sweeping out the scum! And if that's not enough, let's not forget how quickly the punks give up after Fraker is killed. I'm laughing just thinking about it.

I also love the death scene of Kersey's girlfriend. He just *walks away* after seeing her get blown up. It's little things like this that make Death Wish 3 such a bad movie. And I'm not even mentioning the bizarre soundtrack.

I watched this movie because of Martin Balsam, who I seriously think is one of the finest character actors ever (and who's own \"getting beaten up by the scum\" scene is hilarious) and I walked away with a new favorite movie. Thank you, Death Wish 3 for making me laugh so hard.

Some other things I forgot to mention: 1. The weird sound effect after Kersey says \"Cash!\" when buying his used car. Ha! It's so evil sounding. 2. MANDY Fraker. Mandy! Did the writers run out of tough guy names? 3. The fact that the gangs apparently have a \"lend and lease\" thug exchange program: \"I need some more guys.\" And that Mandy has a working phone line in an abandoned building. 4. At the end of the movie, after Kersey blows up Fraker: is it just me, or does it look like the street gang is about to break into choreography as they're giving up? Just watch how in sync they are after the female punk gives the \"stop\" signal.

I love this movie. Nothing cheers me up like Death Wish 3!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While I agree that this movie lacks any real substance and should not be taken seriously, its primarily directed to fans of the series who are looking for a quick fix. Bronson (Paul Kersey)once again takes to the streets (given a license to kill by the chief police no less) and moves into his friends apartment (who you guessed it) was killed by a street gang that has taken control of the neighborhood (which looks like Beruit). It's funny that people who associate with Bronson have a habit of getting killed. Bronson systematically kills them off one by one as the people in the neighborhood are used against him. There are some dynamics between Bronson and Fraker who leads the street gang, you can tell they both enjoy their work. At one point in the movie after they scuffle in the city jail, Fraker say's, \"I'm going to kill a little old lady just for you, catch it on the 6:00 news.\" The \"Giggler\", a purse thief who laughs as he's committing his crimes is also enjoyable to watch. The movie was made in 1985 and most people probably could identify with the stereotypical urban gangs that are cast in the movie. It's enjoyable watching Bronson (Paul Kersey) rid the streets of these thugs. Watch for the appearance of the Wildey Magnum, a serious piece of hardware that Bronson wields. I also really liked the soundtrack to this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an incredibly fun action\/exploitation 80s rocker. Charles Bronson rules as Paul Kirsey. The villains are hilariously bad. The soundtrack, by Jimmy Page is laughably bad. Alex Winter (Bill of Bill & Ted) is great as one of the street punks who gets wasted by Bronson and crew. Crew? Oh, those are the downtrodden townsfolk who team up with Bronson to win back the streets. The whole movie is enjoyable, with the last half hour or so exploding into non-stop action and mayhem. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is incredible, it has a sound track which sets the tone for the movie. THe lines in the movie are great, such as \"Nothings to good for out friends\" and \"Its collection time Charlie collection time.\" I can watch this movie over and over again and still laugh because the lines and action are one of a kind. I feel that when i watch this movie I want to go out and shoot down bad guys, If there is a movie that you don't want to miss its this one. \"They killed the Giggler man, they killed the Giggler\" \"They had no right in doing that, hes on our turf ill take care of it.\" The lines just keep on coming in the movie. Deff. go out and not rent but buy this movie its worth the money trust me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I couldn't' agree more than with the comment left by \"coldshitaction\" and how this film is a masterpiece. I have never seen a film that had my adrenalin flowing that this film did, and that mostly happened when Bronson comes running out a fire escape with like an M-60 and plows down like 20 dude from a gang, it's genius. Quite possibly the best action movie ever made (no exaggeration either), it really could be the best action movie ever made. From the start, one should know that you;re in for something sweet when the police let Bronson go and tell him, tell him, to clean up the slums. Once again, genius. And once again Bronson is a bad ass. Paul Kersey is just as cool, maybe even cooler than John McClain or the Terminator, he's just simply a bad ass. And what else is great is the fact that he's a nice guy and buys a kid some ice cream and helps out an old couple all before he kills some scum bag. genius. Highly recommended, if you hate this movie you're crazy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is true action at its finest, It doesn't get any better then this. This is one of those movies that you can just kick back and watch some real good non stop shooting and killing plus there are some excellent lines to go along with all of this. My favorite is there is a one bad guy who is breaking into this old couples home and he is stealing a TV or something and he goes right up to them and yells \"I will come in here anytime i like!!!\" and right before he jumps out the window he yells \"Anytime!!!\" I mean this is just classic stuff all the way around so you got a choice, you can watch that crappy Will Smith try to go an action film or you can watch one of the Masters Charles Bronson!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Death Wish 3\" brings back Charles Bronson as one time vigilante Paul Kersey,now retired.yeah,right.before long Kersey is back to his old ways.but this time,its not just a few muggers at a time,its a gang who have taken over a run down part of the city(New York again,by the way.)this time its war,so Kersy Hauls out the big guns(literally) for this.the body count int his one rivals anything Stallone or Schwarzenegger have come up with.this movie is actually somewhat fun to watch,particularly for a few one liners and of course bad guys die,or get severely injured in creative ways,which is always a good thing.the violence is not as personal in this one,its,obviously on a much grander scale,sort of like bombing your victims from afar,rather than one on one combat.this movie is lighter in tone than the 1st 2,making it easier to watch.there's not much import to this film,its more escapism than anything.its also cheesy at times and pseudo-inspirational,but hose scenes fall flat. they should have left the original \"Death Wish\" on its own without sequels,but since they didn't,they should have stopped here. 8 \/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is probably the second best of the Death Wish movies. Death Wish 5 is the best one.

Death Wish 3 reminds me of \"West Side Story\" with a new twist. Not even the recent flick \"Gangs of New York\" can measure up with one New York neighborhood in Death Wish 3 which is plagued not by two rival gangs---but one big gang. A gang that is willing to do things like cutting a person to death with an ax if he trespasses on its set.

Deborah Raffin, who plays a public defender, plays gently in this action-packed movie that is filled with a lot of shoot-em-up violence. So, like Geri Nichols in Death Wish II, Death Wish III scores with its gentle, romantic moments as well as its violent moments. Only the James Bond love-interest scenes would do much better.

And, in addition to his .38, Kersee plays with this new gun called the Wildey .475 Magnum. It reminded me of the Dirty Harry movies when Callahan used his .44 Magnum in Magnum Force, Sudden Impact and Dirty Harry. The Wildey gun packs a big punch and when Kersey kills with it, he doesn't care if the gun has a big kick in it.

And that antitank missile that killed off the main gang leader? Well, that is something. Kersey would not use an antitank missile as his regular vigilante weapon....that is way too military for him.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After spotting the boat at the end of the previous episode (\"Three Minutes\"), the survivors are shocked to find out who the occupant is. With the use of the boat, Jack and Sayid come up with a plan to confront \"The Others\". However, when Jack, Sawyer, Kate and Hurley follow Michael to \"The Others\", Jack is forced to reveal Michael's deadly secret whilst they are in the middle of nowhere.

Meanwhile, Locke decides that the time has come to find out the time has come to find out what will happen if \"the button\" is not pressed. However, Mr. Eko's resolve to continue pressing \"the button\" is surprisingly strong. So, when Locke concocts a plan to lock Eko out of the hatch with the help of an ally, Eko goes to surprisingly desperate lengths to stop Locke from making what he believes will be a big mistake.

This is a classic episode of Lost, full of secrets, suspense and very few answers to the many questions it poses to its viewers. However, some of the secrets this action-packed episode reveals will be truly shocking to the fans. There is also a trademark end-of-season cliffhanger, which achieves the feat of being both shocking and extremely confusing. One thing is guaranteed, it will keep you guessing right to the very end, and you will still be frustrated with more mind-boggling questions as you wait in agony for the Third Season to begin.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jack, Sawyer and Sayid swim to the boat and find a completely wasted Desmond. His traumatic past experience before sailing to the island is disclosed through flashbacks. Sayid plots a plan with Jack to surprise \"The Others\" in case Michael is double-crossing the group. John Locke convinces Desmond to invade the hatch, which is protected by Mr. Eko, and not press the button of the computer to see what will happen.

This episode is one of the best of the Second Season. Unfortunately, we lovers of \"Lost\" can see the lack of respect the producers of this stunning series have with the fans. In the USA, the air date of this episode was 24 May 2006. Therefore, along this period, fans have to wait for the Third Season in a very suspenseful situation, with Jack and his group surrounded by \"The Others\" and finding the truth about Michael and the death of Ana Lucia and Libby; John locked inside the hatch without the intention of pushing the button and Mr. Eko in despair outside the hatch. I hope the fate of \"Lost\" be better than \"Angel\" and its very disappointing conclusion (or lack of conclusion) after five seasons. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): Not Available","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What's the point of this messages if not to discuss and share thoughts about the next season... Here is my forecast: 1. The hatch was indeed blown, but somehow everybody inside survived. Buts lets see about that. 2. The episode at the end with the tent is an observation team monitoring the tracking device installed on Desmonds boat by Penny. Now that the magnetic shield around the island was lifted, the signal was picked up by the observation station and they are going to send a rescue mission. 3. After the destruction of the hatch, the island is not isolated any more, and other ships\/airplanes are going to arrive 4. The others are finally going to share their secret with us poor observers

Was it actually confirmed that there are going to be 4 seasons of LOST?

Cheers Mike","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was Libby talking to Desmond in the flashback, and if anyone is confused about her past (like how did she end up in the same hospital Hurley was in) then you should know that despited Libby dying in season 2, the character will be explored more in season 3 and we will get answers to questions surrounding her.

BTW, great episode. It had a really great cliffhanger and some interesting questions...like what happened to Eko and Lock and what about the four toe statue?

I cannot wait till season 3, Lost just rules!!! I hope all the unanswered questions will be answered. I loved how they explained why the plane actually crashed. Desmond did it when he did not manage to type in the numbers in time. 4 8 15 16 23 42","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lost has been one of the most mesmerizing and thrilling experience I've ever seen. Not only it's the mother of coincidence, but also every time that you think you can set up the whole puzzle in your head, the story takes a completely new direction.

Take this casualty for example, The US marine, whom gives Sayid the way to become a Torturer, Is Clancy Brown, playing a character named Joe Inman. In the last episode, he is playing Kelvin Inman, the Desmond partner in the Hatch. Destiny, uh? Yeah Right!

I guess that all of us will have to wait, to see what's next in the life of the wonder people in that strange island, in the middle of nowhere. Knowing that several of my favorites characters, Desmond, Sayid and Mr. Eko, have an unclear destiny

I believe that along with 24 and The Shield, this is one of the best TV shows ever, of course, keeping Twin Peaks at a special place.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, I just have to say that I'm a huge LOST fan. Everyone who makes the show, I love 'em. It's got everything in it, really.

I'm glad that they have great people making it, for instance Jack Bender is the greatest director, well, maybe after J.J. Abrams. And of course, full credit to Damon Lindelof & Carlton Cuse. They're geniuses.

Anyway, the season 2 finale is definitely one of the best episodes of LOST ever!!! Live Together, Die Alone focuses on Desmond David Hume's story of getting to the island, and Henry Ian Cusick is so great playing that character! The makers of the show would have been very stupid if they would've let old'Des die on us.

So, in LOST, the plane crash survivors have been there for 65 days.. 65 days, man. Whileas Rousseau has been there for SIXTEEN years, and the Others have been there for God knows how long. Referring to Jeffrey Lieber, Lindelof & Abrams. Anyway, I hope we'll get the answers we need, in season 3. Can't wait! My vote is nine.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Woaww Is it only now that you notice the links between all the characters ?? Of course it's Libby ! And for the guy in the hatch with Desmond, any deja vu ??? Yeah !! He was the \"same\" guy that gave money to Sayid after he's killed or tortured the other soldier in the episode 14th of the 2nd season : One of Them. Well actually it's not completely the same guy, he's named Joe in the 14th episode and Kelvin in the last 2 episodes. Twins ?? :) Who knows ?? JJ Abrams ... mmmm I'm not even sure of that :) There are hundreds of links like this one between all the characters.

But that was just in response to the Libby comment.

I found those 2 episodes far more interesting than the whole season 2. During all that season I felt that there was lots of things I've missed and very few things I've learned. Especially at the very beginning, the 1st episode of the 2nd season is excellent, and then the 2nd one is a kind of flash back of the 1st one ... I found that disappointing even if I'm pretty sure that everything in Lost tend to have a meaning. That was just an example of how I was frustrated watching those episodes.

Let's go back to the last 2 episodes. I think we've learned more new things in those 2 episodes than in the entire season. But all we learn are little pieces for the next puzzle, like the involvement of Desmond's \"relatives\" (sorry if I spoil too much, believe me or not I'm trying not to) for example. So lots of things evoked in the past 2 seasons are still unclear or have been developed once then nothing. And still, there's new material as if all the holes in the picture were not enough. We all want to see the big picture of all of it of course, but I think we'll have to be very very patient. I hope there will be only 3 seasons. I'm not sure I will watch more than 3 seasons anyway. There was also lots of actions in the very last episode. And a good cliffhanger at the very end.

So basically, yes I loved that last episode ... and yes I want to see the third season.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This episode so far is the best of the series. The story was told perfectly. I especially liked how the writers made it a Desmond episode; it was his best performance to date and he definitely deserved the Emmy for his performance.

We had some of our questions answered in this episode, but since the show is called Lost we know there will be more questions brought up too. First the answered: Walt is reunited finally with his father Michael, second, Michael's betrayal is exposed to Jack, Sawyer, Kate, and Hurly and because of this betrayal Kate, Jack, and Sawyer are all taken captive by The Others. This was a great way to end the show.

On the other side of the island we see Locke going through a mental breakdown with the button. This leads to another answered question about how the plane really went down. However there are some unanswered questions: first, what happened to Locke, Eko, and Desmond when Desmond turned the failsafe key and what was the deal with the scientists in the Arctic searching for electromagnetic annamolies. Guess we'll find out next season, however great ending to the best show on TV.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The writers of lost have outdone themselves. Season two's finale is even more heartbreaking and intense than the finale for season one. Locke's lack of faith has not only resulted in spiritual consequences for himself, but in tragic physical consequences for the lives of the other castaways. Michael's betrayal resulted in a success for him but can he possibly escape the island? He will have to if he wants to stay alive. I don't doubt that one or more of his former friends would be willing to kill him in revenge. This finale has left more questions than the previous finale; and I can't wait for fall.

A side note: What is the point in posting a review just to write out all the spoilers? Where is the pleasure in ruining the surprise for everyone else? The current review on this page is nothing but a big fat spoiler fest, poorly constructed in barely readable English with the express purpose of making someone mad. Good job.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*Could contain spoilers, read only after seeing last episode season 2* Think about it. The guys on the north pole? Center of the earth? Looking for abnormal magnetic behavior? They also said something about: \"did we miss it again?\" So there was another abnormality? Of course that was when the plain crashed! I think this whole Island is a setup. Set up by her daddy. She found out about it and is looking for her Desmond. How else can she know what to look for.

So basically it's an Island in a magnetic shield. All of it is fake. All the signs are there. Fake beards, fake doors, fake medicine, fake observations stations, with fake air shafts that lead to nothing. It's a project indeed, and because of the final scene in the season 2 finale I know it has to do something with Desmond, his chick and her dad (and probably Libby, she's weird, maybe she actually has something to do with the plane crashing, OK now i'm drifting off).

Also in this episode, Henry Gail tells Michael to go to some coordinates, and he'll find rescue their. This is probably some sort of door in the magnetic shield. \"once you're gone. there is no way back\".

I think it's pretty obvious, despite of the numerous questions I still have and hope to get answers for in the next season. If you think back on what we've learned in season 1 and 2, I'm sure we'll get loads of answers in season 3.

Can't wait.

Can anyone agree on this theory? Hope to hear from you...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Live Together, Die Alone\" is divided into three main story lines, and each one of them alone would have been enough for a great episode. So when you put all of them together, you have a great ^ 3 episode. It was a daring move to give the flashbacks of a season finale to a character (Desmond) who had only appeared in 3 episodes up to that point, but it worked: his backstory is absolutely fascinating to watch, both informative about the past of the island & the Swan station itself and honestly moving. Desmond and Penny seem magically connected to each other, even when they are on opposite ends of the world, and both characters are beautifully acted (it's hard not to cry when Desmond reads Penny's letter). The action inside the hatch is edge-of-your-seat tense, as Locke is determined not to allow the button to get pushed again, convinced it was all just a psychological experiment, Desmond gradually realizes the consequences of this decision, and Eko is locked outside and tries desperately to get back in. The melting of the clock and Locke's \"I was wrong\" are unforgettable moments. The outside action has Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Hurley captured by the Others due to Michael's betrayal (after they make a puzzling discovery connected to the Pearl), and \"Henry Gale\"'s game-changing return as the Others' leader. Even the least important plot line, Sayid, Jin and Sun sailing to the beach where the Others are supposedly camping, contains one of the greatest mythological mysteries of the show, the giant statue that's almost entirely missing except for a foot with four toes. In short: emotion + history + mythology + adventure + suspense + the threat of annihilation + a ray of hope = a classic LOST episode. ***1\/2 out of 4.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"a very good episode, although not as devastating a finale as the end of season 1. The idea to make it a Desmond flashback worked very well, and Henry Ian Cusick was fantastic, perhaps putting in the best performance of this entire series, but my only complaint would be the Michael plot line felt very much like a subplot, and after three minutes the previous episode, i thought it would feature more. But the strength of Cusicks character and performance pulled it through. the plot developments, as always, left more questions then answers, like who are the others, something we still don't know, and where are they taking jack, Sawyer and Kate. What was the white light, what impact has it had? Are Locke, Eko and Desmond dead? as the hatch destructed around them. If they are it would be a major mistake, because these three are the most interesting characters and the series would suffer without them and Terry O'Quinn has been fantastic throughout both series as Locke. A fitting finale to a better series then the first.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching the last 2 episodes i remembered a TV add from my childhood. It showed the wild west, very dusty and dry, and there is a small saloon, a man enters the bar\/saloon, he is thirsty as hell, lips cracked etc...., he has just walked through the Nevada Desert and hasn't drunk water for days. He croaks to the bartender \"gimme a packet of potato chips\" While he is eating it we can feel how thirstier he is getting, we hear a voice in the background saying.... \"Keep building that thirst, build it till you cant hold it any more............. then blow it away with TEAM\" The man drinks TEAM (a soft drink) It feels like a few dozen bags of potato chips the thirst is so intense that i cannot hold it any more, Season 2 has even more twists and turns then season 1. The ending answers a lot of questions but asks many many more questions hopefully we will know the answer in season 3, but i doubt it because i feel LOST has the momentum go a lot further then 3 seasons, if the people behind the camera keep up their good work.

I for one will keep watching.

From Pakistan with Love","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Indeed, Cynthia Watros is in this movie as Elizabeth talking to Desmond. Though I'm just wondering how she ended up as a 'rehab patient'(?) where Hurley is also in there trying to reduce his weight (as seen from the previous episodes).

Anyway, this last episode is really suspended. The ending is not so understandable. I think the writer did expect the audience that there is a season 3 coming.

I just hope the next season will give light to more unclear\/hanging events that were happened.

Just can't wait further for season 3.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The show start out with the boat. Desmond was i it. Then they went to try to save Walt. And Lock things that the button pushing is a big joke at the same time Desmond found out that hes the one that crashed the plane. Eko tries to open the door that Jhon locked on him, and Charlie helped him find the Bomb. While Sayid and Jack plan is that, Sasyid is to find the others first and see who and what the other are. And find if there armed and have any weapons.

Micheal takes Jack, Swayer, Kate, and Hugo in a trap. And they get caught.

After the show there were more questions then answers, but that what makes the show great. And can't wait until Season 3","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For me this is a good series. I am kind of disappointed that Ana Lucia and Libby died but more upset that Micheal lied to everyone about who killed them. And if any one can answer this what was that guys name who was supposedly \"Henry Gale\" he was like the leader of the others (or was that Ms. Clue??) anyway if you know his name cool. Well trying to think of what can possibly happen next after they finally didn't press the button. Does that mess up the whole DARMA project thing and i personally thought it was cool how they had that key thing underground that Desmond used to shut off the magnet thing, yeah and what was the whole point of that? I am just glad they didn't press the button finally, but what happens to the people in the hatch? Like Mr. Echo, John, Charlie and well Desmond probably died but what about the others? I think they survived, I forget? well this is just my little thing on what i thought about this season finale!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"NOBODY (1999) is a fantastic piece of Japanese noir. It's about three salarymen who get in way over their heads when their innocent, drunken cheapshots p*** off three OTHER guys one night in a bar. When these three mysterious strangers, who are up to much more deviant no-goodness than even the film allows us to know, beat the living daylights out of one of our \"heroes\", the trio decides to return the favour in kind - only they accidentally KILL one of the other guys! The remaining two baddies then begin the systematic destruction of everything these poor schmoes hold dear, including their fast-dwindling sanity. Phaedra Video's DVD sleeve features a critic quote calling the film \"A paranoid street crime freakout!\" or some such, and the term more than applies here. Brooding, tense, very violent and low-key (but still pretty slick), shot largely at night with many deliberately vague moments and character motivations that keep the audience guessing right along with the besieged protagonists (who, to some degree, deserve everything they get!). I give it a 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"it's a good watch if u have time - deals with three friends who get into a needless bar fight, and get into serious trouble. they find themselves fighting some shadowy people, and can't deal with. very, very disturbing portrayal of japan, the arbitrariness of modern life... some intense scenes, but a bit of a potboiler

the spoiler was that the plot is not too clear based on English sub titles. obviously, i don't know Japanese.

the only other Japanese movies i've seen were kurosawa, who is a different and far loftier than this modern genre. so, can't really compare. otherwise, it compares better with most Hollywood \"blockbusters\" for story plot and buildup.

taptieg24","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nicely filmed, a little uneven, \"Nobody\" is a good evening's entertainment. The plot is simple enough--three yuppies get into a scrap with a group of strangers in a bar, and it turns out to be much more than they bargained for. The acting is decent, and there are a few unexpected twists. Watch for the completely unbelievable (like the 10 shot revolver, and 25 shot semi-automatic handgun).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A unique blend of musical, film-noir and comedy - with a few sex scenes thrown in for good measure. The only other film I can think of with a fairly similarly wild and madcap mixture of themes and clich\u00e9s is the French movie Billy Ze Kick - but that has a more surreal and quirky approach.

Not that this film would not be surreal or quirky. The humour is at times quite subtle, at other times blatantly in your face - and often crossing the border to offensiveness. To give an example: in the post-coital chit-chat with a prostitute our hero Max M\u00fcller encourages her to reveal who was responsible for a recent murder, using the words \"Schiess los!\". Literally, this phrase means \"Shoot!\" in German, and that is exactly what a hidden assassin does in response. In other words - this beautiful lady was sacrificed for a pun.

M\u00fcllers B\u00fcro is also one of the very rare examples of films with funny sex scenes. Larry's romance is accompanied by the song \"Ich will mehr\" (I want more) - while the song perfectly underpins the action, the meaning of its words changes a couple of times, hinting at the end at Larry's inability of providing any further service. The film's main love scene between Max M\u00fcller and Bettina Kant lacks such subtlety - this is jaw-dropping stuff, especially when Bettina's singing slowly transgresses into moaning, of course all in the rhythm of the music.

Unmissable, unless you are one of the easily offended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you haven't seen this film, do it. Its a genremix as i've never seen another. Some very surreal scenes, some hilarious funny stuff, a film noir felling, musical numbers with a swing, sex scenes (The 2nd best played orgasm on Film, bested only by Sally), a pitch of Orson Welles blended together into a work of art. As an work of art it hasn't to be logical at the end, at least not logical for everybody ;-). I owned an tv copy on VHS but loaned it to an ex-girlfriend and now i can't get it back. But the film should be out on DVD in Austria on 10.06.03 and be sure, I will buy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"M\u00fcllers B\u00fcro\" is a movie which many will watch and enjoy until the end, while others will stop watching it within five minutes. It is a parody of detective movies with all the twists and turns; the action takes place only at night in the dark corners of a city which resembles Batman's Gotham City (look carefully at the streets, buildings, the police car chasing the criminals, etc.). It is also a parody of musicals with its really funny characters such as M\u00fcller's secretary and Vitasek's (the actor playing M\u00fcller's assistant) lover who do their best to sing, albeit not very successfully.

The spaces occupied by the characters have their own presence in the film such as the decadent Blue Box (there is a real club with this name in Vienna) where one can see a sailor hitting on a girl in the background, M\u00fcller's apartment with the black paint smeared on the walls and the dirty kitchen, M\u00fcller's bureau with the sweet picture of his assistant, etc.

The humorous moments in the movie are many and include \"flat in the face\" type of humor such as M\u00fcller farting in his assistant's face, the prostitute charging M\u00fcller extra for orgasm, the ridiculous outfits of the female thugs of Montana, etc.

A legendary film from the 80's especially for those interested in Austrian or German-speaking cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Do you liked \"Dead Man don't wear Plaid\"? What about \"Top Secret\" and \"A Chorus Line\"? Well M\u00fcllers B\u00fcro is a fantastic Melange of all three of them, as unlikely it may seem. Very Funny \"tongue in Cheek\" Movie Noir hommage with stunning Songs and great Dancing. You have to have a little odd humor for this movie, but it is very well worth seeing it. I've voted it a nine, If the end would be a bit more logic it would have gotten a ten. Thats how Good that Movie is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Columbo is unique in that we don't really know the exact outcome until the very end. Our favorite dark horse detective suspects a pair of identical twin brothers of killing their rich uncle; each points the finger at his brother. In a mystery series in which the crime is shown at the beginning of the drama, this twist could reasonably be used only once or twice, and this was Columbo's time. Other than that wrinkle, this episode fits in well with others of the series. It has a lighter tone than some, with a very funny performance by Jeanette Nolan as the fastidious and loyal housekeeper who takes an instant dislike to Columbo.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Double Shock is one of the many good Columbo episodes which reaches the level of a good movie.

It has all the elements we like in the Columbo episodes. We get the laugh when Columbo makes something clumsy, and it happens more than once in Double Shock. I can almost guarantee that you will laugh several times if you decide to watch this episode.

We also get the riddle as usual with an almost perfect murder, but something about the murder troubles Columbo. The end is the usual, we get the story about how Columbo solved the mystery.

This is another good Columbo-episode, and I will rate it 7\/10. It is close to 8\/10.

\"Just one more question\" - The acting? Peter Falk is very good as usual.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my favourite Columbo. Martin Landau (excellent!) plays twins, one of whom may have committed a murder. This Columbo is unusual because the usual murder scene at the beginning doesn't give you any clue to which one did it! Peter Falk is on form as usual in this episode written by Steven Bochco (who also wrote 'Murder by the Book', my second favourite episode). The supporting cast are great especially Julie Newmar (very under-rated) and Jeanette Nolan as the house keeper that Columbo just keeps on upsetting. The surname of Martin Landau's characters in this is 'Paris'. That was the surname of Leonard Nimoy's character in Mission Impossible. Coincidence? Or a Steven Bochco joke?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a cast of actors and actresses in this Columbo episode, beside Peter Falk, you have Julie Newmar, Jeannette Nolan, Martin Landau as twins. Anyway, the old uncle dies mysteriously and it looks like a heart attack on the bicycle discovered by his fianc\u00e9, Julie Newmar, who plays the role so deliciously. Jeannette Nolan plays the other woman of the house, the housekeeper who prides herself on her talents and chides Columbo's sloppy and often typical behavior with his cigar. Martin Landau plays identical twins in this one. Each who accuse the other of murdering their uncle for money. Well, you'll just have to watch and see the outcome but I can assure you that it's always worth watching this one for the cast and the crew.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a well directed Columbo episode, with also some good character but the story just doesn't really know to interest enough and doesn't appear as well layered and constructed as was often the case with a Columbo movie. This also goes for the killer's plot to kill his uncle. It's quite simple and doesn't seem as well thought out. Perhaps this movie didn't really took itself serious enough, since the atmosphere of the movie is mostly light. At least when compared to different Columbo movies.

For instance the movie features quite a large amount of comical relief, mostly coming from the Columbo character himself. It makes the movie an enjoyable one to watch but it also gives you the feeling they sort of overdid it times, also mostly since it doesn't correspond with most other Columbo movies.

The characters are good and it helps that it features Martin Landau in a double role. It's always funny to see how much different he still looked as a young man, while for instance a person such as Peter Falk hardly changed any over the years, he only got grayer. The movie also features Julie Newmar among others, who is best know for playing Catwoman in the '60's \"Batman\" life action series. It's funny how she still moves like Catwoman in this movie. Intentional or is this just her way of acting?

It's an enjoyable and good to watch Columbo movie but it also gives you the feeling that it all could had been a lot better with a better thought out script.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was one of the worst Columbo episodes that I have seen, However, I am only in the second season.

The typical Columbo activities are both amusing and irritating. His cigar ashes causing him trouble have been seen before, And the bit where he always identifies in some way with the murderer--in this case cooking ,Tho the scene on the TV cooking show distracted from the main theme.

Also not explained was why the brother at the beginning of the show was cutting part of the wires of the mixer. The reason was never explained ,nor did it serve any purpose. But the part I disliked the most was the death of the bride to be . This was never explained and it is the main reason why I give this episode such a low grade.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a stunning movie. Raw and sublimely moving. It felt like a very gripping, intelligent stage play (but without the overly theatrical feeling one actually gets from watching people on a stage) which plays on everyone's terror of a white lie escalating to monstrous consequences. All of the main players are mesmerising. Tom Wilkinson broke my heart at the end... and everyone else's judging by the amount of fumbling for hankies and hands going up to faces among males and females alike. Julian Fellowes has triumphed again. He's a national treasure. Gosford Park, Vanity Fair, Mary Poppins... and now this. Can he do no wrong?! GO AND SEE IT! This is a film for real grown-ups.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nigel Balchin's maze-like novel 'A Way Through the Wood' has been adapted by Julian Fellowes who also directs this 'terribly British' drawing room suspense piece. It is a film whose effect relies on the cast portraying the varyingly benign\/malignant characters and it is here that Fellowes' directorial choices are superb. The story has a linear line that is easy to follow, but the beauty of the film is the metamorphosis of each player as a single incident ignites a minefield of disasters.

James Manning (Tom Wilkinson) is a successful business obsessed solicitor in London, married to Anne (Emily Watson) who needs more in her life: the couple being childless live in the country in a beautiful estate, assisted by their long term 'cleaner' Maggie (Linda Bassett). They attend social outings and meet, among others, William Bule (Rupert Everett), the passively lazy wealthy neighbor. Anne decides they should entertain their neighbors and against gruff James' protestation Anne proceeds with planning: James arranges to 'not attend due to business'. On the night of the party there is a hit and run accident in which Maggie's husband is accidentally killed by someone in a Range Rover (she observed). When James returns home he sees a scratch on William's Range Rover and suspects William to be the perpetrator. Anne discourages James from going to the police with the information -'what possible good can it do but ruin Bill's life as a socialite and father and son of an important scion?'. From this first 'lie' the virus spreads: James confronts Bill who talks James out of going to the police, Anne confesses it was she who was driving Bill's Rover and is the one responsible, James convinces Anne to keep it quiet because it would ruin his reputation, Anne confesses she is having an affair with Bill, and the three of them concur that they will stick together on their big lie for the sake of the greater good. Anne eventually succumbs to the guilt of not telling her beloved Maggie that she is the one responsible and Maggie, herself guilty of a previous theft whose life was saved by Anne's mercy to hire her anyway, is the agent who draws the story to its surprising conclusion. Lies begat lies that begat lies, et cetera.

The major impact of this intrigue is the manner in which the isolated tragedy impacts each of the characters involved. Each changes in a dramatic way. Tome Wilkinson gives the finest performance of a career filled with brilliant performances: he is able to say more with his posture and facial expressions than about any actor before the audience today. Likewise the gifted Emily Watson adds yet another fine role to her repertoire as does the surprisingly smarmy Rupert Everett who, despite being yet another wealthy British 'gentleman', gives us a man both arid of spirit and yet ultimately needy. And the always-fine Linda Bassett takes a small role and finesses it making her character quietly central to the chaotic web of lies.

The cinematography by Tony Pierce-Roberts and the musical score by Stanislas Syrewicz add immeasurably to the multiple atmospheres the story encounters. This is ensemble playing at its finest, which always means that the director (Julian Fellowes) has a fine grasp on the piece. The interplay of these fine people makes the dodgy story work very well indeed. Grady Harp","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SEPARATE LIES is such an elegant, intelligent and thought provoking film and I could have watched Tom Wilkinson forever on the screen. The locations in the English countryside, the marvelous London locations, the interiors, smart wardrobes and of course, the writing and dialog made SEPARATE LIES a thrilling adventure.

With that said, and perhaps this is just an American viewpoint, as the British are so much more sophisticated in handling sexual escapades, I found it hard to watch Tom Wilkinson just stand by, as his wife goes merrily on her way in a sexual journey that really brings her very little joy, creates much despair for her husband, with the cad that is Rupert Everett. Yes, I saw the failings of Wilkinson's character-his aim for perfection, the desire for everything in its place-but in Emily Watson, she should have looked deeper into his true character and solid goodness, to realize what she has thrown away.

Tom Wilkinson makes SEPARATE LIES into a powerful film by watching him experience all the pain, embarrassment, and despair on the screen as his wife goes off with another man. And he himself makes the journey in SEPARATE LIES by understanding his faults, embracing his wife, despite all that has gone on, and leading her back to London. Bravo, Tom!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wish there were more films about middle aged people. The intellectual journey and the twists and turns of life's moral highway make interesting viewing. There seems to be a different standard of judgement on women who have extra marital affairs than on men. Amy Watson's hurtful and humiliating behaviour towards her husband seems to pass without comment. Reverse the roles and one could expect a torrent of condemnation towards the man. If she found her husband boring and judgmental she could could have told him so, left and waited for a no doubt large financial settlement upon divorce. The country and London scenes are wonderfully authentic and rich while the autumnal weather adds to the melancholy background superbly. The ending is perfect, so in tune with real adult life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, what's wrong with the title \"Separate Lies\" (accused elsewhere of not being \"exciting\"). It's cunning, subtle and a bit poetic. (Of course there's a Phil Collins song and a James Belushi film called \"Separate Lives\", which are alluded to here.)

But the real point is the ethical dilemmas of telling lies at different levels that the film probes. OK, it's not an \"in-your-face\" hilarious title, but then it's not an in-your-face hilarious film. Please give British films like this a chance. They do try to make people think about important things, as here: how far do you go to protect your life (even if it is a bit rotten) against unexpected disaster. Maybe you tell lies. Maybe you ignore your loved ones' lies. That can wear a lot of people out.

American movies on this theme are abundant, but they usually go much further by involving the use of firearms, which are not a part of everyday life here in Europe.

Maybe we're not so \"exciting\" over here, but we don't expect slogan-like film titles for films that are not aimed at a massive public.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A well written screenplay. A moving story showing the middle class English at it's best. Some great acting by Tom Wilkinson and Emily Watson. Tom Wilkinson is one of Britain's best actors. He knows how to be subtle and honest. Emily Watson is an actress I was not familiar with, but to her credit she does a great job of playing the ****** wife. The director, Julian Fellowes did not succumb to the typical Hollywood gimmicks to give the film some meaty storyline. It has not over dramatized it's portrayal of the English middle class. The films pace does not falter although it is not a faced paced film. A good twist in the plot, that is not predictable A lovely English country village setting. I enjoyed this film very much The locations were also very well selected. If you enjoy films about relationships this is one to watch. Better to have some tissues ready!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although this film is set amongst the sophisticated English upper classes it is a simple story of a couple torn asunder. It has a slightly dated air, being an adaptation of \"A Way Through the Wood\", a 1950 novel by Nigel Balchin (once hugely popular and now forgotten). Julian Fellowes, who despite an academy award for the script of \"Gosford Park\", has a somewhat anachronistic persona himself, wrote the script and directed (the latter for the first time). With the DVD version I saw there is a most illuminating audio commentary by Julian. His primary focus was on getting his characters right, and by and large he has succeeded. In this he was helped by two outstanding performances from Tom Wilkinson as James, the stitched up City lawyer, and Emily Watson as his attractive wife Anne. He also kept it short; the running time is only 80 minutes.

James and Anne have a town house in Chelsea and a comfortable former vicarage in Buckinghamshire. Anne is some years younger but they are childless. Outwardly they seem happy, but James, one of nature's moralists (unusual for a city lawyer), is a control freak. Just down the road is the aristocratic the Hon. William Buel, who is not one for middle-class morality, and he is more than happy to take advantage. But there's a complication, a road accident, in which an elderly cyclist is knocked over in a country lane by a ruthlessly driven Range Rover just like the Hon. Bill's. Soon James, Anne, Bill and the victim's widow (who happens to be James' and Anne's cleaner) are drawn in to a conspiracy to conceal what really happened. The primary focus is on the corrosive effect of all this on James and Anne's relationship.

The third person in this m\u00e9nage a trios, Bill, is played by Rupert Everett. From the point of view of casting, his languid, superior manner is right for the part, yet somehow he doesn't quite get there. Partly this is because he is supposed to be sick for some of the time and he looks well when he is supposed to be sick, and vice-versa. The part seems underdeveloped. It is interesting that John Neville as Bill's father who has only one significant scene manages to establish his character beautifully in the time he has.

The world of five star hotels and superior restaurants is nicely evoked. As Julian Fellowes says in the audio commentary, these people are able to convince themselves that the Edwardian age still exists. At bottom though, the film is about what draws a couple together and what tears them apart. Nigel Balchin was going through a marriage break-up when he wrote the book, and Fellowes has made a good fist of conveying the atmosphere. As he says, his is a fairly free adaptation, but the central theme is the same.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another popular screening for a British picture at Coalville's Century Theatre. A well crafted, solid drama with an ever developing plot and ongoing 'twists in the tale'...as the lies piled up! A masterclass of acting by a flawless cast, well marshaled by first time director Julian Fellowes. Outstanding performance, as usual, by Tom Wilkinson but good turns by all concerned including supporting actors Linda Bassett and John Neville. Our audience was engrossed by this film, which includes a couple of shock incidents which really make you 'jump'. A good tight production at around only 80 minutes, probably produced on a very limited budget, but a success, which should see Fellowes directing again for the big screen. Some publicity for the film seemed to suggest it was set in the 50s (as per Nigel Balchin's novel)but obviously this is not the case. Recommended viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An old man is riding his bike down a village road when a car comes out of nowhere, strikes him down dead, and keeps driving. The rest of the film is spent discovering who hit him, why he was hit, and what consequences this murder will have on the rest of the village. Separate Lies is a very British movie indeed. I'm not saying that hit-and-run car accidents are a particularly British phenomenon, but the way everyone reacts to this tragedy is very British. Tom Wilkinson plays James Manning, a hard-working, respectable citizen with a \"stiff-upper-lip\" attitude towards tragedy. His wife Anne (Emily Watson), who is twenty years younger than her husband, is more emotional, more impulsive, and more prone to drama.

The man who really spices up life in this sleepy village is playboy millionaire William Bule, played by a deliciously devilish Rupert Everett (most American audiences will eternally remember him as Julia Roberts' gay friend who completely stole every scene in My Best Friend's Wedding). In Separate Lies, Everett is cruel, cold, and selfish, but he's an absolute blast on screen. No, it's not that exciting of a movie title (Separate Lies \u0096 how did they end up with that lame and forgettable title? Did they just not have a marketing team? Did they just now care about getting people to see this film?), but beyond the title is a heartbreaking drama about the power of forgiveness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Emily Watson and Tom Wilkinson together - what a treat! With Rupert Everett and Linda Bassett rounding off the supporting roles to the foursome of lies and intrigue. Yet at the heart of it all, each character maintains a streak of decency - moral conscience held up in spite of obvious contradictions. \"Contradictions are the source of all movement and of all life.\" How true these words are. Watson's Anne Manning is at the core of this intrigue - she's the central conscience that the other three latched on. She is the decency undeterred.

The circumstances of lies are to each its own: one to defend one's professional name; one to hold back due to family\/partner pressure; one simply don't want to face the consequence; one ironically can't believe the truth and lies to save friendship. These are all precarious situations. There lies the intrigue - fascinating to watch how each tackles truth and lies. Contradictions, indeed. In spite of the seeming dishonor, decency and heart remain strong.

The treatment of the subject involved and how each of the character behaves are masterfully delivered simple with clarity. It's not sensational or complex as another film \"Where the Truth Lies\" 2005. Credits due to Fellowes' writing and the nuanced performances of both Watson and Wilkinson. There is warmth somehow that comes through the seemingly boldface or frustratingly hidden lies. Beneath it all, human frailty not excluded, they meant well. And following along with the story, the turn of events provided satisfaction and smiles to how the two Manning's seem to have grown and matured in their relationship.

You might say there's no obvious action drama or thrilling scenes in \"Separate Lies,\" yet the intrigue is there and it will hold your attention. The deserving production efforts include cinematography by Tony Pierce-Roberts (a veteran to the Merchant-Ivory films) and music by Stanislas Syrewicz, with mood and tone reminiscent of composer Zbignew Priesner (of filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski's Trois Couleurs, especially: Bleu 1993.) This is a British film you just might not want to miss.

Emily Watson (Anne, the wife): Breaking the Waves 1996 debut; Hilary and Jackie 1998; The Luzhin Defence 2000; Gosford Park 2001; Punch-Drunk Love, Red Dragon, Equilibrium in 2002.

Tom Wilkinson (James, the husband): The Full Monty 1997; The Governess, Rush Hour (as villain) in 1998; In the Bedroom 2001, Normal (HBO cable movie) 2003, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 2004, recently as Father Moore in: The Exorcism of Emily Rose 2005 opposite Laura Linney.

Rupert Everett (Bill): He is simply delightful in \"My Best Friend's Wedding\" 1997 opposite Julia Roberts and marvelous in \"An Ideal Husband\" 1999 d: Oliver Parker, an Oscar Wilde play. Recently as Sherlock Holmes with Ian Hart as Dr. Watson, in PBS Mystery: Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stockings 2004 TV.

Linda Bassett (Maggie): she was very effective as Ella Khan opposite Om Puri in \"East is East\" 1999.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Separate LIES changed my life. Actually, the Q&A did.

SPOILERS BELOW. Read only if you watch trailers or if you've already seen it:

The Emily Watson character cheats on the Tom Wilkonson character. My first reaction to the puppy-dog-eyed Emily was \"It's Over. Dump her. Bad riddance.\" For some reason, he stuck around. Not in a pathetic way. He just listened. And tried to accept her needs. At times he needed to leave. But he stuck by her and let her live her life. But I still wanted to see her

Afterwards, Julian, the screenwriter and director, talked about the film. I'm glad he did, because frankly I am too you and was too immature to get the point before he broke it down for me.

Tom's character loved her, and no matter how much her pursuit of her needs might disagree with what he wants, he would always love her. The relationship and love they shared wasn't a lie, all of a sudden, just because she wanted to be with someone else. The fact that she wanted to be with someone else didn't make her who she was. When you get past fifty, there's a strong chance that finding the love of your life won't come around again, so you can't be as dismissive as you were when you were younger. You have to try and make things work, because the alternative may be much worse.

She needed what she needed, and she couldn't help that. He had to learn to let go of her if he wanted to be the full man he could be. He helped her in pursuit of her lover, even when it hurt him.

Another thing: Julian said that the strongest tool of a controller is guilt.

Again: The strongest tool of a controller is guilt.

At the end of the film, Tom released her from her burden. He felt a need to let her know that he loved her, but not to in order to get her back; he wanted to let her know she didn't need to feel guilty or think poorly about the relationship, just because it ended in such a terrible way.

It is not my way to review a film based on the message, rather than the execution, especially when I understand that message better when it is explained to me by the director, but I make an exception here, as I feel one more mature than I would benefit from seeing the film.

The execution of the film-making was a nice, British pace. Rupert was slimy and revolting. Tom and Emily were their usually solid, real characters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Can the intensity of a husband's love for his wife lead him to cover up a crime,despite betrayal on many levels? Tom Wilkinson is no brutal Othello, in the setting of modern day England. So, gradually a web of deceit begins to be woven. And, we witness cycles of jealousy and drunkenness and guilt and fornication. And so the web of \"separate lies\" begins to fail and then hold together again. And life (and death) goes on, despite the bright flame of the husband's love and the deep despair and guilt woven into so many lives. How many webs of deceit are to be displayed in this growing tapestry? The impulse is to prop up sterling reputations and careers and relationships in this most civilized corner of the world. Wilkinson gives an emotional performance, full of grace and discretion and decorum, and yet humanity, of those who have much to hide. Those who desire clarity and openness on the way to justice will be disappointed with the wickedness of so much deception. And yet, who among us, has not something similar to hide about his loved ones? Nevertheless, the viewer may wonder if this web is fated to crumble some day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If we could have \"Separate Tables,\" why not \"Separate Lies.\"

This becomes somewhat involved. A housekeeper's husband is killed when he is hit by a car while on a bicycle. The culprit turns out to be the woman she cleans for. The latter was having an affair with a friend and was driving the car with the lover in it when the accident occurred. To complicate matters further, the housekeeper once worked for the guy's parents and he had her jailed for stealing. Therefore, people will hesitate to believe that it was his car that caused the accident. Sounds like she wants revenge.

This all becomes convoluted. When our housekeeper discovers that her boss was driving the car, she recants her testimony much to the dismay of the officer who is working on the case.

As if this isn't enough, several months later, our lover (Rupert Everett) becomes terminally ill and our lady (Emily Watson) leaves her husband (Tom Wilkinson) to care for him.

The acting is quite good here despite the never-ending \"Peyton Place\" like theme. Tom Wilkinson, is a solicitor, who tries to protect his wife.

The film is a good one, but we could have done without the terminal illness. O well, the marriage ended anyway.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now this is the sort of film we used to get weekly . Now-a-days it is rare to see a drama that depends on the cast talking to each other.

There are no explosions, car chases or any chases,there are implied sexual situations.This is not film for the younger crowd, It is for those that appreciate people talking to each other,They do argue a lot as we have married couple having mid life problems.

Emily Watson & Tom Wilkinson are seemingly a very happy middle aged loving man & wife. Now living in this same small London suburb, handsome, Rupert Everett returns home to visit his wealthy father.

He of course meets Emily Watson, It would be easy for anyone to be smitten by Emily. I say no more, except that as the credits begin there is a fatal accident,the rest of the film is about the repercussions of this accident & all the lies the various characters tell..

The acting by this trio & the others is excellent.

Julien Fellows wrote the screenplay based on a novel by Nigel Balchin. He also directed, this was his first directorial attempt & he did very well. The entire production is first rate.

The film had a few month theatrical run in late 2005, is under 80 theatres. This to me is a shame, Stupid comedies open on at least 2000 screens but real good drams as this & many others open in only a few.

By the way there are some very funny lines regarding certain situations.

Ratings: ***1\/2 (out of 4) 95 points (out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Years ago when I first read John Irving's The World According to Garp, I was astounded that most of the younger adults with whom I had contact didn't like the book when I loved it. I began to understand that it was an age and experience thing. I experienced somewhat of a d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu when reading some of the comments on this site that were clearly written by younger viewers. Fully enjoying Separate Lies is surely an age and experience thing.

In this film the viewer sees a seemingly happy upper middle class couple - he a successful lawyer - she the perfect wife of a successful lawyer. They have a townhouse in London and a home in the country. All's well until there enters the \"villain\" in the guise of the son of the richest man in the village. This guy appears to be a cad from the word, \"Go.\" He is disdainful of everyone and everything including his own children. In the traditional form of nice guys finishing last, the lawyer's wife engages in an affair with the bounder. You see the lawyer really is a nice guy but with the marriage killing trait of an organized perfectionist. Even though he truly loves her, he is boring his wife to death. The bad boy is far more exciting.

All of this is entangled with the hit-and-run death of a man in the village in which all the facts point to the cad being the driver of the vehicle.

It's easy to determine that this movie doesn't build to a happy ending, however, it does lead to a very satisfying ending in that the man and his wife learn and grow from their experiences and probably will be able to conduct their personal lives in a more successful manner.

Three excellent actors play the main characters in this film, and it is there performances that make the whole thing a pleasure to watch. Tom Wilkinson is perfect as the husband. His portrayal shows us a kind man who has so much control over his emotions that he has lost touch with the world. Emily Watson shows us a woman who has become so trapped in the role of perfect wife that she has almost lost her knowledge of passion. That passion is reborn by the character deftly played by Rupert Everett.

If you have reached that point in life in which you understand that everyone has feet of clay and that everyone - even with the gifts of intelligence and opportunities - makes many many wrong decisions, then you will probably enjoy watching these excellent actors creating the lives of three such people. This is a beautifully acted and directed adult film about realistic adults.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another great Tom Wilkinson performance punctuates \"Separate Lies,\" a 2005 film also starring Emily Watson, Linda Bassett and Rupert Everett. Directed by Julian Fellowes, it's the story of a married couple, James and Ann Manning where the husband (Wilkinson) believes he and his wife (Watson) are happy together. An accident near their house on the night they have a party brings the police around. It is a hit and run that killed their maid Maggie's Bassett) husband. James becomes suspicious of a neighbor, Bill Bule (Everett) when he sees some damage on his car. He confronts Bule, who admits he did it and promises to go to the police the next day. When James arrives home, Ann is angry that he is making such a big deal out of it and states that she was driving the car. Of course, James then isn't so eager to rush to the police. She suggests that they call Bule and tell him their decision. \"Oh, f___ Bule,\" James says. \"Well, that's just it,\" Ann says. \"I am f___ing Bule.\" James' devastation is just the beginning in this well-crafted drama. Without giving the plot away, this is a good example of how gender switching changes a story. Example of what I mean: Susan Smith drives her car into a lake and her children drown. She gets life in prison. What if the father had done it? The chair. You'd be surprised how often the outcome would be different. The same is true here - if it had been James having the affair and doing the subsequent activities, viewers might feel differently about the story. If Ann were in James' place, it would be shattering. As it is, it's tremendously sad.

Tom Wilkinson is heartbreaking as a man blindsided by the woman he adores, and Emily Watson does a beautiful job as Ann, who, once she frees herself from her lies - her involvement in the accident and the happy marriage - knows what she has to do. Rupert Everett as Bule is very effective - indolent, uppity and ultimately in need. Everyone here is very civilized in their dealings with one another, and no one is all good or all bad.

There are separate lies - James that his marriage is happy, Ann's as listed above - and there is one uniting lie - the accident, about which all parties keep quiet. It's enough for Ann that Maggie knows. In the end, all must deal with the separate lies that the single lie uncovered.

Brilliant film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are so many more complexities to the plot of this wonderful thought provoking movie than just infidelity and cover-up of responsibility for the accident. I was struck by the initial seeming goodness of husband Wilkinson who wanted the driver, when he thought it was Everett, disclosed to the police, and the change of heart (and morals) when he learned it was his wife. As well, was he indeed good, and\/or was he attempting to redeem self by allowing her to go with Rupert. Then, things switchedand SHE decided the right ting to do was admit that she hit him. Most importantly the theme of redemption (for the accident - for the infidelity - in her own odd, flawed way)is strongest in Watson's sickbed care for Everett. I believe that is why she undertook that effort.

This seems to be a common theme in modern British novels: Brideshead Revisited, The End of the Affair come to mind. Love it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How on earth can people give this movie a low rating. Unbelievable. The performances of Wilkinson and Watson are so full of merit that I can only imagine that these detractors were weaned on blockbusters and porn. (If this sounds bad-tempered, it's because I just wiped my original 400-worder just now) I was so impressed by Tom Wilkinson. All hail the guy. This is a performance of considerable subtlety and massive skill. His development as an actor from The Full Monty to this masterpiece of a performance is amazing; one of the best things to happen in film-making in the last ten years.

Emily Watson is somewhat less commanding, due to that glint in her eye that says 'see me? this cheeky woman, here? You can't guess what I'm going to do next because I don't know either!' It seems to be something she can't help showing us in every role, but still, she's an actor of terrific ability and presence. She is very sexy here, as she needs to be, and fair play to her for this: this is a screen quality that normally, for me, she doesn't have in previous films.

As you might expect, Rupert Everett, required to play an upper-class late-30 something who could give tutorials at Phd level in How Not To Give a Toss About Heading to Hell On Account of Total Selfishness, delivers. He is so thin here, throughout the movie, however, I'm worried for him. Linda Bassett's housekeeper is also excellent: a smallish role but with a major plot twist to deliver, she makes you ponder how much talent we have in Britain in terms of character acting. I want to see more of her.

The narrative arc is fine; it's an interesting enough plot, given that no-one in film-making seems to be trying to convince Joe Public that there's nothing new under the sun, though it does stray towards 40s melodrama in the last 'reel.' But never mind that - this is a terrific 80 minutes worth of anyone who has half-a-brain's money. Congrats to Julian Fellowes on his first directorial effort: o how we need more films of substance like this. He shows a lot of skill in terms of adapting the original novel, telling a story with much effectiveness and subtlety. And congrats too on conjuring an immense display of the film actor's art from Mr Tom Wilkinson. What a geezer.

T.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I gave it a seven only because the acting is good. And of course by that I mean Wilkinson. The other two principals were \"decent\". But the characters themselves...what on earth was so bad about the character Wilkinson played (James Manning)? I didn't see him behaving like the martinet Emily Watson accused him of being. Bill Bule, on the other hand, was an insufferable jerk who I was praying would meet an extremely brutal and prolonged demise. Who was I kidding? Tom Wilkinson isn't Paul Bettany after all. So what on EARTH did Emily Watson's (Anne) character SEE in him???? She herself admitted he was pretty much a piece of offal in his treatment of her. Why would she even want to be in the same TOWN as him, to say nothing of the same \"room\".

I noticed some other reviews, one person said she \"cried\" at the end, to witness James' tragedy. ??? WHAT tragedy? What, you mean losing an imbecile who finds someone like Bill Bule AMUSING???!!! Give us a break.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really liked this movie.

Everyone has something to be blamed for, everyone is real. No paperboard heroes or cold, omnipotent, know-all characters.

I read many others viewers here complaining about Anne morality and about James will to maintain his love for her, despite her cheating on him, but I don't agree.

I found Anne (Emily Watson) absolutely wonderful and I felt love for her.

She was a heavily repressed woman, her actions were not planned: once she started to break free she was in confusion and did many errors. But so it's in real life, when you gain freedom you are likely to do errors (expecially at the start point).

Was she a little too ungrateful? Maybe. But we must remember that she is running with her feet for the first time. She knows that James after all is a good man, maybe a little too stiff, serious and work centered; but she also feels the urge to live the life as herself.

Is she to blame more than him? I think no.

But the turn happening into their lives generates some changes.

James instead of letting his wife go out of his life (as other viewers suggested as the right choice) bites the bullet and waits, hoping for the better. He starts to understand that what he superficially though was OK (his marriage) in reality was a control game played by him on his wife.

This is not a story with characters having over-emotional and precarious nature (i.e. the usual clich\u00e8 Latin American or Italian jealous guys), this is a story of men and women that use both heart and brain.

It can be very painful but if you really love a person (women or man) and if you are not a terribly unstable nature, you are likely to forgive his\/her cheating and let him\/her go. Unless you are a jealous, prehistoric, crime-of-passion inclined, possessive and mentally instable individual.

A really good movie. The last scene, when James - despite all the things happened before - goes with Anne to the train station is really moving: She is free and He understood what freedom means for a person.

Guido","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Those who dislike this film seem to think that a loved one somehow 'belongs' to them and must be discarded if they go off with someone else. Fortunately, human nature is much deeper than that; loving someone deeply inevitably brings suffering - though if we are fortunate only on their death.

This film is true in setting, atmosphere and dialogue to Nigel Balchin's original novel ('A Way Through The Wood'), and by pinpointing a seemingly irreconcilable dilemma captures the quiet desperation that lies behind many seemingly idyllic lives (and the depiction of English upper class country life is very accurate).

I loved the film and hope it will appear soon as an UK-compatible DVD","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fellowe's drama about a couple's marriage which is threatened by a younger third party which interests the wife of the house (Watson). Wilkinson plays the role very well as the troubled husband who cant control his wife's cheating, and deals with the issue. I also like Rupert everett a lot in his role as William Bule, the man that Watson has the affair with. Although i think Emily Watson is a great actress, i had a bit of a problem with the way her character was written, did not make her too likable (i know a cheater is not supposed to be likable, but some of her actions and things she did had no reasoning behind them). The screenplay was perhaps the weak part of this drama, although Fellowes' direction was good and the performances were also quite good. This film is better than Unfaithful, but not a masterpiece by any means. ---IMDB Rating: 6.7, my rating: 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to admit I have a particular penchant for the humor and story telling style of British movies, though not all of course, succeed.

This film made me think, and left me in the end with a quiet smile on my face. Its about character development and relationships, truth and lies, and whether love is sometimes simply not enough. Some very nicely understated acting from all the participants, especially the two leads, Tom Wilkinson and Emily Watson.

There was a lot of fuss made about Gosford Park, but with this piece I feel Fellowes has actually produced a better movie, though it has not been a mainstream release.

An intelligent mature story about real people who are undeniably flawed, but also capable of acts of genuine graciousness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My husband and I watched this last night...It was wonderful....For once he was wrong in guessing ahead of time the suspenseful ending. It moved along very quickly and the acting was superb.. I adore Tom Wilkinson anyway. He has never made a bad movie as far as I'm concerned. The above description of his acting hits the nail on the head... The facial expressions are incredible. Even the picturesque scenery is awesome. We have just finished watched all of the Prime Suspect series and I am convinced that the British have a way of capturing the audience. There is no doubt that I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to get a few hours of thorough entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this film and I recommend it. It has a very good plot, it holds your complete attention, the acting is superb, Tom Wilkinson was fantastic and Emily Watson was also very good. A very good film indeed, about great and unconditional love. Tom Wilkinson's character is a man who is not prepared for the ordeal that is about to begin, but he takes the matter in hand as the story progresses, and this great actor gives a performance that makes you feel the character's anguish and suffering. Emily Watson's character is very strong, and she has only to give a quick glance and you understand everything. I won't say more because it is better for you have to enter the story as it unfolds.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a local performer, I thought that \"Grease\" showcased what Broadway producers are looking for and it highlighted a small bit of the acting population. Although my favorites did not win (but came in second), I enjoyed comparing myself to them and seeing what I liked and where I could improve as a performer.

They brought in Olivia Newton-John because she is the obvious link between the Broadway production and television audiences.

They sang songs from the movie (\"Hopelessly Devoted,\" et al) because these songs will be included in the new production.

I agree with the earlier comment made that the B'Way cast looks so much older, but you must bear in mind that these are people who have been on Broadway and worked their tails off to be there. If the entire cast was green and fresh then I believe that would have compromised the casting process by which producers choose their talent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show really is the Broadway American Idol. It has singing, the British Guy, A guy who's sometimes nice, and a super-nice woman.

Of course it is different because there is a sing-off, and there's dancing and some acting (we just don't see some of the acting).

I gave this show a 7 because there are a couple tweaks that I know a lot of people (including me)would make if they were working for the show. The first thing that really needs to be changed is the judges deciding who goes home. I know they want to find the right Danny and Sandy, but America should have the power to decide who does home. There's really no point to the sing-off. The person with the lowest number of votes usually goes home anyway. Another things I'd change is to see them actually act on the show. What's Broadway without the acting? The last thing that need to be changed is the song the eliminated people sing at the end. The eliminated Danny always sings the same song and the eliminated Sandy always sings the same song as they exit. Since they sing it every week those songs eventually get annoying.

I admit to not being a fan of the movie, Grease, but for some reason I am hooked. This show is very underrated. It has so many memorable performances and moments.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love the TV contest. Hate to see it end. There are so many talented contestants. It's a shame that only 2 will be picked. I love watching the judges also. At times they are as entertaining as the contestants. I have been watching the show faithfully every Sunday night. Wouldn't miss it for the world. It's the best reality show that's ever been on television. Good luck to all the contestants, though I have already chosen the two who I would like to see play Danny and Sandy on Broadway. I am anxious to see if my decisions are correct. I am not aware of how long the contest will go on until a Danny and Sandy are chosen but I will keep watching until the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great show! About time a reality TV show comes along that closes generation gaps. Contestants range in ages, some seem old enough to have watched the movie when it first came out. And others, looked so young that perhaps parents or teachers handed down the movie hoping it would touch their lives the way it once touch them. Grease has truly become an American icon. Grease is a fun and entertaining movie in which the young and old can relate to. \"You're The One That We Want\" is sure to gain even more Grease followers. The only thing I wish there had been more of is character history, then again it is kind of nice to leave some of it to the nostalgic imagination of the 50's. Cant wait to watch the next show...and then on Broadway!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at a small screening. Even though it had a low budget, the creative direction and intelligence of the cast helped make this a small gem of a movie. It's April 8, 1994, each of the characters are in their \"mid 20's\" and pursuing some kind of artistic ambition (acting, music, film, writing) when they learn of Nirvana singer Kurt Cobain's suicide. They quickly get inspiration to travel from San Francisco to Seattle and attend the Cobain vigil. It's here where the film really picks up and serves up a series of funny and emotional scenes. Highlights include: a visit to Jimi Hendirx's grave, Kurt Cobain's original childhood home and a campfire sing along. An honest an original piece of work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As an English teacher, I appreciate films that do more than tell a story. Good films, like good literature, cause one to think, reflect and predict. This film made me do all three. Mr. Jansen takes risks and uses foreshadowing, symbolism and interesting turning points for many of his characters. I also likes the fact that despite the choices the characters make in the film, their choices do not seem as adolescent or felonious as other films I have seen. The acting is pretty good and the actors seem to share a good chemistry with each other. Excellent soundtrack, with songs you don't hear on the radio. It is a reconciling with life\/spontaneous road trip film that deserves more than just a second glance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"where do we go from here? that is the overriding question of this film. And make no mistake, 'mainly ETC.', the 2003 effort from director john jansen, asks far more questions than it answers, but none so poignantly or so powerfully as this one.

much of the the film plays like a running conversation between you and your college drinking buddies, and I'm sure many of the questions raised by the main characters you'll recognize from your own evenings of drunken debauchery. however, one of the many beauties of this film is that we are rarely given an answer. Questions are raised \u0096 everything from the mundane to the profound \u0096 but jansen skillfully forces his audience to examine and answer these questions ourselves, with little to no help from the characters.

side 1 opens with an increasingly complex and beautifully orchestrated arrangement of non-linear segments to introduce us to the main characters. We meet them on the morning of april 8, 1994 \u0096 the day kurt cobain committed suicide. And it is the death of cobain, and the journey to his wake two days later in seattle, that serve as the backdrop for the film. In exploring cobain's life, music, and death, the characters attempt - with varying degrees of success - to understand and come to terms with their own lives.

there are some aspects of the film that are what you might expect from a low-budget indie film: the performances range from decidedly mediocre to outstanding, with the strongest performances coming from jessica scott (holly) and noel wood (daniel); some of the dialogue is admittedly a bit stiff, but never completely strays into the unreal; and there are some minor sound problems, particularly once we get on the road, that make it difficult at times to follow the action on screen.

but despite its shortcomings, 'mainly ETC.' is a solid, deeply affecting piece of cinema. amid moments of haunting poignancy, laugh-out-loud humor, and intimate turmoil, jansen deftly weaves all of the character threads together and illuminates their own struggles while at the same time making them accessible and engaging for us. and because we can see reflections of ourselves in one or more of these characters, we can identify with the questions and issues they're struggling with, and we're able to look back and remember where we were on that day in 1994 when for many people the world changed.

while jansen takes credit for the writing, editing, and direction of the film, kudos must be given to his photography as well. With an uncanny eye and amazing ability to capture and draw us into each of the characters' worlds, jansen managed to produce shot after shot after shot that stuck with me long after the credits rolled.

And no review of this film would be complete without a nod to the amazing soundtrack. the music in this film is used to amazing effect; at times subtly underscoring the action, at other times taking center stage, but never getting in the way or deteriorating into kitschy music video. the soundtrack plays like the ultimate greatest hits, though i suspect that label would probably not sit very well with the director.

the new double DVD archive edition offers some deleted scenes, trailers, music videos, and a cobain documentary. the deleted scenes offer some insight into the making of the film through alternate opening and closing sequences, and it's certainly a treat to have the rare and beautiful Raining Kind video. the cobain documentary is fine, if a bit worse for wear, and certainly more extensive documentaries are available for the hardcore fans. conspicuously absent is a director commentary, and i can't help but wonder if jansen has plans to re-release this at some point with that tasty tidbit attached.

suffice to say that the next time you're looking for a strong piece of work from a talented filmmaker, I recommend you get on board.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I especially liked the ending of this movie--I really felt what the characters must have felt, which I think is a mark of good directing. I was tickled with how the new hire at the record store turned out--great character development there, even though his \"role\" would probably be considered minor.

I was also impressed that the entire film, while dark in its subject matter, was free from gratuitous nudity, profanity, and violence. Sadness, sexuality, and darkness can all be communicated (often better) by what is left unsaid, but it seems that this is often unique to really \"classy\" films and actors. Kudos to the film-maker for that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watch tons of movies and had no idea this would be as good as it was. I was looking forward to it after reading the plot (even though I find Nirvana overrated). It sounded like it would be tons of fun but it was more than that. Jansen puts in little touches like the books (Kubrick book among others), movie posters, etc. I like when I see a director takes his time and put his heart into a film. And you can really feel that in this. There are tons of scenes and moments that I love, I am trying to think now of some other films that are like this and I would say the only thing I can think of are Cameron Crowe films. Takes little moments and makes them stand out and special. The soundtrack is amazing and each song works perfectly with the scenes and feel of the film. This film is amazingly shot, and the editing is outstanding. I could really go on and on about the film. I cannot recommend this enough really. If you want a fun story with great tunes from a director who clearly put his heart into his work then check this out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a film that everyone who lives in Sweden should watch. The film shows the political riots who took place in Gothenburg in 2001 from a new perspective. It features interviews with those who were convicted where those people gets the first chance after the riots, to tell their side of the story and why they think the world can be a so much better place to live in and be a part of. I react emotionally when I see this, since I just feel so mad about how those people were treated both during the riots but also after the riots.

I hope as many as possible gets to see this movie, as it really gets your mind thinking: Is this possible? In Sweden, a democracy, in 2001?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At times, the mainstream news media seems to be driven by a bunch of no-brain reporters. In that they just listen to each other and report what others report.

This documentary shows what can be found if some more effort is put into the task of reporting about something.

True journalism should be about providing the people with different perspectives on things that happen so that they have a fair chance of creating an own opinion.

This documentary together with mainstream media reports, will help you with this. At least for me, it provided a lot of relevant information regarding the purpose\/motivation behind the nowadays frequent world-wide protests at different political summits.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This documentary focuses on the happenings in Gothenburg 2001. In swedish media the demonstrators where pictured as criminals that stood for anarchy and violence. This movie shows that there not, actually they are intelligent, articulate people that has something to say - And says it by the force of bricks. They believe in a better world, a world where people can think and say what they want - without being aimed at. But are their beliefs of having the possibility of changing the society realistic? I think not.

This documentary gives us enlightenment in the issues of greed, capitalism and the future it might bring. It is a great documentary that is not propaganda, because it is not shown as what they say is right. Everything it shows is what some individuals think and it is up to the viewer to decide if what they do and stand for is right or wrong.

I have heard many people that labels this a propaganda and therefor chooses not to view it, I think they are making a bad decision because even if you sympathize with the police or the demonstrators belief, all you get is more facts to rely on, for example the kid that got shoot says that he thinks that it is good to throw a brick through a McDonalds window because it is the step between thinking and acting as you think.

Overall this movie freaked me out because you cannot really dismiss the facts that the few policemen, that fought violence with violence, did not get convicted or even detained in custody even however the proof of them throwing bricks at the demonstration march (and in some cases beating people with truncheon, even though they are lying on the street without making resistance) where as good as it gets.

Rating: 8\/10 - Very good, but not best!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jarl and Moodysson are part of an dying breed of political film makers. The Swedish population should appreciate that they try to uncover the truth when the government and media actively distorts and cover up the events surrounding the EU meeting in Gothenburg. It is absolutely heartbreaking to see how these innocent kids have been abused and drugged by the Swedish police and convicted to prison in political trials for sending text messages and as revenge for others actions. The only unfortunate thing about this movie is that it will not reach the broad masses in Sweden as it will only be shown it theaters and not be released on video or aired on television.

The political film is important as it can bring new perspectives and insight into complex issues and has a role to play as an educator of the masses.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Certainly one of the most hilarious films of all time. Excellent original music, clever, heady...it's hard to be articulate about something this good. There isn't one character that you don't instantly love to watch- Myronex \"Putney, there's trouble in the black room!\" \"My name is Rufus.\" The lines, thrown away left and right, are classics themselves, recalling Slapshot, Caddyshack, Anchorman, Repoman, Dolemite, any comedy whose dialog is not of the formulaic set-up punchline variety. \"Putney, Myronex called you tasteless!\" \"My organization is pro-integration...\" \"Where's Lopez? 'He's in my head'\" They don't sound brilliant until you hear them in the context of the scene. ...This movie will eat your brain, it's too good. I've read reviews calling this film racist, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Every scene is gold, from the Etherial Cereal commercial to the Brothers In the Black Room meeting to that haunting trumpet in the closing scene. One word - genius.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Putney Swope is the story of a token black man on the board of directors of a large advertising firm who is accidentally voted Chairman of the Board when the owner of the firm keels over while trying to stutter out an idea that he was apparently quite excited about. Putney, of course, takes his new role to heart and fires most everyone in the agency, hires a new crew (all black except for a token white guy) and proceeds to crank out the most offensive and non-PC commercials one could ever ask for. Now it's a rather motley crew he has and despite that they somehow manage to be successful while raking in the cash. I rather like the scene where potential advertisers are being relieved of bags of cash and then told to \"get out\". And their commercials will follow later, like them or not. The story is good but of course the highlight here is the nasty commercials themselves, especially the one for \"Face Off\" acne cream. This is rather dated, but still a fun movie, and full of hilarious moments. Robert Downey Sr. was working for an ad agency doing experimental ads at the time and I guess this was his middle finger to Madison Avenue agencies. Very good and pretty damned funny. 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie shows that the free enterprise system and the quest for the almighty buck transcends all racial and ethnic barriers. Ultimately the market place determines the message that is sent to the public. This movie dramatizes that point. A conservative white-collar advertising company is taken over by a group of street-wise African Americans chaired by a no-nonsense black man who wants to make a buck and believes he can sell products by telling the the truth. But the movie shows that no matter how hard he tries to do something different, the market place and the political system demands that he conform, rendering him no different than his predecessors. Interesting, off-beat movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film had about everything one could wish when viewing it originally, at the end of the 1960's decade. It was immensely entertaining, and provided a contemporary view of the many changes which had occurred during that period - and were still ongoing - in terms of the Black Power movement, Vietnam, and the volatile movement which followed the quieter, preceding postwar 1950's.

All of this and one of the funniest films, then or now.

Viewing it for the second time recently, I was surprised to find it as engrossing as when seen originally. Its humor is as funny, and its message as strong.

And in viewing it now, you get all of this, while at the same time gaining the added enjoyment of its being a \"period piece,\" and a superb chronicling of its this historic, turbulent time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Made at the height of the Black Power movement, this movie portrays African-American Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson) getting made CEO of a corporation after the white CEO dies (the white executives all hate each other and can't decide who should succeed the previous CEO). Once in power, he decides to turn it into a militant organization.

I don't know how Robert Downey Sr did it, but he did it! \"Putney Swope\" is the ultimate jab at America's power structure. It's the sort of thing that seems like it would have come out of Richard Pryor's mind. This is a comedy classic in every sense of the word. A real masterpiece. Hilarious.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't say how many times that one line has made me laugh or how often I've described that scene to folks not familiar with this film. I saw it the year it was released, I was 19. I don't think there were a dozen people in that East Village theater that night. For years I thought we were the only ones who saw it. Nice to see here that others found it as hysterical as I had, and see it's lasting value despite the time gone by. Rent it, buy it or steal it.... a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you get a chance to get a hold of this lost (for many years) gem, I doubt you will be disappointed. PS has an odd blend of social satire and ultra-cool blaxploitation-- even hints of slapstick, but it's so odd that it was not only ahead of it's time, nothing has been seen like it since.

I strongly disagree with people who say that the film is dated, especially with Spike Lee's \"Bamboozaled\" (SP?) a few years back which was a misfire of trying to capture the same message. (Good filmmaking, disjointed script.)

Robert Downy's direction is brilliant, allowing many of his actors to improvise, the film gets better as it goes along and the jokes swagger from hit or miss one-liners that are as forgiven as those found in a Mel Brooks comedy, to sheer non-PC 'I can't believe they just said that' fun.

Favorite parts, the commercials. The film switches from gritty black and white depictions of the ad agency to beautiful (perhaps 16mm) color and gets away with it.

I refuse to hint at any spoilers, but if you get the chance to see the DVD version be sure and watch the Downey interview (but leave it until after the movie.)

My vote 10\/10-- most underrated film of the late 60's, early 70's. Thank you Prince.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought I might be disappointed viewing this film again after so many years. On the contrary, I was more impressed now than in my callow youth with its honesty and brave humour. In 1969, the transition among African-American groups from a predominant policy of conciliation and integration to one of confrontation and self-determination was still quite new, and more than a little controversial. It took courage and finesse to portray both the Establishment and the Anti-establishment as the caricatures they often closely approximated in real life. Special mention should be made of Arnold Johnson's performance: he successfully avoided having his character lapse into either sociopathy or buffoonery. I'd rather watch this than \"To Sir With Love\" any old day!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie in its brief run in \"art house\" cinema in '69. I found it so funny that I literally spent part of the movie on the floor, having laughed so hard I fell out of my seat. In retrospect, years later, I thought it had been done by Melvin Van Peebles. When I mentioned it to a friend, he said that a friend of his, Downey Sr., filled virtually every non-acting role in the flick: Director, writer producer, etc. He was right of course, and my memory was wrong, except that this WAS one of the funnies movies ever made. The part of \"the Arab\" was particularly priceless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When someone refers to the independent cinema realm in the United States it's often inferred that it means the filmmaker or people behind the project had much more creative freedom and did what they wanted. This, today, is not really always the case unless someone is a solid \"auteur\" and creative freedom still comes with the caveat that one has to find distribution with one of the independent divisions of major studios or by getting picked up somehow for some kind of low-level deal at a worthwhile film festival. But Putney Swope, Robert Downey Sr's film about a tough-as-nails African-American accidentally promoted to head advertising guru at a production company, *is* independent cinema, the kind of work that went right along with the likes or Romero's Night of the Living Dead and Cassavetes Faces at the same time of getting no real typical studio distribution but causing waves, kicking ass and taking names in the cinema world. For all its moments that are rough and crude, it's unforgettable.

It's also a film that is funny, very and excruciatingly funny. Sometimes the sense of humor is just so ridiculous it's nearly impossible not to laugh, from the mere appearance of the President Mimeo with his wife to lines of dialog from the advertisements Swope's team puts together like \"I can't eat an air conditioner\" in a real \"soul\" voice. It is as smart as the audience it is aiming at, which is anyone with two brain cells to put together who can see that this work isn't offensive or *too* shocking because it's meant to rattle the cage, and it does this pretty well in the first five minutes. Once that's past Downey Sr goes on his blitz of sorts as far as being a filmmaker with nothing to lose: his protagonist is part Fidel Castro, part Isaac Hayes circa 1972 (and yes it's 1969 in the film) and part hard-assed ad exec with a firing streak to make Mr. Spacely on the Jetsons look kind. And don't forget those side characters, dear God.

There's so many memorable lines and moments that it's hard to keep track. From maybe the most hilarious botched assassination attempt in any movie to the one ad for \"Face-Off\" skin cream that includes lines that would give South Park a run for its dirty-mouth money, to just little asides with the one guy from Jack Hill's movies playing the Muslim who keeps giving lip to Swope and that one boy with the the nun who curses up a storm and impresses Swope in a swift stroke. It's a pretty direct message about media and advertising, but there's also a lot of powerful moments where it just hits the nail on the head about racism in America, sometimes without having to do more than a gesture and sometimes with doing something HUGE like having black panther types going this way and that around Swope's advertising regime. And for a low-budget production (I mean super low, hence the comparison to Night of the Living Dead and Faces) Downey got some really good actors, all non-union, and it's hard to imagine that some of them might have had their first time on camera here.

It should be mentioned that Downey's style doesn't make it perfect: it is crude and sometimes too crazy and dated for its own good, and I'm sure I didn't get some of the underlying humor of a couple of the ads since I'm from a full generation after these ads were aired (albeit the \"Miss Redneck Jersey\" was definitely not lost on me). In general though this is one of the finest of its time period, a satire that stings and a feature with a predominantly black cast that is all too knowing of what comes from an excess of power, regardless of skin color. It is, as someone might say, \"good s***.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1969 was the year. New York City was the place. Putney Swoope was the second Robert Downey film to achieve some recognition. The first was Chaffed Elbows (1966). Putney Swoope achieved a much wider release. Pound (1970) and Greasers Palace (1972) were even more profane and obnoxious. Those 2 films were mean spirited to the point that they actually stalled the Prince's feature film career for several years.

The subject at hand is Putney Swoope. And it is a mad farce\/satire that has to be seen to be believed. I'm not going to go through the plot here. What Plot?? People looking for a plot are going to be scratching their heads. Keep Scratching!! This film is not about PLOT! One could compare this to a Mel Brooks movie; only without the Hollywood parody party that Mel always threw. I also see a little bit of Monty Python in this. By the way: This film was shot before Monty had debuted on the BBC!!!

I notice that the Gags and Lines that are drop dead hilarious DO NOT transfer well by word of mouth. You have to see them within the context of the film. There are some flaws in the film; but even the flaws are unique. For instance: Actors often repeat the SAME LINE over and over again; and somehow it works. How Many Syllables Mario? Putney Says the Borman Six Girl Has Got to Have Soul! etc...

The B\/W photography is outstanding. The Sound\/Score is even better! The editing is only so-so. The acting is above average. The script is priceless. The jokes are as un-PC as you can get: MR. Bad News says \"Sonny Williams just got caught in a motel with a 13 year old girl\" Putney says \"Well at least He's not superstitious\" Uptight conservatives beware. The Anti-Establishment mindset of this film will drive you straight out of the room. Nothing is sacred.

There are many things in this film that pertain to today: NO SMOKING!!! Reverse Racism; with African Americans treating Caucasions like trash. The manipulation of Mass Media over the masses; Madison Avenue, Deroit, Hollywood intentionally pedaling something that any 8 year old can tell is pure garbage; The Internet, I'm talking about \"the drum\"; Interracial dating; I could go on and on....

I should also mention that there is about 8 min of this film that was shot in 16 mm Color. These are the commercials shot by Putney's agency. The spots work fairly well the first time around. They get tiresome though on repeated viewings. The real magic here is within the B\/W sections of the film. It's the non-scenically lines they stay with you: \"Rent Yourself A CHORT Schmuck\". \"I love You, I Love You, I love You... did you take your pill?\". \"anything that I have to say would just be redundant\". And a host of others. I also really like the bit with the mounted minnow up on the wall: \"The game warden wanted me to throw it back... I put up such a fight, I decided to have it mounted!\"

Standouts in the cast include Buddy Buttler as Putney's bodyguard #1. He should have been a much bigger star. Antonio Fargas as the Arab. He did go on to stardom on TV and in Films. Arnold Johnson has the right look as Putney Swoope. Robert Downey used his Own voice instead because Arnold couldn't remember some of his lines. Also Downey realized that He could fill in any additional dialog\/jokes later on if he dubbed his Lead actor.

The film does have some shortcomings. The short run time is one. I wish the beginning with the White board members would have been extended. Stan Gotlieb and Allen Garfield are outstanding. The ending seams to have been thrown together as if he just couldn't think of any more gags. All in all, this is one of the Best low-budget independent films of it's time. A time when very few indys' played outside of New York, Chicago, San Francisco and L.A. Anyone who loves satire and comedy should see this at least twice. Downey's Putney Swoope is Ahead of and Beyond it's time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie got better with time. I can't believe that it has been forty years since I saw this at the age of 15. Yes, that's right. Movie ratings were not yet a reality, so any teenager could walk into any movie. Imagine what it was like for a kid my age to see both Midnight Cowboy and Putney Swope in the same year. Imagine the times. Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King has just been killed but the following summer had a man walking on the moon and Woodstock. Putney Swope was the Woodstock nation's chance to stick it to the man. You'll see where Robert Downey, Jr. got his sardonic brilliance. His old man was an instant hero to kids like me. No punches are pulled in this classic, and aging hippies will rejoice when they relive this era. Hopefully, new flower children will be emboldened by it, and this current era of fascism will come under the same scrutiny my era was subjected to.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Putney Swope\" is a unique, low low low budget gem from the late 1960's which probably would have been forgotten in time if it hadn't been for two things: Paul Thomas Anderson (who named Don Cheadle's character in \"Boogie Nights\", Buck Swope, after the eponymous hero of this film) and the limited DVD release. Watching \"Putney Swope\" is like listening to hardcore punk rock: it may not make a lot of sense (at least to me it didn't upon watching it for the first time), but you have to respect the film for its passion and unabashedly rebellious message. I didn't understand a lot of things about \"Putney Swope\", but for the most part, I liked it. The more I think about the movie, the more it grows on me.

The film is advertised as a parody of New York's Madison Avenue, best known in the 1960's as the advertising capital of the world. Members of Generation X and Y may be lost on this concept, but fortunately \"Mad Men\" is on TV to provide us with this otherwise lost piece of U.S. History. What you need to know before watching this movie is that these ad agencies were largely male, and even more largely white establishments.

With this premise in mind, the movie opens up with an ad agency board meeting. The members are predominantly white except for Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson, who bears an uncanny resemblance to Dick Gregory in this film), the token African-American on the board. The board members are so self-absorbed and soulless that when their chairman falls dead in front of them, their only concern is who will become chairman next. Without even removing the body from the boardroom, they begin a paper ballot to elect the next chairman.

Putney Swope is elected by a landslide, but not because the other members think Swope is qualified. Voting for Swope was an ill-fated attempt for these board members to sabotage any other member's chance of being elected chairman. With their plans backfired, Swope takes charge and \"sink(s) the boat\", firing all but one of the original members and hiring all people of color in their place .

After this point, the film became (for me) very weird and hard to follow plot-wise. There may not have even been a plot, really. The whole idea of the film seems to be a \"what if\" scenario, with the result being that the new \"Truth and Soul Inc.\" firm would be unconventional, but successful nonetheless. The firm ends up making so much money that the members build a huge glass case to keep the cash in for unexplained purposes. It could be because Swope doesn't trust banks, although that point is not touched upon or explained in the film. It could also be metaphoric in some way, but who knows.

Most of the movie takes place inside the ad agency, with occasional scenes in the White House with a president who, for some unknown reason, is a midget. My assumption is here that some political joke was being made, but I can't figure out what. Were the filmmakers saying that the president is a small, insignificant part of American life? Were they saying that the latest elected officials (Nixon at the time) were insignificant candidates? I don't know. I found it a bit eerie, however, that the man playing the president bore a striking resemblance to future president Ronald Reagan. It is funny to make that connection 40 years after the movie was made.

What this film may have benefited from is showing how consumers outside the ad agency reacted to the new ads. Of course, the ad footage possessed a strange, funny appeal for its unconventional creativity, but did these ads convince people to buy the product? If so, how? The movie hinted on the idea that the new ad campaign was successful through client interaction and the calls from the White House. However, it would have been revealing to see average people, since that demographic has always been most profitable for advertisers.

Although the parodies and political messages this film may have made probably didn't stand the test of time, this film still had a lot of unique qualities. Arnold Johnson had a magnetic X factor to him that benefited him greatly in this film. Swope's rough voice was actually director Robert Downey, Sr.'s voice dubbed in, sometimes poorly, but fit the character so well in being an authoritative outsider. He hires and fires workers at random, but earns the respect of all but one of the employees for revolutionizing the ad agency and seeking out new ideas.

The premise of the film was, and still is, incredibly risky, especially since the film was written and directed by a white man (Robert Downey, Sr.). However, this film declines to fall victim to negative black stereotypes which would lead to the rise and fall of the blaxploitation genre years later. Although some of the sex scenes may be a bit off-putting for some viewers, the main message is that a black owned and operated business can thrive through innovation and risk taking. Many people may not take a positive message away from this movie, but I just did.

\"Putney Swope\" remains an overlooked movie from a strange era, and Downey, Sr. (even despite his son's recent comeback) never quite got the recognition as a director he deserved. However, if you find a DVD of this movie, buy it and watch it. If it's on Netflix, ditto. It's a movie that can be confusing at times, but is worth watching for its gusto, ambition, and its non-conformist stature even by today's movie standards.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sure, the film is full of black militant stereotypes and much of the jargon of the time. In that sense, the movie has indeed dated. But as a satirical look at America's number one parasitical industry, advertising, it's still on target. But just as important is the counter- message, namely the effect of big bucks on those who would make the industry more socially responsible\u0097no promoting war toys, alcohol, etc. Thus, the movie's also about the allures of capitalism. Note, for example, how Putney's garb suddenly changes to resemble Third-World revolutionary Fidel's, just before he pulls out of the firm. For a moment, it looks like Swope's mini-revolution has succeeded among his staff, and he's moving on, maybe to spread the movement. But then, the former militants succumb to the allure of big bucks and he departs shaking his head, perhaps to hijack a plane to Cuba. Downey's final word, however, is an ironical one as the Arab (I believe) burns down the money tower leaving the metaphorical structure of (advertising, capitalism) a smoking ruin. To me, this looks like change can only succeed as a cleansing act of destruction and not as a process of reform\u0097a message consistent with the radical spirit of the time.

Whatever the subtext, there are some genuinely funny moments, especially with the commercials that play as well now as they did then. Those who compare the anarchic style to that of the Marx Bros. make a good point. The throw-away lines fly thick and fast along with the outrageous set-ups. Forty years later, it's still a hard movie to get a consistent handle on. Despite the crudities, however, the film remains a work of daring originality with some genuinely telling moments.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to admit I had never heard of this movie. I caught it last night on TMC. I thought it was hysterical. I laughed so hard and loved the ending. Image what a Marx brothers movie would like if they collaborated with Salvadore Dali and Malcolmn X and then all dropped LSD.

Funny and edgy are two overused words these days, this movie sure has that plus about 200 IQ points of most comedies today and surrealistic to boot. I had to be up at 6:00 am and watched it until 2:30. I over slept and missed my obligations. Still worth it. I would not recommend renting it, I would recommend owning it. It was that good.

The only warning I have is that so of the references are dated and might not be gotten by younger people. Bare with it and use your head.

I would have to put it in my top comedies of all time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A twist of fate puts a black man at the head of an old-school, white-bred advertising firm. And he intends to make a few changes...

One very strange piece of cinema. You'll either love it or hate it. Either way, you've never seen anything like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie starts with a board meeting at a major advertising agency. Putney Swope is on the board for no other reason than the fact that he is black, and the agency needs a \"token\" on the board. Swope is ignoring the meeting, reading Jet magazine at the big table, and everybody is ignoring Swope... Suddenly, the CEO croaks on the spot. No time is wasted. A janitor is called to haul off the corpse, and the board immediately and unceremoniously tackles the business of electing a new CEO. And as the votes are tallied one by one, the tension is built up and then finally snapped in a hilariously ironic climax to the vote, that gives the viewer a delicious dish of logical implications to savor for the rest of the movie. If you've ever talked back to some stupid television commercial, you'll like seeing this movie. Too bad there don't seem to be any real Putney Swopes in the world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"remember back when this movie was made by robert downey senior. a very good entertaining black awareness feature, which, was an underground hit in california-los angeles, and new york at the time. a hippy loved classic where, changes which occur in the business world are striking, refreshing and interesting comedy.non compliant, not like basic society at the time of 1969 now watched, is still very good,but today's life in america totally diferent from 69. good for the baby boomers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Bride of Chucky\" is one of the better horror movies to come out in the past ten years and could be one of the best horror films of the 90's.

**SPOILERS**

Chucky's girlfriend, Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) manages to find his battered remains after being sucked into the fan at the end of part 3 and brings him to life in her trailer park. Her neighbor, Jessie (Nick Stabile) and his girlfriend Jade (Katherine Heigl) are being tormented by her uncle. (John Ritter) Tiffany upsets Chucky when he refuses to marry her, so she buys a doll for him to play with. Chucky kills Tiffany, and then transfers her soul into the doll she got him. In order for them to be placed back into human bodies, they have to travel to New Jersey to retrieve an amulet to do so. Jessie sees this as an opportunity to escape from Ritter, and they set out on the journey, but not before Ritter is killed by Chucky and Tiffany. Along the way, several bizarre incidents force them to stop at a bed and breakfast. When several more people are killed, they call up their best friend (Gordon Woolvett) to straighten out the situation. They convince him neither one of them are the killers, as the police have began to solve the crimes. He finds Ritter's body in a trunk in the back of the van. Thinking he has been set up, he confronts them about it. Chucky and Tiffany then turn real to prove they did it, which gets Woolvett killed. The group steals a motor home and arrives at the cemetery. Jessie and Jade get Chucky and Tiffany to turn on each other, giving them enough to escape. Chucky recaptures Jade and forces her to get his amulet. Chucky and Tiffany restart their feud, which gives Jessie and Jade enough time to kill the both of them as the police arrive and clears them of the crimes.

The Good News: I have to give the most amount of props to the FX department, as Chucky and Tiffany as dolls look completely convincing. The scenes with them together are the movies main highlights, including a hilarious conversation where Tiffany advises Chucky on how serial killers in the 90's work. That being said, the amount of one-liners in this movie that are actually funny is incredible. Chucky gets the most of them, but Tiffany cracks a few gems as well. It is actually funnier than what Hollywood calls comedies these days. The gore is plentiful and shockingly realistic. Several deaths in this movie are actually original and creative. Turning Ritter into a new form of Pinhead was a totally brilliant scene. The honeymooning couple was a nice death scene, as well. For teenage love, the pairing of Stabile and Heigl works great. They have a great chemistry together and actually behave like a normal couple. I also have to admit that the first time I saw this movie, I did jump during certain scenes, and that shows what an incredible job director Yu did. He learned enough, apparently, to do the same thing with \"Freddy vs. Jason.\" He knows how to stage set-ups and pay-offs, and here he shows some great skills that have a Hong Kong influenced look and style. He could be the next great horror director if he keeps filling up his resume with films like those two. Nice soundtrack, too, like \"Freddy vs. Jason.\"

The Bad News: For fans of cheesy movies, this will be a great find. However, this film has a high cheese factor that may prevent the serious horror movie fan from having a good time enjoying this film. The film knows it is a cheesy movie and revels in it, making a serious fan turned off because of things like the one-liners. It isn't all that bad of a movie, but it has to be watched in the mind frame that it is a cheesy movie, and that the cheesiness of certain scenes add to the movie, not to take it away. Remove yourself from that state of mind and you may find yourself enjoying this movie.

The Final Verdict: Fans of cheesy movies and the other \"Child's Play\" movies will find a lot to like about this movie. For serious horror fans, take a look at it, but keep in mind that it isn't a serious movie and that the cheesiness is supposed to be there and you might find yourself liking it.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Brief Nudity on a doll, a shadowy puppet sex scene, some drug use, and numerous drug references.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bride of Chucky starts late one night as Officer Bob Bailey (Vince Corazza) sneaks into the evidence room at his police station & amongst all the horror film in joke props he steals the remains of the Chucky doll that serial killer Charles Lee Ray possessed way back in the original Child's Play (1988). He drives the remains to an isolated area where Ray's ex girlfriend Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) slashes Bailey's throat & takes the remains back to her trailer. There Tiffany stitches & staples Chucky (voiced by Brad Dourif) back together again & using a 'voodoo for dummies' book brings him back to murderous life. Thing don't go as Tiffany had hoped & Chucky turns out not to be the man of her dreams after all so she locks him in a play pen at which Chucky is less than happy. While Tiffany takes a bath Chucky escapes, electrocutes her & using that book brings her back to life in the shape of a female doll dressed as a bride. Neither want to be stuck in plastic bodies & have to work together to get to a cemetery in New Jersey where Ray's natural body had been buried with the amulet needed to switch their spirits back into human bodies. The bodies of Tiffany's neighbour Jesse (Nick Stabile) & his girlfriend Jade (Katherine Heigl), who are both on the run from Jade's corrupt uncle Chief of police Warren Kincaid (John Ritter), will do nicely...

Directed by Ronny Yu I love Bride of Chucky. The script by Don Mancini is great fun, very fast moving, highly entertaining & references plenty of other horror film with good affection. From the opening sequence where we see Jason Voorhees hockey mask from the Friday the 13th films, Freddy Krueger's razor blade glove from the A Nightmare on Elm Street series & Michael Myers mask from the Halloween franchise. To the clips used from Bride of Frankenstein (1935) when it virtually recreates the same scene. Bride of Chucky never takes itself seriously which is just as well, there are lots of one liners, self referential gags that Scream (1996) made trendy a few years earlier & it doesn't seem afraid to poke fun at itself & the horror genre in general. I love the scene when Jesse & Jade are having a clich\u00e9d slushy romantic conversation that Chucky hears & he makes funny derogatory comments & gestures throughout. That's not to say that there isn't a damn good film in there as well because there most certainly is. Director Yu manages to create good atmosphere & a real sense of fun, both human & plastic sets of characters are likable & shine as each pair suffer their own sets of domestic problems that the trail of corpses that they are leaving behind would obviously cause. Technically Bride of Chucky is great for the most part & has that big budget polish about it & at about $25,000,000 I should hope so. The only thing that I will say is that some of the puppet effects by Kevin Yagher are a little stiff & unconvincing, I can't remember any CGI scenes in Bride of Chucky either. Thankfully the film doesn't neglect the blood & gore with a cool slit throat, nails blasted into someone's face in presumably a Hellraiser (1987) homage, people impaled on shards of glass, someone being bloodily obliterated by a huge truck, a ripped off lip piercing & various stabbings & gunshots. The acting is pretty good & Dourif as Chucky is very funny as he spouts the one liners out. I also like the scenes with Tiffany at the beginning & find her very sexy when she's wearing all that fetish gear, I can't be the only one surely? I personally think Bride of Chucky is a fantastic film, total entertainment from start to finish, great humour & horror in equal measure & at only 85 minutes long it never becomes boring or dull. A personal favourite of mine, watch it as soon as you can!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chucky (the murderous doll from \"Child's Play\" and 2 crappy sequels) is dead. But his ex-girlfriend Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) gets his remains and (using \"Voodoo for Dummies\") revives him. Then, through circumstances too convoluted to get into, SHE is killed and has her soul put into another doll! Together they fall in love and kidnap a nice couple (Nick Stabile, Katherine Heigl) to take them to Chuck's coffin to get an amulet to make Chucky and Tiffany real people again...

A lot better than it sounds. After the last two sequels to \"Child's Play\" (both of which were horrible) I was expecting the worst, but this actually was lots of fun. The movie doesn't take itself seriously for a second (seriously--how could it?) and the lines and situations are actually quite funny. Also there are a few VERY gory murders thrown in to satisfy us horror fans and the film never stops moving. The movie also has a few things usually not found in a horror movie--a gay best friend (Gordon Michael Woolvett) who is intelligent and not played for laughs and a sequence in which Stabile has his shirt off just to show his muscular body. John Ritter has a nice cameo too as a sheriff.

The acting is good--Stabile is young, VERY handsome and likable; Heigl doesn't have much to do but pulls it off and Brad Dourif (the voice of Chucky) and Tilly are hilarious as the murderous dolls. My favorite part is when the dolls have sex (don't ask) and she asks for a rubber and he responds, \"But I'm MADE of rubber!\" The special effects are good (no lousy CGI here) and this is one of the few horror films to mix humor and violence in an entertaining way. Well worth seeing. I give it a 9.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chucky's back...and it's about time! This time, with the help of Jennifer Tilly and a little spell from Voodoo For Dummies. Well, at least with this installment, the camp is back. This was the more gruesome of this series, so far. It has some good twists and some good action scenes.

This one was by far, the most fun of the series, and successfully, if unintentionally, bridges the gap between pure horror to horror\/comedy.

I am looking forward to Seed of Chucky. It'll be a hoot!

\"Jesus, the music scene's gone to h3ll since I've been dead!\" Chucky

We needed the levity, as the doll thing's getting old. The added comedic element, and the better action scenes brings this one back up to equal the quality of the first, when the idea was fresh and new-ish.

6.8\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a good film for die-hard Chucky fans. Okay I'm sure it's not as good as what the Child's Play movie were like, but this can get really funny and enjoyable, Chucky's laughs are hilarious.

(SPOILERS)

Now not one doll, but two, meaning double the impact, Jennifer Tilly played the part really well and definitely pulled off the best kill of the movie.

If you have seen the Child's Play movies this would be a worthy film on your Chucky collection, but if you've never seen the Child's play movies before, this'll will be a new start. Of course you'll not have a clue on how Chucky got into his current state (cause I'm not telling you) but you'll figure out why Chucky is very popular.

Overall a very enjoyable movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"GREAT MOVIE! Chucky is by far the funniest character in a movie. Jennifer Tilly (Tiffany) makes this movie even better! Well before Chucky died Tiffany and him were together. But like ten years later Tiffany gets Chucky back (as a doll) and brings him back to life. It was a great movie!Scary and definetly funny (only because Chucky!)10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a 100% improvement over the dross of a third movie and it's one hell of a good time. This is a John Hughes movie meets The Devil's Rejects. I really enjoyed this movie and it really stands out as the savior of the series. I thought Jennifer Tilly played Tiffany really well and Brad Dourif in Chucky's shoes once again really makes this movie shine. Actually they're the only good parts of the movie. I got rather bored with Katherine Heigl and Nick Stable's scenes. It's as if they were thrown in there as a sidetrack and someone to save the day. But Chucky and Tiffany were great to watch and I really liked the black humor to it. I thought it made the movie stand out more. If you want one hell of a good time then be sure to check this out.

7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sexy murderess Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) still yearns for a life of wedded bliss with ex-boyfriend, crazed killer Charles 'Chucky' Lee Ray. After getting her hands on the mutilated Good Guy doll that last played host to his spirit, and doing a spot of repair work, she conducts a satanic ritual that returns his life to the toy.

Unfortunately for poor Tiff, the reanimated maniac shows no interest in marriage, and so she traps him in a cage, with a bride doll for company. Eventually, a rather angry Chucky (voiced by Brad Dourif) escapes his confines, electrocutes Tiffany in the bath, and traps her soul in his 'bride' as retribution.

Realising that they are now both in the same predicament, the plastic pair put their differences aside and decide to head for Hackensack, New Jersey, where they can lay their hands on the magical amulet that can relocate their spirits into human hosts. Tricking trailer park hunk Jesse (Nick Stabile) and his tasty girlfriend Jade (Katherine Heigl) into taking them to their destination, the psycho dolls embark on a murderous rampage, with their unwitting companions copping the blame.

Although the idea of a kid's doll being possessed by the spirit of a mass murderer has always been rather comical, it wasn't until the fourth film in the Child's Play series that the makers fully embraced the sheer lunacy of the premise, opting to plays things much more for laughs than for scares (although there is still plenty of OTT splatter for us gore-hounds to enjoy).

Talented Hong Kong director Ronny Yu oversees proceedings, deftly translating the witty tongue-in-cheek script into a slick and thoroughly enjoyable cinematic ride. Similarly, the excellent cast handle the camp material perfectly, with Stabile and Heigl making a likable couple, but smoking hot Tilly stealing the show as blonde, buxom, pouting, PVC-mini-skirted temptress Tiffany. Kevin Yagher's impressively expressive doll effects also go a long way to making the film such a success.

Overall, this film is unlikely to find many fans amongst 'serious' horror aficionados, but those who enjoy the odd spot of mindless popcorn entertainment, full of twisted, black humour, crazy death scenes, and magnificent cleavages should have a blast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would say 'Bride of Chucky' is a \"return to greatness\" but the series was never really great. Very good #1 was, #2-3 were throwaways, and I think this 4th installment is equal to or even better than the first movie. And it contains the best subtitle\/tagline: \"Chucky Gets Lucky.\" So he does, in the role of Jennifer Tilly, who thoroughly rejuvenated this series as Jeri Ryan did for 'Star Trek: Voyager.' Tilly didn't just create a presence; she added much needed humor, back-story, drama, tension and a great little sidekick\/play-thing for Chucky. And as much as I liked her in the feature, she can't get all the credit: the props (watch the first 1-2 minutes for horror-homages), the writing, the inside jokes (again, the opening + Pinhead) and Chucky lines were great (\"In fact, if (this) were a movie, it would take 3-4 sequels just to do it justice,\" among others.) Mercifully, Chucky and the series has given up on Andy the \"Hide the Soul\" quest, and just settled for a new way out of his body. He teams up with his ex (Tilly) whom he transfers into a \"Bride\" doll and a couple of Bonnie & Clyde teens (Really, Heigl?) to regain this pendant buried with Chucky's human corpse. This is for any Chucky fan, 1980s slasher-horror fans or even to those who's never seen any of the previous 'Child's Play' films. It's funny, dark, harmless, gory \u0096 but not over the top and despite Tilly's literal 20 minutes of screen time, it's always great to see her. After all, you barely see her play poker anymore. (Side note: of course, I picked up on the Superman reference \u0096 Hackensack, NJ.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie doesn't take itself seriously, and if you follow its lead you're going to have a lot of fun (as long as you don't mind your murders served up really bloody, and your horror topped with extra cheese)!

This film winks an eye at every horror fan, and then gives them the finger. It knows it sucks, and because of that, it's far and away the best of the \"Child's Play\" series.

It plays up the \"stoopid humor\" angle so well, you find yourself doing more than just laughing AT it, but WITH it. And, trust me, the whole time you're laughing, it's laughing back atcha.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've commented once on this Chucky great, but I had to do it again to say some things about the film, when I first saw it in a great balcony in a great theater. The film was a lot of fun in the theater and my first Chucky film ever in a theater, and that was a special moment for me, because I cherish Chucky. The other horror villains are referenced with GREAT COOLNESS!!! And the gore was shockingly great! The scene where the gay kid gets nailed by the truck was amazingly cheerful! That was a great gore scene!!!!! And the ending was so bizarre and shocking it made me s*%@ my pants. The idea of having the Seed of Chucky was very, very bizarre and shocking! When I left the theater I just loved it and I could'nt believe it was real. The bizarre and different qualities of this Child's Play installment for some reason made me mark it as the Jason Goes To Hell of the Child's Play series. It just had that intensely shocking, bizarre and different quality that reminded me of Jason Goes To Hell. A sure ***** out of *****. Here's how I rank the series : 1,4,2,3. I loved it but not quite as much as Tom Holland's original Child's Play classic. I can't wait for Seed of Chucky! Bring it on!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chucky is back but this time he is not scary (a lot) - but he is funny!

When Chucky is brought back to life (in the doll, of course) by his old trailer trash girlfriend, Tiffany, he promptly kills her and transforms her into a doll, too. Tiffany and Chucky are now on the case of 2 high school graduates - eekkk!!

Don't miss this film - it is a whole lot of fun. It is scary, funny, weird, wacky and stupid all in one!

My rating : 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I\u00b4m from germany so please excuse my style of writing. As I\u00b4ve seen Chucky 4 for the first time I was a bit surprised, I knew Chucky as a usual 80s scarymovie, but Bride of Chucky was very different from the old ones. First there is the artwork of the very good director Ronny Yu, who we still have in mind from A chinese ghost story. His visual style is in a wired kinda way comparable to Francis Ford Coppola. Also the voices of Chucky an Tiff are very impressive. I\u00b4ve also liked the screenplay very much, especially the scene in which Tiff throws the Champaignbottle in the ceilingmirror.

I give it a 9.0 vote for funny, gory and progressive entertainment. If you have any comments on my opinion, just send me an E-Mail. MFG Schawez","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"the first Child's Play was an original and effective little horror movie. as expected though, the 2 horrible sequels seemed to spell the end for this franchise.

well, when i heard they were making a 4th one called \"bride of chucky\" i just rolled my eyes and muttered a \"...when will they ever learn.\"

but when i heard that they had gotten a great director, Ronny Yu and a solid cast including the awe inspiring Jennifer Tilly my interest in it perked up.

this film is extremely well done. it has a great sense of humor, highly stylized graphic violence, great cinematography and the stunningly sexy Jennifer Tilly strutting her most impressive stuff during the first half. (i should add that she is also a fantastic actress as well.)

it keeps it's tongue firmly in cheek without veering into campy territory. the doll effects are great and the verbal interplay between them is priceless. it's more of a horror\/comedy than straight horror but the humor is welcome and well integrated.

i've already heard that they're planning a Son of Chucky. if they can match the quality of this film, than maybe this franchise will have made a legitimate comeback.

rating:8.5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seen all 4 installments, this one is by far the best of all. I did'nt have much expectation when I got the DVD(3rd was such a drag), but to my delight this one was fast paced with some slick punch-lines.

Don't miss this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was expecting this to be just like the others, tries to be scary- ends up looking silly. Somewhere along the line the writers must have realised this and so took the film in a totally different direction basically ignoring the other films. This feels like a different film rather than the fourth entry in the Child's Play series. The new idea works making this the best in the series by far.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Child's Play series isn't a favourite of mine, but Bride Of Chucky is actually an okay movie. This time we have two dolls Chucky and his former girlfriend (when he was human) Tiffany. Together they go on a journey to find an object. There are a few interesting scenes through the movie like the guy getting hit by the truck and literally exploding, the sex scene between Chucky and Tiffany and the ending which allows for another sequel to take place. Wasn't really a straight forward horror, it mixed a lot of comedy and was a sort of spoof of the horror genre. This made the movie better like comedy does do with many horror movies. All up even if your not a Child's Play fan give this one a go.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie exemplifies a certain brand of comedy horror of a strictly adult kind but quite different to the Troma movies (with which it shares certain qualities). The humour is rough and ready but fast and furious. If the idea of hideous dolls with evil powers and twisted minds don't make you shrug with boredom, reach for the six-pack of beer and enjoy the best \"Chucky\" film yet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great installment in the Child's Play series. It brought back some bang to the series. Great comedy, boy this movie is funny. Also there are awesome homages to other horror celebs. Beautiful cinematography. Great ending! Bring on Seed Of Chucky!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This new installment to the Child's Play series has not one scary scene but tons of hilarious jokes such as a stoner witnessing Chucky giveing him the finger and saying \"rude f--king doll\" and lots of references to the series: \"you can kill me but I'll come back. I always come back\". The movie's title was probably thought of before the script and was written around it. This is totally different from all other films in the series. It doesn't even have Andy, the central character for all the previous ones. Chucky seems to interfere with characters from another movie, a soap opera about two teens running off together to get married. There is one cool elaborate death scene involving broken glass and water spilling everywhere. The movie is very gory, very funny, and has pop culture references from Martha Stewert to Jerry Springer. DO NOT SEE THIS ONE BEFORE YOU SEE THE OTHER THREE,. It will really ruin the effect since the first one is truly scary. Lots of guilty pleasure fun and silliness.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great movie. I thought it would never be as good as it was. Great special effects, great story, big laughs. It didn't take itself seriously, which is why I think it worked so well. Even the acting was surprisingly good. Overall a very funny and sometimes chilling story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember reading the original Balzac story in college French.

I remember Ken Nordine of WGN-TV in Chicago reading it as one of his late night shows.

Always loved the story but never believe they could or would make a movie of it. To my surprise they did and did it VERY well.

Few of any Balzac stories lend themselves to dramatization, which is unfortunate, and -cat lover that I am, I was always hoping it WOULD be filmed without a lot of Hollywood sexing up. This is as close to perfect conversion as could be done.

The theater of the mind is always better than what the eye can see, but this is as close as I think it can come to letting the imagination of reading meet the reality of seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My opinions do not flow with the majority in most cases. I tend to lean toward the artsy, imaginative, and different. This movie was reminiscent of Frances Ford's \"The Black Stallion\" wherein a fantasy situation is created to showcase the beauty of a magnificent creature who's not readily available to view performing at its peak except on these multitudes of documentaries ala natural. Unlike those nature films, this offering utilizes the finest movie making techniques the industry has to offer fit for a diva creating one of the most sensual super stars (the cat) on the screen.

This fantasy depicting the love relationship that develops between a french soldier (he is very nice too) lost on the Egyptian desert and a female leopard he encounters when he chances upon an abandoned Egyptian temple is mesmerizing. I bought into it wholeheartedly. If you are the least bit open to fantasy and appreciate the grace, beauty, power and sensuality of the feline, you should enjoy it.

The only flaw in my book was the ending. It was a perfect set up for a Romeo and Juliet finale - that would have taken me over the top.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is beautiful in all ways. It is visually stunning, and this is a good thing since the dialogue would only take up a page or two of paper. The acting is superb; it is subtle, passionate and intense. Ben Daniels does a fabulous job of turning himself into an animal, and mixing that wild nature with a man's overbearing passion and honor. There is not one flaw, not one mistake or wrong moment to be found anywhere. It is completely perfect, but only if you understand what you're going to experience. It isn't a movie for anyone who wants normality.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An excellent story well told by the film maker. The interactions between the man and the leopard brought many questions to the viewers mind about just who was being humane. The humans killed for no reason the animals only to survive. At the end of the movie you were left wondering just who the real \"hero\" of the movie was. A well told story. The human actor did an excellent job but the leopard stole every scene it was in.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What an incredible story and what a beautiful film! Hat's off to Ben Daniels, Lavinia Currier and the great Honore de Balzac. This captivating film conveys the passion experienced by the characters so effortlessly and yet so powerfully. I watched it mesmerized, almost holding my breath as the story developed towards its inexorable end. This film's execution was almost flawless: simple and pure, it plays with our hearts, guiding us in understanding the strange platonic, absolute thus possessive bond between two creatures not meant to be part of each other's world. Both are capable of affection, yet ironically, it's the more \"evolved\" one who becomes dependent and possessive, unable to accept the other's freedom. It's one of the most fascinating and intriguing look at the many forms of love, and an incredible study on how oppressive and destructive human love can be sometimes.

Only a rudimentary mind would associate this story with any kind of bestiality.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story starts out with a soldier being transported to a desert town then goes back in time to tell the tale of how he came to this place. He started out as an officer in Napoleon's army fighting in Egypt but became separated from his unit. After nearly starving and\/or dying of thirst he came upon a leopard which somehow became his bosom buddy. It brought him food and before long the soldier became almost totally wild so acute was his bonding with the animal. All things do end however and the man decided it was necessary for him to leave the critter. A very strange film, well written and portrayed. Beautiful scenery from Jordan and Utah which didn't always blend perfectly, but who cares.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A film about the relationship between a man and leopard that's very reminiscent of \"The English Patient,\" even down to a scene similar to when Ralph Fiennes' character carries the body of his lover across a desert-rock cliff. In \"A Passion in the Desert,\" the main character carries the body of the leopard across a desert-rock cliff but in the opposite direction (calculated decision or unconscious contrast?). Historically expanded from a very short Balzac story, the film is not perfect but a treat no less. Final shot will haunt me for weeks. (8 of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie, though I don't like how they picture Egyptians, being an Egyptian citizen myself! that's why it earns an eight out of 10.

The relationship between Augustin and the leopard is awkward, and of course because of loneliness and living in that cave for quite so long, he develops a kind of insanity and passion to that leopard.

A very touching scene when the leopard dies, watch Augustin's reaction..

All in all I find it enjoyable, and I'm looking forward to reading the short story by Balzac.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"a mesmerizing film that certainly keeps your attention... Ben Daniels is fascinating (and courageous) to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is another film where the cinematography is the best thing to recommend it. That would be fine if the film were a travelogue, but as a dramatic exercise in cinematic artistry, that is not good enough. The theme of inter-species respect and co-operation ventures timidly into the forbidden world of inter-species love, but its approach is stereotypical, indicating a lack of understanding of the behavior motives of either species. As with many films, one always wonders what could have been achieved by a more innovative director and a more creative screenwriter. Alas, we probably will never know.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lucio Fulci, later known for his graphic horror films like The Beyond and Zombie, was years earlier a master of the Italian giallo (in the company of Argento and Bava) with films like A Lizard In A Woman's Skin and his masterpiece, Don't Torture A Duckling. This film has all the elements of the Italian mystery\/thriller genre known as the giallo, but really pulls the viewers in by having each key character with a skeleton in his\/her own closet. This keeps you doing as much detective work as the detectives in the film itself. Who is killing the young boys in town? The young rich woman who is so bored that she sexually taunts the eventual victims, the reporter who likes to tamper with a crime scene to get a better photo shot, the townswoman with a mentally retarded daughter, the local witch, the town idiot....the list goes on, and you have to keep mental notes like a true game to play and solve. The themes in this film are very daring and done with that perfect Italian style in the early 1970s. It is certain that no American studio would have even considered making a film of such strong content, and that is precisely why this is such a satisfying film (despite some unusual accent choices for the dubbing) and will definitely have people discussing its meanings long after viewing it. As the saying goes, they don't make them like this anymore, so get a copy and cherish an important film like this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As far as I know I've seen most of Lucio Fulci's films, with the exception of some later ones that are popping up on DVD now, and I would have to say this was his best \"pre-zombie\" offering. In fact it beats out his later movies hands-down. This is a tale of superstition and suspicion in a small Italian town out in the middle of nowhere, where young boys are dying mysteriously. It's no mystery how they died, I guess, it's more who's doing it. Is it a woman that the townspeople have always considered a witch? Is it a young woman that lives in a fancy modern house on the outskirts of town, who used to do a lot of drugs? Is it the village idiot, who gets nabbed early on because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time? You'll only know if you watch, and watch you should, for this is a top-notch mystery thriller, or should I say, a \"giallo\". I've seen this before but it's been a long time and upon a second viewing it was still as powerful as the first time. For those of you that only know Lucio Fulci for his zombie flicks, well, open your minds to this because it's well worth seeing and while the \"monsters\" in this are human, they're as nasty as anything dredged up in his later films. 9 out of 10 stars, see it! Please....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is Lucio Fulci at his best. If only all the films he made after were like this.

This extraordinary film is as intriguing as Dario Argento\u00b4s \"The bird with crystal plumage\"...

If you\u00b4re an Argento fan but you don\u00b4t like Lucio Fulci films, like

\"The Beyond\", \"Manhattan Baby\", \"The House by the Cemetery\", etc. this one has nothing to do with the others... this is what the Italians call \"giallo\"... that would be something like a \"who-done-it\" movie in a nutshell.

You won\u00b4t know who the killer is until the last moments of the film.

But apart from that, there\u00b4s the plot: some maniac living in a small village starts killing little boys... A journalist (Tomas Milian), a sexy young woman (Barbara Bouchet), a priest (Marc Porel), his mother (Irene Papas) and a witch (Florinda Bolkan) are the main characters in this tangled, bloody story.

Talking about the actors, I want to say that Tomas Milian is superb (like always), and Florinda Bolkan is terrific as the village witch...

Do you want to know who is the killer?...

I cannot tell you... but I can tell you that you must see this film!.

(10 out of 10)... of course!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I tend to get furious when hearing about Lucio Fulci's reputation as a director. Too often he's categorized as a no-talented filmmaker, only out to shock and disgust entire audiences with images of pure gore. True, his films contain more explicit filth and sickness as your average mainstream American production, but his films always are of wide range and the plots are gruesomely morbid. Don't Torture a Duckling is yet another story! This film is a pure gem of the Italian shock cinema! I easily dare to call this film a masterpiece\u0085it's an old-fashioned giallo that includes all brilliant aspects of genuine horror. The film shows the search for a inhuman serial murderer in a small Italian mountain-town. The bodies of 3 young boys are found, horribly mutilated. There are quite a lot of pseudo-madmen in the town but every trail leads to nowhere. Among the suspects are a greedy bum and a scary woman, obsessed by witchery and voodoo. Like a true mastermind, Fulci knows to find the right creepy tone for his film. He portrays the small town as a claustrophobic and inescapable setting of macabre happenings, supported by a giddy soundtrack. Fulci also develops himself as a genius storyteller here. The script always is one step ahead of you and the complex plot will mislead you more than once. In other words, this is a unique giallo (horror slash murder mystery). The gore isn't presented as grotesque and explicit as in Lucio's later milestones (among them are the legendary Zombie 2, The Beyond and the New York Ripper), although there still are a few nauseating and hard-to-watch shock-sequences shown.

Don't torture a Duckling is the most compelling and effective achievement Lucio Fulci ever brought forward and it easily ranks among the greatest Italian horror movies ever made. Right next to the masterpieces made by Mario Bava and Dario Argento. The film is fascinating from start to finish, some plot aspects are alarmingly realistic and the tension is adrenalin-rushing at all times! A must see for horror fans and an absolute priority for Italian shock-lovers!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sporting a title seemingly more suitable for a Looney Tunes featurette than a grisly giallo, \"Don't Torture a Duckling\" (1972) is nonetheless a Grade A thriller from horror maestro Lucio Fulci. In this one, someone has been strangling the preteen boys in a rural, southern Italian village and, typical for these gialli, there are many suspects. There's Barbara Bouchet (Patrizia), looking more scrumptiolicious than you've ever seen her, a rich girl hiding out after a drug scandal; Florinda Bolkan (Martiara), the local epileptic voodoo woman; her witchcraft-practicing beau; Giuseppe, the local idiot; the sweet-faced priest; his dour mother; and on and on. The film features some unusually violent set pieces, including a chain whipping of one of the main characters in a graveyard (one of the most realistically bloody sequences that I've ever seen) and a nifty dukeout when the killer is ultimately revealed. The film's bursts of violence compensate for the fact that there are no real scares or suspense to speak of. Still, this giallo fascinates, with its unusual rural backdrop, unsettling child murders, oddball characters, and freaky score by Riz Ortolani. The film has been beautifully photographed in what I presume to be Monte Sant'Angelo, near the Adriatic in southern Italy (at least, that town's police force is thanked in the closing credits). And while subtitling would've made this fine-looking DVD work even better (the American slang doesn't convince in this rural Italian setting), Anchor Bay is to be thanked for another job well done. Oh...that title DOES eventually make perfect sense, too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is one of Fulci's earlier (and honestly, in terms of story-line, better...) films - and although not the typical \"bloodbath\" that Fulci is known for - this is still a very unique and enjoyable film.

The story surrounds a small town where a series of child murders are occurring. Some of the colorful characters involved in the investigations - either as suspects, or those \"helping\" the investigation (or in some cases both) - include the towns police force, a small-time reporter, a beautiful and rich ex-drug addict, a young priest and his mother, An old man who practices witchcraft and his female prot\u00e9g\u00e9, a mentally handicapped townsman, and a deaf\/mute little girl. All of these people are interwoven into the plot to create several twists and turns, until the actual killer is revealed...

DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is neither a \"classical\" giallo or a typical Fulci gore film. Although it does contain elements of both - it is more of an old-fashioned murder mystery, with darker subject matter and a few scenes of graphic violence (although nothing nearly as strong as some of Fulci's later works). This is a well written film with lots of twists that kept me guessing up until the end. Recommended for giallo\/murder-mystery fans, or anyone looking to check out some of Fulci's non-splatter films - but don't despair, DON'T TORTURE still has more than it's fair share of violence and sleaze. Some may be put off by the subject of the child killings, and one main female character has a strange habit of hitting on very young boys, which is also kind of disconcerting - but if that type of material doesn't bother you, then definitely give this one a look. 8.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't know what to expect when I rented this widescreen DVD. I knew it had a cult following but I had also seen a lot of the director's later works which although delightfully gory were also pretty much incoherent. DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING actually had a linear storyline and a mystery that kept me guessing almost until the end. And after all was said and done, it was a genuinely unsettling and creepy experience. One major caveat: I would much rather have heard the original soundtrack and read English subtitles than the uneven dubbing found here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a small, picturesque Sicilian village, someone is brutally killing young, sexually curious boys. The local police force keep busy trying to track the killer and whittle the list down to five or so main suspects, including voyeuristic village retard Giuseppe (Vito Passeri) and an elusive, grungy, voodoo doll-poking backwoods witch named Maciara (Florinda Bolkan). There's also Don Alberto (Marc Popel), a handsome young priest who runs the local boy's school, Andrea (Tomas Milian), a journalist helping to aid the police, and the beautiful Patrizia (Barbara Bouchet), a gorgeous, but seriously screwed-up drug addict who seems to have a thing for very (I mean, VERY) young boys. As typical with the giallo subgenre, the plot won't be fully revealed until the last few frames, but if you can hang in there long enough, this film pays off. The script (written by Fulci, Gianfranco Clerici and Roberto Gianviti) keeps red herrings to a minimum and will keep you interested and the story is ably supported by excellent location work, cinematography (by Sergio D'Offizi) and musical score (by Riz Ortolani). The acting, particularly Bolkan, is also very good. Fulci fans who were weaned on his 80s grotesqueries like THE BEYOND and ZOMBIE will find more artistry and less gore on display here than they might anticipate, but they'll still enjoy a particularly nasty chain whipping scene in a cemetery (bizarrely, yet effectively, set to singer Ornella Vanoni's ballad \"Quei giorni insieme a te\") and a long tumble down a rocky embankment that Fulci liked so much that he reused it in his film THE PSYCHIC (1977). Scenes of the children being killed is mainly kept off screen (except for a brief strangulation), but the camera doesn't hesitate to linger on their corpses. The film was not released theatrically in America and, presumably because of some anti-Catholic elements in the storyline, received only a limited theatrical release in Europe.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lucio Fulci's \"Don't Torture a Duckling\" paints an exceptionally unflattering portrait of small-town Sicily plagued by series of brutal murders of young boys.This surprisingly well-directed film(especially in comparison to later Fulci's gorefests)is distinguished by overall atmosphere of perversity,nastiness and two truly grotesque scenes of brutal violence.The soon-to-be-dead children are depicted as casually cruel and budding peeping toms;Bruno's near-seduction by the naked Patrizia(Barbara Bouchet)really has to be seen to be believed.Highly recommended-especially in pair with my another cult favourite \"House with the Windows That Laugh\"(1976).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING (Lucio Fulci - Italy 1972).

Definitely a prime candidate for the most insane movie title ever conceived and that's quite an achievement in giallo-land. Originally, the film was titled even more absurdly, \"Don't Torture Donald Duck\", literally translated from its Italian title. A small Donald Duck figure features briefly as a toy, but hardly enough to render a title like this, but, apparently, it was changed in fear of legal ramifications by Disney. I railed quite a bit against Fulci's earlier LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN (1971), but here all the right ingredients are present. A surprisingly effective mystery, a good cast and imaginatively shot against an unusual rural setting. Everything just clicks. I think it's justly hailed as one of the director's most accomplished achievements.

The story is set against the backdrop of a small mountain-side town in Sicily, where someone is killing young teenage boys. Among the suspects, the most obvious one is a young woman, Maciara (Florinda Balkan), a self-proclaimed witch who is seen suspiciously unearthing the skeleton of a baby and sticking pins into way effigies. Guiseppe, the village idiot is under suspicion as well, since he made a feeble attempt to profit from the disappearance of one of the boys and walked right into their trap. By the time a quick-witted newshound (Tomas Milian) arrives from Milan to cover the murders, he immediately begins to question the authorities' assumptions, when he meets two other potential suspects: Don Alberto, the local priest (Marc Porel) with a high-minded attitude, and Patrizia (Barbara Bouchet), a bored young woman from the city with a troubled past of drug offense, who also fancies having sexual relations with the young boys in town. Talk about your prime red herring.

Fulci nicely contrasts modernity and tradition with the newly constructed elevated highway meandering through the Sicilian hills, past old towns where life is still firmly rooted in tradition and superstition. One could debate about the film's political stance as The North versus The South, or as commentary on small-town virtues - society's conventions in general - that are all too often dangerously close to tipping over into moral disintegration, chaos and - ultimately - self-justice by the populace. The film has often been lambasted because of its anti-catholic tone, but it's hardly an important element here, except for obvious plot-related reasons, which would be giving away too much. It's actually rather tame compared to a film like Jo\u00ebl Seria's DON'T DELIVER US FROM EVIL (1971). Probably, the film's rather unflattering portrayal of small-town Sicilian values (when another boy is killed, the local populace are depicted as a retarded lynch-mob) might be cause for some offense in Sicily, but - considering Sicily's problematic relation with the rest of Italy - hardly problematic for other Italians, I would think. The film vanquished into obscurity far too quickly to have much impact anyway.

When talking Fulci, the amount of gore is usually a prime subject for discussion. Although eyes-gouging scenes are lacking, the film does contain two very graphic scenes. In the gross-out finale, the killer falls of a cliff, smashing his face along the rocks on the way down with gruesome results (albeit, not very realistic). And the chain-whipping sequence with Florinda Balkan in the graveyard shows Fulci's penchant for sadistic violence and typically, he's not holding back at graphically showing what most film-makers would merely hint at. Surely, one of the most horrifying scenes in Fulci's repertoire.

Above all, this is a taut, well-written, effective little mystery, nicely lensed by Fulci, with an impressive cast of genre-regulars like Barbara Bouchet, Marc Porel (not very convincing as a priest), Tomas Milian and Florinda Balkan (mouth-foamingly crazy as the town's witch).

Camera Obscura --- 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a seasoned fan of Italian thrillers and directors Dario Argento, Mario Bava, Sergio Martino and Aldo Lado, I thought of Lucio Fulci as an overrated hack. I had seen The Beyond which I think is totally overrated, I found The New York Ripper to be simply appalling and I didn't particularly like The House By the Cemetery. These three movies left me to conclude that Fulci is the least interesting of these Italian filmmakers. But my stubbornness prevailed and I had to check out more of his films. City of the Living Dead was a film I found very interesting but Don't Torture a Duckling is very nearly a masterpiece.

Set in a small town in the Italian countryside in a repressive religious community where young boys are being murdered. The authorities are clueless as to who's behind these crimes, especially after their prime suspect has been cleared. An eager young reporter along with a rather slutty girl (who seduces young boys) investigate and eventually get to the bottom of it.

Brilliant atmosphere combined with a good story and a good cast (not always the case with 70's Italian thrillers) make Don't Torture a Duckling a crackling good thriller. The plot is well constructed, not easily figured out and the end conclusion is very satisfying. Fulci creates a dynamic atmosphere of repression and guilt in a very unforgiving and ignorant community and creates some very strong visuals, particularly in a scene where a woman gets beaten to death by some local townsfolk. Fulci's social commentary concerning religion and innocence are quite edgy and every aspect is well handled. When thinking of his zombie flicks and his ultra violent giallo New York Ripper it's amazing how well he balances his critique with explicit violence and makes an even stronger point. So far I haven't seen any Fulci film made as professionally as this one.

While not a traditional giallo film, Duckling has many of the genre's trademarks. Fulci displays complete control over the format, only once going overboard with an unconvincing gore-moment, but overall he seems to be even better at making mysteries than full blown gore epics. The extreme scenes here are much more powerful and really pack a punch.

So far Don't Torture a Duckling is Fulci's best film by far in my opinion. Edgy social commentary combined with explicit scenes of violence and a crackling good mystery to boot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like who-dun-its, you will like this film, considered the best Italian detective story (giallo), Fulci has done.

It's not Mickey Spillane for sure. There are scenes designed to disturb anyone.

Many would be offended by a local beauty trying to seduce a 12-year-old boy. She was joking, but she was naked nonetheless, and he would have jumped at the chance to jump her bones. She also tries to tempt the local priest.

Young boys are turning up missing, and there are several interesting suspects. You have to watch carefully to discover the killer. Can you? Don't jump on the first guy, it's way too early, and he is too obvious.

Anyone familiar with Fulci will be able to guess the killer, who died a violent death at the end. What crazy reasoning he had.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The name \"Lucio Fulci\" congers up images of graphic death and mutilation in the minds of may fans. Thanks to movies like \"Zombi 2\", \"City of the Living Dead\", \"The Beyond\" and \"The New York Ripper\", Fulci has a reputation for being one of the goriest directors in history. And although many of his later movies certainly justify his reputation until the release of \"Zombi 2\" in 1979 Fulci's films did not contain anywhere near the amount of blood and guts he's know for, in fact they were for the most part gore free, instead relying on more traditional shocks and disturbing imagery to work. \"Don't Torture a Duckling\" hardly contains any gore, yet ranks as his best.

\"Don't Torture a Duckling\" is set in a small Sicilian town where superstition rules instead of logic. The townsfolk are very distrustful of outsiders as well as anyone different, often shunning them. After a series of child murders though many people descend upon the town, including Andrea Martelli (Thomas Milan) who tries to uncover the truth about the murders while they continue to happen.

This is a remarkable film. It's very well made with an excellent cast filled with many favorites of Italian exploitation cinema. It also contains a solid score as well as many creative camera movement courtesy or Lucio Fulci. But the real draw of \"Don't Torture a Duckling\" is the disturbing nature of the movie. Little kids, around twelve years old are shown mocking retarded people, visiting prostitutes and being propositioned sex by an older woman. It also contains some very biting commentary on the middle class and the Catholic Church. It is for reasons like this that \"Don't Torture a Duckling\" was blacklisted throughout Europe when it was first released and never was shown in the United States. Still, \"Don't Torture a Duckling\" stands as a monumental achievement in giallo cinema as well as Lucio Fulci's best work. I really can't recommend this one enough, check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you are one of those people that think Lucio Fulci is all about gore, guts and zombies, you have to watch this (and \"The Psychic\" too, for that matter). Even though the film does include some quite brutal scenes of violence, and a unsettling subject matter, it's not the main thing here. This is a truly impressive, story and character-driven murder mystery that might well be the director's masterpiece. Here, he proves that he's a real craftsman, creating a memorable, disturbing yet strikingly beautiful masterpiece, filled with creepy Catholic imagery and interesting social commentary. It also has a great cast, including the gorgeous Barbara Bouchet, as well as Tomas Millan (from Beatrice Cenci) and Irene Pappas in a small but important role. Still, it is Brazilian actress Florinda Bolkan (who also stared in Fulci's bizarre \"Lizard in a woman's skin\") who steals the scene in the role of Majara, giving an excellent performance of a woman driven insane by her superstitions, and her vicious murder scene is particularly heartbreaking. The second star of the movie is Sergio D'Ofizi's cinematography who, along with the melancholic Morricone-esquire score by Riz Ortolani, help bringing the \"secluded Italian village with a dark secret\" setting to life. I have to admit thought that the dummy head hitting the rocks kind of pulled me off, but nonetheless, this is a definite Italian horror classic - a moving, sad and ultimately thought provoking work of genius. 10\/10 for me. If you liked this one, I recommend watching Alfred Sole's \"Alice, Sweet Alice\", as they are somewhat similar, and are both underrated gems.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Set in and near a poor working class town in the mountains of rural Italy, it's a story of madness. The landscape may be quite picturesque, but there's madness herein, concealed behind the mask of a person who seems outwardly normal. This person kills little children.

In style and tone this film resembles Dario Argento's famous Italian giallos, those fascinating whodunit horror films, except that Argento's films are much better looking. Still, the visuals in Fulci's \"Don't Torture A Duckling\" are competent, with some interesting compositions and lighting. Lightning and thunder on a rainy night enhances suspense in one sequence wherein one of the \"ducklings\" is vulnerably alone.

In one sequence the gore is a bit overdone. But this is no slasher film. A legitimate theme undergirds the story. And that theme is that madness can take many unexpected forms, not just the obvious delusions of people who practice voodoo or black magic.

Plenty of red herrings render the puzzle solution difficult if the viewer doesn't assume an agenda on the part of the director. Don't dismiss someone who might not seem to be a suspect. The twist near the end provides good misdirection. However, in one scene midway through, a line of dialogue could have been added to clarify the relationship between two characters, one of whom is the murderer. The film's finale takes place on a beautiful mountaintop with the wind whistling in the background. We see flashbacks to clues and get insights into the killer's mindset.

I don't care for the film's widescreen projection. But background music is effective, and ranges from jarringly creepy at the beginning to low-key jazz, to indigenous Italian songs. Acting is generally average, though in a couple of cases, it's a bit overdone.

Though not as visually brilliant as Argento's giallos, \"Don't Torture A Duckling\" nevertheless is a fine film, one that contains a thematic storyline and enough of a whodunit puzzle to interest most viewers who like thrillers and murder mysteries.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this early Fulci work the director shows his most mainstream side as well as a talent for compelling storytelling and more than reasonable elucidation for the genre. Personally I think he has been unfairly maligned throughout his career as an aesthete of gore. It's a pretty capable procedural and surprised me with its subtextually rich narrative that shows his distrust for small minded small-town mentality and the inefficiency of the police, as well as the twisted ideals of the Catholic church, the last of which seemed to have cut this film at its knees when it was first released and could have possibly given the director another direction so early on. The comparative lack of gore in the film shows a more urgent and psychological imperative to this film in its prevailing \"mystery\" but the gore and puppetry he does utilise is put to good use here most notably in the scene where a falsely accused murderer is senselessly lynched by a mob of men in a graveyard and left for dead in a show of vile and antiquated vigilantism, expertly choreographed to the modern tunes off a diegetic radio.

Another example was the final scene (which was indeed awesome) in which a strikingly handsome priest falls from a cliff and the puppet used is markedly showed in a medium closeup which accentuated its demonic appearance and evident ugliness. Curiously, considering his later works, Fulci also invokes the idea of modernity seized upon the hamlet holding on to its anachronistic superstitions and ignorance when the idea of black magic is just that, a quaint idea of supernatural evil that never really ends up manifesting from the voodoo dolls while making its witch nothing more than a disturbed woman. Another thing I liked was that he adds to these character layers by making a bourgeois city girl into an ambiguous figure - is she the corrupter the priest fears for his wards and perhaps more tellingly, for himself? This giallo does lend itself to becoming one of Fulci's more personal and substantive films, in that we actually get a fair influx of ideas from him.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cult-director Lucio Fulci is probably most famous for his gory Zombie flicks from the 1980s that earned him his rightful reputation as the \"Godfather Of Gore\". Fulci's absolute greatest film, however, dates back to 1972 and, while it is definitely gritty and violent, it is not nearly as gory as many of his other films. \"Non Si Sevizia Un Paperino\" aka. \"Don't Torture A Duckling\" of 1972 is not only by far Fulci's greatest film, this tantalizing and utterly brilliant Giallo is one of the absolute highlights of the genre. The stunning atmosphere and tantalizing suspense, the great Sizilian setting, the intriguing story the brilliant performances or the intense moments of sheer shock - I don't know what to praise most about this ingenious Giallo! \"Don't Torture A Duckling\" truly delivers cinematic perfection in every aspect, which makes it an absolute masterpiece of Italian Horror cinema.

Contrary to other Gialli, it is not seductive beauty queens who are slain one by one, but little boys who fall victims to a killer on the loose. Bodies of little boys are found in rural Sicily. While the police are desperately searching for the killer, the little town is basically full of strange people, and the townsfolk are screaming for a culprit...

The film is stunningly suspenseful and uncompromising from the very beginning, with a gritty, dark, and constantly tense atmosphere that has yet to find an equal. The acting performances are among the best in Italian Horror cinema. Tomas Milian (one of my personal all-time favorite actors) is excellent in the lead, as journalist Andrea Martinelli who is investigating the crimes. Sexy Barbara Bouchet delivers both eye-candy and a brilliant performance. Equally outstanding performances come from Irene Papas and Florinda Bolkan, who is utterly brilliant in her role. The great score by Riz Ortolani brilliantly intensifies the suspense and atmosphere, and the film is ingeniously shot in fascinating Sicilian landscapes. Although not as gory as many other Fulci films, this film is definitely gritty and uncompromising in its violence, with a few shockingly brutal scenes.

\"Don't Torture A Duckling\" has everything brilliant Horror requires. This is not quite as easy to get hold of as most other Fulci flicks, but I assure that searching it will pay off. Any Horror fan MUST see this personal favorite of mine, and I highly recommend any true lover of film in general not to miss this. A Masterpiece!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was pleasantly surprised by the depth of story and character development. Fulci was a master at creating horrific atmosphere using inventive camera work, vivid cinematography, and yes - wonderfully explicit gore.

This film is no exception, however, compared to his later films (The Beyond, Zombie 2, City of the Living Dead, House by the Cemetery, etc.) the characters here are extremely well developed and the emphasis shies away from the supernatural and is more on the suspense created by a classic who-dunnit amongst the lush hills of Italy. The scenery is at moments reminiscent of cherished folklore and then immediately contrasted by mud and blood-soaked terror shrouded by crumbling ruins. The gore in this film is not quite as prevalent and seems restrained compared to Fulci's later films however, splatter and giallo fans will most likely be satiated by a few close-ups of oozing wounds and the last 5 minutes of the film.

Overall a fantastic and mature film from one of our great Italian horror directors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film shows a serious side to the often thought of as gore-fest works of fulci. Not a lot of blood and guts here , but a fine tale about murder and the lives affected by it.

A real find, considering it was made in 1972 and will soon celebrate its 30th anniversary.

Check this one out, but be warned it is hard to find!

Ron","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie five times and never get tired of it. This features traces of the \"giallo\" genre, but also with a vivid Italian countryside setting, where ignorance and superstition are deadlier than any serial killer. Featuring excellent location (reminiscent sometimes of Fellini, sometimes of the Taviani brothers), good characterisation and some of the finest genre actors (including the great Tomas Milian and Ida Lupino in an unforgettable role), this is NOT euro-trash, just a masterpiece that should be discovered generation after generation (It recently recieved great acclaim at the Paris Cinematheque at a double-feature tribute to Lucio Fulci)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all I have to say that I'm a huge Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento fan. Although I have not seen absolutely all of their movies, I really enjoyed almost every one I did see. I really like giallos and I thought Argento was the master of this genre, after seeing films like \"Tenebre\" and \"Phenomena\". But after I saw \"New York Ripper\" by Fulci, I found out that he could do pretty good giallos besides his graphic zombie movies and even outdo Argento, on a certain level.

I love Fulci's style, and yes I love gore, but this film I think, although it has a more developed plot and characters than his other films, is not his best one. What I don't like is that it can be confusing at times, especially at the end. And the fact that we go from one suspect, to another, and then another until we even suspect the retarded little girl for a moment, I think it goes too far. I know giallos are supposed to keep you guessing until the end, and the killer should be very hard to find, but this film plays a little too much with our minds. However I did like the scene when the witch is killed, I think it is very well done and gave me the chills. The acting is also pretty good and the photography is great.

Although this is not a bad film, I think Lucio Fulci has made better films than this, and I think his best one is \"The Beyond\", a very different movie but a more atmospheric and visual experience.

I give \"Don't torture a duckling\" a 7 out of 10.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Easily Lucio Fulci's most respected film, \"Don't Torture a Duckling\" is highly renowned for it's edgy subject matter, gruesome imagery, and strong storyline. Terror befalls a small Italian village as young boys begin turning up murdered, engulfing the confused and determined authorities plus a dedicated detective in mystery. Was it the creepy hermit? The spastic voodoo witch? One of the hookers? The rich girl? Someone else? Contrary to most fan's frequent representation on the film's violent content - I consider it much more plot driven; featuring only one real moment of memorable bloodshed (involving chains and boards). In no aspect does this detract from the positive attributes this movie delivers. Fulci proves himself fully capable of dishing out one hell of a dark and disturbing giallo with childing killing, black magic, and of course a nice full set o' knockers... Though I'm particularly more fond of Fulci's \"Lizard in a Woman's Skin\" and \"New York Ripper\", \"Don't Torture a Duckling\" dominates the giallo genre as a moody and compelling murder mystery!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a surprise this film was. I've seen a good few of Fulci's horror and zombie flicks and was amazed that this was by the same director. He also wrote the screen play which shows that the chap was quite capable of crafting a detailed, complex story line. The dubbing on this is not good, but far from the appalling slop that only further hinders later howlers like 'Manhattan Baby'.

The photography in this film is fantastic. A strange, almost futuristic highway appears throughout the film which focuses on a small town where young boys are being murdered. A scene involving the beating of a woman is uncomfortable to watch, yet refreshing in comparison to usual cinema violence.

What went wrong Lucio? Perhaps there is a strong case to suggest he had reached his peak with this film, and it slowly went downhill after that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't Torture a Duckling is an absolutely stunning giallo diversion for Lucio Fulci. Unlike other subgenre heavyweights like Mario Bava and Dario Argento, Fulci takes a decidedly gritty, grounded, and socially perceptive approach to the giallo narrative in this film. There is nothing glamorous about the child murders and borderline pedophilia (a gutsy subplot for 1972) going on here, and Fulci wisely shoots with a staid and lugubrious eye, avoiding flash, melodrama, and directorial histrionics. The proceedings are punctuated by gory and instantly mind-searing set pieces that are bolstered even further by Fulci's jarring sense of realism\u0097 the deeply disturbing \"witch killing\" scene in particular, with its bald-faced brutality, feels like a snuff film. Composer Riz Ortolani bookends these carnage-filled scenes with ferocious reverberating string blasts.

The film is capped by a simultaneously lyrical and violent conclusion wherein theology, morality, fanaticism, and superstition collide. It is a deeply effective ending that has the capacity to leave the viewer in a befuddled and disarmed torpor.

Fulci couldn't have picked a better location for this film. Don't Torture a Duckling was photographed in and around the ancient city of Matera, Italy. As Matera continues to modernize to this day (highlighted by its shift from an agricultural economy to an industrial one), it is grappling with its UNESCO-sponsored reputation as a receptacle for mysterious paleolithic ghosts. The anxieties of the real-life Materani are reflected by the characters in the film, who, wearing their Christianity on their sleeves, fretfully confront any exotic fringe tradition (namely witchcraft) that strays outside of the norm.

Interestingly enough, Matera was also used as a stand-in for Jerusalem in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. If anything, this adds even more potency to Fulci's message. Catholic guilt and grisly slayings are such a resonant combination.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Don't Torture a Duckling\" is one of the coolest Italian horror films I've ever seen, and I've seen my share. To call it a giallo is a little misleading because it's not really a typical murder mystery. It's more of a straight horror movie.

Complete with one of the most brutal and gory scenes ever in a movie this old, Fulci's twisting and turning film oozes with a creepy ambiance and an old school Italian feel. The setting is perfect: an old Italian village. The music is ridiculously perfect. The finale is genuine and original.

After seeing \"Don't Torture a Duckling\" you really have to wonder how Fulci's later stuff got so off beat. I like all his stuff, but he strayed. Maybe he figured he already did it...Because with this film, he hits the bullseye.

I'd recommend this film to anyone who thinks that Dario Argento owns the giallo genre. Fulci beats him with this one.

10 out of 10, kids.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not a huge fan of Lucio Fulci's films. Most of his 80s gore films had their moments, but often came across as second-rate Dario Argento imitations. With the exception of the entertaining \"Zombi\" (which was a George Romero imitation), I didn't really enjoy them. I know Italian horror often disregards the plot, but the storyline and characters in his films were just far too thread bare even by the standards. This is why \"Don't Torture a Duckling\" surprised me. Its actually a very well made film with an engrossing murder mystery. Its possibly the best giallo ever made, only seriously rivaled by Dario Argento's entries into the genre. And unlike Fulci's previous giallo \"A Lizard in a Woman's Skin\", this never drags.

Fulci's direction here is quite good. He keeps the story moving at a good pace and maintains the viewer's interest throughout. Also, the conclusion to the mystery comes as a complete surprise to the audience. Plus, he adds some clever touches, such as the upbeat soul music during a particularly disturbing graveyard beating sequence. Overall, the violence here is restrained and only used when necessary for the story. The acting is good for the most part also, full of familiar faces from 70s Italian exploitation cinema. Both Thomas Milian and Barbara Bouchet are super cool throughout. The only weak link is Florinda Bolkan, whose performance is just far too over-the-top. Its the only laughable aspect of the film. \"Don't Torture a Duckling\" definitely comes with my recommendation and may be a good introduction to the giallo subgenre as a whole. (8\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This early film from future goremeister Lucio Fulci is a very good addition to the giallo sub-genre. Set in rural Italy, there is a serial killer of children at large. Add to the mix an array of characters familiar to fans of giallo cinema \u0096 a madwoman, a newspaper reporter, ineffectual police, a sexy siren, a priest, a mute girl, a mentally-retarded loner etc. This is one of the best Italian thrillers of the early 70's.

Unusually for a giallo, the victims in this case are young boys, which makes a change from the more typical women in peril angle. The fact that it is kids who are the target of the maniac only serves to make things a little more uncomfortable. Fulci is pushing the envelope a bit here and he goes even further in a gloriously outrageous unPC scene where a young boy is subjected to the somewhat inappropriate attention of a sexy naked young woman (Barbara Bouchet) who he is tasked with delivering a drink to. She displays herself openly and actively invites the youngster to ogle her; ultimately asking him if he wants to go to bed with her. Although she is clearly playing around with him, it's still quite an unusual scene. Admittedly there are one or two unintentionally funny bits of dialogue here but it's very nicely photographed and Barbara Bouchet exudes high levels of confident sex-appeal. A standout scene. Even if you might feel slightly wrong watching it!

Along with Barbara Bouchet, the other standout performance is from Florinda Bolkan, who plays a madwoman who is accused of murdering the children. She is not directly responsible but it is left to the viewer to decide whether her black magic may or may not have kicked off the subsequent killing spree. Irrespective, she is hunted down by a lynch mob and chain-whipped while a car radio blasts out rock music. This scene is very strong and unpleasant. Its viciousness indicates the path Fulci's career would subsequently go.

Despite the visceral impact of the above murder it's maybe a little surprising that the other killings are either bloodless or committed off-screen. The only other death scene comparable with the lynch-mob is the demise of the killer at the end of the movie, although this sequence is kind of silly. The plot is convoluted and awash with red herrings, although personally, I found the identity of the killer a little predictable. This weakness is less problematic on subsequent viewings though \u0096 like most gialli, Don't Torture A Duckling is eminently re-watchable.

Technically, the film is well made with impressive camera-work, solid acting and effective music from Riz Ortolani \u0096 particularly good is a recurring unaccompanied female vocal that sounds like it's coming from a distant hill. Fulci obviously went on to make more graphically violent horror movies but here he shows a talent for slightly more restrained material. It's still wild stuff though and is highly recommended to fans of giallo cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lucio Fulci made a lot of great films throughout his career and the way that many of them featured a bucket load of gore lead to him earning the title 'The Godfather of Gore'. While Don't Torture a Duckling was made before Fulci became well known amongst gorehounds, and isn't all that gory; it's certainly a gritty and nasty little thriller, and for my money - the best film that Fulci ever made! Don't Torture a Duckling really is head and shoulders above a lot of the Giallo genre in terms of production values and unlike many of Fulci's later films, everything about this Giallo is great. The plot focuses on a small rustic community where dead bodies have began turning up. The murders are even more shocking because the victims are just young boys. Shortly after the police convict an innocent man of the crimes, a reporter named Andrea Martelli arrives in the village and decides to start investigating the murders on his own. Martelli soon encounters various suspects, including a sexy young lady named Patricia, a sinister priest and a local witch who enjoys making wax effigies and sticking pins into them.

While this film may not feature loads of gore, it does have two of Fulci's nastiest sequences to make up for it. The nastiest involves a woman being brutally slaughtered by a group of men in a cemetery, while the image of a man falling from a cliff and hitting any number of rocks on the way down is liable to turn some stomachs. Don't Torture a Duckling features an absolutely great Italian cast. Barbara Bouchet (a personal favourite of mine) is incredibly sexy in her role as Patricia, and gets to flex her acting muscles more than she did in many later films. Tomas Millian is excellent as usual while the rest of the cast is well fleshed out by likes of Irene Pappas, Florinda Bolkan and Marc Porel. The cinematography on display is stunning and Fulci really gives the viewer the impression that he puts a lot of care and effort into every scene. The story plays out slowly, and it's always interesting as Fulci never allows the film to stray too much from the central plot line. There isn't a great deal of mystery towards the identity of the murderer; but Fulci almost manages to keep us guessing right up until the end and Don't Torture a Duckling does climax on a high. Overall, it's a shame that Fulci didn't make more films like this. Don't Torture a Duckling is his out and out best work and I insist that every Giallo fans sees it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Documentaries in which sons and daughters seek to understand a parent and, by the process, their own lives are not that uncommon. Also not uncommon are results that reflect lack of talent, a failure of introspection, an abundance of narcissism and, perhaps, an unsubtle quest for publicly-splashed revenge for countless past hurts, real and fantasized. What is unusual is a brilliant, fair and engrossing portrait of a fascinating parent and \"My Architect: A Son's Journey\" is that rare achievement.

Louis Kahn emigrated to this country as a child, his face irreparably and brutally scarred by an accident. He and his parents settled in Philadelphia where the talented youngster loved art and music. Soon he became enamored of buildings and decided only an architect's career would answer his creative abilities.

Kahn became an architect but as this film shows it took a long time before he attracted the attention of the leaders in his field. One architect suggests that he was a victim of the \"yellow armband,\" that anti-Semitism that along with bias against women was long a disreputable aspect of the American profession of architecture.

When he did achieve notice, he was seen, clearly accurately, as a self-assured, workaholic prophet exclaiming unyielding demands that his vision and only his vision be realized. That inflexibility was the reason that while he drew wonderful plans for many buildings he built but a few. The interview with an aged gentleman who fired Kahn in Philadelphia because of his unacceptable dream of a transformed urban center where people left their cars on the perimeter and walked into the city is hilarious.

Kahn was a born teacher and some of the extensive archival footage here shows him with students, his voice steady but passionate, their gazes respectful and intense.

Many architects were interviewed by director, writer and project honcho Nathaniel Kahn, the architect's only son. Some are world famous - I. M. Pei, Robert A.M. Stone, Moshe Safdie, Frank Gehry and the still active nonagenarian, Philip Johnson. Their comments paint a vivid picture of this idealistic but in the end financially unsuccessful designer of buildings that blended the castles, fortresses and grand buildings of past centuries into designs for the present. Kahn's buildings are shown, among the most impressive being the Salk Research Laboratories in La Jolla, CA. To me his style has a neo-Romantic air deadened by too much blank space that repels rather than attracts human interaction.

But Kahn's son was after more than the story of his father, the architect. For many years Louis Kahn had three families: a wife with whom he had a daughter and two long-term relationships, one of which produced a daughter, the other the son. Kahn visited his son at the mother's home often but at the end of an evening mother and son would drive Kahn back to the marital home. Nathaniel clearly wanted to know about this unusual set of relationships but he doesn't appear to be scarred by what was certainly a strange affair for a little boy.

When Nathaniel was a young boy Louis Kahn died of a massive heart attack in the men's room of New York's Pennsylvania Station after returning from India where he had pitched one of his massive projects, another one that was never built. At that point his Philadelphia firm was at least $500,000 in debt and had he lived a trip to the federal bankruptcy court was probably in the offing.

Kahn left several monumental structures of which the government building in Bangladesh is clearly the biggest. A teary local architect hails Kahn for having created a building where democracy may (and hopefully will) flourish.

Fellow architect Moshe Safdie opines that there might have been something fitting in Kahn's suffering a mortal heart attack in a train station given his incessant globetrotting. I disagree: it's sadly ironic that Kahn should die in the faceless replacement for one of America's true architectural gems, the old Pennsylvania Station, wrecked to make way for a sterile replacement with no character and no continuation of civic memory.

There are a number of emotional moments filmed during the younger Kahn's journey, including with his half-sisters and his mother, but they're genuine and moving, not maudlin and staged. Historians of architecture will always study Kahn. His son found reasons to remember him as a flawed but very iconoclastic and ultimately private man.

9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My impression, having seen this documentary, is that Nathaniel Kahn ended up with more questions than he had before he made the film.

He took five years to make it, a labour of love and longing. I can only imagine the turmoil of the editing process, what to leave in, what to take out.

His father, the renowned architect Louis Kahn,comes across as a man too selfish and self-absorbed to be emotionally available to even one wife not alone three. But like many men of his character, he attracted women who were spellbound by the remoteness and entranced by the creativity.

One of his mistresses said he was \"accessible\" but that is never explored. Other comments by people who knew him well suffer the same fate. A pity.

The tension between the three half-siblings in the room of a home Louis designed is also palpable. The unsaid hovers over the conversation. The only tracks that his father left were in the buildings he left behind, some great, some not so great.

I was captivated by the music ship and the Salk Institute. Saddened by the baby mothers who got caught forever by his callous impregnations never more exemplified than what he said to the director's mother upon being told of her pregnancy - \"not again!\"

8 out of 10, beautifully filmed, genuine.

It appears, in this case at least, the son is not the father of the man.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My Architect is a great film about Nathaniel Kahn's search for himself via the legacy of his famous Architect father, Louis Kahn, dead since 1974. The film builds slowly, but perfectly, and what starts out as a seemingly lost fortysomething's identity crisis unfolds into a beautiful tale with much deeper meaning with regard to the importance of love, loss, family and perhaps more importantly, our life's work.

I had never heard of Louis Kahn prior to this film, although I was vaguely familiar with some of his work. Through the words (both good and bad) of Louis Kahn's colleagues, you get a very good sense of what Nathaniel must have felt as memories are recalled and stories retold. Sometimes it seemed as though these people were telling Nathaniel how to feel about his father. As I listened to each recollection, my own opinion of this man would range from beautiful to horrible, sometimes in the span of a moment, so you get a good feel for the rollercoaster that Nathaniel's emotions must have been riding.

The final sequence in Bangladesh totally made the film for me. The reverence of which the people of Bangladesh spoke of Louis Kahn's work tied all the loose ends together nicely for me, and, hopefully, for Nathaniel.

I think Nathaniel Kahn finally found what he was looking for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a tribute to his father! He set out on a quest to learn more about a man whom he knew little of, and by the end of the journey, I believe Nathaniel Kahn is content with what he learned and personally felt. The film is 5 years in the making, and a quarter of a century after his death, Louis I. Kahn's total commitment in his work - consistent strong desire to build buildings that are meaningful to humanity and timeless to the whole world, with insight into his life is proudly depicted by his son Nathaniel in the documentary \"My Architect: A Son's Journey\".

The film is by no means an anthology of Louis' work. There are plenty of books and archived materials that have records of Louis Kahn's projects and buildings. This documentary works like a mystery, writer-director and co-producer Nathaniel Kahn was searching for the man whom he briefly knew as his father.

The film is in chapters. In \"Heading West,\" we're at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies at La Jolla, California. It's a sight worth beholding - Kahn's integral concept of building and environment, optimizing light for the scientists at work is amazing. From a former colleague who worked with 'Lou' 35 years ago, we hear about his meticulous attention to detail, also how 'rambunctious' he could be - certainly didn't mince words in his criticism. A memorable scene is when the camera pulled back wide and we see Nathaniel skating around at the plaza area of the Salk Institute - a tiny figure, like a child happily playing in the bowl of his father's hands.

The \"Immigrant\" segment brought us to meet Anne Tyng, the architect who collaboratively worked with 'Lou' and also bore him a daughter, Alex. Now at 80, Tyng's return with Nathaniel's film crew to the Bath House project at Trenton, New Jersey, was nostalgic. In \"Go to sea,\" we get to see the Barge for American Wind Symphony Orchestra - all made of steel, and meeting Robert Boudreau, who was surprised by Nathaniel when he finally told him he's 'Lou's' son. Boudreau was touched, he said he had seen Nathaniel when he was six, with his Mom (Harriet Pattison), and he was not to tell anyone that Lou had a son. It was a 'chokingly' emotional moment of reunion.

Like his father \"The Nomad,\" Nathaniel traveled to Jerusalem, and learned about the Synagogue project that his father began but not realized. He visited the wailing wall, and seeing his yarmulke kept falling off\/being 'breezed off' his head gave me a sense that he need not be 'totally' Jewish to be his father's son. We continue with sitting down with his two half-sisters at the \"Family Matters\" segment. We also hear him conversing with his Mom at Maine, and from talking to previous office personnel at his father's office, we come to know how his father intensely worked and practically lived there, sleeping on a carpet on the office floor, weekends and all.

\"The End of the Journey\" brought us to Ahmedabad, India, to the Indian Institute of Management building. Talking with architect B.V. Doshe was a revelation. In the end, Nathaniel found a very much alive Louis Kahn, his father - his spirits live within him. This documentary is very much a tear-jerker for me. I was teary-eyed most of the time - it was very touching and am in awe of the man, the architect and his son, and the women in his life besides his famous works and buildings. Louis I. Kahn wanted to give his love to the 'whole world,' juggling work and three families (you might say he has three women in his life to keep his inspiration going). As Shamsul Wares, the architect at the Capital of Bangladesh complex (completed 9 years after 'Lou's' death) so poignantly noted: Louis Kahn has given the people of Bangladesh a lot, spending time at Bangladesh, understanding the culture of the place and people - as well as giving them democracy through what he has achieved, and for such a dedicated man, usually the people close to him he'd often miss seeing. It seems the price of being great comes with inevitable personal sacrifices.

This film reminds me of King Vidor's \"The Fountainhead\" 1949 (good dramatic story in B\/W with music by Max Steiner), based on Ayn Rand's novel, with Gary Cooper as the uncompromising architect who stands by his own ideals, and Patricia Neal as the parallel supportive woman in his life.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nominated for best documentary feature at 2004's Academy Awards, My Architect follows filmmaker Nathaniel Kahn in his quest to find out about his father, the legendary architect Louis I Kahn. Lou Kahn died in 1974, when Nate was 11 years old, leaving behind an incredible but limited body of work, unpaid debts and three separate families all living within a few kilometres of each other.

My Architect follows Kahn's life through chronologically examining his buildings, and interspersing their beauty with the story of a charismatic, but selfish and emotionally immature genius. As the son which Lou never publicly acknowledged during his lifetime, Nate has delicately placed himself in the story without overpowering the main focus.

When examining the magnificent Salk Institute in California, Nate evokes his father's mythic use of space and light in his buildings, making it a peaceful and fascinating experience for viewers. The shot of Nate rollerblading in Salk's smoky white central meeting place emphasises the building's harmony with nature. It's breathtaking. My Architect also covers the difficulty Louis Kahn had with getting his designs accepted. Several fantastical buildings exist only on paper, dismissed by more practical architects and property developers. It wasn't until Louis Kahn went to the East that his visions were enthusiastically embraced. In India, where he built the Indian

Institute of Management, a former co-worker describes him as a guru. In Bhangladesh, where he built the magnificent National Assembly Building, citizens consider him a father of democracy.

Watching My Architect is a wonderful way to begin or continue learning about architecture and the importance of space. But it's the irony of Lou Kahn's egotism combined with the transcendence of his work that will inspire you. 4 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When Nathaniel Kahn embarked into this voyage, he hardly knew who his father really was. By the end of the film, he found him and comes to terms with the strange life he lived as a child.

Louis Kahn was the father. He was an architect's architect. His designs were perhaps too complex, as he tried to create buildings that didn't conform with trends popular at that time. It is ironic that he never achieved the fame that came so easy to some of his contemporaries. He had a vision and he never strayed from it. We can see characteristics of his unique style in the buildings he left behind as a legacy to humanity. Every one of his creations are unique in that they don't imitate works from other architects.

Louis Kahn's life was rather complicated. He was married, yet he had affairs with two of his assistants that produced a girl and a boy, besides the legitimate daughter he had with his wife.

As a boy, Nathaniel Kahn's life was lived in a secluded area, away from his father, who only visited late at night. Louis Kahn never recognized these children, although it is very clear they all knew about the others existence.

It is tragic that Louis Kahn died alone in Grand Central Station when he was returning from a trip without making peace with the women and children he never acknowledged as his own by his side. He probably cared a great deal about all his children, but he remains an aloof figure throughout the film. We never get to know the man, although at the end, Nathaniel, in his quest to discover his father's life, finds most of the missing pieces of the puzzle.

This is a personal account on the life of an artist. Thanks to that son, who has the courage to tell the story, we are almost prying into the lives of Louis Kahn and his extended family.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a profound and moving work about the creation of art, that which is uniquely human and cannot be produced by nature, the cost of genius and the search for transcendence and what in the end constitutes family, i.e, all of us. I was very much moved by the family discussion that Nathaniel had with his sisters about the shortcomings of their father as it was set in a beautiful home that seemed to radiate warmth that Lou had created. And although Esther seems so cold in her discussion about Lou's inability to make money you can appreciate how she at many points in his life must have been a counter-weight to his impulses. Nathaniel did a great job of showing how all of the people in Lou's life fit in and completed it and became as much a part of his work as his own genius. Yes even, or maybe especially, our failures make us who we are. And of course there are the buildings. I had only known Lou Kahn by name and did not really connect his name to his work, they are evidence of grace. Perhaps someday there will be a building where we will all fit, and it will certainly resemble a Lou Kahn building, perhaps the unbuilt temple in Jerusalem. Perhaps there is salvation","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On March 17, 1974, a man is found dead in the toilets at Manhattan's Penn Station. Although well-known, he cannot be identified because he scratched out the personal information in his passport and his body lays unclaimed at the city's morgue for three days. It turned out to be the body of what many consider one of the greatest American architects of the twentieth century, Louis I. Kahn. He died at the age of 73, on his way from India, where one of his greatest projects, the Institute for Management in Ahmedabad, was nearing completion.

One of the most influential post-war American architects, Louis Kahn's architectural legacy includes the house of parliament in Dhaka, Bangladesh, the Kimbell Art Museum in Forth Worth, the Yale Art Gallery, the Salk Institute in California and a kind of mobile \"music boat\", designed to give concerts in harbours in various cities around the world.

While celebrated as an architect, very little was known about his private life. In addition to his wife Esther, and their daughter, Sue Ann, Kahn was survived by two mistresses, Harriet Pattison and Anne Tyng, and their two children. All three families lived within miles of each other in suburban Philadelphia, but their paths never crossed until the funeral. His son, Nathaniel, the director of this film, was only 11 years old at the time, and had only a few memories of his father's weekly visits at Harriet Patterson, Nathaniel's mother, in Philadelphia. Twenty-five years later, he sets out on a journey to confront his father by visiting Kahn's buildings, talking to relatives and colleagues and visiting the places that played a role in Louis Kahn's life.

One of the most moving confrontations is when Nathaniel asks his mother, a landscape architect and mistress of Louis Kahn, why she kept up with playing second fiddle to his wife and never confronted him with this. Tears shed her eyes, but she has no regrets. \"It was worth it.\" It's such an intensely sad moment. She's obviously shattered, treated as an outcast at his funeral, which she was forbidden to attend, it's almost as if she led a substitute life. It all feels strangely unreal. Another interview with Edward Bacon, Kahn's architectural nemesis, who was in charge of the rebuilding of his native Philadelpia in the fifties and sixties, almost suffers a stroke on the spot, when he is reminded of Kahn's unsavoury ideas about architecture. His son, Nathaniel, listens uncomfortably when a very senior Bacon literally screams with anger whenever Kahn's name comes up. The final scene is reserved for Kahn's grandest creation, the Capitol in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It took 23 years to complete, a vast and extraordinary building, of which the Bangladeshi are extremely proud. It's one of the very few national symbols with stature in this impoverished nation. Some of the interviews with the locals brought tears in my eyes, especially when they find out they are talking to - God forbid - the architect's own son!

The film is as much a personal journey as it is an account of Kahn's grand architectural legacy and is above all about the fruition of the film itself and film-making in general. Perhaps Louis I. Kahn faltered as a father, but these shortcomings in his personal life make for an all the more interesting portrait in this extraordinary film.

Camera Obscura --- 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After visiting the Kimbell museum in Forth-Worth, Texas, USA, enjoying the art and the architecture (also of the adjacent Modern Art Museum), and having a delightful conversation with the knowledgeable bookstore lady, I purchased this a propos DVD with rather high expectations\u0085 and was not disappointed in the least.

The thematic approach, dramatic tension, revealing interviews, archival footage and stunning architecture are also mixed in a coherent whole to explore the life of the late iconic Louis I. Khan.

The documentary begins: contemplative classical music plays, archives are scanned with a reflective shadowy face superimposed, blurring letters symbolically referencing a train window passing a backdrop landscape \u0097 a journey \u0097, focus and out of focus, the search eventually culminates to an article in a newspaper. Nathanial Khan reads from the front page of the New York Times where his father is simultaneously praised as the best American architect alive and his death announced.

\"When I first read that obituary, I have to admit, I was looking for my own name. I was his child too, his only son. I didn't know my father very well. He never married my mother and he never lived with us (\u0085) He died when I was eleven.\"

So years later, this illegitimate son is still haunted by unclear fragmented thoughts and feelings about his father who seems to be a great professional and public figure, but who's secretive personal life escapes him and affects him to the point where he intends to do something about it.

\"For years, I struggled to be satisfied with the little pieces of my father's life I've been allowed to see, but it wasn't enough. I needed to know him. I needed to find out who he really was. So I set out on a journey, to see his buildings and to find whatever there was left of him out there. It would take me to the other side of the world, looking for the man who left me with so many questions.\"

So the documentary is two-fold, by a slow systematic discovery of the world-renown architect, we get to know: 1) his ideas, buildings and the architectural perspective and 2) his families, coworkers, people's life he affected and the human perspective

The DVD also offers added insight with a Q&A with the writer\/director and additional footage that includes such great Louis I. Khan quotes as \"Everything that everybody says is the truth. It's their truth. It might not be factual.\" and \"A good idea that doesn't happen is no idea at all.\"

This movie is a journey of discovery. Self-discovery and discovery of a man, a great man, yet a human, imperfect like all of us. We get to know him through the eyes of an admiring and slightly bitter son, but with the openness and objectivity to really explore without making easy conclusions and without judging.

By key interviews with people who interacted with him in various capacity. We slowly put some pieces together until that final interview with this man from Bangladesh who really seems to bring it back home with visceral and sensible comments.

Brilliant architect, brilliant documentary.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I never heard of architect, Louis Kahn, until this documentary. In this almost two hour documentary which goes very quickly, his son, Nathaniel Kahn, explores his father's life from Estonia to the slums of North Philadelphia to the University of Pennsylvania in West Philadelphia where he studied and taught. He travels to Bangladesh, Israel, Connecticut, Trenton, and La Jolla, California as well as New York City to explore his father's creative genius. Personally, Louis Kahn had three families including his wife, Esther, who refused to give him a divorce and their daughter Sue Ann. Nathaniel includes his family members. Louis also has another half-sister Alexandra Tynge from his father's previous relationship with Anne Tyne, a fellow architect. Louis' passion was his art.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Louis Khan was one of the most influential architects of our time, and this film speaks volumes about how little everyone really knew. His son's desire to find out who, and more importantly what he was is moving, and emotional.

This film captures the spirit of what architecture is really about, what good design is, and the emotional price that is paid for it. Equally haunting is the sound track. If you see the film, and then listen to the sound track you can revisit the film simply by listening. As a practicing architect of over 30 years, my heart ached and rejoiced over the film and its very straight forward, albeit emotional honesty and sincerity.

I had the honor of seeing this film previewed in Chicago at the National Convention of the American Institute of Architects. The film was introduced by Daniel, and he was kind enough to do a question and answer session afterward. During the entire presentation of the film, not a sound, not a cough, not one distraction took place. The entire audience sat mesmerized, and the real treat, was Daniel's mother was present during the showing of the film.

I will always remember the film, and play it over constantly in my mind every time I listen to the soundtrack...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I rented this film because it was a documentary and highly rated. It's more a study of a bastard son trying to find out who his biological father was, than anything about architecture.

More than anything else, the underlying theme of the movie is that we have an eccentric, highly praised, possibly genius architect who had little regard for anything or anyone outside is profession.

The tragedy of the film is the broken families he left. His baby-mothers came across more as scorned fans than irresponsible women, which can only have negative results on the children.

That said, Nathaniel, the producer of the film and son of Louis Khan, came across as fairly stable and curious, if not bitter. The people he interviewed were of course more interested in talking about Louis Khan's buildings than his personal problems, but I find the mix of themes made the film interesting.

As for his buildings, I found them like abstract art - strange, non-practical, and usually only appreciated by so-called critics.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i think the title of the movie describes it well. if you are looking for a documentary on louis kahn and his work, you'll have to look somewhere else. although some of that is covered in this film.

of course, i eat up pretty much anything i'm fed, and i don't know much of the family history revolving around this case. so i believed what i was told about nathaniel and his father, etc.

for what this movie was, i thought it was pretty good. a little slow and grabbing for attention at time, i wish that nathaniel would have focused a little more on his father's work than his family drama (although much of the history was interesting, louis was a bit of a player).

this really is a journey through someone's life, and i was happy to tag along for the experience. a learning experience for me, and so it seems, for the filmmaker as well.

oh, and the footage of some of kahn's work is *stunning*","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An absoloutely wonderful film that works on several levels. It's a story about a great architect, a son seeking his father, about very loving relationships, and about loss. It's also a great flm about architecture.

Very intelligent and very moving. A real treat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Video Vault By Shawn K. Inlow

My Architect: A Son's Journey 2003 - Nathaniel Kahn Not Rated: 116minutes Vault Rating: 7

What a thing to be fatherless. \"My Architect: A Son's Journey\" follows Philadelphia filmmaker, Nathaniel Kahn, as he desperately seeks answers from his father, the renowned architect, Louis I. Kahn, dead these 30 years.

Louis Kahn died in a train station in 1974 and left behind more than one family. The funeral service, when the filmmaker was just a boy, was, shall we say, an unpleasant surprise.

We find that Nathaniel only knew his father en passant, from his sporadic visits with his mother, whom, we are told, he loved deeply. This movie is about a boy seeking his father and perhaps himself by visiting his work, as if the magnificent structures hold some secret.

To be sure, Louis Kahn was a gifted architect, but \"architect\" is a cold word. The man was a sculptor on a grand scale who spoke of his craft in airy terms of silence and art.

Among his notable works, explored lovingly in the film, are the Salk Institute (1965), The Kimball Art Museum (1972) and the monumental capitol complex in Bangladesh (1983). The portion of the film where Nathaniel first visits Dhaka, Bangladesh, finds the work, but not the man.

The film benefits greatly from having much footage of the very public man as he worked in New York City and as a professor at Yale and the University of Pennsylvania. Many of Khan's contemporaries and collaborators also help flesh out the filmmaker's ghost- father.

Even so, the viewer seems not to come to a particularly satisfying place. The answers Nathaniel Khan is looking for seem hollow. Not good enough.

In scenes where the director meets with his half sisters, both from different mothers, one can feel the tensions of the years, the slights and hurts. One might expect them to burst into anger, but only the camera saves them from hostilities. Each of these children has visibly lost something.

It might be pointed out that Khan, who seemed a driven perfectionist, never became rich. Instead, he became noteworthy. It was as if he sacrificed his family for his art. This is a crushingly sad and great thing.

April 28, 2005","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just returned from viewing this academy award-nominated doc, and I was thoroughly touched and interested in exploring the works of this fellow I'd never heard of before. Of course I'm someone who's captivated with beautiful architecture, so I realize others won't care.

We can only imagine if there had been a couple more visionaries in Philadelphia back in the late 60's when Kahn's plans were a possibility, what a wonderful city center there would be. If you wonder whether you'll see more about the Bangladesh building at the beginning of the movie, be patient, for there it will provide the climax of the film at the end.

His son's personal discoveries in the process of making this film are quite interesting, sometimes touching, and even funny at times. There is one of the most comical anti-visionary rants ever captured on camera.

Rounding out the good points of this doc is a touching musical score with some excellent expressive string music. And expressiveness is a major point to be found in Kahn's architecture. The points made by other architects about the spiritual nature of matter, and how Kahn's buildings brought that out tie together the overall experience of this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Then again, I like Rachael Ray. She is fun, sweet, fresh, and such a joy to watch. I have to alter just about everything she makes as I am a vegetarian...but it's great to see her with a program that shows more of her personality. After all, she is a television personality. I think it's cool that she is so inviting with her fans and still appears to be down-to-earth. The studio audience appears to be rather small, but that just makes for a cozier environment. Some people have posted that the show sucks. I guess it depends on your own interpretation of it and of her. If you notice the early episodes of 30 Minute Meals you will see a completely different personality than in those of the past few years. I'm sure she will find her comfort zone with this show as well. Good luck Rachael!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been a fan of Rachael's since the beginning of 30MM on the Food Network, so I have seen her grow over the years. The minute I saw her interact with Oprah, I predicted that this show would happen, because I saw how taken Oprah is with her, and with good reason: she comes across as very natural, and willing to laugh at herself, which is very engaging. The set is appealing, and there are some fresh ideas (I love the lazy Susan that the audience sits on). There's just enough of a celebrity segment, and she stays away from controversy and debate (there's enough of that on daytime TV). The show is a lighthearted escape, and she hasn't moved away from her strength (cooking), which is very good planning. I know there are people who hate her and hate her show; that's OK, you can't please everybody. And somehow, I think Rachael knows and accepts that. So just turn the channel; I don't think she'd mind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rachael Ray appeals to viewers of all ages and backgrounds, beginner cooks or \"seasoned\" veterans. You'll be dazzled with a variegated presentation of delectable yet time-efficient dishes, jazzed up with her unique brand of spunk and candor. Most importantly, this hip chic keeps her audience drawn in by stimulating all five senses. Let me explain. Her program provides enlightenment to your visual sense, auditory sense, and sense of feeling through a rich, luminous ambient backdrop, light-hearted, casual, yet engaging topics, eye-pleasing, appetite wrenching meals, and her hearty smile and laugh, which will simmer down anyone's nerves.(Sense of smell and taste are rewarded when you test out the recipes in your own kitchen and among your own family and friends). Check out her show guys.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Loved today's show!!! It was a variety and not solely cooking (which would have been great too). Very stimulating and captivating, always keeping the viewer peeking around the corner to see what was coming up next. She is as down to earth and as personable as you get, like one of us which made the show all the more enjoyable. Special guests, who are friends as well made for a nice surprise too. Loved the 'first' theme and that the audience was invited to play along too. I must admit I was shocked to see her come in under her time limits on a few things, but she did it and by golly I'll be writing those recipes down. Saving time in the kitchen means more time with family. Those who haven't tuned in yet, find out what channel and the time, I assure you that you won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, so I loved Rachael Ray before, but now, I ADORE her! How innovative. I love that she has a cooking section- I admit that occasionally I skip that part, only because it makes me WAAAY too hungry! But I also love that you can get the next day's grocery list on her website. I love that she has regular helpers and that she's made some of her viewers become her regulars. I love how personable she is and how creative she is. I also like how she does her Mystery Guests. She just seems so much more genuine than so many other talk show hosts. She still gets a little starstruck occasionally and I love that. I love that she talks about her personal life on there and reminds people how happy she is. She's even mentioned tabloids before and it's so funny! She also has the funniest stories! Anyway, I'm a fan for life. Even my 2 year old knows who Rachael Ray is and he loves her too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Loved today's show!!! It was a variety and not solely cooking (which would have been great too). Very stimulating and captivating, always keeping the viewer peeking around the corner to see what was coming up next. She is as down to earth and as personable as you get, like one of us which made the show all the more enjoyable. Special guests, who are friends as well made for a nice surprise too. Loved the 'first' theme and that the audience was invited to play along too. I must admit I was shocked to see her come in under her time limits on a few things, but she did it and by golly I'll be writing those recipes down. Saving time in the kitchen means more time with family. Those who haven't tuned in yet, find out what channel and the time, I assure you that you won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Loved today's show!!! It was a variety and not solely cooking (which would have been great too). Very stimulating and captivating, always keeping the viewer peeking around the corner to see what was coming up next. She is as down to earth and as personable as you get, like one of us which made the show all the more enjoyable. Special guests, who are friends as well made for a nice surprise too. Loved the 'first' theme and that the audience was invited to play along too. I must admit I was shocked to see her come in under her time limits on a few things, but she did it and by golly I'll be writing those recipes down. Saving time in the kitchen means more time with family. Those who haven't tuned in yet, find out what channel and the time, I assure you that you won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Loved today's show!!! It was a variety and not solely cooking (which would have been great too). Very stimulating and captivating, always keeping the viewer peeking around the corner to see what was coming up next. She is as down to earth and as personable as you get, like one of us which made the show all the more enjoyable. Special guests, who are friends as well made for a nice surprise too. Loved the 'first' theme and that the audience was invited to play along too. I must admit I was shocked to see her come in under her time limits on a few things, but she did it and by golly I'll be writing those recipes down. Saving time in the kitchen means more time with family. Those who haven't tuned in yet, find out what channel and the time, I assure you that you won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Loved today's show!!! It was a variety and not solely cooking (which would have been great too). Very stimulating and captivating, always keeping the viewer peeking around the corner to see what was coming up next. She is as down to earth and as personable as you get, like one of us which made the show all the more enjoyable. Special guests, who are friends as well made for a nice surprise too. Loved the 'first' theme and that the audience was invited to play along too. I must admit I was shocked to see her come in under her time limits on a few things, but she did it and by golly I'll be writing those recipes down. Saving time in the kitchen means more time with family. Those who haven't tuned in yet, find out what channel and the time, I assure you that you won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the most sublime of American masterpieces, Morrissey opens the film by sexualizing Dallesandro, with his open mouth snoring on a pillow. We wonder, is he coming off a heroin high? We just see his face, then, flash, his body, flash, his naked rear. I can't think of another film that used this flash-blip form of editing so well to create a hypnotic, druggy mood, an editing method that works wonderfully as both pacing and style. After that introduction, when Dallesandro opens his mouth, his accent is jarring -- we expect him to be some kind of soft-spoken androgyne; instead, he's got the voice of a street thug -- Morrissey isn't comfortable letting our assumptions go unchecked. The lengthy opening is very sexy and playful -- it's a combination of martial troubles, Dallesandro's fascinating lip-rubbing kisses, and early morning sexual escapades; it all kind of flows together, if not always smoothly, then emotionally realistically.

What I got from this was the same as what I got from \"The 400 Blows\" when I first saw it -- this is like a 20-something continuation of that story. There's a sense of camaraderie between the flesh sellers and the buyers; when Dallesandro walks the street looking for men (to fund his wife's abortion) there's the feeling of a secret handshake as boys make deals with each other. I never found it boring, though nothing happens -- nothing happens brilliantly, the boys hanging around, as they do, waiting for tricks. The main trick that Dallesandro finds is fascinating to watch, using Greek descriptions and only touching his back, a form of aesthetic body worship on the man's part. It's also dreadfully funny (\"I'm not talking to an empty bed, am I?\"). It's one of the most revealing scenes in the movie -- in any movie, I think; certainly any movie dealing with sex and sex for sale. When Dallesandro's eyes seem red and swollen, we can't tell if it's because he's drunk, ashamed, embarrassed, or all.

The conversations in the film are cut-up -- they don't matter. (The film is silent in a few scenes, some of the most poignant and beautiful you may ever experience.) Yet when Morrissey chooses to include one, the way he includes it (we sort of piece it together), it's startling, such as one conversation between Dallesandro and a newbie hustler -- and neither of them ever mentioning the word \"gay\" or \"hustler.\" What follows is a scene where we listen to a pair of transvestites as Dallesandro gets serviced -- this just after explaining to the newbie \"getting used\" to the job.

Dallesandro is a subject worthy of the attention paid to him, both by his clients and Morrissey. He's less than effective as an actor, in the sense of acting as performing, but as far as revealing something he's incredible -- he's someone we immediately want to feel above, yet we go through his experiences, with all their complexities, and we're forced to try and know him. He's the kind of blank slate that we're drawn to but can't get a hold on. And of course he's incredibly striking -- forgetting everything else, this is partially a testament to the beauty of the male body, Dallesandro's gorgeous torso and permanently erect nipples.

The movie has one devastating scene, but like everything else you can't really master it -- a girl says that she's been raped, and her only self-defense is in saying that, had the rapist only asked for sex, wooed her, he would have gotten a better lay. It's shattering. The movie has feeling for everyone, but even better than that, it's not merely sympathetic, it actually attempts to help us understand human beings -- and without ever dictating what it is we're meant to be understanding. It neither looks down on nor glamorizes the people within the film. It feels inclusive when we see Joe's arm around a transvestite. When he reads a letter (he talks about not getting past grade eight at one point), he's utterly charming, as he pauses on a word...then says, \"woteva,\" and continues.

You can learn something more profound from the interaction between Dallesandro and one of his clients in terms of gay-straight relationships than you can from any case study. Here we have the young boy who smiles (his top lip disappears as he does so) when a 30-something gym bunny Korean war veteran runs his fingers through his hair; it's a scene that feels very profound, this adult man sharing something with a younger version of himself -- it's not two gay men together, or a gay man paying a straight man, it's something else you can't put your finger on; questions of sexuality are beside the point. (Never before has popping a pimple seemed as affectionate.) After sharing something with each other emotionally (though with Dallesandro, since he's there for money, it's never apparent why he's there; though he's never less than sincere, which may be his most disarming quality), \"So...can you help me out?\" The man says sure. \"I don't mean my pants!\" 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was a junior in high school when \"Flesh\" hit the big screens, but had the good fortune to see it at midnight movie houses in NYC just two years later.

Flesh is the first part of a so-called \"trilogy\" of films, featuring Joe Dallesandro, as an object of desire. It bears the \"Warhol\" name, but is more the work of Paul Morissey. Essentially the story concerns itself with the exploits surrounding one day in the life of a street-wise male hustler (played by Joe Dallesandro). Joe is young, beautiful, and a bit naive... but he manages to bring home the bacon to his wife, for reasons which should not be explained to appreciate the film fully.

Of special note to film buffs is that this film (along with the remaining two of the trilogy), had no script, per se. Warhol's superstars were given simply a premise... and the words and actions which the viewer sees are quite natural (even at times ridiculous or non-sensical). But all in all it works... \"Rolling Stone\" noted in its review that the film was better than \"Midnight Cowboy\", a film of the same year, more polished by Hollywood (An Academy Award winner for Best Film) , with big name talent (I equally admire the film)... but FLESH, being improvised, was somehow more gut wrenching and realistic, without the need for complex sub-plots and any \"cause de celebre\" .. or for that matter any cause at all!

The film grossed more than $3 million dollars and was an absolute sensation, particularly in the German market (which, ironically, thought they were given a \"censored version\" of the film because of the post-editing....see note below).

Curiously, the film is very much \"cut and paste\" with \"pops\". \"clicks\", \"flashes\", and dialogue literally cut off mid-sentence. It is almost as if Warhol\/Morissey are stating a simple truth that it is a \"day in the life\" of a superstar, snippets for your voyeuristic tendencies. Far better than earlier Warhol works of 8 hours of sleeping, and the statue of liberty as a 20+ hour movie.

FLESH, in my opinion, is the first of the Warhol films that actually is digestible (given a wide pallette) and Warhol's\/the Factory's first legitimate response to the Hollywood phenomenon of \"stardom\".

As the first of a \"trilogy\", it portrays a young, desirable male icon, naive, sought after, responding to invitations to please his family. Subsequent films would show the \"same character\" with a differing set of values. (See \"Trash\" and \"Heat\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a lot of ways this film defines the essence of everything I love about cinema, in terms of capturing those strange, elusive moments of unguarded truth. In other ways, it is undeniably an amateurish, unfocused result of junkies self-indulgently fooling around with a camera. Ultimately it comes out somewhere between pure brilliance and unwatchability (thankfully much more so the former than the latter). Part of me wants to reward it solely for it's absolute innovativeness and moments of pure sublimity, but at the same time I can't completely ignore the occasionally downright awful \"acting\" and overtly bad production values. At first the editing seems overwhelmingly sloppy and needlessly distracting (or maybe just wrongheadedly \"innovative\"), but after a while I got used to it, which is, in the end, the true sign of whether a film succeeds on it's own terms or not. I guess that answer basically sums up my all-around feelings for the film. That is, despite it's in-ignorable flaws, on a whole it does work very well. And, if nothing else, a film like this really shows how false and contrived the faux-documentary, shaky-cam style can sometimes be when it so obviously applied purely for effect (such as in films like the otherwise admirable Roger Dodger). Here the aesthetics are plainly derived from the necessities of the filming situation, and are not just used arbitrarily to make it look \"cool\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Snap, crackle, pop! The jarring sound of every change in camera angle. And that's not to mention the white flashes and the clipped endings to almost every spoken sentence. What on earth were they up to in the editing room? Or could it be that this approach was intentional? Surely not. What purpose could it serve? Despite all its technical short-comings, this is an interesting film depicting a day in the life of Joe, a hustler, determined to earn $200 for his wife's pregnant girl friend. Joe Dallesandro is outstanding as the easy-going, passive, laid-back young man who is willing to let the other person do most of the talking while he listens with a faraway look in his eyes.

The story is meagre and sketchy, documenting the uncertain life led by a man who relies on casual street sex to support his young wife and baby. One thing is certain, Joe is uninhibited when it comes to disrobing for sex or posing for an artist. Understandably so, for he has a handsome face and and equally handsome body.

There is a scene in the film that is remarkably effective. There is no sound, no dialogue. Joe stark naked is crouching on the floor feeding crumbs of cake to his little baby. There is a beautiful serenity and tenderness captured in these quiet moments.

Another scene of amusing interest is the one in which Joe desperately seeks a loan of $100 from a gym friend, coming to the point of asking in a very circuitous approach.

Joe tries to look interested but is hesitant in his conversation when an artist gives him a non-stop resume of Greek and Roman art. It's a preliminary to another occasion when Joe divests himself of his clothes and poses as the discus thrower in true classical style.

At the end of the film we gain the impression that we have got to know Joe pretty well. After all he has uncovered more than his soul.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A heap of human flesh lies asleep on a red pillow. This is the hunk of naked meat that is \"Little Joe\", a New York hustler who lives with his bisexual wife and baby child. The film follows a day in his life, after he's woken from sleep by his wife demanding that he go out and do the traditional male thing - be a breadwinner. But the use she wants to put the bread to is to pay for her new girlfriend's abortion. We certainly aren't in the traditional family unit here...

After playing with his child, Joe hits the streets to cruise for johns. The clients come thick and fast: the ordinary gay man who wants to meet him again because they \"work well together\", the old English classical scholar who pays $100 to see Joe pose like an ancient Greek athlete; the female topless dancer who blows Joe then boasts about being raped; the ageing gym bunny who doesn't think that what he and Joe do together is queer. After a hard day's work, Joe returns home exhausted, only to be put down by his wife and the girlfriend. He goes back to sleep as they harp and undermine him.

Flesh is fascinating as it takes what is a traditional classical mainstream structure - it has an inciting incident (the money for the abortion) and set-up, a confrontation and a resolution (albeit a very downbeat one), even a protagonist with a strongly motivated goal, and then proceeds to concentrate on the details of the day to day routine of these people who are perfectly ordinary to themselves but extraordinary to most \"mainstream\" people. It all seems very authentic and natural - it's hard to see the acting, the actors are so fully being their roles - but yet the whole thing is a piece of cunning artifice - a beautifully drawn portrait or an intricately carved statue. Director Morrissey carefully plants every incident, every encounter around his theme of human flesh become packaged commodity but with such cunning slight of hand that you almost don't notice him doing it. The wife \"packages\" Joe's sexual organ, the old Englishmen laments a long gone order of classical beauty which created art and poetry from human fleshly beauty, the transvestite friends of the stripper package themselves as women whilst reading a Hollywood magazine in which \"real\" women are packaged as products; the gym bunny buys Joe's friendship and affection, thinks artificial porn is real and can't tell, as we can't, that Joe is performing his friendship and intimacy for the cash. The film itself presents itself as the ne plus ultra of cinematic realism but what we might as well be dealing with here is fine art or an early example of concept art.

The genius - a word not lightly used - of Morrissey was to find a way of taking Warhol's arty pretensions to film-making, which were interesting sure but boring as hell, and making them into saleable products which remain amongst the most intriguing works of cinema art ever made - commercial cans labelled \"Flesh\" and \"Trash\" and \"Heat\" with a product label - \"Andy Warhol\" - which sells an idea about the product as much as the product itself. Yet just as you reel from Morrissey's cynicism, you are spellbound by his ability to still maintain the highest of standards and depth of meaning. The constant what seem like camera flashes continually draw attention to the filmic nature of what one is witnessing, yet you get drawn into the illusion all the same - Flesh is surely one of the most extraordinary pieces of cinema magic to ever spellbind an audience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Flesh\" is hard to describe with a solid summary because, well, there basically isn't a plot. The film pretty much just shows the day in the life of a hustler named Joe (Joe Dallesandro, who is in the underrated Louis Malle picture \"Black Moon\") as he makes his rounds, sleeping and modeling around to cash in the bucks to pay for his wife's lover's abortion.

Not much, and since the film is quite a lengthy eighty-nine minutes, you would think that \"Flesh\" would be a slow-moving and boring hour and a half. You think wrong. The film is made up of improv, no screenplay and the angles of the film are pretty on-the-spot as well, yet there is some kind of truth beneath every frame that gives the film its dementedly entertaining vibrancy. Everything makes sense and serves purpose in what happens to Joe in this one day. He meets a regular john that is obviously lying when saying he wants to see Joe again, a photographer who talks so much that it bores Joe to tears, two drag queens who read out of tabloid magazines as Joe receives head from a mousy-voiced addict who mumbles on later about how she wants to get a breast lift, an old friend of Joe who reads male-on-male rape stories to him, and then a final scene with his wife and her lover that eerily echoes the scene at the start of the film (one of the best openings to a film I have seen in quite some time) \u0096 and tells completely what the film is overall philosophically about.

It's astounding how the film's messages and styles feel almost timeless, even though it's set in 1960s New York City, in real time, in real place, and is filmed like an obvious independent flick from that era. It's certainly not a film that could be made today, which adds on to its delicious mystique.

Fueled by unexpected jump cuts; and absent of a score to advance its images \u0096 \"Flesh\" is about as raw, gritty as a film about male prostitution in the 60s can get.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was delighted to see this gem of a film available on DVD. Despite being a 'TV Movie' and shot on 16mm, it provided a wonderful insight into the different types of people who wanted to become a 'London cabbie', along with their foibles and family commitments. Even the most hapless of candidates, 'Titanic' with his uncommunicative wife, it was possible to see how Jack Rosenthal was able to craft an often funny and sometimes tragic snippet of London life into an entertaining 90 minutes.

Originally premiered as a vehicle for Mick Ford (pun intended), the quality of the acting from an ensemble cast including Michael Elphic, Nigel Hawthorne, Jonathan Lynn, Lesley Joseph and Maureen Lipman (Mrs Rosenthal) meant Mick may have had top billing, but he had to work hard in the face of such competing talents.

Even 15 years after its 1991 release, it is still as fresh as ever!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just to correct something in a previous review here, I don't believe this film is only for people who know London, it's a case of a very specific situation being used to make universal comments. Jack Rosenthal says in an introduction to the published script that it was meant to be about characters who, by going though this gruelling Knowledge test, gain some measure of self-knowledge.

I think it's one of the most perfectly-written dramas I've seen: technically it's supremely adept at conveying quite complex details but it's also joyous in how it involves you. At the start you know no more about this London Knowledge test than the main characters but you get scooped up right along with them until it's vitally important to you. You become tremendously proud of those characters who succeed, and you are crushed for those who don't. Especially one whose downfall, without giving anything anyway, will make your hands fly to your face.

Also just as a point of fact, Nigel Hawthorne's character, Mr Burgess, is called the Vampire, not Dracula. You don't need to know this, I'm not saying it's crucial, but it's a measure of the drama: once you've seen this, you will want everyone to and you will evangelise about its every detail.

I hope you get to see it.

William","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must have seen this on the television when it was first broadcast some decades ago. I thought it was brilliant then, and as I remember so much of it now I may have been right. While I have lived in and around London I cannot call myself a Londoner and do not know it at all well - who does other than taxi drivers? Once the viewer understands the premise; that here is a group of men trying to learn the seemingly unlearn-able and rise to the status of demigods, then the rest is sheer joy. The characters are well contrasted, their family relationships are equally diverse, and so differently affected by the events of the film. Don't think this is a documentary - it is pure drama, and The Knowledge is one of the characters. I have never seen anything like this film, before or since. Watch it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw \"The Knowledge\" during a Thames Television marathon on one of the local independent stations in Los Angeles back when it was new. I enjoyed it very much along with danger UXB.

That a movie I saw once over twenty year ago should stick so well in my memory is a testament to it's originality and the quality of the performances by the cast.

I looked for a DVD copy here in the U.S.A. And found none. I finally gambled and bought a UK DVD off Ebay and was delighted to find that it has no Region Code. So those of us that would like to see this little gem can get a copy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As someone who used to spend hours driving around the backstreets of North London in an attempt to avoid the horrific congestion, this film immediately appealed. Throw in my interest in what London was like back in the late 70s and you have the basic premise for my version of TV heaven! On paper the film ticked all the right boxes, and having just watched \"The Knowledge\" the actual movie itself certainly lived up to, if not exceeded, my high expectations.

Visually, I was surprised how different London looked back then (I lived in Islington in the 90s, long after gentrification had transformed the area). It truly came across as grimy, tatty and down-at-heel. London may still have bad housing estates, but the general feel of the place is much cleaner, brighter and pleasant nowadays (based on what this movie shows rather than my own memories).

As for the story and the acting, well top marks obviously go to Nigel Hawthorne as The Vampire. Absolutely brilliant! He acts deliberately unpredictably, alternating between total straight-faced severity and surreal mindgames in order to unnerve the Knowledge Boys as he puts them through test after test.

All in all this was an excellent, thoroughly enjoyable trip back into a very specific time and place that I find endlessly fascinating. But even if you're not especially interested in London circa 1979, you'll still enjoy following the witty dialogue and likable characters of \"The Knowledge\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Knowledge is a typical British comedy for the period. To someone who is not familiar of the process of becoming a London cabby the film is bound to seem very average with a few laughs from a few old faces.

The Knowledge however comes into its own for Knowledge boys like myself or their wife's who know what these poor individuals are going through. And find yourself comparing incidents of your own to that of the characters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thank goodness for the Coen Brothers. Their success has brought them bigger budgets,but hasn't rid them of their creativity. I had planned on seeing another movie, but it was sold out so I went to this one instead. By the time it began, I had forgotten what movie I was there to see. I was surprised in more ways than one. This movie is hilarious, but they don't make any cheap jokes just to get the laughs. The writing is brilliant, and delivered with great skill by George Clooney (after this, nobody can say he's just a pretty face) and the rest of the cast. It can be appreciated on many levels, whether you remember the Odyssey or not. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that was this clever. I've seen others I would describe as beautiful, intriguing, funny and charming, all of which also describe \"Oh Brother,\" but this movie reminded me of older seinfeld episodes where all the subplots came together in the end. You can feel that their journey is building up to something, but you can't tell what. And the Coen brothers do not fail us, the end is certainly not disappointing. It's surprising, and ties up all the loose ends neatly, without wearing the story out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Coen Brothers have truly outdone themselves in this wonderful saga of three escaped convicts. Though it is based on \"The Odyssey,\" the ancient work of Homer, you do not have to have read \"The Odyssey\" to be able to follow the story. The brothers Coen have woven a tapestry of celluloid and aural delights! The soundtrack is intrinsic to the film, indeed it is as though the soundtrack is the product and the film is wrapping paper. Each character is wonderfully exploited and harkens back to the days of old when films were rich with character actors whose very appearance in the film adds richness, texture and authenticity. George Clooney is magnificent as the grease haired Everett Ulysses McGill, a honest con on the run whose pompous linguistics and vocabulary are comical and endearing. O Brother, Where Art Thou is easily the best Coen film to date as well as Clooney's best effort. Clooney is good enough to warrant a best actor nomination as is Tim Blake Nelson's portrayal of the dimwitted friend Delmar, while the film itself is deserving of a Best film nod.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not being a fan of the Coen Brothers or George Clooney, anyone can see the skepticism I took into the theater. Once again, someone in Hollywood dares to create something different. This time it was those zanie (for a temporary lack of a better word) Coens doing \"their thing\" to one of the great works in literary history. Who would've ever thought Homer had this in mind? I don't know where this film is going to fit in the history books of Hollywood, but it will be in both mine and many others DVD or VHS library. It is one of those films that you can watch over and over. The story is brilliantly written. Clean and entertaining, with a couple of Gumpesque brushes with fame, great performances by Clooney, Turturro, Nelson, and a brief but hilarious Holly Hunter. Being born in Mississippi and raised in other parts of the south, I wish more people would poke a little fun at us like this. They even invoke a soundtrack fitting for the rural south. You are NOT doing anything better this weekend, go see this movie!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have walked out of a Coen movie before and not quite known how to feel. The two best examples of that are The Big Lebowski and Fargo. Lebowski was so ridiculously original and so filled with strange humour that I had to like it. On the other hand, there were some unnecessary reveries with flying people and killer bowling balls that just didn't seem to fit the mold of the film. Still, I liked the film and now own a copy of it. Fargo made me howl with hysterics, sometimes I wasn't sure why I was laughing so hard that it made me cry, but nonetheless I was. There were many seemingly strange characters in Fargo, but upon further investigation, they were really just real people talking about real situations. That is why the man with the shovel ( or was it a broom ) was so side-splittingly funny when he was telling the police officer about some funny looking man down at the bar the other night. And that is also why the theater erupted in laughter when he then says that there are some funny looking clouds coming in. (I own a copy of this film too) The Coen's have a way of masking their film and their characters as being somewhat eccentric and perhaps a little off the wall. But if you look closer at some of those same characters that seem zany, you will always find that in some strange way, they all ring true. That is what is quite exceptional about O Brother Where Art Thou? This is a film that is out there. I mean it is not even in the same ballpark as a traditional film. I reviewed the film Shaft this past summer and in it I said that Shaft was an okay film that I have seen a thousand times before. But you can not say that about a Coen Brother's film and you most certainly can not say that about this one.

This film has everything in it from a jail break, crooked southern politicians, muses, references to what I can only assume are historical figures, riverside baptisms, bank robberies, violence towards animals, singing flocks of religious fanatics, KKK, lynch mobs and so on. There are obviously many references to Homer's Odyssey in here as well, but I wouldn't know that because I have never read Homer's Odyssey or even knew one thing about it. Every other newspaper reviewer seems to know all about it and they think that this cynicism and almost spoof-like quality towards it makes the film that much better. Well coming from a guy who doesn't know anything about it, I can tell you that it is still an entertaining film. There were times when again, as is usual for a Coen film, I wasn't sure why I was entertained or laughing, but I was.

This is a road picture where three men travel along the way to find a hidden treasure that Clooney says he has hidden to his two other cell mates. He has to take them along because they were also chained to him when they had their chance to escape.

I like all the principal actors in the film and many of them are Coen cronies. It was nice to see Goodman again. It was nice to see Hunter and especially Turturro who seems to have a place in every Coen film. It's too bad they didn't find a place for Steve Buscemi but that is a different story all together. But back to Clooney. The man just has charisma. He is a one hell of an actor as well and here he is not quite as zany as the others but even he has his own idiosyncrasies. His work here is quite awesome and I really hope this shows that he is capable of playing any range of character.

Now after heaping all this praise on the film, let me just say this as well. I didn't really enjoy the film at first. I found it to be quite tedious and a little boring. There were too many ideas in here and not enough care went into harnessing them for all what they were worth. But then the film began to grow on me. It took a while but it did grow on me. I don't think this is their best film, but it is still a good one and I am giving it a 8.5. But the reason that I do recommend this film is for one reason only.

Every day you can go look into the paper and look at the films that are playing and say to yourself, seen it, seen it, oh, seen it last year, that is the same as this film and that is the same as that film. Most films have been recycled in some form or another. Not the Coen's films. They have not been recycled and if they have I don't know about it. That is reason enough to see something that they put out. Originality counts for a lot in my books. The Coens are original and they are good. And that is not common in todays cinema. Enjoy them while they are allowed to make films. Because you don't get vision like this in many films, so when you do, enjoy it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having seen most of the Coen Brothers previous films I expected something different and slighty off centre. OBWAT is certainly those things, but it also has a heart as big as..well..as big as Mississippi. It is one of the most plainly enjoyable movies to have come out in recent times, intelligent, well-crafted, clever and superbly acted.

Characters are delivered in their myriad shades by a group of marvellous actors. George Clooney winning me over completely with his Clark Gable-ish looks and character. Having only ever seen him in Three Kings and his Thin Red Line cameo, I am now a fan. More comedy please George.

John Tuturro and Tim Blake Nelson ably assist, especially Nelson. If ever \"The Simpsons\" is made into a movie then he must be a natural to play Cletus the slack-jawed yokel. I don't think there is a performance that falls short of excellent from the entire cast. My special favorite is Stephen Root as the blind Radio Station Man.

Great old-timey music, a jiggy type dance by Clooney that I am trying to learn, and a feel of depression era southern US enhanced by sepia-like photography make this the best movie I've see so far this century. The only drawback to the film is that it has almost sent me broke buying the soundtrack, the DVD and a DVD player to play it on....it's THAT good!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the best film I saw in the year 2000. The Cohen brothers have never let me down before, and they certainly didn't this time either.

It's one of those rare movies these days - it's witty, intelligent and vastly entertaining. I left the cinema with a warmth in my heart. Of course, there's lot of Cohen stuff in there - odd characters and peculiar gadgets, well-developed plot and magic camerawork. But no Cohen film is resembling any other Cohen film, if you overlook the general quality of them, of course.

The big surprise for me was that Clooney is so good. But the true master performance in this movie comes from Tim Blake-Nelson. But the rest of the cast is superb too.

A film that is lightweight comedy with a musical touch that evolve it's story round rednecks and old time country music - dripping with wit and intelligence. Thats a very unlikely combination. But it's exactly what this picture is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was into the movie right away. I've seen the other Coen movies, with the exception of Raising Arizona, and I've noticed that each of their movies has a color. Fargo is gray\/white, Lebowski is bright orange, and this movie is a pleasant yellow.

The bright pleasant qualities of this movie start right away. Soon the look is accompanied by the great, great music. It's the old folk sound, the kind of music that was written during a time when music was enjoyed as a part of day to day life. Enjoyed by everyone, chain-gangs, church choirs, and even prison escapees.

Now, about the prison escapees. I don't know what crime their characters could have possibly committed, as they are a very very friendly group of guys. Clooney is fantastic, completely nailing his role.

Go see this as soon as possible. I believe that it can be enjoyed by anyone at some level. For some reason, the theater I was in was full of old ladies and old men, and they loved it.

You'll love it too, I promise. I was compelled to get my hands on the soundtrack right away.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Coen Brothers have done it again. Three depression era convicts(George Clooney, John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson)escape a Mississippi chain gang and head off in search of buried treasure that will fund their new lives. Along the way, they sing on the radio and become much sought after stars as well as escapees. Great laughs and a soundtrack that is a lesson\/introduction to bluegrass music.

Clooney is outstanding as the fast talking, quick witted Ulysses Everett McGill. Holly Hunter plays his estranged wife. Turturro and Nelson are flawless stumblebums. Also in the cast are John Goodman and Charles Durning.

Dan Tyminksi provides the singing voice for George Clooney on \"I Am A Man of Constant Sorrow\", the Soggy Bottom Boys song that serves as a template for the bluegrass laden soundtrack that also features Alison Krauss, Ralph Stanley, The Whites, John Hartford, The Cox Family and Gillian Welch. Toe tapping, knee slapping fun for the whole family. You'll be surprised with how relaxed and funny this movie is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My husband received DVD of OBWAT for Christmas and it was the best gift we received! We watch it every time we need to laugh and so far we have viewed it 12 times!The scenery in this movie is beautiful and the music is outstanding!We also purchased the soundtrack and we play it in our vehicles and at home when ever we need a pick me up and that too is daily!If anyone needs a suggestion for a good gift for movie lovers this movie is it!The characters are hilarious , charming , and their facial expressions are too funny to describe!I have always been a fan of George Clooney but now I am also a fan of Tim Blake Nelson(Delmar ) and John Turturro (Pete)and am now looking for them in other movies! You gotta see this movie!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film makes Clooney. All his films combined before this have all been based on the same character. This film he transcends his previous body of work and proves his capability as a top notch actor. The soundtrack defeats most one-handedly. The brothers have truly made a classic. One to own and watch repeatedly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first time I saw this movie, it didn't seem to go anywhere. When I watched it a second time though, it made a lot more sense. Give it a chance, watch it more than once, there are a lot of key elements that shape the story that could be missed the first and even second time watching it. The Cohen brothers brilliantly weave actual happenings of the early 20th century into this story to make a believable setting and storyline. The combination of Clooney's leading role blends well with Turturro and Nelson's supporting acts. John Goodman's appearance in the movie is hilarious. The soundtrack is great as well. This movie has become a household favorite for my family. 10\/10, for sure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"About the discussion on the South, the rednecks and the hillbillies... Well, I am from the South: Argentina, near the South Pole to be exact. Is this southern enough? Seriously, some stories are universal. We have never been to Greece, nor lived the classic period of Homer, but he speaks to us today. So does Shakespeare and Dante. And stories from far unknown places also reach us, when told with sensibility, intelligence, humor, just like \"O Brother\". Besides, we all (the rest of the world) have our own hillbillies too! And our own depression era (ever heard of Argentina during year 2001?), our politicians and racism, our gentle souls just like Delmar and Tommy... I simply loved this movie, folks. Despite the subtitles, despite being on the other side of the world. (And please forgive my errors in English, I tried my best)

PS: I believe nobody quoted this favorite phrase: when Delmar asks George Nelson what does he do for a living, while handling him the machine gun...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was great! I saw this when it came out in the theaters so I do not remember all the details. I remember it being based on Homer's tale on Odysseus. Names places and events are changed but you can still see the resemblance to the tale.

I found it funny how they would get themselves into trouble and how they would get themselves out of it. I really enjoyed this version of modernized old tales much better than the Romeo and Juliet with Clair Danes.

I will agree that in some parts of the tale it does get a little to silly at times but all in all it is a great adventure with some big name actors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I originally saw this several years ago while I was sitting on the couch and got stuck watching it on HBO. With the remote out of my reach I decided to go with it and was awaiting a miserable movie that I had been avoiding for a year. So it started off and I wasn't very optimistic about it, but after about ten minutes I found myself laughing. The complete opposite as I was expecting. The comedy was smart, the acting pretty good considering, the cast worked very well together, and the story (though slightly awkward and fake) was actually quite entertaining.

Three convict brothers manage to escape their sentence and eventually go in search of their fortune. The movie is set in the 1930's. So along the way, they encounter a number of funny and interesting charatcers. All have a different story or achievement they are striving for. Really the majority of the movie may seem random. Some may say it was pointless and boring, but if you look for the smart comedy (and occasionally stupid) that is integrated into the movie, I'm sure you'll enjoy this one.

I liked the performances given by George Clooney, John Turturro, and Tim Blake Nelson. All of them did very well in their roles, an they worked great together. But to finish this off, \"O Brother, Where Art Thou?\" is a smart, funny, and a movie adventure that I wouldn't let pass up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was truly and wonderfully surprised at \"O' Brother, Where Art Thou?\" The video store was out of all the movies I was planning on renting, so then I came across this. I came home and as I watched I became engrossed and found myself laughing out loud. The Coen's have made a magnificiant film again. But I think the first time you watch this movie, you get to know the characters. The second time, now that you know them, you laugh sooo hard it could hurt you. I strongly would reccomend ANYONE seeing this because if you are not, you are truly missing a film gem for the ages. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"They loved him up and turned him into a horny toad! God, that gets to me every time.

This is a great movie. Memorable lines, from \"Thank God your momma died given birth; she'da seen ya she'da died of shame\" to \"I don't understand, Big Dan.\" Great scenes, from the opening train scene (laughed so hard I cried) to the bluegrass.

Watch it. It's good, it's great, it's funny, and it's based on a famous story. Worth your while, believe me. Don't watch this if you have a weak bladder, for you will definitely wet your pants laughing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This a fantastic movie of three prisoners who become famous. One of the actors is george clooney and I'm not a fan but this roll is not bad. Another good thing about the movie is the soundtrack (The man of constant sorrow). I recommand this movie to everybody. Greetings Bart","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great movie, great actors, great soundtrack! I loved it! Settings are perfect, dialogues, situations, storyline... all together mixed to give this masterpiece! Clooney and Turturro are magnificent and the Soggy Bottom Boys are simply charming and contagious with their music! :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen just about all of the Coen brothers' films now, and I have to say this is one of their better films. I wouldn't dare say it's better than \"The Big Lebowski\", but it was very good in it's own right.

I thought the story was very interesting and hilarious at times. I loved all the characters, especially Tim Blake Nelson (Delmar) and John Turturro's (Pete).

There really isn't anything bad I can say about this movie, but this movie isn't for everyone. It might be safe to say that if you liked the other Coen brothers' films, then you'll hopefully like this one too. And if you liked what you saw in the trailer, I think you'll like the film, but don't hold me to it.

Anyhow, I hope that you like(d) the film as much as I do. Thanks for reading,

-Chris","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Coen's strike again. I had no presuppositions going in and I was amazed at the bizarre telling of a good-bad guy story. Although Clooney is easily replaceable in this, his cornball style is welcome. Turturro and Nelson are dead ringers. And I loved \"I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow\" as performed by the \"Soggy Bottom Boys\". Catchy tune...

8 of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'O Brother, Where Art Thou' is a gleeful retelling of Homer's 'Odyssey', set in 1930s Mississippi and rampant with splendid quirkiness that is the trademark of the brothers Coen. Three hapless convicts make their escape to find treasure--and more than their share of adventure--in this delightful film. George Clooney is in fine, ingenuous form as the chatty, amiable leader of the trio; but the real acting kudos go to John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson as his goofy but lovable cohorts, dubbed the 'Soggy Bottom Boys' by Clooney's character after they receive baptism by full immersion in a river. The three cut a record under that homespun nom-de-plume for the cash, and unwittingly become overnight sensations with veritable 'rock star' status. The film is accompanied by enough music and songs to almost qualify it as a musical. And there are some incredible feats of film-making here: the scene at the KKK rally is a real doozy, and is so similar to the scene when Dorothy's friends rescue her from the witch's castle in 'The Wizard of Oz' that it almost amounts to cinematic plagiarism. And what an amazing work of plagiarism it is! Without giving away the ending, I must say the climax of the movie is one of the most breathtaking sequences put to film in recent memory (on a par with the spectacular finale of 'Magnolia', another one of my favorites). 'O Brother' is a must-see, a perfect 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has got to be the best movie I've seen. You definately have to watch it more than once to find all of the humor and twists. I'm no fan of George Clooney, but he shines here. The real performance comes from Tim Blake Nelson and John Turturro as Pete and Delmar. One of the few movies that I own.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing the 'oh so acclaimed' Fargo and thinking it was nothing more than average, I was wandering if it would be a good idea to rent another Coen 'masterpiece'. This time I was much less disappointed than I was with Fargo and I must say that most of the credit for that goes to the good jokes and the good acting of George Clooney. Well done Mr. Clooney, make more of these and less 'Perfect Stormish' movies. You can act and you showed it here.

7 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It started off weird, the middle was weird, and the ending was weird, but I really, really liked it. A modern day version of Homer's Odyessy but that is really irrelevant. Interesting story and casting. Clooney was great and I applaud him for taking on such an adverterous role - so unlike anything he has done or ever will do again. Lots of surprise stars - why isn't Holly Hunter in more. Do something different tonight and watch this really different and unexpected flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It takes a rare movie to get better each time you see it. O Brother does that and then some. The first time I saw it, I have to admit I had never seen anything like it. Then I wanted to see it again, and now I'm up to double digits with this great movie, the Coen brothers' finest movie they've ever done, with Fargo and Hudsucker Proxy coming in a tight second and third for me.

George Clooney gives the performance of his career playing Ulysses Everett McGee, a fast-talking know-it-all escaped convict who really doesn't know that much at all. Tim Blake Nelson and John Turturro are the perfect sidekicks for Clooney, particularly Nelson and his portrayal of Delmar, a loyal albeit uneducated fellow escapee. John Goodman is my favorite bit character as Big Dan, perfect. It reminds me of his part in Raising Arizona, he's just a perfect actor for this role. Coen brothers' favorites Holly Hunter and Charles Durning also provide memorable performances.

Joel and Ethan Coen are masters of their trade. It's not like they try to win Academy Awards every time they make a film, they just try and tell a story that they want to tell, and it's entertaining. It's a loose adaptation of the Odyssey, and I mean loose for all of you Homer fanatics. It's just great.

The most amazing part of this movie though is the coloring. I've watched how they got the dusty feel to the movie and I am still in awe just thinking about it. The coloring does become an important part of the movie. Great great movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was sooooooo good! It was hilarious! There are so many jokes that you can just watch the movie over and over and not get tired of it. John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson were awesome as Pete Hogwallop and Delmar! I love those guys! I love the adventures they went on, too. I definitely recommend this movie.

Also, the music in this movie is terrific! I love singing along with all of the songs!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't say I enjoyed this as much as \"The Big Lebowski\" or \"Raising Arizona,\" and felt a little slighted, but \"O Brother\" is an enjoyable film worthy of some good laughs and a taste of the Coens' brisk, twisted sense of creativity. The DVD edition contains the featurette, and I was interested to find out that the Coens are pretty simple in their directorial techniques. That surprised me! Of course, this movie is not the best example (and I'm only saying this in comparison) and it wasn't worthy of any Oscars (many feel it was robbed), but maybe it depends on the appeal.

Though I enjoyed the Coens' previous work, I've never been a fan of old westerns or \"The Dukes of Hazzard\" or any of that stuff they show daily on TNN. I guess that's why I didn't feel as enthusiastic about checking out this movie, seeing that it revolves around Southern folk. For all those from the South who are reading this, I don't mean to offend ANY of your people! I'm sure you guys feel the same way when you watch movies about urban areas like \"A Bronx Tale.\" When you live in the city all your life, it's hard to get accustomed to films of this nature. But all apologies aside, I found the characters fun and quirky. I think John Turturro nailed the accent perfectly, and seeing the way he talks in real life I find that amazing. Tim Blake Nelson was also good. Of course, George Clooney--who I assume is not the best at feigning accents, judging by his decision to chuck the idea of working with a dialogue coach and developing a New England accent for \"The Perfect Storm\"--naturally seems a little miscast and continually struggles with the accent. His performance was good, though. You can also spot Coen regulars like Holly Hunter (in a short but sweet role) and John Goodman (also on screen for a short time, but steals every minute of it).

Though I don't normally dig country music, I liked the title song \"A Man of Constant Sorrow.\" The DVD also contains the music video for that song.

Overall, I found the film entertaining and original, but it doesn't have that in-your-face quality that the Coens have shown to us in the past. It's a slighter effort, but a good one. I still suggest you check it out.

My score: 7 (out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It might be a stretch saying this as a die-hard Carlin fan, but the material, both written and as performed, in It's Bad for Ya is some of the best late-era material yet. At 70 Carlin bounces back from the level of despair (and some of the stumbles in the act itself) from Life is Worth Losing to a special that is firmly structured but loose and playful- or as much as the \"old f***\" can get- and is continuously, ceaselessly, funny. And funny as in reminiscent of what some of us had going on when watching Back in Town or 'Diseased' the first time. The material, even if sounding at times a tinge of the previously done (i.e. the whole bit on children in school and camp like the Children segment in Diseased), is always fresh and with such a sting of truth to everything that it scalds the mind while (here goes) tickling the funny bone.

Going from the topic of death (how long to wait to scratch off a name from the book? six weeks, unless if on the computer scheduler), the facets of communication, looking down from Heaven, spots of God (naturally), kids, and just troublesome gestures involving hats in religion and if people really have \"Rights\" make up the bulk of the special, centered around the premise that what's bad for you, plain and simple, is BS. Total, complete BS, which as we also learn (or if you've really learned it you're like the kid waiting at the street corner for a week following dropped off not-quite randomly by the parent) holds the country together. Carlin isn't necessarily angry though, even if disdain seems to spout out at most turns, even just to observe how horrifying children's teeth coming in look. It's skepticism tinged with the feeling that everything is NOT going to be \"fine\".

What it comes down to is this: Carlin is to dirty, witty, cautionary stand-up comedy what Yoda is to Jedis everywhere, which is a small spark of hope via crystal clear wisdom in a world where it's pretty damn hard to get any. At the least, we get classic GC - outrageous lines and bits from the man's 13th (or is it 14th) comedy special, including as far as an eyebrow-raising observation on people who play Mozart music during a birth!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's Bad for Ya really showcases more of George Carlin's talents. He really is still as sharp as a tack. It is a shame that we lost him this past year, but his comedy will forever live on. This stand-up special is literally one of the funniest I have ever heard a comedian perform. Even though he is making fun of small children, it just makes you laugh the way he says some of the stuff. It is true that Carlin can literally make something that seems unfunny and turn it into one of the funniest things you have ever and will ever hear. I really enjoyed this stand-up particularly from Carlin and recommend that those that liked this check out more of George Carlin's stand-up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mr. Carlin left our common forum in June of 2008, shortly after going to the hospital for pains in the chest (he had a history of heart trouble). The media, and comics everywhere covered the loss more than I or he would have EVER expected ... but, he was the Grandfather of observational comedy.

THIS recording was his last production and contains a large section dedicated to the topic of death and the prospects of life thereafter. Filming of the project occurred shortly after his seventieth birthday, which he was happy to have attained (observed?). I have followed Carlin's career from the days of fuzzy black and white television, and enjoyed his topical record albums.

It is a privilege for ANY Carlin fan to at least see (if not own a copy) of this particular show. He was still fast moving, and with great timing, even at 70! As he would say,,, he is NOT \"smiling down from Heaven on you\". If he's doing anything at all it's not taking harp lessons; perhaps he's looking up!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is unfortunately Carlin's last recorded HBO concert, from a series that lasted over 30 years. Though this may not be his \"best\" work, it is excellent, funny, and thought provoking. This recording is also a bit different from most of his other concerts that it is a bit lengthier than most of his other concerts.

Throughout his long, prolific, and influential career, Carlin has moved from the more observational humor and fart jokes, towards a more 'humanitarian' viewpoint of society and culture. His focus on the English Language and euphemisms increased throughout the years, and culminates in this performance. Though, I would argue that his audio book \"When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?\" best displays his vast wit with regards to language, euphemisms, and the breakdown of our values. It's Bad For Ya is quite indicative of his long transformation from a comedian to a writer.

If you are offended by foul language or the disparagement of the church, you will probably not like any of Carlin's stand up material. However, if you enjoy being mentally stimulated and can tolerate the language and blasphemy, you would probably greatly enjoy this concert.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My brother got me hooked on Carlin back in the 70s. I always loved his observational humor. That is, looking at every day things and finding the humor in it, like asking the question,\"Have you ever tried to throw away an old waste basket? You can't do it! They keep bringing back to you!\" And asking questions like why is the word kill more acceptable then the \"F\" word, while making prefect sense with the discussion.

However, during the 90s his stuff was less funny, and more angry. What he seemed to be doing was holding a mirror to society's face and say 'take a look!' At this point, his shows were less of a comedy show, and more of a gripe session. But in all fairness he always made a tremendous amount of sense. He really made you think.

Here was Carlin old and new. He starts out about the fun one could have by getting old, and later slamming the the state of the world. Again making perfect sense.

This was his best since \"Jammin' in New York\", and as it turns out his last.

I think what 'The Shootist' was to John Wayne, or 'A Prairie Home Companion' to Robert Altman, 'It's Bad For Ya' is to George Carlin. A fond farewell to a true great icon. Love him, or hate him, I think he will be remembered.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those of you who like stand-up comedians you must have heard about George Carlin. He is really one of the best comedians alive so you must know him.

But he died already, God rest him in peace. Or Hell. He didn't believe too much in religion so he might as well chose Hell to live eternity. HAHA, just joking, don't take it serious!

It's bad for ya!, it's one of the latest works of George Carlin, before his death--

believe me, one of his best works, a must for any fan and an almost best-of of all George Carlin's jokes. It's not a best-of... but it's really amusing.

It has less political and religious jokes. It's only to have a great time!

Editing is very good. It's not a concert, so, it shouldn't have quick changing of shots... the slow fading to other shot was well done. Fading is the best option in terms of editing!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"George Carlin is probably my favorite comedian. I have seen so many of his specials and even had the opportunity to see him perform live. He had a certain cynicism that always appealed to me. His last 2 specials (Life is Worth Losing especially and Complaints and Grievances) have lacked a certain spirit and content. George appeared overweight, old and tired (not to mention coming out of rehab). \"I SAID NOT TO MENTION IT\"! Anyway. Life is Worth Losing was especially tragic as he was overweight, disgruntled, coming off of rehab (there we go again...) and extremely unfunny. If there was a way to feel sorry for a comedian without heckling him off stage, George achieved it with Life is Worth Losing. It is as if the New Millennium and Post 9\/11 America was trampling George's spirit. The bs had become too large to manage.

The comeback is partially successful with It's Bad for Ya! This special is the transmutation completed. George is no longer trying to rekindle his glory days. He is in full acceptance of his age, being old and dealing with the looming prospects of death. He has accepted being a crusty old SOB and is relishing in it. This is better than his previous specials, yet far from Jammin' in New York. It is a little tragic. His observations are not cutting edge anymore and seem more Andy Rooney than Lenny Bruce. George isn't George anymore. He is no longer criticizing us but is the man in the high castle pointing out how things were and how dissimilar modern life is.

This is an improvement over the previous two specials, but George does not, as of yet, recoup his old glory (if ever). He has been reduced from critical social and political stinging commentary to mostly personal peeves. When he goes political, he still has something to say. It is heavily derived (especially if you have seen any of his previous work), but it still works somehow, as opposed to his random rantings which lack a certain relevance outside of the baby boom generation. The last 25 minutes is the best this special has to offer.

For now I will worship the Sun and pray to Joe Pesci that George can recreate himself as a cutting edge septuagenarian. It's a 50\/50 chance. Life seems to have become more tedious for George and his \"art\" is now his life. This is a step in the right direction from his previous 2 specials, but is far from his old self. Where does he go from here? He may never recoup but maybe he can further metamorphosing\/refine this new ornery old man routine. Heres to hoping for 7 more words you can't say on TV or at least a windmill he can handle.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Much reviled when it first appeared, (inspiring the famous review 'Me No Leica'), this precursor of \"Cabaret\" can now be looked at in comparison and it's not half bad. It's certainly no classic but it has its own wayward charm, (the film version of \"Cabaret\" follows this plot whereas the stage version changed the plot somewhat). One should, of course, resist the temptation to snicker when Laurence Harvey's Christopher Isherwood, (it keeps the original author's real name; God Knows what Isherwood thought of it), describes himself as 'a confirmed bachelor' and while Harvey is an utterly inadequate 'hero', (he's virtually asexual), and Shelly Winters woefully miscast as Fraulien Landauer, (the part Marisa Berenson played in \"Cabaret\"), Julie Harris is a perfectly marvellous Sally, (it's a lovely piece of comic acting), and Anton Diffring is first-rate as Fritz, the German-Jew in love with Shelly's character. Of course, if \"Cabaret\" had never come along you might ask yourself would this ever have seen the light of day again. That it has been revived may not quite be cause for celebration but it's perfectly acceptable all the same.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have just seen this delightful classic again after many years, the next to last film directed by Henry Cornelius, who died three years later at the age of only 45 (the same age at which the film's male star Larry Harvey was also to die in 1973). Three future directors were in the crew: Jack Clayton (Associate Producer), Guy Green (cinematographer), and Clive Donner (editor). This film is based upon the autobiographical story 'Goodbye to Berlin' by the well-known British author Christopher Isherwood, which was first turned into a play by John van Druten, then made into this film, then turned into a musical, 'Cabaret', and finally filmed as 'Cabaret', which brought the amazing Liza Minelli to world attention, with her voice which can shatter a glass at the distance of a mile. Isherwood appears as a character in the film under his own name. He was gay, but in those days that was illegal and could land him in prison, so he disguises his proclivities under the description of being what he calls 'a confirmed bachelor'. This is the key to his Platonic relationship with the wildly eccentric, wacky, promiscuous, ever-cheerful and thoroughly unique character whom he calls Sally Bowles. The portrait of Sally Bowles in this film is a tour-de-force by the young Julie Harris, who sweeps every scene into a magical and captivating web of sparkling personal charm. What a vehicle for an actress with plenty of charm of her own! It is one of the great cinematic performances of the 1950s. Isherwood is played to perfection by the young Lawrence Harvey, in a finely-judged performance which never allows the comedy to go over the edge, and even the moments of farce bordering on slapstick remain somehow 'almost believable'. Larry is so funny at portraying a wimpish hypochondriac. What an irony, considering the total lack of hypochondria shown by his bravery and stoicism in the last year of his life as he died from terminal stomach cancer and behaved with such dignity and lack of complaint. I knew him well in the last three years or so, and he was a generous, warm, and modest person. He adored his little girl Domino, now alas also tragically dead.This film was his finest early performance, to be followed by his spectacular work in 'Room at the Top' (1959), 'Summer and Smoke' (1961) and 'The Manchurian Candidate' (1962). Larry was often undervalued in his lifetime because he was too handsome, was often cast as a cad, and glamour boys are not always accepted as good actors, but many of the finest actresses played opposite him, and they were in no doubt of his abilities, and he was a strong lead in many of the most important films of his time. If he had lived beyond middle age, he would have gone from strength to strength and become a 'grand old man' of the screen. Sitting in his house in Hampstead one day, he gave me a glass of his usual white wine from a huge barrel which he had brought from some foreign cellar. I said he always gave me such delicious wine, what was it? He proudly answered that it was a Sancerre which he had chosen himself at the vineyard in France and had shipped over specially. He then added with extreme wistfulness: 'You know, I've been waiting for four years for someone to comment on it and ask me what it is, and you are the first person who has ever done so.' What mattered to him was to be recognised for having taste in wine,and his more glamorous friends had denied him that satisfaction. In this film, Anton Diffring gives a touching early performance as an earnest young man (later he was to have to play Nazi officers far too much, poor fellow), and the young Shelley Winters plays a rich German Jewish girl, in her usual noisy but effective manner, but it was not too difficult, as she was a noisy Jewish girl herself anyway. This film has such an air of joie de vivre about it, that it is pure delight.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This British film version of the stage play I AM A CAMERA is based on Christopher Isherwood's \"Berlin Stories.\" This is the source material for the famous musical CABARET.

Julie Harris, a major stage actress of her day, reprises her 1951 Tony Award winning role as Sally Bowles. She's a far cry from the Liza Minnelli character but the basic \"Sally\" is all here despite the various film codes that would have blocked this story from being filmed in Hollywood. Harris is perhaps stagy but she's also quite good as the madcap and maddening Sally. Her singing number is obviously dubbed (by Marlene Dietrich no less) although Harris apparently sings for herself in other moments.

Laurence Harvey (with the very ugly hair) plays Isherwood with zero charm and can't even make the character interesting. Shelley Winters does little with the role of Natalia (Marian Winters won a supporting Tony for the play), and Anton Diffring is OK as Fritz. Ron Randell plays the caddish Clive but seems a tad loud. Lee Seidl is funny as the landlady.

Yet despite the overall staginess and cheap look, Harris takes center stage and she is amazing. This film was released the same year as EAST OF EDEN in which Harris gives a glowing performance as Abra. Comparing the two performances gives a good look at the talent Miss Harris possesses. These two characters couldn't be more unalike. Harris' Sally preens and prances about and growls out a very lascivious laugh. She also acts circles around the boring Harvey.

Without the music and with a familiar storyline, many viewers may find little here to recommend this film, but it's a great chance to see the great Julie Harris repeating what was probably a very shocking role in 1951.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Turning Isherwood's somewhat dark and utterly brilliant novel into light comedic romp could easily have been a recipe for disaster, but somewhow it wasn't . The story moves at a zanily rapid pace and the black and white imagery is gorgeous, as are Harvey and Harris as they ham their way through a wacky Weimar Berlin. Fun!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, this movie was just hilarious and the acting was top notch from the whole cast. Except Shelley Winters German accent wasn't that great but then that doesn't matter as she is hardly in the film. So if you're a fan of hers beware! The two main stars of this film are Laurence Harvey and Julie Harris. Now before this film, I'd only see Miss Harris in East of Eden with James Dean and I own an audio tape of The Glass Menagerie that she did on stage with Monty Clift and Jessica Tandy, so I wasn't sure how she'd be in this role and BOY, did she impress me. How hammy was she? I love ham! ;-) Mr. Harvey, he tickled my fancy! I am now a full time Laurence Harvey fan! That hair!!! *cackles* OMG! It's almost like Burt Lancasters, that crazy messy look, it doesn't get better than that. He is young and so innocent in this film. SEE IT NOW! It's definitely in my top ten! :) I am SO glad I found a copy that is all mine! Unfortunately this movie is out of print and very hard to find on video. :(

Btw, watch out for the hospital hotel room scene!!!!! It's one of the best parts! Or when Mr. Harvey has convinced himself he's ill and he's trying to get his knee to kick, you know how Doctors do with that little rubber hammer ;-) Well he does it himself and his leg kicks and it kicks the table *squeals* Check out the look on his face, so innocent!!!! I can't describe it but to all those people who say he couldn't act very well and other cockamamie comments, see this film and you will see what a GREAT actor he really was. You'll be bowled over! If you aren't, then I'm afraid there is nothing I can do for you, you're hopeless. ;-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Some Spoilers) Early 1930's educational movie about the horrors of contracting a social disease and the consequences that come along with it: blindness madness loss of ones abilities to function as well as infecting other people with it, even one's unborn children, and finally death. \"Damaged Lives\" is far ahead of it's times in educating it's viewers about the dangers Venereal Deasise. viewed now over 70 years after it's release back in 1933 is as good, if not better, then the many films about that subject made back in the 1940's 1950's and even 1960's.

Donald Bradley, Lyman Williams, is a top executive of a major shipping company who's been going study with his girlfriend Joan, Diane Sinclair, for some time. both are finally planing to get married and raise a family. Out at a party one evening Donald meets Elsie Cooper, Charlotte Merriam, and together they have one drink too many and before you know it end up spending the night together in Elsie's home.

Thinking nothing of his one night stand with Elsie Donald later marries his long time love Joan and they both plan to have a child, or so they thought. At the office Donald get a panicked call from Elsie telling him to come over to her place right away about something very important. Rushing over Donald finds out, to his horror, that Elsie has a sexual infection that she got from her boyfriend Nat, Harry Myers, and that she may have given it to Donald, and he in turn may have infected his wife Joan. Telling Elsie that she's wrong about him being infected and that she should seek medical attention Elsie shoots herself as Donald is just about to leave.

Getting over Elsie's tragic death Donald gets another surprise later when his doctor Dr. Bill Hill, Jason Robards Sr, comes over to his office telling him to immediately come with him to the hospital to talk to Infectious Disease Specialist Dr. Vincent Leonard, Murray Kinnell, about his wife Joan who's just been admitted there. The terrible truth about Donald and his wife Joan hits him like a bolt out of the blue and leaves him speechless, just like it did Joan earlier. Both have been infected and the infection is the dreaded and unspeakable,back in the 1930's, infection called Venereal Disease.

Told by Dr. Leonard that it would take some two years of treatment for both Donald and Joan to be completely cured it leaves Joan in a state of dangerous suicidal thoughts. Later in the film Joan, feeling that she has nothing to live for, closes all the windows in her and Donald's apartment and turns on the gas stove, full blast, in order to kill herself and Donald who was asleep at the time.

Honest film about the ravages of Venereal Disease and the damage that it does to those who are infected by it, both psychically as well as mentally, and how it could be cured if given immediate medical care instead of hiding it from one's doctor and keeping it hidden, for fear of shame and embarrassment, until it's too late.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I consider this a breathtaking but deceptive film because it seems so simple and straightforward: a Vietnam survivor tells his harrowing tale and some of the story is reenacted on location. Reviewers sometimes even claim that Herzog's presence in the film is minimal, but how wrong they are. We know that all documentaries are \"mediated\" to some extent and this one has Herzog's subtle hand all over it, most notably in the stunning music, the unbelievably expert selection of archival footage, and the management of cascading images. The evocative power of this film is astounding, starting with its title, the opening title card from the book of \"Revelation,\" and the initial voice-over. This is a movie that one can watch repeatedly with increasing wonder, not a simple commodity that is gulped down with one's favorite beverage on the way to the evening news. This is one of those movies that can resonate with you for a lifetime.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is excellent! Fear of watching documentary movies? Cancel your shrink and watch little Dieter's story. You won't believe how captivating this fine piece of film making is until you have experienced it. I'm eager to say that it even out goes almost any Vietnam war movie, including Apocalypse Now. It's a real story, it's a personal story, a story about the love for flying, the dream of being a pilot and the nightmare of being shot down above enemy's territory. All is shot in a \"return to...\" style - at location, Herzog asking the questions, Dieter answering them in a memorable German-English accent, and with fine remembrance pointing out what happened where about 25 years before. There is this part that I told friends over and over again: bailed out from his US Navy plane, Dieter becomes a POW of the Vietcong. Blindfolded for the greater part of the days, he is being dragged through the Southeast Asian jungle for miles and miles - on bare feet. Tortured, insulted, disorientated, hungered and covered with infectuous wounds, they arrive in a small, friendly village to spend the night. The next morning, after walking for several hours, Dieter discovers someone stole his wedding ring from his finger. That is it. He can take no more. He starts to cry, as a result of complete exhaustion. The Vietcong men react surprised. Dieter manages to explain what happened. Immediately, the group returns to the village and starts searching for the person that stole the ring. They find the man, immediately chop of his finger and return the ring to Dieter. - The movie is full of these mind boggling and surprising situations. The immense cultural differences, the clash of East and West, the fear of the unknown (i.e. all that stands for America on the one hand, the Asian jungle and his secrets on the other) can be sensed the entire movie. Back problems? That's because you sat at the edge of your seat for two hours and didn't notice.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Little Dieter Needs to Fly was my first film during the 1999 edition of the G\u00f6teborg Filmfestival. As I was extremely tired that evening, I was hesitant to see it, but the raving overall score of 9 here at IMDB made me go there.

It was 80 minutes of pure life-force! Experiencing Dieter Denglers life through his own telling was enchanting.

SEE IT! And if possible... see it at a cinema!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the opportunity to see this last evening at a local film festival. Herzog introduced the film and did an hour long Q&A afterward.

This is a brilliantly done \"documentary\"; Herzog explained afterward that he does not consider his films to be true documentary since facts sometimes camouflage the truth. Instead he scripts some scenes and ad-libs some to introduce a new element that may have been missed if he followed the original story outline.

Little Dieter, unlike Timothy Treadwell, is a real person that you fall in love with; you cheer for him, you feel the anguish that he feels. You admire the sense of humor and joy for life that he exhibited here 30 years after he was taken into captivity by the Viet Cong. You are disappointed to hear afterward that Dieter passed on not too long ago.

As in most Herzog films, the imagery is breathtakingly beautiful with a wonderful choice of background music. Especially a scene of battle taken from archives of the Viet Nam war but fitting the story line of Dieter.

The core of the film has Dieter return to the hellish jungle where he was a POW and he re-enacts his journey with some locals. Harrowing for us to watch, I can't imagine what he felt as he was bound again.

One of the better films to depict and discuss the nightmare of the Viet Nam war. It should serve as a lesson to us all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow.this is a touching story! First i saw 'Rescue Dawn'.I didn't 'like' it. And now i have seen the person , Dieter Dengler , about whom this story is being told by Herzog.Very Impressing.Dieter is a driven human being who encountered the most opposite emotions in his live on this earth.what an extraordinary life this person has led. His tale about the capture by the Patet Lao\/Vietcong and thus his suffering is horrifying but what's most impressive is his incredible will to survive.How could he find the strenght ? In a haunting way , Dieter is telling us in full flowing sentences about his terrible ordeal during his captivity... he is a great storyteller and Herzog does him the justice this brave man deserves.

In my opinion.'Little Dieter needs to fly ' tells it all ! , leaving nothing to the imagination , thus making ' Rescue dawn ' a superfluous film. The horror doesn't get more real than in the words of Dieter Dengler himself.He totally succeeds in painting the picture.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We see at the beginning of Little Dieter Needs to Fly Dieter Dengler, the subject of the film, an obsessive-compulsive. Or at least that's what he seems to be by way of constantly opening\/closing doors and with his large stock-pile of food in the cellar. In a way director Werner Herzog sets up a central question, in a manner of speaking, to why Dieter is like this. Well, in fact, he's not necessarily obsessive-compulsive as he is just, well, prepared. And why shouldn't he be after the life he's lived? Aside from the juiciest, most dark and exhilarating and frightening and just downright haunting story of survival that's the core of the picture, the back-story to Dieter is fascinating too. Dieter's own childhood, for example, was already a slog from the start, being in post-war Germnay, poor in a family without much food or prospects, eating wallpaper for \"the blue in the walls\". But enter in a passion, an un-yielding desire (which, of course, is part of Herzog's bread & butter and love of man in his films), which is flying, and for Dieter there was nothing else but to fulfill this. What it ends up leading to, after becoming an American citizen, is more than he could've bargained for.

Dieter is one of Herzog's most compelling, quirky, and compassionately observed figures in his whole career, a man who's memory is scarred by brutal memories of his time being a Vietnam POW, though at the least it provides for some of the most compelling storytelling in any documentary of the last 20 years. Ironically, the storytelling comes through- unlike in The Wild Blue Yonder- mostly in lots and lots of exposition from Dieter on some of the most minute details of his time in the different prison camps (the torture tactics, the bugs, the brutal, wretched violence and threats like with the wedding ring tale), and leading into the most interesting and sad portions with his best friend Duane. They escaped the prisons together, but found that their journey to reach Cambodia would not be so easy. Now, through most of this, the talking does something that is enthralling, which is that as Dieter goes through his stories and occasionally does re-enactments (in fashion Herzog could only do, with Dieter already middle-aged being led in handcuffs et all through the jungle), one can picture all of this in the mind. It all becomes even more vivid to try and get these little details and the intensity of it all together into a form of reality. That Herzog keeps these portions simple, and knows when to hold Dieter back in his answers, makes him all the more a key figure of interest. He's not ever totally 'normal', but unlike a Timothy Treadwell, you wont think ever really about laughing at him either.

So, along with his hero (whether of war or not is hard to say, as Dieter disputes that claim as saying the ones who died were the real heroes, typical but perhaps quite true), Herzog stylizes his film with a mix of old stock footage when detailing Dieter's early life (the period footage of WW2 scenes and post German rubble is always a captivating sight, and with Herzog gets up a notch in his timing and assemblage with music), and in capturing the footage of Vietnam in aerial viewings of jungles and fields. Herzog is also very wise at not injecting politics much at all into the proceedings, there's no 'I was used by the Americans' or whatever thrown into the mix. There's even a sense that Dieter doesn't hold too much of a grudge with everything that happened to him, that it's just what happens in time of war (and, of course, he WAS dropping bombs on people from his plane). Now, through much of these harrowing- and even in the smaller bits involving what went on in prisons, bathrooms and the scraps of food it's always harrowing- luckily Herzog keeps a level of humor in check as well. One of my very favorite scenes in the film, where Herzog breaks away for a moment from Dieter, is when he shows a 'trainee' film used for American soldiers meant to show what should happen in case they get abandoned in the jungle alone...with all of the gear that they could possibly have including a knife, a flare gun, and a very fast helicopter to come around (and this is put to hilariously dead-pan voice-over work).

Yet even the moments where one laughs only brings to mind the moments of absurdity in a time of absolute crisis, and how one can't ever really imagine what it's like to be alone in a foreign territory surrounded by people who will do anything to keep said person as a form of collateral in war-time. Dieter, aside from knowing that flying and airplanes are the only way of life he would ever want to have (and Herzog ends the film on a wonderfully somber, elegiac note where he flies over a large field of airplanes), knows what it is to have to survive at all costs. But yet, as well, as in many of Herzog's protagonist driven films, there's the near unalterable spirit that will keep on enduring if one's strong enough, even through horrid moments (the fate of Dunae) and problems all the way up to the rescue by the helicopter (is he American, or a spy, they ask on the chopper). Dieter is such a man with a spirit, and he's given via Herzog a fantastic, tragic, creative, well-shot, albeit maybe too short, tribute to his life. And, of course, it pumps me up even more for the upcoming dramatization Rescue Dawn.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film stands as one of the most amazing examples of compelling and artful film-making I've every seen. Herzog seems to capture the almost transcendent tragedy and beauty of Dieter's story, as well as his endearing personal character. By the end of the film, I was left wishing that I'd had the opportunity to meet Dieter before his passing.

On a technical note, the cinematography is intimate and astoundingly beautiful. The narrative is intricately woven, with great awareness of the subject and his capacity for reliving and reenacting traumatic events. Few documentary directors have so strong an ability to so thoroughly invest the audience in the character. This film is a must see!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With documentary films, the question of realism always crops up. How much of the film is real and how much is manipulated by the film maker? In LITTLE DIETER NEEDS TO FLY, Herzog is far too absorbed in telling the story of a man telling his own story to even address the question of realism versus formalism. From the beginning, Herzog's role as storyteller is obvious. Luckily, he is a master storyteller. LITTLE DIETER is the finest, most engaging documentary I have ever seen. Dieter's story is enthralling, and Herzog's efforts at reenactment, putting Dieter through the paces of reliving his story on location while it is being filmed, are very effective. The story that Dieter tells is real, but Herzog is ever-present, wrenching absurdist commentary from the realism. This film is a must-see for any students of documentary film and\/or of Werner Herzog.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What attracts a man to military service? What prepares a man to survive brutal torture as a prisoner of war? What desperation leads to the planning and execution of an escape into the jungles of southeast Asia? How does he cope with the ghosts and memories he returns home with? Herzog tries to answer these questions in his documentary of Dieter Dengler, German emigre and U.S. Navy pilot shot down over Laos in 1966, who was taken prisoner, tortured and starved, but ultimately escaped to be haunted by the experience for the rest of his life. A powerful and personal first-hand account of the man, his life and experience recounted through the seemless integration of interviews, archival footage and new footage. You will never forget this story--or this man.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Werner Herzog again explores the psyche of a man. In \"Little Dieter...\", we meet an effervescent, brilliant man who survived the war in Bavaria seeing starvation and strange sights, moved to the U.S. and fulfilled his dream of being a flier. War, food, death, survival, hoarding, planes, heads coming off... how one American is born. Herzog again sees madness as plane of existence and the surreal blends with the poignant as Herzog himself narratives this psychic travelogue of a German becoming an American who flies prop planes in a late 20th century war where the culmination of technology, pilgrimage and eating out of garbage cans with spoons is melded with constant optimism into a man redefined into American. As always with Herzog we are faced with florid madness, brilliance and what is man in the face of his own excesses, societal and personal. We laugh and cringe and are amazed at this man. Where else for this man but America?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although perhaps not as entertaining as some of Herzog's work, Little Dieter is another fine film by one of the world's greatest film artists. Departing from Herzog's usual themes, Little Dieter is a fascinating and uplifting character study about a brave man and his efforts to go on living after a life-alteringly traumatic experience.

Dieter Dengler wanted to fly from a very young age, and the Viet Nam war gave him that opportunity, but instead of spending the war soaring in a cockpit, he spent most of it grounded as a POW. Dieter tells most of his story eloquently and passionately, with occasional help from Herzog. Herzog does very little voice over this time, but contributes a lot of subtly powerful soundscaping and visuals - which should be no surprise to those familiar with him.

Dengler is a fascinating and extremely likable person. As human and as alive as they come, I found the story of his life and his incorrigibly upbeat personality to be inspiring. Thanks to Herzog for (re)introducing him to us.

The scale of the film is not as sprawling, and the drama is not as fierce as many of the early films that made Herzog a force to be reckoned with. Nevertheless, I strongly recommend this to his fans and to those who enjoy documentaries. It's a very interesting and well executed film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The questions and answers of the human spirit are all here in this masterfully crafted historical documentary. The shear beauty and horror of one mans walk through life, are revealed in totality. Dieter and Herzog are combined and connected through a mental maze that has been transformed into a single straight hallway which the walls have been plastered with images created by one mans characterization of himself by the vibrations of his own vocal chords. This film, for about 80 minutes, have discovered a new dimension of storytelling. What do I call this apparently new sense. Only God knows, after all, isn't a MIRACLE something that God does for us, but chooses to remain ANONYMOUS?

This is a requirement to see. If you like to experience the lovely horror of war, this documentary will cleanse your soul to the marrow.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Warning: Herzog is a filmaker, and as such tends to be a bit overly dramatic. So obsessions about closing doors may or may not be a real part of the character's life, but a filmaker's dramatic embellishment - or so both agreed at the premiere in San Francisco. But Herzog's usual fascination with character, dreams and perseverance are well suited by this story first published in Soldier of Fortune, and now a full length autobiographical book. (The Soldier of Fortune comment brought loud boos from the politically correct SF audience, and both filmaker and main character had to ensure the audience who had just seen the film, that SOF's interest was misplaced - so warning, this is not Rambo, just survival.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best thing -- and that's pretty good -- about The Black Castle is that it's a black-and- white Forties' Gothic grabber featuring a murderous mad count which was somehow made in 1952. The star ostensibly is the British actor Richard Greene, a capable leading man who reminds me of an earlier version of Roger Moore. The villain is a mad count played by Stephen McNally, who does a credible job except when he's called on to laugh maniacally. Skulking around in the shadows is a long-gowned Boris Karloff in a decidedly secondary role of an aged doctor who may or may not be the salvation of our hero.

It's the middle of the 18th Century in Austria and Sir Ronald Burton (Greene) is determined to find out what happened to two close friends. They disappeared in the vicinity of the castle belonging to Count Karl von Bruno (McNally), deep in the Black Forest. It seems that Sir Ronald and his friends had been instrumental in defeating a brutal plan of von Bruno's in Africa three years previously involving slavery and ivory. The Count was left not only with failure, but with a scar on his face and a black patch he now wears to cover a ruined eye. von Bruno vowed revenge, and it seems he might have been partially successful. So under a false name, Sir Ronald arranges for a hunting invitation from the Count, and off we go by carriage through a dark journey of storm and howling wolves to the Count's castle. It's a hulking mass of stone turrets and corridors, shadowy stairways, huge fireplaces...and creepy passages that lead to dank dungeon cells, a torture chamber and a great pit filled with snapping, thrashing crocodiles. It also is filled by the Count's lovely, blond, sensitive wife, Elga (Paula Corday, who sometimes is billed as Rita Corday), and by the Count's two close friends played by those two actors we know from the Fifties who specialized in being slime in costume, John Hoyt and Michael Ansara. There is a dangerous leopard hunt, forbidden kisses, knuckling servants, wooden signs creaking and swaying in the cold wind and poison in a cup. Not the least, Doctor Meissen (Karloff) has a special vial filled with a drug which will so slow the bodily functions that death will seem to have occurred. The risk is that...well, when the person awakes ten hours later, he'd better hope he's not already nailed shut in his coffin.

Surprisingly, for all the clich\u00e9s, The Black Castle keeps moving merrily along. The movie takes itself seriously, but it's competently enough made to keep our interest, even if we wind up sitting back with a smile while we watch. It's even reassuring in a way to realize there are strong echoes of The Most Dangerous Game. When Burton realizes just how crazy von Bruno is, he becomes even more determined to bring von Bruno to accounts. And, naturally, he has fallen for Elga. von Bruno, crazed by vengeance yet crafty and capable, is a man who loves the hunt and is engorged by the kill. Hollywood's second creative rule has always been, \"If you're going to steal, steal from the best.\" It's first creative rule, of course, is \"If you're going to steal, steal from the best and then turn it into liverwurst.\" The Black Castle is a nice bite of Austrian braunschweiger.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the ultimate, and I mean the ULTIMATE, ADVENTURE CLASSIC! The plot is good versus evil. There have always been an abundance of films that depict gray areas, and not enough on the basic good against evil to account for the real cases of good against evil in the real world. Only recently have film makers tried to even the odds. In real life well over half of situations are black and white, but only a fraction of movies make it seem that way. This movie is the best example of a back and white look. It is best seen in black and white. The hero is in the worst situation. He is in the territory of a man who wants to murder him, and among various enemies. The movie gives the feel that he is hopelessly outnumbered, and can't count on help. His enemy (The count), has numerous resources. The count's wife was forced into marriage with him, and she knows from his past history that sooner or later he will kill her as he does all his wives. She and the hero become allies and fall in love in away that could win over anyone watching (unless that person just wants to be a contrary brat). Anyone who helps them is killed. They have no escape. The situation is hopeless. So will they survive in the end? You won't guess unless you've read spoilers. The movie also has a lot of great atmosphere, adventure, and intrigue, along with Lon Chaney as a bad guy, and Boris Karloff in his best role ever, as a decent guy. Usually cast as a bad guy, Karloff was at his best when presented with more complex roles such as this one. Chaney was rarely given a complex role, although he strutted his stuff in a few movies such as \"Of Mice and Men.\" This is little more than a cameo for him. Still, the tension never stops. There is suspense and danger throughout. Perfectly written, perfectly cast, and perfectly directed. This is what a movie should be-pure escape, pure adventure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw Lon Chaney, Jr. and Boris Karloff in the cast, I was expecting to find a typically \"schlocky\" 1950's style horror movie. The opening scene (a graveyard with a wolf howling in the background) seemed to confirm this. Once I began watching it, though, what I discovered was a nifty little mystery about an Englishman (Richard Green) seeking to discover what had happened to two of his friends who had disappeared in the Black Forest and, if necessary, to take revenge against the evil Count (Stephen McNally) who ruled the territory. Chaney, as the voiceless Gargon, had a rather limited role (one which reminded me of the Hunchback of Notre Dame, actually) while Karloff had a somewhat more substantial role as Dr. Meissen. In fact, Meissen was one of the more interesting characters in the movie, and it was difficult to know until the very end whether he would be established to be a good guy or a bad guy! The castle set was magnificent, and even the limited depiction of the Black Forest was real enough. It certainly didn't come across as low-budget, compared to other movies I've seen anyway. The only disappointment, I thought, was Rita Corday's performance as the Countess. She seemed somewhat dry and didn't seem to put much passion into the role.

That aside, I found that this movie held my attention throughout, and there was enough suspense about how this was all going to turn out to make it well worth the watching. Definitely recommended, with a 7\/10 rating.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Black Castle is one of those film's that has found its way into a Boris Karloff collection and is mistakenly expected to be an outright horror movie. Whilst some horror elements exist within Nathan Juran's movie, this really is a multi genre piece that's tightly produced and effectively portrayed. Joining Karloff, in what is a small but critical role, are Richard Greene, Stephen McNally, Lon Chaney Jr, Rita Corday, John Hoyt & Michael Pate. It's produced, unsurprisingly, out of Universal International Pictures. The plot sees Greene's English gentleman travel to the castle home of the sinister Count von Bruno {McNally}. He's following an investigation into the disappearance of two friends, an investigation that is fraught with danger and surprise at every turn.

This has everything that fans of the old dark house\/castle sub-genre could wish for. Genuine good and bad guys, a fair maiden, dark corners for doing dark deeds, devilish traps, ticking clock finale and we even get a good old fashioned bit of swashbuckling into the bargain. The cast are all turning in effective performances, particularly Greene and the wonderfully sneering McNally. Whilst Jerry Sackheim's writing is lean and devoid of the pointless filler that has so often bogged down similar film's of this ilk. A very recommended film on proviso that Karloff fans understand it's not really a Karloff movie, and perhaps more importantly, that horror fans don't expect blood letting to be the order of the day. A fine atmospheric story with a sense of dread throughout, The Black Castle is a fine viewing experience. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A good x evil film with tastes of \"James Bond\", \"Romeo and Juliet\", and, maybe, even \"Star Wars\".

The evil count Von Bruno receives an English gentleman as a guest for a very dangerous hunt. Elga, the beautiful simple and well intentioned lady that was forced to marry the count provides the love triangle. The count missing eye points to a terrible past. The Englishman is not what the count thinks and is a terrible treat to him. There is also the terrible hunchback, crocodiles and even the side appearance of some torture instruments.

Boris Karlloff, here in a support role, makes an strong, but somewhat stiff, presence. The other actors (and direction) are the symbol of an era the strong representations of black and white movies. Since the beginning there is no doubt of who is the evil guy, who is the good one. Even traitors and stiffs can be identified somewhat easily.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There's no other word for it...Fox dumped this out, with NO marketing of any kind. Nobody in the country, other than those who have been looking forward to this film, know anything about it. All the red flags have flown. It has to be a mess, it can't be anywhere near as good as Office Space, right? Wrong. Though Office Space it ain't, this film definitely has satirical bite and wit. It's a misfire on certain levels, but who's to blame is left to mystery.

Based on what is currently showing in theatres, I can say IDIOCRACY is a good movie. It's funny, sometimes laugh-out-loud funny. It's effective, sometimes ingenious. What it isn't as far as I can tell, is finished. We will see something come of this film again, whether it's an extended cut or reshoots. Alone it can be hilarious. It's ballsy at times.

Leaving the theatre, looking around at the mall, I was surrounded by advertisements and billboards, commercialism and stupidity. It's not quite as damning a dystopia as 1984, but this movie paints an ugly future for our culture. And there doesn't seem to be much anybody can do about it. Anyway, go see this if you can and try to find out what happened that it was so specifically buried.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was quite a pleasant surprise. I had anticipated it for a long time, and was afraid going in that it couldn't possibly live up to my expectations.

It exceeded them.

I adored this movie.

Hilarious from start to finish (stay until after the end credits!), it is absolutely remarkable how a movie about dumb and annoying characters can be so intelligent, witty, and engaging.

With it's obvious matte paintings, the movie's future Earth recalls the Planet of the Apes series and other Sci-Fi movies of that era.

In fact, this movie is essentially Planet of the Apes, but with people who are the mental equivalent of apes.

It moves at a fairly brisk pace, and Luke Wilson carries the movie quite well, with a character that recalls the one he played in \"Bottle Rocket.\" (There's even a not-so-subtle nod to \"Bottle Rocket\" in an early scene).

Maya Rudoulph is also surprisingly good as a former \"painter\" who was frozen as well.

Despite all its strengths, \"Idiocracy\" has the distinct feel of a movie that was taken away from the director\/editor before it could be fine-tuned.

I cannot for the life of me understand why a movie this funny would just be dumped into a few theaters with no advanced screenings, no trailers, no marketing whatsoever.

It's as if the studio decided they were not going to spend any more on it and just walked away.

Or maybe they thought the movie had the makings of a cult classic, and the only way for it to become a true cult classic was to set it up to fail?

Whatever the case, it is a shame, because Mike Judge and this film in particular deserve better.

I predict this movie will have real legs on DVD, and word of mouth will propel it to the success it deserves.

Perhaps the Fox Executives saw themselves in the characters, were confused, and thought it was a documentary?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let me start by saying that if you're expecting subtle humour, you're in the wrong theatre. It's low-brow and heavy-hitting. But he's not out to tickle your funny bone. He's got the sledgehammer out and he's drawn a bead on the side of your head. But fear not. As movies go, this is a fairly gentle education. Oh, also, heavy on the swearing, but once again, Mike Judge, not Fred Rogers.

Was this movie called 'intelliocracy'? F*** no. The gem, the essence that is Mike Judge is that he has the ability to make people laugh at themselves. Beavis and Butthead was most popular with teen-aged boys, the very people at which it incessantly poked fun.

With that in mind, I don't think the humour in this movie is aimed at the super intelligent. Maybe you are all too smart to get it. But he's not aiming at you. He's aiming at your average Joe. And he's got a message: get your act together and for god's sake, study botany! It is a little disjointed and the narrator gets to be a little irritating after a while, but once again, this movie is meant for people who need a lot of narration ;-) It's funny. It has a message that it wants to make sure that we all understand.

I question the casting of Luke Wilson in the role of a man with a 100 IQ. Sometimes, he's not able to play down (what's he got, like, a 104?) to the level of his character. Slightly forced at times.

Kudos on Dax Shepard in this one. I remember seeing him in Zathura and thinking, \"This guys looks like an idiot.\" In this movie, he makes a great idiot. Maybe I'm psychic.

It took a while to warm up to Maya Rudolph, but I gave her a little leeway. After all, she did have to play straight man to an entire planet. But once she got a little screen time, she made a solid contribution.

Terry Crews played the same psychotic, aggressive character he's played many times before, but he makes a first-rate president none the less.

Another bonus is that the place was practically empty. Counting my girlfriend and I, there were literally six people in the theatre. We could've had a barbecue pit and a mariachi band. So, no annoying people talking, as appears to be the norm in the 'talking-to-the-tv' age.

All in all, a good premise and a competent delivery, given the intended goal. Lots of laughs sprinkled throughout.

What made this movie scary was the fact that when we walked out of the theatre, it was sort of like the movie was still playing. We saw a lot of idiocy in the people immediately around us, maybe made more apparent by the dose we got in the theatre....

They're all pods, all of them!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shame on Fox for dumping this movie. It was a total riot and I only hope that it will find a second life on DVD and cable.

This is a hilarious satire. It takes the \"What if\" situation to an extreme and it doesn't pull any punches (or kicks to the groin). It makes you think... what is to become of this empire once we've gotten totally to lazy and stupid? Everyone gets hit in this one esp. a number of major corporations, and even Fox News takes a punch(which is probably why the movie never had a proper release - other than the marketing department over thinking the campaign and not knowing how to market it \"so we'll just give up!\") Some may find the movie sophomoric, due to the groin kicking, and farting, but the movie is much more than that. You either get what Mike Judge is saying, or you don't. Most of the negative reviews I've read seem to come from people who just don't get it or are film snobs.

It'll probably play for one week in the selected markets so if you miss it, keep an eye out for the DVD, it'll be worth the rental and I will eventually have it in my collection.

Good Job Mike Judge, it's a shame that you got screwed, but you made me laugh out loud and I look forward to the next movie you do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not sure why there are no articles or posters or anything about this film because I just saw it and thought it was AWESOME. I guess it's not for everyone because it's basically Kafka's \"The Trial\" meets \"Beevis and Butt-Head\", which is a pretty tough combination to swallow. Still, I thought it was great. If you're going to see it because you want a sequel to Office Space you're probably going to be disappointed. But if you want to see one of the most brutal, acid-tongued, and hilariously honest looks at where our society is headed you're in for a treat. I just saw the 8pm show opening night in Los Angeles and there were only 12 people in the theater, which means the film will probably be gone in a week. That's really a shame because, in its own way, Idiocracy is one of the best satires to come along in quite a while. But then again it's basically making fun of the people who make up about 99% of the movie-going audience so I guess it's no wonder the studio panicked and tried to dump it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As social satire, Idiocracy is just as good as Office Space, but with a wider scope. To criticize this film as too puerile due to potty humor is to kind of miss the point, I think. There are certainly fart jokes etc., but they're not really intended to be funny to the audience - they exist to define the state of \"culture\" in the world of 2500 AD visited by Joe, as a background to the bizarre state of affairs in which he awakes. The real humor of the film lies in the many sight gags and attitudes present in this future society that are just a shade off of what we encounter in our daily lives, and which should serve as a warning. My personal favorite is the depiction of Fox News. The subtle brilliance in the film lies in the fact that it also digs at \"smart\" people, and average Joes like the protagonists. Note the times in the film when Joe and Rita almost subconsciously conform to the idiots around them, and you realize that Idiocracy is not created to pick on any group of people in particular, but on the culture of idiocy in general. I don't know what to say about the \"made for conspiracy theory\" behavior of Fox in releasing this film, but if it's not playing in your local theater, demand it. We all need to see this film, if not for the social commentary, at least for the fart jokes...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lot of things in this futuristic satire are more theoretically funny than actually funny (though it does have some laugh-out-loud moments) but a lot of that is because it seems to have been cut by the studio to better appeal to exactly the idiots it's mocking. Many situations aren't allowed to develop, there's obvious overdubbing of expository material, and worst of all a narrator explains EVERYTHING (most of which needs no explanation), probably because some preview audience didn't understand what was going on. In other words, a movie about dumbing down has been... you guessed it.

One hopes that a longer, better version of this comedy will eventually surface on DVD, and it will become the cult fave it deserves to be, but even in this mutilated and somewhat comic- spirit-diminished form it's one of the more memorable films of the year-- a screech of disgust against our culture and all the ways it's become trashified, stupidified and uglified in the name of appealing to the yahoos. I watched it right after Land of the Dead, George Romero's latest milking of the single idea that consumers = zombies, which is basically the same point Judge is making; yet where Romero's counterculture viewpoint (now zombies = underclass that needs to revolt against the rich) seems hopelessly out of date, Judge's take is fresh, dead-on and far more disturbing. Just listen to the yahoos in your movie audience whooping it up for President Camacho's State of the Union just like their counterparts on screen, and you'll know that we're all doomed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've never seen a movie get a worse release then this. And that's a shame, as this is the funniest film of the year! You would think an ad with the line \"From the director of \"Office Space\"\" would be enough to warrant a big release! But there are no ads, no posters, no website , I doubt the stars even knew it came out this weekend. What is 20th Century Fox thinking? Mike Judge's Sci-Fi comedy is set in 2505 but it could come true in about 10 years (if things continue as they are.) Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph get frozen in a top secret army experiment and wake up in a future full of consumer zombie inbred retards. The film reminds me of Woody Allen's \"Sleeper\" ,\"RoboCop\", \"Planet of the Apes\", \"Blade Runner\" and \"Network\" and the late great \"Futurama\". Try to see it before Fox burns all the prints!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Idiocracy\" is the latest film to come from Mike \"Office Space\" Judge, and it certainly follows a similar theme of that film in the fact that it is an observation of stupidity and how mediocrity can overcome adversity... relatively speaking. It is a story about Joe Bauer (Luke Wilson), who is, quite literally, the most average guy in existence. Joe, and a prostitute named Rita (Maya Rudolph), become the test subjects for a military project of a hibernation chamber. They were to remain suspended for only one year, but due to lack of oversight, Joe and Rita are forgotten about and accidentally wake up 500 years in the future.

Here's the scary part: This film explains, in a very realistic and plausible way, how the entire population of 2505 became absolutely retarded. With no natural predators, the evolution of the human species does not necessarily favor the quickest, smartest, and strongest people for progression of genes... just the people who breed the most. Unfortunately, those people happen to be welfare-sucking, trailer trash idiots who breed like rabbits. This abundant reproduction of the stupid people has caused an adverse effect on societal growth and now Joe and Rita are the two smartest human beings on the face of the planet. If it helps, imagine the entire population as just a hybrid of rednecks, jocks, cholos and hoochies. Seeing this nightmarish dystopia, Joe learns of and attempts to track down a time machine to see if he and Rita can get back to when they came from, and that's basically the whole plot.

But despite how one-dimensional I may make it sound, this movie is higher brow than you can fathom. Nuances are everywhere and anyone can see glimpses (warning signs, if you will) of modern day dumb-ciety permeating facets of everyday life and turning it into the train wreck on display in \"Idiocracy.\" The film has some truly awesome showcases of realistic retardedness put on a pedestal. I don't want to give anything away and ruin jokes for you, but let's just say that it is pretty thorough. I can see how some would say that it is just a lot of toilet humor, but it, odd as it may seem, has a purpose; to show how dumb and crass these people are.

This film, unfortunately, is destined to see the same fate as its predecessor, \"Office Space\"; no one will see it in theaters, but everyone will brag about discovering this awesome\/funny movie when it comes out on video. My only complaint for the film would be that the flow of the narrative sometimes gets broken so they can do a Hitchhiker's-Guide-to-the-Galaxy type exposition on how things got to be where they are, but it is a necessary evil and is implemented better here. Other than that, good characters, funny jokes, and better-than-average social commentary wrapped up in a funny bow.

Final Note: If seeing our youth becoming gang-banger wanna-be's, acting like redneck\/ ghetto trash and being proud of it... if you are educated and cultured in anyway and can see how our country is spiraling out of control into an abyss of stupidity, for god sakes, watch this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First, let me say that although I generally appreciate Mike Judge's work, I've been merely tepid in my response to Office Space, King of the Hill, and Beavis and Butthead. I generally prefer more intelligent comedy, and therein lies the irony with respect to Idiocracy.

In a future world where the embodiment of Beavis and Butthead's views, basest instincts, and intellectual capacities are the framework of a chaotic, messy, semi-Mad Max semi-Blade Runner society, where every trailer-trash guy's fantasy becomes reality, a man with even average intelligence is threatening and accused of talking gay, and the mob mentality takes over. And this world is also incredibly funny.

Yes, it's obvious that Carl's Jr., Starbucks, Costco and Fuddruckers executives will be horrified at the twisted values given their products in the year 2505.

There were some missed opportunities with the film, and the relationship between the time travelers - the other being an average intelligence woman who's worried about her boyfriend's (pimp's) retribution - could have been stronger; the chemistry is there. And there don't seem to be too many women in the future.

I did leave with a grin on my face, but the experience is a bit better than the memories. Thus, it's my kind of popcorn film, and it will be fun to revisit on video. Recommended! FYI stay through the credits for an extra scene.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is \"the\" stupid comedy of the year, and quite possibly the best thing from Mike Judge since \"Office Space\". If you are a Mike Judge fan, or enjoy shows like Futurama, then you are doing yourself a grave disservice by skipping over this little known, limited release. Although the DVD touts very few \"bonus features\", this film is certainly funny enough to make up for it's perceived \"lack of value\".

This movie is about an army grunt by the name of Joe Bowers (played by Luke Wilson) who is part of a top secret Army experiment designed to preserve Army personnel in peace time so that they can be thawed in war time to fight for our country. However, things take an interesting turn as the general in charge of the operation is busted in a prostitution ring and the experiment is all but forgotten. Bowers, and his sidekick Rita (played by Maya Rudolph) both find themselves awake in the year 2505, where through the course of natural selection, the population of America has grown increasingly stupid. Now Joe and Rita have to find their way to a time machine to get back to the year 2005 with the help of Frito (played by Dax Shepard).

What I really enjoyed about this movie was Mike Judge's comedic satire on the course of US History over the last 50 years, and how mankind progresses over the subsequent 500 years. This is most evidenced by the advertising in the movie, which has become a staple of the American culture. With shows like South Park in the mainstream media, it's easy to see how conclusions could be drawn that in the future, profanity has become a marketing tool. This is portrayed in the film humorously with subtle things such as \"Fudd-Ruckers\" changing their name to \"Butt-F###ers\", and a billboard which displays the advertisement \"If you don't smoke Tarryltons... F### You!\". I also cannot stop laughing at Carls Jr.'s role in this future, with their slogan \"F### you... I'm eating\", and their automated kiosks self-advertising their \"Extra Big-A## Tacos\". (with more molecules)! This film contained everything I go to the movies for. Excellent, sharp, witty comedy, as well as an engrossing plot make this DVD one for the ages. Be warned, however. If you are not a fan of Mike Judge, did not care for \"Beavis and Butthead\", or do not have a sense of humor, then this movie probably isn't a good match for you. Otherwise, I would say this is probably the funniest movie to come out of 2506... I mean 2006.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is a lot wrong with this film. I will not lie. I will say that most of the problems feel like they stem from a budget that was chopped out from underneath the flick, and some bad hack job editing.

This is not Office Space. Do not go in expecting Office Space levels of comedy. It is very funny though. It is a mess, but very funny at the same time. A funny mess of a film. In the way that Caddyshack is funny. A mess of unrelated funny scenes filled with some very annoying unfunny scenes.

It works as a whole though, and it certainly deserves a wide release. This is the best commentary on the Wal Mart\/ Starbucks\/ MTV nation you could hope for. The very fact that a film is exploring the idea that dumb people are breeding at an alarming rate while the intelligent people are not, is great in my book. Not very politically correct but worth at least some debate.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We just saw this movie in Austin Texas at the Alamo South Lamar yesterday afternoon. It had me laughing out loud many times! The scene about Albert Einstein's thoughts on humanity hit me over and over and I couldn't stop laughing. It's too bad it's not in more theaters, I know a lot of friends that are dieing to see this movie! \"Welcome to Costco, I love you.\" ... great work to all involved! Also, if you see it, make sure to stay until the end of the credits as well! I'm going to take my family to see it again this weekend for sure! If you're a fan of OFFICE SPACE and BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD then you have to go see this movie. It's a classic and no one knows that it's out! So if you're in the mood to see something funny this weekend, definitely check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most people are totally unaware that this movie exists. Fox, which paid Judge to make it, has kept it in the can for quite awhile and then spent nothing to promote it. I guess that made many people think it was one of the garbage movies being flushed in late summer. Well, I am here to tell you that this is a funny and rather frightening look at a future that is not that hard to believe. Basically, Judge puts forward the notion that the stupid are outbreeding the smart by a wide margin. Then these stupid are getting more stupid, by basically spending all of their time watching TV and having sex, which produces more stupid people. By 2500, a person of average intelligence today, will appear to be a genius, that talks \"all faggy.\" Seriously, is this really that hard to believe. Oh sure, this future is painfully funny and ridiculously stupid, but still plausible. Luke Wilson is great as the time traveling army guy, hopelessly trying to get back to a more comfortable time. Where this story will gain its cult status is with the numerous funny one-liners, like \"can we family style her\" and \"hey man, I'm 'bating here!\" This is a funny movie and a rather sharp social commentary on an American society that seems to be fatuated with self pleasure, comfort and stupidity, and I guarantee you that I will be buying this on DVD the first day it comes out and watching it over and over.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mike Judge's Idiocracy is an interesting film, and one that his fans will undoubtedly track down and see.

Before I start the review, I would preface it by saying that if you get a chance to see it, definitely do, as it IS worth watching, and isn't the easiest film in the world to track down.

Let's start with the premise - Luke Wilson is Private Joe Bauers, an Army librarian who is deemed to have absolutely no outstanding attributes or glaring flaws, making him totally average in every way. This, along with the fact that he has no living relatives, makes him a standout candidate for an experimental cryogenics procedure. Also frozen with Joe is a Prostitute named Rita who was pimped to the project by Upgrayedd, her abusive pimp. Unfortunately, a few days after they are frozen, the top secret project is abandoned, and they are forgotten about.

They wake up in 2505, and find that with the dumbing down of society following the trends of recent times, everyone on Earth is only slightly more intelligent than a chimp. The way that \"everyman\" Joe Bauers talks is seen as being \"faggy\", much as someone speaking like Shakespeare would ridiculed now, and a former professional wrestler is the President of the United States (actually, this one probably isn't that outrageous really). The best show on TV is called \"Ow! My Balls!\", which admittedly sounds pretty good, and not only is everything spelled wrong, but signs seem to have run out of space for the wording, leaving them to be bunched up at the end.

It's a funny premise for film, but this is the problem - Aside from the initial premise, not that much in the movie is truly funny. What I mean by that is that the ideas that come to mind from having read the premise of the film are probably about as funny as the film itself. Obviously, it's not terrible, but it probably could have been funnier.

There are some winners in the script, such as Starbucks now offering \"happy endings\", and people placing their blind faith in the universally misunderstood \"electrolytes\", but they are just too few and far between, so unless you are going to laugh hysterically every time one of the idiots of the future slurs out a slack-jawed, profanity laden sentence with little to no logic and\/or intelligence, then the laughs might be pretty well spaced.

It's unfair for everyone to be comparing it to Office Space, because it's a very different film, but as a film, regardless of what came before it, Idiocracy is a funny concept that will probably have you laughing a lot more in the opening 15-20 minutes than in the rest of the film.

I give it 5 out of 10 because it is enjoyable, but doesn't do enough to raise it above middle of the road.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You can read all kinds of references into the world of Idiocracy. A futuristic world populated by pampered, self-indulgent morons spoon-fed by the technology of a bygone era: this idea has its precedent in H.G. Wells' \"The Time Machine\" and Aldous Huxley's \"Brave New World\" amongst other satires.

Early in the film, a narrator explains the quick degradation of humanity over five hundred years, but does not fill in the gaps of where all the futuristic technology came from in the meanwhile. Most of the criticism of this very fun (and funny) film seems to surround this omission, and the resulting complaint that the world isn't \"realistic\". As if \"realism\" has ever been a necessary quality of satire. Is \"Brazil\" realistic? How about \"Futurama\" or \"Transmetropolitan\"? Hell, how about \"Gulliver's Travels\"? I thought not. \"Idiocracy\", while maybe not as pointed as the best of the genre, hits the same notes and generally does so successfully.

Besides, I didn't find the futuristic technology to be a problem. It is pretty easy to figure out that Mike Judge is satirizing the current trend toward automation and simple product interfaces, so that even total idiots can use them. As in \"Brave New World\", the society in the film seems to have reached a point of automated self-sufficiency at some point in the past (apparently created by the now-extinct 'smart people' in order to placate an increasingly stupid populace), leaving the remainder of humanity free to indulge all the worst, most selfish impulses they can come up with, and grow even stupider. The film just happens to take place during the last gasp of humanity, as everything begins to fall apart for good. It may still be \"unrealistic\", but if so, it's a remarkably well-presented brand of unrealism.

The stupid people take up most of the screen time, of course, but they're just the victims -- they don't know any better. Mike Judge saves his real hate for the intelligent people in power who are dead by the time the film begins, but who are very much alive right now, in the 21st century. People like scientists who chase \"hair growth and prolonged erections\" for no other reason than the possibility that they'll turn a profit on their snake-oil treatments. People like politicians who let corporations simply purchase the FDA and FCC. People like media executives and their yuppie stooges who promote stupidity -- who enable the destruction of all culture, morality and health to make a quick buck.

After all, who is really to blame, the Morlocks or the Eloi? The Paris Hiltons of the world, or the brilliant executives and advertisers that put her on TV and lowered our cultural standards enough to leave her there? This is all implicit in \"Idiocracy\", though. A line here, a hint there (witness the hilarious auto-doctor which literally does all the work in the health care system). It's one of the few aspects of the movie that's NOT pounded into the ground by the unnecessary narrator. It's just there for the viewer to pick up, or not, but it is one of the most interesting themes in a movie that's much smarter than any other comedy of the year.

Pity that so many people will leave the film thinking it's just an excuse to show rear ends farting and people being hit in the groin. Not that that stuff isn't funny too, and maybe it IS a little pandering. But in \"Idiocracy\", it's just not as simple as it seems.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is BRILLIANT.

I don't remember this movie even BEING in theaters, so thinking it was a \"straight to DVD\" I have fairly low expectations, even though I am a big fan of Mike Judge. It has some of the same kind of comic future satire as \"Brazil\" and \"Demolition Man\", but taken to the next level.

Then I saw the cast; Luke Wilson, Maya Rudolph and Dax Shepard, who were all brilliant in their roles.

Needless to say, this movie won me over in the first 5 minutes, where it shows above-average people having fewer children and the poorest, stupidest, trashiest people having lots of ignorant children, and how this is leading to a kind of reverse evolution. It takes that concept, and then shows where we are headed with this pollution of the gene pool.

Sadly, I don't think it will take the 500 years as depicted, but probably only about 50. I already see the shocking rise of \"mild retardation\" in the general populace, media and culture. People who like classical music and art are ridiculed instead of respected. The lowest common denominator seems to rule, especially in Hollywood and on TV (eg, \"Jackass the Movie\" and any reality show where they make you eat something disgusting or humiliate yourself for money).

All of the political\/social satire aside, this movie is also just LAUGH OUT LOUD funny! And I don't say that lightly; few movies make me actually \"LOL\", but this one did.

A lot of the best jokes are word\/sight gags in the background, so you really have to pay attention to get some of them. I even had to pause and zoom in for a few of them (like when Joe got his government ID and for \"hair\" it said \"yes\" and for \"eyes\" it also said \"yes\"). Also, the prison has engraved on the front \"House for Particular Individuals\", since the cops in the movie (much like real life cops) call everyone \"individuals\" instead of people, etc. Again, this was on the screen for just a moment...this is one of those movies you can watch again and again and dissect it to get through the layers of funny.

Also, I normally watch movies with the subtitles on, and that clued me in to some jokes that might pass by your ears in the dialog mix, for instance, the police constantly talk about people \"excaping\" instead of \"escaping\", and there are many other mis-pronunciations that just cracked me up. But again, I might not have picked up on them just by the dialog mixed with music\/sound effects; it is very subtle but still hilarious.

Additionally, the special effects were REALLY GOOD for a sci-fi\/social satire.

I could go on and on, but overall, I think this is one of those movies that if you DON'T think it's funny, it's probably making fun of YOU! I plan on recommending this to many, many people!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am rating this an 8 because of the premise of the film. The acting was fine, there wasn't anyone that stood out as amazing or appalling. It is disturbingly true that intelligent people are having less and less children, or choose to have none at all...whereas dumb ass \"W in '04\" supporters are procreating like rabbits. And, though I don't believe the earth will actually exist in 500 years, I can see Mike Judge's parodied prophet coming to be, as life imitating art. The world is being run by idiots, and it will get worse as the intelligent free-thinking people become the minority and the \"git 'er done\" fans outnumber them. The proof is our farce of an election.

But I digress. If you are fortunate enough to have this playing in your city, go see it. I have paid my $7.50 plus popcorn to see FAR WORSE rubbish than this (Date Movie or Napoleon Dynamite anyone?). There are laughs, there are cringes, but overall this is entertaining. If you have half a brain, you will think to yourself how this movie, though funny, is spot on (accurate) and a *tiny* bit uncanny. I'm not surprised AT ALL that this movie is almost completely unknown, as Fox was the one distributing this, and they wouldn't want any of their sheep to see this and think \"maybe I WILL read a book, and not watch 'Next', or 'Cheaters', or 'Ow my balls'.\" If our society doesn't stop the dumbing down of everything,and the bastardisation of the English language (ahem, Mr. Bush), then this really is where we are going.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had never heard of this film when a good friend recommended it. I trust this friend's taste, so I purchased the DVD. My wife and I sat down to watch it with no knowledge of what it was about. I thought it was the funniest film I have seen in a long time, mainly because I saw the truth in the satire. I strongly recommend this film to all my friends.

This is not a film for everyone. Some people will see the crass humor and aura of stupidity, and find Idiocracy to be one of the stupidest movies they have seen. What these people don't seem to understand is that the crass humor is there, not to amuse the audience, but to show what appeals to the morons in the future.

Luke Wilson is well cast as an \"average Joe.\" He is mainly there to be a foible for the biting commentary about society that is spread throughout this film. Many of the funnier bits are in the background, so it is easily worth seeing several times. What makes the movie even funnier, and more scary, is that I see elements of it in every day life, in people I meet or on the media. Then, I go back and re-watch Idiocracy, and realize how good it is.

The few people who have seen and enjoyed this film are able to be part of an elite club. I'll see an advertisement for some product with some breakthrough new ingredient, and turn to my wife and say, \"It's got electrolytes!\" She knows exactly what I am saying.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This must be the dumbest movie I've ever seen and therefor it deserves a special award. OK, so it begins pretty good, logical, humor and then rapidly changes to complete and utter uh f@rt,@ss, f\u00f6ck stupidity that makes total sense. The strange thing is that i hardly laughed at it, though i guess it is supposed to be funny, with a very serious message. After a moment of thought why i didn't laugh, the answer was pretty clear... this movie is a lot more realistic then i would like it to be. So it is extremely dumb, yet very wise if the object was to reach people which aren't 'blessed' with a whole lot of neurons and synapses and electrolytes (huh, electrolytes?). This movie might actually be understood at some level by a big audience!

Although they probably just laugh.

Ah well, nice try...

I am now editing (well adding to) my comment, cause i read some of the other comments. First i noticed some people see racism in this movie. Well, that did not at all cross my mind when watching it. However, i can imagine if you are looking from that perspective, you will see some. We could of course debate the link between intelligence and race, but i think this is not the place to do so. I wonder, if we were to rate the Huxtable family here, would you complain about them all being black? I don't think so, but i guess you could... (aside from that, from the 2 wisest people in the world, half, the woman, doesn't seem totally caucasian to me, so 'what the problem is?')

Secondly the movie gets very mixed ratings; from 1's to 10's and everything in between, but a lot of polarisation there, which means the movie does its job very well! It stirrs people up, makes them want to speak about it and judge it. That means it is a good movie, whether you like it or hate it. After 5 minutes it becomes very predictive and boring even, yet you keep watching this utter crap. I guess you keep hoping that it isn't so. Or maybe it's our sick way to look at terrible accidents. Well, this is one for sure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, I know that this movie is meant as a comedy! And the humor is over the top! But the theme about people getting less intelligent in future time might not be so far fetched! I cannot say that it will happen,but if we don't take proper care of our educational system than this could be a possibility! I have noticed that some schools aren't teaching facts anymore! (Like history,geography,basic stuff). The focus is more on learning practical abilities! The theory behind most subjects may be boring but is essential in understanding how things work! In the movie there is this ridiculous example of people growing crops with Gatorade in stead of water! Well,we can laugh about it! But if you never been taught that water contains minerals necessary for plants to grow so how would you know! To me this is a scary notion! So now you understand why this subject isn't funny anymore! It could be that Mike Judge is making fun but at the same time is warning people for a real disaster if education doesn't improve fast! Am I taking this movie too seriously! Yes of course! To each his own fun! I loved Mike Judge's work (Beavis and Butthead and Office space)! In these he was able to be critical and funny at the same time! In \"Idiocracy\" I missed this! Most of the events are too absurd and as I said earlier very scary! I do think if you are in the mood you will like this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One cannot help but admire Mike Judge for his hands on \"I've experienced that\" approach. With \"Office Space\", almost anyone working a job could associate with the characters. \"Idiocracy\" has exactly the same feel to it. One can easily appreciate the 505 years later experience of our heroes, because again, the director has tried to put things on a very human level. Somewhat similar to Woody Allen's \"Sleeper\", this movie is very funny. Do not miss the deleted scenes as the \"Museum Of Fart\" is a classic. Imaginative comedy is a rarity, and \"Idiocracy\" is wildly imaginative, extremely funny, and a solid 8.0 movie experience. - MERK","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I stumbled upon this movie by accident. I mean, how else could I find out? It wasn't hyped at all by the studios, nor did I even hear about it's release from my normally plugged in friends. After throwing my money away on so many bad movies this year, I wish I could've seen this one in theaters as opposed to DVD. Mike Judge is the master of disguising deliciously intelligent humor in a low brow package. Just watch \"King of the Hill\" for a while...it's ostensibly redneck humor, but it's a very subtle jab at rednecks while being very sympathetic at the same time. I read the tagline for this film, and immediately I ordered it off the internet. I really don't understand where these negative reviews are coming from, except maybe from Carl's Jr. This movie is not only hilarious, but it's balanced as well. Moments of levity are interspersed between hilarious sight gags and jabs at our current superstar\/corporate culture. Sure, there is some fart humor, but it's only there to laugh at derisively. The premise is only semi-plausible, but since when did that even matter? I don't see people heaping scorn upon \"Futurama\" because the premise is very similar. Just watch this movie. If you don't laugh, then something is really wrong with you. Maybe your dad works for Gatorade or something, and he was really offended by the movie. Maybe you're an idiot. Probably the latter.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is funny and sad enough I think that it is kinda true. If you love Office Space then you will love this movie because it is another Mike Judge hit, but it is nothing like Office Space. I told every one to see this movie. I only wish that it would have been in more theaters so it would have gotten the recognition it deserved. I love this movie and would love to see more from Mike Judge. Luke Wilson is also what makes this movie what it is. I am so glad that I will not be alive in the year 2505, because if this movie turns out to be true we are all in for a lot of trouble. I just hope more people see this movie because I know that they will fall in love with it too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like Money! I stumbled on this brilliant film in a local video store last week. Wasn't sure what to expect. Brought it home, set up the player and then my journey in to stupidity began. The first viewing I did a lot of chuckling, no laughing out loud really. It wasn't until the second viewing the movie really started to take a hold on me and the humor was that much funnier. It reminded me of Austin Powers, first viewing it was all right, then the real fun began telling people about it, just talking about each scene and the set up. I'm making all my friends watch this movie, everyone I know. This movie may very well be one of the most accurate \"Future\" movies ever made. This movie is more then just 84 minutes of entertainment, it's a warning to the future of our civilization. Mike Judge, the fantastic mind who brought us Office Space has brought us a vision of life in the automated future. Luke Wilson's dead pan humor as \"Average\" Joe enhanced the movie that much more. Watch this movie then once you're done, READ more! WRITE more! THINK more! For the futures sake if not for your own!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie deserved better. Mike Judge's satirical wit brought to light something too many in this country are trying to deny... we're getting dumber as a society.

Could the 24-hour-a-day Anna Nicole coverage be any more proof? Mike Judge paints a frightening future, where the dumb survive and thrive. Makes you stop and think, and laugh. Can you look at the world and not ask are we getting dumber? Are we being overtaking by the human trash as well as our own trash? (Beware of landslides).

The movie is really funny. I'd tell you more of the plot but I don't want to spoil it.

So why release this film with ZERO promotion? Could it be that the stupid are already taking over?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recommend Idiocracy to everyone. Luke Wilson is very funny, the movie is insightful and made me laugh so hard I had tears running down my face several times. Until the end, when I took a breath and realized just how close we are to Mr. Judge's vision of tomorrow.

Keep an eye out for a cameo by the guy from the Mac commercials (Justin Long)as Dr. Lexus. I found his performance Oscar-worthy, especially considering what Oscars have been handed out for in the recent past...besides, he's cute.

In short, Idiocracy is a fatally funny glimpse into a possible future where people are named after product brand names (the president's middle name is Mountain Dew), hospital visits cost $5 billion dollars, there are mountains of garbage because no one is smart enough to figure out what to do with it all, and nobody cares about anything but money. All because only stupid people are breeding. Sounds familiar to me, somehow. Oh, yeah; it's what I think of when I see professional wrestling...

Seriously, watch this movie. It's a good laugh and it will make you think.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was one of the few who went out of my way to see this in the theater. I've thought about it frequently ever since. After two DVD viewings I'm glad to say it held up perfectly. Like any great comedy, I laughed more on each viewing, both in anticipation of gags, but also after catching things missed before.

Mike Judge does very well with creating insanely comedic characters and fitting them into their world so they make sense. In Office Space, the environment make the characters believable. Idiocracy's future gives him liberty to write unbelievably dumb characters and make them work. I'll be waiting to see if they release a better DVD with some actual features before buying it. But this movie deserves the support on DVD not offered to it at the theater.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would have to say this is a great movie.

Mike Judge has an eye forseeing things that nobody would ever notice hence Office Space. Hemakes a statement about the dumbing down of society and that survival of the fittest is mere pipe dream in 500 years. That pop culture and mass marketing by wealthy companies tend to rule the day. Yes there is a lot of potty humor in it and it is to get the story moving and his point across. But the genuine frustration on Private Joe Bowers face is priceless and some cases we can all relate to it at some point in our lives.

If you do not enjoy the humor then look at it from a different point of view and watch it again. It took me watching it twice to really appreciate this film for what it is\u0085And with said after watching it twice\u0085I am going to read a book now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Idiocracy felt like Mike Judge took my thoughts on society and put them into film. In fact, the movie is a social commentary. Almost feels like a documentary at times. Luke Wilson did a good job playing a boring average joe (Like in most of his movies).

Of Course Idiocracy was an extreme of the current state of society. But that's what makes most comedies funny, a extreme of any situation. Fiction isn't that much different then reality.

With kids praising materialist Hip-Hop culture and taking pride in being ignorant. When people feel useless in life, they breed. Giving them a purpose in the world. And it seems only the worse people breed the most. I can understand how others don't like it. It doesn't help most of the jokes were 2nd grade bathroom humor. Not much different than a Kevin Smith film.

Idiocracy throws away logic, reason, any intelligence (For good reason).

Mike Judges comeback was a knockout.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this movie since I was a little girl, and being from New York and remembering how people lived back then brought back a lot of good memories. This movie is not just about wanting a fairy tale ending but understanding the struggles of becoming a better person, woman, and provider Claudine attempted to be. It was about the welfare system putting women in a binding situation. It was about the injustice of a system that invaded and put demands on a family to stay afloat. Diane Carroll was nominated for an Oscar for this role, and it was well deserved. If you want to experience a strong family with conflicting but wonderful bonding moments, enjoy Claudine. Your goal as a viewer is to keep an open mind, and understand the overall frustration.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If this film is examined closely, it's a bit sad. It is detailed enough to touch upon very real problems children, who grow up in poor, dysfunctional environments. Yet, it retains it's comedic value, with spirited performances by Diahann Carroll and James Earl Jones. The sadness lies in the struggles and dysfunction of the mother (Carroll), who cannot truly help her children, not because she doesn't want to, or try, but because, it's obvious she doesn't know how. Remember, this is a comedy, but if you've never seen this, or if you have, watch this film and see the humanity, in the characters. Good film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Caught this recently after noticing James Earl Jones name on the title. It was better than I expected. Of course it's pretty old - made during the early\/mid 70's but it actually is a decent drama. It runs a quick 90min or so and showcases good performances from James Earl Jones and Diahann Caroll. The plot is conventional in general but told through the perspective of a single black woman on welfare who has 6 children and trying to deal with all the problems that persist. This makes for an interesting view.....also in the fact that the script wasn't too sentimental or overdramatized - it's almost like looking at a slice of the past. All the 70's styles are out in abundance. The ending is kind of kooky though....probably would've done better without the theatrics.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Claudine was one of the very first movies that gave positive role models for both Black men and women. I appreciated this movie even more as I got older. This movie shows that men didn't always turn away from responsibility. An excellent movie I'd always recommend for anyone who appreciates a good inner city love story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I LOVE this movie....one of my all-time favorites!!! This was the first big screen movie my mom took me to see when I was 9. I highly recommend it to every african-american. This story is about love, trust, challenges, and everyday life of a black family. All the actors worked well together. I wish it was on video, but as of yet, it is not available that I know of. I caught it on television a few years ago, and recorded it, so whenever I get the urge to watch it...I have it! The soundtrack is awesome too! A must-see!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Claudine is a movie that is representation of the american system at it's worst. The welfare system was initially set up as a stepping stone for those families who needed that extra hand to get back on their feet.The movie showed an accurate portrayal of how the welfare system breaks down the family unit. In other words if the father or any male figure is in the lives of the women and children their financial support from the system would be jeopardized if not terminated. The struggles of the poor can be seen throughout the world. I would like to see a reproduction of this movie back in the stores for all to rent or buy for their library collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went to the movies to see Claudine and loved every minute of it the cast and the soundtrack as well. Diahann Carroll was never better than in this role. We saw Ms. Carroll downplayed her looks barely saw her naked,smoked a cigarette, drank beer and oh she cursed. Whenever this movie was shown on TV and finally cable I would call my friends to watch it. Just the soundtrack from the very beginning of the movie is awesome all thanks to Gladys Knight and the Pips. We saw a black woman struggling to raise her children, dealing with teen pregnancy and everyday life meets a man whom she learns later on has issues himself. Finally this movie made it to DVD and well deserving.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 1970's saw a rise and fall of what we have come to know as \"Blacksploitation\" Films. The term is a reference to kind of broad catch-all, rather than a true Genre of Film. In short, any comedy, drama, adventure, western or urban cops & robbers shoot-em-up, that are so constructed and so cast as to appeal to the large Urban Black population of the Mid 20th Century. That indeed could embrace the widest type of films, as long as the had a slant toward the inner-city black population.

It appears that the idea of producing these films of particularly keen interest to Black Americans had its genesis with the Eastertime Release of 100 RIFLES (Marvin Schwartz Prod.\/20th Century-Fox, 1969). In it, former Syracuse University All-American Footballer and Several Times All-Pro Fullback for the Cleveland Browns, Jim Brown, had a Co-Starring Billing. Having appeared in a number of films already, as for example, RIO CONCHOS (1964),THE DIRTY DOZEN (1967), (ICE STTION ZEBRA (1968)* and others, it was beginning to make more sense to the Studios' \"Suits\" that Jim was a hot property.

Now this 100 RIFLES brings record numbers of Black patrons to the Big Cities' central business districts on Easter Sunday to view Mr. Brown. Why not start to film more of these adventure epics and other types of film with more Black Players and Stars? Why not, indeed.** So we saw a succession of Cops & Robbers, Bad-ass Private Detective Films, Comedies, all going the route. Along the way, we eventually got to some more family oriented, wider appealing films. The movie goers were treated to SOUNDER (1972), THE TAKE (1974), CONRACK (1974)and, ultimately, CLAUDINE (1974).

In CLAUDINE, we find no stigma nor easy classification as being \"Blackploitation\", as the story is universal, and could easily have been done as a story about people of any descent, any where, and not just in the 1970's USA.

That the story was done of a SINGLE mother, Claudine (Dianne Carroll), struggling to keep a family together after \"....two marriages and two almost marriages.\", is a far cry from a shoot-em-up Harlem Style. The problems that plague the everyday citizens of our nation are confronted and examined under the ol' sociological microscope.

But we also consider Claudine's psychological and physical needs as a female. For \"Woman Needs Man and Man Must Have His MATE\",***and we do concede this point. (That's S-E-X that we're talking about, Schultz!) Claudine meets up with a very masculine, broad shouldered, athletic type in Private Scavanger Garbage Man, Ruppert B. Marshall (James Earl Jones) and they go on a date.

The Great Welfare State intervenes with the Couple as Claudine's Welfare Case Worker, Miss Tayback (Elisa Loti), comes snooping around to see just who is this unattached Male, who is suddenly paying so much attention to Claudine's family.

After a humiliating experience with the Welfare Bureau's auditing and \"deducting\" binge, which would be the norm for the family, the two decide to get married with or without the blessing of Big Brother.

Meanwhile, Claudine's elder son has gotten involved with some big talking but little doing Black Activist group. But, with Ruppert's help, he and they all come through it A.O.K.

It ends on a Happy, Upbeat and Hopeful note. We know that it may not be exactly \"...Happily Ever After!\", but rather the'll make it all together! If there is a single criticism that we must state it is that sometimes in a movie like this, a misconception is spread to a large portion of Urban Blacks. And that is, the apparent implied myth that all Whites are wealthy, having none of their kind ever in need of a helping hand, out of work or suffering any disabilities.

Well, folks, it just ain't true! NOTE: * At one point, Jim Brown's career was a real hit as a rugged actioner. He was even being tauted as \"...The Black John Wayne.\" NOTE: ** The idea of producing films with All-Black Casts, filmed for All-Black consumption was not a new idea. In the 1920's, '30's and '40's, we saw productions from people like Noble Johnson, Spencer Williams, Jr. and Rex Ingram.

NOTE: *** That's \"As Time Goes By\", you know, Schultz, it's from CASABLANCA (Warner Brothers, 1942).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Face it, folks-- \"DK3\" is more challenging, innovative, and clever than its predecessor. Challenging-- its levels are ridiculously difficult for a considerable amount of time. One especially difficult level is called \"Lightning Lookout,\" in which you may be struck by lightning at any given time. Innovative-- it opened a lot of doors. Too bad the SNES died out not long after this title. And clever-- the level names range from trademark plays-on-words (\"Lake Orangatanga\") to witty references that the game's targeted audience won't get for many years to come (\"Bleak's House\").

What irks me about most people's criticism of this game mainly comes down to two words: Kiddy Kong. He is a worthy \"little-buddy\" successor to Diddy Kong, and certainly does not deserve to be referred to as \"that retarded monkey.\" \"DK3\" will remain a classic until the end of time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sharpe's Honour for the uninitiated, is the fifth entry in a series of TV movies focusing on an English army rifleman during the Napoleonic wars and based on the books by Bernard Cornwell (which I strongly recommend reading). If you were to start by watching this particular one though, you'd get the impression that Sharpe is not so much a soldier as the very centrifugal force which the rest of the army revolves around. Should that be the case, I'd recommend starting with earlier chapters like Sharpe's Eagle or Sharpe's Company, but this is a worthy choice for a second viewing.

The story this time is all about the espionage side of things. With the French army retreating in disarray from Spain, Major Ducos, the slimy spy master spots an opportunity to turn the situation round. By pinning the murder of a Spanish Marques on Richard Sharpe, hero of the British army, the fragile British\/Spanish alliance will start to crumble and things will turn around again. When the Spanish nobles come to Wellington crying for Sharpe's blood though, the English general is less than willing to hang his best soldier so fakes his death and soon, he's off on a secret mission behind enemy lines to find out who masterminded the plot. Surprisingly enough for a Sharpe film as well, there's a gorgeous woman to be rescued along the way, fancy that.

What this results in of course is a more adventure style approach. The concentration is less on the workings of the English military with Sharpe as the figurehead and concentrates more on his escapades in the countryside, dodging French patrols, hob nobbing with the Spanish guerrillas and getting involved in daring escapes from fortified military positions. Sergeant Harper, his loyal right hand man accompanies him naturally but the rest of the riflemen remain in the camp unaware their leader is still alive. Strangely enough though, they actually receive more attention than usual as they wind up in their own subplot involving the delivery of Harper's baby.

This slightly different approach makes for an intriguing episode but is only a good thing in the long run. And should anyone be worried that there won't be the standard battle at the climax fret not, because once again the poor old French get a right kicking. Furthermore, Ducos makes a fantastic successor to Obadiah Hakeswill as the bad guy you love to hate. He is a duplicitous, malicious and absolutely evil son of a female canine and is also strangely reminiscent of that guy in black from out of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Elsewhere, Hagman stands out quite prominently as he gets the chance for more screen time and comes across as the sort of man you'd want to deliver your first born, even if he does look like a member of Iron Maiden who got catapulted backwards in time by accident.

In short then, another strong chapter in the Sharpe series. Sharpe remains as heroic as always but considerably more bitter and angry this time given the events in the previous film. It's not the best introduction if you've not seen any of the other chapters but it does show a side to Sharpe that we don't normally get to witness: the action hero rather than the professional soldier. And if that's not enough to get you tempted, it's also worth watching just for the rather surreal sight of an enraged Sean Bean swinging a live chicken at a group of nuns.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the most satisfying of the book to TV adaptations. The actress who make us believe that a Borg could be sexy makes us believe that a spy and traitor can have some redeeming qualities.

The TV plot line does not follow Cornwell's story exactly but is both exciting and rewarding as a retelling of a darn good yarn. If you have a yen for romance in uniform there is a lot of sexual energy sparking between our man Sharpe and the lying hussy. Made me wish her role was closer to that in the books. But no matter there is enough hero wronged, hero redeemed, hero in rage, hero in flight and hero in battle to keep you clued to your DVD play.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The banter and humorous rescue scene help to make this one of my favorites of the 14-movie series. Wonderful acting, great cast. And this movie contains one of the few oft-noted facts about Sean Bean's career. The part where he and Alice Krige fall off the horse into the water was not scripted but was left in since they both went right on acting after it happened.

This is a good follow-up to the intense ending of Sharpe's Enemy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sean Bean returns as Napoleonic hero Richard Sharpe in Sharpe's Honour, the fifth movie in the series and as always Patrick Harper and the rest of Sharpes chosen men are all along for the ride, but this time Major Sharpe is in serious trouble.

Under the influence of Sharpe's sworn enemy Major Ducos, a mysterious lady by the name of La Marquesa has accused Sharpe of rape. Her husband arrives at Sharpe's camp to challenge his wife's attacker to a dual.

The dual is discovered and stopped by the authorities, and as a result Sharpe becomes the prime suspect when his opponent is murdered in the middle of the night.

As no-one in the British Army other than Wellington and Major Nairn consider Sharpe anything but a rough commoner with little or no honour, he his given a shambolic trial and is sentenced to death by hanging, and Harper and the chosen men have no choice but to look on as their beloved commander walks slowly to the gallows.

However, convinced of his innocence Wellington and Nairn hang another convicted prisoner in Sharpe's stead and release him and his chosen men to find the real killer and La Marquesa herself, to not only prove his innocence but to find out her reasons for framing him in the first place.

Daragh O'Malley, Micheal Byrne and Hugh Fraser co-star with brilliant performances by Alice Krige as La Marquesa and F\u00e9odor Atkine as the villainous Major Ducos, in what is another exciting, swashbuckling instalment through Sharpe's eventful journey through the Napoleonic Wars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As it turns out, Chris Farley and David Spade only made three movies together (\"Coneheads\", \"Tommy Boy\" and \"Black Sheep\"), but this was truly the \"Citizen Kane\" of their pairings. Farley plays Thomas Callahan III, the dimwitted heir to an auto parts company. His father Big Tom (Brian Dennehy) hires mild-mannered Richard Hayden (David Spade) to look after him. Big Tom is getting married to a \"ten\" (Bo Derek), so everything has to be in order. After Big Tom suddenly dies, Tommy and Richard have to try to sell half a million auto parts to save the company from bankruptcy. From then on, the movie is pretty much an excuse for Chris Farley to do what he does best: make a mess of everything.

When this movie first came out in the theaters, I saw it with my grandfather. He figured out early on that the Bo Derek and Rob Lowe characters were hiding something. But you can completely ignore that and simply luxuriate in Chris Farley's antics. Nothing is safe around his stomach, and hell hath no fury like his happy-go-lucky attitude. The scene where he sets the cars on fire, and later the deer scene, make for a pure laugh riot. Chris Farley and David Spade were truly the John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd of their era. It's a pleasure to always be able to think about \"Fat guy in a little coat\" time and again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film knowing absolutely nothing about both it and its stars, Chris Farley and David Spade, and I have to say that this film is a comic classic. It is so stupid at times that it can only be hilarious. Farley is brilliant as the bumbling idiot who takes to the road with his dad's right hand man (the equally excellent Spade) to find the funding to save the families 'auto parts' business. Relax, put your brain on auto-pilot and soak up the fun. A great supporting cast features film favourites such as Brian Dennehy (Cocoon), Rob Lowe (Wayne's World) and Bo Derek (\"10\"). Highly recommended for a good laugh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has everything! It has a good storyline, good acting, great scenery, adventure and some brilliant gags! Chris Farley plays Tommy Callaghanhe mega successful company 'Callaghan Auto Parts' has to go on the road to stop the company going under after Big Tom dies. The trouble is that Tommy knows nothing about break pads and needs the help of Callaghan Auto Parts worker Richard (David Spade). From the moment the two dorks hit the road, the movie is just so much fun. If you love slapstick with a great storyline you'll love this because the gags keep coming thick and fast and the movie will just make you laugh out loud! It was so sad about Farley's untimely death in 1997, but a credit to his genius is 'Tommy Boy'. Get it, chill out and enjoy this brilliant slapstick!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A kinda remake of PLANES TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES in a lot of ways.i think,i think it's such a bad and sad coincidence that both John Candy and Chris Farley left us When they still had a lot of stuff to do.God bless them both,i think the plots of 2 movies are really similar,Road Trips of two different poles of characters,and a lot of unlucky consequences because of the Chubbies, This movie can not be Planes trains and Automobiles but its a really entertaining movie especially with the great performance of Chris Farley, The missing part in this movie is the touchy stuff if we compare it with Candy&Martin Classic,but i think its better this way","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"During my trip in a youth leadership forum, I was channel surfing until I found \"Tommy Boy\" on TBS. Since I have never seen this film before, I wanted to check it out. My roommate, who have already seen this, told me, \"This movie is a classic.\" After seeing the whole movie, I came to the conclusion that he was right.

\"Tommy Boy\" is constantly funny from beginning to end, thanks to the comedic duo of Chris Farley and David Spade. Farley is a riot as the title character, a spastic doofus who just sails through life as if it wasn't important. His slacker-esqe ways soon come to a halt when his father (Brian Dennehy), a wealthy \"Break Pads King\", dies of a heart attack on his wedding day. This leads Tommy, with the help of his sarcastic childhood friend Richard (David Spade), to hit the road to sell enough break pads to save the company.

The main reason \"Tommy Boy\" works are the funny performances from the lead cast. Farley is the funniest person in this movie, the second funniest person being Spade and the third being Rob Lowe as the film's villain who has bad luck. Another funny guy is Dan Aykroyd as Ray Zalinsky, a well-known auto parts extraordinare.

Another reason the movie works is the large amount of jokes. Chris Farley has hilarious slapstick moments, and David Spade has funny snide comments and one-liners. The gags in the movie (some which involves a deer and a airplane bathroom) are laugh-out-loud funny, thanks to director Peter Segal (Naked Gun 33 1\/3), writers Bonnie & Terry Turner

(3rd Rock From the Sun, That 70s Show), and the cast.

\"Tommy Boy\" is a really funny movie, although for some unknown reason most film critics (including Roger Ebert) find it horrible and unfunny. (I wonder when their sense of humor died.) I recommend \"Tommy Boy\" for those who are great fans of comedy. Thank you very much, roommate.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is hilarious. Brilliant comedy, but only because of one actor. Chris Farley. The best 'comedy-actor' I have ever seen. It's something special about him. He is just so funny.

What a shame he is not with us anymore. He will sorely be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Excellent ! I have to think back a *very* long time to find a film that's made me laugh quite so much. The writing is top-notch, the story is satisfying, and the entire cast is excellent - Chris Farley has never been better. One of the very best comedies of the 90s.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, on the day that Rob Schneider plunges himself further into the black hole of notoriously bad movies by starring in the absolutely not-at-all-wanted \"Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo\" (hmmmm....wasn't there a film called Roadtrip which was followed by a sequel called Eurotrip? And now there's Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo followed by sequel Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo.......I smell a pattern. Perhaps soon there will be Spiderman: European webs are Hotter.....or not) I am writing about this much maligned (at time of release) film. I was one of those maligners, I must admit. I turned my nose up at it even while Chris Farley shoved cocaine up his nose and the SNL cast struggled through one of the worst seasons in their history in '94-'95, the Norm McDonald anchorship notwithstanding. Films like Happy Gilmore, Tommy Boy, and Black Sheep came out in the couple years after this period and we realized there was a dark future for the caliber of Spade-Farley-Schneider-Sandler films. However I watched this film the other day, ten years after and 8 years after Chris died and could not stop laughing. Yes it's not particularly sophisticated. Farley does what Farley does (not unlike Manny being Manny) but his \"Van Down By the River\" motivational speaker shtick in which he laments that while he may not \"wash enough\" or \"wear well-fitting clothes\" or \"use deodorant more than twice a week\" translates well here as the ever self-effacing character who realizes he's not the brightest, not the best-looking, and could stand to lose a few pounds. All the same, he's trying his best to do what he's supposed to. And David Spade just tosses off his snide one-liners as he did for \"Spade's Hollywood Minute\" and basically stings Farley's self-esteem. There's really not a whole lot more to say than that. I love the one scene when Farley catches Spade spanking his monkey and then makes a couple quips about it. Can't remember what the first one is but the second one, they're lying in their hotel beds and Farley says to Spade, \"Do you like baseball?\". Spade mutters something inaudible in response and Farleys says, \"the New York YANK-ees?\" Anyway Farley does his awkward, painfully sensitive, frat-boy shtick. If you like, you like it. I couldn't stop laughing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peter Segal's 1995 commercial hit & now cult-classic 'Tommy Boy' is a hilarious film, an evergreen entertainer. Chris Farley is a talent which we'll never ever forget!!!

'Tommy Boy' is a simple story, told in the funniest & zany way possible. Farley & Spade take a journey which is filled with unstoppable laughter, even the Rob Lowe portion is damn funny. As a kid, I remember watching 'Tommy Boy' again and again and again. It's been of my childhood favorites, and it will always remain to be. Even today when it comes on T.V. I stick to it as a die-hard fan. I am quite possessive about this film.

Segal's direction is super. Chris Farley might have died in 1997, but remains alive for me, at least. What an actor! Watch his work in 'Tommy Boy', he's so much at ease. He delivered fantastic performances later on in films like 'Berverly Hills Ninja' & 'Almost Heroes', but his work in here remains as his best to date! Love you, Farley! Spade, on the other hand, is as good as ever. He's an excellent actor in all respects!

'Tommy Boy' rules.... 100 thumbs up from this writer!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've watched this movie on a fairly regular basis for most of my life, and it never gets old. For all the snide remarks and insults (mostly from David Spade), \"Tommy Boy\" has a giant heart. And that's what keeps this movie funny after all these years.

Tommy Callahan (Chris Farley) is the son of Big Tom Callahan (Brian Dennehy), master car parts salesman, and has ridden on that all his life. But after his died dies on his wedding day, Tommy learns that the company is in debt, and about to be bought by Ray Zalinsky (Dan Akroyd), the owner of a huge car parts company. So in order to save the company, Tommy has to go on the road to sell the company's new brake pads. Along for the ride, though not by choice, is Richard Hayden (David Spade) a former classmate of Tommy's who was Big Tom's right-hand man.

The movie rides on the chemistry between the two SNL stars (and real-life best friends) Chris Farley and David Spade. The duo has enough comic energy going between them to power the world. It's the big, dumb guy versus the smart little guy. It works, and some of their scenes are unforgettably funny. Farley and Spade are actually decent dramatic actors as well. Although the film is primarily a comedy, it has its fair share of drama, but Spade and especially Farley are just as good there as when they're making the audience laugh.

Forgive me, but I have to talk about Chris Farley a little more. I read his biography (\"The Chris Farley Show: A Biography in Three Acts,\" for anyone who cares), and understanding who Chris was in real life made this movie more special to me. Chris Farley was a genuinely good person who struggled, and ultimately failed to conquer his addictions. Although this was the first movie he had a major role in, it is his best film. It really showed who he was, and just how much talent he had. Knowing Chris's story adds another layer to this movie, although it doesn't make it any less funny.

Farley and Spade are matched with a good on screen cast. Rob Lowe is suitably slimy as Tommy's \"new brother,\" and Bo Derek is solid as his step-mother. Brian Dennehy is great as Big Tom. Dennehy makes it easy to believe that they're father in son. Big Tom is just as crazy as his son, although he's smarter and more mature. Dan Akroyd gives one of his best performances as Zalinsky, giving Tommy the hard truth behind advertising. Julie Warner is also good as Tommy's love interest, Michelle.

For me, Peter Segal is one of the great comedy directors. He keeps the pace quick and energetic, but most importantly, he knows how to make comedy funny. He doesn't belabor the jokes, and he understands that funny actors know what they're doing and he allows them to do it. But Segal goes a step further. He gives \"Tommy Boy\" a friendly, almost nostalgic tone that both tugs the heartstrings (genuinely) and tickles the funnybone.

Critics didn't like \"Tommy Boy.\" Shame on them. A movie doesn't have to be super sophisticated or subversively intellectual to be funny (God forbid Farley and Spade were forced to do muted comedy a la \"The Office\"). This is a great movie and one of my all-time favorites.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is hilarious. The laughs never stop. Every scene is packed to the limit with hilarious comedy. Chris Farley is a comic genius, and Spade plays his character to a tee. Farley was one of the best slap stick comics ever, and in this movie(as with all his movies) we see how much time and energy he devoted to portraying his character the way he saw fit. \"Tommy Boy\" is an excellent example of a comedy, it always makes me laugh, no matter how many times I have seen it before.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie literally had me rolling on the floor (well at least on the couch) laughing. I didn't think I would like it, but it came on cable TV one afternoon, and I watched the whole thing and thoroughly enjoyed myself. Since then, I've also seen Black Sheep, which was pretty good, but not as non-stop-funny as Tommy Boy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The primary plus for this movie is the combination of Chris Farley and David Spade. This was the first film in which this comedy duo displayed their Laurel-and-Hardy-esque brand of humor. Farley's obvious physical comedy skill is perfectly augmented by Spade's sarcastic take on every situation they find themselves in.

This movie stands apart from other comedy movies. Tommy Boy ranks in with Blues Brothers as a comedic work whose individual scenes and bits stem from the plot, rather than serve to break up the storyline and give the film a disjointed feel as so many other comedic films do. Thanks to excellent direction by Sagal, every scene is tight and immediately foreshadows or acts out the story being told. He is as much to credit for the film's hilariousness as Farley and Spade are. The acting of Dennehy, Lowe, Ackroyd, and many others (see the gas station attendant 22 miles from Davenport) strengthen the film.

The film warrants multiple viewings because there are many fine nuaces to the film that may be overshadowed by Farley\/Spade.

I believe this film is very well-made and is THE funniest movie I have ever seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Out of the many films I've seen, Tommy Boy is a rare film where I can watch it over and over and it's still funny. David Spade and the late Chris Farley do their best in this film and is a must-see by anyone who's a fan of the Spade-Farley duo.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, of course the critics hated it. This isn't a movie that's going for the big-time critical acclaim. But the fact is that it's really very good.

Sure, if you don't like that Chris Farley brand of physical comedy, or the exceedingly dry wit of David Spade, you're not going to like it. But for the rest of us, the movie has many hilarious, and for that matter quotable, sequences, and the plot isn't half as dumb as that of \"Black Sheep.\" The parts that aren't meant to be humorous are actually done well, not what you'd expect from a movie of this ilk, and the acting is really pretty good.

\"Tommy Boy\" is without question Chris Farley's best movie. I give it an A and suggest you give it a view.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie probably isn't the funniest I've ever seen, and it CERTAINLY doesn't have much redeeming value. In fact, it is really nothing more than a collection of vignettes tied together by a loose plot. However, this \"make-it-up-as-I-go-along\" attitude actually works to the film's advantage. \"Tommy Boy\" succeeds as a comedy for the same reasons that the SNL skits Farley and Spade starred in succeeded: their well-timed extemporaneous silliness and mayhem makes them humorous despite their immaturity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For fans of Chris Farley, this is probably his best film. David Spade plays the perfect cynical, sarcastic yin to Farley's \"Baby Huey\" yang. Farley achieves strokes of comic genius in his monologues, like the \"Let's say you're driving along the road with your family...\" bit, the \"Jo-Jo the Idiot Circus Boy with a pretty new pet, (his possible sale)\" speech, or the \"Glue-sniffing Guarantee fairy\" brake pad sale. The sappy moments in the film contrast sharply with Farley and Spade's shenanigans. Even after many viewings, it's still fun to see Farley pour everything he had into the role. \"Richard, what's HAPPENING to me?!?!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Farley and Spade's best work ever. It's one of the all-around funniest movies I've ever seen. Watch it once and you'll be hooked and soon have all the lines memorized. No sleepy for Tommy Boy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The one-liners fly so fast in this movie that you can watch it over and over and still catch new ones. By far one of the best of this genre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the funniest movies made in recent years. Good characterization, plot and exceptional chemistry make this one a classic","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my most favorite movies of all time. Pretty pathetic you say? Well, yeah it is. But Chris is incredibly, incredibly funny. His innocent brilliance comes out in this film more than in any of his other films. Look at both motel scenes, when Spade gets caught with his zipper down, and the other: \"JUST GO AWAY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know why all of the critics say this was a bad movie, this is one of my all-time favorite movies. Tommy (Chris Farley) and Richard (David Spade) are a great match. Tommy is the stupid one who spent seven years in college, finally passing with a D+. Richard is the smart kid who was hated by everyone in school. How can you not laugh when the two of them are singing \"Superstar\" by The Carpenters passionatly and all of a sudden the hood pops up? In all this is a great movie, I recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For only doing a few movies with his life the Late Great Chris Farley. Farley died at the end of 1997 and will be missed mostly by his co actor in Tommy Boy, David Spade. From the lame Police Academy 4 Spade really has done good with his career in films. Tommy Boy is a classic and we will always remember Chris Farley when we watch it. From appearing on Saturday NIGHT LIVE to doing Tommy Boy, Black Sheep, Beverley Hills Ninja, Almost Heroes, Billy Madison, and Dirty Work. I think Chris Farley had a short and successful career. Tommy Boy was his best in my case and I would watch over and over again and laugh at the same part each time. Thank you Chris Farley.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favourite comedy films. Chris Farley is hilarious as the accident prone moron and David Spade is perfect playing the straight-man to Farley.

The dialogue between the two of them is brilliant. The scene where the two of them are in the car singing along to Superstar by The Carpenters is a classic.

Chris Farley was a great comic actor who had amazing potential - he will be sadly missed.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Holy Schnikey! This Movie rocks! The duo of Chris Farley and David Spade are great together. My Favorite parts are \"Fat Guy in a little coat, Oh my gosh, Room service and more scenes that will be remembered for years to come. This movie has a huge cult following, I wonder why, which proves that even eleven years after Chris Farley's tragic death and he still is popular. He plays Tommy which will make you laugh every time you still watch it. He is a great comedian and is missed. Mr. spade reminds me of Dan Akyroid while Chris Farley reminds me of John Belushi. They done more than 2 movies together. This Movie is a must buy and should be in every Snl fan's collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I guess I do not have too much to add. I found the comedy to still be funny after more than ten years since it came out.

The one thing that I did notice was the music during the dialogue to be distracting and often made the movie very hook than it should have been. The use of songs is fine during the movie but the orchestral background is too busy, too contrived and if the movie was ever to be edited for DVD, I would seriously recommend that the background music be toned down to an almost inaudible level. It has cheapened the overall feel for the whole film and I can see subconsciously why a lot of people have passed it up.

The film had a lot of levels working for it on the script, plot and comedy level. It is too bad that the producer and director felt they needed the musical schlock to enhance the mood. Now knowing this, I find it hard to watch and I quietly curse whoever was involved with the musical editing in the film. It had all the subtlety of a jackhammer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think every critic who panned \"Tommy Boy\" when it was released in 1995 ought to go back and watch it and learn it is not a bad film at all. Every critic panned Chris Farley and David Spade's movies. Yes \"Coneheads\" was funny but kind of had a one joke premise and \"Black Sheep\" I agreed with the critics is one of the worst movies ever made. But \"Tommy Boy\" does not fall in the category of \"Coneheads\" which could have been a little funnier and \"Black Sheep\" which is a piece of tripe. It is very funny and entertaining. I do agree with the critics that Chris Farley was no John Belushi or John Candy as he claimed to have idolized those guys and those guys had a genius for comedy but Chris Farley was very funny and I wish he were around longer to prove to critics that yes he was no John Belushi, or John Candy but he was very funny. The scenes between Farley and Spade as nemesis are side-splitting hilarious and the premise is also laugh out loud hilarious. It is very sad that Chris Farley is no longer here to make us laugh but we have movies like \"Tommy Boy\" to remember how truly funny he was. \"Tommy Boy\" is one of the 1990's best comedies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movie may not have seemed like much to some people but it had everything i look for in a comedy. fall down funny moments accompanied by a moment or two of seriously moving scenes, great actors, and pretty much everything a good movie is supposed to be like. despite David spade playing his usual snobby character he made this role into an unusual performance which i don't think he had ever exceeded until he hit the screen with Joe dirt. regardless of whether or not some people were not Chris Farley fans i saw this film when it came out and my friends and i still talk about it... 11 years later. this movie was what finally told me that Chris Farley was the real deal. he is the best comedian i have seen in my life. in the words of some he could be clumsy, clever, funny, serious, crazy, sober, and moving or depressing at the same time. not the same words but the message is all that counts. one of the true great actors of our time, and one of the true great comedy's of all time. along with good acting, good story, hilarious moments, serious scenes that at times brought me to tears. this movie stands atop the hordes as a movie that marked the beginning of a brief reign at the top of the comedy world by the late great Chris Farley. no actor before or since has captured my interests in a movie since. because no actor before or since has put so much into his movies. this movie is worth the time, if you haven't taken the time to see it do so the next time you rent a movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 13th and last RKO Falcon film starts with the mutual injunction by Tom Conway as Tom Lawrence alias the Falcon and Ed Brophy as Goldie of \"No dames!\" whilst they prepare to go on vacation. While you're still wondering what they're going on vacation from as they hadn't had a job since the beginning of the 1st film in 1941 (with Sanders as Gay though and Jenkins as Goldie) they bump into a woman and get dragged into a seedy industrial espionage caper.

They promise to help her when her uncle is murdered, by taking an envelope containing the details of a formula to make substitute industrial diamonds to his business colleague in Miami. Suspect everyone here except the cops here who are after Lawrence \u0096 and Goldie for the murder. To console himself Goldie keeps paraphrasing travel brochures: \"On the coldest day you can always enjoy the warmth of a nice cosy electric chair\" for one. Some nice languid atmospheric nightclub scenes rub shoulders with some especially bad behaviour from the baddies. Favourite bit: the dignified game of hide and seek\/hunt the thimble the imperturbable and suave Lawrence has with the baddies on the sleeper train. Least favourite bit: the most embarrassing scene in the entire series in the alligator wrestling hut \u0096 definitely thrown in for the kids!

All in all not the best in the series but yet another entertaining outing, with an overall satisfying plot and many episodes even in this that make me wish they could have gone on for just a few more years as Columbia did with Boston Blackie, although RKO were churning these out faster. Absolutely no sex, not much violence (in fact none at all by today's high standards), and positively no message all make this type of film anathema to serious people who can only regard movies as an art form that must depend on these three pillars.

Three Diet Falcon's were made later with John Calvert in the title role, I don't mind them but could never bring myself to count them into the main series, which Tom Conway had made his own by this time. Sad also that it was all downhill after this for Conway, who moved into TV, voice overs and even played Norman Conquest in Park Plaza 605 rather well in 1953. He also developed serious eye and alcohol problems \u0096 I don't know if they were linked \u0096 wound up poverty stricken and after a spell in hospital in 1967 was found dead in his girlfriend's bed. For us folk that want to at least we still have his 10 entertaining Falcon's plus a number of other worthy, even classic RKO movies from 1942 to 1946 with which to remember him by.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a fun little private eye detective story like they aren't made any more. It's all there: Tom Conway is the suave detective called The Falcon, Goldie Locke (what's in a name) is his wisecracking bumbling sidekick, Louisa Braganza is the damsel in distress, and of course there are the damsels maid, the professor with the secret formula, the bad guy that wants the formula, and the police inspector who's after The Falcon. There is a murder, and The Falcon gets implicated. The scenery is night clubs, expensive hotel rooms, a luxury train, the suburbs, and beautiful cars. Go watch this little gem when you see it pass by on afternoon TV!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the thirteenth Falcon film. Tom Conway has lost none of his humour and style, and is not showing signs of getting tired. The film has a very satisfying story, with lots of red herrings, suspects, and dames. Madge Meredith is the good girl of the story, she plays it adequately but by no means sets the screen on fire. Myrna Dell is a bad girl, and she puts on an excellent face of stone, with eyes of agate, and you are just waiting for her to kill as many people as possible to cheer herself up. Edward Brophy is back as Goldie the sidekick, but surprise surprise, his manic over-acting has stopped, and he is actually under control. This is a fine tribute to the directorial skills of William A. Berke, who had done so many Westerns he probably was not prepared to take any nonsense from a Brooklyn dummy. The result is that for the first time, possibly in his career, Brophy was toned down enough actually to add something to a film rather than try the viewer's patience with the irritating behaviour of a retarded but unruly six year-old. It all goes along very well, and is thoroughly entertaining.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How many reviews of this film will I have to write before I get it right? Tom Conway fully inherits the mantle of the Falcon from his real-life brother George Sanders with this entry. Decked out in beautiful double-breasted, single-buttoned, drape-style suits and cruising in gorgeous, 110%-steel cars with huge fender skirts and suicide doors that come up to your armpit, Conway travels from New York to Miami to keep a formula for industrial diamonds from falling into the wrong hands. His \"client\" is lovely, virginal Louisa Briganza who has got gorgeous hair but will let you only kiss her for the first two months. Along the way he runs into the type of colourful array of characters only a B movie could provide. His sidekick in this outing is perhaps best among Falcon sidekicks Edward Brophy as Goldie Locke who is given some really funny lines. He runs into sinister dish Doris Blanding, the type of '40's chick that you know puts out. Her cohort is Benny played by Steve Brodie who, twenty years later, was a Presley punching bag in two Paramount King movies. They both work for cold fish and yachting-cap-wearing Kenneth Sutton, ready to do what it takes to get the formula as he cruises his yacht to Brazil. Saddled with the stoniest Falcon-pursuing cops ever, this entry still reigns supreme. Forget those 120 minute melodramas, give me a 1 hour Falcon movie any day. I got a wife and two kids - who's got time for a two-hour movie? Shake up some dry martinis and forget your troubles with this great Falcon movie. But if you didn't tape it off local TV in Toronto like I did 17 years ago, you're out of luck.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Murder Over New York is one of the better Chan mysteries and I've just seen this for the first time.

In this one, Charlie Chan is visiting New York to attend a police convention. At the same time, people who are involved with aircraft plants are being murdered and he decides to help with the investigation, along with his Number 2 son. These murders turn out to be the results of sabotage at the aircraft plants and Chan helps to identify the murderer...

Charlie Chan is played well by Sidney Toler and the rest of the cast includes Sen Yung as his Number 2 son and Marjorie Weaver.

I rather liked this mystery and is worth having if you like this sort of thing.

Rating: 3 and a half stars out of 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Murder Over New York\" is an entertaining entry in the Charlie Chan series of films, but if you're paying attention, a lot of plot holes reveal themselves to the observant eye. While traveling to New York City for an annual police convention, Chan (Sidney Toler) meets former Scotland Yard investigator Hugh Drake (Frederick Worlock) on the same flight. Now employed by military intelligence, Drake is tracking Paul Narvo and his Hindu servant, suspected for acts of sabotage around the world. Drake believes that by contacting Narvo's elusive wife, he'll be able to pin down the whereabouts of the master criminal.

When Drake winds up dead in the library of George Kirby, president of the Metropolitan Aircraft Corporation, Charlie theorizes that he was killed by a recently discovered poisonous gas called \"tetrogene\", administered via a glass pellet that releases the poison when broken. Summoning Kirby to bring all of his dinner party guests together, Chan and Police Inspector Vance (Donald MacBride) question those in attendance, as one of them may be the killer. Among them are Herbert Fenton (Melville Cooper), a fellow Oxford student of Drake's, actress June Preston (Joan Valerie), unknown to Drake but requested by him to attend, Ralph Percy (Kane Richmond), the chief designer at Kirby's aircraft company, and Keith Jeffrey (John Sutton), Kirby's stock broker. Kirby butler Boggs (Leyland Hodgson) is also a suspect, especially after Number #2 Son Jimmy (Victor Sen Yung) catches him steaming open a cablegram, the contents of which concern Boggs himself.

There are some other cleverly planted characters in the proceedings as well. Mrs. Narvo turns up as Patricia West (Marjorie Weaver), and contrary to Drake's suspicion that she might lead him to Narvo, is actually on the run away from her former husband and a disastrous marriage. She's involved with David Elliott (Robert Lowery), principal of a chemical research firm, and thereby a suspect in the tetrogene angle.

As with many Chan films, racial comments must be taken in stride with the proceedings. This one offers two glaring ones. When Kirby's black servant is brought in for questioning, he states that he doesn't know anything about Drake's murder, that he's completely \"in the dark\". Chan's response: \"Condition appear contagious\".

Later, following Inspector Vance's order to round up all the Hindu's in New York, Jimmy Chan comments on their arrival with \"They're all beginning to look alike to me.\" Actually, the scene provides one of the elements of comic relief in the movie, as Shemp Howard impersonates Hindu mystic \"The Great Rashid\", but is actually uncovered by the police to be con artist Shorty McCoy.

Before the movie's over, two more victims fall to the clever Narvo - his confederate Ramullah, and aircraft magnate Kirby himself. To uncover the killer, Chan, in concert with Elliott, arranges for a test flight aboard a newly developed TR4 Bomber after discovering a poisoned capsule planted by mechanics on the plane the day before. Before it can release it's deadly poison, the Brit Fenton catches the falling capsule in mid-air, revealing that he knew about the plant. Arrested and brought in for questioning, Chan asserts that Fenton is not Narvo. The real Narvo reveals himself when he offers a poisoned cup of water to the nervous Fenton, anxious to maintain Narvo's secret. But Chan was clever enough to be wary of such an attempt, and reveals the real murderer - Narvo now in the guise of stock broker Jeffrey, having undergone reconstructive surgery following a car accident.

Now for the plot holes. When first investigating Hugh Drake's murder, it was maintained by the police that fingerprints found in the library did not match those of any of the dinner guests. However Jeffrey\/Narvo was present at the dinner party. It had already been established that Drake had one non party visitor in the library, chemist Elliott. If the fingerprints really did not belong to Narvo, then making them an issue was pointless.

Also, at the end of the film when Narvo offers Fenton the poisoned water, how did he think he would get away with it with everyone there as a witness? But going even one better than that, how would a world traveling saboteur like Narvo have the time and wherewithal to establish himself as a New York City stockbroker, it just doesn't make sense.

For trivia fans, a few more points bear mentioning. In the film, Number #2 Son Jimmy is a college student studying chemistry as he comes to \"Pop's\" aid to solve the case. In the prior Chan film - \"Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum\" - Jimmy was a law student.

The poison gas formula would get reworked in a later Chan film, this time by Monogram with Roland Winters in the Chan role in \"Docks of New Orleans\". In that story, poison gas is released from shattered radio tubes in similar fashion to claim its' victims.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Murder Over New York\" is fun, but not as good as most of the other Fox Chans. This film would have been better named, \"Charlie Chan in New York\", the film's working title. This is Toler's chance to play Chan in the Big Apple. There is a lot to like here, though, including guest star Shemp Howard of the Three Stooges.

This has one of my favorite Chan sayings, \"Coincidence like ancient egg--leave unpleasant odour.\" Toler and Yung are good in this one and so is the supporting cast. But there is little or no mysterious atmosphere which I look for in these films. Still, it is good to see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"taking into consideration the Chan films that would follow, this isn't bad. Plenty of stereotypes beginning with the Black man in the beginning and when the police captain orders that \"every Hindu in town\" by rounded-up. A parade of stereotypical characters enter the scene including Shemp of the Three Stooges. Charlie seems to move quickly around the city going from Sutton Pl. to the W. Village in a flash.The ending is silly. An obvious toy airplane is used as it climbs through the sky and then nose dives. Ed Wood couldn't have done it better. The final scene is absurd as the murderer will obviously incriminate himself in his attempt to quiet the one person who knows his identity. Overall, it is worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my fourth review of a Charlie Chan movie in series chronological order on these consecutive days. This is also my first comment of one I've seen previously though it's been about 24 years since then, so I didn't remember much of it. In this one, the Honolulu detective is investigating an espionage ring that was initially tracked by a former Scotland Yard acquaintance who has turned up missing in the Big Apple...This is the best of the Chan entries I've seen so far in current memory with every clue being connected (though, of course, if I look at them at closer examination, there could still be some holes though I can't think of any right now). And \"No. 2 Son\" Jimmy (Victor Sen Yung) is somewhat of a help when he first identifies the poison that results in some murders early on, though, of course, he blunders a little later. Among the returning supporting cast from the last Chan film-Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum-are blonde Joan Valerie as June Preston and Stanley Blystone, who's brother John G. helmed a lost Chan one called Charlie Chan's Chance, as a fingerprint expert. Nice intrigue especially with an exciting climax aboard a bomber plane. Oh, and watch for a certain Stooge at a police line up...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chan is in New York and he gets involved with an attempt to sabotage a new aircraft design.

The war was over a year away from reaching America but the second world war was already raging everywhere else in the world and so it colored everything since most people probably realized that war was coming. Here the War isn't mentioned but the fact that the film deals with the production of planes at the very least alludes to it. The mystery itself is pretty good, it the notion of plane sabotage lends itself nicely to a couple of rather tense moments. To be certain we are talking about Charlie Chan so we can be certain that he would live to fight another day, but there was no guarantee what condition he would be in, not whether anyone around him would survive.

I really like this film a great deal. Its not one of the nest, and far from the worst. It is one of the truly rare things, a truly enjoyable one. Definitely worth a look or six.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is about a deadly poison that is contained in small glass globes that is used to kill. This is apparently done to hide an espionage ring intent on stealing plans for a new American bomber. Now much of this plot was repeated in other Chan films, THE JADE MASK and THE DOCKS OF NEW ORLEANS. Additionally, it was first used in MR. WONG, DETECTIVE--all had the exploding glass globes--a plot element that obviously has been overused. It was interesting in MURDER OVER NEW YORK, but by these later films it was rather pass\u00e9.

Fortunately, the rest of the film was fresh and the plot worked out very well--with a nifty conclusion where, of course, the culprit reveals himself. However, no plane could fly the way this one did--especially in 1940. Such extreme dives and rapid ascents were pretty silly out of this already obsolete plane.

By the way, in a small role as a porter you'll see Frank Coghlan Jr.--the same actor who played Billy Batson in the CAPTAIN MARVEL serial. According to IMDb, Mr. Coughlan is 93 years old and retired from the film industry.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently was lucky enough to see \"The Kite Runner\" in a small theater, surrounded by seasoned movie-goers who knew how to enjoy a masterpiece of such sophistication. With all the controversy surrounding this film's central scene these days, I was expecting a piece both crude and violent. But the way Mr. Forster handled the delicate subject was touching and really, deeply moving. Even though the film's credits indicated China as the main location for the shoot, I could have sworn I was seeing Kabul throughout the scenes which are meant to be taking place in Afghanistan. The acting, by non-professionals as well as professional actors, is excellent and the casting is magnificent. So, this is a movie I would see again and again, because though it is undeniably sad in its subject, the masterful way it has been made awakens a whole new hope in modern cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched this film at an advanced screening. I had not read the book, and knew nothing of the story, but went because the book was voted \"Book of the Year\" by two local colleges. So I cannot compare the book with the movie as others have done.

In short, I thought this was an incredibly moving story. The acting was believable, and the insight into Afghan culture and political history was both interesting and shocking. My oldest friend is Iranian-American, and so I felt an affinity for certain Middle Eastern values and traditions that were portrayed in the movie, as they reminded me of the times I spent with his family.

The themes of friendship, family, human values, and courage under fire are universal, and are well developed in the film. I won't list the plot details, as these can be obtained elsewhere. But based on the film's technical aspects, the acting, and, above all, its heart-wrenching story, I would definitely recommend this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Kite Runner should win an Oscar! It's perfect in every sense, the story, the script, the acting, the cinematography... One would never guess it was filmed in China. The story of two childhood friends and what follows in their adult lives will leave a lasting impression. The depiction of life in Afghanistan under the Taliban is all too real and horrifying. I have not read the book, but I have seen comments that put down the movie because \"the book is always better\"... It doesn't really matter. No one put down \"Gone With The Wind\" because it wasn't true to the book! As a matter of fact, it won the Academy Award for best picture and several other Oscars. I think this movie is brilliant - BRAVO to the writer and director, and the actors!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Amazing, Astounding, Brilliant, Superb. Those are the four adjectives that prop up in my head when I start describing \"The Kite Runner\". Khaled Hosseini's book adaptation had already captured many minds, in fact it is rumored that he himself broke down in to tears after watching the premier. I must say before I even start that I had read the book before I saw the advanced screening of \"The Kite Runner\". So my judgment and views may be slightly biased.

Firstly, let me say it, that even though in my opinion the book was better than the final product of the movie, it is by no means a bad adaptation. I mean for a two hour movie it's got the deserved response. Things do appear a tad fast in the final twenty odd minutes, but apart from that it has succeeded what the book did. It has captured the minds and imagination of millions all across the globe. The magic woven by Khaled Hosseini, to give us a sense of remorse of joy, of sadness, of pain, of loyalty is astute in this adaptation. Especially in the very first scene, when young Hassan says, \"If you tell me to eat dirt, I will. but I know you won't ask me to.\" Such a touching line, is bound to capture the hearts of many. The two young actors were brilliant, absolutely superb. Especially the boy who played the innocent but loyal Hassan, a boy, who refuses to give up a kite he caught because he promised his best friend that he would bring it to him, only to be abused by large bullies who beat him up and use him sexually, and then to be rebuked by his best friend as a coward. The entire act is so touching that it cannot but wet your eyes.

The entire movie is well placed save the last bit. The point when Amir learns of his true relationship with Hassan and reads Hassan's first and last not to him, when he breaks down in tears feeling helpless, lonely and remorseful, that appeared a bit rushed and felt that Amir was behind a facade. In the book, Khaled Hosseini had dedicated some 10-12 pages to describe Amir's state of mind in that position. But that his made up for in the penultimate segment of the movie, when Amir stands up for Hassan's boy, his nephew, Sohrab in front of his commanding father-in-law. The ending was well deserved and I am sure will be well appreciated. It felt witnessing the torch pass down from one generation to another.

Coming over to the technical aspects. First of all, the acting. Just one word-Superb. From start to finish, young Hassan and Amir, their father, his friend Rahim Khan. Everyone has been superb, especially young Hassan. Second, the direction was amazing, coupled with some brilliant camera work. The background score was also impressive. Right from the start credit track to the end credit, and I especially loved the one when Amir is in the mosque in Pakistan the western and Islamic fusion, made that extra special.

All in all, this is definitely one of the better movies, and it's a welcome break from all those Iran inspired movies that we have floating all over this year. 9\/10 !!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know that to include everything in the book, the film would have to have been several hours long, so I think they did their best to include things that were crucial and pivotal to the story. I thought the casting was great, the children who played Amir and Hassan were very good actors. And the guy who played Amir as an adult was great! The scenes between him and Baba were especially touching. I thought the locations they used were interesting... scenes set in Afghanistan were shot in China, and one scene that took place in Fremont, CA (the graduation scene) was actually shot on Treasure Island in San Francisco. I worked one day as an extra on \"Kite Runner\" and it was that day, the day they shot the graduation scene. We reported to Treasure Island in the morning, they checked everyone's wardrobe to make sure it looked like the late 80s, an then we took our places in the audience. They shot the scene over and over again until they were happy with it. It was cool to see the actors up close and also to see the book's author, who was on hand as a story consultant. I thought this book was excellent and I recommend both the book and the movie to anyone. This is a moving story about friendship, love, guilt and eventual redemption. \"There is a way to be good again.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Kite Runner was beautiful, poignant and very moving. I particularly loved the two child actors in the film as well as the actor portraying the father. It really made me want to go back and read the book again.

The music was a wonderful part of the fabric of the movie. If there is a soundtrack coming out for the film, I will buy it to accompany my second reading of the book. It is also a visually stunning film. The cinematography was gorgeous and really added to experience.

The Brazilian word 'saudades' is very descriptive of how I felt at the end of the film...\"it is a deep feeling of longing for someone or someplace, which is very sweet but also tinged with an inescapable sadness\" (definition provided years ago by Antonio Carlos Jobim).

Saw it at a small cinema here for an advance screening. I would love to see it again on a really large screen with a tricked out sound system.

Can't wait for the formal release. I will definitely recommend the film to friends.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw it at an advance screening I haven't read the book, but heard many good things about it.

The movie was absolutely fantastic, very moving. With a roller coaster of emotions you totally connect with the characters. Shaun Toub was great, it was a complete departure from his usual roles, and his acting for those who understand Persian\/Dari was incredible.

One thing to notes it that Khaled Hosseini actually loved the film which is unusual for book adaptation movies. Even after seeing the movie several times \"he was sobbing\".

Also the animation from the intro was exquisite, with names displayed as if it were Persian calligraphy, very unique! At times the translation was not clearly conveying the message efficiently, but all in all this was a great movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Kite Runner\" is one of the most controversial films of the year, and it's not just one of those controversies invented by PR people to sell tickets. No, this is a film that was actually pulled from release because the producers began to fear for their safety of their actors. That may give you an idea of just how sensitive and topical some of the material is. \"The Kite Runner\" is an important film for our modern world, because now more than ever, we need stories that show the reality of war, not just action movies that glamorize the violence. It was adapted from the best-selling book, and some critics have charged that something was lost in translation, but if you don't bring the baggage of the novel into the screening, you will be very moved.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was AMAZING. As a librarian and an attendee at the New York Library Association's Vitality Fund Event on Thursday night, October 18, I was privileged to see a pre-release screening of the new movie, The Kite Runner. The release of the movie has been delayed because of concerns about the welfare of the child actors involved. I am grateful that the NYLA event was allowed to go on as planned.

Regarding the movie, I feel it was masterfully done. It had as much impact on me, I think, as Stanley Kubrik's A Clockwork Orange, even though it is much less graphic - MUCH less. There is no comparison between the horrendous, shocking violence and rape shown in A Clockwork Orange and the small amount of violence actually shown in Kite Runner; only the subject matter and the implications for the human psyche are comparable. (I have written more details about the violence and child rape and how it was handled on my MySpace blog.) My overall impression was that this film was fantastic; one of the best-made films I have seen. The depiction of the Afghani boys flying their kites captured some of the beauty and grace of an art form unknown to most of the world. The subject matter is intensely serious, and the movie carries the emotions of the audience into that subject matter without many jarring \"Hollywood touches\" which have ruined other movies. Although the overturned cart of pomegranates was an obvious bit of symbolism (to me).

Finally, I must mention the excellence of the sound track. The recitation by the boy of poetry by Rumi as two main characters are fleeing the country during the Russian invasion - under terrifying circumstances - truly showed the power of those poems. I urge anyone watching to disregard the subtitles in that scene to the extent that you can, and just listen to the beauty of the language. I don't even know what language Amir is quoting, whether his normal Dari Persian dialect is the same as Rumi's original Persian dialect. Also, please note the sound heard every time a kite line is cut. I found it a profound, distinctive sound, though the librarians who were with me did not notice it at all. I can't help but wonder if kites actually make a sound like that when they are \"cut\", or if it gives a sense of the vibration\/sound experienced by the kite flyer during competition.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Greetings again from the darkness. Based on the mega-best seller from author Khaled Hosseini, the film provides us a peak at the ugliness of post-Russia invaded Afghanistan and the terror of the Taliban. Director Marc Foster adds a gem to his resume, which already includes \"Monster's Ball\", \"Finding Neverland\" and \"Stranger Than Fiction\".

The story of young friends Amir and Hassan and the unknown bond they share into the next generation. This is a story of honor and courage and loyalty and is an unusual coming-of-age tale. Some great scenes of the boys when they are kids and then a couple of truly amazing scenes as Amir returns as an adult to find Hassan's imprisoned son.

This is tight, compelling story telling with a message. The acting is solid throughout, with no one actor stealing the screen. Although not a pleasant story to watch unfold, it is certainly meaningful and heart felt. Plus a quick shot of Midnight Oil playing in the pool hall is a welcome gift.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the 70's in Afghanistan, the Pushtun boy Amir (Zekeria Ebrahimi) and the Hazara boy Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada), who is his loyal friend and son of their Hazara servant Ali (Nabi Tanha), are raised together in Amir's father house, playing and kitting on the streets of a peaceful Kabul. Amir feels that his wise and good father Baba (Homayoun Ershadi) blames him for the death of his mother in the delivery, and also that his father loves and prefers Hassam to him. In return, Amir feels a great respect for his father's best friend Rahim Khan (Shaun Toub), who supports his intention to become a writer. After Amir winning a competition of kitting, Hassam runs to bring a kite to Amir, but he is beaten and raped by the brutal Assef (Elham Ehsas) in an empty street to protect Amir's kite; the coward Amir witness the assault but does not help the loyal Hassam. On the day after his birthday party, Amir hides his new watch in Hassam's bed to frame the boy as a thief and force his father to fire Ali, releasing his conscience from recalling his cowardice and betrayal. In 1979, the Russians invade Afghanistan and Baba and Amir escape to Pakistan. In 1988, they have a simple life in Fremont, California, when Amir graduates in a public college for the pride and joy of Baba. Later Amir meets his countrywoman Soraya (Atossa Leoni) and they get married. In 2000, after the death of Baba, Amir is a famous novelist and receives a phone call from the terminal Rahim Khan, who discloses secrets about his family, forcing Amir to return to Peshawar, in Pakistan, in a journey of redemption.

I am not familiar with the Afghan culture and I did not read this novel in spite of the recommendation of my daughter, and yesterday I decided to watch this movie on DVD. I found a good story of loyalty, cowardice, betrayal and redemption, with a brief insight in the recent history of Afghanistan, from a peaceful period in the 70's to the present days with the Taliban. The actors and actresses have great performances, giving credibility to the realistic story. The arid locations in China recall the images we see in television from Afghanistan. In the end, I found \"The Kite Runner\" a good movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"O Ca\u00e7ador de Pipa\" (\"The Kite Chaser\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have never read the book, but had always heard good things about it. So when the movie came out I considered going to see it, but never did. Now it has come out on DVD and I have thought of renting for a few weeks now. Last night I finally picked it up. I am very glad that I did.

Cinematography was incredible in this movie. The scenery, etc,... all made you feel like you were in Kabul. The acting was all very good, although I am sure some of the emotions were lost in the translation. And the story itself was good and pure and uplifting. Yes the story was very sad, but at the same time uplifting.

And I will be honest, as a white American,... made me see aside of Kabul and Afghanistan that I never picture in my mind when I think about it. Showed me a Afghanistan before the Taliban. Showed me a place that was beautiful. Showed me a place with good hearted people. I community that was like a family, aside from a few bullies.

Anyways, I recommend this movie to everyone. It is one of the best I have ever seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have read both the book and saw the movie today. The storyline is so powerful that almost any script or screenplay would have done justice to it. So nothing much there. However, this is still a beautiful movie because it makes one think and feel, just like the book. Watching it is not like watching a documentary on a failed state and feeling sympathetic towards people suffering under an oppressive regime, but is like watching any other common man's story unfold, across generations, across continents. Amir's cowardice, his guilt, his dilemmas and finally his choosing a way of redemption could have been a story of any of us. There isn't a single infallible character to look up to and idolize but all of them are gray, just like all of us.

Another important observation is that the movie does a great job of chronicling the lives of Afghans through the twenty some years of turbulent political scenarios. The vibrant, care-free childhood represents Kabul before the Russian invasion and the desolate, shattered remains of the city echo what the Taliban has done to it.

The child actors deserve 'thumbs up' all the way. They can put any matured actor to shame.

If you have not yet seen the movie or read the book, just walk into the theater keeping in mind that you are going to witness a multi-layered story woven on a multi-colored fabric of human emotions and sentiments. This movie is not meant to stir anti-Soviet and anti-Taliban feelings but to feel the trials of human existence.

I read some of the external reviews linked to the site and I must confess I do not see the point in writing reviews that summarize the storyline like a distant spectator and point out technical details about amazing cinematography or something similar. At least for this movie, one should try to connect to it rather than judging it objectively.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching Stranger Than Fiction director Marc Forster's The Kite Runner is the cinematic equivalent of eating your vegetables because this art-house epic rated PG-13 is good for your movie-going diet. No, this isn't the kind of movie that I like to slouch on the couch and eyeball at the end of a tough day. The Kite Runner isn't your typical mainstream movie designed to entertain you and make you forget about your troubles. First, no celebrity stars appear in it. Second, nothing is cut and dried, black or white, or so outlandish that you don't believe an image that you see. Third, The Kite Runner lapses into subtitles when the characters occasionally speak in their native tongue. Fourth, Forster's film isn't a romantic trifle about boy-wants-girl, boy-loses-girl, and then boy-wins-girl back. Fifth, this foreign language film may make you feel uncomfortable and challenge your assumptions about life, friendship, and survival. The chief themes here are cowardice and redemption. The protagonist commits a cowardly offense in the first half of the action that he must atone for at the cost of his own personal safety and integrity. Right, The Kite Runner is about redeeming oneself for the sins of the past. We're talking about personal accountability, so don't rent or buy this wonderful movie for a boy's night out celebration or something to take the bad taste of the day out of your system. Based on Khaled Hosseini's bestselling novel, this culturally enlightened melodrama about right and down initially looks like one of those light-hearted friendship movies about adolescents in the vein of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Sandlot. About a half-hour into its 127 minutes, this escapade about two youngsters who fly kites in Afghanistan turns dark and unsavory. Nevertheless, if you can handle the remaining hour of the plot, you'll emerge gratified, relieved, and perhaps even entertained.

The Kite Runner opens in San Francisco in the year 2000 as our protagonist, Afghan \u00e9migr\u00e9 Amir Jan (Khalid Abdalla of United 93) and his wife Soraya (Atossa Leoni of The Florist) receive two boxes of published copies of Amir's first novel. No sooner has Amir had a chance to bask in his triumph of a life-time as a storyteller than the phone jars him from his reverie and he is drawn reluctantly back into a past that is best left forgotten for him. Rahim Khan (Shaun Toub of The Nativity Story) calls Amir from Pakistan to make a request. Rahim was a servant in Amir's household back in the 1970s when Amir lived with his wealthy Pashtun merchant father Baba (Homayoun Ershadi of A Taste of Cherry) in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion. \"You have one more chance to be good,\" Rahim informs Amir without sugar coating his request. Basically, Rahim wants Amir to fly to Pakistan and then enter war-torn Afghanistan and rescue Rahim's young grandson Sohrab (Ali Danish Bakhty Ari) who is being held a prisoner against his will as a sex slave for Assef (newcomer Abdul Salam Yusoufzai) a cruel Taliban chieftain and Amir's once dreaded adversary.

The Kite Runner shifts from San Francisco in 2000 to an extended flashback set in Kabul in 1978 when life was idyllic. Twelve-year-old Amir (Zekiria Ebrahimi) and the son of his father's servant, Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada) love to watch movies, such as John Sturges' western The Magnificent Seven, when they aren't flying kites. Incidentally, this is kite flying like you've never seen kite flying. Not only do the kids fly them, but they also compete with other kids to see who can cut the strings of another kid's kite. The kite fighting flight scenes generate the same kind of excitement that the dog fighting scenes had in Tony Scott's Top Gun. Hassan is Amir's best friend but unlike Amir, Hassan belongs to the reviled Hazara minority. Earlier, young Amir and Hassan had a confrontation with young Assef (Elham Ehsas) and his two flunkies. Assef was about to beat them up, but Hassan pulls out his slingshot and threatened to use it on Assef. Assef had no choice but to back down. Meanwhile, Amir was prepared to suffer the hand fate had dealt him. Amir's father Baba laments his son's lack of spine and fears that he will grow up half of a man because he is a coward, unlike the plucky little Hassan who bails Amir out of predicaments. Anyway, Amir and Hassan emerge from the showdown with Assef without a scratch. Later, after Amir sets a new record with his kite flying and fight skills, Hassan runs after a kite to claim it. Hassan is the eponymous character referred to in the title. Hassan claims the fallen kite but he finds himself at the mercy of Assef and his two minions. Assef lets Hassan kept the kite, but his minions pin Hassan spread-eagle, belly down in an alley while Assef sodomizes the youth. Worst, a traumatized Amir watches the assault from nearby but lacks the courage to intervene on behalf of his friend who would have intervened for him.

Aside from the extraordinary aerial scenes with the kites, The Kite Runner is down-to-earth, straight-forward stuff. When Amir returns to Afghanistan to rescue Sohrab, he masquerades as a Taliban fighter but he doesn't carry a firearm. The rescue scene in The Kite Runner is rather like the escape scene from The Midnight Express. While Forster doesn't explore the local politics or plunge us into the ethnic and cultural issues at stake here. Indeed, Troy scenarist David Benioff had to eliminate some parts of the book and the racial and ethnic prejudices aren't clearly delineated so you have to accept some things on faith. Forster lensed the film in nearly China to give it an authentic look. Forster deserves credit for making this two hour plus epic fascinating. The performances, especially by the children, stand out for their believability. The Kite Runner is a film that you won't easily forget.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Guilt and redemption are two of the staple emotions and plot elements of the heavy, powerful dramas that the Oscars love so much (which is kind of funny since \"The Kite Runner\" was only nominated for Best Original Score-the lack of nominations was perhaps unjust). While most film adaptations of books (or any other means) are usually inferior to their literary counterparts (and \"The Kite Runner\" is NOT an exception), Marc Forster's film adaptation is a good one.

Most people are familiar with the story, the book having been read by millions, so I won't go into the plot except to say that the book stays pretty faithful to its source. That being said, if you don't know the plot, see the movie, or better yet, read the book.

The best thing \"The Kite Runner\" has going for it (other than its story) is director Marc Forster. Forster is a director with epic scope and unique vision that is perfectly utilized in bringing Khaled Hosseini's book to the screen. A small part of me worried that he would use the same dreamy images that were included in one of Forster's earlier features, \"Finding Neverland.\" Don't get me wrong, \"Finding Neverland\" is a wonderful film, one of my favorites actually, but the visual trickery he used in there doesn't have a place here. Fortunately, Forster understands that, and the brilliance of his direction shows his versatility. Though the lack of a Best Director nomination for his work here is not exactly a travesty, I see a number of statuettes in store for him down the road.

Also of note is the screenplay adaptation. It remains faithful to the source, but it leaves room for Forster's vision to interpret the material. The dialogue is not dumbed down, and it. along with Forster's direction, moves at a solid pace. Like Forster, the lack of recognition at awards time for the screenplay was not an outrage, but I wouldn't have complained if it was at least nominated.

The dividing line here between this film being great and outstanding lies with the acting. Most of the performances are solid, but there are some that don't quite make the cut, and it hurts the film. The most notable weak performance comes from Zekeria Ebrahimi, who plays the young Amir. It's not that it's bad, it's just that it's not as effective as it could be. He just can't translate the guilt that consumes Amir to the audience. In fact, I think I might have been a little lost at this point in the movie at this point had I not read the book because of this. He looks somber, and at times resentful, but we can't feel his emotions. This is a difficult part to portray, and for the most part young Ebrahimi holds his own, which is especially surprising since this is his first film role.

The best performances come from Khalid Abdalla, who plays the adult Amir, and Shaun Toub, who plays the wise Rahim Kahn. Abdalla may not be a known name (though he was in Paul Greengrass's \"United 93\"), but his work here is amazing. He's a quiet, modest man, and he emotes perfectly when needed to. A lesser-capable actor could have made the character of Rahim Khan into a clich\u00e9, but Shaun Toub uses enough subtlety and care in his performance that he creates what the clich\u00e9s are trying to portray.

Forgive me if I go on a rant here, but this is something that I must address, and that is the film's PG-13 rating. The fact that this film received such a low rating is outrageous. There is no justification for it. Some could argue that the rating was bent because of the need for everyone to see it, like the gore in \"Saving Private Ryan,\" which some say should have earned the film an NC-17 rating. But that exception cannot be applied here. The only purpose the scene serves is to tell the story. Forster (probably at the behest of the producers) tried as hard as he could to tame the film's most painful and disturbing scene to allow the film to sneak by with a PG-13 rating, but the subject material is too disturbing to be depicted in any way and get less than an R rating, regardless of if how \"tasteful\" is may be portrayed. Worse, this editing robs the scene of much of its power, and by trying it make it less disturbing to get the lower rating is insulting. Furthermore, some scenes of violence are incredibly disturbing as well. In terms of how much time these scenes take of the movie, it doesn't add to much, but what is there is well deserving of an R rating at the very least. The MPAA, whose system of rating movies has always been corrupt, has sunk to a new low by giving this film such a low rating.

But one shouldn't fault the film for this. The film is a solid film that is well-worth seeing, especially if they are fans of the book.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE KITE RUNNER is one of those modern epics that one is occasionally graced with. Spanning two continents, multiple family generations, and many decades, this film touches on a myriad of items including friendship, love, loss, and, ultimately, redemption.

It's prime mover is young Amir (Zekeria Ebrahimi), a native Afghan boy who often plays with the hired help; mainly young Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada), a Hazara boy who's family is supposedly inferior to the ruling Afghans. But the two form a bond of friendship based on education (Amir teaches Hassan to read), closeness in Amir's house, and, of course, kite flying.

But bad times are on the way for the city of Kabul. The communists are invading and Amir and Hassan have separated due to an impossibly brutal act of prejudice by an Afghan boy against Hassan. The two may never see each other again.

Amir's father races to get himself and his son out of Afghanistan, eventually finding their way to America. Here the two set up a gas station and live hand to mouth by selling at niche markets. And as Amir's father gradually becomes ill, a new revelation will strike to the heart of Amir; one that he cannot ignore and requires his return to his beloved Kabul.

A study of friendship, war, and reconciliation, The Kite Runner is truly a fantastic piece of cinema. The story is never inappropriately spoken in English whenever we're in a foreign country, and only broken English whenever we're in America. This was refreshing and lent itself to a sense of realism.

The acting was on-par with the best you'll see, too. Particular note must be made of Homayoun Ershadi who plays Baba, Amir's ailing father and strong patriarch. Also lead Khalid Abdalla as the older Amir is played well, especially when returning to Kabul to find it in ruin; quite the contrast from when he'd left.

The cinematography of Afghanistan during Amir's escape and ultimate return are nothing short of breathtaking, with snow-capped peaks that will cause your mouth to slacken (I'm not sure exactly which mountain range they used in the film, but wherever it was I want to go there and film it myself!) But it isn't the cinematography nor the acting of one or two people that makes this film a success. It is a simple story told very well that makes it worth any movie watchers' while. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Can a film be too faithful to the book upon which it is based? Judging from the time-spanning 2007 adaptation of Khaled Hosseini's huge 2003 seller, the answer is rather ironically \"yes\". Like many, I was enthralled by the book, an impressive first effort by the Afghan-American writer\/physician. So obviously were director Marc Forster (\"Stranger Than Fiction\") and screenwriter David Benioff (\"Troy\"), who pay meticulous attention to the most significant details of the story within the film's 127-minute running time. Yet, the seamless tapestry of heartfelt events in Hosseini's novel often comes across as episodic and truncated because Forster and Benioff are sincerely trying hard to remain true to the full scope of the story within the time constraints. Part of the challenge is how Hosseini carefully used symbolic acts to provide literary, then-and-now symmetry to what is essentially a three-act story, a technique that can come across as somewhat contrived on screen.

However, the filmmakers do the most important things right, specifically giving the viewer an intimate look into a hidden culture heretofore conveyed through CNN news reports, ensuring authenticity by having characters speak in the Dari Persian dialect of the Afghan language, and capturing the emotional entanglements of the complex narrative. The first part of the movie is set in 1978 Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion and the eventual takeover of the Taliban. The focus is on the relationship between Amir, the son of an affluent businessman named Baba, and the devoted Hassan, the son of his father's servant. Connected by their mutual love of kite running, the two are thick as thieves until a tragic event separates them irreparably. Unable to find the courage that comes so naturally to his father, Amir is crippled by guilt for not having rescued Hassan from an unspeakable act performed by a trio of local bullies. Forster makes especially palpable the ethnic tensions between the Hazara and the Pashtun in Afghanistan.

Upon the 1979 invasion by Soviet troops, Amir and Baba flee to the U.S. where the story picks up their story nine years later in Fremont, California, a suburban enclave of Afghan \u00e9migr\u00e9s. Baba is reduced to working in a gas station and operating a flea market kiosk. Amir meets a local Afghan girl and marries. This is the film's least interesting passage since Benioff's treatment gives short shrift to ancillary characters like Amir's wife Soraya and most critically, Amir is portrayed by necessity as a reticent young man with a downward cast toward his self-esteem. The final section flashes forward twelve years where Amir, upon publication of his first book, is summoned back to Taliban-dictated Afghanistan to rescue Hassan's son from the Taliban, as a means to atone for his cowardice years earlier. There is true suspense and fear generated in this portion of the story as shocking revelations and old acquaintances come back to haunt Amir during his journey.

A British actor of Egyptian heritage, Khalid Abdalla (the lead hijacker in \"United 93\") has the central role of Amir as an adult, a challenging role since he has to convey a constant sense of shame and diminished self-worth until the end. The other professional actors fare better - Shaun Toub (Tony Stark's savior Yinsen in the current \"Iron Man\") as Baba's business partner Rahim Khan, who holds the key to the truth; Atossa Leoni quietly affecting as Soraya; and best of all, Iranian actor Homayoun Ershadi who brings pride and dignity to Baba. Three young non-professionals were recruited from Kabul's school system to play the key child roles, and all are quite good. Zekeria Ebrahimi is up to the challenge of the toughest part as young Amir, and Ali Danish Bakhtyari is poignant as Hassan's nearly catatonic son Sohrab. But it's the sad-eyed, moon-faced Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada who will break your heart as the young Hassan, especially in the devastating pomegranate-throwing scene. It's fair to say his performance is on par with the young Enzo Staiola's in Vittorio de Sica's classic \"Bicycle Thieves\".

The technical aspects are well done, in particular, Roberto Schaefer's clean cinematography (western China convincingly substitutes for Afghanistan), Alberto Iglesias' evocative score, and even the CGI effects showcasing the kites in turbulent flight. The 2008 DVD has a solid set of extras beginning with an insightful commentary from Forster, Hosseini, and Benioff, although some of their dialogue seems rather forced. There are two featurettes included - the first is the 14-minute \"Words from the Kite Runner\", which focuses on Hosseini's connection to the story and the development of the novel, and the second is the 25-minute \"Images from the Kite Runner\", a more standard behind-the-scenes look at the production. Rounding out the extras are the original theatrical trailer, a few previews, and a PSA from Hosseini on how to help the Afghans during their current time of need.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is absolutely one of our favourites of 2007.

The tale of two boys who come from different worlds but are as close as brothers is brilliantly told.

Beautifully shot, and scripted - from childhood to the adulthood it never falters.

A brilliant insight into a lost culture, and a very good way to understand Farsi cultures and traditions this is also an exceptional tale in its own right. It is both compassionate and thrilling, uplifting and filled with immense sorrow, joyful and depressing.

With excellent performances from the cast and great technical skills behind the camera this really is film at its best.

Highest recommendation: a real slice of life that uplifts and informs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have no read the novel on which \"The Kite Runner\" is based. My wife and daughter, who did, thought the movie fell a long way short of the book, and I'm prepared to take their word for it. But, on its own, the movie is good -- not great but good. How accurately does it portray the havoc created by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? How convincingly does it show the intolerant Taliban regime that followed? I'd rate it C+ on the first and B+ on the second. The human story, the Afghan-American who returned to the country to rescue the son of his childhood playmate, is well done but it is on this count particularly that I'm told the book was far more convincing than the movie. The most exciting part of the film, however -- the kite contests in Kabul and, later, a mini-contest in California -- cannot have been equaled by the book. I'd wager money on that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I read the book before watching the movie and it left me emotionally drained but I felt that it truly transported me to Afghanistan, a culture I know very little about. I had great hopes for this movie and it did not disappoint. I watched this with someone who didn't read the book and he also enjoyed it. They had to shorten some things in the movie but it was a well acted and well shot film. It leaves you thinking about the movie long after it is over. You feel for the characters and their plights. I highly recommend this movie to those who like emotionally draining drama and want to experience Afghani culture. There are some disturbing scenes not suitable for children to watch. It is a heavy drama depicting the horrors of life under a restrictive regime.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a film that left me breathless........ wanting to learn more of the Afghan history and traditions. With todays \"evil doer\" mantra clouding reality, it was inspirational to experience the beauty of the people and their beliefs.

Casting was impeccable, the scenery simply marvelous. The acting was first rate and the fact that the Academy overlooked this (except it's music) is unforgivable.

The script is wonderful and such and emotional journey. Provoking an \"ugly cry\" from this watcher.

A film worth watching a second and third time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on the best selling novel by Khaled Hosseini, The Kite Runner is a story of friendship, betrayal, and the struggle for redemption. Set in Afghanistan prior to the Soviet invasion of 1979 and later in the days of Taliban rule, all of the elements are present for great drama but, under the direction of Marc Forster (Finding Neverland), the film lacks the kind of searing emotional impact that makes for a memorable experience, though it is entertaining, well acted, and occasionally moving.

Set in 1978 in Kabul but filmed in Kashgar, China because of the dangers in Afghanistan, the friendship that opens the film between two young boys is very real, though they are miles apart in social and economic circumstances. 12-year-old Amir (Zekiria Ebrahimi) lives in posh surroundings with his wealthy and educated father Baba, played by the great Homayoun Ershadi, although his wealth seems a bit incongruous in one of the poorest countries in the world. Though Baba is a loving father, he confesses to Rahim Khan (Shaun Toub), his friend and business associate, that Amir is too soft and that there is \"something missing with that boy\". The family has a servant, Ali (Nabi Tanha) who dotes on his every need and whose son Hassan (Ahmed Khan Mahmoodzada) is Amir's best friend.

The two are separated not only by class but also by ethnicity. Amir, a burgeoning writer, is a member of the Pashtun majority while Hassan is a Hazara, a minority sect (10% of the population). Though we learn little about their traditions or social situation, they are bound together by their love of kite flying, a popular sport in Kabul and by Amir's reading Afghan folk stories to Hassan who is illiterate. The annual kite-flying competition to the boys is a big event in their lives and the CGI effects are breathtaking. The kite strings are covered with glass particles and the winner is the one whose kite string can cut down the other kites in the sky. Hassan is the kite runner who has an uncanny ability to locate the fallen kites and bring them to Amir as a trophy. After Amir wins the important contest, however, a sad event occurs that will shape the rest of his life.

Bullies, led by the older Assef (Elham Ehsas) who later appears as a ruthless Taliban leader, attack Hassan because he is a Hazara and brutally rape him (off camera) while Amir is too frightened to try and prevent it. Unable to confront his perceived lack of courage (though one must wonder what if anything he could have done to help Hassan), guilt becomes the driving force in his relationship with Hassan and their friendship becomes strained. In one incident, Amir throws pomegranates at Hassan as if begging him to fight back and punish him for his passivity but Hassan doesn't take the bait, continuing to be loyal in spite of his friend's cowardice. When Amir urges his father to dismiss the servants and accuses Hassan of stealing his watch, Hassan admits to the theft even though he is innocent. Eventually, circumstances force Ali and Hassan to leave out of shame. When the Russians invade Afghanistan, Baba and Amir also leave, fleeing to Pakistan and then to Fremont, California where the story picks up years later.

Baba is forced to work at a gas station and to sell trinkets at an open-air market while Amir (Abdul Salam Yusoufzai), seemingly going through the motions of living, studies to become a writer at the local community college. After he falls in love and marries Soraya (Atossa Leoni), the daughter of a Kabul general, Amir finally publishes his first novel, A Season of Ashes and things look very positive. When Amir receives a call from Rahim Khan asking him to visit him in Pakistan telling him \"there is a way to be good again\", the specter of guilt that has haunted him all of his life beckons Amir to go home. He returns to Pakistan and, with great risk, goes back to an Afghanistan now controlled by the Taliban to confront the demons of his past and to discover a startling secret in the process.

The Kite Runner is a sensitive film that deals with the internal pain that comes from knowing that you were not true to your best instincts and allows for the possibility of moving beyond shame to a new level of responsibility. It also does not hide the pain caused to Afghanistan by wars and revolution, a pain that is perhaps represented by the suffering Hassan. Unfortunately, it reduces complex situations to the level of good guys and villains and distorts what actually happened, exonerating the U.S., who engaged in anti-government covert operations within the country, from any responsibility for the disastrous war that left over one million dead and millions more disabled. Though we are inspired by the outstanding child actors and moved by the freedom that kite flying represents, The Kite Runner relinquishes its power when it attempts to substitute melodrama for history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"one of the best and most inspirational movies about a different culture I've seen in years. tragic and touching. worth the watch. maybe a few times. We all know how brutal children can be. I know from my own and my brothers experiences as children and this movie hit the nail on the head. perfectly! The Kite running is amazing and I need to do research on the validity of that event. even though It is done in cgi it is still amazing and very interesting. to maneuver a kite like that with a single string seems impossible but they make it believable. anyway this movie has many twists and turns that are, I'm sure to many, probably easy to figure out but they hit me before I could. which makes a great movie for me! when you figure out the whole movie in the first 10 minutes it kind of ruins it. but this one does it so smoothly that it's hard to guess it even when it happens...I'm a guy and I don't mind saying that the tears were flowing at more than one point in this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have not read the novel from which the film is based on. So I cannot comment on what is missing or if there were changes made.

As I stated above, I had a wonderful experience watching THE KITE RUNNER.. I find that when I see films about other cultures than ours here in the USA,I learn how other peoples live & exist.

The actors in this movie are from Afghanistan & other countries in that area. There are 3 young children in this near epic movie in there first roles, They were marvelous.

The scenes that was supposedly in Kabul were shot in various parts of China, I assume that the area is similar to the actual places in the book.

Mark Foster directed & he did FINDING NEVRRLAND, he has created the same magic here.

All aspects of production are first rate.

I found this a better movie than those nominated & won Oscars.

The film is sub-titled , it is very clear to read. It has a proper PG-13 rating. SPOILER ALERT--- The child rape scene is very well handled.

I cannot however give this a 4 star rating as the general plot & story line we have seen many, many times, Non-the-less this is a very worthwhile movie to watch..

Ratings: ***1\/2 (out of 4) 95 points (out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK I haven't read the book\u0085\u0085 And maybe the book was better\u0085\u0085.WHO KNOWS???\/\/ But I loved the movie. It was entertaining, not a bit boring, enjoyable and most of all heart wrenching. The friendship between the two kids was so pure and innocent. These kids acted so well, especially the son of the Servant. Oh my GOD that's like the form of GOD on the face of EARTH. ARGHHHH he steals our heart so easily. *********Spoilers************* The other Friend the rich guy is a Kid and his confusion and frustration can be understood. BUT I did get angry when he Abandoned and ignored his friend in the time when he needed consoling. Anyways he was just a kid and a bit stubborn to. I wish the movie would also have shown the older version of the poor kid. Arghh it pains to just think of the ending. This movie is sad. I felt terribly sad during the ending. Tears dropped down my eyes. Yes the background scores are fantastic, the scenes are WOW. The Kite scenes are Fascinating. And well it gets a bit of an adventure in the middle. Wonderfully acted and superbly cast. The kids acted so well. GREAT Direction. don't know why this movie failed to WOOO the Critics. But it sure did WOO me. 10\/10 Must-See\u0085\u0085\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two young friends grow up together in Afghanistan. The events of their lives drive them apart and one of them has now been living in the USA for a good number of years. As he receives a phone call it is clear that he has to return, for there is trouble in the air.

This is a film about life lasting friendships, mistakes and making up again. But also a film about darkness, pain and endurance. From the pleasurable young days of growing up and playing games to the falling apart, back to the playing of games. This is a slow film, but not too slow.

It plays on emotions and that is quite right for a drama, but it does so a bit too much for my liking. This makes it too much of a tearjerker, loosing it a bit of the quality it carries. It is still good, but not fantastic.

7 out of 10 kites ran aground","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"kite runner is undoubtedly one of the most amazing books i have read in the recent past. i perhaps had very high expectations from the film, but none the less the movie was good, the entire setting seemed realistic. nothing was made to fancy. the dialogs were not very attractive or powerful, they were just right. The movie was not a bad experience at all, especially at the last 15mins ,where it got real emotional and even the hardest man would probably cry.but my imagination was far better than the movie...i cried more upon reading the novel than seeing the movie. but overall a good movie to see for those of u who are not readers. but the readers- the novel would be a better experience,so if at all u want to see the movie, read the novel first and then compare it to the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those curious, this episode is based in theme upon Pirandello's play, \"Six Characters in Search of an Author\" and Jean-Paul Sartre's play, \"No Exit\" (as indicated most obviously by its title), but, of course, with a Sterling twist.

Five very different individuals find themselves in a round room with no idea who they are other than the indication of their attire. A bell intermittently rings (perhaps also a Hemmingway allusion?), increasing the agony of their incarceration. The newcomer to the group, a Major, is determined to escape, while the others are resigned to their fate.

Unlike Pirandello, these characters don't even have a story. They have nothing other than the experience of the room in their consciousness, and no one to author their nonexistent story, so their position is even more hopeless than the characters in Pirandello's piece. Unlike both Pirandello and Sartre, there is no relationship involved between the characters and therefore no real conflict between them, though the theme of personal responsibility versus apathy is prominent in this story.

Though this diverges significantly from the storyline of the authors alluded to in the title, themes of Sartre and Pirandello (and many other authors of the twentieth century) come through with absolute clarity. This is very obviously a piece which addresses post-modernist perspective in the context of the Cold War era. There is also an emphasis upon issues of personal insignificance.

This is easily one of the best episodes I've seen, and still exceptionally relevant to current experience (as are Sartre and Pirandello). Exactly what makes a good piece of writing into a classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While researching Susan Harrison (The Ballerina) in reference to a Bonanza Episode, I was reminded of this gem.

This episode is the inspiration for Dylan's \"All Along the Watch Tower\" (Hendrix's cover is probably as well know and is one of his best) which is one of HIS best.

Thus this episode is responsible for several 'bests' - not bad for approximately 22 minutes of television.

But this is \"The Twilight Zone\". Further comment of the series is unnecessary.

'5 Characters' is typical Serling. Intense, dramatic, barreling toward an end that is as inevitable in hindsight as it is surprising the first time you see it.

This episode is spoiled in one sentence and is too good to spoil for any who have not seen it.

But you will feel ambushed. And you will never listen to Hendrix with the same ears again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I will never forget the utterly absorbing effect this show had on me when I saw it for the first time. From the moment that the Major is startled by the Clown, to his anguished attempts to make sense of the situation ( \" We're alive, we're people, we must have memories!\" inexact quote but close), to his clever attempt to improvise a means of escape, this is riveting drama.

Little touches stay with the viewer for a long time after watching it. The moment when the lovely ballerina dances for everyone, to the off key, screeching bagpipes of the Scottish musician; the Tramp's wistful remark, \" A miss is as good as a mile\", the Major's shaken conclusion that they must be in Hell.

This is a brilliant episode, beautifully written and acted. The breathtaking beauty of Susan Harrison adds to the memorability of the strange, touching story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Five Characters In Search of An Exit\" clearly has to be one of the more clever and better \"Twilight Zone\" episodes ever made because of it's abstract ideas and thoughtful plan where the characters have to search to discover identity and it ends as a surprise. You have a military major, a female dancer, bag pipe player, a clown, and hobo who all awake together in the bottom of a wall and none know how they got there and they don't know who they are. So the episode starts out with very interesting drama and suspense from the very beginning making it so soul searching for the viewers interest to want to know the characters true identity and backgrounds. Plus the episode even adds more intrigue for the fact it places different types of characters with different views and lifestyles all with one goal in common to escape and find identity, and peace that's very compelling for the viewer. Only in the end I don't want to spoil for those who haven't seen a surprise fall happens! Proving that many times you might want to stay where you are away in your little sheltered world and be away from the masses of other people's world as you will see the characters are loved in a different way by people in a much different form. Really great and cleverly done a real shock twist surprise that makes the viewer see the unexpected and cruel fate that happens sometimes when you search and seek.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the classic TWILIGHT ZONE episodes, where with the simplest of situations the viewer was drawn into a seemingly symbolic conflict, only to find the solution surprising and strangely acceptable. Five figures are inside a container\/prison: a Major, a ballerina, a bagpiper, a clown, and a tramp. They are certainly an odd choice of types to be in this isolation chamber, but they are all in it (nevertheless) and they are trying to figure out why they are there. What have they in common? None can figure it out. But gradually the Major organizes them into working to bet out by standing on each other's shoulders. And the Major, going to the top of the line of figures does reach the entrance, and .... I'll leave it like that, although one of the other critiques on this thread actually gives the story away.

The title seems to be suggested by SIX CHARACTERS IN SEARCH OF AN AUTHOR, Pirandello's famous play. Whether the actual purpose to the show was to spoof that play is questionable: Pirandello's characters analyze their roles and relations with each other. But the five characters here, while they try to understand their situation, are totally in the dark - they are not in the situation of the six characters in Pirandello who know their current situations. This uncertainty of what is going on allows the viewers to think it is an abstract drama.

The actors, William Windon as the Major and Murray Mattheson as the Clown in particular, give good accounts of themselves. And the conclusion, whether planned as a spoof or not, is quite effective.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It seems there are two kinds of people in the world: those who think that \"Five Characters\" is one of the best episodes in the series and those who are so cool that they know it sucked because they were so clever and already predicted the \"lame\" twist at the end (which apparently, in their small minds, is the only reason the Twilight Zone exists: to come up with twists).

There are plenty of lame episodes in the series and I'm not one to rate all TZ episodes ten. But this one is certainly one of those that merit such a rating. It is claustrophobic and colorful. The suspense is built up and we cannot wait for the reveal of the secret at the end. But whatever that secret is, what these people are, it doesn't really matter. Most of the beauty of the episode is to lead up to that. It would be just as powerful if we never find out what these strangers in a strange place really are.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"During the Sci-Fi TZ marathon of January 31, 1999, this episode was the last one aired in the 20th century in my time zone(Eastern). It was New Year's Eve, and when the clown starts singing, \"We're here because we're here, because we're here, because we're here...\" I realized that this was TZ's clever nod to it being New Year's Eve because that tune is also the tune to Old Lang Syne. Coincidence? We will never know.

I love this story for the little touches: The tear on the ballerina, the antics of the clown, and the hit-yourself-in-the-head ending. This and the Art Carney Santa TZ are the only ones that are about Christmas.

My personal top five episodes, after Five Characters...: 1. The Hunt 2. The After Hours 3. The Hitchhiker 4. The Lonely 5. Little Girl Lost","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I guess by the time I saw this episode, I had seen enough Twilight Zones to have it figured out ahead of time. There is this odd assemblage of characters who find themselves at the bottom of a cylinder. They are fine until an overzealous soldier shows up in their midst. It is his prime directive to escape and so he garners the forces and puts them to work to reach the top of the cylinder. There is much discussion about purpose and reason and speculation on their pasts, but no one can remember anything. They represent different jobs: a piper, a ballerina, a clown, a man in a tattered hat. Why are they there? It leads to an adventure and is resolved at the end, but I guess I had a pretty good idea before it all happened.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Odd but wonderfully original movie. Genuinely frightening, creepy and ridiculous in equal measures. The setting of a high rise red brick apartment is a perfect backdrop for the haunting action. The thought of a secret sealed room in a place like this is good enough but when the lead naive couple start cleaning up the old bed they find in this room the scene is set for some classic chills. The cast is fantastic. Tanya Dempsey really gets to chew some scenery after being undervalued in other Full Moon films. Joe Estevez proves why brother Martin Sheen is so much bigger in Hollywood - his rolling eyes during the making the bed scene are really hilarious. Charles Band co-produced with Stuart Gordon and this really is an exceptional Full Moon\/Darkwave release. Danny Draven also directed Hell Asylum with Dempsey.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's one of the best movies that I have seen this year ! I don't agree with the person who said it's boring. Of course some people may find this movie not frightening at all, but personally I spent a very good moment. This movie alterns very well sex scenes with frightening scenes. There is also a nice touch of humor. For example when the wife tells her husband that in her childhood she was abused by her father, and then her husband says \"how can someone abuse someone like you\", and then he attempts to attach her on the bed for sexual games :D Very funny ! I recommend this movie to everyone, and by the way, sorry for my poor English (I'm from France).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was thought to be low budget but it turned out to be awesome. I just rented it from blockbuster and i loved it. The acting was very good, hot women and some scary parts. It is plain and simply worth the money to pay for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Passion In The Desert exemplifies spatial grander. It is a visual narrative, illuminated by the magnificent cinematography. Passion was filmed on location in the deserts of Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Namibia, and Tunisia.

We are in Egypt, 1798. Augustin, a Napoleanic soldier, is escorting writer and artist Jean-Michel Venture De Paradis on an official mission to document, measure, draw, and paint the cultural landmarks of the Egypt: its dunes, stupendous ruins, and mysterious people.

But, can you truly \"document\" majestic sandscapes, fractured edifices, and wild Bedouins? Can you truly capture the essence of Egypt, nature, man, and time?

Jean and Augustin become lost in the mesmerizing glittering, gold desert, whose vastness overwhelms their senses.

\"You can't get lost in Egypt! There's the Nile, and there's the sea!\", says the dehydrated Augustin, and soon he discovers an ancient, winding cave that leads to a palatial ruin.

Delirious and near-delusional, he attempts to rest; a perplexing sound rouses him; his eyes, body, and emotions become hypnotically locked in time as he stumbles into a sensual, sensory experience....

A wild, sleek female leopard stares back at him, and their love affair begins....

A daring love affair, a daring film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently stumbled across a TV showing of \"Passion....\" (having missed the opening scenes). Ms Currier in to be praised for having the vision and courage to bring such a strange de Balzac tale to the screen. I am grateful to the entire cast and crew for their parts in producing such a thoroughly fine motion picture. It must have been arduous shooting so many scenes in the desert. And I cannot comprehend how her trainer coaxed such a fine \"performance\" from the leopard, Simoon. (This adverture calls to mind another suspenseful adventure, \"Naked Prey\"). Why isn't this film more well-known?. Hope I can find it on video.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Honore De Balzac's genuinely bizarre short story on which this was loosely based gets an unsettling, albeit breathtakingly filmed, treatment here as a sort of forbidden-love blossoms over a period of time between man and beast in the early part of the nineteenth century. Thin and very blonde English actor Ben Daniels plays the role of a young soldier during the Napoleonic wars who gets lost whilst escorting an exiled(?) french painter across the rugged, dangerous landscapes of the Gobi Desert. After literally going around in circles the two men give up ever trying to reach civilization again, thus each decides (against better judgment mind you) to go their separate ways with the promise of both returning to the same exact spot when and if a water source is actually found. This is of course how Daniels' character comes to encounter the creature (a wild and untamed female leopard) and eventually form a seemingly unbreakable bond, or rather love, with it that both saves his life and nearly destroys it by film's end. The exquisite cinematography, minimalist dialog, somewhat demented story which arguably hints at possible bestiality in about three scenes are what ultimately lead professional critics to pan the film as pretentious and overlong rubbish. While it is a film that isn't exactly for all tastes mind you, I find it to be a subtle, though decidedly left-of-center mixture of fantasy with a surreal and sumptuous atmosphere, highlighted by the fact that for more than half of the flick actor Ben Daniels is forced to perform opposite a wild animal (four leopards were actually used as opposed to just the one), which plain common sense and a slight knowledge of theatrics dictates that it must have been a maddening and very difficult job that he managed to pull off quite brilliantly if you ask me! Overall, I think that \"Passion in the Desert\" takes a while to warm up to, but if you're a patient person who is willing to give it some time it does in fact cast it's uniquely original spell over you in spite of everything; and unlike most platonic human and animal relationship stories it need not require a talking pig, monkey or shaggy dog to keep your interest throughout. (***** out of *****)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I began watching I thought I was watching some pro-Koresh amateur documentary. However, I had never seen 3\/4 of the footage they used. They interviewed people saying that the FBI\/ATF instigated all these things, which sounded so far fetched, but then followed in up with FBI video and testimony. I was amazed. The documentary followed up with the senate investigation after the fire, and after seeing the interview and video footage you will be shocked at how the Senate and Attorney General turn their backs on Davidians basically to cover up the aggression by the FBI\/ATF. If you start watching this you must finish it. Otherwise you will think it is propaganda of something like that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched a made for television film about the destruction at Waco, Texas. It was obviously heavily slanted toward the claim that David Koresh was a murderous, child raping cult leader hell-bent on killing as many cops as he wanted and taking his people to the heavens on a blood stained stairway.

The film was little more than propaganda further detailing what we had already read in the newspapers. I am more and more sure of that since I watched the great documentary Waco: The Rules of Engagment. Not that every assertion made in this film should be taken as God's truth, but it tells the whole story rather than regurgitating only what law enforcement decided to tell.

For those who have forgot, Koresh was the spiritual leader of the religious movement named The Branch Davidians. Charges of drug use, kidnapping, illegal weapon ownership, and statutory rape (among others I'm sure) raised the suspicions of the local police, then later federal law enforcement. While attempting to serve a search warrant, the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and the clan participated in a shoot out that left deceased and wounded on both sides.

It was then that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) got involved. Communications between the two were spirited but eventually broke down. The FBI prepared for an invasion by assaulting the building with flash-bang grenades and gas. When the building burnt to the ground killing many within, including Koresh, the FBI refused to admit responsibility saying the \"cult\" inside must have set it on fire themselves. This hearkened images of Jim Jones and other violent religious organizations.

The picture puts on many masks to tell its story. It begins with a sampling of the congressional hearings, perhaps the \"truth,\" as far as the record is concerned anyway. What is eye-opening is how partisan the politicians remained even in a difficult and serious situation as this. The Democrats were concerned in nothing more than defending every single action taken by law enforcement. It was the Republicans that seemed open to the other side.

It is impossible to relate all of the new information and analysis provided by this documentary. Additionally, a list would take away from the film opening up as it goes along. One example would be the heart-breaking fact that children died within the compound. The filmmakers probably side more with the Davidians in general but stay relatively open to either side. In this instance the feds seem at fault for mishandling a situation that involves innocent children. But on the other hand the parents also need to shoulder some of the blame for leaving their kids in this harmful situation when they could have released them to any number of local authorities.

Probably the most damning new information comes late in the film and involves the FBI's claim they did not fire upon the building. This is left up to interpretation, and I will not reveal any more than to say it is disturbing and shocking what can and cannot be told.

The federal officers are not held in a critical or corrupt light any more than Koresh. The largest condemnation seems to be leveled on the media, unwilling to tell both sides of a story. This element seems prevalent in recent documentaries, duly so I believe. It is time for the media to return to telling news stories and leave this relentless pursuit of what will draw the biggest audience and ratings.

It is hard to mess up a documentary. In most cases switching on a camera and editing together interesting pieces of life is common and tells a terrific story. What few can do is shed such new light on a subject that the way you think about it is forever altered. Waco is that kind of film. ***.5 out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent documentary that still manages to shock and enlighten. Unfortunately, times haven't changed much since this was made and it is thus an important piece for all freedom-conscious Americans to see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you value your freedom!

I first got seriously interested in The Branch Davidian debacle after reading an article in UK journal \"The Fortean Times.\" Wanting to learn more, I rented this documentary and after watching it, I was stunned at what I saw. This film peaked my interest in the subject and I have read several books on the subject since then. This film is a must see for people who only know the facts as reported in the so called \"mainstream\" media. The baldfaced lies, double talk, and contradictory statements made by officials and politicians shown in this film will make you think twice about calling people who question the governments actions in this fiasco \"nuts\" \"loonies\" and \"kooks.\"

Whats scary is that I know some people who consider themselves open minded \"intellectuals\" and freedom loving \"liberals\" who are still convinced that the government did the right thing at Waco and refuse to watch this film or read any of the books on the subject. They continue to insist its not worth their time because its all propaganda from gun loving, Clinton hating, religious fanatic,right wing anarchist nuts. One publication from an organization comprised of many so called \"great minds\" that claims to be dedicated to promoting \"reason\",\"common sense\" and \"rationalism\" condemned the film claiming it would poison peoples minds and strongly suggested this film should be suppressed. They even hinted the Davidians had it coming. I won't mention its name since I'm a coward. If you are one of those reading this (of course you probably would not be reading this anyway), I can only say its a shame you won't open your mind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many people remember the Waco standoff that occurred a long time ago. What most people probably have ingrained in their minds is the \"cult leader\" David Koresh and the images of the compound burning to the ground after a long standoff. A lot of people have the belief that Koresh was some kind of madman who thought he was God. He was accused of being a child molester and was credited for the breakdown and deaths of his followers. Furthermore, many people feel the cult committed mass suicide when the FBI stormed Mount Carmel Center and when the building was burning. Most people feel the cult was at fault for not agreeing with the FBI on reasonable terms. Most people feel the cult was brainwashed by Koresh and followed along with everything that he said. Nothing could be farther from the truth, because of strong evidence after the nightmare was over, and this one-of -a- kind documentary pretty much proves it!!

This documentary is one of the most balanced examinations at the situation that occurred. It is much more thorough and highly detailed than anything most people have received in the mainstream media. To the shock of many people, this documentary will reveal that is was the ATF, the FBI, and the higher levels of the United States government who were the ones who were unjust, cruel, and deceptive, and not David Koresh and his followers. What Korseh and Davidians were doing was just protecting their constitutional rights, and the higher powers completely violated and raped those rights. The AFT had no grounds to storm the compound; it was the AFT that shot first and they shot from the helicopters from above at unarmed men, women, and children!! What is even more shocking is the actions of the FBI when they entered the Mount Carmel. Watch it for yourselves and you will develop and new perspective on the U.S. government. There is infrared footage that clearly shows the FBI was shooting with machine guns at the men, women, and children in the burning compound. It will make your blood boil. It will make you really angry. It will make you wonder as to what kind of people run this country. Finally, it will make you wonder as to what you are being told on the news every night is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This video is frightening and I highly recommend it if one can find it. This documentary does not need to be purchased; it can be watched for free on google video!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After reading about this documentary, I rented it and watched it with my teenage children. It was amazingly well-balanced, showing each side's perspective and leaving many questions unanswered. This is as it should be. I don't watch a documentary to be told what to think. I watch it to learn and to draw my own conclusions.

Afterward, we took a trip to Waco and visited the Branch Davidians at the site of the conflagration. This was a potent lesson in seeing for yourself. And it drove home the basic underlying honesty behind \"Waco: The Rules of Engagement.\" If you just open your eyes and look, the facts can speak for themselves.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad. Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad. Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An eye opening documentary about the 1993 siege of a religious sect compound near Waco, Texas. Seventy-six people, including sect leader, David Koresh, perished in a flaming inferno that destroyed the compound. There is still heated debate over how the fire started. Homicide or suicide? Can you still trust government ethics?

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chris Noth plays a maniac who wrote a children's book as a young lad, posing as a doctor who menaces a community in order to push his sister's son into the position as his school's genius. The only man that can stop him is a cop who plays by his own rules, and is forced to go undercover with the help of his mute father who communicates via oujii board. Will Rick Springfield find out whats up? Or will somebody sabotage his recording studio! Does the mentally retarded boy who operates the book mobile have clues? Watch to find out! I'm not making this up!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the most underrated movies of the 1990s. If you allow yourself to identify with the Patricia Arquette character, you will find it to be a very moving story of a woman regaining a sense of purpose to her life, and finding a new will to live.

Arquette's performance is brave because it is purposefully \"wooden\" -- it's a way of defining her character's spiritual death, her complete lack of a desire to be alive. She moves through life like a zombie because her family has been murdered and she can't see the point of living. What is moving is how in the course of the story, she is reawakened -- by the Burmese landscape, by the beautiful quality of its people and landscapes, and by the primal choices she is forced to confront.

Boorman supports this visually (and Hans Zimmer supports it with one of his most gorgeous, haunting scores) with an often static camera and with a propensity to shoot through glass, windows, windshields, etc. We are on the outside looking in, just like Arquette.... until she finds herself deep in the jungle and is forced to choose whether or not to fight for her life.

I recommend the 1954 movie THE PURPLE PLAIN as well. It's a similar story in a similar setting, and makes for a fascinating comparison.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Patricia Arquette plays American doctor Laura Bowman, who takes a holiday to Burma in an attempt to heal her spirit after the murders of her husband and young son. She is left behind in Rangoon during a military crackdown and leaves the city with an aging man who works as a \"tour guide.\" But he is no simple tour guide; he is a professor who introduces her to the life outside of the tourist traps ... the two of them get caught up in the political upheaval and Laura sees with her own eyes how the government betrays and oppresses its own people.

This movie is one of my favorites because of its themes. First, it's informational (describing some of the injustices that are occurring in Burma). Secondly, it's about a woman's struggle to find meaning in life after an incredible loss. Thirdly, it's about compassion and sacrifice, and people coming together - without even knowing each other - to endure pain and fear.

Just about every beautiful scene in this movie is important; nothing is wasted here. It's an earnest and moving film. There is also a very emotional score composed by Hans Zimmer which complements scenes nicely.

A definite recommend, especially to people concerned with human rights ... and people who want to know, \"What purpose can I serve?\"

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Never had I seen such a powerful true story movie. I discovered a city, a country, a lost revolution and even a Nobel prize winner thanks to this masterpiece of cinema.

If you haven't seen this movie, you can't say you've seen anything .

A great lesson of courage, humility and life.

I haven't seen anything as good since.

T.E. Saturday, January 9th, 1999","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was working toward two goals: to make a political point and to tell a scary adventure story. It's often difficult to do make a political point and still tell a good story (consider the highly political but rarely-entertaining final season of Ellen). Beyond Rangoon finds a good balance between politics and storytelling.

I already knew that Aung San Suu Kyi had won the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize, and knew something about the oppressive political situation in Burma, so the political message of the movie was mostly a dramatization of what I already knew. But I thought the movie did a good job of telling about Aung San Suu Kyi and the mostly-faceless dictators who have for years tried to silence her. The device of presenting an unfamiliar setting through the eyes of a character that viewers can identify with is fairly common, but it's quite well done in this movie.

Of course, the real measure of the movie was its entertainment value. Arquette was excellent as a young woman whose sister took her to a distant, unfamiliar place to shake her out of her depression over the violent deaths of her husband and son. She is convincingly detached and depressed. Her grieving condition gives her a clear reason for her distracted wanderings into the thick of a dangerous situation she does not understand, something she'd otherwise be much too intelligent to stumble into.

Once the dangers become so obvious that she can see through them even through the cloud of grief, she's trapped, with no easy escape. That sets her on a path of adventure where she needs her intelligence to survive. The writers deserve much credit for making her intelligent and resourceful enough to deal with numerous dangerous situations, while still finding a plausible reason for her to be foolish enough to get into trouble in the first place. The directing is strong also, keeping up the tension throughout the race to escape the forces of the dictatorship.

This movie had additional impact on me and my wife because of other events of the same time period. We were preparing for a trip to India, and heard news reports of Western tourists who had been taken hostage by a terrorist group in India. Avoiding isolated terrorists in a peaceful democratic country is quite a different matter from escaping an oppressive dictatorship. But the movie and the news shared the element of avoiding danger in an unfamiliar country. That common characteristic gave the movie meaning beyond the strength of its own skillful storytelling. The movie illustrates the international tourist's worst nightmare.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While the movie has its flaws, it brings to light some of the problems that come with living in a country that has no democracy. It makes you empathize with the people under such a government and makes you want to learn more about their lives, their struggles and a potential leader Aung San Suu Kyi. It makes one wonder why our government will interfere places we are not wanted yet ignore those who ask our help.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film should be seen by as many people as possible as it concentrates on the human rights problems in Burma. When I first watched this film in the mid 1990's it totally changed my life. I knew very little about Aung San Suu Kyi or her democracy movement. It effected me so I wanted to understand more about the situation. Any film that has the power to make you want to learn more has done its job properly. Patricia Arquette is superb as the American lady who due to personal tragedy has become reckless with her own life decisions and gets caught up in the ensuing conflict. It is a powerful film about a subject matter which deserves more publicity. As the film itself says the 1988 massacre of Pro democracy activists was not televised and therefore largely went unnoticed to the world. I implore everyone reading these comments to take the time to find out more about the current plight of the Burmese people.

It is about time this film was released on DVD. Can anything be done?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beyond Rangoon is one of the most emotional and intense films ever made. Superbly directed by John Boorman, and intensly acted by Patricia Arquette, this film can easily be called one of the best films of the 90's. The story and vivid characters just grab the audience from the very opening, and never lets go. After seeing the film, the viewer will never be able to forget \"Beyond Rangoon\". The film made little money at the box office, and is little known, but should be high profile. Watching it, you can tell that it was meant to be seen by a large audience. It is a very important and moving film, and should be seen by everyone.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Beyond Rangoon\" is simply marvelous. From the traumatic opening to the uplifting ending, you will be amazed at how well put together this film is. Patricia Arquette amazingly portrays Laura Bowman, who we meet as a shut-down and quit despondent young doctor, unable to deal with her grief over the loss of her husband and son. Throughout the course of the film, as she is trapped in Burma, witnesses the Democratic uprise and massacres in the capital city of Rangoon, flees for her life, and saves her tour-guide's (U Aung Ko's) life, she is regaining her will to live. This may seen contrived or heavy handed: it is not. John Boorman, a master at spiritual and emotional conflict, paints the film with broad strokes, and often uses symbolism to capture Laura's emotional state, and physical predicament. Patricia Arquette, as usual, gives a wonderfully convincingly and believable performance as the emotionally wounded Laura. What Arquette does amazingly, in any role that she plays, is give us a window into her character's heart without words. Every time she is given a close up in the film, the audience is given insight into her character. She does not need to speak to convey emotions, or be over the top. Some critics were harsh on Arquette's performance in the film when it opened on August 25, 1995, deeming that she was \"flat\" or \"dull\" in the role. I found her characterization dead-on, staying well away from the melodramatics that typically are part of an actor's performance when having a personally tragedy take place. She is on shock and is reserved about her feelings: that is just as normal as screaming lashing out at those around you. I am hoping that Warner Brothers releases this title on DVD very soon. With Arquette's hugely successful NBC drama\" Medium\" bringing her to household name status, not to mention an Emmy win and now 2007 nomination, it would be in the studio's best interest to do so. Hopefully there will be extras, with the alternate ending. Do not by pass by this film. It is one that you will certainly not forget after seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was high time a movie about the situation in a largely ignored Asian country like Myanmar had to be made and Beyond Rangoon is Hollywood's answer. Initially I thought Hollywood would dramatize the events of the 8888 uprising and add in the traditionally Hollywood spice of Titanic-type love between the lead heroine and the Burmese male lead who happens to be an old man. Thankfully, nothing of that sort was in place - which may also explain why the film was not financially successful.

Anyway, the film was honest-to-God and I was glad at the accuracy of events portrayed. Apart from the fact that filming was done outside of Myanmar in Malaysia & Thailand and that I missed the exotic Burmese locales, I could not find much fault in the film.

You cannot blame the film for the desperation of the people and the resulting overwhelming actions. It is after all, real events of a civil war. The music by Hans Zimmer is definitely the USP of an otherwise adventurous tragedy for people who have no connection to it.

I was only a year old in Rangoon (now Yangon) during this tumultuous time. When I heard a movie was made on my real-life experience which I was too young to absorb, I had to get the DVD and needless to say, I could hardly have any complaints about it as it is an eye-opening wonder for me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great film in many different ways...perhaps the most important is that it introduces Western audiences to the remarkable, tragic story of Aung San Suu Kyi and her fight for freedom and democracy. Wonderful acting, gorgeous cinematography, breathtaking action and suspense: \"Beyond Rangoon\" has everything. I've seen this movie several times over the last ten years and each time it means more to me. Not everyone will like it (hence the relatively low rating on IMDb), but that's because it is not conventional Hollywood dumbtainment; rather, it challenges the viewer on several levels. I've never watched it without sobbing at the end and promising to live a more meaningful life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Beyond Rangoon about 20 times, it was THAT GOOD. At first when I watched it, I saw the story of Laura Bowman, but later, after multiple showings, I realised that this also was a parallel documentary. It came to be in my mind, a story about Aung San Suu Kyi, and the struggles of women to remain strong in the face of uncertainty, danger, and sadness. I also would put history, and politics on the list after further viewing, since I did learn a lot about Burma's past, and present, and could only guess at it's future. This movie is not only one you will want to see, it's also one you will definitely want to own a copy of. It's a movie that could easily been seen by the whole family, although not for children under thirteen. However, the educational benefits of this movie can not, and should not be understated.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on an actual story, John Boorman shows the struggle of an American doctor, whose husband and son were murdered and she was continually plagued with her loss. A holiday to Burma with her sister seemed like a good idea to get away from it all, but when her passport was stolen in Rangoon, she could not leave the country with her sister, and was forced to stay back until she could get I.D. papers from the American embassy. To fill in a day before she could fly out, she took a trip into the countryside with a tour guide. \"I tried finding something in those stone statues, but nothing stirred in me. I was stone myself.\"

Suddenly all hell broke loose and she was caught in a political revolt. Just when it looked like she had escaped and safely boarded a train, she saw her tour guide get beaten and shot. In a split second she decided to jump from the moving train and try to rescue him, with no thought of herself. Continually her life was in danger.

Here is a woman who demonstrated spontaneous, selfless charity, risking her life to save another. Patricia Arquette is beautiful, and not just to look at; she has a beautiful heart. This is an unforgettable story.

\"We are taught that suffering is the one promise that life always keeps.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I came across this movie on TV. I hadn't heard of it before and almost changed the channel, but it quickly hooked me.

The story of the struggle of the Burmese people against a military dictatorship was provoking. The level of brutality that some are willing to use to hold onto power is hard to believe. It makes me thankful to live in a country where the Government isn't likely to shoot people in the streets.

The story of Laura Bowman was a good thread to hold the story of political struggle together.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A powerful movie that has recovered much of its meaning in this second half of 2007 after the new desperate movements of the Burmese people against their tyrants. I felt a complex mix of feelings about the people there, something like compassion and admiration at the same time, together with a bit of rage because I feel that no one, neither the countries of the world, nor themselves, is doing anything effective to end this shame. I think these feelings became directly from the movie, and that they were intended when it was made, so it is a successful movie. The desire for peace, the quest for enlightenment, the respect for life sometimes leads to subjugation. In fact it is the Buddhist Burmese culture who has left the doors wide opens to their dictators. But, how can you feel angry about these poor people?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I always wanted to see this film and when I finally got to I knew I was in for a nice surprise when John Boorman's name appeared on the screen. Known mostly for his epic films (he directed the first Conan and wrote Apocalypse Now) put together in the classic Hollywood structure, this one fits nicely with his catalog.

I also can't express how perfect the timing was considering that Myanmar (Burma) is once again experiencing an uprising by monks and students against the military \"junta\" run government which is the very same one (there has been a change of leadership since but it's essentially the same) depicted in the movie from 1988. Now more than ever this film needs to be aired on television (caught it on IFC) because of recent events.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am afraid I will have to add my name to the long list of people who remain flabbergasted that this film has STILL not ( sept 2007 ) been issued on DVD. It's one of those mysteries that makes the mind boggle, especially when you consider the amount of DVD's available today containing material that should have been binned years ago. Still I have an excellent digital VHS copy in English with subtitles and Nicam Stereo so my qualm is more one of principle than a frustration at not being able to view the film. As to the film itself, this is an excellent all-rounder with good picture quality, more than satisfactory soundtrack, lively plot involving suspense, emotion, sadness, frustration, feeling good and exotic surroundings ( for a European ). How true the film fits in with the reality in Burma I have no idea, indeed, that is less important, the essential thing is that entertainment-wise, it is a success. One soon becomes attached to each of the main characters and I admit to having my heart in my mouth during the final crossing-the-river scene. It's a shame we hear so little about countries such as Burma and this film at least gives some insight into the country. Has the situation changed since 1995 ? The events which are to occur later this month seem to answer this question with a resounding \"No\" and the regime in place seems to be as brutal as ever, not even sparing the lives of monks, let alone women or children !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lush cinematography, beautifully written and edited, John Boorman's Beyond Rangoon is a must-see for anyone interested in world politics and the arc of personal transformation. It interweaves a personal and political tale that continues to haunt me, popping up in my mind's eye with frequency. The story line is gripping, and the inner and outer journeys are paralleled carefully and delicately both cinematically, and in the story line. I've watched this film at least six times, and it really holds up to scrutiny. It is particularly relevant today, given world events. Check it out, you won't regret it! BTW, NetFlix does not yet carry it, but you can request that they do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Certainly this proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Patricia Arquette is what she is promoted to be: An ACTRESS! This is undoubtedly her finest moment of Acting and she certainly deserves the credit for her work. Never in any of her other movies, with the possible exception of Holy Matrimony, has she been totally believable and authentic.

PLot: A young woman finds herself in southeast Asia and is suddenly thrown into the political havoc of the countryside. She witnesses mass murder and totalitarianism and escapes.

It is one movie that you MUST see or you have not seen all of Hollywood's finest. I rank it 58 in the top 100 films of all time.

Thanks Bob","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My ex wife and I saw and were intrigued by the trailer for this film. We waited for it to come out but when it did it didn't stay in theaters very long. Several years later I bought it on VHS and I am transferring it to DVD so I can preserve it.

I found it to be very moving. It is about real events in a real country. BURMA got such a bad reputation for the political oppression it created that they changed their name.

I find women with little make-up on to be very sexy. Patricia Arquette is in this movie. Frances McDormand and Spalding Gray are in it only briefly.

After coming home to find her young son and husband brutally murdered Laura (Arquette) is afraid of blood. A bad trait for a doctor. Her sister (McDormand) talks her into going on a vacation to Burma. While there she witnesses a peaceful demonstration and has her passport stolen. In a bold (or stupid) move she asks a tourist guide to show her something off the tourist track. Her guide is injured by soldiers and she spends the rest of the movie trying to get him and herself to safety.

Every time I watch this it reminds me that we in the United States forget that to a peasant living under military rule, SOCIALISM, where at least eating is virtually guaranteed, looks pretty darn good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would give this movie a good strong 7. While it definantly isn't the greatest movie, or even one the best movies of it's kind (The Killing Fields is better) it does at least attempt to tell a necessary story.

I think the method of introducing Laura into Burma was a bit contrived. First of all, Burma isn't exactly the easiest country to visit, especially in the late 80's. Secondly, if you did make it Burma, your passport would not get lost. A sane person would make darn sure they knew where their passport was at all times. With that in mind, I'm sure the screenwriter knew that was weak, but needed something. Patricia Arquette's performance was understated, and I just didn't buy that she was a doctor. However, at least she didn't overact the role, which often happens in movies like this. U Aung Ko was good, but also understated. The end is hard to follow, since most of the dialogue is in Burmese, with people translating for Laura. It would have been difficult for Laura, and is difficult for the viewer as well. Another plus is the strong SE Asian scenery in the film, which was enjoyable to see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first was made aware of this film when I saw a preview before another movie. I was intrigued but it didn't get to see it before it's short run in theaters was done.

It is not an easy movie to watch multiple times. There is much violence inflicted upon unarmed civilians. There are lessons to be learned here. One of Patricia Arquette's lines sums up on. \"To Americans if it didn't happen on TV it just didn't happen\" There is a lot of truth to that.

Another is that at one point she thinks that just because she announces she is an American Citizen that soldiers will part and let her pass. It doesn't work that way.

The scenery is beautiful. The acting is all decent. THE PROFESSOR is especially good. Mainly though I care about these characters. Francis McDormand and Spaulding Gray are fine but their appearance is short, so they don't matter much. Patricia has guts. In the hands of a lesser actor this could have turned out very badly. As it is love or hate the movie you should still come away with the idea that there still exist military dictatorships in the world in this century, and until one of our own is hurt we ignore their oppression.

Aung San Suu Kyi, is the female political leader in the movie. In real life she won the Nobel Peace Prize. She was only recently released from house arrest. The W. Bush administration, as of the date I write this, is attempting to pressure the military government to engage in talks with her and re-form the government. The Burmize government was under such scrutiny that is changed the name of the country to the Maynamar Republic. The U.S. Government has yet to recognzie the new name.

If you don't wnat a message in your movie don't watch this one. If you don't mind a little educations with your entertainment then it's a fine one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I got a chance to talk with the co-creator, Rebecca Cammisa at the 2002 High Falls Film Festival in Rochester, NY. She said that her style is to be completely open and uninhibited in filmmaking but was very happy to be so severely constrained in the tight quarters of the group home. The narrow hallways and small rooms were expertly shot with a realism that would have been lost with more controlled and deliberate camera work.

Sister Helen herself is a remarkable character, coming from tragedy in her own life to being an unusual combination of caring, tough, and street smart. The way the film introduces us to her past is excellent, spending only a few carefully selected minutes sprinkled throughout.

In all, I can't begin to correctly heap on praise for this film. It really is a treasure of cinema and the subject a treasure of humanity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is truly a documentary of love about a fascinating character, her outlook on life and her extended family. The filmmakers spent three years taping Sister Helen at her halfway house and managed to capture so much wonderful material that you can not help but feel you know Sister Helen and her \"boys.\" The house holds 21 recovering addicts each with a story almost as involving as Sister Helen's. The ending scenes are particularly involving and emotional.

Sister Helen's story of marriage, addiction and loss reveals a very complex character who's tough love is at all times funny, touching and endearing.

The film is a amazing in the way it tells its story in wonderful slice of life sequences which develop into a story that is almost as clear as if each scene were scripted and acted by the best. The honesty (and obvious dishonesty) of the \"clients\" is very involving as you learn of their fears and watch their attempts to grow.

You will never forget Sister Helen, Robert, Moe or poor Ashish(spelling?).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went into a screening of \"SISTER HELEN\" at the Sundance Film Festival and did not know what to expect.

I was riveted by the people in this documentary. Sister Helen is an incredible character!!! The filmmakers captured the essence of Sister Helen's amazing soul and took me into a world unknown. I was thoroughly satisfied by the journey and was completely caught off guard by this film's ending.

This film speaks to those who desire a second chance at life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oh so beautiful, oh so tearful and so gut-wrenching.

Makes everything seem so superficial, so pale, so meaningless in comparison.

Sister Helen is not a real saint.

She is a real human - flawed, raw and blunt, but passionate and with a heart of gold.

What I found most interesting is that this handful of wretched, miserable people found meaning and laughter.

What I loved most is how the documentary portrayed the polarity of human nature.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This tearful movie about a sister and her battle to save as many souls as she can is very moving. The film does well in picking up the characters and showing how Sister Helen deals with each.

A wonderful journey from life to death.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Sister Helen\" is a superb documentary about a rigid, intolerant, foul mouthed, bitter, oblate (civilian) nun who runs a shelter for drunks and dopers in a very rundown neighborhood in the south Bronx. All but one of the 21 residents are gutter drunks\/addicts. Robert, the only middle class representative \u0096 he had a real job, house, and even a BMW \u0096 regrets she died before he could tell her off. Why?

Robert, like six of the residents, was on parole. He complained that Helen wielded a huge stick over him and constantly threatened to turn him in if he didn't cow-tow to her. In an \"extras\" interview he said Helen ran the center to compensate for the deaths of the three men in her life \u0096 her husband and her two boys.

The husband was an alcoholic who died of a heart attack at 55. One boy died of a heroin overdose and the other was stabbed to death at 15. Helen was left with one daughter, who she abandoned to run the center. The daughter was not pleased. She wanted her mom

What's fascinating is how little Helen changed. Outwardly it seems she made a huge sea change. But after seeing this riveting and disturbing video a few times -- once with the directors narrating -- it became clear that Helen substituted 21 male addicts to boss around to replace her three dead males.

Helen admits she ignored her kids and spent every day in bars. But her bossiness, intolerance, and sharp tongue didn't emerge at age 56. Living with her must have been extremely difficult. Even Robert says he stayed clean in spite of Helen.

The film opens with Helen abusively demeaning a man who wants to live at the shelter. Supposedly she is showing off her street savvy. Another time she publicly demeans Mel, her \"assistant\" for not bathing for a year. Then she waves his filthy pillowcase in the air. The film is viscous with Helen threatening and demeaning people. Her signature song is \"My Way.\" Her favorite phrase is, \"I'm going to be totally honest with you.\" Often, people who use such phrases, turn out o be the opposite.

The residents are really down and out. Only Robert has any marketable skills beyond pushing a broom. They all desperately need a roof over their heads, and Helen, since she runs the place on her own, has the power to admit or evict whoever she pleases. She has no governing board to answer to and gets no public funding. It is her show.

Helen believes in the cookie approach to sobriety. She stopped drinking cold turkey and that means everyone else can too. She blames substance abuse on the drug or booze, and not the underlying issues that drove the men to drink and drug. She's no therapist, just a landlady who dyes her hair, wears a habit, and wields complete power over her tenants, and stopped drinking.

Helen also lords it over her inmates by demanding urine (ureen she calls it) tests on requests. Twice Major, a very solid and respected long term older resident -- who she trusted -- failed his tests. Helen was furious and evicted him. Major stood his ground and said the results were wrong because he never did heroin. Helen didn't yield and failed to consider a mistake could have been made. This was especially troubling since she knew Major for a long time. Yet she discounted her relationship with him, assumed he was a liar, and relied completely on the results. Major eventually discovered the codeine in his cough syrup showed up as an opiate. Helen never apologized publicly, but supposedly made up with major privately.

Helen also had a very tainted reputation in her old neighborhood. She tacitly admitted to Robert she once stayed up very late one night to slash someone's tires. The person wronged her and certainly deserved to have his\/her tires slashed. She was not a nice woman. So eventually, she decided the only way to keep the Travis name (her last name) alive \u0096 since the three male Travises died \u0096 was to start the Travis Center.

For some of the residents it was a great deal. They complied with Helen and in exchange received a cheap, safe, sober, and structured place to live. One however, said he preferred jail. Addicts and drunks don't all need to be treated like children. Helen employed \"old school\" techniques which have been discredited. However, no one was forced to remain at the center and for some, it was definitely a positive experience. The Travis Center is not a treatment center. It is a residence for alcoholics and dopers who what to straighten out their lives.

To receive the full Sister Helen experience, see all the extra interviews plus the audio version in which the two directors share their experiences living with Sister Helen and her guests.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have some great memories watching \"Robin of Sherwood\" on TV as a kid (but I think I only saw Michael Praed\u00b4s episodes, by some reason). And recently my brother bought the new released DVD-boxes of the complete series. It was great to see it again, and it is the best of all the Robin Hood movies and TV-series. The cast is great, and the locations mixed with Clannad\u00b4s music adds this very special feeling. I personally think that Praed is the best of the two Robins, but Jason Connery was a great choice to continue the series with. Ray Winstone, Nicolas Grace and Robert Addie is terrific in their roles as Will Scarlet, The Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Gisburne. It\u00b4s a pity that a fourth season never got made, and I\u00b4ve also heard that the writer Richard Carpenter actually had plans to make a feature film following the events of the series. Robert of Huntingdon (Connery) could finally have married Marion (Judi Trott), or maybe Herne the Hunter could resurrect Robin of Loxley (Praed), and he could take his revenge against the sheriff. As have been mentioned before; if the producers of \"Robin Hood: The Prince of Thieves\" would have been smart, they would have got the cast from \"Robin of Sherwood\", and made the movie to a sort of sequel to the series. As Ray Winstone puts it in the DVD bonusmaterial, it would have been great to see them as old men, just like in Sean Connery\u00b4s \"Robin and Marian\". Who knows, maybe we will se more of this perfect interpretation of the legend in the future. In any case, we can now watch our favorite series over and over again!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As listed and stated in many previous comments, this unique series has many excellent elements and ingredients to its credit. Indeed, more than 20 years after it was originally transmitted, it is still watched, and watched again, and has a huge global fan-following, something which must indicate that the makers of this series undeniably got something right.

The root of the series' brilliance and remarkable appeal has however got to be that it rests on wonderfully written dialogue and timeless characters \u0096 all of which are brought to life by marvellous actors. The characters are wonderful in particular because of their complexity. In contrast to many other Robin Hood adaptations, and indeed many other film and TV-productions in general, the good guys in this series often make mistakes and can be seen to have apparent flaws, while the baddies, although put forward as evil and ruthless, frequently can be understood and even on occasion seem quite sympathetic. This very much makes Robin of Sherwood into a story about multifaceted, REAL people \u0096 rather than of good and bad people \u0096 something which very much adds to its uniqueness and remarkable appeal. Also, although very much being an action-packed series featuring numerous amazing stunts (which are remarkable in themselves seeing as this was made long before today's computer animation, green screens, and so forth. Thus, behind every one of those endless guys falling off castle walls, horses, and catching fire, there actually is a real person who at some point DID fall off a castle wall or a horse or catch fire), there is always amazing dialogue going on between the different characters in each episode. In the final analysis, however, it is generally the series' baddies \u0096 Nickolas Grace as The Sheriff of Nottingham, Robert Addie as Sir Guy of Gisburne, and Philip Jackson as The Abbot Hugo de Rainault \u0096 who get the very best lines and who more than often steal the show with their arguments full of wit and cant. \"It's a wedding, not a celebration!\" is just one of their many timeless \"pearls of wisdom\" which seems to follow one through life :-).

20 years after the fact, it is indeed hard to believe that Robin of Sherwood was originally something made for television \u0096 and apparently not with a great deal of money \u0096 in order to provide fleeting Saturday afternoon amusement for small children in Great Britain. Filmed in beautiful locations, with clever, amazing scripts and featuring remarkable stunts and fantastic actors \u0096 many of whom give the performance of their lives in this show \u0096 this in numerous ways seems to be more professionally made and have more production value than many a Hollywood film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fantastic series, one of my few favorites (Miami Vice and Tour of Duty are the other two, and this series is right up there with them).

These guys aren't into wearing frilly tights - they dress more like woodsmen. Everything about this series breathes an aire of realism, artistic license or not.

It paints a picture of a Europe only slightly out of the grasp of paganism, as most of the villagers still have their local deities, and there are Satan worshipping nuns, and magi, witches and sorcerers casting spells.

However, what comes to the fore most, is that it's a series of it's time. Rather than the version of the fifties, which was a lament against centralized government and the McCarthy era persecutions, this series is thoroughly grounded in the 1980s, Thatcherist bleakness, and has a strong environmentalist leaning. Robin's protector is a nature worshipper called Hern The Hunter, who often appears wearing the head of a deer, and is a personification (as is this Robin) of The Green Man, an alternative version of Osiris (the Egyptian god of vegetation and resurrection - it is interesting to note that in these series, Robin In The Hood isn't a person, but a concept; when the old one is killed, a new one is summoned telepathically by Hern - the person may die, but Robin In The Hood will live forever, hence the concept of resurrection).

The music and score are really outstanding, and performed by the Irish formation, Clannad. When watching it, I couldn't help but think how _boring_ authentic medieval Anglosaxon folk music would have been. :-)

All this is beautifully shot in the lush forrests of Wales, which pass for The New Forrest.

The only down side is that in the initial episodes of both series, the actors have to overcome their own skepsis, and convince themselves that this really is a serious work. After that, they get into it and the acting is great! Michael Praed as the first Robin (the second is played by Sean Connery's son, Jason), Judi Trott makes a beautiful and fragile redheaded Marion, Phil Rose as the portly and really kind-hearted friar Tuck, Ray Winstone as the volatile and lovelorn Scarlet, Clive Mantle as the giant shepard Little John, Peter Llewellyn Williams as Little John's bumpkin friend and fellow shepard, and Mark Ryan as the ex-Hashashin\/Assassin Nazir - all of them giving great performances. Also great are the steady Bad Guys, Nicholas Grace as the bug-eyed, scheming Sheriff of Nottingham, and his aristocratic, bumbling sidekick (and Robin's half brother, as it turns out) Robert Addie as Sir Guy of Gisburne. Really cool too is fashion designer Richard O'Brien, as the evil Lord Owen of Clun's (Olliver Cotton) magician Gulnar (he appears near the end of the first series and later in the second).

The Tithe Barn in Bradford on Avon stood in for the Sheriff's castle. (Check it out on bradfordonavon.co.uk under \"places of interest\".)

So, if you're at all into mythology, the Middle Ages, romanticism, don't waste your time on Xena or Hercules - this is the real thing, so go out and watch it!

Alex","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favorite series, all categories, all time.

I was fortunate enough to get a hold of the whole series on VHS a few years ago. I loved it when I saw it back in -91 -92, when I was about 12. I love it as much, or more, today, which is remarkable considering my (hopefully) improved film appreciation and criticism skills. Most of the movies I liked back then I'm not that fond of today, besides for the nostalgia factor. That factor is present here as well, but there's so much more to Robin of Sherwood than nostalgia.

There are only a few bad things about this series. First, the picture and sound quality is so-so, at least in the first couple of episodes. Fortunately, it gets better. Secondly, you could have wished for a bit more blood and realism in the fighting scenes, although I know that was not an option in this case.

So, on to the good things! And there are a lot of them. First of all, Michael Praed IS Robin Hood. I don't think I have seen him in a single role since then, which only strengthen this fact for me. He delivers such a believable performance as Robin. Jason Connery had an impossible task replacing him. The fact that Michael Praed hasn't become a bigger name as an actor is unbelievable. Or perhaps that was his fate, to do this one role perfectly, then disappear.

I love Nickolas Graces Sheriff of Nottingham. He is really not a complex character, but totally rotten. The relation between him and Gisburne is just hilarious. Actually, just looking at de Rainault sitting in his throne, bored, glaring, makes me laugh even before he has said anything. Another actor that deserves extra praise is Ray Winstone as Will Scarlet. You can really feel the sadness inside of him as well as his hate for the soldiers who killed his wife. Winstone is an actor that finally has gotten his well deserved Hollywood breakthrough (in films as The Departed and Beowulf). There are a lot of other great actors here, too.

I love the portrayal of the Robin gang. They are having fun, playing, laughing, you really get a feel of the camaraderie between them, the closeness that comes from a tight bound group such as this. Those bonding scenes are so important.

I think that it being UK produced with British actors really made it better, compared to for example the -92 feature film version with Kevin Costner, that just feels fake, fake, fake. (Christian Slater as Will Scarlet, come on..) The cast being able to speak English with British accent makes it more believable, and I get the feeling that the actors, as well as the director and writers, behind the series can put themselves much more into the shoes of the Robin Hood gang than an American crew could have. The music is wonderful, Clannad is perfect for the feel of the series. The music is another of those things they just nailed.

An exciting addition also is the fantasy and magic spice that is put in there. It's not over the top, but believable and just makes the whole thing better and more interesting. I also love how nicely the mix of comedy, adventure and drama is blended.

Those are a few of the things that makes this series so alive and so genuine. It's by far the best Robin Hood version I have ever seen. I won't wrap up with the \"Nothing's forgotten\" quote. But one thing that never will be forgotten, for me, is this fantastic Robin Hood retelling. See it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To quote Jason Connery and Mark Ryan on one of the many DVD commentaries, that \"wobbly music\" over the HTV logo was enough to get me jumping from whatever I was doing to glue my face against the screen for an hour. The individual stories contained within the series were excellent and the character development was wonderful. Robin of Loxley goes through a very convincing journey over the two series he appears in, even though his departure from the programme was unplanned. Marian also develops her relationship with both of Herne's sons very well.

After languishing for many years in TV wasteland, I re-encountered the series on Sky 1 in the UK in the mid nineties and was even more impressed that the series seemed even better than I remembered. This is no children's television programme, it deals with witchcraft, treason, rebellion and injustice. And, it manages to do it without showing too much blood. As far as I can recall, you only see a bit of the red stuff in the Pilot film (Episodes 1 and 2 on the DVD set). The DVDs are great, containing a wealth of extras including cast commentaries on Series 3 only (the Jason Connery Robin) and crew commentaries for Series 1 and 2. The picture quality is very good and the remixed and remastered surround sound is amazing.

The idea of freedom is important, freedom prevails. Nothing's forgotten. Nothing's ever forgotten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"By mistake, I ordered a series from the BBC, their new version of Robin Hood. Very disappointing in comparison with RoS. Terrible costuming and backgrounds. While I enjoyed the Sheriff, who took cues from the Nick Grace character, the rest of the cast left much to be desired. As a \"for instance\", Marion's costuming looked suspiciously like it came from Walmart. And Sir Guy, well, he looked a bit like a character from an outer space movie! RoS has stolen the spotlight, probably forever, in the telling of this tale. Cast, costuming, story lines, scenery, filming and soundtrack by Clannad are all superb, as is evidenced by all the continual feedback some 26 years on. RoS is a timeless classic. My thanks to all who made the series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This HTV series is beautiful. I strongly recommend watching the movie. It has got everything it should: remarkable script, strong characters, beautiful scenery and exceptional atmosphere. Add some ambient score from Clannad and you receive unforgettable picture. I love every adventure movie from HTV I saw: Return To Treasure Island, Smuggler, Adventurer, but Robin of Sherwood beats them all. I would like to thank the whole HTV production team and Richard Carpenter in particular for giving me plenty of adventures and excitement. I have got the DVD release in my little movie collection. I regret very much movies like these are not made anymore.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some people don't appreciate the magical elements in ROS,but they are what sets this series apart, that and the fact the producers actually decided to dress the actors in proper period clothes and armour--not anachronistic feathered caps,multi-coloured tights and plate armour!

But I am really writing to comment on an earlier poster's article. Um, Michael Praed did not leave ROS to do Jules Verne! There are 15 years between these two series. Yup, I agree and Michael might well agree too that leaving ROS was not a good move--but it was a coveted Broadway role that tempted him in '84 and then Dynasty with its megabucks paychecks....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have some great memories watching \"Robin of Sherwood\" on TV as a kid (but I think I only saw Michael Praed\u00b4s episodes, by some reason). And recently my brother bought the new released DVD-boxes of the complete series. It was great to see it again, and it is the best of all the Robin Hood movies and TV-series. The cast is great, and the locations mixed with Clannad\u00b4s music adds this very special feeling. I personally think that Praed is the best of the two Robins, but Jason Connery was a great choice to continue the series with. Ray Winstone, Nicolas Grace and Robert Addie is terrific in their roles as Will Scarlet, The Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Gisburne. It\u00b4s a pity that a fourth season never got made, and I\u00b4ve also heard that the writer Richard Carpenter actually had plans to make a feature film following the events of the series. Robert of Huntingdon (Connery) could finally have married Marion (Judi Trott), or maybe Herne the Hunter could resurrect Robin of Loxley (Praed), and he could take his revenge against the sheriff. As have been mentioned before; if the producers of \"Robin Hood: The Prince of Thieves\" would have been smart, they would have got the cast from \"Robin of Sherwood\", and made the movie to a sort of sequel to the series. As Ray Winstone puts it in the DVD bonusmaterial, it would have been great to see them as old men, just like in Sean Connery\u00b4s \"Robin and Marian\". Who knows, maybe we will se more of this perfect interpretation of the legend in the future. In any case, we can now watch our favorite series over and over again!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Used to watch this when i was very little, then used to watch my videos. Now i watch the DVDs, i love this. Ray Winston is 'The Dude', the rest of the cast is all good and even with the changing of Robin Hood it all works. Great stories, twists and the way it was shot - to the untrained eye (not that mine is trained) can be miss-interpreted as being ropey but it adds to the films absorption of the audience. With the green hillsides and the contrast of the lush sunny lit forest to the dark corridors and dungeons of the castles - Its great. Personally the definitive interpretation of the Robin Hood legend. I cannot stress how much i think you should watch this, if you get a chance then YOU MUST WATCH IT.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember watching this series avidly, every Saturday evening. It was the highlight of the week. I loved everything about it, the location, the costumes, the actors and the wonderful music by Clannad (I still have their Legend album). I loved the way they solved the problem of Michael Praed leaving by creating another Robin, this time the Earl of Huntingdon. I believe there were legends of several Robins in medieval times. Another thing I loved was the fact that it was filled with young actors, I'm sure Robin and his men would have young, after all people didn't live that long in those days. Other Robins always look too old (Kevin Costner with his ridiculous accent looked like Robin's granddad). The only sad thing was the ending, it's a shame they couldn't at least have done a one off special to tie up all the loose ends and give it a happier ending.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hi, I have to say you got some wrong information about the series here. The main author was Richard Carpenter, he created the series. Later on there were some other authors but they only did a few episodes.

The first director who did most of the series (I think complete series 1) was Ian Sharp who created the distinct look of Robin of Sherwood.

Clannad did indeed see some of the material and they read the scrips. I know this for sure because Richard Carpenter told it on a Con in England last year.

I think this is a masterpiece of Television-Entertainment, because it has great characters and cast, good costumes and great story lines. For me still one of the best TV-series ever!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this series on PBS back in the eighties and still watch the old tapes every couple of years or so. Very atmospheric and creepy sometimes. This is a very good show as the characters are all well defined and acted. You are drawn into the plot and come to care for these people. The villains are almost laughably evil, especially the Sheriff of Nottingham. Man, I would love to beat the s--t out of that snotty little bastard. Nicholas Grace does an excellent job and must have had a great time being the Sheriff. His whipping boy, Sir Guy, is equally hissable but is also pathetic. Lots of murder and mayhem in this series, along with tons of black magic and Devil worship and things of that nature. I noticed it got an award for children's television which is surprising. If I had kids, I would not let them watch this. Outstanding use of locations in this show also. It is now on DVD, so go out and buy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The greatest compliments to the other commentator here at IMDb who asked himself why this series didn't \"get stuck\" in its time to last a lot longer like many other series in the 80s did.

It is not true the series would have gotten worse if further continued.

I will at the end of this my comment post some thoughts about the other movie realizations, rather: attempts of the Robin Hood legend.

First of All, Robert Addie (Gisburne), you are among us all, you live forever.

Nothing is as fun as the entire two, if one wants, three seasons of this absolutely unique series. And at the same time absolutely agreeing with the mostly new and revolutionary findings of Terry Jones' history documentations about Egypt, Greece, Rome, Konstantinopel, the Goths and Barbarians, and the middle ages and crusades (...yes, THE Monthy Python-Terry Jones):

If you have seen those brilliant and funny Jones-Docs you will better, much better understand all the historical background stuff Carpenter, the writer of the Robin of Sherwood-series (which happens to be the brother of John Carpenter, who made \"The Thing\", their third brother makes music), intended to tell us.

The writer of \"Dick Turpin\", \"Catweazle\" and the first two seasons of \"Robin of Sherwood\", called \"Kip\" Carpenter, is my movie overlord. He's better than all those others who criticize his \"sword-and-sorcery\" element or \"defectiveness\" (taken from the Robin of Sherwood Webring) of this series (that I can not see) or have other non-fundamented criticism of which there existed a lot back then and still now.

That's why, when you get to know this \"Robin of Sherwood\" better, you'll be severe. You will at first loathe the third season. Not only that: I did myself go thru this, and on top of it, I have only taken up the first two seasons into my deepest heart - DESPITE the fact that Praed, the actor of Robin, left this series, because after the series had enormous success, he was offered a probably better paid role in an absolutely ridiculous Canadian series called \"The new Adeventures of Jules Verne\" - already the title reveals the emptiness of the whole project. Praed went for money, and not for fame, he didn't stick with his gang and kin, I mean: as actors.

Actors who personally represent the afterwards \"really\", in our present time famous and legendary faces and characters of the Robin-Legend. The potential of this series could and should have been let blossomed a lot more without any degrading niveau of content and historical message and rebellious accuracy regarding current political issues.

Again, obligatory to say: A change of the main role was forced by Praed's stupid decision of leaving Robin of Sherwood for a silly remake-series of the Verne-tales and brilliantly woven into the filming of the story. Still it is in some aspects a catastrophe.

Anyway: If one is informed about this, and that Connery was maybe really advertised by his father, but that the young Connery DID NOT AT ALL \"chase Praed away\", how I prejudicially thought in the first place, then one can absolutely enjoy the 3rd season. Sad here is that the script was not anymore written by Superman Kip Carpenter, so we don't have anymore that critical and free-thinking historical background like i.e. in \"The Witch of Elsdon\", or in \"The King's Fool\", two episodes of the first series that is A) funny, B) historically educating and C) brilliantly acted. ===

\"Don't trust the Lion!\"

Unlike many other characters that wished him dead for the sake of their own gain of power, Richard Lionheart, as shown in RoS and as in real history, was a greater authority than John or others, but used it only for his wicked idea of the crusade and the war against Normandie in France. He slaughtered and had slaughtered much more than tens of thousands of Christians, Muslims and Jews in the \"wholy\" crusades, and his soldiers even devoured the children they slayed out of hunger or poverty. On top of that, after his capture by the Saracens (muslims) in the crusades, Britain was squeezed out for his ransom, 100.000 marks (at that time, 11th century, comparable to approx. 30 Billion - 30'000'000'000.- Dollars of current value), to get him safely back, and then he just visited England for a month to return to Normandie (in France, where the Norman Invaders went first) for the crusades (one learns that in the episode \"The King's Fool\"). For this new crusade, possibly kind of a revenge for his capture, Richard Lionheart again \"drains the country of money\" (cited out of Clive Mantle's mouth, when he lectures Robin in being critical with even the King). Robin criticizes this warfare unsocial ruling of Richard's, he addresses Richard himself, telling him \"The poor gave everything to set you free, how CAN you ask more of them?\" - Richard: \"...Give me your courage and strength, not your words!\" ...Later, in private, Richard orders the assassination of Robin...

So, the crusaders were the real \"barbarians\".

P.S: Already when I watched Kostner in 91, I got upset, because after-wards, I found out in history course in school that Richard was not that good just man as displayed by Sean Connery in his appearance at the end of \"Prince of the Thieves\". Well, as Terry Jones would put it: It is a lie, a treacherous lie!\" Sean plays humorist and charismatic, and his son does a better job than expected in the third season of \"Robin of Sherwood\".

Again: Praed is, according to my info up to now, the one who left Sherwood for a stupid Verne-series nobody with brains will EVER remember or want to remember.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A few years ago I saw this remake of the sixties classic with the Mini Coopers for the first time and I remember liking it a lot. Now, about two years later it was shown on television and I just wanted to know whether I would still like it as much as when I saw it in the cinema. Well, the answer is yes.

The movie is about a team of robbers that will do one final job in Venice, Italy. The plan is flawless and the execution perfect. They escape and won't have to work for the rest of their lives. But there is one problem they didn't take into account: Someone within their own ranks doesn't like to split the loot, but wants to keep it all for himself, even when that means he will have to kill the rest of the crew. But all but one survive and they are out for revenge. One year later, in Los Angeles this time, the surviving team members create a smart and devious plan to steal back the gold and get their revenge on the traitor...

The story on itself is of course not very original, since this is a remake of the original 1969 movie, but it has plenty of goodies to offer to make you forget about that. This is a typical heist \/ action movie but it certainly is one of the better ones in its kind. The action is very nice, the landscapes and Venice are real eye-candy, the story is OK and the special effects are stunning. Even the acting is very good, something which you'll not often see in an action movie. I must admit that I really liked what I saw and I give this movie a well deserved 7.5\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Over the last few months, I have seen a lot of reviews for The Italian Job, many of them negative. The gist of almost all of these pessimistic criticisms is that, for all its modernistic bravado and high-budget technology, the film doesn't have much substance where it counts. Look, people, it's just a fun movie. This is the type of picture where you're supposed to sit back, relax, and just enjoy the steady-moving pace of the film. Like Ocean's Eleven (2001), you can concentrate on the characters and the plot at the same time without having to do much thinking (lucky for some of us). Granted, \"Ocean\" is a better movie, but who cares? The plot may have some holes (there's a huge one about 3\/4 of the way through), the action may not be as gratifyingly gratuitous as the trailers made it out to be, and some of the dialogue may seem pointless and cheesy, but again, who really cares? Cool characters, Mini Coopers, big explosions, Charlize Theron. What more do you want? I think it's time to drop the fake Roger Ebert meets Gene Shalit act and enjoy yourself for once! Oh, and another thing, whatever you do, don't compare it to the original because, to reiterate what F. Gary Gray has told the press a million times, THIS IS NOT A REMAKE!! My advice- if you're interested in nit-picking your way through a good-humored, fun flick, don't even bother seeing The Italian Job. But, if you don't have a severe inferiority complex and\/or want to see Ed Norton get jacked by a bunch of Ukranians, go ahead. The Bottom Line, my fellow moviegoers, is: Lighten Up and Have Fun, Dammit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed the movie very much. Everything in The Italian Job is simple. An explosive guy, a safe-cracker, a computer genius, a wheel-man and a man with a spectacular plan of stealing 35 million without using a gun. This film is entertaining although it has no central idea. It is a non-stop movie with lots of actions. All the stunt work is gorgeous. From the speedboat chase in Venice at the beginning to the chase on the busy roads in Los Angeles involving three mini coopers and even a helicopter. The best boast chase I have ever seen. I like the mini coopers. The expert thieves used mini coopers for the getaway cars. The chase between the mini coopers and the motor-bikes is amazing. They chased underground. I can say there was not a moment I was bored. Mark Wahlberg (Charlie Croker), Charlize Theron (Stella Bridger), Donald Sutherland (John Bridger), Jason Statham (Handsome Rob), Seth Green (Lyle), Mos Def (Left Ear) and Edwin Norton (Steve) really did a good job. I like the actors in this film. I have seen a lot of heist movie but The Italian Job& is one of my favourites. A great Hollywood action movie without a drop of blood. After all, I do love this kind of movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My reaction to this remake of \"The Italian Job\" is probably hopelessly mixed up with the events occurring in my life when I saw it; This is the first movie I saw after I had just landed a job after 8 months of unemployment and going back to school for retraining. Money was still tight, but I no longer had to choose between seeing a movie in the theaters and paying bills (or eating lunch), and the sense of relief and gratitude I was feeling at the time was enormous. In consequence, my enjoyment of \"Italian Job\" was probably far out of proportion to its actual worth.

Still, I picked it up used on DVD a few weeks ago and watched it again, and I still enjoyed it immensely. I have never seen the original (though I have heard it is an absolute classic), but its modern day counterpart is eminently watchable if you have a taste for modern day production values applied to older films plots and themes.

What initially won me over to this movie was the soundtrack - IMO Don Davis writes some of the most supple, textured and aurally pleasing soundtracks around. IJ opens with a sly, witty, pulsing arrangement that combines strings, guitar harmonics, brush work and quiet moments - it won me over completely from the opening seconds. And the whole movie is like this - I haven't heard this kind of ringing, chiming, pulsing soundtrack music since Stewart Copeland left the Police and started doing soundtracks for movies like \"Rumble Fish\". There are at least a dozen irresistibly scored motifs in here, along with some pop song remakes that range from \"all right\" to \"inspired\". For people to whom the soundtrack is important, this movie is a delight.

On to the movie: I can take or leave Mark Wahlberg, but he's okay here as the leading man, and the movie doesn't ask him to do anything he can't do well. He's the weakest \"major\" actor in the film, but that's because the rest of supporting cast is so strong, especially Donald Sutherland in a bit part. Mos Def, Jason Steadham, Ed Norton, Seth Green and Charlize Theron all turn in solid, fat-free performances. Norton seems to mostly be phoning it in (rumor has it that he didn't really want to be in the film), but he's still a natural even at 1\/2 power. My one quibble with the casting and acting is with the character \"Wrench\", who seems to be a male model pretending to be an actor. His part seems to be shoehorned into the movie, and he has little chemistry with the rest of the cast (although you can blame some of that on the size of the part and the \"late walk on\" nature of the character). If I were a cynical sort,I would wonder who the actor slept with to get put into this movie in such a supernumerary role? Nah, never happen...

Production values, camera work, stunts, plot...everything cooks along quite nicely and Gray and his production crew pull things together pretty seamlessly (with the exception of the \"Wrench\" character, see above).

The dialog has a nice, light touch that rewards your indulgence, and there are several satisfying major and minor plot payoffs along the way. (My favorite moment - when Norton's character tells Wahlberg's character that he's just lost the element of surprise. Wahlberg proceeds to cold cock Norton with a right cross, and then asks him, \"Were you surprised??\" Hmmm, maybe you had to be there...)

Of course the movie requires a certain level of \"suspension of disbelief\" to work, but if you just relax and go along with it (and don't think too hard about the mechanics of cracking a safe underwater, or the likelihood of anyone being able to successfully hack and manipulate LA traffic via a laptop, etc), you'll have a fun ride.

\"The Italian Job\": it's lightweight summer fluff, but it's very good for what it is, and it doesn't try to be anything else. It isn't good enough for an \"8\" but I'd give it a \"7.5\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Italian Job is a real blast to watch. It's a genuinely entertaining film, something you watch just for the sheer enjoyment of it. It's not heavy with drama or emotional hand-wringing, it has no cosmic statements about life, and it's not violent or profane. It's just a fun movie. Between watching the little Mini Coopers fly around the crowded streets of L.A. and the great bits by stereotypical computer geek-turned-crook (played gleefully by Seth Greene), I had a lot of fun watching this film.

Special kudos to the background music. They truly set a masterful tone for such a movie, so subtle yet keeps you on the edge when needed. Apparently a lot of artists contributed to the music, I found it to be the classiest part of the film.

8 out of 10. Not awe-inspiring but a great film to watch at the end of a lousy day at the office.

Barky","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you are looking for a film that is quick witted and won't bore you then this is the place. It is fast paced and funny with some decent acting comeing from the characters. It is always hard for me to see Mark Walhberg as anything except Marky Mark. That image is burned in my mind forever. As an actor though he is pretty good. This movie is a must see for action fans who like to see a few little twists and turns. I will have to pick this movie up one day and buy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"-surprisingly enjoyable movie

-A group of thieves lead by Mark Wahlberg rob a gold safe in Italy and thankfully for them the heist is successful and they get away with it without any big problems. Before the group can celebrate however Steve played by Ed Norton decides he want the gold all for himself and pulls a Cout De' Ta on the group and shoots one of the members. He and his accomplices leave thinking that the group is dead but luckily the group is not dead. A year later we get back into the story where the group has tracked down Norton and decide to steal the gold back and spend the rest of the movie coming up with plans to steal back their gold and settle a score.

-This was a surprise for me, it had all the makings to be a typical forgettable summer movie but it was actually memorable and really fun to watch. What I like is how smart and well thought out the plans in the movie are, and how the movie feels realistic. Watching the trailer would make you think it was some mindless action movie but in fact there are only two action scenes in the movie and they are all really well done. The latter action scene is a very long 20 min. scene that has one of the best car chases ever done. I like how real the chase is and how everything is done old school style without the aid of CGI. Me personally I enjoyed this car chase more than the CGI filled chase in \"Matrix 2\". I remember watching music videos by director F. Gary Gray and always noticed how well made they were and thought he'd make a great filmmaker, turns out I was right as always and he proves it here. Can't wait to see what he does with the sequel.

-The actors do a decent job too with Seth Green being my favorite of the group. The other thing I loved was the excellent score by John Powell, ever since I heard his score for \"Robots\" this year I've been a fan of him and paying close attention to his music and the man is really good. He does a great job of avoiding all the typical summer action movie musical clich\u00e9's and provides a very well done score. I haven't seen the original that this is based on so I can't really say how well it stacks up to that one.

-So yeah this is a great popcorn movie that actually has a brain unlike most of the summer movie crap that comes out. Has great characters, is funny as hell and has a amazing score by John Powell. If you love heist movies then you'll love this one

-you know if I was in the group they'd call me handsome mike","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wonder how many MINI Cooper automobiles were sold thanks to this movie? It couldn't help but add to the sales of this little car, which is featured in this film, along with an attractive cast.

This is a very, very entertaining heist-and-chase film. It features a \"cool\" cast with Mark Wahlberg, Charlize Theron, Edward Norton, Seth Green and Jason Statham.

The best chase scene is right at the beginning with a boat pursuit in Venice, Italy. The film doesn't overdo the violence, has a pretty intelligent script (with a few short exceptions). features interesting characters and is nicely firmed. The cat-and-mouse game between Norton and Theron's characters is suspenseful and fun to watch.

Once again, however, we are manipulated into rooting for criminals portrayed as \"the good guys.\" How many times has this happened since the days of \"Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid\" in the 1960s? It's twisted Hollywood, for you. In here, one of the criminals (Norton) stole and killed the leader and father figure (Donald Sutherland) of the gang, so he's the worst of the bunch and the film's villain. Also Theron's character is in the typically overblown-feminist mode of Hollywood in which women can do all things (including driving a car) better than a man. A third minor irritation is Seth Green's smug, smart-ass attitude which we also are supposed to go along with because it's hip and cool.

Despite these hindrances, it is an extremely entertaining movie and it also doesn't overboard on the profanity or sex....and, yes, those little cars are cool. Everyone I've talked to who has seen this film, enjoyed it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went to see THE ITALIAN JOB with mixed reviews in my head. I was pleasantly surprised with an entertaining close to 2 hours. I thought the cast was just great and so were the special effects, with the safe and truck just dropping out of sight. If you like fast paced action movies, this is the one to see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the perks of my job is that when things are slow, I can watch the movie in our downstairs theater (I work in a little 2-screen theater) in the cry room and still keep an eye on the concession stand. I have seen Italian Job probably 20 times, and I'm still not tired of it. The atmosphere reminds me of Ocean's Eleven, although the acting isn't as good. Mark Wahlberg is ok, Charlize Theron appeals to the guys, but Seth Green is AWESOME in this movie. I thought Edward Norton did a very good job playing a dirtbag, although a lot of people disagree. I also enjoyed Mos Def as the explosives expert that's afraid of dogs. I highly recommend this movie, and will continue to watch it whenever I can!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this movie. More than I expected. It has enough action, intrigue and locations to make it worth your while. While I can't quite yet see Mark Wahlberg as a leader, he's gotten good enough to be a credible manager and that's OK.

The superhero of the movie is the Mini Cooper. It's shown to have the speed, dexterity and muscle to pull off any job. And to handle a maniac driver like Charlize Theron's character.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went to see this movie with a lady freind of mine, who doesn't like heist movies. But she enjoyed it. I missed bits and pieces of the movie all the way through It is a story about Edward Norton and a crew stealing some gold, and Norton deciding he wants it all to himself. Then the people he betrayed want to get back at him. It is a well put together, intellegent, funny, and action packed film that I need to see again... the whole way through. One of my top movies of the Summer so far.

A big help to the entertainment factor is Seth Green. I dont know anyone who doesnt like Seth Green, and he adds to the flavor. He plays a guy who says he created Napster, and his roomate stole it from him. He is a computer genious who is a wonder to watch.

It was said that Norton didn't want to do this film.. but If I were him, I would have wanted to sign on.

The only problem is that it is very predictable. Any movie go-er should be able to say in their own mind what is happening, before it happens.

My biggest complaint with the film, is Eddie Nortons choice of facial hair. The thick, yet thin mustache, and a small pike on his chin... he looks like an 80's porn star for gods sake.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I find it sad that just because Edward Norton did not want to be in the film or have anything to do with it, people automatically think the movie sucks without even watching it or giving it a chance. I really hope Norton did not do this. He is a fine actor and all but he scared people away from a decent movie.

I found it entertaining. It wasn't mind blowing or anything with crazy special effects, but it was not a bad. It was fun to watch. But yea, definitely not a bad\/horrible movie.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film is really good, it doesn't use violence or sex etc to sell itself like other films but instead just uses a really decent plot(based on the original by Michael Caine) and some great actors to make a fun, action packed film which i thoroughly enjoyed. One thing which made me enjoy this film even more was that it had some actors which i really like such as Edward Norton(who i last saw in 26th hour, which i enjoyed also), Jason Statham(transporter, enjoyed that also) and Seth Green who i think is great, his role as Shawn Fanning's roommate dubbed \"The Napster\" is hilarious and his hacking skills play a great part in the main heist which centres around a large traffic jam in LA. The car chases are really decent and the high tech equipment used by the thieves is interesting and very impressive. I haven't seen the original so i can't really compare the too but i liked this a lot and would highly recommend this film to everyone, it isn't a film where you need to like that specific genre, it will suit everyone, i felt good after this movie, it had a really good ending and was overall really fun to watch. I give it 8\/10. Go watch it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The intricate plot, great visuals, the world's greatest car chase ever make this movie a lot of fun to watch. The beautiful Charlize Theron adds to the enjoyment. The sound score is outstanding. Add to all this an energetic cast that also seems to be having a lot of fun making the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not the film to see if you want to be intellectually stimulated. If you want to have a lot of fun a the theater, however, this is the one. Lots of snappy banter(and some really cheesy banter, too). Mos Def and Seth Green are very funny as the comic relief. Exciting and creative heists and chase scenes. Mark Wahlberg and Charlize Theron(sexy)are appealing leads. And Donald Sutherland!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here's another pleasant surprise. Whenever I hear a movie is being remade, I cringe. Movies such as Gone in Sixty Seconds, and The Day of the Jackal, get remade and the results are less than stellar. So, when I heard that \"the Italian Job\" was getting remade, I expected it to be bad.

Well, I had the opportunity to calm down, read some reviews, and finally see the movie, and was proven wrong. Granted, it's not original, and predictable, but it's sure fun. From beginning to end, you are taken on one very fun ride. The scenes with the Minis are great, and the characters actually enjoy themselves.

So, even if there are some flaws, who cares as long as it's fun?

Overall, 8 out of 10. The only points lost are, maybe, the a few details and a slight lack of realism. But, you'll be having so much fun you won't even be given a chance to stop and notice.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Especially after watching THE MATRIX RELOADED!! *SPOILERS*

After seeing the Matrix with all it's ridiculous fantasy make-believe-robotic characters with their super powers, it was refreshing to see an action movie with real people in situations that involved actual risk! I cared about these people, and even though some of the stunts seemed a bit much, it still left me feeling like \"it's possible\" verses \"what a stupid video game\" (like the Matrix)

This movie isn't brain surgery, it's very straight forward. Some things are predictable- like knowing that someone is going to be a back-stabber and that someone early on is going to die. Pretty obvious, but SO WHAT? The first 15 minutes sets up our reason, our motive, our main objective.

I like that Theron and Walhberg didn't have any make-out scenes. I am glad that they didn't go there. They kept it about funny dialogue ESPECIALLY SETH GREENE. That guy IS FUNNY!

This is a movie that I would buy when it comes out on DVD. It's fun, fast and entertaining. The only thing (and I guess it's a big thing) is that we are really - rooting for the bad guys. This group of protaganists are already on the wrong side of the law. Not a good message for the kiddies - parents, please explain this to them.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Italian Job requires daylight hours and no experience is required. This is a great matinee and a good afternoon at the movies. The plot is good, but the actual playing out of the plot is very simple and requires no thought process. It's car chases, explosions and all for the simple purpose of defeating \"the bad guy\" played by Edward Norton. For Norton, it seems he is content to portray the exact same characters as in his previous films such as \"The Score\". Mark Wahlberg and Charlize Theron deserve better scripts. Warning: If you've seen the trailer, then you have seen the movie. If you're looking for entertainment at inexpensive prices then you need The Italian Job.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*SPOILER ALERT!! PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT THE MOVIE SPOILED!!*

I was originally planning on seeing this movie this past weekend, but my plans ended up making me unable to have time to see it. So me & my friend made plans to see it after school today. Boy, are we glad we did. The movie starts off in Italy, with a planned heist with a group of guys (Charlie Croker [Mark Whalberg], Steve Frezelli [Edward Norton], Lyle, also known as \"Napster\" [Seth Green, you'll get the nickname later], Handsome Rob [Jason Statham], Left Ear [Mos Deaf], & John Bridger [Donald Sutherland]) plan a heist to steal 32 gold bricks. This leads to the whole opening, which is a good 10 to 15 minutes, and involves a boat chase, which opens the movie up right. While driving away in their get away van, Steve Frezelli turns on the group, steals the gold, and kills John Bridger, who is pretty much the (retiring) leader of the group. Fast foward to a year later, where where Stella Bridger (Charlize Theron), John's daughter, is one of the top safe-crackers that anyone can ask for. Charlie Croker (who was actually indirectly responsible for her father's death, as he called him out of retirement for the heist) says that they've found Steve (who has gone into hiding), and want to get back at him for what he did. She at first declines, but later agrees, and the teamgets back together, along with getting the help of Wrench (Franky G), a mechanic, to carry out the perfect heist, while creating one of the largest traffic jams in Los Angeles history. This movie is a perfect mix of action with funny bits thrown in throughout. There's an on-running joke about Seth Green's character, Lyle, creating Napster and how Shawn Fanning (who makes a cameo) stole it while he fell asleep, and eventually Lyle will only answer if refered to as \"Napster\". There's even a funny line in the movie by Seth, who goes \"He said in an interview he called it Napster because it described his hair, like it was nappy. He callled it that because *I* was napping when he stole it!\" The begining and ending sequences are pure genius, and everything in between fits perfectly. The only negative thing I can think of with the movie is that Edward Norton's acting was a bit weak. He wasn't a big, tough bad guy. He acted like he was being paid and just doing the bare-minimum (which is a fact, as he was forced to do this movie due to contractual obligation). But, even with that problem being the only real gripe with the film, the movie is still very enjoyable, and I definetly recommend seeing it. And even if you're not interested in the actual movie, go to see Seth Green shine in the comedic role. He's perfect. Rating: **** out of *****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a movie, THE ITALIAN JOB is ok at best; good (not great) acting,

nice visuals and pacing, a mediocre plot, but nothing bad enough

to walk out on. But as a car commercial for the new breed of MINI

Coopers, this film is spectacular!

*SPOILERS*

Ok, it's a typical heist film with the odd twist (the underwater safe- cracking was nice, if not improbable), and the cast was fairly solid

(with the exception of a putrid Wahlberg), but when it all came

down to it, the real \"stars\" of this picture were the three MINI

Coopers, in all their high-flying, speed-racing, ramp-jumping,

bullet-taking, gold-lugging, shiny new glory. The audience I was

sitting amongst actually \"ooed\" and \"aahed\" when Theron's little

red number first hit the screen (strangely enough, neither she nor

Wahlberg garnered the same reaction).

The film starts out promising. Mos Def, Seth Green, Donald

Sutherland, Edward Norton and Jason Statham all begin as an

interesting and humourous band of characters, with the only real

uninspired performance being that of the usually good Mark

Wahlberg. Why he claims this is his best film I can't imagine; his

character is completely one-note, and he plays him so blandly it

was as if Mr. Rogers came back from the dead and was inhabiting

his body. Charlize is fine as Sutherland's daughter, though

nothing magical. Seth Green's character is perfect and the

running Napster jokes (including a cameo by Napster founder,

Shawn Fanning) are hilarious; he and some of Mos Def's early

lines add some much needed sparks of humour. Unfortunately,

Edward Norton and Donald Sutherland don't get near enough

screen time.

You can see most of the plot coming from a mile away, and the

dialogue is rife with bad one-liners and give-aways, but I doubt the

filmmakers were out to re-invent the wheel here, so taken as a

typical action\/suspense flick it comes out alright. Worth seeing on

cheap night I'd recommend.

7\/10. Not worth it's weight in gold, but makes for nice fillings.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Under the assured direction of F. Gary Gray, \"Italian Job\" never loses its grip on being cool and fun. Although the material is rehashed and average, the film itself is masterfully executed and is satisfyingly good. The tone could easily have been much heavier, considering the murder-revenge plotline but F. Gary Gray keeps the tone light by good humor, snappy dialogs and pulsating music. It is a pleasure to see these would-be-bad guys form a great bond and stick to eachother through deceit and murder, while never forgetting to have fun. This one is 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"**Warning! Slight Plot Spoilers Ahead!**

\"The Italian Job\" is not the best movie you'll see all year, or probably even this summer. But it is a worthwhile two hours because it colors within the lines, knowing its limits and not attempting to exceed them.

What carries the movie is the work of the cast. In a movie about a crew of thieves, the individuals must have a good rapport with each other. Without that cohesive feel, the audience doesn't believe in the characters collectively or individually, and the movie never has a chance. But from the first scenes, in which the men joke around and rag on each other while infiltrating a Venetian palace, the proper chemistry is in place.

The characters themselves aren't anything novel; they're your basic gang of criminals, containing about half a dozen players, each with a specific and defining skill. But each actor brings the proper goods to the table for his or her part. Mark Wahlberg's understated acting and humor fits well with his part as the mastermind planner. Edward Norton provides attitude and twirls his mustache well in his dark role. Donald Sutherland is the father figure of the crew, and he looks the part of the suave and old-fashioned thief, who is still mentally spry. Jason Statham, Seth Green, and Mos Def don't do much beyond their character's abilities, but they each nail those parts. Statham as the smooth-operating driver; Green as the tech whiz geek with a chip on his shoulder; and Def as the demolitions man. Charlize Theron slides in well in a part that doesn't ask too much of her. She is primarily asked to to drive fast and look good. That she does. None of the characters are that deep or three-dimensional, but in this familiar sort of movie, two dimensions are all that is required.

As the title implies, the movie has a European feel to it, a la \"The Bourne Identity,\" in part because it was shot on location in Venice, along with Philadelphia and Los Angeles. Also contributing to the Euro flair is the rhythmic, bouncy music, which adds to the upbeat nature of the flick and complements the rapport of the cast. The look of the movie is also a perfect match. The bright colors of all locales enhance the mood and add to the attitude. The Minis not only provide a fun variation on the car chase, but also work as a necessary plot device.

The plot is more or less straight-forward. There are a few surprises, but they are more of the swift-and-smooth-turn variety, as opposed to the drop-your-jaw hairpin curve. Even with those, the movie speeds along. Once the foundation is laid by the first act, everything continuously progresses. Thankfully there are no breaks in the action for a romance, something the movie wisely avoided. There aren't even any breaks for 'real life.' The story has its purpose and runs that course without distractions. The lack of character depth prevents \"The Italian Job\" from being more than a good popcorn movie, but with all the complex details of the heist-planning, such superfluities would have dragged down the pace and quality of the flick.

There are a number of implausibilities that I thought of both during and after viewing. But the movie is so enjoyable that I didn't and don't care. In the real world, most of the movie probably couldn't have gone off that cleanly. But \"The Italian Job\" doesn't take place in the real world. It occurs in a stylish and light-hearted criminal world that appeals to the rebel in all of us.

\"The Italian Job\" is a movie, in the true sense of the word. It has no pretenses of Oscar and contains no deep moral message. It provides pure escapism entertainment and does so quite well.

Bottom Line: Maybe the best popcorn movie of the year so far. 7 of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well I just discovered IMDb from my twin sister, Carol. Carol and I played the \"Fat Identical Twin\" in Midnight Madness. We didn't have to prepare much for the fat part, that came with us, and well and the rest was natural. ;) It was our first major film role and we had a blast making it. We were 21 at the time and lived about an hour and half from The Disney Studio in Burbank and the Hollywood, California area. We grew up in front of the TV and probably some of the first generation of latch-key-kids. Twenty years later, we still have lots of fun and are still 'heavy' or what ever is politically correct these days. We don't pursue acting any more but have been know to 'come back' when the right opportunity arrives. Carol is a Chiropractor in our home town of Southern California and I am in the Information Technology field in Georgia.

I maybe bias, but I thought the film was cute, clean and fun. We knew it wasn't a master piece or an Oscar nominee, however, it was and still is a movie the whole family can watch and have fun together. It's nice not to have to worry if your young children can watch a video without having to fast forward certain parts. And no one was more exited when it was released on video as Carol and I were. Carol found it at Kmart for $6.99! Now that's an inexpensive way to capture one's memories and share it with others.

Sincerely, Betsy Lynn and Carol Gwynn; The Thompson Twins","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"They don't make movies like this anymore \u0096 though some may say that's a good thing. Although this was amongst the first of Disney's PG rated films, it has more of the feel of the G films their studio turned out in the\u009170s (i.e. \"Freaky Friday,\" \"The World's Greatest Athlete\") than the PG films that came out in the early \u009180s (i.e. \"Watcher in the Woods,\" \"Tron,\" \"Something Wicked This Way Comes\"). Because of Disney's backing, \"Midnight Madness\" obviously had a large budget. A huge cast and a ton of diverse locations go to show that. But zaniness, a madcap scavenger hunt, and spectacular visual style weren't enough to save the film from being an enormous flop... A failure at the box office, most of us were introduced to the film on HBO in the early \u009180s, back in the days when the same films would be shown 29 times a week (Oh, wait \u0096 they still do that!). Essentially HBO did for this film what CBS did for \"The Wizard of Oz\" \u0096 they created an enormous cult audience for a sugary-sweet mega-flop....

The biggest problem that makes this a \"bad\" film is that there's too many characters and very few of them are fleshed out \u0096 Eddie Deezen's \"squad\" don't even have names! The blue team, although they're the villains, are the most endearing and have the most work put into their characters (with the exception of the girl, who can't act & doesn't have enough to do). Harold, perfectly played to the hilt by Stephen Furst, is really the only one whose character is fully realized in the film. The other standout character is goof-off Melio, played with tons of charm by now-director Andy Tennant. Although then-Dr. Pepper spokesman David Naughton was supposed to be the star, his character often comes off obnoxious, particularly when pitted against his brother Adam, Michael J. Fox. While everyone has favorite characters, I don't think anyone who loves the movie could disagree that Furst and Fox are the only two characters that you really learn anything about.

Despite the film's many flaws and bad actors (most of whom fell off the face of the earth after this movie) it still works because the actors appeared to be having fun -- and fun on the set equals fun on the screen. Come on, what college jock doesn't dream of floating around in a beer vat and what zoftig girl doesn't dream of stealing the show at the local discotech... er... I guess it would be at a rave nowadays... Campy, squeaky-clean fun for anyone who was young in the \u009170s & \u009180s, it's only fitting that this has finally gotten the massive video release that it deserves. But where the hell's the widescreen DVD release with the commentary, trailer and the full version of the song that plays in the disco?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WEEE this is still jolly good fun! As with most of my friends, we had seen this movie on HBO when we were young, and then had been searching ever since for a copy of it. When they finally rereleased it a few years ago, we had a Midnight Madness party... and the movie held up well. Sure, it's pure cheese, but it's still a lot of fun. If you didn't see MM when you were young, you might not appreciate its value today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have no idea what the budget on this movie was, but whatever it was they made it work! I have seen movies that spend 100x the amount (Pearl Harbor anyone?) and sucked 200x worse. This movie has everything. David \"Makin' It\" Naughton in the lead role as Adam, an average college student who gets wrapped up in a game called the Great AllNighter\" run by Leon! This guy rocks! A \"genius\" with nothing better to do than come up with an elaborate game for a bunch of people to play. But he doesn't just pick his friends. He has a team of Jocks, nerds, fatties, average kids and of course, Flounder's team who are the \"bad guys\". But this movie has no black and white. There are many shades of gray. Adam is not the altruistic hero with no faults. He treats Alex P. like crap. AND Flounder is the way he is because of pressures from his Dad and a cranky stomach. The jocks play dirty, but so does everyone else! This movie rocks! The scene at the PBR factory? Classic! \"Johnny's Obese Male Child?\" Can you write a better clue? This stuff is gold Jerry! GOLD! Maybe I am from a different generation, but I love movies that seem far-fetched but still have roots in reality. This never happened...but it could. Eeeee-Gypt.... EEEE....Easter Bunny....Easter Parade! Oh and watch for a young Paul Rubens still working on that Pee wee character. PS That Devra Clinger WAS\/is HOT! She must have been one bad actress not to work in Hollywood anymore. SEE THIS MOVIE!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Somewhere in the dark recesses of my brain cells a song plays in my head. I can't forget it no matter how hard I try. It's MIDNIGHT MADNESS and it's gonna get to you! Wish i could find a copy of this on a 45rpm record. Five disparate teams head out one night in L.A. for a scavenger hunt for clues instead of physical objects. An unkempt game-master with two gorgeous assistants is the mastermind of all this insanity that's about to be unleashed on L.A. All the teams are stereotypes (this movie being from 1980, before political correctness screwed everything up): the \"good guys\", the \"nerds\" led by Eddie Deezen, the dumb beer-loving \"jocks\", the \"we-don't-need-a-man-type ladies\", especially the redhead. The giggling twins are a scream, too. And finally, the \"bad guys\" with Stephen Furst as the leader. Furst is hilarious as the overweight slob Harold, whose attempt to use a computer to decipher the various clues leads to a gooey mess. Movies like this aren't made anymore. These days, movies have to have an \"edginess\" to them with some dark characters and other nonsense. Go back to the days when the \"good guys\" led by David Naughton were still good and not hopelessly conflicted. So dump all serious pretensions and go back to 1980. It's MIDNIGHT MADNESS . . .","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had completely forgotten about \"Midnight Madness\" until just now when I found it while surfing the IMDB. Now, it's all coming back to me....

It was one of Naughton's first movies (as well as Fox's) and sharp-eyed connoisseurs will also pick out Kaplan (Henry from TV's \"Alice\"), Fiedler (he does the voice of Piglet in the \"Winnie the Pooh\" cartoons) and Blocker (son of Dan \"Hoss\" Blocker from TV's \"Bonanza\").

But the two that stand out in my mind are Furst (from \"Animal House\") and the superdude himself - Eddie Deezen. Furst plays a baddie this time out and has one of the best scenes when he asks his dad, \"Why can't you just accept me for who I am?\" His dad looks over his obese, slovenly frame and gives a simple, one-word response - \"Yuck!\"

And Deezen... well, he's a show in himself. As a latter-day Jerry Lewis he stumbles around, wades through mini-golf ponds, puts melon halves on his ears and ends up having Maggie Roswell fall for him. My hero.

As for the film, it's typical early-'80s stupidity with college kids staying up after curfew and going on a city-wide scavenger hunt to prove which division of students is the best on campus: the jocks, the nerds, the rich kids, the feminists or the group made up of a little of each.

Who wins? Who cares, you'll have a lot of fun watching Disney Pictures' first foray into PG territory before creating Touchstone Pictures.

Seven stars. Catch \"Midnight Madness\" any way you can!

Long live Leon!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can i say about this movie that hasn't been said hundreds of times before? It's an American Classic. It has spawned dozens of imitators. Or none. Midnight Madness is one of kind. From the ridiculous opening montage\/music to the Bonaventure HOtel, I was hooked. Leon made us all feel so young and carefree. One question though, how did he have those two hot hookers with him all the time? And how did have the time\/money to arrange such an event? The cast is top notch. David Naughton is at his best here. His tight yellow sweatshirt is disturbing. His little brother Michael J Fox(in his first starring role), is a real brat. There is also Naughton's love interest and a dork and the obligatory black dude in a fisherman's hat on the yellow team. Michael J Fox does bad things like try and steal cups of beer at the Pabst Blue Ribbon brewery and runs away to Flounder's van. Flounder's team gives us the most comedy. What exactly is the deal with the blond on that team? Is she dating Flounder? Or Melio? Or Blade? Yes, the Mexican gentleman's name is blade. The other guy on the Flounder team has the best lines of the movie, i won't pomp them here. The Meat Machine team is a bunch of drunks. My personal favorite is Armpit. But the silent black man is great too. The other two teams are 4 nerds and 4 lesbians(two of which are 450 lb twins).

You know the ending from the start. But that doesn't matter. This is the 80's me-genre at its finest. Don't rent this one, BUY it. and Buy it now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A rather silly little film you just may love.

Although rather corny and clich\u00e9 at times, it nonetheless works and makes for good clean fun. Five teams are engaged on a scavenger hunt and battle each other and their wits to win the all night contest - just for the sheer joy \"knowing yours is the best team.\"

Notable for several screen debuts including David Naughton's first film role after his Dr. Pepper \"Be a Pepper\" commercials and before his major 1981 hit \"American Werewolf in London\". Also features Paul Ruebens in what I believe is his first Pee Wee Herman-esquire roll a year before he became known for it. And last but not least, Mr. Spin City and Alex Keaton himself, Michael J. Fox gets his first film role here. Fans will remember Stephen Furst as Flounder in Animal House. Outside of that, no names, but all funny characters.

Doubt it has ever made it to DVD, but there are still probably some VHS copies floating around and you might even catch on a late, late show sometime. If you do, is worth your watch. You may hate it, but it may also become a quirky little movie you come to love.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Twenty years after watching this, I still find myself quoting things from this movie like \"Look between the two giant melons\", or I'll start to sing the \"Pabst Blue Ribbon Theme\". On the other hand, 20 years later, I can now make sense of the \"Meat Machine\", as there's still a lot of the stereotypes like this out there that they used for this movie. Those are signs of a good movie to me. I could say this movie stands the test of time, which I can't really say for a lot of 80's movies. I continue that this movie is still on a list of a lot of people's favorite movie as a kid growing up in the 80's. If you like games, and have dreams of becoming a \"Game Master\", or find yourself dorking out over these 80's movies to relive your childhood, you need to watch this. Also, it's sometimes sarcastic, and funny. But one thing's for certain about this movie, if someone ever invites you to a \"Great All-Nighter\" they don't mean an X or acid trip party, they mean, get ready for some Midnight Madness! Oh, You'll see. Everyone will be dying to play! hehehehheh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would love for members of the cast and crew to sit down and do an audio commentary on this movie! All of the different places that they went to film this movie! Should provide for some very good anecdotes! Fans of this movie would love to know:

What kind of permission did they have to get to film at certain locations?

Were there any memorable outtakes?

Were there any scenes that were deleted?

What challenges did the cast and the crew face?

Did any actors have stunt doubles?

What was it like to work with other members of the cast?

Were any of the scenes ad libbed?

What are members of the cast and crew up to now?

What locations are still there, and what locations are no longer there, or are now a different business?

It is one thing to read trivia about this movie on this site and other web sites. But there is just no comparison to getting it straight from the horse's mouth!

Come on, guys! Get together and do a commentary! Never walk away from a challenge! Go for the gusto!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hilarious, clean, light-hearted, and quote-worthy. What else can you ask for in a film? This is my all-time, number one favorite movie. Ever since I was a little girl, I've dreamed of owning a blue van with flames and an observation bubble.

The clich\u00e9 characters in ridiculous situations are what make this film such great fun. The wonderful comedic chemistry between Stephen Furst (Harold) and Andy Tennant (Melio) make up most of my favorite parts of the movie. And who didn't love the hopeless awkwardness of Flynch? Don't forget the airport antics of Leon's cronies, dressed up as Hari Krishnas: dancing, chanting and playing the tambourine--unbeatable! The clues are genius, the locations are classic, and the plot is timeless.

A word to the wise, if you didn't watch this film when you were little, it probably won't win a place in your heart today. But nevertheless give it a chance, you may find that \"It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do, you've gotta play.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hilarious, clean, light-hearted, and quote-worthy. What else can you ask for in a film? This is my all-time, number one favorite movie. Ever since I was a little girl, I've dreamed of owning a blue van with flames and an observation bubble.

The clich\u00e9 characters in ridiculous situations are what make this film such great fun. The wonderful comedic chemistry between Stephen Furst (Harold) and Andy Tennant (Melio) make up most of my favorite parts of the movie. And who didn't love the hopeless awkwardness of Flynch? Don't forget the airport antics of Leon's cronies, dressed up as Hari Krishnas: dancing, chanting and playing the tambourine--unbeatable! The clues are genius, the locations are classic, and the plot is timeless.

A word to the wise, if you didn't watch this film when you were little, it probably won't win a place in your heart today. But nevertheless give it a chance, you may find that \"It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do, you've gotta play.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hilarious, clean, light-hearted, and quote-worthy. What else can you ask for in a film? This is my all-time, number one favorite movie. Ever since I was a little girl, I've dreamed of owning a blue van with flames and an observation bubble.

The clich\u00e9 characters in ridiculous situations are what make this film such great fun. The wonderful comedic chemistry between Stephen Furst (Harold) and Andy Tennant (Melio) make up most of my favorite parts of the movie. And who didn't love the hopeless awkwardness of Flynch? Don't forget the airport antics of Leon's cronies, dressed up as Hari Krishnas: dancing, chanting and playing the tambourine--unbeatable! The clues are genius, the locations are classic, and the plot is timeless.

A word to the wise, if you didn't watch this film when you were little, it probably won't win a place in your heart today. But nevertheless give it a chance, you may find that \"It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do, you've gotta play.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my all time favourite movie ever!!!

I remember seeing this when I was younger and since then I have been in love with it. I used to rent it so often from this one video store that used to carry it, and when we moved I couldn't find it any where so I kep going back tot he far away store just so I could watch the movie again!

Finally i found it for sale and I bought it and watched it over and over again.... great movie!

Since then though it was my very first DVD that I got after I got my DVD player... OK well I got them at the same time, the quality on the DVD is way better I couldn't believe it! You Gotta see this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would hope so and how can I get involved?

This movie is a classic and ripe with laughs, adventure and an all star, 80's cast!

What happens when you get together a group of jocks and sororiety, a group of debating nerds, a band of misfits and couple of couselors?

A load of laughs that will have you begging for more!

David Naughton stars as Adam, the leader of the \"yellow team,\" a kind and hip college counselor who helps students with everything from getting the classes they want to first dates.

His nemesis is Harold, the leader of the \"blue team,\" played hilariously by Stephen Furst of \"Babylon 5\" fame, the no good loafing son of a wealthy, former college jock with enough trophies to make any hall of famer jealous.

Pit these two against each other and throw in a \"red team,\" a \"white team,\" and a \"green team,\" an unbelievable \"view\" at an observatory, consequences of cheating at minature golf, a super tour at the Pabst Blue Ribbon beer factory, and a hateful old landlady among other adventures, and you have all the makings of a night to remember!

Look for appearances by Michael J. Fox, Eddie Deezen, and director Andy Tennant in one of the last movies he acted in before becoming a director and you have an all star, hilarious, cast.

The only down side to this movie was Debra Clinger's performance as Laura. She terribly overacted, but the rest of the movie is so good, she can simply be ignored.

I own this movie and can never watch it enough!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my favorite movie of all time. I just love all the trouble all the teams get into! Its great. Michael J. Fox looked so young.. but then again i guess he was!

The teams are so stereotypical you just have to laugh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie typifies the early eighties as well as FUN!! I remember watching this movie on HBO when I was little, and it was my favorite movie. Since it was a while ago, no one I had ever met knew what it was. Then, about the time my roommate had said she had seen it too, and that it was her favorite, they started to print it again!! Luckily, I have a copy now!! If anyone ever wants to see the greatest (cheesy) scavenger hunt that was probably the beginning ideas of hazing for frats, this movie is it!!! (Watcher - has to have a serious love for cheesy 80's type movies!!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"twenty years later, this movie still remains as entertaining as when you first watched it. In a movie market overrun by toilet humor, graphic violence and foul language, it's refreshing to be fully entertained for two hours by such a clean movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is basically a goofball comedy, with somewhat odd pacing due to some dramatic elements. For Michael J. Fox and Paul Reubens, it was their first film(Fox had previously been in a short lived TV series and a TV movie).

Since the movie is basically a race\/scavenger hunt type movie, like \"Cannonball Run\", \"It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World\", or more recently \"Rat Race\", there are no main characters. Instead there are groups of characters, splitting the screen time and allowing for tons of mini-plots. Usually these kind of movies are a way to cram the maximum amount of stars (or semi-stars) onto a film.

This one has teams, with one being the primary team which Fox belongs to, who are the only characters to be developed. Their plot is more of a stereotypical Disney affiar, about a college boy not paying attention to his younger brother, who he thinks of as a lazy punk. Since they are forced on a team together, along with the older brother's girlfriend, they are forced to work together. Since this is the main plot it gets the most screen time.

Some of the other silly plots stand out. The Blue Team is about an overweight rich kid whose dad just wants him and his misfit friends out of the house. They end up with a cool custom van which had an on-board computer (in 1980!) to instantly solve the riddles, plus play video games with the time saved! One member, Stephen Furst, went on to play Dr. Axelrod on \"St. Elsewhere\", and later was on \"Babylon 5\". I'll also admit that I still laugh when Barf, while trying to unscramble a word a'la Scrabble, comes up with, \"Fagabefe?\" This is much funnier than Bart Simpson's \"Qwyjibo\", in my opinion.

The other three teams have plots that are somewhat linked together. The green team is a bunch of frat boys, with mostly beer jokes which climaxes into a breakdown for one when the hunt leads to the Pabst Blue Ribbon Brewery. They get a chance to harass the red team, with two feminists and two fun-loving twins. The white team of nerds are lead by Eddie Deezen, who was previously in \"Grease\" but went on to play a critical computer geek role in \"Wargames\" and later Tim Conway's sidekick in some of the \"Dorf\" series.

If you grew up in the 80's, then there are some classic moments in the movie that bring back memories. The early video arcade, from back when they were cool is always a plus in my mind. Look for Paul Reubens and his quarter-shooting guns. There is also a miniature golf course and a roller disco.

The movie is actually an okay family movie simply because profanity is almost non-existant, and the small amount of sexual humor is completely innocent. The odd pacing thanks to the yellow team's cheesy dramatic moments will put parents to sleep while their kids can giggle at giant melons at Fat Burger (oh, they actually have a special melon platter? That must be it, right?)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i taped this as a teenager in the mid 80s based upon the synopsis in the cable guide (the scavenger hunt aspect appealed to me), having no knowledge or expectations of the film. what a pleasant surprise when i viewed it! this was such a fun film and i remember watching it repeatedly. i thought that the concept was well executed, i enjoyed the harmless competition between the different groups, and i thought that the scavenger hunt itself was quite clever. sometimes it seems that people have far too great expectations for movies. not all movies are going to have a weighty \"message\" or stellar acting, production values, or special effects. sometimes movies are just meant to entertain and be fun, and this one succeeds on both levels. it was so nice to read the comments from the actors who played the twins. i haven't seen this movie in years, but if i did i think i'd have just as warm and enthusiastic a reaction to it as i did as a teenager. even as i type this, snippets of the cheesey yet appropriate theme song are running through my head: \"when midnight madness starts to get to you...it doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do...!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For a movie that was PG, this is one fun film. I grew up on watching this film over and over. Its really fun, I don't know how today audience would react, but if you grew up on it, or loved the 80s, then this is a great film. Stephen Furst is great as Harold, who, I think, is one of the best characters in the film. Paul Ruebens also pops in for about 10 minutes. I love nostalgia.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Midnight Madness is a movie that is unfortunately highly underrated and unappreciated. With a flood of classic \"edgy\" teen\/college movies, this one was forgotten. As a child I would watch this movie over and over again, luckily I had it on video. This movie shows a more tame, but most exciting side of the eighties. In the cynical society we live in this day and age, with drug abuse being the \"coolest\" thing, it's good to see, once in awhile, a fun, innocent movie that is Midnight Madness...that is if you can find it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Still funny after all these years. Midnight Madness is good entertainment for all ages. It introduces Michael J Fox as a typical 15 year old trouble maker. Melio and Blaylak are by far the funniest characters in it and Leon is perfectly cast as a wierdo game master. The budding romance between Adam and the girl couldn't have been any cheesier. Fagabeefe!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As many of the other comments I have read have noted, I fell in love with this movie when I was a kid. My sister and I had a copy of the movie on Beta (before VHS) that we wore out. Of course it didn't help when our parents sold the BetaMax at a garage sale. Since then we have been trying to find a copy. I, like another commentator, did eventually locate a rental copy at a local video store. The owner would not part with the copy after any number of attempts to beg, bribe, and cry my way to owning the tape. GOOD NEWS! I bought a brand new, newly released, VHS copy of Midnight Madness for $9.99 on Amazon.com two days ago!!!! Finally, Disney has wizened up. Now, if they'll only rerelease Song of the South... If you love the movie, grab it. If you haven't seen the movie, it's worth a check - totally stupid humor but a lot of fun (Stephen Furst is hilarious).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"midnight madness is the ultimate scavenger hunt movie for all time. michael j fox and paul reubens make respective pre- fame appearances. laughs abound everywhere and the intrigue of who will emerge victorious at the end of the great all-nighter will keep you on the proverbial edge of your seat. a true must see!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would watch this movie every time it was on cable and it never got old. Who can forget some of the best lines in film history? --- JOHNNY'S FAT BOY BURGERS!! JOHNNY'S FAT BOY BURGERS!! and LOOK BETWEEN THE GIANT MELONS! I used to wish I could run all over the city in a treasure hunt as fun as this. It's an all-time fave and I'm happy to hear that it's out on video! I'm positive that this is where MTV got its original premise for the Road Rules series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A classic 80's movie that Disney for some reason stopped making. I watched this movie everyday when I was in like 6th grade. I found a copy myself after scouring video stores. Well worth it though. One of my all time favs","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is no denying that this is a bad movie. The acting isn't great, likewise the script, acting and direction. Still, I cannot wait until its 2\/23\/99 video release from Anchor Bay. Everyone knows there are several bad movies out there that have a tremendous appeal to them. This one tops my list.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're a \"child of the Eighties\" like me, you probably remember this 1981 Disney movie--one of Disney's first PG-rated films, and Michael J. Fox's screen debut. I can remember watching this film over and over on HBO when I was on middle school, and I only recently found a very old copy of it, since Disney stopped producing the movie several years ago. Needless to say, this is a real fun movie to watch. Five college teams decipher clues in an evening race around Los Angeles, trying to reach the finish line first. Watch for the cameo from Paul Reubens. From the cheesy music to the disco scene with the fat twins, this is a quintessential 1980s fun film that you'll love.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hilarious, clean, light-hearted, and quote-worthy. What else can you ask for in a film? This is my all-time, number one favorite movie. Ever since I was a little girl, I've dreamed of owning a blue van with flames and an observation bubble.

The clich\u00e9 characters in ridiculous situations are what make this film such great fun. The wonderful comedic chemistry between Stephen Furst (Harold) and Andy Tennant (Melio) make up most of my favorite parts of the movie. And who didn't love the hopeless awkwardness of Flynch? Don't forget the airport antics of Leon's cronies, dressed up as Hari Krishnas: dancing, chanting and playing the tambourine--unbeatable! The clues are genius, the locations are classic, and the plot is timeless.

A word to the wise, if you didn't watch this film when you were little, it probably won't win a place in your heart today. But nevertheless give it a chance, you may find that \"It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do, you've gotta play.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a charming little film, which like many of it's kind, derives it's charm from the circumstances involved rather than the actual dialogue.

Glenn Ford (as always) shines through in a great comedic performance as the penniless Air Force officer, married after just one day to gold-digging showgirl Debbie Reynolds.

After the one initial wedding night of passion and a life changing move to Spain, the two quickly realise that apart from the strong sexual attraction they feel for each other they have nothing at all in common.

However when she decides to give their marriage a go, it is on the understanding that it for one month trial period only and sex is most definitely not on the cards.

Ford is also falling foul to his new $40,000 Lincoln Futura Concept Car (the future Batmobile) which he wins in a raffle the same night he meets his new wife.

The car is bringing him unwanted attention from the Air Force, who see it as a vulgar display of American wealth and is bringing suspicions of corruption and embezzlement etc. It is also putting him in the 80-90% tax bracket and as penniless as he is he now faces a tax bill of over $17,000. Not the kind of money you should be owing when your wife is the kind of person who spends over a $1,000 on one shopping trip.

Even when he tries to sell it it brings him misfortune as selling so much as a cigarette or a pair of stockings to the natives is punishable by court martial, so you can imagine that a $17,500 transaction practically has the firing squad polishing their rifles.

His potential purchaser is also causing him problems as he is a disgustingly handsome Bull-fighting Spanish nobleman, who's interest in the car has lead to a stronger interest in Ford's wife, made worse by the fact that a rich jet-set lifestyle is being offered and is what she has sought for so long.

With Ford's sexual frustration rising and jealousy in his love rival mounting, coupled with Reynolds' materialistic attitude and flirtatious behaviour around the enamoured Spaniard serving to drive the wedge deeper between the two, it seems that their whirlwind relationship is destined to end.

But can whatever love and attraction that threw these two love birds together in the first place, shine through and keep them together?

Not the best example of this genre of film, but due to the watchable performances by it's principles and the enjoyable plot line, it is certainly a fine one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that this film is one of the funniest films i have ever seen. I think Debbie Reynolds is hilarious and the chemistry between her and Glenn Ford is perfect. There is not a dull moment in the film and Debbie looks beautiful as always.

The story is about a showgirl Maggie(Debbie Reynolds) who meets a penniless soldier Joe (Glenn Ford). She takes an instant dislike to him but after he accidentally tears her dress, he returns it to her on the condition that she goes on one date with him. They end up getting married the night they have their date after just one kiss. Joe and Maggie move to Spain and find they have nothing in common but physical attraction, so Maggie proposes that for one month they live but not as man and wife which means that Joe is not allowed to kiss or sleep with Maggie, much to Joe's frustration.A hilarious plot and a wonderful film. Not to be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this film has to be one of the most moving, and heartbreaking films of recent times.

The film basically starts off with a suicide in a school toilet. U don't see who it is, then from there it goes to the beginning of the day, and we get to know 6 characters, and they are going through some pretty heavy things, anyway eventually one of them will commit suicide.

I've been teaching Physical Education in schools for 8 years now, and never in a film have I seen such an accurate portrayal of what 'really' goes on in school life.

The film is shot beautifully, and sounds incredible.

The ending is so shocking, and so what one would not expect, it is something that will haunt me for days to come.

This is Definitely one to watch.

I think the fact that the Director\/Writer was in school only a few years ago is a major contributing factor to the raw honesty expressed in the film.

The film is shot in two separate 'modes' if you will. Firstly there is the smooth observation style where we get to know the characters in their school environment as they go through their drama, but the stunning part of the film is in the interview sections, where we get to know the characters back stories, and their deepest, darkest thoughts.

You keep wondering, who is it going to be (who commits suicide) and as the drama unfolds you keep changing your mind, until bam, it hits you in the face in the final five minutes. I am all over the place in my writing, but I've just seen it at a Media screening in Australia, and I am still in a bit of shock.

It's one of the best Australian Films I have seen in recent years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well... What to say.

I think i shall start with a confession. I have cried 4 times in my life. once when my dad died, twice due to a girlfriend in high school, and at the end of this film. This film deals with the real confronting issues of 6 school kids, forcing them quite uncomfortably into the open for all the world to see. i have never seen a film that deals with the human emotional condition as well as this. everything from incest to incontinence is covered here and i doubt there are many people who are safe from the sting of familiarity with at least a couple of scenes.

It starts off with a suicide. at 2:37pm. then without letting you know who it was that died, the story begins to be told from the start of the day. it follows the lives of 6 school kids up until 2:37pm. it interchangeably, and edited with personal interviews of the 6 teenagers, lets you know everything about their lives. their loves, hates, dreams, desires, secrets, shame, false confidence, self loathing, corruption and arrogance. the overall outcome of which is a sort of \"whodunnit\" trying to discover the identity of the suicidal before it is revealed at the end of the film. without spoiling anything i must let you know. do not feel cheated by the ending. it contains a very important lesson.

And now a warning. this film is definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Many people actually walked out of the cinema half way through when i saw it. Disgusted by some of it's content. Or perhaps it's that it's sometimes hard to face the cold hard truth of reality. This is what high school is like for many people. i'm sure most would agree.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was riveting. I just could not look away. As the movie rolled on I started to feel that it was powerful and confronting, but i had no idea how much more intense it would get.

The movie gives an insight into what unfortunately is everyday life for a lot of school kids. Some of us live outside that environment and would walk by and not know what is happening.

Parents need to see this film in particular, just to see a glimpse of what their kids go through. Often parent dismiss their kids problems as trivial, but unfortunately to a high schooler they are massive. And unfortunately the problems can escalate into a tragedy.

Definitively a must see for all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At 2:37pm in a bathroom at an Adelaide highschool a student takes their own life and the different worlds of six teenagers are changed forever.

2:37 is a brutal, honest and breathtaking film centered on the pain of being a teenager. The film follows one day in the lives of six teenagers, all intertwined, all dealing with their own personal dramas. While there are a couple of stereotypes in the mix \u0096 the beautiful would-be popular girl dealing with body issues, the over-achiever obsessed with his grades, there are several horrors that are as far from main-stream as you can get, including a social outcast dealing with a brutal illness and a young girl trying to make sense of a devastating event in her past.

The movie is mixed with documentary-style interviews from the characters, which some viewers may find a little out of place in the otherwise seamless narrative. The pace is also a little slow, but it fits with the feel of the movie. The young Australian actors are all stars in their own right, in particular Theresa Palmer who's heartbreaking performance earned her an AFI nomination.

The film is very well shot, with terrific direction. Some scenes are a little hard to watch \u0096 in particular the five-minute-long suicide scene, but overall it is a film that leaves a big impact on its' viewers. It draws you in right from it's shocking opening scene and keeps you guessing as to which of the six main characters is going to be the one to end up in the bathroom. Ultimately, it's a beautiful made, but slightly disturbing look at teenage life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"2:37 succeeds admirably at showing us what Australian teenagers feel and don't say. These are the stories of real kids and I think we would be naive to think otherwise. The only new thing 2:37 really brings us is an Australian point of view. We often watch troubled American children but often fail to link the same problems to our own teens. Executed with clever and artful cinematography, I did however (upon immediate recognition of the disappointing final song) find the musical direction lacking in sophistication. I applaud the fabulous casting of this film. These are regular looking Aussie kids who invite plenty of sympathy because of this. Great performances all round and you can't top Gary Sweet, this film made me remember why sometimes high school sucked and unless you're squeamish, or you like to leave with warm and fuzzies, go and see 2:37.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the pleasure of witnessing this brilliant film at a preview screening in Sydney. Although it was a pleasure to see it. Pleasure is not the emotion you are left with as the credits roll.

2:37 is a film that tackles not just one stigma felt by young individuals but all of them. Chief of which is isolation. It is not just to place the films final galvanising scene on a pedestal above the others, but rather it is important to see it as the culmination. And from that, it is important to realise what it represents to both you as the viewer and to the people directly effected by it.

2:37 is not a soft picture but the manner in which Mr Thalluri handles it's subject matter with a profound dignity and it's no holds barred approach acts as credit to it's message.

I do not believe films such as 2:37 should be scaled by votes of favour. Rather it should be recommended to those looking for purpose in their viewing.

A brilliantly crafted portrait of innocence lost. And a master stroke for a as of yet untaped talent.

Not to be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"2:37 is an intense and fascinating drama which has some similarities in tone and subject with films like Bully, Elephant and Kids (although, by my point of view, 2:37 is a superior film to those three ones).Before watching this movie, my expectations were neutral, but I ended up taking a very good impression thanks to the intelligent screenplay, Murali K. Thalluri's perfect direction and the excellent performances from a group of young actors.

The sporadic instances of school violence around the world have inspired many movies, TV programmes and books which pretend to find and predict the external or internal reasons of those unbridled expressions of rebelliousness, discontent...and specially madness.Some people may say that 2:37 arrives too late to that artistic movement; however, I do not think like that, because that delay permitted the movie to make a more artistic analysis, focusing on the situation with more subtleness and intelligence instead of the obvious reaction of cruelty and anguish which impregnated other movies with similar stories.

On the characters from 2:37, we can find clich\u00e9s from the juvenile cinema (from director and screenwriter John Hughes -RIP-'s movies to the teen horror films): the beautiful \"princess\", the clumsy \"nerd\", the antipathetic athletes, etc.It would have been very easy to make them become in hollow caricatures defined by their function in the screenplay; but it is something admirable that the screenplay transcends the stereotypes to make them real people with credible problems which, in more or less degree, any person can find on his\/her road to maturity.

2:37 is an excellent movie, whose only fail is that the ending feels a bit affected, but which compensates that with a lot of positive elements.It will be very interesting to see Thalluri's next projects, since he has had a great debut with this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, i must say i really enjoy watching this movie. The way we follow the different people at the same time works perfectly, and its one of those movies that really makes you think.

Spoiler!!!!

The fact that the the girls who kills herself, is the one you don't notice, That fact made me wonder abit, since thats why she commits Suicide in the movie.. The Director impressed me with that, making a movie that shows the plot to the audience and also deliver the message that not a lot of people would have seen it coming. Some people might start talking about why no one did anything to stop it before she did it, but no one noticed her, just like no one who watched the movie did either... Don't know about you, but i did not guess that it would be her who committed Suicide.. Did you ??

Regards Jan","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many other viewers are saying that this is not a good movie to watch since they feel that it isn't \"realistic.\" How can it not be considered realistic. They feel that say the incest part isn't easy to relate to, that it isn't common. i can guarantee you that you have met more people than you think that have had an incest act occur. Many of them aren't going to come out and say it, and mostly these are victims. Also, many people are Gay, and are still in the closest, because no matter how much they would like it to be, they know they will be ridiculed and possibly even abandoned. And tell me, how many kids have you went to high school with that has ended up being pregnant or had an eating disorder? i bet a lot, and although pregnancy isn't from incest most of the time, its still easy to relate to. Who can't relate to being an outcast or being bullied? that happens all the time. and many viewers are probably concerned with there education such as Marcus. being a stoner seems to be quite common these days to. so there are a lot of things to relate to. More than the rest though, no matter how popular you may get, sometimes you feel invisible or alone, not noticed, or overlooked such as the suicide victim, how can you not feel like you can relate to the movie? I find that the movie may have seemed pointless to others, but i would like to think of it as important. It an interesting way of showing that suicide happens, and to be aware. it comes from the people that don't show their unhappy thoughts, its very surprising. The people who show there problems do commit suicide sometimes to, but when you hear of suicide, who would have guessed is usually running through most peoples minds.

The ending surprised me, i wasn't expecting it to be the girl that until the end, was mostly an extra in the scenes, not even introduced. the story, even in its description, says its about 6 teenage lives, when in fact it was 7. My only real disappointment was that it wasn't one of the characters that we got to learn about, it merely at first seems like the movie was pointless to watch if the real victim is just some random chick. until i thought more. it made perfect sense for being a huge surprise, since thats what suicides are like. plus, who was to choose who any of the other students had more of a reason than the other.

though this movie has some bad points, most movies have a few, but i would recommend this movie, as long as you can deal with watching the tragic moments of watching the suicide, and violence and profanity shown in this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, 2:37 is in some ways a rip off from Gus van Sants Elephant. It's about some students who are dealing with their problems leading to the suicide of one of them. Yes, it's full of clich\u00e9s, but that's life. You just can't deny that creepy nerds, disabled persons or popular students who, despite their popularity, do have problems are existing in the real world.

But that's not, what this film is all about. It's not about life in Highschool. It's not about the misery of life itself.

If you look beneath the surface, beneath the soap-like social relationships that are shown, you will find some gripping, thought-provoking criticism of our society.

Why are people committing suicide? Do we really understand their motives? Or are we just trying to understand, after its already too late? And why is it always someone, you would never have expected it to be?

This movie doesn't answer this question, but it raises it. And it does so in a very intense way. All the way it keeps you guessing, whose blood it might be, that you see at the very beginning. You are following the paths of some students, all of them having a more or less good reason to end their lives, just to be forced to watch the gruesome act in the finale.

Did you know who it would be? Or were you caught by surprise, like in real life?

The message is verbalized by one of the surviving kids in the end. We are always so fixed on our own problems, we forget to see those of others. There might be someone, a colleague, a friend, who does not want to live anymore. But, if you don't open your eyes, you'll never know until its too late.

This movie delivers well. It might have some flaws, but they don't matter anymore, when its over. Either you see a reflection of society, or you are blind for reality.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All those that identify this as a simple rip-off of 'Elephant' - are there no other comments that you can make towards the movie on its own merits as an individual film (regardless of its apparent similarities to other movies).

All those that question the validity of the movie - in terms of its stereotypical characters (the obligatory gay, the jock, the disabled kid, etc) - I'm not sure how long it has been since you were at school - but regardless of how amateurish the acting may be - the happenings that go one are surprisingly close to what may actually happen.

And all those that disregard the film as being so simple: just six teenagers with the regular teenage angst that pushes one over the edge... did anyone stop to think, and take notice that the girl who took her life wasn't actually one of those six!! As one comment points out - she had screen time of maybe 2min max (excluding the final scenes). I think the point of the film is not only to make an issue of teenage angst, and how far it can take someone - but also that it is no apparently obvious who is always in danger of committing such an act (suicide)...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie tonight in a preview showing and it was fantastic. It does well in portraying issues that the average High School student is subjected to.

I left the movie feeling stunned and saddened and yet grateful that this movie will have a chance to raise awareness through its audiences regarding these issues (bullying, rape, suicide and depression).

Its a Fantastic Aussie Film.

Go see it.

Support it.

Learn from it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being featured at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival and gaining quite some fame, this movie appears to be another modern and profound school drama.

It's about a bunch of adolescents who get through a revealing and desperate day at school. Everything's circling around a suicide - shown at the very beginning to some extent - that happens at 2:37pm. The characters are somehow all connected with each other. What moves them is described via short interview sequences, strictly shot in b\/w. The characters are well written, the acting is intriguing (especially Teresa Palmer as Melody and Frank Sweet as Marcus are discoveries).

Let's stick to the movies' technique. That's what really impressed me. There rarely are cuts, most of the time the camera follows one of the protagonists like in Gus van Sants' Elephant. Some scenes are presented more often than once, but each time from a different point of view (here: character). This surely evokes a slowly developing, but grabbing atmosphere that drags you inside literally. The colours are vibrant, somehow unfitting considering the tough plot - but that's nothing less than a clever contrast, a disturbing 'everything's fine thing'. The use of lighting is adequate all the time, underlining the characters' actual mood. And finally, there are decent placements of music.

2:37 somehow itches you from the very beginning. It does not compromise nor does it serve laughter. It rather strings together what psychologists would define as terror moments. This movie substantially focuses on emotional precipices. There ain't nobody who's not to handle some kind of neurosis, even the depicted minor parts (e.g. the teachers) seem to be in some state of disorder. And that is what keeps this movie from being really good. Its summing up of piercing tragedies is unrealistic to its very bones. There is no: friendship, love, smiling, truth, passion. There is: faking, humiliation, despair, sickness and beating up. It's like being hit in the face real hard all the time, but you are numb after the first hour. This flick keeps on hitting you, until it reveals something quite instructive in the end.

For being sensitively and superbly acted: 9. For being technically innovative and original: 9. For being unidimensional: 3.

Makes a solid 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to confess I fell into the cynical trap of believing that Australians couldn't make drama unless it meant a lot of crying, and I am an Australian. Sad, isn't it? While this movie does involve crying, its not dramatic crying, its honest emotion shining through.

Also, this film is a whodunnit. I knew what the final outcome was going to be when I started watching this, so I tried to guess who it was that was going to do it. I missed by a mile.

I was stunned when I found out the director, Murali Thulluri was only around 21 when he made this film. I would love to shake his hand. He knows how to make a movie. I hope he has more coming.

All of the characters we meet before the main title credit (about 12 minutes in) is an anti hero. All of them troubled in their own way and all of them as selfish as the next one. Even when they are sympathetic.

The saddest scene in the movie, and there are some that are difficult to watch) is the final scene where We're formally introduced to the real main character and we're told of their nephew. That scene made me cry.

My faith in Australian drama has been restored. We're masters at comedy, but I was getting bored with comedy.

Murali, if you happen to check this out, you touched my soul and for that I can only thank you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At 2:37, a high school student commits suicide. Not shown who has taken their lives or reasons known, time skips back to the start of the day. From here we follow six separate students; Marcus, Melody, Luke, Steven, Sarah and Sean. Each student is struggling with their own moral dilemmas, all reaching boiling point, hitting to an end for one.

After losing a friend to suicide, and surviving his own suicide attempt, writer\/director Murali K. Thalluri has created a revetting drama focusing on teen life and the horrible act of suicide. Suicide has been a topic that has been kept in the shadows, 2:37 is Thalluri's attempt to bring it to light. If you have been touched by the act of suicide or anyone who has, 2:37 becomes all the harder to view.

With heavy and hard subject matter, Thalluri also tackles everyday teenage life crisis's. Sex, pregnancy, sexual identity, bullying, friendship, Thalluri manages and shows them in an extremely realistic manner. The factor on Thalluri's talent is his subtlety. He respect his subject and the problems that everyone will have suffered through at sometime. It verges near documentary at times, it has such a painful realism; the interviews with each character spliced through the film only heightens this.

2:37 has a distinctive similarity to Gus Van Sants film Elephant. While the core of each film is different, both tackle teen life. Like Sant, Thalluri utilizes long tracking shots, with time skipping back and forth, to show each characters interaction from different perspectives. A defining point to Elephant was its ethereal ambiance. With spare conversation, little development of characters, and the long tracking shots, Sant created a haunting and mesmerizing atmosphere to a coming dread. While there resides this dread in 2:37, the emotional connection to the characters reaches a higher level Sant couldn't reach. As time goes by, each characters fragility creeps out, dragging you along their emotional roller-coaster.

The real hit in this film comes with the inevitable suicide, foretold at the very beginning. The hard part about this scene is the complete intrusion and discomfort we have as an audience watching someones life end in a gruesome fashion. Though many films that have shown suicide, gloss over the act or romanticizes the act. Thalluri shows the pain and agony involved with this act and that its not the best solution. With unknowns in the leads and their first major roles; Teresa Palmereach, Frank Sweet, Joel Mackenzie, Marni Spillane, Charles Baird and Sam Harris all show immense talent and promising acting careers.

Compelling and revetting, 2:37 is an absolutely unmissable film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw 2:37 at the Toronto International Film Festival in September and was blown away by it! A scene of panic opens this film, at 2:37 pm set in an Adelaide high school. This scene is left unresolved as we revert to the beginning of the day, and are introduced to the teenagers getting ready to go to school. The audience becomes intimate with each of the main characters, and explores the day-to-day issues facing teenagers - including drugs, promiscuity, being gay, bullying and violence. Each scene is played again and again from different teens' perspectives, and is reminiscent of Gus Van Sant's Elephant. This is a remarkable film by first-time director Murali K. Thalluri. It was made with non-professional student actors, and work-shopped through an unprecedented 76 drafts of a script. It features stunning performances by a number of the student actors, particularly Teresa Palmer in the role of Melody. This coming-of-age film is both intimate and thought-provoking with a surprising and disturbing ending.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this flame of emotion we are introduced to several different high-school youngsters during one eventful day at school. All of them struggle with belonging,finding them selves and keeping their painful secrets from being revealed.Has the feel of a coming of age documentary focusing on students inner landscape and their way of dealing with everyday challenges.Gets of with a powerful opening and develops like a hymning requiem.Thalluri moves the camera with great skill and invites us slowly into the youngsters minds and hearts. A fictional reconstruction that enlightens us all and reminds us of the frailty of youth.One of the most important films of today. every teenager should be given the opportunity to see this moving piece of film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Good grief sethrp-1, you COMPLETELY missed the point. The girl was only seen briefly specifically BECAUSE she was the one who was going to kill herself...everyone else was so wrapped up in their own stories they didn't notice her, nor did we. As one of the other students says at the end - we're all so wrapped up in our own problems we don't notice what's going on for someone else.

The director himself said if he had killed off one of the others, it would've suggested their problems were worse than someone else's. The whole point of killing Kelly was that she was unnoticed by all of us. Get it now??","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A powerful debut film from Murali K. Thalluri that explores events in the life of a group of high school students, each of them in crisis in one way or another. The film starts with the discovery of the body of one of the students, then traces the lives of the group over the previous hours, leaving the audience in suspense until the last minutes as to the identity of the deceased. Each of the main characters is facing major stressors which we could see as potentially precipitating a suicide. The cast of unknowns provide performances full of power and emotion. Fantastically well done, especially considering the youth of the writer\/director who was 19 years old when he wrote the script.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a prime example of uninhibited filmmaking at its best. Richard Greene (who does good in the role) search for his two missing friends takes him to the Black Forest domain and castle of one-eyed Count Bruno (Stephen McNally), a past enemy of his whom he has never seen face to face. Incredible film has so many awesome elements combined (for once) into a single film--a crocodile pit; a hulking mute (played by Lon Chaney, Jr.); a crafty doctor (played by Boris Karloff); a leopard hunt (VERY well done and VERY atmospheric); a love story; a castle; a swordfight; a sadistic, one-eyed count and his two evil accomplices (played by John Hoyt and Michael Pate!!!); an intriguing background story which makes the film even more interesting; and more!. Jerry Sackheim's script doesn't allow itself to be bound in--making a film that comes extremely recommendable to anyone who is into unlimited filmmaking with a touch of horror and atmosphere to it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The British noble Sir Ronald Burton (Richard Greene) decides to search his two best friends that have disappeared after visiting Count Karl von Bruno (Stephen MaNally), an evil and powerful man who lives in the Black Castle. Sir Burton travels undercover with another identity, since he fought against Count von Bruno in Afrika with his two missing friends and the count lost one eye in a battle. When he arrives in the castle, he is invited to hunt in the Black Forest around the castle with the count,.while he looks for evidences that the count has killed his friends. Later, he and the count's wife, Countess Elga von Bruno (Rita Corday), fall in love for each other and with the support of Dr. Meissen (Boris Karloff), Sir Burton and the countess try to escape from the claws of Count von Bruno. \"The Black Castle\" is an excellent movie from a romantic time, with action, romance, mystery and even horror. The story is gripping, and is a great entertainment for any audience. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): \"O Castelo do Pavor\" (\"The Castle of the Fear\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All Boris Karloff fans will love this classic film, where Karloff is the castle physician and gives his patients excellent attention. Sir Ronald Burton,(Richard Greene), an eighteenth-century English adventurer, believes his two friends have been murdered by Count Von Bruno,(Stephen McNally) on his Black Forest estate. Arriving at Von Bruno's castle to accumulate evidence, Burton learns Von Bruno's unhappy wife Elga (Paula Corday),. and Dr. Meissen(Boris Karloff), the castle physician, are virtual prisoners. Suspecting Burton's motives, Von Bruno and Gargon (Lon Chaney Jr., ) a giant, mute scarred henchman, discover the Englishman was responsible for their being captured and tortured. You will definitely have to view this great Classic Karloff Film to enjoy the ending.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Universal studios. The name conjures up so many memories to horror fans of beautiful matte paintings...er...landscapes, fog-enshrouded countrysides, full moons, howling wolves, taverns and torch wielding mobs. Yet, it is quite strange looking back on those films, how little the era which produced the true classics lasted. The '30's had it's masterpieces, but those were mostly from the same directors and many of their films are mostly of historical interest today. The '40's produced more mindlessly fun matin\u00e9e films than it did high art, and most fans agree that the classic era of the Gothic horror films ended in 1945 with 'House of Dracula', bumped around with the Abbott & Costello comedies, and was officially dead by the 50's and the coming of the Atomic Age.

So it's strange that perhaps one of Universal's finest Gothics was made in the '50s! That alone makes the film an oddity, since costume dramas were on their way out EVERYWHERE. It may not be comparable to the all time classics like the James Whale films and 'The Wolfman', but damn does it condense all the fun elements of those films into one delicious treat! Get ready for nothing but pure entertainment! Since various social mores had changed, the film also indulges in violence that would not have been allowed in earlier eras; there's no blood, but we see characters shot and stabbed directly, and there's even a burning torch to the face!

The film may not really be a horror film, but it sure has the atmosphere, look and feel of one! It begins in the dead of night with howling winds(and wolves) as two men seal the tombs of two apparently dead young lovers, BUT WAIT! One of them is not dead, but he can't move! He's trapped, but talking silently in his own mind, unable to communicate! What is his story? Now THAT is how you start a horror film....

English businessman Sir Ronald Burton(Richard Greene, giving one of his best performances)sets out under the alias of Richard Beckett to investigate the disappearance of two friends of his who disappeared at the castle of one-eyed Austrian Count Von Bruno(Did Sacha Baron Cohen see this?). It seems many years ago Von Bruno posed as a god to the natives in Africa to steal ivory, he was exposed by Burton's men, and the natives disfigured him. Now he is lusting for revenge.

The film has all the clich\u00e9s, a Jonathan Harker-style ride to the castle, an inn full of wary villagers, death traps, and a hulking manservant(Lon Chaney Jr.). The torture chamber scenes are genuinely suspenseful, including a panel in the floor that activates a dungeon door(which makes for an ingenious getaway scene later on), a hunting expedition involving an imported panther(!!!??)and even an alligator pit! And then there's the Romeo & Juliet-style fake death that leads to the film's prologue....

The plot is clich\u00e9 and the world-view is black and white. But it's still incredibly entertaining, with director Nathan Juran making every scene pile on the atmosphere and seem fresh and new. there are several plot-holes, too. Why does Ronald attempt to leave the castle so early? And he never does solve the mystery of what happened to his friends even though it's obvious, but he doesn't know that when he gives up, and he seemed so sure earlier. Weird.

All of the actors are great. Despite being a rude upperclassman, Richard Greene makes Burton one of the most likable protagonists I've ever seen in a horror film. Rita Corday is excellent as the Count's 'peasant wife' who becomes Burton's love interest, she may have the stereotypical 'falling in love with just a glance' problem of all film heroines of this era, but her portrayal of a long-suffering woman in a loveless marriage to a sadistic monster is very convincing, she also shows a suspicion and wit few film heroines of this era do, even seeing a forced attempt by Burton to quiet her(And to paw at her necklace, although it is simply to analyze it as it has an important clue) as a rape attempt, yet she never seems nasty in her paranoia, the audience sympathizes with her. Even though he fails to make Von Bruno seem truly foreign and otherworldly(he is a villain in a horror film after all), Stephen McNally gives a truly chilling performance as the sadistic nobleman. When he reveals his burnt eye, and laughs maniacally, it is truly scary. Lon Chaney Jr. is also great as his mute henchman Gargon.

But the best performance is undeniably by Boris Karloff as the mysterious physician Dr. Meissen. He has little screen time at first, but steals every scene he is in. It is a performance that is both creepy, sad, mysterious and ultimately, heroic. As he leers evilly as he applies leeches to one of Bruno's henchman, spies on our hero and speaks in that famous 'You know I'm up to no good' voice only Karloff could make, you wonder whether if he is a hero or villain, always skulking about. And although he does function as the main agent of our hero's escape, he still shows human frailties such as greed and fearfulness for his own life, even cold-bloodedly poisoning a man for Burton's benefit before he even gets Burton to agree. His plan to help our hero & heroine escape also puts them directly in the clutches of Von Bruno as he arranges an amazingly sadistic(If unbelievably flawed)death for them that had to have inspired similar scenes in Corman's Poe series. He may not have much screen time, but this is easily one of Boris's best performances.

While the ending may seem abrupt and anti-climatic for some, half the fun is getting there, and there's much excitement to be had. Kick back and relive the days when Heroes were heroes and Villains were villains. It's no masterpiece, but it's escapist fun at it's best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are moments when you don't want those deep drama-series. When you don't want series with heavy stories or a must to watch every single episode to be able to hang on. There are moments when you just want to watch a simple series, with lots of action and cool characters. For those moments, you have Cleopatra 2525.

I was one of those who actually enjoyed Charlie's Angels. Critics said it was to superficial and silly. But the thing is, that's the point! People who can't relax and expected a serious movie hated it. It's exactly the same with Cleopatra 2525. It is superficial. It has silly and unrealistic characters. And that's why I like it. It isn't like any other series.

The first season wasn't very good. The character Cleo was irritating and a little too much. The story was a little lame, and you didn't get to know the characters very much. But hey, they only had 20 minutes in every episode.

In the last 5-6 episodes of Cleopatra 2525, they finally gave the series full 40-minutes length. And it was here I started to love it. The series finally started to grow into a very qualitative series. Too bad they had to cancel the series. Because the last episodes of Cleopatra 2525 actually was very good. I will never forget Hel, Sarge and Cleo. Unique characters that only the creators of Xena could have created!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cleopatra 2525 is a very funny, entertaining show. You shouldn't take all the show seriously, but if you wanna have fun, that's your TV show. Being made by the producers of Xena is a quality guarantee, and Cleopatra 2525 isn't that different from Xena. The female warriors formula is brought to the future, where they don't have to fight warriors or gods, but dangerous robots which dwell in the surface, and the humans are forced to live underground. Along the two seasons of Cleopatra, they develop an interesting and funny underground world, and we get to know the three main characters: Cleopatra (Jennifer Sky), Hel (Gina Torres) and Sarge (Victoria Pratt). They all are different, but as a team, they work really well. The three main actresses appeared previously in Xena, like most of the regular\/guest cast (there are some known faces from Hercules too, or from both shows). I specially liked the character played by Danielle Cormack (Ephiny in Xena), which is very different from any of her roles I previously knew. So if you liked Xena and Hercules, you'll love Cleopatra 2525. If you don't know them, try it: I'm sure you'll enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Attributed to Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

When faced with intolerance or injustice, the easiest thing to do is nothing - speak up and you risk becoming an object of scorn. But when does enough become too much? Global anti-Semitic sentiments allowed Hitler's genocidal policies to thrive, and equal doses of fear-mongering and ignorance made it possible for the anti-Communist purges of McCarthyism to destroy thousands of peoples' lives. Inaction makes one no less culpable.

Lawrence Newman is a chameleon of a man: quiet and nondescript he blends seamlessly with his surroundings. Lawrence doesn't like to get involved - when he witnesses an attack on a young woman, he tells no one and goes about his business. His world spirals into chaos when he buys a pair of glasses, and is mistaken for one of \"them.\" Lawrence's view of the world and its view of him is forever altered.

While the subject matter of this film is not new, its presentation is definitely unique. It is much easier to understand the irrational nature of prejudice, when placed within a certain context - Lawrence is more concerned with the assumptions that he is Jewish, than he is with the views of his attackers. He believes that if he corrects this \"oversight\" that everything will be all right, not realizing that logic and prejudice never go hand in hand.

Whether playing a schemer (the only thing I liked about \"Fargo\") or a down home nice guy sheriff, William H. Macy's roles are linked by a common thread -his characters share a subtle, deliberate countenance that gives them substance. Macy nails Lawrence down to the smallest detail, and says more with a furtive glance or tremble in his voice than a page of dialogue. By showing, rather than telling, Lawrence is able to share his fear and bewilderment with the viewer. The supporting cast brings the story together.

Laura Dern is compelling as Gerty, Lawrence's bombshell wife with a past. Trailer park rough, yet other worldly wise, she has also felt the wrath of prejudice as the result of \"a mistake\" and unwittingly exacerbates Lawrence's situation. Michael Lee Aday (aka \"Meatloaf\") is frightening as Fred, the prototypical redneck next door, equal parts ignorance and venom, rallying neighbours to his virulent cause. In the midst of the chaos is Finklestein (David Paymer), the focus of the aggression, and the voice of reason that raises the important questions. Paymer's even handed portrayal keeps Finklestein from becoming a stereotype or someone whose sole purpose is to engender sympathy, making his one of the strongest performances in the film.

The tight editing and close-cropped cinematography make for a clean picture with few distractions, and mixes an air of claustrophobia in with the small town USA feel - it is simultaneously comforting and disturbing. The deliberate use of harsh two-tone lighting to accentuate the malevolent aspects of the piece and the carefully scored soundtrack, are powerful without being overwhelming. Finally, the set and costume designs recreate the feel of the era, an essential component in the film's message.

\"Focus'\" unconventional approach in dealing with prejudice is reason enough to recommend this film. Just consider the excellent story, solid acting and look of the film as added bonuses.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most people attending this film will have no idea of the great novel by Arthur Miller that is the basis of it. It's a novel that should be read by more people to see how prejudice affects and alters peoples lives.

At the beginning, Lawrence Newman is an ordinary man. The eyeglasses his boss makes him get change everything he has worked for and his whole world collapses around him, little by little. There couldn't have been an actor better suited to bring this intelligent performance to the screen than William H. Macy. Not only is he a talented stage and screen actor, but he projects honesty behind every character he plays. He is an everyday man caught in his own insecurities. His anxiety intensifies when he takes a stand and walks out of his job. Suddenly, he has to confront the issues he has tried to avoid all his middle class existence in the Brooklyn of the 40s. Is he Jewish, is he not? The cinematography in this brilliant and atmospheric film, directed with sure hand by Neil Slavin, kept reminding me of some Edward Hopper's paintings, especially a sequence at the beginning of the film when Newman steps outside a building and the night shot when he and his wife are being followed with long black shadows behind the couple, menacing and anticipating the confrontation with the bullies. Laura Dern, David Paymer, and especially Meat Loaf, who infuses incredible depth to the bully-next-door, are excellent, but they all pale in comparison with the stellar turn of William H. Macy (H must stand for HONEST..) If you haven't read the book, I would sincerely recommend it because no one has written more truly and convincingly than Arthur Miller has.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie packs a punch. There are a few every now and then that make me think deeply, and disturb me a lot. I could see myself in this same predicament - passively allowing things to happen around me, not standing up for the right and decent thing, just trying to avoid trouble. How often do we avoid making waves or sticking our necks out? How often does our inaction condone the evil actions of others. We would never join them, we tell ourselves, we recognize that what they are doing is bad, but do we do anything about it?

Lawrence Newman (William H. Macey) is a low-key, nerdy office worker who has paid off his home in Brooklyn, NY in the waning days of World War II. He rarely gets engaged in what is going on around him, has never married, rarely socializes, just goes to work and cares for his invalid mother. Then a series of events in his very \"white\" little neighborhood pull him out of his complacent shell into a maelstrom of events. It starts as he witness from his bedroom window the rape of a Puerto Rican girl by the son of his neighbor. Soon after he gets glasses because of poor vision. As he is now better able to see, he becomes less able to deal with the circumstances of his life. The one bright spot is a new love in his life, and he marries, hoping to continue on in his normalcy. Then the virulent anti-semitism on that street catches him, despite his credentials as a Presbyterian WASP. As things spiral further out of control, he discovers he must make an important decision - does he take a stand or does he simply go away.

I cannot how anybody can view this movie without being affected and having to think very much about themselves and what they really stand for. Post war anti-semitism is the setting here, but there is injustice at all times and in all places. It is for the individual to decide where he or she stands.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The essential message - one which Miller would have surely intended after seeing Vichy war crimes trials - is that hatred of somebody without rational basis is a waste of life. Meat Loaf's character, Fred, has known Lawrence for many years, and yet when the time comes, at the bidding of his fanatical supporters, he allows them to attack a man who is not part of their \"target\" group. For me, this is the crucial message - it doesn't matter what Lawrence and his wife do from this point onwards - they are marked, and have chance to save themselves by using reason. Animal aggression and anger have blinded Fred's Union thugs to reality.

A friend of mine suggested I should see \"The Wave\" to study how irrational hatred and evil ideology can take over people without them realising it. I once conducted an experiment in a role-playing game, and was shocked to see how normal and level-headed people welcomed the creation of an oppressive police state - which would ultimate threaten them all - because it crept in in stages.

Fred is the start, his LA friends and preacher idol are the catalyst which pushes his neighbours over the edge into violence without stopping to think that what they are doing in wrong.

The relationship between Lawrence and Finkelstein, the Jewish shopkeeper is a fascinating one, because Lawrence misses the point almost until the end: if the bigots force Finkelstein out, where is he to go? If his family have fled the Nazis, what an irony to be tormented again in the land of \"freedom\".

That big poster (it's a fairly famous propaganda piece) about American families enjoying the highest standard of living in the world is a very important detail. When you see this film, watch for the grafitti on the subway train, and all the little posters. The message lurks there too.

This movie should be on the curriculum of every school, especially in our time when baseless hatred is being promoted so widely by \"reasonable\" people who are just extremists in thin disguises.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know if it was the directors intent to make sure the sky was almost always sunny and beautiful in this film. Perhaps that is the romantic image many Americans have of the time this film is set, as it is in the middle of the War, Macy has returned from the war (His neighbor asks \"Hey, is it true you got a Fritz over there?\") and is trying to get on with his life but one day he gets a new pair of glasses (hence the name) and sees things clearly as the surrounding situation reveals itself to be one of rabid anti-semitism, and Macy and Dern could wrapped up in it. Funny how neither is Jewish in this film but the accusation is made. Also it is historically accurate, as the labor union Democrats of this time wrapped themselves in the flags of America and God. Macy is continually pestered to come to the \"meeting\". His presence brings unexpected results.

Applying this time frame to today is a study in contrast. In 2005, has undergone a complete reversal, with average citizens who have taken patriotism and religion as their unifier supporting the Republican Party and viewing organized labor as part of left-wing 'unpatriotic' America.

A great picture to watch, if you care to see the friendly, timid and meek Macy (played beautifully by him) get caught in the carnage of race and hate in the mid 40's in NYC.

A tough, emotionally charged film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Others' main criticism of this film--namely that Macy suddenly looks Jewish upon donning his glasses--is misplaced. The glasses are just the little bit of change needed to CONVINCE others he's a Jew. The scene in which he says to his boss, (paraphrasing) \"but you KNOW what my background is,\" along with another discussion with his mother, suggests that he's had to fight this same assumption in the past. The glasses now make him look just Jewish enough to \"confirm\" his neighbors' and co-workers' existing suspicions. Then there is his new wife's large nose and taste for loud clothes, which OF COURSE means she's Jewish. The whole point of the film is how those little stereotypical nothings become the entire basis for judging others.

If he has a lisp, he must be gay. If he has long hair, he smokes dope. If he's Hispanic, he's got a knife...and if he has round black glasses and he's slight of build, he must be Jewish. Those statements all sound equally (im)plausible to me. If the conclusion people were jumping to in Focus was reasonable, the whole point of the story would be lost.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw it at the Toronto International Film Festival. Director Neal Slavin's impressive starring cast includes William Macy (seen in The Contender at last year's TIFF), Meat Loaf (AKA Meat Loaf Aday, AKA Michael Lee Aday), David Paymer, and Laura Dern (also starring in Novocaine, also at this year's Festival).

Based on the Arthur Miller novel by the same name, Focus follows Christian but \"Jewish-looking\" Lawrence Newman (Macy) as he struggles among the hatred and anti-Semitism in his neighbourhood. Pitted between the Jewish store-owner down the street (Paymer) and his card-carrying anti-Semite next door neighbour (Meat Loaf) Newman faces difficulty in dealing with inner conflict and conflict around him. Guilt over knowing what's right but not doing anything battles with wanting to blend in and keep peace with the neighbours. Things gets more complex when he meets and marries Gertrude (Dern) who everyone thinks is Jewish. Gertrude teaches her husband a few things about judging books by covers.

Will Newman stick up for the Jewish man in the end or will he flee? Go see it to find out.

The acting was fabulous. The writing was incredible. The cinematography was excellent. The sound was well done. Technically amazing, the movie was disturbing. Chilling. Emotionally intense. I found myself bringing my knees up into the fetal position a couple of times. I have great admiration for everyone who worked on it. I have not seen a film this good in a long time. It touched me.

Wow.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first reviewer is right - In this movie we see ourselves, snuggling up to the majority, being agreeable, trying to stay out of trouble, just trying to live our lives, and we see how easily these very human traits, so fundamental to the functioning of society, can lead us to become complicit in a great evil.

The story is set during World War II, with the radio, newspapers and movies reminding us of Hitler's attacks on Jews to underscore the irony of the same kind of violent anti-semitism taking place in America. At times that seemed a little heavy-handed to me.

It feels more like a play than a movie, but it's so thought-provoking that such quibbles mean little. Perhaps less trivial is the fact that the entire plot hinges one one little fact that struck me as rather implausible. Larry has lived an uneventful life until middle age; yet all it takes is his beginning to wear a pair of spectacles for everyone - EVERYONE - to, at the first glance, take him for a Jew. I willingly suspended disbelief because the plot kept me moving forward, but the implausibility did bother me throughout the film. (And, quite frankly, I didn't understand why his wife was also taken for a Jew. Larry seemed to think so because her name was \"Hart.\" And later when he married her, I don't know why his neighbours assumed she was Jewish.) For the first part of the film I wondered if there were going to be elements of fantasy. Larry's unassumingness seemed exaggerated, almost to the point of the grotesque. Why not call the police on seeing the rape, even if the attacker was a neighbour? And I thought the lighting seemed to suggest something slightly unreal - the red of the houses seemed too red, Gertrude's entrance seemed deliberately overlit, generally the colours were almost crayon-like in their intensity.

In the credits I see that it was filmed on Campbell Avenue and Wallace Avenue in Toronto, so I plan to drive down there (near Bloor & Dufferin) today to check out the colours. Really :) It was good to be reminded that the clergy at that time were often leading the evil of racism. (Remember how the pope refused to speak out against Hitler, seeking only to get protection for the Church? It was the same pope, by the way, who, when Rome was about to be liberated by American troops, requested that the first soldiers to enter the city not be black. Check your history.) I don't recall ever hearing of this movie before. That's a shame. It certainly is of great interest to every thinking person, to everyone interested in American history or racism; it's one of the clearest illustrations I've ever seen of Bertrand Russell's dictum, \"Do not go with a crowd to do evil.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well acted drama based on a novel by Arthur Miller. Something as simple as a pair of glasses becomes life altering. Lawrence Newman(William H. Macy)is a man that has chosen to be satisfied with his mundane life; the same job for twenty years and still living with his mother. He is told by his boss to correct his vision with a pair of glasses. Newman's life drastically changes and delves him into hell. The glasses he chose makes him look Jewish. He looses his job and becomes the object of heavy scrutiny by his Brooklyn neighborhood. Searching for a job, he encounters the attractive and outspoken Gertrude(Laura Dern), herself living with conflict because of her Jewish appearance. Soon the couple's new life together becomes a nightmare filled with humiliation and bigotry driven attacks. A very apt cast that features: Joseph Ziegler, Peter Oldring, Kay Hawtrey and of musical fame, Meat Loaf.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a movie about a man everybody thinks is Jewish.This is a movie about Lawrence Newman, who lives in Brooklyn in the 1940's, at the time of WWII.One day, when he gets himself glasses, people start thinking he's a Jew.And that only, because he looks like one.And he lives in a very antisemitic neighborhood.So some people start treating him like dirt.They make that judgment, being a Jew, of Larry's fresh wife, Gertrude Hart, too.That makes their lives unbearable.Neal Slavin's Focus (2001) is a fairly good look at the antisemitism.That's a problem that won't go away.The movie is based on Athur Miller's novel, which, I admit, I haven't read.But the movie is really good, so I'm sure the book would also.The actors do good job.William H.Macy is always good, and his work as Larry Newman is brilliant.Laura Dern is Gert Hart and she's magnificent.Meat Loaf is almost scary as the neighbor who wants to keep Jews out by any means necessary.David Paymer's character as the Jewish shop-owner Mr. Finkelstein is the most sympathetic in the movie.Paymer is the perfect choice for the role.One of the greatest scenes is in the end when Mr.Finkelstein and Newman fight against those Nazi-like people with baseball bats.They join together to fight the evil.The Christian and the Jew.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a huge fan of legendary director Elia Kazan . His movies often deal with people trying to overcome their weaknesses. Be it obsessive love in 'Splendor In the Grass, poverty in \"A tree Grows in Brooklyn\" or racism in \"Gentlemen's Agreement.\" While looking for other movies made by Kazan, I stumbled across a movie that was based on a novel by Arthur Miller. The movie called \"Focus\" stars William H.Macy (who happens to be one of my favorite actors) and Laura Dern. It deals with anti-Semitism in a very realistic way.

Macy's character seems to go along with the bigots in his neighborhood and on his job, until it affects him personally. That's the key here... the reason he acted wasn't because he knew it was wrong and he wanted to take a stand, he acted because he was now considered an outsider, and he began to experience the same looks, the same remarks, and the same brutally that Mr. Finklestein (David Pamyers)experienced .

The movie is very well written and well acted. Meat Loaf does a awesome job of playing a dirt bag! Both Macy and Dern's performances are outstanding! It's easier in life to go along with, instead of going against. Sometimes in order for people to take a stand things have to impact their lives, or the lives of their loved ones...Only then will some find their moral compass.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Focus is an engaging story told in urban, WWII-era setting. William Macy portrays everyman who is taken out of his personal circumstances and challenged with decisions testing his values affecting the community. Laura Dern, Macy and David Paymer give good performances, so also the good supporting ensemble.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"MPAA Rating PG-13

My Rating: 10 and up

My * Rating 9.5\/10

William H. Macy delivers a stunning performance as the role of Mr. Neuman. He makes you feel sympathetic and scared for him simultaniously. The story starts out as a comedy and slowly but steadily becomes almost like a horror film with twists and turns that Macy effortly masters. I couldn't take my eyes off this film even after it ended, and I couldn't beleive it ended when it did. A MUST TO SEE.

THIS PARAGRAPH MAY BE CONSIDERED A SPOILER BY SOME

After you watch the film, look at the plot this way: The Neumans are the United States as a whole, and the charactor Meat Loaf Aday plays is the people in the United States who are anti-Semetic.

This was a very enjoyable film and would reccomend to anyone I saw in the street.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had to call my mother (a WASP) to ask her about this. Was it really that bad in the 40s in New York? Surprise, she couldn't remember. So I told her to see the movie. Arthur Miller, in not a screen play but a NOVEL for a change, was 30 when he wrote this in 1945. It is a painful depiction of anti-Semitism. Yet oddly enough, there is a tender story of human relationships (Finkelstein, the Jew, with Newman, the non-Jew, primarily) underlying the cruel story. The acting is competent and the cinematography is very good.

The only reason I can think of for this not making it big in the theatre is that it's >>aaagh<< controversial.

I actually give it ten of ten. Maybe a bit high, but it's so worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Arthur Miller certainly knows. His stories give a clearer picture of what it means to live in the United States in the 20th century than any other writer I can think of.

Focus, based on one of his novels, is no exception.

William H. Macy and Laura Dern give fantastic performances here. Emotionally bruising but ultimately rewarding, this movie is excellent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Focus is another great movie starring William H. Macy. I first discovered Macy in Fargo and I've seen a few of his films and he hasn't yet deceived me. Macy is the archetypal \"nice guy with something to hide\". In Focus, he plays the role of Lawrence Newman, a loyal and hard-working stiff, who harbours his handicapped mother at home. The scene is set after World War II, at the height of McCarthyism. Newman is the head of Human Resources for a company which is basically, anti-Semite. After he accidentally hires a woman of Jewish descent, he is asked to buy a pair of glasses, to improve his failing eyesight.

Unbelievably, the simple act of buying glasses has great repercussions on his life and that of Gertrude Hart, his wife (played by a great Laura Dern). As the film unravels, Newman will begin to see a whole different world, where being Jewish is akin to being an animal.

The movie is disturbing in the way it shows that being racist was something fairly normal. The chilling thought is that in some places, it probably still is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Without question, film is a powerful medium, more so now than ever before, due to the accessibility of DVD\/video, which gives the filmmaker the added assurance that his story or message is going to be seen by possibly millions of people. Use of this medium, therefore, attaches an innate responsibility to the artist, inasmuch as film can be educational, as well as entertaining, which dictates that certain subjects should be approached accordingly and with a corresponding sensitivity and sensibility. A film like Spielberg's `Schindler's List,' for example, is important, in that it keeps alive the memory of that which must not be forgotten, and as history tends to repeat itself, Spielberg's film can be viewed as a valuable tool in preventing a recurrence of that tragedy. In that same vein, this film, `Focus,' directed by Neal Slavin, is important, in it illuminates the problematic reality of anti-Semitism, which for years beyond number has affected millions of people, is still unimaginably prevalent today, and like any manifestation of bigotry, will perpetuate itself if left unchecked or ignored. Born of a xenophobic strain, it's a disease infecting society which, unabated, could be terminal; and with it's penetrating insights into the condition, this film is an effective vaccine that just may at the very least help stem the proliferation of it, and hopefully may act as a step toward eradicating it altogether.

Lawrence Newman (William H. Macy) served his country in the Great War, and has since lived a quiet, conventional life in New York. He's had the same job as a personnel director for some twenty years, and owns the house, located in an average, middle-class neighborhood, in which he lives with his mother (Kay Hawtrey). Lawrence is the kind of guy who gets by just fine by minding his own business and refusing to involve himself with matters that are not (he feels) his concern.

All of that is about to change, however, as with the advent of World War 2, Lawrence, along with the owner of the corner market, Mr. Finkelstein (David Paymer), inexplicably finds himself a target of the neighborhood xenophobes, who have aligned themselves with the `Union Crusaders,' a national organization currently taken to channeling their fears and hatred upon Jews, or anyone who even `looks' like a Jew. And suddenly Lawrence finds that he can no longer just stand on the sidelines and watch the game being played; because now, he IS the game, whether he wants to be or not.

Working from an intelligent, well written screenplay by Kendrew Lascelles, which he adapted from Arthur Miller's novel, Slavin presents a chilling scenario that incisively examines the effects of bigotry upon those against whom it is leveled; and when one considers the fact that this is not merely a hypothetical situation, but a depiction of reality, it becomes all the more disquieting, even unnerving. And what makes the film so effective is Slavin's obvious grasp of his subject, and his studied presentation, which is thought-provoking in it's subtlety. In the opening scene, Slavin establishes Lawrence's `character,' and very soon afterward reaffirms it in another scene, which affords the audience the opportunity to observe and assimilate how Lawrence's mind actually works; the thought processes that direct his life. With that in place, then, Slavin is able to take his audience along with Lawrence as his problems gradually begin to unfold. By so doing, he effectively illustrates how the problem evolves, rather than merely stating the problem and addressing it head on, which heightens the viewers emotional involvement, and ultimately enhances the impact of the film.

Slavin makes an important statement with this film, which is not only an indictment of bigotry, but carries a cautionary message about apathy, as well. And to his credit, he never hits you over the head with it or engages in subjective finger-pointing to make his case; instead, he proceeds carefully, taking great pains to be as objective as possible with all that he is submitting for your consideration. His approach is that of a cinematic diplomat; and it's an approach that serves Slavin-- and his film-- quite well.

As Lawrence, William H. Macy-- one of the best character actors in the business-- gives an amazing performance, establishing the credibility and believability of his character with a sensitive, honest and introspective portrayal. He never attempts to circumvent the personal flaws of Lawrence's nature, but uses them, instead, to create a character that is decidedly three-dimensional, which not only makes him convincing, but serves to reaffirm the integrity of the portrayal. What makes it so compelling is Macy's ability to convey the process by which he examines his own conscience, which successfully enables the viewer to share in the experience of his personal epiphany. In the final analysis, it's the strength of Macy's performance, more than anything else, that makes this film so significantly distinct.

Another of the film's strengths is the performance turned in by Laura Dern, as Gertrude Hart, a portrayal that effectively complements Macy's work, as well as that of Slavin. Dern lends tremendous substance to her character, capturing her physically as well as emotionally, and her colorful zeal crates a striking contrast to Lawrence's reserve that works extremely well, for her character as well as the film itself.

And just as Sean Combs recently (in `Monster's Ball') made a good case against dismissing out-of-hand the acting endeavors of an established `rock star,' Meat Loaf Aday gives a powerful performance here, as Fred, Lawrence's next-door neighbor. It demonstrates, too, that a true artist will produce, regardless of the kind of canvas he's given to work with.

The supporting cast includes Michael Copeman (Carlson), Kenneth Welsh (Father Crighton), Joseph Ziegler (Gargan) and Arlene Meadows (Mrs. Dewitt). The kind of film that makes a filmmaker proud of his craft, `Focus,' offers a memorable experience that hopefully will prove to be enlightening, as well, to those unaware that such conditions have existed, and still do-- even in this, the land of the free. 10\/10.



","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very good movie about anti-semitism near the end of WWII. The scene that really speaks loudly of the ignorance of these people is the meeting at the church when the priest is giving his speech against the \"international money grubbers and communists\". It sounds amazingly like the speeches that Adolph Hitler used to force down his peoples' throats, yet none of the meeting attendees seem to make this comparison.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Did this gem go direct to video? Fabulous art direction. Mood that never misses a beat. The Truman Show meets Metropolis. An excellent cast. I've never seen Laura Dern better, and Bill Macy is always fabulous. Same said for David Paymer, and Meat Loaf. This is just an incredible film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being relatively young, I didn't know how bad anti-Semitism was in Brooklyn, where my family is originally from. This movie absolutely horrified me. I've seen many movies about prejudice, racism, and anti-Semitism, but this seemed to hit me harder than most.

This was definitely one of the best indie films I've ever seen...I had to travel 45 minutes to see it, and it was well worth it. Nearly everything about the movie was great. Sometimes it was a little slow, but that didn't really bother me because the movie was very atmospheric. It took place in the 40s, and it really did look like it was the 40s. The acting was great...William H. Macy as always was wonderful, so was Laura Dern, and I was pleasantly surprised by Meatloaf's performance, playing the vicious anti-Semite neighbor.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Headlines warn us of the current campaign to demonize drug users, note the nostalgia for Mussolini in Italy and remind us of our wont to profile likely terrorists. \"Focus\" reminds us of the evils of rampant fear and distrust and the anti-Semitism disguised as pro-Americanism of the WWII era. What goes around...

Lawrence Newman (William C. Macy) becomes the unfortunate victim of hate crimes after he is mistaken for a Jew and these attacks increase when his bride, Gerty (Laura Dern) highlights the look. Newman rails against the false accusations when they cause him direct harm but he minds his own business. We see the rise in anti-Semitic attacks through his myopia, a condition not completely cured by eyeglasses.

Macy's typical everyman role is featured again and the long road to realization that we are all connected nearly costs him his life.

What is it about the character Macy portrays to us? We can't choose to ignore the violence, hate, and bigotry because citizenship forces us to take sides. Newman's dilemma is that he has no alternative but to side with the mistreated and goes through hell to see it. And our sadness is that most of us need to be beaten up to realize the dangers surrounding us.

Let's focus.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The most striking feature about this well acted film, is the almost surreal

images of the era and time it was shot it. I could sense the time and moments were stark and very real. Even the language was so well chosen. It's all too often when colloquialisms of today's world are carelessly used in movies about

another time and place","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Look...I've come to expect this level of acting from William Macy...the guy just keeps putting in terrific performances...but MEAT LOAF? Just when did His Loafness decide to leave Jim Steinman behind and throw his decidedly lower weight around in the wonderful world of Stanislavsky? Well...what can I say? I'm duly impressed. To paraphrase an old adage: \"It ain't the meat, it's the emotion\"...and the Loaf is quietly buffing up his acting chops of late..

Laura Dern carries off the 40's look perfectly here...great job by the costume and hair departments...David Paymer is typecast but right on the money. Solid camera work throughout the flick. The plot line is reminiscent of \"Gentleman's Agreement\" (post-WWII anti-semitism). Well worth your time...particularly for the growing legions of Bill Macy acolytes.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a very strong look at prejudice and group mentality. The cast is composed of superb actors doing a remarkable job. The sets are beautiful and just a bit stylized. The art direction is top notch along with great cinematography. The story is taut and shows how prejudice and bigotry can flourish easily. It is disturbing for its realistic violence and protrayal of a fairly typical community. I was very impressed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We'll never see this movie broadcast by HBO in the near future if at all. If anyone somehow comes across it in a video store just grab it before someone else does, because I doubt if it ever will be re-released again.

An unbelievable and timely movie about the first attack on the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 and how the government agencies who's job it is to identify and stop terrorists from doing harm and damage to American citizens and American property completely fell down on the job and unwittingly allowed it to happen.

Bone chilling since we all know now that the terrorists who were apprehended at the end of the movie weren't going to be the end of our nightmare that resurfaced on September 11, 2001.

The film brought out everything that went wrong back in 1992-93 that allowed that first tragedy at the WTC to happen. Still it took another eight years to realize that we should have learned from that first WTC attack to be more vigilant and ready to prevent the second and far more devastating assault on the World Trade Center to happen. I found this movie harder to watch after the events of 9\/11 then the video of the attacks of 9\/11 themselves.

All I can say about this film is don't watch it alone. The very ending itself is so powerful as well as prophetic that it would leave you in a state of shock in knowing what we know today and possibly in need to have someone who's with you, but not watching the movie, to call for medical attention.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie about 3 years ago. I was shocked at how stupid the FBI was not to prevent such a tragedy. It could have been easily prevented. This movie was just unbelievable.

Now seeing it after September 11th, I am appalled and can say that this could have been prevented more easily that most people would want to know.

This film is 100% true

In the final scene of the film, when the mastermind of the 1st attack is being taken to prison by helicopter and flies over the towers, he makes a spine chilling remark, that was laughed at when he said it. \"Next time we'll bring them *BOTH* down.\" This was actually said by Ramzi Yousef after his arrest.

This movie reveals the shocking truth about how the first attacks were carried out right under the noses of the FBI and NYPD. It shows how the 1st and 4th Amendments are partially to blame for the attacks.

I watch this movie now and know that both attacks could have been prevented.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched the premiere of \"Path to Paradise\" way back and was stunned by it, dramatic license and all. I lived in NYC (Brooklyn) a few years and kept in mind. Today, given the links to groups such as Al-Queda, Hamas, and the Islamic Jihad, I see it as a warning not recognized by our government. For that I place the blame on our bureaucracy and leaders. 9.11.01 was a new tactic to behead two of our branches of gov't and there is no excuse for our gov't to prevent it, period. \"Path to Paradise\" was but a dramatic view of the '93 preview, and no one cared. Now, nearly 3,000 deaths later, and years behind, we struggle to find an answer that is decades to resolve.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on the true story of the FBIs hunt for those who were responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center Building. A very good film that delves into the FBIs use of informants and how, possibly, the tragedy could have been avoided 7 of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is bone chilling in a way that is hard to describe. While it is fairly accurate in its description of the events leading up to and the subsequent investigation regarding the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, seen now post 9\/11, it is almost unbearable.

It would be a mistake to call this film prophetic, but it certainly makes the common playground wisdom of \"fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me\" come alive.

Our government learned nothing from the 1993 attempt on the World Trade Center and subsequent readings of the 9\/11 Report show that many of the mistakes that led to the bombing in 1993 were repeated.

Some people have criticized the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution as being partly responsible for the Islamic terrorists being able to carry out their evil plans, but that is wrong headed in every possible way.

Surely the people making this argument are not supporting a ban on Free Speech, a free press or freedom of religion? I certainly hope they are not supporting our government officials being able to break into any person's home or office to search without cause or without a warrant.

The fact is, the FBI, the INS and even the local police could have gotten warrants based on the information they had in their possession, but they chose not to for a variety of reasons. Besides, no matter how distasteful or ignorant it is, it is not illegal to speak badly about America or its leaders. Likewise, it is not illegal to either own guns or to pray toward Mecca.

Consider this, until Lee Harvey Oswald actually fired his rifle at President John Kennedy, he wasn't really breaking any laws. Living in a free society has its drawbacks.

Still, Path To Paradise is a must see film that I am afraid will never be seen by that many people. As far as I know, it is not on DVD and 2007 is its tenth anniversary and there are no known revivals of it.

I'm not really surprised, people don't like to document their failures and this film certainly shows that the various agencies that were supposed to protect us did not do their jobs right and for the pettiest of reasons, like jurisdictional squabbles and a refusal to share information.

This is a shame as Path To Paradise is well done and gripping and as many have stated before, the final scene where Ramzi Yousef (played by Art Malik), the bomber who built the truck bomb that was used in the first attempt at destroying the two towers is flying past the World Trade Center after his capture and extradition simply says \"Next time we will bring them both down\", is a film moment that froze me in place for several minutes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having finally been able to get the DVD of this 1997 HBO film, is at down to watch it. By the time I finished it the old saying \"those who can not learn from the past are doomed to relive it\" was echoing in the mind. First shown four years after the first bombing of the twin towers (and four years before the events of 9\/11) Path To Paradise reveals the series of close encounters, blunders and official in-decisions that led to the first bombing of the twin towers and the lessons we should have learned from them.

Path To Paradise features a nice cast of believable actors. Peter Gallagher and Marcia Gay Harden lead the cast as FBI agents John Anticev and Nancy Floyd who face not only the threats of terrorism but the lack of official interest from their superiors along with their NYPD counterpart Lou Napoli (Paul Guilfoyle). Art Malik, Andreas Katsulas, Shaun Toub and Tony Gillan are among those who plan and carry out the attack all of whom play their roles not as potential clich\u00e9s but as real living people and make the film all the better for it. Of special mention is Ned Eisenberg as Emad Salem the man whom, if it had not been for skeptical FBI officials, could have potentially informed on the plot.

The film is also well produced. Despite being made for cable this film doesn't feel like a low-budget film at all with its production values particularly in its sets and New York City locations. The film's fascinating cinematography gives the film an almost documentary style at times. When all of these elements are combined with the script it all helps to give the film a sense of reality which makes the events taking place all the more disturbing.

The most disturbing thing about he film is its script. The events of the film are true (minus some dramatic license which is always necessary) and in hindsight are made even more shocking then they must have been when the film was first shown twelve years ago. The film reveals just how a group of men were able to smuggle a bomb into the World Trade Center. They did so thanks to the lack of Arabic translators, government agencies failing to pass information to each other, the FBI ignoring leads from a source and police departments being unable to pick up on clues. Worse then investigators inabilities to connect dots is the fact that many of these same things not only allowed the 9.11 attacks to take place but in some cases (such as the lack of translators) are issues that continue even today. Even more chilling is the ending which really did happen and looks all too prophetic today.

Path To Paradise is a film that should be essential viewing today. The film is not only well acted and produced but teaches us a lesson we should have learned sooner. The lesson of the film? That those who can not learn from the past are doomed to relive it. If you can find this film then watch it and learn from it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wicked Little things was a really good movie.I will say at some parts it seemed really unbelievable, and others it seemed as if there just wasn't enough thought put into the actions of the characters, but overall it was exciting and entertaining.I don't understand why this movie's rating is so low.Nor do I not understand why all the Afterdark Horrorfest film's ratings are so low.These are B-Movies people, and nothing more.They provide great entertainment and most of them don't have many flaws at all.This is definitely worth a look, because you won't be disappointed with the outcome.Wicked Little Things is one of the best 1st Annual Afterdark Horrorfest films, and compared to a lot of other films in the series, this is one of the best overall.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is definitely the biggest surprise of the festival so far and without a doubt the best the festival has had to offer. I went into this film with little to no expectations after learning that the director was responsible for the awful vampire flick The Forsaken. and I left pleasantly surprised. The film stars Lori heuring of In Crowd fame as a young mother whose husband has just passed. She moves into an old family home in the mountains with her two daughters next to a mine that is a gravesite to overworked children back in the day. Unlucky for them the children return with a vengeance killing and eating everyone in their path. The film works on many levels. It's well done, suspenseful, it has spots of good cinematography and capable performances by Compton especially. The atmosphere is spooky yet slightly underwhelming, the score is decent and the makeup effects are gruesome and simplistic. The film keeps up a creepy and unsettling tone and the kids themselves with pale skin, torn up lips and hollow eyes are pretty scary and unrelenting. The film is original and inventive without being to artsy or complicated. I can't see this film making it into a wide release without some trimming and slight fine tuning. But they definitely have a good product on there hands and should pursue some type of theatrical distribution. However the theatre in which i saw it in was horrible. The sound was dreadfully messed up which i felt took away from the film majorly and it stopped in the middle because they couldn't center it on the screen which killed the mood a bit. All in all though it was the most satisfying of horrorfests entries maybe because it had the least expectations but nonetheless was a welcome addition to genre films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Wicked Little Things' really separates itself from other zombie movies.First off, all of the zombies in the movie don't exactly starting biting at you and tearing your flesh apart with their bare hands.They kill you with either a pickax or shovel and eat you after wards.Second, they can't die.In most zombie movies, you can shoot a zombie in the head and kill them, but these simply won't die.Third, which is the biggest reason why this movie separates itself, all of the zombies are children.How did they die exactly to become zombies? They were working in a coal mine when suddenly they were all killed in a collapse.Now they wander the forest carrying their pickaxes and shovels, waiting for someone to come by so they can kill them and eat them.Oh, they also come out at night.Yep, only at night.That makes the movie even more fun then it would be if they came out in the morning.Despite all of the violent and gory mayhem in this movie, 'Wicked Little Things' is a great choice if you're looking for a movie about zombie children.Don't expect anything great like 'Dawn of the Dead' or 'Land of the Dead', but do expect lots of gore and violence that makes this movie a real zombie fan pleaser.Everyone give Scout Taylor-Compton from Rob Zombie's 'Halloween' a big hand for delivering a great performance like the one she did in 'Halloween'.She really needs to start starring in more horror movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This work is pretty atmospheric, with a couple of surprises a few really creepy elements. I found this work more rewarding than I first expected, given the rotten reviews this receives here at IMDb. The dialog comes across as natural and honest (given the circumstances), although the overall run of the film goes from predictable to clich\u00e9 with the heroines falling down when they should be running, and investigating strange noises when they should be locking their doors. Typical horror movie fare.

The local characters are some of the worst clich\u00e9s, depicting Appalachian natives as in-bred developmentally challenged freaks. The characters of the children and the principals are GREAT! The development given is adequate, and Scout Taylor-Compton seems to be developing her talents quite well.

Now, I'm not going to say that this is entirely original or the best thing since sliced bread (which isn't all that great by the way), but this IS interesting and I do not long for my 107 minutes back. I would not say this is an awesome movie by any means, but there are some really good horror elements herein. But there are also some really slow spots where plot\/character development seem superfluous to the director's (or the film editor's) whim.

All in all, this is good for a rainy night, but not so good for a Friday\/Saturday night's viewing.

It rates a 7.6\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"May Contain Spoilers!!! In no way, shape or form does this movie break the horror movie mold. Not by a long shot. However, it does deliver a creepy atmosphere, believable enough characters and gore.

The story is simple and doesn't bother to unfurl itself anymore than it needs to. A bunch of kids are killed in a mining accident back in the early 1900's. Since then, they have stalked and killed the residence of their sleepy little PA town in the mountains.

Simple: they want revenge on the man that caused their death years and years ago. Naturally, his great, great, great grandson is in town and he's a real prick.

Along with that, a mother and her two daughters inherit a run old house after the husband dies. The eldest daughter is rebellious, obnoxious...a typical teen. The younger is curious, bright-eyed and gets in with the ghost children.

The creepiest part of this flick is the sheer emotionlessness of the children and they hack their way through victim after victim. Excellent acting. It was so spooky! I mean, the Children of the Corn flicks are one thing...but this topped any of those (as for the creepy kids).

Worht a look. I bought it before seeing it and I was not unhappy. But I'm a horror fan through and through.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Other than the mother being a complete moron on a few occasions and the youngest daughter being idiotic enough to go out at night, into woods that scared her in the daytime, this movie was pretty good. Had the director had the sense to treat us as if we had brains, maybe he'd have given us a movie where the people didn't have to behave idiotically, but still manage to get into danger. It worked for the plumber and the fellow in the trailer, but apparently the teenagers and the mother needed to be idiots, for the director to get closure in ending this film.

Atmosphere was great, scenery was awesome and the undead kids scared the crap out of me... I live in a wooded area, so taking out the trash will creep me out for quite a while. The movie works for me accept for what I already mentioned. Raise the mom's IQ a bit and I'd give it a ten...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the acting to Cardone's direction, this new twist on the familiar ghost's been-done-wrong theme, will keep you glued to your seat. Slow at times because it builds this 'what's gonna happen' tension. Medium-well on gore but what there is nicely nasty. Spoiler: The death of the jockhole and subsequent feast is a highlight for gore hounds.

The writers crafted an old story but added twists and re-imagined you typical haunting. Cardone brings it to life . . . er . . uh death.

Lori Heuring, Scout Taylor-Compton and the ever fabulous Ben Cross are real, no signs of acting here. Everyone in the cast is committed and truly isn't that what any director strives for. The actors believe, so we believe.

Along with the traditional ghost story surprises the film is loaded with tons of atmosphere, from the mine, Hank's house and the Tunny home, there's a creeping fear from the first frame to the last.

Horror fans, do yourself a favor and enjoy what amounts to be one of the true horror movies out there today.

I end with a big kudo to Boaz Davidson (story) Ben Nedivi (screenplay)for without inventive writers Hollywood would be nothing but an ugly reality TV party.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw part of this film on the Sci-Fi Channel, but missed the ending. I bought the DVD to see the whole movie, and I'm glad I did.

A young mother and her two daughters move into a house out in a backwoods area that they inherited from the husband, who died from an illness. It's very run down, but the three women make the best of it. The teen daughter (Scout Taylor-Compton) is warned by a local boy about the zombies that come out at night. She ignores him, but since he has a cute friend, she joins his group. Meanwhile, the younger daughter (Chloe Grace Moretz) makes a friend in a zombie girl her age named Mary. It turns out that Mary and several other kids died in a mine in 1913 while working as child labor. Now that they are zombies, they attack and kill anyone who's not a blood relative.

This movie was directed by J.S. Cardone, whose previous films include The Slayer (1981) and Shadowzone (1990), two movies I didn't like in the slightest bit. This is why I was surprised that I actually enjoyed this movie. The film is deliberately paced, which I liked. This allows you to get to know the main characters, most of whom are likable. Child zombies have been used at least since George Romero's 1968 classic Night Of The Living Dead. Still, I found the tool-using child zombies in this movie interesting. It would seem that Cardone finally found the right script and cast. Only the stereotypical scenes of the teens smoking, drinking and making out in a parked car were boring to me.

Taylor-Compton also appears in the Halloween remake. Moretz appeared in The Amityville Horror (2005) and the horror film Room 6 (2006).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I honestly found Wicked Little Things to be a very cool and fun horror film.My friend had given this to me, and I really saw it as nothing but a crappy low class gory horror film.Then after I watched this I was wrong it was very cool and very good and while Ill say it seemed a bit unnecessary at times, and while it may not be the best horror film ever its still good.I thought the acting was very good especially from the girl who plays the mother(she seemed very believable and to me very likable).And while it is a little clich\u00e9'e and over the top its good.Overall I gotta say if the Afterdark Horror Fest films are not your style then you should have no business watching this, but if you like horror films, or a wicked little time than check out Wicked Little Things. 8.0 out of 10 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has no relationship to Virtual Encounters 1, so it's not really a sequel. The two videos just share the general concept of people having simulated sex through a virtual reality machine. So if you were really blown away by the story and dialog in VC 1 (yeah, right), and expecting a continuation in VC 2, just be warned. All the actors and actresses are new, but it has the same excellent director, Sybil Richards.

But like VC 1, you get lots of beautiful women and a lot of great sex scenes that push the envelope of soft core just about as far as it can go.

If you have VC 1 and you liked it, you'll like VC 2. If you don't have either, but like really good softcore sex, get both.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seldom is seen a film sequel that surpasses or even equalls the greatness of it's original predecessor. Such a film is VIrtual Encounters 2.

It's about a couple guys in college who sell virtual sex to the entire campus. If you like seeing naked chicks, this one delivers. Six-foot tall Chrissy Styler is an amazing specimen and you will be dreaming about her for days if you ever have the good fortune to catch the unrated version. She wears just the right amount of body glitter in her multiple nude scenes and her giant cans appear to be real. ( = Giddyup!!

W\/the exception of James Cameron's \"Aliens,\" Francis For Coppola's \"The Godfather Part II\" and - of course - the Zuckers' \"Airplane 2,\" this is the only sequel in movie history that takes a classic film and improves upon it.

It's criminal the way this film was ignored by the academy. Nikki Fritz and that broad who gets tied up in the beginning (as well as the brunette who gets a rubdown towards the end) all deserved Best Supporting Actress nods.

Shame on you, Hollywood!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is really, really full of sex. Hot sex. I watched it (of course) on Cinemax; and I liked it of course; those virtual fantasies are played out so much in great style, and I kind of enjoyed the story line. But one must know that when a soft porn film director sets out to make another soft porn film; all he\/she wants to do is film good sex scenes. And I got nice sex scenes, full of skin. Yet another reason some people call soft porn Cinemax films \"Skinemax.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What often threatens to turn into a soppy and soft-headed drama about misunderstood middle-class youth ends up a surprisingly shaded and subdued movie by John Frankenheimer (his first, though he had started in television, directing among other things an earlier version of this script).

We are still in those semi-mythic \u009150s when teenagers drove jalopies and jeans were still dungarees. James MacArthur (adoptive son of playwright Charles and actress Helen Hayes, and later to enter pop culture as Hawaii 5-0's Danno) gets involved in a minor incident in a movie theater which escalates to his throwing a punch at the manager (Whit Bissell) and being booked down at the police station. His dad (James Daly), a big-shot movie producer gets the call, doesn't listen to his son's version of the story, and pulls strings to get him off.

But MacArthur keeps carrying a chip on his shoulder, which even his sympathetic mom (Kim Hunter) can't knock off. Things worsen in the Coldwater Canyon homestead until MacArthur, trying to vindicate himself, stages a reprise of the original incident....

The movie doesn't quite avoid the attitudes \u0096 and cliches \u0096 of its time, but presents them with considerable nuance: Every character gets an honorable hearing; every point of view has its merits (and reactions to the movie will depend on what viewers bring to it). There are flaws (the word `crummy,' a standard rebellious euphemism of the era, is used about 30 times too often) but they're outweighed by strengths. The movie benefits from a strong cast (most notable among them the excellent character actor James Gregory, as a police detective) and a resolutely non-exploitative way of telling its story. From a vantage point in the new millennium, the hot water MacArthur finds himself in may seem a little tepid, but The Young Stranger remains honest and honorable.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Riding high on the success of \"Rebel Without a Cause\", came a tidal wave of 'teen' movies. Arguably this is one of the best. A very young McArthur excels here as the not really too troubled teen. The story concentrates more on perceptions of delinquency, than any traumatic occurrence. The supporting cast is memorable, Frankenheimer directs like an old pro. Just a story of a young man that finds others take his actions much too seriously.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The world is going to miss John Frankenheimer. This was his first feature film and it was four years before he directed his second, but don't let that dissuade you from seeking it out. Frankenheimer's direction is assured, and he gets some compelling performances out of his cast.

Someone else has already pointed them out, but I also want to talk up James Gregory and Whit Bissell in two key supporting roles. Both would work for Frankenheimer again -- Gregory most notably as the bumbling senator in \"The Manchurian Candidate\" -- and they do good work for him here.

If the whole thing seems too simple in the end, that's merely because Frankenheimer and writer Robert Dozier chose to tell a simple story, and they do it well. Keep a lookout for it -- Turner Classic Movies just might show it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This eloquent, simple film makes a remarkably clear statement about a teenager and his father. Though a theatrical release, it has a \"made-for-TV\" quality. We can attribute this to the director, John Frankenheimer, who learned his craft in the early days of live television in New York City. Indeed, he directed the teleplay on which the film is based, \"Deal a Blow,\" on the CBS drama series \"Climax.\" \"Young Stranger\" represents his Hollywood debut. After a hiatus of four years, during which he would do more television, he returned to direct \"The Young Savages\" with Burt Lancaster and, a year after that, \"All Fall Down\" with Warren Beatty and Angela Lansbury.

The casting is competent with James Daly and Kim Hunter (particularly good) playing the parents of the title character performed by James MacArthur (his first theatrical film) who played the same role in the television version which was his first appearance on the small screen. Look for James Gregory and Whit Bissell in supporting roles.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** Well made and interesting film about the alienated youth of America back in the 1950's. Back in those days many parents caught up with making big bucks and living high on the hog forget that their children, especially teen-agers, needed a lot more then a car and and hefty allowance in order to feel part of the family. They also needed love and attention, to their growing up problems, which is what 16 year-old Hal Ditmar, James MacArthur never got from his successful movie producer dad Mr.Tom Ditmar, James Daly.

Never really connecting with his dad Hal grows more and more distant from both him and his caring mom Helen Ditmar, Kim Hunter, as well as from society. After his dad put Hal down about him wanting to borrow his car, a late model luxury sedan, he and his friend Jerry, Jeffery Silver, drive in Hal's beat up and barley operational 1930's jalopy to the local treater to catch the latest western flick.

Feeling like striking out at the world Hal acts like a real first-class jerk sticking his smelly feet almost into the faces of a couple, Eddie Ryder & Jean Corbett, sitting in front of him and Jerry trying to watch the movie. This leads Hal, as well as his friend Jerry, to not only be kicked out of the theater but with him belting the theater manager Mr. Grebbs, Whit Bissell. It turned out that at least Hal was willing to leave the theater, without even getting his money back, but when Grebbs tries to grab him Hal wheeled around and belted him right in the kisser.

Hal now in real hot water, he's charged with assault and battery, put's on his \"James Dean\" act, at the local police station, making like he's either too cool or just plain stupid to realize what he's done; almost knocked Mr. Grebbs teeth out. It's when Sgt.Shipley, James Gergory, tells Hal that his dad is coming to pick him up when he finally sobers up to the fact of what he's done.

The rest of the film has Hal try to straighten himself out but is unable to do that because the low esteem that his dad has of him. Begging his father to understand that what he did, in belting Mr. Grebbs, was in self-defense Hal's father acts as if he's been there, at the theater, and saw the whole incident with his son Hal acting like a street thug instead of of a young man being grabbed and pushed without provocation.

Not excusing what Hal did, in laying out Mr. Grebbs, he in fact was willing to admit his hooligan behavior but he wanted both Mr. Grebbs and his dad to at least treat him with an iota of consideration; Gebbs in the fact that he provoked Hal and Mr. Ditmas in not even bothering to hear him out! Feeling like a wanted criminal without anyone, but his mom, to really turn too Hal slowly loses it only to later have both Sgt. Shipley and Mr. Grabbs agree to drop the assault charge. You would think that by now Hal's has finally learned his lesson but the real lesson, more then a stretch behind bars, that Hal's so desperately needed was a lesson that his father totally ignored! Being there when his son needed him most and in that Mr. Ditmar failed with flying colors.

Things do in fact straighten out for everyone in the movie only after Mr. Grebbs gets belted, ending up with a butte of a shiner, again by Hal who, going back to Grebbs theater, tries to get him to phone his dad and tell him that Hal was only defending himself when he first, not the second time around, clobbered him. In the end Hal learned a real lesson in getting along with people an not letting his problems become other peoples problems. But most of all Hal's father Mr. Ditmar learned the most valuable lesson of all in how to understand his frustrated and alienated son and act like a father toward him instead of a combination jail-keeper and a sugar daddy. Like the song says \"All you need s Love\" to get things on the right track and it was both love and understanding for his son Hal that Mr. Ditmar, until the very end of the movie, lacked the most off.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The late Director John Frankenheimer directed his first feature film, The Young Stranger, after starting out directing live television dramas in New York City. This film came on the heels of the success of Rebel Without A Cause in 1955. James MacArthur made his feature film debut as a troubled teen with a movie producer father, played by James Daly, who doesn't establish enough of a relationship with his son. Kim Hunter plays the mother, who tries to bridge the gap between her husband and her son. The film uses the popular juvenile delinquent angle of the time to tell its story. MacArthur gets in trouble at a movie theater with an overzealous theater manager played by Whit Bissell. MacArthur, in turn, has to deal with a police sergeant, James Gregory, bent on teaching him a lesson. The material could easily have turned exploitative, laughable, and sensational, like any number of others of the period did. However, under the sure-handed direction of Frankenheimer, the film is a sensitive portrayal of teenage and parental dynamics. The dialog is realistic and most of the scenes hold up surprisingly well. Some of the scenes with Bissell, as the theater manager, and Gregory, as the police sergeant, are a bit heavy-handed and dated. The performances are uniformly good though, which is necessary for a film of this nature and about this topic to succeed. This is an impressive feature film debut both for MacArthur and Frankenheimer. *** of 4 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not high art, not even exceptionally innovative, but a thoroughly enjoyable movie. Funny, fresh, intelligent - there are still people out there who don't need millions of dollars to hide that they're out of ideas.

When you compare this to your average Hollywood action flick, you're comparing a homemade meal with a big mac.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're familiar with the work of auteur Johnny To and his band of filmmaking cronies over at Milky Way, you know what to expect with this latest production. All the familiar elements are in place: the strong camaraderie between two characters: usually a cop and a baddie, the coincidences and chances that turn on a dime and pay off handsomely in the end, and the humor that arises even in the most dire of situations.

Andy Lau plays a man who has 72 hours to live and decides to rob an insurance company. Lau Ching-Wan (also brilliant in other Milky Way films like \"Longest Nite,\" \"A Hero Never Dies,\" and \"Where A Good Man Goes\") portrays a hostage negotiator\/cop who is on the robber's tail, even as the robber sets up a series of tricks and clues that he must follow in order to get his man.

Funny, poignant, and cool while being subtle, \"Running\" is actually one of the most entertaining Milky Way films to date. Don't miss the performances by the two leads, esp. Andy Lau, usually considered an average actor who has rarely been this natural and fun to watch. This film is one to go out of your way to see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've recently seen An zhan. Not because it was a Hong Kong film, but because I was looking for a change from the films being produced here in the US. In my humble opinion, I believe the film could easily compete against the action thrillers being produced here, except for the traditional idiocyncracies of Hong Kong film. The one that still bothers me was the chief inspector character. I still don't understand why there has to be a complete-idiot-comic-relief-type character even in the serious films that come out of Hong Kong, but I can live with it when the movie is this good. The characters are believable even if the situations they are in are not. The story is fast paced and really sucks you in to it. The real cincher scenes for me were the two bus rides that the thief character takes. Overall, a really solid film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a refreshing change of pace from the mindless Hong Kong triad movies I have grown so tired of. There are no spectacular gun fights. No car chases. And practically minimal action to speak of. The audience is kept in suspense for the most part, though certain aspects of the so called \"ploy\" by Andy Lau are quite obvious.

The film has been hailed as a departure from the genre of violent triad films, and as an \"intelligent\" crime film. To an extent, it is. But, to some extent, it still fails the \"believability\" test. One can hardly picture any triad member to be dumb enough to not see through the female disguise of Andy Lau in a second. It also seemed to have fallen for the \"if someone was seriously ill, the said someone will be coughing up copious amounts of blood regularly\" thing Chinese films seem to go for all the time.

The subtle relationship between the two lead characters is a refreshing change.

All in all an enjoyable film, even though the concept is not new and there are few surprises. >","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just purchased An Zhan (Running out of time) on DVD and it was an excellent film I must say. Not really action-packed, in terms of gun play, but definitely exciting and witty. I do not think I have seen Andy Lau in better form. And the editing on this film was very well executed. Go watch this now if you are a fan of Lau or HK thiller\/action film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Running Out of Time rests somewhere in the middle of Johnny To's cannon, in the \"solid good\" category. As a crime thriller it's not terribly original or overwhelming and the action scenes will not blow you away but it has something else going for it. It's a Johnny To film after all, it has to.

Andy Lau has 72 hours to live. He decides to play a strange cat-and-mouse game with a hostage negotiator of the HK police, played by Lau Ching Wan. That's the plot in a nutshell. On top of that To piles layers of twists and turns that keep proceedings interesting throughout. It occasionally becomes too convoluted for its own sake but never lets it get the best of it. However, just as Johnny To is about to hand over a slick and well-made crime flick (which, let's face it, are dime-a-dozen), he slips in bits and pieces that bring Running Out of Time alive as a full emotional experience, providing the soul and heart to the well-oiled skeleton.

The concepts of synchronism and minimalism (staples in his work) are explored in great effect here. Always subtle, letting the images speak for themselves, giving them time to develop with long takes and slow tracking shots, exemplary cutting to the score, it's all here. A small love story in a bus between Andy Lau and a girl is among the highlights of the film and part of the \"heart\" I'm talking about. So simple yet so powerful. Ditto for Lau's and Lau Ching Wan's car scenes and the bowling-room showdown.

However something stops me from claiming Running Out of Time is a masterpiece. To has all the ability and craftmanship down to a notch but he can also be too workmanlike or bland at times. When he's good, he's REAL good. There are even isolated moment of pure brilliance that are just TOO good for their own sake, leaving a bittersweet aftertaste for the rest of the movie. I'm convinced that if he puts his heart to it, he can make a really great film. As it is, this is another one of his films that is flawed but enjoyable. Underneath the slick HK style, it's the black humour and heartfelt drama that makes this a compelling film. Worth watching, definitely.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having seen 'only' about 200 Hong Kong films in my time, I have to say this film is among my very top favorites. Not only is the plot engaging (and in some ways surprising, which these days is rare for any movie), but the chemistry between the two lead actors is superb. Top notch casting! And while often even the most serious HK films tend to insert quite a bit of humor in between all the drama and action, often spoiling the mood a bit, here the jokes are kept subtle and woven into the plot, even improving character relations. The music is also very well done, and the two main themes are very beautiful. With the release of the HK special Edition, they've even cleaned the picture (first release was grainy) and the subtitles, even if the quality of the translation is still lacking (nothing new there). All in all, if you have to see a HK film that isn't directed by John Woo or have Chow Yun Fat in it, this should be at least on your short list! A truly fascinating and entertaining watch!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Andy Lau and Lau Ching-Wan are both superb in Johnny To's tautly directed crime thriller which puts most Western efforts to shame. Think of it as the Hong Kong 'Heat', only better! Everything about the film screams class; from the performances to the soundtrack, the cinematography to the script. The tone remains serious throughout, but the film has a nice line in black-humour, friendship and romance at it's heart. Sure, it gets a little preposterous later on, but it would be a hard-hearted viewer who didn't find something to love about this movie. Thank God, Hollywood hasn't (yet) re-made and ruined a classic. Do yourself a favour and see this film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Terrific, deeply moving crime thriller starring Andy Lau and Lau Ching Wan.

From the dizzying opening sequence to the extremely satisfying conclusion, this cat and mouser hardly misses a beat.

Johnny To, again working with ace composer Arthur Wong, constructs another operatic actioner that grots in the face of its contemporaries.

To's images are strong and moving. His cutting, combined with the extraordinary music cues, is exemplary. You are in the hands of a master cinematician.

The two sequences in which Andy Lau \"hides\" from the cops on a bus by pretending to accompany a lithe beauty (Ruby Wong) are testament to To's unique directorial skills.

Lau Ching Wan is strong and commanding as the harassed cop while Andy Lau is dynamic as a dying man avenging his father's death.

This is superb movie-making, only mildly compromised by some bad English dubbing in one scene with criminal Waise Lee.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The one thing that can be said about RUNNING OUT OF TIME is that it's an immensely clever film. It's interesting to note that the film's writers are French, which may explain the movie's \"out of the norm\" vibe, as it doesn't really fit in with what is commonly called \"Hong Kong Cinema\".

The movie concerns a thief who plans revenge on some criminal types using the assistance of an equally clever cop. But first he has to convince the cop to join his personal crusade, and so begins a series of games where the thief manuevers the cop into his plan.

Quite a clever movie.

7 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of this movie or full-length reviews of other foreign films)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Running Out of Time is probably as close to a perfect film as you're ever likely to see out of Hong Kong. All the elements click: a terrific script (by French writers Julien Carbon and Laurent Courtiaud) that even manages to subvert the odd clich\u00e9, reliably imaginative direction by Johnnie To, and excellent central performances by Andy Lau and Lau Ching Wan, the latter displaying his great comic timing to wonderful effect without ever crossing the line into parody (especially in his exasperated reactions to his superior's abysmal negotiating skills). The supporting cast is fine too, with Yo Yo Mung making a strong impression in a tiny role, and even the often histrionic Waise Lee (looking remarkably, and very aptly, like a bald Andy Lau) reining it in to good effect. It's best not to know too much about the plot going in beyond the basic set-up \u0096 with only a few weeks to live, Lau engages in a criminal game with Wan's cop with no easily apparent motive \u0096 and just sit back and enjoy the ride: it's certainly worth the fare. It also has one of the most perfect love stories in recent movies, and played in a mere three scenes (the second bus ride is one of the most magical moments of film-making I've seen in ages). There's also a fine score by Raymond Wong as well. The most fun playing cat and mouse at the movies in years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"you know I've seen a lot of crappy hong kong movies in terms of production and were good. But Running out of TIme was great.

i guess what made it so good was the fact that Andy Lau and Ching Wang, have such great chemistry. The film at first is really fast paced but slows down not enough to even notice which is also good, we don't want to have a heart attack,lol. In terms of plot their is enough of other things going on to keep you interested. Lau has some pretty good moments as he uses make up to impersonate people from the underworld. Also the movie has the best oriental supporting cast since \"house of Flying Daggers\".

The movie is great because its so unpredictable and leaves you wondering at every corner. Definitely a good rental with tons of comedy, action and thrills pact in to one, 8 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Octavio Paz, Mexican poet, writer, and diplomat, who received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1990, said about \"Nazarin\": \"Nazarin follows the great tradition of mad Spaniards originated by Cervantes. His madness consists in taking seriously great ideas and trying to live accordingly\". A humble and spiritual priest (Francisco Rabal in a wonderful performance) attempts to live by the principles of Christianity but is cast out of his church for helping a local prostitute by giving her a shelter after she had committed a murder. Nazarin wanders the country roads of the turn of the 20th-century Mexico, offering help to poor and begging for food. His two followers, a murderous prostitute Andara and her sister Beatriz who is a failed suicide desperately searching for love, consider him saint but it does not prevent him from hatred and humiliation from both the church and the people he meets on the road. He ends up beaten in prison and begins to question his faith for not be able to forgive his attacker.

Bunuel tells the story in a manner of a Christian parable masterfully and uniquely combining admiration and irony for the main character and strong criticism of formal religion and hypocrisy. The film is simple and profound as well as beautiful, ironic, and heartbreaking.

I consider Bunuel one of the best filmmakers ever. I've seen twenty of his films and they all belong to the different periods of his life but they have in common his magic touch, the masterful combination of gritty realism and surrealism, his curiosity, his inquisitive mind, his sense of humor, and his dark and shining fantasies. With great pleasure I am adding little seen and almost unknown but amazingly candid and touching surrealistic tragic-comedy \"Nazarin\" to the list of my favorite films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nazarin is some kind of saint,he wants to live in life exactly how Christ taught man to do.But it's too late:now the Catholic Church is between the hands of a wealthy bourgeoisie,the bishops live in luxury and don't give a damn about the poor and the sick.That's why our hero can't follow the way his hierarchy asks him to follow.So he divests himself of everything,and on his way to purity,he's joined by some kind of Mary Magdelene and a woman who's attracted by him sexually (the scene between this girl and her fianc\u00e9 is telling).In Spain (it was the late fifties),they thought Nazarin was a Christian movie!Knowing Luis Bunuel,it was downright incongruous:all his work is anticlerical to a fault.Comparing Nazarin and his \"holy women\" to Jesus is a nonsense.On Nazarin's way,only brambles and couch grass grow.His attempt at helping working men on the road is a failure,he's chased out as a strike-breaker.All his words amount to nothing.At the end of the journey,he's arrested and offered a pineapple by a woman(Bunuelian sexual symbol). Thanks to \"Nazarin\" ,Bunuel was allowed to return to Spain (where the censors had not got a clue ) and to direct \"Viridiana\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Nazarin\" directed by Luis Bunuel presents an extraordinary view of religion in Mexico. As written by the director and Julio Alejandro, his notable collaborator, this was a film that put Mexican cinema in the international map after receiving the Grand Prix in Cannes that year. It's a disturbing film because Mr. Bunuel delves deep into what's wrong with the church.

Nazarin, by all reckoning, is a saint. This young priest is seen living a life of poverty in a seedy pension of a city. He doesn't have enough for himself, but he doesn't mind parting with a coin when a beggar appears by his window asking for help. At the same time, he takes into his small room a prostitute that has been hurt in a fight with another woman. Andara, the woman repays his kindness by burning the room and the whole building! Nazarin is seen taking to the countryside begging for food. Andara and Beatriz, two prostitutes from his old town follow him. Nazarin's life parallels that of Jesus. In fact, this saintly figure makes a case for humility.

Of course,Mr. Bunuel had no religion in mind when he and Mr. Alejandro took it upon themselves to create this film. It's ironic how Spain welcomed him after this film was released because they saw it as showing Christian qualities, when in reality, this is an acerbic satire on the catholic church and its ministers.

Francisco Rabal, the Spanish actor, makes a wonderful Nazarin. This was one of his best roles. Mr. Rabal worked extensively in his native country, but also in Mexico and Argentina. Rita Macedo, as Andara, is also excellent. Marga Lopez also makes a valuable contribution with her portrayal of Beatriz.

A great film by one of the cinema's master film makers: Luis Bunuel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a fascinating example of Luis Bunuel's storytelling abilities. This is a comedy that is not a comedy, and a social drama that is not a social drama. Even though I don't think it was particularly funny, it made me laugh. Also, despite the fact that you can never take Bunuel too seriously, the movie made think about religion and its importance in some people's lives. Bunuel tells the story of a Catholic priest, devoted to his faith like no one else and the viewer witness what happens when the priest's undying commitment to serve others is put to test. As usual, Bunuel's target is Catholicism, but I don't think he tried to mock the church as he often does. At least I didn't take the film as a mockery of the institution. I think he is trying to make an interesting point about how religion could be a nuisance in today's modern society. Not because faith in itself is bad, but because people always mange to bastardize the concept. Message aside, I think this is one of Bunuel's most clever works. Francisco Rabal is superb as the priest. Definitely, one of the filmmaker's best movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When you look at Mexico's best movies you will more than likely find that the Photography was performed by Gabriel Figueroa. He is recognized in the world as one of the best that have ever existed. His master control of the cameras gave an added asset to the movies he was part of. If added to his participation we add the direction of Luis Bunuel, you will never find such a pair of aces anywhere else in the world. This story, Nazarin, was written by Spain's greatest writer besides Miguel de Cervantes(Don Quijote de la Mancha). The story in itself is superb: Nazarin a priest that lives by his beliefs tries to live a very Christian life, but as always there are people that do not accept this. He wanders through many places preaching his Christianity but finding, most of the time, people that do not accept him. But besides the splendid story, it is always interesting to try to interpret the enigmatic messages that Bunuel sends us throughout the picture in scenes that make you shiver.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love the absurdity and biting humor of Bu\u00f1uel's surrealist films (such as \"The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie\" and \"The Exterminating Angel\", to name two). Other, earlier works (like \"The Forgotten Ones\", about juvenile delinquents from a marginal neighborhood in Mexico) are more serious and provide a strong social message.

However, I believe it is \"Nazarin\" which most successfully shoots for the heart of the viewer. While it's true that it's brimming with irony, it nevertheless reveals an aspect of Bu\u00f1uel which would appear to be intrigued by the beauty and solemnity of the spiritual quest. Here, while the director (quite typically) throws countless jabs at the Catholic Church, he also appears to show, surprisingly, a sense of admiration for genuine Christian thought and its practice of selfless love.

\"What?? Luis Bu\u00f1uel unabashedly praising a Jesus-like figure??\" I always thought of him as a completely cynical artist without a trace of faith in human virtue... that is, until I watched \"Nazarin\". My appreciation is that he satirically exposes the difficulty of following Christ's example in a society infested with meanness, ignorance and sin; but he also presents the hero, Father Nazario, as quite the beacon of light amidst a sea of darkness. Without a doubt, by the end of the film I was looking up to him and not down on him!

Some would argue that Father Nazario's doubts regarding his faith point to the loss of his saintly values. (Alas, if he can't do good in this world, who can?) But I would say that this \"flaw\", his frustration, precisely makes his character all the more heroic, because it shows how human he is and how challenging his struggle within must be. And who says the priest couldn't eventually emerge from that \"dark night\" and regain his confidence? Perhaps we've only been presented with a difficult part of his spiritual journey. The elegant, open ending (in which he desperately accepts the fruit offered by a female stranger) allows us to imagine ourselves the final outcome of the story.

I recognize in Bu\u00f1uel the aggressive, self-professed atheist endowed with brilliant wit and social consciousness; but after having watched \"Nazarin\", I also sense from him a certain warmth, a depth and maturity that's not so evident in his other work.

For the sake of contrast, I strongly recommend watching afterward his short film \"Simon of the Desert\" (also made in Mexico, several years later). It deals with a similar subject matter -- the abandonment of the ego in the face of temptation --, only it does so in a hysterically funny and totally irreverent style.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spanish director Luis Bu\u00f1uel career spanned almost 50 years, from 1929 to 1977. Arguably, his best films were those he made during his exile in Mexico - from the late forties to the early 60s. There he had to deal with very cheap budgets, and work in an industry interested mainly in churning commercial movies to unsophisticated audiences, yet he somehow managed to make interesting, thought provoking movies that have stand the test of time. This movie is based on a novel by Spanish author Benito Perez Galdos - and the adaptation is quite faithful, even if the setting is now early 20th century Mexico instead of early 20th century Spain. The protagonist, Nazarin, is a priest who tries to live a life that is as faithful as it can be to the one prescribed by Christ. The question many would ask is whether such endeavor would be possible, without incurring in the hostility, incomprehension and mockery of your fellow human beings. As it happens, he suffers a lot of indignities, yet he remains stubborn (until the controversial final shot) to this objective. I think Bu\u00f1uel wanted to show Nazarin as a somewhat ridiculous figure, but perhaps inadvertently, his stubbornness (at least to this viewer) comes out as admirable. In any case, a great film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Luis Bunuel has always been a filmmaker whose work was obscure to me. My first experience with him was The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeosie, often considered his greatest work, with which I became so frustrated and bored that I eventually shut the tape off. Likewise Belle de Jour, which is almost certainly his best known film and also generally considered one of his many masterpieces, didn't interest me very much at all. I didn't hate it like I did Discreet, but I didn't like it. Third, I saw L'Age d'Or. Finally, I had gotten somewhere. Fourth, Los Olvidados, also good. Still, neither L'Age d'Or nor Los Olvidados blew me away. Great films, but not masterpieces.

Nazarin is my fifth Bunuel, and I like it just a tad more than those other two. It is about a priest from Spain now in Mexico who refuses to live in the kind of luxury most priests live in. He wants to be more like Jesus, leading the meekest life possible. He's also willing to forgive everyone for anything, and to suffer without protest. I'm pretty sure Bunuel does not sympathize with the character, and sees him as rather self-righteous. However, I only assume that because of my knowledge of the director, whose most famous quotation is \"Thank God, I'm still an atheist,\" which he apparently said in an interview over this very film (I get this information from John Baxter's book about Bunuel, if you're interested). The interviewer who dragged those words from Bunuel's mouth must have been himself confused about Nazarin. One who was more predisposed to believe in religious conviction, who also knows nothing about Bunuel, might see the priest as a heroic figure. This is especially true if that viewer has his\/her own criticisms of organized religion. The priest may be somewhat self-righteous, but he seems to be basically a good man. When he harbors a violent prostitute in his room in order to protect her (and, presumably, to save her soul), people begin to find out and assume that their relationship is sexual. His superiors assume the same and punish him for it. Later on, he suffers even worse punishments from clerics.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The topic of religion in Bu\u00f1uel films is a point that one, as an eater of films, as an eater of art or as a person need to analyze hardly. One can see to a satirical Bu\u00f1uel in \"La Voie Lact\u00e9e\", \"Un Chien Andalou\" or in \"L'Age d'Or\". Is very hard and effective in its critic, but when you have seen this and then you see a movie like \"Nazarin\", after you see this work you begin to be questioned about its author. And much have questioned about what seems to be a contradiction for Bu\u00f1uel thinks, but is better not called in this way, i think that there's not any contradiction in its work, only that Bu\u00f1uel religion point of view is very diverse as unique in films.

This beautiful film is based on the novel of Benito Perez Gald\u00f3s, which told us the story of Father Nazario, who lived a humble, simple life dedicated to God and to help everyone. He lived in a simple and poor region. There lived too Beatriz, who is an abused and abandoned wife. She don't find any sense of her life without her violent, macho man. She have a kind of repulse to him. In the other side is Andara, one of the towns prostitutes. Father Nazario has been stolen again, he blames to Andara's cousin. Andara hear this and try to fight without success with the priest, who don't believe in violence. That night, Andara find that her cousin is actually a thief, she have stole her bellboys. Andara fights with her cousin with terrible consequences. With this, Andara search mercy from the priest. Nazario decides to help her, knowing well that this could be against his church, obviously this thing going to have some consequences. Since here, Nazario going to be a pilgrim. Without nothing, even without shoes, but with spirit and faith. But Andara and Beatriz want to be with he, and be like he, to serve God.

If is the sweetest Bu\u00f1uel film that i have seen so far, is too the most spiritual. Is clear here that the thing that most confuse people with the contradiction is that here, we don't see a Bu\u00f1uel against the power of church, we see a Bu\u00f1uel whose film is about church but not in the typical - and great - satirical way. Whethever like it is, i don't think that the right word is contradiction, actually i find it pleasant and well done and in spite of contain such religious issues (As his \"Voie Lact\u00e9e\") i found it more a spiritual film but that don't try to touch in diversity the Catholic religion as maybe he touch, and laugh of it in another films. \"Nazarin\" is of father Nazario and its perspective front God and the same religion but all of this is at the end, analyzed in the spiritual life of this man.

The other two women are, not a contrast, but as very well another two perspectives of faith. First we have Beatriz, the mistreated woman, that lose all the faith in life, first with her husband and then with a little girl who was in her family. This little girl was very sick. At side of her was too Andara, the prostitute who run of the justice. In the family of the child, just religious women, there a big pain, but faith becomes in father Nazario when he arrives with nothing to this town. He bless the child, a say later she is fine. The priest want go on walking, but Beatriz and Andara have recovered the faith in life and want to dedicate their lives to God with father Nazario. After some complains, father Nazario decide to be with them, discovering with some things until the end how he feels about faith, God, religion and the person in necessity, the people who must request to charity to survive. This last issue then must be noted as one possible explanation for the pineapple ending. This ending we listen the drums (Similar to that in \"L'Age d'Or) and a father Nazario, walking over asking about this things, when he refuse the fruit at the first time and at the end decide to receive it as a symbol of necessity or maybe, as an answer for its spiritual road that begin being priest. Meanwhile, the two women must take away of the father, Andara for its crime (Beautiful scene where she thanks a man who helps father Nazario in jail and then she damn the man who hit the priest in jail) and Beatriz because she prefer be with her macho man, in spite that he treat her bad, just because she don't accept that she fall in loved with the priest. Father Nazario - and here is maybe the unique place in film to critic church- walk to contradict the church, the religion that he serves.

Father Nazario is that then, is a (Soft for much, but not for me) critic for some thing in religion (Father Nazario helping a women who is guilty of a crime, of a sin) but most of all is one of Bu\u00f1uel analysis of faith and life, and he really got it, with a beautiful, tender, sweet and unforgettable film, that is, without a doubt, one of his best.

*Sorry for the mistakes...well, if there any.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A blackly comic tale of a down-trodden priest, Nazarin showcases the economy that Luis Bunuel was able to achieve in being able to tell a deeply humanist fable with a minimum of fuss. As an output from his Mexican era of film making, it was an invaluable talent to possess, with little money and extremely tight schedules. Nazarin, however, surpasses many of Bunuel's previous Mexican films in terms of the acting (Francisco Rabal is excellent), narrative and theme.

The theme, interestingly, is something that was explored again in Viridiana, made three years later in Spain. It concerns the individual's struggle for humanity and altruism amongst a society that rejects any notion of virtue. Father Nazarin, however, is portrayed more sympathetically than Sister Viridiana. Whereas the latter seems to choose charity because she wishes to atone for her (perceived) sins, Nazarin's whole existence and reason for being seems to be to help others, whether they (or we) like it or not. The film's last scenes, in which he casts doubt on his behaviour and, in a split second, has to choose between the life he has been leading or the conventional life that is expected of a priest, are so emotional because they concern his moral integrity and we are never quite sure whether it remains intact or not.

This is a remarkable film and I would urge anyone interested in classic cinema to seek it out. It is one of Bunuel's most moving films, and encapsulates many of his obsessions: frustrated desire, mad love, religious hypocrisy etc. In my view 'Nazarin' is second only to 'The Exterminating Angel', in terms of his Mexican movies, and is certainly near the top of the list of Bunuel's total filmic output.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Luis Bunuel's \"Nazarin\" will always be remembered as a great film because it is absolutely honest in its presentation of comical assault on religion.It is one of those outstanding films which must be shown to all people especially young children in order to familiarize them with the notions of good and bad,sacred and evil.The toughest question asked by \"Nazarin\" is about the strengths and weaknesses of organized religion.It has been tackled by involving numerous ordinary people who are not at all above petty affairs in their mundane lives especially sins.Bunuel scores tremendously by showing us that various questions related to class differences deserve frank,honest and reliable answers. Nazarin appears credible as it has been made in a light,comical vein.This is the sole reason why it can be said that the story of an ordinary priest appears absolutely true to life to all audiences.It is amazing how Bunuel approaches quest for true love issue in his film. This black & white gem was shot marvelously by Gabriel Figueroa,one of Luis Bunuel's favorite cameraman.Film critic Lalit Rao saw \"Nazarin\" at Trivandrum,India during 13th International Film Festival of Kerala 2009.\"Nazarin\" was introduced by eminent Indian cinema personality Mr.P.K.Nair as part of a special package called \"50 years ago\".This is a film which should be with any discerning DVD collector.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nazarin by the acclaimed surrealist Bunuel is ovbviously an attack on the Catholic Church and its loss of values. It is not a visual film and I think it would have played better on the stage. Bunuel takes us through this man, the nazarene that lives like Christ lived; a true follower i.e. in poverty, and without a care for property and what the next day bringeth. Some might call it a parallel to Christ's story but any follower and practitioner of the word, life should be like Christ in a way. But in essence Bunuel also inquires into the ogle of man's selfishness and need to sin and how goodness may save us all. It is a bold statement to make that may enliven, or recite to memory the movie for some. Truth, be told the Nazarene is also selfish because he gives without wanting in return or asking for it. His selfishness is his folly and the two women who follow him represent the sides of a coin;with the same face on each side. Lots of people represent sides of a coin in this movie, all with both faces the same. But the movie isn't exactly memorable once it ends and one could attack many of its ethical perforations and effusions within the movie's own doctrine. Not top-notch Bunuel but a \"surreal\" dream sequence that bunuel stages whithin where the message of the movie is framed and is worth noting for it shows you the capability of the director, Bunuel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every time this movie used to re-air on late night TV in the late 70s and early 80s I would always make time to sit in front of the TV and watch it. To see the lovely Kate Jackson, handsome Richard Long, the \"great\" Polly Bergen whom I've never seen anywhere else except for this TV movie, the endearing Tom Bosley, and another \"great\" whom I've never seen outside this movie, Celeste Holme. This is truly the love boat on a cruise to murder and mayhem and boy was it ever good!! And every time I would watch it I would always forget who the real murderer was.

As expected, someone here is already criticizing the movie as if that really is a big help to anyone. This is a great TV movie and worth watching each and every time. I can't say that about half the movies I've seen this month.

If you ever get a chance to watch it on TV someday, which isn't likely, watch it. In light of \"The Girl Most Likely To\" finally coming out this year on DVD, maybe there's hope for a DVD release of \"Death Cruise.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this when I was twelve. It was the movie that made me understand what a good mystery really was. I had read the entire Happy Hollisters children's mystery series and they were about a family of child sleuths who always got their man. But we the readers were not in a position to solve the mystery along with them. This movie showed me that a good mystery is that which makes the viewer\/reader, at the end, say, \"OH!!!!! OF COURSE!!!!!!!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I happened to catch this on community TV a few years back and was pleasantly surprised how enjoyable a film it was.

While a bit corny in certain ways, as its prime function of being a mystery thriller it works superbly, thanks to a script that concocts an ingenious plot; it kept me guessing throughout and the resolution is inspired.

The cast is a star-studded one, containing a mixture of those at the end of their careers (indeed Richard Long died the same year this was made), or those who were on the verge of stardom in hit TV series (Kate Jackson, Tom Bosley). They all do a good job, with the exception of Cesare Danova who sleepwalks through his role.

Strongly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's About Time \"Kate Jackson\" got her credit for this film.., i can remember watching it & trying to understand it on TV.., my grandmother lay in bed dying from cancer & i was barely 15. i didn't find out till years later that Richard long had died tho.., i miss him on the other shows\/movies he was in.

I have a copy of the VHS tape still but it's NOT \"CC'd\" or Closed Captioned for the Hearing Impaired & thats the ONLY flaw in the movie that i can remember or know of to date.., i haven't been able to find a DVD or VHS copy that has sub-titles in English even. If someone out there knows of either copy on VHS or DVD thats CC'd or has English sub-titles please let me know.

thanks - Cofffeenut","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Steamboat Willy was not the first cartoon to feature Mickey Mouse. The first film to star America's friend was \"Plane Crazy\". \"Plane Crazy\" was released May 15th 1928 in Hollywood California,in the silent movie format. \"Steamboat Willy\" was released November 18th 1928 as a SOUND movie (it was also released July 29th 1928 as a silent film). Thus making \"Steamboat..\"the first SOUND film of Mickey but NOT the first film for the little American Mouse. While many game shows have used the question: \"What was the first appearance of Mickey Mouse?\" The true answer is \"Plane Crazy\" not \"Steamboat Willy\". These dates can be checkout on IMDb under \"release dates\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A Walt Disney MICKEY MOUSE Cartoon.

STEAMBOAT WILLIE, a mischievous little rodent, neglects his pilothouse and frolics his way into cinematic history.

On 18 November 1928, a struggling young genius debuted the world's first successful cartoon with synchronous sound. There would be no looking back for either Walt Disney or his alter ego Mickey Mouse. Financial struggles would remain, but essentially the world was their oyster bed and Mickey would eventually rival Chaplin as the most recognizable cultural icon of the century.

As entertainment, STEAMBOAT WILLIE is still fun to watch, featuring fine work by animator Ub Iwerks and showing a Mickey with all the passions & indifference of a small child. He must deal with a tyrannical skipper (Pete, without his peg leg; he had been appearing in Disney cartoons since February of 1925), a wisecracking parrot (in a few years it would be a Duck) and a cute little Mouse named Minnie. Together the two rodents rather callously make music on the live bodies of a goat, cat, goose, piglets & cow (a precursor of Clarabelle) - all of whom happened to be conveniently on board the steamship. Audiences howled for more and the pattern was set for the subsequent Mouse cartoons of the next few years.

******************************

Walt Disney (1901-1966) was always intrigued by pictures & drawings. As a lad in Marceline, Missouri, he sketched farm animals on scraps of paper; later, as an ambulance driver in France during the First World War, he drew comic figures on the sides of his vehicle. Back in Kansas City, along with artist Ub Iwerks, Walt developed a primitive animation studio that provided animated commercials and tiny cartoons for the local movie theaters. Always the innovator, his ALICE IN CARTOONLAND series broke ground in placing a live figure in a cartoon universe. Business reversals sent Disney & Iwerks to Hollywood in 1923, where Walt's older brother Roy became his lifelong business manager & counselor. When a mildly successful series with Oswald The Lucky Rabbit was snatched away by the distributor, the character of Mickey Mouse sprung into Walt's imagination, ensuring Disney's immortality. The happy arrival of sound technology made Mickey's screen debut, STEAMBOAT WILLIE (1928), a tremendous audience success with its use of synchronized music. The SILLY SYMPHONIES soon appeared, and Walt's growing crew of marvelously talented animators were quickly conquering new territory with full color, illusions of depth and radical advancements in personality development, an arena in which Walt's genius was unbeatable. Mickey's feisty, naughty behavior had captured millions of fans, but he was soon to be joined by other animated companions: temperamental Donald Duck, intellectually-challenged Goofy and energetic Pluto. All this was in preparation for Walt's grandest dream - feature length animated films. Against a blizzard of doomsayers, Walt persevered and over the next decades delighted children of all ages with the adventures of Snow White, Pinocchio, Dumbo, Bambi & Peter Pan. Walt never forgot that his fortunes were all started by a mouse, or that childlike simplicity of message and lots of hard work always pay off.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the first Mickey Mouse cartoon released and the first cartoon with sound. It was based on a silent movie called \"Steamboat Bill, Jr.\" starring Buster Keaton. Back in this early Mickey short, Mickey did not talk nor did he have gloves. He could just whistle and play music. The song that he played was \"Turkey in the Straw\" using several barnyard animals as musical instruments. He plays a cow's teeth as a xylophone and he plays a nursing sow's teats like an accordion keyboard. Captain Pete, however, is very mad and makes Mickey peel potatoes in the galley. Pete's parrot flies up to the window and orders him to peel the potatoes. Mickey throws a half-peeled potato at the parrot and laughs, thus closing the cartoon. I was able to get this cartoon on tape and I really like it. I think the Disney shorts are much better than the feature length movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While in one country, Spain, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali combined forces to create the benchmark of short-subject, cinematic surrealism, Un Chien Andalou, Walt Disney and his collaborator Ub Iwerks in America worked on Steamboat Willie, the most prominent of the early synchronized sound cartoons (it was revealed that this was not the first, contrary to other reports). It's also one of the more successfully simplistic and funny of the Mickey Mouse shorts (still in a silent-film way- the only sounds are little irks and bleeps from the Mickey and the animals). It also goes by fairly quickly for its less-than-ten minute run. But in these minutes one gets the immediate sense of how much fun Disney has with his characters, and how the newfound use of sound changes how his creation uses the animals as musical tools. There's no story to speak of, just random things that happens and occurs because of Mickey (err, Steamboat Willie) on this boat on a river. And like the better Mickey Mouse shorts, his lack of speaking acts as an advantage. It's a must-see if you haven't seen it as a kid, but if you have it might still be worth another look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This era was not just the dawn of sound in cartoons, but of a cartoon character which would go down in history as the world's most famous mouse. Yes, Mickey makes his debut here, in this cheery tale of life on board a steamboat. The animation is good for it's time, and the plot - though a little simple - is quite jolly. A true classic, and if you ever manage to get it on video, you won't regret it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the first Mickey Mouse cartoon released and the first cartoon with sound. In the cartoon, Mickey does not yet wear gloves. He does not yet speak either. All he does is whistle and play music. The song that he plays is \"Turkey in the Straw\" using several farm animals as musical instruments. For example, he plays the teeth of a cow like a xylophone and pulls nursing piglets like an accordion keyboard. I taped this cartoon off of the Disney Channel and I think it is wonderful. It was based on a silent film starring Buster Keaton entitled \"Steamboat Bill, Jr.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mickey Mouse is now 75 years old. He was created by Walt Disney, a famous creater, producer, director etc: I love the Disney Movies because it is great fun watching the cartoon movies. Altogether Walt Disney i think is the king of the creations, Everyone has got to love this creations and the movies by Walt Disney. Thank you Walt for all the classic characters you made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"STEAMBOAT WILLIE is an amazingly important film to our cinema history. This second appearance of Mickey Mouse (following the silent PLANE CRAZY earlier that year) is probably his most famous film--mostly because it was so ground-breaking. This is because it was the first sound cartoon. While you don't yet hear Mickey speak, there are tons of sound effects and music throughout the film--something we take for granted now but which was a huge crowd pleaser in 1928.

Now if this were just an important historical film, it would be worth seeing--especially to lovers of animation. However, after seeing the short again after about 25 years, I was amazed at how timeless the film actually is. While Mickey and Minnie behave a bit odd compared to the characters we have grown to love (thanks mostly to the kooky mind and talent of animator Ub Iwerks), there is an infectious charm about the film. It's just adorable seeing Mickey playing \"Turkey in the Straw\" in a highly imaginative (if occasionally cruel) way. Clever and a real crowd-pleaser--this film still ranks among Mickey's best films even after 80 wonderful years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This 8 minute gem is not only timeless, but it is a cartoon milestone. It is Mickey's third cartoon, and one of his best ones too. It is a cartoon milestone because it was the first one with sound. And my goodness, even after 70+ years it is ever so good, and gives real additional weight to the narrative. The black and white animation is excellent, and the character features are convincing enough. The music is wonderful, I love the soundtrack, it does add to the fun the cartoon has, no matter how thin the story sometimes is. And the cartoon is funny! So many memorable moments, like the cow's teeth being used as an xylophone and its udder as a bagpipe. The characters are also engaging, Mickey and Minnie two landmark Disney characters are well voiced by Walt Disney, and Pete serves well as \"the villain of the piece\". All in all, \"Steamboat Willie\" is just a timeless gem that everybody should see at least once. 10\/10 Bethany Cox","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Created in 1928, and originally named Mortimer before Walt Disney changed his name (because his wife convinced him), Mickey Mouse has become the staple of the Disney brand. I always thought this cartoon was the first ever cartoon to feature Mickey, it is in fact his third, but it doesn't matter, for a six minute animated short it is enjoyable. The story sees Mickey piloting a steamboat until Captain Pete takes him off the bridge, stopping to pick up cargo, and Minnie Mouse missing the boat. Being lifted on she drops her music sheets and a goat eats them, Mickey helps her crank it's tail and play the tune, and getting some other animals to be percussion, until Pete comes along again to stop him, making Mickey peel potatoes. Mickey Mouse was number 53 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, and he was number 31 on The 100 Greatest Cartoons. Very good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Steamboat Willie (1928)' is often erroneously touted as the first Mickey Mouse film, though that title actually goes to 'Plane Crazy (1928).' The source fuelling this common misconception is probably an episode of \"The Simpsons,\" which places the origin of Itchy the Mouse in a 1928 short called 'Steamboat Itchy,' obviously a parody of this cartoon. Interestingly, 'Steamboat Willie' was itself a parody, spoofing the latest Buster Keaton release, 'Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928),' though the connection stretches little beyond the title and the general story setting. In this Walt Disney short, Mickey Mouse takes charge of a river steamboat, much to the annoyance of Captain Pete the cat, who spitefully casts him aside. But Mickey is not to be outdone in nastiness. Far removed from the pleasant, wholesome Mickey that more recent generations enjoyed, this little mouse cares only for numero uno, inflicting pain and displeasure on a series of farm animals in order to provide music for his own amusement.

First there's the laughing parrot, which cops a bucket and a large potato to the head. Then a goat is cranked by the tail to provide music (\"Turkey in the Straw\") from a guitar it has swallowed. A cat is swung around by its tail, a goose throttled about the throat, and a piglet viciously booted. For a children's cartoon, 'Steamboat Willie,' directed by Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks, certainly has some mean-spirited humour, though I also noticed similar elements (though not quite to this extent) in some later Disney shorts, like 'Gulliver Mickey (1934).' Let's not forget Minnie Mouse, of course, who suffers treatment for which she could today sue for sexual harassment! The jokes may be crude, and the animation perhaps even more so, but this cartoon delivers a bucket-full of laughs, and it's easy to see why this little rodent became one of the most beloved characters in cinema history. If you're a fan of Mickey Mouse, or Disney in general, this is one steamboat you can't afford to miss.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No doubt about it. This is the animated short that put Uncle Walt on the map of success. When Walt's older brother,Roy suggested that the next Mickey Mouse short should include sound, Walt jumped at the chance. The result:Steamboat Willie was a runaway hit for 1928. It was, after all, the first animated short subject with a synchronized sound track (mostly music & sound effects,as dialog was minimal). Not to sound like a wet blanket, but the short is far from perfect. Animation prior to 1935 was creaky & rather herky jerky (but once equipment made improvements,and better artistic techniques came about,the rest was smooth sailing),and the sound was primitive (Disney wanted to use the then well known RCA Sound System,or the Western Electric Noiseless sound system,but was refused by both firms,prompting Disney to use the Photophone system that P.A. Powers was experimenting with at the time). The plot (there's an actual plot line here?)concerns Mickey (as the aforementioned Willie)is the pilot of a steamboat, that is terrorized by Black Pete (Captain Pete to you),and decides to have a jam session on ship, using the various animals on board as musical instruments (ASPCA, take notice). If you don't think too much about the technical shortcomings, Steamboat Willie can be eight minutes of fun (and a piece of history).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"... But it is also Minnie's and Pete's too! Yes, the grumpy captain may not look like Pete, but it is! Mickey and Minnie are the best characters, both of them are very sweet and likable. Interestingly, Minnie is more of a lady in this than what she usually is today and Mickey is less than considerate in this than he is now. Pete is still the same old meanie, but he looks a bit different.

In this famous episode, on board a little steamboat, Mickey, Minnie and some side characters have a great deal of fun and a great deal of annoyances. Even in their first appearances, the three main characters are very developed.

I quite like this episode, although overall I prefer the Mickey Mouse in the future. I like the animation, the steamboat and music theme, the clever gags - and of course, Mickey and Minnie!

Like many early cartoons, this is very random, Walt came up with a very basic plot and just added gags to \"gear\" it along. There is also a parrot side character who is very annoying and rather unnecessary. These are the things I do not like about it.

Another interesting thing about this episode, that a colour version has not been made for it (or if it has, I've never heard about it)!

Anyone who just enjoys Mickey Mouse and Disney will enjoy this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILERS

As you may know, I have been commenting on a lot of silent short films in the past months. Now, I have no idea why I am commenting on Steamboat Willie, I guess I was just desperate to comment on anything, so I watched this, and now I am commenting on it. This, or course, is one of the very first cartoons, and I believe it is not the first cartoon with sound.

Here is the plot. Mickey Mouse is driving a steamboat when Pete throws him off and he drives it. When they stop for cargo Minnie Mouse tried to get on but failed miserably. Mickey gets her up by a crane. Then a goat eats her sheet of paper with Turkey in the Straw on it. They use the goat to make the song. When I say that I mean that they used the goat as a Victrola. Mickey plays the animals on the steamboat for instruments to the song. Then an angry Pete throws Mickey in a potato room and Mickey is forced to peel potatoes for the rest of the day.

Overall, this is yet another groundbreaking silent short film. I mean, this is the third Mickey Mouse cartoon. Yes, the third. Also, this is not the first cartoon with sound. I believe there were two more before this one. Either way, this film is really, really groundbreaking. Mikcey was also more violent than he is mow. I mean, he throws a potato at a bird and may have brutally slaughtered it.

9\/10

Recommended Films: Plane Crazy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's the 1920s. And a man named Walt Disney was on a mission: to satisfy the families and children all over the world with one thing: entertainment. What did he do? He made cartoons! Whoo!!!!! And he made a character that is as great as a mouse...Mickey Mouse. Ha ha! Oh boy!

Two films were drawn out by Mr. Disney himself: \"Plane Crazy\" and \"Steamboat Willie.\" This review will focus on the 1928 feature, \"Steamboat Willie.\"

Ever since I learned about this movie as a little boy, I've always wanted to see this movie. Well, in 1997, I rented an ancient VHS that had lots of old Disney cartoons on them, starring the Mouse!!!!! Mickey Mouse!!!!! And guess what? That short was on there, and I loved it!!!!! Shortly after I took the tape back, this was playing on the old Disney Channel (note: the \"Old\" Disney Channel) early one Saturday Morning.

Yes, this is a great cartoon; this paved the way for more great Disney stuff from 1928 to 2002!

10 stars, indeed!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first ever fully synchronized sound cartoon, Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse makes his screen debut in the exceptionally entertaining cartoon short subject \"Steamboat Willie\". Mickey is a worker on a steamboat under the supervision of captain Peg Leg Pete(or Pete as he would later be called). Mickey boards his long time companion Minnie Mouse aboard the train as they frolic about, while Mickey attempts to impress Minnie. This short was wildly fun and positively entertaining. Animators Ubbe Iwerks, Rudolph Ising, and Hugh Harman assisted Walt on the creation of the short.\"Steamboat Willie\" essentially marks the beginning of the success of the Walt Disney Company.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"just can't watch this bit too many times, it's full of true enthusiasm and cleverness Mickey Mouse had in his first 30 years. Nowadays' Mickey is an smart ass little whiner when compared this. Steamboat Willie always makes me smile, at least the ending where Mickey laughs after hitting a parrot with a potato. Animation is very nice and although steamboat Willie has no dialog, the music is enough for it.

IMHO if this bit doesn't deserve 10\/10 then any cartoon doesn't not only because it's a true classic, but also because it's so full of joy and it's always fun to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Steamboat Willie' is the first cartoon with sound. Mickey Mouse is working on a steamboat. On board he is making music with all kind of tools. Most of those tools are farm animals. This first one with sound is one of the better and funnier ones. It has some very clever moments. A short classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is now clear that the true golden age of American film was from the mid-60s until just before the release of Star Wars. Before then, there was too much Hays Code-constricted pap. With Star Wars, the green light was lit for most films to be directed at children and morons, a practice which continues to this day. THE SEVEN-UPS, truth be told, contains a couple hackneyed lines of dialogue -- \"We can do this the easy way, or we can do it the hard way\" is one -- but I'm damned if I can find anything else wrong with it. (In fact, that line may not even have been stale when this film was made.) THE SEVEN-UPS demonstrates all that was right with the best films of the golden age: sparse dialogue, realistic acting, real locations (winter in a dirty New York has never looked better\/worse), propulsive stories, and, yes, the best car chase ever filmed. Bill Hickman is the driver Scheider is chasing (you will recognize him from Bullitt), and the structure of the chase is fairly similar to the McQueen one, but I prefer Scheider's facial intensity here, the pacing, the terrific close-ups of the schoolchildren, and the shattering conclusion. (That VW bug going about 2 mph always bothers me in the Bullitt chase.) A stringy, screechy score by Don Ellis sets the perfect mood. THE SEVEN UPS: bleak, grim, action-oriented, grown-up. This is a film that couldn't be made today; there's no \"gimmick\" for the kiddies or preposterous ending. Thank you, Philip D'Antoni, Roy Scheider and Tony Lo Bianco: for as long as cop films are watched, THE SEVEN-UPS and its 1970s brethren (e.g., THE FRENCH CONNECTION), will set the standard.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of my favorites. As a child, growing up in the NY Metro area in the late 60s and early 70s, I was often afforded the opportunity to visit NYC with my grandfather or father, as they conducted business there. The gritty, bustling, human, reality of that city, particularly in winter, have stayed with me.

This film very aptly captures the stark, cold, matter-of-fact feel of the NYC winter season, while keenly exposing the underbelly of the region's infamous underworld of crime and policing. A great snapshot of a place and a time and a culture.

And the car chase is simply amazing. At least on par with the one in \"Bullitt\", and surpassing the chase in \"The French Connection\". I can watch, time and again, as the suspension comes unstuck on that Plymouth Fury police cruiser barreling toward the GW Bridge in pursuit, as it lurches into that sharp right curve, bouncing and scraping into oncoming traffic. The stunt driving coordinator for that scene did \"Bullitt\" and \"The French Connection\" as well as many other noatable movie chases. Good acting, too, and a decent plot line. The musical score is edgy and compelling, and the cinematography and direction are top notch. A great, if underrated 1970s cop drama. A keeper. Not out on DVD yet, though.

Comparable in style and content to: The French Connection and Super Fly. Early 1970's cop dramas set in the bleak NYC winter months.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What you saw in BULLITT and THE FRENCH CONNECTION is nothing compared to what you have here. The chase goes on for nearly 15 minutes and is the best you'll ever see. This movie has become a classic crime drama from the heyday of 70's film-making. It's a gritty and realistic portrayal of the mean streets of New York City. Featuring one of the slickest wise guys ever put on screen, Tony Lo Bianco's behavior in this movie is cool as ice. He's ripping off his own associates and making it look like the police are responsible. His childhood friend, Roy Scheider, is a street detective who becomes puzzled by the disappearances of the mobsters. You can tell that Lo Bianco's enjoying the game throughout the movie. At times though, the film gets dull, but then right when you feel like giving up on it, something big happens and it pulls you back in. The score by Don Ellis sets the tone of the cold, gray wintertime in New York City and to top it all off, my man Joe Spinell shows up in an early role as Toredano the garage man.

Score, 7 out of 10 Stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not much for \"cop\" movies, but this one is supposedly a classic & when I found it cheap I bought it and stuck it on a shelf, only to finally get around to watching it yesterday, and I LIKED it! Now, you can have New York City, but as a setting for a film like this, in the winter months, it's perfect. Roy Scheider is a member of an elite police task group called The Seven Ups, which are 5 guys that fight crime undercover. In an opening scene they recover a shoebox full of money from an antique store by distracting the crooks with a \"bull in a china shop\" routine. But that's only the beginning. Seems that there are two guys, posing as cops, that are kidnapping mob types and holding them for ransom. Richard Lynch happens to be one of these sleaze-bags, and he's as creepy as ever. When one of the Seven Ups, who is posing as a limo driver at a funeral, gets his cover blown, he's beaten and stuffed into the trunk of a car, which then leads to perhaps one of the most exciting car chases I've seen. Amazing though, how light traffic in NYC is for chase scenes, but still this is rather amazing as Scheider follows the two kidnappers through what I'm guessing is the Bronx and then onto a turnpike and then eventually, Scheider's car comes to a screeching halt in one of the most heart-stopping finales to a chase scene that I've ever witnessed. Anyway, since the cop ends up dying, Scheider and his men are under suspicion because the police commissioner knows so little about their activities he wonders if THEY'RE on the make by kidnapping mobsters, so of course this kind of thinking needs to be nipped in the bud & Scheider is relentless getting to the bottom of things. Overall a decent cop action\/drama, not really my thing but I liked this one. Look for Joe Spinell (Maniac) in a small role. 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think the filmographic lineage may run like this. Pay attention, please, because I had to look this up. In 1967 Peter Yates, an ex auto racer, directs the English caper movie \"Robbery,\" the most thrilling part of which is a car chase through the streets of London, down alleys where there are crowds of children playing and all that. It's a success.

A year later, Yates directs \"Bullet\", starring Steve McCool, I mean McQueen, featuring another even more spectacular car chase up and down the San Francisco Hills, with dumbfoundingly authentic engine sounds that seem to include double clutching, full race cams, no mufflers, twelve-cylinder engines under forty-foot hoods, supercharged, superdupercharged, and all five-thousand horsepower running at full tilt. Lots of shots of McQueen's gum-chewing visage scowling with concentration as he tries to bump another car off the highway, though a passenger in the other vehicle totes a shotgun. The chase is staged by Philip D'Antoni. Bill Hopkins drives the criminal vehicle.

A year or two later, sensing a good thing, Bill Friedkin directs \"The French Connection,\" featuring a chase between a commandeered cop car(Gene Hackman) and an elevated train in New York City. Lots of shots of Hackman's cursing face as he wrestles the battered car through the streets. The chase is staged by Philip D'Antoni. Academy Awards follow.

Sensing a good thing, a year or two more brings us \"The Seven Ups,\" featuring a chase between a car driven by Roy Scheider, with lots of shots of Scheider's cursing face as he tries to bump the other car, which is driven by Bill Hopkins, off the road, although the criminal car, to be sure, carries a shotgun-toting passenger. No hills in New York City, just bumps, but they are still sharp enough to elevate the cars a few feet. The pursued car screeches around a corner and dashes down a street on which a dozen children are playing. Shots of the screaming kids as they scatter off the pavement and allows the car to zoom through. But once is not enough. The children immediately run back into the street and must repeat the retreat for the pursuing cop car carrying Scheider.

I once witnessed a pursuit at high speed on the streets of Philadelphia. Both the criminal and the cops drove through the streets at about 25 miles an hour, coming to rolling stops at each Stop sign and red light -- very dull stuff compared to this movie.

Speaking of this movie, it's pretty good. \"Robbery\" and \"Bullet\" were cool. Everyone dressed neatly. But the New York movies are filthy. There's garbage all over the place and the subway cars are covered with graffiti. Shoot outs and beat ups take place in vacant lots surrounded by crumbling brick buildings, or in disposal dumps for industrial-sized freezers.

The acting is pretty good too. Roy Scheider seems whippet sleek. The other actors have faces made for the camera, especially Richard Welsh. And the story is engaging, if not entirely unfamiliar. What's best about the film is the way it captures New York City in its almost total indifference to human depravity and nobility. At a funeral, the limo drivers stand around with their collars up, butts hanging out of their mouths, kicking their cold feet together, utterly bored at the ritual goings on. The film wants us to believe that The Seven Ups are an elite group of untouchable cops who stop at nothing to get the job done, and here it's a bit of a sell out. They always seems to be threatening to do something unethical and illegal -- beat hell out of a suspect or physically damage a hospitalized and helpless hood -- but they always manage to avoid doing it. (If they actually did it, their characters would become lifelike and ambiguous and we'd rather have our heroes and villains of a more Biblical nature.) Very enjoyable, even if you've seen it before, and you very well may have in one or another of its previous incarnations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love the other reviews of this movie. They mirror my attitude. I am a 70's sort of guy, minus disco and \"Star Wars\" childishness. There was nothing great about this movie, except for a chase scene. That is why it was good, because it was tough, basic and economical. Roy Scheider carried the movie, which was based on the crew, the 7 Ups, that backed up Gene Hackman in the \"French Connection\". The people in it were believable and average, who burned themselves pouring coffee, showed fear in chase scene and almost lost it after a close call crash.

Maybe it would be easier to tell you what it lacked. There was no fancy weapons, just basic revolvers and crude sawed off shotguns. There was no tough guy philosophizing, ala Tarantino. There was no kung fu or samurai nonsense and no fancy trick shooting either. There was no clever guy who carries out some complicated scheme based on hundreds of things going just the way he planned including everyone else's reactions. The criminals were bad guys but they didn't shoot people for the hell of it. As a matter of fact, there was a body count of just three. something that the average movie these days would pass in the opening credits. It could be a G movie today! No bus load of orphan school children were kidnapped nor were terrorists threatening to kill half of the city. There were no high tech hijinks, nor were the crimes themselves very moving or ingenious, the highest tech thing I saw was a touch tone ATT wall phone. It had no subplots or amusing character developments. Also, no sex or women, except for one mobster's wife who did some screaming as the Buddy our hero had her menaced.

It was some little undertaker who exploited his connections with the local mob and the police to kidnap local mobsters for some easy payoffs. The undertakers. Vito, was played by Tony Lo Bianco who did a great job, as good as Roy Schneider, Buddy the head of 7 Ups cop, whom he informed and exploited. What ever happened to Tony Lo Bianco, he seemed like a Pacino shoe in, good looking and talented? What it did have was a great NYC backdrop to a simple crime story. Locations that were bleak and dehumanizing without being a sociological study. It had a simple plot that involved this kidnapping scheme where one of Buddy's cop got accidentally involved, literally accidentally dragged in then accidentally shot dead. Since Buddy and his 7 ups are a hot dogs unit, both the NYPD Brass and mobsters thought he was involved, since the kidnappers masqueraded as plain clothes cops to lure the mobsters into compliance. Obviously the mobsters figured they had lawyers and rights to protect them from normal police. Even the mobsters were plain, old and ugly, no Godfather royalty or Soprano hipness here.

It is a good basic movie with a standout chase scene between two 70's d Pontiacs. Even the cars were plain and economical, not even a GTO or a Trans Am, like the acting and the story. In the days of Batman uber-hype or \"24\" levels of intensity doomsday scenarios, this movie reminds us that less is better. It should be shown to movie screen writers and directors as a caveat not to dazzle, amuse then ultimately insult us with stunts, gadgets and clown psychotic behavior galore.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"****SPOILERS**** Buried under a mountain of medical bills and his funeral business not being able to dig him out from under them undertaker Vito Lucia, Tony Lo Bianco, came up with a plan to make a load of cash with the help of his two crooked pals Moon & Bo, Richard Lynch & Bill Hickman.

Vito getting close with his boyhood friend Buddy Manucci, Roy Scheider, as a mob informer to win over Buddy's trust and have him tell Vito what's coming down on the streets of New York in regard to mob activities. Buddy is a cop who works in a sub rosa unite of the NYPD, the Seven Ups, that does things \"their way\" to clean up the streets of New York of criminals.

Vito gets information from Buddy and makes it look to Buddy that he's really giving him tips about the mob and what it's up too and uses that information to tip off his hoodlum associates, Moon & Bo, to rip the mobsters off of their weekly take as well as kidnap top mob loan sharks and hold them for ransom.

Everything is going well for Vito & Co. until the mob decides to retaliate and mistakenly grabs beats and kidnaps a member of the Seven Ups Ansel, Ken Kercheval,who was working undercover thinking he was one of the hoods who was kidnapping and ripping them off. Later Ansel was accidentally killed by Moon when he blasted out the trunk of the car that Ansel was locked in thinking that there was a suitcase full or cash, ransom, in it.

Fast pace and exciting movie with that gritty and grimy photography of New York City that was so effective in the movie \"The French Connection\" which also stars both Roy Scheider & Tony Lo Bianco who are in this movie too. Incredible car chase that started in downtown Brooklyn and ended up in the wilds of New Jersey some 15 to 20 miles away with Buddy almost ending up decapitated for his heroic efforts.

Roy Scheider who is not a big man is as tough and effective as any big action actor I can think off like Clint Eastwood would have been in the same movie. Scheider reminds me a lot of, he even looks a bit like him, former welterweight and middleweight champion Gene Fullmer who beat the great Sugar Ray Robinson for the middleweight championship back in 1957 and acts like him too in the movie : tough durable and destructive.

Tony Lo Bianco is very good as Vito the undertaker the lowlife heel who plays off Buddy and the mob to the point that leads to Buddy's partner Ansel getting killed. Even though he's trash you can't in a way not help feeling sorry for Vito since he only wants the money he gets from the ripped offed mobsters to pay his sick wife's Rose's hospital and medical bills. Even the fact that Ansel was killed due to his actions Vito never wanted anybody to get hurt but like they say when you play with fire you end up getting burned. In the end Vito have a lot of explaining to do to the not so sympathetic and caring mobsters.

The movie \"The Seven Ups\" has the late Bill Hickman doing the dangerous stunts with the car chases as well as act in the film. Hickman was also the stunt man in both great movies that had him doing the driving on the roads streets and highways of New York City and San Francisco \"The French Connection\" and \"Bullitt\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"He plays straight but with a quiet intensity that makes him one of the top cops in movie history. Roy Scheider stars in a poor man's French Connection that has a little of the same gritty appeal. FC is a better movie, but I prefer watching this one because 1) I think Scheider is great and this is his best movie, and 2) this has the best car chase EVER, one that makes Bullitt look like a cable production (thanks again to Bill Hickman, who actually plays the driver). It doesn't hurt that Tony LoBianco stops by (again) to play a baddie. Please enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was born in '68 with not much parental guidance as far as what I watched on TV (as a kid in the 70's). I always loved this movie (and the French Connection) and would always try to catch it whenever it was on (checking the Sunday TV guide ahead of time). I bought it on DVD a few years ago and have watched it twice since then and I must say, I STILL LOVE IT!!!! Roy S. was a great actor from the 70's (Jaws is one of my all-time favs, Marathon Man etc) and although the 7-ups is not an Oscar-worthy film, it puts you precisely in a time a place (NY, early 70's, as did French Connection) and gives you some tough characters and a glimpse of life as a cop at that time. And yes, the car chase is one of the all-time best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having grown up in New Jersey and having spent many a day and night on the gritty streets of New York in the 1970's, watching a film like \"The Seven-Ups\", or its kindred spirit, \"The French Connection\", always evokes fond memories of a time and place which, for some, might have been NYC's darkest hour, but which for me, in my early twenties, was always one fun-filled adventure after another. I truly miss those times. As one reviewer remarked, \"This film very aptly captures the stark, cold, matter-of-fact feel of the NYC winter season, while keenly exposing the underbelly of the region's infamous underworld of crime and policing. A great snapshot of a place and a time and a culture.\". A spot-on characterization of both the film and the city. The stellar attributes of this film -- the plot, the cast, the characters, and of course, the car chase -- are amply described in many of the reviews here, so I won't go into that except to say that one of my favorite moments occurs during the car chase, when the camera focuses on Richard Lynch riding shotgun to the maniacal Bill Hickman. The look of horror on Richard Lynch's face, along with the defensive gestures, are so out-of-character for an actor much better known as a source of terror rather than an object of it, that it is actually comical to watch. I get a chuckle out of it every time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Seven-Ups\" seems like a replay of \"The French Connection,\" which was released two years prior. Both the late Roy Scheider and Tony Lo Bianco make appearances, as well as stunt driver Bill Hickman.

But we aren't dealing with French drug baddies; instead, we are dealing with a war against assorted hoods and criminals after a cop is brutally killed by a hoodlum. We get to see unpleasantness and a pre-1990s New York City.

I love watching this film because it is exciting to see the action, and it is a reminder of a cooler time. That said, when one compares the car chases, Mr. Hickman had involvement in the three most compared: This movie, Bullitt and The French Connection. Each chase scene has its own qualities, and this one is simply superb.

And I am glad this title has seen the light of day on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A team of tough rogue New York cops led by the rugged, hard-nosed Buddy Manucci (superbly played by the always excellent Roy Scheider) go after a group of nasty mobsters involved in a kidnapping ring after one of their number gets killed by them. Director Philip D'Antoni, the producer of \"Bullet\" and \"The French Connection,\" ably creates a potent, gritty, starkly amoral no-nonsense tone, maintains a steady pace throughout and stages the action scenes with considerable rip-roaring vigor. Don Ellis' rousing string score further pumps up the raw'n'rattling intensity while the scrappy Big Apple locations and Urs Furrer's rough, grainy cinematography both greatly enhance the overall grungy realism. Moreover, the fine line distinguishing cops from criminals gets chillingly blurred in this picture: the titular squad use harsh, brutish and morally dubious strong-arm tactics as a means to an end for enforcing the law and there's certainly no code of honor amongst the thugs and thieves who populate the seedy urban underbelly that's vividly depicted in this movie. Nice supporting performances by Tony Lo Bianco as wormy, sniveling snitch Vito Lucia the Undertaker, Richard Lynch as vicious psychotic hoodlum Moon, Bill Hickman as Moon's equally coldblooded partner Bo, Jerry Leon as funky flatfoot Mingo, and Joe Spinell as a parking garage attendant. An extremely wild and exciting protracted heart-in-your-throat mondo destructo car chase qualifies as a definite highlight. The climactic shootout likewise delivers the stirring goods. A real bang-up little winner.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Buddy Manucci(Roy Scheider, solid in a chance leading role)heads a secret undercover police squad called the Seven-Ups whose tactics don't necessarily follow the exact ways of the law. They get the job done in their own way without anything being leaked to the press, and this gives them a freedom to expand their means of getting to the criminals most working detectives and policeman just can not nab. Buddy has a pal from childhood named Vito(Tony Lo Bianco)who swaps information with him regarding mob types and shysters working the streets in NYC. What Buddy doesn't know is that Vito is hatching a scheme using names from Buddy's \"check list\"(he has this book open taking down notes provided by Vito, but doesn't know that his friend has copied those very names written within his mind)to set up mob families in a series of mob kidnappings eliciting cash thanks to two cop-posers, Moon(the always-villainous Richard Lynch)and Bo(Bill Hickman)working with him. When this scheme goes awry, with one of the Seven-Ups being killed, Vito becomes fearful because he knows how Buddy can be when he's doggedly after someone..especially when one of his own is murdered.

Extremely underrated cop flick has thrilling car chase through New York City as Buddy follows the kidnapping cop-imposter's trying to get them after killing his partner. The film isn't overly complex after the plot is set-up and we realize who is the ring-leader in the scheming of mobsters. Scheider has never been given the credit he deserves as a fine lead actor. He has emotional range and we see how losing his cop and friend takes it's toll on him. The film is briskly paced with good action sequences and sets up an interesting plot of betrayal between friends as greed comes before that childhood friendship and how what seems like a smooth crime-spree against evil mob families can get cops killed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movie has a great chase scene, if you listen to the soundtrack when the cars are chasing each other , it sounds very much like the soundtrack from the movie bullet, you'll hear the shifting of a 4 speed and they'll show the brake pedal in Roy Schneider's car, it's an automatic brake pedal!, i think one of the funniest moments in the movie is when the bad guy Richard lynch is looking at the driver of the car they are in, like the guy is nuts!.........the crook who runs the garage is also the guy who in the the first rocky movie, rocky's boss. good movie! also when the door gets ripped off you can see the guy sitting in the car just flinging the door open, the guy who helps him out of the car kind of looks like Mr Brady from the Brady bunch doesn't he?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While both this movie and the signature car chase have been shown a lack of respect by many critics, both are way above average. Roy Scheider does an excellent job playing his best type; a tough, courageous cop who works hard to get the job done in spite of the desk drivers and politicians who should be supporting him rather than hindering. (He played a suburbanized version of this same role as the tourist town police chief in Jaws. Not nearly as gritty, but the same \"get the job done despite the politicians\" and gutsy approach. If a man who can't swim and is terrified of everything in the water going out on an old boat with an Ahab wannabee and a nerd, to confront a huge killer shark, isn't gutsy, then tell me what is...).

Tony Lo Bianco is good as a surprisingly complex villain; most of the villains, in fact, have some depth and complexity. This is one of those movies that gets better with repeated viewings. Overall, it captures the atmosphere of parts of NY City: gritty, unglamorous, often dangerous, but filled with energy. The story is spare, tight, and subtle; it gets the job done without extraneous elements. It may not be one of the all time greats, but it is an exceptionally good movie.

Everyone has an opinion about car chases. Mine is that this one is right up there with the Mustang vs Dodge Charger chase in Bullitt. The Pontiac Ventura\/Chevy Nova was similar to the Mustang in being a compact car chassis with beefed up suspension and a powerful small block V8 stuffed into an engine bay meant for an insipid 6. The Ventura\/Novas got little respect off the drag strip, but with the proper suspension mods, they made affordable performance cars that could handle on both the road and the track. The bawling of those GM V8's as they wind up is music to the enthusiast's ear. I've heard this chase criticized for \"imitating\" the Bullitt chase. The truth is that they are two works by the same master, Bill Hickman, who also choreographed and drove for the French Connection chase. Besides driving most of the car chase scenes, he created a brooding, malevolent presence and a good match with Richard Lynch as a pair of coldly evil killers.

Yes, the chase has \"realism errors\" often noted, like the use of 3 different NY roads to represent the Palisades Parkway, the ending of the chase in a crash with an 18 wheeler on a roadway for passenger vehicles only, and the miraculous timing that allows all pedestrians to escape harm. That's beside the point. Let's face it: movie car chases are \"unreal\" by nature. In Bullitt, The French Connection, and The Seven Ups, however, Bill Hickman and Phillip D'Antoni crafted chases far more realistic, and therefore more exciting, than the flying, rolling, exploding vehicle fantasy chases so common in recent films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is not about the soda nor is it quite the French Connection.

The Seven Ups are a group of elite policemen that use tactics not in accordance with protocol of the NYPD. Scheider heads the group with his posse or regular looking joes. They are running surveillance on a local costra nostra cartel and things go awry when a cop's wire is found out.

Meanwhile, Richard Lynch, the most evil looking man in film (Invasion:America, Little Nikita) and his partner end up killing the cop by accident and escape from Scheider in the coolest chase scene I've seen, Bullitt and French Connection are not as good as they one up the West Side to the George Washington and onto the Palisades Parkway in New Jersey.

The stunt drivers are terrific and Lynch makes it away free though he looks scared witless from the dangerous trip. Roy Scheider is nearly killed when his car slams into the abutted rear of Mack truck ripping the roof of his vehicle off.

Things come to a head and one has to keep watching to follow up on such a sequence. Quick moving and intense, fresh for a thirty years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Seven-Ups is a good and engrossing film. It's packed with credible performances by Scheider, LaBianco and an effective scary performance by Richard Lynch - although most of the characters are card-board cut-out tough guys. Character development does not evolve at all on the screen. The only thing we know is the good guys are the good guys and the bad guys are bad. Deviating from the crime story norm, The Seven-Ups manage to throw Scheider and crew into the middle of a building plot in a unique writing twist. Onsite locations of New York City and an excellent choreographed car chase highlight the film. The only downside of the film is the slightly confusing plot line in the beginning. They give the viewer little evidence that the men being kidnapped are mob related (until later in the film). Had someone blindly started watching the film may be slightly confused on the story. Otherwise, The Seven-Ups is a gritty, testosterone-filled enjoyable time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a classic seventies cop flick that for some reason has been sadly overlooked. It is basically French Connection meets Bullit.

Roy Scheider plays the head of an elite group of detectives, known as the \"Seven Ups\"

One of their men is discovered during an undercover op and is killed.

Scheider and his team must find his killers. They become involved in a battle with the mob.

The highlight of the film has to be the car chase, obviously included to cash in on the success of Bullit. However, this car chase outshines Bullitt due to its length, speed and sheer excitement.It's a breathtaking roller-coaster ride that ends rather unexpectedly and spectacularly. Don't miss this little gem !!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How did they get that cinematic shot of the car colliding with the back end of the semi? And then Roy sits up -- great! Looks like the DVD is scheduled for May of 2006 - about time!! Watch this on a large screen or film revival in a theater if possible in order to fully appreciate the full aspect ratio. My other favorites in this category are: Original Italian Job with Michael Caine; Bullit with Steve McQueen; To Live and Die in LA with the CSI guy when he was young; French Connection with Gene Hackman; Ronin with Robert Deniro; Vanishing Point with Barry Newman; Enemy of the State with Hackman again -- What are your favorites?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently got THE SEVEN-UPS on video and I must say it was a very enjoyable movie. Roy Scheider and Tony Lo Bianco are great as the cop and crook respectively and a young Richard Lynch is great as psycho henchman Moon. The late Bill Hickman is pretty good as his associate Bo and sets up a brilliant car chase sequence which will have you on the edge of your seats. The other three members of the Seven-Ups team are pretty bland but that's only to be expected.

I'm glad that a lot of people on this site have supported this movie. I think it should be a film that should be released on DVD and not just forgotten. I certainly enjoyed every minute of it. The final scene between the two leads is excellent as the bad guy must face the consequences of his actions. THE SEVEN-UPS does not disappoint.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a good enough movie and you probably won't be disappointed, but it again has Roy Scheider, right after he did \"French Connection\", playing a cop with the name 'Buddy'. They also use the same too-memorable wheelman from \"Bullitt\". At first you'll think you've seen the car chase before if you have his face still in your memory. The car chase is a great one, but as in many car movie scenes, it has some technical and editing errors. Check \"Puppet on a Chain\" and \"French Connection II\" for some other good, long, intense chases.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Roy Scheider is not Steve McQueen or Clint Eastwood but then who is? The Seven-Ups is one of the better cop movies, even today, and is second only to McQueen's Bullitt and the Dirty Harry series, which isn't bad company. There are three things that seem to make a good cop movie: Believable script with great acting, great car chase scenes, and some heavy action. This movie has all three and the car chase scene is better than that in Dirty Harry. Scheider plays the head of a group of cops out to get NY's bad guys sentenced to seven years or more; hence the name Seven-Ups. Overall, not quite up to Dirty Harry or Bullitt but far better than all of the cop movies made since the Dirty Harry series. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"a compact crime drama with a good amount of action. The unique NYC location shots adds to this tough little film.Technically well done with good direction and acting. Needless to say,the wild car chase that seems to begin in downtown, extends through the upper west side, Washington Heights, across the George Washington Bridge and into NJ has to be one of the best ever on film.All around a fine flick that for me gets better with time.8 out of 10...easy","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seven Ups has been compared to Bullitt for the chase scene, but does not come anywhere near matching Bullitt. Bullitt has a beginning that builds builds builds. When McQueen leaves the seedy hotel, gets into his Mustang, which is parked under the Embarcadero Freeway (now torn down) and notices the Charger sitting nearbye, you know you are about to see something spectacular. From that moment on, when McQueen starts that car, begins the best car chase sequence ever filmed. Adding to it is a terrific Lalo Schriffin If I remember correctly sound track. This goes on for a long time before you actually hear the first tires squealing. That shot of McQueen's Mustang suddenly appearing in Bill Hickman's rear view mirror is unmatched for visual impact. Hickman's look of surprise and double take really adds to the effect. Then of course, San Francisco is unmatched for the setting of cars racing up and down hills and around bends. Also, Bullitt being filmed in the 60s when cars were still \"Hot\" (Mustang GT and Dodge Charger) made for a better set of wheels then two boring, smog device laden Pontiacs in the 1970s Seven Ups. Bill Hickman was the driver of the bad guy car in both movies. I saw him sitting at an insider movie preview once on the Univeral lot when I was doing movie reviews for a paper. They gave it a good try in Seven Ups though with the chase scene. Seven ups had a few \"jumps\" over little hills, (Yawn) but of course they were not San Francisco hills. The Seven Ups chase, where they are actually going fast, is longer than the go fast sequence in Bullitt. But the scene of a single shotgun blast totally blowing the hood OFF of Roy Schieders Pontiac is the height of absurdity. Strictly Hollywood, I would say, except that it was filmed in New York.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Things that are only just now \"news\" were taken as a given in this shocking documentary. I fear that as the investigation proceeds, the producers of this film will be vindicated in spades.

The producers show us the Davidians, the government agents, the investigators, with all their faults and all their humanity. Nothing any reviewer can say could approach the impact of watching and listening for yourself. Pieces of evidence -- Congressional testimony, 911 tapes, news footage, expert commentary, interviews, photos and home videos -- are seamlessly woven together and tell a disturbing tale.

Do not wait. See this film and tell your friends.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rules of Engagement is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. It is well constructed, superbly pieced together, and provides excellent footage to back up the assertions that it takes on. The movie's best quality is that it is not based on being sympathetic to the Dividians as much as it enlightens the audience to the blatant governmental mistakes and lies that surrounded the entire situation. I'm left with feelings of disturbing anxiety and extreme anger over the way that the government handled and then covered up a tragedy of this magnitude. The cover up is what left me really fuming. It is one thing to make a mistake in an operation and admit guilt, but another to look the American people squarely in the eye and lie to them. I guess it shouldn't surprise me with the history of our beloved country that has seen the JFK assassination, the Vietnam War, and other significant events that smell so bad of a cover up that you have to hold your nose every time you drive through Washington D.C. The footage from an airplane with special heat sensing technology and the autopsies on some of the bodies clearly show that the FBI is lying to the public. One of the things that I try to stay aware of when watching a documentary such as this is that I am usually only receiving testimony from one point of view. But again, that is without a doubt one of the brilliant successes of Rules of Engagement. It presents its evidence in such a concluding fashion that even if you were presented with statements from the FBI how could you really believe them. I remember clearly when the standoff was taking place the way the media presented the Dividians as this crazed group of cult rebels with David Koresh, the self professed reborn Jesus Christ, as their leader. None of this was truly factual but rather story spun from bits and pieces of facts. They were simply standing up for there rights to bear arms and practice their religion as American Citizens. If you were the ATF and you wanted to search the compound is attacking the building with a unit of men who are armed with rifles and bullet proof suits the way to go about doing it? If you are the FBI why engage in psychological warfare and offer little in actual negotiation to help solve the situation? Why pour gallons of harmful gas if you want to save children? Why open large holes within the compound structure when you know the possibility of starting a fire? Why lie about not firing weapons when it can be clearly shown on video? Unless. Unless you wanted to see the situation end up the way it did. The scene at the end when the Dividians Star of David flag blew off the flagpole into the fire and the ATF's was shortly thereafter raised up was an emotional climatic scene that made my head shake in disgust and my stomach turn uncontrollably. The filmmaker William Gazecki deserves one my highest congratulations. It takes a lot of guts to make a movie like this and I am sure there have been many repercussions from the government for it as well. Because of people like him the public can be shown real truth rather than crap that gets filtered through a media that presents information that can hardly be considered genuine. When I think back to how I felt at the time toward the Dividians because of the media's representation of David Koresh and how I felt after seeing this movie it is truly amazing. It reminds me of the line from the bible of a man who was healed by Jesus and asked by the elders how it happened \"before I was blind but now I can see\" he kept telling them. Do yourself a favor and watch this movie. You may have to look for it but it is truly something special.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After watching \"Waco: The Rules of Engagement\" I was just sitting in disbelief of what I was witness to. A big cover up by the FBI, a massacre by gung-ho\/trigger happy government agents? I clearly remember the Waco standoff, I was 17 years old at the time and watched it all on CNN. I remembered reflecting about all the children as I watched the Mount Camel compound burn in April 1993. I remember feeling sorry for the children, but clearly felt that it was the fault of their evil leader David Koresh and the other Davidians. Gazecki's film shows clearly and beyond doubt, even though it is biased, that the FBI lied over and over again. I think that this film was a big contributor to the reopening of a new investigation of the incident in 1999. The outcome of this new investigation was in some sense predictable, the judgement relied on fact that was just as grey as the facts that the Davidians presented. I was very disappointed about the verdict, because as far as I know it didn't take into account all the lying, misinformation and evidence cover-up by the FBI and other officials. Why have no one be prosecuted for hampering the work of the Texas Rangers investigators? Why were they allowed to contaminate the crime scene and bulldoze the compound shortly after the incident? These are questions that I haven't been given answers to by the government. Most importantly, what about the children? In this new investigation I haven't been informed about who was responsible for spraying the CS flammable tear-gas into a compound with many hazards for igniting this gas and I haven't found any answer to whether the children's muscles contracted due to the effects of the gas, while they were alive. If they did, I would surely think that the Janet Reno or who ever was in charge of the raid should be indicted for mass-homicide or manslaughter. The question that was raised by Gazecki, but not mentioned is; Was is a direct plan for the people in charge and their tanks to cut holes and burn the building down with intent? (a plan that would have been accomplished with 112% efficacy) or were the officials in charge so incompetent, that their were unaware of the consequence of their actions? Both are equally frightening. Even if the Davidians set fire to the compound, the officials in charge surely provided them with the opportunity to do the job. If the officials in charge knew, as they claimed, that the Davidians would set fire to the compound, why the f\u0085 did the tanks cut all the holes in the building making it into a furnace and why didn't they have plans to deal with the fire that they knew would occur? Dark questions that still won't go away The final and most relevant issue of this film, is the way that the Davidians are demonized by the government through the media, who just feeds it in to the public. I clearly remember the resentment I felt for the evil Davidians that I saw on CNN in 1993. Now that I'm older I can see a clear line of communication coming out of the government every time they are gearing up for a massacre of civilians along with the intended targets. Demonizing people with words like; \"they have different unlawful values then us\" \"they don't enjoy freedom\" and \"they are a threat to our freedoms and way of life\" makes them so much easier to kill\u0085\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There have been many documentaries that I have seen in which it appeared that the law was on the wrong side of the fence - The Thin Blue Line and Paradise Lost come to mind first and foremost. But this is the first film that had me seething with anger after I saw it. It seems blatantly clear to me from the evidence presented in this film that what happened at Waco was at the very least an unprofessional and sloppy mess on the part of the FBI and AFI, and at the very worst an act of murder. Like most people, when the siege at Waco was occurring I assumed that David Koresh was a completely evil madman who was leading a violent cult. After seeing this, I think that Koresh was more likely a slightly unbalanced and confused guy who inadvertently caught the attention of the U.S. government through his eccentric actions. Sure, there were lots of weapons at the Branch Davidian compound. But none of it was illegal. It was absolutely heartbreaking to see the video footage of the people inside the compound, all of them seeming to be very nice and harmless. And it was angering to see the callous testimony of the men in charge of the government forces on the Waco site, the clueless testimony of Janet Reno, and the partisan defense of the attack on Waco, a defense led by a few of the committee Democrats. Standing out most in my mind was NY representative and current U.S. senator from NY Charles Schumer. I voted for the man when I lived in NY state - I'm a Democrat, pretty left-leaning too. After seeing his actions on this committee, I wish I could go back in time and vote for D'Amato instead! For anyone remotely interested in the government, this is a very crucial film, a must see. I even think this should be shown in classes - it's that important.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you want to see real evidence of what a misguided and unchecked government can do to \"un-popular\" people, this movie provides it. Read what some people are saying about the \"Patriot Act\" passed after 9\/11 and then watch this movie. Is it worth it? Do we really want to give away our freedoms to these people? Regardless of what you saw on TV, you are not fully informed until you watch this movie. I apologize for quoting another reviewer, but it needs repeating: Roger Ebert of Siskel & Ebert said, \"What's interesting is if you're looking for people who are unbalanced zealots... you don't find them among the Branch Davidians, you find them among the FBI and the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; those are the people in this movie who deserve to be feared, I think.\" I think every person responsible for 9\/11 needs to be brought to justice, but I think the government has not shown a history of honoring it's duty to protect people's rights, and this movie proves it in dramatic fashion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Absolute must see documentary for anyone interested in getting to the bottom of this story. Told with unflinching eye and with gripping style. If you think conspiracy theories are for paranoid disturbed people, this could change your mind. Something for you feds too: A good model for government coverups! If you like your news all tidy and easy to consume this is not for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Waco: Rules of Engagement does a very good job of not drawing conclusions for its viewers. It simply presents interviews, footage from the standoff, footage of the Congressional hearings, phone conversations, expert testimony, etc. and allows you to draw your own conclusion.

I hardly intend to imply that the data presented here was done with 100% objectivity but it is very convincing. You won't like Koresh any more after you see this than you did before, but I tend to think that you will come to believe, as I now do, there is much that we were not told about what happened before and during the standoff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film someone had to make.

Waco: The Rules of Engagement dissects the evidence behind the standoff in Waco, Texas that led to the destruction of the Branch Davidian homestead and the alleged government cover-up.

The first thing you need to know about this film: you will see brief but disturbing photos of the victims bodies. This is not done for shock value, but to illustrate points about the way they died, as if you were present at the coroner's inquest.

The second thing you should know about this film: at two and a quarter hours, it's pretty ponderous - especially if you already followed the events closely at the time. If you are unaware of any of the events other than what was reported in the mass media, or if the only side of the story you are familiar with is the official government report, this may be essential viewing. If, on the other hand you want a more concise (albeit unapologetically one sided) version of events, you should see \"Waco: The Big Lie\".

In summary, this is pretty much the definitive documentary about this tragic event, and is very sobering, but as a work of film-making, could test your patience, especially if you have a short attention span. And it's at times superfluous for those who watched the CSPAN hearings and the 60 Minutes reports.

Perhaps someday someone will make a documentary that covers some of the stranger aspects of this story, such as the bizarre chain of events that led up to the ATF raid or the psychological warfare tactics the FBI used blasting rock music at the sect, and their charismatic leaders (all rock musicians themselves) picking up their instruments and turning their massive amplifiers outward to blast their own music right back at them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am very impressed with the acting in Comanche Moon. Before I started watching this, I wasn't expecting it to be as good as Lonesome Dove. I couldn't believe how well the actors were chosen to represent all the characters. It blew my mind how well they played each role! This was in my opinion almost as good as Lonesome Dove. Its hard to compare any film to Lonesome Dove. If you don't make that comparison, I would give this a thumbs up. It was very entertaining! I don't post many comments on this site, but I just felt I had to get my opinion out there. Amazing! I don't want to go off naming every actor who was brilliant, because I would probably have to list every single one. My favorite was Steve Zahn. He hit the nail on the head playing Captain Gus. His mannerisms were perfect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Comanche Moon\" had everything going for it. For starters, Simon Wincer's back, a man who's name is synonymous with high-quality TV westerns. Unfortunately, the problems with \"Moon\" are something even the most talented director couldn't solve: A poor script based on a lackluster novel.

Forget historical accuracies -- as any reader of the novels can tell you, the biggest travesty in \"Moon\" is that it's not even consistent with information from the original \"Lonesome Dove\" masterpiece. So many wonderful, rich moments in the miniseries and, to an even greater degree, the book, are completely missing in \"Moon.\" Considering the fact that most viewers of \"Moon\" are probably coming with at least some sort of \"Dove\" background, the lack of character-driven and emotional backstory is downright painful.

That said, \"Moon\" is one instance where the adapted version could and should have been altered to make it more suitable for the screen. For example, the novel \"Moon\" focuses largely on the Comanches themselves. To its credit, the miniseries tries to service the Comanches, but in the end it gives them just enough that the viewer just gets a sense they're missing out on some important part of the story. Similarly, Val Kilmer's Scull loses out here too -- the role should have either been expanded so Kilmer (and Rachel Griffiths, for that matter) actually had something to do, or the roles should have just been reduced to smaller, supporting parts. Instead, Kilmer gets top billing for a character that just leaves you scratching your head after his appearance in the completely bizarre final act.

There's strange moments throughout the film that just make no sense to those who haven't read the book (a killer parrot? what?) -- further, there isn't a single scene that shows us that Call and McCrae are anything near the amazing Texas rangers they claim to be. Not a single one of their expeditions in Moon (or \"Dead Man's Walk,\" for that matter) ends successfully, and Call and McCrae just seem to blunder their way through one pointless mission after another.

Frankly, Larry McMurtry should never have been given the job of writing the script, and only did so because of the praise surrounding that other cowboy movie, Brokeback Mountain. McMurtry can write good novels (although there's some dissension over the consistency of that statement), but he's never exactly established himself as a scriptwriter. This production would have benefited from not only bringing back director Wincer, but original screenwriter Bill Wittcliff to adapt the novel to screen. Witcliff doesn't exactly have a mountainload of material to his screen writing credit, but no one can deny he did a fantastic job at whittling down the original \"Lonesome Dove.\" With all this said, \"Comanche Moon\" is almost a brilliant production, aided by a terrific cast that unfortunately just aren't given enough to do. Steve Zahn's portrayal of Gus McCrae -- or rather, his portrayal of Robert Duvall as Gus McCrae -- is dead-on. And while some have criticized Karl Urban as Woodrow Call, saying his performance doesn't imitate the quiet, stoic Woodrow of the original movie, all I can say is: blame McMurtry, because McMurtry is the one who -- both in the \"Moon\" novel and now the miniseries -- turned Woodrow from socially inept, awkward, but natural leader, into some emotionless character whose lines are just dull and whose character motivations are only clear if you've seen them portrayed far more adequately in the \"sequel\".

Still, it's the cast that sparkles in \"Moon,\" to the degree that I left the miniseries with that same feeling of melancholy I felt watching the original \"Lonesome Dove\" -- this time because I realized it's probably the last time we'll see these characters appear on screen for a long, long time to come -- and quite honestly, this cast could have done so well in a well-nurtured, full-blown network TV series.

All in all, aside from wasted opportunities with the cast, the biggest travesty is that the original Lonesome Dove novel contained so much rich backstory for the characters that would have been fascinating, utterly fascinating, to see translated on screen. Unfortunately, all that has been tossed aside in favor of McMurtry's tedious, inconsistent and ultimately irrelevant, prequel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Too much added with too much taken away from a great western that was written by McMurtry about the Texas Rangers vs. the Indian. This screenplay takes that away only to fill this mini series with a lot of warm fuzzy relationships that in truth were secondary to the main storyline. It ends with a totally unbelievable and detached ending not written in the book that makes you question how we are to be transported to Lonesome Dove.

The series main characters were in truth cast very well, the filming locations were excellent, but this mini series should have stayed true to what is a great book.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's also the best book I've ever read. Karl Urban and Steve Zahn are great together. It had drama, adventure and sweetness and sadness. I laughed. I cried. It's hard not to laugh when Gus is talking. I wish Gus would have smacked Clara like he did Inez. Clara just lead Gus on all those years with no intentions of ever marrying him. She just liked playing with him. It was sad that he spent his whole life pining for her. It would have been nice if Woodrow had married Maggie but she would have just died on him anyway. Woodrow was a man that could not express his feelings and kept them bottled up. It was obvious that he loved Maggie after the raid on Austin when the rangers got back and he ran to hold her. Val Kilmer is excellent at playing odd characters. I loved his portrayal of Captian Inish Skull. I loved the whole Lonesome Dove saga. Comanche Moon is the best of the bunch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Violent Men\" marked the finest collaboration of Rudolph Mat\u00e9 with Glenn Ford in an intensely satisfying drama of rugged primitive justice\u0085

Ford is John Parrish, a former Cavalry captain who is itching to get married and start a new life\u0085 His fianc\u00e9e Caroline Vail (May Wynn) is desperate to move east, and to see him selling his spread to Lee Wilkison (Edward G. Robinson).

Parrish is not even much of a cattleman\u0085 but he do understand that there is something big building up in the valley\u0085 In the Army, they used to call it 'enemy pressure.' First, Cole Wilkison (Brian Keith) comes back from Texas to help his brother run Anchor\u0085 Then a tough kid with a fancy gun (Richard Jaeckel) shows up on the Wilkison payroll\u0085 Then all the small ranchers are forced out, getting the same kind of offers\u0085 Parrish saw himself either running like they did, or stand and fight\u0085

But can he easily deals with a man who sends six killers to shoot an old man in the back? Can he easily argues with a man who started with a few acres of land and now owns practically the whole valley?

All that grass and sand ever meant to the ex-Confederate Army officer the past three years\u0085 It was a place to regain his health\u0085 Out of habit of taking advice, Parrish affirms: \"What happen in this valley is no concern of mine.\" And much to the disappointment of the remaining ranchers and farmers, who pressure him to stay on, he decides to accept Wilkison's offer to fulfill the promise he made to his fianc\u00e9e\u0085

When Lee's younger brother Cole made the wrong move, trying to push Parrish make up his mind by lynching one of his ranch hands, Parrish got mad and warns the two brothers that he is going to stay and will fight them for the privilege of being let alone\u0085

Brian Keith plays the traitorous brother who's behind the killing... He dreams to have position and respect in running one day Anchor\u0085

Lee's ambitious wife Martha (Barbara Stanwyck) secretly hates herself and her husband\u0085 Stanwyck plays the part of a loving wife who can't bear the touch of her husband's hands\u0085

Edward G. Robinson is good enough as the Anchor's crippled owner who promised the whole valley to his wife, unaware that she is having an affair with his younger brother\u0085

Dianne Foster is too sensitive as the unsociable adult daughter well aware of her mother's burdens\u0085

\"The Violent Men\" uses the wide-screen technology to emphasize the scope and power of this harrowing action-drama, making it a perfect example of the genre's most enduring classics\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One type of western I greatly enjoy is when the apparently weak, which is reluctant to fight and answer the challenge of the strong, finally decides there is no other way. There is a great moment in this film when John Parrish (Glenn Ford) goes into the saloon and decides to stand up to the gunfighter Wade Matlock. It is the type of scene that makes the audience applaud. In my opinion The Violent Men is a great western, I would rank it among the best. It makes great use of the wide screen, a spectacular scenery of the mountains. The women have a crucial part. Caroline (May Winn) is engaged to Parrish, but you feel that she is only using him as a means of getting out of there and moving east. She wants him to sell the ranch no matter what price. Martha (Barbara Stanwick), is tired of helping her crippled husband Lee (Edward G. Robinson) but she will do anything to have an always bigger ranch and more power. Meanwhile she is betraying her husband with his brother (Brian Keith). Her daughter Judith (Diane Foster) is seeing all that happens but feeling impotent to react because she does not want to hurt her father. Parrish unites all the small farmers and uses the strategy he learned in the army to go against the Anchor ranch. Like he had warned Lee, \"Don't make me fight because you won't like my way of fighting\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is yet another western about a greedy cattle baron looking to push out small ranchers and farmers. It's certainly all been done before and since. But The Violent Men is something special.

What makes it special is Barbara Stanwyck playing the role of vixen as she often did in her later films. She's married to the crippled Edward G. Robinson who's the cattle baron here, but Robinson is crippled and there is some hint that his injuries may have left him impotent. No matter to Barbara, whose needs are being met by her brother-in-law Brian Keith. That doesn't sit well with either Dianne Foster who is Robinson and Stanwyck's daughter, nor with Lita Milan who is Keith's Mexican girl friend.

The infidelity subplot almost takes over the film, but Glenn Ford as the stalwart small rancher who is a Civil War veteran come west for his health manages to hold his own here. He's every inch the quiet western hero who people make the mistake of pushing once too often. I almost expect those famous words from Wild Bill Elliott to come out of Ford's mouth, \"I'm a peaceable man.\" Would have been very applicable in The Vioilent Men.

The Fifties was the age of the adult western, themes were entering into horse operas that hadn't been explored before. The following year Glenn Ford would do another western, Jubal, one of his best which also explores infidelity as a plot component.

There's enough traditional western stuff in The Violent Men and plenty for those who are addicted to soap operas as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a very good 1950s western, one of the better ones I've seen in a decade which featured that genre on screen and on TV. It certainly had three big actors on the marquee: Glenn Ford, Barbara Stanwyck and Edward G. Robinson. It turns out that Ford was the star of this film while the other two stars were in supporting roles. Ford had the bulk of the dialog. He also was the \"good guy\" while Robinson was the \"bad guy\" and Stanwyck was twice as bad as Robinson. She played the real heavy in this film and the character she played was a little too contradictory at times.

Ford handled his starring status very ably, as he usually did - especially in westerns. He played a nice guy who didn't want to fight, was a peaceful man......but if you pushed him.....look out!

The story had a nice mixture of action and lulls, not overdoing either. It had an expansive western setting which was put to good use with the CineamaScope widescreen. It also featured realistic people in a realistic setting. That credibility with the characters, especially the supporting players, was most impressive. The men way out-shined the women in this film, acting and character-wise. Dianne Foster and May Wynn were weak - the only negatives of the production. It's easy to see why these two actresses never became stars.

Even though it is over 50 years old, this western is one you'd still find fast-enough moving to enjoy, no matter how old you are or what you're used to seeing. For classic film fans, this is almost a must with this cast and good story. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A western through and through. As the title character portrayed by Glenn Ford says, \"No, I don't want to fight, but I will if it's forced on me.\" This movie is about being intelligent, strong, and fighting for one's beliefs. With courage, never stop striving for what you feel is right. Great action and mostly quick paced. Good to see Brian Keith in this role and Edward G. Robinson as an older western man. Glenn Ford lives up to his western image. Thoroughly enjoyable film includes strategic non-military warfare. Of course it's violent, like the title states, but not too graphic like in the computer-generated era films. It's mostly about strong personality clashes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Violent Men is pretty good western that certainly benefits from its excellent cast.

Edward G. Robinson is the big rancher trying to squeeze out the smaller ranchers one of whom is Glenn Ford. Ford is ready to sell to appease his fiance (May Wynn) until Robinson's ambitious brother (Brian Keith) murders one of Ford's hands. Then you know what happens next.

Barbara Stanwyck is along as Robinson's scheming wife the kind of role in which she specialized. Dianne Foster plays their daughter who comes to admire Ford.

The Violent Men is nothing more than a \"B\" plot with an \"A\" movie cast but it is very well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Extremely entertaining mid-1950's western that packs a whole lot into just a 96-minute running time. Most viewers will quickly get drawn into this story and will find the experience quite enjoyable. More than just a B-Western but not really an epic, the budget was modest and the cast affordable despite several big names. Glenn Ford was the only box office draw at the time. Edward G. Robinson and Barbara Stanwyck were past their primes and looking for work, Stanwyck was 10 years away from a new popularity in \"The Big Valley\". Brian Keith and Dianne Foster were just starting out.

Ford plays John Parrish, a small rancher who decides to sell out when the sympathetic sheriff is murdered by the big rancher's (Robinson) hired gunman. Parrish is a former Confederate officer who only moved out west for health reasons.

Robinson plays Lee Wilkison, who already owns most of the valley and intends to acquire the rest, making good on a promise to his wife Martha (Stanwyck). Lee was crippled in a land war he fought 12 years earlier; his brother Cole (Keith) has come up from Texas to help him run the huge spread. Lee has been turning a blind eye to obvious hookups between Stanwyck and Keith but sensitive daughter Judith (Foster) is understandably upset by what is going on in their home.

John Parrish has promised his fianc\u00e9e Caroline (May Winn) that he will move back east. Caroline, who is modeled on Grace Kelly's \"High Noon\" character, breaks off the engagement at the first sign of trouble and simply disappears from the film. This leaves the way open for a John and Judith romance to develop.

The violence starts early and continues throughout the film, with Parrish able to apply military tactics against an enemy who underestimates his ability and determination. He has a very original confrontation with the main gunfighter about midway into the film. Ford plays one of his standard characters; the modest guy who disarms everyone with a self- deprecating manner, who is slow to take offense but brutal when finally provoked (very much like his role in \"The Sheepman\").

Robinson is likewise excellent as a man who maintains his personal integrity even though physically just a shadow of his former self. And he gets enough lines and screen time to adequately develop his character.

Stanwyck has the most difficult role and she is simply not convincing as the classic two-faced woman, a seemingly loyal wife who is scheming to replace her husband with his brother. In part this is because she is not allocated enough time to do anything more than superficially convey either side of the character. That said, a talented actress could have done a much better job even with these limitations.

Dianne Foster is a pleasant surprise. She should remind viewers a lot of Carroll Baker, both physically and in acting style. Although required to play Judith according to 1950's convention (she is allowed to be tough but then required to break into hysterics after each major confrontation), Foster shows a nice range. She conveys a growing attraction for Parrish but does it so subtly that it is only in retrospect that the various clues click into place.

The real problem with \"The Violent Men\" is that it tries to be both an action western and a character study morality play. Because so much has to happen on the screen much of the action is rushed and many of the characters get only a cursory treatment. This is neither fatal flaw nor a reason to avoid the film, but it could have been significantly better with another 20 minutes of running time or the absence of unnecessary characters like Caroline.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Stanwyck at her villainous best, Robinson her equal - as ruthless land barons in this fairly ordinary western.

Some good action scenes, strong use of location, colour and Cinemascope. But why the obvious use of stock footage in the stampede scene?

Ford is dependable as always and Foster is strong as Robinson's daughter, but it is the baddies' film. And it's not just Stanwyck and Robinson - Brian Keith makes a surprisingly dashing villain as Stanwyck's lover, and Richard Jaeckel is unforgettable as a cold-hearted killer.

See it for the camp value.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Parrish is an ex Union officer who plans to sell his ranch and land to the Wilkison's over at Anchor. The trouble is that the price being offered is way to low and when they start to bully Parrish and his workers, he has a change of heart, particularly when things take a brutal turn for the worse.

Originally after watching this one i had a sense of frustration, chiefly because of the cast that was involved. When you got Edward G. Robinson, Glenn Ford and Barbara Stanwyck in the same movie, you hope that they get a story and script from which to excel. Sadly they don't get chance to produce a Western classic worthy of multiple revisits, or is that my over expectation is doing it a disservice?. Well i slept on it and decided to ponder further about the picture. I think yes it's fair to say that the actors in question deserved a better story from which to work from, it is, when all is said and done, a plot that has been milked for all it's worth, and then some. But The Violent Men is still a very rewarding film regardless of the missed opportunities evident with the production.

Glenn Ford as Parrish is as cool as an Eskimo's nose throughout, and it's always great to see Babs Stanwyck playing a bitch because she's good at it. While Eddie G, when one gets used to him being in a Western, is fine in what is an under written part. Robinson, who stepped in at the last minute when first choice as Lee Wilkison, Broderick Crawford got injured, is the one who is short changed the most by the makers, even supporting characters such as the devilish Wade Matlock {a grinning delight from the reliable Richard Jaeckel} and Judith Wilkison {a radiant Dianne Foster} get something to leave an impression with. But for what it is, Robinson's crutch toting \"bad\" guy is at the least memorable for all the right reasons.

Not shy on action and gun play, it's with the twists and almost Shakespearean tragedies that Rudolph Mat\u00e9's film rises above the mundane, with all of it gorgeously framed by Burnett Guffey's stunning cinematography. Lone Pine in Alabama has been used on many a Western picture {see Seven Men From Now for another glorious use of it}, but here Guffey really excels and manages to dazzle the eyes at every turn. The Violent Men isn't a great Western picture, and perhaps a better director than Mat\u00e9 could have really given Donald Hamilton's {The Big Country} novel an adaptation to be proud of. But for every niggle and irk i personally had with it, i found two more reasons to actually really like it, so that it be, it's recommended, for sure. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this movie. I have a real sense of justice and 'an eye for an eye', and this movie delivers that in spades. Glenn Ford is offered a very low price for his ranch by the big rancher in the valley; then one of his ranch hands is beaten and shot 'to help him make up his mind about selling'. When the ranch hand dies, and the sheriff refuses to do anything, Ford seems at first reluctant to do anything, cautioning his men to not take things into their own hands. But, that's just what he is about to do. I knew this movie was about to catch fire when he went into the saloon and faced the guy (Richard Jaeckel, one of my very favorite bad-guy character actors) who had killed his ranch hand; after a gentle exchange of dialog with him, Glenn Ford slaps his face and shoots him dead. Kind of a neat added bit of justice, he kills this guy with the gun that had belonged to his murdered cowhand. In short order we're treated to Ford letting his ranch be burned, so his men are justified in ambushing the crew from the other ranch; then Ford and his men stampede all the horses and cattle of the big bad guy's ranch; then they show up and burn the outbuildings and the big fancy house to the ground. Talk about getting even big-time. Lots of action in this movie. There's more to the story than this, but I'll just recommend you watch the movie. Glenn Ford was someone who showed time and again what can happen when you misjudge someone, and I really enjoyed watching him get justice the old fashioned way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the classic western. The good, Glenn Ford, the dashing hero, the ex-soldier, the man who would not hold a gun again. He eventually has to stand up the the evil land baron, Edward G. Robinson, who owns most of the valley and wants it all. Then,there's Barbara Stanwyck, the real ruler of the roost. Edward G. Robinson's wife, who will allow no one to get in her way, even making Edward G. Robinson look weak. She is so evil that everyone else pales next to her blind ambition and ruthlessness to rule the valley and everyone in it. The gleam in her eye as she sees people face death for her is unnerving. It is worth waiting for.Throw in a young Brian Keith and a few others and you have a drama that stands on its own. With the requisite stampedes, shoot-outs, ambushes and close-ups of hard riding cowboys and you have a heck of a western.Without giving anything away, there are enough twists and turns within to make this not just a standard cowboy shoot-em-up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's always interesting to catch a line in a film that winds up being somewhat prophetic for the future of an actor. In this case, I was intrigued by Edward G. Robinson's statement to Barbara Stanwyck - \"I promised you the Valley\", as he discusses the lone hold outs to his attempt to control all the land in Logasa. Ten years later, Stanwyck would star as the matriarch of the Barkley Family on \"The Big Valley\". Somehow I thought she might have looked older in the earlier picture; I guess all those bright gowns and fancy riding outfits have a way of bringing out one's youthful side.

As for my summary line above, that's Lee Wilkison's appraisal of John Parrish (Glenn Ford), one of those hold outs mentioned earlier, shortly after Parrish uses his knowledge of military tactics to take out a number of Wilkison hands after they raid his ranch and torch his home. I liked the way the film explored his character, starting with the way he dealt with foreman Wade Matlock (Richard Jaeckel) in a calculated showdown. The set up for the ambush was also a clever maneuver, diametrically opposed to the strategy of rushing the bad guys head on with both sides fighting it out to the last man standing. For that, Parrish also had something to say - \"Never meet the enemy on his terms\".

\"The Violent Men\" is a good title for this film, and was probably at the head of it's class in the mid 1950's, though by today's standards doesn't come close to the blood letting one will find in a \"Tombstone\" or \"Open Range\", where the bullets exact a nasty savagery. But it's shaped by fine performances from the principals, with a sub plot exploring infidelity that seemed almost ironic considering it was Stanwyck's character who was cheating.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Is one of my favourite westerns. What a cast! Glenn Ford plays his role In his usual mild, controlled but firm manner. Ford plays one of the smaller ranchers In the shadow of the mighty anchor ranch that wants to swallow up the whole territory. Edward G Robinson plays the crippled patriarch of the anchor ranch and Barbera Stanwyck plays his sly scheming wife. There Is plenty of action In this western that Is quite Impressive, the scenery Is delicious and the letterbox scope photography Is breath taking and the soundtrack Is stereo! I would say that this western had a size-able budget It looks expensive. One of a series of great Glenn Ford westerns.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Violent Men is a good western. Perhaps the story is not an original one -big ranch owner dedicated to run out small competitors out of a valley he needs for his increasing cattle- but the film has many ingredients that raises its level and makes it worth seeing.

The cast is a highlight. There's the reliable Glenn Ford (John Parrish) as a former army officer and now one of the small ranchers, who tries to stay out of troubles until he is pushed to hard. Edward Robinson (Lew Wilkinson) is as good as always as the crippled big man and Barbara Stanwyck (Martha) plays his treacherous wife in one of her usual mean woman roles she deals with easily (others were in \"Double Indemnity\" and \"Blowing Wild). Brian Keith (Cole) does it perfectly as Robinson's gunman brother, an ambitious man trying to take over his brother's big ranch no matter what. Regular 50's westerns villain Richard Jaeckel (Wade Mattlock) is there too and ends as usual (no surprise there). Dianne Foster (Judith Wilkinson) plays Robinson's daughter who does not approve his father, mother and uncle's way of handling things with their neighbors.

Rudolph Mate brings a standard but acceptable direction, perhaps helped by beautiful and wide open scenery and a fine and appropriate music score helps too.

The inevitable final showdown between Ford and Keith is one of the best in western movies. Each man in his own dueling style (notice Ford's shooting with his straight arm and aiming at its target in the military way) settle their differences then and once and for all.

This is for sure one of Glenn Ford's best western appearances, second only to the classic \"3:10 to Yuma\" he made two years later. It's probably the cast that puts the film as an \"A\" rate and, as for me, it enters the top 10 list of the genre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great Western story with outstanding veteran actors who made this film great entertainment to view and enjoy. Glenn Ford,(John Parrish),\"Midway\",'76 tries to play low key after having experienced battles in the war and plays the peace maker role for the time being. John Parrish decides the town is entirely too rough and tough and goes to visit Barbara Stanwyck,(Martha Wilkison),\"Crime of Passion\",57, who is the wife of Edward G. Robinson,(Lee Wilkison),\"The Red House\",'47. Lee Wilkison, offers John Parrish Fifteen Thousand Dollars for his ranch and John turns down the offer. Lee Wilkson decides to have his son, Brian Keith,(Cole Wilkison),\"The Wind & the Lion\",'75, change his mind in more ways than one. There are romantic scenes between May Wynn,(Caroline Vail),\"The Caine Mutiny\",'54, and John Parrish and some hot encounters with Dianne Foster(Judith Wilkison),\"Three Hours to Kill\",'54, who hates her father Lee. If you like Edward G. Robinson and Glenn Ford films, this is a film you will want to view and enjoy from beginning to end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brian Keith as Cole Wlikerson and Richard Jaeckel as Wade Matlock make excellent villains. They just love intimidating the locals in the most brutal way possible, and sneer sexily at any suggestion that there might be a more humane way to achieve their ends. It's a pity that goody-goody Glenn Ford gets in their way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great Italian shark movie probably not a full action type of shark movie but it has a great story about a native American in the form of a killer shark that attacks a small beach community. the movie has actual scenes of real sharks and some not but how they made it is pretty good the cast are not that brilliant of acting in this shark film but it it shows better acting in some other Italian shark movies such as (e.g cruel jaws,last shark)they show some pretty bad acting but most Italian shark movies are good which means this votes best as the best Italian shark movie ever , some scenes in this movie show violence\/gore which makes this film good that it shows it so i would say this is the best film for all shark-movie-fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Deep Blood... Its one of those movies you here about and you say not another Italian Jaws ripoff! Well, Deep Blood is far from that. It is a cheap as film making can get and on the other side it is creative as well. In Jaws and all the other shark films we all have seen or herd about they all use fake made sharks, well in Joe D'Amato's film he takes a new approach by using all stock footage for his shark scenes. This is one of the many reasons I like Deep Blood so much is because it didn't use stock footage.

In Deep Blood an ancient Indian spirit terrorizes a beach town in the form of a bloodthirsty shark, in Joe D'Amato's Shark classic Deep Blood.

It seems that a Native American elder once warned a group of youngsters about this great evil in the sea, and years later, the friends are forced to face their fears when one of them is killed by a shark in a series of attacks along their coastline. Now it's up to the remaining few to make sure that this monster is killed, even if it means heading out to sea to do it.

Joe D'Amato Directed and Produced this film under his company the Filmirage. Released in 1989 and was later used in Bruno Mattei's Cruel Jaws: Jaws 5, along with many other shark films. Joe D'Amato's shark entry is a great film and any Joe D'Amato fan of shark movie watcher should give it a try.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It has been almost 50 years since I saw \"Jennifer\" for the first and only time. I did not know the name of this movie until I looked it up on this web site, but I have told many people (especially my grandchildren) how movies do not have to include graphic details in order to frighten you and leave powerful impact. The story skillfully introduces you to concepts which if true put Ida Lupino in a very dangerous situation. Each time Miss Lupino discovers a new \"fact\" she draws the viewer into her confusion and fear.

This movie has such impact on me that almost 50 years later I still list it as one of the most frightening movies that I have ever seen. Yet this movie does not contain the blood and gore which became popular shortly after this movie was made. It's amazing what impact a good story and great actors can make.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie Jennifer with Ida Lupino and Howard Duff is film noir magnificence.This is a mostly unknown movie that all film noir fans should see.Jennifer was filmed with the most unusual camera angles for that time, which made the movie have a surreal like quality at times. I love the stark black and white film noir movies.Film noir in color is not as good.The cast and script is excellent.The rather creepy music is fun to listen to.Ida Lupino is one of the best and talented actresses to ever grace the screen.I have never seen a production that she was in that I did not like.She was not only breathtakingly beautiful,she was a fine actress.The first movie that I remember seeing Ida Lupino in was Roadhouse with Richard Widmark and Cornel Wilde.I never forgot the movie,or her. I saw her last films like Food Of The Gods and Women In Chains, and even though the movies were not her usual fare, she was still delightful in them as an actress.Howard Duff is always terrific to watch.I highly recommend this masterpiece to everyone.I have this movie on VHS tape.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first caught up with Jennifer years ago while out of town when it showed up on TV in the middle of the night; I fell asleep before it ended but it stuck with me until I had to track it down. Its appeal is that, though there's not a lot to it, it weaves an intriguing atmosphere, and because Ida Lupino and Howard Duff (real life man-and-wife at the time) display an alluring, low-key chemistry. Lupino plays a woman engaged to house-sit a vast California estate whose previous caretaker -- Jennifer -- up and disappeared. (Shades of Jack Nicholson in the Shining, although in this instance it's not Lupino who goes, or went, mad). Duff is the guy in town who manages the estate's finances and takes a shine to Lupino, who decides to play hard to get. She becomes more and more involved, not to say obsessed, with what happened to her predecessor in the old dark house full of descending stairways and locked cellars. The atmospherics and the romantic byplay are by far the best part of the movie, as viewers are likely to find the resolution a bit of a letdown -- there's just not that much to it (except a little frisson at the tail end that anticipates Brian De Palma's filmic codas). But it's well done, and, again, it sticks with you. Extra added attraction: this is the film that introduced the song \"Angel Eyes,\" which would become part of the standard repertoire of Ol' Blue Eyes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wish I could have met Ida Lupino. When people ask who you if you could have 6 extraordinary 20th century persons over for dinner, well, for me one person would be her. I think she is now one of the great unsung and unprofiled personalities in the film industry. Her life story would make a great tele movie (Hey, Mr Bogdanovich........). Ida Lupino has been the driving force in many fascinating noir films of the 40s and 50s. I can remember being saddened at seeing her reduced to a horrible part in a ghastly AIP film is the late 70s. She was bitten by a big worm at the kitchen sink. Ugh. I should have contacted her then as she died not long after.. more from the part than the worm too. From High Sierra, Roadhouse and the extraordinary RKO thriller On Dangerous Ground, Ida Lupino was often the producer and the lead actress. Later, with her husband Howard Duff they produced many now timeless noir dramas that are still very engrossing today. One of them is JENNIFER which I think is the last film with a Monogram Pictures copyright. Monogram changed the company name formally to Allied Artists in 1953 and JENNIFER has both company names on the opening credits. This is a superior haunted house thriller equally as scary as both The Innocents and The Haunting made 8 years later. Really chilling and very creepy, this tiny film is exactly the sort of really good film Ida Lupino made and was responsible for. Try and find it...you will always remember it and as I feel, much admiration for this great and almost forgotten actress\/producer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a video version of a stage production, with extra shooting for the video edition. The result gains both the drama of the stage with the impact of well produced film. The set by George Tsypin, with sculptures and masks by Julie Taymor are superb.

Jessye Norman is terrific, and one gets to hear (and see) the young Bryn Terfel. This production is stunning, emotional and majestic. If you don't see this you have missed out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The music is by Stravinsky (and not by stupid incompetent Philip Glass) and was written ten years before glass' unfortunate birth. The staging is simply extraordinary. The narrative in Japanese adds a threatening quality and intensity that the Latin version does not have. cf. Terzieff's version. The giant heads and hands are totally justified by the mythic aspect of the tale. The props and make up used for the plague are simply spot on. It's Taymor's best work. The singers are very good, especially Terfel. Langridge is quite moving and clean, and Norman finds the right expression, and her beauty is magnified here and finds its right place: larger than life. Simply a must.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a tour de force from Julie Taymor who directs and does the stage design and masks. No-one comes near to matching her imagination on the modern operatic stage. Since making this film in 1992 she has had much success in film-making and in directing musicals. One can only hope that she can be persuaded to return to opera one day. I would love to see a Ring cycle directed by her. The current Rheingold at Covent Garden has giants with over-sized hands just like the characters in this film. The current Butterfly at ENO uses Japanese puppetry. Coincidence maybe, or evidence that Taymor's influence is pervasive.

Taymar uses fantastical costumes, masks, puppets, and origami birds to recreate the story of Oedipus on a stage set on stilts above a lake. Red ribbons are a recurring theme. They are used as an umbilical chord when Oedipus is born, they hang down from Oedipus's eyes after he has blinded himself, in a breathtaking effect they are used to make a crossroads when Oedipus's slaying of his father is reenacted by puppets.

This neo-classical opera-ballet by Stravinsky enjoyed justified obscurity until this film brought it to life. The music is uninspired but inoffensive and Philip Langridge, Jesse Norman and a very young Bryn Terfel make the most of it. The singers are fairly immobile, in accordance with Stravinsky's wishes. Min Tanaka is the dancing Oedipus to Langridge's singing Oedipus. This creates some slight confusion towards the end when dancing Oedipus pokes out the eyes of singing Oedipus.

The libretto is in Latin but do not worry if your high-school Latin is a bit rusty. There is a helpful narrator who introduces and describes each scene in Japanese.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This focuses around the lives of four women, all good friends, and their male companions. Each has a story, the men as well, everything links everybody to everybody and everything is being brought to a quick change after a trip the girls take to Palm Springs.

Basically, the film is no different from other of the genre, but I liked the details. Brooke Shields is a divorc\u00e9e that fears loneliness, therefore she bangs just about everybody to get to have a \"warm body\" next to her in the morning, but then can't really commit. As a man, I find these women are a blessing :), but she is not a happy person. Everything else that happens revolves around this crazy woman, but in the end we get more clarity over life and relationships, which is good.

I can't tell if the acting was bad. It didn't seem to me. The script was a little inconsistent, but not more than any romantic comedy. It's a bit more depressing than most, which is good, because you don't get dreary romantic comedies every day :)

It's worth a watch with the missis, especially if you have cheated on her or plan to ...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a D.B. Sweeney fan, I've been on the lookout for this movie for quite some time. I recently rented the video and found it very enjoyable. It had some really hilarious scenes. The dysfunctional lives of some of the characters was unsettling, but I think the movie also showed that it's possible to keep your life on track or get it back on track if it's been derailed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really wanted to write a title for this review that didn't come off as corny or gushing but still described my feelings for this show. I can see now that it is not possible. \"American Family\" is one of the best shows I have ever had the pleasure of watching on television. Several reviewers here on IMDb have mentioned the word \"beautiful\" when describing this show. Never has a word been more fitting. The cinematography for this show is stunning. Every scene and shot looks like a masterpiece. The lighting, camera moves, scene composition and colors...I have to keep reminding myself that I'm watching a TV Show and not a Motion Picture masterpiece. The score by Lee Holdridge and Nathan Wang brings tears to my eyes. And most importantly, the acting by the all around amazing cast is honest and sincere. I do not feel like I am watching performances...I feel like I'm watching real life. If only real life could be this beautiful.

\"American Family\" has indeed raised the bar for quality entertainment on Television. I highly recommend this show to anyone who is willing to watch it. I could easily chide CBS for passing on this show, but I have to say that it doesn't matter to me who airs it. I'm just glad it's out there for everyone to see. So I do thank PBS for not allowing this show to disappear into nothingness.

I have to give special recognition to the way each season's finale ended. The first one was pure creative brilliance and it moved me to tears. I was waiting to see if season two would also end in a creative way, and sure enough it did. Again, tears.

My thanks to all of those involved. You really have made a special piece of art with this show, and I sincerely mean that. It is a shame that we only got two seasons, but a miracle we got anything at all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, here's the deal. There's this American pilot who's flying along, minding his own business, when suddenly he's outnumbered by evil, cowardly non-American fighter planes (they're Middle Eastern types, but suffice to say they don't like apple pie or Elvis Presley), who proceed to shoot him down. Now this American pilot was doing nothing wrong, but those evil non-Americans didn't care and before you know it he's banged up in a foreign jail and sentenced to death!!

Now, what would normally happen here is that the US Military would carpet bomb a couple of nearby towns until the pilot was released, but not this time. Those evil peace lovin' types probably got involved and managed to stop any kind of retaliatory massacre. As you can imagine, this doesn't please the pilot's family and the evil foreign dictator has this smug, contented look about him. He'll make those Americans pay, oh yes indeed!

But He didn't reckon on Doug Masters, the captured pilots 16-year-old son. You see Doug has been able to fly a plane longer than he can drive a car, (which can't be that long) and decides to fly into that evil, foreign country and get his Dad back. So with the help of his friends, Doug and his wingman, retired pilot \u0091Chappy' Sinclair, Doug launches a two man air raid on the foreigners.

Now you'd think that this plan would be bound to fail, but you'd be wrong. Sure, those Middle Eastern types might be all veteran pilots, but Doug's got an ace up his sleeve, he listens to rock music when he flies! After shooting down a dozen or so enemy planes and blowing up an oil refinery, Doug lands at an airport and gets his now wounded dad onboard the plane. Understandably, the evil, not quite so smug anymore, dictator gets quite annoyed at these antics and takes to the skies himself, in bid to shoot down Doug. But the young lad listens to some more rock music and blows the villain out of the sky. HURRAH!

After Doug and Chappy have shot down 90% of their air force, the foreigners send up their last few planes in a rather poor attempt to shoot Doug down, but in the nick of time, a flight of US F16s turn up and scare them away.

I cannot recommend this film enough. It was the first ever videocassette movie that I brought, and until I was twenty, I kept hoping that my dad would get shot down over a foreign country so that I could rescue him. But he's doesn't like flying, so it didn't happen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm sorry, but I just can't help it, I love watching Iron Eagle. Now, do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that this is a great movie. No, rather, I would put it that this is an endlessly entertaining movie. For people who cut this movie to pieces for not being realistic are kinda missing the point. Of course Iron Eagle's plot was ridiculous. But I believe its target audience was kids, and I sure remember finding this cool when I was little. Now I just find it amusing as a guilty pleasure, kinda like Road House. This movie is part of the great pantheon of 80's, kids-taking-on-the-stodgy-adult-power-structure movies. You must remember D.A.R.Y.L, Real Genius, E.T., etc. If you ask me, just watching Doug and Knotcher \"Ride the Snake\" in the beginning is worth the cost of the DVD. That whole sequence was so STUPID! But, at the same time, it was hilarious, funny, totally 80's, all that good stuff. So bottom line, Iron Eagle is a great 80's guilty pleasure. The hairstyles, the dancing, the music, the dialogue, its all funny as hell. I have Iron Eagle on DVD and to me it was totally worth $9.99 at Best Buy. If you love laughing at dated, unrealistic action movies, this one is a must-see. Oh yeah, and I think its plot was only marginally stupider than 1986's other fighter pilot action pic, Top Gun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that this movie is actually entertaining, although it lacks some features essential for this kinda' films. First of all, when Doug and Chappy start their mission, they take off with F-16B, and during the combat scenes, they are piloting F-16A. The second thing I dislike of this film is the ever-repeating F-16 rolling to its right to escape from missiles...why chaff and flares haven't been shown in any movie yet? Third of all, once you see the F-16 almost empty of ammo, it appears again plenty of missiles... the models used to simulate the destroyed aircraft ain't good either. However, I think that using IAI Kfir as opponent planes was really good, far better than the F-5 shown in Top Gun (but this movie isn't as good as that masterpiece).

A funny movie, I love planes and I've seen it more than 3 times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, yes its bad, yes its complete fluff, yes it makes dobbin the mule look like an Oscar winner but look at it like i did i was 13, special effects were pretty much non exsistant in 90% of films, back in the good Ole days when films needed a story line.. OK so even the storyline is a bit dodgy.. but wow did i get into this film as a kid in the 80s. cheesy rock, bad special effects, but airplanes an aerial fights and it had queens one vision on the soundtrack.. see even the worst things have a silver lining.. all in all if you want a bad film to show a 12 year old who hates computer effects (if there is such a film) this is the ideal choice","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a pretty good movie. I love fighter jet movies, and this was the best one I've seen lately. It was made using real planes, so that made it an even better movie. If you like watching U.S. F-16s blow the living daylights out of their enemies, this is a great movie for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Maybe I'm biased because the F-16 is my favorite fighter aircraft - although the F-14 is probably second or third - but I liked this movie. The sequels (Iron Eagle II and III) don't measure up acting and plot wise, but the first one - along with Top Gun - have excellent flying and music, along with reasonable plots and acting. II and III clearly have much less of a \"flight budget\", but their main drawback is plot and acting. I suspect the relative fame and popularity of Iron Eagle compared to Top Gun is almost entirely a reflection of the fame and popularity of Jason Gedrick compared to Tom Cruise. Another plus (for me) is an all too brief appearance by Shawnee Smith. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the 1980's patriotism, and in some cases flat out Jingoism, was pretty high. \"Do we get to win this time\" a line famous from Rambo: First Blood part II, could almost sum up how many people felt at that time. A longing for the style of films they grew up with, flat out balls to the wall \"we're good, your bad...now let's blow something up, and go home\" While Rambo, Rocky, and for the most part Top Gun seemed more geared towards attracting an older crowd Iron Eagle went straight for the kids. Canadian writer and director Sidney J. Furie brings out everything that you love and hate about that time period. The kick in the pants rock out 80's anthems (never say die, Road of the Gypsy, etc) to the over the top, and sometimes almost unbelievable action adventure. Iron Eagle succeeded for one reason...it was F.U.N - Fun. It's the type of movie you can turn on and sit back and enjoy every ridiculous totally 80's moment. You don't have to think about if it could really happen, or if the acting is truly believable, it's just fun...and that's all you can really ask for in this type of movie...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lou Gossett, Jr. is great as 'Chappy Sinclair', a super U.S. Air Force pilot who comes to the rescue of a nice but undisciplined 'Doug Masters' (Jason Gedrick), the son of a captured pilot who is determined to borrow a couple of F-16 fighters to use in an attempt to save his Dad from a dictator (David Suchet) of an enemy overseas country.

Better than 'Top Gun', this Air Force aviation film has excitement and lots of explosions - you know, all that cool stuff you'd want from a contemporary military adventure film.

Cool music including Twisted Sister's Dee Snider belting out 'We're Not Gonna Take It' and King Cobra's excellent 'Never Say Die'.

Aim High! Air Force!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really like the movie's opening, when Col. Ted Masters realizes on his fighter radar that four enemy aircraft were approaching from about 10 o'clock. The good news is that the movie does not mention at the very beginning that the colonel, along with a wingman fighter who was a lieutenant, was trying to do a \"freedom of navigation\" exercise along the eastern Meditteranean Sea, but went a little too past the restricted air space zone reserved for a rogue Middle eastern nation as they accidentially fly past it.

I also like all of the intercutting on the colonel's fighter radar readouts and computer displays as the enemy aircraft aggressively picks the two American fighter pilots into an engagement for violating their airspace. That first dogfight immediately reminds me of the famous fighter pilot movie, \"Top Gun.\" From the waxing of the enemy bandits to the enemy aircraft's thirty-milimeter rounds that struck the colonel's jet engines and forcing the plane down, forcing him to eject, all of this reminds us of one thing...dogfight fighter techniques can keep you alive...but one false move can cause you to be shot down.

The only problem in the movie was the \"snake sequence\" scene. It was a little bit too long. Yes, the movie's opening was great when you see the conflict...which was the dogfight engagement. Only when one boy tells Doug Masters that his father was shot down after the Cessna planes landed in the \"snake\" race, forces us back to the time the conflict already started. I guess the snake sequence in the middle should be interrupted a little bit by Col. Masters being dragged in handcuffs in the middle of the Bilyad desert on his way to the detention center...while the music sequence for the \"snake\" continues. The film does not do it...if it were, the conflict's details would have been smoother at that point. Still good otherwise.

When word found out that Col. Ted Masters trial for high treason (violating territorial air sovereignty) was over and he was condemned to be hung on the gallows in three days, Doug Masters decides to go into action. With the Air Force having futile attempts to save the man, Doug decides to pull his friends and Col. Sinclair (played by Louis Gossett Jr.) for a plan to rescue Masters. Risking a high chance of facing a court martial and spending more than a year in a military stockade, he goes against Air Force policy and makes a plan to rescue Masters without consent of the U.S. government.

Doug and his friends sneak into several classified areas of the base to get plenty of stuff on the area where Masters is held for the upcoming hanging, and the surrounding area around Bilyad (which turns out to be a fake Middle Eastern country for the movie). One plan included shooting off firecrackers outside the Air Force darkroom area as a diversion to get classified photos and maintenance stuff on the fighter aircraft, fighter base, intelligence, and all of the other military stuff around Bilyad.

When all was said and done, and Sinclair studied all of the intelligence, he almost rebuffed at that plan because Doug was way too cocky. Not until they get the two F-16 planes and tried a dry run across a firing range that I realized what they were going to do overseas. I realized that Doug's fighter shooting and bomb dropping is not good until he hears rock music. I can remember when he dropped one Mach 82 bomb on a horizontal target and the bomb missed by 20 feet....I realized that Doug is unusual. He likes music when he fires the fighter ammunition.

The last part of the conflict, the final dogfight action in \"Iron Eagle\" was better than Top Gun's climax of the hostile dogfight sequences. I liked the way the final conflict unfolded, especially when Doug Masters faces off with an Middle-Eastern ace fighter pilot who actually ran the trial against Ted Masters. Short but sweet when Doug took the enemy fighter out after a second try by a side-winder missile. Looks like this Bilyad colonel was akin to \"Darth Vader\" in Star Wars....in the air, he can be very evil, because if you have seen Star Wars, Darth Vader was actually Anakin Skywalker, who was an ace pilot in space. Unusual connotation for this but still works!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"not too much top's the classic \"top gun\" or \"independence day\" when it comes to fighter jet excitement. Yes, the movie top to bottom is based on a truly fictional example of how anyone can pull off a rescue but it is cool because it breaks all traditional rules. The kid doing what he wants to do in a jet the way he wants to do it.

I can't really put my finger on just what I love about this movie but others I know that saw the movie feel the same way about it I do. I think its just basically a lot of fun but maybe a little too unrealistic for some to buy into.

Again, regardless, I loved it, people who I know saw it, loved it so its definitely worth seeing to make your own decisions about it. Put it this way, I thought that Top Gun was one of the best fighter pilot movies ever and I like this movie just as much if not more than Top Gun. Don't miss out, do see it, a truly inspirational movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Iron Eagle may not be the most believable film plot-wise, but the characters are well written and very well acted. If you cannot believe the characters, the film is a flop.

I believe the photography, especially the aerial photography is superb. I believe it is far superior to Top Gun to which it is endlessly compared. It is one of the best pieces of aerial photography I have seen. The soundtrack by Basil Paledouros (forgive the spelling)is great, and juxtaposes well with the rock tunes. I wish that portion of the soundtrack were available.

Jason Gedrick does well as the teenager who suddenly has to grow up in a rush and and the realities of life, death, and responsibilities. Lou Gossett is fab as Chappy, both hard-bitten and yet human as he recalls pilot deaths.

There are lots of movies out there that you watch once and don't care to watch again. Then there are those movies that get you for one aspect or another and you can watch it again and again! Iron Eagle is that kind of movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was an awesome movie with flight scenes that were incredibly realistic! I have seen it multiple times and it has kept my attention throughout every time. I myself am a big fan of the Air Force and love to watch any movie where I can get a glimpse of an F-16 flying. If you like Top Gun, then I guarantee you will love this movie also. Except for a few mild curse words, this is an excellent movie for the whole family. It has a great plot and does not have a dull moment throughout the entire movie. Every second is action packed and keeps you on the edge of your seat waiting to see what happens next. So once again I HIGHLY recommend this movie!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Iron Eagle has always been one of my favirote films for a long time now. It looks like Topgun but with a different plot and (a lot of people will disagree with me here) in my view it's better than Topgun.

This film has some amazing dogfight scenes when the fighter jets are zooming through the air. It also has the Queen song \"One Vision\" thumping in the background, which in my opinion is a fantastic song.

To be honest, Iron Eagle was very good but it's sequels were rubbish.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Compared to the competition, soul calibur 3 is a god amongst games- a true piece of art. However, compared to its 128 bit predecessors, the latest in namcos superior slash em up series is over ambitious- its attempts to improve on perfection isn't quite successful.

There are new modes and game play tweaks that I commend for trying to elevate the series to new heights-but they just complicate things . Examples? Well, the character creation mode is a great idea in theory, but in actuality is full of restrictions and is no way as customisable as that found in the wwe games for example. The chronicles of the sword mode is fun and thought provoking for a little while but eventually drags on and feelslike a chore to earn money rather than a genuinely fun game. Also, the tale of souls mode which is basically the arcade mode with little bits of inconsequential story and shenmue style QTR bits thrown in really feels slow.

\" OMG !!!YoU Don't kNoW WhAt yOuR SaYiNg\" is probably what the more overzealous of you are thinking , but don't get it twisted-I don't hate this game-this game is great! Its still got that classic game play (although some characters moves have been needlessly changed) , absolutely stunning graphics and that epic soundtrack that the games are known for. And also on the good side of things are the new characters ( particularly zasalamel ), who are all cool in their own way (except setsuka-yes i know I'm nitpicking).

Its just that compared to soul calibur 1 and 2 it feels like its trying to be much more than it actually is. That doesn't mean that its not a classic , it just means that compared to its own high standards it falls a bit short despite having more characters moves stages and better graphics than ever.

Still, soul calibur 3 wipes the floor with 95% of games out there though - and that counts for something! Oh and all those who mark this review as \"unhelpful\" clearly feel hurt that i insulted their darling setsuka. Well listen up fanboy\/girl : SHE Ain't REAL ! And even if she was ,she wouldn't be caught dead with you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Soul Calibur is more solid than it ever was... with the new character creation, and the bad-ass chronicle of the sword mode on the home version.

The arcade version is more complete, even though the character roster is smaller than the home version, this version is definitely the more pretty of the two, eliminating all of the \"goofy\/unrealistic\" fighting styles found in the home version. If you were in any way disappointed with the home version, or perhaps thought it was \"too much,\" you might find a much more likable and straight forward game of Soul Calibur in the arcade. Think you have what it takes to become a Legend?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Soul Calibur has always been my favorite fighting game series of all time. And SCIII is my favorite one of the series.

The graphics are very well done. Much bigger improvement over the choppy polygons in Soul Edge\/Soul Blade. The characters have facial expressions, hair blows in the breeze and they even blink.

Soul Calibur has always been known for it's interesting plots and characters and SCIII is no exception. Each character has his\/her background story that is detailed and well done. My favorite character is Chai Xianghua. She's cute, she's funny and she's a strong female character. Yeah, I know she wears pink and has a boyfriend (who she ends up saving BTW), but there seems to be more to her than that. Xianghua, like all the other characters, have flaws and upsides to their personalities, so no character is perfect, not even the good guys.

The music is beautifully composed for a fighting game series. It doesn't sound kitchy (the Vampire series) nor does it sound like old school porn film soundtrack (Mortal Kombat). The characters have their own themes and a lot of the themes are done to match the culture of that certain part of the world. I don't think there is a song on this soundtrack I don't like.

Another cool thing about this game is to create your own anime-like character (Create a Soul). You could make him\/her look as cute or as sexy or even ugly if you like. However, if you found a character customization that you like, remember to take notes, or else you won't remember how you created that character. I found myself being very addicted to CaS.

Overall, I think Soul Calibur is my number one fighting game series of all time. It has everything I asked for. What more could I want?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Story line for this game is very jerky where it appears the game writers have tried to find ways to justify how a character appears in certain areas of the world map in Tales of the Soul. That being said, this is the only gripe I have about the game.

The beginning FMV is spectacular with breath taking sceneries and interesting new devices such as the ability to create and design your own character and their own Martial Arts discipline. There's even a second story mode which makes up for the awkward Story design of Tale of the Souls.

Parts of the FMVs during Tale of the Souls is also interactive where you can decide the fate of your Character to a certain degree which is an interesting feature.

With the many combinations of Characters you can create, the varied paths you can explore in Tales of the Souls and the Chronicle of Swords story mode, this game will keep any Beatem up\/RPG fans amused for a while!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This game was one of the main reasons I actually got a PS2. I remember playing Soul Edge (Sometimes called Soul Blade) back in the day and I was hooked on it.

I did play the original Soul Calibur but I never got a chance to play it for a huge amount of time. I did however buy the Gamecube version of Soul Calibur II and that was what truly got me hooked on the series and I was ecstatic when I heard of Soul Calibur III. This game still gives us the classic characters such as Mitsurugi, Cervantes, Nightmare and Taki. However, it also adds several new characters such as Zasalamel, Tira and the unplayable Night Terror. (The TRUE boss of Tales of Souls) The strategy based \"Chronicles of thes Sword\" mode is a new feature which I really like, it can be quite challenging in the later chronicles but it's a good addition to the series.

The Soul Arena mode has several missions in which you must fight a certain enemy under certain circumstances. (The exception is \"Final Battle\" in which you simply must defeat Night Terror) It's another fine touch that makes the game all the more fun.

In some scenes in Tales of Should you will be made to press certain buttons in order to get a different result, this can be in order to dodge\/block an attack or to get a better ending. (Every character has two endings) All in all, this is an excellent game and I'd recommend it if you're a fan of fighting games.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I played the first Soul Calibur on dreamcast I thought it was great. When I played the second I was hooked. And finally when Soul Calibur III was released, I bought a playstation 2 and the game.

This can really keep you up for hours, with a huge amount of characters, loads of unlockable content, and not to mention a GREAT fighting system, this really is the greatest fighting game to date.

The games strong points is foremost the vs. gameplay, were two human players battle each other, either playing as one of the main characters or as a created and customized character. The Create character option is vast, and allows the player to make thousands of different combinations.

The only thing that bothers me is that if you create a character that uses the fighting style \"Grieve Edge\" (only kicks) has to wear those ridiculous shoes. ^^

This is absolutely the greatest fighting game one could wish for. Now, I'm just hoping the planned movie won't be crap.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This happened to be just starting on TV when I opened it, and as I felt too lazy to change the channel, I ended up watching it. Man, was that fortunate.

This film is more of a fairy tale than a demanding drama, and at times openly sentimental one. It is definitely what one could call a feel-good movie, and I usually find such either boring or irritating. Yet this film is so very well done I could not help but love it. The script will not twist your brain; it is conventional, but flawless. The actors are brilliant, every single one is a perfect fit for the role. There is not much of a score, but the bits of music enhance the movie beautifully.

If you can appreciate other things than expensive pyrotechnics, vicious murders or saving the world in a movie, do watch this if you ever have the chance. 5\/5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"BONJOUR, MONSIEUR SHLOMI is simply a wonderful film! Writer\/Director Shemi Zarhin has created a story unlike any other and cast it with such consistently fine actors that it remains a puzzle to me that this film has not become an audience favorite throughout the world. It is intelligent, emotional, edifying, and warm, entertaining, and in all categories it is a winner.Shlomi (Oshri Cohen, in a brilliantly understated performance) is a 16-year-old lad who takes care of his highly dysfunctional family: his mother (Esti Zakheim) is about as distasteful a shrew as ever concocted and in a constant state of ill temper because of her husband cheated on her, and because she is stuck working double shifts to support her ailing father-in-law (Ariek Elias, who as Shlomi's grandfather is a bright, funny, wise, loving old man who deeply cares for Shlomi); a married sister Ziva (Rotem Abuhab)who periodically moves back in to the house because of constant spats with her husband who doesn't help her care for their infant twin sons; his brother Sasi (Assi Cohen) whose life is loud electric guitars, braggadocio about female conquests, and the favorite son of his mother. Stir this mixture and the result is the penultimate dysfunctional family unit. Shlomi cooks gourmet meals for them, shops, cleans house, runs errands, bathes and cares for this grandfather and in general leads a life of submission to a family that views him as a 'retard'.Shlomi longs for a girlfriend and practically fails his school because of his lack of time devoted to caring for his family and a lack of concentration. Serendipitously his math teacher Begin (Nisso Keavia) notes his natural mathematic genius on a discarded test, and with the aid of the headmaster (Yigal Nair) the two encourage him to be tested and discover that he is a genius (?with dyslexia?) and arrange for him to try for a special school in Haifa. Shlomi's mother will hear none of it but between fights with Shlomi's absentee father (Albert Iluz) and confrontations with the teacher and headmaster they finally consent to his testing for the school.Meanwhile Shlomi discovers a girl his age Rona (Aya Koren) who has moved in next door and gradually the two become intertwined in a physical and intellectual relationship. Always in the background is the support of Shlomi's grandfather, and when the grandfather dies, Shlomi sets off on the journey to live his life for himself, to realize his gifts, to find his happiness. The manner in which the family comes to grips with this is the peak of the movie and need not be revealed for the sake of loosing the power of the message.The film is beautifully photographed, the musical score is creatively lovely, and the final result is one of exaltation of the human spirit. Highly recommended on every level. In Hebrew with English subtitles.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great movie to watch with a good friend, boy\/girl friend or family. Basically one of those feel good movies you want to share with your loved ones....without all the girlie crap you find in a lot of American feel good movies. This movie is light hearted but makes you think, and will make you laugh.

Just a really simple but universal plot. Would think most people could relate in some way to this movie. The characters in the movie are amazing and the actors do a great job in sucking you into the movie. And the movie is topped off all along the way with hilarious true to life Jewish humor. I watched the movie for the first time last night, and now I want to own it. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Over the years some of them most enjoyable films have been about dysfunctional families.

Bonjour,Monsieur Sholmi is such a film

This is an Isreali film about a Moroccan Jewish family.

This could be about any family, in any culture. We all know or would want to know people like those in this comic gem.

This 2003 delight was written & directed by Shemi Zorkin. Let us hope he a long career.

The movie is seen through the eyes of the 16 year old son,who seems to be concerned with everyone in the family. Heis brilliantly played by Oshri Cohen (he was 18 when he made the movie.

He has been in a few since & I know I will hunt them up. Hopefully this young man will become an international star.

The entire cast is magnificent,I do hope I see them again.

I loved every person in the cast to some degree.I think all who see this will agree.

It has been nominated for many international awards & has won 8, It deserved every one.

Now being a film in a language besides English it had a very limited run in the USA, which I feel is regrettable.

Rent this film you will be glad you did.

Ratings: ***1\/2 (out of 4) 95 points(out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10)

NOTE: Since the story is not new, this is as high a rating it can get.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of my favorite movies of all times, have seen it three times already. It does a great job of summing up the Isrelai walks of life, Israeli humor, and seriousness, and much of the problems Israelis go through. Universal theme of wanting to be accepted, and be accepted for who you are. Good subtle humor, and it's the charisma of the characters, that makes this movie magic, and says a lot about Isrlaei culture, and the irnonicness, contradictions, and humor, with a great actor in it, Oshri Cohen. I highly recommend it to anyone, and it's a movie perfect for practically anyone, family movie, boyfriend\/girlfriend movie, and also says apart from Israeli culture, wanting to be accepted, most of all, how important family is, with all its diversity and imperfections.

Great great movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"before watching this movie my thoughts were like \"another israeli typical movie\" but i was suprised to watch i great israeli drama. the plot is really good and the actors act great. one of the best isreali movies i saw... so at the bottomline i really recommend this movie. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great flick! It is funny for everyone, even adults. We got Jason Voorhees\/Leatherface like killer in this, along with other wacky characters. Very funny flick, for children of all ages. Must of rented this every time we went to the video store! Buster and Babs make a good pair, and gotta love the duck. He is probably my favorite character! I was never big on the TV show but this movie just brings back so many great memories. Must see for families, fans of the show, or anyone! Enjoyable no matter how small or old you are! RENT IT NOW AT YOUR LOCAL VIDEO STORE!

P.S. NEEDS A DVD RELEASE!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How I Spend My Vacation puts closure to the television series that aired from 1990 to 1992. I've always enjoyed the series for what it is. I've never compared the series to the Looney Tunes of the old days. The video release was split up in four or five episodes (I can't remember as I'm writing this) for television and it's included in the episode list of the series. What's good about this series is that All the main characters of the show have a major role in the story. We see what they all do during their summer vacation in different parts of the world. Elmyra is with his parents in a Safari, Plucky and Hampton crossing the country with Hampton's parents, Fifi is in some beach, etc. The climax is very good and at the end all Tiny Toon characters reunite for the start of a new year in the \"Looniversity\", thus practically ending the good run of this tv show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I was a kid, I loved \"Tiny Toons\". I especially loved \"Tiny Toons: How I spent my Summer Vacation\". I thought it was laughs on the floor funny. A few years later, my friend had the video. And I figured I'd watch it for the good old days. I was still on the floors laughing. My opinion, the Plucky and Hampton skit is the best. They decide to go to \"Happy World Land\". And they end up having a crazy adventure to get there. All the skits are funny. I'm still looking for the video. So, if anyone has any tips. Please write me.

This is one of the funniest cartoons I have ever seen.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is in the opinion of this reviewer that the best time to be a child was in the 1990's, a period when cartoons were not heavily censored and talented and creative minds were responsible for some of the best family entertainment to hit the air-waves. The best producers of Saturday morning animation were at Warner Brothers Television, who experienced a major Golden Age with the dream-team of Steven Spielberg, Tom Ruegger and Paul Dini. Along with serious and dark series like Batman, they also revived zany, outlandish cartoons made famous by the Looney Tunes. Animaniacs was the biggest hitter with its dark adult humour and homages to the celluloid of yesteryear and today, but Tiny Toon Adventures was equally popular by re-inventing the Looney Tunes for a new generation, while still keeping that crazy cartoon violence and intelligent comedy that can hold onto any age group, no matter how old. Even when the Tiny Toons were stretched to a feature-length with How I Spent My Vacation, it did not feel like a longer episode of the television series, a curse that so often plagues other feature-length adaptations of popular animated shows.

The Tiny Toon Gang are young off-springs of the classic cartoon characters who made audiences laugh back in the 1940's and 1950's and are currently learning cartoon comedy to \"earn their Toon Degree.\" Summer Vacation has started and each character has their own idea of what to do. Buster Bunny (Charles Adler) and Babs Bunny (Tress MacNeille) start a water gun fight which ultimately leads to Acme Acres getting flooded and them both sailing down the Mississippi. Plucky Duck (Joe Alaskey) joins Hamton Pig (Don Messick) on a cross-country car trip to the Happiest Theme Park in the World, but Hamton's family proves to be more difficult than he imagined. Meanwhile, in other stories scattered throughout, Elmyra Duff (Cree Summer) tries to find a cat to hug and squeeze, Fifi Le Fume (Kath Soucie) attempts to go out on a date with her favourite skunk star and Shirley the Loon (Gail Matthius) goes to the cinema with a loud-mouth Fowlmouth (Rob Paulen).

While the premise sounds thin for a feature-length film, the many directors and screenwriters make all the stories work well together. The best of these is Plucky's unfortunate road trip, which utilises a golden comedic opportunity very well: feeling pity for somebody, while also laughing at their predicament. Plucky's annoyed reaction to all the bad things that happen to him are a perfect blend of script and animation, all in the confines of a small car stuffed with pork. Elmyra's story definitely ranks second just to see how a little, almost innocent girl can cause fear into so many jungle animals. The aforementioned cartoon violence definitely comes to the fore-front with Buster and Babs' story, which makes us smile not only due to the hilarity of the outcomes, but also nostalgically, since Ruegger and company would probably not be allowed to show half of what they do in that segment. Practically half of that segment plays as a parody and homage to Deliverance, including a clever twist on the dueling banjos scene, featuring the unforgettable Tiny Toon Adventures theme song.

Part of the universal appeal of the Tiny Toons is that the humour proves to be very intelligent as it targets subjects with a ferocity that proves that it does not at all deserve the title of \"children's fare\" that people seem to slap it with. An entire segment featuring Fowlmouth's poor etiquette at the cinema pokes fun at yappers in a note-perfect way, along with an additional jab at Lucasfilm's THX logo. That scene is done so perfectly that it should be featured before every cinema showing. There are also a couple of moments that poke fun at Disney World, cinematic plot holes and even Warner's legal department. The fact that today's cartoons are bland and un-creative makes those intelligent moments even more treasuring as there probably will not be another animated series that will come close.

After watching How I Spent My Vacation for the first time in many years, I can say with all certainty that they do not make cartoons quite like they used to. With the ongoing censorship that today's family entertainment receive, one wonders whether anything like this will ever be made again. This review is not only a recommendation of a truly smart film, but also a plea for Spielberg, Ruegger and Dini to team up again and bring forth a magical creation to our minds once again. Lord knows that the children of the twenty-first century is in need for something with the intelligence of Tiny Toon Adventures. This is not a simple cash-grab, it is a wonderful film with full of spirit, madcap mayhem and hilarity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tiny Toons:how i spent my vacation, has always been my favourite animation movie and loved it since i first watched it when i was 7 or sumthing,now i'm almost seventeen and i still love this wonderful work of art..

I really like the idea how we track what each of them did in their vacation, and there were really some funny quotes said, that really made me laugh a lot...

In this movie u'll never get bored and once u see it u'll want 2 c it again and again, because believe me it's really wonderful and it's suitable for all ages..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was one of my favorite movies from childhood. I watched it so many times,eventually my tape wore out. I was a huge fan of this show and still am.The thing I love most about this movie is that it appeals to so many people, both young and old. I watch this movie now and laugh just as hard as I did the first time I saw it. I am now able to appreciate all the adult jokes that I never got as a child. My favorite characters are Elmyra and Foulmouth. Almost fifteen years later, my dad (a huge fan of the movie as well) and I are still quoting lines from this movie. I love the part where Foulmouth and Shirley go to the movies. \"You save the seats, Shirl and I'll snag the dadgum snacks.\" I also loved the storyline of Plucky and Hampton and his family going to Happy World Land. Wade Pig reminded me a lot of my dad. I love the part when they finally get to Happy World Land and all they do is ride on the monorail. This movie is hilarious and appeals to children and kids. The animation, jokes and everything about it are top notch. If you have not seen it, rent it. You won't be sorry.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tiny Toons is the first cartoon I remember watching as a child and I loved every minute of it. When I was four or five my parents purchased the video How I Spent My Vacation. I watched it over and over again until I new every word. Well a few days ago my three year old cousin came over and I had to entertain him. I decided to show him this old relic of my childhood.

I new he would laugh but I was surprised how much I laughed. Like every Tiny Toons film and episode the humor is based more on wackiness and slapstick humor and succeeds tremendously. Bugs, Babs, Plucky Duck, Maton Pig, and Fifi all endure amazing adventures from Bugs and Babs white-water rafting with a little help from Superman, Plucky Duck and Maton pig travel to the greatest amusement park only to ride the monorail, and Elmyra goes on an odd quest to find cute kittens in a safari land.

Some of the classic humor stands in this Tiny Toon Adventure and is some of the best wacky comedy I've ever seen. My favorite gag had to be the monorail thing when Hamton and Plucky arrive, ride the monorail, and leave )much to Plucky's dismay). No matter what your age you'll laugh yourself to tears while not having to deal with language and nudity.

Tiny Toons Adventures: How I Spent My Vacation. Starring the voices of: Charles Adler, Tress MacNeille, Joe Alaskey, and Don Messick.

5 out of 5 Stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"CAUTION: Potential Spoilers Ahead!

\"Steven Spielberg Presents Tiny Toon Adventures\" was always one of my favorite cartoons growing up (heck, it still is). And this movie perfectly captures everything I love about the show and puts it in full-length form.

Beautifully animated by the Tokyo Movie Shinsa studio (WB outsourced every \"Tiny Toons\" project, and this was the best studio to handle the show), the movie starts at the end of the school year at Acme Looniversity, the renowned cartoon college where Buster and Babs Bunny (no relation) and their teenage toon peers learn from the masters of animated lunacy, the Looney Tunes. After the final bell, the movie splits off into five different plots. Buster engages Babs in a water gun fight that culminates with a bursting dam and a tidal wave, sending Buster, Babs, and Elmyra's dog Byron downriver on an overturned picnic table in search of adventure in the deep South. Plucky Duck talks Hamton Pig and his family into letting him come with them to HappyWorldLand, \"The Happiest Place in the Western Hemisphere\", but he has to put up with an excruciating car ride and the threat of a chainsaw-wielding hitchhiker. Elmyra's cat Furball finally runs away, but she isn't daunted...not when there are plenty of \"aminals\" to play with at the Acme Safari Park. Fifi la Fume devotes her summer to hunting down her heartthrob, movie star Johnny Pew, in the hopes of getting an autograph. Of course, the hotel he's staying at is nearly impenetrable. And Shirley McLoon sets up a fortune telling booth on the Acme Acres Boardwalk...and lets her guard down on her day off when Fowlmouth takes her to see the horror flick \"Skunkophobia\".

All these story lines are sidesplittingly hilarious, and some of them even overlap in the end. The only complaint I have with this movie is that it doesn't make full use of the Tiny Toons roster - Dizzy Devil and Mary Melodie have only one scene, Gogo Dodo only appears at the beginning and end of the film, and Montana Max, Sweetie, Calamity Coyote, and Little Beeper are nowhere to be found. Still, they're excusable flaws in an otherwise perfect film. This movie is pretty rare today, since it's over 12 years old and has never been released on DVD to my knowledge, but I highly suggest you track it down - anyone who's a fan of Warner Bros. animation, either classic or contemporary, NEEDS to see this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie... it can make me laugh! =^_^= Which is kinda hard to do. This movie is one of the best cartoon adaptations ever. It doesn't warp the characters like other movies out there. Everyone is in character and has a role to play!

The movie focuses around Buster and Babs going down river after a flood (courtesy of Buster), to Plucky going on a trip with Hamton (hilarious stuff), Elmyra running around torturing animals (as usual), Fifi following her crush around for an autograph, and Shirley and Fowlmouth going to the movies.

In my own personal opinion, I didn't like the Buster and Babs segments that much, although they had some notable dialogue and jokes. I have got to say the Plucky and Hampton 'Vacation' parts were the best! Hamton's family is HILARIOUS! I especially like Uncle Stinky. Fifi in the hotel was also hilarious. I love the actor cameos during this scene. :D

Probably the most famous part in this movie, again IMHO, is when Fowlmouth and Shirley are in the movie theater... LOL! You've got to see it to appreciate it! And when Hamton and Plucky go through the tunnel to make a wish... :)

Although this movie moved slowly during the Buster\/Babs parts, the rest is pure gold! I rate this movie 8\/10. Show this to your kids one day... or even adults yourselves - WATCH THIS MOVIE! You won't regret it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You don't have to be a fan of the cartoon show to enjoy this film. I watched it for the first time when I was nine, having been a fan of the T.V show, and my parents laughed just as hard as I did. It is done in the classic style of Bugs Bunny cartoons from yesterday, and considering todays vulgar cartoons, I would think anybody would appreciate a cartoon movie that relies more on \"wackiness\" then on vulgarity, to get a few laughs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While not the first movie I've purchased for myself, this is almost certainly the one I've watched the most. The animation is well-drawn by the experts at Tokyo Movie Shinsa, and the animators frequently made use of clever techniques such as having the sun cause \"lens flare\", having the camera get soaked (and having the \"camera operator's hand\" clean the lens!) etc. While the film avoided becoming a an \"animator's gadget-fest\", the judicious but generous application of such techniques gave the film a much more \"realistic\" feel than the typical cartoon.

The story has many interweaved plots which don't seem to have much to do with each other until everything comes together at the end, in a manner even the writers self-effacingly admit is contrived. Each of the major plot lines has its own musical theme, ranging from \"Pop goes the weasel\" [Hamton & Plucky], to the love theme from \"Romeo and Juliet\" [Fifi & Johnny]. The transitions between plotlines are slightly varied, but consistent.

Truly a wonderful film; there isn't much original music, though the new lyrics to \"Spinning Song\" are clever and enjoyable. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watch this movie at the start of every summer, and it never ceases to amuse me. Here the jokes are packed in near every line of dialogue, giving you more bang than the average Simpsons episode. Some of the jokes fall flat or will only elicit a slight chuckle, but others will leave you rolling and then there are those that stick in your brain... \"The audience is now deaf.\"

The video knows it's a video, and makes no pretensions about being anything else. It's easy to sit back and let the bombardment of humor begin. A good mix of slapstick, pop culture, and tongue-in-cheek comedy ensures there's something for everybody. I was in sixth grade when I first saw this video, and I have to admit I still find it as hilarious now that I've started college.

This is a good movie to watch over the summer, much in the way you might watch \"It's a Wonderful Life\" at Christmas or \"Ten Commandments\" at Easter\/Passover. More than that, it's just funny as hell.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a big fan of Tiny Toon Adventures, I loved this movie!!! It was so funny!!! It really captured how cartoons spent their summers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a classic animated film from the cartoon series! Most of the major characters get alot of screen time plus do extra characters aswell! The film`s focus is on the superstar characters vacation and each one has his\/her very unique summer fun! Its very funny from beginning to end! It has excellent color, great music and believe it or not I have seen this more than any movie. Its that great and in MY opinion its perfect!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first viewed the trailer,I have to decide if this series would be perfect for my collection. But after hearing about it,I decided to buy it. When I bought the entire collection in a box set,it was absolutely what I wanted to see. It was very funny,and the characters were pretty cool. Favorite characters in the show are:Marion,Carrot,the Haze Knights,Big Momma,and Dotta. I also liked the opening and ending theme songs. The show also has some great voice talents from Tiffany Grant,Jason Douglas,and others. But however,this show is one of the greatest. So if you want to see something cool. Then this show is the one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To be honest fellow IMDb reviewers, I enjoyed this show a lot. The reason? Well, it didn't try to be more than it is; I mean, a sitcom with regular expectations, with a well known and repeated plot, funny and talented actors, and clever jokes oriented for a post college audience.

This is what Grown Ups is all about: trying to be mature but in a funny way.

Jaleel White is funny as always and delivers some witty, and hilarious sex oriented jokes. The humor is very 90's without taking in account the tendencies of the new millennium and that's the main reason in my opinion why the show didn't have success. It got stuck in the 90's.

Oh and Mrs. Ribisi was really funny and perky.

My favorite show has to be the one that deals with Karma biting the ass! Not a cult classic but I'm sure it's part of regular early 2000's nostalgia.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I gave this show a chance because of Jaleel White, not for his Urkel character, but mainly for the Sonic the Hedgehog voice XD So anyway, like I said, I gave it a chance, and I was very fond of it. I never cared for the Urkel character, so I was pleased to see Mr. White in a role other than the ever-so-annoying nerd. And his Calvin J. Fraiser (first called Calvin, but come the second episode, everyone started calling him \"J\") was very entertaining and interesting.

I think my favorite episode was when J was dating the ex-Cowboys cheerleader with the snobby kid. (\"Don't you talk that way 'bout my momma!\" \"This is grown-up talk, you stay down there!\") The only beef I have is that the show was suppose to have 3 main characters, but Mr. White's character always seemed to have the most attention and the other two (who are married) always had the back stories... It isn't exactly a good thing when a story about those two possibly being pregnant takes backseat to J. having to babysit his girlfriend's dog.....

Other than that, I really wish this show could have lasted a little longer. Unfortunetely, it seems that people weren't interested in Jaleel White as something other than the God-Awful annoying ass nerd known as Urkel....

Hope they at least put it out as a DVD box set.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though for most of us, sexiness is a variable quality, I cannot recall a movie that did for me what this one does. It transported me into an awfully familiar realm of longing and desire. All the compulsive attraction, uncertainty over the outcome, the palpable fear and excitement so attendant to that state of arousal were brought to fever pitch by this flick. So French and what I consider daring! No matter what your orientation, I think that the danger of chasing your desire is brought full-front and center here...much more so, say, than with Kubrick's \"Eyes Wide Shut\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"L'Homme Blesse is not for an impatient, adventure-seeking audience. There are no explosions nor is the drama straightforward. Like the films of Lynne Ramsey, the director is working more deeply with mood than with storytelling in a manner that is effective and incredibly moving. Because it does not rely on gratuitous nudity, or superficial pop-cult. story lines, this is quite frankly one of the best gay foreign film I have seen (also, see Francois Ozon, Pedro Almodovar). Nicolas Roeg's \"Don't Look Now\" gets a lot of bad press because it is sold as a horror film. That film, like L'Homme, is more than what the box might lead you to believe. If you are in the mood to sit back and be absorbed by the subtle, transformed powers of cinema, you'll love this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When this showed at the Seattle Int'l Film Fest I was the only person standing and clapping and cheering. The rest of the crowd booed or was silent. It is a well played small film that reaches deep into the reality of a young gay man's humanity. It is about a real man; and does not play to the insipid hyper-buffed muscular \"gay paositive\" that passes for the genre of non-porn Gay cinema (and that is why so much of contemporary Gay genre movies are so dull). This movie is Intense Passsion and Great Tragedy. The acting and directing and cinematography is fantastic; it all keeps the film clastrophobic and tense and passionate. Don't miss this if you can find it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fine performance by Vittorio Mezzogiorno and a masterful one by Jean-Hugues Anglade adorn this stange tale of lust, desire and alienation in France. The work of the two lead performers is striking--subtle, intense and passionate. Alas, the script is deliberately turgid and sordid, and the overall effect leaves one with a downcast spirit. Still, those who can appreciate fine quality acting will be able to savor the courageous work of the leads in this often difficult film journey of Gallic low life.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You've got to think along the lines of Last Tango in Paris for this one because the mood and emotion runs along the same lines and maintains the same heights - the difference being that in this exceptional, intense and torrid depiction of love among the ruins of a Dostoyevskyian dispossessed the setting is a gay-subcultural milieu - perhaps even one that is set to vanish in time, and not the equally arresting but heterosexual context of Bertolucci's own film.

The last third of this film depicts a passionate love never seen in gay cinema. To talk of pornography or gay self-effacement misses the point and intelligence of this work. This film, though on first impression appears to take us into the familiar & often depicted underworld of gay street-life, then precedes to subvert the rules of this genre by exaggerating it to a super-real degree. The result is a hyper-charged emotional heightening - an exceptional strategy that elevates the drama to one of big universal themes and giant gestures.

This film snatches the high ground because of the brilliant performances by it's actors, notably a young Jean Hugues Anglade and the directing. A tour- De -force of cinema. Outstanding in ambition and it's unceasing plummet into the depths of human emotion. As a contribution to gay cinema, this film conquers this difficult ground and makes it it's own triumph.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Warning,contains spoilers!

This is one of the best Italian sleaze films I've seen.

The plot has a teenage girl who is interested of occultism and has supernatural powers.Her mother is a member of satanist group and is afraid what influences it'll have on the girl.No need to worry, the girl knows just what to do and there's no return,she belongs to Satan..

During the film odd things happen in typical italo way,there's not too much logic,but that's only good thing.It's amazing how entertaining these films are.. On the final battle we see her and her mother fighting each other (nude off course) and doing some mysterious rituals,you might guess who wins... The films final pictures leaves your mouth open and wandering why can't there be more films like this?

There's superb music through the whole film and the actors are quite good,better than usual in these type of films.Specially Anne Heywood looks and acts good.It also has some unusual camera angles and stuff like that, so it's not boring at all.My rating is 10.

Hopefully someone releases this on dvd.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Four Daughters,\" a sentimental story of a solid middle class family with four sisters, was notable in one respect: into this romantic, idealized milieu enters Mickey Borden\u0085 Carelessly dressed, with an uncompromising attitude to all bourgeois values, he really sets the hearts of the sisters aglow\u0085 His criticisms are not only directed towards those about him but also towards himself\u0085

One day Ann (Priscilla Lane) discovers him passionately playing the piano\u0085 \"That's beautiful,\" she says\u0085 \"It stinks,\" he replies\u0085 He falls in love with \u0096 and marries \u0096 Ann but eventually, realizing that their basic incompatibility is leading their marriage into disaster, he takes the equally uncompromising step of causing his fall\u0085

The role was superbly played by John Garfield, and it brought him not only stardom but also, and perhaps more important, won for him his place in cinema history as the screen's first rebel hero\u0085

Garfield was born in New York's East side of Russian immigrant parents, and spent his adolescence as a delinquent, a real life role that he only relinquished when he began to portray the rebel on screen\u0085 He continued, however, throughout his life to question and reject certain traditional values\u0085 He was occasionally suspended by the studio and maintained a cynical view of Hollywood\u0085

Finally he ended his career and his life as one of the victims of McCarthy's witchhunt\u0085 He was blacklisted by Hollywood because of his suspected left wing sympathies and friends claimed that being banned from working contributed to the heart attack' that killed him at the early age of 39\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Story about a widowed father (Claude Rains) bringing up his four daughters. Emma (Gale Page) is loved by big hunky Ernest (Dick Foran). Thea (Lola Lane) is romanced by an old but wealthy man. Kay (Rosemary Lane) wants to become a singer. Ann (Priscilla Lane) is a romantic. Drop dead handsome Felix Deitz (Jeffrey Lynn), a business associate of their father, comes to stay with them. All the sisters fall in love with him. Then tough cynical Mickey (John Garfield) enters the picture...

Very entertaining movie was a big hit and nominated for five Academy Awards. It's beautifully directed by Michael Curitz, has a pretty good (if predictable) script and a VERY attractive cast (especially Lynn). Also this was John Garfield's first film and made him a star. This was so popular there were three or four sequels (which I never saw). This is an engrossing, entertaining, big budget soap opera--well worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What starts as a homespun comedy-drama and then halfway turns into a melodrama made a major star of John Garfield - and justly so. But Jeffrey Lynn is not to be dismissed as the object of affection of the four daughters. Lynn is very handsome and is so charming it's easy to believe that all four daughters could fall for him. Although Garfield received most of the kudos, Lynn became a major leading man at Warner Bros. as a result of this film.

Michael Curtiz insisted on location shooting for the picnic scene, making it the highlight of the film. Throughout, the craftsmanship is enough to inspire awe. A soap opera by Fanny Hurst has been turned into a cinema masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Directed by Michael Curtiz, Four Daughters is about four musically gifted sisters, their suitors, and their father, a minor conductor.Playing sardonic, quick talking Mickey Borden is John Garfield in the role that made him an instant star.The movie also stars Claude Rains as Adam Lemp and the Lane sisters, Lola, Rosemary, and Priscilla, and Gale Page as his spirited daughters.Its definitive scene takes place in the Lemps' living room. Cigarette hanging from his lips, Borden is playing one of his own compositions. Priscilla Lane's Ann Lemp tells him the piece is beautiful. But he says, \"It stinks.\" He continues: \"It hasn't got a beginning or an end, only a middle.\" Ann urges him to create a beginning and an end. Borden replies, \"What for? The fates are against me. They tossed a coin--heads I'm poor, tails I'm rich. But they tossed a two-headed coin.\" Audiences loved the way Garfield, in his tough city voice, said It stinks. That scene created Garfield's screen persona as the eternal outsider. Four Daughters is a slice of Americana with Garfield, in a compelling performance, supplying more than a hint of darkness.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Four Daughters\" introduced John Garfield to audiences, and that is what is remembered most about this film today. Unlike some actors who appear in several films before their screen image gels, Garfield established his immediately, with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth and talk of the fates being against him.

It's actually the story of four girls, their widowed musician father (Claude Rains) and their various suitors, one of whom, Felix, is played by handsome Jeffrey Lynn. He's the one they all have a crush on, but he's in love with Buff (Priscilla Lane). Then she meets ne'er-do-well Mickey Borden, who falls for her as well. When Buff realizes that one of her sisters is in love with Felix, she leaves him at the altar and marries Mickey.

This is a fairly formulaic story given life (and sequels) by the acting. Garfield has already been mentioned, but Priscilla Lane was by far the strongest of the daughters, the most interesting, and the best actress. Jeffrey Lynn was a fresh and good-looking leading man, and this film got him off on the right foot with Warners. However, true stardom was not to be. Like many others of the era, he went into the service, and when he came out, he had a Bronze Star but not much of a career. He later went into television and real estate. Claude Rains is warm and wonderful as the patriarch.

So popular was \"Four Daughters\" that it inspired \"Four Wives\" and \"Four Mothers,\" as well as reuniting much of the cast again in \"Daughters Courageous\" where the actors played different characters.

Very enjoyable, a nice remembrance of simpler and probably happier times, and a chance to see John Garfield in his first film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While John Garfield seems to get the bulk of attention, the true star of Four Daughters is Priscilla Lane. Her performance is the glue that holds the large cast together.

Her ability to interact equally well with John Garfield and the more carefree Jeffrey Lynn is at the core of the success of Four Daughters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Four Daughters\" begins as just another clone of \"Little Women\" type melodrama. A single father with four musically talented eligible daughters has his hands full trying to keep them in line and guide them in their courting rituals. What turns the film around is the sudden appearance of a new Hollywood star, some critics say the first anti-hero long before James Dean graced the big screen. From the time the dark, foreboding figure of Mickey Borden (John Garfield) appears at Ann Lemp's (Priscilla Lane) gate splashing his self-pity and doomed philosophy on the rest of the cast, \"Four Daughters\" becomes much more than just a chick flick.

Though Garfield is the main reason to watch \"Four Daughters,\" there are other flashes of brilliance to enjoy. Hungarian-born director Michael Curtiz, later responsible for such gems as \"Casablanca\" and \"Mildred Pierce,\" pinpoints certain images with his camera (aided by cinematographer Ernest Haller of \"Rebel Without A Cause\" fame) that sticks in the viewers mind, for example the screeching gate that Ann's first suitor, Felix Deitz (Jeffrey Lynn), swings on so merrily becomes symbolic of the shifts in moods and affections by those who use it.

That Garfield delivers the standout performance is obvious, but the rest of the cast keeps up with him most of the way. The underrated Jeffrey Lynn plays his role to perfection, as the neglected suitor whose love for his cherished Ann never falters even when she's with another man. Claude Rains, somewhat miscast as the father of the four coming-of-age young women, gives a fine portrayal of a set upon doting family head who gets lost in the shuffle. The three Lane Sisters, already famous for their musical abilities, turn into accomplished actresses, playing their parts well. A raft of supporting actors, including Dick Foran, Frank McHugh, May Robson, and Eddie Acuff, makes it all believable.

How opposites attract is part of the ploy for touching the quick of the viewer's imagination. Ann is the eternal optimist, even when she and Mickey are down and out. She always looks on the bright side and like so many caught in the pliers of the Great Depression in those days, she saw prosperity just around the corner. Mickey recites an entire list of bad things that have happened to him seeking company in his misery from Ann, which Ann refuses to do. Mickey expects to go out with a bolt of lightning striking him dead as he rounds the corner of life. Mickey has meager talent as a composer; Ann has talent to spare as a singer and musician. Ann is big on beauty; Mickey is big on personality in a warped sense of a way. And the differences go on and on. How all this is reconciled in the end is an important part of the movie, not to be missed.

See \"Four Daughters\" for John Garfield's doozy of an acting debut on the big screen. The only time he was better came seven years later when he again mesmerized the film goers with one of the greatest screen performances ever, as Frank Chambers in \"The Postman Always Rings Twice,\" opposite the equally charismatic Lana Turner. But also watch \"Four Daughters\" to catch important elements that may be missed if too much concentration is placed on the star of the show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lovingly crafted and terribly interesting to watch Garfield's gritty, breakthrough performance (introducing a new kind of rebellious acting style that would carry over to the Brandos and Clifts and so on after the war) but all that sisterly affection is a bit suffocating. Priscilla Lane is a bright, engaging performer but the other sisters don't really register (though they're all allowed to be tart and witty) and I just had a hard time buying any of the other male characters besides Garfield. Jeffrey Lynn is a pleasant enough actor, but he lacks the movie star weight to match up with Garfield's hard luck Mickey Borden and that throws the film a bit out of whack. (Imagine a Jimmy Stewart or someone in the part.) Also, I was not convinced that Garfield would make the pivotal (to say the least) final decision that he made. The film needed another half hour of running time to better explain that action; it feels awfully rushed and under-motivated.

Still, it's not hard to understand how anybody who grew up with this picture would remember it fondly. It falls short of being a classic, but it does contain a few classic moments. The two gate swinging scenes are pure movie magic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although a \"woman's story,\" I found this still fairly interesting. It is unusual in that is has three real-life sisters playing sisters in the movie! I am referring to Priscilla, Rosemary and Lola Lane.

Why national critics loved this movie was the presence of bad-boy-rebel John Garfield. In their twisted Liberal-dominated minds, All-American characters are sickening but sour-on- life, poor-attitude types like Garfield played here are people they can identify with. Despite that, this movie still has an overall feeling of goodness, which is why I liked it. Some of the characters may have done stupid things, but they good hearts. Whose heart was bigger than \"Ann's\" (Priscilla Lane) in here? I agree with the IMDb user comments critic in here who says this is Priscilla's film as much as the beloved (not by me) Garfield's.

With a director the caliber of Michael Curtiz, the film is better than it might have been under someone else. Curtiz made sure no scene, soapy or otherwise, went on too long.

In addition to the Lane sisters and Garfield, we have Claude Rains (who adds much-needed humor to the story), Jeffrey Lynn (the main love interest of the girls), Gale Page, Dick Foran, Frank McHugh and Mae Robson.

Apparently, this movie must have been a hit because there were several spin-offs from it, neither of them approaching this one in content and box-office success.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of Warner Brothers best and highest grossing films during the Thirties was this charming family drama about a widower who lives with his maiden sister raising Four Daughters. But not four every day type daughters. All of them have been trained by their musician father on instruments and one as a singer. They do make some beautiful music together even if it is for the long haired set.

You can watch the infinite variety of roles that Claude Rains played over the years and still marvel as he shows you yet another aspect of his creative personality. The opportunistic Vichy Captain in Casablanca is as different as the scientist gone mad in the Invisible Man, as the patient and wise Job in Mr. Skeffington. All the same man and all so incredibly different.

Here he raises the four girls with love seasoned with a little grouchiness at their willingness to accept modern music. The Lane Sisters and Gale Page may know Beethoven, but they're hep cats as well and can beat daddy eight to the bar every time. And if Rains gets a bit too testy than Aunt May Robson can put him in his place.

With Four Daughters unmarried at the time you know that's going to change. All the sisters develop romantic interests in Dick Foran, Frank McHugh, Jeffrey Lynn, and John Garfield. Of course the mating process does get a bit complicated and one of the sisters suffers a tragedy, but it does promise to work out as the film ends.

Four Daughters is also known as the debut film of John Garfield. Other than a tiny bit part in Footlight Parade years earlier, Garfield had no other film roles. But he'd been acclaimed on the New York stage for his performance in Golden Boy and Warner Brothers signed him and found the perfect film debut role as the cynical musician who just can't quite get a decent break in life. It earned him a Best Supporting Actor nomination in 1938, but he lost to Walter Brennan for Kentucky.

This film was so popular that it practically spawned a small cottage industry for Jack Warner. Sequels with cast members like Daughters Courageous, Four Mothers, Four Wives all cleaned up at the box office before World War II. And Warner Brothers remade it with Frank Sinatra and Doris Day playing the parts that John Garfield and Priscilla Lane originated. Now those two made some beautiful music.

Still a timeless mold was created in Four Daughters and the film holds up 70 years after it was first seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was made 20 years before my time. Its introduction of John Garfield in the supporting role of Mickey Borden makes it a classic. He slumps onto the screen and your eyes are glued. Garfield was an original and his portrayal of fate's whipping boy is a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A tight-knit musical family, cranky-benevolent father and four vivacious adolescent daughters, is up-rooted by, first, the appearance of Felix, a dashing young composer, and, secondly and most profoundly, Mickey, his insolently attractive orchestrator friend.

It takes a while for Michael Curtiz to get this piece of Americana floating. The first part looks almost like a paraphrasing of a cereal commercial, not without a certain quaint, highly bourgeois charm, and then John Garfield enters the scene as the doomed Mickey, making his first appearance in motion pictures, with mussed-up black curls, sleepy, hung-over eyes, rude and disheveled, the absolute opposite to Jeffrey Lynn's smoothly persuasive, madly charming Felix. Garfield is in complete, and DIRELY needed, counterpoint to the rest of the household (\"Nothing I would do would surprise me\", he muses), and suddenly the movie becomes interesting, although I agree with critics that find the plot-turns insufficiently motivated.

The four sisters are rather blandly played and seriously underwritten, but Claude Rains as the pater familias has his moments.

Watch it for Garfield, though, he is the only really lasting thing about it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film was apparently spawned from an idea one of the writers had when he 'saw' one of his creations in a supermarket. The inhabitants of Royston Vasey head into 'our' world to persuade the writers not to stop writing about them and thus destroy their world.

If that sounds a bit too serious, don't be put off. Within the first few minutes we get: Bernice (the vile female vicar) letting rip at an unfortunate penitent during confession; Chinnery (the vet who inadvertently destroys every animal he touches) attempting to collect semen from a giraffe; Mickey (thick beyond belief) being, ah, thick; and Tubbs (inbred sister-wife and local shopkeeper) being sweet as ever - but still disgusting.

Some of the regular characters are missing, but a new idea by the Gents introduces some 16th-Century characters - and we have the Gents themselves in the action too. If you're new to The League of Gentlemen, this is an easy introduction and a lot of fun. If you're a long-standing fan, this has everything you've come to expect - including the joys of Jeremy Dyson spotting.

All told, it's got the same faintly surreal humour that's the hallmark of the series, plus some moments of quite touching 'introspection'. Herr Lipp, for example, maintains a gentle dignity on learning that he's regarded by his creators as a 'one-joke character'. While most of the characters stay as they are, some develop in unexpected ways that are perfectly natural when they happen.

This film is a 'swan song' for Royston Vasey, but it's also a showcase for the Gents who prove that (gasp!) they can write other stuff - and it can be very funny. (But you knew that anyway.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are two ways to turn a TV series into a film.

The first, most common, and least successful, is to basically make a feature-length TV episode- see the disasters of the Steptoe & Son movie. The second is to do something else- something quite different, \u00e0 la Monty Python.

Thankfully, the creators of the cult TV series have gone for the second option, and they've come up with something unique, clever and funny- it couldn't feel less like a TV episode.

Try to get your head around this- the writers, playing themselves, are confronted by their Royston Vasey alter-egos, played, of course, by them, and told to continue writing the series, otherwise apocalypse will befall the village.

High-concept, contrived and easy to screw up? Yes, but somehow they managed to pull it off. Not for every taste, perhaps, and the ending does drag, but fans will be delighted, and it might even win over the uninitiated.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just saw 'The League of Gentlemen: Apocalypse' at a special screening in Manchester, with Mark Gatiss and Reece Shearsmith of the League in attendance.

At the back was Peter Kay (who has a brief cameo in the film) affectionately heckling at the back during the Q & A session after the film.

The film was complicated (in a good way) and very very funny. It follows Geoff Tipps, Hilary Briss and Herr Lipp as they try and save fictional Rosyton Vasey from the disinterest of their creators.

The League play a wide range of their characters and themselves (or character based on themselves) and are ably supported by the cream of British character and comedy actors such as Bernard Hill, Victoria Wood and David Warner.

Warner is a particular stand out reminding me of his smooth and cutting turn in 'Time Bandits'.

The film swims in and out of various realities and allows some of the denizen's of Rosyton Vasey some space to grow beyond their usual limits of their comedy shtick.

Steve Pemberton's Herr Lipp has a great Bretchian moment near the end of the movie and has to make a decision about his purpose and meaning in life which brings a lump to the throat at an unexpected moment and surprises you with its tender affection for the characters.

This echoes something Mark and Reece said in the Q & A afterwards, that the plot of the league being tired of their famous characters is spurious and that the whole film is really a love letter to them.

For a format that started as a radio character-based sketch show, these guys have really evolved the idea so far as to sustain a movie which takes you on a journey through fiction, 'reality', comedy, tragedy and a pleasing journey for two of the less obvious characters to carry a long form story from their 70 odd existing creations.

The fans of the show will love it. It pays off dedication and attention to detail in spades, the uninitiated may be a little lost, but the joy of the LoG was always the ability to almost instantly tune into their acutely observed characters and take the stylistic leap into farce and expressionistic movie homage.

There are homages a plenty in this one including 'The Shining' and 'La Belle et la Bete', to name but two I spotted and they ably demonstrate their love for cinema and history with a segment in 1690's England that makes perfect sense when you're engaged with the movie.

What can I say, I marvelled, boggled, emoted and snickered throughout and they have definitely pulled off what many have failed at. A successful British TV comedy to cinema translation.

If you've watched and enjoyed 'The League of Gentlemen' in the past, go see it; you will enjoy.

If you haven't, rent\/buy a DVD and then go see it.

Well done guys and thanks for the charming and humorous Q & A.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For many the hit series was ten years of pitch black humour loaded with affectionate parodies of classic films and a hilarious assortment of over a hundred characters with instantly recognisable catchphrases. Few shows have survived transition from radio to TV to stage show to film but The League of Gentlemen have achieved it with suitable aplomb.

The talented writer\/performers had initially envisioned a Monty Python style medieval adventure, but as soon as writing began they soon realised that the characters they have lived with had become very real and deserved better. With that, the Royston Vasey folk realise their very existence is under threat as the writers decide to disregard the fictitious town and work on a 17th Century romp instead.

With the exception of Michael Sheen playing much unseen League member Jeremy Dyson, The League play pretty unlikeable caricatures of their real life personae as well as the familiar faces of Tubbs (\"I made a little brown fishy\"), nightmare inducing sexual predator Herr Lipp, butcher Hilary Briss and an unlikely hero - irate businessman Geoff Tibbs. New faces appear when the third reality appears, it's here we are treated to charming and funny cameos from veteran actors and popular TV stars. For many this will be a really enjoyable 90 minutes.

'Apocalpse is not going to please everyone though. Working on this level of post modernism has been done a few times before now and may seem all too familiar to audiences raised on irony drenched teen successes kick-started by the likes of Wes Craven having a New Nightmare. It also takes a lot of confidence in an audience to keep up with a high concept story so there are moments of exposition and dialogue that serve only to confirm what most in the audience already know. Comedy as a genre is formulaic but it's now unheard of for a British film not to fall back on the huge back catalogue of TV stars to fill short amounts of screen time. It's also hard to believe the creators ever wanted their offspring killed off, which is perhaps why some of the role reversal doesn't always quite hit the mark. Would Hilary Briss have wanted to try save Royston Vasey in the series?

However, while the show's deliciously dark vein has almost all but disappeared but is arguably more accessible for it. Much will be said about the character development and efforts to humanise the likes of previously one joke incarnations like Herr Lipp. It is here an impossible level of depth can be found along with a harsh streak of biting satire and throwaway put downs. Sentiment is there with a lump in the throat but not sugar coated thickly enough to intrude on the action. The music is good, performances exemplary and the animation is wonderfully seamless; a nice throwback to Terry Gilliam and Ray Harryhausen's work. In short, there's a lot to like about the Apocalypse. Like so many TV to film transfers it was never going to be easy finding the line between preaching to the converted and introducing the uninitiated to the League's slick and distinct voice. But no matter what your preference is, this last trip to the town which 'You'll Never Leave' is oddly lined with hope and ultimately very, very touching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to admit that when I first heard about the Apocalypse film it was a worry.

I mean, they have a lot to live up to, don't they? When they first did a stage show they won the Perrier award and when they did radio they won a Sony award. When they ventured onto our telly's they won a Bafta award, a Royal Television Society Award and the Golden Rose of Montreux.

When the first series aired in January 1999 it was mind-blowing! A real breath of fresh air in British Comedy, and when the second series aired a year later it built on that foundation and sealed the shows cult status around the world, our web stats show that we have received visitors from every single country on the planet! The 'Local show for Local People' showcased the Gents talent for live performance and opened doors for the gents to do more live performing such as 'Art' in the west end.

The fans favourite has always been the Christmas Special, less of a sketch show and more a tribute to classic horror films yet still wrapped up in the delicious League style.

And then of course there was the 'difficult' third series, still a hit with the loyal hardcore fans of course, but maybe a little bit ahead of its time for a mainstream TV audience.

As I say, a lot to live up to.

So now we have the film and...Well a film is different isn't it? It will be seen by much larger numbers than the radio or TV shows and with the third series in mind I was worried.

Well as you know I was lucky enough to get to see the film yesterday at a press screening in London and all my doubts were blown away (literally) in the first few minutes! I am not going to give plot lines away as some reviewers have done, nor am I going to tell you the catch phrases (although there is really only one) but I will try to tell you what they have managed to achieve with this film! Leaving the cinema on Monday night I could only imagine writing 'Oh my god, it's brilliant, its amazing, its the best thing they have ever done, better than the first, second and specials all rolled into one!' Of course I owe my visitors a much better explanation than that! So, why is it brilliant? This is a film for everyone, the casual fan, the obsessive fan the occasional fan and even for someone who is sat in the wrong cinema! You don't have to have watched the series to enjoy this film; it works on so many levels.

This film reminded me why I am a League of Gentlemen Fan! You can tell that filming was a true labour of love too; the attention to detail is incredible. The sets for the TV show were always detailed but I am going to have to watch the film again just to look at the background! The story moves at a swift pace, the action carrying us from Royston Vasey to the real world where we meet the 'Creators' who are of course the League themselves! Along the way we manage to bump into favourite characters from the show but always within the central story unlike the TV sketch show.

I was glad that the film was dark in places, a little scary and a little strange...only fitting for The League of Gentlemen. The Gents also managed to get their revenge on the BBC censors, not as much slipping in the word 'Mongoloid' as screaming it from the roof tops! Some may think the Gents portrayal of themselves a little indulgent but that's the joke and with that comes my only worry, the in jokes I mention below may puzzle some viewers and they might come over a little too clever...but I shouldn't worry, there is always a poo joke waiting just around the corner and speaking of jokes, they come thick and fast, and in a mixture of clever references, wig jokes, bum jokes, visual jokes and cock gags! I haven't laughed out loud in a cinema since...well, I can't remember! The fans that have been 'with' the League since the beginning are rewarded with loads of 'in' jokes, some that work on two levels, a mainstream audience may laugh at a reference to a compact disc for one reason whilst fans of the Local show will laugh for another reason altogether! The cameos are genius! Peter Kay and Simon Pegg form the strangest double act you have ever seen, Simon getting one of the films biggest laughs just by making a noise! I was a little worried about the 1690's aspect of the film when I first heard about it but as a story within a story I was just getting into it when...but that would be telling! All I need to say is that it fits wonderfully and adds to the overall feel of the film! I am not a professional reviewer of films, so I am finding it difficult to put into words how much I enjoyed this film but for now I will just say that if the supposed benchmark for British Comedy films in recent years was the excellent 'Shaun of the Dead' then I am sorry but a new benchmark has just been set by the inventive, hilarious and sometimes a little scary...The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse.

Jason Kenny 2005","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After three outstanding BBC television series' and a Christmas special, the bizarre and grotesque (yet perversely lovable) characters of bleak fictional town Royston Vasey make the jump to celluloid, along with their creators - The League of Gentlemen.

Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith are the more familiar three-quarters of the foursome, with the central roles shared between the trio. In an added twist, the final member of the team - Jeremy Dyson - is portrayed by actor Michael Sheen.

Where to start? Dyson (Sheen) is in conversation with his writing cohorts, when - horror of horrors - he is paid a visit by two of his grisliest characters. Both Tubbs (Pemberton) and Edward Tattsyrup (Shearsmith) are unhappy at The League's decision to kill off the Vasey inhabitants. \"You're not real!\" screams Dyson in vain, as the local shopkeepers from hell exact their revenge. Mayhem ensues, as reality and Vasey converge with the vast array of characters entering our world to save theirs.

Confused? You will be, as the camp, innuendo-ridden Teutonic, Herr Lipp (Pemberton) is forced to take on the daily guise of Pemberton (Pemberton), while Pemberton (Pemberton) is kidnapped by cannibalistic butcher Hillary Briss (Gatiss) and Geoff Tipps (Shearsmith).

With shades of an even more demented Misery, Briss attempts to force Pemberton to rewrite the film - thus continuing his life - but leaving Geoff in charge is never a good idea. The erstwhile comedian becomes embroiled in The League's latest, post-Vasey adventure - The King's Evil - entering a typically twisted 17th century England, complete with cameos from Victoria Wood, Peter Kay and David Warner. Known as George of Asda (due to his select line of clothing), Geoff saves the day and is treated as a hero, but for the denouement of the film, he joins characters old and new at the Church of Royston Vasey to meet with their makers.

For fans of the series, the film is a must-see. And yes, it does feature Papa Lazarou (albeit a little too fleetingly). Pen-loving Pauline, Mickey, Barbara and cursed vet Matthew Chinnery are some of the other favourites on show, and The League's portrayal of themselves (plus Sheen's as Dyson) is also a fascinating insight.

The League of Gentlemen are the Radiohead of British comedy - they are ambitious, groundbreaking (witness the excellent Series Three) and not happy to rest on their laurels. They also divide opinion accordingly.

Certainly, their macabre sense of humour is not for every palate, and while not written exclusively for 'fans', a grasp of the storyline would benefit those who have previously viewed the series. Nevertheless, Apocalypse is a film in its own right and The League will no doubt manage to attract a new breed of fan, as well as appeasing and pleasing existing ones.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best British Comedy Film ever! For years English comedy television programs have turned into films and have flopped, 'Are You Being Served?' 'Dads Army', the list goes on. However the popular dark humoured BBC television show; 'The League of Gentlemen' has managed to not only create a film which has managed to not be a flop but has also managed to be the best British Comedy Film ever! With its dark and horrific twists and turns The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse is British Talent at its best! Its intriguing demonic storyline written by the League of Gentlemen (Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton, Reece Shearsmith and Jeremy Dyson) matches with the Gents (and guest cameos) superb acting! This I hope is not the end of Royston Vasey, not after this great success anyway! Don't think that if you have not seen The League of Gentlemen on the telly that you will not understand whats going on. Its all well explained and by the end of the film you will be happy with the result but you are still left hungry for more... Mmmm, Special Stuff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I never saw any of The League's work until early last year - although when channel hopping one night I caught the end of one the series three episodes. But last winter I fell in love with the show and its dark, eccentric and sometimes downright sinister characters. So when I learnt they had made a film in which the show's lovable creators met their own characters, I couldn't order the DVD fast enough and near on tore it from my postman's hands when he delivered it. I was so excited to see what the Gents had done and how they'd done it.

And it was excellent! From the beginning where Jeremy (Michael Sheen) is terrorised by Edward, Tubbs and Papa (Dyson, why didn't you play yourself? He's perfectly capable as viewers of the infamous Highgate House of Horrors know!), to Bernice berating yet another one of her flock, to Geoff, Herr Lipp and Hilary discovering that THEY are characters, which is a great scene. The scenes set in 1690 are very enjoyable, with the Gents turning their hands to yet more characters and an all new plot. David Warner's turn as Doctor Pea is fantastic, slightly camp and very funny.

The League have always been brilliant at blending humour with sadness and emotion - and the climax of this film, where Herr Lipp is struggling with the idea that he and the other Vasey residents are just fictional people who will never be able to change who they are or their purpose - and to witness how it's breaking him down, is really sad and beautiful to watch at the same time and that really shows the Gents' talent - something for which they are terribly overlooked for to this day.

And then you have that rather clever ending - where you sit in wonder - with Joby Talbot's beautiful theme music playing. And you know you've enjoyed a very clever and funny film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As an American fan of The League of Gentlemen I had to wait months to finally see this film when it came out on DVD, but it was well worth the (excruciating) wait. \"Apocalypse\" is fantastic- funny, freaky, clever as hell, full of in-jokes and cryptic references to the television series; basically everything you'd expect from the Gentlemen.

The plot has already been discussed in other reviews, so I won't bother re-capping it, although I will say when I first read it I was a bit hesitant. Obviously this device- fictional characters entering the real world to confront their makers- has been used before, notably in Wes Craven's underrated \"New Nightmare\" and Stephen King's \"Dark Tower\" books (where King himself was a character). The Gentlemen have fun breaking the fourth wall, though, and even add a new element: a second fictional world (\"them days\"). Soon all three realities have weaved together, and the result is exhilarating: Geoff Tipps being knighted in the middle ages (and trying to court Queen Victoria Wood); the real League of Gentlemen in Royston Vasey, being confronted by characters like Pauline and Dr. Chinnery; David Warner summoning an homunculus outside of Bernice's church. I've heard that some people disliked the \"King's Evil\" sub-plot, but I found it hilarious, especially Reece's character (who seemed to be channeling Judith the \"Witch\" from series three).

Speaking of the characters, I was relieved to find that, although Hilary Briss, Geoff, and Herr Lipp were planted firmly in at the film's core, other, more familiar characters were given their due. Bernice's confessional in the beginning was hilarious, hearkening back to the quicker, more sketch-oriented feel of the first series. Pauline and Mickey have cameos (no Ross though- strange), although I would've loved to've seen more of Ms. Campbell-Jones. Papa Lazarou is accounted for, as are Tubbs and Edward. All three are used very sparingly, giving their meager screen time an almost magical feel (and just what the HELL did Papa hack up, like an obscene hairball? According to the DVD commentary, a \"wad of greasy pubic hair\").

The film looks incredible, but then, what's new? The music, as always, is breathtaking. I was thrilled to hear Joby Talbot's new interpretations of the theme music, and his slight re-working of the majestic, lovely piece that closes out both \"Apocalypse\" and the last episode of series three.

I have some minor complaints- it would have been nice to see more of the old, familiar Royston Vasey, and I felt the stop-motion creatures (beautiful, by the way) were a bit underused. Both of these issues, however, can be justified by the film's budget, so they're understandable. Still, as much as I loved Bernice's new church, it would have been cool to see the final battle in the high street (the Gentlemen's original vision, according to the commentary).

Overall, \"Apocalypse\" is astounding, especially if you're a fan of the series. I can't recommend it highly enough. 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I originally watched this because I thought it was going to be the sequel to the League of EXTRAORDINARY Gentlemen and this movie is a whole different thing entirely going on here-a comedy! However, I loved it anyways!

The League of Gentlemen is apparently some British TV series with some rather odd characters and some sharp humour. This is British comedy so it revolves around being very silly, dressing up in costumes and making lots of fun of Germans and french, homosexual references- in short it's very very funny!

THe plot revolves around the writers of the TV show deciding to cancel some of the characters and the characters coming out of their dimension into the writer's dimension to stop that from happening. It's a fun twist and there's plenty of great scenes in this idiotic adventure. I laughed out loud numerous times and applauded the brazen style of humour. This makes Mr Bean look like the watered down wimp he is.(Rowan is much better in Black Adder series btw)

This is not Monty Python, but you can never escape the comparison when you are talking British humour, and there are a few similarities but not so many as to keep it from being it's own thing and being fresh. It leans more towards the young ones and Guest House Paradiso in its' comedic style.

If you liked this, check out The Young Ones series and Guest House Paradiso movie, and of course, I assume the TV series League of Gentlemen must be rather funny as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am an addict of the TV show, the live shows and everything they do. And this was the last piece of work they have done on TV\/film as 'The League of Gentlemen'.

If you love the series then you will absolutely love the film. It is a nice ending to their TV series.

It is clever and funny.

Although it does not focus on some of the most popular characters, it is still great to see all the characters together and with the writers. A must see for any League of Gentlemen fan.

Watch it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Whether you're a fan of the series which inspired it or not, there's no denying this is a patchy piece of work. But in the best possible sense. Keen to get away from the trappings of old sitcoms which made an uneasy transition to the big screen, Messrs Pemberton, Dyson, Shearmsith and Gatiss have gone down a different road, addressing the problems of dealing with their success along with adding other creations and, inevitably, rehashing some of their best-loved characters. It's a pity they didn't stick to just a more consistent League of Gents movie because as inventive as including themselves in the screenplay is, it weakens the finished movie. Well worth renting though.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, I'm not sure if this counts as a spoiler so i just ticked the box anyway to save the hassle.

I've noticed that the opinions on this film seem to be a fair split. Personally, i loved it, although i must say that i think that some of the cameo's were there for the sake of having a cameo. (Peter Kay?) Personally, i am just thankful that it wasn't the Edward, Tubbs and Papa Lazarou show, and that they chose the 3 best characters in the series to headline the motion picture, especially Sir Goeff Tipps arguably the funniest of the bunch.

Actually, this is less of a Summary more of a fairly obtuse blog-like thing, but what the hell, the film was awesome, and i guess that's all that counts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having only seen five episodes of the show before this, (I've been watching the repeats on BBC Two) I haven't really had much experience of the League, but as a fledgling fan as well as a massive fan of British comedy, I can say this film is hilarious. Seeing Herr Lipp, (who I had not seen on screen before the film) Briss and Geoff on the big screen was a great comedy experience. Being on screen is something that the League take full advantage of, with heads blowing up, (it'll come as a surprise who it is) and gruesome murders with random Middle Ages style battles all the way.

Geoff is easily the funniest character of the three protagonists in this film, because he has the best one liners and overall behaviour, just like in the series. One of my only disappointments with the film was not hearing Geoff shout \"Well now I've got this gun\" even once, (even though there is a build-up to it in one part of the film.) The film itself overall is, to use the phrase everyone else does, Pythonesque and it's very reminiscent of films like \"Life of Brian.\" Appearances from Tubbs and Edward were welcome, but Papa Lazarou's line \"Hello Daves\" cracked me up more than anything said by them, (Lazarou's probably my favourite Vasey character after Tubbs and Edward.) It's got quite a poignant ending with one of the main character being killed off and I can only hope this is not the League's last on-screen Vasey venture. With Gatiss mentioning the possibility of another series or film, I'm now very excited. This is a film I will see again, partly because the projector died towards the end, leaving out 10 minutes or so of the film, but mainly because it's inventive and hilarious. I'm not really bothered if it's not as good as the TV series, because I loved it.

One thing though, if you've never seen the League, you'll still love it, but Dave knows what you'll think about the people who make this stuff up. As Tubbs or Edward might put it, it's a local film, for local people, and a precious thing at that.

**** out of ***** (4\/5)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now I myself had previously seen a few episodes of the Leauge Of Gentleman which I found hilarious. When I brought the film I was not sure if I knew enough about the series to get it, boy was I wrong. This is one of the best comedy films I have seen ever and the clever acting of the Leauge makes the film. It has a very good and funny plot as well as using only a few characters at any one time helps because it doesn't make it too confusing which would have wrecked the film. Even If you have never seen The Leauge Of Gentleman get this film it will make you laugh and this is a film that can be watched more then once and is an excellent film to watch with your mates. It truly deserves it review a definite 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"league of gentleman has been the most disturbing British sitcom to be on t.v and how can a funny movie be so bad rated,they just have no taste this film will make you want to watch over and over again and still find it funny.

it is surprising that it has done bad but it is British the cinema do crap most of the time but this time it (in my words) a boost with comedy with a giraffe spunks over Lady's, this is a top British comedy and better than dodge-ball, so by this and it won't prove you wrong as i don't really laugh through films but this film was amazing through comedy with the best characters but i was a bit disappointed of how much Edward and Tabb's were in there for back to typing buy this film and it won't disappoint you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, why complain about this movie? It's fiction. Deal with it. If you want to see the biography, go watch it. This is an original, fictionalized version of what happened in Wisconsin. People who are obsessed will complain about this, as they do every other deviation of the facts. Sad but true. I think making Kane Hodder the man in which the film is named after was a great idea. I thought it wasn't so good at first, I'll be honest. But that just made it even scarier. If you like Kane Hodder, Ed Gein or movies based on real events, I think this is a good movie. But if you're obsessed (like some other people) stay away from this movie and all others.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Finally!!! A good movie made on the most demented serial killer in history. For those less familiar with Ed Gein, he was basically the madman who was known for grave robbing and skinning his victims (which most horror fans ripped off). Shot in a period style that reflects the bleak plains of Wisconsin perfectly, this is easily the most atmospheric horror film yet to depict Gein and his gruesome killings. Kane Hodder (Jason from Friday the 13th series) and Michael Berryman (Hills have Eyes I & II), deliver chilling performances in this serial killer opus that easily leaves behind the lackluster former Gein attempts. So far I'd say this is one of the better horror films released this year (Turistas = 0).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not into reality shows that much, but this one is exceptional because at the end, the viewer gets something useful out of it besides entertainment. I don't have children but SuperNanny's lessons will be a great help when (and if) I ever do! My only complaint is that the show has been watered down since it has been in the US. I prefer the British version, with the sterner nanny approach. Is it just me or does anyone else find the US version to be a bit soft... now it's the \"kinder, gentler\" nanny? I guess we Yanks need a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down after all?! Still, nothing wrong with a sappy happy ending, is there?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Supernanny Jo Frost, in each episode, gives a family the benefit of her hard-earned experience. But when she's gone will they succeed in sticking to her tough disciplinary rules or do they face a life dominated by unruly children.

Following in the vein of British documentaries \"Wife Swap\" and \"How clean is your house\" Supernanny gives an in depth look into the private family lives of average people, but with the added benefit of practical advice on ways to raise your children.

Jo advocates a tough love style of child care and the now infamous 'naughty step' has come into the popular vernacular in many British homes.

In just three short weeks the families featured were turned from a disorganised house of; sibling rivalry, screaming, kicking, biting kids and fighting parents, to a tranquil calm oasis of family love.

The series when aired gathered huge ratings and critical acclaim and is currently in talks to be reversioned for America.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For anyone who has trouble with naughty, mad or troublesome kids this is an essential programme to watch. It is just the best behaviour documentary programme, not just for tips but for the transformations. The quite attractive Jo Frost is Supernanny, with fifteen years of nannying experience she now has a programme where she shows a family where the kids are misbehaving very, very badly. Frost is the nanny who does not let the kids win. Every episode they have young kids who are mad and very, very naughty, e.g. throwing things, constantly swearing, hitting relatives and parents and many other horrible experiences. But every episode by the end of the show the kids are transformed by the parents (with the help of Frost) from little monsters to lovable children. It is just wonderful when the transformations are successful, Jo Frost is an excellent Supernanny. It was nominated the National Television Award for Most Popular Factual Programme (twice). It was number 15 on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. Very good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There I was on vacation when my host suggested we take in this B-Movie festival in Breda. I was resistant, as I hadn't gone on the trip to sit in a movie theater, but I've got to admit that I don't regret a second of this one (especially with Stephen Malkmus' contribution). It probably helped that I had no idea what to expect.

SEA OF DUST starts out like a typical costume drama. We've got a young medical student going to help a doctor whose town is being destroyed by a crazy plague (which somehow involves exploding heads). On the way, he stops to visit his fianc\u00e9 and gets thrown off the property by her father. Traveling on, he finds a girl lying on the road, another plague victim, and takes her along to the doctor's. Yawn, I thought. It all seemed pretty predicable.

And then everything went crazy and it suddenly turned into a completely different film. Tom Savini shows up looking like Dracula, characters begin traveling to \"the other side\" of reality, and the dialog gets increasingly humorous.

And just when I thought it had settled into a groove, the picture changes again, becoming really dark and bizarre. I won't spoil it for first time viewers, but there's an amazing sequence about hollow people, lots of chat about the abuse of religion by society, and some over-the-top gore effects. And did I mention Stephen Malkmus? This isn't a perfect movie (in case you haven't figured that out from its appearance at a B-Movie festival), but it's well worth the time for adventurous viewers. Great visuals, cool soundtrack, lots of interesting ideas. The acting is a little zany at times, but I think that's the point.

Funny I had to go to Breda to see find an American picture that looked like a British horror movie. You figure that one out...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw SEA OF DUST as part of a NYC screening audience several years ago. I enjoyed the film at that time, so I was a little confused by some of the amendments that had been made since. Perhaps it's my memory, but there seemed to be chunks of exposition missing from the version that was shown at the Rhode Island Film Festival. I'm really not sure which version I prefer, but I can honestly say that I found something to appreciate it both.

Let me begin by warning everyone that this is not a popcorn movie. Although it's been promoted as a Hammer Films tribute, people expecting a showdown between Van Helsing and Dracula are going to be sorely disappointed. There's some cleavage, but no nudity (a staple of the British production house's later movies). And while SEA OF DUST is filled with gorgeous eye candy (it really is shot like a sixties film), and features Hammer starlet Ingrid Pitt, it's not like any of the company's pictures in tone or execution. This film is very dark, very confusing, and (at times) very funny. I don't remember the earlier version being quite as nutty as this one, but that's not a bad thing (especially the showdown in the Black Forest that plays like a Three Stooges short). And some of Ms Pitt's rantings are quite entertaining. It's like somebody wound her up and turned her loose.

The uniqueness of this film doesn't lie with the borrowed details, though. It's in the ideas. As an occasional Sci Fi Channel viewer, I've regularly taken the network to task for its one-note variations on a theme (CGI monster kills, then gets destroyed). SEA OF DUST is so full of ideas that you start to trip over them after a while.

But don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining. If anything, I applaud these guys for making such an enterprising low-budget picture and for having the courage to pack it with so many concepts. It's not going to be a picnic for people who hate to think at the movies (you know who you are). But for the rest of us, those of us who are tired of the formula of modern horror films, the predictability, the lack of respect for the audience, this may just be your ticket.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I also attended the RI International Horror Film Festival and I can easily see why this film won best of show.

SEA OF DUST is a wild romp of Horror, Comedy and beautiful scenery. A back in time tale of strange goings on. An increasingly wide spread illness with an overwhelmingly irritating side effect of people's heads exploding, brings a young Professor's apprentice; Stefan, to investigate. Along his travels, he decides to briefly detour and once again ask for his long time love's hand in marriage, only to once again be sent packing by her extremely stubborn father\u0085 Along the way \"out of town\" he comes across an ill girl in the road and delivers her to Dr. Maitland, (brilliantly played by up and coming Vincent Price like actor: Edward X Young.) Who fills Stefan in on the Evils a foot. Only the Dr. is insulted that he had called for the Professor and only received a boy in training\u0085None the less, Stefan turns out to be much more than a common bystander. Horror Icon; Tom Savini portrays the ultimate religious torment monger; Prester John. Scream Queen; Ingrid Pitt comes out of retirement to give a stellar performance as Anna. Many beautiful and talented supporting actors seamlessly held the story together and helped to effectively move it along to the climax.

Dark Religion and over the top, but fun and sometimes very original, gore scenes play heavily in this Hammer tribute flick. This stylish movie goes back and forth between flashbacks, surreal worlds, dreams and the character's reality.

Horror and Gore aside; This is also a very Funny movie! Slapstick, tongue and cheek humor and dark comedy raise their heads among the dark story line. Like others have stated; this really is like three great movies in one. Very Entertaining and Original.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched SEA OF DUST at the Rhode Island Horror Film Festival in Providence. It was the Festival's featured film and won Best Picture out of I think a couple hundred entries. The director and a few of the stars answered questions after the showing. One star, Suzy Lorraine, was even hotter in person than in the film, and she was an eye catcher in the movie.

This film is independent, yet it has a lot of cinematic touches that give it a quality feel. It even has an original classical style musical score.

I am a Savini fan and he's the star villain here, in black cape, he's more of an evil force than a real person I think. He is sucking the souls out of people and using them as soldiers in a twisted attempt to establish his version of the Kingdom of God on Earth. In his view, Christ was all about suffering and Savini intends to make everyone suffer.

The main story line that holds your interest is about a young doctor, Stefan, who is sent to investigate the strange events Savini is causing in an isolated town. He proposes to an aristocrat chick on the way but her SOB father tells him to get lost. Then he meets up with a strangely possessed but alluring country girl. I think she falls in love with him, but she also tries to kill him, as do a number of hot women in the film.

I found the scenes shot in the woods to be the creepiest and most eye catching, with strange people along the road (the evil little twin girls scared the hell out of me).

The film has a lot to it, too much to list. There is a lot of blood, torture and gore. Hot chicks licking blood off of guys' fingers. A terrified girl's head explodes. That was unexpected. Throats get slit. Some brutal stabbings.

Then they play it for laughs sometimes, poking a bit of fun at the whole evil black forest genre.

If you're a fan of Hammer films and Ingrid Pitt, it is fascinating to see her in this movie. She offs one of the leads by plunging a cross in his skull. Excellent. The guy who played \"Multiple Miggs\" in Silence of the Lambs is great in an axe fight.

The movie is surreal and with the ending, I'm not sure the events happened or if they were in Stefan's head because of his rejection by his would-be fianc\u00e9e. He returns in vengeance and that scene is brutal.

The director also talked about the theme of religion being misused to back wars and killings. I can see that for sure, Savini's view of religion was scary.

This was a strangely exceptional movie with some stars like Savini and Pitt, a lot of good supporting cast including hot babes, great gore scenes, action, and all the time you're wondering what the hell is going on and what is going to happen next.

This deserves ten stars because it's an excellent independent film effort, I don't think it was low budget but it had to be way less than a big studio budget, and yet they managed to make something really attractive, unique and thought provoking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first movie at the Fangoria Festival in Vegas and the most challenging. It's not a movie for everyone. A number of the films that followed used predictable classic horror formulas to tell predictable stories. This picture seemed determined to do its own thing.

Tom Savini showed some comic chops as the over the top villain. He dominated every scene he was in, flipping his cape about like Leslie Neilson playing Dracula. It was great to hear his explanation after the film. He had such a good sense of humor about the role.

I was glad I didn't have too many preconceptions going in, because the movie offered a lot of surprises. The story was funny and profane and unusual. There was a lot of love lavished on the look. Most important, it had a weird edge to it. Unlike many of the movies that followed and tried to use a similar classic horror style, this was a movie that used its look for a purpose.

There were a lot of movies at the Fangoria Festival with bigger budgets, but none that dared to be this different.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Remember that friend in college who always insisted you rent the weirdest movie possible? This is the movie he would have made if he'd had the chance.

I wish I could tell you exactly what Sea of Dust was about. It pretends to be the story of a doctor who gets sucked into weird goings on in the \"Black Forest.\" He goes there to help, but ends up being caught between two young women, both of whom he seems to have a thing for. But that's just scratching the surface. This is the kind of movie where things just randomly happen...and not nice thing. People are constantly being whipped and stabbed. There's a pair of creepy little girls who appear to have walked out of The Shining. Tom Savini is some kind of imaginary religious figure who decides he doesn't want to be imaginary anymore. He's got a plan to take over the world by sharing Jesus suffering.

On some level, this is a movie about sex. It's one without nudity, which was a disappointment, but there's no mistaking the intent. On another whole level, it's a stoner's paradise. Unexpected stuff happens so often that it stops being unexpected. By the time the doctor travels through his girlfriend's birth canal to be reborn, you'll just chalk it up to the crazy nature of the flick.

On the down side, the film is pretty wordy. Some of the points are hammered home over and over. If you're watching it with a bunch of stoned friends, this might prove an asset.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is more of the same thing that made this cartoon popular.....but who's complaining? It's always fun to see the poor coyote try various contraptions to get the Road Runner, and then get pulverized by every one of those inventions.

The underground cave chase was different from the normal fare and was clever. It gave us an aerial view of the chase in a maze-like structure. I didn't say it was hilarious; just different from the normal above-ground antics.

This one, along with some other Road Runner shorts, are featured on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2 and the transfers of them are spectacular. The colors are magnificent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think I am some kind of Road Runner fan. I don't care how predictable it is, I laugh anyway. 'Beep, Beep' is predictable most of the time, although it is pretty ingenious at the same time as well. Of course the Road Runner is chased by the Coyote and of course the Coyote fails to catch the Road Runner with every new attempt. The plans the Coyote comes up with are very funny. You see exactly where it will go wrong and you will not disappointed. Well, one time you are sort of disappointed, what you think will happen does not, but it makes the joke even funnier.

If you like the Road Runner shorts you will love this one. The predictable gags work and the animation is great and pretty original at times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, so in any Wile E. Coyote-Road Runner cartoons, we know that WEC is going to set up all sorts of traps for RR, but always maim himself in various ways. That certainly happens in \"Beep, Beep\". Predictable? I guess that it is, but when you think about it, these cartoons show how the more you try to harm someone else, the more you get harmed; sort of like how Daffy Duck always tries to undermine Bugs Bunny's integrity but Bugs sees around it.

Overall, this is another classic from the Termite Terrace crowd. Sometimes, I think that if we really had wanted to ease Cold War tensions, we could have just let the Soviet Union see Looney Tunes cartoons; I'm sure that they would have loved them. Another great one.

PS: I learned on \"Jeopardy!\" that Wile E. Coyote's middle name is Ethelbert.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This cartoon documents the second encounter between Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner, and is definitely better than their first meeting in Fast and Furry-ous (1949).

If measured by aesthetic value, then this cartoon would not rank among the top 5 or 6 of the year 1952. Regardless, this is a very funny short. Coyote (Carnivorous Vulgaris) chases the Roadrunner (Accelerati Incredibilus) along the road and gets completely tired out. The ingenious scientific \"Latin\" names of the characters are very original, and has been mimicked before in other un-related cartoons. The coyote collapses and puts on a wonderful expression of- I don't know -boredom. Such Jonesesque expressions make this cartoon provide more than its fare share of laughs in seven minutes. Then he has an idea, and another laughable expression is worn. The slapstick jokes are all hilarious, and mask the fact that it is truly evil to inflict such pain on a poor, helpless, GENIUS coyote. Everyone knows, but who cares?

The old rocket gag is present, too. Coyote straps himself to a rocket, which should produce enough oomph for him to catch up with Roadrunner and grab him. Instead, the rocket shoots up into the air and becomes a firework in the distance: Eat at Joe's. This classical gag originates from this cartoon; though obvious, it still makes people laugh.

The highlight truly is the chase through the mineshaft. The two wear helmet-lights, and we see the tunnel through which the two are going, with only the lights visible. Here, the comedy reaches a peak. A must-see sequence, maybe even the best sequence in the early days of Roadrunner. The final touch is provided by the writing of Michael Maltese, as Coyote's light goes out and he unknowingly lights a match in a room full of explosives, the surface is shown where a bunch of cactus jump and spell out the letters \"YIPE!\" after the blast. Such small things make you laugh all through a mere seven minutes, and as soon as it starts the fun's all over. The rocket skates are another good idea, as is the free drink of water and the anvil on the tight-rope (a sequence that appears in Space Jam [1996]). To give the results of those away would be useless. The free drink proves to be a problem for Wile E. at the end of the second-last sequence: namely the rocket skates.

This classical cartoon is littered with fine animation, except for the characters. Though they are animated very well, the two characters are very primitive; which might be an understatement. Though at first it may seem weird, the humor of the ensuing sequences makes one forget.

If you like vintage Jones, watch this. If you LOVE Roadrunner, get this on video. Excellent entertainment (Rating: 8\/10).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chuck Jones's 'Beep Beep' (so called despite the fact that the Road Runner clearly says \"Meep Meep\") is the second of the exceptionally popular Road Runner series and is a vast improvement on its predecessor, the historically important but lacklustre 'Fast and Furry-ous'. While it features several predictable quickfire gags, 'Beep Beep' also expands on that initial cartoon with more ambitious, longer sequences. Chief among these is a fantastic, extended chase through an old mine in which we see the Coyote and the Road Runner represented by two small lights. There's also a very funny longer gag involving some rocket-powered roller-skates. 'Beep Beep' also sees a great improvement in the representation of Wile E. Coyote. Not only does he look more handsome than his scraggly prototype in 'Fast and Furry-ous' but he also draws the audience into the cartoon more with a greater amount of looks to the camera to indicate the brilliance of his idea or his fear of imminent pain. Although it's a little slow to get going (too many lingering shots of blueprints hinder the pace in some of the early gags), once 'Beep Beep' arrives at the mine shaft sequence it's clear that Jones was beginning to get a real handle on these characters and the greater possibilities of what he could do with them. There are better Road Runner cartoons than 'Beep Beep' but there's a real feeling of triumph about this cartoon, as if it were the confirmation that there was a series to be milked out of this scenario.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This second pairing of Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner is a great as the first. Predictable maybe, but I don't care and still laugh so much whenever I see it. The Wile E.\/Road runner shorts always had the most special place in my heart. So knowing that the second disc of the Golden Collection would not only feature 11 of this, BUT they would be in chronological order (2 through 12, the first episode was on Volume 1), made me get misty eyed. I LOVE this stuff. This animated short can be seen on Disc 2 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2. It also features an optional commentary by Micheal Barrier.

My Grade: A+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As I have said before in previous comments, some programmes are there to be 'Light entertainment'. So I get somewhat frustrated when commentators seem to be expecting a program that will reveal the meaning of life, you will not get that from Cleopatra 2525 and it does not presume to offer it. What you get is a girl who was frozen and is brought back to life some 500 years later and her adaptation to this new life is realistic. She does not settle in within 10 minutes as what happens with other time travelling adventures and neither is she the female equivalent of James Bond ready to take on all comers.Cleopatra is overawed by her new surroundings and frightened by some of the weaponry on display as most of us would be. However it is light entertainment, the stories have a beginning a middle and an end in quick time and their are some surprisingly good moments of acting. The episode when there is a double of Cleopatra is particularly moving and Jennifer Sky I think gives one of the best performances of someone dying for a long long time, and being a film and television buff I know what I am talking about. Finally to prove my sincerity I have purchased all but four of the episodes and I am entirely satisfied with my purchase. The only reason I do not have the complete set is because I purchased the other episodes before realising that there was one complete box set. Victoria Pratt and Gina Torres complete the trio creditably and for light entertainment Cleopatra 2525 certainly entertained me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ya know the concept of \"guilty pleasures\"? yeah, you have 'em, like admitting you watched - and enjoyed - goonies, battlestar galactica AFTER they reached earth, v the series, charlie's angels, starsky & hutch, the 1950s version of superman, or godzilla movies.

here's the ultimate in guilty pleasures. coupled with jack of all trades in a sam raimi action packed hour, this half hour slot is fast paced, easy to follow, and loaded with fun-to-watch scanlity-clad babes.

the man that brought us evil dead, xena, hercules, and the adventures of brisco county jr does it again with this 2000 update of charlies angels. we got charlie (voice) an unknown being that has the knowlege and the time to find people who need help, bosley (mouser) the gadget man, and three gorgeous babes that kick a** for a living.

and oh what a living!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I picked up a DVD at the 1\u0080 discount, having no idea what it's about (but at that price I can't resist..) In brief: I was positively surprised.

So much that I did quite some research. On the German DVD (part 2 of a series of 3), episodes were recombined into two 85 minute parts, and out of order. Here are my results, based on Wikipedia's episode list:

\"Doomsday\" is In My Boots + The Voice (final episode).

\"War of the Machines\" is Hel & High Water (1, 2) + Pod Listener + Juggernaut Down.

Well, what can I say. Underdressed girlies are of course interesting for older men. I never watched Charlie's Angels so much, so I can't compare, but the more I watched, the less I looked out for bikini tops and their fillings. Instead, the characters (both m and f) became more interesting. I can imagine feminists have their fun with this, too. All in all, maybe a guilty pleasure, but a pleasure it was :^)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This time, the lovable dimwit gets summoned for jury duty, where a corrupt attorney notices that he looks like a jailbird who wants to break out, so the two get switched. Of course, most of the movie is a series of gags; in \"Ernest Goes to Jail\", most of the gags relate to electricity. I really liked the whole vacuum cleaner sequence early on. Overall, the point of the movie is just to have fun, and I'm sure that you will. This is possibly the ultimate movie that you watch with a bud. It's quite safe to say that Jim Varney will truly be missed. Knowwhaddamean? FYI: the only other cast member whom I recognized was Randall \"Tex\" Cobb, who played Lyle. You've surely seen him somewhere.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If I had to decide which was the best Ernest movie, and don't act like that sort of thing doesn't happen all time, it would be this one.

All of the Ernest movies are entertaining, but the best ones are the ones that have Jim Varney doing a number of different characters. Additionally, I am known to enjoy the comedy stylings of Bill Byrge and Gailard Sartain as brothers Chuck and Bobby Tulip. \"Ernest Goes to Jail\" contains all of those elements as well as a funny script and a supporting cast that features several beloved character actors.

And that is why I have chosen \"Ernest Goes to Jail\" as the king of all Ernest movies. Disagree with me if you must, but deep down you know I am right.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The last good Ernest movie, and the best at that. How can you not laugh at least once at this movie. The last line is a classic, as is Ernest's gangster impressions, his best moment on film. This has his best lines and is a crowning achievement among the brainless screwball comedies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I Love Ernest Goes to Jail. It's one of my top 3 favorite Ernest movies. The others being Ernest Scared Stupid and Ernest Goes to Camp. In this movie Ernest (Jim Varney) works as a janitor for a bank but he wants to be a bank clerk. Soon he is assigned jury duty but soon winds up in trouble when the evil murderer Felix Nash (Varney also) knocks him out and switches places with him! Soon Ernest is in jail and is forced to act like Nash or else Nash will kill Charlotte Ernest's love interest. When they take Ernest to the electric chair thinking he's Nash he gets so electrocuted he winds up breaking out and goes off and saves Charlotte from the evil Nash! Filled with hilarious scenes and comics Ernest Goes to Jail is a movie that'll make you laugh so hard! It still does to me! Jim Varney was such a fantastic actor! He did a good job playing both good guy and bad guy! Varney was like his Toy Story Co star Tom Hanks. No matter what role they played their roles were memorabilia and that's one of the things that Varney's gonna be remembered forever for! R.I.P. Jim Varney 1949-2000. Thank you for bringing Ernest and other fantastic characters to life! 10 out of 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie brings back so many memories for me! I was very young when it came out but I remember the first time I saw it! My dad and I would always watch the \"Ernest Movies\" together. We hadn't seen any of them in several years and I found a couple of them really cheap. We watched them and could not stop laughing. I love all of the \"Ernest Movies,\" but this one is my favorite.

Spoiler part!

The part I remember most is the \"magnet\" part. My dad still does the electric chair scene!

End Spoiler!

This is a very cheesy movie...but a great one! It's perfect for families (it isn't like a lot of the trash out there) but at the same time adults can laugh too! If you like physical humor (like facial expressions and the way people move) then this is the movie for you!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a really good flick with awesome humor. Jim Verney as we know was very good with facial expressions and demonstrates a lot of it in this movie.This is definitely the best of the Ernest films.I would surely recommend it to any Ernest fan out there.i find myself to have great taste in movies and I'm sure anyone will enjoy this movie. In the movie ,(Ernest) plays 2 roles, bad guy and good guy and plays them quite well. I really enjoy exaggeration type humor where things just seem impossible,like in the naked gun films for example, and there is plenty of it in this movie.I bought this movie right after i saw it. Good directing, good script, worth renting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ernest P. Worrell comes through with his third movie presentation. Jim Varney not only plays Ernest, but doubles as the evil Mr. Nash. From start to finish this movie has some solid laughs and makes a good family film! Rated PG for comic book violence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent movie. There were several parts to the movie I liked. This movie is very funny! Visit the Ernest fun club web site at www.ernestfunclub.com There are several movies such as the following: Ernest Goes to Camp, Ernest Saves Christmas, Ernest Goes to Jail, Ernest in the Army, Ernest Goes to School, Ernest Rides Again Slam Dunk Ernest etc. I highly recommend these for family movies. All star Jim Varney again try visiting www.ernestfunclub.com Which is the best Ernest movie? In my opinion there are actually 2 Ernest Goes to Camp and Ernest Goes to Jail. So if you have never seen Ernest P. Worrell its time to go and see him. You will find him quite satisfactory \"no what I mean\"?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was easily one of the weirder of the Ernest movies, especially in regards to the production design. What was up with the pink guard uniforms? Sadly, this film probably destroyed the Ernest series, turning the series into a straight-to-video series. However, Jim Varney gave one of his better performances by playing Nash, his criminal alter ego. A misstep in the series, but wasn't too bad in most regards.(the Electro Man routine was classic)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a good film. This is very funny. Yet after this film there were no good Ernest films!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you only see one Ernest movie in your life, make it this one! This is by far the best in the series, with its nonstop laughs and clever humor that is suitable for all ages. The other \"Ernest\" flicks were good too, but most people tend to get tired of him quickly (not ME, however.).

In this movie, Ernest P. Whorrel is assigned jury duty for a murder case. The murderer, Nash, just happens to look EXACTLY like our bumbling hero Ernest. Mr. Nash finds this a good opportunity to escape from jail by knocking him out switching identities with him, and so we get to see how Ernest reacts in the slammer.

A great flick! If you haven't already seen it, watch it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thirty years after the 1939 classic film won Robert Donat an Oscar and made Greer Garson a star, \"Goodbye, Mr. Chips\" overcame a multitude of problems before stumbling to the screen in this musical version. Original stars Rex Harrison and Samantha Eggar were replaced by Richard Burton and Lee Remick, who in turn were given the heave-ho in favor of - thankfully - Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark. Andre Previn's score was rejected, and the one eventually used was composed by - unfortunately - Leslie Bricusse. First-time director Herbert Ross was handed the monumental task of transforming a simple love story - that of a man for both his wife and students - into a big-budget extravaganza. That it succeeds as well as it does despite the many obstacles in its way is a testament to its two stars.

Arthur Chipping is a Latin teacher at Brookfield, a boys' school in suburban England where he himself was educated. Introverted and socially inept, he is dedicated to his students but unable to inspire them. Prior to summer holiday, a former student takes him to a London music hall to see an entertainment starring Katharine Bridges, the young lady he hopes to wed. The post-performance meeting is awkward for all, and Chips - as he is commonly known - sets off to explore some of Italy's ancient ruins. Unexpectedly, he runs into Katharine, who has booked a Mediterranean cruise to allow her time to mourn a failed love affair and ponder the direction of her career. In the time they spend together, she discovers a kind and gentle man beneath the befuddled exterior, and upon returning to London pursues him in earnest. When the fall term begins, Chips returns to Brookfield with his young bride, and the two settle into a life of quiet domesticity. Complications arise when aspects of Katharine's past surface, and again when World War II intrudes in their lives, but Chips is bolstered by his wife's support, and his new-found confidence makes him a favorite among the students.

Aside from a couple of musical interludes - the delightful music hall production number \"London is London\" and Katharine's declaration of love, \"You and I\" - most of Bricusse's songs, some of them performed in voice-over as the characters explore their emotions, are easily forgettable and in no way enhance the film. Eliminate the score entirely, and \"Goodbye, Mr. Chips\" works quite well as a drama. Terrence Rattigan's script retains elements of the original while expanding upon it and updating it by a couple of decades. He has crafted several scenes between Chips and Katharine that beautifully delineate their devotion to each other, and infused a few with comic relief courtesy of Katharine's friend and cohort, over-the-top actress Ursula Mossbank (delightfully played by Sian Phillips, O'Toole's real-life wife at the time). He also captures life at a British public school - the equivalent of a private academy here in the States - with unerring perfection.

Ross does well as a first-time director, liberally sprinkling the film with breathtakingly photographed moments - the opening credits sequence, during which the school anthem echoes in the vast stone hallways of the school, perfectly sets the tone for the film. Costumes and sets are true to the period. The students, portrayed by non-professionals who were enrolled at the school used as Brookfield, handle their various small supporting roles well.

Highest praise is reserved for Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark in the lead roles. O'Toole was long-established as a first-class dramatic actor, so his Academy Award-nominated performance here comes as no surprise. Clark, a veteran of some two dozen B-movies in the UK and the previous year's \"Finian's Rainbow,\" is absolutely luminous as the music hall soubrette who forsakes a theatrical career in favor of life as a schoolmaster's wife. Her golden voice enriches her songs and almost allows us to overlook how insipid most of them are, and she more than matches O'Toole in their dramatic scenes together. The chemistry between the two is palpable and leaves us with no doubt that this is a couple very much in love.

This version of \"Goodbye, Mr. Chips\" is no classic like its predecessor, but hardly the disaster many critics described when it was released. Ignore the score, concentrate on the performances, and revel in the atmosphere Ross has put on the screen. It's a pleasant way to spend a rainy afternoon with someone you love.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When it opened in London during the Christmas season of 1969 this musical version of James Hilton's famous story was drubbed by the critics. The same reception greeted it when it opened in the US, prompting MGM to withdraw its \"Roadshow\" status and cut almost all of its songs. What a mistake!!!

Watched years later, when the trendy world of the 60's and 70's has turned in upon itself, this version of GOODBYE, MR.CHIPS is a total delight. First of all, as \"Chipping\", Peter O'Toole gives one of his greatest performances. To watch him turn from the hated, cold, emotionless Latin teacher at a boy's boarding school, to a man who finally can see the colors in the world (after falling for and marrying musical star Catherine Briskit) is to see a genius at work. (If you can, watch LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, THE LION IN WINTER, MY FAVORITE YEAR and CHIPS back to back over a number of days or weeks. Then you will see what a truly great actor O'Toole is, and how magnificent he is in CHIPS.)

Catherine, as played by the glowing Petula Clark, at the height of her popularity, is ever man's dream; beautiful, loving, understanding, with a great voice to boot. Most of the songs are beautiful and fit the story perfectly, while the direction by the late Herbert Ross brings the proceedings wonderfully to life.

Okay, this film may be a bit too romantic for some people, but for those who are looking for a beautifully acted, sung, and directed love story, look no further. (If you can get your hands of the laser disc wide screen version, better yet. I am anxiously awaiting CHIPS' debut on DVD.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed the movie and the story immensely! I have seen the original(1939 I believe) and enjoyed them both. To really appreciate the story one must be familiar with English culture and customs. The prof.(Peter O'Toole) was dedicated to his school and \"the boys\" in that school. It was an English \"public\" school, which we in the U.S. refer to as a private school (E.G. Andover). He is a very ascetic person and, on the surface, gives the appearance of being stiff, stuffy, uncaring, and weak to the point of being effeminate. He is strict in his educational standards because he DOES care for \"his lads\", i.e., he doesn't want them to get a cheap or weak education. He meets(through introduction) a \"dance hall girl\"(Petula Clark) and is totally smitten. In England at the time, the reference to \"dance hall\" carried the connotation of extreme sexual promiscuity and was definitely \"lower class\". We find that the Prof. is in fact a very tough and courageous person as well as loyal to people and institutions that he loves and\/or respects. Clark becomes more than a lover and wife...she \"leavens\" his personality and allows him to grow as a man and a person, much to the benefit of his beloved school and his own happiness. The first movie was set BEFORE WW II, this one goes through WW II, also, it is 1969( we've had the \"British Invasion\"...Beetles, etc. Clark had hits and was very popular then...still is to me), the music is great, color and photography excellent. I think O'Toole played the character perfectly! There ARE dedicated people like \"Chips\"...all around us but many do not receive the recognition. Very enjoyable movie and story!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Caught this 1969 film on cable TCM one night. I remember when I first saw the film in Hong Kong, I really enjoyed the songs and performances by Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark. I love Clark best in Francis Ford Coppola's \"Finian's Rainbow\" (1968) opposite Fred Astaire, Don Francks and Tommy Steele. Simply ecstatic to learn that finally, this delightful Irish-flavored pot of gold musical is released on DVD! Ah, \"it's that old devil moon (in your eyes).\"

Peter O'Toole as Mr. Chips - yes, he did sing - quite a deliverance. He may not be a veteran at musical like Rex Harrison, but he inhabited the role marvelously. The scene of him running across the lawn in his cape a-flying reminds me of the PBS series, \"To Serve Them All My Days\" - a lovable schoolmaster and loving man, he is, 'Mr. Chipey.' Clark and O'Toole somehow gave us just the right mix of spunk and circumstance. The songs and lyrics by Leslie Bricusse are catchy as usual. The tunes of \"You and I\" and \"Walk Through the World (with Me)\" stayed with me the most all these years. And there's \"What a Lot of Flowers,\" \"And the Sky Smiled,\" \"Fill the World with Love\" - not syrupy at all. Sometimes I think if the world is immersed in Bricusse's songs and words, we would overcome all strife on earth and 'lovely' will be all our days! Yes, \"Talk to the Animals,\" too. (\"Doctor Doolittle\" 1967)

Musicals are a blessing to the world of moviegoers, they are somehow larger than life. Like the music and lyrics by the Sherman Brothers (Richard M. and Robert B.) who gave us \"Chitty Chitty Bang Bang\" (1968) and \"Mary Poppins\" (1964) - who wouldn't feel absolutely delighted simply uttering \"supercalifragilisticexpialidocious\"? I was tickled by even just one featured song & dance number in the Spanish film \"Km.0 - Kilometer Zero\" (2000). My all time favorite is French filmmaker Jacques Demy's \"Young Girls of Rochefort\" (1967) with colorful cast of Catherine Deneuve and (late sister) Francoise Dorl\u00e9ac, Jacques Perrin, Michel Piccoli, Danielle Darrieux, Gene Kelly and George Chakiris singing, dancing to Michel Legrand's music. Long live musicals.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes 1939\/Robert Donat-Greer Garson version was the best...Perfection..Donat won the Oscar in a very tough year..Gable in GWTW & James Stewart as Mr. Smith. were 2 of his competitors. .wow was that a rough year.. Most critics in NY hated this version. so.didnt see in theatre! Finally saw this A.M. on TCM & enjoyed..Peter O'Toole was excellent & glad he was Oscar nominated for this,,& esp pleased Oscar finally gave him a special award this past year... Petula Clark was good as Mrs. Chips but her character,i feel was poorly written...Some good songs esp. You & I... sung by Ms.Clark & later recorded by many others including T.Bennett\/S. Bassey & Carmen MacRae.... the b&w version was more authentic.. but this is a good film beautifully photographed in color & panavision... enjoyable worth seeing & Bravo, again, Mr. O'Toole!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peter O'Toole, one of our finest actors, is magnificent as a reserved school master who is dedicated to teaching young boys. He meets a show girl and falls in love. The story is one of love and devotion. Petula Clark adds spirit and sensitivity, not too mention a remarkable voice. You will enjoy this film even though the ending might not be a happy one. I enjoyed it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film when it first came out, and didn't know what to expect exactly. What followed the Overture was one of the most pleasurable filmgoing experiences I have ever had. A lush score of songs and music by Britisher Leslie Bricusse (of Doctor Doolittle & Wilie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory fame as well as making his mark on the Broadway musical scene), and scored by the incomparable John Williams. There's not a bad song in the entire film. Plus some of the most exquisite cinematography, costume design and filming locations I have ever seen in one film. Not to mention the Academy Award nominated performance by Peter O'Toole, and the equally strong performance, in my opinion, by the wonderful Petula Clark. Now, given that Peter is not the same caliber a singer that Petula is, he still manages to sell his songs to the audience, and that, after all, is what it is all about. This is a faithful adaptation of the excellent book by James Hilton, and deserves to be treasured for generations to come. I recommend this film for family viewing, though most men will consider this a 'chick' flick. But if you like a truly great film musical, then this film is for you. But be warned that a standby box of Kleenex is just as important as popcorn for your viewing pleasure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wish I was first exposed to this in a movie theater when it was first released, as some of the commentors had been. It really is a treasure. To be fair I have not seen any other version of Goodbye, Mr. Chips and neither do I want to. To me this stands as a perfect version. I first saw it on TCM years ago and never forgot it. I had the pleasure of watching it with my girlfriend yesterday, although I had recorded it from TCM days earlier. There were portions of the movie in which both of us were teary-eyed, it really is a moving movie.

And shouldn't that be what movies are all about?

The music is beautiful, the film was shot wonderfully. The acting is top notch. And the story is delicate and timeless.

One of my favorite movies of all-time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this in the theater in 1969 when I was 9 and immediately fell in love with it. I'm sad that Sony has not seen fit to release this on DVD (\"but one day, one day...\"). I recently obtained a VHS copy of this on eBay and sat down to watch it 39 years later. I'm happy to report it still stands the test of time. The acting is spot-on, John Williams' orchestrations are lush and Leslie Bricusse's songs memorable (\"When I Am Older,\" \"You and I,\" \"Fill the World With Love,\" \"London Is London\" are just a few of the standouts. And not enough can be said about Peter O' Toole, Petula Clarke, Michael Redgrave and Michael Bryant's acting. Terence Rattigan deserves an A+ for his update of the James Hilton story. There really is nothing not to like about this film. It's a good cheer-me-up selection. Glad they have released the original soundtrack as a three-CD set with lots of extras. Wish Sony would hurry up and do the same with the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peter O'Toole is Arthur Chipping a Latin Teacher with strict adherence to detail and thoroughness in helping young minds grasp the meaning and definition of Latin words and phrases. He is seen as being cold and unfair and not in touch with the times. But upon meeting Stage Actress Singer Katherine Briskit (Petula Clark) not only at a late supper after a performance of London is London but at an Amphitheater in Greece his closed minded world starts to open up.

Goodbye Mr. Chips is an MGM musical remake of the 1939 movie also from MGM. During this time musicals were out and the Hollywood studio system was in total shambles. When it premiered in New York Los Angeles and London the musical numbers were left intact but when it came to the local main street theaters world wide it was sans songs therefore making the movie shorter and gaped to the max.

Thanks to MGM\/UA Home Video under Ted Turner in the late 1980's early 1990's when VHS and Laser Disc were the main home video formats of choice the musical numbers were re-instituted and the gaps closed. Laserdisc though was the only format chosen to view Goodbye Mr. Chips in the Widescreen Letterbox Format.

For awhile now the Original Motion Picture Soundtrack was only available on the original out of print Vinyl and Cassette Tape and can still be found today on Ebay.

Thanks to the wonderful people at Film Score Monthly.com in 2006 the soundtrack has been digitally remastered and remixed into a 3 CD set featuring the completely reconstructed score, the original 1969 general release album score, and narrated sequences source music and interviews a plenty. You also get 1 unused song which is a real lost gem, \"Tomorrow with Me\" by Petula Clark which would have been chosen in place of \"You and I\" before hand.

This movie is both a classic musical and a real tribute to educators everywhere. I most certainly would buy this movie if Warner Bros. MGM and Sony would put their money where there mouth is and get this film restored from all master film sources and put it on both DVD and Blu Ray with all the bells and whistles put back into place with all the extras you can find and stuff into a release.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie because every single element of it is nothing less than excellent. I will quickly praise a few of them. Peter O'Toole gives us one of his great performances as he becomes the definitive Mr. Chips. Petula Clark, has a beautiful voice and is perfect as Katharine. The director was able to bring the story to the screen in a fresh new way. Combine that with the fantastic and creative cinematography, editing, writing, etc., and you have a film that shows the fine quality of its production. I can't praise the well-planned camera work enough, it moves us up and around, zooming in and out, giving us the best views of, and letting the locations become part of the scene. Petula Clark's last song 'YOU AND I' is just 3 beautifully composed long takes, and in this era of 2 second takes, I can appreciate the extra care that everyone involved had to give to get those long scenes perfect. The music is great, and the songs move the story along just as they should. Leslie Bricusse is one of my favorite composers. Listen to these songs, how could anyone not like them? This is a very romantic story between two people nearing middle age that find each other, bring out the best in each other, and it lasts till the end of their lives. Excellent production values, acting, camera work, and music, make this movie well worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Goodbye, Mr. Chips\" is a superbly written and photographed musical version of the classic 1939 film. Aside from Peter O'Toole's wonderfully controlled, understated performance as the pedantic schoolmaster who finds love and is changed by it, the film contains hundreds of stunning visuals, from Grecian ruins to London side streets to an extended countryside montage. The music and lyrics by Leslie Bricusse have been criticized as being dull or not-up-to par for film musicals, but they are used to enhance the story rather than tell it. Many songs are used to underscore montages or scenes; the few that don't are relegated to \"show biz\" numbers. In this manner, the songs do not intrude upon this delicate story but heighten what the characters are thinking or feeling. \"Where Did My Childhood Go?\", \"Walk Through the World With Me\", and \"You and I\" are especially effective. An absorbing, brilliantly acted, directed and written film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Chips\" is an excellent blend of music, light comedy and drama with a picture perfect performance by Peter O' Toole and and effortless romantic supporting performance by Petula Clark. O' Toole is able to show the shy, uncommunicative teacher that wishes so much to be loved by his students and is only able to express his love when he married Katherine (Clark). She brings him the world \"What a lot of flowers\" and he is forever changed. He becomes the beloved headmaster of Brookfield through tragedy but knows he could only have achieved his goal through Katherine's love. The songs (with the exception of the Music hall number) are all \"thought-songs\" coming from character's emotions and thoughts and, the more you listen to them, the more beautiful they become - \"Walk through the World with Me\" and \"You and I\". O'Toole's finest moment is the final speech he gives to the students (it was the reason for the Oscar nomination). As a teacher, we question what \"book\" learning ever gets through - but, as Chips says, we did teach them how to behave with each other and that is what really counts. Beautifully filmed, perfectly orchestrated by John Williams and one of the most moving films about love and how it can change you. \"Did I Fill the World with Love?\" the boys sing their school song. By the end, Chips realizes he was able to do it - but only cause Catherine was there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great acting is best rewarded by pairing with a melodramatic script which truly elevates the human spirit. To all those minions who toil each and every day, take heart! your patience is virtuous. Your forbearance and decency will evidence, in ways you will never anticipate. This is your Great Story. I do not believe you can watch through to the end without a wisp of moisture in that hardened eye. Or, can you? For me, it would not be so... the story is relentless! The idealist, denied his due. Will anyone speak up? Ah! but you will need to see the show yourselves! observe the schoolmaster in his prime, without the notice and peerage the observer would certainly expect. And why does he continue so? Yes! you must watch O'Toole's performance for yourselves! I can only wish it were still 'in print' to purchase, then present to my friends as my evidence of respect for their faithful lives.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great story, great music. A heartwarming love story that's beautiful to watch and delightful to listen to. Too bad there is no soundtrack CD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peter O'Toole gives a brilliant performance in this movie. I have seen the original version with Robert Donat and I much prefer Peter O'Toole's performance and the movie in general even though it is a musical. I've really never seen anything that Mr. O'Toole is in that I don't like. He is a brilliant actor, multi-talented, giving performances full of passion and depth. Petula Clark also gave a surprisingly good performance and was perfect for the part. It is an all-around heartwarming movie, full of tenderness and bittersweet fun. I will always remember (in para-phrase) the line where Mr. Chips regrets he has never given her children, and she replies, \"Of course you have, hundreds of them -- all boys.\" Thank you for the opportunity to vote for this movie and to voice my opinion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"30 years after the original film, \"Goodbye, Mr. Chips\" was made over as a musical. Peter O'Toole and Petula Clarke starred in this wonderful remake of the beloved schoolteacher, Chippington, who is referred to as Chips by his beloved wife.

O'Toole was excellent here and received another Oscar nomination. You have to wonder what Peter O'Toole has to do to win an Oscar. He has lost the coveted award 8 times now. You also have to wonder that he lost in 1969 to John Wayne for \"True Grit,\" which was really a testament to Mr. Wayne's long career and popularity. This year was also marked by great performances by Richard Burton, \"Anne of the Thousand Days,\" as well as Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight for \"Midnight Cowboy.\"

Surprised to see Petula Clarke cast as Mrs. Chippington. However, as this was a musical, a beautiful voice came well through and she did a nice piece of acting as well.

Who can forget the scene when Chips carries on in the class despite the news that his beloved has been killed in a bombing. He never got to tell her the wonderful news of his pending promotion.

The beautiful cinematography and music only enhanced a truly memorable experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a truly wonderful love story. I liked the songs, however even if you do not, you have to love the story. Peter O'Toole is at his best and Petula Clark is doing fine as well. I first saw this when I was about 13 and loved it then. Now in my forties, I still enjoy it, probably even more. Still makes me cry and laugh and feel good. It is a movie to watch only with a new age guy or by yourself as it is a chick flick. But whats wrong with that. Need a little romance and maybe a little cry, try this movie.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Silent historical drama based on the story of Anne Boleyn, newly arrived lady-in-waiting to the Queen who catches the lustful eye of Henry VIII, bad-tempered King of England who loves to feast, drink, hunt, be entertained by his court jester, watch jousts, and chase around after young beauties who jump out of cakes and assorted attractive females around the castle. Well, he's soon annulled his marriage, married Anne, and telling her it is her holy duty to produce a male heir. She fails on that score and he soon has his eye on yet another lady-in-waiting. Meanwhile, Anne spends pretty much the entire film looking hesitant, perturbed, or downright ready to burst into tears. She just doesn't come across as a happy camper (or is it just bad acting?!).

This film is a solid piece of entertainment, with an absorbing story that held my interest for two hours - plus I enjoyed seeing the very lavish medieval costuming featured here on a gorgeous sepia tinted print. Emil Jannings is quite striking and memorable in his well-done portrayal of King Henry the Eighth - he really seemed like he WAS Henry the Eighth. I am not so sure about the performance given by the actress who plays Anne, seemed a bit over the top. The DVD of this film features an appropriate, nicely done piano score that perfectly suits this story. Quite a good film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nothing dull about this movie, which is held together by fully realized characters with some depth to them. Even the hooded torturers have body language. Jannings' performance is brilliant, all will, want and need. A Henry VIII as he must have been. Henny Porten is, maybe, nobler and purer than Anne Boleyn, but she plays the part as written: A victim caught in the jaws of a big (huge) baby.

Sparkuhl's cinematography is gorgeous in the restoration, the tints sensuous. Lubitsch lets these characters breathe and reveal their corruption down to the tiniest of meannesses. He takes his time, which can try the patience of an audience accustomed to being carried away by action, but the time is worth spending. Slow your heartbeat and watch this minor miracle of German silent film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Continuing with the exclusive film programme about complicated relationships in some European courts, last night in the Schloss theatre was shown \"Anna Boleyn\", a film directed by the great Teutonic film director Herr Ernst Lubitsch. The film depicts the terrible story of the Queen consort of the British King Henry VIII. She was executed by her husband ( well, not exactly, the King ordered the executioners to do his dirty work) not to mention that this marriage caused an important political and religious historical event, the English Reformation.

The film stars Dame Henny Porten, Germany's first screen superstar during those early years and Herr Emil Jannings, Germany's fattest actor in that silent era. Both play their characters in a suitable way; Dame Porten as an innocent aristocrat who becomes progressively interested in the power that the court offers her and Herr Jannings as the unscrupulous, whimsical and womanizing British monarch, a character very suitable for this German actor who overacts appropriately, given the extravagance and excessive personality of the character himself.

In the early film period Herr Lubitsch was known for his outstanding costume films, colossal productions with big budgets ( \"Anna Boleyn\" cost about 8 million marks, a fortune even for this German count ) taking great care in magnificent decors as can be seen during the coronation procession in Westminster Abbey scene which employed 4.000 extras ( idle Germans of that time were used, causing revolutionary workers to create a fuss when German President Friedrich Ebert visited the set during filming).

Besides the spectacle, one of the most important aspect of this and every film of Herr Lubitsch, even during his epic period, is the complex relationship between the main characters. We experience a game of different interests, double meanings, and the complicated art of flirting but what is treated lightly at first ends in tragedy. The importance of those historical facts is brought to bear in an effective way but Lubitsch is really more interested in the changing relationship between Henry VIII and Anna Boleyn.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must take care that one of his fat and rich heiress doesn't lose her head for this Teutonic aristocrat.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http:\/\/ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com\/","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though, short lived \"The Amazing Spider-Man\" was one of the best made for TV versions of a famed comic book hero. Only \"Wonder Woman\" (Lynda Carter) (the best of the genre and \"The Incredible Hulk\" (Bill Bixby, Lou Ferrigno) were better.

\"The Amazing Spider-Man\" outclasses the 1966-1968 \"Batman\", because the high camp elements of the latter often ruin the adventure. \"Spider-Man\" outclasses all three television interpretations of \"Superman\"- \"Lois and Clark\", \"Smallville\", and of course the George Reeves \"Superman\" which brings up the rear.

\"The Amazing Spider-Man\" was an action drama, during the late 1970's, the pre-CGI era, when stunts had to be performed by stunt men, not in the database of a computer. \"Spider-Man\" had its own very talented stuntman to perform the death defying daredevil acrobatics. His name was Fred Waugh, who donned the spidy suit for the action sequences. Nicholas Hammond, better known as one of Julie Andrew's children on the all-time movie classic \"The Sound of Music\" was Spider-Man during the dialogue scenes. Hammond's Spider-Man also had his own secret identity as Peter Parker, similar to Christopher Reeve- Superman\/ Clark Kent, Adam West-Batman\/Bruce Wayne, and of course Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman\/ Diana Prince.

It's unfortunate that the series only had thirteen episodes. Because when the first episode hit the airwaves in November of 1977, the entire country was watching it on CBS that Wednesday night. In all fairness, CBS should release this pilot episode as well as \"The Deadly Dust\", the \"Captive Tower\" etc. on DVD shortly. \"Spider-Man\" was short lived, but did have a cult following, and in my opinion was a heck of a lot better than the movie interpretation of the famed comic book hero starring Toby McGuire.

CBS might be hesitant to release these episodes for two reasons. (A) There might not be a broad market for them based on the lack of longevity of the series and a generation of children and young people who weren't born when the series originally aired in the 1970's. (B) One of the early \"Spider-Man\" episodes dealt with a terrorist with designs on the World Trade Center, which was attacked twice many years after this show went off the air, in 1993, and of course the devastating attack against this country on 9\/11\/01 in which the towers were destroyed and many innocent lives were lost.

However I don't think that it would be in bad taste to release this \"Spider-Man\" episode even if the show was adventure, derived from a comic book, and camp in nature. The live action \"Amazing Spider-Man\" doesn't have a large following but it has a cult following. If and when CBS releases it out on DVD this cult following could be explained along with the episode in which Spiderman saved the towers in 1978, but how in September of 2001 real life proved to be different from the movies. I like to follow the news, but I also like Science Fiction\/Fantasy. Therefore I am eagerly awaiting the release of \"The Amazing Spider-Man on DVD\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I was a kid I remembered this show but thought that now as an adult the show might be a bit dated. Well yes it is but for me that makes the show more retro (and the musics very funky).

This show is mostly well written. I do think its a travesty that this show was cancelled after one season especially when this show was more popular than the Incredible Hulk.

I think fans should overlook the poor special effects and enjoy the stories.

This next sentence contains spoilers: My favourite episode as a kid was when there were two spiderman that battle against each other interestingly a similar idea is concocted in Spiderman 3 the movie. I liked the ideas in this TV show some will hate it. I believe Stan Lee wasn't a fan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some people think this was a rather bad TV series, with cheesy effects. (considering it was filmed between 1977-1979) but really, look back at those years and think, \"We didn't have computers back then.\" so if you think about it, it's a rather good TV series.

I always figured bad ratings killed the show, but no. the network did. they canceled out their theme as \"The superhero network\" and abandoned a short lived spider-man series. if it had gone on, it probably would have run well into the 80's, and if it was really lucky (And i mean really lucky), the early 90s.

And no one wanted to pick this series up.

Anyways, Jolly old (or young) Nicholas Hammond, of The sound of music fame, is brought to the TV screen as peter parker, the Secret identity of the amazing spider-man. along the series, peter deals with a clone, a beautiful girl from a foreign country, and a corrupt politician.

while the series is way out of timeline (being that peter is already graduated from university, and thats when he gets bit, and uncle Ben is already dead,) The audience is treated to action, suspense, and the attitude that the characters have towards peter and his alter ego, spider-man.

While it's also slightly disappointing that Robert. F Simon looks nothing like J.J.Jameson, it's not so disappointing that Betty grant isn't Betty grant, but a hot African American girl (who reminds me of Halle berry, who is one of the hottest women on the planet) so really, this one wasn't so bad.

but considering the time, and how much drama they packed into this one, it kind of foreshadows what bad TV is today. either way, it's entertaining, even for today.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just reading why this show got canceled makes me rather steamed. This was a favorite of mine as a kid and I always watched it when it came on no matter how many times I saw the episode. Sure the effects were not great, but they were also not horrible either. They did a fairly good job with the costume and it had the nice 70's vibe to it that is always enjoyable to see and hear as the music was also very 70's. It did not really have any villains from the comics, but then most comic book live show adaptations had none to very few actual super villains from the comics. Spidey's powers were a bit different here too, he had his Spidey sense and he could climb walls, but he was not nearly as strong as the Spider-man of the comics. He was super strong though as I do remember an episode where he broke into a room by breaking the door knob off, he just was not the car hurler that the one from the comic book can be. The show was set in Los Angelos so there were not as man buildings to swing from, but they did okay with the web. It is nice that this show actually has the web shooters and not organic shooters of the movie. I love the movies, but part of me wishes they would start over and do the more smarty pants Spidey that has the mechanical web shooters. This show had a good star as Peter Parker and he was okay as Spider-man, it is nice to see a Spidey who does not basically live in the slums like he does in the movies. Neither this show nor the movie though has a Spider-man that is quick with the insult like the one in the comic. Still, this show was fun without being as corny as the Batman show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the movie yesterday and was shocked by it, but even more shocked by some of the comments I have read here. One person wrote that it was ambiguous if the victim of the torture was guilty or not--therefore... One person wrote that since he wasn't an American citizen, therefore... Some people comment that the people in the Middle East hate us and want us dead, therefore... So are we saying then that it is right to torture someone who is guilty of a crime? Are we saying it is right to torture someone who is not an American Citizen? Are we saying that it is right to torture someone who may hate us and want us dead? Are we saying that, as is written in the Geneva Convention, the Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution of the United States that \"torture is wrong, but some torture is less wrong than others?\" When does it become \"right\" to torture? THAT is why this movie is powerful-- it is ambiguous, but not about torture. Torture is always wrong, and if we are willing to do it, even in the name of justice and \"National Security\" or \"freedom and democracy\" then we are wrong and we are evil; we are doing exactly what we are accusing our enemies of doing (and we are calling them \"wrong\" in the same breath.) My favorite line in the film was \"if you don't want to compromise join Amnesty International.\" Right on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rendition presents a very topical matter in the form of a very tense thriller. It's a gripping, and not a preaching, movie. Seeing it in an Arab country with a mixture of Arabian and European audience gave it an extra level of atmosphere. The audience was totally gripped by the film and gave it a loud applause afterwards. The story of an Egyptian, married to an American, picked up on the suspicion of links to terrorist organizations and shipped to a friendly (with US) Arab country for \"enhanced interrogation (as Meryl Streep's character states in the film: \"we have no torture in the US\") seems to be from the front page of todays news. There is a very neat link between the various characters which appear in the movie and the pace of the film never drops. The movies'message seems to be (as stated by Jake Gyllenhal's character in the film) that by abducting and torturing suspects you create many more terrorists. The acting is uniformly excellent with Streep and Reese Witherspoon the stand outs. Not to be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this was the most outstanding edge-of-your-seat thriller that I have seen in a long time. The research for the film was thorough, the writer Kelly Sane has left no loose ends. The cast was seasoned (fantastic performances all round). Omar Metwally was outstanding.

The cinematography is poetic, music enchanting and the overall effect highly satisfying.

Rendition goes into territory that even the media fears to tread. It is really a wakeup call for those involved with espionage and the legal web that is the \"War on Terror\".

A woman walked out of the theater and asked me \"does this really happen\"? That in itself speaks of Gavin Hood's masterful achievement.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Imagine you have just been on a plane for 18 hours. You have been on a business trip to South Africa. You are a high-paid professional. You've lived in the US for 20 years. You are in your thirties, you have a wife a little boy and another baby on the way. One thing, even though you have a green card, you are still Egyptian. On transit you are asked to come with 2 security guards, next thing you know you are overpowered, hooded and chained and after a brief ( but still reasonably civil) interrogation you are to be rendered! This is what happens to Anwar el Ibrahimi at the beginning of the movie. His is a story of pain and ( literally )torture. It's one of several story lines. One follows his wife's attempts to get more information. One follows the (cold) bureaucrats behind the rendition. Another story deals with the family of the man who leads the interrogation of Anwar el Ibrahimi. There are some other stories too and by the end they all neatly come together. Though the more famous actors like Reese Witherspoon ( as the distraught pregnant wife ) Jake Gyllenhaal ( as the CIA rookie forced to watch the interrogation in Northern Africa) and Meryl Streep ( as CIA hotshot Corine Whitman) it is really the more unknown actors that carry the story and give it it's heart. For me the actor playing the unfortunate Mr El Ibrahimi ( Omar Metwally ) was the heart and soul of this movie. His portrayal of a man in distress was shockingly well done. It's almost as if he was being tortured for real! Also Israeli actor Yigal Naor was very impressive as the part worried family-man and part extremely cruel chief of torture. Hard to watch and not exactly fun, but still very worthwhile.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this movie. I saw it to a packed house at the Toronto International Film Festival the day after the gala opener which must have gone over well. The director, Gavin Hood was supposed to be present for today's screening, but alas his twins were born just hours before, so he had to jet on a flight back. '2 birthings in 24 hours' was how he joked about it.

Rendition refers to 'extraordinary rendition' -- a term whereby suspected terrorists in the US can be sent, without the legal consent of their parents nations, to prisons abroad to be questioned and detained.

It's fairly predictable -- innocent Egyptian-American man wrongly accused of being a terrorist 'goes missing' while en route from South Africa to Washingon DC. He is sent abroad, while wife at home (Reese Witherspoon) fights to find him and free him. But what makes this movie special are some nice choices in story-telling: 1) a human-touch story of what is going on in the locale where a suicide bomb-detonated; 2) the humanity of a CIA agent trying to understand and be honest with what is really going on; and 3) the chronology of story-telling which makes it a tight, taut tale that moves and jerks at the right moments. Ah -- relief! And a mix of emotions that swirl around as the story fights for an ending.

All-around strong acting with Meryl Streep as a standout vixen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this day and age in which just about every other news story involves discussions of waterboarding, images of Abu Ghraib, or tales of forced detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Gavin Hood's \"Rendition\" is about as up-to-the-minute and timely a movie as is ever likely to come out of the entertainment mills of mainstream Hollywood. It's not, by any stretch of the imagination, a perfect film, but neither does it merit the caterwauling opprobrium it has received at the hands of critics from all across the ideological and political spectrum.

The term \"rendition\" refers to the ability of the CIA to arrest any individuals it suspects of terrorist dealings, then to whisk them away in secret to a foreign country to interrogate and torture them for an indefinite period of time, all without due process of law. Anwar El-Ibrahimi is an Egyptian man who has been living for twenty years in the United States. He has an American wife, a young son and a new baby on the way. He seems a very unlikely candidate for a terrorist, yet one day, without warning or explanation, Anwar is seized and taken to an undisclosed location where he is subjected to brutal torture until he admits his involvement with a terrorist organization that Anwar claims to know nothing about.

On the negative side, \"Rendition\" falters occasionally in its storytelling abilities, often biting off a little more than it can chew in terms of both plot and character. The ostensible focal point is Douglas Freeman, a rookie CIA agent who is brought in to observe Anwar's \"interrogation\" at the hands of Egyptian officials. The problem is that, as conceived by writer Kelley Sane and enacted by Jake Gyllenhaal, Freeman seems too much of a na\u00efve \"boy scout\" to make for a very plausible agent, and he isn't given the screen time he needs to develop fully as a character. We know little about him at the beginning and even less, it seems, at the end. He \"goes through the motions,\" but we learn precious little about the man within. Thus, without a strong center of gravity to hold it all together, the film occasionally feels as if it is coming apart at the seams, with story elements flying off in all directions. A similar problem occurs with Anwar's distraught wife, played by Reese Witherspoon, a woman we never get to know much about apart from what we can see on the surface. Gyllenhaal and Witherspoon have both proved themselves to be fine actors under other circumstances, but here they are hemmed in by a restrictive screenplay that rarely lets them go beyond a single recurring note in their performances.

What makes \"Rendition\" an ultimately powerful film, however, is the extreme seriousness of the subject matter and the way in which two concurrently running plot lines elegantly dovetail into one another in the movie's closing stretches. It may make for a slightly more contrived story than perhaps we might have liked on this subject, but, hey, this is Hollywood after all, and the film has to pay SOME deference to mass audience expectations if it is to get itself green lighted, let alone see the light of day as a completed project.

Two of the supporting performances are particularly compelling in the film: Omar Metwally who makes palpable the terror of a man caught in a real life Kafkaesque nightmare from which he cannot awaken, and Yigal Naor who makes a surprisingly complex character out of the chief interrogator\/torturer. Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin and Peter Sarsgaard also make their marks in smaller roles. Special mention should also be made of the warm and richly hued cinematography of Dion Beebe.

Does the movie oversimplify the issues? Probably. Does it stack the deck in favor of the torture victim and against the evil government forces? Most definitely. (One wonders how the movie would have played if Anwar really WERE a terrorist). Yet, the movie has the guts to tread on controversial ground. It isn't afraid to raise dicey questions or risk the disapproval of some for the political stances it takes. It openly ponders the issue of just how DOES a nation hold fast to its hard-won principle of \"civil liberties for all\" in the face of terrorism and fear. And just how much courage does it take for people of good will to finally stand up and say \"enough is enough,\" even at the risk of being branded terrorist-appeasing and unpatriotic by those in power? (The movie also does not, in any way, deny the reality of extreme Islamic terrorism).

Thus, to reject \"Rendition\" out of hand would be to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. \"Rendition\" may not be perfect, but it IS good, and it has something of importance to say about the world in which we now live. And that alone makes it very much worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"I fear you speak upon the rack, where men enforced do speak anything.\" This Shakespearean line from The Merchant of Venice is echoed again in the new film Rendition which introduces the viewer to the \"enhanced methods of interrogation\", renditions, which began in the Clinton Administration and have become more commonplace since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

The film features an all-star cast, with Oscar winners Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin, and Reese Witherspoon, as well as Peter Sarsgaard, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Omar Metwally. Supporting roles filled by unfamiliar actors deliver as well, sucking the audience into the plot, and showing how many people can be affected by overseas terror attacks, and our means of investigating them.

Rendition follows an Egyptian born terrorism suspect (Metwally) who is taken by U.S. officials following his flight from South Africa to Washington DC to an undisclosed prison overseas. His pregnant wife (Witherspoon) ventures to Washington DC to find out about his disappearance through a family friend and Senator's employee (Sarsgaard). Gyllenhaal plays a young CIA analyst at the overseas detention facility who monitors the violent interrogation.

This film follows the emotional plights of the torture victim (Metwally), and those involved in obtaining the supposed information from him. Some, like the CIA analyst (Gyllenhaal), are visibly shaken and horrified by the methods exercised, while others, the stern Senator (Streep) and foreign interrogator (Yigal Naor), see it as necessary and effective.

The film may be described by some as a political piece, but is ultimately an emotional one. Metwally's performance as the tortured prisoner is Oscar-worthy. The film does not intend to preach, but rather to question and inform the audience on a topic that does not often have a human face put on it. Renditions have been known to work, but have also been known to produce false information from innocent prisoners. The film simply depicts the emotional struggles of those involved in such grave business, and does so in a way that will affect every viewer differently. The film will keep your interest, and have you engaged in each of the character's plights.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film tackles the here and now horror of \"rendition\" with a multi-cast trans-global account of all involved. No-one gets off lightly because we see the blindness of the players as they carve out their own slice of the worldwide game piling hatred and misery on their \"enemies\" and themselves in equal measure.

The interplay between the sympathetic Senator's Aide (played in scintillating style by Peter Sarsgaard) and the real Washington power-mongers is electrifying. Meanwhile out in the field, new CIA man (Jake Gyllenhaal) goes through a sea change in his attitude to the USA's new found cosiness with torture. Sudden though his rejection of what he initially tacitly condoned is, one has to ask why on earth would anyone who calls him or herself civilized stand and watch anyone be humiliated and abused in this way? The film has few heroes - perhaps Gyllenhaal's flawed and vacillating CIA man is the exception and a necessary indulgence to make the film offer a sliver of hope.

The sad fact of course is that this film isn't fiction at all, but a wake up call to those with a shred of decency left in them. The awful truth is that we in the UK and USA have lost the moral plot and this film shows how low we are prepared to go. All this in the name of freedom! There's a wonderful line in the script that says that torture is a sure way to swell the numbers of our enemies. This is already happening in real life and we should listen to the message that this film delivers and start using our might and money much more intelligently!! The message seems to be that any of us who claim that rendition, torture and the abuse of basic human rights are necessary to protect our way of life are as wrong-headed and stultifyingly stupid as the Jihadists and suicide bombers.

All praise to the sensibilities of a talented South African director with a eye on the gross unfairness of how power is exercised, and a cast of principled mainstream actors from the US and beyond. Oh, and by the way, the film has a sting in its tail with the ending a clever and thought provoking surprise (which I won't give away).

I saw the film in an early London preview so it has not yet been widely written up but I'm glad to say that the tide of less than glowing reviews seems to be turning. The BBC review has been very strongly in support and they (and I) suspect that much of the negative comments come from those who see the world through the simple specs of Hollywood - where the good guys and the bad guys are cardboard cut-outs. Hence the reason that many of the truly great films of the year are increasingly indie and\/or non-US pix.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most of this political thriller presented as a mostly run of the mill movie with a somewhat better development of many of the major characters, that was much appreciated, until the BIG twist and powerful climax that recalled twists experienced in \"Silence of the Lambs,\" or \"The Sixth Sense.\" Reese Witherspoon as the distraught wife of the missing Egyptian husband and Yigal Naor as the strong-armed interrogator offer strong performances. Jake Gyllenhaal unfortunately is handed a more two-dimensional character and has to struggled with a stereotypical presentation of the emotionally torn CIA analyst that has been presented many times before in other movies. Early on there is the nice scene with an explosion that resembles a scene at the end of \"Saving Private Ryan,\" the silent scene that was used so effectively in reflecting one consequence of violence. The script also provides a little more glimpse into the mind-set of the \"enemy\" but still doesn't allow the audience really much understanding, again permitting the audience to wallow in stereotypical characterization. The cinematography and photography also is somewhat of a letdown because unlike \"Jarhead,\" or \"Blackhawk Down,\" the crisp, raw visceral presentation is missing not allowing the audience to really be there in the movie, there is some distance that keeps the audience from realizing the intensity of the emotions occurring on the screen. However, overall, the movie redeems itself by the end, offering the audience a measured look into the complexity of the United States' use of rendition and the possible complications and consequences that may occur through its use. Eight out of Ten Stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Think of it as an extreme form of detention without trial. Without commenting and taking a side on the US Foreign Policy, the process of Extraordinary Rendition involves taking persons suspected of terrorist activities to a foreign country, an opposite to an extradition if you wish, to a place where torture is not a crime but a means to illicit information. Instead of staining your soil with blood of potentially innocent parties, you do so on foreign land where such tactics are accepted interrogation techniques.

Naturally, given the severity of the tactics and attempts at breaking down a person, sometimes you would get what you want once you pass the resistance, or get nothing, or worst of all, get a confession just because the mind has been broken to the point that the subject will agree to whatever you say. It's an ugly process, and what better way to do it when you're the champion human rights, giving the nod to use whatever means necessary in the name of protecting more lives, in an age where information is key to the battle against terror, and doing so in a country where probably the rights record is questionable.

Rendition is this year's Syriana, though in the run up to the new year we do have a number of political thriller contenders to take that crown, with Rendition first of all, followed by the Robert Redford movie Lions for Lambs, starring Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep (again, though now on the other side of the fence), and The Kingdom with Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, though this one would probably turn out to be more action driven. Directed by Gavin Hood, who did Tsotsi and will be helming the new Wolverine spin off, Rendition is a decent thriller with a top notch cast, in a narrative that has been proved quite popular these days - the split, which provides for some ample differential perspectives to be presented through an ensemble cast.

Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally), a chemical engineer, gets renditioned en route to going home under the orders of CIA top brass Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep). At a detention facility outside the US, Jake Gyllenhaal's CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (oh so prophetic) embarks on his very first interrogation session, no doubt being thrust into a position that he didn't sign up for. Back home, a very pregnant Reese Whitherspoon searches frantically for answers to her husband's disappearance, and sought after an ex-flame Alan Smith's (Peter Sarsgaard) assistance, since he's working for Senator Hawkins (Alan Arkin). Throw in J.K. Sinmmons, a terrorist plot investigation and a budding forbidden love story between Fatima (Zineb Oukach) and Khalid (Moa Khouas), you have quite a bit going on in a busy picture.

Given a number of casts, locations, timelines and the likes, Rendition wasn't confusing at all, and it plays out with deft handling of the material, never quick to judge, presenting ideas and thoughts from both sides of the equation. Every character has their own agenda, and the unveiling of this agenda engages enough not to bore nor to confuse you. And the best part of it all is how, very truly, they bow down to self-preservation in different forms, and ultimately, in various lose-lose situations unfortunately. It kept you guessing as well - did he or didn't he, and constantly played with your mind as to whether Anwar deserved what he's getting. It utilized one extremely smart sleight of hand which I didn't see coming until it's too late (so there goes the credit), though it did succumb to the usual stereotyping of terrorist militants, and without spending much time in depth to explore their motivations.

Perhaps it didn't find a need to, given so many movies out there already touching base on this issue (Paradise Now, Day Night Day Night, Syriana even). While it turned out to be rather one-dimensional (personal tragedy to strapping of bombs to become a suicide bomber), I felt Rendition did right in not providing any saccharine sweet ending, that this fight against negative, destructive ideology, isn't something that can be addressed in a two hour movie, and I'm glad it steered clear such fairy tale implausibilities.

What we have instead is a well crafted tale that sets its gun sights on the issue of Rendition, and probably capable enough to spark discussion once the lights come on, on which camp you belong to - do you support inflicting severe pain in interrogation? Yes or No? This is the quintessential question of our time. Yes or No? (OK, I'm already geared for Lions for Lambs)!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The powerhouse cast pulls the crowd in the theatre, despite the ominous title. Jake Gyllenhaal guested on Conan O'Brien to promote the movie and explained that 'Rendition' was a euphemism for obtaining information via torture. Since 9\/11, 'extraordinary rendition' allowed the government's intelligence agency to extricate people unquestioningly without due process and use any means necessary in exchange for information.

Gyllenhaal plays rookie CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (note the irony) who is torn about his assignment which renders him as a mere observer to unorthodox interrogation proceedings at an underground detention facility outside the US.

Omar Metwally plays the suspected terrorist Anwar El-Ibrahimi, Egyptian national and green card-carrying hubby of American Isabella Fields El-Ibrahimi (Reese Witherspoon). Isabella and her son wait for Anwar to come home from a scientific conference when he suddenly disappears from the plane's passenger manifest. She seeks help from her college friend who works in government and learns that the Head of Intelligence, Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep) is behind it all.

Rendition is directed by Hollywood newbie Gavin Hood (who is set to do X-Men Origins: Wolverine), and begs the question of whether such 'extraordinary rendition' is exercised in real life. The movie was released locally in the wake of the Glorietta explosion (bombing\/mishap?), and a pivotal scene in the movie is when a bomb explodes in a public plaza, so that must have sent chills up every moviegoer's spine. Seeing the exploding tableau with a lone red and yellow sign Aajala (Ayala?) on the upper right hand of the screen, plus the effect of silence and slow-moving images magnified the impact of the scene's real-life coincidence.

There are lessons to learn from this movie and it all boils down to personal decisions we make, daily. We all have choices we can exercise at will, and we often do not always (want to) see how these affect others, who may end up as hapless victims of circumstance. What 'the greater good' is should not have to be a forced choice our leaders have to take if we each already decide correctly at the source. Now that's a utopia worth building.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some films are designed to just entertain you, others to make you laugh, or cry, or uplift, others, like this, aim to provoke, to make you think, and to make you angry. I was angry during this film, not at the film, but at the fact that it was true, that America, the free, does torture in the illogical view that it is doing it for the greater good. The torture scenes in this movie were harrowing, the indifference of people was shattering, the film was compelling in its argument, and showed just how wrong it is to torture people. Of course now that makes me a \"bleeding liberal\" labels shoved on people by others who shut their minds to the facts that this does happen and should not. People who don't realise that as the movie said, for every person tortured,you get ten or one hundred people rise up to perform acts of vengeance. You get an ever increasing cycle of violence. This film did not make me hate America, although I can see how it could do, but it made me hate the way that America has reacted in its post 9\/11 world. There is a significant quote in the film, just after we have learned that 19 people have died and seventy five were injured in the bomb scene, the quote is \"one American is dead\" - that makes the difference. You cannot kill an American, America can kill thousands but you cannot kill a single American, or they will do whatever it takes, including torture to enact justice. This is the American way apparently. Call me a liberal, call me naive (although I think the people who think torture is fine are naive) call me deluded, call me anything you like, but this film is a brilliant example of what is wrong in America and the west today. I wish this film would be shown to all school students, at a minimum. This film will stay with me a long time, part of me wishes I could forget it, because I wish this type of thing never happened, but I know it does, the other part of me wishes I would never forget, because we need to remember these shameful events to prevent them from happening again. Whatever happens to me, this film will be with me for a long time, and I will be telling everyone I know to watch it, not to be entertained, but to be provoked, because sometimes we all need to be provoked.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (Gyllenhaal) gets to see his first secret location interrogation when Anwar (Metwally) is accused of having contact with a known terrorist bomb maker. Anwar's wife (Witherspoon) is frantic regarding the whereabouts of her husband .

Don't you just hate it when the title of a movie sends you to a dictionary? I must have an old edition as this Rendition is not a musical piece. No, it's the government's way of legally taking a resident or citizen somewhere to interrogate him and possibly use some torture to get the desired information.

While watching this movie I was reminded of a similar story line in the Crossing Jordan TV show (now off the air), and I expect we will see even more of these story lines. It's inevitable. The events of 911 are the catalysts.

This is a tough one to watch because we don't like to see people tortured and our government not telling the truth about things. We like the idea that no matter what happens or happened that we can go somewhere to find answers, but when that door is closed to us, we are truly lost and without hope as Anwar's wife was.

Performances by all were first class and it's possible we may see more of Igai Naor (I have no idea how to pronounce it) because he resembles and can act like Telly Savalas. No kidding.

Violence: Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: No, Language: Yes","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Extraordinary Rendition is a frightening practice authorized, surprisingly, under Clinton, that allows the U.S. government to seize and hold anyone suspected, seemingly for any reason, of being a terrorist against the United States. This is a touchy issue, especially after 9\/11, because supporters of the practice will always criticize the opposition as withholding vital power from the U.S. that it needs to effectively fight terror. Fanatic supporters will label the opposition as terrorists in themselves.

But like a recent film that lent a similar level of humanity to the death penalty, The Life of David Gale, Rendition shows us a story of the misuse of extraordinary rendition, or at least the ease with which it can be exploited and falsely applied. The story involves Anwar El- Abrahimi, an American chemical engineer born in Egypt who is seized on his way back to America from giving a lecture in Egypt. The cause given is that he made phone calls to a known terrorist. No proof is ever given (or needed) that it was Anwar that made the calls, that his phone was never lost of stolen.

Meanwhile, Anwar's extremely pregnant wife, Isabella, is back in the states frantically trying to find her husband, who got onto a plane to Chicago but apparently never got off. The flimsy explanation that he was never there evaporates when she discovers that he made an in-flight purchase using his credit card.

Lately I have been researching modern Chinese history, particularly that of the astonishingly selfish and brutal dictatorship set up by Mao Tse-tung, and it is more than a little frightening to see the similarities between extraordinary rendition and some of Mao's brutal scare tactics, including his public executions (which the people were forced to watch), and extensive use of torture specifically used to extract \"confessions.\"

It is pretty disturbing to notice that Mao specifically did these things to create an environment of fear in order to achieve obedience from the Chinese people. To say that the Bush administration has not created an environment of fear and continues to milk it for everything it's worth would be na\u00efve in the extreme, and although extraordinary rendition was not created under Bush, it is clear that it does more harm than good.

Adding to the thickness of the film is Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal), who works behind a desk for the CIA and has little field experience, until his boss is assassinated and he suddenly finds himself supervising the torture of a man that he quickly comes to doubt has anything to reveal. Fatima's (Freeman's boss) daughter also plays a pivotal role, as does a senatorial aide played by Peter Sarsgaard, who might have the most satisfying role in the movie. Meryl Streep is also suitably cold and clinical as a chilly senator with a dogmatic support of the necessity and practice of rendition.

As a political thriller, the movie is remarkably well-crafted and paced. But the scariest thing about it is that this is all real. The movie's goal is to get people to really think about the things done in America's name, especially when they claim to be done to prevent those same things. Conducting terror in the name of preventing terror will win no sympathy for us, nor will extracting confessions through brutal torture, which is the basest form of criminal investigation.

Unfortunately, we are gradually heading in that direction, of doing these things more rather than less. The frightening question is what is the event that is going to take place at some point in the future to convince us to stop and head the other way, toward civilization and peace, or will we just keep heading toward a military dictatorship until we finally get there?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm Egyptian. I have a green card. I have been living in the US since 1991. I have a very common Arabic name. I'm married (non-American but non-Egyptian, non-Arab wife). I have children who are born in the US. I have a PhD in Cell Biology from the US and I travel for conferences. I make 6 figure income and I own a home in the Washington, DC area. I pay my taxes and outside 1 or 2 parking tickets I have no blemish on my record since I came to this country in 1991. I look more Egyptian than the Ibrahimi character but my spoken English is as good as his.

A couple of months ago I was returning from a conference\/company business in Spain through Munich Germany to Washington, DC (Home). I was picked up in Munich airport by a German officer as soon as I got off the Madrid plane. He was waiting for me. He was about to start interrogating me until I simply told him \"I have no business in Germany, I'm just passing through\". He had let me go with the utmost disappointment. That was nothing compared to what happened at Washington, Dulles airport (Which was not nearly as bad as what happened to Ibrahimi in the movie). The customs officer asked me a couple of questions about the length and purpose of my trip. He then wrote a letter C on my custom declaration form and let me go. After I picked up my checked bag I was stopped at the last exit point (Some Homeland Security crap). I sat there for 3 hours along with many different people of many different nationalities. I was not told the reason for my detainment. I was not allowed to use my phone or ANY other phone. I was feisty at first asking to be told of the reason or let me go but decided to suck it up and just wait and see. I asked if I can call my wife to tell her that I'm going to be late but was told no. When I tried to use my phone and as soon as my wife said \"hello\", an officer yanked the phone out of hand and threatened me to confiscate it. When I asked about needing to call home because my family is waiting, they said \"Three hours is nothing, we will make contact after 5 hours\". When I asked to use the bathroom, an officer accompanied me there. It toilet was funny; I guess it was a prison style toilet that is all metal with no toilet seat. Finally, they called my name and gave me my passport\/green card and said you can go. I asked what the problem was, they said \"nothing\"!! I know it was only 3 hours but I was dead tired and wanted to go home to see my wife and kids.

As for the movie, it was very well made. Unlike most movies that involve Arabs and use non-Arab actors who just speak gibberish, this movie the Arabic was 100% correct. I assume the country is Morocco (North Africa).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very good political thriller regarding the aftermath of terrorism and the using of political torture to obtain one's objectives in flushing out the terrorists.

The story is interwoven where two families are adversely affected by the terrorist events.

This is one of Meryl Streep's best roles in years. She plays a cold, calculating, cunning director of the CIA who allows these things to go on. She is out of the George Bush-Dick Cheney school of handling the war on terrorism. Had her part been expanded, Miss Streep certainly would have been up for an award at Oscar time.

Jake Gyllenhaal is our hero. A CIA agent who really can't take what's going on.

We have a terrorist who actually has a heart and it costs him his life in this well directed, finely paced film.

Alan Arkin appears briefly in the part of a conniving senator. Mr. Arkin seems to get better with age.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To solve a challenging problem, you need to start by asking the right questions. Without these, even the biggest library of information is useless. This movie does just that - where other movies guide your thinking along a story board, this film pulls at your emotions and your understanding of justice and what's permissible. These questions will tug at you throughout, challenging your assumptions as the characters develop. This movie is important. It's relevant, and a must see for anybody who stays informed of current affairs. The fact it's highly entertaining and includes a slew of movie stars only improves the execution. My advice: watch it with a serious crowd or better yet, by yourself, not unlike how you'd read an editorial from your favorite news magazine. In this case there is one difference: the answers will be your own.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was an excellent movie with good acting and it keeps your attention through to the very end. Maybe people are either tired or uncomfortable with the subject matter and that's why it's being trashing so much. It could also be too deep for many of the viewers out there who give movies like the American Pie series higher ratings.

Jake Gyllenhaal is a CIA analyst, not an agent, who is to observe an interrogation of an Egyptian man by Moroccans, not Egyptians. He's not supposed to be a hardened agent and so comes off as naive of the interrogation techniques used. This is more believable than if he were to come across as being an \"old hat\" at it.

The story jumps around a bit and can be confusing, but it also makes you stay focused on whats going on until the end when everything comes together as the puzzle falls into place. The supporting actors did a good job of helping to carry the movie. I found the movie to be powerful and thought provoking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The reviews for RENDITION generally haven't been favorable, so I waited until it moved to the local discount theatre to see it. The film tells the story of Anwar El-Ibrahimi, an American-Egyptian scientist who is plucked from his international flight and hauled in for interrogation after a strange coincidence links him to a recent terrorist attack in an unnamed North African country. Not as bad as I'd feared, it's an interesting and thought-provoking entry in the \"ripped-from-the-headlines\" thriller genre.

The film ultimately asks tough questions concerning U.S. methods of prying information from political prisoners: Is crossing the formerly-uncrossed line of (openly) employing torture on suspected terrorists something our country should be doing? Does it yield useful information that helps save lives? If so, at what cost? What sort of monsters do we create when innocent people are taken prisoner and tortured? By sanctioning the use of torture, what sort of monster do we as a country become? It's always disappointing when a film with such provocative material is sloppy with some of the details that make good films great. For example, I'd like to have empathized with Anwar's wife, who spends the entire film trying to track him down, but the only identifiable personality trait she's given is an advanced state of pregnancy. RENDITION also seems to imply that Arab women who don't go along with their fathers' arranged marriages are only asking for trouble, and there's a poorly-conceived scrapbook kept by another of the film's main characters that too conveniently spells out in great detail all the information his love interest just happens to be in urgent need of at that particular moment. I laughed out loud, when the moment should have been filled with dread.

The film features a good central performance by Jake Gyllenhaal and strong (but too brief) appearances by Hollywood veterans Meryl Streep and Alan Arkin, as well as impressive turns by Omar Atwally as Anwar El-Ibrahimi and also by actors Moa Khouas, Zineb Oukach and Yigal Naor, all of whom I would much enjoy seeing in future films that have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. Good luck to them. The five or so stories RENDITION follows are woven together nicely, until the filmmakers insert a slight-but-effective twist that finally alludes to the never-ending cycle of carnage that violent attacks of terror beget.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Is torture ever right? No The answer is simple and absolute with no qualifications possible. The reason as this film showed is the effect torture has on a society. The values that have been hard fought for in Western society through centuries of revolution and struggle are for ALL men and women to be allowed to live in a free and open society. One where individuals are treated equally and with respect to their essential rights as humans. To protect this society institutions have been developed to deal with wrongdoing openly, fairly and honestly. These institutions have been adapted and honed through generations of hard work. One could argue that these are the true bedrock of democracy as they belong to us all, allow us all to be heard. If we allow undemocratic, inhumane acts to be committed in our name, if we split our society into those who have rights and those who don't then we undo the work of our ancestors. Moreover we are all complicit and all guilty and tainted. Whether those that we accuse are guilty or not is of no importance. We are defined by our attitudes and our responses.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Taut, topical political thriller, taking square aim at the controversial US policy of rendition, another appalling Orwell-ian phrase (collateral damage, anyone?) for the illegal interrogation even torture of terrorist suspects by-passing due legal process. The inhuman interrogation is overseen by the Egyptian Chief of Police, himself the target of a fundamentalist suicide - bomb plot, thus entwining the two main plot-lines of the movie. Both work very well, the bombing set-piece graphic and chilling in its realism, with its denouement revealed in a stylish Tarantino-type flashback and the torture scenes on an innocent man also unflinchingly portrayed in all their gory detail. The film scores telling points about the use of torture as a credible means of intelligence - gathering in the war against terrorists and against the unpoliced faceless bureaucracy (here personified by a suitable cold-steeled Meryl Streep, as the CIA boss who casually gives the order for rendition) which can ruin innocent lives. Never mind Kafka's fiction, think more the recent killing of the innocent Brazilian in London in 2005, with the Head of the Metropolitan police still in his job and no-one tried for the poor man's murder. The acting is excellent throughout - the two key roles of the innocent man and terrorist bomber are realistically and tellingly played by the unfamiliar actors Omar Metwally and Moa Khouas. Similarly Yigal Naor as the intimidating Chief of Police and Zineb Ouhach as his idealistic lovelorn daughter ring true with their performances, their lack of familiarity (at least to me) adding to their characters' credibility. Of the bigger Hollywood names present, Gyllenhaal's stature grows with succeeding films, here playing the initially detached but later conscience - stricken and anguished Government man who does the right thing in the end. Witherspoon plays her distraught wife part mainly in one key but is believable all the same, while David Fabrizio and Alan Arkin convincingly show up self-serving senators and their lackeys who'll only go so far to help you until their career prospects are jeopardised. There are a few weaknesses plot-wise; there's little dramatic need to create the \"suspense\" surrounding El-Ibrahimi's escape and Streep's character is perhaps too obvious a bogey-man\/woman. Worst of all is the meaningless inclusion of Gyllenhaal's on-the-spot girlfriend, around merely for decoration and a brief gratuitous love-scene. On the whole though, an engrossing thought - provoking cinematic experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I came out of \"Rendition\" with a list of flaws a mile long, so how is it that my overall impression is that it was a pretty decent movie? It's definitely a film whose sum is better than its parts.

Those parts include a cast of big name stars, not one of them giving a memorable performance (Omar Metwally, a relative unknown, is the one you'll remember); serviceable if undistinguished direction; and a screenplay that's both too complicated and too simplistic at the same time. Metwally is an Egyptian-born American citizen who gets kidnapped by the U.S. government's rendition program, otherwise known as the process by which America tortures suspected terrorists into confessing information whether or not it's remotely true. Reese Witherspoon plays his pregnant wife, who calls in the favor of an old college friend (Peter Saarsgard), who works for a senator (Alan Arkin) and helps to track her husband down. Meryl Streep plays the head of the rendition program; Jake Gyllenhaal is a young agent assigned to the interrogation and whose conscience gets in the way. Meanwhile, a whole parallel storyline follows the daughter of a top Egyptian official who is allied to the American rendition program and her boyfriend, who's in training to become a suicide bomber.

Ay-yi-yi that's a lot of plot to pack into a two-hour movie, and I was about to wash my hands of the whole thing, especially the Egyptian Romeo and Juliet subplot that felt like nothing more than a distraction. But then near the film's finale, a twist of chronology brings all of the plot strands together in a way that makes you want to reassess everything you thought you knew about the motivations of the various characters, and makes \"Rendition\" a much more interesting movie than it seems like it's going to be.

Witherspoon, Gyllenhaal and Sarsgaard all look like high school students playing adults twenty years older than they actually are -- Gyllenhaal in particular, usually a fine actor, looks so bored that you wonder if he's going to muster the energy to deliver his lines. And the screenwriter should be arrested for having an actress as good as Meryl Streep at his disposal and giving her nothing more to work with than this one-dimensional dragon lady. The movie of course strives for relevancy, but instead of addressing the tangled web of arguments surrounding the national security issue, it charges right down the middle of the debate in a predictable fashion. There are moments when you think maybe the film will veer off in an interesting direction -- what if Witherspoon did actually begin to doubt her husband's past, for instance? What if Metwally actually had been in contact with terrorists, as his interrogators accuse? But no, the movie takes the path of least resistance.

But, like I said upfront, I recommend this movie. I know I've done nothing but list a bunch of its faults, but it's got its head in the right place, and it is entertaining, or at least as as entertaining as a movie about torture and interrogation can be.

Grade: B+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"RENDITION is a film not to miss with solid writing from Kelley Sane and with the direction of Gavin Hood that takes us on a story which is a ride through a man's journey through hell. Once again, Meryl Streep in a convincing role of the CIA today and great performances from a cast of superlative actors in Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhall and Alan Arkin, along with actors of Middle Eastern descent who add to the reality of the story.

In RENDITION you see how \"terrorism can breed terrorism\" and as the film progresses tying the story to what is playing out in the Middle East is reality brought to the screen. The external shots add to the intensity of the story and Peter Sarsgaard does a brilliant job of playing an Assistant in the \"ass kissing\" way of how American politics are conducted. Too bad there has not been a larger audience for this film, as along with THE VALLEY OF ELAH and LIONS FOR LAMBS, RENDITION plays an important role in showing an audience how the fight for and the protection of democracy can go seriously astray.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An Arab American man is kidnapped from an American Airport and flown to \"somewhere in North Africa\" where he is tortured. The reason? His cell phone received a call from a known terrorist. The CIA decides to avoid legal means to determine whether the phone call is implication of guilt or just a mistake. After watching this movie we can only but pray some terrorist doesn't accidentally punch in a wrong number!

In addition to the rendition there are several related side stories. One involves the daughter of the chief of intel (secret police?) who is torturing the suspect, and her involvement with her lover who happens to be in night school for suicide bombers. This story is way too contrived, but nevertheless intriguing, especially when we see it's outcome. The Director uses a neat time line switcheroo to hook the audience.

The second side story is the attempt by the suspects wife to find out what happened to her missing husband. She gets an old lover to help. He (a muted Saarsgard) is aide de camp to a Senator (Alda) and soon gets cold feet when he realizes that his job isn't worth uncovering the truth. Witherspoon is wasted in this role. All she gets to do is look forlorn and pregnant, with one brief rage attack. Streep is good and cold and stereotypical as the govt. (CIA?NSA?Homeland Sec?) official who seems to be a Cheney clone.

Gylenhall also is wasted as a minor analyst pushed into in area he's over his head in, although he gets to do the \"right thing\" in the end.

I found the movie engrossing, if somewhat languorous, but thought it added little to the subject. It is certainly not to be viewed as definitive, and it certainly has an axe to grind. Like \"The Kingdom\" it scratches the surface of a very complicated subject.

The movie tries hard to give us an idea about rendition, but can only end up by being a \"cautionary tale\" about one botched one. The whole point of rendition is not to \"torture\" but to get \"terror suspects\" to give intel by avoiding legal (therefore obstructive) barriers. Torture, for sure, may be employed, especially if the rendition is out of our hands - although we are obviously not guiltless in this matter - but intel that can save lives is vital in this \"shadow war.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We start all of our reviews with the following information. My wife and I have seen nearly 100 movies per year for the past 15 years. Recently, we were honored by receiving lifetime movie passes to any movie any time at no cost! So we can see whatever we want whenever we want. The point of this is that CRITICS count for ZERO. Your local critics or the national critics like Ebert are really no different than you or me. The only difference is that they get to write about the movie and are forced to see hundreds of movies whether they want to or not.Therefore, it is our belief that if you get your monies worth for two hours of enjoyment that is good enough for us! We NEVER EVER listen or read the critics. We only care about our friends and those who we know like the same things as us. Well enough about that.

When Meryl Streep the head of the NSC in the movie says \"The United States does not torture\" it got a big laugh at this movie. It is of course a lie that the Bush Administration has denied time and again. It is a very good movie and it is scary in what they can do to us as we lose all of our civil rights. They can simply \"snatch\" you anywhere and tell know one that they have done it. In this case, they snatch a man who has a name similar to those who killed thousands on 9-11. He is of course just like you or I. And so they take him to a secret location outside of the US to torture and waterboard him.

Very frightening. Well acted by Jake and Reese and the entire cast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When going to see Rendition, I was expecting an exciting film on a controversial topic with big-name actors. I was not expecting a film that was so engrossing, exciting, poetic, and sad that picked me up from the very beginning and didn't let me go, even after I left the theater. A word of advice to anyone who hasn't seen it yet, don't let your politics come in the way of enjoying (or not enjoying) this film. Take it for what it is. I saw this with my conservative Jewish family (I'm the black sheep, the pseudo-liberal college student) and I thought they would write it off as \"liberal propaganda\". Instead, they said it was a great film with excellent performances (they like to fancy themselves film critics).

It's sad that a movie like this has to be marketed by its Oscar-affiliated actors, while leaving out the constantly underrated Sarsgaard as well as new talent like the truly excellent Metwally. The entire cast gave good performances, with some standing out much more than others; my only problem with it was that there was a lot going on which didn't allow for much screen time for each of the characters. In fact, I felt like the \"sub-plot\" with Fatima and Khalid was just as prominent on screen as Anwar's part of the story.

The characters all have the potential to fall into stereotypes, but the actors do a good enough job to give them depth with the little screen time they have. Streep is truly terrific, as a heartless senator, and as much as I don't want to see the actress in such a terrible role its impossible not to believe her. Gyllenhaal, who will probably be one of the Oscar nods for this movie, seems a bit unsure in his role at times. H's trying to portray his inner conflict but usually just comes off like he either forgot his lines or he doesn't know how he should feel. Sarsgaard gave an excellent performance; his unforgettable confrontation with Streep is easily one of the best parts of the movie. Metwally, again, was terrific, and I hope to see him in more mainstream films. It's a shame that Gyllenhaal with probably get nominated before him. Yigal Naor, as shown on IMDb, has been is some films already but he is a newcomer in my eyes. He, along with Mohammed Khouas and Zineb Oukach, all gave great performances.

The story of Fatima and Khalid was not given any credit in commercials, but it brings a sad humanity to the story. The narrative was interesting as I was trying to really connect the two story until it was plainly told to us at the end. I've read some comments on here that say the love story was useless, but I disagree. I think it definitely shows another side to the controversial issue as well as humanity in general. Khalid was the real terrorist, but he was doing it to avenge his brother, and even though he is responsible for the attack, you see a humane side to him through the story with Fatima. Not that I think we should feel bad for actual terrorists, but I think the \"we are all people\" theme was definitely relevant.

Whatever your feelings on terrorism, politics, etc. leave it out of the theater. The bottom line is this is an interesting story with a message we all need to hear.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was an amazing tribute to whoever has gone through this type of pain and suffering. The acting wasn't the greatest, I'll admit that, but it was passionate about it's message, sending people into prisons without so much as an attorney or some type of trial is cruel and unusual. They even had a damn trial for Saddam, so why doesn't every suspected terrorist have some type of fair and justified trial or hearing as to why they were tagged in the first place? I'm getting off the movie, but I think it's worthy to note about this sick, twisted idea the government has. The movie's way of telling the story and the backstory was a great mystery. The whole movie, I was trying to connect the daughter with the plot and it's made very obvious in the end. There's no doubt that the directing was incredible, but the one thing I didn't care for was that there wasn't as much emphasis on Reese Witherspoon's character's interest and fight in the ideal she held, a lot of skipping. Otherwise it was actually quite entertaining, and most of all it kept my attention and interest for the two hours it played.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very typical Almod\u00f3var of the time and, in its own way, no less funny than many of his later works. And why is that? There is nothing to be provoked or shocked about, and I guess any such effect is more coincidental than intentional. No, the great humor stems from an underlying, almost surreal, absurdity that is woven into the scenery: The characters' nearly complete lack of taboo. It's the same kind of 'comic suspense' you find in his later works, though you'll find it in a more rough version here. He's building up for masterpieces to come, but is not yet there.

The sole reviewer who commented on this movie before I did, claimed that it had to be a \"very select\" group of people who'd find this movie hilarious. I do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Labyrinth of Passion\"--with the possible exception of \"Matador \"--is Almodovar's best film. It displays his unique personality at its best and least-censored, before he started going more mainstream. Almodovar is just about the only modern director that can approach Preston Sturges' wonderful brand of lunacy. It's pointless to try and explain what the movie is about, the real point being Almodovar's willingness and skill in taking his situations to the outer limits of sanity, and sometimes of plausibility and taste as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was delighted when I saw that my husband rented \"Labyrinth of Passion\". I love Almodovar's films. We both loved the movie. We both couldn't stop laughing. We especially enjoyed the scene in which the transvestite is shooting a photo novel, and while supposedly being menaced by a killer with an electric drill, is told to answer the phone and say, \"I can't talk to you right now, I'm being attacked by a sadistic serial killer. If I survive I will call you back\". (That would make a great answering machine message come to think of it). We also loved the lady telling her new found beloved, \"I went to an orgy after the concert but I couldn't stop thinking of you.\" (I'm waiting to use that line on Twitter). \"Labyrinth of Passion\" is a rollicking farce with plenty of high jinks, hilarious dialog and eye candy for everyone. The film has aged well: the 1980s costumes and hairdos add to the wackiness. I would give it a 10 out of 10 rating but I am giving it a 8 for two reasons. The first is the scene which involves laxatives which includes a shot of a lady soiling herself: totally unnecessary, and it brings down the tone of the film to Hollywood gross-out comedy for a moment. The second is the suggestion that Queti is sleeping with her father: shocking, yes, but again, it ruins the tone of the film. Still, I would recommend the film to anyone who wants a sophisticated, spicy, and fun time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Up front, if you're tired, the first hour could be slow. The set up of the story has a natural leisurely pace, unhurried - giving us time to appreciate the kind of everyday life and situations the main characters are in. Once you arrived at the climatic segment of the storyline, the turn of events will keep you hooked: how will things turn out, what will happen to our precious Fanda (portrayed to utter quiet perfection by the veteran Czech actor Vlastimil Brodsk\u00fd), how will his wife (wonderfully played by Stella Z\u00e1zvorkov\u00e1) treat him, what happens to Fanda's dear friend Ed (played by Stanislav Zindulka - a matching sidekick to Brodsk\u00fd), and J\u00e1ra the son with selfish hidden agenda, blind to the kindness of his parents (sigh!)

Vladim\u00edr Mich\u00e1lek sensibly directed the film with sprinkles of humor, preserving the insightful script by Jir\u00ed Hubac. Thanks to clear subtitling, I was able to notice for every 'complaining' phrase Fanda's wife utters, there's a hint of 'caringness' showing\/buried in between the lines - and so did the judicious lady judge observed. Fanda is '76 going on 80' and the affection of their enduring (endearing) marriage manifests even in their bantering arguments. His playfulness can be infectious.

This is 'Growing Old Together 101' for (at least) the beyond fifties, and lessons learned to sons and daughters not to take parents for granted. One may need to rethink if assuming 'home for the aged' is a means to an end, so to speak. The film is gently shouting to us to live life to the fullest while we can. (Hint: there's joy in staying on and watch the end credits roll.)

We're fortunate to be able to see an occasional Czech film. The Sver\u00e1k (\"Kolya\") father & son's 2001 \"Dark Blue World\" was revealing with pathos. It's good to take it slow now and then and appreciate a foreign gem - its subtitles, scenery, melodic score and an engaging human story with elegant performances. \"Autumn Spring\" (aka Bab\u00ed L\u00e9to) is available on DVD. Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a Czech I am very pleased when I read these comments here. I am absolutely sure that this film is great. And what you maybe don't know is that story was specially written for Mr. Brodsk\u00fd. The man you can see is him and his typical attitude - to live and to resist death. He was one of great actors and we are very lucky that we he has made so many beautiful films during his life. You are lucky you could see at least one of them. Enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Renowned Czech actor Vlastimil Brodsk\u00fd, mostly known in North America for his leading role as Jacob in the original Est German\/Czech production of Jacob the Liar (Jakob, der L\u00fcgner 1974) gives us a last brilliant performance as a 80 year old prankster who refuses to admit that he is about to die.

Jir\u00ed Hubac's screenplay is exquisite. Funny, moving and well-developed. It explores well both the subject of advanced old age and the motivations of characters that are precariously strong and fragile, happy and unsettled.

Frantisek (Vlastimil Brodsk\u00fd) and his best friend Eda (Stanislav Zindulka) are up to all types of shenanigans and are making sure to make the best out of their dying days. Meanwhile, Frantisek's wife is preparing for their death, saving up for funeral money and chastising Frantisek for his endless childishness and irresponsible attitude. Their son is about to take their apartment over and put them into a retirement home, but Frantisek doesn't want to hear any of that. He wants to enjoy life and make people around him laugh. He wants to help and love and give... but at what cost?

Sure to captivate adults of all ages, this fine piece of film by talented director Vladim\u00edr Mich\u00e1lek is both touching and funny. It makes you think of how we live our lives and why we live our lives. It brings the simple story of a charming stubborn old man to the forefront and allow us to reflect and feel what life is all about.

After an active career lasting more than 40 years, it is somewhat sombre to know that Vlastimil Brodsk died in April 2002, no longer in the grip of terminal cancer. It is however uplifting to think that he had the chance to be a part of such a moving script and to be the catalyst of this ode to joyful old age that has not even started to make the waves it is about to create in North American repertoire cinema.

After the international success of Jan Hrebejk's \"Divided We Fall (2000)\", it is starting to be clear that Czech cinema has indeed something to offer to the world. This film at least is a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a charming movie to say the least. The main character, Fanda, is an old man who refuses to be among the living dead by which he is surrounded. He and his accomplice go around pulling pranks and getting into trouble all over town. Meanwhile his family is up in arms about what to do with him. From there you see Fanda's relationships with his wife, best friend and son develop. It finally leads up to one of the best movie endings I have ever seen.

The characters in this movie are rich and deep. They develop well through the course of the film. The movie has quite a range of moods. It goes from light and funny to grim and dark. Any slow parts for you in this film will be made up for in the end.

Autumn Spring carries a similar message like a lot of other European movies do -- don't lose sight of the small pleasures in life. If you enjoyed Amelie, The Eighth Day or Life is Beautiful (all great films BTW), you will probably like this movie.

8.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To qualify my use of \"realistic\" in the summary, not many old folks I know go around pretending to be famous maestros, blind people, etc. -- nor have I ever been elderly. Those minor issues out of the way, the relationships between the characters in this film and the emotions expressed therein were completely realistic and genuine. In fact, though we're not yet 30, I could see many characteristics of my relationship with my wife in the interactions between the main character and his wife. For those that don't die young (there's a great line in the movie about this, when the two best friends are talking about dying young, and one of them says--and I'm paraphrasing, we missed our chance--we'll just have to stick it out), we'll all be where these characters are some day. I know many movie-goers would prefer to be swept *away* from reality as opposed to being *faced* with it, but even they might enjoy the sweet reminder of our mortality--and the importance of living life to the fullest--that this film is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a FANTASTIC film. H\u00e1na is a very old guy with a very young heart. He knows how to live his live fully everyday by teaming up with his friend making pranks on just about everything, even his own death. While his wife can't deal with his \"irresponsible\" behavior, she also knows that it's exactly why she loves her husband for almost half century. I would love to hang out with this old guy because he knows how to enjoy live and never fear of death. He is joyful, witty, mischievous, and never boring. Vlastimil Brodsk\u00fd brilliantly played H\u00e1na at the age of 79. Every look from his eyes and every move from his aging muscles deliver so much about the character to the audience. This is a film that leaves a big smile on my face afterwards, and it makes me look at my own live a little closer. Tomorrow I am gonna go and buy myself a mansion and have some fun. If H\u00e1na can, so can I. But I think I will skip the smoking part.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not much to say other than it is simply a masterpiece. this film contains a myriad of messages that all should take to heart. especially- women do not squelch your man's dreams -honor them -that's why you loved him in the first place! Those who plan for death will live in the grave. Those who carpe diem will awaken those who live in fear. Even our Lord spoke of this when he chastised the the one who buried his talent in fear that he might make a mistake and displease the Master. Take a risk, get out of the boat and you will walk on water. Life is a journey that does not end in the grave but in our minds and souls.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film just won the best film award at the Cleveland International Film Festival. It's American title apparently is Autumn Spring. The acting is superb. The story takes you into the life of an elderly man who takes what life deals him and spikes it up a little bit. Abetted by his best friend (and partner in not-so-serious crime) he puts people on at every opportunity but still often reveals his heart of gold. His longsuffering wife has come to her wits end and makes a life-changing decision which is heartbreaking to watch. The resolution of the story is beautiful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Autumn Spring\" tells of the misadventures of a dapper, walrus faced, 78 (approx) year old Czech man who haplessly befuddles and bemuses all who know him with his mischievous ways while his wife meticulously plans her funeral. Centerpiece Hana (Brodsk\u00fd) shows us how to get babes to kiss you when your 78 and how to cop a feel in an elevator and get thanked for it as he pranks his way from day to day in this warm and glowing look at old age and one man's creative, amusing, but socially unacceptable ways of enjoying life while refusing to be relegated to the old folk's home. \"Autumn Spring\" is a plodding, subtle comedy with messages for all ages which will have the greatest appeal with more mature foreign film buffs. (B+)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this film to be one of those great heart-warming gems. The story line is tightly woven and the character development throughout fantastic! I am a big fan of non-US films anyway and this is right up there with: \"Happenstance,\" \"The Closet\" even \"King of Hearts.\" Vlastimil Brodsky as Fanda, is fantastic. It is a love story in the true sense of loving life and the twists and turns it takes to get the viewer to understand\/enjoy Fanda's view of life (which nearly costs him

more than he is prepared to give) are wonderful. His co-star Stelle Zazvorkova is unforgettable as his fed-up wife. I highly recommend this movie for the whole family--my children loved it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The main cast:

Vlastimil Brodsk\u00fd .... Frantisek H\u00e1na Stella Z\u00e1zvorkov\u00e1 .... Em\u00edlie H\u00e1nov\u00e1 Stanislav Zindulka .... Eda

Director Vladimir Michalek gives this charming story of elderly folks enchanting twists that make the characters appealing, really universal.

Frantisek Hana is retired and on a pension, his previous occupation unknown. He lives in a very nice apartment with his wife of forty-four years, Emilie. His son Jara covets the spacious apartment as a problem-solver as he needs to house one of his ex-wives and several of their children. The son isn't a vicious schemer, just a guy with one past spouse too many and a blind eye to the attachment his dad has for the flat (which he moved into after relinquishing a previous residence to the son).

Hana and his also elderly close friend, Ed, spend there more than ample free time doing small con jobs not for money but for the pleasure of putting one over on easily duped folks like estate agents. A favorite ploy is for Hana to act the part of a retired divo of New York's Metropolitan Opera returning home in need of a sprawling mansion. Ed is his companion as gullible realtors fall all over themselves proffering chauffeured limousines and fine French restaurant meals in hope of a lucrative sale.

When not engaged in well-planned scams, the duo engage in quick ploys such as pretending to be railroad security agents so as to snatch kisses from breathless and ticketless teens trying to sneak onto trains. Chaste kisses, that is: there's no lechery here.

Hana's long-suffering wife is obsessed with saving enough money to insure that the couple, individually and jointly, have a grand funeral, an event the life-loving Frantisek is in no hurry to experience.

Disagreements about money and Frantisek's promiscuous disposition of marital funds lead to a crisis whose resolution rings both real and endearing. Michalek fishes for the viewer's emotions but he does it openly, honestly and effectively.

\"Autumn Spring,\" subtitled of course, is a product of an increasingly vibrant Czech cinema. It wasn't shown widely in the U.S. but its availability on DVD will, hopefully, bring this affecting flick to a wide audience. Sadly, Brodsky recently succumbed to cancer so this movie is a valedictory to a fine actor who imbued his character with a passion for life's pleasures that must have reflected the actor's own values.

9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The title of the film seems quite appropriate given the persona of the lead character, Fanda. He's an older man living in the late autumn of his life, yet frolics about as a jubilant school boy who's just entered a spring meadow. The frailties of old age and the warning signs of death are all illusions to him. His wife supports this idea when she observes, \"Fanda laughs at funerals and death.\" In other words, death is not something Fanda takes too seriously; he has more important things to do than worry about what already is inevitable. Life, however, and the pursuit of living life to its fullest, is the philosophy that governs Fanda's existence. He is not one to merely exist, but must live for each day and each passing moment, for tomorrow is not guaranteed.

The film seems to make a strong commentary about living as though there is no tomorrow, let alone death. Too many people take life much too seriously and consequently miss out on the actual living part of life. Fanda's wife for example; she's so worried about preparing for death, not in some religiously connotative way, but in a far too practical, even lifeless way that she forgets how to smile, laugh and just have a good time. Her humanity seems to have transformed into zombie auto-pilot mode. Fanda, to the contrary, is perhaps too blithe and absent-minded for his own good. He needs a person like his wife, Emilie, to help balance him.

It's as though Fanda possesses the invincible spirit of a child, like a kid trapped in an older man's body. He is introduced as the adventurous type; he pretends to be people he's not in order to get gain, squanders money, factiously lies and is always up for a good laugh. Deep-down, though, he is a kind-hearted and gentle old man who wishes to be submissive to his overly pragmatic wife. The two off-set each other quite nicely, though neither one of them truly appreciates the binary quality of their relationship until they metaphorically chance upon death: meaning, their divorce. It is during this courtroom scene that Fanda realizes the reality of death and what it means if he is separated from his only love. His wife emotionally recalls all of his flaws, yet is tenderly drawn to continue to love him despite his crazy behavior. In this moment of her forgiving him, Fanda realizes his selfish behavior of driving his wife bonkers and makes an internal commitment to make her happy.

Ironically, though, after making this commitment he becomes what his wife later calls, \"a living corpse.\" The life-blood within him drains away as he becomes more like her\u0097a zombie going through day-to-day motions. He doesn't seem to live anymore, but exist. For example, he gives up his zany pranks, doesn't squander money, quits smoking on account of his wife (not his health), and overall, just acquiesces to whatever she wants of him. Succinctly put, he changes on account of wanting to make her happy. Thus, the binary quality of their relationship begins to slowly vanish. Realizing that her husband is not who he used to be, there is a part of Emilie that misses the old Fanda. She misses her husband's aloofness and the fights they used to have, because it was in those moments that they were truly living, not just simply existing.

I believe the filmmakers were trying to get across a specific message here; that true and loving relationships will not always be easy or convenient, but often times will take sacrifice and endurance to wade through the seemingly bad times. The possibility of death at any moment is what reminds people to live for every moment. Life is often taken for granted, but when threatened with death\u0097be it literal or figurative\u0097people awake from their ungrateful slumbers and are aroused to start living life to its fullest. It's as though they are scared that they'll never live again, so they better make the most of it while they have it. Fanda and Emilie had been married 44 years with fights along the way, but it wasn't till they were both threatened with the possibility of death-like-separation that they began to show their true colors. As the old maxim goes, \"Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation.\" They both begin to see what matters most in life and that is the people they meet along the way. More importantly, the intimate relationships they make with their significant others.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1996's MICHAEL is warm and winning comedy-fantasy that features one of my favorite performances from the John Travolta library. Travolta gives one of his breeziest and most likable performances as Michael, an archangel whose quiet existence at the home of a lonely innkeeper named Pansy (Jean Stapleton) is disrupted when Pansy reports Michael's presence in her home to a \"National Enquirer\"-like newspaper and the editor (Bob Hoskins) sends reporters (William Hurt, Andie McDowell, Robert Pastorelli) to the motel to check it out. Hurt, McDowell, and Pastorelli are quite good as the jaded news staffers who have a hard time accepting they've met an angel but this is Travolta's show and he rules as the pot-bellied, sugar-eating, cookie-smelling, pie-loving, Aretha-loving, bull-chasing Michael, an angel who just isn't what you think you of when you think of angels. And you have to love the scene in the bar when he and the ladies dance to \"Chain of Fools\". I love this movie more and more every time I watch it and it's mainly because of the completely winning performance from John Travolta.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Possibly the best John Travolta role ever. Saturday Night Fever was a great movie & role, but a LONG time ago. I can't think of many of his movies or roles I've even liked, and it's easy to think of rotten ones. He can do meanies like in Pulp Fiction, but he makes the perfect funky angel, and it's hard to imagine anyone doing a better (equally slobby) job with it. Plot summaries are available everywhere, but the plot isn't the point. Just go for the ride and enjoy the cleverness of the little funnies along the way. There is nothing to dislike about this movie, unless one is searching for something profound. I wish there were more movies like this. We need a break from deep or awesome or grisly or complex or hysterical.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Angels are a bit of an American obsession, but are often rather boring. They are the messengers of God, and also the arc angels are great warriors (Lucifer being the toughest and best looking until he was kicked out of heaven).

So what happens if you don't believe in anything, let alone angels and you are sent to investigate an angel story, only to meet one with wings and less than angelic attitude.

Maybe that is what America needs, being a puritan is different from being good. Michael is a rude, obnoxious, womanizing messenger of heaven who will fulfill your wishes, and make you care enough about the world that you will be touched.

Funny, but not greatly so, touching but not overly sentimental, intelligent without being clever...it is just a good simple, small comedy. Watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this movie for what it is: A funny little film that doesn't take itself too seriously. Plot summaries are available everywhere so I won't go into details. Michael isn't about a complex plot anyway. It just builds on a great premise and takes the viewer on a wonderful road trip.

John Travolta's performance as a chain-smoking, lady-loving, bar-brawling, pie-eating angel is just perfect. And who doesn't love Sparky?

Watch this if you want to have a few laughs and a overall good time. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Travolta was excellent as \"Michael\" in the movie by the same name. I don't think a better portrayal could have been done. The movie was funny, yet touching. Michael is a very \"human angel\" (If their is such). Andie MacDowell is superb in her role as a reporter, as she goes from disbelief to belief. Bill Hurt and Robert Pastorelli are great as fellow reporters, each bent on proving the hoax of the angel on earth. Each of the supporting cast is wonderful, especially the older woman (I do not know her screen name), who plays Michael's mother! One of the cutest movies I have seen in years... I could watch this movie dozens of times!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favorite \"Capra-esque\" comedies. This movie is just meant to be enjoyed, not deconstructed, microscopically analyzed. It's not religious commentary. It's fun. It's fantasy. The surprisingly negative comments (IMHO) reflect a level of expectation that professional film critics have led us to think must be a part of every movie.

Others have described Travolta's role (it's the reason you'll watch the movie over and over) and the excellent supporting cast (including Sparky!).

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; sometimes a movie is just fun.

Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Caught this movie on TV and I watched it again. I said to myself, it's been a long time since I watched this movie, so why not. And once again this movie thrilled me. It is so easy, so watchable and so human that I don't know why some people dislike it.

John Travolta shines as Michael (his dance and every move), angel that can hardly be related to this word. He smokes, drinks and he eats like some savage, but he's got big heart. On his way Michael helps all people he meets. Dorothy Winters (Andie MacDowell) in her singing and finding a right man. Frank Quinlan (William Hurt) in developing himself as a good and decent man. Michael even helped dear old Pansy Milbank (Jean Stapleton) - that last scene is beautiful when they dance on the street.

Travolta had great help in other actors. Andie MacDowell is so beautiful and likable, William Hurt is great as usual, late Robert Pastorelli shows his talent. Jean Stapleton and Teri Garr are also good, but my favorite supporting actor in this movie is Bob Hoskins as the tabloid owner.

So we've got here a solid movie about people with a warm story also and attractive cast. Just don't take this movie seriously and I can guarantee you'll have fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is another of John Travolta's \"come back\" movies, and if he continues on with characters and movies like this one, his come back will take hold.

This is so sweet...sickeningly so if you're not into the romance comedy scene. If you are, this is one innovative RomCom. Every performance (including that of Skippy the Dog) was beautiful, without much more than a trace of the irreverence found in \"Dogma.\" (Although, as movies go, I loved Dogma!)

Travolta is not nearly as brash in his performance as the previews would lead you to believe. He is an angel and if you consider yourself to be well read, then you understand that angels were far from perfect. You will not, therefore, be insulted by this film. Even those who are overly sensitive to such things shouldn't be insulted by this work, as Nora went to great lengths to see to it that it was the least abrasive as possible, given the subject matter.

I love this, and love it more each time I watch it. It's beautiful and sweet, engaging, and endearing.

It rates a 7.3\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Continuing his comeback, John Travolta played a mildly twisted angel in \"Michael\". He may be a messenger of God, but he's not the nicest guy, as reporters Andie MacDowell and William Hurt discover. When I first saw this movie, it was before I had started watching \"All in the Family\", so I didn't recognize Jean Stapleton as Edith Bunker. Now that I recognize her like that, I try to imagine Archie snapping at her for harboring an angel (whom he would probably rank alongside blacks, Jews, etc).

I know, that doesn't really relate to the movie. But I just like to associate things that way. Anyway, it's a pretty interesting movie. Also starring Bob Hoskins, Teri Garr and Richard Schiff.

What John and Paul said...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michael is probably too cutesy for most action movie fans and too Hollywood for the intellectual crowd but I found it both extremely funny and very touching, despite it being both cutesy and formulaic.

When three skeptics are sent to investigate a man claiming to be an angel they end up escorting him on a grand tour of the mid-western country side only to find that it is each of their own hearts that need investigation.

When taking this film apart, as with most films today, there isn't a lot of new material but when taken as a whole it has a refreshingly original approach and is off-beat enough to entertain one all the way through.

While not being a \"Family\" film it is suitable for all ages and a good film to share with the whole family or that special someone.

\"Michael\" isn't a great film but it certainly is a good film, a touching film, and well worth seeing.

KWC","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though this film doesn't stand out particularly from the movie crowd, its still a very nice film to sit down and watch with your feet up! There maybe the odd one or two mistakes you catch, and the cinematic are a little slipshod, the film itself is very enjoyable and has a wonderful atmosphere to it. The music contributes a lot to the mood of the movie.

The acting is none the less impressive (especially the dog he he!) with John Travolta taking the lead of the fun-troublesome-loving Michael. Other characters feel very genuine and perform very well within the film.

So after a long day at work, stick \"Michael\" on in the evening with some ice-cream and enjoy a very quality film in its own right :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chicago reporter Frank Quinlan decided to go to Iowa to confirm the existence of a so-called angel. He was not alone. His partner Huey Driscoll and new colleague Dorothy Winters also joined him. When they arrived at the destination, they found that the angel Michael was quite different from what they expected. However Frank still persuaded Michael to go to Chicago with them. So an interesting journey began.

Although Michael did not look like a saint, he was a kind and funny angel. In fact Michael owned irresistible charming for women. Even due to jealousy of other men, he was involved in a riot. The climax appeared in the pizza restaurant. Dorothy sang lively country songs for Frank. That was just what Michael wanted to see. But the next day Huey 's dog was crashed to death by a running car. Michael was asked to save it. That would be used to verify whether he was a real angel.

Andie Macdowell shined in this comedy. She also showed her singing ability. John Travolta proved his comedian talent again. Of cause Pulp Fiction still was his typical work.

A comedy that will warm your heart. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As an earlier reviewer said, Travolta stole every scene he was in. Recognize the character? It was Vinnie Barberino, all grown up and still a bit sleazy, but still likable, oh yes!

Disappointing were William Hurt and Bob Hoskins, perhaps because their characters were badly written, or they just didn't care. I kept seeing one of the Baldwins (never can remember which) in the Hurt role so Hurt's incredible talents weren't wasted.

Andie McDowell is a sweetie, but not very believable; partly the writing. Character development just wasn't a big thing in this film. Just watch it for Travolta, sit back and enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"That pretty much sums it up ... corny. MacDowell's inability to act is at times painful, and Hurt must need money to take such muted roles, but I still enjoyed it.

Why? In a single word, Travolta. He is GREAT in this movie. Still, I can't give the movie too high a score, but it certainly deserves better than it seems to be getting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this film which I thought was well written and acted.

There was plenty of humour and a thought-provoking storyline. A warm and enjoyable experience with an emotional ending.Good fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"honestly, i loved Michael. although there were \"give me a pillow i need to take a nap\" parts, it was cool. i think everyone did a great job in this film. and nora ephron is in my \"ok\" list of directors.

it's nice to see John Travolta as a pot-bellied angel. it's not very often i see one in a movie. some people might call this a boring movie, but for me i loved it. angels and all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found the movie to be very light and enjoyable. One knows that the story is not real life like, yet the depiction is superb.

Lyrics are really good and John Travolta in his usual style. I like the scene wherein he as an angel gives up his own stuff to bring life back to the dog.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An off beat but very delightful performance by John Travolta sets off this very funny comedy. His interpretation of the archangel is as a scuffy, womanizing, overweight, ladies man. And, he certainly has a mesmerizing effect on the women he encounters on his trip to Chicago. John Hurt is very low keyed in his role as chief reporter for Chicago Tabloid owner, Bob Hoskins. Angie MacDowell plays role much as she did her role in \"Four Weddings and a Funeral.\" Maureen Stapleton is neat in a cameo. Her comment, \"Michael doesn't suffer fools,\" is just one of many memorable moments. Bob Hoskins is the only one of the lead performers who fails to connect, a little to off the wall. Mainly you're there to see Michael take on a bull, mesmerize the waitresses and lady dancers at a western style restaurant, and fully demonstrate that he is complete free soul. It is a memorable comedy that is worth more than one viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Warm hearted flic depicting arch-angel Michael as a brawling, overweight, cigarette smoking slob who loves to dance and cavort with the opposite sex. He does have a good side, however, as he strives to set things right in the lives of a couple of burnt out losers before being recalled to heaven. Funny, well played out film; very enjoyable although somewhat irreverent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have done a lot of international travel, both on business and as a tourist. For both types I assure you the best advice is also the oldest: Always drink the wine of the country. In this movie the archangel Michael comes to Earth on business, wraps it up quickly and decides to hang around for a little touring. Boy! Does he \"drink the wine of the country.\"

Could man be drunk forever with liquor, love and fights

He'd lief rise up of mornings and lief lie down of nights.

These are things you can't do in Heaven so he enjoys them while he's here! Of course it turns out he had a couple of other jobs to tackle and, if he is less direct about them than he was about the first one, he is just as successful. The final scene is a little schmaltzy but it is also wonderful. Jean Stapleton gets to dance with John Travolta.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow, I think the overall average rating of this film on this site is incredibly low. There's really no reason to dislike this film. \"Michael\" is a simple, but fairly original, and easily enjoyable romantic comedy. The plot involves a group of reporters\/experts going to examine the mysterious appearance of an angel (John Travolta) in the midwest. The angel proves to be less saintly and more worldly than we would expect, and that's what makes it entertaining. His interest in women and the Beatles takes a new spin on the angel thing. The romantic side of this film involves Michael the angel trying to get Andie MacDowell and William Hurt together. The two of them may not have the all-time greatest on-screen chemistry, but they certainly have enough to make it work well. Everyone who has rated this film so low (a 5.4??), come on! The film is not that bad. In fact, I found it quite funny and memorable. Sure, it's not the best thing you'll ever see, but it's still good. This is a film I feel has been remarkably underrated. It's fun, romantic, and recommended by me.

*** out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is an all-time favorite of mine. I'm sorry that IMDb is not more positive about it. I hope that doesn't keep those who have not experienced it from watching it.

I've always loved this movie. I watch it about once a year and am always pleased anew with the film and especially the stellar performances by entire cast.

I've always wondered whether Jean Stapleton actually did the ending dance with Travolta???? If anyone knows this piece of trivia, please leave a comment.

Thanks and ENJOY!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why would this film be so good, but only gross an estimated $95,000,000 and have NO award nominations? John Travolta knows what he's doing. He knows he's Michael, a cigar smoking, womanizing, magical arch angel that came down to live with a dying lady and is now in a car with the staff of \"The National Mirror\" and their dog, Sparky, on the way to Chicago. It then turns into a road trip that's both horrible AND great. I don't even think the death scenes (3 to be exact) make this a tearjerker. The soundtrack is the best with \"Heaven Is My Home\", \"Up Around The Bend\", and \"Chains Of Fools\". I have very great expectations about this and I say that it should have had a little more respect in the 90's. Read my comment. Bye!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a movie with a theatrical message blended with some clever moments. Films like these are the stretching grounds of great actors, they enjoy tossing the ball in open pieces like these. The Angel that wasn't what we see in old books and churches is quite a nice change. It is echoed in Kevin Smith's piece, Dogma, almost in the same slapstick vein.

-=0) Watch this film for a good day after you suck it all in. Could it be that so many films are trying to be complicated that we forget the simple movements of films like this? Possibly one of the most fun pieces I have seen in a while, I ran into this one on VHS in a trash can because someone's basement was flooded this summer, and I grabbed a handful of tapes.

Whether in a trash bin, or on the silver screen, mild comedies like this are fun, you just don't have to tell everyone at a hip nightclub that you like it, or a swank political party. Just keep it for yourself, and I'll bet plenty of people will borrow it from time to time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What is it about certain films that generates such polar opposite reactions?

Some people here have called High Roller \"disgusting.\" Some have called it \"extraordinary\" (as would I, actually).

Why? I think it's because films like this don't make heroes out of jerks, or glamour out of degeneration, and some people just can't deal with that emotionally. They NEED a hero. And I'd also add that if they're gamblers or poker players, they might feel personally betrayed when their existence isn't justified.

High Roller in NOT a poker movie. It's a PEOPLE movie. It's not perfect, but it looks good, is well-written, and wonderfully acted. And best of all, it generates an emotional response and inspires reflection.

And maybe that's what makes some people so damn mad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"stuey unger was a card playing legend. he was quoted in an interview as saying, \"Some day, I suppose it's possible for someone to be a better No Limit Hold'em player than me. I doubt it, but it could happen. But, I swear to you, I don't see how anyone could ever play gin better than me.\" there's a gin rummy scene in this movie that is so amazing you could have plopped it in 'X-Men' as a showcase for a superhero's mutant power. that's how incredible this man was.

i have a few minor problems with this movie. as dark as this movie was, stuey's real life was darker. poker pro todd brunson said, \"During the last World Series of poker, Bob Stupak, Mike Sexton and I had a drink and talked about Stu. Mike told us how he could barely talk, hadn't showered in weeks and how his fingers were burned black by a crack pipe.\" in the film, michael imperioli looked far too healthy to be stu unger in the final years of his life. when stuey won his last wsop he looked like a skeleton, but let's face it, this production lacked both the time and the \"deniro\" to make that kind of transformation. my other problem was that i wish there was more poker playing, with actual hands and situations. sure it might have bored the average non poker enthusiast, but it would have been nice for the hardcores. too bad the movie wasn't 6 hours or so longer.

i watched the movie with 3 non poker players and they all thoroughly enjoyed it. just like you don't have to be a former member of the colonial army to enjoy Gibson's \"the patriot\", you don't have to be a poker player to see this gem. can't wait for the DVD. (8 out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was well acted and kept my interest in the main character for the entire movie. Stu Unger lived an extraordinary life. Imagine if Stu were alive today! This movie paints a picture of what Stu Unger's life might have felt like. It was interesting to see how connected was growing up. I would have liked to seen more detail on Stu's partying, his gamesmanship and his relationship to Bob Stupak. But all in all, this movie was well done, well acted and the story touched on many facets of a life that was full of many events that were larger than life.

This movie is worth renting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has a \"big production\" feel that I was not expecting from an independent film. The characters are each developed and dealt with in a way that not only helps to tell the story, but left me with a satisfied viewing experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"By many accounts, Stu Ungar was not a very nice guy. He spat on dealers, stiffed people he owed money to, and was verbally abusive.

Many filmmakers might choose to sugarcoat the man, making him into some sports hero that would triumph despite adversity. But High Roller doesn't do that. And that's a tough row to hoe.

Instead, we have to look VERY closely to see a man that never matured passed the frightened little boy from the streets of New York, despite all his successes. And the only real approval he ever gets is from death himself. Very brave (because people won't get it) and very touching (when you do).

What is also brave is the use of a Scorsese feel. \"Aha! How derivative,\" people will say. Really? But there's virtually no violence. And Stuey LOVED gangster movies. Maybe the feel reflects the man Stu and not the director Marty? And if it really is a low budget film and looks that good, bravo!

Finally, the linear flashback structure. Wow, will that get hammered. Yet, not only does it work, it works exceptionally well, even for those who don't see the connection to the \"Seventh Seal.\" (PROOF: In SS, Knight plays game of chess with death: In HR, Stuey says \"We can play a hand of cards for, ya know\"... Death says \"Never much good at cards..\" Damn great last line.)

No tricky effects or camera moves. No shaky camera. Nothing trendy at all. Just solid, tight storytelling.

Maybe that makes the movie too basic and somehow flawed. But then again, so was the guy. And that makes it just about right.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The basis for this dynamic docudrama is the true story of one of the most extraordinary card players ever.

STUEY is a tight, cohesive biopic of a true poker Ace whose life is a one-way trip down the Highway to Hell with few detours.

This dramatic feature stands wide apart from other films about poker. It represents a rare and earnest attempt to bring to the silver screen a true story of ultimate gambling compulsion. The complete obsession that annihilates any proximity of spirituality and nullifies any chance of redemption. This is the least likely movie a Vegas Casino executive would recommend. And it is the sole poker DVD you are likely to find on the shelves of Gamblers Annonymous.

There are scenes in this movie that poker buffs are sure to refer to as some of the best gambling scenes ever. Stu reading his opponent's hand and, particularly, a Texas hold'em bluffing scene.

Prophetically, early on in the movie we see a young Stu bullied out of his pocket change by a bunch of neighborhood hoodlums. Poker is for loners seeking revenge. It is a game of patience which bullies lack. 'You can't bully me!' may very well be an underlying sentiment of the punishing force that a champion poker player unleashes upon his adversaries.

Conservatives will look upon this film as a cautionary tale of a soul lost in sin. They may evoke Mark Twain: 'The best throw at dice is to throw them away.' The young and liberal masses will inevitably have a more simplistic and sympathetic outlook. They may not have heard of Twain's quote, but will sure remember a remark made by Stu's stunned pal who learns from up-and-coming Stuey that he'd won a car from a local character in an overnight game. 'You tell'em to go to hell and they look forward to the trip'.

The mosaic of Las Vegas vignettes that we see in STUEY will long linger in memory. Frank Sinatra, the most generous tipper? Forget about it! Nobody tips as extravagantly as a hot-shot gambler. And for Vegas visitors who may not know the impact of tipping on the quality of their stay, check out the scene of Stu checking in a Vegas hotel!

'This is what i was meant to do, this is where i was to be. Movie stars in Hollywood, politicians in Washington and gamblers in Vegas.'","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the movie at the Nashville film festival on May 1, 2003! It was amazing! All the things that I had read about Stuey were portrayed incredibly well by Tony Vidmer (writer, director, producer, editor), Michael Imperioli (incredible job as Stuey), and all the others involved in this. I'm glad he (Vidmer) didn't go down the \"Leaving Las Vegas\" routine with Stuey's bad habits, but instead put us inside his life, family, and his gift. Tying the whole story from the motel room where he died was a great vehicle and showed his screenwriting skill. A big \"thumbs up\" on this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After watching the series premiere of Talk Show with Spike Feresten I took a moment to really think wow there are actually good shows on after 12 besides SNL and I was also sad to see that it was only 30 minutes long. His great writing skills helped this show overcome a series lack of money and helping hands. Electronic Lincoln was hilarious and I really think this will be a good Dark Horse Talk Show.

I was very happy with the way he handled it and gave Andy Richtor some good lines to work with. As you would have suspected it was a little shaky but for that kind of time slot it was very good.

Overall if you are not someone on weed or even if you are and you don't have something more important to do than watch this great piece and have a fun time doing it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I say remember where and when you saw this show because I believe if Fox gives Talk Show a chance Spike will be right up there with Conan in a few years because like Conan he is incredibly funny and seems to be just grateful at having his own show which adds to the humor.

The funniest bits Spike has had so far are The Idiot Paparatzi and Comedy For Stoners and if your not high and get CFS what does that say about you.

In summary this show is funnier in 25 minutes than SNL in an hour so lets hope Talk Show gets the attention it deserves such as an extra half hour, more money and a band.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show was a pleasant surprise after watching Mad TV on a Saturday night. Spike is an excellent host that you can tell is still getting used to it but he is doing great adjusting to his new job. I can imagine it being a difficult transition from writer(Seinfeld) to host however, unlike a lot of new talk show hosts he does not let airtime ride while trying to figure out what to do next. He is quick-minded and each segment and section rolls into one another smoothly. It also doesn't hurt that he's kinda sexy in a nerdy type of way so he's not hard on the eyes like Leno or Letterman. I can't remember the exact episode date that was my favorite but I especially LOVED the Idiot Paparazzi skit with a fake J-Lo and Katie Holmes. Great New Show!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spike Feresten is a comic genius. 'Talkshow' demonstrates a fresh take on the kind of odd ball irreverence that have made shows like Letterman and The Daily Show successful. His likability is palpable. He seems to find the unique angle of the joke, not the predictable sitcom path...thank God. His comedy is reminiscent of the award winning Arrested Development (cross your fingers that 'Talkshow' has a longer life span). The topics he highlights tend to be those things that pass by unnoticed by everyone else, yet when he creates a joke around them out you wonder how you missed it the first time around. I particularly enjoyed the sketches...\"Unfair Target\" will be a cult classic in no time. Set your Tivo's people...this is a show not to be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am appalled and dismayed that the Network has canceled Talk Show with Spike Feresten !!

What is wrong with The Fox Television Network, Canceling Talk Show With Spike Feresten and replacing it with Wanda Sikes? For those at the Network with a short attention span, Wanda At Large was canceled because the audience grew tired of her nasty insults that would make the audience cringe, and Wanda Sykes spewing out her very own brand of vindictive mud slinging jokes is not humor, it is nasty and repulsive.

Apparently The Fox Television Network has rewarded Wanda Sikes because she has garnered a self important appearance front of President Barak Obama. There is no doubt that Wanda's recent ill tempered in front of the President of The United States are not funny and the audience laughter was only to patronize and please Barak Obama.

Talk Show with Spike Feresten has a genuine sense of humor and has never deliberately or vindictively insulted any guest or performer. Spike's well rounded personality always gleefully, poked fun of life and himself.and his Filed Pieces during the first two seasons with AFTRA Actress Mary Mae Atwill, as the Mae West of the 21st Century were absolutely hysterical with Spike Feresten's skits:Judge Joe Brown, Trading Spouses and Last Season's James Kyson Lee Episode where Spike chats with Erica via the Internet on the show.

Despite the Network's budget constraints for elaborate field pieces and the Second Season's WGA Strike, Spike Feresten did not waiver his sense of humor or show integrity. Talk Show with Spike Feresten always had up in coming new talent and his Comedy for Stoners spoofs of Nanny 911 and Idiot Paparazzi were considered cutting edge and had excellent production value.

On a professional level, Spike Feresten, was the best Executive Producers, and Set Producer, Brett Webster along with his fabulous production crew were one of the best production teams that I have worked for in my AFTRA Career .It would really be very foolish and sad shame to cancel Talk Show with Spike Feresten.

Unfortunately, its success could conceivably be taken to Comedy Central or another Network and Financially speaking, that would become a valuable revenue loss for FOX Television..

On behalf of the late night Saturday Fox Television audience, supporters of Talk Show with Spike Feresten, including all cast and crew, we beseech the Network to retain the Talk Show With Spike Feresten Franchise and give the crew a second opportunity to become a successful Fox Show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Talkshow with Spike Feresten is one of those shows that will definitely polarize audiences. Either you like it or you don't. Personally, I find most of the bits hilarious, but it does have some \"huh?\" moments.

Staples like \"Idiot Paparazzi\" are always good for a laugh, but my all-time favorite bit has to be the one-off \"Hollywood Douchebag\". \"Comedy for Stoners\" is the only regular bit that generally leaves me confused (which is part of the point!) Spike and his team of writers manage to churn out loads of fresh comedy time after time so the show never feels stale. Feresten's brand of humor may not be for everyone, but it's definitely worth trying.

The masses have spoken! We like this show and want more. Please note I am not a friend of or affiliated in any way with Spike Feresten, \"Talkshow with Spike Feresten\" staff, or Fox network and affiliates. It's just plain funny!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw it last week and the sketch about the Korea towns was funny . Very tongue in cheek and suitable to the political climate. Full points to the writers and Spike for that. The part where he makes the translator pull a rickshaw and throws out Korean words could have been pulled off only by Spike. This is a brave attempt by Fox . This is a brilliant show and I hope that it pulls off . My wife and I have been TIVOing it regularly and although it clashes it with a couple of other programs we watch it now on MySpace. I hope Fox dedicates full resources to the show and makes it daily. I can't wait to see Bobby Lee on his show . With people like Bernard Abedalla behind the show this is on the right track. Also Mary Mae as his wife looks beautiful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great show with total freshness and innovation. That usual chair (couch for a woman) host, that mandatory band playing monotonous tunes, the same old jokes, the same pattern copied from the days of Nebuchadnezzer ....probably the pattern of Johnny Carson, copied by one and all, Latterman, Leno, Conan... Daly, this show does not seem to have any of these.

I fell in love with this show within the first 10 minutes and I am going to stick to it. Though it's too early to say that, this show seems to be devoid of any intellectual pretension most talk shows try so hard to project, and I hope that that is what would make this show different from all the rest. I hope that this show will last long!

Returning back after months, I still love this show, and I love his self-deprecating humor (For example, his affirmation that only pothead loners would be home to watch his show at Saturday midnight and thus, the jokes are funny only to the stoned guys) which, however, does not involve the usual monkeying of Conan O'Brien, for example (I know it's a cardinal sin to be repelled by O'Brien's antics; but I do really dislike his style and repetitiveness).

I again watched it the other night with Tom Arnold in it. Ferensen's spoof of Trading Spouses (and Nanny 911 in an earlier episode) are hilarious. Idiot paparazzi are fun, especially when a security guard cautions them against taking people's pictures, and (if I am not mistaken) they start taking his pictures shouting \"Gary Coleman\".

Added on 16th April, 2007: Coming back once again, I am left confused by the neighbor and her dog. I cannot decide if it is a joke or a real thing. Either way, it was funny as hell.

I do not expect Spike Feresten to read these pages, but maybe he does. He is crazier than a bunch of monkeys and so, I would better write down my suggestion here for him: I would like him to do a full 30 minute show with Crazy Gideon, the star of late night TV commercial. I would like Crazy Gideon to have an interview in Spike's talk show, sing a song (and play guitar), do a skit in the line of SNL, and also to answer questions from the audience regarding his potential mayorship of Los Angeles (I know, Crazy Gideon may not be aware of this, but there are websites detailing why he would be the perfect candidate for the post of the mayor of LA).

God willing!

Returning back on 14th July, 2007: Someone wrote here that the people who praised Spike's talkshow must be bribed by Spike. I confess that Spike really bribed me, but I must also confess that Rockefeller named me in his will and last night I had sex with Cindy Crowford.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Who do you dream of? Hoot Gibson ... Howdy Doody? I'm talking about the *theater*!\" [Harry Crystal]

Nothing beats a great stage show ... nothing! And Harry Crystal lives that belief. A stage actor still waiting for his big break, Harry brings the magic of live theater to a small town and to Artie Shoemaker (TOM HULCE) ... a young man who has big dreams (but just didn't know it until he met Harry).

With scenes and songs from many of America's classic musicals ... Those Lips, Those Eyes conveys both the ups and downs of the people that, for 2 hours, take us to a fantasy land, but who manage to keep that magic alive in their hearts all day long!

Like Artie ... once you've seen Those Lips, Those Eyes ... \"You're hooked, kid!\" [Harry Crystal]","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I originally saw this film while I was working as a musician doing musical theatre in summer stock. If you've ever done any work in theatre - especially at a summer stock theatre - you'll really enjoy this film.

Yes, there are some moments of really bad writing in the film, but overall it's a lovely tribute to the theatre and why people love it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"And what is its genre? The backstage expose story; what theatrical life is really like behind those Broadway (and other) curtains. It certainly has a lot of competition: Singin' in the Rain both I and II (1929 and 1952), 42nd Street, Golddiggers of (You name the year.); Dames of 1934; Noises Off (1992) from the farcical side and A Star is Born I and II from the 1930s and the 1950s from the tragical side: not to mention Summer Stock of 1950: the list keeps rollin' along. So what makes this movie so special? And why are there so few comments about this stunningly great movie? Have so few people actually seen it? How amazing to see a younger Frank Langella pre-Dracula and pre-Frost-Nixon by 30 years! How amazing to see the fresh and talented Tom Hulce so pre-Amadeus! And yet another superb Stiller! What a wonderful line-up of talented people at their very best from so long ago! And such a script! Who was this David Shaber? So full of realistic disillusion and pathos compared to the usual sentimentality and feel-good comedy! As especially exemplified by the Star-Is-Born-like episode where the heroine achieves Broadway while the Langella character has to content himself with still another provincial tour.

Langella's subsequent hysterical and sadistic blowup against the star-struck Latin teacher and his granddaughter in which he vents his fury and frustration is just one of many fantastic and psychologically real moments in the film. (The Latin teacher and his love affair with backstage life certainly echo Marlene Dietrich and her seduced professor in The Blue Angel of 1929.) Another in the series of mercenary and cold-hearted agents like Kevin McCarthy who was preceded by Burt Lancaster in The Sweet Smell of Success (1957) and succeeded by Alan Alda in Clubland (2001) in movie history. The sexual liberation of the Hulce character recalls similar incidents in O'Neill's great comedy Ah, Wilderness.

And what a tribute to the vanished operettas of long ago: The Red Mill of Victor Herbert; Rose Marie and The Vagabond King of Rudolf Friml; The Desert Song of Sigmund Romberg etc. What satirical insertions of bits from the great plays like Romeo and Juliet. Tributes to the theater itself as expostulated by the star Langella. The richness and depth of this movie are simply endless. And to be saddled by such a title! Who could have an inkling of what this great movie is about from such a ridiculous and unsuggestive title? But on the other hand, what title could one have applied to such a magnificent drama which might have lived up to its stirring, emotional content?

PS: I just saw (2009) Frank Langella in his latest acting spectacular: as Richard Nixon in Frost-Nixon. How this great actor after 30 years simply goes from triumph to triumph!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The warmest, most engaging movie of its genre, Those Lips, Those Eyes, made me smile and cry as it reminded me of the work it takes to pursue a dream and the pain of disappointment. Hulce and Langella are superb and the story seems to write itself. A brilliant screenplay by David Shaber (one of my favorites! - see The Warriors and Nighthawks for more...) and beautiful sets filmed on location (I think) at the actual summer theater in which the story takes place. You can't see this movie and not want to drop everything and get into the theater! Please check this video out if you can find it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must have seen a different version than the first person on the user comments section.

It's really, really good...Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are great together. Val Kilmer's character is much like he was in the novel, although the emphasis is on Gus and Call and the Comanches. We get to see what happened with Call and Newt's mother as well. I won't spoil it, but it gives a lot of insight into Call's character.

All the actors did a really convincing job. Steve Zahn had the biggest challenge, I thought, to follow Robert Duvall! There's a lot of action, humor, tragedy. It's got something for everyone. I can't wait until it airs, my family are all jealous I got to see it early!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There have been some harsh criticisms of Comanche Moon on IMDb. I think this is for three reasons. First, purists are disappointed that the mini-series is not exactly like the book. Second, it's not as good as the original Lonesome Dove. Finally, people like to complain on IMDb and the greatest films in the world will have bad comments.

I would like to say that no movie is going to be as good as the book. That's just the way it is. Lonesome Dove wasn't as good as the novel it was based on. Additionally, the movie of Lonesome Dove had some things left out ans switched around. That's just they way its going to be with a film adaptation of anything. So its a futile argument when looking at Comanche Moon.

I do agree it's not as good as the original Dove. But hey, nothing is. I know people that guide their lives by the lessons they learned from the Dove. If I was going to compare every book I read, movie I watched, and TV I viewed by Lonesome Dove; I would be perpetually unhappy.

This is a made for TV miniseries based on a prequel to Lonesome Dave (the novel) and sequel to Dead man's Walk, and that's what you get. It's the best TV I've seen in years. It's a fun set up for Lonesome Dove. We get to learn about the history of the Rangers we came to know and love in Dove. Zahn does an amazing job in recreating Gus McCrae. Elizabeth Banks and Linda Forenelli (sp?) also do great jobs as creating characters that help fill in the past of the rangers and Newt.

If\/when it comes on again, I promise you'll enjoy it more than some crumby reality show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What has hurt this film is everyone and their Aunt Matilda is comparing it to its illustrious predecessor, which is always going to hurt any show. If you take it as a western, it's a darned good show. We discover how our characters in 'Lonesome Dove' wind up in the situations they start up in (Such as: Why do two Texas Rangers, who live on adventure, wind up in a dead town? And how did Gus manage to lose the love of his life?) The performances are very good, and we see the exact same mannerisms the characters will have down the road. The actors did a very good job. The cinematography was superb, and while the music didn't live up to the legendary score of nearly two decades past, that was an impossible task, and it was still fine.

It also helped that we had three episodes, which you just don't see in a miniseries anymore. Heck, it's downright impossible to see a two part telefilm these days.

Fans of the western, rejoice!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think the consensus is pretty unanimous about this recent TV miniseries: it's okay but it's a far cry from \"Lonesome Dove.\" It gets compared to the latter simply because this a prequel to that famous story.

\"Commanche Moon\" is definitely worth a watch for any fan of westerns. Just don't expect it to be as intense as \"Lonesome Dove.\" Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are not Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones, and the characters they play aren't as strong as how Duvall and Jones portrayed the same two guys. Some say it's unfair to criticize this movie because of the comparison but you have to compare it - it's the story of the same two leading Texas Ranger characters: \"Woodrow Call\" and \"Gus McCrae.\"

The main difference, I found, was that this prequel is a lot of slower and more relational (the two Rangers and their women) at times. Yet, I didn't mind that because the two main women were pretty ladies and generally likable and agreeable people. They were played nicely by Linda Cardelini (\"Clara Forsythe\") and Elizabeth Banks (\"Maggie.\").. They helped make this long movie palatable. If you've seen pictures of women in the Old West, none of them looked half as pretty as Cardelini and Banks, though. They were a joy for these male eyes to ogle. Maggie's son \"Newt\" was a wonderful kid, too - the kind of boy every parent would want..

The most interesting character, I thought, turned out to be \"Inish Scull,\" played by Val Kilmer. As in the western film, \"Tombstone,\" Kilmer almost steals the show from the leads. \"Scull\" is really an original, if I ever saw one: a strange dude, indeed.

Actually, all of the supporting actors in here did a fine job, from Keith Robinson's \"Deets\" to Wes Studi as \"Buffalo Hump.\" I always find Studi to be fascinating, no matter what role he plays. I wish he had had a bigger role in this miniseries.

One thing this film has in common with \"Lonesome Dove\" and other good westerns: the scenery and photography. It's just beautiful at times and is a joy to watch. We also have an excellent director of this film: Simon Wincer, who directed \"Lonesome Dove\" and an another outstanding TV western, \"Crossfire Trail.\" He also did two of my other favorite feature films, both based in his home country of Australia: \"Phar Lap\" and \"Quigley Down Under.\"

Unfortunately, although I enjoyed this, \"Commanche Moon\" is nothing as good as the above-mentioned films.Yet, I still watched all of it and was sorry it ended, if that makes any sense. It made me want to watch Woodrow and Gus again, this time with Tommy Lee and Robert.

Note: The title page says this is 360 minutes. That must have included the TV commercials. The two-disc DVD version I saw was about 4 hours and 40 minutes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a big fan of Lonesome Dove and all the books in the series and I love the movie. I was happy to see that they finished up with Comanche moon. I have been a long time fan of Steve Zahn and was eager to see him in a serious role. I personally think that Steve Zahn has done an amazing job of re-creating Gus. I can't think of another actor who would have been better. He has the voice, the mannerisms, the pronunciation of word all down to a T. Granted, no one could ever hold a candle to Robert Duvall as Gus, but I think that Steve Zahn has done a pretty darn good job. Karl Urban acts the same in all the movies he has been in so he has made a good match for Woodrow Call. AS for the movie itself, yeah it's a little corny but can you really beat Lonesome Dove? No, I don't think so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everyone wants Duvall and Jones back, come on! Viewers are saying things like, Zahn and Urban aren't as deep...Puhlease! Were you as deep when you were young? That's the whole point: They have a lot to learn. Zahn and Urban pull off the shallow innocence they were directed to act, and with superb commitment to preserving the nuances of Duvall and Jones' input into the characters. Zahn is flagrantly perfect as the early Gus, and Urban is subtly perfect as the early Woodrow. What a bold move it must have been for them to take on such a position in the entertainment industry. They must have known they would have everyone coming down on them for not actually being the beloved originals, yet they clearly put the best effort forward. I gave it a 7 because the editing was choppy in places, and time-lines were sketchy, but the acting was a joy to watch. Val Kilmer was absolutely great. One more thing: I expect audiences would have been more accepting of the mysticism implied by the appearances of a jaguar and blue and gold macaw if more effort had been put into the way they appear and are so simply accepted by the characters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Things I like. Steve Zahn as Gus, nails the part, copies Robert Duvalls mannerisms which makes him feel comfortable to Gus fans. (some of the other actors copy their predecessors style in this series as well). Karl Urban, looks grim and tough, but can crack a joke and smile too, which T.L.Jones did in original series. The gear, the guns, the clothing, all accurate, or very close to period accurate. I'll never forgive Costner and Duvall for having a nylon lariat in their chuckwagon in Open Range. The Comanches, they are actually riding bareback, rather than hiding a modern saddle under a Navajo blanket. And they aren't painted as politically correct peace loving pastoralists, but as a proud warrior people. There are some dumb scenes, but it beats the heck out of yet another variation on doing something stupid to not win a million dollars reality game shows.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Contrary to the comment posted directly below, The Big Trail (1930) was not filmed in a three-camera process \"much like the later Cinerama.\" That was the finale to Napoleon (1927), a different film entirely! The Big Trail was simultaneously shot in both 35mm and 70mm (Grandeur) versions, and both versions are shown on Fox Movie Channel from time to time, so it's easy to compare one with the other. The Grandeur version (broadcast in letterbox @ approximately its original 2-1 ratio) is more impressive cinematically with its wide angle panoramas, but suffers from the same problem that beset early CinemaScopes, a lack of close-ups forced upon director Raoul Walsh because of focus problems. Scenes involving individuals rather than crowds or long shots are much more effective in the standard version because the camera can move closer to the players thereby achieving a greater sense of involvement for the viewer. Watching the two versions simultaneously, one gets an accurate idea of which shots Walsh chose to shoot close-up, in the standard version, but could not, in the Grandeur version. There are also a couple sequences involving El Brendel: a shell game with Ian Keith, and some business with his wife & a jackass, which are in the Grandeur version, but missing from the standard version.

For the record, The Big Trail is the only one of three Fox Grandeur films which has survived in its original wide screen format. (The other two are Fox Movietone Follies of 1929, completely lost, and Happy Days, which survives only in standard format.) Other studios also experimented with wide film at this time, but the only other one still known to exist in both formats is The Bat Whispers, filmed in both 65mm and 35mm, and released by United Artists. Other wide films were MGM's Billy the Kid (1930) and The Great Meadow (1931), RKO's Danger Lights (1930), and WB's The Lash (1930), all of which can be seen in their standard format versions on Turner Classic Movies. WB's Kismet (1930) was also filmed both wide and standard, but seems to have completely disappeared; it is rumored to be lost.

Why did wide film fail in 1930? Theaters were reeling (pun intended) under the impact of the stock market crash of October 1929, and the spiraling costs of installing sound equipment, and so were adverse to taking on the added expense of installing additional new projection equipment and new wider screens to accommodate just a handful of films, photographed in a variety of different systems that were not even always compatible with each other. It would not be until 1953 when Fox, now Twentieth Century-Fox, would try again, and this time succeed, with the introduction of wide screen CinemaScope.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Wayne's first starring role just blew me away. Televised letterbox style on AMC, I had to check and make sure I had the right date. Sure enough, this 1930 film was made using a 55 mm wide-screen process. Aside from that, it features some of the grittiest, most realistic footage of the trek west I've seen. Wagons, men and animals are really lowered down a cliff face by rope. Trees are chopped by burly men -- and burly women -- so the train can move another 10 feet. The Indians are not the \"pretty boy\" city slickers who portrayed them later; they're the real deal. A river crossing in a driving rain storm is so realistic, it has to be real (In fact, I understand that director Raoul Walsh nearly lost the entire cast during this sequence). I could smell the wet canvas. Each day is an agony. The various sub-plots are forgettable but the film as a whole is not. I can't think of another title that can beat The Big Trail in evoking a sense of living history on the trail to Oregon. Bravo.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw The Big Trail in Vienna's Filmmuseum for the first time. Immediately I was astonished by both the pictures optical high quality and unusual format and by its beautifully detailed story. Who has ever seen such a documentary style western with John Wayne? And there is so much time, you can actually look around on the screen, there is so much to see! One is ever grateful that the scenes are often static, because every single shot is so well composed and you want to take it it. Even the acting is good and fits in well. The long running time of the picture is wonderful, you don't want to miss a minute of it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A heroic young trail scout leads a large party of pioneers along THE BIG TRAIL to the West, with Indian attacks, natural disasters & romantic complications all part of the adventure.

As sweeping & magnificent as its story, Raoul Walsh's THE BIG TRAIL is a wonderful film, as entertaining as it was more than seven decades ago. With very good acting and excellent production values, it lives up to its reputation as the talkies' first epic Western.

John Wayne, pulled from obscurity for his first important movie role, looks impossibly young, but he immediately impresses with the natural charm & masculine authority he brings to the hero's role; he quietly dominates the film with the attributes which would someday make him a huge star. Marguerite Churchill is fetching as a lovely Southern belle who slowly warms to the Duke's attentions. Dialect comic El Brendel is great fun as a Swedish immigrant beset with mule & mother-in-law woes; his appearance in a scene signals laughs for the viewer.

Looking & sounding like a human grizzly bear, Tyrone Power Sr., vast & repulsive, makes a wonderful villain. Slick cardsharp Ian Keith is a sophisticated bad guy. (His famous physical similarity to John Gilbert is very apparent here.) Silent movie character actor Tully Marshall is impressive as a wily old mountain man who helps guide the wagon train. Corpulent Russ Powell, as a friendly fur trapper, puts his vocal talent for making nonsense noises to good use. Sharp-eyed movie mavens will spot Ward Bond as one of the Missouri settlers.

What will surprise many modern viewers is that THE BIG TRAIL was filmed in an early wide screen process, called Grandeur. More than living up to its name, the picture looks marvelous, with Walsh showing a mastery of the new technology. He fills the screen, every portion of it, with action. Notice during the crowd scenes, how everyone is busy doing real work, which adds so much to the verisimilitude of these sequences. Walsh deserves great credit for being one of the first directors to use wide screen. In addition, the film is blessedly free of the rear projection photography which blights so many older films. It should also be stressed that it is only natural that the soundtrack sounds a little primitive; talkies were still in their cradle. That Walsh was able to use a microphone at all, with most of the scenes shot out of doors, is more kudos for him.

THE BIG TRAIL was not a box office success. In 1930, William Haines' comedies were the big money makers and the public was looking for fare other than intelligent Westerns. Most of the cast slipped into obscurity, including Wayne. It would not be until 1939, when John Ford rescued him in STAGECOACH, that John Wayne's legend would begin in earnest. And despite its grand & sweeping vistas, it would be another 25 years before wide screen caught on with Hollywood, largely as an answer to the economic threat from television.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Wayne is one of the few players in film history to have failed at his first big break and then succeed on the second time around. Of course everyone knows the second time was the classic Stagecoach with John Ford directing.

But we're here to talk about The Big Trail. John Ford's fellow director Raoul Walsh spotted this tall kid on the set of one of Ford's films and thought he had potential. He wanted to make him the lead in a big budget western that Fox was planning to do. The film as planned would be an homage to the famous classic silent western The Covered Wagon.

In watching The Big Trail I was struck by how similar Wayne's character of Breck Coleman here is to the Ringo Kid in Stagecoach. Both characters were likable young cowpokes, but both were also on a mission of vengeance. And of course both films were done on location and show the expense in making them. No studio product here with a backlot western set.

I also don't think that it was an accident that Wayne got this break at the beginning of the sound era. Raoul Walsh, I'm guessing looked around Hollywood and probably didn't think a whole lot of movie cowboys would have staying power in sound. That's something else Walsh spotted in Wayne.

According to what I've read The Big Trail flopped because after spending all that money to make the film in an early wide screen process, some genius at Fox realized that their theaters weren't equipped with the wide screen to show it. And when the Great Depression hit there would be no money to widen those screens at Fox movie houses. So The Big Trail got a limited release, even in what we would call a formatted version, and lost money big for Fox films.

Marguerite Churchill is fine as the crinoline heroine who Duke wins, loses and wins again from Ian Keith. Keith, Charles Stevens and F. Tyrone Power are the trio of villains Wayne has to deal with.

F. Tyrone Power is the father of the famous movie legend Tyrone Power. He was a big burly man with a grand background in classic roles on screen and on stage. I wouldn't be surprised if his son who would have been 15 at the time might not have been hanging around the set.

Also look for Ward Bond though you might have trouble spotting him under a big bushy beard.

Watching The Big Trail now it is interesting to speculate where John Wayne's career might have gone if The Big Trail had been a big hit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have really nothing to add to all the other comments, save this: To me the film looked like a silent film slowly being adapted to sound. The text boards bringing the story along reinforced that impression I suppose. Along the way the actors were allowed to leave the stilted, theatre-like acting; Marguerite Churchill very much looks like a typical early silent movie heroine at the beginning of the film, but at the end is allowed finer expressions. Gus, the Swede?, reminded me of the comic characters of Shakespeare plays, and Windy sounded to me like an early Donald Duck.

It truly amazed me that it was all filmed outdoors, on location, and even though the dust of all the wagons, horses and cattle obscured the view it must actually have been like that for the real settlers! It also was clear to me that many of those Indians must have been real, and I didn't detect any overt racism towards them. And John Wayne looks so incredibly young! As someone who became a real Wayne fan through the cavalry trilogy by John Ford, and thought that Stage Coach was Wayne's first as a leading star, this film was a revelation. The plot is very simple, again reminding me of a silent film, but the grit is very real indeed! An amazing film to have been made with that technique and under those conditions in 1930.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What some mistake for stilted dialog and\/or dismiss as archetypal characterizations accurately represents how people talked, lived and were before World War II, let alone in whatever years \"The Big Trail\" represent on film.

The movie took my breath away the first time I saw it years ago. Reading the boards here helped me understand why it missed at the box office and why movie goers got the benefit of Wayne in B Westerns for another ten years. Wayne was in my opinion better in \"The Big Trail\" and the years of Bs than most of his star turns after 1939 with Ford's incredible cavalry trilogy, \"True Grit\" and \"The Shootist\" being Big time exceptions.

What a shame theaters missed the boat on this in 1930. Had this movie hit we might have enjoyed more movies with more realism and less hokum. In my opinion this is not only one of the finest westerns ever filmed with accurate dialog and accurate character realization, but among the finest representations of a passage of any kind ever put on film.

It still takes my breath away. Especially the dialog and accurate characterizations of types that simply don't exist any more. Some celebrate the surface homogenization of our culture that in fact hides the largest cultural degradation (into 'people like us' and 'people like them') and political divide (corporatists vs Main Streetists) in US history, but for me \"The Big Trail\" represents a time when our surface differences were more obvious but underneath them most folks wanted to work out the nation's failures and most folks aspired to build a great culture and a great nation.

\"The Big Trail\" is an epic of the melting pot in motion toward the American Dream. Certainly the finest film on that path I ever saw. that subject ever filmed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just recently bought \"The Big Trail\" {1930}. It's an awesome, amazing film. I knew it by reputation but never expected it to be so magnificent. My version is the one shot in 35mm and I'll speak of that again later. When one thinks of the Western Myth in film the names that come to mind are John Ford and John Wayne. Well, you have only half the team here, but the entire Myth is present. Raoul Walsh has given us a remarkable epic in which the true plot is the struggle of the westward expansion of the nation.

There is a plot centering on a romance between Breck Coleman {Wayne} and Ruth Cameron {Margaret Churchill} with the main villain, Red Flack being memorably played by Tyrone Power, Sr. But this has an almost incidental quality as the wagon train struggles forward against incredible obstacles\u0097both natural and human. Examples are the crossing of the river, the Indian battle, and traversing the burning Desert. The aftermath of the battle is given a sombre touch when a doll is placed on the grave of a child killed while a faithful dog lies down on its master's grave.

Magnificent panoramas are filled with energy and activity. The opening scene as the wagon train prepares to leave, the Square Dance interlude and the great Buffalo herds are some that spring to mind. Marvellous use is made of location shooting throughout. Another feature of this splendid film is the fact that men and women are given equal credit for their parts in the great struggle Westward. Women work, fight, and confront the terrible hardships with the same fortitude and strength as their male counterparts. The finale has a powerfully uplifting experience as Coleman and Cameron meet in the gigantic towering Sequoia forest to start their new life.

The acting is quite acceptable throughout. I've already mentioned Tyrone Power's scene-stealing performance. Tully Marshall is excellent as Coleman's sidekick, and Marguerite Churchill convincingly portrays a woman who develops an inner strength as she encounters her own problems as well as those external to herself. The comic-relief is the weakest aspect of this film, but these scenes are not common and are swallowed up in the tremendous sweep of the film.

I've read much criticism of Wayne's performance\u0097some even going so far as to blame his \"wooden acting\" for the failure of the film at the box-office. I think this is unfair. Wayne was in his first major role and certainly had not developed the charisma of his performance in \"Stagecoach\". But he still does a serviceable job in a role which is certainly going to play second fiddle to the great over-arching theme. After \"The Big Trail\", Wayne played in a large number of low-budget B Westerns. I have a number of these and one can see the developing actor in them. When \"Stagecoach\" came he was ready for it and \"The Big Trail\" was a significant part of that apprenticeship.

I mentioned earlier that my version is the one shot in 35mm. It's still impressive, but to get some idea of the effect of the 70mm version I set the TV screen to 16:9 which doesn't cause any distortion. While not having the complete effect of the Grandeur version, it was good enough to make me want to get the latter. {in addition, the film shot in 70mm has a few extra scenes not in the form made for ordinary theatrical showing}.

All-in-all, this film deserves to be in any list of the greatest Westerns ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i really liked this film.it features John Wayne in his first starring performance.even then,you can tell Wayne has a real presence,although he wouldn't really mature into the icon he is known for until Stagecoach,9 years later in 1939.it's about settlers from all over the country heading to the new west to colonize it.Wayne's character Breck Coleman joins up,but for his own personal reasons.most of the main actors were stage actors and had never done a film before,which makes the movie even more amazing.they managed to create believable,distinctive characters and there is quite an oddball mix here.Cimarron would come out a year later,and had a very similar story,though i didn't like it as much as this movie.for me,The Big Trail is a strong 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sweeping and still impressive early Talkie Western of pioneering days; other contemporary films in the same vein include THE COVERED WAGON (1923), THE IRON HORSE (1924) and CIMARRON (1931) \u0096 none of which I've watched, though I do have the latter on VHS. It was simultaneously filmed in the \"Standard\" fullscreen ratio and in an experimental Widescreen process called \"Grandeur\", but only the former has been released on the bare-bones Fox DVD; one can only surmise how it would look in a wider ratio, but the careful framing \u0096 not to mention the splendid cinematography \u0096 is evident enough even in the \"Standard\" version.

Young John Wayne is surprisingly commanding in the lead (a role which, however, didn't lead to the expected stardom \u0096 as he'd languish in 'B' Westerns for the best part of the next decade, before John Ford came to his rescue with STAGECOACH [1939]!); anyway, he and Marguerite Churchill (from DRACULA'S DAUGHTER [1936]) make a nice couple \u0096 despite her somewhat tedious character. Supporting characters include a variety of stock types: veteran westerner, comic-relief sidekick (with a penchant for making noises with his mouth!), burly and uncouth villain (played by Tyrone Power Sr.!), his two slimy cohorts (a Mexican and a Southerner, the latter also filling in as Wayne's rival for Churchill's hand), etc. Also among the members of the wagon party is a timid Swede (full of optimism for the promised land, but who's continually put down by his irascible mother-in-law) and later Wayne regular Ward Bond.

The episodic narrative resolves itself into a number of alternately cornball, lyrical and action-packed vignettes \u0096 as we see the prospective settlers combating the elements, the Indians and themselves; the film, however, has a completely authentic feel to it which smooths over its essentially dated and static quality. Also, the editing is somewhat choppy (particularly during the second half) \u0096 little wonder, since the DVD edition of the film is only 108 minutes long against the complete 158-minute \"Grandeur\" version!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If one overlooks the technical problems of this early (1930) sound movie such as the sound quality and the occasional stiffness of John Wayne, one will find this movie to be an epic that is more realistic than almost any movie made since. Beginning at the Missouri, a large caravan of Conestoga wagons, people, and animals head west. The wagons are pulled down huge cliffs and cross a flooded river with considerable risk to the riders in the wagons. Indians meet with Wayne, and allow the train to pass through their land. Later, Indians gather west of the train to combat them. The wagons form a huge circle with horses and cattle in the circle, and fire their rifles creating with the circling Indians a veil of smoke.

When the battle ends, the dead are buried on the spot and the people and wagons depart. This scene is remarkable, as the camera stays with the dead as the living depart. It is unique in the way it links the viewer with the dead and separates the viewer from the living. The wagons encounter a major thunderstorm with torrential downpours and mud everywhere. They finally arrive at their destination near a redwood or sequoia forest in Oregon. The film is done in 70 mm widescreen at about a 2.0:1 ratio (in 1930!).

I haven't mentioned the plot because it is secondary to the scenic grandeur and the enormous amount of work involved in making this film. Moviemakers will never work this hard again to make such a movie or any movie. Given the technical limitations of the sound, the music is at times moving, such as when Wayne leaves his girl to hunt down his friend's killers and at the end.

While all the critics rave about The Searchers and Wayne's psychology, racism, short temper, and complex characters, The Big Trail gives us a story of simple people encountering extraordinary hardships. One of the best westerns I have seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The precise text of an ad (except the word Chinese, as in Grauman's Chinese, at the end, should appear in caps but IMDb's racially sensitive formatting won't let it), as published in the Los Angeles Times of October 2nd 1930, reads as follows (with \" \/ \" denoting the break between each line in the ad):

GALA WORLD PREMIERE \/ Tonight \/ 8:30 PROMPTLY \/ TONIGHT all Hollywood and Los Angeles boulevards become THE BIG TRAIL to Grauman's Chinese Theatre...the rendezvous of all that is beautiful and brilliant...the gathering place of stars...celebrities...the great and the famous!

Thousands will fill every seat...many thousands will line Hollywood Boulevard to watch the gala festivities attending this world premiere!

Tonight all Southern California pays homage to the great American Epic, which faithfully depicts the thrilling, soul-stirring romance of the American Pioneers..who won the West and left us a heritage of Peace..Liberty..and Happiness.

Raoul Walsh's \/ The BIG \/ TRAIL \/ Story by HAL G. EVARTS \/ FOX MOVIETONE PRODUCTION \/ SHOWN ENTIRELY IN \/ GRANDEUR \/ Cast of 20,000 featuring \/ JOHN WAYNE MARGUERITE CHURCHILL \/ EL BRENDEL \/ Tully Marshall Tyrone Power \/ David Rollins \/ Frederick Burton, Charles Stevens, Russ Powell, Louise Carter \/ William V. Mong, Dodo Newton, Ward Bond, Marcia Harris \/ Marjorie Leet, Emelie Emerson, Fran Rainboth \/ Andy Shufford, Helen Parrish \/ Production Manager Archibald Buchanan \/ Settings by Harold Miles, Fred Serren \/ Chief Grandeur Cameraman Arthur Edeson \/ Sound Engineer George Leverett \/ Chief Film Cutter Jack Dennis \/ ADDED FEATURE: \/ Fox Movietone News Exclusive Interview with \/ GEORGE BERNARD SHAW \/ Direction Carli Elinor \/ GRAUMAN'S \/ Chinese \/ Direction of Fox West Coast Theatres \/ Twice Daily Thereafter \/ 2:30 --- 8:30 P.M.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the myths of the early sound era is that they couldn't make Westerns because they had trouble recording sound on location. In fact, it was the financial restrictions of the depression that temporarily killed off the genre, at least in the \"A\" budget bracket. However, in the period 1929-1931, before the economic downturn had really kicked in, the \"A\" Western flourished, notable examples including The Virginian, Billy the Kid and Cimarron. The Big Trail was perhaps the biggest of them all \u0096 a gargantuan pioneer Western shot in an early widescreen process appropriately titled grandeur. Thanks to a recent DVD release we now get to see the widescreen version alongside the fullscreen that was shot simultaneously.

The director was Raoul Walsh, a man for whom the spirit of adventure lay in vast outdoor vistas, and thus in many ways a perfect choice. He makes great use of the wider frame to show off the Western landscape at its most breathtaking. Very typical of Walsh are a number of shots towards the beginning, such as the one where a woman is chopping firewood. Most of the screen is tightly filled by the wagons and other clutter, but in one corner we see the wilderness stretching out invitingly. When the wagon train gets going, the open plain is gradually revealed to us, with wagons pulling away like stage curtains. These shots are not so effective in the fullscreen version, yet on the wider canvas Walsh's expression of the outdoors was never better.

But there's an unfortunate flipside to this. When it comes to dialogue scenes, Walsh's tendency is to place the actors in the middle of the shot, as if they were in an imaginary fullscreen box. The extra width becomes just that \u0096 extra. It may seem logical at first, because it means that height-wise we see as much of the actors as we would in a fullscreen picture. However it makes the players look small and insignificant within the frame, while all the background business dominates the shot \u0096 and there is a lot of background business in the Big Trail. When widescreen formats re-emerged in the 1950s, many directors would make the same mistake, before eventually realising that in talkie scenes it is better to frame actors from around the chest up, losing some of their height but allowing them to fill the screen.

It's a pity, because The Big Trail is a particularly well-balanced and finely scripted effort. The romance and revenge subplots are simple but well defined, and do not threaten to overbalance each other or the pioneer story. It could have been a great intimate epic, but it loses dramatic weight because every time characters start talking to each other we get distracted by herds of cattle, drifting wagons or whatever else is filling every spare inch of frame. Still, Walsh's sensitivity to deeply emotional romantic moments is still on display, and he manages to make the final scene effective and memorable. There are also some nice comedy touches, largely courtesy of \"comical Swede\" El Brendel.

The Big Trail is also notable for being John Wayne's first lead role. While Wayne is another victim of the distant framing in dialogue scenes, we do at least see his strong physical presence and hear his warm but assertive vocal delivery. He betrays his lack of experience, but the potential is clearly there. Sadly that potential wasn't widely realised at the time and he spent the rest of the decade slumming it in B-pictures before he finally hit stardom. Also appearing in this picture is Wayne's buddy (and later prolific character actor) Ward Bond. He's not credited, but you can spot him in a number of scenes, most prominently around the 80-minute mark where he is stood to Tyrone Power's left.

The Big Trail is a glorious epic that manages to defeat itself as a drama. And it was this stupendous scale that would put the Western (and widescreen) to bed for some time. And although the 40s and 50s are now regarded as the golden age of the Western, it was by then a changed genre, with stories of individual adventure and heroism in an established West \u0096 no better or worse, but of a different form. The early talkie period was the end of an era in which Westerns could be truly gigantic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I never expected such an old film to be as impressive as this 1930 western turned out to be. The scenes of the pioneers heading west in their covered wagons, encountering storms and mud, river crossings, Indian attacks and every manner of trial and danger, are astonishing in their rugged believability. Much of the film was shot outdoors, and the movie has a truly epic feel about it. The actors must have experienced much the same conditions as the original pioneers did, and the results are astounding. The wagons, the clothing, every single detail looks and feels right. The characters are simple but believable, with a straightforward story ,that travels like the wagon train to its destination.

John Wayne is slim and youthful in one of his first roles, as the scout leading the wagons, and he does a fine job as the idealistic young frontiersman. He's up against a marvelously scurvy trio of villains, including Ian Keith as a slick gambler, Charles Stevens as a Mexican sidekick and Tyrone Power, Senior, as the growly, bear-like trapper. Power's bearded, snarling, larger than life portrayal is both comic and menacing. I keep picturing him with a bandanna, gold hoop earring and black eye patch, with a parrot on his shoulder, as he grunts and growls various threats and insults. His character could easily be transferred to a pirate ship with no difficulty at all. He nearly steals the whole picture.

Tully Marshall is delightful as a wily old frontiersman who is Wayne's best friend. The lovely Marguerite Churchill makes a spirited heroine, whose initial meeting with Wayne is a hilarious mix-up, resulting in a long running courtship consisting of insults and feigned indifference on her part, to aw shucks persistence on his. The results are quite humorous and one is glad to see them finally get together at the end.

The scenery is amazing, with the wagons crossing real prairies and having to be lowered by ropes down cliffs. Indians who are clearly the genuine article, and not white actors in makeup, appear as both friends and foes, and are treated with dignity. Wayne's character tells an admiring group of young boys that the Indians are his friends, who taught him everything he knows about survival in the wilderness.

The Big Trail is an uncomplicated tale told well by a talented cast and crew. It will probably appear naive to many modern viewers, but there is a quiet dignity about it that never lets it become corny. There is a great deal of intentional humor, including a rowdy rascal of a pioneer, who makes loud animal sounds from hiding , every time the smooth gambler Ian Keith tries to con the beautiful heroine into marrying him. His flowery speeches about the plantation he allegedly owns are interrupted by very realistic imitations of yowling cats and quacking ducks, causing the would be seducer to look around in annoyance for the unseen creatures.

Highly recommended, both for western fans and lovers of old movies in general. This is truly a classic film for the ages.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is important to those of us interested in western history because it makes use of authentic techniques in its production.

The scenes of the wagon train are particularly authentic; so far as I know, it contains the only scenes ever filmed illustrating the techniques for river crossings at a bluff. The horses and mules have to be lowered to the river level and the wagons let down by ropes and pulleys. The scene is such that I could watch it over and again just trying to get a feel for what a crossing was like...and the early travelers did it time and time again while crossing the country.

Melodrama aside, this picture is as authentic in dress and style as they come and worth watching for that alone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My giving this film a score of 8 is relative to other feature-length films from 1930. By the standards of films made just a few years later, this film might receive a score of only 6 or 7--mostly because the sound quality was so poor. Now it is possible that the film sounded better and the Fox Movie Channel did show a degraded print (it DID have a lot of lines and scratches), but I assume the sound problem was always an issue. That's because sound in movies was still a novelty in 1930 and many of the Hollywood talking pictures of 1930 sounded terrible--with background characters often drowning out the leads, characters huddled together to make sure they are picked up by the microphones or inconsistent quality (such as what was seen in THE BISHOP MURDER CASE, HELL'S ANGELS and other films of the day). This was all made much worse in THE BIG TRAIL because most of the film was shot outside--something unheard of at the time. Quite an innovation but also something that really stretched the talents of the sound technicians! So, while the film was very hard to listen to, I realize that they had to start somewhere, so I can forgive this--especially since the outdoor scenes are breathtaking--a major innovation for 1930.

The plot is rather similar to CIMARRON--a Western that came out the following year and which captured the Oscar for Best Picture. Unfortunately, CIMARRON isn't all that great a film and I actually like THE BIG TRAIL more due to the scope of the film. While some might balk at THE BIG TRAIL's slow-moving pace, I saw it as a great history lesson about the hardships endured by those traveling West on wagon trains. Plus, the whole thing just looked so beautiful, as director Raoul Walsh went to significant trouble to film on location and THE BIG TRAIL looks almost like a film version of some Ansel Adams prints.

As for the acting, it was pretty good. This was a major break for young John Wayne--as his previous screen appearances were, at best, minor and unremarkable. Here, he was given the lead and did a dandy job--though he was obviously young and a little less \"John Wayne-ish\" than he was in later films, as his screen persona was not yet firmly established. Another interesting part was played by Tyrone Power II (Tyrone Power's father). He looked nothing like his extremely handsome son and looked and sounded almost exactly like Bluto from the Popeye cartoons! He made very few sound films--dying just a year after making this film--so it's a rare opportunity to see and hear this once famous actor.

Overall, the film is well worth seeing despite some sound problems and a few overly long scenes here and there. For 1930, it was a remarkable achievement--more so than the much more famous and award-winning CIMARRON made the following year. Much of the reason THE BIG TRAIL didn't win an Oscar most likely was because ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT came out the same year and it is truly one of the great films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The details in The Big Trail were so incredible that I felt that the movie was made at the time it represents. I have never seen wagons that were so real! They were big, loaded with accessories, and even felt as though they had been filled with details under the canvas covers that was never meant to be seen. Every speck of dirt, every scratch, every splinter was there. Modern day computer technology could never recreate the scenes of the numerous wagons as they move across the land or circle to fend off indians. The wagons were all real, individual vehicles, each with its own real team of horses or oxen.

The actors clothing could not have felt more genuine. With the exception of John Wayne's buckskin outfit and Marguerite Churchill's nice dress, the clothes were very common looking, tattered, or dirty in an authentic looking way. Many of the actors and actresses were born before electricity and indoor plumbing were common, and they must have felt comfortable with the surroundings. All the indians were real indians rather than white extras painted tan.

Women of the old west had to be sturdy because there was a lot of work. In every scene showing work done by the people of the wagon train, women are shown chopping wood, hauling logs, etc. This realism was so natural looking that it did not come across as a statement on the role of women of the day rather than a fact of survival.

The plot of revenge and romance is played well. Nothing is overstated or overplayed.

Something was lost along the way in the 1930's in Hollywood. As much as I love the fake scenery and controlled environment of old movies, The Big Trail manages to feel real above all else. The more I see big budget movies of the silent era, the more I like them. I can think of few movies of the 1930's that I have seen that equal the grandeur of the best of the 1920's. If there were home movies made in the days of wagon trains, The Big Trail is what they would look like.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Best Cinematography I have ever seen\u0085Considering the year the movie was made I was absolutely amazed and thoroughly impressed with the amount of attention dedicated to the scenes and with what appears to be authenticity. Though I am not particularly a western movie buff\u0085.every single scene is given the utmost detail, and it is haunting. There is a sincere connection with nature. At times I am overwhelmed with the amount of action passing through the scenes, but I am never bored. I feel as though I am truly peering into a time machine and looking back into the old west. I recommend this movie to anyone who is studying set design, location planning, and for that matter photography in general. It can be a humbling movie to experience with regards to the visuals considering this era of digital touch-up that we now experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film in video form. Even on a television screen, the vistas were impressive. Seen on the big screen in its full glory, it must have blown people away.

As one or two other comments have pointed out, the story of the early pioneers and how they got around the problems of terrain etc on the road to Oregon is as authentic as any film can be. It therefore shows that it is totally unnecessary to take liberties with the truth - something that today's film makers should take heed of - reality is enough.

The plot relies on the struggle of man against the elements and hostile natives. Subplots are few and simple. But the basic plot is enough. Elsewhere I have reviewed Paramount's rival to the big trail, Fighting Caravans. In spite of having a more sophisticated plot, and having better actors, Fighting Caravans lacks the breathtaking scenes.

The Big Trail should be compulsory viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie I received was a great quality film for it's age. John Wayne did an incredible job for being so young in the movie industry. His on screen presence shined thought even though there were other senior actors on the screen with him. I think that it is a must see older John Wayne film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No one said that in \"The Big Trail\" and I thought it would be a natural. Nevertheless, this was one of the best Westerns I have seen and I am a big fan of horses and gunsmoke movies. The scope and feel of this picture is simply staggering and, as someone mentioned in their comment, it does have the feel of the 3-camera triptych of \"Napoleon\" (1927). Nowadays the cost of the production and, especially, the cast of thousands, would be prohibitive, but Raoul Walsh got it done.

The cast was excellent, although John Wayne was better when he had no lines and just swaggered around. In particular, Tyrone Power,Sr. was a perfect villain - I had never seen him before and this was his only talking picture. Ian Keith was a snake, but El Brendel is an acquired taste as the comic relief. He can be funny or annoying, but mostly the latter - and he shows up at the most inappropriate times.

It is a bit too long and it took a while for the Indians to show up, but this is as close to a documentary on Manifest Destiny and as true to life as you will see and a must for movie fans regardless of genre preference. By the time the settlers got to California I was exhausted.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Raoul Walsh's mega-epic, stunning filmed in an early widescreen process by the great Arthur Edeson, can be slow and static in the early talkie manner, but this classic wagon train journey across America to the NorthWest is thrilling as a sheer physical production when seen on the big screen. On t.v., the lack of close-ups and distant sound reproduction may prove daunting. Young John Wayne scores easily in his first starring role with a natural delivery the rest of the cast can't command. Amazingly, the film flopped and Wayne spent most of the following decade in Grade B Western fodder.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's quite revealing to see this today and appreciate how far we've come along in what we expect from movies, and at the same time appreciate how many bedrock notions were established.

Here we have a full-fledged narrative talking film - the audio and the visuals are pushed to their period limits. The framing is limited to about belt-high and up -- no face close-ups.

The compositions are remarkable; there's an early over-the-shoulder cross cutting scene to showcase the dialogue; there's a treacherous descent into a canyon with some harrowing perspective angles; a sun-bleached skeleton lies in the dust as the wheels and legs march in the upper portion of the frame; the tension in the showdown between the hero and the bad guy is visually captured by filming above the long axis of a large tree that lies between them; and on and on - early visual treats abound.

Today, it's unsettling to see the young Wayne carry a film, unencumbered by ego or mannerisms.

I have to wonder if Walsh recognized the self-reference: the subject is the journey of a disparate group of pilgrims; those who appear on screen are a disparate group of stage actors, vaudeville comedians, shell game artists, and, probably, carny barkers and ten-in-one show veterans. They all journey together to blaze a trail for how movies would be made.

This is worth at least one viewing to appreciate the source of so many visual ideas borrowed in later movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If we consider three films with a similar subject, which are this one, which was made in 1930, 'The Covered Wagon', made in 1923 and 'Wagon Master' made in 1950, the distance between 'The Big Trail' and 'The Covered Wagon' is only 7 years whereas the distance between 'The Big Trail' and 'Wagon Master' is 20 years. This is amazing because it shows how much movies evolved in those 7 years, and how in the next 20 years the changes were slow to come. 'The Big Trail is technically close to 'Wagon Master', but ages apart from 'The Covered Wagon'. The story is about the pioneers going from the Missouri to the west in Oregon. Tyrone Power Sr. is the man leading the caravan, he is a rough and mean guy. John Wayne is the good guy and the film makes too much of a point of his good looks, not giving him a chance to be the Wayne that we are used to. Marguerite Churchill is such a proud lady that you wonder why Wayne just does not forget her. Raoul Walsh was a master at showing caravans and cattle moving through the west, he directed 'The Tall Men' in 1955, which has a lot in common with 'The Big Trail'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"044: The Big Trail (1930) - released 10\/24\/1930; viewed 4\/5\/06.

BIRTHS: Richard Harris, Harold Pinter, Robert Atkins.

DOUG: In Hollywood, Raoul Walsh unveiled his latest film, The Big Trail, a western about the trek west across the frontier, starring up-and-coming 23-year-old actor John Wayne. In 1930, we are seeing many \"firsts\" but few \"bests.\" Besides the first John Wayne film, we have here the first widescreen film (although we only watched the full-frame version). Interestingly, the decision to film in widescreen was essentially the same reason that widescreen became popular later: to compete with television, which hadn't yet appeared commercially but was still an emerging curiosity. All the same, this film was extremely good, giving us a harrowing look at the trek to Oklahoma. The opening title cards let us know that this is a western of the most traditional kind, about America, about the land, who should live on it, etc., and is an excellent demonstration of that. Walsh gives us some astonishing visuals of the wagon company out in the wilderness (when they reach a cliff, they must rope each wagon down one by one), and we also get a revenge subplot involving Wayne pursuing the man who killed one of his friends (I seem to recall something similar in Stagecoach). Wayne's tough cowboy routine is at least partly there, and would surely evolve further in subsequent films. Since this film is representing all of Wayne's early 30's work for the Odyssey, we will not see his face again until Stagecoach, but once we do, we will keep seeing him to the end of the Odyssey and beyond.

KEVIN: Ah, our first sound western, and John Wayne's first starring role. It's Raoul Walsh's The Big Trail. This review will be short, since it's been weeks since I watched it. I enjoyed this movie, but it was far from a masterpiece. The mostly predictable adventure had a few surprises, like when the brains of the bad guys, Red Flack (Tyrone Power Sr. in his last role) is killed half way through; I thought he would be the boss at the end, but that ended up being Bill Thorpe (Ian Keith). I remember that I didn't like the way Breck (Wayne) kills Thorpe and exacts revenge at the end. I understood that that's what he was meant to do in the story, but I really didn't like his reasoning when he tells Ruth why he has to do it. I think he had a far greater responsibility to the hundreds of settlers he was leading through the harsh west.

Last film viewed: Animal Crackers (1930). Last film chronologically: Soup to Nuts (1930). Next film: L'Age D'or (1930).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Father Hood\" is an overlooked little gem of a \"road movie\". Fine performances by Halle Berry, Sabina Lloyd and Brian Bonsall, two really fun \"over-the-top\" ones by Diane Ladd and Michael Ironside,

and a downright outstanding one from Patrick Swayze. The movie is helped by an unconventional storyline, but badly undercut by it's flashback framing which results in a formulamatic, abrupt ending. \"Father Hood\" would have worked MUCH better without these \"bookends\". Nevertheless, the movie brings up important issues of \"family responsibilities\" and the consequences of state intervention. As long as the foster system rewards state institutions for NOT placing children, such abuses will exist.

Pick this one up. It's worth the \"ride.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Father Hood is an entertaining tale of an unwilling Father who is definitely a HOOD! Patrick Swayze plays Jack Charles who is a hood always on the look-out for the one big \"score\" that is going to put him on easy street. His wife died while he was is prison and his two kids were put in foster care. When he \"got out\" he thought they were probably better off in foster care \u0096 besides he still had to score his fortune. His daughter Kathleen Charles (played wonderfully by Sabrina Lloyd) breaks out of a foster care institution that is abusing the kids and misappropriating money that is suppose to be being spent on the kids. She hunts down her father; tells him about how bad the place was and that her brother, Eddie Charles (played by Brian Bonsall) , \"just a little 7-year-old kid\" was being moved to the institution that she had just broken out of and convinces her father to kidnap him. The three start off on an adventure across country, all the while Jack keeps telling himself that he has to get rid of the kids! Patrick Swayze is really good in this comedy, playing a \"hood\" (probably a little understatement for this criminal character) who is similar to his Johnny Castle character of Dirty Dancing except Jack is appropriately funnier in this comedy and more optimistic than Johnny Castle. Swayze is funny and rally does comedy pretty well! Halle Berry plays Kathleen Mercer who is a reporter trying to get at the truth of the foster care system who becomes Sawyer's ally. Diane Ladd plays Rita the con-artist mother of Jack Charles.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Father Hood

I can understand why a lot of people hate this tale of a father kidnapping his two children and carrying them across America, but I've seen much worse, and--when I saw this years ago--I didn't think it was particularly awful. Patrick Swayze is the worried father who takes his kids on the run with him for personal reasons, and Halle Berry is the cop chasing them down.

Overall a decent way to spend a couple hours of your life. You could certainly do worse--ever hear of the film \"Pod People\"?

** 1\/2 out of *****

Rated PG-13 for some traumatic scenes, adult content matter, violence and language.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't like boxing, don't understand the attraction. I did like this movie. Positive portrayals of Latinos, with no drugs, sex or street violence. The plot actually showed stable, loving families. The fight sequences are violent, as is boxing, but not as over the top as Rocky films. Nothing wrong with attempting familiar themes with a different angle and ethnicity. It's a good rent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Some Spoilers) Facing a mid-life crisis and fed up with his marriage to Cindy ,Teddi Siddall, who seemed to have more say in what he did and where he stayed then the Air Force,USAF elite Red Beret Sgt. Major Davis Bay, Gary Cole,decided one morning to just walk away from in all and start a new life as a civilian.

David first got this idea when he met at a Halloween party sweet and adoring Alyson, Karen Sillas. Keeping his background secret from her by telling Alyson that he's in a top secret military outfit was the perfect cover for him. Back at Jackson AFB outside of Austin Tex. David starts to review his life's options with Cindy and the USAF and decides to change his identity by running away from it. David then calls Alyson, who only met him once, and makes a date with her. Before you know it David, now using the name Haywood,is engaged to be married to her.

Faking his death in a bicycle accident Dave purposely leave his wife and kids out in the cold and deserts his military obligation to his country.It didn't take long for Dave to find out that civilian life just doesn't appeal to him. It's now too late for Dave to go back to his first wife Cindy and his two boys with him facing the brig and a military court-martial if he comes back to the USAF. Dave takes up the only job that he could do to support him and Alyson and their infant son Chris: using his skills he learned in the Red Berets to rob banks.

Based on a true story \"Lies He Told\" has Dave Bay\/Haywood living three, not two, different lives. One of a hard working family man one as a ruthless bank robber and yet another one as a dead and highly decorated, by the President of the US and Prime Misnister Of GB, All-American hero. Gary Cole is very effective as both Master Sgt. David Bay&husband David Haywood. Davids actions are, even though unforgivable, understandable in the case of his depression over his marriage to Cindy. The pressure of her nagging him got to the point where he just wanted to get lost and away from her and the kids. But he should have sought professional counseling from the US Air Force, which he would have been gladly provided with, instead of choosing the easy way out. Which in the end lead him straight into Levenworth Ferderal Prison. It may have been that the overly macho Dave thought it would have been a bad mark on his career, as well as his ego, to get help for his problems.

Karen Sillas as Alyson is the glue that keeps the film together with her at first going along with her new husbands explanation of his frequent disappearances, some for as much as two weeks, as him doing covert action in keeping the country safe from domestic and foreign terrorists. The real reasons for his long absences were the result of him casing out planing and robbing banks. Which was the only way he knew how to earn a living given from what he learned, in subversive actions, all those years in the elite Red Berets.

Alyson tracking down Dave's mom Carolyn Bay(Linda Goranson), who he told her was dead since he was a small boy, in Portland she finds out the truth about the double, or triple, life that he's been leading since he married her. This lead to Alyson finding out about his marriage to Linda and the two sons that he had with her as well as his faked death, and now AWOL, from the USAF. Being that it's a true story the ending was anything that you would have guessed it to be in a standard Hollywood, or made for TV, movie. That's what makes the film \"Lies he Told, a lot better then what you would have expected it to be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"He is very good in this role as a disaffected and bored husband, a decorated air force officer, who becomes bored with his predictable suburban life and decides to make a radical change.

One evening he meets Karen Sillas, an attractive woman younger than his current wife. A relationship develops, and Cole decides to take it to the next level.

Not only does he have an affair, he fakes his death to escape his family obligations. Lies become increasingly more of a pattern as he begins to rob banks to keep his new wife (Sillas) happy, and to project the image that he is a success. A fictional delusion, apparently.

This was also based on a true story which makes it all the more intriguing. Cole is believable and excellent in these roles. Recommended. 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought it was an excellent movie. Gary Cole played the role of a military man who feels trapped and unhappy with his wife who fakes his death fabulously! Over all, I thought the movie was great, definitely not a boring plot line! It's sad to say, but I think lots of men might feel this way. I think he should have just gotten a divorce and asked to be transferred instead of the extreme he went to, but he felt there was no other way out so he faked his death. I thought it was neat that Cole's real-life wife played the wife he was unhappy with in the movie. I think what the guy did was alittle extreme, but the movie was great nonetheless! Definitely recommend it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This mostly routine fact-based TV drama gets a boost from the fine performance by Cole. This is the story of a highly trained military man, unhappy with his wife and children, fakes his demise and runs off with the other woman. To support her in the manner in which she is accustomed he robs banks. Predictable, but not a bad watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best TV movies I have ever seen! The title makes it so obvious and predictable but come on, all TV movies are like that!

The story is fantastic. It may seem ridiculous but it is based on an incredibly true story. Gary Cole plays a military man named Dave who feels trapped in his marriage. He abandons his wife and kids and then fakes his death! All so he could be with Alyson (Karen Sillas). How far will Dave go to keep his secret?

The acting is top notch for TV movies. Gary Cole especially keeps the movie together as a charming, smooth-talking sociopath who has an answer to everything when his wife gets suspicious. Karen Sillas does the best she can as a wife who discovers that her husband is a LIAR and doesn't know what to do about it. Teddi Siddall, who I believe is Gary Cole's wife in real life, plays her part well especially when she cries about the \"death\" of her husband. Wendy Makkena adds a nice touch as Alyson's sister. Linda Goranson is great in her small role as Dave's mother.

Predictable but the acting and the story take this movie up several notches.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The only reason I decided to view this film is because of the great acting talents of Karen Sillas,(Alyson Haywood),\"Bad Money\",'99, who is deeply involved with Gary Cole,(Dave),\"Cry Wolf\",'05, who is a great war hero and has all kinds of ways to make money and never seems to stop telling LIES. Alyson and Dave are trying to rebuild an old home and restore it to comfortable living conditions. The relationship gets troublesome and Alyson decides to find out what is going on and the plot gets very mysterious. If you are a big fan of Karen Sillas, this is the film for you. I only wish Karen would appear in more films, I miss her great talents.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a film that I keep coming back to, for a variety of reasons. As a testament to the suffering of the ordinary soldier on the Eastern Front in the Second World War, it is a powerful one. There are a number of very powerful scenes in the film which help to capture the horror of war, such as the tank battle for instance. Furthermore, from what I can see the experiences documented in the film are by and large 'true' - if you read A. Beevor's book 'Stalingrad' you will know what I mean. The film is also successful in the sense that it doesn't allow character or plot to dominate it - it is simply a tale of survival, that attempts to depict the battle mainly from the ordinary (German) soldier's point of view. I've read somewhere that the original screenplay had to be toned down, which doesn't surprise me at all - if they tried to really show what the battle was like, it would have been almost impossible to make I'm sure. Even so, there are still some moments that are difficult to watch - this was made before Private Ryan but is possibly even harder-hitting in places. Just one word of caution - don't buy the dubbed 'English' version, it's pretty awful and spoils the film - try to get a copy in the original (German) version with English subtitles, it's far more powerful. You may need to buy a Region 1 DVD of the film in this case, as I did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For the main criticisms of the movie... The love story: that wasn't a love story. Those were two people distraught coming together trying to find humanity in ANYone. The same thing happened with soldiers and the Russian boy. It added a feminine touch, but come on look at American movies...no where close to love story. There was no storyline: does war have a storyline? I think that is a silly criticism. The storyline is this. They start with 400 men and the movie narrowed down to show the lives of about 10 men and how each did their part and died. Death is the ultimate end to any story. Just because there was no happy ending doesn't mean it has no storyline.

There was a horrid truth in this movie. I wouldn't necessarily call it \"anti-war\". It had a political statement of course, but the movie wasn't all about the politics. In fact, except for a few occurrences when the Captain? showed up, there was never a stifling air of Nazi Germany. They were far enough out of the reach of the main Nazi party. The fat cats weren't gonna go into Russia!

Maybe not completely accurate and not a Hollywood hit, but it exhibits a fine knowledge of the common soldier (I'd say exactly of almost any nationality and war)and what they must go through. It was a losing battle, of course the movie is going to be depressing. And to the person who said that it was gutsy (and silly) to even portray Germans as victims: there are victims on all sides in every war (any real soldier will tell you that).

This movie is a fine balance between movie and documentary. A few problems with it when arguing for just one, but it instills the best of both worlds. Watch it as such. Beware however because it is a hard movie to watch if not graphically, emotionally.

I'm waiting til they make a movie about Iraq. It will probably have many of the same themes and will be very controversial, I want to see who has the guts to do it first. (Jarhead doesn't count)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The people of my generation and those who are older know about the WW II (or as it is called in Russia \u2013 the Great Patriotic War) not only from the school textbooks, but from the witnesses and participants of the event. My granddad was a soldier at Stalingrad and when I was a small girl I used to listen to his stories of how he defeated the Germans. He also told me some anecdotes, not all he told me was gloomy. But it was long ago, and no when I have a conscious interest for what happened there in the battle of Stalingrad, I have to turn to books and movies for information. Somehow most films I saw were made in the Soviet Union, only a few in present day Russia. And \u201cStalingrad\u201d is an exception. In the movie the war is described from the opposite side, and the fact in itself is interesting. All that is shown in the film is quite different from what I\u2019m used to.

The film reminds me a great deal of Remarque\u2019s \u201cZeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben\u201d, because the war is shown through an ordinary German soldier perception. And this soldier or lieutenant is rather obsessed by repeating he is by no means a fascist. The movie heroes right from neat and enthusiastic Europe, from the Italian coast arrive in the snow-covered hungry Soviet Union. They are doomed to die; it is clear from the very beginning.

After the elite detachment had taken part in their first fight at Stalingrad, one of the soldiers said the phrase which reflected the whole idea for me; he said \u201cIf you start thinking, you will go mad\u201d. And to my mind it is true for spectators as well. From the one hand, one may think, OK, I\u2019ll just watch this movie and it won\u2019t dissipate me, I needn\u2019t feel sorry for the people on the screen as it were they who attacked my country and not vice versa. However sooner or later but inevitably one starts sympathizing with the characters. Probably when the lieutenant chokes back his tears at seeing Kolya\u2019s execution.

\u201cStalingrad\u201d is hard to watch, all these frostbitten legs, dirt, executions, snow, famine, destroyed illusions.

As far as I know, Lt. Hans von Witzland is one of the few films where Thomas Kretschmann played his star roles. I watched quite many Hollywood movies where he was given unimportant parts of small fries, such as \u201cNext\u201d or \u201cTranssiberian\u201d (why did he do it?!). And after I had watched \u201cStalingrad\u201d, I cannot make out the European actors desire to appear in American movies, even second-rated at any cost. The fact puzzles me deeply. I believe Thomas Kretschmann deserves better parts and much better screenplays than those he is given in Hollywood. And out of what I saw with him, \u201cStalingrad\u201d is the best, beyond the doubt.

In my opinion the worst \u201cStalingrad\u201d drawback is the way they speak Russian in the movie. I mean of course those who are supposed to be Russian. Say, the boy who spent some time with the Germans or the girl with whom they planned to escape. Was it really so difficult to find actors able to pronounce a couple of phrases without that horrible accent? Initially I set down to watch \u201cStalingrad\u201d just to listen to native German-speakers because I\u2019m studying the language. I did not expect anything extraordinary of the film. But it impressed me, made me cry when I wasn\u2019t going to at all. I know I\u2019m 15 years late to watch it, but \u201cStalingrad\u201d is not a run-of-the-mill movie, and after 15 years it is still watchable and shocking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is one of the historically most accurate war films ever made in that it displays the reality of soldiers in a battle situation as well as the particular circumstances of the Battle of Stalingrad, obvious when one compares this film to works such as Anthony Beevor's book \"Stalingrad\".

Unlike the better known \"Enemy at the Gates\" where the plot diverts into a sniper\/hunting story, this film shows what war can do to individuals. Although filmed by Germans, \"Stalingrad\" is anything but a nationalistic apologetic film. It shows that war films can be something beyond flag-waving, jingoistic distortions of the grim truth of war, like so many Hollywood \"war\" products seem to be.

The scripting, acting, direction and other film techniques in \"Stlingrad\" are of the highest caliber.

It's a must-see film for anyone contemplating to join an army and to obey orders from any type of \"Fuehrer\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film is about the battle of Stalingrad. For those of you who don't know anything about it, it was the worst battle in the Second World War. Over 1 million people died in the course of the battle. This is the only film that I've seen that seems to have actually captured how bad things were in the war between Russia and Germany. What I really liked about it is that the two ideologies (Nazism and Communism) were nowhere in the film. Unlike most American films, the Germans are not seen as blood thirsty murderers, but what the average German foot soldier was, a person.

The film revolves around four soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. They were transferred there to try and take the city. The film follows these men from August of 1942 to early 1943. During this time, they learn about the horrors of war and try to find a way out of the battle.

Through the entire film, one feels the desperation of the entire battle. Unlike \"Enemy at the Gates\" the film makers didn't try to put some sappy love story or dress up factual occurrences of the battle. This film may be fiction, but it conveys what happened in the bloodiest battle in World War II.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If we compare the movie industry with an ocean, we have the tendencies to observe only the surface. Driven by the strong Hollywood marketing force, we all saw war movies like Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket. But underneath the splashy waves grow in silence, from time to time, less known pearls. When you pick one and look carefully at it, you wonder why this pearl lie almost unknown and why it's not already on the crown.

\"Stalingrad\" is such a gem. Why, it has a bunch of multi-million dollars rated actors? No. It have thousand of extras? No. It have breathtaking, spectacular, shiny computerized visual effects?. Not at all. So, what's so special? Well, in one word, it's pure past reality recreated and transposed to celluloid fifty years later. The tragedy of the most bloody battle in the history is here. Filthy, wounded soldiers, Russian civilians who lost everything during the invasion, burning villages, collapsing buildings, decayed suburbs, gunfires, explosions, tanks in flames, soldiers shot, burned alive, ground by tanks in their pits or shred to pieces - you got all. But the real horror is elsewhere. People are reduced to simple pawns, without the power to change anything. The soldiers we follow in film try to leave the combat zone and they fail. The civilians stay in prostration in the middle of nowhere, only crying for their children killed. Mercyless, the huge grinding machine of war melt together humans, equipment, villages, cities - and ask for more victims and destruction, over and over.

In all this collective insanity a group of German soldiers struggle to survive and to keep at least a minimum level of normality. They do their duty and fight bravely. But, as everyone know, a battle is almost lost when people start to loose confidence and faith. We see how all those people are abandoned, how they plan to desert, how they struggle to catch the very last plane to Berlin (full of wounded), how some very bad injured soldiers were treated as simulants and shot, how they were forced to execute a small group of Russian civilians, including a young boy, how they later discovered a place literally full up to the ceiling of food and drinks - destined only for some \"superior\" officers, of course. One by one, they drop dead. The end of the movie is one of the most bitter, depressing and touching ending I ever saw, all on the magnificent score of The Munich Philarmonic Orchestra. The war destroyed everything in its path.

This movie is a must-see for everyone. A true movie-lover should have it in his\/her collection. The strong anti-war message must be a warning for all of us. Unfortunately, the mankind never learn, nor the politicians. Self-destruction is in our DNA and the human pain seem to last forever. Can we be enough reasonable to stop THE WAR?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Simply the best and most realistic movie about World War II I've ever seen. Not only because the German soldiers talk German and Russian soldiers talk Russian (no English in a German or Russian dialect)also because of the realistic decor in which the movie was shot. The acting is outstanding. No Hollywood-sentiment at all even no love story...Stalingrad was supposed to be one of the most horrific battles during the war, and in such context there's no place for sentiment or romantic scenes. What you get is a movie which will make you thrill to the bone and which have one of the best unhappy endings a movie could have.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Apart from the low budget, there never seems to be more than 50 Germans in one scene at any one time, plus the same 2 half tracks, this film is absolute top class. Everything is accurate. That is the point, I think, from the uniforms to to the horror and the disillusionment.Everyone is as grey as the field grey uniforms. Grey men with the life drained out of them. Forget US made Gung ho rubbish like Blackhawk down and Private Ryan. This is one of the best war films ever. Only Cross of Iron beats this for tension and story. Please could we have a proper Un-dubbed German language with English subtitles version in the UK ? Without having to pay ridiculous import charges from Europe. Most other DVD's are multilingual. Why not this one ?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just recently saw this movie in hopes of seeing an accurate portrayal of the bloodiest battle of the 20th Century. I got what I had expected and so much more. Just to think I came across this movie by luck, before I had never even heard of it. It's a German film made in 1993 so I suppose I can't be surprised that it's almost completely unknown to the modern American audience. It's a shame cause this really is a remarkable film, I dare say that its as good if not better then Platoon, Full metal jacket, Apocalypse now, and All quiet on the western front; all of which are iconic war movies.

1942: World War II is in full swing. Nazi Germany has over run Mainland Europe and parts of North Africa, then Adolf Hitler orders the full scale invasion of the Soviet Union. A fateful move that ultimately dooms Nazi Germany to defeat. In the early stages the invasion goes well and the German Armies conquer large sections of Soviet territory, but a critical battle ensues at Stalingrad, A city that hold great symbolic & strategic value. The battle soon turns into a blood bath of epic proportions, a nightmare for both the German & Russian soldiers fighting. On the verge of taking the city the Germans are suddenly counter attacked by the Russians who end up cutting off the entire German 6th Army inside Stalingrad. To make matters worse, the Russian winter arrives causing incredible suffering for the Germans. This entire battle is seen through the eyes of a few young German soldiers fighting for survival not only against the Russians and the harsh winter conditions but also against their own Sadistic officers who care only about medals & glory and the generals who have little regard for the average foot soldier.

This film is going to haunt me for a while. The German Soldiers the film concentrates on are so young and naive, then their humanity & sanity are stripped from them and you really do feel sorry for them cause their not the demonic Nazi's often portrayed in film. Everything they were fighting for is no longer important, and everything they believed in was shattered, and after fighting a gruesome battle against the Russians inside Stalingrad we see them further deteriorate with the onset of Winter causing many to freeze to death. The Battle & Winter scenes were like a horrible nightmare but it also felt so real. It's amazing, in the beginning we see strapping young men in the prime of their life, and at the end they a shells of their former selves stripped of everything. After witnessing so much carnage these men just loose their will to live on, it was really sad. When there is finally a moment of hope they are betrayed by Hitler who ultimately abandons these men to a horrible death, which is just another one of Hitler's crimes abandoning the men who fought for him to be slaughtered by the Russians.

A good Anti-War film depicts the horrors of war and that's what this movie does. The battle for the tractor factory sequence Is the closest thing that comes to hell on earth, but that's really what The Battle for Stalingrad was like. The German & Russian soldiers were depicted with humanity, it was only the bad apples (specifically on the German side) that doomed the men. Bottom line is this film is amazing cause we see how men breakdown physically & emotionally during war. We all have our limits and these men were pushed far beyond their limits in the most deadly battle of our time. What the average foot soldier endured at Stalingrad was beyond imagination. Even if they had survived everything they had seen & done would have scarred them for life.

Stalingrad shows us why War is Hell, and what exactly hell looks like.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie shocked me. It was so realistic and the story was incredible touching. They talk German and Russian, which makes it more believable and real. This is a must-see movie. The actors are great too. Really a good piece of work. The plot takes place within a German troop in WWII. They have to go to Stalingrad, Sovjet, to fight against the Sovjetian armies. You get more connected with every soldier in this group and follow them through all the perils as they get captured within Stalingrad. They get face-to-face meetings with death, blood, grief and the coldness of Russia. This is a must-see-movie and you cant afford not to see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A movie like this doesn't come along too often. I'm surprised it took 9 years to finally see it. Politicians and civilian hawks should view this before making decisions on how the destroy peoples lives, I watched this the day after viewing the TV version of \"Uprising\" about the Warsaw ghetto. Even with this fresh in mind I felt sympathy for the German Soldier. I felt sympathy for all parties that this tragedy could happen. It will take awhile to thaw out from this one. I'm surprised they have not made a movie based on \"The Forgotten Soldier\" by Buy Sajer. This movie shares the cold with the book. Both will haunt me for the rest of my life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie tries to run away to the typical 'I'm fighting because I'm obliged to defend the fatherland. The NAZI's are all bad guys, I'm against them' (typical of German war movies). How? By not talking too much about it, and just referring the war and the POW's. Nevertheless I would like to see a German movie which would be something between the extremity of Come And See and the \"bad NAZI's\" Das Boot. I say this because, excluding this factor, the German movies are the best depicting 2nd world war and the German side. You easily see some of the German hierarchical relations, very different from the ones in US army.

This is a movie which tries to get a real sight of what was Stalingrad, and I was not there, and I doubt most people were there now, but if I would choose one movie depicting this battle, for sure would not be the all American Enemy At The Gates. Why do I say this? Because even the best soldiers are not hero's, and given the conditions they may regard their own lives instead of the fatherland. This goes for all the ranks, and in the end you see von Paulus giving the example.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bloody marvelous. Recommended by a friend who knew I liked Thomas Kretschmann in The Pianist and Downfall. I loved the flow of the narrative - how the characters moved from hope and ideals of valour through shock, fear, disintegration, desperation and utter annihilation. A first rate anti-war movie that must have created quite the stir in Germany. Not a proud moment for anyone and the study of a generation lost. This movie was excellent at conveying the remove of the command from the ground troops and in pounding the utter futility of trying to control untamed nature and the Russian psyche. If I didn't know I would have thought it was a Russian movie it was so fatalistic. What an uncompromising ending. A pieta.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film does for Infantry what Das Boot did for Submariners. If you appreciated Das Boot then that is all you really need to know.

This is a well done piece of cinema. On a par with Das Boot. Basically it follows a Company of elite German \"Stormtrooper\" infantry who leave garrison duty in an idyllic Italian seaside town and are immediately thrust into the chaos of the disintegrating Russian front.

A good war movie illuminates both the senselessness and brutality of war and at the same time gives us insight into the experiences and essential humanity of those who fight. This movie does that. The film is full of drama and action and so is entertaining on that level as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Stalingrad is a terrific movie, well acted and directed, and rather down to earth in it's approach to the various bizarre aspects of warfare and it's politics. This is, together with \"Das Boot\" one of the best war movies (together with the Finnish \"Vinterkriget\" (\"The Winter War\", in English, I believe)). It depicts the ordeals of some of the German soldiers that fought --- and died --- in and around Stalingrad during World War 2. No big time heroics, no over bearing emotional fuzziness, only the fear of every day death in war. The mood of the movie is similar to the one in \"Das Boot\", and that should give you some hints on what to expect, I guess. So, if you enjoy realistic, non-Hollywoodish, war movies: Rent it, buy it, just make sure you see it! Finally, a film buff's note: for some of the previous reviewers information, I only want to add that \"Stalingrad\" isn't directed by Wolfgang Petersen (who made \"Das Boot\")!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From a military historian's standpoint, nearly everything in this movie is historically accurate. Beyond that, it is an enthralling story that leaves you depressed at the end but quite glad you took the time to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie basically is a very well made production and gives a good impression of a war situation and its effects on those involved. It's always interesting to see the story from the 'other' side for a change. This movie concentrates on a group of German soldiers who after fighting in the North Africa campaign are send to Stalingrad, Russia, where one of the most notorious and bloodiest battles of WW II is being fought.

It's interesting to see the other side of this battle, since we mainly just always see the Germans simply as the 'villains'. In this movie those 'villains' are given an humane face and voice and it sort of makes you realize that the only true enemy in war is war itself and not necessarily those who you're fighting against. At first it's kind of hard to concentrate on the movie because you always just have in the back of your mind that the German's are the evil villains. But of course you get accustomed to it quickly and you soon adapt the Germans as the main characters of the movie and you even start to care -and be interested in them.

The way this story is told isn't however the best. It's hard to keep track of the story at times, as it jumps from the one sequence and location to the other. The movie isn't always logic in its storytelling and features a bit too many sequences that remain too vague. It also is most of the time pretty hard to keep the characters apart and see who is who. It doesn't always makes this movie an easy on to watch but than again on the other hand, there are plenty enough sequences and moments present in this movie to make it worthwhile and an interesting one, just not the most coherent one around. In that regard Hollywood movies are always better than European movies.

The production values are high and features some good looking sets and locations, though the movie wasn't even shot in Russia itself. It helps to create a good war time situation atmosphere.

The character are mostly interesting although perhaps a tad bit formulaic. But I don't know, for some reason formulaic characters always work out fine in war movies and strenghtens the drama and realism. It also helps that they're being played by well cast actors. All of the actors aren't the best known actors around (Thomas Kretschmann was also at the time still a fairly unknown actor) but each of them fit their role well and gives its characters an unique face and personality.

All in all not the best or most consistent WW II drama around but definitely worth a look, due to its original approach of the German side of the battle of Stalingrad and its good production values.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best war films I have ever seen, if not the best. It is very hard to talk about such films as it is very difficult to point at any film mistake made. The \"problem\" is as it looks too real and by that drags you in to the ruins of Stalingrad and make you suffer for both sides. This is for the reason that this film unlike the most of Hollywood films doesn't glorify the war or the heroism of the main characters. Instead of that, the film makes them heroes only for being human and by that is anti-war as much as the reason can offer. Extremely convincing war scenes and so impressive acting, most of the scenes look like isolated theater pieces. Also, German army is played by Germans which is so convincing as well. The film is produced and realized by Germans where you can see their love for details to perfection. This is the reason why \"Stalingrad\" is one of the films I can watch million times and never feel dull. I watched the film with my father who fought in WWII and the first thing he said was: \"This is like real, this is how the war against Germans looked like\". This is the place you can see how did it look to be a soldier in the worst nightmare of warfare in human history and turning point of WWII: Stalingrad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Describing Stalingrad as a war film may be a bit inaccurate. Sure it centers on the longest and bloodiest battle in world history, in the most expansive theater of the most costly war in terms of lives, money, and mat\u00e9riel that has ever occurred. Yes it contains action scenes depicting bitter battles and terrible destruction. The visceral storytelling and harsh images though make it something more than a war film, even more than an anti-war film. Stalingrad is instead a film about absolute and undeniable hell.

The film is fraught with visual descriptions of the worst kind of war, one that is intensely personal and close, where days are spent in taking one city block, only to have it re-taken in a surprise assault. The early form of modern urban warfare that the Germans came to call Rattenkrieg (Rat Warfare) is depicted in brutal and uncompromising terms. The characters war in sewer tunnels, rail yards, and from building to building in the hellish bomb-scape of ruined Stalingrad, only to be defeated by the unforgiving Russian winter.

The film deals with the issue of Nazism and the vilification of Germans in that period in the way that many other films from both Germany and the rest of the world do. Its characters are a group of soldiers swept along by the winds of war and simply attempting to make it out with themselves and as many of their comrades as possible alive. The characters do not fight the Soviets out of any ideological hatred between National Socialism and Soviet Communism, not for any grand dream of Grossdeutschland or racial superiority. They fight only because if they do not the enemy will kill them, and if the enemy does not then their own officers certainly will for refusing to fight. This portrayal adds another layer to the suffocating envelope of trapped hopelessness that pervades the film.

A sort of ground based companion to Das Boot, Stalingrad frames the epic struggle of World War Two in a personal light and from the unexpected perspective of the ordinary German soldier as a sort of hero made tragic by circumstance and a brutal government that would pervert his sacrifice.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having majored in Western History when I was a student in college seeing the views on World War II are quite discomforting and in a whole completely wrong. World War II was the most graphic and bloody affairs to ever occur in world history. While the Axis Powers conducted many crimes against humanity which is still the view today and the correct many people forget that not every German soldier was out to exterminate the Jewish population, not every Japanese soldier swung a samurai sword around and flew kamikaze missions, and not every Italian soldier was a Fascist. Most of these soldiers for the Axis powers were normal people like you and I caught in a terrible conflict and just happened to be fighting for a country they loved.

The Battle of Stalingrad was arguably the most lethal battles in world history with over 1,500,000 casualties sustained over the course of the battle. The film Stalingrad follows a German platoon and its leader Lieutenant von Witzland as they are reassigned to the Eastern Front to battle the Soviets at Stalingrad. Von Witzland acts as sort of the main character with two other men, Rollo and Fritzi. They all are normal men and seem to be completely unaware to what is happening back in Germany and Poland.

The film follows the course of the battle. The film is overall very bleak when it comes to its portrayal of combat and a soldiers life during the battle. We are shown numerous gruesome battles and intense violence outside of the battles (including a firing squad sequence). Overall the battles are the earliest examples that I know of that portray the loss of limbs and overall in your face death sequences and violence. Much of the inspiration for Saving Private Ryan's battle sequences seem to have come from this film.

The film does not aim to make the German's completely innocent of everything in the film. Several of the higher ranking officers of the army are portrayed in the usual view most people are use to, evil. Most of the soldiers are just normal people who often speak of home. The film makes it clear quite quickly that not all Germans were responsible for what happened during the Holocaust, most of the country and army was entirely oblivious to the fact that genocide was taking place. The film makes it clear that the soldiers in the Germany Army was simply fighting for a cause they really didn't understand and most wished just to return home rather than freezing in negative degree temperatures in Russia.

The film really shows how hellish war is, especially World War II. The battle scenes will shock you with its gritty realism and the story is quite easy to follow as you are simply following a platoon during the battle. As with most war films do not expect much happiness after seeing it. It will leave you in a bit of a depressed mood just from seeing the life most of the soldiers on the Eastern Front faced. Not recommended for children.

4\/5 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found the movie very real just as much as Saving Private Ryan and gave an upfront account from the German perspective. The graphic action and individual characters gave this movie much to keep me interested through the whole movie. Stalingrad was very brutal battle and the scenes gave this movie that stark reality of this battle. I recommend this for anyone who is interested in military history. This was my second viewing of this movie in a few years and was captivated by it's realism again. The weapons, uniforms, and hearing it German while reading the subtitles gave it much credit for a good military movie. In fact, this being a German perspective of the battle, I was rooting for the Germans, even though they were the agressor and ultimate loser of the war.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The magnitude of the Stalingrad tragedy is concisely presented in the end note of the movie: \"In the battle of Stalingrad, more than one million people were killed in action, froze to death or died of starvation: Russians, Romanians, Italians, Hungarians, Germans, Austrians. Of the 260,000 surrounded men of the Sixth Army, 91,00o were taken prisoners, of whom only 6,000 returned to their homeland, years later.

What the story does not tell was that Fieldmarshall Paulus, who surrendered, did not share all the hardship of the captivity of his men. He had a special treatment as the highest ranking prisonner taken by the Soviet army. When, during his presence at the Nuremberg trials he was asked about the fate of the 91,000 prisoners, he declared that they were fine. He was freed after the war and died in the East Germany.

The film only presents the first part of the tragedy, the actual battle of Stalingrad. However, for an entire picture, the fate of the 91,000 prisonners should also not be forgotten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Naked City: JWAB does a pretty good job of balancing its two A - B stories, eventhough I'm not all that fond of multiple plot movies. And Scott Glen and Courtney B. Vance make a great on screen dual. However, I'm not sure what kind of message a movie sends when two flat-foot country girls can get off scott free with murder, grand theft, and to top it off, win a free flight home (in first class no less--at least from the looks of their attire anyway). Gee, I guess that blue wall of silence is still rather think!

Rating: 8","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Showtime cable film features a talented cast and weaves together several storylines involving the darker side of New York... from the naive and innocent tourists' nightmarish adventure to a pair of undercover cops on the streets... to an old friend's betrayal, it has it all.

Well worth a look, as is its sequel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The essence of this film falls on judgments by police officers who, fortunately ethical and moral men, act on situations within situations in a city with a super-abundance of violence and killing. Good compound interacting story lines and above-average characterizations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently purchased this on DVD as I hadn't heard of it and like robert carlyle.

Obviously this movie is not going to have Hollywood blockbuster special effects,in saying that though the special effects were decent enough,and the acting was fine also.

I found the movie to be enjoyable and do not regret buying it at all,at almost 2 hours long it is just the right length for this type of movie.

Do not expect thrilling explosive action from beginning to end though,it is a fairly well balanced movie with a decent enough storyline!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a catastrophe movie set in London . Starting multiple hurricane,superstorm and tornadoes on Scotland are displaced towards East , downing England coast and later the South. After several hours of heavy rainful , the London barrier above Thames is short from running over, and it paves the way for disaster. Then a colossal tidal-wave travel relentless down East causing devastation and lives of millions of Londoners are in danger. At the center of the story is a climatologist(Tom Courtenay) a climatologist who tries to save London from the effects of giant wave , trying to convince the authorities that the town dike was unsafe, furthermore a marine engineer (Robert Carlyle) and his ex-wife Samantha(Jessalyn Gilsig) . They are trapped into the barrier and dropped to sea .Meantime the secret government agency HQ ruled by Nash(Joanne Whalley) under direct orders of deputy Minister(David Suchet) attempt to control many displaced and avoid more dead, approximately 200.000. They have a little time to save London from total catastrophe.

Perfectly acceptable drama-disaster with alright acting. Magnificent Tom Courtenay as a climatologist who predicts catastrophe and excellent Robert Carlyle and Jessalyn Gilsig as ex-matrimony rekindling their love. The movie packs impressive flood scenes brought to life by the breathtaking computer generator special effects, better than the classic of the 70s , such as 'Earthquake, Inferno Towering' and similarly to 'Armaguedon and Day after tomorrow'. Although isn't a clear denounce, we know that the flood is caused by the greenhouse effect and global warming which originates the ozone hole. The motion picture is well directed by Tony Mitchell. I would recommend this movie to people who like disaster movies. Another adaptations about floods, are the following : 'Flood(1976)'directed by Earl Bellamy with Robert Culp and Barbara Hershey; 'Hard rain(1998)' directed by Mikael Salomon with Morgan Freeman and Christian Slater; ' Flood : a river's rampage(1979)' directed by Bruce Pittman with Richard Thomas","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent special effects make this disaster move very plausible. One can see that the producers went to some trouble to get the displays on the computer screens just right - it all makes it very convincing. The sets are also very authentic looking. A good choice of music rounds off the film nicely.

Acting is good and the presence of David Suchet adds some weight to the cast of course. Compared to other movies of this genre, Flood is right up there with the best of them. Thankfully, the \"human drama\" aspect has not been overdone, as is often the case with this type of movie. The human suffering is portrayed in perfect balance with the actual flooding scenes.

And of course, the movie confirms what many of us suspect anyway: weather forecasters so often do not get it right! :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The three main characters are all hopeless, and yet you only feel sorry for one of them: Ernesto, hopelessly devoted to Mercedes. This was part of the frustration: screaming at Mercedes to get a clue and ditch the no-good Harry, to no avail.

Then there's the satisfaction: Steve Buscemi has a great part as a transvestite, and Harvey Keitel's moving story of his indignity playing a gorilla for a cheap TV movie is incredible. When you least expect it, Quentin Tarintino is doing half a monologue, and Anthony Quinn turns Ernesto into a wealthy man.

Time and again great moments appear in the story, but in the end it's hard to know what to feel about this movie. It doesn't have a happy ending, or even a complete one, but it somehow feels right.

This movie is strange, but then so am I; no wonder I liked it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rosie Perez is the lead in this very engaging affair, cast as Mercedes, a young woman from Brooklyn who has resolved to become a film actress although not favoured by her circumstances, living in East Los Angeles and struggling with a series of fruitless auditions for any sort of part at all. Mercedes has hooked up with a married and washed-up actor, Harry Harrelson (Harvey Keitel), who at one time had performed in a television Western series during the 1970s, and seldom since, accepting him as her lover, in part from loneliness, and as well from a hope that film parts will be coming her way because of his \"contacts\", but these latter are of small consequence as Harry is simply self-delusional in his attempts at recovering what he perceives as past cinematic renown. In order to adequately support herself financially, Mercedes toils as a taxi dancer in a downtown Los Angeles Skid Row dance hall\/bar while she continues carrying on her efforts to succeed at the motion picture business, and it is while there at the dance palace that a young immigrant from Mexico, Ernesto (Michael DeLorenzo), falls in love with her and the largest portion of the narrative depicts his efforts to please the object of his affections, even if they may mean losing her altogether. This essentially tradition rooted melodrama is given only a moderate budget, despite the presence of a goodly number of well-known players, including Steve Buscemi, Anthony Quinn, and Stanley Tucci, and was kept in the can for about a year before its rather desultory distribution and leaden marketing efforts on its behalf, more's the pity as its solid production characteristics are firmly complemented by Alexandre Rockwell's admirably controlled direction, a consistent virtue of his work, and on display in this film from its very opening scene, frames that form a montage behind the credits, featuring Perez at Skid Row's Fifth and Main Streets. Rockwell has often demonstrated that he operates very closely indeed with his cast, and this holds true in this instance as he allows his actors to create their roles while any ad libbing is neatened nicely via the editing process, resulting in an artistic success for the director, despite negative comments from some mainstream evaluators. The film's scoring is aesthetically spot on with a good deal of it contributed by Tito Larriva, who also plays as band boss for the taxi dancers. Acting honours here must go to the ever vital Perez, although nary a sub-par performance is turned in. A fair test for any film's quality is given when a viewer will watch it twice within a brief period. Sitting through this undervalued work will be considered a keen pleasure for many.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw FAREWELL TO HARRY at the Plaza Theatre while in New York city and was quite taken. The performance of William Hall Jr. is tremendous. This is a movie for the classic movie goer. Garrett Bennett's direction reminds me of early Barry Levinson and Robert Redford's work. The movie seems to transcend the typical independent film. It has a soul and a visual power that is quite unique. I saw this with a small audience (400) who were captivated from the moment of the first credit to the last and although I wasn't out and out crying (like the lady next to me) I do have to admit I had a little watering in the eyes...

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched the movie tonight and i found it brilliant. It doesn't have special effects that blow your mind, and it's not violent or bloody, no terrorist or aliens but it's brilliant. It's just plain nice, sweet and it brought me to a whole different time, a much simpler time, where people could take their time to walk down the street and look out at the ocean. I think it was beautiful and I for one recommend it. Nick was a great character and his friendship with Harry was one of the highlights of the movie. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but i believe everyone should watch this, mostly when they feel down, or when they want to share something nice with their friends.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a quiet movie. It's a simple story about a writer who cannot write his story coming back to his home town to get started but instead he gets involved in a friendship with a weird older man whose life externally represents perhaps the internal state of the writer - it's a museum of unfinished ideas, outdated equipment and \"useless\" people.

There are no extraordinary circumstances or any big movements in the plot. It's a movie about internal changes. Being stuck in their lives which are not developing much, the principal personages get to help each other to transform, stop leaving in dreams and achieve something or at least get a change and give their lives the desired and long-awaited new direction.

On the film-making side I can think of only one weakness which could also be considered as a feature - we do not get much of characters description or inner world insights. It's very narrative on the side of thoughts and events and we have to guess about their true feelings which are rather hidden but still you can see them, and this is what makes your own mind work, trying to figure them out, to understand the impressions made by those people, and it's not empty underneath - the actors definitely hold well some inner states proper to their characters. It's close to the real life where you mostly never know someone well enough to understand them completely, and this turns us around and puts in front of our own feelings and choices.

What's most important for me is that this simple almost flat story leaves you pondering afterwards, about your own life, about your own dreams and achievements, are there any or are we caught up in the routine and pleasures, leaving at 100% or only dreaming about it, could we do more and move somewhere we'd rather like to be than just leaving feed ourselves and others the tales like \"I'll do this one day\"- not moving one finger to make this actually happen, or \"I'm fine where I am\" because it's easier to go by the habits than to actually make a change? At least that's the impression it left me with and it was very timely for me, which adds to my appreciation of this far-from-famous movie. I definitely recommend it to anyone who likes the movies meant for the heart but those who need events and actions should stay away.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seeing Gary Busey in a G rated film was a first and a nice one at that. I don't know much about the director, but he obviously knows how to spend a few dollars and get the most out of them. Where did Jillian Clare come from? My kids love her! The only thing I remember Christopher Atkins doing was Blue Lagoon. Disney needs to see this film and put him to work. The wife thinks he is very cute. I liked what he did with his character. He seemed so real. What we liked most was the message this film sends out. Greed sucks and faith, love and family wins! This is the first low-budget DVD we've bought that had so much stuff on it. The producers made this one for kids and the kids loved it. They liked the music and all the extras on the DVD. The director probably won't stick to family movies, but I hope he does - cause he really knows how to get the most out of kids, animals and stars like Gary Busey. The dog was great and seeing Gary Busey act like a dog was even funnier. There wasn't much we didn't like about this one. It hard to find a family film without all the crude humor, and Quigley was a delightful surprise.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My entire family enjoyed this film, including 2 small children. Great values without sex, violence, drugs, nudity, or profanity. Also no zillion dollar special effects were added to try to misdirect viewers from a poorly written storyline. A simple little family fun movie. We especially like the songs in the movie. But we only got to hear a portion of the songs ... Mostly during the end credits... Would love to buy a sound track CD from this movie. This is my 4th Bill Hillman movie and they all have the same guidelines as mentioned above. With all the movies out there that you don't want your kids to watch, this Hillman fella has a no risk rating. We love his movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Living just down the Hwy from Georgetown, Co...I remember this movie well and thought it was great! The story seems like something John would do even in real life, but there is something that I will always remember most about the movie. For those of you who don't live in Denver...every Christmas, the city of Denver, Co puts up a fabulous display of lights and decorations at the Civic Center in downtown Denver. Well...as it so happened, during the filming of this movie, a Nativity scene was needed. So...it was borrowed from the Civic Center display...with permission, by the way! Someone had forgotten to advice the powers that be, and it was reported stolen! A frantic search began with law enforcement for a few days. Finally, someone spoke up and remembered loaning it to the film crew in Georgetown! It was returned and put back where it belonged! As it turns out...it wasn't featured all that much in the movie...you can barely see it during the Christmas show with the children. It did create quit a disturbance though...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The GREAT NEWS is that this film is now AVAILABLE on DVD from http:\/\/treasureflix.com for all those who wish to own it as well as on video.This is good news as it is one of my favourite films!

I watched this film for the first time in the 80s and it is compulsory holiday viewing. Living in the small market town called Tewkesbury, picturesque and with its own traditions,of reenactments,and traditions we are also a cosy tight community. We are now also faced with large housing developments which threaten to destroy the Community and you can see why I love this film First of all-and most important, there are LASHINGS of snow!!!! Then there is the lovely legend of the Christmas Tree and also the Christian denouement as all the community cough up the money to help the destitute farmer save his farm and stay in the community. The evil developers-only after the money are sent packing as the whole town pledge their money to help protect what they have , which is very special. I love the way the whole community send their message to Santa via the post office which is misunderstood by the hero . He and his daughter have a long journey to make after the death of the wife and mother of the family. (There is a likely candidate for this)-even a sleigh ride and most heartwarming of all is that the taxi driver, whose engine is broken is mysteriously given a new one on Christmas morning and no-one had engineered it! There is a lovely moment where Denver sings a lullaby and an exciting search. Great gentle film for everything Christmas is really about.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent movie and should be presented every year during the holidays @ Christmas! Beautiful with great acting. John Denver at his best, i,e, sincere, kind, talented, and natural. The town is Georgetown, Colorado and every bit as lovely as in the story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just finished watching the movie tonight and I truly loved it. John Denver didn't play a pastor, but it was the reverend of the little town who decided to leave the floor for John Denver to speak. It's a really great movie with a wonderful Christmas message. It was also fun to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My Santa Lucia Choir was chosen to be in this movie. All 100 plus. When it came time to film the movie I was asked to chose just 10. Oh my goodness. We had a little gal who went early to have her tonsils out because she wanted to be in the movie. The choices were hard to make. The people of Georgetown are just a lovely as the people that they show in the movie. Gracious, kind, believers. The town sponsors an annual Christmas Market the first two weekend in December every year. I was there this year and it was wonderful. The town is lovely and the people work hard to make it magical. The town appears today as it did when the movie was made. Much credit goes to the Historical Society there that work hard to maintain the historical value. The principal of the school that has been turned into a Charter School was given an award by the Governor of Colorado for Volunteers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even if I had never seen or heard of Georgetown, CO, this would be a sweet little movie. But my dad was born and raised there, and those are my uncle's horses you see pulling the sleigh! So this movie is very special to me. A lot of the interiors are shot in buildings and houses I recognize, and are very realistic. The story is a little hokey, but Georgetown is that kind of magical place where things like that COULD happen. John Denver was a better actor than a lot of people give him credit for. Mary Wickes plays the kind of \"common-sense lady with a lot of sass\" she played so well in many other films, most notably \"White Christmas\". I usually don't get to go out there in the winter, so I like to see this movie at Christmas time to \"tide me over\" until my next trip!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was good to see John Denver again though he passed several years ago. I found this film to be very heartwarming and a great film to sit by the fire on a cold winters night recollecting what Christmas is all about. The scenes of Georgetown, Colorado were magnificent and make one want to move there immediately. As I sit here in my own mountain seen in So California I loved the story and the plot. I hope all who see this somewhat older film enjoy it as much as my mother and I did. Merry Christmas! A great film for all the family too see. Enoy and tell others about it. Thanks for the memories. We need to have more films like this come out of Hollywood.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just watched it on the Hallmark Channel. I was surprised to John Denver! This movie was full of clich\u00e9s, but that is to be expected (a made for TV Christmas movie- come on!) The acting is as good as any other '80's made for TV movie. The story is, as I said before, predictable and clich\u00e9, but still good. If you are looking for a campy Christmas movie, it will certainly scratch your itch.

I was also pleased when I learned that it took place in Georgetown, Colorado. It is a real mountain town west of Denver. Very cool as this is my home region.

I was never a big John Denver fan (I always found him to be pretty foney) but he was a decent actor. He is very good as the good old boy like he played in this film.

If you get the chance to watch it, than do. I'm sure it will be on again in 2007.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is my families favorite Christmas movie because it is a beautiful picture of what Christmas is really all about. These days living in a big city which I hate, I love to watch movies about the life I've always dreamed of having. The town that this movie is set in is my dream come true for the life I've always wanted and the true feeling of community that has been lost in todays society. I truly don't feel the true spirit of Christmas anymore but watching this movie helps to find that feeling again. My family taped this movie long ago of TV and now our copy has been worn out so I would really like to buy a few copies on DVD for my family and me if anyone can tell me where I can buy some copies please just post the info here and I will keep checking. Thanks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The joy and tragedy of the Christmas Season lies in the fact that it mostly revolves around family. That is why some people call it \"the children's holiday.\" As we age, natural attrition and progress removes the people and the things that gave us our special memories. John Denver, in one of his sweetest roles, plays George Billings, a successful NYC architect and new widower who lost his wife about a year earlier. His life is focused around his 9 year old daughter, Alex; both are still grieving their loss. George is trying his best to make this a special Christmas for his daughter. Enter his boss, Thomas Renfield (roguishly played by the wonderful Col. Flagg of M*A*S*H guy, Edward Winters), who sends George to Georgetown, CO to explore a possible real estate deal. Lying to his daughter that the purpose of the trip is a vacation rather than work, George and Alex fly into town, where they're immediately met by a collection of loving generous but somewhat eccentric group of characters whose main eccentricity is that they all believe in Santa Claus. Georgetown is a picture book community we'd all love to live in and we'd love the people for neighbors. George soon meets a love interest in Susan (Jane Kazmarek.) Were it not for the grinch (Renfield) it would be an ideal time. But the fact is, he is in town to find property for Renfield to develop, and there is a nice ranch near town about to be foreclosed, and the dark edges of the movie revolve around the impending foreclosure and the reactions of the townies, the rancher, and the outsiders. I won't spoil the ending for those who've never seen the movie. It's a typical happy Christmas ending, but it's handled in a fairly subtle and believable way that shows the best in the human spirit without being too syrupy. All in all, this is a most pleasant way to spend a couple of your Christmas TV hours. John Denver and Jane Kazmarek have nice chemistry and Gennie James as Alex does a real nice job. I've always loved the work of Mary Wickes, a recognizable character actress, and all of the other cast members do a nice job with less meaty parts. This is a regular Christmas fare for my family; I rate it 4\/5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My Wife and I saw this movie once in 1989 and enjoyed it so much We wanted to see it again. It was so moving that I was calling it a tear jerker. The mystery that Billings was sent to report on is really no mystery at all. Angles!! It seems that ever time He turned around something happened to him, all good, and I believe it scared George a bit, considering that he did not realize what He had gotten into. It just goes to show that even the cold hearted can change with the right attitude around. If only We all could treat each other the same, the world would be a better place.To date we have been searching the net for a copy of it, now I finally have a connection to it, as soon as I can find a copy to buy I am going to grab it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent movie and I wish that they would put it out on DVD for people to purchase. It is difficult to try to catch it on TV all the time. As you do not know when one of the stations will decide to air it. Can someone tell me what file company make it so I can write to them and see if they will release it to the public? I only caught the last hour and a half yesterday and I only got to see it once last year. My sisters and I are all looking for it in every store that sells any videos. John Denver is an excellent singer and actor and the plot line is great. They put out some much older movies and I think that is great but there are quite a few that they have not put out and I think if we could contact the producers and voice our requests we might get some of them put out on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've already seen spin-offs of cartoons such as The Flintstones, Scooby Doo, Tom and Jerry and Looney Tunes and most of them are great.

When I saw the All Grown Up pilot in 2001, I thought it was interesting to see how the Rugrats would look in their pre-teens\/teens and it contained things that would usually happen during that time of life such as going to a concert, going to school and being grounded.

The actual TV show is better because the Rugrats seem to wear different clothes in each episode and Angelica doesn't get punished as much as she did in the original Rugrats series. Tommy and Susie get punished in this series.

I've also noticed references to Rugrats in this show and even flashbacks of how the Rugrats looked in the original series. They actually talk to the adults in this show because they're 10 years older.

This show is aimed at a slightly older audience than the original Rugrats. Viewers of the original show may like this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Swedish filmmaker Roy Andersson's latest film You, the Living is not easy to review. One of the reasons is that in his own words he has broken with the Anglo-Saxon tradition of story-telling, in all essence the template of most Western film productions. Another reason might be that although Roy Andersson is somewhat heavy on symbolisms, his, unlike those of, say, Andrei Tarkovsky, are of a more elusive nature. It took him 3 years to complete this 86 minute long film and it wasn't because he was forced to have long breaks between shootings due to financial troubles or problems with the actors. The film consists of 57 vignettes shot mostly by a still camera, and it was the careful design of each of these scenes which required much time. The imagery of this film which is closely related to the director's previous film Songs from the Second Floor is of utmost importance to the story, thus this story is told to a great degree by the surroundings and the environment in which the characters of Andersson's universe dwell and interact. Before each scene was finally shot, there would have been no less than 10 different test shootings with different actors, colors, dialog etc. The result is a dreamlike version of the surrounding world which most of us would recognize and if the setting is like a dream, why not dream a little? Just like in Bunuel's The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, when somebody says \"Last night I had a dream\", you get to watch it. But then again, what is perceived as reality here is not very much different from the dreams.

Despite the fact that the film lacks a plot in the traditional sense of the word and there are no main characters as such, the different characters who appear and reappear in different scenes still meet each other and their stories are inevitably intertwined. What most of these characters have in common is their apparent loneliness despite being surrounded by other people. The trailer trash chain smoking and binge drinking woman who dreams of having a motorbike so that she can get away from \"all this crap\", her corpulent and mostly silent boyfriend and his frail and seemingly gentle but rather absent-minded mother, members of a brass band whose skill improving efforts at home aren't getting a favorable reception neither from their families nor their neighbors, the depressed Middle Eastern hairdresser and his arrogant customer on his way to \"a very important business meeting\", an elderly man having a nightmare about bombers in the skies, a young girl dreaming about marrying the young rock star that she is so madly in love with. It's all about dreams and nightmares versus reality but it works as much as a statement in support of the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein's claims that \"all human communication is miscommunication\". People speak to each other but it is as if they speak past each other. They try to reach out to the others but shut the others out when those try to reach them.

You, the Living is a poetic film set physically in Stockholm but yet universally applicable. The society it portrays is Sweden, its artistic language and the people displayed are generally unmistakably Nordic. Yet, the subject it deals with, namely, the misery of the humankind in a selfish world, reaches far beyond this hemisphere. Despite the seriousness of its theme, the film itself seems a lot more cheerful and laden with humor than one might have expected. But in the words of the director himself \"living is so complicated to each one of us that the only thing that saves us is our sense of humor\". Hence, this film is a tragic comedy or a comic tragedy, depending on your sensitivities, and not a depressing black reality tour of the human nature. It is unusual in its language and structure, but if you can think outside the box and enjoy it, you will certainly find this film both entertaining and meaningful at the same time. It was shown at this year's Cannes festival as part of the Un Certain Regard program which offers \"original and different works\" outside the competition. After the film was shown in the Salle Debussy, the 1,000 strong audience gave it a standing ovation for several minutes. Do I need to say more?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A short review without any spoilers follows.

I saw this movie yesterday at the Cannes Film Festival. My initial reaction is one of wonder and happiness. I'm so happy films like this are being made in our age of blockbusters.

Roy Andersson's new movie \"You, The Living\" is nothing less than a complete masterpiece. You, The Living is composed by some 50 vignettes filmed with a static camera. I will not give away the content of the scenes here, because I hate when people spoil even the smallest details. But, yes, most of the scenes made the 1000 people in the Claude Debussy theatre absolutely baffled and amazed. When the film was over we applauded for several minutes, we had no other choice.

So what's the score with \"You, The Living\". Hm, Andersson isn't afraid to take on the heavy questions; History, guilt, gand The Holocaust during WW2 are big subjects (and these themes work very well together).

The images created are brilliant, the depth sometimes surpasses \"Songs from the Second Floor\".

Well, sorry for this ranting, praising review. Look out for the Flying House in the beginning folks!

10\/10 stars - A Masterpiece (I never throw this grade out).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"With all the misery in the world, how can we not get drunk?\" \u0096 Mia

A lovely aerial view of a major city turns ominous with the approach of a fleet of airplane bombers; an irate hairdresser reacting to a perceived racial slur cuts a road through a businessman's bushy hair; a man dreams of being dragged to an electric chair after a failed magic trick and a teacher breaks down in front of her grade school class because her husband called her a hag. These and about fifty other vignettes that run the gamut from the outright depressing to the wildly humorous to the joyously uplifting populate Roy Andersson's You, the Living, his first feature since his critically acclaimed if commercially unsuccessful Songs From the Second Floor.

You, the Living is filled with the same kind of imaginative set-pieces as Songs, replete with black humor, surreal situations, and strange looking characters. Though a bit overlong and less focused than his earlier work, what remains constant is Andersson's unmistakable style with its stationary camera, sterile-looking backgrounds, and precise attention to detail. If there is a theme that ties the sketches together, it is that our time on Earth is limited and \"tomorrow's another day', so let's treat each other with kindness. Along the way, we are entertained by tuba and drum music from the Louisiana Brass Band, dinner guests at a banquet hall standing on their chairs singing a rousing song, and a house that turns into a moving train.

The emotions range from the gloom of a daughter attempting to communicate with an Alzheimer's patient to a young woman's ecstatic dream about marrying a handsome guitar-player named Micke to the cheers of a crowd of onlookers. While there is no continuous narrative thread, the theme of greed and desperation appears in several sketches. The first of these threads features two corpulent individuals and their tiny dog sitting on a park bench, the woman bewailing the fact that no one understands or loves her, yet she blithely ignores the man's comforting and reassuring words.

There is also a hefty admixture of irony. During what seems to be an executive luncheon, one man tells another on the phone that workers don't appreciate quality and how nice it is to appreciate money and the things that it can buy such as fine wine. When he is not looking, however, a man at an adjacent table calmly lifts his wallet from his jacket on the back of his chair. Though Andersson's cynicism is at times not very well hidden, You the Living has an underlying humanism that shows compassion for the human condition. It is a cautionary tale that looks at the mess we humans have gotten ourselves into but suggests there is still time to turn it around, if we heed the warning of the poet Goethe that opens the film, \"Be pleased then, you the living, in your delightfully warmed bed, before Lethe's ice-cold wave will lick your escaping foot.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is no plot. There are no central characters. There are no moving cameras or close-ups. In fact, this film does not follow any of the conventional storytelling techniques used by mainstream film. However, Roy Andersson's Du Levande is a remarkable piece of cinematic storytelling. It is a touching look at the human psyche.

Comprised of a series of vignettes, Roy Andersson gives us an intimate insight into what makes us all human. In perfectly framed static shots, added with the perfectly in tune, yet quirky, music, Roy introduces us to a host of characters as they undertake their daily existence. Some bordering on tragic, others hilarious, we are taken on a Nordic journey like no other.

It is a journey into the little things that make us human. Instead of over-the-top storytelling or visual techniques, everything is stripped down to the bare minimum so that our sole focus is on the characters themselves. It focuses on the insignificant points of our lives that make us who we are; our dreams, our desperation. It's through this simple observation of others that we can accept who we are as individuals.

The washed out colours and deathly-pale makeup of the characters only seems to emphasize their individual stories and remind us that unlike them, we are all alive. There is no happy ending or light at the end of the tunnel in this film, yet you walk out of the cinema with a sense of life. Much more accessible than his earlier film, Songs from the Second Floor, Du Levande, is a truly inspiring piece of cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really didn't see this one coming. Roy Andersson had me pegged out, I am the perfect sucker for a static camera (long live King Borowczyk!) and I was laughing hysterically for the first fifteen minutes of the film, he hit me straight between the eyes. You have to be a brilliant man to make self-pity hilarious. Andersson reminds me of the third mate on the Pequod in Moby Dick, Flask, a man who took the whole of life to be a practical joke that the good lord Himself is playing on us. And the web of egotism in this movie is truly hilarious.

The level of satire is at fever pitch, you have one deluded self-pitying dreamer harp on about the cruelty of the world and then totally ignore a spiritual self-reflection crying out in agony. The very depths of egotism are plumbed. I really never thought it possible to go further than Bergman's \"The Silence\" in this respect. However the grotesqueness of the self-love and self-regard, by every single character in this film, is staggering. We are shown an existence where the talentless and the idle rail against a world they believe has been unjust towards them, they truly are legends in their own living rooms. The human beings in this film make self-deception and self-delusion a great artform!

Only one woman in the film appears to have any sort of understanding of what is going on. An old woman who refuses to leave a chapel, knelt down praying for the forgiveness of all mankind, her speech is the most electrifying condemnation of the modern world I have ever heard. She reveals through her prayers that what is wrong with the world is not to be fixed by mere tinkering, there are not a just a few faults, there is an abyss of corruption that can only be mended by immolation, and judgement day. Watching this movie puts me in the mind of a naked monk, stood waist deep in a cold river at midnight screaming out a thousand Kyrie eleisons for the sins of humanity. Another grand jape is that it is clear that her prayers are futile, and in fact she is stopping everyone going home at closing time.

This is not a film for the smug, no-one is spared, no idols are left on the altar, no one group of humans is harangued to the glory of another group. Never has there been a greater more transcendent more astonishingly beautiful summation of our sins. It is a film for the end of the world, it is the grand jest, the great hideous practical joke of human life!

From the catalogue of images it is too difficult to pick a favourite, I slapped my thigh and almost fell off my chair in the cinema, screaming with laughter as a man attempted to pull the tablecloth from under a set service. I won't spoil what happens, but the suspense builds up, and something truly unexpected occurs. It is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen in a cinema. I am quite reserved and I just couldn't control myself: that is the measure of the greatness of this film.

The shooting of \"You, the Living\" is impeccably formalist. We are shown the palette of an artist, dingy browns, yellows, greys, and sky blues set alive by the shock of luminous brass textures. There is never a tone out of place, it's like an hour and a half of symphonic Whistlerian colour-meld. The obsession that must have gone into putting that colour scheme in place is extraordinary. And no shot is wasted, as with all great movies, there is not a spare inch of celluloid.

Perhaps the best film I've ever seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film isn't supposed to be funny, but it made me laugh.

It isn't designed to be sad, but my heart felt heavy through a number of the vignettes.

It isn't written as action adventure, but my pulse raced more than once.

Just like life, this movie doesn't manipulate your emotions and tell you how to feel. It simply is, and you react.

If you don't find it funny or sad or moving, I suspect that says more about you than the film.

It amazing and refreshing to see a director so wholeheartedly celebrate that we are all human, and embrace that we are all trapped here, doing this \"life\" thing, over and over for as long as we must.

Tomorrow is another day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Roy Anderson's film 'You, The Living' comprises a series of fifty-odd sketches, snapshots and vignettes set in a Swedish city. Some characters are on screen for just a few second, whilst others appear in numerous scenes and are sometimes seen loitering in the background while another story unfolds. Many scenes are drawn from the dreams, nightmares and fantasies of the strange but believable characters inhabiting this world. It is a fascinating approach: each of the scenes could be enjoyed in isolation, but together they contain a powerful portrait of what it is to be human.

For the first half hour or so, 'You, The Living' is gloriously funny. Much of the humour centres on the members of a brass band, whose music practice infuriates the neighbours in their apartment block. The comic highlight, however, is provided by a dinner-party track gone horribly awry. After this hilarious introduction, however, the mood of the film darkens considerably. The dinner-party dream turns grim when the hapless protagonist is put on trial for his life, setting a mixed tone of absurdity and despair for the rest of the film.

In the subsequent scenes, the unhappiness of the cast of characters becomes increasingly apparent. Theirs is a world where people are unable to connect with one another, where talk of dreams, nightmares and fantasies is widespread, but where no person can be comforted, even when others reach out to help them. The despondent woman with the 'nobody loves me' refrain and the young girl with unrequited love for the rock guitarist, Micke, are archetypal characters.

The world of 'You, The Living' is also blighted by selfishness. An elderly professor is called away the warmth of a vast banquet to answer a phone call from his impetuous money-grubbing son; a thief steals the wallet of a ruthless executive; an arrogant and impatient businessman insults a Muslim barber and receives his comeuppance. In the film's bleakest moment, a woman in church recounts the long list of human sins as her fellow parishioners shuffle out at closing time.

And yet, for all dark moments in this film, the shared refrain of 'tomorrow is another day' points to the ability of people to go on living in spite of many miseries. The soundtrack provided by Benny Anderson (of ABBA fame) seems inappropriately jovial at first but makes more and more sense as the film realises this human capacity to persevere.

'You, The Living' has an extraordinary visual style. The same washed-out, pale-green colours recur throughout, and there is nary a shadow in sight; this makes the characters appear exceptionally pallid and creates the sensation that human life is being laid bare for examination. Almost every scene is captured in a static camera frame, as if these are photographs being brought to life. The few occasions where the camera does move are all the more extraordinary; the contrast between the life and movement of the great banquet form a startling contrast with the deadness of the cloakroom scene. In the most intense moments of longing and despair, the characters transfix the viewer by directly facing the camera \u0096 they know that they are being examined and have a few moments to pour out their hearts to us, the viewers.

This is a wonderful, human film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Minor Spoilers will follow.

This movie is even more odd and unconventional than \"songs from the second floor\". There is no main character we follow around. There is no \"plot\" in the conventional way. There is no emphasis on an happy end. There is no crowdpleasing. In other words Roy Andersson is back with a vengeance. Instead of falling back on convention and fixed formula Roy Andersson concentrates his film around an idea. I will not go into what that idea is, but even if you don't \"get it\" i promise that you will see the greatest visual depth ever put to film. The majestic scenes from \"songs\" pale in comparison here. A work of visual splendor.

So be kind to your fellow man, because after all \"we are the living\", and only you and I have the power to change our lives. That is at least what I thought when I saw the final scene in the movie, with the inhumane bomber planes sweeping in over the city in the film to take our lives away.

And of course don't forget to see this movie when it gets a limited release near you. This is one of those movies that actually have the power to make you a better person, like de Sica's \"Bicycle Thieves\". A very warm and humanistic film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You can't really call Roy Andersson prolific, (6 films in 37 years). Nor can you accuse him of being conventional; he doesn't do 'straight-forward', at least when it comes to narrative. \"You, the Living\", his first film in seven years, is like a surreal documentary in which a large number of characters are observed doing nothing very much and if that sounds off-putting, let me assure you it isn't. This is a funny, accessible and surprisingly warm-hearted movie, a slice-of-life far removed from that which we normally see on the screen.

Of course, 'slice-of-life' is hardly the proper moniker to apply to this movie since most people's lives are unlikely to be anything like this. The incidents on the screen run the gamut from the almost terrifyingly ordinary to the downright wacky and while characters may flit by, sometimes never to be seen again, others to reappear as if anxious for approval, Andersson bestows on them all a kind of benign affection. That, and some rollicking music, ensure the time we spend with them is time well-spent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The large bell in a bar intermittently rings for last orders and the inevitable rush to queue forms at the counter \u0096 do we want what we need only when it's too late? Or is the irony of the opening scene's wailing Cassandra a more resonant reflection of our perceptions on individual existence? There's an endless fascination about where writer-director Roy Andersson wants to take us in his fourth feature, \"You, The Living\". With fifty or so semi-related vignettes strung together by a penchant for tragicomic hyper-reality, its wistful interpretations and symbolic instances of life that bind us all in this great big cosmic Sisyphean struggle. The sheer simplicity of these vignettes act to dramatise the tenuity and immense preciousness of being apart of the symbiotic relationships we have with one another. Andersson might whittle down the complexity of the human condition through harsh and fast cynicism more than he should, but he also reminds us of the inherent, reassuring glory of waking up each morning to a new tomorrow when we're all aware of our own distinct forms of arrested development.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I laughed out loud several times during this film though give it a cursory glance and you would think it was something else altogether. I adore the pace and the way it slowly burns into you as you are presented these gobsmackingly beautiful tableaux. Andersson gives us something else here. Shows us something I had not seen since his last film. He is compositionally exceptional and via his method of fixing the camera and allowing action to take place before us, he opens the door on humanity and we peer into a place that reflects our own lives, our little lives. It is powerful stuff. It is the simplicity with which he allows the events to take place that creates the opposite feeling of complexity. Everything in front of the camera is anything but simple. Andersson's attention to detail is extraordinary. I believe most scenes, if not all, are sets built from scratch according to his designs. I cannot recommend this film highly enough. For me it took me to a place and I came out of it having witnessed a world frayed and beautiful, starched and pained, barren and splendid. At once alien and familiar. This film is brilliant and life affirming. I know because I came out smiling feeling wonderful. It has taken him seven years to make this. If he only made this one film he would still be up there with the greats.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You, the Living (2007)

Mordant. I've never written that word before but it comes to mind here. Let me look it up. Well, it's part of it--corrosive, but also funny as heck. So corrosively funny. This is a dour film, for sure, with so much dry dry dry wit and quirky humor it's impossible not to like it on some level. Filmed in a very spare style, often with a static camera and really balanced, stable compositions, like theater stages, we see a short enactment occur.

But that makes it seem ordinary--which it is not. Ordinary life is shown to be frumpy, ironic, delightful, coy, and depressing. And impossible. We, the living, must live, and since we're alive, we may as well take note. Something like that. I think it was Ebert who said you find yourself laughing and don't know why. Exactly. And the promo material somewhere said it was a cross between Bergman and Monty Python, and what they mean is it has the dry, silent, probing look of Ingmar Berman's famous Swedish films, but it has the zany, somehow touching elements of the British comedians.

I'd say, definitely, definitely watch at least half an hour of this. There is part of me that thought I was through by then--the rest continues in a similar assemblage of little skits and moments, and they do gradually evolve, but there is no great plot to follow or climax of the usual kind. There are some great moments later, even just the attention to the thunderstorm, which takes us out of the mundane human events nicely.

The filming is gorgeous in its classical control, almost like a series of Gregory Crewdson scenes (and outdoing the photographer, actually). And the acting, with all its very ordinary, non-glam folksiness, is right on. A startling, beautiful, odd experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Roy Anderssons \"Du Levande\" is not totally original as it is counter piece to Anderssons previous movie \"S\u00e5nger fr\u00e5n andra v\u00e5ningen\". Still the movie has aura of total originality. Some conventions of movie making are still thrown away: most of the actors look nothing like what you would expect in movie and the shots take long time. Most of the time camera doesn't move but people move around it. The shots start from somewhere and many times the scenery builds up in amazing proportions. W.G. Sebald comes to mind in literature with same technique. Because of the time invested in every shot the suspension is really high in many of the scenes. There is a story and isn't - it is left for viewer to build up in his or her own mind. This movie is positive. It is determined not to see this all in negative way and at the same time will not pass the social injustices. One of the messages I got from it was that maybe all failures and accidents are not fatal after all. Great movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This, which was shown dubbed in Italian at a Rome cinema (not as bad as it sounds) after being presented at the Rome Film Festival, is very much an art film and a festival film, guaranteed to charm and delight such audiences for its distinctive style, droll humor; ability to draw comedy from the suffering of others; appealing, cheery music; spot-on performances; overriding sweetness and humanity--but doomed, because of its oddity and lack of a compelling story line, to leave average audiences wondering what they're watching it for and why anyone admires it, how it even got made.

Andersson gives us almost a series of dry skits. Running through them are various themes. Money: a guy at the next table (Waldemar Nowak) nicks the wallet of a rich bore talking on a cell phone in a restaurant over a glass of brandy, then goes and orders a set of posh suits made to order; a deadbeat son calls his celebrated father away from an elaborate gathering to beg him for one more loan. A shrink worries aloud about his depleted investments while his wife humps him in bed wearing only a shiny Viking helmet.

Depression: an elementary teacher (Jessica Nilsson) breaks down in class because her husband has called her a \"harpy;\" the rug salesman spouse (P\u00e4r Fredriksson) collapses before clients because he's called her that. Several men have depressing dreams. But hey--this is Sweden. Isn't everybody depressed? Love problems: a fat bohemian couple is perpetually breaking up; a girl groupie has fantasies about a lead guitarist, Micke (Eric B\u00e4ckman). Wives slam doors when their husbands start to practice their instruments. (Music too is obviously a unifying theme. Besides the dashing guitarist there's a tuba and a drum player who're in a Dixierland band and also play in marches and funerals. Every scene has an added lilt from the music, which niftily links one sequence with another.) A raging storm outside the window of many scenes, violent rain, people out in it, thunder so loud it sounds like a battle raging across the land. This also unifies the tone and gives the impression various scenes are happening on the same dauntingly tempestuous day.

Andersson is a master of visual composition and the static middle-distance shot and the film has a foggy gray-green look engineered by DP Gustav Danielsson that's perfect because it evokes the gloom of a Swedish winter but also twinkles with the subtle colors of the director's wit, which ends every scene with a smile. One almost never knew drabness could be so beautiful. (Or perhaps one did: Alexcanr Sokurov creates such effects sometimes in very different contexts.) Within scenes and in the film as a whole there's a kind of stillness that comes out of the visual style, the pacing of scenes, and the detached humanism of the overall outlook. There's something about a fully mastered style that's calming, reassuring.

Not everything works equally well. One may feel impatient with the succession of barely related scenes, which read too much sometimes like the work of a Saturday Night Live writer in need of Prozac. Since some scenes plainly move you or draw a laugh, it's obvious that others fall a little flat.

But some scenes are real zingers, and one obviously triumphant climax of pure magic is a dream--described and then visualized dreams being another important thread) in which the girl groupie imagines herself in a wedding dress newly married to her fey guitarist ideal, who plays a delicate series of riffs while a crowd of admirers gathers outside a big window. The viewpoint switches to outside and the window slides slowly away as if the building the dream newlyweds look out of were a train moving out of a station to take them to their honeymoon. It's a fresh, subtle, and rather sublime effect.

Eventually one may feel everything in You the Living (Du Levande) is a dream, including the recurring scene where the barman is always striking a bronze bell and announcing last order time, whereupon all the torpid customers rise from their tables and go up to get one more drink.

An Italian reviewer called this \"a small, great film,\" and that's right. It limits itself in a dozen ways, but there is greatness in it. Roy Andersson is a little master (like some medieval miniaturist) of the inner comedies of Scandanavian gloom, and this is a film unlike any other. Shown this year as a Cannes \"Un Certain Regard\" selection, this is also the Swedish entry for the 2007 Best Foreign Oscar. Hard to say what Bergman would think, but Andersson worked with him; is famous for his elaborately produced TV commercials, some of which one can see on YouTube. Bergman called them \"the best commercials in the world.\" It will be interesting to see if this director, whose craft is as subtle as his viewpoint, will start working in longer segments some time. Meanwhile, any good film buff really needs to get a look at this.

\"Schadenfreude\" isn't quite the right word. That means delight in the misery of others. Andersson is teaching us to delight in the misery of all of us.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoy the National Anthem. I enjoy the National Anthem if for nothing else then, just before the Midnight News, I imagine I'm playing the cymbals in the band. Not as easy as you may think! One, two, three, four; One, two three, four; but then what? So I have sympathy with the practising bass drum player in Roy Andersson's wonderful film, patiently waiting for his cue listening to a very 70s cassette player.

The 70s motif seems to continue throughout, with some classic, soulless furniture. Moreover, every scene has an eerie jade wash which emphasises the minute nuances of the subtlest of acting.

Which brings me to Jessika Lundberg's outstanding purple boots. Boots which otherwise would have inspired a Silk Cult advertising campaign.

But then the difficult bit. Someone asked me what it was about. Well there is a scene where the opening line as \"I don't have that length in green\" Brilliant. Straight out of a Gary Larson carton.

I can't say what it's about. Go see yourself.

Ron Plasma

Hmm. Larson! Sounds Swedish

(Viewed 15Apr08)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Roy Andersson has managed to craft something that defies nearly all conventions of what a film should be, a piece of art that is both beautiful, funny and evocative at the same time. The end result is a moving, if somewhat fractured tale about humanity in its simplest and most honest forms.

This is unlikely to appeal to everyone, in fact the humour is so finely tuned that many are unlikely to get on its wavelength. The almost absurdly long takes, awkward silences and consistent medium shots will most definitely put off even the most willing of audiences. But it is within these disjointed tales and unconventional thinking that Andersson shapes a world where every character seems to take centre stage in their own absurd way. Each scene is absorbed by the desolate environments, with the characters seemingly left alone in their own oddity Its a difficult piece to watch at times, not least because like many of its scenes, it requires patience. But whilst some may hail it upon an artistic throne, others will simply look on in confusion. Its a film that blends understated humour with own brand of heart","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this at the 2008 Palm Springs International Film Festival. There are some wonderful descriptions of this film from other commenter's here and they seemed to have really enjoyed it so I won't too far into giving a film synopsis but you could see a little of Woody Allen and maybe a little of Federico Fellini in this film's collection of some 50 short sketches or vignettes strung together with no real singular plot. A few of the vignettes are related to each other in their character and plot lines however and a a corner bar is used frequently as a central scene where they are always giving last call. The beginning and ending scenes have a common theme too that bookends the film. It took three years to film this and much of the time must have been spent on finding the plainest and homeliest looking people in all of Sweden to make the cast. This is Sweden's official submission for Best Foreign Language Film for the 2007 Academy Awards. It's a nice movie but hardly worthy of an official submission for best foreign film. Last year Sweden's official submission was the very weak Farv\u00e4l Falkenberg and the year before it was expensive looking but dull ZoZo, so once again Sweden will have no chance in picking up the Oscar. This film has it's moments and would have made a good 20-25 minute short film but it gets a little old and cold for a full length feature film. Roy Andersson directs. Gustav Danielsson is the cinematographer. Editor Anna M\u00e4rta Waern deserves a lot of credit for the work she must have put into this. Benny Andersson of ABBA fame provides an entertaining music score. It's an interesting film with a lot of dry humor and I did like it but It's nothing really special and could only give it a 7.0 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This surrealistic, absurdist movie is the first film I have seen of cult Swedish Director Roy Andersson. He is a veteran filmmaker who has made his living filming commercials, directing only four feature films in the last forty years. This background shows: the film seems like a collection of fifty 2 minute arty commercials. There is no story interconnecting these vignettes, though some characters appear in more than one vignette (there is a theme throughout underneath them, though: the absurdity of modern life). Some of the film's mannerisms (having the actors appear in light white makeup) are more irritating than illuminating. Some of the skits amount to very little (a man unsure in which queue to stand?). Other skits are better, though. The best is the one about the rock chick dreaming that she goes on honeymoon with her rock guitarist bride on a house that turns on something akin to a train (you have to watch it to get it). A film worth seeing, even if comparisons made by some film critics with such great filmmakers as Keaton, Tati and Kaurismaki seems overwrought: Andersson lacks the vision of them and the lack of a story interconnecting the vignettes is fatal to this film's pretension of being a masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My family (two 40-somethings, an 8 year old and my 71 yr old mother) saw this at a sneak preview on April 29th. We all enjoyed the movie very much. The story was a good one, and knowing it was based on real-life events made it that much more enjoyable. Luke Wilson was a hoot (pun intended) to watch as was Tim Blake Nelson. And seeing Neil Flynn play something other than \"the mean janitor from Scrubs\" was nice. The kids in movie did well and I'm sure they will all appeal to a certain demographic on the heartthrob level. The visuals were just lovely and the Jimmy Buffet music added to the \"Florida feel\". OK, maybe the story was a little too neat and well packaged for some adults, but hey, who cares? I can't compare it to the book, I honestly hadn't heard of it until the movie came out.

It was just a NICE movie and it had a good message. Plain and simple.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is great to see a film starring kids whose idea of \"acting adult\" is not engaging in sensuality. Instead, these kids see a problem in their community and take responsibility for helping to solve it. Hoot is a film aimed squarely at families looking for a fun day at the cinema. The production values are good, especially sweeping shots of Montana and Florida. The soundtrack by Jimmy Buffet is a perfect fit. The young actors are spirited and refreshing.

The plot, about a trio of kids who work together to save some burrowing owls from death at the hands of an unscrupulous pancake house empire builder, will engage kids. So many films make children appear powerless, it is nice to see a movie that shows children working hard to make a difference. And even though parents are absent or temporarily distracted, it was pleasant to see kids who want to follow in their parents footsteps and try to right injustices.

If you are tired of all of the self-indulgent story lines about children that fill the cinema, give Hoot a shot. Then take some time to talk to your kids about the adventure of serving others and caring about the world they live in. A positive message from a positive film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"what a refreshing change from the PG movies that have teen girls jumping in and out of bed, young high school boys counting how many girls they can \"hook up\" with, kids drinking, doing drugs, etc., etc., etc. Carl Hiaasen has written so many books that are enjoyable but hardly classic literature. but he has finally written something that Middle School kids WANT to read. And this movie sends a message to kids that maybe they can make a difference, that maybe their voices can be heard. Filmed in South Florida, the scenery is beautiful and natural and REAL. Who cares if its predictable, and a little corny. So was FREE WILLY and look how well that did. This is a good family movie..........a rare breed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 'Hoot' Logan Lerman plays Roy Eberhardt, the new kid in school who has just moved from Montana. But Florida is a lot different from Montana. Despite is troubles in blending in, Roy discovers a bigger problem. A new franchise restaurant is coming to town and families of burrowing owls are in trouble. Can the new kid, a tomboy (Brie Larson) and a runaway (Cody Linley) stop big business from destroying these owls' home?

This movie was pretty good. The kids (Logan Lerman, Brie Larson and Cody Linley) are the real stars of this film. Luke Wilson (Officer Delinko) is okay, but really does not have a very big part. Neither does Robert Wagner (Mayor) or Jimmy Buffett (Mr. Ryan).

Nevertheless this was a fun film that the whole family will enjoy. For a first time producer, I thought Jimmy Buffett put together a quality piece of work. Plus the owls were really cute.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you read the book by Carl Hiaasen, the movie follows pretty much true to form, with a few minor changes for Hollywood. In my opinion this is a great family movie. Luke Wilson (Officer Delinko)pretty well steals the show from an all-star cast that includes Robert Wagner and Jimmy Buffet. The kids in the movie do a great job led by Logan Lerman, Brie Larson, and Cody Linley.

Brie Larson is maybe a little too petite to play Beatrice. I pictured a bigger girl, maybe 6 foot, 175 lbs, in the role of Beatrice. This might have made her more believable in her role of beating up Dana. They should have developed her \"tough girl\" character more, and had her bite through a tire, or kick a soccer ball through a person. She is very pretty, and I understand why she was cast, she is a box office attraction.

This is about as PG as a movie gets these days, no sex, and very little violence. This movie is a parents'dream come true, a movie with a strong environmental message, with kids that have deep appreciation for the beauty of Florida and its wildlife. It shows how adults have fallen short in the stewardship of our planet, and that our children can demand better. One of my favorite lines in the movie is when Mullet Fingers says, \"Florida could use some mountains like Montana. Florida is so flat there is nothing to stop developers from clearing it coast to coast\". Also, the photography of Florida wildlife spoke volumes without dialog. As a family movie with kids ages 5-15, this is a great movie! As a bonus parents' will be entertained, especially if they're \"parrotheads\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I took my younger niece to an early showing and she LOVED it (I enjoyed it myself as well). I don't need to explain the plot, since the movie remains completely true to the award-winning, top-selling book by famed author Carl Hiaasen. The movie takes the popular book and layers it with beautiful cinematography (I want to go to Florida now!), humor (thanks to funny-man, Luke Wilson and some new-comers), and Great music! I have to get to get a Jimmy Buffet CD now! I know a movie is good when I get goose-bumps in the end. Overall, it was great family film that I felt comfortable taking my younger niece to. I'd recommend it to any and everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I took a group of young people who were the same age as the protagonists and it appealed to us all. I agree with the other post, the Wilson guy worked a thankless script into a great minor character. It is good to have a movie for a certain age demographic (too old for PG, too young for R). It also shows how they think and maneuver in junior high school. You had to love how well Jimmy Buffet did as the cool teacher. He kept us adults awake. The level of kids questioning authority was kept reasonable. Their motives were specific and not like some A.D.D. rebel. The setting and music were beautiful. Overall, if you enjoyed Holes, this is really similar.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hoot is a nice young person's film about a group of middle school kids that try and keep a pancake house chain from bulldozing a plot of land that is home to some endangered burrowing owls. The acting is pretty good and the fresh faces are nice to see. Many well known comedians are in this film and keep the humor going almost nonstop. It is a film for the young crowd, perhaps 5 to 11 years of age. I thought it was a nice change of pace from the adult films that pervade the screen these days. There is no realism here or accuracy about life in general for adults or kids. It's just a bunch of fun with a constant message about saving the beautiful places in this country from becoming over developed. If you can remember back to the day when you weren't fight for a buck you may remember that money isn't everything. Not many people over 12 are going to enjoy it unless they really have a soft spot for the old after school special series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I read the book in a summer book club, and all of us there loved it. My friends from that club agreed not to watch the movie, lest the book be ruined. I didn't agree, and watched it recently with my younger brother and my parents.

I was pleasantly surprised. The movie was very true to the book, without losing it's own spirit. The 'new kid' theme was shown just enough so that we get a feel of it, but that's not what the story's about.

The acting wasn't the best I've ever seen, but it was still good, and the kids especially had a lot of energy. The characters were interesting, and the plot was cute and not too overstated. It was a kids movie that works just fine for adults or teenagers, too.

I wish there had been a bit more tough-girl attitude from Beatrice, but she was still a great character. Mullet Fingers was quite a bit like I had imagined him, except his hair was a little obviously dyed, with blonde hair and dark eyebrows. Roy worked very well as the little guy and the new kid, especially interactions with his parents and friends.

The message and the ending (which I won't discuss other than I liked it) teamed up to make a great cheer-up movie for a rainy day. All in all, this was a great film that you can watch again and again whenever you need reminding that the world isn't a horrible place after all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"HOOT is about these three teenage kids who try to save a bunch of burrowing owls. now to me i thinks that right they stand up to whats right and whats wrong. in this film a kid name Roy Eberhardt ( Logan lerman)moved from Montana to Florida. and once he gets on the bus a bully name Dana Matherson starts bullying him finally the next day Roy punches the bully and runs off the bus chasing the mysterious running boy. after all that Roy finally meets the Running boy who's name is Mullet Fingers ( Cody linley) well actually his nickname his step-sister Beatrice ( Brie Larson) gave it to him because he can catch Mullets with his bare hands. anyway Mullet Fingers and Roy becomes friends and they join together with Beatrice to stop the construction of a new pancake restaurant. Mullet Fingers is the one behind all the vandalism's that happened there and also later he gets bit by one of the dogs that put there to guard the construction site. so they stood up to the muckle that was driving the bulldozer and everybody got to see the owls it turned out to be a great movie because it showed where kids can make a difference in life by standing up to whats right and whats wrong. thats what is great about this movie. it teaches a lot to everyone about wildlife and how important it is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I highly recommend this movie to everyone. My son and I read the book first and then saw the movie. While the book was better (in my opinion) the movie was still great. My son and I agree that while we like the book version the best, we liked the ending of the movie better than the book ending. The scenery is just tremendous and the soundtrack is a must have. The fact that Jimmy Buffett has a small role and provides music is an added plus. Luke Wilson does a decent job in his role of Officer Delinko and is pretty much what I had mentally imagined Delinko would look like when I read the book. I'm surprised that this didn't do better in the theaters, and I'll be waiting for the DVD to come out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a delightful gem of a movie, unfortunately pigeon-holed as \"just for kids.\" The plot revolves around a young man, Roy Eberhardt, newly arrived in southwest Florida from the Montana mountains. Trying to fit in with the other kids at his middle school, Roy discovers a brother-sister team trying to protect endangered burrowing owls at an illegal construction site. Look for Carl Hiassen, the author of the book upon which this movie is based, as the male secretary to the evil boss at corporate headquarters. Writer\/director Wil Shriner is also the clerk at the Public Records Office where the intrepid teen-detectives discover that the incriminating Environmental Impact Report is missing. Luke Wilson nearly steals all the crucial scenes from the charming teen actors who have most of the best lines. Wilson is the bumbling police officer, in his three-wheeled electric police cart complete with blue light and funky siren. As Officer Dave, he tries so hard to do well, but usually ends up falling in the muck, literally! Several times! Jimmy Buffet is pretty low key as the tacitly supportive science teacher. But, young actors Logan Lerman (Roy), Brie Larson (Beatrice the Bear), and Cody Linley (Mullet Fingers) are superb as the teens who finally put Officer Dave on the right track, following the paper trail left by the evil corporate boss. I hope you come away from this movie feeling as good as I did. Just plain fun! One small complaint, though. I hope all non-Floridians realize that not everyone from Florida is as surly to newcomers as depicted in this film. We're really a friendly bunch! Just ask Carl Hiassen and Jimmy Buffet!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In \"Hoot\", Mullet Fingers is engaging in sabotage to stop the pancake house. The problem is that the builders just start over again, and he has to take more drastic measures. When he is confronted with the dogs, he scares them off with snakes, not before he is bitten by a dog and has to go to hospital.

Roy at bedtime asks his father, who works with the Department of Justice, how he deals with crooks. His father says it involves the tedious steps of looking through papers, because sooner or later, they all slip up. You can see this with Enron and WorldCom. Roy looks at documents relating to the pancake house, and finds a suppressed document (he does have to break in to the company trailer), so when the police see it, he has the law on his side. Unlike when he evaded the police.

Mind you, as mentioned before, Roy is not always law-abiding, and when the company man is killing owls (illegally), Mullet Fingers takes direct action. He can't wait for the law (Mullet Fingers is in hiding). The movie does suggest that one should work in the system.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must confess, I was surprised at how good this movie was when I first watched it. I had planned to see it in theaters during the summer but found out unpleasantly that it had already been and gone. Therefore, I expected it to have been removed from theaters because it was bad. Then, today, I rented it and watched it and really enjoyed it. The speed that events were occurring was questionable, it could have been a little longer. I found it was very true to the book, however it left out some crucial parts: Mullet Finger's real name, etc. I felt as if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have really understand what was going on. The acting was quite good, another thing I had expected to be poor, however the cop, sorry I can't remember the actor's name, could have done a little better. All in all, I found this to be a very entertaining movie and would recommend it to all audiences!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hoot was terrific. The owls are adorable and the movie highlights an interesting environmental issue I didn't know existed. Florida is full of so many fun characters and the film does a great job of bringing that to the screen. My kids particularly loved all the different animals, from snakes, to owls to alligators. It's really a simple story, but also one that they need to hear at this age. When kids are young that's when they really develop their sense of values, and yes one of those must be caring for our environment and all the creatures that live in it. I think it was great that the film even sparked a conversation with them on the ride home about animals and how to help them. It was just truly sweet and enduring to hear my little girl talk about how she wanted to save the baby birds. Anyway, overall it was really a great time and I'd recommend the movie to anyone looking for something entertaining AND meaningful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw the movie today and thought it was a good effort, good messages for kids. A bit predictable. The book was better, gave more plot details, ore about the environment and how the kids uncovered the conspiracy. I think Hiassen's warped humor comes across better in the book than the movie, but there were lots of funny moments in the movie as well. It is probably a bit too slow paced for kids under 6 yrs of age. Loved the casting of Jimmy Buffet as the science teacher. And those baby owls were adorable. I wonder how they managed to film them. The movie showed a lot of Florida at it's best, made it look very appealing. Am I imagining it, or did the author Carl Hiassen make a brief appearance?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hoot is a nice plain movie with a simple message. It seemed like that this film was for young children, but I know that adults will like this film. The storyline is pretty simple. A kid who moved to Florida must help a soccer jock and an outcast save burrowing owls from construction of a pancake house. The message in this film is big especially for animal activists and lovers. The message is about doing all you can to save endangered animals. The acting in this film is decent. All the three kids looked like they had good chemistry. The music is not too shabby. I liked Jimmy Buffet's songs in this film. Overall this is a good family film. I rate this film a 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this was a really great movie especially since it was jut filler for me. I was bored, I got it from the library and I really enjoyed myself! I've watched it twice in the two days and the more I watch it the more I like it.I thought that the plot was going to be really corny but in the end it really could be said that it would be true. I liked the main characters and I thought that they were well cast and you could see true friendship. I thought they all did an excellent job. The ending was good.And you really hate the bad guys and you really like the good guys. Which is what a movie is supposed to be like.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a good family movie with a few laughs. I wish it didn't have too much of the school stuff like the bully in it to fill the movie up. Also, it seems a little too easy to save a piece of land from being built. I mean, the it just flowed too easily. It does make you aware of the wildlife. It had a cute way of introducing the piece of land which the fast runner but a little too slow for me. A little too hokey for me and it reminded me of going back to school. Oh, the DVD is chock full of goodies so don't miss out. 7 out of 10 for the movie 10 out 10 for the DVD with the extras that is well worth to watch. Well worth your time to see this!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the movie \"Hoot\" and then I immediately decided to comment it. The truth is that NATURE needs protection from us because we are the dominant specie of this planet. Some people think that if they have money, they can do whatever they want to, which probably is like, but if they think about the future more then they think about themselves they would do something useful! This movie is not just about kids, this movie is showing us that the kids are usually the ones that care more about it then the adults do. When I was twelve, I saw some waterlilies and I knew they are protected by law and didn't even dare to touch them not fearing of the law, but fearing that I might harm them actually. (I am currently 15) What so ever, the acting was great, the 3 main characters are well interpreted and we all have to learn from them. I hope you all think about what you saw in that movie!!! and Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In \"Hoot\", a new kid arrives to Florida from Montana. He first faces the usual problems of blending in and dealing with the local bully. Soon, though, he becomes aware of a bigger problem: a franchise restaurant chain is trying to build a site in the town, right where a number of burrowing owls live. This movie has the look of a family film, but it is pretty more radical than it seems, as it shows sympathetically how Roy and a couple of friends do not shy away from lawbreaking (including vandalism of private property and briefly kidnapping the manager of the chain of restaurants) in the name of environmentalism (to save owls, no less). Now, one might agree or not with those actions, but at least the movie has the courage from not shying away from its convictions. A good, solid film, all in all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story is incredible, it begins with a new kid in town named Roy, while on the bus to school, he notices a kid running with no shoes, and on that same day he breaks the big bullies nose who is trying to fight with him. Roy soon discovers that kid is a runaway, and he and his step sister are trying to mess a construction sight, that could kill all the beautiful owls that live there. Roy decides to help them him there fight, Can they win this fight before the smart but bumbling cop Dave Delinko(Luke Wilson) Stumbles on to them. An enjoyable film, funny and adventurous. I do admire Luke Wilson for taking this role. I don't think his brother Owen would even take this role.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i read the book before i saw the movie i knew the movie was going to be good because the book was great i seriously recommend you see this amazing fantastic movie. i know you will like it. when i went to see it i was there with my sister and there was nobody that was with us i was a little disappointed but nobody that i know has gone in to that movie and came out saying that was a horrible movie. nobody can it is so great i think everyone will like it (to bad nobody wants to see it) anyway i hope from what you have heard about this movie from me will make you want to see this movie i guarantee you'll like it as much as i do (im obsessed) literlly i am","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hoot is the best movie. go and see it if you haven't about these 3 kids that stand up to the right and the wrong. a perfect family film. the characters Mullet Fingers ( Cody Linley) Beatrice Leep (Brie Larson) and Roy Eberhardt ( Logan Lerman) are the three main characters. great movie the best!!!!!!!!!!! i love this movie and you guys should too, its a great movie i mean it a great movie. go and see it if you haven't. i like it because they stand up to the right and wrong, and it has cut owls and the hot Cody Linley.

Cody Linley is so HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE HIM SO MUCH!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Logan Lerman & Dean Collins III of Jack & Bobby Fame provide a nice touch of familiarity as friends in this even if not maybe as close as they may be on Jack & Bobby but the expressions of young students taking their stand for a good cause is very well expressed in this movie.Logan Lerman may be seemingly typecast in roles of being \"different\" as thusly seen from here as is seen in this as well as in Jack and Bobby.The Movie also opens up with a very nice tune coined as a lost 45 \"And I'm Wondering where the lions are?\"A song which I'd Always heard on the speaker @ my old Job of ChristmasTreeShops and got it played on my local radio show of The Lost45s hosted by Barry Scott but the last time of which I suggested this with this movie as it's dedication but the dedication was left out.Environmentalist demonstration is well expressed in this movie too for the protection of the ground owls as seen in this movie too.What a hoot too this movie is.Hoot,Sogive a hoot in the tradition of the Woodsey Owl Commercials of the 1970s too. Truthfully, Stephen \"Steve\" G. Baer a.k.a.\"Ste\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was not great cinema, but definitely a good film to see with your family, especially children from 10-15. There are good topics of discussion brought up in this movie, such as bullies, the environment, and working to make things right. Jimmy Buffet's music was a plus, and the scenery was wonderful... The young actors were excellent, and this is a movie I would expect to see on the Family Channel or the Hallmark Channel. Except for a few words in the dialog, a middle school could show this film to start discussions in the classroom. Hopefully it will be shown in Drive-ins this summer so that more people get to see it. It did follow Carl Hiassen's book well, and it was fun to see him in a cameo performance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie only because I didn't want to leave my 9 yo and her friend in the theater by themselves. Honestly, I went in expecting to enjoy a good nap -- but found myself entranced by the movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who asks! Roy's mom was on one of my all-time favorite TV shows years ago, playing a mermaid (Maximum Bob). She was really cute in this movie. The three main characters were all excellent young actors. Also enjoyed seeing and hearing Jimmy Buffet. The movie itself was quite beautiful - showcasing some of what makes Florida so great. I'm glad I ended up going to this movie. And to think, I was disappointed that I couldn't take them to see \"Stick It\" -- I think this was MUCH better!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This totally odd-ball feature is a typical and prime example of satanically shocking 70's horror. The events are thoroughly confusing and it takes up quite a while before you figure out what the hell is going on, but the brooding atmosphere sucks you in immediately. Right from the indescribably bizarre intro, showing a couple of eerie children turning toys into real-life war machinery, you just know this become an uncompromising and gritty shocker. \"Brotherhood of Satan\" soon appears to be another installment in the alleged & unofficial \"creepy little town hiding a dark secret\" sub genre. A young widower, traveling with his new yummy girlfriend and 8-year-old daughter, stops in a remote little town to report a car accident they witnessed on a nearby highway. The villagers behave very hostile and insist the visitors on leaving right away. The town clearly bathes in an ambiance of fear and panic, as local children vanish inexplicably vanished and unnatural forces maintain everyone within the boundaries of town. Hillsboro is in the grip of a satanic cult, apparently ruled by the elderly members of the community. I really liked \"Brotherhood of Satan\" a lot. The story reminded me of a novel written by John Saul, but I can't remember the title. It also dealt with a cult of elderly people abusing youthful villagers for their own greedy merits. The film mainly relies on creepy scenery (like dolls and witchcraft relics) but a slightly more involving and coherent screenplay would have been nice. The subject matter often raises a lot of issues and questions, and director Bernard McEveety can't always provide us with answers. The climax is terrific, very seventies (meaning shocking) and unforgettable. Beautifully shot film, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The '70s were a great time for horror movies. The Brotherhood of Satan is yet another overlooked gem. It's full to the brim with great surreal, unsettling scenes. It's also great to see Stother Martin and L.Q. Jones (who also produced) in decent roles.

Some of it is a little dated and cheesy, but The Brotherhood of Satan kicks butt over Race the Devil and many other '70s Satanism flicks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A family is traveling through the mid West. There's widower Ben (Charles Bateman), his girlfriend Nicky (Ahna Capri) and Ben's little daughter K.T. (Geri Reischl). Then hit a town named Hillsboro where everyone acts more than a little strangely. Their car breaks down and they're forced to stay. They soon find out a witches coven has a spell over the town and is up to incredible evil.

The story is not that good. People just figure things out of nothing and they just happen to find out where the witches are at the end. Also there are a lot of loopholes left dangling at the end. The acting is pretty poor too. Bateman and Capri are bland and everybody else is about the same. Only old pros Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones give good performances. Still this movie does work. It forgoes blood and gore (there's some but this is PG) and manges to work with some very creepy visuals and atmosphere. The acting hampers a lot of it but it still works. Martin especially chews the scenery in his role. I can't explain exactly why I (sort of) like this movie but it did work on me. It's a quiet kind of horror that isn't made anymore. Hardly a masterwork but this deserves to be rediscovered. A 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ben (a fine Charles Bateman), his young daughter K.T. (a cute Geri Reischl), and his new girlfriend Nicky (the extremely attractive Ahna Capri) are on their way to a birthday party for K.T. They unexpectedly get waylaid in a remote Southern town where no-one is able to leave, and with the exception of Ben, K.T., and Nicky, no-one can get in either. To top that off, children are disappearing and adults are being murdered at an alarming rate. Ben helps some of the locals - Sheriff Pete (L.Q. Jones), Tobey (Alvy Moore), and Jack (Charles Robinson), the local priest, try to solve the mystery.

This early 70's devil-themed horror movie actually predates \"The Exorcist\", and combines a \"Bad Day at Black Rock\" type plot of a rural town with a great big skeleton in its closet with horror elements, for interesting results. It actually sent a few chills down my spine this viewing, as it inexorably moves along its ominous path. The moody and solemn atmosphere is established quickly and holds for the duration; the ever-growing sense of panic gives it a real kick. Some memorable set pieces include the bizarre opening of a toy tank turning into a real one and squashing a car flat, not to mention Nickys' twisted nightmare, vividly and stylishly realized by director Bernard McEveety and crew. Jaime Mendoza-Navas' music is subtly sinister and gives it that extra sense of eeriness.

The steadfast and professional cast does some fine work, especially the ever engaging Strother Martin as the affable Doc Duncan, and producers \/ actors L.Q. Jones and Alvy Moore.

Just the fact that the whole plot is right under the noses of our heroes makes it that much more scary. Jack the priest starts leading them in the right direction, but will they be in time to put a stop to things? It's an enjoyable little chiller worth re-visiting; just speaking for myself, I was able to appreciate it a lot more after giving it a second chance. I can say now that yes, it is indeed under-rated, telling a good story in an interesting, unconventional, and effective way.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not everyone likes this movie. It is still one of the best \"you have to be thinking\" movies about Satanism ever made. The fact that it doesn't have MTV-era jump cuts or gore every seven minutes is irrelevant. Also, speaking as someone who actually KNOWS Satanists, the (spoiler warning!) portion of the film where the Brotherhood exchange their old bodies for those of preadolescent children, it has some genuinely scary scenes. The section where (second spoiler alert) Strother Martin orchestrates the changeover is almost hyper-real in that it uses very few special effects, a hallmark of this film. McEveety was seldom given a big budget but was often effective. It worked in this case, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best lesser known occult oriented horror movies of the seventies. It's gritty, exciting, scary, surrealistic here and there and at moments even very smart, which can't be said about many of the movies this kind. I can't help seeing some stinging symbolic and metaphoric points at the seventies society and generation stuff of the time this movie was done. The scriptwriter has obviously been cooking while delivering also some good old \"from the crypt\" kind of scenes. With a job well done from a creative director the result is entertaining and thought provoking. The simple, yet effective ending specially shows how these things are treated right by those who can.

The excellent cast were mostly unknown to me, except L. Q. Jones as the moody but funny sheriff and Strother Martin as the town doctor. Martin, not surprisingly, always ends up stealing the movie. With that voice and skill he is one of the greatest loonies in movies, for me anyway. What an actor!

So, it is a little bit of mystery to me why this movie has not gathered far greater recognition. I think it would deserve almost equal place in the occult horror canon alongside Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist. One helluva movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was 10 or eleven years old when this movie came out, and it has stayed with me for 35 years since. When the movie came out, all of the theaters in the St. Louis area distributed, as a 'lure', a pack of flower seeds that had the movie name, etc. on the front. On the back of the pack it read, in so many words....plant these seeds at midnight. If a white flower grows, you are saved.....but if a red flower grows, you are doomed!!! Suffice it to say, that for an eleven year old kid, I did not plant the seeds for fear of what may pop up. Here is the spoiler: As the movie starts out, you see a small toy tank moving about in the dirt. On a small road a family is leaving town, and suddenly the camera turns to the tank again, and it is full size. It rolls over the car, and you see bloody limbs protruding from the wreckage, then, just as sudden, the tank is small again.

The reason this movie stuck with me for that long, was because I had a exact toy tank as the one in the movie!!!! Unfortunately I don't know what happened to it, but I did keep a wary eye on that thing ever since!!!

Turn out the lights, put in the DVD, make a sandwich, and watch this movie. It is very good!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A young couple -- father Ben (solid Charles Bateman), wife Nicky (the lovely Ahna Capri) and their daughter KT (the cute Geri Reischl of \"I Dismember Mama\" fame) -- find themselves trapped in a small California desert town populated by hysterical lunatics. Worse yet, there's a pernicious Satanic cult that's been abducting little children for their own diabolical purposes. Director Bernard McEveety, working from an offbeat and inspired script by William Welch and L.Q. Jones (\"Devil Times Five\" director Sean MacGregor came up with the bizarre story), relates the compellingly oddball plot at a slow, yet steady pace and ably creates a creepy, edgy, mysterious ooga-booga atmosphere. Strother Martin delivers a wonderfully wicked and robust performance as Doc Duncan, who's the gleefully sinister leader of the evil sect. The top-rate cast of excellent character actors qualifies as a substantial asset: Jones as gruff, no-nonsense Sheriff Hillsboro, Alvy Moore as friendly local Toby, and Charles Robinson as a shrewd, fiercely devout priest Jack. John Arthur Morrill's bright, polished widescreen cinematography, Jamie Mendoza-Nava's spooky score, and the wild, rousing climactic black mass ritual are all likewise up to speed. The idea of having toys come to murderous life is simply ingenious (the opening scene with a toy tank coming real and crushing a family in their car is truly jolting). Nice eerily ambiguous ending, too. A pleasingly idiosyncratic and under-appreciated winner.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first time I saw Brotherhood of Satan I was 12 yrs old I saw it in a little town in central Washington state it played before Tales from the crypt which we left early because my sisters were already scared from the Brotherhood of Satan. All in all I thought it was a pretty good movie. The beginning was good we had just sat down and that tank did a number on that station wagon.

What struck me about the movie was the scenery around the town in which it was filmed it looked almost like the area around Chelan WA where I saw the movie especially when they were driving towards the town of Hillsboro which is the location of the movie a small town in SW New Mexico. I have always liked LQ Jones and Strother Martin and also Charles Bateman who was on Get Smart another show I like. I gave the movie a 7 and later on when I did get to see Tales from the crypt I thought Brotherhood of Satan was better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wonderfully thoughtful and involving movie that leaves an imprint well beyond it's initial liftoff. Based on a true story , one of the many \"small\" stories prior to WW II , that lend an understanding to the mindsets of the majority of common man cultures, impacted by others perceived as former enemies and perhaps future foes, with the darkening of war clouds on the horizon. Viewed at the Stony Brook Film festival, the film was enthusiastically received . Well written and expertly cast. The characters were most believable and drew one in to experience their trials and tribulations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this at the 2004 Stony Brook Film Festival in NY and it was very warmly received. In this pre-WW2 film, a pair of German rocket scientists are working on the Scottish Isle of Scarp as war looms on the horizon. The characters encountered on the island are priceless in their creation and their portrayal. Shauna MacDonald is particularly memorable

After getting up to speed on the \"Scootish\" accents, the viewer feel right at home with these folk who watch with amusement as the Germans work to link their isle with the mainland via a rocket-based mail delivery. As implausible as it seems, this film was based on an actual story.

All in all, a memorable film that will stay with you for some time thanks to its casting, its story or its scenery.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An excellent film for those who simply need to switch off and enjoy the beautiful scenery of Scotland. Based on fact, the film takes you on a journey of love amidst spectacular scenery. The cast are 'dressed down' for the parts they play, so no glamorous costumes or coiffured hair in this film where acting is superb, gritty and down to earth.Each character is believable giving a convincing portrayal of island life, beliefs and culture of the time A definite for those who have even the tiniest drop of Scottish blood..... as it will tug at the heart strings and stir the soul. Something that can be shared with the family and watched time and time again..................a real classic, one that I am sure will walk alongside some of the great films that never die.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Set just before the Second World War, this is a touching and understated romantic story that is loosely based on a real event.

It concerns a German rocket scientist Gerhart Zucher (Ulrich Thomsen) working in Britain in the advent of the Second World War. Fearing Hitler may recall him to Germany to assist him preparing for war, Zucher and his slippery assistant Heinz (Eddie Marsan) are evacuated by the British authorities to a remote Scottish island. They are given the task of building a rocket post box that will enable the islanders to communicate with the mainland.

Mocked and bullied by the islanders, they set up home with local girl Catherine Mackay (the stunning Shauna MacDonald), with whom Thomsen begins an affair but complications arise when Germany comes calling...

The central romance between Zucher and Catherine is subtle and sincerely played and the supporting cast is a colourful bunch with an array of respected Scottish character actors including Gary Lewis and Clive Russell.

Fine cinematography and a brilliant central theme song sung in the local dialect round out this movie.

Intelligent but undemanding, it is good for a quiet evening in.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the kind of film they used to make, amusing, heart-warming, troubling, authentic, with convincing performances by people without nose jobs, boob jobs, eye jobs, in other words real people. Shauna Macdonald plays the female love interest, and she is so real you want to give her a cuddle at the very least. Imagine that, a real girl in a movie, whatever next? Hollywood would hate her, because her freshness is a sharp rebuke to every false starlet in Tinseltown. This story has the same hilarious feel as Sandy Mackendrick's classic 'Whisky Galore', with the gnomic humour of remote Scottish islanders puncturing the pretensions of intruders from outside and enjoying a wee dram from time to time (the actual intervals between those times often being rather short). Director Stephen Whittaker displays a rare skill in pulling this off just right, and it is shocking to discover that he died before his film's release, aged only 56, which was clearly a substantial loss to the screen. Ulrich Thomsen does very well at playing a German rocket scientist who in the late 1930s goes to Scarp in the Isle of Harris to build a small rocket to carry postal packets between the islands. There he falls in love with the alluring Macdonald lass, and she reciprocates the affection. Some wonderfully colourful local characters decorate the tale, and the film is pure delight. There is of course the threat of imminent war with Hitler, and we learn that Hitler executed 1000 rocket scientists who refused to build weapons of war, which is a shocking statistic. Tragic love is never far from view, but lips must remain sealed in a review as to what happens in the end. This film is a magnificent example of just the kind of films which people in Britain should be making. But are they being properly released? In a nation whose tastes have been so corrupted by reality TV shows, where repulsive nonentities have become the national heroes, is there even a market anymore for a film like this? After all, there is no grunting sex, there are no close-ups of suppurating wounds or of anyone's genitals, there are no drugs taken, there are no mindless celebrities prancing around wanting to be looked at, and so one wonders whether there is anything to interest a public which has become so decadent and jaded that only the most extreme sensations can briefly alleviate the tedium of their pointless existence. Anyone who is looking for an antidote to the vacuity of contemporary Britain can take refuge in this refreshing and honest film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw it at a German press screening. Without giving too much away: Most critics really seemed to like it very much. There was even applause afterwards, which is quite unusual for that species. From my point of view and until now, it was the funniest movie of the year. It keeps the charm and wit of the three W+G shorts and it is enlarged with many references to these and other movies. Of course, there are obvious allusions to monster- and werewolf-movies, especially to \"An American Werewolf in London\", \"Jaws\", \"King Kong\" and even to Peter Jackson's \"Braindead\"\/\"Dead Alive\", but also to other genres.

Characterization was better done in \"Chicken Run\", but that movie had a complete new \"cast\" where introduction was necessary. Here, you are already able to know the two main characters. So, the new \"Wallace and Gromit\"-movie is enjoyed best if you watched (and liked) the shorts already, yet it also works on its own. \"Chicken Run\" had the more convenient, but also more \"storytelling\" plot. Instead, this new Aardman masterpiece keeps that crazier and somehow more \"isolated\" feeling of the W+G shorts. Children should also enjoy it very much, especially because of the sweet rabbits (if you love cute bunnies, this is a must-see for you!!!) and because Gromit has a lot do to and really steals the show (children also love dogs... :-) ). But many jokes are thought for a more adult audience (there are even soft sexual allusions in it). The movie manages, like \"Shrek 1+2\" and \"The Incredibles\", to fulfil high level entertainment for the whole family, with adding a British and at least a little bit darker edge to the humour of American animated movies.

The animation is \u0096 as expected \u0096 superb, and they kept true to the Aardman style because they didn't put in too many digital effects - I realized just a few when it came to Wallace's inventions.

Finally, the score works fine in the movie, although one of the main themes definitely is \"borrowed\" by Randy Edelman's \"Dragonheart\" score.

The bad thing is: It will probably take another six years from now until we can see a new animated gem from Nick Park & Co.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a \"Wallace and Gromit-fan\", I was looking forward for this full-length movie. Surprisingly I saw it at THE world-premiere in Vlissingen (NL), at the Film by the Sea festival. A wonderful feeling to be one of the first to see this very amusing and merry movie. It's about Wallace and Gromit (whom I believe don't need an introduction) having their own pest-control company in the city which is hosting a giant-vegetable contest in a few days. Everyone, including an eccentric baroness, is hoping his or her giant carrot or melon will win the Golden carrot. Unfortunately the town is plagued by lots of hungry rabbits. This is where W&G come in. The have their own cracking contraptions to control these cute creatures in a human way.

It's a very funny and colorful story. Anyone who liked the three proceeding short movies of W&G (which are more than great!), will love this full-length movie. Nick Park really delivered a wonderful and original result with a great sense for humor. Like in Chicken Run, it truly amazes me how he can capture so much story and emotions in just a few frames. \"Job well done, lad\" ;-) Oh yeah: The music was fantastic! It really completes the ride. Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This first (and hopefully not last) Wallace & Gromit feature lives up to expectations. There are plenty of jokes (some a bit cheeky) as well as some great tributes to past Science Fiction movies. With the barrage of awful and formulaic movies being spewed forth from Hollywood it's great to see such a great film like this that's enjoyable for almost everyone. If there is any justice it will be top of the box-office and be at least nominated for best animation at the next Oscars. The animation is wonderful; the characters are remarkably expressive and their adventures are great fun. This is one of those films that the whole family can enjoy. Charming, clever, fun and well made, what's not to enjoy?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wallace and Gromit are the main characters in some of the best cartoons ever crafted. The excellent mix of visual humor and claymation makes \"A Grand Day Out,\" \"The Wrong Trousers,\" and also \"A Close Shave\" some of the best animated footage ever put on television. Winning several Oscars and also countless other awards, Nick Park became quite the popular man in the U.K., yet his impact on the United States has not been big. After the third Wallace and Gromit short, there was all this speculation about a full-length Wallace and Gromit movie, yet for years nothing had happened. Then in 2000 instead of a full-length Wallace and Gromit film, we get another brilliant claymation film from Nick Park, which was Chicken Run, which almost got nominated for best picture in the Academy Awards. Perhaps it was the success of this film that ultimately drove Park to finally work on a Wallace and Gromit project.

5 years later (these kinds of films do take long you know) and a lot of anticipation, Wallace and Gromit finally hits the big screen. Despite the rather weak trailers and marketing campaign, this movie delivers in so many ways. This film will be a delight for both kids and parents. With tons of adult humor hidden beneath the brilliant animation, Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit is one of the few films that perfectly manages to equally appeal to both kids and adults. This rather difficult technique is one that only Pixar has already perfected and DreamWorks has had a lot of trouble doing lately. Despite the DreamWorks logo slapped onto the poster, this film is mainly from the very creative staff of Aardman Animations.

Wallace and Gromit are first seen running a business that protects the townspeople's crops from being ruined by rabbits, which apparently had been running around wild and in great numbers lately. Their business has gotten them plenty of respect from the others living in the town because a gigantic vegetable contest was rapidly approaching and the crops needed protection. Complications arise when Wallace attempts to manipulate the rabbits into not liking vegetables and then a great eating machine is unleashed on the area. It is up to Wallace and Gromit to find the gigantic animal and stop it from eating away through gardens and also their approval from the townspeople. To add to that, Wallace wants to impress Lady Tottington, which also captured the attention of a snobby suitor by the name of Victor. Simple plot yes, but there is more than meets the eye, be prepared for a few fun surprises along the way, kind of like in the other Wallace and Gromit cartoons.

In animated films with little dialogue, it is the animation that has to set the pacing and the mood of the film. Despite requiring 5 years to produce only 85 minutes of footage, the payoff is fantastic. There is a massive amount of detail that requires more than one viewing to truly notice. Even more incredible than the detailed and nearly flawless animation is the truly unspeakable amount of visual humor put into the film. Whether it is a creatively placed shot or normal labels put into the funniest position possible, or it is the oh-so-adorable rabbits that is constantly shown in the film, most Curse of the Were-Rabbit's humor comes strictly from just watching the movie itself and catching all the references before it is too late. Just picture the movie Madagascar, except funnier much fewer pop culture references, and better animation.

Casting was great, even though in a film with not much dialogue, it was not that important. Peter Sallis yet again does a wonderful job as Wallace, even though in this movie there was no stand-out quote that can be used anytime (The Wrong Trousers: \"It's the wrong trousers Gromit, and they've gone wrong!\"). Ralph Fiennes does a superb job as the lead villain Victor and also Helena Bonham Carter (known as the crazy female lead in the cult hit \"Fight Club\") lends her lovely voice as she plays Wallace's love interest. Even though nothing could top the final chase in \"The Wrong Trousers,\" Curse of the Ware-Rabbit did have plenty of action scenes, including one fantastically done chase scene between Gromit and Victor's evil dog. Last but not least, the rabbits really steal the show at some moments. Whether it is their cute expressions, their funny movements, or their howling, the rabbits in the film even take some of the glory from the main stars. The funniest rabbit in the movie is the \"cursed\" rabbit himself, to the very end of the movie he had the audience rolling in laughter.

Bottom Line: Despite not being as memorable as \"The Wrong Trousers\", this film is just as good and entertaining as Chicken Run. Unlike almost every movie to come out this year, the movie does not drag at all, clocking in at a short 85 minutes yet containing so much joy and fun, it will leave everyone watching it asking for more. There is very little wrong with the film; it was a pure delight to watch. This film is a total contrast of the decent yet vulgar, uncut, raw movies that have made a surprising amount of money earlier this year (40-Year-Old Virgin, Wedding Crashers, and Sin City) and for families and those who want harmless entertainment; that is a good thing. Highly recommend, this is the top animated movie to come out this year and among the best we have seen this decade. Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit: totally harmless fun from second 1 to second 5,100.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When Wallace and Gromit burst onto the scene in their academy award winning short, \"A Grand Day Out,\" they created a fresh new look at claymation. After two more shorts, Aardman's dynamic duo returned for this thoroughly enjoyable and entertaining movie. It has an excellent Voice cast, humorous jokes and good animation as only Aardman could do!

In this movie, Wallace and Gromit run \"Anti-Pesto,\" a rabbit removal company. When word gets out about a \"Were-Rabbit\" eating all the vegetables in town, a frenzy ensues. Of course, Victor Quartermaine, the town's handsome, toupee-brandishing huntsman, wants to get his hands on the rabbit to impress the lovely Lady Tottington...but can our favorite Aardman duo save the day before chaos ensues?

The jokes, I should say, were hilarious. One point, the villain, Victor Quartermaine's, booty-crack was showing, prompting a character to cry out: \"BEWARE...THE MOON!!!\" Vintage Aardman!

The characters are crisp and hilarious. Our favorite Aardman team of Man and Dog entertains us as only they could do, earning them their second Oscar (remember \"A Grand Day Out?\"). Helena Bonham Carter was terrific as the lovely Lady Tottington, Wallace's love interest. Ralph Fiennes was especially funny and foreboding as the cunning, toupee wearing hunter Victor Quartermaine. But the one who really stole the show was the priest, whose antics proved to be some hilarious comic relief.

Hats off to Aardman for creating another Wallace and Gromit masterpiece!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What-ho! This one is jolly good. I say jolly good, ol' chap. Or should I say \"ol' bean\"? My mastery of British terminology is a little dusty. Anyway, my biker boots and I walked into this screening with no prior viewing experience of Wallace and Gromit. I'm happy to say that my boots and I walked out pleased to have made their acquaintance.

While not as adult-accessible as Toy Story, W & G still manages to be clever enough to provide the grown ups with a little humor that will most definitely soar over the heads of the young 'uns who are too busy guffawing at the Were-rabbit's belches to have any clue that something is amiss. I highly suggest that you pay close attention any time you see books or words on the screen because there are quick glimpses of puns that you'll miss if you aren't paying attention. My favorite is a book of monsters that refers to the Loch Ness Monster as \"tourist trappus.\" If you've ever been known to say, \"I can really relate to Kevin Federline,\" or if you're just illiterate then not only will you miss out on these jokes, but you probably should be spending your time learning to read instead of going to movies. Consider this a public service announcement.

The most impressive aspect about W & G is its clay animation. Thanks to the tedious process, it took FIVE YEARS to finish the film! According to the press notes, there were some days when the optimum goal was to merely accomplish 10 seconds of completed film. Folks, I sometimes have trouble finding the motivation to finish responding to a handful of emails or adding captions to pictures for my reviews (a point that is proved by a lack of pictures in this review); so I can't even imagine having the required patience for that.

I really like the rough, hands-on quality of the claymation figures. The fact that you can see fingerprints in the clay is a nice, personal touch. How can you not be impressed with clay characters that show more expression and emotion than Paul Walker and Keanu Reeves combined? The Curse of the Were-rabbit is, as director Nick Park calls it, the world's first vegetarian horror movie that should entertain both kids and adults alike. Relying on (and as a male who prides himself in his shaggy-haired, cool-bearded masculinity I hesitate to use this word) cute and (oh man, I probably shouldn't use this word either) lovable characters rather than outdated M.C. Hammer references, W & G is proof that DreamWorks can create entertaining animation when it chooses cleverness over the cheap joke.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really refused to see this movie. I refused to go with the school and I refused to go with my parents. Just by looking at the trailer it looked stupid, to me anyway. One of my friends wanted to take me to the movies that day and he offered me 2 choices, \"The Dukes Of Hazzard\" or \"Wallace And Gromit: The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit.\" It took me 17 minutes to decide. Time was running out. I had to choose. It came up on the screen \"Few\" as in a few tickets left. By the time we had to line up and get our ticket, only one of us could go in. I desperately wanted Nicholas to go in to see it. But he forced me. I crossed my arms and was very moody and disappointed that I was going in to see this childishness. I walked in, sat in the only seat that was available and prepared for the movie! must say I was very surprised that I sat through that MASTERPIECE! It was amazing. I don't know what I was complaining about. The Clay Animation was by far the most best i've ever seen in my life. The story was brilliant. About a rabbit disrupting and crashing a carnival that had been planned for over 500 years. Basically Anti Pest Control are protecting the people who are competing in the Vegetable Competition. Anti Pesto known as Wallace And Gromit (Who are in charge of this business) try to keep all the rabbits away from the Vegetable carnival. I wont say anymore. It's just too good to tell. I'll admit that the whole idea of a Were-Rabbit is ab-it unbelievable and ab-it childish, but Nick Park adds substance to it which what makes everyone love it. I mean, there wont be a 10 foot rabbit on the loose and there definitely wont be 8 foot werewolves as said in \" Dog Soldiers.\" Then again, Were-Rabbits and WereWolves aren't actual creatures. But either way, it worked out very well.

The jokes also were more grown up. The kids wont get some of the jokes. It goes way above their heads. It had a lot of British jokes in there. If you love British humor, this is the movie for you.

I also loved the cast and the voices. Everything about the movie is so incredibly well done. The direction and pacing was absolutely...FANTASTIC! I recommend this to fans of the old Wallace And Gromit shorts (And no, I haven't seen them yet), and I recommend it to fans who liked \"Shrek\" and \"Shrek 2 and most importantly, I recommend it to the people who love Clay Animation. Cracking good movie! 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are a few aspects to Park's movies, and in particular Wallace & Gromit, that I would say make them so great. The first is subtlety and observation, the flagship of which is the character of Gromit. He doesn't speak, he doesn't make any noise, all he has are his eyes, brow, and body posture, and with these he commands the film. Park manages to give us everything we need from this silent character through his expression. The comedy and the emotion is conveyed through the subtlest of movements and it works superbly well.

Watching the movie you have to be aware of the entire screen. Normally you'll be guided to things in the movies, the screen won't be cluttered too much, there won't be many things to take your eyes away from the main clue or action. Park seems to need to look the other way with his movies. He throws extra content at his audience, there's action in the background, to the side of the screen, even off screen, and there's just about always something in the foreground to catch your eye. His movies are about multiple viewing and discovery, they're layered with jokes and ancillary action.

Throughout this film there are layers of things happening on screen, jokes in the foreground maybe on a jar label and background shadows that give away action. You can imagine that for Park the movies has always been an event, and the movies he loves are ones which he wants to watch again and again. This is what shows in his movies, and in through his most beloved characters.

Then there are the bizarre and wacky inventions which Wallace make, something which is reflected in the storyline and the twists and turns of the plot, everything is bizarre and off the wall, yet it seems so perfectly normal in this world. You can imagine that inside Park is the mind of Wallace.

There's also one more thing that make these movies so unique, and that's the modelling and precise hand animation. I must admit I was concerned when I knew Dreamworks was involved in the making of this movie, and I thought that they would bring their computer animation experience to the forefront. What I was scared of was Wallace & Gromit becoming CGI entities, or at the smallest, CGI being used to clean up the feel that the modelling brought to the movie.

Not so. You can still see thumbprints and toolmarks on the characters, and far from distracting from the movie, this just adds so much real feeling to it and a feeling of physical depth to the characters and the scene on screen.

So what of the movie? Well I must say that the plot twist was something I had thought about well before the film was in the cinema and it came as no surprise, but that did not affect my enjoyment one little bit. Actually watching the twist unfold and the comic timing of the discovery and reactions was everything, and it had me just as sucked in as if it was a thriller, yet all the time I was laughing.

Watching the movie was fascinating in various ways. To see the animation completed, how wild the inventions are, how Wallace is going to get into trouble and Gromit get him out, where all the cross references are in the movie, and where all the jokes are! I must admit afterwards talking with my friends I couldn't believe how much I had missed.

There's something different in this movie than with the others, there's a new level of adult humour in here, and I don't mean rude jokes (although there are a couple that are just so British you can't help laughing), I mean jokes that simply fly over kids heads but slap adults in the face. The kind you are used to seeing come out of somewhere like Pixar. This just adds even more appeal to the movie.

Okay though, let me try and be a bit negative here. I didn't notice the voices in this movie, you know how you usually listen to the actors and see if you can recognise them? Well I was just too wrapped up in the movie to care or to notice who they were...okay, that's not negative. Let me try again. The main plot wasn't as strong and gripping as I'd expected, and I found myself being caught up in the side stories and the characters themselves...again...that's not a bad thing, the film was just so much rich entertainment.

I honestly can't think of a bad thing to say about this movie, probably the worst thing I could say is that the title sequence at the end is quite repetitive...until the final title! Really, that's the worst I can say.

The story is a lot of fun, well set-up, well written, well executed. There's lot's of fantastic characters in here, not just Wallace & Gromit. There's so much happening on screen, so many references and jokes (check out the dresses of Lady Tottingham), cheese jokes everywhere, jokes for all the family. The characters are superbly absorbing and you'll find that you've taken to them before you realise. There's just so much in this movie for everyone.

There's so much I could say and write about, but I know it will quickly turn into a backslapping exercise for Park and Aardman, it would also just turn into a series of \"this bit was really funny\" and \"there's a bit when...\", and what I would rather do is tell you that this is a superb movie, to go see it, and to experience the whole thing for yourselves. I will say though that the bunnies are excellent!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WALLACE & GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT (2005) **** (Voices: Peter Salis, Ralph Fiennes Helena Bonham Carter)

Fantastic Feats of Clay: Wallace & Gromit Save the Day! Crackin' Good Entertainment!

Nick Park, the creator of the animated team of Wallace & Gromit, is a genius. His painstaking art in the form of Plasitcine claymation is a unique process involving literally thousands of hours (it takes roughly an 8 hour work day to contribute 3 minutes of action to a film; this foray into feature length storytelling took 5 years!) in making his lovable master & loyal dog team take form is finally on the big screen in the duo's first full-length motion picture and it's cracklin' good (to coin a phrase from Wallace's usual reply to all things good!)

Park, who co-directed with Steve Box and co-wrote with Mark Burton and Bob Baker, sends up the horror genre in this rollickingly funny and swift paced action comedy with the geeky inventive Wallace (voiced by British vet thespian Salis) and his mute yet loyal (and sharper-minded) mutt Gromit (all furrowing eyebrows and mouth-less insouciance) have devised a service to their community: pest control (\"Anti-Pesto\" as they are known) for the upcoming Giant Vegetable Festival that has the entire town in the mood for all things vegetative a gigante and the biggest pesk are troublesome rabbits eating the crunchy goods. Wallace's inventive mind has created a vacuum container that is quick, efficient, and more importantly harmless to the cute vermin that plague the estate of Lady Campanula Tottington (voiced by Bonham Carter, making a fast-break to be the first lady of stop-motion animation what with her earlier turn in \"Corpse Bride\" a few weeks ago), who is housing the competition and is a love interest for the nerdy Wallace.

The only fly-in-the-ointment is vainglorious, bombastic loud-mouth and jerk Victor Quartermaine (voiced by Fiennes, his first attempt in the animated arts coming across as a Patrick Stewart lunged braggard with hilarious results), a badly toupeed wearing macho moron who is plotting to marry Lady Tottington for her riches while he is a chief competitor to W&G's humane attempts by resorting to his trusty guns and nasty bulldog.

To add insult to injury the duo are facing a terrible plight in the form of a huge were-rabbit (the titular monster a nice nod to both Universal and Hammer horror flicks) that is terrorizing the village and devouring every veggie in sight. The two set out to trap and dispose of the creature but there is more than meets the eye as things progress.

Relentlessly funny and with such amazing elastic, and kinetic energy to his wonderful clay counterparts, Park and Box have created a truly magical and highly entertaining film with so much amazingly detailed production design to their little world that it may take more than one screening to absorb just how much effort in their blood, sweat and tears have gone into making this instant classic for children of all ages.

Wallace, the cheese loving balding inventor, could easily be Homer Simpson's UK cousin with his rotund body and constant knack for getting things wrong while attempting to do the right thing; his heart is in the right place but his head is in the clouds. His sweet crush for Lady Tottington (resembling a pre-plastic surgery Carol Burnett) who is a head taller than our hero will perhaps remind those of their first unrequited love with a smile of awkward admission. His Rube Goldberg-like gift for making the complicated into ease is inspired lunacy that fans will recall from the earlier shorter films \"The Wrong Trousers\", \"A Close Shave\" and \"A Grand Day Out\".

But it is in my opinion the wise, silent and long-suffering Gromit, his poached egg eyes of slow-burns and disbelief at what is transpiring, is one of the best animated characters ever created with such an amazing arsenal of exasperated, mouthless expressions and subtle nuances that most live-action actors would kill to accomplish in the attempt of conveying dismay, concern, grief, genuine surprise and relief. His final chase \u0096 a signature of the immensely popular comic team \u0096 is ingeniously set and quickly improvised especially his literal dog-fight with the equally soundless bulldog with tenacity, wit and a Chuck Jones fueled smartness that would have Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger green with envy.

Wallace and Gromit match the best of Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello and any other classic comedy team that comes to mind; here's hoping their longevity continues on screen for just as long as their predecessors. The waiting is most eager.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having just come home from my third viewing of The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit, I decided to jump on IMDb and see what others thought. I noticed a lot of Brits loved it, while those in America just didn't get it. That really doesn't come as any shock, as America doesn't get what \"English\" is.

Wallace and Gromit are very English. Middle class English, in fact, with a hint of eccentricity throw in for good measure. The film is a lot like our two heroes; simple and unassuming. It has a nice and gentle plot so the children don't get lost, yet there's enough beef there to keep the adults amused too. There's some light innuendo (which seems have to have offended the evangelic - oh noes, drama!) but there is nothing more rude than a bottom for a brief moment. When people get offended by a plasticine anus, you know the world's messed up...

One quick note to those (all American so far that I have seen) who think Chicken Run is a better film: Chicken Run was made to pander to your sense of humour, and I think it suffered because of it. Curse of the Were Rabbit is witty, English, and intelligent. Thomas The Tank Engine's film was ruined because it was made to please the Americans and I'm glad Nick Park did not let that happen to another Great British institution.

To sum up: You can keep your Chicken Runs, your Shreks, your Madagasga's - that kind of crude, crass, slapstick comedy just doesn't compare to the wit and grace that is Wallace and Gromit in Curse of the Were-Rabbit. English to the core, and long may Wallace and Gromit stay that way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was very good, except for two things which I'll mention at the end. The animation is great, highlighted by Nick Park and company's trademark of exaggerated teeth and mouths of the characters, which make you laugh almost every time you see someone. The color was magnificent, too.

The best part of the film, however, is the clever comedy woven throughout. This is another of these animated films in which there is so much to see and hear each frame that it would require many viewings to catch all the gags. It's just a funny exaggerated look at the oddball \"Wallace\" and his silent-and-smart dog \"Gromit.\" Along the way, it pokes fun people who get carried away with their vegetable gardens, something akin to how the obsessive dog lovers were pictured in \"Best Of Show.\"

My only complaints were two typical traits of today's films, animated or not: 1 - let's make the cleric in the film look like a total idiot; 2 - let's overdo the final action scene with the predictable result but way overdone. Those aside, this is still a very amusing film that should provide a lot of laughs to many people and a movie to enjoy multiple times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1989, Aardman Animations introduced the two heros in The Grand Day Out. In 1993, they fought an evil penguin in The Wrong Trousers. And in 1995, they had to rescue sheep from an evil robot dog in A Close Shave. In 2005, they're back and they are going to fight something that used to be cute and cuddlely in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. In this full feature film, Wallace and Gromit work in Anit-Pesto, a pest-control business. There's going to be a Giant Vegetable Competition, but rabbits keep eating the neighbors vegies. Wallace and Gromit takes care with that problem. But Wallace had an idea. He will brainwash the bunnies with his machine. After doing that, something suddenly eats all of the vegies in the neighborhood and it's big. It's up to Wallace and Gromit to save the day. As a fan of these two characters, I was impressed. It kept what the 3 previous chapters had and instead adding a lot of Hollywood actors for voice-overs, they put a no name cast to the job and boy, they did a fantastic job. Wallace and Gromit has not changed. Wallace is still the cheese-loving freak like he always was and Gromit is the silent newspaper reading dog. Also, the script was not too shabby like other family movies were. There is a twist of who the Were-Rabbit really is. The direction from Nick Park (the director of the 3 previous chapters) does a really good job with the storyline. Instead of adding the Hollywood formula in it, he just took the style of the previous chapters and adds a bit of a dark fantasy twist in it. Well done, Nick. The rabbits are also funny and adorable, but the funniest rabbit in the movie is one who has the mix of Wallace in him. The characters were not bad and they weren't annoying, but they'll never top Wallace and Gromit. The animation is indeed fantastic and wonderful. I've never seen a clay-animated movie that is so amazing since Chicken Run. Overall, fans of the two knuckleheads (including the teens) will love this fantastic film. It is a well done film that should get an Oscar next year. Hooray, Wallace and Gromit. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My only problem with The Curse of the Were-Rabbit is that the movie does not take the time to properly introduce Wallace and Gromit to those not familiar with Park's short films. Strangely, \"A Close Shave\" manages to do this with a lot less time to spare. Still, I loved seeing the boys back in action and loved all the new characters, human and otherwise. I especially loved Ralph Fiennes voice as the scheming Victor Quartermaine. It is also interesting to see the series on the large screen. The workmanship with the clay characters really stands out. It's a hoot, and great for the whole family! I buy very few DVDs but I have every Wallace and Gromit and will happily add this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"''Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit'' is the same type of animation and from the same creators of ''Chicken run'', but the story now is other: Wallace, a inventor who loves cheese and his smart dog Gromit who is always helping Wallace in his problems,are trying to keep the rabbits away from everybody's vegetables,since there is in their town, an annual Giant Vegetable Competition. But when Wallace tries an invention he did, to make the rabbits avoids vegetable, the one who is going to be cursed is him. Before watching this movie I didn't knew that these two characters already existed and were famous.I loved Gromit, and I think he is one of the coolest dogs I already saw.

aka \"Wallace & Gromit-A Batalha dos Vegetais\" - Brazil","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Imaginative, quick-paced, satirical! Americans do 'zany', but the Brits do 'witty' -- and they love to poke fun at themselves (ahem: unattractive teeth, large lips\/nose, 'veddy' common or 'veddy' snobby, obsession with the 'gahden'). Inside jokes for the older folk in the audience, lots of action for the kiddies. Subtle use of devices from other classic films (watch for 'Back to the Future', 'Indiana Jones..', 'Harvey', 'Tremors'.. and more). Also, a nifty 'buddy' film (Gromit is a quiet, but resourceful sidekick). Add brilliant voice work by Bonham-Carter and Fiennes (is it true? the best acting these days is being done in animation?) - enjoy! I saw it with the grandkids. fun time for all. - canuckteach","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is what most of the industry has forgotten how to make: FAMILY entertainment, meaning something which is enjoyable to people of all ages. This particular Wallace & Gromit can be enjoyed by everyone from toddlers who like the colors and cute bunnies to their grandparents who understand the adult references.

This film has direction as good as any I've ever seen, and I mean that literally. It is also packed with tiny bits of humor, and each scene has so many humorous details in the background that I'm going to have to buy it, if only in order to read all the signs and handbills in W & G's world.

I plan to see this movie at least twice more in theaters, then buy it on DVD. You too should see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Who can ask for more? Taking my 2 and 4 year old children was a risk, I admit. But well worth it. They were enthralled from credit to credit, with their parents beside them.

I have taken the kids to films before with mixed results: too scary, too boring, too sophisticated, whatever. With this film, however, I was glad to see a smart film with wit, style and a sense of passion emanating from the screen. Any film that takes 5(!) years of production to make, good or bad, deserves some respect for the bravery and the patience it takes to film a film like this.

O.K. I'm gushing a little. Then again, why wouldn't I get excited? Looking through the movie listing today only reminded me of the poor quality of films that are distributed. At least for the moment Regardless, W & G is a film well made. Perhaps the originality wasn't the most inspired, nevertheless, well told and well paced.

Too much adult humour? Too many sex references? Maybe. Though my kids didn't quite catch them. Too young. So, in my case, I didn't really notice.

Well, needless to say, I liked it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There was something about the original three films that made them so special and delightful - probably the length of them. Unfortunately this lacks the charm, but it still ends up being a fun film.

The bright, shimmering side is that our favourite plasticene figures are still doing a cracking great job, there is good plasticene animation used, there is a silly, but well-structured and entertaining plot, an exciting, fun adventure, a good plot idea (a were-rabbit and a giant vedgetable competition) and good new characters!

As well as lacking the original charm, the only other slightly gloomy side of the film is that the humour, though good, is slightly overdone, especially compared to the original films.

The popular Giant Vedgetable Competition is drawing near and Wallace and Gromit are helping control rabbits from eating any vedgetables, now they are Anti Pesto. They are doing a good job, but soon, there is danger afoot. A were-rabbit is nearby...

Recommended to all Wallace and Gromit fans and to people who like plasticene films, enjoy \"Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Wererabbit\"! :-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The folks at Aardman have done a cool, cute and wild adaptation of their short films of Wallace and Gromit to feature length, as the man and his dog, inventors who seem to have more of the intelligence (or practicality) for the latter. In this case they've invented a machine that can capture all of the bunnies that are eating up the crops all over a quiet English village. In particular for Mrs. Tottington (or 'Totty' for those who are 'intimate'), much to the chagrin of Victor Quartermaine, who just wants to kill all the rabbits with his trust rifle. Wallace and Gromit seem to have success with their machine, but Wallace has a mix-up: a machine he's made to make more food suddenly criss-crosses himself with a rabbit - the curse is on!

A lot of this is about as much light-hearted fun that a kid's movie could ask for, but it also tips its hat to the oldest tradition in classic cartoon slapstick: Looney Tunes, which in turn is indebted to much silent comedy and vaudeville. Granted, the Aardman guys (Nick Park and Steve Box) have a bunch more gimmicks and tricks and ingenuity with their material. It's never less than amazing to see how they put the stop motion to use, even when a joke or a gag might be a little on the funny \"ho-ho\" not funny \"ha-ha\" side (a tired criticism but I'll say it). Curse of the Were-Rabbit works so well on all fronts for the audience, in its warped story and sudden dips into exposition (the Golden Bullet story is a doozy), Park and Box and company never lose sight of glee in the material.

It's fuzzy and warm-hearted and completely off-the-wall for the kids (even the very youngest will love the adventures and strange gadgets, such as the truck Wallace and Gromit drive around in), and for adults there's little barbs of funky, absurdist tones in the midst of a classic English farce. Only (and I'm probably a minority opinion here) when compared to Chicken Run it's almost a little slight a work- there's less any plot than there is a series of running gags, and of course lots of puns involving bunnies and monsters and carnivals and cheese (and horrible men with egos in their guns like the Fiennes voiced Quartermaine). But when it strikes best, it's one of the most entertaining films of 2005. It gives me a big goofy smile anytime it's on TV.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wallace & Gromit have been around for some time, but this was their first foray onto the silver screen. Fans of the British TV series, like myself, were eager to see them and the film did quite well in the theaters. Much of the reason is that the film is fun and quite original. In a world of CG movies like SHREK and TOY STORY, this stop-motion film is a nice alternative to the trend in children's movies as well as being totally unlike a cartoon. Plus, compared to much earlier stop-motion films (such as KING KONG and the Ray Harryhausen films such as SINBAD), the quality and movement of the characters are light years better--looking very fluid, natural and more alive.

Apart from the quality of the animation, this movie also deserves kudos on every other level. First, the voice actors do a great job. Second, the script is very simple but also very cute and enjoyable--with a few double-entendres that should probably go way over the kids' heads. Third, they manage to make this not only a movie for kids but people of all ages as the film is neither saccharine nor aimed solely at the younger crowd. In particular, I was captivated by incredibly cute the film was--and especially the adorable bunnies. I especially liked them in the closing credits--which made me very happy I stayed to watch the entire film.

The bottom line is that unless you are a real stick-in-the-mud, you will enjoy this film. It's fresh, funny and amazingly clever. I hope we see a sequel--and this is saying something, as I usually hate sequels.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Going into this movie, I was a bit cautious. I have always been a bit iffy about claymation movies. I've always enjoyed decent animated movies, but claymation was always different to me. But this one caught me by surprise. Wallace And Gromit are extremely lovable characters, and it's a great story with jokes for all ages. There's the silly burp\/fart jokes for the kids and the subtle, but over the head of young kids, jokes for us older people. Very neat claymation and while the story had holes, it kept my interest beginning to end.

It's so rare to find pure and uncorrupted humor these days, this movie was all the more refreshing. Wallace and Gromit go doing their normal thing, which is exterminating HUMANELY the buggers that ruin people's vegetable crops. But this time they find themselves fighting some form of a freak huge rabbit that their humanely built traps can't even keep under tabs. Great laughs and a great hour and a half of fun. If you have not exposed yourself to Wallace And Gromit, I highly recommend this movie.

The only reason I rate it a 7 and not higher is because it's still a family movie and I don't have kids. I enjoyed it, but if I had been watching it with some little rug rats and my wife, it'd be at least a 9 for sure! Give it a shot!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This scene shows how Wallace's experiment by using his brain manipulation invention goes terribly wrong, creating the \"Were Rabbit\". His desire as a social entrepreneur is to improve society for the better, therefore, created a \"Brain Manipulator\" machine. He risked his own life to help solve Tottington's pests' rabbit problem and more importantly to overcome the overcrowding of rabbits being collected and stored in his basement. Though he thought his experiment worked, however, it resulted in placing more pressure on him and Gromit to find a solution before the Annual Vegetable Competition again risking his life. Gromit, who is a silent faithful dog and a loyal helper finds himself continuously thinking of innovative ways to save his master, from his radical crazy inventions going terribly wrong. What is interesting in this movie, is trying to identify: who is more entrepreneurial, Wallace or Gromit?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was extremely amused to read some of the bad reviews on this movie. First, many have said that they have taken their 4 year old daughters and granddaughters to see this and they did not enjoy it. First, I don't believe that this is a kid's movie, at least not a movie for very very young children, not 4 at least. It has very subtle humor, but it is not meant to offer quick amusement as seen in Tom and Jerry or something like this. Many people have also complained that it goes very very slowly....I guess those people are all used to \"quantity\" over \"quality\". While I have a small quality problem myself with this movie and that is that the movie was not as detail oriented as the short movies, I still believe that it managed quite well for a full feature film. And how can people complain about the jokes?? The jokes were sensible, timely and well thought out, never rude insulting or \"in your face\". Wallace is extremely smart, yet cautious and Grommit is the most adorable, smart and cute character that could be. This was a beautiful movie and the theme was very appropriate...for adults that is....especially with the increase of obesity and metabolic disease in the world, there's nothing wrong with promoting vegetables and fruits for once...and this was accomplished in a very tasteful manner in that ...while people are concerned with the aspect of vegetables that doesn't necessarily mean that the are healthier or that they eat more of them...but just that they temper with nature, which is in fact what caused the legend of the were rabbit to come true. And for those out there that complained about the religious jokes, I say...came on! are you for real? Many villages revolve around the local church, and legends\/premonitions etc. are normal themes, no harm done. This movie was absolutely amazing, yet some people had negative comments on it and I find this absolutely absurd!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you haven't watched the movie yet, but you do like comedy, go out and buy or at least rent it! The fact it won, the animation Oscar, is not a coincidence! I haven't watched many other Wallace & Gromit movies (in fact, I think I only watched one other), but the humor is very distinctive ... and some would also say very British. In a good way of course!

The story will only be an excuse for all the jokes to come, but although it's not the most elaborate one, it still works (by the way, my niece did guess see one of the big surprises coming, I didn't, Kudos to her ;o) ). I do think, that after you watch this one, you'll go out and seek the other W&G movies, that are out there. Have fun!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A great animation movie that really gets up to the level of oldies like \"The Lion King\" .

I went to see this with one of my best Belgian friends who also watched the series on TV . I was lucky because I didn't know people in Belgium were aware of \"Wallace and Gromit\" .

When it started and that good old theme started it started to bring back memories of me watching it when I was 5 .

The humor itself was very funny . Some nice sitcom style scenes , some wordplay or just plain jokes . The animation isn't as impressive if you have know the series but it is still fun to watch is you realize how it gets done.

My Conclusion : Not only can it keep my happy and entertained , some of the humor can easily appeal to older people so I say : Go and watch \"Curse of The Were-Rabbit\" as soon as you can .","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although it isn't half as hilarious as \"Chicken Run,\" the new Wallace and Gromit comedy \"The Curse of the Were-Rabbit\" (*** out of ****) yields more laughs than most live action comedies. British director Nick Park, who created the Wallace and Gromit characters, and co-director Steve Box rely on the old-fashioned, stop-motion method of animation--known best as claymation--to create several visually adorable characters in more than enough side-splitting scenes about a monstrously mutant hare out to devour every vegetable in sight. Amusing as its whimsical storyline is, the heart of the hilarity lies in the imaginative way with which Park and company have painstakingly constructed characters and gags out of a brand of modeling clay called Plasticine. Basically, every shot that you see in \"The Curse of the Were-Rabbit\" required patient souls that made minor alterations in the clay characters for a series of individual shots that merge into a veritable montage of merriment. Hollywood pioneered claymation as a form of animation as far back as the silent movies of the 1920s, before the industry turned its back on the complicated process. Aardman Studio animators managed to crank out a mere three seconds of usable footage per day. For the record, \"The Curse of the Were-Rabbit\" took five years to make. The lumpy looking characters, with thumb-prints clearly visible in their respective clay complexions, look incredibly funny with their ping-pong ball eyes and over-biting mouths. Interestingly, Gromit emerges as the funniest character, a lovable mutt with no mouth but an expressively inexpressive face who says more than most of the talking characters.

Wallace and Gromit are respectively master and pooch. As the human half of the duo, Wallace is a homily looking moron without a clue who somehow manages to construct machines that do some rather incredible things. One of the funnier scenes shows master and pooch awakened by a system of chutes, hatches, and spring-operated contraptions that dress and feed them. Meanwhile, Gromit is the animal half. The running joke is that Gromit shows more common sense than his genius of a master. As good as his ideas and inventions are, Wallace could not succeed without the loyal Gromit giving him a hand. Our heroes run a pest protection business called 'Anti-Pesto.' Essentially, they must protect every vegetable patch for miles around using an ungainly looking device called a Bun-Van 6000 that literally sucks rabbits out of their ground and into a huge glass container. No, Wallace and Gromit don't kill the critters. Instead, they keep them as pets, and Wallace experiments with an invention\u0097Mind-O-Matic--designed to convert hares into carrot-haters. This \"Frankenstein\" meets \"The Fly\" approach plunges poor Wallace into deep trouble when he swaps bits of his brain with that of a rabbit. Not long thereafter, a mysterious towering terror stalks the vegetable patches on full moon nights and creates chaos for everyone as the village's 517th annual Vegetable Contest approaches.

Initially, Wallace and Gromit appeared in Park's Oscar-nominated, film school project \"A Grand Day Out\" (1989). Since then Aardman has released ten other animated shorts, among them \"Wallace and Gromit: A Close Shave\" (1993) and the Oscar-winning Wallace and Gromit: The Wrong Trousers\" (1995). \"Curse of the Were-Rabbit\" differs not only because it represents the duo's big-screen debut, but also it runs a whopping 85 minutes. The first two-thirds of \"Were-Rabbit\" contain better gags than the last third, but Park and company never miss a chance to slip in an adult joke that kids won't get but attentive grown-ups will appreciate. \"Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit\" is hare-raising fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Arising from characters previously developed in a series of much-lauded shorts, THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT is about as far from run-of-the-mill \"family fare\" as you can get: beautifully crafted and with witty dialogue and clever concepts, this really is a movie that will appeal to almost every member of the family.

The story concerns Wallace and his dog Gromit, who live in a village obsessed with growing large vegetables for the annual fair and who operate \"Anti-Pesto,\" a humane solution to all those pesky rabbits that torment passionate gardeners everywhere. The business is a great success--but Wallace proves a bit too clever for his own good. When he tries to \"rehabilitate\" rabbits from their vegetable-crunching ways, he unexpectedly unleashes an ancient horror of legendary proportions: the Were-Rabbit! And suddenly no vegetable in town is safe! The movie is full of crazy inventions, unexpectedly smart dialogue, and references to everything from KING KONG to THE WOLF MAN--more than enough to entice even a jaded teenager--but the real charm of the thing is in its characters. The amount of personality the artists and animators can wring from bits of clay is amazing: they seem as fully alive as any flesh-and-blood actor. The DVD release (and I recommend the widescreen) includes a number of informative and entertaining extras as well. Greatly recommended! GFT, Amazon Reviewer","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first full-length film featuring the Aardman characters Wallace and Gromit manages to bring in elements of all the previous half-hour show which aired on television.

Wallace runs a company to humanely capture rogue rabbits from people's vegetable gardens, and has the bright idea to try out his invention on the hapless bunnies once they're caught. Of course, as in other Wallace and Gromit films, things don't quite work out as planned.

Similarly to A Close Shave, there's a love interest for Wallace, in this case the village Lady Posh, and a big mean villain with a bullish dog. Gromit is beautifully animated with a wide range of expressions making the character laugh out loud funny. And of course Peter Sallis provides the voice of Wallace again and is a perfect fit.

And as in A Grand Day Out, cheese features heavily to great comedic effect as the film moves along.

On the negative side this film is a little on the long side. There are great effects, and some pieces which make you sit up and watch, but perhaps this story would have worked better as another short subject rather than pushing it to feature-length.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Following on from the huge success of Nick Park and the Aardman team with the Wallace and Gromit short animations we now have the first (hopefully of many) feature with the plasticine characters that so many love. The DVD of the movie has proved to be the most durable and best used of my two children's many Christmas presents by a long way. The plot of the movie is straightforward enough but the beauty of the W & G films for me is the background gags. There are plenty of up front gags and slapstick for kids and adults to enjoy but the background is the killer for me. All in a classy addition to an already classy filmography for Nick Park etal and I would recommend fans and new watchers to see this film....often.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Simply delightful claymation feature from Nick Park and company spoofing such film-greats as \"King Kong\" and \"The Wolf Man\" has Wallace and Gromit as rabbit security finding it difficult to solve a major problem in their village..a giant were-rabbit is feasting lavishly on the vegetable crops of the citizens! What makes this even worse is that the great vegetable festival is about to commence and the citizens have all prepared dutifully to win the top of prize. What makes the situation even worse is Wallace is the reason behind the whole vegetable-eating rampage..he was testing out a new invention regarding taking his brain waves in an attempt to brain wash captured rabbits into disliking vegetable crops. What occurs is catastrophic as some sort of hybrid were-rabbit is created in the process..and it has more to do with Wallace than he could ever imagine. It'll be up to his loyal(..and startlingly intelligent)and fast-thinking dog Gromit to save the day.

This is a clever and imaginative effort from the crew behind other Oscar winning claymation features starring Wallace and Gromit. Seeing good ole-fashioned claymation is refreshing considering the CGI boom that has featured rather lackluster fare here recently as the industry spits out more and more mediocre product. Here, we get a full feature with witty humor and some wild stunts featuring marvelous animation, not to mention gut-busting sight gags.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Leland Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) is sent to jail for the murder of an autistic kid. When pressured with the question 'Why?' he doesn't have an answer. While in jail he meets Pearl (Don Cheadle), his teacher, who decides to take matters into his own hands and helps Leland figure out why he did it. Throughout this film we learn all about Leland's troubled life, including his ex-girlfriend Becky(Jena Malone), his famous father Albert(Kevin Spacey)and his whole sad life.

This film is Matthew Ryan Hoge's second movie, and it is spectacular in nearly everyway. This is one movie which will leave you thinking in the end, and wondering about how it all works. The movie is quite dark, but if you can handle that then you will realize just how good a film it is.

In this movie, there is no bad guy. There is no one you can blame for anything that happens. There's no stereotyping, and the audience does not try to prove Leland guilty. Instead, we sit back, relax, and watch this boy's life unfold throughout the corse of the movie. All the problems depicted in the story are very real. Drug addiction, parental expectations, overwhelming sadness; they all exist in our world.

Ryan Gosling gives one of the greatest performances of his career in this movie, as the depressed teenager Leland. His father lives in Europe and doesn't really care much about his son. The only person he loves is Becky, but she has problems of her own. He knows exactly what he did, but as he says in the film, 'You want a why, but maybe there isn't one. Maybe this is something that just happened.' There is a why, but we don't find out about it until the end. As you watch the movie, the audience finds themselves amazed that such a young person could know so much about the world. Leland notices things that people tend to ignore.

A particular thought-provoking scene which really affected me was during one of Leland's conversations with Pearl. Pearl just cheated on his wife and when Leland asks why, Pearl replies that he's only human. Then Leland says something which never really occurs to anyone: \"Why do people only say that when they've done something wrong?\"

Another fantastic acting job was provided by Chris Klein. In the film he plays Allen Harris, the boyfriend of Becky's sister Julie (Michelle Williams). Although he is not one of the main characters, I found myself amazed at how deep his character was. You can relate to Allen a lot. You know how much he cares for the Pollard family. It's as if they were his own flesh and blood. By the end of the movie, you realize just how far he would go to help them.

Overall, this movie is a masterpiece which has been overlooked by quite a few people. If, however, you take the time to watch it, you will most likely see that everything I've mentioned above is true. And once you're finished watching it, you'll never look at the world the same way again.

9.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't let any reviews (critics, IMDb users or mine) influence you seeing this movie. I read only the plot premise and became intrigued. After watching, this movie, in my opinion, is definitely worth seeing. It gives a perspective on life that many have probably not contemplated. Its is not however, as Leland himself says, a movie that \"can be wrapped up in a neat package with a bow and everything.\" Other user reviews on this website claim to have a psychological background and imply that the story is not feasible. Quite obviously they missed the entire point of the movie, which is disappointing. to say the least.

In short, it is a well acted, well directed movie. The story is not a feel good one, but I feel if you don't come away from the movie feeling good, you may just have missed something. To characterize it as \"art house\" is unfair, in my opinion, but as our society likes labels, this is probably the one that fits. If you find you know everything there is to know about the world... I'd suggest skipping this one. If you feel movies should be a form of escape \"from the world\"... you won't find it here. But if you do watch it... you just might find something in yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) has committed an unspeakable crime, the stabbing of the retarded younger brother of his ex-girlfriend Becky (Jena Malone). No one, least of all Leland himself, can explain why he's done what he's done, whether the act was premeditated or spontaneous, done out of hatred or love.

In the detention center, Leland meets Pearl Madison (Don Cheadle), a onetime novel writer who sees in Leland's case a second opportunity. But Pearl also wants to understand Leland's motivation and takes him under his wing as a confidante in the prison.

The film jumps from the past to the present several times, often allowing the past to act as a context to the present, and vice versa. Writer\/director Matthew Ryan Hodge shows how Leland's crime - and the events leading up to it - affect the people in his life, from Becky to her family to Leland's mother (Lena Olin) and estranged father (Kevin Spacey) to Allen (Chris Klein), a young man who is staying with Becky's family after the death of his own mother.

The chief asset in the movie is Gosling, who is perfectly cast as the 15-year-old pseudopsychopath. Like Bartleby the Scrivener, Gosling's Leland just exists; he shows little emotion during the film, but instead his expressions belie an ocean of guilt, sadness, love, and rage.

Each of the main actors offered perhaps their best work to date, save Spacey (who's not exactly a novice). Special praise is due to Malone and Klein, two young performers who are better known for lighthearted comedy fare than the heavy drama of this movie.

Another huge benefit in terms of the story is that none of the characters is flawless; none are heroes out to save the day. This is simply not a black-and-white movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was looking at the external reviews (Ebert, etc.) for this film and they were all pretty much negative. However, after reading many of them, I noticed that they all made the same point. Critics were upset that the film centers around what appears to be a senseless murder of an autistic child. Certainly, this is a disturbing image. Critics like Ebert want a traditional detective story that uncovers why the killing happened and squarely places blame on the guilty. They want blame to be cast and resolved. Well, that status-quo theme is kind of what the movie is parodying. Just like society, the critics wanted a very quick resolution so they could move on to their next tragic opera. Perhaps there is no simple question to be answered here? There is a whole lot more to what happened then what is on the surface. The film does not seek to rationalize what happens, but rather understand the why. What also steams me so much about these inane reviews is that all they look at in the way of performances is Spacey and Cheadle, who were both great (and generally are). But there are other great performances at work here other than just the two current icons of Hollywood. Gosling gives an incredible performance that really only somebody of his extreme talent could deliver. Somehow, Gosling is able to make the killer of an autistic child sympathetic. This irritates many, I am sure. However, if one watches the film, they see what Leeland's motivation is, it is wrong, but it is not evil. Malone is also on top of her game as yet another confused young character. Basically, the killing of the child in this film is not the main theme of the movie. The main theme is life itself and how people go about dealing with it, the highs and lows, and how they attempt to sometimes help others deal with their lives (which does not seem to work out very well). There is a lot of good and bad in this world and how we handle each has direct impact on how much more good and bad will take place, and sometimes a confused attempt at doing good, can lead to a whole bunch more of bad. I think this is one of the more memorable films in sometime and has an ending that is as touching as anything in recent movie history. I strongly believe people should view this film, with an open mind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am no Ebert. What I am is a compassionate and I have never felt more compassion for a fictional character than I felt for Leland P. Fitzgerald. Sorry if I do not offer a critique, but I see nothing but perfection in this film. I am sure that many who watch this film will never see the same things I do, but if you look hard enough maybe you will see something you weren't expecting. I've read that the character of Leland was flawed. It seems to me that who wrote this was not able to see past the Question this movie presents. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't see the answers this movie delivers. Open your heart more than your mind and you may be able to let this Leland P. Fitzgerald show you a world that truly has a meaning. Excepcional story with extraordinary acting. Ryan Gosling deserves to be talked about.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before I saw this film, I read the comment of someone who wasn't very fond of it. This I must admit made me apprehensive to dedicate 1 hour and 48 minutes of my life to it, but I'm glad I did. Ryan Gosling is a fantastic actor, I especially loved the Believer. Don Cheadle was also fantastic. The film presented an interesting view on life and death. It was very touching and very sad, yet it kept me interested, which most touching stories cannot do. It is a film that reckless of whether or not you like it, you should see it. It was unique,and I don;t think that anyone will ever be able to duplicate it. All of the young actors did surprisingly well given the subject matter and the emotion that must have gone into it. I was pleasantly surprised.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are subtleties in this film that I think a lot of people may miss if they're not careful. You really need to follow what Leland says and read his character to figure out the intended \"why\" the movie presents at the end. Nothing it solid, it's not definite, it's about what the individual viewer takes out of it. I think that was the plan from the get-go, people aren't meant to all understand it in the same way, it's almost about forming your own personal relationship with Leland in order to maybe feel him a little better.

The storyline is interesting but its summary could never explain what the movie really is. It's dramatic and thought provoking, a lot of heavy ideas, but the pace of the movie is almost soothing, even with its more intense scenes with yelling. I think it's probably Leland, he's just calm and almost serene, even for all of his sadness. The movie personifies Leland in a way.

Of course it is captivating and draws you in if you let it, but there are some recycled ideas. I mean, Leland has a lot of impressive dialogue, he is anything but typical, but he's not a prophet. Everything he says is not a revelation, many people I know have mentioned things he mentioned, even I have observed a few things he's observed. Leland is the unique and attractive character he is probably mostly for Ryan Gosling's portrayal.

In the end the acting is all exceptional, there are no real bad guys, there is no way to psychologically evaluate Leland, only to maybe understand him and life a little better.

Comparable to Igby Goes Down I think, not comedic, but similar in its general outlook on life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every role, down to the smallest, has been cast and acted with bravado.

The extraordinary Jena Malone never takes a misstep. Her two co-stars are equal to her in this film. Ryan Gosling may be the best actor of his generation. Chris Klein gives his best performance to date. This is a thought and conversation provoking film that should be seen by teens and young adults. You'll think and talk about this film for days. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a movie that really makes you think about your life, our culture, family structures and situational actions. I will not give the plot in this post, I think others have beat me to it already. I hope that despite reading opinions on this site, you will take the chance and see this movie for yourself. I went to see this movie with my husband and a friend and I must say, after the movie was over there was total silence in the theater. After a few minutes I looked behind me and everyone in the theater was staring at the screen, lost in thought. This will make you delve deep into your psychological abyss to ponder several things:

How much does society influence my life and the lives of my generation?

How long does someone have to pay for mistakes that they have made?

If there is a second chance given, is it ever realized?

Is it better to live in a box or to not live at all?

My questions are not intended to show my approval or disapproval of Leland's actions. I do not want my opinion of them to in any way dictate what you will take away from this film so I am not giving it. See it for yourself. I am still lost in thought, attempting to answer my many questions from the film. I enjoyed it greatly and hope that you will too. This film is not trying to answer questions, condone any action or promote any punishment. This movie is trying to make us all evaluate our lives and take off the rose colored glasses that most of us view the world through.

Great movie. 9 out of 10 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One wonders about the state of a society that produce a father like Albert T. Fitzgerald, who we first meet on a plane, as he is heading toward the place he abandoned a long time ago, and where he left a wife and a child who is now accused of murdering a mentally challenged boy. When we first see him, he has caught a headline in the paper the woman in front of him is reading. Rather rudely, he asks her if he could have the newspaper, and the lady offers other sections. Well, that's not what he asked, what he wants the woman to do, is to give him the front section she is reading.

Matthew Ryan Hoge wrote and directed this disturbing film that reflects, in many ways, our society as it is today. In fact, Mr. Hoge is pointing out exactly at what is wrong with it.

The film presents Leland, a teen ager who can't even differentiate between fantasy and reality. It's evident that killing a human being, even the sweet and innocent boy who hasn't done anything to deserve it, will have fatal consequences, not only for himself, but for his own family, and the family of the slain boy. In fact, Leland seems to have no idea about what motivated him to commit the crime for he does not show any repentance about it.

It's obvious Leland has been traumatized by his parents divorce. His own father is an aloof man who couldn't care less about him. It's Pearl, the teacher in the juvenile detention center who sees the turmoil inside the young man and wants to help, but unfortunately, he doesn't have a chance.

The best thing in the film is Don Cheadle, a great actor who always delivers. The ensemble cast does good work under Mr. Hoge's direction. Kevin Spacey has a good opportunity playing the egotistical father of the accused murderer and makes us detest him for being an arrogant idiot.

Although a bit long, the film leaves us with more questions than what it answered.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I noted that the official IMDb review refers to Leland as a sociopath. I believe that this diagnosis is manifestly and profoundly incorrect.

This is a movie about sadness, and about the ability of one particular teenage boy to see sadness in daily life, as it lies in wait around every corner, in advance of the unfolding of the lives that it impacts. A sociopath is a person who cannot empathize with others, and who, while understanding the difference between right and wrong, does not care about this difference. A sociopath is a subject who places himself or herself at the center of that subject's universe, with total disregard for the impact that the subject's actions have for those around him or her. One of the defining characteristics of a sociopath is that a true sociopath lacks the ability to feel empathy -- lacks the ability to feel that which others feel, and does not correlate changes in the moods of others as the result of that sociopath's actions with those actions. A sociopath CANNOT feel the pain of others, or understand that the pain of others is the result of the sociopath's own actions. A sociopath is a person who is not completely formed. A vital chunk is missing from the psychological and emotional makeup of a true sociopath, rendering the sociopath immune to \"talking therapy\" and other treatment modalities that involve human interaction and the exploration of personal feelings. Sociopathy is devastating, even when the subject is treated and placed in a highly structured environment aimed at containing the damage that the sociopath can do to others. Many sociopaths function more or less normally and never raise a blip on the radar of the criminal justice system, although they tend to leave a trail of emotional debris in their wakes.

Leland Fitzgerald is no sociopath. He is a person who is blessed (or cursed) with the ability to foresee what he considers to be the inevitable consequences and outcomes of human interactions. Leland literally sees sadness written into the eyes and faces of people around him, as he slowly assimilates and internalizes the philosophy that life is about loss, and that people slowly succumb to the inevitable and inexorable fact that, for want of a better metaphor, things fall apart. People who fall in love and who kiss and cuddle today turn into \"pathetic\" elderly couples. The electricity in the eyes of Leland's \"mother\" (a wealthy New York socialite who loves Leland and who invites him into the home that she shares with her family when he arrives in New York City, alone and determined to remain in the city at the age of 12) fades as she explains to him, on the last of his visits to New York City, that she learned that her husband had been cheating on her all the time, that she got a divorce, that having one's heart broken happens to everybody, and that such loss is an inevitable part of growing up. Her eyes still reflect light, but the electricity that once illuminated them is gone. This scene -- this explanation, late is it is in coming -- is crucial to understanding why Leland commits a seemingly savage, senseless crime (killing the retarded younger brother of his ex-girlfriend). Leland knows what lies ahead for this little boy -- a lifetime of unattainable goals, of being taught only words that signify danger, of never knowing the love of another human being, of never feeling such love, and of never connecting with another person. More than any other character in this movie, this little boy personifies everything that Leland sees as being inevitable and horrifying about the world. Leland's act -- killing this little boy -- is, for Leland, an act of mercy, committed because this was the one thing that he COULD do in a world in which actions cannot change outcomes. Whereas a true sociopath knows that actions can and do change outcomes but does not care about the harm inflicted on others by those actions, Leland does care. What most people view as a barbaric and horrifying act is, in Leland's eyes, the only decent thing that he can do to alleviate the suffering of just one person.

It would be comforting to be able to present this as an explanation of Leland's actions -- comforting, but incomplete. For in the end, \"blame\" for Leland's actions lies elsewhere. As is so often the case, there are no easy explanations and no balm to apply to the outraged soul. Why did Leland not learn something that even the most pessimistic people usually acknowledge -- that sometimes -- just sometimes -- people DO remain in love, and that relationships DO succeed, and that even the saddest lives ARE transformed? For Leland, there is no middle ground, no inner core to which he can retreat and regroup. There is only pain and sadness. One is tempted to blame his arrogant and thoroughly unpleasant father -- the brilliant writer (played by Kevin Spacey) -- for not being there at critical times during Leland's development, but given this man's thuggish nastiness, that may have been a blessing.

In the end, this viewer was moved by a tremendous sense of sadness. Why was Leland doomed to view the world through a veil of pessimism and depression? There is a maturity to Leland's character -- present, for example, when he repeatedly insists that nobody was to blame for his girlfriend breaking up with him -- that is both stoic and heartbreaking. Stoic, in that it is absolutely genuine, notwithstanding the heated denunciations of Leland's teacher. But heartbreaking, in that it is born not so much of understanding as of despair. Leland's indifference to his fate is merely a reflection of the utter certainty of his belief that nothing really matters. Nothing that he does can change his fate.

This is not sociopathy on display. This is, if anything, its polar opposite......","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Leland follows the story of Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling), a disaffected teenager who has apparently murdered a severely retarded peer, the brother of a girl he was dating. The issue is not whether he did it or not \u0096 Leland admits to it, straight away \u0096 but rather, why. Interestingly, rather than a crime drama, Leland becomes a character story, examining why people do what they do \u0096 not necessarily the easiest ground to till.

And Leland features the required indie group of screwed-up people. Aside from the title character, there's also Pearl (Don Cheadle), who is his teacher at the juvenile correctional facility and who sees straight off that Leland is different. We meet Leland's distant and egotistical father (Kevin Spacey in an extended cameo), who never seems emotionally stirred in any way by what his son did. But the real flavorings come out when we immerse ourselves in the Pollards, the family of the retarded child. First, there's Leland's girlfriend Becky (Jena Malone), a drug addict who can't keep herself clean; her sister Julie (Michelle Williams), perhaps the most normal person in the film, who merely seeks to get away from it all; and Allen Harris (Chris Klein), a young man who lives with the Pollards and is Julie's boyfriend. Lastly, there's Ryan (Michael Welch), whom all the others call goofball, who cannot communicate and seems barely aware of his surroundings.

Leland focuses primarily on its eponymous protagonist, but the movie slowly \u0096 occasionally too slowly \u0096 burrows into everyone's lives, asking the chief question, why do people do what they do? While Leland discusses it openly in a journal Pearl allows him to keep, examining notions of good and bad and personal responsibility, all the characters at some point in the film face a moment where they must make the fundamental choice of their own happiness or another's, perhaps the most basic choice any human can make. And the movie takes a good look at what goes into those choices, and the consequences of them.

In the beginning of the film, you're simply struck by the depth of the cast. Spacey. Cheadle. Gosling. Michelle Williams. Even Chris Klein \u0096 these are people who for the most part tend to elevate any film they are in, and putting them all together makes for a heady brew. For a space in the middle the film seems to stall, sputtering along as it unfolds; it looks for a while as if it will be content merely to ask questions and not supply any answers. But when we arrive at the home stretch and the movie starts to hit its stride and come together, Leland becomes a quietly powerful piece of film-making. Leland's explanation of the world and his actions, in the end, bring every story into focus, and all the investment you've made in the film pays off.

Saying Ryan Gosling is excellent is like saying a sunny day is nice. At this point in his career it's redundant \u0096 this is one of the finest young actors working today, and it is a pleasure to watch him craft what could have been an unlikable character into a thought-provoking protagonist. Gosling employs such subtlety here that it hardly seems like acting; he has to face off most of the film opposite Don Cheadle, whom we know has the goods, and he not only holds his own, he elevates Cheadle's game as well. Cheadle himself is in top notch form, imbuing Pearl with a fully-rounded humanity \u0096 for good and bad. Spacey is kind of one-note, but that's the character, and he handles it excellently. I was surprised by Chris Klein; with this level of acting, I thought he would be buried in the mix, but he gives probably the turn of his career so far. Terrific work all around.

Leland is a bit of a downer, and again, it's draggy in spots. But it finishes strongly and leaves a lasting impact on the viewer (on this one, anyway). There's also a subtle commentary on racism in the film (in Leland's first day in juvenile hall class, he's the only white person in the room) that, like much of the movie, is very effectively handled. I wouldn't go so far as to call this required viewing \u0096 some might find it too slow or too odd \u0096 but I thought it was one of the better films I've seen in a while, far stronger and more satisfying than most fare out there. I'd recommend it \u0096 with the above caveats \u0096 if for no other reason than to watch Gosling further perfect his craft.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing the trailer for this film and I absolutely knew I had to see this movie. It looked like something that would be right up my alley.

\"The United States of Leland\" is a terrific movie. It is not one that will leave you with a nice, pleasant ending, but with a sad, empty feeling instead. And when I say it will leave you with an \"empty\" feeling, I do not mean that as a bad thing. I believe that you are meant to fill that empty feeling with your own thoughts about the characters and human's general motives and how they act as parts of society.

Ryan Gosling is perfectly cast as Leland. He is intelligent, yet stoic. I like the way that he narrates the film with his journal. The supporting cast is terrific as well. Kevin Spacey is very good, as always, and Don Cheadle is amazing as Leland's teacher and mentor.

This was a great story and is very smart and thought provoking. I highly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has to be one of the most powerful message-sending movies i saw lately, it was absolutely flawless all the way, amazingly original and thought provoking. Story is unusual and original, and the characters make this story very very powerful. It's about a guy who kills his ex-girlfriend's retarded kid brother, and as he is sent to juvenile prison, through many memory flashbacks you get a grip on a story and you don't let it go until the very end. Murder he commits changes the course of life for every member of his family and the family of deceased, and as you watch and realize that everyone has its own story and its own dark side you just appreciate this movie even more, it's a total tour de force, cause those actions cannot be described by simple words. His motive of committing murder is left incompletely explained, and it makes viewers think. Acting was pretty much flawless, and the cast was very good, it contains many familiar faces. If you like the movies that are thought provoking and that just make u think during them(e.g. 'Donnie Darko', 'Mulholland Dr.') then 'The United States of Leland' is an excellent movie choice for you, otherwise you should pass this movie and watch it when you're in the mood for serious thought provoking movie.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was a masterpiece of human emotions and experience. I think that a lot of people get caught up in Leland's apparent mental illness as the storyline, but I was drawn into the relationships of many of the characters and what they reveal about the force of human emotions. Much of the message of the movie is that we never know the good without the bad, which is a little clich\u00e9, but what makes this movie so good and so original is that it very eloquently portrays the crushing and devastating force that the bad can have, whether you see the bad everywhere like Leland, or are experiencing the utter helplessness of unrequited love or a relationship that just isn't going to work no matter how bad you want it to. This movie captures how helpless relationships and emotions can make you feel better than any movie I've seen, and it is as depressing a movie as it is good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My God, Ryan Gosling has made a lot of deep characters in his career, this is one of his wonderful acting jobs. For me this is a very deep movie, needs a lot of concentration, not because is difficult to watch, just because you understand it if you put your shoes in this kid, even though has everything and has famous father that is a writer, has a deeper mind, you don't understand why he kills this poor kid, until you really heard what he has to say and you start to think, at least to me, that a lot of things that he says is true. Simple kid, sweet, very gentle, in a way normal like any teenage, but inside of him suffer because he start to look at the world in a different way, then you understand why he did what he did. I recommend this movie for those who likes deep drama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed, appreciated, will view this movie again because I am sure There are subtleties that I missed. Wonderfully cast, no over acting or Clich\u00e9 performance or plot. Uses a tragic event to reflect multiple Relationships, how those involved in each relationship are connected (Or disconnected) and perceptions of life, what position each one Occupies in the relationship, in life and how they cope with the Confusion, joy, hurt and disappointment of discovering that things are not what they perceived them to be. At first I thought there were \"Observers\" and \"the observed\", but that is not the case, we are all connected somehow and our perceived separation is only in small degrees. I recommend the movie to everyone especially those in teaching, social work, religious counseling and every other person that breaths.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i loved catcher in the rye, it happens to be my favorite book. JD salinger, the author of catcher, has the rights to the book and made it so not one person can make a movie about it with his permission.

with that said, heres \"united states of Leland.\" Beautiful movie with much meaning and depth in emotion. but a lot of it reminded me of catcher, almost too much reminded me of catcher. the few stories that Leland told in the movie such as visiting new york and his adventures were very similar to those of holden's in catcher, and the way Leland views people and emotions is also similar to Holden's, they both are simple and true to themselves and others. superior acting credited to don cheadle and Kevin spacy. great editing, all falls together perfectly, and loved the story all together. recommend as a buy or at least a rent. good movie.

the only thing that it does drag at some points but makes up for it in the long run. give it time and appreciate a good movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After stabbing a retarded boy, the fifteen years old troubled and pessimist Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) is sent to a juvenile detention. His teacher and aspirant writer Pearl Madison (Don Cheadle) gets close and tries to understand him, first with intention of writing a book, and later becoming his friend. Leland slowly discloses his sad vision of world, showing that he is a sociopath.

\"The United States of Leland\" is a depressive and interesting study of a character. The low paced riveting screenplay discloses pieces of the story like a puzzle; there are excellent lines and dialogs; the performances are great, although the twenty-three years old Ryan Gosling does not convince as a fifteen years old teenager; but it seems that a part is missing to complete the puzzle and make \"The United States of Leland\" an unforgettable movie. The disappointing clarification of the \"why\" for the violent action of Leland against Ryan Pollard is not convincing or touching, indeed shows that this character is a totally deranged sociopath with a weird and sick sight of world. Further, the way Allen Harris gets Pearl's knife is ridiculous. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"O Mundo de Leland\" (\"The World of Leland\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The title comes from an alteration an adolescent inmate in a correctional facility makes on the front cover of his school book on government, titled \"The United States;\" he adds \"of (his name).\"

Many characterizations in this movie work well -- the scenes between Leland (Ryan Gosling) and Becky (Jena Malone), Pearl (Don Cheadle) and father Fitzgerald (Spacey) as well as with Leland, Becky and sister Julie (Michelle Williams), among many others.

But the central thread of this movie -- the fulcrum on which everything hangs -- is the character and motives of Leland. He's a somewhat shy, passive, nice high school student who daringly introduces himself to Becky whom (we find) is going to an alternative school because of a past history of drug problems. In Becky's family, she has a sister, Julie, who's just graduating from high school and preparing to go on to college; Julie's boy friend, Julie's age (and whose parents' had recently died) is also living with them.

Leland lives with his mother; his father (Kevin Spacey) and mother have long been divorced and his father is a famous novelist. Leland is very perceptive. The young boy in \"The Sixth Sense\" saw dead people; Leland sees teenage lovers and recognizes that years later they will divorce, that pain is going to follow many people's present experience of happiness. BUT, for reasons that are never made explicit, his prescient gift seems to operate some times, for some people, some relationships, and not for others. ???

Parts of the movie feel a bit like a derivative quilt -- borrowing from \"American Beauty,\" \"The Sixth Sense,\" \"The Graduate,\" and possibly some others I didn't recognize. That wouldn't be bad if only the character of Leland worked.

I think Gosling did a great job of playing Leland but the script and the story imposed limitations. Would such an observant, meditative young man ever be homicidal? Even for altruistic reasons? Nothing in the film gives a reason for this. I'm a retired therapist with much experience working with families and teenagers; while many of the reactions shown in the film work -- this part, this most essential element certainly does not.

And there is at least one other element which, in my experience, would not fit with real life although it's not as critical. The reason for the differences between the sisters, Becky and Julie, are never hinted at but that's okay. Once two sibs begin occupying different roles (one the all good girl, the other the troubled one), the roles themselves can begin driving each other to more extreme positions. For the troubled one, Becky, it's kind of, \"what do I have to do to be loved around here -- give up being me and become Julie?\" And the pressure to live up to being the All-Good, parent-pleasing child, is no less intense on Julie. So, why would she break up with her boy friend of long-standing and of whom her parents so obviously approve?

Don Cheadle was good as Leland's teacher; all others were good in their parts. 98% of the scenes were good. What was missing was that crucial slip in understanding human nature.

Good acting; flawed story and psychology; worth seeing; not a total loss.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"-only few can understand Leland's character, and to do that u most likely are inborn to see both sides of life,and to face this reality is very hard and can lead some few to bad acts(like Leland's character does)but for such sad and real reasons that his intentions were good,in the sense that the intention to save another from physical or mental(in this case)pain over long time. and it is really sad how mostly everyone in this movie makes mistakes in it, but the one character to make one through good intentions is killed by it. the lesson of this movie is for the unique person to see,realize,face and make right of the real life situation u see and to make right,or inspire one who can make right of a wrong situation. but before that...u have to see both sides of something and rationalize it for the sake of long peace,and tranquility of all human life.aka-Don't BE IGNORANT","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Maybe people do like having the devil around more than God. Maybe we like that safety net of a reason; making a mistake only to blame the devil for the pain and suffering in the world. There is so much hardship, spilling out into the masses, that it is difficult to not see the sadness on the faces of all you pass. Leland P. Fitzgerald understands all of this; he knows that maybe everything won't be OK, and maybe helping someone leave this Earth to avoid the pain their life has waiting for them is a risk he needs to take for someone he loves. Credit goes to screenwriter\/director Matthew Ryan Hoge for creating a lyrical prose about two suburban families who have crossed paths in good times and bad. Just looking at the cast of almost all A and B list actors shows that the material really resonates with its audience. Emotions don't need to be worn on one's sleeve to exist. Sometimes all we want to do is end the suffering.

Ryan Gosling brings an understated performance to the table here that encompasses the inwardness of his character Leland's emotions. He is a very passionate and intelligent young man, cutting through the BS of life, knowing what he sees and accepting the worse with the better. The film is a catharsis for the souls of those affected by the horrific event of Leland killing his ex-girlfriend's mentally challenged brother. In the confused mind of this teen, he goes into the incident knowing full well what he was going to do, he was going to stop the pain that he sees everywhere, but most of all on the face of young Ryan Pollard. Almost immediately he realizes that he has made a mistake, that maybe playing God is not a job he has been put on Earth to do. Whether or not this is true will soon be put to debate as the murder begins a chain of events, which finally bring meaning to many people's lives as they wake up to the tangential fragility of life. This boy has opened their eyes to both sorrow and rebirth.

With haunting ballads sung by former Sunny Day Real Estate frontman Jeremy Enigk, the movie goes through a journey of small vignettes of two families' lives in the aftermath of tragedy. The acting is superb throughout with special mention to a few. For someone who plays the na\u00efve lug in most films, Chris Klein actually does well with much the same material here, yet also with an evolution into a man of purpose. His aloofness is effective when utilized in the right part, similar to his success in Election, and I am interested to see if directors will be allow him to expand his talents and sink his teeth into something more substantial. Jena Malone is effective in much the same effect as well, playing the role of troubled youth as she has in Donnie Darko and Life as a House; Don Cheadle is a stalwart of professionalism giving us a different take on the compassionate therapist from the one he did in Manic; and Martin Donovan is brilliant as the grieving father trying to keep his wits together and eventually realizing he must keep his family from falling apart as well. Also, it is great seeing the beautiful Sherilyn Fenn in a small but important role.

When tragedy hits, people band together to get through it all. As Leland astutely points out at one point, you see men and women helping others out and hugging when they see the pain and suffering surrounding them, but after a couple of days everything goes back to normal. Cheadle's character extrapolates the optimistic viewpoint that at least we get a glimpse of people's true nature of wanting to help and be good to each other, only to be shot back at with the retort, \"well at least we do during tragedy.\" Maybe we don't want to think we are good natured because it does make us feel we should be good all the time, and that when bad, must have in-turn meant to be so. By being flawed we allow ourselves to rebound and try again. Leland's mistake lets him see the love he had for those close to him as well as opening the eyes of others to wake up and not let their loved ones drift any further from them. One can't focus on the sadness of others when they must first come to grips with their own. Hoge has crafted a parable for this and a truly effective piece of film-making with hopefully many more to come.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is what confuses me about critics and their opinion. i usually do take in, what the critics say about a film, on most occasions before i see a movie.

however, i saw this one, without knowing anything about it. mainly because of the cast. kevin spacey and don cheadle are two of the most acclaimed and in my opinion best actors alive. and ryan gosling is on a fast escalating journey up there as well. his reality and humanity which he exudes in most of his portrayals, makes the audience truly believe in the character and whats happening to him.he's really my favourite actor of my generation. i've always found jena malone pretty cute,ever since donnie darko, and if she chooses to keep doing similar roles then heck i ain't complaining.

back to my point. this movie really moved me. i believed it. the acting was top class. as one would expect. the actually movie left the audience with the ultimate aim of a good movie; reflection and pondering which ensues after the final credits roll. i think i must watch it again to decipher how this movie was critically mauled. i know that their reviews must be taken with a pinch of salt. at least i know now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The United States of Leland was an amazing movie. I kept passing it on the guide on my TV not knowing what it was and never having the chance to sit there and get into it. Then one morning when I woke up early, I saw that it was just about to start. So I decided to watch it. I had the time and interest to watch it. When I saw that Ryan Gosling was in the movie and then that he was the main character, I was immediately sucked in and could not move from my couch. The struggle that Leland goes through is such an inspiring story. Everyone has to deal with the same type of thoughts throughout sometime in their life whether it be a small minor detail or something as big as what he's going through. I have to sit and watch the movie again just to catch all the stuff that I may have missed the first time around. As a general comment... I would recommend this movie to anyone who is a Gosling fan or anyone who just likes a good movie with a real good story. The fact that there are so many other big stars who all also had great performances is just an added BONUS! So do what you can to take the time to check out this movie, I can almost be sure it won't be a waste of time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a superb film and was immediately put in my top ten (trust me I know films!). It's one of the movies that really makes you think, not necessarily about the storyline but about yourself! The film is about a fifteen year old kid (Leland Fitzgerald)who kills an autistic boy. he is sent to juvenile hall where he meets Pearl Madison, his teacher. His relationship with Pearl slowly grows and eventually Pearl decides to write a story on Leland and his peers but as he gets closer to finding out Lelands motive he learns he must deal with his own issues first.

This is a great film and a must see with great music by the pixies and a fantastic score! Watch it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Whenever Hayao Miyazaki does the \"tri-fecta,\" (writes, directs, and animates a movie) he makes a classic film for the ages. He has done it again with Gake no ue no Ponyo.

The story is about a girl fish who is kept on a very tight leash along with her younger sisters by her father, a bitter ex-human wizard named Fujimoto. The fish escapes from her father and rides a jellyfish to shore, where she is caught up in a dredging operation and finds herself stuck in a bottle. This underwater sequence must be one of the most elaborately drawn animated scenes ever undertaken and stands on its own as a reason to search out the theatrical release. Miyazaki, who shows no fear of having a busy scene, has outdone himself. There were literally hundreds of individually-drawn sea creatures of every imaginable size all in motion at the same time.

When the fish escapes the dredging operation while still trapped in the bottle, a five-year old boy named Sousuke spots her in the water and is able to break the bottle, saving her. Since she is the result of her father's magic, she is capable of magic herself--and her father actively tries to retrieve her. The boy names the fish Ponyo. Just when Sousuke learns that Ponyo can speak, her father successfully retrieves her back into captivity.

After a war of wills with her father, Ponyo manages to escape again with the ability to change herself into a human. She meets up again with Sousuke in a storm and the story continues from there in many interesting ways. There is a cuteness factor in this film rivaling and arguably surpassing that of Tonari no Totoro. Joe Hisaishi, once again, provided outstanding musical support.

The story itself is simple--as are Miyazaki's films in general--and should appeal to a broad spectrum of viewers. While I haven't viewed it enough to be sure, the film doesn't seem to be one which will keep scholars in long discussions as Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi did. Nonetheless, this is the ultimate feel-good entertainment movie. I gave the movie a ten out of ten rating.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a long-time fan of Studio Ghibli and especially Hayao Miyazaki films, I went to the film right on the opening day. When I went out of the theater I had this strange feeling that something was missing, this \"magical\" feeling I was experiencing in all Miyazaki films before, but I couldn't say why it failed this time. After I thought about the other Ghibli movies, I may know the reason: this film had most of the elements of a great Miyazaki anime: cute characters, wonderful key animation, a great soundtrack composed by Joe Hisaishi and the warm story telling giving you the feeling of watching a high quality Japanese animation film. However, two elements were lacking: a deep story and dramaturgy. The purpose of this film was obviously to entertain small children with a simple story line as in case of \"Totoro\", so a complicated story as been told in \"Spirited Away\" or \"Princess Mononoke\" is not really necessary, but on the other hand, this story was simply too superficial. I could not connect to the main characters, because there was no character development, dramatic scenes were only limited and did not last very long. I really hate to give only 7 stars for a Miyazaki film, because I would give 10 stars to all previous movies right away, but this time it was simply not this wonderful \"ghibli experience\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hayao Miyazaki's magic continues with this absolute crowd pleaser Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea, his latest animated film, which turns on the usual sweetness to charm your socks off. I thought that the trailer featured its song which was quietly hypnotic, and I didn't have to wait for an invite to make sure I got my ticket for the sneak preview of the movie, scheduled to open here next week.

For fans of Studio Ghibli films, you'll probably know what you're in for, as Miyazaki has yet another winner in his filmography, that will win new fans over. I'm embarrassed to say the least that I've so far watched only My Neighbour Totoro (eyes that pile of Ghibli DVDs) and love it to bits, but I guess this would serve as a final push for me not to continue missing what would likely be animated films that I would enjoy.

Ponyo (voiced by Nara Yuria) is a magic goldfish that yearns to know what is life beyond the sea, with her constant forays in a bubble to the surface of the water to sneak a peek. Nonetheless these ambitions do not bode well with her humanoid dad Fujimoto (Tokoro Joji), who harbours some hatred toward the human race for pollution, and briefly touching a subplot on environmental protection \/ revenge by Mother Nature as well. An accident one day sees Ponyo being washed ashore, and picked up by five year old boy Sosuke (Doi Hiroki) who lives on a house on the said cliff with his mother Lisa (Yamaguchi Tomoko), while dad Koichi (Nagashima Kazushige) is mostly out to sea since he's a sailor. And you can expect some moments of throwback to the likes of The Little Mermaid, or Splash made for kids. Saying anything more would be to spoil the fun.

The artwork here is still simply astounding even though it's in 2D glory, knowing that each cell is painstakingly worked on. There are so many things going on at the same time within the same frame, that you'll probably be game for repeated viewings just to spot them all. This definitely beats any 3D or CG animated production any day given its beauty coming from its simplicity, and not only from the artwork department, but on its story too, despite complaints coming in that it took a leaf from the Hans Christian Andersen classic. While there are avenues to make this film extremely dark, it only suggested certain dark themes, but opted instead for a film with more positive emotions, suitable for both kids and adults alike.

At its core, its about love, that between the family members of Koichi, Lisa and Sosuke, and especially between mother and son. More so, it's about the love between the boy and his new pet fish which he christened Ponyo, and I tell you Ponyo herself has enough cuteness in her to beat the likes of Bolt, WallE and Eve all hands down. Characterization here is top notch, and it's hard not to fall in love with Ponyo, in whichever form adopted, especially when she's such a playful being who doesn't hide her emotions - if she's upset with you, either she turns away or you could expect a jet stream come spewing from her mouth into your face!

Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea is a definite shoo-in to my top films of this year without hesitation. And the next time I go to Tokyo, I'm sure as hell going to make my way to the Ghibli Museum to bask under the magical world brought to us by Hayao Miyazaki. Highly recommended film, so don't you go missing this on the big screen!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Quite simply, i was tickled pink watching this in the movie theatre and grinned from ear to ear; eyes wide open whilst trying to take all the details in that are at the same time insanely simple, fresh, yet incredibly sophisticated, breathtaking and in imaginative.

In terms of audience age range, it is probably pre Totoro. The plot works because of the pure heart of 5 years olds who are focused in what they want and conscientious in their pursuit. They lives in a world that is unspoilt by cynicism and cultural learning of how everything is 'suppose' to work. While most critics might disregard this film due to the lack of a 'message' or 'plot' film (Although it is in there somewhere), it is precisely for this reason the film should be cherished. Too often our judgement are impeded by our own limitations of cinematic and cultural standing. Like most of Miyasaki's film, each is totally unique but undeniably Miyasaki. Ponyo may at times feel so unique and fresh, it may feel alien like.

The viewing experience provide a wonderful change from all the generic children's products that are generally commercialised to please the adult demographics (ie\/ Animals that talks like their human counterparts, Eddie Murphy in Shrek.) It is perhaps comforting to know that good old fashioned hand drawn cells still work so incredibly well in this digital era where Toystory\/WallE\/Shrek\/Cars generally triumph. It therefore feeling rather nostalgic at the same time makes the film feels timeless, a bit like how Totoro and Jungle Book hasn't really aged.

The subtleties of each character's expression and body language is captured in such nuanced interpretation that digital films like Wall-e can never compete on, or if it does, it would be a very expensive process. It would be a big pity for Wall-E to win over this one at the Oscars, and it probably will this year. Yet it might be quite unfair to compare the 2 mediums, as it is really the craftsmanship and the story telling that wins at the end of the day. For this, Miyasaki is a true master of","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the latest Ghibli movie and it is also a MAJOR departure from the studio's established style. First of all, this film was obviously aimed at young children, much more so than any of their previous films. It lacks the depth of the other films and features a brand new far less realistic style of animation\u0085 and yet it is ever so entertaining. Even though there is nothing put in to attract adults, I still found myself drawn to the screen and fully immersed in the story. The movie's secret is brutal honesty with regard to the plot and the characters. The story and the characters are very upfront with their feelings\/intentions etc. but that makes them all the more endearing. Special attention was also paid to the soundtrack which is absolutely amazing despite being way different from previous Ghibli soundtracks. I find myself singing the cute theme song all the time as will anyone who sees this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While Hayao Miyazaki's movies have always been hit-or-miss with me with regards to story, they are unequivocally gorgeous to the eye, with characters of simple animation against a backdrop of artistic images. Ponyo sticks to that formula, with a lead character so adorable I want a plush doll of her and scenery so pretty it wouldn't look out of place framed up as a picture on a wall.

The story, on the other hand, I didn't enjoy quite as much as his last two wide-releases, Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle. It was just a tad too juvenile, coming across as more for kids and leaving adults to just enjoy the animation.

I was also disappointed that the score done by Joe Hisaishi, who also the scores for the above-mentioned two movies, wasn't nearly as memorable this time around. While I can't quite recall Howl's score now, I still remember it being one of the most beautiful I had ever heard. Ditto Spirited's - though I only remember it being very complementary to the movie. Maybe it's because Ponyo is more juvenile fare that the score isn't quite as haunting. In any case, this movie is still a must-watch for fans of anime or Miyazaki.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hayao Miyazaki's latest and eighth film for Studio Ghibili, \"Gake No Ue No Ponyo\" (Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea) is a wonderfully fun and imaginative look at childhood. At a time when it seems that film animation has been dominated by Disney\/Pixar's CGI masterpieces, it is both refreshing and comforting to know that Miyazaki is still relying on traditional hand-drawn animation to tell his charming and enchanting stories.

The story revolves around the friendship between a magical sea sprite\/goldfish and the human child that she encounters during a curious outing to see the human world. The human child, Sosuke (Doi Hiroki) lives in a small house on a cliff overlooking a small port city in Southern Japan (based on Seto Island) where he lives with his young mom, Lisa (Yamaguchi Tomoko). Sosuke names the strange goldfish \"Ponyo\" and takes it to the daycare\/nursing center that Lisa works at. Ponyo is definitely not your typical goldfish and soon begins to adapt and take on human aspects (she develops human speech and an appetite for ham meat) by sampling some blood from a cut on Sosuke's finger.

Yet just as Sosuke and Ponyo begin to develop a bond, Ponyo is taken back by her father, Fujimoto (Tokoro Joji) who is a former human who has rejected the surface world and is now attempting to collect and develop magical elixirs taken from the sea that aid him in repairing and rejuvenating the world's oceans.

Ponyo's desire to become human has become so strong however that Fujimoto is unable to contain her anymore and she takes on a more human appearance and breaks free from her water world home and goes back to see Sosuke.

During her breakout, Ponyo unintentionally releases Fujimoto's cache of magical elixirs which unleashes all sorts of magical sea creatures that causes a violent storm in the seas surrounding Sosuke's town. Desperate to resolve Ponyo's rebellion, he soon calls upon the help of his beautiful wife, Ponyo's mother - the water elemental, Mother\/Lady of the Sea (Amami Yuki).

As with his past films, Miyazaki's \"Gake No Ue No Ponyo\" touches upon various themes of ecology and environmentalism, this time focusing on the health and vitality of the world's oceans. The opening sequence is at times sobering when Ponyo encounters a drudging vessel which is scraping the ocean's floor, uncovering mountains of garbage and debris. One can understand the anger and frustration of the character of Fujimoto who has spent his lifetime trying to repair the damage civilization is doing to its oceans, yet finding it an daunting and almost fruitless endeavor.

Enough can not be said of the remarkable animation in this film. It is at times bizarre and outrageous but at the same time charming and curious. Clearly Miyazaki wanted to capture the sense and style of a child's imagination. The art style has the appearance of crayon\/pencil drawings and is wonderfully colorful and fanciful. It is almost like a child's color book come to life.

Child actors Nara Yuria and Doi Hiroki do great work as Ponyo and Sosuke. They bring adorable charm to their roles. Nara Yuria in particular sounds so darn cute as Ponyo that it is little wonder that Doi's Sosuke falls for the magical girl. Former campaign girl\/model and actress Yamaguchi Tomoko (Shichinin No Otaku, Swallowtail) is also very good in her role as Sosuke's modern mom, Lisa. I was a bit confused at first by her character as I initially thought she was Sosuke's older sister. It also didn't help that Sosuke kept referring to her as \"Lisa\" rather than Mom but I guess it is perhaps a sign of the times and an indicator of the modern Japanese family (in the anime series Crayon Shinchan, Shinnosuke also refers to his mom by first name as well).

80s comedian Tokoro Joji sounds totally different as the serious Fujimoto but wisely doesn't make his character sound cartoony villainous or goofy menacing. While we don't get to know his character more, former pro-baseball player and actor Nagashima Kazushige ( who portrays Sosuke's father Koichi) also delivers some nice voice work. The opening theme \"Umi No Okasan\" by Japanese soprano Masako Hayashi is simply beautiful and stirring. In contrast the Fujimaki Fujioka and Nozomi Ohashi \"Geke No Ue No Ponyo\" theme is light and amusing and evokes images of a traditional Japanese nursery rhyme. During one brilliant sequence the soundtrack takes on an almost Wagnerian operatic sound with music that sounds like \"Die Walk\u00fcre\".

The film is not perfect however and does suffer from moments where the central story of Ponyo and Sosuke takes a back seat to some of Miyazaki's overwhelming fantastical visuals. I also had wished we had more time to explore Fujimoto's back-story as well as the relationship between Sosuke and his father.

Like \"Kiki's Delivery Service\/Majo No Takkyubin\", \"Howl's Moving Castle\", \"Princess Momonoke\/Momonoke Hime\" and \"My Neighbor Totoro\/Tonari No Totoro\", \"Gake No Ue No Ponyo\" is another Miyazaki classic that is a marvelous feast for the eyes. Like a modern day fairytale, the film tells a timeless story of friendship and love that will surely be cherished in years to come.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have recently watched this film, and have decided to comment on it.

the best way to watch this film is to not expect what you have seen in the past by Miyazaki. Miyazaki is well known for his work on on Spirited away and Howl's moving castle. well for western viewers anyway. both of them films were kind of similar to each other but at the same time completely different. However Ponyo is a whole different type of story and animation all together.

The story follows \"Ponyo\" a fish that has the face a girl. After Ponyo runs away from her home at the bottom of the sea, she find a whole new world she never knew was out there, and new trouble as well, when she almost caught by a fishing boat, she was rescued by a five year old boy known as Sousuke.

the story then follows the two of them and the pure friendship between a boy and a fish. can Ponyo really stay with Sousuke forever ?

I feel the movie was inspired by \"The little mermaid\" and at the same time similar to \"Tonari no Totoro\"

the movie is very short and you have very little time to learn about the characters in this movie. But the Characters a fish and a little boy so how much are you expecting to learn about them? the film is set over about what seems to be 3 days, I think this is why the movie is so short.

I really enjoyed watching this movie and I hope you all enjoy this movie as well","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have a strong feeling that what you think of this film will strongly depend on your frame of reference. If you've never seen a Miyazaki film before, then it will probably confuse the heck out of you. If you have seen a Miyazaki film before, then it will still probably confuse the heck out of you....but you won't really care! That's because I found that the first time I saw one of his animated films, I tried too hard to figure out what was happening and why--and it impacted my enjoyment of the film. Now that I have seen just about every Miyazaki film, I see the bizarreness and just take it all in--enjoying the beauty of it all. In many ways, these films (at least to Western audiences) is like drugs--lots of strange and beautiful images that don't always initially make sense but sure feel great to see!! Of all the Miyazaki films, this might have the most unusual and incomprehensible story line--even more so than SPIRITED AWAY and PRINCESS MONONOKE or MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO. But, like these and many other Studio Gibli films, if you just sit back and watch you are rewarded with a fabulous tale. But, because it is so hard to describe (and others have already done so), I won't even go there.

As for the artwork, it's very typical of one of these Japanese films, though there was one noticeable change. There was a very extensive use of what looked like colored pencils for the backgrounds. This was NOT a bad thing at all--the lovely pastel-like look was very pleasing and unique. In some ways it looked like a tiny bit of Bill Plympton's art style was infused into a typical Miyazaki film. With a high frame-rate, exceptional character animation (which imbued them with tons of personality) and a great \"wow-factor\", this is an exceptional film for all ages. Though clearly designed more for younger audiences (the TOTORO fans especially), it is a bit scary here and there (during the storm segments) but there is plenty of great stuff for adults. As an adult (at least chronologically so), I loved the cute stuff and applaud the other-worldliness of the film.

A great film--among Miyazaki's best. I don't give it a 10 because I am hesitant to ever do that--plus I did like a few of the studio's other films a bit more (particularly TOTORO). But that DOESN'T mean you shouldn't rush out now and see it--do it and do yourself a favor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Miyazaki's Studio Ghibli shows his wonderful touch animating, infusing life, in every little action of the characters in Ponyo. When Sosuke puts down so carefully his little boat to reach for the red fish you know that you'll have a very good time watching this movie.

The characters are interesting and you really care for them. They recall visually other stories, Riisa seems a grown up Nausicaa with a son, an old lady in wheelchair remembers the witch in Howl's Moving Castle.

The presence of the elements, wind, rain, and the sea with its great, powerful waves, is so strong that I think it has never been evoked in such a way in any other movie. It is a simple story, loosely inspired by \"the little mermaid\", and it reach for the very heart of the audience, just like Totoro, the other Miyazaki's true masterpiece.

An instant classic, with a great soundtrack and a catchy song during the ending credits. Don't miss it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Said to be inspired from Disney's The Little Mermaid, Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea is Japanese animation master, Hayao Miyazaki's next big work after the well-received Spirited Away in 2001 and Howl's Moving Castle in 2004. In Ponyo, his signature style of animating fantasy realms and children characters are on display once again.

Sosuke (Hiroki Doi), the boy lead in the film discovers a 'goldfish' trapped in a glass jar while playing by the seaside below the cliff. He stays with his mum, Lisa (Tomoko Yamaguchi) above and atop it. Sosuke shakes the jar forcefully to try and get the 'goldfish' out but the little 'goldfish' is stuck. He then tries to pull it out but it just cannot come loose. Sosuke then place the jar on the ground before smashing a small rock onto it, breaking it into pieces instantly while suffering a small cut on the finger. He then checks inquisitively to see if the 'goldfish' is still alive. As he observes it, the 'goldfish' reacts by licking the blood off his finger suddenly. Excited, Sosuke quickly rushes back to the house and put the 'goldfish' in a small bucket of water in hope that it will survive. It did and he named it 'Ponyo'(Yuria Nara).

The above scene would signify what is to come for the remainder of the film. It is of the interactions between Sosuke and Ponyo. And it is one that Hayao Miyazaki did meticulously well in portraying. He must have a keen sense of observation and understanding of how children behave before he depicts this chemistry of communication between the two main characters. The behavior of the children would also extend into the rest of the film in their further encounters.

The affection between Sosuke and Ponyo grew as the film progresses from the moment Sosuke brought Ponyo to school in Lisa's car. The best moment came when the two were reunited after a brief separation when Ponyo's father, Fujimoto (George Tokoro), a magical sea dweller recaptures the errant Ponyo before encapsulating her in a magic bubble with kind intention.

Fujimoto who was once human has grown to refer humans with disgust for polluting the sea and stealing its life. But all Ponyo wants is to be human and be with Sosuke so for a second time she escapes, accidentally emptying his father's precious store of magical elixir into the sea, creating a storm of tidal waves and engulfing the small town in the process.

What follows are the adventures of Sosuke and Ponyo in the flooded town.

Is there a happily ever after in this one? Would true love prevail? You find out.

Looking at the art in Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea, there appears to be a deviation from Miyazaki's past works in terms of rendering. It looks unfamiliar because the environment apart from the characters at play in every scene is not colored in the usual fashion as in Spirited Away (2001) and Howl's Moving Castle (2004). The aesthetical appeal is discounted from what appears to be color penciled drawings. The objects and characters are also not as detailed as before.

This is peculiar if taken on face value but from the way the story is written and told, the possible explanation is that Miyazaki is allowing the audience to view the film with a child's tint, yet allowing the adults to reminisce on a Japan when they were younger. This move could have prevented prospective moviegoers, new to Miyazaki's work to see it. The trailer did nothing to promote Ponyo as well. Taking the case to Japan however would be a different story as Miyazaki's credential far than exceed any marketing technique.

In summary though, the whole did not equal to its parts. Aside from Miyazaki's ability to cast vivacious and animated characters, the film lacks elements of thrill and wonder when measured against previous works, resulting in a deficit of big screen presence.

The sparks of Ponyo and Sosuke failed to light up the film in a big way but moments of warmth, kindness, and love can still be found in recognizing the film as one that is not made for the kids, but of the kids who everyone is or once was.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It has been widely agreed that Hayao Miyazaki is a master at his craft when it comes to combining rich animation with thoughtful story lines and similarly imaginative characters. His movies, from NAUSICAA, TOTORO, KIKI, LAPUTA, and MONONOKE to the recent HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE are all not only gorgeously rendered in terms of art, but in terms of movie-making as well. Can this man do no wrong? Not really, but it is impossible to expect everyone of his movies to always be five star marvels. His newest film, PONYO, an unashamedly family-friendly tale of a \"goldfish out of water\", is as lushly animated and alive with interesting characters as you would expect... and yet this is the first film of his which treads into \"lesser\" territory. Don't get me wrong, PONYO is not a bad movie by any means. As mentioned, it is a sight for the eyes and is as charming and adorable as TOTORO and KIKI. The problem is that the story doesn't stay afloat to satisfy anyone eager for another engrossing, in-depth plot.

For its opening hour, PONYO is Miyazaki storytelling at its finest, in which a rowdy and overeager young goldfish (who later becomes named Ponyo) makes a forbidden trip to the human world where she is subsequently adopted by a boy her own age named Sosuke (modeled, interestingly, after the director's own son). This does not please Ponyo's father, a mysterious wizard named Fujimoto, who is very angry at the humans for their destruction of the sea (this environmentalist theme is not much different from Miyazaki's other films)... a problem he very much intends to rectify by creating jellyfish from the prow of his submarine. He separates the pair and tries to talk Ponyo into staying underwater with him. The goldfish, however, has already tasted both Sosuke's blood (healing a cut on his finger) AND some of the human food (ham, which she becomes inexplicably addicted to), and of course steals into her father's forbidden potions, transforming into a hyperactive young girl (who is the spitting image of Mei from MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO). This triggers a dangerous tsunami which threatens to engulf the entire world with water. Conspiring with his wife, Gran Mamare, a diaphanous sea goddess who alternatingly shifts from super-sized titan to human-size form, Fujimoto decides to test the two youngsters' love for each other. They do this by elevating the sea to the level of Sosuke's house, prompting the youngsters to set out across their now ocean-infested world in an over-sized toy-boat (made possible by Ponyo's own magical powers).

It is at this point where PONYO begins to run out of steam. Although Ponyo and Sosuke are adorable and the scenes involving them are funny and cute, they slow down the film. Where the film really takes on water, unfortunately, is at the climax in which Sosuke must prove his love to Ponyo, presented in a way which is strangely anticlimactic and rushed, bringing an otherwise charming tale to an abrupt halt. This will likely underwhelm viewers expecting another instant masterpiece from the man who has delivered far more interesting finales for many of his other movies. Remember the destruction of Laputa? Satsuki's search for little Mei? Kiki's rescue of Tombo? Porco Rosso's fight with Curtis? The rescue of the Forest Spirit's head? Or even the test between Chihiro and Yubaba? All those resolutions were far more satisfying and felt more complete than this one.

On a technical level, PONYO cannot be faulted. The animation is absolutely gorgeous to look at, produced entirely without a single shot of computer-generated-imagery, and naturally Joe Hisaishi provides us with yet another breathtaking musical score; the best moments being the rousing sequences underwater, accompanied by a chorus and a soprano voice. And the backgrounds are lovingly painted and detailed as any other Ghibli movies.

Having proved themselves worthy on translating and dubbing Ghibli's previous movies into English with top-quality results, Disney Studios and Pixar once again provide an English dub complete with a mostly capable cast of actors. Frankie Jonas is surprisingly good as Sosuke, sounding very natural and believable throughout. Noah Cyrus as Ponyo, on the other hand, sometimes goes overboard in shouting her lines before eventually settling down toward the end. Leads aside, the rest of the cast includes Liam Neeson as the overprotective Fujimoto (who manages himself unsurprisingly well in the character), Cate Blanchett as Gran Mamare (in an omnipresent tone which is not much different from her Galadriel in LORD OF THE RINGS), Matt Damon as Sosuke's constantly seafaring father Koichi (who is good but nothing to write home about), and Tina Fey as Lisa. Of them, Fey is the best voice in the entire cast, imbuing the character with just the right amount of spirit and personality. Her scenes with Sosuke show real chemistry. On the other hand, Cloris Leachman, who was spectacular as Dola in CASTLE IN THE SKY, is disappointingly wasted as one of three handicapped elderly women (she barely has ANY lines!), who are also voiced by Betty White and Lily Tomlin. Of them, only Tomlin's character, a cantankerous woman named Toki, shows any real personality, but if I were casting the movie, I'd switch Tomlin with Leachman. Probably the only really jarring drawback of the dub is a blasty techno-remix of the film's catchy (but ridiculously repetitive) title song, which thankfully doesn't occur until midway through the closing credits.

On the whole, PONYO is a good film; a fine piece of animated work which is perfect for youngsters and family audiences. Due to the loss of momentum toward the end, though, it falls far short of classic status. Since Miyazaki at his least is still better than a majority of other animated films, though, I'll be generous and give PONYO a full star recommendation, because any feature of his is still very much worth watching, particularly on the big screen. (Be sure to catch it in the theaters while you can.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had heard news about this film from anime-legend Hayao Miyazaki, and I SO wanted to see it. But I was lucky enough to the film online at YouTube; after watching the film, I knew that it is another Miyazaki\/Studio Ghibli classic.

This film, inspired by my favorite fairy-tale \"The Little Mermaid,\" is about a 5-year-old boy named Sosuke, and his relationship with a goldfish princess, whom he named Ponyo, who longs to become human and be with Sosuke. I won't give you anymore details, you'll have to see the film for yourself. So overall one of the best animated movies ever made, with plenty of fantasy, adventure, and humor...I loved it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ponyo is a beautiful animated film with some dark undertones. It features a kid-sized story of longing and love with ecological implications, but it is not preachy. Hayao Miyazaki has fused Andersen's Little Mermaid with Japan's native myths and his trademark steam punk flights of fancy, and the result is very rewarding. There are some scary moments of oceanside storms and flooding, but they are thrilling, not horrific.

If you've ever wanted to run with the waves along the shore, ride on a jellyfish as an elevator, completely transform yourself, or make a friend for life, Ponyo is a fable for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Perhaps not Miyazaki's best work, but I couldn't help but love it to death. A five-year old boy finds what he thinks is a goldfish stuck in a bottle. He saves its life and keeps it in a bucket as a pet, but it really is a magical being, the daughter of a human wizard and a sea goddess. Ponyo, as the boy names her, is taken back to the sea by her father, who tries to discourage her from returning to land and becoming human, but she gets into his magic elixirs and does what she wants to do. The story is simple and cute. Where the film really comes alive, though, is in its tremendous artwork. The drawings are more child-like than in any of Miyazaki's other works, but there's beauty in its simplicity. As with all of his films, Miyazaki creates this world of imagination that I was just so in awe of. Seeing it in the theater brought back memories of what it was like when the opening notes of Jo Hisaishi's score for Princess Mononoke washed over me and gave me goosebumps just short of a decade ago (the score here is equally as wonderful). I wanted to live in this world and never leave it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like the 5-year old protagonists of his latest opus, Hayao Miyazaki's \"Ponyo\" enchants with its unbridled innocence as though the anime-meister has become a child himself in weaving a narrative that relishes in its simplicity and emits an infectious charm in the process. Miyazaki, recalling his earlier works, paints a brightly-colored world obviously geared for the younger audiences and the raw effervescence gleefully strips off the grim thematic elements that distinguish its immediate predecessors.

Ponyo (voiced lovably by Yuria Nara), a fish with a young girl's face (making her look like a cuddly child in a pink overgrown Halloween costume), escapes away from her underwater home and her school of siblings to explore the surface. Stranded ashore, she is rescued by Sosuke (Hiroki Doi), a five-year old boy who, along with his mom Risa (Tomoko Yamaguchi), resides in a house on the nearby cliff. This initial encounter and, eventually, friendship, has a profound effect on Ponyo who now wishes to become human, but by becoming so inadvertently tips nature's balance and unleashes a maelstrom on land. With Sosuke's help, Ponyo must pass a test to lift this curse and completely become a human.

Despite the plot lacking the philosophical sophistication of, say, his most recent \"Spirited Away,\" \"Ponyo\" is nothing short of an astounding follow-up, characterized by the extremely diligent attention to detail and masterful balancing of the real and the fantastic, and of the simple joys and great fears. It's a straightforward tale that, though at times stalled by its tendency to ramble like a toddler, keeps in tune with its youthful pedigree to magically enthrall. \"I will protect you,\" Sosuke tells Ponyo matter-of-factly, a childlike assertion not unlike the manner in which Miyazaki endows his story with artful spirit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been reading a lot of different opinions and reviews of this movie, and I understand why a lot of people get mixed feelings about Ponyo, whether it be the story line, animation, dialogue, and so forth. And I believe the most simple way I can answer to this, is that it's a movie for a much, much younger age bracket. An age bracket much younger than that of Tonarino Totoro (My Neighbor Totoro).

Being a Miyazaki fan like the majority of the surfers on this site, I expected the wonderful animation, music composition, complex story telling, the great steady development of characters, how the story intertwines with today's society, etc etc etc of a typical Miyazaki film that we grew up with. And to tell you the truth, I didn't quite understand what the hell this story was supposed to be about or what the hell was going on until an hour and twenty minutes (with twenty minutes left in the movie), that this movie is NOT for the deep thinkers and hard core Ghibli-ists, but for the toddlers and youngins' and happy go lucky Japanese people. Also, I believe this movie is based on simplicity and creative animation; straight-up grass roots Ghibli Studios style.

The fact that a villain is not present really surprised me, other than the father and maybe that crazy-ass typhoon. But other than that, this movie is just plain fun; to stimulate a young one's mind, and to make happy good time feeling. That's all.

The animation goes back to the old-school mid-80s early-90s era of Miyazaki's films, where very specific detail wasn't a big focus, unlike Mononoke Hime (Princess Mononoke) and the latter. I admire the simplicity which kind of created some small nostalgia when I first watched Ghibli movies like Tonarino Totoro when I was a child. The reaction and movement of the children are all very similar to that of kids, and a lot of Studio Ghibli's body language is very noticeable. Studio Ghibli added some creative moments and sceneries that they can only do with it's wonderful animators, but it probably won't take the ritual Ghibli-ist in awe.

The Japanese dialogue also sounded very child friendly and a lot of scenes and dialogues are very, very relative from what Japanese kids and mothers would say and act. The music if very hoppy and \"fluffy\" I guess you could say (similar to Totoro) from beginning to end. Even the darker scenes didn't seem assertive.

In the end this movie is one of a kind. Just about every aspect of this movie is for children. And I waited a whole 80 mins to realize that. Quite frankly, I have never seen a movie told or shown it the way Miyazaki did. It's refreshing to see that Studio Ghibli can still tell a story for a wider, and much different scale of audience, and still keep that trademark Ghibli impression.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For readers who have already seen one of Miyazaki's films: he is still in top form and made another worthwhile experience. Okay, you don't need to read any further now.

I already guess most readers are older than the two protagonists of this picture, so I should say Ponyo is not so much a family film as a chance to remember the feeling of being a small child: discovering the world as you wanted to see it, making up your own rules and boasting an exuberant enthusiasm at doing things on your own for the first time. Ponyo swerves away from many of the problems that all-age films tackle. It never condescends, all the characters have good genuine hearts and believable problems.

The two main characters may be two of the most believable children I ever saw put on screen. They are not simple minded, arrogant or naive, just curious, enthusiastic and learning the ways of the world. They are so easy to love, but even more easy to identify with. Many films regard children from the outside, as the adult looking into a world only a child could enter. Ponyo brings everyone back to that world. In Ponyo, there lies the first time to learn and choose what you care about most, which the film values with high esteem. It is worth it to remember, to feel it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hayao Miyazaki has captured the imagination of audiences young and old across the globe, and his most recent cinematic work of art is \"Ponyo,\" a children's fairytale borrowing on story elements from The Little Mermaid. Of course like other Miyazaki classics such as \"Spirited Away\" and his last film, \"Howl's Moving Castle,\" \"Ponyo\" is full of a creativity that can only be truly appreciated by adults, but this it is distinctly more a children's story than those recent efforts. It's a magical story best described as beautiful and lovable, aiming for charm instead of conflict.

\"Ponyo\" is the story of a bug-eyed childish-looking fish of the same name, the daughter of an undersea sorcerer, who longs to escape the sea and become a little girl. When she does, she quickly befriends a young boy named Sosuke. In the process she gains a strong magic and unknowingly throws the world out of balance between land and sea, and a giant storm drowns most of the cliff-top town where Sosuke lives with his mother, and it threatens to end the world.

Like \"Howl's Moving Castle,\" Walt Disney picked up \"Ponyo\" for an American release and dubbed it over with an impressive selection of Western voices, even choosing homegrown products in the youngest siblings of Disney band the Jonas Brothers (Frankie Jonas) and Miley Cyrus (younger sister Noah) to voice Sosuke and Ponyo, respectively. Also voicing characters are Liam Neeson (Fujimoto, Ponyo's father), Tina Fey (Lisa, Sosuke's mother), Matt Damon (Sosuke's father), Cate Blanchett (Ponyo's sea goddess mother) and a trio of hilarious elderly women are played by Betty White, Cloris Leachman and Lily Tomlin. The effort is definitely there to make this film appeal to American audiences and Disney is getting close.

But voices are of little significance in a Miyazaki film, which is all about visual creativity. A fan of transformations and animating liquid and fluid motion, creating a fairytale taking place partly underwater must've been a joy for Miyazaki to work with and maybe even his entire motivation for choosing this story. Among the highlights are droplets of water that Fujimoto sends after Ponyo that move like living waves, as well as a variety of other magnificent sea creatures and breathtaking storm scenes make \"Ponyo\" as awing as any other Miyazaki film.

As a children's story, however, \"Ponyo\" concentrates its efforts on being adorable. The discovery of true friendship and love between Sosuke and Ponyo is heart-warming, even if Noah Cyrus shouting childishly when Ponyo excitedly embraces human life can get a bit annoying. But as delightful as many of the imaginative elements and loving relationships are, there's very little antagonism or danger. Past Miyazaki films have clear villains, but the conflict in \"Ponyo\" actually shrinks as the story goes along. Sosuke believes he's lost his mother at one point and in the background is the idea of the world going out of whack and that humans should be ashamed of polluting the sea, but \"Ponyo\" is mostly tension free. Most glaringly, its climax is uneventful despite how overall likable all the characters are.

\"Ponyo\" will surely satisfy Miyazaki's fans in every way with its imagination, and newcomers will still be smitten by his simple yet visually ambitious storytelling, but this is distinctly more of a children's movie, best for families and others who love fantasy regardless of its form or target audience. It's not quite what you'd expect from Miyazaki considering his recent work, but it's sure to be remembered as another of his beloved stories. ~Steven C

Visit my site at http:\/\/moviemusereviews.blogspot.com","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Few would argue that master animation director Hayao Miyazaki is one of the few to hold this ability.

(No. Too many are focused on John Lassiter's \"amazing\" ability to steal other movies plots, turn them into pretty puppet shows and then be lauded as a genius . . . but i digress.)

Miyazaki has given us film after film that deals with important mature issues (usually ecologically themed), and has an intelligent script that even the most jaded viewer who would normally despise any film that was animated could thoroughly enjoy if given the chance. Still, Miyazaki (almost) never forgets who will undoubtedly be in the audience of these movies- children.

That said, I am at a loss to think of another filmmaker with this ability. Where else are you going to have a film where a three year old (my nephew Link) will sit still throughout the move, enthralled, a 7 year old (my niece Amber) loving it all her own (and able to appreciate the \"star power\" of Frankie Jonas and Noah Cyrus, a 12 year old (my nephew Aaron) who's review was \"of course it was good! Everything Miyazaki-san does is good!,\" a 32 year old animation fan brought to tears by the powerful directing and gorgeous animation (er, that would be me), and a 58 year old woman (my mother) able to connect with the mother characters (and I'm betting the older charas too) and loving the \"cuteness\" of the child characters.

And that is what I respect most about Miyazaki-san. He seems to speak to his audience in a completely different way than the average filmmaker. On the surface, \"Ponyo\" could be seen as a simple story about a little fish-girl who gets a taste of the human world and wants to join it and the friend she makes there, a little boy names Soske (somewhat like \"The Little Mermaid\"), but there is an entire different level at play here. True to form, Miyazaki populates his film with intensely strong female characters Ponyo's Mother, Soske's mother, the older ladies in a nursing home are all genuine characters with minds of their own and extremely strong willed.

But the girl who takes the cake is Ponyo herself. Once she decides that she likes the human world, she simply uses her own will to achieve her dreams. Her father is trying to keep her innocent, and keep her a magical fish, but young Ponyo knows what she wants and becomes human out of simply her own determination.

Once human, she teams up with her friend, Soske, whom she loves very much (although maybe not as much as ham). Soske is asked to be the man of the house (at age five) when his mother Lisa decides she has to help the people at the rest home where she works during a typhoon that has been inadvertently caused by Ponyo on her quest to become human. Frankie Jonas (yes. He's related to the Jonas brothers. Can we just get past that please?) gives, perhaps, the best performance in the film as young Soske (which is good since he has the most lines). His character is also strong willed, but also very respectful and friendly- characteristics you're not likely to find in a child character on THIS side of the Pacific.

In the end, Ponyo's father, Fujimoto must cope with his daughter's decision and his estranges wife's wishes to allow her to be human. He hopes that Ponyo and Soske will \"remember him fondly.\" And once again, Miyazaki REFUSES to allow a character to become the stereotypical \"bad guy.\" Although Miyazaki has (for some reason) received some criticism for this, it is, honestly, what makes his movies magical and yet relatable. No one in real life is completely a \"bad person.\" All humans are various shades of gray. And that is exactly what Miyazaki does with his characters.

And then there's the animation itself. In a time when CGI would certainly have helped with the copious amounts of effects shots in this film, especially the water, Miyazaki has chosen to incorporate NO CGI whatsoever. Certainly the hand drawn animation was colored by digital means, but every film in this was hand-drawn and I, for one, was extremely grateful for that. The character animation was extremely fluid, and there even appeared to be some lip-sync going on (quite unusual for an anime film). The backgrounds seemed to be rendered with colored pencil and had an effect all its own on the audience. This is what animation used to look like- and what it SHOULD look like.

In the end, I found Ponyo to be thoroughly enjoyable. Certainly not Miyazaki's best (in my opinion, that honor is still held by Kiki's Delivery Service), but still a 10-star fun movie for the ENTIRE family.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My husband dragged me to this film as I had no interest in seeing some Anime cartoon. I was absolutely delighted by the simple story and amazing animation. In a digital world where effects are computer generated it was refreshing to see gorgeous, imaginative hand drawn animation. The world of Sosuke and Ponyo is a vivid fantasyland intermixed with minimal reality. I haven't seen animation like this since I was a child and it is wonderful to see it endure and succeed.

The actors supplying the voices in the English version were fabulous. The length of the movie was PERFECT, especially for children who tend to get squirrelly in films. Overall a delightful experience worth the very expensive ticket prices we have nowadays.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even from the very commencing title of this movie I really love the artwork and canvas layout of one of the national islands of Japan. We see some great rolling green hills and some oriental houses of a coastal town. Instantly we are looking at the Pacific beauty on the widescreen of the theater. And to prove how great this film is, I have to say that Charles Darwin would be proud. Teachers of evolution classes and school sciences such as biology would fantastically favor Hayao Miyazaki's brand new movie entitled \"Ponyo\". The title character, as you will see, may be the perfect animation icon of media to be represented in all classrooms and auditoriums alike.

Besides the scientific aspect of all this, let's dive into the blue waters of this exciting story. We have a skinny, old and powerful sorcerer named Fujimoto who lives in a submersible and is cynical of the urban expansion of mankind and their pollution of industrial waste. He wants to have complete control of the seas and the cute looking peaceful aquatic life including fish and organisms. Fujimoto, whose blood is composed to be half-human and half-amphibious, resembles both an ocean loving anti-hero and antagonist; similar to the James Bond villain Stromberg in The Spy Who Loved Me who operates an Atlantis-dubbed underwater city.

His daughter, whom he treats like an over-cared-for pet, is named Ponyo. She is a large goldfish who already looks like a pretty red-haired girl. The father bans her from the real human world, claiming it to be dangerous and too much for her to handle. But quite frankly, Ponyo's exploratory curiosity is as strong as her amorous nature. Eventually with building strength, similar to wonderful scenes from Nick Park's \"Chicken Run\", she breaks free of her father's rocky and fossilized aquatic city and swims to the water surface of Japan, and to her luck and joy, falls into the caring hands of a youngster ship tanker captain named Sosuke.

Living in an ocean front house at a neat looking beach (or boulder filled beach), Sosuke has two overworking parents, a senior home working mother Lisa and the first mate of a tanker barge Koichi. Lisa seems to be angry at her spouse for being away on a ship and leaving her with all the housework. Even more so, the black magic that is exerted by Ponyo causes an apocalyptic chain of events to occur: the moon approaches the Earth too closely and waves surge from the unbalancing of the tidal interaction forces, and humongous tsunami waves rack the peaceful but evacuated town. However what seems to underestimate this curse and seems literally more powerful than supernatural might is the love and tightly embraced friendship between the childish Captain Sosuke and the adorable red-headed Ponyo, who wants to be a sensitive human than just a preserved fish. Much like the frizzly haired and free-spirited hobbits in The Lord of the Rings, Ponyo grants me a slight reminder of that.

I could write on and on about this amazing animated film, the best since \"Coraline\" which was in theaters in February. And right now, Hayao Miyazaki, feast your eyes on another 10 star grade from your animation fan, Graham Abraham. The year 2009 may be filled with dozens of animated films; however, Ponyo is the most towering film of many environmental beauties and should be dedicated as a new wonder of the world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ponyo, written and directed by Hayao Miyazaki, is a little tale that speaks of respect for the ocean, respect for humans young and old, and respect for cultural differences. It is a new tale of a little goldfish wishing to be a girl, rather than a retelling of Disney's Little Mermaid. Miyazaki has animated by hand, a whimsical, magical film for the young and the young-at- heart. The film begins with a slow undulating blue-green palette of sea anemones, jellyfish, and scores of little fanciful goldfish with childlike faces. There isn't any need for narrative, the motion of the creatures and the music of Jo Hisaiahi tell the beginning. Released last summer in Japan, Ponyo won the Japanese Academy's award for Best Animation Film and Best Score (Jezebel.com). The fanciful little goldfish, Brunhild, leaves her ocean home on a jellyfish. Upon reaching the surface she is caught up in a fishing net full of other fish, garbage, and sludge. She is propelled into a jar, which is rolled to shore where five-year-old Sosuke (voice by Frankie Jonas) retrieves it. He cuts his hand when breaking the jar open to free the little goldfish. Brunhild tastes his blood, which heals Sosuke's cut, and puts in motion her transformation to a human, at the same time throwing nature out of balance. Sosuke puts the little goldfish in a green pail and names her Ponyo (Noah Cyrus), meaning soft and jelly like. Sosuke's mother, Lisa (Tina Fey), lets him take Ponyo to school, which is right next door to the nursing home where she works. Lisa's crazy driving down the picturesque winding road, past a dry dock, through the bustling fishing town, and up a tree-lined road to the nursing home is representative of Miyazaki's wonderful sequence of action and illustrates perfectly a parent's hectic morning. Miyazaki has created another strong, independent, female character in Lisa. Making her a loving, sensible, modern mother both to Sosuke and Ponyo. Lisa's telephone conversation with the not-coming-home-again husband, Kiochi (Matt Damon) because the ship he captains must make another run, is a typical wife's reaction. Later that evening Sosuke intercedes using a signal lamp to speak to his father as the ship passes the cliff their house sits on. Lisa refuses to acknowledge Kiochi's apology and jumps up and signals \"Bug-off, Bug-off, Bug-off,\" it is a hilarious scene. But, when Sosuke takes the signal lamp and tells his dad \"Good Luck, Love You,\" Lisa hugs him and tells him he has a good heart, it is a very poignant scene.

My personal favorites are Miyazaki's elderly, granny-type women in wheelchairs at the nursing home, Yochi (Betty White), Noriko (Cloris Leachman) and Toki (Lily Tomlin). Their interchange over Sosuke's little goldfish is wonderful and reminiscent of the bickering between the Witch of the Waste (Lauren Bacall) and Sophie (Jean Simmons) as they trudge up a long flight of stairs in Howl's Moving Castle. Ponyo's magical sea-god father, Fujimoto (Liam Neeson) resembling the wizard Howl arrives to take Ponyo back to her ocean home. Fujimoto uses one of his elixirs to try and put nature back in balance, but magical little Ponyo escapes again upsetting more elixir in the process, and causing a tsunami. Running on the backs of giant dolphins to get to Sosuke, this redheaded, little girl reminds the audience of the stubborn, adventurous little Mei in My Neighbor Totoro. Ponyo is just as adventurous and curious as Mei. When Fujimoto realizes what Ponyo has done he calls for Gran Mamare (Kate Blanchett), the Goddess of the ocean, to help with the situation. This wise, calming Goddess arrives in a blue flowing garment that never ends. She has a private talk with Lisa discussing the future of the young children, which helps the audience understand Sosuke and Ponyo's relationship is not that of lovers, but of brother and sister. The life-goes-on quiet simple ending is typical of Miyazaki films leaving the audience full of hope.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My first exposure to Japanese animation director Hayao Miyazaki and his Studio Ghibli production company was when an English-dubbed version of Spirited Away was released about 7 years ago. What a wonderfully creative and unique film experience that was! So on that note, I managed to get my movie theatre-employed friend to see this new film of Miyazaki with me especially since he loves all things Disney (this movie's U.S. distributor). Once again, all I can say is \"Wow!\" What awesome visuals concerning the way water is depicted as the ocean...and what about the title character's transformation from a goldfish to...and seeing how some characters' demeanor changes...and, well, watch this movie if you want to know what I'm talking about. Oh, and the voices being used for this American-dubbed version: Tina Fey, Betty White, Liam Neeson, Cloris Leachman, and Lily Tomlin. Good choices all. Does everything make sense? No, but that's part of the childlike charm that permeates throughout. There's plenty of funny scenes concerning Ponyo and the boy and many other people they encounter. Oh, I think I've written too much so I'll just highly recommend Hayao Miyazaki's Ponyo.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's rare for a film to sweep you away within its world and leave you wanting more once the credits roll. Hayao Miyazaki's Ponyo is such a film.

The film is the story of a young goldfish named Ponyo who wishes to become human. She swims to shore and is found by a young boy named Sasuke who promises to take care of her. Course Ponyo's father, an ecologically obsessed sorcerer named Fujimoto, tries to keep Ponyo from becoming human in order to maintain the balance of nature, which is eventually upturned when Ponyo finally transforms into a little girl, causing a massive typhoon.

Ponyo is a very rich film. It is full of wondrous fantasy, lovable characters, and genuine heart. What director Hayao Miyazaki has done here is tell a simple little story, and while so doing creating authentic movie magic.

Ponyo is an enchanting experience. The love between Sasuke and Ponyo is very pure and true. As well the environmentalist within Miyazaki is still as evident within this film as in all his previous works. Miyazaki shows the filth and grime that fall into the ocean in an almost startling light, not to mention Ponyo's father is on an obsessive mission to clean the world's oceans. While the story is simple, Miyazaki manages to add this extra layer to provoke thought with expert proficiency.

The film is a beautiful work of art, each hand drawn cell looks like a wondrous pastel painting. The film looks very different than many other Studio Ghibli productions, but the artistry is still just as spectacular as ever before. The scenes underwater are simply beautiful to watch, Fujimoto's fortress under the sea is highly inventive, and the sequence where Ponyo runs across the jumping fish within the typhoon to reach Sosuke is iconic.

Course it is thanks to its wonderfully executed characters that makes this film such a memorable experience. Sosuke is a young boy who acts older than he actually is, and the energetic Ponyo is a laugh a minute. Every character is just so enjoyable and highly memorable.

Overall Ponyo is a wondrous experience, enchanting in every single way. While the film may be sold as a children's fairy tale, I believe many adults will be swept away within its fantastic world along with their children. While the film may lack the density of some of Miyazaki's previous works, here he keeps it pure and simple, being true to himself, delivering a film that is funny, heartwarming, and entertaining all in one. This is a magnificent film.

I give Ponyo a perfect 10 out of 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gake no Ue no Ponyo is a beautifully animated film and a relief from the many heartless soulless CGI movies being made. The pastel and color pencil backgrounds were a surprise after Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi(Spirited Away) and Hauru no Ugoku Shiro(Howl's Moving Castle) being so similar stylistically. The style worked well for the film and was done exceptionally well. The time and effort put in to animate this is greatly appreciated as it gives the characters so much more life, the detail and care it takes makes the movie turn out so much better. There are several great scenes throughout the movie that have lots of movement and action. The greatest to me being a scene were Ponyo's sisters transform into massive wave like fish while she runs on top of them. The story is simple but fairly well written and played out. The plot stayed focused around character relationships and while it wasn't played out as well as in Tonari no Totoro(My Neighbor Totoro) it is still great. I felt that each character had the an appropriate amount of screen time unlike Spirited Away which was so jammed with distinctive characters that it could have been stretched out into an entire series.(The Radish Spirit. There was a another whole movie right there!) My only real problem with the movie was the end. The way its worded in the English version at least makes it seem like there's going to be some great test given to S\u014dsuke which turns out to be just him promising Ponyos mother that he will love Ponyo. Though putting more thought into this leads me to think that translation may not be that accurate to the actual meaning in that the test is the promise and that deep down he really means it. The movie did seem to end abruptly though. Other than that the movie was great and I highly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Obviously, Ponyo can be seen as just not another stupid animated movie that a studio might put out to simply survive. It is far from it, and it can be easily described as a captivating, beautiful movie experience.

Miyazaki has indeed another masterpiece. Now, to many, this has been said to be the least of his achievements in film-making, due to in part of his \"certain weirdness factor\" not being there. That is true-the morals and insights that are not quite so evident in his previous films are very up front in this picture. Ponyo is not too difficult to understand or comprehend. His idea, I believe, was to make a children's movie that was just as suitable for adults as their kids, and for it not to be too complicated. He accomplished this perfectly, and he also didn't lose any substance along the way, which is the reason it gets a 10.

Besides that, the film itself is so engrossing from the start, and the way its presented is so beautiful, it left me in awe at times because I remembered how they were all hand-drawn by Miyazaki himself. I haven't been so enlightened and happy after seeing a film since I saw Once a while back (another film not to be missed). Everything about Ponyo was absolutely stunning and breathtaking; even the music for it was pure perfection. The only bad thing I have to say about it was its English dubbing. Don't get me wrong, they were good, too, but I had seen Ponyo about 2 weeks before it came out nationally, and I believed that, in some parts, I wish it had kept some of its Japanese dialogue (not all of it, though; did enjoy the \"English way\" too). All in all, everyone should see Ponyo; it's absolutely flawless and in another league of film-making altogether. Finally, and don't hold me to this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ponyo got a Best Picture nomination, as there are now 10 films that can be nominated for it. It's just that good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Miyazaki has been doing his mojo since the 70s and it's only been recently that his movies have made it American shores via Disney and fans fawning over his great talent. Ponyo is no exception. Although some of his other movies have been a bit more accessible to US audiences, some may find this one a bit on the fence being sort-of \"Japanese\" in its presentation. For the same reason Pom Poko is VERY \"Japanese\" and doesn't make much sense to US audiences, so too are *some* elements of Ponyo. This should not detract you from watching this fun film of growth, hope, and friendship.

What does come across well is Miyazaki's very elaborate and magical animation and story that has elements of wonder and fantasy. That coupled with his characteristic use of character development and often using girls and women as main characters. He steps out of his zone a bit with Ponyo as the main character is a little boy who lives in a small village by the sea with his mom while his dad is away at work on the high seas. Although not lonely, Sosuke is just like any other curious boy who likes adventure and allure of the sea. Similar to Spirited Away, we see the different worlds of the humans and the sea creatures and I feel that Miyazaki may be trying to draw the viewers attention to the vast and undiscovered nature of things that live beneath the sea and our acceptance of them and thing that are different.

I managed to watch the subtitled version of this last year and was pleased by the story and plot. Miyazaki has claimed that \"this is my last movie\" for many years but shortly after Spirited Away, he gave us Howl's Moving Castle. Ponyo is certainly proof that Miyazaki has not hung up his spurs and continues to delight, innovate, and pioneer the most creative animated movies of all time. Watch Ponyo with an open mind and a tip of the hat to childhood fantasy and imagination and you'll be transported back to when catching Fireflies and secret hiding places were more important than boring grown-up stuff and eating your vegetables.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rendered in beautiful water colors, Ponyo At The Cliff is definitely a sight to behold, vaguely remembering the trailer, witch i didn't find that impressive, i was surprised at how beautiful and detailed it was. This film just washed over me with its purity.

At the center is a young boy that comes into contact with a sea creature, and its their relationship that carries the movie. Miyazaki is a master both at creating memorable imagery and showing young ones interacting in a believable way with their little quirks intact.

There are a few parts that didn't sit well with me. It would be an understatement to say that the music during a particular scene \"resembled\" Ride Of The Valkyrians, its a shame because such a precious film as this cant afford to take liberties and it hurt a otherwise truly great scene. The antagonist and its back-story never interested me either, but i guess it served more as a background then anything else.

Anyway, great film. The boat trip scenario with all its imagery and sea-creatures stood out me thinks. Pure and magical. And yes, handrawn artwork is more intimate then computer animated, I'm really pumped for Princes And The Frog now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely, positively loved the movie. I just saw it and can't wait for it to come out on DVD. It is a beautifully, well-drawn masterpiece. I am always amazed with the intricately drawn work of Ghibli studios.

Others have commented on Sosuke calling Risa by her first name. He never calls his Father by his first name unless he is speaking about him to someone else. I didn't get the impression that Risa was his mother. It was never even mentioned or implied by anyone. It is quite obvious that she is his step-mother. That is why he makes her promise to come home and why he gets so upset when he finds her empty car. His mother must have died when he was an infant because he mentions being nursed by Risa. This coupled with his father being out to sea a lot is why he has abandonment issues. Everyone also talks about how mature he is. This usually occurs when a child loses a parent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, if this film had been made much later in the history of cinema, it wouldn't be particularly worthwhile. However, in 1898, films were in their infancy and they were almost all rather dull and had no real story to tell--instead just showing normal everyday folks doing everyday activities. If seen today, almost all of them are hopelessly dull and very, very short--often less than one minute long! And so in light of this, this short clip of a movie is pretty swell stuff and might just make you laugh. Two guys, a miller and a chimney sweep bump into each other--falling and throwing flour and coal dust all over each other as they tussle. THAT'S ALL--the film is over before you know it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fine ironic visual gag takes place in front of the spectacular backdrop of a twirling windmill. But who are those people who rush across screen at the end: customers? relatives? One of the earliest enigmas in cinematic history perhaps. Well worth a minute of your time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THis is a bewildering, Absurdist Short. A miller, dressed in white, makes his way towards us from a windmill in a desolate landscape. Although the image is pared down, there is an obvious logic here. However, he is stopped by the sweep, all in black because of his work. They start pummelling each other for no particular reason - did the snooty miller insult the sooty sweep? Is this class war?

Whatever, he pelts his adversary with bags of grain which fly all over the fight, making redundant everything he had done prior to the fight, making redundant the windmill, so that all becomes as pointless as the fight. The miller's grain whitens the sweep's blackness - later Westerns wouldn't be so subtle, heroes and villains being colour-coded. Is there a racial tint here?

If this wasn't marvellous enough, the fighters are chased off the screen by a crowd of people who came from nowhere, an appropriately Kafkaesque ending to an odd story (or are they just the social conscience rising up against a fight that negates order and purpose?), and very unusual in the days of early silent cinema. This mix of comedy, surrealism, and the Absurd is an obvious forerunner for BUster Keaton, while the windmill reminds us of one of the great thrillers, Hitchcock's 'Foreign Correspondant'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The answer.....No, sadly not. Though miller and the sweep has to be hailed as a most whimsical cinematic treat.The drama, suspense,romance and the unidentified crowd at the end all add to the films complex storyline which must have been too much for the audiences of 1898. A enlightening experience, one for all the family!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The phenomenon Helge Schneider defies easy description or quick categorization. Yet, for the international audience not acquainted to him, one could say he's something like a crude mix of Weird Al Yankovich and Andy Kaufman, adding a foible for Jazz music and 70s outfits. While his stage performances already are eccentric, his movie works are simply hilariously outrageous.

\"00 Schneider\" is, in my opinion, Helge's best movie. He stars in the two leading roles - police detective \"Kommissar 00 Schneider\" and murderer-villain \"Nihil Baxter\", and also in a precious smaller role as physician \"Dr. Hasenbein\".

In the opening scene, we see how modern-art-loving Baxter accidentally kills the circus clown Bratislav Metulskie, from whom he has bought a malfunctioning used Jaguar, when a beloved sculpture slips out of Baxter's hands, fatally hitting Metulskie. Upon reading about the incident in the newspaper, 00 comes back from retirement to investigate the case with the support of his loyal sidekick, Lt. Koerschgen, who is played by an elderly actor bearing the same name. They pick up Baxter's track quickly, and interrogate him at his weirdly decorated mansion (one of the movie's best scenes!), but initially fail to gather any proof. The story winds through many turns, with several scenes that don't always really contribute to the progress of the plot but are hilariously funny, such as a daydream by 00 (including the most unusual view on a running man's brief-clad crotch in movie history), a police-department party during which Koerschgen gets into a row with the chief and has to be hospitalized, and a visit at the already mentioned Dr. Hasenbein's. Baxter, then, is finally caught attempting to escape to Rio de Janeiro on a plane.

Always worth special mention is Andreas Kunze who in this case plays 00's wife, as he's usually appearing in drag performing women's roles in Helge's Movies.

So all you folks out there looking for new laughs, I strongly recommend this movie. The catch? You have to understand German (as I doubt there's an English version around)...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Helges best movie by far. Very funny, very surrealistic. If Bunuel made a movie starring Buster Keaton as Krusty the Clown it would look like this.

Brilliant performances by the cast we already know from other Schneider movies, especially Helmut K\u00f6rschgen as the sidekick of 00Schneider. (Andreas Kunze who once more plays the wife in this one is a bit annoying though). And of course Helge himself as Nihil Baxter is absolutely incredible.

P.S: if this movie had a proper merchandising i would really like to buy a replica of that \"Holz ist\" painting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i consider this movie as one of the most interesting and funny movies of all time. It has so much highly intelligent thoughts in it, that anybody who thinks the movie is awful did not get it and is not able to recognize really deep philosophical themes, which are in it (in all the 3 Schneider movies) without a doubt. Several universities in germany and throughout europe have made studies on Schneider's way of seeing things. By the way, Helge Schneider is a very intelligent and sensitive person and on of the Jazz-musicions in germany (maybe europe). He is mostly inspired by the great M.Davis and T.Monk. So if you do not like him, it is ok, but please do not try to convince others that he might be stupid, cheap, boring or not funny. Because if you had to face this opinion in a discussion and if you are willing to really look into the art of H.Schneider you would have to \"surrender\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm impressed that 'Hail the Woman' was made at all; released just one year after American women got the vote, this turgid drama makes an earnest plea against the sexual double standard which judges women's sexual behaviour more harshly than men's.

SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD. A prologue, set in the Plymouth colony in 1621, shows a Pilgrim girl sentenced to the ducking stool for flirting with a boy; the boy is not penalised. Now we come to Flint Hill, New Hampshire in the present (1921). Oliver Beresford (Theodore Roberts) is a bombastic bible-thumper: what we call in Britain and Australia 'a God-botherer'. Beresford is determined that his son David (Lloyd Hughes) become a preacher, regardless of how David feels about it. As for Beresford's daughter Judith ... well, Beresford is confident that women aren't important enough to be anything more than wives and mothers. Apparently, God told him this personally.

David's evangelical career is compromised when he impregnates Nan Higgins, the stepdaughter of the local odd-jobs man. (Tully Marshall's character is identified in the credits solely as the 'Odd Jobs Man', but a close-up of a cheque reveals his name to be Jake Higgins. The prejudices of 1921 require that he be merely Nan's stepfather, not her biological parent.) To save his son from scandal, Beresford buys off Nan's stepfather with a cheque. Nan goes off to the big city, to melt into oblivion as one more unwed mother.

Judith is naturally dismayed by the limitations imposed upon her by her gender. (Or rather, by other people's perceptions of it.) She meets Wyndham Gray (excellent performance by Edward Martindel), an author who encourages her to transcend sexist stereotypes. But Judith is informally engaged to local lout Joe Hurd, who won't put up with such nonsense. Hurd is played by Vernon Dent, a burly performer now remembered solely for comedy roles (as a second banana to Harry Langdon, and as a villain in Three Stooges movies). He gives an excellent performance here, in a role outside his usual range. Sadly, in real life Dent spent his final years in poverty and total blindness due to diabetic retinopathy.

Eventually, Judith ends up working at an orphanage. This being 1921, I expected the orphanage to be whites-only, so I was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to include one Chinese boy. (And unpleasantly surprised when he's used as the butt for a racial joke.) The movie makes one odd error here. In a Christmas sequence, we see the orphanage mistress reciting 'A Visit from Saint Nicholas' ... but (in a dialogue title) she credits Santa Claus with SIX reindeer rather than eight. This is followed by a brief animation sequence, showing Santa with six reindeer hitched to his sleigh. I assume that the animators (either by accident, or to save money) left out two reindeer, and the title card revised the poem to match the error.

Lloyd Hughes was generally a bland and unimpressive actor. His most famous performance is his role in 'The Lost World', where he's easily upstaged by a rampaging brontosaurus. For his climactic scene in 'Hail the Woman', Hughes gives a memorable performance as he finally rebels against his father's tyranny. In his performance as the gospel-shouting father, Theodore Roberts has been accused of overacting to the point of making his role a caricature. I disagree: sadly, decades after this film was made, I continue to encounter 'holy' fools exactly like this man ... willing to destroy the lives of everyone around them, and firmly convinced they have God's authority to do so.

In the central role of Judith Beresford, Florence Vidor gives a sensitive, realistic and intelligent performance. I normally dislike Vidor, who tended to be cast in glamour roles but wasn't pretty enough to justify them. Here, her character's physical appearance is less relevant than usual.

This entire film is impressively directed by John Griffith Wray, a director who deserves to be much better known. Sadly, Wray died at the onset of the talkies era, in his mid-thirties: had he lived another ten years, he would surely have helmed several early sound classics. In 'Hail the Woman' there are several extremely beautiful screen compositions: I was especially impressed by a scene in the New England forest, when Vidor and Dent have a quarrel in front of an enormous uprooted tree. (I wonder where this was actually filmed.) 'Hail the Woman' deals with unpleasant subject matter, but it deserves to be much better known, and I'll rate this ambitious drama 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Hail The Woman\" is one of the most moving films I have ever seen in my entire life. I watched it twice in a row and sobbed my eyes out.

This silent film masterpiece deserves a much wider viewing audience; unfortunately the sole surviving print is so badly scratched that most people won't watch it all the way through, and they will miss the gem shining underneath the rough. This film could use a digital restoration, to help bring out its beauty, but I doubt it will get it from anyone, since its main theme is Spiritual restoration before Christ of the family unit, and this is not politically correct these days. However it remains a powerful theme for those whose hearts are hurting from the pain of broken family relationships.

The cast is magnificent, especially Florence Vidor, who literally glows as Judith, the daughter; ethereal Madge Bellamy as Nan, the poor girl who gets pregnant and is cast aside; Theodore Roberts as the crotchety old domineering father who destroys everyone around him through pride; and handsome Lloyd Hughes, as the son David, afraid of his father, but really of life itself.

This is a nice film to watch at Christmas, especially. You will not regret being patient and viewing it in its entirety despite its deterioration.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Vidor shines as Judith, the only truly strong and compassionate member of a strictly patriarchal family. Her brother, David, is so downtrodden by their father that it's a surprise he's able even to tie his shoes, rather than asking Dad to do it for him.

Other reviewers have already outlined the plot, so I won't rehash it; I will, however, point out that Nan, who is pregnant by David, is also married to him. This is not an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, which would have been horrific by 1921 standards. The two are secretly married, but Nan's father, having been paid by David's father, tears up their marriage certificate.

Nan's death scene, with Judith in attendance, is a truly heart-rending experience, and highly charged with emotion. This scene alone is worth watching the movie for, but there's far more to the plot than that; why on earth aren't modern movies made with the same attention to the story?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Florence Vidor stars as the daughter of a strict bible toting father who throws her out of the house when gossip taints her name. In the big city, she finds the dying wife of her own brother (the two had secretly married) and raises their child on her own. Years later, she goes back home to confront her family.

This old melodrama is heavily larded with fascinating feminist themes (circa 1921, but sounding remarkably modern). Some of it is laid on with a trowel (as the father, Theodore Roberts gives his eyebrows a real workout), but it's well put together dramatically and lovingly composed and shot by cinematographer Henry Sharp.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a veteran screen writing instructor at Richland College in Dallas and a former MGM screenwriter back in the days of decent films, I am thrilled to have accidentally clicked on Channel 33 in Dallas tonight and watched this enchanting film in which Betty White is GORGEOUS and makes one yearn for the good old days of truly good movies before Hollywood started banging out all this crap for the teenagers. If a producer is listening, I'd like to state that there are enough of us over 60's who will happily pay a buck to see a movie that has no guns, no killing, no special effects, no sex and violence and just a good touching tale of human relationships that leaves you with a good warm feeling, as this film did for me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favorites. Betty White and Leslie Neilson sparkle in this romantic comedy. One is a business executive who re-evaluates life based on the expectation of her death within a year. The other is a playboy who has tired of gold-digging young women and seeks a relationship with a vital, mature woman. If you've got silver in your hair and\/or romance in your heart, microwave the popcorn, curl up with your honey, and prepare yourself for a treat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most of the comments so far have nailed this one right on the head. Viewers under \"a certain age\" and with IQ's of three digits should avoid \"Chance of a Lifetime\" like a George W.Bush appointee facing a Congressional grilling.

The cast is composed largely of veterans who know their way around a well-written script. Is the premise wildly original? No, but the movie stands out like a lighthouse at midnight in the current and non-ending glut of movies\/TV geared to the most-desirable audience demographic of teenagers and \"young adults\"

In addition to Betty White and Leslie Neilsen in the leads, the cast also has ever-reliable veterans like Elaine Stritch and William Windom. The sharp dialog is effortlessly and effectively delivered by these pros.

\"Chance of a Lifetime\" is definitely not a movie for the Will Ferrell\/Adam Sandler\/\"Saw\" slasher gore-fests, \"American Eye Dull,\" and ninety percent of the rest of the sludge ground out by Hollywood and TV.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A terrific comedy-drama about the powers of friendship. Despite it's a remake of a 1939 film of the same title, it would probably be compared to Sex And The City. I would not compare to it totally. The story starts with Mary(Meg Ryan) who seems to the life most women would envy, she's happily married, has a good daughter, great friends, and a great home. But Marys perfect life isn't what it seems, when she discovers her husband is cheating on her with Crystal(Eve Mendes) from Zach's. Mary is puzzled and doesn't know what to do. But her four good friends, Sylvia(Annette Bening), Edie(Debra Messing), and Alex(Jada Pickett Smith) try to be there for her in anyway they can. I really don't want to give anymore away. But I found this enjoyable, and I'm a man. Meg Ryan is great, it is nice to see her in on the screen again, after a series of flops. And the rest of the cast are also great including Eve Mendes as Crystal. Just an enjoyable lighthearted comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a 58 year old man.On a rainy afternoon my wife suggested that we go see The Women. After reading the reviews I thought it might lead to an afternoon nap. Wrong- this movie held my interest from start to finish. It was great to finally see Meg Ryan looking super again. Let's face it Meg looks much better with long hair. Annette Benning looked different to me in every scene she was in. Candice Bergen is showing her age as is Carrie Fisher. The daughter, Molly, was exceptionally acted by young India.I was able to understand the dialog which is tough in many current films due to rapid speech. Cloris Leachman and the woman from Finland were terrific as the housekeepers who extend their regular duties. The NYC scenes were nice to see. Oh, and Bette Midler had a short role but as usual was terrific. So I gave this chick flick a 9. Guys- Go see this even just for the eye candy like Eva Mendes. It won't disappoint.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The people who don't like this movie seem to have some academic vendetta against it -- those of us who don't hold the original can totally enjoy it.

My husband who had never seen the original said \"I don't want to see a girly movie.\" I assured him that \"the women\" is just a great movie, not a girl movie. He had a great time. He was very glad to have gone and enjoyed it more than the \"boy\" movie we saw the day before \"burn after reading.\"

SPOILER: I even think the new ending is better. Maybe not quite as fun, but it was beautiful. At first I couldn't understand why they had made certain changes to the plot

but when I got the end and Debra Messing gives birth and brings the first male into the movie, I cried. That's one thing to love about men \u0096 they are our sons.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mary Haines (Meg Ryan) a rich woman discovers her husband is cheating on her with a younger woman (Eva Mendes). She doesn't know what to do and friends Sylvia Fowler (Annette Bening), Edie Cohen (Debra Messing) and Alex Fisher (Jad Pinkett Smith) try to help.

OK--there was no reason to redo the 1939 movie. That's a true classic and doesn't need to be updated and redone. Naturally it WAS done. This has gotten some of the worst reviews I've ever seen for a motion picture. I love the original and have seen it MANY times--I was constantly comparing it to that. Now this isn't a classic but it's not that bad.

**MINOR SPOILERS!!!** First the bad--the story is old and was (badly) updated. Really--a man cheating on his wife is hardly shocking today. Meg Ryan (a wonderful actress) is pretty terrible here. Her face seems unable to change expression! I couldn't believe how bad some of her scenes came over. Eva Mendes is bad too--but it's not entirely her fault. Her role is badly written and she has to compete with Joan Crawford from the original. Smith's character (a tough lesbian) goes to pieces in an operating room. It IS funny...but it's showing that a strong woman instantly goes to pieces when confronting an emergency. Also the script inserts some clumsy passages where Ryan talks to her daughter about being yourself. In those moments it seems more like a Lifetime movie than anything else.

Now the good--this movie retains the originals' decision to NEVER show a man on screen. This movie is about and for women--men aren't needed (BTW--I'm a man). Bening is just great as Fowler--whenever she's on screen the movie makes a great leap. Also Smith is just wonderful--she doesn't overplay (or underplay) her lesbian character too much. Messing is good too but she's not in this much. Bette Midler is just hysterical in a small role and Cloris Leachman pulls off the nothing role of a housekeeper. The direction is good too--especially during a fashion show sequence. I heard director Diane English purportedly had a lot of trouble directing her first full-length movie but it doesn't show in the final product. Also there are some clever references to the original (mostly certain lines) that were inserted with no fuss.

I saw this in an audience full of women (there were a few guys but not many) and they loved it. The movie ends on an operating room sequence that had everybody howling. So--this wasn't needed but it's not the disaster people are saying it is. Also--people are saying we don't need a movie with all women. Well--why not? I see plenty of movies with all guys in the cast and no one complains about that! Ignore the complaints and bad reviews and see this. With a better performance by Ryan I might have given this an 8 or 9 but, as it is, I can only give it a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I will freely admit that I haven't seen the original movie, but I've read the play, so I've some background with the \"original.\" If you shuck off the fact that this is a remake of an old classic, this movie is smart, witty, fresh, and hilarious. Yes, the casting decisions may seem strange, but they WORK.

I'm a staunch feminist, and I wasn't offended in the slightest by this movie--despite what other women might be saying. This is NOT a movie for men to see (so please, ladies, don't drag your guys to see it with you, that's just cruel); women will get the jokes, the situations, and the relationships.

I was pleasantly surprised by the depth that Annette Bening brought to her character...she did an excellent job. Debra Messing was adorable, and Candice Bergen was fantastic. I was less impressed by Meg Ryan...she brought emotion to the table, but her comedic take on it was less strong. The all-female cast is strong, and it definitely a laugh-out-loud sort of comedy. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and fully intend to go see it again with my mother. Women will understand.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, this film is another remake. Yes, this film can be considered a chick-flick. And yes, this film is not perfect. The Women is however a clever modern update on the social behaviors of all women, with an impressive cast of A-listers including Meg Ryan, Debra Messing, Annette Benning and Bette Midler.

The film revolves around four main characters, Mary (Ryan), her best friend, editor-in-chief, Sylvie (Benning), Alex (Jada Pinkett-Smith) and Edie (Debra Messing) and the out-of-this-world female creature who is responsible for most of the film's drama,named Crystal (Eva Mendez). Mary is trying to deal with her cheating husband (who's never actually seen in the film), by following the advice of both her friends and her mother (Candice Bergen).

Aside from Mary, there's Sylvie who's torn between her social life and her professional life. She has decisions to make that test her moral and ethic values. Then there's writer Alex who's a lesbian, with a lot of spunk, but knows her way with words. And finally Edie with four girls and another baby on the way, who loves children and has a heart of gold, with a hidden secret revealed at the end.

Together the women live for revenge, rely on each other, and give each other life lessons. But it's the cameos by Bette Midler, Candice Bergen, Cloris Leachman, Carrie Fisher, and Debi Mazar, that show the cruel and usual behavior of women. Bergen plays Ryan's mother, she's tough, silver-tongued, experienced, and yet feels she could have become what her daughter does later. There's Fisher who shows how to blackmail and test the boundaries of selfishness, morals, and betrayal. Mazar, the gossip girl, that shows no mercy for what she says and whom she says it to. Leachman who plays Ryan's sassy housekeeper, she knows her place, when and where she's needed, and how to deliver a good one-liner. Finally there's MIdler, who plays Leah Miller, a crazy eclectic but wise Hollywood agent. She's the one character who gives Ryan's Mary an epiphany on who she truly is by discovering \"what do I want.\" Despite Midler's scene stealing performance and memorable quotes, she was underused.

But back to the film, together the women show the audience what it means to live in the 21st century without knowing exactly what you want until the time comes when you answer that very own question. It tackles feminism, what it means to be a woman (fierce, ruthless, bad-ass, tacky, smart, sly, clever, shy, proud, ashame, self-conscious, careless, beautiful, strong, independent); and also what it is that women want, why are women the way they are. It's funny, modern and by all means not a masterpiece. But the Bottom line is, it's worth the money and time to see veteran and younger actresses teach us all about women.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Women is a cute movie about women at all ages (but mostly 30+) and their issues in life. Not just men and infidelity, but also about relationships with friends & family, making time to connect with others, problems with image, compromising your values, accomplishments in life, and finding what will really make you happy.

It's also about being true to yourself. A lot of times, people will give you advice but not really follow it themselves. Sometimes they have created a delusion for themselves, and should you really follow in that same path or react based on your feelings now? I really liked this movie. Granted, it was trying a bit to be like Sex & the City at times, but that probably helped me like it. The difference here is it's kind of like the discoveries after the stage in life that the Sex & the City stars were in -- here, most are married or past the point of trying to find a man. Now, they are trying to find happiness in their marriages and lives.

Obviously it's not an Oscar contender, but it is entertaining and serves its purpose.

And for the men out there, there were an equal share of men and women in the movie theater (most were with their wives\/girlfriends), and the men were in fact laughing. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My sisters and my cousin(female) forced me to see this chick movie. Its not the kind of movie I would prefer to see, but it really wasn't that bad. I wouldn't want to see this movie, but after watching it I couldn't say it was bad, just not my kind of film. It was very accurate in acting out what woman really talk about and do in certain situations. As a guy, I wasn't TOO amused by the jokes, but man the women sure were. They related to the movie and yeah it was funny to see themselves on the big screen. \"OH EM GEE I DO THAT TO HAHA\" I've never seen the original, nor would I care to. If you are a girl, this is a must see, but maybe girls would say this movie sucked, probably. I don't see a 13 year old going, \"Wow I remember going threw that when I was 30.\"

No man would have this in there collection, but I can't say it was horrible, so meh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was funny from START to FINISH. Everyone in the cinema was laughing out loud throughout the film!! The best characters were Alex Fisher (Jada Pinkett), Edie Cohen (Debra Messing, the girl from Will and Grace) and Tanya the manicurist (Debi Mazar). They had the best lines, the best attitudes etc. Jada Pinkett playing a lesbian was really funny, she really played it well and was very convincing. The only bad thing about the film was the fact that the other two main characters weren't as funny even though the movie focused around them........ All in all, this is a great movie to go and see with your girls (yes guys, it's a girlie movie through and through!). Enjoy!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had my son for the weekend and my parent's called me up and said that they wanted the two of us to meet them at the movies. When I got there, my mom said that she really wanted to see \"The Women\" and asked if my son and I minded due to it being labeled as a chick flick. I reluctantly agreed thinking this was going to be another \"First Wives Club\" type movie. I gotta say that I was very surprised to find myself really enjoying the movie from the opening scene to the credits. It was a great production and the cast was perfect in their roles. My son and I found ourselves laughing through entire movie and we are glad that we saw it. It made for a great Saturday afternoon movie and I highly recommend it to anyone, man or woman.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The lament and almost unbearable melancholy of Amalia Rodriques' music goes to a place in the soul that only music can stir. In her voice and magical presence, lies the exquisite agony of the Fado, an art form of which I was unaware until seeing this film.

For me, the success of this beautifully and lovingly crafted documentary lies in the fact that the filmmaker resists the temptation to editorialize and simply allows us to share in the magnetism and elegant passion of this icon. There seems to be an inevitable corrolation between the Portuguese Fado and American Blues.

Documentary filmmaking at its best, transports us to a previously unknown reality. and having been allowed this glimpse, we are transformed.

Abrigado, Sr.de Almeida","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Reading some of the other comments, I must agree that some of the (very few) shortcomings found in this brilliant documentary about one of the 20th century's divas (up there with Billie Holliday, Bessie Smith, Edith Piaf, Judy Garland and Mercedes de Sosa) are justified. Because initially this was a 6-hours-plus TV documentary about her career(\"ESTRANHA FORMA DE VIDA\" (V) 1995\/1999). Far more encompassing and with greater insight into Am\u00e1lia's inner world. As for the subtitling her songs, I'm all for it! Though the music, the voice and the performance may be - are! - universal, there is so much poetry in the words just begging to be translated. I think this was a conscious choice by the producers. They were aiming at the 200 million Portuguese speakers in Brazil, Portugal, Mozambique, France, East Timor, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Canada, the US, South Africa, St. Tome and Principe, Goa, Daman, Diu, Venezuela, Luxembourg, Germany and the rest of the Portuguese-speaking diaspora worldwide. As for the Lady herself, she did not live to see this particular shortened DVD version of the documentary, but she was given a preview of \"Estranha Forma de Vida\". And it seems to have been to her liking. Very much so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent documentary about Am\u00e1lia Rodrigues. I enjoyed it very much; it's very well put together and very informative. If you want to know who is Am\u00e1lia Rodrigues. I highly recommend you see this film, \"The Art Of Am\u00e1lia Rodrigues\".

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an extraordinary film musically. It made me feel awful that Rodrigues died in 1999, before I had a chance to see her live. To know that she performed a marvelous Lincoln Ctr. concert in 1991 & that I might've been there, but wasn't is painful beyond words.

I just purchased my first Amalia recording. While the musical recording is fantastic, being able, in this film to SEE her face & its tremendous expressiveness & passion as she sings these songs of terrible sadness is wonderful. Sort of like seeing the face of Mary as she cradles Jesus in her arms in the Pieta. Watching her on film, reminded me of being witness to a similar extraordinary concert performance by Mercedes Sosa in the mid 1990s at Lincoln Ctr. As I sat listening to Mercedes sing, I felt I was in the presence of a tremendous spiritual & musical force that contained awesome primal power. Some of \"The Art of Amalia\"'s musical segments are touching, such as Caetano Veloso paying tribute to Amalia & singing one of her songs solo in front of a packed concert hall. The musical segments also convey the incredible international sweep of her musical repertoire & the bonds she created w. fans throughout the entire world. There is one segment in which she claims that she has played in every single town in Italy that has a stage!

In another section, Amalia talks about her bout w. mouth cancer & how she came to NYC to commit suicide in a hotel. Yet, through watching Fred Astaire film videos she gradually persuaded herself that life was worth living & turned away from killing herself. Amazing! Later in the film, she quite bravely & directly admits to the interviewer that though she might've conquered the world musically, her personal life was one of pure sadness. She admits that she has never been happy. This is unbearably sad to hear, but perfectly in keeping w. a singer steeped in the fado (which she translates as \"bad destiny\" or \"bad luck\") tradition. Also, one longs to hear more about her personal life: what was in that made her so sad? what were her disappointments?

\"The Art of Amalia\" is a little disappointing in other major areas. My quibbles: to show 20-30 full songs in the film yet to only provide an English translation for the very last one seems a waste (unless the film was only intended for a Portuguese speaking audience, which I can't imagine). To see the profound pain on her face as she sings & not to understand the lyrics is a let down. As for the other minuses: there is almost no biographical material about Amalia's family background. There is one 20 sec. snippet w. her singing w. her mother (it's absolutely grand). There is one short reference to her parents moving fr. the countryside to Lisbon. I would've loved to see film footage of the village she came from. The interviews such as they are are almost solely w. Amalia herself (& a few close friends). She is a good, but not great subject. There are no interview subjects who are experts on fado or Portuguese culture & society, so we get no depth of understanding of her musical roots.

In short, this is a wonderful film that everyone interested in Amalia should see. But it's not a perfect or definitive work on the subject.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With the fairly recent release of Carlos Saura's 'Fados' in the United States (albiet a limited art house only release),it's high time for a re-release of this fine documentary on Amalia Rodrigues. This film is a treasure chest of vintage film clips of Amalia on Portugese & American television,as well as various other film clips,including one of her & her Mother that could easily reduce the most macho man to tears. I first saw this fine documentary a few years back,when it received the unjustified \"art house\" release (it deserved far better). Fortunately, various recordings exist of Amalia's best recordings on various \"budget line\" recordings (which are generally available in places such as K-Mart,or Best Buy),or if you do a little searching,one can fine some of the original releases,either on E-Bay,or one of those distribution services that specializes in pricey European imported CD's. There are at least two versions of this documentary in circulation (the original Portugese version,with no English subtitles, and the U.S. version in Portugese with English subtitles,except the European version cannot be played on most U.S.DVD players,due to the PAL colour line system). Not rated by the MPAA,but contains nothing to offend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very different Jerry Lewis film, not like all those more famous films that everybody knows. Lewis deals with the difficult task of WW II and National Socialism in Germany in a rather unconventional way. But even more interesting and important, he does it in a very un-American way. And as with so many things in the world and especially in the film industry un-American means more sophisticated, more subtle, more intelligent or simply better. That is the reason why the film was no success in the US but a very great success in Europe.

All in all, Jerry Lewis has proven by this movie, that he is able to do much more than simple slapstick comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For some inexplicable reason, Jerry's movies often seemed to come in for diatribes from certain quarters although they were rarely box office disappointments. It's one of life's great mysteries to me because his films have always had a 'feel good' factor about them for me. But this film is not only not bad: it's an exceedingly good and clever comedy. To those who may be tickled by 'modern' crude or cruel humour, don't see this film: There's nothing in it like that and you'll be wasting your time.

I've only seen this film once on the television. I've waited ever since to see it again and that's been quite a few years. You'd think the idea of an arrogant millionaire businessman heading off to win the war against the Nazis with his own small private army of subservient employees would be boring wouldn't you? Well only Jerry Lewis would dare try such a plot for an out and out comedy and it works, I have to say, brilliantly.

I think that, as with 'The Nutty Professor' and most of his other films, this movie is testimony to his comic genius, both in concept and execution. I think Buddy Love might have said, \"You know, true comedy can not only make a six year old hysterical, it'll do that for his Dad too.\" Maybe a few nutty Nazis generals with monocles and a limp would dislike this movie, honestly. If you only see one more comedy in your life, see this one. Be careful though, you might die laughing. And I'm not joking!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Written by brilliant Monkees' TV writers Gerald Gardner and Dee Caruso,WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT was the last of the \"Jerry Lewis\" movies until \"Hardly Working\" almost a decade later. Jerry's comedy is evidently an acquired taste, and admittedly he can occasionally be his own worst enemy when he helms as producer\/director--but even in the dreariest of his films, there are always moments of brilliance.

WHICH WAY manages to be amusing,entertaining and yes,quite funny. It is somewhat unlike any of the typical Lewis films.The pace is very upbeat and ther are lots of excellent supporting players--a kind of JERRY DOES HOGANS HEROES.The whole thing looks kind of like an unsold TV pilot and you will either love it or hate it---but hopefully YOU VILL LAUGH","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'In the Line of Fire' is one of those Hollywood films that shows up on tv quite a bit, but although I've seen it a few times, I usually end up sitting through the whole thing again. Why? - It's GOOD! Clint Eastwood is great as usual, and the character he plays is interesting and more fleshed out than usual. The character, Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan, is haunted by the fact that he was on the detail that failed to protect President Kennedy in Dallas, and now he's forced to match wits with a professional assassin that is openly declaring that he will kill the president. However, the film doesn't make him a depressed, brooding, and obsessed character. He's charming and personable, and is realistic as a guy that has experienced a lot in life and is comfortable in his own skin. He's even quite convincing when he flirts with the pretty younger agent played by Rene Russo. The killer, played by John Malkovich at his best, is cerebral, deliberate, and enjoys playing high stakes games of life and death. He even goes by the name of another presidential assassin, John Booth.

The film is consistently enjoyable, and it delivers all the goods - suspense, action, romance, and drama - all in their proper amounts. It's a fun film that is really helped by the great actors in it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In The Line of Fire gives us a great game of cat and mouse. Clint Eastwood is plagued by John Malkovich in this riveting film. Malkovich says he's going to kill the president, and he purposely calls Eastwood, and pushes his buttons. He questions Eastwood's ability to protect someone. Malkovich brings a cold, but very intelligent mindset to his character. Everything he does, he does for a reason, and he's not shy about killing. Eastwood has to overcome the suspicions of his superiors in order to catch Malkovich, but no one wants to listen to him. The result is a film that crackles with suspense that escalates to a tense scene in a ballroom at the Bonneventure Hotel. Wolfgang Peterson ratchets up the tension and we feel every turn.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Quite simply a well-made, well-written and wonderfully acted movie. Eastwood is classic as grizzled Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan and Rene Russo

holds her own as partner (and love interest) Lilly Raines. But the movie's

greatness rests on the shoulders of John Malkovich as \"Booth\". He captures

this character's rage and hatred, as well as his humanity oddly enough.

Personally I think this was his best performance and should have received an

Oscar for it (But I loved Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive as well that year). Overall a great movie to see you want to peek into an assassin's mind and be

on the edge of your seat the whole way through. Enjoy!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Clint Eastwood scores big in this thriller from 1993.Teamed with an absolute master of edge of your seat suspense,Wolfgang Peterson, Eastwood delivers as only he can.Also,John Malkovich goes on my list of most effective screen villains in the history of cinema as the demented assassin.As for Rene Russo as Clint's love interest,I think Kirk Douglas said it best when he said,referring to his own career,\"I keep getting older,and my leading ladies keep getting younger\".This film is a very effective thriller with enough plot twists and surprises to keep you going.Eastwood and Peterson should team together more often. Top notch movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood) is a secret service agent plagued with guilt over the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, while he was on duty. Thirty years later and the current president is entering a re-election campaign, but he is receiving death threats; and Horrigan has been called in to assist in what should be a routine research operation. John Malkovich plays the professional assassin and master of disguise who is tracking the president, and using the past he begins to torture Horrigan in a psychological duel of cat and mouse.

Malkovich, Eastwood and Rene Russo all give wonderful performances in this top notch thriller. The direction is excellent and the entire picture is charged with tension and intrigue throughout.

A must see for thriller fans 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A great performance by Clint Eastwood and particularly John Malkovich in my opinion his finest one to date. Malkovich had this one nailed right down to the floor it's incredible. Eastwood is Agent Mike Horrigan, an aged and cynical Secret Service Agent who is finishing out his career busting counterfeiters and chasing down routine assignments. But one assignment which appears to be run of the mill at first turns complicated and deadly serious. Horrigan and his new partner Al are sent to investigate a threat on the President by a \"wacko\". As fate would have it Horrigan has stumbled not upon a delusional nut but a professional lone wolf who has a big bone to pick with the White House. As Horrigan dives deeper into \"Booth's\" world he attracts the bad guy's unwanted attention and unbridled admiration for him. Horrigan was JFK's top agent and present in Dallas, Texas when he was assassinated and blames himself for what happened. Now he feels it's up to him to stop the current Head of State from joining the list of dead Presidents. But this killer has turned the tables on Horrigan and now he's the hunted one in a life or death cat and mouse game. Who will win? Who will die? It's a race against time to save the Pres from a chameleon-like enemy who can get to anyone. My favorite Secret Service movie and as good a nail biter as any.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is another of Eastwood's many movies mixing intrigue, action, and a dollop of romance, along with \"The Gauntlet,\" \"Firefox,\" and so forth. Clint's acting range by now is pretty familiar. In this one, he's taciturn and a bit outrageous, especially with women and superiors. There are no surprises in his performance. But the film itself is something of a surprise; it's above average.

Clint is Frank, a Secret Service agent who, perhaps in a moment of doubt, failed to catch the bullet that killed JFK. He then took to drink, which drove his family away, and now plods along in the bureaucracy until he is contacted by John Malkovitch, calling himself \"Booth,\" who strikes up a sort of skewed relationship with him based on their shared, disillusioned conviction that everything is meaningless except the impulse to escape dreariness and predictability. Now, this is rather an anfractuous set of attitudes for a performer like Clint to project, but he does rather well, less robotic than usual. And he does seem to carry around with him, like a burden of stone, the memory of that moment in Dallas. He's tested again halfway through this movie. He is hanging from the roof of a tall building, grasping Booth's hand, and he pulls his pistol and points it at Booth, who asks him if he is really willing to shoot. If he does, of course, he saves the president from an attempted assassination by a CIA-trained murderer, but he does so at the cost of his own life. Booth twits him about the situation as they hold hands in midair. And Clint even has a short speech, talking to Renee Russo, about his failure to save the president in Dallas. \"If I'd have reacted quickly enough, I could have taken that shot . . . and that would have been alright with me.\" It's underplayed, but his voice chokes slightly, his eyes water, and his lip trembles. It's one of the few scenes in any of Clint's films that might properly be called \"moving.\" We know from his newfound resolve that given another chance he would take the bullet this time. (The irony is that he doesn't like the current president. Who could? He gives pompous speeches in Colorado about how they \"carved a nation out of the wilderness.\" Didn't they do the same thing in Las Vegas?)

It's often said that a movie is only as good as its villain. It isn't true, nothing is that simple, but an argument could be made for its truth value in this case. The reptilian John Malkovitch with his Tartar eyes is marvelous.

Talk about disillusioned. Okay, he can ham it up a little, sniffing with disdain even as he plugs two innocent hunters between the eyes, but he's fascinating on the screen. Renee Russo has little do to. Fred Thompson, as the chief White House aid, is now back in politics, a relief for movie-goers. If Clint's acting range is limited, Thompson's is something less. In every film he's been in, he wears the same solemn and dissatisfied expression, as if constantly plagued by some form of volcanic digestive disorder.

The direction by Wolfgang Peterson is as good as it was in \"Das Boot,\" which is pretty good. There is a great deal of the usual suspenseful cross-cutting in the final shootout. And when Clint and Russo fall into an impassioned embrace in her hotel room and scuttle backwards towards the bed like two weasels in heat, Peterson playfully shows us their feet along with a succession of objects dropping to the floor -- not only the usual garments but handcuffs, guns, beepers, palm pilots, Dick Tracy wrist watches and other impedimenta. Interrupted, Clint lies back on the bed and sighs, \"Now I have to put all that stuff back on again.\"

Well written and worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"IN THE LINE OF FIRE, in my opinion, is an excellent, suspenseful, and edge-of-your-seat action\/drama\/thriller! I thought that Agent Horrigan (Clint Eastwood) and Agent Raines (Rene Russo) looked good in the attire they wore at the presidential dinner. As for Leary (John Malkovich), he was a sick man who loved to toy with Frank by phone. He looked good in the tuxedo he wore near the end of the film, though. One thing that surprised me was the growing attraction between Agent Horrigan and Agent Raines. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that the entire cast and crew did an outstanding job, I loved the setting, and I couldn't get enough of it. Now, in conclusion, to all you Clint Eastwood fans who haven't seen this excellent, suspenseful, and edge-of-your-seat action\/drama\/thriller, I highly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the finest movies I have viewed...Good script, original plot of a man who is haunted about JFK's assassination when he was assigned to protect him on that Cold November day in 1963. Thirty years later another anti-social lunatic wants to assassinate the current president. The secret service agent loses his partner along the way,to the crazed gunmen who schemes,lies and murders anybody in his path who'll stand in his way of his mission.

The movie accompanies with a great memorable score,and a restrained but meaningful romance between Russo and Eastwood....which displays how difficult it is to have a romantic life in that kind of work. Malchovich is great,sure many other candidates could have played the role that he played,but how many could acted with such craftiness,and intellect that he displayed in the movie?

Needless to say,I thought this was a great movie...everytime it's on television I have to watch it..and I own it on dvd! I'm a big Eastwood fan,this only boosted his already fabulous career,and Malchovich's best role to date!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen quite a few action thrillers in my life and this is clearly one of the best ever! There are very few films which I even consider watching several times and this is one of them. Everything in this movie is just right: Clint as the superb leading actor, Rene Russo as his non-stupid female partner(this is a very rare combination - sad,but true!). Of course, John Malkowich deserves a lot of praise for his excellent villain but let us not overlook Eastwood`s initial buddy, played by Dylan Mcdermott, who in my view fits the role perfectly.The soundtrack is absolutely fantastic - but sadly never released on an original soundtrack CD (shame on the producers!). The plot makes sense and there is no loss of pace, the audience is kept in constant excitement of the outcome of the duel between Eastwood and Malkowich. I give this one 10 Stars!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was watching the Perfect Storm, and thought about another Wolfgang Peterson film which is much better--this one. Although certainly not based on a true story, In the Line of Fire is how a movie should be made. It has a terrific story with a great cast. Malkovich won a well-deserved Oscar for his performance as the creepy killer with a grudge against the government he served all too well. Eastwood is good as the tortured Secret Service and Russo is easy on the eyes. If you haven't seen this, definitely rent it or buy it as I did. Definitely one of the best crime thrillers of the past decade. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wolfgang Peterson's In the Line of Fire is cunning and occasionally a truly white-knuckled ride, even if once or twice we might feel like we've been down similar roads before. How could one not when Clint Eastwood, right after (allegedly) closing the book on his western legacy, likely closes the one on his gritty detective pictures (don't count Blood Work in there). But there's more than that because Eastwood's character, here a hard-bitten, demon-ridden and hard as nails secret service agent, has a slightly charming side to him, even the more romantic side that one never got to see in the pictures where he spouted his trademark lines. There is some complexities going on here that don't rely on just the usual swagger, and it's note-worthy for how such a possibly contrived back story (didn't save Kennedy from being assassinated in 63) is made somewhat believable amidst the rest of his persona, which more than likely hides his wounds- most of the time. Eastwood goes to town to make himself a great presence in the film, however, and under the circumstances the character seems tailor made for him.

But there would be the risk of his part in the movie being slightly conventional (we still get the 'Harry' type scenes of him being smarter- and as smart-ass- over everyone else in the room, and being scolded and told to back off by the top brass, here a chief of staff), including here protecting a president that (wisely) we never really see or know at all. Even the romantic sub-plot, which is sort of undercooked if there for some machismo laughs, would make the picture a little sub-par if the other quasi-Dirty Harry aspect didn't come into the picture: an indelible villain. This time there's some extra Hollywood suspense, however brillaintly intelligent suspense (almost smarter than the rest of the movie deserves), with the \"John Booth\" character, played in an Oscar nominated performance by John Malkovich, as someone who's described more as a predator than an assassin. There's ways this could go wrong with the Eastwood character, but Malkovich possibly trumps some of his former villain counterparts by being extremely cool and un-collected (there's that devastating, cringe-worthy scene where he kills the bank teller and her roommate), and as his past is revealed, there's still that element of 'what the hell is with this guy' that keeps the audience and Eastwood's agent guessing and extra paranoid. It's a classic Malkovich performance, quintessentially creepy and always measured in the level of insanity and professionalism.

It's also, aside from the conventional points, just a sleekly made picture from Peterson and company, and they come pretty close to the spunky pulp realism of Don Siegel. But Peterson also has a couple of cinematic tricks up his sleeve that had me grinning at times; anytime someone puts in such a blatant but exciting homage to Vertigo- jumping from rooftop to rooftop, hero dangling from the ledge, the 'twist'- it still provides some shivers down my spine. There's also the phone conversations between Eastwood and Malkovich, where we see the depths of the cat and mouse game, probably another kick in the ribs to Hithcock. But in the end, even with all the excitement and brutal danger and crisp formalism in the climax, it's also a characters picture in some ways throughout, and everything is fairly realized to give the audience a fine amount to ponder over, at least in the suspense-movie sense. Eastwod's a great lead, Russo plays the female possible love-interest sincere and mature, and Malkovich is top of the pops. There's also a few notable supporting roles too, and a fine studio score in there. One of the better films of 1993.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here's another entertaining Clint Eastwood action-suspense film. I am not a particularly fan of his but I have to hand to him: he knows how to make entertaining movies. This is one more example. It didn't hurt, either, to have John Malkovich as his co-star. Now there is an intense actor! In this story, Malkovich plays an assassin, and he is fascinating to watch, thanks to his different disguises and the terrific dialog he was given. He also has a interesting voice.

Rene Russo is fairly low-key (for her), but that's fine and Eastwood plays the usual loner-cop role, not appreciated by his superiors but showing them all up in the end. I guess he couldn't stop playing the \"Dirty Harry\"-type figures, but he played them well.

There were some negatives this film, however, namely: credibility in parts as there were a couple of times, had this been real-life, the killer would have done away with Eastwood. The climatic scene, in particularly, had too many holes in it. There also were too many abuses of Lord's name in vain in here.

Overall, however, this is good, escapist fare.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Back when I was working person, I remember having a really obnoxious client to deal with who insisted on making everything on a personal basis. I was telling him things that my agency could do and could not do and he firmly believed I was personally out to do him out of what was rightfully his. I swear but I was thinking of this guy as I watched John Malkovich and Clint Eastwood in their battle of wits.

In The Line Of Fire casts Clint Eastwood as a veteran Secret Service Agent who was on the job in Dallas as a young man when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. He's had his doubts ever since and been given to drink and his life at one time was a real shambles. He's gotten back on the White House detail now and when a potential assassin's landlady rats on her tenant to the Secret Service, it's Eastwood and partner Dylan McDermott who draw the case.

But the assassin is no ordinary crank case. He's a professional at his job, trained by and used by the Central Intelligence Agency. John Malkovich earned a deserved Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor. He lost that year to Tommy Lee Jones for The Fugitive and I'm not sure, but that I thought Malkovich was better.

Oddly enough Malkovich might have been better off, but he saw Eastwood as the agent in charge breaking into his apartment while on the job and he insisted on making the whole thing personal. He calls Eastwood throughout the film and taunts him. And after a while what Malkovich says and does causes Clint to get real personal.

The presidential assassins we've had in our history have been lucky amateurs, unless you believe in some of the conspiracy theories about some of the assassinations. A guy like Malkovich, a professional with a real or imagined grudge, is the most dangerous kind of foe.

Others to note in the cast are Fred Dalton Thompson as the White House chief of staff (and would be president in real life), Rene Russo as another agent who falls for the Eastwood masculine charm, John Mahoney as the Secret Service head, Gary Cole as the White House head Secret Service guy, Gregory-Alan Williams as another agent and Jim Curley and Sally Hughes as the President and First Lady.

But when Malkovich is on he owns In The Line Of Fire. The climax with him and Eastwood is unforgettable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'In The Line Of Fire' tells the story of the game between an old presidential bodyguard and a former-government assassin turned psycho. The secret service agent\/bodyguard (Eastwood) is on defense and the assassin (Malkovich)is on offense. The stakes? The president's live.

I really like this movie...I've seen it numerous times on TV and have recently bought it on DVD. Yet, it's not an excellent movie. The plot is way too thin and the attempts to thicken it are downright ridiculous. The whole love-story isn't very plausible and the way they brought an extra character into the story, just to be able to kill it off is kind of insulting to the more or less intelligent viewer. Though I feel these mistakes can't be forgiven, I can easily look past them to Mr. Malkovich exquisite performance. I've always deemed him to be a great actor but in this movie he's really on fire. There's a reason why he got an Academy Award nomination. Rene Russo and Clint Eastwood were okay, but I don't deem their performance to be memorable. They're never at the best of their abilities.

If you don't expect too much, you'll certainly like this movie. It's no masterpiece but John Malkovich is really extraordinary and I don't think anyone can't enjoy his performance. Really worth the watch...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a huge fan of big, loud, trashy, completely stupid action movies such as The Rock, Con Air etc. All of these are great fun to watch but, when you think about it, extremely silly. IN THE LINE OF FIRE tells a story and it tells it well. With plausibility as well as excitement and suspense it also addressed several important moral questions that really make you think. The last shot of the movie is Eastwood and Russo sitting together on the steps of the White house watching the pigeons to gentle, peaceful music and I felt a deep feeling of satisfaction. This was because I cared about the characters and I was happy for them that their story had come to a happy conclusion. It felt like a true story. As the aging secret service agent tormented by the fact that he failed to protect JFK on that fateful day in Dallas, Clint Eastwood is fantastic. He brilliantly conveys his paranoia and his personal need to stop his adversary. On the other side of the spectrum is John Malkovich, as the creepy predator who tortures Eastwood about what happened in 1963 by openly telling him of his plan to kill the current president. This Oscar nominated performance really gets under your skin. Throughout the movie, Malkovich talks to Eastwood as if they are friends. He doesn't threaten him, he doesn't lie to him, he doesn't laugh at him, but he tortures him with his unbearable friendliness right up to the last moment. As well as this thrilling main plot, there is a charming love story involving Rene Russo, another agent and Eastwood. Despite the age difference, they have superb chemistry on screen and the director wisely does not let this dominate too much but keeps it as part of the backdrop which works nicely. To sum up, I love this film because it has a mind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this movie for the first time last night. Wow! What a movie! This is the kind of movie you want everyone in the world to see because its just so cool and so interesting.

I do not want to give a single word about the plot because I think it would be better for people to go in cold. DO NOT READ THE PLOT SUMMARY before you see the movie! All I'm going to say is that Eastwood, Malkovich, Peterson, and the screenplay by Jeff Maguire are top notch. I wish all thrillers were more like this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"In the Line of Fire\" is one of the best thrillers I have seen, it builds and builds to a great climax. This film really draws you in your heart is beating and you are out of breath from the action. The cast turns in strong peformances, particularly Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich. This film is expertly directed by suspense master Wolfgang Petersen. Thrillers don't get much better thn this, don't miss it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood) is being harassed by Mitch Leary (John Malkovich), a bomber terrorist who literally believes he will not be caught. In the opening is everyone's favourite modern serial killer, \"John Kramer\" (Tobin Bell) from the Saw series. Through clever planning and influence, Frank is able to make the arrest of Mendoza (Bell).

From thereafter, its a series of cat and mouse chase. Malkovich is a tremendous actor and incredibly versatile. Once again showing a different role in this film, he astounds me with his ability to interchange his characters with the next film.

I've watch Malkovich play in Con Air as a menacing insanely smart Cyrus, in Of Mice and Men as the tragically challenged bunny lover Lenny, to name a few. He plays a very smart bomber terrorist who is very sane but is deluded into thinking he can elude his captures.

Clint Eastwood is no one special me. He's too old to really do much action in films so the only thing he can really astound you with is his ability to create dramatic scenes. The characters he plays are simplistic and one-dimensional.

Rene Russo plays Eastwood's love interest in the film and captivates me with her supporting actually being a bigger role, to me, than Eastwood's.

While this might seem like an action blockbuster, it's relatively slow paced and plays on anticipation. You have to wait for the build up and the ending and it will pay off in the end. Along the way, you'll be mesmerized by Malkovich and Eastwood's chemistry and their scenes of cat and mouse.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really love action\/adventure films and this is one of the best. Of course, we love the stars of this genre, Bruce Willis, Sly Stallone, Clint Eastwood, Kurt Russell, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the rest, but its the story that really counts. The best are somewhat feasible but we can tolerate those that are a little \"over the top\" as in the comic book style of action. The more twists and turns, the more dire situations the heroes are involved in and the more shocking moments in the film; the more we action\/adventure fans enjoy them. \"In the Line of Fire\" has ALL the elements required for a rip-roaring action thriller. It has Clint Eastwood as a near-retirement Secret Service Agent whose one bad moment of failure haunts him. It has one of the most evil, despicable, maniacal villains in John Malkovich, the type in which you can't wait to see him, \"get his due\". It has Rene Russo as the 'love interest.' It has twists and turns, an occasional shock and even a touch of warmth and humor. It is extremely well paced by director Wolfgang Petersen and even has a score by the great Ennio Morricone. This one is a real roller coaster ride of a thriller! Don't miss it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An assassination thriller in the mould of Day Of The Jackal, In The Line Of Fire has the added twist that Eastwood's old-timer bodyguard Frank Horrigan is troubled by past failure on the job. The chase becomes personal as John Malkovich's reptilian assassin Leary taunts him over this neurosis - with the rather clunky exception of the love of a good woman (Russo's Lilly Raines) nothing's going to set Frank's mind at rest than taking Leary down personally.

Malkovich is a volatile presence - not simply combustible on screen but often a changeable actor too. This is one of his good films, focused and playing director Petersen's game. Eastwood is too old but a) the audience don't care, cos it's him and b) his age is written into the script, not only in the narrative but also as a recurring joke. Pretty much as you'd expect but well-handled. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is s superbly crafted top-notch Washington thriller directed by the talented Wolfgang Petersen with hotshot screenwriter Jeff Maguire (who seems to have done very little over the years, so maybe he tends his roses). The film has Clint Eastwood as an ageing secret service agent and John Malkovich as a vengeful assassin pitted against each other in a massive test of wills and ingenuity, where the President's life is at stake. Unnecessary secrecy and competition between rival security agencies almost dooms the President, which is an authentic touch. This film was made when both Eastwood and Malkovich were at their peak. Probably Eastwood has never done a better job than he does here, and it is all so effortless for the old pro. There are some wonderful sound effects of him huffing and puffing as he runs along beside the President's car as a bodyguard, for which he is too old. I wonder if anyone else noticed the humour of those noises having been added. My 'guardian angel', whose name is Vigil, enjoyed this movie even more than I did, but then bodyguard movies are very much his thing. Rene Russo was a perfect choice for the female agent who falls for Eastwood, as she is so unobvious but so talented, and she shines. The tension is taut every inch of the way in this story, and the psychological struggles of Eastwood to redeem himself from an earlier protection failure are beautifully shown by his typical understated acting. With Eastwood, if he lifts an eyebrow by a millimeter, watch out! Of course, he is the master of the super-cool. Malkovich has the opportunity to indulge all the creepiness he could wish in the paranoid character he portrays, and he captures the man's central vanity to perfection. What a good 'un.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a Hollywood film. The credentials of those involved are not revolutionary. This film will not change the world. However, it is well-made, well-plotted, and well-acted, which counts for a lot.

It's the cat-and-mouse story of a disgruntled former-CIA assassin who feels betrayed chasing a Secret Service agent who was protecting John F. Kennedy when Kennedy was killed in Dallas. The agent has been understandably troubled by this failure during the subsequent years of his career and when the movie picks up in 1992-or certainly in contemporary America, this would-be assassin Mitch Leary (John Malkovich in a tour-de-force of creepiness in which he gives a transformative performance) has been consumed with frustration and anger and decides that he is going to assassinate the President. He imagines he has common cause with Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood at his cool, calm, good-naturedly grouchy best) who he believes should hold a grudge as he does because the Warren Commission, blamed Horrigan-unfairly, Leary believes-for the assassination of President Kennedy. The tension is ratcheted up through some phone calls from Leary to Horrigan-Leary wanting to keep Horrigan close but not to betray his location and plans.

Rene Russo is excellent as Lily Raines a fellow agent with whom Horrigan develops a grown- up relationship. It is nice to see a relationship between two equally competent peers (even if Russo is a fair deal younger than Eastwood at the time of filming). Russo is a calm, capable agent who is able to go toe-to-toe with the quick-witted Horrigan in friendly banter. It is a nice part for Russo, allowing her to play the role of a capable professional woman and not just the default romantic interest of the older man. The acting by the leads, Wolfgang Peterson's competent direction, the thoughtful use of music in plot development, and excellent cinematography make this a film I can watch over and over.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the few movies of this type I have reviewed, and enjoyed. While Clint Eastwood is his usual self, the overall story works well, even in the limits of Washington D.C.

The theme: An assassin is tracking the president, and there is only one person who may save him.

It cannot be easy to make a film which audiences enjoy these days, involving this arena. This film succeeds on several levels. Eastwood is his usual underplayed hero, wanting to save the President since the Kennedy era. He does well in this role, as does his foil, Reneee Russo ( an FBI agent) Overall well-done and suspenseful with extra stars for Malkovich. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What I've seen of Wolfgang Petersen's films has been pretty good. He knows how to direct action, create suspense and get you interested. Eastwood tends to be great, sometimes excellent. This goes for both his acting and his directing. They both hand in solid work here. The concept isn't bad, and the cat-and-mouse game works well. Malkovich performs rather well, and his and Eastwood's playing off each other adds to the film. I suppose this won't introduce anything new, really... but it never really claims to, nor needs to. It's two great actors, each playing a basic type of role that they have proved at other points in their careers that they can manage remarkably well, and with a magnificent director at the helm. Really, it's entertaining, well-done, and it just plain delivers. Editing and cinematography are good. Acting and character writing is, as well. The film manages to be suspenseful and intense, and if you let yourself, you will probably be entertained and engaged, even if there are superior films out there. The pacing is pretty much spot-on. I recommend this to any fan of the principal actors, the director and\/or this type of film. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wolfgang Peterson directs this thriller that has Clint Eastwood playing Secrect Service Agent Frank Horrigan, who matches wits with a clever psycho(John Malkovich) in a cat-and-mouse game involving the the protection of the President. Mitch Leary(Malkovich)keeps in touch with Horrigan teasing the agent with discouraging remarks about his abilities, as well as the Secret Service's protection of the presidents in the past. Agent Lilly Raines(Rene Russo)tries to keep Horrigan grounded; but he is head strong in stopping Leary from carrying out his threats of assassination. Very good FX and fast pace sustains the plot. Eastwood and Malkovich are superb. Russo has a way of getting your attention. Rounding out this strong cast are: Dylan McDermott, Fred Dalton Thompson, John Mahoney and Gary Cole.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wolfgang Petersen (Das Boot, Air Force One) gives us an exciting film where the accolades go to the supporting actor, John Malkovich. His criminal attempting to assassinate the President was first-rate and credible.

That is not to diminish the efforts of Clint Eastwood and Rene Russo, or even Fred Dalton Thompson, who plays a real jerk of a White House Chief of Staff. Eastwood was great, and I love any film that Russo is in.

The movie feature original music by five time Oscar winner (Mal\u00e8na, Bugsy, The Untouchables, The Mission, Days of Heaven) Ennio Morricone. That alone makes it worth your time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seriously any film with John Malkovich is usually very good. And this includes Clint Eastwood, Rene Russo, John Mahoney (Frasier), Dylan McDermott (The Practice), and many more great actors.

Clint is getting old now but thanks he is also an awesome director (in his own right).

We are used to Wolfgang \"water films\" like Das Boot, Poseidon and Perfect Storm - this was really different but just as sublimely directed.

The premise of the assassin is as serious as it comes, the film is well paced, some of the violence is a bit... But altogether recommended (but not for kids).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To those of you who've made comments on this film earlier and hoped to see it again, I hope you did. It was broadcast today (Nov. 28th,'04) on Lifetime movie network. I subscribe to Dish.

Karen Arthur directed William Petersen and Barbara Hershey in this southwestern Gothic-like tale, expertly. The lighting, editing and dialog contributed greatly to the film and Hershey and Peterson were perfectly cast for the roles, both playing sensitive, bold and intuitive characters. The screen play was excellent, as well the supporting cast.

Not having known ahead-of-time, I guessed correctly the story was based on truth, and now that I know it I must make the sojourn, as Santa Fe is a hop, skip and a jump from Tucson.

As an engineer, I was fascinated with the theme of the unique construction of the staircase and the man who designed and built it (who was he? an angel?). But the storyline, and it's several plots, of how it came to be is what most captivates you. You certainly get a strong sense that God in His heaven was in every detail of this entire drama in history. For you who have seen the film, you know what I'm talking about. For those of you who haven't, I won't spoil a minute of it...

Bon holiday,

Bob Shank Jr, Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am from Texas and my family vacationed a couple of years ago to Sante Fe with my brother. He suggested we go to see the church with the staircase. I was absolutely blown away by the miracles that took place there. The movie is great - Barbara Hershey and William Petersen were perfect for the parts they played. It is amazing, absolutely amazing. If you have not seen the staircase in person, it is worth the trip to go see it. The wood is beautiful and the architecture is astounding. Just being in the chapel gives me goose bumps! To read about the history of the chapel, and then to see its beauty is breathtaking. See the movie - it is GREAT! Then see the staircase in person!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"And I would have rated it higher than a 7 out of 10 if it wasn't for the seriously uneven Irish accent of Barbara Hershey in the leading role of Mother Madalyn. The accent came and went unfortunately which I found more than a little distracting.

However, the performance of William L Petersen in the role of Joad was outstanding, he brought a warmth and depth to the character in spite of some periodic hokey dialogue. Captivating and genuine, I found him quite astonishing in the way he captured the character.

The premise of the film is fairly simple, the building of a forgotten staircase in a church. It is based, rather loosely I believe, on a true story and I had heard of this staircase prior to seeing the movie.

It was a phenomenal engineering feat for its time - a floating double helix made without nails or screws. It exists to this day although it is now in private ownership.

**Minor Spoiler**Good supporting cast and Barbara does dying so well in all her movies and here she doesn't disappoint. Lots of special moments.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Almost no information is available about this movie, or its air dates. After an ongoing and exhaustive search I found the DVD to be available for 3.99!-release date February 28, 2006. Try yahoo\/DVD and video. In order to get this information posted I will continue to state that this is a well made film with a true and fascinating story about a mysterious carpenter who builds a very unusual staircase in a church. It is a chance to see William L. Peterson before C.S.I. turned him into a star. Equally featured in the story is the venerable Barbara Hershey - does anyone remember when she was Barbara Hershey Seagull? I have to keep writing to get this posted. Thank you to the previous commentators for taking the time to recommend this somewhat obscure TV film which obviously leaves a lasting impression on many.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have not seen it since 1998 and yet I STILL can't get it out of my head or stop recommending people to find it so that shows what an impression it made.

Just a wonderful story.

I just hope to see the stair at least once in person...

I didn't know much about Mr. Petersen before this movie as I hadn't seen any of his previous works but his subtle acting in this impressed me and I think his portrayal of Grissom on CSI just shows more of the same. He knows enough to let the character shine through instead of the actor shining through which makes him just that much better of an actor.

I can't remember enough about the \"poor accents\" to comment but I must say I have always enjoyed Barbara Hershey in all of her roles as well and I thought she also did a phenomenal job in this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie when it aired on Lifetime back in 2004. I have never seen it since then, but have thought of it often. It left such an impression on me I've been searching for it lately. I found it finally and realized it was made just for television. The movie is fabulous- filled with great writing and acting. William Petersen is perfect, as always. This movie left me speechless and in tears. It's a wonderful story of faith, love, and compassion. Does anybody know how I can obtain a copy of this movie for my home? Is that possible with television movies?? I really would love to see it again. This is a must-have among my collection!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent story with supperb acting by all of the cast. The warmth and insight into who Joad represents moved off of the screen and into the heart of this viewer. The frustration's and tenacity of Mother Madalyn in her quest to do HIS work till her last breath was also done with excellance by Barbara Hershey. The intertwining of the personalities of Joad and Mother Madalyn grew throughout the story line with a breath taking crescendo in the final scene.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have just returned from Santa Fe. NM. I visited Loretto Chapel. As I looked around this building, which has been acquired by a private owner, I relived the movie version of the staircase. It is an overwhelming mystique that occupies this building. It is about what can happen if you really have faith. The bookstore there has a narrative on the subject, which is the story of the staircase. I read the narrative in its entirety. I was absorbed by the ambiance surrounding the people therein. It was like we were totally enclosed in a time warp, all with the same thoughts and awe. When we departed, the hush was overwhelming. Everyone should visit Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe. NM.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Captivating tale of backstabbing behind the curtains. The movie follows the plight of David Letterman and Jay Leno as they struggle for the elusive Tonight Show spot. Letterman led by his desire for the coveted time slot and Leno led by his agent and little-devil-on-the-shoulder, Helen Kushnick.

Kathy Bates (Kushnick) is excellent in this movie, alienating herself from such top dogs as Bob Wright, Warren Littlefield, and Howard Stringer. Towards the end of the film you are so entranced with how she handles every situation from guest bookings to delayed taping, that you find yourself wanting more.

John Michael Higgins (Letterman) plays his part to the tee. At times I found myself wondering if he was any relation to the real Letterman.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone interested in entertainment or the world of corporate negotiations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"as a former TV editor, I can say this is as authentic as it gets. It even led to Letterman's producer (thought to be a source) resigning (eventually) in real life. Letterman was outraged (OK, so one goofy thing is it has him throwing softballs at a tire swing on his estate; total fabrication) but the main information is hilariously true, from the silly bidding war for Letterman once he decided to leave NBC to Leno's problems with an agent who was not ready for big time, but who he let run the show (almost to a disastrous exit) out of his famed loyalty. If any of you kids don't grasp the idea of why Letterman is jealous to this day, see this tape.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alright, so maybe the impersonations of Jay Leno and David Letterman are not spot on, but you still get a sense of who these people are and how they operate behind the screen. Bob Balaban and Treat Williams are excellant as Warren Littlefield and Micheal Ovitz.

The movie doesn't go for joke and punchline but it is still funny. Kathy Bates in particular is amazing as Leno's manager.

Funny, amazing, interesting, very watchable, this is a good TV movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE LATE SHIFT was an interesting made for HBO movie that took a detailed look at the power struggle that ensued between David Letterman and Jay Leno when Johnny Carson announced his retirement and both wanted to replace him. This struggle is now part of Hollywood folklore, but for those who don't know the story and are aware of where Letterman is now, it might be interesting to learn that David Letterman wanted to replace Johnny Carson as host of THE TONIGHT SHOW more than anything in the world, but Letterman found his dreams being derailed as frequent guest host Leno had one of Hollywood's most powerful agents, Helen Kushnick, in his corner and working tirelessly to get her client the job. It's not often that we get to see behind the scenes Hollywood machinations recreated for entertainment value, but for fans of these two late night superstars, this movie provided a fascinating look at a very turbulent period in late night television. According to this movie, Letterman was practically promised the job by Carson himself while NBC had promised the job to Leno and that's where Helen Kushnick came in. The movie presents Leno as sort of a milquetoast who allowed his career to be manipulated by Kushnick and feigned ignorance to some of Helen's strong-willed manipulations of some of NBC's biggest power players and it presents Letterman as this smart and savvy businessman who, despite having Carson's support, was railroaded by NBC and Kushnick. John Michael Higgins and Daniel Roebuck credibly recreate Letterman and Leno, respectively, but it is the razor-sharp performance of Oscar winner Kathy Bates as Helen Kushnick that keeps this movie bubbling. Bates commands the screen in one of her best, if not so well-known performances as the venomous Hollywood agent who eats television studio executives for breakfast. There is also a wonderful turn by impressionist Rich Little as Johnny Carson, but it is primarily a fascinating story and the powerhouse performance by Bates that make this one worth checking out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although a made for cable film by HBO, it is an enjoyable movie and a fascinating look at the back-stabbing and double-dealing world of television. Allowing the viewer to peek behind the scenes of the so-called late night talk show wars in the early 90s, as Jay Leno and David Letterman competed for the coveted position as host of the Tonight Show. Kathy Bates gives a bravo performance as Leno's mercurial manager Helen Kushnick and one can feel empathy for what Leno\/Letterman endured at the hands of tv executives. It is just as timely now, considering the recent events involving the failed attempt by ABC to replace Nightline with Letterman. No matter how many times I have seen this film, I still find it as much a pleasure to watch as I did when it first aired. If this should ever be released on DVD, I would certainly add it to my collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Late Shift is a great book, I read the book several years ago, and I was transfixed at the cutthroat debauchery that went on when Johnny Carson retired and Jay Leno and Johnny Carson tried to grab his spot. When the movie came out, I snagged a VHS copy of the movie, and having reread the book recently, it's hard to say which I enjoy more, because they're quite equal in the amount of information conveyed. The two lead actors, John Michael Higgins, and Daniel Roebuck, two actors I never heard of before, and haven't heard of since, play Leno and Letterman convincingly, despite Letterman's dismissal of his portrayal as being poor. They play the parts quite well, despite a lot of people looking for an imitation of the two. I wasn't as interested in that. The story is what counts. And that brings me to Kathy Bates. Kathy Bates, playing Helen Kushnick, IS this movie. She plays this evil bitch of a character so menacingly you realize how on earth can this woman control herself, much less a national TV show. Yikes! There should be a sequel!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Over the years I've watched this movie many times from seeing it on \"HBO\" and I now own a copy on DVD. I must say it's very memorable and entertaining in the meantime it's interesting and educational too. As any TV fan can relate to the time of the early 90's when the time came up to replace Johhny Carson the TV living legend of \"The Tonight Show\" who's it gonna be Jay or Dave? This original film from HBO \"The Late Shift\" stays true to form and depicts the real events very well showing the behind the scenes battle between networks heads of NBC and CBS and even ABC they were all fighting for the services of Jay and Dave. The acting makes it seem real as very little actual TV footage is shown with real life people as the actors portraying Leno and Letterman make it seem so real. I haven't read the Bill Carter book so I don't know if it stayed true to the pages, but I have highly enjoyed this film over the years. From the moment when it starts showing CBS entertainment heads watching Leno sub for Johhny and they decide they want to get in on the late night game. Yet when Carson announces his unexpected retirement NBC wants to stay loyal with Leno yet conflict arrives when Letterman wants a crack at the slot at 11:30 too. It was fun to watch the wacky meeting with Michael Ovitz(Treat Williams)who makes all networks want to consider Letterman for a show. It was interesting to see the scene of Johhny telling Letterman by phone in a direct way to walk from NBC and consider CBS. And by the way Rich Little was terrific as Johhny Carson his portrayal couldn't be matched. And plenty of tense moments were provided by showing the bickering and firing of Leno's talent manager Helen which NBC heads pressured him to do. Overall great film that showed what TV is really like and it proves that networks are power and money hungry while showing that's it's a cutthroat business. Clearly there's no business like show business. Great work from HBO very memorable and a watch anytime it showed the true story of the late night wars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this movie actually has a lot of nice things to say about a lot of people (Johnny Carson, Ted Koppel), and it shows that Letterman and Leno actually liked and respected each other a lot. Treat Williams as the half-Kung Fu Master, half-Godfather-like Mike Ovitz is terrific.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The directing is brilliant, the casting is remarkable (though I would've loved to have seen a little more of Aaron Lustig (from Y & R fame), who played Paul Shaffer). I only have two minor quips about the film, as subtle as they are. One- Roebuck's Leno is excellent, but his stage presence (i.e. during what appears the taping of one of his late show episodes) is a tad underwhelming. Two- the distribution of the foul language. I am willing to tolerate foul language, so long as it is not used gratuitously, and to a degree, the film was gratuitous. The language seemed to be used as a tool to reduce the pathos of Bates' otherwise well-portrayed Kushnick by her frequent use of it, and served to make Roebuck's Leno a goody-goody by his lack of use of it (of course, if the characters really did behave this way, kudos to everybody). Nonetheless, the piece is an excellent one, as far as television and video are concerned. The film, I feel, had potential for the big screen, but would've required re-casting for the bit parts, and probably a different director, as well (the aesthetic feel is that of the Larry Sanders show, good for HBO, mediocre for cinematic purposes).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** This film depicts the brutal bloodbath caused by the retirement of Johnny Carson to determine who would succeed him. The impersonations of David Letterman and Jay Leno are performed in a satisfactory way by John Michael Higgins and Daniel Roebuck, though the performances weren't great. Reni Santoni is the best-performing of the \"execs\" (he plays John Agoglia of NBC), and Warren Littlefield (played by Bob Baliban) is a close second. I was shocked at the way in which Littlefield eagerly discussed dumping Johnny Carson. This was Johnny Carson! This scene evinces the cut-throat, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately world of television. Kathy Bates delivered the best performance of the film as Jay's agent, Helen Kushnick. Another commenter asserted that Leno was portrayed as a simpleton in the film. I respectfully disagree. The relationship with Kushnick bordered on something akin to domestic violence. She orders him around, and, when he rebels against her at the end, she tries to play the sympathy card (mentioning her dead husband and son); however, when Jay terminates their relationship, she turns violent again, screaming \"Don't you leave me, you two-faced bastard!\" before smashing a picture on the floor. Overall, the movie is hilarious, and I wish that it were shown more often.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I read the book written by Bill Carter on which this movie is based many years ago. The book is certainly stronger than the movie. It provides more detail than a movie can possibly provide, the end result being that I thought the movie seemed a wee bit sketchy on a handful of items. All things considered, though, and given the limitations of the medium, the movie provides a wholly entertaining and informative account of the battle between Jay Leno and David Letterman in the early 90's to host \"The Tonight Show\" after the retirement of Johnny Carson.

The highlight is clearly the performances. I can think of no more difficult performance for an actor than to play a character who is still alive and well-known and on TV on a regular basis. John Michael Higgins nailed the part of Letterman perfectly. Watching him really was like watching Letterman. Daniel Roebuck tried valiantly to be Jay Leno, but somehow didn't pull it off as effectively. His whole \"look\" seemed fake, and he just didn't seem natural in the role. In a less central role, Rich Little not surprisingly nailed the voice of Carson, although the look was a bit off. In the book, the most interesting of the central figures was probably Leno's agent, Helen Kushnick. In the movie, Kathy Bates was perfect in the role, although not quite as out of control as Carter's portrayal of the woman in writing.

In the end, this is light and entertaining viewing. The subject matter isn't especially important in the overall scheme of things, but it's a fun behind the scenes look at a memorable time in the entertainment industry. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't even like watching those late night talk shows, but I found this one really interesting. I imagine it's probably close to the truth---it \"feels\" like an honest account, if that means anything. Kinda feel for the people somewhat when you watch it. A nice movie for a Saturday night.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"TV movies generally do not receive as much recognition or credit as great films - and it is usually for good reason but the 1996 HBO movie The Late Shift is easily one of the best TV movies ever. Based on Bill Carter's revealing book, The Late Shift is about NBC's handling of late night talk show hosts David Letterman and Jay Leno when it came to filling the vacant Tonight Show seat once held by Johnny Carson. We see what happens in front of the camera - author Bill Carter, director Betty Thomas, and HBO show us what happened when the cameras were turned off.

Unfortunately we can never really know for sure what really happened when it came time for Johnny Carson to be replaced by either Letterman or Leno - but The Late Shift gives us an interesting possible reality. While simply being a very well made film, The Late Shift also does a really good job of portraying all the sides fairly equally - although you wonder if the film makes Letterman and Leno out to be too nice of guys; especially Leno, who seems a bit too saintly.

The performances are also very good. In a very deserving Golden Globe-winning performance, Kathy Bates plays Leno's extremely pushy manager Helen Kushnick who, according to Carter and the book\/film was very problematic for the studio and Leno (the real Kushnick actually suited Bill Carter for libel over this portrayal!). John Michael Higgins breaks out of his usual gigs of getting small quirky comedy parts and gives an excellent performance as David Letterman - giving an excellent impression of Letterman but also creating a dimensional and relatable character. Daniel Roebuck gives a good performance as Leno but does not quite measure up to some of the other talent in the film - Roebuck probably did the best anyone could have done, it is just looks hammy whenever anyone tries to do an impression or portrayal of Leno. Bob Balaban (a squirrelly Warren Littlefield), Treat Williams (a magician-like Michael Ovitz), and Ed Begley Jr.(a pompous Rod Perth) also give memorable supporting performances.

The Late Shift certainly is one of the best made-for-TV movies I have ever seen. I suppose if one has not watched David Letterman or Jay Leno, The Late Shift might not be for them but it is an interesting film for those who get into the late night politics - something that has recently reared its ugly head yet again with the 2009-10 Conan\/Leno\/NBC debacle.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Good movie, great story, great characters, I enjoyed it immensely, enough to buy the DVD when it came out.

The real life story it purports to tell is more fascinating and engrossing than anything the fictionalizers could ever come up with. My friend who is in the media business said they shouldn't show insider dealings like this, it gives the business a bad name. As if.

There are a few problems with the DVD though: First, the sound volume is awfully low so you have to run up the TV volume to watch it. I notice that its also like that when HBO runs it so its in the original production copy. Second, for about the first five minutes the left side of the video is cut off, that is the picture is cut off about one inch short of the left side. After the five minutes it fills the screen properly, left to right. Sloppy technical production like that is very amateurish and I don't know why the director and producer let such sloppiness slide by.

Still, even with the technical flaws, its an enjoyable story, one of HBO's best I think.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a clever and entertaining film about the backroom battling that went on to choose a successor to Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show. However, the movie's ultimate thesis, that David Letterman's superior comedic talents were overlooked because of his controversial nature, and the show diminished by the enthronement of an inferior Jay Leno in the leading comedy program on television is simply untrue, as anyone who has watched both Leno and Letterman perform can see for themselves. The hard and simple truth is exactly as one NBC exec stated in the film \"Jay Leno is the funniest man in America.\" And David Letterman is not. Once you realize this, then much of the machinations in the film become irrelevant. Ultimately, the whole film amounts to little more than sour grapes by Letterman fans, who just cannot accept that the better comic was chosen by people whose business it is to know these kind of things. The final proof is that despite Letterman's early lead, possibly because of the hype that emerged from the battle for Tonight Show succession, Leno's show has consistently proved to be the more popular, thus, in my mind at least, refuting Letterman's claims to be unfairly robbed of his rightful inheritance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember this movie getting a lot of flak from reviewers when it was new. Letterman and Leno themselves had objections. Letterman called it (paraphrasing) the biggest waste of film he'd ever seen, and Leno objected to the simpleton portrayal of himself. But Letterman had John Michael Higgins as a guest on his show so it seems he didn't take anything too personally. A DVD re-release, with opinions and such from those involved, could be interesting, though I suspect the days when late night talkshow wars captivated the nation are gone and not returning soon.

I preferred the Letterman impersonation to the Leno, but could never buy in to either. They never rose above caricature, and I never simply accepted them as actors. For comparison: Paul Sorvino as Kissinger in Oliver Stone's \"Nixon\" comes to mind as an impersonation which may have seemed laughable in the first few moments but which seemed at least plausible after the first moments of amusement wore off.

The highlight of the show for me was Treat Williams as Michael Ovitz. Williams' speech to Letterman was not as great as but reminiscent of Alec Baldwin's entrance (and quick exit) as Blake in Glengerry Glen Ross.

They could have done more with Johnny's role in all this. I know he was mostly uninvolved in the events portrayed in this movie, and most audiences will be familiar with his reputation such that Johnny Carson needs no introduction. But more context about why Dave and Jay and all comedians revere Johnny would have given this flick the substance it lacks in being a gossip film.

Guess I should read the book...

Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson, unfortunately, came across as nothing more than Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson.

I tell you what, after watching this movie, then watching either the Letterman or Leno show, all I want to do is crack open my Johnny Carson DVDs and see the real thing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now, I'm a bit biased, since I'm a big fan of late night television. I've been a loyal fan of Jay Leno for about 6 or 7 years, and think he's one of the funniest, most talented comedians out there. And David Letterman is one hell of a comedian as well, though I only watch his show (unless Jay's a repeat) during commercials or when he has a better guest than Jay on the show. Daniel Roebuck and John Michael Higgins are both fine actors and they very much resembled Jay and Dave, but did they disappear into the characters? Nope. Roebuck barely nails down Jay's voice and expression, mumbling at a high pitch, sounding like a castrati Marlon Brando. Higgins nails down David's facial expressions (for example, his trademark squirm) but he doesn't nail down Dave's voice. Those who aren't big fans of late night TV might be a lot less biased. There's a couple comedians who can do dead-on impersonations of Jay. Why couldn't they have selected one of them for the part? And the same goes with Dave. I'd rather they had Norm McDonald play the part. Norm doesn't look a hell of a lot like Dave, but he did a great impersonation of him on SNL. \"Hey...you got any gum?\" That was so hilarious!

However, I learned a lot about the late night wars which I had very little knowledge of at first. I never watched \"The Tonight Show\" prior to when Jay Leno was host, so I didn't know about the struggle to finally replace Johnny Carson and the countless negotiations that finally convinced Dave to move to CBS. I knew very little about what happened behind the scenes and found the film very enlightening. And Kathy Bates gives a knockout performance as the foul-mouthed former executive producer of \"The Tonight Show.\" She basically steals the film.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Leno talks through his punch lines. This spoils the joke, for those of you who haven't figured it out. His show is held in a micro sized studio for a reason, or two reasons -- the small amount of laughter will be amplified, and few want to see him. Letterman's set is the polar opposite -- Ed Sullivan would be proud and the balcony is always full.

NBC, tacky NBC, will never get it. Founder David Sarnoff's megalomaniacal enterprise continues to be all about the money. At least CBS has a bit of a family feel to it.

Leno collects cars, or is it stamps, while Letterman races cars. The difference is informative.

When I chatted I used to ask other chatters to email me if Leno _ever_ said something that was funny. I never got a single email. Letterman has superb timing. He also can re-use the most unfunny joke in such a way that it becomes one of the funniest things in that night's show.

Letterman has built other careers. Paul is now well known and respected in his own musical right. Even Paul's other band members get recognition and career boosting. Biff Henderson has become a name America knows of. Even the businesses in the same block as the Ed Sullivan theater get a boost. What has Leno ever done for anyone else? Personally, I am glad that Dave moved and Leno got the Carson gig. I never watched NBC shows before and had no reason to after.

The Top Ten list is an American icon. So is Letterman. Leno is a caricaturist's dream, nothing more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Man of the Year\" tells the story of Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams) a political comedian (like Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert) who has his own television show. On his show he talks about all sorts of things but his main focus are political issues which he is very opinionated about. One day on his show, a fan from the audience raises the idea that Dobbs should run for President of the United States. After that episode aired, millions flocked to the web to create various petitions and voice their opinions on why Dobbs would make a great candidate for the President for the United States. A few weeks later, Dobbs decides to run for President and low and behold wins the election. Everything seems to be going as planned until a woman by the name of Eleanor Green (Laura Linney) shows up and starts some controversy regarding his position. A funny yet serious political thriller ensues\u0085

Man anyone walking into this film expecting to see a brainless comedy will surely be disappointed. I always wonder how some people are film marketers when I see how misleading their marketing campaigns. \"Man of the Year\" is a great example of bad and misleading marketing, because everything from the poster, to the trailer, to the online advertisements makes this movie look and feel like a comedy. I would honestly have to say about 1\/3 of the film is funny while the rest of it plays off as a political thriller that makes good arguments and allows its audience to think. I kind of wonder in this case if the marketing was done on purpose since this film addresses pretty serious issues in-between its comedy routine.

But enough about marketing, lets get down to the film itself.

I really liked \"Man of the Year\" even though I was expecting to see a comedy instead of a serious film. One of the many things I will give this film credit for is that the film does a decent job switching between comedy and drama even though at first it seems a little awkward. I really think that after you figure this out that the movie is going to be more of a political thriller than a comedy you get comfortable with it. Some may not because they are lead to believe that they are seeing a comedy and don't understand what this film is trying to say in the end but for those people they can blame the marketers for not advertising this film right.

\"Man of the Year\" talks about a lot of things and seems to have a very strong opinion. As Tom Dobbs speaks he is saying things that need to be said and isn't about candy coating them. I also think the whole political subplot, while most critics say hurt the film probably again because of the misleading marketing, was very good. The idea of computerize voting has been tossed around the last few years and with all the problems computers have the issue being addressed in this film could surely be realistic. Also the control big businesses have over voting also gets addressed.

As far as acting goes, I think everyone involved did a good job. Robin Williams had a chance to be funny yet serious at the same time by playing Tom Dobbs. Some say that Williams has overstayed his welcome as a comedian but I personally still think he is funny and he's a good serious actor as well. This is probably one of the few occasions though that we get to see him go back and forth from serious to funny and I think it works well. Also it's nice to see Lewis Black co-star in a decent film. Again I like Black when he appears on \"The Daily Show\" and does stand up however most of the films he has been in were awful. This was a good movie for him because I think his political views fit in with the story that director Barry Levinson was trying to convey. Laura Linney is a fine addition to the cast and proves once again that she is a very good actress and lastly Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum both do a very good job as always with this roles handed to them.

\"Man of the Year\" was written and directed by Barry Levinson, the man who has brought us such films as \"Rain Man,\" \"Good Morning Vietnam,\" and \"Wag the Dog.\" Levinson does a fine job writing the film and directing it. Like I said I know a lot of critics didn't like the whole political thriller aspect of the film but I thought it fit in nicely. It was actually nice to watch a mainstream movie that allowed me to both think and laugh at the same time. Barry Levinson did a fine job with this film.

In the end, don't go into this film expecting to see the movie that the commercials are selling you. It does have laughs but at the same time it plays off more as a political drama. It's not as stupid or silly as the marketing campaign leads you to believe. I really liked the fact that this film that this film wasn't a typical Hollywood film. It tried to be a comedy and a serious drama at the same time and worked at least for me. I like the fact that the film didn't really tone down any of the issues it addressed nor did it have a typical Hollywood ending. I was trying to call the ending from the get go but surprisingly it didn't end the way I thought which made me happy. It's a movie that will make you laugh but then a few minutes later allow you to think and wonder what's going to happen next. I think its a good movie that will be hurt by its bad marketing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I completely disagree with the other comments! I too saw this film at an early screening and found it quite enjoyable. Robin Williams is in top form. True, the tone is familiar, but it is Williams of Good Morning Vietnam: smart, funny, on point. After too many dark turns, Williams is finally back to what he does best. The supporting actors give great performances, especially Laura Linney and Chris Walken. Chris plays himself, as usual, but as the \"agent\" to the next president he was a delight each time on screen. Lewis Black plays only himself basically, but he is wonderfully well used here. There is also a fun turn by Jeff Goldblum. The movie is more than what the trailer suggests, as well. The movie is funny, but it is not a pure comedy as suggested. It has a bit of a thriller line, which everyone should seriously consider, especially if you pay attention to the newspaper.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When taken as a whole for its ideas and dissection of the current 2-party system and political process, I think this is a great film. Granted the movie was not the comedy I expected, but once I got over that this film really made me think. So much of what we see and hear in regards to any election is such a joke. There is in particular a debate scene in this movie that I felt was a masterful critique of our political debates and how policies are \"discussed\" at them. I encourage anyone who thinks our process is fine to go see this film. If you want something to laugh at however, Robin Williams and Christopher Walken are not their usual selves. In this movie they show us that the truth hurts, not that the truth is funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was advertised as a comedy but was far more serious than the trailers made it out to be. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie, but was expecting more laughs. Great performances from Robin Williams and Laura Linney. Worth seeing, but don't go expecting to be rolling on the floor. The movie left me wondering what it would be like if Robin Williams character was a real person that was running for president. Would we elect a comedian? I doubt it, unfortunately. That kind of stark honesty is something greatly lacking today. This is a movie that I will be adding to my DVD library as soon as it comes out on DVD. The movie has heart.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A political satire of a comedian (Williams) who after dissing the political campaigns and presidents is forced into the running. But shockingly we wins and makes a mockery of the office. \"Man of the Year\" is not the funniest movie nor the best but in small doses it does work. Williams again teaming with Levinson after a hit with \"Good Morning, Vietnam\". The two seem to have a great chemistry and work off each other. I am not comparing them to Scorsese and DeNiro but you can get the picture. Although I wouldn't quite say to rush out there and see the movie in theaters I would recommend renting it. This movie is a comedy but also has a great satire, please if you like movies like \"Scary Movie 4\" this is not for you, take your brain with you to see it. - ***","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robin Williams is a genius. One of the best comedians in the world. He really shows off in this one, cracking jokes left and right as the talk show comedian Tom Dobbs. From the previous this looked like it would be a side-splitting laugh fest. And it was funny. But there were a lot of serious parts in the movie that I was not expecting. I would describe it as a drama\/comedy. But it's still worth the money to see, and I still found it to be almost everything that I expected. Robin Williams is at his best, along with the famous Christopher Walken. They play a very good team in this movie and I was actually shocked to see how well the two were able to work together. I recommend it to anyone who is looking for a light-hearted movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is more of a mockumentary of corruption in the whole American system. The correlations of those who vote who do not matter is so proved in the machines that end of voting a comedian to the oval office. Politicians are such a joke that we almost need a comic to represent us as we have been laughed at for years around the world. Bushism's have become a way of life for Americans and will be the only thing left after he leaves office none to soon. Oddly the only person of honesty is someone not even elected to the position and tells the truth in the end. The story is very subtle and if you go to it for laughs, it ain't happening. Leaves a lot for thought. Overall I enjoyed it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Over the years, I've come to be a fan of director\/writer Barry Levinson and he didn't let me down with this very funny look at politics. Popular TV comedian Tom Dobbs(Robin Williams)has enlightened the nation with his scathing jokes about the state of the country and elected politicians responsible. Night after night, he has his fans rolling in the isles; then the question is proposed that Dobbs run for president himself. His manager Jack Menken(Christopher Walken)says go for it. Dobb's flippant truisms flames a grass-root movement that puts him on the ballot. Comedian to President-Elect. Meanwhile, a young woman(Laura Linney)finds a flaw in the computer system that will count the ballots coast to coast. My favorite sequence is Linney's meltdown in the coffee shop.Williams is absolutely hysterical with his rapid quips. Others of note in the cast: Jeff Goldblum, Lewis Black and Rick Roberts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was really different from what I had imagined but exceeded my expectations nevertheless. This film has the exactly right mixture of comedy, drama, political criticism and satire (not necessarily in that order). Without being patronizing or wisenheimer it reveals the open and subtle problems of our capitalist democratic high technology society. It makes you laugh instantly and remain in thought afterwards. For those of you who liked \"wag the dog\" and wished to have humane and manlike politicians this film should definitely be the choice!

\"politicians are a lot like diapers: they should be changed frequently and for the same reasons.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Actually I'll admit I'm a political junkie, so this resonated with me, but the erratic nature of Ms. Green (yes I know what they did to her), but the ending was such a copout and totally inconsistent with the film itself.

Why can't Barry L and crew just left us wondering what he was going to do? Let us debate it.

Instead they have this \"oh I'm not worthy\" bullshit ending and it just shows that when the chips were down it's better to leave the table instead of doubling down. Stop the Disney ending and putting a bow on it. Life isn't easy, they should have had the courage to give the main character some backbone.

We had to listen to the rhetoric the entire movie... and then it turned sniveling and the stupid, inane behavior by Ms. Green (when the crap was out of her system) just made for a ridiculous near end of the movie that was icing on the cake.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a great comedy drama. Christopher Walken is tremendous in his supporting role as manager, and his commentary will keep you laughing. Robin Williams plays a great role as a quick wit \"Jon Stewart\" and will amuse you if you are fans of Comedy Central. The show is good, because if the viewer has half-a-brain, they will see it as a very needed sub-cultural attack on the policies of the current Republican Government and a criticism on the American Democratic Process..., not to mention the means by which most politicians get elected.

I was amused at the sub-plots and found the film to be very fast paced and entertaining, without any of the usual \"oh-brother's\" I would agree the film is less comedy than marketed, however, without question better than 90% of the garbage in theatres at present. Just my thoughts...Don","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robin Williams shows his stand-up talents and boosts up his status as a comedian in this movie of \"what's wrong-in American politics and how can Hollywood try to make an influence without boring people\". Of course Hollywood uses movies with hidden or not-so-hidden agendas. I think this movie is for people who likes stand-up and political discussion. And the trailers of this movie were for everybody just to make sure as many people as possible will see this. Everybody knows Hollywood is more liberal\/democrat than the bush&co so they have to make these movies every now and then...but this one was perhaps too obvious, at least I thought so, for making any real change.

Still, great stand-up and fresh political issues and talks...I enjoyed it and thanks to IMDb.com ratings I was positively surprised when I walked out from the movie theater, and yes, I laughed many times. Sometimes you just have to let it go and forget all the seriousness....see this movie if you like good and clever stand-up or politics and you will not be offended by the several references of how things are not good right now. Rent it if that doesn't match you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not every line in a comedy is funny. This movie takes a serious subject, the disenfranchisement of voters and holds it up to the light while telling jokes about it. It's the movie The Daily Show would have made if they wanted to turn it into a movie. I found Robin Williams to be much funnier in this movie than he was in RV. And while my wife and I share a few opposing political views, we were both doubled over in laughter for several parts of this movie. The script writers here could give Fox News some lessons in fair and balanced. Lewis Black was okay for his part, but never really seemed to be able to bring out his particular brand of comedy for his role. Christopher Walken was also good, playing his fairly common subdued supporting role, pushing a story along.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went to see this thinking it would be a great comedy and a comeback for Robin Williams, but when I saw it I realized I had bee lied to by advertisers as this is more drama than comedy, although it has a few really good laughs in it. It felt like I was watching two movies. One was a funny romp with Robin Williams that should have been the whole basin for the movie anyway, but you also get a techno thriller movie with political angst in the middle. I really don't know how to classify this film. But I can tell you it was good and I did laugh, not as much as I had hoped, but at least Williams is back in the right direction. See this but know before going it is not all comedy and is a little intense.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie reminds me of great movies that temporarily wake me up with the realization that the Emperor is indeed naked. Our election process is unclothed and dismal. My awareness is heightened and I want to see the world change. After a short while I am lulled back to my little complacency and \"bubble life.\" In the best sense of film this work will ferment into an edible stew for me and like in \"Network\" I want to be convicted to say'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' But to whom? My vigorous youthful idealism has been slowly reduced to concerned parent with quiet convictions or rather \"beliefs.\" \"Man of the year\" reveals how much I yearn for honest and sometimes humorous takes on our current political situation. Dobbs' line \" I did inhale because I thought 'What the hell,it's lit, it's in my hand, I'll inhale it.'\" was refreshing or would've been when Clinton was President. Why can't politicians be honest and set that tone for debates? We people must realize how much veneer is being put forth as real? I am sick of this election process already,anyone else? Let take off the veils and set an agenda for our elected officials and take them to task (not re-elect) when they continue with evasion and non-representation of citizenry. This movie can inspire us to increase our expectations of politicians that spew rhetoric. Great Film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was an interesting movie...half-comedy, half-political thriller. It had a lot of good elements, although it was a little predictable.

Robin Williams stars as Tom Dobbs, a popular comedian with a hit show in which he gives political commentary. Think Daily Show With John Stuart. During the taping of one of his shows, a female in the audience tells him he should run for president. That, followed by a few jokes taken seriously, were all that was needed to get the ball rolling and start Dobbs' political career.

He runs independently, and opposes democrats and republicans equally. He is straightforward and honest, and becomes increasingly popular--but maybe not popular enough to actually win. He's clearly the underdog in this election.

Meanwhile, a corrupt software company has created a program to make voting much quicker and easier for the common people--but there is a glitch. The glitch is discovered by a young lady named Elanor (Linnley) who is appeased by the software developer with a lie that he fixed the glitch before the upcoming election.

Election day comes around, and lo and behold Dobbs is declared the winner. (Big Surprise!) Elanor knows that he is not really the president--he didn't win legitimately--She decides to tell the president...but complications arise. Her company went as far as poisoning her in order to silence her. In addition to that, she quickly takes a liking to Dobbs.

The plot takes a few twists and turns, before reaching it's slightly predictable conclusion. But, it never got boring. Robin was great as usual, and Christopher Walken often stole the show as Dobbs' manager-turned-political-adviser and best friend.

It's an entertaining film, and it has a good message. I recommend it if you're in the mood for dark satire, or something that makes you think. Overall I give it a 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robin Williams is a national treasure, specially when he cuts loose and puts aside his maudlin approach to drama. He manages to liven up the usual restrained pacing of Barry Levinson, and there are moments in this film when he truly shines.

As the funny elected American president in \"Man of The Year\" Williams recaptures the hilarity and outrageousness that used to be associated with him. What makes him so appealing is his humanity and likability. Here is a man who can lash at his audience but truly loves them, too. His humour is like barbed wire, and yet it is cathartic. It is what makes him very appealing to the people in the film and in real life.

Laura Linney is once again portraying an intelligent woman in distress. She is a fabulous and very talented performer, but I think she has boxed into a stereotype and unfortunately, it would have been more interesting to have a less recognizable performer in this case. Walken pretty much walks through his thankless role, and the climatic scene in the SNL skit barely floats above water.

Go in for a few hilarious moments, and those are priceless. Enjoy Williams and forget some of the deep moments that slow down this otherwise entertaining movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"if you are going to see this movie, by all means don't go into this movie with the expectation of this movie will be absolutely hilarious because you will be let down. yeah sure its funny at times but i would consider it a political thriller masqueraded as a comedy. the performances are very good especially by jeff goldblum as the head of the election company. even though he has limited screen time he makes a lasting impression. of course robin williams is excellent.laura linney is very good too what a surprise. she is one of the finest actresses in Hollywood and one scene in particular shows this. this film makes you think. what if a comedian ran for president and actually won? would the country be better off or would the country shatter into a million pieces?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a masterpiece. 'The Big Snit' is a crazy, weird, hilarious and eventually touching look at an old married couple and their quiet life, who argue over sawing and scrabble while a nuclear war rages on outside. Everything in this great animated short stands out as memorable: The eye shaking of the wife, the vacuuming binge, the husband's saw fetish (keep an eye on those backgrounds!), the very verbal cat, the demented game show, the \"informative\" news anchor, the \"beautiful\" accordion serenade and the moving and memorable ending. I am so glad I found 'The Big Snit', which is hands down one of the greatest works of film ever produced.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'The Big Snit' came into my life complete by accident and has left an indelible mark on my soul. A scar of love, destruction and pointlessness that will forever be a part of my life. This is tale of beautiful futility. We are helpless without each other. We are helpless against governmental wrong-doings. We are helpless as to the choices we all try to make when in love. Deaf to the mutterings and goings on of an world outside the window. Blind to an inevitable apocalypse. Dumb of the hatred and greedy opinions of an over-indulgent society. This is a tale of personal commitment and triumphant love defeating the ideologies of war. Their petty bickering is a sublime observation of human nature and of how love comes with it's pains and darkness Everyone has some irritating aspect to their personality and this is observed by the makers in the most simplistic and fantastic way. We travel only a short distance with the two main characters but are left wanting to complete our own journeys with a some of their simple,loving, honest philosophy in tow. I am so very glad that i exist in this 'our time'. Another 20 years either side of my birth date, and i would not have seen and felt.... ....The Big Snit. William White. Sheffield.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is all about humans. This film stayed as my all time favorite short cartoon for years.

Isn't it the simplest things that make life so much more interesting?! We humans are so soft, compassionate, funny, caring to each other one moment -- we invent the most beautiful and amazing machines to kill as many people as possible with the least effort the next. In our short lives, we destroy our world, each other and often, our own lives, than spend the rest of our lives trying to fix what we've destroyed. Sometimes, there is nothing left to fix!

This film can entertain, educate and even help us realize what is wrong in our lives! Life is short and can be even shorter! The ending is way too optimistic I am afraid.

I love Richard Condie's mind and what he makes happen with it!

Enjoy

H.K.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Richard Condie is a Canadian marvel, and one that should be shared with the world. Be it for gut-busting early work such as \"Getting Started\" and the Oscar-nominated \"Snit\" through \"The Apprentice\" and the digitally made \"La Salla\", Condie is a treasured local hero. But no singular piece of work puts a stamp on his career quite like \"The Big Snit\". And did I mention it was nominated for an Academy Award? Darn tootin'.

\"The Big Snit\", although clearly a dated message-bearer from the 1980s (the short revolves around Cold War-esquire nuclear annihilation, but don't worry \u0096 it's hilarious as hell), carries with it a larger meaning, as is most of Condie's work in an understated sort of way. While the planet scurries for cover from Armageddon, a couple bickers over each others' annoying habits (in true Condie fashion, he hacksaws the furniture while she shakes her eyes \u0096 literally). And don't forget to watch it again and again, 'cuz there's always something to look at. Condie loads this fella up with countless visual gags and memorable catch-phrases.

I strongly encourage this incredible piece of animation be tracked down. In Canada it's usually spotted in a National Film Board video that includes other stellar shorts (including fellow Winnipegger Cordell Barker's equally funny \"The Cat Came Back\"). Americans will just have to dig a little deeper, but keep at it \u0096 the reward is worth the toil.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Richard Condie's utter maddness insanity cartoon 'The Big Snit', is a trip through qwerkyness, madness, hillarity, enjoyable backgrounds, melting characters, and a conclusion that nearly brings me to happy tears everytime I see it.

This short I have seen over and over AND OVER and I NEVER TIRE of it (luckily having it on tape from a broadcast on TV)!! It never stops to make me burst out in laughter uncontrollably, and then reach down into the depths of my spirit, highlighting the greatness of the human condition.

Cause when someone says, 'Come on, let's finish the game' everything is alright in the world and the troubles that we face everyday we suddenly realise are all petty fleeting things not to fight or worry about anymore. This film at first seems just like a simple exercise in cartoon slapstick humour, but it is far more than that. This film hits a greater sense of spiritual meaning with mankind in the wake when everything seems to be so bad and trivial.

It is flawless... in every way. AND DAMN FUNNY TOO ;)

Rating 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...the world may never know. (The film that did take the \"best animated short\" Oscar that year, \"Anna and Bella\", is very good, but it's no \"Big Snit\". Both are available on Expanded Entertainment's \"World's Greatest Animation\" compilation, in case you'd like to compare.)

\"Snit\" and its director, Richard Condie, have attracted so much attention that there's little for me to add. I'd like to note, however, that the film contains one of my very favorite single \"shots\" in an animated short, the one where the man opens the door to let the cat out. I don't want to give away the actual events depicted here, but the first time I saw the shot I was whipsawed from one mood to another, then seconds later to still another. That shot has never failed to affect me that way since. For this shot, and for the way Condie builds up to that set of moments, \"The Big Snit\" deserves the tag of \"masterpiece\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have only seen this once--in 1986, at an \"artsy\" theater in Minneapolis...but I remember it like I saw it a thousand times this morning. Hilarious (\"Sawing for Teens\", playing Scrabble with all \"e\" tiles), beautifully animated (taking off her eyes, shaking them back into position, then putting them back on), and poignant (the end of the world, the pettiness of a snit)...

Required viewing for the human race. Calling this simply a cartoon is like calling THE GREAT GATSBY nifty typing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very strange little short film that initially didn't impress me. From a purely aesthetic point of view, the animation here certainly ain't pretty--though after a while you notice that the simple and silly drawings do possess a certain odd charm. That's probably because with the script as screwy as this one, the animation works.

The film shows an older couple sitting at the table playing Scrabble. At the same time they are fixated on this game or other bizarre pursuits (such as the husband's compulsion to saw things--even the chair and table)! And all of this stuff occurs as the television warns of pending atomic annihilation--Armageddon is definitely here! Naturally, the neighbors are screaming and running amok--during which time the couple obliviously continues with this idiotic game. Heck, even their cat knows the end is coming as the couple begin bickering about who may or may not have cheated--leading to a very surreal ending indeed!! The film deserves kudos for both being unique as well as very funny. While it did not win the Oscar, it was nominated for Best Animated Short--which it richly deserved.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This hugely entertaining short is considered one of the best shorts ever, and I certainly won't argue with that. Even in a country where top-notch animated shorts are created with regularity, this film still manages to stand out. If you ever get the chance to view this film, please do so. It's only ten minutes long, and yet it contains a man who is obsessed with saws, a woman who vacuums the bathtub, and a nuclear war. What more could you want in a film?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just went on YouTube and finally watched this Oscar-nominated animated short directed by Richard Condie. I had previously watched his funny Getting Started there. In this one, a couple are playing Scrabble. The wife keeps shaking her eyes while her husband has nothing but E's on his side. The wife leaves for a while to vacuum her bed and bathtub(!) before catching her husband looking at her side. Briefly before this, the husband catches a TV show called \"Sawing for Teens\" with the stars sawing something and the husband getting his own saw. That program gets interrupted by a special report of a nuclear war happening (the newsman is a skeleton here) as everyone panics outside though the husband fell asleep during this time and thinks a parade is going on as he and his wife continue arguing about the game...There's plenty of other bizarre things going on before the touching ending comes on. Quite hilarious and well worth seeing for any animation buff out there. Can't wait to see any more animated shorts from Mr. Condie...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Man am I stoked I can leave feedback for this 10 minutes romp. I love it.

After not seeing it in years, I happened upon it the other day and watched it over and over.

'Stop shaking your eyes' and 'shake a rock and roll band' and 'stop sawing the table' are freaking classic lines.

The art is delightfully raw. The dialog sparse and wonderful. Just find it and love it. Cannot recommend this enough.

Thank you high school art teacher Mrs. Kogan for showing us this over and over. Thank you NFB for letting it be made. Thank you MTS for showing it (for free at the moment at least).

I want a Big Snit t-shirt now. I'd love an animation cell, but at 440.00 a pop, that won't happen.

Find this flick, and watch it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This short was nominated for an Academy Award, losing to Anna and Bella. Not since Doctor Strangelove has nuclear war been so hilarious! Condie takes a situation and turns it on its ear and then gives it a spin for good measure. Visual gags abound in Condie's work and I always see something I missed before every time I watch this. On The World's Greatest Animation, well worth seeing for thisand many other shorts. Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a shame that by garnering a restricted rating, perhaps the audience that would find this film the most useful won't likely see it.

Imaginary Heroes follows the life of a teenager after his brothers' suicide. Not, of course, the most original story in the world, however it does spend a great deal of time humanizing their parents, the 'imaginary heroes' that failed in their sons' eyes.

For teenagers, who tend to put responsibility for their failures on their parents but yet refuse to accept any real responsibility on their own, the movie sends a powerful message, that in the end we all have our own troubles we need to deal with, and that we all make our own paths.

But, unlike other movies that tend to urge youth independence, this one resolves the issues between parents and child, and they become a stronger unit for it. That the eldest child committed suicide is regrettable, but not overlooked later in the film, and the responsibility by all parties for the tragedy is thoroughly explained.

Although the subject matter has been covered before, it hasn't been covered quite this way -- the film pulls very little punches. Now, why this earned it an R rating is confusing -- you're unlikely to get across to a teenager in this era without being realistic, but yet providing realism restricts that very audience.

Were my junior high-school class have been shown this film, two suicides may have been prevented. In this case, the censors seem to have exercised extremely poor judgment.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw this film when it was an entry in Santa Fe Film Festival. Heavy film! Depiction of a completely dysfunctional family taken to another level of the extreme, might have left me depressed to the extreme, had it not been for very funny sight gags and dialogue along the way which lightened the film's overall tone. The relatively \"uplifting\" ending gave hope for those affected by the initial tragedy. Still, I did not walk out of the theatre ready to go to a fun party. The film stayed with me for several days.

Brought back memories of \"Ordinary People\", but with humor mixed in with the tragedy. I thought the acting was excellent, especially by Sigourney Weaver and Emile Hirsh. How each character dealt with the tragedy was at times sad, self-defeating, but also at times hilarious. Clever dialogue, and situations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is chock-full of little surprises, many of them funny. The fact that it's written and directed by a 24-year old blows my mind. Some of the scenes where the high school kids are using ecstasy made me very uncomfortable because I have a kid that age and I could picture her using it. As parent of a teen, I found the depictions of the parent-child interactions to be dead-on accurate.

I enjoyed the film's many little jokes, and I enjoyed the fact that not everything made perfect sense and not all the issues were resolved by the end. To paraphrase Mark Twain, truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction is required to stick to that which is possible, while truth is not.

This is a film which plays with the viewer, allowing us believe that people are what other people think they are, only to allow us later to realize that the folks we assumed were right were completely ignorant of the real situation. One of the film's strongest scenes, a scene about which we feel very relieved and sympathetic about what the character is doing, turns out to be based on a completely wrong assumption, and the character, while admirable, is totally wrong. It's very subtly done, I think. Very realistic.

I liked the score a lot -- I thought it really aided the film, really helped set the mood -- the film has a couple of screwball moments, and the background music helps establish that.

The valedictorian speech is a hoot and a half -- got a big laugh! The movie is really in my head right now -- saw it this morning. Will try to see it again, time allowing. Tens are hard to come by, but a solid nine in my book.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a powerful commentary on family life in North America today. The story is so well constructed, it almost feels like its happening across the street, right now! If you are connected with your family and community in any way, this film will grab you and transport you to the Travis' home and not allow you to leave until the credits are done.

Our imaginary heroes, through a myriad of innocent circumstances, often unwittingly, lead us down a path of sorrow, confusion and isolation. The Travis family, after a terrible tragedy, invite each of us; father, mother, brother and sister, into their respective lives to share their experience in a dynamic set of circumstances that just doesn't quit. We see all of the above and eventually the joy, in powerful performances by the major players and the rest of the cast, making this film a movie-goers absolute treasure.

In a film so well done as this, it is usually difficult to to find something special, but Sigourney Weaver's portrayal of Sandy Travis was outstanding. I would be surprised if others didn't recognize it as such.

Clearly a 10. Well done!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow. When I went to this film at the Toronto film festival I had no idea what I was in for. This movie takes you on an emotional roller-coaster in the best sense of the term. Sigourney Weaver was better than I've seen from her in years; Emile Hirsch was great and Jeff Daniels broke my heart. I can see how this won't be every person's cup of tea, as at times it deals with some pretty harsh things that can happen to a family. Don't get me wrong -- it's really funny too -- at my screening the audience burst out in applause after laughing over and over again. I just think if you're open to examining your own life, Imaginary Heroes will sincerely touch you. I can't wait until it comes out in theaters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Imaginary Heroes is clearly the best film of the year. It was a complete and utter joy to watch. I was riveted. The whole audience up at the Sunset Five was riveted, when the film ended no one moved, spoke, nothing. I think this film is a perfect example of the of the power that drama has. Especially in so much as it sets an example of the quality of drama\/ work of this younger generation.

There were moments in your film, many, like at least seven, where I was struck by such a great amount of beauty, emotional beauty, that I actually couldn't breathe for a while. And for a catharsis junkie like me, that's about the best censorial experience I could ask for. It is the result of powerful, masterful storytelling and direction. Like heavyweight stuff, like Burtolucci and those guys.

Each element of the film fit tightly together. There were no missteps at all. The cast was amazing. I have been a huge fan of Emile's and Ryan's for a long time, and I thought they have never been better. I was\/am\/will be continuously stunned by this film. And I promise I will drag every person I know to see it. It should be seen. It should win awards.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is hard to judge 'Imaginary Heroes' without referring to the fact that director and script writer Dan Harris is only 25. You can hardly believe seeing this film, which is not only a mature piece of work, professional and deep, but also with some of the defects of routine specific to older directors.

The setting is the American suburb, too familiar from 'American Beauty' or 'Desperate Housewives'. As in 'American Beauty'the film turns around a suicide, but here it happens at the beginning of the movie, and we are left watching a mid-class family coping with the death of the gifted sportsman brother and son. Emile Hirsch plays the younger brother, Sigourney Weaver is the mother, both are excellent trying to cope with the loss, to find the reason and motivation to survive. Harris drives his actors with a sure hand, and the first two sections of the film (there are four in total, as the seasons of the year) build a wonderful tension, with credible dilemmas and real questions. It is the second part of the film that disappoints slightly, it looks too tired and conventional, and I suspect that the producers may have interfered in the work of the young script-writer and director, trying to bring him closer to the Hollywood convention. That's how this film fails to be a somber version of 'American Beauty', with a different focus. I am sure however that we will hear a lot about Dan Harris in the coming years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Kinks warned about media heroes. Outside the movies, most heroes are also \"Ordinary People.\" Society demands some role playing, but what happens when that extends to the parent-child relationship? Do some parents try to improve themselves through their children rather than vice versa? How do you provide a role-model but not a role? A brilliant swimmer who hates to swim; a brilliant musician who won't play. Offbeat, funny (despite depiction of \"serious\" problems), very good multi-dimensional acting by everyone. Lots of plot twists complement the emotional tension. Celluloid heroes never feel any pain. I don't recall ever being disappointed in a Sigourney Weaver film (I even liked \"The Village\"!).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It occurred to me while watching \"Imaginary Heroes\" that any screenwriter attempting to make a drama about family relationships should seriously consider killing off a kid or two in the opening reel as a way of getting his characters to open up and reveal themselves. There must be something to this storyline, for it seems as if every other family drama that comes down the pike uses this device in one form or another (\"Paradise\" and \"Moonlight Mile\" are just two of the more recent examples that spring immediately to mind, although one could reach back to a golden oldie like \"Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?\" to make the point as well). It's not that the death of a child is an illegitimate subject for serious films to explore. Far from it. It's just that, like any topic, it can be so overused that it becomes just another movie clich\u00e9, a convenient bit of narrative shorthand to get the ball rolling and to give the characters something to grapple with for the remainder of the time we get to spend with them.

The latest such work is \"Imaginary Heroes,\" a film that borrows heavily from what is one of the earliest and, perhaps, best known examples of the \"family coping with the death of a child\" genre, the Academy Award winning \"Ordinary People.\" Like the characters in that earlier film, the Travises seem, on the surface, to be the ideal suburban family, until, one fateful day, their oldest son, Matt, who is the \"golden boy\" athlete and, thus, the apple of his father's eye, kills himself with no explanation (one minor difference is that the son in \"Ordinary People\" dies as a result of an accident, not a suicide). It is Matt's younger brother, Tim, who winds up finding the body, and who assumes the role of protagonist in the film. Each of the remaining family members copes with the tragedy in his or her own way. Matt, who has always lived in the shadow of his older brother, becomes more and more estranged from the father who has virtually ignored him all his life and begins to turn to drugs for surcease. Ben, the father, becomes swallowed up in feelings of remorse and guilt, turning away from both his job and his family. His wife, Sandy, is the most complex character in the film, a free-spirited child of the '60's who feels oddly adrift in the role of mother and wife as she endures a basically loveless marriage in sterile suburbia. She spends most of her time after the tragedy trying to reconnect with her pot-smoking past.

As written and directed by Dan Harris, \"Imaginary Heroes\" emerges as a wildly uneven film. For every scene that feels real and authentic, there is another that comes across as arbitrary and inauthentic. One sometimes has the sense that Harris would like to cram every possible life situation he can think of into his screenplay, an admirable goal, perhaps, but one that makes the film unnecessarily melodramatic in the process. Instead of identifying with the characters and being caught up in their plight, we often find ourselves thinking, \"Oh, come now\u0085what next?\" For teen suicide is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the hot-button topics covered in this film; the screenplay also touches on drug and alcohol abuse, physical abuse, sexual identity conflict, life-threatening illness, even inadvertent gay incest. It is this \"everything but the kitchen sink\" mentality in the writing that robs the movie of much of the credibility it needs to really make us care.

That is not to say that \"Imaginary Heroes\" is a bad or unrewarding film. Much of what it has to say about familial relationships and values in the 21st Century is insightful, original, pointed and profound. Prime credit for its success goes to the actors, Emile Hirsch, Sigourney Weaver and Jeff Daniels, who deliver incisive, sensitive performances in their respective roles. It is they who triumph over the narrative excesses to stimulate our brains and touch our hearts. Moreover, Harris, in his direction, achieves an effectively melancholic tone throughout, but one that is frequently augmented by some badly-needed flashes of daring dark comedy.

\"Imaginary Heroes\" may appear unfocused and derivative at times, but its fine performances and subtle mood shifts make it a film worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As Salinger's \"A Perfect Day for Bananafish\" ends with the suicide of a prodigy, this movie opens with the death of the star high school swimmer legend, Matt, who shoots himself in the head with a revolver after in the opening scene. But the death of Matt Travis serves as a key to unlock the door of another prodigy, his brother, Tim who never in his life seriously bothered with the question, \"What am I going to do?\"

When he finds his brother dead, his head broken like a dropped watermelon, the Travis family starts vomiting out its secrets one by one. The film focuses on Tim. He is a victim of bullying, domestic abuse, family alienation, heartbreak, issues of sexuality and friendship.

Tim reveals his wounds by physical bruises, but these are not the only injuries to his person, as we slowly come to realize, as the script painfully unveils the origins and outcome of Tim scars. Everyone who loves him hurts him. Hirsch plays out the character quite well, revealing frame after frame in the visual expression of his body, a host of conflicting emotions inside the soul of a kid whom no one seems to listen to or know very well, unknowing and unaware of his depth of soul and prodigious talent.

Two siblings sharing a doobie, curled up on a red, spinnable playground saucer, Tim asks Penny, \"What am I going to do with the rest of my life?\" The scene is framed in a familiar, recurring image of the film: the comfortable playground where Tim obviously feels at home, filmed from a bird's eye view, because with every character Tim feels comfortable to share a part of himself, and we view these intimate moments he shares in the red, spinnable playground saucer, complete with childish graffiti carved in pencil, from above. After advising him curtly to pass the joint, Penny tells him, \"Tim, well, the secret to the success of life is to find something you love. And you have to do that for the rest of your life \u0085 And you better hope to hell that you're good at it because if you're not then you'll probably fail.\" This simple line of advice from Penny serves as the movie's central theme, the responsibility of talent and the possibility of failure. Why does one person have a talent he cannot stand, like Matt, who hated the attention his swimming fame brought, but no one notices Tim's talent \u0096 no one \u0096 because no one bothers to ask him? Not even us. The film makes us aware that we ourselves do not know Tim as well as we thought we did when we first meet this handsome, sad, guy; in our intimate understanding of Tim, as it progresses, we are reminded that not everyone is as they seem to be. This is the other side of the film, the failure of those who should \u0096 parents, friends, teachers \u0096 whoever \u0096 to notice and see the gifts of the people they claim to love. Not even his mother Sandy, played by Sigourney Weaver, sees Tim's gift, despite her love for her son. Weaver does a deft job of a middle-aged woman grappling with her own inner demons as she haphazardly tries to play the roles of domesticity and support. When Tim is found to be bullied at school, she storms the boy's trailer, threatening his life, \"You can tease, torture, punch, drive drunk with me, I can forgive you. Hell I can understand it, I'm a good Christian, you know, I can forgive and forget, but you mess with my kid and may God himself descend from heaven to protect you because as long as I live \u0096 and I will outlive you all \u0096 I will wake up and go to sleep at night just dreaming of ways to make your petty insignificant lives into hell on earth.\" After flicking a paper cup into the mother's face, she looks around the trailer, and looking at them both, the kid and his stunned mother, comments, \"nice trailer\" and leaves as quickly as she came. Weaver scores in her ability to match gusto with visceral wit that is acid and witty. And Tim's father, played by Jeff Daniels, is blind to who his son is, treating him like a stranger, not telling his family that he took time off from the office, spending his days in the city park, listless, a carved out soul, and sleeping in Matt's bed, tucked in with his high school letter jacket. Jeff Daniels does a superb job of making us believe that he can be both a bastard and lovable because, we grow to see that even an inept father can show his love for his son. In an emotional scene, Tim confronts his father. Just when you think his dad is going to hit him, he grabs for him to embrace him. Not letting him go, he tells Tim, \"I am your father and you're are my son and I'm here okay but you've gotta talk to me. I don't know how to do this by myself\". It is here at this moment in the film that a father tells his son, you have to tell me what's going on inside of you, you have to tell me who you are; I want to know who you are. It is in this scene that the film reaches a cathartic moment, the visual movement from Tim, angry and alone, to his father embracing him as he breaks downs and weeps, revealing the emotions hidden beneath his shell. Tim experiences this moment of cleansing with his dad as a catharsis, especially when you consider the mistreatment, manipulation, disregard, violence and betrayal he has been dealt in the long year the film encompasses. I recommend this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another slice of darkness and denial hiding beneath the surface of American suburbia, Imaginary Heroes chronicles the lives of the Travis family, all recovering following the suicide of their eldest son.

The pair at the center of the film is mother and son Sandy (Sigourney Weaver) and Tim (Emile Hirsch), both acting out in different ways as a result of the death. While Tim experiments with prescription medication and his own sexuality, Sandy regresses to her former self, smoking marijuana and coming to terms with an old act of infidelity.

The relationship between Sandy and Tim is explored well, especially when references are made to both of them being outcast from their own family: Sandy due to her affair and Tim, initially, due to always being in the shadow of his more successful older brother. Considerably less time is allowed for Sandy's husband Ben (Jeff Daniels) who, in a devastating depiction of denial, orders Sandy to make an additional plate of food for his dead son and place it in his old spot at the dinner table. Michelle Williams' older sister Penny is underwritten and could easily be taken out of the film.

Despite its long runtime, Imaginary Heroes doesn't explore its many subplots as much as the individual stories deserve, while some of the movie's black comedy doesn't translate as well as writer\/director Dan Harris may have liked. And the depiction of a disturbed family dynamic isn't depicted as strongly as the many other films out there with similar ideas. But despite some issues, the central performances from Weaver and Hirsch are stunning, and easily carry the film to its successfully subdued conclusion.

Rating: B-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Imaginary Heroes\" is a 2004 film starring Sigourney Weaver, Jeff Daniels, Emile Hirsch, Michelle Williams, and Kip Pardue.

The story concerns a dysfunctional family that becomes even more dysfunctional when the oldest child (Pardue) commits suicide.

\"Ordinary People\" has been mentioned often in relation to this film; it's sort of \"Ordinary People\" with a role reversal. The mother in this case, Sandy Travis (Weaver) is more accessible than the father, Ben (Daniels) who is clearly devastated and unable to cope. Like \"Ordinary People,\" the younger son Tim (Hirsch) is the focus of the film.

For me, the film was absorbing enough to keep watching but has a curious detachment about it. There were some wonderful interactions - mother and son, mother and neighbor, brother and sister (Williams) and some good offbeat moments. What never clicked was Ben being any part of that family or having any chemistry with Sandy. This seems to have been the goal of director\/writer Dan Harris. In one scene in a grocery store, the checkout kid assumes Sandy is \"about 30\" and gives her his phone number. In almost the next scene, Daniels asks Sandy if she wants plastic surgery for her birthday. Weaver was 55 when this film was made, actually probably 54, and looks phenomenal. So what is Ben looking at? However, there's something askew about Ben's complete detachment because the viewer doesn't really see how Daniels ever WAS attached to that family.

The end has a couple of twists and also some very touching scenes. Everyone is very good, with Weaver and Hirsch being the standouts.

There's not a tremendous amount of dialogue in this movie and lots of stares. The script could have been sharper. But \"Imaginary Heroes\" is a good effort.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film does not have the outstanding visuals that American Beauty or The Ice Storm offered and because it was made after those films, it cannot be marked as very original either: the music, though subtly brilliant, sounds very much like that of American Beauty.

The story has some similarities with The Ice Storm in particular (as well as Sigourney Weaver). Without intent perhaps, the film seems to try to recreate the success of the two aforementioned movies too much. At times, the story tends to stay a bit more shallow than it's bigger, more successful \"brothers\" by having too much going on, or by not delivering the most effective dialogs. Here, the writing cannot measure with that of American Beauty. But that can be said about most movies ever made, even the best and there is still a lot to like: said music score and (expectable, given the cast) effective performances. Of note is Emile Hirsch who would shine a couple of years later in the outstanding \"Into The Wild\".

Overall I can recommend this film if you like suburban dramas though it's not the first one on a list of must-sees, which would be topped by: 1 American beauty 2 The Ice Storm 3 Little Children.

After you've seen and liked those, check out this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Have just seen this film, in Australia on satellite. As i have been avoiding the news more so than usual over the last week coming from the US of A regarding gunmen, well to be absolutely blunt, this film is a prescient gem. A big bravo to all involved. i had only a small idea of what the film entailed as is most often the case for good effect and this certainly came up with cinematic goods. the setting of the scene is effective in the truest sense of the word, with all the hairy confronting subjects of today's world in relation to one's own faltering family, albeit suburb. The first forty minutes sets such a professional theater i was not ready for the out loud laughs when they came. Although the cathartic moment built via comedy and character as the family and neighbors came together in an extraordinary way.

All in all a foreseeing of who and what we are. A most meaningful film and a must see.

please note the date of this review.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"so. i was completely in love with this movie. gaga for it, even with all its plot twists...but the one thing i found really disturbing was the connection between the two best friends in Tim and Kyle. While the writer of the film gave us such a poignant moment between the two, and their sexual experimentation\/confusion, he then gives us a plot twist that makes them half brothers?!?! (Although the subject isn't brought up in the film....and left unexplained and unaccounted for) I just thought that it was in bad taste, and the fact that it wasn't even discussed is even worse. (Oops we've created a taboo...now let's not address the situation, because that wouldn't really be P.C.) Otherwise a spectacular film","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The NYT review says that Sigourney Weaver's character is taut and frustrated, and, later, that she could be the sister of MTM's character in Ordinary People. Say, WHAT? No way. This lady was quirky from the start. NOTHING like MTM in Ordinary People. Sorry.

Next, the NYT goes on to say that Sigourney Weaver's Sandy Travis and Jeff Daniel's Ben Travis are 40-something year olds, \"children of the 60s.\" Ms Weaver must be dancing a jig. I believe at the time she made Imaginary Heroes she was in fact 55 years old. She was born in 1949.

NYT perception corrections aside, this was a pretty good movie considering it was made by someone so young. Obviously Sigourney Weaver thought so, and so did Jeff Daniels. The young man playing Tim was outstanding.

There are some critical comments I could make about the script. Such as that I never really got a good sense of why Sandy Travis missed her son. Her sort of blown apart behavior was perhaps triggered by his death, but that such behavior lasted \u00be of the way through the film I felt had more to do with her stagnation marriage, her relationship with Tim, and where he really came from, and other unresolved issues, than from any mourning of her elder son. Ben's mourning was much more clear.

So Matt Travis was an asshole. Did his mom think so too? Still, a very watchable film. What is becoming clearer and clearer is not that there are no roles for women over a certain age, rather that what it takes is a director such as this one to be so clearly in love with an older woman (Ms Weaver) and to almost make his film an homage to her. Sort of an anti-Woody Allen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before Barton jumps all over my remarks, let's all just keep in mind that opinions are like asses, we all have them.....

I loved Sigourney Weaver & Jeff Daniels, I loved the dialogue and thought the acting was sublime. Downplayed just perfectly and understated. Unlike some others, I did NOT find this @ all predictable.

I found Sigourney's role refreshingly humorous and realistic, especially her scene confronting the bully in the trailer.

I found it enjoyable and wasn't anticipating recommending this to all and sundry. This is why there are different flavors of ice cream, something to please everyone...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Imaginary Heroes, the remarkable work of the then 24 year-old Dan Harris, is tag-lined \"People are never who they seem to be\". Perhaps this is wisely chosen as a stratagem of marketing; yet, I rented this movie in spite of the tag-line, rather than because of it. And, I'm glad I did. I found the move an insightful examination of tragedy. I personally found it to be a movie about coping with dreams: particularly those which are lost. In the case of one son, \"loss\" requires deep examination of what he had, and didn't have, in his life. Yet, the central tragedy of the movie, while posing enticing questions in its own right, acts primarily as the backdrop against which different coping styles are set into relief. I believe the film inquires into an important question: how do we cope with our dreams, particularly where heroes become imaginary?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"IMAGINARY HEROES is one fine little film! Written and directed by Dan Harris this story is classic theater, weaving comedy and tragedy together so tightly that the climax of the film takes your breath away.

The Travis family is an odd bunch: no member is who each appears to be. Beginning with a suicide of the reluctant 'hero' child swimming champion Matt (Kip Pardue), the father Ben (Jeff Daniels) falls apart and isolates himself from his family and himself while the mother Sandy (Sigourney Weaver) turns to pot and rage and sarcasm, the daughter Penny (Michelle Williams) returns from school repulsed by her family's behavior, and the remaining son Tim (Emile Hirsch) takes the brunt of all of the above by avoiding his classmates, girlfriend, and teams with his neighbor Kyle (Ryan Donowho) to leap into drugs and sexual experimentation. Throughout the film Tim tries to hide bruises on his body that have a secret all their own yet lead his girlfriend to feel rejection, his mother to rage against the trailer park trash bully she believes is the cause, and finally open the window to the deep scars this family has suffered for years. Secrets and lies, here, and the resolution of them is painfully dramatic.

This may be Sigourney Weaver's finest role, although Emile Hirsh, Jeff Daniels, Ryan Donowho, and Kip Pardue (despite the brevity of his role) all contribute top-notch performances. The story begins slowly and seems to meander and that fact may lose some viewers' attention, but stay with this little powerhouse film and the impact of the work will stun you. Highly Recommended. Grady Harp","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Enjoyed this film which deals entirely about an average family, so it appears. Ben Travis, (Jeff Daniels) plays the role as a father who is only interested in one son who is excellent at swimming and wins many trophy's, however, he hates it very much and even his father. Ben has very little to say to his other son, Tim, (Emile Hirsh) and even his daughter, Penny, (Michelle Williams) who is fortunate to be away in college. The mother, Sandy, (Sigourney Weaver) tries to hold the family together and even she is completely ignored by her husband also. A very tragic event happens in the family which changes everyone's personality, young and old start using drugs, smoking pot and drinking all the time at parties. There is even a homosexual scene and at the same time there is even room for comedy and of course there is a very dark secret that Sandy Travis finally tells her son Tim.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some may think Imaginary Heroes is a movie exactly like \"Igby Goes Down\" but it isn't. In Imaginary Heroes, the director lets us feel for the Travis family and the people around them.

The movie itself is great, and the acting is extremely well done. Weaver's and Hirsch's acting is believable and helps make the movie what it is. The actors, director\/writer, Dan Harris, has made a movie that many people should see. Don't think this is just another teen movie, it is a movie about a family and their problems.

I gave this movie a 10\/10 because I believe it isn't the best film, which no film can be, but its the closest it can get to perfect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was great! I love the way it mixes dark humor with drama. There are times when you think there is no possible way you could laugh at the situation presented, and yet you experience a surprising giggle. It is wonderfully acted, with great performances by Sigourney Weaver, Jeff Daniels, and Emile Hirsch. It is well written with a stylish, surprising ending. I'm not one to say that everyone will like it as much as I did, but give it a chance and rent it. The DVD has great special features, including full-length commentaries by director, Dan Harris and Emile Hirsch and one by Sigourney Weaver, that give you interesting information about the film. I hope my comment is helpful, and that you enjoy the movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not going to tell anyone what happens in the end, but it did not fit with the movie. The rest of Imaginary Heroes, though, portrayed a realistic family going through realistic issues, such as death, drugs, relationships, and high school. I could have sworn that they were my own family, no joke.

Emile Hirsch was completely believable as a teen struggling with his brother's suicide, and Sigourney Weaver plays a mother trying to keep the remains of her (slightly) dysfunctional family together.

Although this family may take their issues to the extreme, anyone can relate to what they go through, whether it be graduation, living up to expectations, or being a parent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A throwback to the \"old fashioned\" Westerns of the 30s and 40s (such as DODGE CITY), DALLAS has a number of things going for it: Gary Cooper at his coolest, blazing Technicolor photography by Ernest Haller (GONE WITH THE WIND) and a pulse-pounding Max Steiner (KING KONG, GWTW, DODGE CITY et al.) score. In addition, there is a masquerade, mistaken identity, a faked death and more hair-breath escapes than a Republic serial. As always, Cooper defines what it is to be a man under pressure. Forget the 50s angst Western... this is pure entertainment!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gary Cooper and a marshal change identities, since they both agree Cooper would be more efficient facing the outlaws. What is remarkable in this film are the costumes, both the marshal\u00b4s and Steve Cochran\u00b4s who is the bad guy. Cochran wears his guns backwards, probably to be able to crossdraw. The film starts quite excitingly with a showdown with Wild Bill Hickok. Ruth Roman, looking very pretty is the marshal\u00b4s fiancee. There is plenty of action, never a dull moment, but you have to concentrate, because the story is a bit complicated. Good entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dallas stars Gary Cooper, Ruth Roman, Steve Cochran, Barbara Payton & Raymond Massey. It's directed by Stuart Heisler, photography is from Ernest Haller & pen duties fell to John Twist. Produced out of Warner Brothers, Dallas is vividly filmed in Technicolor out of the Iverson & Warner ranches in California. Very much a film with its tongue firmly in cheek, the film is a throwback to the Westerns of yore that exist without pretensions or deep penetrative meanings.

The plot sees Cooper's Civil War renegade, Blayde \"Reb\" Hollister, fake his own death so as to kill off his reputation and to free himself for the pursuit into Dallas of the brothers who massacred his family. In essence a routine plot, Twist's story is perked up along the way by many a fun and exciting diversion. There's role reversals, dandy fashions, horseback pursuits, shoot outs, a love triangle, vigorous dialogue and deft little twists to keep the piece purely from painting it by numbers.

Cooper seems to be enjoying himself too, which further enhances the feel good factor on offer. It's true he isn't really asked to do anything more than be a laconic dude on a mission. But when called on for action duties, he delivers the goods that his fans have come to expect during his successful career. The villains entertain {particularly Steve Cochran's vile and dopey Bryant Marlow} because each have their own little peccadilloes to keep them from over familiar blandness. The two ladies of the piece look gorgeous and hold up well in amongst the machismo, while the high production value allows Haller to really treat the eyes with the lush Technicolor and involving camera work around the locations.

It has ideals to being an A list Oater does Dallas, something it just can't quite attain. But it's not for lack of trying and the end result is one of pure entertainment, that, in truth, should be enjoyed on a cold winters day when the viewer needs a pick me up. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gary Cooper is a cool headed guy. Always liked his easy going level headed characters. As some others have commented, there are some oddities in the script, such as a US Marshall who got his job and can't even hit a barn with a pistol. A rancher with about thirty hands but can't seem to keep his cattle from being run off.

But there is plenty of the quick thinking, straight shooting Cooper to keep you entertained.

This movie was made in 1950. People in their 20's and 30's have trouble understanding those movies were made for entertainment not Oscars.

To expect Oscar material does this film injustice. It is about the good guys finding a way to round up the bad guys.

So rent, borrow, or buy this movie, pop some corn and enjoy the Coop one more time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like Gary Cooper, this is one of his best roles. His gentle intensity to right a wrong is what made his career. \"Blayde Hollister\" comes to Dallas to take revenge against Will and Brian Malowe, who burned his Georgia farm and killed his family. Inept Marshall gets in Hollister's way, attempting to arrest him when interrupted by a street shootout between Hollister and Wild Bill Hickock. The shootout is staged to get the law off Hollister, & he takes the \"back East\" Marshall under his wing to keep him alive in Texas, as they switch identity.

That was a great beginning, and the picture holds up all the way through. Action may be a little \"slow\" by today's standards, but it is one of my top 10 favorite movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I may differ from many people on this board but I enjoy watching Mind Of Mencia. The reason I like Mind Of Mencia is the host is not afraid to speak his mind or exploit stereotypes. Carlos Mencia does what we all do with our friends but are unwilling to admit and then some.

Mencia has no problem doing jokes about any race, religion, sex, or orientation. While he gets a lot of flack for this it is a breath of fresh air in these politically correct times. Mencia does not care if he offends anyone but he is not a racist and even does jokes about his own race.

The typical format for the Mind of Mencia goes like this: there will be an open skit making fun of a person or recent event. Mencia then comes out and does a 5 or 6 minute stand up where he talks about various issues. The show then has 2 separate skits divided by commercials. In these skits Mencia does a variety of things such as making fun of people, giving his personal opinions with a funny twist, or simply doing parodies of people, events, or movies. At the end of the show Mencia comes out for a minute with either one final skit or something else to say.

People criticize Mencia for exploiting stereotypes and say his statements are overly offensive. Carlos only does what everyone else thinks of certain races but are afraid to say. As for Mencia being offensive he is only speaking his mind. I find nothing wrong with that.

The show is not perfect. The skits can be not put together the best and sometimes Mencia does go over the line in his jokes. For the most part however it is a show where the comedian says what is on his mind no matter what the consequences and presents in in a humorous matter. So if you aren't afraid to laugh at stereotypes and see someone speak his mind and often say what you have wanted to say then watch Mind Of Mencia. However if you are easily offended you should not watch this show because you will be offended or worse yet you might even laugh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What is your freaking problem? Do you have nothing better to do than sit on your fat asses and blog about about how you find something in bad taste? Here's an idea:Go outside. That's right: Walk outside your mom's basement that you've been living in for 13 years and GO OUTSIDE. \"But I can't leave! Star Trek is on in 30 minutes and I still haven't married that avatar on World Of Warcraft!\" Oh my God, in that case, stay inside! Alright, I might have gone overboard there. I mean, Star Trek is okay but I don't really watch it that much anymore. Either way, do you really have to write crap about Mind of Mencia. It's A GOOD SHOW. Maybe you're just venting your anger because that girl dumped you on World of Warcraft. Or you're constipated. Try putting fiber in your diet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw \"Heaven-Ship\" (\"Himmelskibet\") at the 2006 Cinema Muto festival in Sacile, Italy. What a great movie! This Danish steampunk saga is the stirring tale of the first trip to Mars, in an era when wireless telegraphy hasn't been perfected. The spaceship hasn't got a radio, and the heroes are brought back from the landing field via horsecart. Even the intertitles are delightful ... some of them written in rhymed couplets in the original Danish.

The actors' performances are laughable, largely hand-to-brow histrionics. But the sets are astonishing, easily surpassing anything done by Georges Melies a decade earlier (or in \"Die Frau im Mond\" a decade later). Of course, the plot is simplistic. The spaceship's crew consist of seven thin guys and one fat slob. Guess which one cracks. Interestingly, everyone in this movie (except the dubious Professor Dubius) ardently believes in God. Even the Martians.

Impressively, the scenarists have the sense to acknowledge that a trip to Mars is no doddle: the title cards establish that it takes the scientists two years to build their spaceship (which has an airscrew) and six months to reach Mars. During the construction sequence, there's one extremely impressive set-up which must have been choreographed: dozens of workers all hustle through the worksite in different directions, with no hesitations and no collisions. The Danish scientists christen their ship \"Excelsior\" (\"packing materials\"?) and set course for Mars, even though the Moon and Venus are closer. When the ship (which flies horizontally, not vertically) lands on Mars, it is greeted by \"Marsboerne\" -- Martians -- who turn out to be Nordic blondes, all highly-developed pacifists and vegetarians. (As a highly-developed meat-eater, I resented that part.)

Conveniently enough, Mars turns out to have an atmosphere just like Earth's, as well as equal gravity. In an exterior shot of the Martian landscape, the Sun's apparent magnitude when seen from Mars is the same as it is when viewed from Earth. I also couldn't help observing that all the wise elder Martians are male. In fact, female elders are thin on the ground here: both the Earth-born hero and the Martian maiden are motherless. The Martians speak a universal language, wear ankhs on their robes, and greet the Earth visitors with a globe of Earth ... which of course they hold with its North Pole upward.

That Martian maiden is Marya, played by an ethereally beautiful Danish actress. (Waiter, I'll have some of that Danish!) We see a Martian dance of chastity which might have been twee or ludicrous but is actually quite touching and beautiful. Also, the Martian funeral scene features one shot which reminded me of a sequence in \"The Seventh Seal\". I wonder if Ingmar Bergman saw this film.

\"Himmelskibet\" has a few flaws, but its production design and its other merits very far outweigh its drawbacks. The Ole Olsen who is named in the credits (and who appears in a brief prologue) is no relation to Chic Johnson's vaudeville partner from \"Hellzapoppin\". I would give \"Himmelskibet\" a 12, but the scale tops off at 10 ... so, a full 10 out of 10 for this delightful trip to Mars, the blonde planet!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film from 1918 recently at our local Helsinkian film archive. It seems that the Danish Film Institute has reconstructed it in 2006 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Nordisk filmcompany, which was one of the largest in the world in the early 20th century. I believe there are several copies with English translations circulating around Europe at the moment.

I found the film fascinating and the trip to Mars well thought out. The plot line is certainly original, but I really don't want to reveal any more of it at the moment, as now the danger of spoiling things for you really exists ;-).

The film is also available on DVD, query the Danish Film Institute (Det Danske Filminstitut) web pages at dfi.dk with 'Himmelskibet' to get more info.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bwana Devil is reputedly the first major studio, full length feature filmed entirely in the 3D process. Supposedly producer Oboler went to Africa to shoot a different movie, but after hearing the tale of two man-eating lions, terrorizing railway builders, decided on this one. It's a good story too, almost Hemmingway-like; fear, redemption, the great white hunter and all. It's the telling of the story that seems to drag, almost as though filming in the new process was too weighty for the crew. The action scenes are stiff, almost too staged. But these technical problems appear small in light of the film's dramatic conclusion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bravestarr was released in 1987 by the now defunct American animation company, Filmation on the back of He-man: Masters of the universe and She-Ra: Princess of Power, in 1983 and 87' respectively. The plot of the cartoon was about a Native American cowboy named Marshall Bravestarr, who possesses the strength of the bear, ears of the wolf, speed of the puma and eyes of a hawk, and his trusty sidekick, a talking horse named Thirty- Thirty, who carried with him a gun aptly titled, 'Sarah Jane' and with the help of Deputy Fuzz and Judge J.B serve to protect New Texas from the evil Tex Hex and his band of outlaws.

Set in futuristic Texas, this was and still is to this day, one of the very few cartoons set in a particular city, in the US- hence in the South- thousands of light years ahead in the future. Considering this was made in the 80s, the creators did an impressive job trying to recreate the wild west look but from a Sci-Fi based outlook. Bravestarr didn't just evoke morality and good verses bad, as well as teaching children lessons about life, but it also highlighted themes of culture and community and that we shouldn't take things and life for granted. And despite the fact that this was an action adventure cartoon, many of the story lines, themes and issues it addressed resonate with children and adults in a way that makes sense to them. In addition, Marshall Bravestarr was one of the very first major cartoon characters from a (ethnic)minority background, to make an impact on TV.

The sound effects were amazing, the music was great, the theme song equally memorable and the animation was wonderful. The characters were well designed and the stories were diverse and taught kids morals and the importance of what is right and what is wrong. Something of which the same cannot be said about today's cartoons, sadly.

Whilst Bravestarr was overshadowed by the success of He-man, it is still a personal favourite for many 80s cartoon fanatics. Suffice to say, I preferred Bravestarr over He-man because of the diversity of the story lines, characters and that the depth of the situations and problems that the characters faced themselves, were more what I would say realistic and identifiable in contrast. For some reason, they resonated more with people because like for instance,in 'The Pledge' where a kid dies from a drug overdose, the fact that there wasn't a happy ending was important- in the sense that when kids watch that episode, well, in fact anyone who watches that episode, will realise for themselves the devastating consequences of drug usage and that no one should underestimate the dangers of drugs.

Bold, brave and at times thought-provoking, Bravestarr is definitely that- bold, brave and thought provoking. A cult cartoon classic for many years to come, it dared to take some risks, but it had well and truly paid off in the end. It will be remembered by many cartoon fans as one of the most interesting as well as best 80s cartoons ever, and rightly so

8 and a half out of ten","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Man! I remember this show with nostalgic... I really dug Bravestarr because he wasn't the conventional hero. He was more than a futuristic Texas cowboy. The man had the strenght of a bear, the vision of a walk, and the agility of a ... I can't remember that one.

The action sequences were great! I remember that Bravestarr would always use his bazooka named SARAJUANA (translated to Spanish) anytime he was in big troubles.

This was a quality action cartoon. I loved the characters, the dialogs, the music, and of course, the opening credits sequence! Bravestarr! long live to him. A cult classic in my opinion and a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Brotherhood of Satan\" is one of the most underrated horror films of all times.Why it hasn't achieved a cult status is beyond me.This is a chilling tale of terror and witchcraft which contains one of the most powerful and disturbing climaxes in the annals of screen horror.In the small American town some children have disappeared and their parents been violently murdered.What is the cause of hysteria?The film is really eerie,some scenes are genuinely unnerving and definitely not easily forgotten.The suspense never lets up,the acting is really good,and the climax is bizarre and disturbing.Check out this forgotten gem of satanic horror.Absolutely recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every great once in a while, you stumble upon a movie that exceeds even your wildest expectations. Given the IMDb rating of 4.0, I wasn't really expecting much with The Brotherhood of Satan. I hoped that at a minimum it might be cheesy fun like The Devil's Rain or any of the other early 70s similarly themed Satanic horror films. I couldn't' have been more wrong. What I got instead was an ambitious and intelligent film with a cast I really enjoyed. Speaking in broad terms to avoid giving anything away, the film's style and structure are much more experimental than the straightforward storytelling so prominent in the early 70s. The Brotherhood of Satan doesn't beat you over the head with plot points and explanations. A lot is left to the viewer to fill in the blanks. As a viewer, you know something is amiss, but for the longest period you're just not sure what it is. The unknown helps make for a far creepier atmosphere than most similar films. The ending is effective with its surreal imagery. I sat in amazement as the final credits began to roll. Those wanting a big slam-bang finale will be disappointed with the ending's simplicity. A lesser film would have tried to pull out all the stops and would, most likely, have failed miserably.

There are moments in the film where it's easy to forget the director, Bernard McEveety, had primarily worked in television before The Brotherhood of Satan. There are a few scenes that are so well set-up, lit, and shot that even the most accomplished of directors could learn a thing or two. For example, I've seen enough films over the years to realize that directors can sometimes seem to have trouble shooting widescreen shots indoors. Not here. The scene where the men are discussing their plan of action in the sheriff's office is amazing. We see all five men at once \u0096 each doing their own thing as in real life. In a lesser film, we might see all the men at once, but each would be motionless, quietly waiting their turn to deliver their dialogue. It's a small scene, but it looks so natural and is so beautifully shot that it's one of my favorite moments of The Brotherhood of Satan.

Finally, I mentioned the acting in my opening, so without going into a long-winded speech, I'll just say that The Brotherhood of Satan features Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones. Any film with these two guys is almost an automatic winner with me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one creepy underrated Gem with chilling performances and a fantastic finale!. All the characters are great, and the story was awesome, plus i thought the ending was really cool!. The plot was great, and it never bored me, plus while the child actors were bad, they gave me the creeps!. This happened to be on the space channel a while ago, so i decided to check it out and tape it, i read some good reviews from fellow horror fans, i must say i agree with them, it's very creepy, and suspenseful, plus Strother Martin, was fantastic in his role, as the Satan worshiper. It has tons of creepy atmosphere, and it keeps you guessing throughout, plus all the characters were very likable, and you really start to root for Ben and his family!. It has plenty of disturbing moments, and the film really shocked me at times, plus, it's extremely well made on a low budget!. This is one creepy underrated gem, with chilling performances and a fantastic finale!, i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Bernard McEveety does a very good job here, with great camera work, creating a lot of creepy atmosphere, and keeping the film at a very fast pace!. Ther is a little bit of blood and gore. We get a severed leg,lots of bloody corpses,bloody slit throat, slicing and dicing,decapitation, and an impaling. The Acting is excellent!. Strother Martin is fantastic here! as the Satan worshiper, he is extremely creepy, very convincing, was quite chilling, was extremely intense, seemed to be enjoying himself, and just did a fantastic job overall!. Charles Bateman is great as the Dad, he was very caring, very likable, and gave a good show!, i liked him lots. L.Q. Jones is awesome as the Sheriff, he was funny, on top of things, looked very young, had a cool character, and just did an awesome job overall!. Ahna Capri is good as the girlfriend and did what she had to do pretty well. Charles Robinson overacted to the extreme as the Priest and didn't convince me one bit!, and that laugh of his was especially bad. Geri Reischl is actually decent as the daughter, she was somewhat likable, and only got on my nerves a couple times, i rather liked her. Alvy Moore was goofy, but very likable in his role as Tobey i dug him!. Rest of the cast do good. Overall i highly recommend it!. ***1\/2 out of 5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had no idea what I was going to see when I decided to view this film and to my surprise its just an extremely well made horror film that is easily one of the best of the 1970's. Film is of course low budget and this is an excellent example of how the story and style of a film creates chills, not special effects! Strother Martin is one of the great character actors of all time and he has a rare starring role here and the film also stars Martins good friend L.Q. Jones and \"Green Acres\" Alvy Moore. Jones and Moore helped produce this film as well. TV veteran Charles Bateman is the star and \"Enter the Dragon\" beauty Ahna Capri is his girlfriend. Capri is in a bikini at the beginning of the film and she's just gorgeous to look at! Film does a terrific job of staying with the story and not adding a phony feel good ending and I really liked the way the film ends. Great atmosphere, interesting story and well directed by Bernard McEveety. Martins performance is top notch also as he doesn't hold back at all and really throws himself into the role of Doc. Good and underrated film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would probably say this was on a par with films like \"Devil's Rain\" and that sort of film, although this is probably a bit better made. I love 70's horror and this has most of the elements that make up other movies I like so it was pretty easy to enjoy. A family on their vacation stumble across a small town where the people seem to be gripped by some sort of hysteria. Seems like the children have been disappearing. After an initial attempt to flee this place, the family is somehow stopped on the edge of town and find their way back, but not without first finding a house where the kids are gone and mommy and daddy are dead. Seems like we have a different kind of twist on a senior citizen community center in this town, they're all Satan worshipers and they need the kids to renew their lives so they can continue on in their service, I guess. Not that anyone seems too keen on giving up their kids for this enterprise. This is fairly classy considering that it's scary and creepy without buckets of gore or the loud startling events that try to make people jump in films today, which seem to have replaced actual scares. We have Hank Kimball (Alvy Moore) from \"Green Acres\" as Tobey, a sheriff's deputy that reads UFO magazines, and LQ Jones as the sheriff, and a very familiar character actor as the dad of the stranded family. And Strother Martin plays the doctor who seems to be doing double duty unbeknown to his fellow townsfolk. This is pretty good stuff but a tad on the confusing side sometimes, but overall works pretty well & is recommended for fans of 70's horror. 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had been interested in this film for a long time, especially after reading a couple of online reviews of the DVD edition; however, I kept postponing its purchase because of the excessive price-tag and utter lack of relevant supplements. When it went out-of-print earlier this year, I finally gave in - but the entire order (which included a number of other highly-desirable titles) got lost in transit!; luckily, the DVD has been re-issued at bargain-price - and I'm sure glad I picked it up!

Anyway, this is one strange film, and a genuine sleeper: initially confusing but striking occult tale which manages to hit bullseye with respect to both its forbidding small-town atmosphere and the inherent eeriness of the sinister goings-on. A small cast responds perfectly to a terse, absorbing and intelligent script: lead Strother Martin, in particular, makes the dialogue sound better than it actually is with his nuanced performance as the town doctor\/head of the witch's coven; L.Q. Jones and Alvy Moore (both of whom also produced the film!) offer solid support as the no-nonsense sheriff and his comic-strip aficionado assistant.

The plot merges elements of various earlier films dealing with witchcraft and the supernatural, and not only the obvious titles: the fact that the town is held under a spell which can't at first be identified, for instance, brings instantly to mind the similar affliction of one specific bourgeois household in Luis Bunuel's sublimely surreal THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962)!; the 'possessed children' angle was borrowed, perhaps, from VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (1960); there have been many films - especially of a recent vintage - where the satanic rites of a witches' coven are shown: from THE CITY OF THE DEAD (1960) to THE DEVIL RIDES OUT (1968) but, since the proceedings take place in modern-day America (albeit in remote surroundings) and revolve around elderly witches (seeking a 'renaissance'), the film they recall most of all is ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968).

The occult scenes (accentuated as much by foggy exteriors as by the shadowy lighting of the garishly-decorated house where the diabolical events take place) are presented in a completely matter-of-fact way as to make them unsettling and extremely effective - particularly the opening sequence involving an army tank crushing a car(!), the rampage of a devil-doll (a concept which has been done to death over the years but, here, it raises an undeniable frisson), a surreal dream sequence (set inside the ice chamber where all the victims are kept, since they can't be buried!), a sequence where the witches attack a doubting member of the coven, a beheading committed by a horse-riding medieval knight(!) and the lengthy 'black mass' finale (with the witches, accompanied by the respective child they will be 'taking over', all dressed in red - except for a black-clad Martin presiding over the ceremony) which culminates in ritual mass suicide!

The film also has the guts to deliver a downbeat 'curtain'; it's so refreshing to come across a title (albeit a low-budget production) from a major Hollywood studio, Columbia, that contrives to go so completely against the grain (like, I said, the film is quite weird - extending also to the editing and the score)! It's odd, too, that such a classy - and cinematic - horror offering {sic} should come from a TV director most often associated with Westerns and other family fare! By the way, the same theme was dealt with almost contemporaneously in the nth Christopher Lee\/Peter Cushing collaboration NOTHING BUT THE NIGHT (1972; which Lee produced himself!) - a film I foolishly missed out on some 20 years back when it was shown on local TV, and which has been M.I.A. ever since!!

P.S. This review of THE BROTHERHOOD OF Satan will certainly contain spoilers but, then, the synopsis and artwork featured on the DVD cover manage to give everything away anyway!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I rented this movie for two reasons. The first was all of the good things that I read about it. I definately was impressed, and couldn't agree more with all of the reviews I read. The second reason is because I know these guys. I don't know Mark as well as I do Mike. He hasn't changed much from the years we knew each other. I know him as \"the reaper\" from a local Milwaukee radio station (WMSE). The way he is in this film is genuinely Mike 100%. He once gave me a table that he made. It was a little one, about 15\" high, that said Metallica on it. The odd thing about it was it only had two legs. Sometimes it's the thought that counts, and Mike always has thought about others first.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm proud to say I'm a student at UW-Milwaukee, where parts of the film were shot. Yep, I recognize Mitchell Hall, where I took a film class, possibly the same course as fellow student Smith.

That's where I learned about \"American Movie.\" Our professor told us about it shortly before its release. To be sure, I was intrigued, but for some reason, I put off seeing it for several months(it must've done pretty well if it was still playing, at least in Milwaukee).

When I finally got around to seeing it, I thought it was an entertaining documentary. It's not a masterpiece-it goes on a bit too long-but I find Mark's passion and commitment inspiring. I hope this film signals the beginnings of bigger and better things him. Maybe his forthcoming \"Northwestern\" will propel him to fortune. Who knows?

Rating: *** (out of ****)

108 min\/Released by Sony Pictures Classics","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My companions were astounded to find that this movie was a documentary. It was so funny, it seemed scripted, yet it gives a stirring picture of real life in the indie film life. We felt moved to purchase Coven and wanted to meet Mark and Mike. As college students, this film gave us a much needed glimpse of real life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anytime I'm not giving 150% to my dreams or my goals I think of Mark Borchardt, the real-life subject of \"American Movie\". Mark's dogged persistence at having his first feature film produced and shot is so captivating that it will have you laughing, shaking your head with sadness and rooting for him.

I haven't seen a documentary this honest since the movie on R. Crumb. The supporting \"cast\" (Mark's real-life family and friends) are all great. Give this movie a chance and you'll see a great film and a wonderful portrait of the stuff that the American dream is made of.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The subject matter of this film is potentially depressing: a man about thirty, with no job, little education, three kids from a failed relationship, living in his parents' house, but with a dream of directing feature films. But about a half-hour into the movie you realize that Mark Borchardt has a bottomless supply of drive and ambition--it's just that it's all channeled into his need to direct movies, and nothing else will make him happy. The movie jumps all over the emotional spectrum, but in the end you come away feeling happy, because you've just gotten to know some wonderful people. Go to see this--you'll end up wishing it was longer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This documentary is such a wonderful example of what an entertaining and amazing experience a documentary can be, if done so well as this. The subject, Mark, is smart, funny and very driven, and this story of his personal fight to live his dreams will be inspiring to anyone who knows what it is like to harbor an \"impossible\" dream. See this mov","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"American Movie is a wonderful documentary. It follows the trials and tribulations of a very determined independent filmmaker as he struggles to finish his first film.

The raw footage and insightful content of this film is an excellent example of how documentaries should be produced. I also feel that the film can very inspirational to those of us that want to be filmmakers ourselves.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chris Smith's American Movie is an insightful examination of the American dream. The movie focuses around Mark Borchardt, an independent film maker from Wisconsin. Mark has dreamed of becoming a great writer and director since he was a teenager and had an out of focus hi8 camera. The movie follows Mark through his attempt to make his dream feature film, Northwestern. There are a number of hilarious scenes in the film as Mark goes through pre-production of Northwestern and later his short film Coven (pronounced co-ven, the correct pronunciation, Mark says \"Sounds too much like oven,\") which he plans to use to raise money to complete Northwestern. This film's insight and humor is on par with Roger and Me, Michael Moore's great film. I first viewed it at a chaotic Sundance Film Festival screening that brought out the spirit of the movie- a giant air duct fell from the ceiling at the beginning of the movie, hit seven people and caused a twenty-five minute delay; half way through the film the sound started fluttering and the projector had to be stopped to fix it, and in the last twenty minutes the projector stopped and the film burned up. Despite the delays, the audience stayed through the movie and gave it a standing ovation. American Movie also won the Grand Jury Prize for Documentary at the end of the festival. I highly recommend this fine film, worth sitting through any hellish screening.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let's face it, lot's of bad movies are made all the time. For those people who work in film, you have probably poured a lot of time and effort into many of these plot less wonders. Sometimes, and this is my opinion, it is the act of merely making the movie that is important to us. To tell a story, (no matter how simple and unrealistic). Also, the collaborative process is one key characteristic that is unique to film and theater. To put on a production of any caliber, requires the talents of a varying amount of people, depending on its scale, to bring its story to life. The most intriguing part of American Movie, however, is not the movie being filmed. It is the movie maker himself, as a character of his own life, which demands our attention. None of them serve as models of the filmmakers we know and have worked with. But, I will argue, they are archetypes of small parts of us which try to be a part of this cult activity of independent film-making. (Alright a very small part of us) These are the people who live under the rocks of their own lives and just so happen to be snared by the romance of cinema. This leads me to my next argument. American Movie captures the raw spirit of independent film-making. Bad stories told on (nowadays) digital film with sloppy effects and horrible performances- because this IS the best they can do with a budget of a couple thousand dollars rather than a studio budget of several million dollars a day. That is the difference between low low LOW end productions and studio productions. The independent filmmaker just wants to create a linear or even a nonlinear story to shoot as well as he can with the money he's investing in himself and the resources around him in order to see a finished product on his rundown TV. Rugged Individualism materializes in every art form. I find this film to be a brilliant document of truth for many filmmakers. And no, I'm not full of myself. Man, these people are hilarious. Their problems seem hilarious, their characteristics are hilarious. Best line of the movie: \"It's alright!. . . It's okay!. . . There's something to live for!. . . Jesus told me so!!!\" Said a million times by a funny old man. Hat's off to Tom Beach. Chicago Rules.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chris Smith is a superior filmmaker with the seldom-seen talent for spotting a good story, then getting the hell out of its way. Smith's \"American Movie\" is the true-to-life record of filmmaker wannabe Mark Borchardt, a loser intent on milking his elderly uncle for cash to complete his horror short. But never, under any circumstances, to pursue gainful employment or support the children he's conceived.

Such is producer Smith's skill that Mark appears more sympathetic than otherwise. Even as he entices Uncle Bill with sugar-spun dreams and executive producer credits, it is his desperation to be somebody, to have his name coupled with the likes of Scorsese and Spielberg that touches us.

\"American Movie\" also belongs in that rare, often attempted but seldom achieved sub genre that successfully blends hilarity with horror. The humor comes from Borchardt's Ed Wood-style belief in his own genius. From his appalling attempts at acting, from his substituting his less than film-savvy mother for a missing cameraman and from his employing sweet but brain-damaged friend Mike whenever he's short an actor or crew member.

The horror comes from seeing what Borchardt cannot: It is this very American attitude--I Want, Therefore I Am Entitled--that keeps him from seeing just how much he has to learn about his chosen craft. He is so confident he can't fail that failure is guaranteed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"David Lynch shot his first film, 'Erasurehead', over several years, adding new scenes each time he managed to raise a little bit more cash. Kevin Smith made 'Clerks' at work, while working as a clerk, and Robert Rodriguez has boasted that 'From Dusk Till Dawn' cost precisely $30,000. But $30,000 is still a hell of a lot of money to raise if you work as a cleaner in a cemetery. And what if an aspiring film maker not only had such a job but also had all the ambition of such luminaries, and all the dorkishness of Smith, but absolutely none of the talent. Such a figure is Mark Borchardt, the subject of this hilarious documentary which chronicles his attempt to make a pair of movies over many many years. Borchardt combines his lunatic dreams with flights of depression and a fatal inability to call it a day; one senses he almost prefers the endless labours of searching for an impossible perfection to an accommodation with the reality that he's simply (on the evidence presented in 'American Movie') not very good. And like a modern day Ed Wood, he surrounds himself with an epic crowd of fellow losers, his genuine affection for whom is his greatest redeeming feature. The collection includes his warring parents, his best friends (one a criminal, the other a reformed drug addict), his own hapless children and best of all his aged Uncle Bill. Bill may live in a trailer park, and just about have given up on life, but he is the owner of a small fortune ($280,000 to be precise) and the touching but potentially exploitative relationship between the two men lies at the heart of the film. Borchardt manages to enlist a few actors to perform (alongside himself, of course) but in the main he is wholly dependent on friends and family to complete his work (even Bill has a role on camera). On British TV, the BBC brilliantly scheduled a screening of 'American Movie' back-to-back with 'Lost in La Mancha', the story of Terry Gilliam's ill fated attempt to film 'Don Quixote'. In that film, one was impressed by the huge amount of professionalism on display (inadequate as it was to the task in hand), and just how damn difficult it is even for experts with millions to spend to make a film; whereas Borschadt is not only penniless, but also such a clown that he can't even pronounce the name of his own work ('Coven') properly. Ultimately, Borschadt is human enough for you to want him to succeed, but awful enough for the viewer to still be able to laugh at his failures. If this film was fiction, you'd dismiss it as unbelievable; but as it is, it's one of the funniest documentaries you're likely to see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story itself is routine: A boy runs away from home and ends up in a struggling music school for kids. He convinces a famous violinist to sponsor the school. The film is a splicing of shootings over 11 weeks, and leaves many amusing holes which the observant viewer may find for him\/herself.

However long the whiskers of the plot might have been, the movie is justified by its music and acting. There is plenty of music, featuring classical works played by Heifetz and by The Meremblum Orchestra, one of the leading youth symphonies of that day, and said music is excellent. By itself, it would make the picture worth viewing. The conducting and scoring duties were put in the best of hands: those of Alfred Neumann.

The acting is a study in contrasts. The kids in the orchestra, most of whom had little or no acting experience, must have driven director Archie Mayo crazy, looking into the camera, overacting the parts that they had, and overstudiously following directions given to them. But the spontaneity that results from their lack of training adds an interesting charm to the picture. The veteran actors were marvelous with the material they had to work with. Walter Brennan was perfectly cast in his role, one that he emulated in real life. Joel McCrea and Andrea Leeds were ideal fits for their parts. And the supporting acting was a veritable Who's Who of character actors: Marjorie Main, Arthur Hohl, Paul Harvey, , Charles Coleman, Perry Ivins, and Porter Hall in his typical role of the heavy---all ideally cast. And the bit players: Jessie Arnold, John Hamilton, Marjorie Wood, Jimmy Flavin, Dulcie Day, the gravelly voiced Lee Phelps in his usual role as a policeman and many many more. If you're a fan of character actors, this movie will bring back a lot of memories.

Overall, the picture is very enjoyable and is recommended, even if you aren't a fan of classical music.

tvcat","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For many years, Samuel Goldwin tried to bring his friend Jascha Heifetz to the screen. One evening when Goldwyn and his wife Frances were having dinner with Heifetz and his wife, silent screen star Florence Vidor, Goldwyn proposed that Heifetz star in a movie. After some persuasion, Heifetz agreed, on the condition that his acting be kept to a minimum. And the movie, originally titled \"Music School\" was born.

The story itself is rather stock: A streetwise boy (Gene Reynolds, who is best known as the producer of \"M*A*S*H\"), runs away from home and ends up at a financially troubled music school run by Professor Lawson (Walter Brennan). While attempting to raise funds for the school, the boy and some other kids happen across Heifetz at Carnegie Hall. After much ado, Heifetz ends up appearing at the school concert and sponsoring the school.

The story, while predictable,is surprisingly well written, although the film contains several minor gaffes where different scenes were patched together, the most obvious being the young cellist who is sent out of the orchestra room on an errand and is seen sitting in the orchestra a few seconds later.

What is not surprising is how good the acting is. As was customary for studios then, the studio surrounded the inexperienced star with veteran talent: Brennan, Joel McCrea, Andrea Leeds, Porter Hall, Marjorie Main (later of Ma and Pa Kettle fame), Arthur Hohl, Paul Harvey, and a Who's Who of character actors. Actress Diana Lynn and singer\/actress Kaye Connor made their (uncredited) debuts in this film, as did longtime Nelson Eddy singing partner Gale Sherwood (as Jacqueline Nash). Child veteran actors Reynolds, Walter Tetley and Terry Kilburn also appear.

Goldwyn hired the Peter Meremblum Symphony, a highly regarded youth orchestra from the Los Angeles Area, to appear in the film. Most of the kids in the orchestra weren't actors, but they were excellent musicians, as good as professionals (which many of them later became). Many of the kids in the orchestra went on to noteworthy careers: Kaye Connor and Diana Lynn both starred in the theater and movies, Richard Berres was a producer and director, Mitchell Lurie founded a well-known music supply company, Elliott Rapaport went on to be a prominent cardiologist, Lewis Elias was a band leader, Thomas Facey a conductor with different symphonies, Channing Robbins a prominent instructor at the Julliard School, his sister Joyce Robbins an instructor witn SUNY Stonybrook, and many of the kids in the orchestra pursued musical careers with major symphony orchestras.

While Heifetz's acting was kept to a minimum, his salary wasn't. He commanded $70,000 for seven weeks. When some scenes had to be re-shot at a later date, he got an additional $50,000 for another four weeks. What thankfully wasn't kept to a minimum was his musical output. Composer Alfred Neumann (who was once a Meremblum Orchestra conductor) handled the scoring. Heifetz performs the \"Introductionne and Rondo Capriccioso\" by Camille Saint-Saens, his own arrangement of Manuel Ponce's \"Estrellita\" (with an off-screen Teddy Saidenberg accompanying), Dinicu's devilishly difficult \"Hora Staccato\" (from a Vitaphone recording, with Emanuel Bay at the piano), an excerpt from Tchaikovsky's \"Melody\", an excerpt arranged for violin solo from Tchaikovsky's well-known \"Adante Cantabile\" from his opus 11 string quartet (played during the opening credits at the beginning of the movie), and the final movement from Felix Mendelssohn-Barthody's E Minor Violin Concerto. During all of these performances, there are many closeups of Heifetz's performing, including some very close shots of his fingering and bowing, something that would be of value to violinists desiring to study his technique.

The Meremblum orchestra also shines here, performing the arias \"Caro Nome\" by Verdi and \"Casta Diva\" by Bellini, (both with Sherwood singing ), an arrangement of the overture from Rossini's \"Barber of Seville\", a short excerpt from Mozart's \"Eine Kleine Nachtmusik\", and the previously-mentioned Mendelssohn concerto (with Heifetz). Diana Lynn can be heard in the background of one scene, performing part of Chopin's Nocturne in B-flat Minor, and a five year old Mary Ruth performs Chopin's popular \"Minute\" Waltz.

All in all, this is an excellent movie. AMC showed this regularly up until early 1992. I haven't seen it on television in recent years, but copies of it are not difficult to obtain. If you have the chance, I highly recommend that you view the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think Samuel Goldwyn was trying to accomplish two things in this film. First the film is a homage to Jascha Heifetz, considered to be the best violin virtuoso of the past century. Secondly having brought to the screen the Dead End kids with his film of the same title and seeing them sign with Warner Brothers, he was trying to create a second gang of appealing urchins.

Though the film was good there certainly was no demand that the kids from this film be reteamed for another feature.

Leader of the gang is Gene Reynolds who at one time played the violin, but now leads a street gang of disreputable urchins. His stepfather, Arthur Hohl, breaks the violin his late father gave young Reynolds and threatens to send him to reform school over the feeble protests of his mother Marjorie Main.

Young Reynolds happens to stumble onto a music school run by the old music maestro himself, Walter Brennan and his daughter Andrea Leeds. They take him in, but they have their financial problems with a lot of creditors led by Porter Hall.

This film is mostly to be seen today because it's a chance for classical music lovers to see and hear Jascha Heifetz who as you gather is the solution one way or another to everybody's problems. Joel McCrea is in this film also, but has a rather colorless part as Andrea Leeds boyfriend.

Besides Heifetz, one thing the film does do is touch on, albeit gingerly on the topic of child abuse and battered spouses. Arthur Hohl is one mean man and Marjorie Main is very clearly a much battered wife.

The kids in the cast do well, Reynolds, Tommy Kelly, Terry Kilburn and a young girl under the name of Jacqueline Nash who grew up and performed as Gale Sherwood, nightclub partner to Nelson Eddy. She had a nice soprano even as a child.

But it's Heifetz you see the show for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A bright youngster interested in \"serious\" music (admittedly a vanishing breed--who'll play the fiddle when no one can play the violin??\"--could find this an interesting fiction about street kids and great musical stars. Heifitz was indeed the greatest violinist of his generation and the film gives him a rare on-screen chance to display his technique. The kids, especially Gene Reynolds, are fine and, all in all, the pic is a good example of first-rate studio family fare of the late 30's. It doesn't hit the top of the great '39 list, but it's a nice way for an intelligent family to spend a rainy afternoon with AMC or the Video Store--- good luck at Blockbuster!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although many audio recordings of great musicians like Jascha Heifetz survive, the cinematic or televised record is limited indeed. This is why musical offerings like \"They Shall Have Music\" are such rare gems. While, with modern eyes and ears, one can quibble about the plot, the perceptive viewer should put this film's unique delights in their proper perspective. The plot was designed to appeal to both young and old audiences of the era, but it remains enjoyable to this day. A important aspect of the experience of watching classic films is to see them through the eyes of the moviegoer of that era.

I must take issue with reviewer who complains about a film that is in black and white, or who feel obliged to report that their students express such reservations. These are juvenile complaints which reflect a limited historical perspective. For the teacher, this should offer up an educational opportunity to explain the unique qualities of black and white photography and its place in cinematic history. Color can, in fact, get in the way of a good storyline, or the music. For example, the black and white photography of John Ford's \"Stagecoach,\" is, like the still photographs of Ansel Adams, an artistic masterpiece.

As for Heifetz being wooden, I could not disagree more. If you want blatant emotional posturing, go to a rock concert. The role of a classical musician like Heifetz is to move the audience, not him or herself. Heifetz's emotion is conveyed through his playing, not through his body language. He had a rare ability to extract every emotional nuance out of the music and transfer it to his listeners. It is the listener who should be moved, not the artist.

Incidentally, one reviewer asked about seeing Heifetz on YouTube playing the 1st movement of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto, with Frank McHugh in the audience. This is from the 1947 film \"Carnegie Hall,\" not \"They Shall Have Music\" \"Carnegie Hall\" is an even greater treasure of many great classical artists in their prime. We are blessed that there were film producers who, at least in these limited instances, chose to showcase these artists. In was still an era not totally overwhelmed by the lowest common denominator tripe we get today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this movie, and I'm not a classical music fan. The story of the tough street kid discovering classical music and changing his ways was great to watch, without being sentimental or too unbelievable, although some details had me scratching my head (Frankie and his dog can live in the basement of the school without any of the students or teachers discovering him? Where did he eat? Bathe? Did he ever get a change of clothes? What did he feed his dog? The owner of the school didn't think it was important to notify the police about finding a missing boy, but let him live in the basement indefinitely? :-) ). But we can let such unrealistic details slide and just enjoy the touching, fun, and slightly suspenseful (for me, anyway) story and wonderfully talented children.

I loved the scene with the mothers standing shoulder to shoulder on the steps barring the policemen from entering the school: I doubt they would get away with that nowadays. And I liked the nice touch about the boy Frankie stole from turning the tables on him (although that never really went anywhere), and Frankie's friends helping him out in the end.

All in all, a great movie for everyone!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As you can tell from the few comments posted here - mine may very well be the last you'll see, unless there is a big DVD-release or TCM plays it again ! - this is a kind-of \"Our Gang\" movie with a bunch of different kids. MGM certainly WAS the musical studio - if the musicians, dancers and singers weren't under contract, they were on tap. Heifetz was one of the most expensive.....that does it for a little charity work !!! The fee he received in that era was unheard of. Another musical film with Jose Iturbi (Mexican pianist) featured about 100 kids playing some simple tune on 100 pianos......so, those skeptics who think young children aren't musical are mistaken: I was one.

As all write, \"Frankie Smith\" - good-ole American name - (Gene Reynolds) was the bad-but-good kid who is taken-in from the streets by the owners of a music-school. Can you believe that Walter Brennan (\"Prof. Lawson\") of all those western movies was the man running the school? Joel McCrea (\"Peter McCarthy\") and Andrea Leeds (\"Ann Lawson\") were the bigger stars in \"They Shall Have Music\", with a host of well-known extras (many of whom went-on to become stars in their own rights). As others have commented, almost all of the kids in the orchestra (actually, The Meremblum Symphony from Los Angeles) made big successes of their lives, either as musicians (for the studios) and other businesses.

Sad to say, there aren't that many young-people's orchestras today - a sad mistake. Parents with children in school are usually so busy trying to keep their heads above water, and many don't even know what is happening to the kids in school. Musical instruction can get to be pricey, and almost EVERYONE would rather had a football-team.....

This is the cheapest concert by Jascha Heifetz you'll ever hear is contained in this movie.....in those days, a quarter. His playing is brilliant, even if he looks like he'd rather be someplace else.....emotionless. By contract, any concert by Yo-Yo Ma is so joyful, it makes you want to run right out and buy a cello.....this guy is having a good time....like the kids in the \"street\" concert, when they hoodwink Heifetz to play at their school.

All of the orchestral numbers were played by \"the kids,\" and they make it sound easy. I love this type of movie - their plots are so simple, it doesn't take you two days to figure-out if you enjoyed - or understood - the movie, at all. We need some new movies like this - can't do anything but inspire younger kids to play other instruments than guitars.......Bravo!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thoroughly enjoyed this movie...and I watch it from time to time still. I've used it in my music classes at the school where I teach. The kids seem to enjoy it, although, they wish it were in color.

The best thing about this movie is, for me, who grew up after Heifetz had died, is the chance to actually see the master violinist work his craft! I was surprised at how \"up to date\" the story line is. Although, references to \"reform school\" are outdated. A boy, whose father had died, and is being raised by his mom and stepfather....most of our kids today are being raised by stepparents, although the movie makes it seem like most stepparents are cruel. I get VERY angry when his mother doesn't take his side and defend his actions against the step-father.

Also, the musical selections are difficult to believe. I find it unbelievable that a child, who looks to be about 8, can play the \"Minute Waltz\", or that a 13 year old girl could sing an aria from Rigoletto.

Other than that, it's a really fun, feel good movie and I do recommend it. I wish it would come out on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hal Hartley entry into a European film series is one of his two or three best efforts to date, and, lucklily, one of the few available on DVD. At only 63 minutes running time, my only quibble would be with Hartley I always leave wanting more, but never so much as this time. Martin Donovan is astonishing as Jesus. PJ Harvey is beautiful and interesting as Magdelena, but the high point for me was Thomas Jay Ryan (Henry Fool) as Satan. Hartley gives him excellent dialogue and a chance to use his resounding voice to full effect. Look for three scenes in which a microphone awaits him, as if a poetry slam is about to be won by the devil. I have read other comments on this film and had to add mine because there is not enough praise going around. If you like Henry Fool, Martin Donovan in anything (Opposite of Sex), and\/or very clever comedies based on biblical ideas, get this as quickly as possible.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the many speculations about Y2K was that the world was going to end at the stroke of midnight on December 31, 1999. In `The Book Of Life,' writer\/director Hal Hartley takes a look at the possible ramifications of a new millennium Armageddon, beginning with the return of Jesus to Earth on New Year's Eve, \u009199. The story examines the task of the Son of God, who must open the remaining three of the seven seals contained in the Book of Life (now contained in a Mac laptop computer), in which there is also the names of the one-hundred and forty-four thousand good souls who will be spared on the last day. Jesus (Martin Donovan), along with Magdalena (P.J Harvey), arrives in New York City to make the preparations necessary for carrying out his Father's will, but he begins to have second thoughts; must he judge the living and the dead? Do they deserve what must befall them? It is a cup He would prefer not to embrace at this particular moment, which gives encouragement to Satan (Thomas Jay Ryan) who fears that the fruit of all his hard labor is about to be washed away at midnight, for he can only continue his work so long as there are people around who cling to their pitiful hopes and dreams. An artistically rendered, high concept film, Hartley presents the story in an intelligent, thought provoking manner, taking great care in dealing with the sensitive subject matter so as to make it inoffensive even to the most ardent fundamentalist. The dialogue between Jesus and Satan is intriguing and stimulating, as is the effect of their presence upon those they encounter during their corporeal stay in the city. It's an engrossing meditation on the spiritual side of Man's fragile existence and a contemplation of that which has been prophesied in the Revelations of St. John in the Apocalypse, the last Book of the New Testament. And there is logic in Hartley's approach to the Second Coming; he maintains the aesthetic of the contemporary setting while employing altered film speeds which visually give the film an ethereal quality. Christ inconspicuously wears a suit and tie, effectively blending in with the populace, while Satan's attire is a bit more casual, his appearance somewhat scruffy; he sports a bruise above his left eye. Donovan is well cast as Jesus, lending a benevolent mien and a sense of restrained urgency to his character that is very effective. It is, of course, a unique portrayal of The Saviour, and possibly the best since Max von Sydow's in `The Greatest Story Ever Told.' He successfully conveys a feeling of inner peace and tranquility, of serenity, that is the essence at the very core of the character. And Ryan is thoroughly engaging in his role of the Prince of Darkness; he has a distinct manner of speech and a resonant quality to his voice that make him absolutely mesmerizing to watch. His eyes are darkly penetrating, a trait he uses effectively with furtive glances and captivating stares. He's the guy who could sell you anything in exchange for your soul before you ever knew what hit you. It's a memorable performance that contrasts so well with Donovan's portrayal of Jesus. The supporting cast includes Martin Pfeffercorn (Martyr), Miho Nikaido (Edie), Dave Simonds (Dave), D.J. Mendel (Lawyer), James Urbaniak (True Believer), Katreen Hardt (Lawyer's Assistant) and Anna Kohler (Hotel Clerk). In his own, inimitable style, with `The Book Of Life,' Hartley has crafted a perspective of the last days that is interesting, entertaining and truly unique. He has a way of capturing life as it is just off center, a method which works especially well with a film like this. Comparatively short for a feature film (running time of 63 minutes), it nevertheless is one of Hartley's best, and more than worth the price of admission. It's a film that will stay with you and perhaps make you think about some things you may have tucked away in a corner of your mind for later. And that is part of the attraction of this film; it makes you realize that `later' most likely is now. I rate this one 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hartley on low-key form: Martin Donovan, born to play Jesus, comes as Messiah to millenial Manhatten; P.J. Harvey is excellent as sidekick Magdelena. A slight film, but drily amusing, short and sweet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my favorite Hal Hartley movie. All his movies are small gems. I love independent movies and I hope Hal Hartley never goes mainstream or sells out. What if the Lord Jesus did come back and loved his people so much that he could not open the final book and destroy the unbelievers? It was nice to see P. J. Harvey in a movie since I am a fan of her music. Don't watch this if you are a fan of cookie cutter Hollywood movies, you will be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This 1-hour 30-minute inside joke is best understood by Catholics, the number one religion of self-medicating comedians the world over. That isn't to say it can't stand on its own which it does, that the film isn't without its flaws, which its got. Technical issues, mostly: Belief that in 1998 digital was the answer when in fact it was in its infancy - a Beta of a Beta if you will, and re-mastering will never improve it. For the love of God, Hal...please get yourself a Red One. Or three.

If you like Hartley films of course, you'll like it. I liked it, because I liked Grim\/Fool, and there were added benefits of retrospect: I couldn't help noticing a disturbing self-prophecy, an airliner soaring overhead, used as a harbinger of Armageddon in this 1998 movie. It was as if Cheney had gotten the whole idea from Hal. It's true - Hartley moves his players round into the camera like it's the House of Commons, just one piece of the gimmickry that needs a rest. After all, we're already paying attention to the actors, and the writing is alive. Not great writing, but...fervent. Can I use the word fervent? Purposeful, intelligent, not condescending.

Absolutely love PJ Harvey in this, course I'd love her anywhere. Oddly, if Helen Mirren needs a younger self, she should look Harvey up and bring a bottle of blond.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of my favorite Hartley movies. (As if there could be a \"bad\" one.) Although, this may be a bit more on the religious side of things than we would normally expect. Nonetheless, it still maintains that Hartley slant to which we've all become accustomed.

First picture Jesus and Satan discussing their ideas, opinions, hopes and regrets about the impending end of civilization. Now imagine the entire conversation taking place over a few drinks in your neighborhood bar. And as an added conversational (not to mention visual) distraction, let's toss in PJ Harvey as the sultry companion (aka Magdelena) to Mr. Chist. Then, just for grins, in the background, an ever present Salvation Army Band (played by Yo La Tengo) to serve as an added diversion. The road to moral justification has never been such a pleasure.

Quite possibly more questions than answers, but therein lies the fun. And Mr. Donovan is subdued brilliance, as always.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though not Hal Hartley's best work (my personal favorite is \"Surviving Desire\"), there is still much to like about this movie, especially for fans of Hartley's dialogues. Even to audiences new to Hartley, I would definitely recommend this movie over the sophomoric \"Dogma.\" This movie is more intelligent, truer to its source material (the Bible), and more fun than any of the other pre-millennium apocalypse movies.

This movie is actually part of the French \"2000 As Seen By.\" (2000 Par Vu) series; as such, it is perhaps even a lower-budget film than Hartley's other works. While the need for simple scenes shot with digital camera is understandable in this context, the main problem with this movie is the unfortunate overuse of the blurry\/jittery effect. I'd be happy to never see this effect used in a movie again; especially at the beginning, it almost makes the movie unwatchable. But overlook this flaw, and you'll be treated to a fine film. Especially notable is Magdalena (played by P.J. Harvey) relating how Jesus saved her from being stoned to death; a short scene I found surprisingly moving. (Despite the fact that it was NOT Mary Magdalene that this happened to; the woman in the Bible was unnamed.)

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hilarious film about divine retribution. Camera work stinks (shot on digital video) and looks like early MTV videos. Turn the other cheek by looking past the visual and concentrate on the story. Laughs galore for those with a well-developed sense of irony.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Book of Life was rather like a short snack, whetting the appetite for Hartley's next full length movie.

This movie doesn't need to be seen on the big screen, watch it with a few friends who are Hal Hartley or Wayne Wang fans, or better still, try to convert some newbies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While the camerawork was certainly \"funky\" - perhaps one dutch-roll short of \"stoned\" - the premise of the film was fantastic. It really took a scathingly satirical (in the true traditional of Hal Hartley) look at God, Jesus and Devil. The interaction of Jesus and Satan provides some hilarious scenes... Even the monologues of Jesus were great - this was by far the best Jesus I've even seen. So laidback, Zen-like, Son-of-God-ish but still such a nice guy. On one level this is a very general look on the paradoxes of Christianity, but yet there is still a personal level, where you can relate to Jesus Christ without having a God-Complex (thanx to Martin Donovan and Hal Hartley).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hal Hartley has been likened to a modern day William Shakespeare, by virtue of the fact that he gets his actors to deliver their lines in an iambic pentameter. He certainly knows how to assemble a cast and once again Martin Donovan is sensational, whilst Thomas Jay Ryan plays his role with an intensity that is unforgettable. Although the film is only 1 hour, the time frame works wonderfully and keeps the audience on a fast tracked race right till the very end. Without a doubt Hal Hartley is one of the best directors to come out of America in the last 20 years, with a vision that is unique, funny and heart warming.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The promise of Martin Donovan playing Jesus was, quite honestly, enough to get me to see the film. Definitely worthwhile; clever and funny without overdoing it. The low-quality filming was probably an appropriate effect but ended up being a little too jarring, and the ending sounded more like a PBS program than Hartley. Still, too many memorable lines and great moments for me to judge it harshly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In The Book of Life, Martin Donovan plays Jesus, who shows up at JFK airport on December 31 to usher in the new millennium by battling with Thomas Jay Ryan (Satan) and deciding the fate of the world. There is also David Simonds (Kurt the accountant from Amateur) as a compulsive, homeless gambler.

As usual, Hartley creates a surreal world in which the beauty of the ordinary made strange and otherworldly flows through artfully-framed scenes and urban\/industrial landscapes filled with dazzling light and shadow. As usual, he introduces seemingly incidental details early, then brings them back later in hilarious and unexpected contexts--the humor is simple, but giddy and irrepressible. Hartley has an amazing ability to build toward small and rapturous moments of the simultaneously mundane and outrageous. As usual, he creates a tone that is jaded and world-weary but at the same time, vulnerable, open, and honest. He moves within minutes from uproarious humor into language that is metaphysical and poetic-the kind of writing that is so dead-on and perfect that it's difficult to hold back tears despite the lack of obvious emotion. Another awesome and highly entertaining film.

The Book of Life is shot (a digital camera?) with a blurry effect: a sense of the celestial hand-in-hand with impending doom and a hyper-awareness of the present as fragile and fleeting in it's last moments. All of Hartley's films have a way of prioritizing the present, but this unique effect compounds it as the images wash across the screen in a way that is at first jarring, but becomes increasingly beautiful as you settle into it. The final shot is spectacular. All this may sound precious, but the film is a comedy and it makes fun of itself even as it makes fun of the concept of Armageddon, Judgment Day, and \"urbanity.\" Although it is actually quite profound, moving, and life-affirming, it is for the most part lighthearted and playful. The acting is flawless in terms of the kind of the subdued tone that Hartley has developed in his films (a tone that some people don't get and that prompts them to judge such acting as hollow--the same people who have a negative response to Peter Greenaway). As always, there are bound to be people who respond to this film with cynicism and scorn--people put off by Hartley's abrupt shifts and what they see to be pretentious or mannerist techniques--but anyone who is a Hartley fan will love this film (if they can get a chance to see it, that is). It's hard to say what it would be like on video.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In The Book of Life, Martin Donovan plays Jesus, who shows up at JFK airport on December 31 to usher in the new millennium by battling with Thomas Jay Ryan (Satan) and deciding the fate of the world. There is also David Simonds (Kurt the accountant from Amateur) as a compulsive, homeless gambler.

As usual, Hartley creates a surreal world in which the beauty of the ordinary made strange and otherworldly flows through artfully-framed scenes and urban\/industrial landscapes filled with dazzling light and shadow. As usual, he introduces seemingly incidental details early, then brings them back later in hilarious and unexpected contexts--the humor is simple, but giddy and irrepressible. Hartley has an amazing ability to build toward small and rapturous moments of the simultaneously mundane and outrageous. As usual, he creates a tone that is jaded and world-weary but at the same time, vulnerable, open, and honest. He moves within minutes from uproarious humor into language that is metaphysical and poetic-the kind of writing that is so dead-on and perfect that it's difficult to hold back tears despite the lack of obvious emotion. Another awesome and highly entertaining film. The Book of Life is shot (a digital camera?) with a blurry effect: a sense of the celestial hand-in-hand with impending doom and a hyper-awareness of the present as fragile and fleeting in it's last moments. All of Hartley's films have a way of prioritizing the present, but this unique effect compounds it as the images wash across the screen in a way that is at first jarring, but becomes increasingly beautiful as you settle into it. The final shot is spectacular. All this may sound precious, but the film is a comedy and it makes fun of itself even as it makes fun of the concept of Armageddon, Judgment Day, and `urbanity.' Although it is actually quite profound, moving, and life-affirming, it is for the most part lighthearted and playful. The acting is flawless in terms of the kind of the subdued tone that Hartley has developed in his films (a tone that some people don't get and that prompts them to judge such acting as hollow--the same people who have a negative response to Peter Greenaway). As always, there are bound to be people who respond to this film with cynicism and scorn-people put off by Hartley's abrupt shifts and what they see to be pretentious or mannerist techniques, but who has time to consider the opinions of such dull and callous fools? Anyone who is a Hartley fan will love this film-if they can get a chance to see it, that is. It's hard to say what it would be like on video.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this peculiar movie, the themes of the end of days and Satan versus Jesus are treated in a new fashion. Jesus doesn't want to open the two last seals, and Satan is thwarted in his attempt to get another soul into hell... Armageddon, Armageddon and Jehosaphat turns out to be a - company!, and the book of life is a little hard to open.

What's memorable about this movie are the slanted image, out-of-focus shots and light effects, which are effective, but sometimes irritating. And of course, Donovan is great as a disillusioned Jesus trying to come to terms with what the world and its people have become! So, do see it if you get the opportunity!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is probably Hal Hartley's best one. The subject, of a unusual originality, is treated (that's usual with Hal Hartley) with great humor. This characteristic isn't at all the only quality of this film: the fussy frame composition (everything is parallel, until the smallest details), shooting angles, lighting, giving a more supernatural dimension to these blurred images (Jesus' coming down couldn't be filmed in a conventional way), the falsely \"poser\" acting, are qualities that make this Bible re-reading, carried out in the form of an apocalyptic delirium, essential.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Race Against Fear has to be one of the most moving TV movies I've seen for a long time. All of the performances from the main actors were superb, especially that of Ariana Richards (Mickey Carlyle), William Bullimer (Coach Kurt Ansom), and Susan Blakely (Margaret Carlyle). Ariana in particular put on an extremely emotional performance, with facial expressions to match. She portrayed the emotions that Mickey was feeling perfectly, and you could easily believe that she really HAD been raped, so realistic was her performance.

RAF is an incredibly realistic movie, due to the moving performances from the cast. Bullimer came across as a rapist incredibly well, and you hated him more and more as the movie progressed. Blakely also put on an emotional performance as the mother of the raped girl (Mickey Carlyle), and you felt increasingly sorry for the Carlyle family because no-one believed them about the rape.

All in all, RAF is a great movie. It is both moving and full of suspense, as you are continually unsure if Ansom would be prosecuted for the rape, due to the lack of witnesses, evidence, and belief in the claim. I thoroughly recommend seeing this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Broken Silence or \"Race Against Fear\"1998): Starring Ariana Richards, William Bumiller, Susan Blakely, Tracy Ellis Ross, Teryl Rothery, Scott Vickaryous, Marissa Rudiak, Ken Camroux, David Neale, Bruce Dawson...Director Joseph Scanlan, Screenplay Sara Charmo, Jean Gennis, Phyllis Murphy.

This is another Lifetime channel film, made exclusively for television, released in 1998, directed by long-time TV series director Joseph L. Scanlan. Inspired by true events, it's a lot like the majority of Lifetime movies, a cautionary tale for women, raising awareness of the predator lurking within the family (a mother, father, wife, husband) and mentor (teacher, in this case track coach). The young and little known actress Ariana Richards (she played the small girl in Jurassic Park)delivers a highly convincing performance as high school track athlete Mickey Carlyle, who is raped by her coach, Kurt Ansom (William Bumiller) and must suffer in silence as no one believes her story, except for, of course, her own mother (Susan Blakely). Together, mother and daughter fight to put Kurt Ansom behind bars. The film drags on quite a bit, is ultimately predictable, at times far too melodramatic for the sake of drama itself, but is genuinely powerful in the end. Ariana Richards' performance is of the daytime soap kind, but she is the strongest in the entire cast. Her facial expressions, body language and overall acting is realistic in terms of how she, as an aspiring athlete, idolizes her coach, is in turn violated by him and must now live with the shame, trauma and further, fight him in court. William Bumiller plays the part with a nasty sort of duplicity, though he is far from subtle. He has abused other star athletes before, who have remained silent and made it to the top, and appears outwardly innocent. William Bumiller, a lesser-known actors like the others, has has never done a role like this but but he does a believable and strong performance overall. It's especially disturbing to see him in this role because he is a sexy lead actor in everything else he does including some lesser known films and on the soap opera \"Guiding Light\". The only real problem I had with this film is the manner in which the film is structured. As the film opens, we watch Coach Ansom about to rape Mickey, letting us know right away that this guy is no good. But this makes for weak character development and story. If the first scene had instead been the sequence with the opening credits in which we see Mickey running\/jogging in the city across a lake, we would have better character development because we don't know that Coach Ansom, while seemingly interested in the success of his star athlete, is really a nasty piece of work and we would have seen Mickey idolizing a person whom she thought she knew and then received a rude awakening when she realizes she was wrong about him. Director Joseph Scanlan is no stranger to drama for TV (Knott's Landing, Star Trek, Quantum Leap, The Outer Limits, Lois And Clark, Earth Final Conflict and movies like La Femme Nikitta. In 1996, Scanlan had directed another Lifetime movie, similar to this, \"Stand Against Fear\" (1996). He manages to convey the gravity of the event. We are genuinely disturbed by the coach lurking around the showers where he rapes his own student. These scenes are graphic and ought to be viewed by mature audiences, but its message is clear: sexual predators and rapists are not always a stranger and can assume different forms, and their preying grounds can even include a high school. This film supports the cause of fighting to prevent violence against women and urges women who have been silent victims to testify and fight so that rapists will cause no further harm to others. Despite other negative reviews, this film does a great job in expressing its message and ought to be given to mothers, daughters, high school students (including both male and female). As bad as rape is, staying silent when it happens is even worse.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yikes! and we all thought Joan Crawford was THE horror Mommy Dearest...well Laura Hope Crewes as Mom in this stinging 4 character film delivers (and cops) the goods in this cracker of a marital Mommy mangle.....THE SILVER CORD is a genuinely sensational pre code drama from RKO made in 1932 released in '33 from a 1929 play. So astonishing, frank and honest is each startling verbal exchange between one son's wife (IreneDunne) along with the other's fianc\u00e9 as these two younger girls together go to war - gleefully angrily unwrapping the clearly incestuous hankerings of Mom towards her hunky eldest son played by virile Joel MacCrea and her younger 'beau'\/son payed by delicate and beautiful 25 year old actor Eric Linden. I would think this film played to many howling appreciative audiences in huge theaters in 1933 and offers viewers even in 2005 a very fruity melodrama enlivened by crackling dialog not afraid to call Mother exactly as she is. This film would have been impossible to make after the censorship code came in after 1934. Other viewer comments on the IMDb support my reaction and you will find almost everyone lucky enough to see (and tape) THE SILVER CORD will agree it is an unforgettable and pungent script in a superbly produced film. It would have played like the VIRGINIA WOLF of 1932. Laura Hope Crewes must have kissed the sound stage at RKO for this role of a lifetime..even more than her fluffy turn in GWTW. Irene Dunne is as gorgeous and casual and believable as ever, fighting for her husband yet again, and it is well worth seeing The Divorc\u00e9e made in 1929 as a companion piece to THE SILVER CORD. Joel MaCrea is certainly in the same league as Cary Grant and Randolph Scott in the handsome and lovable stakes. I had never seen Eric Linden in a real acting role before (he played the leg amputee in the hospital horror scene in GWTW) and here he is startling and youthful with an excellent role as Robert, the younger and more sensitive son. Some verbal barbs leveled at him again would not get past the Code office if made later. This is a really good film, and if the viewer forgives some of the creakiness of its time and settles in for a sparring match of unequaled pungency for a 1932 movie, you will be well rewarded. At first I thought some of the throat clutching melodrama of Mother was dated until I realized it was a set up of the excellent screenplay to make the viewer laugh at her as though she is a weak little old lady......NOT..... but nor are the other two women in this powerhouse play on film, hence the fantastic retort dialog. That ocean-liner seen in reel one is THE LEVIATHAN the monster ship the US won from the Germans in WW1 that was so huge and unwieldy that crews were nervous wrecks trying to wrestle with it upon the Atlantic. It is infamous for ploughing headfirst up a colossal wave in a storm and shot over the crest at such an angle the spine along the bottom cracked and the ship split vertically between the funnels. It limped to port with rattling steel panels and winking rivet holes...and mentally shattered crew and passengers. It was scuttled in 1935 after being cursed and plagued with horror mechanical problems all its existence. Not such a war prize after all.

Anyway, the dialog in THE SILVER CORD is enough excitement for one night: eg: \"Mother! the Doctor said there was nothing wrong with you, in fact he said it would take a stick of dynamite to kill you\". Whammo!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Terrific acting by the 5 stars makes this one a must see.

Based on a stage play, THE SILVER CORD is about \"mother love\" at its worst. The film was very controversial for its implied homosexuality of the younger son and the mother's unnatural \"romantic\" feelings for both sons.

Irene Dunne stars as the new bride (and biologist) who travels with husband (Joel McCrea) to visit the family before heading off to New York City for their new jobs. But something seems wrong.

The mother, Laura Hope Crews, seems rude to the younger son's (Eric Linden) fianc\u00e9e (Frances Dee). But Dunne puts such thoughts aside and ignores a few of the strange things the mother says. Then she finds out \"her\" room is down the hall from McCrea's, and his room adjoins mother's room.

Later she walks in as \"mummy\" is tucking in McCrea and kissing him (on the lips) good night. Mummy has also been working on Linden and getting him to doubt his feelings for Dee. Everything blows up and with Dee running into the snowy night toward the frozen pond. As the boys run after her, mummy shouts from the window for boys to come back and get their coats! Dee falls through the ice and is rescued.

As the girls leave the house the following morning, Dunne lets mummy know what she thinks of her and her attachment to the boys. But mummy has a tight hold, faking illness and forever boasting of her sacrifices. The girls leave but the boys stay behind.......

Crews is magnificent as the voracious mother (repeating her stage role); it's a part few actresses would dare play. The sexual overtones are incredible for a 1933 film and Crews take advantage of her best film role. Dunne is also excellent as she tries to maneuver the course without losing McCrea. Dee has some excellent scenes after she gets dumped by bewildered Linden. All 5 stars are terrific in this drama that is bizarrely underrated and unknown.

A neglected gem for anyone who likes great acting......","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really felt the movie was ahead of its time. The one potential daughter-in-law was such a strong, career oriented woman. She knew what she wanted and was diplomatic but firm with the over-bearing mother-in-law to be. The mother's role was played extremely well (you just loved to hate her). Her need to control her son's lives was neurotically evil. If you've ever been in a relationship where you've been judged and found lacking (and everybody involved knew it) this may hit too close to home. It's been years since I saw this movie and I remember thinking that this plot and dialog would work in a 50's or 60's movie. It is difficult to watch because of the mother and sons' dynamic but I would love to watch it again. I keep hoping to find it on one of the old movie channels but so far no luck. Attempts to buy it were also futile (I don't believe it's on tape or DVD).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This story of the troubles caused by an over-possessive, overpowering, domineering and unscrupulous mother (Laura Hope Crews) for her two grown sons, and their girls, is a strong vehicle for stellar performances by Irene Dunn (the new daughter-in-law), Joel McCrea (the number-one son), Eric Linden (the number-two son) and Frances Dee (fiance of number-two son). Here's the show of the pure tyranny of mother's jealousy and possessiveness run amok as four good people find their owns lives damaged, their plans changed and their own identities in jeopardy. Irene Dunn is stellar in her role. Joel McCrea's performance is open and clear and Laura Hope Crews is masterful as the mother.

Yet this reviewer finds Frances Dee's performance the best of all. Hers is the first character in the story to show the strength of her inner feelings. Her portrayal in her heartbreak broken-engagement scene is gut-wrenching, and even raw. Dee yanks the viewer around and drives you into her pain without even showing her face !

Frances Dee, like Laura Hope Crews, has been too long overlooked, and is now almost forgotten as the magnificent actress that she was. No actress who started in film after WWII has had anything to speak of on Frances Dee.

If you're lucky enough to see The Silver Cord, which was never released for TV, you'll find this \"old fashioned drawing-room drama\" to be an outstanding film that shows very well 74 years after its 1933 release because it is filled with superb performances.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Who won the best actress Oscar for 1933? It should have been Laura Hope Crewes for her magnificent portrayal of the most monstrous mother ever. She truly is one of the great character actresses of all time. She played the frivolous Prudence Duvernoy in \"Camille\" (1936) and her best remembered role is Aunt Pittypat in \"Gone With the Wind\".

Irene Dunne was the \"official\" star of the film but her scenes with Laura Hope Crewes were dynamite.

David (Joel McCrea) is in Heidelberg when he is offered a job in New York. His wife, Christine (Irene Dunne) can continue her studies at the Rockafellar Centre. Their first stop in America is a visit to David's mother, Mrs. Phelps. To say that Laura Hope Crewes dominates every scene is an under-statement. From her first entrance - in a frantic burst of effort to greet her \"big boy\" - all attention is on her. Even sitting around the tea table, when she forgets Hester's existence, even forgetting how she takes her tea, you know something is not quite right.(Hester has been living there for a while.)

Frances Dee is completely sweet and so right in her role as the adorable Hester. Her performance in this film, especially the scene where she has hysterics and the aftermath proves how under-rated as an actress she was.

All the young cast are excellent. Eric Linden is superb as Robert, the younger son who comes to the realization that his mother is horrible but can do nothing about escaping from his mother's spell. Joel McCrea, at one point says \"painting roses on bathtubs - that's more your style\". There is a very subtle suggestion in the film of Robert's sexuality.

Irene Dunne is excellent in whatever film or genre she tried.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think Crewes did her evil part very well she should have won an award. Anything that Dunne is in. is salvageable because Dunne is a great actress and can pull anything off, even a weak script. Therefore I WOULD recommend it for this reason alone. This movie may have been a little ahead of it's time, the plot might be more acceptable these days.

During the golden age of Hollywood movies were meant to entertain or teach, mostly to make us feel good or cope with the times. This plot seem to deviate from that profile. Yet, again I must say what ever Irene Dunne was in, at least, was \"good\" because she made things so believable! The only other actress I can say made me think this way was maybe, Deborah Kerr. Watch Silver Cord if you get the chance for the \"acting\" if nothing else.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This may not be regarded as a review on any film, but just a comment on a film I saw when I was a youngster. I remember coming home of an evening all full of wonder at what I had seen. I tried to retell my parents part of the story but they listened without understanding well what was so strange about two kids stranded on an island who fall in love and grow together and have a son. As you must have guessed by now I'm referring to The Blue Lagoon (1949) which has kept me bewitched and bewildered through the years (almost 50) and now wonder full of anxiety and disgust who or what has prevented the film from being available in cassette or DVD or whatever. I've spent a lifetime chasing the opportunity to get hold of it one day and nobody knows anything about it. What a waste indeed! Sorry if my English is not at all technical or scientific, but my mother tongue is Spanish. I'm doing my best to make myself understood. Thank you, My name is Juan and I'm writing from Uruguay in S.America.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For the record, the 1949 version of \"The Blue Lagoon\" is not the original film, as many have stated.

This story was filmed in Great Britain, in 1923, just after the novel was written. As much as I'd love to see the 1949 version, I'd thoroughly enjoy an opportunity at seeing the true original release of this story on film.

Granted, the 1980 film with Christopher Atkins, Brooke Shields, and the two youngsters was filmed with beautiful cinematography. The acting didn't seem all that great when I first viewed this film, but after having viewed this a few times.... it becomes obvious that two children growing up on an island without adult guidance, would indeed have a simplistic way of approaching life.... whether it be in their language, appearance, or daily activities.

Although some have been fortunate enough to view the 1949 \"Blue Lagoon\", I cannot help but wonder if there is anyone living who can remember the 1923 release of this story to film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie appears to have been overlooked by everyone. Someone should bring it out on VHS and DVD. It is an excellent film and far superior to the one with Brooke Shields, which was terrible.

Jean Simmons deserves more credit than she is getting now days. It would be nice if all her films were offered on VHS or DVD. Jean Simmons was, and still is, a very good actress. She certainly was a beauty. In fact, she is still a beauty. She also has done extremely well on T.V. She is so much better than many of the actors today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film as a kid about 30 years ago, and I haven't forgotten it to this day. I couldn't say whether it's a good picture. But in those days I instantly fell in love with Jean Simmons. The memories concentrate on the very erotic feel of the movie, but I still remember the plot. Simmons was very young then, and there is another film that gave me the same feeling: David Lean's GREAT EXPECTATIONS. And again it was the young Jean Simmons. It's a pity that BLUE LAGOON is not available on video; I'd like to correct my memories...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie as a child and i am longing to see it again. has it survived? I discount the 1980 version entirely as being fluff. I am sure that there are many that don't feel it is necessary to preserve these films. It is so unfortunate to discover a lost gem after it is gone. Young people today don't realize the hallucinatory quality and the impact on one's life a film seen in early youth can have in later life. This film, \"the blue lagoon\" had that effect on me. How many of us have wished to find ourselves in a place removed of the fears and chaos of the modern world. This was an idyllic story of a boy and girl castaway on a tropical island. there are troubles to be sure but in the end they fall in love and the have a baby. Life should be so simple and beautiful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I too remember seeing this film as a youngster at a local small theater that presented foreign films each week. It was the daring adventure of it all that stayed in my memory ever since.

Especially impressionable was the scene with Noel Purcell as the old seaman, Paddy, who drank too much, saw or heard apparitions and died of fright in a cave. I always kept track of Noel's career even decades later due to my seeing him then. There's also a youngish Cyril Cusack as the leering boatman, James, with designs on the lovely Jean Simmons, shown as Emmeline grown up.

Would very much like to own a video of this haunting film and refresh my memory of it. Where do I send my request?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not many television shows appeal to quite as many different kinds of fans like Farscape does...I know youngsters and 30\/40+ years old;fans both Male and Female in as many different countries as you can think of that just adore this T.V miniseries. It has elements that can be found in almost every other show on T.V, character driven drama that could be from an Australian soap opera; yet in the same episode it has science fact & fiction that would give even the hardiest \"Trekkie\" a run for his money in the brainbender stakes! Wormhole theory, Time Travel in true equational form...Magnificent. It embraces cultures from all over the map as the possibilities are endless having multiple stars and therefore thousands of planets to choose from.

With such a broad scope; it would be expected that nothing would be able to keep up the illusion for long, but here is where \"Farscape\" really comes into it's own element...It succeeds where all others have failed, especially the likes of Star Trek (a universe with practically zero Kaos element!) They ran out of ideas pretty quickly + kept rehashing them! Over the course of 4 seasons they manage to keep the audience's attention using good continuity and constant character evolution with multiple threads to every episode with unique personal touches to camera that are specific to certain character groups within the whole. This structure allows for an extremely large area of subject matter as loyalties are forged and broken in many ways on many many issues. I happened to see the pilot (Premiere) in passing and just had to keep tuning in after that to see if Crichton would ever \"Get the girl\", after seeing them all on television I was delighted to see them available on DVD & I have to admit that it was the only thing that kept me sane whilst I had to do a 12 hour night shift and developed chronic insomnia...Farscape was the only thing to get me through those extremely long nights...

Do yourself a favour; Watch the pilot and see what I mean...

Farscape Comet","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Somehow, I missed many of the early Farscape episodes, so I'm seeing them in all sorts of orders as they are repeated on various channels. I first caught it - entirely by accident - whilst lounging in a hotel room. The first 10 seconds had me completely hooked - THIS is what SF is all about.

The characters are strong; and Moya\/Pilot the living ship is what Lexx should have been. The plots vary in quality, but none falls below excellent in my opinion. And I have to mention Rygel - what a gloriously irreverent character! None of your smarmy sugar-coated Star Trek aliens here, this is the real deal - cynical, self-serving and replete with disgusting personal habits, Rygel is the creation of a genius.

Last week the SciFi channel showed \"Out of their minds\" (the body-swapping episode). A true classic, I couldn't stop laughing from start to finish...

Long may Farscape grace our screens!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is perhaps the television series with the greatest potential of any series around. The production values are in a class of their own. The characters are rounded and interesting. This is entertainment at its best. Some of the aliens are quite grotesque, but there is an underlying humour which makes it unmissable. I hope that this series goes on for many years and will have many spin-offs. Science Fiction has had its bad press, some justified, but this is truly a flagship science fiction series and I thank Henson for it. Top marks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well how can I categorise Farscape without resorting to gushing superlatives? Ok, here goes! The scripts are fantastic, with each episode offering so much entertainment, drama, humour and sheer watchability. The casting is perfect especially that of Zhaan (the blue lady) played by Virginia Hey, each character has a depth that just isn't there on the Star Trek series.

I think having an Australian spin on the show makes this for me, Australia has been knocking out quality films for years and Farscape is no exception.

I have only seen the first four episodes in UK order and they have a quality that makes each 45 minute show (in the UK) stand out more like a film than a weekly TV series.

The episode that really does it for me is 'I, ET' which turns the alien concept around where Moya (a living ship, even the spacecraft has a great character) is forced to land on a planet that has yet to make 'First contact' and is surprisingly earth like and Crichton meets a radio telescope operator and *he* is the 'little green man' to them. Gripping stuff.

In short the effects are great, the scripts are top quality and the main characters (not one of them really given any more importance than any other) are interesting, not always 'good' and well just excellent.

Roll on the second season!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I heard about this series in 2001 which a friend of mine was recording off the television each week. I never bothered to watch though I became acquainted with the series through the magazine which I looked at every now and then in bookstores. I recently purchased series one on DVD and have become addicted to this fascinating and original series. The characters at first seem unlikeable but it is amazing how fast they grow and develop into a united force. As they begin to care for one another it becomes easy to care what happens to them (bearing in mind that this is only a TV series and they are fictional).

However it isn't the PC world of Star Trek and so whilst every character shows a good trait they each have their own flaws and demons that they must deal with. Indivual story lines mixed in with an overall multiple story-arc make this one of the most complex and rewarding television experiences I have ever had the pleasure of viewing. I absolutely enjoy watching each of the characters interact with one another.

This strange new world we are introduced to is brilliantly portrayed through the eyes of astronaut John Crichton and as he learns and adapts to being on the other side of the galaxy, strange alien creatures, different cultures, being hunted by a character that wants him dead and being treated as inferior by his comrades we can easily relate to what he must be feeling. As he becomes used to his surroundings so do the viewers and his compassionate, strong-willed and brave character is a joy to watch.

I have watched only seven episodes of Farscape season one and look forward to continuing through seasons two-four and the mini-series. Maybe one day we can all enjoy a season five. Highly recommended viewing and well worth setting time aside to watch. Buy and enjoy! 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that FARSCAPE is the best scifi since Babylon 5 and is one of the best sci-fi television series of all time (ranking up there with Dr. Who, Blake's 7, Red Dwarf, MST3K and the aforementioned B5). I find the characters and races of Farscape are much more interesting and imaginative than the typical \"humans-with-birthmarks\" that are found in many series. The effects are quite good and the stories engaging. Despite missing the bulk of season 2 and some of season 1, I find the character development very well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i happen to love this show. Its a refreshing take on some older sci-fi feels and styles. they aren't afraid to shoot, and when they do people tend to die. Far too many show's are afraid of this and end up just pointing the guns and then having it be a standoff. Farscape also comes complete with a large amount of heartwarming characters. They all grow on you till the point where it confuses you to hear them discuss taking some of the animatronic ones out of their box's to make the mini-series. From beginning to end farscape leaves you with a feeling of hope, and dispair, as new and unexpected things happen and then people live and die, surprising you every time. Worth a watch even if you don't have the time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember ignoring the TV series when it first debuted because of its 'look' with the Jim Hensen muppets. However, recently a friend let me borrow his Farscape DVDs, and I am just now realizing what a terrible mistake that was.

As with any TV series, there are episodes that shine and those that don't. I ride the adrenaline and emotional rush during the great episodes and suffer through the lackluster ones. However, I endure regardless because of the core storyline that ties all the episodes together. What I'm talking about is the growth of the main characters and their love for each other. Let me warn you, it is something that is absolutely irresistible to watch. I cannot recall any other TV series (Babylon 5, Buffy, Angel, etc) that smartly and intelligently put together such a heartbreaking (at times) and suspenseful ride.

I think that at the end of the fourth season, things were finally becoming tightly focused and I am shocked at the decision to cancel the series. I wait anxiously for the release of the miniseries and invite others to discover this incredible gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After 2 years of using this site for movie reviews, I finally registered with IMDB just so I could give Farscape a \"10.\" The show's writers, cast and crew have proven themselves the unambiguous masters of the science fiction genre. Even those who do not normally appreciate sci-fi should be encouraged to give this exceptional series a chance!

Farscape's virtues are simply too numerous to list, but one of them stands out above all; the quality of the writing is amazing. I haven't heard dialogue this good since \"Blake's 7.\" In fact, Farscape feels a lot like a \"Blake's 7\" with good special effects and a bit more romance.

Everyone, enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not since J. Michael Straczynski's Babylon 5, has a television show captured the wonderful art of applying a story arc to a television show. This is easily the best thing on TV right now! The characters are likable and one can easily get attached to them and care for their well-being. The villians are the type you love to hate and leave you wondering what they're up to next. And Brian Hensen's puppet work is the most innovative out there. Kudos to Rockne S. O'Bannon for a job well done!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having watched the show for about four weeks, which is enough to get a feel for the show, I think it shows potential. Whilst much is borrowed from other shows (what sci-fi doesn't these days), and the characters are stereotyped, I like what they are doing with the stories. There is some continuity with plot development and character interaction\/relationship building, despite the essentially modular nature of each episode. There have been some science related topics explored as well as character secret\/weakness revelations. These have also added some comedy to the show, something I would gladly see more of in \"serious\" sci-fi. In all, this makes for good balance, such that can appeal to larger groups of people, unlike the Star Trek vs Babylon 5 debates I've been numerous participant and witness to. The visual aspects of the show are more than adequate, and well budgeted for a first season. The acting is acceptable, and I am curious to see how well the actors manage to grow their characters out of their scripted stereotypes. I see enough positives and potential to remain interested in seeing where the show wants to go...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'll admit that the first time I managed to catch Sci-Fi's \"Sci-Fi Prime\" was last week, but despite the fact that I was a huge Sliders fan coming into the experience, Farscape is now easily my favorite of the four shows.

Unlike most modern Sci-Fi shows (including, regrettably, the two new Star Trek series), this show manages to be fun without coming across as fodder for MST3K.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must admit, at first I was worried about Farscape. The opening segment was not very strong, and I began to worry about what was to come. However, once it set in to familiar Henson territory with the wry sense of humor, the unique and enduring characters, and the compelling story combined to create an excellent piece of science fiction. The story follows John Crichton (played by Ben Browder) a scientist who has developed a spaceship and theory that rely on slingshot propulsion. However, during the first test, his craft encounters an unknown magnetic field, and he is propelled into an unknown galaxy, where he finds himself in the middle of a struggle between escaping prisoners (on the starship Moya) and the Peacekeepers (human enforcers). He is quite literally drawn into the prisoners ship, and after many twists and turns finds himself united with the prisoners (Ka D'argo, a Luxom warrior; Pa'U Zhaan, a Delvian priestess; Rygel XVI, a deposed ruler; and Aeryn Sun, a Peacekeeper who has reluctantly joined the crew). With excellent special effects, moderate make-up, and puppets and robots that exceed the Henson standard of perfection; as well as a very well written story, and character driven plot, FarScape looks to be a fantastically original, creative, and clever science fiction series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching this series will probably make you feel like how our parents felt when watching Star Trek for the first time.

This series has it all. The kind of stories that makes you forget how to blink, the kind of characters that makes you want to jump into the TV to join the action, and the kind of atmosphere that makes your hair curdle in awe and endless admiration.

In short, we start out with John Chrichton, an astronaut, who gets shot into a wormhole and ends up with a gang of prisoners on the run from the badguys in black, ironically known as Peacekeepers.

Other colorful characters consists of D'argo, big dude with a short temper and a sword\/laser-rifle. Aerun Sun, former peacekeeper and a Ph.D in buttkicking. Zotoh Zhan, who's a plant. No really, she is. She's also a priest, but with a mean streak. There's also Dominar Rygel XVI, an fat lazy bastard who farts helium and generally does more harm than good.

Later in the series we meet the most sexy alien that has ever been on television, namely Chiana. A young and seemingly chronically horny Nebari. She is played by Gigi Edgley, which is a name you should remember.

One of the many things I love about these series is that since John Chrichton ended up in this part of the galaxy by mistake, he keeps giving references to \"Real Life\". Namely, when John is having a bit of difficulty accepting the fact that he will be frozen as a statue for 80 years, one of his many complaint is that when he returns, Buffy The Vampire Slayer will be dead.

So Frell all the other series, get your Dren together and spend an Ahn on one of these episodes. I can assure you, Sci\/Fi as you know it, will change forever.

This series has it all. It's sexy. It's actionpacked. It's hillarious. It's Farscape","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw the Premiere Episode of Farscape, I had no idea what to expect. I was immensely impressed and satisfied with \"Premiere\". Subsequent re-watches, however, have made numerous flaws apparent to me that I missed initially. \"Premiere\" is not a great Farscape Episode, but it deserves credit for successfully and efficiently setting up the plot and giving the basic back stories to many of the regular characters.

The episode begins with John Crichton (Ben Browder), an astronaut and scientist, preparing to launch into space in the Farscape Module, a small space ship perfected by Crichton and his friend DK. Crichton has a revealing conversation with his father, Jack Crichton, and then begins his test flight in space. Of course, everything goes wrong and Crichton is \"shot through a wormhole\" and winds up in \"a distant part of the galaxy\".

After exiting the wormhole, Crichton's module is pulled on board a living space ship. From here, the characters and story line for the Farscape series are introduced in an entertaining albeit rushed manner.

The regular characters are properly introduced during the first half of the episode. Of course, there is Crichton, played well by Ben Browder. He offers a the audience a sympathetic character to identify with. He's lost and has no idea how to do much of anything. In \"Premiere\", Crichton has to choose between joining the prisoners or the Peacekeepers. He knows nothing at all about either side, but in helping Aeryn (a captured Peacekeeper pilot) it becomes clear that he intends to help the Peacekeepers. He probably would not have ended up siding with the prisoners if it hadn't been for Crais, a Peacekeeper captain, declaring Crichton to be the murderer of his brother. This puts Crichton in an interesting situation: he's stuck with bizarre, violent escaped prisoners in a far-off galaxy about which he knows nothing at all. Crichton's total lack of knowledge of the Farsape world makes him a particularly interesting protagonist during Farscape's first season.

The supporting cast is just as compelling. There's Zhaan, a blue Delvian and former prisoner. She's peaceful and reasonable, as opposed to fellow prisoner Ka D'Argo, a powerful and hard-headed warrior. Virginia Hey is totally covered in blue makeup, allowing her character of Zhaan to appear cool and convincing. D'Argo's mega-makeup, in contrast, is below-par. He looks kind of silly with his giant tentacles and strange nose, and there is something peculiar about his eyes. They look as if they have had some sort of allergic reaction to his makeup. Farscape would give some improvements to his makeup in Season 1, but the overall costume would, for me at least, remain as a problem until Season 2.

The puppet\/digital characters of Rygel and Pilot are, to put it simply, excellent. Rygel is a tiny Hynerian Dominar who floats around on some sort of hovercraft. In \"Premiere\" he is given some good dialogue but not much else. Pilot nearly steals the show as the liaison between the living ship, Moya, and Moya's passengers. Even in the first episode, Pilot gives off the appearance of being a real, living alien; he never once in the show seems to be a giant, expensive machine.

The Peacekeeper characters introduced are quite interesting as well. The Peacekeepers are made up of a race called Sebaceans, who look just like humans. The chief antagonist is introduced in \"Premiere\" as Captian Crais, who believes that Crichton killed his brother. In reality, Crais's brother's death was merely an accident resulting from an accidental collision with Crichton's ship. Aeryn Sun, a pilot who Crichton helps escape, tries to explain that the death was an accident, but Crais just claims that she is \"irreversiby contaminated\" and refused to change his mind. Crais obsession for revenge, warranted or not (it should be clear to Crais that Crichton isn't responsible), is mysterious in \"Premiere\", but would be explained later in the season. Aeryn herself provides an extremely interesting character. By being forced to leave the Peacekeepers, she changes her whole way of life, and is in that regard in a similar (though less severe) situation as Crichton.

The actual episode, as mentioned earlier, feels somewhat rushed and clunky. So much happens that not enough time is spent on anything. Also, D'Argo (for now) looks kind of silly running around in his mediocre costume trying to appear menacing. Still, \"Premiere\" is solid entertainment. The special effects (such as in the starburst sequences) are impressive. Most of the costumes and the sets on board Moya are original. Despite its flaws, \"Premiere\" is a must-see for Farscape fans. 3\/4","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Farscape - is the one Sci-Fi Show which restarted the Interest in Science Fiction in me.

But Farscape is so much more then plain and simple Sci-Fi. Comedy, Drama and much more :) The Acting is very good. Luckily Farscape survived also it's cancellation and showed with Peacekeeper Wars that it is not dead yet :) I hope there is a future for Farscape :) In my opinion it is also not problematic that some of the characters in the Show are muppets. You have to look behind that and you will see what a beauty Farscape is.

Farscape set a new Standard in Television and i think it will be truly hard for new shows to prove that they can be equal or better than Farscape. I love this Show :)

SaphirJD","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This series is vastly underrated. Like many others, I came upon Farscape after the series had been cancelled. Bought Season 1 and was surprised to find a smartly written drama infused with a balanced mix of suspense, romance, wit and, of course, sci-fi. Right off the bat it got a 10 for being the first series or movie to satisfy us how our hero - and every alien with whom he comes in contact - speaks English! Okay, a few others have skirted the issue, but Farscape did it the best. The point is, the writers pay close attention to detail to make the show as believable as possible.

With so much bad programming out there, it's a shame that balanced, entertaining series such as Farscape don't get enough exposure and recognition to stay in production. While we enjoy the four seasons and, thankfully, the four-hour miniseries, maybe we can make enough noise to convince the producers to continue the show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to tell you I've been a fan of Star Trek TNG since i was a kid.

Well, sometime ago i gave a friend of mine some DS9 episodes and i asked him

\"hey man, what are you watching lately because I'm done watching all TNG episodes\" He said. \"Well, i got these episodes of Farscape\". I said: \"Ok, let me try it\" I was pretty sure at that time that i wont like it because i was just finised watching TNG and found it great.\"

I had 3 episodes, viewed those but the show didn't impressed me very much, i found it childish initially and i thought its just another TV show, nice adventures but regular. Music was a little bit different, neat special effects though and i had the vague impression that the actors didn't fully get into the characters skin.

I watched another 3 episodes thinking that 3 eps were not enough to decide i like or not since. Then the show started to get me, i got a good grasp of the action and wanted to see what happened next to the poor Crichton....the rest is history.

I think i mostly like the freedom of the characters in the context of the action unlike Star Trek where everybody slept when they were supposed to do and way too much high tech bullshit.

The show got better with each episode, very interesting story line.....what can i say, this movie its like poetry.

I highly recommend it!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The other reviewers are way WAAAAY off as to why the Farscape show has been (temporarily) put to rest. It has NOTHING to do with the quality of the shows 'slacking'. In fact, the exact OPPOSITE is true. They kept getting better and better! :) I have seen every episode and when you simply watch them in order you really become in awe how much cooler it gets as they move on and on, and the wormhole & Aeryn subplots are really very interesting and gave it MORE vibe, not less. Before it was sort of chaotic, slow, and rather aimless. They spent like the first two seasons running from this foe type, but in the second two they were actually trying to DO something :) Also I have never seen such a great fun blend of sexy gals and attitudes in Sci-Fi. The blue girl - Zahn - was cool, but not 'sexy'. They literally got to the point where the gals were running around in leather corsets and high heels blasting aliens - now tell me, what could be cooler than that??? :))

The real reason Farscape went off for a bit is because it was costing too much - and that is a GOOD thing for the fans, because the show, watched end to end, is really like a 60 hour long epic movie, with all the cinematics of the blockbuster stuff (ok ok they do use similar sets a lot, but the CG is great and the gals are sexxxy).

Blah blah - the real reason is because TV shows are about PROFIT. It is a BUSINESS, and the Sci Fi channel or whoever was not getting as big a return on this expensive Farscape show as they could with junk shows like 'Stargate'. Lexx was actually cool until they got rid of the hot German girl and replaced her with this bizarre fat-lipped oddity.

Anyway yes, remember this: Farscape kept getting better and better, until it was really like a little real movie each week. Then the networks decided 'hey people will watch any old piece of drek we shove on the air as long as it is the only sci fi thing on at that hour, so why are we spending all this money on Farscape, let's shove cheesy low-budget 'Stargate' down people's throats and call it a 'hit series' because it's like all we play every darn night LOL :))

That's the way it goes. Also I gotta tell ya that Claudia Black is a really cool actress. After she got her facelift (got the baggy eyes tightened) she was looking really cool - one of those dynamic types like Judy Davis, and sometimes hot looking, sometimes ugly - like a roller coaster ride. I'd par Claudia Black with Lucy Lawless in style and substance - both VERY fun to watch - not just Chrichton :) And yeah you may say the pregnancy thing was cheesy, but how many sci fi shows have a BELIEVABLE and DEEP romantic subplot that actually goes somewhere and progresses?? It was legitimately cool as a romance story - the actors on the show are great. It really is a shame the show is in limbo for now, but I hope it comes back in more episodes soon and movies as well, because I will deffinately buy them! :-D","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the greatest crimes made against Sci-fi television was the cancellation of Farscape. One of the most well-written, well-acted and over-all best shows ever to grace the airwaves, it set new standards for Sci-fi television. Once the flagship, highest rated, critically acclaied show of the Sci-Fi Channel, it defies explaination as to why shows like Buffy, Tremors: The Series, and even StarGate: SG-1 have lasted as long as they have. Yes, even Buffy. But I'll save my Buffy bashing for another time. Farscape was poorly treated by the Sci-Fi channel, continually tossed around in scheduling, reruns rarely shown and never really advertised. But while the show has been cancelled, all those involved in the production of the show want to bring the show back (even Henson Company CEO Brian Henson). There is also an extensive fan-based movement to bring the show back . Overall things are looking far from dark, and hopefully, fans will get their season 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having just borrowing the Series one DVD collection from my somewhat obsessive brother, I was expecting to get through the first couple of episodes and handing it back. I have just found myself yelling at the screen for ending the first season on a cliff-hanger - a mere week later and I've watched the entire season. Where I found the time for this I have no idea.

This show is great. It doesn't take itself too seriously, it has likeable characters who are well acted, and the special effects (ignoring the odd tacky puppet here and there) are \"special\" enough to give it that polished feel. At first, I didn't realise it was filmed mostly here, and it seemed odd to hear so many Aussie accents on a Sci-Fi show - it was most amusing for the main character (John) to land back in Sydney midway through the first season.

I believe this show's biggest strength is the vision that the creators of the show obviously had. They have gradually introduced new aspects of the characters that have explain previous actions, and the continue to smatter John's conversations with slang in an amusing and unforced way. On top of that, having watched the entire Voyager and Next Gen series, I see little plot rip-off - so it has managed to maintain a sense of originality throughout the entire first season. I hope the rest of it is as good.

Farscape is not like any other Sci-Fi that I've enjoyed in the past. I heard that the fourth season wasn't as good as the first three, and I am now quite annoyed that they cancelled it before the 5th. I hope that they revive this show - with the same actors in either a movie or another series. It would be a shame to leave so many plot lines unfinished as I imagine that with a show that's had so much thought put into it, to have it axed without adequate warning will leave me feeling robbed.

Gotta go now... heading back to my brother's place to snaffle the 2nd season.

V.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An astronaut gets lost in deep space and finds himself traveling through unknown territory on board of a living spaceship accompanied by a group of alien-outlaws. This incredible plotted and enjoyable TV-installment comes along as a positive birth-fantasy. The individual characters, in conflict at the beginning of the series, have to learn to get along with each other and evolve into a powerful group at last. Most of the action takes place inside the womb of Moia, the living space-ship (who even gets pregnant and gives birth to another ship!). While science-fiction-stories are usually interested in negative birth-fantasies (watch the 'Alien'-movies for example, especially the fourth part 'Resurrection') this comes as a surprise. Also enjoyable is the absence of military hierarchy on board of the ship and the positive attitude towards sex and the human (and alien) body. One of the female characters who is actually a plant experiences 'photogasms' while being exposed to sunlight. The crew even has to go to the toilet. Wouldn't that be impossible in 'Star Trek'?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Farscape is the best sci-fi show period, for one main reason, everything the show attempts, it does very well. From a technical aspect, the music is original and perfectly fitted to the show. The special effects are abundance and higher quality then almost any thing else that you will see on your tv. The acting is also great, too many shows nowadays use only the American market of actors for their shows. Remember the first time you saw The Matrix and you said, wow where did that Agent Smith come from? Its the same feeling that you get watching Claudia Black, Anthony Simcoe, Lani Tupu, Virginia Hey, and especially Wayne Pygram. These Aussies are great and it comes through in this great show.

The plot is second to none. The next closest thing I can think of is Babylon 5 during the shadow wars episodes, but this tops even that. Its a real treat getting to watch all the episodes sequential again, the intricacies of the interpersonal relationships of the characters are well scripted and performed. The overall plot is both original and thoroughly entertaining. I am always itching for the next show.

The comedic episodes are funny, the drama episodes are touching, and the action sequences are tense. The beginning of the second season had some great comedic episodes which had me laughing aloud, something that rarely happens while watching television that is not South Park, Sealab 2021, or Seinfeld. The drama is even harder, whether Crichton is meeting his mother or the characters face thier mortality, all is done with heart and intensity. Lastly it goes without saying that the action is tops. This is sci-fi.

If you are a fan of science fiction in the slightest, if you enjoy good television at all, if you like good serialized plot, you owe it to yourself to watch Farscape.

Oh, and Ben Browder owns.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Growing up in the late 60s and 70s I could not help but become a fan of science fiction. With America's space program in top gear, sci-fi books, movies, TV shows, and comic books fueled my imagination and opened my mind to the possibilities that exist in the universe. Farscape is so unlike any other sci-fi show yet it has all the ingredients that made shows like Star Trek, Battlestar Gallatica, X-Files, and Deep Space Nine personal favorites. One of the criticisms of Farscape is that the casual viewer can't just jump in and watch one episode and understand what is going on. There have been other very successful shows that used multiple episode story arcs and complicated characters. This for me is one of the charms of the show. I don't need or want to have the story all tied up neatly at the end of every episode like the various incarnations of Star Trek have done. All in all, Farscape has wonderful and funny characters and a running storyline that says that although humans may be the least evolved or advanced intelligent species in the universe, they still have unique qualities and abilities.

Unfortunately, the shortsighted people at the Sci-Fi channel have canceled Farscape's 5th season. They have stated that the cancellation was based on sagging ratings. Yet just a few years ago it was their top rated original series and a critical favorite. It's a shame that all of the artists who help create this show will be unable to continue their labor of love because of the fiscal problems of the very channel\/company that made it all possible in the first place.

Hey, don't take my word for it, watch the show, watch the re-runs and make up your own mind. Help save Farscape!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Farscape totally rules! In my opinion it's very close to Babylon five although there are only 7 main characters in the series (spaceship included). The humour is excellent and the writers manage to keep the show interesting though pretty much everything happens on the ship.

What I really love and appreciate in Farscpae is,that they don't use CGI for the alien characters or if they do, it's unnoticeable. They use those lovable, crappy rubber animatronic puppets very similar to the ones used in the original Star Wars.

Farscape is something you definitely want to look into, if you already haven't.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Faqrscape is truly one of those shows that just has it all, great acting,great cast,great writing,sets,chemistry,muppets...it's got it all and then some, except a home. This fantastic series it's seem has it all except and ending. TPTB seem to think this is a series that is consecutive single set shows, when anyone who watches know this is an ongoing ,one epic, love story, that has an end that must been seen. If you have never watched Farscape do youself a favor and check it out on DVD when the Season 1 will be released in October....and Season 2 is the best there is! Watch the reruns on the SciFi channel to catch up and then the new season starts in January through March when most shows are going in to hiatis and be sure to watch. If all goes well we will get our ending!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great characters, great acting, great dialogue, incredible plot twists in plain language one of the best shows I've ever seen in my life. Do yourself a favor and watch this show, you won't regret it. This show re-writes the book on Sci-Fi!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have watched Farscape from first episode to now, and I will continue to watch it! The setting and the characters are amazing and the plots are great. The show really keeps me on the edge of my seat and when the show goes off after an hour I keep hoping it will be another hour!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this show from the first episode I saw, which was the \"Rhapsody in Blue\" episode (for those that don't know what that is, the Zan going insane and becoming pau lvl 10 ep). Best visuals and special effects I've seen on a television series, nothing like it anywhere.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great off-the-wall romantic comedy about love, work, pandering to the public taste, and midlife crises. The main character is a talented movie director who decides to make a silly PG-13 movie to get himself out of hock with the IRS. It has an excellent cast, a wide range of humor (from deadpan to slapstick), and fine writing. It's also a wry send-up of the movie industry. The metacommentary includes several excellent cuts between reality and the movie that's being made, and in some places the film departs from strict realism. The result is a multi-dimensional masterpiece of wry midlife humor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Pickle was the most underrated film of the decade. Despite my best efforts at home, it is still seen as a bad movie. I say to hell with everyone on this. Every one doesn't understand that it is in part a comedy with a dramatic twist at the end. Danny Aiello plays a burnt out director with perfection and conveys a sad depressed man. the scene when he is trying to record a last message is quite good. The interludes of Stones movie are absolutely funny. \"This is Harry Stone and today I become a man!\" In all a fine and sadly misunderstood movie. Plus a great cameo by Little Richard. Hilarious! I hope that more people see this movie because 202 people is not enough for a consensus.

-Silence Dogood","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lauren Himmel's debut movie is well directed with a nice polished feel to it. There's a strong storyline going on with a meaningful point to it all even if at the end nothing is resolved hence the name Treading Water. The storyline revolves around a Lesbian couple and their battle with ones mother for acceptance. 7.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Treading Water is a very beautiful movie. I would put it straight under the wonderful short movie : Cosa bella from Fiona MacKenzie. It's not only about coming out but also about tolerance and acceptance in general. I am looking forward to seeing more of Laurel Himmel's work in the future. The actors, Angie Redman and Nina Landey are quite good. The main characters relationship could have been strenghtened a bit as we understand there is a very strong bond between them but maybe this could have been explained a bit. I am surprised that Angie Redman doesn't appear much in other movies. A great first step as a director for Laurel Himmel, I am sure there's more to see from her skills.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie just felt very true to life. I liked the ending which seemed to resolve naturally without any big moments but with a lot of little moments coming together. You could tell it is an honest love story. It doesn't matter what the 'sexual orientation' of the main characters are, it still a story about love and understanding.

There were a lot of scenes that involved the family. The setting is during what for some people is a very stressful time. Namely \"the holidays.\" Christmas to be precise.

Like most good films, this one addresses issues of love, fitting in, expectations, and can't-be-overcome biases. In the end Alexandra and Casey make a choice for each other, knowing that love is difficult, and about giving. Well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"it was a very well written movie, and the actors had a very exquisite way of portraying all the character. but as the movie came to an end i felt as if there was more but they forgot to put it on the dvd. maybe they are planning on making a sequel...well even if they don't it's a good movie and a good rental, but even a better purchase.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Time does extraordinary things. It's the ultimate judge. Time has granted \"Married To The Mob\" an extra doses of freshness. There aren't any dead moments or cheap shots. It's more of a delight now than it ever was. Michelle Pfeiffer creates a mafia widow that it's as far away from a caricature as anything she's ever done. A true original creation touching or hinting at the stereotype just to guide us through but her Angela is quite unique. The legendary Dean Stockwell presents us with a a mafia boss that it's just as menacingly real as he is hilarious. And Matthew Modine? Why did I think back then that he didn't have any chemistry with Pfeiffer? I was wrong. They are wonderful together. They reminded me, this time, to the Barbara Stanwyck, Fred MacMurray of \"Remember The Night\" I'm writing this comment now to entice you to visit or revisit this Jonathan Demme gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a romantic comedy, so it's really a fairy tale, but an unconventional one. Cinderella, rather than living in the ashes, lives in an overdecorated castle in the suburbs with a good looking husband who's no prince. She does find her prince, but he's not that handsome. Instead of a castle, at least initially, she gets a tiny walk-up in Manhattan.

Pfeifer, Stockwell and Ruehl lead a cast of fully realized, if a little over-the-top, characters.

Demme reaches the highest level of movie-making in my mind. He creates a world I want to move into - a Manhattan neighborhood and street life teeming with life and community.

I wish IMDb linked to reviewers' other comments. I'd like to know what other movies the people who panned this one hate. I am always looking for a lot of laughs and for nice places in which to \"live\" at least for an hour or so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a fun movie with subtle intention. Its off-beat comedy is hilarious to me, unfunny to my friends. The soundtrack is perfect.

I own this on VHS and I have watched it many, many times, because it's simply a fun and funny love story with great performances by all the principals (though using Joan Cusack solely as a perch for big hair was a waste of her talent. I know, I know, she was still young...).

On a sad note, I decided to check out the DVD last night (instead of watching my VHS tape), and was SHOCKED to find many crucial scenes cut. And on the copy I watched, there was no special feature of deleted scenes: it was as if the deleted scenes never existed!! I am so glad I bought the used VHS at a flea market.

It is clear there was a great deal of choreography in this, which is another reason I love it so much. It takes great skill, talent, and genius to move around the scenes like Mercedes Ruehl, Dean Stockwell, and Matthew Modine do from scene to scene (Note the scene when the grocery carts converge, the rolling on the floor during the shoot-out in Miami, the Chicken Lickin' debacle, the foot massage, the salon hair-washing.) There is a very \"theatrical\" feel to this film, which may be the turn-off for so many whose poor reviews follow: I know some viewers who don't quite understand this style mistake the exaggerations and over-the-top performances for poor acting and worse direction. Not so. Jonathan Demme does a great job bringing to life the entire company and their respective roles.

The opening credits and first scene rank among my all-time favorites, as well (another favorite opening credits\/first scene: Fly Away Home).

Too bad Matthew Modine so ardently skipped out of the public eye; I really like him, and found his casting PERFECT in the role of Mike Smith. Actually, this film is well-cast from soup to nuts: everyone is believable and true to his role. As for the question of expecting audience to accept Pfeiffer and Stockwell as Italians - why not? I thought they pulled it off perfectly well.

Charming, fun, exciting... what is there not to like? If you want a little fun, watch this quirky, colorful adventure-mob-love story. If you are looking to learn more about organized crime and families, tune to HBO's The Sopranos.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michelle Pfeiffer and Matthew Modine are a joy to watch in this screwball comedy. Alec Baldwin, who was an up and coming star when the film was made, is a hoot. Dean Stockwell, in a sendup of John Gotti, is hysterical. But Mercedes Ruehl, as the paranoid and over the top Connie steals the movie.

Jonathan Demme, previously known for wacky comedies like \"Something Wild\" and \"Melvin and Howard\"-proves once again that he is a genius. I was not surprised at all when he went on to win the Oscar for directing \"Silence of The Lambs.\" The performances he evokes from his actors in \"Married\" are inspired, and the audience is taken along for a wild and wooly ride.

One of the cutest, most endearing films of the 80's, it stands head and shoulders above many of the satires of its era.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First, don't be fooled by my family name. My mother was full blooded Italian, so I really know Italian families, and I LOVE mobster movies, even the funny ones like this.

For those people who have bad rapped this film (you know who you are) you should have your movie privileges taken from you because you don't know what good is. This is a damn funny and well-styled film. The fact that almost nobody is Italian in it is part of the joke, so far as I can see. And what red-blooded straight male could complain about spending an hour and something with the likes of Michelle Pfieffer? Puh-lease! When I saw this film it won me over with the opening song by Rosemary Clooney who was as Irish as one can get, but her pronunciation of the Italian words in \"Mambo Italiano\" is flawless and sets the tone of what is to follow perfectly. (Hell, I even bought the record the next day because of it.) Just the look of every garish thing in the apartment that I have personally seen in my relatives houses, though not in the same place (which I found hysterical) sold it for me.

This movie is like Goodfellas on laughing gas. I just wonder why there are no Burger Worlds and what happened to the food these guys were supposed to get? My guess is the crew ate it. \"The Fries are crispy. The shakes are creamy.\" My mouth is watering almost as much as it is thinking of the gorgeous Ms. Pfieffer. (And I never trusted clowns anyway.) And the three best things about this film are Mercedes Ruehl's achingly funny mob wife spurned, Dean Stockwell as her philandering husband Tony \"The Tiger\" and last, but DEFINITELY not least, the great mugging by Oliver Platt who should get more comic roles. And note to myself: find out where that black chick went. Ouch! Why does she work so infrequently? This picture is right alongside the great mob movies as it should be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What happened to Ava Gardner in the 1940s and Marilyn Monroe in the '50s also seemed to take place for modern-day actress Michelle Pfeiffer in the '80s: Her remarkable good looks got in the way of her being taken seriously as an accomplished, superbly talented actress. Anyone looking for validation of Pfeiffer's dramatic abilities need look no further than her work in 1991's \"Frankie and Johnny\" or '92's \"Love Field\" (a personal favorite of mine); those looking to see what a splendid comedic actress she can be, when given the right part, should check out 1988's \"Married to the Mob.\" In this one, she plays Angela Demarco, the widow of a recently \"iced\" Mob hit-man, who moves from her garishly tacky Long Island home to start a new life for herself and her son, while being pursued by Mob boss Dean Stockwell and FBI man Matthew Modine. While this movie has lots going for it (a very amusing script; offbeat characters; sudden sharp turns to unexpected violence, as in director Jonathan Demme's previous effort \"Something Wild\"; and hilarious yet menacing performances by Stockwell and Mercedes Ruehl, as his jealous wife from hell), Michelle steals the show easily. Notice how perfectly she nails Angela's undereducated, Long Island Italian accent, and the many fine mannerisms that she brings to the role to really flesh out this spunky and surprisingly bright character. Once upon a time, long ago, Oscars were handed out to actresses for comedic roles such as this one. Had this film been made 60 years ago, Michelle mighta been a contenduh...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not a fan of this brand of comedy - stereotyped characters over-acting their way through a cops and robbers farce. But there are enough likable characters to sustain interest. Michelle Pfeiffer is adorable, but the person really carrying the film is Dean Stockwell, who steals every scene as the head mobster (named Tony, no less).

Stockwell's performance is the reason I'm writing this review (and the only reason I'd recommend it), in fact. You'll be tickled by his screen time. He's plays the mob boss perfectly, with comedic touches in the right places, managing to avoid becoming an overbearing cliche. In fact, Stockwell's a complete delight to watch - a master of the 'double take,' and a real 'looker' in those classy suits and fedoras.

Meesa Says: A good film to watch while folding laundry or eating leftovers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michelle Pfeiffer is ideally cast as the frustrated mob widow in this colourful black comedy. Matthew Modine plays a clumsy FBI agent who has taken a fancy to her. Dean Stockwell steals the show as the big shot who keeps on pestering Pfeiffer; Mercedes Ruehl is dynamic as his jealous wife. It's all very eighties, but that just adds to the fun. A nice little flick, though not for every taste.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're looking for a not-so-serious mob movie, with a female as the lead, you're in the right place. Pfieffer has acted much better than this. You can see she has matured beyond this picture.

When I first picked this movie up, I expected Pfeiffer was poorly miscast, however, she plays her mob wife role to the hilt. Not a bad performance from Baldwin, either.

If you don't pay attention to the hair, you might enjoy this movie. But don't take it too seriously...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just wanted to write a quick response to all those people who give this film a bad review because they think it isn't funny or that it's boring.

Here's the trick --- the film is not meant to be just a comedy. It's got some depth to it. Like many Demme films it deals with people living in some of the odd corners of our society who are trying to work out how to put together a fulfilling life for themselves.

Unfortunately, the movie and home video industries don't deal well with subtlety and drop this in the \"COMEDY\" bin. It IS funny, but a lot of the humor is off-beat. However, the heart of the movie is not about the humor but about the people in it.

It may not be one of the greatest films in the world but it is solid and entertaining.

And the cast is one of those that shows why casting is an art unto itself. Michelle Pfieffer is great and this may be the film that showed she had some acting chops to add to her beauty. Mercedes Ruehl is a big hoot and gets to chew the scenery in the way only she can, in a role which requires it. Throw in Oliver Platt, Joan Cusack in smaller roles and the talented Dean Stockwell ... and even Chris Isaak and you've got a great cast throughout which here, as usual, makes a great difference.

Matthew Modine is fun, but more important, he's a major hottie in this movie. Hot, cute and sexy.

Sit back, expect the unexpected and let the movie take you where it wants to go and you should have a great time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The only problem with Married to the Mob is that it is not funny. It dresses up exactly like a romantic comedy, but almost nothing that happens is funny. But if you can look at it as a film where almost nothing funny happens, then you'll have a really good time. It's a glitzy mob film, too, as per the title. Extremely glitzy. But the director, Jonathan Demme, is one of the few prevailing cult directors who fully and completely embraced the 1980s in his work from that decade rather than understandably pretending it was still the 1970s.

The opening credits combine 1980s animation, Italian-Americanism and mise-en-scene lathered on top of each other at once. From there, despite 1980sness, it feels about right. The lighting by Demme's frequent cinematographer Tak Fujimoto and jukebox soundtrack rife with widely varying pop and alternative jams are gaudy and that is indeed controlled and nuanced as part of the atmosphere. Demme is good at colorful instant characterizations in his visual and sometimes seemingly impetuous composition of a fun mix of styles, a plot that could've gone any which way, where a smooth FBI agent, played by a very bland Matthew Modine, trying to infiltrate a mafia family, sees a chance when a gun moll, played with come-hither allure by Michelle Pfeiffer, tries to leave the criminal lifestyle after her trigger-man husband, in just what you would hope for in an Alec Baldwin performance, is wacked.

The way it goes works for awhile, because Demme seems to have a firm hand on the wheel. He knows the significance of showing us the very subjective and relatable life-at-home scenes with Pfeiffer, as well as her cares and longings as a morally conflicted mom, although her relationship with son Joey is taken a bit for granted. What mobster's son is listening to party-pooper mom when dad's boss, played with Dean Stockwell's trademark naturalness and by far the scene-stealing stand-out of the cast, is giving him such awesome gifts? On the whole though, Demme's lathered-on stylizations are easily viewed as a novel take on a fun crime thriller tale.

Ultimately, though, we find we've been going the wrong way, because inevitably, Modine and Pfeiffer have to fall in love. That's not inherently bad, and every here and there it actually feels bearable, but as a romantic subplot, it is not handled interestingly, or well, hardly at all because it hopscotches across various sundry clich\u00e9s, which fulfill the initial expectation of a cheesy 1980s date flick, and for that audience, I think it has just the right impact. But for someone who has found themselves genuinely interested in the story and the aesthetic approach, it is a let-down into state of tedium.

So it's a decent movie with huge missteps at certain points, but as a date movie or a nostalgic piece for those who grew up in the '80s, perhaps saw a lot of date movies in the '80s, the entertainment value is not as likely to fluctuate, except for said deficit in true laughs. There maybe a few scoffs, and it's very broadly tongue-in-cheek, but I wouldn't leave the comedy aisle with the high hopes with which I'd have initially entered. Whatever the case anyway, there are additional joys in bit roles by great character actors who have by now begun to fade, like Nancy Travis, Joan Cusack and Oliver Platt.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Married To The Mob was one of the first VHS tapes that I had along with Coming To America and Grease. I still have fond memories of this film after all these years. Hell, I still have the VHS of this film in good condition.

The story: Undercover cop Mike Downey(Matthew Modine)is sent to spy on Angela De Marco(Michelle Pfeiffer) the wife of the slain mafia member Frank \"Cucumber\" De Marco(Alec Baldwin). He later falls in love with her after he realizes that she is innocent in all this. Angela not only has to deal with the unwanted advances of mob boss Tony \"The Tiger\" Russo(Dean Stockwell), she also has to deal with his jealous wife Connie Russo(Mercedes Ruehl).

Married To The Mob is funny and still keeps your interest when its not trying to be funny. I like the little jabs it takes at mafia life(the jealous mafia wife, the mob boss that doesn't realize that he is not a chick magnet etc) and you like the characters of Angela De Marco and Mike Downey. It was the last of the funny phase of Johnathan Demme before he got serious and gave you gems like Philadelphia and Silence Of The Lambs(best thriller of all time). If you're in the mood for comedy, Married To The Mob is a keeper. Its better than the rubbish that passes for comedy nowadays(Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet The Spartans, Disaster Movie etc).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm surprised with the amount of negative reviews on this film. If you don't like this movie for what it is - a silly, over-the-top, mob story - then you are simply reading too much into it. This film is a classic tale of a mob wife trying to escape \"the life\" and the troubles that follow her. Michelle Pfeiffer is terrificly 80's 'jersey, who is an uncertain, uncomfortable mob wife while Matthew Modine is an anal retentive-like mob tracking cop who falls for her. The plot is mostly predictable and cutesy and Mercedes Ruel steals the show as the Queen of Mob Wives. If you aren't looking for something too dynamic and complex, this movie is absolutely entertaining and an 80's cult classic. You won't be able to stop watching if you start.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Strange but acceptable mob comedy that has an undercover FBI agent (Matthew Modine) flirting with a mobster's concerned widow (Michelle Pfeffier) to tie two murders on a elusive mob boss (Dean Stockwell).

The movie shows that it doesn't have to go over the top just to be funny and director Jonathan Demme (\"The Silence of the Lambs\", \"Philadelphia\") keeps the movie from looking like it being was restrained. That's good and it avoids being predictiable, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nicely done evil little comedy pitting the FBI against organized crime with a nice lady caught in the middle. The actress who played the jealous wife of the mob boss 'Tony the Tiger' almost stole the show with her raging tantrums. 3 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michelle Pfeiffer stars as a mob widow who seeks a normal life but has her hands full with the new boss and an undercover agent. A lighthearted Demme film with some good laughs and Pfeiffer in a comical role that she has fun with..on a scale of one to ten..8","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is not always certain that by mixing comedians together you will produce laughter. The comics involved have to actually like or admire each other, or be willing to put up with each other's crankiness. GO WEST with the Marx Brothers had Buster Keaton write the script as a gag man. Groucho did not think too highly of Keaton's ideas, and embarrassed him at a script meeting. And though some of Keaton's gems still appear in the finished film (such as the gun that turns into a brush that turns into a gun) the film was one of the weakest the Marx Brothers ever made.

A better film, but also affected by dueling comic egos, was W.C. Fields and Mae West in MY LITTLE CHICKADEE, which jettisoned the script for a series of duels of one liners between the leads. But the one liners were equally funny, so the film remains a success.

But SIX OF A KIND is an example of six film comics who worked well together. The reason is simple: it is really three comic teams working together: Charlie Ruggles and Mary Boland, George Burns and Gracie Allan, and W.C. Fields and Alison Skipworth. Ruggles and Boland were paired in about half a dozen comedies during the 1930s, usually with Boland as a somewhat bossy wife, and Ruggles as a nervous wreck of a husband. Fields (usually a single act) was paired three times with Skipworth (TILLY AND GUS and IF I HAD A MILLION were the other two times). Skippy always figured out how to control or counter the larcenous activities of her man - it the present film she takes action into her own hands with the stolen money that is being searched for (she knows that the local sheriff, Fields, is not the one to trust with this). As for Burns and Allan they manage to effortlessly involve themselves with the put upon Ruggles and Boland on their cross-country trip by car.

Ruggles quickly gets to realize what a mistake it was to agree to travel with Gracie - at one point she manages to cause him to fall off a cliff, and dangle from a branch. He is relatively helpless when she insists on 1) photographing him on his perch, and 2) correcting his grammar. The presence of George and Gracie's humongous dog (\"Ran Tang Tang\" is it's name) does not make travel arrangements easier for Charlie and Mary.

Fields has some choice moments. When he insists on shouting at the quartet, he says he's allowed to do so - he's the sheriff! He also explains, during a pool game, the improbable story of how he got his undeserved moniker \"Honest John\". You have to listen carefully to the tale, as it is interrupted with his attempts to play pool a few times (once getting accidentally beaned by a billiard ball), but it does show that there were items that even Fields would have had no reason to steal.

Oh, in the \"Summary Line\", I mentioned a forgotten actor named Bradley Page - he was the man who is responsible for the trouble that Charley Ruggles is suspected of. Bradley has to have a reason to leave town in order to catch up with the unwary Ruggles and Boland, so he telephones his girl friend. He tells her to call back his job and say that he has to leave town because somebody has died. There is a pause as he apparently hears a question shot back by the girlfriend. \"ANYBODY!\", he says - clearly annoyed. Although the bulk of the humor in the film is carried by the sextet of performers, Mr.Page happened to have the most amusingly unexpected line in the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"That was one of the lines in a trailer about this film and for once the publicists did not exaggerate. All six of the featured players here are on the screen 99% of the time, so they have to be good.

It's always fascinating how certain plot premises can be worked for either highballing comedy to a deadly serious situation. Mary Boland of the ditzy and Charlie Ruggles of the henpecked play their usual characters who are planning to motor all the way to California. To share expenses they advertise for someone to share the ride. They get Burns and Allen and a monster of a dog. That same premise was a deadly serious one several generations later in Kalifornia.

Of course if you're traveling with Gracie Allen you know you're going to be going absolutely nuts trying to figure her Monty Pythonesque reasoning about the whole world. And if that ain't enough you get to run into W.C. Fields, part time sheriff and full time pool hustler who's living in sin with Alison Skipworth. But back then we didn't delve into such things.

A real classic comedy from the thirties, not to be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Three zany couples, all SIX OF A KIND, become entangled in a madcap search for stolen bank loot.

This is a lively, hilarious comedy, with the six stars - Charlie Ruggles & Mary Boland, W. C. Fields & Alison Skipworth, George Burns & Gracie Allen - all heartily engaged in doing what they did best: getting laughs.

Ruggles & Boland make another of their film appearances as husband & wife - this time rather more amorous than usual. They were a perfect team - she the strident lioness, he the nervous rabbit - and they dominate most of the screen time here. From beginning to end, they are a delight.

Burns & Allen continue the patter they originated in Vaudeville, perfected on radio & would eventually take to television, with George the perpetual straight man & Gracie the eternal fool. At times in the film she tends to go a bit over the top, but it's difficult to dislike her. Her heart was obviously made of solid gold.

While Skipworth is given rather short shrift - only fragments of her formidable personality flash through - Fields is in his element as the disreputable sheriff of Nuggetville, Nevada. Whether explaining how he got the nickname \u0091Honest John' or skulking about at night looking for the missing moola, he is never less than wonderful. Best of all, he gets to perform his entire classic pool routine, preserving it forever for a grateful posterity. Finally, he executes the near miraculous - he gets Gracie to shut up.

Paramount was so pleased with the success of SIX OF A KIND that they wanted to hurry the principle players into another comedy. Only Fields demurred. He felt he had now arrived at the point where he no longer needed to share a movie with other celebrity comics. The Studio finally agreed and began preparation of Fields' first solo starring feature, YOU'RE TELLING ME (1934).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched Six of a Kind for W.C. Fields - he's only in it for around 10 minutes and has one long scene, the infamous pool sequence he made famous in vaudeville, and several other great moments. The reamaining 55 minutes are also delightful, thankfully, mostly due to the hilarious Charlie Ruggles as the bumbling banker J. Pinkham Whinney. He is everyone's foil. He stutters and stumbles about to our pleasure. Also, his comedy partner, Mary Boland plays his wife, Flora. Joining in the proceedings are George Burns and Gracie Allen. Boland is particularly funny near the beginning and near the end, but Gracie and Ruggles use up most of the picture. Gracie's funny, quite, but she can also get tiring. And poor George Burns has absolutely nothing to do except repeat Gracie all the time. I don't remember laughing at him once (although he has one great scene with Ruggles, where Ruggles tries desperately to get George to take Gracie and leave him and his wife alone for a while, and one with Fields, where he asks Fields to sell him a sweater; that bit is exclusively Fields', though). The situation is constantly funny: the Whinneys are going to drive to California, but to help them with expenses, George and Gracie are recruited. 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"But George and Gracie's are not among them. The movie is fun and the pool table scene with WC Fields has to be among the funniest I have ever seen but Gracie and George are more irritating than comical in their roles, partly from script deficiency and partly from their interpretation. I gave it a 7 out of 10 for the rest of the cast, WC is a treasure of comedic timing and energy in this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The gimmick, as it were, of this 1934 Paramount comedy is the six comedy performers, paired off into three man-and-woman teams, who all appear together. W. C. Fields and his frequent screen partner Alsion Skipworth appear in the second half of the film and shine in their roles as a small-town sheriff and innkeeper. Fields seems to have been given the latitude to inject plenty of his own one-of-a-kind brand of misanthropic, surreal comedy into his part, and it works wonderfully, especially where he is allowed to do his famous pool table routine, a digression that is totally welcome since it is hilarious.

At first thought it might have seemed like a mismatch to conceive of a film to be carried by the subtle domestic comedy of Charlie Ruggles and Mary Boland next to the broad, jokey Vaudeville patter of the great husband-and-wife comedy team of George Burns and Gracie Allen, but here it works perfectly because of the parts George and Gracie are given in the script. They are there are freeloaders hitching a ride to California on Ruggles' and Boland's honeymoon trip and consistently find ways to annoy them at every step, including, brilliantly, while they are each holding on to the side of a cliff for dear life.

Making Burns and Allen comic annoyances to two sympathetic characters turns out to be a perfect way to fit their far-out, larger-than-life comedy characters into a real world setting -- the comedy of people reacting to them in a believable way turns out to be as much as a gold-mine as Gracie's famous naive delivery itself.

Charlie Ruggles deserves special mention for his performance as the fussy banker \"Pinky\" Whinney. He's marvelously subtle and underplayed, and draws laughs from lines that in another actor's hands might not even have been heard.

The script is wonderfully witty all through, and most of the way it's a perfectly extended comedy of frustration in which our sympathies are with the poor Whinneys who can't get a moment alone, and the extra bonus is that what frustrates them is just more first-rate comedy material from Burns and Allen.

For the pre-code watchers out there, there is some rather suggestive material in some of the most amusing scenes, as Whinney tries to get across to George just WHY he and his wife want to be alone for a while.

There are a few signs of a rushed production here -- the occasional jump cut, one of the most obvious drop sets you will ever see in a movie (right up there with W. C. Field's own short \"The Golf Specialist\"), and the knot in Field's tie is constantly changing in shape. These don't bother me, though, and they shouldn't bother anybody who is enjoying the film.

\"Six of a Kind\" is a real little-known gem and one of the funniest movies I've seen in a while. If you're thinking about whether to watch it, the answer should be yes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The title refers not to a questionable poker hand, but to six comic players. They come in twos: Charles Ruggles and Mary Boland as a couple driving to California for a second honeymoon, George Burns and Gracie Allen as another couple who go along to share expenses, and W.C. Fields and Alison Skipworth as a sheriff and a hotel-owner in a tiny Nevada town. No attempt is made to fashion a coherent narrative\u0097it's a collection of comic bits strung together. All the first couple want to do is spend time together, but Burns and Allen's characters aren't married, so the men bunk together, as do the women. There is a bit of a plot: a bad guy plants $50k in the suitcase Pinky (Ruggles) is taking out of town, but because the expedition is being guided by Gracie, the loot cannot be found. The bad guy shows up in Nevada and Fields accidentally captures him. A bunch of pleasant bits, Ruggles' confused expression, Gracie's batty, breakneck talk, and Fields playing billiards with a corkscrew cue and doing a fluttery, craven, backwards-stepping double-take when he's threatened, and his wonderfully distinctive way of lingering over words. And trying to remember the name \"Gracie,\" he tells Skipworth, \"Hmm. Starts with a K... McGonigle.\" She answers, \"Oh no, no, no, no...\" \"Mmmm. Wangahanky!\" \"No, no, no, no no. Oh, Gracie.\" \"Yes, that's right.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The working title was: \"Don't Spank Baby\".

Wayne Crawford went on to become a successful producer, films like Valley Girl, Night of the Comet and others, even though he wasn't too terrific in this little Gem. And little known Abe Zwick should have gotten tons of work from this film but didn't. Filmed at Moberly Studios in Hollywood Florida, on the same lot the early Tarzan movies were filmed. This film is definitely for those who appreciate the abstract. The movie was originally shot with some nudity and much more graphic slasher scenes. For reasons only known to Tom Casey the Director, the bloody slasher scenes were given a tab of LSD, and the nudity was removed. Even though this version is worthy of a look for those so inclined, in my opinion, the original version would have packed the punch needed to make this a full on Slasher 70's Cult Classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Haha, what a great little movie! Wayne Crawford strikes again, or rather this was his first big strike, a deliriously entertaining little ball of manic kitsch energy masquerading as a psycho killer movie. It's actually a **brilliant** satire on post-hippie American culture in flyover country, though the movie was actually filmed independently in Miami. It defies any kind of studio oriented convention or plot device that I can think of: SOMETIMES AUNT MARTHA DOES DREADFUL THINGS may not be a very technically adept movie, but it is a wonderful little slice of Americana, made on the cheap by people who were honest, ambitious, imaginative and had balls made out of steel. It took guts, nerve and guile to make this movie, which amazingly appears to have stood the test of time. This movie is fresh, vital, alive, unforgettable, and charmingly weird enough to recommend to just about anyone with a sense of humor.

I dug up last year during a period of time when I was fascinated by \"star\" Wayne Crawford (here billed under his pseudonym Scott Lawrence), a maestro of what can only be called regional film-making, usually of the B grade variety. He's a writer, producer, director, and actor all in one, probably best known for the 80s teen apocalyptic favorite NIGHT OF THE COMET. Here he plays Stanley, the pants wearing half of a couple of truly marvelous characters, apparently homosexual spree killers on the lam after knocking off some old lady in Baltimore for her jewelry. Unsung screen legend Abe Zwick is completely convincing as Paul, who poses as Stanley's Aunt Martha, the cross dressing brains of the outfit who has conned Stanley into thinking he's committed murder to ensure his loyalty. Martha looks about as feminine as the sailors from SOUTH PACIFIC's supporting choir in their coconut bikini tops, yet somehow nobody seems to notice -- or care? -- that she is a he, has no visible means of income, seems to spend all day fretting about where Stanley is, and scurries around the neighborhood in her bathrobe carrying a butcher's knife. Only in America ...

As the film opens the two of them have just arrived in Florida and set up residence in what looks like Ward Cleaver's old house, a garishly lit & designed television home that is so clich\u00e9 as to be surreal. During one memorable scene Martha and an unwelcome house guest sit on the couch, talk problems and drink cans of Budweiser in what is one of the most mesmerizing, subversively ordinary sequences I've ever seen outside of a John Waters movie. Then there's Stanley, always getting into trouble as he is a mop topped hippie with an STP patch on his vest who drives a psychedelic painted van that's about as subtle as the Batmobile, drinks his milk straight from the carton, snorts drugs with blond bombshell bimbos, and hoards donuts in an old cigar box for a quick snack. Opposites attract, I guess.

But Stanley also has a thing about not liking it when the young ladies he gets stoned with try to remove his pants, and it always seems to be up to Aunt Martha to get him out of the trouble that inevitably results. The bodies pile up, a nosy junkie blackmails them into using their house as a flop, Stanley's birthday cake gets squashed, and everybody meets down at the local pizza shop before heading to the wood shed on the back property for a hookah hash party where the girls dance in their underwear. Things get out of hand when one of the neighbors tries to get a bit too chummy with Martha, who naturally prefers to keep people at an arm's length when they rudely invite themselves over for a nice chat. And this is a woman who carries not just a butcher knife but a loaded .38 in her slip. Eventually the strange duo find themselves stuck with a body, a baby, and no place to go, and end up taking refuge at an abandoned movie studio where no doubt the technical crew borrowed the equipment used to make the film. I just hope they politely asked for permission first and cleaned up after themselves.

A word of course must be said about Stanley and Martha\/Paul's relationship, since to dance around the fact that the two are at least suggested to be a homosexual couple would be to miss the primary gist of the plot. We never see the two of them get intimate and indeed even though Stanley mockingly refers to being \"balled\" in one scene, their relationship is more symbiotic than sexual. It certainly isn't a \"gay\" movie, with abundant female nudity and an air of 70s misogyny that cannot be denied either. Stanley & Paul never consummating their implied sexuality on screen, even though the movie certainly would have had the guts to do so if it were important. It isn't, the story isn't about their sex, it's about the bond they share, and how weird it is. Not their being gay, but their being the distinct individuals they are, who are two of the strangest movie creations ever to inhabit my TV set.

The film is unique. It was made for only a few thousand dollars on what look like borrowed studio sets, the occasional location work, and an couple of public locations they managed to sneak a camera crew into when nobody was looking. The dialog is completely bizarre, mundane and delightfully esoteric. It's a movie that will take you by surprise, not everyone will like it but for those with a taste for low budget American horror\/thrillers like THE NIGHT GOD SCREAMED, HELP ME! I'M POSSESSED, BLOOD & LACE and CHILDREN SHOULDN'T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS, you've got yourself a winner here.

8\/10: Usually I'd say something like \"Deserves a DVD restoration\" but somehow I think doing so would ruin the movie's tacky ambiance. And Wayne Crawford, you, sir, rule.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Abe Zwick perfected the one-off, beautifully. He never made another film, but created a brilliant portrait of homosexual self-hatred in this film that is both caustic and affecting. He commands the screen, presenting the crumbling debris of a man breaking down under the strain of an increasingly meaningless life.

Paul (Zwick) is an aging queen who's somehow convinced Stanley (Wayne Crawford), a doe-eyed idiot with no sense of the future, to follow his star. He's a petty thief who's seething hatred has escalated recently. He's been forced to skip town and move to a suburb in Miami. As a disguise, he dresses up like a dried up old blue-stocking with as much seething sexual torment as the Church Lady. He tells Stanley to tell his friends that he lives with his \"Aunt Martha\". Paul himself has no friends, spends far too much time alone in the house, and has to deal with Stanley's dissolute lifestyle. It would be enough to make any man cross the line into transgendered homicidal mania.

Again, Zwick portrays Paul as a tragic figure who has utterly lost any understanding of how to relate to other people. Nevertheless, there is a certain poetry in his anguish, which burns slowly over the course of the film. He's tragic, but also elegant. This is, ultimately, a very sad film. It certainly has many hilarious moments, but there is such an undercurrent of hopelessness and despair, that the humour is bittersweet. This film is worth watching for the performance of Abe Zwick. He could have really built his career on Martha. She's quite a gas, once you get to know her. Just make sure you cut your hair and stop your horsing around. She really hates that!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A man named Jerry comes into possession of an ancient Aztec doll.However this creepy little figure is possessed by an evil spirit,which takes over Jerry's body and pushes him to spill the blood...I have seen two other horror movies \"The Dorm that Dripped Blood\" and \"The Kindred\" made by Stephen Carpenter and Jeffrey Obrow and I must say that \"The Power\" doesn't disappoint either.The plot is slow-moving,but there are some effective human goo effects and a little bit of gore.The scene of a female tabloid reporter being attacked by arms that come ripping out of a mattress is a hoot.I liked this low-budget horror movie and you should too,if you are into 80's horror genre.8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Look, this is a low budget horror film that suffers from all of the problems that go with low budget movies. But you must see this just to watch Lisa Erickson as Julie. She is SMOKIN' hot and a great little actress to boot! These types of horror movies often unearth a rare gem and The Power gave us Lisa Erickson! Nothing I enjoy more than sitting down in my studio apartment with a Coke and putting in this film. My friends Bob, Bill and Dennis agree.. Lisa is not only brilliant, she is a hottie. The movie itself often plods along and the rest of the actors are not very helpful in that regard. But as soon as Lisa hits the screen, things really start hopping. The others are clearly not in her league. This is not the Exorcist but as I said, if you want to see a fun little movie with a hot little actress, this is the one to see!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie on my local cable system under the title of 'Beyond Redemption'. I was searching for new material to watch, since most of the reruns one Saturday morning didn't interest me. I've always been a fan of Andrew McCarthy and Michael Ironside, so I chose this movie. I was pleasantly surprised.

Personally, I enjoyed the film. Rich Roesing, who posted a comment about the film being spoiled for him by seeing scenes from the movie on the back of a video rental box, are well justified. I did not have the disappointment of knowing beforehand anything about the film. This led me to rate the movie higher than the average score listed on the page.

I like suspense movies, and this one was no exception. The movie kept me guessing until the very end. I was surprised by the ending!

The moments of reflection and remembrance of past experiences by the main character during the film only added to the suspense. His reactions to those remembrances gave the film a sense of the humanitarian, yet conflictual, side of police work. The struggle with his faith is also a welcome addition.

If you like suspense films, but also like films that expound on the character's feeling, personal inflection side, this film is for you.

Should you find this movie on your local cable or satellite system's guide, watch it!

However, if you are looking for a rental video, follow Rich Roesing's advice and have someone get the video for you before watching it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was different. It took a sort of typical thriller story and reached for a more interesting, in-depth look at an individual character's struggle with faith. Of course, it helped that the main performance, by Andrew McCarthy, was quite excellent. The other performances were also quite interesting, although not as consistent. The ending was a bit of a let down, but there were lots of good moments. The film-makers tried something different here -- they didn't just go for the obvious chills and scares. This is a dark film (not for everyone) but if you want to be entertained and not talked down to, try this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed the film, and the fact that it aimed rather high in dealing with some sophisticated material. I saw the film in a preview screening, and it wasn't ruined by any silly video boxes that spoiled the ending. The performances were quite good, especially Andrew McCarthy in a more mature roll. I also enjoyed the look of the film which gave it a mysterious, forboding air. I also enjoyed some of the \"twists\" in the plot, and don't want to give too much away in case other countries' video boxes don't give it all away! The script was a little over the top at times, but I appreciated the fact that the film-makers weren't afraid to challenge the audiences with interesting and puzzling questisons regarding the roll of faith in our world. And, while some might find the ending a little too open-ended, I appreciated the fact that the movie refused to tie everything up neatly with a bow. That's not how life works.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Andrew McCarthy played the role of an atheist very well. I liked the plot of the movie. It gave something to think about other than a comedy. It had a very twisted mind and a good cop versus God. A very well used plot line.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lot of people give this movie a lot of crap, and all of it's really undeserved. People give this movie a hard time either because it's such a sick subject or they harp on some technical aspect of the movie no one else observes when they watch it. If, just by looking at the cover, you think this movie will make you uncomfortable...DON'T WATCH IT! However, you'd be missing out on one of the better cinematic experiences of the late 1990's, despite what anyone else says.

Dee Snider is wonderful here as Captain Howdy, the depths of insanity he plumbs to play this character has to be beyond words, and is much farther than any one of us would have to be willing to go. The acting here is wonderful. The film itself beautifully shot. The subject may be a bit too much for many to swallow, but it's still well worth your time. If you haven't seen this movie, check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Strangeland seems to have a love\/hate relationship with many of its viewers. I personally loved the movie, and everything about it.

The acting in some places could be improved upon, but the filming adds to the atmosphere where the acting can't. In some areas, the dialogue is a bit cheesy and over dramatic, but really, what do you expect from the late 90s? Over all, Dee did an amazing job in writing what I believe to be one of the most terrifying thrillers I've ever seen. It plays on the fears of many age groups--adult, parents, and children. Every parent fears that their children will get too involved with chat rooms and will meet strangers from the internet. And it *does* happen in the real world. And every child and adult fears being kidnapped and tortured against their will; that happens too in the real world. Which is what makes this movie such a sensitive subject for many.

My only warning is if you *know* you are sensitive to things such as strong violence, visible torture, and gore, then you do *not* want to see this movie. If you are unsure about if this movie will entertain you, then read as many reviews as you can, ask people you know who have seen this movie, and be prepared to turn the movie off at any time should you become disturbed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Honestly, this is one of the BEST horror movies I have ever seen. I was captivated by the story, petrified of Captain Howdy and on the edge of my seat for the whole ride. I do not really understand all the negative reviews.

The set up has already been discussed in depth; Captain Howdy is an on-line predator who sets up meetings with teenagers, abducts them and introduces them to his favorite pastime of body modification and piercing. Dee Snider is Captain Howdy and he is one of the scariest psychopaths ever created; maybe the scariest because he is so human and you get the sense (especially if you are into body modification at all) that there are really people like this in the world.

But the biggest reason I liked this movie and the reason it is so horrific is that Captain Howdy becomes the hero. At the beginning of the movie, the roles are clear-cut; the victims are innocent, the cop is the good guy and Howdy is pure evil. By the second act, however, things have changed a little. You want Howdy to be evil but it turns out that he is really just a victim of circumstance and maybe the good and the bad are not obvious. It is terrifying to find yourself cheering for the \"bad\" guy.

A couple people have mentioned that Strangeland should have been broken into two separate movies. To be sure, there are definitely two separate \"acts\" but this movie works so well because the two acts are back to back. The first act is the typical psycho-thriller but the second act is the most disturbing because of the viewers reaction to the situation. I do not think it would have worked quite the same if the second act were expanded and turned into a sequel.

As a big horror movie fan, I highly recommend this film. It is the first horror movie EVER to give me nightmares.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dee Snider was inspired to do a two part song by a horror movie. This movie he wrote\/directed\/produced and starred in details the subjects from those songs (Horror-terria,from TwistedSister\/ Stay Hungry). People have commented he must have a sick mind to put something like this out. I don't hear anybody making comments like that about Stephen King, Wes Craven,Dean Koontz,or in his own time Alfred Hitchcock. The movie profiles a modern Psychotic created by current trends in society. Personally I thought it was pretty well done from sheer imagination and inspiration,also without the benefit of a large budget and interviews with actual victims\/criminals. This movie is perfect if you want something to give you nightmares and make you cringe about the possible and probable. IT COULD HAPPEN!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't really think this movie was bad. Sure, the detective kinda sucked at what he did, and he usually happened upon Capt. Howdy by accident, but he got the job done. Capt. Howdy himself was pretty scary. The make-up artist did a great job. I really liked seeing Dee dressed up all geeky. I laughed so hard when I saw that. I personally don't see how someone can sit through crap like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and call it a great movie, and then watch Strangeland, which is more disturbing because a lot of it could actually happen with the internet being so popular, and call it bad. I personally think that Texas Chainsaw Massacre was loads of crap. Probably one of the stupidest movies that I've ever seen. I enjoyed Strangeland. It was a very disturbing movie because almost all of it actually happens.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This thriller is one of the few (film) surprises I've had in quite some time. Everybody - and I do mean EVERYBODY - I talked to when it was in the theatres said it was awful...but then I got to thinking...none of these people really understand horror\/thriller films or metal rock - so WHY DO I LISTEN TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE????? This film kicks ass - but ONLY if you are able to comprehend and enjoy this type of entertainment. In short (too late) - see it with an open mind and it might just open your mind. ...the soundtracks great too...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't understand where these bad comments are coming from. The movie had you on the edge of your seat and made you somewhat afraid to go to your car at the end of the night.

The part that gets you is that this could all happen. Not to the extent perceived in the movie, but the whole idea is reality. This movie took that reality and twisted it into a Dee Snider nightmare.

Three thumbs up (the third one is from the dead body in my freezer).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everyone told me this movie was downright not good, and sick etc. so I finally rented it and I was amazed . I thought the torture was gonna be much much worse, but it did get shocking near the end but that was about it. I wouldn't call it a horror movie, maybe a mystery or something under the category of Silence of the Lambs and\/or Kiss the Girls. It did get stupid at times, but the rest of the movie kept me on the edge of my seat. 7\/10

Rated R - for strong torture, violence, language, and sexuality","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This off-beat horror movie seems to be getting nothing but bad reviews. My question is; why? I think this movie is pretty good. Dee Snider did very well for his first (and only) time directing. He also plays the antagonist, Captain Howdy (Carelton Hendriks). This movie seems to have a view of the future. Although it came out back in 1998, it seems to be about modern issues. Internet predators seems to be the underlying plot here. Although taken to another level, this is an issue which we still face today. I'll admit, the story fell short a few times, but that doesn't make this a bad movie at all. Robert Englund is even in this movie, that automatically makes it better. THe acting wasn't bad, the characters were pretty good as well. Hendriks was a pretty good antagonist I think. I give this off-beat horror a 7\/10. Recommend for fans of Saw.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"many people have said that this movie was not a good movie, at a horror perspective i agree, it was not very scary, it did have some gruesome ways of torture yes (hooks going where they shouldn't) but not scary. but it was a good movie at a comedic stand-point, i thought it was hilarious, such bad acting from dee snider with his stupid theological questioning and every second word he said came out as \"what is____, define______\", then the angry mob at his house with one of them holding a sign saying \"we're not gonna take it\" (which is a song from his band twisted sister. but i think the part that made me laugh the most was the one guy's wife that was dead and dee snider was holding her up and making her dance, when i saw that i broke out in tears... so i would not recommend this for avid horror lovers, but for those who love horror for its comedy i recommend this movie 100%","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A sick man Carleton Hendricks (Dee Snider), cruises the Teen Chat lines as Captain Howdy. He poses as a teenage boy and invites other teens over his house to party. He instead knocks them out, strips them, sews their mouth closed and tortures them (mostly with needles). He captures the daughter of cop Mike Gage (Kevin Gage). He finds him, arrests him and he's institutionalized. Four years later he's released...totally cured. But a lynch mop (led, amusingly, by Robert Englund) attack him and hang him. He doesn't die but he snaps and Captain Howdy is back...

A very sick, disturbing, twisted horror film. Captain Howdy enjoys pain and torture and is trying to show the kids he kidnaps how to enjoy it also. The torture scenes aren't that explicit (you hear more than you see), but what you do see is very very sick. There's no humor and the (muted) screams of his victims sound way too real. I was cringing away from the TV during most of the scenes.

The acting varies. Kevin Gage isn't that good as the cop--he's not terrible but he could have been better. Dee Snider is very scary as Captain Howdy--his attack scenes are not pleasant.

All in all, not your typical horror film. I'll probably never see it again (this film really gets under your skin) but I recommend it to all horror fans--at least those with strong stomaches. I give it a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this movie is the most misunderstood film in Jerry Lewis career. It's little slow starting, but after it gets going is very funny & Jerry's use of irony like never before in his earlier films..., ie, Who's Minding the Store, The Nutty Professor, etc., the idea, is clear, it's a mock of the Dirty Dozen, instead of getting soldiers on death row to do a suicide mission as in that film, you have 4, 4-f's & 2 tag alongs. Including the Former L.A. Dodgers all-star Centerfielder, Willie Davis as Linc! HILARIOUS! Love that Movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"iv been a fan of Rik Mayall and Ade Edmednson ever since i can remember weather its young ones or bottom. and i just have to say i have never laughed so much in all my life!!! guest house paradiso is bloody brilliant! i know its not going to be everyones cup of tea (with the vomiting,slapstick comedy, violence and foul language) but then just don't watch it if it ain't yours. its not like no one knows what sick and twisted things Rik and Ade come up with when they're working with one another!! i think its unfair that this film received such a slatting from critics because,and i don't think I'm the only one to think this, this film is 10 out of 10! : )","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i had been looking for this film for so long before i found it, i had seen it when i was younger and loved it, after my second viewing i still loved it and i still do.

this is a love\/hate film, if you like bottom, young ones, the comic strip, then you will find this funny. If you don't like that kind of humour then don't bother. I love this film and have grown up with these comedy programmes, for me this film is simply placing their comic genius on the big screen.. It is not an award winner by any means but if you just want good wholesome slapstick then this is it!

the film lacks the quality of the TV series and this is usually the case with films but it still has enough material to keep you laughing even if a lot of the jokes are pretty similar to their previous work.

yes, the humour is a little childish and not to everyone's taste but sometimes you just need that in a film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bottom has been my favourite sitcom ever since i saw it on t.v and the movie is even better if your a bottom fan i say this is a must buy!!! the plot is that Eddie and Ritchie run a hotel named guest house Paradise but not all goes right for them as customers leave until a famous actress come to stay they try there best to impress her but not all well go right this is a upbringing to British cinema so buy this and you will wet yourself with laughter. also starring Simon Peggi (shaun of the dead) and also bill neigh (love actually) it might of not done good in the box office or by the looks of it on this website but don't listen to them buy this and i swear you will love it","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, this may not be the most sophisticated movie you'll ever see. Actually, there isn't a bit of \"sophisticatedlyness\"* in it. It's puerile, adolescent, inoffensive, idiotic..And utterly hilarious. Basically, Richie and Eddie run the worst hotel in Britain. Cue some ridiculous antics with the guests while they beat each other up, try to get the rent money out of the only resident who is daft enough to stay, have an all night drinking binge with the boys from the power plant next door...And fall in lust with the beautiful actress who comes to stay to avoid the press. Give it a try if you're a fan of Rik and Ade and their work. If you're not...Don't get the movie. Simple as that.

*I'm not being thick, this is a word from another one of Rik's fab jaunts into the movie world ^_^","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a gem of a film, Slapstick violence a-plenty, Simon pegg and Green Spew.

A suspicious looking power plant and an incontrollable motorbike add to this stonker.

If you haven't seen this I can highly recommend it, maybe not quite as good as bottom but not far short.

If you have never seen a man impaled by the nose on two hooks then what are you waiting for buy this film.

I didn't even see the twist at the end coming when it turns out that Ritchie and Eddie are both ghosts.

Feeb - 1 boiled egg.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I own this movie on DVD and I have watched it about 10 times and it's still funny. The jokes will never get boring and I often burst out laughing at inappropriate times just thinking about them. The premise is that Richard and Eddie of Bottom fame own the cheapest hotel in Britain next to a nuclear power plant. They are desperately in need of cash and when a film star in hiding comes to stay their luck just might be in.

To watch this movie and not become utterly bored or disgusted you first need to like the humour. Some would say that only hardcore fans really enjoy watching it. But overall it's a great movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My God, this is funny stuff. Yes, it's puerile in the extreme, but also rather witty (\"Here's the page with all the wines on it.\" \"It's a little early for us, I'm afraid.\" \"Well, what are you doing up then?\") and the fight sequences are second to none. Despite what you may have heard, the laughs *do* keep coming, and at a surprisingly generous rate. The sheer comic abilities of Rik Mayall and Adrian Edmondson help keep it riotously funny. wringing every drop of comedy from the script. I can only compare it to \"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas\" - you either find that film hysterical throughout or not at all; the same applies here. It's probably the funniest British film since \"Withnail and I\", but to say it's an acquired taste is something of a gross (sic) understatement.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cant see how some people cant find this film funny i saw the end of it on Sky Movies in 2001 thought i would by the DVD since then i have laughed my balls of with lines like Rik Mayalls laugh \"HAHAHAHAHAHAHA\" and Eddies \"Hello night porter\" when they never get any phone calls overall i think this film is very very funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't even begin to imagine why everyone hates this movie so much. It had me literally crying with laughter several times (\"I trust you slept well?\" \"actually, we had a bit of a rough night.\" \"ah, the perils of adultery.\").

admittedly, the ending is a little flat, but still has its moments (the booger ball's obvious fake spalsh as flew into the ocean, \"beach house paradiso\").

personally, i think this is the funniest movie i've ever seen.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a Christian, and thought this movie was pretty good! :) While the acting wasn't Academy Award caliber, I thought it was good, considering the cast has had limited acting experience at the time this movie was made.

The Gospel message and the transforming power of Jesus Christ was explained wonderfully. The message that the director was trying to get across (which is THE important thing, not how the characters dressed!) definitely got through. The theme of having the main characters involved in illegal drag racing was a good idea, too (cool muscle cars, btw). I think this movie will definitely reach out to a lot of young people.

I would definitely recommend this movie, it is a great witnessing tool! :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Id just like to say that the film was good and touching. The film explains to you the real meaning of being saved or born again and is very well set out. The acting was quite good but could do with some improvements. The story Board is catchy and when my church had youth service and we watched it,8 people gave there life to Christ. Id just like to say too anyone who is reading this, give your life to Christ and repent from your sin. PLease visit www.lifeofacristian.piczo.com Thank you Andrew

The word of God will not turn Void. So Get saved and repent from your sin!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was amazing. I was in tears by the end of the movie. Okay, I know the acting sucked but that's not what was important. The message came through loud and clear about God's love for us and Jesus's sacrifice. The movie was realistic and showed actual human feelings whether it be Pete's anger of the blond girl's sneers or the guy that asked questions. But it also showed the joy that comes from a true relationship with Christ. The cars were awesome and the actors were very hot and that attracted my eye. But what I liked most about this movie was the clear Gospel message. The mother and pastor supported Ben in his new walk with Christ and tried to be a godly example to others. Nicky D showed that no matter if you have all the world has to offer, without Christ, it doesn't matter. Nina showed how a misguided but good person can easily miss the mark. I loved this movie and think that it will bring many teenagers to Christ.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very \"right on case\" movie that delivers everything almost right in your face. I'm a Christian and liked the film in one way. It had some average acting from the main person, and it was a low budget as you clearly can see. It can be a bit long-winded, but the film has some quite nice cars that rescues it from a lower rating from me. As a Christian film it was quite good, but maybe a bit right-on in the message. The film works best on a big screen. *SPOILERS* The fighting scene with the two brothers can remind you of the fighting scene between the two brothers in the Christian thriller \"Mercy Streets\" starring Eric Roberts.*End of Spoiler* I give it a 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A young man discovers that life is precious after he is seriously injured in a street racing accident. His father is a pastor who changes his outlook on life and he spends the whole movie sharing his new-found love for others in this shocking and heartwarming movie. The theme is built around street car racing and it is an excellent movie for people who are into that and movies like 'the fast and the furious'. This shows how people can overcome their problems and gives the general message about the meaning of life in a new and exciting way!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On seeing this movie, I didn't expect much. I was delightfully surprised. Although the writing was unpolished, as some of the dialog seemed drawn-out and contrived, the script did have shining moments. (My favorite line, \"Life is like a rich meringue, an-and I'm diabetic, so I can't enjoy it...\".) The plot was new and refreshing as opposed to some of the newer more \"main-stream\" horror that most of us are (sadly) growing used to. I do believe some of the scenes could (should) have been longer (and maybe some shorter). The superfluous use of blood was campy but seemed to make sense in the end....Ah, the end. The end would have been a little better if they had explained why what happened, happened. (I don't wanna spoil it.) It might have also added to the movie time, which is in the area of \"it's only an hour long, how good could it be?\" Answer- Quite good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Right, here we go, you have probably read in previous reviews on this film that it is awful, badly acted, avoid at all costs. Well i suppose in some ways this is true, it is fair to say that you couldn't write a spoiler in this comment as there is no plot to spoil. However, there is a fine line between plain awful and absolutely hilarious and believe me this film is the latter. The acting is so bad, the plot so non existent and the ending so completely baffling it will have you laughing the whole way through. There are scenes in this film that take comedy to a new level. Do not expect an Oscar winner but believe me for the small price you will pay for this disaster, it is worth every penny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Forget Samara\/Sadako and Jason...

Horror has a new name : GRANNY. The plot is simple but efficient. The actors are good (two thumbs up for \"Michelle\" and the killer) and the dialogs are even quite clever. From the beginning to the end, the action will leave you breathless, you just can't escape it... There is blood, awful murders, funny moments, and a sense of perversity that goes far beyond any rule. \"Deja vu\" ? Surely NOT : \"Granny\" is not another slash movie, it's truly a classic of its own... It deserves the success it had and there's even more success to come with its re-release. Congrats!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"GRANNY IS THE BEST MOVIE EVER Ganny is the best movie i have ever seen. the plot was like nothing ever seen or done before these people are truly blessed with a talent no joke i love this movie. i need to buy it but i cant find at any place. it is a dream for me to go and meet the actors and try and do a granny 2.i rented GRANNY at Broadway video and kept it for a week longer than i should have and asked them if i could buy it off of them they said no a big disappointment and an even bigger one the week after i returned it i wanted to go and rent it again but come to find out Broadway video was out of business. if anyone has the movie or knows where i can buy it at then please tell me write to me at iloverot@aol.com","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My partner and I sat down to watch this film over a bottle of wine last Saturday and although we initially had our reservations once the story got going it was in actual fact rather gripping. The scene in which one of the characters in brutally murdered by knitting needles was particularly shocking and echoed the work of Korean new wave auteur Park Chan Wook. The weapon of choice was a particular masterstroke and allowed us to see into the psyche of 'Granny', heavily altering the connotations of a loving, warm Grandmother into a murderous hag. The dialogue was incredibly moving and lyrical in expressing the innermost paranoia the protagonist. Pavlosky's selections of mise en scene furthermore enhance the unnerving and manical atmosphere of the nights events, combining with the Oscar worthy performances to create a chilling and thought provoking masterpiece. The ending, which I won't spoil for you here, reminded my partner and myself of M Night Shyamalan's institutional masterwork The Sixth Sense for it's mind altering twist that has left me thinking weeks after viewing. Definitely one to watch, repeatedly!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let me just say that GRANNY was extremely well made with the horror violence and sure suspense moves!!!!!! the best indie horror movie I have ever seen that is only 58 minutes long...It is my 5 out of 20 most favorite movie of all time. You people should love this. I give it a 10 out of 10!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Paul Naschy as a ghostly security guard in this is scarier than most of his fur-and-shoe-polish werewolf guises. The story is not unfamiliar, a bunch of kids going to party at an abandoned school. The thing is, that one of these kid's fathers did the same thing years ago but he's now deceased, and the latest group of kids seem to be reliving an event from 23 years ago. This is fairly well done for films of this type, and there's an air of mystery to what's going on because apparently what happened to the kids before is somewhat of a mystery and perhaps the truth wasn't revealed. So no, not just your standard slice and dice. This moves along at a fairly good clip and doesn't let you lose interest like a lot of films do, and the oddball story is compelling enough to keep you interested too, and there's some suspense which is lacking in a lot of films these days. The ending is rather abrupt and I suppose is left mostly to your imagination, but then again it doesn't out-stay its welcome either. 7 out of 10, check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A group of teens decide to take their slumber party to an abandoned school where, 27 years prior, a horrible massacre took place. Unfortunately for them, the person responsible for the slaughter still lurks the halls of the derelict school and he is not happy with their presence.

This film is not like most modern teen slashers we've seen. It's much darker, much more suspenseful, no wise-cracking murderer, etc., and I liked it for those reasons. From a film-making point-of-view, it's not great. The acting is below average. The writing was pretty bad and quite full of clich\u00e9s, containing randomly tossed-in references to American horror films, some that didn't even make sense (like. . . \"Have you seen Scream 3?\", a girl asks. Yes, I have, and it had nothing to do with walking through the doors of an old school so it in no way relates to this film). But, hey, it's a slasher flick, those are part of the fun. Also, the underutilization of characters was heavily exhibited in this film. There were six main characters (not including The Security Guard) and, to be honest, only three or four were really used. Two characters (the token black guy and some other girl that wasn't important enough to get a label) barely spoke: Between them, I'd estimate about five or six lines total. Also, the girls (other than one) weren't formed well enough to differentiate them from one another. They could've replaced each of the girls with one another repeatedly throughout the film and I wouldn't have noticed the difference. The pacing, however, works well as the horror begins right from the start and rarely ceases. The atmosphere is utilized well and the direction reveals some truly chilling moments. . . although, the overall appearance is a bit cheap-looking due to, what I assume is, low-grade camera equipment (and operation). The ending, though I liked the idea they were going for, was fairly poorly done. It felt rushed and without explanation enough to make it effective. With the amount of time they spent running around looking for nothing, they could've spent a little bit more time on the conclusion to make sure it didn't feel like some random event thrown in for no good reason (which is a flaw many modern horror films are afflicted with). However, ignoring a few irksome issues and trying to focus on the first 98% of the film rather than the ending, this is actually a rather good modern slasher that should be checked out, especially if you're a fan of Spanish and\/or atmospheric horror.

Obligatory Slasher Elements:

- Violence\/Gore: There's a good bit of blood and gore, realistically done, but not buckets. The violence is extremely well done, not to excess, but pretty brutal at points.

- Sex\/Nudity: Little bit, and with the hottest girl in the film.

- Cool Killer: Well, security guards are hardly considered 'cool,' but this guy is pretty wicked. His creepy smile was chilling.

- Scares\/Suspense: The suspense is top-notch. . . very tense, very well done. There are also some extremely creepy moments that fused jump scares and the spooky atmosphere.

- Mystery: None at all, really.

- Awkward Dance Scene: Of course: between a couple of guys and a half-unwilling female in the flashback.

- Classic Quote of the Film: 'One more trophy.'

Final verdict: 7\/10. This may be stretching it, but fans of Session 9 might want to check it out simply for the similar tone and atmosphere.

-AP3-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why has Ram\u00f3n(Carlos Fuentes)brought his five college mates to a spooky abandoned school building which used to service the black sheep children of wealth? That answer might just lie in a diary in his possession supposedly written by his dying father. What they come in contact with is in fact a relived episode involving another group of six, with five of them presumably meeting graphic fates at the hands of a sadistic security guard(Paul Naschy)which occurred 20 some odd years ago. But, as they seek out a way to escape from this place, terror awaits them as that horrifying moment in time replays as the group run for their lives, often in states of panic as the killer begins to hunt and destroy them in a various bloody ways. Will Ram\u00f3n and any of his pals survive this night of horror or becomes ghosts forever repeating the very same night like those before them?

Stylish Spanish slasher has that professional gloss and potent, shocking violence to match. Some witty exchanges between the characters..layered in their dialogue are pop-culture references to American horror films which might annoy some viewers. A demented Naschy is really ferocious with the kiddies as he attacks them gleefully..quite a bloodthirsty maniac who carries out his violent acts with relish. I found the loud musical cues a bit annoying and the filmmakers often use flashbacks from previous events in the film as reminders to the audience. I don't think these tricks are necessarily needed, but felt the director wished to communicate in depth with the viewer hence the use of cues and flashbacks. A minor diversion for this film's plot keeps moving and the camera follows the pace of the characters and how they react to the chaotic situation presented to them. Your enjoyment of this film may ultimately come down to your acceptance of the paranormal supernatural aspects of the plot. Moments in time relived and a killer who continues his work seemingly from the grave. The twist does seem a bit jarring and abrupt, but this might(..or might not)work considering how the story plays out regarding why Ram\u00f3n's father is shown amongst those ghosts re-enacting those grisly events two decades prior. I will say that this film probably wouldn't hold up if scrutinized in detail, but as a slasher flick, it's a breath of fresh air.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Six teenagers go to an old remote abandoned school where 27 years ago a horrible massacre took place for a night of fun and pranks. Instead the kids run afoul of the vicious crazed security guard (excellently played with supremely creepy menace by Spanish horror icon Paul Naschy) who committed the nasty killings. Director Carlos Gil relates the intriguing story at a brisk pace and does an adept job of creating a compellingly spooky and mysterious atmosphere. The witty script by Tino Blanco and Mercedes Holgueras offers a clever and inspired blend of slasher and supernatural elements that keep the viewer guessing to the very end. The slick cinematography by Fernando Arribas makes expert use of light and shadow. David San Jose's moody score likewise does the trick. The attractive and appealing young cast all contribute lively and engaging performances, with especially praiseworthy turns by Carlos Fuentes as ringleader Ramon, Olivia Molina as the panicky Maria, Zoe Berriatua as obnoxious joker Jordi, and Carmen Morales as spunky goth chick Sandra. The murder set pieces are every bit as bloody and brutal as they ought to be. Terrific whammy of a surprise dark ending, too. A solid and satisfying shocker.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bit of a curate's egg, this one. I started off hating it, with it's predictable' Old Dark House' set-up, it's constant references to recent US horrors and regular trips up and down dimly lit corridors.

But it does get going and has it's moments of originality.

I began to wonder , once the killing started, how they were going to last out with only a cast of six but then we get flashbacks to a previous visit to the building and see a whole slew of gory killings which is pretty effective.

Naschy is fine and by the end it's been an enjoyable enough movie. It just does not jump up and grab one, hard enough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cannot believe someone gave this movie a 1 rating!!! and it is only a 3. average... What is not to love about this film? It is original, it has lots of scare scenes that actually made me jump out of my seat, and it has some great special effects. The story is fresh, there is some nudity, and it is very campy. The killer was scary in his own demented way and the end is very unexpected. I must admit that I really love this film, one of Spain's best horror films ever. If you consider yourself a true horror fan you need to get out there and try to find this film. You will be pleasantly surprised to do so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Elegant Universe brings to light many ideas of the universe and existence. After watching this documentary, one can't help but take a step back and rethink their view on the existence of everything. There is a large cast of scientists, mathematicians and others on both sides of String Theory. It is continually brought into question as untested, untestable, and possibly dead wrong. The closest to proselytizing that anyone does is to explain that Quantum Physics, the set of mathematical ideas that give extremely good approximations of what happens to sub-atomic particles, has never made an incorrect prediction. Not so with String Theory; no one is willing to say, on-camera, that String Theory is the truth, and in so doing, the piece retains a certain respectful distance from the subject.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My local PBS station WHYY Philadelphia recently showed \"The Elegant Universe.\" After three hours of watching it, besides having my brain hurt, I learned all about wormholes, quantum mechanics and parallel realities and alternate universes.

The last hour of the show was about \"String Theory\" Physics, a semi-new branch of physics which makes many of the the ideas of science fiction not only possible, but PROBABLE. With the \"String Theory\" it sounds like wormholes, alternate realities and alternate timelines ARE possible and it could just be a matter of time until we get the knowledge to use them.

Although it may not have given new information to someone familiar with the topic, I found the show VERY interesting and informative. It was very understandable to anyone who is just being introduced to this subject.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This program was quite interesting. The way the program was displayed made it all the more interesting. String Theory is also very interesting to listen too. The whole three hours in my opinion were well worth it. I enjoyed listening to the ideas given by the physicists. Extra dimensions really boggle the mind. If you have the chance, watch this amazing documentary.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many of us who went through high school probably made it through alright without having to take a Physics course - I know I didn't. But after watching this program, I surely wish I had.

This documentary is a guide to the 'Holy Grail of Physics' - the quest to unify all the fundamental forces of the universe into one 'master equation' that eluded Einstein during the last years of his life. Brian Green, a professor at Columbia University, introduces us to this mind blowing theory in a wonderfully simple way and leaves us with an even greater appreciation for the universe we live in.

We start with the tantalizing possibility of a 'master equation' that could unite and explain everything... *everything!* in this universe, including the four fundamental forces that we know that exist: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity. Green takes us on a tour of how our understanding of the universe came into view with the work of Newton, then Einstein, and then later on to the revolution of the physics at the quantum level.

But it is at this point that we run into a problem that has plagued physicists for years, and one that no one has been able to solve just yet. How can we unify all these forces that we know together? We find, as Green constantly points out throughout the problem - that the answer to this perplexing problem could be in the theory of strings. However, if we are to describe the universe in terms of string theory, there is a very big price to pay.

It turns out that out of the mind numbing mathematical equations of string theory, that, as a consequence, we find that we could possibly be living in a universe filled with, not just 3 dimensions that you and I see every day plus 1 (for time), but rather, that we may actually live in a universe of *11* dimensions. But the math that arises out of that theory doesn't stop there - the possibility exists that there may actually be parallel universes; some of them right next to you and me! Could we possibly take such a theory that leads to such consequences seriously? As Green points out; we have yet to fully find out, but we do know that the math that has arisen from these equations are already showing us that the universe still has much to show us.

For those of you who fear that you won't be able to understand the concepts in this program - fear not. Professor Green does a wonderful job of doing away with the math and harder concepts of physics and instead focuses more on the *concept* - which, when you take away all the math from it, transforms from a monstrous beast into an incredibly simple and, as Green constantly points out, 'elegant' concept. Viewers of this program need no prior background in science; the concepts are so simple even a child could understand them.

When you finish this program, you will truly come to understand what a wonderful and mysterious universe it is that we live in.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ladies and gentlemen: the show begins with this documentary film. It's structured in three chapters, each one chronologically arranged. The first presents the classical physics and links to Einstein. The second studies in depth the quantum physics and enters in String theory. The last reveals the Everything theory... The difficult concepts used here are introduced in a very simple way, with daily objects; although you must believe them without checking by yourself -if you are not a scientist- (and even if you are a scientist!!). The film is not a masterpiece by its fabulous technique or the way it's produced; what really imports is the story, and WHAT A STORY!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I myself am a physics student, and I have to say I think this is one of the best 'popular' introductions to string theory that's out there. The Elegant Universe manages to make the entire topic of string (although it's actually M) theory accessible to a wider audience.

Some 'popular science' programmes feel that the best approach is just to throw the audience in at the deep end, throwing technical jargon at them without so much as an explanation, and presenting the theory in a boring, stale style. This programme goes through concepts such as general relativity and quantum mechanics, and explains the issues that need to be resolved between the two so we have a coherent theory that can be applied to the universe on both a large and small scale.

I suppose some could say it's slow and takes too long to get to the interesting stuff like extra dimensions and wormholes, but the thing is: that's against the point. Explaining string theory from the start is nigh on impossible without at least mentioning the physics at its base, and the way it's explained in The Elegant Universe is clear and entertaining.

Whether you'll like this program really does depend on if you're willing to perhaps be initially dumbfounded by some of the ideas that Greene presents: extra dimensions and warping of spacetime aren't exactly prevalent in everyday life, are they? But, if you persevere with some of the more exotic concepts in this programme, you'll find that it will give you an insight into the research that drives the world of physics today. And if you're studying physics, well, it's great entertainment as well as you'll be likely able to follow this and appreciate it even more!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK. On the whole, this three part documentary will bring most interested people up to date with going's on in the world of physics, and the last 300 years of discovery of our universe. If you have read Stephen Hawkings brilliant book \"A Brief History of Time\" and understood it then you might benefit from the visual description of certain concepts..which i did to a certain extent. Greene is bearable, but obviously for the sake of the masses, tends to explain things in a slighty patronising way. This is of course deliberate and will be perfect for almost everyone who watches this series.

The guest scientists were good. (no Hawking, but i suppose he has his own DVD(s) ) I kept waiting for him to appear but they rotate through the same ones for almost 3 parts... (very American weighted here, with a few Brits and one antipodean) I bought the Nova 2 Disc edition (NTSC) and there were a few inclusions that really detracted from the overall experience.

1. The \"this is brought to you by..\" at the start of EACH part was a necessary evil for the first part, but seeing it 2 more times before It was over was very ordinary.

2. Can't be helped I suppose but there is quite a bit of overlap at the start of 2 and 3 which had me reaching for the FFW button a few times.

3. This disc set was straight from TV..(ie ads, what happen last show for those that missed it, and frequent \"goto pbs.org for more ....\" )appearing throughout the presentation. (quite unlike BBC material which is unmatched for presentation..Planets, The Blue Planet, etc) My 7\/10 is based on content alone. The niggles were there but I got over them. If this had have been done with that classic British accented presenter( you know the one) it would be a perfect Disc set in my opinion.

If you have seen this and want more...then I highly recommend Hawkings book \" a Brief History of Time\"... I wish it was a movie too.

Happy viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Elegant Documentary -

Don't watch this movie ... if you're an egotistical know-all student of physics. This much less than one percent (miniscule fraction) of the population may find that this show just tells them what they have already learned and already know.

Do watch this movie! - If you're one of the massive majority of people that fall into the greater than 99% of the population that does not study or already have a sound knowledge of the theories of physics including Relativity, Quantum, String and M-theory.

What a brilliantly architected documentary. Starting with some helpful historical background you will be lead step by elegant step into a Universe of pure magic - and dimensions beyond. I have always had a huge appreciation of Mathematics. This movie can easily give you an insight into what an exquisitely beautiful language mathematics is without making you feel like you're about to fail the grade.

The show is repetitive at times as the original format was a mini-series split over three shows. It therefore makes sense to give us polite little reminders of the principles being presented. I found this immensely helpful as it kept reminding me of the multitude of questions and possible answers that make up this amazing tapestry of our very existence.

We are all (and everything around us) is vibrational-energy with a natural tendency towards harmony. This movie may blow your mind - or at least help you realize that the universe is far far bigger than that which we see around us (even with the Hubble Telescope) and far far smaller than the protons and neutrons within the atoms we learned about in high-school. M-theory holds many magnificent magnitudes of 'possibility'.

It just seemed so appropriate that all of this elegance should by it's very nature move (by admission by the many brilliant scientists presenting) out of the realm of Science and into the realm of Philisophy.

You do not have to be religious at all to feel like this movie brought you one step closer to God.

Bravo Brian Greene. Well done indeed.

P.S. If you're interested in feeling even more comfortable and at home in your place in the Universe and would like some more insight into the 'possibilities' Quantum mechanics blended with Spirituality (of all things) can bring then I highly recommend that you also watch \"What the Bleep!? - Down the Rabbit Hole\". Yes I know they make a few silly mistakes by suggesting a Shaman may not be able to see a boat if he hasn't seen one before (my eyes process light reflections just fine - I see things everyday that I've never seen before) and brain cells are cells in the body that actually don't divide. But if you can get over these little hurdles and put down the things you don't like and hang on to those that you do - there is a lot to like about this film.

Then watch \"The Secret\" (2006 documentary about The Law of Attraction - search for IMDb title \"tt0846789\"). This information just might change your life profoundly - forever. If you search deeper you might even find the Universe is talking to us with thought (if you'll listen) - and some are - and that is truly incredible. There is a modern day Jesus\/Mohammad\/Buddha (those, among others, that history suggests have communicated with the non-physical) alive today and she lives in Texas. I know some of you know what I'm talking about.

I do not consider myself religious by any traditional definition but I have never felt more at home or as comfortable in the Universe as I do now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the wake of my personal research into the pending \"end cycle\" time of 2012 presented by the Mayan calendar system, I believe this movie should be seen every bit as much as \"What The Bleep Do We Know?\" While some may believe that matters of top level science should only be communicated in doctorate level \"speak,\" \"The Elegant Universe\" breaks such barriers. The visuals and the select dialog make it easy to comprehend this walk through the history of physics. There are numerous messages in this movie, the least of which is that academic science must always be ready to revise what's being taught. True, pure discovery science is beautiful because there's always something additional and exciting to bring to the fore if we have the courage to seek it out in the face of \"established\" science.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tempo Di Uccidere (Time To Kill) by Guiliano Montaldo is a bit of a strange film, but it's good in it's own way.

I won't bother with a summary of the plot. Most that I've read gives the wrong impression and makes me believe that most people who wrote those didn't really understand the film. And you need to understand it to some level, even if you cannot describe for yourself what it's actually about. This film is strange in a \"Once Upon a Time in America\" way- only shorter.

Many 'Hollywood' stars (whatever that may mean...) have played in lesser known Italian productions. It's known that many actors who are past their prime or slowly rising to it do this. Cage was not yet a real star when this was made. I'm not a fan of him. He's very good in some roles (Raising Arizona, Bringing out the Dead) and weak when he plays the hero. I don't really know what to think of him in this one, but he sure doesn't portray the typical hero main character. This film could have done without him, but the fact that he starred may be the only reason this one ever made it to DVD.

The supporting cast is good. Not one of them looks fake and they act as if they are really there. Solid support.

I have seen 3 films by Montaldo (Marco Polo, Sacco&Vanzetti and this one) and I think he is one of the greater directors of this time. Unfortunately, nobody knows him. This movie was his last in a long time (a break of 19 years). I think that this movie might have failed at the office, but from the way it is done I think that for Montaldo it was a personal project that he really liked.

The production is great. It's always enough. The dusty army camps, the claustophobic cities and the magnificent landscape all play a great part. It all feels very real. In some scenes you can almost feel the heat. The sound itself is nothing special, but the music by Ennio Morricone is very good. It's not a piece that you will whistle when in the shower, but it sure works great.

So this movie looks, feels and sounds just right. It doesn't serve the lessons learned from it on a golden platter, but that may be the biggest difference between Hollywood and euro-cinema all around. It might sound strange to give it an 8 and not recommend it to people, but that is what I do. If you are looking for action; avoid this one! If you are looking for a well made Apocalypse Now in a different time and setting, but with a bit of similar journey into a 'state of mind'(sorry if this sound corny but I don't know what else to call it) you just might enjoy this one a lot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have always been fascinated by silent films. There is something about seeing actors and actresses from 100 years ago performing. Jaded by today's high-tech special effects, I always try and imagine what it was like to watch a particular film at the time of it's original release. It helps to appreciate the crudeness of early cinema.

\"The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ\" is a very charming production from Pathe, originally filmed in 1902, but expanded and finally released in 1905. Imagine a series of famous religious paintings coming to life, separated by title cards, and you will have a pretty good idea of what this film is like. For example, the scene in which Mary and Joseph rest as they are escaping to Egypt, is almost identical to Luc Olivier Merson's 1879 painting \"Rest on the Flight to Egypt\", right down to Mary sitting on the famous Sphinx. While some might find these \"living paintings\" an unimaginative cop-out, I found them to be very charming, and very nostalgic.

The sets and costumes appear to be right out of a stage production of the life of Christ. Possibly from and elaborate passion play of the day. The make-up on the cast is very theatrical, so much so that a close-up of Jesus is almost comical. Again, where others might be bothered by the cudeness of them, I was quite charmed.

Having been filmed over a period of 3 years, the continuity isn't too bad. The biggest flaws are in the casting changes made over that time. The characters of John the Apostle and the 12 year old Jesus change in mid scene, much to the audiences surprise!

The best unintentional humor, of the film, is in the Birth of Jesus scene. The baby LITERALLY appears, as if by magic, in the manger between Mary and Joseph. Maybe it was simply my frame of mind at the time I viewed it, but I laughed out loud! If only child birth were that easy!!!! To top it off, the actress who plays Mary looks bored through the whole scene (actually, through the whole movie), as if this sort of thing happens every day! My, how times have changed!

As simplistic as this film is, compared to today, it's really a wonderful window into the past. I recommend it!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Definitely not a film to revolutionize the industry or introduce any new techniques of film-making, this is a very handsome and solid production. It's miraculous that we can today enjoy it in superb quality on DVD - probably most of the viewers about a 100 years ago saw a black and white copy, as the stencil tinted de luxe edition was available only at the very best theaters. Even if you are not fascinated by this film or the subject of it, you can't but marvel at the copy released by Image Entertainment (together with another gem, From the Manger To the Cross, 1912). It's virtually impossible to see a film that is over a century old but shows so little damage. The process of stencil colouring was a very effective one and, compared to the occasionally blurry and smeared images of hand coloured film, the colours are crisp and well defined. Filmed within the limitations of the film-making as known back in 1902 when the filming commenced, the static nature of the scenes can today be considered almost intentional, meditative and solemn. The tableaux keep moving at a steady paste, so the film never gets tedious. You might not be fascinated by this film as a work of cinematography, but it sure is handsome as a work of academic, picturesque art. If you are a religious person, the fact that you are watching anonymous, long since departed people playing long since departed characters, adds to the mystery significantly. A proper viewing for Christmas or Lent.

P.S: I've ticked the \"contains spoilers\" box just for fun. As you can see, I haven't revealed the ending.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Leguizamo's one man shows are hit or miss: Mambo Mouth showed off his intense characterizations and great timing but the material was average, Spic-o-Rama accomplished the former as well but this time the material was funny, Freak is a classic followed by his disappointing Sex-o-holic. But his stuff in Freak showcases his genius and when he's in the spotlight he's without peer.

Freak's semi-autobiographical look at the journey of a young man has power and resonance I don't think even it's creator knew about. By allowing us the chance to see his soul, Mr. Leguizamo gives us an opportunity to project our own life onto his and there can be no greater gift a performer can give. The willingness to drop 'the Wall', expose and share is too terrifying for most actors-they use characters to hide behind-but JL goes full-throttle and gleefully smashes any pretenses. Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor were our best cultural observers\/comedians\/actors because they spoke from their heart about whatever they noticed in society and the truth provided slashing humor. Combine that with a great actor's gift of mimicry and being in-the-moment (not to mention a sense of humanity) and you'll see John Leguizamo has the power to do the same. At least in Freak he does.

From birth to his first big break and every life altering moment in between, a viewer sees our host and other characters in their most private moments all the while experiencing the pain, hope, and humor that comes with. Looking drained and lean muscled-tight JL is ringing with sweat by evening's end having offered up his crazy life for an audience; Spike Lee's fluid camera work captures the actor's nuances down to the last lip curl and slow blink. The scenarios range from drinking with his machismo-fueled father (when he was 9) to seeing A Chorus Line with his gay, deaf uncle; his first girlfriend's vicious humiliation when he strips naked, eager to have sex. A nightmarish first sexual encounter with a large German woman in the back of a Kentucky Fried Chicken follows an unsuccessful attempt to pick up a \"drunk lapsed Catholic\" in a bar on St.Patty's Day. Climaxing in a serious showdown with his mother and father, it's here that he shows his true genius: he plays a scene between these two characters and himself and his brother with such a strong dramatic\/humourous intensity, you forget you're watching only one person. There's no costume changes, bad wigs, lighting tricks, or makeup. Just an actor giving his all. It's simply amazing.

Other actors\/comedians that stand out right now are Eddie Izzard and Chris Rock but they don't dive into themselves as deeply as John Leguizamo does; that's not a criticism, not by a long shot. I love their work but Freak is different. It's moving in a no-b******* way. It's the best one man show out there and no one will be able to touch it for a long time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing this routine by John Leguizamo, I finally realize why he is such a talent. I enjoy great stage work, and this is stage work at its best. I cannot label it as a stand-up routine, because Leguizamo is so intense when playing the different characters. The only time he breaks character is when it is necessary for him to complete his part in which he does so coolly, that you cannot help, but appreciate his talents. I wasn't really sure how I felt about him as an actor, but Freak solidified my appreciation of him. For those out there that have not had the opportunity to see this show, I feel for you. Definitely check it out. It is one of the nest routines I have ever seen. Ranks with Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby and Chris Rock. Four stars and more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I never saw any of John Leguizamo's stand-up before I watched Freak, and after seeing it again on HBO comedy recently it was better, more enlivening and with things that, at the age of 14, I couldn't understand quite before. Spike Lee did a wonderful job directing, keeping the visual angle up to par with Leguizamo's theatrics and the style of personal storytelling; it's substance and style merging together but unobtrusively. We get Leguizamo's rants about race and sex (the bits about sex are classic), but a lot of it is about family, and what sticks still fresh in my mind is about his father. Even when things get dark in some of the stories, there's something fresh or crazy or random that Leguizamo pulls out to get a laugh, and it works more often than not. If something does fall flat (for me at any rate) it might be his personality tics here and there. But overall, it's the kind of fun material that isn't heady, but is so true to itself that it stings. Find it if you can!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was very energetic and well played show. I saw it back in 98 and my friends and i still joke about it. Each time I watch it's always as funny as the first. I also love the way that everyone can relate to it in their own particular ways. I am very much looking forward to seeing more of John's own scripts and productions.

Unfortunately I can't find it anywhere for sale, and I've done quite a lot of looking. If anyone knows a website or store to refer me to, I would very much appreciate it as I am looking for his other live performances as well. Please send me a message if any of you have info on the subject. Thankyou.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John has made two One man shows. Spic O Rama and Freaks, and neither one has shown up on DVD... John!!! Why do you this to me john?? Put it on DvD John, so the people can see,they need to see John!! :D... Just in case anyones keeping a watchful aye!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After watching John preform this one of a kind show, I had to share.....It was really something to watch a grown man portray himself as a child. I like the fact that with every character he \"became,\" you could picture what they looked like. It is more entertaining when you can understand the individual. \"Freak\" is what real \"stand up\" should be. John is REAL talent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This one man show may be the most fantastic show I've ever seen. To call this simply a stand up act is to do it a great injustice, there is a definate reason that this was a Broadway show. John Leguizamo is a master of making people of every culture feel at home listening to his story of growing up and dealing with his family and life in general. I would reccomend this show to anyone, as long as they can handle the language.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Leguizamo is a great comedian and storyteller. Every time this has been on HBO I've had to stop and watch it. John tells the story of how he grew up (probably some fact and fiction) and adds hilarious stories in the midst. If you like John's comedy I would have to say this is probably his comedy at his best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Leguizamo's one man show is both funnier and more involving than most movies you'll see. A number of devices, such as slide projectors, are used to enhance the story, but this is essentially good old-fashioned performance art. In particular, check out his hilarious rendition of \"I Will Survive\". *Highly* recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Leguizamo's \"Freak\" is one of the funniest one-man shows I've ever seen! I recommend it to anyone! Well, anyone with a good sense of humor....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is by far the best stand-up routine I have ever seen. John Leguizamo's one man show tells the supposed story of his life in a barrage of lines and situations. By far better than any other comedy out there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Student Nurses\" is an excellent film that deals with four women bonded by friendship and career. For the first time, one is able to see a realistic portrayal of relationships inside the work place, outside the work place, the risks of those relationships, and the consequences. This film also offers a rare chance to see veteran stage and television actress Katherine \"Scottie\" MacGregor as the nurses' instructor, \"Miss Boswell.\" Ms. MacGregor is best known for her performance as \"Mrs. Oleson\" on the television series \"Little House on the Prairie.\" The direction, music, and print color are very good as well as the opening theme song performed by Clancy B. Grass, III. This film offers a rare opportunity for those who enjoy themes centered around the late 1960s and early 1970s, which offers a \"softer side to life\" while appreciating the beauty of the female sex.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Four lovely young nurses in their last year of nursing school experience all kinds of turmoil and excitement in their lives: sweet Susan (winsome brunette Elaine Giftos) tries to comfort the bitter, terminally ill Greg (a moving performance by Darrell Larson), eager, but neurotic Phred (lovely blonde Karen Carlson) romances handsome gynecologist Jim Caspar (affable Lawrence Casey), free-spirited hippie Priscilla (the stunningly gorgeous Barbara Leigh) gets impregnated by laid-back drug dealer Les (the solid Richard Rust), and compassionate Lynn (nicely played by Brioni Farrell) helps out angry Mexican revolutionary Victor Charlie (the excellent Reni Santoni). Despite the fact that this film was made for Roger Corman's legendary exploitation outfit New World Pictures, it's anything but your standard mindless piece of leering soft-core schlock. Instead, it's a very pleasant, charming and even often thoughtful time capsule of the social and political upheavals of the groovy early 70's (the subplot involving Lynn and the revolutionaries is especially potent and provocative). Special kudos are in order for director Stephanie Rothman, who brings a welcome and refreshing intelligence and sensitivity to the material. Moreover, the four attractive and appealing female leads all turn in sound and praiseworthy work. Scottie MacGregor likewise impresses as wise supervisor Ms. Boswell and ubiquitous 70's trailer voice guy Ronald Gans supplies the off-screen voice of a psychiatrist. Stevan Larner's polished cinematography, the fantastic rock soundtrack, and the flavorsome folksy'n'funky score by Clancy B. Grass III are all up to speed. A real sleeper.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE STUDENT NURSES is not a typical sexploitation movie. Sure, the nudity and sexual openness is there, but it's not all for laughs. Stephanie Rothman scripted a socially compelling, well-written tits & ass movie which confronts the topics of racism, socio-economic inequalities, rape, abortion, medical ethics, public health issues, human rights, the Vietnam war, free love, LSD and drug experimentation. Four sexy college roommates are taking their nursing internships at the same time. Sharon (Elaine Giftos) is assigned to the terminal care ward, Lynn (Brioni Farrell) to public health administration, Priscilla (Barbara Leigh) to gynecology and Phred (Karen Carlson) to psychiatry. These four beauties have ample opportunities to disrobe and fornicate, of which they take advantage, much to the delight of male viewers. These are liberated women at the height of the sexual revolution, after all, and are as intelligent as they are horny and beautiful. Visceral yet low-budget action sequences are interspersed throughout. There's a very bloody gunfight at the resistance movement headquarters in which two policemen are shot and killed, along with several members of the group. An anti-(Vietnam) war protest consisting of spookily-dressed young people of all races painted like skeletons becomes violent, with cops beating protesters. The effective trip sequence on the beach consists of beautiful, weird and confusing sensory and memory montages with hyper-sensual overtones. In short, THE STUDENT NURSES is a thoughtful and compelling reflection of the times, expressed through real women's perspectives (since it was written and directed by a woman). But, it's still fun and titillating, despite its sobering treatment of subject matter.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a long time resident of western Pa I have an intimate knowledge of this topic and found it REGFRESHING to be so authentically captured on film! Kudos to the producers of this epic!!! And what a great legacy to the school children for years to come.

The attention to detail and realistic depiction of this complicated web of events make it a one of a kind production.

Viewers will find themselves mesmerized by the storyline and captivated by the storytelling.

Grahame Greene is magnificent as the presenter.

BRAVO!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I tuned in to my local PBS station last night to watch \"The War That Made America\". I was expecting a dull documentary, instead I got a very good and believable reenactment of the major events of the time. Now I see the reasons for the American Revolution, and the part the Indian wars played. Larry Nehring IS George Washington, and he is perfect for that part. The narrative to the camera, also work fantastic. I'm looking forward to next week, to see the rest. It's good to see PBS really using the HD format to bring the 1700 right in to our living room.

I hope Larry Nehring is seen more in the future, since he is such a talented actor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great compendium of interviews and excerpts form the films of the late sixties and early 70s that were a counter movement to the big Studio Films of the late sixties. Directed by Ted Demme, it is obviously a labor of love of the films of the period, but it gives short shrift to the masterpieces of the times.

Many of the filmmakers of this period were influenced by Truffaut, Antonioni, Fellini, Bergman, and of course John Cassavetes. Unfortunately the documentary logging in at 138 minutes is too short! The film is rich with interviews and opinions of filmmakers. Some of the people interviewed are: Martin Scorsese, Francis Coppola, Robert Altman, Peter Bogdonovich, Ellen Burstyn, and Roger Corman, Bruce Dern, Sydney Pollack, Dennis Hopper, and Jon Voight.

Bruce Dern has a moment of truth when he says that he and Jack Nicholson may not have been as good looking as the other stars that came before them but they were \"interesting\". This summarizes the other areas of this period of film-making in American history.

The filmmakers were dealing with a lack of funding from the Studios because they were expressing unconventional attitudes about politics, sex, drugs, gender and race issues, and Americas involvement in overseas conflicts like the Vietnam War.

There is a great interview with Francis Coppola saying that he got the chance to make \"The Conversation\" because the producers knew he had been trained by Roger Corman to make a movie with nothing so they bankrolled his film.

Another interview is with Jon Voight who was directed by Hal Ashby in \"Coming Home\" a clear anti-war film about a crippled soldier immersing himself back into society after his facing battle. Voight talks about how his working methods helped him achieve an emotional telling point when Ashby said that they were doing a \"rehearsal\" take and it ended up being the take used in the film- it was better because it was so un-rehearsed and not drained of its freshness by being over-rehearsed.

There are also many fine excerpts from Al Pacino's break-through film \"The Panic in Needle Park\", and interviews from Dennis Hopper on the making of \"Easy Rider\", and interviews from Sydney Pollack about making films.

All in all the documentary is a fine jumping off point for any film lover who wants to see great examples of what the new voices in film were like in the Seventies. Many of the Sundance Folks, where this film made a big splash, are unaware of just how much the Independent Film Maker today owes to the films of John Cassavetes, Milos Foreman, William Friedkin, and Roger Corman.

Rent it from your favorite shop. It will at least perk you up to some films you may not have seen before and can enjoy today. Amazon.com has it for as little as $11.50, if you want to buy right out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 1970s opened the door to the largest, most diverse era of film in the history. Some films were great (\"The Godfather\", \"The Conversation\", \"Mean Streets\", Chinatown\", \"The French Connection\", \"Five Easy Pieces\", \"Jaws\", \"McCabe And Mrs. Miller\") Others were not so great (\"The Getaway\", \"The Outfit\", \"Badge 373\", \"Joe\", \"The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three\", \"Brewster McCloud\", \"Castle Keep\") And others were barely worth the price of admission.

Yet every one was a fresh breath of air compared to today's Corporate Hollywood. Where every film is given a Big Weekend to recoup its cost. Or go straight to HBO and rental.

What \"Decade\" does so well is to relate the sudden and rarely experienced sensation of freedom to be given money to make and direct a film. Perhaps personal. Perhaps not. Sometime with a clutch of extras. Sometimes, in the middle of a busy street before the cops show up. Long before the Corporate Overseers, Suits, Committees and Lawyers ever became part of \"The System\".

The commentaries are superb. Especially Julie Christie and Dennis Hopper. Though as you listen, you'll slowly discover just how many Big Directors today (Coppola, Scorsese, Ron Howard, Dennis Hopper, Peter Bogdonovitch) got stated as \"Roger Corman Commandos\". Working long hours with short pay. Shooting a film in under a month. Learning all the steps and tricks of the trade by doing it themselves. Turning in product that was on-time and under-budget.

See \"Decade\" for its message. And for a long and varied list of films to watch made through those wondrously turbulent years.

Though, I would not complain if IFC decided to devote another documentary solely to that most under-rated Grand Pioneer of film, Roger Corman.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In retrospect, the 1970s was a golden era for the American cinema, as demonstrated and explored by this documentary directed by Ted Demme and Richard LaGravenese. This IFC effort serves to illustrate and clarify the main idea of what that time meant for the careers of these illustrious people seen in the documentary.

The amazing body of work that remains, is a legacy to all the people involved in the art of making movies in that period. The decade was marked by the end of the Viet Nam war and the turbulent finale of those years of Jimmy Carter's presidency.

One thing comes out clear, films today don't measure against the movies that came out during that creative decade because the industry, as a whole, has changed dramatically. The big studios nowadays want to go to tame pictures that will be instant hits without any consideration to content, or integrity, as long as the bottom line shows millions of dollars in revenues.

The other thing that emerges after hearing some of America's best creative minds speak, is the importance of the independent film spirit because it is about the only thing that afford its creators great moral and artistic rewards.

This documentary is a must see for all movie fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...and my reasons for which are simple- there are so many great films presented and discussed here (most of them by their own directors and stars), so many clips of infamous moments in 70's movie history, and in fact a number of films I have yet to see, that it wouldn't be fair to grade this work. By this logic I shouldn't have given grades to other movie documentaries like Martin Scorsese's Personal Journey through American Movies and My Voyage to Italy. But while those films were on the basis of one man's view of cinema, narrating through most of the way, Richard LaGravanese and (the late) Ted Demmes' A Decade Under the Influence lets the films and the creators speak entirely for themselves.

What makes 'Decade' worth at least one watch for film buffs, or just anyone who likes the films of the late 60's-70's in America, are the levels that it goes to, that in the uncut version (three hours, not the theatrical version, which I have no comment on) plenty of ground is covered. Interviews include the likes of Scorsese, Robert Altman, Sidney Lumet, Julie Christie, Jon Voight, Francis Ford Coppola, Paul Schrader, Pam Grier, Bruce Dern, Peter Bogdanovich, Roger Corman, Dennis Hopper, Robert Towne, etc, and there's a constant flow of insight from start to finish. The way the clips and directors\/actors pop up, edited together in a flashy and quick style, is also fascinating.

The one down comment I have on the documentary is that most of the information presented has been reported on in various books, like Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, and though I haven't seen the movie version of that book yet I'm sure it would have covered many of the films and directors and incidents as here (in fact, the book of that is one of the best I've ever read. HOWEVER, this documentary serves as something special for film buffs and occasional movie goers of the future- they can look at this and learn not only about such well known pictures as Easy Rider, The Last Picture Show, Annie Hall, Coming Home, and lessor knowns like Scarecrow, Panic in Needle Park, The Landlord, Joe, They Shoot Horses Don't They. They can also learn about who influenced them (new waves of Europe and Asia), who they served as influences for, and how the subject matter that created controversy after controversy still serves as intriguing and chancy material for the contemporary crowd. Seek this out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A surprisingly good documentary. My surprise was mainly due to the fact that I was confused by the title. I assumed this was about the influence of the drug culture on film making but no it is a much more far reaching and intelligent film than could have been expected. Demme has done a great job in encapsulating the period from the late 60s to the late 70s. From, 'Easy Rider' and the collapse of studio influence, through all those introspective 'real life' movies, where brilliant young directors tried to express themselves politically, sexually and artistically, through to the beginnings of the blockbuster and the return of the reigns to the money men and their studios. As someone who saw the 'real life' movies of Britain and the rest of Europe through the sixties and then the revolutionary US films of the 70s and is sad that the sequel to the sequel is so much the order of the day, this was a most fascinating film. The interview clips are measured (thanks to DVD the full interviews are available as extras!) and the film clips well considered. Also, as someone who has only just caught up with, 'Joe', I am impressed that this important little film gets its well deserved entry here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a wonderful documentary - I sat down thinking this would be a rehash of the bitchy stories told in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, but it is, in fact, a clear-eyed, glorious celebration of a strange and twisted era that spawned some truly great movies. What struck me was the lack of bitterness apparent in the director interviews, given that now the movie business sucks in a large fashion - instead, folk like Friedkin and Coppola's eyes seem to positively glitter recalling their glory days. The footage of an audience coming out of a daytime screening of the Exorcist was priceless. 'It was - traumatic,' one guy says. A great epitaph for the late Ted Demme, a thrilling film, I just wish it was longer - I could have sat through a three hour cut of this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This exploration of a unique decade in US cinema begins with the fall of one ailing, out-of-touch empire and culminates with the unstoppable rise of another, equally associated with escapism and box office receipts. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Or, as Peter Fonda observed in Easy Rider, \"We blew it.\" In between, from Bonnie And Clyde to Star Wars, the young Turks (some under the guerrilla tutelage of Roger Corman) were creeping under the wires to produce some of the greatest artworks of the 20th century. While the story is already familiar from Peter Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls directors Demme and LaGravenese are less concerned with muckraking than in providing a platform for the filmmakers and stars themselves.

Everyone from Martin Scorsese to Francis Ford Coppola and Julie Christie is interviewed and a roster of well edited clips places the decade in a socio-cultural and economic context. If their responses are self-congratulatory (to say the least), they're also highly quotable, funny and revealing, making this something of a cinephile's wet dream. Director William Friedkin reveals how the original The Exorcist poster was to feature a little girl's hand holding a bloodied crucifix and the legend 'For God's sake, help her\", before he complained. Former Warner Bros.' head John Calley recalls that when he first saw Robert De Niro in Mean Streets he assumed Scorsese had secured a psychopath's day release for the shoot.

Happily, a certain amount of hard perspective has crept into the mix, as might be hoped from a politically motivated, consciousness-expanded generation; Hopper stresses \"there's a lot of real crap in there too\". Julie Christie observes that 1970s US cinema was \"not a good time for women\". But if Demme responds with a spoonful of sops to women's movies - brief clips of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, They Shoot Horses, Don't They and Klute - we're soon dragged back to the usual male wall-pissing contests.

The shift from tough, socially-conscious film-making to no-risk crowd-pleasers like Jaws for 'Nam-weary, fantasy-craving audiences is also documented, though a little rushed. But kudos too, for the inclusion of lesser-sung, but equally relevant films like Panic In Needle Park and Joe. \"We weren't handsome,\" muses Bruce Dern on his contemporaries. \"But we were f****** interesting.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I swore I would never allow myself to devolve into to the bogus authority figures of the sixties who told me things were better in the \"good old days\" \u0096 the current Australian Prime Minister is a sordid example of just such a mind set.

But I switched over to \"A Decade Under the Influence\" because I found watching the much-heralded \"Sneakers\" documentary on the other channel such a dispiriting experience. I found the values expressed by the \"Sneakers\" interviewees too ugly to accept as reasonable. So materialistic! So devoid of any sense of outrage at a society that can countenance killing someone to steal his very ugly shoes! So lacking in any worthwhile purpose that they can report without distaste the exploitation an audience by haranguing them to hold those shoes above their heads to lock in a sponsorship deal for themselves with a company of cobblers was just too much to continue watching.

\"A Decade Under the Influence\" depicted a completely different response to the fruit of stupidity, corruption and concupiscence in high (and low) places.

I have noted the change in film-making that accompanied the exposure of America's disastrous foreign policy debacles in Vietnam and so many less reported places in my www.peterhenderson.com.au website. \"A Decade Under the Influence\" documents the precise moment at which that change took place.

Before the seventies, the armed forces were depicted in American films as an invincible fighting force comprised of decent human beings who transmogrified into conquering heroes on the battlefield. After the seventies they are generally portrayed as a dispirited rabble misled by a bunch of bureaucrat clowns in the Pentagon Before the seventies, the FBI agent and the honest cop tended to be depicted as your friend and protector. After the seventies, the FBI agents were all incompetent and the best a cop could aspire to was to ignore their foolishness and his superior's corruption and uphold justice in his own idiosyncratic manner.

Before the seventies, the archetypical American \"little guy\", the \"average Joe\", the Jimmy Stewart type would face down the problems encountered and thereby gain some insight into underlying wisdom of his elected leaders and justice of the \"American Way\". After the seventies, Kevin Costner usurps that role, but now he is the voice of one crying out in the wilderness for evil to be exposed, or accepting his lot and making out the best he can.

And now those \"old time religion\" mindsets have been stripped of any honesty and righteousness and portrayed (with a certain amount of justification) as sanctimonious bigotry and self-serving hypocrisy.

\"A Decade Under the Influence\" tells it like it was. \"A Decade Under the Influence\" tells it like it is now. It depicts the redemption of the American film industry from the hands of the artistically, morally and intellectually bankrupt studio moguls. It shows the storming of the Hollywood Bastille by the independent film makers who promised to get a disillusioned and tired audience back into the cinemas. The fact that their failures were numerous, and at times disastrous, merely underlines the greatness of their achievement. An achievement reflected in the adventurous and questioning attitudes of the big box office stars such as Clooney, Daman, Affleck etc and the directors and producers who provide the vehicles for their talent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

As I am a teenager, I have about one hundred years of movies to catch up on. I try to see a mixture of classics, mainstream, art-house, and other movies. The 70's is one of the most important decades for films: it's when the average, common, classical films changed into full of messages and anti-social behavior. It became like nothing anyone had ever seen before. What A Decade Under the Influence basically shows is how important all of the movies from around The Graduate to about Star Wars.

Richard LaGravenese and the late Ted Demme are the primary interviewers in this documentary, which interviews such people as Dennis Hopper, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, and Jon Voight, among others about how those few years changed cinema forever. It's a very professional, polished documentary, and it's even financed by IFC films. However, as this is a very professional one, I would think that they would at least edit out the noise of someone behind the camera laughing. To me, that took out a lot of how neat and clean the whole thing was.

On the other hand, it's a very interesting documentary, about film by the people who make it. Of course, they aren't bashing their own films or anything of the like, but they're portraying honesty on what they thought of the films and what they meant. I don't know much about film (but I want to be involved around it when I become an adult), so I feel like to someone like me this movie is a huge asset. I have seen a good number of movies that they mentioned, like Chinatown and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but a little more insight into those movies were very informative.

The main reason, however, I didn't love Influence is, as slickly as it was edited, it seemed to take its time in the beginning and be quite relaxed, therefore not having enough time to get to everything that they wanted to show. They crammed in Star Wars and Jaws in the last few minutes, when they were two of the most important. It seemed like they tried too hard to show lots of clips, and that's fine, but some of them were unimportant, such as an extended one from Network.

Overall, though, Influence is a very enthralling, informative documentary that helped me, at least, learn more about a second `golden age' in American cinema.

My rating: 7\/10

Rated R for language, and images of sexuality, violence and drug use.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While many people found this film simply too slow and simplistic I really connected with it. There is no plot as such, rather the film takes the form of a human survival story about three people trapped up a tree with a man eating crocodile lurking somewhere in the water beneath them.

Personally, I thought the acting was mostly very good, despite the roles being quite demanding at times, and I felt a sense of warmth for the characters. The situation they were in was quite terrifying and I really felt nervous for them. I found the whole film quite nerve wracking because of the sheer helplessness of their situation and the constant threat to their survival.

The crocodile effects were handled surprisingly well for such a low budget film, and believe me, I have seen my fair share of dodgy croc movies. The creature moved well and had real menace and, although the audience I was with didn't seem too keen on the film as a whole, they still jumped and gasped whenever the crocodile appeared.

Script-wise, I would have made a few changes, particularly towards the end, but this was not a major problem. For fans of slow-burning survival horror set within the realms of reality this will be an engaging film but unfortunately I think for many audiences seeking a thrill ride and higher production values from their cinema experience the point will simply be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"BLACK WATER is a thriller that manages to completely transcend it's limitations (it's an indie flick) by continually subverting expectations to emerge as an intense experience.

In the tradition of all good animal centered thrillers ie Jaws, The Edge, the original Cat People, the directors know that restraint and what isn't shown are the best ways to pack a punch. The performances are real and gripping, the crocdodile is extremely well done, indeed if the Black Water website is to be believed that's because they used real crocs and the swamp location is fabulous.

If you are after a B-grade gore fest croc romp forget Black Water but if you want a clever, suspenseful ride that will have you fearing the water and wondering what the hell would I do if i was up that tree then it's a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WARNING: I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.

This movie was on the shelf at a movie store and since I had seen a handful of very corny horror flicks there I had really low expectations for this one. Well, I put it in, and almost immediately I was sucked right in. While watching, I got deeper and deeper into the story and pretty soon I was staring in complete interest. This movie is surprisingly spectacular and I loved every second. The story is about a boat ride down a river in Australia. It seems safe enough until their boat is ambushed by a croc who's ready for some food. When I looked at the back of the case I thought that this movie was going to have crappy visual effects like in Lake Placid 2 and a lot of others, but when I first saw the crocodile it looked amazingly real! Don't laugh when I say this, for I am being serious, but this is one of the most creepiest films I've ever seen. It really knew how to build up nail-biting tension and suspense with it's intense situation, I mean, think about it; Your stuck, in a tree, nowhere to run, nowhere to hide with a hungry predator in the depths of the water below. You can not tell me that doesn't freak you out just a little. It even managed to give me a few chills down my arms, like when Adam was taken by the croc and Grace and Lee are left baffled. This is a very appealing movie. There were maybe 1 or 2 parts where I found myself SLIGHTLY uninterested but other than that, I would say this is my favorite animal attack film that I have seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While on vacation on Northern Australia, Gracie (Diana Glenn), her husband Adam (Andy Rodoreda) and her younger sister Lee (Maeve Dermody) decide to take the Blackwater Barry tour in the swamp for fishing. Their guide Jim (Ben Oxenbould) uses a small motor boat and takes the tourist along the river to a remote spot. When they stop, they are attacked by a huge crocodile that capsizes their boat and immediately kills Jim. The three survivors climb a tree and when they realize that help would never come to rescue them, they decide to try to find a way out of their sheltered location. However, in the muddy water, their boat is flipped and the crocodile stalks the trio under the water.

\"Black Water\" is a tense, realistic and dramatic low-budget movie and in accordance with the warning in the beginning, based on a true event. The acting of the unknown Diana Glenn, Maeve Dermody and Andy Rodoreda is top-notch, giving credibility to this simple but scary story. There are many similarities between this movie and \"Prey\", but in different environments. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"Medo Profundo\" (\"Deep Fear\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Black Water\" is one of the most tense films I have viewed in a long time. The story moves fast as it follows three tourists (all great actors) into a swamp on a tour with a butch tour guide on a small boat. Soon after dropping anchor in a remote area of the swamp, they are flipped over by something huge in the water.

Hastily, the three manage to make it into a tall tree nearby as they realize that a crocodile has attacked them. Throughout the next two days, they have to desperately try to escape from the crocodile's evil watchful eye, and he doesn't seem to want to go away. The movie drags just a tad bit, but what can you expect from the setting and the limited budget? It's so much better than \"Primeval\" and other recent crocodile\/ underwater predator thrillers. The tension is heavy, and all three leads give terrific performances. Truly chilling, this movie struck a deep chord of claustrophobic fear in me. Apparently based on true events.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This low budget crocodile movie really delivers the goods. The fact that it was inspired by true events would mean little if you wound up with a fake looking crocodile, bad C.G.I., or an obvious studio setting. Fortunately none of the above are involved with this terrific, very realistic film. The crocodile is real, there is no C.G.I., and the on location filming takes place in an actual Australian swamp. The actors were obviously inspired to create as much realism as possible in their performances, and they succeed. You can place yourself in their predicament, which is testament to how realistically \"Black Water\" translates as entertainment. Highly recommended. - MERK","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a kid I loved the song \"Never smile at a crocodile\", and if I found myself in this state of affairs, which is actually inspired by true events. Smiling would be the last thing on my mind. From the opening set-up, I've never been so entrenched, caught up and finally exhausted like I was when watching this limited budget Independent Australian horror film, about three people in Northern Territory trapped in a mangrove swamp with a very conniving crocodile waiting in the water below them. What really brought the film alive, was how realistic it managed to be in transporting the fear and uncertainty of the characters' situation to the audience. Semi-documentary camera-work with a disquietingly eerie backdrop and authentic performances effectively take you out of your comfort zone. What we get is a patient survival tale than just a bloody, all-out creature feature onslaught. Think of \"Open Water (2003)\", where its budget and time restraint made sure it would stay low-key, but this minimal barrier enhanced the experience.

The slow-grinding story might be black and white, but it never seemed to become disposable, or succumb to formulaic patterns. Well not largely, and the connection between the characters were emotionally engaging even with a bare, straight-forward script. Although you can say \"less is more\", with the actions and expressions illuminating the lingering thoughts plaguing their minds. The ordeal is utterly terrifying, because the threat is very alive and never seems to loosen up. This is what drives the film's chaotic adrenaline, and in which it lasts (even when its kept buried) through to the very end.

Writers \/ Directors Andrew Traucki and David Nerlich's economical guidance alienates and smartly strings along the viewer with its taut pacing and harrowing psychological traits. In certain patches the notch goes up, with pressure induced suspense and startling images. The way the night sequence is executed is immensely chilling and pulsating. The menacing crocodile manipulative toys with its fresh-meat in a distressingly suspenseful approach. Sure some moments felt unlikely, but never does it get in the way or distract. Sound FX is the key, and at times the lack of any just eats away at you. Rafeal May's musical score is unassuming and doesn't really enter the mixture much, but when it does it builds an organic sounding quality. The cinematography of John Biggins is beautifully devised, and rapidly aggressive when the mood changes. It was always on the move and claustrophobic, but none of this jerky movements. The editing was sharply handled, and the effects were professionally catered by superbly combing live crocodile footage.

Something like this production would also have to rely on its cast to sell to the story in a believable manner and they do it. Diana Glenn, Andy Rodoreda and especially Maeve Dermody are persuasively good. A lot of the responsibility falls on Dermody, and she strongly delivers with an inspired turn. Now this item might cop some comparisons with another killer crocodile film \"Rogue (2007)\", but the two couldn't be any different in what they want to be and how they end up. If I had to pick though, I'm leaning more towards this outing for its sheer involvement to snap at you.

A remarkable effort on all fronts, with everyone involved showing potential to really look out for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gore hounds beware...this is not your movie. This little nail bitter has very little blood and guts. Its basically a version of Open Water that is effective and worthwhile. But what sets it apart is that we actually like the three leads (unlike Open Water) who find themselves up a tree when a crocodile flips their fishing boat and munches up their guide. We don't want any harm to come to any of them. SO when they start getting into dangerous situations...we actually care.

Now I like killer animal flicks but I haven't been too impressed with Lake Placid up to Primeval (although I'm still waiting to see Rogue and hoping it is somewhere as good as this one!) but this little bugger did the job and did the job well. It's scares are creative and it only lapses into the run of the mill frantic crying sobbing and arguing for brief stints of realism so I never got annoyed.

I remember reading the true story that inspired this where three guys went fishing and two ended up in a tree while their buddy was killed by the crocodile . But the thing that always impacted me that gets left out from the film was that the crocodile didn't eat up the buddy. No. For hours and hours he swam around the tree and shook the dead body still in his mouth at the friends in the tree. Seeming to stay, if you come down here this is what will happen to you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'd never heard of this Aussie horror prior to Michael Elliott's enthusiastic review; in fact, after having read it, I decided to check if the DVD was available at my local rental outlet and it was (albeit a German edition i.e. sans the R1 extras), so I opted to check the film out immediately.

While I wouldn't go so far as to give it full marks \u0096 only a select few titles get them from me, let alone an obscure modern flick \u0096 I have to say that I was quite impressed with BLACK WATER. Rather than looking back to previous crocodile movies, such as ALLIGATOR (1980) and LAKE PLACID (1999), it evokes the memory of two which saw a small group of people who go on a trip, get lost and find themselves at the mercy of the elements and the creatures inhabiting the place \u0096 namely LONG WEEKEND (1978), itself a little-seen but impressive Australian production, and OPEN WATER (2005).

The compact, simply-plotted film involves a couple and the woman's younger sister who decide to go fishing in a remote and forbidding part of the Australian wilderness, known as crocodile territory; very soon (in fact, before even 15 minutes have elapsed!), their boat is capsized and the guide killed by an alligator \u0096 so our luckless adventurers take refuge up a tree. The DVD Talk reviewer believes the film suffers from spending too much time in this one location \u0096 with the three arguing about what they should do, attempts to retrieve the boat, seeking a way out of the jungle through the trees (only to be met with nothing but water) and the occasional attack by the monster. However, I think the makers take the situation as far as it will go without slipping into tedium: this is due to the palpable suspense and, as Michael said, the believability of the characters (particularly the two women)\u0085but also the fact that the crocodile here makes for one of the scariest and most memorable in recent memory (I wonder how they got it to 'perform')!

I also agree with Mike that the film contains some really effective shock moments \u0096 the alligator leaping out of the water to take a bite at the petrified heroes; its head suddenly emerging in front of the women as they're making for the boat; even though one of them does reach the vehicle, the monster manages to lift its massive weight and get in the boat with her!; towards the end, as the same girl manages to find a gun (on the mangled body of their guide), loads it and lies in wait for the alligator to appear, the latter sneaks up from behind her (incidentally, the creature is bestowed with the craftiness of the shark in JAWS [1975]). With this in mind, the finale is just as crowd-pleasing (though on an obviously smaller scale) as that of the classic Spielberg blockbuster \u0096 even if it has a downbeat follow-up. Another definite asset is the film's sparse score \u0096 which is generally rather lovely, but becoming unnerving at just the right moments.

At the end of the day, BLACK WATER emerges as a breath of fresh air in the face of the demoralizing slump into which horror cinema has fallen of late; for this reason alone, it deserves greater exposure so as to remind us that there's hope yet for our beloved genre (without the real necessity of resorting to the gimmickry of a CLOVERFIELD [2008] to command attention)\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie sets out to do something very particular, it also sets out not to do certain things. In short it has a definite premeditated trajectory - to deal with the idea of facing death (with very few choices and all of them bad) as grave and real rather than something casual or amusing. In search of that realism it has eschewed certain conventions such as obvious character arcs and hooks. It not about the characters so much as about the human condition. Never mind what the actors would do... what would YOU do in their situation?

Open Water may have been a starting notion for this movie but it goes a lot further. Unlike that film it doesn't cheat the audience in the end when you find out there aren't really any sharks to speak of at all. This has a real monster, not just the idea of a monster and not just an animated stand in. It also has fine production values given what these very resourceful filmmakers had to work with. And again in contrast to that other film it has some exhilarating and brilliantly rendered action at it's climax. And let's not forget the, shall we say 'dazzling', screen presence of its youngest star. She may prove to be quite a discovery.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Black Water, co-directed and written by David Nerlich and Andrew Traucki, is very simple in its execution yet effective. The film is a low-budget Australian movie that will unfortunately not get the recognition it deserves because as far as creature features go, this is one of the best out there. The setup is rather basic; Grace, her husband Adam and her younger sister Lee are touring some mangroves in the Northern Territory when a saltwater crocodile flips their boat and leaves them stranded in the trees. The whole movie is about their survival while the crocodile is lurking below waiting to strike.Unlike Greg McLean's Rogue (another killer croc movie released earlier in 2007), Black Water is not about the audience having fun guessing who's gonna be eaten next, it is about hoping and praying that the three people will get out safely.

The three unknown actors do a great job with pretty demanding roles, considering it was filmed on location with a real crocodile instead of CGI. The characters act realistically in the situation and the dialogue seems natural and not forced. Suspense is built up throughout the entire film, we do not see a lot of the creature but just knowing it is near is terrifying enough. This is edge-of-your seat stuff and highly recommended if you enjoy original and (most importantly) scary horror films.

4\/5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I live up here in croc territory and remember well the true events that inspired this movie. Our guts fall out each time we hear of a croc attack. BLACK WATER is, quite simply, the best croc movie I have ever seen. While I loved ROGUE last year for all its effects and splashy scenes, it was the local scenes that captured our audience. We laughed in ROGUE more than anything. BLACK WATER, however, really resonated with the eeriness and fear that you can experience when you are alone in the mangroves (you guys call them swamps or bayous - but they're mangroves). Every tourist should see this film before heading to the Northern Territory. The ending was a bit of a letdown after the rest of the film, but I'll be adding this one to my DVD collection when it becomes available.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So well made, no CGI crap. Has anyone else been on the \"Jumping Crocs\" tour of Darwin's Adelaide River before? Black Water was WAY realistic; Rogue was a bit cringeworthy.

Thought the blonde chick was excellent in it - haven't really seen her before. And the other chick is a babe, she is always excellent.

V. suspenseful - I would compare it to Jaws over any other man eating animal flick.

Got the hole Aussie thing down pat without going OTT with struths and crikeys, as well.

Loved it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best horror\/suspense movies I have seen in a long time. Wow, it was a big surprise and stunning at how good this movie was, sometimes a gem like this will surface but is rare. I expected a popcorn monster flick and a mildly diverting way to spend a late night but instead a very well made and directed movie with great acting and made with passion and heart.

This is a movie that makes you feel for the characters and what happens to them, and it is filmed like you are there and it is really happening. I know some people in other reviews compare it to \"Open Water\", but I disagree because I thought Open Water was quite boring and mediocre, while this movie was the opposite, although superficially they are filmed in the same \"realistic\" style.

The actors are unknowns, at least to me, but they all are very effective and convey the dire situation with frightening intensity and realism. The story is well done and flows smoothly, the plot is logical and appears to be something that could happen, all the actions and thoughts of the characters are quite what a person would do and think about. Very believable and this makes the movie more real because of it.

I had tears in my eyes at the end. I must say a movie seldom has this effect on me, this is how powerful and emotional this movie was done and I am suitably impressed by the director and actors of this great movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've read many unflattering comments regarding this film, and the only things I have seen that they all have in common are: \"boring\" and \"unrealistic\".

First of all, they used real frickin' crocs! How much more realistic can you get? No CGI, no animatronics, no miniatures. Just a croc and a piece of meat. Have fun, fellas!

There is no question that this film gets off to a slow start. Character development, what little they had, anyway, does take a bit of time, and I think this is primarily where this film lacks.

However, when the film gets going, I found the action picked up dramatically. I don't mean to say that there is a lot of action. If anything, there are more moments where the croc can't be seen at all, and the people are just waiting. However, we know that there isn't going to be any relief, and that the croc is just biding its time. This had a similar eerie feel to other films that achieve their horror through non-action, such as Open Water (another film that has been criticized by some viewers as being \"boring\"). Personally, I think that viewers who find themselves incapable of feeling the suspense have had their attention spans surgically removed at birth, but that's just me.

Finally, the characters feel real, and the situation is such that it really could happen to anyone in the right circumstances. Furthermore, the deaths are completely real, and at times, it's a little tough to watch.

All in all, this one's a winner.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I put this movie on not expecting much, other than a B movie gore fest. Thankfully I was presented with a very well made film, that built up the suspense and managed to maintain it throughout its run time. This was an impressive achievement. The acting was solid, creating characters that you cared about and related to; and although some may find the film slow, it did force you to think about what you would have done in the same situation. Added to this there was some fine camera work and the directors pulled it all together admirably. An excellent effort then, that is well worth your time if you prefer development and suspense over gore.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The basic plot of this film has already been detailed in several other comments so I won't bother. I'd like to first commend the producer, cast, directors and crew for creating a wonderfully engaging film on a meager, $1M budget, a small fraction of standard Hollywood fare that doesn't LOOK cheap. These people have a drive to make something new and entertaining while not spending a fortune doing it. This is essentially art for art's sake. I know, I know, some of you will decide that this is not art but something less and that's fine. I for one am glad that people like these will continue to put forth the time and effort for our benefit without expecting huge multimillion dollar payoffs.

Now to the criticism. I feel that the scenario presented is credible to a point. It's wonderful when everything works out and the hero\/heroine saves the day and all's well that ends well. What gets me is the blatant manipulation of events so that blind luck is responsible more than courage and strength.

When lee was attacked but not severely injured, somehow she washed up on a mud bank right next to the dead guide. Then, miraculously, his loaded revolver is still in his holster and it actually works (after some cleaning and fiddling). Finally, when Lee is attacked on the mud bank and jumps in the water, once again the croc fails to kill her. She ends up with her hand in his (her?) mouth and manages to repeatedly pull the trigger, ultimately to blow the croc's brains out (literally).

I came to the conclusion that having Lee go hand to mouth with the croc was just a way to end the film with the human in triumph. Based upon what I have seen, the croc's attack and continue to hold on until the prey stops struggling. Croc's will spin around and around to dismember and drown the prey. That happened to the first 3 victims but not to Lee. She had teeth marks but they were not deep.

I think that the ending would have been better had the croc won, frankly, thereby proving his dominance of the mangrove, his territory for millions of years. But then, how many of us would have been upset or disappointed that the pretty girl didn't get out alive?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like most, I thought 'another crocodile movie'. So far we've had Primeval and Rogue in the last 12 months, what can they do that's new? Where both those films were about action and violence, this one's about fear and tension.

The performances aren't Oscar-worthy when there's nothing going on, but in times of distress or terror, these people suffer so much it's like torture. There are holes in the plot and maybe crocs don't really behave like this as others have pointed out, but the fear is so effective it's a stretch to say you'll enjoy this movie. It'll leave you feeling as uncomfortable as The Passion of the Christ.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Went out with my friends and saw this movie last weekend here in London. We didn't know what to expect, the poster gave some of it away, and I won't say any more so as not to spoil the plot, but we found it to be an excellent film with great acting, convincing plot and scary as hell! Having done some research on the making of the film I have to hand it to those guys, the filmmakers, actors, writers, etc., for having put together such a film with such limited resources. Post-production very well done, too. For all of that I give them a 10 out of 10, and I hope they will continue their fine work. Keep it up, guys. You rock!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"BLACK WATER has to be one of the best Australian movies I've seen in many years. My girlfriend and I sat gripping each others hands, jumping in all the right spots. This is as much a crocodile film as OPEN WATER was a shark film. In other words, the creatures are merely part of the dilemma, the trap in which people find themselves through circumstances. How director's Andrew Traucki and David Nerlich wring as much suspense and terror from such a modest situation is amazing to watch unfold. And when I say terror, its not overblown, artificially constructed squirm moments, but more little touches that when you ask yourself \"how would I feel in that situation\" lead you to conclude \"scared witless\". Performances were great, the pacing and gorgeous cutaways to other life in the mangroves were excellent and the ending moments of the film felt very right. This is a fitting feature debut for two directors who should rightfully by very proud. Go and watch this very beautifully shot and acted suspenseful film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I read the synopsis - 3 people lost in the wild battling against a huge crocodile - I wasn't exactly drawn in. It sounded like the typical yawn-movie horror formula of a bunch of people stalked by a monster - except in this case there are only three of them, so we wouldn't even get the macabre 'joy' of watching them get picked off one by one.

However, I watched it (couldn't sleep; nothing else to do) and it turned out to be much better than expected. The acting is great, the atmosphere tense and you really get that rare sense of a low budget winner.

Horror as it should be done. First-rate film-making. It's not perfect but it's well worth seeing. I give it a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you've ever seen Open Water , this is the same kind of gritty, edgy, indie style of film. i liked the action, suspense. the slow building of it all,, i just hope they don't do to this one what they did to Open Water, with that sequel.. but anyways,, the one thing i didn't like was the annoying younger sister,, i was rooting for the croc the whole time.. film starts out pretty much like it should,, kids packing up for a trip,, they hire a guide who mysteriously left 5 mins. before they got there,, so i guess his assistant takes the two sisters,, and the boyfriend out on the water , now mind you this is the second day of their adventure,, curiously enough the first day they spent at guess ,, hmm a crocodile farm.. so they are out there and all is good for a little while,, then bang,, crocodile time... very intense,, you know something in this movie you don't see the crocodile, a whole heck of a lot,, but when you do,, gosh it is very scary,, i love the croc's snout and eyes,, and the shroud of fog that seems to enshroud the croc every time he raises his head above the water,, very very creepy, but good,, overall this is a great film,, if you can get past the annoying little sister.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Black Water\" is a movie that in a way surprised me, and definitely exceeded my original expectations. \"Black Water\" is truly a very well structured, unpredictable, thrilling, well directed, and well creepy movie. The plot is actually somewhat original, and will definitely keep you intrigued with it. One thing I love about this movie is the direction, because mainly on how it surpassed my original expectations. My original expectations of \"Black Water\" was that it was a crappily made, acted, directed, paced, and boring movie. It really wasn't. Well the acting is nothing to praise because there were times were I feel they didn't show enough emotions, and there are some lines that feel just so scripted. However I love the direction because all of it's shots seem predictable, but arn't. Like when watching it say the camera gets a slow shot of the water, and it goes quite, you're like the croc's about to attack. However the croc's attacks are very unpredictable(which was bad for me who doesn't handle films like this all to greatly), and this does make you jump. Plus I just love that it's one of those horror movies that don't rely on the sudden big sound blast to make you jump, but instead the actual movie. I also like how the story is about people who are trapped in these trees, it made it seem very real, and definitely kept your eyes on the screen. I must say I didn't think the opening 20 so minutes were done well, and I think they made the boat a little heavier than it would have been in real life. Plus I didn't like how they tried their absolute best to make the characters situation seem entirely hopeless when it really wasn't. Also again I just don't think some of the characters actions were realistic. For example I wouldn't have gone anywhere near the water knowing their was a crocodile in it, let alone a killer one. However these problems really arn't that major, and I was still able to enjoy the film. Overall as far as movies go, I've seen better, but as far as animal attack horror films(a genre I get easily scarred at) it's one of the better ones you'll see. And sure it's not perfect, but that doesn't mean it's not worth a shot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie starts out with three people on a play it by ear holiday who decide to first visit a crocodile farm and then go on to a little lighter activity, a \"fishing\" tour.

You pick up some interesting information about crocodiles during their visit to the farm and the information adds just enough to increase the suspense later during the movie as you recall what was told earlier on.

The action in the movie is well timed and not over done. Suspense is built through the \"what ifs\", the \"unknown\", and the sometimes gut wrenching decisions the characters make in the movie.

I found myself wondering what I would do if I was in the same boat, no pun intended.

The film quality was really good and the effects where realistic, believable and not over the top or cartoon looking and out of place, the way you sometimes get with CGI.

As a horror movie buff I watch just about every horror movie I can get my hands on, in just about every genre, and this is one of the best \"crocodile\" horror movies, if not the best I have seen.

Watch this movie and you will not be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"**SPOILERS** Looking for a little more excitement then seeing crocodiles being fed at the local game reserve sisters Grace and Pat, Diana Glenn & Maeve Dermody, together with Grace's boyfriend Adam, Andy Rodoreda, decide to take a trip upstream in the desolate and deserted, of human habitation, Australian Mangrove Swamps.

With their swamp guide Jimmy, Ben Oxenbuld, at the helm of his motorized boat the four get upended by a giant saltwater crocodile who quickly grabs and drags a terrified Jimmy down to the bottom along with him. Grace Pat & Adam end up stranded on a tree in the swamp with Pat hanging on for dear life on the capsized boat. The rest of the film has the hungry and determined crocodile play a cat and mouse, or crock' and human, game with the trio that ends in a showdown at a mud bank just where the dead and dismembered body of jimmy finally came to it's rest.

Both the director and actors in the film take full advantage of the swamp making it at times far more scary then the giant crocodile swimming in it. We get to see the killer crocodile just about a half dozen times in the movie but everyone of them hits you, and Jimmy Grace Pat & Adam, right in the gut.

Alway there were kept in suspense by the giant reptile always doing his damage from beneath that comes so unexpectedly that it, the crock attacks, has far more effect when you don't see them coming then, like in the last ten minutes of the movie, when you do. You wonder right from the start who in the end would survive the crocodile attacks and eventually live to tell about them. The ending with the crocodile vrs human confrontation was about the weakest and most unrealistic part in the film.

The crocodile who was both so cagey and effective in the earlier scenes seemed to have punched, or swam, himself out not having either the strength or speed to grab, with his deadly jaws, and finish off the sole survivor of the expedition. In fact the killer crock was so ineffective that even after he gabbed his victim, or victims, he just couldn't hold on to them. This in the end turned out to be fatal on his part.

A lot like \"Jaws\" the film \"Black Water\" has the killer crocodile, like the great White Shark in \"Jaws\", more interested is killing his human prey then eating them. With all the food available in the swamp and rivers that he inhabited the crocodile was only after the quartet, Grace Pat Adam & Jimmy, for invading his watery domain that he felt was the grand ruler of. And for daring to do that they were to pay with their lives!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this film rather brilliant. Initially I wanted a \"when animals attack\" flick along the lines of \"frankenfish\" or even \"rogue\" but was delivered a truly horrific ordeal that was not devoid of humanity. Having been to the areas this was made (including the croc farm at the start of the movie, even sharing the same guide!) it added to the fear factor. Those crocs really are everywhere up there, though I don't think they had the \"attitude\" of this beastie. Yes there were some melodramatic moments but they contributed rather distract from the whole atmosphere. I genuinely cared for the characters and shuddered contemplating \"what would I do?\" in their boat. Not knowing where your enemy lurked or the sound of the croc chowing down at night was genuinely frightening. I would argue that this flick is one of the best horrors I have seen in years (coming close to the descent). I give it four alligator handbags.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a sleeper because Rod Steiger's is the only big name in the credits. Yet, all of the supporting actors fit well with his character. It was fitting that in his last film, Rod Steiger reminded us once more of his inventive power as an actor. He portrayed a grandfather's impulsiveness, stubbornness, and acceptance of the end of life in a characteristically individual and convincing performance. Because his character was close to death, the story brings us closer to the most precious things granted to us: the privilege of life, relationships with family members, and the empathy of those who care for us. His search together with his grand daughter for one of his sons provided enough suspense to keep me waiting, expecting a highly-charged climax such as the meeting of two long-separated elderly lovers who were also on the cusp of death in \"Forever Young.\" I wondered how the meeting would be staged and how tightly my emotions would be wound by the time he and his granddaughter reached the end of his quest. I was delighted to find that the story brought more than I expected. The delightfully satisfying climax brought for me a greater appreciation of the value of the precious gifts of life, love, and family that are enjoyed today by me and by all of us.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this film. A must see for any Rod Steiger fan. Producer Suzanne DeLaurentiis and Director Stewart Raffill have brought us a true family film that touches the soul. An incredibly well put together movie with a beautiful soundtrack.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wonderful film - a charming, quirky family story. A cross-country journey filled with lots of interesting, oddball stops along the way (& several very cool cameos). Great cast led by Rod Steiger carries the film along and leads to a surprise ending. Well directed & shot - a really nice movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Simply one of the best movies ever. If you won't get it - sorry for you. I believe that someday people will include this one in their all-time top 10's. Not now, but in the far future.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Giorgino is a strange, dark, obsessive object; the casting is impressive, the plot is powerful, reminded me of Edgar Poe's tales. Probably not a masterpiece, but it does leave us with the remembrance of strong images, fine music, fear, sadness, confusion, and a sentence that says it all : the wolves are coming. GIORGINO is quite forgotten now, and when it was released nobody seemed to appreciate it. That's a shame. If you ever have a chance to see this, well... give it a try.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Giorgino is a long, excruciating journey from bad to worse in the life of protagonist after whom the movie is named. Young demobilized, gas-poisoned First World War lieutenant of very delicate health, who previously was a doctor in an orphanage for children with some mental deprivations, goes in a search of their new location and finds much more than he ever intended to and quite of a different nature. Depressive atmosphere of ultimate despair, where the insane ones are much less horrible than the sane, where the madness is a kind of poetry, will hold you hypnotized from the very first frames of this film to the last. And all the beauty: beauty of the winter and mountains, beauty of snowy landscapes and wild woods, I don't even know how all the sorrow and sadness of last days of war could be made so beautiful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"That's certainly not the best film ever. But that's certainly worth seeing for people with a special kind of mind. So the one who loves sadness and depression, and scary fairy-tales at night, and wolves and real madness - welcome! If you find a copy, of course:) As for me, I could stand it only once... But since that the Wolves, and Saint-Lucy, and children's drawings, and a headless Christ live in my nightmares.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think it's incredibly hard to write any kind of full-scale review to Giorgino, merely because it's one of those viewer-dependent, complex, poetical and philosophical movies that are brain-wearing if, while watching them, you're trying to enjoy their shell and get to their core simultaneously, yet there are several things which are certain and beyond any doubt for any man of art (which, I hope, I am). The first thing: it's a certain masterpiece, even of that kind of art which remains through a long long time; the second: it's one of those rare \"dark\" movies in which darkness is poetic, even romantic, attractive and much more sad than depressing, like the art of Pieter Brueghel or Caspar David Friedrich. As to the core of the movie, someone called it Kafkian, though I don't agree with that because actually it's far beyond Kafka's misanthropic logic and much more like Edgar Poe's parables: dark and scary but through that touching the most gentle strings of our souls. Actually, on the poetic side (which is much more important than the narrative), Giorgino is a tale about eternal peace and love which can be achieved only through eternal childhood of soul. Those who have such souls are usually branded as crazy by our society, but from another point of view, they all have the virtue all the others lost when become \"grown\": the virtue of God's love. Indeed, Giorgino is a very Christian movie, \"Be like children\" (Mt 18:3) is it's real hidden tag-line, though the movie never deals with any kind of moral and concentrates only on the Christian philosophy for, dare to suppose, true God is beyond any human moral. Yet I think that Boutonnat is too harsh portraying \"grown\" people as a sort of demons trying to steal childhood from rare survived souls, but it's his point of view and he has a right to think so. While watching Giorgino don't try to look for some hidden symbols (though there are some), better look for thoughts expressed through characters and their behavior, and do learn from them. Also I cannot mention that the movie looks astonishingly through excellent photography, especially through rational use of color filters, incredibly apposite editing, wonderful acting of all the cast and, of course, due to the atmospheric beauty of winter mountains that reminded me of the Brueghel's \"Hunters in the Snow\". Also, interestingly enough, the scene with Death in the form of an old woman with sunken black-ringed eyes riding a cart, instantly reminded me of Pesta (Plague) from the series of drawings by the Norwegian painter Theodor Kittelsen, depicting how a black plague is sweeping out the population of a small town in the mountain valley. Is it a coincidence?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Giorgino can to some people look a bit long but it's one of rare real romantique adventure film. It could be compare to Docter Jivago with a bit of Sleepy Holow. You must see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How to summarize this film ? it is simply impossible. Why you should see it ? maybe for the story, very probably for the actors (Giorgio, Catherine...), above all for the universe and the poetry. This is a tale. Sad, sometimes dark, but a tale. I LOVE this film !!!! Just waiting for the DVD !! Thank you mister Boutonnat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I finally managed to see this movie...after so many years of expectancy...

I was so curious to see if this movie it is as bad as some people say..

And my opinion is that this movie it wasn't bad at all,on the contrary it was AMAZING...

I enjoyed every second from it...from the beginning until the end...

The actors were great they sent me the feeling that i was living the story at the same time as the movie was playing...

The landscapes were so beautiful were the film was shot...and it did charmed me.. Also the music was extraordinary and i have nothing

to reproach..

I think that the plot was very original i don't think that i saw a movie like this...

It is a shame that it isn't recognized all over the world..to bad for those who didn't get the chance to see it. i give this movie 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although it has been a failure in movie theaters because mainly Mylene Farmer, one of the 3 top stars in France had not the first role. Fans had changed their mind after that and were waiting for it on DVD. When it has been released on DVD this year it has have a tremendous success ! The others fails was the slow pace and the incredible length (3h) at that time (1994) that have annoyed critics. But the melancholic story makes mandatory that slow pace and long time. The moral of the film is you cannot escape from the death you are destined for. It is the same theme than in the movie \"Final Destination\" and makes it a Gothic tale. The atmosphere is very melancholic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"During WW2 in the Philipines, Japanese soldiers are starving, dying, growing weak, and becoming more and more insane. A small group of soldiers, trying to stay alive, have eventually resorted to cannibalism. This film perfectly portrays the insanity that overtakes people under extreme conditions. There are a few humorous parts in this movie, but the majority of it is just a very slow moving and realistic film. It follows these soldiers from one painful moment to another, and eventually to death. A very interesting film, showing the death, and the horror, of what may have been the worst war the world has ever seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the most anti-traditional war movies about was I have seen. Instead of the typical films that stress glory and perhaps super-human characters (like John Wayne), this film is the exact opposite--stressing the de-humanization that ALSO happens in war. The story concerns the Japanese who are stranded in the Phillipines after the US returned in late 1944-early 1945. By the time the movie begins, the Japanese have clearly been beaten but because of the insane logic of Bushido, they cannot allow themselves to consider surrender. At one of many poignant moments, the lead character is told at the beginning of the film to report to the hospital since he isn't capable of fighting due to his TB. The problem is that the hospital won't accept him, so his commander tells him to once again go to the hospital--and if they won't accept him he should blow himself up with a grenade! Well, this happens just in the first five minutes of the movie--a lot worse things befall this soldier and the few stragglers because they won't surrender. Plus, there is a case in the movie where a soldier DOES try to surrender but is gunned down. This happened a lot later in the war because so often the surrendering Japanese soldiers booby-trapped themselves to blow up when they came near. In addition, the film shows the most vivid depiction of starvation and the accompanying madness of any film I have seen. In addition, cannibalism, cowardice and betrayal all accompany this very gritty, realistic and depressingly realistic film. You simply couldn't have made a better film of this type. Horrible but great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is undoubtedly the most harrowing black-and-white war film that I've watched; as a matter of fact, the only Western director during this time to remotely approach its level of intensity and sheer visceral power in his work was Samuel Fuller. By the way, I had attended a Kon Ichikawa retrospective at London's National Film Theatre in September 2002, but only managed to catch some of his work made between 1960 and 1973.

The film is certainly as depressing as it's reputed to be; however, it also displays welcome touches of black humor throughout - the 'dead' man who wakes up to answer a querying soldier and promptly 'dies' again, the deliciously ironic shoe exchange sequence, a moribund eccentric telling the famished hero which part of the body he should eat, etc. Incidentally, the script was written by a woman - Natto Wada, the director's own wife!

Ichikawa is a versatile and prolific film-maker whose reputation may not be as high as it was during his peak years (1956-65), but his direction here is often striking - the startling pre-credits sequence (the hero is violently rebuked by his superior officer for being discharged from hospital earlier than expected!), the death of a surrendering Japanese at the hands of a gun-toting Philippine woman, the bombing of a hospital (with the medical staff running away to save themselves, leaving the wounded soldiers behind to crawl out of the shack at their own limited pace), the automated march in the rain of the disillusioned soldiers (which also involves the afore-mentioned business with the shoes that, actually, recalls a similar scene in ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT [1930]), a hill littered with the bodies of soldiers attempting to climb it, the finale, etc. Surely one of the film's major assets is the stunning cinematography of the unforgiving and desolate muddy landscape.

The film is notorious for treating the taboo subject of cannibalism (almost 10 years before it became a staple of horror movies) but Ichikawa's approach is not only subtle but highly effective: the flesh is actually referred to as \"monkey meat\", while the hero is seen partaking only once (and promptly spits out the piece along with most of his decaying teeth!); conversely, when the weak underling soldier (played by Mickey Curtis who, despite his name, was a Japanese pop idol of the time!) rabidly indulges, the ground nearby is splashed with blood.

In the supplements, Ichikawa remembers that Method-practicing lead actor Eiji Funakoshi (whose portrayal is unforgettable, by the way) arrived on the set at starvation point - with the result that production was forced to shut down for two weeks until he recuperated! Donald Richie's perceptive interview favors the nihilism of the film over the underlying patriotism behind such gut-wrenching recent Hollywood fare as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998).

FIRES ON THE PLAIN is universally considered to be one of its director's top efforts and, out of the several films of Ichikawa I've watched, the closest to it in spirit are THE BURMESE HARP (1956; another character-driven war film but with a spiritual tone, and which is also available on DVD from Criterion) and ENJO aka CONFLAGRATION (1958; which was actually given a limited theatrical showing locally, as part of a foreign-film week, a couple of years ago). Personally, I also have a particular soft spot for the director's stunningly stylized color extravaganza, AN ACTOR'S REVENGE (1963), which I've actually caught twice at the NFT in 1999 and the afore-mentioned 2002 retrospective.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every American who thinks he or she understands World War Two should see this movie. Few Hollywood films about the war have defied the stereotype of Japanese soldiers as emotionless brutes obeying orders without thinking. We like to think that every Japanese man was ready and able to fight to the death, right up to the day we bombed Nagasaki. \"Fires on the Plain\" shows a different reality: troops pathetically undersupplied, demoralized and starved to the point of cannibalism. They euphemistically refer to human flesh as \"monkey meat.\" The movie and novel on which it was based also put to death the myth that Japanese soldiers all preferred death to surrender: They had good reason to believe that their enemies were in no mood to take prisoners. To me it raises a question most Americans would rather avoid: If the Japanese military was so beaten down at this point in the war, why was it necessary to nuke Hiroshima?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A harrowing masterpiece on the sheer madness and despair of war, Fires on the Plain (Nobi) is not going to be to everybody's taste: this is a war movie in the truest possible sense of the term, one that resorts neither to flag-waving patriotism nor saccharine sentimentality. Nobi cuts deep, it's ugly, tenebrous and bleak as few things ever committed on celluloid will ever be. This is war behind the cannons, with no triumphs or heroes, no moral victories or defeats to be had, just a handful of gaunt and terrible-looking men strewn across a land ravaged by war like penitents fleeing a great disaster. The characters defy moral judgment because they are creatures beset by a great woe, a woe that does not permit questions of a moral nature. War and survival. Pitting one's will against the other's in a battlefield arena. The loser is simply removed from existence.

Tamura, soldier in the Japanese Imperial army, is discharged from his platoon and ordered to report in a nearby hospital on account of him coughing blood and being disliked by the rest of the platoon. He's told to never come back and instead commit suicide by hand grenade in case the hospital rejects him. Which it does. The hospital is nothing but a shack made of wooden planks and the hospital surgeon simply tells him that if he's capable of walking he's just fine. It is in that shabby excuse of a hospital that one of the most harrowing scenes of the film takes place. As the area is carpet bombed by American planes the doctors and those who can walk and sustain themselves flee from the hospital and into the woods. Moments before the hospital is blown to pieces, the gaunt and crippled figures of the sick and injured crawl out of it in every manner of posture, dressed in their sickly white robes, as if the building is some kind of beast spewing viscera and filth out upon the earth.

That is Nobi's greatest success; the stark and brooding depiction of the suffering of war in simple but evocative images, without melodrama or pseudo-heroism. Soldiers cross a marsh, wading knee-deep in mud, move across the opposite bank and into a field only to discover enemy tanks hiding in the woods, their lights shining like malignant eyes as they scan the dark. A procession of injured soldiers, dirty and half-mad, crossing a road, dropping to the ground on the sound of enemy planes. Buzzards feasting on a pile of dead bodies. An abandoned village. A mad soldier that believes himself to be Buddha sitting under a tree, covered with flies and his own excrement, offering his arm to be eaten by Tamura when he's dead. These are the images Kon Ichikawa conjures for our eyes, merciless and unflinching in their poignancy but honest and raw.

Nobi doesn't rush to get somewhere. It is content to follow Tamura's travels through the war-torn land as he tries to reach the regrouping center of Palompa, and observe the madness and obscenities of war. The movie wades through the sludge of the horror of war, slow and brooding, just like the characters it follows. The final thirty minutes with Tamura taking refuge with two deserters who feed on 'monkey meat' are the closest Nobi comes to adhering to conventional narratives and they're no less powerful for that matter. Strikingly photographed in black and white, with great performances from the cast, and Ichikawa's assured direction, Nobi is not only among the best war movies to be made but also among the finest of Japanese cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Nobi\" or \"Fires On the Plain\" is a film that is so excellent on so many levels, that not enough good things can be said about it. My only regret is that I was not able to see this 1959 film sooner.

Being something of a film purist, I tend to look at films for their artistic merits based upon dialog, acting, photography and even the efforts to remain true to the period in terms of costume. Ultimately, I want to know if the film is \"truthful\" enough in revealing the human condition to make me think without oppressing me with what the director wants me to think.

\"Fires on the Plain\" is a great film because it crafts a portrait filled with realistic human reactions to the dying fires of a great historical catastrophe.

Ichikawa's film is a condemnation of war on all levels -- as any good war film should be. War is horrifying, bloody, destructive. It is also murderous on the psyche. However, what is fundamental about \"Fires on the Plain\" is its unapologetic look at the Japanese soldiers. It shows them slowly collapsing under the weight of superior American firepower and their nation's inability to wage a war of its own making. A fatalistic code encouraging death before surrender is at the heart of this madness.

I was astonished to see such an honest and brutally close look at the bitter fruits of Japan's military misadventure made just 14 years after the end of what the Japanese call the \"Great Pacific War.\" Ichikawa, reveals what the Germans called the \"war life,\" the plight of the common soldier.

Ichikawa's film is interesting, since even today Japan is having a hard time fully coming to terms with its wartime fanaticism, its subjugation of conquered peoples, the racism of its war against the Chinese and war crimes which included cannibalism by soldiers and officers practiced not only against one another, but against Allied prisoners of war.

Ichikawa produces a stark representation of the victimization of soldiers by a confluence of bad political decisions and cultural pressures.

This stark examination is skillfully done by portraying the doomed soldiers as human beings who exhibit, at various times, fear, brilliantly laconic humor, dialog enriched by its sparseness, and a plot whose complexity is belied by the grim, wilderness setting.

Ichikawa's portrait is a ragged and painful tapestry of defeated men. The tubercular Tamura, played as a woebegone and gentle soul by Eiji Funakoshi, is a good soldier who can't abandon his humanity, though he is as frightened and lost as his comrades. Before he departs for a hospital that will reject him as too healthy, Tamura is given a hand grenade by a superior who, recognizing the hopelessness of their situation, advises Tamura to kill himself.

Why Tamura's hopelessly ill-supplied and militarily incapable unit was not ordered to surrender at the start of the film is telling. Ichikawa makes it plain that the war is over and everyone is merely waiting to die. As Tamura leaves his unit for his hopeless search for physical and spiritual salvation, he sees his comrades pointlessly digging an air raid shelter. They appear like corpses looking up from their own mass grave.

We later watch as the overworked hospital's medical staff abandons the dying patients to an all-consuming American artillery barrage. The pathetic patients, who crawl from their huts in a vain attempt to survive, appear like pathetic, serpentine creatures dragging themselves from an omnipotent force. You know they won't survive.

Ichikawa makes it plain that the only thing worse than a defeated army is one that has lost its honor by abandoning its humanity and its comrades. As Tamura staggers through the jungles of Leyte we encounter the noble, the dying and the exploitive. Cannibalism rears its ugly head as soldiers begin to eat one another rather than surrender to American \"corned beef.\"

When the men do talk of surrender, the propaganda of how Americans kills prisoners is countered by a worldly-wise soldier who reveals that the approaching Americans feed and care for prisoners of war because they, unlike the Japanese, respect brave soldiers who are forced to give up.

It is the Japanese who intend to die fighting for the Emperor long after resistance has lost all meaning. Those willing to fight to the death will be killed. It is the calculus of war.

After shooting a murderous and cannibalistic comrade, whom he earlier offered his own body to as food, the fatalistic Tamura's careless surrender also seems to be an intentional form of suicide. His death is a lonely image. Was Ichikawa trying to tell us of the internal conflict of the ordinary soldier who wants to live, but who is still trapped by his nation's suicidal cultural codes?

If someone watches this film carefully, he or she will see that absolutism and fanaticism is the enemy. The Americans are portrayed as a technologically advanced people willing to employ that technology in the form of inexorable military power -- a lesson that transformed Japanese postwar society. Ichikawa's film isn't so shallow that it indicts America. Ichikawa indicts the sedimentary layers of Japan's destructive policies that created the war and then to continue it when all was lost.

Ichikawa does not mention the nuclear weapons dropped upon Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He doesn't have to. The slow-motion destruction of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippines reveals the seeds of Japan's immolation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The main achievement of this film is that though racially unipolar, the film still manages to carve out a tableaux of war portrayals that leave a lasting identification with whoever may view it, and whoever was present at this time. Though good films may have the ability of universalizing their subjects, which is often a hard thing to do; great films have the ability of universalizing their unipolar subjects, which is what this film does.

Instead of carving a context of unity, the film depicts the Japanese in the sick finality of the Phillipines war-front in February, 1945, making signs for pacifism or war, but rather making signs of the feelings, death, destruction, victory and sickness of war with the bloody hands of the defeated.Far different, and superior, to films such as Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket, both which needed a satirical methodology of trivializing and depersonalizing the American troupes, and using all races as one struggle, which is fine, yet not as grand as a film that uses one race and view, which would look fascist if created in America, to convey the horror of war and show what it is really like.

The only way the main character makes it through this movie to the end, is by being sick, thence inedible; hence through this character, through his sickness, his saving face, we see the end of WWII in the Phillipines in February of 1945, and the way in which the Americans, Japanese and Phillipinians came together in bloody acts of warfare where you live to die.

The film is patently influenced by a neorealist way of filmic portrayal, which is original and beneficial to a viewer, whether then or now, for the neorealist techniques it employs conveys all the horrors of war in pictorial form, whether a showcase for pacifism or 'militaristic responsibility'. Like Germania Anno Zero, by Roberto Rossellini, a story emerges from the environment and the conditions associated with it.

The film's opening, with the two-way discussion between the two Japanese soldiers, prefigures and reechoes the events. Through this opening we feel that the struggle is human against human, and human with human; it shows that they relied on each other to face the enemy in the past battles, but now, in this opening, or 'pivot' of the experiences of the Japanese in the Phillipines, new information is relayed to the main character Tamura, giving a presentiment of a cannibal reliance on one another if they wish to survive.

The jungle is gritty, wet and thick, and the sky is not infrequently cloudy and pouring. We wade with the stragglers though puddles and marshes, as sick as the land around them. Nameless cadavers are strewn everywhere. Every now and then one can not tell if they are bodies, rocks or corn. Apparently there is no difference here, all is dead and sick. All is dying. All they have lest to feed upon are rare monkeys and dead bodies of fallen comrades and\/or nameless enemies.

Often Tamura meets a fallen other near death. Though crushed in spirit, and crushing his, some offer up their bodies for him to eat, but he refuses; he still, like Hiroshi Kawaguchi as Nishi in Giants and Toys, will not droop into the death of dignity and Japanese morals; for this is all he really has to hold up for his survival, a dignity of self. Hence, when Nagamatsu is dissecting a soldier for consumption, he shoots him because of it. Tamura may be used to the killing, but to the sickness of killing and pillaging he can't decipher. He is neither a good man or a bad man. He wishes to survive, but will not go the extra mile beyond simple straight-war-killing. His self belonged dead on the battlefield, he isn't happy here to wade and wipe the weak for his survival.

The sickness he carrys he sees everywhere, in everyone; and sadly he lacks the ethical rationale of thinking either thinking entirely about others, since he can't give up his body for them since of his contagious malady, or thinking entirely about himself, since he sees the sickness in everyone, though still killing them even if they do no harm. Seen in his attack on the two Philippians's in the hut. He can't see anyone. No one can see anyone. The only see an aversion from malady and an adversion to health, the heart of survival instincts.

Often, an arm appears pointing to the left of the screen, towards what must be hope, for there, in that far Thule lies their freedom. Yet it is blocked by American soldiers, leaving the Japanese stragglers to slowly die in this disconsolate dirt. Even a church tower appears, reflecting the light off an unseen sun. But on closer inspection crows flutter wildly about it; religion too is an air of poison.

Nobi, the Japanese title of the film, gives more evidence to the themes, or feelings of the film: the servitude to fate, the heaviness of existence under leaders and lives controlled by others. Its proper Anglophone translation has a subject of heavy debate among historians, as non-Koreans translate it as \"slave\" and \"slavery\", while many Koreans argue that nobi was not a slave system, but a servant class system that does not meet the criteria for slavery. A way to typically to escape wrenching poverty. This improves upon the war theme, and symbolism of soldiery.

Isn't it important at the time period to ask ourselves what the purpose is of what will become our won history? Should we be comfortable of letting it unroll without conscious effort for change? Is it not who we are fighting, that age old history question, but rather why are we fighting? Fires on the Plain is with Eiji Funakoshi, Osamu Takizawa, and Mickey Curtis; based on a novel by Shohei Ooka. In Japanese with subtitles.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a knockout, Fires on the plain referred to is, (the burning off at the end of harvest time) A happy memory for Tamura, He relives this in his mind many time's,and at the end of this bleak film, Like a man dying of thirst, he believe's he is home and this last illusion is all he has left. Billy Wilder's The Big Carnival (Ace in the hole) is the only film (that comes to mind)that is as bleak as this little masterpiece by Kon Ichikawa. While I think the whole film is brilliant Two scenes that come to mind are when a platoon of Japanese soldiers trying to escape (Crawling on there belly's)are ambushed by Americans and massacred,True Horror, And as an American soldier and a pretty Philippine Girl soldier are having a cigarette on the side on the road, she smiles as she flits with the yank,then her face Changes to rage as she see's two Japanese soldiers trying to surrrender, she grabs a gun and kills them with joy, The American soldier attempts to stop her but has no chance , to me this speaks volumes at the atrocity's committed by the Japanese in the Philippines, all in all a great film if you have the stomach for it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fires on The Plain (1959) ****

You don't see films like this anymore. 'Fires on the Plain' is an incredible depiction of the lives of the soldiers of the Japanese Imperial Army. Kon Ichikawa's masterpiece follows Tamura, a soldier with Tuberculosis as he wanders around the Philippine landscape in the last year of the war. He is sent away to the hospital by his commanding officer only to be refused treatment and so he is sent back. His CO tells him to go back and if they refuse him again then his last order is to kill himself with his grenade. He is refused again, but meets up with a band of squatters sitting outside the hospital. The next day they are shelled by American troops and Tamura flees, choosing not to kill himself, and from there he wanders from place to place trying to get to Palompon. He discovers that some men have been eating human flesh in order to survive, while others trade as much tobacco as they can for whatever they can get back.

The film is filled with a quiet sense of desperation and desolation, with a hint of insanity. Everyone we see is skin and bones, covered in dirt wearing torn and tattered rags. Ichikawa uses his camera to catch some beautiful shots of the destructed landscape and the Japanese soldiers who walk it. Kon Ichikawa was famous in Japan for making many comedies and satires, and there are moments in Fires on the Plain that are bitingly hilarious. Take for example a shot of what appears to be a dead man lying face down in a pool of water; a soldier walks but and asks himself aloud if that is how they will all end up, to which the man lifts his head out of the water and replies \"what was that?\" and then drops his face even deeper into the puddle than before. Another hilarious sequence involves one man finding a pair of boots along the trail. He takes the boots, replacing them with his old ones. Another man walks by and sees that pair of boots and switches up for his old boots. The scene continues until finally Tamura finds the exchange spot and examines the boots left without hardly any sole. He looks carefully at his own and at ones on the ground, and deciding that they're both kaput he removes his own and goes barefoot. The film is filled with incredible scenes, one after another. Like Mizoguchi and Kurosawa, Ichikawa knew how to use his camera to paint beautiful and stunning pictures. There are many stunning shots of men in barren empty plains surrounded by nothing but smoke in the air and dead or dying bodies on the broken earth. There is another incredible scene where dozens of Japanese soldiers attempt to cross a road guarded by Yanks in the middle of the night, all crawling on their hands and knees as the camera watches on from above.

The film gets its name from the columns of smoke rising up from fires on the plains seen throughout the film. They represent to the soldiers life a little more ordinary; the lives of Japanese farmers back home burning husks of corn. Their beacons of hope for the normal life however are in hostile hands.

The film caused a stir in its day with its graphic content. Much emphasis is placed on the horror of war, not just with the enemy but within your ranks and yourself. Kon Ichikawa's Fires on the Plains is an incredibly authentic and moving, and somewhat disturbing, portrait of the horror suffered by the men making up the lower ranks of the Imperial Army. Clint Eastwood's Letters From Iwo Jima, while it is a very good film, comes nowhere close to realizing the horror of war depicted in Fires on the Plain. (Eastwood was no doubt influenced by the film, seeing as he claims to be such a classic Japanese film buff.) Many war films show that war is hell through the eyes of the winners. In Fires on the Plain, we're shown that war is even more hellish when you're on the losing end

4\/4","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this in 1993 on a VHS tape but have been unable to find it at any source since. This is a very bleak and uncompromising look at the last days of the Japanese Army in the Phillipines. Anyone with an interest in the Pacific war would do well to view this film and see what conditions the other side fought under.From what I can tell, this is historically accurate, and depicts how easily men can descend into complete barbarism. I understand the Japanese Army was completely cut off from any re-supply in the Phillipines by 1945, so there is no doubt many of the horrific incidents depicted here happened. I might not have been able to identify with the film's characters, but I appreciate their humanity and struggle to survive. If I had to compile a list of the ten greatest war films, this film would be on it. See it if you can get it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An unflinching descent into psychological and physical oblivion that will undoubtedly burn images of the truthful brutality and suffering of war into your cerebral cortex in a way not many other films will. In fact, there is simply no other war film like it.

Director Kon Ichikawa witnessed the unthinkable horror of Hiroshima first hand only 10 days after the bomb was dropped. He has said that from that day it would always be his mission to express the pointless, empty violence humans inflict on each other and themselves.

Mr. Ichikawa shows us that there are no winners in war... for the paths to victory and defeat are paved with the same soldiers soullessly marching down roads which only have death and destruction at their end.

Mr. Ichikawa succeeds in bringing his message to the world thru this haunting piece of cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kon Ichikawa had lived through world war two, and saw what its effects it had on his people in Japan. But so did novelist Shohei Ooka, whose book was the inspiration for Ichikawa's film, Fires on the Plain. It's a film about the men in this war, or perhaps more universally in wars in general, who lose their humanity. The soldiers trudging along through these fields and jungles of the Philippenes in this story are almost completely without hope, if not already just that. It makes Stone's Platoon look like a picnic: at least they had certain things, like food, after all.

They have little to no reserves or supplies or ammunition, no back-up, no sense of anything going their way in this combat that they've been thrust into. They can't even get some proper hospital care, unless if they can no longer walk at all or have lost limbs (for example, say, if you have TB, you're on your way). But its really through the prism of one soldier, a private Tamura, that we get a full sense of the futility of war, both in its bleak scenes of nothingness and boredom and decay, and those flashes of intense and brutal violence.

In the film Tamura just wants to get some medical care. This is right at the start, and his told by his superior officer- already he is with eyes that stare off and an expression that has been drained by years of battle- that he will die if he doesn't find a hospital. He doesn't, really, but does end up in with some soldiers: at first with a platoon that seems to sort of have their act together, but is really led on by a power-hungry brute who just wants Tamura's stash of salt, and then later with two other stray soldiers who are part of a group that had previously been ambushed while crossing a road at night.

The story isn't entirely a straight line, but it doesn't need to be. Tamura's path in Fires on the Plain is told in vignettes, little stories like when he comes upon a seemingly deserted enemy village. Two of the populous comes back to get some supplies, and Tamura sneaks up on them. It's an excruciating scene, since so far with Tamura we haven't seen him do anything outright *wrong*, but he does so in this scene, not even so much out of evil but out of fear and desperation (this is also, without spoiling it, how he gets a stash of salt). Little scenes build up so brilliantly and with devastation, like a simple task of finding a pair of walkable shoes, which there seem to be none. Or when Tamura, later in the film, discovers his teeth are becoming torn apart and falling out from lack of total hygiene. So much for food, so it goes.

It should also be mentioned that this is a hauntingly realized film from Ichikawa, shot in a stark black and white view of the fields and woods, the cinematography filling everything we see in black-blacks and white-hot white. Ichikawa also makes sure to get everything authentic from his actors, not simply emotionally but with their own emaciated look and looks of desperation right on them. It's as if Ichikawa has to have them all surviving the film as well as characters surviving out in the wild; by wild, by the way, I mean also cannibalism. The shock of this is two-fold; first is the way that a soldier says half-jokingly early on about eating other soldiers to Tamaura, who asks if it was true and only in response getting a \"don't ask\" word of caution, and the second with the depiction of cannibalism itself, from the crazy starving man on the hill who pulls out guts out of his lap and says with a straight face to our hero that \"You can eat me when I die.\"

This makes thing especially more brutal when it comes to the director filming the brief 'action' scenes. These are, I would argue, more brutal than 'Private Ryan' in their depictions of violence in battle, the carnage that is completely random. A scene I would point to, and that contains just a shot that is excruciating to watch, is when from a high angle we see a group of about twenty soldiers walking slowly along, a hail of gunfire comes that kills only four or five, but it just happens so fast, and the soldiers just keep walking along at the same crawl. This isn't the only shot of horrible carnage that's shown - when needing to be bloody its there, but splashed across the screen like something completely of the macabre - but it drives the point completely.

All of the acting is staggering (Funakoshi especially, who looks to be both most at peace and most horrified by what he sees in the subtlest of looks most of the time), all of the major set-pieces provide something else to the gruesome experience, and it all amounts to the ultimate question with an anti-war film: how can, or why, do people fight in wars like these? It's almost too depressing to put into words, and so Ichikawa pushes our noses right up into the muck and filth and blood and demands for us to take it in, so maybe, some day, it will never happen again. Or one can hope this, by the end of such a bleak and great film as this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My first Ichikawa in many years, and the first of his war films that I've seen, this was gripping and brutal from the very get-go. In the very first scene, nominal hero Tamura is told that he can't continue on with his unit, to which he has returned from the hospital. He apparently has TB \u0096 but he is not sick enough for the hospital to take him given the quantity of war-wounded they have. But his old unit won't take him back either; his CO gives him a grenade, and tells him that if he feels truly hopeless to blow himself up\u0085it's the honorable thing to do.

The Phillipines, 1945, and the situation really does seem hopeless, for PFC Tamura and everyone else. Nobi is an odyssey through hell, or rather hells \u0096 denuded forests, dead rocky plains, and the dead and dying Japanese soldiers hoping just for an end, through peace or death. Ichikawa's film is photographed in stunning B&W scope which serves to highlight both the desolation felt by Tamura and those he meets on his journey towards his doom, and to show how truly small and naked they all are amidst the immensity of the mountains and the forests\u0085.this small affair of humans will end soon, the earth seems to be saying, but I will survive and barely notice it.

Tamura travels back towards the hospital, but is (not surprisingly) rejected there, and spends the rest of the film trying to stay alive, stay human, and get out of danger. He doesn't manage to do very well on any account, slowly starving and eventually committing some fairly repellent acts. Eventually he hooks up with two other desperate men who have lost, or survived their units, and have resorted to cannibalism\u0085and in his weakened state facing other armed men, finds that the only way to live is to break with everything that he believes in.

Ichikawa's film is as brutal, uncompromising and intense as any war film I've seen. There are moments of humor and tenderness, but they are fleeting and don't stick in the memory such as the scene with the man on the mountaintop who practically begs Tamura to eat his flesh\u0085the recurring black-comic bit with Tamura exchanging his ragged shoes for the better leathers of a fallen comrade\u0085.the degradations that humans will endure to survive\u0085.the truth that this is any war, all wars, all mankind as long as we continue thus. A masterpiece that I probably won't watch again for a long, long time. Watched via the beautiful Criterion Collection DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is probably the greatest war film and certainly one of the greatest films. There's no sentimentality, no patriotic agenda, not even a hopeful message of universal brotherhood in this bleak glimpse of what we can only call hell. It's this quiet rigor and lack of manipulation that give the film its astounding power. There aren't any attempts to make a hero out of Ichikawa's protagonist Tamura either. He's just a poor doomed sap trying to stay alive in a world of horror who hopes, but isn't sure, he can hang on to his humanity in the process. Ichikawa's fierce lack of cant and illusion make Fires on the Plain stand alone. Ichikawa died February 2008.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I got this movie out a week after the death of Ichikawa Kon - I suppose if there is one way to mark the passing of a great director, its to raise a glass of wine to him while watching one of his greatest movies. Ichikawa had one of the finest careers in Japanese film, but as he never had a distinctive style or theme he often seems to be overlooked compared to his near contemporaries such as Ozu and Kurosawa (he was a little younger than them, but not by much). He is one of those directors who defies auteur theories - its likely that his wife (who wrote the screenplay for this and many other of his movies) was as much responsible for the quality of the movies as he was. But at his best, he was as good as any Japanese film maker at the time. In particular, he had great technical skills, allowing him to tell complex stories in an accessible manner. But in terms of theme, this movie could hardly be simpler - war is hell. No really, its seriously hell.

Fire on the Plain doesn't follow the normal war genre rules. There is no real beginning - we start as the wretched Tamura, who is a regular private (although it is implied he is more thoughtful and educated than most of the others - at one stage it is shown he understands English, but he clams up when the others ask him how he knows it) is ordered to hospital, as his unit is already in an appalling state. The soldiers are defeated and starving to death. They are no longer an army, just a rag bag group of refugees - hunted by the locals, and pretty much ignored by the Americans, who have bigger fish to fry. Hunger and despair is driving the soldiers to the edge and beyond of madness.

In typical Ichikawa style, its not all just grim - its oddly funny in parts (a very black humour of course).

The high points of this movie to me are the outstanding performances from the leads and the vivid photography. The characters, in all their humanity, but also their complete loss of humanity, are all too believable. This is that rare film - one which will refuse to erase itself from your head, even if you want to forget it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The title is a reference to the destruction of the remnants of a harvest, like rice husks, by farmers who burn them creating fires on the plains. This is a bleak tale of the destruction of the Japanese soldier.

The story is set in the closing days of the Philippines campaign as a soldier with TB who returns from a hospital because since he can walk, they have no room for him. His superior officers don't want him around since he's really too sick to work or fight. Abused by his officer he's sent back to the hospital with orders to either be admitted or kill himself. They still won't take him and he's soon left to wander across the war ravaged landscape trying to find help or a place to stay or even just food. Its a bleak journey with no hope in sight and only death and man's inhumanity to man at every turn.

Billed as a harrowing journey into the dark heart of man and war this is also a very funny movie. This isn't to say its not horrifying, it is at times, but its also darkly comic. How could it not be? Here is a film where madness and insanity run rampant, people are constantly trying to hustle tobacco leaves for food, trying to get even a slightly better pair of shoes, trying to remain a Japanese soldier in the face of absurdity by marching constantly but never getting anywhere and you can't help but laugh. To be sure things go darker as it becomes clear that cannibalism maybe, literally and figuratively, the only way to survive, but at the same time there is something uncomfortably funny about the human comedy.

Hailed as a great anti-war film its stark photographic style makes clear the insanity of war even as it dazzles our eye with its beauty. Here we see landscapes full of bodies that include the soldier and the civilian. set amid fields forests and trees that would otherwise be, and to some extent still are, quite beautiful. Its a jarring sensation.

What intriguing is that I read that this is based on a novel about the redemptive power of Christianity. The director removed all over the religious references to hope and salvation and instead used it as to show that life stinks, war stinks worse and that there is, ultimately no hope.

Intellectually I admire the film, emotionally I don't. Part of it is a strident downbeat score which, for me over accentuates what we are seeing on the screen. Its almost gilding the lily since the imagery is so strong it doesn't really need to have the music force you into feeling one way or another.

Is it a great film, thats for you to decide. For certain its unlike any other war film, bloody, horrific and real in ways that big budgeted films claim to be but never are. This is not for those adverse to blood and gore since its here in spades.

Definitely worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fires on the plain directed by Kon Ichikawa and written by Shohei Ooka and Natto Wada is a World War two movie which is finally not showing the allies fighting the axis powers, but the Japanese fighting and struggling for their lives on the Philippines. The main characters name is Tamura , played by Eiji Funakoshi, and he is a soldier leaving his regiment because of him being sick. All he has on him is a hand grenade, his gun and some potatoes. Like this, he is trying to make his way to the hospital in order to get a doctor and a cure for his disease. But since the hospital turned him away and gets destroyed, he begins a long walk. Throughout the whole movie, Tamura remains a bit cowardish, but very civil, when the other soldiers become more like animals by using their basic instincts for survival Tamura is still remaining human and would not degrade. A scene which has influenced me a lot to think positively and different about this war movie is, when Tamura comes into a Phillipino village which is completely deserted. There, he fights a dog and finds a lot of corpses of Japanese soldiers stacked up in front of a church. This makes Tamura think and even more scared than he already is. That shows that the soldier is not a brave killing machine, but a servant to higher beings and human most importantly. After he turns away from the corpses, two Phillipinos (a couple or brother and sister : very close relationship) return to the village in order to get their stash of salt back. The main character of the movie wants to be friendly at first, although he walked up to them with his gun, but shoots the woman once she starts screaming. Her brother\/boyfriend\/husband then runs away in fear and after a moment Tamura follows him and shoots wildly at the fleeing Filipino. He does not hit him. After Tamura picks up the bag of salt , something very precious , he drops his gun into a river. This gesture is very important in order to understand Kon Ichikawa's\/Shohei Ooka's profiling of Tamura and the war. Comparing this movie to other World War 2 movies, it is not typical at all. Of course all movies have suffering heroes, but their heroes are more heroic than Tamura. He expresses everything that is human: he is getting manipulated , he is weak , he gets scared , he has hope. This is typical for Japanese World War two movies and for Japanese society. Since World War two is not a discussed theme in Japanese society, Japanese are likely to put Japanese in the second World War in the role of the victim. This victimisation is also very visual in this movie. One of the examples is Tamura, another one the piled up bodies of Japanese soldiers in front of the church and another important one is, when the Japanese soldiers are trying to cross a street and the Americans are already waiting there for them and shooting all of the Japanese soldiers which have worse equipment and are fed worse and have no health equipment or anything alike. In my personal conclusion I have to say that it is worth seeing this film in order to finally see a movie from the other side than usual. It also has no nationalistic propaganda which could've been easily built in. Once you have watched the movie fully, you will be able to see the horrors of the second World War to its total extent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"They are hunted and starving. They are completely demoralized and yet they press on through sheer inertia. This film tries to answer the question \"How far will human beings go to survive?\" Hopelessness emanates from every of this film and like so many japanese films of this time, it condemns the blind military loyalty that pressed the japanese people into war.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This depiction of forlorn Japanese forces in the Philipines is a tour de force in the utter meaninglessness of war. It is an effective representation of Japanese pacifist views after WW II. In the movie, Japanese soldiers have been left to fend for themselves in the jungles of the Philipines. Faced with impending starvation they resort to cannibalism and gradually lose what little humanity they have left. To call this film depressing would be something of an understatement. The viewer is left with an utterly despairing sense of life's lost value in modern combat. The final scene is almost too nihilistic but the film is a worthy statement none-the-less. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, so I'm a sucker for a good documentary, particularly where it tells a modern-day Don Quixote story. A caveat: I met Mark Borchardt in the winter of 1995\/96 while he was still working on Coven. But I'll save that story for later. American Movie, which commenced production not long after, accurately portrays the person that I knew, although in greater depth than I expected or believed existed. This is simultaneously a very funny and very sad film, and is brilliantly executed. Mark comes across as his own worse enemy: his childlike ambition and optimism -- which I admire -- is undermined by his apparent artistic ineptitude as well as his bizarre fiscal expectations. But he's also a charismatic guy. His loyal Sancho Panza sidekick is equally likeable: loyal, if frazzled, to the core. Like Don Quixote, American Movie presents an often-ignored inefficient aspect of freedom -- that people will be drawn toward professions to which they are not particularly well-suited, irrespective of repeated failure. It is a great film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This documentary is the most hypnotizing film I have seen in a long while. I must have had it on for an entire day. The selected material included in the piece flow amazingly well and develop three characters that are impossible to ever forget. The different layers of these people peel back to make an oddly moving film about perseverance, loyalty and determination. These characters ended up suprisingly fascinating and the film is unforgettable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Looking for proof that real life is more entertaining than fiction? You just found it. This superb documentary about an aspiring feature filmmaker (Mark Bortchart) who refuses to admit defeat is the funniest film I have ever seen -- probably because it's also one of the most tragic. Oddly enough, the more I watch the film the more inspired I become.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For me, the best & most memorable movies are often those which on first viewing I know nothing about. American Movie is a perfect example of just such a gem. Watching TV late one evening, I spotted the one & only good review among the dross - thankfully I settled in for a real treat. American Movie is a documentary following the unforgettable Mark Borchardt (pronounced \"orchard\", I believe), a highly articulate & charismatic Wisconson lad, as he struggles to write, direct and produce \"MidWestern\", a gritty, low-budget Horror movie on which he has been working for years. In Mark we discover a young man filled with contrast. His appearance is of the classic trailer-trash stereotype - skinny, bum-fluff mustache, '80s heavy metal styling, mullet hairdo, etc. To camera however, Mark reveals startling wit & insight as he philosophizes upon life, love, movies & the American way. As the movie unfolds, it sadly becomes clear that Mark's lack of discipline & heavy drinking are relentlessly sabotaging his creative efforts. American Movie is a charming watch, filled with hilarious moments & vivid characters. Chief among these is Mark's lovable buddy Mike Schank, a soft-spoken reformed stoner who, having conquered an addiction to scratch cards, is now dependent on soda pop. I absolutely loved American Movie. It generates real empathy between the viewer & principal characters, and provides hilarity without feeling exploitative. I would wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When we are young, we all pick out an ideal occupation for ourselves: artist, actor, writer, rocket scientist, etc.. While most of us grow out of our pipe dreams, the main character of American Movie, Mark, has yet to let go of his(and at a thirty-something age too): to become a wealthy acclaimed director. Despite the fact that Murphy's Law won't leave Mark alone and something always seems to go wrong, Mark is able to persevere during each deterring incident with an even greater drive to reach his goals. His desire to be a director so controls his character that he sees any person or thing in his life as something to exploit to reach the goal. While I noticed other IMDB commenters are lambasting Mark's selfishness, I think it's an almost justified sort-of selfishness because for Mark, not becoming a famous director is equivalent to death. He talks incessantly about leaving some kind of mark on the world, and he sees filmmaking as a way to do this.

Unfortunately any viewer of this movie picks up early on the fact that Mark has a near-zero chance of ever achieving his dream. Is he aware of this? No, not in the slightest, and none of his family or friends want to let him in on the secret(in fact even some of them believe in him). Strangely enough though, the disappointing future the viewer feels is sure to occur for Mark doesn't impede the ability to find humor in the film. This is a very very funny documentary. Most of the laughs come from when Mark is filming scenes for \"Coven\". There's a scene where an actor has to have his head break a cupboard, and it's just not working. Another scene has Mark's very old uncle Bill saying a few lines to the camera; needless to say, after 20 takes of a lot of headscratching and line-stumbling Bill finally decides he's had enough. A lot of humor sadly comes from Mark himself. His screenwriting, which he seems to think is worthy of a Pulitzer, is laughingly bad: \"It's alright, it's ok, there is something to live for; Jesus told me so.\"

\"American Movie\" is, contrary to what people might think, a documentary that anyone can enjoy(even though my sister, who watched some scenes, seemed to think it was downright bizarre). The fact that Chris Smith can successfully bring to the screen a film that inspires both sadness from Mark's depressing lifestyle to hilarity with scenes with Bill(who unfortunately passed away before the film was released) says quite a lot about him. I wonder how the dreamer Mark regards this documentary. Does he realize that it casts him in a bad light? Or that it sets up to show him as a fool in many scenes of the film? Or does he see it as something that will be shown prior to his own A&E Biography segment? It's an intriguing subject of wonder, and I hope the latter comes true for him some day.

I highly recommend this movie: 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What gives this movie its personality is the knowledge, in the end, that it is all true. While it is a compelling and humorous documentary that does border on mockumentary in some parts (are they staged or is it really happening humorously?), it does seem to get a bit long towards the end.

This movie is funny in places it needs to be, and flows relatively well. Reminiscent of Christopher Guest's movies, if you liked those or Adaptation then I recommend you keep a look out for this one.

B+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this one, because I can relate to it.

At one time in my life I was trying to make films, and experienced many of the same problems Mark Borchardt did in trying to make HIS film. And I also went through a protracted period of self-absorbed arrested development, where I refused to grow. But then, miraculously, I got married, and had kids. I realized that being a struggling filmmaker was, in all likelihood, not going to feed my family. So I got a decent job and did what I felt I needed to do to make that happen. That is what an mature, responsible adult does.

Mark hasn't faced up to that reality as yet, and so, in that sense, he is a retarded adolescent. For this reason, there is a hopelessness about him. Like Don Quixote, he seems so inept and self-deluded that he doesn't realize how bad off he really is. The viewer feels a sense of superiority and pity for him and his circle. Mark has kids and an ex-wife and bills to pay, but the film depicts him caring basically only about pursuing his \"artistic vision\".

Despite this, Mark comes across in the film as a likeable individual, surrounded by a very interesting family and group of friends. Unfortunately, Mark lacks many of the things necessary to be successful both in life and in a career: maturity, responsibility, education, knowledge, life experience, prioritization, financial clout, etc.. Yet he trudges on, much like Ed Wood, apparently without any semblance of a clue.

I guess we are supposed to feel encouraged by the spectacle of the \"never say die\" attitude of this noble individual, struggling against the odds. And man, what odds there are! Kiefer Sutherland, Colin Hanks, Tori Spelling and Angelina Jolie are all offspring of big-time film or TV people; no doubt, they will all want to direct some day, if they aren't already. How much room is there for an independent like Mark? It's like watching a guy hit himself in the head with a board, over and over again. Come to think of it, that is pretty close to what happens to one of Mark's actors, with the kitchen cabinet door, in one of the funniest scenes I have ever seen in any movie.

Despite these misgivings and seeming criticisms, I truly enjoyed this movie, and would heartily recommend it to anyone. Uncle Bill is amazing. I have a friend who met both Mike and Mark and he told me that, in real life, these guys are just exactly the way they appeared in the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This may actually the finest film of 1999. No I'm not kidding. This documentary directed by Chris Smith captures the very spirit of artistic compulsion. Smith does the smart thing any documentary filmaker should do: he keeps invisible and refuses to judge his subject.

As the viewer watches Mark and his efforts, no matter how funkily aggressive they may prove, to finish his films. He refuses to compromise and suffers repeatedly as a result. But lest we forget, remember Speilberg, Scorsese and others started just as humbly.

And what a great subject he chooses. Mark, his family and friends are all fascinating characters, far more than any character created in last year's fictitious cinematic products.This film oscillates on the dime between comedy, tragedy, touching sympathy and leads us ultimately to inspiring any viewer with an urge to create, despite talent issues, to get off their butts and make something.

The film is about maverick artists and their passions. It is also about families, no matter how co-dependent and disfunctional they may be and how unique and beautiful that organism truly is. Mark proves in the film to be utterly devoted not only to his dreams, but also to his family as well- and they to him.

Why this film was not nominated for documentary of the year is beyond me and criminal (that is assuming it was eligible last year). This film is to be sought out and treasured.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a \"cusp-pre-baby-boomer\"...born in 1944, IN Los Angeles; thereby having the dubious distinction of having been alive while Hitler was still actively involved in his \"Last Great Offensive; but also with our President Roosevelt still actively fighting the offensive...this was one of the most important \"first films\" of my young life. Having the opportunity to see it in \"re-release,\" several years after the 1946 opening (a common studio custom in those years), answered (even to my very young mind)oh-so many questions I had...being surrounded by our returning Vet heroes. Ensconced in all the many of William Wyler's equanimity of subtle \"multi-plots\"...intentionally NOT \"surrounding,\" \"mini\" or \"sub\" plots...in all their \"colors and shades of intensity\"...did more, than anything else I can recall, to provide to me some semblance of \"reason\" and \"rational explanation\" of what had been going on all around me...in REAL life. (My personal experience perchance being a \"new\" and \"different\" angle when looking at this classic film.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With WWII over, movie studios quickly rushed to focus on vets returning home. \"The Best Years of Our Lives\" was probably the best example. It portrays various people returning home and how they have to readjust not only to their pre-war lives, but to the overall changing world. Probably the most interesting cast member is non-actor Harold Russell. Having lost his hands in the war, he plays a man with hooks where his hands used to be, and reminds people that he wants to be treated just like everyone else; he went on to win Best Supporting Actor and a special Oscar for the role, making him the only person ever to win two Oscars for the same role. There will probably always be debate over whether this deserved Best Picture more than \"It's a Wonderful Life\", but I certainly think that they did a good job with it. Very well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie features another exceptional collaboration between director William Wyler and cinematographer Gregg Toland, the first after Toland worked on Citizen Kane. But the talent of both these men was focused on achieving a perfectly crafted movie, understood in the good old American sense as a great story. The technical aspects of the movie are covered so as the viewer gets absorbed into the action that takes place on the screen without submitting to the power of the image. Technique is seen as a vehicle of representation unlike in Citizen Kane where Welles' baroque style almost drew the attention from the story to the way the story was told. One of my favorite moves with deep focus in this film is the drama conveyed by the returning home welcoming of Homer and Al. If Homer's girl, Wilma comes towards him perfectly in focus, Al goes over to his wife also perfectly in focus. This is a brilliant move because it shows only through the use of the image the nature of these relationships as we will see them throughout the movie: Wilma loves Homer and she accepts him as he is, Al's wife loves him also but she feels unprepared to fully welcome him home. Also later in the film we find out that their marriage has not always been a bed of roses.

Wyler is a director whose force lies in being true to his work without feeling the need to boast. He wanted to show his audience how hard it was for the American soldiers returning from the war to fit into a society that either didn't understand them or treated them with contempt. With a perfect cast and great dialogue Goldwin and Wyler produced a movie that will forever be the template for any other returning home movie. The three hours which coincide with the \"rough cut\" because the test audience back then never felt for a moment that the action was slow and indeed every scene from the film seems perfectly justified. The whole thing is constructed beautifully, every character gets a fair amount of exposure, nothing is left to chance and it is quite pitiful that Hollywood nowadays never manages to bring so much character conflict to the screen. TBYOOL explores the depth of the American way of life, of the American family and society to an extent that makes other movies look like \"the children's hour\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So many great talents were utilized in \"The Best Years of Out Lives\", the result has to be somewhat miraculous. Think of what its director, William Wyler, faced; in the aftermath of a military victory over statist powers who had committed abominable crimes and engulfed the world if battles, he was making a film that argued that the US's leaders were themselves profoundly anti-individual--that they had \"wasted the best years of the lives of those drafted or misled into fighting the war--which since it ignored the rights of individuals had been for nothing except argument over the degree of slavery men were to exist under.\" There are beautiful sets by Julia Heron, Gregg Toland's cinematography and a script by Robert E. Sherwood, author of \"The Road to Rome\" and other defenses of individuals against tyrannical ideas. The ironic title was used to draw the talents of actors such as Frederic March, Myrna Loy, Teresa Wright, Dana Andrews, Virginia Mayo, Cathy O'Donnell and Hoagy Carmichael into a large-scale but thematic drama. The clever plot line was the experiences of thee \"couples\" after the soldiers (three being spotlighted) tried to return home to a 'victory culture\". Their bitter experiences and their realization of their own need to fight again against what was happening on the homefront poses a strong and sobering counterpoint to the conventional notion being sold that \"all was well with \"America\"\". March and his wife have a terrible time adjusting, and he is drinking; O'Donnell's young man, Harold Russell,, has hooks instead of hands and wonders if life can even be worth living; and worst of all Andrews' wife throws him over for a guy with dough and he has lost years, causing employers to ignore or deny his rights to a job, to consideration on his individual merits, to have even what he had before he had been ripped from his life and thrust into the arena of risk--for nothing, and loss of everything he had ever had. The shattering climax of the film comes when each of the three has to confront the need to do battle again,each for his own happiness; and all three succeed in finding the courage to go on fighting--each for his own happiness, which is now being threatened by a curiously anti-self, anti-reality indifferent an un-American United States. Wyler's direction, especially of the scene where Andrews sits in the cockpit of a mothballed B-17, alone and the scene of Russell's wedding is wonderful indeed. This is a most powerful film and a great one on its own terms, one women and men can agree on for once. Music by Hugo Friedhofer and costumes by Irene Sharaff add to its luster. One of the best and most unexpected films of all time, in stunning B\/W.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film tells the stories of several couples coping with Post-WWII life. Through many moving accounts the audience learns how the War has changed people, while their human spirit went on to triumph.

My favorite scene is where a young service man, who returned home as a double amputee (after losing both arms up to the elbow) is sure that he would be no good to his sweetheart, who still wants to marry him. His girl simply said that she would help him with the things he wouldn't be able to do, but that they would be fine together. Moved by this true demonstration of love, the man embraces his fianc\u00e9e in tears.

The scene where a service man asked for a bank loan is also a highlight. When he is initially refused as a \"high risk\", a higher ranking bank official takes over saying \"You fought for our country and kept us safe--that's good enough for me. Your loan is approved!\" \"The Best Years of Our Lives\" won 6 Oscars, including a special statuette for the disabled actor who showed us all that life goes on and will continue to be worth living, even with a severe handicap. This film is a joy to watch over and over again. A true classic! Highly recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although the wonderful soda counter in the local drugstore no

longer exists, and the clothes are definitely l946 immediate

post-war vintage, and good and evil are easy to understand, and

those old planes are really dated, this movie will never be dated.

The human adjustments and problems post-war, the beautiful

love stories, the wonderful acting (especially Harold Russell and

Dana Andrews) are as moving today in 2002 as they were in l946.

I was one of the young women who welcomed our marvelous

veterans home from World War II. Like so many, my memories of

the war years and the homecomings are as fresh today as if they

took place yesterday - this movie is very relevant for our times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the great movies of all time. The story is fascinating and the actors are convincing. Your really identify with the characters. William Wyler proofs with this movie that he is a great director. His craftsmanship is unsurpassed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was blown away when I saw \"The Best Years of Our Lives\". The acting, script, and Master William Wyler's Direction(winner of Best Director in 1946)is Brilliant.

This film is about three WWII veterans who come home from the war and are reunited with their loved ones, but have to deal with the hardships of coming home from the war.

The first man Al Stephenson(Played by Fredric March in his Oscar winning role) comes home to find his wife Millie(played by Myrna Loy) and children Peggy and Rob(played by Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) are more grown up and different than before he left for the war.

The second man Fred Derry(played by Dana Andrews) has to find a good job and come home to a wife he had only been married to 20 days before he left for the war. He begins to find out that she is not the same.

Homer Parish(played by Harold Russell in his Oscar winning role)has lost his hands in the war and must deal with his family's and fiance' Wilma's(played by Cathy O'Donnell) reactions to the hooks he has instead of his hands.

All of these men and their families are reunited in the film in different scenes. The stories of these men are all interwoven beautifully together.

This film truly defines the meaning of a \"Classic\". This unforgettable drama(winner of best picture in 1946) is a film that everyone should see.

If I was asked to pick a favorite film this would be it!

Out of 10 I would give \"The Best Years of Our Lives\" An 10.

So next time you go to your local video store rent this movie you won't regret it!

NO objectionable material a good family film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was blown away when I saw \"The Best Years of Our Lives\". The acting, script, and Master William Wyler's Direction(winner of Best Director in 1946)is Brilliant.

The film is about Three World War II veteran's who come home together on a plane and all by chance live in the same town. They all are reunited with their families.

The first man Al Stephenson(Played by Fredric March in his Oscar winning role) has to adapt to his wife Millie(played by Myrna Loy) and Children Peggy and Rob(played by Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) being different than before he left for the war.

The second man Fred Derry(played by Dana Andrews in an excellant role) has to find a good job and adapt to a wife he had only been married to 20 days before he left for the war. He begins to find out that she is not the same.

The third man Has a much more harder adaptation to make. Homer Parish(played by Harold Russell in his excellant oscar role)He has lost his hands in the war and must deal with his family's and fiance' Wilma's(played by Cathy O'Donnell) reactions to the hooks he has instead of his hands. All of these men and their families are reunited in the film in different scences. The stories of these men are all interwoven beautifully together.

This film truly defines the meaning of a \"Classic\". This unforgettable drama(winner of best picture in 1946) is a film that everyone should see.

If I was asked to pick a favorite film I would pick this one.

Out of 10 I would give \"The Best Years of Our Lives\" An 11.

So the next time you rent a movie rent this one you won't regret it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While watching a mundane modern movie (The Runaway Bride) with my granddaughter (age 22) she asked me \"Since you've been watching movies since 1938, what is the greatest movie of your lifetime?\" Boy! What a choice that is! It took me all summer of thought and relooking a some flicks before I made my decision. It is \"THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES\". This movie has no flaws. It is one movie in which each one of the minor characters part and dialog is essential to the whole story. There is not a single part in the film which could be left out. The young girl's fixation with her brothers lack of hands, the man coming home to young adult children who have grown up without him and with different ideas, the portrayal of a young man whose only responsiblity was as a soda jerk who became the leader of a group of men, and was awarded medals for his action. A women who must now adjust to the husband who's life has been away from her for years. The realization of the folks who were in the safety of there secure homes of the sacrifices these ordinary men made in their behalf. The look into the life of loving and living with a man without hands. A parents first look and reaction to their son's new deformities. A man used to making life and death decision in a instant, having to return to the way of plodding though a conservative bank's loan structure. This is no sympathetic, tear jerking, heart strumming act. THIS WAS REAL LIFE! It could not have been portrayed any different. This, my friends, is HOW IT WAS!! This could easily be considered a documentary. In this day of color film, please do not be turned off by the black and white because it is one of the finest B\/W filming, editing and directing you will ever see. The casting was perfect. If I could, I would make it compulsory for anyone taking history, film making, creative writing, sociology, family counciling or psychology to view and report on this magnificent example of the film makers art.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This superb 40's post war classic, tends to be overlooked these

days. When it was released in 1945, it cleaned up at the 1946

Oscars, mostly at the expense of `It's A Wonderful Life.' Both films were up for best film , best

director, and best actor, all won by \u0091Best Years'. Frederic March ,

and Dana Andrews along with an amateur actor Harold Russell ( a

real life soldier,who lost both hands in an explosion,) play the

returning soldiers, finding life is very different , from what they

remember. Myrna Loy is superb as March's wife, who has to keep

the family together while he has been away.The tear jerking

scene where March and Loy are reunited is magnificent. All three

men find that they have problems readjusting to post war life, not

least Russell coming to terms with artificial hands, and his finance

(Cathy O'Donnell ) trying to be too helpful. Sam Goldywn is quoted that he doesn't care if the film makes no

money at all, as long as everyone in America sees the film ,so they

will appreciate what these men went through. If any film is worth 10 out of 10, it is this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Since there have been so many reviews of this fine film I will write in a list form and attempt to address issues that have not been discussed.

1. Dana Andrews was 38 during the filming of this movie. His character according to the screenplay was in his mid 20s. Andrews, a highly underrated actor, did brilliantly play a character who was supposed to be much younger.

2. Fredric March like all GREAT actors needs at times to be restrained by the director to avoid over-the-top acting. He was mugging for the cameras when he was drunk on the night after his arrival and also the next morning when he was checking out his hang over in his mirror.

3. Dana Andrews was superb as he was in \"Laura,\" \"The Ox-Bowl Incident,\" \"A Walk in the Sun,\" \"The Purple Heart\" and many other films. Why did Fredric March win the Academy Award and why was Dana Andrews not even nominated for his outstanding performance?

4. Harold Russell gave the best performance I have ever seen by a non actor.

5. I realize this was the 1940s but Dana Andrews seemed to have no romantic interest in his exceptionally attractive wife (Virginia Mayo).

6. Ray Teal, who played the right wing bigot, years later became famous for portraying the sheriff on \"Bonanza.\"

7. The professor from the south wrote that the film was slow moving, boring and poorly acted. The professor more than likely is uninformed about classic films. The beauty and significance of these ageless classics is that they are slow moving character studies that avoid profanity, excessive violence and gratuitous sex.

***I was surprised that zero out of 3 people found my review useful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film has gone in and out of fashion more often than the miniskirt. A triumph in the post-war period, it was virtually forgotten by the 1970s except by students of cinema. Recently, it has begun to get recognition as perhaps the most even-handed representation of soldiers' integration into post-war life ever made (and that most definitely includes films such as \"The Deer Hunter.\") I like it, but my overall evaluation is somewhere between those extremes.

The tale is a simple one. Three very different servicemen who have mustered out after World War II (The Big One!) fly home to their Midwest town and try to resume, or create, civilian lives. One has a disability, one has a cushy job waiting for him, and the other has nothing to go on but determination.

There are some good but unfortunately uneven performances. Fredric March won the Best Actor Oscar for playing an old Sergeant who returns to his job at the local bank. Personally, I think Jimmy Stewart deserved it for \"It's a Wonderful Life,\" which also deserved the Best Picture Award, but clearly this film touched a nerve with the post-war audience. As I said, it was fashionable. March has one fantastic scene, a humorous speech that brought to mind somewhat similar incident involving real WWII hero Pappy Boyington, and otherwise is solid but unspectacular.

I am going against the grain here, but I thought that Myrna Loy, who played March's wife, was justly ignored by the Academy. I detected barely a hint of warmth from her. In fact, I kept thinking she was going to slap Frederic March for annoying her. She practically grimaced every time they were together. Something was definitely missing there, in her forced smiles and her air of tolerance rather than joyfulness. I think all this nonsense about her being \"the perfect wife\" is correct only if you think a passionless 1950s homemaker is your ideal. You may disagree with that, but the Academy voters apparently did not. She is a major problem with this film, terribly miscast.

Dana Andrews as a former soda jerk who became a war hero, then winds up behind the counter again, is amazing. He is saddled with a wife who evidently married him right before he left for the war for all the wrong reasons, and his future looks bleak. But then he chances upon March's daughter Peggy (Teresa Wright, in a fantastic turn), and fireworks explode. Both are great, but then comes that unevenness again that pervades this film. Some moments of pure soap opera intrude, punctuated by the all-time classic line, \"I'm going to bust that marriage up!\" The romance is uplifting and does mirror a common condition after the war, that of returning servicemen finding love upon their return.

Speaking of uplifting, now we come to Harold Russell. He has a naturalistic quality to his acting, or is it non-acting, that rings just as true today as it no doubt did then. Taking a no-nonsense approach to his situation, he is an inspiration. His best scene, one of the best in all cinema, is when he brings the girl who likes him up to his bedroom to show her the truth of his condition. \"I'm lucky, I still have my elbows unlike some of the boys.\" Truly great stuff.

The film has some moments that soar. It also has some moments that belong in the afternoon soaps. Take the good with the bad and see this one for the high points.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can one say about any Wilder film other than they are the most human and real stories about people and what drives them, bugs them,haunts them. Billy created pictures like paintings that stand forever reflecting the human condition. He paints the good and the bad in all of us. He also paints with love. I can't imagine anyone having a list of greatest films without a Wilder film on it. They will last because they are true. I first saw this movie on TV in the 60s when I was a kid and I had to leave the room because I felt tears welling up in me and was embarrassed. Now I'm an old man and I still feel the tears welling but don't leave the room. I knew these people and loved them and grew up around them. Billy preserved them in this film and not in a 'greatest generation' way but in a most realistic way that preserved the power of the human spirit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The brilliance of this film lies not in the filmmaking process, which is a conventional, but executed, intertwining tale of the lies of three servicemen post WWII, but in the fact that this story was told at all. Samuel Goldwyn deserves credit for having the chutzpah to push through a film who has for its leads a disabled vet with pincers for hands, an alcoholic, and an underachiever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film as a teenager (I'm now in my 40's), and have long considered it to be my favorite movie. The story is enormously moving, without being sentimental. The acting, especially by March and Loy, is dead-on. And the fact that Dana Andrews is too old for his role doesn't take away from the believability of his romance with Theresa Wright (whom I believe is the only major character in the film still living). This could have turned out to be another post-war melodrama, but the script and cast are simply too good for that to happen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the great ones. It works so beautifully that you hardly notice the miscasting of then 37 year old Dana Andrews as the drugstore soda jerk who goes to war and comes back four years later, when he would have been, at most, 25. But then, who else should have played him?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a thoughtful film that lays bare the inequities of the so-called upper class and those who work for them, the haves and have-nots. Robert Shaw does a creditable job in his role as the obliging, correct chauffeur, Steven Ledbetter, who helps Lady Franklin (Sarah Miles) overcome her mental depression at the outset. However, Steven has many mixed feelings regarding this lady of the upper class. He inevitably falls in love with her, which of course is overstepping the societal boundaries that separate them.

I have not read anything prior to this and only judge the movie as I have seen it. I consider it a very honest story about the realities of daily living and the conflict of what we might wish or expect from life and what we get. It's a fine drama worth seeing again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was recently given this film on DVD as a gift, and was unsure at first if it would appeal (although one of my favourite actors has a leading role). In fact, it's on its way to becoming a favourite.

First of all: thankfully, it's *not* the same as the book, the ending of which I think is excessively melodramatic. Secondly: it's one of the best films I've seen about the First World War. \"What?\" you may ask. \"It's not a war film!\" True: we see no battles or bombardments, no trenches, no gas. But it shows the cost of war, the damage done to the lives of the men who fought in it, and the impact this had on those close to them.

We first see Helen (Sarah Miles), a baronet's widow, awaiting her release from a mental hospital. All the women in the film appear to be widows: some from the war, but Helen's much-older husband, Sir Thomas (we see him later in a photograph) was taken ill and died while she was at a party, hence her guilt-stricken breakdown. She is lost and lonely. The wire around the hospital grounds evokes POW camps and the trenches: like many of the men in the outside world, Helen is suffering from a kind of shell-shock.

Out of hospital, she has to find her feet in the outside world again: a world we experience through her eyes as bleak, desolate and unfriendly. Her mother is unable to provide her with any real support. Herself a widow, she has put up her own emotional defences, behind which she hides to avoid dealing with her daughter's distress. (Like many people, especially in that time, she seems to find mental illness embarrassing.)

Ledbetter, the hired driver, becomes a supportive presence, and helps Helen begin to adjust to life again, but she does not realise that he is becoming dangerously obsessed with her. This is a superb performance by Robert Shaw. Ledbetter is a former regular soldier, an ex-sergeant-major who runs a boxing club and has set up his own car-hire business. Superficially, he seems tough and strong, dependable, but there are cracks beneath the surface: he has not really adjusted to civilian life. He invents (for reasons he later explains) a family and home life he does not have; he has brutal outbursts with colleagues, and affection-less sex. Getting close to Helen \u0096 a woman whom, even with the greater post-war social freedom, he could not realistically have hoped to marry \u0096 exposes psychological fault-lines that tear him apart. These days, one might diagnose PTSD.

The same is true of the other man in Helen's life, aspiring politician Captain Hugh Cantrip (Peter Egan). He is ambitious, handsome, but also very young. Tellingly, his girlfriend, Connie (Caroline Mortimer), mothers him, combing his hair and making sure he has a clean handkerchief before he goes out. He is known to both Ledbetter and Helen: the former had served under him during the war, and Helen had met him in political circles and had thought him a \"popinjay\". However, he and Helen now begin a relationship, with Helen intending to support his political career, financially and emotionally. Peter Egan, fresh from his stage success as Stanhope in R C Sheriff's 'Journey's End', makes Hugh more than an immature cad. There is a revealing, understated scene in the back of the car between Helen and Hugh, in which they quote Brooke's 'The Old Vicarage at Grantchester'. She asks, of his war experience, \"Was it very bad?\" He cannot answer. She says: \"Well, you're back now.\" But his softly-spoken reply \u0096 \"Am I? Sometimes I wonder\u0085\" \u0096 is the key to his character. As light and shadow flicker across his face, we know that there are some horrors that cannot be put into words. The disproportionate casualties suffered by junior officers of his sort \u0096 straight out of school or university and expected to lead from the front \u0096 are well-known. In a nervous speech (during which Helen reassures him) to local political folk at a dinner-party, he reveals that he will stand as an Independent, no longer as a Liberal (the party which had taken the country into the war). His emotional life is as damaged as Ledbetter's. He cannot easily extricate himself from Connie, who depends on him emotionally and financially: reading between the lines, she is probably a war-widow (perhaps of a former comrade?) with a child, whose drawings we see on the wall of her home.

***SPOILERS***

The crisis between the trio builds slowly, with a frightening scene between Helen and Ledbetter in the car, and Ledbetter listening in to Hugh and Connie when he is driving them, as Hugh tries to persuade Connie that, even as his relationship with Helen develops, they can continue theirs; that he will, at least, continue to support her. Jealousy, obsession and his belief that he must protect Helen from a duplicitous gold-digger lead Ledbetter to confront her and Hugh violently in her home.

The ending is entirely different from that of the novel, and is better for it: it is dramatic, but less melodramatic, and maintains an unsentimental tone. We began with one character recovering from a mental breakdown; we end with another suffering one. Helen, one senses, is now wiser and stronger than both the men, who have been unable fully to adapt to the so-called 'land fit for heroes' to which they returned from the nightmare of total war. The new ending is open: one feels that she, at least, will cope with whatever lies ahead, without illusions. In this, it reflects well the reality of the time, in which women (Helen, Connie, and so many others) had to pick up the pieces of a world in which too many men had died or had come home with varying degrees of mental and physical damage.

\"Well, you're back now.\" \u0096 \"Am I? Sometimes I wonder\u0085\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having been familiar with Hartley's \"The Go-Between\" for a good while, both in its original book form and in its disappointing Pinter-Losey film adaptation, this was interesting stuff. \"The Hireling\" proves almost a mirror image at times; set in a slightly less distant period for the main part, featuring exposure of the British Class System, and containing a set piece sports match (boxing takes the place of cricket) that reveals rather a lot about .

This refreshes in its small-scale, character focus. You do not exactly get to 'know' Lady Franklin and Leadbitter in the novelistic sense, but this distance is appropriately played out in telling body language and inflection from the actors. Your distance from ever fully sympathizing with any one true character mirrors the dormant 'difference' that so dooms the central relationship. Miles and Shaw are wonderfully subtle, and we see more in their 'less'; never once are these actorly, showy performances. They are fittingly Stanislavskian interpretations that create the impression of these characters having life outsides the confines of the film. All other parts are very satisfactorily handled, though they are far smaller in this film than I presume in the novel and compared indeed to \"The Go-Between\", a stunning work about disillusionment.

The disillusion at the centre of this film is so sadly and movingly conveyed in the late scenes where Shaw kisses Miles and is rejected, and then where a drunken Leadbitter confronts Cantrip and Lady Franklin. It's a howling shame that what would have been an incredibly poignant ending of spoiled, desolate lives at either side of the screen, is 'embellished' with a decidedly odd little coda. One is entirely bemused by the jump in tone, as Shaw's Leadbitter goes beserk and ironically sings \"Rule Britannia\" and \"God Save the Queen\" as he crashes his car into things. The political point is heavily over-egged by this bombastic, rather dingily operatic ending. All sense of subtlety, so effectively conveyed hitherto, is lost, as the implicit point is heavily and noisily made. Agit-prop surely has no place in this sort of delicate period drama.

Overall, however, one cannot be too harsh. While this absurd end-piece is a major flaw, the rest of the film must be praised as a sensitive, evocative film, of sadness and detailed observation about the way British society was in the past. Hartley's languid but crystal-clear touch is very much in evidence throughout. It's just a shame that we don't end on the shattering conclusion to Shaw's drunk scene. The tragic, deluded figure of Sarah Miles' Lady Franklin is abruptly denied her place at the epicenter of the film, as the excellent human drama bizarrely slips into the realms of political point scoring. Shaw also - that most dry and yet deeply feeling of actors - is betrayed by the out-of-character excess that closes the film. Thus; a fine, small-scale triumph is sabotaged; but we ought to remember the many good points.

Rating:- *** 1\/2\/*****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I was very young, my mother had a series of four Looney Tunes\/Merrie Melodies shorts on tape and I watched them all several times. A Coy Decoy was one of these shorts, and I was truly shocked to read in another comment that it had been banned. When I was young I probably did not even understand the Black Beauty gag to begin with. Still this is probably why it was banned, though until I watched this on a video site, I did not even remember the gag. Upon viewing the video I did remember certain shots - in particular the shrinking of Daffy's hat and Daffy's eyes becoming clockworkish as the decoy circled him in The Lake. I was not bothered by the gag that was most likely the reason the gag was banned. Instead I was flooded with childhood memories of watching this short. Because of how much I liked this short as a child, I rate it 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is only one racist joke in this Daffy Duck short, which is basically, when Daffy rides Black Beauty, it is a black woman. I can understand partly why this joke was included, as at the time few people did not know how rude it was to be racist and it wasn't even illegal to discriminate black people yet.

Aside from this point, \"A Coy Decoy\" is basically a fun, interesting short where Daffy meets characters in books and does things in books. I liked this short quite a lot (despite the other reviewers on here). The way Daffy is so in love with the clockwork duck is vaguely disturbing, yet highly amusing at the same time. Porky is a nice edition to the episode, though it was not vital for him to be there. The wolf is an example of how people thought of wolves in those days as well, blood-thirsty, terrible animals, which of course they never really have been (unless they are very hungry). I also liked the style of animation used - and the theme of the episode.

For people who are totally into Daffy Duck and for people who do not mind the occasional racist joke in cartoons, enjoy \"A Coy Decoy\"!

Available on YouTube.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went through the highs. I went through the lows...cried, laughed, puked my ever-loving guts out. But through it all, I was made whole. I became a better person for having sat through this experience in self-imposed degradation. It's not every day we can say that we have lived through the worst, and come out the other side with something closely resembling our sanity whole and intact. Friends...neighbors-unite and be as one now. Go out and find this film and languish in its extravagancies. Place it high on the mantel and kiss its polystyrene box. Take it to bed. Take it out with you when you go shopping, or have blind dates with strange people. They will appreciate you all the better for your sublime and uniquely schizophrenic slant on cinema. And then they will throw their beverage of choice in your face (but you will have the last laugh). I ran for Governor with this little beauty under my belt (and you can too!). It is a treat worth having again and again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember this film as the other person that commented said. I recorded over it but wish I had it now just because it had to be one of the worst movies ever. Funny, in a real bad way. I remember the tag line on the box was \"The ultimate frontal lobotomy\". I got it from my mom, who got it from a friend at work who said it was the worst \/ cheesiest movie she had ever seen, so my mom said \"My son will probably love it.\" and the woman gave it to her just to get it out of her possession. I then later taped over it, which I regret. I also remember the \"corck screw\" thing was one of those ball catcher things.... the yellow cone shaped things, with a red \"button\" at the end, and when you hit the red thing, it sends a ball flying. Well, they used that with a crank on one end, and a corkscrew in the funnel. When the killer killed they would show him coming forward with the \"weapon\" and then cut to a close up of what appeared to be raw chicken and fake blood on the victims head. I don't know what else to say about this \"gem\" except that if you like bad films, it doesn't get any worse than this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is possibly one of the most creative works of horror ever. It has everything you could want... suspense, drama, comedy, confusing subplots, native americans, brain eating... If you're looking for the be-all, end-all of brainsucking movies, look no further. The story of a man, bent on revenge. And how better to get it? \"I know, I'll suck out their brains!\" With great sound effects, and impressive special effects, I can't recommend this movie enough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Barbet Schroeder's \"Murder by Numbers\" starring Sandra Bullock is solid work, though not particularly compelling. I am a big Sandra Bullock fan, and she is effective here as forensic detective Cassie Mayweather, who is not very likable and a broken person too. However, there is a sense of detachment inherent in the story structure. It's about the perfect murder executed by two spoiled sociopath teenagers, Richard (Ryan Gusling) who is the cool one, and Justin ( Michael Pitt) who is the sympathetic geek. Basically, Richard and Justin kill a young woman, because they have nothing better to do on a school night. They are very smart and very arrogant which is normally not a bad thing, but it just doesn't work here. Tony Gayton's script does a great job of detailing the investigation of a puzzling murder, and it is truly by the numbers. We have these two punk kids flaunting their superiority, and we just want them to take a fall.

This is not a great exploration into the dark side, like Schroeder's \"Reversal of Fortune\" about Claus von Bulow. There are interesting turns in \"Numbers\". The movie is not so much a thriller, but rather a character study of Cassie. Sandra Bullock balances the bravado of Cassie, her fear of letting people get in with her, and her secret past. Bullock brings courage and strength to a suffering character. Her partner and sort of love interest, Sam (played by Ben Chaplin), is more a plot unconcealing than a real character. Though Chaplin does the bewilderment thing very admirably. The other nice touch is having Richard and Justin involved a strange sexual attraction. The most interesting thing about \"Numbers\" are Pitt and Gusling.

There are many entertaining twists and turns throughout the movie. Everything is done very competently. I saw the movie about a week ago, and in retrospect I like it a little more than I did when I saw it. However, it is just not inspired work. Sandra Bullock and Barbet Schroeder deserve a lot better, and so do we.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Murder by Numbers\" stars Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt as two rebellious high schoolers who are content on the perfect murder for the sake of overcoming their shattered self-esteem. Sandra Bullock plays the heroic thorn in the way of their plans as Det. Cassie Mayweather. This is nowhere near the traditional finger-pointing murder mystery as the film graciously reveals the killers to us (Gosling and Pitt). What the film does instead is concentrate on the purposes of their killings and if they have what it takes to commit the perfect murder.

The title itself is a rightfully chosen one for various reasons mainly being that the \"Numbers\" in the title is the most vocal. The angle focusing on the reasons behind the heinous killings, although will haunt you with its chilling dialogue (especially from the callous boys), it doesn't fully live up exploring the origins of what lead them to their killing frenzy. The characters are riveting you have the good-looking rich kid Richard (Ryan Gosling) and the intelligent but socially awkward Justin (Michael Pitt). In school, they pretend that they despise one another, and even share a liking towards the a classmate name Lisa (Agnes Bruckner), but off-school they are allies and collaborate in a ritual in which murder is an escape to free the mind.

Sure the story involving the boys seems exciting, but it's pushed in the background to a more mundane subplot involving Det. Mayweather (Bullock) who assumes their murders was because of discrimination (hence the arrogant looks of Gosling) and unexplained characteristics but manages to get it right. At first, the audience may despise Cassie's character due to the fact she's very headstrong and not very supportive. She displays dominance and control over her junior partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin). Even as he tries to reason with her, he knows it's a battle he surely won't likely win.

The reason behind her tyrant behavior stems back in which Cassie was the sad victim of a crime that has left a permanent mental scar on her. This side-story does not have much of a place in this movie partially because it doesn't offer anything riveting with the main plot (the boys' murder spree). It also offers some development to Bullock's character in the movie but it's only a half-assed job and not very fulfilling. I would've liked it if they the diabolical students had a side-story. The resources were right there in front of them for the perfect crime foil, the creative schemes for the boys to manipulate the cops with their phony evidence and lies just to get out of a potential life-sentence in jail.

Despite the lopsided sub-plots and the pointless \"real killer\" ending, \"Murder By Numbers\" sports a strong performance by a great cast. Sandra Bullock was convincing as the tough verbally remorseless cop who tries to shift her inner pain to a more positive light. Ben Chaplin shows his strength as the young detective who tries every way to understand his partner and is able to fend off her occasional tyrannical put-downs. But the scene stealer's are the devilish duo of Michael Pitt and Ryan Gosling as they keep you glued to their seat waiting for what they're going to do next. The chemistry of the boys is reminiscent to Matt Damon-Jude Law in \"The Talented Mr. Ripley\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this one is about a homicide detective who battles a couple of young rich kids who have nothing better to do than plan an intricate murder and cover it up, they seem to outwit the police force seemingly at will. they taunt the detective by planting clues and leading them off on a wild goose chase. this one has a decent plot with a few good twists at the end of the movie, Sandra Bullock does a fine job in this one as a woman on the edge, not sure of herself and battling her inner demons, she can't seem to keep a man in her life, especially partners, they seem to keep leaving her for some reason. Altogether this isn't a bad film, it keeps you guessing all the way the very shocking ending.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can get very tired of murder mysteries with the exception of a few really excellent TV series. Otherwise, there are just too many of these murder plot themes. I don't like the theme of the two over-clever, selfish youths killing as an intellectual exercise, I've no interest whatsoever in Hitchcock who appears to have been associated with this in some way I don't intend to find out about. But don't misunderstand me, the theme is in itself excellent, the whole movie is so well done, and of course Sandra Bullock is superlative as always.

Sandra's character is (as in Miss Congeniality) not rated by the male team she works with in spite of her obvious skills, and the boss mostly ignores her ideas, eventually forcing her aside and giving the case to her male partner. Of course Sandra works out what's going on and nearly gets killed in a very dramatic denouement. It's intriguing how the boy who worked out the murder plot can't allow her to be killed by his colleague - he has a conscience of some sort and perhaps could be \"saved, while the other is a true psychopath.

Sandra's hard shell is caused by misery in her past that's tied in poignantly with the murder case. Her colleague, realising that Sandra's solving this case in spite of being balked by the dense superior, finally discovers what happened to Sandra herself in her teens, that she must now face up to and exorcise and the last scene shows her starting - we hope anyway - to do just that.

I can see from the few other reviews I've had time to read that this movie would attract a broadish group - those interested in the two spoilt boys whiling away their time with their grisly philosophical determination to trick the police and get away with the perfect murder, the relationship between them that's so cleverly depicted, the ghastly links to the heroine's past, a police theme, and some smokes and mirrors - as well as for Hitchcock fans.

For those who've queried why Bullock's character has to have a problematic past, really I think this would be a far less interesting movie if she had been just a detective trying to fathom what was going on, with a willing sidekick helping out and a male-chauvinist boss. The link between the murder victim and the detective is necessary to show the detective becoming too involved or otherwise how would she lose her arrogant boss's confidence and thereby nearly lose her life? That's hardly an original theme, in fact it's usually an extremely irritating theme as this male chauvinist boss brutally tells his frustrated but obviously inspired operative to get off the case and leave it to someone who clearly doesn't have quite the skills to solve it nice though the sidekick is. I was getting very worried towards the end re what might happen to Sandra's character as her emotional involvement in the case and special sympathy for the unfortunate victim of the crime dangerously drove her on with this case by herself.

I wasn't disappointed re the relationship between Bullock's character and her sidekick. That goes along interestingly and at times very poignantly.

The relationship between the two boys is definitely intriguing, if that's what you were interested in watching. I felt it was kept low key in some ways either because the movie-makers didn't want to get into boy-boy friendships too much, or because we weren't supposed to think emotion ruled their relationship. The movie cleverly makes you wonder which boy's in charge of the situation and there are some twists and turns and the boys show their underlying immaturity at various stages.

There one thing I wish had been clarified and that's what happens \"after the movie ends\" when Sandra's character arrives at the Court.... you need to see to movie to know why she's there.

Very well acted by all. I certainly can't agree with those who complained against Bullock's acting - she was superb. The part suited her very well indeed. The story is gripping even if murder mysteries aren't your thing and they aren't that often mine.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Murder by Numbers is a pretty good movie. Even though the plot rolls along at a snail's pace, what with Sandra Bullock's character getting all mixed up with her partner and the movie flashing back to a previous trauma situation she had been in, it does succeed in keeping the viewer involved in the film.

Having said that, I do think that it does a good job in setting that eerie sort of \"who done it\" type atmosphere. It keeps you guessing at which one of the boys really was behind the murder, if not both of them. I think Ryan Gosling and that other kid (lol) do a good job of selling that bully versus dork relationship. Not sure about Gosling playing a bad-ass, but for a guy who would later star in a movie like The Notebook, he did a pretty good job. Once the movie gets rolling, though, I really found myself involved in the story, sort of asking myself, \"Oh My God, what would I do if I were in that situation?\" Like I said, a good CSI type movie, maybe not for the EXTREME crime drama movie junkie, but a good all around flick.

8 outta 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I knew little of this movie when I entered the theatre for an advance screening. I gathered from the ads that it was a thriller.

What we have is like \"Compulsion\" meets \"Matlock\". Two teens decide to commit a perfect murder. A victim is selected at random and then carefully executed so that no traces of the actual murderers is found. Then a bunch of false leads are planted that point to an innocent bystander. (Innocent of the murder anyway)

Enter Sondra Bullock as the investigating officer. (IMDB says that she's FBI, but I don't remember that. I thought that she was a regular cop) She's frustrated by the inconsistency of the killers profile (\"The profile doesn't fit the profile!\") and by the power and influence of the father of one of the boys.

She's also has demons of her own which figure prominently in her decicision to become a cop. But this is the only character that is really more than one-dimensional. All others are pretty flat.

For a thriller, there are really no big thrills. It's mostly a cat-and-mouse game like an episode of \"Matlock\" (which she's watching at one point in the film). The twist is that there are two involved in the killing. Just who is the real murderer, Justin or Richard? It'll cost you eight bucks to find out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now, I know that Sandra Bullock produced this film, but she needs to learn that sometimes you need to make certain sacrifices in order to advance the story...like not trying to make the whole movie about her character!

The story is about two high school students (one rich and popular, the other smart and anti-social) who formulate a plan to commit murder and follow it by the number...just to see if they can get away with it. Enter Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin as detectives trying to solve the case. The boys have planted evidence, created alibis, and cleaned up after themselves so well that the cops fall for the whole act. But Sandra has a feeling that all is not as it appears to be.

This movie could have been a great little Hitchcock-style thriller, but the movie spends too much time on getting to know Sandra's character rather than focusing on the actual crime itself. You see, something happened in her past that keeps haunting her throughout the film. And we get to know all about it...ALL about it. It just gets rather tedious after a while, especially when you are right in the middle of an intriguing murder investigation and then have to stop that investigation to hear about what happened to her in the past.

Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the real winners in this movie. They play their characters convincingly and with just the right amount of malice. If the script had spent more time focusing on these characters, and kept the detectives there to just do their jobs, this could have been an immensely entertaining thriller. With the way it is, most of the thrill is lost. They should have cut out all the stuff with Sandra's character and made that a separate TV movie for the Lifetime channel. But, I digress. It's still an entertaining movie, nonetheless. I do recommend this movie...but wait for the video\/DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cassie (Sandra Bullock) is a hyper-serious police detective. As an ex-boyfriend once tried to kill her and, indeed, left her grievously wounded, she is determined to bring those who harm others to justice. As the result of her near-death experience, also, Cassie favors one-night stands and trusts no one. One day, a woman is found dead in the woods near Cassie's community. She has been murdered heinously, beaten severely and left to die alone. Naturally, Cassie will stop at nothing to find the murderers. Assigned to help her is fellow officer, Sam (Ben Chaplin). He soon discovers Cassie's relentless attitude and all-consuming instincts when she asks him to pick up a sample of vomit that has been left at the scene for analysis, among other actions. The trail soon leads them to two high school students, Richard (Ryan Gosling) and Justin (Michael Pitt). Could these teenagers really be responsible for the planning and execution of the perfect \"joy\" killing? This is an intriguing film, but viewers should be warned that the subject matter is grim indeed. Killing for the \"sport\" of it is seldom the topic of films that are of the \"all sweetness and light\" variety and this one is no different. That said, the cast is great. Bullock, without a hint of her talent for comedy, is terrific as the police officer whose own past compels her to lock up the evil folks of the world. Chaplin, too, is quite nice as the detective who is both attracted and repelled by the forceful Cassie. As for Gosling, he gives a most memorable performance as a brilliant mind with a satanic soul. The production values for the movie are good, too, with appropriately fine costumes, settings and photography. If you are a fan of Bullock's looking for a laugh, this is not the one for you. But, if you adore mysteries, even those with the grimmest of plots, you will find this tale enthralling.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent, suspenseful, murder-mystery movie. Not only was the plot full of suspense and intrigue but you get to see gorgeous Ryan Gosling for a couple hours, what's not to love! Also, Sandra Bullock is good in this movie - I've always been a fan of hers, (I just wish she hadn't decided to be in \"The Lake House\" which was horrible, but that's another story altogether). Obviously since there are thousands of other murder\/horror movies out there, there are bound to be similarities between them, no need to bash this movie for having some similarities to at least a few that have already been made. Anyway, this is a great movie for those of you that actually enjoy \"scary\" movies, it's a little dark and twisted but overall a great movie!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I find it hard to believe this could happen at all. We do not know if Justin and Richard were troubled or had committed crimes in the past. The movie seems to imply that they were not in and out of trouble. So the first crime they commit is murder? Just to play and jostle with the cops? How do they pick up any girl and just say you are it? Also Richard seems to strangle the woman with little or no effort nor does the women seem to struggle. Hmmm. This whole concept is really hard to believe. That said let's move on. I found myself really hating these punks and would love to have been present with my shot gun with police tactical ammo and see what their plastic suits do then. As for Cassie who was a victim of Carl Hudson has a horrible time trying to survive. The memory of having been stabbed 17 times by Carl leaves her in an emotional mess. Sandra does a superb acting job. She sure made me believe she was one angry cop. As for solving the crime, I thought it was great. This movie kept me planted in my chair. Loved the acting of all but Sam. He had no get-up and go. The one thing this movie did not need was the love scene or should I say the rape scene.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sandra Bullock paints a believable picture as the troubled detective, though seeing her as a cynical man-eating victim-turned-persecutor requires a leap of faith (or two). The two creepy troubled kids are portrayed adequately by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt.

I do have quite a bit of trouble getting Ben Chaplin into the equation (same problem arose when watching 'The Truth About Cats & Dogs' (http:\/\/us.imdb.com\/title\/tt0117979\/). I mean, when you put an Englishman into an all-American movie, shouldn't there at least be a reason to put him there? Shouldn't there be some story leading up to the fact that an Englishman is serving as a detective on an American police force? Shouldn't there be some dialog pointing out and explaining that rather obvious fact? Or even some jokes about him being that English?

He looks out of place here, as he looked out of place in 'The Truth About Cats & Dogs'. Producers really should take notice, it distracts and annoys the audience (at least me). Nothing wrong with Chaplin's acting, it's just a matter of making an actor who is 'out of place' believable and not putting him somewhere without a good reason or a storyline.

The movie itself: well, thrillers, especially those dealing with solving a complicated crime, require some suspension of disbelief. This one's no different; actually, it requires quite a bit more effort than usual. In order to make Bullock smart enough to crack the case despite of all the pressures requiring her to let go of it, some unrealistic assumptions are being made about the evidence, and I'm sure a lot of people who watched it had a few moments of 'Come on, this is highly unlikely under the circumstances' or even 'Hey, you can't brush evidence aside like that to wrap this movie up!'.

Like I said: reasonably entertaining and watchable. Just don't use this as required viewing for detective exams. There are no shortcuts there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rating: 7 out of 10. Directed by Barbet Schroeder. If you like Hitchcock's `Rope', then you will like this movie. `Murder by Numbers' stars Sandra Bullock as psychologically troubled yet brilliant police detective Cassie Mayweather. Her partner is Sam Kennedy, a non-discriminatory detective played by Ben Chaplin.

The teenage killers are high school students Richard Haywood (Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Michael Pitt). These young psychotics are out to prove their superiority by committing the perfect murder and getting away with it, but the nearness of capture is exciting and thrilling to at least one of the killers.

The supporting characters include a police chief, an assistant district attorney, and the high school janitor that the killers pin the murder on. The movie reminds me of various `Hitchcock' movies crossed with the TV show `Law and Order'. We see a fair bit of police work and it is really interesting to see which clues the detectives follow and which ones they don't.

The other plot in the movie relates to Cassie Mayweather's past and incarcerated ex-husband. Most viewers found this aspect of the movie unnecessary and slow moving, but I found this to the most intriguing part of the story.

`Murder by Numbers' is a nicely crafted movie if you are looking for safe, or should I say dangerous, murder mystery. For more thrills and suspense, try `Se7en' or Hitchcock's `Dial M for Murder'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This multi-leveled thriller kept my attention throughout. It is disturbing and informative to see how perverse human behavior can be. It is also instructive as to what past wounds can motivate present behavior. No one, save Sandra Bullock's partner, is very likable. However, all are believable. Sandra did an excellent job. Her character, Cassie, comes alive with all her pain and fear and defenses. She is a survivor and so her life experience finally brings her to a healing moment. I enjoyed this movie very much. Tom Landers","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This thriller has so many twists and turns it had me on the edge of my seat. I saw it on video, some of the landscape at \"the bluff\" might have been a bit more spectacular on the big screen. Cast has Sandra Bullock, Ben Chaplin (from \"The Truth About Cats & Dogs\"), Michael Pitt (Henry Parker in \"Dawson's Creek\") and Ryan Gosling (???).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not bad but could be loads better, also seems to follow a staple diet for crime drama. You've got Sandra Bullock as the cop who finds it difficult to work with others, you've got her placed with a new partner. There's a closed case but a cop who works on it anyway, and there's so many corney lines in the film it makes you want to scream.

However, if you can look past the formulaic elements there is a good film hiding underneath. It's gripping and the subplots worked for me. Well worth a rent but maybe not a purchase.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this movie. Unlike other thrillers you learn to know the killers very well. You also get to know the two detectives hunting them. The killers are two high school kids. They are very intelligent and want to prove they are smarter than the police so they plan the \"perfect crime\". We all know this crime will not turn out perfect. What we don't know is if they will be caught, or may be just one of them, or even none. In a way I kind of hoped they both would get away with it, although I don't know if this was the movies intention.

The story is told in a nice way. You are starting to get to know the people involved. The character of Sandra Bullock is likable but has her own secret, which works against her. Ben Chaplin is pretty good as Sam and the two kids are both great. The scenes between them are the better scenes in the movie.

I think you can say the movie is pretty good and not as predictable you would think. For a nice evening with a movie, 'Murder by Numbers' is a good one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, so I've read most of the reviews on this movie, as well as comments left by visitors to this site, and the feeling I get is that most people who wrote reviews really didn't like this movie. That's why I'm writing now-I represent the minority because, I did. I admit, I went to see the movie because I am very impressed with Ryan Gosling's compelling abilities, and the projects he has been a part of lately have been nothing less than incredible. He is an amazing actor. That aside, I wanted to see this movie because it seemed intriguing to me... why? Because it's a whodunit where you know `whodunit' from the start, and that's kind of unusual.

As the plot goes, two teenage boys endeavour to commit the \"perfect crime\" because they believe in a twisted philosophy that only through committing acts of crime are human beings truly free-the uninhibited, and let's remember, guiltless, acting out of one's will. The relationship between Richard and Justin was complex, hinted at homosexuality, and was brilliantly acted by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt. Gosling was the manipulating, controlling smooth-talker, and Pitt was the extremely book-smart, socially awkward outcast. Enter Sandra Bullock's character, who it seems most people didn't particularly appreciate. I think when people see she was the executive producer they automatically assume any role the actor has in it is a self-glorification thing. I didn't see that as the case here. Without \"Cassie's\" personal history about the ex-husband that nearly killed her, who, not surprisingly, shared similar traits with Richard Hayward, she never would have pursued her instincts about Justin and Richard. The case was seemingly airtight against Ray, the unsuspecting school janitor and friend of the boys. Even when the boys are questioned near the end of the movie neither Bullock nor her partner have much solid evidence about them other than the fact that they lied about knowing each other, and the vomit Justin left at the sight. Therein lay the genius of the movie because the philosophy the boys were trying to prove through the act of killing, the guiltless acting out of will as `true freedom,' ended up working against Justin, who ended up having a conscience after all (and ended up leaving part of his conscience at the body dump site). Without that crucial piece of evidence, they almost had a \"murder by numbers.\" And to readers out there who have puzzled over the title as much as I have, I looked in to it and found that something done \"by numbers\" (such as a painting) suggests careful and critical planning and exacting. There's also a song by Sting called \"Murder By Numbers\", but that's beside the point. :)

Many readers questioned the necessity of the relationship between Cassie and her partner, but I think it really meant to show how cynical and manipulative she had become because of her history. Like it or not, her history does play an important role in this movie because without it, she would likely have never followed her instincts about Justin and Richard. Yes, it was a bit of the cliche `women scorned, woman acting out vendetta in every facet of her life' plot, but I think without the depth of Cassie's character you have just another movie about teenage killers, and they just may have gotten away with it. There's no movie there.

And to the reader who commented that the teenagers obviously didn't commit the perfect crime because the police were on to them from the beginning, can I remind you that the reason was because of the purposely placed, and totally traceable shoe prints. The boys wanted to be involved-it was a game. They were so confident that they had committed the perfect crime that they wanted to see first hand the difficulty the investigators would have in uncovering what they think is the truth. What they didn't expect was that Cassie Mayweather had an overactive case of instinct working on her side. A little unbelievable? Maybe. But many crimes have been solved by police officers who have followed their instincts. However, this is a MOVIE!

I saw this movie in theatres about three times, and each time it revealed a little more to me, and I liked it a little more. The more I watched it, the more I was captivated and frightened by the psychological depth Richard Hayward-there are people really like this. My main complaint about the movie would be that they should have had Justin and Richard's interactions a little more central (because, let's face it, there lays the intrigue in the entire film) and my main props go to characterization-each character was very distinct and interesting in his\/her own way. It was very well acted, although I would have given Ben Chaplin's character a little more depth to work with (he's a good actor) and maybe pared down Bullock's character a smidgen.

I think everyone should keep in mind that for a Hitchcock type thriller like this to basically tell you the \"whodunit\" at the beginning, it poses a very big challenge for the writers to keep the attention of the audience until the very end. I think they did so quite well by utilizing a few small plot twists throughout, slow revelation of the different character dynamics, and by lighting up the screen with some really emotionally charged performances by the young actors Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt. I think if we remove our innate cynicism and attempt to see how psychologically complex the characters and their interactions are, we may be able to look beyond any apparent plot holes and see the real texture and quality of this movie, if only in the characters who were brilliantly portrayed. Especially Richard Hayward. Not that I'm biassed. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oz is set in Oswald State Correctional Facility. It tells the story of confrontation, cruelty, violence, hate and survival at any cost. in a place like Oz, you have to have eyes in the back of your head.

This completely original, intelligent and compelling drama tells of how warped life becomes as soon as you step through the gates of Emerald City.

What is supposed to be a state of art correctional facility is in fact far from being such. The show brings to light some of the many flaws in the prison system, the underestimating of the humanity that cold hard killers are capable of still retaining, and the one true fact: The prisoners are the one's who control the prison.

This magnificent and somewhat surreal show teaches about the importance of every life and helps give an understanding to the reasons that most of the prisoners are there. This show may seem shocking at first but to truly tell it like it is, such a thing is necessary.

Oz is a great depiction of hell on earth and how such a place teaches you some of the most important lessons you will ever learn.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oz is a great series, one of televisions underrated shows. It has a certain relationship to soap opera in that something evil is always happening, and it is the unfolding of each instance of evil that fascinates. From my discussions with people who are actually in prison, it rings true. Every interaction has some machination working in the background. Behind every action, there lies a scheme, a plot to do someone else in. I like this series so much that it is one of the few TV shows I have bought completely, on DVD.

And, yes, I agree with the writer before me who commented that there are elements of satire in it. The character in the wheelchair who offers his jaundiced view of life does so with a certain bit of ironic humor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oz was a fantastic show, as long as frequent male nudity doesn't turn you off. There was WAY too much frontal male nudity in this show, more than any other show you'd see on a porn channel. Minus that, it was the best show on TV, and a previous commenter said \"better than Prime Suspect\". Prime Suspect is Tom and Jerry vs The Simpsons. No contest. If you have DirecTv they are now re-running it from the start on Channel 101, they're at Episode #3 now. Highly recommended. The creator Tom Fontana also did Homicide, which was an AWESOME show. But why all the male nudity? We all know that stuff happens in prison, but did they really need to show it as often? That was the only thing that turned me off the show. If I want to see naked men, guys getting raped, I'll kill someone myself and witness first hand. Otherwise I like my TV shows free of black penises every Five minutes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full stop.OZ is the greatest show ever mad full","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've never seen a show with as much story, mystery, suspense, and hard-hitting excitement before. i barley watch TV anymore but i own every season of this show and it's amazing. every episode is extremely well-acted, written and plotted. towards the end of the show i felt that the stories were getting too far-fetched for being in a prison, but the actors pulled it off. Sopranoes sucks huge compared to OZ. in fact, any show that is on a cable network, HBO or not just cant hold a candle to OZ. i wish it would come back for one more season. if it did happen, they would probably kill off every character on the show, but hey, we all gotta go sometime. as far as the characters, i'd say O'Reily and Alverez were my favorites. both were hardley in a scene together, but their individual stories i thought were the strongest of anyones, except Beechers of course, but still... anyway, best show ever, best network ever, some of the best actors ever, PERIOD!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tom Fontana's unforgettable \"Oz\" is hands down one of the greatest television series ever created. Brilliantly written, acted, and directed it is as close to perfection in any art form (film, television, literature, music) as it gets. Haunting in it's extreme brutality it creates a prison world filled with diverse characters that range from compassionate to flat out terrifying. It is a show that no matter how brutal it is get through, one cannot take its eyes off of. The combination of professional trained theater actors with film and television actors allows for a range of diverse and all original performances.

And while the show is universally praised and has\/had a loyal fan base, one cannot feel that it was under-appreciated during it's television run because of other HBO dramas such as \"The Sopranos\", \"Sex and The City\", and \"Six Feet Under\". And while all those shows are fine and borderline masterpieces in their right, many people forget that it was \"Oz\" that was HBO's first entry into one-hour television drama series. It was a brave, risky first entry and with it HBO hit a grand slam with it. This is as good as it gets.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't stand people who comment on this program or other HBO programs as \"too graphic\" or \"unnecessarily graphic\" or that they contain \"gratuitous nudity\/violence\/sodomy etc\".

Guess what? Prison life isn't PG-13. The \"gratuitous\" graphic content is TRUE TO LIFE of this situation. Prison contains inmate rape\/killings\/drug deals and showers. If you don't like it, then don't watch the program. I'm certainly no fan of prison rape, but if it was left out of the show I'd be surprised and lend the show less credibility. If the prisoners didn't curse, it would just be silly. Sure it's gratuitous language, but that is REALISTIC.

The show is good, some of the viewers....not so much, I guess.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've watched a lot of television in my 51 years, but I've never had so much fun week after week, as I had watching Oz. The acting by the entire cast was excellent. The writing was just perfect, with every character remaining consistent throughout the six year run. I also enjoyed the mayhem and the ultra-violence. It may sound odd, but it was at times, comical finding out how one of the characters would eventually end up dead. I particularly enjoyed the true romance and love between Beecher and Keller. Those two men really knew how to throw down, in every way possible. I truly hope that HBO will continue to show us re-runs of this great show FOREVER! I've watched every episode at least 4 times yet I still look forward to Tuesday and Thursday nights at 11 p.m. for an episode of this fun and very entertaining show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oz is without a doubt my favorite show of all time! the best word to describe it is \"genius\"! the writing, the acting, the story lines .. everything about this show is absolutely amazing!

I just discovered the show and I became addicted to it right away and I was really surprised that it hasn't gotten the recognition it truly deserves. It is violent, and most of the characters aren't meant for you to like them, but the show is written in such a brilliant way that allows you to look past the violence and the criminals and see them as real people. They are the lowest forms of scum, but it still finds a way to allow you to understand a lot of the characters and even care about their stories.

The violence in the show is necessary for it to be as realistic as possible, but the show isn't about the violence like some people might believe. It really is a work of art and I'm sure who ever gives it a chance will love it just as much as I do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In relative terms having watched a lot of disgustingly bad tele Tom Fontana & Levinson are geniuses for creating & delivering In this writer's book the greatest ever TV show. Oz was treated horribly In this country, the finale went out well gone 3 In the morning, before that It was strictly considered alternative viewing for those oblivious to prime time garbage.

I first caught Oz towards the end of the first series and from then on It was an unmissable watch. My man Adebisi possibly the most Intimidating villain ever, Beacher the perfect anti-hero, Eammon Walker's Saeed an acting class In evocation. There was the hardcore stuff of course - some plain evil but essentially Oz had soul. Augustus narrates the unfolding plot with pearls of Insight while the struggles of Beacher, Mcmanus, Saeed, Rebedahl etc are better than any soap opera before or since. Compassion violence wisdom tragedy Intelligence pain joy brutality love & heroism Oz went through the spectrum of human emotion - all Inside a max security prison!

I can honestly say those Thursday nights with the great Vids to follow Oz series 2\/3 way back In 99 were the best TV I'll ever see. Beacher assaulting Vern In the gym Is a moment I don't need a video for - a small screen classic I'll never forget.

Imagine what Oz would have done with the same push as the Sopranos given a 10 pm timeslot and all the promos??? Fine I'm over that now, for those that caught It consider yourself privileged for those who didn't TV is shite.......and you deserve It.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Harrowing series about life in Oz--an experimental prison where they try to rehabilitate prisoners. There's gay sex, rape, torture, mutilation, killings, humiliation, tons of male nudity...all in your face and going full force.

It also is easily one of the best written dramas ever put on TV and almost all the actors are just great. Since this was on cable there were no restrictions on what they could say or show. There's plenty of racist comments flying in here but it's for all races. In fact the white characters come off pretty badly (especially the Aryans) and the black characters come off better (the peace-loving Muslims). The Hispanics don't have a strong role and there are NO Asian prisoners at all. All the prisoners seem to be back-stabbers and willing to kill anyone at a moments notice---but you still find yourself sympathizing with some of them. Even the guards, counselors and doctors at the prison have serious issues.

I heartily recommend this BUT rent it--don't buy it. I have the whole collection and, to be totally honest, I don't think I ever want to see it again. It's incredible TV but so grim, dark and depressing. Guess I gotta sell it all online.

I give it a 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a hard show to watch. It's not something to sit back and relax to. It kept me on the edge of my seat for several seasons. People get screwed over, raped, tortured and die like flies. There are male organs everywhere, there is excrement, puke and blood. Oz is a brave show. It brings up issues like racism, homosexuality, prisoners reality and most of all; -capital punishment. It is, in my opinion also successful in doing so, unlike for example, the single-tracked \"Medium\".

It bored me sometimes. It had some weird story lines and they spent to much time on characters that just didn't interest me. Strangely enough, I found season 1 to be quite boring. If I had watched it while it aired I think I wouldn't have continued to watch it. I love seasons 2 - 4. Season 5 and 6 are watchable, (although I think it shouldn't be allowed to utter the words \"Cyril\" and \"Death Row\" in the same sentence)

There are so many marvelous characters to root for. The old guys Bob and Busmalis, who I absolutely fell in love with from day one. Said, Adebesi, Pancamo and Schillinger, four very strong and charismatic leaders in their own way. Augustus Hill, who's monologues tied the episodes together so efficient. The staff with people like Sister Pete and Ray Mukada-also brilliant. Also minor characters that was only in for a couple of episodes or a few seasons, but left a good impression as well.

My favorites are the O'Reily brothers. Their relationship was the most gut-wrenching and warmest I seen on television. If there is anything I will always remember about this show it's them. There will never be another \"pairing\" or what to call it, that will make me ache so much. Thats why, when the ends come for them as well, it almost hurt to much. I wish it would never have happened. I wish I had never watched it.

But good one Fontana. I do recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hi To read the entire plot around \"OZ\" just look at IMDb here to find it.

**WARNING SPOILERS INSIDE THIS REVIEW !** Oz is the a series that has not only moved me but also shows a small bit. Of the American prison system, but i have to say (judging on discovery channels program over jail) it is not really realistic.

Although i got to say, there not shy, rapes,shanking (stabbing) happens allot. Still it is television, so for you ppl out there that think this is realistic wrong.

There is a good degree of violence in it, and some here and there overdone scenes (plot over plot over plot) that can get pretty boring. But remember the series is almost ancient by now. So times do change as well i believe i should judge this in the time line as it came out.

As the season prolonged up to season 5 it was pretty good!. Until one of the cons wins a lottery ticket of 2 million dollars, because he talked to god it struck me as \"ok this is getting to the point i do not want to see this series no more\" Still i proceeded! And now i just seen the episode 3 of season 6. This is were cereal gets his brain zapped and then his \"mom\" hold him after, while he is drooling. Then you see O Reilly cry as well seeing his bro like that (RL BROTHERS As well) Now thats by far the best scene out of the entire \"OZ\" series, that was real to me! Still do not read this wrong that I'm trying to crash and burn it. It is a really good series! And even now 2010 well worth a watch ! I give it a 7 because of the storyline that weakens with the season. But still a golden glove.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oz, was the first original television show that HBO put onto its channel (in the 1 hour forma) and it remains to this day the very best... The story is simple... Oz is a surreal look into the lives of high maximum security prisoners at Oswald, primarily focusing on \"Em City.\" Now there are many things to compliment this show on from the writing (which in my opinion was the best on television when this show aired), directing (top notch), acting (best of the best), and the characters... This show just literally blew my socks off... This show was a critically acclaimed gem until The Sopranos bowed, after that critics were salivating over that epic tale of trust and family to notice this compelling drama... Oz to me is a better show than Sopranos overall and it's a shame that i never won any major Emmy's... =\/

kudos to all who were involved in this magnificent, gut - wrenching, show...

KUDOS","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OZ is an old TV series released by HBO. It shows the life in one security prison called Oswald, but the main plot is focused on Emerald City, which is one of the prison levels.

Oz have an amazing plot and an outstanding cast! There are many of characters and almost all of them are very interesting. Basically they are divided in groups (gangs), the Sicilians, the Black people, the Aryans, the Gays, the Latinos and many others who doesn't have any specific group, but deal with many others like Ryan O'Reily (The Irish).

The plot is very well built, there are a lot of conspiracy inside, a lot of fight for the power. But all of this is not just exposed in form of violence, all is very intelligent and smart, nothing happens without a reason, all is connected and very interesting to guess! I really love this series, and who wanna see something intelligent, very well produced with a very good cast and performances, MUST see OZ!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I admit that I almost gave up on watching TV shows. Why? Because most of them are about doctors, forensics or some girl\/boy, who can predict a murder by sitting on the toilet seat. But I must say I was wrong when I watched the first episode of Oz, one of the most brilliant shows on TV until today. Oz is a show about maximum secure prison and shows episodes in life of every cell - mate inside the prison and their frustrations. What I like about this show is the fact it has the courage to show the real life in prison without any annoying characters, stereotypes and unrealistic dialogs. Even thought the characters in the show are not supposed to be heroes, you became quickly attached to them and their life. Sure, their is a lot of violence in this show and some disturbing images of rape and taking drugs, but that's the point of this show; to present how brutal and frustrating can be life in prison... heck, you can't show life in prison like a \"clean environment\" with \"likeable characters\", right? Oz is perfect in every way, the actors are doing an excellent job and the whole hour of this show is going threw really really fast. The only thing that I didn't like in this show was the last season of the show, I think it became too weird and brutal and the finale was not satisfying. But overall Oz is still my favorite show on TV so far, it surpasses Sopranos and million CSI and Dr. House crap with just a main title. Brilliant show which has the balls to show what other shows are taking away from us; realism.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best TV shows out there, if not the best one. Why? Simple: it has guts to show us real life in prison, without any clich\u00e9s and predictable twists. This is not Prison Break or any other show, actually comparing to Oz the show Sopranos look like story for children's. Profanity, cursing, shots of explicit violence and using drugs, disgusting scenes of male sexual organs and rapes... all this and more in Oz. But this is not the best part of Oz; the characters are the strongest point of this show; they're all excellent and not annoying, despite the fact we are looking at brutal criminals. The actors are excellent, my favorite are the actors who are playing Ryan O'Reilly and Tobias Beecher, because they're so unique and changing their behavior completely. And most of all... the don't have no remorse for their actions. Overall... Oz is amazing show, the best one out there. Forget about CSI and shows about stupid doctors... this is the deal... OZ!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, this show had a lot of male frontal nudity and yes, over the years the plot lines became over the top, melodramatic and very unrealistic, however, it didn't matter because the show is great. You really get involved in the characters and every character, no matter how minor or major, is perfectly cast.

I can't imagine anyone else except JK Simmons play the neo-Nazi racist rapist leader, nor anyone else playing Tobias Beecher except Lee Tergesen. The transformation of his character from season 1 to season 2 is amazing. However, the character that MADE Oz OZ was CHRIS KELLER (played by Christopher Meloni). He didn't have relations with anyone else in prison except Beecher (well, except Ronnie Barlog, but that was only to get Ronnie to stop playing around with Keller's lover boy, Beecher). Their relationship transcended sexes and Tom Fontana actually made us care about those two and want those two to be together.

I loved Vern's soft spot for his kids in the show and how Fontana made sympathetic characters out of all these heinous criminals that we grew to adore, even Simon Adebesi.

However, some plot lines were totally unbelievable and unrealistic: * A guy building a bomb in oz * Guys standing in a spotlight in their windows in their pods looking at other men plotting something in their mind - too over the top. * Drugs getting in oz * Everyone in the rehab group used or sold drugs and sister Pete never helped anyone in six years. * People getting killed in the gym, supply closet and kitchen. * No one hurting Ryan's mom * No one fighting Cyril outside the boxing ring (except Vern of course) * Two inmates with tools being left alone in the elevator shaft and one of them dying with no investigation. * Karl Metzger (guard) gets killed and no one investigates. * Governor holds all his press conferences at the prison * All an inmate needs to do is say \"i want to see Glenn\" or \"i want to see mcmanus\" and they are taken to them no questions asked. * People die every week in Oz * On the outside, people kill someone and get 20 years, up for parole in eight, but if they kill someone on the inside they go to death row almost immediately * There is no on site paid staff in the kitchen or mail room - inmates run both departments no questions asked * Aging drugs for inmates to substitute as time served * Ryan has no friends or associates but he never gets hurt, killed, maimed, raped or beaten. * The guys NEVER flush the toilets when they go to the bathroom or throw up. * An NBA scout comes TO the prison to recruit for an NBA player (yeah right)

However, with all these flaws, this show is still awesome. It's gruesome, brutal, sexy, edgy, raw and innovative. Dean Winters, Scott William Winters, JK Simmons, Christopher Meloni, Luiz Guzman, Adele (the guy that played Simon Adebisi), Eammon Walker, Lee Tergesen, Terry Kinney, mUms, Male Alexander, LL Cool J, etc, etc, etc. All are awesome and made the show worth watching.

I highly recommend renting this on DVD. Season six comes out 9\/06 (next month). First five seasons are on DVD - watch them and then watch them again with audio commentary. I loved the director's commentary with Chazz Palmentari. The sequence with Andy Schillinger running down the cafeteria tables and then falling into the hole was an awesome, top notch shot!!!! Kudos! And Kathy Bates directing Family Business and the famous wrestling scene between Beecher and Keller - simply amazing!! Brilliant!!! That'd have to be so weird for Meloni to touch Tergesen's private part in front of an icon like Kathy Bates in that one scene!! Wow! Pulled that off beautifully, pun intended!

I'm waiting for Oz: The Next Generation!!!! (like with Star Trek, etc.) C'Mon!!! Let's get it started!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a great show! A very underrated dramatic show. It is great how there are no main characters and every episode some other character(s) are the main character(s).I think the best character on the show is Vern Schillinger. He is a tough, bad guy and an Aryan on top of that which makes him a true bad guy prisoner who there are many that are known to be. This show has many murders, I think it is a little over exaggerated for the killing on the show, but I have to admit that is one of the reasons why I think the show is so great.I think some characters were killed off a little early, but some sure still made their mark. You can't compare things like Prison Break to this show, they are totally different. I think some of the actors on the show are also very good and underrated and should what is due to them. A great show, my favorite's. A show that should be considered of the the greats for years to come.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show has everything you could ever want from a prison drama. There are twists and turns all the way till the season finally. The characters are very strong, and it gives the show a lot of power. When watching the show you feel for not only the prisoners, but the prison staff. The actors who play prisoners on this show have done a very good job portraying a prisoner. Also if you like law and order svu or law and order criminal intent there are many actors from this show that appear in those shows. The only problem with Oz is that it was not long enough. This show could of easily had nine to ten seasons without getting old. Even after the season finale i sill find myself watching Oz all the time on DVD. This show is easily one of the best shows on television. Don't be a fool, go watch Oz.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oz is the TV show which is intensive non-stop adrenaline. Its a show which is not aimed at a large audience but a specific one as its themes are very adult orientated. It obviously did not achieve mainstream success as this was an impossibility but had much fame with its audience and many famous actors either guest starred or became part of the show.

Oz is a series of fictional stories based on a prison located somewhere in the New York state. There are many different ethnic groups which play a somewhat equal role in being represented. These groups are the Muslims, Homeboys, Aryans, Bikers, Italians, Latinos, Irish, Christians, Gays and Others. Some have some form of affiliation with each other such as the Bikers and Aryans whilst the Aryans are the enemy's of numerous groups such as the Muslims and the Homeboys.

In Oswald Penitentary (Its official name) there is a policy that not too many members from any one ethnic group may be allowed. It is the maximum security prison and the regular prison where sometimes prisoners are sent to or from in the show is called \"general population\" or \"gen pop\". The main character of the show is Augustus Hill who also narrates the story before and after the main segments, crossed between a documentary type and a biographical one. Hill is bound to wheelchair usage as a consequence of his unknown past. He is part of the \"others\" group which features individuals which don't fit into the other prison gangs.

Of the many groups it is the smaller ones which are able to keep themselves avoided by trouble most of the times as the larger ones are busy in conflict with one another. Are few of the most noteworthy characters are as follows: 1)Ryan O'Reilly is in charge of his fellow Irishmen and somehow always voluntarily gets himself involved in lethal activity for the weakest link. 2)Miguel Alvarez is the watched Latino who has constant struggles with coping with his popularity within his own gang and with others. 3)Simon Adebesi is the Nigerian who was the former leader of the Homeboys gang. Hes also very physically quite large and solid. These two reasons are why he is one of the most powerful inmates inside of Oz. 4)Karim Said is the Muslim and Black nationalist who is a very defined in his opinions and desires. He fights for the rights of his people on many levels through the show, from his own Muslim group, to his wider Black group and even fighting for all the groups against the unjust rules of authority. He character seems in some ways identical to Malcom X, the famous Black rights fighter who was also Muslim.

All in all, for its genre Oz is possibly the greatest (fictional prison show or show based on ethnic relations). If it doesn't sound as if your own type of series it probably shouldn't be tried out, but if it does interest, then it is definitely worth viewing. The biggest problem with the show is how it is addictive, some may feel wrong viewing a lot of this kind of material. Researchers argue on whether it is harmful or not but in the end it is just a reflection of the society of the world we live in today. This means that it is as an informant and an indicator of the world than an aggressor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"HBO created this show for purposes of making us see the most realistic view of prison possible and they did a hell of a job. Oz was created by the creators of Homicide who wanted to show a raw version of prison. This show is what launched the idea of every other HBO Original Program such as The Sopranos, Sex and the City, The Wire, Arliss, Deadwood, and Six Feet Under amongst others. Oz is the nickname for the Oswald State Penetentiary, a fictional prison in some US state which is never stated (Though with the accents, crime scenes, and racial distribution NY is assumed). The main prison unit looked at on the show is Emerald City, a seemingly ideal prison unit with more privlages than others thought out by a liberal unit manager named Tim McManus. Overall this show shows us what it is really like if one wishes to survive in prison.

There are about 10 gangs shown on Oz. First we have the Muslims, a group of blacks who wish to destroy the injustices of the criminal justice system and help improve living conditions for blacks everywhere. They are led by Kareem Said a black militant minister who wishes to destroy everything racist about the judicial system. As a group they are not so much anti-white but rather anti-injustice. Our second group of blacks is the Homeboys who are essentially the street blacks who wish to keep all the bad ghetto behaviors up and run the drug trade. Their leadership varies mainly because they are always losing members due to violence. In this group, one character who is acted terrifically is Simon Adebisi. Adebisi is an African inmate who is essentially the most frighteningly evil character alive. This gang as a whole gets side help from the Irish at times and is always in conflict with the Latinos and Sicilians for drug distribution purposes. Being that Oz is mostly black, the Homeboys have the most soldiers of any gang inside.

The Latinos and Sicilians, like the Homeboys have varying leadership due to violent deaths that occur throughout the show. The Sicilians pretty much have the most substantial say in how any illegal activity gets conducted in Oz. The Latinos make their presence known so that they can at least be coasting well if they are not in control. Unlike the Homeboys however, these gangs do not have as much internal battle for power and are usually more stable when it comes to drug usage. The Irish who are mentioned above are a smaller gang led by a manipulative and snakelike Ryan O'Reily. O'Reily always manages to stay in good graces with all the drug powers and manages to manipulate things in his way whenever he wants. They are in no illegal control but they are at least on good terms with all those who are.

Amongst the whiter inmates, we have the Bikers and Aryans. The Bikers are merely a bunch of tattooed drug users who help the Aryans out most of the time. The Aryans are the most hated and hateful gang to most any viewer of Oz. They are led by Vern Schillinger who is amongst the most racist, sickest, and sadistic characters one will ever see. Both gangs control nothing illegal, they just merely let the darker skinned inmates see that they are a substantial threat to anyone who thinks all white inmates are soft. We also have the Others. The Others is a gang of outsider prisoners who are not necessarily a problem to any other inmate. In this group we see Tobias Beecher, a lawyer who accidentally killed a young girl whose life is forever altered by prison. We also see Augustus Hill, a black man bound to a wheelchair for killing a police officer who narrates the show and introduces the audience to every inmate. The character's crimes are shown as they are introduced and Augustus lets us know how long they will be in prison. Finally amongst gangs, there are the Christians and Gays. The Christians merely stay religious to keep from going mental and the Gays are a bunch of cross-dressers who are often raped by other inmates.

This show gets in depth on a lot of issues dealing with the criminal justice system and is more explicit than any movie about prison. Since language is unedited, we here more racial epithets and cuss words than we would on any other TV show. Augustus Hill's commentary provides a good way for us to truly understand each and every issue involved with Oz. This show as good as it is is not at all for the light to medium hearted. It explicitly shows drug use and distribution by any means possible, prison rape, murders, fatal stabbings, and general gore than anything anyone else has seen. In my opinion it is the most influential and greatest show ever created but I can see at the same time why other people would be disturbed by this show. If you are at all interested by shows and movies about prison, Oz is a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the other reviewers has mentioned that after watching just 1 Oz episode you'll be hooked. They are right, as this is exactly what happened with me.

The first thing that struck me about Oz was its brutality and unflinching scenes of violence, which set in right from the word GO. Trust me, this is not a show for the faint hearted or timid. This show pulls no punches with regards to drugs, sex or violence. Its is hardcore, in the classic use of the word.

It is called OZ as that is the nickname given to the Oswald Maximum Security State Penitentary. It focuses mainly on Emerald City, an experimental section of the prison where all the cells have glass fronts and face inwards, so privacy is not high on the agenda. Em City is home to many..Aryans, Muslims, gangstas, Latinos, Christians, Italians, Irish and more....so scuffles, death stares, dodgy dealings and shady agreements are never far away.

I would say the main appeal of the show is due to the fact that it goes where other shows wouldn't dare. Forget pretty pictures painted for mainstream audiences, forget charm, forget romance...OZ doesn't mess around. The first episode I ever saw struck me as so nasty it was surreal, I couldn't say I was ready for it, but as I watched more, I developed a taste for Oz, and got accustomed to the high levels of graphic violence. Not just violence, but injustice (crooked guards who'll be sold out for a nickel, inmates who'll kill on order and get away with it, well mannered, middle class inmates being turned into prison bitches due to their lack of street skills or prison experience) Watching Oz, you may become comfortable with what is uncomfortable viewing....thats if you can get in touch with your darker side.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oz, is one of the most mind-blowing and addictive TV experiences ever.

Having caught pieces of this on SBS, I was at first skeptical, however, having finished now the 4th season, I sadly know that that this brilliant show is approaching its end, (6 seasons), and yet I still can't get enough of OZ.

Want something that will push your senses and your stomach to the limit...Oz fits the bill, hands down.

This isn't kid's stuff, folks, its violent, brutal, and not pretty. Why, its a experimental unit inside a maximum security prison.

Tom Fontana's Oz is brilliant in all the right departments, the actors, the writing, and directing.

HBO's Oz site is also highly recommended, for newcomers, for info about this series. This was the first one-hour show, produced by HBO, and it proves what a master-work it is and that others would follow.

Thank-You HBO","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oz is by far the best show ever to grace television. Better than The Sopranos, yes, ER, yes, CSI, absolutely. Uncompromising, daring, and utterly disturbing yet profoundly moving. Oz took us past any image of prison that anyone had ever conjured up on television. Tom Fontana truly did a brilliant job with the writing. No topic is taboo. Rape, drugs, murder. Oz is evidence of just how good TV can be. It follows characters of all different backgrounds and all different races, but always comes back to your everyman Tobias Beecher, in jail for vehicular manslaughter. We see what we don't want to see, pain, death, mayhem. Oz will disturb you, make you cringe, make you look away, but most of all it will make you think. To see Oz is to see a truly magnificent television production","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This light-heated (for Cassavetes)love story is pleasantly conveyed by two wonderful performances by Gena Rowlands and Seymour Cassell. Rowlands was never more beautiful as a repressed, damaged mid-30's woman who meets her match in Seymour. Cassell is a powderkeg of energy and romantic notions (on his terms).

There is a great supporting performance by Val Avery as Zelmo Swift and an unusual (as always) Timothy Carey that's worth the price of admission. Made between Husbands and A Woman Under the Influence this is Cass' most accessible film that should touch the heart of anyone (especially the Cassavetes haters) who claim his films are too long and ponderously heavy at times. Made my Top Ten that year and not seen by enough people. An 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I feel as though I know these people and have known people similar to them. These days, though, people are discouraged from showing such passion about anything especially love and loneliness. It has a slow beginning, but then look out! If you love romantic comedies, but would like to see one that had some basis in reality for a change {or at least did have back in the 70's}, then you should see this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Life is crazy. You're crazy, I'm crazy, we're all crazy. We're all a little bit Minnie, and a little bit Moskowitz. Sometimes it does seem best to be sensible...but then what might you be missing out on?

You gotta be you. You don't have to park cars and semi-randomly yell at people, but you can't hide yourself behind a veil (or dark sunglasses) and pretend and act like everything is okay. And sometimes, you really do have to throw caution to the wind, because why else are you alive?

I'm not going to 'rate' this love compared to Cassavetes' other movies, because they are all absolutely 100% unique works and each their own individual act of expression and exploration of our lives. In that sense they are all great, and comparisons are odious. For sure, this movie has that one crazy, sometimes maddening, but ultimately wonderful and freeing quality that all his movies have- you never know what's going to happen next, and you never know what the characters are going to think, do, or feel next. Neither do the characters themselves- and do we really want to live our lives any other way? Unlike Moskowitz, you can have a great job and judiciously sock away money into your IRA, but still live the life of an adventurer inside- in your feelings, your spirit, and your very experience of life. Yeah, we can have it both ways, that's what Cassavetes shows us. Thank God somebody did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Minnie and Moskowitz is the most pathetic and ungraceful love story I've ever seen. Between Minnie, a disillusioned museum curator whose abusive married boyfriend dumps her and leaves her even more uptight and confused than she already was, and Seymour Moskowitz, a parking attendant so desperate for attention that he spends his nights going to bars and restaurants aggravating people, there is a chaotic and disenchanted match from the start. Just like so many pairings that we see every day.

In nearly every love story, there is a man and a woman, the man being confident, funny, either classically hot or attractive in his own way, whose shortcomings are charming, and the woman a wounded soul who could have any man she wants who chooses this guy because there's just something about him. These movies make everyone feel so good because the characters embody what every man and woman wants to be, not what they are. Minnie and Moskowitz, instead of indulging in any hint of fantasy in the realm of romance, depicts people who may just be more common than the attractive, confident people with so much experience playing the field. What's the story behind the love affairs of the ugly, alarmingly awkward man with no life and no job that we all run into, or the woman so crippled by insecurity that it's difficult to talk to her?

This film is not as fascinating as Cassavetes's Faces or Opening Night, but it has that riveting quality that Cassavetes always fought so hard to render, which is an unbridled depiction of people underneath the ego that hides behind itself in nearly all other films. Gena Rowlands and Seymour Cassel, delivering startlingly pitiable people, are hardly likable. Moskowitz nearly drives us mad, let alone Minnie. He imposes himself so forcefully in her life, the dates are an explosion of the inner voices of ours that respond to the screamingly inept uneasiness on dates we've all been on, rejections we've all swallowed, and arguments we've all had that we know were our own faults. I admire a film like Minnie and Moskowitz because, as the trademark is with the films Cassavetes helmed himself, it identifies with us in 100% honesty. Our egos play no part in company with his characters, thus a tremendous achievement per performance by actor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"real love. true love. mad love. beautiful love. ugly love. dirty love. sad love. happy love. silly love. smart love. gorgeous love. dumb love. love love love. minnie moore understands that what she really needs is a man who trust her, trust her and love her madly. of course when this man comes along... she tries to run away but seymour, wonderful seymour, he trusts her, he believes in her so he is going to fight for her against her. i want to be like seymour moskowitz. i want to be that kind of man. a man willing to love without been afraid to fail but willing to fail. that's a kind of hero. that's my kind of hero... and minnie moore is my kind of woman. long live cassavetes and all his lovely bunch!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although it may not be Cassavetes' best work, Minnie and Moskowitz is almost perfect in all its endeavours. The plot is whimsical and charming, and surprisingly dramatic with an impressive range of emotion -- much more drama than comedy, contrary to IMDb's profile. Yes, the story is whimsical, but not arbitrary; it succeeds as believable, albeit a tad forced -- which I will come back to. All of the artistic aspects are of true Cassavetes form: the cinematography and camera-work are delights, and the soundtrack -- albeit barely there -- is complimentary. Plus I believe I noticed some nods to Godard and such in the editing -- as I have in a few of Cassavetes' other films -- (namely the abrupt cutting of a song in one scene), which are interesting.

I feel the plot is built up nicely, with the first half being particularly enjoyable. Seymour's conversation with Morgan Morgan (Timothy Carey) in the diner, for example, is wonderfully funny and fascinating, and sets the tone for the philosophical commentary made throughout the film. This philosophising -- a tradition in Cassavetes' films -- is what made the film for me. Seymour's amusing and profound monologues instantly eliminate the first impressions one may have of him as a hippie simp -- though his character is curiously similar to that of his in Faces (1968). This tipped me, however, (on second viewing) into the opinion that it stands up against Cassavetes' best work. I gained an affection for this film that I lacked on first viewing.

There are, sadly, several aspects that make this film imperfect. I find the plot to be unbalanced. As I said before, it builds up nicely, but it wanes a bit here and there, particularly towards the end. Because of the spontaneous style in which Cassavetes worked, and particularly the freedom with which he allowed his actors to improvise, the quality of his product can easily go either way. In this case it's inconsistent. I assess that most of this film was improvised, and most of it beautifully. But one or two scenes, unfortunately, just don't work. In particular, the scene after Seymour fights with Minnie's work associate outside her house. During what is intended to be the most intense scene of the film, Cassavetes allowed his actors to run free with the dialogue -- presuming some was planned beforehand. This, I believe, was a mistake. One gets the impression Cassel doesn't quite know what to do, as he repeatedly fumbles in his speech, often not making sense, and overacts; all of this damaging the scene and the character development. I understand Seymour is intended to be a bit of a brash fool, but Cassel's attempts here are misapplied. Why does he cut his moustache off? These flaws are resulting from: a lack of direction on Cassavetes part; a lack of understanding and forethought on Cassel's part; a lack of rehearsal and preparation; etc. Evidently, Cassavetes didn't learn from his mistakes, as he allowed this same thing to happen in his next film, A Woman Under the Influence (1974) -- the committing scene, and ending.

The flaws I mention are not minor, but they do not ruin the film. They simply make some scenes cringe-worthy and unrealistic, spoiling the flow of the film and compromising its potential. However, I am very, very fond of Cassavetes and all of his actors, particularly Cassel, in spite of the faults I mentioned. This is a very enjoyable film, although it proves the precariousness of Cassavetes' style.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would recommend this for anyone who is an admirer of the late John Cassavetes. And for those who have never known of Cassavetes. It is an excellent film. I really don't have the time to go into the details of why this is my opinion, but if you're looking for something gutsy, with lots of scenes to mull over, then this one is for you. The cinematography is perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the film, as well as the story itself. This \"review\" does not do the film justice. It is an experience one must view for themselves. LOTS OF CHARACTER. VERY GENUINE.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Possibly John Cassavetes best film to date, and definitely his funniest. Seymour Cassel plays the young Moskowitz smitten with real-life wife of Cassavetes, Gena Rowlands, excellent as usual. A must see gem of a film, if you can locate it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was my first look at this short-lived British TV horror series, but I had seen a couple of Hammer horror films (Horror of Dracula, Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter) and thought highly-enough of them to give this a look.

This first episode was a shocker - not for the horror but for all the nudity. Was this \"regular\" TV in England in 1980? If so, it showed a lot more skin than what we see in North America. There were three separate scenes showing naked women and their breasts, one scene where a guy put his hand on one, and another scene with man a top of a woman faking intercourse. Hey, I'm not complaining.

The story is a simple one: a witch who had disappeared in the 17th century comes back to her old house and makes life tough for the married man. The latter, Jon Finch as \"David Winter,\" wasn't much of an actor, but his wife wasn't bad and was a really beauty. She was be Prunella Gee as \"Mary.\" The husband suspected her, rightly so, of having an affair and that plays a part in this story.

Patricia Quinn was entertaining as the laughing witch \"Lucinda Jessup,\" who comes back with a mean streak in her and has a good time tormenting the couple until things go wrong at the end. As a man, I'd say it was particular fun to see the two women going at it! This starts off slowly but once \"Lucinda\" starts stirring up things, it gets very entertaining.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a great fan of the Hammer Studios and enthusiastic watcher of their Gothic Horror films, I wonder what took me so long to start watching their TV-series \"Hammer House of Horror\", which only ran for one season in 1980. Now that I've seen the first four episodes of the show, I can say that it easily satisfies my expectations so far. While this first episode \"Witching Time\" is maybe not the most imaginative Horror story ever told, and doesn't quite deliver the marvelous Gothic atmosphere that I love Hammer's films from the 50s to the 70s for, it doubtlessly does accomplish to tell a surprisingly spooky tale and create some genuine creepiness within fifty minutes. Film score composer David Winter (Jon Finch) is tormented by the 17th century witch Lucinda (Patricia Quinn)... While he story may be simple, but for a running time of less than an hour, it is effective and delivers many creepy moments. Northern Irish actress Patricia Quinn, who is probably best known for her role in \"The Rocky Horror Picture Show\" (1975) as well as the fantastic Monty Python comedy \"Monty Python's Meaning of Life\" (1983), is wonderfully malicious in her role which fits her like a glove. Jon Finch is also quite good as David, and while Prunella Gee, who plays his adulterous actress wife, may not be the best actress ever, she is definitely nice to look at. The episode is accompanied by a nice score which plays along well with the atmosphere. Overall, \"Witching Time\" is a very entertaining episode with several truly creepy moments, and decent opener to the series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hammer House of Horror: Witching Time is set in rural England on Woodstock farm where stressed musician David Winter (Jon Finch) lives with his actress wife Mary (Prunella Gee) & is currently composing the music for a horror film. One night while looking for his dog Billy David finds a mysterious woman in his barn, calling herself Lucinda Jessop (Patricia Quinn) she claims to be a witch who has transported herself from 300 years in the past to now. Obviously rather sceptical David has a hard time believing her so he locks her in a room in his farmhouse & calls his doctor Charles (Ian McCulloch) to come examine her, however once he arrives & they enter the room Lucinda has disappeared. Charles puts it down to David drinking too much but over the next few day strange & disturbing things begin to happen to David & Mary...

Witching Time was episode 1 from the short lived British anthology horror series produced by Hammer studios for TV & originally aired here in the UK during September 1980, the first of two Hammer House of Horror episodes to be directed by Don Leaver (episode 13 The Mark of Satan being the other) I actually rather liked this. As a series Hammer House of Horror dealt with various different themes & were all unconnected to each other except in name & unsurprisingly Watching Time is a sinister & effective little tale about a witch, the script by Anthony Read benefits from it's slight 50 odd minute duration & moves along at a nice pace. The character's are pretty good as is the dialogue, there are some nice scenes here & I liked the way it never quite reveals whether David & Mary are going crazy or not. I think it's a well structured, entertaining & reasonably creepy horror themed TV show that I enjoyed more than I thought I would.

Being made for British TV meant the boys at Hammer had a lower budget than usual, if that was even possible, & as such there is no gorgeous period settings here as in their most well know Frankenstein & Dracula films although the contemporary English setting does give it a certain atmosphere that you can relate to a bit more. Another TV based restriction is that the exploitation levels are lower than you might hope for, there's some nudity & gore but not much although I didn't mind too much as the story here is pretty good. It's well made for what it is & Hammer's experience on their feature films probably helped make these look pretty good, the acting is good as well with genre favourite Ian McCulloch making a bit-part appearance.

Witching Time is a good start to the Hammer House of Horror series, as a 50 minute piece of British TV it's pretty damned good, now why don't they make show's like this over here anymore?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Years ago, with \"Ray of Light,\" Madonna broke through to a truly amazing level of musical artistry, and since then she's occasionally transcended even her own standards. This concert production, with its hypnotic editing, amazing dancing, hallucinatory lighting effects, and trance-inducing arrangements, blows away all previous efforts. Madonna's apparent ambition -- to single-handedly bring about world peace through music and dance -- may seem hubristic or absurd to some. But hell, somebody's got to do it! Thanks to her assemblage of the remarkable talent of everyone involved in this production, \"Confessions Tour Live from London\" places her once again among the top ten artists working anywhere in the world in any medium.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a spectacular production! I have seen the show live twice in Chicago and my only problem with the production was the fact that I was able to perceive only fragments of what was going on. The stage consisted of three giant catwalks and the platform and as the action moves from one part of the stage to the next sometime you loose track of what is going on no matter where you are located. As always, this is a thought-provoking sensory overload, skillfully captured in high definition with 15 cameras! The footage was Masterfully edited, one of the best concert DVDs of all times in my opinion! I only hope and wish that they will release this on Blu-Ray of HD-DVD so that we can re-live this extravaganza over and over again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well I have to say I had the chance to see this show here in Philadelphia,PA sometime in June of 06.And I really loved it.my all time favorite Madonna look was the 1990 Blond Ambition tour era.this to me is \"MADONNA\".now that she is a mother of 3 she has to change some things to suit motherhood.and I totally agree.this is a classic Madonna concert.I wish \"live to tell\" wasn't edited.we saw body's falling from buildings on 911,we can see a woman on a cross...any way I'm looking forward to the release of this tour on DVD and hope it is the entire show unedited and with a bunch of bonus footage.she is a artist of all time.the best out there...and still at the top and going strong.long live MADONNA !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This concert is the type of concert that only comes around every twenty years or so, Madonna's Confessions on a dance floor era will certainly be remembered as one of the high points of her career. She's 48 and she looks simply divine, she keeps up with the dancers that are almost twenty years her junior. I am also very glad to report that all the songs were sung live, which is good because she actually sounds better live. Each song was so unique, the visuals where stunning. The performance of 'Live to tell' was fantastic and had me awestruck, 'Isaac' was exotic and gorgeous and was rich with political symbolism, the Arabic horn, the American eagle set free. I particularly liked the rockin performance of 'I Love New York', i almost stood up in my lounge room and cheered when she told her critics to suck George Bushes ****. And then again i was impressed by the 70's inspired music (inferno remix). This Spectacular decedent Concert made a fan out of me.

Verdict: Highly Recommended with a Capital H.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The show was amazing and very professional. Madonna is a non-stop, dancing and singing for 2 hours. The opening was pretty good when she came out of the disco ball and also jump was a really good performance. The entire show was full of energy so it's kind of hard to say which were the highlights because every song had something special and unique. I saw live couple of her previous tours (Drowned world and reinvention tour)they were good but you can't compare with this one. The dancers were fantastic, the lights and the whole show were just perfect. Madonna still looks very good. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend you to see it. You'll enjoy the show from the beginning to the end. Madonna is still the dancing queen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Madonna has been rocking the boat for over 20 years, and with that comes a lot of experience -obviously- and a lot of knowledge. She was never the one to think about yesterday, au contraire, she seemed to know what is going to be popular tomorrow. She bravely takes all the new trends, technologies, and incorporates them into her own acts. Her world tours have never been 'average'. When Madonna performs, she gives 120% - everything is bigger, better, theatrical and meaningful. She takes inspirations from East, West, and makes then unique. Everything is given a deeper meaning, and The Confessions Tour is not different. From the very beginning, you find yourself sitting on the edge of the chair. She starts with bang, then she does brave circus poses on a horse high up in the sky, she does everything she can to entertain you. She remakes her own songs, giving them a modern feel. She sings on a disco cross, she almost comes in the middle of the stage, and with her amazing dance crew that know no dimensions of fear, the show is absolutely more than you bargained for. It's a spectacle, an audio-visual orgasm that cannot be put in words. Lucky are the ones who actually experienced seeing Madonna on stage. Pushing fifty, she is still in an incredible form. Recent Sticky and Sweet Tour is even more ground-breaking, which proves nothing else, that Madonna was, is, and ever be the one and the only queen of pop.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show was so exhausting to watch and there's only two numbers Drowned World (Substitute For Love) and Paradise (Not For Me) were you can sit down and just contemplate it all. The opening of this show will go down in history as the most visually thrilling, as Madonna enters the stage via a gigantic Swarovski crystal ball that comes down from the ceiling and the huge screens from behind it show images of horses galloping. Horses play a role in this show due to Madonna falling off one. The infamous scene of Madonna on the crucifix is in this show as a huge screen counts to 12 million, the number of how many African children are orphaned due to Aids. At the end a website address comes up for anyone interested in donating. We then go into the theme of the environment and again images of politics and religion are shown. There's an interlude and then the show starts again to the music of I Love New York and Ray of Light this part of the show is one of my favorites with the dancers doing there funny hand movements. Towards the end there's the Music number with the song Disco Inferno mixed in with the song and the dancers make more of there presence known. The ending again is full of energy as the show wraps up to the tunes of Lucky Star and Hung Up and hundreds of golden balloons fall from the ceiling at the end the message \"Have you confessed?\" comes up. The DVD is worth buying and when it came out the soundtrack for the show was added as a bonus. Jonas Akerlund did a great job with the footage for this show keeping it consistent with the style of the tour.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to admit that when first saw Madonna performing Holiday on Top of the Pops many years ago I said to my wife \"another American one hit wonder getting the whole thing wrong!!\" Well she was wearing a fright wig and was appallingly dressed. I have never grown to love her the way my daughter does but I have to eat my words. I do like some of her stuff and sometimes enjoy her filmed concerts. This Confessions tour film is great,even if the music is not(and its not). I was impressed by the staging and concepts. Madonna's own performance was enhanced by the incredible dancers she chose to support her. My daughter was at the London gigs and was crazy about it. The lady (Madge) has proved my initial assessment of her so very wrong!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was alright. It was one of those We Gotcha But We Don't Have Enough Evidence Yet storylines. In the couple handfulls of movies I've seen her in, I've never really though much of Stephanie Zimbalist. A professional TV actress she is but nothing really outstanding. Here in this she was definitely above average as the former fed (or was it fed on loan?) profiler. Her character got along well with the motley bunch of Special Investigation Unit cops she was assigned with. There wasn't really a goofy character you'd roll your eyes at and just despise which was good. Also good is it takes awhile to know who the murderer is... but when I found out I wasn't that surprised. Oh well. One more thing that was good was the Los Angeles locations. Quite possibly if this was made today they'd use Toronto or Vancouver but here they really shot in downtown L.A. Like that a lot (even though I semi-despise L.A.) Liked the movie, too. I don't know if I'd ever watch it again but it wasn't too bad. My grade: B-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Captain and Tennille have released a very good 3 DVD package with minimal editing. Unlike most variety show releases these shows have not been hacked to bits. The musical and dance numbers are included with the skits just as they were when first broadcast. I suspect that some musical numbers on the DVD may have been edited into shows in which they did not originally appear but have been unable to verify that suspicion. I've noticed a few inconsistencies between what is on the DVD and program information I've found on the net. I've been unable to verify whether the net information is inaccurate or if the musical performances have been edited into the shows on the DVD. Whatever the truth may be, I'm very appreciative of the efforts made by the production company. I wish every variety show released would show the same respect for the format. I would guess about half the shows broadcast are included. I believe they ran into rights problems on the shows which weren't included. Hopefully those issues can be resolved and a Volume 2 can be released sometime in the future. There are some individual music videos along with a dance rehearsal among the extras. I recommend this DVD to any C&T fan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is difficult, today and in the US, to understand this movie. We have nothing, really, to compare it with. Here is an attempt at comparison: It is as if during the last years of Saddam's rule, a filmmaker in Iraq were somehow able to make a film, which, for the first time ever, showed life as it really was lived in that country. The life of ordinary young girl, with all the terror and the repression full blown. Then the film was exhibited freely in Iraq. If you could imagine that unlikely event, then you might have an idea of what went on with this film in the last few years of the Soviet Union. Prior to this film, Soviet cinema was highly censored. Soviet movies would only show an ideal life in the worker's paradise. Then suddenly this. The alcoholism, the random sex, the ugly wasteland that was the Soviet city, the choking pollution, the proletariat victimizing each other and themselves, the utter hopelessness - it is all there. People were stunned. Soviet women would often weep during the showings. Many would say that this is the story of their lives. It was a cultural earthquake the like of which filmmakers only dream of accomplishing. It undoubtedly hastened the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Reading the reviews here, I can see that few understand this film. One says it was groundbreaking because it contained real sex. To the Soviet viewers at the time, the sex was a minor event compared to fact that it portrayed reality for the first time in Soviet cinema.

Others compare it to current films such as \"As Good as it Gets\" Might as well compare Homer's Illiad to the latest John Grissam novel. They simply do not compare. This is not just a film, this is was a social document, and a transforming social force. It needs to be viewed that way or you will not understand the film.

Other reviewers see it as a film about a dysfunctional Russian family. One even says that it is difficult to feel sorry for Vera because she keeps coming back to her family. The point is that Vera and her family are symbols for all of Soviet life. There was nowhere else to go, because the family down the block and in the next town were the same. This was life in the Soviet Union for most people.

This is a film that can be viewed on many levels: as a drama it traces the landscape of despair, as a social document it shows the living conditions of the time, as a political document it shows the attitude of the people and many of the reasons for the break-up of the Soviet Union, and as a moral document it shows the evils of a dictatorship that is out of control, and the cruelties that victims will practice on each other.

Little Vera clearly shows the human toll that Socialism eventually takes on its victims, despite any good intentions that system may have. In doing so it helped end the Soviet regime thus contributing to one of the major changes in modern history. This film achieves what only a few films have ever accomplished. It is not only an stunning representation of history but it also become a force in that shaped history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the major aspects of \"Malenkaya Vera\" (called \"Little Vera\" in English) is that it was the first movie from the Soviet Union that featured a sex scene, albeit a short one. The title is important: Vera is the Russian word for \"faith\", identifying that punk Vera (Natalya Negoda) has little faith in the Soviet system. And as the movie shows, there's not much faith to be had in it. The opening scene shows the bleak industrial town of Zhdanov, nearly a hell on earth. When Vera's lover Sergei (Andrey Sokolov) moves in with her family, it leads to some unexpected events.

Like in many Russian movies, people's names describe their characters. For example, there's Viktor (remember that \"victor\" means winner). All in all, this is a good look at the Soviet Union while it was collapsing - and we can see why it was collapsing. Really good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Russia, the ordinary teenager Vera (Natalya Negoda) lives a leisured life with her drunkard father and her simpleton mother, without working and waiting for the calling for a technical course of telephone operator. Her brother Victor (Aleksandr Negreba) lives in Moscow with the family of his own and occasionally visits his dysfunctional family and Vera, being always motive for arguing. When Vera meets the student of university Sergei (Andrei Sokolov), they fall in love for each other and decide to get married. Sergei moves to Vera's house, but lives in conflict with her father. This relationship leads the family to a tragedy.

I have just seen \"Malenkaya Vera\", and I liked a lot this deep family drama. I am not familiarized with the life style in the former URSS, but there are some unusual behaviors that I found very interesting. The first one, when Victor tells Vera that she was conceived not because her parents wanted to have her, but because they wanted to move to a larger apartment. Another one, when the family goes to the beach in a truck. Many difficulties of Vera's family and their friends, the repression in the park and other situations pictured in the movie are common in Third World countries. This low budget movie is very well-directed, and the story is very profound and real. The cast has great performances and the actress Natalya Negoda is very beautiful. In the cover of the Brazilian VHS, released by Sagres distributor, there is information that Natalya Negoda was the centerfold of Playboy magazine. I am not sure how precise are the subtitles in Portuguese, since many long sentences spoken in Russian are limited to short translation in few words. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"A Pequena Vera\" (\"The Little Vera\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Forget every spy movie you've ever seen - this is what life was like in the USSR, and still is in many places in Russia and the ex-Soviet countries. Vera dreams of life of leisure, as she imagines the West to be; her reality is very different, with a bitter mother, a violent father, and the ever-present alcohol. And her prospects for the future are not much better. She finds a man and they try to patch up a life together, but he is afflicted by the same environment, both socially and physically - the scenery in this movie is brilliant, sitting comfortably in the company of post-apocalyptic movies but obviously done with no special effects; they have just walked in and shot whatever happened to be in front of the camera.

Forget your stereotyped, cold Russians of spy movies. This is the Real Deal: people are passionate, vibrant, and present in a way you'll never see in a drama from the West.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A gritty presentation of the decay of family values and human dignity in the wake of Soviet communism, Vasili Pichul's 1988 film Little Vera is a landmark film of modern Russian cinema. Pichul's brutal drama marks a strong departure from the images of sanitized idealism promoted in Soviet times (as in Aleksandrov's Circus), brashly moving the social chaos of his time into the public spotlight. A contemporary Ukrainian setting further intensifies the effect, first by the immediacy of the film to its time period, second by its utilization of a locale not only struggling for identity in lieu of a Soviet system, but also as a nation distinct from the Russian idiom that had dominated the U.S.S.R.

Vera, the film's title character and protagonist, is a rebellious adolescent girl with a \"dysfunctional\" family including a hard-drinking father and a mother care-worn. Rejecting her would-be beau Andrei, Vera begins a destructive (and primarily sexual) relationship with a college student named Sergei. Despite her parents' dislike for the lazy Sergei, and despite Sergei's rude contempt for her parents, he moves into their cramped apartment. Tensions escalate until Vera's father drunkenly stabs Sergei. Vera must decide if she will stay loyal to her intolerable family by testifying her father acted in self-defense, or continue to support and defend the ever-detached Sergei.

Unbearable in almost every imaginable way, Little Vera masterfully captures and communicates the inescapable void left in social life after the collapse of communism. The sexual aggressiveness of the film (it was the first film to show explicit sex) combined with the unrelenting presentation of social reality (a marked distinction from the socialist realism demanded by Stalin) effectively confronted the conditions of former-Soviet life. Most interesting, however, was public reception. While many wrote hate mail to the director and star, the film was wildly popular. Here the double-edged nature of \"film as social criticism\" emerges: if done correctly, the film will make the audience uncomfortable. Because no easy solution presents itself, some viewers will hate the film and filmmakers for \"bringing up\" the issue. Many films come to mind as somewhat comparable in this regard: Larry Clark's Kids, Harmony Korine's Gummo, even popular movie's such as John Hughes' Breakfast Club.

I recommend this film to those viewers for whom the prospect of nearly two hours excruciating domestic conflict and social miasma is not overly daunting. The film is absolutely beautiful, and incredibly challenging. Despite the difficulties of watching the film, some moments within it are profoundly beautiful. Of course, the socio-historic and cultural significance of the film cannot be overlooked, and in fact operate as an even more assertive reason for watching this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Little Vera is the story of a Russian teenager, her family, and her attempts to find meaning and value in a life sliding increasingly into decay. In her search for meaning, she falls in love with a more intellectual and rebellious Sergei, whose hatred for her deeply flawed parents quickly spirals out of control.

Little Vera is shocking and disturbing in nearly every way. The drinking of the father, the enabling and lack of understanding of the mother, the casual lies and misdirection of the brother, and Vera herself forgiving them all their flaws are all shocking and slightly disturbing to watch. However, the raw honesty of the film somehow manages to become even more shocking than the plot or characters. Set in cramped spaces and vast urban decay, Little Vera presented a vastly different view of Soviet life than had ever been seen before. In fact, Little Vera is a portrait of the collapse of Soviet society painted in shades of pain, desperation, and rust. It is the implosion of a family set against the implosion of an entire social order.

Although painful and desperately unsatisfying, the film itself is definitely worth seeing, if only to understand the feelings and cultures still reshaping Russia today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There was a lot about Little Vera that was strange to me. All in all I did enjoy this movie, but a lot of the way the characters behaved was not what I was used to. For example the environment that Vera's family lived in was very tense. Almost every time the family was together they were either drinking, fighting or yelling and frequently it was a combination of the three. After I had viewed the film I felt tense because of all the confrontation that took place during it. I was however very interested in watching the story if this middle class Russian family. Throughout the entire film we are reminded of the industrialized state of Russia because of the repeated shots of a train passing by the screen. It gave the viewer a sense of a mechanically lived life. The characters seemed to be focused on living their lives through work and drinking after work. There was not a feeling of happiness throughout the film. The only time a character was not yelling was when Vera first fell in love with her fianc\u00e9 Sergei. This was very short lived because the viewer later discovers (after Sergei locks Vera's father in a bathroom and Vera lets him out after which the father proceeds to stab Sergei) that he is abusive. Another time Vera is told that the only reason she was born was so the family could get a larger apartment. It is very interesting watching how both Vera and the family were able to cope with each other's behavior. The film was definitely worth watching because of its depiction of how life could be in areas of Russia.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was groundbreaking in the former Soviet Union because it was the first movie released there that contained a real sex scene. However, the movie can be considered great for many reasons, not the least of which is its true, gritty portrayal of disillusionment and pain in the family of a working class Soviet family. I would definitely recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all this movie is a piece of reality very well realized artistically. Some kind of combination between \"American Beauty\" and \"As Good as it gets\". And of course something specifically to all Russian movies ( of course the valuable one, no dirty propaganda !) : the problem of loneliness of man ... Especially recommended for the people which really want to see beyond all vomitive propaganda about communism ( both positive or negative propaganda ! ). A movie about common people, their problems, lack of satisfactions - especially for young ones, fear when touch the real and too dirty face of the society ... and about the fake \"solutions\" : alcohol and violence ... and probably the only real solution : true love ... Of course it's very well \"located\" in the space and time of \"Russian perestroika\" but it's valid for all the society ( except a perfect one, but don't worry - not possible to find this on our Earth !). For the last time - definitely recommended ...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This documentary was my first introduction to Peak Oil theory. A fascinating concept that has a lot of frightening consequences if it turns out to be correct. I had absolutely no idea that the effects of oil depletion would come so soon, it literally took my breath away. This movie will probably open your eyes as to how strongly the American way of life is dependent on the \"abundance of cheap oil\" - a term used throughout the film. A lot of the topics are plain common sense, and they don't go into a huge amount of depth about any of them. But you've probably never put all the pieces together like this movie does. The interviews with the authors and energy experts are all very interesting. I don't think this film is meant to scare people. It's merely meant to inform people about what to expect in the years ahead, and maybe to encourage you to think twice about commuting 100miles to work and leaving your lights on all day long.

After watching this film I was no longer able to look at the cars and buses zooming by quite the same. Great documentary, everyone should see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I always knew the day was coming. We all knew. There's only so much oil in the ground, and one day we'll run short. But isn't there supposed to be enough coal to use instead? And wind power, or something. Things for future generations to worry about.

Then this documentary hit me smack between the eyes. Oil makes the fertilizer that is the reason for the first time in world history practically no one lives on farms. When the inevitable oil shortages hit, a lot of things -- air travel, many drugs, plastics, life in the suburbs -- will become impossible. But the craziest insight from the documentary is this: oil gives us so much energy with so little effort, that without it our lives must change. Even if substitutes and conservation are implemented immediately, at best they'll smooth our landing into a strange post-oil world which (the documentary claims) could be starting NOW.

Despite its gloomy message, the documentary is often highly entertaining. It contains fabulous historical footage (sober images of dark urban factories, and campy funny stuff from the 1950's) which reminds us of why we moved to the suburbs in the first place. It also offers hope that a massive effort started now could both ease our transition from oil and make the world a better place.

My only complaint about the documentary is that it does not spend time on the mystery of why we are finding this stuff out now. How can this be a big emergency all of a sudden? We knew in the 1970s we should be preparing for a post-oil world -- and we started to prepare with alternative energy research and smaller cars. If our failure to follow through on President Jimmy Carter's initiatives 25 years ago has doomed us to a hard landing in a post-oil world, why was no one shouting about it on soapboxes?

In the end I found the documentary highly persuasive; and it left me with the terrible chill of being dragged out of a very lovely dream. This is must viewing for everyone not afraid to face a very likely near future that we still have time to do something about.

- Charles","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have the good common logical sense to know that oil cannot last forever and I am acutely aware of how much of my life in the suburbs revolves around petrochemical products. I've been an avid consumer of new technology and I keep running out of space on powerboards - so I know that even the energy crunch associated with Peak Oil will change my life appreciably.

The End Of Suburbia shows, in a rational and entertaining manner, just how much my whole family's lifestyle will have to change in my lifetime. I am particularly concerned for the future generations who will have to pick up the tab for our excesses, however the film-makers do offer a glimmer of hope in that they acknowledge human resourcefulness and determination - and the sense of community that tends to be engendered by shared hardship.

There is no point in trying to pretend that Peak Oil is baseless propaganda - or in treating it like the approaching radioactive cloud in \"On The Beach\" (i.e. with suicide pills at the ready). Even with our best efforts, times will get harder all over, and I'm hoping there's enough compassion and humanity to go around.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The End of Suburbia neatly collects many of the concerns with the coming \"Peak\" of the world's oil supply. As the world population grows, so does demand for oil and power. As we extract oil and power, we come to a \"peak\" in production. More oil is demanded, less oil is generated. The inevitable outcome is conflict, and major change.

This film will be disturbing, and alarming if you're new to the topic. You may react at first with anger and denial because the implications are so grim. It should be required viewing. Beyond politics, beyond optimism, the math is undeniable.

Suburbia is the focus, because our suburban living areas will be the communities most impacted when the price of energy skyrockets. While intuitive logic would tell you that the big cities will be the places to avoid during a time of crisis, the spread out nature of suburbia will make it difficult if not impossible to maintain an efficient community without our vehicles to transport us.

Peak oil is no longer a topic for discussion by survivalists and backwoods crazies. This issue will be at our doorstep sooner than we think. This film is a lucid, coherent look at it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I own a Video store with hundreds of documentaries. I have seen loads of them and love all of the great info out there. Only a small handful though even come close to offering info as important as this one. I have been reading through other peoples reviews of this film and can't help but notice that the main things people are criticizing are irrelevant. Such as \"It is very one sided\" Such a pathetic criticism, every where in society that you look you will see the other side, and if you still need help go to globalpublicmedia.com. \"It is the same people over and over\" Uh one might be led to believe that these people are the experts, so maybe they are the best people to interview. \"filming style is all the same, head shots with few exceptions\" If you want flash and dazzle watch Micheal Moore if you want info watch real docs such as this one. As you can plainly see none of these complaints have any relevance to the information contained. My guess is that these people are just missing the point and don't wanna give up there SUV's.

My recommendation: Watch it. Learn from it, and continue your education about such subjects. It is very important stuff for EVERYONE.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A truly scary film. Happening across curmudgeon James Kunstler's rants led me to recently-formed web logs like Life After the Oil Crash (LATOC), Energy Bulletin, and The Oil Drum, and the data behind the theory of Hubbert's Peak. Like this film, LATOC and Kunstler paint a grim picture of die-off or die-back. I hope they're premature, but in mid-2005 rising gasoline prices, rising oil prices, Chevron's Will You Join Us campaign, BP becoming Beyond Petroleum and even T Boone Pickens lend credence to the idea that we are at or near a peak of oil production.

After copious research of limited data, oil investment banker Matt Simmons has suggested that the Saudis may no longer be able to increase production in their immense, but aging fields. In the face of increased demand (primarily from the US and China), the Saudis have not responded with higher production, despite previous assurances. Stated world production from 2000 and 2004 indicates that light, sweet crude has indeed peaked. which means that refining will become more costly.

The film seems aimed at baby boomers, but younger people, our children, also need to understand the implications of an energy-depleted future.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The End of Suburbia is an important documentary about modern dependence on cheap energy and the coming peak in world oil production. The film is an excellent introduction to the peak oil phenomenon, and includes interviews with experts like adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force. Mathew Simmons, author Richard Heinberg, \"Powerdown - Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World\" and author Michael T. Klare, \"Blood and Oil - The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.

\"Economic growth is predicated upon more electricity. Electricity is predicated on hydro-carbon energy. Period. And Mathew Simmons made a very clear statement, he said: \"Future growth is not possible\". And for a guy from his background to say that was one of the most.. that's like the catholic church saying the earth is round before Galileo\" - Michael C. Ruppert

\"The peak has happened. And now, instead of being prophets, we're now historians.\" - Kenneth Deffeyes","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The End of Suburbia, as it should appeal to general citizens & mass consumers alike, is likely to become of cultural reform status. The film uses super-cynical analysis by authors, policy makers, and social philosophers on the paradox created by Suburban-Style living--mainly in the Post-War era.

What we have created in America is a place with \"none of the amenities of country life, and none of the amenities of urban city life.\" This is the prescription that is laid out for suburbia, and the film focus's on the singular idea of \"Oil\". Basically, in the most general sense, that the world is nearing or at it's peak oil production, and when we realize this in full, major lifestyle changes will be in effect, whether by our best interest or forced violently upon us by a quality of living even the slum-dwellers of Calcutta couldn't describe to us.

If nothing more, the end of Suburbia will siphon the viewer flush in their gut, creating a sickening feeling. This is bound to happen. It's a bleak outlook on our inherent way of life. The ambivalence lies particularly in each respective viewers critical analysis of the film. I foresee many unprepared viewers slandering the film as smug liberal propaganda--like a Michale Moore film. What they fail to consider is that a reaction like this is all too normal when such a message hits so unbelievably hard to the lifestyle of the vast majority of the masses.

This is the truth, and as a student studying City Planning, I can tell you that we better get prepared now, because what slim chance we have of maintaining quality of life in this dwindling cesspool of tampered resources is fading faster than a race of people stricken by the black plague.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The End Of Suburbia (TEOS) is a very useful film. It's also important and provocative. There seems to be no middle ground with either the film or its main source of entertainment, the anti-sprawl Meister, James Howard Kunstler.

While I am not a big fan of the New Urbanism, my criticism of it is because of its small vision. In the case of New Urbanist Peter Calthorpe - another talking head - you finally hear what's somewhat obvious in and amongst the special added TEOS out-takes... Calthorpe just doesn't understand peak oil.

I've used this as a teaching tool in economics classes to get at the importance of land as a factor of production - a fact long diminished by Neoclassical Economics - and also as a vehicle for educating about: peak oil, our wastrel land use, global warming, our threatened food production, public transit our compromised future

Move over South Park! .... Made by Canadians from Toronto for $25,000 and released in May 2004, this video sold over 24,000 copies by October 2005. One major DVD rental vendor recently ordered almost 400 more copies.

The End Of Suburbia sales were actually climbing 1 1\/2 years after its release and it has also been available on one of the major online video services since September 2005.

A sequel, Escape From Suburbia, is in the works with a possible release by August 2006.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been most fortunate this year to have seen several films at my university's art museum. On occasion, well, more like half of the time, I am unable to watch the films there. I have systematically attempted to view each of the films that I have missed. So far Plagues and Pleasures on the Salton Sea and Who Killed the Electric Car? are the other films that I have had to watch this way. The film covers an intriguing subject matter and is well-theorized (emphasis on this later) but not as successful as Plagues and Pleasures, but far superior to Electric Car.

The film's thesis concern's the future of the American concept of suburban living. It questions the feasibility of such a practice as oil prices rise. So, the film discusses the origin of the suburb, and it's evolution until the early 2000s. One theme the film discusses at length is the alienation the suburb creates among its inhabitants. While several people may live together, they do not \"know\" each other as we define the word. This, to me, represents the strength of the film: its appeal to actual human emotion. We are able to understand the filmmakers' argument so much easier because they do not have to convince us of their argument's legitimacy. This is also one of the reasons Salton Sea is such a wonderful documentary.

Unfortunately, Suburbia loses its message in firebrand explanation in support of its central argument. As those interviewed speak, their arguments become progressively more akin to those made by militant environmentalists. We are told that oil production will hit its peak in this decade, but are given no scientific evidence (professional reports, statistics, graphs, etc) in support of this claim. We are given little information as to how this date was calculated. Fortunately, this was the only significant flaw that I was able to detect in the film's argument yet it's a glaring one nevertheless. Another less-important discrepancy I noticed was the liberal (political) bias which could polarize some viewers. However, this bias is revealed thorough clips of various events and not the filmmakers themselves. The clips, especially those from the 1950's, seemed a tad unnecessary to me. The film was no better with their presence, and would have been more concise in their absence.

As I thought more of this film before composing this review, I thought about why I found its argument more convincing than other documentaries that I'd recently viewed. Finally, I realized that the filmmakers actually offered analysis to the suburban problem. They propose a decentralized village-system where pockets of people would live together. They posit this practice would lower the necessity for fossil fuels and reduce wasted space. They define wasted space as the long stretches of parking lots between shopping areas, for instance. What is incredible about this supposition is that it's actually conceivable. Most documentaries vaguely state that some problem should be ended but offer no method of doing so. Thinking more about the film, I decided that this analysis is what saved the film for me and why I give it a favorable review.

While neither perfectly convincing nor fluid in presentation, The End of Suburbia is a worthwhile investment of one's time. It not only addresses the contemporary problem of sprawl, but it also provides realistic insight on how to amend it. The audience can also enjoy the high production value with various clips from the 1950's spliced with the modern arguers. People living in Atlanta, Georgia or the Triad region of North Carolina will particularly enjoy this documentary as sprawl is the most established there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm giving this film 9 out of 10 only because there aren't enough specific scientific references to the amount of energy it takes to produce food to satisfy the science haters. mdixon seems to believe the admittedly biased commentators are making this stuff up, but even an elementary understanding of resources and the laws of thermodynamics will indicate that at the very least, they are on solid scientific ground when they state that we cannot continue to depend on oil, we must transition to different types of energy, and do not have a plan that will replace the amount of energy we get from oil. Other civilizations have refused to face the facts of life, and have perished. Read Jared Diamond's \"Collapse\" which is a popular book, or any elementary Ecology or Earth Science textbook and you can verify the basic premise of this movie. Go ahead, fiddle while Rome burns!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A good documentary reviewing the background behind our societies oil addiction, the problem concerning our present energy usage and finally discusses the effects of the coming energy deficit originating from the peak oil production problem.

This movie should be educated to all students as part of their education. Show it to your children, parents, relatives and friends. They will thank you eventually.

After reviewing the contents of this documentary and comparing its mentioned sources I would say that the facts in this movie are well scientifically supported.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well someone who enjoys traveling down the highway at 120kmph, eating McDonalds, and running the air conditioner twenty four seven, and watching Fox News non-stop, I found this documentary interesting. One thing I picked up, when they being they talk about North America, I assume this documentary was Fabrique Au Canadie. For the Canadian bashing I will leave that to Bill O'Reilly.

The consequence of the depletion of oil will affect everyone, especially those who live in big countries of Australia, Canada and the United States. I am sure that Green Peace are cheering no more gas, means no more SUVs, without realizing people who live in the sub zero temperatures could starve to death.

As someone who has studied economics, I know for a fact we are living in a world of finite resources. I will give the documentary props for trying to present a balanced point of view about the depletion of oil. However I am studying a degree in journalism, this documentary is full of loaded messages - Republican as warmongers. What the Democrats didn't send troops to Vietnam?

If you are going to present a documentary about economics and resources, it is best to leave the political bashing to one side, because it could cause a potential audience member to totally shut down. Concentrate on the issue of finite resources. At the end of the day, it is best to open the minds of the mainstream, as it is no good preaching to the minuscule choir.

I really do enjoy watching documentaries such as Fahrenheit 911, and End of Suburbia not for their political bias, because they do remind us the world isn't so safe. Sure I like to shop, and consumer junk food like there is no tomorrow, but if the world is going to end tomorrow I would rather die rich and consume the living beep out of it.

For the potential documentary makers out there, just give the people facts, and let the viewers make up their own minds. If you are trying package your political views as a balanced documentary the people are going to smell a rat a mile away.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film broke a lot of ground and receives on the whole a lot less credit than it's due. It touches on a topic that is ever-present in our daily lives, but which is seen as a phenomenon so common that it does not merit discussion. This phenomenon is that of caregivers (be they doctors or, as in \"Broken Promise\", a senior social worker) who abuse their position in order to harm those they have been charged to protect.

In Broken Promise, Patty Clawson and her family are abandoned by their parents; but are soon picked up by local law enforcement. Faced with the certain prospect of foster care, Patty begs a young social worker to keep her and her brothers and sisters together. This social worker approaches a senior member of another department, but his request is denied.

The children are parcelled off to seperate homes, thereby following the prevailing opinions of the day and ensuring a \"clean break.\" But it is this event, the \"broken promise\" which gives the film it's name, which causes the dramatic tension that is to continue throughout the film. Angered by the Young Social Worker's apparent betrayal, Patty Clawson runs away from the foster home she has been sent to.

Faced with the daunting task of finding her family in a climate where the ideal is seen to be a complete separation from the past; she does the only the thing she can to ascertain their whereabouts and breaks into the Senior Social Worker's office to steal the casefile.

Apprehended soon after she finds she has made a dangerous enemy. Furious at the embarrassment this little girl has caused him and his department, the Senior Social Worker decides to use his power and authority to destroy her; something that legally he is quite capable of doing.

---------------

This topic, of the harm of caregivers to clients, is relatively taboo. It certainly has been touched on very little in films as few directors wish to tread the path that would imply that caregivers cause harm.

I think that this film plays a very important role in making the public more aware of this sort of thing. The case portrayed is not only plausible, but has probably happened many times before to many other children all over the world. This film is critical to changing public opinion in order to get rid of the laws that protect harmful people like the Senior Social Worker in \"Broken Promise\".

I strongly recommend Broken Promise. It is especially appropriate viewing for trainee social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors, and other caregiving professions. It is a lesson in avoidance that should be taken to heart.

-----------

In terms of the acting in \"Broken Promise.\" Melissa Michaelsen plays a superb part as Patty Clawson. Especially in films such as this believability is critical. If the viewer did not identify with the character of Patty, the whole message of the film would be in jeopardy. It's unfortunate that Melissa doesn't still act in films today, as her performance in \"Broken Promise\" shows her to have had exceptional talent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie, when it first came out. Patty didn't want to be separated from her siblings. However the Juvenile Justice system don't care. When Patty looked at the case file, the judge sent her to a Juvenile detention facility. He claimed she violated the rules of privacy, by looking at private files. She just wanted her family together. I couldn't blame her. The parents were not even fit parents. One of the smaller children had to have a restroom. The father stopped and let them off. He drove off him and left the children stranded, at the service station. Patty had to take authority to protect them, since she was the oldest. They were placed in foster homes. The good part is that the social worker got them back as a family. The head social worker, kept telling him to butt out and not interfere. He was power crazy. He was the one, who had Patty placed in the Juvenile facility. Why didn't they go after the Father, who was released from Prison, for abandonment. Yet the children are caught in the middle and made to feel insecure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie from what I remember was such a great movie! I watched it on television when I was 11, and couldn't remember the title of it. If I remember correctly, I do believe that it was a Christmas television movie special. One of my friends at work and I were discussing it several years back, but neither one of us could remember the title. But we did remember almost the entire movie. No one else at work remembered ever seeing it! Thank goodness someone at a TV movie website answered my post! Now I have the fun job of locating a copy of it! It's amazing what you can remember as a child, but this movie definitely remains vividly playing in my head... even after 28 years. And I do believe I only watched it once. Maybe it was because I am the oldest sister in my family, or maybe because I babysat and worked in day care centers, that it stuck with me that long. Regardless of the real reason, it has remained one of the movies that I have been really wanting to watch lately!!! If anyone knows where to watch it online, or has a copy, please let me know. I would so love to see it again!!!! Thanks so much! Seriously, I tried to post this and it says my comment isn't long enough. So, apparently I have to type more, did you know that Melissa Michaelsen is the sister of Peter Billingsley who starred in A Christmas Story? I know I'm not the only fan of this movie, so if anyone has any idea on where to find this I would greatly appreciate it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hello, I was wondering if anyone has a copy of the movie Broken Promise?? I loved this movie growing up and watched it every time it was on. It has been YEARS since I have seen it and would love to get a copy. I have checked all of the internet and have been unable to find it. If anyone has a copy to trade or sell em please email me at NoelGypsy@Yahoo.com... Thank you and have a great night!! Christine --------- The \"broken promise\" was made to eleven-year-old Melissa Michaelsen, whose parents have deserted her and her siblings. Taken in by the County, Michaelsen has had to watch helplessly as her brothers and sisters are split up and farmed out to different families. One of the kids is even institutionalized. Juvenile court officer Chris Sarandon joins Michaelsen in her struggle to reunite her family under one roof. Broken Promise was originally offered as a \"General Foods Golden Showcase\" presentation. It was first telecast May 5, 1981.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie I watched back in 1981 when it came out. Although I missed the first part of the movie what I did see was great. this movie is hard to find but if found you must see. The acting is great. very believable sad movie. If I ever find me a copy I definitely will buy me a copy to treasure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This zany film rivals the Ghost and Mr. Chicken as one of Don Knott's finest film performances. Knotts is an accountant for a Podunk city hall that is good for swindling the citizens. They fire the \"three competent bookkeepers and keep the dumb one\" (Knotts of course is the dumb one). When his garbage collecting cohort accidentally empties the wrong trash can, Knotts finds himself wrapped up in a bizarre trap set by the city council for him. Funny moments in the movie include the Bowling Alley Restroom scene, and the cemetery scene is absolutely hilarious. Typical Knotts, the nervous ninny act is well used, and as usual he is surrounded by lots of crazy character actors from the sixties. Such actors as Frank Welker, and Pitt Herbert add to the mayhem. As one may expect Knotts's armed with a big car, a pretty girl, and no real clue of what he's doing. Fun for anyone, especially nostalgia buffs, but just about anyone will love it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This outing of Knotts includes one of his best sidekicks ever, Frank Welker. Welker makes the film. Knotts and Welker compete for the laughs and both receive plenty. Knotts works for a small \"no where\" town where the city is being run by some of the most ignorant officials. When things go wrong the city fathers, allow Knotts to take the fall. Frank Welker's character befriends Knotts and together they stumble together to clear up the mess and Knott's good name. This film shows the usual Knott's scared to death character that made him famous for years on television and film. This may have been Knotts' last good outing. When you have an extra 90 minutes, get a good old fashioned laugh a great icon, Don Knotts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If folks were really this stupid I could be the SRW - Supreme Ruler of the World. In this one Knotts plays a dimwitted bean counter for some little jerk water town run by a group of crooked simpletons only slightly brighter than he is. When things appear a bit shaky for the crooks they go for a frame-up of the patsy Figg. Plenty of laughs as Knotts does his usual bumbling, stumbling act. I especially appreciated the extension cord scene; asininity at it's highest level.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A sign of what to expect in this film came when I spotted that this was the first (and probably the last) film to have in its credits a \"Vomit Technician\".

In what is a couple of hours of silly gags, hilarious violence and excellent slapstick humour.

This film was just what you'd expect from the Bottom boys, and it is great to see them back in their best form after Rik Mayall's life threatening accident.

Richie (Mayall) and Eddie (Edmondson) are too similar to their Bottom characters, if we can have any criticism at all, and Edmondson does a surprisingly good job in directing the film also.

This film has already spawned the predictable comparisons to Fawlty Towers that just aren't there, and the Guest House Paradiso itself is hardly Torquay!

Watch out for some excellently crafted dialogue amongst all the violence and mayhem.

If you don't like Bottom you'll probably hate this - but I loved it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this when it first came out, and found it to be a work of some genius; but I must confess I was clearly in the minority at the time.

For me, the progressive lunacy of the proprietors of Guest House Paradiso just gets better and better throughout the film, with one of the most hilarious climaxes to a film ever.

But I wouldn't recommend it to Mother.

Lovers of gross-out comic book style humour will appreciate this movie; there are subtle jokes hidden away, but they are usually quickly flattened by a comedy frying pan. Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson are superb, and the deadpan, unsuspecting guests are also excellent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen - from start to finish it was perfect in timing, atmosphere, punch lines, background music, fighting sequences and every other possible aspect you can think of. To be absolutely honest i find this movie as funny as their (Rik & Ade's) sitcom \"Bottom\" - maybe even funnier. I laughed constantly throughout the whole movie and can only recommend seeing this film... However, if you watch it without knowing (or liking?) the type of comedy Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson has done before, you might not think it's funny at all - but I REALLY can't understand those who dislike it - THIS IS HUMOUR FOLKS!!! (People getting hit with frying pans, guys running around wearing red rubber lingerie, green vomit filling the hallways, guys getting kicked in the b******s and getting candlesticks in the eyes - HOW can this NOT be funny???) 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While possibly the stupidest, most tasteless, and violent slapstick comedy ever made, Guest House is also a very funny one. Don't listen to the critics, they have no sense of humour. While the climax runs out of steam (but not vomit), it's still a funny party movie. Seven candles in the eye out of ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"bottom at its absolute highest perfection. who ever says slap stick comedy is dead and boring is completely wrong. not that this film will only appeal to those who are of a masculine nature. this is another quality British dark comedy with many many jokes not violence related, but it helps if you can let your senses go and laugh at the sheer stupidity of it all.

this is a true example of thriving British ingenuity and homegrown talent hats off to them. on a performance level it reminds me very much of the early works of the marx brothers where the same level of enthusiasm and devotion are present in their acting styles, resulting in a performance where the audience can really engage the innate human desire to see others suffer, yet to be detached and still feel safe, much like the principle many TV chat shows operate on. a truly marvelous bit of manipulation leaving all parties feeling better off.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It may not be Oscar material, however this was a very funny film. I was always a fan of Eddie (Edmondson) & Richie (Mayall). \"Bottom\" & \"Young Ones\" were legendary TV series', and it was about time they made a film. Some of the stuff they get up to is brilliant, from the pencil is the rear-end, to the rubber sex-pants, as well was the infamous line that Richie says when he falls and a candle he is carrying goes into his eye. He says to Eddie \"Candle In The Eye, Candle In The Eye\", and Eddie been the simpleton that he is, sticks the candle he's carrying into his eye. Can't forget when Eddie is on his motorbike, and he needs to urinate.... It was a great comedy, not to be taken seriously at all, but the film lacked with an ridicilous ending.

Overall, a exellent comedy, full of laughs, and lots of fake green vomit. A 9\/10.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't written a review on here in ages but rewatching all of bottom TV show, live shows and this I felt I had to make my views on this movie known! It is, I feel, the perfect comedy movie. It lacks the lovey dovey story lines(I wouldn't really call richies enfatuation with Gina Carbonara love would you? Or him and eddie going up there naked... not love) that make the rest of comedys go from good to crap, it lacks the usual dilemmas that one must overcome in most other comedy movies... unless you count the fact that they poisoned the guests and must escape from the guests green vomit as a dilemma thats similar to other comedy movies..... No, this movie just sets out and succeeds in doing one thing AND ONE thing only: Making one laugh. What does one require from comedy movies? Laughter. This movie just piles on laugh after laugh without stuffing up the laughs with serious crap like other comedy movies! Thus I call it the, so far, only perfect comedy movie ever made and I will never ever stop watching this beautiful movie! I appluad rick and ade on such fantastic genius!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first bottom movie was an absolute laugh from the beginning. Excellently made and thought out. I will definitely take my hat off to the production team and the actors. The Bottom actors attempt to run a hotel. If you look closely this film was most probably shot in the Isle Of Wight, near my home.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film had some very funny moments. The aforementioned feeb sketch for starters.

The parts where Rik tries to act dignified in front of his guests, looking down at them through his nose. Very subtly done, especially as the guest was a toffee nosed adulterer himself.

The scene where Rik finds out that Gina has a fianc\u00e9, \"Ahhh. She was stringing me along all the time, the brazen hussy.\" with his 2 candle eyes. Like as if she really fancied him. But he believed it. That's why it was so funny. Great moment.

Gino was also excellent. He should have been used more as the bad man. \"Where are the whores I ordered!\" he bellows. Brilliant stuff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why did I vote 10\/10 for this movie that is just completely off guts*? Quite simply because if you just let yourself find it funny, you can just laugh until you choke. Some people might find that it goes too far, it is certainly not for everyone, but whenever I'm down and just need something really really stupid to laugh at, chuck on Bottom or GHP and I can forget all of my troubles and be transported into a magical dark and weird world.

*\"completely off guts\" is an Australian expression, it has no literal translation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"and I for one think that is a good thing. I've just never been a Rosalind Russell fan although the original was my favorite RR movie. But I love Bette and was thrilled to hear she was making this.

As for the rest of the production, I think it was slightly less than the original movie. One of my favorite minor characters in the original was Mazeppa with her scratchy fingernails-on-the-blackboard voice belting out \"HEY! It takes a lot more than no talent to be a strippah!\" and although I missed it, I was glad to see the producers had the guts not to do a carbon copy.

I also liked the fact there are large portions of this movie which were filmed as if you are looking at a stage, it gives a feeling that you are in the theatre, not just at the movies.

I think the other thing I liked about this production was that there seemed to be slightly less repetition of the song \"Let me entertain you\", which becomes completely annoying after about the 5th time you hear it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not a big fan of movie musicals. \"Annie\" was a stage show I loved but the movie was a flop. The \"Phantom Of The Opera movies\" (and I believe there were three) failed to match the Weber staging. But I LOVED this. The DVD will take a place of honour among my \"keepers.\" Even though it's a movie adaptation, it somehow captures the flavour and the atmosphere of live theatre. Bette Midler, always a treat, is just exceptional in this role. There's great music, lots of laughs and even a tear or two. I've seen most of the big musicals of the eighties and nineties. Somehow I missed this one so there's no comparison to make. But if it gets revived I shall be first in line for tickets! But this movie is so good, I'll be in the odd position of wondering if the stage production will measure up to the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*The whereabouts of Al Capone

*Who shot JFK?

*Cynthia Gibb lands the part of \"Gypsy\" in the TV remake

These are some of the great unsolved mysteries of the 20th century. How else can I say it, except, I thought she was unredeemingly awful. Mannequin mannerisms, poor reactionary acting (ie: that blank, stoic stare while he co-star in the scene speaks)and a singing voice that most voice coaches would rate \"mediocre\". But she is stunningly gorgeous and after all, wasn't that what the Gypsy character is all about? Cashing in on her looks cuz' she didn't cut the mustard in the talent department?

As for the rest... Bette is fantastic. Whether or not she's playing herself or playing Mama Rose, it works either way, and I for one thought Rosalind Russell was as exciting as drywall in the original. Peter Riegart as \"Herbie\" is the perfect understated foil to Bette's over-the-top Mama, and he's the medium-temperature porridge between Midler's hot dish and Gibb's stone cold mush. Riegart is juuuust right.

One final holler to the man responsible for decades to come of Cher jokes: Bob Mackie. Drag queens would kill for the glitz and glamour on display here. Everything's coming up sequins and bugle beads!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After clocking up five seasons on the small screen from 1976-79, 'George & Mildred' transferred themselves to the big screen in mid 1980. Instead of Johnnie Mortimer and Brian Cooke retaining their roles as writers, Dick Sharples was brought on board as the writer. Sadly, this film adaption just did not seem to hit the spot with the public. Shame. I liked it, better than the series itself in fact. It was a guilty pleasure.

'Mildred Roper' (Yootha Joyce) is keen to ascertain whether or not her slovenly husband 'George' (Brian Murphy) has remembered their wedding anniversary. Obviously, he hasn't, but to try and convince his wife otherwise he books a table at the restaurant where he proposed marriage to Mildred several years ago.

Upon arriving at the restaurant, they find out that the place has changed hands. Eventually seeing through George's lies, Mildred insists that they celebrate their anniversary at a swanky hotel. Upon arriving at the hotel, George is mistaken by crook 'Harry Pinto' (Stratford Johns) for a ruthless hit-man, who wants a rival to be exterminated!

Not an outstanding comedy as such but a good natured piece of fun all the same. Plans to revive the series after the film's showing were sadly terminated when Yootha Joyce died on 24th August 1980 of alcohol poisoning.

Funniest moment- George talking to his favourite garden gnome. His neighbour, Tristram creeps up behind him and says ''I think its time we had a chat''. George, thinking it has developed the power of speech, drops the gnome in shock!

Merry Christmas to fellow IMDb users, in particular 'AdamFontaine', 'Cyril Blake' and 'TheLittleSongBird'. Have a good one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Swift's writing really has more in common with Kafka and Orwell than with fantasy-adventure writers, so it's curious that Gulliver's Travels has been deemed a children's novel. Lucky kiddies!

The same applies to this movie. There have been some really awful versions of this story, which must be why people are reluctant to look at this version. I mean, it's a TV-movie and it comes from muppetteer Jim Henson, so how should we expect anything but cuteness?

Look again - beauty turns up in the oddest places. Children love this movie enough to sit through all three hours of it, but it also takes the time to get Swift's dark vision right. I hate special effects, but here they are used to carry the story forward instead of just dazzling us. Please note that the producers took the trouble to recruit classical actors like John Gielgud and Peter O'Toole who perform their eccentric roles with perfection.

Dramatically, the romance between Gulliver and Glumdalclitch is rendered touching and poignant, as well as funny (she's a little girl, but twenty times his size). The frame-story has a theme about absent fathers that many children will relate to. And the part about Gulliver in the asylum introduces an element of horror dealing with the abuse of authority (apparently deriving from Val Lewton's \"Bedlam\" [1946], another forgotten masterpiece).

The VHS is always turning up in the bargain-bin for a few cents, which is an insult to the many great artists who put this thing together. I encourage audiences to recognize a good thing by getting this movie and inspiring others to watch it. Although it has a lot to offer children, grown-ups will find that it stands up nicely to such classics as Aguirre, Brazil, 1984 and other serious fantastic works.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is wonderful example of the quality dramas that Channel 4 and the BBC have produced over the years. Ted Danson delivers a powerful performance of a man tormented by memories noone will accept, and a society that believes he is insane. It is a remarkable performance by a man most known for his role in Cheers, a TV comedy sitcom. The supporting cast are all very well chosen, not least Mary Steenbergen, Danson's wife, who acts the part of Gulliver's wife in the film. But above all it is the seamless and very delicate shifts between our world and Gulliver's world that make this film. The difference in perspective between giants and midgets, all acted by real actors is beautifully captured. A rare treat of cinematography and direction.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We all know bits and pieces of Gulliver's travels. Tiny people, yeah, sure. Liliputians. Giants too, some of us may recall. Some might remember the word yahoo comes from here. That's were it stops for most people.

Swift's book is omnipresent in school libraries. That's were i first read it, and there's were a lot of people read it for the last time. It is treacherously lightly written, like many of the old adventure books. Children can read it. Still, it's dripping with satire, black and uncompromising. That's something I think most screen writers forget when they adapt this movie.

This movie remembers, however. Our hero, Ted Danson, gives a credible and serious performance as the world-adjusted man who's thrown to mysterious countries so like our own. Gulliver's travels criticizes everything. Theists, scientists, government, commonfolk, ethnicity, humanity itself. Few are spared, and most of the satire is just as fresh today.

While very faithful to the story, the movie also dares adding new angles, all which work very well. The screen writer deserves all credit for managing to balance so well between time and activity(it's not boring, that is).

Production values are way beyond a TV movie. With some marketing this movie would have done well at the box office. All of the fantastic worlds Gulliver visits are well-made, explained in detail and often very funny, much like Swift's book.

Actors are all pros, since this is a British production. Mary Steenburgen stands out, along with James Fox's Dr. Bates, the chillingly cruel doctor who, much like nurse Ratched, only wants the patient's best.

So, a modest proposal, if you ever get the chance to get this movie, do so. It's a real treat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ted Danson was a great choice to play Gulliver. Even though his background was mostly comedy, he shows here that he can do drama just as well or perhaps even better (though there is a lot of humour in this). Hard to turn a blind eye to his American accent especially since his character is supposed to be English but that's just a minor thing.

All the villains are equally well cast: James Fox, Edward Fox, Peter O'Toole, Warwick Davis, John Standing, etc. Despite the fact that most of them are either tiny people or giants, they are 100% believable in everything they do and their motivations are very clear e.g. the Lilliputians' unremitting suspicion of Gulliver, Grildrig the (giant) dwarf's hatred of him for usurping his position as court jester, Dr. Bates' attempt to have Gulliver proved insane so he can marry Mary.

Mary Steenburgen is great as Mary Gulliver (another 17th Century English character with an American accent but never mind). She is a deeply tormented character because she has been waiting nine years for her husband to return home and when he finally does, he is talking about tiny people, giants, a flying island and talking horses! Mary, despite the strong fantasy element in the story, is a very believable character.

The special effects are breathtaking especially when you consider that it was filmed on a television scale at a time when CGI was in its infancy. It looks very realistic when we see a 6 foot tall man walking through a city filled with people who are 6 inches tall.

The cameos are great as well: Omar Sharif, Richard Wilson, Sir John Gielgud, Kristin Scott Thomas, Ned Beatty. All great actors who create a strong supporting cast that complement Danson's superb acting ability.

The Houynhnhms and the Yahoos are probably the most effective element of the story on the satire side of things: a society of talking horses who do not possess any of the vices that humans have while the Yahoos are primitive, disgusting humans who mate forcefully and appoint their leader depending on how disgusting he is. Gulliver and Mistress' study of them is also very well done and displays the differences and similarities between humans and Yahoos.

The best version of \"Gulliver's Travels\" by far and one of the best mini-series ever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent story-telling and cinematography. Poignant, biting social commentary.

Superb effects. Well-filmed and acted.

However, the parallel action between the present and the travel adventures (though very well done) at times drags on a little too much (about 3 hrs), and over-interrupts the flow of the story.

I first read the book as a child, and enjoyed the parts about the giants and the tiny people -- but the book lost me when it got to the floating island and the land of the \"yahoos\"! Well, although the adventure plot may sound like a children's story, it's in fact a very adult story, full of symbolism about the moral decay in England at the time of Jonathan Swift, the author of the novel that the film is based upon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this when I was a teen in my last year of Junior High. I was riveted to it! I loved the special effects, the fantastic places and the trial-aspect and flashback method of telling the story.

Several years later I read the book and while it was interesting and I could definitely see what Swift was trying to say, I think that while it's not as perfect as the book for social commentary, as a story the movie is better. It makes more sense to have it be one long adventure than having Gulliver return after each voyage and making a profit by selling the tiny Lilliput sheep or whatever.

It's much more arresting when everyone thinks he's crazy and the sheep DO make a cameo anyway. As a side note, when I saw Laputa I was stunned. It looks very much like the Kingdom of Zeal from the Chrono Trigger video game (1995) that also made me like this mini-series even more.

I saw it again about 4 years ago, and realized that I still enjoyed it just as much. Really high quality stuff and began an excellent run of Sweeps mini-series for NBC who followed it up with the solid Merlin and interesting Alice in Wonderland.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This production was quite well done for a television original, providing a very appropriate original slant on Swift's work. To make the frame story work well the film begins with Gulliver arriving home. Everyone who has read the book knows that will happen anyway. The frame story of the book has Gulliver's crazed confusion in sections. For example, he is horrified that he will trample little people in England because he has just returned from a land of giants. But the film has all the book sections within one long voyage. When Gulliver narrates his travels the editing cuts from England to the travel are very effective. I confess I found them intrusive and irritating at first, then they became natural. By the end, moreover, they have become a welcome addition to the story. As he tells his adventures to a larger and larger audience, more and more people listen to his compelling fantasy even though they doubt its truth. For example, his hatred of filthy Yahoos and admiration of pure logic from the fourth section comes across well when he is defending his own sanity. The intercuts between events in England and similar events or scenes in the tale is very effective. For example, ripping the cloth from the table to suggest the motion of towing a group of ships is inspired filming. The addition of Gulliver's family threatened by the lecherous doctor works well. Swift only hints at this by having the long-suffering wife protest against further voyages. It becomes a natural part of this story. The casting and acting were competent throughout. Some roles were exemplary. Omar Sharif's mad magician is superb. O'Toole's little emperor is doddering delightfully toward senility. Many specific complaints made by other writers here strike me as simple personal preference, which, after all, is what we are about here. I read the abridged version several times a year from fourth grade on. I may have escaped the complete version until a college class but have read it a few times since. And I had to start it again as I began reading about this film. While the Danson version is superior to any previous film, it does not replace the book. However, I think it will bring many readers to the book. If you have not read the book, enjoy this movie then go to the source. If you appreciate the satire in it, find Swift's \"A Modest Proposal\" and his \"Drapier's Letters.\" Both are satires attacking the wretched treatment of Ireland and the Irish during Swift's time. The drapier protests cheap, inflated copper coins being dumped on Ireland. These were Wood's light weight coinage, not good for face value in paying taxes and official debts. The outcry from Swift's satire caused the coins to be sent to another mistreated British territory, the American colonies. The universal satire in Swift's book and this movie just poke fun; they cannot change human nature. Give Danson's torturous experiences a chance. I think you will find them thought provoking and entertaining.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite its many faults, Hallmark's 1995 version of Gulliver's Travels is still the finest adaptation of Jonathan Swift's satirical classic - largely because it not only includes ALL of Gulliver's many travels but also includes the satire that's often overlooked. Unfortunately the twin problems of the book's highly episodic structure and a television budget (even a fairly lavish one) remain. The book is a somewhat rambling collection of traveller's tales moving simply from one surreal landscape to another, but Simon Moore's adaptation tries to impose some order on the chaos by providing a parallel plot that sees Gulliver returned to England clearly deeply traumatised and trying to prove his way out of the insane asylum where the rival for his wife's affections has had him committed. The England scenes at once mirror and comment on the travels, elements of which occasionally spill over into the real world. The trouble is that for the first hour or so it acts more as a distraction, constantly pulling you away from the story just as it starts to get interesting. The Lilliput scenes suffer worse here, with the feeling that the home scenes are too often designed to save them from filming the more expensive setpieces - this has to be the only version where we don't see Gulliver pulling the Blefescu fleet behind him.

Yet once Gulliver makes his escape, the tone becomes more consistent as he finds his situation reversed and himself the pet of the giants of the Utopians of Brobdingnag, a guest of the wise men of the floating island of Laputa who are so engrossed in science that they have no common sense left, the guest\/prisoner of a historian who leans history directly from the source, offered immortality with all it's terrible consequences before finally finding a world he wants to belong if only he can convince the sublime talking horses the Houynhnhms that he's not an uncivilized Yahoo, each new destination convincing him of what an absurd and petty species humanity is. For the most part it's a darker set of Travels than expected, with only Gulliver's curiosity and commonsense and disappointment keeping it from plunging into irretrievable bleakness - and even this is offset by the scenes in the asylum where it becomes more obvious that even if he is telling the truth it may well have driven him genuinely insane. It's in these latter scenes that Ted Danson's Gulliver really shines, never more so than in an extraordinary speech where he turns his trial into a disappointed judgment on the whole human race.

Being made for television, the Yahoos are rather less literally scatological here than on the page, but for the most part this is a more adult treatment than you might expect with no real dumbing down. The star cast is certainly impressive, and for the most part well-used (if somewhat briefly in a few cases) - Mary Steenburgen, James Fox, Peter O'Toole, Edward Woodward, Omar Sharif, Shashi Kapoor, Edward Fox, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, Kristin Scott Thomas and Isabelle Huppert among them. It's hard to imagine the upcoming Jack Black version even coming close to being a fraction as impressive as this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember when this NBC mini-series aired when I was in high school. After reading the novel, I thought I'd check out some adaptations. Didn't expect much out of a TV mini-series, but now I might have to check out some more. This is actually excellent, and the best possible film version that could be made. Writer Simon Moore, who wrote the teleplay for the original Traffic mini-series, upon which the Soderberg film was based, came up with a brilliant narrative conceit which helps the story flow very smoothly: he frames Gulliver's adventures as flashbacks, with the actual story beginning as Gulliver first returns home (everything having happened on one journey). Gulliver, played by Cheers' Ted Danson, is sort of crazy-seeming when his wife, Mary Steenburgen, welcomes him back into his home. Unfortunately, the house is now owned by the local doctor, James Fox, who has designs on Steenburgen. Gulliver seems merely disturbed at first, but when he starts telling stories of tiny people, that's all the evidence Fox needs to throw him into an insane asylum. All four of Gulliver's travels are related in this version, in the same order as the novel (the only time this has been done on film). I love the way his present situation reflects his flashbacks. Gulliver's small son, whom he has never met before, reminds him of the Lilliputians. The doctors who observe him in his cell from a mezzanine loom above him and remind him of the Brogdingnagians, and the doctors' scientific inquiries remind him of the insane scientific experiments and theories of the Laputans and the professors at the Academy. Finally, when he is put on trial he is reminded of the Houyhnhnms and the Yahoos. The cast of this thing is amazing, and includes Peter O'Toole, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, John Gielgud, Kristin Scott Thomas, Omar Sharif and Warwick Davis. The biggest flaw of the mini-series is that the acting is really uneven. You have all these fine actors, but the lesser characters are often played by actors who were probably fine in episodes of L.A. Law, but don't do well in a costume drama. Ted Danson isn't especially great, although he has a few sequences where he excels. It's probably better that he didn't attempt one, but all the other characters of the film speak in an English accent. Steenburgen is actually pretty good at it, and is quite good overall. Another flaw the series has is that the adventures happen a tad too quickly. It's not believable that Gulliver spent eight years away from home, as is claimed. But, in general, it captures Swift's tone and purpose very well, while, with its structure, adding a new emotional level.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a truly epic production that had all the elements that one would want in a fantasy film. The costuming, the music, the cinematography - all artistic elements of this film were absolutely beautiful and provided a rich experience.

Ted Danson, best know for his TV roles in \"Cheers\" and \"becker,\" was excellent in the role of Gulliver. Mary Steenburgen (Time After Time, Cross Creek) performed equally well in her limited role as his wife.

Other performances I really enjoyed were James Fox as Dr. Bates, Alfre Woodard as the Queen of Brobdingnag, and Peter O'Toole as the Emperor of Lilliput.

This would make an enjoyable children's film, but it also would definitely appeal to adults for it's deep social commentary.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lemuel Gulliver (Ted Danson) is a doctor who goes missing at sea, leaving pregnant wife Mary (Mary Steenburgen) behind. Eight years later, he turns up, disheveled and seemingly mad - babbling about his adventures in the lands of the tiny Lilliputians, the giant Brobdingnags, the floating island of the intellectual Laputa, and the Houyhnhnms, a race of intelligent, talking horses who have to deal with the Yahoos - a race of bestial humans - among many other adventures. The not-so-good Dr. Bates (James Fox), who has designs on Lemuel's wife, has Gulliver incarcerated in a mental institution, and Lemuel, Mary, and son Thomas (Tom Sturridge) must find a way to prove his sanity.

A splendid adaptation of Jonathan Swift's satirical novel, this film is a magnificent adaptation on so many levels: the story, the satire, the characters, the visuals, the brilliant cast. It's simply a treat to watch, and it's almost amazing considering that it was a made-for-TV film.

The film does a brilliant job of capturing Swift's vicious satire, which cuts like a hatchet through British society of the time, but still resonates today. The wise Brobdingnags and the Houyhnhnms are almost perfect individuals who find it virtually impossible to understand why Gulliver speaks with such pride of the vices and corruptions of his society. The scenes where Gulliver struggles to prove himself different from the Yahoos are perhaps the best, with biting satire in describing how they pick their leaders (\"they seem to pick the worst among them. . . who rules until they find someone even worse\"), go to war (\"We only go to war for a very good reason - such as they are weaker than us, or we want all of their land\"), etc. The scenes involving Laputa are also effectively done - the intellectuals are so wrapped up in their specialized fields that they have no time for anything else, and really possess little common sense. And the addition of the asylum plot line enhances the story greatly - Dr. Bates is truly nasty character, and when he gives a speech to the inquiry on Gulliver's alleged vices, it's quite clear that he's describing his own faults.

The film makes use of beautiful, and fairly convincing CGI effects depicting the very diverse settings of the novel with great effect. The contrast of sizes is done in a very skillful way, and all of the worlds depicted in the story are convincing in their own way. The cinematography (particularly that concerning the asylum) and the costumes are brilliantly done. The editing of the present with Lemuel's memories is a device which could be awkward, but works very well.

The cast is truly wonderful; a veritable who's-who of British and American talent. Ted Danson gives an excellent, multi-layered performance as Gulliver, showing effectively his transformation from a person bewildered by his strange surroundings, to the lunatic state he was in when he reappears, to his rational, intellectual personality at the end. Most well-known for his work on sit-com, Danson shows that he's more than just Sam Malone with this wonderful serio-comic performance. Mary Steenburgen is effective as his wife, and James Fox is absolutely repulsive as Bates. The rest of the cast is made up mostly of cameos, with Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Warwick Davis, Kristin Scott Thomas, Geraldine Chaplin, Alfre Woodward, Edward Fox, and Sir John Gielgud being the most memorable - but even the smallest parts are very well-played.

While not 100% faithful to the book, \"Gulliver's Travels\" is a triumph of story and images. It's not to be missed.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gulliver's Travels is, at the beginning, a satiric novel written by a great misanthropist called Jonathan Swift. So it is not recommended to judge of this movie, just by itself. We must go deeper into Man's conscience to get to the point where Swift would have lead us. Gulliver has lived a voyage of truthfulness, of solitude, of apprehension of what may be his true life. We cannot just sit and watch that movie, saying it is so cutie or so boring. The matter is far beyond that and I would like everyone to expect that. This is the greatest movie ever, as far as you can feel the truths that emerge from Ted Danson's character: the unforgettable Lemuel Gulliver.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Swift's socialism and pacifism come through against all odds in this well done remake. (Did you know there is no hyphen after \"well\"? Fact.) He meets warlike miniatures, socialist giants, head-in-the-clouds (literally) philosophers, and pacifist horses who rule over Yahoos -- nearly neanderthal humanoids. (Is that where \"yahoo\" came from?) We also meet the dastardly Dr. Bates, the devoted Mary Gulliver, the sweet and devoted son Thomas, and the full cast of a truly horrific 19th century lunatic asylum. Suspension of disbelief comes easily, and our 7- and 12-year-old girls enjoyed it as much as my husband and I did. (Sorry for the length, IMDb requires 10 lines.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At first i didn't like they way the director was constantly switching from the past (gulliver's travels) to the present (gulliver in the insane asylum). But it really is the best way to film the story even though it took some getting used to. Danson is outstanding as the title character and edward fox makes a wonderful villain. Worst part is mary steenburgen as gulliver's wife. She never has been Hollywood gorgeous and in this film they make her look downright dowdy for some reason. I'll never understand why directors make a woman ugly when it adds nothing to the story! Plus you want to strangle her for being so damn stupid in believing the lies bad guy Bates keeps telling her. Even her son can see thru the bastard. Still a good show and i rate it B+.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This version of the Gulliver stories is definitely bizarre. The production adds a frame story (that's what it's becoming famous for) of Gulliver returning to his wife and son. In one vieweing, incredibly overlong and sometimes fails to hold attention throughout, but the odd images and diverse cast will keep you looking. Mary Steenburgen does the best job of the cast. Danson seems a bit out of place with his American accent. The whole asylum thing is awfully disturbing often, but is nonetheless interesting and holds the journeys of Gulliver together well. Danson's character really does seem insane, however... he should have worked on being a little more believeable to everyone, in my opinion. Also confusing is going from present to past. Anyone else think the Yahoos are the ugliest things ever to grace a television screen (or in line for it)? Confusing, sometimes boring, but still highlighted by some good acting, overall wonderful visual effects, and a few enjoyable parts. NBC's first of many event films from Robert Halmi, Sr. See it for yourself to decide how it goes for you, however I give it * * * 1\/2 (out of 5 stars).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I guess I have to write something here, although I think my one summary says it all. I'm not a huge Ted Danson fan... nothing against the man, just hasn't \"done it\" for me. This covers the sides of Swift's novel that were never covered before. You can tell the cast was having a wonderful time filming this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

This film has some really impressive action scenes. The humor and action are blended well, though the intensity of the film does not sustain itself till the end. The last scene is a slight anti-climax in terms of action quality and astonishing explosiveness of the scenes preceding it. The humor doesn't seem to be so ridiculously clumsy as in many other Hongkong movies, and this film is of totally other class than most American action-comedies of recent years. Lau Ching-Wan acts as a typical, intuitive police-hero who scoffs at invalid orders from incompetent police superiors. The dialectic of the film is built on the superhuman coolness and ruthlessness of the drug gang, humiliating the police force while providing a serious dose of lead poisoning with a variety of machine guns. Leaving plenty of corpses in it's wake. Yu Rong-Guang is especially impressive as an ultra cool, merciless gangster in this Woo-like piece of action where tough guys are truly die-hard.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm slowly ploughing through as many Hong Kong action films as I can get my hands on and came across this gem - mainly due to Ching Wan Lau who is one of my favourite actors.

Its a great action film although not as OTT as the title might suggest. It moves along at a great pace and is truly enjoyable.

The biggest surprise of this film was the soundtrack. It would appear that Rob Dougan - the guy who did the 'Clubbed To Death' song which was popular in 'The Matrix' has lifted the soundtrack from Big Bullet and compiled it into one of the tracks on his 'Furious Angels' album; the tune in question is called 'Im not driving anymore' and is also the opening tune for the TV series 'Law and Order' AND the opening track on the 'Matrix Reloaded' DVD menu teaser! That really surprised me, due to the sheer conincidence!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the two Best Films of the year. A well filmed, well written, well put together film with an outstanding cast. Lau Ching Wan and his friends (Dayo Wong Chi Wa, Anthony Wong Chau Sun, Francis Ng Chun Yu, Jordan Chan Siu Chun, Cheung Man Tat) had great chemistry before the film and their friendship shows in their performances. Theresa Lee plays her comedic role well (Though much like a female version of Michael Wong, her gag seems to be the foreign born Chinese surrounded by native HKers.), and I found myself cheering for innovative explosive scenes, something I haven't done since 1. the fan boys took over alt.asian-movies and 2. John woo's Hardboiled. Sure the ending was expected, but I feel better cheering for cops than a bunch of young gang members. Highly enjoyable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Romuald et Juliette is one of those French romantic comedies where they seem to break all the rules, rather like Trop Belle Pour Toi. The gorgeous Daniel Auteuil learns about true loyalty and love when his life threatens to crash around his ears. The film isn't a preachy morality tale, but a wonderful story that will keep you hooked until the last. Firmine Richard (as Juliette) is a heroine that women will cheer - her laughter is my abiding memory of this warm and witty film. The down-to-earth way she has of including all her children by their different fathers - particularly the birthdays - gives the film an edge that lifts it above your average romantic comedy. But its always the French that seem to show us how effortless this all is!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a hard-to-find gem! It is the story of Juliette, a perfectly ordinary cleaning woman who works in the large corporate office of a yogurt company, and Romuald, the president of same. He takes no notice of her, he takes no notice of anyone until several plots to wrest his company away from him all hit at the same time. He is lost, no one to turn to and no one to trust when he discovers Juliette. As the cleaning woman, no one pays any attention to her, so they say and do incriminating things in front of her that she is smart enough to catch on to and use to help her helpless and hapless boss. The complications are wild, she is not so ordinary as she seems with five children from five different ex-husbands who are all still madly in love with her, and he is not so shrewd as he thinks he is. This movie doesn't follow a predictable path and that's what keeps you watching. The acting is superb and there are some very moving moments along the way as well. The working class displays more savvy than those above them, almost in the same way \"Gosford Park\" showed the upper crust is not all it's cracked up to be mentally. I recommend this movie very much. See it! 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie came out about the same time as Pretty Woman. While the general theme is the same: wealthy man meets and learns to love a poor working class woman, the characters of Romuald and Juliette are much more lovable and worthy of our time with them. I have never forgotten them and consider the movie superior to Pretty woman in so many ways. Juliette is a remarkable woman and the clever ways she helps her boss overcome his problems will make you cheer. The final scenes contain some of the most memorable lines in romantic comedy. The efforts Romuald makes to win the love of Juliette surpass the puny climbing scene of Pretty Woman a hundred times over. See this movie, it will warm your heart.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love foreign films and this is among the best. I tend to not see this as a comedy as it is listed and find it a commentary on how we see others around us. Firmine the lead in the film is not regarded must as she is a domestic in a large firm and people say and do things around her all the time that they otherwise would not say in front of others.

This leaves her with a bevy of information that can make or break the mere mortal. :) This actress is wonderful as this character and it is a poignant tale. There is an underlying tale and almost many stories within the story in this film. I just hope that if someone does decide to make an American\/English version of this film it is not the vein of Three Men and a Baby that would definitely do a disservice to this FILM, A must see.....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time! The director did a wonderful job showing the contrasts between social classes, a situation that is very pertinent in France today. All the characters are lovable, especially Juliette and her family. The development of the romance is, while not entirely realistic, at least plausible, and does a wonderful job showing how much people will change for love. I found this to be a heart-warming Cinderella story - but one in which Cinderella is a powerful woman in and of herself. I laughed through this entire film, and absolutely loved it. I recommend Romuald et Juliette to anyone who enjoys unique characters, comedy, and nontraditional romance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i was glad that this movie did without all the supposed depth of all too many pseudo-serious interracial movies. race was one issue, yes, but so was class...and loyalty...and honesty, etc.

i also loved the idea that the love affair wasn't couched solely in the 'decorative' aspects of either character's appearance. aren't our divorce courts (on both sides of the Atlantic, i daresay!) filled now with enough couples who thought 'looking good. together.' is all it takes to make a solid marriage? in any case, the tenderness and sensuality of both characters was thick enough to cut in love scenes that would have brought a rainbow to any dreary day! in other words, a light-hearted movie that's by no means a light-weight!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would not compare it to Le Placard, which IMHO had more comic moments, but Romuald & Juliette while being a slow starter certainly kept your attention going throughout the film, nicely paced and reaching a heart warming conclusion :) There were many marvellous comedic moments, some brilliant pathos and realistic situation acting by all actors.

It was a typically French film, in which while confronting prejudices and phobias, which in turn the made the viewer confront his own shortcomings! I am certainly pleased to have this in my library, and will no doubt watch it time and time again, which to me is a mark of a great film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a gem! It is the story of Juliette, a perfectly ordinary cleaning woman who works in the large corporate office of a yogurt company, and Romuald, the president of same. He takes no notice of her, he takes no notice of anyone until several plots to wrest his company away from him all hit at the same time. He is lost, no one to turn to and no one to trust when he discovers Juliette. As the cleaning woman, no one pays any attention to her, so they say and do incriminating things in front of her that she is smart enough to catch on to and use to help her helpless and hapless boss.

I have been keeping an eye out for years for the DVD of this and to see a previous comment about it being released in Sep 2007 raised my hopes. Alas, I cannot find a DVD, does anyone know if there is\/was one?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favourite films; a delightful comedy; so I was thrilled to learn it is about to be released on DVD in the UK, September 2007.

Romuald, played by Daniel Auteuil is a rich company president of a dairy firm. Juliette, played by the excellent Firmine Richard, is a cleaner of the company's Paris offices.Juliette, a black mother of several children, discovers a plot against Romuald who initially ignores her attempts to warn him. Slowly he grasps what this charming lady from the Parisian underclass has been trying to tell him. 'he seeks shelter in her crowded apartment as his marriage and career fall apart. An unlikely love blossoms. Cultures clash in what is a truly delightful light-hearted comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the Belarus of 1942, two Soviet soldiers are captured by Nazi-friendly Belarusians. In captivity, the attitude of the two men toward their fate differs greatly. One of the soldiers manages to find an inner strength and spirituality, incomprehensible to the other man. Larisa Shepitko's last film is one of the most beautiful war films in cinema history. The cinematography, by Vladimir Chuchnov, is incredible - particularly in the opening sequence, where long, slow, tracking shots depicting the solitude and almost desperate nature of winter landscape in rural Belarus set the mood perfectly. It is easy to draw comparison to Tarkovsky's films, even more so since Tarkovsky's alter ego Anatoli Solonitsyn has a small but important part in The Ascent. The acting is overall brilliant, especially by Boris Plotnikov, in the part of Sotnikov. The film reveals an old-fashioned belief in the strength of religious passion, which feels related to characters such as Dostoyevsky's Prince Myshkin, or Tarkovsky's Stalker. However, this is not a weakness of the film, but rather one of its greatest strengths. The religious content seems so honest, and human, that it is impossible not to be moved. The emotional richness of the film cannot be overstated; the answer is not as simplified as a short summary of the plot would make you think. The slow development of the characters, and the emphasis on their complicated relationships to each other, are somewhat reminiscent of The Commissar, another great Soviet film. The Ascent deserves a second watching, as well as a third, and a tenth. It continues to provide interesting ideas, beautiful images, and emotional complexity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A stunningly harrowing account of two soldiers plight in WWII. Set against a freezing backdrop of, not only the fight against the Nazis and traitors in Belorussia, but the harsh natural elements, this film tells a tale of two soldiers of polarized morals, one who survives, but finds it somewhat impossible to deal with his own circumstances, and one who dies, having done all that can be done in the face of intimidation and everything possible to break one's spirit, in fact, the \"ascendant\" of the title. A film that should be seen by all, particularly for the phenomenal performances of the main characters, and shuddering set pieces (the incarceration and hanging scenes, in particular. An absolute must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the very, very few films that are so overwhelming that you are very unlikely to watch it more than once or twice in your lifetime (other examples are Claude Lanzmann's documentary Shoah and Come and See by the director's husband Elem Klimov - which covers much the same unbearable territory but in a very different way).

I suppose this is just as well given the difficulty of ever seeing a print.

Apparently it's extraordinarily overt Christian symbolism and admission that there were active Russian collaborators, ensured that it was hardly ever seen in the USSR - and of course post-soviet Russia has very little interest in films of that era.

The one time I saw it in London was in a festival of Russian movies shown during the Glasnost era (i.e. probably c.1988) - however it apparently has been shown several times in the UK more recently so at least one subtitled print must exist here.

As far as I know it has never been released in the west on DVD or video so if you haven't seen it, your best chance is probably to join a film society and endlessly nag them to find a print and screen it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Larisa Shepitko's THE ASCENT (1976) is an extraordinary, gruelling account of the partisans' fight against the Nazis in German-occupied Belorussia, The Ascent reflects the Russian obsession with the horrors of the Great Patriotic War, but unusually is both steeped in religious symbolism and ready to acknowledge the existence of the less than great Russian collaborator. The true battle is not with the Nazis, who hover in the background as mere extras, but between the Russian Nazi investigator and Sotnikov, the captured partisan who finds the spiritual strength to go to his death unbeaten. With its many references to the Crucifixion, the story takes on heroic proportions glorifying the sufferings of the martyr and his influence on future generations. A remarkable piece of work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shepitko is the wife of Russian filmmaker Elem Klimov, who directed the more commercially known 1984 film COME AND SEE, generally regarded as one of the most realistic war films ever, bar none, notable for its searing poetic intensity, but I believe it lacks the inner complexity of this even greater Russian film, which examines not just the graphic outer horrors, but she finds truly inspiring images focusing on individuals or small groups of characters that reflect the absolute insanity taking place inside these human beings, the ending of which is simply awe-inspiring. Bullets are flying and bodies are dying in a gun skirmish over the opening credits, where the intensity of the film never lets up throughout the duration, focusing on grim faces, worn out soldiers with next to nothing to eat, a terrified population under occupation, starving children with petrified mothers, all cast in an immense landscape of endless white snow. Like CRANES ARE FLYING (1957), this features a Russian army in retreat, a traumatizing shock early in the war when they were nearly wiped out. The Russian countryside has been overrun by German Nazi's who are terrorizing the citizens, stealing what food they have, forcing them under duress to become their informant eyes and ears. What Russian soldiers are left hide under cover of forests, but are forced to send food expeditions to neighboring farms. This film follows two soldiers that from the outset are on a near impossible mission, as there's little food left anywhere in the dead of winter. One is healthy and fit, Vladimir Gostyukhin as Rybak, while the other, Boris Plotnikov as Sotnikov, is slowed down by a tubercular sounding cough and eventually a bullet in his leg that nearly leaves him for dead, but his partner heroically rescues him. As they step through knee deep snow drifts, crawling at some points with insufficient protection against the harsh elements, like so many other Russian films, nature itself becomes their toughest foe.

Spoilers!! Everything is reduced to a matter of survival. When they reach their destination, the farm has been demolished and left in a state of rubble, pushing forward into German occupied territory where the next farm is manned by an elderly Soviet collaborator who fears Nazi retribution. The partisan soldiers think him a coward but move on, where they are eventually captured and brought to a Nazi camp in a nearby town and held as prisoners, along with a proud and protective mother (Lyudmila Polyakova) who helped hide them. Tarkovsky stalwart Anatoli Solonitsyn appears as Portnov the interrogator, a Russian teacher from a nearby academy turned Nazi sympathizer. Russians torturing and executing fellow Russians is the depth of war depravity and Solonitsyn is brilliant in the despicable role he's perfectly suited for. From what we can see, as Nazi officers chat jovially in close proximity to one another, he is an outsider even among this group, seen instead as a kind of gruesome black-cloaked undertaker who routinely sends men to their graves. The audience is not spared from witnessing acts of torture on Sotnikov, who offers nothing but contempt, while Rybak speaks freely, hoping to save his life, but both are condemned to die, though Rybak is offered a chance to serve the German Reich as a police agent. The mother, the elderly collaborator, and a child are added to this group, spending one last night together alive where together they discuss the merits of a soldier's mission, of being a patriot, a mother, a coward, or a collaborator. Each seems individually driven by a desperate need to survive, but Sotnikov offers himself as a selfless example, attempting to confess his guilt to spare the others, where the aptly chosen title reflects his spiritual redemption.

By the next morning, Portnov seems mildly amused, mocking them at their sudden willingness to talk, but spares no one except Rybak, who changes sides to keep his life, rationalizing in his thoughts that if he's alive, at least he has a chance to escape. But there is no escape\u0097not from this torment. What happens is shown with exquisite delicacy and poetic grace, as we witness the treachery of war without a single shot being fired, as the execution by hanging is turned into a public spectacle, where the villagers at the point of a gun are forced to witness. The pace and harrowing intensity of this film is relentless, as there is never a moment without impending menace, gorgeously shot by Vladimir Chukhnov (who died in the same car accident as Shepitko), featuring perfectly composed landscapes and plenty of camera movement, much of it at close range using portraitures, especially that of a fierce young boy at the end who eyes the condemned men, who makes a surreal connection to the next generation without any words being spoken, accentuated by the psychologically horrific music of Alfred Shnittke which resembles the transcendent yet furiously disturbing monolith music from Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968). The sound design of this film is highly advanced and uniquely modern, where the use of off screen sound continually exposes the raw nerves of each moment, dogs barking, wind blowing, bullets firing, nearby Nazi's chattering in untranslated German or laughing sadistically at their helplessness, which only ratchets up the hideous tension to insane heights. In many ways resembling Dreyer's THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC (1928), utter insanity is exposed here, the relentless realization that you have no choice, yet you are forced to make one anyway. The nightmarish inner thoughts at the end are expressed wordlessly, where the nobility of the dead speaks volumes, where voices continue to reverberate inside the heads of the living like an explosion of neverending echoes, yet only silence fills the crisp wintry air with a mournful reverence and a profound sense of loss.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having just seen this, I find it hard to believe that it is not better known. This and the slightly-better-known, but almost-as-shamefully-neglected COME AND SEE (Klimov, 1986) must be two of the greatest war films. They are meaningful, powerful, incisive. THE ASCENT is also gifted with a sparingly-used, but brilliantly trenchant score by Schnittke.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even if Voskhozhdeniye was your favorite film it would only be possible to watch it, at most, every ten years. Its just too emotionally strenuous.Widely regarded as Shepitko's finest film, THE ASCENT is the story of partisans operating in the Byelorussian forest in the dead of winter in German occupied Soviet Union.

While assaulting the audience with the sheer physicality of the wartime experience, particularly the privations of cold and snow, the actual struggle for survival against both nature and the fascists, there is always a subtle, barely inferred sub-text of moral judgment and the question about whether a man can be moral or immoral in one context but otherwise in another.

A partisan group hiding in the woods is attacked by a German patrol and loses their food supplies. Two men, Rybak, who knows the area, and Sotnikov, a Jewish schoolteacher, are assigned the task of going to a small village for food. They find the village burnt to the ground with nothing edible and nothing more than charred timbers and foundations in which in one cubby hole there's a children's mirror hidden. The overwhelming feeling is that whoever brings the brutality of war to a land and a people become truly cursed. I thought of the war that the Americans and British brought to Iraq and about how bringing the horrors of war to people is the act of a degenerate nation.

The two move on to a nearby larger village where they obtain, under duress, a lamb from the collaborator headman. The German's arrive and the two partisans escape under fire. Sotnikov is hit in his foot and holds off the German's as Rybak gets away with the lamb. Sotnikov becomes so desperate that prepared not to be taken alive he removes his boot in order to put a bullet into his head. Just then Rybak returns and drags Sotnikov out of the line of fire.

Rybak drags Sotnikov through the forest, bloody meter by meter all done in one long take. Each meter is an agony and yet he still pulls him through deep snow, up ridges, across depressions, over black bush stumps which crack as they snap under the weight of the men. There are several similarities to the cinematic vocabulary of Tarkowsky here - the long takes documenting a process, the effect of using repetition, and the resulting emotional stress which builds the longer the shot goes on. In the background, unnoticed because of the action, there hangs a question- did Rybak commit an immoral act by going back for Sotnikov? Whether under the moral standards of Marxist-Leninism or merely the common imperative of the survival of the group, wasn't his duty to get the food back to his starving band and leave Sotnikov to cover his escape? To sacrifice one man in order for the group to survive? Which leads to the question - Can a man who is immoral under one philosophical system be expected to be moral under a different moral system? The partisans come as if another curse of war to a farm house containing a woman with three small children. She is embittered by the scourge of war and barely hanging on with her three children. They are barely rested when more Germans show up. They make their way to leave and are directed to the loft to hide.

Sotnikov's cough gives them away. When a German pops his head in to have a look and no one responds he threatens to fire across the loft and Rybak's nerves break and they are captured. Now who has the moral responsibility here? Sotnikov for coughing or Rybek for cracking? The two partisans and the mother are trussed up and taken to a nearby town passing ominously under a wrought iron arch at the entrance. They find the headman and a small girl already in custody. They are interrogated by a turncoat Byelorussian played by Tarkowsky favorite Anatoli Solonitsyn. Sotnikov keeps his head during interrogation and torture and only asks what the interrogator's prewar profession was? He doesn't answer but from his ease standing behind a desk the likely answer was 'schoolteacher'.

Rybak on the other hand begs for his life and even offers to join the police. The previously unnoticed character defect, making a 'wrong' moral decision, the ambiguity (sentimentality) of which disguised it from judgment, now becomes obvious, unsettling and very ugly.

The five sit in a dark cell. They are all scheduled to die the next day. From here the elements of a Christian parable become stronger. Genuine Rembrandt lighting and compositions are used as other Old Master poses of Christ are represented. He decides he can save everyone if he takes on the guilt for everyone. He must be kept alive until morning so he can save everyone. He asks the mother for forgiveness and the headman knowing what is taking place doesn't feel such despair at dying uselessly as he did before.

Morning comes. The Germans don't care if Sotnikov takes on all of the sins of his companions or not. They will all be hung. They trudge up a steeply inclined street which is a virtual Via Dolorosa. A bench is taken up to the site of execution which is the gateway to the town. Five ropes hang from it. The bench only stands three, so Sotnikov stands on a tree stump which Rybak kicks out from under him. They all are hung.

As Rybak descend the road with the Germans, someone in the crowd calls him a Judas, an unnecessary allusion, Shepitko's only misstep. Rybak imagines several times being shot in the back trying to escape, dying an honorable death and tries, unsuccessfully, to hang himself in the shithouse, but leaves with the Germans as the beaten dog he is. However if Rybak was morally right to go back and save Sotnikov's life, is he wrong to try to save his own life?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film many years ago (along with another of Shepitko's films, Wings) as part of a Soviet film series at a local film archive. But none of Shepitko's films, as far as I can tell, have ever made it to video or DVD in the United States. Ascent is a great film by any standard, with stunning black and white photography, hypnotic direction, and actors so deep into their roles that you have no sense of them merely giving a performance. Although the period details of Russian resistance to (and collaboration with) German occupation are very telling, the story is timeless. Two Russian partisans are captured by the Germans, and the interrogation tests their integrity as well as their courage. I suspect the reason why it has not been released on DVD by the Russians (here comes the spoiler) is that the Jewish intellectual (and not the tough Russian peasant) is the partisan who resists both threats and temptation, goes serenely to his death, and sets an heroic example for the villagers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This greatest movie gives us clue to the depth of our souls in most deadly moments of our lives. My heart is shrinking every time I saw the scene of hanging. I have no words any... You must see this brilliant picture.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Ascent (1977)

Larisa Shepitko is a name very few are familiar with. Her bright career as a director only lasted a single decade, ended abruptly by a tragic car accident. Despite her short career, she however managed to create some of the best Soviet films of her time. Her last film, The Ascent, is widely regarded as one of the finest Soviet films of the 1970s. Nevertheless, her work remained in obscurity throughout the years that followed, usually only available on rare and poor copies on video. That has now changed thanks to the folks at Criterion. They've released two of Shepitko's best works through their Eclipse department - Wings, and her penultimate masterpiece The Ascent.

Set during the darkest days of WWII in snowy rural Russia, two partisans trudge their way across the land in search of food after their party is attacked by Nazi patrols. They're originally only to go to a nearby farm, but when they arrive they find it razed by the Germans. Not wanting to return empty handed, they continue on deeper into enemy territory. Along the way they must confront not only enemy soldiers, but the harsh conditions of the Russian plains, potential betrayal and their own souls.

The movie does not fall into simplistic plot devices or destinations. It addresses difficult questions with painful rationality. It never takes the easy road or gives us comforting answers. The second half of the film is filled with moral dilemmas. Shepitko shows us the intimate horrors of war through the internal conflict between fellow Russians - those who collaborated and those who fought back. While she does show the collaborators as the clear heels, she nevertheless also shows why many turned to such tactics - survival.

The film contains a number of religious references, particularly to the lead up to the crucifixion. This is a spiritual journey, into the hearts, souls, and minds of the two partisans and those they encounter. Shepitko and her cinematographer capture the journey in beautiful black and white photography. The camera moves in long shots, similar to the camera-work of another of Russia's greatest filmmakers, Andrei Tarkovsky. Shepitko, like many others, was clearly influenced by Tarkovsky's style, and the Ascent takes some of its rhythmic notes from Ivan's Childhood. It is a stunning film to look at, and does a fantastic job of capturing the cold and terrifying atmosphere of occupied Russia.

Shepitko's husband would pay homage to her great film a decade later. Elem Klimov made his own war masterpiece with one of the greatest films I've ever seen - Come and See. The story and themes of that film were clearly influenced by The Ascent. Though that film is also a fairly obscure one, it received far more attention that any of Shepitko's films. That however acted as a bridge to Shepitko, and has been one of the best helps to keeping her work alive.

The Ascent is a truly magnificent film, and rightly should be considered one of the best films of the 70s. It's stunning cinematography is inspiring; its mood is frighteningly authentic; and its lessons are unforgettable. It is, in any definition of the word, nothing less than a masterpiece. How unfortunate that Shepitko's career was cut short just as it was hitting its peak.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with another reviewer, this is such a shattering film, that will be tough to watch again soon, though for quality alone, it deserves repeated viewing. The complexity of the characters, the incredible cinematography and superb direction make this movie worth the emotional price of watching.

There is one scene, of the two partisans dragging themselves through the snow to escape a patrol, that's perhaps, for sheer physicality, the most amazing performance I've ever seen. In fact, though not episodic -- the story flows -- this is a movie of memorable scenes. There's the passing of rations amongst the partisans, the snow scenes, the ruined farm scene, the encounters in the houses, the interrogation, the \"basement\" scene, the \"ascent\". All stand out like jewels in a necklace.

For me, the religiosity isn't overt. Frankly, I don't think it would have been permitted in a Soviet film. I do see this as an existential parable about the value of life. Here is a tale where the hero -- and he is a true hero -- becomes the villain, and the weaker one becomes the stronger one. Is this a mystical process or one dictated by circumstances? There is a transfiguration, but does it come from within or without? You must see the movie to understand the issues, for they can't be discussed without giving away too much of the story. I can't say enough about the acting. It's hard for me to choose which of the leads is more affecting. I'm not familiar with Soviet film of the 70s and am not familiar with any of the actors, but they are all superb. I also note how director Larisa Shepitko uses children. They remind me of Giotto's child angels.

There is a little muddling in the end. There is apparently a prior relationship between the soldier Sotnikov and the interrogator Portnov, but this is left dangling. And the final scene is a bit ambiguous. But compared to the total experience these are quibbles. This is a movie that will mark you for life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fantastic Russian WWII movie. Like most Russian WWII movies, The Ascent is incredibly harrowing. It's also dense in its symbolism. The story follows two partisans, Sotnikov and Rybak (Boris Plotnikov and Vladimir Gostyukhin), who go on a mission to search for food. On their trip, they are spotted by German soldiers, who wound Sotnikov. Sotnikov, in turn, kills one of the Germans, which leads to trouble for the two partisans and everyone else they later run into. The greatest success of the film is its vivid sense of place. Russia is frozen and snowy, and it's hard not to feel that cold go straight to your own bones. Shepitko keeps her shot close to the characters, examining every crag of their faces. It was probably not the choice, but the film is framed 1.33:1, which gives the film a sense of claustrophobia. While the entire film is quite an achievement, I did feel that the first half was stronger than the second. My main complaint about the movie is that it develops into a very unsubtle Christian allegory by its climax. I just don't think the symbolism adds much to the proceedings, especially when I was already intrigued by the debate between the two partisans. It's not quite fair. I was weighing the pros and cons of their argument. I began to lean toward the point of view of a certain character, and then the director pops up and tells me that he's Judas! Despite some heavy-handedness, this is still a must-see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you have a chance, see this Russian(how should I call them: gems, masterpieces,hidden treasures?), war movies like this one, or The dawns here are quiet, or Proverka na dorogah... And , right after that, watch again the American war movies, or the international productions, those one with the allies and the Germans,etc. Or, even worse, watch the Italian war movies. Everything from the west will seem shallow, contrived, ridiculous, in comparison with the Russian movies. I am sooooo stunned by the quality of the aforementioned Russian war movies that I cannot find the words to praise enough their shattering superiority over Anglo-Saxon war movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It comes as no surprise that Larisa Shepitko was married to Elem Klimov, who would later direct the most harrowing war film ever made, 'Come and See (1985).' 'The Ascent (1977)' \u0096 Shepikto's final completed film before a premature death \u0096 is built in very much the same mould. Set during WWII, the film follows a pair of Soviet partisans who try to secure food for their starving army while evading the occupying German forces. The first forty minutes are agonisingly tense, as the two men drag themselves though the harsh, snow-covered landscape, the world around them completely sapped of life, warmth and colour (indeed, so monotonously drab is the scenery that it literally took me this long to realise that the film was shot in black-and-white).

Following the partisans' capture by German soldiers, the film becomes a cold meditation on loyalty and morality. Whereas Sotnikov (Boris Plotnikov) refuses to betray his army, even under extreme duress, the less resolute Ryback (Vladimir Gostyukhin) attempts to save himself. Is he wrong to do so? Ryback's betrayal is disheartening, but the film doesn't immediately condemn his actions are treacherous; instead, the viewer is forced to consider what their own response might be in such a situation. Shepitko pities Ryback as the Bible pities Judas. Both men betrayed their allies to the enemy, and were forced to watch them executed. However, whereas Judas committed suicide by hanging (at least according to Gospel of Matthew), Ryback finds even that option closed to him \u0096 in an excruciatingly taut climax, the belt around his neck becomes unfastened.

'The Ascent' draws its emotional power from Shepitko's astonishing pursuit of realism. I have no doubt that the two principal actors spent days on end clambering across the snow-covered earth on their hands and knees, and, indeed, so convincing is their misery that I actually developed a cold while watching the film (seriously, I did). Interestingly, the film interjects on this reality on several occasions, as Ryback imagines himself making a bid for freedom, and then being gunned down by his German captors. This device, though unusual, works well with its Biblical allegory; Ryback is facing a trial of his worthiness, and, faced with a new dilemma at every turn, he consistently chooses the selfish alternative, his own life the only deciding criteria. At film's end, he is still alive, but the nightmare of war and guilt persists.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Reading the comments I am struck by the obvious effect this wonderful film has on viewers. But, how can you watch this movie and not reflect that the artful dialog was a subtle and oh so daring rebuke to the authorities \"in control\" in what was then the USSR at that moment in history? It wasn't the souls only in the time and place of the action being revealed. The questions, superficially asked, are nakedly provocative when directed to the here and now. Who are the real \"collaborators\"? I marvel that the writer stayed out of prison. I read somewhere that great stress can be a catalyst for producing great art. This film is a masterpiece of misdirection, apparently pointing one way, while asking the audience to \"look over my shoulder, at what I'm really talking about.\" What courage.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"During World War II, two Byelorussian (Soviet Russian) soldiers try to avoid being captured by occupying Nazis, as they trudge through snowy terrain, searching for food and safety. If you happen not to like black-and-white \"foreign\" films, you may still enjoy \"Voskhozhdeniye\" (retiled in English \"The Ascent\"). Director Larisa Shepitko paces the film extraordinarily well, despite its being a largely introspective piece of work. Her untimely death, in a car accident, made this Ms. Shepitko's final film, unfortunately.

After the opening mission is declared, there doesn't seem to be much that could happen in the snowy woods, but Shepitko and a changing setting make it unexpectedly exciting. Leading players Vladimir Gostyukhin (as the spiritually wounded \"Rybak\") and Boris Plotnikov (as the physically wounded 'Sotnikov\") successfully avoid being crushed by the ever increasing symbolism. Their allegorical performances, under Shepitko's sharp direction, provide a memorable and thought-provoking take on a familiar story.

******** Voskhozhdeniye (4\/2\/77) Larisa Shepitko ~ Vladimir Gostyukhin, Boris Plotnikov, Lyudmila Polyakova, Anatoli Solonitsyn","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I missed the beginning of the film. I came in when the partisan's were in the farm house. I can truthfully say that it was horrifying. The moral ramifications are staggering.

My fear of pain and torture leave me unable to see myself other than cowardly. I see the Christ like ability that was depicted by the brave patriot, and I can only pray that I could or would have the moral turpitude to follow his example.

I see that a main theme of the film is to show the weakness\/strength of the tortured, but what a dismal decision to have to be confronted with. All because the soul of man can be distorted in such a way that, pain and suffering being brought to bear on a fellow human being is in some way satisfying. Be it mental or physical.

I found the film very thought provoking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE ASCENT is a very worthwhile addition to recent re-releases from the Soviet Union. Director Larisa Shepitko's 1977 film examines the moral ramifications of allegiance and honor in German occupied Russia during The Second World War. On foot and in a blizzard, two members of a partisan Soviet group leave to locate supplies, and are captured by Nazi soldiers. The focus of the movie is on how each man handles or internalizes his moral alternatives. One chooses dignity and integrity, while the other opts for collaboration with the enemy. However, in the end, he cannot abide by his selfish decision. The film makes much use of slow, wide-angle pans which shift to extreme closeups, and highlight the spiritual quandary within the souls of each man. This is not a great film, but it does effectively portray an intense moral dilemma against the backdrop of a harsh and frigid Soviet wilderness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many animation buffs consider Wladyslaw Starewicz the great forgotten genius of one special branch of the art, puppet animation, which he invented almost single-handedly . . . and, as it happened, almost accidentally. As a young man Starewicz was more interested in entomology than the cinema, but his unsuccessful attempt to film two stag beetles fighting led to an unexpected breakthrough in film-making when he realized he could simulate movement by manipulating beetle carcasses and photographing them one frame at a time. This discovery led to the production of Starewicz' amazingly elaborate classic short THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE, which he made in Russia in 1912, at a time when motion picture animation of all sorts was in its infancy.

The political tumult of the Russian Revolution caused Starewicz to move to Paris, where one of his first productions-- coincidentally? --was a dark political satire variously known as \"Frogland\" or \"The Frogs Who Wanted a King.\" A strain of black comedy can be found in almost all of Starewicz' films but here it is very dark indeed, aimed more at grown-ups who can appreciate the satirical aspects than children, who would most likely find the climax upsetting. (I'm middle-aged and found it pretty upsetting, myself.) And indeed, prints of the film intended for English-speaking viewers of the 1920s were given title cards filled with puns and quips in order to help soften the sharp sting of the finale.

Our tale is set in a swamp, the Frogland Commonwealth, where the citizens are unhappy with their government and have called a special session to see what they can do to improve matters. They decide to beseech Jupiter for a king. The crowds are impressively animated in this opening sequence-- it couldn't have been easy to make so many frog puppets look alive simultaneously --while Jupiter, for his part, is depicted as a droll white-bearded guy in the clouds who looks like he'd rather be taking a nap. When Jupiter sends them a tree-like god who regards them impassively the frogs decide that this is no improvement and demand a different king. Irritated, Jupiter sends them a stork.

Delighted with this formidable-looking new king who towers above them, the frogs welcome him with a delegation of formally dressed dignitaries. The Mayor steps forward to hand him the key to the Commonwealth as newsreel cameras record the event. To everyone's horror, the stork promptly eats the Mayor and then goes on a merry rampage, swallowing citizens at random. A title card dryly reads: \"News of the king's appetite spreadeth throughout the kingdom.\" When the now-terrified frogs once more beseech Jupiter for help, he loses his temper and showers their community with lightning bolts. The moral of our story, delivered by a hapless frog just before he is eaten, is \"Let well enough alone.\"

Considering the time period when this startling little film was made, and considering the fact that it was made by a Russian \u00e9migr\u00e9 at the height of that beleaguered country's Civil War, it would be easy to see this as a parable about those events. Starewicz may or may not have had Russia's turmoil in mind when he made \"Frogland,\" but whatever prompted his choice of material the film stands as a cautionary tale of universal application. \"Frogland\" could be the Soviet Union, Italy, Germany or Japan in the 1930s, or any country of any era that lets its guard down and is overwhelmed by tyranny. It's a fascinating film, even a charming one in its macabre way, but its message is no joke.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Frogs Who Wanted a King or Frogland is Ladislaw Starewicz's most cautionary tale about people wanting government to solve their problems that I've ever seen. The ironic thing is that they pray to the god Jupiter for their answers. Jupiter responds first by sending a tree stump and then a stork. Neither works out and the stork is especially dangerous to the amphibian creatures! The frogs have some human qualities when we see them dress in the latest fashions of the day and we see some take pictures or use a movie camera when the stork arrives! Like I said, this short is very much a political allegory more suitable for adults than children. In fact, I first saw this on the Rhino VHS that had Bambi Meets Godzilla. That alone should tell you what to expect here!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wladyslaw Starewicz was a Russian-born animator living in France who did incredible things using stop-motion. I've seen a couple of these films before and they feature his favorite subjects--insects, frogs and various animals. They are extremely realistic and lifelike and even today are amazing to watch--the quality is simply fantastic.

This one stars lots and lots of frogs. They appeal to their god, Jupiter, to give them a king. Why do they need a king, wonders Jupiter--their lives are perfectly fine now. So, to teach them a nasty lesson, he makes an Egret the king and one by one it starts eating its subjects! Then, the frogs once again appeal to Jupiter, who states the obvious moral that it's best to be happy with what you have!

While the animation quality is incredible, this is a very creepy film for kids. I would think this would terrify them both by how real the animals look as well as the story itself which is not for the faint of heart!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of Starevich's earliest films made in France is possibly his only political satire. The story of The Frogs Who Wanted A King mirrors its title as a group of high \"croakers\" feel that democracy has gone flat so they demand a king from Jupiter to rule their land. When he sends down a stump, the frogs ask for another king, saying the stump is but \"political timber.\" Jupiter sends down a hungry stork this time whose frog lusty eyes devour the town's residents. As the original \"croaker\" is about to slide down the stork's beak, he speaks his moral: \"let well enough alone.\" This film features a few beautiful crowd scenes of dozens of puppet frogs. Starewicz tricks the audience into believing they are all moving at once by keeping the background in constant motion and animating only about six frogs or so at one time. The slightly corny dialogue and problems with lighting in a few places diminish the quality of repeat viewings, however its historical significance in Starewicz's life make it of importance to watch. His feelings towards government immediately following his flee from Russia are likely expressed in this film. In addition, the technical accomplishments of animating so many characters at once in a stop-motion film is astounding.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent exercise on multiple plans:

- showing the not yet ended colonialism spirit in France

- more generally the boring mindset of superiority from all western people

- a renewal of the spy and thriller movies: OSS 117 is uncultured and stupid!

The good idea is that, in spite of all these messages, it is a funny film, plenty of jokes and gags, very light and sparkling.

Special mention to Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo.

Definitely worth seeing. Wonder how it will be appreciated in US?

Seems to be a success in France, so probably a next version will come.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is probably one of the best French movies I had seen in a very long time! This \"pastiche\" or parody of spy movies is very well made and is going to make you laugh from the beginning to the end. Some references to today's world are very subtle. The whole Maroccan context of the movie is to be understood in light of today's French culture\/environment. That said, all the jokes and - seemingly - shocking remarks that could have been understood as such because of this context, are permitted and accepted because this is a parody.

I was told by my sisters who had already seen this movie that I should go too and assured me that I was going to have a great time, and indeed I had! If you liked the old 007 movies with Sean Connery and also like movies like Airplane or Hot Shots, you will be delighted. I just hope this movie is released on DVD in the US... Wait and see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just saw the movie, it's actually pretty good. The trailers'd left me an impression of either yet another Dujardin one-man-show-turned-film (\u00e0 la _Brice de Nice_) or an expensive, stupid French comedy. Surprisingly, it's neither. Secret agent OSS 117 is stupid, but at least he sort of knows it, whereas I've always found that James Bond was stupid but acted like a smart arse. Dialogue is witty with a lot of tongue-in-cheek humour that one would expect from a British rather than a French movie. The women and the music are beautiful. A refreshing trip into the past, when the bad guys were ex-Nazis or Soviet brutes, cars were shiny, and France had colonies!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seems like M.Hazanavicius is back!The man behind \"la classe am\u00e9ricaine\" comes back with a really fun and clever sequel to those old-fashioned OSS-117...Whereas directors tend to \"over-actualize\" sequels of old classics (remember the avengers,urk), Hazanavicius chose to work on a really cheap hero, OSS-117, a kind of low-budget french 007, and decides to do it in a old-school way...The photography, the body attitudes, the fights choreography and the FX, everything is like an homage to the way films were made back in the 50s.And it works, as the tone and jokes of the movie are really good! Jean Dujardin embodies perfectly this stupid-arrogant-macho-selfish french spy, lost in a country he understands only in terms of folklore and inferiority.Yes, that's it, just the way the occident uses to consider its colonies back then (and, oh no, I won't say it has anything to do with what happens nowadays in the very same area...ah ah)...He just looks like an unfrozen Lino Ventura, with something like 40 pounds less, which is perfect for the role.The other members of the cast fit perfectly as well, with all you can dream of Russian spies, Egyptian independantists and former Nazis.And of course, the women, as there has to be \"femmes fatales\" in any good spy-movies... The plot is good (maybe not brilliant but really good enough...), taking place between actual historical facts, and remembering us in a funny way how France (and the others) treated its colonies back in those days. It all starts in 1955 with a British spy disappearing while tracking a Russian cargo full of weapons in Suez.Then France sends his best friend, agent OSS-117, to discover what happened to both the shipment and the agent... The fact is that this agent is really as dumb as can be, and he slips through the story without even understanding it, solving it in a very clouseau-esquire way. I have to say I had a bad feeling about the movie, as the publicity made around it was quite frightening, and as french humor tends to be quite populist and flat (forget about les bronz\u00e9s 3 or camping...) but I was really surprised, and in the good way! I highly recommend it, whether you want a good parody of Bond-esquire movies (much more fun than in D.E.B.S. for example, but less skirts) or you're a fan of that genuine and candid way of filming they had back in the 5Os. Yes, that's it clever and (really!) funny, you've got the point once again Mr Hazanavicius!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this film last night, and I have to say that I loved every minute. If taken in the spirit of a parody of Bond-esquire films, it's truly superior. The true comedy of the film is in its blatant disregard for political correctness. The misogyny, cultural insensitivity, and almost laughable macho-ism of the films of this genre are used for major comic effect. It also calls the illogic and formulaic elements to task, with Agent OSS 117 constantly learning difficult things insanely quick (such as Arabic and how to play a traditional instrument) while missing some pathetically obvious clues. Some of the lines from the film left me laughing for hours after the movie was finished...and I have to say I have learned some...interesting...French vocabulary that would probably have my Professors quite exasperated with me were I to use. All in all, I thought this film excellent. Intensely funny and the first film I've ever seen that truly parodies all aspects of the spy film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International Film Festival where it ended up as one of the audience favorites. This is a spoof on the french cottage industry of OSS 117 films of the 50's and 60's. The first OSS 117 film based on the novel by Jean Bruce was brought to the screen in 1956, long before the first James Bond film, staring Ivan Desny as Hubert Bonisseur De La Bath and six subsequent action adventure spy films were made up to 1970 with Luc Merenda, Frederick Stafford, Kerwin Matthews and John Gaven all taking turns as Oss 117. Jean Dujardin is in the title role in this comedic take on the series. As the film begins set in 1945 he has a french mustache and resembles Desny but as the film begins it's setting of 1955 he really looks like Sean Connery. Jean Fran\u00e7ois Halim wrote this hilarious screenplay of a spy sent to Egypt to investigate the murder of a friend. It borrows on the silliness of Naked Gun, Get Smart and the Pink Panther and uses fresh humor on current events in a delightful combination that international audiences will enjoy and I am sure this will be the only the first of more to come of a revived OSS 117 reworked to comedy adventures. Michel Hazanavicius directs. I would give this a 7.5 and recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"That's how I'd sum it up! There were other who said, Naked Gun meets James Bond. I think mine is more accurate, but I'm not neutral on that point ... ;o)

This movie is kind of a blast from the past. It reminds you of the old movies (from the '50s & '60s) and that's not only because it plays in that time period (1955 to be exact, with the Flashback exception), but it's the mood the movie is made in and it shows on screen! The main actor here (who is as I've been told very popular in his homeland France), is perfect in his role here. He's the spy with the number 117 attached to him. There is one character who sums him up in the movie, by asking a question, about if he's good or not ... you'll see when you watch the movie!

Very funny indeed this is and if you like your spies mixed with comedy with old school flair, but not taking itself or anything else for that matter seriously, than you need to watch this! :o)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a French, i found it very pleasant to be able to laugh at the old stereotype which is made of French like that, at some defaults of Westerners, at Spy movies etc...and at a lot of other things too, en route... I already saw it 3 times and each time i discovered new things and laughed to tears... Jean Dujardin, B\u00e9r\u00e9nice B\u00e9jo, Aure Atika the director and all the cast, all the crew did a fantastic job. This movie is funny but is although much more than that : it's got plenty of levels to it. You laugh because of simple gags, because of some critics made with wit (the movie's courageous enough to be critical), because of physical comedy, because you believe in the characters etc... Esthetically and musically, it's a success too. Go see it if you can.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jean Dujardin gets Connery's mannerisms down pat: the adjusting the cuff links when entering a club as all the women turn to admire him, the nonchalant straightening and smoothing down of the tie, the swaggering, steely gait. It's uncanny, and you come to realise just how much of Bond in the Sixties was Connery's creation and not really Ian Fleming's character.

The cinematography is a nod to those early films, the movie takes off From Russia With Love and Thunderball mainly. The main joke is how chauvinistic the hero is, not just in terms of sexism but nationalism and colonialism, and how he puts noses out of joint when he is sent to Egypt.

It's not perfect - about 20 mins in it seems a one-joke movie and bits of it remind one of spoofs of the day, of which there were plenty. Morcecambe and Wise's The Intelligence Men had suspect-looking men in fez's following their heroes around too, and that's going back a bit. Unlike Sellers' Clouseau or Baron Cohen's Borat, Dujardin doesn't give his character that layer of realness or genuine pathos - he is too busy perfecting his Connery mannerisms. It doesn't do enough with the credits or a big song, and there's no funny or serious villain, like Mike Myers' Dr Evil or Ricardo Montalban's Naked Gun nemesis, for the hero to go up against.

But the scene where OSS117 wakes up in Cairo one morning had me laughing out loud in the three-quarters empty cinema, and the whole thing looks wonderful, plus you'll never get a chance to see Operation Kid Brother on the screen, and the women are ace crumpet, really hot. It's a Bond spoof without falling into the mad scientist\/Ken Adam sets or funny gadgets routine. Throughly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OSS 117 was fun from start to finish.

It's difficult to define why one film touches or connects with you or not, and I won't try to analyze such perfect comedy, so politically incorrect that even academic papers should be dedicated to it :)!

Everything is old fashioned here, from women's clothes (sigh!), Mambo dance, the \"hero singing\"... (\"Bambino\" sounds like an Italian canzonetta sung in... arabic :)!).

Hubert is physically imposing, but dumb as hell. From all the 007s, he looks like Sean Connery, but is definitely more sympa because he's... silly, speaks his mind all the time, giggles, even has some homoerotic fantasies and there are rumours about him. In short, as an anti hero, he rocks :)! Sometimes he only raises his eyebrows or frowns, and that's all it takes to make you laugh.

B\u00e9r\u00e9nice Bejo is the true queen of the film. Graceful, treacherous but with ideals. Aure Atika, to the contrary, is reduced to a femme fatale of sorts. It's surprising to see her that \"sexy bomb\", thou.

You just can't compare it with \"Austin Powers\"! I agree with Amazon's D. Hartley (Seattle, WA) on it being respectful to the genre.

Which is your favourite scene? One of my favourite scenes is the \"fight of the chickens\" with the masked villain. But the truly perfect one is when chatting at the cocktail with his contacts, how they all mutter platitudes with confidence... This scene alone makes the comedy genre worthwhile.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this film and recommend it to anyone who like a good spy spoof and who thought Johnny English was an embarrassment. This is the film JE should have been. But it's based on an old French films series so it's not really Bond related.

The production is brilliant, you'll almost believe the film was shot back in the 60's. It even has that same pastel kind of colouring films had in those days. Jean Dujardin plays his part with just the right amount of dumbness and naivety, not with ham fisted pantomime silliness like Rowan Atkinson And even if you don't like the film, you will want to see it for Berenice Bejo. Ooh la la! She is the hotness ...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the latest entry in the long series of films with the French agent, O.S.S. 117 (the French answer to James Bond). The series was launched in the early 1950's, and spawned at least eight films (none of which was ever released in the U.S.). 'O.S.S.117:Cairo,Nest Of Spies' is a breezy little comedy that should not...repeat NOT, be taken too seriously. Our protagonist finds himself in the middle of a spy chase in Egypt (with Morroco doing stand in for Egypt) to find out about a long lost friend. What follows is the standard James Bond\/Inspector Cloussou kind of antics. Although our man is something of an overt xenophobe,sexist,homophobe, it's treated as pure farce (as I said, don't take it too seriously). Although there is a bit of rough language & cartoon violence, it's basically okay for older kids (ages 12 & up). As previously stated in the subject line, just sit back,pass the popcorn & just enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw the move while in Paris in May 2006 ... I was debating between that and mission impossible...I am very glad I choose OSS 117 not only because it was funny but might as well watch a FRench movie while in France. I had a great time... would recommend it. It is important to have some understanding the French society of Today to really enjoy the humor of this movie ... cannot wait for the DVD to come out... I don't know how some of the 'jeu De mots' 'puns' would be translated in English I 'll certainly buy it when it is out! P.S. I saw on 'BRice de Nice' which is a movie starring Dujardin that all kids were talking about in France. this movie is a comedy but sillier than one can imagine...in comparing both movies I have to say that Dujardin did a good job in OSS 117.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The two new OSS 117 movies has a kind of humor which is both intelligent and dumbed-down at the same time, which I find extremely amusing. It really reminds me of the classic Pink Panther movies with an almost as good leading man as Peter Sellers in Jean Dujardin. And unlike Steve Martin completely ruining Clouseau, Dujardin is quite brilliant.

The comments regarding the movies' being anti-semitic, are obviously a case of a complete lack of humor and therefor understanding.

Whether you will enjoy or hate this movie really comes down to what kind of humor you have. I can't wait for the sequel!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fans of the Pink Panther, Naked Gun, or Get Smart will certainly enjoy this farce that won one C\u00e9sar and was nominated for four more.

Jean Dujardin is Agent OSS 117, a man who wouldn't know a clue if it hit him upside the head. He is also a reflection of the colonialist attitude indicative of the West.

All of the Russian spies, Nazis, and Muslim radicals around him are just as stupid, but there is Larmina (B\u00e9r\u00e9nice Bejo) and the Princess (Aure Atika) to keep things interesting.

OSS 117's uncanny ability to pick up languages, play musical instruments the first time he picks them up, and sing like a native are all more impressive than Bond's tricks, but he is still stupid.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pretty amusing spoof with great attention to detail re: the look of the 1960s spy films and the way the action was staged back then. The fight sequence in the hotel room was a hoot and the casting was perfect with a Peter Lorre lookalike added to the mix of villains. A big plus: Jean Dujardin is hot and the scene in which he is tied up without a shirt was a highlight. Plus his eyebrows deserve some sort of recognition for doing a great job.

Funny aside: the people behind me in the theater kept gasping after every plot twist as if they were watching a 'real' spy thriller.

Before the movie started, a trailer for \"Get Smart\" was screened. The preview made the movie look embarrassingly bad with lame attempts to incorporate the jokes and gags from the TV series. Looks like a bomb and quite a contrast to the comparatively sublime jokes and gags of OSS 117, though, of course, OSS had its share of misfires. The overall tone of OSS, however, was not an insult to the audience's intelligence, and the material didn't feel as it had been 'dumbed down.' I did get the distinct impression that if I understood the language, I would have caught more of the jokes, and one in particular (the pistol gag) was mishandled in the interpretation for the subtitles.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a deeply stupid humor... but I loved it. Jean Dujardin is a great actor in this movie. B\u00e9r\u00e9nice B\u00e9jo is cute. It makes fun of all the secret agents like James Bond: refreshing!!! It's probably the most hilarious movie I've ever seen. I already saw it three times and I still want to see it again. Buy the DVD as soon as you can. You won't regret it. It's the kind of movie in which you don't need to have a great scenario because it's a parody. The only defect is that OSS 117 is too short. It's a jewel. It's not really frequent to see a french movie get success in the USA but I think that this one has everything to succeed. Trust me!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're going to spoof James Bond it's a brilliant idea to find a leading man who resembles BOTH Sean Connery and Leonard Rossiter so step forward Jean Dujardin who captures perfectly the Connery sneer that masquerades as a smile plus the self-delusion of Rossiter thinking he is suave. Dujardin plays it like a Clouseau who can hold his own at karate. The plot has him looking for Our Man In Schtook who has disappeared mysteriously and includes such improbabilities as a Nazi cell concealed inside a pyramid. If there is a jarring note it is the leading lady, Berenice Bejo who has all the sensuality of a suet pudding and is eclipsed - but only just - by Aure Atika. It's good for one viewing but that's about it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a pleasure. This is really a parody. Only french people can do that kind of thing without being coarse. And as a result, you spend a really good time watching Jean Dujardin playing the dumb. Most of the movie stands on his shoulders, and he has them wide enough to make this movie a good one. He has the perfect way of overdoing the James Bond kind of guy that he is no match for Mike Meyers in Austin Powers for example. The dialogs are also good enough to keep up the attention of the spectator, with a lot of stupid jokes, that's really perfect. Both of the women having the main parts in the movie bear the comparison with the main character, and that was a challenge. There is no really plot in this movie, but that's not what is expected in this kind of movie. You just wish to laugh one hour 40 minutes, and that's precisely what the movie manage to do. It deserves the success it has in France","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must I was a little skeptical when I entered the cinema to watch OSS117 : french comedies tend to be so self-satisfied nowadays that only the most stupid ones score high at the national box-office. But I was surprised that though the humor does not always reach the level of the Monthy Pythons, the many references to the French's vision of the world in the 1950, which OSS117 represents, are hilarious et the director managed to recreate film-making style of that time with an astonishing fidelity. To put it short, a bit of a good surprise, not to mention the excellent performances from various secondary actors. And at least for once, Jean Dujardin's style (which can get on many people's nerves) complies perfectly with the character he plays.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Admittedly, there are some scenes in this movie that seem a little unrealistic. The ravishing woman first panics and then, only a few minutes later, she starts kissing the young lad while the old guy is right next to her. But as the film goes along we learn that she is a little volatile girl (or slut) and that partly explains her behavior. The cinematography of this movie is well done. We get to see the elevator from almost every angle and perspective, and some of those images and scenes really raise the tension. G\u00f6tz George plays his character well, a wannabe hot-shot getting old and being overpowered by young men like the Jaennicke character. Wolfgang Kieling who I admired in Hitchcock's THE TORN CURTAIN delivers a great performance that, although he doesn't say much, he is by far the best actor in this play. One critic complained about how unrealistic the film was and that in a real case of emergency nothing would really happen. But then again, how realistic are films such as Mission impossible or Phone Booth. Given the fact that we are talking about a movie here, and that in a movie you always have to deal with some scenes that aren't very likely to occur in real life, you can still enjoy this movie. It's a lot better than many things that I see on German TV these days and I think that the vintage 80's style added something to this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Psycho criminal pure by Carl Schenkel, who is active in Hollywood, like Mrs Soutendijk. Goetz George and Hannes Jaenicke are stealing the spectator's last peace of snugness. They are too able, how can I get calm into a lift next time ?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was essentially a remake of \"Diagnosis Murder\" minus Victoria Rowell, Scott Baio & Charlie Schlatter. Dick is playing a college professor who teaches Criminology 101 and can't even find his own classroom. Barry is now a private eye, not related to Dick. This lets Barry shoot at guys speeding away from him, which a cop can not do. Barry still gets the girl in the end. Tracey Needham portrays the girl. She is the prime suspect and Dick and Barry believe she's innocent and prove it. That's all the spoiler you get. The ending is sufficiently unexpected that you don't already know it half way through the movie.

Don't take it seriously. Don't critique it. Just sit back and enjoy Dick and Barry Van Dyke.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you enjoyed the TV Series, Diagnosis Murder, you'll love Murder 101. It's great to see Dick Van Dyke in a murder mystery again. If we're lucky, this one will be a start of a TV series or at least series of movies.

This movie definitely had some great and notable actors filling the roles. But, it didn't feel like a \"face\" movie. It was really a story that drew you in making you forget about the fame of those on the screen.

I made a guess as to the ending and was so pleasantly surprised at the end that I had to watch it again! This is a must see for any mystery buff or Dick Van Dyke lover!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have enjoyed both of the Van Dykes over the years and was glad to watch them again.

Just as cute and funny and easy to watch and enjoy.

Dick was good when he was younger but I enjoyed him more as he got older.

Son Berry has been a great one to follow in his fathers footsteps.

Together they make a great team and work well together.

I am disappointed that I have not found another Murder 101 listed anywhere.

I have seen both of the ones that have been shown. I am hoping for more as it is really an enjoyable duo to watch.

You can sure tell Berry follows in his dad footsteps, they talk alike and have the same mannerisms.

Would enjoy anything they do separately.

Will be sure to watch anything they do alone and together.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 2005 edition of the Royal Rumble came live from the Save Mart Centre in Fresno, California. The two top Championships of the WWE were being defended, The Undertaker was battling Heidenreich in a Casket match, Shawn Michaels was taking on Edge in a grudge match that had been building up since last October and of course the every man for himself over the top rope Royal Rumble match itself. Who was going to take the price this year? Chris Benoit? Edge? Eddie Guerrero? Edge? John Cena? Batista? Edge? Shawn Michaels? There was no shortage of contenders.

It was Batista that picked up the popular victory in the main event battle but not without controversy, or should I say, a botched finish. Batista and John Cena were the final two men in the ring. Batista was supposed to dump the young Smackdown! star over the top rope but it all went wrong and they both went toppling to the floor. The referees acted on their feet as we had an arm-raising contest similar to that of Bret hart and Lex Luger back in 1994. This brought out the chairman of the board. Vinnie Mac walked down to the ring the way only he can but injured himself badly getting into the ring. It was unusual to see Vince McMahon sitting, legs out, telling the two men to restart the match. Batista then did was he was supposed to do first time round and dumped Cena to the floor sealing his own future with a Championship match at WrestleMania 21.

The undercard for this years Royal Rumble had a very solid line up, with many of WWE's biggest stars competing in matches. Each brand had two big matches each.

Raw opened the night with the match between Shawn Michaels and Edge. This was a good technical contest. Back and fourth all the way until Edge got the pinfall. This was a smart booking decision and kept Edge as a contender to the World Heavyweight Championship.

The second match of the night was the feud ending Casket match between The Undertaker and Heidenreich. The match was not a classic, but then again have their been any classic Casket matches? It was entertaining. Especially when Snitsky got involved and then Kane popped out the casket to a great pop. The Undertaker surprised no one when he got the win, slamming the lid on Heidenreich and this mediocre feud.

The first of the two Championship matches of the night was John Bradshaw Layfields defence of the WWE Championship in a triple Threat match against both Kurt Angle and the Big Show. This match was very good. Again, not a classic but entertaining none the less. JBL took the win after pinning Kurt Angle. His celebration was short lived however when backstage teddy Long informed him at No Way Out he would defend the WWE Championship in a Barbed Wire Steel cage match against Big Show. Not a very nice way to spend a Sunday night.

And of course there is no show without Punch. Punch of course being reigning World Heavyweight Champion Triple H. His rematch from Unforgiven 2004 with Randy Orton was lot better than the original encounter. It's a pity because they just don't seem to click to well in the ring and this would be an excellent feud if they did. Orton played the concussion role very well and went down in defeat to The Game.

So the first big one of 2005 was a good one. It achieved its goals. Feuds ended and new ones began. We were now officially on the road to WrestleMania 21.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A respectable royal rumble event

1. Edge Vs Shawn Michaels

7.5\/10 A very strong opener...edge's heel performance was sublime as it was during the rumble event ..overall id say EDGES NIGHT....

2. Undertaker Vs Heidenreich CASKET MATCH

7\/10 a lot of people hated this rivalry though i liked it, i thought heidenreich really played his character well. the match wasn't amazing in excitement that was until kane and snitcky get involved .it gets better as it goes on.

3. Kurt Angle Vs Big Show Vs JBL(WWE CHAMP) WWE TITLE MATCH

7.5\/10 a surprisingly good match , as there was only 1 really exciting in ringer in it ..angle of course......very good title match ..good pace.. though a predictable end .but aren't all royal rumble title matches predictable.

4. Triple H (WORLD TITLE) Vs Randy Orton WORLD TITLE MATCH

6.5\/10 actually not that good for the guys involved, went on too many dry patches, orton sold his concussion amazingly, ending though was some what of an anti climax.

5. ROYAL RUMBLE EVENT... btw during the other matches there were a few segments...two which were really cool ...cena rapping on Christian and guerrero stealing flairs number 30 entry ticket. the event was good 7\/10 would have got a 9 if cena won but unfortunately my biggest enemy batista wins(THOUGH I UNDERSTooD WHY) ..vince comes down and takes a drop and the whole arena crack up in laughter.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shawn Michaels vs. Edge-8- Kind of hard to believe Shawn Michaels is in the opening match but still a great match by both men, Edge, whether you like or not is a great performer in the ring, and Shawn Michaels is just ageless when it comes to his performance The Undertaker vs. Heidenreich. Casket Match-2- OK, after a good opening match, now this, what a crappy match. Undertaker has given some great matches at the Royal Rumble, and 1998's Royal Rumble against Shawn Michaels was the same type of match, but this is way worse then that match.

Kurt Angle vs. Big Show vs. Bradshaw. Triple Threat WWE Championship-6- It's alright, i feel all three men could of given a better performance, this just really didn't show them at their best.

Randy Orton vs. Triple H. World Heavyweight Championship-9- Triple H gets a clean win, can you believe it, sure he takes out the Sledgehammer but doesn't use it. Randy Orton did great when acting like he got a concussion, but how he got the concussion is really ridiculous. I really liked this match, this was the best performance i've seen from HHH in forever.

The Royal Rumble Match-7- This was highly entertaining and i usually don't score the royal rumble match this high. The winner is again, very predictable, but just this had a lot of moments that were very entertaining to watch The segments with Flair and Guerrero are hilarious the best segments i've seen in a while.

Overall, this is a great PPV and a must own for wrestling fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Royal Rumble has traditionally been one of my favourite events, and i've been a wrestling fan for a good few years now. The other shows may have better matches, but i've always found the actual rumble match to be full of excitement.

I'm not going to reveal the winners of any match as i don't see it as fair to ruin the results on a review. I will comment on the quality of them though.

We have the standard 4 matches, and then the big rumble event. Two from Smackdown and two from Raw.

Shawn Michaels and Edge open up for Raw. This proves to be a good match from two talented guys. This is a match i'd recommend watching. It's hard to sum up without giving away the winner.

Next we have the usual Undertaker against some big nasty monster, be whoever it is. Giant Gonzales, Yokozuna, Kamala... well this time it's Heidenreich. Its also a casket match. Typical Undertaker fare. Watch if you're a fan. I have to admit i am, purely for the entertainment factor. It can hardly be regarded as a classic wrestling match.

The next two matches are the title matches. For once Smackdown manages to upstage Raw. Their title match is pretty thrilling and enjoyable, but with a anti-climax and let down to end it. Raw's match is a pretty dull and boring affair, which is a pity as i'm a fan of both guys involved.

Now to the main reason i love the event, the rumble. It's a pretty good one this year. Coming up to the event we all had a pretty good idea of who might win, and it may not prove a big surprise, but hey, its very enjoyable. There are the usual diverse ways of people being eliminated. There is the token guy who doesn't make it to the ring, the entrant who is ridiculous and we all want to see vanquished, and someone gets eliminated by a previously eliminated combatant. It has its usual highs and lows, and i loved the ending, in particular the Vince McMahon entrance.

I'd recommend this show. Not the WWE on top form, but its still good. Add it to your collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Royal Rumble basically had the message of wrestling these days. Gimmick and image are more popular then wrestling ability.

HBK vs Edge. Pretty good match. A lot of heat for Edge who was just starting out as a heel again and what better way to go into a match with HBK. It kind of got a little slower at the end then usual. Overall this match gets a 6\/10. Undertaker vs Hedinreich. Not a good match. Undertaker had to carry Hedinreich through this match who seemed to be really lost and screwed up his moves. It did get interesting to see Raws Gene Snitsky and a bit later Kane come into this match. Overall the fans seemed more interested when this match ended. 2\/10 Kurt Angle vs JBL vs Big Show. This match was slow at first but got pretty good at the end when Angle managed to speed up the match.Kurt Angle did some really good wrestling moves and proves he is the best wrestler out of the match. JBL and Big Show put on a slow match. The ending to this match was bad. Over all this match was a 5\/10 mainlly because of Kurt Angle. Randy Orton vs HHH. Good match,surprising heat for Randy Orton who was the face in this match. Randy proved he can go the limit with any top star. This match also marked the first match HHH has wrestled where someone dosn't run down and save him from a loss. Over all this match was about a 6\/10.

Royal Rumble match was OK. Some surprises. Some not so good surprises. I was kind of upset that Kurt Angle wasn't given enough time in this match. But over all this match had a guy who I never thought would be pushed so soon. I won't tell ya who wins. I give this match a 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Probably the best Royal Rumble in years.

Match 1 sees Edge battle Shawn Michaels in a good but very long match. Next up one of the worst wrestlers on the roster - Heidenreich takes on The Undertaker in a boring casket match. Match number 3 sees Bradshaw defend his WWE title against Big Show and Kurt Angle in a surprisingly good contest. The next match up sees Triple H defending his 10th heavyweight title reign against Randy Orton in a great match up.

Next up the Royal Rumble takes place in which 15 Raw superstars and 15 Smackdown! superstars hit the ring to try and win the rumble and face the champion whoever that may be at Wrestlemania 21. Highlights included Tough Enough 3 winner Daniel Puder getting his ass kicked by Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero and Hardcore Holly! All of the superstars beating the crap out of Muhammad Hassan, and Raw superstars vs Smackdown! superstars!

Not a bad PPV at all.

Edge vs HBK - 8\/10 Taker vs Heidenreich - 4\/10 JBL vs Angle vs Big Show - 7.5\/10 Triple H vs Orton - 8.5\/10 The Royal Rumble match - 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This year's Royal Rumble wasn't really bad, but last year's was definitely way better.

FIRST MATCH- SHAWN MICHAELS VS. EDGE Even though this match did take a little too long, it was still alright. Edge wins after using the ropes to pin Shawn Michaels. 4\/10

SECOND MATCH- UNDERTAKER VS. HEIDENREICH IN A CASKET MATCH Now I don't really like Casket matches, this match was boring & sloppy but in the end it picked up it's pace as Undertaker nailed the Tombstone then rolled Heidenreich in the casket for the victory. 4\/10

THIRD MATCH- JBL VS. KURT ANGLE VS. BIG SHOW IN A TRIPLE-THREAT MATCH FOR THE WWE WOMEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP Not a bad triple-threat match. Too bad JBL wins again to retain his title after nailing a Clothesline From Hell on Angle for the win. 5\/10

FOURTH MATCH- RANDY ORTON VS. TRIPLE H FOR THE WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP Great match by these two men, the match was a bit sloppy but it was still good & it picked up pretty towards the end. Even though Orton lost the match was fast paced & great towards the end. HHH nails the Pedigree on Orton for the win to retain his World Title. 5\/10

FIFTH MATCH- ROYAL RUMBLE This was a cool Royal Rumble {Every Royal Rumble is good}. After all 30 men entered, the last four remaining superstars in the Rumble were Cena, Edge, Mysterio & Batista. Edge was able to spear Mysterio out, later Batista & Cena clotheslined Edge out together. It was now up to Cena & Batista. First after reversing an F-U, Batista went for the Batista Bomb but suddenly both men crumbled on the outside at the same time. After a controversial decision & Mr. McMahon making his way to the ring to settle the matter. The match was restarted again as Batista & Cena battled it out, but Batista got the better out of Cena, nailed a spine-buster & threw Cena out to win the 2005 Royal Rumble & go on to Wrestlemania 21 to face the Champion in the mainevent. 10\/10 This was a very good Royal Rumble, but last year's would always top every Royal Rumble in history.

Overall: I'll give it 8\/10 & B+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you are looking for King Kong, you mispelled your search! This is a low-low budget movie that was soley >ment to entertain people in a comic sense. Here is the >most ordinary human who is the only 1 who can save the >world from a 185' 300 ton behmouth. Surely you can see the humor in that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Spirit of St. Louis\" is Billy Wilder's film tribute to one of the best figures in aeronautical history, remembered for the first nonstop solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean in May 1927 with James Stewart (a little too old for the part) playing Charles Lindbergh...

As a tribute it is eloquent enough and, although a few nice liberties may have been taken with historical fact, the motion picture describing the detailed odyssey before and after the Paris flight on May 20-21 in the monoplane \"Spirit of St. Louis.\"

Although the lengthy internal monologue employed during the journey may be disappointing to an audience, the truth is that it helps keep the picture focused tightly on its essential point... Stewart dignified the portrait of one of the greatest adventurers in the air the world has ever know, departing, in a highly modified single engine monoplane, from Long Island, New York to Paris, France...

No action is depicted in the trip, only some flashbacks to break up the monotony of the long flight... But there is superb determination of the ordeal of a brave and talented pilot decided to fly alone... His equation is simple: less weight (one engine, one pilot) would increase fuel efficiency and allow for a longer flying range, but with so much risk... Lindbergh's claim to fame was doing something that many had tried and failed...

Even though Wilder has bravely put it upon the screen in a calm, unhurried fashion, it comes out as biography of intense restraint and power... But it is James Stewart's performance (controlled to the last detail) that gives life and strong, heroic stature to the principal figure in the film...

From it there, emerges an awareness of a clever, firm but truly humble man who tackles a task with resolution, plans as much about it as he can, makes his decisions with courageous finality and then awaits with only one thought in mind, to get to Paris... In his efforts to cut off the plane's weight, any item considered too heavy or unnecessary was left behind...

The record-setting flight proved not only to be a fight with the elements and a test of navigation, but also a long battle against fatigue... A busy schedule and an active mind kept Lindbergh up all of the previous night... Still, he managed to stay conscious enough to keep the monoplane from crashing and landed at Le Bourget Aerodrome, near Paris, 33 hours and 30 minutes after leaving New York...

Stewart gives an able portrait of a brave pilot who attains legendary status, emphasizing the intention and dominant resolution to fly nonstop 5,810 kilometers (3,610 miles) across the Atlantic...

Photographed in CinemaScope and WarnerColor and backed by Franz Waxman's beautiful music, the film effectively captures the pioneering spirit of the era and the hero's ultimate achievement since he takes off, that day, from Roosevelt wet field, and clears telephone wires at the end of the runway...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have watched this film several times over the years and always find it an entertaining experience. As a retired airline pilot, I am interested in most aviation movies and this is one of the better ones. I know that Lindbergh was only 25 years old at the time of his historic solo flight to Paris and that James Stewart was almost 50 when making this movie but I can overlook that fact because Stewart has always been one of my all-time favorite actors and does one of his usual outstanding performances as the \"lone eagle\".

There is a good mixture of comedy and drama throughout the film and a good use of flashbacks. It also helps that James Stewart was a pilot in real life both in the military and civilian life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The word impossible has led many to select a particular view concerning any incredible task. In 1927, it was believed no man could fly the breath of the Atlantic Ocean. Many had tried but failed and some even gave their lives to the effort. Nevertheless, it had to be done as every challenge needs to be met with equal determination. Such then is the heart of this movie called \"The Spirit of St. Louis.\" The actor chosen for this historic film is none other than America's own James Stewart who convincingly plays Charles Lindbergh. Although there are many facets of Lindbergh's life, the segment featured here is his efforts to be the First Man to fly across the Atlantic. The story is an interesting one and for Stewards' fans compelling to say the least. Seeking enough funds to build a special aircraft, to the fateful decision to began the journey on a gloomy day in May 1927, 'Luck Lindy' as he was christened, endured enormous risks, which are featured in this superb film. Other notables which helped make this film believable are Murray Hamilton who plays Bud Gurney, Bartlett Robinson as Ben Mahoney, Arthur Space and Charles Watts as O.W. Schultz. The sum total of this now famous movie is that despite poor endorsement on its debut, it has since become a Classic in it's own right. Well done! ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every year there's one can't-miss much-anticipated red-hot big-budget title with the right combination of star, director and subject matter that fails miserably at the box-office. This year it was Superman Returns. In 1982 it was Blade Runner. In 1957 it was Billy Wilder's The Spirit of St Louis, a film that had everything - top director, huge star, best-selling true story about an American hero - except enough of an audience to cover its costs. Maybe the public still remembered Lucky Lindy's anti-Semitism and his loud admiration for Nazi Germany's achievements before the war (neither covered in the film, which ends with his arrival in Paris before the legend got too tarnished). Maybe because they thought they knew the story or that it was just going to be one guy stuck in a cockpit for two hours. Certainly Wilder and co-writer Wendell Mayes are aware of the dramatic pitfalls of Lindbergh's relatively uneventful flight, alternating between a well-executed flashback structure to key points in his life and the build-up to the flight itself. Once the film is airborne, it's both surprising and suspenseful, finding genuine drama in his attempts to stay awake and to navigate without proper instruments.

It also builds up a quite remarkable sense of dread that's unlike anything else in Wilder's filmography, allied to a real sense of the epic: shots like the ominous storm clouds over the hanger the dark dawn before the flight carry a real chill of foreboding to them. Even the typically muted and problematic WarnerColor adds to the film rather than detracts from it. Along with the superb use of CinemaScope, there's a remarkable score from Franz Waxman: majestic, soaring but filled with understated menace, and cleverly used as part of the fabric of the film rather than mere musical accompaniment. The film does lose points for implying, though never actually saying outright, that this was a race to be the first to fly the Atlantic - in fact, Lindbergh was the third man to fly across the Atlantic after almost completely forgotten Brits Alcock and Brown's astonishing flight eight years earlier - but it's still a remarkably tense and engrossing adventure story that deserved the success it never found.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1st watched 10\/10\/2009 - 8 out of 10 (Dir - Billy Wilder): Spectacular rendering of Lindbergh's famous flight by James Stewart as Lindbergh and Director Billy Wilder. There isn't really a whole lot of background built into this story but that's OK because Wilder makes the event really remarkable as it comes directly from Lindbergh's perspective since he used his book as the basis of the movie. This early movie about flying has to be one of the best about the act itself as well. Stewart talking and thinking to himself during the flight gives you so much insight into what Lindbergh went thru in this 33 hour solo flight across the Atlantic. And he did the whole flight without sleeping the night before -- which is amazing!! There is a little backstory about how he purchased the plane and got the financing, and some flashbacks about his life during the flight but the movie is mostly about the flight. The story is also beautifully made and photographed and is a joy to watch despite it's age. I appreciate the fact that they didn't throw in a lot of fluff and just let the story tell itself. Well done throughout. This is a classic movie that should be viewed by all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A great movie about triumph over all the nay-sayers who try to kill your spirit, achieving the impossible. I won't go on about it, other than to say that I liked to reflect on the this film when I'm facing something particularly daunting, and realize that if Lindberg could do what he did, I can certainly face the task before me. Definitely a \"feel good\" movie.

See it. You won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Billy Wilder continues his strong run of films during the 1950s with a biopic of Charles Lindbergh, the young American pilot who became the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic in 1927. Jimmy Stewart plays Lindbergh, and while he might be a bit too old for the part, he still brings the sincere warmth and confidence needed as well as his trademark down-to-earth goodness that makes him an iconic film star. Wilder directs solidly, balancing the background story with humor and drama to give us a clear description of what Lindbergh was up against when he decided to take this challenge. It certainly isn't his nor Stewart's best work, but it is a gem of a movie. It lifts your spirits with the plane and makes you proud to be an American. Overall, it is just plain good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great story. Although there are some Jimmy Stewart cornball parts, for the most part it is a compelling tale about an individual with a compelling drive, vision and sense of adventure - to say the least. The bottom line is it is one of my favorites to watch and I've done so probably dozens to times -- that is until someone stole it our of a bag I brefly left on a plane on a flight to California!

Some have commented about too many flashbacks but I don't know a better way to keep a long flight interesting. For those of us who actually fly, flight can be hours of boredom punctuated by moments of terror. I wouldn't have wanted to see the flight shortened at all. The oppressive need for sleep and the drone and surrounding loneliness is part of the story.

There are many parts that I particularly like including the takeoff from Long Island and landing at night in Paris (Wow, things have really changed with us and the French since then!). The airplane building scenes and the record-breaking flight from San Diego are interesting as is the incident over the Atlantic in ice (which I understand is not completely true but did happen on the San Diego flight).

One gets the sense that one of Lindbergh's biggest assets are his enlightened supporters as well as his persistence.

Some of the lines that ring in my head now and then include \"Pull the chocks!\" on the takeoff scene and \"I hope I don't have to use it that way\" when describing the submarine-like \"periscope\" to the lady who lent him a mirror so he could better see his overhead instruments.

This movie is not for everybody but it certainly is for me. I hope they make it on DVD soon so I can replace my stolen version!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"In 1927 a young man, alone in a single engine aeroplane, flew non-stop from Roosevelt Field in New York across the entire North Atlantic Ocean to Le Bourget Field in Paris, a distance of three thousand six hundred and ten miles. In this triumph of mind, body and spirit, Charles A. Lindbergh influenced the lives of everyone on earth--for in the 33 hours and thirty minutes of his flight the air age became a reality. This is the story of that flight\".

Billy Wilder adapts from Charles A. Lindbergh's Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name, in what is re-creation of Lindbergh's historical 1927 solo flight. Boosted by a considerably strong lead performance from James Stewart {himself a pilot} as Lindberg, and containing an intelligent screenplay from Wilder and Wendell Mayes, Spirit Of St. Louis is a sincerely well told story.

In what at times threatens to become a monotonous film, Wilder keeps it ticking over by using flashbacks to Lindbergh's life. After the nicely told build up to the event, such as the peril being realised as Nungesser and Coli go missing {never to be found} whilst attempting the same trip in reverse, we learn stuff like how he come to buy his first plane and his work with the flying circus. This is all relative to understanding the man and his obvious passion for flying. This also helps to give us a complete picture of Lindbergh, thus putting us with him in his isolated cockpit as he undertakes this dangerous journey. Battling isolation {his only company is a fly} and chronic tiredness, it's here where Stewart perfectly portrays Lindbergh's devotion to the task. Aided by a terrific score from Franz Waxman and Academy Award nominated effects by Louis Lichtenfield, Wilder's movie turns out to be an engaging human interest story that got a thoroughly professional production. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film recreates Lindbergh's historic flight across the Atlantic while touching on episodes in his aviation career through flashbacks. Stewart was about 20 years too old to be playing the young flier, but his fine performance, particularly in the solo flight sequences, makes this a minor quibble. Waxman's rousing score is a big plus. Despite the long running time, Wilder manages to make it quite exciting and is able to sustain the drama even though the outcome is known. What a year 1957 was for Wilder: besides this, he also wrote and directed \"Love in the Afternoon\" and \"Witness for the Prosecution.\" And his next two were \"Some Like it Hot\" and \"The Apartment.\" What a run!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Biographical tale of the life of Charles Lindbergh, the first man to fly solo non-stop across the Atlantic in 1927, aboard his plane the Spirit of St Louis.

While not amongst Director Billy Wilder's best films it does boast some very impressive production values especially for a film made 50 years ago. The story is well told and the performances are also good though not outstanding.

One definite limiting factor upon the storytelling is that Lindbergh flew alone and without a radio, which meant he has no one to speak with. This necessitated a few different story telling techniques such as internal monologues, speaking with a housefly, and the occasional bouts of talking to himself especially once the exhaustion sets in. Also in order to avoid an extended sequence of the famous flight, it is interspersed with flashbacks from his life and the methodical preparations for the flight.

Charles Lindbergh was a huge hero of his era but his controversial beliefs would taint his legacy somewhat. Despite this he would continue to contribute to the aviation field and assisted as a civilian aircraft consultant to the US effort in WWII.

Jimmy Stewart certainly had the flying background to back his portrayal of Lindbergh. He rose to the rank of Colonel in US Air Force during WWII and while in the reserves following the War would reach the rank of Brigadier General.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a thoroughly successful example of a 1950s biopic. It has the stalwart and handsome young hero -- well, not so young anymore on screen; superb, if unlikely, direction by Billy Wilder; a stirring fully orchestrated musical score of uplifting scales and, when required, heavenly strings by Franz Waxman; strong supporting players; a gripping story; stunning photography by Hitchcock favorite Robert Burks; and a narrative about a singular historical event.

The film begins with Jimmy Stewart as Charles Lindbergh trying to get some sleep in a Long Island hotel before his epic solo flight across the Atlantic, from New York to Paris. And he can't sleep.

The flight itself is filled with flashbacks to Lindbergh's personal history and the purchase and construction of his unique high-wing monoplane, The Spirit of St. Louis. St. Louis, Missouri, is the home of the partnership that sponsored the flight. (Even in 1927, money talked.) Anyway, the movie HAD to have multiple flashbacks and Stewart's narration. What's the alternative. Observing the unities? Thirty-three hours of watching Jimmy Stewart sitting silently at the controls of his noisy airplane while days and nights come and go? I found the script and the direction impressive for their time. Unpleasant things are of course left out, so as not to introduce more ambiguity than the contemporary audience might manage.

My bet is that the howling mob that surrounds Lindbergh at Le Bourget ripped the airplane to pieces for souvenirs. And of course nothing about the pilot's relief tube, though it would have added more opportunities for humor. Some of today's viewers will find some incidents corny if they think too much about them. Aloft, Stewart chats with a friendly hitch-hiking fly that, in its own quietly concerned way, wakes him up by landing on his cheek at a critical moment. Later, the St. Christopher's medal that Father Hussman gave him taps gently against the glass crystal of one of the instruments just as Stewart is desperately trying to land. The atheist Stewart is saved twice -- once by a fly and once by God.

But never mind that. It's an impressive film. That landing at Le Bourget, with an exhausted Stewart behind the joy stick, confused by searchlights, sweaty with fear and collapsing with fatigue, is really convincing. \"I'm going to tear this airplane up,\" he tells himself, and we can believe him.

Flying a light plane is not at all like driving a car. There is no smoothly curving highway to tell you where to go, no lanes to provide guidance. You're busy every second. You must watch the instruments, check each wingtip to see that they touch the horizon, ditto the airplane's nose, and constantly watch up, down, and sideways for other traffic, although that last wouldn't have been much of a problem for Lindbergh. He was all alone over the ocean.

Why? In one of the movie's folksier moment, Stewart and Murray Hamilton, two gypsy barnstormers of the 1920s, are lounging near their airplanes in a Midwestern field. \"What is it? What makes us love flying so much?\", asks Hamilton. (No answer.) Later, his financial backers try to talk him out of the flight. Five other aviators have already died trying it. \"But don't you understand? It HAS to be done,\" says an impassioned Stewart.

Well, that's not much of an answer either. Why does it have to be done now, and why by Lindbergh? Why NOT wait ten years and stop wasting lives in the meantime? The answer, dear Socrates, lies partly in our glands. Pilots are a placid and confident lot, given to occasional arousal jags. Their chief problem may be an addiction to an internal rush of adrenalin. Just kidding. Some of my best friends are pilots. Still, Lindbergh must have been quite a guy. He deserved to be treated as a hero. Not just because of the flight itself but because of his later demeanor -- quiet, modest, a family man. We can easily forget his admiration for Hitler, since he more than made up for it by testing Corsair fighters in the Pacific and advising the Navy on how to tweak the airplanes and get the best performance out of them.

See it if you have the chance. If nothing else, it's a history lesson told with visual splendor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From director Billy Wilder (Double Indemnity, The Seven Year Itch, Some Like It Hot), I can see that this is a bit of an under-shown and underrated film, one to be seen. This is the biographical story of Charles Augustus 'Slim' Lindbergh (James Stewart), who in 1927 wanted to be the first man to cross travel solo flight from New York, crossing the Atlantic ocean, to reach Paris, in a small cockpit. The first half hour or whatever is seeing Lindbergh getting permission to do it, and the construction of the plane, named \"The Spirit of St. Louis\", and making all necessary preparations. Then of course the rest sees his perilous journey crossing the journey, overcoming tiredness, near fuel loss, and moments of losing sense of direction, but he was successful. Also starring Murray Hamilton as Bud Gurney, Patricia Smith as Mirror Girl, Bartlett Robinson as Benjamin Frank Mahoney, Robert Cornthwaite as Harry Knight, Sheila Bond as Model\/Dancer, Marc Connelly as Father Hussman, Arthur Space as Donald Hall, Harlan Warde as Boedecker and Dabbs Greer as Goldsborough. Apparently Lindbergh was a bit younger, so Stewart was a shade too old to play him, but then again, you can't think of anyone else that could do better. It is a witty and emotional drama, with Stewart (as always) being fantastic, great music score by Frank Waxman, and good direction from Wilder, a good little known gem. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Special Effects (the only award it was ever nominated). James Stewart was number 12 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 3 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, and he was number 13 on The World's Greatest Actor. Very good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What you bring to the movie influences your view of it. I brought 30 years in the Air Force to this, and every time I see it I am moved by the ending. Would a youngster of 15 who's spent their life flying in jets feel the same way? Yet, I can only just its impact on me.

Jimmy Stewart gives a wonderful turn as--Jimmy Stewart. Considering he was a pilot, and an Air Force Reserve General, he probably comes as close to being an expert on how a pilot would act as any man alive. One can't fault his delivery, or his acting. He IS a pilot BEING a pilot, that's enough.

---Spoilers---

It's the final minutes of the film that continue to grip my heart. Lindbergh has been flying without radio communication and has no idea if anyone is even expecting him. When he flies into the Paris airport, the uncertainty of the landing field draws you in. What is it below? Those shifting circles that look like cobblestones or a field of corn, must make you wonder, is he in the right place? They go on and on, streaming past his vision until he gets low enough and see that in the Paris night, what he was seeing was the light of the city reflecting off the upturned faces of the THOUSANDS of people waiting for him to land.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jimmy Stewart was a real life pilot, WWII flier and a one-star general in the Air Force and therefore a natural for how real pilots react when they fly. When you see the faithful recreation of the actual plane, you begin to understand the real-life bravery and courage of Lucky Lindy when he flew the Atlantic solo in 1927!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those movies that showcases a great actor's talent and also conveys a great story. It is one of Stewart's greatest movies. Barring a few historic errors it also does an excellent job of telling the story of the \"Spirit of St. Louis\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Others have harped here about James Stewart's age when playing Lindburg (he was 47 Linburg was twenty five.) But Stewart does not look his age and the film, for him was a dream come true. An actual pilot and a retired Air Force Reserve General at the end of his life, Stewart had the feel for the character and understanding of his passion, which other actors could not bring to the role. Added to the cast was co-star Murray Hamilton, who was also to be featured in \"The F.B.I. story with Stewart) and such other well known character actors as Richard Deacon, of the later \"Dick Van Dike Show\" and Robert Cornthwaite of \"The Thing from Another World\" the 1951 Sci-Fi classic.

Billy Wilder captures the flavor of the Lindburg Autobiography and the telling of what was to become a major event in the history of aviation. This story and film are a testament to the soul of determination and perseverance to realize a dream. A box office failure at the time of it's release, it has since become one of the great classics of American Film and another in a long line of outstanding performances by an actor that has been called America's Everyman. No student of film history should miss seeing this one. There have been over 500,000 films since the beginning of motion pictures, and this one belongs among the top 500.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Stewart's age didn't bother me at all in this movie, although he was portraying a much younger person. I still recall my fascination with Lindbergh's story and while I was thoroughly adult by the time this biopic was made, I had to see it.

Not only does this boast a great performance by Stewart,it also gives a lot of fascinating technical data,making it understandable to those technically challenged such as myself. And the look of the plane itself was great.

I quite loved this depiction of a period before my birth and reawakens the childhood love I had for airplanes and for the idea of air travel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everyone knows that Lindburgh succeeded in the first transatlantic flight. So how can there be any suspense or intrigue in this film? Well, there is. Don't ask me how, but there is. Partly due to the director's expert telling of the tale but mostly due to Jimmy Stewart's thoroughly engaging performance, we are drawn into the story as if it were unfolding for the first time right before our eyes. Despite the fact that half the movie is filmed in a cramped cockpit, it is as dynamic as any action flick out there. So if you are apprehensive about seeing this movie because you think you know the story already, give it a shot. I think you'll be impressed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Billy Wilder created a somewhat conventional biopic about the Charles Lindberg flight. He structures the film using flashbacks extensively to tell the Lindberg story leading up to the famous flight across the Atlantic, which happens in present time in the film. Flying an airplane for hour after hour is not the stuff of excitement, and Wilder is not going to deviate from his theme of Lindberg as hero of the common man, so things are predictable. However, James Stewart is well cast and quite believable as Lindberg, and the many obstacles he has to overcome just to get his plane in the air keep one watching.

The film comes through most successfully as Wilder weaves the parts of the story together in a way that create tension, then relief, then tension again. The cinematography is quite good, score by Franz Waxman enhances the scenes, and Stewart really seems to make Lindberg come alive, makes one believe he could be Lindberg. There is a bit of 1950's religious schmaltz at the end, but overall the direction, acting, and high production values overcome the predictability of the story (would anybody REALLY see this picture and NOT know that Lindberg made it across the Atlantic?) to make an enjoyable film that has aged better than most films from that time. Billy Wilder made films of a wide variety of types, and this is one that is representative of his craftsman-like best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jimmy Stewart brings the story of Charles Lindbergh to life as he almost narrates the entire film while he crosses the Atlantic. It well edited with flashbacks over Lindeberghs life. Franz Waxman score is shear brilliant and truly gives the picture a heroic feel. One of Stewarts finest roles and this film can deliver time after time. Look for appearances by Murray Hamilton ( The Mayor in the JAWS Movie) as Bud Gurney.Comes out on DVD 8-15-06 with the release of a few more of Stewarts classic films. I consider Jimmy Stewart to be Americas greatest Actor and never tire of seeing him in any film I see, watch this picture and you'll agree.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen Jimmy Stewart in all the regular roles, but the \"Spirit of St. Louis\" was reported to be one of his favorites. A poor box-office performer when released, this film has been largely forgotten today. Telling the well-known story of Lindberg's famous flight in 1927, Stewart seems to be badly miss-cast at first, and his well known voice never lets you forget who you're watching; it feels like George Baily all over again. But Stewart obviously worked hard on the role and he does everything right, so before long you don't care anymore that Stewart was 20 years older than the man he's portraying. Stewart's Lindberg is so gosh-darn, all-American, apple-pie likable that you get caught up in the story, and you realize that Stewart intended to portray Lindberg with all of the aw-shucks, Yankee-know-how he could muster up. Lindberg was an almost mythical hero in the U.S., and Stewart seems determined to keep up appearances.

Flash backs are cleverly used to keep what is really a rather dull story moving along, and I was struck by the subtle references to Faith that were scattered through the film; Lindberg trying to teach a hopeless priest how to fly, only to be confronted by the priest on his beliefs, or Lindberg refusing to carry a proffered St. Christopher medal to save weight on the plane, only to find the medal hidden in his lunch bag after he'd crossed the Atlantic. For me, this is a film not about a man's epic journey into the unknown, but his realization that this life is much bigger than the things we can see and feel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a genre by itself, this film has a limited audience and narrow appeal coupled with a subtle undertone which permeates the entire production. Nevertheless, it is a remarkable piece of cinema which is as timeless as a rare work of art. Capturing a time in Qu\u00e9bec rarely seen in movies, Mon Oncle Antoine's strength lies in the depth of its characters and the richness of the settings. Duplessis' Qu\u00e9bec, parochial and feudal, is brilliantly cast as the backdrop which could not possibly be achieved by anyone other than a pure laine Qu\u00e9becois.

It would be far too easy to resort to stereotypes, clich\u00e9s and single-minded myopic statements in this story. Yet the director chose to skip the forced imagery and instead, focused on the essence of life in rural Qu\u00e9bec of the time. That makes this film exceptional in its authenticity while not being pretentious in its presentation. If only more contemporary cinematic endeavors would do the same, the viewing public might not be forced to choose between the over-hyped Hollywood Pablum that passes for 'Must See' viewing.

Mon Oncle Antoine is - in every sense of the word - unforgettable. It will leave a lasting impression on anyone who has ever lived in - or visited - Qu\u00e9bec. A classic. **********************************************

Follow-up: 10 May 2008

After reviewing some of the comments, it's worth noting Mon oncle Antoine is NOT - and probably wasn't MEANT to serve as standard Hollywood\/American cinema for mass market sales. A coming of age story, yes, but far more than simple memoirs of adolescence in 1940's Qu\u00e9bec. Viewers who're looking for sheer entertainment at the expense of complex development of the characters will be sorely disappointed. Go watch action\/adventure\/romance\/comedies to be amused. Watch Mon oncle Antoine to be drawn into a seldom seen, but absolutely remarkable society that has been overlooked and ignored for far too long.

The Grapes of Wrath is hardly an edge-of-the-seat thriller, yet the story and characters are what makes this American classic an enduring film. Mon oncle Antoine is in the same genre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't be fooled by the nostalgic aura that surrounds \"Mon oncle Antoine,\" because like the best of Canadian films darkness lurks just below the surface.

Set presumably in 1940s rural Quebec, the story explores the developing consciousness of young Benoit as he learns to deal with both sexuality and death.

The look of the film is astonishing, especially seeing as a high proportion of criticism towards Canadian cinema by the general public surrounds aesthetics. Beyond this, the unassuming Benoit is a seductive protagonist for the audience, looking at his corrupting community with fresh an innocent eyes.

I recommend reading Jim Leach's critical essay on the film in Canada's Best Features for anyone looking to place the film into a historical context while also dissecting the form of the film. Definitely check this one out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mon Oncle Antoine observes the craggy face of a homespun community from various angles, slowly, taking its time through the beginning, as it should, until we emerge from shattered (but banal) hopes and expectations, into swirling ecstasies of dreams and a heart-stopping revelation about the terrible enigma of mortality.

Aimless pans and zooms across the snowy mountainside comfort the mind and hypnotize the viewer. This restless camera work is personified in a fringe character who is equally the drifter, quitting his job at the coal mine and leaving his family to cut lumber, then quitting again and returning to the stark humanity of his boy dead.

A fetching old woman cheats on her husband and a young boy dies. Old things become new and new things die. Throughout is the snowy whiteness, as wonder-stricken as the history of cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film when it first came out and have never forgotten it. My Uncle Antoine is much, much greater than the sum of it's parts. The movie, loosely, is about a pre-adolescent who is sent to live with a relative in a small town in Canada. There are adventures that seem more or less typical but underneath there is a current building. MUA has a leisurely pace but have patience, the reward is coming. I believe the film was sub-titled and as with all non-English speaking movies I've seen it is well worth avoiding any dubbed version. Inevitably dubbed movies reflect the attitudes of a new director and actors, with the additional necessity of lip-synching lines that don't quite fit. The English speaking Amarcord is a travesty, for example, while the sub-titled version sings. My Uncle Antoine is well worth the time to find and watch it in French.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This isn't quite the best Canadian film ever, IMO. I won't get off track and name 3 or 4 better. Just a couple of nights before I'd seen \"The Bicycle Thief\", the highly rated Italian classic, and there are some parallels. Both filmmakers shot their film in a specific time and specific place, with minimal resources in terms of sets and cast. And the result in both cases is fascinating and a joy to watch for the realistic setting and characters alone. The lingering shots over faces and landscape almost make this worth watching on its own. That being said, this one isn't quite in the same league as the Italian classic. The movie is shot in a frigid, barren Quebec asbestos mining town. That frigidity is contrasted with the warmth of the people and the eye of the filmmaker Claude Jutra. Basically, what you get is a series of vignettes that are likely nostalgic recollections of Jutra - not ha, ha funny - but poignant, and probably sometimes difficult at the time, but now warmed over with the patine of nostalgia. The movie meanders; there is little tension. Somewhere around half to two thirds way through the story begins. Everyone you've met to this point is involved, and you've gotten to know these characters rather well; so have a little patience at the outset. The story is a good one; it will leave you thinking, and it involves sex, love and death, all the basic elements. If you like Bergman, Godard, Truffaut, all that kind of stuff, you won't be disappointed by this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everyone agrees about the technical excellence of this film by Jutra (whose life ended short so tragically). As for the content, of course it makes a difference if you're a Quebecker, and this explains some of the divergence of opinions. For me, it is to cinema what Vignault's \"Mon pays, ce n'est pas un pays\" is to song. In addition, Jean Duceppe was himself a part of legendary Quebec.

This film can be contrasted with \"CRAZY\", a current Quebec release that is successful enough to be showing here in Spain and is also about the 1960s. Urban Quebec (Crazy) vs. rural Quebec (Antoine). But also a film that must be something very different for foreigners and for people who know Quebec from the inside.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 2004, I wrote the following statements on an IMDb message board when a user wondered if The Best Years of Our Lives was a forgotten movie:

***** To me watching this movie is like opening up a time capsule. I think in many ways \"The Best Years of Our Lives\" is probably one of the more fascinating character studies and it holds up extremely well as a look at life in the US in the mid-1940s after WWII. I believe \"Coming Home\" and \"The Deer Hunter\", both released in 1978, were the most recent films that were closest in capturing the numerous issues of military men returning from war that were brought up in \"The Best Years of Our Lives\".

What really impressed me was watching the movie in its entirety when I was in college around 1980-81 and many if not all of the college students applauded at the end of the movie.

This movie still packs a wallop and I'm very happy to read in other posts other users feeling of a movie that will definitely stand the test of time. *****

I'm very happy to see the movie ranked near the top 100 movies on IMDb and AFI. Also, though it was in competition with what eventually became a Christmas classic, It's a Wonderful Life, arguably, The Best Years of Our Lives' Oscar wins, including Best Picture, were very well-deserved.

I've just seen the film again in 2005 and after almost 60 years, The Best Years of Our Lives is still a powerful, beautifully acted and well-crafted motion picture.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watch this movie every time it plays on TV. A simply brilliant film. Three men return home from war and try to return to civilian life with great difficulty. All three led opposite lives during the war (Executive Banker became an army corporal, a soda jerk became an Air Force Captain and the High School Football hero loses both his arms in battle)and now each must reconstruct his life and connect with a new reality. The homes they return to, with grown children and independent, working women along with a depressed economy, only add to the strife. It's the scenes just off camera and the unspoken dialog which resonates the most loudly, however. The awkward intimacy of Frederich March and Myrna Loy and his struggle to return to his place as leader (both at home and at work) are heartbreaking.

Dana Andrews is riveting as the handsome, decorated Captain who struggles to keep his life together without the uniform.

The film is filled with honest characters and each is portrayed by a gifted actor.

This film, however, took on a whole other level after seeing, \"Saving Private Ryan.\" The reality and magnitude of what these men lived through for love and country......and obviously it didn't end on the battlefield.

This is an essential for any collection.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This American masterpiece came as near perfection as popular art contrives to be, from its beautifully equivocal and suggestive title to the magnificent performance elicited by William Wyler from the nonprofessional amputee Harold Russell\u0085

The film epitomized both the dream and the reality of the postwar world\u0085 This intimate engagement with the psychological facts of American life gave it an almost universal audience\u0085 But, unlike contemporary and preceding \"message\" pictures, it was not a preachment\u0085 It showed Americans as they are, presented their problems as they themselves see them, and provided only such solutions\u0097partial, temporary, personal\u0097as they themselves would accept\u0085 The picture's values are the values of the people in it\u0085

William Wyler, an outstanding director, triple winner of the best picture Oscar, adds an air of distinction to melodrama, epic and Westerns... With his distinguishing visual style and his taste for solemn material, he gained a reputation as a meticulous, serious artist... Wyler's most adept use of deep-focus reveals the real commitment to emotional content...

The film tells the story of three men coming home from war to a small middle-American community, and find it variously difficult to pick up where they left off... The three heroes are: a middle-aged sergeant (Fredric March), magnificent as the devoted family man who succeeds in breaking the ice with his family; an incisive Air Force captain (Dana Andrews) returning to an unfaithful wife; and a tormented sailor (Harold Russell) who has lost both hands in service, replaced by hooks in real life...

Winner of 7 Academy Awards including Best Picture, \"The Best Years of Our Lives\" is eloquent and compassionate, a deeply personal motion picture with touching wordless homecoming scenes:

- The first words of the sergeant's loving wife when he arrives home unexpectedly: \"I look terrible! It isn't fair of you to burst in on us like this.\"

- The involuntarily sob of the sailor's mother when she first sees her son's mechanical hands... She blurts out: \"It's nothing!\"

With her dry-martini voice, Myrna Loy combines charmingly her wifely qualities with motherly ones; Teresa Wright is lovely as the sergeant's nice daughter who falls in love with the pilot; Virginia Mayo is harsh as the disloyal flashy blonde wife whose first loves are money and high life; and Cathy O'Donnell is wonderful and sensitive as the sailor's fianc\u00e9e...

The situations and even some of the characters seem a little obvious, but this is a superb example of high-quality film-making in the forties, with smiles and tears cunningly spaced and a film which says what is needed on a vital subject...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very glad to see that this excellent film gets such high marks from the users of IMDB. The Best Years of Their Lives remains the finest cinematic statement about veterans returning from war that I have come across. Easily the finest performance by the often overlooked Frederick March. In fact the entire cast shines, including music legend Hoagy Carmichael who treats us all with a subtle version of his classic Lazy River. I would recommend this excellent film to anyone who loves movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the great things about The Best Years of Our Lives that even though it dates itself rather firmly in the post World War II era, the issues it talks about are as real today as they were on V-E or V-J day of 1945. The problem of how to assimilate returning war veterans is as old as the written history of our planet.

And while we don't often learn from history, we can be thankful that for once the United States of America did learn from what happened with its veterans after the previous World War. The GI Bill of Rights is mentioned in passing in The Best Years of Our Lives was possibly the greatest piece of social legislation from the last century. So many veterans did take advantage of it as do the veterans like Fredric March, Dana Andrews, and Harold Russell who you see here.

All three of those actors played archetypal veterans, characters that every corner of the USA could identify with. They all meet on an army transport plane flying to the home town of all of them, Boone City, Iowa.

War is a great leveler of class and distinction. Bank employee March, soda jerk Andrews, and high school football star Russell probably would never meet in real life even in a small town like Boone City. But they do meet and war forges indestructible bonds that can never be broken.

March is the oldest, a man with two children and Hollywood's perfect wife Myrna Loy. He settles in the first and the best. He has some wonderful scenes, getting cockeyed drunk on his return and later with a little bit of liquor in him, tells the bank officials at a banquet off in no uncertain terms.

I also love his scene where another returning veteran, a sharecropper wants to get a bank loan for his own piece of land. Watch March's expressions as he listens to the man's pitch for money. You can feel him read the man's soul. It's what got him his Second Best Actor Oscar for this film.

Harold Russell was a real veteran who lost both his hands during service in the Pacific. He got a special recognition Oscar for his performance. Because of that it was probably unfair to nominate him in the Supporting Actor category which he also won in. His performance, especially his scenes with Cathy O'Donnell as his sweetheart who loves him with or without his hands, is beyond anything that could be described as acting.

Dana Andrews is the only officer of the three, a bombardier in the Army Air Corps. Of the group of them, maybe he should have stayed in. He also comes from the poorest background of the group and he was an officer and a gentleman in that uniform. That uniform and those monthly allotment checks are what got Virginia Mayo interested enough to marry him. The problem is that he's considerably less in her eyes as a civilian.

While Mayo is fooling around with Steve Cochran, Andrews has the great good fortune to have March's daughter Teresa Wright take an interest in him. They're the main story of the film, Andrews adjustment to civilian life and adjusting to the fact he married the wrong woman. Not all veteran's problems were solved with GI Bill.

Myrna Loy gets little recognition for The Best Years of Our Lives. My guess is that it's because her role as wife was too much like the stereotypical wife roles she had patented over at MGM. Still as wife to March and mother to Wright she really is the glue that holds that family together.

The Best Years of Our Lives won for Best Picture for Sam Goldwyn, Best Director for William Wyler and a few others besides the two acting Oscars it got. It was a critical and popular success, possibly the best film Sam Goldwyn ever produced. It remains to this day an endearing and enduring classic and will be so for centuries. It's almost three hours in length, but never once will your interest wane.

The best tribute this film received came from Frank Capra who had a film of his own in the Oscar sweepstakes that year in several categories. In his memoirs he said that he was disappointed to be skunked at the Oscars that year, but that his friend and colleague William Wyler had created such a masterpiece he deserved every award he could get for it.

By the way, the film Capra had hopes for was It's A Wonderful Life. The Beat Years of Our Lives can't get better praise than that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thirty years prior to THE DEER HUNTER came this movie, an excellent meditation on the effects of war inflicted on the American family as seen from both the war heroes and their wives. A truly ironic title, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES is anything but since those times have vanished into still images and all that is left is an uncertain future for those involved.

Truly an ensemble cast despite the top-billing of Myrna Loy, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES focuses more on the stories of the men. Al Stephenson (Fredric March) comes back to a household that has irrevocably changed as his sons have grown although he finds support from his doting wife Milly (Myrna Loy). Fred Derry, upon returning, cannot find a decent job despite being a war veteran and is trapped in a marriage that he does not want to Marie, a happy-go-lucky girl who wants more out of life and who increasingly comes to hate him. Homer Parrish, on the other hand, has greater problems due to his loss of hands at war and feels the entire world -- including the girl he loves and her family -- thinks he is a freak of nature.

At almost three hours of length, the film never seems long and drawn out. There is so much emotions happening even in small moments that the plot breezes by; nothing seems wasted or placed on screen due to a lack of editing. Not a performance rings false, though the standouts are those of Dana Andrews as Fred Derry, Harold Russell as Homer Parrish and Virginia Mayo as Marie Derry. Even then every character has his or her moment on film, and the time was right to talk about all the pain and suffering that until then had not been seen in American films (including the ones made around World War One, which did not dabble in such topics). While there is never any overt violence, it's all there, in the haunted expressions of the three male leads' faces, in the lot where the planes now reside, ready to be turned into junk (and therefore, forgetfulness), in the cynicism of the store owners who couldn't be bothered to employ these shell-shocked men who had seen battle or even worse, to goad them into wondering what was it all worth for. This is the film in which COMING HOME and BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY are indebted to. At a time when America fled from war films, to come up with this when the end of the Second World War was still fresh was a necessity in order to make a more honest film-making.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Blue ribbon banners, stars and stripes forever, decorated generals, and unconditional surrender from the enemies which required tons and tons of radiation, this was the summon substance of the United States victory in World War II!! The celebration on Times Square as well as everywhere else in the United States suggests a national zenith!!! America is on top right!! one thing, one agonizing and painstakingly perverse thing..The period of adjustment!!..The actual celebration ended when the bottle of champagne was finished..Now everyone needs to get on with their lives...only one problem though...they have to get new lives...the old lives are gone forever...Polite and pleasant smiles had a fragile facade with a longevity of ice cubes in boiling water!! Everyone of the characters in the movie is paraded by primal doubts, and unable to masquerade a pretense about how nothing was seriously wrong, for the simple reason that it was not true!!! Once sergeants, and generals, and their wives, and daughters, and sons and virtually all other Americans touched by World War II, were exposed to disabilities, nightmares and recriminations of World War II and what it really accomplished as well as negated, nobody was the same!! For now, social and moral issues had a self serving interest...Frederick March and Myrna Loy had to start over!! Dana Andrews realized that he should never have been married to Virginia Mayo in the first place!!! Theresa Wright has become painfully aware of the fact that she is constructively selfish!! Las but not least, the character, Homer, is about to get married and he thinks that everyone around him is as devastated by his injury as he is, basically in the sense that they are unable or unwilling to cope!!

The reason this film is so fabulous is because a happy ending was attained the hard way, once everybody recognized the new beginning of the new United States and the new world overall, tragedy from WWII was recognized, and things that were emotionally torn asunder were taken in stride, and dealt with accordingly!! Frederick March and Myrna Loy need to go back to chapter one in their marriage, Homer has apprised his new bride as to what it takes to be married to him (i.e. half the times, she will feel like a nurse) and Thresa Wright's involvement with Dana Andrews means that her entrance into adulthood has resulted in partial responsibility for breaking up a marriage...This is tantamount to learning how to drive a car to get your driver's license at the Indianapolis 500...The characters in the movie are the typical post WWII Americans in that they are stalemated by the rude awakening of coercive changes to their lives...Happiness no longer is afforded the luxury of the adjective cop-aesthetic...it is now about formidable conditions, and good winning out over evil by way of the less ugly choice!!...World War II did not just happen!! It will henceforth dominate the social patterns of American living!!!

The aggregate catastrophe of World War II has mirrored most Americans' feelings of personal human inadequacy as well!!I loved this film and so did AFI, probably for the reason that it brought out issues that were at one time unjustifiably taboo!!..Bottom line, see this movie!! Nightmares about combat, dilemmas about marital unhappiness and\/or readjustment, coping with your life when stricken-ed by a disability and just basically acting human are portrayed constantly in movies and television today, HOWEVER!! this is 1946!! Very new to Americans then....REMEMBER THAT!! Director William Wyler has illustrated how Americans feel about the aftermath of WWII in the days when the movie industry has left him with one hand tied behind his back!!! Take that into account and you will probably realize just how sensational this movie really was!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sometimes, but very rarely, a movie tells a story so well that it almost becomes difficult. This movie tells several stories so well simultaneously that it was the first few times a movie I could not watch to completion. It was too real....and the characters SO STRONG that watching it became a personal struggle. Seeing these three men and their families deal with their hardships, one in particular, often hit me too hard. Now, I have watched in its entirety without interruption several times, and I realize what I always suspected. This movie is a masterpiece. The writing, the acting, the blending of several stories without being even the least bit choppy, everything about this movie is exceptional. Seven Academy Awards? No wonder, it certainly must have deserved them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Best Years of Our Lives is a film that slipped under my radar for years--I had heard about it, but never had the opportunity to watch it. Thanks to TCM On Demand, I was able to watch it uncut and commercial free.

What surprised me about this film was how quickly it was made after the war. The film frankly deals with the people who were wounded in the war, both physically and mentally. It manages neatly to encompass nearly all the varieties of war experience within three characters.

We have the Air Force officer, who was a veteran of the early European bombing campaign. Because of the horrific attrition rate amongst the crews of the bombers, the Air Force at that time had a reputation for cranking out officers who quickly rose through the ranks. Such was case with this fellow who went from a lowly soda jerk in civilian life to a Captain and bombardier of his B-17. He also suffers from PTSD, called \"battle fatigue\" at the time.

We have the Army non-com who served in the Pacific, and suffered through the horrors of that campaign. His story is opposite that of the Air Force fellow in that he goes from a prestigious job as a banker to a lowly grunt in the Army and rises to the rank of Sergeant. From the stripes on his sleeve it is clear that he is the highest level of Sergeant, yet he is still on the front line.

Finally we have the Navy Seaman, who is part of the faceless support staff, commonly referred to as REMFs (Rear Echelon MFers)by the fellows on the line. Ironically, he suffers the worst physical wounds when working as a mechanic below decks on a Navy ship, his ship is struck, presumably by a kamikaze and is sunk with loss of 400 lives. He is pulled from the water but his badly burned hands are amputated and replaced with prosthetic hooks.

BYOOL tells the story of how these three meet on a transport plane they have boarded for home, and how they readjust into civilian society.

What impressed me most about this film is that despite the obvious issues that face the three protagonists, it never descends into melodrama. The Navy kid, played by an actual amputee, is placed into situations where we might feel sorry for him, yet the script never lets us feel that emotion. The Army sergeant is clearly an alcoholic, and the story points that out, but never dwells on it. The Air Force captain struggles with the loss of status when he is forced to return to the drug store he soda jerked in (now bought out by a large chain) and take a demeaning job to support his ungrateful and disloyal wife.

The script allows plenty of opportunities for all these characters to come to some dramatic climax regarding their plights, but it neatly avoids that. But for the overly dramatic score, the director has tread around exploiting the obvious.

In one scene that well represents the entire movie, the daughter of the Army sergeant (Frederic March) is having a discussion with her father and mother regarding the Air Force captain. Despite his marriage, they have fallen in love, and she is determined to break up the marriage which is obviously troubled. Now we've seen thousands of scenes typical of this where the father blusters angrily and the daughter ends up running away to her room in tears, slamming the door and falling on the bed. Later, Mom shows up, consoles daughter and offers words of motherly wisdom, and everybody lives happily ever after.

In BYOOL, this scene plays out completely differently than the clich\u00e9 I have described above. Sure the conversation gets heated, but all parties are reasonable, and there is a serious and timeless discussion of the nature of relationships that has some of the best dialog I have seen.

Ultimately, BYOOL is a highly satisfying film, with honest performances from the entire cast. Technically, it is well shot, the editing and cinematography frame, but never overshadow the gripping narrative. Despite the score, which is clich\u00e9 and over-dramatic, I give this film the highest rating that it clearly deserves","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Best Years of Our Lives perfectly captures the era of my youth, and the feelings of that time. The cast was uniformly wonderful. This was possibly Dana Andrews best role of his career and he should also have been nominated for an Academy Award. There are so many wonderful scenes in this movie it is almost impossible to list them all. The cinematography is among the best of any film. This movie is a time capsule of what is was like in the 1940's. A must see movie for any true movie fan. Some critics have said this movie has aged. I disagree. The theme of human desires is timeless. And the obstacles faced by veterans returning from war will always be with us. This is just a great movie - one that can be watched over and over again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WWII veterans return home and find it hard to adjust to civilian life. This superb drama is expertly directed by Wyler and beautifully filmed by famed cinematographer Toland. Despite its near three-hour length, it does not drag for a minute. The script by Sherwood features very human characters and great dialog. Andrews has perhaps his best role as a man struggling to make ends meet. Also good are Wright as a love-sick young woman, Mayo as Andrews' trampy wife, and real-life veteran Russell as a man who lost both his hands. However, top honors go to March and Loy as a long-married couple facing challenges while getting reacquainted with each other.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Best Years of Our Life is often compared to It's a Wonderful Life. They never should be. Their only commonality is the desire to make a serious comment about a war that took millions of lives. It is hard to know what value individual life may have. (How many people know that 1 in 22 people lost their lives violently in the last century? What a statistic we have to live with.) Also our feelings about war have changed in 60 years. We have progressively moved from thinking that war is just if the enemy is the right one to believing that no war is totally just, especially the ones that have been fought recently.

I have been a life long pacifist. I oppose all war. Not long ago I had that position tested. It occurred while I was on the USS Lexington, which is permanently anchored in Corpus Christi, Texas. The ship required a crew that is 3 or 4times the community in which I live. It is a powerful experience, moving around on her decks. She had seen a great deal of action. Someone granted me the right to be a pacifist and it was not cheaply bought.

I cannot watch The Best Years of Our Life without thinking about things like the Lexington.

Each of the three veterans paid their dues. And they paid mine as well.

No one of them got off any easier than any other. The Navy, Air Force and Army paid equally although in different ways. Each had problems directly related to the war. And each had to work terribly hard to overcome those difficulties. It took more courage to face their civilian surroundings than it did to deal with war, because each had to do it on his own. Each could understand and sympathize with the problem of the others: ultimately no one could help.

The moving part of the film (this could be the beginning part of the spoiler) is what follows when one of the male leads found someone who knew enough to give advice. The obvious case is when Derry told Herald to marry the girl. Don't hesitate, do it tomorrow. It is hard for Harold to believe that anyone could love him when he had been a football hero and athletic star before the war. But to his credit, Harold listens.

The other is when Al tells Derry to stay away from his daughter. The meaning was clear. Mend your relationship with your wife \u0096 standard fair for 30's\/40's films. Derry did not debate the point: he felt he was not fit for Al's daughter. So he agreed. The truth of the film comes out when we consider the daughter feels the same way about Derry. Real emotions from real people. I think our era has deep problems with feelings and sentiment and honor. I sometimes think we believe these values do not exist. That's perhaps why people looking at this film have problems.

Al is not free of advice he does not totally want. Any time his boss talks to him, Al gets tied in knots. And rightly so. There are some things that cannot be judged by the standards of occupation: they must be judged by huge general intangibles and only someone tested by the severities of life would understand what those intangibles are.

All of this leads up to a scene near the end where all the planes that fought so valiantly are stripped, stacked, stored, discarded and soon to be recycled: their function, worth and pride as translucent as Derry himself. He can overcome that translucency which he does, making him fit, in his mind, for the woman he loves.

I gave The Best Years of Our Lives a 10 and there are few films I feel that way about. This is not a film for popcorn. It deserves our attention. We are very privileged to eves drop on something so private as the lives of these wonderful people. We ought to be careful that we don't abuse that privilege.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a film as successful as this, it is difficult to single out any one factor. All departments work in perfect union to create on of the most moving human dramas ever put on film.

The production is a tribute to the ensemble efforts of the writers, producer, cast and crew. To name but a few, the magnificent score of Hugo Friedhofer is a subliminal marvel, the subtle yet striking photography of Greg Toland, and the unbelievably effective direction by William Wyler all combine with an ideal cast to create an American classic.

The DVD format version is a special treat to view. What a pleasure to see \"The Best Years of Our Lives\" so beautifully preserved for generations to come to enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was surprised to read the comments of the person who so disliked this film. It really is quite funny. There are definitely a few laugh out lines that my boyfriend and I quote to each other. Some of the situations might be unsettling (bisexuality, drugs, a particularly strange child's view of sexuality) but believable at the same time. It's about communication and miscommunication between men and women.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like the earlier description of this movie as a life poem. I caught this totally at random on the Movie Channel last night, and was captivated enough to stick with it the whole way. There's really just a toally unique voice to the film, a poetry of narration that's meaningful without straying into pretension. There's also many hilarious moments from Wirey's middle-school days that are crude without being potty humor. It's sad that this movie is so low-rated. The fact that there are so many 1's makes me think the numbers are cooked- I can't see how anyone could see the movie as that abysmal. Sure, this is by no means a typical romantic comedy, but it is a very unique viewpoint of a very unique life, of a man whose very appeal comes from his detachment, a detachment he must overcome before it destroys him. Give this flick a chance. It came out of nowhere for me, and I feel the richer for it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though several scenes of Wirey Spindell can be described as \"over the top\". I thought that it was refreshing to see something that was willing to go to a level of near-taboo twisted comedy.

Wirey Spindell is a great film with great dialog. I wouldn't say that this film is for everyone, but the film is on my top 10 list.

If you can look beyond it's occasional offensiveness and watch it for the film that it is, I would hope you could see it in the same light that I do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I hadn't planned on seeing this movie, however I wasn't disappointed when a friend dragged me along. Although there are no real surprises here, the guys do reasonably well with their obviously modest budget.

If you've seen the trailer you probably know what to expect from this type of movie and there's a pretty constant stream of jokes here, with a couple of classic moments, with the highpoint probably being an excellent flashback to what the guys were like in the 1980's. Also, I've read elsewhere that the ending was a disappointment, but I found it refreshingly different from what I had expected from this genre.

Overall, this movie wont change your life, but it's got enough laughs there to keep you entertained throughout.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"William M. Thackeray once said \"A good laugh is sunshine in the house.\" When I watched Take Away, I must say that the sun did shine in my house. This film was superb, the opening was very cleverly done, the story held together well, in a nutshell two fish'n chip shop owners who normally enemies are forced to form an alliance of sorts to engage in a David and Goliath struggle against a fast food chain which builds a restaurant on their street. The ending was hilarious even though I have found many who disagree with me on that one.

The film was though very discreetly, portraying contemporary Australian ethnic stereotypes, in particular the collision or culture clash if you will between the traditional Anglo Australian and Italo Australian stereotypes, and how they found a sort of \"unity though adversity\", very nice.

I found Vince Colosimo's performance as \"Tony Stilano\" an Italo-Australian Fish 'n Chip shop owner in his thirties to be first-class, his acting was very genuine and convincing, through his performance he managed to really bring to the surface the essence, or I should say the soul of the Italian Australian stereotype, which in reality is not too Italian but not too Australian either, Colosimo found that balance, breathed into its lungs and gave it life.

The Cinematography could have been better, more shots of the local area would've been nice, from what I can see it was in Melbourne, but where in Melbourne? to me it looks like somewhere between Ivanhoe to Bullen, though I am not 100% sure on that one.

I don't know why so many people are comparing this film to \"The Castle\" though they have similar themes running through them, Take Away stands in a league of its own.

I think the film was Excellent with a capital \"E\" it has everything, it's funny, the jokes are great, it deals with contemporary issues facing Australian society, the story holds well, I loved it! I highly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this on tv in 1989 and regretted not taping it. I was very intriguing and suspenseful. It is amazing as the events unfold and this man's past catches up with him.

The acting is first rate and the story is exactly what the title claims... \"twist of fate\"... but no one could run away from a life that this man had at the beginning of the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with so many of the other reviewers here. This was a great film and an even better novel by Robert Fish. Unfortunately, I believe the author died before he could see this film made. The performances are all top rate, with the three principles (John Glover, Ben Cross, and Veronica Hamel) seemingly made for their roles. The exteriors, both in Europe and Israel, seem very authentic, and the 4-hour miniseries length was just right for the telling of this story. Fortunately, I DID tape this when it was on television and have enjoyed watching it ever since. I can say unhesitatingly that it holds up even to this day. I gave it a rating of 10. If you haven't read the book, you should really find a copy. This would be an outstanding film to release on DVD with extras that could easily include interviews from the cast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been looking for this mini-series for a very long time. I saw this movie when I was living in back in Russia many years ago. I'm curious if somebody who has the recorded copy of this movie can send me the copy. I'm willing to cover all the expenses and pay for the extra tapes or DVDs. This is one of the best TV series that I have ever watched. I would recommend it to anybody who is somewhat interested in Israel History and World History after WWII. I'm also trying to find a book (I have heard that its even better than the movie)however the new one costs around $50 on amazon and I have never purchased a used copy. my e-mail address is yurets777@hotmail.com Thank you very much for you help.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like most other reviewers, I really enjoyed this TV miniseries. I didn't see it when it first came out, but my grandfather - a big fan of mysteries and war films - happened to record it in 1989. I remember watching it at my grandparents' cabin one night and I was completely drawn into the story! It has a very intriguing plot and a good mix of drama, romance, and espionage. I've seen lots of films that are set during WWII, but none with a twist like this! Thankfully, I was able to make a VHS copy of the film several years ago. I've watched it several times since then and I still enjoy it. I would love for this film to be released on DVD. It would be so much easier to view with chapters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yeah I watched this mini series with My Mom and dad as a kid. It was one of the few mini series that my 9 year old mind actually could follow. I recall it was very well done, and didn't necessarily have the feel of the typical crap mini series. It was more or less an original concept that really grabbed your attention. I would recommend this miniseries to anyone who is a fan of history and plot twists. Although most twists in this movie are either spelled out or predictable, it is still worth the time. I haven't checked to see if you can get it through netflix yet however. I would imagine not. They should play it on the history channel or something.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I stumbled upon this movie by chance. I was traveling a few years back and this movie was on some channel on cable at the hotel late one night. Not much else on and figured I watch it for about 20 to 30 minutes until I decided to go to bed. Needless to say, I stayed up and watched the complete movie. The plot was very interesting and does make you wonder if there had not been SS who did this or at least thought of doing it. I have been looking all over for this movie. I even sent and email to the production company, but the weren't sure that it would ever make it to DVD, but said there was always hope. If anyone finds this movie drop a note here where you found it, as I'd sure like to get a copy some day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie \"miniseries\" on television back in 1989 and it was an amazing movie. I would love to track down a copy of it just to watch it again and again. It's been 15 years since I watched it and it still sticks out in my mind.

From the beginning, it draws you in. The characters and plot line keep holding you. The ending was superb. The feeling and rage that the son displayed when finding out the truth about his father are unforgettable. The suspense on how it will turn out and how he will confront his father is really intense.

If you can get a copy of this movie, you will thoroughly enjoy watching it.

Then, email me and tell me where I can get a copy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a really amazing story and the most amazing part of it all is that it REALLY happend! In case you haven't noticed: it's based on a true story.

(Possible spoiler)

Imagine the shock and horror of discovering that your own father was once a SS officer in WW II.

It's a very intriguing story and I'm really surprised the movie is rated a lousy 5.3 here on imdb.com.

my rate: 7","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Pink Flamingos\" is a cult classic.The plot of this film revolves around the throwdown challenge to Divine's supremacy as the filthiest person alive.\"Pink Flamingos\" contains some memorably repulsive scenes like a sex scene with a chicken and the scene where Divine eats fresh dog feces.Yes,the movie is shocking and funny at the same time,but the biggest laughs come from the actors' lines.Check out especially this line from Divine:\"Kill everyone now!Condone first degree murder!Advocate cannibalism!Eat s***!Filth is my politics!Filth is my life!\".On the whole,I really enjoyed this film.Still its tagline \"An Exercise in Bad Taste\" should be taken to heart and even those used to the gross out movies today may find this gem hard to stomach.Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like those who listened to radio reports about the attack on Pearl Harbor, every one who has ever seen PINK FLAMINGOS can tell you exactly where they were when they first saw it--and some thirty years later the movie is still one of the most unspeakably vile, obnoxious, repulsive, and hilariously funny films ever put to celluloid, guaranteed to test the strongest stomachs and the toughest funny bones.

Filmed with a close-to-zero budget and some of the shakiest cinematography around, PINK FLAMINGOS tells the story of two families that compete for the tabloid title of \"The Filthiest People Alive.\" Just how filthy can they be? Plenty: the film includes everything from sex with chickens to what I can only describe as a remarkable display of rectal control to a heaping helping of doggie doo, and I guarantee that you won't want to eat an egg for at least several weeks after seeing it.

The cast is either wonderful, atrocious, or atrociously wonderful, depending on how you look at it. The star, of course, is Divine... and to describe Divine as the BIGGEST drag queen on the planet would the understatement of the year. She is a mammoth creature given to BIG eye makeup, BIG orange hair, and BIG expressions--she is the Charleton Heston of drag, and whether she is almost running down a jogger, pausing to use the bathroom on some one's front lawn, or startling real-life shoppers by taking a stroll along a Baltimore sidewalk she is both unspeakable and unspeakably funny. Others in the cast include Mary Vivian Pearce, Danny Mills, and the ever-appalling Edith Massey as members of Divine's family; and Mink Stole and David Lochary as the white-slaving, baby-selling couple who challenge Divine's status.

It should be pretty obvious that PINK FLAMINGOS is not exactly a movie that will appeal to just every one, and viewers who know director John Waters only through such later films as HAIRSPRAY and CRYBABY will be in for a major jolt. But if you want to see something so completely different that even Monty Python couldn't imagine it, this is the movie for you. Just make sure you eat before you see it, because you probably won't want to eat afterward--and you might want to keep a barf bag handy just in case.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My 10\/10 rating of course applies only if you're willing to get completely and utterly grossed out*. Because you know that only John Waters can do that. In \"Pink Flamingos\" (his directorial debut), he portrays two families locked in combat to see who can be the filthiest person alive. What Divine famously does at the end pretty much answers the question. But even aside from that, the movie is basically an excuse to shock people beyond what anyone would usually imagine. You had better have a very strong stomach to watch this movie. Even some of the lines are rather mind-blowing.

*Otherwise, avoid this movie like you would the ebola virus!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very strange, disturbing but intriguing film. I don't think I ever needed to see what a human being can do with his butt, and I doubt if I'll ever want to see it again. That said, there is much to be amused by, like Divine's take on Jayne Mansfield's classic walk in \"The Girl Can't Help It\" and putting slabs of meat between her legs in a grocery store. A gritty feel very much like a Russ Meyer film. Generally poor acting, with the notable exception of Divine.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What's there to say about \"Pink Flamingos\"? It is beyond criticism or even explanation because it doesn't really aspire to be like any other movie you've seen. You will either get it, or you won't, laugh at it or roll your eyes in disgust (or both). John Waters is an odd filmmaker (putting that mildly), mixing both innocent, childlike humor with shockingly offensive moments intended to...well, who knows what his intentions were. It is like a form of assault, albeit a funny one.

The thing that makes Waters's humor so infectious and effective is that his characters inhabit a world that can seem both alien and completely familiar to the viewer, like the petty rivalries that form the plot of \"Pink Flamingos\". Surely everyone has experienced this kind of thing at some point, but almost certainly the matter at stake was not the title of \"The Filthiest Person Alive.\" What makes the movie compelling viewing for me is the way that Waters creates giddy, self-contained environments and doesn't let you in on the joke right away. The people in his films are completely in tune with one another. For instance, when Cotton tells Babs that she doesn't want to accompany her into town because Crackers is bringing his \"lady friend\" out to the trailer, Babs reacts with a knowing smirk and says to her, in a conspiratorial aside, \"That little shed's just PERFECT...\" At this point, we do not know yet that Crackers plans to take his \"lady friend\" out to the shed to thrust live chickens at her naked body while Cotton watches orgasmically through a window, but this weirdness is totally commonplace and understood by the characters in the fictitiously degenerate world that Waters creates.

Another example would be the conversations between the girls in the basement and Channing, the Marbles' deviant butler. The first time we see them, Waters cuts jarringly from a scene in Connie's cozy office to Channing descending into the basement, where we see that there are two women down there, one dead and one very much alive and p***ed off. Susan is not a cowering victim, but is enraged and abusive to Channing, leaping up to launch a full-scale verbal attack on her jailer. They both have a weird understanding of the bizarre situation, and she is not so much intimidated by her kidnapping as she is violently insulted and righteously furious. She does not let up for one second while Channing is in her sight, and the two scenes that feature their delirious banter are two of the comic highlights of the film. Later in the film, when Divine and Crackers break into the Marbles's home and discover their crimes of keeping abducted women in their basement, it represents the total lack of support that Divine and her family have for the brand of depravity that the Marbles are pandering--here is something Divine is unfamiliar with, a corruption devised by her newfound rivals, and she despises it. Furthermore, while kidnapping does not seem like something Divine would think twice about, she is indignant that the girls are being held down there and happily sets them free, relishing the revenge that they take on Channing.

At the other end of the filth spectrum, Waters occasionally reminds us of the line between his twisted fantasy world and the \"real\" world. The first time we see Connie, she is belittling a minor character named Sandy Sandstone, who has never heard of Divine. Cookie, on the other hand, reacts with a hilariously matter-of-fact evaluation of Divine's title as the \"filthiest person alive\", revealing that she inhabits this world of unspoken and understood lunacy as well.

Something also must be said for the way the players are in touch with their respective roles, especially Divine, who doesn't miss a note. Not once does he falter in the ridiculous garb and character he's been given, and it takes \"Pink Flamingos\" to a new level or weirdness. People actually believed Divine was like this in real life, and it's easy to understand why, because while watching the movie, you're not really thinking about the movie, you're thinking about these people who made it. Since they're really doing the outrageous things in the script, you start to think that maybe this is not a story but a bizarre documentary.

But even more so, \"Pink Flamingos\" is not so much a movie as it is an event, or something that happens to you. Even though its shock value is mostly gone for me now (I say mostly because the a**hole scene and the chicken scene still make me wince), I still find this film to be hilarious and habit-forming.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Babs Johnson (Divine) lives in a trailer with her son Crackers, her daughter Cotton and her mother Edie (Edie Massey). She's in competition with a couple named Connie and Raymond Marbles (Mink Stole, David Lochary) to be named the filthiest person alive. The film shows their attempts to outdo each other.

This film is very much NOT for everyone. It's a in your face no holds barred assault in bad taste. Crackers has sex with a woman with a live chicken between them while his sister watches; the Marbles pick up female hitchhikers, impregnate them, keep them chained in the basement and sell the babies to lesbian couples; Divine and family have a party which includes cannibalism etc etc. It's disgusting but, in a way, not unwatchable. It's SO over the top and is so unapologetic about it that it's kind of fascinating. As director John Waters might say, it's bad taste done well. Also it's kind of amusing to watch--the acting is so wretched (especially by Massey) that you just watch it in disbelief. A friend laughed out loud at how bad Massey was (she improved in later pictures).

This is NOT for people who are easily offended. Even though it's over 30 years old it's STILL shocking. However if you have an open mind and can take a lot of extreme behaviour this is a must-see. The only part that really was too much is what Divine does at the very end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You know the saying \"Curiosity Killed The Cat\"? Well, I have heard so much about this film, from a magazine that named this one of the most shocking movies of all time, my 1001 movies you must see before you die, my sister who saw this at a film festival, and the I love the 70's show on VH1. I just had to see this movie since it was named the grossest movie of all time, and well, after viewing this film last night, I have to say that it really did live up to it's title. My God, this movie was so weird! I thought I really did see it all with some of the sickest movies and TV shows I've seen, some things I guess will always still feel like a shock.

Well, Babs Johnson, aka Divine, has been named the filthiest person alive and a jealous couple named the Marbles are competing for that title. They want to take Divine out and be named the filthiest couple alive by kidnapping women, raping them, impregnating them, and selling their babies to lesbian couples. But it seems like Divine and her family of well... I don't know, seems to keep the title by having sex with chickens, butt lip syncing, eating dog feces, stuffing meat up their skirts, incest, and it just gets grosser and grosser.

Pink Flamingos is horribly acted, horribly made, and well, just plain horrible. The reason for the 10 rating I'm going to give it is due to the fact, well, how could you rate this film? I always rate, so I just figure what the heck? Through the grossness of this film, you have got to give John Waters some credit, who the heck would ever think of this movie over 35 years later? To the cast and crew who worked on this film, you guys are just plain nasty!

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I grew up in Baltimore, so I was exposed to the films of John Waters, since I was way too young to watch them. And if you're knowledge of John Waters is limited to Hairspray or Cry-Baby, or other family friendly movies, then you must prepare yourself for Pink Flamingos.

Explicit sex acts, incest, an old lady who eats nothing but eggs, and unsanitary acts with chickens are just a mere portion of some of the depravity in this movie. The film ends with Divine, Waters' 300 lbs. cross-dressing star eating dog excrement.

The premise is about two families: One a pair of inbred trailer trash, which includes Divine and Edith Massey as the egg lady; and the other is a rich, swinging couple. Both families are competing for the title of \"Filthiest person alive.\" Enjoy John Waters' finest movie, but only see it if you're an open-minded individual with a strong stomach, because some scenes in this movie will gross you out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For me, Pink Flamingos lived up to it's reputation as being the shocking, disgusting, repulsive, trashy film I was expecting it to be, that really contains everything but the kitchen sink. We are treated to almost two hours of nastiness that never lets up: rape, sex, sex with chickens, transsexuals, castration, murder, cannibalism, and a horrid display of singing out ones anus. It is about a strange couple who begin a competition with a trailer trash family, trying to steal their title as the \"filthiest people alive\". Divine (a fat guy in drag) is an unbelievably vile human being, who actually becomes painful to watch. Trust me when I say that this film is not one to be quickly forgotten, especially the end scene in which Divine eats dog crap off the sidewalk. I have always thought John Waters was over-rated and I cannot say I like this film, but it is an experience if you ever get a chance to see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"More entertaining than all the gay orgies in \"300\" combined. More heartbreaking than a Shakespearian tragedy. More poetic than even the most melodramatic poems about lost love and blah blah blah. And on top of all that, the greatest trash ever made.

A black comedy testing the limits of the human senses, John Waters's cult movie \"Pink Flamingos\" is a story about the conflict between two families that ends in humiliation, death and of course the eating of dog feces (yeah by the way that is not actually the humiliating part). No no, this is not about the impossible love, there are no Romeos or Juliets on these 90 or so minutes. This movie is about the battle for prestige if you could call it that. The battle for the title - Filthiest person alive.

On one side we have Divine (played by the cross-dressing Waters regular... umm... Divine) a caring daughter, good mother, cannibal, murderer, pervert and current owner of said title. She loves her son Crackers a bit way too much. Crackers himself sports a sexual attraction to both chickens and young ladies sometimes mixing them up in threesomes. Family friend and loyal accomplice Cotton gets her satisfaction from watching Crackers during some of his... acts involving the mentioned earlier objects of attraction. Last but not least Divine's mother and grandmother to Crackers, Edie. A 400 hundred pound woman, sleeping, eating and basically living in a baby cradle. She is addicted to eggs and loves the egg-man (the man who brings the eggs...lol).

The four of them live peacefully in a caravan outside the city until the moment when they become a target for the Marbles. Exhibitionists, manipulators, cheaters, very evil people actually. Their main source of income comes from the kidnapping and impregnating of young women. For the impregnating part they use their trusted and loyal cross-dressing butler to provide the semen. After that they sale the birthed child to the highest bidder.

It was the Marbles's envy towards Divine and her title that will lead to an inevitable confrontation between the two families. An Epic battle of filth, perversion and violence.

\"Pink Flamingos\" is an unsurpassed masterpiece in the trash-movie genre. Loaded with oddities and strange acts, John Waters's movie is loathed and hated by traditionalists, critics and the average movie-going audience. But for the few that remain unscratched by these generalizations the Flamingos is an unforgettable experience. Funny and sick, violent and poetic. It truly is an exercise in poor taste","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Out of any category, this is one demented and over the edge film, even in todays standards. Filmed entirely in crap-o-rama, this film will blow your mind (and something else too!)

The amount of hilarious bad taste and sleaze is astonishing. The dialog is breathtakingly fast and campy. You'll either love or hate this film, but give it go. I've seen it 4 times and absolutely love it. Divine is in the quest for being the filthiest person alive, but so are her rivals too in this obscene and disgusting (but funny) and stylish little film.

Divine was phenomenal, and \"she\" will always be missed greatly. Edith Massey does the unforgettable performance as the \"egglady\" and don't forget the energetic Mink Stole!

\u00dcber crazy s**t!

Recommended also for you sick little puppies;

Female Trouble

Desperate Living

Polyester","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film that gave us John Waters is one of the funniest films ever. Yes it may be gross but it's filled with hysterical moments that nobody has done since. The infamous dog-scene has to be one of the highlights of cinema. not a film for the easily offended it's one of those movies where you always see something new. Divine's performance is worth the reputation. Mink Stole is hysterical. This is the film responsible for the Farrely brothers and the entire Gross-out comedy genre. I know that sounds a bit extreme but think about it. Before this comedies were very run of the mill and almost identical. After this movie comedies became strange and weird, but in a good way. I'd give it 15 out of 10 if I could.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this thing. The most wonderful thing about Pink Flamingos is that it strives desperately to be in horrible taste, but has really gained a cult following world wide. Says a lot about us (us being people) doesn't it. Pink Flamingos succeeds because Waters made the film he wanted to make. A film need not be disgusting to succeed, but it may be. When you watch this film, you see things that are disgusting, but are ultimately brilliant because they are freely displayed. What we have here is an honest piece of personal creative expression. Everyone who ever cares to succeed as an artist, be it in film or any other media, should watch this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rating-10 Classic Waters! One of his best and most shocking films! Divine is THE most filthy person ever! Mink Stole also delivers a superb performance!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For all viewers out there who have slammed John Waters for creating a film like Pink Flamingos, just stop. It's getting you nowhere. Has anyone ever cared to stop and think about the ambition and dedication Mr.Waters possesses. To gather your best friends up and to create a movie just to gross out thousands of viewers all over shows this man has a great deal of ambition inside himself. Just read his biography Shock Value. It discusses the lengths he went through to get this film finished. Maybe it wasn't just the fact that John made this film to gross people out, it was to prove that there can be something such as good bad taste>","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A brilliant film by the great John Waters. The characters are unforgettable. The acting, script, and camera-work only enhance the overall greatness of this film. Perversion as an art-form. A must see for all. Easily a perfect 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I can safely say I'm human, Wong. And I didn't throw up. I laughed. And laughed. If this movie made you puke, there is something wrong with you. But this movie is incredible. I bought it four days ago, and have watched it 5 times already. The animal cruelty gets my heart, but not long enough to be guilty. The movie is shocking, disgusting, and vulgar. The acting is horrific. What else do you want from a movie? I am a die-hard cult film maniac. Pink Flamingos is awesome. It makes Rocky Horror, as someone has said, look like the teletubbies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pink Flamingos is a movie no word can explain. It was just as good I thought. It expands films. Starting with a \"multiple\" beginning, and ending with a shocking, but clever ending, Pink Flamingos is one of the best films of the year. Don't miss this opportunity to see a great film. Rent it on video or see it at a late midnight showing like I did. But just see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was first introduced to John Waters films by seeing \"Female trouble\" on IFC. I was disgusted but for some sick reason i enjoyed it. Then, i picked up the Pink Flamingos DVD in the John Waters Boxed Set. The movie is about Babs Johnson \"The Filthiest Person Alive\" who lives in a trailer in Maryland with her obese egg obsessed mother,and her deranged son \"Crackers\". In the movie you will see such sick sights as sex with chickens, drag-queens, people eating feces, torture, and all other sorts of random humiliation. The film has a soundtrack from 60's rock and roll artists. The only problem is that some parts of the film seem to drag on and can get a little boring. I found \"Female Trouble\" a little more fun. Rated NC-17 for Explicit sex, violence, and disturbing images. Enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Pink Flamingos\" was revolutionary for its time, and even today it's still hard to watch. Not that I didn't enjoy the film, it's hilarious; but it's very repulsive and Jonh Waters pushes the envelope as far as it can go. The story concerns Babs Johnson (Devine), she's the filthiest women alive. She lives in a trailer with her son Crackers and daughter Cotton. Not to mention the overweight Edie who's obsessed with eggs and sleeps in a crib. Then there's Connie and Raymond Marble, two filthy perverts who are jealous of Babs. They long to outdo her in being the filthiest person alive. This means having their janitor impregnate kidnapped women and selling the babies to lesbian couples, flashing people in public, and even sending Babs a turd in the mail. Babs fights back to prove she's the most deranged person alive. Which even includes incest, murder and eating dog crap and other sick sexual acts. It's a film that's fun for the whole family. (well depending on where you live?) Watch \"Pink Flamingos\", but don't forget your barf bag. For more perverse, weird sex and bodily functions also see \"Sweet Movie\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After watching Desperate Living, I was hooked on John Waters films. I heard about Pink Flamingos and had to watch it and boy was it worth it! Believe what you hear, it is trash! It is packed with everything filthy which is actually the main plot of this film. It contains the following: Incest, cannibalism, rape, chicken shagging,nudity (like you never seen before- beware of baby's birthday party entertainers),poo eating,arson, trailer trash, perversion, transexuality, egg fettish, cross dressing...... you get the picture. Above all, this is a definite must! Just beware of the birthday party entertainer and Divine wondering around the park!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story of dirty fat filth-like middle-age woman who lives out of society be knowing as the filthiest woman ever lived. Can someone take her the crown? There is one couple ..... The nice film for people who don't like ordinary pieces of comedies and don't mind some disturbing sense of humor.I was very surprised seeing some scenes and love theirs pungent kind.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pink Flamingos: A Representation of Society's Past

Pink Flamingos, a film directed by John Waters in 1972, is a very disturbing portrayal of the negative impact a traumatized childhood can have on future life. Babs Johnson grew up in a very non-typical home. Blatantly, you can see the impact this had on society through her actions up to the ending where she engulfs dog feces. Was this film just some sick and twisted perversion of endless gut-wrenching occurrences, or was it symbolic of something much deeper? To side with the first would be the easy way out and to the side with the latter might seem demented, but possibly true. The film does have some credible resemblance to actual events of our societal past. Every leader that we as people view as `horrible' displays similar characteristics to those of Babs Johnson. Ivan the Terrible, Genghis Khan, Adolph Hitler, and Joseph Staling all had `troubling' childhoods. Babs Johnson had a troubling childhood and therefore is associated in the same class as all of the previous mentioned rulers. That is why a great deal of her actions throughout the film can be seen as disturbing. However, were her actions her own fault or society's for letting her grow up the way she did. Furthermore, each character in this film represents either a past leader or event. Another coincidence is Edith's obsession with eggs. With an open mind this can be tied into the genocide and Hitler's attempt to annihilate the Jews. Some view Hitler as a genius, others a mad man. John Waters must have seen him as a mad man because his representation Edith was indeed mentally ill. Edith's son Crackers and traveling companion Cotton are symbolic of what was wrong in our own backyard, slavery. Both names, are slang terms that represent a time period that most of us would rather forget. Theses characters are crucial in terms that it points out that in some times, our society in America was no better than what we often view as horrendous acts of social onslaught in other cultures. The chicken f**king scene is the epitome of what was wrong in our society in this time period and is still wrong. Chicken, is a 1970's slang term for woman. Therefore it might be possible that John Waters were trying to bring out the subject of rape through Cotton and Crackers actions. The antagonist family, if a single antagonist can be determined in this film, was the Marble's. Marble is often mentioned in association with wealth. Therefore this may be symbolic of the struggle between the poor and the wealthy a fight that still continues on today and will probably continue on forever. Pink Flamingos is a monumental film for its disturbing scenes but should also be noted for its camouflaged political agenda that Waters displayed so affluently throughout its entirety.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Boasting the title for the sickest film ever made, PINK FLAMINGOS is an undisputed classic. Sure, the camerawork is shaky and off-center, the story is muddled and slow-paced, and every single character in the movie is repugnant and despicable, but PINK FLAMINGOS has a certain playful charm and brilliant satiric wit that no other movie can match.

While this film is indeed an offensive one, reading descriptions of what goes on in the movie is much worse than actually seeing it. Only John Waters can succeed in making rape, murder, sadism, cannibalism, coprophagia, and just about every other form of human debauchery known to man seem absolutely hilarious. This movie must be seen to be believed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Margaret Colin stars as the principal figure in this story; as I watched it, I remembered her bit part in Adrian Lynes's \"\u00dcnfaithful\" as Diane Lane's neighbor in a tony NY neighborhood.

This movie was surprisingly good, and Diane Stillman deserves credit for an accurate portrayal of class, crimes, and misdemeanors, which actually occur in upscale neighborhoods (perish the thought!!!).It is real but not over-dramatized; the audience lives through her accident, the pain it has caused;denial; and the ultimate resolution.

It is more than just a question of \"what is a good person\" as Colin speaks to her husband....is a person's character defined by one single act; and should they be condemned forever because of their action?? The questions are pertinent; It is also amusing to see several cinematic references to Martha Stewart (i.e. the fussy, bothersome mother);Colin is reputed by her sometime friends to be a \"perfect hostess, with perfect genes\"....(gag); and a scene wherein Colin is confronted by police;(the \"friends\" also betray her, later)....

The denial and facades of American society are addressed; (Oh, murder doesn't occur here; similar to the theme in \"\u00c4 Season in Purgatory\", by author Dominick Dunne, about the true murder of Martha Moxley; in Greenwich, Connecticut); Colin is aware of her crime; but consciously finds herself perpetuating the facade, until she finally breaks down;rent or buy this film; she is an underrated actress who does quite well in these roles.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is such a great movie to watch and all the actors put together a great film which would be enjoyed by everyone! It is very emotional in parts, so when you watch it grab a box of tissues to keep you company!! This movie doesn't deserve a rating below 10\/10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The main point of the movie, IMO, is the fact the Joanna's whole life has been nothing but a series of facades. The movie opens up with her secretly dying her gray roots, and hiding the used kit in an empty tissue box. What is strange is that she is hiding this from her HUSBAND. If she has to hide mundane things from her loved one, one can bet that she is hiding even bigger things from others involved in her life.

When Joanna accidentally hits Cory, she leaves the scene to call the police. By the time she returns, the police and ambulance are there, as well as people from her community, remarking \"What kind of person hits a child then just leaves her there?\" Well-respected in her community, she makes the decision to keep quiet about what she had done. But, she never realized how difficult it would be the keep up her facades...

Great movie-I have seen it many times!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(There are Spoilers) Driving down a lonely country road one rainy afternoon Joanna Kndall, Margaret Colin,is distracted for a brief moment and runs down a little girl riding a bicycle on the side of the roadway. Doing what she can to keep the injured youngster comfortable Joanna goes to call for help at a local service station. Before she can give her name Joanna hangs up the phone in order to get back to the girl and see if she's all right; it's then and there when the nightmare begins for Joanna.

Heart-wrenching drama that can effect any one of us when you try to do the right thing but are influenced by the words and feelings of those around you. Getting back to the accident site Joanna sees it's cordoned off by the highway police. Before she can tell them what happened, and her involvement in it, Joanna starts to have second thought about turning herself in.

What would at first have been a tragic accident turns out to be a hit-and-run with Joanna facing time behind bars, if caught. Even far worse she has to live with herself in what she did seeing almost every day the family of the little girl she ran down Kelly Corey, Dallas Deremer, who goes to the same school as her two daughters Mindy & Holly, Gretchen Esau & Kira Posey. Joanna's life starts to come apart as she tries to keep the truth from her friends and family, not to mention the Eaton Police, of what she was involved with in little Kelly's accident.

You can easily see how the words of her friends and neighbors as well as her husband Doug, Drew Phillbury, about the hit and run, effected Joanna. It was those words that had Joanna unable to bring herself to admit what she did not just for her own concern but her two daughters and her husband as well. Feeling that they'll be shunned by the people that they knew as friends as well as neighbors for years.

Joanna on the verge of losing her mind tries to implicate her friend Nancy Grayson, Sherry Hursey, in Kelly's hit-and-run accident by trying to plant her earing, that she lost in Joanna house, at the accident site. It's then that she realizes what she's doing and suddenly stops,keeping her from making an already bad situation even worse, not wanting to have Kelly's accident but also innocent Nancy's freedom and reputation on her conscience as well.

Margraet Colin gives a stunning performance as the guilt ridden Joanna Kendall and you can really feel for her seeing how she's being eaten up inside and not knowing just what to do. Wanting at first to turn herself in to the police a series of miscalculations causes Joanna to become a fugitive from the law. When she eventually did Joanna became the most hated and despised person in Eaton.

Not being herself, when still at large, Joanna's husband starts to feel that she's either back to smoking or even having an affair. Never in a million years would Doug have thought that Joanna was the person who ran down little Kelly and left her to die on that rain soaked road! The look on his face, with his mouth quivering, when he found out the truth said it all.

The last few minutes of the movie took a lot out of you knowing what Joanna was going through, not to downplay the suffering of the injured Kelly Corey and her parents, and how she now has to face the music for what she did and have to live with it for the rest of her life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just watched this film on TV and it was awesome.

had just planned on watching it whilst doing some work however i ended up watching the whole film with out doing work as it was so good!

Actors my not be very well know but the story line makes up for it. the fact that the actors make are less well known only makes it more believable that the events could occur. i did not feel a biased towards one character as i have no judgement of the types of character as i have never seen any of the actors in a film before which made it even more enjoyable.

would recommend watching it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Wow, what a predicament Joanna has found herself in. After accidentally running over a young child, she goes to call for help, only to return to the crime scene amidst a group of very angry onlookers. Understanda- bly, this is too much for her to handle, and she flees the scene. Luckily the child didn't die, but is seriously injured and in a coma. So starts the biggest struggle in Joanna's life: should she keep quiet or speak up? At first she doesn't, but eventually she realises that it's torture living with such a horrible secret.

At one point she even joins a search party to help find the culprit. And gradually a detective starts to question this woman's behavior. She wants to tell the truth, and she never meant to run away from the crime scene, but is it worth telling and having the whole town hate you for it?

The thing about this movie is that you don't choose sides. Joanna is very much a good role model, even though she's made some wrong choices. You feel for her, even though you know what she did was wrong. Her journey is a good representation of what any human being would go through if something like this were to happen to them.

Margaret Colin is an absolutely brilliant actress. She was amazing in the TV series Now and Again and great in films like Independence Day and The Devil's Own. Her performance here is so realistic and unforced that she carries us singlehandedly through the entire film. In the end, I wanted to see more of her. Lisa Vidal also provided some good supporting work as the gentle, resourceful detective.

To wrap it up, if you wanna see a movie that will make you think long afterwards, one that will say \"This is reality\", then you won't want to miss this one.

My rating: 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spoiler Alert I worked as an extra on this Lifetime TV movie (filmed in Seattle). It's really interesting when you take part in the production of a movie, because usually, they are still in the process of either still writing parts (as was the case here) or making editing cuts and major changes from the final parts.

My husband and I both worked as extras in this movie, and I recall them discussing on the set how it was yet to be determined whether or not the little girl dies in the end. Frankly, I never thought Margaret Colin's character really got adequate punishment for her crime of hit and run, lying to police, covering up, etc. Could you imagine how the ending would have had to change if she had ended up killing the hit and run victim instead of her ending up coming out of her coma okay? Just something to think about.

By the way, I play a police detective you can see for a split second and my husband plays another detective you can see quite often (we've counted four times). Margaret Colin was great to work with and very down to earth, although Lisa Vidal (now a Lifetime regular) was aloof.

Overall, the movie turned out to be about a 7\/10, but like another poster commented, is still a real tear-jerker and makes a great Saturday afternoon cable flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Hit and Run\" is a shattering story starring the always wonderful Margaret Colin as a society lady who \"has it all\" until she hits a child with her car and leaves the scene. Hence the title. The tragedy is that she goes to call for help and returns, but is frightened away by angry passers-by who think the hitter abandoned the scene. This was made in the days when not everyone had a cell phone or there wouldn't be a story.

Colin's guilt and anguish are palpable and cause her to act so strangely that a detective gets onto her right away. Her lies sink her deeper and deeper into a self-loathing hole, causing her to make a bad situation worse.

This is a very thought-provoking story, and one can't help but to feel this lady's pain, wishing throughout that she would simply come clean.

As a TV movie, thanks to Colin and a strong script, this is a well above average TV movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's all there: Two classic anti-hero buddies, a headlong chase through beautiful swedish scenery, guns, violence, sex, and a Butch Cassidy \/ sundance Kid - style finale.

Add a touch of surrealism and some distinctly danish humour, and you've got this excellent road-movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. It is about true love and friendship. About turning your life around and doing something good for someone else. Thomas Bo Larsen may play the same role he has done in so many other movies, but recently we have seen him in other roles which he does great too. But so what if he plays the same role that he has done in other movies \u0096 he's perfect for that role. Ulrich Thomsen does a great job too. These two criminal \"low-lifes\" are the best friends ever. They share everything and they do everything for each other no matter what the costs are. When they find out that Peter's daughter is being abused they put everything on hold (things you can't put on hold unless you have to make even more criminal acts) and takes her to a better place. They do the best they can \u0096 these two men are not masterminds but they have their heart in the right place. All I can say is that Peter and Carsten are my Biggest Heroes too\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This must be one of the funniest Danish movies ever made. Ulrich Thomsen and Thomas Bo Larsen are hilarious, as they drive across Sweden. I don't know how Ulrich Thomsen does it, but somehow he can manage to play insane in a very sane way. BUT if you don't understand Danish (I am not referring to your pastry here) don't waste your time on this \u0096 I don't think it would work with subtitles.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The biggest heroes, is one of the greatest movies ever. A good story, great actors and a brilliant ending is what makes this film the jumping start of the director Thomas Vinterberg's great carrier.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a style reminiscent of the best of David Lean, this romantic love story sweeps across the screen with epic proportions equal to the vast desert regions against which it is set. It's a film which purports that one does not choose love, but rather that it's love that does the choosing, regardless of who, where or when; and furthermore, that it's a matter of the heart often contingent upon prevailing conditions and circumstances. And thus is the situation in `The English Patient,' directed by Anthony Minghella, the story of two people who discover passion and true love in the most inopportune of places and times, proving that when it is predestined, love will find a way.

It's WWII; flying above the African desert, Hungarian Count Laszlo de Almasy (Ralph Fiennes) is shot down, his biplane mistaken for an enemy aircraft. And though he survives the crash, he is severely burned. To his great good fortune, however, he is rescued by a tribe of nomads and winds up in a hospital. But existing conditions are governed by circumstances of war, and Almasy soon becomes one of many patients being transported via convoy to a different facility. Upon reaching Italy, he is too weak and ill to continue on, and a Canadian nurse, Hana (Juliette Binoche), volunteers to stay behind with him at an abandoned monastery.

Hana soon discovers that her charge is something of a man of mystery, as Almasy remembers nothing of his past, and not even his own name. Thought to be English, the only clues pointing to who he is are contained in a book found in his possession after the crash, but even they are as cryptic as Hana's patient. Slowly, however, under prompting from Hana, Almasy begins to remember bits and pieces of his life, and his story begins to unfold. And his memory is helped along even more by the appearance of a mysterious stranger named Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), who suspects that Almasy is the man he's been looking for-- a man with whom he wants to settle a score. But, burned beyond recognition, Almasy may or may not be that man. Meanwhile, Almasy's memories continue to surface; memories of a woman he loved, Katherine Clifton (Kristin Scott Thomas)-- as well as memories of Katherine's husband, Geoffrey (Colin Firth). And, crippled in mind and body as he is, those memories become the only thing left to which he can cling with any hope at all, even as his life seems to be slipping farther away with each passing moment.

In addition to directing, Anthony Minghella also wrote the screenplay for this film, which he adapted from the novel by Michael Ondaatje. The result is an epic saga presented in the tradition of Lean's `Doctor Zhivago' and `Lawrence of Arabia'; a magnificent film that fills the screen and the senses with unprecedented grandeur and beauty. Simply put, Minghella's film is genius realized; crafted and delivered with a poetic perfection, watching it is like watching a Monet come to life. From the opening frames, Minghella casts a hypnotic spell over his audience that is binding and transporting, with a story that has an emotional beauty that equals the engagingly stunning and vibrant images brought to life by John Seale's remarkable cinematography; images that virtually fill the screen as well as the soul of the viewer. In every sense, this is a film of rare eloquence, with a striking emotional capacity that facilitates an experience that is truly transcendental. Nominated in twelve categories, it deservedly received a total of nine Oscars, including Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actress (Binoche) and Cinematography.

If one had to choose a single word to describe the `essence' of this film, it would be `excellence.' Even an extraordinary film, however, does not receive nine Oscars without performances that are extraordinary in kind; and the performances given by Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas here transcend the term `Oscar worthy.' Nominated for Best Actor for his portrayal of Almasy (Geoffrey Rush was awarded the gold for `Shine'), Fiennes has never been better, achieving an emotional depth with his character that is nearly palpable. Private and introspective, Almasy is not by his very nature an individual to whom the audience will be able to form an intimate connection; Fiennes, however, finds a way to open that emotional door just enough to let you in, enough so that you taste the honest passion welling up within him. And it works. Almasy does not seek your friendship; he will, however, gain your compassion.

Kristen Scott Thomas, too, received an Oscar nomination for Best Actress (Frances McDormand received the award for `Fargo') for her portrayal of Katherine, a woman whose stoic countenance masks the emotional conflict raging within her, born of the forbidden passion that enslaves her and yet to which she gives herself willingly, casting off her shackles of repression to embrace a love so strong it threatens to consume her. The reserve Katherine must maintain evokes the empathy of the audience, as Scott Thomas successfully mines the emotional depths of her character to the greatest possible effect. It's the kind of performance that draws you in and holds you fast, taking you as it does beyond that curtain of hypocrisy that dictates what must be if only for the sake of appearances, and allows you to experience a true sense of unbridled passion. Understated and shaded with subtlety, it's terrific work by Kristin Scott Thomas.

Binoche gives a stunning, affecting performance, as well, as the kindhearted nurse, Hana; it is her humanity, in fact, which defines love in it's purest sense and offers a balanced perspective of it within the context of the film. Her relationship with Kip (Naveen Andrews) affords us a glimpse of passion of another kind, which contrasts effectively with the intensity of that between Almasy and Katherine. `The English Patient' is a film that will move you and fill you emotionally; one you will not want to see end. 10\/10.





","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'The English Patient' is a love story set in Europe as World War II ends... It is a wartime romance mystery epic, like 'Hiroshima, Mon Amour,' 'The Sweet Hereafter,' and 'After Life.' Anthony Minghella weaves extravagant beauty around a central character whose condition is grotesque, and puts emotional barriers between the characters and the audience...

This adult love story is an intimate portrait in the tradition of 'Casablanca' and 'Dr. Zhivago.' The film sweeps gracefully attaining a level of eroticism and emotional connection that many similar films had missed... Told in flashback, it is a masterpiece of intimate moment and spectacular largesse...

Ralph Fiennes plays the English patient, Count Laszlo de Almasy, a Hungarian cartographer of few words, who works for the British government, and is stationed in the North African desert...

Count Laszlo is the unidentified survivor of a plane crash turned over to the Allies, taken into custody by a medical convoy in Italy, and essentially left to die in peace, in an isolated monastery in Tuscany, under the care of an inspiring pretty nurse who injects him with morphine, and reads to him a book, considered his great treasure, and his one surviving possession...

Hana seeks to stimulate his touching memories, wrapped up in his head, released in lost pieces from his disturbed mind...

Fiennes gives a haunted, pained performance, playing the young man whose veneer of charm cannot plainly cover his heart's capacity for passion... He makes us sympathize with the character in showing self-doubt and weakness... As a badly burned man, he has only cherished memories... His joy and heartbreak are completely clear and visible in his eyes... He remembers falling under the spell of an attractive English married woman... He remembers the way this turns him from a harsh abrupt wanderer into a man willing to betray everything for love... His tragic love affair forms the heart of the motion picture...

Kristin Scott Thomas matches Fiennes' work with a radiant sensuality... She is captivating as the married European woman, conveying the audience with the energy and enthusiasm for life that the Count finds irresistible... Their different world, despairing and hopeful, menacing and resilient, is simply beautiful... With intense passion and intelligence, this attractive blonde burns the screen as the different wife...

Juliette Binoche seems to shine as the French-Canadian nurse full of life and energy... This vibrant young woman has a heart of gold, kissing wounded soldiers, but she thinks that she is a curse as anybody she ever loved tends to die on her...

Colin Firth is good as Katherine's husband... He is a British spy flying into the tough desert in a yellow biplane to take aerial maps of the whole North African continent... He quickly becomes friend of the Count, yet when he realizes that his wife has committed adultery, his face reflected a peaceful fury...

William Dafoe plays a double-agent spy who covers his anger with a strange charm... He is a crippled war veteran who has a hidden agenda... This cunning Canadian man seems to know of some dark secret in Almasy's past... He believes the 'English patient' is partially responsible for the mutilation of his hands, and is busy seeking revenge on everyone even remotely involved...

Naveen Andrews is Hana's ardent lover\u0085 He is a handsome Sikh, and an explosives expert with a dangerous job\u0085 There's a scene that is stuck in my head because it literally had me on the edge of my seat for what seemed an eternity\u0085 In this particular scene, the military sapper has to cut the wires on a bomb that has been hidden on a bridge\u0085 It's on a timer and he only has a few minutes left\u0085 The scene cuts back and forth between his tense face, the wires and his dirty fingers as they try madly to figure out how to untangle and cut the wires without detonating the bomb\u0085

All the conventional elements of the genre are at peaks of excellence in \"The English Patient.\" John Seale's cinematography is breathtaking, and Gabriel Yared's majestic music is dreamy, and romantic\u0085 This is a rich motion picture with ambition and style, a fever dream, lyrical and complex\u0085 We are almost able to feel the heat of the desert, the pain of the burnings, the intimate flush of humanity that becomes the most haunting element of this epic love story...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen a few movies in my time, but this one is exceptional. You'll have to watch it more than once to truly appreciate it, it is emotionally very complex, it explores love and passion at it's most extreme and it's cinematography is just breathtaking. The character of the Count is intensely passionate and tragic without him having to raise his voice or indeed leave his bed, the film is perfectly cast and perfectly acted. The film has a sort of mathematical precision and perfection to it which is rare these days. It combines action, love, tragedy, drama and politics all in one. This movie is unmissable, all the hype surrounding it and all the awards cannot begin to do it any justice. Hats off to Michael Ondaatje for writing the incredible book on which it is based.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"as can be read in many reviews here it is a movie you love or hate - apparently not so much space for opinions in between. I for one think that is a good sign.

I always appreciated this movie, although the genre is not my typical style (I never watched Titanic for instance, and am not planning to).

The English Patient grips because it shows how people can be different when they are in an exotic environment as opposed when they are 'home' (Katherine), it shows how destructive love can be in a slow, strong and utterly painful way, it excites because of the extremely passionate affair, the pain of the one(s) who leave behind, how pointless one can feel to move on.

The photography is just stunning, not to mention the play of the actors. The pace is slow, but timely, and that does justice to the book, the timeline, and the depth\/development of the characters. To put this in 110 minutes (as some seem to suggest here) would amputate the multi-layeredness of this movie. People tend to have difficulties with the pace of movies... as if they are in a rush to get to work.. hey - get a life ! ;-) enjoy...

I give this movie 4.5 out of 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like this movie above all others. It is \"multi-layered\"; there is so much to see and appreciate. Every viewing brings a new appreciation of the story-line, the plot and the characters. Faultlessly acted and extremely enjoyable if you take the time to watch it and appreciate it. I love the interaction between the players; the subtle relationships; the period atmosphere. Ralph Fiennes is perfectly cast as the brooding lover and Geoffrey the wronged husband is beautifully underplayed by Colin Firth. The scene in the sand storm where Catherine & El-masy are discussing the different types of sand storms is one of the high-lights of the film and where the affair really starts. The other relationship between Hanna & El-masy is yet another \"layer\" of the movie which is totally enchanting (and heart-rending). A worthy winner of so many awards.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"TEP is like a long cool drink of water after crawling across the Sahara to classic film buffs who have been too long deprived of that certain cinematic magic! Not only is it beautifully photographed, but the characters are perfectly portrayed. If you're looking for the film to be a mirror of the book, you will be seriously disappointed. Instead, it is an excellent \"companion\" to the book, and I think that is what Anthony Minghella intended. Ralph Fiennes is probably the most beautiful man in the world; not to mention a brilliant actor. Juliette Binoche is the posterchild for vulnerability and childlike enthusiasm. And, of course, I'll go see any film in which Kristin Scott Thomas is featured. She simply must be THE best actress since the likes of Deborah Kerr. So much was promised with this film, and so much is delivered!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Count Laszlo (Ralph Fiennes) has just been transferred to a hospital in Italy during World War II. He is horrifically burned from an ambush. His nurse Hana (Juliette Binoche) tends to him, body and mind, for she fears, quite rightly, that he may be a very troubled soul. In the course of his care, the Count starts to tell Hana of his recent past. It seems he worked in a government capacity in Africa, where he met a beautiful married lady named Katherine (Kristin Scott Thomas). Although they tried to avoid each other, they fell in love. After a brief affair, Katherine called it quits, leaving the Count desolate. Even so, the two would meet again, under heart-wrenching circumstances. Meanwhile, Hana herself falls for a Sihk man in the British bomb squad. Yet, the war is raging relentlessly. Can love exist when the world is in turmoil? This is a tremendous film, based on an equally fine but complex novel. The plot has many story lines that are woven together beautifully, each of them poignant beyond description. The script itself is elegant and contains many memorable lines. Fiennes is magnificent, both as the burn victim and as the man who thought love was a myth. Scott Thomas is also quite fine as the woman who fights against her passions. As for Binoche, she richly deserved the Oscar that she was presented, as her nurse is a shining example of hope in a hopeless situation. The scenery is utterly gorgeous, as are the costumes, the direction, and the production. If you have missed out on viewing this film, rectify that soon, very soon. The English Patient will remain one of the greatest achievements in film for centuries to come.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'The English Patient' can rightly be compared to the films of David Lean, whose sweeping epics such as 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'Bridge on the River Kwai' must have inspired the director Anthony Minghella. The film is beautifully photographed, and like 'Lawrence', is set in Northern Africa, but during the second world war. The story is complex, but it boils down to a forbidden love between an opinionated and often difficult archeologist played by Ralph Fiennes and a married woman played by Kristin Scott Thomas.

The story, based on a novel by Michael Ondaatje, is told in flashbacks by Fiennes' Count Laszlo de Almasy - the titular character. The fact that his name does not sound like he's English plays a key role in what unfolds. He has been badly burned in a plane crash, occurring just as the film opens, and is being cared for back in Europe by Hana, an army nurse played by Juliette Binoche. What makes this story epic is the vast sweep across place and time, and the development of characters beyond that of the two ill-fated lovers. The film makes clear that true love and passion, even with dreaded consequences, can make life worth living, or worth dying for. If you're a romantic at heart, and can appreciate a film without the standard happy endings and simple moral codes, you may find that 'The English Patient' speaks directly to you.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is a strangely powerful and moving experience to see \"The English Patient\" again after Anthony Minghella's death. Most of his body of work is dedicated to one shattering point. The endless moral struggle of those who, consciously, walk a very thin line. In \"The Talented Mr Ripley\" Minghella moves away from Patricia Highsmith's amoral Tom Ripley to give the murderer a conscience. In \"Breaking And Entering\" Minghella gives Jude Law's character the need to confess and the rewards are chillingly moving. Here, in \"The English Patient\", the characters in love are never too far away from their corroding feeling of guilt. Ralph Finnes and Kristin Scott Thomas are extraordinary. They strip their characters from every pretense in a compelling complicity with us, the audience. Juliette Binoche is, quite simply, spectacular and her scenes with the wonderful Naveen Andrews are filled with a \"Minghellian\" sensual innocence. Anthony Minghella gave us films that were,one way or another, that elusive mix of art and commerce. He was true to himself but thought about his audience. He knew how to push our buttons without betraying his own. There is something clear, honest and startling about Minghella's opus. I miss him already but I'm grateful for the reflection of his soul he left behind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anthony Minghella's 'The English Patient' is a film that takes us back to the golden years of Hollywood. It is grand and impressive in scale, and yet so heartbreakingly intimate in its portrayal of human love and suffering. At the 1997 Academy Awards, the film owned the night, taking home nine awards from twelve nominations, the most decisive cleansweep since Bernardo Bertolucci's 'The Last Emperor' in 1988. Based on Canadian author Michael Ondaatje's 1992 Booker Prize-winning novel of the same name, 'The English Patient' is a touching meditation on life, love and loss, tracing the history of a critically-burnt man in the aftermath of World War Two.

During the war, a man (Ralph Fiennes) is discovered in the burning remnants of a crashed plane. With his face scarred beyond recognition, and with the man seemingly suffering from amnesia, he is assumed to be an Allied soldier, and is simply referred to as \"the English patient.\" After the war, in the mine-ridden hills of Italy, a kind nurse, Hana (Juliette Binoche), who has apparently lost everybody close to her, remains in a ruined monastery to look after the dying man. Over time, she comes to learn more and more about her \"English patient,\" who is actually revealed to be a Hungarian geographer, Count Laszlo de Alm\u00e1sy. Rather than losing his memory in the plane crash, we learn that this scar-ridden man has perhaps chosen to forget his past, both to protect himself from persecution and to cure himself of the tragic memories of his past love. Via numerous flashbacks, we learn of Alm\u00e1sy's former exploits in the Sahara desert, and his romantic liaison with a married woman, Katharine Clifton (Kristin Scott Thomas).

It's certainly easy to see why 'The English Patient' was so successful at the Oscars. It is such a beautiful film, blending the quiet beauty of the Italian countryside with the endless golden sands of the desert. Cinematographer John Seale captures the landscape to perfection; not since David Lean's magnificent 'Lawrence of Arabia' has a film shown the desert with such beauty and grandeur, making particularly good use of sweeping aerial shots from Alm\u00e1sy's plane. Even in the film's more intimate moments, excellent use of close-ups and lighting capture the emotion of the scene, coupled, of course, with the brilliant performances from all the cast members.

A long-time favourite actor of mine, 'The English Patient' might just contain Ralph Fiennes' finest performance, and, considering his history includes such films as 'Schindler's List' and 'The Constant Gardener,' this is not a complement that is to be taken lightly. His Count Laszlo de Alm\u00e1sy is initially a very sympathetic character, but, as we slowly learn more about his past, his likable qualities are eroded by his less-admirable tendencies towards others. \"Ownership\" is a major theme of the film. When asked by Katherine what he hates most, Alm\u00e1sy replies with \"Ownership. Being owned. When you leave you should forget me.\" However, as the relationship progresses, and Katherine perhaps tries to distance herself from him, Alm\u00e1sy reveals a hint of arrogance, insisting that his love for her somehow entitles him to have her whenever he likes: \"I want to touch you. I want the things which are mine, which belong to me.\"

Juliette Binoche, who received an Oscar for her performance here, is excellent as Hana, the lonesome nurse who fears to love because of the tragedies that have always harmed those close to her. After some time of caring for Alm\u00e1sy alone, she is joined by a dubious Canadian thief, David Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), who lost his thumbs during the war, and who suspects that it was Alm\u00e1sy who betrayed him to the Germans. Hana also strikes up a tentative romantic relationship with Kip (Naveen Andrews), an Indian bomb-diffuser in the British Army. However, due to her past history, Hana is afraid that becoming involved with Kip will doom him to death, particularly considering his very dangerous line of work.

At 160 minutes in length, 'The English Patient' wonderfully evokes memories of the classic romantic epics of old, successfully finding a balance of mystery, love, joy and tragedy. The ending of the film is heartbreaking and sorrowful, but also uplifting in its own way. Whilst some romantic relationships are doomed from the very beginning, others have a very good chance of bringing happiness. Nevertheless, in every case, it is always better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I won't go to a generalization, and say it's the best love story of all time, as some have said. That's fine, people feel very deeply about this film, you either love it I believe...or you simply hate it. I don't want to say, the best of all,because that is simply too 'broad' for me to make a statement like that. However, I feel very passionately about The English Patient, as well as millions of other people do.

The awards say it all.

I don't agree with critics, on many levels, however, the ones that picked this one, I couldn't agree more.

9-Oscars.

41-wins.

37-other nominations, makes this love story,on the top of the bunch.

From the director, Anthony Minghella, the story that bursts onto the screen and as Mr. Peterman (from T.V.s Seinfeld) said, \"Elaine, I simply can't take my eyes off of it!\" In this instance, I don't agree with Elaine's response. But the story builds and takes the right time, needed to make it's case beautifully. The cinematography,(John Seale) won multiple awards as well, as it ought too. I have not really paid much attention to Juliette Binoche, until now. Well, not entirely true I loved her performance in \"Sabrina\" Lovely story of a somewhat complicated relationship, next to Harrison Ford. But this was simply an incredibly differing character for her, and as deeply talented as she is, she simply shined in her own subtle and graceful way, she was just what this film was looking for, I'm truly glad that it was her performance and not another actress. Ralph Fiennes, was also spectacular in portraying Count Laszlo De Almasy. I had a new respect for his ability, after seeing this one! What can you say except, see this picture again. (*****)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie when it was released and being really young and not too much into cinema it was one of the most fascinating cinematic experiences I ever had and it really left a mark inside me.At first I didn't quite understand the story and probably failed to make the necessary correlations between past and present as the movie presents them to the viewer.

Years after I first watched I managed to watch it again and this was the time that I fell in love with 'The English Patient', it touched me so deeply and for me it became the best film ever made.

Anthony Minghella made an absolutely stunning film, all the locations are amazing and through his camera he manages to create unbelievable emotions inside you.

Of course, the music of the film is such a big part of the whole emotional journey of the characters and the film would not be the same without it.

But personally the best thing was the fragile performance that Ralph Fiennes gave in this masterpiece. He plays so well the man that falls in love slowly but so deeply with Katherine Clifton,opens up his heart and dives into this prohibited affair.

The most heart-breaking scene for me will always be the one where hurt Katherine is carried by Almasy towards the Cave of Swimmers and she wears the thimble that he bought her.She says 'I always wore it.I always loved you' and at that moment he starts crying with such pain flowing from inside him.

Juliette Binoche is also amazing in her performance and really deserved the Oscar she won.

Overall, this is a film that anybody who proclaims himself a cinema lover should watch in their lives.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the most charming and, for me at least, the most powerful elements of Anthony Minghella's enthralling Best Picture-winner \"The English Patient\" is that, in the mid 90s, when Hollywood was in the initial stage of having lost its nerve for grand new projects, a film was created that brought back traces\u0097very powerful traces\u0097of the sweeping, wonderful majesty that crafted movies such as \"Lawrence of Arabia\" (1962) and \"The Ten Commandments\" (1956). \"The English Patient\" contains very much of what made those films so powerful. It has that glorious feeling, a stretched running time that hardly seems long at all, and fascinating characters with pasts and stories.

\"The English Patient\", based on a novel by the same name by Michael Ondaatje, is like \"The Godfather: Part II\" (1974) in the sense of how it's constructed. It's a blending of two stories: the past and the present and it all revolves around the titular character: an English patient in the post years of World War Two. Ralph Fiennes plays the English patient, who has been scarred for life by a plane crash, and being taken care of in an isolated church by a single nurse played marvelously by Juliette Binoche. Apart from bonding with her raspy-voiced, troubled patient, Binoche comes to learn about his past when a stranger (Willem Dafoe) arrives and the two men appear to know each other.

That's just one of the two beautifully crafted stories that shape this film. The other one, told in flashback, is the patient's past, before he was scarred and dying in a bed. The story of the present mixed with the patient's past and his love affair that tragically changed his life forever.

To be blunt, \"The English Patient\" is a love story blended with a sweeping epic sensation and it blends magnificently. What I really admired about the love story between Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas was how passionate, how obsessive, how enchanting it was shown on screen. Usually in love stories, such as Minghella's later \"Cold Mountain\" (2003), the romantic elements seem far more lustful than obsessive to me. Some of the love scenes feature elements that may tend to be associated more with lust than love, but still, because it is so well developed and not rushed and not exploited out of proportion, we can believe that there is a sure, true love between these characters. It reminded me a lot of \"Vertigo\" (1958) in how well the filmmakers and performers convinced us that these were two actual human beings who truly fell in love with each other.

Performances all around were great. I was especially enthralled by the performance by Juliette Binoche, who took home the Oscar for her performance the following year. I also liked Willem Dafoe playing the sort of cynical, questionable character that he's always quintessential at playing. And of course I can't leave out Fiennes and Scott Thomas and their portrayals of two very passionate lovers.

Despite my enormous enthusiasm for this epic, I would be dishonest if I were to describe it as a perfect film. There are two flaws that I cannot glance over. Number one, it is a little too long and the reason for this is my second complaint, there are a few unnecessary subplots. I was not enchanted or particularly interested with the second love story between Binoche and a bomb specialist played by Naveen Andrews. My research has led me to assume that this plot element comes from the original book and I'm sure it worked perfectly in there, but in the film, it just seems a little\u0085distracting and the relationship between the two characters didn't fascinate me. I was far more interested by Fiennes character and his relationships with his two leading actresses.

Nevertheless, these two flaws are easily forgivable even if they do slow things down a bit. Those put aside, \"The English Patient\" is an extraordinary achievement of film-making. To me, it was sort of like an insane mix up between \"Casablanca\" (1942) and \"Lawrence of Arabia\" (1962), two remarkable and better films, and this effective blend proved to be well worth my time. It is a real shame that Anthony Minghella has left us. For he was a truly gifted filmmaker. This is all the evidence anybody needs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A sweeping and deeply moving love story featuring powerful performances from Ralph Fiennes,Willem Defoe and Juliette Binoche.

It tells the story of a badly burned man(Ralph Fiennes) who gets pulled out of a plane wreak during World War Two and tells his nurse(Juliette Binoche)his story.

Just before the war he fell in love with the beautiful Katherine Clifton(Kristen Scott Thomas)however she is married to Jeffery Clifton(Colin Firth)and the two begin a passionate and forbidden affair.

A very haunting and tragic story of love and desire set against some absolutely gorgeous locations in the desert.A must see especially if your a fan of Anthony Minghellas work but be prepared to shed a lot of tears its very moving especially at the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can never figure if this is the Artiest Soap Opera ever produced, or the Soapiest Art Movie. No matter, John Seale's cinematogaphy is utterly ravishing. Ondaatje's novel is not reduced, but for once, elevated to film. If there is a fault, it is in the original novel, not in Anthony Minghella's beautiful movie. Anyone who has a problem with it's length almost certainly has not read the book, and probably cannot read. I do not like repeating adjectives, but ravishing serves the purpose.

Apart from the storyline, the players excel. But it is the Australian sense of light and shade that ultimately triumphs. Like some antipodean Dutch Master, Seale uses a blast of light, where Van Rijn would have used shade. One could weep for cinematography this magnificent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The book is better than the film mostly because of the writer Ondatje's prose. Before I saw this film, someone who had seen it, told me the love depicted in this film isn't real. After seeing this film, I can see how her suspension of disbelief in this regard could've been distracting to other movie-goers as well. Frankly, some of the intense displays of love were laughable and seem to be on the edge of parody. But by the end, everyone should realize this is a big message piece of art. It is not specifically about love at all, it uses \"love\" to dialectically reveal the human divide or the arbitrary borders of countries that help justify wars and hatred. It is about misunderstandings and the blind following of the things that supposedly separate us. The critical scene for the real theme of this movie is when the hero or antihero's pleas for help for his stranded lover in the desert is ignored and disregarded for the reasons shown in that scene. This film is also about hope and forgiveness, the hope epitomized in the interracial relationship between Binoche's recovering character and the Indian minesweeper (echoed in the Sikh's buddy-buddy relationship with his white coworker who ends up dying nonsensically) and the forgiveness epitomized in the Caravaggio character's first hunt and then forcing out of what he thinks will be the hero's confessions for his war \"crimes\" (betrayal of country). I think the film could've been made even better than it is. I don't know if a more realistic portrayal of the circumstances of love would've made the real themes and points of this film even more obvious or not, but I agree this film is not about realistic romantic love, as the people behind this piece of art or film imply in an early scene when the eventual lovers first meet. The hero talks about how a new car, broken-down car, fast car, etc. (I'm paraphrasing) is still just a car no matter what adjective you put in front of it. She replies but parental love, platonic love, romantic love, etc. are very different kinds of love. This is ironic because this film is really about the one love all humans should want which is the love of (or for) peace (not materialistic things which are usually the real reasons for wars, epitomized in something most of us want such as \"cars\", let's say). Otherwise, we may be left stranded to die in a cave in a vast desert with ancient wall art\/drawings of swimmers, suggesting that the seas and life-supporting waters which were once there have all but disappeared. I believe \"The English Patient\" won the Oscar because of these big messages not specifically for its depiction of romantic love. Awards tend to go that way. The relationship of the hero and heroine was necessary to draw the audience in, unfortunately this view of love may be antiquated in the age of divorce and so many singles who can't seem to get together on so many levels, so ridiculous versions of mythic love are hard to get into, even in daydreams, which film love has always been, especially in good old Hollywood. The film may fall short of what people expect but a 7 out of 10 movie worth seeing, regardless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In World War II, a badly burned amnesiac known only as \"The English Patient\" is found in the African desert and is transported to Italy, where he joins a convoy of medical troops and others at an abandoned monastery. Among them are Hana (Juliette Binoche), a Canadian nurse whose lovers generally meet unpleasant ends; Kip (Naveen Andrews) and Hardy (Kevin Whately), two explosives experts who search the monastery for bombs; and David Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), a Canadian soldier-of-fortune who knows the identity of the English patient and has a score to settle.

Through flashbacks we learn the story of the Patient: he is Laszo Almasy (Ralph Fiennes), a Hungarian explorer who, in the late '30s, falls in with a group of British cartographers, including Geoffrey Clifton (Colin Firth) and his wife Katharine (Kristen Scott-Thomas), while mapping the deserts of North Africa. After Clifton leaves them on government business, Katharine and Clifton fall in love with each other in the desert, resulting in an affair that, naturally, has a less-than-happy ending.

If one is able to overlook the illogical parts of the story line (such as, why would a patient found in Africa be sent to what is essentially the front line of the war in Italy?), then you can appreciate \"The English Patient\" as a throwback to the intelligent, layered, sweeping epics of David Lean in the '60s. Much more than \"Titanic\" or other epic romances of late, this movie puts one in mind of \"Doctor Zhivago\" and \"Gone With the Wind\" - an epic love story set against a huge historical backdrop. You shouldn't expect a war film, though there are some striking (if all-too-brief) scenes of violence that stand out more than the romantic sections, as is usually the case (Caravaggio's interrogation by a sadistic SS officer (Jurgen Prochnow) in particular).

The movie is very ambiguous, in regards to pretty much everything. The central question of the film is: How far are you willing to go for love? As critics of the movie are fast to point out, Almasy is, on the surface, a far-from-likable character - he has an affair with a married woman and betrays his country by giving maps and intelligence to the Germans, causing the death of his friend Madox (Julian Wadham) and the torture of Caravaggio, and actually killing a British soldier who has him under arrest at one point. The fact that Almasy is in many ways reprehensible is kind of the point - he's in love with Katharine, and sees the world narrowly in terms of his love that loyalty to country (or anything else for that matter) is secondary; as Almasy says, he hates \"Ownership. Being owned.\" The two engage in a rather bold love affair (shagging within ear shot of hundreds of people at a Christmas party) and it's clear that Katharine is more drawn to the mysterious, exciting Almasy than the comparatively boring Geoffrey.

The 1944 subplot is somewhat shaky and seems superfluous; the romance between Kip and Hannah is never completely believable, and I feel the film could have done without it. But those sequences do add an interesting texture of mystery and complexity to the film, so I won't complain too much.

Like the epics mentioned above, the film is able to convey time and place through simple devices like crowd scenes, strategically placed posters, and military presence. We do not need to dwell on the fact that it's 1938 in Cairo, but it's helpful to know. The direction of Anthony Minghella and the desert cinematography by John Seale are absolutely gorgeous; the sand dunes, sand storms, and haunting caves of the desert are captured in beautiful detail. Gabriel Yared's score is haunting and atmospheric.

The acting is generally solid. Fiennes gives a very layered performance as a character who is mysterious, complex, and haunted. The difference between the Almasys of 1938 and 1944 are remarkable; one exciting and somewhat carefree, the other haunted and reflective. Kirsten Scott Thomas is effective as Katharine, the female explorer looking for adventure, and Colin Firth gives one of his best performances as Geoffrey, who realizes early on that he's no competition for the exciting Almasy. Willem Dafoe does nice work as Caravaggio, the shifty, hunted thief-turned-spy driven by revenge. Jurgen Prochnow gives a performance reminiscent of Jose Ferrer in \"Lawrence of Arabia\" (and a similar character too): very brief, but more memorable then some of the major characters. Some of the 1944 actors are unremarkable: Juliette Binochette is nothing special, while Naveen Andrews is good but unremarkable. Kevin Whately, as Kip's ill-fated partner, does what he can with a rather smallish role.

\"The English Patient\" is not a perfect movie by any means, but the vituperative attacks on it by much of the movie-going public are not deserved at all. Maybe it's a show of how film sensibilities have changed since the era of the Leans and Kubricks, or maybe people were expecting something simple to understand. Complex to fault, brilliantly directed and shot, \"The English Patient\" is a wonderful modern-day epic.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There have been several comments already on the site focusing on the \"prestige\" feel of the film - and there is a lot of heavy-weight talent on show: from Fiennes and Scott-Thomas to the magnificently rendered design and scoring, to the masterly direction. No wonder that Andrew Lloyd Webber's acceptance speech for \"Evita\" at that year's Oscars began \"Well, thank God that \"The English Patient\" had no songs in it.\" Writing of Oscar winners takes me to Juliette Binoche, who, in a stellar cast, gives a beautiful performance. It is heartening to see that the dynamics which seem to influence the award for Best Actor (often going to showy pyrotechnic display) aren't at work in the female categories. Just as Emma Thompson's hugely well-deserved Oscar for her portrayal of Margaret Schlegel in \"Howard's End\" proved that one of the hardest things that an actor can do is make the portrayal of \"goodness\" involving, so Binoche's win proved that it could be that - and seriously sexy. Her performance in this terrific film is a thing of beauty.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Was curious to know the name of the Tuscan village where the filming in Italy was done. I know the villa's name: Villa San Girolamo, however, would like to know the exact location in Tuscany. The cinematography is excellent and it would be wonderful to visit that area. I would also be interested to know what the location of the desert shooting is as well. Travel extensively in Europe and Africa and would am interested in visiting the areas that the book and film were about. Please e-mail me with any information on the sites that any one might have. We would be very grateful. And if any one knows if the villa in Tuscany is still habitable, that would be awesome as well. I await any information and I thank you in advance for your time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even after all these years, this remain \"a perfect movie\" for me. I still remember sitting for a long time in the theater after it was over, stunned by the experience, overcome by emotion. I own the DVD (of course!) is see at least once a year. It's incomparable and I cannot add much to has already been written about its excellence and beauty. So glad others love it as much as I do! A note: the author of the book on which it's based - Michael Ondatje - was enchanted with the film and is quoted as saying he wished he had thought of some of the lovely scenes written purely for the movie...the way Kip \"invites\" Hana to his side with a trail of small candles, and the way he arranges for Hana to view the frescoes in the ruined medieval church.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The English Patient is one of those films that mostly deserve all the highest praise. I say, most, because this movie, albeit very serious, intense, deep and really thoughtful, still suffers some drawbacks. First and foremost, why, oh why are the modern films so long? This one lasts for more than two hours and from time to time it becomes really hard to concentrate and follow the extremely serious plot. I say, if the film were an hour shorter, that would serve it only good. However, we have what we have. The winner of several Oscars, The English Patient is still very good. It is a deep, insightful treatise of human soul, love and betrayal, war and cowardice, violence and bravery. Ralph Fiennes is a smashing superb actor. His hero, neurotic and silent, is an enigmatic person, ready for everything only to save the life of his lover. He is great, even though half the time he is a deformed cripple. He is the strongest link here. Juliette Binoche is as usual very convincing and sweet. She adds a lot with her excellent play and the love story plot with that Sikh officer. Willem Defoe, Colin Firth, Christine Scott Thomas are all here, all enormous and all very strong. And then there is desert of Egypt, then there is deep, cloudless sky, green groves of Italy. The nature is here, even when people die, bombs roar, land mines explode. War is here, too. It is obvious, terrible, and bloody. Then, there are corpses, horrible gory bodies, then nude bodies, adultery and all. I do not know what to say. So much of a splendid actors' work, so much of realism, so much of brutality that war brings. This is not a film for relaxation. It makes you think.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From 1996, first i watched this movie, i feel never reach the end of my satisfaction, i feel that i want to watch more and more until now, my god i don't believe it was ten years ago, and i can believe that i almost remember every word of the dialogues. I love this movie and i love this novel, absolutely perfection. i love Willem Defoe, he has a strange voice to spell the words \"black night\" and i always say it for many times, never being bored. I love the music of Szararem, it's so much spiritualistic, made me come into another world deep in my heart. anyone can feel what i feel and anyone could make the movie like this? i don't believe so. Thanks Ondaatje thanks Mingela.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a critical scene, as Katharine Clifton (Kristin Scott Thomas) lies in the Cave Of Swimmers, she writes something read aloud by Hana (Juliette Binoche) in which she proclaims that \"the light has gone out now, and I'm writing in the darkness...\" A sentence of such poetic beauty could not be more perfect for the cinematic brilliance of the far from tiresome The English Patient. With such a dramatic sweep that keeps one firmly on their feet, and a strength about the film that doesn't let up, this film proudly celebrates the mysteries and romances of World War II, taking elements of Casablanca and Lawrence Of Arabia along with some independence in the form of Tuscany.

The English Patient unabashedly pulls the heartstrings and takes us through a mysterious first act, a romantic second act, and a beautiful... beautiful final act, and it isn't just the wonderful pace and setting, it's the performance of Ralph Fiennes, who keeps us sympathetic even when Count Alm\u00e1sy, from the very start, proves to be a thoroughly unlikable character. Usually typecast as a villain, he shows tainted, but ultimately human colours as a man taken in by a desperate love that he must fulfill.

Many will criticize this film based on its so called \"glorification of adulterers\", but those who do know nothing. The contrasts between the two periods (before and after the plane crash seen at the start) are spectacular, as the patient is the regretting man who suffers because of what he did, the evil that was once in him now absent, whereas the man of before the crash is an individual like anyone else. He wants this woman but he cannot have her, Fiennes brings the human-like qualities out of Alm\u00e1sy in a way absolutely NO OTHER actor could. There couldn't have been a better actor for the job.

So please, take these comments to heart, see the film, those who call it \"boring\" or \"despicable\" know nothing, and should be ashamed of such a one-dimensional view on the film, a view that they have neither studied nor corrected, and probably don't plan on correcting. The English Patient is the best of every film to have ever won the Best Picture Oscar, and for so many reasons, hidden in their poetic triumphs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have heard an awful lot about 'The English Patient' and I finally decided to get the CD and find out what all the ballyhoo was about. What I found out was a cinematic delight and should, I repeat 'should' always be watched with an open mind. If you are a religious, moral zealot, I am afraid this is not a film for you as you will fail to see the beauty of this cinematic masterpiece as you will keep on harping on the moral dilemmas this film creates. As I remember correctly before I watched this film I read the review in this site and was thoroughly disgusted by the views of that person who I quote said 'that the protagonists thoroughly deserved what they got'. When it comes to morality I agree with him but this is not the way to comment on a film of this magnificence.

I must admit rarely have I seen such a wonderfully crafted film. I keep on hearing the background soundtrack in my subconscious. First and foremost this is a love story and yes it's an extramarital affair (moralists beware) but lets not keep focusing on that. Instead let's focus on how the story was told. It's an admixture of flashbacks and the present. Its set in the world war II and tells us the story of a survivor of a plane crash (Count Almazhy played wonderfully by Ralph Fiennes) who is looked after by an army nurse (Juliet Binoche) in war torn Italy just before the beginning of the end (defeat of the axis powers). The burn scarred patient very much in pain kept on remembering the torrid affair he had with an English woman Katherine (Kristin Scott Thomas) shown in flashbacks set in pre-war Africa. The past and the present are interwoven so adroitly in the story that you're sort of transported in the story and get the feel of a first hand viewer. The locales in the desert and in Italy are beautiful and so are the characters. I am a romantic and am not ashamed to say I had tears after it ended. Watch it with someone you truly love. The movie starts and ends with the same shot of the desert where the sand dunes twist and curves like a woman's body and it was breathtaking. The sense of loss and grief was conveyed so overwhelmingly by the actors that it makes me wonder why god! Why do we have wars that destroys beauty and the most unforgivable of all, the destruction of Innocence.

Anyway it deservedly won a bunch of Oscars and I will go hunting for other works of director Anthony Minghella.It kind of brings back the romanticism in the David Lean genre of films.It almost reminds me of 'Lawrence of Arabia' which was also based in the desert.Happy viewing folks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wonderful story...so beautiful told..so intense so whit no keyboard to describe I think...,go see it feel it...,it tell's a story about love ,romance ,war,and be trail so wonderful so full of romance if you love romance see it ,if you don't love romance ,drama well skip it that's all I can I vote 10 out of 10 stars wonderful...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I chose \"The English Patient\" for a history extra credit assignment. I thought that this movie would be incredibly boring. Instead, it has become one of my favorites. It portrays life in WWII quite accurately, and the love story is amazing. The love story made the movie so incredible. I felt this interesting feeling, of passion or something. It made me want to watch the movie over and over again. Kristin Scott Thomas and Ralph Fiennes are amazing actors and the way they played their characters is amazing. The look wonderful together and actually seemed to be in love. I recommend this movie to anyone looking for a movie to watch as a leisure activity, or for an assignment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE ENGLISH PATIENT not only has it all (doomed romance, tragic war, great characters) but it has it in a way that no other movie does. It is a spellbindingly tale told through flashbacks featuring amazing performances by all involved, somptuous visuals, characters we care about, and the most rapturous love story ever told. A cinematic landmark, the best film of 1996 and one of the very best of the 1990s.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Have just seen the last episode, No 32, (though the site says only 30 episodes were made) and I must comment on the fact that this series was really very good and I would thoroughly recommend it to anyone who enjoys crime\/cop stories. Supposedly all 32 were based on fact with information at the end of each episode of the court sentences imposed on the perpetrators of the crimes, this has at times been a gritty, well acted, believable and dare I say, entertaining series. The fact that the powers in Denmark decided to disband the unit was almost unbelievable as they did their work so well and in the series at least, never failed to \"get their man\"! It's a definite 10\/10 for me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We've just watched the last of the series shown on the SBS network and will miss our weekly dose of Danish Delight. My wife and I picked up the show after the Swedish show \"The Eagle\" finished and it seemed by comparison to be a very poor substitute for our then favourite show on TV. Week by week, however, the show grew on me, and whilst not as glossy as the Swedish show and definitely grittier in terms of their investigations of everyday crimes, it certainly provided a very satisfying weekly viewing meal indeed.

Prior to these 2 shows I had not really been a fan of the cop genre and can't say I am now but the 2 Scandinavian shows really provided us with an insight into life in those northern Euopean countries through the eyes of their special policing units.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First off, I'm an American -- I haven't seen any comments on IMDb about this series yet from a U.S. viewer. Secondly, I work in the television business in development. So I wallow in much of the sludge that comes out of American broadcast programming. \"Unit One\" is an example of television that's a throwback to what I would attribute as '70s-style scripting, feature-wise. Namely, those films made by young autueurs who had free rein to make the dramas feel more realistic and to allow for organic character development. It tacks more along the lines of stellar British dramas like \"Cracker\" and \"Prime Suspect\" as well as Australia's brilliant \"Underbelly.\" \"Unit One\" features stand-alone cases that are committed, then solved, each week. The mysteries aren't extraordinary or particularly byzantine. They usually center around one single twist, clocking in generally at the 40 minute mark, and resolution is neatly wrapped up in the 15 minutes thereafter. What makes this series a breath of fresh air is that it features main characters that you are hooked on and find relatable by episode 2. These are real, breathing, alive characters that have personal baggage, yet it's not a talky, batty type of baggage that American flotsam such as \"Grey's Anatomy\" or \"Desperate Housewives\" spoons out. These are realistic individuals whose backstories unfold leisurely over the course of the series, as if you work with them on a daily basis. After the mindless decade of \"CSI's,\" \"NCIS's,\" and \"Criminal Minds,\" along with their subsequent spawns, it's refreshing to actually sit down to watch friends you want to spend time with, as is the case with \"Unit One.\" The quippy banter, the unemotional wooden dialogue, and the over-the-top jeopardy that those American series I mentioned bludgeon us with each week are absurd compared to the nuance and the quiet resonance you get with this remarkable Danish series. I'm on episode 7 of the first season, but I've already bought all four seasons and am in for the long haul. If you need explosions and farcically-hopped up testosterone, along with music by The Who and fast-cutting, neon-lit, jittery palsy-cam action with cipher-like main characters as your main diet of television drama viewing, I suggest you stay away from this series. If you are an adult with a hunger for subtle, poignant, thoughtful and, yes, sometimes straight-forward procedural crime dramas, I urge you to check this show out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best Non-English series I have seen. It weaves interesting single and double episodes of crime-solving together with a personal aspect that you just don't get in CSI. The individual characters all have personal lives that combine well with their day job and occasionally interfere. Additionally the characters all manage to naturally evolve throughout the episodes.

The casting is superb and it was taped all over Denmark, giving a good example of the highlights that majestic country has to offer. Unfortunately only 32 episodes were made, however they are top-notch television. Here's hoping they consider making some more episodes of the same caliber.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This production, build on real danish crime stories, is a experience through excellent directing, acting on all levels and has a nerve not often seen in crime series. Every episode is a thrill because it's seems like the hole team believe that \"this is my life right now - this murder or murders are MY responsibility to solve\" and the output is brilliant.

As a viewer, you just have this wonderfully filling of being entertained cause it feels like their focus, on purpose or not, lie on that they WONT you to have a good time...:o) Don't miss this one, it's just right under 'Band of brothers' quality and is a \"must have seen\" experience - What a wonderful crime time !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Rejseholdet' is one of the best new danish tv-series that i have watched.

The series is about the danish police force's Unit 1 - a kinda FBI-style team that help solve murder cases all over the country, and the cases they work on, plus the influence that their jobs have on their personal lives, and the price they sometimes has to pay to be a part of a top police team.

I didn't expect much when I started watching this series - I was pleasantly surprised, the series is exciting, sometimes fun, it's got both drama and suspense, I love it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of course I'm a bit prejudiced but for the time it was the most accurate portrayal of Marines ever shown on the big screen.

I was at Camp Pendleton undergoing infantry training when Webb brought his crew down to film some outdoor scenes and our company was asked to participate. It took about two or three days as best I can recall.

Webb and Don Dubbins were serious and businesslike.

During the filming of our short scene--which seemed to take forever to an 18 year old--Webb was very conscientious about getting things (Marine things) right and he did a good job with one exception--that scene where a recruit was wearing sunglasses. Never happen for a host of reasons.

I have a video of the movie and will bore my grandkids anytime I can make them sit still for a few seconds as I show them their Papaw when he was a young stud and part of the world's greatest fighting force (no brag, just fact).

What amazed me then was how well the real Marines carried out their acting roles. That was before I realized that DIs have to have some acting genes to get their job done.

The only film I've seen since that is the equal of the DI is the first half of Full Metal Jacket and that part is superior only because of the foul language. When the DI was made, cursing wasn't allowed on screen.

Despite the lack of profanity, it's still a great movie to rent.

Ooooo-rahhhhhh!!!!!

Semper Fi, Do or Die","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jack Webb is riveting as a Marine Corp drill instructor in the D.I.. Webb play Sgt.Jim Moore, a tough but fair Marine whose job it is to prepare young teens for possible combat. No one could have played this role any better that Jack Webb. As a former Marine,I can assure that this is the most accurate film dealing with basic training in the Corp. Extremely entertaining!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the good fortune to be at Perris Island in the fall of 1959. The DI showed one evening at the outdoor theater directly in front of our barracks, Plt 162, B Co, 1st Bn, 1st ITR.

Although we hadn't been there long enough to even think about seeing a movie, we could hear those that were laughing. It's one of the many indelible memories of my thirteen weeks at PI.

At some later date, I got to actually see it in a theater. I'm still convinced that, to date, it remains the most realistic portrayal of the experience in the late 1950's ever done. No one has done it better than Jack Webb...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE D.I. (4 outta 5 stars) Wow, I certainly did not expect to be enjoying this movie as much as I did. I had never even heard of it until I saw it sitting in the discount video bin one day. I figured Jack Webb playing an army drill instructor might be good for a chuckle but figured the drama would pale in comparison to such recent movie D.I.s as portrayed in \"Full Metal Jacket\" or \"An Officer and a Gentleman\". Boy, was I wrong. This is probably the best work Webb has ever done... far and away better than his one-note \"Dragnet\" performances. The delivery of his tough guy dialogue is just brilliant... done in his patented deadpan monotone and yet you *know* that the guy means every word of it. The story might seem a little hokey compared to the grittier military movies that have followed but I still found the movie fascinating and compelling. Even a completely unnecessarily musical interlude in an army nightclub had me hooked. Anyone know where I can get a copy of that terrific Ray Coniff song \"If'n You Don't, Somebody Else Will\"? Webb plays the toughest dang drill instructor ever... and he's under pressure to kick out the deadbeat Private Owen but, by golly, he sees a man buried somewhere in that sissyboy and he's gonna drag him out kicking and screaming! Great stuff!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was a Marine at Camp Pendleton when the D.I. came out (1st Marine Division, 11th Marine Regiment, 3rd Battalion, I-Battery). I still remember standing in line with a bunch of other Marines to see the movie at the \"Star\" theater in Oceanside, California.

We did not remotely expect the movie to portray everything we experienced in boot camp but we were all pleasantly surprised at how well done the movie was. The idea of using real Marines in the movie was a great idea (I believe they were all real Drill Instructors too). As good an actor as Jack Webb was, he just couldn't \"call cadence\" like a real Marine Drill Instructor.

All of us got a laugh when the \"problem\" recruit's mother came to boot camp to talk to the Captain. Never in a million years would this have happened, but that's Hollywood, and we didn't let that episode keep us from enjoying the movie.

I went through boot camp at MCRD in San Diego during the summer of 1956, and at that time there was virtually no limits as to what the D.I.'s could do to you. The \"Ribbon Creek\" event at Parris Island had not yet affected boot camp, at least not at MCRD - San Diego.

I agree with what a lot of the other reviewers have commented on concerning Sgt. Moore's \"stiffness\" around his girl friend. I believe this was just Webb's acting style, and although they could have deleted this part of the movie, it didn't really hurt the production that much.

One minor note, the character (uncredited) of \"Pvt. Rodriguez\" was played by one of my Drill Instructors, Sgt. Peter J. O'Neill. Sgt. O'Neill used to tell us that some day he wanted to be an actor. We secretly laughed at this, but he surprised us all. He was a great Drill Instructor, and I thought he did well in his bit part. Also, he really did enjoy throwing knives. He often demonstrated his skill to us that summer in boot camp. I have often wondered if he is still alive.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well as you can see, I got to this party quite late but, have the advantage of reading all the previous entries before making my comments. I found this site by happen chance, when I was looking for other Marine Corps films. So, let me start by telling you that I played a Marine Boot in the movie, Pvt. Labarsky, and was stationed at MCRDep, San Diego at the time. Jack Webb and his crew selected 15 Permanent Personnel, of which some of us had the speaking parts, and another 15 Marines that had just completed Boot Camp. That made up the Platoon and the Marines who portrayed the various \"DIs\". To the best of my recollection, The Capt. and Pvt. Owens (Don Dubbins) were not in the Marines. We spent about three weeks up in Hollywood (Studio City Film Lot), CA shooting the section of the movie that we were involved with, and then they completed the other shots after we left.

So as I ramble along here, let me clarify some of what has been questioned in previous entries as best I can. \"Cuff Daddy\" was commenting about the ability of our Platoon to yell \"Yes Sir\" without moving and etc,, Yes we did the yelling for the Sound Guys, and it was while shooting the scene. As you fellow Marines remember, when the DI or who ever started to ask a question and before they completed it, you had already taken your breath of air enabling you to yell at the top of your lungs the proper response. That is how it was done.

\"74Sooner\" commented about walking through the same building at Paris Island, however, as I mentioned earlier all the scenes were shot in Studio City, CA . They were built from photos taken at Paris Island and from on site trips and Marine advisers from Paris Island. Sorry, you were in the real buildings, not the sets.

\"schappe1\" brought up many good points, but, about the incident with the platoon at Paris Island at the time all that jack Webb said to us was, \"The movie came about because of the accident, and the Marine Corps didn't want to put out anything that would impact any of the family members of the Marines that died that night. Although, the Marine Corps would provide any Marines and assistance needed for a movie answering to the public why a Marine DI does what he does\".

As mentioned by a few of you, I also at the time we were shooting the scenes caught my self thinking this dialog has been cleaned up to much and obviously isn't how it goes down in real life. Back in the 50's,that is how it had to be done.

One story I would like to pass on is about the interaction that occurred between us Marines and the Movie Crew, and between the Movie Crew and Jack Webb. From the start by custom the Marines replied \"Yes Sir\" to anybody that moved. Going into the second week it was getting more common to hear \"Yes Sir\" coming from all directions. On stage someone would bark out a request for something to be done with the lighting and from out of nowhere up on a catwalk above the set a reply of \"Yes Sir\" would sound out. To all of this at one of our informal gatherings, Jack Webb stated. \"If I had known that I would have gotten this much respect from this crew, I would have brought you guys up here years ago.\" There was a Lt. brought up from San Diego to play the role of the DI from the other platoon and the one Jack Webb fights with, but during one shooting secessions He was up to take number 32, and still Webb kept trying to work him through how he wanted it done and didn't show any lack of patience with him. The next day they used the Paris Island adviser who was a DI Sgt. from Paris Island and He worked out fine.

At the time I was somewhat of a camera buff and got to know the Still Camera Man to get some pointer from him and as it turned out He would give me still shots and some of the 35mm film of the daily shooting that were not going to be used. Those film strips I cut up and made slides out of them. After the movie came out in VHS tape (The DI, 11706 B&W\/106 min.) my kids and the grand kids have a blast when they try to se who can find me the most times on the screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film in the late 60's, and try to see it every time it comes on TV, which, unfortunately, isn't often. Now that I have TCM and FMC, I hope it will be on at least once a year. Like Louis Gossett Jr. in An Officer and A Gentleman, Jack Webb delivers an unbelievably great performance as a Parris Island Drill Sergeant with the classic screw-up recruit, and the story line in this one, though dated, is touching and very well acted. And having real jar-heads in the cast certainly helped in the realism of the film as well. It's a great film with top-notch acting and a superb story. See it if you have the chance-It's well worth the time!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would purchase this and \"Thirty Seconds Over Toyko\" today if available. I also saw this movie after seeing large billboards of Jack Webb in his Dress Blues on the highway at the age of 12.Always admired Jack Weeb as a John Wayne type and American all the way. Almost became a Marine just because of this movie but served instead in the Air Force, Air Force Reserve and Army Reserve for 32 years. Have not seen this movie on TV at all and would love to own it on DVD. At least if it was on TV I would copy it to VHS and use it until available on DVD. I also have a large collection of WWII and Korean War movies and always look for new releases on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I served as a Corpsman at Parris Island in the late 60's, a little over 10 years after \"The D. I.\" was shot. I was in some of the barracks where they filmed some of the indoor scenes. I knew a lot of Drill Instructors and a lot of recruits. I think the movie is as close as any movie to showing the life of a recruit and that of a Drill Instructor. Without a doubt, I think it is the best thing Jack Webb ever did. If you have been in the military, you need to see this movie. This was the way it was. It shows how important it is to take a bunch of raw recruits and turn them into men ready to defend our country. One feature I found fascinating is that most of the characters are played by real Marines, not actors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this movie and anybody who has every been with the Marines or any branch of the service can appreciate the accuracy of this movie. It is a must have for any collection. Jack Webb does an excellent job as the hard drill instructor. My father went to Marine boot camp at Camp Penelton and says this movie is so accurate that he feels like he is back in basic training. There is a line in the movie where Jack Webbs character gets mad at a boot for killing a sand flea. Well let me tel you there are nothing but sand fleas at the camp. I have been there and can appreciate it. As a matter of fact the exit to the camp is Las Puljas which in English means city of the fleas. you must watch the movie to appreciate what I am saying. Anybody who is into WWII movies, all the battles start right here with the drill Sgt. A must have for you collection","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having been a Marine, I can tell you that the D.I. is as accurate a portrayal to date depicting Marine Corp boot camp and how boys are turned into men. Jack Webb is excellent as Sgt.Jim Moore, a tough, but fair drill instructor in Paris Island North Carolina. The film centers on one recruit who doesn't seem to \"get with the program.\" A more recent film, Full Metal Jacket, also shows life in basic training and is well worth viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Semper Fi! I saw \"The D.I.\" in 1957. Two-and-a-half -years later I joined the Corps.

Web and company got it as right as they could in '57. Boot, in '59, was more like, in fact, exactly like, the Boot Camp shown in \"Full Metal Jacket\" - Yes. A black recruit, in my training platoon, was called \"Snowball.\" I was called \"Stick,\" because I was skinny as a rail. Every recruit had a nickname, some rather vile, that stuck with him through his service in the Corps. Getting smacked, or knocked on your ass, when you screwed-up was SOP. \"Drop, and give me fifty,\" got to be ho-hum. Then, it turned into,\"Drop, and give me two-hundred!\"

The D.I.'s were a bunch of sadistic bastards, but it was a controlled sadism, and with a primary purpose of keeping us stupid MoFos alive when we hit combat. 200 years of experience was ingrained in that \"sadism,\" and everything the D.I. did, or said, had a purpose geared to his mission.

A bad D.I. gets grunts killed. A good D.I., though seemingly the world's biggest asshole, keeps 'em alive. You can't kill the enemy if you're dead.

In case you didn't know, the Marine Corps has one primary mission: Kill the enemy. PFD.

Everything else is pure bravo sierra.

MstGySgt WHT, USMC (ret)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie on TV back in the 60s and it still stands up well even after brilliant performances as a DI by R. Lee Ermey, Lou Gossett and even Frank Sutton (in a comic vein) on Gomer Pyle USMC. I wasn't in the service but my brother had a recording of a Drill Instructor in the Air Force and it was scary. Others in the family who were Marines told me that Ermey and even Sutton were pretty spot on in their roles. The only thing missing in \"The D. I.\" is the language. In 1958 they couldn't yet use profanity on film, yet Jack Webb came across pretty damned tough without it. I think it's his best role ever. In Dragnet he was quite stiff I'll admit, though not as bad as George Raft, but he used it only to effect in \"The D. I.\" You never forget the funeral for the dead flea! The romantic part was just to stretch the movie, but didn't really interfere with the basic plot. Don Dubbins was pretty good to but he never surpassed this film in his career. As far as patriotism, Jack Webb was TV's John Wayne. He carried it a bit too far in some Dragnet episodes, but not in \"The D. I.\" After 40 some years I hoped the film could stand up to the likes \"Full Metal Jacket\" and others; and it did!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"By today's standards The DI might seem a little hokey. Lee Emery's version is more accurate. I graduated boot camp in Parris Island, SC in 1964. Jim Moore is as close to the real thing as you could put on the screen in 1957. I can't comment on the plot but I thought the ending was unrealistic for MCRD. PVT Owens is like many who found himself in a lot more difficult situation than he bargained for. Like so many he joined the Marine Corps for all the wrong reasons. My Drill Intructors were more like GySgt Hartman than TSgt Jim Moore. A lot more. The DI is more Korean Era and Full Metal Jacket is more Viet Nam Era. Today's movies allow that sort of thing on the screen. I have the DI in my collection. I only recently found it on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jack Webb's portrayal of the Marine drill instructor shaping new recruits in basic training requires no interpretation. Straight forward, direct, up front, are all applicable to this classic. In a time when parsing the statements of our leaders is a necessity in order to understand what they are saying, this movie that plays no games with our language or our moral fiber. Right and wrong are clear and easily defined. If you like clear, well understood dialog in a disciplined military setting, this movie should suit you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hey there Army Sgt. I'm sorry dude but being a SGT in the Army and being in the Army National Guard does not make you qualified to comment on a Marine movie. You are not a Marine and just because you wear a uniform doesn't mean you can relate to being a Marine. We simply are the best, we have the hardest training, yes we have big heads about ourselves, but hey when you are the best, you like to strut your stuff. I was in the Iraq invasion and in Fallujah. I fought next to soldiers. You are not \"qualified\" to say anything about my Marine Corps. I hate to be the one that starts the whole \"which branch is better\", but you have no right to say you are qualified to judge a Marine movie. Oh yeah......we are Drill Instructors.......not Drill SGT's. That's the biggest clue you have no idea about what you are talking about. Yeah we do not \"curse\" at recruits anymore. Tell me, how is cussing at someone going to make them a better Marine? How will me hitting someone make a Marine a better Marine? Yes it is a kinder boot camp from what I went through. But we are dealing with different times and people. We are training people who are over all smarter than our generations recruits. We want smarter recruits, not meaner. And anyone who signs up to be a Marine in the first place, has a dedication to be the best his country has to offer. We don't have to reinforce that in Bootcamp. Marines come to Bootcamp wanting to be killers. We don't need to teach them that by demoralizing them by swearing at them and beating them. At least that is how I feel.And yes, I am \"qualified\" to say that. I have been on the battlefield numerous times and I have trained Marines and Recruits who eventually ended up on the battlefield. But then again, what do I know. I was just there, done that, got the t-shirt. SGT of the Army.......get a clue!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jack Webb's movie 'The D.I' came about from the real life investigation into the deaths of several trainees in a swamp in Paris Isle in the 50's. As always, Webb, being the patriot that he is, came to the defense much like all the rest of his shows. I actually found this movie tame by 1957 standards. I served in the Army and can understand the intensity of the training at Parris Island (Camp Death by some)so this movie can never come close as does 'Full Metal Jacket'. I think this is a good movie which is more patriot than it is actual. But again, think of the time period it was made (1957) and what could be allowed and said on film at that time. I have always found Jack Webb to be clean cut and very loyal. I know many have criticized the film as one-sided and government propaganda. If you feel this way, watch 'Full Metal Jacket' with R Lee Ermey. I am a Webb fan and enjoy the movie for it's merit, not accuracy. As I have said, Webb believed in this country and held institutions to high moral standards (LAPD-Dragnet,Adam 12, Emergency etc). Just sit back and enjoy this one from a very strict moral time period in this country. Don't be too judgemental of Mr. Webb. Mark Lockwood Lubbock Texas..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went through boot camp at MCRD Parris Island in 1953 and this film is about as accurate a depiction of what boots went through in that era, even to burying that danged sand flea. Many of the \"actors\" in the film were active duty Marines. This film may be more entertaining to Marines than others, but I feel the film itself is very well done, and Jack Webb made a \"good DI\". Semper Fi!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Misfit recruit private Owens tests drill instructor Sgt Moore's (Jack Webb) skills. No explosions or bloodshed or hip soundtrack or sex. It is set at the USMC's Parris Island S.C. boot camp and most of the cast were actual Marines. Memorable one-liners abound, and the closing credit's \"dedicated to...\" is intense. With such strong male and female characters, this movie could not be made in today's touchy-feely world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't seen this fine movie in 50 years but I'm entering a comment on it anyway.

While JACK WEBB'S movie was no doubt intended purely as an entertainment --- showing Marine basic training at Parris Island in realistic terms as a tough character-building exercise -- it was said the military was afraid the movie would discourage recruitment's. It did not work out that way. The movie showed that entering the Marines was a greater challenge than most young people ever realized, and (guess what?) being offered a king-sized challenge was exactly what many guys wanted. I personally knew lots of guys that joined the Marines shortly after seeing THE DI. Lines at recruitment centers were suddenly so long the Marines had more recruits than they could handle.

So it goes. America will always have youth seeking to make themselves into the best --- while the slackers and born-losers limp along to nowhere.

What we DON'T have in 2007 is any films that inspire patriotism, devotion to duty of any kind, positive values, et cetera. What we DO have is films that inspire the airhead-ed to be airheads, the beer drinkers to guzzle beer, other negative values. Exhibit #1 is that the airhead teen travesty and beer guzzling epic SUPERBAD is now #81 in the All Time Great Films list. Values? What'cha mean, values?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jack Webb finally gives something besides his usual wooden indian performance. He played the epitome of the jarhead, brainwashed, storm the beaches, semper fi, bonehead military idiot. The Corps before all else, even humanity. This great film showed the idiosy of boot camp to it's fullest. 4 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Elizabeth Ashley is receiving phone calls from her nephew Michael--he's crying, screaming and asking for help. The problem is Michael died 15 years ago.

This film scared me silly back in 1972 when it aired on ABC. Seeing it again, years later, it STILL works.

The movie is a little slow and predictable, the deaths are very tame and there's a tacked-on happy ending, but this IS a TV movie so you have to give it room. Elizabeth Ashley is excellent, Ben Gazzara is OK and it's fun to see Michael Douglas so young. And those telephone calls still scare the living daylights out of me. I actually had to turn a light on during one of them!

A creepy little TV movie. Worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of those TV films you saw in the seventies that scared the hell out of you when you were a kid but still gives you an eerie feeling. No great actors or expensive production but everytime that phone rings......","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is another of my favorite Columbos. It sports a top-notch cast, including John Cassavetes, who was never handsomer or sexier, Anjanette Comer, Myrna Loy, and Blythe Danner. Now here's something I've always wondered - had Gwenyth Paltrow been born when this episode was shot, or was Danner pregnant at the time? Thanks to IMDb, I have my answer - she was five months' pregnant. Now I can really feel ancient.

Cassavetes plays a brilliant conductor whose marriage to Danner was apparently to use the social connections of her mother (Loy). He has a mistress on the side, Anjanette Comer, a prominent pianist, but she announces she wants more. She's sick of being back street. On the night of their concert, he gets rid of her and makes it look like suicide. Columbo picks up a few problems immediately. One thing he notices: \"You have a beautiful woman here - bedroom eyes - she has money, a body, and a career. Where's the man?\" It's wonderful to see Falk and good friend Cassavetes together. There's a very funny episode at the vet with Columbo's Bassett. Everyone in the cast is great.

This is one of the episodes that made Columbo the classic series it became.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alex Benedict (John Cassavetes) is an orchestra conductor having an secret affair with his pianist. When she threatens to expose him and create a scandal if he doesn't leave his wife, he sees he has no choice but to murder her and make it look as if she had committed suicide. Too bad for him our rumpled detective, Lt. Columbo (Peter Falk), is on the case.

Stephen Bochco has written another razor-sharp episode for the series, following marvelous detail with marvelous detail. We watch the villain commit his murder and set up his alibi for about twenty-five minutes, and we're completely engrossed. Then when Columbo appears on the scene, it gets even better.

We first see Columbo after the murder (as per usual). This time he's at the vet with his new dog. Scenes of purely comic relief are usually the weakest ones in the show (think Columbo's discomfort over the nude model in \"Suitable for Framing\"). Columbo is hilarious when he's dithering or bumbling deliberately in order to trip up his quarry; but too many writers make the mistake of showing him in a ridiculous light when he's with non-suspects. Bochco, by contrast, shows Columbo a bit awkward with his new pet in a handful of low-key scenes that are funny and artfully integrated into the story. (And I'm grateful he didn't strain for a punchline to Columbo's quest to give the dog a name. As far as we learn, the dog remains nameless.) Bochco gives Columbo some of his best moments in this episode, and Peter Falk makes the most of them. He's particularly good in a monologue where he expresses disbelief that anyone could kill herself, much less this brilliant and beautiful young pianist. And he's even better in his scenes playing cat-and-mouse with Cassavetes. That these two long-time friends and collaborators would play off each other brilliantly is to be expected; and that's what we get. Notice how Alex Benedict can't help but admire the deceptively dimwitted Columbo, even as the brilliant detective is tightening the noose around his neck.

Bochco makes the most of every situation in his script. When Columbo goes to question Benedict's snooty mechanic, of course \u0096 of course! \u0096 he asks the man to look at his own beat-up heap. And when Benedict finds Columbo at the Hollywood Bowl before rehearsal, of course \u0096 of course! \u0096 he's on the piano playing \"Chopsticks.\" And what should our audacious lieutenant bring with him but the victim's typewriter with the phony suicide note still in the roller.

Columbo also has good scenes with a precocious little girl (Dawn Frame) and the lovely Blythe Danner, who plays Cassavetes's wife. It's nice to see Myrna Loy show up as Danner's mother, though she does little with her minor role.

The director Nicholas Colasanto (who also acted, most notably as Coach in \"Cheers\") does a perfectly creditable job, though he follows the lead of nearly every other \"Columbo\" director by adding one or two silly flourishes. Scenes end by going out of focus and begin by coming into focus. Then there's that bit where Cassavetes sees the carnation he dropped at the scene of the crime \u0096 and we see a zoom-in shot of it reflected in his sunglasses. There's also one scene with Myrna Loy and group of old fogies that is atrociously performed by everyone except Cassavetes.

These are quibbles, though. This is a splendidly entertaining episode, the kind that made me a \"Columbo\" fan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My first 'Columbo'. Rather enjoyed it. Great format, and Peter Falk's character extremely good...wonderfully quirky, he can take his place next to Poirot, Miss Marple, and also the likes of Marlowe and Rick Diamond. I can see why this series has such a following.

As a professional musician, I HAVE to say a few things. First of all, a conductor who merely produces these pedestrian performances of the most basic examples of the repertoire (Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Strauss Waltzes, Beethoven...) is never going to have a house like that or fame like that or cars like that, much less be called a genius. And the conducting that the actor does is so bad as to be laughable. No orchestra would take him seriously.

There are several little things too, such as his rehearsal of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik (why rehearse it when they've just performed it for TV? Any orchestral musician would be able to play it in his or her sleep anyway...). His instructions to the ensemble are downright nonsensical, and when Columbo asks Blythe Danner what 'quasi fantasia' means, she says it's 'Latin'. It's Italian, as are the vast majority of musical instructions.

And finally, no two great musicians would EVER have the following interchange: \"Play something.\" \"What should I play?\" \"Chopin\". Music is their job and passion, they know it well. Something far more specific would be asked for, and offered!

I know. I should get out more...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Columbo episode is one of the better and perhaps one of my personal favorites. The cast includes Rosemary's Baby John Cassavetes as the maestro, his wife played by Blythe Danner (Gwyneth Paltrow's mom) and his mother-in-law played by Myrna Loy (one of America's greatest leading actresses in film of our time). Anyway I disagree with anybody who criticizes against this film. This episode is one of my favorites because you have an excellent cast who do a superb job in performing. I love watching Columbo with his beloved dog who he never names in the series. This time, the episode focuses in on classical music at the Hollywood Bowl, one of L.A.'s attractions. Of course, Columbo becomes as interested in classical music as he does anything else involving a crime.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After repeatedly saying how brilliant so many Columbo episodes are, it's time to honour an episode with maximum points. \"Etude In Black\" is not 100 percent perfect, but it's certainly more than 90 percent...maybe 96 or 97!

Last week I reviewed \"Just Married\" and compared it unfavourably to \"Meet The Parents\". Well here's one of the parents, Blythe Danner, in a much earlier role as the wife of famous orchestral conductor Alex Benedict, played by the legend that is John Cassavetes. Alex has been having an affair with Jennifer Wells, a girl in the orchestra (not his first affair, one suspects). She is blackmailing Alex to leave his wife, but as his wife's mother holds the purse strings for the orchestra, Alex doesn't think it'd be such a smart move to destroy his career and marriage overnight. Instead he hatches a plot to sneak out of the concert hall before a performance and murder his young lover while making it look like a suicide.

Enter Columbo and guess what? It takes him about two seconds to realise that homicide is more likely than suicide. It doesn't take much longer for Columbo to connect Alex to the victim, and soon he's following him around wherever he goes. Even though Columbo is certain Alex is his man, it actually takes quite a while and a few false leads (none of which Columbo really swallows) before he has the vital piece of evidence.

Along the way there are some top-notch extra characters, ranging from the precocious young neighbour of Jennifer Wells and the English mechanic who sounds like he would be more at home on Coronation Street, through to the bedraggled looking brass player who nearly finds himself fitted up for the murder (he had also been seeing Jennifer Wells, the busy girl!). And there's even a brief cameo from Commandant Lassard from the Police Academy films. As with Leslie Nielsen in \"Lady In Waiting\", it's impossible to take him seriously (I bet you're thinking of that speech he made at the podium, aren't you?!)

But it's Blythe Danner, John Cassavetes and Peter Falk who steal the show here. Blythe is absolutely divine as Mrs Benedict. From the moment she spots Alex dialling Jennifer Wells' number from memory, she feels deeply troubled by exactly what their relationship was. It's a masterful performance as she struggles to trust Alex despite her intuition telling her something is very, very wrong. Columbo doesn't help matters by interrupting her game of tennis to ask her impertinent questions about Alex's relations with members of his orchestra.

As for John Cassavetes, well it's a shame he didn't make any repeat appearances as Columbo villains, because he could have been up there with Jack Cassidy and Patrick McGoohan as one of the all-time greats of the show. But this performance is superb! He's another one who falls into the \"highly irritated\" category, losing all patience with Columbo rather than befriending him and indulging him. Despite this, when the game is finally up he does grudgingly acknowledge Columbo's genius.

Well it's a really, really fantastic show. It loses a couple of very small points for its rather sledgehammer view of classical music, as highlighted by many of the posters here, but none of these have any bearing on the logic of the story or the characterisations. And at least the music is good, dramatic and exciting!

Finally, if you haven't come across it, there is an absolutely amazing clip of John Cassavetes and Peter Falk on the Dick Cavett show from the early 70s. I'm totally convinced Steve Coogan watched this clip and based Alan Partridge on it. Everything about the clip resembles Knowing Me Knowing You, from the cringeworthy introduction to the total humiliation of Cavett by his guests. Even the orchestra get in on the act, playing circus music while Falk, Cassavetes and their friend Ben Gazzara fool about and ridicule the host.

It might not be strictly relevant to this review, but the Cavett show clip gives a nice insight into the deep friendship and professional relationship between Peter Falk and John Cassavetes. It's clear to see from the quality of \"Etude In Black\" just how well the pair worked together!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Story-wise this isn't among the best or most cleverly written Columbo movie but the movie is extremely well made, with excellent directing and truly fine acting.

Especially the acting within this movie attracts the attention. Director Nicholas Colasanto did a great job with the actors in the movie. Appereantly he allowed Peter Falk and John Cassavetes lots of space to play with, also since both are being credited on here as uncredited directors of this movie. Must be part of his directing style to allow the actors this much room. It works out extremely well for this movie. Perhaps he did this because Colasanto himself also used to work as an actor. He is perhaps best known for playing the role of Coach in the hit-series \"Cheers\", from the very start of it in 1982 until his death in 1985.

So Peter Falk seems better than ever before in his role as Lt. Columbo. Also veteran actor John Cassavetes does a real great job as the movie its murderer and is a good match for the lieutenant. Beside them, the movie also features Myrna Loy. A big star from the silent movie era and also Pat Morita, in a small early role.

But not just the acting-directing within the movie is real good. Visually and technically it's also a really great made movie, with slow long shots, without the use of any cuts. Also obviously the reason why this movie is longer than most Columbo movies. It really takes its time to set up things and tell its story. The movie also features a couple of nice artistic and experimental kind of shots. Of course all really fitting for the '70's.

But like I said before, story-wise this just isn't among the best Columbo movies. Also the clues being left out for the lieutenant are a bit too obvious this time. It makes the murderer come across as a bit dumb, like he didn't thought his plan over good enough, while the character obviously is an intelligent man. Columbo this time also tries to irritate the suspect and other characters a bit more than he usually tries to do, in order to solve the crime. This and Peter Falk's different acting approach are a reason why his character might come across as different than he does in other Columbo movies. But different does not mean worse in this case.

The movie also features a quite good musical score by Richard DeBenedictis, who after this became sort of the steady composer for the Columbo movies.

A great Columbo movie to watch!

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a self confessed slasher addict means that it's very rare that I get the chance to review many bigger budgeted movies with creditable casts. Aside from James Mangold's successful box office draw Identity; there have not been any big name entries since the Scream trilogy once again put Wes Craven's name back on the Hollywood map. That's why Mark Malone's The Last Stop \u0096 a mystery thriller with blatant slasher overtones, instantly intrigued me. With a decent line-up including Adam Beach and Jurgen Prochnow and an intriguing soundtrack that even finds space for Lynn Anderson's Rose Garden, I must admit that the initial signs were very positive for this claustrophobic feature. To the best of my knowledge there have only ever been three other snow-bound slashers, unless of course you consider Demon Possessed to fit in the category. The first slice and dice on the ice was the bone-dry Satan's Blade, then came the Lisa Loring cheese-feast that was Blizzard of Blood and the enjoyable Shredder followed some fourteen years later.

During an extreme blizzard, state trooper Jason (Adam Beach) battles through the snow to reach a remote lodge in the Colorado Mountains. His task is to inform the guests that the road is closed and they must stay for at least one more night until a path can be cleared through the hazardous conditions. This news doesn't go down to well with the suspicious bunch, which includes two troublemaking brothers (Callum Keith Rennie and Peter Flemming), a truck driver that really doesn't want to hang around (William S. Taylor), a randy couple of lovers (Winston Rekert and Amy Adamson) and Jason's ex-girlfriend Nancy (Rose McGowan). The motel owners (Jurgen Prochnow and P. Lynn Johnson) aren't overjoyed by the news either, but they offer rooms to the stranded guests and attempt to calm the tense situation. Things take a turn for the worse when Jason finds a mutilated body and a bag full of stolen cash lying in the snow behind the cafe. Just like a chapter out of an Agatha Christie mystery, the lodgers begin dieing at the hands of a masked assailant that seems intent to re-claim the money. With so many dodgy characters to choose from and no way of leaving the crime scene, Jason has to attempt to stop the maniac before he kills again\u0085

A good mystery needs at least a handful of shady suspects who each have a credible motive, a remote location that no one can escape from and a smart protagonist to help unravel the clues. Fortunately The Last Stop provides each of those essential ingredients in a thriller that has its equal moments of brilliance and downright stupidity. The film kicks off superbly as the dubious personalities clash in a claustrophobic environment that manages to keep the tension running high throughout the runtime. Malone keeps the interest levels raised as each character unveils their own reasons to attract some of the suspicion, and to be fair the essential twist isn't one that you'll guess easily. In fact I found myself watching the movie through once again to see if I could pick up on any hints that I missed first time around. Unfortunately when the maniac is revealed to be an over the top psycho that wisecracks like a comic book bad guy, The Last Stop forfeits a huge amount of credibility. Thankfully all is not lost when an unexpected and brilliantly orchestrated plot twist salvages the film's finale.

Similarities can be drawn with the excellent Identity, as the two plots are almost interchangeable. James Mangold's effort has to be the better of the two mainly because of the star billing of John Cusack and the ever-reliable Ray Liotta. With that said though Adam Beach does a good enough job in the lead, while Jurgen Prochnow, Amy Adamson and the brilliant Callum Keith Rennie add some credible support. Rose McGowan acts as conceitedly in this role as she probably does from day to day in reality and Winston Rekert started fantastically before going completely overboard with the film's climax. If you're a die-hard slasher fan that's watching this for some bloody killings then you're going to be disappointed. The balaclava-wearing psychopath only pops up once and the rest of the murders are committed off-screen. But as I said earlier Malone's directorial talent means that the suspense is never too far off the boil and you can forgive the few flaws because the positives just about triumph.

The Last Stop is well worth a look for slasher addicts and movie fans alike. Yes there are a handful of negatives, but overall this is a solid example of emerging Hollywood talents. If you liked Identity then certainly give this a try\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I also saw The Last Stop at the Moving Pictures Film Festival in Prince George. I have to confess, the only reason I went to see it is because I am a huge Callum Keith Rennie fan. And he didn't let me down. He gave a good performance of a rather unsympathetic character and provided about the only comic relief in the whole movie.

The movie itself is the usual 'lots of bad people trapped in a snow storm together' storyline, but it did have a couple of twists that kept me guessing. The characterizations were strong and the whole cast performed fairly well. The only problems I had with the cast was Rose McGowan. She was so cold throughout the movie that we didn't get any idea of her character's personality or motivations. Other than her and a few small problems with continuity, this was a well-written, well acted thriller.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What makes this low budget production one of my favorite movies? Not kidding, i was watching it already 10 times or so and did not get tired. Is it the tender melancholia throughout the whole thing? Is it the similarity to classics like \"Niagara\"? I was thinking a long time about that. And figured it out: I guess it is: there is no hero, there are only people. Some try to be good. Some gave up trying to be good. Some are hopeless cases but carry still the spunk of being human inside. It is the story of a catastrophic night in a motel at the end of the world. One way the catastrophe is nothing but the end of a chain of coincidences. The other way this night reveals the logical consequents of this peoples lives because they are in a certain constellation cut off the rest of the world. It has something of a Dostoevsky tale.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a little slow in the the beginning, for about the first 10 minutes or so. But once it kicks in you can't turn it off. Adam Beach and Rose McGowan play the best parts and are great at their acting job. You would never be able to guess who the killer is. I gave this movie a 9, because at some parts Adam Beach needs to speak up a little so you can hear what he's saying.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must tell you the truth. The only reason I wanted to see this movie was because of Rose McGowan. I think that part definitely worked out...pretty well actually. However, the film was very good too. Some parts of this movie are really good.

The film has great action also. The mystery is pretty hard to figure out and Rose [McGowan] does some \"Oscar-worthy\" acting towards the end of the film, but I don't want to give anything away. Adam Beach and Jurgen Prochnow are also great in the movie, along with some of the other stars.

If you like mysteries, or action movies, or just like Rose...I totally think you would like this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was fortunate enough to see The Last Stop here where I live at the Moving Pictures Film Festival (for those of you that don't know, the Moving Pictures Film Festival is a tour of Canadian made film in Canada). I was told just before the movie started that it was the world premiere and that it was on the verge of getting an American distribution deal which added to my excitement.

I'm a big horror movie fan, and yes, I love the Scream trilogy as well. So when I found out that Rose McGowan was doing a Ten Little Indians type of movie I knew that I was in for a treat. Rose McGowan was the biggest name actor\/actress at the entire festival.

The best way I can describe it without giving away too much of the plot is that it's not quite like Scream. And it certainly is worth seeing. It's set in the middle of a snowstorm (it was filmed in Vancouver, B.C., Canada) at a mountaintop motel, which adds to the suspense. Rose McGowan puts in a great performance as the-girl-next-door(?!) along with the rest of the cast. And as for what happens at the end, well, the only thing I'll say is that you'll never guess the ending.

Sadly, it probably won't make it into mainstream North American theatres because the only decent money maker in it is Rose McGowan. But if you get the chance to see it I would recommend you do. And if worse comes to worst, there's always video.

I gave it a 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I came across The Last Stop one day at a video store and they were selling it for only $2. I decided to give it a try and bought it. It was pretty good, i enjoyed it. The story is about several people all caught in a cabin somewhere in nowhere because of a raging blizzard. There is a police officer, nancy,his ex girlfriend, two brothers that just got out of jail, a older man and his lover, a black man and the couple that owns the cabins and their retarted son that never speaks. Suddenly someone is found to be murdered and a bag full of cash is found. Everyone is a suspect. The Last Stop is a pretty good thriller, i would give it 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The plot starts out interesting, however, towards the end too many die in too short a time, turning the thriller-mystery aspect of the story into a slaughter.

The only true highlights were Adam Beach and J\u00fcrgen Prochnow, who were once again their excellent selves. Nice try with an inappropriate last third, though a good ending.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I own this movie and I love Canadian Movies but hire an actress like Rose I don't understand.She is completly useless in this movie just a name that's all.The rest of the cast is good,good enough to make this little thriller work.I was surprise by the plot which is not the first time it was used.But those unknown actors did very well even Jergen,I'm not a big fan of his but I liked him in this movie.If you got the chance to see it go for it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the best version of Gypsy that has been filmed.Bette Midler is simply superb as Mama Rose.She has the voice,the gestures,the look,and most of all,a supreme acting ability to carry the role off and to make her character come alive.Her singing is,simply put:MAGNIFICENT! She especially shines in two numbers-\"Everything's Coming Up Roses\" and \"Rose's Turn\". The other actors are also fine,particularly Christine Ebersoll as Tessie.Also good is Peter Riegert;his portrayal of Herbie is acted with great style and believability.The direction of this movie is very,very good.There isn't a false note or gaffe in the entire production.This film is a vast improvement over the Roz Russell version filmed in 1962.Since viewing it again,I can state that the three greatest Mama Roses are:Ethel Merman,Bette Midler,and Angela Lansbury. See this movie.You'll be glad that you did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you want to see what could be classed as the 'stage' version of GYPSY this is the film for you.

If you enjoy(ed) listing to the MERMAN recording of GYPSY then you really enjoy watching MIDLER as Gypsy's mother, ROSE. It's my opinion that Midler has the volume, vibrato and presents that Merman once had.

It's not often these days, when listening to update versions of musicals, that I get that tingling sensation that makes the hair on my neck tingle but Bette Midler certainly shows her talents in this movie -see how you like them apples.....

I know you may not like it, but for me Ms. Midler is the definitive \"Gypsy\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Too often screen adaptations of musicals compromise, but this is one of those rare occasions when every ingredient, perfect in itself, comes together and harmonizes perfectly. Midler was born to play this role, and her performance will most likely be remembered as definitive. She is supported by an ideal cast, and the direction and design are tops. It doesn't get any better than this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best TV productions of a musical ever. I have heard the Merman cast album, the Angela Lansbury album, I have seen Tyne Daly live, and I've seen the Rosalind Russell movie countless times. I think Bette is if not the best, then tied with the best. She captures not just the bravura, but also the pathos of Mama Rose. I was never a Natalie Wood fan, so I really enjoyed Cynthia Gibb, in what is arguably her best role. Everything from the costumes to the sets to the supporting performances is wonderful. The three strippers, led by the always-dependable Christine Ebersole are hard to top. There was supposed to be a TV production of Mame a few years back, with Cher, but I think Bette would be the best bet (pun intended) for Auntie Mame.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is easily one of my favorite musicals of all time. Bette Midler comes as close to real magic on screen as anyone has in her turn as Gypsy Lee's blustery, bosomy, brave and very scary mother. She evokes a sense of desperation that is at times both comic and tragic but always genuine and quite beautiful. Such charm and grit she is indeed a pioneer woman without a frontier. That frontier is discovered for the children. Who in turn must forge their own in a world ruled by their domineering mother.

This particular version is, as I understand it, in it's entirety including the brilliant choreography of Jerome Robbins, as well as the original stage directions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Gypsy\" is possibly the greatest musical ever written, so it's too bad that it's film version was such a disappointment. To make up for that, we have this re-make which, if not flawless, is an enjoyable and well done adaption of the musical. The script is completely accurate, all the songs included, and the staging remains close to the original Jerome Robbins' staging. Bette Midler is a deft choice for Rose, her singing and personality Merman-esquire, and her acting splendid. Peter Reigert is a fine Herby, if not a great singer, and Cynthia Gibb is a straight forward, natural Louise. In truth, a live taping of the 1989 revival with Tyne Daly might have been a better idea, if only because \"Gypsy\" is simply more exciting on stage, But this film is a fine translation of a great musical.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching this on Comcast On-Demand.

Every time I see this musical, I am amazed at the songs...one show-stopper after another.

This interpretation is, for me, magical. The songs sparkle...the vocals, orchestrations, and choreography are amazing for a \"made-for-TV\" movie...better than many stage versions I have seen.

The debate over Bette just doesn't make sense. She is Mamma. Her voice is brilliant and yet full of the pathos of the stage mother living through her daughters. I still get tears at the end when she finally has her moment of glory, no matter how faded that glory is.

The Tulsa\/Louise duet\/dance is on now. Fabulous.

Stephen Sondheim is the King of musical theatre. His lyrics just roll off the tongue like silk...Styne's music is perhaps the best ever penned for the stage\/screen.

Thank God we have this masterpiece of the American Musical Theatre captured on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on the memoirs of Gypsy Rose Lee, who painted a much more affectionate picture of their mother than did her sister, actress \"Baby\" June Havoc, in her autobiography, \"Early Havoc\" on which \"They Shoot Horses, Don't They?\" was loosely based. I saw Ethyl Merman in the original Broadway production of Gypsy, and she was great as \"Mama Rose\" but certainly more \"Merman\" than Rose. I was disappointed with Rosalind Russell's portrayal in the 1962 movie version. An otherwise excellent actress, Russell was a very wooden substitute for Merman. Bette Midler, by contrast, was better and more believable than Merman and I'd recommend her performance as the definitive one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film, Blade Master, may be cheap, clumsy in appearance and it is sometimes, but it shares thoughts on problems that are way beyond the era this film is set in. Ator is the chosen one that has to protect the earth against a terrible weapon, that is compared in an unforgettable and unpredictable way to the atomic weapon. He goes through obstacles as a witful character who is just more than muscle power, although he has quite is lot. I would say this aspect of the movie makes it surpass a film like Conan the barbarian, which is the least I can say, quite brainless. It doesn't diminish in any ways the great adventure movie that is Conan, but it gives Ator his wholesomeness that he shares not with the barbarian. For a lower budget movie, this film does good in terms of setting and the fights are most of the time believable. Zor, the villain, has with is prisoner throughout the film one of the most interesting psychological confrontation that gives tension to the movie, even if Ator seems way too fit for the task to loose.

What gives this movie that little extra are those scenes that may look quirky, but worth of mention. The fight with the serpent god, even though he is a gigantic puppet, is well handled as the snake, with good lightnings, remains a silhouette and the fight is quite convincing. The movie climaxes in a most unusual way, quite anachronic, but breathtaking : the deltaplane sequence. The scene itself is not introduced properly, read not at all, where did Ator get that machine, it's pretty unconvincing, but it leads to a really poetic and beautiful midair sequence, that standalone, is the culminating point in the movie, elevating Ator in a place where few human fantasy heroes have been.

If Blade Master is not among the great fantastic movies of all time is no surprise due to its lacks, it's a bigger surprise, considering the philosophical way it chooses on the confrontation between good and evil, the truth it speaks and the heart it shows, that this movie is so unwlecomed. I suggest it for every fan of the genre and try take it seriously as an intelligent movie that's to be taken more seriously than it seems.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Ator series is a shining example of what B-movies should be. They fail in every aspect, but in such a hilarious way that they are funny rather than sad. \"Ator l'invincibile 2\" aka \"The Blade Master\" aka \"Cave Dwellers\" shows us Europe's favorite Conan clone, Ator where we left him in the first movie- after showing us a lengthy recap of all the events of the first film. This time the world must be saved from \"The Nucleus\", a kind of bomb, represented on screen as a bright light (I guess they couldn't afford a prop). This one features invisible attackers and samurai. As with the first film, lots of stock footage is used (including one rather obvious bit from \"Star Wars\"). Thoroughly laughable and unforgettably bad- this is an exception B-movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Blademaster is definitely a memorable entry in the Swords and Sorcery category of movies. I found Blademaster along with Quest for the Mighty Sword at a thrift shop attended by mentally handicapped people and was very happy to pay 2.00 each for them. Believable sets and costumes, good sword fighting and a beautiful female warrior, Mila make this an enjoyable watch. A few problems though, there were a lot of details in the plot that didn't quite fit, like the cave men for one. I didn't understand their purpose. Also, this movie could have really benefited from some more monsters. The snake was cool, but I guess it does borrow a little from Conan. However, any primitive sort of movie where someone winds up with a hanglider is OK by me (see Yor and Battle for Endor). I think Ator is cool! Oh, and was anyone else reminded of Gallager by the villain or is it just me? I give blademaster a 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"God bless Joe D'Amato...I love Italian horror, cheese (movie-wise ;)), sci-fi, etc.

This one, admittedly, was a bit harder to watch, but another fun BAD movie.

I like how people preface a negative review with \"I normally enjoy bad movies, but...\" No buts, this was a bad movie FOR people who love bad movies. It's one of my top bad movies.

Miles O'Keefe was a poor man's Conan, but oh what fun. Who can't have fun with a primitive nuclear bomb, a hangglider and a cheesy rubber monster? It's fine to hate this movie if you only like Hollywood drek like \"Titanic\" or \"Pretty Woman\" but if you truly, I mean TRULY love bad movies, check this one out.

This is one of those movies that are fun to rent for a beerbust or when you have a couple buddies around and looking for a little mindless fun.

My rating 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very sweet movie about a young Chinese man enamored of western technology and an Englishman trying to make his fortune showing movies in China. It's a very interesting story that is presumably based on true events, although I'm assuming it's more fantasy than real. It's got a fairy tale quality you rarely get in real life, and it's also got 8 people credited for the script, so they must have been making up stuff right and left.

This is a very likable movie that conveys how magical film was to people who had never seen it before. It is not an especially deep movie, touching briefly on the loss of tradition and the encroachment of western culture but mainly just being a pleasant little movie. It's actually a movie I enjoyed very much that is already beginning to disappear from my mind 15 minutes after seeing it. Light as a souffl\u00e9, but I enjoyed every minute.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gentle and genial film seems to have been overlooked as a triviality...and to be fair the narrative is a bit tenuous and lightweight as drama....but I feel the simple wonder and joy of the scenes depicting the first impact of a new art on an alien and sceptical society have a radiance and naturalness which capture the century long romance between cinema and audience better than any film in years. Immensely sympathetic performance from Jared Harriss (who seems to have inherited all of his fathers charisma...hopefully without poor Richards penchant for hellraising and haminess)....and charming offbeat cuteness from costar Yu Xia combine to make this a real heartwarmer. Radiant location photography (including glowingly beautiful scenes at the great wall) and sensitive direction by Ann Hu give film added impact. In short a must for anyone ever enchanted by a shadow flickering to life...and making magic in the dark.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is about so many things. Most obvious is the hold that film can have over an audience and how capturing life on film can be a kind of magic. There is also the tense relationship between China and the West as many Chinese saw (probably rightly so) the \"Barbarians\" as trying to take over and pollute their way of life. Liu even seeks to preserve their way of life on film because he sees that it will one day disappear. Their is also Liu's internal conflict between the loyalties and traditions of China versus the self-determination philosophy of the West. All these themes are woven quite skillfully into a coherent and enjoyable whole by Hu. A very enjoyable film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A beautiful film about the coming of early silent cinema to China. SHADOW MAGIC deftly combines a love story with the drama of the cultural clash between China's ancient traditions and modern Western culture in the form of film. An amazing first film by Chinese director Ann Hu. If I correctly understood Ms. Hu's comments at the 2000 Sundance festival, this film was produced as an American film with co-funding by the Chinese government, and shot in China. SHADOW MAGIC reminds me of films like IL POSTINO and CINEMA PARADISO - not necessarily in theme or plot, but it has a similar feel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lovely little film about the introduction of motion pictures to China. Captures the amazement of film's first audiences pretty much as it's described to have been worldwide, and uses actual Lumiere films for most of the actualities. I don't agree with other people about bad acting on the British fellow's part - I thought he was fine, but the Chinese lead really stole the show. In any case, I found myself with a smile on my face through most of the movie. People who fear subtitles might note that a lot of the film is in English (which for some reason is given subtitles as well as the Chinese on the DVD).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Unlike some movies which you can wonder around and do other things, this movie kept me in front of the screen for the entire two hours. I loved every minute of it.

However, I have to say that the story is not very believable. Especially when the foreigner was expelled by the government, and then later on, actually sent a package to the guy who helped him. Xiao Liu is a very good actor, he shows his emotions, and he shows his silliness, and his love toward that girl.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a beautiful, funny, vivid film. It's even better than \"Nuovo Cinema Paradiso\" -- which it parallels but doesn't replicate. The story completes a full circle and had the theater beaming as the credits rolled. A hundred years after this story takes place, we're just as intrigued by flickering images in a dark theater.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"`Shadow Magic' recaptures the joy and amazement of the first movie audiences. It also shows the power of film in its ability to bring the world a little closer, overcome cultural barriers and to preserve ourselves for generations yet to come. Certainly, anyone who truly loves the art of the motion picture will enjoy this film. It's a great first effort by writer\/director Ann Hu, who will hopefully have many films to follow.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Malcolm McDowell diagnoses Megan Gallagher's daughter and she as having a form of illness, when they believe they are seeing \"The Huldre\", troll-like creatures which live with \"the rocks and the roots\" (to quote the movie).

Basically a family moves into an older house, which has a smaller doll-house in the backyard. The daughter (well played by Sofia Vassiliova) starts to befriend the creatures, until they become vindictive. The family cat also disappears.

There are a few good scenes with Megan Gallagher (\"Millennium\") and Malcolm McDowell as the psychiatrist. There is also something strange which occurred to one of McDowell's patients.

If you enjoy this type of story, you may also like \"Bad Ronald\", which had a similar odd theme, and the house is haunted by bad Ronald (Scott Jacoby) only that movie is from the 70's. 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This little flick is reminiscent of several other movies, but manages to keep its own style & mood. \"Troll\" & \"Don't Be Afraid of the Dark\" come to mind. The suspense builders were good, & just cross the line from G to PG. I especially liked the non-cliche choices with the parents; in other movies, I could predict the dialog verbatim, but the writing in this movie made better selections. If you want a movie that's not gross but gives you some chills, this is a great choice.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*Minor Spoiler*

Inhabited isn't scary, but it is creepy. It is an interesting 'little' story with good acting and great special effects makeup.

Basic plot: A little girl blames the strange things going on at her family's new house and accompanying playhouse on her faerie friends.

The movie doesn't waste time getting moving, though the ending could have been more involved.

I don't recommend this movie to those expecting\/wanting hardcore horror, but I do recommend it to those who want a chiller and not necessarily a thriller.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, this wasn't the greatest horror movie I've ever seen in my life. Despite the fact that it's lower budget, it's a pretty decent movie, though. The monsters are unique and believable. Heck, they're even kind of scary in the scenes where they show them briefly wreaking havoc on this poor family. Although, when you finally do get to see the monsters completely, you really think \"WTF!? those itty bitty things are after them?!\" The only part that really disturbed me is when *sniff* they killed the kitty! Not the kitty, noooooo, why? Seriously though, if you are looking for hardcore violence and gore, this is not the movie for you. Go rent The Hills Have Eyes or something along those lines. If you have small children, I wouldn't recommend watching this with them though; probably would give them nightmares about trolls in their room.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie \" Inhabited\" is about a family of four moving into a new house not knowing that dangers are lurking.The daughter befriends the dangerous creatures as they gain her trust. When they do they use it against her. A man who use to live there as a child or a teen, knows about the creatures and try's to warn them. The creatures steel and take shiny objects to make new stuff out of them , mostly weapons.They has a cat and it murderously disappeared. The man that tried to warn the little sister was tricked by them and end up into a Psyciatric ward. She then help them defeat the creatures and destroy the man one. After they do they leave for good with nothing but each other and something happens to the doctor","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The slasher sub-genre has been pretty much exhausted - in fact, even by 1979, just one year after the supposed 'first slasher', Halloween (which was released seven years after Bay of Blood), was released; the sub-genre wasn't far from being exhausted; but Tourist Trap represents one of the more original outings. The film follows the same basic formula as most slashers - i.e. madman murders a load of kids, but draws its originality from the fact that madman is shown from the beginning (as opposed to an unseen assailant or a man in a mask) and we actually get some insight into his character. The fact that this killer also has telekinetic abilities, including being able to control the wax dummies that fill his house, adds to the originality. We kick off with a great opening sequence, which sees a young man fall foul of having a flat tire after finding himself in a gas station of terror. The scene is amazingly creepy, as the wax dummies taunt him and things fly from the shelves - and it gives the audience a great insight into what is to come; namely, a very creepy horror film!

The acting credibility is as non-existent as you would expect from a seventies slasher, but to be honest; it's not all that bad. The girls look hot, the boys don't really matter; and Chuck Connors is more than adequately creepy in the role of the psycho. He's not exactly Anthony Perkins; but still, good enough. It's not the acting that's the star of the show, however, and as you might expect - the creepy atmosphere takes that prize. Wax models, as proved by the likes of House of Wax (Vincent Price version...) are very creepy; and the film makes best use of that fact. There are very few things in cinema that can be frightening by simply being there - but wax statues are definitely one of those things. The killer's special ability could easy have gotten in the way of the atmosphere, but the film makes best use of this fact, even, by having various things fly off shelves and it goes well with the rest of the movie. On the whole, this is a very good film. While Tourist Trap might not be absolutely essential viewing; it's well worth seeing and I can recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Tourist Trap\" is a genuinely spooky low-budget horror film that will surely satisfy horror fans.It contains extremely strange atmosphere and there are some quite unnerving moments of total dread and fear.Some scenes are downright bizarre for example there is one scene when Chuck Connors sits down to have dinner with a mannequin that comes to life and starts conversing with him before its head falls off.There is very little gore,but the violence is quite strong for PG-rated horror film.The mannequins look very sinister and the climax is horrifying.David Schmoeller returned to make several other genre films including \"Crawlspace\",\"Puppet Master\" and \"Netherworld\".Still \"Tourist Trap\" is definitely his best horror film,so if you want to be scared give this little gem a look.9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't you just hate them slashers that never seem to get started? It sometimes takes them a full hour of lame red herrings before some real action takes place. \"Tourist Trap\" isn't like that! If it's typically gruesome slashing you want...than it's typically gruesome slashing you'll get! Plenty of it AND constantly from start to finish! This movie contains what is probably the greatest opening sequence in 80's horror cinema when a teenager, on a stroll after engine trouble, is trapped in a deserted house and assaulted by a creepy collection of wax statues. Four other lambs to the slaughter arrive at the house and encounter an utterly insane maniac that looks somewhat like a mixture of Leatherface (from \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre\") and one of those mad sculptors from old wax-museum movies. \"Tourist Trap\" is exciting horror entertainment, with some genuine suspense, grisly images, ultimate weirdness, morbid humor and terrific make-up effects. The plot twists aren't always original and the acting is pretty lousy but, seriously, who cares? The fast pacing and the groovy killer-icon caused this \"Tourist Trap\" to earn a spot amongst my 5 favorite slashers. A bit surprising is the total lack of nudity, though. Too bad, because all the girls look ravishing and after only 10 minutes, the obligatory line \"Who needs a bathing-suit?\" is spoken.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1979's Tourist Trap is a clever, unique B thriller that stands out as one of the best of it's kind.

Travellers stop at a lonely wax museum where the owner's mannequins are a little too life-like for comfort.

While the film has hints of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Tourist Trap is mainly a creepy psychological thriller worthy of The Twilight Zone. Director David Schmoeller gives this movie an atmosphere of darkness and mystery, that reaches nightmarish proportions. Also, Schmoelloer adds the occasional touch of comic relief to the bizarre happenings.

Venteran actor Chuck Connors is the best of the film's decent cast. Pino Donaggio's music score is excellent, having both lyrical and solemn themes that are perfect to the movie. A number of the film's sequences are quite memorable.

For horror and thriller fans alike, Tourist Trap is an unforgettable must-see film.

*** 1\/2 out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie! When I saw this movie on TV when I was a kid,it scared the hell out of me.Probably because mannequins give me the creeps too.Jocelyn Jones(Molly)is an excellent actress.She uses her facial expressions,especially her eyes,at playing terrified.Chuck Connors is great as Mr.Slausen.I was happy to see him play such a different roll.The other actors in this movie are great too! Tanya Roberts(Becky)and Robin Sherwood(Eileen) are great actresses and I hope to see them in future films,especially Jocelyn Jones!

So if you love scary movies but are tired of seeing the same old thing,check this movie out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the oddest, most strikingly eerie and creepy horror films to come out of the 70's, \"Tourist Trap\" even by the loose, free-wheeling, convention-defying \"anything goes\" standards of its time rates as a real weirdie. Yet, it's the picture's very strangeness -- a masterfully mounted uncanny atmosphere of pervasively off-kilter supernatural dread which from the get-go registers as powerfully spooky and becomes more increasingly opaque and frightening as the film progresses, offering up ample shocks amid a few scattered moments of surreally lovely dream-like elegance and ending on a bitterly ironic, crushingly nihilistic note with a haunting final image that's hard to shake -- which makes it such a unique and singularly unnerving experience.

Five teenagers traveling through the desolate California desert by car get hopelessly lost. They stumble across \"Slausen's Lost Oasis,\" a seedy, rundown roadside dive that's one part gas station, three parts crummy wax museum, and all parts ratty and foreboding. The joint's lonely, seemingly friendless and harmless owner Slausen (juicily overplayed with infectiously hammy brio by Chuck Conners) turns out to be a deranged psychic killer with lethal telekinetic powers. Slausen brings his freaky assortment of uncomfortably human-like mannequins to life and picks off the kids one by one so he can add them to his ever-growing collection of victims.

Director David (\"Puppermaster,\" \"The Arrival\") Schmoeller adeptly wrings every last ounce of tension he can squeeze from the pleasingly ambiguous and open-ended script he co-wrote with J. Larry Carroll. (Said script's stubborn refusal to provide some rational excuse for all the bizarre stuff which transpires throughout the movie, often wrongly criticized as one of the film's principal weaknesses, is actually the movie's key strength, giving the picture the scary, anything-and-everything-can-happen, common-logic-be-damned quality of a true nightmare come horrifically to life which never would have been achieved if there was some kind of credible explanation offered for what's happening.) Pino Donaggio's beautifully chilling, understated score, Nicholas von Sternberg's shadowy cinematography, and Robert A. Burns' grubby, cramped production design add immensely to the film's profoundly unsettling mood. Excellent performances are another significant plus, with the pretty, perky Jocelyn Jones (Ellie-Jo Turner in \"The Great Texas Dynamite Chase\") particularly fine and personable as the most resilient and sympathetic of the endangered teens. Even Tanya Roberts fares well as a luckless lass who has a knife levitated into her head. Offbeat and unusual, \"Tourist Trap\" is well worth visiting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Slausen's Lost Oasis. . . a place for food, fun. . . and MURDER! After a guy disappears on his way to a gas station, a group of her friends head out on a trip to search for him. They come across a wax museum where they think their friend might have ended up. Unfortunately for the friends, however, the owner of the roadside attraction possesses the power to control his wax mannequins and use them for evil. One by one, the tourists are stalked down and killed by Slausen and his legion of wax dummies. Can the friends escape or will they fall to the same fate as their lost friend? Following in the footsteps (and twisting them around) of the great classic wax films (House of Wax, Mystery of the Wax Museum), Tourist Trap takes the slasher genre to a whole new level of strange and fascinating with its bizarre story and style. As far as character development, action, dialogue, flow, etc., it seems to be just a basic slasher flick. But, it goes far beyond that as the director takes control of the plot and moves it to the supernatural thriller it is. The acting ranges from acceptable (from the main cast) to very good (from backwoods-showman Mr. Slausen (played by Western-legend Chuck Connors)). The writing moves well and the dialogue is well structured, but there are some flaws in logic as the film moves deeper into the story. Also, some scenes are a bit silly, like the moaning-mannequin attack on Becky. It's nothing, however, that would detract from the effect of the film. As one would expect from a film about wax dummies, it is full of the endless creepiness supplied by the mannequins. It's strange that a (mostly) inanimate object can just sit still and somehow be so unsettling. . . perhaps it's the human likeness, or the blank stare, or the fact that you know it's about to spring an attack. . . whatever it is, the dolls are extremely spooky and that effect is used very well throughout the entirety of the film. As far as slashers go, it's one of the best, and it stands as one of the creepiest films I've ever seen.

Obligatory Slasher Elements:

- Violence\/Gore: The film is full of some cool deaths. The gore isn't excessive, but it's done well and leaves it as being realistic.

- Sex\/Nudity: There is an extended skinny-dipping scene with the very attractive lead females (though 'very attractive' barely begins to describe the ravishing future-angel Tanya Roberts) but it's all a tease as the girls remain mostly underwater. They do remain scantily clad throughout the film, however.

- Cool Killer(s): Creepy is just the beginning of Slausen and his mannequins. One of the best killers in the slasher subgenre.

- Scares\/Suspense: From the opening scene on, the film maintains a great blend of the creepiness of the mannequins, jump scares from the attacks, and a strong level of suspense in the stranded situation. . . it's all very well done to make for a genuinely scary film.

- Mystery: Well, mystery wasn't really the point of the film. . . just the meaning behind all of it is what matters.

- Awkward Dance Scene: All these cute girls and not a single dance. Shame.

Final verdict: 8\/10. See this creepy slasher!

-AP3-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK...i have seen just about everything....and some are considered classics that shouldn't be ( like all those Halloween movies that suck crap or even Steven king junk).......and some are considered just OK that are really great.....( like carnival of souls )........and then some are just plain ignored............like ( evil ed ) or ( pumpkin head and brain dead \"the bud Cort one\" ) then some stick in your head once seen and never leave...........that's what this did to me........and for my money this is much better than last house on the left............last house was great till the ending...then it blew chunks.....what kind of dummy is gonna give a blow job to someone who just killed their kids ????.completely stupid ..go find the movie \"bully\" or even \"funny games\" if ya want realism and to be creep ed out.........but this damn thing stuck with me for years.........one cause chuck Connors always was scary.........two Tanya Roberts is the best female victim ever........three the chick being smothered in plaster still is one of the all time worst killings on film........and 4th the telekinetic powers thing blew my mind and came totally unexpected.......not to mention the dummies wax figures puppets etc.......it should be right there with psycho,last house,Texas chainsaw,etc....... it's a classic..............and deservedly so...........","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Tourist Trap\" is a genuinely spooky low-budget horror film that will surely satisfy horror fans.It contains extremely strange atmosphere and there are some quite unnerving moments of total dread and fear.Some scenes are downright bizarre for example there is one scene when Chuck Connors sits down to have dinner with a mannequin that comes to life and starts conversing with him before its head falls off.There is very little gore,but the violence is quite strong for PG-rated horror film.The mannequins look very sinister and the climax is horrifying.David Schmoeller returned to make several other genre films including \"Crawlspace\",\"Puppet Master\" and \"Netherworld\".Still \"Tourist Trap\" is definitely his best horror film,so if you want to be scared give this little gem a look.

Rated PG for Brief Nudity, Violence and Profanity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Tourist Trap\" is an odd thriller that came out in the 70's, it's about 5 friends Molly (Jocelyn Jones), Jerry (Jon Van Hess), Eileen (Robin Sherwood), Becky (Tanya Roberts) and Woody (Kevin McDermott), who stumble upon a cloesd down museum SLAUSEN'S LOST OASIS, a curious and eerie roadside museum. This goldmine of decaying, but strangely life-like mannequins is run by Slausen (Chuck Conners), an eccentric, but seemingly harmless has-been. Slausen has one warning for the youngsters: Stay away from Davey, Slausen's reclusive and disturbed brother.

The youngsters' curiosity gets the best of them and they go exploring. The trap is sprung! Amidst flying objects, slamming doors, scarves that strangle on their own, empowered by some hidden force, the trap slowly closes in on the group. The \"Creature\" Davey and his army of murderous mannequins make quick and brutal work of the friends, until only one remains.

Although not a Slasher movie \"Tourist Trap\" still contains elements of slasher movies such as the chase scenes and the stalking and the fact the killer wears a mask.

The seemingly telekinetic abilities of the killer to lock bolts and animate the wax dummies, is used to great effect. Perhaps the scariest thing about this movie are the mannequins, which are admittedly scary enough to start off with, but are rally spooky here. The film succeeds despite, or perhaps because of, an obviously meagre budget. These wax figures are blatantly plastic shop dummies- but this only goes to serve as even more eerie when their eyes move with an incredible human The acting is actually pretty good, Chuck Conners gives a well rounded and creepy performance as Mr Slausen, Jocelyn Jones is great as the female lead.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the single greatest movie I have ever seen. Davey\/Mr. Slaussen is simultaneously:

1) Tortured about his talents (e.g., \"I can control it; I can! I shouldn't have to hiiiide it! It feeeeeeeeeels good!\");

2) Desperate to make friends, e.g.,

\"How's the soup?

\"The soup is very good.\"

\"Would you like some crackers with your soup?\"

\"I'd like some more crackers, please.\"

\"How's that?\"

\"Yes, the soup is very good.\"

3) Proud of his accomplishments (e.g. \"Pretty neat trick, huh?\")

4) A ladies man (e.g., \"You're so pretty. Why don't you like me?\"); and

5) Sometimes, very, very angry (e.g., \"You can't get away!\")

Connors should have received an academy award for best actor for this movie. I mean, who was possibly better?! Tanya Roberts rocketed to the stratosphere following her performance in TT. It's a wonder not all of the stars of this masterpiece did not go on to have brilliant careers. I highly, highly recommend this film! It's available on amazon.com. Everyone should own it. Make a night of it and have a bowl of soup while you watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Tourist Trap\" is a bizarre, great horror film from the '70s. The film is about a group of young adults, Becky, Jerry, and Molly, who are traveling in a jeep through a desert area. Their two other friends, Eileen and her boyfriend Woody, are in a separate car. When a wheel goes flat, Woody takes it to a nearby gas station - and meets a grisly fate to some bizarre telekinetic mayhem and some creepy mannequins. The friends get tired of waiting for Woody and go to a local \"tourist trap\" mannequin\/wax museum. In front of the entrance, the car randomly breaks down, and the girls find an oasis area to go swimming in, where they are approached by Mr. Slausen, who runs the roadside attraction that is now closed down. He takes them up to the old western wax museum, and the girls stay behind while he and Jerry go to fix their car. Eileen, the curious of the two, wanders to an old house nearby, where she also falls to the hands of a mysterious masked killer and a bunch of life like mannequins. After awaiting for Eileen, Becky and Molly go to look for her. That's when the real horror begins, and the telekinetic (can move objects with his mind) masked brother of Mr. Slausen begins to kill off the teens one by one, while controlling his large amount of human-turned mannequins.

Sound similar to the 2005 \"House of Wax\" remake? Well, it is. I'd heard of this movie but never seen it when I saw \"House of Wax\", but now I can see the striking similarities the two movie share - \"Tourist Trap\" was obviously a big contributor to the \"House of Wax\" remake. The mannequins in this movie are scary to begin with, some with moving eyeballs, some with no eyes at all, and some with dropping mouths that sing too. The singing was extremely creepy if you ask me, and the mannequins were eerily designed. Mannequins are creepy to begin with, they're so lifelike yet they really aren't. The movie tightly blends elements from \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre\" (the masks the killer uses are similar to those of Leatherface), with a little bit of the original \"House of Wax\", and the telekinetic powers that are displayed in \"Carrie\". The result is quite satisfying. The telekinesis was a nice touch to the movie, it made the killer all the more menacing and inescapable. The masks were terrifying, and the plastering scene was really disturbing.

The score for the film was really well done, if not a little overused during some scenes. The acting may not be particularly on key, but it really wasn't that bad. Chuck Connors was really good as the shadowy Mr. Slauston, giving the character a shady but friendly feel. A young Tanya Roberts is also in the film, she's most known for her role on \"Charlie's Angels\" and more recently the sitcom \"That '70s Show\", playing Donna's mother. Robert A. Burns serves as the art director, he did a phenomenal job on the original \"Texas Chainsaw\" and does a good job here as well, creating a cluttered, musty atmosphere to both the rundown museum and the old house filled with mannequins. I found it a little odd that the original rating for the film was PG, it seems a little too scary to have such a tame rating, but the film really isn't too violent.

Overall, \"Tourist Trap\" is an eerily unique, fast paced, extremely under-appreciated horror classic. Full Moon gave it a decent 20th anniversary DVD release, the commentary was interesting and the picture was clear and crisp for the most part, better than the video versions. If you enjoy older '70s slasher-horror films, \"Tourist Trap\" is an underrated retro gem. 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A group of young travelers that just ran out of gas go into a weird wax museum called \"Saluesen's Lost Oasis\" owned by a strange man named Slausen (Chuck Conners) as the dummies are controlled by some mysterious force and a madman with special powers wants them dead.

One of the most under-appreciated horror movies of the late 70's! This Charles Band (producer of \"Re-Animator\")production has became one of the scariest and most unique low budget horror productions of it's day combining some psychological themes along without having to result some gore like the usual slasher movie. The movie keeps the viewer on the edge of their seats with tension and some scares, the movie has became a cult diamond in the rough for the genre since then and this is well worth watching.

Also recommended: \"Pin\", \"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ( 1974)\", \"The Hills have Eyes ( 1977)\", \"Maniac ( 1980)\", \"Magic\" ( 1978), \"Dolls\", \"May\", \"Just Before Dawn\", \"House of 1000 Corpses\", \"The Devil's Rejects\", \"Sleepaway Camp\", \"Mother's Day\", \"A Nightmare on Elm Street\", \"Friday The 13th\", \"Halloween 1 & 2\", \"Puppet Master\", \"House of Wax ( 1953 and 2005)\", \"Jeepers Creepers\", \"High Tension\", \"Evil Dead II\", \"From Dusk Till Dawn\", \"Waxwork\", \"Nothing But Trouble\" and \"Psycho ( 1960)\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favorite horror films of all time and I used to think it never really got its due. That is until I read the glowing reviews here. It seems many feel the same as I did when I first saw it.

It's a damn creepy film, and I've spent most of my life watching creepy films. I've always found dolls, mannequins and such damn creepy! Check out the dolls in \"Beyond the Door\" and of course the great \"Trilogy of Terror\". And what about the magnificent Twilight Zone episode \"Living Doll\". Hell, dolls are creepy! And Tourist Trap has some moments that will make your hair stand on the back of your neck. All aided by an excellent soundtrack that just makes Connors' performance even more heart-pounding.

I remember seeing the trailer to this film on late night TV and thing, \"Wow, I gotta see that!\" It was memorable. And it's one of the only trailers I remember seeing as a kid that creeped me out. Took me years to see it, but it was a treat.

Stephen King also mentions this film in his \"Danse Macabre\" book, and gives it a glowing recommendation. Pretty good company.

This film will always be high on my list of must-sees. It's a real solid addition to the genre of the time and deserves place alongside the best of the 70s schlockers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is fantastic! Everything from the Score - to when the final credits role. This movie is a Masterpiece. It's genuinely creepy and its effectively hysterical setting is enough to give anyone the creeps. It is apparent that the movie was NOT rushed, and that David Schmoeller (Who would later work with Fullmoon on the Puppet Master Series) had a clear and concise image of what he is trying to direct. The professional aspect of the movie is astonishing considering it's relatively low budget. It relies on scares without effects (Mainly due to budget restrictions) but still creates a tension filled atmosphere.

Stephen King stated that this was one of his favorite movies and I seriously cannot blame him! It's one of my favorite horror movies and always will be. This is my favorite Fullmoon Movie and has been ever since I first purchased a good few years ago.

Money Well Spent! I own both VHS and DVD versions.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite a silly premise,ridiculous plot devices and low budget,Tourist Trap

manages to be striking. An inventive ,beautifully scored film,a must see. You have to throw rationality out the window to fully appreciate what the director was trying to do If you can manage that,you will be in for a pleasant surprise. Also take note that this is one of the few semi-classic horror films that wasn't spoiled by numerous sequels.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like one of the other reviewers (might have been @ Amazon), I was first introduced to Tourist Trap by the beloved, decrepit old WOR-9 in NY, around January 1983. Devil Dog: The Hound of Hell, which I'd been waiting to see since it debuted on Halloween 1978, had just ended, and I thought I'd had my horror fill for the day (quit laughing - that three eyed \"Borgost\" (sp?) monster Ike Eisenmann draws up in his room is scary).

For as much as I still enjoy Richard Crenna wearing his made-for-TV horror hat, it was the first 10 minutes of Tourist Trap, following Devil Dog that day, that really left a mark - and months later, it ended up being the first movie I ever taped off TV. WOR used to play this fairly frequently, often as the Saturday afternoon Million Dollar Movie, as others have observed. It's one of those offerings that delivers a powerful horror punch up front, a veritable left hook - and then practically starts over with the rest of the cast, dances and jabs, putting the opening scene a larger context along the way, then moves on to the real climax (see Night of the Living Dead, Re Animator).

Two paragraphs and I haven't mentioned a single mannequin. Face it - the damn things are scary enough, without the music and the script. I, too, can remember some scary dress dummies and the like in various relatives' attics and basements, and say what you like about how relatively straightforward Schmoeller and Carroll's approach is - no one, before or since, has played it this well. In real life, a good mannequin will make you do a double take - and here, that's about the last thing you're likely to see, if you happen to be stuck at Slausen's defunct wax museum and roadside stand. Yes, there is a point (\"I loved her very much\"), where Chuck \"Slausen\" Connors is trying to pass for Vincent Price. Yes, the plot might have taken up all of a paragraph in the early stages; I can't see the script being all that thick. It doesn't matter. From direction to competent acting (Meryl Streep's emphatically not in attendance, and here, that helps instead of hinders), to another useful and effective Pino Dinaggio score (see Carrie and various other de Palma movies), to various lighting, film stock, use of varying sound levels ... I could go on - every element of this low budget production comes together and you get a work very much greater than the sum of its parts.

Did I mention it's scary as Hell? Stephen King talked this movie up in Danse Macabre a year or so after its release, and with good reason. Like much of his work, it may not be great art, but it sure does tell a scary story, and does it well. The rest of the cast may be relatively unknown (wasn't Jocelyn Jones in that Texas car chase movie as well?), but Chuck Connors and Tanya Roberts were and are, just familiar enough to audiences, to make you think - Stephen King style - that this could happen to you, or people you know.

Comparisons to Psycho (plot) and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (overall look and feel), even if they aren't the first associations in my mind, are valid. I only wish I could comment on the DVD, which I look forward to buying, as Tourist Trap has become notoriously hard to find on video since the near-complete extinction of independent video rental outlets, where it had a home aside from WOR and cable in the 1980s (though TMC\/Showtime appear to have picked it up and play it regularly now). No, no spoilers here, I'm afraid, no plot breakdown - go see it yourself (all right, there may be a tiny little one below, so scroll away if you like - better safe than sorry). The mannequins are damn scary and I'd rather show than tell ... :)

For the record, Tourist Trap is also chock full of great lines, from \"we are going to have a party! How do I look, huh, how do I look?!\", to \"you're so pretty\", \"you can't hurt me\", \"I shouldn't have to hide it - it feels good!\" (listen for that Vincent Price inflection again there), the inevitable \"you're crazy!\" (delivered at the right moment, and in the right tone) ... and try - just try - to keep the hair on your arms down when you hear the mannequin's head screaming \"Molly!\" - especially once you realize whose head it used to be ... :)

P S ... Charles Band was the producer on this, I believe, and likely owned the rights to Dinaggio's music. Band, from what I understand, was the brains behind Full Moon Entertainment, which might explain both the music's subsequent use in Puppet Master, and, well, the 40 commercial approach has characterized Full Moon throughout, from the enjoyable Puppet Master and Subspecies franchises, to, uhhh ... Trancers and Bad Channels (sorry, BOC).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some films just fade away, but Tourist Trap has withstood the test of time and has justifiably become a cult favorite. Though not completely original--it owes much to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it holds its own with a sense of humor, genuine creepy moments, a brilliant score by Pino Donaggio, and the fun performances by Chuck Connors and the cast. Don't let the PG rating keep you away, this film proves that gratuitous gore and nudity are not needed in every horror film to make it entertaining. Those elements are usually used to cover the lack of thrills in a film. Here, the scares are merited and effective. Plus, only Chuck Connors could carry a scene in which he has to share soup with a mannequin! A classic scene indeed. Now more accessible on DVD in widescreen, this film is a must for fans of '70s horror fare.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a bizarre oddity, directed by the guy who edited \"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.\" Chuck Conners gives a hilariously over-the-top performance as the owner of a roadside \"wax\" museum which our doomed teenagers happen to break down near. The wax figures look \"so real,\" one of the teen's points out. Heh, heh, heh...Not so much a slasher film as a weird mix of psychological horror and old fashioned \"House of Wax\"-style terror. I can think of many, many horror films that are worse than this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let me just start out by saying that Tourist Trap is a better movie then 99.9% of the horror films that have come out of Hollywood lately. If you don't believe me see Darkness Falls or They. And it is certainly better than any of those crappy direct to video releases like Stab, Bleed, The Pool, and so on. One of the big problems with the film Tourist Trap is that is never really found an audience. When the film opened in 1979 it was given a PG rating by the MPAA. Anyone that knows horror films knows that a PG on a horror film is usually the kiss of death for the film. (Director David Schmoeller talks about this problem on the DVD's commentary track.) There are exceptions though like Poltergeist, which had also received a PG rating. However, there are big differences between Tourist Trap and Poltergeist. Tourist Trap was not a big budget Hollywood film like Poltergeist nor was it produced by Steven Spielberg. That alone was enough to guarantee Poltergeist success. (Still for those of you that have seen Tourist Trap, you will even scratch your head as to why the MPAA rated this film PG. The 'heart burst' scene alone should be enough for the film to be slapped with and R rating. Or how about the pipe in the back with the blood running out of it.) I have to admit though that when I was young I looked at a copy of Poltergeist in the video store shelf, picked it up, saw that it was rated PG and put it back on the shelf in favor of an R rated film instead. Years later, I finally saw Poltergeist and realized what a great film I missed out on for not renting a PG horror film. From then on I would never judge a film based on it's rating again. This is most likely what happened to Tourist Trap. People, like me with Poltergeist, will probably overlook it in favor of the R rated film. Most likely it would be a teenager too, which most of these types of films are targeted at. Friday the 13th was no masterpiece either but did extremely well at the box office due to the fact it was rated R and was heavily advertised by Paramount at the time. It found its audience and made enough money to spawn several sequels. When you look at it folks, Tourist Trap is just as good as Friday The 13th. The same thing could've happened to Tourist Trap. We could have seen Tourist Trap 2, 3, 4, and so on. As far as the film goes, Tourist Trap is an entertaining horror film made on an extremely small budget, but it is well acted, well directed and well made on many levels. Chuck Connors is a riot as Mr. Slausen and gives the best performance in the film. Special credit must be give to composer Pino Donaggio, whose score for this film really is what sets it apart from others and gives it its creepiness. The music in the scenes involving the mannequins is especially creepy. Donaggio worked on the horror film Carrie and many other film scores since Tourist Trap. He has done exceptionally good work in film and continues to score films to this day. The weakness with Tourist Trap is that there really is never any explanation of Davey's powers. Maybe that is how it's supposed to be. He just has them, and we should accept that in order for the movie to work. We do accept it to a point, but then the screenplay has incidents like how Davey makes the phone ring in the store while he's in the basement of the house. In that case, is Davey limited in using his powers? Can he make a phone ring in Houston, Detroit, Los Angeles? What is his range? Those are things that people that didn't care for this movie would most likely to point out as flaws. Others would accept it as a mistake. I accept it. There is not enough of those type of questions generated by this film to make me hate it. This is a horror film. We should not be required to read too much into it. Many people have called this the 'killer mannequin' movie. I assure you that no mannequin kills anyone in this film. The mannequins are controlled by the power of Davey who uses them as a weapon. This is a common misconception about this film. Some people have a problem with the mannequins and some have even said they are just downright silly. I think they add to the overall creepiness of the film. Overall Tourist Trap is a good fun rental.***(out of 5)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Slasher movies started may be 30 to 35 years before this movie but believe me this one among those pearl that will stay longer after you turned of TV set. Especially if you are a person easily scared this is the movie for you for which you wouldn't have stomach to take it full. Even after so many years the movie hasn't lost its charm and thrill.

No blood no gore but the thrill will for sure chill your spine out. the movie starts with the bang and it stay with the same pace till its end. BGM is nerve cracking and i remember this was the one copied in many Indian movies those days. Kings favorite? No wonder why... thats the only reason i wanted to see this and it didn't let me down. \"Don't turn off the lights\"... coz you wont find Enrique but may be a smiling doll sitting right behind you! beware. not for the lite hearted...

Two thumps up and i am going with 8 out of 10 which is pretty low but still i preserve my ratings for Dramas...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After a group of young friends experience car trouble whilst travelling off the beaten track, they accept an offer of help from lonely local Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors), owner of a nearby museum full of historical wax mannequins. Once at the creepy roadside attraction, the friends are stalked by a mask-wearing lunatic who can bring the museum's dummies to life through the power of the mind.

Tourist Trap's bad guy is a demented cross between The Texas Chain Saw Massacre's Leatherface and Anthony, the scary kid from the classic Twilight Zone episode 'It's a Good Life', whilst the plot is a blend of elements from the aforementioned TCM, Hitchcock's Psycho, and House of Wax. The atmosphere and execution of Tourist Trap, however, is so totally off-kilter that, in this respect, it's virtually impossible to draw comparison with other earlier movies.

Director David Schmoeller's continually inventive and unpredictable treatment of his own script gives the film a distinctly nightmarish quality, and with a brilliant left-field performance from Connors, an impossibly creepy score from Pino Donaggio, a collection of truly unsettling mannequins with detachable jaws, and the presence of super sexy Tanya Roberts, who spends the film in (and briefly out of) tiny denim hot-pants and a figure hugging boob-tube, Tourist Trap is a totally unforgettable and ultimately one-of-a-kind horror experience well deserving of its cult following.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Perhaps one of the first slasher film that came out after Halloween (Although made from Irwin Yabalans from Halloween), I must say I honestly found \"Tourist Trap\" to be scarier and funner. \"Tourist Trap\" is one of those remarkable treats you find every now and then, and are left with the most enjoyable feeling of surprise. It was destiny I tell you, but one night I was at my local Blockbuster (One or Two months before it went out of business), and had nothing to get. Then I stumble upon this movie, I think huh seems like a laughable B-Movie, I rent it and took it home, boy was I in for a good scare. \"Tourist Trap\" comes off as a bad movie, it definitely has it's cheesy moments,but in the end you're having to much fun with it to really care.

The things that impressed me the absolute most, and the things that made this movie one of the scariest ones I've seen, is number one the setting. A horror movie without a good setting isn't very fun, not here. I just love love love the location, it feels like we can relate to it, it almost feels like we've been there before. Which makes it creepier. Next is the characters, non of them are really stereotypical, and they all have a real personality. For example they're not stoners, alcoholics, or even Sex obsessed people, they feel like normal young adults. Plus they look realistic enough, and then their is Chuck Connors. Who gives a great performance as Mr. Slausen who we all take an instant liking too because again he's so real, he feels like that nice guy grandfatherly figure we adore. The last, and probably most important thing that makes this movie scary is how they make us (the audience) jump half way out of our seats, and turn on the rights, for the right reasons. For example most of the time in horror films we mainly just jump because of a sudden change in the music pitch, but in \"Tourist Trap\" prepare yourself, that's not the case. With it's perfect use of lighting, mannequins, and weirdness you feel utterly creeped out. Plus I love because although they may go a bit over-the-top with some things you still feel like this could happen. Which is exactly what a horror movie who takes such a ridicules premise should do, and that is make us (the audience) feel unsafe and terrified.

Overall as far as any major problems go, I have none, only that it's weirdness may get a little too weird at times. However in the end \"Tourist Trap\" holds a place near and dear to my heart, for being one of the few horror films to make me turn on the lights and feel unsafe about traveling.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really really liked this one. I know, it's rampant with what are now clich\u00e9 plot lines, and plenty of overacting, but it was hell of a lot of fun.

In our quest for 70's and 80's horror cheese, we come across many flicks that are so bad they're good. We also have some that are so 'good' they suck, and then, we have some that are so bad they are just bad. This is definitely so bad it's good.

Some teens traveling come across an 'oasis' in the middle of nowhere, a forgotten slice of roadside America, and they decide to 'check it out.' They cross every line of inappropriate until it is absurd and they pay for it. They pay dearly.

I would not normally give a movie like this a 9, but the girls in this one are the type that we miss from the 1970's: ditzy, scantily-clad and FIT. These aren't the anorexic broads from today's horrible horror; they look awesome in booty shorts.

I give it a 9 out of 10, kids.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Tourist Trap\" is among my favorite late 70's\/early 80's horror flicks. A group of young people are heading somewhere, one pair in the car ahead, & that car has a flat, and our film opens with the young man, Woody, pushing the tire along looking for a service station. He finds a seemingly abandoned place, and yet hears voices and investigates, and ends up with a piece of pipe through his stomach for his efforts. Along comes the rest of the young folks (in a VW Thing) and they pick up Woody's girlfriend, and find this very same place, Slausen's Oasis, or some such thing..and then Mr. Slausen happens along while the girls are enjoying a dip in the stream. Of course, the VW Thing has mysteriously died at that point, so odd Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors) offers his help. Mr. Slausen has a museum, with lots of wax figures, and he lives in the museum but behind is a big house, where he says Davey lives. And who is Davey? Why, Davey Crockett, he says...but if it were Davey Crockett, they'd all probably be safer. The girls are left alone while Slausen goes to help with fixing the car, but of course curiosity gets the better of one & she goes to investigate, and finds the house full of creepy mannequins and one rather animated one named...Davey. What follows is a rather creepy night of terror as one by one, they're taken prisoner by Davey, who says he's Slausen's brother. One girl (kidnapped earlier) is treated to a plaster facial, which results in her death when it covers up her air supply. At any rate there's somewhat of a twist to this and kind (but weird) Mr. Slausen is not exactly what he appears to be. A good, creepy late 70's horror flick, and lots of mannequins make for a very creepy atmosphere. 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A group of young adults get stranded in the back of the beyond, where the only place in the vicinity is a museum full of wax dummies, and the only form of help is affable local Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors). As night falls, the kids get picked off in record time.

An odd, freaky B movie that combines the creepiness of backwoods settings with the plot device of all-too-lifelike mannequins (making this a good update of the \"bodies in the wax museum\" genre), this is an intense shock fest along the lines of \"The Texas Chain Saw Massacre\". (It should then come as no surprise that TCSM art director Robert A. Burns repeats that duty here, and his eye for great set decoration always comes in handy.) Pino Donaggios' score is downright chilling; accompanied by the murky photography of Nicholas von Sternberg, it drenches the film in oppressive atmosphere.

Plot twists vary in level of success; there was one that I saw coming a mile away, and one that actually took me by surprise, and I was all the more happier for it. One of the best moments is shared with us almost right up front, as the first chump victim is trapped in a room with objects flying at him of their own volition. The capper is a great impalement by pipe with blood dripping out of the end.

Star Connors offers an engaging performance as our down-home good ol' boy antagonist, while the younger co-stars, predictably, can't perform at the same level, although Jocelyn Jones is a likable enough and certainly winsome lady who has enough appeal to rate as a sympathetic damsel-in-distress. Co-star Tanya Roberts (a brunette in this film) is okay in support. (If I had one problem with this film, it's just that the victims are a little too stupid. Then again, that doesn't make this much different from many horror films of the 80's.) Future notable names among the credits are future directors Ted Nicolaou, who was the editor here, Ron Underwood (who made a great debut almost a dozen years later with \"Tremors\") as the assistant director, and veteran makeup artist Ve Neill, who's done many films and won three Oscars since.

Although some horror fans may be disappointed by the lack of nudity and sexual elements, this is otherwise a nice little surprise that debuting director David Schmoeller delivers with conviction and gusto. Recommended.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A group of friends break down in the middle of nowhere (one had a flat tire, the other's Jeep mysteriously won't start). One of them takes the tire to a run down service station and that is the last anyone sees of him. When the remaining foursome go in search of their friend, they come across nice Mr. Slaussen who offers to help fix the jeep and offers cool drinks and refuge from the heat in his equally run down, hermit-like house, which happens to be occupied by very realistic looking mannequins. He goes with the one guy in the bunch out to work on the car and leaves the 3 girls in the house. Before he goes he warns them not to leave and go up to the house behind his shack; he warns them about \"Davy\", his brother who is lurking about and isn't all there. Of course, one of them decides to venture out in search of a working phone and is never seen again. Is it Slaussen? Is it Davy? The mannequins?? Tourist Trap has the usual horror requirements (jiggly big boobed girl, goody two shoes girl, curiosity getting the better of people and never working out!), but it stands apart from the rest of the 70's genre in it's twist of an ending. I started to feel sorry for Slaussen (Chuck Conners is a terrific, creepy, over-the-top performance)at a point in the film, and you almost see the character of Molly doing the same. This is a gem if you can find it; I had taped it off of cable when I was younger, and walking through a used video store I spotted a VHS copy that was totally overpriced, but well worth it. Fans of Tanya Roberts won't be disappointed either. Best part of the film for me was the scene with the soup (and crackers!!)

I gave it a 7 because some of the movie was and still is hard to explain.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i have to admit thanks to this movie i'm now afraid of mannequins. hahaha.

but yes, first off the acting in this movie at least by my standard is pretty swell. most of the actors are pretty decent in their roles. the script also seems to be pretty good too, sure some cheesy stuff in there but also some decently written character and some damn scary scenes. i STILL get shivers thinking about that one scene with the dude and the mannequins. brrr.

yeah, I'll say you should check this movie out it's pretty good, and very entertaining. a good watch. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tourist Trap (1979) is an entertaining horror movie from the late 70's, the movie is about a bunch of young friends who get stranded on an old deserted lane by a creepy old waxwork museum.

The owner of the museum seems like a strange but harmless old man, but things take a very nasty turn when members of the young group start getting killed off, who is responsible for the murders, is it old man Slausen or is it his collection of creepy mannequins who seem to be alive and hungry for blood!!!! This film was good stuff, it was fast faced, the performances were very good from the actors\/actresses (Tanya Roberts was very sexy) and the film was never boring, and like i say, it had some very creepy scenes, so be prepared to hide under the covers! Definitely recommended to horror movie\/ghost story fans! I give this film a highly respectable 7.2 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I actually had seen the last parts of this movie when I was a child. Thanks to the search feature of plots I was able to find out the name of it. For years I did not know the name, but the movie stuck in my mind. The ending left hope that the main character would get back to Earth eventually. It was a shame it did not make it to a series. This movie reminds me of Journey to The Far Side Of the Sun. Also known as Doppleganger. If you liked this feature the other one is worth a watch. It was done before The Stranger, but shares a similar plot. Yet different. I just picked up The Stranger off of eBay on VHS. Hope they make a DVD, but it is doubtful unless it comes out on Dollar DVD. A few pilots are making it on the budget DVD's and maybe this one will.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I suppose it depends on when one actually sees the movie for the first time that their impression is formed the way it is.

I saw it as a child on TV back in 1973, when it was \"The Stranger\" and I loved it. Such was the time when the space program to the moon was a reality, when shows like \"Search\", \"UFO\", and \"6M$ Man\" were showing a child of 12 of what the world could hold in their future. Adventure and technology.

You got to see shows only once and that was when the network aired them. The only way people could slash your shows was by making their own parody of it; they didn't get to take your show and add in their own comments over it.

I did not know what this concept of a \"pilot\" was. I saw the movie and was hoping thru out that Stryker would get home; did not know that there was a possibility of it continuing beyond two hours.

Back then, would I understood what so many people hate about the movie now? I doubt it because I don't remember it as such. Do I understand now? Not really for to understand the story, one must not see it from their perspective but rather from that of the characters in the movie.

If one is watching as an American, it might be humorous about the lack of security in a police state.....but if one is a subject in that state, then compliance could be expected and security can be less. When things are suppose to be perfect, perfect to an extreme degree, perfect that one is not suppose to doubt, then one is not likely to question as quickly when things are out of order.

The subplots of the movie are interesting such as the old man who remembers the time before but watches his words since he suspects that there are spies everywhere. Or that the police state values knowledge to some extent for they are careful about how they control or harm their brain power.

These days, one is likely to know exactly what the movie is about before they see it, so much of the suspense, surprise is lost. But the duet between the astronaut and his doctor at the beginning of the movie is a perfect exchange if one considers that this movie was made well into the Cold War and the astronaut's biggest fear is that he has crashed in the USSR. One gets quite a distance into the movie before it becomes apparent that such a possibility is the least of his concerns.

This is the primary difference between \"The Stranger\" and \"Doppelganger\". The latter can be considered timeless since any comments it has about the USSR are comparatively minor and lost early on in the movie. In the former, those links are through out the movie, supposedly directly in the beginning and then as a theme variation after wards.

All that said, despite my fond memory for the movie, it is rather easy to see that it would not have made it as a series. Each week, Stryker would make friends, Benedict would chase, Stryker would get away. Eventually, Benedict's society would get rid of him. Someone else would pick up the chase. A rut would develop. There might be a jab at something new such as perhaps another crew member from Stryker's mission showing up, but it probably would not be enough to keep the show going.

If one goes in with the knives that others have used to slash the movie, odds are they will slash it as well. But if one remembers that this was made during the Cold War and what fears and estimations of the other side were during that time, of what the popular environment contained for the viewer, then they may find some entertaining and intellectual themes in it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An excellent example of what happens when one central body controls everyone. I liked this movie because Glenn Corbett also appeared in Star Trek as Zeffrem Cochrane in 1967. I also liked it because I am a fan of the apollo space program.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wonderful film in the best Scandinavian eldritch magic tradition, with very far sighted analysis of much of the big issues we are just starting to face.

Should be compulsory viewing for all politicians.

Take your pick from privacy, nuclear sustainability, global climate change, quality of life.

Reminiscent of Thoreaus' Walden, but with modern twist, and considerable humour.

I'm not Finnish, although I've travelled there and have good Finnish friends, but I found it totally accessible, and also culturally informative.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All Risto Jarva's films are worth of seeing. Some like \"J\u00e4niksen vuosi\" and \"Loma\" are best films in their genre and have reached a status of a classics in Finnish cinema-history.

Most people have formed a impression of actor Antti Litja through Jarva's films. Litja acted leading role in three of Jarva's films which all became successes at box office and movie reviews.

It's nice to see that idea of \"J\u00e4niksen Vuosi\" still lives in commercials (I think it was tele-operator Sonera's TV add where Litja was walking in mountain fell at Lapland with hare in his arms. Everibody who has seen the film knows what I am talking about..) \"J\u00e4niksen Vuosi\" Is a beautiful film with great actors and good filming locations - like famous small town in Lappland, Sodankyl\u00e4, where the best Film festival in the world is held - The Midnight Sun Film Festival. I recommend it for all to go there on June - but remember warm clothes and raincoat :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"J\u00e4niksen vuosi is one of Jarva's most political movies. It takes stance strongly against modern day society's authority status in the life of the common man, and how it has estranged men from the nature completely. It challenges the whole concept of freedom and wealth in our welfare society.

Vatanen (Antti Litja) - smothered buy the concrete jungle with all its rules and regulations - tries to rattle the chains of the society by escaping it all in to the wilderness of northern Finland - only to realize that the concept of a 'free country' isn't all that unambiguous, in other words, the society has the common man by the balls.

Still the thing that makes J\u00e4niksen vuosi so exceptional - besides the visual and humouristic brilliance - is how it seems to illustrate the whole political atmosphere in Finland in the 70's, as well as the whole identity of Finland as a nation. Vatanen is like an archetype of a classical finn in his solitudeness and social distantness. Since nature has always played such an important role in the national identity of us Finns, the whole idea of that being slowly taken away by the modern society makes J\u00e4niksen vuosi emotionally exceptionally moving.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This enchanting movie is based on a novel by Arto Paasilinna. The bestseller is one of the best books I've read. Here's the story:

One day journalist and photographer Kaarlo Vatanen decides to leave his past behind, and starts a new life wandering across the Finnish forests and countryside. With him he has a companion, a young hare hit by a car. Vatanen has to take care of the hare, because it's leg is wounded, so they start a journey together taking care of each other.

In the course of their adventures they get almost shot by hunters, get caught by the police, meet many people and finally get to lapland, where they live peacefully, until a group of foreign tourist disturbs their privacy. The hare falls ill and they must return to Helsinki to see the vet.

Vatanen has found an ideal way of living, but the modern society tries to tie him back to his duties and taxes. In Helsinki Vatanen took to drink, gets even engaged and imprisoned, but finally he and the hare flee.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My favourite story from 'tales from the crypt'. Brion Jones was born to play the part of the maniac lumberjack,axe swinging madman Steve Dixon.Having seen him before in Tango&Cash I can state this actor never got the proper credit he deserved. A jealous husband takes offence in his wife showing an interest in a hunky young worker he's just employed.And you know when Dixon finds out there's gonna be hell to pay!The young worker Ted(Billy Wirth)receives an almighty beating from Dixon leaving him blind.Now how is a blind lumberjack supposed to work? A tribute to black humour if there ever was one! The co stars do a pretty good job too supporting Ted when Dixon when he has his initial suspicions about his wife desiring another man.Dixon's behaviour making the bond stronger closer between the colleagues.One even stated he became a changed man when he got married.Though Ted should have done the wise thing and left when he could!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every episode I saw when I was an innocent child was stupid. There were some funny looking puppets called \"The Mitts\" who would always discuss childhood things. They would play this song before \"The Mitts\" part of the show that goes like this \"Let's join the Mitts...\" There was a Groucho Marx puppet that told jokes. Before the session, this man would sing \"Hot Fudge! Right On!\" There was a green puppet with teeth that was called Seymore. We would always see more Seymore. He would crack jokes and sing every episode. There was always a moral in every episode. One episode, a man sang \"Liars are losers!\" Another episode he was singing about sharing and caring. Seymore said tell me about those two little girls \"Sharon and Karen.\" The Hot Fudge Holey Moley part has this man doing weird stuff and they played weird music.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This educational show focused on emotions, interactions, and relationships. It was produced at Detroit's ABC affiliate and syndicated in 90 markets nationwide. This past week, Detroit Public TV had a 1-1\/2 hour clip show as part of their pledge drive. Wow, the memories that resurfaced! While I remembered the show, there were segments that I'd forgotten about but remembered instantly a soon as they'd begin (\"Hot Fudge HOLY MOLEY!\", Detective Tomato and the pies in his face).

For more on the Public Television special, do a search for \"Hot Fudge Comin' Atcha Concert\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the spirit of the Great Space Coaster, but a few years earlier.

Hot Fudge was one of the psychedelic kid's shows that I grew up on. Seymour was a big, fuzzy, green puppet, with a crescent smile of enormous teeth which nearly split his head, I recall him wearing a variety of Elton John-type shades.

He \"played\" piano, and had a Jesus looking dude in a white tux, sitting next to him. They would have a moral discussion and then do a song about it.

Don't remember much else except the opening theme, Seymour and the Hippie.

No one else I know remembers it at all. I grew up in Jersey, so if it was produced in Detroit as a previous post said, it wasn't just local. Seymour reminded me a lot of Sherlock the Squirrel from the Magic Garden (another psychedelic kids show if there ever was one.) People always talk about LSD's effects of music and movies of the 70s, but it seems kid's show writers got a dose as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a wonderful look, you should pardon the pun, at 22 women talking about breasts-- theirs, their mothers', other women's, and how they affect so many aspects of their lives. Young girls, old women, and everyone in between (with all shapes, sizes, configurations, etc) talk about developing, reacting, celebrating, hiding, enhancing, or reducing their breasts.

It's charming, delightful, sad, funny, and everything in between. Intercut with documentary footage and clips from those famous old \"young women's films\" that the girls got taken to the cafeteria to see, the interviews are a fascinating window for men who love women & their breasts into what the other half has to say when they don't know you're listening.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let's get this out of the way, so the ones checking out this page looking for info on anything related to the word \"Breasts\" (and you know who you are, googlers) can move along: this is not in any way pornographic. On the contrary, if this has any value as masturbation material then, frankly, the filmmaker didn't do a good job since the aim is to keep it on subject and on the experiences of women and their bodies and images of themselves and society and health and so on. Indeed, I would be a little circumspect of one who came across this on DVD or, if it ever plays again, late night on HBO or Cinemax and used it as a means for pleasure. You might as well go to the supermarket and pick up a pair of ripe melons and take them home and squeeze them and uh, well, you get the idea.

No, this is semi-serious film-making meant for premium late-night viewing, but it shouldn't have to be just for the late-night types. This is intimate in setting but not in tone. All of the women, in all their variety of shapes and sizes, and races, and even with one man thrown in with fake breasts, have something of value to say, from life experience in the most straightforward way. If I say semi-serious it's due to the several little segments that the director feels she needs to throw in, with the archival footage of old \"how-to\" videos about puberty and sex and breasts and super-rare cartoons with the knockers flying about. This isn't a problem but an asset: we need a few little visual seg-ways to go between these interviews.

Nothing is held back, and we see it as feminism in a liberating form: they don't need to cover up, and even if they choose not to take their tops and shirts and bras off they're still open as can be about a natural part of their body that is an object of sex, surprise, comfort, discomfort, curiosity, motherhood, and, sadly, cancer. In that last part, there's another brave step taken as we see a woman who survived her cancer with only one breast. You know you've become mature and an adult when you can see this woman who has somehow gone on to live a semi-normal life with one breast (the most bittersweet moment is when she says if a fairy godmother said she could have one wish to have two full breasts she would have to think about it), and you don't snicker or go \"eww, gross.\" That's the test, folks.

It's not shot under the best of circumstances, but then again for TV it's edited with a tight pace. It's never dull for a moment, and we never feel like anyone is holding back, especially when a man might hear the hard truth like that breasts may not really be erogenous, or that a flat chest is very attractive to some men. Breasts: A Documentary is about deconstructing myths with real faces and breasts and minds and hearts laid bare. If that's worthy of a \"I was alone\" session, then, well, more power to you, I guess, though it's not the intention.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Supercarrier was my favorite movie in the later part of the 80's when it came out. My Dad taped it for me & I watched it all the time until my step-mom taped Oprah over it & my heart was torn. I would love to know if or where I can get it from. I have been looking for it. I believe they even came out w\/ a Supercarrier 2. It wasn't as great as the 1st, but I would like to have all of them if I could find them. I do not think @ all that it was a bad movie. It was a very interesting movie with a lot of action yet it had somewhat of a love story plot to it. The actors\/actresses in the movie were great. It also helped me to understand that this is not just a man's world, but it is also a woman's world & many women can do the same things if not more than what a man can do & women deserve much respect for their duties as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw Colleen Moore it was in the excellent series about silent films called \"Hollywood\". There she was in 1980, her hair defiantly bobbed as it was in the Twenties, a sparkling, witty and charismatic elderly lady - the very definition of \"presence\". Then I saw her fabulous silent comedy work in films like \"Ella Cinders\" and \"Orchids and Ermine\". Then the disappointingly sombre talkie \"The Scarlet Letter\". And now here she is in \"The Power and the Glory\" giving a performance of staggering power, working expertly alongside one of the talking cinema's finest actors - Spencer Tracy.

I found the movie a little lack lustre story-wise, but Moore and Tracy give such brilliant performances that the story hardly seems to matter. Both actors age from youth to old age in the course of the film - and this is done mostly through acting alone with minimal make-up and hair changes. Moore is almost unrecognisable as the elderly wife, and the scene where she finds out her husband is seeing a younger woman is one of the most magnificently performed scenes I have ever seen. She does most of the scene without dialogue, which is where her silent acting experience gives her the edge, even over Tracy. Contrast this with her delightful comic playing in another silent sequence when she is a young woman and Tracy is struggling to propose to her. Astonishing! What this film reveals more than anything else is how shameful it is that Hollywood let this remarkable actress slip through its fingers and spend most of her life in retirement.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story of Tom Garner opens with his grand funeral and is told through a series of elegant flashbacks narrated by his faithful lifetime friend Henry. Henry and his wife debate whether Tom was a great man and a genius or an utterly worthless scoundrel. The film is beautifully written, acted and directed, and I highly recommend it.

Tom was the fabulously rich and successful owner of a large railroad, dominating his board of directors and his competition, terrorizing his employees, slaughtering strikers. Tom's ambitious wife Sally was responsible for all of Tom's success. When he met her, he was illiterate and entirely content with his work as a trackwalker for the railroad. Sally teaches him to read and takes over his trackwalker job while Tom goes to school. He starts to rise one step at a time through the railroad hierarchy until he eventually takes over as president.

But as Tom becomes a business tycoon, his marriage to Sally gradually falls to pieces. His spoiled son despises him, and he takes up with a much younger woman (the aptly named Eve), with predictably catastrophic consequences. In his business life, Tom is a total success; in his personal life, a disastrous failure. Much like the Hearst figure in \"Citizen Kane,\" Tom symbolizes the best and the worst of the capitalist system.

Spencer Tracy is terrific in the role of Tom Garner and the business scenes ring with authenticity. Colleen Moore is also excellent as Sally; both of them age beautifully in the multi-generational story. The film was written by Preston Sturges, but is nothing like the screwball comedies for which Sturges became famous.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Preston Sturgis' THE POWER AND THE GLORY was unseen by the public for nearly twenty or thirty years until the late 1990s when it resurfaced and even showed up on television. In the meantime it had gained in notoriety because Pauline Kael's THE CITIZEN KANE BOOK had suggested that the Herman Mankiewicz - Orson Welles screenplay for KANE was based on Sturgis' screenplay here. As is mentioned in the beginning of this thread for the film on the IMDb web site, Kael overstated her case.

There are about six narrators who take turns dealing with the life of Charles Foster Kane: the newsreel (representing Ralston - the Henry Luce clone), Thatcher's memoirs, Bernstein, Jed Leland, Susan Alexander Kane, and Raymond the butler. Each has his or her different slant on Kane, reflecting their faith or disappointment or hatred of the man. And of course each also reveals his or her own failings when they are telling their version of Kane's story. This method also leads to frequent overlapping re-tellings of the same incident.

This is not the situation in THE POWER AND THE GLORY. Yes, like KANE it is about a legendary business leader - here it is Tom Garner (Spencer Tracy), a man who rose from the bottom to being head of the most successful railroad system in the country. But there are only two narrators - they are Garner's right hand man Henry (Ralph Morgan) and his wife (Sarah Padden). This restricts the nearly three dimensional view we get at times of Kane in Garner. Henry, when he narrates, is talking about his boss and friend, whom he respected and loved. His wife is like the voice of the skeptical public - she sees only the flaws in Henry.

Typical example: Although he worked his way up, Tom becomes more and more anti-labor in his later years. Unions are troublemakers, and he does not care to be slowed down by their shenanigans. Henry describes Tom's confrontation with the Union in a major walk-out, and how it preoccupied him to the detriment of his home life. But Henry's wife reminds him how Tom used scabs and violence to end the strike (apparently blowing up the Union's headquarters - killing many people). So we have two views of the man but one is pure white and one is pure black.

I'm not really knocking THE POWER AND THE GLORY for not duplicating KANE's success (few films do - including all of Orson Welles' other films), but I am aware that the story is presented well enough to hold one's interest to the end. And thanks to the performances of Tracy and Colleen Moore as his wife Sally, the tragedy of the worldly success of the pair is fully brought home.

When they marry, Tom wants to do well (in part) to give his wife and their family the benefits he never had. But in America great business success comes at a cost. Tom gets deeply involved with running the railroad empire (he expands it and improves it constantly). But it takes him away from home too much, and he loses touch with Sally. And he also notices Eve (Helen Vinson), the younger woman who becomes his mistress. When Sally learns of his unfaithful behavior it destroys her.

Similarly Tom too gets a full shock (which makes him a martyr in the eyes of Henry). Eve marries Tom, and presents him with a son - but it turns out to be Eve's son by Tom's son Tom Jr. (Philip Trent). The discovery of this incestuous cuckolding causes Tom to shoot himself.

The film is not a total success - the action jumps at times unconvincingly. Yet it does make the business seem real (note the scene when Tom tells his Board of Directors about his plans to purchase a small rival train line, and he discusses the use of debentures for financing the plans). Sturgis came from a wealthy background, so he could bring in this type of detail. So on the whole it is a first rate film. No CITIZEN KANE perhaps, but of interest to movie lovers as an attempt at business realism with social commentary in Depression America.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A precursor to \"Citizen Kane\" in its analysis of the life of a just deceased tycoon, here reviewed by his faithful secretary in a series of interlocking flashbacks. In Spencer Tracy's 15th film he already looks middle-aged even in the scenes where he is meant to be young!

A little silent-screen type emoting is understandable given the vintage but this is a most enjoyable, well-written drama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite later claims, this early-talkie melodrama has very little in common with \"Citizen Kane\": It's a biopic of a ruthless but human fictional plutocrat, told in flashback but hopping around time. The scriptwriter, Preston Sturges, shows none of his later gift for sparkling dialog, and none of the myriad cinematic innovations of \"Kane\" are evident. Still, it's very watchable, with a young Spencer Tracy (his old-man makeup makes him look just like, well, an old Spencer Tracy) showing depth and authority, and Colleen Moore -- a little past her prime, and not physically well matched -- playing a multifaceted woman-behind-the-man. There's also Helen Vinson as one of the most treacherous femmes fatales in movie history, sending the final third into ecstatic soap-opera reverberations. The surviving print is jumpy and has missing audio snippets, and there are some plot holes left open (how would she know whose son it was if she's sleeping with both of them?), and the music is awfully hokey. For all that, I was quite fascinated.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A real sudsy soap opera here as Spencer Tracy tackles the role of an illiterate until the age of 20. He marries the woman who teaches him and her ambition and his drive leads him to success.

Success but no happiness here. A n'eer-do-well son and a faltering marriage leads to disaster and tragedy. Tracy buys a railroad and succeeds only to be subjected to a disastrous rail strike and the death of 406 workers.

The film appeared at the beginning to be uneven but is rejuvenated thanks to the excellent use of flashbacks here.

A double separate suicide here. We know that riches can't buy happiness but this is a little too far fetched. Nonetheless, we have riveting performances by Tracy and Colleen Moore. Ms. Vinson, as the 2nd wife, is also quite effective.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an extremely involving series that is well casted and portraits a sensitive subject with great splendor. We follow Michael Ealy as the undercover FBI agent Darwyn, set to infiltrate a terror cell lead by Farik (Oder Fehr). The series is very well written, and has enough plot twists to keep you sitting at the edge of your seat waiting for whatever happens next.

Michael Ealy is by my definition one of the best actors I've seen portraying an undercover agent. Icey cold on the outside, but still a good human being underneath trying his best to keep his head afloat in a highly emotional roller-coaster ride that FBI has had him embark on. Oder Fehr on the other hand comes off a guy that pretty much could fit into any social scenario. Big and strong, but yet able to disappear into the gray mass if so needed. Highly authoritative and extremely cunning. The way the two communicate on screen is nothing short of spectacular.

The way the story develops, and the level of detail that the script offers makes the whole story extremely believable, and also very true to life I would imagine. It is of such magnitude that you're left with the feeling of being insecure, not knowing what might happen next in real life. We read about terror every day, and here we are given a good sneak peak into an underworld which most of us know very little about.

It's a series that will for sure have you coming back for more, sitting there at the edge of your seat just waiting for next weeks episode to come on. It's a sure winner in my eyes, and I have no problems stating that this series is on my list of all time best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched Sleeper Cell with a bit of trepidation worrying over whether the terrorists would be glorified. This mesmerizing series not only handled the subject matter responsibly, it created depth and substance to almost every character. Oded Fehr just gobbles up the screen in every scene he's in\u0097and even though his character is the charismatic leader of a jihad terrorist cell, he still has hypnotic appeal. Michael Ealy held his own well, though in some scenes I wondered why he wasn't shot on the spot because of the scowl he wore on his face.

The pros of the series are the two leads, Fehr and Ealy, the well written characters--all of which were believable and tragic, and the disconcerting issues addressed in the story. Having been married to a Muslim myself, the atmosphere created was quite realistic. The cons, for me personally, were that the female T&A was overkill\u0097most seemed gratuitous, as well as some of the sex scenes. Despite that, it is a raw gripping series that will make you think. Somebody give Fehr more juicy roles like this one and let him run with it. He's got incredible screen presence and a strange kind of innate power emanating off him.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Has the drama, suspense, and character developments you would enjoy if you like drama that engages you and entertains as well as educates.

The writers know their material and it shows. The direction is always engaging and not blase, and the acting terrific. Why this show didn't win any awards tells me the \"powers that be\" in Hollyweird don't know drama or much else for that matter.

There is a plot twist in this episode at the end was a complete surprise and was very well played out. I'm glad it wasn't used as a shock scene for any climatic end to this series which would have been more typical and dull. Rent this series at once! Let's hope its brought back from celluloid extinction.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this series, but felt that the whole thing was let down by the sound recording\/mixing.

For whatever reason, they've had to employ an awful lot of what's called ADR, where the actors replace the original location sound with a re-recording of it in a sound booth.

The reasons for doing this are usually due to problems at the location, or because somebody screwed up somewhere in the sound production chain.

It wouldn't be so bad if the ADR was done well, but at times it's just plain distracting. It's not just the ADR that's the problem - the sound mix just doesn't match up to the quality of performances and the pictures.

I'd be curious to know what went wrong.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't understand why this show didn't go on there could've been various ways to continue on the line of Darwin and Farik after season 2, obviously Darwin couldn't have been the UC agent infiltrating cells and sabotageing them from the inside, but still they should've given this show at least another season.

The show is well casted, believable, and views the Islamic religion from both the normal and the extremist point of view. It touches controversial subjects in detail and it has a dramatic meaning that can be said of very few shows nowdays. I'm actually sad that i didn't know about this show until late 2007.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sleeper Cell is what 24 should have been. 24 is a cartoon. (I watch 24 but feel cheated with every stupid episode, all four or five seasons so far. Who can keep track as they are all the same. Jack gets in trouble, Jack gets out of trouble and then immediately gets back in to trouble and then...) Sleeper Cell is really well done and is far superior. Unfortunately they blew it with the ending in season two. I can think of a half dozen better endings off the top of my head that would have worked better for the writer's obvious goals and not been so contrived. Shame on the writers for wrecking what had been up to that ending a really good series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*BE WARNED OF POSSIBLE SPOILERS*

A friend told me to check out this series, and I'm glad I took her words for it.

I read the synopsis on the DVD cover and I was immediately intrigued. The main protagonist is Muslim? No way, this is a first! It's about an FBI agent who is under deep cover to penetrate a possible sleeper cell in LA; and get this - he is a practicing Muslim. I was a little skeptical at first, half-expecting some hero or the antagonist to spout maybe silly, gratuitous and mindless holier-than-thou fanatic drivels... let's face it, a lot of shows have been guilty of this.

But then I watched the first three episodes, and I thought: Okay, this is good. It wasn't until episode four (\"Scholar\") when I was well and truly impressed. I would like to commend on the great writing and also, superb performances from the actors. I just love how complex every one of these characters - they're not straight out two-dimensional cardboard cutout good guys\/bad guys. Michael Ealy gives a wonderful and believable performance as the Muslim FBI agent Darwyn Al-Sayeed, treading the fine line between being the good Muslim and being a man with flaws. Oded Fehr gives his character Farik an interesting depth - Farik is not the typical oily Middle Eastern stereotype, but simply someone who truly believes in his cause and doesn't see himself as a fanatic but a man willing to do whatever extreme measures to justify his beliefs. He's very charismatic and authoritative. But I would say that it was Alex Nesic's performance that clearly left an impression in me in \"Scholar\". His portrayal of his character's emotional struggle was amazing - torn between the softly spoken words of a Muslim scholar encouraging him to return to the non-aggressive way because it is the only acceptable way in God's eye and Farik's persuasion to believe otherwise.

I'm looking forward to watch more shows like this, and not some ridiculously high-octane one man show series. It's clever and open-minded.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not sure how this could have been better, so I gave it a 10. The acting was excellent - the main woman was so HOT - the chap who played Darwyn was a smouldering, pensive character who showed the inner turmoil he was suffering (the truck driver's death is one example)excellently. The storyline was believable and the series length was just about right (i.e. I love Lost, but will it ever end?). As a Brit i tend to think of Yanks as gung ho. The LAPD were in their ill advised attempts to arrest him, but the other agencies were portrayed positively. My main thought about programmes like this (and the also excellent 24) is - could it happen? Would it happen? Is it happening now? Possibly, probably.

I hope they do another series, but after reading some of the previous comments, it would appear not.

To summarise - If you haven't seen it, make sure you do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you watch this series you will get an interesting 10 chapters about a sleeper cell's story and each characters. And more intense with a FBI's infiltrate.

Nice story, nice characters and performs, but something is wrong (for me, of course). The final is wrong. You wait ten chapters hoping a great final (it doesn't matters if they fulfill its objectives or not) but.. well... I think is not enough. Its a small final for a big series. Also I hoped more definitions about characters stories.

But, I repeat, it's and interesting miniseries. If you don't want to wait with large series (22-24 chapters), watch it. I give 7 of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Smartly written, well acted, intense and suspenseful. This show lives in the real world, not as fantastical as is \"24\",(and I am a huge fan of 24,incidentally). It has believable characters and in many ways is much smarter than most in this genre. It tries to present both sides of Islam. So far, I have watched the first 4 episodes and find the story to be more evenly balanced. The terrorists are more complex and not one dimensional. And as a result of that balance, the terrorists become more frightening than the typical villains being portrayed in film and on television. Last but not least, the hero is truly heroic without being a cartoon. I recommend this show for anyone who is a fan of 24 and the like.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"imagine \"24\" completely uncensored, given free license to explain the situation in any detail needed and showing how and why both protagonists do what they do to kill\/prevent and you have an idea of how good this TV series is. People in the US have known for a long time that Showtime is the new HBO, they are making far better cutting edge, powerful shows and this is no exception. The show takes the viewer all the way through the creation of a sleeper cell to when an attack is attempted, taking in important facets such as faith, religion, funding, means and needs. To the uninitiated, there is much to be learnt about the Muslim faith here. Unlike on mainstream shows like \"24\" where the terrorists are merely nutcases who the good guys shoot, their purpose and reasonings here are fully examined. What gives the show more credence is the latest technology the cell\/FBI uses and the authentic shots in europe, the US and the middle east, no expense is spared to tell the story accurately The cast are relatively unknowns but the acting is superb with the aid of a tautly-written script that constantly keeps the viewer on edge with many unexpected twists and turns. This show has not got the credit it deserves and ironically is a bit of a sleeper hit itself, must see for anyone at all interested in this genre","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have found this show by accident and was surprised to find out that nobody I know has ever heard of it. This was by far one of the best shows I have seen in months if not years and I cannot wait for more episodes to come out. Sleeper Cell portrays a psychological struggle of an undercover agent inside of a terrorist cell who has to constantly make difficult decisions in order to maintain his cover while staying true to his real cause. This is an extremely well done show. It keeps you intrigued from the first episode till the end and though progressing slowly, is fast enough for you to feel on the edge. Quite realistic and humane, it touches on important topics and every episode presents an interesting question to ponder about. This show is not 24 or any of the cop shows on TV and is not trying to be anything either. It is genuine and unique. It is a show about a human being, his difficult choices and his life of struggle where a simple mistake can cost him everything.

I gave this show a 10 for great storyline, good progression, excellent cinematography, excellent music and realistic characters each with a story to tell.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"a scarily real drama, there isn't another drama out there that has scared the crap out of me like this has, the characters are not your typical Islamic terrorist, you have a blonde haired, blue eyed guy who is as dumb as he looks, he is a converted Muslim. A well respected business man, who pretends to be Jewish and a Frenchman who has converted to Islam, but has clearly taken the word of the Koran to a whole new level. The hero of the plot is Darwyn, who is an undercover FBI agent who has infiltrated the terrorist cell, and has to do all sorts of god awful things to prevent himself from being detected. The first episode is a small taste of what's to follow. Although it is about Islamic terrorists the drama has a unique way of pointing out that not all Muslims are extremists, which is comforting to those concerned with racism, considering half the terrorist cell are Islam converts, it makes you think that maybe they are the ones to be afraid of. The most chilling drama I've ever seen. The reason its so chilling is cause you never know who your friends, your husband or your neighbours really are. Terrorists can be anyone, anywhere, anytime.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The problem with this series is that it is too real. I am watching it on Amazon \"Unbox\" and having just finished episode 2 I hate, absolutely hate, Fark, the leader of the Cell. I cannot recall any television series ever having this emotional impact. Remember the old tag line for horror movies \"Just keep telling yourself its only a movie\"? Well I find myself repeatedly reminding myself that its \"only TV\". But of course it isn't only TV is it? The possibility of a cell such as the one portrayed here actually operating in the United States is certainly within the range of plausibility. That's what gives this program its vicious authenticity. And that's why I hate it so much.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nice description of the situation in the US, it explains different kinds of Islam, not just show terrorist and extremist. Islam can be other thing that killing, they show why some people become terrorist and how to be Muslim without being extremist. It is a great series that Muslims and no-Muslims should see. Now we hope that other series or films will be done to change the idea of all Muslims are terrorist and all Americans want to destroy Islam. It gave me the interest to discover what Islam is exactly and what the US and also European government do to help cohabitation between people of different religion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To be completely honest, I completely intrigued by the original concept of 'Sleeper Cell.' Having watched the best part of the series on FX Channel (UK), my Sky got broke meaning I missed the crucial finale. But what I DID see of it, I assumed it to be a great story line, good acting and as I don't watch '24' I thought it was great, AND it's been confirmed for a second season...

One of the best TV programs I have seen. Much more realistic and believable than \"24.\" Excellent character development and plot line. Does not bash Islam, but gives a thoughtful and considered approach, showing the difference between radical terrorist Islam and true Islam. Everybody should see this show!

Stringy xx","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sleeper Cell attempts to swim both sides of the pool (terrorism\/patriotic Muslim Americans), and it does neither very well.

I had put off watching this show for a very long time, because I had a feeling it would be too predictable, but after a year in my netflix queue, I finally moved it up to the front.

The show is about an undercover Muslim man working for the FBI in an attempt to infiltrate a terrorist cell operating in the United States. The undercover agent in the show actually is a Muslim, so we see his conflict\/resolution between his Patriotism and his Religious beliefs. Personally I would have rather watched a drama about a Muslin American family living in the United States, but it is doubtful that an America TV channel (cable or network) will ever produce anything that shows Muslims in a flattering light.

I am not a Muslim, but I have a lot of Muslim American Friends, and I can honestly say that none of them are terrorists and they all love America.

Sleeper Cell comes close to busting stereotypes of Muslims, but it also focuses on the worse Muslim stereotypes. In the first episode we see an \"honor killing,\" which is a very poor portrayal of Islam, but in the 3rd episode we see a very respected moderate Muslim scholar teaching the viewer that the real Jihad is actually a personal struggle that is not meant to incite violence towards others.

If only the Moderate Muslim scholar had been the main character of the show.

Americans need to learn a lot more about Islam, Sleeper Cell helps a little bit, but it comes up far short of giving the America audience what it really needs to knows.

That said, the acting in this show is superb, and the drama is extremely engrossing. If only they had made this show about Islam in America without the terrorism, it would have been first rate.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

There is something about seeing a movie in a good, old-fashioned movie house that adds enormous appeal to every picture. I, fortunately enough, was able to see at Film Forum in New York City a pair of Ernst Lubitsch comedies during their three week tribute to the legendary director. The double feature I attended was a screening of Lubitsch's 1938 comedy Bluebeard's Eighth Wife and the pre-Code classic Design for Living, neither of which I had seen before. Everything I read of Design for Living praised the film, but I could not find a good review anywhere for Bluebeard's Eighth Wife. Leonard Maltin disliked it.VideoHound, too, gave the comedy a low rating.its IMDB score was not complimentary.and Pauline Kael (not a great surprise) blasted the film in her scathing review. So, when I went into the city that day I was expecting to enjoy Bluebeard's Eighth Wife only slightly and love Design for Living completely. Bluebeard's Eighth Wife (which was showing first) began, as the eccentrics who populate the cinema took their seats and the thirties music subsided. `Adolph Zukor presents Claudette Colbert and Gary Cooper in Ernst Lubitsch's Bluebeard's Eighth Wife,' the title card read. Then the picture opened with a hilarious scene: Cooper wants to buy a pair of pajama tops, but he doesn't want any part of the bottoms! He gets into a squabble with the clerk, who seeks the help of his higher bosses, and their seems to be no end to the argument. Enter Claudette Colbert, one of thirties cinema's most beautiful, charming, and talented personalities. `I'll take the bottom,' she kindly intercedes. And there you have perhaps screwball comedies finest `meet cute' ever. The film kept my interest wonderfully.I found myself laughing almost constantly. When Colbert discovers, just before a family portrait is taken, that her groom-to-be has been married seven times, the entire theatre broke into histerics. When she bargains for money immediately after she gets over her shock, the laughs (which still haven't ceased) intensify. And Edward Everett Horton milked some hilarious reactions out of the script as well. When Cooper takes inspiration from Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew in disciplining his wife by slapping her in the face, I could not control my laughter when she slapped him back. And the drunk scene with the scallions is one of Claudette Colbert's funniest comic scenes. The greatest comic moment of the film came when Colbert highers a boxer to `teach her husband a lesson.' In pure screwball fashion, he knocks out the wrong man, instead putting her friend David Niven into a cold sleep. He awakes as Cooper is arriving. In order to cover up the situation, Colbert herself, in a moment of strong sexiness, puts her fist up to Niven, asks: `Where did that man hit you? Here? Right here? Right here?' and then BAM! knocks him out again! The film was wonderful, from beginning to end it was a perfect delight. I loved Design for Living, too, though I dare say I think for sheer laughs and entertainment Bluebeard's Eighth Wife was the better and more enjoyable film. There is some charm of seeing a vintage film on the large screen. And in the presence of others laughing, one feels more comfortable doing so himself. That is, perhaps, why I felt the way I did about Bluebeard's Eighth Wife.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For some perverse reason best known to themselves these IMDb boards seem reluctant to credit the great Billy Wilder as co-scriptwriter on at least two (this one and Ninotchka) of his early classics when any buff can detect the Wilder hand at work. As it happens this represented the first time he was teamed with Charles Brackett (who DOES get a credit) and it was a great start. One commenter has noted how satisfying it is to see these type of films in old-fashioned cinemas and I couldn't agree more. In Paris one of the smaller Revival houses shows in one of its salles a more or less continuous Lubitsch retrospective and I'm pleased to report that this played to a very appreciative audience right across the age spectrum though I doubt whether any were actually alive when it was first released in 1938. The famous Wilder schtick the meet-cute is particularly tasty here when millionaire but-careful-with-it Cooper attempts to buy half a set of pajamas in a department store on the Riviera and meets with sales resistance until Claudette Colbert turns up and agrees to buy the other half. The gag is milked even more when, having exhausted the chain of command at the store itself the manager places a call to the owner, who is in bed and leaves it to reveal that he, too, is only wearing the top half of pajamas. The film is full of sight-gags like this balanced with verbal wit which makes it just about perfect. Claudette Colbert is only terrific and gets great backing from Edward Everett Horton as her impoverished titled father. David Niven in fourth billing has some funny 'business' as does Franklin Pangborn and if Gary Cooper is not up to his role lacking as he does the verbal dexterity and sophisticated persona that Wilder scripts called for at this stage of his career well, you can't have everything and what you DO have is darned near perfect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Years before pre-nuptial agreements became a regular thing, Ernest Lubitsch made a screen comedy on which they are the basis. Bluebeard's Eighth Wife involves Gary Cooper as a multi-millionaire living on the French Riviera who's been married seven times and now marries Claudette Colbert for number eight. But Cooper's a good sport about it, he always settles with his ex-wives for a $50,000.00 a year as per an agreement they sign before marrying him. Sounds like what we now call a pre-nuptial agreement.

Of course Claudette wants a lot more than that and she feels Cooper takes an entirely too business like approach to marriage. She'd like the real deal and is willing to go some considerable lengths to get it.

Bluebeard's Eighth Wife has some really funny moments, the original meeting of Cooper and Colbert in a men's store where Cooper is insisting he wants only pajama tops and Colbert looking for only bottoms. And of course my favorite is Colbert trailing and blackmailing the detective Cooper sends to spy on her. Herman Bing has the best supporting role in the film as that selfsame, flustered detective.

I've often wondered how back in the day Hollywood could get away with casting so many people who are non-French in a film like this. Of course Cooper is an American and Colbert of the cast is the only one actually of French background. Though David Niven is charming as always, having him be a Frenchman is ludicrous, he is sooooooo British.

Nevertheless Bluebeard's Eighth Wife is an enjoyable film and a great example of what was called 'the Lubitsch touch' back in the day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ernst Lubitsch gave us wonderful films like Design for Living, Ninotchka, The Shop around the Corner, To be or not to be, and other wonderful films. But People usually put Bluebeard's eighth wife as one of Lubitsch's weakest films.

But I consider this film as an important film. This film began the collaboration of Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder. Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder, and Walter Reisch wrote the screenplay for Ernst Lubitsch's Ninotchka. Of Course, Lubitsch worked with writers in the scripting process. After that, Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder worked together. They together wrote the screenplay for famous films like The Lost Weekend and Sunset Blvd.

There are lots of funny moments in the film. I thought \"The Taming of the Shrew\" was very funny. There is a famous expression called \"Films are slices of Life.\" And Here is a great example from Bluebeard's eighth wife (1938).

At the first session of the scripting process, Lubitsch posed this question: how do the boy and girl get together? Billy Wilder promptly suggested that the opening scene should be the men's shop of a department store. \"The boy is trying to buy a pajama,\" he extemporized glibly. \"But he sleeps only in the tops. He is thrifty so he insists on buying only the tops. The clerk says he must buy the pants too. It looks like a catastrophe. Then the girl comes into the shop and buys the pants because she sleeps only in the pants.\" Ernst Lubitsch and Charles Brackett were enchanted. It wasn't till months later they discovered that Billy Wilder himself is a tops-only sleeper and that he had been nursing the idea for months waiting for a chance to use it.

I got this information from a book. I think this film can be considered as the return of Ernst Lubitsch. Right after this film, he made wonderful films like Ninotchka, The Shop around the Corner, and To be or not to be.

I thought Gary Cooper's performance was good. I think Lubitsch casted Gary Cooper probably because Gary Cooper played Long Fellow Deeds who inherited the fortune in Frank Capra's Mr. Deeds goes to town. But this is just my opinion.

As for me, I highly enjoyed the film. I rate this film 9 out of 10. Lubitsch films are different, because his films are slices of life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film reappeared on channel 13 in the 1990s when they did a series of comedies from Hollywood in the 1930s and 1940s. In fact, to the tune of \"The Jolly Fat Policeman\", they had a montage of scenes from the films to introduce the series of people laughing, including one of Gary Cooper chortling when watching a film in a movie house - a sequence from this film.

It all begins innocently enough when Cooper, a millionaire, goes into a fancy department store in France to buy pajamas. But he only likes to sleep in the tops. The clerk (Tyler Brooke) insists that he cannot sell half a pair of pajamas as Cooper wants. Claudette Colbert hears the argument and offers to help - she only likes to sleep in pajama bottoms. What if Brooke sells them each half? Brooke has never had such an offer before, so he goes to the floor walker (Rolfe Sedan) and asks him if this can be done. He is disturbed too - the request is quite unconventional. Eventually they contact the store's owner (Charles Halton). Halton is in bed, and gets out - his skinny frame supporting only a pajama top (if a suitably long one for the sake of censorship). Can they sell the two customers one set of pajamas (half for each)? Properly horrified, Halton answers, \"No, of course not! That is Communism!!\". So the sale is not allowed. Apparently nobody thinks that Cooper can buy the total pair and sell half to Colbert.

Lubitsch's BLUEBEARD'S EIGHTH WIFE has had a reputation of falling flat, most viewers not liking it because of a misreading of Colbert's character. She is seen as quite mercenary towards Cooper - selling herself to him on her terms.

Actually Cooper's character is the nastier, as he is rich and figures that everything has a price. He is correct most of the time. Look at the way Colbert's aristocratic pauper of a father, Edward Everett Horton, sees his new son-in-law as a golden goose he can use. Cooper's willingness to marry Colbert somehow includes an agreement that if he is hesitant or chooses to not marry her he has to pay damages. Horton, when he realizes this, takes out a watch, and (in a most reassuring voice) says to Cooper - \"Take your time my boy!\", to come to a decision. Later we see Horton's wardrobe has gotten more modern and fancier.

The film, script by Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett, compares well with their script for Mitchell Leisin's MIDNIGHT (also with Colbert, but with Don Ameche and John Barrymore). There Colbert is willing to sell herself for a money marriage to (to Francis Lederer), but it is complicated by a fictitious marriage to Ameche. She really loves Ameche (a taxi driver) but she explains to him in an unexpectedly realistic moment that her parents married \"for love\" but poverty made them grow to hate each other. This is not found in BLUEBEARD'S EIGHTH WIFE, where Colbert does not have a background like that (she is, after all, the daughter of a Marquis). Her mercenary plotting is to teach Cooper a lesson about his standards.

The film has some nice work by the supporting staff, including Herman Bing as a private eye who turns out to be hiding things that Colbert learns about, and a young David Niven, who has a set of choice moments as a stand in punching bag and as a willing ear to Cooper. Coop tells Niven about his problems with Colbert, and how she is so infuriating. Niven listens respectfully. At the end, Cooper is touched by his willingness to hear what he had to say. \"Albert, how much do I pay you?\", Cooper asks him. Niven thinks and says, \"Thirty five francs a week sir.\". Cooper looks deeply into his soul, and says (shaking his head), \"That's fair!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Lubitsch's Touch is more than ever in this film. Humour at anytime and very subtle. The plot is simple but turned in a delicious way by the director. The film cut is very clever and add to the comic effect. A real piece of comedy that isn't getting so old for a XXIst century spectator. The character are finely acted by Gary Cooper and especially Claudette Colbert so smart and mean with this poor Micheal in the movie. She avoid every traps from her husband and turn the situation to her advantage, very funny. And no problem, with Lubitsch, there is always an Happy end. A film for men too confident with women. Don't let your girlfriend watch this movie...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gary Cooper, (Michael Brandon) played the role as an American millionaire who had seven bad marriages, but always divorced his wife's with plenty of money to live on. Michael is in Paris on business and goes into a French Department Store to buy a pair of pajama tops and the sales people refuse to sell him just the tops, he has to buy the bottoms or there is no sale. Nicole DeLoiselle, (Claudette Colbert) listens to this conversation and offers to buy the bottom of these pajama's. Michael becomes very interested in Nicole and they have occasion to meet and go on dates. It is not too long before Michael proposes marriage to Nicole and she is very taken back with his request for marriage since she really does not know him very well. However, once she finds out she is going to become the Eighth wife of Michael she begins to change her mind and this story becomes quite entertaining and funny. Don't miss this film, it is great entertainment by great veteran actors. Enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's all about getting what you want when you want it. And the message of Bluebeard's Eighth WIfe is to be careful what you wish for, until what you wish for wishes for you.

Most men have heard the stories about what happens when your sexual frustration isn't relieved and a certain part of your anatomy turning blue. Misogynistic pirates aside, Cooper plays a very wealthy man who is very accustomed to getting what he wants whenever he wants it, learning only too late that it wasn't what he expected and never learning his lesson until he runs into the feisty Claudette Colbert. Through a twisted (in soul and in practice) business deal, he ends up marring\/buying her with the intent of bedding her, but she will have none of it (literally) and frustrates him at every turn, and corner, and room, and tourist attraction.

The film has definite French sensibilities which means it has strong double-entendres and boudoir humor for the day and a sharp edge you're not accustomed to (and may not enjoy seeing) in either Cooper or Colbert. The whole reason I watched the film was because they are \"likable\" actors, and the whole point of this movie is that they're unlikable people, or at least likable people who have developed unlikable traits to protect themselves, they think, from the world.

If you can accept it on its own terms you'll find satisfaction in this witty and sophisticated film...and satisfaction, as we said, is what it's all about. Such a movie with such a cast only comes around, after all, once in a...ummm...blue moon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"planktonrules comments must've been written on Topsy-Turvy Day, because everything stated by that simple life form is the opposite of real truth!

'Bluebeard's Eighth Wife' is hilarious in every scene, in every way -- the chemistry between Colbert and Cooper could not have been finer...supporting cast is superb.

Writing and direction are magnificent!!!

Like so many other comments on this board again I lament, \"Why can't films be like this anymore?\"

This is classic Paramount 1930's screwball comedy at its best, folks!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely loved this movie. Great, realistic looking combat footage for one thing and a touching, genuine story also. The calm, understated manner of the lead character, Franta, makes him very likable. The human relationships in the story seemed so very typical and possible of what you could expect in war time. The bond between Franta and Carel shows the loyalty wartime comrades can have for each other and that is often described in books and interviews with veterans. The subtitles do not detract from the story at all and actually serve to underline the problems the Czech pilots had in the RAF. The postwar storyline is a great reminder that for many the suffering of WW2 did not end in 1945, especially in Russian occupied countries. The cinematography was also very good. Wish I could have seen it on the big screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Centres on Czech WW2 pilots \u0096 the older Frantisek, the boyish impulsive Karel and in the background the quiet piano-playing Honza. As the film opens, it is 1950, the war is over and Frantisek and Honza are imprisoned in a former monastery. In their now Soviet-controlled native country they are 'enemy of the people'. Honza is severely maltreated by his Communist countrymen and dies.

In 1939 many pilots manage to escape German-occupied Europe and make their way to England where they join the RAF. Notwithstanding their high motivation and experience they face RAF reluctance and British stiff upper lip. Finally they fight gallantly in the Battle of Britain. However, Frantisek and Karel find their friendship severely tested when they both fall for the same woman.

In terms of romantic sub-plot, this is very similar to the Hollywood production Pearl Harbour. However, given the context of the film and Frantisek's eventual fate, it is also possible to read the English woman's treatment of the two men as symbolic of British treatment of the Czech and Polish RAF pilots: conveniently forgetting them once the war is over.

In addition, the film is a lot less clich\u00e9 than Pearl Harbour and the characters are more fully realised. Dark Blue World also scores in terms of its stunning aerial dogfights, which were seamlessly created using a mixture of models, actual live-action aerial filming and out-takes from the 1969 epic The Battle of Britain.

In short, Dark Blue World is a well-made, moving, thought-provoking and exciting drama that puts the likes of Pearl Harbour to shame. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm Czech and soldiers (not only pilots) who escaped Czechoslovakia after Nazi's invasion in 1939 and fought against them abroad are true heroes and bravest men in our history for me. This movie from director of Academy Award winner \"Kolya\" (1996) is a tribute to these men. It's first big-screen movie about Czechoslovak WWII soldiers since \"Nebesti jezdci\" (1968). I think \"Dark Blue World\" is a good movie - good acting, good special effects, nice music etc. Movie is half in English and some actors are Britons. But greatest thing about this movie is it's pure existence. It's great chance to show people all around the world (and to many people in Czech Republic too...) that Czechoslovak role in WWII was not only as occupied country but as an active member of allied campaign.

Leading characters are older and wiser Frantisek and young Karel. They escaped together from Czechoslovakia, they are flying in the same squadron and they fell in love with the same woman... Maybe it's a clich\u00e9 but fortunately this storyline is not so aggressive and is in good balance with other scenes (including great dogfights). I don't want to compare \"Dark Blue World\" with \"Pearl Harbor\", someone will like PH more and someone will like DBW. But if you like happy ends, DBW is not for you. So, I think it's very good movie for everyone who likes this type of stories and very good movie who wants to get to know something about this chapter of Czechoslovak history.

BTW, main theme \"Dark Blue World\" is from Czech 30's and 40's composer Jaroslav Jezek. He wrote this theme when he lost his eyes...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a brilliant, lavish Czech film from the Sverak father and son team, all about two Czech pilots who flee to England to help the RAF in the Battle of Britain but who also fall out over a woman (the beautiful Tara Fitzgerald). Features some excellent and incredibly realistic aerial combat scenes \u0096 probably the best ever and much better than Pearl Harbour or even the film Battle of Britain - and a number of interesting general themes such as love, war, romance, comradeship, loss and servitude. Also, the trials and tribulations of moving abroad and learning a foreign language (though made easier here with the great stalwart Anna Massey).

The film has some great little motifs such as the world famous RAF bullseye device, shown throughout and at one point nicely reflected in the black vinyl record, spinning around cutely (music is another theme of the film, of course). Plus, all of the traditional icons of English life: dimpled beer glasses (unlike the post-war straight glasses used in Pearl Harbour), tea in a nice china tea set in an English country garden (though shot in the Czech Republic?), the mascot dog, a vintage bottle of HP sauce, even a darts board!

Of course, the airfield and surrounding countryside is ridiculously unlike anywhere in the south of England, though the virtuouso aerial sequences make up for this, showing Eastbourne and the Seven Sisters, always synonomous with southern England and the Battle of Britain. But best of all is the sensational musical score from Ondrej Soukup, as good as anything from Hans Zimmer yet all in the tradition of the late, excellent Ron Goodwin who scored the original Battle of Britain film amongst other classic English war films. There's even a nice little cameo role for the \u0096 apparently \u0096 famous Czech musician and actor (and Kevin Kline lookalike) Oldrich Kaiser, who plays on the piano the title theme song, Dark Blue Sky. Excellent!

It's got a few smutty yet funny little Freudian devices too, such as always showing an inflated condom floating by the ceiling whenever Karel (the callow but brilliant Krystof Hadek) is stuck at the airfield while his love rival and fellow pilot Frantisek (Ondrej Vetchy) is with Susan.

Another great English actor in this film! Charles Dance is of course fine as Wing Commander Bentley.

Highly recommended and well worth watching\/hiring \u0096 get the DVD with special features (stuff like how they created the dog fights and stuff). Probably the only film ever to combine subtitles with characters speaking English, German, French and Czech all at once.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was \"turned on\" to this movie by my flight instructor and now I wonder how the heck it was out there for nearly five years before I finally discovered it. If you have any love of flying at all, especially an attachment to the planes of WWII, this is an absolute must see, vastly superior to the pathetic \"Pearl Harbor\" and up there in rivalry with the famed \"Battle of Britain\" filmed more than thirty years ago. There are moments when you feel as if you are flying wingman, literally dodging the shell casings of your leader as you roll in on a Me 109 or He 111.

As an historian this film deeply touched me as well for it is about the plight endured by tens of thousands of gallant Poles, Hungarians, Slovaks and Czechs who in 1939-1940 fled their homelands, made it to England, fought with utmost bravery for the survival of western civilization, and then were so callously abandoned by \"us\" after the war when they were arrested by the communists upon their return to their native lands. I have stood atop Monte Cassino in Italy and was moved to tears by the cemetery for the Polish troops that stormed that mountain that British and Americans could not take. I have traveled as well to Prague (the most beautiful of cities) and studied their history. Their story of abandonment, I believe, should be a lesson to us even today about obligations to gallant allies.

But back to the film. If you love flying, see this. If you are interested in the aircraft of WWII most definitely see it. Without doubt the most brutal, direct, and frightfully swift air combat scenes ever replicated for film. And yes, if you even are seeking a touching romance, there is that as well in heartbreaking detail.

Bill Forstchen Professor of History Co-owner of a WWII replica \"warbird\" P-51 Mustang \"Gloria Ann\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I missed it at the cinema and have rented it on DVD. If you get the chance I would recommend it as it\u00b4s better than nearly everything I\u00b4ve seen at the cinema or on DVd this year. That isn\u00b4t to say it\u00b4s one of the best films ever or anything, it\u00b4s just I\u00b4ve seen a lot of rubbish :)

Can\u00b4t really add to what\u00b4s already been said except 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A beautiful film, cleverly shot with an eye to war-era detail, and (considering it is set during WWII) minimal violence.

A small cast weaves an emotive journey through the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the separation from loved ones as the pilots depart for England (the separation from the spaniel will touch hearts), spitfire scenes, love, friendship and betrayal. The theme of betrayal runs deep through the movie, from betrayal of love, to betrayal of friendship, and finally the betrayal shown by the communist regime to former RAF pilots post-war.

A desperately sad film, all the more so because it is so factually accurate. I would recommend it to everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been a devoted IMDB visitor for a few years. This is the movie that finally compelled me to write in a review.

I caught this movie by chance (the opening credits happened to be scrolling past when I turned my TV on one morning). I thoroughly enjoyed the film for many reasons, all of which have been well covered by other reviewers -- the moodiness, the forgotten history of the Czech pilots, the subtle charm of the supporting characters, the fatalism of the main characters, and the first person view during the battle scenes.

But the element of \"Dark Blue World\" that really stood out was the lack of dramatic effects, especially during combat (and this is a good thing!). While the pilots were flying in battle no musical score accompanied them, no manipulative shots of worried spouses\/girlfriends were interwoven, every little aerial maneuver did not elicit trite patriotic cheers, and viewers weren't asked to swallow unbelievable James Bond-esque pilot heroics. Instead the audience is allowed to feel the melancholy, fear and isolation of these single pilot fighters while they try to stay aloft during combat. As comrades are shot down we are spared tearful howls and the typical (but audience pleasing) revenge based heroics. Instead the other pilots sadly and quietly observe their fellow pilot's fate -- in reality they still need to remain intensely focused on their own safety and objectives at that very moment. We only briefly experience the pilot's breathing and the background roar of the engines as we, the audience, witness a friend spiral quietly down to his death. And then immediately 'we' need to jump back into combat mode and focus on survival.

Too often in Hollywood we're spoon-fed the emotions we're supposed to feel and no room is left for the viewer's imagination. \"Dark Blue World\" maintains a sparseness that captivates and involves the viewer, allowing us to invest in the movie and fill in the gaps and spaces using our own thoughts and feelings.

Excellent film, well worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a beautifully-made film, finely balancing the fragile human stories (both before and after 1945) and the indiscriminating combat of war. The use of outtakes from Battle of Britain (a film that does not nearly so well portray the 1940s!) enhances, rather than detracts from the whole. A deeply impressive work, this lived in my memory for the 2 years since I saw it, and I have just bought it to explore the making-of extras.

I highly recommend this film (movie). Like \"Aces High\", it alternates between viscerally exciting (or scary) air combat sequences, where the viewer might experience actual loss of characters they'd come to care about, but also unpredictable interactions on the ground, where skillful writers and real-life experiences inform some involving and moving events. This also underlines the fact that for many people, 1945 marked not just the end of one conflict but the beginning of another, and even today we still don't recognise the loss, bravery and sacrifice of so many nameless heroes, or even worse we venerate them from a distance without allowing them to be human beings with all the emotional weaknesses that entails - making their sacrifices all the more valiant.

Watching this movie is an experience which will take you from the heights of friendship to the depths of jealousy, and back to love that endures even beyond death. If all war films were like this, we'd never have to fight again.

Did I mention it's worth watching? ;-)

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Since growing up in Czechoslovakia I was following history of RAF pilots and crews in WWII Great Britain, their stories and tragic ending either in the combat or in communist prisons and camps. This is without any doubt more than dark chapter in our history, although the fact that those brave men we're able to go through all this and recover afterward is amazing. To all people who want to see great movie...this is the one! During recent visit of Czech Republic I saw this movie three times in three days (they we're just playing it for three days...otherwise I will go to see it even few more times!!! It's worth of it!) I hope you will enjoy it, although it requires a little more thinking and knowledge of background information behind the story, pretty much same way that the movie \"Kolya\" was. It's not a simple movie because of it's deep story, and the way its told will most likely make you crying...it did to me three times in row... Zdenek Sverak did as always a great script, his son Jan made a great movie and the cast? Without doubt all of them did great job, I was amazed by Ondrej Vetchy, by great role played by Oldrich Kaiser and all other actors which made this movie simply GREAT!!! If this is not an Oscar nomination I think that I will be on strike in Holywood.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being advertised as the most expensive movie ever made in the Czech Republic, it automatically makes the you think it will be over glorified and clich\u00e9d (out of fear of the budget). However with a budget of 8 Million and half the movie in English it was not exactly a big budget, high risk movie.

What we have a grand epic tale centered around the friendship of two people, the younger Karel and the older Frantisek . As pilots in the Czech air force when the Germans invade before the beginning of world war II they escape the country to England to joined the RAF.

Their friendship becomes strained through the love of the same woman. However there is a bond of friendship that goes beyond merely being friendly. Their friendship is an elegant metaphor for the attitude of the Czech people and their country. Remember they were not the winners, the defeated the Germans only to be invaded by the Russians.

Funny, exciting, intriguing, beautiful, sad and illuminating this movie is one of my favourite war movies. Most of all I like the way they make fun of the British in a way that is amazingly affectionate and gives an amazing insight into the way the British military fought WWII.

Forget the recent American efforts (Peal Harbour, Saving Private Ryan), this is the best WWII movie for a long time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I came out of \"Dark Blue World\" feeling (sigh) 'so sad' yet it was definitely a film needed to be made, and it's truly well done from Czech Republic. It's entertaining in spite of the 'sad' premise. It is full of feelings, the bonding and undeniably true friendship between the two lead characters - one mature lieutenant pilot (Ondrej Vetch\u00fd as Franta) and the young & ever-so-eager budding pilot (Krystof H\u00e1dek as Karel), the inevitable love triangle, and the now and then reminders of the grim prison situations in Czechoslovakia in the '50s. It's all in one film put together, by the father screenwriter and son director team Zdenek and Jan Sver\u00e1k (previous achievement being the lovable \"Kolya\").

It's not as long as \"East-West\" (French \"Est-Ouest\") 1999, which was heart wrenching, multi-layered story about a returning Russian doctor and French wife's ill-fates after WWII in Russia. The plot of \"Tmavomodr\u00fd svet\" (title in Czech) is quite straightforward and has sprinkles of light humor. Music, songs of WWII England sung in Czech, modest special effects of pilots and air crafts in the sky - not elaborate like Hollywood - there's no need to be bing, bang, boom all the time when showing air battle scenes. The sadness was explained up front in the beginning (two paragraphs in English) and wrap up with follow up paragraphs. The film is not totally subtitled, only when translating the Czech conversations - the rest are in English, be it very British or in Czech accents. (So it's a foreign film with English language and includes British actors.)

The three lead performances, especially of the two Czech pilots, were wonderfully delivered. There are nuances between the two of them, even though it's the steadily mature vs. the eagerly young. I always appreciate Tara Fitzgerald: yes, there's \"Brassed Off\" 1996 opposite Ewan McGregor and Pete Postlethwaite; remembered her from \"Hear My Song\" 1991 opposite Adrian Dunbar and Ned Beatty; opposite Hugh Grant in \"Sirens\" 1994 and \"The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill and Came Down a Mountain\" 1995, besides her appearances in PBS Masterpiece Theatre mini-series.

'So sad' - the fact that heroes defending one's country can be so ill fatedly treated and for so long (40 years). Thank goodness for worthwhile memories and the imprints of friendship unforgettable. Hence the pause for a ray of sunshine through a stain glass window (ironic or coincidental that it's of a church where the hard labor took place) - symbolic of hope, never give up\u0085

Other recent films that have stories needed to be told: \"Kandahar\" (with Nelofer Pazira as Nafas the Canadian from Afghanistan taking a journey to Kandahar with a personal 'mission' in mind) more than meets the eye behind a burqa by Iranian director Mohsen Makhmalbaf. \"Everything Put Together\" (with Radha Mitchell as a new mother facing SID - sudden infant death) insightful film by Swiss director Marc Forster, and his much talked about controversial film \"Monster's Ball\" (I've yet to catch) with Halle Berry, Billy Bob Thornton and Peter Boyle. See the films without prior expectations or comparisons to films before. Just see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you want to see the true, vile nature of Communism, watch the movie DARK BLUE WORLD. (Tvamomodr\u00fd Svet) It recounts how the brave Czech pilots who refused to surrender fled to England to join the fight against the Nazis. After the war, the Communists feared they had picked up dangerous Western ideas about freedom. So, they had these heroic Czech pilots thrown into a nightmarish prison, where some of the guards were the same Nazis they risked their lives to defeat.

If Hollywood wants to understand why so many of their movies fall flat, they should compare the character drama portions of \"Pearl Harbor\" with this movie. In Dark Blue World, you really make a connection to all the characters. In Pearl Harbor, everyone is like some slick cartoon version of a real person.

There are innumerable instances of brilliant writing in this movie. One funny scene that sticks in my mind is when the character Karel is being taught English by a rather formal Englishwoman. When he can't pronounce a word, he ridicules the lesson. In typical stoic English fashion, the teacher calmly but forcefully confronts Karel, and shames him into behaving.

The aerial battle sequences in this movie are amazing, and they help to keep the movie lively. I read that it cost $11,000 an hour to rent the planes, but it was worth every penny.

Ladies, you are expected to cry at sad movies, but guys.... beware! This movie would make General Patton weep. And if you are a dog lover, you'll use up half a box of Kleenex. Don't say I didn't warn you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It seems that no matter how many films are made on the subject, there is no shortage of stories that emerge from the Second World War. It stands to reason that a conflict on such a scale as global warfare would capture the imagination of filmmakers everywhere and provide them with ample material on which to base a story. Heading in a different direction than most mainstream movies about the war is Dark Blue World, a film that does not deal with the traditional major battles of the war, does not tell the story of many of its major figures, and does not even focus on soldiers of any of the major allied or axis powers. Dark Blue World instead ventures into the world of refugee soldiers fighting in exile for their occupied nations.

The film does a marvelous job of portraying the challenges faced by Czech pilots flying under the British Royal Air Force, expressing the frustration that they felt both at the language barrier between them and the other fliers, but also at being restrained from achieving vengeance against the Germans until being re-trained.

Dark Blue World also works quite well outside the arena of the war film as being a story about human relationships. A love triangle develops between the two main characters and an English woman that complicates the teacher-mentor relationship of the two exiled soldiers. This relationship is extremely well acted throughout, developing into almost a father and son relationship at many points.

The aerial combat in the film is among some of the best and is also very interesting in exploring the cultural challenges mentioned above as the men struggle to fly their machines, fight the enemy, and relay commands and replies in an unfamiliar language. The tension and struggle of these scenes continues the tension between the men on the ground, just as the tension on the ground continues that felt in the air.

This may not be a film for everyone. The hardcore war film buff may find its exploration of relationships a bit off-putting, but it is on the whole an excellent film regardless of the bellicose element or not.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Compared to Battle of Britain, this is a real film, with real characters and a real plot. Battle of Britain is basically a documentary with the occasional Lawrence Olivier and Michael Caine, but the real protagonists are the Spits, the Hurricanes, etc. Here, on the other hand, you have two well-wrought characters (actually three) and a real plot. I strongly recommend it to anybody, even to those who are not particularly fond of war movies. It's well filmed, and I wonder what the director might do if he had the big capitals behind him. And I do not think that it's over-sentimental. It's only that in the fighters you have real people, with real feelings and a real life--as real as any fictional life in any great film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Absolutely one of the best aviation movies of all times on so many levels. Hardware junkies will drool over the largest single massing of flyable Spitfires outside of a Battle of Britain reenactment. No less than eight flying Spits are on hand for very accurate ground and air sequences.

Those that marvel over the lore of flying and get misty-eyed reciting High Flight will identify with the central characters' reverence for the freedom of being fast, free and high in their Dark Blue World. Be warned: romantics and even dog lovers are treated to a very emotional ride in this movie. The core message is one that is shared by many war vets, in that their finest hours, their period of life when they felt most alive, was in fact during the war when everything else is sad and gray.

The plot concerns Czech pilots who escape from their country when the Nazis invade and join the RAF Free Czech Squadron. There are a few subplots, all of which are worth careful attention. This is just a plain old excellent movie that even the most ardent anti-hardware romantic will love (keep the Kleenex on hand). Beautiful photography, first-rate acting, accurate details of RAF life during the Battle Of Britain. Easily a candidate for any aviation enthusiast's personal DVD collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A nicely paced romantic war story that should have got more exposure. The Czech pilot who played piano gives a mellow touch to the story. The flying footage may not have been enough for aviation buffs like myself, but then again, this really isn't an action movie. Though it does not have anything in common with the James Salter novel \"The Hunters\" that became the movie about Korean War F86 Sabre pilots, Dark Blue World had a similar feel but with more of a romantic element to it. Better in some ways than Battle of Britain in that it doesn't rely on big name actors. Suggest viewing this movie with some Czech beer and some Czech dumplings called kneldniky(sp).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best Czech movies I have ever seen. The director did excellent work, there is great camera and the actors are really great. I like war movies so I really liked this one. I would recommend it to anyone who wants to know something about Czech pilots during 2nd World War and their life after the war, in communism.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is such a beautiful movie! Not only does it portray war, it also has friendship & love. The life of Slama is filled with sadness, every aspect of his life fell apart. I can only imagine how he would feel when his friend make the ultimate sacrifice.

I see a slight similarity to 'Pearl Harbor', which is also about two pilots falling in love with the same woman. However this film is much better made, because this does not portray the woman to be unfaithful & easy-going. The friendship between the two men is also much more convincing & well built-up. I definitely recommend this movie to all people.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nothing short of magnificent photography\/cinematography in this film. The fact that you keep seeking and hoping for more flying sequences, tells you that they have just enough. The acting is fantastic, the stories are seamlessly woven together, and the dogs are splendid.............

A must rent, view, or see.

Don't be afraid of subtitles........

its worth a little aversion therapy

10\/10

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Engaging entry from Europe about Czech fighter pilots flying for the RAF during WW2. It's always interesting as an American to see a new point of view on familiar events in history. There's nothing terribly original or revolutionary about the style in which this is filmed or the romantic love triangle that anchors the narrative. Still, it is compelling all the way through. There is a good balance between drama, romance, humor, action, and symbolism that is understated beautifully by the director and cast. This is a breath of fresh air after sitting through overblown and boring Hollywood epics like \"Pearl Harbor.\" A solid production all around. This is definitely worth your time if you are a fan of foreign cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Along with having minor flaws to it, this film is a masterpiece, and most definitely the best war film I've seen. Not the mention it's one of the best films I've seen in all genres. I might have written this for No Man's Land before, but now I think this one's better. It's VERY sad in the ending, and I almost cried after the two shocking scenes that came within 5 minutes close to the film's final.

Karel's performance as the main character was fascinating although he's supposed to be a rookie considering his age. This film makes you think a lot, makes you cry (or at least gets you close to it), and makes you hate any kind of war and political BS. The flashbacks to the prison-hospital make the film even more delicious.

One tiny flaw about the film is the non-British accents of supposedly British people. Most of the British people on screen were actually British, but how about the ones who are supposed to be British and speak with a foreign accent? That really didn't fit into this adorable film. But it's pretty much the only flaw I've noticed. Effects could also be a bit better but then again, we all remember many films from one particular land that have tremendous FX and absolutely nothing else.

Briefly, this film is a total masterpiece and every single individual should see it. If you want to travel to the Czechoslovakia of 40's, and if you want to virtually witness a tremendous amount of emotions at once, this film is for you. If you don't want to do those, this film will make you want to do so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yet another foreign war movie that puts hollywood to shame. Real in the same proportions that hollywood productions such as harts war and windtalkers are unreal. A moving story backed up by strong acting and great film making.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A surprisingly beautiful movie. Beautifully conceived, beautifully directed, beautifully acted, beautifully acted and most beautifully photographed.....the cinematography is nothing short of splendid. It is a war movie but is epic in it's scope and blends romance, tragedy and comedy into a story that is as harrowing as it is provoking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film in Wales in July. It deals with the courage of Czech pilots who flew numerous missions for the RAF after their country had been occupied by the Nazis. In this film, the action takes place both in the early 1950's when these pilots are being beaten in political prisons in Czeckoslavakia and during World War II in Britain. They were imprisoned after their return to their homeland because the Communist regime viewed these warriors as a threat to their occupation of Czeckoslavakia. The pilots maintain their dignity in prison and during numerous air battles against Nazi pilots. This film contain a love sub-plot that does make sense because it helps us to understand that both civilians and soldiers made great sacrifices to preserve democracy. The end of this film indicates that the heroism of these Czech pilots was finally recognized in the early 1990's after the restoration of democracy in the country then known as Czeckoslavakia. This powerful and moving film was made with financial support from the Czech government. I highly recommend this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the movie that finally pushed me over the line into registering with IMDb so that I could vote for (and comment on) it. I've only recently come to appreciate well-produced \"war\" movies, and this is one of the most thoughtful I've seen.

\"Stunning\" is the word that comes to mind when I think of this viewing experience. My husband and I watched this film last night for the first time. It is gently moving, yet exciting at the same time (not a contradiction). This story in the hands of Hollywood could have become just another smarmy, action-packed, Top Gun time-waster.

The two lead actors playing Frantisek and Karel played off of each other marvelously well; and Krystof Hadek is a very \"pretty\" boy without seeming to exaggerate or exploit that fact. In terms of Hadek's acting ability and appearance, my husband said (tongue-in-cheek), \"Well, he's no Tom Cruise.\" I replied, \"Thank God!\" If you appreciate beautiful and understated acting, see this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"For a Squadron Leader - normally the only guy trained and equipped for navigation in a squadron and very hard to replace - to risk an expensive plane and himself to pick up a crashed fellow pilot, no matter how close a friend he is, in the face of oncoming enemy troops, is hard to believe, especially when they both have to share a cramped Spitfire cockpit - two into a Skyraider, OK, but a Spit?! Come on, this part of the film is a Biggles adventure, not fitting a film that one is supposed to take seriously!\" as said by Tord S Eriksson (Gothenburg, Sweden) is rubbish. Not at all Biggles. One true story of the war comes to mind of two grounded spit pilots, who planned and flew (illegally) a strafing mission over France. One had to crash land and his friend landed his spit under fire, while German infantry was moving in on them, and flew them both out of there. In a spit. They were BOTH severely injured in former fights, one had an artificial leg from the knee down. Now that may sound like something out of Bigles, but it happened. Ill get sources if needed","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This feels as if it is a Czech version of Pearl Harbor. It has a same story, both guys fall in love with the same woman. And add to the twist, the woman is actually a married one whose husband has been missing for a year. I don't think that the story line is too strong. The younger guy is quite naughty, that is cute. It kept me watching because of the emotional music, and the pleasing scenes one after another. It also has some strong visual special affects. Best of all, the love stories is seamlessly integrated with the story.

I think that if it was in English, it would be such a big shot all across the states. It is too bad that not that many people are open for foreign movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent film. The aerial scenes were well-done. It was also the right balance of war and love. The film gives meaning to the phrase, \"Never in the history of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Instead of watching the recycled history of \"Pearl Harbor\" with nothing new to reveal except for a couple of real events involving a few individuals thrown in so the makers of the film could say they contributed to the spread of history, along with nothing but CGI explosions filling in for a sappy romantic triangle. One should go see Dark Blue World.

This film takes place during the historic time in WWII which the Czech pilots left their homeland and went to fight for the RAF instead of laying down their arms and giving in to the Nazis. It was a part of history that should at least be told once to the outside world. A love triangle takes place between the main characters, but one of them does not die off conveniently like in Pearl Harbor, but through sacrifice for true friendship. The movie is tragedy after tragedy, with not even a bittersweet ending, with our hero not enjoying glory of taking his country back, the return of love by his current lover, the return of love by his reunited lover, or even the return of unconditional love by his life long pet. He is utterly heartbroken and feels no worse off in the Russian labor camp. This kind of ending is something that Hollywood would probably change if it was their script.

The movie does play on the sentimental sometimes, but it also shows the humanity of people. Overall, a worthwhile movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I disagree with the imdb.com synopsis that this is about a bisexual guy preparing to get married. It's more about all the crap we go through - self-induced and because of our parents - that we have to \"get over\" when we grow up. Like the Linda McCarriston poem says, \"Childhood is the barrel they throw you over the falls in.\" This movie is much more like a narrative poem. It's about life and the mistakes we make and hurt we inflict and experience over the years, and how in the end, it's all about love (I'm not trying to be hyper-sensitive or schmoopy) and finding and being with one special person.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An example of genius filmaking. The epic story of three major stages of life for a young boy told with eloquence and raw fearlessness. Rarely does a film come along that causes me to out loud say during most of the viewing, \"this is a really good film....\" again and again. That is exactly what happened when I watched this film. I really do not understand how anyone could not like it. I found myself at moments crying and laughing at the very same moment, unable to control how I felt about the scene. The acting is outstanding. Eric Mabius- why is he not all over movie screens? He was really extraordinary. His seemingly effortless attempt on the screen impacted me in deep visceral ways. I thank him. In my opinion, Eric Schaeffer is one of the best filmakers around, and I hope he continues to rise to the challenges that he faces while trying to give us art in the face of ferocious commercial filmaking.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As i watched \"Wirey Spindell\" i couldnt but laugh at what was taking place on screen. Wirey sure got a lot of play from both boys and women but i was confused as to why the actor that played Wirey in H.S. was 10 years old. Then the actor changed age to like 20 to play Wirey when he was a senior in HS...but whatever, i thought it was funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wirey's journey through the final days of bachelorhood, liberally sprinkled with flashbacks to a sexually active and diverse childhood.

It's definitely not a feel-good romance movie. It is a romance movie, but one without illusions. Everyone's an adult here, not your cup of tea if you want another Sleepless in Seattle or Notting Hill.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I, as many IMDB patrons seem to have, stumbled upon this little film when it appeared on the Canadian \"Showcase Network\". I was, as many of you, also sucked in and watched the entire film. I was hooked, at first, by the literate dialogue and wry sense of humour that the film is rich with. I was coasting along comfortably on a sort of \"Kevin Smith meets Killer Films\" wave until half way through when the movie really buckled down and explored it's themes in more detail... with a decidedly darker and more poignant edge. Far from being taken out of the experience, I was brought further in. This is not the best film of it's kind and will certainly not have universal appeal... so I do understand some of the more negative reactions to it. But I bought in... and enjoyed it immensely. The \"flash back\" type movement in the chronology was effective, the characters were well-realized and the issues raised were human, accessible (to my experience anyway) and interesting. I was quite impressed with the film's ability to remain sweet, funny and entertaining while not shying away from controversial subject matter and raw emotional language, dynamics and situations. This movie is a great antidote to a lot of the schlock that has permeated the witty\/clever romantic genre. A kind of male Brigitte Jones for the literate sect. Take 2 hours out of your busy schedule and jump into Wirey's world... or you could go rent \"You've Got Mail\", 'cause if that appeals to you, you won't like this anyway! Those of us who did like it will be alright without you on our side...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie on a night i couldn't sleep, i loved it and searched to find out when it would be on again, probably the best movie i have ever seen, at the time, and even now the cast is full of people i had never seen before but it seems like a real life story based out of NYC, This is the kind of movie that elevates the viewing pleasure because you see it, hear it and feel it, from the moment i saw Wirey drinking a beer and watching the game i imagined what it must be like to grow up without a father, there are so many lines from this movie i use on a daily basis like \"the personal alone time\" in the bathroom drinking a 7-11 beverage, GREAT FILM","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The biggest problem that the TV program Key West faced was that it was advertised wrong. If you saw the ads you would think it was a jiggle how, and be sorely disappointed. It was a vastly more complex show than that.

I happened to be in Key West just before Hurricane Andrew hit, and I think I actually found myself having a drink or two with some of the cast in Rum Runners. Of course, that was before the show hit. I did see the sailboat that was in the opening go by a few times, and chatted with the guy who you see hacking up coconuts in the opening too. HE was a real local. Yes, I'd love to see this on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"MY WIFE AND KIDS,\" in my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I haven't seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. There are many episodes that I enjoyed. One of them was where Junior (George O. Gore II) got his driver's license. If you want to know why, you'll have to have seen it for yourself. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though it can be seen in syndication now, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show was crap when it first came on. The first actress that played the daughter didn't fit the role, the writing was hit or miss, and Damon Wayans CLEARLY wasn't comfortable doing such a cornball family friendly show. The chemistry between himself and Tisha Cambell (they're long time friends, as are all of the Wayans clan with Tisha's husband and Will Smith and Jada Pinkett) DID work so they retooled the show. Once it returned, they recast the daughter, made the son much dumber (a la Eric from \"Boy Meets World\")and made the youngest daughter into a genius...(later they gave her a little genius boyfriend to do comedic guest appearances). The show, while if often rollercoasters from over the top buffoonery to being corny walks the line enough to keep it as a show that you can see Damon Wayans be comfortable in his own skin on the set (especially since the main writers, directors and consultants were ALL members of the Wayans family) AND in his character. Once everyone had been on the show for a while, they worked to everyone in the casts strengths and were able to make a consistently funny show on the air.

However, there is TOO MUCH buffoonery, too many over the top antics, and oftentimes too much chaos happening in the life of the Kyle family. They made Junior TOO STUPID, they also made the eldest daughter an attractive, clumsy idiot from time to time and the youngest daughter wasn't even spared by the writers. I feel they jumped the shark and signed the shows death warrant when Junior got his girlfriend pregnant, she moved in and he married her and her parents were introduced (Junior's wife's father's character makes me WINCE just thinking about him). The show remained funny...but it was a UPN show on ABC if that makes any sense to the reader.

The reruns are funny enough, but I'm relieved it's over...there was nowhere left to go with it. When it's bad it's REALLY BAD. It tends to be cornball at times but at least he was a black man who had a sitcom make it to syndication on a major network..Who can say that for themselves now? (Given the CW merger and the \"brownout\" on TV networks lately, that is). One.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My wife and kids is a good and funny series that truly shows the worries and problems that happen the most even in the best families.

Michael Kyle (daddy) is a man who is always trying to stop his children from doing teen's stuff like partying, drinking, loving or making love. When they do something wrong, he is right there to correct them (by the way he loves to make bad penalties)

Janet 'Jay' Kyle (mother) has a strong personality and rarely agrees with her husband. She understands that their children are teenagers and like to do \"wrong\" things, unlike Michael does

Michael Kyle 'Jr' is a dumb guy who believes in everything other people say. In the beginning of the series, he's such a cool guy and tries to be like his father, but lately, I don't know why, he becomes a very very dumb dude and he starts being a problematic guy. In the end of the series he falls in love with Vanessa and becomes a father, or should I say, a dumb father who does nothing right

Kady Kyle is a typical teenagers who loves to party, kiss and drink. She has many problems with her parents because they invade her privacy too much. She has a boyfriend called Tony who is catholic and is scared of everything, so we can't understand what makes she date him. I can remember one episode that they're prepared to have sex, but Michael Kyle scares Tony claiming that sex is very dangerous and deadly, so he decides to guard himself until he's married.

I resume this is the best series of my life and I still watch it everyday after 3 years so I recommend to all of you - mostly for teenagers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's one of my favorites TV series. A wonderful cast, great screenplay and a out siding plot.

Watching the routine of the Kyle family is grantee of great moments of humor and great comedy performers. Let's see: - Damon Wayans: no commentaries. He's one of the bests today. Se has a perfect timing and always get the point of the joke.

- Tisha Campbell: Her's paranoid and sentimental Jay is just wonderful to see.

- George O. Gore II: perfect for the paper. It's impossible to imagine someone else as the adorable (and dumb) Junior.

- Jennifer Nicole Freeman: the egocentric Claire found the perfect actress. Beautiful & talented.

- Parker McKeena Posey: impossible to not fall in love for her.

- Noah Grey-Cabey: this boy have future, i'm sure of it.

I get very sad when it ends, but this show will be in my mind forever. Michael, Jay, Claire, Junior, Kadie... we love you!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is great for many reasons..The father and mother can communicate with their kids this day in age. Its so great to see a real family instead of some stuffy overacting family. I watched this one time and became hooked.It so great to see a black family on TV worth watching. This show left too soon but on its way out it dealt with pregnancy, sexy, drugs, bad dates,death etc .The best thing about the show was that it dealt with it in a real humorous sort of way. Great show for the family ..I cant tell you how many times I have sat up watched this show late at night sometimes and laughed my head off. Great pg 13 rated show.I loved everybit of this show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you take the Huxtable parents and blend them with the Kyle parents you get a perfect blend of over the top and under the edge parenting that you can wish for your own family child-rearing skills. The best part about each show is that the parents do not come off as pompous self-righteous upper class know it alls but at the same time they are not the stereotypical under-educated parents who are constantly being bamboozled and disrespected by their children. My kids are 20, 16 and 6; just about the same ages as the Kyle kids and I see so much of their situations mirroring my own experiences with my family. The silliness that they indulge in only goes to show that when you have love in your family you do not have to take yourself too seriously to keep your household together and have fun with your kids.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My wife and kids was and still is the best comedy series on TV ever made.I really enjoyed it and everyone in the u.k still watch the recaps.The Wayans bros. should all somehow be featuring together in a comedy show.My wife and kids was a comedy the whole family could watch and you don't get that very often.Isn't there anything we can do to make it happen again??We would do anything to have that comedy show on again!1 Damon Wayans should make a come back! I would really like Damon Wayans to star or make another comedy like this one of course with the help of the whole Wayans family.I was really sad when it ended that way and I hope they will be more to come in the future.Brilliant comedy,excellent stuff! yours truly, DezMo","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On a routine mission in Iraq a group of Delta soldiers recover a computer hard drive from an Alqueda training camp detailing the location of weapons specialist Dr Walsh. After witnessing the termination of his top secret weapons development program Dr Walsh finds an alternative funding source and sets up a new research facility deep in the notorious Belzan forest in Chechnya where he is developing weapons and selling them to Chechnyan rebels.The team of Deltas is sent on a black ops mission to retrieve the doctor and his technology before the Russians find him and his lab.What the Delta team soon discover is that the doctors latest weapons is a flock of large carnivorous bats that have been genetically altered to develop a taste for human flesh. I found this movie to be much better than what I was expecting.There is lots of action and lots of blood. Its more or less what you would expect from a creature feature. The acting isn't great but its passable. I have certainly seen worse.Overall its an enjoyable movie for what it is. A good popcorn movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It gives the ordinary guy\/girl the chance to be on television singing as their favourite stars.

For the majority of the time, they sound like the singer they are meant to be portraying.

Another twist to it - A team of make up people and costumers dress the contestant up like that singer. They might not look like them but the likelihood of getting someone that sounds like a person looking exactly the same as them are very slim.

It's a load of fun for your Saturday night - and the contestants aren't raging wannabes like they are on another TV singing show. The fact that there are no prizes involved and it is for fun means that it will attract a different type of person.

The only gripe i have is with the Kids version - it looks like they have done the round of stage schools- what happened to the normal kids?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Psychopath (1973) A trip down memory lane. I saw this film many years ago on a old black and white t.v. A children's' show host Mr. Rabbey avenges the brutal abuse that parents inflict upon his kiddie fans. Mr. Rabbey (who looks like he's always on the verge of losing it) finally cracks and decides to go on a hunting trip. Watch out bad parents cause Mr. Rabbey is on the prowl! What happens next is priceless. However, trying to find this movie will be quite a chore.

What makes this film notable was the fact that Joe \"Maniac\" Spinell made a short promo reel for a film based upon this one. In his unfinished film, he plays Mr. Robbie, a t.v. clown(who looks like a pudgy out of shape Edward James Olmos) who avenges his young fans child abuse by going after their parents. Sadly, Mr. Spinell could never find the funds to complete the project. The film was going to be titled Maniac II: \"Mister Robbie\". Rabbey or Robbie the similarities are all too close for comfort. Pretty violent for a P.G. movie.

Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Super original. Really great movie! James Franco and Sienna Miller really do go so well together on screen. I sure hope it comes out soon. I first saw this movie at a screening. Because of my age and gender, I was asked to stay for a \"talk.\" We all got to comment on the movie and a lot of people didn't seem to like it. I really loved it and I don't know why so many people didn't think it was that good. Go see it when it comes out and decide for yourself! One thing that you might want to do if you are going to see this movie is to go into it not knowing anything about it. I had not known anything when I went to the screening other than, it was called, \"Camile.\" It really is worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As most people I am tired of the by the numbers clich\u00e9d movies that Hollywood makes. There seems to be no creativity in Hollywood. Companies only want to spend money on remakes are sequels that have an audience built in.

This movie is a welcome change. It could be classified as romantic comedy for it's genre but don't let that turn you off this movie. This is a very original movie which is not like most things Hollywood produces.

If you are reading this, you already know the basic plot so I will not bother going over that. The only movies that come to mind to compare this to are \"Interstate 60\" and \"Art of Travel\" which are little known gems that take a different path than most of the Hollywood garbage.

This is well worth seeing if you are tired of watching more of the same.

Dean","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An unusual movie, which starts off with the classic premise of a hooligan who marries a girl who loves him in order to escape the country. But a twist soon turns the tale upside down. Most of the film hits the right buttons: the story develops smoothly, acting is solid (Sienna Miller's drawl is priceless, she really can act!), chemistry between both leads works, and rolling American rural scapes and quirky side characters really make for a good time. The mood, which starts off as light and romantic soon moves into something darker and downright eery at times.

At times though the pace slows just a tad more than we would like, but don't let this stop you watching this unusual little cinematic treat. Alexandre Montin, Paris","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved it. Others have revealed spoilers, but I won't. It was an unusual premise, actually sort of weird, but I went along with it completely. Camille was a difficult part to pull off convincingly; maybe that's why some people hated it. But I think Sienna was excellent and her acting skills enabled her to nail the part perfectly - without being maudlin or ridiculous. I don't know why she was even interested in a loser like James Franco, but married him anyway. I like him as an actor and also thought he did a terrific job. He has nothing to be ashamed of. There have been movies with with similar setups e.g. \"Ghost\". I simply love Sienna Miller and went along with the situation as written in the script. I feel her great acting talent is vastly underrated, and hope it becomes more recognized by the public. I thought all of the actors played their parts very well, and hope more people get to see the movie. I highly recommend it. I was surprised that my local Block Buster store had about 10 copies available. I definitely plan to buy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie at a screener and its the best movie I have seen in a loooong time. I loved it!!!! James Franco is sooo hot and him and Sienna Miller make the perfect couple. I don't want to give away what happens but they play a pair of newlyweds who go off on their honeymoon to Niagara Falls and some pretty wild stuff happens along the way....The movie is really really funny and sad and original. I can't even say what it reminded me of, but go see it! I cried so hard but really loved it and wanna see it again as soon as it comes out! My friends cried too. I hope it comes out soon - does anyone know when? i would really go see it if i were you","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie rocked!!!! saw it at a screener a coupla weeks ago. Kinda a strange story, where James Franco plays this jerk who marries Sienna Miller just to get out of the country and they go to Niagara Falls for their honeymoon. Don't wanna give it away cuz the movie isn't released yet but its totally cool and you would never expect the stuff that happens. I kinda thought I would hate it cuz its a romance but its also kinda twisted and stuff which I like a lot. The acting is really good and Sienna Miller is totally smokin' and plays this really sweet girl. I think she should do more roles like this. James plays a jerk but you end up liking him and the end of the movie is really good. David Carradine plays a cowboy and he is good. I gave this movie a 10 because I came out of the movie really liking it and wanting to see it again which I didn't expect and my girlfriend really liked it and cried. good date flick","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this at a test screening in Chatsworth a week or so ago, and went with a bunch of my girlfriends. we all really loved it a lot. James Franco is amazing and so hot, I would see it just for him!!!!!!! but Sienna Miller is also really good and plays a southern girl who is in love with him so much that she can't let go. David Caradine who was in Kill Bill plays a cowboy and he is perfect for that. The story is kind of strange but if you believe in the power of love and magical things you will love it!!! It is really original, and it is also very funny and everyone laughed a lot but by the end it gets more serious and we all ended up crying. I am going to see it again with my friends as soon as it comes out, it is really good!!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this flick is strange but i liked it a lot. its about a good girl who loves her bad boy and their messed up honeymoon. he doesn't love her back and he's a mean son of a bitch. he starts to love her after some really whacked stuff happens on their honeymoon i wont give it away. its weird yeah!! but different than other movies in a good way i think. i don't know what to compare it to but its a love story. but has lots of funny stuff too. like get to see James Franco in a wig. i liked the Notebook a lot and it kinda felt like that because of the love story. but the rest is way different. nothing like that. Sienna Miller is really good. i saw this movie at a test screener because i like her a lot and her fashion. i liked her in factory girl but this is a better movie than that was. her and james franco look really in love in this movie and i hope they are together in real life but don't know

see it!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For all intents and purposes, 'Teen Devian' might seem like just another lightweight Bollywood musical. To some extent, this might even be true, especially because the producers had to be sure that the film succeeded with the masses. But somewhere behind the scenes, either Sadashiv Brahmam (who had the 'idea' for this story) or Amerjeet (who directed the film) decided that there would be a twist to the usual formula, and succeeded perhaps beyond even their own expectations.

This is not simply about a handsome man flirting with 3 women, undecided on whom to choose as his life's partner. Dev Anand's character was really in love with each of the 3 women at various times, and they with him, despite being aware of the other two. Dev Anand's relationship with Simi and Kalpana is particularly interesting - in that each of the women comes to depend on him heavily. There are quite a lot of suggestive teasers in the stars' body language that lend themselves to imagination depending on the viewer's maturity. The theme is surprisingly adult and after all that it was ashame that the ending was tame, obviously designed to please the masses and deflect criticism.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think it was way back in 1987 that we had our exams and my friend and I saw in the papers that one of the theatres was playing 'teen deviyan'. We decided to go just for the heck of it without hoping anything great. But we were in for a pleasant surprise. The movie was made in 1965 but even by today's standards, the plot was absolutely modern and way ahead of its times. The music was wonderful and Dev Anand as a city bred looked and acted his best. I still remember that elated feeling when we came out of the theatre after the movie was over.

Whoever thought of this story of one man falling for three very different girls at the same time? No he is not three timing or fooling them but he genuinely likes all three of them for different reasons. One is homely, one is an actress and the third is a 'high society' girl who can also help Dev in his career as a poet. The question is which one is the 'One' for him. What makes the matter worse is that all three of them like him too. When things come to an impasse, a hypnotist takes him in and in his hypnotized state he dreams of his future with each one of them and reaches the right decision.

This dream of his which is the only colored part in an otherwise black-n-white movie is the crux of the film but surprisingly is edited out from most of the versions available today. If you want to watch this movie make sure that this part is intact. In case you watch this movie without this part and get confused, don't worry because you just watched an incomplete movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Teen Devian in 1993 telecasted in Doordarshan on a Friday night, and could scarcely believe that such a remarkable film was ever made in Bollywood. It was mind blowing \u0096 a film with a \"modern\" storyline, superb music, three lovely ladies and my fave superstar Dev Anand.In this unusual storyline, Dev falls in love with three women \u0096 the simple Nanda, the ravishing Kalpana and the sophisticated Simi. They too are enamored with him and want to marry him. This puts Dev in a dilemma (which is the crux of the storyline)- whom to marry?. He consults a hypnotist who asks Dev to gaze into a crystal ball. Dev finds the answer and marries Nanda. Beautifully directed (most probably by Dev saheb himself & not by Amarjeet the official director) the B&W classic has evergreen music \u0096 some of SD Burman's (helped generously by RD Burman) best compositions. \"Uff kitni thadni hai yeh ruth\" is the probably the most sexiest song ever composed in Hindi films. Credit should also be given to Majrooh Sultanpuri for penning the memorable lyrics Teen Devian is a breezy musical which completely suited the style of Dev Anand and he did full justice to the role. Unfortunately Teen Devian has never received the recognition & popularity it richly deserves.

A must see for any Hindi film buff, I will rate the eternal favourite 9.5 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best romantic classic,teen deviyaan is a film which is all about selecting among equals your most soft emotion,love.This is a simple story of a middle class man who came into limelight by his poetic talent and charming personality. He is attracted towards three women and vice versa, one a Hindi movie star, the second a rich lady and the third who lives in his neighborhood.

The situation put him in confusion as he has to decide one of them as his life partner.He asked for few days from all of them.Ultimately he goes to a astrologer and asked him who he loves most.His confusion is no more and he came to know the lady living in his neighborhood who really cares for him and loves him is his true love.Devanand played the lead character and has fully justified his contemporary romantic image.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Teen Deviyaan is a great film. A very breezy entertainer and a very modern film for its time in the 1960s. The Music and songs are terrific though the lyrics of Majrooh are meaningless at places. Dev Anand is a tremendous star and as usual does great justice to his role. Kalpana is sexy and Nanda is OK. Simi too is just about OK. The film has terrific dialogue by Vrajendra Gaur who wrote most of Dev Anand's films like Mahal, Duniya, Warrant, Jaali Note, Manzil, etc.etc.

It is a story of Dev getting attracted to three females - the mod Kalpana, Simi and the homely Nanda. He eventually opts for Nanda. The story is about OK but its been narrated in a gripping way and the dialogue and Songs and the great Dev Anand are the highlight of the film. A must watch film for all Dev Anand fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that COMPLETE SAVAGES is a very good TV show and they should make many more episodes. It is one of my favourites!!!! It is very funny and it is really good acting. I say that you should give them a chance to do more episodes. Iknow that they can and they should!!!! They should put COMPLETE SAVAGES on NICKELODEON more than what they do! I'm sure that many people will agree with me!!!!! I like the TV show because it is a very good programme for people our age and it is very funny. I also like COMPLETE SAVAGES because it isn't always about the same thing and things that happen could be real, unlike other YV programmes. When they advertised it, I didn't like the sound of it, but I watched it for the first time and I loved it. COMPLETE SAVAGES is an excellent comedy and I miss it being on TV!!!!!!!!!! I can't really compare COMPLETE SAVAGES with any other TV series because it is different!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Each show is excellent. Finally, a show about something other than why it sucks to be married or good looking people talking about why they are like normal people. Shame it got canceled.

Mike Scully and Julie Thacker, formerly of the Simpsons, wrote or executive produced some of the funniest episodes of that series and a lot of the similar style humour seeps in here. Take Officer Steve Cox and think Troy McClure. However, it does come with its own unique brand of humour and let's face it, a teenage girl will love it just by on the faces alone.

What is it with television that cancel most good shows and we are spoon-fed with such abominations as Who My Mother Almost Slept With or whatever that show is called? Please learn a lesson. Not everything has to be about cuteness or romantic travails or especially reality shows on how to demystify every aspect of life. Some people actually like to laugh and not have to think afterward. Well, my griping is done for the day. Now back to the Simpsons. When is it on? Oh, yes! All the time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Am glad that i am not the only one to find this series very good. This is the best series for young ladies! I have so strange taste on comedies and i find so hard one to please my intelligence, and i am so happy that their humor is exactly what i need. Love the gang of actors! If anyone knows a series or just a movie similar to this one, i say pretty please write back because i miss the series.

And kindly ask the writers and the producers to CONTINUE it, even if the actors are now all grown up, i guess!

Have a nice morning\/day\/evening\/night! (because i do not know the exact time you will be reading this post)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A Great show.

First, to the people who don't like it..Don't like it, then DON'T WATCH IT...

This is(was) an awesome show. Better than According to Jim (A favorite of mine). It shows a REAL family household (As opposed to 8 simple rules,etc, where everything goes peachy).

They're loud, they're messy....I can sympathize with their dragging all the garbage into the kitchen. It happens in real life..Sorta like the \"Portal to hell\", and everyone growling like dogs over the fast-food boxes.

It's a \"Been there\" show....You know what's coming, but fun to watch, because YOU have been there before.

A good cast, they work great together, a admirable enough show to warrant a DVD release. Mel Gibsons \"Safety videos\" were a highlight of the series as well.

Opinion? Good show, REALLY deserving of a DVD release (Deserving to not be canceled as well).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved Complete Savages! Why did they cancel it anyway? They should have made a second season and so on... God! They always cancel the good shows... and leave all the boring stuff. Nothing interesting at TV since Complete Savages is gone. This show was a great idea. A single firefighter father with five crazy sons and a lazy dog... Each and every one of them has his own madness in that house. TJ is always the kid...always the smaller one... Kyle rocks! He breaks everything he touches! He's always on detention, he's always doing the wrong stuff... But still, he's so funny by all the things that he does. Sam is the smart one. He's always shy and stupid when it comes to girls... Finally he ends up by dating Angela. Chris is the sports guy who doesn't have much to do with school, studying, and stuff like that. He's always funny. And finally... Jack! The rock of the show. The oldest of all, the macho guy, \"the rock star\"... But still, as crazy as everybody else. Nick is...helpless with these guys. Oh! And I almost forgot! Uncle Jimmy... He's the man! He's like a 30 year old kid. He's like doing the same stupid things that the boys are doing. I always wondered how did he end up by being a firefighter... And the dog is the image of all the Savage family. The thing is... this show had everything to become something really big. It had everything, man! But, of course...they canceled it...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michael Ritchie's \"The Couch Trip\" is a wonderfully anarchic comedy about what makes a good psychiatrist. It is so subtle and wicked that you start to realize what a stinging satire it really is. It is also Dan Akyroyd's best movie, made in a particularly great film year (1988)for him. First, \"The Great Outdoors\" and now this.

Akyroyd stars as John Burns, a career crook who fakes insanity to escape prison. Now, a dumb comedy would just be about this. But \"The Couch Trip\" uses this as a springboard for everything else. Beverly Hills psychiatrist George Maitlin (Charles Grodin, subtly hilarious here)has a nervous breakdown and a replacement is selected: Lawrence Baird, who happens to be Akyroyd's psychiatrist! You can pretty much guess what's going to happen, but the great thing about \"The Couch Trip\" is not what happens, but how it is done.

\"The Couch Trip\" gives Dan Akyroyd the best role he has ever had. His John Burns is one of the truly original comic creations in movie history. Wicked one liners and physical humor are a part of it, but what makes it special is that Akyroyd makes Burns a lovable character. We root for him and grow to like him a whole lot during the 98 minute running time.

But Akyroyd isn't alone here. He gets strong support from other great comic actors. Walter Matthau joins the hilarity as a con artist minister who catches on to Burns' secret and commits genteel blackmail. Charles Grodin \"slow burns\" his way to another great comic role as the burned out psychiatrist. Grodin has been one of the most underappreciated actors in Hollywood. It's criminal they haven't used him more often. Richard Romanus plays Grodin's slimeball lawyer to perfection.

\"The Couch Trip\" is one of many films made by the now-defunct Orion Pictures Corporation that are currently unseen. MGM spent a fortune buying the Orion library but have yet to truly cash in on their acquisition. \"The Couch Trip\" joins \"Dressed to Kill\", \"Blow Out\" and countless others in gathering dust rotting in the vault. Shame on MGM for their inaction. Hopefully, with new management, \"The Couch Trip\" will find the audience and respect it deserves.

**** out of 4 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a fan of Dan Aykroyd, I watched this film when it was recently shown in the middle of night on TV. I wasn't expecting much, so it came as a big surprise that I loved it so much.

This is the type of film that Dan Aykroyd seems to love to make. A chance for him to 'ham it up' and not take things too seriously. If you loved him in The Blues Brothers or Ghostbusters you'll know what I mean, and you'd be wise to check out The Couch Trip.

Avid fans of Aykroyd will also have fun spotting all the tiny links to his other films in the script!

I can't describe this film without spoiling it for you, so all I can do is tell you to check it out. I can't praise this film highly enough, and it must surely be time for a DVD release!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am surprised that this, well above average 80's comedy scores only a 5.2 from all the IMDB voters. Dan Ackroyd does his usual satirical turn as a con who seizes a great opportunity to steal a contract from his prisons physician. He retreats to California to start his work giving advice on a radio show pretending to be the infamous Dr Lawrence Baird. The only person that knows he's an imposter is the drunken priest (Walter Matthau) who comes along to be pampered by Ackroyd's new found wealth having blakmailed him. Charles Grodin throws in a good supporting performance too. For its genre I think this film deserves the same crediblity as 'Ferris Bueller' or 'Trading Places'. 7.5 \/ 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw The Couch Trip (1988)on late night television years ago and instantly fell in love with it. The funny thing is I usually catch all the comedies made but have never even heard of this one until I saw it. Dan Ackroyd is plain and simpley hillarious period. He has made a couple great movies with Belushi and don't forget Saturday Night Live. But I think the Couch Trip is probably his best and funniest. With a good supporting cast of Charles Grodin, David Clennon, and Walter Matthau this piece of cinema shines with comic gold. Ackroyd's wife Donna Dixxon even does a fine job here. My favorite moments of the film involve Ackroyd and David Clennon's charachter Lawrence Baird. Those two played well off each other. So if you haven't seen a good comedy in awile take a trip back to 1988 and rent or buy The Couch Trip. I just did, Amazon 78 cents. What a bargain, too bad I got hit with a 2.50 shipping fee. Oh well still well worth it. Any guy will love this flick check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would agree with the comments already posted to this site by the previous rater.

I first stumbled across this movie back in the '80s, when I was employed at a psychiatric hospital. Unfortunately, many of the barbs aimed at the psychiatric profession do hit home. I especially enjoyed the ending, where the psychiatrist would speak thru the door to the hospitalized Grodin. Trust me, its fairly accurate.

Of course, doors at most psych hospitals are not locked, nor are straightjackets used much these days, and any hospital MUST be licensed to have a \"padded room\".

But a wonderfully underrated film, and certainly one that is quite amusing.

Jeff","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lot of people don't think Dan Aykroyd is funny. This movie proves otherwise. Aykroyd is brilliant delivering his one-liners in this comedy. The only major problem with this is that it wastes far too much time near the end jumping back and forth from Aykroyd's character and the doctor who is pursuing him to prove he's a fraud. The doctor goes nuts like doctor Leo Marvin (Richard Dreyfuss) in \"What About Bob?\". The scenes where the doctor is desperately trying to get back to Los Angeles are silly, unbelievable, and unfunny. Other that this aspect the movie really is funny, especially the first half.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"does anybody know why this movie is called the couch trip? i was just watching it and am still not sure why this title was picked the movie was very funny and its probably my favorite Dan Aykroyd performance it even beats out his Ghostbusters performance i had never heard of the movie before i seen it in a sears store i read the back and thought it sounded good so i bought and when i finally got a chance to watch it, i thought it was better than what i had originally expected. this movie rates as good as animal house and national lampoon's vacation in my mind i wish comedies that have come out lately were written as well as this one was nothing sad happens in it and the bad stuff that does happen are also funny parts if anyone else feels this way and would like to read a comedy script for a movie that doesn't have a sad situation in it email me at killer2511@hotmail.com","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a strange, little, forgotten movie from the late eighties. It's one of those \"Large-cast kitchen sink\" movies that delivers some good gags. If you like the people in this one, give it a shot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To say I wasn't expecting much sitting down to watch \"The Couch Trip\" is an understatement. I had no idea what it was about - I thought it was going to be a journey into the realm of sexuality when I heard Chevy Chase played a condom man and the movie's title involves the word \"couch trip,\" *wink, wink.* Then I figured out that it had something to do with a mental institute and a patient escaping. My expectations dropped even lower.

I was literally expecting a grin movie - the type where you grin once and walk out feeling a bit cheated. And in a way, this is cheap comedy - it doesn't have the greatest gags, the plot is ludicrous, but you know what? I had a big dumb smile on my face the entire time I was watching it.

Dan Aykroyd plays John Burns, a patient at a mental hospital who may or may not actually be mental. He gives the psychiatrist, Lawrence Baird (David Clennon), plenty of grief and misery, which leads us to believe he is a sane person after all.

Following a little bit of a riot in the mental institute's cafeteria, Burns is awaiting a tongue-lashing from Baird in his office when the phone rings. Burns picks it up, pretends to be Baird, and finds out the caller on the other line, Harvey Michaels (Richard Romanus), wants the real Dr. Baird to come fill in for a radio shrink named George Maitlin (Charles Grodin), who is taking a vacation with his wife, Vera (Mary Gross). Michaels wants Baird so bad he has even booked him a ticket on an airplane.

Burns escapes the institute with the help of a receptionist, and drives to O'Hare. He gets Dr. Baird's ticket, gets on the plane, and eventually poses on the air as Dr. Baird. His show is a phenomenal success. \"People love him!\" one man says, and the other man replies, \"It's because he actually cares about them.\"

Donald Becker (the late, great Walter Matthau) is an ex-mental patient who recognizes Burns' clothes to be confinement-issued pants and shirts. To keep him quiet, Burns promises Becker a percentage of his income. The secret is kept closed.

Meanwhile, Maitlin and his wife get in an argument. He flies home to end his vacation short and realizes that the man on his talk show is not, in fact, Dr. Baird after all, but no one believes him. He gets the real Dr. Baird, but unfortunately he has lost his ID so the police take them as nutcases and don't listen to their story.

Let me name just a few of the plot holes I noticed while watching this film: Burns poses as Dr. Baird, but is never asked for his ID, even when claiming his plane ticket (he was robbed, he says, but they would still make sure he is Baird). If Burns becomes so very famous, how come the real Dr. Baird in Chicago never heard people talking about him? Word travels. And finally, why would the police ever arrest Maitlin and Baird (the real Baird, that is) without following up on their stories?

To be frankly honest, I couldn't care less. I went into this movie with a closed mind and it surprised me - I really liked it. It entertained me. Its ideas are essentially ludicrous and not at all realistic, but Dan Aykroyd gives a truly spirited performance as a half-a-loon that makes \"The Couch Trip\" a trip worth taking.

3.5\/5 stars -

John Ulmer","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dan Ackroyd in his prime stars as Johgn Burns, a mental asylum escapee who poses as his own shrink to travel out to La La Land and host a popular radio talk show while the regular host (Charle Grodin in his snarling prime) takes a vacation. Along the way, Ackroyd hooks up with Walter Matthau, a fellow nutjob, and the rest is sheer hilarity. Ackroyd and Matthau play off very well off one another. Ackroyd's stunning real-life wife, Donna Dixon, is along for the ride as yet another shrink. The ending feels a bit rushed and contrived, which is the only thing that keeps me from giving this film my top rating, an 8. A lost '80s gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Couch Trip\" is one of those silly comedies that they cranked out in the '80s. In this case, Dan Aykroyd plays a mental patient who poses as a psychiatrist, and he goes to Beverly Hills to sub for Charles Grodin. Most of the movie's humor springs from their satirical look at Beverly Hills and people's empty lives there (a woman has a power struggle with her maid).

It's the sort of movie that you just watch to have a good time. Don't expect any kind of religious experience. But you'll most likely laugh a lot at how the Beverly Hills people flaunt their wealth. Also starring Walter Matthau, Donna Dixon, Arye Gross and Victoria Jackson (of \"UHF\").","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the most underrated comedies. Dan Akroyd is hilarious in this over the top role; Charles Grodin gives a performance nearly as good as in \"Midnight Run;\" and Walter Matthau gives a superb comedic performance in this sometimes subdued, sometimes wacky film. Akroyd and Matthau have great chemistry together....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was very impressed with this film from newcomer Dir.\/Writer Jose Reyes. The cast was excellent. \"Jorge Cordoba\" executed a powerful

and shocking performance as the lead character of \"Rafa\". It's inspiring to see independent films with this level of talent.

It takes talent, courage, and determination to go out and make a quality film.

I admire anyone who can take an idea from concept to conception and go the mile.

It's easy for people to judge young filmmakers more harshly, but I applaud \"Jose Reyes\"

and the talented cast for their successful efforts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First, I must say that I don't speak spanish and usually do not enjoy spanish speaking films... BUT Two Coyotes is an exceptional film. There is enough action and hard drama that it doesn't matter that its a spanish speaking film. The subtitles were easy to read and didn't block the action - OR the drama!

I would tell fans of spanish speaking films and non-fans of spanish speaking films to go see this movie. The action and drama are worth every penny.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is an excellent example of what an independent film can be. The director does an excellent job of riding the line between emotional and physical violence. But in the end, he remembers what so many indie-films forget - he tells a good story. When watching this film I was reminded of how timid and mundane most big-budget Hollywood films really have become.

Especially notable, is an exceptionally strong performance by the film's lead - Jorge Cordova. As an villainous thug (on his way to the top of the crime heap) Cordova plays a conniving, brutal, conceited, devious, and sleazy S.O.B., but he is so likable that he keeps you entertained the whole time.

I read somewhere that these guys were part of the New Wave of Latino Filmmakers in Los Angeles - called La Nueva Obra, or something like that. Either way, this film makes you look forward to seeing more of their work.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This first time writer\/director comes across as a season pro with \"Two Coyotes\". Most action dramas are all about the action first then the story. But this picture works the other way around. If this is just the beginning for this director, then Hollywood will soon be making room for this rising star. Independent movie making has once again reached a new level.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really liked TWO COYOTES. One of my friends rented it the other night and we were really impressed with how good it was and how cool the main guys were. I wonder if they are thinking of making a sequel because that would be excellent!

TWO COYOTES ROCKS!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hummmm,...ANOTHER Keystone comedy set in the park!!! It seems that the number one location spot for shooting was in this same local park, as so many of Chaplin's and Arbuckle's films are set there! And, while this is yet another one, it is different enough and well made that I still enjoyed it.

Fatty is interested in a younger than usual looking and acting Mabel Normand. I think she's supposed to be a little younger, though in her mother's eyes she is TOO YOUNG to be interested in men. Well, Fatty does not share her feelings and soon he and Mabel run away for some innocent fun. Things get complicated when the mother's watch is stolen. Fatty finds it and gives it to Mabel as a gift,...and MANY problems result.

Decent pacing and the fact that this movie did not rely too much on cheap slapstick but a reasonable plot make this a cute and enjoyable little film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent introspective \/ interpersonal piece that really had some teeth to it without feeling hopeless or worse, manipulative & artificially gratifying. Might be a good double feature with American Beauty as well. Best performance to date that I've seen from Anita Mui, and every actor in this seems like a powerhouse. Hats off to Ann Hui for the direction and Ivy Ho for the brilliant script. Seriously one of the best dramas I've seen in a while, especially if you have a taste for classical literature ALA poetry. Again, excellent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A touching love story reminiscent of \u0091In the Mood for Love'. Drawing heavily on Chinese poetry and how this is used by eastern people to communicate feelings to each other, the story focuses on a schoolteacher who wants so much to be a model teacher as well as a good husband and father. A senior student is very attracted to him. As the story unfolds we see the emotions below the surface in his 20 year marriage and how he grapples with the moral dilemmas that face him. A beautiful and moving story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This story of a teacher who has a relationship with a student is told in a subtle manner, something which sets it apart from most films with this plot. Mr. Lam (Jacky Cheung) has a relationship with Choy (Karena Lam, who was also so good in \"Koma\") in what at first appears to be an inexplicable situation. He is married for 20 years to Ching (the great Anita Mui, in her last role before she was cruelly taken from us), and it appears to be a loving relationship. When Ching offers to care for hers and Mr. Lam's former teacher, Choy and Mr. Lam have the opportunity to be together. What makes the film so good is director Ann Hui's pacing. It takes a while to uncover the secrets of the Lamsm and it all makes sense. The movie is very dramatic and touching. You don't feel any repulsion about the teacher\/student situation, something that elevates this film above many with the same plot. It is slow moving, but stay with it. Also, revel in Ms. Mui's wonderful, unglamorous but beautiful performance. She was and is someone truly special and in this film you fall in love with her one last time. It is worth the time to witness and just be there with her.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A rich experience is to be gained from watching this film.

This is a seemingly simple story of a gifted pupil, Yiu Kwok, who later becomes a teacher of classical Chinese poetry. He is married with two sons, and things at home seem normal. He still loves his wife after twenty years of marriage, and his sons alternately fill him with pride (the elder one) and disappointment (the younger one).

His passion for the poetry makes him an object of infatuation for a senior student in one of his classes. The student, Choi Lam, draws pictures of him during class, significantly, one of him with a flower coming from his mouth. She teases him more with her intelligence than her sexuality, although that too is an element. He of course is not immune to her attention, though he tries for a while to keep the demarcation line between teacher and student in place.

The reason why he doesn't succeed in the end is complicated. Firstly there is a real depth to the communication between him and Choi Lam. It becomes clear that she genuinely likes him, and it's mutual. Secondly, there is a long-standing problem in his marriage that is brought to light when an old friend of both his and his wife becomes ill. The consequences of the wife's involvement with this friend, both past and present, are almost too sad to bear.

Nothing is treated trivially in this film. All the characters have a vivid internal life, and an easily discernible history. The two leads, Jacky Cheung and Anita Mui, are outstanding, as are Karena Lam as the student Choi Lam, and Shaun Tam as the elder son On Yin.

Recommended without reservation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let me say first off that I am a huge fan of the original series Lonesome Dove and the book it was based from. I have put off watching this sequel for the better part of 10 years due to the bad reviews I'd heard about it. If Tommy Lee Jones wasn't playing Capt. Call I didn't see the point. If Larry McMurtry wasn't involved why should I care? How wrong I was.

This is in so many ways a worthy sequel to Lonesome Dove, maybe even more so than the dark mood of Streets Of Laredo. The story, acting, production, cinematography are all top-notch. Of course the script isn't as colorful as Lonesome Dove but it has it's moments. And, much to my surprise, there are bits of Lonesome Done in this series; the relationship between July and Clara, completely dismissed in the prequel, is brought up here almost identical to the book, a most welcome surprise. The story isn't all roses, it has it's surprises too. By far the biggest surprise is Jon Voight's interpretation of Capt. Call. While not a direct copy of Tommy Lee Jones' his is both faithful and unique to Voight's credit. The cast is fantastic all across the board, and I don't think Rick Schroeder has done a better job of acting than in this series. Oliver Reed practically steals the show here, he is superb in a role that makes you care for his character as equally as you hate him.

It is worth it to watch this if you haven't due to bad criticisms, especially that the DVD is so affordable (I got the 2-disc set for $10.99, you can probably find it cheaper). It is in no way the disappointment that Dead Man's Walk turned out (well, it was for me). And MCMurtry was involved with that one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"not a Larry Mcmurty masterpiece but it stands on its own as a good western, any of the lonesome doves do. who ever takes on the role of Woodrow call, does a great portrayal in their own style. It's also easy to see that they were looking to use this as a stepping stone to the t.V series (both version of it) and that the writers knew how to keep the flavor alive William Peterson was awesome in this, the geeky C.S.I guy is not the character he plays in this - this guy can do it all it seems

it's deserve to be enjoyed by those who enjoy westerns

4out5 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen Lonesome Dove, Dead Man's Walk, and The Streets of Laredo, and now The Return to Lonesome Dove. If you are hungry for more after watching Lonesome Dove, this'll fill yer belly. Great cast, great story. Most definitely a close second to Lonesome Dove. I will be purchasing this movie to add to my collection. This is the best, or at least my favorite performance by Jon Voight. He is Captain Call. Lou Gossett Jr. playing Isom Pickett is not somebody I'd mess with, he is a bad ass with perspective. William Peterson does a great job as well. Rick Schroder is back as Newt with an angst filled performance that reminds me of his stint on NYPD Blue. My only problem with this film (and it's really picking nits) is that I had the impression that Call wanted to be \"the first man to graze cattle in Montana\", and it's obvious that Dunnigan had already been there a while. A little inconsistent, but easily overlooked as you lose yourself in the fantastic tale. I especially love the apparent character growth of Jasper Fant and July Johnson. I've watched this movie several times and am ready for another sequel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let me begin by saying that there is no bigger fan of the original \"Lonesome Dove\" than I. Both the Pulitzer Prize-winning book and the towering mini-series adapted from it stand alone in my experience as moving, dramatic, believable, and engrossing works. There is no comparison between \"Lonesome Dove\" and any Western film- at least not since the legendary collaborations of John Ford and John Wayne. It was with real reservations that I sat down to watch this new mini-series, what with McMurtry's non-participation, and the missing original cast members. After watching the first episode it was clear that this is no \"Lonesome Dove\". In almost every measurable way this sequel falls short of the original. But so what? I wasn't expecting it to measure up. Taken as an effort of it's own this film is engaging, entertaining and of a very good quality. If it were done as a new story, not as a sequel to \"Lonesome Dove\", there is no question in my mind that it would not have received as many negative ratings. Jon Voight did a creditable job as Call, Barbara Hershey was a terrific Clara, and the new characters like Gideon Walker and Agostina Vega were well rendered and believable. Louis Gossett jr. deserves special mention as the horse wrangler Isom Pickett. The film made me care about the characters, and I don't ask any more than that from an actor. it is unfortunate that this worthy effort stands in the shadow of it's predecessor- it is worth viewing in it's own right.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This a wonderful sequel to the award winning Lonesome Dove miniseries in the 1980's. This sequel is perhaps, better than the original. It is definitely more family friendly. The language is more subdued. There is plenty of violence and one particular scene with Cherokee Jack is particularly gruesome. However, overall a great movie. The acting is superb. William Peterson is fantastic. Such a great dramatic actor with a quick sense of wit and comic timing. Jon Voight aptly fills Tommy Lee Jones' shoes as Captain Call. Ricky Shroder gives a great heart-filled performance as the young boy who grew up with no family to claim him. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had my reservations about watching The Return to Lonesome Dove after seeing and enjoying the original so much. Without Tommy Lee Jones reprising his role as Woodrow Call or Anjelica Huston as Clara, I figured it just wouldn't seem authentic enough. Upon viewing 'return' I can honestly say it's a worthy successor. The actors really make the show with Jon Voight, Rick Schroder, and Oliver Reed all preforming at their very best. I admit the story might not be quite as engrossing as the first, but 'return' definitely has it's share of excitement and captures the romance of the old west in a way that few other films have. Anyone who still has reservations can rest assured that The Return to Lonesome Dove succeeds in capturing the 'feel' of the original and will not disappoint. Do yourself a favor and check it out, Ol' Gus would be proud!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At first glance of this mini... I was a bit disappointed that Tommy Lee Jones and Anjelica Huston didn't return to the cast. Both John Voight and Barbara Hershey did commendable jobs replacing very important characters for the continuing saga of this legendary Epic Western.

Cherokee Jack Jackson (Haysbert) played an excellent bad guy, and Louis Gossett Jr. was, as always, true to form with his excellent acting skills.

The drama that seemed true to life in many scenes, including one of the best, where the valiant shoot-out ended with Ranger Walker being killed made me feel that I was actually in the film. Return to Lonesome Dove was to me, almost up to the quality of the first of the series. The next 2 follow ups with James Garner as Call just didn't make it for me. And that Lorena marries Pea Eye? How the heck did that get in their? That was a total mismatch of characters. The first 2 of the series made the Epic story, the next 2 in no way were of the same quality.

Now, if the first 2 could be remastered in Dolby Digital and an Anamorphic presentation, the films could be where they should have been like the movies of today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched \"return from lonesome dove\" and it was very good! I've seen a lot of negative comments about it and I don't think the Viewers are being real about it! In the television\/ movie business it is hard to get all the actors back for a 2nd sequel or 3rd part. WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE ANOTHER MINISERIES THAT TIES INTO LONE D. FAITHFULLY!! This production was top notch with the original music score, and the actors put their hearts into it(you can tell). If you want to watch lonesome d. with Robert Duvall and tommy L. J. then watch the original. Return to L.D. didn't have as much wit and takes on a more serious tone but is totally captivating none the less. From the touching moments to the villains, this one is a winner! \"Wonderful!!!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a lonely road in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, a black man driving a car is chased and hit by a truck, falling off-road and dying. His daughter Cassie Robinson calls her former boyfriend Dean and asks him to investigate the mysterious accident. Sam and Dean see that three Afro-Americans and the Caucasian Major of the town were killed in weird accidents on the same road. When the truck threatens Cassie, her Caucasian mother Mrs. Robinson tells a tragic racist murder that happened thirty years ago, and the brothers realize that they have to fight against a hatred spirit in a ghost truck.

In this episode, Dean discloses his first and unique love to his brother, surprising Sam and showing that he has feelings, but also that his hunting wish is stronger than his love. The story is only reasonable, touching in the delicate theme of racism in an efficient manner and blending it with a supernatural event. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"Rota 666\" (\"Route 666\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent episode, showed Dean has not only good taste by picking Cassie for his girlfriend but also shows he does have a heart and can love just one woman, and he's not just some guy who loves and leaves em! Aweso e episode. Applaud them on this one. I only hope that some way they go back to the Cassie relationship next season (if there is a next season??) i would like to see her come back into their \"supernatural\" lives especially Dean's. Also I like the fact the chose an African-American woman to be the special lady in his life that got away somehow. I hope they don't screw that up and end it as he episdoe ended. The girl who played Cassie was truly a looker and it was good to see the WB branching out into what we all see in everyday life-the interacial coupling that has become common and acceptable(finally!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Apart from being a clever and well-marketed variation on the nowadays hugely popular horror genre and a splendid formula to attract potential new fans in general, I always somewhat considered \"Supernatural\" as a massively giant homage towards the genre through the decades. Although not always noticeable to younger viewers and\/or people who only have an interest in more recent horror films, each and every single episode contains a few obvious and subtler references towards classic and influential titles. From that point of view, it was only a matter of time before the writers would pay tribute to the 'creepy vehicle without a driver' type of films, and even more specifically the 70's milestones \"Duel\" (Steven Spielberg's acclaimed debut) and \"The Car\". Being an avid fan of these two films, I enjoyed \"Route 666\" a lot even in spite of its flaws and shortcomings. The episode opens tense and atmospherically on a remote Missourian road, where a black man is hunted down and eventually killed by a menacing monster truck with seemingly no driver behind the wheel. The victim's daughter, Cassie, happens to be Dean's ex-girlfriend and she calls the Winchester Brothers in for help. The brothers can't prevent two more similar \"accidents\" before discovering the ghost-truck sudden presence relates all the way back to a racial dispute of the 60's, involving both of Cassie's parents as well as several more prominent inhabitants of the little town. Some of my fellow reviewers around here tend to label \"Route 666\" as one of the weaker entries in season one, mainly because the script is too preachy regarding racial issues and shows a different and more emotional side of Dean's character. He's usually the strong silent type, whereas here he's confronted with unfinished romantic affairs from the past here. To a certain level I agree with the racism debate, but it didn't bother me that much, really. The writers eventually had to give an explanation to the presence of the ghost truck, and racial conflict is an acceptable one as far as I'm concerned. Concerning Dean's emotional vulnerability, I can only state it's admirable to see how the writers continuously attempt to provide depth and detail to the main characters. Dean's behavior towards Cassie sheds a whole new light on him, in fact. Besides, what really counts in this episode is the wondrously sinister truck and its virulent attacks. It's an impressive and overpowering vehicle, producing blinding lights and grisly engine noises. In case you worshiped the brilliant aforementioned \"Duel\", you will definitely find some amusement in the compelling chase sequences depicted in \"Route 666\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Episode No. thirteen of the fanciful (excuse the incredibly gay terminology) \"Supernatural\" TV series relocates Sam and Dean Winchester to Missouri where they have been called upon by an old flame of Dean's to investigate a string of mysterious murders occurring in their small town. As it turns out, a large pick-up truck with an unseen driver is running down African Americans on a desolate stretch of road... While Dean attempts to rekindle his past love affair, more towns people turn up as roadkill. The cause appears to be due to a past racial incident back in the 60s, causing a frustrated redneck spirit to remain in ghostly limbo, seeking to kill black motorists. \"Route 666\" is another good installment (which isn't uncommon, I've noticed) which contains a few notable aspects pertaining to the pair of main characters such as Dean getting laid and Sam's admitted regret for having left college... The killer truck does't come across as the most terrifying thing in the world, though, for an hour long show, it does it's job well. Not a hands-down fantastic episode, but a solid concept with more horror movie references.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This episode of Buffy was one of my personal favorites. Also number three of Joss' personal favorites as well. The episode featured very little dialogue and despite that the good folks at the Emmy's decided it merited a nomination. Unfortunately it didn't win. When Hush first premiered it received about 6 million viewers, which was the highest rated episode of season four. That should tell you something. Even though there was very little talking it managed to intrigue people enough to tune in. Those gentlemen characters (who were played my mimes) were some of the scariest creatures the show has produced (or any network TV show I've seen). Nothing is creepier then a bunch of silver teethed men coming at you with a scalpel while smiling away. I think that despite the lack of dialogue the actors did a fantastic job on the episode.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The creepy demons \"The Gentlemen\" capture the voice of the population of Sunnydale, to steal human hearts without scream. Giles find that in accordance with a legend, if a lady screams, the creatures will be destroyed, but Buffy and her friends, including Riley, have to fight the monsters speechless.

\"Hush\" is certainly the best episode of the Fourth Season of Buffy up to this moment. Having lots of humor and funny situations, I liked a lot. Spike is hilarious, the romance between Xander and Anya is cool, but I loved the \"intense\" dialog between Buffy and Riley in end. The Gothic scenario of the final battle against \"The Gentlemen\" recalls the environment of \"Dark City\". My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): \"Sil\u00eancio\" (\"Silence\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a good episode, but it's not my favorite. A lot of people love it and on a creative level it's brilliant. Most of the episode has no dialog, which is such a cool idea and \"Hush\" handles the silence really well. Plus, this episode introduces Tara, who I like a lot. But, I don't like Riely or the Initative or Maggie Walsh and they seem to get a lot of screen time in \"Hush.\" Plus, I don't think the Gentlemen are that scary and I get tired of watching the float around Sunnydale. I know that I'm in the minority, but I tend to fast-forward parts of \"Hush.\" Of course, there are other parts of the episode that I think are great, so if you're watching on DVD, I recommend seeing this episode. It really is a classic.

\"Hush\" revolves around the entire town losing their voices. Skelatal looking demon-guys called the Gentlemen arrive to gather seven hearts from human victims, but if they hear a human scream they die. So they steal the voices of everyone in town. Buffy and the Scoobies try to figure out what's going on, while the Initative also start investigating. Meanwhile, Xander comes to realize how much Anya means to him and Willow meets a fellow witch named Tara. Buffy and Riely finally come face to face while fighting the Gentlemen. They are both stunned about what they learn... He's a commando and she's the Slayer. In the end Buffy saves the day, but she now has to deal with her new knowledge of Riely's secret life.

Really, the creativity of \"Hush\" can't be seen in a basic outline of its plot. It's the overwhelming silence of the episode, that makes it so great. The characters try to communicate in different ways, (White-out boards, pantomime, obscene finger gestures, etc...) and it all just works really well. After a while you forget that there's no dialog because they're all so good at expressing themselves. During the \"talking\" parts of the episode, there are a lot of references to the importance of really \"hearing\" each other. Anya claims that Xander won't really talk to her. Giles ignores Spike and Xander's protests and insists that Spike move into Xander's apartment. Buffy quickly substitutes the word \"petroleum\" for \"patrolling\" when she talks to Riely so she won't have to explain her calling. And then at the end, when Buffy and Riely really do learn the truth about each other, they sit there with nothing to say. It's all pretty cool.

There are a lot of good parts to this episode. I love that people keep forgetting that they can't talk. Buffy and Xander both try to use the phone. Riley can't use the voice recognition thing in the Initatives' elevator. People try to scream. It's basically what everyone would really do if they suddenly had no speech. And I think it's hilarious that Spike has to move in with Xander. (They'll also share an apartment for a little while in season seven.) Xander and Spike have a fun bickering childishness that's just hilarious. Also I like the beginning of Tara and Willow's relationship. Tara plays an important role for the rest of the show and she and Willow are pretty cute together. It's nice to see them just starting out.

On the downside, I don't understand how the Gentlemen are choosing their victims. They just seem to float around dorms and pick random people. Also, I don't like Riely. I've never liked him, but from \"Hush\" on I'm pretty much just waiting for Angel to come back to town and beat him up. Finally, what happens to Olivia after this? It seems like we just met her, she and Giles have a relationship, everything's going fine... and then she's suddenly dropped. I don't get it.

My favorite part of the episode: Giles' \"Who are the Gentlemen?\" lecture to the Scoobies. The whole scene is wonderful and his over-heads are just hilarious. He makes some similar looking flashcards in season seven's \"First Date.\" Pretty much anytime Giles starts drawing monsters, it's just gonna be fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having seen the movie years ago and been disappointed by its squandered potential, when I heard that it was becoming a TV series, I flatly refused to watch it. My best friend became a rabid fan immediately, and knowing my love for horror movies, could not believe that I wouldn't watch a single episode. I told him that the movie had scarred me for life as far as anything BUFFY was concerned, and he told me to forget that the movie even existed. He insisted that I give two episodes a shot: \"Once More With Feeling\" and this one.

Both of them are why I am a BUFFY fan today. He was right - I was hooked immediately. I have never seen a show with the guts to dare try an episode that has next to no dialogue, and nothing else could've pulled it off with the panache and the pure creativity of BUFFY. I think X FILES might've gotten away with it if they'd thought of it first, but I'm glad that BUFFY did it instead.

It is a credit to everyone involved that you are riveted for the entire hour, sometimes hanging onto the edge of your seat. And when it was all over, I craved to know more about every character. So I went out and bought the Season One boxed set. And the rest is history...

I guarantee you that if you've never seen it, either, you'll want to see more if you make this episode your first.

The only reason I'm not giving it 10 out of 10 is because I'm reserving that score for \"Once More...\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer and really didn't begin to love the show until Season 4 started. This episode \"Hush\" was view by me alone in the dark just after Midnight with my windows open and the wind blowing through furiously by an after storm. The writers of this episode did an excellent job scaring the heck out of me. I was in awe the entire episode which I just finished 2 minutes ago. Amazing doesn't touch the surface of what this episode accomplishes with almost no dialogue. If you've never given this show much thought at least watch this episode. If this doesn't impress you then no episode probably will.

BTW My Heart is still racing...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though not exactly a comedy in the usual sense of the word this more rewarding than any movie full of laughs but devoid of substance. I don't think Bergman's movies can be easily classed under narrow genres, even the lightest are quite complex. This movie in spite of its light touch poses a series of problems related to marriage and its shortcomings and what happens when the flames start to die etc. I don't really communicate personally with all these issues as I am sure others do. But the atmosphere of the movie is extraordinary, you almost wish it not to end. I have to admit that I was swept away by the Bergman of the fifties, having come to know most of his later, groundbreaking efforts. Before Nykvist, von Sydow, Ulman etc. the master produced some of the richest, warm and touching movies I have ever seen. Though it's a long shot, I have seen this kind of love for human kind, in its complexity, only in Fellini's movies of the same period. A Lesson in Love alongside Smiles of a Summer Night are worth seeing for Bergman fans, to have the full image of the man's capabilities, and for those who love cinema with a heart. May he rest in peace!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bergman is a sublime comedy director and writer. This fact becomes apparent in \"En lektion I k\u00e4rlek\", where the comic elements range from pure slapstick to deep, yet very emotional scenes. This movie is paves the way for Bergman's later comedies \"Sommarnattens leende\" and \"Kvinnodr\u00f6m\", all of them starring Gunnar Bj\u00f6rnstrand as well as Eva Dahlbeck. This is an excellent movie with which to start your Bergman experience, acutely portraying emotional troubles of the young as well as the old. The cinematography by Martin Bodin is astounding, for instance in the picnic scene. In short, the movie is a perfect example of a successful comedy, with a clarity of depth even surpassing some of Bergman's own comedies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bergman and comedy don't quite go together. Some of his comedies are so naff you almost wince. This film has the odd naff moment - the last 30 seconds being the nadir, but on the whole this is a charming (rather than funny) piece, enjoyable throughout. Bergman casts several of his usual suspects who perform well. There is a great scene on the train between David, Marianne and an uncouth salesman which will stick in the memory. Some of the marriage material is typical, cynical Bergman, but this is Bergman in a light rather than dark mood.

This film has its moments and is worth the 90-odd minutes. Not one of his classics and not the place to start if you want to fall for Bergman.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fun filled romp, full of silly if not sometimes cruel jokes. Not the best of movies, but definitely well worth watching. David Niven and Stewart Granger are their usual charming selves with Granger as an especially delightful and ingenious gentleman. Ava Gardner as wonderful as always, with such a delightful character that is absolutely iresistable. The story line is typical, but full of jocular surprises, especially concerning the unconventional relationships between Granger, Gardner and Niven.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Barely three and a half years after just scraping out a month's run (7-31 Oct. 1953) at Broadway's Coronet Theatre (on west 49th Street; since renamed the O'Neill), MGM relied on the earlier solid London success of the play to lavish a wonderful cast and - for the most part - carefully \"opened up\" production on a sadly trimmed down screenplay of this slyly subversive boulevard comedy and were rewarded with a modest hit.

Ava Gardner is the increasingly frustrated wife of Stewart Granger, an internationally successful and entirely complacent \"workaholic\" (before the term had been coined) using the perpetually frustrated David Niven to attempt to rekindle passion in her spouse. When the \"second honeymoon\" cruise Gardner inveigles Granger into leaves the trio (and Granger's dog) marooned on a south sea island (were there other survivors? That's for later plot developments), Granger continues right on managing the world around him - building a big hut for himself and his wife and a little one of the title for Niven - or the unattached male.

The core of the actual plot of the play only gets going about half way through the film when Niven proposes that Granger and he alternate as tenants of the Little Hut - sharing the only female on the island as Granger has been willing to share the only pair of shoes (his).

Reason (which Granger considers his strong point) reigns and frustration reigns supreme - for a while.

David Niven and Ava Gardner are superb in their appointed roles of suave would-be seducer and seductress, and Stuart Granger - usually called upon merely to be handsome and virile in action roles and the odd miscast specialty (a crowing pretty-boy as Apollodorus in Shaw's CAESAR AND CLEOPATRA in 1945) - gives one of the better acting performances of his film career as the husband who may actually be as smart as he thinks he is. 33 years later he would again show this suave urbanity opposite Rex Harrison in Granger's first (and BOTH their last) Broadway engagements in a hit revival of Somerset Maugham's THE CIRCLE which only ended with Harrison's death. We'd be far richer if Granger had used these skills more often.

As promising as the menage is, this is, after all, a very British Boulevard Comedy AND Hollywood in the 1950's which is to say that (unlike the source play) very little sex actually goes on. To be frank, if you don't give yourself over to the ideas driving the contrivances it does get a bit silly (the same basic plot is far more satisfyingly developed three years later in the Cary Grant\/Deborah Kerr\/Robert Mitchum\/Jean Simmons (Stewart Granger's actual wife) THE GRASS IS GREENER, based on an even less successful play, but for some reason that superior trifle failed at the box office).

As lavishly as MGM set the piece, there were unfortunate lapses - the silliness which ends the stay on the island is cartoonishly presaged in what should have been a moment of genuine excitement - the sinking of the yacht that PUTS them on the island. Ultimately we only get about three quarters of an hour of the real Little Hut, but ninety good minutes of David Niven, Ava Gardner and Stewart Granger that make the film a fun diversion. Not high culture, but a worthy guilty pleasure.

We even get some very nice garnish in Walter Chiari (reputed to be Ava's actual lover at the time). As one of his better speeches goes: \"Boola, boola!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very noir kind of episode. It begins with Jim returning from a weekend trip with a new girlfriend, the recently divorced Karen Mills (Pat Delaney--daughter in law of John Huston, who knew a few things about noir film) and her daughter. When they arrive, Karen goes in the house while Jim picks up her daughter from the back seat and carries her up to her room. He then discovers Karen has disappeared without a trace. Of course he calls Dennis and when the police arrive, they see no sign of Karen, but find her next door neighbor murdered in the bushes. So of course that makes Jim an immediate suspect.

This is a great little mystery and the first half of the story is shown by Rocky asking Jim to go over the story once again. Rocky suggests that by Jim telling him the story he might remember a little detail that he didn't think was important at the time, but now might lead to a clue as to what happened. It's a really well written scene and completes the transition of the Rocky character from a grifter to a concerned parent. It also goes a long way to show that Rocky isn't just some clueless old man either. As he says \"You come to me because I'm your father. And I'm smarter than you!\" This is one of those times where we see where Jim got his smarts.

This episode also features an appearance by hottie Lara Parker, who played Angelique in the \"Dark Shadows\" series and went on to play Laura Banner, Bruce's wife in the \"Incredible Hulk\" series a few years later. She looks terrific here.

This episode also marks the first mention of the Minette crime family, a name that would keep popping up on the Rockford Files almost whenever they needed a mob family. This time, its Vincent Minette who Rockford helps apprehend.

Lt. Diehl (Tom Atkins) makes his first appearance on the series and Dennis is quietly demoted from a police lieutenant that he was on the earlier season one episodes to a police Sargent. I guess they figured it would be better to have Dennis less powerful and add some conflict between Jim and the police. Frankly, they were right, though I prefer the later Lt. Chapman to Lt. Diehl.

Not a lot of the typical \"Rockford\" humor in this episode, but a good mystery with a lot of heart.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The episode begins with scenes of a dead woman bather washed up on the shore, a forlorn Jim strolling along the beach lost in reverie and a night ride home that ends in murder and mystery. Yep,this is an atmospheric little number with a super twist at the end. Jim does well to unravel what is, a priori, an inexplicable case of a woman going missing 20 seconds after she enters her home. To be sure, the eventual explanation is a little far-fetched. Why, for example, go to the lengths of substituting a woman midway thru a car journey when simply rubbing her AND her companions out would've been as easy and left less of a trail. However, these niggles aside, it's a memorable TRF episode full of invention, even if YET AGAIN Jim gets put in the frame by an ever suspicious Police Dept. I mean to say, have the ungrateful so-and-so's ever sat down and counted just how many of THEIR files have been solved by dear ol' Jimbo?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just recently discovered this fantastic series and I just can't seem to get enough of Garner's laid back PI. The shows continually display excellent level of writing and suspenseful episodes.

This episode, Sleight of Hand, is a little different. Forsaking humor in favor of a more serious turn for Rockford as he searches for his missing girlfriend.

The mystery is great and it's unraveling is convincing enough. It's based on a book (can't remember the name) and it could easily have been stretched to a feature length episode. Garner excels here as Rockford gets tough and really means business. This has a \"noir\" feel to it all the way, the dark lighting and overall mood echo the great dark thrillers of the 40's and 50's.

Really good episode in a Class A series. Easily deserves a 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Sleight of Hand' is my favorite Rockford Files episode of the entire series. This episode shows a side of Jim Rockford that is usually ignored. To wit, Jim is genuinely in love with a beautiful woman and is shown as a father figure to her young daughter. The woman is recently divorced and she and Jim have recently returned from a weekend getaway along with the youngster. Through a strange turn of events, the woman is discovered missing after they return to her home.

Rockford's recounting to his father, Rocky, of the events leading up to the woman's disappearance is reminiscent of Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer series from an earlier era. After much brooding and reflection and with Rocky's encouragement, Jim stumbles upon the clue that sends him off investigating the disappearance with his usual steadfastness.

Unfortunately, Jim's girlfriend, Karen, unwittingly witnessed some mafia activity while they stayed at the Buena Vista Inn. The crime bosses responded by killing Karen and substituting another woman into Jim's car. The imposter, ostensibly asleep in the back seat, made her exit immediately upon arrival at the home. A couple of cover up murders ensue and Jim proceeds to their solution while under suspicion of the L.A. police department even as warrants are issued for his arrest.

This episode evokes more emotional reaction than all other Rockford Files episodes combined. James Garner as Jim Rockford is seen at his most vulnerable moment and yet he retains the presence of mind to pursue the case. This is personal for Jim Rockford. In this case, he is not hired to do a job but he is trying to recover his lost love to save her life. Unfortunately, this is not possible but Jim tries hard to sort out his feelings but it is apparent that he will not soon get over his hurt.

Despite the appeal of the main story line, many key questions are raised but never answered in this episode. (1) What becomes of the young daughter of Jim's girlfriend? (2) What did Karen actually see at the hotel that made the mafia kill her? (3) How could Jim drive for hours with an imposter in his back seat without noticing this? (4) The daughter stated that \"Mommy didn't come back with us\". So why didn't the girl scream or cry when she noticed that her mother was absent for the hours long car ride? Regardless of these ambiguities, 'Sleight of Hand\" is the Rockford Files episode which comes closest to being a tear jerker. The suspense is compelling and the story is told in a sensitive and vulnerable style which makes us feel Rockford's pain.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A variation of the same plot line was used in a Simon & Simon episode (Thin Air) that originally aired in Dec 1982.

The gender of the victim was changed, the surviving spouse is one of Rick's \"old flames\". It's also interesting to note that Gerald McRaney had a role in this Rockford file episode.

Both episodes were based on a story by Howard Browne - as noted in the list of 'writing credits'.

Anthony James plays one of his classic TV bad guy roles.

The continuation of the concept between the Rockford Files to Magnum PI to Simon & Simon quite interesting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The mystery and its solution was a great noir conceit. I do have some questions though, maybe I wasn't paying enough attention.

Who killed the neighbor and why? Who killed the replacement girl and why?

And some minor quibbles, they should have shown the stopoff at the hotel for the switch. Not that they should have shown the switch, but they should have shown Jim and the girl going in the hotel, Jim going to the bathroom, coming out and being told by the bartender that his girlfriend went to the car without him.

then, Jim getting back in the car and seeing the sleeping woman, and little girl in his back seat.

This would have given the viewer a sporting chance at figuring out the solution.

I wish I taped it though, I'd like to see it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I own this movie. I am actually from the same town as the brother directors. But that doesn't make the film any better. But, if one night you wanna watch something not serious, and don't have and high expectations, I strongly recommend Demon Summer. Yes, the lines are cheesy and the plot is corny. But it contains key elements of a horror\/comedy. I just wanna see some small-town kids make a movie full of effects. And I say \"bravo\" to the Campell brothers. They are now making more movies and continuing a long dream. Demon Summer was one of the movies that are gonna help them start a great career with a great future. Speed Freak Productions and Compound Pictures described in one word: POTENTIAL","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While this film might not be the next Evil Dead ( Hell who knows maybe it will, it has only been out for a year) It is worth a look. Don't expect a $10 million film. cuz you'll be disappointed. DO expect to be entertain, to laugh, and to enjoy the experience.All in all this film is MUCH better than many if not all of the low budget horror films out there. I have seen films that spent more than 10 or 20 times what this film cost to make and turned out 10000000000 times worse. The effort that was put into this film far out weighs the set backs it faces by having a limited budget. Movies are meant to entertain, and this movie sure does that. In fact this film might even open up new doors for you in movie watching. It's available on Netflix if not your local video rental store. So watch it, then decide.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the most significant quotes from the entire film is pronounced halfway through by the protagonist, the mafia middle-man Titta Di Girolamo, a physically non-descript, middle-aged man originally from Salerno in Southern Italy. When we're introduced to him at the start of the film, he's been living a non-life in an elegant but sterile hotel in the Italian-speaking Canton of Switzerland for the last ten years, conducting a business we are only gradually introduced to. While this pivotal yet apparently unremarkable scene takes place employees of the the Swiss bank who normally count Di Girolamo's cash tell him that 10,000 dollars are missing from his usual suitcase full of tightly stacked banknotes. At the news, he quietly but icily threatens his coaxing bank manager of wanting to close down his account. Meanwhile he tells us, the spectators, that when you bluff, you have to bluff right through to the end without fear of being caught out or appearing ridiculous. He says: you can't bluff for a while and then halfway through, tell the truth. Having eventually done this - bluffed only halfway through and told the truth, and having accepted the consequences of life and ultimately, love - is exactly the reason behind the beginning of Titta Di Girolamo's troubles.

This initially unsympathetic character, a scowling, taciturn, curt man on the verge of 50, a man who won't even reply in kind to chambermaids and waitresses who say hello and goodbye, becomes at one point someone the spectator cares deeply about. At one point in his non-life, Titta decides to feel concern about appearing \"ridiculous\". The first half of the film may be described as \"slow\" by some. It does indeed reveal Di Girolamo's days and nights in that hotel at an oddly disjoined, deliberate pace, revealing seemingly mundane and irrelevant details. However, scenes that may have seemed unnecessary reveal just how essential they are as this masterfully constructed and innovative film unfolds before your eyes. The existence of Titta Di Girolamo - the man with no imagination, identity or life, the unsympathetic character you unexpectedly end up loving and feeling for when you least thought you would - is also conveyed with elegantly edited sequences and very interesting use of music (one theme by the Scottish band Boards of Canada especially stood out).

Never was the contrast between the way Hollywood and Italy treat mobsters more at odds than since the release of films such as Le Conseguenze dell'Amore or L'Imbalsamatore. Another interesting element was the way in which the film made use of the protagonist's insomnia. Not unlike The Machinist (and in a far more explicit way, the Al Pacino film Insomnia), Le Conseguenze dell'Amore uses this condition to symbolise a deeper emotional malaise that's been rammed so deep into the obscurity of the unconscious, it's almost impossible to pin-point its cause (if indeed there is one).

The young and sympathetic hotel waitress Sofia (played by Olivia Magnani, grand-daughter of the legendary Anna) and the memory of Titta's best friend, a man whom he hasn't seen in 20 years, unexpectedly provide a tiny window onto life that Titta eventually (though tentatively at first) accepts to look through again. Though it's never explicitly spelt out, the spectator KNOWS that to a man like Titta, accepting The Consequences of Love will have unimaginable consequences. A film without a single scene of sex or violence, a film that unfolds in its own time and concedes nothing to the spectator's expectations, Le Conseguenze dell'Amore is a fine representative of that small, quiet, discreet Renaissance that has been taking place in Italian cinema since the decline of Cinecitt\u00e0 during the second half of the 70s. The world is waiting for Italy to produce more Il Postino-like fare, more La Vita \u00e8 Bella-style films... neglecting to explore fine creations like Le Conseguenze dell'Amore, L'Imbalsamatore and others. Your loss, world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Le Conseguenze Dell'Amore on the 2005 Rotterdam Filmfestival, It was the first of ten films I saw there.

Le Conseguenze has left the most powerful impression of the ten films. From the first shot, you know the movie is going to be something special. The beautiful cinematography left me in awe of what can be done with a camera. The music is also on par with the visuals, complementing the colorful and stylish architecture-like images.

Toni Servillo plays the main character in the film, Titta. He's a tax expert gone wrong who lives in a hotel. Every week, he brings a suitcase with money to a bank and the story plays around this.

He is always very controlled and shows almost no emotion to anyone; Looks calculated and well-dressed. He has a habit of ignoring people who are of no significance to him. For example Sofia (played very nicely by Olivia Magnani), who works as a barmaid in the hotel where he lives. Although she's been working in the hotel for two years, he never greets her, even if she does greet him. On one day she confronts him with this and the next day he sits at the bar, instead of his usual spot at a window. From here the story really begins, and will unfold in a strong tale of love, sacrifice and the mafia.

I won't spoil the rest of the film. See this film if you love stylish movies like ones from David Lynch, The Godfather, etc. Don't see this if you're an action-buff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are movies that are just a different version of another one, not remakes, but just similar to others, it is not. Although it talks about Mafia it is watched in another way and often it seems just a secondary theme. I went to watch that movie for case (because the otherone's theatre was full) and I was satisfied at the end. It surprised me, because of its black irony or cynicism and there are more and more interesting items to analyze. It doesn't follow the classical ways of movies, it is just different and I think not to be the only one to like that. I am very happy also because it is Italian, and I was afraid that Italian directors and producers were not enough brave to change themes. In this movie you can watch new Italian style as well, but is not blocked into clich\u00e9s. I hope to be understandable enough, I know it is difficult, I hope also that this movie can be exported out of our frontiers, it is a good product to export. I want to point out also the music, very good soundtrack, the movie needs it because of its long silent pause and they are covered perfectly by that music. Many compliments to the director, and thank you, cinema needs these movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The consequences of love: There is really something special about this film but it's very hard to put your finger on. It is a love story of sorts but not really one i've seen before. It has several love themes running throughout the film. One mans love for a younger woman, a younger mans love for his older brother, the mafias love of money at all costs these are just some that intertwine in a story that has you guessing or rather not knowing where and how it will end. The cast are all superb from Sophia the teasing barmaid to the straight faced-ness of titta the films central character. With simple yet affective camera work bounced off an ever-changing soundtrack that mixes low-fi trip hop with lush orchestral pieces. The style of the film changes beautifully using several styles without ever getting cluttered. Love has never looked so diverse and powerful as the tales we are told rumble towards various conclusions. The director has married old and new into a rich Italian classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie in the Rotterdam Film Festival and I was pleasantly surprised. The photography is just so stylish and beautiful, and the story it's just not your average mafia movie, actually that storyline is pretty much in the background. It's more the personal journey of a middle age man that is trapped in an existence he was forced to live. The actor, Toni Servillo, is superb, he excels this \"quiet man\". The girl, Olivia Magnani, is the grand-daughter of Italian actress Anna Magnani and lives up to the family surname.

If you're expecting your typical Italian movie where everybody is screaming to each other in big families, this is NOT your movie. There are not you're average clich\u00e9s and it's definitively worth seeing this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although I totally agree with the previous comment regarding the marvellous acting of Toni Servillo as Titta Di Girolamo, I would also like to add the beautiful filming and montage which turns this movie virtually into a painting. The young director Paolo Sorrentino had the courage to experiment with different types of camera techniques which reminded me of Darren Aronofsky' Requiem for a Dream. They both used the same MTV-style filming combined with modern (alternative\/techno) music, making the film \u0096 Le Consequenze dell'Amore - stand apart from the other crime\/mafia movies in its genre. Even though the movie may start of very slow-paced almost \"sec\" compared to the faster Hollywood productions it should be enjoyed cause of its serenity, marvellous character portray and splendid ending. Definitely a must see for people who enjoy the European\/Italian cinema. PS Toni keep on acting like this we need an encore.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very visual film. By that I mean that the dialog is sparse, almost to the point of being a silent movie for some very long takes, beginning with the opening shot.

The silences, however, are broken by a stunning sound track that ranges from discordant, staccato beats to a haunting mix of violins, and interspersed with vocals that sound like dreams. It's a feast for the ears as much as for the eyes, one of the early visuals being a man walking along a street, so preoccupied with his interest in a shapely woman, that he walks into a lamppost: one of the consequences of love and a metaphor for what lies in store...

A long time ago, another movie \u0096 Love Story (1970) -- said that love is never having to say you're sorry. This narrative turns that idea on its head in a number of ways, beginning with the main character, Titta (Toni Sevillo), a seemingly innocuous long-term resident in a plush hotel somewhere in Switzerland. Everyday, week in, week out, he sits at the same coffee table, enjoying the passing world, his cigarettes, his coffee, his solitude \u0096 and he's been doing it for ten years. He sits, he observes, and once a week he engages in three very surprising activities that you'll find out about when you see this little masterpiece...

Love is explored in another way, in a direct counterpoint to Titta's solitude and reserved nature: two older residents of the hotel are still much in love, but the man wants to die in a spectacular manner when his time comes, while his long suffering wife berates him for cheating at cards with the other guests, one of whom is Titta. Now, Titta knows about their squabbles, their love, the man's cheating, his apologies to his wife, and his whining. How? In a surprising and black-comedic manner...one of those surprise activities I mentioned.

But, this is no comedy, in reality, although it does touch upon the idea of the human comedy in a Balzacian sense: the irony of life and what to do with it. That decision had been made for Titta ten years earlier when he left his wife and began to live in the hotel. He keeps in touch occasionally, and it is clear that he still loves his children (now grown up) and the sorrow in his voice speaks volumes. But, there's something more than just sorrow...

Such a life as Titta's would obviously seem to be utterly boring, and it actually is from many perspectives. It is only when we learn what lies beneath his almost death-like countenance, however, that the horror of his situation hits the viewer between the eyes. But not before we know that the female bartender, Sofia (Olivia Magnani), is very interested in Titta and goes out of her way to pique Titta's interest in her.

And that's when things start to unravel for Titta: he eventually succumbs to her femininity and in doing so discovers, once again, the consequences of love. Ironically, in doing so, he finally realizes what he must finally do with his life, and in a most spectacular fashion.

I know that all of the above is somewhat cryptic; but, to say more would spoil the film and story for you. If you like Italian cinema \u0096 I love it! \u0096 I urge you to see this one. The acting is superb; the sound track chills the spine; the camera work is truly innovative; the direction shows the maturity of a true artist.

I know I'll see this movie again, and again...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, I'm Italian but there aren't so many Italian film like this. I think that the plot is very good for 3\/4 of the film but the final is too simple, too predictable. But it's the only little mistake. The Consequences of Love in my opinion have great sequences in particular at the beginning and great soundtrack. I'd like very much the lighting work on it. The best thing on it is a great, great actor. You know, if your name were Al Pacino now everybody would have still been talking about this performance. But it's only a great theater Italian actor called Toni Servillo. Yes, someone tell me this film and this kind of performance it's too slow, it's so boring, so many silences, but i think that this components its fantastic, its the right way for describing the love story between a very talented young girl, the grand-daughter of the Italian actress Anna Magnani, Olivia and the old mysterious man Toni. One of my favorite Italian films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, where do I start...

As one of the other reviewers said, you know you're in for a real treat when you see the opening shot - minutes and minutes of film time spent on a guy standing on a travelator.

I won't repeat Rubin's excellent summary of the story. What I would like to say, though, is that this film gripped me more than any film I can remember. I sat open-mouthed, and on the edge of my seat all the way through. The camera work, sound track and *fantastic* performances (particularly that of Tony Servillo) draw you to the screen and won't let you look away.

It's Italian, so of course everyone looks fantastic, but it is by no means merely an exercise in cool style. This is a film with lots to say about luck, loss and love.

Go and see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was a little worried about actors and acting in Italy then \"Le conseguenze dell'amore\" and Toni Servillo came. It was a long time that i didn't see a so charismatic actor on screen. Paolo Sorrentino has written a wonderful story about loneliness and Tony has built one of the most unforgettable characters seen in movies in recent years. The movie is not completely perfect but 'Titta Di Girolamo' will stay with you for a long time after the vision of the movie. Toni please keep on acting in movies, you're for sure the coolest actor around today (and not just in Italy, his performance deserves international acclamation). I rate this movie 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this the week it opened four years ago and I really did not know what to expect being unfamiliar with Sorrentino's work at the time. He has created a very intriguing and ultimately moving account of an odd character, one for whom the phrase 'life is for living' no longer applies. It outwitted me at every turn and I was constantly surprised by the story. I enjoyed the pacing very much and the way I was gradually given the pieces to work out what was happening. Tony Servillo is superb, as is Magnani. It opens with a brilliantly stylish wide shot and concludes with a very moving image that takes the movie into sublime territory. I thought long afterwards about the main character and the position he was in and his final fate and I didn't shake it for weeks. I recently bought the film and that final scene where he thinks about his friend gets me every time. I still have yet to talk to anyone who has seen this. It's a shame that it did not reach a wider audience as if this is the direction of Italian cinema it can only be a good thing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Stylish, thought provoking, cool and gripping \u0096 just four aspects of a film that will long remain in the thoughts of this viewer.

Slow-paced it may be at the beginning but the director beguiles with beautiful camera work, sophisticated compositions and elegant editing. The unfolding of the story, not so much the narrative line but the revelation of the characters' inner selves, is masterful.

Olivia Magnani, who plays Sophia, the hotel receptionist, who finally breaks down the icy reserve of former consiglierie Titta di Girolami (Tony Servillo) is coolly beautiful and reveals hidden depths and personal honesty in her brief but profound relationship with Girolami.

The disgraced Mafia middle-man, forced to live out an empty life, tormented by insomnia, in a Swiss hotel, becomes caught up in the similarly empty lives of the refined older couple who formerly owned the hotel but are now forced to live there as residents after the husband gambled away their resources years earlier. The husband is constantly dreaming about recovering his lost wealth and making a grand statement to the world. His wife realises this is but a pipe dream. This nicely counterpoints the resignation of Girolami who sees no way out and does not seek one.

The fleeting love affair between Girolami and Sophia has consequences that no one could have foreseen. It enables him to escape his prison without bars but to pay a huge price that he willingly accepts and in doing so provides redemption for the older couple.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen this film so many times, It's that good. Maybe because I can relate to Tittas way of life is the reason why. Not everyone would find it to their taste. Also, my Italien is improving after each viewing. Am I a sad case? Thankyou Mr Sorrentino. I look forward to your next film. Although I did not see the film at a cinema, I have the DVD and would encourage anyone to buy it. The Special feature extras alone is worth the price. The amount of time a director spends on the making of a film is very seldom appreciated, the extras on the DVD gives an excellent insight to the making of a film. As for the story of the film, I'm bias.I happen to rave about it to all my friends, but as I said before, I relate very much to the main character who is a loner in a situation not of his own choosing. The Mafia in Sicily use Titta to launder their money in a Swiss bank. He owes them for costing them Millions of dollars years ago in stock market deal that went wrong.Love kills.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Maybe my rating should have been a 9, but the film absolutely stunned me when viewing it first time and my latest viewing confirmed my initial belief. Stylish yes, every scene has crafted scoped views, terrific angles with a perfect sound side accompanying them.

Put on top great acting from especially Toni Servillo, garner it with one of the most beautiful and charming women in Olivia Magnani, and a fine plot and you will end up seeing this small masterpiece over and over.

Paulo Sorrentinos next movie \"L'Amico De Famiglia\", which is in competition in this years Cannes Festival, will be eagerly awaited.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A true masterpiece by Sorrentino and Tony Servillo demonstrates his exceptional acting ability as the cool, enigmatic Titta.

Yet another example of a must see movie that the everyday person will not receive access, as the high street cinema chains are full of Hollywood funded nonsense. Fortunately I reside in the metropolis and amongst the privileged few who enjoy the choice the art-house cinema provides. I champion the day when cinema investment will be channelled into bespoke film screenings allowing choice for the masses and away from assembling penny sweet counters!

Film of the year for me so far and yes I've seen a few....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Le conseguenze dell'amore (2004)is a beautifully made film that takes small carefully positioned steps towards its ending that need to be savoured in order to be enjoyed. From the contrasting landscapes, to the tightly enclosed world that the hero inhabits, we are taken by the Director and controlled from the very moment we enter the hotel. We, like the hero, will never escape from the suffocating intensity and paradoxical monotony of his criminally driven, Mafia world. That the film resists Mafia stereotypes whilst revelling in them makes it all the more successful. The concrete grave, the inevitable brutal executions and overwhelming maleness are laid bare and exposed for what they are. Just brutality and business, and no more. Life is about being part of the corporate machine that is organised crime and not about love or living for self, family or others. Our hero is indeed a hero in that he gives up his life for the sake of the touch of the beautiful barmaid, the resolution of the misery suffered by his only neighbours in the hotel and in order to escape his decorative prison. The consequences of love are indeed beautiful and brutal at the same time. See it!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The opening shot of the Consequences of Love perfectly sets up this intriguing and absorbing film. A travellator slowly carries a solitary out of focus figure towards the camera, trailing a huge suitcase behind him. Like the central character in the film, we know nothing of him and our initial interpretation of him, his profession, the contents of the suitcase could be way off the mark.

Consequences of Love is that kind of film. From the title you might expect a Bergmanesq dissection of a relationship. What we have instead is a lead character, Titta, living life in emotional exile, seemingly choosing to cut himself off from those around him. If the film can be classified in any way, I would call it a mystery, as we are engaged in working out who Titta is and what he is about. What we know from the start is he is 50'ish, cool, composed and expensively attired. He has lived for the last eight years in a plush looking Swiss hotel, always paying his room fee on time but seldom showing any interest in the staff or other guests.

His only real companions are a couple who he plays occasional card games with. The couple, it transpires, used to own the hotel but have now gambled everything away and have only the room they live in left. Their love of money, antiques and each other was their undoing and Titta seems to identify with their plight. He once had it all, but now is now living as a virtual prisoner in the hotel. His brother, a long haired surf instructor, drops in to see him occasionally, but he sees his visits as more of an intrusion than a pleasure. They talk about the person Titta considers to be his best friend, even though he hasn't seen him for 25 years. This long lost friend is now a telephone engineer, repairing the communication network that brings so many together. Meanwhile Tittas phone calls to his wife and children end quickly when they refuse to speak to him.

Midway through the film Titta makes an uncharacteristic move and begins to open up to a young barmaid from the hotel. With his judgement clouded by emotion he sets himself on a course of actions that will ultimately seal his fate for good.

The slow unfolding of Tittas fall from grace is and beautifully scripted, shot and scored. The thumping techno soundtrack does much to build up the tension as more and more secrets are revealed, the final half hour turning into a taught thriller as Titta lets his mask slip and must once again face the consequences of his actions. The ending, with a visual nod to Felini, is dramatic yet ambiguous and leaves the audience to once more question his motives.

Patrick Bliss, 01\/06\/06","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this interesting film back to back with the Chinese\/French film \"2046\" at the recent Dubai Film festival. Both were intelligent works made the same year (2004\/2005). Both had the main characters living in a \"hotel\". In both films, the hotel is more a metaphor of exile than a location. Both dealt with love between a man and a woman. Both had wonderful music and riveting performances. What a coincidence and yet how the two films differ in treatment of the subject! Somewhere at the beginning of the film, a man walking on a pavement turns to look at a woman and in doing so hits a lamp post. The audience erupts into a volcano of laughter innocently. But isn't that brief shot the synopsis of the film, that entertains you for 2 hours? While the film is a wonderful blend of black comedy (e.g., using a stethoscope to listen to neighbor's conversation), the film builds on what Buster Keaton and Jacques Tati had introduced to cinema earlier--stoic faces that leads to comedy quite in contrast to the equally intelligent world of Robin Williams or the heartwarming Danny Kaye. A sudden frenzy of activity transforms an otherwise stoic character while moving money from the hotel to the bank is reminiscent of Tati's works.

But the film is not mere comedy. The anti-automation statement (cash counting and the reaction of the bank staff to the statements relating to it, the dummy that acts as an ineffectual warning to the speeding lady, the reference to \"Moulimix\" as the fictitious \"company\" he works for, etc.) are several cues that the director is offering a loaded comedy to the viewer. Laugh, yes, but reflect on it and enjoy further..

The movie's strength lies in is brief, staccato script (by director Paul Sorrentino) that offers comedy that is mixed with philosophy (\"Truth is boring,\" \"Dad is dead, but nobody told him,\" \"Bad luck does not exist--it is the invention of the losers and the poor\". Then the director goes on to provide you with a fascinating lecture from the main character on insomniacs. You will not sleep through this lecture.

Sorrentino provides entertainment pegged to the subject the Italians know best--the Mafia. It is an existential mafia film.

Since \"Truth is boring\", the director provides a dessert as part of the fine meal of superb acting (Toni Servillo), good music, clever camera-work (Luca Bigazzi), a beautiful, enigmatic actress (Magnani, grand-daughter of the great Anna) and powerful script. The dessert is for the viewer to figure out whether what preceded in the film was the truth. It would have been boring, if it was, wouldn't it?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is a really well made one, which is great and looking and passionately directed. You can tell that every shot is thought over and executed to perfection. For the lovers of cinema this is especially a great watch and they especially should be able to appreciate the beauty of it and the passion for cinema that is being put into it.

It's hard to place this movie under one label. It's not really a drama, it's not really a thriller and it's not really a comedy. Instead its more a movie with its own style, that does things its own way. It doesn't necessarily follow the rules of cinema and features many different elements from many different genres combined.

But just like the movie its main character, the movie gets sort of slow and boring in parts. The artistic style of directing tries to conceal that the story is actually a quite simple one and it's more as if the movie relied solely on its style and overall atmosphere created by the movie. It doesn't make the movie horrible or anything but it just prevents it from being a true absolute must-see. In parts the movie also feels as if it's trying to be too poetic and tries to let the images speak too much for itself. It just feels a bit overdone in parts, though for most part of the movie it still works out beautifully.

It features some great camera-work and some unique storytelling, which makes this an original as well as a great film to watch.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Someone on these Boards has predicated that the whole thing is being dreamed by the best friend of the protagonist, albeit a friend he hasn't seen for some 20 years. I'm reluctant to dismiss this out of hand but it does raise some viable questions. Why WOULD a telephone engineer - or a shoe salesman or butcher for that matter - WANT to create a mythical world and weave it around a friend populating it in the process with a set of equally mythical supporting characters. With an imagination that good the friend should be WRITING not Dreaming. Dream or not SOMEONE, and the obvious candidate is director Paolo Sorrentino, has created a very watchable world in which Tony Servillo makes stillness a Fine Art. We are asked to believe that forty-something Titta La Girolomo (Servillo) 'upset' the Mafia some years prior to our meeting him and as penance he is a virtual prisoner in a small Swiss hotel from which each week he drives to a local bank with a suitcase containing nine mill large in used notes. Other than this weekly trip he is free to do as he likes and what he likes to do is smoke, play cards with a man who cheats and a wife who reminds the husband how far they have fallen socially, and ignore the friendly overtures of Olivia Magnani, who has spent two years trying to get a smile and\/or a 'good evening' out of him. For reasons best known to himself and which are inconsistent with a man who has no interest in anything or anyone, Servillo spends a certain amount of time every day applying a stethoscope to the wall of his bedroom and listening to the private conversations of his card-playing partners. Eventually he does respond to Magnani - he has to do so or they would be no film. This is plot 6f: the one about Destry, who never wears a gun, or Sean (Duke Wayne), the 'Quiet Man' who refuses to rise to provocation and fight until the obligatory scene where the gun is strapped on and the fists cocked - but instead of contenting himself with a polite come stai oggi he removes 100,000 from the suitcase and buys her a car. The final inconsistency occurs when Magnani tells him she will pick him up the following day at 4 pm in her car and they will drive into the mountains to celebrate his birthday. We've established that she lives locally so why she is then seen driving from somewhere miles away, ignoring a police roadblock to drive off the road and overturn the car is anyone's guess. This inconsistencies apart this remains a fine piece of film-making with an excellent lead performance and a very good supporting one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've read that Paolo Sorrintino's inspiration for The Consequences of Love came from simply observing a businessman alone in a Brazilian hotel, and speculating what he might be doing there. The film unfolds to us in a similar way. We view the existence of Titta who has lived alone in a hotel in Switzerland for 8 years. He is secretive and avoids friendship. His life is dominated by order and regularly. Gradually, the truth of his existence is revealed to us until, finally, his world begins to fall apart.

The mystery of Titta is central to The Consequences of Love and it works thanks in large part to the superb performance by Toni Servillo. His character becomes all the more intriguing to us as little details are revealed - that he injects heroin once a week, that he has no imagination. Although some here criticise the dialogue for not being naturalistic, that doesn't matter in my view - this is not that sort of film, and I think the script is great. The camera work is also excellent.

If you have to criticise, the film does lose its way a in the later scenes as the mystery of Titta's existence is revealed to us, and as his world begins to fall apart. However, the tragic final scenes are every bit as good as the earlier build-up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You could tell from the opening shot of the conveyor belt in the bank that this was going to be a great film.

A touch minimalist in feel with a twist of retro this film oozes style -the brilliant camera-work, acting, script and the manner that the secret life of the protagonist unfolds all complement each other in possibly making the best Italian film I've ever seen (up there with La Stanza Del Figlio - albeit different).

Shame on the people sitting behind me who made it obvious that they couldn't see the relevance of the slow but painfully beautiful scenes meticulously crafted by the camera. Don't miss.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Conrad Phillips stars in the 1950s action adventure series - William Tell. Set in the fourteenth century during the hostile Austrian occupation of Switzerland, William Tell is a reluctant freedom fighter, battling heroically against the tyranny and oppression of the invading forces. William tell is the Swiss version of Robin Hood. Conrad Phillips plays the protagonist fantastically. It is possible that Pascal Bugnion would have had greater success in the role, but he was unavailable at the time of filming. The classic action show is made up of series of 39. The episodes are in black and white, but this does not detract from the entertainment in any way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Son In Law didn't do so hot in the box office, but that only means the masses were wrong. This movie is one of the few movies that Pauly Shore really excels in, with some of the funniest lines I've ever heard. Although the ending is sub-par, the antics of Shore carries the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Along with In the Army!, this ranks as one of Pauly Shore's best movies, if there is such a thing. While the whole West Coast-meets- Midwest-culture-clash isn't anything new, this film proves to make the story a little more entertaining with the wild and unpredictable antics of a then fresh Shore. While the change in values probably would have gone in the other direction, the whole concept was rather entertaining. Not only was Shore's interaction with the family hilarious, it also had Carla Gugino and Tiffani- Amber Theissen (she'll always have the Amber in my book) in two ravishing and early roles. One of those films I have no problem watching when it is on TV.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of our all time family favorites. When we need a laugh...we just put this one in and laugh all way thru like it is the first time we've seen it. This film has good, clean family humor. Pauly Shore is brilliant! With no plans for the thanksgiving holiday, Crawl (Shore) is invited to spend the holiday with a conservative coed, Becca. Crawl, being a big city boy, must adjust to the farm life if he is to fall in love with Becca. But, Crawl isn't the only one who is learning new things. Crawl teaches Becca and her parents how to be more open about their feelings and accepting others. This is fun for viewers of all ages.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love it! I love Pauly Shore. It seems some people don't agree. It's humor, and he's not like everyone else. The movie is great. I love the story line and most of the people in the movie. It's funny from the first time she meets him at school. I like the fact that she chooses him over the guy back home. I like that Tiffani Theissan isn't a bad girl in the end. All the secrets are let out. Only the people you want to see are left in the end. (except for those of you who don't like Pauly Shore.) Even if you don't like him, there are funny parts, and her family tortures him through most of the movie. She's country girl gone wild and needs to be heard. She finally makes it. It's got just the right amount of love and romance. I give it an 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't expect much when I decided to watch this movie, so I was surprised to find myself thoroughly enjoying it. A couple of scenes had me laughing almost uncontrollably. The characters were engaging (no pun intended); however, the story is predictable. The fun of it comes from watching Crawl (Shore's character), a ditzy-yet-wise California dude a country college girl brings home for Thanksgiving, trying in his awkward (yet endearing) way to fit in to their lifestyle. I was also surprised that in all this there was a message. If you have a chance, see this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite myself, I really kinda like this movie. Pauley Shore is invariably laugh-out-loud funny, and here is no exception. He is just excellent at playing the weirdo with a heart of gold.

His performance in this, although nothing out of the ordinary for him, is so good, it seems to lift other cast members' performances. Perhaps this is because he's the kind of guy it's easy to bounce off of.

The clich\u00e9s about country life in this movie are hilarious and the way Shore's \"city boy\", Crawl is so at odds with the way of life, is funny too, but it's not only he who's a fish out of water; comedy also comes from the fact, that to any \"ordinary\" person or people, Crawl is a freakish nightmare of a person. That's why this movie works in such a great way: we love Crawl, he's a breath of fresh air, but we can also sympathise with the Warners. He is one hell of a culture shock.

Although this movie is classic Pauley Shore, so there's no great brain power needed to enjoy the movie, enjoy it you do, and there's even a \"never judge a book by it's cover\" type moral here somewhere. Not bad, not bad at all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the only Pauly Shore movie you should ever see. O.K., it's the only one I've ever seen, and I think I've made good choices. I normally find Shore's shtick kind of tired, but he is very funny in this movie. Actually, the script is pretty funny, and Shore doesn't overwhelm the other actors with his ... what do you call it? Tomfoolery? Anyway, this is a funny, if ultimately forgettable film. --Frink-3","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like Pauly Shore, you'll love Son in Law. If you hate Pauly Shore, then, well...I liked it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've sat through several Pauly Shore movies, but this is the only one that I've liked. Of course, it helps that he is far less irritating than usual, perhaps even a little likeable. The rest of the cast does a fine job, especially underrated Carla Gugino. The film itself is basically a harmless and silly comedy, and although few of the jokes are especially funny, the film is quite entertaining overall.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was such a funny movie, which was soon forgotten about, probably because there are so many teen and young adult comedies, such as this. The movie is not quit as predictable as one would think. Crawl is an unattractive, but fun and caring and most importantly a very devoted friend. Still, an unlikely match for Rebecca, who has an attractive and seemingly kind boyfriend back home. When he helps feel more at ease at school, by showing her around the neighborhood and encouraging her to socialize more, they become buddies, but it is completely platonic. When she realizes her boyfriend might propose, she does not feel ready, he seems to like her boyfriend, but she seems to be enjoying her free laid back party life at college is not yet ready to live a life of marriage and responsibility. You kind of learn what a good friend Crawl is when he tells her he will help get her out of getting married. When her boyfriend proposes to her, in front of the whole family, she kicks Crawl and puts him on the spot. He tells the whole family that he proposes to her, and gives her his diamond ring, which it tunrs out was his the whole time (he must have come from money or something. Well they never really show a close up of the ring). The message of the movie seemed to be not to judge people by their looks and not to judge people before you get to know him. Rebecca's boyfriend, who her parents love, turned mean when we find out he druged his new girlfriend after Rebecca,(Amber Thesan) and Crawl, so that Rebecca would have broken up with Crawl, thinking they were a couple. Although they were not, Rebecca was mad at him, which when you think about it, was kind of unfair, since they were not a couple, but I think they were starting to like one another. And I think she thought there was more. The movie never showed them actually become a couple, they left it open for the viewers to decide. They never even actually kissed at any point, although there was one part where they almost did. That was one thing most viewers seemed to misunderstand. Many people saw it and said, that he would be a nightmare for fathers to see their daughters bring home or a shock, but they were just friends the whole time, even towards the end. And she did not introduce him as her boyfriend; still they never told her parents they were not engaged. Rebecca almost did. Even if he would never become her boyfriend, they could have still been friends. In the 90s for some reason femanin men were in, and there was this big stereo type that woman liked femanin men (not that there is anything wrong with that), think it came from the fact that women like the kind sensitive type, which Crawl proved to be, through his friendship with Rebecca. but when I saw the movie, I must admit, if I went for looks, I thought I would have gone for the first boyfriend. Still it was a creative movie, that tried to teach a lesson on friendship and judging others.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"when i first saw that this movie was going to be playing on TV, i only new of pauly shore as this joke of a comedian who wore really weird outfits back in the day. i still decided to watch it and i was impressed. shore brings a fresh breath of air to the screen. in this movie, he plays crawl a college adviser that probably needs his own adviser as well. carla gugino, in an underrated role, plays becca, a midwestern \"farm girl\" with a simple family and a movie-clich\u00e9 boyfriend travis. when she heads off to ucla, she meets crawl and he quickly turns her into a bubbly, blonde Californian girl. she decides to bring crawl home for the thanksgiving break. when travis decides to propose, becca needs a distraction. crawl then decides to make everyone believe that him and becca are engaged already. this leads to crawl spicing up the romance between becca's parents, befriending her brother, and even getting the dancers at the local bar to get a little loose. i'm not going to reveal the end, but i liked it. anyway, don't rent it if you want a poignant performance; rent it if you want to laugh your butt of and enjoy an often-missed part of 90's humor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this is Pauly Shore's best stuff, he played the part perfect. I really enjoyed this movie, Patrick Renna is really funny as Zack the annoying little brother. Son In Law is a good comedy worth your time, but the only thing I wish Tiffany Thiessen was the farm chick instead of the one they had.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was cast as the Surfer Dude in the beach scenes. Almost got cast as the muscle guy, since the real muscle guy was really really late that day. Pauly had my brother and I (the skateboarder in front of the tattoo place) do some vj stuff in between takes live from Venice since he was still doing his MTV thing. This movie is really good as well. Would it have made my top 100 if I wasn't in it........?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Movie was Great and Funny. Pauly is Funny. The best Looking Girl is all the way Tiffani, she is totally hot in this film and she proves she can act with this film. This Movie is a must See Comedy.... and its not all about Tiffani, its a great Movie in general but Tiffani adds the zest to this Film, cause she does her scenes very well and she is all the way sexy........","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is extremely funny and it also contains the best looking girl, this young man has ever seen. Tiffani-Amber Thiessan is a great actress and she has the looks that stop traffic. Tiffani completes this movie, which contains funny scenes put on by Shore.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The cast was well picked. Pauly Shore is hilarious and does a good job of bringing the plot of the movie together. However, Tiffani Amber Thiessan is who really makes this movie special. Her talented acting combined with her great looks makes this movie a definite see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is like something I have NEVER seen before. It had me cracking up the whole time I don't think there was one scene that I didn't laugh through. It is about a girl from the country in South who goes off to a big town for college. At the school she befriends the RA across the hall. When she realizes that he has no family to go to for Thanksgiving she invites him to come home with her. Rabecca and her family and her serious boyfriend all go out to dinner one night and Becca realizes what her boyfriend is about to do...Propose. She urges Cral to do something so he stands up and shouts something like... Sorry mate but you are too late I already asked Becca to marry me a couple of weeks ago back at the school and she said yes. That all turns into Chaos. Please watch this classic it is totally worth it... I swear.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"By 1952 Hollywood decided to remake the Al Jolson first-talking classic.

This time the Cantor's son was played by Danny Thomas. Coming home from the army, it is expected that he follow in the footsteps of his father and other male relatives by becoming a cantor. However, young Mr. Golding has quite a zest for show business.

At this time, he meets Peggy Lee, an aspiring singer. She acts very well and her rendition of her favorite song, Lover, is remarkable. The film writers were smart not to plug the obvious Jewish guy and non-Jewish girlfriend relationship. If anything, this is glossed over. In his anger, for betraying his pledge to become a cantor, his father makes the traditional Jewish sign indicative of a loss in the family. This would not be done under circumstances of breaking a pledge, it would be done if among the orthodox, an inter-faith marriage would take place.

Thomas does a really good job of playing the cantor's son. His singing is up to par as the film ends on a positive note.

Am surprised that technical advisers did not realize that women do not carry pocketbooks into synagogue on the sabbath or at all during that period.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To be frank, this is probably the best version in my book as a sound movie version of the Jazz Singer. The 1927 version is really a silent movie despite its build-up as the first talkie.

Danny Thomas is a great comedian, and he sings very well. He does the Jewish stuff with feeling. Peggy Lee is great and any film that has her is always entertaining. Allan Joslyn is not too entertaining and we could have done without him. One question: since when do Cantors live in such luxurious houses???","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Jazz Singer is one of a number of films made in the late 1940's and 1950 about the Jewish experience in the United States. Other than Crossfire(1947) and Gentleman's Agreement(1947) which dealt with anti-semitism they usually had a musical-theatre background. These films included The Jolson Story(1946), Jolson Sings Again(1949), The Eddy Duchin Story(1951), The Eddie Cantor Story(1953),The Benny Goodman Story(1956) and Margorie Morningstar(1958). The leading actors in these \"Jewish\" films were always played by non-Jews. For example Larry Parks a non-Jew played Al Jolson and Gene Kelly played Noel Airman in Marjorie Morningstar. This casting was probably done to make the Jewish theme palpable to a mainly non-Jewish audience. The Jazz Singer(1952) is no different. Danny Thomas was a devout Catholic and Peggy Lee was certainly not Jewish although she plays a non-practicing Jewess in the film. The clue to her background is when she attends the Golding's family meal before entering she says \"I haven't been to a sader (passover service) since I left home\".

The film is about a cantor's son who has just left the service after seeing action in Korea. His dilemma is whether to become a cantor, a family tradition or to be a singer in musical theatre. His choice of theatre leads to an inevitable conflict with his father.

However, there is much more to this film than this. This film was made after the Rosenberg trial during the McCarthy whitchhunts and the Hollywood blacklist. Therefore in this film the Jews are shown as good loyal citizens and

are quintessentialy American. The synagogue choir would rather play baseball than practice. The cantors friends also talk about baseball in fact one of them is a Major League umpire. The synagogue itself dates back to 1790 and George Washington is said to have visited. Therefore Jews are presented as part and parcel of American society. Nobody in this film has a Eastern European accent. Peggy Lee appeared in very few feature films. In this film you get to see her sing \"Lover\" and \"Just One of Those Things\" wonderful. Danny Thomas is quite credible and he acts and sings the part very well. The comedic routines could have been left out. Yes, the film is schmaltzy and sentimental but it is well worth seeing. I enjoyed it very much.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Miles O'Keeffe once again assumes the role of the mighty Ator in this the first sequel to the original film.

What can I say? - This pretty much represents B-Movie Nirvana!

The plot is ludicrous, the script is terrible, the acting is hammy throughout, the special effects....well let's not even go there! - all in all this movie is a veritable delight!

Highlights of the film include Ator and Thong (his mute companion, not his undergarments) being attacked by invisible assailants in a cave (certainly saved on the fx budget there!), Ator battling what has to be the most unconvincing giant snake ever committed to celluloid, and of course, the infamous hangliding scene!

There's one question I have though......at the end of the movie we see a huge atomic explosion when Ator supposedly destroys the Geometric Nucleus (as the narrator tells us)......how in the hell did Ator destroy it and manage get out alive?! Did he fashion some form of primitive timer\/detonator or something?

Oh well, such an illogical ending really only adds to the movies overall charm - they just don't make them like this anymore!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When the Italians and Miles O'keeffe work together nothing can go wrong! As ever, Miles is great as the almost as great Ator; the most lovable barbarian of all times. Totally lives up to the first movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Expectacular THE ATOR's second part!! Directed rapidly by JOE D'AMATO, specialist in all kinds of subkinds(subgenres) of exploitation, and interpreted again by MILES O'KEEFFE. the budget of the movie debio to be derisory or minimal. In spite of not being a better movie of his antecesora not mas entertained, ATOR 2 either, it has something, something that makes it enterteining. His introduction you prop it explains ATOR's origin to us with images of the first part. The script is incredible, is like any comic-book of the brilliant ROY THOMAS. has so fantastic elements inside dle world of the SWORD and such FANTASY as invisible men, black gentlemen, cannibals - monkeys ... the role of the villain this one interpreted brilliant. The final this struggle very well. lacking mas violence and blood, but this one well. Never it becomes boring. It has everything what there was lacking ATOR 1. Be charmed with to my me!! 4\/5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film must have been quietly released on some other side of the world, perhaps even in English. Hopefully nobody understood a word, not there's anything to understand in this movie anyways! Haahaa! Call me a nut, but I think this is one of the best movies ever. Why would I come to that conclusion?? Because it's my national pasttime to sabotage horrible films and this one begs for it every other minute! Once I became a fan of Myster Science Theater 3000, I had no doubt in my mind they'd find it somewhere and use it. Sure enough! The version they acquired was entitled \"Cave Dwellers\" using some strange intro footage not even from the film itself (apparently, they were ashamed to use footage from their OWN film!). I can't say I recommend buying this film. Rather, I highly recommend getting the MST3K version. Sure to find it most anywhere MST3K DVD's are sold, don't miss out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the first American film I have seen at this year and I think it will be the greatest one because of the feeling . As a teenage singer in America,Aaron is not as pop as before,most Americans I met said his song is fake and that he even didn't know how to rap.But attention,everyone,he is a kid,how many people can understand him.Being a pop fan is difficult,and being a pop star is more difficult.I think this time Aaron(JD) has shows something real to us.And I think people should learn to understand each other. At another hand,I like the music in the film very much.I remember the first song appeared in the film is \"Saturday Night\" and it also include some Aaron's real live show,And the second one is \"One Better\",so I think if you enjoy this film,maybe you'll be a pop fan,too. At last,I hope you will have a great time^^ A voice from a Chinese boy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A \u00a33.50 DVD can be a gamble and this was one that sort of paid off.

A decent Saturday Night type movie that entertains if you gloss over the obvious plot flaws. Special effects are a bit few and far between with some repetition (and why does London always look as if it's in the 60's ?)

If it had the budget of, say, Armageddon then I'm sure it would have performed better at the Box Office as the story is quite a good one.

Overall, Tycus is consigned to B movie history but if you see it for \u00a33.50 then it's worth buying.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For a movie shot in 18 days and a budget less than 2 million, this little movie that could deserves a 'best we could' award. Interesting premise (aside from the usual meteor stuff) with solid perfs by a cast of familiar faces. 2 thumbs up. Advice to the other reviewer: Don't be afraid to say you liked something.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fans of apocalyptic movies will savor this well-made low-budget thriller that is essentially a remake of the 1951 George Pal classic \"When Worlds Collide.\" A comet is headed for a near-collision with earth, and when his fellow scientists disregard his warnings of doom, eccentric scientist Peter Crawford (Dennis Hopper) gathers a group of private investors to secretly construct an underground sanctuary.

The story unfolds through the eyes of muscle-bound Gulf-war veteran Jake Lowe (Peter Onorati)who inadvertently discovers Crawford's hidden sanctuary and then decides that Crawford is wrong for keeping his project hidden from the rest of humanity. As the comet approaches, the subject of who should live and who should die makes for interesting drama.

While the special effects are not in the same league, I enjoyed the story more than I did Spielberg's War of the Worlds, because I feel this screenplay is better. Some suspension of scientific reality is required, but it's worthwhile for the development of a good story. I highly recommend this film to fans of the genre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Coconut Fred's Fruit Salad Island!\" is a hilarious show that is on Saturday mornings on WB. It stars Coconut Fred and all of his friends on the island, and every episode is a very funny misadventure of theirs. Most of the time, it is because of Coconut Fred's trouble making antics which makes it funny, and other stuff going on on the island at the same time. The humor is great and nobody on the island is very bright at all, which adds it being as amusing as it is. I don't think this could be funnier. The voice talents of the characters are magnificently superior and are exaggerated, which adds to the show's hilarity. If this is ever on DVD, I'm getting it A.S.A.P!

Strongly recommended for a good laugh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fred was such a great show.It was simple but somehow very addicting.I can still remember the days when I'd watch this on Kids WB Saturdays ,but then Kids WB did the unforgivable.Kids WB became like that older relative that tries to act \"hip\" and \"funky fresh\".*shudder*They became like that relative who tries to act all cool ,but the attempt is a cheesy disaster.They pulled Coconut Fred's Fruit Salad Inland and all the other good shows to put on some of the most pointless shows I've ever seen In my life(Johnny Test).The only thing that keeps me watching KWB anymore is the occasional bits of the old shows and the anime on 4kids.It was such a huge mistake to pull this show off of the schedule.This brings me back to my first point... BRING IT BACK!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a sport that prizes quirkiness and treasures it's characters, one of the greatest of them from the 1930s was pitcher Dizzy Dean. He was so colorful a personality he was probably elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame on the strength of that as opposed to his pitching statistics. After all part of the Dean story is that early end to his career.

In the Pride of St. Louis Dan Dailey successfully captures the character of Dizzy Dean, at least the Dean I remember. I'm not old enough to remember him pitching, but I do remember him broadcasting Baseball Game of the Week during the 1960s. For that's part of the Dean story as well, being a pioneer broadcaster on radio and later television. Now that announcers are in the Hall of Fame, there's no question Dizzy belongs there.

Jerome Herman Dean was one of a tribe of sharecropper's kids who had very little schooling, but an amazing talent for throwing a baseball at blinding speed. In fact he had a younger brother Paul Dean who was a pretty good pitcher himself.

Richard Crenna plays Paul in this film and it's one of his earliest film roles. Paul Dean in real life was a quiet retiring sort who's career was also cut short by injuries. Because of that Crenna isn't given much to work with. During the Dean heyday, sportswriters tried to pin the nickname of Daffy on Paul, but it never took.

Joanne Dru, taking a break from playing, western gals in gingham dresses and corsets is first rate as the wise, patient, and understanding Patricia Nash who met and married Dizzy while he was playing for Houston in the Texas League.

In the 1937 All Star Game Dizzy started for the National League. Facing Cleveland's Earl Averill, Dean was hit on the foot by a line drive smack at him. Refusing to listen to medical advice, Dean came back to pitch too early. He'd broken a big toe and put too much of a strain on his arm. He was never the same pitcher and his refusal to accept that is part of the story.

Had he had a career of say ten to fifteen years who knows what pitching statistics he might have rolled up. Dean was the next to last pitcher to win 30 games in 1934 and after Denny McLain(who was something of a character himself)did it 1968 it hasn't been done since.

Dean went into broadcasting and while he was not the first former player to go into the broadcast booth, his colorful game descriptions made him an instant hit. He started broadcasting for the other St. Louis team, the Browns, and the Browns were a pretty miserable team with not much to cheer about. Dean became a star attraction there.

Of course part of the Dean story is the trouble he got into because of his lack of education and his colorful way of expressing himself on the air. That's part of the story I won't go into, but in the film it's handled with tact and humility and your eyes might moisten if you tend to the sentimental.

A fine baseball film, a real tribute to an American success story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dan Dailey gives a sincere and colorful performance as the great Dizzy Dean. His handling of the character is very true to life and captures the flavor of Dean's background and limited education. The film of course centers around Dizzy Deans rise to fame and his sudden trip to the sidelines with an injury he chose to ignore, much to his regret. His wife is splendidly portrayed by Joanna Dru who gives a very down to earth quality to the woman who loved and supported the ballplayer who rose to a \"dizzying height\" so quickly. The portrayal of Dizzy's later career as a sportscaster is honest and unflinching, reflecting his troubles which stemmed from his poor education and his colorful language both on and off the air. Dizzy was quite a character and Daily has breathed life into his story with admirable skill. If you enjoyed this film, I recommend the comedy \"Kid from Left Field\" (1953) wherein Daily plays a down and out has-been ballplayer idolized by his young son (Billy Chapin). Daily again fleshes out a ballplayer in a completely satisfying manner. I heartily recommend Pride of St. Louis to baseball fans everywhere.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a family comedy -- in the very best senses of the term. Uncomplicatedly about faith and family, Ann Blyth, with the help of everybody's favorite Grandpa, Edmund Gwenn, gets divine help in lifting the O'Moyne's above the would-be vengeance schemes of Goldtooth McCarthy (John McIntire). Pure fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wonderful family film that should be a staple at Christmas time. It's a mystery to me why it isn't. A true lost film that I first encountered, flickering away on my old 19\" black and white RCA, when the Million Dollar Movie was still in vogue on Channel 9 in New York City. This Rudolph Mate directed fantasy should be nestled under everyone's Christmas tree. But it has never been released on home video. Too bad. I believe I saw part of it on AMC a few years ago, before they cut many of their older films from the rotation. TCM should take up the slack and play it at Easter or on Christmas Eve. Any movie with Santa, Aunt Bee, the Hostess Cupcake Lady, and an actor with the first name King, can't be bad. Ann Blyth as \"Sally\" is a bundle of energy. During her school years, she rushes over to the chapel to pray for St. Ann to help and give guidance to her mixed-up and financially strapped family. It works. So, after she graduates, she places a statue of St. Ann in her own bedroom. At one point the entire O'Moyne residence is moved to another address. I think this was done to put an end to a neighbor dispute between the O'Moynes and the dastardly fellow next door. Blyth is cute as a button. Edmund Gwen can play the reclusive grandfather in his sleep. All-in-all, this is a satisfying movie experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film centered on a young lady who makes prayers to help her family and friends when they encounter difficulties in life. It made me think of other movies like the \"Song of Bernadette\" and \"Francis of Assisi\" and has a very strong Catholic faith influence in the film. Ann Blyth is very charming as first, the Catholic school student and then later as a young woman who buys a statue of Saint Anne (which is the name of the street that I live on, by the way) and makes many prayers for the saint's intercession whenever problems come up in her life. Frances Bavier (Aunt Bea from the Andy Griffith show) and Edmund Gwenn (from Miracle on 34th Street) play relatives of her. A local priest of mine used to say that my sister resembled Ann Blyth and the both of them have the same first and middle names. A nice good family film that came from an era when life was a bit more simpler.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie a long time ago, but I've always loved it. The story is about a young girl, Sally O'Moyne who finds out at a young age that when she prays to St. Anne, her prayers are answered, hence her missing lunch pail and a mean neighbor who tattles on her and she prays, that someone should give him a black eye for tattling. Well, a minute later something hits him and he has a black eye. Sally then believes in the power of prayer and decides to use that power for good. She is well known and loved around the neighborhood as she has copybooks\/journals filled with all her friends requests to St. Anne.

Meanwhile, a local boy returns home from college (I believe) and Sally is awestruck at how much he's grown-up. Sally has a huge crush on him, but is so shy. Should she use her power of prayer to St. Anne for her own selfish desire or just watch as the most popular girls in school try to snare the man of her dreams? This is a fun filled movie with a grandfather who is so charming and Irish, brother's who are hilariously annoying and a sworn Irish neighbor-enemy who spars with grand-pop on an everyday basis. He has his own story of wanting to buy the O'Moynes property which is a little house in the middle of two huge apartment complexes (his own), in other words, the O'Moynes house is an eye-sore to his lovely buildings.

This movie is definitely worth a watch and is good enough and rare enough to add to your movie collection. I hope you enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sally and Saint Anne is a very funny movie. The first time my Mom told me about it I was 7 and Saint Anne had just been the Saint I had for my Communion Saint. My Mom knew this, so she told me to watch this with her. I did, and have seen it many times since because it is really funny. Aunt Bea from the Andy Griffith Show was in it and Sally's grandfather was the guy who played Santa Claus in Miracle On 34th Street. So, there were lots of actors we seen on TV shows too. There is a bad guy who keeps trying to steal the house away, and Sally keeps trying things with St. Anne to help raise money so they can keep the house. That includes a boxing match with Hugh O'Brian who plays her older brother. This is a good and funny movie that I still love.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie, one of my all time favorites. Ann Blythe as Sally O'Moyne is sweet and trouble-free. She believes that praying to Saint Anne will solve all her and her friends troubles. The sub-plot of the dastardly bad man to get her father's property is funny and clever. Her brothers are what kind of brothers any girl would love to have. Also, look for \"Aunt Bee\" as her mother, a strong Irish woman who won't leave her house that she brought her family up in. They don't make them like this anymore, that's for sure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Miss Cast Away\" is an amusing trifle, which dispenses with serious plot or character development to pack in as many gags as possible. Best enjoyed with a large audience that is open to such entertainments and perhaps, has had a few drinks. Most of the jokes are current-event based so in future years this film may become a time-capsule of turn-of-the-21st-century pop culture references.

The 30i to 24p conversion of the footage does create a jerky appearance in some parts, most noticeably the opening aerial shots.

The appearance of Micheal Jackson is indeed a strange non-sequiter event. But I, for one, find it encouraging that Mr. Jackson has shown a helpful interest in one of his prot\u00e9g\u00e9s even after he (the director) has passed from the cute-preteen-boy stage.

The effects work is not as bad as one review suggested. Most of it was done by a one-man crew in a brief span of time consisting of animator William Sutton, whose name seems to have been omitted from the IMDb credits. His work is an extraordinary achievement and really helps to fill in the gaps in this movie. I hope he's finally been paid!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't understand why this movie has such a low rating. It totally deserves more! Sure, it's completely ridiculous, but that's what it was supposed to be. Don't expect cinematic transcendence from a movie about beauty pageant contestants stranded on a Caribbean island! What you should expect is a huge spoof of pretty much every relevant sci-fi, fantasy and block-buster movie in cinematic history, and even references to other spoofers. All completely exaggerated and sometimes totally unnecessary, but that's exactly what makes this movie stand out. If you like parodies, and enjoy say, Leslie Nielsen or Mike Myers, you're gonna love this. I sure did!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like silly comedies like Airplane you'll love this movie! It's definitely in the style of Airplane and Scary Movie. A fun film! It has the strangest cast of characters all in the same movie. Michael Jackson, Evan Marriott, Joyce Giraurd, Stuart Pankin, Charlie Schlater and Eric Roberts. The special effects are hokey, but I think they're supposed to be since it's a silly comedy. There is apparently two versions of the film, one at Blockbuster and one on the official website: MissCastaway.com. The one on the website appears to be a preview release version signed by the director. There's some fun behind the scenes material filmed at Neverland with Michael Jackson as well. The movie was filmed in 2003 and says it's PG rated fun on the box.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, I think we're all agreed that Michael Jackson was the low point.

And the special effects too. But, please, keep in mind that this was NOT a big-budget film, okay? Not every film gets as much of a budget as Harry Potter or Star Wars.

However, I thought it was pretty funny altogether. B-? Nothing that would, in my opinion, waste your time.

Parodies are always fun to watch, and just because it wasn't big budget doesn't mean it's bad.

I think this was a good movie, if weak at some points.

Hope this comment helps. ~Angela","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"-That's pretty much the whole soundtrack to this film. I just saw this baby at the Munich Film Festival and it rocked the house. Director Doug Pray is never seen in this documentary, nor I think he is even heard, but he has done a very intimate look into the lives and history of the \"mixer.\" He has segmented his film into about eight chapters and then his motley group of enthusiastic interviews will be spiced throughout according to what they are talking about. I was never big into \"scratching\" but the film does a wonderful job of keeping elementary for those who know little, and infusing in-jokes for those who are experts themselves in this area. Mix Master Mike from the Beastie Boys is in this film, but it wasn't until after the film that I could name several heavy hitters in the industry (DJ Shadow, Q- Bert, etc). The extreme fascination for turntables by these talented and quirky DJs is evident in their explanations of what their music means to them. The film also sheds some gratifying light on these guys (and one woman) to be classified as musicians. Pray doesn't let his film idle and if there exists a slow scene it is soon re-energized by hardly ever ceasing music. If nothing else, this film will increase your slang vocabulary. I have to get back to \"digging\", so I'll end this review. See it, it will be of interest. Good stuff man. Good stuff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not a fan of scratching, but I really dug this movie. It gave me a real insight into a world I never had a clue existed; and what else is a documentary for? Funny, clever, hip - just like Pray's previous film, Hype! about the grunge music scene.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The omission of Jazzy Jeff, the creator of the chirp and transformer scratch, raised a few eyebrows, but it's good to see he made it to the extras of the DVD after all. With SCRATCH, Doug Pray, who previously chronicled the grunge phenomenon of the '90s in HYPE (1996), made an excellent documentary about the world of the hip-hop DJ and the evolution of turntablism. His latest documentary, INFAMY (2005), explores contemporary American graffiti culture. After a couple of viewings four years ago, my DVD had been gathering dust ever since, but recently I watched it again and besides the subject material, I was surprised how well-shot and edited this documentary actually is. An immensely enjoyable soundtrack as well and not just talking heads, but lots of music, old school footage, parties, break dancing, you name it. One of the best things about the film, is that it mainly examines where the art of turntablism is today (in 2001 that is), without disregarding the pioneers of course. Good stuff.

Camera Obscura --- 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a huge fan of hip-hop and turntablism to begin with, I always knew I would like this film. However, I wasn't prepared for just how good the documentary actually is. It covers almost all the important aspects of the only element of hip-hop which has been there from the very start. The \"story\" begins in the early 70's, and follows the evolution of turntablism as an art from up until early 2000 (turntablism aficionados will point this out as significant).

The editing is nigh on perfect throughout the film. Aside from the excellent visual \"scratch\" techniques which they used, the rapid cutting between interviews and the stock footage is excellent, giving the film pace when it is needed. The sound editing is also very good, with some nice sweeping sounds being used to help with transitions.

The absence of a narrator was also welcome. We aren't taken by the hand through the story, and as a result the audience is able to make their own assumptions easier. Each DJ adds another side to the story, and it is so interesting to hear about the unknown stars of hip-hop, especially those who were there when hip-hop was being shunned left, right and centre by the music business.

Although there are many excellent things about this film, I do have a few gripes. The biggest of these is the absence of several notable DJs, such as Ca$hMoney and Jazzy Jeff, and also DJs from outside America, such as Scratch Perverts and DJ Noise. However, if you watch the commentary on the DVD (something which I highly recommend), producer and director go in to great depth about how they regret not being able to feature them. The deleted scenes contain many interviews with Ca$hMoney, Jazzy Jeff and the Scratch Perverts.

This is definitely the best documentary I've seen on hip-hop culture and music. It does stop short of showing the true potential of turntablism; for that I highly recommend checking out the DMC and ITF videos. However, that is a minor quibble. I highly recommend this movie, not least for the phat soundtrack, with excellent music throughout. (9\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Scratch is a documentary about DJs and their art of scratching. From that one line description of the film you would have no idea how entertaining and educational this little film is. It is a joyous and vibrant celebration of a cool subculture which is little known. It's filled with great underground hip hop music and you get to see some top DJs (e.g. DJ Q-Bert, DJ Shadow, and Mix Master Mike from the Beastie Boys) showing off their stuff. Going into the film I wasn't sure that \"scratching\" can really be called an art form, or that the turntable can be viewed as an instrument in its own right. Scratch completely changed my mind on these points. What these guys do with their turntables is truly amazing--it is definitely some kind of art--and the turntable, if you know how to use it, can be transformed into an instrument that you can \"play,\" as much as a drum or a guitar. And you even get a lesson on the basics of scratching from DJ Q-Bert (e.g. how to use the fader to get different sound effects). All these DJs in their own way were inspired to take up the art of scratching after watching Herbie Hancock perform his song \"Rock It\" (you remember that song, don't you?) live at the Grammys. What got their attention was not Hancock himself but his DJ and his scratching. Not only is Scratch about scratching, but it does some \"scratching\" of its own thanks to the creative way in which this documentary is shot and edited. There are moments where clips are quickly \"rewound\" and then \"forwarded\" several times, which mirrors (in the film medium) what happens when a DJ quickly moves the record on his turntable back and forth while using his fader (that \"wicka-wicka-wicka\" sound). Whether you're a fan of hip hop or not, you can count on Scratch to give you a very enjoyable night at the movies. After seeing it, I had an itch to go buy a turntable of my own. And I mean this as a compliment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wonderfully funny, awe-inspiring feature on the pioneers of turntablism. DJ Shadow and Q-Bert are amazing in this terrific documentary. Check out just about every major DJ crediting their getting in to scratch thanks to Herbie Hancock's post-bop classic 'Rockit', and archival footage of some of the most complex and mind-blowing turntable routines of all time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is essentially for those who have had little or no introduction to hip-hop, specifically turntableism, as was the case with the director before he started this film. It was cool to have it focus on the bay more than expected, because NY is always getting all the credit, but comin from the bay the Q-Bert worship is a little out of control. This film didn't introduce anything new to me, but it did change my opinion in that going into it I was sketchy about the prospect of giving the tables the distinction of being a bona fide instrument. This film ought to convince anyone that it's right up there with the viola and clavichord.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow - most of the audience just seemed to shake their heads through much of this documentary at the sheer wizardry displayed on screen.

The shift from the early days as a New-York based black-American phenomenon to current days as a racially diverse subculture (and largely West Coast-based) is profiled well.

The humble turntable is not given the respect of any traditional musical instrument, but it can be so much more versatile and technically complex. These DJs take the required skills for any musical instrument - dexterity, rhythm and timing, among others - and apply them to a new technology with several more variables.

DJ Qbert's comment that he pictures what \"music\" must sound like on advanced planets and then works it out, seemingly silly at first, makes more and more sense as you watch these guys go and spit out a multitude of sounds that no single traditional instrument could ever create!

Some critics have said that this film focuses too much on certain 'stars' and squanders an opportunity to profile the wider hip-hop culture. One film at a time people!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"just saw this film at resfest and was floored. i've never been a huge fan of scratching, but this film had me hooked from the getgo. it's listed as a documentary, but never really felt like one. (can't remember the last time i had so much fun watching a documentary). it has a style and an energy that is refreshing, insightful, and never too preachy. the production values were up there too. (shot on film with cool cuts and an amazing soundtrack). overall a smart, entertaining, and enlightening piece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...scratch it. Just as African's created rhythms with the jawbone of an ass and Virgin Islanders welded oil drums into ear pleasing steel bands, so did urban DJ's itch to scratch in the pursuit of new methods of creative expression. \"Scratch\" is a wholly unnarrated documentary which will take you to the heart of the hip-hop\/rap movement and explore the genesis of turntablism, the art of scratching vinyl, and the ultimate DJ\/MC contempo entertainment expression. The film reveals some surprisingly intelligent and articulate \"Scratchers\" with startlingly unique abilities in concert and competition where the beat meets the street. Good stuff for anyone interested in grass roots or ghetto gutter movements in sound art. (B)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What about DJ Cash Money??? This film fails in part by not covering the mid to late 80s. There was only a small mention of DJ Cheese in 86.

Also, it's Grandmixer \"DST\", not \"DXT\"!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent performance. There still are good actors around! Also great directing and photography. Very true to Shakespear, and a 'must' for all Shakespear fans. Macbeth (Jason Connery) moved me to tears with his final monolog (out brief candle, out)He gave the sphere of moral decay and dark forces a human face, which makes it the more interesting. Helen Baxendale is a very credible lady Macbeth who can be very cheerfull at times and sometimes she just looks like a naughty girl, but deadly in her taste for blood and evil. If you love death and decay, and Shakespears lyrics... this is the one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent performance. There still are good actors around! Also great directing and photography. Very true to Shakespear, and a 'must' for all Shakespear fans. Macbeth (Jason Connery) moved me to tears with his final monolog (out brief candle, out)He gave the sphere of moral decay and dark forces a human face, which makes it the more interesting. Helen Baxendale is a very credible lady Macbeth who can be very cheerfull at times and sometimes she just looks like a naughty girl, but deadly in her taste for blood and evil. If you love death and decay, and Shakespears lyrics... this is the one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every review I have read so far seems to have missed a crucial point. Shakespeare wrote for the accent and the pronunciation just as he did for northerners in other plays. The Scottish accent changes the emphasis and rhythm of the language and affects profoundly what is said and the way it is taken. So, listen again and note the difference. The play is well done and the rhythm of the words are so much better than that provided by people using received, polite, well- enunciated English. I am reminded of the time a teacher in a school in Leicester, unknowingly, asked me, age 14, to read a piece of Walter Scott which was written in the tone of the Border. I come from the Border and when I read it as it should be read it made all the difference.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What do you mean son of actor, not an actor. You don't become an actor just because your daddy is a superstar---it doesn't work that way, not in UK at any rate.

Macbeth (this version) is a low budget Scottish movie. You can't compare this to the Polanski version because Polanski has all the budgets in the world.

Jason acted throughout school, but his big break came in 1985, when he landed the role of Robin Hood in Britain's \"Robin of Sherwood\" television series. He has appeared in many films since then, including \"Shanghai Noon\" and \"Lord of the Rings 2\u2033. Jason has since moved behind the camera, forming the production company, Unconditional Entertainment. He recently wrapped filming on his latest movie, which stars Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Ray Winstone.

And all this has nothing to do with being the son of Sean Connery. If you think Jason said to Sean, \"daddy, I wanna be in Macbeth movie that they are going to film,\" and Sean said, \"sure, son, whatever you say,\" and made a phone call and got his son the role, you are mistaken. In fact, Jason Connery is being cut out of his father's will. Seeing as how his father is Sean Connery, that's a big chunk of change Jason will be losing out on. The reasoning behind the decision is apparently Sean's strong feelings that his only son should learn to provide for himself. The relationship has become fairly strained, with Jason even threatening to change his name.

------------------------------------ Of being the son of Sean Connery,

\"I realize that I'm always going to be compared to my father. There are innuendos all the time. Should I spend my whole life justifying myself?\" ------------------------------------

So stop being a jackass and accuse him of not being able to act just because he is son of Sean Connery (big deal!).

Watch Jason in Bullet to Beijing and you'll form a different opinion about his acting ability.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thank goodness not all Dutch people are that ruthless. I think Jason is being judged like that by most people, simply because he has a famous father. Maybe he's not as great as some of those actors, but he's definitely not as bad as suggested.

I watched the movie some years ago, and I actually loved it. I knew Jason from other movies and of course Robin of Sherwood. But I must say I really liked his acting from this movie on. It was really good!

During the movie, I actually forgot he was the son of. Sean.. who?

And if you're a Shakespeare lover, I can recommend this movie. I'm sure you'll enjoy it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the fourth full-length feature film by Marc Recha. By the third 'les mans buides' -Empty hands- I promised myself not to cut my veins anymore. But this time round the plot is completely different -a kind of homage to Ramon Barnils (Sabadell 1940 - Reus 2001) a Catalan journalist-. The visuals in the trailer are stunning -a gleaming river bathed in sunlight- and the promise that Marc himself would be in front of the camera with his twin brother -none of both professional actors- convinced me at last, six weeks after its release. Abandon yourself in this very unusual road\/river film. Learn almost nothing about Ramon Barnils but his most poignant legacy: his constant fight against amnesia of what we Catalans chose to forget. 'La batalla de l'Ebre' -look for Battle of the Ebro at the wikipedia- was lost not once but twice because after 40 years of silence and 25 years of half-hearted democracy nobody has done much to remember the legitimate side of the Spanish civil war and those who fought it. This film is about the lonely people roaming the same places with very little conscience of what took place there 70 years ago. This film is about the landscape.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In August Days\/Dies d'agost Marc Recha has given us a sun-saturated Catalan documentary-style road movie that's mostly a meandering improvised meditation on brotherhood and reclaiming the dead. The beautiful sometimes large-scale, richly atmospheric 35 mm. landscape images, nice soundtrack and Catalan-language narration are enchanting as a mood piece, if one is content with a trajectory that hasn't much momentum and doesn't lead anywhere in particular. Filmmaker Marc Recha and his non-identical twin David are the stars and the narrative is voiced by their younger sister. Marc had been researching the life of Ramon Barnils (1940-2001), a socialist editor who had been a family friend. He felt he was saturated with information and had to take a break. The break turned into making this film, which seeks to capture the mood of the interviews with Barnils' associates, thoughts about the Spanish Civil War, the drought season they were experiencing, the rugged landscape, the Recha brothers' affection for each other, swims and suntanned nudity and whatever characters or stories they ran into as they camped out of their van. This leads to pursuit of a giant catfish and the temporary disappearance of one of the brothers. In the end David has to go back to Barcelona to be with his daughter and Marc has to return to his project, and there it ends. I found it fascinating to listen to an extended narration in the Catalan language with its blend of Spanish and French-sounding words (perhaps linked with Proven\u00e7al?). This isn't a major film but it commands attention and makes sense as a film festival choice with its clean visual and auditory beauty and its way of playing around with genres and blending autobiography with fiction and documentary in a fresh and thought-provoking way.

An official selection of the 2006 New York Film Festival at Lincoln Center.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Freely, from one scene to another, from one story to another, just like when walking, from a shadowy path to an open place, like the wind in the leaves, from a tree to another, how many different sounds ? Just like when traveling, people meet and tell their stories and then part forever, who knows ? And just like when walking through these places full of the lost expectations from another time, the human 'thickness' of the world takes the breath away.

I saw this movie with friends of mine, not all of them liked it, maybe were they too used to scenario-based and ready-made stories, I don't know. So this movie is for the silly ones who love looking at the sun sparkling on the sea, walking without any hurry in the hills or through the little villages, listening to the growing grass, which tells the stories of those underneath, six feet under, in the warm wind of summer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a huge fan of the $5.50 DVD bin at my local WalMart. Hopefully you have one at your local branch. You can find a bunch of campy flicks, a bunch of trash, and the occasional surprise. This movie is one of the surprises. My friend recently bought this one, and in thinking it would be another cheesy kung-fu laugh riot, I was genuinely surprised at how good it was. I watch a lot of movies, and as a result, I can almost always call how a movie will turn out; and if there's a plot twist, what it will be. Not this movie! The directing is brilliant, the plot is awesome, and the fighting is unbelievably inventive. If you see this one sitting around somewhere at a dirt-cheap price, get it! If you see it at full price, I would still recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I bought this a while back, during a massive martial arts movie phase. Although this certainly ain't the best, I do love this kind of film making, and there was a lot to keep me entertained in this one. Leung Kar Yan is one of my favorite martial arts stars, I always appreciate the fact that, whilst he lacked formal martial arts training, he usually gave a more than capable fighting performance. He also has a good beard. This movie has him in a good, heroic role and although he doesn't kick as much ass as in some of his other movies, he still acquits himself well. Early appearances from Cherie Chung and Chow Yun Fat are also nice too see, especially for the fact that Chow Yun Fat takes on the bad guys without his trademark gun play. He may not be a great fighter but he does OK. Eddy Ko is as great a bad guy as ever, he performs the same villainry as in many of his other films and does it great, as per usual. The fellow who plays Bu is good too, I don't recall his name, but he's in Magnificent Butcher too. Although the fighting isn't as good as other movies of the era, The postman fights back makes up for it with a lot of imagination, quality cinematography and a nicely quirky ambiance. There are some very nifty scenes, good characters and a good eclectic mixture of Hong Kong talents all coming together to decent effect. All in all, I would recommend this to kung fu and general Hong Kong action fans. It may not be a stylised classic like the Shaw Brothers films, or as crowd pleasing as Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee, but it is rock solid entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sometimes it's hard to define what separates a successful, delightful comedy from one that falls flat. In this case, the contrived plot about a spoiled rich girl who schemes to take her nieces away from the Greenwich Village 'bohemian' who is raising them, only to fall for him herself, is not promising. And nothing in director Leigh Jason's filmography suggests that he was an overlooked major talent. And yet he must have been responsible for creating a relaxed, happy atmosphere on the set that was faithfully recorded on film.

He also had the good sense to cast this movie properly. The one small flaw is Miriam Hopkins in a part that Ginger Rogers would have been perfect for. Hopkins is efficient but brittle, lacking the warmth and sexiness Rogers would have had. She is further hampered by a pair of bizarrely long and sooty false eyelashes that are sometimes a distraction. But a very young and very handsome Ray Milland couldn't be better in an exuberant, uninhibited comic performance of great charm.

And better than that, particularly for New York City residents, is the Hollywood depiction of Greenwich Village in 1937. Though completely synthetic and idealized, it remains recognizable to a contemporary viewer. Art director Van Nest Polglase created an amiable jumble of mews apartments and ramshackle shared backyards that is the perfect backdrop for this picture's collection of artists, strivers, smart-alecks and wannabes. Best in the supporting cast is Guinn Williams, bringing sweetness and light to his role as a prizefighter-sculptor-dressmaker, suggesting the self-invention and fluidity (sexual and otherwise) of life in the Village. Even more refreshing are Betty Philson and Marianna Strelby playing the little girls. Plain, intelligent and full of humor, these girls seem like real human beings and are nothing like the professional child actors of the time.

Of special interest are a couple of memorable comic set-pieces: Ray Milland's vacuum cleaner demonstration to a woman with a howling baby is played with more spontaneity than one expects (the baby and his contortions are marvelous 'found' moments) and a phony domestic 'play' in a department store window that degenerates into a free-for-all is also fun. The movie slides slowly downhill with a straight-faced custody trial and then never quite gets back on track when the action moves to Long Island, but this movie is still worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Society heiress Susan Fletcher (Hopkins) and her wealthy father Simon Fletcher (Henry Stephenson) are vexed that their young nieces Joan (Betty Philson) and Katie (Marianna Strelby) are living a Bohemian lifestyle in Greenwich Village with their artist uncle John (Milland) after the death of their parents (Susan's sister and John's brother). Simon has given up trying to convince John to allow he and Susan to take care of the children and have resorted to using private detectives to catch him in either unbecoming behavior or unemployed and therefore unable to care for the children properly. Susan finally decides to take matters into her own hands and goes to Greenwich Village herself, posing as an actress, to try to gain information and\/or persuade him to see reason. What she discovers however, is that she not only likes the free and artistic lifestyle John and his friends are living and that the girls are being brought up well, but that she is quickly falling in love with John. Inevitably, her true identity is discovered and she is faced with the task of convincing everyone on both sides of the custody debate who should belong with whom.

I really enjoyed this film, and found that its very short running time (70 minutes) was the perfect length to spin this simple but endearing story. Miriam Hopkins, one of the great 1930's-1940's actresses is delightful in this film. Her energy, style and wholesome beauty really lend themselves to creating an endearing character, even though you know that she's pulling a fast one on the people she quickly befriends. This is the earliest film I've seen Ray Milland in, and he was actually young and non-patrician looking. (And apparently three years younger than his co-star) His energy and carefree manner in \"Wise Girl\" were a refreshing change to the demeanor he affects in his usual, darker, films. Honestly, though I am usually not remotely a fan of child actors, I really enjoyed the two young girls who played Susan's nieces. They were endearingly precocious, and were really the jewels of the film. Unfortunately, I can't dig up any other films that either of them were subsequently in after this one, which is a shame since both exhibited a large amount of natural talent.

\"Wise Girl\" was a film that was made three years after the Hollywood Code was instated, and to some extent, this was abundantly clear by the quick, happy ending, and the pie in the sky loftiness and ease with which the characters lived. The alleged Bohemian co-op was in fact a gorgeous cul-de-sac where the artists lived for free or for trade, and everything is tied up very nicely throughout. Fortunately, this was a light enough film and the characters were charming enough to make allowances for its fluffiness and short-comings and I was able to just take \"Wise Girl\" for what it was; a good old-fashioned love story that was as entertaining as it was endearing. Unfortunately, films of the romantic comedy\/drama genre today are considerably less intelligent and entertaining, or I wouldn't find myself continuously returning to the classics. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of all the major 30s star actresses, Miriam Hopkins has been the most bizarrely overlooked and underrated. Her string of excellent 30s and 40s films is quite impressive but she is often referred to as stagy or brittle. Yet she had a great sense of humor and was memorable in several comedies, including this film, Old Acquaintance (with Bette Davis), and The Smiling Lieutenant (with Maurice Chevalier and Claudette Colbert). Hopkins was famous for her dislike of Hollywood, and the results has been a bad rep--undeserved.

In Wise Girl she play an heiress trying to rescue the children of her dead sister from their guardian--the sister's brother-in-law (Ray Milland). The film offers several hilarious scene such as Hopkins taking a bath is a storeroom, Hopkins joining Milland and Guinn Williams in a Greenwich Village restaurant for $3 apiece to act as \"bohemians,\" and Hopkins going ringside during one of Williams' fights. Milland is also excellent and very funny.

Hopkins and Milland make a great couple. The film also boasts solid support from Williams, Walter Abel, Henry Stephenson, James Finlayson, Margaret Dumont, Grace Hayle, Leonid Kinskey, and Inez Palange. The two girls are OK.

But Hopkins, drunk on a \"slice of wine\" and wearing a pinned-together dress that is twice her size is hilarious as she blows at stray hairs while smoking.... A scream.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"... the beat is too strong ... we're deaf mutants now--like them\", Rex Voorhas Ormine

I am surprised that this movie has been uniformly bashed. Let me be the first to actually discuss the virtues of \"The Beat\" and why YOU MUST SEE THIS FILM NOW.

Make no mistake, this movie is cheesy and \"bad\" in the conventional sense: the story is preposterous, the poetry is silly, and the acting is inconsistent.

But these are the film's CHARMS--all of these ingredients form the recipe for one of the most UNDERAPPRECIATED CHEEZY FILMS of the 80's.

If the reference to \"deaf mutants\" didn't pique your interest, then perhaps this will: What kind of name is \"Rex Voorhas Ormine\", anyway? It is such an unusual name (for North American audiences) that I said to myself, \"even the names of the characters in this friggin' movie are firggin' silly.\"

Well, \"The Beat\" is so fabulously cheezy that the \"meaning\" and \"symbolism\" behind \"Rex Voorhas Ormine\" is revealed not-too-subtly by Bart Waxman (the misguided guidance counselor you love to hate). I won't spoil the revelation behind Rex's name, but please don't get too excited, O.K.?

Overall, the acting is inconsistent (John Savage--who plays the \"concerned teacher\" Mr. Ellsworth is pretty good, as is the fellow playing Bart Waxman, but the rest of the cast are unconvincing). That said, the acting does NOT detract from the film. Why? There is a SINCERITY in each of the actors' performances that makes the characters they play endearing. So although the performances may suck, you are still left with the impression that the actors are really trying to do their best. As a result, the actors' sincerity succeeds where their acting fails (which is quite often).

The homage to \"beat poetry\" in this film is bad, bad, bad. But this is a good, good, good thing when it comes to entertainment. Would you actually enjoy \"better quality\" or \"more respectable\" poetry--especially in a film like this?

Folks, that would be BORING (think about the droll they made us read in high school--sanitized to avoid \"corrupting the youth\", politically conservative and devoid of any critical analysis, etc.) Even if you don't like poetry or \"arty\" movies (with all of the \"intellectual\" posturing that implies), you most certainly can (and should) appreciate LUDICROUS POETRY in a WANNABE ART FILM!!!! How could you not enjoy the following?

\"do you remember the roar of the dinosaur? a woman's scotty craps on the floor bad scotty bad, oh the woman's so sad she washes her hands and then waits by the door today, yeah--today!\"

Yes, that is an example of some of the remarkable poetry liberally sprinkled throughout \"The Beat.\" But what about the story, you ask?

Well, the story is preposterous. But then again, that is the beauty of this film. Apart from some cliches, stereotypes, and predictable plot points, there are enough genuinely unique elements to the plot\/story to keep things interesting. Who is Rex? Where did he come from? What the heck is he talking about? Deaf mutants? Illiterate angels? Do Billy and Kate REALLY understand what Rex is saying? Is the audience supposed to understand Rex and his poetry posse? (I've seen the movie several times and I still haven't figured everything out.)

Will bad poetry and high school talent shows really END GANG VIOLENCE?

I guarantee that you have never seen anything quite like \"The Beat\"--a perfect combination of brilliantly bad poetry, mediocre-yet-sincere acting, and a \"mythopoetics conquers gang violence\" storyline that has YET TO BE RIVALLED BY ANY FILM EVER MADE.

Bonus for fans of classic NYC hardcore: The Cro-Mags make a rare film appearance as the \"Iron Skulls\" and it's a hoot to see them perform several songs. I wish they included more concert footage, but maybe that will be an \"extra\" included on the \"collector's edition\" DVD I fantasize about.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My first review at IMDB, after a few years of using this site constantly...

Anyways, saw this on the tube the other night, loved it. It's in the mindset of a Dangerous Minds or a Substitute, but much better. Was sure for a moment that Rex was Speedy Levitch, in Waking Life, but after checking, it doesn't seem so.

I can see why many have problems with this plot and its poetry, but I also think these people are close-minded. Admittedly the ending wasn't quite what I was hoping for, but overall it was so unique and well-acted, I can't complain. I wouldn't call this cheesy, as one reviewer did, it pulled off the scene better than most films of the 80's did. And they refrained from playing any really dateable 80's music.

Can't remember everything that made me smile when I saw this, but basically it realistically showed very creative individuals surrounded by mediocrity, and whether I share Rex's beliefs or not, I love original attempts to describe the meaning of life. And his Mutant theory is, to my knowledge, original. He rambled a lot as well, but they showed how confused he was at times, and why he might have some psychological issues. And then in his moments of clarity he was a philosopher extraordinaire, a person who noticed the little details in life and tried to give expression to them.

Also I was very impressed with John Savage as the teacher. Usually actors fail at that role. He pulled it off brilliantly.

If you enjoyed Waking Life, I say watch this movie if you get a chance.

9.5\/10

pk","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think it's the sort of film you either love or hate and I'm really not the type to go in for arty movies. My mother rented \"mullhuland DR\" the other night and I nearly ran from the room, ha. But I love this film.

We recorded \"The Beat\" one night when we had just let the tape run and got a great film that way by accident. Saved that tape and watched it a lot. I eventually got the VHS to add to my collection. I've watched it many times and at one point copied down the poems. I even tried to preform one scene for my high school drama class. She had said we could do any scene we wanted and just cut out the bad words. She refused to let me do it. If it could upset my drama teacher that much it has to be good :) Honest she never treated me the same after that.

I liked the acting it came off very true and honest. It wasn't clean and polished but it was better than that. It was true to life, how anyone would truly behave and display emotions not how Hollywood does. It was great acting especially by the one playing Rex.

The story was original. Not only do the characters get drawn into his world but you do too. Not your typical person meets inner city kids and saves them through knowledge film at all. Simply caring and friendship make things a bit better.

The only thing is that even in the 80's there was more gun violence and less simple stuff like rock throwing but that little bit of innocence didn't hurt this film.

I think it's a must see. you will either love or hate it but either way it makes an impact and that makes a good film that you will remember and talk about later.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Beat was an exciting movie about a couple of young punks trying to survive in 1980's New York. This involves fighting with the other street gang that they directly share a high school class with, trying to stay in school, as well as going to local shows that involve bands that look like the Dead Kennedy's and have the name Skulls for their band name. Rex (played by David Jacobson) Plays an autistic kid who starts to get a long with all of these kinds, and starts to show them that poetry is really beautiful, and if applied to what these kids do in life can really make things work out for the better! Billy Kane (Played by William McNamara) and Kate Kane (played by Kara Glover) are brother and sister. Although they roll with this crowd of thugs, these kids are not the same type of people as this group. They care for Rex and they care for others, and really show an enlightened side of themselves. While his sister sleeps with the head of the Gang, she is also falling in love with Rex, trying to show him that she is not a slut. But in the end, the teachers at the school finally get to him and want to put him in a mental institution, he finally feels it is time to end his life, while Animals of Sound played without him. But they like to think that he is not dead, he is just living his life to the fullest, riding sharks and being happy living in the ocean. This movie, was one of those movies where I was glad that I watched it. While it was extremely entertaining, it also had a big message to it. Something a long the lines that these kids had no direction, no future, no figure heads to look up to, but because a troubled kid came along they all realized that there was way more important things to life then fighting the local black kids, or being destructive to everything. Rex showed them the beauty in angry music. Rex showed them the beauty in Rats, Disease and Murder. Rex showed they the beauty in almost everything, while some of those things have no beauty involved, they still were able to see that when used in poems, these poems speak to people. Rex played an important part in this move, who changed everyones heart from depression, to see that there is hope for them, and thats why he started to show them; The Beat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched the movie about 13 yrs ago while living in Airlie Beach Qld Australia. I had found it in the shelves of a little shop in the back that most don't bother to browse.

To my pleasure I found it and watched it with the intention of one day owning it and being in my collection. I still do not have it but will one day.

I like the concept with the poetry and the fantasy. The semi deserted street scenes with a busy teaming city in the far background added to the visual effect.

I have numerous times mentioned this movie to people that enjoy this genre, with nothing but praise. It has stuck in my mind and will for a long time to come.

I fully recommend this film, but only to those that are into this type.

This comment and the one from LA,CA can assist you when choosing to watch this film. The comments may be negative but I found them positive if you look past the derogatory connotation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a classic street punk & rock movie. If you remember those times out on the city streets 14 years old two in the morning and nothing better to do than skate from friends house to friends house and sparking it. This movie brings back old memeries.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You don't have to be a Notre Dame football fan to enjoy this, because I am not....but, as a football fan in general, this was fun to watch. It almost makes me a Fighting Irish devotee. If you can't get caught up in the emotion in this film, gridiron fan or not, you better check your pulse because this is an emotional film with some very touching scenes.

As a sports fan, I loved watching the classic footage of early college games. They had some pretty wild plays back then with a lot of laterals. They interspersed that footage with Pat O'Brien shown as head coach Knute Rockne on the sidelines and some of the players, such as George Gipp (Ronald Reagan).

Reagan gets pretty good billing in this film but his part really isn't that large. O'Brien is the only actor with a large role in here. The rest - all playing nice characters - include Gale Page as Rockne's wife \"Bonnie;\" Donald Crisp, as the Notre Dame's \"Father John Callahan;\" Albert Bassermann as chemistry professor \"Father Nieuwland\" and Reagan, as Gipp, perhaps Notre Dame's most talented and famous player ever.

What this film does nicely is balance the personal story with the football. Neither angle is overdone. The characters in here all people you can root for, as there are no villains. On my last look, it was interesting to discover Johnny Sheffield - Tarzan's son - playing Rockne at the age of seven and to see George Reeves, TV's Superman, as one of the players.

There have been very few football movies made in Hollywood, for some reason, and precious few good ones. This is one of them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pat O'Brien had his best role ever as Notre Dame football coach Knute Rockne. From humble beginnings, Rockne entered Notre Dame as a student circa 1910. He is into chemistry but becomes a marvelous football player and hero.

Upon graduation, he teaches chemistry at the school but he has got the football fever that tugs at him, this forces him to give up chemistry to pursue his dream of coaching the game. In a way, too bad, the school probably lost a great chemistry teacher-certainly far better and nicer than the one I had in high school. (Erasmus Hall in Brooklyn to be exact.)

He motivates his students. He will not tolerate academic underachievement. He is a coach for all seasons.

O'Brien captures that common kind touch. One of his students, George Gipp, is memorably played in a fine brief supporting performance by Ronald Reagan.

The years pass and the achievements run high-but Knute remains the same kind coach who testifies before Congress when football is called into question.

Donald Crisp is outstanding as a Notre Dame priest who knew that Rockne was destined to coach football. Albert Basserman is adequate, but his Jewish accent in the portrayal of a priest is awkward at best. Basserman was nominated that year in the supporting category for \"Foreign Correspondent.\"

Rockne's tragic death, in a plane crash, robbed the world of many more years of a totally professionally wonderful human-being. The film is great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's hard to imagine in this day and age how popular and how much of an impact a Norwegian immigrant and would be chemist had on the American public and how much of a national tragedy his sudden death in 1931 was viewed. But Knute Rockne was an extraordinary individual who both revolutionized and popularized college football and put a small obscure Catholic college on the map.

I've heard clips of Rockne's famous pep talks and it is uncanny how Pat O'Brien got the voice and the inflection perfectly. In what turned out to be his career role, Pat O'Brien captures the integrity and fighting spirit that was Rockne. Rockne is assisted by well by Gale Page as Bonnie Stiles Rockne who complained about her home being a training camp for Notre Dame, but never threw anyone out of her house.

Rockne's first impact on football was as a player with Notre Dame not a coach. One fine day in the second half of a losing football game against heavily favored Army, Rockne and team mate Gus Dorais played by Owen Davis used the forward pass as an offensive weapon. Before that football was simply a game where you just got bigger guys for your side and ran through the defense. Rockne didn't invent the forward pass, but he popularized and football became a game of strategy as well as brawn after that.

Rockne knew how to work the media also. Those well publicized pep talks of his were not just to inspire his players. They were well publicized and it was in a lot due to him that college football became a major sport in that Golden Age of Sports in the Roaring Twenties.

Playing a small, but key role is Ronald Reagan. As George Gipp, the first player Rockne coached to achieve greatness, Reagan not only got a good performance, but forever after a name that was handy in his subsequent political career. That deathbed scene which Rockne swore was accurate became a Republican battle cry as many a GOP underdog went out to win one for the Gipper.

I still remember a widely distributed photograph in 1981 that was one of the first of recovering President Ronald Reagan at Notre Dame's graduation with his old friend Pat O'Brien. Reagan always credited O'Brien and Dick Powell of all the Warner Brothers stars of the period as the ones who were the kindest and most encouraging to a young player on the lot trying to make good.

Notre Dame itself owes its prestige to Rockne. It's quite possible that Notre Dame would be an obscure small Catholic College without the reputation that football brought to it.

Though George Gipp and the later famous backfield of the Four Horsemen certainly had their place in the sun it was Rockne who had the reputation. It's no accident that Warner Brothers was able to get Amos Alonzo Stagg, Glenn 'Pop' Warner, Howard Jones, and William Spaulding, Rockne's contemporaries and coaches with great reputations in their own right to appear in Knute Rockne, All American. It was there way of honoring the guy who was number one in their profession.

I think more than football fans will enjoy Knute Rockne, All American. Though you might become one after seeing the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Knute Rockne All American\", the biopic about the famous Notre Dame beloved coach Knute Rockne, is an excellent sports film to watch. Not ever having seen it, we were surprised by the technique used in the movie by director Lloyd Bacon, who shows he was ahead of his times in photographing football games. The result is a vibrant picture about the man responsible for the legacy of the collegian sport, Knute Rockne.

The film presents Rockne from his humble origins in Chicago to his studies in famed Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana. He was an ambitious man who had a vision about how the game should be played. Luckily, he went to give his beloved Notre Dame the glory he was after.

Pat O'Brien looks a bit older when he starts as a freshman. In fact, he doesn't change much throughout the film, but he is fine as Mr. Rockne. Pat O'Brien shows he could inspire the players under him by just being a father figure. Gale Page plays Bonnie Rockne, the wise woman who understood her husband's call in life. Ronald Reagan plays George \"The Gipper\" Gipp, who was a legend that died much too young, but who left a legacy behind. Donald Crisp makes a good contribution as Father John Callahan who was Rockne's mentor at the university.

This film will delight not only sports because of LLoyd Bacon's direction and the fast pace he gives to the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The true life story of perhaps the greatest football coach the game has ever known. Knute Rockne led the game of football out of the \"stone age\" with innovations such as the forward pass and offensive formation shifts. But he is probably best known for his motivational locker room speeches. Along the way, he brought fame and glory to a tiny, little, unknown Catholic school in Indiana. Pat O'Brien is incomparable in his role as Rockne. Terrific cast that includes Ronald Reagan who gives a great performance as Notre Dame's first, true superstar, George Gipp.

For Football aficionados, this is the greatest football movie ever made. Do yourself a favor and rent the black and white version. (Some versions have deleted scenes for some reason) If you got the good version, look for a brief cameo by the immortal Jim Thorpe as he sticks his head in the locker room telling Rockne and the team they only have a few minutes left before the 2nd half begins.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Recently was traveling in Norway from Bergen, Norway and stopped in the small town of Voss, Norway and there was a monument in honor of Knute Rockne who was born in Voss years ago. The people all know about Knute to this day and tour guides are proud to stop at his monument. This film is a great history of this great man and his great love for Notre Dame Never realized that Knute has such great talents in chemistry and laboratory science and also taught chemistry for years and at the same time coached the football team. Ronald Reagan played the role of George Gipp, (The Gipper) who was an outstanding football player; Reagan had a short role, but gave a great supporting role in this film. Donald Crisp, (Father John Callahan) was outstanding as a priest who always had great faith in Knute during his entire life at Notre Dame. This is a great Classic film and will be viewed by many generations to come. Enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some time ago, we read of the results of a poll taken by some Newspaper Sports Writers. The Questions posed were only two, and were brief and right to the point.

The Question Number 1 asked respondent to tell who was his most Beloved college football team. Question Number 2 asked the fan to name his most Hated college football team. The answer to both questions was simply, Notre Dame! ND is tops on both lists! Yeah, love 'em or hate 'em, but you sure don't ignore ,em.

The roots of this unique position of this Indepent* College Football Powerhouse are found in the life and career of one, grown-up, little Immigrant Norweigen boy from Chicago named Knute Rockne.

As a biopic, the production of KNUTE ROCKNE, ALL-American(1940), came out relatively close to the death of Coach Rockne in a 1930 plane crash. It was about 10 years after that the film was released. That would mean that preliminary work on the project started about 8 years after our Nation's great loss of Mr. Rockne.

His likeness and voice were well known from Newspapers, Radio and Motion Picture News Reels. Both Knute's Widow,Bonnie Skiles Rockne, and the University of Notre Dame had approval rights in choosing the Actor to play the Lead and okaying the script. We think that they could not have done the job any better. Pat O'Brien truly looks the part and was himself a footballer in college. Ronald Reagan is cast in the pivotal role of George Gipp**, a free spirited student going to Notre Dame on a Baseball scholarship! He was a \"walk-on\" football player.

The cast runs full of talented players. We have Griffith Veteran,Donald Crisp as Fr. Callaghan, C.S.C., Notre Dame President. Albert Basserman is Fr. Newland, the Chemistry Prof and Rockne mentor. Gail Page appears as the Mrs., Bonnie Skiles Rockne. Owen Davis,Jr. is Rockne cohort, Gus Dorais(the passer in that historic ND vs. ARMY Game at West Point.)

The cast is rounded out by Kane Richmond, Nick Lukats, William Marshall and William Byrne as the Four Horsemen. Real life Big Time College Coaches Howard Jones, 'Pop' Warner, Bill Spaulding and Amos Alonzo Stagg appear as themselves in scenes of Congressional Probe into College Sports and add an authentic touch.

As for biopic,KNUTE ROCKNE ALL-American!,all one can only say that it hits the ground running, and did not slow down from beginning to end. There is no wasted time either. All the screen time is used to move the story along.

Use of Notre Dame Choir, the Campus itself and all that Brass Band rah-rah march music all ad to the feeling of really being there.***

* To this day,even though their Basketball Team and other sports teams compete in the Big East Conference, Notre Dame remains an Independent in NCAA Football. What this means, that in effect, The Fighting Irish play a national schedule.

** There was no such agreement with the Family of George Gipp. There was a lawsuit some years ago over the scene portraying young Mr. Gipp giving the famous \"Win Onr For The Gipper Speech\". Television prints of this KNUTE ROCKNE ALL-AMEICAN were minus the speech in the death bed scene.

*** Other Notre Dame themed Films were made over the years. THE SPIRIT OF NOTRE DAME (Universal 1931)featured J. Farrell McDonald as a Rockne look-alike coach. It also featured Lew Ayers, Andy Devine Nat Pendleton, as well as the members of the real Notre Dame Championship Teams featuring the real Four Horsemen. Then of course, we have RUDY (Tri-Star 1993)with Sean Astin, Jon Favreau, Ned Beatty and Charles Dutton, among others, in a fine cast. There was also talk of an unauthorized film, critical of Notre Dame called GOLDEN GLORY, but nothing has materialized, has it?(Let me know, Dear Reader, THANX!!)

**** Warner Brothers always had great music in their, both in opening themes and in incidental music. In this Rockne Movie, they have incorporated THE NOTRE DAME FIGHT SONG in the score. Along with it were STEP NOTRE DAME and THE NOTRE DAME ALMA MATER, which had its premiere at the Rockne Funeral in 1930 at the Notre Dame Basilica.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Knute Rockne led an extraordinary life and his story is told rather well in Knute Rockne All American. We follow Rockne's incredible journey from young Norwegian boy to iconic American football legend. Produced in 1940 the film may at times seem a touch dated and at times downright hokey. And the filmmakers do lay it on a bit thick at times as Rockne is glowingly and lovingly portrayed. You may come away thinking Rockne should have been nominated for sainthood when in fact he was, after all, just a football coach. But it is undeniable that he had a great impact on the game of football as well as having a tremendous impact on the lives of so many of the young men he coached. This film shows the great impact he had and gives you an insight into why he is so revered to this day.

Playing Rockne, Pat O'Brien gives an impressive performance. It's unquestionably O'Brien's movie to carry and he makes the film and the character his own. The real-life Rockne was renowned as a great inspirational figure and O'Brien's performance will make you understand why. The only quibble comes early in the film when O'Brien, in his early forties, is playing the college student Rockne in his early twenties. All the makeup in the world wasn't going to make that believable and the effect is rather jarring. But as the Rockne character ages and begins his legendary coaching career O'Brien fits the part perfectly.

As for the rest of the cast one name jumps out and that is of course Ronald Reagan playing the young, charismatic, but ultimately doomed football star George Gipp. In the grand scheme of the film it's not really a large part, with Reagan appearing for no more than 10-15 minutes. But the performance has become legendary thanks to Reagan's famous \"Win one for the Gipper\" deathbed speech. It's a brilliantly-played scene, chock-full of emotion. Reagan may not have been on the screen for very long in this film but he certainly made a tremendously positive impact in a winning performance.

The rest of the film strikes a balance between football and life in general with Rockne having great lessons for his young men in both areas. For football fans (and history buffs) there is a rare treat as actual archival footage from Notre Dame games of the Rockne era is interspersed throughout the film. It's a rare opportunity to see just how much the game has evolved in the last six-plus decades and an opportunity to see Rockne's legendary strategic innovations put into practice. If you're a Notre Dame fan you'll probably enjoy the fact that the Notre Dame Victory March provides a seemingly constant soundtrack for the film. If you're a Notre Dame hater...well, then you're probably not watching this movie anyway. Knute Rockne All American is an inspiring, uplifting, emotional film. Perhaps a tad overly sentimental but that's not such a bad thing. It's a very enjoyable film, one well worth taking the time to see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alex North (John Cassavetes) has problems in relationship with his father and flees home to join the army, from where he very soon deserts and comes to New York intending to start a new life, using as an advantage the fact that nobody knows about his past. He finds a job at the Waterfront, where he meets Tommy Tyler (Sydney Poitier) a lively young man, who is happily married and is a living contrast to Cassavetes' sad and unhappy character. They very quickly become good friends and Tommy does his best to help his friend. The only problem is that their superior at work, a tough worker Charles Malik (Jack Warden) is sort of envious of their friendship as well as Tommy's constant happy disposition and success in personal life. He really manages to make their life difficult when he comes to know the truth about Alex's past.

A good drama skillfully directed by Academy Award nominated director-producer Martin Ritt (The Hud) and featuring wonderful performances from Sydney Poitier and Jack Warden. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Martin Ritt's first film offers an exceptional existentialist answer (three years later) to Elia Kazan's more conservative \"On The Waterfront.\" While \"Waterfront\" benefited immensely from an electrifying Marlon Brando, who inadvertently disguised Kazan's offensive theme of trying to justify naming names (as Kazan did eagerly before the House Un-American Activities Committee), \"Edge of the City\" boasts a young John Cassavetes and an upstart Sidney Poitier daring to confront issues that \"Waterfront\" failed to acknowledge, namely, workers' rights and race relations.

\"Edge of the City\" boldly dives into this (then) unknown territory, and although the quite appealing black protagonist (Poitier) may seem a bit Hollywood simplistic, the courageous struggle against thinly-veiled bigotry and violence has hardly aged at all. One wonders how shocked initial 1957 moviegoers were at such a bold presentation of white-black relations (if some of the bigoted didn't leave the theater early, they must of left dumbfounded, if not offended).

The last reel of the film will still surprise audiences, as it refuses to sink into expected clich\u00e9s, including those that tainted \"Waterfront.\" Only the most jaded viewers will not realize what a radical and entertaining film \"Edge of the City\" ends up being.

What's most disturbing about this lost classic: how it sadly remains unavailable on any format, for reasons that remain quite cloudy. This film should be required viewing in high school or college history classes across the country, yet one can only find it on obscure late-night TV, if ever at all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Cassavetes is on the run from the law. He is at the bottom of the heap. He sees Negro Sidney Poitier as his equal and they quickly become friends, forming a sort of alliance against a bully of a foreman played by Jack Warden.

As someone who has worked in a warehouse myself when I was younger, I can tell you that the warehouse fights, complete with tumbling packing cases and flailing grappling hooks are as realistic as it gets. I've been in fights like these myself, although no one got killed.

The introduction of Sidney Poitier's widow is a variation on Shakespeare's Shylock \"Do I not bleed?\" This is an anti racist film, which, at the time, was much needed.

All the three principle characters - Warden, Cassavetes and Poitier - are superb, with Warden the most outstanding of the three.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A skillfully directed film by Martin Ritt where a drifter and anti-hero, John Cassevetes lands in N.Y. to escape a tragic incident in his life, where he killed his brother in an automobile accident as well as going AWOL from the army.

Cassavetes, always an intense actor, shows grit in his portrayal of a film. Am surprised that Montgomery Clift didn't get this part.

Ruth White is his mother and does remarkably well in two scenes on the telephone.

Once in New York, he befriends Sidney Poitier as the two work on the docks. Immediately, Jack Warden, a bully and villain in this film,takes a dislike to him and tragedy ensues when Poitier tries to defend his friend.

Ruby Dee, plays Poitier's wife in this film, and is brilliant in a scene where she urges Cassavetes to reveal the killer of her husband.

This is definitely an interesting film of moral values and the loner in society. With the backdrop of tenements, the right mood is depicted in the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Edge of the City\" is another movie that owes a lot of credit to \"On the Waterfront\". From it's NYC locations, to its score, to the belief that whatever trouble you may be in, you can somehow right your wrongs.

\"Edge\" also deals with ideas like loyalty and racism. In my opinion, that is where the movie does not succeed like \"Waterfront\". At 85 minutes the movie rushes through the establishment of relationships, and ties everything up so quickly that much of it seems forced and unbelievable.

Possible Spoilers****

The relationship between Sidney Poitier and John Cassavettes could have been further developed in the beginning. I don't believe that these two characters, from two very different places would have built such a strong relationship so quickly.

I think that the whole love sub-plot with Cassavettes could have been eliminated. He is so awkward with a woman that it becomes painful to watch. The only reason why it is in the movie is so that she can motivate him to do the right thing at the end. There are other ways that they could have shown this. I would have also liked to see some scenes of Axel in the army to illustrate why he is the way he is.

The acting is excellent. Poitier is terrific in a role that is beautifully written. His role as Tyler is interesting and multi-layered, and (especially for 1957), a man who is confident, respected, and intelligent. Cassavettes, as Axel North, while very good, does not seem quite right for the part. Warden is terrific as the boss who knows Axel's secret (although his fight scene with Cassavettes at the end is staged horribly. Too many break-away boxes). I thought Ruby Dee was wonderful in role of Poitier's wife.

On the whole, \"Edge of the City\" is a smart, movie with a very good cast that tries too hard to be an interesting noir style picture, without taking the time to let the drama build.

7 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of Cassavetes' best performances. The entire cast is outstanding, as is Martin Ritt's sublimely understated direction. The anger, angst, and desparation of urban labor battles is magnificently told in a fashion that is neither obtrusive nor patronizing. In a way it is dated with its era, but in many ways, it is gloriously timeless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although this small film kind of got lost in the wake of On The Waterfront, Edge Of The City can certainly hold its own with that star studded classic. It's another story about the docks and the code of silence that rules it.

Next to the corrupt union that Lee J. Cobb ran in On The Waterfront, Jack Warden is really small time corruption. But he's real enough as the gang boss on one of the docks who intimidates the other workers by being handy with his fists and the bailing hook and he gets the rest to kickback part of their hard earned money. And it's all hard earned money in that job.

One guy Warden can't intimidate is Sidney Poitier another gang boss and when he tries to intimidate newcomer John Cassavetes, Poitier takes him under his wing. The two develop quite the friendship and Poitier and his wife Ruby Dee even fix Cassavetes up with Kathleen Maguire.

Warden is truly one loathsome creature and it's sad how by sheer force of personality and physical prowess he cows almost everyone else into submission. In that sense he's tougher than Lee J. Cobb who did have to rely on an impression collection of goons to enforce his will in On The Waterfront.

Edge Of The City marked the big screen directorial debut of Martin Ritt who did a great job with a good cast of New York based players and spot on location cinematography. The film's low budget does show, but you're so impressed with the ensemble cast you don't really care.

Cassavetes as the loner with a past and the hip and tough Poitier are both fine, but my personal favorite in this film is Ruby Dee. She should have gotten some award for her performance, her final scene with Cassavetes is outstanding.

Catch this one if ever possible. I wish it were out on DVD or VHS.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent movie that tackles the issue of racism in a delicate and balanced way. Great performances all round but absolutely outstanding acting by Sidney Poitier.

He makes this movie breathe and alive. His portrayal of a guy who struggles against discrimination and violence is simply mind blowing. His acting is forceful and delicate and subtle at the same time. Truly worthy of an Oscar, Poitier had to wait (because of his skin colour) for many more years before the sheer brilliance of his acting was recognised by the Academy.

Cassavetes turns in a great performance too, withdrawn, troubled and realistic as it has become his hallmark. He and Poitier contrast inimitably the forces of cowardice, courage and human transformation through friendship.

The movie is enjoyable and at the same time deeply haunting in its portrayal of racism in the US. The irony is that it somehow mirrors the realities under which Poitier had to work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cry at a lot of movies. Call me sentimental. Call me one of those viewers who always likes to see a happy ending. This movie, though it has a sad ending, was great! Of all of the actors that I would love to have lunch with, it would be Sidney Poitier. His acting, along with John Cassavetes and Jack Warden (of 12 Angry Men fame)is stellar. His character, who befriends a man on the run (Cassavetes) and helps him out in every way possible is incredible.

This is another one of those forgotten noirs made during the end of the noirish era. It is well done, has a superb cast, extremely talented acting, and great cinematography. It is a film worth watching over and over again. I highly recommend this one! This is just another truly great film done by Mr. Poitier and should be sold on DVD. Even though I cried, kudos to such great art!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1957's Edge of the City, directed by Martin Ritt, stars John Cassavetes, Sidney Poitier, Jack Warden and Ruby Dee. It's the story of a troubled man, Axel, who has a mysterious past that gradually comes out during the film. He has a connection that gets him a job on a loading dock working for Charlie (Jack Warden), a real meanie who takes kickbacks from his workers and rides them hard. Charlie has an intense dislike for a black man, T.T. (Poitier) who holds the same position. T.T. invites Axel to work on his team; Axel defies Charlie and does so. Axel finds a place to live and socializes with T.T., his his wife (Dee) and their son's white schoolteacher (Kathleen McGuire). When tragedy strikes, none of the men on the loading dock will talk to the police, and Axel has to come to grips with his values, what he stands for, and the meaning of friendship.

This is a really excellent black and white film that curiously isn't really about being black or white! It's really about the limits one puts on oneself and knowing who you are. Charlie is a bigot and hates that a black man has a good position on the dock. T.T. teases Charlie and gives as good as he gets. There's no discussion of T.T. and Axel spending time together or of T.T.'s son having a white teacher with whom the family also socializes. What Axel, a loner, finds difficult is accepting any friendship or confiding in anyone - these things he learns through T.T.

Poitier absolutely shines in \"Edge of the City\" - he's warm, energetic, loving and smart, a man with a real enthusiasm for life, afraid of nothing. Cassavetes is excellent and plays a character totally opposite - hiding in the shadows, chronically depressed and always nervous.

The film leaves open what happens to Axel. Whatever does, he's a different man now.

Strangely underrated and unknown film, possibly in the shadow of a lot of the angry young men films that came out in that era.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a powerful film which seems to have never re-arisen after the Joe McCarthy censorship period. It influenced me as a Jewish teen-ager who had friends of various colors and whose father's family had suffered under the Fascist regimes in Europe during the second quarter of the Twentieth Century. Unlike the later rip-off, \"On The Waterfront\" which seemed to take some of the same themes and twist them to fit the enforced Hollywood political correctness of the time, it told its story direct and with respect for the characters and for the reality it fictionally reflected. It was an antidote to \"Gone With the Wind\", \"Birth of a Nation\", \"Triumph of the Will\" and so many other glorifiers of hatred and violence. I would place it alongside the recent German film (also virtually hidden in the US), \"Rosenstrasse.\"

I remember that the TV version, also black and white in format as well as story, was blacked out by some stations because the black hero's wife appeared white. As a young civil rights worker, it produced a conflict for me because on the one hand I was opposed to smoking cigarettes and on the other opposed the boycott in Georgia of a sponsor of the TV show, a major tobacco company (I no longer remember which one -- does anyone else?).

I would love to find a CD of either the film or the TV show to let my sons see something that informed my opposition to racism universally (as opposed to only fighting racism against Jews) and recognition of the inherent connection between racism and militarism.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The reason why this movie isn't any better known and more appreciated to me seems because of its subject. Because of its controversial subject this movie never got a proper big release and still remains a fairly unknown one to this very day. Not that it's subject is that controversial now anymore though.

Basically in essence it's a movie about a white man befriending a black man. The friendship does not seem forced or unrealistic but the way it gets portrayed in this movie makes it all feel very real. We see these different ethnics mingle in with each other, as if it's just completely normal. Unfortunately of course back in those days it really wasn't regarded as anything normal. Seeing a black man talking to a white girl and just having fun with her as a friend must have been an hard thing to watch for instance for some proportions of its 1957 audience.

You can really understand why Sidney Poitier has always been and still is being respected so much by the Hollywood society and the black-community in general. Of course it's one of the reasons why he also received an Honorary Award at the Oscar's, in 2002. In his movies he often fights against discrimination and prejudiced issues, with of course \"In the Heat of the Night\" as the best example of this. A real role model, that certainly has inspired many Afro-American actors, to this very day. But on top of that, he also was a great actor. Yes, he is still alive but he has pretty much retired completely from movies now it seems, since his last credited role is from 2001.

This movie was Martin Ritt's directorial debut and he also wasn't given too much movie to spend on his movie. The studios were probably also a bit reluctant mainly because of its concept and\/or because it was Ritt's first movie. Or perhaps it was simply due to the fact that MGM just wasn't that big anymore and it had left its best days behind them. Ever since the '50's on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer sort of had the reputation of making not too great and cheap movies, while in the early years before that it was really one of the biggest studios with lots of stars and acclaimed directors attached to it, who made many award winning classic movies. Luckily for them their reputation is starting to change again and whenever the MGM-logo appears at a movie people are no longer expecting a lesser-movie anymore.

Anyway, even with its restrained budget and limited resources they managed to make a great movie out of this one. The movie is very simple, with only a few characters and a simplistic plot in it. The movie however still manages to capture you with its story and subjects, without ever starting to become preachy or anything about it. It makes the movie an effective one as well with its subjects.

Really a movie that deserves to be seen.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Highlighting the acting of Sidney Poitier and the brooding on-screen presence of John Cassevetes, The Edge of the City is a highly-watchable film from the fifties, directed by Martin Ritt. There is great acting and stunning on-location photography in black and white.

Poitier is a delight at this point in his career and Tommy Tyler, the character he plays is happy and outgoing. He befriends Axel Noordman, played by Cassevetes, who is a young man suffering from poor self-esteem and a past that he wants kept under wraps. Tyler, a black man, brings his friend out of his shell and introduces him to his family and a new girlfriend.

Tyler and Noordman are employed on the New York docks at a time when the workers were expected to tow the line, if they knew what was good for them. The boss Charles Malik, played by Jack Warden, in one of his many hard-bitten roles becomes the focus of discontent, which leads to a climactic showdown with Noordman.

At the end of the movie, we are left with mixed emotions. However, the two main characters have left the audience with a story of friendship between two different men in a hostile world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Axel Nordman (Cassavetes) shows up on the New York dockyards looking for a job, but with a hidden past. He gets one on condition that he pay a kick back to surly crew boss Jack Warden. While there, he strikes up a friendship with black man Sydney Poitier that unfortunately leads to a gut-wrenching moral dilemma for a man who, we learn, typically runs from his problems.

The movie looks like Oscar winner On the Waterfront, feels like On the Waterfront, and most importantly, plays much like that 1954 Kazan production. However, its racial theme is ground-breaking for the time. The black Poitier and the white Cassavetes are treated as equals in every respect. It might even be called the first of the black-white \"buddy\" pictures that would later dominate so many action films.

It helps that the two leads play so well off each other. Nonetheless, the movie's central flaw is failing to indicate why crew-boss Poitier pushes a friendship with the dour Cassavetes in the first place. He really goes out of his way to befriend the newcomer. But why he would cross racial barriers to do so is never really suggested. One possible explanation is that Poitier wants to use Cassavetes as a pawn in his rivalry with other crew-boss Warden, but then comes to genuinely like the guy. There's a hint of that in some of Cassavetes's suspicious reactions, but beyond that, the relationship appears unmotivated.

If there's a single stage shot in the entire movie, I couldn't spot it. Everything is done on seedy New York location, without the usual movie extras. In that sense, it's an anti-Hollywood production, carefully deglamorized even down to the night club scene which itself looks like a real after-hours crowd. I suppose sociologists would dub this rather raw slice-of-life \"a glimpse of the working poor\".

Yet, for all its virtues, which are many, the film remains too close to the Brando-Kazan movie for comfort. Here, a fine unknown actress Kathleen Maguire gets the role of the redemptive girl friend, Warden the role of the corrupt labor boss, while Cassavetes, like Brando, must suffer a bloody beating before regaining his moral standing and doing the right thing. Still and all, despite the derivative nature, the gritty urban drama retains enough of the original force to merit a look-see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film on cable in the 80's and it rocked me to the core. It showed up again on TV about six months ago.

Filmed on location, the black and white cinematography graphically portrays 1950's New York as the gritty \"urban jungle\" at a time when there was far more industry and port activity in the city, particularly in Manhattan.

John Cassavetes always brought a special intensity to his acting, and is magnificent in the role of the army dodger. His brief 1959 TV series \"Johnny Staccato\" is also a joy to watch.

Sidney Poitier and (later in the film) Ruby Dee bring freshness and vitality to their roles. But it is Jack Warden's superb acting as the vicious, brutal shift boss that grabbed my attention. To get an idea of Warden's versatility, watch this film, then check out a 1962 episode of the TV series \"Naked City\" entitled \"Specter of the Rose Street Gang (available on video).\" If you are a fan of film noir, this is a must see. Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A gritty look at New York City and dock workers. This is a classic film, realistic, brutal at times, always believable. It was originally shown LIVE on tv,also starring Sidney Poitier. John Cassavetes was a fantastic director and actor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Clearly patterned after the first gangster movies that Warner produced the same year,Little Caesar (1931) and The Public Enemy (1931),this gangster movie is one of the better efforts I've seen. Although not quite in the same league as the previous mentioned classics, it has a powerful performance by young Sylvia Sidney.She's magnificent and delivers her lines more natural than perhaps anyone did at the time.Gary Cooper is better than usual at this stage in his career and shows signs of what would follow the next few years when he rose to the top. The movie has some fascinating villains in Paul Lukas (never seen him this detestable) and Guy Kibbee (what a shock to see him act the hoodlum).The direction of Rouben Mamoulian is very inventive,probably the first voice-over to show a persons thoughts appear in this movie. If you get the chance to see this little gangster flick, don't let the chance go by.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film last night at a \"pre-Code\" film festival, and I have to tell you that when Gary Cooper turned his head for his introductory close-up, the entire audience gasped. He was just that beautiful.

Cooper's looks aside, this film displays Rouben Mamoulian's directorial artistry to perfection. Wonderful scene-fades, creative camera angles, symbolic allusions--Mamoulian just keeps exploring the directorial medium and coming up with innovation.

This was Sylvia Sidney's first role in Hollywood, after her success on the New York stage, and she is just as lovely as a Gary Cooper leading lady ought to be. It's nice to see her in a role with a harder edge than many she was given--so often she looks like she's afraid she's about to be hit by someone.

There are lots of familiar faces in this film, including the wonderful Wynne Gibson. Most striking is Guy Kibbee, best known for playing fatuous rich men, as a grinning and mendacious hit-man.

There aren't nearly enough of these pre-Code films available on VHS or DVD, so if you can't find a pre-Code festival near you, try campaigning Turner Classic Movies for a broadcast! As for the reviewer who believes Gary Cooper was too stupid to have dialogue more complex than \"Yep\" or \"Nope,\" he should perhaps consider Coop's performance in films such as \"Mr Deeds Goes to Town\" or \"Meet John Doe.\" Although heaven knows anyone who looked that good shouldn't have to be smart as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought I'd witnessed every wrinkle the crime\/gangster flick had to offer, but the Garrett-Marcin-Hammett combination pull off some genuine thrills and surprises here, thanks to the inventively forceful direction by Mamoulian, the atmospheric photography by Lee Garmes, plus remarkably sharp film editing and flawless special effects. Brilliant acting helps too. Coop gives one of his most convincing performances as the reticent hayseed-turned-fearless bootlegger (the sort of character progression he was to repeat in other roles such as Sergeant York). Miss Sidney (pictured center) in her first major role is also an eye-opener. The principals receive great support from Paul Lukas, Wynne Gibson and Stanley Fields as the heavies, and even from Robert Homans' hard-as-nails detective. The movie has obviously been realized on an extensive budget which is brilliantly deployed in its realistic, crowd-filled sets.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"City Streets is amazingly modern technically speaking for a movie made in 1931. Also who could not be mesmerized, enthralled by Gary Cooper's powerful magnetism, galvanizing the audience attention. The plot is quite elaborate and clear. The scenarios, decor, are exceptional in every detail. All the actors are above average. I keep guessing how the director and his staff, including editing, sound, lighting, photography, could have been so brilliant. I couldn't find a flaw, understanding that the scenes in the road(bumpy ride) with the large motion pictures screen on the background was the best they could get in 1931. All in all I found this movie superb and so much alive thanks to Gary Cooper charisma.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If it had been made 2 years later it would have been BANNED! The number one MUST SEE recommendation of the day!. The best Rouben Mamoulian film I have seen this far (have but have not yet seen J+H).

There's no wonder why this film got less than 200 votes. A bigger greyzone that could not care less about what's proper would not be seen again until the 60's. As morally ambiguous and dark as 70's grit but with a certain charm as well. Of course this had to lay low in the later 30's and sadly it does not appear to have been re-discovered.

Seriously. This got it all. Great actors: Gary Cooper, Sylvia Sidney and the this time not so lovable Guy Kibbee. And a mighty good director. This far I haven't been RM's biggest fans but I have liked his films a lot and with this he steps into a new league. One of the best 30's films I have ever seen! This is something I never thought even existed! 9.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am so glad Zac was in 'The Suite life of Zack and Cody' because that is my favorite show and he is my favorite actor. It is a really funny episode and a funny show!! I love everything about the show and the characters. All of the performers are great. Keep on acting Zac, and I am so happy that nearly all of my favorite actors (including High School Musical characters) are in this show. Zac Efron is so 'hot' and I have an autographed picture of him! It is not a photo copy, and it came all the way from America to Australia and it nearly did not arrive in time for Christmas. Also, I got a High School Musical Mug with my name printed on it. (Scarlett 8)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw the ad for this, I was like 'Oh here we go. He's done High School Musical, but he can't coast along on that so now he's making appearances on other Disney shows'. Personally, I love The Suite Life and I'm a big fan of Ashely Tisdale. But for some reason, I'm not too keen on Zac Efron, although all my friends think he's the best thing since Jesse McCartney. But he really annoys me. Anyway, I watched the show (taking a break from English coursework) and was pleasantly surprised. The performances were good all round, especially from the regular characters on The Suite Life, and Zac Efron wasn't as bad as I had anticipated. All in all, a pretty good show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I read the above comment and cannot believe it! Of course its a children's movie, its an adaptation of a children's book!! This film IS easy to get a hold of, try play.com or amazon and its very easy to gain a copy! The jokes are hilarious for kids and adults alike, and the adventure is clean with no violence! Its completely suitable for children of all ages! The songs are fab, and yes, a little repetitive but thats what children need and whilst watching it my little ones were heard singing \"hi hi cocalorum\" all night! They loved it, a story of innocence and friendship! Very lovely and well worth watching for kids and adults of all ages!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was wandering through my local library, browsing VHS tapes, when I saw a movie that made my mouth drop--Waterbabies. I have been hoping to see this movie again--it's been over 22 years since I saw it (cable-movie channel around 78-79). I had recalled a good many of the details--Grimes in particular. My son, who is 4, and I watched it.

He agreed with me that Grimes was \"Not nice\", and the best way for me to describe it was that he didn't love Tom. He accepted that. It was amazing that I still recalled some of the songs, too! They had stuck in my head for 22 years--which means they had to have some memorable-ness, eh?

It's a good child's movie, with parental guidance in case of questions about what children had to go through that were not nobility\/society in the time-frame. This is what all the children faced daily (except for a few lucky ones), and while we try to Disney-coat movies, making them more pc for children these days, it doesn't mean that cruelty didn't exist--or even still doesn't. I enjoyed the animation. It wasn't Disney, no. I don't think Don Bluth touched a paintbrush on this movie.

There's a lot going for it, though. David T plays two roles! (I really like him!) James M does too. The waterbabies themselves are cute. You feel sorry for Tom, and root for him. Then Billie herself is extraordinary in the multi-role part she's playing--it's as if her eyes ARE magickal! I'm a huge fan of WoO, TLW&TW, and company (AND LOOKING FORWARD TO HP!), and I filed this along with those kind of movies. Yes, he jumps in the water, but not because of suicide. He jumped because he trusted the lady in black--she'd been appearing to him all along.

I think it's a good movie! If you have kids, pick up a rental copy. If you happen to locate a buy-able copy, let me know where! Ian liked it! :)

Dee","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wonderful songs, sprightly animation and authentic live action make this a classic adaptation of a classic tale. A nice British feel which sets it apart and above from the standard, saccharine sweet Disney cartoons.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie as a child and fell in love with it. It has a sweet sensitive story. Something children can appreciate. I loved so much as a child I had to find it for my daughter. It is definitely a movie I would watch with kids. It reminds me a great deal of story's of a Disney nature like Pete's Dragon and Mary Poppins. Both because of the live action and cartoon features but on its premise. It is also a good story to show kids that if they tell the truth they can be trusted and adults will listen to them. I think all kids should see it and would enjoy it. It is such a break from the violent movies of bad taste so many kids watch these days. It has all the charming qualities so many of today's movies don't have.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely LOVED this movie as a child. I can't seem to find it anywhere! I was mentioning it to some friends just the other day, and not a single one of them remembers it! Can anyone help me out? My older sister vaguely remembers it. There was also another movie I remember that was half live action and half animation, but I can't remember the name of it. The characters were animated and the background was real...I seem to remember it being about a kangaroo, and I believe the setting of the film was in Australia. I'm going out of my mind trying to obtain copies of these films that were such a memorable part of my very enjoyable childhood. Edit: I searched IMDb for this other movie and found out it's called Dot and the Kangaroo! All I had to do was type in \"kangaroo\" in the search bar under characters, and the name of the movie in the list was like a bell going off! MAN, I love IMDb! Thanks!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An orphan boy named Tom (Tommy Pender), who works for a pair of shady chimney sweeps, is falsely accused of stealing from the mansion where he is working at by Mr. Grimes (James Mason) - the real thief - and goes on the run. Tom's only alibi is the niece of the mansion's owners (Samantha Gates, a slender, blue-eyed blonde, with long, wavy hair, who I'm sure was the primary reason why I repeatedly watched this as a boy). He and his dog jump into a river and a witch turns them into water breathing cartoon characters! While underwater, he befriends and rescues a group of water breathing children known as water babies from a shark.

A very interesting and always fascinating fable, set in 1850, that should appeal to all children. The animation (42 minutes of the 85 minute HBO VHS print) is just average, but it's preferable to most modern day animation - even computer animation! My only real gripe is a plot hole caused by a deleted scene. At 42:06, after the first verse of \"High Cockalorum\", the film cuts to a scene with octopi swimming, followed by Tom and Jacque's encounter with Terence. This leads to a scene in which the killer shark (voiced by Mason) leads our heroes into a trap. The shark then greets Tom with, \"Young Tom, so nice to see your ugly mug again\" - but this is the first time in HBO's print that Tom meets the shark! Most reference books list the running time as 92 or 93 minutes, and it was previously available from Sultan Entertainment and Nelson, so it's very likely that HBO's print is edited and \/ or time-compressed. Adding insult to injury, MGM released a fullscreen, 76 minute print on DVD in 2002! Let's hope a restored version appears in the near future.

The film is copyright Ariadne Films 1978. \"Ariadne\" is the water baby voiced by Samantha Gates. Bernard Cribbins, who plays Mason's partner in crime, also voices the electric eel. A.K.A. Slip Slide Adventures.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For years i've had a distant memory of watching this film , i looked on the net to find it somewhere and couldn't find it anywhere so i thought it must have disappeared.

UNTIL...my gran showed me a box set she sent off for in the Daily Mail and i though nah there wont be anything decent in there, but to my great surprise there amongst other gems was The Water Babies! I hadn't been that excited ina long long time! Its a great light hearted film, the songs aren't memorable probably if i was a child during the time it came out i would have stuck in my mind more. Sadly it was just a film i watched at my grans 10 years ago when i was a little spud. And watching it back now the animation is terrible! and the re-recored voices they do to get a richness to the sound in films is totally off! But who cares when your a kid you never think of those things, even if they lead boy is about 10 and sounds like a boy in the middle of puberty.

Great classic kids film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a movie that I watched when I was a young girl and never forgot. It is certainly not the best movie ever made, but there is something very special about it that I can't quite put my finger on. I LOVE it. I am the kind of person who likes everything explained to me though and for that reason alone this movie drives me crazy.

Exactly what\/Who is that mysterious witch-lady and what is her relationship with Tom? WHY and HOW did he become a Water Baby ... why was he raised on the earth? It is questions like these that are just eating at me! I thought if I read the book I would get answers, but I just read an article that the book from which this story is \"based\" is a lot different. So I guess I'll never know what the writer was thinking!

I still love this movie though and I recently watched it with my two year old niece. She loves it too although she insists on calling it \"Baby Water\" for reasons unknown to me. She loves the part where he jumps in the water and then declares \"I'm all clean.\" (You have to understand that my niece is the cleanest 2 year old in the world!) We watched that scene over and over.

I am so glad that we can enjoy this film together! There should be more films like this. (But what is up with the gay seahorse??!!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1850 in Yorkshire, a boy chimney-sweep is falsely accused of theft by his crooked master and runs away. He falls into a treacherous local river and is transported into an underwater realm, where he makes many friends and rescues the mythical Water Babies from an evil shark.

Based on a book by Charles Kingsley, this is a lovely children's film, half live-action and half animation, which is both a grim and evocative depiction of Victorian times and a terrifically enjoyable undersea adventure. It really is two films in one, which somehow complement each other and combine into a much richer whole. The animation by Tony Cuthbert, Jack Stokes and Miroslaw Kijowicz is wonderful, as is the photography by Ted Scaife and the music by Phil Coulter and Bill Martin. Pender has a great rough-diamond quality as the (literal) fish out of water - I love the moment when he's on top of the mansion, sees all the chimneys and shouts \"Blimey !!\" at the top of his voice. Mason and Cribbins are the filthiest, nastiest bullies you could hope to see in a costume drama (if you want to see real Victorian values, don't watch Sense And Sensibility, watch this), and Whitelaw, Pertwee (who does umpteen voices) and Percival are all excellent. This is how a good children's movie should be - good old singalong fun, but also just a little bit thoughtful, sad and frightening. High Cockallorum !!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 1978 adaptation had all the ingredients of a potentially wonderful film. It is based on an absolutely charming book by Charles Kingsley. It has a truly talented cast from the likes of James Mason, Bernard Cribbons and David Tomblinson, not to mention the vocal talents of David Jason and Jon Pertwee. There is also Lionel Jeffries, the director of wonderful classics such as The Railway Children and the Amazing Mr Blunden, and while the film is good on the most part, it was also a little disappointing. I had no problem with the performances, particularly those of Mason and Tomblinson as Grimes and Sir John Harriet respectively, and Tommy Pender and Samantha Gates are believable as Tom and Ellie. The voice cast is also commendable, especially Jon Pertwee, voicing charming characters in their own right. I also liked the incidental music it is so haunting and beautiful, and the script was fairly faithful and in general well-written, particularly at the beginning. The characters, especially the Water Babies are very charming, and the villains are sinister and funny at the same time, I loved the part when Tom and his friends help the Water Babies escape, seeing the shark chasing the electric eel with an axe was very funny. However, I will say the film does look dated, especially the animation sequences, the live action parts weren't so bad, if you forgive the rather dark camera-work. The character animation was rather flat, and the backgrounds sometimes were a little dull, though there were some nice moments, like the scene with the Krakon and of course the first meeting with the Water Babies. I also had mixed feelings about the songs, the Water Babies's song was beautiful, but I found the first song forgettable, when Tom ends up underwater. Hi-Cockallorum is an example of a song, that is like marmite, you either love it or hate it. I personally don't know what to make of this song, it was fun to listen to at first, but once it's in your head, it is perhaps annoying. As much as I like Lionel Jeffries and his films, his direction just lacked the wonder and the magic it usually does. All in all, certainly not a terrible film, but could have been better artistically. 7\/10 Bethany Cox.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like many, I first saw The Water Babies as a child\/young teen in the late seventies\/early eighties. It has remained with me since then with its catchy tunes, memorable portrayals, less-then-successful animation, and a story full of heart, coldness, and ultimately good vanquishing evil. Recently I sat down and saw it again after at least two decades passing, and I noticed THIS time around its striking similarities to The Wizard of Oz. No, these aren't blatant likenesses but hear me out. In this one we have a boy and his dog - having personal problems at \"home,\" running away from something and in the scene right after they run away, changing the substance of their appearance. In This one, the boy and dog become animated. In The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy and Toto are in color. In this one, the boy and dog are told they must find the Water Babies for answers and then ultimately the Kracken for guidance and he has the ability to let Tom go home if he shows he has courage, etc... In The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy must also find an authoritative figure that tests her before he will allow her to return home. In the Water Babies, Tom meets three characters that will help him on his journey to the Water Babies - Dorothy has three helpers as well. When each helper is met, we are entertained with a rendering of \"Hi, Hi, Hi, Hi, HI Cockallorum...We're on our way.\" In the Wizard it is \"We're off to see the wizard.\" Dorothy has a good witch sort of look after her; Tom has a woman with many roles(Billie Whitelaw) do the same. If you look closely at the two, there are many other likenesses. That being said, The Water Babies is not a knockoff in any way, I was just commenting on the eerie likes between the two. This film has some solid performances from bad guys Bernard Cribbins and the always fascinating James Mason. The kids playing Tom and Ella are good. The supporting cast of Joan Greenwood(love her voice!), David Tomlinson, and the vocal talents of John Pertwee and Lance Percival add greatly to the mix. I must confess that the animation is less than sterling even for its time but is adequate enough to the challenge. The three animated characters that help Tom get home are all likable. I always have trouble picking my favorite between the French swordfish and the John Inman\/Mr. Humphries like seahorse. The scene where we hear this guttural, maniacal laugh from a shipwrecked vessel only to see a seahorse with a huge polka-dotted bow-tie bob out always has me rolling! The Water Babies is a lot of fun. Sure, it is more of a children's film, but it has and always shall have a fond place in my heart. The bulk of the credit for what successes the film does have must go to director Lionel Jeffries. Jeffries is a wonderful comedic actor and his sense of humor is clearly evident throughout.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film when I was about 6 ish - my grandma thought it'd be a nice kiddies film to entertain me and keep me occupied....however, every time I watched it I had nightmares the same night. Yes it masquerades as a kids' film, but even now I find it really dark in places, particularly the haunting music that is played each time the guardian angel woman is on the screen, and her rather hypnotic eyes and voice. The actual \"baddies\" of the film, ie the sharks, Mr Grimes etc didn't scare me at all, I just always found the whole film rather creepy and dark. This is obviously something I can appreciate now that I'm 21 years old, but speaking from experience there is no way I would show it to my kids!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember watching this film in 1981, when I was 7. It was absolutely brilliant! I found the DVD just a couple of months ago. I was nearly jumping up and down with glee!! I bought it and showed it to my kids. They loved it too. They asked what words the seahorse was singing (I didn't tell them, though, because I don't think telling the words 'gay' and 'ecstasy' to 6 year old kids is very good parenting). The songs are brilliant. I still remember them all. I'll still remember them when I'm 60! There, or near abouts. Tommy Pender is (was) such a brilliant actor. It's a pity he gave it up.

If you find the film, BUY IT! You'll love it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK. Who ever invented this film hates humanity and wants to see them all slit their throats. This \"film\" was absolute and utter filth. What the heck was up with the weird old bags eyes? Seriously, was she on some sort of horrible drug and then she like just thought she could control people? She was running around with her freaking evil eye and it was like what? Do I have a booger hanging out of my nose? What are you staring at? Are you like the sea witch or something? All and all though I thought the graphics were top notch old chap. For that alone I would give it a ten. But just cover your ears when you are watching it. The pure and complete evil that comes from that film will make your ears bleed and your eyelids fall off. Who knows? You might even get a knot in your small intestine. You better watch out fools.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Co-directed by and starring Rutger Hauer, this film short was based on a short story by Dutch writer Harry Murlisch.

In the 10 minutes of the film's length you will get to see a life-time as 'Harry' unravels his long-time fascination with a room he passes constantly in his youth. Returning to the city many years later he finds he has rented the same room.

Using black and white film the textures are accentuated in this delicate telling of a tale. The voice of 'Harry' drawing you into his world.

A subtle, tight performance from Rutger Hauer and 2 non-speaking characters. Wonderful soundtrack by Dutch musician Dyzack.

At the moment difficult to see this movie as it is only available on DVD region 2 \"L'infidele\" (Liv Ullman) as a bonus track. But is due to be on the re-released DVD of \"The Hitcher\" - another tight, but very different performance from Hauer!

See this film if you can!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I rarely watch short films as they only seem to be on late night television and are not publicised enough for me to know which short films are worth while. As The Room is an extra feature on The Hitcher DVD, it gave me a wonderful opportunity to witness a high quality short with Rutger Hauer in excellent form.

Artistically shot in black and white, The Room explores a man's obsession with a room he passed by in the early stages of adulthood and is expressed in a documentary\/ interview style. The dialogue is very poetic, typical of a man expressing his feelings for a woman, but is also juxtaposed with ramblings and occasional deficiencies in fluency. This adds great realism and depth to Hauer's performance who is perfect as an eccentric man with most of his life behind him.

The piano music that Harry (Hauer) hears from the room is constantly in the background and enhances the touching atmosphere of the film and intensifies the feelings of sadness expressed by Hauer.

Hauer proves he is more than just a psychotic Hollywood bad guy with this role and perfectly displays his more sensitive side. Mattijn Hartemink is also effective in the flashback scenes as young Harry with a silent role. He shows how affected he is by the music and his disappointment when it goes away.

The ending is prophetic and leaves you in a reflective mood longer than many feature length films. A very good effort.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Hauer at the 2005 Sarasota Film Festival for the U.S. premier of this film. Not only was he gracious enough to autograph my copy of BLADE RUNNER, he took the time to answer some questions about the film before screening THE ROOM for a packed theatre.

I was so impressed by the film that I used it as the yardstick by which to compare all other films I had seen at the festival. It was powerful and moving, yet subtle and brief. The film tells the story of how a young man, (older version played by Rutger) one day finds himself entranced by a seemingly ordinary room in an unremarkable building near the street. Walking by, he notices a single window, always open, from which a haunting melody can be heard. Each day, he passes by the room, sometimes standing for hours outside, watching it through the silken drapes that flutter in the light breeze, hoping to get a glimpse of its occupants. Towards the end of the film, we find out how significant this room really is and what has drawn our protagonist to it.

The film was cut beautifully. Not a second of screen time was wasted on an uninteresting shot. Any single frame from the film could stand alone in an art gallery. Rutger is amazing. He is mysterious, yet approachable. His dialogue encompasses a series of reflections on a life that has run it's course, for better or worse. His words conjure familiar feelings and thoughts from the audience. I was particularly moved by a scene in which he is looking at some old photos, remembering his favourite dog, his favourite horse and his first love. You get the feeling that you are in his presence, as he allows you into his world to glimpse precious memories of a life that is nearing its end.

I loved this film and would recommend it to anyone who is looking for something fresh, intelligent and moving. Should be required viewing for all film majors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It must be so difficult to tell a story where not much happens, yet still grip the viewers attention. I think this short film achieves this with effortless quality. Rutger has an amazing voice that is very soothing, wise and fatherly, (I'm not gay) it reminds of the qualities that Robert Redford has in narrating. The end is very sad, but beautiful. One wonders how long Harry has left, will he be lonely and will he get to say his goodbyes? Also one gets annoyed at Mr Hauer for not getting involved in more work of this caliber. Lets hope he continues to do fine work in Holland and stays away from Hollywood.

Worth Watching","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this a haunting piece of work.its only ten minutes long but i would sooner pay ten bucks into the cinema to see this than to see any full lenght movie currently doing the rounds. it is a simple piece of a man's reflection.he arrived a young man in this place and was mesmerised by a room and the music coming from it...and now here he sits,dying in old age in this place he so fondly connects to his youth. the music in it is brilliant,the guitars have that jazz-room twang like neil young's music in dead man. if you get the chance,watch this film.its worth it.if rutger hauer made more films like this i think he would get more respect than he gets.at the moment you hear him put under phrases like \"everybody's favourite psycho\".im sure that is not what rutger would want to be rememered as an actor for.he also directed this film,so in this shows that he a very artistic actor\/director.a change from the b-grade movies he has been doing since the early 90's.i hope to see more of this rutger hauer as he is one of my favourite actors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When, oh, when will someone like Anchor Bay or Blue Underground release this on widescreen DVD??? Le Orme, which I only know because of my rare\/vintage video collecting habit, is a film in my collection that I would not only sit through, but actually enjoy watching. The fact that Klaus Kinski is top billed, but is only in small parts of the film, means little to me. (Though several comments expressed disappointment in his rather limited screen time.) I cannot say that this is a good horror film, a good mystery, a sci-fi epic or anything of that nature. It is simply unclassifiable in the \"genre\" sense of things. It is more like a confusing, frightening (though not particularly violent or bloody) dream, filled with great visuals and mystery. It relies on visuals and emotion, much like Bava's \"Lisa and the Devil\". Both films are beautiful in almost every sense, but almost impossible to describe in a logical manner; they both occur in such a dream-like atmosphere. Don't be deterred by Force Video's synopsis on the back cover. It is infinitely more complex and intriguing than that. Though Force Video's release from 1986 (the only one in the US, that I know of) is cropped to full-screen on tape, even in that format it is still great. Releasing it remastered and\/or letterboxed would make it magnificent (hint, hint... DVD companies).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is actually a very good surreal mystery movie, despite the description that tries to sell it as a Sci-Fi movie. Balkan stars as a woman haunted by mysterious visions and lost memories that she is trying to piece together. She spends the majority of the movie trying to make sense of her visions. Very atmospheric and effective. It is true that Kinski does not appear very much in this film, but the staring actors are very good. There is only an English dubbed version available in the US, and the dubbing leaves something to be desired, but the actors do a very good job. The cinematography, by Academy Award winner Vittorio Storaro is excellent. An earlier Giallo by director Bazzoni, THE FIFTH CORD, is also excellent, and also lensed by Storarro.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Footprints is a very interesting movie that is somewhat difficult to categorize. \"Psychological thriller\" is the most appropriate description I can think of. The female protagonist, Alice Cespi, discovers that she doesn't remember anything of the last three days. The only clue she has is a torn photo of a hotel. She is also haunted by a recurring, very vivid, dream about a science fiction movie that she believes she saw many years ago. In her pursuit of the truth behind her amnesia she doesn't trust anyone, but little by little it becomes obvious that she has visited the town where the hotel is located before. This is an exciting flick whose main virtue is that it is virtually impossible to predict how the events will unfold, and particularly, how it will end. The unusual loneliness of the main character and the unreliability of everyone else ensure that the good old paranoid feeling is present throughout the film, whereas beautiful colors and some spectacularly filmed sequences make this a visually attractive movie as well. The important part of the one and only Nicoletta Elmi, everyone's all time favorite redheaded obnoxious child star of Italian horror, is an extra bonus.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alice (Florinda Bolkan), a translator living in Italy, discovers that she has a memory loss and can't recall the last couple of days. She starts to follow a trace of memory fragments, which leads her to the small town of Garma. People in the town seem to recognize her and she's beginning to suspect that the re-occurring nightmares of astronauts conducting horrible experiments has something to do with her own amnesia.

The movie is interesting and the plot is good, but it's a bit to slow moving and arty for my taste. The plot takes some nice twists and it's really hard to figure out where it's heading. Florinda Bolkan is good in her role (but even better in \"Flavia the Heretic\") and it's always nice to see \"star\" child actor Nocoletta Elmi. Klaus Kinski's role is too small though. This is not a movie for the die-hard gore hound or exploitation addict, but still a very nice hour-and-a-half mystery.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very insightful psychological thriller! Footprints is a stylish example of the 70's powerful Italian film making.And Luigi Bazzoni, a wrongly underrated director and visually amazing 'auteur'. The movie develops its unusual plot with an incredibly suspenseful atmosphere and never disappoints,especially in its sad and dramatic finale! Florinda Bolkan delivers an excellent performance,rich of nuances and touching sensitivity,being able to portray a dark lady who is not only fascinating,but also painfully real and tragically lonesome.But the all cast is a treat,as well! Lila Kedrova,Nicoletta Elmi(the mysterious kid by the beach),Italian screen legend Caterina Boratto and stunningly beautiful B movie queen Evelyn Stewart in the brief but haunting role of the protagonist's friend! And Klaus Kinski in a surprisingly disturbing cameo! It's peculiar to notice how incredibly well done movies like Footprints were! Vittorio Storaro's moody and creepy cinematography,stylized locations and sets,Nicola Piovani's haunting score and first of all the story,so intense and disturbing,so intelligently layered and structured! A thriller with fantastic elements,but especially with a soul and a personal vision. I wish movies like Footprints would not be forgotten! I wish the movies were more insightful and personal today as they were back in the 60's\/70's! And yes..i wish somebody will soon make a digitally remastered widescreen DVD out of this little masterpiece!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Footprints (on the Moon\") is almost certainly the strangest, most convoluted and most atypical Giallo ever made. It may come as a restraint to some of the sub genre's fans, but this film doesn't feature many of the regular Giallo trademarks like bloody knife murders (preferably committed by a masked killer wearing black gloves), ravishing scantily dressed beauties and unpredictable red herrings. However, to compensate for all this \u0096 and much more \u0096 \"Footprints\" benefices from the most indescribably mysterious and non-stop compelling atmosphere I ever experienced in this type of film. The level of mystery in this movie is so high and unbearable it literally makes you feel uncomfortable and scared. Like the female protagonist Alice Cespi herself, you absolutely have no idea of what's happening or why, and this feeling of utter powerlessness is unquestionably the film's main strongpoint. As a viewer, you crave to help this poor woman understand the things that overcome her, but you simply can't. Alice has a successful career as an interpreter, but her quiet and peaceful life gets brutally interrupted when she wakes up one morning and slowly begins to realize she has absolutely no recollection of the previous three days. She finds a torn apart photograph of a hotel located on the holiday island Gama and decides to go there in order to investigate what happened. On the island several people including a lonely little girl seem to recognize Alice, only she used the fake name Nicole, wore a red-haired wig and acted like she came to the island to hide from an unknown danger. Meanwhile, even the poor girl's nights are restless as she has reoccurring dreams of astronauts hopping on the moon surface and an uncanny scientist called Dr. Blackman. The plot of \"Footprints\" is truly bizarre and slowly brooding, and particularly the cosmic sub plot is really difficult to link with the rest. Alice assumes they are just images from a Sci-Fi movie she saw long time ago, which sounds like a reasonable enough explanation, but you sense there's a deeper meaning and actual connection to all the other events. Fans of tension-driven and stylish Italian cinema can't afford themselves to miss this film, really. This is director's Luigi Bazzoni's psychological tour-de-force, with staggeringly beautiful photography and mind-altering music. In spite of the lack of violence (or maybe just because of it), the film is genuinely disturbing and the mental agony Alice goes through honestly affects the viewer emotionally as well. As it is sadly too often the case in Gialli-cinema, the climax suddenly comes rather abrupt and nearly doesn't give a waterproof explanation of all the awkward events you just witnessed for the last hour and a half. Still, the content of \"Footprints\" will keep you contemplating long after the film has finished and its powerful impact will only increase. Florinda Bolkan is sublime as the tormented leading lady and receives excellent feedback from the limited supportive cast, including the young Nicoletta Elmi. The eminent Euro-cult star Klaus Kinski receives top-billing as well, but his role is merely an extended cameo. This film is actually a lot better than director Bazzoni's more acclaimed (and much easier available) Giallo \"The Fifth Cord\", so here's to hoping \"Footprints\" will soon receive a fancy DVD-release as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie many years ago, have tried to locate it but perhaps understandably it is nowhere to be found. It was so esoteric, & yet one of a handful of movies that remains with you for a long time. I am still not sure what the reality of the movie is, and perhaps, like the Uncertainty Principle, the obscurity is the definite thing. Acting is superb, the atmosphere is always filled with a sense of foreboding, an overall melancholiness permeates, & yet, it is hard not to be absorbed in the story. I rented it thinking it was science fiction (it was in the sci-fi section with some totally misleading blurb), but quite clearly it is not. Or horror, or even suspense. In fact, one feels thankful the director took the courage to make a movie like this, for which obviously there is no solid audience. I know some people have complained about Klaus Kinski's short role, but I think it is very appropriate - his limited exposure is critical to the formation of the mystery of this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was very impressed with with this film which was directed by (Luigi Bazzoni). The story was about a young woman translator who suddenly has lost all memory of the last three days and has suffered nightmares about astronauts on the moon. She can not explained how this has happened to anyone. One day a postcard arrives for her from the island of Garma, where she goes to visit. strangely though people seem to know her even though she has never been there before. Also her dreams of astronauts on the moon come back to her.

I thought that this was a very strange Italian movie that seemed very haunting at times and there was also strange images in the film that seemed to stay with you throughout the the time you were watching the film. I would recommend this film to people just to see how good it is. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first heard of this one while searching the 'Net for reviews of another Italian giallo\/horror effort, the contemporaneous THE PERFUME OF THE LADY IN BLACK (1974; whose R2 SE DVD from Raro Video, by the way, I recently acquired) \u0096 where it's referenced as being in a similar vein but also just as good. Having watched FOOTSTEPS for myself now, I can see where that reviewer was coming from \u0096 in that both films deal with the psychological meltdown of their female protagonist. Stylistically, however, this one owes far more to Art-house cinema than anything else \u0096 in particular, the work of Alain Resnais and Michelangelo Antonioni (and, specifically, LAST YEAR IN MARIENBAD [1961] and THE PASSENGER [1975] respectively); accordingly, some have accused it of being \"deadly boring\" \u0096 an epithet often attached to such 'pretentious' (read: cerebral) fare!

Anyway, the film involves the quest of a woman (Florinda Bolkan) to determine her movements in the preceding three days \u0096 of which she seems to have no recollection. Following a series of cryptic clues, she travels to the 'mythical' land of Garma (nearby locations, then, bear the equally fictitious names of Muda and Rheember) \u0096 where she encounters several people (including Lila Kedrova as an aristocratic regular of the resort) who ostensibly recall the heroine staying there during her 'blackout'! Most prominent, though, are a young man (Peter McEnery) and a little girl (Nicoletta Elmi, from Mario Bava's BARON BLOOD [1972]) \u0096 the former always seems to happen on the scene at propitious moments, while the latter apparently confuses Bolkan with another woman (sporting long red hair and a mean streak!).

While essentially a mood piece, this is nonetheless a gripping puzzle: inevitably, vague events transpire at a deliberate pace \u0096 and where much of the film's power derives from the remarkable central performance (which can be seen as an extension of Bolkan's role in the fine Lucio Fulci giallo A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN [1971]). However, there's no denying the contribution of cinematographer Vittorio Storaro (who provides any number of sweeping camera moves and an effective color scheme \u0096 adopting orange\/red\/blue filters to create atmosphere and coming up with a saturated look for the disorientating, bizarre finale) and Nicola Piovani's fitting melancholy score (the composer is best-known nowadays for his Oscar-winning work on Roberto Benigni's Holocaust-themed tragi-comedy LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL [1997]).

With this in mind, it's worth discussing how FOOTSTEPS was presented in the version I watched: well, being apparently hard-to-get in its original form (I can't be sure whether it's uncut here or not, except to say that the film ran for 89 minutes while the IMDb \u0096 lists it at 96), this edition is culled from a fairly battered English-language VHS (the dubbing is surprisingly good, given the international cast) with burnt-in Swedish subtitles to boot (besides, the DivX copy froze for a few seconds at a crucial point in the story around the 82-minute mark)! Still, we do get a welcome bonus i.e. a 9-minute 'Highlights From The Soundtrack' in MP3 format.

I realize I haven't yet mentioned the moon mission subplot, to which Klaus Kinski's presence is restricted: incidentally, around this same time, he had a similarly brief but pivotal role in another good arty thriller with sci-fi leanings (and also set in a distinctive location) \u0096 namely, LIFESPAN (1974). As I lay watching the film, I couldn't fathom what possible connection this had with the central plot\u0085except that Bolkan mentioned a recurring dream about a movie she had once seen, though not through to the end, called \"Footsteps On The Moon\" (a somewhat misleading alternate title for the film itself) \u0096 amusingly, she at first recalls the picture as being called BLOOD ON THE MOON (which, of course, is a classic 1948 Western noir with Robert Mitchum and directed by Robert Wise!). That said, I took this 'diversion' in stride as merely one more outlandish touch to the film (given also Bolkan's former employment as a translator at a conference discussing Earth's future) \u0096 and certainly didn't expect the astronauts to turn up on Garma's beach at the very end to pursue the female lead, where the sand then turns ominously into the moon's surface\u0085!

The film's plot will probably make more sense on a second viewing \u0096 though, to be honest, this is best approached as a visual\/aural experience and one shouldn't really expect it to deliver a narrative that's in any way clear-cut and easily rationalized! For the record, the only other Bazzoni effort I'd managed to catch prior to this one was the middling straight giallo THE FIFTH CORD (1971), starring Franco Nero (which I had recorded off late-night Italian TV); some time ago, I did get hold of his Spaghetti Western rendition of \"Carmen\" titled MAN, PRIDE AND VENGEANCE (1968) \u0096 also with Nero and Kinski \u0096 as a DivX (after I'd already missed a matin\u00e9e broadcast of it)\u0085but the conversion had somehow proved faulty and, consequently, the disc wouldn't play properly!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a bizarre experiment, an astronaut is abandoned on the moon as Alice (Florinda Bolkan), a troubled translator living in Italy, wakes from a nightmare about a lunar mission mixed with an old movie that frightened her as a child. She also has no recollection of the last three days except for a torn photo of the Garma hotel she finds in her apartment. Fired from her job, Alice heads to that resort island to try and piece together the mystery...

Often touted as a giallo due to it's director (THE FIFTH CORD's Luigi Bazzoni) and the presence of Evelyn Stewart, Nicoletta Elmi, and Klaus Kinski, FOOTPRINTS is actually a deliberately paced psycho-thriller with sci-fi overtones. Blurring the distinction between dream, reality, memory and movies, the disturbing story is beautifully photographed by Oscar-winner Vittorio Storaro with a pensive score by Nicola Piovani. It also combines elements of such diverse films as Armando Crispino's MACCHE SOLARI and Lucino Visconti's DEATH IN VENICE in it's depiction of alienation, isolation, hallucination, and maybe madness. Brazilian actress Florinda Bolkan, on screen all the time, does a redux of her Carol Hammond in Lucio Fulci's A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN as Alice, a young woman thrust into a mystery that makes her question her sanity. The locations mirror Alice's unstable state of mind; the island of Garma, off-season, with it's Arabic influence and ancient ruins, is a lonely, almost mystical place unwilling to give up its secrets. Evelyn Stewart has a bit in the beginning as a concerned friend, Nicoletta Elmi and Oscar-winner Lila Kedrova are hotel guests, Peter McEnery plays a handsome biologist trying to help Bolkan, and the ever-intense Klaus Kinski is \"Blackmann\" in the film-within-a-film, \"Footprints On The Moon\".

FOOTPRINTS is a classy case of \"Guaranteed 100% Euro-weird\" but not for everyone. There's only one murder toward the end but you won't see it coming as the film starts to come together.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Footprints is a very interesting movie that is somewhat difficult to categorize. \"Psychological thriller\" is the most appropriate description I can think of. The female protagonist, Alice Cespi, discovers that she doesn't remember anything of the last three days. The only clue she has is a torn photo of a hotel. She is also haunted by a recurring, very vivid, dream about a science fiction movie that she believes she saw many years ago. In her pursuit of the truth behind her amnesia she doesn't trust anyone, but little by little it becomes obvious that she has visited the town where the hotel is located before. This is an exciting flick whose main virtue is that it is virtually impossible to predict how the events will unfold, and particularly, how it will end. The unusual loneliness of the main character and the unreliability of everyone else ensure that the good old paranoid feeling is present throughout the film, whereas beautiful colors and some spectacularly filmed sequences make this a visually attractive movie as well. The important part of the one and only Nicoletta Elmi, everyone's all time favorite redheaded obnoxious child star of Italian horror, is an extra bonus.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK ... The end of this may be something of a letdown after what has come before ... And Klaus Kinski should have had his 10 second appearance cut out ... But there is no getting away from the fact that this is a really wonderful atmospheric Euro thriller ... I can't believe I have never seen this till now ... Its good to know there are films out there that are still worth tracking down ... And this really is ... Stunning visuals ... Haunting ... And builds an amazing atmosphere ... Florinda Balkan is perfect as our heroine ... And the scene on the beach with Nicoletta Elmi is some of the most relaxed and perfect acting you could see ... Lila Kedrova is spot on as a fellow visitor to the town who may or may not be who she seems ... If you miss the hay days of Euro cinema then chase this out ... There's a decent widescreen print going round ... And please get this out in a restored DVD someone ... They did it with the directors \" Fifth Cord \" ... And this is a much better film","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Footprints certainly isn't your average run of the mill Giallo, and that's no bad thing. Unlike his previous effort, The Fifth Cord (which was your 'classic' Giallo) Luigi Bazzoni's film forsakes almost all of the Giallo trademarks and instead of murder; the focus is very on psychological mystery. It's obvious from the outset that this is going to be an entirely bizarre film as the film opens up with a scene set on the moon. Things don't get any clearer after that as the lunar sequence turns out to be the dream of Alice, a troubled woman. Alice is tormented by dreams of an astronaut stranded on the moon, which have apparently come from a viewing of a film called 'Footprints on the Moon'. After several things go wrong for her, Alice decides to go to a mostly deserted former tourist spot named Garma. Upon her arrival, she is surprised as the people she meets seem to already know her. Alice also meets a young red headed girl who also seems to already know her; the girl tells Alice she looks exactly like Nicole, except nicer and with shorter hair...

The fact that Footprints doesn't feature much in the way of sex, murder and other Giallo trademarks puts it somewhat on the back foot with it's primary audience from the beginning as most people going into this film aren't going to get what they were expecting (or, probably, wanted). But on the other hand, Footprints commands respect for the fact that it doesn't just follow on from what went before it. By 1975, the Giallo had started to lose it's popularity and many of the films coming out around this period (with a few very notable exceptions) were merely retreads of what came before, so Luigi Bazzoni would have been taking a big chance on this film. Florinda Bolkan gives a strong performance in the lead role; and the fact that she's not the prettiest Giallo heroine isn't really important. The mystery builds nicely throughout, and while it can become a little turgid at times; Footprints is, generally speaking, intriguing for the duration. It probably won't come as a surprise to many once they get there that the ending doesn't make much sense, and doesn't really clear anything up; but it nicely adds to the bizarre cult value of the film, and all in all; I give Footprints a thumbs up!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the final days of the year 1999, most everyone in Taiwan has died. A strange plague has ravished the island. Supposedly spread by cockroaches, the disease sends its victims into a psychosis where they act like the insects. Eventually, they die. The Hole takes place in a crumbling apartment building (which is especially well created; kudos to the set designer!). Its two protagonists live right above and below each other. The woman is on the lower floor, and the pipes above her apartment are leaking fiercely, threatening to destroy her food supply, not to mention her sanity. She calls a plumber to go check it out, and he accidentally pokes a hole through the floor of the man's apartment. The two have never met before, and they come into contact through the hole.

The script is quite brilliant. Few films are simultaneously this funny while remaining completely human, deeply exploring the human condition, especially feelings of loneliness and despair. Tsai's direction is simply beautiful. Like a lot of other Taiwanese directors, he uses a lot of long takes. But unlike, say, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Tsai doesn't overuse them. In fact, I don't know if I've ever seen them used better. They're always effective and never tedious.

It would be wrong to review this film without mentioning the musical numbers. Yes, The Hole is also a musical, and a great one, at that. In the film's best scenes - which is saying something, considering how good all the other scenes are - the man imagines that the woman is a singer, almost a cabaret singer. These numbers are fully choreographed, often with backup dancers and singers. In a stroke of genius, Tsai has these elaborately produced numbers take place in the crumbling building, the signs of apocalypse and decay unhidden. This provides both a sense of pathos and absurdity.

The Hole is a film that begs to be seen. It ought to be a cult classic, if nothing else. Before I went to see this, I was told that it was a decent film, but probably Tsai Ming-liang's least good one. Well, if that is true, I just cannot wait to see another one! 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*MINOR SPOILERS*

Need any further proof that Tsai Ming-liang ranks among the most original and provocative filmmakers working anywhere today? See this film.

Working from slight variations of a theme running through most of his work, THE HOLE represents a study in alienation and loneliness - in this case between a man and woman who are upstairs\/downstairs neighbors - and how varied structures (real or psychological) of modernity wall people off from one another. Here, the woman (the downstairs neighbor) attempts to endure as her apartment is flooded by a prodigious leak from upstairs. A plumber attempts to locate the source of the problem, then disappears after creating a large hole in the floor. Already isolated and desperate (both characters are among the few residents of a housing project who haven't fled in advance of a mysterious, near-apocalyptic epidemic). The hole linking the two apartments functions first as yet another in a long line of indignities, but soon begins to take on a significance of near-mythic proportions.

Tsai's sense of humor, and sense of cinematic history is displayed with a bit more overtness than usual - as the woman's occasional daydreams revolving around her upstairs neighbor are visualized as musical numbers (set to the music of Grace Chang) which explode from the screen in brief bits of sensualistic, surreal romance and humor - quite reminiscent of the big-screen PENNIES FROM HEAVEN. And for all of the ennui and alienation on display here, Tsai's skewering of late 90s pre-millennial tensions is funny, absurd, and gives this film a very appealing strageness. The final scene is extraordinary.

Meanwhile Tsai - in typical fashion - subverts most of the usual expectations or preconceptions Westerners bring to Asian cinema with a nonchalant, casually-revealed directness, focusing on both the absurdist tendencies of the human mind, and the most absolute of mundanities. There's an utter, nonchalant demystification of almost everything about his characters, sidestepping backstory or most cultural signifiers (which does amplify the isolation of the characters), making THE HOLE - and his other films - rather disorienting, but also always fascinating and insightful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(the description of the mood of the movie may be considered as a spoiler - because there is not much action in fact)

Great one...

Is it for my peculiar interest for the dystopias and utopias? Is it for the atmosphere of the movie. Or is there some more magic? If yes, it is for sure the utmost human one...

This film is, no doubt, extremely artistic\/artificial (depends on taste). I can imagine most of the people who hate to watch slow movies (and those of Tsai Ming Liang (who I didn't enjoy other times) are one of the slowest that I know), suffering during the movie. Yes, people are unable to slow down and to let time pass - and to watch it without feeling they waste it. One can take this piece as torture or as a therapy...

The topic at the surface? The lack of communication - even if we live in rabbit cages - one next to each other - but not really together? People are tired, sick of something and unable to describe it - just don't want to meet, touch, talk, confront the others... like if they had disappeared. The big block of flats looks void and the rain falling constantly evokes the strange melancholy inside. And sometimes it must be something abnormal, unexpected, some unwanted decay as a hole in the floor of concrete - that allows us to reach each other.

One of the possible ways to look at it is this: Don't survey the inner world of the characters - consider the whole movie-space to be inside of yourself. And ask - why is it there? Where could these depressive states and moods come form? Is there a place for them, they don't have a right to be here? And search for the answers (if you need them) among the walls and halls of the block - instead of inside hardly transparent mind of a man.

The key to understand is not-to-understand - to let a movie borrow us - as a subject of study - inside itself - and at the end safely return us to our more colorful and \"normal\" looking reality.

Then, maybe, you will reach - like me - the feeling of real, possible, non-pathetic hope, that in core we are still humans... and this state of mind can help one much to live in this world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's less visceral than the only other Tsai film I've seen (\"Vive L'amour\"), but the idea of doorways (holes) into others' emotions and existences is vividly portrayed here, as Tsai sets up long shot after long shot, usually with long takes, suggesting a sense of alienation in Taipei. The musical interludes, inspired by Grace Chang, are perplexing but welcome mile-markers that add new dimensions to the slowly evolving relationship between the young man upstairs and the woman downstairs. It's not necessarily an easy film to watch (although it's not heavy-handed by any means), so I'd warn any casual viewers who are looking for some \"indie\" entertainment (like Tarantino or Guy Ritchie). But if you'd like to know something about isolation among city-dwellers in Taiwan, and something more universal about city alienation and romantic yearning, then watch this film immediately.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie, one of the best I've ever seen, talks about incommunicability. It does it plunging ourselves in a livid Taipei, stained in cold colors, where the rain falls incessantly; a DAMP world. It does it displaying us the story of two persons living in this world, a man and a woman. a coincidence, or the fate,links their existences, but they're not able to open one to the other with words. Characters are the mirror of the difficulty of our society concerning interpersonal relationships. An incommunicability that here is taken to the extreme limits. all the characters exchange only a few words during the movie, dialogues are nearly absent, and when some words are spoken they're often weak and empty, far away from describing people's real feelings. So, the progression of the story, the revelation of character's feelings is developed (brilliant idea!) by the musical digressions, only apparently meaningless, that speckle the movie. The proceeding of the sentimental event, and the drama of female protagonist, lead us to a splendid ending, heavily symbolic. A movie totally different from the usual, a clever realization by a great-talented director. PS. Forgive me for my bad grammar!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the middle of The Hole I e-mailed a friend of mine to summarize it. Not sure if the film would break down into a series of submissive gestures, I felt a little un-easy recommending it, but then I saw the ending. It's perfect. I've been living in Korea for 6 months, and this film could just as easily summarize the strange ennui and frustration of any Asian metropolis as it takes on Taiwin here. It uses the myth of Hong Kong musicals the same way Godard or Hartley use Western musicals, but takes it to an extreme, it's gritty world and occasionally Kafka-esquire logic make it all the better. I really feel like The Hole's closest comparison is Hal Hartley's Surviving Desire, but have a kinda bleak edge to what are ultimately hopefully and strangely metaphorical films. Anyway, this is what I wrote to Esther. Hope you like The Hole too.

Hey,

watching a move called the hole. Taiwanese I think seems a bit to weird for china unless it's hong Kong. it's worth seeing so far. it's about a guy and a girl in an apartment complex. the guy's ceiling caves in and the girl starts to get annoyed and well it's kinda a weird metaphor for the simultaneous pleasure ,degregation, and pain of a rather intense crush. there's also a kinda zombie-virus-sub-plot too and a lot of weird little scenes where the girl acts out her desires through rather innocent and kinda fun 50's doo-wop sequences. worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The whole world is falling prey to a lethal disease, and rain never stops pouring down : nevertheless, in this atmosphere of nightmare, a man and a woman discover that they are neighbors, thanks to a hole in the floor of the man's apartment. They fall in love : at least, all would not have been lost. Although this wonderful film expresses the loneliness and the weakness of human being, there is also some room for hope, in the shiny singing scenes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is like a dirge. UNTIL it gets to musical numbers which are like MIND F*CK, but gentler, like a mind caress. MIND FOREPLAY. The depressing vibe given from the speed & desperateness of the characters can be pretty Kill-Yourself-Awesome UNTIL you get to the musical numbers. It's a great film. Optimistic. Weird. Manic-depressive(Bipolar). That's it! THIS MOVIE IS BIPOLAR. anyway see it. IT'S A MUSICAL!!! WITH DEPTH!!!! If you like the existential dross like The Stranger, or Waiting for Godot, Then your probably get a real kick out of this one. I had to get the DVD through Amazon.com for like 12$. OH & the songs rock. well they rock but they aren't rock, there like calypso, jazz, Broadway, but by Grace Chung, & I can't find the soundtrack NOWHERE< but i wanna the songs are great, & the dances are so fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Compared to this, Tarkovsky is a speed freak.

Compared to this, Bela Tarr is MTV.

Compared to this, the movie \"Russian Ark\" is a roller-coaster ride.

I've just described 3 of the sllllowwwwwesssstttt experiences I've ever known, and this one tops them all. But that's not saying it's bad. On the contrary, I really liked it. But it was a chore.

I won't describe the plot, because you can easily find that elsewhere. Suffice it to say that the plot is INSANE. It's one of the most creative and bizarre ideas since \"Becoming John Malkovich\". I believe the interesting plot is the main reason I kept from nodding off (also, the humour was nice. That's something we rarely see in slow, artsy films).

Here we see a bizarre reversal of the norm. Most movies have little plot & little substance; yet they fill 90 mins with a lot of eyecatching images to keep us enthralled. But \"The Hole\" has 100% plot\/theme without much to please the eyes. In that respect, I suppose it's a truly intellectual experience, much like reading a painfully verbose novel like Thackaray's \"Vanity Fair\" (which I've NEVER been able to finish!).

If you have a tremendous attention span, I think you'll really like this film. Despite its molassessy pace, it's highly creative and imaginative. It's like Jean-Pierre Jeunet on quaaludes and with a drab, dusty camera lens. Best of luck.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Where to begin, where to begin . . ?(Savannah in the episode \"Gimme Shelter\")\" To disabuse: Fox\/Viacom does not, at this point in time, have any intention of releasing THE show on DVD. But be not downhearted! That you are reading this reveals that the magic lingers fifteen years on . . . And small wonder. This was post-modern television, a valiant attempt to visualize magical realism. 'neath the blue patina, charm, and brio were scripts bursting with symbolism and metaphor, music that actually interacted with scenes! And, ultimately, an attempt, however doomed, to recapture one's belief in innocence, to reclaim Eden, as it were . . . It's potency is perhaps best attested to by the fact that even as we, umm, type, a book is being written about the show wherein will be found the thoughts, fancies, and reminiscences of many of the show's actors, writers, directors, and producers. In the meanwhiles . . . anyone desirous of once again visiting the end of the world and reacquainting themselves with Seamus, Sheriff Cody, Savannah, et al . . . should not hesitate to contact me, I may be able to make you a copy. \"Angels in the spray, wizards in the palm trees . . .\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Key West, for too short a time was \"appointment TV\" for my family. I'd stop by Red Lobster and pick up a Party Tray for the night it was on. The irony of the situation was that I was working for a Fox Affiliate at the time, and every one at the station was incensed at them not renewing the show. Everyone in that cast was excellent. Fisher Stevens... perfect. Who couldn't fail to identify with an \"everyman\" who dreams of being a writer in Key West? Jennifer Tilly was always remarkable (and she is one HECK of a Texas Hold'em Player). You can still find the pilot episode on YouTube. Wish they'd post the Hurricane one. That episode alone, should have won an Emmy, as well as the rest of the cast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Such a shame that this wonderful bright spot on the small screen had such talent in writers and actors, such wonderful scenery that was the ultimate escapism for those in a land locked, sun deprived state. Many of the actors went on to bigger things...another indicator that there was something wonderful sadly lost. I lived in Columbus, Ohio at the time, with all of my (now ex) husband's very large family in a chorus of 'NO NO!!' every time it would be yet again taken over by a baseball game broadcast.

Someone who wrote here mentioned it was up against 'Rosanne'...all my ex and I noticed was that it was always always always preempted by BASEBALL!!!! Yes, FOX really wasted something wonderful that one and nothing will ever equal it~! Thank you for the memories of it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am right now watching \"The Big Chill\" on DVD. One of its actors is Meg Tilly. I looked it up on IMDb which led me to reading Meg's bio which mentioned and reminded me of Meg's sister Jennifer Tilly whose filmography included \"Key West\", which was one of my wife's and my favorite shows. I then read this entire thread of reviews.

Wow, I really loved that show also and agree with all of the sentiments about the quirkiness and uniqueness of the characters and situations.

As most everyone else, I wish it was on DVD or otherwise available.

The last reviewer says he watches it on reruns so I wish I knew what network, channel, day, times it is on.

So if anyone knows how we can watch episodes of \"Key West\", please let us know.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This series, while idealized and fictionalized, has the quirkiness, sultriness, and good-heartedness that does come from living on an island.

I lived in an out of the way part of Hawaii for a few years and found some hilarious, quirky, and fun people in some remote (non-tourist) areas.

Every time I see the reruns of this series, I fondly compare my memories of experiences in out-of-the-way parts of Hawaii with the memories portrayed and fictionalized in Key West.

This series is not reality television. I hate reality television.

It is from the era when people still wrote creative TV shows. Give me a \"young writer\" who takes their inspiration from the \"angels in the spray, wizards in the palm trees and elves in the seashells\" any day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Agree that this was one of the best episodes of this show. I remember the series well as I was in the Florida Keys when the show had its debut. I was looking through old VCR tapes that were \"keepers\" and came across two that had about eight episodes. I ended up spending part of Christmas night (and the next) watching these shows. The singer was Bankie Banx - saw his name come up on the credits. He's from Anguilla and owns a beach front bar called The Dune Preserve. He's a longtime friend of Jimmy Buffett and Bankie's classic song \"Still In Paradise\" is featured on the latest Buffett CD\/DVD combo called \"Live In Anguilla\" - it is track #12 on CD 1 and #8 on the CD. I too would like to someday see this short lived series come out on DVD. Keep the faith!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We all seem to be in agreement. It was an excellent show and let die way before it's time. I've decided that if I really enjoy a show, it's often the kiss of death. I love the quirky, ensemble cast shows, and a great setting always helps. I really expected to see a lot of these stars in other television productions, but short of Mariska Hagartay who played Fisher Stephens crazy girlfriend, I've not seen many of them except in occasional cameo roles. What a shame.

Key West, Northern Exposure, Gilmore Girls, and Veronica Mars... all great shows, all sadly gone before their time.

Hear us, loud and clear, we want Key West on DVD..... please.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that \"Key West\" might do well as a DVD. There probably are a lot of failed Star Treks that just never had a chance to succeed. We will never know if this could have been a great series. I would love to know if there is a way to see older shows like this or are they just another Hollywood footnote? Is it possible to find copies of these shows so that we loyal oddballs can enjoy them again? The show had a great writing talent and some if not all of the episodes left you with a feel for the characters that is often missing in todays hit shows.I often came away with a sense of learning something from the story lines and greatly entertained by the very unique characters. Thank You.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went into this film thinking I wasn't going to like it, but hoping to be surprised, but this, much like the film, ended up being bleak and hopeless. But don't get me wrong, Minghella delivers every bit of a grand epic and for those who enjoy that kind of experience and are willing to take that adventure and accept what comes as just that, then they will not be disappointed and it will be one of the better films of the year in their opinion. The acting is of a high quality and will most likely come away with a trinity of oscar noms for Law, Kidman and Zellweger, even though Portman's few scenes may be the most powerful in the film. The locations are beautiful and Minghella has an eye for a good shot.

However, for those like me who want the director to take them on the adventure instead of going willingly may come away disappointed mainly due to Minghella and his adaptation. The film is so utterly bleak it makes for what I consider to be a punching bag epic which is a film that that tries to hit hard with emotion but does so to such an extreme and so often that during the film I didn't have the time to emotionally invest, or hadn't recovered from a previous blow, and it became unrealistic and consequently too difficult to really care, not to mention predictable. Overall the \"Cold Mountain\" almost left me too drained to even think back on the good aspects of the film, as all I remember is death, which may have been an original motif but ends up being the focus instead of the characters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"How can a name, not even a real name, break your heart?\" Here's how. There have been few film versions of a celebrated novel that have done better justice to their source material than Anthony Minghella's movie of Charles Frazier's Cold Mountain. If you've read the book you will be able to feel most of the major scenes soul shakingly recreated. I personally cried numerous times while reading the novel and spent much of the evening watching the film through tears.

Astounding scope, beautiful words, great acting and great music. In the interview on the DVD accompanying the film Minghella talks about the multiple layers of the story. All of them work. One of the best films I've seen and an invitation to one of the greatest novels of the last ten years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching \"Cold Mountain\" gave me the impression that its director, Anthony Minghella, was deliberately trying to outdo himself and the own film of his' that he was trying to beat was the virtually impeccable \"The English Patient\" from 1996. Comparing the two movies, the premise is quite similar. We have a passionate love affair between two people set in a turbulent time of war and they end up treating the war more or less as a disturbance in the background while trying to find themselves back in each other's arms again. The primary plot differences are that Nicole Kidman's character is not married, Jude Law's is a deserter, and the conflict is the American Civil War.

\"Cold Mountain\" is, story-wise, more watered down and mellow than say \"The English Patient\" and it's more on the level for people who want a simple love story with some kind of an exterior turbulence causing a problem. It is a shorter film, which is a plus for people with less patience. However, it's not as spectacular or original or genuinely gripping as \"The English Patient.\" My *only* big complaint about \"Cold Mountain\" is, astonishingly, the love affair between the characters of Inman (Jude Law) and Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman). Amazingly, their love was the least interesting thing in the picture. They don't have a real relationship; we don't feel any real passion coming from them and the passion that we do see is more physical than emotional. I was more fascinated by the friendship between Nicole Kidman and Oscar-winner Renee Zellwegger and also Jude Law's travels across country dodging vigilantes and enemy soldiers. If Minghella had strengthened the importance of the love story, then he would have had, I feel, a better picture.

Of course, the movie is entertaining even if the love story is uninteresting. The Civil War sequences are absolutely great; they are of the modern tradition that show war as horrible and dehumanizing. The re-enactment of the Petersburg campaign, in which tons of explosives was detonated from underground and then followed by a hand-to-hand battle is horrifying. Minghella does not shy from showing blood and gore in an artistic and sensible manner, and he's not afraid to show casualties of innocence and life in these scenes. There are moments where women as well as men are killed, oftentimes by crossfire. And there's more to it. Just the sound design of the movie generates tension. There's a scene where Inman and another deserter make themselves a meal by sawing off the head of a dead cow. We don't see the slicing, but the sound effects of blade going through bone are sickening.

Lastly, I must congratulate the cast for the performances. Jude Law was terrific in the movie and deserved the Academy Award nomination he received. I feel that Nicole Kidman deserved one as well, even though her character was a bit shallow. Renee Zellwegger had the most personality and screen-stealing atmosphere. And then there's just the bit parts that also really work to complete this stylistic world recreating a horrible time in America's past.

Maybe \"Cold Mountain\" would have been better as a war picture, but it most certainly would have been spectacular like \"The English Patient\" if its love story had been powered up and made more passionate by the screenwriters and director Anthony Minghella. As it is, it's a most enjoyable picture, I wasn't bored by it, and I recommend it. I just say that its love story - though a central plot point - is a little more mellow than it needs to be and all the stuff around it was what really worked.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"it's been awhile since i've seen Cold Mountain,bit i do knew that i enjoyed it immensely.though it does take place during the the last days of American civil War,it's not really a war movie.it's more of a romance\/drama.and it works.mainly because of the performances.usually i don't like Nicole Kidman,but i liked here.i thought she was very convincing in her role.i liked Rene Zelwegger,as well,who i'm not usually a fan of.Jude Law is good as usual.the supporting cast.there are some great supporting performances her,too numerous too mention.there's also some breathtaking scenery in the film.and there are also a number of very nice musical pieces as well.the story is sad and tinged with tragedy but it s a beautifully done well told story.for me,Cold Mountain is an 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's initial premise is based on the American Civil War but it's ultimately a love story. We start at the beginning of the war where the main characters (Kidman & Law) are obviously aware of each other and there's an obvious attraction, they have a passionate kiss on the day he leaves for the war. The main thrust of this film is for Law's character to return to Kidman's and his struggles to achieve that and her struggles to survive until he returns. The reason it fails to convince is that we don't see enough of this relationship before Law's character leaves for battle - it's difficult to believe the premise that 2 people yearn for each other so much given they've had so little contact. Everything else is just about fine, Renee Zellweger and her incumbent father and his entourage are lovely additions as is the threat from the gang chasing deserters. Sure it's a long film but it does hold the interest and the cinematography is great. An honourable attempt that doesn't quite make it but worth a watch nonetheless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this Minghella epic, thought not quite so much as \"The English Patient\" (a modern-day classic). The first 20 minutes or so feel awkward, but as Inman (Jude Law) embarks on the journey back to his love Ava (Nicole Kidman), the film picks up in leaps and bounds and it becomes a very memorable, thoughtful romantic drama. Apparently it is fashionable to hate Kidman at the moment, but I don't agree at all, and she does well here. I actually think that the romance between Inman and Ada is weakly developed in the script (they really don;t get much screen time together to develop a relationship), but Law and Kidman give it their all and convince. Ada's journey is the crux of the film- she becomes a strong woman who can bear almost anything. Zellweger at first seems all wrong as Ruby, but she grows on you after all and sparkles in many of her later scenes. The film has beautiful photography and set design, but never really captures the true feel of a period piece. Jack White, in particular, has long straggly hair and a pale rocker's complexion that look completely out of place with the setting. Cillian Murphy fans will enjoying seeing the talented Irish actor in an early bit part, and Natalie Portman actually proves she can act in probably the film's most striking sequence. It's a pity that in \"The Other Boleyn Girl\" she's so inadequate.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How is it possible to like and dislike the same movie?

The plot is very much like that Jody Foster thing, Sommersby, only not as good. Nicole was great....Jude was adequate. They didn't give him many lines...is there a reason for that? Generally, he's a pretty good actor. She's so elegant, his character is so country bumpkin. It makes one wonder what they see in each other.

Romance between two such was only successful in Lady Chatterly's Lover.

I think the dislike comes about because the movie is too long. They could have told the story in two hours.

The story is good. Good locations, good filming. The character actors were great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When Liv Ullman's character says, \"I feel like I'm in someone else's dream and they're going to be ashamed when they wake up,\" she is referring not only to being an unwilling player in society's war games, she is referring to being an ignorant participant in life itself. At the film's end, when she says that she had a dream that she had a child and she was trying to take care of it, but she forgot something else, the implication is that she has forgotten what she has learned in the war she's just survived, that like her own mother before her, she will be unable to pass on any vital lessons to her own child. And, therefore, the cycle of the shame of ignorance will continue...ad infinitum...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't recall a film which so deftly shows the emotional destruction of war, as mirrored in one single marital relationship. The focus of the film is the union between Ullman and Von Sydow--the two are in every scene. Through the course of the film, they experience a role reversal--one has the strength of survival and the other is reduced to emotional escapism through dreams. Both will lose a measure of humanity, but one to a greater degree than the other. The characters and the viewer go through periods of fluctuation in regards to closeness--the camera pulls out and away, sound disappears, words are lost, only for the camera to return to painterly closeups of its facially expressive stars. The confusion and fluctuation may make this film hard for some viewers, but this is all purposeful under the master hand of Bergman. I think the use of a \"fake\" war makes the film timeless, as relevant today as ever before, and by focusing on the human relationship through war, makes the film relevant to everyone. The pair could be anyone. The film is not grounded in place or time, but rather in emotion. A unique and effective war film, unlike any other. Bergman's films are virtuosic in presenting human relationships--that he would bring this to a war film is masterful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bergman's Skammen is one of the most realistic depictions of war ever set to film. This is not an action film by any means, though the pacing is faster and there is most action than in most any other Bergman movie. Nor is this a romanticisation of war or patriotism, unlike most war movies. In fact, the gritty realism and the deliberate ambiguity of the character's loyalties has a very contemporary feel.

Skammen is a darkly lit movie, that should be watched at night, so as to let it work it's magic. Many of the effects are conveyed indirectly, but so effectively that some scenes compete in intensity to a contemporary, insanely huge budget film like Saving Private Ryan. Of course, the action in Skammen is on a much smaller scale but it is impressive none-the-less.

While the film-making style feels contemporary, the setting of the film feels timeless and placeless. The war-torn countryside, and even the yet intact provincial hamlet could be anywhere, any time. And this film is not so much about specific historical events, with specific names and dates, but about universal human reactions to adversity and chaos.

The acting in Skammen, though typically impressive from Ullman and Sydow, is not of primary importance in this film, unlike most other Bergman movies. Through much of the film they are spectators, much as we are. Bergman has the war imposed on them, and through them on the audience, and their reaction is perhaps what any of our reactions might be.

Highly recommended. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all the story is not so simple as many earlier reviewers tend to emphasize, it is actually a very complex story, unlike Bergman's other movies that are more bend towards character study. In Skammen we have two main characters but as we are thrown from the start in the middle of a war we have no idea who is fighting and why, everything is open for any resolution. This creates a huge tension and makes every event meaningful. As the story unfolds we are introduced to numerous characters, that are turned into symbols of humanity, both its dark and luminous sides. We have the example of the innocent bystanders who try to get by during an absurd war, the cynical doctor who makes fun of his patients and provides the only bitter humor of the whole movie, the perverse opportunists who try to make the best of an atrocious event (Bjornstrand's character), the innocent dead children, the nameless figures almost turned into animals from the boat etc. All of them are somehow seen through the eyes of Jan (von Sydow) and Eva (Ulmann), their characters are more restrained then in other Begrman films (En Passion) and this is exactly because what is important here is the story, the way exterior events have the capacity to radically change human nature.

Bergman made this film two years after Persona where the main conclusion expressed by the only word uttered by Liv Ulmann's character is INGENTING, nothing. That's it: the meaning of art and the meaning of life, the latter being nothing more than a play that includes all plays. But what about war? And especially the annihilating ones of the XX'th century. In Persona, the only real emotion suffered by Ulmann's character is when she sees a victim of the Vietnam war turned into a human torch. In Skammen that idea is extended to a complex analysis of the dehumanizing nature of war. In a nameless region of a nameless country (we only assume it's Sweeden) two factions speaking the same language fight an absurd war. Jan and Eva are two dreamers caught in the middle but their dreams are woven in a sort of counterpoint. Jan is at first an idealist, unable to react properly to the world and a subject to his wife's will. Towards the end he turns into a radically different personality, capable of unmotivated murder, strong-willed, pitiless (watch carefully the suicidal on the boat..the simplicity of the act is harrowing). On the other hand Eva progressively looses touch with reality and at the end she is completely suffused in her own unfulfilled dream.

From a technical point of view the whole movie delivers its message in a very effective way. Bergman places the viewer alongside the character, putting the camera in the car with the actors, or in an extreme close-up behind the actor. Nykvist manages an extraordinary control of the camera, there are some masterful \"hand-held\" effects, very good in making everything seem \"real\". The shots when the characters are captured by the army look remarkably documentary-like. The screenplay is minimalist but the story is quite complex for that matter. Actually the whole movie is paradoxical, it has an intensity in the subject that is in a sharp contrast to the coldness and lack of emotional involvement with which it is directed and filmed. Nothing is melodramatic here, there is no compassion, no hope and no apparent redemption. But, as in Liv Ulmann's dream at the end it is all so beautiful one cannot help but being amazed at it...It was not so awful since it was so beautiful!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A gruelling watch, but one of Bergman's finest films. Interesting to compare this with The Hour of the Wolf, as both feature the same lead actors as artists (or an artist and his wife) who have taken sanctuary on an island. In the earlier film it's largely inner demons that lead to von Sydows disintegrating personality (at least that's how I read it) whereas here it's very much circumstances beyond his control.

Much has been written about the unsympathetic central characters, particularly von Sydow's. For me there are flashes of a good (if flawed) man early in the film, but one who copes badly with adversity. The flaws become all that is left as his humanity is gradually eroded by one horror after another.

I watched A Passion (Ullmann and von Sydow on their island again) soon after this, and was amazed to recognise many of the same locations. And then there's a dream sequence...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shame is rather unique as a war film (or rather quite the anti-war film) in that it not only doesn't focus on the soldiers or politics involved (there is politics but not how you'd think it'd be shown), it deals with its two main subjects as the only two beings that can possibly be cared about at all in this brutal, decaying society they inhabit. Ingmar Bergman, in the midst of his prime, and following two other heavily psychological films, Persona and Hour of the Wolf, is far more interested in seeing what the effect of war has on usually civilized beings, that it brings out the worst in them, and also in a cathartic way is a reminder of what is truly crucial in living. His two key actors are frequent collaborators and friends Max von Sydow and Liv Ullman (as the Rosenbergs oddly enough), who are musicians living on a farm on an island (not too dissimilar from 'Wolf' when one thinks about it).

They see the tanks roll by, and a couple of old friends already getting worn down, but they try not to put it too much to heart; there's a sweet scene where the couple just talk, rather frankly but with heart (all one shot, as is repeated through the film is to perhaps create a sense of being provoked)...Then comes the trouble, including a fake film of propaganda made at gunpoint with the Rosenbergs, the psychological turmoil in being prisoners of war, and the terror involved with a 'friend' in the military (one of Gunnar Bjornstrand's most subtle works with Bergman). Needless to say this is not one of the easier films to go through in terms of Bergman's filmography, however for some it may be one of his more accessible works. His religious themes this time is kept very low key, even as the idea of keeping a sort of faith pervades the film's atmosphere. When there is war action it's shot in unconventional, quick ways (via great amigo Sven Nykvist).

And the deconstruction of the relationship between Jan and Eva is corresponded successfully with the backdrop of a chaotic kind of war-ground where the lines are never too surely drawn. In a way this film, shot right at the height of the worst times in Vietnam, is even more relevant for today; I couldn't help but see chilling, uncompromising coincidences between Iraq and elsewhere with some of Jan and Eva's scenes with the fighters, or those 'in charge'. The very last scene, by the way, is one of Bergman's very best, all around (acting, directing, lighting). It's not the kind of war picture (or, again, anti-war, I find little of the John Wayne spirit in this Svensk production) that I would recommend right off the bat to my friends all into Saving Private Ryan- it has a little more in kinship with Paths of Glory, looking at the effects of the hypocrisy of war. But in reality, like any of Bergman's \"genre\" films, it stands alone, however one that packs a wallop for the art-house crowd.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie on a big screen a few months ago. I didn't know what to expect precisely, and for the first ten minutes I feared I might not enjoy this film. It was beginning very slowly, in silence and almost banality, which was all the less exciting as the sound was quite bad and the subtitles sometimes impossible to read.

But I definitely do not regret to have gone on watching it. It is one of the most beautiful Bergman movies I've ever seen, at the same time human, ruthless and psychologically so convincing.

Seldom have I seen actors play so wonderfully, with such an intensity on their faces : Liv Ullman's interpretation is unforgettable and Sydow is excellent too.

There is always psychological violence in Bergman movies, and this one may be the most physically violent of them all. The strained relationships between the man and the woman evolve in parallel with the physical violence that is surrounding them...

Finally, this sober, violent and powerful film contains a surprisingly striking human depth. An excellent Bergman.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The apolitical musicians Eva (Liv Ullmann) and Jan Rosenberg (Max von Sydow) have been married for seven years and live in a small farm in a remote island to escape from a civil war in the continent. They provide lingenberry to a couple of costumers to raise some money and buy some supplies. They love each other and Eva is twenty years old and wants to have a baby but the reluctant Jan, who is a weak and sensitive man, does not want to have children. When the rebels arrive in the island, their peaceful and calm lives turn to hell, and they get in the middle of accusations from both sides. When Colonel Jacobi (Gunnar Bj\u00f6rnstrand) stalks Eva, Jan changes his behavior and becomes a brutal man, and the love and affection they feel for each other change to hatred and indifference.

\"Shame\" is an antiwar movie by the master Ingmar Bergman focused by the eyes of a couple of artists that are apolitical and does not listen to the news, but when the war arrives to their lands, they have their love, friendship and affection destroyed by the senseless soldiers. Liv Ullmann and Max von Sydow have top-notch performances as usual and I do not recall seeing the breast of Liv Ullmann in any other movie. The process of brutalization of the pacific and sensitive Jan Rosenberg by the war is impressive and the bleak open conclusion is pessimist and adequate to the dramatic story. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): \"Vergonha\" (\"Shame\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the bleakest, the most harrowing of Bergman's films I've seen. I also think this is one of the most powerful films about the ugliness of war and what it does to the human souls.

The couple of musicians, who left a big city for a remote island and make a living as farmers, find themselves capable of unspeakable and shameful acts that would have ordinarily been impossible for them even imagine, as they struggle to survive horrible reality of war. They betray their souls, their friends and even each other in a desperate attempt to simply survive another day. Liv Ullmann and Max Von Sydow are brilliant as usual as lost, confused, and terrified couple that got caught in the midst of a civil war.

9.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What Bergman has got here is \"What if all that bad stuff happened here in Sweden, to nice people like us?\" And what he gives us, in the Swedish language, with Swedish actors, on Swedish locations (and using what appear to be genuine Swedish military vehicles) is what was familiar from war films set in almost every other country in Europe-- all the confusing invasions and counter-invasions, political lies, internment camps, faked confessions, summary executions, torture, turncoats, \"collaborators\", and so on. As in a modern short story, it's done in the abstract, with no real names, cities, or countries used. But the stronger faction are \"Nazis\": they strut about self-importantly, and some wear shiny knee boots. One even whips things with a riding crop (ok, it's actually a cane). The victimized couple are named Rosenberg. Apart from the shame they feel at finding dirtier ways to survive-- and who would not do what they did?-- what all of the above suggests is that the title is clearly meant to refer to Stockholm's de facto complicity with the Nazis. Indeed, what we are shown is what Sweden might have looked like if Germany had asked for a bit more than mining concessions.

The first half plays like a black comedy. We see the \"fog of war\" from the point of view of a comically passive couple who ignore the troops all around, the long convoys, the bombed-out buildings, the news reports, &c. They do not even bother to find a working radio. They are the ultimate in \"Not in my backyard\". They talk of wine and lingonberries; meanwhile friends are mysteriously conscripted and growing numbers of troops show up in the town. They show no curiosity about the war that has been going on around them for many years.

The man (Von Sydow) is cultured, sulky, and a navel-gazer; the woman (Ullman) is somewhat more impulsive, passionate, and outward-looking. There's a beautiful scene in which the man talks about his violin: the manufacturer, he says offhandedly, fought in the Napoleonic wars, but his own interest stops with the cultural artifact in his hand-- or, more precisely, which his own warm feelings about owning it, and the security that that ownership assumes. Not in my backyard! But when war finally breaks into their bucolic idyll, the man's timidity, an irritation in good times, turns into a liability, one he ends up overcompensating for-- as is often the case-- as Bergman demonstrates subtly and beautifully. Definitely worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film offers one of the greatest experiences available to movie-goers. It is by no means a pleasant film, but offers realities and emotions the human mind may never have meant to touch upon. It opens pathways in how an individual thinks, and afterwards will change the person forever.

The first time I saw this film was in class, and immediately after seeing it I had to skip my next class and walk around campus in order to reset my body and mind. I felt devastated and, somehow unreal, as if I didn't exist. It was only a few months later that I was telling one of my friends about SHAME, and she asked, \"Oh, is that when you were messed up after seeing it, and ran into me talking all strange about it?\" I didn't even remember running into or talking to anyone at all while outside that day, I was astonished.

In plot terms it is the simple tale of a couple torn apart by war. There suffering is greater than that of the dead and by the end...there are no words to complete the image that Bergman creates. Its like a horrible dream which causes you to wake, altering your own reality forever. This film must be seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bergman's regular Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann starred as a village couple, Jan and Eva Rosenberg. The story began with an ordinary couple who fights and make up. Jan was a sensitive person, but an escapist who isolated himself from the world. Eva is a practical woman who is getting fed up with her husband's lack of ambition. Because Jan procrastinating in fixing their radio, the are oblivious of the impending war. Of course the war arrived, and the movie was a fascinating study of their transformation of each other and to each other through the invasion as they were mistreated by the enemy and by their own government.

There were no musical score to the movie, but the soundtrack was the war noise. In one scene the pulsating background gun shot, the explosion, and sound of the fly by planes was incredible. Now and then, Bergman zoomed into the facial expression as different event took places. When something violent happened, he zoomed out to let the audience sensed the violence rather than seeing up close. Very well done movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ingmar Bergman's meditation on war concerns a couple living an idyllic existence on a small island off the coast (of what country isn't specified). Raging off in the distance is a war they know only from news reports. As they go about their day the war comes to them and it soon becomes a struggle for survival as both sides seem not to care about them. Bleak look at the human cost of war and those not readily engaged in battle but caught in the cross fire none the less. Its a movie ahead of its time as some 40 years since it was made the notion of armies at war where most of the casualties are the civilians have come of age. This is a dark disturbing film that is told from the average person's point of view with the complete sense of hopeless and confusion best expressed in the thought that kept running through my head, \"what do I do now?\". As an intellectual exercise the film is top notch, this is a film that will make you think. As an emotional film it is touching but never fully moving. I was never moved emotionally even as the horror of the situation made my brain do flip flops. (I should state that I admire Bergman intellectually for the ideas that he brings to the table, however I have never been moved by his films. I am not a \"fan\". I always sided with Fellini in the old film class argument as to who was better since he had more emotion to his films). Reservations aside this is require viewing especially since we live in a world were war, for most of us, is just a thing on a TV screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This begrudging and angry film is against not just the war during which it was made, but all war. It doesn't care what war it is. It might be the most emotionally involving experience I have ever had with Ingmar Bergman's work. There are no sides to the two main characters in this impacting drama, which doesn't intimate a point in any ceremonial symbolism as per Bergman's usual, but plainly showcases people and their lives and exercises what Bergman has already proved he understands about a person's reaction to a movie.

His top-drawer regulars Liv Ullmann and Max Von Sydow play an internalizing but bickering married couple who were once orchestra musicians. Now they live in a weathered farm house on an island. Part of the building frustration we grow to share with these two people fertilizes in the detail that nothing in their house seems to work. They are not reclusive intellectuals, either. They are a rather familiar marriage that has more or less resigned from life and is essentially apolitical; they only get wind of distant rumors of a war that has been going on forever. Ullmann is concerned with the danger to their lives and to her desire to bear children. Her husband Von Sydow shrugs off that the war will pass them by. Their serenity is interrupted by screaming fighter planes flying low over their house, the killing of a parachuting airman, the arrival of dubious troops, their inquisition, and eventually their capture by what appears to be the local side, but loyalties have long since splintered.

They are sent back to their home, witness gratuitous destruction and suffer the vindictive consequences of such an agonizingly distrustful marriage. This, one of my top favorite Bergman efforts, is a study of a couple jarred from their safely self-unaware lives and violated by a manipulative despair, testing them both to reveal who they really are. She lacks compassion to some extent, too self-serving and restless to have any patience for his capricious breakdowns into crying. His suppressed emotional issues have led to the repression of the very initiative and excitement that attracted them to begin with. The immense last twenty minutes, sporadically interrupted by images of the overwhelming gray sky, are among the closest to real emotion that Bergman ever filmed.

All systems of dogma and faith are the antagonists in this very essential and downbeat portrait. The basically clearcut personalities of Ullmann and Von Sydow's characters are hurled into the degenerate world of war because they are accused of being \"sympathizers,\" but the film, shot on Bergman's small home island of Faro, doesn't give any information about where or when it's set, who the two sides are, and for what they're fighting. To an uninvolved civilian caught in between, the knowledge base is likely to be quite similar.

Ullmann and Von Sydow are not sympathizers for the apparent enemy, but they're partisans for who are apparently their side. This 1968 reactive allegory could be about the common noncombatant citizens of Iraq, or Kosovo, or Vietnam, or Israel, or Palestine, or...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Extremely pinching vision of a war situation where the couple from Vargtimmen (ok, they have different names and initial situations, but the actors are the same) gets caught in the crossfire of two fronts. The depiction of the fighting parties as faceless, superordinate authorities are often captured in sublime surreal pictures and draws interesting parallels to Orwell's 1984, even if Bergman thwarts this context on a personal level of a slowly burgeoning conjugal war. That is why countless fundamental and philosophical questions towards Eva's and Jan's marriage are relevant and essential, while the threat and danger from the outside tears open an abyss in the inside which was toilsomely covered with lambencies before. An intense allegory on the fragile facades of civic conventions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very credible and unsettling movie portraying the effects of war on the general public, Shame gives us a chilling understanding oh Ingmar Bergman's beliefs. The absence of color and sound (as in a soundtrack) helps to give the film a more realistic feeling. There is no soft or hard lighting or a variety of camera angles to give the story a charming or dramatic effect. Everything is very simply portrayed as it would be in reality. At times the storyline was confusing, but perhaps in order to give a sense of the characters' frame of mind \u0096 how they too do now know what is happening or why. The simplicity of the film made it somewhat boring, but I could understand how the director is trying not to glamorize the story and points. He depicted the harsh and unsettling events and effects of war. In the beginning the characters were introduced and shown as content with the lighter settings and very long, drawn-out shots. When all of a sudden the war struck upon them, they were much darker and quiet with less intimate shots. Bergman did a good job on allowing us to be consumed by the war ourselves and presenting an image of it the so adequately corresponded to war. Although the storyline itself was not too impressive, the content of the film was.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shame represents a high point in the career of a master. Ingmar Bergman penetrating, existential study of a couple on the island of Gotland dealing with surviving a long war. Liv Ullman and Max Von Sydow give painfully detailed performances in this spare, stark drama. The films intensity rests in Bergman's keeping our focus on the minute, intimate relations of his two characters - both accomplished musicians - trapped in a landscape they have ceased to understand. We see the way the external pressures of the war complicate and corrode their relationship. Both characters are forced by the material circumstances of the war to betray their own sense of ethics. In one of the most powerful episodes Bergman forces us to reflect on the manipulative power of the cinematic medium by showing us a filmed interview with Ullman's character that has been re-edited and distorted for political effect by one side of the conflict and is used by the other side as evidence of war crimes in a brutal interrogation scene.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I should no longer be surprised when critics miss the most obvious things in works of art, because they are human beings, and the vast majority of human beings are lazy by nature. That said, the simplistic notion that Ingmar Bergman's great 1968 film Shame (or Skammen) is merely an anti-war film does a great deal of damage to the reputation of this very complex, and highly nuanced, film. Compared to its more filmically showoffy predecessors, Persona and Hour Of The Wolf, Shame is seemingly a more classic film, in terms of narrative. But, the key word is seemingly, for while it lacks the bravura pop psychologizing of Persona and the gaudy horror film homages of Hour Of The Wolf, it is one of the best films ever made about war- and not as an anti-war film, nor a pro-war film. As such, it has to rank with Wild Strawberries as one of his greatest films, as well as one of his best screenplays, if not the best.

Although ostensibly a more psychologically exterior film than the films that preceded it, it truly says far more realistic things about the human psyche and the will to survive. In it, Max Von Sydow and Liv Ullman play Jan and Eva Rosenberg (perhaps a nod at the infamous American spies, whom many European intellectuals felt were innocent), two musicians who used to play for the local philharmonic orchestra before a war broke out, and they retreated to live on a small plot of land on an island, content to working in a greenhouse. The country they live in is unnamed, as is the island they live on, although the film was made on Bergman's small island of Far\u00f6, just off the northern end of the Swedish Island of G\u00f6ttland. It seems that their nation has been at war for some years with an invading country, or perhaps engaged in a civil war with rebels from another province. This is all left deliberately hazy, as this war is meant to symbolize all wars. This is reinforced as the film starts with assorted war quotes on the screen, as the credits roll. These include quotes from Hitler to Vietnam Era American military figures. After early scenes that depict the prosaic nature of their rural life, and then the coming of war, where even old men are conscripted, an aerial attack ravages the Rosenbergs' land, as enemy jets fly overhead, dropping bombs and what seems to be chemical weapons of an Agent Orange like nature. One plane is hit, and a parachutist jumps out and ends up hanging in a tree. Jan, who starts off the film as a sniveling coward, refuses to go and help, so Eva goes alone. Jan joins her and they find the pilot has been shot. It seems he is, indeed, part of the invading, or possibly rebel, force. A bunch of government soldiers soon stop at their home and ask questions about the dead pilot, then advise the couple to leave their home, as the Invaders are near\u0085. there are the misinterpretations of the film on a micro level, such as that of Bergman scholar Marc Gervais, who provides the film commentary on the DVD of the film. Like many other critics, he claims that Jacobi is a Quisling, who has collaborated with the Invaders. But, this is clearly and demonstrably wrong, for Jacobi is with the original Fascist government. As proof, first off, the Invaders are repelled after they invade the Rosenbergs' land and shoot their agitprop interview. We know this because the government that later questions them of the faked interview, and words put into Eva's mouth, see the film as supposed proof of their treason, and Jacobi is clearly working with them, the Fascist Big Brother statists. Secondly, Jacobi is in charge of deciding which of the townsfolk are sent to concentration camps, for collaborating with the Invaders, and the Rosenbergs, again, are among those spared. Thirdly, in his seduction of Eva, Jacobi tells her his son is on leave from the military, and clearly, if he was an Invader, he would not be speaking so happily of his son serving the state. Also, rebel forces are not official armies, and do not grant official leave. Lastly, Filip is clearly with the rebels, or Invaders, of the Organization, and why would he have killed a colleague?

That Gervais and other critics so blatantly and wantonly misinterpret and flat out miss such a key and manifest point of this film brings into question their ability to discern any and all aspects of all of Bergman's films. This is a wonderful and great film, and very high in the Berman canon, but it is disappointing to read how so few critics and viewers have really understand its complex message, instead opting out for the cheap, lazy, and easy claim of its being merely anti-war, and a rather simple film in comparison to its two showier predecessors. And that, in the long run, is the real shame of Shame.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a harrowing movie, and it moves relentlessly. Still it is utterly unique among war films in that it focuses exclusively on the civilian experience, the loss of humanity ordinary people undergo during wartime. The two young, married musicians undergo a slow, battering process of degradation at the hands of both sides of a civil war. Utterly stripped of sentimentality, the film offers a bleak vision of the modern world, and one I believe particularly recognizable to many Europeans. With brave, intense performances by Liv Ullmann (never better) and Max von Sydow (likewise). For my money, the most indelible film Bergman ever created.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a huge fan of Bergman I had to search literally years to find this movie (at a price less than $60 I mean) and finally bought it a few weeks ago. The basic premise of Bergmans films are the relationships between the characters and how they deal with trying situations. This film therefore is the same yet it is different because the setting is far different than most of the Bergman films the I have seen.

It is set in wartime and the heros are caught in the middle.

It is riveting from start to finish and it once again proves that Liv Ullman is one of the best actresses of the 20th century. A must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bergman\u00b4s tale about how the hell of the war can drive a sensible couple of musicians to the barbarousness. With many memorable scenes throughout the film, I found particularly remarkable that close to the end where Ullmann and Von Sydow go in a boat completely surrounded by corpses of soldiers floating on the sea. A fascinating masterpiece!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shame, is a Swedish film in Swedish with English subtitles. The film is about a husband and wife named Jan, and Eva. They live on an island working as farmers. There is a war going on and soldiers start attacking people on the island. Once the war subsides a little Jan, and Eva are arrested as going along with the opposite side. Once released even more trouble ensues and the film shows how two ordinary people will act in a situation of war and life or death. Winner of The CEC Award for Best Foreign Film at The Cinema Writers Circle Awards, The Guldbagge Award for Best Actress (Liv Ullman, who plays Eva) at The Guldbagge Awards, The NBR Award for Best Foreign Language Film and Best Actress at The National Board Of Review and The NSFC Award for Best Actress, Best Director (Ingmar Bergman) and Best Film at The National Society Of Film Critics Awards. Shame, has good direction, a good script, good performances by both Max Von Sydow (who plays Jan) and Liv Ullman (who plays Eva), good cinematography and good production design. Shame, is a well acted and well made story of how people in a desperate situation will sometimes do whatever they can do in order to survive. The film has a powerful message and is a good film. The reason I'am not rating this film higher is because it is not a masterpiece like some other Ingmar Bergman films like Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal or Persona, for example. The film didn't have as big an impact on me as I thought it would and it lacked Ingmar Bergman's thoughtful and philosophical dialog. While nowhere close to being one of his best films there is still a lot to like about Shame, and it is a good movie. I just probably would have liked it more having not seen some of those other Bergman masterpieces.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It came as no surprise to me that this was a very depressing and draining movie. After all, it's all about the impact of war on civilians AND it's by the \"king of depression\", Ingmar Bergman. In other words, so many of Bergman's works delve deep into human misery and angst and so this movie seems not so extraordinary coming from this director.

Even though it is more difficult to watch, the last half of the movie offers perhaps more insight into the lower depths of humanity. That's because initially, the main characters (Liv Ullman and Max Von Sydow) try to overcome adversity and are basically decent (though a bit stupid) people. However, as deprivation after deprivation occurs, they (especially Von Sydow) become less and less humane and more animalistic--doing ANYTHING in order to survive.

Fun to watch, NO FREAKING WAY! But, an interesting insight into human nature.

PS--1 thing I LOVED about this film is that it avoided a stupid movie chiche. When the couple sat down with the shopkeeper to drink a glass or wine, they FINISHED the wine completely! In most movies, they barely touch their drinks or leave them untouched. It drives me crazy, as I would NEVER leave a $4 alcoholic beverage without drinking it unless it tasted terrible or had a bug floating in it! BRAVO!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oh, it's an excellent piece of work, to be sure. In fact, several of the best scenes in cinema, or at least in Bergman's cinema, are to be found in this film. Liv Ullmann and Max von Sydow are as good as you would expect. Do these two give bad performances? Sven Nykvist delivers some masterful, although unconventionally masterful, cinematography. The script is quite good, especially in individual scenes. Sometimes the film lags, and the pace is uneven, though probably intentionally.

So what's the problem? Well, the film is too bleak for its own good. Other Bergman films are similarly bleak, but nowhere near this harsh. Eventually, I just gave up and I started to become a little irritated. I was greatly affected often during the film, but, by the end, I felt uninvolved. It's a great film, but I doubt I'd ever watch it again, nor suggest it to friends. Or, if I did suggest it, I'd be very sure to warn them of what's ahead. 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After watching Ingmar Bergman's Skammen, I had many feelings, but most notably, I felt unsatisfied. I have heard so much hype about this movie but I came to find it lacking. Don't get me wrong, I can fully appreciate the artistic value of such a film, but as far as depth and emotion, I was not so impressed. I found the characters to be disagreeable and unrealistic, which detracted from the dramatic effect. In addition, the fact that the war was fake led me to feel that the emotion was not real. Dramatic war movies, in my opinion, are much more effective if the events (not necessarily the story itself) really happened. I find that of all the movies that try to show the brutality this one falls in the middle as far as effectiveness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anyone looking to learn more about the development of skateboarding should find Dogtown and Z-Boys adequate research material. This is not to be confused with Lords of Dogtown, that sorry Hollywood attempt to cash in on the success of the original Dogtown revival.

Directed by Stacey Peralta, a former Z-Boys himself as well as pro skater and mastermind behind the 80s Bones Brigade, and co-written with skateboarding photojournalist Craig Stecyk, this documentary traces how a group of surfing kids from Southern California's mean streets (known as Dogtown) who formed the Z-Boys skateboard team (actually there was one girl--Peggy Oki) revolutionized skateboarding. The film contains interviews from nearly all of the Z-Boys (Chris Cahill's whereabouts are unknown) with the most noteable being bad ass Tony Alva and the youngest, Jay Adams, who's talents (along with Perlata) seemed to transcend the rest of the teams. There are interviews of the team's (and the Dogtown shop) founders, surfboard designer Jeff Ho, Skip Engbloom, and Craig Stecyk. There are also interviews of folks like Tony Hawk (obviously), Ian McKaye (Fugazi), and Henry Rollins, who were young kids in the 70s when Dogtown was making it's influence on skateboarding (skateboarding was a whole other context in previous years as the documentary explains).

It really shows you not only who the Dogtown team was and how they formed, but why their style changed not only skateboarding tricks (pool skating became immensley popular, and thus gave way to vert skating), but also facilitated the sport (though not into the extreme commercialism it is today) as more than just the fleeting fad it had been earlier as these surfing kids who's waves ran out in the early morning needed ways to spend their time and eventually got into skateboarding. The days of Russ Howell and Alan Gelfand were long over as the Dogtown, at least through the publicity of their skate team, paved the way for the new generation of skaters. Because Dogtown got all the attention, they were able to push skating to the next step.

It's a great documentary in the way that it is put together, though Stacey Peralta always knew how to do this even when producing the Bones Brigade mini movies\/skate demos like \"Ban This\" and \"Search for Animal Chin.\" Narrated by Sean Penn, the film is accompanied by a fantastic soundtrack, contains lots of terrific archive footage, and lots of interview to give you a genuine feel of who the Z-Boys were and how they made their mark on skateboarding.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My skateboarding career ended in 1974 when my two-by-four skateboard with steel roller-skate wheels hit a rock and I tumbled, for days it seemed, down the sidewalk outside my parent's house in Boston. By the time the cast came off my arm, summer was gone.

But I have always admired the X-games types and surfers especially. I think I spent the first month after I moved to Southern California on the beaches and piers watching the surfers, bemoaning that fact that I had missed my calling. It's the sort of thing you should learn young, before the horrible senses of self-preservation and self-awareness burrow in. Or else at best, you'll be so worried about not getting hurt or laughed at, you'll wind up looking like a trained bear.

I always admired how a good surfer seems to not care about anything but that moment, that wave, that experience. At one with the forces of nature. A good surfer makes it look like there is nothing else but that wave right there, and the way you interact with it. There's a lot of Zen in it to me.

This documentary outlines how a few young folks took the surfing concepts and extended them to skateboarding. Ramps, downgrades, low sweeping curves while interacting with the cement waves beneath their feet. In their day and time, this was all new. radical. Prior to the Zephyr Skate team the idea apparently was to go as fast as you could in a straight line on a skateboard, hence my long \"Evel Knievel at Caesers Palace\" like tumble down the front walk.

This film is a look back through time, to an America before EVERYTHING was labeled, tagged, marketed, and jam-forced down our throats as \"Extreme\". (Seriously, what's so \"extreme\" about an \"Extreme value meal\" at Taco Bell? Other than the fact that it is an extreme hazard to your colon...)

Watch this film and watch the birth of 'extreme sports'. Before there was an X-games, before Boom-boom Huck-Jam, before Crusty Demons, before the ASA...there were these young street urchins who created 'extreme sports' without really trying. They were just doing it for the purity, the pure pleasure, of skateboarding in the sun with friends.

I hope they get a cut of the 'extreme' money out there. Goodness knows they don't get the credit they deserve. Maybe this film can correct that.

Excellent film with a great soundtrack, a portrait of a Southern California, indeed an America, that no longer exists.

I don't care for Sean Penn but he does a decent job narrating.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being in the suburbs of New York when the Z-Boys were creating history in Dogtown, I was only exposed to a glimpse of what was going on. I had a P-O-S Black Knight skateboard with clay wheels. It is long gone, and on the ash heap of my personal life. But I never forgot. It's like watching long-lost brothers and friends, and it hits me right where I live. I cannot watch this film enough. Every time I view it, some other aspect rises to the top, some other viewpoint come into sharp focus. The vintage footage, the incredible stills, the current personalities intermeshed with the vivid shadows of the brightly lit past, the heartfelt and not over-done narrative, all beautifully edited together in such a way as to make a landmark documentary of a genuine slice of American history. In the words of Glen Friedman - \"It was F-ing unbelievable.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you have ever been, has a friend, or a kid that is or was into skating at one time, then watch this flick!. I have seen it several times and I get something new out of it every time that I see it. It reminded me of why I got into skating in the first place (a long time ago) . It reminded me of what skating brings to a person and I have found will also help a person who doesn't understand why skaters, well, skate. Sure there is a very dark side to the whole seen, which the movie does touch on slightly. But it tends to focus more on what is at the core of skating. Just a person on a board, doing it because they love to do it. This movie was so inspirational to me that I'm now skating once again (I'm 32) and I haven't been this happy with my self in years\u0085.. Give this one a go, you will not be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Back in the day, I was one of the RN's in the Emergency Rooms, these skaters would occasionally land in. They were not treated well, and some of it was brought on by their asocial personalities- but we all knew they were a talented bunch of \"wonderkids\" even then. They deserved better care than they received, I'm afraid. They had \"attitude\" in spades.

I'm so glad I caught this documentary on IFC tonight- it will be on again at 1 am and I'll be watching again!

Little attention was given to them until the rich dying kid was able to talk his parents into draining the pool- and the film really highlights that as the taking off point....it was an amazing time, and deserved to be recorded. Stacy Peralta is due all the praise heaped on him, and long may those Z-Boys enjoy their memories and contribution to the real sport of skateboarding. As for the few \"sour grape\" reviews contained herein, there always were and there always will be \"wannabees\" and hangers-on who never do more than dream...the Z-boys lived it, breathed it, were it.

Nice to see the vintage films and even the lone girl, \"Peggy\" who was so talked about as being the only female to win their respect.

Thanks to IFC I get to really take the occasional drug-free head trip of my youth and relive the heart pounding excitement again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This documentary traces the origins and life of the Zephyr skateboard team, using original film shot in the 1970s (mostly by Craig Stecyk) combined with interviews of the team members and other influential people today.

The first part of the film documents how the \"Dogtown\" section of Venice, CA came to be, starting back around the turn of the century when the town was created to be a Venice, Italy-like European city. By the 1970's, the one remaining local attraction, the Pacific Ocean Park, had been abandoned, leaving a beach with lots of exposed piers and other hazards. The poor kids living in the area had nothing better to do than surf, and they excelled despite (or perhaps because of) their surroundings. Because the waves dissipated in the afternoon, they took up skateboarding to fill their time, and the empty swimming pools caused by the drought during those years plus their surfing backgrounds led them to create the vertical skateboarding style that is mainstream today.

I found that the film covered much more about surfing than I expected, which seemed like a bonus since I really didn't know much about surfing or skateboarding before I watched the film. The soundtrack, not surprisingly, was good as well. I also liked how these kids were just following their passion and generally ended up better off for the experience. The parts that didn't work so well for me were the drama that they tried to create, which seemed somewhat forced, and the team's somewhat overinflated sense of self-importance (although this is probably just left-over street attitude from where they grew up). This is not to say that they didn't have significant influence, but only that it seems extremely likely that there were other factors as well.

One note: My wife is more affected than most to nausea when films use what we refer to as \"SpastiCam\" (wiggling camera movements). This film is often guilty, so if you are so afflicted, be warned.

I would recommend this film to anyone, but especially to anyone with skateboarding and\/or surfing in their history.

Seen on 5\/11\/2002.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let me say first of all that I spent a total of about two minutes of my life on a skateboard before I realized I was totally uncoordinated. I've always thought it was cool watching cats that know how to get extreme on 'em do their stuff, but I've never been a skateboarder and have never really followed the sport. That being said, I thought this was a very informative and interesting documentary. Some reviewers have said that these dudes were sort of waving their own flag a bit, but what the hell? It looks to me that these guys probably deserve as much credit as anyone for giving the skateboarding world a jolt and they've provided some good footage of their innovations to back it up. It's great the way viewers are allowed to see these guys both then and now and the footage they shot while they were teens growing up in California provides some interesting nostalgia that goes a bit beyond the sport of skating. I never would have realized where extreme skating came from, but this films sort of ties all the pieces together and gives us an informative documentary. I'm sure it's at least a tad biased, but aren't all documentaries? Worth watching for anyone interested in the sport or, as in my case, anyone who grew up in the 1970's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this movie twice now on cable. The first time I saw it, it caught me by suprise. The skaters I was seeing were the guys we followed in the pages of Skateboarder magazine back in the late 70's. These were the guys we copied and tried to become while skating. I am glad that a film was finally made that gives an accurate account of how it all came to be. I am almost 40 years old now and I guess a pretty uptight kind of guy with all of life's problems, however; this film did a great job of taking me back. Back to the vacant pools, the backyard halfpipes and the road trips to Cherry Hill NJ. I suspect that in order to really understand this movie and appreciate it, you had to live it. Otherwise, it probably won't have the impact on you as it did me. But for those of you (and you know who you are), who did live it, you know exactly what I am talking about! In any event, I don't care who you are, if you get a chance to see this movie...do it! I give thanks to the Z-Boys of Dogtown for the memories of my youth and thanks to Stacy for making this movie! JOB WELL DONE!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is one of the greatest documentaries i've ever seen along with \"Dark Days\". I have skated for maybe an hour my entire life, and I still love this movie. Peralta and his excellent editor captured the feeling and atmosphere perfectly, helped in part with some incredible archival footage. Tony Alva is one of the coolest individuals in existence. Love those knee high striped sport socks, you rock Tony!

Not only is this movie a visual feast, but the soundtrack has to be one of the best in history, if you're into 70's rock. Buy the DVD, you won't regret it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember when skateboarding had it's rebirth in the 70s. I begged my parents for money to by a second-hand skateboard from a friend. It was a piece of junk, complete with clay wheels and everything. I also remember reading Skateboarder Magazine and being both completely impressed and totally terrified of the Dogtown crew. Skating never became a way of life for me, but in some ways it has always been a part of my life, whether it is using a board for transportation or just having a bunch of friends that skate.

This film is a brilliant documentary of the real birth of modern day skating. Watching this crew turn skating from the flat boring hobby it was into the vertical lifestyle it has become had me sitting slack-jawed for 90 minutes.

It's amazing that enough footage from this period still exists to have created this film, and thank god for that. The footage is brilliant. It gave me the feeling of watching an old Buster Keaton film: I've seen some of the tricks Keaton did repeated countless times in other films since then, but when you go back and see the first person to perform that trick it's amazing that, not only were they the first person to try it successfully, but that they lived through it and made it seem effortless. That's the feeling this film gave me. Yeah, I've seen people skate pools before, but to watch the FIRST people skating pools and inventing the tricks that eventually became the basics of modern skating is like watching the facade of the house fall on Keaton, leaving him standing safely in the frame of a window. It's absolutely brilliant to watch something that, up until that point, had never been tried before, but since, has been tried by almost everyone.

This film is beautiful to watch and incredible to listen to. The soundtrack is one of the best I've ever heard in a film. This is a film that will appeal to people whether they like skating or not. I've talked to a couple of friends of mine who made their girlfriends sit through this film after heavy protest, and they all said that their girlfriends were mesmerized by the end of the film and loved it as much as they did.

As for the previous comments on this board that complain about the film being too self congratulatory, I think that's an unfair disparagement. I liked seeing these guys get excited about their past. They created something that influenced their sport and changed it forever. They have the right to pat themselves on the back. They were stars for doing what they loved to do. Most of these guys\/girls never achieved the staggering success Tony Hawk enjoys today, but that kind of success wasn't available to skaters then. Sure, they had some success, but more importantly, they have been able to live a life doing what they love to do, and, as we see in the end, almost all of them still surf, skate or work in the surf\/skate industry. How many of us can say that we have been able to live our lives and have been successful by breaking all the rules and doing what we love to do? They can. My hat's off to the Dogtown and Z-Boys for being themselves and changing the world of skateboarding forever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film moved me at age 39 in the same way that all the footage and coverage of Dogtown affected me when I was 13. For all of those who criticized the self promotion of the Z boys interviewed, they have the last laugh on you. That was their whole deal, \"we're better than all of you and here's why....(insert footage of the smoothest pool carve imaginable)\" This was a film to tell their story and that was their story whether you like it or not. It was THEIR opinion of their skating that mattered..... not yours or mine. I thought the film captured their attitude and influence exactly as I remembered it in the 70's. The reality is that they DID revolutionize skateboarding, they WERE the impetus behind extreme sports and they DID inject a cultural paradigm that reached into every corner of americana. This movie gave rebirth to images of Bertleman on a wave and Alva and Jay Adams ripping up the coping that WAS the California Dream to an entire culture of young american teenagers that just wanted to have fun and get rad! As I watched this film I realized that it was these images that I lived with every day until I was old enough to move out and back down to So Cal after my family had moved to Nor Cal when I was five. Until I could get back, my buddies and I built and thrashed ramp after ramp, searched for every empty pool possible and mimicked everything Stecyk covered about these guys. We are all educated and have family's and careers now but this film reminds me who I was at that age and why I still surf. This is an inspired film that anyone who has an interest in pop culture, extreme sports, the 70's or even just good documentary film making will enjoy completely. Whenever it comes on cable I can't change the channel. Kudos to Stacy Peralta for making a beautiful piece of art!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie on the lowlands festival (23, 24, 25th of august) after a friend of mine said this is a very cool movie about the history of skating. I didn't now what to expect from this movie. Was it recorded by a couple of skaters who thought they could do a couple of cool tricks, or was it a documentary about skating.

So i went in, after waiting for about an hour, whit out any expectations.

This movie is really a nice piece of work about the beginning of skateboarding. It started with the zephyr team, who where a fine group of surfers. This is taking place in a not so nice area to live in. At a certain point the waves are not so good any more to surf on. So they try something else. skateboarding was a fact.

If you were a part of the zephyr team in that time, you where one of the cool guys\/girls. Because a lot of people saw an escape from the place they were living in with the zephyr team. So they were trying all there new tricks now on a skateboard.

In no time skateboarding was popular again. There were a couple of competitions and one national competition. The zephyr team was taking part on several competition and also the national one. But what they were doing on there skateboards was unbelievable. But the jury didn't now how to judge them. So they put the whole skateboarding world on it's head.

Anyway i can tell you the rest of the film\/documentary, but you must see this one with you're own eyes. Because then you can feel the vibe of this movie. This movie got a lot of style for me, so i rewarded it with a 8.

Greetings from gijs and the rest of Holland. See you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film to me deserves a lot of praise, because even though I am not a surfer or skater, I remained inspired throughout the whole documentary.

The depth of history and development of these two extreme sports emphasised what they were able to do for two groups of individuals. The dedication that these individuals had\/have is truly inspiring and it was because of them that others can now enjoy and do what these guys founded.

Unlike most other documentaries, this one was cleverly put together, the amount of footage that was recorded and survived throughout the decades is outstanding and it was because of this that some of the greatest editing I have ever seen was put together and resulted in the subject remaining focused. Without the urge for them to retort to recent footage of the more famous surfers and skaters that remains popular today.

The film explores areas such as the success, such accomplishing new tricks, winning competitions and gathering fame. As well as failures such as injury or burning out.

It was also fulfilling to hear the experiences come from the skaters and surfers themselves and not from second hand information. This resulted in a better picture to be drawn.

Overall, a truly outstanding effort.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the groovy mid 70's a scruffy bunch of brash young Venice, California adolescents from broken homes and the bad side of town known as the Z-Boys turned the previously staid world of professional skateboarding on its ear with their fierce punk attitude, radical unconventional riding style, and unbridled spirit of pure in-your-face aggression, revolutionizing the sport in the process and paving the way for the many extreme variations on sports that popped up in their influential wake. Director Stacy Peralta, who's one of the legendary Z-Boys himself, relates the incredible exploits of this amazing ragtag crew in a ferociously punchy and visceral manner that's both informative and wildly entertaining: the snappy rapid-fire editing, ceaseless speedy pace, and raw, gritty photography deliver one hell of an infectiously kinetic buzz, projecting a sense of sheer joy and full-on bustling energy that's a total pleasure to behold. Better still, this documentary neither sanitizes nor romanticizes its subjects: These rough'n'scrappy lads were so fiercely competitive and out for themselves that they all went their separate ways when the lure of fame and fortune manifested in their lives. The ultimate fates of certain guys is poignant and heartbreaking, with gifted and spontaneous ace skateboard rat Jay Adams rating as the saddest and most tragic: He blew his chance at the big time and wound up doing time in jail. The other dudes are very colorful and personable as well; charismatic ball of cocky and defiant fire Tony Alva in particular comes across as one arrogant, yet impressive piece of furiously assertive work. Marvelously narrated with delightfully easy'n'breezy nasal nonchalance by Sean Penn. The terrific rock soundtrack likewise seriously smokes. But what really makes this documentary such a winner is its refreshing complete dearth of pretense: It's every bit as dynamic, exuberant and larger-than-life extraordinary as the gloriously outrageous Z-Boys themselves.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"solid documentary about edgey kids who first surf then skate in the face of the american dream. sadly some of the youngest and most gifted succumb to the lure of drugs while others become slaves to the crass marketing of their go for broke instincts. few come out on top. but the die is cast and fruit of it all is the new national pastime, skateboarding (the New York Times notes that \"it was once considered a snub to authority. Now, however, skateboarding has its own summer camps, video games, magazines [actually it always had these] and corporate sponsors.\") commercialism co-opts another kid birthed cultural node.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent Piece of work!

I am not a surfer nor a skate board fan, but work this good about sorting sock drawers would have been riveting. A must see!

There is a lot to enjoy here. Excellent Visuals. Great sound track mix. Huge body of documentary work both pictures and film.

The life work and love of the subject is captivating.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Take a subject I didn't know much about and make it exciting, why don't you? It so happens that back about 1979, director Robert Altman said that he didn't believe he had ever made a real movie and that he expected that one of these kids riding skateboards--if he doesn't break his neck--will make the first movie. Well, I wouldn't put such an expectation on Stacy Peralta, but he is a skateboarder who has made a good movie. Of course, he was forced by the nature of the film he was making to use existing footage, and it is certainly a good thing that so much archival footage existed. Peralta edited it together well with not-your-usual talking head shots of his erstwhile colleagues as they are today. The whole effect is post-modern in the best sense, but that has been done. Altman's prediction hasn't quite come true. What Peralta has done, however, is capture enough of the energy of those heady days that we can appreciate what it must have been like when modern skateboarding was invented by the Z-Boys. This is all good. I highly recommend \"Dogtown.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A dozen bored surfers, mostly kids in Venice, California, not only reinvent the skateboard but remake a once-forgotten-about suburban fad from the 1950s into an action sports revolution.

Narrarated by Sean Penn, Dogtown depicts life in the more rundown \"Locals Only\" beach communities circa 1974, which consisted of mostly of surfing in the early morning tides and loitering. The Zephyr Team (or Z-boys as they are called) spend one summer combating the boredom by building their own boards with the help of a local who owns a surf shop. After they enter re-emerging skateboarding competitions in SoCal, they transfigure it all into their own scene; one that rouses a generation of skateboarders consisting of greats like Tony Hawk, Shaun White and the creators of the of X-Games.

Dogtown puts chronological perspective into skateboarding, and the up-from-the-bootstraps history you never knew it had.

from Andy Frye at MySportsComplex.blogspot.com","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dogtown and Z-Boys

Summary: Dogtown and Z-boys is a documentary about a group of revolutionary teenagers that changed the world of surfing and skateboarding in Venice (Dogtown), California as we know it today. With their low pivotal style, they embarked on a Larry Bertlemen influenced journey that would lead to countless successes and a couple failures. After the Dogtown articles were featured in a reinstated Skateboarder Magazine, the sport was revamped and the members of the Zephyr skateboard team forgot about Jeff Ho, and looked to be on summer vacation for the rest of their lives by joining other skateboard teams that could afford to pay them like movie stars. The original Zephyr Skateboard Team put together by Jeff Ho (Zephyr Surfshop Owner) and Craig Stecyk (Photographer) included Jay Adams, Tony Alva, Stacy Peralta, Bob Biniak, Chris Cahill, Shogo Kubo, Paul Constantineau, Jim Muir, Peggy Oki (the only female), Nathan Pratt, Wentzle Ruml IV, Allen Sarlo, and David Ray Perry. All of the original members except Jay Adams and Chris Cahill are still well and surfing\/skating. Jay Adams, at the time of the documentary, was serving time on drug related charges. Chris Cahill, at the time of the documentary, was last seen in Mexico.

Themes: The themes of this documentary are kind of read-between-the-lines, but if there were a clear-cut theme it would be that even kids can spark revolutions. Other themes would include extensive partying in one's past may lead to an unfulfilling future, and by planning and being careful with one's assets a very rewarding future could be at hand.

Other Works: Stacy Peralta (Writer and Director) has a fairly wide range of documentaries that he has either written, produced, or directed. Most with a common theme of surfing or skateboarding, such as Riding Giants, Sk8 TV, The Bones Brigrades, and Lords of Dogtown. He has also done films with a theme of growing up in America as a teenager, films such as: Influences: From Yesterday to Today, Crips and Bloods: Made in America, and The 70s: The Decade that Changed Television.

Subjects: The subjects of Dogtown and Z-boys are the original members of the Zephyr Skateboard Team excluding Chris Cahill. Peralta included Jeff Ho and Craig Stecyk in the interviews. Other subjects were people who grew up during the 70s reading the Dogtown Articles as well as skateboard enthusiasts. Skaters from the Dogtown area, but not on the team were interviewed.

Editing: The editing of this film was phenomenal in my opinion. There were scenes of the subjects talking so that the audience could see who was speaking and get a sense of the character, but would immediately cutaway to archival footage that would explain what the speaker was saying. When a song could explain the emotions of the subjects better, such as when Jay Adams' unfortunate life was a subject of talk, the song Old Man by Neil Young was played, which evokes many emotions. Sean Penn was the narrator for the film and he explained the transitions throughout the film. The film was presented chronologically from the time the Zephyr surf team was put together, to creating the skateboard team, to all of the Z-boys leaving the team to join other skate companies or create their own company.

Cinematography: The film was shot in an interesting way. The film of the subjects speaking were all in black and white and all of the archival footage of the Z-Boys surfing or skating were in color. Of course the footage from the 70s was grainy, but that only enhanced the film. The interviewees were mostly shot in the same area it appears, but all were outside. All of the footage was very well-controlled even the archival footage which I found very surprising.

Music: \"Seasons of Wither\"-Performed by Aerosmith \"Toys in the Attic\"-Performed by Aerosmith \"Generation Landslide\"- Alice Cooper \"One Way Out\"- Performed by The Allman Brothers \"Lollipops and Roses\" and \"Whipped Cream\"-performed by Herb Alpert \"Into the Void\" and \"Paranoid\"- performed by Black Sabbath \"Godzilla\"- Blue Oyster Cult \"Aladdin Sane\" and \"Rebel Rebel\"- David Bowie \"Fastcars\"- The Buzzcocks \"Gut Feeling\"- Devo \"I'll Give you Money\"- Peter Frampton \"Funk 49\"- James Gang \"Ezy Rider\" and \"Foxy Lady\" and \"Freedom\" and \"Bold as Love\"- Jimi Hendrix \"Sidewalk Surfing\"- Jan and Dean \"Achilles Last Stand\" and \"Hot on for Nowhere\"- Led Zeppelin \"Six Underground\"- The Sneaker Pimps \"Surfrider\"- The Lively Ones \"Cat Scratch Fever\" and \"Motor City Madhouse\" and \"Wang Dang Sweet Poontang- Ted Nugent \"Us and Them\"- Pink Floyd \"Bad Boys\"- The Pretenders \"Maggie May\"- Rod Stewart \"I Wanna be Your Dog\" and \"Gimme Danger\"- The Stooges \"Children of the Revolution\"- T-Rex \"Bad Reputation\"- Thin Lizzy \"Disco Inferno\"- The Tramps \"Hannah\"- Rob Trower \"Rocky Mountain Way\"- Joe Walsh \"Old Man\"- Neil Young \"La Grange\"- ZZ Top

The music in the film make the movie. Every one of these songs contributes to what the subjects are saying and evoke emotions that would not have been called to mind otherwise.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dogtown and Z-Boys is a documentary about the Zephyr Skateboarding Team, and their influence on skateboarding. It also focuses on the history of skateboarding. It was directed by Stacy Peralta, a member of the original Zephyr Team, and was written by Stacy Peralta and Craig Stecyk, another member of the team. The documentary stars the members of the Zephyr Team and is narrated by Sean Penn.

The documentary talks about the beginning of skateboarding, and how it evolved from surfing. It discusses skateboarding's popularity in the late 60s and the 70s, its decline in the 80s and its 'rebirth' in the 90s. Skateboarding was introduced in Dogtown, the nickname of the poor side of Santa Monica, California. The Zephyr Team originated from the Zephyr Surf Shop, which manufactured the first modern skateboards. The documentary mainly consists of the original Zephyr Team members talking about the past in the Zephyr Team, the competitions they won, and their popularity and prestige. It focuses on three particular members of the team; Peralta, Tony Alva, and Jay Adams, three virtuosos of skateboarding, and probably the best three members of the team.

The interviews in the documentary were usually voices over archival footage from Dogtown in the late 60s and 70s. Very rarely to you actually see the people being interviewed, but when you do, they are shown in black and white, while the archival footage was in colour. I think Stacy Peralta used this technique to show that the documentary was about the past (i.e. the Glory Days of the Zephyr Team) and not the present. The documentary is very fast paced, in that we often see clips of impressive skateboarding over up-beat music of the era (such as Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin and David Bowie), and the interviews tend to be quick and to the point. Knowing nothing about skateboarding (i.e. not even knowing how to ride one straight along the ground) I was very surprised that I found this documentary so interesting. The reason is that this doco was more about the Zephyr Team than the actual sport of skateboarding, so while I couldn't relate to skateboarding, I could relate to the boys in the team. Because it was made by actual members of the team, it gives it a little more depth and authenticity.

All in all, I would have to say this is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. It gave me a whole new insight, not just into the Zephyr Team, but into skateboarding as a whole. For those who love skateboarding, I can only imagine how it must be even more interesting. Seven and a half stars out of ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My son, an avid skateboarder, sat me down and made me watch this with him. As I love documentaries, it didn't take a whole lot of pressure on his part. The whole amazing story of it all - a bunch of dirt-poor kids drift together and end up creating something revolutionary out of thin air - well, more out of some wood, wheels and lack of waves to surf - it just floored me. It still does. I didn't think I would enjoy it the way I did, nor did I think I would tear up watching Stacey Peralta tear up over the fate of Jay Adams. And just watching Jay Adams himself.....the sheer genius of the kid skating and the shrug of the adult remembering. I watched it again last night for what has to be the 10th time and I still get goosebumps watching him fly down the hill with Jimi Hendrix's \"Freedom\" playing in the background. And I teared up, again. Not too many movies have the same impact with me after several viewings. Brilliant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I hate films about sports. I guess the pre-fabricated Hollywood sports film is a bit tough for me to swallow because it follows the most identical of ideas each year, what I am trying to say is that there isn't much creativity in this genre. Use exhibit \"A\" \u0096 \"The Game Plan\" as evidence of this if you want. So, needless to say, I was hesitant to watch this documentary because of the sports theme element, but at the same time I couldn't wait because I love surfing documentaries like \"Step into Liquid\" and \"Billabong Odyssey\". I took a step, I plunged into the unknown, and to be honest, at first I wasn't happy. I didn't like the direction, the people, or the style that the film encompassed to present these young sport entrepreneurs. With my first viewing, I thought that history couldn't be fully recorded, so I thought Stacy Peralta was splicing stock footage with faux-actors acting like they were from the late 70s. The music was intense, it matched well Peralta had made a mixed tape from this generation for our enjoyment, but the visuals were anything but stimulating. The elongated scenes, while using amazing music to support, just seemed flushed and too long for my attention. I wanted to get to know the pioneers, not just watch them skate for ten minutes in an empty pool. I wanted a combination of who these kids were, where they went during their rise of fame, and where they are now. It felt like I was watching the birth of our nation with a great score to the settlers just rowing their boats all day. I wanted to know the men behind the myths.

Then, with a thought that I would have another negative review under my belt, I watched the film again with Peralta's audio commentary. His passion, his voice, his knowledge of the people and what he had to do to get this film accomplished \"wow-ed\" me. This suddenly transformed into the film I wanted to see. Peralta lets us know more of where these kids are today, what they are still doing, and how difficult it was to get some of them onto the camera. He hadn't seen many of them in 20+ years, so to hear these challenges brought the human element back to the surface. He was sincere; he was sympathetic, yet he showed so much dedication to this project. While I do not agree with everything that he chose to do (i.e. the Sean Penn mess up is not PUNK ROCK), he revitalized this film for me. It was due to this commentary that I rate this film much higher than originally thought.

Jay Adams. Tony Alva. Jeff Ho. Peggy Oki. Wentzle Ruml. These are just a few of the name that need to be mentioned, and continually praised, if skateboarding is to continue the fast growing trend that it currently sees. While Tony Hawk's name sells products, it is these guys, these mild-mannered pavement slackers that redefined an entire sport. Sure, others were probably doing it in the stone ages, but these guys did it with style, grace, and moved it to the next level. This was a hobby for them, but it also propelled them in a direction I believe none of them were ready for. \"Dogtown and Z-Boys\" is the story of evolution, being in the right place at the right time, living in a generation without televisions to keep us planted, and about friendship. We have seen so many stories during the years that show the progression of humanity, and this is definitely a story that should be added to that. I cannot say that I loved this film, nor will I, but it should be standard viewing for everyone learning or wanting to experience the growth of the skateboarding trend. It was sad, it was emotional, and these guys aren't multi-millionaires over again \u0096 they are people with a passion, and very rarely do you see that in documentaries.

Overall, I cannot watch this film again, but I will suggest it to friends and family time after time. I think the downfall for this film, to me, was the filming \u0096 the attempts to be avant-garde with the style, which ultimately drew away from the characters and events. As mentioned before, there were some elements that dragged on too much, which left us with little to no time to know where these guys were now. Peralta obviously had a passion for this sport, for the people, but he seemed out-of-focus at times. The music was intense, and worked perfectly with the film. Sean Penn, while he was decent with his voice-over, wasn't needed at all. They could have spent the money elsewhere. On the positive, the audio commentary captures everything that the regular film was missing. Peralta's voice, instead of Penn's, brings a stronger human element to the scene, while he tells us better stories of the people, places, and events. Watch this film, but don't expect to be blown away. Listen to the audio commentary; I think you will be impressed.

Grade: *** \u00bd out of *****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Right there. Good, entertaining and accurate era-feel to most scenes. Enough personality variations to cover the real people around those days without story distractions from the exceptions. The credits show Peralta from Mar Vista, California.. up the hill from Venice and south of Malibu. I lived there in the Heartbreak Hotel days, pre-Beachboys, next to that surfer kid Bob Cooper up on Wasatch Avenue, where the alley was used to burn surfboards that didn't work. Old skatekey skatewheels were used on plywood cutouts to roll down sidewalk waves. Things were different in each succeeding decade as the cool innocence of the fifties broke into the Warmth of the Sun whitewater freedom and exhilaration of the electric sixties and then into the assertively innovative playtime and inventive evolutionary madness of the weird seventies. The movie gives you a piece of that kind of magic moment in time; in a place where the imaginary wave was real.. the source of culturally significant influences. And BTW, there's another movie that has a similarly American street edginess to it, and has the same genuinely unique goodness with laid back realness that helps refine that elusively eternal sense of cool.. \"Two Lane Blacktop\" (with one of the best examples of freesouldoit attitude in West Coast California history.. Dennis Wilson). Like Monte Hellman did with that one, thanks, SP, for being right there with this one. GWR","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Actually, I have more a question, than a comment. I loved Z-Boys, and The Lords of Dogtown. Saw Lords first, then the doc, and while I loved the story, I am curious as to why in the movie, Sid was an important character, but in the documentary, he wasn't part of the team, and only merely mentioned as just some kid they knew. Does anyone know the story on that? The story of these boys was amazing. I never experienced the skateboarding craze where I grew up, but my kids have enjoyed it. What I have seen in local skate parks is what these boys had invented. I never knew that. When the film showed the competition, and Z-Boys did their thing, they put to shame the others in competition.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a pretty good documentary. I'm not a skateboarder, I don't particularly like skateboarding or skateboard culture. But somehow for about 2 hours this movie made me interested in the subject.

I wouldn't call it the most intriguing film of all time, but for some reason when those guys were talking about how they started their skateboard clubs and were skating in those empty Southern California pools, I was interested.

I should also add that the music in this film was pretty good too. I don't sit around yearning to hear more 70s rock bands, but it seemed appropriate for what they were talking about.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must say that this has to be the best documentary I have ever seen in my life. I first say the movie at my friends house, and didn't get a chance to finish watching it. From that point on, I spent my free time trying to find the movie. I never found it, but on my birthday, my friend who knew I had the hardest time finding the movie,got it for me as present. Sean Penn does a great job of narrating the documentary. I loved how it told the story of each of the Z-Boys and the history of Dogtown. I have been to Venice and the surrounding area many times, and had never known what had taken place, until I saw the documentary. I didn't get a chance to see the actual movie, and I heard it was nowhere near what the documentary was. I don't know if I actually want to see the movie, but who knows.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was awesome. It's a documentary about how surfing influenced skateboarding in the early days. It has interviews with skaters such as Tony Hawk(my idol)=), and Stacy Peralta to name a couple. Dogtown is a so called \"ghetto\" part of California, where there used to be an amusement park that was torn down. People started riding alongside the dangerous ruins of the park. Soon, the Zepher Surf team was formed. That led to Skateboardings first real start in Dogtown. The Z boys were a team of ragtag teenagers who loved skateboarding and started the phenomenon known as vert skating. They started it by skating in drained swimming pools. That's just a bit of the story behind it. It even contains rare footage from Charlie's Angels of Stacy Peralta making a cameo. I think you should buy this movie if you are a skater. It'll teach you that skateboarding wasn't always popular. Even if you are not, BUY!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When the Bicentennial hit, I was in Hershey, PA and part of the Middletown Skate Team. We didn't do anything except skate around trying to learn what we were reading in the pages of Skateboarder Magazine. A couple of local hills provided all the speed-wobbles you could handle. At the time Mike Weed was the hot stuff, along with Russ Whats-his-name, with the Z-boys hot on their tail. I had a GT (GrenTech) plastic board with Power Paw urethane wheels (loose bearings).

My parents told me we were moving to California later that year and that they were taking a trip to go house-hunting. I was an extremely good son that summer and asked if I might not be rewarded with a REAL skateboard from California. They delivered. It was a fiberglass deck with the Surfer Magazine logo screened on it. Wide trucks and big red wheels (precision bearings, don't ya know). They got it at Oak Street, a surf shop in Laguna Beach.

When I got to California (all of 13), Anaheim had the Concrete Wave and Carlsbad had a great park as well. Soon came Skateboard Odyssey in Mission Viejo. An indoor park with every scenario imaginable. All the while I was reading about Stacy, Shogu, Tony and Jay. This flick was right on the money and a wonderful experience to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not only was this film exhilarating, but it took me back down memory lane with its true to life sound track. These were the things we were saying, and doing...these were the songs we were listening to...all during this same time period, in the same era, way down south in Alabama. I may not have been one of the skateboard set, but I was definitely one of the observers, sitting on the curb with the old transistor radio, listening to Neil Young, watching those more brave than I ever hoped to be, as they put the spin on their surfboards on wheels, applying the tricks of Alva and Adams, hoping that maybe, just maybe for a brief moment, they'd adopt the Zephyr style. It just goes to show how much alike we all were during those wonderful days. ~ KLJ","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To regard the film as nothing more than a documentary about skateboarding would fail to recognize several important aspects of Dogtown. Peralta (a well- known skateboarding figure himself) has crafted a film that not only deals with the birth of what we know today as skateboarding, but also examines the socio- cultural and economic circumstances in which this sport emerged and gained wide appeal. In addition, his film is rather personal: Peralta's first-hand association with this cultural phenomenon serves as both the informed cinematic investigator and the involved participant-subject. In this role, he is a quintessential \"participant-observer,\" while gathering together a wide array of personalities whom were integral to this movement and those who were profoundly affected by the advent of skateboarding as a competitive sport and subculture. The film employs a uniquely stylistic form of film and sound editing, and the narration (by Sean Penn) and interviews adopt a rather genuine, unrehearsed form that is akin with the anarchic, nihilistic spirit of sidewalk surfing. The film exhibits the kinetic appeal of a protracted sporting, music video tempered with an archaeologist's sensitivity to the importance of time, place, and circumstance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I used to watch this too at junior school in Petersfield Hampshire around 1975. The odd thing is that from time to time I still think about it (I am now 40) The big question running through out the length of the series (no idea how many episodes 6??)was the identity of the person riding the motorcycle !'I've ask friends in the past about this series and they have no idea what I'm talking about and think its some kind of weird dream I've had. I've never understood to this day the educational benefit of this but thought at the time it was great but slightly scary. I seem to remember that there used to be a break of some sort in the middle of each episode. No idea why. Would love to see it again. Got hold of a short clip via the BBC cult website.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an outstanding criminal thriller, and with a great cast too. Spanish language cinema's best and most popular actors of the past couple of decades, Victoria Abril and Federico Luppi, team up in one of the better Spanish language crime thrillers of 2004-5.

The film begins by focusing on thirty something Ernesto (Ernesto Alterio), an elegant, attractive and slick thief who learned from childhood friend Gitano, and more recently from Manco, an old seasoned swindler. Manco introduces Ernesto to Federico (Federico Luppi), an also elegant, but more astute & experienced methodical thief - the best in his class.

Federico's only known weakness is Pilar (Victoria Abril), his former mistress and partner. She suddenly appears and proposes a fabulous rip-off scheme to her former lover, a crime in grand scale, which will eventually require the help of Ernesto, Manco and Gitano, among others.

The script is full of twists and surprising reversals, particularly towards the end of the film. One criticism about the film I've heard a lot is that there are too many plot twists towards the end, but I disagree. The film captivates the audience so much that all the unexpected events are not too much to follow. In fact, these are what make the film outstanding. I highly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ernesto is a man that makes a living out of duping other solid citizens of their hard earned money. Together with Manco, an older man with a lot of experience, he pulls out capers that allow him to make a decent living, but that is not making him a rich man by any means. Enter Federico, an older man who is more experience in the art of deception. Together with the younger Ernesto they prove a winning combination. That only lasts until Pilar, Federico's former love interest, appears in the picture.

This Spanish film directed by Miguel Bardem, is light in tone and pleasant to sit through. Other, better made caper films have been made with much clever plots than this one, but the film is easy to take, and at times, it has a lot of funny situations.

This viewer will see Federico Luppi in anything, even reading the telephone directory! He is an actor's actor. We have had the privilege of having seen him in the Buenos Aires stage doing excellent work before his international film career. As Federico, he does what he does best. It's impossible to imagine anyone better in his role. Ernesto Alterio, the son of Hector Alterio, is a young actor who promises to have a great career. Victoria Abril makes Pilar fun as she gets involved with these con men. Miguel Alexandre, a veteran actor, is also good as Manco.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So far Miguel Bardem's career it's been one of the more dreadful of recent Spanish cinema. He's made nothing but rubbish... until now. \"Incautos\" has been quite a surprise: it's a serious film, with rhythm, with a great cast and very entertaining.

The art of robbing, that's what \"Incautos\" is about. A film much alike to David Mamet's \"House of game\" and stuff like that. A thousand of twists in the script, and a story where nothing's like it seems.

The weak points in latest Bardem's movie may be the so-American language, that makes some of the characters look rather unnatural (especially Victoria Abril's. She's a hell of an actress, but in \"incautos\" she looks a little bit forced). Ernesto Alterio is not that bad, but he's not half as good actor as his father... And what to say about Luppi?? Well, he's the MAN.

In short: a good movie. The best that Miguel Bardem has ever made. I hope this is the beginning of a brand new stage in his career.

*My rate: 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was very lucky to see this film as part of the Melbourne International Film Festival 2005 only a few days ago. I must admit that I am very partial to movies that focus on human relations and especially the ones which concentrate on the tragic side of life. I also love the majority of Scandinavian cinematic offerings, there is often a particular deep quality in the way the story unfolds and the characters are drawn. Character building in this film is extraordinary in its details and its depth. This is despite the fact that we do encounter quite a number of characters all with very particular personal situations and locations within their community. The audience at the end of the screening was very silent and pensive. I am still playing some of those scenes in my mind and I am still amazed at their power and meaningfulness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film came as a gift - a late-night offering out of the blue - so unlike other reviewers I had no preconceptions whatsoever. I found myself glued to my seat as the film slowly dictated its own rhythm, its own unfolding. I was drawn to acknowledge my own deep love and humanity as I willed for \"good\" to prevail - but also forced to wryly acknowledge that sometimes I was on the side of the \"bad\" guys. The film is quite quite beautiful - the word \"elegiac\" comes to mind, and this more than because the film begins and ends in an elegy. Far from being depressing or confronting, to me, the film acknowledges deep suffering - and then, by its cyclic nature - with the births and re-births as well as the deaths - the film celebrates the fact that to quote an Aussie poet, there is \"sometimes gladness.\" Oh gods, I feel as tho I've just written a love letter to this film - but there it is. Hola!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before I'd seen this movie I've heard a lot of praise about it and quite many exclamations about how \"horrific\" it was. Not to take any credit away from this movie, I think it wasn't all that horrible or even shocking. It's just a movie about people living in the darker side of the town. And a good one at portraying the point.

There's some great acting here and a well-thought of manuscript. Paavo Westerberg is a renowned writer in the Finnish movie scene and he's the best in what comes to describing the contemporary Finnish culture (albeit he's not the only one writer for this movie, but I dare say he's the main-writer anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong).

The casting is excellent, except for Jasper P\u00e4\u00e4kk\u00f6nen (the pseudo-main character, who in my opinion should have stayed in the soap opera scene), and the sets, the cuts and sounds are very well done as well and give great atmosphere to this movie.

This movie is a story about loosely interconnected sad destinies that according to a famous Finnish band's very well known song (Eppu Normaali's \"Tuhansien Murheellisten Laulujen Maa\", which VERY roughly translated to \"Paha Maa\") throughout the whole Finnish society lead to a sad, dark end accompanied with booze, lonesomeness and the bad choices. And it's the side of everyday Finnish life about 80% of the population have no awareness of, unless movies like this are made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For Estoninans Finland sometimes seems like a land of dreams. A land where many of us want to go and work there or start a business. Find love, start a new life etc. But... Aku Louhimies has made this brilliant piece which shows that everything is not so good in Finland as well. That Finland can be just as Paha maa (The Bad Land) than any other country. It shows that people there can be just as miserable in their lives than we in everywhere else. That sometimes there's nothing good. This movie nicely shows why Finland is one of the top suicidal countries. It's not easy to live in North. Cold climate changes us. I've become more and more attracted to Finnish movies and this one is very good. The acting is great as well. Jasper P\u00e4\u00e4kk\u00f6nnen has become one of the top Finnish stars. Beware of the sex scene (if you have little children) and a little depression that might come afterwards the movie! 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is another of those rare movies one feels grateful to be introduced to instead of the usual Hollywood tripe. It really is a roller coaster ride, as we follow the effects of a a forged 500 Euro note on a multitude of people. One asks 'what if' all the time but it certainly is a butterfly effect captured on film. It'll have you laughing, crying and biting your lip. I loved every minute of it! And thank you SBS Australia for showing films that are truly entertaining, even worth the effort to read the subtitles. The only downside to my mind is that I wont be booking a holiday to the Frozen Land - they all seem to be far too depressed - must be all that cold weather. Either way, watch it - it's worth every second.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at the 2006 Palm Springs International Film Festival and Director Aku Louhimies introduced his film and was on hand for Q&A after. For some reason this movie is titled Frozen Land in English so I don't know how the distributors got frozen out of Paha. This is a very good film. It doesn't for me have enough that I would knock it up a notch to the excellent category but I did talk to some viewers who felt that it was an excellent film. Louhimies said that back in Finland people either loved this movie or hated it and said a lot of people in theaters walked out on it. I'm sure some objected to some of the violence, swearing, drug and alcohol abuse and sexual explicate scenes. It's a very clever story of how these different lives are woven together because of a trickle down effect. This film has very interesting and strong characters. I would rate it a 7.0 out of a possible 10 and would see it again and recommend it with caution.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a movie of which I kept on reading the reviews again and again; and despite it being played at Film Museum and not at Pathe theatres \u0096 I decided to give this movie a try. The reasons were many \u0096 in the reviews it was compared with Pulp Fiction, it had several parallel stories running in the movie and lastly it had already won 17 awards internationally in various categories. I was eager to see this movie and due to my off day at Greenpeace I decided to make myself happy by going and seeing this movie.

It is a story based in Finland. I think it reflected the current life of people in general \u0096 drugs, crime, sex, anger, anguish, fear and guilt. Every emotion was captured brilliantly in the movie. There are several characters and stories interwoven but a few characters come back in the latter half \u0096 making a link with the beginning sequences and that takes the story forward.

The story is about two friends \u0096 one of whom is computer geek and the other is a drug addict \u0096 son of an abusive father. The drug addict boy trades a Euro 500 note \u0096 printed by his friend \u0096 to buy back his music system, and in returns gets huge change of cash back to buy more drugs. The trading of Euro 500 note continues to bizarre events \u0096 from the shop trader to an auto mechanic cum robber \u0096 to a car dealer \u0096 to a vacuum cleaner salesman \u0096 to a prostitute \u0096 to a police officer \u0096 then to her family and children. How the beginning of a small thing \u0096 creates a chain reaction that lead even after 5 years of that first incident to a depressing last note \u0096 which I won't reveal here.

The direction is excellent. The character development in the movie is first rate. The character that sticks on your mind even after you come out of the movie is of the vacuum cleaner sales person. All the departments of the movie are handled nicely. Here I would like to make a couple of critical comments. First, during the sequence of one event leading to another I felt that the coincidences were too rapid and forced. But this screenplay writing error is pardon when one sees the whole canvas. Second, the trail of one character leading to another somehow leads back to the first two characters and that again I found to be a forced decision by the screen play writer. There was no need to have the same characters showing up again when there are different causes leading to different effects in such a big city.

But after saying that \u0096 it is an excellent movie! It is a dark movie with quite a few sex scenes. The characters are having the black, white and gray shades and emotions that change from facing different situation which is brilliantly captured by the director.

A top rate movie! It has all the ingredients of becoming a cult movie. I hope that only such movies should not become and achieve the status of cult movies and win lots of awards, because without crime, sex, violence, drugs etc. too one can make fantastic movies \u0096 Bicycle Thieves and Pather Panchali are its prime examples \u0096 only thing is that they were a long time back and times are changing and I think movies are reflecting the current times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Imagine the most depressing winter you will never experience: grey instead of white, no snow fights and certainly no wonderlands. This is the Finland as portrayed by 'Frozen Land'. This film follows a bunch of people whose lives are oddly linked to each others' with results beyond anyone's nightmares. Yes, most characters are flawed in the way that only celluloid characters can - completely annoying and frustrating to watch, yet for some reason you wish for their luck to turn.

With some randomly placed humour and a cast that groups together Finland's somewhat mainstream faces, Frozen Land offers a glimpse of the Finnish mentality that despite its depressing downward spirals manages to restore some faith in humanity. More so than Kaurism\u00e4ki, to say the least.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this on DVD with subtitles, which made it a little frustrating to get through, because of the film's length. But I was riveted throughout all of it. That I was fascinated by the characters and always engrossed in the story, despite the subtitles, is a testament to the film's power. It's an amazing piece of work. I have it on my list of ten favorite films of all time. It's easily the best foreign film I've seen in the last twenty years or so. I would like to know the full story behind the making of this film. It must have taken a very long time and required the use of hundreds of locations. Its use of some hardcore scenes (on the TV in the motel room) may unfortunately make some people choose not to see it, but if you don't mind those, you'll be deeply moved by all the stories in this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The problem I have as a Finn is that most of the actors in this movie are in every Finnish movie. I have a feeling that Finland has only like five actors. I think that if you're not from Finland you really like this movie as a refreshing novelty.

This movie is about a dreadful chain of events that affects a few people quite harshly. Alcoholism, cold climate and darkness may all be clich\u00e9s but they're still very real in todays Finnish society. A lot of people in Finland have depression, especially during winter.

The tone of the movie is very melancholic. I enjoyed it and Louhimes' directing was again very solid. I liked this movie a lot, only negative thing is that you see the same faces that you've seen over and over again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i just wanted to say i liked this movie a lot, but i also want to ask about something..does anyone know the artist\/song name of the song that the young boy (cant remember his name now) plays on his cd-player when his dad and 2 men comes and takes the TV and the cd-player ??? that song is so freaking cool even though i cant understand a word what they're saying...feel free to mail me the artist\/song name at hpn_x@hotmail.com thanks a lot in advance!! =) ---------------------repeating----------------------------- i just wanted to say i liked this movie a lot, but i also want to ask about something..does anyone know the artist\/song name of the song that the young boy (cant remember his name now) plays on his cd-player when his dad and 2 men comes and takes the TV and the cd-player ??? that song is so freaking cool even though i cant understand a word what they're saying...feel free to mail me the artist\/song name at hpn_x@hotmail.com thanks a lot in advance!! =)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Paha maa is different Finnish film. But the things which makes it different are copied abroad. Some techniques of narration are from Amores Perros, Jackie Brown and Elephant. Scenes are shot from different angles again. Paha maa is a good movie, but it isn't so good that the hype tolds: \"Realistic movie, no happy end, and no commercial admissions.\" Some actors did great job. Sulevi Peltola was so good as a vacuum cleaner peddler. Also Jasper P\u00e4\u00e4kk\u00f6nen shows his skills. But Mikko Leppilampi was so lame. He is so overrated actor, he's handsome and a nice guy, but not the best actor of Finland. But if you like Finnish movies, Paha maa is worth to see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A touching documentary that puts a human face on the tragedy of 9\/11 by showing how one small community coalesced to honor two high school friends lost on that day. The film interweaves the lives of Chris and Tom through interviews with family and friends and snippets of old photos. Through their reminiscences we glimpse two lives tragically cut short. The film also documents how, through a series of coincidences, an inspirational memorial garden was brought forth through the efforts of many people, both known and unknown to the two victims. Through the laughter and the tears(and the sweat) we see the power of hope and honor and love. This films evokes many different emotions, but the final feeling is one of admiration of the human spirit undaunted by tragedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"almost 4 years after the events of 911, if asked what comes to mind about that day, most people would probably comment on things such as the sight of planes crashing into and the collapse of the twin towers, the scores of people being killed, acts of terrorism and heroism mixed together, etc. everyone who was alive at the time will never forget that day. yet for most of us the memories, although moving, are not on a personal level. now comes an extraordinary film which gives everyone who did not lose a friend or a family member a chance to become involved at a personal level in just what we lost on 911. this is a film that needs to be seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was one of the lucky people to be invited to view this film in New York. It is a compelling story of how a group of extremely tight friends dealt with the tragedy of September 11th. This film made me laugh and cry and showed me how the human spirit, through love and friendship can endure and create wonderful things out of one of our darkest days. The film makers truly captured the emotions of the individuals involved. It was amazing to see how the same story was told through the eyes of so many different people. I walked out of the theater that day wanting to call all my friends just to say hello. I would recommend everyone see this documentary. I would rate this movie with an A++++++++++. See it if you get a chance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Roopa (Kamalinee Mukherjee) loses her parents and other family members in a gruesome car accident. She starts living on her own as an independent woman without taking any help from her relatives. She has a boy friend named Rahul (Anuj) and is about to get married to him, but backs out due to the behavior of her future mother-in-law and due to lack of confidence shown by her boyfriend. Anand (Raja) joins her neighborhood. And he starts making Roopa feel comfortable and secure. The rest of the story is about why Anand - MD of the richest corporate house of AP - has chosen to reside as neighbor of Roopa and what follows next.

This movie has a freshness to it which we rarely see in Indian movies to it. Although the story goes slow, you get a sense of familiarity with it. Kudos to the director shekhar kammula for such an awesome direction! Brilliant music and background score composed by K.M. Radhakrishnan adds to the quality. Kamalini mukherjee as Rupa has given a marvelous performance. I think she was the best choice for this role because of her non-glamorous looks and amazing histrionics. Anand as Raja has done well too. I have watched this movie thrice now and enjoyed it thoroughly every time. It is a class apart from the daily dose of action movies we get here. Highly recommended!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw the poster of this movie, I discarded it off as another low-budget movie targeting youth. After some days, when it finally made it to the theaters, one of my friends told me it's a good one.

A year later, the first time when I saw the advertisement that, Anand was going to be aired on television and the moment finally came as I flipped channels and for a moment I stopped to watch and that's it I ended up watching the whole movie.

And by now, 3 yrs later I'd have watched the movie at least 7-8 times and I don't really watch movies again and again!!

This movie is great because it tries to be different, when all Telugu movies were composed of 6 songs and 4 fights.

It's a simple movie, a bit slow but a very gripping screenplay, there're no loose ends in the movie, very well-versed dialogues, which is really-really hard to find by.

Music is both classic and soothing, great renditions by Radha Krishnan, some great kirtanas also come in the bgmusic, through out the movie.

Cinematography, deserves a mention. Editing is not slick but adequate for a romantic one such as this.

But, what really blows you out in this movie is two things- 1.the way each scene has been treated with utmost respect by, the now famous, Shekar Kammula.

2. The beautiful lyrics by Veturi.

And one more thing deserves a special mention, Kamalini, part of her success attributed to Sunitha, for lending her such a beautiful voice, really tell you, the voice does wonders to me.

The other actors, are equally good, Raja in the title character and the little girl, and the way she shouts when she gets a new dog.

Ultimately, I can tell you this movie is soon on its way to be another classic with those old classic romantic ones, along with Kammula's another classic-romantic piece, Godavari.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anand is one of those low-budget but well taken movies. It's a \"cup of coffee\" entertainment, with no violence, blood or \"jump out of your seat\" excitement which most telugu films have. However, it does have some massala of it's own. Roopa is a headstrong and down-to-earth young woman who is not afraid to confront any sort of situation, even her offensive mother-in-law's distaste for her. She even backs out of the wedding because her fianc\u00e9 doesn't stand up for her. However, her air of confidence and independence is enough to make Anand, a rich young gentleman living in the city, aspire to be her new husband. His father accidentally kills her parents in a car crash anyways, so why not pay her back? But Roopa is not the kind who will fall for charming smiles and polite behavior, she puts him through a bunch of situations, continuing to be rude and a pain. It's not until he stands up for her and saves her life that she understands she loves him too. But complications ensue\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Each frame in the movie is a lesson to new directors or existing directors to know how a movie should be taken. Hats off to Sekhar. He is underestimated in Indian film industry. The director has got all the qualities in taking this movie in the range of Satyajir ray, Adoor.. Every character is portrayed effectively in the movie. Though it's simple story, it's been taken to such extent it can be considered to one of the best in India. I don't have enough adjectives to praise the movie. Just as the way the life goes in day-today atmosphere, the movie has been taken. Though the songs in Indian movies are considered to a weak area, songs in this movie has given extra energy to the potential of the movie..especially background score..it's amazing","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A town in Japan is being taken over by a horribly brutal abstract shape: the spiral. It's becoming a theme in everything from animals to clouds to people and twisting them, mentally and literally. This film shows it happening to several groups of people. Some demonic possession is implied, but nothing is entirely sure except that the best bet is to get the heck out of dodge. The film progresses really well from normal life to abnormal phenomena (giant snails and crazy people) to the truly supernatural (walking dead).

As a jaded American horror movie fan, this was just what I needed. Maybe it was just the novelty of a different culture's film, but it seemed to have a very original progression, set of characters, and the premise was definitely new. The Japanese may think \"horror shapes\" (uzumaki means \"spiral,\" I'm told) are old by now, but it was nice for me because I'm used to monster\/alien\/virus\/disaster\/undead films. In an American movie, you know who's going to die (the annoying\/nasty\/lascivious\/racist characters) and who will live (the children\/heroine\/dogs\/cats\/nice guy). That's not true in Japanese horror. It was not predictable how they would fight the evil or how it would end up. Also, it had this really new (but probably typically Japanese) color leached Pacific Northwest style cloudy day thing going, which was a fresh visual effect for me. The horrific moments were seriously creepy, relying on a little gore but mainly just impossibly overdone facial expressions (think The Ring) and body manipulations. This should be one of the greats, up there with once-original ideas like the first Nightmare on Elm Street or Night of the Living Dead.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Uzumaki\" takes place in a small Japanese rural town,where people are going mad.They go nuts over vortexes and spirals.The crisis is getting worse,because people are turning into snails and vortexes appear everywhere.\"Uzumaki\" has to be one of the most bizarre and original horror movies I have seen.The plot is really clever and the gore scenes are really funny as the film doesn't takes itself too seriously.\"Uzumaki\" is wonderfully photographed and the use of colors is top-notch.The characters are likeable and there is enough shocking surprises to satisfy fans of Japanese horror.Despite of some hilarious scenes,the overall tone of this film is pretty dark.\"Uzumaki\" is not as good as \"Ringu\",\"Ju-on\" or \"Audition\",but if you like Japanese horror movies you won't be disappointed.7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's very true that this film defies convention by not spelling out the plot for the viewer. While some may have a problem with having to figure it out for themselves, I embrace \"Uzumaki\" for its irreverence. There is a PLOT, it's just that it may not be immediately accessible to a lazy viewer. This is a film that invites numerous interpretations, as all great art does - however, this film is also very entertaining, making it a rare film experience. It's simultaneously provocative and fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I happen to have read all of Junji Ito's English released manga. I watched the Tomie film and it was a big steaming pile of turd. THANKFULLY Uzumaki actually does justice to the manga. I think those who have read the manga will really appreciate this film more, as many screenshots and camera angles are exactly like in the manga and it is interesting to see how the book characters are played in the film. This film reminds me of eerie indiana. The ending differs to the manga, which I was expecting. Kirie looks like her manga counterpart, and her male friend suits the whole very well. Very creepy I have to admit, this film feels like a feverish nightmare, the kind you have when you were a kid. Not really scary at all, but freaky, if you get my drift? Another great horror from Japan, get yourself a copy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen a fair few films from the Far East recently.....some were excellent (Battle Royale, Infernal Affairs, the Eye), and some were not so great (Versus, The Triple Cross). Then there are ones like Uzumaki and Returner, which while flawed I still enjoyed.

The basic premise involves the mysterious and horrific effects that a growing obsession with spirals has upon a community. Sound silly? Yeah, thats what I was thought. Firstly, the good stuff. Direction was top notch, sure a bit over the top in places but never the less interesting and stylish. Secondly the story, was original and like other writers commented very lovelace-esq...it was interesting. What it reminded me most of however was early Cronenberg; films like Shivers and Videodrome.

The acting wasn't great, but not too horrible either. To be honest I was actually bored on a few occations....I felt the pacing especially initially was a little slow. My main problem was that it was too silly and funny to be true horror, and yet not so enough to be considered a comedy. *SPOILERS* below.

*SPOILERS* Some good scenes (washing machine =)) and I liked the final shot\/voiceover. At first I thought it ended far too abruptly but about 20 seconds later I realised the meaning and liked the end. However, because of the lack of seriousness in the story, combined with over the top scenes such as the news report at the school ment that I did not care for the characters much in the end. The final scene which was perhaps supposed to be a little poignent, while in reality I couldn't really care for the girl or her boyfriend. *SPOILERS END*

So overall I kinda did like this film, but it frustrated me and I think there was real potential in addition to some good scenes. Couple of other points, the main girl is quite pretty and cute, and the song that plays at the end is good too. I rated it 7\/10.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hey now, I have never laid eyes on a Manga comic, but apparently this movie is based on one. Ah well, such is life. Anyway, this is a pretty bizarre, to say the least, movie, as things literally spiral out of control in a small Japanese town. People are becoming obsessed with the uzumaki (spiral) and this young girl watches her friend's father videotape a snail, and later in the movie, people start becoming snails? It also seems this boy's dad becomes so obsessed he somehow commits suicide in a household appliance. There is some bizarre humor here that might be at home in a Tim Burton movie, but there is some nastiness & gore like only the Japanese can do with justice. As with a lot of Japanese films though, the ending is the ending, and did anything get resolved? Well, not to my mind, it didn't. There are some hints as to why this is all happening but they aren't explored and there's a lot left to either the imagination or else it wasn't deemed important. Still though, there are lots of things for the eye to feast on and if you aren't obsessed with everything making perfect sense, this is well worth seeing, because it's just so original and bizarre. My favorite was the father with the spinning eyeballs, personally. 8 out of 10 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As is frequently the case when Manga is translated into live action, there is quite a bit lost in the translation. However, this remains a highly entertaining film. The premise is unusual and it is presented in the quiet, understated style so prevalent in Japanese films (ha!). The special effects are a little 70s camp but, it adds to the comic book feel of the film. I wouldn't recommend this film to everyone but, if you are familiar with (and enjoyed) other Japanese horror films like \"Evil Dead's Trap\", this film will appeal to you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow.. I just saw this movie on the Sundance Channel, and it really is bizarre. I may not be a film expert, but it's probably the most bizarre film I, as an average movie fan, have seen.

Whoever came up with with it had a great imagination. I'm a bit of a fan of Japanese dramas, and there are often actors from dramas in movies.. (Matsushima Nanako, for example, the lead in Ringu, is a major j-drama star.) But it looks like this is the first film for Kirie and Shuichi's portrayers. I must say, if they really are debuting here, they do a pretty good job.

Kirie was a very sympathetic character, I thought she was easy to relate with. She was kind and good-hearted, perhaps not the most popular girl but nicer than some of the other attention-seeking girls. She was also pretty in a classic kind of way. I hope she does more films, but it's been a couple years so maybe she has no such plans.

The ending was odd. I'm not going to give anything away, but the rest of the movie's bizarreness was kind of put to shame.

Very bizarre, but very imaginative and unique movie. I'd recommend it for Japanese horror fans, though I'll warn you, it's a lot more bizarre than Ringu.

Nonetheless, I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10, for originality, imagination, good characterization, above average acting, and just being plain intriguing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this film very much. It effectively combines humor, fantasy, and a few moments of horror with a solid film making effort from Higuchinsky. Brilliant visuals and a very original story concerning spirals. My only complaints are that it had its dull moments and wasn't as daring as it could have been. Still, I give this a solid 8 out of 10. The U.S. should take note of this and other fine Japanese horror\/fantasy films that have come along recently and have them available on Region 1 DVD. Actually, Asian cinema in general, have some of the finest films that have been unnoticed by the American public because they're hard to find. I strongly recommend people to go look for these treasures, they're hard to find, but once you find them, you'll be glad you did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Uzumaki, is a visually stunning Film, and I don't think anyone is going to be able to argue that. But, unfortunately, the story somewhat falls flat.

The film nevertheless is very entertaining. It uses it's wild style to tell a somewhat non-existant story. The film almost works, just based on it's characters and style, but In my opinion, leaves something to be desired.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a horror movie freak, and this has got to be one of the most phenomenal horror flicks I've ever seen. The plotline is totally original (who else would think up a town who gets totally obsessed with a certain symbol to the point of death and insanity?), the special effects are amazing, and the cinematography couldn't be better. Some may find it disturbing, but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie. It also makes a good point. The spiral symbol is kinda ubiquitous. The spiral notebook, spiral seashells, spirals on cakes. Of all the shapes they could have used (square, triangle, trapezoid, rectangle) this was one of the best choices. If you can find this movie, definitely see it. It's certainly unique, and quite unforgettable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Horror movie time, Japanese style. Uzumaki\/Spiral was a total freakfest from start to finish. A fun freakfest at that, but at times it was a tad too reliant on kitsch rather than the horror. The story is difficult to summarize succinctly: a carefree, normal teenage girl starts coming face to face w\/ extremely disturbing events as the small town she lives in seems to come under the control of spirals. The spirals are everywhere, in the air, clouds, dirt and everyday objects. The spirals take control of people and bad things will happen to them. Oh, another thing, people are randomly turning into snails. Why? Who knows or cares, people are turning into snails, that's enough for me. This wasn't as much scary as just creepy as it doesn't have a lot of suspense or jarring attacks as horror films often do. Uzumaki prefers to creep and crawl (like a snail might!) rather than to jolt. A favorite scene: a woman lies sleeping in a hospital room when this long, thousand legged centipede creature makes its way into the room and slowly up the bed post, across the sheets, over the pillow and into her sleeping ear. I cringed and curled my toes. Uzumaki has a handful of scenes really violent but that are sort of humorous as well. For example, a man is obsessed w\/ spirals, he gets into his washer because he sees a spiral in it when it spins, he commits spiral suicide inside the washer. The last shot we see of him is w\/ his body all coiled & rubber like, a human flesh spiral w\/ a engorged single eye blinking in the middle of the washer. A bizarre image. Uzumaki has a blatant psychodelic slant to it which adds to its charm and fun. I love horror movies like this. It's not about killing, a la slasher films, it's about a force of evil (the spirals!) taking over you and trying to kill you, force you to kill others. Films like Uzumaki prove that there are many ways to make a horror film and thank goodness for that","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anyone who enjoys the Lynchian weirdness of Twin Peaks, or any fan of HP Lovecraft who knows that the most frightening things are the familiar things, will really enjoy this film. Don't watch it as a horror film in the \"traditional\" western sense, but more like a Grimm's fairy tale. It is gory and definitely for 16+, but once you start watching it, you too will find yourself drawn into the vortex. Definitely one of those movies that hangs with you for a few days after watching (I'll never look at my snails the same way again!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A couple of weeks after I saw this movie it began to remind me of John Carpenter's In The Mouth Of Madness (not for the story!) for the atmosphere, the fast elements of surprise and the dreamlike sequences. On the other hand, this movie mixes very well the image and the music (note the 4th chapter in the movie)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Uzumaki is a visually astounding film however I felt as if some of the story line may have been sacrificed. There is hardly any character development which left me feeling personally detached from the film, which is ironic because all puns aside, this film really does draw you in with its many slight spiral effects and stunning scene transitions. At first the overall cinematography threw me off but as you get used to the overall appearance you start to see the beauty in this twisted film. This is a great movie if you are looking for a looker with out too much substance or deeper meaning.It is a great horror film that is not actually scary or suspenseful but somehow...eerie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A girl begins to notice that people in her small town are becoming fascinated by anything that is shaped like a spiral. Soon, the fascination turns to obsession and things get deadly. While I won't say that \"Uzumaki\" was an excellent film, I will say that it was unlike anything I've seen before. Throughout my viewing, I felt like I was watching a cartoon. There are funny segues between scenes and characters with digitally enhanced eyes. Later, I found out the film is an adaptation of a manga comic, so this makes sense. However, just when you think you are watching something that could be a kid's movie, you are bombarded with nasty and gory visuals! The story often lags and the ending is somewhat abrupt and seemed anti-climactic at the time, but in retrospect I appreciate it more for its originality. My Rating: 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Uzumaki (that's Japanese for \"spiral\" or \"vortex\") is one of the most absurd films I've ever watched. A town becomes obsessed and then all-consumed by the vortex pattern in some very grotesque ways. Fingertips are cut off, people commit suicide in washing machines... just wild and crazy Japanese horror. Possibly as psychologically damaging as \"The Ring\". Generally not as scary as \"The Eye\", but the imagery in this is more sickening than most of the things in \"The Eye\". And not as gory as \"The Untold Story\"... but that isn't to say there isn't a fair amount of blood and dismemberment. Seriously, if you enjoy horror films and especially Asian horror - you must add this film to your list. A few parts are a little odd with the sound effects (the story is adapted from a manga comic and it shows), but it really fits. Unlike some films that try too hard to capture the original source (\"House of the Dead\") this one does it perfectly. The most original film you will see... not just this year, but probably ever. Recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Uzumaki has a very unique story and I will never look at spirals the same way again. Not really spine tingling horror, this film has a dark morose, acid trip feel to it. During certain parts, was it just me or did you see vortex visuals? The camera shots are interesting and the movie lets your imagination run wild. The bizarre supernatural feel of this film draws you in just as the title suggests. Acting is done well and the town setting itself seems wrong with to begin with.

This may take a few viewings for it to sink in. A great trippy film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Uzumaki has a formidable reputation within Lovecraftian circles and now I know why.

Uzumaki is based on a Manga title (which, unbelievably, is allegedly better than the film) and follows the bizarre events preceeding a typhoon in an isolated Japanese town. I'm not about to tell you anything that happens in this film because it is an absolute must-see movie. I watched it for the first time last night and I was blown away. It shot into the my top movies of all time and leap-frogged Pans Labyrinth as the best fantastic movie (literally and photographically) that has been released in the last decade.

This movie is very Lovecraftian in nature without formally having any direct connection to the Cthulhu Mythos. It has been made in the same way that Lovecraft composed his stories; it exudes power as an aura of 'something's not quite right here' intensifies through a brooding phase to dread and, ultimately, horror through subtle progressive changes in the soundtrack and the cinematography. This is, indeed, a \"Weird Tale\" par excellence.

Simply stunning.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To be honest, I thought this movie would be a Japanese drama. I was dead wrong. This movie is based of the popular Japanese anime novel of the same name. It tells the story of a town that is cursed by the Uzumaki or The Spiral in English. Little by little the towns residents start to slowly become dangerously and violently obsessed with anything to do with spirals and some of the residents start to actually turn into living things the actually have some sort of spiral within them such as a snail.

The movie was one giant, random, acid trip twisted with romance and drama. Sort of like a\u0085twisted\u0085drama. What makes this movie disturbing is the ways that some of the people are obsessed with The Spiral. For example: one of the dads has a garage full of house hold objects with spirals incorporated into them, one girl took her extremely long hair and teased to an insanely huge spiral-like style, one kid slowly transformed into a human snail, one man could twist his body into a spiral shape, one woman attempted to cut her ear open to obtain the cochlea inside and one teen ran over himself so that he could be twisted around a car tire and one kid stuffed himself into a washer so he could become a spiral.

Another very disturbing aspect of this very well syndicated is the atmospheric tone and the style in which this movie was shot. The camera angles add to the psychotic and twisted story, in other words, a very good cinematography. The overall coloring of this picture makes for a somewhat demented story. The coloring is a blend of lime green, yellow and a little orange and the special effects with some of the spirals are outstanding.

However, like many Japanese films, this one has an undertone of forbidden love and romance between a girl and a boy. However, with all the spirals and strange happening going on in the town it is hard to keep up with the relationship of the two teens. But, in some way it is very irrelevant, more like a second hand story that has nothing to do with the actual story of the spiral obsessed town.

Overall, I would recommend this film to anybody who likes vastly different and bizarre foreign films. It has just enough wackiness and insanity, it touched me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Uzumaki succeeds as at plunging you into a bizarre surreality where Uzumaki shapes haunt and curse a town. It fails at being a competent horror movie. While the film is sure to draw attention mainly to it's bizarre plot line and a few interesting visual treats, it's going to come off better as a dark comedy than a horror film. It's definitely a film you should see if your into the kind of stuff- but if your looking for a scare or even a small chill, you'll want to look elsewhere. Uzumaki doesn't really have much else up it's sleeve but a great chain of odd events.

a","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watched Uzumaki last night and right away was reminded of two early Peter Weir films from Australia, The Last Wave and Picnic At Hanging Rock. They were films loaded with atmosphere but short on actual horror. Uzumaki, to me, seems clearly influenced by these films. It has a number of fairly mundane scenes that become more portentous the deeper you are sucked in by the film. It also has more scenes of outright horror and although I don't think the film actually measures up to those two films it is well worth the time of most thoughtful fans of the unusual (not necessarily horror). 7 out of 10 seems fair but I must say that years after seeing The Last Wave the film still stays with me, and it is precisely Picnic At Hanging Rock's unresolved ending that makes it so haunting. p.s. All the people criticizing the acting... pullleasse...in this genre?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having discovered the Ring trilogy, I have been greedily gobbling up all those other Japanese and Korean films that are either on or following the bandwagon.

I don't have an easy definition of horror, but this film certainly pushed some of my buttons, even though I can't claim that the film makes a lot of sense. I'm squeamish so there were several points in the film when I just didn't want to watch what was happening on screen. The film unnerved me so I became apprehensive of seeing things that I thought I was going to see.

It's an imaginative film offering a great deal visually. It also provides food for thought. And plenty of material to argue about when the film is over.

The characters are well-defined to say the least. Could they make films like this in the West?

So it doesn't make sense in the end, but when one has an appetite for the occult, the supernatural, the bizarre, the otherworldly, then no film is going to deliver a final all-explaining pay-off.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw UZUMAKI about a year ago and was mesmerized. The only Japanese horror film I had seen before this one was KWAIDAN (Which I proudly own on DVD, by the way), superb! The idea of a town being absorbed by spirals sounds exactly like something out of Lovecraft. Certainly it reminds one of SHADOW OVER INNSMOUTH, of the inhabitants slowly turning into monstrosities (in this case giant snails). And who can forget the washing machine sequence? I hope we will soon see this one available on Region 1 DVD (I see that Sundance has recently screened it on US TV, hopefully they'll do it again very soon) so that we can all see it. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my all time favourite movies, if ur not into cars then forget it!! This movie features 1 of Aussies greatest muscle cars, the XYGTHO. Yeah so the acting not the greatest - it was never made to win an oscar. The car action will keep you comin back for more and more. There is a cool collection of muscle cars from the 70's and an Awesome '57 Chev - with a real cool cat drivin it! Also there is a really cool song sung by Terry Serio the main actor. The acting is pretty funny when taken lightly, but the tyre smokin and drag racing is the main focus in this movie. Big fast cars with pleantly of steel(NO PLASTIC CARS), and some cool street dragging. I recommend it only to people that are into cars and not someone looking for great acting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember watching this movie many years ago on VHS at a friends place. At first I thought it would be a boring car movie. But much to my surprise it ended up being one of the best movies I can remember watching for its time.

It has a good story line and best of all it has some awesome Aussie cars and street racing. I really loved Fox's car the most which was a worked Dodge Charger. The paint work which was done on this car was truly outstanding in my opinion :)!

There's also a black two door blown 57 Chev which comes into the movie later on.

I actually managed to get a copy of this movie on VHS last year at K-Mart over here in Australia. I did have plans of converting this movie to DVD myself as I believe it is a movie worth the conversion. But much to my surprise this weekend while I was browsing the DVD movie bin I came across it on DVD. So of course I grabbed it while I could as it was the only copy there.

Anyway if you really want to see some classic street racing with real muscle cars, including a great story line without a rice burner in sight. Then this movie is for you!!!!

Here is some additional info taken from the back of the DVD.

He'll Win At Any Cost Fox is a young man that lives in the fast lane. He believes he is the fastest man on the road - but street racing is illegal. If he doesn't accept his latest challenge he could loose his girl... if he does accept, he could lose his life. Living dangerously, living fast and winning at any cost is their obsession. They don't turn back, the don't give in.. and the don't ask for help.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those of you out there who have seen this pic on VHS, I would recommend the DVD. In fact the VHS is utter rubbish. The main reason is that the film was shot widescreen (2.55:1) and the producers ran out of money making the VHS version and released it as 4:3. The result is that several actors are not on screen at all, and in many drag races, less than half the cars are showing since one is on each side of the screen. The DVD is actually a reasonable version of the film.

A lot of the best scenes in the film were cut before the final release. They were viewed as being too offensive to minority groups. In fact the prospect of a US release caused even more cuts in the film. For example, the Americans reputedly did not understand words such as Petrol & Strides.

Mike's dad and mum were meant to be hippies. The dad survives in the film as a wasted dope smoking guitarist. But the following scene with the mum was cut. The scene took place in the roof space of the house which was lined with aluminium foil, fluoro lights and filled with plants... you get the picture. The producers had rounded up a lot of real plants for the foreground and when they saw the result on the big sheet, they freaked and the scene was cut. Cowards!

Yes, the film is noted as an Australian cult classic. Voted #2 in Street machines best 100 films of all time, narrowly missing out to Mad Max ll. The latter had over 10 times the budget of ROE. In fact the budget on ROE was so small that the director could not afford to wreck any of the cars... even though there would have been a public outcry if anyone had wrecked a real HO. (compare that with Smoky and the Bandit or Blues Bros where dozens of cars were wrecked.)

So there's one real GTHO and two fakes. One of the fakes was bought from the local indigenous community in Cobar after the standby GTHO crashed into the back of the Country Boy's truck. (That was unscripted! The car was meant to burst out from the side of the truck.) Because the budget was so tight, the car was made up with ordinary brown masking tape instead of the painted on gold trim of the real thing.

The 55 chev is absolutely real. The car began as a very plain 4 door and was brilliantly and quickly converted to the blown '55 in the film. The motor was a marinised 545 which made around 1000 bhp. This was reduced to around 600 for the filming. The car was able to easily to 170 mph as show in several scenes in the film.

Just for the record, anyone with $12,000 could have picked up ALL the cars after the film. The HO, the Dodge, the '53 Ute, Rammer's 53 Chev... the lot. Wonder where they are now?

SW","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie has started, the wheels spin, your car has entered a race against the Fox.... You're behind you can't get in front, you figure, \"if i go out, i'm taking you with me...\" You smash into the cars parked on the side of the road, you turn to hit Fox but your aim is bad.... Bang, you've gone up the back of a VW, and smash you've landed in a reservoir. Your car lights on fire. You could get out if you wanted, but the shame of losing has taken you... BANG! Your car blows up, everyone looks on in despair, some crying... The sound of a siren tells you the cops are coming. Everyone gets in their cars and bolts, leaving you to burn. The charred remains of the cars frame sits there, haunting the on lookers... You're dead.

This is one of the scenes; actually its the first scene in the movie. There are many more like it. As you enter the cockpit of the Fox in his pimped out V8 ford, Terry Serio in his crazy GTHO, and many others in this blast from the past.... JOHN CLARKS masterpiece, \"RUNNING ON EMPTY\" \"-He'll win at any cost-\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a top car flick (Its a work of art\/ YER a work of art!) all classic cars no plastic fantastic, I have watched it over & over again I have worn out two video tapes, And will wear out lots more. Lots more car lovers young or old will love this film & watch it more than 1 time! so hire it or buy it (just see it) I wish they would make more (car) movies like this V8 power not gassed up little whipper snippers!!!!

(shes a 351 right?)(motor magic) (the heap the chariot)

(you've got to learn to feel the power)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm guessing that we all, no matter if we are fans of cars, luv the sound of a Dodge Challenger as it growls along the road, the noise a 57 Chevy make as it screams with ecstasy when it tears round a corner and, most of all, the blast of sound as a classic vehicle bursts into flames as it explodes. I'm not the biggest car enthusiast by any stretch of the imagination, but any of the above really does rev my engine! There's no denying the importance of transport on cinema. It has even been said that the invention of the train was one of the biggest influences on early cinema (looking out a window almost like a moving picture and the idea of being transported to a different time\/space). But the car remains the most popular and most luved, it's even got its own genre: the carsploitation genre. A genre that focuses purely on the beauty of cars. In effect, it's just porn! Car porn! And I'm not talking about that rather nasty documentary on Channel 4 in which men actually had sexual intercourse with cars. Whatever floats your...car, I guess. Moving on... whilst RUNNING ON EMPTY isn't quite as pornographic as VANISHING POINT (Richard C. Sarafian, 1971) for instance, with its close ups of the car in motion, all it's bumps and curves (!), this doesn't mean that the car isn't the main focus of this film. In fact, the cars themselves become characters (more on that later). They're objectified and fetishised as much as the women, in fact, maybe even more. And holy holy, are these cars something! Every car in this film (besides the ones in the background) are simply beautiful \u0096 works of art, there's no question about it.

As I was saying, these incredible cars are, in a way, given characters themselves. You actually start sympathising with the car! SPOILER \u0096 Most notably during the scene in which the car is being wrecked and burnt SPOILER OVER. This has become almost a convention of the carsploitation genre; the evil 1978 Plymouth Fury from CHRISTINE (John Carpenter, 1983), Satan's custom Lincoln Mark III in THE CAR (Elliot Silverstein, 1977), the nifty little Mini Coopers from THE Italian JOB (Peter Collinson, 1969) to the friendly Volkswagen Beetle in THE LOVE BUG (Robert Stevenson, 1968) and of course each car from DEATH RACE 2000 (Paul Bartel, 1975) and even WACKY RACES (1968-1970) all of which had their own character. Ironically however, this emphasis on the car often over takes (!) the human characters! And this is certainly the case with RUNNING ON EMPTY, in which only one human character (the blind character who drives his car with his hearing rather than sight) has any sort of dimension, the rest are very much stock characters. These are all your stereotypical Australian 1980s teenagers; big hair, annoying accents and none of whom would look out of place in NEIGHBOURS, especially the Kylie Minouge look-a-like. But who gives a damn? It's all about the cars racing and crashing! That's it! If you don't like that you really are watching the wrong genre.

The car scenes are certainly the selling point of this film, and the best thing it's got going for it. They are fast; very fast! And we're not talking about the rather annoying technique some films seem to use where they record the car 'speeding' at around 40mph, and then speed it up. Oooh no! Not with this film you don't. These cars are zooming along at top speeds in real time \u0096 no fancy editing tricks here. So, we've got speed. Check. What about crashes? Check, check, check! Whilst there isn't cars crashing EVERYWHERE a la the incredibly BLUES BROTHERS (John Landis, 1980) , when cars do crash in this film, they certainly crash! It would seem that they use gunpowder or something similar to build the cars as one little hit and KABOOM they're up in flames. It kind of reminded me of THRILLER: A CRUEL PICTURE (Bo Arne Vibenius, 1974) in that sense.

Between these simply awesome scenes (especially the very start and the very end) there are quite a few scenes which slow everything done and, in my opinion, fail to add very much to the film. Note: more exploding cars needed! However there are a couple of exceptions here which are great scenes \u0096 SPOILER especially the attempted rape scene.

So, all in all, this is a man's film! A boy's film! Full of cars vroom vroom vrooming around the outback and a couple of tits thrown in for good measure too. I'd recommend this little film to anyone even if they are keen cyclists (!) \u0096 it's a great film which you can just switch your brain off, sit back in your leather chair and put on full volume! I'll give it 3.5 luvs out of 5 luvs \u0096 Bruuuuum! P.S \u0096 Amazon are selling this for just over \u00a32 \u0096 it's a real bargain although the DVD lacks any special features whatsoever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Whenever this film gets a mention, usually the discussion begins and ends with the wonderful collection of cars and drag scenes, often overlooked are the at times eclectic characters that populate the film around the three central characters

One character that stands out is Rebel played by the great veteran Australian actor Max Cullen. Rebel is a blind drag racer, who nearly runs down the hero and his group in the middle of the night because he is not using any headlights.

In the back story we discover that Rebel master builder of street racing cars, and he and his wife seem locked in a time warp of the 1950's. Rebel goes on to play a small but pivotal role in teaching Mike, played by Terry Serio, the almost spiritual truth about street drag racing. It is not speed, reaction times that make a great racer. It is the one who feels the car best who will become the greatest

This is best exemplified as Rebel explains to Mike after a test drive \"You got all the agony, just missing the style\"

Graham Bond, is another well credited actor lending his talents as a crooked police officer looking to get in on some of the financial action being generated by the street racing. The confrontation between Bond and Fox played by Richard Moir adds tension to the story. Bond not only expects results but also Fox to drum up racing business

For most of the movie Fox displays a real manipulative and evil side, yet in the climax he presents a sense of honor that turns the final few minutes into an extremely tense and memorable ending. It is almost as if the film is refocusing on its true intention, to show us the culture of street racing rather than the day to day activities of people

One of the major complaints about the film is the script. Although it is nothing exciting, I believe the complete lack of any chemistry between Mikes girlfriend played by Deborah Conway and his mechanic played by Vangelis Mourikis has more to do with the problem. Any scene in which these two interact simply should have been cut

Lastly in terms of the actors, one truly standout performance is delivered by Kristoffer Greaves, who plays a deaf and crippled member of Fox's inner circle. His back story is never explored, was he injured in a race, born that way, what is it that Fox sees value in to keep him around

The reality of the film is simple, it is about street racing, and the culture behind it. When the cars are flying and action sequences are in motion it is the only time Director John Clark and his writer Barry Tomblin seem really comfortable with what they are doing.

So if you are looking for an in depth exploration of human relationships, moments of life defining drama, then this film is not for you. If your pulse races at the thought of a blown 57 Chev or the iconic GTO Phase 3 blazing away on the streets of Sydney, then you wont find much better than this film","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If Monte Hellman's legendary early 70's road movie masterpiece \"Two-Lane Blacktop\" had been done more like a stark, stripped-down, fiercely taut and straightforward brooding mood piece embellished upon by that distinctly mean'n'lean, rough'n'tough, very raw and ragged macho Australian mentality and topped off with a generous sprinkling of dour, despairing, no-hope-whatsoever end-of-the-road punk nihilism, it would undoubtedly be much similar to this jarringly bleak and atmospheric knockout.

Nice guy factory worker Mike (an appealingly scruffy Terry Serio) runs afoul of sneering, shades-wearing fascist car race champ Fox (a perfectly hateful Richard Moir) when he steals Fox's fetching model girlfriend Julie (the lovely Deborah Conway) away from him. Mike and Fox begin competing in increasingly lethal races in which the stakes become higher and higher with each successive bout, finally culminating in an especially pulse-pounding all-or-nothing race with only one true winner allowed. Mike, assisted by his worried, but loyal Italian mechanic pal Tony (a splendidly smooth turn by Vangelis Mourikis) and tutored by blind, supremely hip 50's-style greaser rebel (marvelously essayed with maximum coolness by Max Cullen), willingly puts his life on the line for the sake of his reputation, the affection of his old lady, the money, and, most importantly, for the chance to topple the haughty Fox from his gloating, glowering thrown. Directed with utmost gravity and intensity by John Clark, written to laconically right-on perfection by Barry Tomblim, with a shivery, flesh-crawling synthesizer score by Peter Crosbie and spare, unadorned cinematography by David Gribble, this authentically gnarly early 80's item presents the concept of racing cars as not only a funky alternate lifestyle, but also an all-consuming obsession and reason for living (it's the sole thing most of the film's characters are really passionate about) with a remarkably astute and unblinking eye. Complete with a harrowing downbeat ending and unsparingly grim central message about the bitter price one pays for being top dog, this riveting depiction of a dead-end existence rates as an extraordinary cinematic achievement.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't understand why everyone hates this movie, aside from the fact that they're just jealous their music careers never took off like mega Popstar Aaron Carter. Like it or not Aaron has seen more success in his young life than most people could ever dream of having, so it only seemed natural for him to do a movie. Lou Pearlman and company have been known for over-exploiting their pop prot\u00e9g\u00e9es, you remember Justin Timberlake's foray into TV movie Model Behavior? Granted this movie isn't big scale and impressive, but it's not supposed to be. It's not trying to impress people or be an Emmy award winner, it was released straight to DVD. It's just a cute little movie about an awkward teen who gets her dream of being with her favorite Popstar; I know a lot of you out there have had that dream at some point or another about you favorite singer, don't deny it. It's sweet and gentle and I applaud it for not stepping into the realm of sex, violence, and vulgar language that seem to be creeping into more and more of our movies today. Where's the decency? Where's the line? Teen dramas come in dozens these days because teens are a big market for companies, at least this one is more tolerable to me than Bratz (aka Slutz) with all the fake little girls running around going \"Oh Mah Gawd!\" in tank tops and mini skirts and is fathoms better than those gore fest movies like Saw. I feel for the main character girl because I was nerdy outcast girl in High School who loved Aaron Carter and NSYNC and the Backstreet Boys and other pop music and still do; and like Aaron's character would get crushing \"testophobia\", especially in Math. If you judge this movie solely based on the fact that you don't like or are jealous of Aaron Carter and his fame, then of course you're going to hate it and trash talk it in reviews. The only reason Britney Spears' dribble Crossroads got a higher score is because she has boobs. Accept this movie for what it is, not what you want it to be. I think this happy formulaic teen movie ends on a high note and makes you want to sing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film brought me to tears. I have to say, that if I did not have a beautiful husband at home, I would ask this beautiful piece of art to marry me. Aaron Carter gives a masterful performance as a confused young pop star, while Timothy Barton writes quick and witty dialogue that only furthers the genius of Carter's performance. Kyle is pretty gay, but his performance was nothing less than spectacular. He is also very handsome and cute. I'm thinking about asking him out on a date and giving him a very sweet goodnight gift.;)

If you would like to discuss this film in the future, please contact me.

Nick Burrell Vassar Class of 2012 Malibu, California Malibu West 310 924 0126","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"wow is all i could say i really loved the movie and one thing i could say to Aaron carter is that i really think that you should be in a lot more movies cause you rock.i love Aaron carter so much hes hot and so i say thank you a lot for making this movie great.i really do so wish he would be able to make a lot more movies because he his a great dancer, actor, and singer. i so wish i could sing as good as he could. and I've been a fan of his for like ever and i will never ever stop loving him. i rented the movie and I've had it for two days and iv'e literally watched it over like 10 times. laugh out loud you could call me crazy but that just proves that i liked it a lot. if u wanna talk you can hit me up at dvlbab300@aol.com so e-mail me if you wanna. I LOVE YOU AARON CARTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Aaron Carter plays the pop star(J.D. McQueen) in this movie (surprise surprise). This is a typical movie where the leading lady (Jane) has a huge crush on J.D. McQueen the pop star (as well as many other girls) but she's the lucky one that gets to spend the days with J.D. and forms a relationship with him that is more like a fantasy. J.D. has to go to a public school to keep his math grade up in order to do his summer tour. Problem is J.D. isn't good at math. He finds the smartest person in school (Jane) to tutor him. Jane tutors and falls in love with J.D. J.D. in return falls in love with as well but J.D. screws up and has to fix everything in order to win the girl and make the summer tour. The movie is definitely worth watching. Aaron will be a GREAT actor!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even though i am slightly older than the recommended age group, I really enjoyed this movie. It's a little break from reality and it must be every little girls dream to become friends with a pop star. I know it was mine, to be sure! The first 10 minutes were really cheesy and the mean girls said a few things that were also slightly cheesy. Once you get over that, you can really start to enjoy it. I loved the relationship between JD and Jane - it was really sweet and you could see how much they began to like each other. The soundtrack is perfect and it fits into the film really well. I also liked the family set up for Jane, her sisters seemed lovely. Very well made film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I have to say, this movie was probably the funniest movie I have seen all year. And I don't exactly mean that in a good way. This is probably the most pathetic movie I have seen in a while, and yet that's what makes it so hilarious. you can tell these people are really trying to act, unfortunately for them they aren't doing such a good job, making it so even lines delivered in what is supposed to be a serious tone come out sounding really funny. Aaron Carter is essentially playing a character quite similar to himself in real life, and still he manages to make the character seem corny and not at all realistic. This movie is one of those movies where everything that is supposed to sound serious comes out really funny and all the things that are supposed to be funny are just so stupid and corny that you have to laugh because you know how hard they are trying. This movie is so bad, it's actually good. I would definitely recommend it if your in the mood for a good laugh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know what most of people will think about this movie without even seen it... 'The typical movie from a famous singer... It will be a pink movie,a teenage film,it will be stupid...' and stuff like that... And yes, it is...I mean, it's a pink movie... But, you know what?...I LOVED IT. Seriously...It's a very romantic film... I think that every girl in this world has dreamed with something like the plot of 'Popstar'... Met his favorite singer, know him as a person...and even have a romance with him...right? ^^ I really enjoyed watching that... In addition, it's really funny...

I think the actors did a great job... There's a lot of loving characters...And, Aaron Carter (JD) is not the exception... To be honest, in the first five minutes of see him act, i thought 'this will be awful'...But then , he surprised me really pleasingly...

Also, I gotta say that the music performances on the film are GREAT! I specially loved the part when JD ( Aaron) sings without music , (only with a guitar) a very beautiful song...This guy is really talented... Time will tell...

My advice to you?...Watch it! Don't make a prejudice ;-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am probably a little too old for this movie, 16, and being a guy, the story is a little too girlie, but I really thought it was a cool movie overall. All the girls in this movie are so hot and really great actresses, from Alana, to Adrianne, to Deena, to Kimberly, all the way down to the cute girl that plays Alana's little sister, Rachel. I am not a huge pop-star fan with the lovesick songs, but I thought that Aaron Carter did a really great job in this, and seems like he was really into this movie, and made it seem real. My mom liked all the older farts that she grew up with, so that's cool too. I kept thinking that I liked a lot of the people, and wonder if I will see them again? A sequel would be cool. I rented this, but I might buy it too, since I have a ton of DVD's, and like to go back to see something that I missed. I couldn't buy it at Blockbuster though, so I don't know where I could buy it right now, but I'll look into that. Anyway, I am a 16 year old guy, I already said that, I know, but I would totally take a date to see this. It's really good for all ages, really. I think even my little half sister who is 6 could see this. That's what is so cool about it, that it is something that all ages can see. I'm sure that was done on purpose, but it really works. Girls can dream about being with Aaron Carter, and guys like me can dream about all the hot chicks in this movie. There is something for everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a really cute movie. I had a massive sleepover (girls 10-11) and they absolutely loved this movie. They watched it twice! Don't let the rating fool you. You have to be 13 or older to rate a movie on IMDb, that eliminates the movie's target audience. If you have a girl (or boy) between 7 and 13, I guarantee they'll enjoy this movie.

Sort of a gender reversed \"Notting Hill\" set in high school. Aaron Carter plays a famous pop star who is failing his privately tutored classes. His mom sends him to a \"regular\" high school with the ultimatum, \"pass high school or no summer tour.\" Taking the advice of his Manager (former pop star David Cassidy) he befriends the smartest girl in school (Alana Austin) with plans to cheats off her. Look for the humorous and insightful Janitor (another former pop star Lief Garrett).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just got it and it is a great movie!! i loved it! Although Jane Brightons voice n the beginning is so annoying because of her braces she don't open her freaking mouth...but ya have to watch it cause its a great movie!! the things he says in here are so funny and extremely cute!! and I'm sure Aaron would probably say some of the things in real life cause i don't know, it just seems that way!! ha ha there is a part in tha movie that is really funny...its wen Jane's little sister meets him...but i cant tell ya what happens cause ill just have to let u see for your self!! i went to go see Aaron n concert and it was so much fun!! n he smelled so good ha ha...i still cant believe i got to meet him!!! i have pictures if anyone wants to see them!! Steph","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love Aaron carter but even i expected pop star to be predictable, but i was so wrong! Aaron carter was really funny in it and a great actor! Also the actress who played Jane was a brilliant actress! Every one who i no who watched it loved it!

The music in it was also really good!

The my favourite lines from the film is \"you cant send me to a public school mom! Im a CELEBRIDEE!!\" and \"Take your time, it'l come to you!\"

Although the endings kind of cheesy,all the good chick flicks do! This film is great, and a proper good Chick flick, that i can watch over and over again!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This game is one of the best horror\/shooter games I've ever played. The plot is a little choppy, but the game never fails to send you plenty of chills and excitement. Many people shelved the game when they found that there are no cheat codes for it and very little health potions and ammo to be found. But actually, after you've gone through the game once, you are more familiar with the monsters and different rooms, so you can easily get by the second time around. The puzzles are great, not too hard, not too easy. There are tons of different monsters so you never get bored. And there are plenty of gaming areas. You really feel like you're in a good Stephen King novel as you play. It's nice and creepy. Pick this game up cheap and have some fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This game is an action\/adventure with combat. There are quite long periods with no combat but other times, you have to get rid of various kinds of monsters. The monsters are not like anything you would see in real life, and they have to be gotten rid off in order to continue with your quest. The whole game is a quest. You play Adam Randall whose father contacts him from the beyond and asks him to come and save him. The game is from the mid 1990's and has to be played in DOS. I used Dosbox and was able to play the game quite well. The graphics are not as good as some games even of the time, mainly because the resolution is not high and some scenes look quite blocky, but others look batter, but don't let that put you off the game. The game is very imaginative, its long and can make you jump when unexpected monsters appear out of nowhere. Not for young kids who likely wouldn't be interested anyway, but over 13 or 14 might like this game. Its a horror\\mystery\\action\\adventure\\combat combination.I thought it was a great game. Its had to find now. maybe Ebay. But remember its a DOS game and you would not be able to play it on todays faster computers. would be hard to play on fast computers unless you use Dosbox. Oh, and the acting is very good too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Found a copy in a bargain bin sale of this old time classic. I played it with dosbox on a vista machine without any issues. It's graphically dated heavily, but what do you expect for a 12 year old game! The game is a FPS\/Adventure game hybrid. It's what I call pseudo 3D, you can't look up or down, just spin in 360 (think Wolf3D). Game play can get tricky with a very limited supply of health pots, and a somewhat average interface (Tip: Press I), but on the whole it's passable.

One main strength of the game is the mood. There game heavily uses full motion video, and whilst the acting is b-grade and the plot is very choppy, the game as a whole feels genuinely creepy. It also does a good job of making you question the 'good guys'. Are they really helping, or are they just waiting to stab you in the back? The other major selling point is the games length. There are from memory 18 chapters, which range in game play time from 10minutes to, potentially, hours. My first play through took me a week with some serious devotion of time.

Dated, yes, but if you missed this years ago and can find it for $5, give it a look. Cheaper than a movie, and more entertaining than most movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I play this game exactly after I watch the trailer in old magazine advertise CD...

The is very interesting and dark atmospheric (missing in nowadays games\/movies). The game is set somewhere in the middle of the '90 in the spooky mysterious mansion. You play as Adam Randell and your quest is to free the soul of your death trapped father.

The look of the game is doom-like, but very different type of game. A lot of a action, various puzzles, quests, mazes and many more interesting locations and characters are presented in this old classic game.

The game will run only on Windows 98 and there is no patch for Windows XP.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The game was made in 1996, but it is still good today. the graphics is not that hot and the actors are not oscar-worthy but the plot is twisted, diabolic and highly enjoyable. The dark story is compelling from the first film and is continuing throughout all the play. We played several people together for several reasons: 1) to use all our minds together. 2) not to be so afraid.

Play this game and you won't regret this, just don't try to find a quake engine in there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"De Gr\u00f8nne slagtere or The Green Butchers as it is called in English is a very dark comedy about two losers who work for a popular butcher. They are fed up with their bosses criticism and decide to start a business on their own. Their shop is expensive and it doesn't even have electricity all over the place. And to make things worse, they haven't got any customers (as their former boss predicted). When the man pays them a visit in their shop, he challenges them to provide the meat for a dinner party he organizes.

Than a tragic accident happens. One of the butchers locks the electrician into the freezing chamber when he closes the shop. The man dies and the neurotic one of the two butchers decides to cut fillets out of the electrician's thigh and serves it to the dinner party instead of calling the police. It's an incredible success. All at once every person in the village wants to taste that incredible \"chicken\". Overwhelmed by his sudden success the butcher sees no other option but to kill more people, who he can sell as chicken.

I guess that the subject cannibalism may not be enjoyed by everyone, especially not because it is shown with a lot of humor. Personally I liked it a lot. It shows perfectly how far some people would go for some social acceptance and to get out of their isolation. It may sound a bit far-fetched, but I'm sure you would be surprised to see how people in real life sometimes act.

Next to the original subject, I was also pleased by the actors' performances and the humor. There is no overacting, as you might expect in this kind of movies, it's all very sober and realistic (I guess that's typical for the Scandinavians and Scandinavian movies). The same for the humor. I'm sure I wouldn't have liked it as much as I did now if the humor had been over the top, or with a lot of farting, vomiting,... like you see so often in American movies. I loved this movie and I give it an 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many Americans are lazy, and this has manifested itself even in our DVD-watching. Many of us don't like to take the time to read an hour-and-a-half (or more) of subtitles, so we choose not to see many foreign films. One film that is TOTALLY worth your time, no matter how mundane a task you might think the subtitle-reading is, however, is \"The Green Butchers.\" It's by far the best foreign film I've ever seen, and tops many American films I've seen lately as well. It's a complex situation told in a remarkably simple and funny dialogue. The character depth derived in this film is AMAZING. The way Svend and Eigel (sorry if those are spelled wrong) feed off each other's contrasting personas is downright spectacular! The actors were well-cast, and I'm very much hoping that a sequel is in consideration...it needs very little of Bjorne and what's-her-face...just give me Svend and Eigel on some sort of journey with supporting characters and more amazing dialogue! To the author of this fine screenplay, I say: Write more! The story itself is rather twisted, but you'll find yourself rooting for the bad guy anyhow...with no remorse. PLEASE check this movie out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is, by far, the best movie I've seen in a long while. It is a wholly original and beautiful plot. It is not boring, nor is it too dramatic. The characters are tangible and realistic, but it does not take away from the story line. The fact that is not in English is most likely the final touch. The end leaves you fulfilled in a way I've never experienced in a movie before.

I wish I had found this movie earlier.

More lines.

more lines.

more lines a lot more lines c'mon, i'm done","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The art of the absurd is alive and thriving in current Danish cinema! Well, at least it is in this movie. Nobody in this movie are amused. They are all either annoyed or shocked, and if they aren't yet, they soon will be! It is a story of screw-ups, murder, embarrassment, dignity, and, in the end, love and redemption. The chilling, awkward humorous style is idiomatic and won't appeal to everyone, but personally I found it to have just the right fascinating mix of the bizarre and the absurd. You pity the characters from a distance, even as you dislike them up close and personal. But their story is so tragic that you find it in yourself to forgive them and be happy for them, even when they get away with murder.

This is, in my judgment, definitely the best Danish movie of the last few years.

9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE GREEN BUTCHERS (Anders Thomas Jensen - Denmark 2003).

How do the Danes keep coming up with these films that are consistently funny, sharply written, exquisitely filmed and filled with great performances? THE GREEN BUTCHERS is a dark and wickedly funny comedy, in many ways the Danish counterpart of EATING RAOUL and DELICATESSEN, but it has more on offer than just laughs or parody.

The film brings us the duo of chronic pothead Bjarne (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) and chronic perspirer Svend (Mads Mikkelsen). Sick of their evil boss, the two pals decide to open their own butcher shop in a small Danish town, but initially business is slow and customers stay away. When an electrician is accidentally locked up and freezes in their meat locker, Svend decides to turn the man's thigh into fillets he promptly nicknames \"chickie-wickies.\" This special dish suddenly has everyone in town flocking to their counter and Svend - unable to resist this sudden leap into popularity - turns into a serial killer with Bjarne acting as his reluctant accomplice. But soon, led by their ex-boss, many people in town are starting to wonder what special ingredients the two men are using.

Without the extraordinary performances by Kaas and Mikkelsen, the film might not have risen above the level of the average black comedy. On paper, the character of Svend might border on caricature but Mads Mikkelsen portrait is that of an earnest, insecure and deeply twisted man, but Mikkelsen manages to make him frightening, funny and moving at the same time. Kaas actually plays a double role, also playing his comatose twin brother Eigil. When watching the film, I never even realized it was the same actor. The other performances are just as wonderful with every character in town refreshingly off-the-hook with some truly wonderful vignettes.

The subject material is - naturally - a bit morbid and the material might not be completely fresh, considering quite a few predecessors that handled the same kind of material, but director Jensen gives it a fresh twist and manages to build some real characters with the strange duo of Svend and Bjarne, with this wonderfully bizarre tale of two social misfits.

Camera Obscura --- 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you don't mind subtitles, you like comedy and truly interesting characters, along with a taste of something different from mainstream American cinema, then take a chance and rent this film.

Two contrasting friends, (one very neurotic sweater, the other the strong quiet loner type) working for a jerk butcher in a smaller danish town, decide to strike out on they're own together and open a butcher shop themselves. Not successful at first they incorporate something new to they're recipe and become an instant hit with the village.

That being an interesting story in itself, this smartly humorous film is laced with even more, (friendship, romance, crime, death, personal tragedy) that makes this film so funny yet riddled with numerous subtle interests that make it so interestingly funny yet warm and fuzzy.

A must mention is the characters created and the actors making them believable. You can have the best script yet if the characters aren't believable it can sink a film and with this, the directing, acting, character believability and story all mesh so well they make this a very entertaining film.

So, if your in the mood to stretch a lil, want to see something very good yet done a bit differently, then I suggest you rent this film while I'm on my way out to find more by director writer Anders Thomas Jensen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Good Lord... How this ended up in our DVD player I'll never know...my wife thought it was a new release she'd missed somehow...Nevermind it's a couple of years old and in Danish ( I think)... She kept looking for the English soundtrack...

All in all...the film wasn't bad... Good production values,better performances, and a clever story that doesn't get too far away from itself make for tidy, dark-humored fare from across the sea! The ending will make you chuckle...in fact, the whole film will. Incredibly strange characters that we grow genuinely interested in make a film that might be worth your while...Without spoiling the plot, the film's title and DVD jacket give you a good idea where this thing is going!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not entirely sure how I stumbled upon this movie, but I'm so glad I did. Initially, we were put off by the fact that it was subtitled, but even my dyslexic brother who hates to read (especially at the weekend) enjoyed this film. I found the script fantastic and the way it was delivered in such a dead-pan manner only added to the puddles of pee on my sofa. Not entirely sure whether it's quite so funny to the native Danish as the comedy seems to be enhanced by the tonelessness of the subtitles and the ambiguity of the translation. I haven't watched many Danish films (or any for that matter), but judging by this film I'm guessing they're not constrained by the same political correctness as elsewhere (gawd bless 'em) making the character of Eigel a breath of fresh air, because let's face it special needs are funny. There are so many great one-liners in this film it puts American sitcoms to shame.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not sure I've ever seen a black comedy from Denamark before but this is quite good actually. The humor is suitably low-key and deadpan to go with some of the gruesome activity. Svend and Bjarne are fed up with working for their boss, because he's always putting them down (in fact he mentions that they weren't bright enough to unzip before peeing at one point). They do what they have to to start their own butcher shop and when a workman is accidentally locked in the cooler overnight while fixing a light, they hit upon something that makes their butcher shop far more popular than their old boss's. In fact, he's the one they sold their first \"filets\" to, and it's partly his fault, since he served them at a Rotary dinner at his house and the guests raved about it and showed up at Svend and Bjarnes the next day. Bjarne is somewhat horrified what Svend has done but it doesn't stop there. Svend has risen above his sad little existence to be someone of some popularity which is new for him and he doesn't want to let go of that, so the freezer continues to fill up with all manner of acquaintances (and, at one point, \"a small Swede from the park\"). Suspiccions arise, though, because ex-boss Holger thinks something is wrong. Bjarne is also haunted by his twin brother Eigil, who lived in a sanitarium for years in a coma and whom Bjarne wanted the plug pulled on so he could get inheritance money to help open the shop. When Eigil was taken off the respirator he was revived, much to Bjarne's horror. And Bjarne has a love interest too in Astrid, who works at the cemetery. Neither Svend nor Bjarne are well adjusted individuals and so things start to spiral out of control. The deadpan humor really makes this, and while this isn't exactly laugh out loud material it certainly is amusing. It is somewhat creepy though considering the cuts of meat and body parts casually lying around, especially since these two take it all so matter-of-fact. If you're a fan of black comedies this is recommended, I liked it quite well myself. 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Send them to the freezer. This is the solution two butchers find after they discover the popularity of selling human flesh. An incredible story with humor and possible allegories that make it much more than a horror film. The complex characters defy superficial classification and make the story intriguing and worthwhile - if you can stand it. Definitely a dark film but also a bit redemptive.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"of Adam's apple and With Your Permission. I didn't know until looking it up just now. Also the errrrrrmmmmm 'Wilbur Wants to Kill himself' I prefer this very focused deadpan ...drama over Adam's Apple's over the top comedic zeal. But With Your Permission is much more layered and subtle, but that's another director.

Once the 'meaty' part of the story takes place I felt the dread of coming back to the shop again and again. A bit claustrophobic .. maybe that is intentional. It builds on the atmosphere. You dread the rediscovery and again and again until the 'kick in the shin'.

this is some funny stuff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, so I'm not usually one that runs out and rents foreign movies...especially foreign dark comedies. I think I can count on one hand the number of films that I found genuinely hilarious from beginning to end. This movie will be added to the short list. Even dark comedies right out of Hollywood sometimes turn me off because they require an incredibly dry sense of humor. But this one had my eyes welling up with tears. My sides hurt. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. This movie was recommended by my mother and I don't think I would have even dreamed of watching it had she not raved about it. Don't be afraid of having to read during your movie - you'll miss out on a hilariously well-acted flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a mix of a dark comedy and a drama, about two guys who worked in a Butcher's shop and wanted to build up their own. When they finally fulfilled that dream, they faced a new problem: there were no clients! One day, by accident, one guy dies in the refrigerator room, and a new kind of butcher's business begins\u0085 They start selling human flesh, saying to the clients it's just chicken\u0085 and their business starts to improve: Human flesh sells good! Oh! I forgot to say something\u0085 These guys aren't normal! There's really something missing in their brains!

The movie has some nice dark humour scenes, but it is, in my opinion, mostly a drama. One that shows us what is inside the head of a psychopath, what are his motivations to what he does. I must confess I was a bit surprised with the ending of the movie, because I never expected they could make it without been discovered, but that's probably because I see too many Hollywood movies\u0085 What I mean by this is that in Hollywood's cinema we always expect the punishment of the guys which do the \"bad things\". There's always a morality protecting the \"good values\", in spite of we all know that in \"real life\" it doesn't happen this way too many times\u0085 And I liked this movie mostly because of that, because it fits in a kind of cinema which is true, frontal, without fake moralities, and which \"see\" what is on the other side, behind the \"conventional morality\"\u0085 It just happens in independent cinema (especially in the European)!

Besides, there're excellent performances by Nikolaj Lie Kass and Mads Mikkelsen (especially the first one) in the roles of the \"disturbed guys\"\u0085

Very nice Danish film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is actually a brilliant movie. The story is grotesque, but the actors are brilliant. Especially the performance of Mads Mikkelsen as Svend, is magnificent. It's a simple story about two guys with an urge to make it on their own, but it unfolds to a strange and absurd story, with a lot of people accidentally getting killed and served up as chicken steaks. If only more people understood danish... This could be a great candidate for an English version. It is also worth mentioning Ole Thestrup, who always delivers that extra twist to the plot, with his slightly mad character Holger. I can only recommend this movie to the danish audience. Also take a look at Adams \u00c6bler (2005), a movie by Anders Thomas Jensen, also with Mads Mikkelsen accompanied by a well playing Ulrich Thomsen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This without doubt one of the funniest and most entertaining movies I have ever seen. I really enjoyed the characters in the movie. They are all wonderful bizarre in them selves. It's quite something I have never seen before in any movie.

The story is almost non-stop from beginning to the end. There are no boring moments. I was totally captured by the movie. And I thought the acting was great.

So if you want to see a fun movie. You should look for The Green Butchers. A great movie.

I give it 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is a wonderful film about people. Strange people. The characters in the movie all have a very tragic past, so they all have their problems. Their problems evolve in a way that makes the plot of the movie very absurd; but that does not make the movie worse, only better, for it is shot in a kind of fantasy-like way, so nothing is real. This review might sound a little weird, but then again, the movie is not quite normal... It is also a hilarious movie at many times. If you have not seen it, see it. Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a novelty in Danish film. The mood is not unlike that of Blinkende Lygter, also by Anders Thomas Jensen, but with a novel touch. One difference is fewer characters, leaving much more room for them to be dwelled into. And what characters?! The two butchers are perfect. Mads Mikkelsen is a dominating, deranged parody and Nikolaj Lie Kaas an indifferent looser with a twin brother more or less an unholy pairing of the two.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is the funniest danish movie I've ever seen!

The plot is funny, surprising and exceptionel. Danish humor is unlike any other, and it gets you every time. The entire audience laughed 90 % of the time....it was incredible. The characters are so well played, and the two actors, Mads mikkelsen and Nikolaj Lie Kaas play their best ever!

I would highly recomend seing this movie, you won't regret it, believe me :-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cannibalism, a pair of cinematic references to Delicatessen, not only in plot, but in style. Cannibalism, a pair of references to the historic case of the Uruguayan rugby players that survived in the Andes by eating the dead members of their flight to Chile. Cannibalism, only an excuse the movie uses to delve into the extremes men are willing to go to defeat isolation and obtain social acceptance.

The script is extremely creative, and hopefully is going to leave the viewer laughing and wondering...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is a complete copy now available at the Internet Archive - watch it or download it today!

http:\/\/www.archive.org\/details\/The_Mascot_Complete

One of the greatest animated shorts ever made. Starewicz is endlessly inventive and his techniques still astound animation fans 70 years later. We may have computer-generated techniques now, but all he had in 1934 was an imagination that wouldn't take \"no\" for an answer. Whatever he wanted to see on the screen, he created.

And he wanted to see some truly bizarre stuff - every imaginable piece of scrap is called up for service: old shoes, chicken bones, utensils, broken glasses, dolls, monkeys, rats....seems like there was nothing that was off limits.

A truly eerie, even unsettling film that should be seen by anyone with even a passing interest in animation. This film must be seen to be believed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Straight from the brilliant mind of animation pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz, \"F\u00e9tiche\", or \"The Mascot\" as it is known nowadays, stands as a masterpiece of stop-motion animation that sadly, has been almost forgotten by now. Nevertheless, the work of this man deserves to be seen, and in fact, must be seen to be believed because the outstanding way the animation flows is simply unbelievable.

Decades before \"Toy Story\", Starewicz conceived the idea of moving toys, in \"F\u00e9tiche\", he tells the story of a small stuffed dog that gets makes friends with the sick daughter of his maker. One day, his maker takes him away to sell him, and the adventure begins as he tries to find his way back home. In his Odyssey, he'll travel from Paris to Hell, and will find the other toys that were supposed to be sold with him.

It is a surreal experience to watch this movie, as Starewicz makes every imaginable creature come alive with grace and beauty. The other toys include a beautiful ballerina, who loves a thief, but she also is secretly loved by a clown, forming a love triangle; an old woman, a stuffed cat and a stuffed ape complete the group. every toy is so detailed and very expressive that without words one can understand their motives.

Truly, the surreal atmosphere the whole animation has it is remarkable. It is hard to believe that a work of this magnitude was done in 1934 since it looks even better than most of the current day animation. The influence it has in modern day animator such as Tim Burton and Henry Selick is very significant.

This short is a masterpiece of animation and the outstanding work of one genius who done everything by himself and that has influenced animators for decades. Starewicz's work is an immortal piece of art that should be seen by everyone. This work is not only for kids, adults as well will enjoy it and probably catch most of the subtext hidden in the movie.

It is possible to find it in the \"Vampyr\" DVD as a bonus feature. Anyone with the slightest interest in animation should give it a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A brilliant animated piece that was far ahead of its time, and certainly far ahead of anything that was being released in mass production at the same point in history. The influence of this work upon Tim Burton's \"Nightmare Before Christmas\" is readily apparent. One can only imagine how Starewicz slaved over every beautifully detailed frame of this masterpiece.

There have been very few animated films of this caliber. It's a shame that more people haven't seen this gem.

Apparently, IMdB now requires comments to be at least ten lines long, so this is the tenth line. This must be something new - but I really don't have anything else to say!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Words alone cannot describe the sheer beauty and power of this film.

Think \"Toy Story\". Now, think \"Toy Story\", circa 1934. Now, imagine the animation looks as lifelike, as fluid. Think of the movie not as something adults and children can enjoy, but imagine it as a filme-noire.

Imagine trying to do something like that back in 1934. Somehow, \"The Mascot\" delivers. In a story where toys come to life, and one of them is trying to deliver an orange to his sick owner, Starewicz delivers a level of animation completely unexpected. It's so fluid, you will wonder for a long time whether what you see is really stop-motion animation.

Comparing \"Toy Story\" and \"The Mascot\" is an excercise in futility, plot-wise: while \"Toy Story\" is a children's story adults can enjoy, \"The Mascot\" is a dark, chilling story aimed at adults. Meaning, NO, your kids won't like it. One bit.

Still, get it if you can. You might be able to find it along \"Vampyr\" in DVD and LaserDisc. And prepare to be stunned at what Starewicz was able to do back in 1934 with a couple of puppets.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of Starewicz's longest and strangest short films follows a toy dog in search of an orange after becoming animated by the tear of the mother of a girl who longs for an orange. The dog comes upon an orange after falling out of the back of a car on his way to be sold, but at night must protect the orange when he comes enters a devilish nightclub featuring many bizarre and scary characters. With the help of a stuffed cat, the dog gets the orange back to the little girl and she is saved from a terrible scurvy death. The Mascot features new techniques I have not yet seen in Starewicz's films. The addition of sync sound and a mixture of live action with the stop-motion animation makes for a new twist on Starewicz's old style of puppetry. Live scenes of moving cars and people's feet walking by as a puppet sits on the concrete sidewalk is impressive and fresh. The honking of cars and cries of street vendors is noteworthy due to the fact that small studio shifts to sound were costly and Starewicz's utilization of the new technology seems like old hat. New puppet characters in this film are frightening contributions to the devil's club scene. Twigss and newspaper shreds come to life. Skeletons of dead birds lay eggs which hatch skeleton chicks. Characters come flying in from all over on pats and pans and rocking horses. A new editing technique uses quick zooms which are accomplished through editing to speed up the pace of what before might have been a slow scene. Overall, Starewicz is able to update his style of film-making to meet the demands of a new audience making this film one of the best examples of his work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i still can't belive that starevich made this film back in 1934. animation is simply perfect, and what is amazing about it, with all the advanced technology we have nowadays there are few animation studios that are capable of producing a little gem like this one. it has everything: a great story, beautiful chracters (although this is a morbid kind of beauty in some cases), special effects... well, it is definitely not a kid's movie,but it's a must-see for anyone seriously interested in animation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with most of Mr. Rivera's comments, and I just want to ad a couple of caveats. This film, \"The Mascot\" is criminally neglected in its current form. For that matter, so is \"Vampyr\". \"The Mascot\" isn't a \"bonus feature\"-- it's tacked on as a chapter in \"Vampyr\". Even though it's made very clear that this is a separate movie, it should have been treated as such by the manufacturers. And while I\"m at it, \"Vampyr\" needs some of that same respect and cleaning up as well. I got the feeling the decision to put The Mascot on there went something like this.

Dude A: \"We just transferred Vampyr to DVD, but it comes up about 20 minutes short. We need to put something on there that won't cost much money. Can you believe film critics want to be paid to talk about films!\" Dude B: \"Not to worry. I have this little animation thingy that's been sitting in my drawer. Just go ahead and throw it on as an additional chapter.\" Dude A: \"You're awesome, Dude B.\" The animation's of The Mascot is great, and there's no need for me to repeat what Mr. Rivera's done so well. However, this thing needs some major cleaning and restoring, especially the audio. The plot comes through in the dialogue. And in my copy there were so many hisses, pops and places where the sound just dropped right off (I would have had no idea what the dog was going after without having read the box). No amount of volume was going to make the words more understandable, it just brought up the tinniness and made the hisses and pops louder.

Bottom line is: Starewicz's films need to be put into a respectful collection, cleaned up, spiffed up, liner notes and the whole nine yards. In other words, they need to be \"Criterionized\" 9 out of 10 for the movie, not the product which would get only a 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Mascot is Ladislaw Starewicz's masterpiece. It tells the tale of a stuffed toy dog who searches for an orange after he overhears the mother tell her daughter she hasn't any money. The dog gets picked with other toys to be sold off. In the truck, after the others jump off while the vehicle runs, the dog stays and waits to be picked up from store before setting off on his own. He manages to get orange after biting woman's leg as she was holding and selling the fruit. As he runs, he encounters the devil and accepts his offer to stop at nightclub. There, he meets the other toys who jumped off truck. The cat who was next to him in vehicle is especially determined to get dog's orange. I'll just stop here to mention that other wonderfully bizarre things happen in nightclub that you'll have to see for yourself. Suffice it to say, if you love Starewicz and is interested in all animation from the past, I most definitely recommend you seek this one out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this little gem as an extra feature on my DVD of Vampyr-Der Traum Des Allen Grey, and didn't expect all that much from it. It looked like it might be an interesting little short though, so I turned it on.

I am so glad that I did. It was really incredible! Despite having been made more than 70 years ago, the animation was, in my view, better than some of that done today with all the computer effects and experience available now.

The story is quite simple-a newly put together toy dog hears its owner's laments about not being able to afford an orange and goes on a quest to find her one. In the process, it runs into a toy's underworld with all sort of nefarious creatures and toys overseen by none other than the devil himself, who all want the dog's orange for themselves as well.

This film precedes, but reminds me a lot of Mad Monster Party? (1969, Jules Bass)-a movie which I have always really enjoyed-and to a lesser extent, some of Tim Burton's animated works-The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993, Henry Selick) and Corpse Bride (2005, Tim Burton). Fans of any of these movies will, I am sure, also love The Mascot.

Overall, an incredible piece of short animation which is well worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this movie was made as good as it could have been. With only 4 months and a 52000$ budget - I'm surprised this wasn't worse. If you are not to care about the CG or special effects, this movie is great.

Okay, the movie is not that well made (I'm sure it could have been but, you try to do better in only 4 months) but the story is good and the movie is rather exciting.

DOn't trust me when I say that this movie is good, cause I also find the 1933 King Kong to be good.

I must confess that I didn't watch the complete movie either... I might have fast forwarded some minutes here and there...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent B-film horror movie that borders between horror and comedy. It is about a genetically mutilated scorpion in outer space. Can it get more unreal? It is a hybrid between \"Alien\" and \"Chain Saw Massacre.\" The movie was shot in Stockholm with a mixed cast of Americans and Swedes that interact beautifully. Director Martin Munthe does a great job finding the comical highlights in this script and gets a few good laughs out of the audience. The movie was shot with little or no money and it is inspiring to see what can be done with limited resources. Stinger has all qualities of a B-film horror movie. It is comical and scary at the same time and the cast and crew are dedicated to their cause. It is great to see that movies like this can still be made! I would recommend seeing it if you like this type of films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There must have been a sale on this storyline back in the 40's. An epidemic threatens New York (it's always New York) and nobody takes it seriously. Some might say that Richard Widmark and Jack Palance did it better in Panic in the Streets, but I disagree.

There is always something about these Poverty Row productions that really touch a nerve. The production values are never that polished and the acting is a little rough around the edges, but that is the very reason I think this movie and those like it are effective. Rough, grainy, edgy. And the cast. All 2nd stringers or A list actors past their prime. No egos here. These folks were happy to get the work. Whit Bissell, Carl Benton Reid, Jim Backus, Arthur Space, Charles Korvin, and the melodious voice of Reed Hadley flowing in the background like crude oil. By the way, I've been in the hospital a couple of times; how come my nurses never looked like Dorothy Malone? In these kind of movies they don't bother much with make-up and hair, but they really managed to turn Evelyn Keyes into a hag. Or maybe they just skipped the make-up and hair altogether. Anyway, it was pretty effective. She plays a lovesick jewel smuggler who picks up a case of Small Pox in Cuba while smuggling jewels back for ultra-villain Charles Korvin (who is boffing her sister in the meantime). You got the Customs Agents looking for her because of the jewels, and the Health Department looking for her because she's about to de-populate New York. No 4th Amendment rights here. Everybody gets hassled.

You gotta have the right attitude to enjoy a movie like this. I have a brother who scrutinizes movies to death. If they don't hold up to his Orson Wellian standards, he bombs them unmercifully. They must have the directorial excellence of a David Lean movie, the score of Wolfgang von Korngold, the Sound and Art of Douglas Shearer and Cedric Gibbons respectively. This ain't it.

But I have the right attitude, and if you do as well, you'll love this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From 1950 comes a neat thriller about a couple smuggling diamonds from abroad and also the contagious disease smallpox. Evelyn Keyes pulls out all stops as the essential victim of this film-noir. Once back in the United States she is not aware that she could be spreading the disease on everyone and everything she comes in contact with. Eventually she is pursued and must be stopped before an epidemic occurs. Other than Keyes striking performance there is good support from villainous Charles Korvin, William Bishop, Dorothy Malone, Lola Albright and Whit Bissell. The finale is a humdinger with Miss Keyes on the ledge of a building with spotlights and hundreds of spectators below. A good B flick!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a really dark movie. Noir indeed. The title character is smallpox, brought into New York City unknowingly by Evelyn Keyes.

She is on one mission when she arrives and on a rougher one after she's spoken to her no longer innocent sister. But she herself is not intentionally a killer. This doesn't mean she doesn't kill. It doesn't mean her presence somewhere among eight million other people doesn't throw the city into turmoil.

Keyes is excellent. The supporting cast is very good too. There are several little-known people involved in this -- the director included. Don't be put off. It is a movie to be reckoned with! (And how nice to see a Columbia picture. Columbia and Republic turned out wonderful comedies and noirs; yet we hardly ever see them anymore.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Some Spoilers) Sweeping into New York City on a first-class railroad car a killer who doesn't kill with a gun or knife or club but just with his,or it's, touch and breath. A killer that's as old, or even older, then man himself. That killer has a name it's know the world over as smallpox.

Arriving in New York one cold November afternoon the killer hidden inside of Sheila Bennet, Evelyn Keyes, and like a Trojen Horse it waits until the opportunity presents itself. Then like a ticking time bomb with it's fuse set off explodes throughout the length and breath of the city.

Sheila knows that she's being followed by a U.S Customs officer who's been on her tail since she came back to the US from the Island nation of Cuba. Having smuggled $50,000.00 of illegal uncut diamonds she had to be careful in getting them to her husband Matt, Charles Korvin, to be cut and sold to unsuspecting jewelers in the city.

Mailing the diamonds ahead of time Sheila knows that if caught the diamonds won't be found on her. What she doesn't know is that Matt is two timing her by having an affair with her kid sister Francie, Lola Albrght. Even worse he plans to check out of town with the diamonds leaving her as well as Francie holding the bag.

Even though we know right from the start of Sheila's deathly condition it doesn't really come to the surface until much later in the movie.The first half of \"The Killer that stalked New York\" is a crime suspense\/drama with the U.S Customs officials and NYC police looking for the stolen diamonds. As Sheila starts to get sick and begins to infect everyone whom she comes in contact with the film reaches the point of a mass panic in the streets type horror movie.

Both the police and custom officials together with members of the city's Health Depertment race against the clock to find Sheila before she infects the entire city of New York with the deadly smallpox infection that she's carrying. Sheila finding out from Matt's boss Willie Dennis,Jim Backus,that he quit his job as a nightclub piano player and that he was having an affair with Francie shocks her into the realization to what a heel he is.

Confronting Francie at her apartment it turns out that Matt not only stiffed Shelia but her sister as well. Which later leads the guilt-ridden Francie to take her own life. On the run and not knowing that she's infected with smallpox Sheila goes to her brother Sid (With Bissell),who manages a flop-house on the Bowery, to find a place to stay. Only too late does Sheila, and Sid, find out the the stolen diamonds is the last of her problems. Knowing that she's dying Sheila goes to the office of jeweler Arnold Moss, Art Smith, knowing that sleaze-ball of a husband Matt, who ended up beating old man Moss into a bloody pulp, is going to be there to exact vengeance on him.

Doucmentry-type drama, based on a true story, with striking black and white on-location photography makes this movie about the horrors of unseen and deadly smallpox unleashed on a unsuspecting public well worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this crackerjack noir thriller from Columbia which is a combination of Panic In The Streets and The Naked City, Evelyn Keyes is unknowingly The Killer That Stalked New York. Evelyn who smuggled some stolen jewels into the country from Cuba also smuggled in smallpox. It gets misdiagnosed by doctor William Bishop and when they do find out what it is the hunt is on for her.

For most of the film the Treasury Department is also hunting Keyes, but for the smuggled jewels. It's not until nearly the end of the film that the health department and law enforcement realize they're looking for the same woman.

Evelyn's on a mission also. Her husband Charles Korvin has left her flat, the unkindest cut of all being that he was fooling around with her sister while she was in Cuba collecting the gems and contracting smallpox. When Lola Albright as her sister commits suicide over the whole affair, Evelyn's on a mission, get Korvin or die trying. And that's not an idle threat given the situation.

The film was mostly shot in New York like The Naked City and its cast is sprinkled liberally with a lot of familiar names and faces. Keep an eye out for good performances by Connie Gilchrist as Evelyn's unsympathetic landlady, Jim Backus as a shifty club owner, and Art Smith as Korvin's fence.

A real sleeper in the noir category, don't miss it if broadcast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In April 1947, New York City faced an epidemic crisis. Eugene LaBar, a rug importer arriving from Mexico, had arrived in the city, bringing with him the deadly smallpox virus. He stumbled off a bus, complaining of fever and a headache, and soon died in a Midtown Hospital, but not before he had infected a dozen passers-by. The damage was already done; for the first time in decades, smallpox stalked the streets of New York. The city's health authorities acted quickly to isolate sufferers and contain the virus, enacting a free vaccination campaign that saw over six million New Yorkers immunised against smallpox. Thanks to their swift response, the virus was contained with minimal casualties. The outbreak, nevertheless, must have left an indelible mark, for several years later it was followed by two similarly-themed film noir thrillers in which doctors must track down a single contagious carrier in a city of millions: Elia Kazan's 'Panic in the Streets (1950)' and Earl McEvoy's lower-budget 'The Killer That Stalked New York (1950).'

McEvoy's film unfolds in an unglamorous docu-drama style. Reed Hadley's narration sounds as though it was plucked straight from a newsreel, reciting facts as if reading off the official police transcript. This technique does feel a little cheap at times, but fortunately the narration is largely restricted to the film's bookends, as well as providing some explanatory filler during breaks in the plot. The \"killer\" stalking New York, in this story, is not a rug importer from Mexico, but beautiful diamond smuggler Sheila Bennet (Evelyn Keyes), who has just arrived from Cuba. Within days, Sheila has two parties independently pursuing her: a treasury agent (Barry Kelley) looking to arrest her for smuggling crimes, and a team of doctors (led by William Bishop) who have identified her as the source of the smallpox outbreak. As in 'Panic in the Streets,' an otherwise routine manhunt is given a heightened sense of urgency, particularly when those in pursuit initially have no idea as to the identity or appearance of their suspect.

'The Killer That Stalked New York,' for the most part, manages to sidestep its low production budget. Aside from a select few lines of dialogue (\"we have to stop it!\" exclaims Dr. Wood at one point, as though coming to a difficult decision), the filmmakers and cast members allow the story to unfold in a realistic, engrossing fashion. Indeed, in this regard, the low budget quite possibly aids the film's intentions, necessitating a documentary style that adds to the immediacy of the outbreak scenario. Evelyn Keyes is excellent in the leading role, showing obstinate resilience in the face of unimaginable torment; by the film's end, she appears so brutally incapacitated by her illness that it's almost painful to look at her face. Aside from the virus, Charles Korvin is the main villain of the piece, as Sheila's greedy and adulterous husband who, rest assured, gets everything that's coming to him. And if all nurses looked like Dorothy Malone, perhaps catching smallpox wouldn't seem like such a bad break, after all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is without a doubt one of Neil Simon's best plays turned movies. It's full of great characters, and memorable dialog. Johnathan Silverman makes a great screen version of young Eugene(he was played by Matthew Broderick on stage).This is the first of Simon's autobiographical trilogy, its followed by the wonderful \"Biloxi Blues\", and closes with the TV movie \"Broadway Bound\". If I had to say the movie has any flaws it would maybe be that characters sometimes usually speak in obvious dialog, but that's alright because it's great dialog. Rent this little gem, you won't be sorry!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The viewer who said he was disappointed seems to be wildly missing the point here. This is a superb movie, excellent and realistic portrayals of a middle class Jewish family in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, of long ago. The nuances are perfect and I felt the casting of everyone was superior. I especially found the acting done by Judith Ivey just perfection---especially the speech she has with her daughter when the daughter comes home late one night. That scene was Oscar worthy. But, really, all the acting was fine. I recommend this movie. It is a fun, family film and delightful to see how a lovely middle class family lived in Brooklyn so long ago. See it and you will be glad you did. Has some very funny lines and the Eugene character is a real comedian--very funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How many of us have read a book or seen a play, and then when the movie version came out we were terribly disappointed? Well, maybe this would be one of those movies for those who saw the play too, but as someone who never had the opportunity to see it on stage, I was extremely entertained by this movie. The characters were funny, the music was great, and the story was interesting and made you feel genuine empathy for the characters, flaws and all. Jonathan Silverman has such good comedic timing, and his lines especially are hilarious. I'm not going to give any spoilers, it's just a nicely done, funny movie showing the inner workings of a middle class family during WWII. So if you never saw the play, and if you have enjoyed other Neil Simon movies, don't be held back by the couple of negative reviews seen here. On its own, Brighton Beach Memoirs is a GREAT movie. I guarantee it (no money back, though).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a gently amusing coming-of-age comedy that comes from the later, more mature period of Neil Simon's writing. Although there are plenty of wisecracks to go around, this is not one of those Neil Simon pieces where every character spouts out one-liner jokes for 2 hours like they're guest stars on a Bob Hope special. There are also dramatic elements (some work, some are overkill) that lend some weight to the story.

The performances are good across the board, especially Blythe Danner as the mother (although she and Judith Ivey were oddly WASP-ish choices to play Jewish women). I've never been a fan of Jonathan Silverman, but I will say that he hits the right notes as the obnoxious, gawky, and totally horned-up teen-age narrator\/protagonist of the story.

The movie is very similar in tone to Woody Allen's \"Radio Days,\" but the latter is far more imaginative and funny than this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of my favorite movies. Great cast, lead by Jonathan Silverman and Blythe Danner. Serious drama situations with brilliant comedic punches. An exact mixture of character and story. Real people with real problems, and everyone has a different relationship with each family member. Sensitively moves from slightly-sad to hilariously-funny. Read the quotes. This is the best adaptation of a Neil Simon play.

If you wanna see more of Eugene check Biloxi Blues (starring Matthew Broderick who played in both stage versions) is OK, a bit on a darker side. Get away from the made-for-TV Broadway Bound.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie. The cast were all terrific in the portrayal of their various characters. Judith Ivey did so well portraying a weak, fearful, dependent, who was passive aggressive in her complaining and self-involved character, that it was a relief to see the character's metamorphosis. Blythe Danner was equally appealing in her role as a somewhat judgmental Jewish mother, devoted wife, and loving sister. Jonathon Silmerman, Bob Dishy, Stacey Glick, and Lisa Walz performed their roles equally well.

If you enjoy movies that relate to going through challenging times without loosing your sense of humor and hope, you will love this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Blythe Danner and Judith Ivey deliver wonderful performances here as Jonathan Silverman, as Eugene, recounts his life in 1937's Brighton Beach.

What makes the film so good is the relationships among the characters with a backdrop of extremely wonderful family values.

Bob Dishy had a marvelous opportunity here as the father of the clan. He gives a restrained but compelling performance as the patriarch of the family.

His sons played by Jonathan Silverman and Brian Dillinger are fabulous. There are certain scenes when Silverman is skating or hopping where I'm reminded of Jerry Lewis.

As for Danner and Ivey, they too are wonderful. Their mannerisms, intonation and idealism of the Jewish culture are beautifully realized by them.

The cinematography is just wonderful. Beautiful Brighton in 1937! Even as the inevitability of war loomed, the film is rich with many of the typical problems faced by families in that period. In a sense, you don't have to be Jewish to experience what the family is going through.

A must see for nostalgic buffs, and those of us who believe so strongly in family values.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie moves and inspire you, it's like you are one of the family. Just to see and witness life during the depression era, makes you feel humble and grateful. Jonathan Silverman delivered well, so convincing and very witty! A must see for Teens!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film starts out with all the moody promise of a great contemporary noir Western - after the ill-conceived opening flashback sequence anyway. The scenery is beautifully desolate, the characters achingly isolated. While some of the acting is less than believable, the plot ultimately delivers enough tension and twists to make this movie worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie in the night program of one of my favourite TV channels.... I was hooked from the very first minute. Nothing is as it first seems, lots of suspense, great acting from Mr. van Dien, and I did not mind the \"heat\" in it one bit ;-) ... and, best of all: You are in for a surprise ending!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is one of those that can't be regarded by its outwardness. Indeed, at a first sight, it seems that the story simply focus the desire of have more money. But..let's take a look on the other side...What do you see? You see that the money is only a metaphor for the ambiguous feelings the human being have:Should I do the right thing, or should't I? And... what's the \"right thing\"? Le's make a deeper analyses... -What does it mean a little town in the border? - It means that sometimes we can go too close to the border of doing something we thought we couldn't... - What does it mean the arid soil shown in this picture? - It means the dryness that sometimes take possession ot our offensed hearts... - What does it mean the phrase of the character (KRISTEN) :\"Now I belong to him\"? - It means the loss of our free will, due to our unpremeditated deeds. In MY OPINION that's the writer of the story and the director tried to \"tell\" us. By the way...do you remember what another character (JACK BARNES)said:\"Nothing is so simple...\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being Cornish and brought up with the history of tin mining, this film is quite special to me. Filmed in and around various locations in Cornwall, it depicts the story of two your children who get trapped down a mine with a group of miners.

The 'Haunters' of the title refers to the 'Spriggins' - ghosts of child miners who reside in the mine and are said to bring evil to all that mine there. Events take place with an American wanting to invest in local tin mining, but when the young local kid Josh is plagued by sightings of the ghost of a young boy, he and his American 'girlfriend' set out to unravel the mystery behind his death, climaxing in the rescue of themselves and several miners from almost certain death when a new shaft is opened and the Spiggins save them.

Top film, albeit low budget and short, but worth a look if you're from Cornwall and\/or into tin mining!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So after years and years I finally track this film down! I was dying to see how it lived up to my memories. I distinctly remembered the shots of the ghost boy running down the mine, then waiting behind two planks of wood crossed in the mineshaft, just staring out with a pale white face. This single shot was probably the most chilling shot of my childhood, I remember chills running down my spine. Watching it now, its obviously nowhere near as scary, but quite subconsciously strange to see the same images again. If anyone wants a copy, private message me.

The story itself is fairly standard BCFF stuff. Its strange though that the message is pretty unclear this time around - there is no real moral as such (except that 'ghosts are here to help us?' or 'don't be prejudiced against ghosts!') There wasn't even a greed\/capitalist angle in terms of wanting to profit from the mine. However, a massive act of irresponsibility from the captain, encouraging the two kids to actually follow the vague implications of a ghost not only into a mine, but into a new mine hole, which is totally dangerous. The captain then encourages the children to climb down a huge ladder, deep into the mines, simply because he thinks the ghost wants them too. Its also a bit odd that the ghost chooses the boy to help the trapped adults, and not just help the trapped adults direct. Oh well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember watching this as a child as part of the Children;s Film Foundations Friday Film Specials on CBBC and have recently happened upon a copy.

In the twenty or so years since my last viewing this film has lost nothing.

It is an atmospheric tale which entices with Cornish folklore and adds elements of truly creepy imagery of the ghost of the young miner Billy.

Shot in the wonderfully scenic Port Loe area of Cornwall the film utilises the mixture of rugged coastline and abandoned tin mines to make the setting truly believable.

There is much packed into this CFF drama, something long since lost from Children's television today and well worth a look if you can track down a copy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film has \"haunted\" me since I saw it when I was about 8 years old. I didn't know what it was called so am so pleased to have tracked it down finally. I remember being quite scared, because I'd just been to a tin mine in Cornwall when I watched it, so could imagine it all. Fortunately I didn't see any ghosts of dead children there, but I found this film really quite disturbing and scary when I was much younger. I've certainly never forgotten it, even though I couldn't find it anywhere. I seem to remember The Children's Film Foundation films being generally good, but they don't show them at all any more. I also remember programmes like The Children Of Green Knowe in the same era on BBC - equally unsettling in its own way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film early one morning in the early 90s when i was about 12.I have been trying to find what it was and finally today i did!I remember enjoying it and being a little bit freaked out at the ending when it showed the gravestone of the young boy and his ghostly face!Please could anybody let me no if i can get a copy of this as i would love to see it again.I remember the kid getting stuck down a cornish tin mine and then befriending a boy.cant remember that the kids were stuck there with miners but must have been.the boy helps them out of the mine and turns out to be the ghost of a boy who had died while working down there i think.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Good to see I'm not the only person who remembers this great film. I have very fond memories of this movie - seem to vaguely remember back to when I was about 8 and I'd watch the kids TV shows after school (Broom Cupboard anyone?). This was the first and last film to scare me - and the images of the boy surrounded by mist on a hill will stay with me forever! Like most films of this era, it has a happy ending - aimed at children, but with a definite ability to capture an adults attention. The lovely Cornish scenery really sets the film up to feel isolated - and the \"ghostly\" scenes are simple but very, very effective! I'd love to try and find this movie again - see if it still hits home!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Flowers! If it's one thing you'll take away from this movie, it's gonna be the flowers. They feature so prominently and are used as plot devices, you'll become an expert in identifying with daisies and black tulips by the time the movie ends.

Set in Amsterdam, Daisy tells the frustrating love triangle story between 1 girl and the 2 men in her life. One a professional hit-man eking out a living, the other an Interpol agent. Featuring a Pan-Asian cast (Korean, Hong Kong) and crew (director Andrew Lau from Hong Kong, writer from Korea, and a Thai post production team), I could imagine the headaches in coordination.

Park Yi (Jung Woo-sung) is a hit-man who found a soft spot for painter Hye-young (played by the pretty Jeon Ji-hyun). It's love at first sight in the meadows of daisies, where her clumsiness caught his attention. However, being shy and ever mindful of the dangers of his professional career, he can only admire her from afar, do little (or perhaps big) things for her in an anonymous fashion, but the one that takes the cake is sending her potted daisies everyday without fail at 4:15pm. He becomes her guardian angel from afar, shielding her and keeping her safe from harm.

Hye-young is in love with this mysterious stranger. She is constantly waiting for him to appear, but I really wonder how difficult could that be given the almost punctual daisy delivery. Nonetheless, she's terribly moved, and touched by this sole act. However, as the stars would have it, interpol detective Jeong Woo (Lee Sung-jae) chances upon Hye-young at a town square during one of his undercover missions, and he too is captivated by her. In a similar fashion, because of his profession, he is doubtful if he should make the first move.

Which is where the audience would find it frustrating. The lady obviously would fall for the wrong guy (then again, it's the \"good\" guy), Park Yi being infuriated by Jeong Woo's pursuit, but yet still refuses to step out and identify himself, and Jeong Woo being the opportunist in grabbing the free anonymous identity unwittingly. It's almost as if you wanna give everyone a slap to wake them all up.

That aside, it is precisely this tension that keeps you intrigued. And it is wickedly fun to watch the two male leads finding it tough to fall in love without jeopardizing their careers, or their loved one. But fret not action fans, there are enough cat-and-mouse revelations and unsaid camaraderie in the mould of Infernal Affairs, as well as ample gunfights, although I felt the ending could have been scripted tighter.

What rocks is the clever editing. Telling the story in a non-linear timeline (no worries, it ain't that bad, you'll still be able to follow the narrative) from the points of view of all the leads, keeping you in suspense, and culminating in a three way split screen showcasing all their emotions in a single converging event, which I thought was extremely well-done.

It's a beautiful film in terms of landscapes of lush meadows and busy city squares, with plenty of classical music to sooth the soul. As with romance movies, all the leads are eye candy - the girls will have a field day with the two handsome male leads, while the guys have to make do with a somewhat pudgy-faced (argh! OK lah, at certain angles) Jeon Ji-hyun.

If you're into a romance movie with an equal balance in the action\/tension department, then Daisy would be your choice. If you prefer a more conventional weepy, then the other Korean movie making its debut here at the same time, You are My Sunshine, would be your alternative. And yes, I totally dig the ending scene, which I thought only the Koreans do it best? Kinda reminded me of the JSA one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the Korean version of Daisy first. It came across as a simple love story that flowed nicely from start to finish. I saw it 3 times as I waited for my copy of the director's cut to arrive.

Then I got the DC and watched it. Wow! I think this is the first REAL director's cut I've ever seen. Amazing how detailed the editing is in both versions! The DC is laid out like a hardcore thriller, with the love story in the background. It moves at a slower pace than the Korean version.The variations between both versions are so drastic, it seems like two totally different movies. I thought I would be worn out watching the movie again, toughing it out just to look for the added scenes. That wasn't the case. It really felt like I was watching a whole new movie.

While the DC is 20 minutes longer than the Korean version, you'll be hard-pressed to pinpoint where or what has been changed. 2 seconds chopped off here. A second added there. An entire scene added here. Another erased there. In both versions, scenes have been added, omitted or chopped up and reordered. In some scenes, entire lines of dialogue were replaced or reordered - while the scene itself was untouched. Even simple sound effects were added\/omitted from each version - having a major impact on the mood of the film, and sometimes even changing the outcome of a scene. What comes across as a tender moment in the Korean version is a sad, somber one in the DC. The endings of both versions leave room for interpretation. As far as I can tell, both versions end a LOT different, and were intended that way.

I'm assuming most people will be acquiring the director's cut of the film, and will find the movie pretty decent, but a little long and boring. If that's the case, look for the Korean version. Same movie, but different feel. I think there's a deluxe 3-DVD version that contains both cuts of the film - not sure.

The versions compliment each other so well that as a pair, I'll watch Daisy more often than I do any of my other favorite Korean movies. Alone, I'd say the Korean version is a nice love story that I'd watch once in awhile. The director's cut, I'll watch maybe once or twice, then never again, as I find the pacing dull. But they just go so well together! For what I consider the best experience, I'd say watch the Korean version first. Then watch the director's cut to help fill in the gaps of the story that you were curious about.

The editing is the real star of the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A young Korean artist lives in Amsterdam. She is a bit of a loner and has never had a serious relationship, insisting that she is \"waiting\" for the right person. She works in the public square, drawing portraits for passersby but, for herself, she also indulges in painting her favorite flowers, daisies. But, all of a sudden, she has a secret admirer. Flowers are delivered to her residence every day at 4:15, usually daisies, yet she can not catch the sender in the act. This is because, unknown to her, her beau is a Korean hit-man, and he wishes to remain hidden, for now. One day in the square, however, another attractive Korean man sits for the artist and happens to be carrying a pot of daisies. She concludes that he is her shy hero and, also, the man she has been waiting to find. This second gentleman, too, has a secret; he is an Interpol agent. The assassin can see everything that transpires in the square, due to having an apartment close by. Naturally, he is disturbed that another man has entered the young girl's life. How will this shadowy love triangle play out? This is a beautiful picture to watch. The setting in Amsterdam and the surrounding countryside is very, very lovely. Add in three most attractive young Korean actors and, visually, any viewer has a stunning panorama in front of them. The story is quite nice, too, being a mixture of drama and action, with a dash of the unexpected. Costumes are very fetching and the production values, high. In short, anyone searching for a quality foreign film with a compelling story and great scenery would find this movie a wonderful choice for a diverting evening. Should you have someone's hand to hold during the view, so much the better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Daisy Movie Review By James Mudge From beyondhollywood.com

On paper, \"Daisy\" sounds like an Asian film fan's dream come true, directed by \"Infernal Affairs\" co-helmer Andrew Lau and starring everybody's favourite sassy girl, popular Korean actress Jeon Ji Hyun. Unfortunately, despite the talent involved, and the fact that the crew flew halfway around the world to shoot in Amsterdam , the film turns out to be a bit of a disappointment, being a clich'd romantic drama which wallows in misery and self importance.

The plot follows Hye Young (Jeon Ji Hyun), a rather naive Korean girl who lives in Amsterdam , spending her life working in her grandfather's antique shop and doing portraits for tourists. One day, she begins receiving flowers at exactly the same time from a secret admirer, who she believes to be a mystery man from her past who once built her a nice little bridge. One day she meets Jeong Woo (Lee Seong Jae, also in \"Holiday\" and \"Public Enemy\"), who unbeknownst to her is actually an Interpol agent tracking Asian criminals in the Netherlands .

With Hye Young assuming that Jeong Woo is responsible for the flowers, the two fall very slowly into a chaste romantic relationship. However, it turns out that the man sending the flowers is actually Park Yi (Jung Woo Sung, from \"Sad Movie\" and \"Musa\"), an assassin working for a Chinese crime syndicate. Inevitably, the love triangle turns tragic and the two men end up facing off while poor Hye Young tries to work out which of the two is the love of her life.

Although \"Daisy\" is ostensibly a love story, it has the feel of a funeral, with a slow, sombre pace and a plot which piles on the misery. Half of the film's running time is taken up with scenes of the characters staring longingly out of windows into the rain, with the silence broken only by bouts of self pitying narration. Director Lau seems to be under the impression that the film is a weighty Shakespearean tragedy, rather than yet another gloomy hit-man love story. As such, the proceedings have a rather pretentious air, despite the fact that the plot is inherently predictable and based largely around glaring clich\u00e9 borrowed liberally from the likes of \"Fulltime Killer\" and John Woo's classic \"The Killer\".

Almost every aspect of the film is riddled with angst, with the three lead characters suffering as if the weight of the world was on their shoulders, and steadfastly refusing to do anything to pursue their romantic inclinations. Park Yi in particular, as the kind of overly emotional, socially retarded assassin so beloved of modern cinema, is faintly ludicrous, from his blatant incompetence on the job to his hilarious attempts to discuss impressionist painting with Hye Young or his penchant for flower growing. This languid passivity does make the film's central romance somewhat hard to swallow, and Lau's attempts to evoke the feeling that it is fate which brings the characters together comes across more as shoddy coincidence.

Fans of Jeon Ji Hyun should note that her character is far closer to her role in the glum supernatural drama \"The Uninvited\" than \"My Sassy Girl\" or \"Windstruck\", and while she tries her best to pull a few wacky faces here and there, her performance is certainly more subdued.

The film benefits from glossy production values, and Lau makes good use of the Amsterdam scenery, playing on the contrast between the grey, almost Gothic beauty of the city and the innocent blue skies and flowery fields of the countryside. Unfortunately, he tends to overuse slow motion for some of the emotional scenes, which when coupled with some of the picture postcard visuals gives the film the feel at times of a perfume advert. There are a few scenes of surprisingly violent action, though these are few and far between, and whilst well staged, seem to have been thrown in as an afterthought and do little more than briefly raising the pulse.

Despite its flaws, \"Daisy\" makes for engaging viewing, and the story grips almost in spite of itself, mainly out of a morbid fascination to see not which of the men Hye Young will end up with, but to see who will lie dying in her arms. The self indulgent melodrama works well enough to tick all the right boxes for the genre, and the film functions perfectly well as an enjoyably glossy, weepy romance.

It is worth noting that the DVD features the director's cut of the film, which for once indicates that it is substantially different from the theatrical version, which not only adds 25 minutes, but reorders some of the scenes, making the narrative less linear. Although this new version is perhaps too long, it is surely superior, as without these changes, the film would surely have been even more conventional and would have suffered from even murkier character development.

Wai Keung Lau (director) \/ Jae-young Kwak (screenplay) CAST: Woo-sung Jung \u0085. Park Yi Sung-jae Lee \u0085. Jeong Woo David Chiang \u0085. Cho Ho-jin Jeon \u0085. Detective Jang Ji-hyun Jun \u0085. Hye-young Dion Lam \u0085. Yun Joon-ha","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"** and 1\/2 stars out of **** Lifeforce is one of the strangest films I've ever seen, so ridiculous, yet at the time it's strangely compelling and never the least bit dull. Whether it's due to the nonstop nudity, the large amount of violence and action, it all comes together to make an entertaining 2 hours of cinema.

The spaceshuttle Churchill has been sent to investigate Halley's Comet when they detect something hiding inside the coma of the giant rock. A small team, led by Colonel Carlsen (Steve Railsback), has been sent to search the area. What they discover includes hundreds of frozen bat-like creatures and three nude and seemingly unconscious humanoid beings inside strange crystalline containers, two male and one female (Mathilda May). They decide to take all three back with them, which results in a catastrophe.

When London receives no response from the crew, another crew is sent to find out what's going on. When they dock with the Churchill, they find the remains of the crew, all dessicated beyond recognition. The humanoids are still in perfect condition, and they take them back to London.

After various tests, the scientists still don't know what these beings really are. Then, late one night, a security guard in the compound feels compelled to enter the room the female is being held. He touches her shoulder, and she awakens, stands up, and smiles at him in a seductive and wicked manner. She approaches him, and begins to kiss him, when it becomes clear that she's actually taking his lifeforce, sucking him of all of his energy (the effect is slightly cheesy).

She escapes from the compound and begins to leave a trail behind. Another man, Colonel Caine (Peter Firth), is brought in to track her down. Then the men discover that there is a pattern to the lifeforce process. The corpse of the security guard awakens in 2 hours, and takes the lifeforce of a doctor. It seems in every 2 hours, this process is repeated by a victim. With the help of the Churchill's sole survivor, Carlsen, they attempt to track the girl down before it's too late.

Lifeforce is pretty good late night entertainment. It has all the elements one could look for in such a movie, loads of nudity, blood\/gore, and plenty of special effects. This is certainly better than a similarly plotted film, Species, thanks in large part to a more riveting finale.

The performances range from decent to terrible. Faring the worst is easily Steve Railsback, who overacts to no end. Much better are Peter Firth, who comes through and convincingly, and the gorgeous Mathilda May (she's as beautiful as French actresses Sophie Marceau and Emmanuelle Seigner). May does go through virtually the whole role without wearing clothing, and there were reports that it was hard on her while filming, so the fact that she is able to go through every scene without fidgeting and looking uncomfortable is impressive. There are times when she can be quite creepy, being simply seductive. Most of the film manages to work because of her.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like several other reviewers here, I'm surprised to see many negative reviews on this film. Dan O'Bannon's previous effort was the groundbreaking 'Alien' of 1979. Because it and 'Star Wars' introduced the stylistic approach of 'Used' or 'Dirty Space' in art-direction for these kinds of features doesn't mean that this was the only way to produce them.

Rather than dismiss 'Lifeforce' out-of-hand as a sort of schlock and primitive exploitation feature, it's important to recognize that the film draws upon the 'esteemed' traditions of British horror and science-fiction - specifically Hammer and American International features like Quatermass (specifically 'Quatermass and the Pit', 1967), Doctor Who and 'The Day of the Triffids' (1963), if not the works of Gerry Anderson ('UFO', 'Space:1999' and 'Thunderbirds'). But none of these influences would be a surprise if other reviewers recognized writer O'Bannon's genre-scholarly appreciation for 'Queen of Blood'(1966) and 'It! The Terror from Beyond Space'(1958) - the immediate sources for 'Alien' (1979).

Granted this film has some 'legacy' elements, but perhaps it's worth comparing this film to its more immediate peers - 1981's 'An American Werewolf in London' and 'The Company of Wolves' (1984) - other 80's films that share a 'looking-back' while they adapt those stories to the 80's zeitgeist. All three films drew on earlier incarnations of the same, but substantially sexed-up their themes (because they could), and, at the same time they recognized the tongue-in-cheek, humorous aspects of their projects.

Neil Jordan's 'Wolves' played to many of the psychoanalytic memes floating around at the during the '80's, while 'American Werewolf' curdled its theme as a 'coming-of-age' film. It's called artistic license, and the adaptations of these three films are no less valid than the latter-day dramedy inherent in the 'Scream' franchise, 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' and 'Final Destination'. But these teen-targeted, films seem to be part of a box-office trend, whereas the 80's films like 'Lifeforce' belong a canon of British sci-fi - even if this one was written by an American.

In many ways this film holds up much better than latter-day disaster and alien-invasion flicks ('Independence Day', 'Armageddon', 'Deep Impact') in that the 'solutions' don't reside in gun-battles, weaponized payloads and testosterone. At the opposite end of the pole, it is unfortunate that Steven Soderbergh and James Cameron didn't examine Tarkowski and Lem more closely before they remade 'Solaris'...

The goal of this film was fun, not ponderousness or stupidity.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though it hardly compares to other sci-fi film giants like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, LIFEFORCE does work as a totally berserk and bizarre melding of science fiction and horror elements. Somehow, despite dialogue that approaches the ridiculous and acting that does the same, it manages to work because of a few highly different elements.

Loosely based on Colin Wilson's 1976 novel \"The Space Vampires\", this film from director Tobe Hooper (POLTERGEIST; THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE) focuses on a joint US-British mission aboard the British space shuttle Churchill to study Halley's Comet. Led by an American commander (Steve Railsback), they discover an alien spacecraft in the comet's coma. And when they investigate the interior of the spacecraft, they find alien occupants that look like giant bats. Later on, the Churchill reaches Earth's orbit, but no response is given from radio calls issued from the mission's home base, the Space Research Center in London. Columbia is launched to rendezvous with Churchill, but they find the entire ship gutted by fire--all except for the alien beings encased in glass who, far from being untouched by the fire, look absolutely perfect. The aliens are bought back to Earth...and that's where the incredible happens.

These space vampires escape from the Space Research Center and, instead of draining their victims of blood via bite wounds, suck their victims' lifeforce totally out of them. One of them is the Space Girl, a thoroughly nude vampiress played by Mathilda May. Railsback, the only actual survivor from Churchill, is bought in by the SRC's chief (Frank Finlay) and a British special agent (Peter Firth) to track May, who is in telepathic contact with him. Pretty soon, however, the vampires have turned London into a scene of pure holocaust; people are either being dessicated or turning into zombies, and the threat by NATO to sterilize the city with thermonuclear radiation looms large. Railsback finally catches up with May, and sacrifices himself by impaling her with a large metal sabre.

Undoubtedly disjointed, unquestionably uneven, but nevertheless worth watching, LIFEFORCE, despite the frequent incoherency of its script and its acting, benefits from some drop-dead excellent special effects work by John Dykstra (STAR WARS), some of the best ever seen. The other working element, and a surprise one it is, is the incredible orchestral score by Henry Mancini, almost Wagnerian in the same way John Williams' score for STAR WARS was--and Mancini, like Williams before him, uses the London Symphony Orchestra, to boot!

Largely forgotten these days, and a critical and box office disaster in 1985, LIFEFORCE, if for no other reason, should still be seen for anyone with a taste for the bizarre. There had never been a film quite like it before, and there will certainly not be anything like it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Danny Boyle was not the first person to realise that zombies can run like the clappers. That honour belongs to Lifeforce, which is, of course, the greatest naked space vampire zombies from Halley's Comet running amok in London end-of-the-world movie ever made. Tobe Hooper may have made a lot of crap, but for this deliriously demented epic sci-fi horror he deserves a place among the immortals. Plus it offers space vampire Mathilda May, the best thing to come out of France since Simone Simon, spending the entire movie naked. Which she does very, very well. Just bear in mind that while she is the most overwhelmingly feminine presence anyone on Earth has ever encountered, she's also \"totally alien to this planet and our life form and totally dangerous.\" It's a pitch meeting I'd have loved to have sat in on: Astronauts from the British space program find three naked humanoid alien life forms inside a giant 150-mile long artichoke\/umbrella shaped spaceship hidden in the tail of Halley's Comet filled with giant desiccated bats and bring them back to Earth with near apocalyptic results as they proceed to drain the population of London of their lifeforce amid much nudity, whirlpools of thunder and spit your coffee across the room direlogue (\"I've been in space for six months, and she looks perfect to me.\" \"Assume we know nothing, which is understating the matter.\" \"Don't worry, a naked woman is not going to get out of this complex.\"). Oh, and we'll get the writers of Alien and Blue Thunder to write it with uncredited rewrites by the writer of Mark of the Devil, The Sex Thief and Eskimo Nell and the director of The Jonestown Monster. Sounds like a winner, here's $22m \u0096 have fun. And they do, they do.

True, there's enough promise in the raw material to have made something genuinely creepy and thought-provoking (at a time when AIDS hysteria was approaching its height, a sexually transmitted 'plague' offers ample opportunity for allegory), but in the hands of the Go-Go boys at Cannon, what could have been another Quatermass and the Pit quickly turns instead to be more Plan 10 From Outer Space. It's full-to-bursting with delirious inanity, be it Frank Finlay's hilarious death scene (\"Here I go!\"), Peter Firth's grand entrance (\"I'm Colonel Caine.\" \"From the SAS?\" discreetly shouts Michael Gothard across a room full of reporters: \"Gentlemen, that last remark was not for publication. This is a D-Notice situation\" he replies to the surprisingly obliging pressmen), the security guards offering Mathilda May's naked space vampire a nice biscuit to stop her escaping, reanimated bodies exploding into dust all over people, the sweaty Prime Minister sucking the life out of his secretary and London filling up with zombie nuns, stockbrokers and joggers as the city gets its most comprehensive on screen trashing since Mrs Gorgo lost junior at Battersea Funfair and went on the rampage. And that's not mentioning the \"This woman is a masochist! An extreme masochist!\" scene or the great stereophonic echo effect on the male vampire's \"It'll be a lot less terrifying if you just come to me\" line while a lead-stake wielding Peter Firth adopts his best Action Man voice to reply \"I'll do just that!\" In one scene alone you have a possessed Patrick Stewart embodying the female in our deeply confused astronaut hero's mind, Steve \"I-never-got-over-playing-Charlie-Manson\" Railsback and his amazing dancing eyebrows in full-on \"Helta-Skelta!\" mode trying to resist the temptation to kiss him, the inimitable Aubrey Morris (the only man who makes Freddie Jones look restrained) playing the Home Secretary Sir Percy Heseltine as a kind of demented Brian Rix, Peter Firth (one of those actors who always looks like he must have been a Doctor Who around the time no-one was watching it anymore) hamming up the blas\u00e9 public school macho in the hope that no-one will ever see it and the peerless reaction shots of John Hallam as the male nurse who keeps on opening the door mid-psychic-tornado to bring in more drugs. As if they needed any more in this film. It's just a shame that Frank Finlay's mad-haired scientist who isn't qualified to certify death on alien life forms (a role originally intended for Klaus Kinski) missed out on the action in that one.

No matter how mad you think the film is, it still manages to get madder still, whether it be a zombie pathologist (\"He too needs feeding\") exploding all over the Home secretary's suit, Patrick Stewart's blood and entrails forming a naked Mathilda May or the space vampires turning St Paul's Cathedral into the world's biggest laser-show to transport human souls from the London Underground to their geostationary mother ship. I loved every gloriously insane moment. In it's own truly unique way, this might be the greatest film ever made.

The DVD offers the original 116-minute version that opened in the UK rather than the heavily edited 101-minute US version, which not only offers much more hilarity for your dollar, but also fully restores Henry Mancini's score to its original glory (the US version covered a lot of the gaps with additional cues by Michael Kamen and James Guthrie). Although a somewhat surprising choice at first sight, Mancini cut his teeth on many of the classic Universal sci-fi horrors of the 50s and his score is quite superb, with a terrific driving main title that offers a rare reminder of just how interesting he could be away from Blake Edwards. Sadly there's no more than a trailer by way of extras, though it would be nice to hope some day for a special edition with some of the deleted scenes from Hooper's originally intended 128-minute cut: from what's on display here, these might just offer even more comedy gold!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"LIFEFORCE was one of Cannon Films' biggest flops. It received mostly bad reviews and did nothing to help director Tobe Hooper's career in the wake of the Spielberg\/POLTERGEIST controversy. All of this is unfortunate, because LIFEFORCE is actually a really great movie. It is supremely entertaining, moves along at a fast pace and features some of the most outrageously over-the-top direction, production, performances and special effects ever to explode across the screen! It must have looked bizarre on paper: the producers of THE DELTA FORCE, the screenwriter of ALIEN, the director of THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE, the composer of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S, the special effects wizards of STAR WARS... Audiences were not ready for this demented exercise in weirdness.

What more do you want??? We got an alien spaceship full of giant bats! We got a sexy, naked space vampiress sucking out people's souls! We got exploding bodies! We got zombies! We got possession! We got an S&M interrogation! We got the entire city of London on fire! It's Dracula meets NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD meets QUARTERMASS AND THE PIT meets EARTHQUAKE. It's quite possibly the single most outrageous horror\/sci-fi\/comedy\/action\/disaster\/erotic\/apocalyptic epic ever unleashed, that is, if there are any other ones out there.

Try watching this movie while chemically altered. Perhaps then you'll understand. A genuinely f***ed up experience, and one of director Tobe Hooper's most underrated movies. Maybe one day, it will find its audience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Lifeforce\" is a truly bizarre adaptation of the novel \"The Space Vampires\" by Colin Wilson, scripted by Dan O'Bannon & Don Jakoby. A joint American-British space exploration team makes a mind-boggling discovery: an alien spacecraft resting inside Halleys' Comet, containing three entities that look like people, one of them a female beauty (the oh-so-alluring Mathilda May).

They take these discoveries back on board their own spacecraft. Big mistake.

It turns out that these creatures drain the life out of human beings, and as American colonel Carlsen (an intense, edgy, and committed Steve Railsback) and British S.A.S. colonel Caine (a solid Peter Firth) watch in horror, an infestation of vampirism overtakes London, with the fate of Earth in the balance.

This picture certainly is not lacking in imagination. It moves a little slowly at times but offers so many strange and fanciful ideas and eye-popping visuals that it's hard not to be amused. The first of director Tobe Hoopers' three-picture deal with Cannon Films (he followed it up with \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre II\" and the \"Invaders from Mars\" remake), he makes it something truly unique. Incorporating elements of sci-fi, vampire films, zombie films, and end-of-the-world sagas, it's like nothing that I've seen before.

Railsback and Firth are ably supported by such strong Brit actors as Frank Finlay, Patrick Stewart, Michael Gothard, Aubrey Morris, and John Hallam. Mathilda May is very memorable as the bewitching, enigmatic villainess; it certainly doesn't hurt that she performs a great deal of her scenes in the nude. Also worth noting is a stirring music score from none other than \"Pink Panther\" composer Henry Mancini.

Ridiculous it may be, but I found it to be fun as well. It's flamboyant and spirited entertainment.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lifeforce starts in outer space where the HMS Churchill tracks Haley's Comet & it's equipment detects a 150 mile long alien spaceship in the head of the comet, unable to contact Earth because of interference Colonel Tom Carlsen (Steve Railsback) decides this is the one & only chance to investigate it. Going outside in spacesuits Carlsen & some of his crew enter the mysterious spaceship & find the remains of a bat like race of creatures & three perfect looking humanoids, two men (Chris Jagger & Bill Malin) & a beautiful woman (Mathilda May) all of whom they take aboard the Churchill. Thirty days later & back on Earth the Churchill is detected on radar, a rescue mission is sent up only to discover the spaceship is burnt out & all the crew supposedly dead. The rescue team do find the three humanoid aliens though & take them back to Earth where in a space research center in London they come back to life & start to literally suck the lifeforce out of human victims who then in turn need to do the same to stop themselves turning into dust, things look grim as the epidemic spreads throughout London...

This English production was produced by the notorious Menahem Golan & Yoram Globus who during the early 80's were responsible for lots of cheap low budget action flicks under their production company Cannon usually starring Chuck Norris & they wanted to move into the big time & signed director Tobe Hooper up on a three film deal (which were this Lifeforce, the Invaders from Mars (1986) remake & The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) a sequel to Hooper's own classic) all of which flopped & basically bankrupt both Golan & Globus & Cannon was no more. Anyway, despite being a commercial flop at the box-office I have to say I think Lifeforce is a highly enjoyable, if rather silly sci-fi horror. When originally released into theatres back in '85 Lifefore was cut down to 101 minutes by Golan & Globus but over the past few years the longer 116 minute cut has all but replaced it on DVD, VHS, Laserdisc & TV although apparently Hooper's original cut of the film ran for 128 minutes so there's even more footage out there somewhere. I will be basing my comments on the longer 116 minute cut, the script by Dan O'Bannon, Don Jakoby & uncredited rewrites by Michael Armstrong & Olaf Pooley was based on the 1976 novel 'The Space Vampires' by Colin Wilson & has many extraordinary ideas, it's scope is truly ambitious & one felt that it ends up being a bit of a mess but a hell of an entertaining one. It moves along like a rocket & at heart there's a really interesting story here although the film gets itself into a tangle. There are also some hilarious moments in Lifeforce, the scene when the security guard tries to convince the naked female Vampire to surrender by offering her a half eaten biscuit is a true camp classic, the horribly overwrought hypnosis scenes including the one where Railsback ends up kissing Patrick Stewart & many, many more besides. I don't know, call me weird but I just thought Lifeforce was tremendous fun & highly entertaining in just about every way, from silly character's, odd dialogue, strange ideas that never quite come together & some terrific visuals Lifeforce certainly isn't a film that will bore you.

Director Hooper had just about more money here to play around with than he ever has (double what he had for Poltergeist (1982) even) & he uses every bit of it to bring this spectacular film to the big screen, John Dykstra the guy responsible for Star Wars (1977), Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) & more recently Spider-Man (2002) was brought in to handle the visual effects & generally speaking they look fabulous. The sequences set in outer space with spaceships in particular look great, there's also some really good visual effects back on Earth including the destruction of London as 100's of blue souls fly around everywhere. There's some nudity but not much gore, there are some withered corpses, a few gunshot wounds, the skin on someones hand peels off, blood spurts from someones eyes, nose & ears & there's a severed arm as well as some zombies. The special make-up effects are also generally very good. I wouldn't say Lifeforce is scary as such as it's more of a sci-fi film than horror, I loved the way Hooper shoots the outer space sequences as he keeps rotating his camera to effectively capture the feeling of weightlessness & that there is no 'solid' floor as it were.

With a supposed budget of about $25,000,000 it made less than half that in it's theatrical run & hasn't set the world alight on video or DVD either which is a shame because although it's a bit of a mess it's very enjoyable to watch. Shot on location in England. Well filmed in 2:35:1 widescreen, the 4:3 cropped image is horrible & cuts huge chunks of information from both sides of the screen, this is most noticeable during the opening scenes set in outer space where sometimes it's hard to make out what's going on & the sense of the vastness of space & the alien spaceship is lost. The acting is OK in a very silly film, Patrick Stewart replaced Sir John Gielgud, Nancy Paul replaced Olivia Hussey, Frank Finlay replaced Klaus Kinski while Anthony Hopkins turned the role of Caine down.

Lifeforce is a bizarre film, no two ways about it really & anyone looking for something simple & straight forward should look elsewhere. Anyone looking for something a bit different in the sci-fi genre than give Lifeforce a go as it's one of those so bad it's good films with some impressive effects & it isn't your average run of the mill film by any means.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No, \"Lifeforce\" is not a great movie.

It's not a good movie.

It is, however, an average movie with some good effects and a compelling storyline (and, of course, Mathilda May). It may actually be one of my favorite SF\/horror flicks for the very simple reason that they try to reason their way through the science of the space vampires. How often do you see that? Not even in \"Alien\" (the SF\/horror flick of all time) does science come into the story at all. In \"Lifeforce\" they are trying to make reason of an unreasonable world.

Now, do I think it's successful? No. I think the movie has the issue of a massive ensemble cast that Hooper is straining to keep collected and on track and that the viewers have to focus on more than one 'villian' and there are one too many road trips.

To be honest, the movie is eye candy and fun to watch. but there is great potential here for a superior remake to take a hold of what Hooper was trying to do and really create a strong, scary, SF\/horror movie.

If the remake does happen, however, I demand that Mathilda May have a cameo.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tobe Hooper (fresh off mainstream success with 'Poltergeist') aims for the skies this time around. 'Lifeforce' is an adaptation of Colin Wilson's 'The Space Vampires'. The script by 'Alien's Dan O' Bannon and Don Jakoby) varies a bit I was told: the futuristic storyline was made contemporary and Hailey's Comet was added to coincide with its actual passage by Earth a few weeks after the films release (so I've read).

The story concerns a shuttle mission (commander by Steve Railsback) sent to investigate Hailey's Comet as it passes by Earth. All goes off without a hitch but upon reaching the comet it is discovered that an alien ship is hidden in the coma of the comet. The team investigates the massive structure and discovers desiccated bat-like creatures. Looking deeper into the ship a chamber is found that contains three humanoids (two naked males and one rather fetching nude lady too) in odd stasis coffins. The crew returns to the ship with the humanoids and a bat creature in tow.

A bit later the ship returns to Earth but no contact can be made by NASA and another shuttle is launched to ascertain the status of the mission. Upon docking with the Churchill it is discovered that a massive fire has seemingly killed the crew and all data concerning the flight. But the three humanoids remain. However it is learned that an escape pod had been launched but whose whereabouts are unknown.

Soon they make the discovery of the alien's origin when the very attractive space vampire queen arises from her slumber to easily seduce the lifeforce from the men around her. If you suck face with her she makes you like them and if you don't feed after two hours you will dry out and become dust. The goal of the three is to drain enough of the population's essence to power and sustain them and their ship for the trip to the next planet to lay waste to them as well.

Thankfully the Commander survives re-entry in the pod (crash lands in Texas no less) and now has a psychic link to her royal hotness, the queen and is able to use it to find the hidden queen as she and the surviving male attempt to bleed London dry of their souls.

Tobe Hooper (of 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' (1974)) does an admirable job in what has to be his largest production to date. The production assembled many fine technicians from all over the movie industry. Production Designer John Graysmark (fresh off 'The Bounty (1984)') uses every bit of four stages at Elsree Studios to create the spacious interiors of the ship and such. Cinematographer Alan Hume returns to science fiction after a stint on 'Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi' (1983) and three consecutive James Bond episodes. Hume uses every bit of the widescreen frame with the great effects. Oscar winner John Dykstra innovator of the groundbreaking effects of the original 'Star Wars' (1977) manages to push the envelope once again a creating some highly creative and spectacular effects using lasers. Heck even maestro Henry Mancini drops in to give the film a very memorable title theme that gives this sci-fi \/ horror hybrid a touch of an adventurous feel. In the acting department it pretty much falls onto the shoulders of Steve Railsback and newcomer Mathilda May (vampire queen). Railsback always brings an edge to the characters he plays and can play nuts like nobody's business. That comes in hand as his mind deteriorates when the queen's grip tightens on his soul. Gorgeous French actress May doesn't have a heck of a lot of lines (were there more than ten?) but her frequently nude presence never gets old and you gotta give her kudos to having the jingle bells to pull it of. Pretty much all the queen is there to do is feed and to do so she needs to seduce you with her sexual presence. Job accomplished and where do I sign up to be victim? I really enjoyed how they tweaked the old vampire clich\u00e9s and still managed to make it seem fresh but still easily recognizable. Almost everything is accounted for here: bats (their true form resembles a large bat), coffins {the stasis fields resemble these), transformations (they scan your mind and can be anything), massive sexual appeal (Miss May\u0085.duh) not to mention they even include the old standby stake-through-the-heart (this time a bit of a lead dagger to the energy center slightly below the heart). The only thing they didn't touch on was religion but I think that the vampires using the cathedral at the end as home base might just be a bit of a wink and a nod.

In short (yeah right 800 words later) 'Lifeforce' is an excellent science fiction and horror combination that pays homage to the vampire theme while adding some neat different wrinkles. The effects and scale of the production are enough to keep summer movie types engaged (at least at the time) and horror and sci-fi fans engaged. 4 of 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To the guy who hatched the idea for Lifeforce I have one thing to say: Thank you, sir! Lifeforce combines the big-budget sci-fi pomp of Star Trek: The Motion Picture with the cheap horror thrills of Phantasm and tops it all off with t-ts-- and some real meaty hangers at that..And best of all, it's actually a good movie! It amazes me that someone actually justified a mainstream movie that is a vehicle for a hot chick to appear naked on screen for an hour and a half to producers. God bless you, all of you who were involved.

Steve Railsback (Helter Skelter) plays Col. Carlson, the American commander of an international space mission sent to investigate Halley's Comet. Carlson's crew finds an alien vessel inside the comet and inside that they find three naked people in suspended animation--two guys and a hot broad (Mathilda May). Well, to make a long story short, they're \"space vampires\"...naked \"space vampires.\" They trash the crew except for Col. Blueballs who decided that he had to let the hot chick out of her lucite display case because the part of his brain that controls his nut fluids told him it was the right thing to do. The Col. wings it back to our big blue ball in an escape pod. Meanwhile, another space shuttle crew has discovered his ship floating dead in space and has brought the three space coffins of the Living Dead Martians back to London. And that's when people start turning into pork rinds and s--t in general just starts getting' way out of hand too damn fast.

Carlson teams up with the unflappable Col. Caine (Peter Firth) of the British S.A.S. to track down our naked cutie--who is having one hell of a time sucking guys off left and right. Carlson's discovered that he has a mental link with Vampira that allows them to track her down, with the ultimate goal being to blow her ass away and wreck her and her pals' big space umbrella that sucks up the energy of the people that the vamps attack. Will they succeed in time? MINOR SPOILER: Yes.

Wow. What can I say but \"Wow\"? This damn movie really works. I can't believe they got actual British actors like Aubrey Morris (A Clockwork Orange) and Patrick Stewart (Sexiest Man Alive or some such title) to appear in this film. All the actors are good. Direction is good and really shines during the last half where we see the fantastic devastation of London. Special effects are no slouch either. For 1985, this movie must've been the s--t as far as fx goes. All the effects are fairly impressive and there's a wide range of talent on display here in animotronics, makeup effects, light shows, and very nice space scenes with some good old-fashioned modeling and matte painting--very nicely done. There's even some gore and bloody squib shots for all the horror fanboys out there.

Lifeforce is a great film for anyone who has nostalgia for when popular films on the bigsceen were made with 100% love from start to finish. The creators of the movie really made sure all the bases were covered and the end result is a phenomenally fun affair that doesn't let you turn away because the proceedings are just too good-looking. Real solid entertainment here: 8 1\/2 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"LIFEFORCE is an extremely schizophrenic movie, based on Colin Wilson`s novel The Space Vampires the script ignores most of the novel`s concepts and structure ( Indeed it owes more to the QUATERMASS serials than the novel ) but the scenes it does leave in from the novel are nearly identical to those in the film . And talking of the script it must be one of the most uneven in cinema history , it`s though it was written in chapters by several different people. Take for instance Carlson , he disappears after the early shuttle scenes which led me to believe he was dead then he turns up again halfway through the film in order to explain the plot to the beleaguered Brits and it`s this lack of attention by the screenwriters that spoils the film . And there`s plenty of other clumsy scripting such as the heroes returning to London in a helicopter and not realising it has been over run by zombies untill they`re flying over it .

I could go on at great length about these plot holes but LIFEFORCE is actually enjoyable to watch as long as you don`t use your brain . It`s good to see a sci-fi horror film from an era when aliens were portrayed as being cute creatures that children hid in their bedrooms so that nasty human adults wouldn`t get their hands on them . The special effects and pyrotechnics are very very good , there`s lots of action and stunts and LIFEFORCE features one of the most memorable aliens in the form of the space girl . When mentioning LIFEFORCE in conversation with males it`s always a race to say \" Seen the alien in LIFEFORCE? She can suck the lifeforce out of me anytime \" Hardly surprising looking at the demographics of the votes that this film is more popular with males than females

\" Don`t worry . A naked girl can`t escape from here \" Can`t she ? Pity

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Is it a perfect movie? No. It is a weird adaptation from a sci-fi book and it features vampires from space, naked beauties and the British army efficiency.

When I first saw this movie I was rather young and all I can remember is the feeling of awe for the movie and Mathilda May. Actually, if it weren't for this gorgeous lady being naked the whole movie, I probably wouldn't have rated it so high, but given her sheer magnificence, I am now actually considering voting it up!

Lucky for me I got reminded of the movie and watched it again now. Imagine Raiders of the Lost Ark or Poltergeist special effects splattered unto a rather decent sci-fi story, but with completely over the top performances. I still enjoyed the movie tremendously (as well as Mathilda May), but it was a mixture of nostalgia, comparing with the crap movies they make today and actually wanting more when it ended.

Bottom line: if you are a sci-fi fan you are not allowed to miss this movie. Oh, and did I mention Mathilda May is young, beautiful and naked?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lot of people say the end did not make sense, but it did. With the female vampire dead the link to earth was broken and the ship took off, having picked up a lot of Lifeforce from hundreds of thousands of souls. Enough to re-energize those hexagon cells and create new bat creatures. It seems they do not have carnal sex, like vampires of legend.

vampire bats from outer space may be ludicrous, but killing them with with a shot to qui force center below the heart is consistent. All you can ask for is consistency. The viewer has to suspend disbelief, even for scifi.

The only problem is having to be a sword or stake, not bullets. That puts in a supernatural twist that does not fit with sci-fi. So that is a problem.

The only major inconsistency I found is killing the male vampires with the sword, but the soul of the girl and Carlsen go up to the ship. I assume the males souls also went up the ship, but not shown.

What about all the humans killed? Do their qui forces (\"souls\") go up to the ship as discrete entities, are does all the lifeforce get merged into one, for use as ship sees fit? In other words, all the human souls that went to the ship could be re-incarnated as bat creatures.

The basic concept is no more ridiculous than Star Wars \"Force\" or even re-incarnation.

This movie was over the top, kitchen sink (Dawn of the Dead meets Alien meets Dracula), but in many ways profound. It was also a beautiful love story. The beginning and end were ethereal. It both began (\"what is happening to me\") and ended as a love story.

Most of the criticism of the movie is about its being bizarre.So what? Bizarre is an art form. As far as being ludicrous, it all fits. The plague concept is much more interesting and subtle than the Aliens just killing people. Maybe they didn't need Patrick Steward's blood to form an image of the girl, but it was a very far out, surreal, scene.

Another reason the movie is hated is because of the end. But the end fits perfectly with the beginning. People are so wrapped up in the nude girl that they miss the movie's core. Its a lover story,from start to finish. It starts with Carlsen and the girl on the alien spaceship and finished same way. So it fits perfectly. Most people are fixated on the hero killing the monster, and this movie did not end that way, which is precisely why I love it.

Instead, it has a happy ending, with the 2 of them going back to ship, to be reborn. Way cooler than the hero kills monster end, but that is exactly why it bombed. It was not a straight-up horror or even scifi\/horror at all, but a love story, with a beautiful beginning and end. All those souls twinkling on the ship. And the crystal room pulsating with new life.

Most people can't deal with a love story that is also Alien meets Dawn of the Dead meets Dracula.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"By far one of the best sci-fi films out there. However, it does take multible viewings to understand the concept of the film and to be able to appreciate not only the special effect, but the main plot of the film itself. It is my own feelings that this film film got such poor reviews because no one took the time to watch the film the way it was meant to be seen. It does have some moments you wish would hurry up and pass by, but they are few and far between. Hooper, who directed TCM 1 and 2 along with a remake of INVADERS FROM MARS, and THE FUNHOUSE does his best work here. Great score, good acting,and great effects makes this a film to add to your collection, if you get the chance see the widescreen version on DVD, highly recommended to any one who is a fan of sci-fi.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This really is a great movie. I don't think it has ever gotten the recognition that it deserves. I have bought this movie on VHS and DVD. The special effects were ahead of its time. The story was WAY cool. The pace was very steady. If you haven't seen it, you definitely need to check it out on DVD if possible.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on the book \"Space Vampires\" by Colin Wilson. This is (in my humble opinion) one of the best pieces of Sci-Fi Horror to come out of the eighties. The effects (done by ILM) still hold up by todays standards. The actors are mostly British and being british seem to give this film a greater depth of realism.

The film was panned by the critics and sadly failed to do well at the box office on both sides of the atlantic. Tobe Hooper blamed the promotional work that was done before its release as the main cause for it's low takings. But for whatever reason, it still does not detract from the fact that this is an excellent film with a great cast and well-paced plot.

Not to be over-looked.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Something I think some people miss about great science fiction is that it predicts some part of the future. No other theatrical movie that I can recall predicted that when the space shuttle went to study Halley's Comet that a disaster would occur! Some differences were: the \"Churchill\" (the shuttle in the movie) actually went to the comet, the \"Challenger\" was only in low earth orbit; The \"Churchill\" was merely burned out inside, whereas the \"Challenger\" exploded--hey the vampires had to get back to earth. One great similarity (and this is always bad luck!) both had mixed male\/female crews--the legend of Halley's comet and disaster continues!

Other than this there is not much more to be said about this movie that hasn't been said before. As a outer space\/science fiction\/horror\/sex film individually it provided nothing really new, but as in all great dishes it is the combination that counts. And taken together, this was a highly original and satisfying combination.

I just wish Mathilda May would drain her victims through another part of the body!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lifeforce (1985) was a Cannon funded film directed by Tobe Hooper. It's a very interesting film that deals with a pair of space vampires who are accidentally brought back down to Earth during the latest space shuttle mission. Steve Railsback stars as the sole survivor of the tragedy. But really folks the movie is a mere showcase for the natural beauty of Mathilda May. She's one smoking hot number. The director was a huge fan of Female Vampire (a.k.a. Erotikill). Miss May recreates Lina Romay's title role The film is beautifully photographed and directed. There's plenty of gore effects to keep genres fans happy.

I have to give this film a very high rating. Tobe Hooper was the man. He made three interesting films for Cannon during this time period (Texas Chainsaw Massacre II and Invaders from Mars as well). If you like science fiction\/horror films, Tobe Hooper films or Mathilda May this film's just up your alley.

Highest Recommendation!

Did I mention Mathilda May is smoking hot?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i am surprised so few have good words for this movie. For its time (the 80's) it was a very entertaining and engaging story. Casting was good. Story was good. Special effects were remarkable for the time period. Deserving of an 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I finally got hold of Lifeforce on DVD with the widescreen format intact and rousing Henry Mancini score to the max. After having viewed Lifeforce for fifteen years on tape, I have to say that the 'uncut' DVD version was both great and disappointing. The U.S. version is so *much* better than the DVD (European?) version. The U.S. version of lifeforce moves much faster (the editing on the DVD version is terrible. Feels like an unfinished cut). And the many scenes not seen in the American version add little or nothing to the final problem. In fact one \"new\" moment almost destroys the entire movie, when Caine (peter firth) meets the male alien at the cathedral. I love this scene, in the U.S. version though. On the DVD, the male alien speaks to Caine and what he says is soooooo hilarious. It's the pinnacle of hilarity:

\"It'll be much less terrifying if you just come to me!\" the male alien says, in a deep 1950s style voice. I was floored when I saw this. It just doesn't belong in the movie. That scene is pure camp in an otherwise super serious flick. I'm glad Hooper (or whoever) cut that scene when the movie was released in North America. There are several changes that were made for the U.S. version that make Lifeforce that much better and I wished the DVD had the U.S. version. The editing is sharp and frenzied without being annoying and some spots that were already boring in the U.S. version are even more boring on the DVD version because of added scenes. And the opening credits on the DVD is terrible. Much better in the U.S. version. More subtle.

I love this film. It's basically aliens making a pit-stop over earth and sucking up as much Lifeforce as possible. The film has too many flat, uninspiring sequences (talk, talk, talk) but when the action goes to London, it's fun. The film really shines in these scenes. One can see Hooper finally doing what he's great at: chaos, savagery, horror! Lifeforce should have had more of these chaos scenes. They're the best Apocalyptic scenes ever put on film. It's also the best zombie movie ever. The zombies are hungry (for lifeforce, not flesh) and they're crazed and agile and terrifying. Not the slow moving bores of other zombie movies. Also, a lot of people have criticized the ending but I love it. It leaves you high and dry, like one of the lifeforce-drained victims.

And to think this movie came out during the cute and cuddly 80s, when people flocked to E.T. or Cocoon or other sweet and boring, feel good sci-fi movies. No wonder it bombed because it was way ahead of its time with its super nihilistic point of view!

As for the DVD, well, it ain't great. The image is muddy and grainy and there are no extras whatsoever. But it's great to see the movie in its widescreen format. I just hope that they'll release a clean, crisp U.S. version on a DVD, and with commentary by Hooper and Dykstra.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ok, let's get this out of the way first: As a piece of cinema, Lifeforce is rubbish. As a bit of cheesy entertainment for SF buffs, it's got a lot of merit. If you enjoy watching those old black and white SF B-movies - giant mutated spiders\/ant or alien monsters wandering around the desert - you really will get a kick out of Lifeforce.

Bad things: The story makes little sense and the acting is pretty poor. Good things: The special effects are halfway decent; it has a welcomingly different British centered story (it's set in London) which gives different feel to most SF movies; and it has the well-endowed Mathilda May (amusingly billed as \"Space Girl\") wandering around stark naked.

In short: it's fun.

I've seen it half a dozen times now, and every time it comes on TV I make time to watch it - admittedly this is partly to do with the naked Ms. May - but it's also to do with the enjoying a bit of unassuming and silly SF.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lifeforce is certainly one of Tobe Hooper's best films. It has some great special effects and a lot of nudity, so it seems like a typical horror fan's dream. The film is quit creative though and I think that's because of the script from Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby. Nice cinematography and a good creepy atmosphere make it a solid film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Non-stop action and just about every conceivable (and inconceivable!) sci-fi\/horror cliche can be found in this blatantly silly but fun, big-budget epic. The pace never lets up, especially in the shorter US version, which tightens things up considerably.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Without a doubt, one of Tobe Hoppor's best! Epic storytellng, great special effects, and The Spacegirl (vamp me baby!).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A mixture of Alien and Ghost Busters?

Starts very promising, then slows down to almost boring.

LifeForce contains some awesome special effects they were able to make in the mid 80's. The story is intriguing, but becomes quite lack lustre in the end. It was rated R because of the nudeness, sex and gore. Mathilda May's ethereal and savage (naked) beauty is very apparent through out the whole movie. A bizarre movie and cost a lot by the time it was made.

This could have been a bigger classic with a better script, but unfortunately it wasn't a great hit, I think it actually flopped quite bad.

So, something went wrong with this one, but still, it's very entertaining.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As with some of the best films and series, I stumbled across this quite by accident. It was late, a storm was in full force outside and I was sitting comfortably on the sofa when I flicked past a channel that was just about to show one of the episodes. I intended merely to watch a couple of minutes while waiting for the commercials to be finished on another channel before switching back to some or other sitcom. About an hour and a half later I remembered my resolve and was so happy that I hadn't done that. Needless to say I made sure I saw all the other episodes.

John Hannah has been brilliant in almost everything I have seen him in and he does not let down here either. All other cast members do a stellar job too. My personal favourite (aside from John Hannah, of course) is Gerard Murphy.

The only negative side to this series are the limited amount of episodes. Only 8 with JH himself and an additional 1 with someone else. I would love to see McCallum back on the screens, though it would have to be with JH!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I got this as a complete set of 9 episodes on 5 DVDs. I knew nothing about the history of the series. Season 1 of the series has the pilot episode as episode 1 and then 3 more episodes for a total of 4. Season 2 lists 5 episodes with the last being Beyond Good and Evil with an original Air Date of 7 December 1998. The other 4 episodes on season 2 were broadcast from December 1997 to Febrausry 1998. So Beyond Good and Evil looks like season 3 episode 1, except there are no more episodes in season 3.

Spoilers here. The two main characters of the first 8 episodes, Dr. Iain McCallum (John Hannah) and Dr. Angela Moloney (Zara Turner), are missing from this episode being replaced by Dr. Dan Gallagher (Nathaniel Parker) and Dr. Charley Fielding (Eva Pope). I recognized Nathaniel Parker from the series The Inspector Lynley Mysteries, which began in 2001. So they were planning to have a season 3 but only one episode was broadcast.

It seems odd to try to continue a series named after the main character, McCallum, when the main character is gone from the series. So they might have been planning a return of Dr. Iain McCallum, but when that failed the series was canceled. I have no inside information on this but I do see that both John Hannah and Nathaniel Parker were involved in other projects in 1999. Does anyone have any information on this?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"K-Pax is a very intriguing film. Is Prot (Kevin Spacey) really an alien, or is he a mentally deranged human who just thinks he is an alien? That is the question that Dr. Powell (Jeff Bridges) must answer before the self proclaimed deadline that Prot sets for his departure from Earth.

As the film unfolds and more evidence is uncovered, both theories grow in credibility. His ability to map from memory the area of the galaxy where his home planet is located indicates a knowledge that no human could possibly possess. Yet the hypnosis sessions lead us to a real person with a very real and traumatic life, filled with devastating events that could have caused such a personality aberration. The ending seems to give the answer, but is just ambiguous enough to make you wonder if you really know. Normally, I don't like lady or tiger endings, but this one is tantalizing. I have my own theory that fits all the clues, but I don't know that my theory is any more correct than anyone else's.

Director Iain Softley (`Wings of the Dove') spins the tale delicately, with great skill. This is a rare example of the director staying in the shadows and inducing outstanding acting performances out of talented actors to let the story dominate. This is not to say that the directing is technically inferior, because it is excellent. However, Softley remains unobtrusive, delivering great power through the use of subtlety, a pleasant change from today's vanguard directors who visually grab and shake the viewer as if to scream, `Look how brilliant I am!'

Kevin Spacey once again delivers a marvelous performance as Prot. This is a part that is extraordinarily demanding, requiring Spacey to render the cool and logical Prot one minute, and then switch gears to conjure his tormented alter ego under hypnosis the next. Spacey is so believable as both alien and human, it makes the viewer's task that much more difficult. Jeff Bridges is also terrific as the relentless psychologist who becomes obsessed with learning the truth about Prot.

This is inspired storytelling for the thoughtful viewer. I rated it a 9\/10. If you must have closure at the end of a film, this movie will be very frustrating. However, if you like a fascinating mystery that keeps you thinking long after the credits, you won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Life is comprised of infinite possibilities; some known, others a mystery and destined to remain so. And what of the vast unknown, the realms beyond which knowledge has no established boundaries or parameters? Who is to say what exists or what is possible? Valid questions, all of which are raised and explored in the story of a particular individual's personal journey, a strange and dramatic odyssey that defies facts and logic, in `K-PAX,' directed by Iain Softley, and starring Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges. In the wake of an incident in New York's Central Station, a man named Prot (Spacey) is transported to a psychiatric hospital in Manhattan, where he is delivered into the care of Dr. Mark Powell (Bridges), who attempts to uncover the truth about his patient, who claims to be from the distant planet K-PAX. It quickly becomes a challenge for Dr. Powell, as Prot, with his calm, direct, forthcoming manner and a propensity for produce (he eats bananas peels and all, and Red Delicious Apples are his favorites) is quite convincing. But it's Powell's job, as well as his nature, to be skeptical. Prot's claims, however, remain intact and stand up even under the most intense probing and the watchful eye of Dr. Powell, who finds himself in something of a quandary-- Prot even tells him the exact date and time that he will depart for K-PAX, a scheduled return trip that allows Powell but a short time to sort it all out. And Powell just can't seem to get his mind around the idea that he is dealing with a real alien being; and it's something he is going to have to resolve quickly, if he is ever going to know the truth. And he has to know. The truth, after all, is the only thing that is going to set him free in his own mind.

\tSoftley has created and delivered a sensitive, thought-provoking film that challenges the viewer by sustaining the mystery surrounding Prot while forcing you to reflect upon your own concepts of what is, in fact, possible. And as you never know for sure about Prot until the denouement, you are able to identify with Powell, seeing the situation from his point of view and trying to solve the riddle right along with him. Softley creates an atmosphere of wonder and a real sense of being confronted with something that is truly unique as the story unfolds and you begin to realize that Prot just may be what he says he is. And in the context of the reality to which the film is disposed, it's an engrossing matter to try to wrap your mind around. How do you react when all of the evidence is contrary to the physical limitations we've set for ourselves? While at the heart of the film there is a resounding depth of humanity that is evident, not only in Prot, but in Dr. Powell, as well. All of which makes for an extremely engaging and gripping drama.

\tAs we've come to expect, Kevin Spacey gives a brilliant performance as Prot, presenting his character from the inside out, emotionally deep and physically convincing at the same time. This is a unique individual, and Spacey brings him to life with care and the ability to share those moments that are particularly revealing, which adds to the believability of the character and the credibility of the story itself. For this film to work, it is essential that we believe who and what Prot is; we do, and it does. Spacey simply pulls it off magnificently. It's a memorable performance, from which evolves a character that will stay with you for a long, long time.

\tJeff Bridges, meanwhile, emerges on equal footing with Spacey, adeptly making a very real person of Dr. Powell. It's a fairly straightforward role, and the challenge for Bridges was to take this very normal and ordinary character and make him unique in his own right, which, opposite the character of Prot was no small task. And, again, for this film to work it was necessary for Bridges to rise to the occasion. And, with exceptional skill and being the consummate professional that he is, he succeeds without question. Bridges infuses Powell with an underlying complexity, and is so giving in his performance, that it makes the interaction between Powell and Prot vibrant, and at times intense. It's a demonstration of two of the finest actors in the business doing what they do best, creating a dynamic that is alive and inspiring. It's a great job by Bridges, who never attempts to steal the spotlight from Prot, which serves to raise the level of the film to an even higher notch.

\tThe supporting cast includes Mary McCormack (Rachel), Alfre Woodard (Dr. Villers), Ajay Naidu (Dr. Naidiu), Vincent Laresca (Navarro), Kimberly Scott (Joyce), Conchata Ferrell (Betty) and Saul Williams (Ernie). An entertaining, emotionally involving film, `K-PAX' is a dissertation on possibilities, as well as an examination of the ever evolving complexities of the human condition. It's a film that demands an open mind and rewards those who are able to approach it on it's own terms and embrace it. In the end, it makes you realize just how real K-PAX is; and it makes you appreciate Prot's journey, and just how much we all share and have in common with those around us, human or alien. And it may just make you reflect upon your own journey-- where you've been and where you're going. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 10\/10.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"K-PAX is exactly what a heart warming film should be. The story is about a mysterious mental patient Prot, played by Kevin Spacey, and his unbelieving psychiatrist Dr. Powel, played by Jeff Bridges. The two have a very friendly bond, and as their relationship grows Dr. Powel can't help but wonder whether or not there is more to his mysterious patient, who insists he is from another planet called K-PAX. This film is very funny, and Kevin Spacey pulls of well placed one liners as if it was his second nature. K-PAX is a smart film, and I wasn't expecting it to go where it did. In the end, I found myself thinking about the small things in life, and the wonder and magic of the every day life we so often take for granted. I left the theater with a warm fuzzy feeling inside, and for families and couples on a date, K-PAX is a splendid film, that will not disappoint. I highly recommend this film to anyone interested in something more than the monotonous releases of glossy, action packed, gore fests.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Due to a very misleading advertising campaign, I saw this film in theatres at the relatively young age of 10. The trailers on TV portrayed the film as a comedy, and I bugged my parents until they took me. After seeing the movie, I was blown away. I had no idea what to think. Totally different than anything I had seen before, leaving far to many questions for such a young mind. Needless to say, I loved it. This morning was the first time I'd watched in in probably 2-3 years, and I still think it's one of the greatest films made in the last decade. Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges are both in top form, as a mysterious man who may or may not be from another planet, and the psychiatrist that develops a bond with him while trying to decipher his mystery. The supporting cast are near perfect as well, each resident of the mental institution is incredibly convincing in their own way. The open ending was handled very well, giving lots of evidence to support whatever you believe happened in the end. How this movie failed to receive at least a nomination in that year's Oscars is beyond me. If you haven't seen this film, run to Wal-Mart RIGHT NOW. The DVD is usually in the bargain bin, pick it up!

9.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film IS brilliant...... without a doubt. Watched it a while ago after constant pestering from family members who are right into their sci-fi films (which I am not), and thought it was quite good. But after recently watching a few documentaries on outer-space etc we watched it again... and it IS good.

Kevin Spacey is without doubt one of the greatest actors ever and I really like Jeff Bridges (Big Lewbowski, Blown Away, Arlington Road). The film revolves around a patient in a nursing home who claims he is from another planet. Yeah right, you think... but what if his story is so believable that even his psychiatrist begins to wonder if he is telling the truth.

That is how the story evolves with Bridges going through all kinds of emotions dealing with Prot (as he is known), his own psychiatric colleagues, his wife and family, his brother-in-law and his cosmologist astronomer work colleagues (who after getting some data from Prot, pretty much admit that he might be telling the truth!) A great film... that get's you wondering.....

8\/10 Dave","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Personally, I think Kevin Spacey is one of the greatest actors of his generation, maybe the greatest. This in combination with another amazing actor named Jeff Bridges, it can't be bad. And that's exactly what this movie is! \"K-PAX\" is one of the most pleasant surprises of the latest years. To start with has the movie a brilliantly written story. It's part of what makes the movie so great. The other aspect that contributes to the greatness of the movie is the acting. The combination Spacey-Bridges really works.

This was already the second time I saw the movie and I'm sure it won't be the last time. \"K-PAX\" has everything. There are moments which are extremely funny, parts that remind of a true thriller and others which reminds of high-class drama. I think this movie deserves a much higher rating and a lot more awards. Great movie!

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a fan of Jeff Bridges so I snapped this up on DVD without having seen it previously. I instantly became a fan of Kevin Spacey, also.

The general plot of \"alien in human body\" has, in my experience, been done to death, but I liked the approach taken in K-PAX, which struck me as quite different and much more sensitive than most. Bridges makes an excellent doctor (you *want* to tell him what's on your mind) and Spacey's expressions and gestures are perfect in the role.

The interaction between Prot and the entirely human characters in the clinic is delightful, particularly the subtle manipulation of their behaviour.

The ending is bittersweet - I like Prot's choice, but the final scenes (with Bridges) made me teary.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Usually I do not like movies with\/about aliens but K-PAX is different. The actors are great in the movie - especially Kevin Spacey played his character breathtaking! The movie never fall to a lower level - the suspense is always in the movie and you absolutely wanna know how it ends, what's about Prot... You have to think a lot after the movie over the movie because there are a few open questions... Is Robert Porter Prot or is Prot only using Robert Porters body as a means of transportation. How can he see uv-light and how can he know that much about astrology. But everybody can make his own end and can decide in what he wanna believe. Very good movie with an excellent Kevin Spacey!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best movies ever, the idea of a double interpretation involves we all.

Would be Prot a schizophrenic or an E.T? (No doubt in my opinion, but let's keep the question open...). Kevin Spacey, the big screen monster, plays Prot as it should be done. Let's not forget Jeff Bridges and his great psychiatric.

Lastly, a masterpiece that speakes for itself. Can keep our eyes wide open from the beginning to the credits and our minds thinking even when the movie is over. If you still didn't watch it, go right now! And again, again...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Following a mugging incident at New York's Grand Central Station, an innocent bystander (Kevin Spacey, \"The Usual Suspects\") is arrested by police who believe him to be under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs. We can understand why they think this, considering how the man politely informed them that he wears his dark glasses because \"the light on your planet is really bright.\" And so Prot (as he identifies himself, pronounced as rhyming with \"goat,\") is shipped off to the Psychiatric Institute of Manhattan, where a weary workaholic doctor, Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges, \"The Big Lebowski\"), attempts to understand this man's so-called delusion.

Prot's manner is courteous and cooperative. When asked why he believes he has been institutionalised, he matter-of-factly replies that it is because \"you think I'm crazy.\" Within minutes, after satisfying his insatiable newfound hunger for Earth-fruit, the completely forthright Prot has revealed that he is an extraterrestrial from the planet K-PAX, which resides 1000 light-years away, circling the binary star system Agape and Satori located in the Lyra constellation. He also details how his infinitely-more advanced species has already mastered faster-than-light travel, through harnessing the energy of light, an accomplishment that is allegedly eons away for the human race.

Powell is understandably very skeptical of these outrageous claims, though he is nevertheless fascinated by them, and commits himself to understanding how Prot came to believe such a thing. Meanwhile, Prot uses his time to observe his fellow patients in the psychiatric ward, eventually offering everybody around him something to live for, and hope of a cure. On July 27, Prot later reveals, he will depart again for K-PAX, and he can only take one human with him. Of what will actually happen on that date, nobody is certain.

Originally slated to play Dr. Powell \u0096 with Will Smith as Prot \u0096 Kevin Spacey stepped into the main role when Smith had to withdraw from the film. You can tell that he had a lot of fun with his character, the completely matter-of-fact delivery of his sometimes ridiculous dialogue (\"Your produce alone has been worth the trip\") often eliciting genuine laughter. There is undeniable intelligence behind many of Prot's words, but logic maintains that he must be delusional... mustn't he?

The audience is led back and forth between the possibilities \u0096 for the first segment of the film, we almost accept the possibility that Prot is an extraterrestrial (this is a sci-fi movie, isn't it?!), before being totally convinced when Prot inexplicably displays an impossible knowledge of the astronomy of a newly-discovered planet system. A final investigation by Dr. Powell offers us a neatly-packaged terrestrial explanation for Prot's delusions, but this is just as quickly whisked away, and we are left scratching our heads again. The film, quite rightly, keeps its ending open, leaving the audience to contemplate what they've just watched and to discuss it with those around them. Nevertheless, whether you believe Prot to be an alien or not, two irresistible certainties linger in your mind: the Universe is, indeed, a fascinating place, and perhaps there are higher forces that we humans are yet to discover.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was truly surprised when I first saw this movie directed by Iain Softley; it differs in so much ways from the usual Hollywood mass-production. The plot itself is simple - Kevin Spacey plays a mental patient Prot who claims to be from the planet K-pax who arrived to Earth by a beam of light, while Dr. Powell played by Jeff Bridges tries to help him to solve his delusions... First of all, I must admit the cast is perfectly chosen: Kevin Spacey is really brilliant in portraying the intriguing character of Prot, always walking in the fine line of convincing us that it is real and then making us wonder whether he is delusional or not... Some of the gem scenes include the one where Prot innocently eats the whole banana (even the peal) while in session with Dr. Powell; or the observatory scene where he confidently shows his knowledge of the K-Pax system to the astonished astronomers... Jeff Bridges on the other hand is the subtle, rational side of this movie, and he delivers it perfectly. There is a whole other cast of excellent actors (like Saul Williams' convincing performance as Ernie) who make this film truly work.

K-pax has it all, elements of comedy; Sci-Fi, even psychological thriller (concerning the Prot's identity) but most importantly it can be categorized as a heartwarming drama. The main premise of the movie is quite intricate, but the director never lets it get loose, he always keeps it believable and yet two-ways interpretable. The camera and photography have almost a crucial part here, continuing the main idea of light travel, there is much focus on light-shadow play, lightning settings - one of the memorable scenes is where Dr. Powell holds a crystal figure in his office which refracts light in a beautiful way while all the time he suspects can the idea be true?

Subtle and slow paced, intriguing and pleasurable, K-pax is truly a gem to watch, one of the kind movie that may not be for all tastes, but those who see it - might fall in love with it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In KPAX Softley brushes on the subtleties of Eastern Religious Mores from the small archetypes embedded all over the film to the actual purpose of Prot. Spacey (Prot) assumes a predominantly didactic role throughout the entire film - it is as if the statements he makes embody general truths about a culture of peace which is strongly promulgated in Buddhism and Hinduism. It can be said that Prot is the eye of the storm - the world is in disarray and is 'bright' and the false veil of reality is what everyone else sees, but Prot sees truth - he sees the minute - and appreciates it and at some points fears it as he transcends his social construction of reality and becomes more humanly.

The film is particularly detailed, therefore I would recommend that you watch it at least twice to see how Softley interjects nuances. Listen carefully to the narratives at the beginning and end as they truly touch on concepts not commonly presented in western philosophies.

9 of out 10 rating - Superb - with nominal room for improvement.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The always delightful Kevin Spacey makes us once again question certain truths in our lives. After driving us into believing he is a mumbling small time crook (only to expose the true power of cinematic deception) in the classic The Usual Suspect; this time around he leads us into believing he is Prot, a likable alien who assumes a human form whilst strolling around the Earth.

Prot is a peculiar stranger who has seemingly appeared out of nowhere, only to be hospitalized in the Manhattan Psychiatric Institution. Dr. Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) soon takes extreme interest in him, and even finds himself pondering if Prot is actually a supreme being from planet K-PAX, or perhaps he is only a forgotten human being with severe psychiatric issues. While the ending can be seen and discussed in many ways, it remains a complex, enlightening journey which leaves a gr eat deal of intriguing\/philosophical questions behind it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you have enjoyed the Butterfly Effect, Donnie Darko or The Machinist, you will enjoy K-Pax too.

To me, this movie felt really uplifting and yet depressing in the end. Spacey delivers a great performance as Prot. Also, lets not forget the appearance of Saul Williams in the movie, who i am a big fan of.

After watching it, i recommended the movie to lots of my friends, and everyone was pretty much blown away.

But still, it is very underrated, maybe because of the lack of action and explosions. I'm sorry, this is not a movie about blowing things up, it's about how humans behave, and how people live in worlds that don't exist.

Go on, and enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"at least for me. and rather unexpected -as subject. a movie that makes you question your beliefs, your life, your approach on everything. that helps you see the world you , we live in through a lens - or a multitude of lens...a moving, surprising and haunting movie.

and it benefits of one of the best performances ever from Kevin Spacey. seconded very well by Jeff Bridges. there isn't a false note in this tango. it's a perfect dance. perfect 'till the end.

what does the ending reveal ? well...everything you want it to...

a movie one will want to see again. maybe not right away. maybe after a few days. months. years. but it's something to go - or come - back to.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a movie that will leave you thinking, is he or isn't he? While many people have complained about the ambiguous ending, it gives room for the audience to think and interpret it from the signs. This is my interpretation and theory, and I believe it is very sound.

First, here is the plot. One day, Prot (Kevin Spacey) suddenly appears in the midst of a busy train station. After attempting to help a woman from muggers, he is arrested and sent to Bellevue, and later transferred to Dr. Mark Powell's (Jeff Bridges) hospital. Prot freely talks about how he came from the planet K-Pax and is here to do a report on Earth. Naturally, he is classified as a looney and is locked up in a low security level ward. He befriends the other patients and quickly convinces them of his story. In fact, he tells them he can take one person back with him. Soon Dr. Powell is beginning to question Prot's insanity and as the plot progresses, it is harder and harder to prove Prot wrong.

In the end, Dr. Powell learns that Prot is Robert Porter, a smart man who worked in a slaughter house in New Mexico, when his wife and daughter were murdered. Prot claims that he plans to leave for K-Pax at a precise time on the fifth anniversary of the murders. The time comes and goes, and Powell finds Prot or Robert in a catatonic state. One of the patients is missing and is never found again.

On to my theory: Prot is not crazy. Prot is from the planet K-Pax. Robert Porter is a friend of Prot's. On one of Prot's previous visits to Earth, Robert was a child, learning about the constellations from his father. Prot and Robert became best friends. After the death of his family, and Robert slaying the murderer, Robert decides to commit suicide. Prot is on K-Pax at the time, but he rushes back (in multiples of light speed) to stop Robert. So Prot takes over the thinking of Robert, taking over his body so to speak. Awhile later, Prot (still inhabiting Robert's body) comes to New York and is locked up. When he leaves for K-Pax on July 27, he takes Bess with him, but he must leave Robert's body behind. Hence, we now have the catatonic Robert.

Explanations or clues:

PROT'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLANETS AROUND LIBRA: As Prot says, any child knows about their own system. Only a few people on Earth had an inkling about the system, and Prot added to their knowledge. Robert Porter, while smart and knows his constellations, was no astro-physicist.

DR POWELL FEELS CHOSEN BY PROT: It's true. Prot could've left the institute at any time, but chose not too. Prot's last words to Dr. Powell are, \"Now that you've found Robert. Take care of him.\" Prot was probably staying there to ensure a place for Robert when he left.

SUPER-HUMAN ABILITIES: It was a proven fact that Prot had a significantly higher sensitivity to sunlight and could even see UV rays. Prot provides his usual K-Pax reason, but there was no Earthly reason given. It was also mentioned that Prot was given extremely high doses of medicine with no effect.

HELPING THE PATIENTS: Throughout the movie, you see Prot helping the other patients (or the patients discussing Prot's suggestions) to a better sane world. While the psychologist balk at Prot's help, Dr. Powell talks at the end of the movie about the new lives the patients are leading.

THE SPRINKLER SCENE: The sprinkler is associated with Porter's home in New Mexico (which is ironically where Roswell is). Does Porter associate the sprinkler with the death of his family? Is her trying to protect Powell's daughter from that horrible fate? I have a different point of view. It is assumed that Porter had committed suicide in a river. Indeed, Prot (under hypnosis) is greatly concerned about Robert. I believe that Prot associates the danger with the water, not the sprinkler. He is trying to protect the girl from watery death, like he did Robert.

HYPNOSIS: Dr. Powell feels that under hypnosis he can uncover Prot's true identity, but while Prot gives plenty of information, he never gives up his Prot persona and claimed homeland of K-Pax.

THE SECURITY CAMERA: Why would the camera just give out for no apparent reason?

MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES: First, Prot disappeared for a few days to his trip up north. Funny, the patients are not at all alarmed. Indeed, they try to reassure the doctor. Sometimes I think they understand better than the staff. Naturally, the most telling disappearance is of Bess, the winner of the essay contest. Not only does she disappear at the approximate same time, but the only remaining clue is her winning essay.

This is only my humble theory. You can conclude what you want. You can take Dr. Powell's theory, that Prot was merely a persona taken up by Robert Porter to mentally defend himself from reality, but that would be giving up too many plot holes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just watched this and it was amazing. Was in serious doubt about renting the DVD or not. So if you are...and like watching other than brainless action-movies...don't hesitate any longer. Don't let the dull cover put you off. The script is one of the best ever. Inteligent, funny, original, touching and keeps you at the edge of the seat through the whole movie. I had already watched another movie right before this one and was really sleepy, and usually I get bored on watching a second movie in one night, but this one really made me wake up and didn't have any boring moments. It also made me rethink a lot of things in life and gave me a really good feeling.

Also the acting is great (one of Kevin Spacey's best roles). The visuals are beautiful and the use of music is very well-chosen. If I have to come up with something negative to say about it....well....I can't really find anything......Enjoy! 10 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, not much really to say about this. But it is really good. Very good job from Softley directing and the movie have good cast of acting. Movies plot is also believable and... hehe good. So the good is main word in this case. I just hope there would be more this kind scifi movies. Thats why this one s pointed out in the crowd. I give it 8.5 of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A beautiful, magical, thought-provoking and heart-warming story. Excellent direction, perfect cast, marvellous script, excellent score, beautifully lit...... need I say more?

If you love films that not only make you think but also warm your heart (some that spring to mind are 'Contact', 'Field of Dreams' and 'Groundhog Day') then you're sure to love K-PAX.

Most highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Prot (Kevin Spacey) is a mental hospital patient who claims to be native to a distant planet called K-PAX. His psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) tries to help him, all the while trying to understand Prot and find out if he is really from K-PAX.

This movie doesn't really fall into any particular genre. One big part of K-PAX is drama\/ science-fiction, another part fantasy, plus, add to that a dash of comedy and you begin to get what K-PAX is all about. The story (as you see above) isn't too complicated or deep, but it still offers some good twists and turns of the plot that may still surprise you as they did me. No special effects or graphics accompany this movie, and there's no need to have them, the music in the film is great however. A techno soundtrack along with a terrific piano piece makes K-PAX sound sci-fi and makes certain scenes intriguing.

Kevin Spacey is the heart of the movie and plays a very convincing alien (Prot) from the planet K-PAX, emotional with great facial expressions, Spacey does a fine job in the lead role. Jeff Bridges is Dr. Powell, that aids and attempts to understand Prot. Bridges is also excellent in his part. Bridges and Spacey fit together very well and they should, after all, they've both had a lot of experience. The wife of Dr. Powell is Rachel Powell, played by Mary McCormack. McCormack plays her part well, showing the frustration from having her husband gone and so dedicated to his patient. Alfe Woodard plays Dr. Powell's coworker Claudia Villars, we don't really see Claudia too much, but overall she puts in an alright performance.

K-PAX is rated PG-13 for \"a sequence of violent images, and brief language and sensuality\", and that covers it. As far as \"violent images\" go, we don't see too much. A few people that have quite a bit of blood on them, but that's all. Language is as follows: 1 \"f\" word (wow, only one!), 11 \"s\" words, and a few uses of the Lord's name in vain. Not too bad really. The \"sensuality\" part is just from when Prot explains to Dr. Powell how reproduction works on K-PAX, nothing terrible, just something about it feels like \"having your nuts in a vice.\" Not too bad on the content level for a PG-13 movie, it could have been a lot worse.

In conclusion, K-PAX is not a bad movie. It won't stun you, but it is enjoyable and kind of fun to watch. It has some funny parts, sad parts, really sad parts, and, well you know what I mean. It's a story of a mental hospital patient, what do you expect? All in all a good rent for those of you looking for a good drama that you can kick back and relax to, K-PAX is a well done movie.

Bonus! If you've seen this movie already, like it, and are thinking about getting the DVD, I would highly recommend it. It has loads of extras to look through, and even an alternate ending and deleted scenes. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was highly underrated. The subject matter does seem like it would be a little strange, and I was put off at first, but once I was watching the movie, it didn't seem strange at all. I was intrigued with all the different possibilities that the story had to offer, and I couldn't wait to find out how it would end. Once it did end....I thought about it for a long time after. I was pleased with everything about K-Pax, from the acting and the story and the scientific elements and psychological issues, to the ending. It's not an especially upbeat or happy film, though it does make you chuckle from time to time, but I found it to be especially entertaining and thought-provoking. I own it now, and intend to watch it many times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like movies that will make you think, this is absolutely one of the good ones. I always liked David Lynch and Cronenberg. They have always made high-quality movies.

Iain Softley has directed K-PAX brilliantly. The movie tears in feelings and philosophy of the mind and world. Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges both delivers superb acting skills. It caught me, I did not take my eyes away from the screen during the movie. On the other hand, if you are hoping for a special effect sci-fi movie, this is not for you. The story is being dragged a bit, which can be a bit boring, but also works as a way of building up the theme of the movie.

Enjoy this film, I did..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Possible *SPOILERS* warning)

You never know. The guy keeps telling he's an alien but... oops, seems to be the most human in the whole story. Arrived from distant planet. Said weird things. Advanced the Earth's science. Healed the doctor... Or was it just a crazy dream? You never know. Better see K-PAX for yourself. Think.

Great acting of all the cast. Don't forget to notice the music, it's right in a place. Lot of fun, some sadness. 8 of 10, after all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*May be spoilers* No doubt one of the best dramas if not the best in the genre I've ever seen. Is Prot an alien or just a crazy bugger? This is the question you'll be asking yourself all throughout the movie.

Kevin Spacey is simply amazing, as is Jeff Bridges. You can't beat this kind of acting plus some humour at times. Some of Kevin Spaceys actions in this movie are very funny. When he was up in the tree, for example, and when he was talking to the \"queen\" mental patient, the way he hid half his face around the wall and just stared.

To simply put it, right from the start you'll be hooked, and if you really love drama's you won't be dissapointed.

A solid 85%.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Who's the man~~~ what's that I hear? A resounding cry of Kevin? Well if you didn't shout for the 'usual suspect' I'd recommend changing your medicated prescription. Anyway this Is no first class movie, just a very well produced story, that is almost believable. Considering its about an Alien your probably wondering what the? All acting is top stuff and also the first I've seen a balanced, sarcastic Alien. Just enjoyable is all I can say and almost for the whole family (if not for the scene later in the movie). SEVEN STARS","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"at last, a movie that handles the probability of alien visits with the appropriate depth and loving warmth. just in case we're not alone, i do believe that these visitors are just too tourist\u00edc to care for us or give that wayward bunch of anthropocentric goofs a stable proof of their existence. we wouldn't interfere in the battle rites of some agitated desert tribe either, unless we're out for messing with our travel insurance, huh?

anyway, the movie depicts the transitional cathexis of a weary mind and body by a superior entity. that happens quite unspectacular and rather unrecognized, but we're dealing with a movie here, right? so prot's hospitalization is just a trigger to the plot.

jeff bridges acts great as usual, but spacey is hilarious. the role seems tailored downright to him, convincing and lovingly \"mad\". eating unpeeled bananas, sitting in a tree, giving his doctor a hard time with quickness, wisdom and (most of all!) stunning quotes. they made me think and philosophize for hours already.

it's an encouraging film, to say the least, and the soundtrack by edward shearmur is simply beautiful. just go and get a copy. catch a beam of light. now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After watching this movie once, it quickly became one of my favorites. As different events happen in the movie, you change your mind about Prot, back and forth, until the end and even after. The movie is very thought-provoking and a must-watch!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I had read the book a good ten years ago and was intrigued about how it would translate to film.

The screenplay is very true to the book, which I was charmed by - this is a rarity in itself these days. The characterisations were solid and believeable, and the stroytelling kept me shifting in my perceptions, even though I already knew the ending from the book.

An intelligent and well crafted film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kevin Spacey again picks a winner with K-PAX, an endearing movie that expresses profound revelations at human existence via the Prot character's naive, yet at the same time unquestionably wise, point of view.

It's enjoyable trying to work out 'if he is or he isn't' as the plot expands and the Robert Porter character gets fleshed out. However some may find the ending a little unsatisfying but in reality it couldn't have been any other way.

My few issues with the film revolve around the rather cartoony and over simplified portrayal of mental patients. I was surprised because the films plot shows a great deal of intelligence and I don't feel it would have lost anything by being more honest regarding how people with mental health problems behave.

That said, I realise this was a movie and not a documentary and the film itself is exquisitly shot and the story unwraps at a pleasing rate.

Bridges is great and Spacey delivers a languid and relaxed performance, more like a stand-up than an alien.

A good film that will get you talking with your friends.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this both times I watched it. And both times, I walked away thinking about it, and the \"morals of the story\" a great deal. I agree with another reviewer in that the movie is not centred around the sci-fi aspects you might expect from an alien-on-Earth movie, but rather is about the human condition. The characters in the psych hospital provide a great insight in to that, and how they go from hopelessness to hope. This movie has touches of sadness to humour to sympathy to the final \"is he or isn't he\". That final question was well handled and even though some might argue you don't know what happens in the end and the question goes unanswered, I feel it is done in far more detail than something wishywashy like say, the movie Ronin (with Robert De Niro) where you never find out what's in the box and feel very frustrated because of it. I highly recommend K-PAX. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'War movie' is a Hollywood genre that has been done and redone so many times that clich\u00e9d dialogue, rehashed plot and over-the-top action sequences seem unavoidable for any conflict dealing with large-scale combat. Once in a while, however, a war movie comes along that goes against the grain and brings a truly original and compelling story to life on the silver screen. The Civil War-era \"Cold Mountain,\" starring Jude Law, Nicole Kidman and Ren\u00e9e Zellweger is such a film.

Then again, calling Cold Mountain\" a war movie is not entirely accurate. True enough, the film opens with a (quite literally) quick-and-dirty battle sequence that puts \"Glory\" director Edward Zwick shame. However, \"Cold Mountain\" is not so much about the Civil War itself as it is about the period and the people of the times. The story centers around disgruntled Confederate soldier Inman, played by Jude Law, who becomes disgusted with the gruesome war and homesick for the beautiful hamlet of Cold Mountain, North Carolina and the equally beautiful southern belle he left behind, Ada Monroe, played by Nicole Kidman. At first glance, this setup appears formulaic as the romantic interest back home gives the audience enough sympathy to root for the reluctant soldier's tribulations on the battlefield. Indeed, the earlier segments of the film are relatively unimpressive and even somewhat contrived.

\"Cold Mountain\" soon takes a drastic turn, though, as the intrepid hero Inman turns out to be a deserter (incidentally saving the audience from the potentially confusing scenario of wanting to root for the Confederates) and begins a long odyssey homeward. Meanwhile, back at the farm, Ada's cultured ways prove of little use in the fields; soon she is transformed into something of a wilderbeast. Coming to Ada's rescue is the course, tough-as-nails Ruby Thewes, played by Ren\u00e9e Zellweger, who helps Ada put the farm back together and, perhaps more importantly, cope with the loneliness and isolation the war seems to have brought upon Ada.

Within these two settings, a vivid, compelling and, at times, very disturbing portrait of the war-torn South unfolds. The characters with whom Inman and Ada interact are surprisingly complex, enhanced by wonderful performances of Brendan Gleeson as Ruby's deadbeat father, Ray Winstone as an unrepentant southern \"lawman,\" and Natalie Portman as a deeply troubled and isolated young mother. All have been greatly affected and changed by \"the war of Northern aggression,\" mostly for the worse. The dark, pervading anti-war message, accented by an effective, haunting score and chillingly beautiful shots of Virginia and North Carolina, is communicated to the audience not so much by gruesome battle scenes as by the scarred land and traumatized people for which the war was fought. Though the weapons and tactics of war itself have changed much in the past century, it's hellish effect on the land is timelessly relevant.

Director Anthony Minghella manages to maintain this gloomy mood for most of the film, but the atmosphere is unfortunately denigrated by a rather tepid climax that does little justice to the wonderfully formed characters. The love story between Inman and Ada is awkwardly tacked onto the beginning and end of the film, though the inherently distant, abstracted and even absurd nature of their relationship in a way fits the dismal nature of the rest of the plot.

Make no mistake, \"Cold Mountain\" has neither the traits of a feel-good romance nor an inspiring war drama. It is a unique vision of an era that is sure not only to entertain but also to truly absorb the audience into the lives of a people torn apart by a war and entirely desperate to be rid of its terrible repercussions altogether.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie moved me more than I was expecting, and I was fully prepared to cry. The acting mainly carried this film, with superb performances from Jude Law, Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellweger, as well as the supporting cast. These actors portrayed characters so intensely human that they lingered the remainder of the night with me, and I had trouble shaking this war drama. The costumes and cinematography were also magical, but didn't get carried away with themselves. They didn't take focus, but added to the whole effect. Cold Mountain could never become my favorite movie, as that title will always belong to The English Patient, but it's in the top five. The story itself was well developed, and stayed fairly unpredictable. I did not find myself guessing what line came next. A heart-wrenching story about humanity and war. In fact, this movie was so strongly real that it was barely noticeable it took place in the 19th century. It seemed to apply to all times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anthony Minghela's (writer\/director) Cold Mountain is a carefully constructed, sensitive, and intelligent drama set in the social context of the confederacy during the civil war, which deals with the politics of the war in a very subtle and realistic manner. While it accurately depicts the brutality and inhumanity of that war, it also does something that many films related to this period to not handle as effectively - Cold Mountain studies the southern context from the inside out, and portrays changes among the non-slave owning common people wrought by the war. And, almost uniquely, Cold Mountain does not over-generalize southerners, northerners or anybody else.

The film surfs through genres as needed - never presenting a dull moment. It is a romance, a war story, an action-adventure and historical fiction, all nicely woven into one.

The story centers on Inman (Jude Law) and Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman), who are smitten with each other for very simple reasons. As this young romance begins to bud, Inman enlists in the confederate army, taking with him a book Ada has given him and a photograph of her. Ada's character is one of the most brilliant aspects of the film, which is important because the audience experiences this film from a third person perspective, but the story is clearly hers from the beginning to the end. Ada is an intelligent southern belle and daughter of a liberal minister. She begins the film as a daddy's girl skilled in many of the arts that southern women who have been surrounded by servants most of their lives were expected to learn. In other words, as she admits to Ruby Thewes (Renee Zellweger), she is a master of everything useless.

Ada's father passes on, and she is left to manage his modest estate by herself. With no experience of this sort, she struggles, and survives by holding the memory of Inman close to her heart. Ruby enters the picture as a tough young woman who has been raised by a drunk and negligent father. Ruby has all the skills and abilities Ada lacks, and as they become inseparable business partners, they grow to love one another as best friends. Inman's experience is radically different, but something of a mirror image. During his participation in the war, he sees many friends killed for causes they don't really believe in, and decides to desert. Nobody he meets comes to his rescue as he begins the thousand mile walk back to Cold Mountain and Ada, and most of those he meets die.

The bulk of the film takes place during Inman's long walk, following both of the protagonists as they live, learn, grow and change. An on-going act of will borne of desperation preserves their intense passionate love. For Inman, it is his only source of hope in a world of pure desperation. For Ada, it is very much the same thing, but also a symbol and remnant of the old south - a world which is rapidly passing.

The cinematography is powerful and breathtaking. There are beautiful shots of Appalachian landscapes which give the film a strong sense of history. The script and editing are also extremely strong - emphasizing the broad class and educational differences reflected in the ante bellum southern dialects of the middle and lower classes. With the cast of this film, nothing short of perfection should be expected. And the cast, mostly, rises to the occasion. My one criticism, however, relates to the accents adopted by Kidman and Law's characters. An Australian and a Brit probably should not be expected to accurately reproduce southern American speech, but there are a few occasions where these two exceptionally gifted actors produce distracting vocal slips. I admit my oversensitivity to this, and can say with some confidence that it won't bother most people. Zellweger's performance is outstanding and she creates a character I will remember into my senescence.

Very highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Cold Mountain, North Colorado, near to the period of the American Civil War, the Reverend Monroe (Donald Sutherland) arrives in the small town with his daughter, the shy Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman), due to health reasons. Ada meets the also shy Inman (Jude Law), and they fall in love with each other. With the beginning of the war, Inman becomes a soldier, and his great support to stay alive is the wish to see Ada in Cold Mountain again. Meanwhile, Ada meets Ruby Thewes (Ren\u00e9e Zellweger), a survivor of the war, who helps her in the farm and becomes her best friend. The story alternates present and past situations, disclosing a beautiful romance. I liked this film a lot. Having names such as Philip Seymour Hoffman, Natalie Portman and Giovanni Ribisi in the supporting cast, a magnificent direction of Anthony Minghella and seven indications to the Oscar, this movie does not disappoint. My remark is that there are some very important scenes deleted in the story and presented in the DVD. At least one of them, which show what happens with Sara, her baby and the three dead bodies in her farm, should not be deleted as it was. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): 'Cold Mountain'","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have not managed to completely block out this film from memory even though it has been two years since I've seen it.

Don't get me wrong - I have long forgotten the main story line - the relationship between Kidman and Law, that made no impression on me but it was the torture scenes in the film that really struck me. I cried for about two hours straight after wards.

It had never previously occurred to me how people, in war time, could take advantage of something as pure as a mother's love. We see several examples of this here - in both the scenes with Natalie Portman and with the mother with her fingers in the fence for keeping her son hidden at home. I was shocked at these scenes and will probably never watch the film again as a consequence because the scenes even now are perfectly clear in my mind. However, I am glad I watched the film simply because it has made me more aware to the horrors of war and the horrible cruelty that mankind can inflict on it's own.

The blonde albino character has been top of my list of most evil bad guy ever since I saw the film. His horrible sneer and lack of any human feeling for the people he tortured really hit a nerve with me. At one point I wanted to get up in the cinema and kill him myself (see the movie pushed me over the edge of reason,it only occurred to me afterward that I'd only be hitting a big screen - that shows the film's power and intensity at least).

I recommend the film for it's sheer experience not for the entwined love story but for the manner in which it depicts war without needing a battlefield.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie worked for me because I see this movie as an exact opposite of 'Gone With The Wind.' Farm owners instead of plantation owners. Scarlett fights and connives for what she wants; Ada gets depressed and turns inside herself until Ruby, (Renee Zellweger,) shows up to save the day. Sort of, in a round about way. Deserters instead of officers trying to get back to their families, the lists goes on and on. Even the love story was opposite. If this is what the producer and writers were trying to get across it succeeded with me.

There are only two things I didn't like about the movie, the rest I thought was well done and I liked it enough to recommend it to friends. First, I couldn't see the attraction between Inman, (Jude Law), and Ada, (Nicole Kidman,) as being strong enough for Inman to desert to get back to her. Inman said he only had written to her a few times where Ada wrote to him almost constantly. Second, something or someone getting killed or dying in almost every scene was a little much. I must say it was full of action because of that, but after about the second scene I knew something or someone was going to die in the next scene. I like to be surprised by the next scene, not know what is going to happen before it does.

I thought all the acting was very well done, with Zellweger the best. She deserved the credit she got for it. I thought she played the part of the hillbilly girl very well. She must have done her homework on the part. Zellweger even said in the movie that she was smarter than people thought she was. I think that was true. Law did well with his part with all he had to go through to get back to Kidman. It must have been a lot stronger love to go through all that than I thought it was. Now he showed a lot of emotion in his face during his trials. Kidman's part may have had something to do with the fact I chose her performance after the other two. Except when she was depressed she didn't show much emotion, I don't know if that is how the part was written or if that is how she perceived the part. She still did a good job, I just thought the other two were better.

I liked the scene with the Zellweger, Kidman and the rooster, even though it was one of those scenes I mentioned above. I thought the 'Home Guard' was exactly as they probably were back then. Even though we don't hear much about them they were a part of that time. I thought the scenery was beautiful. The movie had everything needed to be a good historical romance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, i expected, for all the hype and Oscar nominations, an epic Civil war drama (& something with the \"magnitude\" of the \"English Patient\" given the same director). This film isn't of epic stature, but it turns out i was relieved it wasn't. It's a love story in the midst of the horrors of war where young men are sent off to fight, deserters are tracked and killed, and the women and children at home are left to fend for themselves while the men are gone.

Anyway i thought Nicole Kidman and Rene Zelleweger were pretty decent and not knowing much about Jude Law, he was all right, also. It seems Rene Z. had the more fun part of the 3 leads and was able to smartly play a spirited, feisty downhome woman with much aplomb. Also for me it was good to see actress, Kathy Baker...someone's who's talent needs to be more recognized\/acknowledged.

This film is worth seeing this -- i'm can't articulate why really, but maybe because it is a slice of Americana.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw the DVD and loved it. In particular, I thought the director and Jude and Nicole did an amazing job with the kiss between Inman and Ada just before Inman left. It was the most romantic kiss I've ever seen in a film. I thought it was crucial for setting the tone for the rest of the movie; it managed to make it believable that Inman and Ada would walk\/wait, respectively, for each other for all that time without ever really having had a relationship. I thought the film managed this crucial plot point much better than the book itself. I'm sure many of you will be quick to name other film kisses which best this one, but this one is it for me! Jude and Nicole had showed incredible chemistry in the far too few scenes they had together.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched Cold Mountain and the English Patient again this weekend. The former is a Civil War melodrama about Inman (Jude Law), a Confederate soldier who deserts the army to return to Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman) a girl he barely knows. Both films were lovingly directed by Anthony Minghella who does an exceptional job. Although, Cold Mountain is very good it could have been a great movie with the right casting and less folksy, backwoods dialog.

Romantic epics need a convincing heroine. The English Patient, had Kristin Scott Thomas who was perfectly cast as the smart, alluring and beautiful Katherine Clifton. The main problem with Cold Mountain is Ada who seems silly and dim-witted and lacks that quality would make you believe that Inman could become obsessed after one kiss. As an actress Kidman has a limited range, she usually plays stern-faced women who face adversity with stoicism. Kidman was also too old to play the ing\u00e9nue and Law's love interest. The film needed a young actress who could play charming, warm and vulnerable. For someone who was supposedly enduring hardship and near starvation she seemed ridiculously well-fed and over-dressed. Kidman was so impeccably groomed that it looked like she had spent three hours getting made-up for each scene. Michele Pfieffer in her younger days could have played the part perfectly. Even Natalie Portman would have been an improvement.

Renee Zelleweger was more appropriately attired but her animated performance chewed the scenery but maybe she was trying to compensate for Kidman. Jude Law was in his own silent movie in the Odysseus role, but played his part well. Ray Winstone was excellent as the London\/Southern villain.

During the Civil War, people were probably not very well educated by today's standards and maybe they did speak in monosyllables. However if you watch BBC adaptations of Dickens, Austen or Mrs. Gaskill everyone is articulate. Maybe this is unrealistic but it would improved my entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before I watched this tv movie I did not know much about one of my favorite actresses. After watching it, I realized how sad Lucille Ball's life really was. It had it's great moments too, but I didn't realize how sad it was. This movie was very good and told the story of the beloved Lucille Ball very well. I highly reccommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all this was not a three hour movie - Two hours, ten minutes... last time i checked commercials aren't actually part of a movie! Perhaps, though, it should've been a two parter for a total of about 3 hours? Yeah, would have gotten more in, been able to explore some more emotion. Overall, though, it was an interesting look into the lives of Lucy and Desi. I watch I Love Lucy from time to time and love it but never have I read or seen a biography, never knew anything about their lives off the screen. Because of this movie I do now but I'm not so sure that's a good thing. Everything here no one really needed to know. This was essentially a movie that didn't need to be made. But it was made and the reason is because Lucy & Desi are still such huge stars and certain people in American society feel that the rest of society needs to know ALL about our tv and movie stars. That is definitely so not true and very, very sad.

Anyway, what was shown here in Lucy was pretty good. Two complaints - the actress who played Viv Vance - not great casting at all. And the switch from Madeline Zima to Rachel York.... uhhh, like Lucy had plastic surgery and all of a sudden she's a whole new person!? That wasn't too great. But the story went on and focused on the rocky relationship between Lucy & Desi. No, the kids were not shown very much at all and that wasn't necessarily a drawback to this movie because like I said, this focused mainly just on Lucy & Desi. Had there been more time, had the story been more about Lucy's entire life, then maybe the kids woulda been there more. But they weren't so we got to see the likes of Gable & Lombard, Red Skelton and Buster Keaton very briefly instead. Wow, that was one thing about this story that I thought was really cool: his presence and influence in Lucy's life. Really neat and it's too bad that wasn't explored more. Oh well. What was explored was done well, for the most part. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever watch this again and I don't think this movie'll be that memorable. For someone who digs I Love Lucy but isn't an enormous Lucille Ball fan, this should be an interesting watch. My grade for this: B","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie as part of the Midnite Madness at Sitges. Set in 18th century England, the plot covers the life of Arthur Blake from his first outing as an apprentice grave robber to his final confession on the eve of his execution.

The plot moves along via a series of misadventures involving Arthur and his partner encountering various unsavory characters and bizarre situations.

The first thing that strikes you about this movie is how accurately they managed to capture the look of the Hammer period horrors, the atmosphere is set with lots of fog laden graveyards, rowdy tavern scenes and excellent set\/costume design.

For a movie titled I Sell the Dead, I was expecting the emphasis to be mostly on horror \u0096 don't get me wrong there are some jumpy moments and gore, but the tone is very much comedic, driven by the situations the characters get themselves into and their dialog. The closest comparison to the scenes between the two leads (Larry Fessenden and Dominic Monaghan) is the character interaction seen in the classic English comedies Only Fools and Horses, the Two Ronnies and Morecambe and Wise.

The acting is strong and the casting of very familiar faces in Ron Perlman and Angus Scrimm lift the movie above many of the others on view in Sitges.

Overall the movie offers something very different to the current crop of mainstream horror and will leave a smile on your face.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went to see Glenn McQuaid's \"I Sell The Dead\" in it's North American premiere at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival. Seeing as this is the second showing worldwide I didn't quite know what to expect of this film, especially having not seen the short film that inspired this big screen adaptation.

I'll start off with a slightly more elaborate plot synopsis, without giving away any spoilers.

This movie is about Arthur Blake, how he became a grave robber and the interesting and supernatural discoveries that both he and his mentor discovered.

The costume and set design in this film were excellent. I was amazed to hear that the entire film was shot in and around New York. The costumes were very accurate to the time, really bringing you as a viewer into the mindset of the time. This movie works just as well as a period-piece as it does a horror-comedy.

The interaction between the two leads was very fluid. They played off each others acting with ease. The dialogue between the two was very well written, with Glenn adding his comedic touch even in tense situations.

The story is very encompassing and the ball gets rolling from the very start. I'd compare it to a visual page turner, always wondering just what will happen next. The characters themselves are all very vivid and unique adding different emotional layers to the film itself.

All in all, I recommend this film for anyone in the mood for some dark humour, with a bit of horror mixed in.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I sell the dead revolves around convicted grave robber Arthur Blake. Blake's friend and fellow grave robber Willie Grimes has just been executed and Blake is going to follow suit the next morning. While he sits in his cell awaiting his execution a priest named Father Duffy comes in and asks him if he will tell all he has seen as a grave robber. He then proceeds to give Father Duffy a quasi biography of his more interesting exploits.

The plot pretty much consists of several incidents only tied together by chronology. This prevents the viewer from ever getting bored but it also makes the events less significant as you could easily add or remove a lot of scenes without noticing it much. Though flawed, I thought overall this method added to the fun loving nature of the film and kept it very entertaining. Most of the various stories are good, specifically the alien, the Murphy's and the vampire, but others weren't so great.

The acting isn't amazing but I didn't find it bad at any point. Dominic Monaghan had a good performance as he managed to be serious when it mattered and also play very well into the comedic parts of the film.

The characters were not extremely in-depth, but they were all interesting. I also enjoyed how a number of the villains were done in a over-the-top almost comic book manner. The part with the back story of the Murphy's and their gang is priceless.

So overall, I Sell the Dead very successfully combines horror, comedy and sci-fi into a mish mash of fun and excitement. It is one of the more interesting and original movies I have seen in a while, and it's unfortunate that independent films like this don't get more recognition.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this at SIFF, and I absolutely loved it. There were parts where I laughed so hard I couldn't catch my breath. The script and direction by Glenn McQuaid are fantastic. I can't wait to see more from this talented young man. The performances make the movie. Larry Fessenden and Dominic Monaghan are just delightful as the graverobber Willy and his apprentice Arthur. Ron Perlman turns in a fantastic performance (as usual) as a less-than-sympathetic jailhouse priest. Bonus: Angus Scrimm as an unscrupulous doctor! As always, he balances menace and humor perfectly.

This is a style of horror comedy that really hasn't been seen since Vincent Price did \"Comedy of Terrors,\" \"The Raven,\" and \"Theater of Blood.\" The movie is genuinely scary in places, then it'll suddenly flip back into hilarious mode, keeping you totally off balance. Some parts are scary and funny at the same time.

I can only afford to see three movies at SIFF this year, but even if the other two are awful, \"I Sell The Dead\" was worth the price of all three. I'm going to be looking for more movies from Larry Fessenden's Glass Eye Pix. He's giving the horror genre a much-needed kick in the butt.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was really a breath of fresh air from the load of Hollywood crap I've seen recently. The acting is superb and the characters are engaging and oddly endearing. There really isn't much to the story, it's simple and it works well. An easy film to just sit down and enjoy. The mood was fantastic and the sets really helped push the movie along and offered some nice visuals. The film obviously has aspects of horror, yet is geared a little more towards the humorous side of things. You won't be laughing out loud hysterically with this one, but you'll be smiling the whole way through. The humor works very well with the characters and the superb acting doesn't hurt. I really watched this movie based on the fact that Ron Perlman was in it. His role is a bit smaller than I expected, but it doesn't matter; the rest of the cast does more than enough to keep you engaged. If you like horror, watch this. If you like comedies, watch this. Just go ahead and watch this anyway, it's really quite excellent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you want to see a great little horror comedy with an eerie feel to it this is the one. If you are expecting a blood and guts gore flick thats going to scare your pants off- then this isn't the one for you.

For the budget that this movie was filmed on, the music was particularly amazing! Even though the film was filmed on a bargain budget the music and audio was definitely better than most movies with a huge budget!

The story was truly well done and the director is to be commended. There is an almost perfect blend of comedy to horror in this movie! The acting is top notch and leaves room to make a sequel which I am definitely holding out for! I have no doubt that this movie will become an instant cult classic.

In a nutshell this movie chronicles the life story of a boy who enters into the career of becoming a grave-robber. It tells the story in flashback of each of the more fantastic experiences that the robber duo encounters. Vampires to Zombies and even aliens! Our stars start out as simple grave-robbers stealing for jewellery but quickly become body snatchers for a mad doctor (Angus Scrim) who requires bodies for his medical practise. When the duo find a way to have a vampire dispatch their cruel employer the grave-robbers discover that trafficking in undead corpses is much more profitable than just stealing regular dead bodies. The only problem is that there is another gang called the house of Murphy that is competing for the same undead corpses- and thats where both grave-robbing gangs clash head to head with dire consequences.

This movie is one of the most refreshing and exciting horror comedies that I have seen in years and reminds me of the Evil Dead. Don't miss this one, you will regret it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Note: I saw I SELL THE DEAD at the Glasgow International Film Festival on 20th January 2009.) I Sell the Dead is a jet black horror comedy set in late medieval times, and stars Dominic Monaghan (Lost, Lord of the Rings), Ron Pearlman (Hellboy), Larry Fessenden (Session 9) and Angus Scrimm (Phantasm).

The movie opens with grave-robber Willie Grimes (Fessenden), still indignant and unremorseful, being dragged to the guillotine and executed. His apprentice and partner-in-crime Arthur Blake (Monaghan) is locked in the tower awaiting his turn when Father Duffy (Perlman), a whiskey-swilling priest with an unhealthy interest in the occult, pays him a visit with the apparent intention of recording Blake's final confession. It soon becomes apparent, however, that Duffy main interest lies in the more... otherworldly side of Blake's exploits. Most of the plot from here is told in flashback form as Monaghan regails Duffy with tales of his macabre career.

Initially, Grimes and Blake start out as simple wise-cracking body snatchers, working in the employ of the ghoulish Dr Quint (Scrimm), a callous, corrupt anatomist who uses blackmail as leverage over our two anti-heroes, and takes a rather unhealthy relish in his work. The pair have their first run-in with the undead when, one evening, Quint sends them on a mission to a bleak moonlit moor to retrieve a corpse that has been mysteriously interred at a crossroads, apparently according to some ancient custom. But there's something different about this corpse. This one has been wrapped in cloves of garlic... and buried with a stake through it's heart...

Following a terrifying encounter, not only do they devise a plan to rid themselves of the scheming Doctor's machinations, but they also uncover a secretive subculture of occultists who will pay good money for corpses, and even better money for LIVING SPECIMENS of the undead. This leads our intrepid duo into the hidden underworld of the \"ghoul hunting\" trade, where they find themselves going head-to-head not only with vampires, monsters and zombies (and one other paranormal entity for which I will not spoil the surprise), but also rival ghoul hunters in the form of the inbred and murderous Murphy clan.

I went into I Sell the Dead expecting a low-key, mildly distracting, low budget chiller. I was not prepared for the incredible imagination, giddy humour, quality acting, great dialogue, thick atmosphere and sheer personality that makes I Sell the Dead a strong early contender for my horror film of the year.

With the exception of a couple of rough edges, the production values are truly fantastic for such a low budget flick - it looks like it was made for about $20 million, and I was surprised when the director told the audience it was made for significantly less than half of that (although he was unwilling to give exact figures as the film was still being sold to distributors). The \"look\" and tone of the film is a visual comic book somewhere between Tim Burton and Hammer Horror, with smart little Creepshow-esquire artwork inserts. The plot is wonderfully surreal, but the idea of a hidden underworld, running parallel to everyday life but which the general populace is either unable or unwilling to believe in, is one that actually makes quite good sense within the context of the film.

The acting, as you'd expect from this cast, is top notch. The characters are fleshed out surprisingly well, particularly Grimes and Blake, and all the actors deliver their sharply scripted lines with just the right amount of deadpan tongue in cheek to make the dialogue both hilarious and realistic. Angus Scrimm also turns in a good performance in a somewhat brief but memorable role as the gently menacing, violin-playing anatomist Doctor Quinn.

Conclusion - I loved it. It's a long time since I was so entertained by a movie. I struggle to find anything bad to say about it. Mark my words, this is one of those cult films like Evil Dead 2 or Phantasm that people will still be discovering and falling in love with 20, 30, 40 years down the line.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was fun, if all over the board.

It essentially follows the comedic romp of two grave-robbers in 19th century England, who move from conventional body snatching to trafficking in vampires, zombies and dead Roswell aliens. (I have no idea what the Roswell alien was doing in there, and neither did the producers, I think.)

But was it funny? You bet. Even Ron Perlman, who is often the kiss of Direct to DVD Death was pretty good in this one as a priest who turns out to be the ringleader of a rival gang of body-snatchers.

A real joy to watch this hilarious little film, and a good example of what you can do when you don't have larger than life egos on either side of the camera.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When people harp on about how \"they don't make 'em like they used to\" then just point them towards this fantastically entertaining, and quaint-looking, comedy horror from writer-director Glenn McQuaid.

It's a tale of graverobbers (played by Dominic Monaghan and Larry Fessenden) who end up digging up more than just silent, immobile corpses. After the initial shock of this they soon realise that they can actually turn the situation to their advantage. And that's just what they try to do. Mind you, it seems as if things may not have worked out quite as they planned as poor young Arthur (Monaghan) is actually relating his tale to a priest (Ron Perlman) before being taken to the gallows.

Looking at the detail of his filmography, McQuaid seems to have taken the core of his first, short movie and expanded it to this feature effort, which is no bad thing. Fessenden returns and does well, Monaghan is one of those guys who can actually still get you to like him while he goes about the nefarious business of stealing from the dead and with other genre favourites such as Perlman and Angus Scrimm on the scene this film is a lot of fun for genre fans.

It also benefits from a unique and favourable design and look, at times moving from E.C. Comic-style panels into live action (a la Creepshow) and always somehow feeling quite authentic in it's Hammer Horror feel. Maybe everything is just covered over with so much dry ice but that's beside the point. Whatever was done to capture everything on film, it works. It works well.

It may not have any actual scares but this film does have a great vein of black humour and definitely soaks every minute of it's runtime in macabre material that should please all of those who have the patience for horror that's a little bit more sedate and feels like it definitely could have been made back in the days of Hammer.

See this if you like: The Flesh And The Fiends, The Doctor And The Devils, Creepshow.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK. Finally, a horror film that's done well. As soon as I heard the music, I knew that some effort had been made in creating what I consider to be an almost masterpiece of good ol'horror. Zombies, whores, booze, grave snatching and a lot more. A great cast, well acted, well directed, well written---there was hardly a flaw. Even the American actors with Irish\/English accents really pulled it off. I thought that the actor Larry Fessenden looked familiar to me. It was that missing tooth. Finally I realized that this guy was the lead in \"Habit\" a film about vampires in NYC. I thought he was excellent in that role. Now I'm wondering if he's an American or not. His accent was so convincing in \"I Sell,\" that I thought he had to have grown up in the emerald isle, not in the US. Well apparently he's a born and raised New Yorker. A great actor--really made the role his own in this movie. Nothing beats a horror flick set in early 19th century Europe (like the old Hammer flicks.) I encourage anyone that wants to have a great time to watch this well crafted movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this at the San Francisco Independent Film Festival and liked it a lot. It worked for me as a slightly weird comedy, because I don't like horror, but there were only a couple of minutes I had to close my eyes.

The dialog was good, the costumes and settings were not far off BBC-quality, which is amazing for an indie film. I liked the way the plot twists and even meanders, it kept surprising me in good ways. I even warmed up to the Willy Grimes character, who I quite disliked at the beginning. It would have been better if there'd been any motivation for the woman to be so interested in going to the island: that felt very much like a plot device.

I am fond of Dominic Monaghan, and he did a good job at pratfalls, horror, and at the more thoughtful moments. Nice voice in the narration, too.

This would be a fun and unusual date movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is so refreshing to see a movie like this with actual mood and personality instead of just a bunch of CGI cartoon gimmicks. This is a great horror-spoof that has genuine chills along side some really great sets and performances. Its laughs are subtle, but plentiful. Because there is very little if any CGI, there is no need to violently shake the camera around to hide the crappy effects. This makes the movie immensely watchable compared to the other camera-man-must-be-sh%#@ing-his-pants films of this genre that have come out in the last decade or so.

Far more enjoyable than the big-budget re-made garbage being released by Hollywood today.

See it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I SELL THE DEAD (2009) **1\/2 Dominic Monaghan, Larry Fessenden, Ron Perlman, Angus Scrimm, John Speredakos, Eileen Colgan, Brenda Cooney. Uneven blend of horror and comedy that poses as a valentine to the '60s horror films by Roger Corman and Hammer Studios, with two cretinous grave robbers (Monaghan and Fessenden) facing final punishments for the crimes via the guillotine but not before their tales of the occult can be recalled in flashbacks. Amusing and a few well sprinkled jolts but really a mess of a B-movie trying in vein to be a cult classic largely thanks to the casting of genre vets Perlman and Scrimm to no avail; a good rental for Halloween. (Dir: Glenn McQuaid)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was very funny with just a bit of gore. It is about two grave robber that are going about business as usual when they discover that there is a different client\u00e8le they can serve. This changes the direction of the corpses they collect. The movie is told by the younger of the two as he is explaining the business to a priest before he is sent to be beheaded. His partner had already been beheaded. The priest is required to take down the last confession and it takes the form of a story. There is some animation thrown in which gives it a Tales From the Crypt feel. In the story we meet another group of grave robbers that everyone fears, but at one point, the younger of the two up for execution is offered a job, so this calms some of the animosity between the groups. When a woman joins the two men, she oversteps her boundaries and gets them in trouble with the feared grave robbers. The story leads up to the meeting of the two groups, which led to the arrest of the man that is confessing and the man that has already lost his head.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I Sell the Dead is a big, sloppy horror comedy that refuses to take itself too seriously. This has advantages and drawbacks. The 85 minutes of the film breeze by and the film is full of bits sometimes funny, sometimes scary, sometimes gory, occasionally all three at once, but the individual bits are much better than the sum of the film's parts.

The story, such as it is, follows professional grave robber Arthur Blake (played by Dominic Monaghan). Arthur's partner-in-crime Willie Grimes (Larry Fessenden) has just had his head chopped off for murder and Arthur has one night left before his own head is forfeit for the same crime. Arthur insists that he is innocent of murder, but there are plenty of other crimes that he is willing to confess to when bribed with Irish Whisky by a Catholic priest (played by Ron Perlman).

Since the movie is a series of grave-robbing anecdotes confessed by Arthur, it becomes a sort of horror anthology - a series of disjointed tales, all linked by a similar cast (Arthur and Willie) and a similar theme (grave robbing). Like most horror anthologies, there is no consistent mythology, because all mythologies are true and happening simultaneously even when they contradict one another.

It probably didn't help that I saw this film the same night as Trick 'r Treat, a horror anthology that avoids all of the traps that I Sell The Dead falls into. In fact, Trick 'r Treat, designed as an anthology, tells a more unified, consistent story than I Sell The Dead which is intended to be a united narrative.

The other problem with the film (and I recognize that this is insane nit-picking) is the way the film plays fast and loose with history. Grimes is killed with a Guillotine. We might be able to stretch a point and say that he is killed by a Scottish Maiden, a precursor to the French Guillotine, but the Scottish Maiden was abandoned in 1709 and this film is set a good hundred years later since Burke and Hare are mentioned and they were executed for murder in 1829. Grave robbing as an industry became obsolete with the passage of the Anatomy Act (1832) so the film must take place before then.

I know that bringing this up is the ultimate in historical nerdiness and we are clearly dealing with a universe where all sorts of dead, undead and legendary dead are possible, but the easiest way to anchor a fantasy, to convince the audience to suspend their disbelief is to use something real and authentic to bounce the fantasy off of. And it's not like the history of grave robbers or body snatchers or resurrectionists (call it what you like) is a boring story.

The most frustrating thing is that writer.director Glenn McQuaid clearly does know the history, especially the good bits. As an example, when Grimes first takes on Arthur as his apprentice he correctly explains to Arthur that as resurrectionists, they don't steal the clothes from the dead, because stealing corpses is a misdemeanor, punishable by a small fine, while stealing clothes is a felony, punishable by deportation or possibly even death. So you would expect Wille and Arthur to strip the corpse at this point (and for the rest of the film) but of course they don't. You could accuse the director of ignoring his writer's script, but not when the writer and the director are the same person.

My point isn't that there should have been a lot of buck-naked corpses in the film, my point is that if you are going to bring up this quirk in the law and make it clear that Willie and Arthur will follow the law no matter how silly it is, than you do have to pursue that thought to its logical conclusion, even if that means that Willie and Arthur wind up chasing a zombie through a graveyard trying to rip his or her clothes off and stuffing them back in the empty coffin, so that they don't get deported for stealing the walking corpse's clothes, otherwise don't bring up the matter at all.

Historical nerdiness aside, I Sell The Dead is worth a rental as a slight but funny horror film that could have been much more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Grave robber is sitting in his cell awaiting execution is visited by a monk wishing to take down his last words for posterity and as a warning to others about the horrible life he lead. At first reluctant, but with his tongue loosened up by drink the young grave robber is soon telling his story which is full of the dead, the undead and things that go bump in the night.

New York lensed horror film (filmed in part on Staten Island which no doubt brought the spirit of Andy Milligan lurking about) is one of the better horror comedies to come around in a while. This is an often very funny film that just spins its story out in every which way. The cast is first rate. Dominic Monaghan plays Arthur Blake the grave robber telling his story. Ron Perlman is Father Duffy the monk taking the statement and perhaps getting too involved in the tale. Both men are clearly having a grand old time and it shows. The rest of the cast is equally as good. The music by Jeff Grace is excellent. The effects are perfect for this sort of ghoulish silliness. The film is a great deal of fun. If there is any trouble with the film its that perhaps it throws its net a little wide so as the result has way too much going on. I don't want to give too much away but I don't think we needed the alien body in the mix. Still this is a great deal of fun and its one I'm pretty sure I will revisit on the IFC in Theaters where I saw it the first time, and later on I'm sure I'll pick up the DVD.

Worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw 'I Smell the Dead' -- sorry, 'I SELL the Dead' -- at a press screening. Glenn McQuaid, the film's writer-director-editor, is a laddish Irishman who introduced the screening by announcing that -- whilst it was in progress -- he would be 'going out for a pint'. I don't begrudge him a drink, but -- by telling us about it -- he seemed to feel he needed to certify his laddishness or his Irishness, or both. When the opening credits rolled, there were -- as usual at press screenings -- loud ovations for the names of every actor or crew member who'd got friends in the audience, and silence for those who hadn't. McQuaid returned for a witty Q&A afterwards.

This horror movie doesn't take itself seriously, which is good because its humour is considerably stronger than its horror. Only one scene is even remotely scary, and most of the 'horror' is merely gross-out, but I laughed throughout much of the film.

This movie appears to be set in Ireland circa 1850 (by which time grave-robbing was mostly defunct). The story is told in flashback: we get flashbacks within flashbacks, and the narrating character flashbacks material that he couldn't know about, because sometimes he wasn't present or (in one case) because the action is unfolding behind his back.

The story begins with a prisoner being taken to the guillotine. Guillotines weren't used in 19th-century Ireland, but -- for once -- we actually see a plausible guillotine sequence. The prisoner struggles on his way to execution, the rope cleats are accurate, and the prisoner manages to look up to see the blade overhead. (And there's a payoff later to justify the historically inaccurate use of the guillotine itself.)

The characters are ostensibly Irish, but one major character speaks in Cockney slang: using phrases like \"a mug's game\" and \"take a butcher's\" (for 'have a look'). For once, actors in 19th-century roles display 19th-century dental hygiene, yet nearly all the clothes and hairstyles (and the women's make-ups) are resolutely 21st-century. I'm not complaining in the case of Heather Bullock, who wears a very fetching black miniskirt cozzie that appears to be PVC. Phworr!

The lead actors (except Ron Perlman) are excellent, but most of the supporting cast have no sense of the Victorian period. The worst offender is Joel Garland as the publican, whose characterisation is firmly rooted in the twenty-first century. Just when I thought that Garland's performance couldn't get any less Victorian, he used his fingers to make \"ironic\" air-quotes.

The sets (especially Angus Scrimm's lab) are detailed and impressive, yet failed to convince me that people actually lived and worked in these places. Nearly every interior contains burning candles, but never once did I see what would have been there if these were actual Victorian homes or workplaces: leftover drippings from previous candles.

One scene features an extra-terrestrial: I was annoyed that McQuaid plumped for a stereotypical \"grey\" Schwa alien, rather than something original.

There are splendid montage sequences, but McQuaid opts for flashy effects -- split-screens, overhead shots -- that don't serve the story. I was impressed by a recurring blue-screen device superimposing the main characters' heads over other backgrounds. Less effective was a recurring 'Creepshow'-style motif of camera shots morphing actors' faces into drawings resembling panel art from 1950s EC horror comics. I'm a fan of EC Comics, but they don't belong in 19th-century Ireland. The money that McQuaid spent on flashy photo F\/X -- showing off his editing skills without serving the story -- should've been spent on accurate costumes.

BIG SPOILERS NOW. Ron Perlman gives an \"Oirish\" performance full of acting-school tics. Ostensibly playing a 19th-century Irish priest, he writes with his left hand. (In Victorian Ireland, left-handed children were punished for using \"the devil's hand\" and were forcibly retrained to become righties.) But Perlman's character turns out to have a reason for concealing his right hand. Elsewhere, a character is bitten by a zombie yet suffers no ill effects, so I knew there'd be a payoff later. Several scenes that would more logically take place at night are shot in daylight, apparently only because this was easier and less expensive. (Since McQuaid is a proficient director and editor, he could easily have shot \"day for night\" ... but using a process-photography effect to help tell the story seems to interest him much less than showing off his flashy editing techniques.)

McQuaid seems to be giving homage to those great old Hammer horror flicks. But those Hammers were so great because the actors and production designers worked hard to convince us that we were actually witnessing events in 1888 Whitechapel, or wherever. 'I Sell the Dead' almost entirely fails to evoke the 19th century.

Glenn McQuaid shows talent as a director, scripter and editor, yet in all three capacities here he makes odd choices ... then largely fails to justify those choices. But I enjoyed 'I Sell the Dead'. I'll rate it 7 out of 10, and I look forward to his next movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely loved this series, and was very sad to see it go. Yes, it's Christian based, and traditionally as well. It deals with some tough issues, as the other reviewer points out, but I guess it depends on your viewpoint on these matters, and as a teenager growing up and now as a mother myself, I was so happy to see a TV series that was clean and, well, quite frankly, wonderful! I, unlike the other reviewer, was heartened to see how they dealt with the condom deal. Instead of hearing the typical wishy washiness about condoms, they showed the son actually working at being chaste and applying it to his later relationships, which were pure and Godly because of it, and A lot safer because of it (100%!).

After watching this entire series, you become extremely attached to all the characters in the family and outside the family (once they settle down more permanently), and the moral values they teach in each episode are just priceless. I found Touched by an Angel (made by the same producer) to be cheesy here and there (although overall I liked it), but this series, in my opinion, was a lot better made and had better acting and was more interesting as well. It was good for the entire family and was interesting for the entire family, which was a huge plus. The family wasn't outstanding, they had their own faults, but in the long run they did what was right and you saw them grow and change and struggle like any true family does. It was my favorite show at the time and will always be near the top of my list, I hope it comes out on DVD!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although it has been off the air for 6 years now, Promised Land was one of those shows that comes along once or twice in a generation. Good cast, supporting cast(among them, Richard Thomas and Ossie Davis) and crew. The plot is believable with McRaney packing up his family and just saying \"to hell with it all\" after being subjected to so many disappointments and incidents since his return from Vietnam years earlier. I think a lot of Vietnam-era veterans, myself included, could really relate to McRaney's thought process in finally deciding on his course of action. Many of us did precisely the same thing in real life, after returning from that war and finding that America was not the same place we left. The show imparts not only values but a glimpse into what took place in one veterans life. In those two respects alone, I think it is one of the more poignant TV series of our time. Why this program only ran for 3 years is beyond me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All I can say is I really miss this show!! My wife & I just got married around the time this show started up!! Why did CBS take it off the air??? I think it was the best show for the whole family to enjoy!! It made me laugh!! It also made me cry. But when CBS took it off the air my wife & I thought CBS made a big mistake. You know what would be so great?? Have a reunion show!! That would be so cool!!!! Anybody know if it is on DVD yet?? On the last season of Promised Land, did CBS show the whole last season?? I think CBS took it off the air at mid-season. My wife & I will never forget it. The opening with that theme song was fantastic!!! This show only comes once in a life time! May we never forget Promised Land!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hey Yall! The best drama every is now on Gospel Music Channel! Go to their website to see the schedule and find out what number it is on your cable or satellite This was one of my favorite shows growing up. It has everything that I want a TV show to be, a clean family friendly drama that does not gross me out. The story about a man, who after loosing his work, decides to set off for a great cross country adventure. Along the way they meet all sorts of interesting people and find themselves in the midst of all kinds of trouble. This show was originally a spin off of Touched By An Angel, another really good family show. Make sure you check it out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely love Promised Land. The first episode that I saw, was while I was on my mission from 2003-2005. I really loved the rich family background portrayed in the show. Here was a family with struggles of their own, but instead of dwelling on them; they would reach out with love to others who may have had the same problems, in an effort to forget themselves, and go to work. This is what caused me to fall in love with the show. All of the actors; especially Gerald McRaney; had demonstrated the true meaning of \"Family\" which has left an indelible mark on my life. I have been down the same road they have, but It has taken allot of time for me to develop that kind of character. I love this show so much, that I have wanted to share it with friends; but I was really stunned when I had heard that it was taken off the air. I thought and still think they should BRING IT BACK! So many lives can benefit from heaven inspired media. i honestly believe that this show was divinely inspired; because it brings the spirit every time I see just one episode. This show really (in my book) has truly defined what a \"Promised Land\" is. It is the Love that you hold in your heart for others; which brings you to a higher destination. The spirit of Love, is one of the most potent messages in this series, and all I can say is, Bring it back. -Robert","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This program is a favorite of our family, and we feel it MUST be released on DVD by seasons!!! The title of \"Promised Land\" is very apt, as it is a positive statement about all the good that is left in this great country and the people who live in her! It's a \"God Bless America\" type of program with inspiring stories, old-fashioned values, down-to-earth characters, truthful and encouraging messages, beautiful scenery, and well-written humor and drama. It's a show the entire family is able to enjoy and benefit from--without worrying about bad language, \"adult\" themes, crudeness, violence, etc. We always felt blessed when we were done viewing an episode and can't wait to see each one all over again when they're finally released on DVD!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I couldn't disagree more with those who says this is a lousy movie. Me and my friend went to see it during the Stockholm film festival and this was actually one of my favorite movies during the festival. Dolls being used in horror movies aren't something new but I haven't seen that many movies were it has been as well carried out as it is in this movie. The atmosphere, the setting, the actors, the camera-work.. everything is just beautiful. And they really work well with each other. Now if you expect this film to be another Grudge or Ring then you probably won't like it. But if your out for a good, stylized scare then it's perfect. Even though it's pretty predictable and at some times laughable I still recommend this to anyone who likes horror flicks. Go see it. Now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wandered into Blockbuster with a friend the other night having decided that we were too broke and too lazy to do active. She decided she wanted to watch Closer, which seemed like such a repellant idea that I had to rent another film for once she'd gone to bed. Looking around I didn't see much that interested me, but saw The Doll Master in the new releases section. Just based on the cover sleeve (A woman with a doll-like face crying tears of blood) I thought this would be interesting enough to rent.

As for the film itself, watching it in an almost empty house, with all the lights turned off it was pretty scary. I must admit I've always had a bit of a phobia of dolls since I was a kid (and watched an awful film called Asylum, one of the stories in it involved a mental patient creating a doll which killed people. Lame, but scary at the time) and the first three quarters of this film really hit the spot for me. The first half hour in particular was awesome. The creepy foreboding atmosphere really set the scene well, and without moving the dolls seemed genuinely threatening. But unfortunately as soon as they did start to move it all got a bit cheesy, I was a bit disappointed when moments that could have been genuinely frightening made me laugh because of the way they were filmed.

As for the characters, it's a horror film, you're not really expecting anything memorable. I found I remembered names and faces better than most Asian horror films I've seen, which suggests there must have been some hidden character development that I didn't consciously notice. The typical stereotypes are out in force in this movie each one having some kind of character quirk that sets them apart from the others, from shy and quiet Yeong-ha and her doll Damien, to the outgoing bimbo Seon-yeong.

The plot itself was fairly cool, even though the ending, which bought together many of the loose strands of plot, seemed a bit confused and didn't really do anything for me, although it did have a couple of really cool plot-twists that I won't ruin here. The basic plot is a bunch of kids are invited to be modelled as dolls by a famous reclusive old doll maker, they have to stay in the creepy house (adorned with scary dolls, some big some small) and things start to happen as our heroine Hae-mi starts to explore areas of the house and things start happening to the other inhabitants.

Overall, I would definitely recommend the film, not to watch with too many people as some of the moments would probably make you laugh if surrounded by friends, but as something too watch on your own in the dark, with the windows and doors open just a bit, just in case any dolls feel like watching with you. It really does leave you guessing for most of the film, allowing you to go off on wild conspiracy theories only to completely destroy them later on. If you really get into it and ignore it's cheesiness in places I can guarantee you'll check under your bed before you go to sleep and maybe even leave the lights on.

Or maybe that's just me :P As for Closer, it was OK but I preferred this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yong-ki Jeong's \"Puppet Master only with scary parts\" was the most recent Korean Horror flick I had the pleasure of watching. With the title of \"Inhyeongsa\" in Asia, this movie struck me immediately when I saw it reviewed online, with images that made me think of Puppet Master, Childs Play and other toy\/doll based horror flicks in the past. But for some reason I didn't think..\"Boy, this will be tacky\", I imagined it would be creepy and fun. Toysome horror done well almost.

The movie starts slowly, but I like that, so it was fine. The score, almost like I found with Acacia, was beautiful and very much reminded me of classic horror scores of the past. I wont give much away, but the story was strong in this one, and I would highly recommend it to any fan of Asian HORROR. It isn't extreme, it isn't to be taken with utmost seriousness, but it is really good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's quite simple that those who call this movie anything below \"decent\" do not know their cinema. \"The Doll Master\" creates a sense of dread and suspense rarely seen in movies outside of Asia.

Think of a mixture of \"Manga\" and \"Ringu\" rolled into one and this is what its all about.

First rate acting, first rate direction, first rate sets and effects.

This is right up there with the best of Asian horror cinema; Ringu, Dark Water and A Tale of Two Sisters.

An absolute must.

Take it from a guy who knows his movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So the Koreans are now knocking off American horror flicks. But they are doing so with style. DOLL MASTER is a close copy of PUPPETMASTER and DOLLS, and even has a little CHILD'S PLAY going for it. Several young adults are invited to attend a special event at a gallery filled with dolls, only to find they are targets of a vengeful spirit. The dolls come to life and do some pretty nasty things to the kids. The gore level is reasonably high, the photography and set design and production values are first rate, the acting isn't all that bad, and the scares are definitely there. DOLL MASTER may not be in the same league with A TALE OF TWO SISTERS or even DEAD FRIEND, but it's close. Give it a watch. You won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent film featuring Anthony Wong that certainly lives up to it's title. Erotic, but increasingly violent courtesy of dreams purchased from a crazed occultist that rapidly turn into nightmares of some magnitude as the sorcerer gets inside them to manipulate poor Mr Wong. Well filmed and very fast moving this is a non stop tale of serious magic, herbal medicines, power and corruption but also makes time for some fine sex scenes and some very bloody violence. There is also just a little touch of humour now and again to catch you further off guard and the whole thing makes for a most exhilarating 90 minutes or so. Excellent performances all round.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anthony Wong plays Lok,a husband whose wife is seriously ill.Poor Lok-due to her illness he has been going without sex for a long time.That's why he is plagued by a series of sleazy nightmares featuring nurses and schoolgirls.\"Erotic Nightmare\" is a fun Cat III flick loaded with sleaze and voyeurism.There is also a bit of gore as the first part of the film shows some nasty killings committed by Wong character under the influence of the monk's mystical powers.The dream sequences are quite erotic and sleazy,so I'm not complaining.Of course those who expect gruesome Cat III horror in the tradition of \"Diary of a Serial Killer\" or \"Red to Kill\" will be disappointed,but fans of sleazy exploitation cinema should give this one a look.7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Notorious HK CATIII actor, Anthony Wong, is for once (well...not actually once - he was a cop in the DAUGHTER OF DARKNESS films and a few others...)not a psychopathic weirdo in EROTIC NIGHTMARE. Usually recognized for his role as a complete wackadoo in such CATIII \"nasties\" like THE UNTOLD STORY and THE EBOLA SYNDROME - this time, Wong is on the receiving-end of the nastiness...

Wong plays a guy who goes to a sorcerer who promises to give him really good dreams, for a price. True to his word, the dreams that Wong has involve having mad donkey sex with smokin' hot schoolgirls - but the dreams come with a price that's more than money. The sorcerer can manipulate the dreams and with the help of a sexy ghost, blackmails Wong out of his cash and business, kills his family, and eventually kills Wong himself...Wong's brother comes to town to find out what's going on, and eventually finds that his family's murder is the work of the evil sorcerer - but as it turns out - Wong's brother is a pretty dope-ass sorcerer himself, and with the help of the sorcerer's abused wife - turns the tables on the sorcerer and his schemes...

EROTIC NIGHTMARE is one of the more enjoyable CATIII films I've seen in a while. Absent is the gritty and dark feel of some of the other CATIII entries like RED TO KILL, THE UNTOLD STORY or HUMAN PORK CHOP - EROTIC NIGHTMARE, though still sleazy in terms of sex and subject matter, is more \"fun\" then some of the more serious films of the genre. More comparable to ETERNAL EVIL OF ASIA - a more \"carefree\" CATIII entry that delivers plenty in terms of nudity and a good bit of gore, without being overly comedic either. Definitely worth a look, especially to the genre enthusiast. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"House Calls\" is a wonderful romantic comedy that can best be described as \"how they used to make them.\" It stars Walter Matthau (in one of his best roles) as a recently widowed doctor who goes out on the dating scene again and hits paydirt as he seems to have a different woman every night. He then meets hospital patient Glenda Jackson and soon develops a relationship with her. But it's one that will be severely tested as she informs him she is a one man woman and expects him to be a one woman man.

This is a sweet, very funny film also starring Art Carney as the senile hospital administrator and Richard Benjamin as Matthau's friend and fellow doctor. It's a must see for any Matthau fan or any fan of light comedy.

You won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing this 1978 comedy at one of the bargain matinees I took in when I was looking for a study break from my college courses. Walter Matthau and Glenda Jackson do some effective Tracy-Hepburn-style thrusting-and-parrying in this featherweight romp directed by the reliable Howard Zieff (he did \"Private Benjamin\") about a newly widowed doctor's aggressive re-entry into the dating game. It all breezes by quickly primarily thanks to the clever script by veteran screenwriter Julius J. Epstein (\"Casablanca\") along with Alan Mandel, Max Shulman and future director Charles Shyer.

Dr. Charley Nichols has just come back from Hawaii after his wife's death. Upon his return, he becomes aware that he is instant catnip to any and all the single women in LA. He works in a hospital run by an increasingly senile chief-of-staff, Amos Willoughby, whom Charley has to pacify to keep his residency. Enter Ann Atkinson, a transplanted Englishwoman who bakes cheesecakes for a living and has certain concrete opinions about the medical profession, which she expresses freely on a PBS talk show. Of course, Charley is on the show's discussion panel, and sparks, as they say, fly. This leads to the standard complications about how serious Charley is willing to become about Ann. At the same time, the hospital has to deal with a potential wrongful death lawsuit from the widow of a rich baseball team owner who died at the hospital under Willoughby's careless supervision.

It's just refreshing to see such a mature yet bracing love story between two characters inhabited by actors who deliver lines with the scalpel-wielding skill of surgeons. Matthau is his usual 1970's curmudgeonly swinger and quite a sight waddling with his gangly arms held akimbo in his power walk. Away from her heavy, award-winning Elizabethan roles, Jackson is crisply sardonic and charmingly vulnerable as the feisty Ann, who thinks all doctors should aspire to be Albert Schweitzer. Art Carney plays Willoughby with predictable bluster, while Richard Benjamin provides amiable support as Charley's colleague, Dr. Solomon. It's all very compact with a few nice jabs at the greed within the medical profession. There are no extras on the 2005 DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"when I know that Walter will never grace another set.I was in my 30's when I first saw this sweet,endearing and unabashedly romantic film.I loved it from the first scene,and all the way through to the end.Art Carney was his usual daft self; Glenda matched Walter step for step in the witticisms;and Richard Benjamin supplied the sarcastic voice of reason that he does so well.Along the way there were many actors whom we all recognize,doing their usual brilliance. There are a couple of lines in the movie which my SO and I have used throughout the years,but I won't say anything about them here.I'm pretty sure you will know which two I am talking about. Just get this movie.Make some popcorn,grab your squeeze(if he is as sappy as mine is,for which I am thankful),and enjoy this standout romantic comedy from the 70's. You will not be disappointed. However,I have the feeling that I am preaching to the choir here because anyone who loves Walter will already own it.I'm very glad it's out on DVD now,finally.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Matthau is a widowed hospital doctor enjoying his single status and the footloose and available nurses on the staff whilst colleague and friend Richard Benjamin looks on with amusement and amazement. Their boss is hard-of-hearing going on senile Chief of Staff Art Carney who is up for re-election to that post.

Matthau is content playing the field without commitment until he meets single mother Glenda Jackson who insists upon being the only woman in his life while she is in his life. At the same time, he comes under pressure to respond to the amorous advances of a potential litigant in a malpractice suit, and to support the shambolic and incompetent Carney in his attempt to be re-elected Chief of Staff.

This is a superior old-fashioned romantic comedy graced by four Grade-A actors and an excellent supporting cast working with a first-rate dry, caustic and sarcastic script. Carney steals every scene he's in and, in the parlance of IMDb, has us rolling on the floor laughing out loud whenever he appears on screen. We are otherwise entertained by the on-off relationship of the two leads and various sub-plots.

Lacks the ambition to be a great film, but remains one of the best of its kind and watchable and re-watchable for its comedic value alone. Deserves more attention than it seems to have received and well worth the cost of the DVD or video cassette.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Near-wonderful mixture of comedy, romance, and medical chaos has a 50-ish swinging-single doctor, tired of going to rock concerts with nubile airheads, dating a patient his own age whom he met on his rounds. Screenplay by Julius Epstein shows a fair amount of sophistication, though he doesn't have enough material to fill out the picture's last third, and one can almost feel the movie slipping. The subplot about the hospital being investigated for its shoddy business affairs isn't worked out satisfactorily, and it feels highly concocted anyway. Still, Walter Matthau and Glenda Jackson are a terrific team, Richard Benjamin and Art Carney very funny in support. Director Howard Zieff keeps it all popping, and even when Epstein's one-liners feel like Neil Simon rejects, Zieff zips right along happily. The results are dryly engaging and occasionally quite sweet. Followed by a failed TV series. *** from ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Walter Matthau is best remembered for the long series of comedies he did with his equal comedy partner Jack Lemmon from THE FORTUNE COOKIE to THE ODD COUPLE II. But people tend to forget that in the late 1970s he appeared with another partner in two films - a female partner. This was Glenda Jackson, the English double Oscar winner, who demonstrated her comic abilities against Matthau's first in HOUSE CALLS and then in HOPSCOTCH. Matthau's role was slightly larger in both films, because his characters were more central to the plots, but the chemistry between them was quite good. If you ever want to see two pros demonstrating how sexual intercourse can be crazily funny watch Walter and Glenda as Dr. Charley Nicholson and Ann Atkinson experimenting to see if two people could have sex on a bed under the old movie code rule of the two parties each having one leg on the floor! Never has sex been looked at from such a clinical and mechanical point of view.

Matthau's Charlie has just been widowed before the film began. He has only had one woman in his life - his wife. So now he's the eligible bachelor. He also is the leading surgeon in the hospital he works out of, but the chief surgeon is Dr. Amos Weatherby (Art Carney). Carney is apparently senile (there are moments later in the film that show he turns his senility on and off - see the scene where he rams Richard Benjamin's car). Amos is up for re-election (Charlie is his closest competitor for the post - if he wants it). However, Amos manages to convince Charlie to let him keep the job for reasons of self-esteem.

One day Charlie notices Ann in the hospital. She has had a slight accident and is resting in bed, but Amos has put her into a cage like apparatus (which Charlie remarks has not been used since about 1920). He gets her out of the device, and soon is romancing her. She joins the staff of the hospital, but she is critical of Charlie's willingness to cater to Amos, and she is critical of certain selfish tendencies she sees among the doctors in the hospital.

Amos' bungling causes the death of a wealthy patron of the hospital (Lloyd Gough), who owned a baseball team (his greatest innovation being separate admission costs for double headers). Amos tries to calm down the young widow of the team owner, delivering the eulogy at the burial service (the line in the summary above is the peroration line of the eulogy). However she is still determined to sue (her lawyer Thayer David says the hospital is the most incompetent he's ever seen). So Amos suggests that Charlie romance the widow to satisfy her from that expensive lawsuit. But how will Ann react to this? The film is quite amusing, and was so successful that besides causing a sequel for Jackson and Matthau, it led to a television series as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"HOUSE CALLS was an amusing 1978 comedy about a widowed doctor (Walter Matthau) who now wants to play the field but can't help but be drawn to a patient of his (Glenda Jackson) who refuses to be just another notch on his bedpost. Matthau likes the woman but does not really want to make the commitment that she insists upon so he agrees to date her exclusively for two weeks and then make a decision as to whether or not he wants to commit; however, other complications make it difficult for Matthau to make a decision when the two weeks are up, even though he is clearly in love with the woman. Matthau and Jackson have surprisingly effective chemistry as a screen couple and are given strong support from Richard Benjamin, Candice Azzara, Dick O'Neill, and especially Art Carney as the inept and senile Chief of Staff at the hospital where Matthau is employed. Matthau even has a brief scene with his real-life son, Charlie, who appears as Jackson's son. This engaging comedy still holds up pretty well after all these years. If you've never seen it, it's worth the rental.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Late one night on Tom Snyder's \"Tomorrow\" Show, I watched Tom ask his guest Henry Morgan what he considered to be 'perfect.' Morgan responded, \"Anything with Glenda Jackson.\" And although I wouldn't consider this film to be perfect, it does bear out that notion very well. I was about to use the clich\u00e9' about Hollywood not making pictures like this anymore, but then I just saw, \"Up in the Air,\" another intelligent film about 2 people over the age of 35 who fall in love. That's where the similarities end, though. \"House Calls\" is just sheer fun watching 2 pros like Matthau and Jackson hit it off and seem completely natural while they're at it. I saw this film in the theater in 1978 (at the ripe old age of 18) and it took me another 20 years to get all of the jokes. Any film that can make punch lines out of 1920's tennis great Bill Tilden, and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain wouldn't play too well at the megaplex these days. One other thought: the original theatrical release featured a 'walk on the beach \/ fall in love' montage set to The Beatles\/George Harrison tune, \"Something.\" It seemed a bit forced at the time, but that song has since been swapped out for a rather generic Henry Mancini music cue for subsequent home video and cable release. Too bad, because that scene just lays there now, another victim of music licensing Hell.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a shame House Calls isn't better known. Is it perhaps because the romantic leads are middle-aged, shopworn, and gun-shy, rather than oversexed teen-stars? Could be. If you're over 35, you'll probably get this comedy. If you're over 45, you're really going to get this comedy. If you're 25, wait until you're older to see it.

The unlikely pairing of Matthau and Jackson works precisely because it is so unlikely. There's a wonderful line of Matthau's that sums up what is happening between the two of them--\"I like old broads because you don't have to explain who Ronald Coleman is.\" (If that's not the exact line, it's close...)

The premise of a sub-par hospital run by incompetents rings true. Art Carney's portrayal of a senile head surgeon is absolutely brilliant. It is impossible not to laugh out loud at his delivery. Subplots, if you can call them that, are fun too, like between Matthau and Jackson's teenage son. Everything hits just exactly the right tone.

Okay, there's the bit where Matthau has to wear women's clothing that's a bit over-the-top and an easy mark. But, still--it's Walter Matthau in drag! It's funny!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is not much of a plot to this movie. There is a wealthy baseball team owner who dies and whose wife is going to sue the hospital for neglience. Not much more than that, but .... IT DOES NOT MATTER!

It does not matter because you have some real actors giving their dialogue life, and because of the cast you have yourself some hysterically funny scenes and even if you're not cracking up laughing, you have a smile on your face.

Matthau plays Charley, whose wife recently passed away, and who finds himself the object of desire of several women at the hospital. He is delighted to taste everything on the menu available to him. Then he meets Anne Atkinson (Glenda Jackson) who, at first, is a patient in the hospital (their first scene together is very funny) and then they meet up again on a television panel discussion show, where they disagree on nearly every topic that is discussed.

Charley begins to like Anne, and vice-versa, except that she is very big on monogamy in the men in her life (her husband was a cheater) and they decide to give it a shot - two weeks of faithfulness.

I will not give away anything else, but I want to mention the chemistry that Matthau and Jackson have on screen. She is usually not the first person anyone would think of for a romantic, middle-aged comedy, but her touch with comedy is very light and agreeable. She is matched every step of the way by Matthau, who is more charming than ever. He does not have to play Mr. Sensitive or Mr. Macho to get the girl, he just has to be himself.

Art Carney is a riot all by himself as a practically senile doctor. The scene where the baseball team owner's ashes are buried at home plate is priceless. He also has a very funny scene in a parking lot with Richard Benjamin. Richard does not have much to do in this movie and more often than not is just the straight man to Carney and Matthau; the role does not tax his considerable talents, but he had to have had a good time making this comedy.

Very much recommended...8\/10

PS. FYI -- Matthau presented Jackson with her first Best Actress Oscar, and Jackson presented Best Actor to Art Carney for his role in 'Harry & Tonto'..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know what it is about this movie, the charisma of the two leads, their chemistry on screen, the chance to see Matthau's real-life son (you can't miss him)or Art Carney's performance but I love it. I've seen it a few times and never tire of watching it again. Rent and enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was very curious about Anatomy (aka Anatomie) and if I was going to see it, I was going to have to buy it since no video stores in my area carried the film. Since it was not a low-priced DVD, I did take a chance and thought I'd take a peek at other comments on IMDb. Many of the comments didn't give me enough hope of forking out lots of bucks for a film I had never seen nor had any clues about. I basically got the idea it was a sexy youth-oriented romp being compared to many cookie-cutter teen thrillers. Well, something in the back of my mind told me to ignore those types of comments and buy it! I did, and was I pleasantly surprised!

If it is going to be compared to any other films, I would say it's a variation of Coma and Extreme Measures. I couldn't see any comparison to films like Scream, Urban Legends, et al. Yes, the cast is young (that's because they're med students! At least they aren't the increasingly boring high school type characters), and yes, some are lusty (basically the character played by Anna Loos is, and it is handled quite tastefully in the German language version), but Anatomy is well constructed, there is a tense mood throughout, the sets are amazing, the makeup effects are a wow, and Franka Potente is very credible in her role. I found myself enjoying all of it despite a few gaping holes in the plot! The story of a student discovering a sort-of secret society doing autopsies on still-living patients is a rather creepy scenario and what happens to those patients afterwards is quite clever. Sure, you could ask why didn't she just GET OUT OF THAT TOWN? Okay, but then the film would be over within a half hour.

This was the first effort from the German part of Columbia Pictures, and it's actually quite an impressive one. There was a bit of care in the production and to actually offer some genuine thrills is an accomplishment. It is a bit mature in mind, as it doesn't resort to constant opportunities for sexual encounters(a breast fest) or juvenile drug jokes. Anna Loos' character, while often making sexual remarks and looking for some fun, was actually a nice touch--having a character that was a woman more intelligent than any of the men in the school. She found that sex was really just a distraction for her and the men rather lacking.

THE IMPORTANT STUFF: Watching this film in the original German language with English or French subtitles is the BEST way to enjoy it. I saw the theatrical trailers dubbed in English and was disgusted by the change it made in the film's tone. I have never seen a properly dubbed film in my life--they never can find voices that suit the film's actors or characters. Sure enough, I tried to watch some of Anatomy dubbed in English and the intelligence level of it dropped severely, making it seem more like a comedy. A good example is when one guy was freaked out at being cut open and screamed to be sewn back up--hearing it in German he sounded frantic, but dubbed in English he sounded like a comedian. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing people say they can't handle reading subtitles or watch a \"letterboxed\" film. Anatomy comes off as silly with dubbed voices that seem octaves too high for any of the people you see in the film, and Anna Loos' sexual comments then just sound like awful remarks right out of Fast Times At Ridgemont High. I wonder if the negative comments about Anatomy are from people who watched it dubbed, it just doesn't seem like the same film at all! This is not a cheap horror film and deserves to be viewed as it was created. Interesting to note that some of the English subtitles are different in scenes in the feature and the \"making of\" supplement.

As it turns out, I gambled and won with Anatomy. It's a competent thriller with likeable characters and doesn't try to go for cheap thrills.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie will send chills down your spine, even if you don't understand German. I first saw this in my German class in High School and found it for $5 at my local Wal-Mart. I've seen it at least 20 more times since *this being only a couple years ago* and it's great to watch on a movie night. The plasticized bodies are mostly real, used from Body Worlds. This movie was an out-lash to that. A German Dr. *nicknamed Dr. Death* began plasticizing human bodies for display and now Body Worlds is a touring deal, right now in Chicago IL. Many people were opposed to this and so a great German horror movie was made. I personally love this movie and would recommend it for all who like thriller slasher films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw (unfortunately) the dubbed version on Encore.

Student Paula Henning (Franka Potente who was also in the cult favorite \"Run Lola Run\") stars as a serious medical student who gets into a prestigious school in Germany. But she soon discovers that some students go missing and the bodies they work on in the anatomy lab are incredibly fresh...

I was stuck seeing the dubbed version on Encore. It hurt a lot (the words not matching the lips got annoying real quick) but I still liked what I saw. The acting was good, it was beautifully photographed, it wasn't TOO gruesome and I was never bored. Even more refreshing was a likable heroine who fights back when the bad guys go after her. The (mild) nudity was, in a refreshing twist, male! A previous poster mentions Benno Furmann (who is excellent) showed his butt but I don't remember seeing it. Regardless this is a well done, scary and excellent thriller. From all I've read the original German language version is the best (I don't doubt that for one second) but the dubbed version is watchable. I give this a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anatomie (Anatomy) is an entertaining and engaging film that falls short of delivering the discomfort that should be connected with the films subject matter. The idea of ethical ignorance in the medical science world is one that pushes the viewer towards discomfort, and the realism of the institutions ('Heidelberg') and the special effects make it a not-entirely easy film to watch.

However, the characters, the script, and the gloss of the film all seem too familiar with the Scream movies that repopularised this sort of genre. Sadly, then, whilst the subject is one to care about, the viewer is presented with another movie full of college student characters that we don't really get a chance to care about, unresolved subplots, and hammy stage-killings that have been reinventing themselves since the memorable Drew Barrymore opening scene in Scream several years back.

Steven Ruzowillzky makes a fair effort of the script and the direction, but pushes no boundaries other than the general theme. Whilst we are presented with an entertaining film with some reasonable performances, we are unfortunately left with the old feeling: nothing is wrong with this film, but nothing is extraordinary either.

An entertaining film, and an interesting chance to see how foreign filmmakers have been influenced by the post-scream 'horror' culture. 6 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was shocked at how good this German version of films such as Scream was. Surpassing all the modern American efforts at slasher films.

It as what all those films don't. Likable characters, genuine mystery, suspense, graphic murders and a brilliant soundtrack.

This stylish horror film is one of the best of its kind to come out in years. German cinema is going from strength to strength just lately. Its a shame more people wont go to see such films because they are missing out. It is easily available on DVD so even if you hate subtitles I think you should see it. It will be one of the best horror films you will see all year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found the film quite good for what I was expecting. Although I weary, because I have a fear of injection needles, I sort of came to expect when they were coming. So if you're not into needles, blood, the human body, and some good medical fun, put this movie back and rent another. As the other user commented, I was also please at the German attempt at a slasher film. I'm an American who just moved to Germany to stay with a family and saw this lying on the shelf. I love psychological thrillers, and I'd say this is somewhere along those lines. A character falls into places and feels misconstrued. While trying to dig her way out and find some truth to a situation, things get a little sticky and other aren't so sure she's on the right track. So throughout the film you're kept on edge about who's anatomy you might catch a glimpse of and who's rounding the next corner.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A horror picture set ultimately to parody but still in it's play out could scare a few of those that are frailed nerved or easily disgusted when they see whats under their skin. I laughed at it though. It was easy to decipher the true killer and his acting didn't help. This only led to Potente looking even better. Anatomie is not much of a horror picture for those foreign of the genre but those contained should get a few unintentional laughs and an interesting peak at German horror cinema. 6\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Anatomy when it came out and recently bought it and the 2003 sequel and as I watch a lot of foreign films in various genres, you have to watch movies in their original language for sure. Not only is it annoying to know the voices don't belong to the actors, but they always seem cheerful, like the whole movie is one big long toothpaste commercial or something. It makes an otherwise awesome movie seem horrible and I have had to convert a lot of my friends who used to think foreign films aren't as good as North American films - that they aren't \"Hollywood enough\". Also, they translation is never right, it's too literal, and screws up the vibe of the movie, even if it's basically saying the same thing. I watched Anatomy by myself the other week in German then with subtitles with my roommate because he was on his laptop and didn't want to have to miss parts when he couldn't see the subtitles because he was typing. 30 mins in and he begged me to let him finish his work then start the movie over with subtitles. He loved it! Both movies are awesome as intellectual horror films! Kelly","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was going to use 'The German Scream' as a summary but that was already taken lol. It sums up Anatomy nicely. Provided you're not alien to reading subtitles, Anatomy fits in snugly with the Scream\/Urban Legend pack. It's a teen-horror set in a medical school where the students are going missing then turning up as experiment subjects in the dissection lab. Cue one plucky student investigating herself and uncovering a giant conspiracy.

Provided you're watching the original German language film (I can't comment on the dub, having not seen the English edition) Anatomy is sharply written and cleverly plotted so that the tension never really lets up. In comparison to it's American counterparts, the mystery is uncovered much faster, meaning that instead of being a slasher right up until the final reveal, Anatomy evolves during it's running time from a slasher-come-body horror movie into a smart and exciting thriller. It's a gripping ride from start to finish.

Hats off to the actors involved as well. Franka Potente proves once more that she's an intelligent, smart actress who can make any role come to life. Her central performance as Paula is a great foundation for the movie to build from. The spooky lecturers and their teachers pets are equally good, a truly foreboding presence at all times.

It's also astounding that the movie doesn't drag much. The pace is fast and punchy, very similar to the earlier Urban Legend, meaning that there's always something going on to keep your attention high. If there's one downside it could be that some will find Anatomy too gruesome for them, but if you persevere through the first half's admittedly graphic dissection sequences, the latter half with it's exciting thriller overtones will reward you. I recommend Anatomy to anyone who enjoys a good teen-horror but is a bit jaded with the American take on the matter.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great German slasher, that's often quite suspenseful, and creative, with a fun story and solid performances. All the characters are cool, and Benno F\u00fcrmann is great as the psycho killer, plus Franka Potente gives a fantastic performance as the main lead. It did take a little while to get going, but it was never boring, and it had some good death scenes as well, plus the music is wonderfully creepy. I was lucky enough to get the subtitled version, instead of the dubbed, and I thought all the characters were quite likable, plus it's very well made and written as well. It has some really good plot twists too, and the effects are extremely well done, plus the ending is great. The finale is especially suspenseful, and Franka Potente was the perfect casting choice in my opinion, plus I wish Arndt Schwering-Sohnrey(David) didn't get killed of so soon, because he was a really cool character. There were actually a couple of moments where I felt uncomfortable but in a good way, and I must say this film deserved all it's praise, plus while it does have plot holes, it's not enough to hamper the film. This is a great German slasher, that's often quite suspenseful, and creative, with a fun story, and solid performances, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is great!. Stefan Ruzowitzky does a great! Job here with excellent camera work, very good angles, great close ups (see the opening sex scene), doing a great job of adding creepy atmosphere, and just keeping the film at a very fast pace.

There is quite a bit of blood and gore. We get cadavers cut open,plenty of very gory surgery scenes,lots of bloody stabbings,people are dissected while still being conscious, severed finger, self mutilation, gutting's, bloody slit throat, lots of wicked looking frozen corpses, plenty of blood and more.

The Acting is very solid!. Franka Potente is fantastic as the main lead, she was very likable, remained cool under pressure, was vulnerable, easy on the eyes, and we are able to care for her character, the only time she seemed to suffer, was when she had to spurt out some bad dialog here and there, but that wasn't very often, she was wonderful!. Benno F\u00fcrmann is excellent as the psycho killer, he was simply chilling, and wonderfully OTT, he really gave me the creeps, and was one effective killer!. Anna Loos played her role very well, as the smart slut, I dug her. Sebastian Blomberg was great here as Caspar, he was quite likable, and had a mysterious character,his chemistry with Potente was also on, and there was a great twists involving him at the end. Holger Speckhahn was good as the Idiot Phil and did his job well. Traugott Buhre is good as Prof. Grombek. Arndt Schwering-Sohnrey was great as David, he had a really cool character, and I wish he didn't get killed of so soon. Rest of the cast do fine.

Overall I highly recommend this great German slasher!. ***1\/2 out of 5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With \"Anatomy\" the german film producers have tried to make something totally new. Usually there just drama or comedy movies - in the horror genre is(or was) totally new at that time.

The story's also new and shocking. Franka Potente plays her role brilliant and I bet you won't find out who's the murderer. It's possible, but difficult. A really great movie with a lot of talented actors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To me, \"Anatomie\" is certainly one of the better movies I have seen. I don't think \"Anatomie\" was primarily intended to be a horror movie but a movie questioning the ethics of science. If you watch it with that in mind, it turns into a really good film. The only annoying bit was the awful voice dubbing for the English version. How can you expect any non-German person to listen to these unbearable German accents for two hours? Let native English speakers do the talking or use subtitles instead!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Anatomy years ago -- dubbed at a friends house I don't remember it much, and then I saw at the video store there is a second one -- not really related to the first one Franka Ponte makes a little cameo. And that one was okay not as good as the first one. I'm seeing the first one again tonight -- not dubbed collectors edition. I really like German movies like this one it's very interesting and people and cults like the one in the movie could exist i think, i dunno. But it's very grossly entertaining and scary. Anatomy 2 is a little different and the characters are not as good as the first. But if you really thought Anatomy was interesting and good you should see the second one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this film a lot. The actors were great, particularly Potente, who is different in every role; F\u00fcrmann, who is also able to play anyone; and Loos, who spices things up (she is also a talented singer - she sings the song \"My Truth\", heard when one character cranks up the stereo in the lab).

Anatomie is a good horror flick, which pays attention to its characters. It is also very gory at times, and the set design is innovative. It is too bad they had to make a sequel, which is nowhere near the original.

On a side note, two other things definitely worth mentioning. The DVD is not dubbed, which makes for a better experience of the film. Also, make sure to keep watching after the final credits start rolling.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(spoilers?)

I've heard some gripe about the special effects. But that should detract from the movie. THe movie is a suspense film. And it's very good at that. So from that stand point, this movie rocks. Franke rocks. Enjoy to one's plastic hearts content. So no complaints for this movie. Unless you watch the english dub, which is a total farce. It creates the illusion it's a B movie.

One complaint I do have is the music video on the dvd. It doesn't say who sings it. I'd love to know.

8\/10

Quality: 10\/10 Entertainment : 10\/10 Replayable: 5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, Anatomie is not a reinvention of the Horrormovie-Genre, but nevertheless it is well done. Good actors (Potente and F\u00fchrmann at first) and some nice ideas made me happy. Maybe i would have been not so positive if this wasn\u00b4t a german movie, but who cares. It is good to see familiar faces in a good, thrilling story, with some gore and some good jokes in it. All of you complaining about the dubbing: i didn\u00b4t see a dubbed version (of course) but i believe that it is not easy for you to watch dubbed movies. We (Germans) are used to watch movies like that, so it\u00b4s not a big problem. But try to watch in german with subtitles. The actors are really good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"More of a near miss than a flop, MR. IMPERIUM stars Ezio Pinza as Alex, heir apparent to and later king of a small European nation, who falls in love with a willing American actress and entertainer, Fredda Barlo (Lana Turner), but due to machinations by the sly prime minister of Alex as king, nicely played by Cedric Hardwicke, the lovers are separated for 12 years before being reunited in Palm Springs where their love is rekindled. Director Don Hartman, who also scripts, is not able to fully utilize his talent for snappy dialogue because of Pinza's tentative English usage, and the requisite rewriting, coupled with less than total rapport in evidence between the two stars, results in a somewhat raggedy tone to the screenplay, exacerbated by the studio's unkind cutting of many scenes, leading to a confusing ending. The overpowering Pinza dominates his scenes with Turner, but both performers score with good work, while Marjorie Main is impressive with her patter effects as written, with Debbie Reynolds placed on track by Louis B. Mayer for SINGIN' IN THE RAIN as a result of her sprightly performance here; only Barry Sullivan is heavily victimized by the flagrant cutting. Prettily filmed largely in Pebble Beach, California, and other Monterey County environs, the film is endowed with Pinza's iron strong operatic basso in Solamente Una Vez, as well as with original songs by Harold Arlen and Dorothy Fields, with Douglas Shearer splendidly handling the sound recording, and notice must be made of the fine set decorations by Edwin Willis, and the effective costume designs by Walter Plunkett.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Carla Gugino literally melts the screen in this crime caper. Her sex appeal, ample assets and sexy southern accent more than make this film rewatchable. But the film has so many \"other\" things to make it almost a modern classic. Simon Baker's performance for one thing. Truly that of a great actor. Til Schweiger is so perfectly cast it makes me wonder why he's not a huge \"crossover\" star. Gil Bellows rounds out this motely crew and literally steals this show. Other Gugino's cleavage easily the best performance in the movie. Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman are so utterly brilliant...I cannot even describe it. Great chemistry.

The music is so powerfully eclectic that it was a character in and of itself. Wonderous to behold.

People may say it's Tarantino influenced...I disagree. It's clearly unique and clever in it's own right. Sebastian Gutierrez does a wonderful job at directing this tightly woven film and underplaying a lot of scenes that left me reeling. The ending is perfectly sinister and you never see it coming. All in all a lovely film that, to me, is the very definition of what a good movie should be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"And it got it in France ! Why not in the rest of the world while the studios keep churning out expensive post-Grisham trash (Will anyone remember him as a fine writer, and not the most betrayed-by-the-screen author this side of Stephen King ?) this one has it all. Okay, the situations are not always original, has minor plot holes and it has a tendency to be too clever some (brief) times for its own sake, but it actually delivers and is obviously a work of love. I'd be curious to know what the budget was. AND. for once, this is not a cheap Tarantino copy ! (Well, film noir didn't started with Tarantino, you know.) Will it once again be saved by Europe, like John Dahl's movies were, so Mr Guttierez can make another one like this ? If you ever read this, Mr Guttierez, thank you and se","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thirty pieces of silver and a kiss for luck. This one was another totally unexpected gem. Usually, I'm not even a suspense\/thriller fan. This satisfying 100 minutes has more twists than a boardwalk pretzel. It has titillating erotic romance, reminiscent of \"Body Heat\" in more ways than one; it has cops and crime; political intrigue and just a dash of daytime soap. It has just the right touch of gritty violence that any professional \"by-the-numbers\" crime job must employ. Emma Thompson, (FBI AIC), delivers her role with grace and humor and gets my vote for best fake southern accent by a Limey. Alan Rickman, (local cop), who always seems to steal the show, is excellent but not overbearing. They work well as a pair. Lots of plot misdirection that never gets out of control and gets coherently reconnected at film's end. And who is this awesome woman, Carla Gugino? I want her to bear my children. Carla, if you're out there, let's do lunch","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found the movie Judas Kiss excellent. Carla Gugino's performance was extraordinaire, probably her best in her career. Her facial expressions in many scenes, were unbelievably true to character, and they were exploited to its best by Director Gutierrez. All actors and actresses were very good in their performances. Emma Thompsom was, as usual, marvelous. Her acting capabilities are way above what would be required for this character, so she actually enhances it in the movie.

The story, although sometimes over-intricate, is kept entertaining and pointed towards the end. Very, very good. A movie not to be missed. A story well weaved and brilliantly directed. Quality of film, excellent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Loved this movie!! Great acting by Carla Gugino. Interesting story about a kidnapping that goes horribly wrong (don't they all?). Some surprising twists and turns in the film and the plot was easy to follow without being so convoluted as to be totally incomprehensible. It was a totally unexpected delight. More \"Quentin-ish\" than most films try to be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What's the matter with you people? John Dahl? From \"Rounders\" and \"Unforgettable\"? TOO Quirky? Knocking emma Thompson and Alan Rickman for having fun playing against type? And somebody liked the Gingerbread Man?

I rented this not knowing anything about it and found it about as nifty a video find as you can get. Never insulting, well thought out, funny, scary. I disagree with the naysayers, clearly. I thought the story itself was unremarkable but the great cast, which most likely means the director was paying attention, lifted it to super cool status. Good sound design also (much more appreciated in surround, but I'm not bragging). And yes, I'm a girl, so maybe it has a slight female slant (the guys in the gang are pretty worthwhile). All in all, a 9 and a hearty RECOMMEND.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sure, there's stuff here that the Coens and Elmore Leonard have done before, but so what? If you want entertaining, lusty and smart -- \"Judas Kiss\" is near perfect. Prudes offended by tongue in cheek porn don't get it (Talk about getting your sex and violence out of the way straight up -- keeps your investors happy. That's independent filmmaking 101). As for the Brits making a bundle, I highly doubt it. This flick is clearly a labor of love and the budget probably not half of Mr. Tarantino's salary. Maybe guys don't like it as much as women. I thought it rocked. Go Coco!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The efforts of a new group of young talent bolstered by Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson, 2 extremely gifted actors, makes for a thrilling and engrossing evening of entertainment. And I might add that Hal Holbrook shines as the Senator. This movie deserves five stars. I give it a ten on your scale. And the ending is PERFECT. I am constantly amazed at the ability of British actors to master our American accents. I was convinced that all the actors were born in Louisiana. And what finer locale for a mystery than New Orleans! The Big Easy, also known as the Crescent City, permeates every scene. As writer and director, Sebastian Gutierrez deserves high praise.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Came across this film recently after so long hearing about it. It is an excellent not pretentious movie for people who loves film noir literature and films. Not \"camp\" but humorous.

GREAT CAST! From the magnificent Carla Gugino and Emma Thompson to German superstar Til Schweiger, this movie is a feast for the eyes. Alan Rickman is very funny as the antagonist of gang. Would love to see spin off movie with this character and Emma Thompson solving cases and arguments between them all the time (much like Tracy and Hepburn, etc.)

Intelligent story, nice twists and scope photography (don't watch unless it is scope because compositions are very rich).

Sexy sexy sexy and very fun time.

Best use of Just Like Heaven by The Cure ever (must see to believe!)

********","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman,Carla Gugino and Gil Bellows are a DELIGHT in this sexy caper. This film is smart, edge of your seat entertainment for adults, and what a relief that is in these days of big concept predictable cartoons. Great music and camera work add to the fun that is this New Orleans-set puzzle. Highly Recommended. Ten stars!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the DVD era, you would think you could find pretty much any piece of crap committed to celluloid and for the most part, it's true. So WHY, WHY is it so hard to find this great little flick, clearly done by people who love noir as a loving homage (buit never descending into spoof land) of that most cinematic of genres. Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman are a HOOT in this and superstar-in-the-making Carla Gugino (KAREN SISCO, SIN CITY) does her now trademark red hot babe\/great acting routine.

This movie really has it all for fans of film. A b noir on steroids, the clever and steamy JUDAS KISS succeeds on every count.

Please Columbia TriStar PLEASE release it on DVD soon!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the first directing job by Sebastian Gutierrez, the writer of Snakes on a Plane and Gothika. Anyone who has read my reviews knows that I love capers, and this was a doozy. A kidnapping and a woman shot in the process. The FBI has Emma Thompson on the kidnapping case and the Police Chief (Roscoe Lee Browne) assigns Alan Rickman to solve the murder, which happens to be a Senator's (Hal Holbrook) wife. These two make an outstanding pair as they work together.

The kidnappers\/murderers have lovers Simon Baker (Land of the Dead) and the ultra hot Carla Gugino (Sin City), along with a couple of partners. They kidnapped a hotshot computer mogul and they run his accountant all over town before they get the dough. Things go fast from there as new twists and turns are brought in. The whole thing is brilliant and definitely a \"piss in your pants because you can't go to the bathroom or you'll miss something\" thrill.

Now, to be completely honest, I would have given this movie a 10 if there had been more of the movie the security guard was watching in the opening. I would have loved to see more of Beverly Hotsprings and Yvette Lera, but, hey, that wasn't part of the caper; just icing on the cake.

Thompson and Rickman should definitely make more movies together. One treat:

Agent Hawkins: So fill me in. Detective Friedman: That remark could be misconstrued as sexual harassment, Agent Hawkins. Agent Hawkins: Let's get it out of the way then: you've never worked under a female superior before. I got to where I am by pushing paper and playing nice - I've never actually fired a gun before, I'm only in this job to prove to my father I'm not a coward. I give decent head, so I got promoted before all the worthy candidates, all of them men, all of them equally gifted at fellatio but there was a gender quota to fill. I'm also stupid and idealistic; you are hard and cynical, and usually right. I am secretly in love with you but I have a hard time showing it. Did I skip anything?

Damn, that's great dialog! Gutierrez not only directs a great movie, but he can write too!

And, did I say Carla Gugino was hot?

Put this on your list.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one gripping movie, reminiscent of the MGM crime movies of the late 70's. Excellent cast, crisp editing and good acting keeps the pace of the movie developing rapidly,. One of the better crime movies of the decade. Kudos to the director & cast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although this film looks like a Crime Thriller Noir, the plot is actually a bit simplistic and with very few surprise twists or turns at all - and those that do appear, are not exactly shockers.

However, if you slip out of 'intense action thriller' mode and into 'mindless entertainment,' then this is really quite a fun movie, with several hilarious moments. Most of these can be attributed to the witty dialogue between Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson's characters - but that said, Sadie said it all in her hilarious opening greeting to Friedman, and it left very little else for anything else to develop between these two characters. I didn't find these esteemed british actors version of the southern accents that bad (Ok, Thompson sounded like she was rolling marbles in her mouth as she tried to spoke southern, but Rickman was surprisingly rather good with very few minor lapses into his customary english accent) - if you want to critique accents - lets discuss that of Coco - she only spoke southern periodically!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was a pleasant surprise for me. In all honesty, the previews looked horrible, up until the point where Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman appeared. So I rented it with reservation, but I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It had great acting, a few good plot twists, and, of course, Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman. It's definitely worth checking out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"But not too hip. And not too wisecracking. \"Judas Kiss\" nails the new noir thing just right. Great pacing and a nuanced score round out a twisty tale filled with sex, betrayal and sure-fire one liners. Inspiring work all around. Kudos in partcular to HalHolbrook (his best work ever), Gil Bellows (Ally Mc-what?) and Carla Gugino (the best famme fatale in ages... smart, funny and ultra HOT)... I give this a 9 (out of 10) and that's because 10 should be reserved for like, Humphrey Bogart and Coen Bros movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a really great film in the pulp fiction genre with a touch of film noir thrown in. Truly one of Emma Thompson's best performances to date...this film has everything, it's well written, well directed, beautifully films, and has some great performances. I don't know why it didn't catch on. It's spectacular!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surprised to know that the director (Sebastian Gutierrez) was a young Venezuelan (28) and bored with so many predictable movies, I was delighted with the script showing so many small stories and cues spread here and there. Directed with black humor and taste, I loved the tension between the very Boggart Rickman and the very natural but beautiful Thompson. Each member of the gang deserves attention, Gil Bellows at his best.Gugino is remarkable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I got this movie from eBay mainly because I'm gay and I love Til Schweiger. However, it's one of those movies that, when you watch it a second time, you never say to yourself, \"Hmm. I forgot about this boring part. I'll go make popcorn.\" It doesn't have that part. It's a very fluid and constantly interesting film. And, yes, Til Schweiger is worth it, if nothing else. But, it's a great movie even for straight guys.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fairly enjoyable kidnapping caper set in New Orleans, but its main downfall in my opinion is that it packs way too much political intrigue and double-crossing, and not enough of the sexy young actors, scenes of vibrant colour, original cinematographical style and biting humour. These aspects combine to give refreshingly daring cinema, which makes a whole bunch of recent stuff look unbearably dull. Let's hope S\u00e9bastian Gutierrez continues with such flair - he looks like a talent to watch out for. The mismatched bunch of small-time crooks in the film are outshadowed by the investigative partnership of Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman, the humour of whose scenes is much needed in making the movie what it is. The pair pull off their obligatory southern drawls just as well as the Yanks, and it's a delight to hear these two stalwarts of British cinema yapping away to each other with Lethal-Weapon-style fluidity...just a pity that the only scenes they have the opportunity to steal are exclusively theirs. Anyway, with a bit less politics and authoritarianism (!), the film would be near-perfect, so I'll give it a healthy 8\/10 and hope that a few people remember it a bit better than the box-office did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie was good. Really the only reason I watched it was Alan Rickman. Which he didn't pull off the southern accent,but he did pretty well with it.Know Emma Thompson did really good she definitely pulled off the southern accent. I like all the character in my opinion not one of them did bad,another thing I have notice. I have read all these comment and not one person has comment on Alan 5 0'clock shadow. Which made him look even better and he pretty much had one through the whole movie. I would give the movie a 9 out of 10. Another one of my opinions is the movie would been better if there wasn't any sex. Still it was alright. Love the scene were he says \"Aw sh*t\" when he is setting in his car and see them in his mirror.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The second episode of the new \"Lost\" gives you just what its fans were lacking - a fair amount of riveting action. From the very first scene, you keep seeing brand new features you weren't expecting to encounter. It's the best proof that the series, ingoing its 4th season, is still alive and kicking hard.

Although the producers don't amaze us with some more flash-forwards this time, the return to flashbacks is more than satisfying, as it brings some shocking facts. The flashbacks introduce a few fresh characters, and the familiar ones turn out to be connected in a surprising way.

The fresh characters dominate the whole episode and I can't say it does any harm. Their scenario parts and their actors both do extremely well, providing us with a bracing feel - right after the episode, you'll realize that the show really needed people just like that. And here they are.

\"Confirmed Dead\" is full of gripping action and greatly written dialogues. I'm sure I'll quote the best scenes of the episode for the long time - they're just that good that they remain on the spectator's mind. The episode is entertaining, smart, and perky. You like \"Lost\", you have to watch it. My vote is ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Confirmed Dead\" is an important episode in the series, as it introduces four new characters: the rescue team that Naomi contacted before getting a knife in her back by Locke. However, as the quote in my one-line summary says, their true purpose for being on the island may be something else entirely. All the new characters appear intriguing (especially Miles, some sort of psychic \/ exorcist), but at this point it's still too early to make solid judgments. I felt that this episode was a slight step down from \"The Beginning Of The End\" (no flash-forwards this time; short-term flashbacks instead), but it still has its stunning moments and picks up steam near the end. *** out of 4.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jack and Kate meet the physician Daniel Farady first and then the psychics Miles Straume and they demonstrate that have not come to the island with the intention of rescuing the survivors. Locke and his group find the anthropologist Charlotte Staples Lewis, and Ben Linus shoots her. Meanwhile, the group of Jack finds the pilot Frank Lapidus, who landed the helicopter with minor damages that can be repaired. Jack forces Miles to tell the real intention why they have come to the island.

The second episode of the Fourth Season returns to the island, with four new characters, stops the confusing \"flash-forwards\" and it seems that will finally be the beginning of the explanations that I (and most of the fans and viewers) expect to be provided in \"Lost\". Why the interest of the government in Ben Linus, and how he is informed from the boat are some of the questions that I expect to see in the next episodes. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): Not Available","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cannot understand the need to jump backwards and forwards to scene set, and pad out the plot. Showing that someone has a skill right before they use it, I believe, is offending our intelligence. It's starting to feel a little contrived, and as though they are making up for being so vague for the first three series. A little disappointing this episode.

Furthermore, using past quirks, like Locke's ability to know when a storm is ending, is frankly insulting... are we supposed to ooh and arr, or laugh at the softer side of Locke?

This episode was all over the place.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very courageous attempt to bring one of the most intricate books of literature to the screen. The story manages to get most of Conrad's basic messages across and the acting is superb. The liberties taken by the script often deepen the meaning and do seldom distort it. Compliments to writer and director.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The problem with the film is quite simply this, Conrad's prose is powerfully verbose and cannot be adapted to a movie. Marlow's narration in the novella captivates you from the first sentence and you only \"see\" what Conrad writes about. In movie, it's different, you see the visual, but the description and reflection that really makes the novel, is frightfully missing. But as far as an unadaptable book has been adapted, it is of good standard. There are the exact same scenes, which are pinpointed quite geniously, but they never have the same affect as in the novel. The plot in the movie has been enhanced, and it works very well to make it more interesting. The references to Ancient Egypt were thoughtfully inserted. My tip, read the book, and keep it that way, there are better movies out there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think i was one of the people who found this another one of roth's pearls. his performance, as awarded, was stunning. the story which was told so eloquently by Francis ford Coppola 25 years earlier, really unfolds gradually and leaves room for the characters to develop. Roeg proves again it doesn't have to be a war-setting to be interressting. In a most wonderful location lies a story of contrast. Ruthlessnes and beauty go hand in hand, while loneliness should become your best friend. It shows a more sinister past of a small golden age kingdom which lands on a coast full of wealth for a 1st world country, if u send the right men. All in all a beautiful directed film from Nicola's roeg wih a sublime cast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There have been many people that have tried to make a movie that was identical to the story, Heart of Darkness. Some movies have been based on Heart of Darkness, like Apocalypse Now. In 1993, Nicholas Roeg directed a film that was exactly like the book. Heart of Darkness the movie is almost exactly identical to the book. This movie is full of action and adventure. Heart of Darkness is about the journey of a seaman named Marlow who sails along the Congo River to meet the super powerful ivory trader, Mr. Kurz.

Heart of Darkness, the movie, has the same exact beginning and setting as the book. It takes place on a boat in the Thames River, and Marlow is telling the story to four other men on a boat called the Nellie. The whole movie is a flashback of Marlow's journey to see Mr. Kurtz on the Congo River. Marlow works for the Belgian Company, which trades ivory along the Congo River. He tells of his account in the Company's office, and about all of the maps he saw in the office.

Marlow sets out on a steamer to Africa. He arrives at the Central Station, where he receives orders from the general manager. The general manager tells Marlow about Mr. Kurtz and the ivory trading Marlow would be doing. Marlow soon finds out that the general manager is not fond of Kurtz because he fears Kurtz will replace him. Marlow waits around at the Central Station for months because his ship has been wrecked, and it is getting repaired. Marlow sees the harsh treatment and enslavement in Africa while at the Central Station. When the ship has finally been repaired, Marlow, another African character named Mfumu, and other crew members set sail on Marlow's steamer for Mr. Kurtz.

Along the Congo River, they are attacked by African natives in the wilderness. As Marlow's crew is attacked by the African natives, they end up shooting and killing Mfumu. When Marlow finally arrives at Kurtz's station, he meets a Russian who explains the might and glory of Kurtz. Marlow is then led to Kurtz's station home. There, he sees many maps and pictures that Kurtz has painted. Finally, Kurtz enters the room, and begins to tell Marlow about all he has done in Africa and talks about his mistress. Marlow soon finds out that Kurtz is insane with power because the Africans hail him as a god. Marlow becomes angry with the harshness and enslavement that he sees in Africa. After Marlow finally meets Kurtz, Kurtz begins to die. While Kurtz was on his deathbed, he called Marlow into his room. Kurtz's life begins to flash before his eyes, and his last words were \"The horror, the horror.\" When Marlow returns to Europe to see Kurtz's fianc\u00e9, Marlow tells her that Kurtz's last words were her name to hide the darkness in Kurtz's life.

Heart of Darkness was directed well and was formed into an adventurous movie. I recommend anyone to watch this movie because it is full of action and mystery. The movie is slow at times, but in all, it really interesting. Heart of Darkness will really broaden your mind and will teach you a lot about how to interpret different scenes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Joseph Conrad's timeless novel, Heart of Darkness, was depicted in the 1994 movie. I have read Conrad's novel, and I must say, even though I prefer the novel itself, the movie was a great depiction. The set and costume designs brought Conrad's novel to life on the screen as we followed Marlow's journey. The acting also brought the characters to life through the mannerisms, voices, and personalities. If you have read the novel, I recommend that you also view this movie. If you have not read the novel, however, the movie may be harder to follow. Conrad's Heart of Darkness is too full of action, emotion, and information to be made into a movie that is a little over an hour and a half long. Therefore, if you have not read the novel, the plot in the movie may seem too cluttered to follow. Overall I gave this movie a seven out of ten. The basic plot of the novel was brought forth to the screen with great sets, costumes, and acting. Nothing can replace Joseph Conrad's original work however.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Youth In Us is a pitch-perfect gem. I saw this stunning short at this year's 2005 Sundance Festival. The story took me on a profoundly transforming journey. The directing by Joshua Leonard, the acting of Kelli Garner and Lukas Haas, the art direction, the cinematography, the score -- every element was true to the bone. One can only hope that this exquisite and excruciating film is prelude to more great work from this gifted director.

Just as a short film is shown before a feature at Sundance, commercial movie theatres used a similar format in times past. It would be wonderful if miniature masterpieces like The Youth In Us could reach a wider audience this way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this short moments ago on the Sundance Film Festival website, and I must say it is absolutely astounding. I expected it to be entertaining - like all of the Sundance shorts - but I wasn't prepared for such deep sadness and yet also a sense of passion and beauty.

If you haven't yet seen any of this years entries to the festival, I suggest you go onto the site and watch these mini-masterpieces - I have seen them all, and can honestly say 'The Youth In Us' is the one that has touched my heart the most. I'm not the weakest audience member when it comes to romance in films, but my eyes flooded up so much I'm surprised I could still see the screen.

I agree with 'addicted2you', it truly is a masterful piece of directorial work, and the cinematography will just take your breath away.

I can't think of a better way to spend a spare 12 minutes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This short has all the elements of a great movie. Every time I show it to friends (on DVR) they love it too. The dialog is so, 'real'. The acting is superb. While the effects\/props weren't as convincing by themselves, taken with everything else in the shot, they are expertly placed\/used. The music is so haunting, perfect for this kind of 'moment' film. People who hold dear their beliefs and thoughts are shaken to their core about what they see in this movie. Most go 'that's it?', but in the end they blossom with new understanding, and leave the movie with one word to describe it:

'Beautiful'. The beauty of the film is also skin deep. I love the fact that there aren't any conflicting views, no other voices, and the voices that you do hear, are agreeing with each other. no conflict, but at the same time there is one. And the ending made me love it more! Harsh reality sometimes IS more film worthy than any plot device, or twist.

(wasn't Joshua Leonard the guy in Blair Witch Project?) :) Movie by a fictitious dead guy..great!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was fortunate to see a screening of this remarkable short film by Joshua Leonard before its premiere at the 2005 Sundance Festival. In twelve brief but exquisite minutes, Leonard takes us on a life-changing journey as he probes one of the most controversial contemporary social and ethical issues facing our society. The film embodies elegant direction, moving performances and a heart- rending story. Kelli Garner and Lucas Haas radiate as the two lovers. And, in his first venture into dramatic narrative, Leonard proves to be a director with a propitious future. I feel this short should be expanded into a feature film. It's difficult to describe talent, but as this debut film demonstrates, you know it when you see it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For a film by a first time director, this is a simply amazing little film, though I have to admit that it's a bit hard to watch and will probably offend the sensibilities of many who watch it, as the film takes a definite stand in favor of assisted suicide. However, what I loved about the film is that I had no idea this is what the film was about until the film was more than half complete and by then I was already hooked.

In addition to the excellent way the subject was introduced, I was amazed at the very professional style of the film--with some of the best cinematography I've ever seen in a short film. Plus, this camera work was combined so well with music and images that made the film just beautiful.

As I said, this is a controversial film. I myself struggle with what I think about this debate, but the film managed to make a statement in such a literate and intelligent way, I really have to respect the team who made this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely loved this film... So much emotion in such a small amount of time. I loved the beginning and how it completely throws you off guard. I love the story and the deer being brought in. i know that when i think of deer i think of innocence, and prosperity. Also, in Psalm 42:2 in the Bible it says, \"As the deer pants for the water brooks, So pants my soul for You, O God\". Which could even connect the last moment when the woman says it will be okay. As if she knows she's going with God. Perhaps I am thinking way to much into it. But sometimes it is interesting to see what goes on through peoples' minds. Thank you for sharing this masterpiece with viewers everywhere. I live in Texas and I had it playing on cable... I immediately got onto the computer to find out more about this film and this amazing director! I really liked the music that was used in the background. Music can sometimes make or break a film. It definitely set the mood perfectly. Very nice choice!

Thanks again.

Laetitia","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I stumbled across this film while channel surfing, and was blown away. It was being broadcast on a lesser known short films program here in Australia.

It has been a long time since I have been so impressed by a film, especially one so short.

The power of the story, the quality of the acting and the stunning cinematography... wow. If it were available, it would make a very worthy addition to my DVD collection.

I am undoubtedly impressed, and I will look forward to Joshua Leonards' next film.

An exceptional experience 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a show! Lorenzo Lamas once again proves his talent as a cop who committed the worst crime a good cop can commit, by being a good cop. Then, again, he shows how sensitive a cop can be, displaying a range of emotions like no other actor can except, maybe, himself in Terminal justice.

HUGE ENJOYMENT!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was so much better than i expected, the film oozed proffesionalism compared to other B-moive of this sort of budget. The script was good if a little formulaic but the acting was surprisingly good from all including Lorenzo and you always expect good standards from Scheider and Busey. Aswell as the good plot and acting the action is good especially the car chases and the crashes are A-class. All in all this is a rise above other B-movie thrillers and doesn't have to rely on constant nudity or a flow of cheesy puns to make up for budget and script defficiencies, its certainly worth a rent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first in a new style of films for Lamas- no tattoo's, motorcycles or karate. I, for one, miss them. But this is a serious movie. He plays a FBI profiler who has lived so long with the bad guys in his head that he no longer trusts anyone, including himself. Gary Busey is either a great actor or somebody I wouldn't want to meet in broad daylight on a crowded street. Kristen Cloke pursues Lamas as doggedly as she pursues the serial killer. There is one surprise after another as the story unfolds not the least of which is the ending. It seems to never come - there is always one more layer to the story. Cloke and Lamas start out as the good guys, turn into the bad guys and somehow end up the heroes. But it's definitely worth the rental price. For maximum enjoyment throw in a candy bar,a bag of popcorn and a soft drink. You're going to the MOVIES!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this 1997 movie because I am a fan of Lorenzo Lamas (and of his father, the late Fernando Lamas). In my opinion, Lorenzo looked his best in this film, mostly due to his hairstyle and the preppy wardrobe that were flattering to him.

As the plot progressed, I realized the movie was more than just entertainment or a reason to see a favorite actor. The story was about a ring of serial killers and the attempts of law enforcement to investigate the ring and bring the members to justice. There was adequate suspense, and I believe the violence was necessary to relate the story to the viewer.

At the end of the film I was shocked to learn the film is the true account of horrendous murders that occurred in Utah. Furthermore, Lorenzo and his leading lady were portraying actual FBI agents who solved the disappearances of many young women and contributed to the apprehension of the ring. I believe the film is worthwhile as it informs the public about the dangers and capabilities of the criminal element.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In \"Lassie Come Home,\" \"National Velvet,\" and \"The Courage of Lassie,\" Elizabeth Taylor was eleven years old \u0085 Nevertheless, her charm and beauty were extraordinary, and what she lacked in talent and experience was well hidden in a fine production that was nominated for five Academy Awards\u0085

As horse-trainer or dog-owner, as spurned wife or mistress, Liz is a female who is absorbed in the giving and receiving of love: devotion to the object of passion is the center of her life\u0085 Little Liz lavishes love on horses and dogs with remarkable intensity\u0085 Ecstatic; a dreamer with a turbulent emotional life, persistent, the young Liz dedicates herself to the prize-winning horse the way she later devotes herself to men\u0085

Anticipating her later images of young sex goddess, Liz as Velvet is both saintly and mature\u0085 Howard Barnes, in the New York Herald Tribune, called her a child who 'lights up with the integrity of a great passion.'

Directed by Clarence Brown with loving attention to detail, the movie that made her a star is a big bestseller from another era set in Sussex, England, where Velvet Brown, a butcher's daughter, teams with a vagabond teenager named Mi Taylo (Mickey Rooney) to train for competition a horse she's won in a raffle\u0085

From the coastal plains with its beaches, to the rolling hills, thatched cottages, and miles of country walks, \"National Velvet\" is the product of a bygone era in movie-making\u0085

Following closely the structure of the popular Enid Bagnold novel, the movie is part horse story, part family portrait: scenes of training and riding are balanced by cozy family scenes, vignettes about young love and sermons from Mom on the virtues of courage and endurance\u0085

The Browns are a noble version of Hollywood rustic\u0085 Dedicated to a sober work ethic, they live quiet, exemplary lives\u0085 Mrs. Brown (Anne Revere) is the very spirit of plain-folk wisdom; the spokeswoman for common sense and fair play, she knows well enough not to silence the semi-hysterical energy of her horse-crazy daughter, and she lets the girl have her dream\u0085

Anne Revere won an Oscar as Velvet's mother, as did editor Robert J. Kern\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A sentimental, heart-tugging family film set in England of the 1920s. A young Elizabeth Taylor wins a horse in a raffle and decides to enter him in the Grand National; fortunately, ex-jockey Mickey Rooney is around to give Liz some help. Director Clarence Brown displays some remarkable control with material that could've been excessively maudlin in someone else's hands. He and screenwriters Helen Deutsch and Theodore Reeves take great care in establishing genuine characterizations and developing the story naturally. True, there are one or two scenes that seem a bit forced, but overall it's quite affecting, and gorgeously filmed in Technicolor. The race itself is quite thrilling, and like so many great classics, there's a marvelous, three-hankie fade-out at the end. Liz proves that she was a real trooper right from the start, and Rooney--who I usually find rather annoying--is surprisingly subdued and really very good. Donald Crisp is terrif as Liz's gruff father and Angela Lansbury is a delight as her older, boy-crazy sister. Most of the acting kudos, however, belong to Anne Revere, who won a richly deserved Supporting Actress Oscar playing Liz's wise and caring mother.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am 13 years old and I am writing this review in my mom's sign in. She will write her own review later.

This is my all time favorite movie.It was filmed in England in 1944. I watched it so many times when I was little that I wore out the video tape. I love this movie and it changed my life! The beautiful landscapes. The mighty pie-bold thoroughbred horse. The plain little Irish village with the young girl who wanted to do what no other girl had ever done, compete in The Grand National Steeplechase in London with her most beloved horse, The Pirate. It all made me want to ride horses (which I have done now for 7 years)and learn everything I could about their breeds so I could also draw and paint them. It's a ground breaking movie about winning against all odds, overcoming your fears, believing in yourself, and reaching difficult goals by working very hard. Also, the horse race scene was one of the best ever made and I have seen many movies with horse races. I never get tired of watching this movie. Everything about it is perfect. Especially if you are a young girl and passionate about horses!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My daughter already wrote a review of this movie in my sign in...but I want to add a few words.

\u0091National Velvet' was one of my two favorite movies as a child. (The other being 'The Wizard of Oz\u0091.) The cinematography, the acting, the script, and the music all came together is such a wonderful little heart felt drama that it can still bring tears to my jaded eyes. Based on a book by Enid Bagnold, the script followed the book quite well. The characters are so thoughtfully created. It's easy to become emotionally involved with the entire family and the quaint little Irish village in which they live. The premise...complete outsider believes in her horse and herself enough to chance a try at the greatest horse race in the world...is awe inspiring to any young person, especially a young girl in the 40's...a time when girls were sometimes ignored as humans beings let alone athletes. You would have to be terribly hard-boiled not to appreciate it's merit.

But the perspective I cherished most about this movie is the unabridged innocence in it's moral message.. It's almost magical how 'mom and apple pie' the movies were back then. I was really taken aback by the IMDB reviewer who asked...'Was the world ever really this trusting?' and then proceeded to chastize the director for his complacency regarding \u0091unchaperoned' overnight travel involving the two main characters. My answer to his question is an unequivocal YES!!!! The movie going world was that trusting in the 40's.

My grandparents remember taking my mother to this movie when it was released. Then my mother took me to see it when I was young, and my daughter was lucky enough to be born at a time when she could watch it repeatedly on video tape. Now we have it on DVD. It's been a family favorite for generations, albeit generations of horse lovers. It was never about sex...it's about coming of age! It's about believing in yourself and working hard to reach your goals. Also, so old fashioned it wasn't even about the prize money! It's about the girl child who understood her horse had what it took to \u0091be the best'. And yes, the director was indeed concerned with Elizabeth Taylor's lack of physical development because the book made a big deal about Velvet Brown (Liz Taylor's character) having to cut her hair and bind her chest so that she could pass as a male jockey when she went to the Grand National Steeplechase. This was a guys only sport back then...I think there have only been 12 women ever to compete in this race. It's almost insulting that anyone would bother to think the Lolita thing about this particular movie...besides, anyone having had anything at all to do with an adolescent girl and her horse would know that the only thing they ever think about with stars in their eyes have four hooves and a tail.

And now for a great bit of trivia...the stunt riding was performed by the now famous \u0091Horse Whisperer', Monty Roberts. I believe he is given mentioned for his riding in the movie credits.

I give this movie a 10 out of 10! I never get tired of watching it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the first movie I ever owned on video, and 14 years later, I still have the same copy. Elizabeth Taylor was as radiant at twelve as ever later in life, Mickey Rooney gave real dimension to Mi Taylor, and Donald Crisp was solid as ever as Mr. Brown. The amazing Anne Revere, as Mrs. Brown, seemed to be the wisest woman in the world. After nearly 60 years, the warmth, humor, and excitement of this film still affect the viewer; we still laugh at the jokes, root for The Pie, and love Velvet for the spirit and capacity for love that she displays. I love it as an adult just as I loved it as a child. A must for every family video collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"During the 13 years of schooling I had from Kindergarten through high school, there was only one day that my class took a field trip. When I went to school, you went to school, from 8:30 until 3:30 and filed trips were not taken. But, for some reason I could not recall at this advanced age, we went to see a movie - National Velvet. I do not recall the movie, so, on the eve of my 57th year, I decided to revisit it.

It is a movie about a time that no longer exists. A time when people trusted others and didn't lock their houses. A time when people were given the benefit of the doubt. It was a time when family was the most important thing. This film shows all of that and more. It shows love and trust and caring and the goodness of people.

It would not be a bad thing for every family to view this film once in a while and discuss its message.

It was a treat to see the young Elizabeth Taylor, Mickey Rooney at his best, the Academy Award-winning performance of Anne Revere, Angela Lansbury before Murder, She Wrote, and Donald Crisp, who performed for almost sixty years.

What a movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the enduring classics from MGM came out in the closing years of World War II, it's the film that made young Elizabeth Taylor a star. She had done a few films as a child actress before National Velvet, but when it came out her place in the movies was assured. Ironically enough biologically she'd be growing up fast enough after National Velvet was out and her next struggle as an actress was to get substantial adult roles because casting directors only saw her as innocent little Velvet Brown who loved her jumping horse.

I'm not sure of how this would work because steeplechase horses have to have confirmed bloodlines and the Pi's are a subject not dealt with in National Velvet. All we know is that he's a reckless and untrainable horse in the hands of Reginald Owen and after he breaks free and causes considerable damage, Owen gets rid of him for a nominal price to the local butcher Donald Crisp.

At the same time as these things are happening, Mickey Rooney comes wandering into the lives of the Brown family which consists of Crisp, wife Anne Revere, and daughters Angela Lansbury, Juanita Quigley, and Elizabeth Taylor and their little brother Butch Jenkins. Rooney is a former jockey who's now on the open road and heading for the Brown family where his father was once a horse trainer for Anne Revere's family. It's he who sees the potential of the Pi (short for pirate) as a steeplechase jumper and it's Elizabeth who convinces Crisp not to pass up this chance.

Elizabeth Taylor was so sweet and innocent in National Velvet. The Good Book says you have to have faith like a child and she has it to spare. She infuses Rooney with it, to have faith in the heart and ability of the Pi and to leave a little over for himself.

Anne Revere won a Best Supporting Actress Award for National Velvet. She's a very wise mother who has hidden depths to her that the audience doesn't suspect. It turns out that back in her youth she had a taste of fame and glory swimming the English Channel and her prize money, saved all these years, she gives to her daughter. That scene is probably what won her the Oscar. National Velvet also won one other Academy Award, for Film Editing.

Over 60 years after it made its debut National Velvet as a family classic hasn't lost a thing. Its depiction of life between the World Wars in Great Britain is still a standout. And National Velvet launched a movie legend. Can't do much better than that for high regard.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was one of the first color films I have seen at the cinema when I was a child. It is good to remember it. The girl, Liz Taylor, who later became a beautiful woman, starred together with the tiny and excellent actor Mickey Rooney. The content of the film plot is good for all ages, good wills and behavior. Good ethics of Velvet's parents, particularly her mother is something to take into account. Our generations should be well educated and this film may help to this purpose. Velvet loves the horses and racing them, and Mi Taylor (Rooney) brought her to an international horse racing competition in England, where at the end the young Velvet won, but was disqualified because of being female.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"National Velvet\" tells the story of Velvet Brown, a young English girl with dreams of entering her beloved horse into competition at the prestigious Grand National horse race. The film follows her as she trains her horse with the aid of a former jockey and the support of her parents.

While \"National Velvet\" is a family film that fact shouldn't deter anyone who typically views such films with derision. The film is indeed one that will appeal to the entire family, not just attention-addled youngsters. It even managed to land five Oscar nominations, hardly a sign of slacking off for a general audience.

Anne Revere, in the part of Velvet's mother, actually won an Oscar for her performance. She was indeed excellent in the role but it is 12-year old Elizabeth Taylor who steals the show. She is a charming presence and exhibits a talent beyond her years. Also on board are Oscar-winner Donald Crisp as Velvet's father, Mickey Rooney as former jockey Mi Taylor and Angela Lansbury (in one of her earliest film roles) as Velvet's older sister.

The film's lustrous Technicolor makes for an attractive viewing experience while the editing secured the second of the film's two Oscars. Additionally, the film was nominated for its direction (by Clarence Brown), cinematography & art direction. The score by ten-time Oscar nominee Herbert Stothart is also worth mentioning, though it went unnominated.

All in all, \"National Velvet\" is a wonderful family film that deserves a higher rating. I realize that the prospect of watching a film about a girl and her horse isn't exactly going to thrill some people but this one is worth taking a chance on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In my opinion, National Velvet is one of the top family classic's of all time. It features Mickey Rooney as (Mi Taylor) and Elizabeth Taylor as (Velvet Brown).

Velvet wins a race horse, named (Pie) in a raffle. She falls in love with it right away. With the help of Mi, an ex-jockey, they train it to race in the Grand National's. After the jockey who was scheduled to race Pie backs out at the last moment, Mi convinces Velvet to take his place.

This was a well put together motion picture. Fine storyline and top notch acting. The inner play between Elizabeth and Mickey was magical. This is a wonderful family picture expertly Directed by Clarence Brown. The photography is stunning. This is a movie you will enjoy for years to come.

This picture is what made Elizabeth Taylor a household name. Both Mickey and Elizabeth remained close after the film. They still send post cards to each other after all these many years.

One side note. Elizabeth loved the horse \"Pie\" so much that the studio gave it to her.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"it's a beautiful film.the scenes are well pictured.Anne Revere 's dialogs are really well written and inspiring,the philosophy and thoughts that this film gives and the things it teaches makes it great and wonderful.

Mickey Rooney is great in the movie and his role goes through lot of emotional turmoil as the film progresses.

Elizabeth Taylor looks very pretty,her scenes in the film are inherently poetic,the way camera follows her and the way the music make you feel make every scene of her ethereally beautiful.

this movie has great spirit and a beloved cherished classic.

Angela Lansbury is quite amusing in her role though unrecognizable if you have seen her in role of 'm' in 'the Manchurian Candidate'.

Donald Crisp has done his father's role full justice and the script provides him with ample stuff to justify his role.

its a very nice film and a must watch for family and children an evergreen Christmas favorite.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mickey Rooney (as Mi Taylor) is a young man drifting along the figurative road to ruin, where he meets 12-year-old Elizabeth Taylor (as Velvet Brown) - she adores horses, but he has a sad history with the animals. Ms. Taylor is enamored with Mr. Rooney's horse-sense; she takes him home, and gets him room and board with her family. They are supported very well by Anne Revere and Donald Crisp (as Mr. and Mrs. Brown). Butch Jenkins and Angela Lansbury are Taylor's strained siblings.

The plot of \"National Velvet\" is implausible to a fault; for example, the circumstances leading to Taylor's ride in the \"Big Race\" are quite a stretch (but were likely more believable on paper). Still, the characters' connection to horses, and to Ms. Revere's character are nicely conceived. Rooney and Taylor are excellent in the starring roles; there is a balance between Rooney's fading \"child star\" and Taylor's exuberant new \"child star\", which adds depth to their characterizations.

The excellent performances of Rooney and Taylor are further enhanced by fine direction, photography, and editing from Clarence Brown, Leonard Smith, and Robert Kern. A sentimental classic.

******** National Velvet (12\/14\/44) Clarence Brown ~ Mickey Rooney, Elizabeth Taylor, Anne Revere","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two of Hollywood's great child stars (Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney) are perfectly teamed to deliver one of the all-time family classics. The story of a determined 12 year old girl, whose adoration for horses won't allow her to turn away from her goal to win the British Nationals. Mickey Rooney is the newly orphaned drifter, looking to tie himself over until he can follow his own dreams.

A beautiful side plot reveals that the girl's mother had ambitions of her own as a young girl. Repeatedly overruling the father's decisions in favor of their spirited daughter, it is mother who seems to know best. The scene where the exhausted Taylor rushes to go to school is priceless: father protests \"why did you let her go to school, she'll drop from exhaustion before noon!\" - Not to worry, she'd be back within a half hour; it was Saturday! The brilliant Technicolor, the sumptuous music score, and those beautiful faces, all telling a bittersweet story. Here's a good reason for the old saying: They don't make'm like that anymore!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ccmovieman-1 must be, as the reviewer in the New York Times who preferred the Janis Joplin Big Brother and the Holding Company album to the just released Beatles'\"White\" album was called, either evil or insane. National Velvet is a great film. Elizabeth Taylor's performance is fantastic, and I fail to discern even a trace of accent, much less too much of one. Her performance is very natural, authentic and unbelievably charming. The rest of the cast is superb, especially Rooney and Revere.

As far as the dialog being hokey or sentimental, I suggest cc has dined too long on a diet of irony and has lost the ability to discern genuine straight-forward emotion and human interaction. There was a time when people actually did think and talk in such a manner. Not that this film doesn't have a slight hint of the magical permeating through it. That is the reason to tell the story. One might as well criticize the Wizard of Oz, King Kong, The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, The Black Stallion ( the other great horse film ) or a thousand other films for having action and dialog that seem richer than real life. No my friend, National Velvet endures because of its belief firmly in itself, with tongue firmly not in cheek. Something today's jaded filmmakers find nearly impossible to recreate.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After my 6 year old daughter began taking riding lessons I started looking for horse movies for her. I had always heard of National Velvet but had never seen it. Boy am I glad I bought it! It's become a favorite of mine, my 6 year old AND my 2 year old. It's a shame movies like this aren't made anymore.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is ageless and would probably appeal to children today, even if there isn't a Jedi in the entire thing. Of course, Elizabeth Taylor was the most beautiful child in the world and her acting is great too. Even Mickey Rooney is good; so are Anne Revere and Angela Lansbury. The world was a different place when this movie was released, and it certainly is a great place to visit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the greatest movie if you want inspiration on following your heart and never giving up on your dream. Elizabeth Taylor is Velvet and in her prime (of her childhood, at least), Mickey Rooney is a cynical friend who eventually becomes her trainer and they go off to the Grand National steeplechase with her beloved horse \"the Pi\"--short for \"Pirate\"--only to have Velvet become the jockey and have a chance at victory. To those of you who have not seen it yet, I won't give away the ending but you should see it and once you do you'll love it. Notice a very young Angela Lansbury as Velvet's eldest sister.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a delightful film. Elizabeth Taylor does a wonderful job, as does Mickey Rooney. The film just makes you feel happy. It's inspirational, and even though some parts are a bit overly sentimental, that is easily forgiven. I could watch this movie again and again. The race at the end is exciting every time I see it. Highly recommend this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"National Velvet (1944) The movie that put Taylor on the map. Costarring the then number one box office champ, Mickey Rooney. Taylor plays a girl in love with her horse and when jockey Mickey Rooney is unable to ride in the Grand National race, spunky Liz cuts her hair, pretends to be a boy and races the horse to...well I won't spoil the end for you. It's quality melodrama that MGM was famous for putting out. And it's another early color picture to boot!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First, let me say that I find films like Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile, and most of Spielberg to be absolutely horrid and stomach turning. Although, National Velvet on the surface would seem to be in the same genre and has what should be cringe-worthy moments, I thoroughly enjoyed it, laughing and bawling throughout the film.

The premise of the plot, a young girl with an unknown horse from a small village entering the Grand National is certainly as implausible as could be, but it is the only thing that you have to accept for it to work as a fairy tale or allegory. The characters have depth and grow throughout the story. Ann Revere gives an absolutely stunning performance as one of the wisest women ever depicted in an American film. Her interaction with the good-hearted Donald Crisp is funny and sweet. While Liz Taylor tries a bit too hard to be even cuter than Margaret O'Brien (she succeeds btw), her passion and love for her horse shines through her face. Mickey Rooney gives a beautifully nuanced performance of the trainer.

This is far from a perfect movie. Some of the situations and scenes are a bit corny and dated (the kids' antics, and Rooney's scenes at the track and in the pub for example) but it doesn't matter. The plot remains true to the characters and leaves quite a bit unsaid. We don't have unnatural overly dramatic and preachy moments - sometimes more is less. The final scene is a great example of this - the emotional dialog is left to the viewer to fill in.

Strong understated performances, rounded characters, pithy dialog, intelligent and internally consistent storyline. We believe in the characters and are moved by their story. Yup - they just don't make them like this any more...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I hope we never become to cynical as a society to appreciate the simple beauty of this movie: Beautiful to look at with its romantic English countryside, and beautiful in its message of faith and loyalty. Watch this with your children, especially your young daughters- Velvet Brown is a wonderful role model for girls. This was one of my daughter's favorite films.

The story is based on a best selling book by Enid Bagnold about a girl, Velvet, whose whole life is her horse, Pi, and about her single-minded pursuit of her \"impossible\" dream. I won't say anymore about the plot less I spoil it for first-time viewers. She lives with a big loving family in a small coastal village.

This is the movie that made Elizabeth Taylor a star, and to watch the film is to understand why. She is a natural actress who radiates an inner beauty that matches her outward beauty- trusting, passionate, innocent- she is the emotional core of the movie.

Mickey Rooney gives a wonderful performance as Mi, the young man who arrives on their doorstep one day, stays, and helps Velvet train the Pi. This is one of his finest performances. Also standing out is Anne Revere as Velvet's mother in an Academy Award winning role. Her strong, loving and wise character understands that life isn't of much value unless you follow your dreams: \"We're alike. I, too, believe that everyone should have a chance at a breathtaking piece of folly once in his life.\"

I heartily recommend this very sweet, very inspiring classic from Hollywood's golden age.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My family watches this movie over and over. Even our 3 year old loves it. I like the \"goodness\" in the movie. Giving the stranger a chance...showing goodwill to one obviously in need of some unconditional acceptance. The movie gives a feeling of goodwill and victory. One other aspect of the movie that makes it so appealing is the personalities of Velvet's siblings. The bird lover. The bug lover. The boy lover! Very cute and happy movie. There is one thing, however that is irritating about it. That is how Mrs. Brown often makes Mr. Brown look foolish or unwise. She, at times,comes off as a know it all, and he as a dimwit, which he is not. Too bad to put that into such a nice story. Nevertheless, we will continue to enjoy this wonderful, old movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow! What a lovely, warm, rural film! The story focuses upon Mi Taylor (Mickey Rooney), a young male wanderer, whose journey takes him to a quiet, rural coastal town. There he stays with the Brown family. Velvet (Liz Taylor) their youngest daughter, who Mi subtly befriends, has a passion for horses and wins one at an auction. This horse is a beautiful, maroon stallion; referred by its previous owner as a 'murderous pirate', but Velvet re-names him Pie. Not long later, Velvet suggests to enter him in the Grand National race, Mi and her family are against the idea, but soon agree and Velvet and Mi began to train him for Britain's most famous horse race \u0085 This film is a beautiful example of what British films are like. I remember I first saw this when I was eight and on my summer holidays. My parents taped it off the TV and I warmed to it instantly \u0096 watching it most days instead of the large collection of Disney films that I owned.

I believe it was one of Liz Taylor's first movies and a good one! Her character is na\u00efve but sweet \u0096 her acting is extremely convincing, especially when she portrays her love for horses. It's also a good chance to see Angela Lansbury in one of her early roles; who co-stars as Velvet's older sister, who spends most of her time in the film being smitten with a boy in the town! I must say she was a gorgeous lady when she was younger. Beautiful blonde hair and a rosy cheeked face. Although she doesn't have a major part in the movie, she dose have a number of scenes - so not to disappoint her fans! Parents reading this, I must emphasis \u0096 if you can get hold of a copy of this please do! If you're children love animals \u0096 I strongly suggest you show it to them! They may find a few scenes boring but you see Velvet riding the horse on many occasions throughout the film and would most defiantly entertain children! A lovely and nostalgic film. I might just go away now and put it on!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just wanted to say that I am watching National Velvet on TV, it is now Feb 2006 and I was checking on dates details, etc. Surprising to see it was made in 1944 and Rooney was 24 years old whilst Liz Taylor only 12, what an accomplished English actress she is.

To put some Americans contributors right: There are no Irish villages in England. Ireland is a completely different country and has nothing whatsoever to do with the English countryside. The scenes shown are supposedly taken on the South coast of England between Brighton and Arundel (county of Sussex). No such scene exists now unfortunately. Like many other places roads and buildings have been built on the hills and beaches.

So please, all you lovely Americans, do not confuse Ireland with England, ever! we take great exception to it. Like confusing Texas with Coney Island.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A teen-aged girl gets the horse of her dreams and is trained by an ex-Jockey to participate in London's Grand National Steeplechase. A fine adaptation of the classic children's book, with an excellent, start-making performance by Taylor as the energetic but polite youngster. Rooney is OK as her trainer, although he has some overly melodramatic moments. Crisp and Revere are quite good as Taylor's loving parents. Filmed in Technicolor, it looks beautiful. The problems are that there are corny elements, nothing very interesting happens, and it drags on a bit too long. The race is exciting but could have been much more so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Never mind if 'National Velvet (1944)' is a bit hackneyed and occasionally unconvincing, Clarence Brown's equestrian fable is an endearing and very likable story with a good moral. After achieving modest success through her appearance in 'Lassie Come Home (1943),' young Elizabeth Taylor, age 12, landed her first leading role as Velvet Brown, a passionate schoolgirl with an obsession for horses. Though filmed in California, the story - adapted from a novel by Enid Bagnold - is set in a small township on the English countryside, and full advantage is taken of the Technicolor photography to present the vibrant and handsome landscapes of blue skies and green shrubs. Mickey Rooney takes top billing as Mi Taylor, a misguided ex-jockey with devious intentions, whose relationship with young Velvet reawakens his sense of dignity and opens a new, optimistic chapter in his life. Though he noticeably struggles in one sequence, when he must confess the traumatic experience that led to his fear of horses, Rooney is enjoyable as the surly but passionate young man who must prove his worth.

It is perhaps a good thing that Elizabeth Taylor had those entrancing violet eyes, because her acting abilities, at this young age, were rather limited. Her more emotional sequences, in which she displays courage and integrity in the face of adversity, strike one as being rather hollow, and the touchingly-naive notion that simply \"believing\" will accomplish everything is one that has since been repeated ad nauseam by practically every unmemorable inspirational sporting film ever made. Nevertheless, Taylor is bright-eyed and enthusiastic, and she works well with Mickey Rooney, who was no stranger to being a child-star. Anne Revere plays a very important role as Velvet's mother, once a famous athlete, who not only swam the English Channel but was lovingly-trained by none other than Mi Taylor's own father. I liked that Mi was not told about this until the film's final seconds, with Mrs. Brown correctly deciding that the young man would first need to develop his own sense of decency, rather than exploiting the memory of his late father for financial gain, as he would undoubtedly have done at the film's beginning.

The film reaches its climax at the Grand National Sweepstakes, where Velvet has, at the last moment, decided to ride her own horse, the Pi, in the world-famous competition. Under the guise of a Latvian male, she goes on, as expected, to win the race, but is later disqualified - either because she's a girl, or because she tumbled from the horse before she was allowed to dismount (what a stupid rule!). This extended race sequence is exceedingly well-done, effectively capturing the nervous tension of those nerve-racking pre-race seconds, and the confusion of the event that places us in the same position as Rooney's character, stranded behind tall spectators and waiting anxiously for somebody to provide an accurate update. It doesn't really matter that we know it's a stunt double doing most of the difficult riding - in several scenes, we can clearly see a creepy-looking man in a wig - but the positive message remains the same. I'll wager that 'National Velvet' has nurtured the imaginations of millions of young girls over the last sixty years, and it's power to inspire has decreased little with time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this show. I used to actually leave the pub ten minutes before closing and run down the road to catch it. I remember Daniel Peacock's sketch about Gandhi in the newsagents as a masterpiece. The set design and lighting were out of this world, creating an atmosphere that you felt you were actually living in. V unusual for a comedy.

Unfortunately I have only encountered one other person (apart from the other reviewer here) who ever knew that this programme existed. In fact I have to thank the IMDb for coming into existence and proving to me that I hadn't in fact imagined the whole series in a drunken haze, which I was seriously starting to believe!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ahhhh, 1984.... I was young and stupid, and just developing a taste for those exotic cigarettes, whilst living in a squat in Manchester's Moss Side, with the most unbelievable case of cockroach infestation.

After a few of those doobies, this show was ROTFLMAO material - I was an avid fan. Then I'd look down at the floor (or up at the walls, or just about anywhere) and see my very own collection of \"little armadillos\" scuttling about.

Not sure if it was the chemical enhancement, but I remember thinking at the time that the overt surrealism of the show was fantastic - it was my second favourite thing on TV at the time (#1 was the season of Luis Bunuel movies being shown by Channel 4). Radical art lives on!

Also you gotta that theme tune! ....I swear, I'll never drink no more....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember this in a similar vein to the Young Ones. We'd stumble back from the pub and watch this or tape it and then spend weeks replaying the lines to each other.

We called one of our mates \"Zipmole Watkins\" after the brilliant episode in which Daniel Peacock has a bit of 'restyling' on his nose by the Back Street Abortionist.

Lots of great lines \"Remember at 5:30 in the morning you can only get white bread from a brown man. Take it easy guy!\" - Gandhi as a local shopkeeper.

Tony woodcock was definitely on there in the episode they were teaching Ralph (Daniel Peacock) to be a barman \"It's no good Amanda I'll never make it as a bar man\" Helen Lederer teaches him to ask people about the match \"See the match last night? I thought Woodcock played well\" After a string of failed conversations the curly haired Arsenal star was sitting at the bar: \"See the match last night?\" \"Yeah. I thought I played well\"

We still do odd stupid lines now - \"Reg and Ralph..... or....... Ralph and Reg. Reg, Reg... Reg Reg Reg Reg\"

Lots of very surreal silly moments and very surreal songs from the Flatlets - The Back Street Abortionist a personal favourite with the great ending line - \"And he'll mark your packages 'Return To Sender\"

Good old Danny Peacock - you added a lot to some young drinkers' evenings sir.

**Update - I found a couple of episodes on tape - I'm going to upload the Gandhi sketch to Youtube **","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't really know what it is about Dirty Dancing.. there is some sort of absolute magic in this movie.. I cannot possibly recount the hundreds (yes, hundreds)of times I've watched it, beginning to end... but every time I do come upon it on TV, I am entranced and mystified and sit myself down and there I am, for two hours, loving the movie as if I'm watching it for the first time. Although Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey absolutely hated each other throughout the making of this film, they possess a beautiful chemistry on the set.. it makes the viewer enjoy it that much more, to see this passion and commitment.. and I can't help tearing up a tiny bit at the end, when Patrick comes up to the Houseman family and tells her dad, \"Nobody puts Baby in a corner\". (classic moment) For all those people who believe this movie is corny and sappy, maybe in a way it is, but it was the penicle of the 80's films, and put Patrick Swayze right on the map; his performance was immaculate.

Three Cheers for Dirty Dancing !!

Ps- The soundtrack is fantastic, an absolute masterpiece","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This timeless summer love story is a classic and will never be dated. I can't even count how many times I've seen Dirty Dancing. This is one movie that I could probably watch every few weeks and still love.

There is something timeless about this movie. I have loved other \"blockbuster love story movies\" like Pretty Woman and when Harry met Sally. I think their up there but there is something about Dirty Dancing that just makes it absolutely perfect. The characters, the chemistry between Swaze and Grey, the movie's direction, the INCREDIBLE dancing, the warm summery atmosphere, everything about dirty dancing is absolutely perfect. It is an instant classic and I've never really seen a movie like it either before or since.

I don't think there is one particular element that makes this movie so loved but many things, a lot of which are mentioned by numerous reviewers. Dirty Dancing has a nostalgic, languid, summery mood, realistic characters, a relateable honest message coupled with incredible music and dancing, and the one of the best dance sequences cinema has ever given us.

This movie is always on TV and I will continue to watch it as long as they show it. But I WILL mention I have no interest in seeing \"Havanna Nights\", this one they should have left alone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been waiting to see this film for ages and I finally have! As soon as I heard the title I knew that this film would be my favourite film ever and when I saw it believe me I wasn't disappointed!

This film had everything dance, love and Patrick Swayze! There was so much in it and it dealt with important issues, (that were at the time, 1960's) , such as abortion.

The dancing in this film was fantastic, just like the acting was! Swayze was brilliant just like Grey was too!

Although this film was absolutely fantastic you cannot say that you have seen it if you haven't seen the last scene. It really does take your breath away as the whole choreography of the last dance was done brilliantly, it had you dancing at the end of the film and it really wouldn't surprise me if it influenced people to take up dancing!

Overall Dirty Dancing is a film NOT to be missed and even if half the actors are in the: \"Where are they now?\" period the actors will always have this superb film in their career!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There was talk on the E! Hollywood Special about the Making of Dirty Dancing which still is considered by many women including a dear friend of mine in her fifties to be one of her favorite all time movies. Maybe the music, the dancing, or the melodrama around the plot of Baby Frances becoming a dancing sensation with Johnny Castle. Of course, this film established Jennifer Grey whose biggest role to date was the resentful sister in Ferris Beuller's Day Off. Patrick Swayze is perfectly cast as the heart throb leading man who sweeps baby away literally. Dirty Dancing has it all to become a Broadway or West End smash hit. It has the love story, the music, and most of all lots of dancing. Jennifer and Patrick could revive their roles easily. it is nice to see Jerry Orbach play a doctor instead of a police officer and Kelly Bishop as the mother. It all took place in the Catskills in the sixties where many Jewish families vacationed in the area during their summer vacations. At the end of the film, it is sad to see the hotel owner, Kellerman, be baffled by the next generation. It happened anyway! Most people prefer cruises and traveling through Europe than spending the summer in the Catskills. Those old grand hotels are becoming Indian gaming casinos. Let Broadway bring Dirty Dancing alive and well. After all, they could do it for Footloose and Saturday Night Fever, this should be a no brainer! I know that this film is one of the favorites that you don't get tired of after watching 800 times. There are people that have probably seen this film-a 1,000 times by now. Somehow watching the making and the story behind Dirty Dancing made me long for my childhood days as a thirteen year old. Dirty Dancing may not be the greatest film ever made in the history but its universal appeal still draws crowds and repeated watchers like the 800 club whose members have watched it so many times. I watch it fondly now with all the awkwardness of Baby's first days and her first true love with Patrick Swayze as heart throb, Johnny Castle. Nobody could have imagined this little film as a big hit then with the sixties music, two soundtracks, and even a tour in the late eighties. I hope they bring it to Broadway in a musical. It would work for the audience to be part of a film. No wonder it still attracts kids and even adults particularly women of all ages to watch it over and over again. Well, Australia and London both have had productions of Dirty Dancing. It looks like it will come to Broadway in 2007 just in time for it's 20th anniversary.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I viewed this movie for the first time last night and I enjoyed every aspect of it \u0096the dancing, the acting, the dialogue, the plot, the script and the whole atmosphere that this movie created. I would highly recommend it.

Jennifer Grey gives an absolutely wonderful and first class performance in her role as Frances (Baby) Houseman. She has a natural ability and flair for dancing and she is beautiful and enchanting on the dance floor. But what is wonderful about Baby is that she has such a wonderful depth and dimension to her character. This is not simply a movie about dancing but the scriptwriters have also given us a chance to see Baby deal with the various emotions and feelings that she is experiencing throughout the movie and to allow us an insight into how her interaction with others at the camp changes her life. Grey portrays her character with such realism and poignancy that you end up feeling deeply for Baby as she experiences all she does in this movie.

Patrick Swayze is magnificent in his role as Johnny and truly succeeds in making his character come alive. He gives his character a comprehensive personality, strong appeal and great depth. The chemistry between Swayze and Grey is enchanting and powerful and contributes significantly to the great success of this movie

Cynthia Rhodes is great in her role of Penny and her portrayal of the ordeal that she experiences is truly powerful and contributes a frightening dimension to the film. The other members of the supporting cast \u0096Jerry Orbach and the late Mark Cantor deserve a special mention here-also give wonderful and imaginative performances that gives this movie an additional dimension of high quality acting and believability that is wonderful to experience. The dancing is magnificent and first class on the part of all involved.

The script and interaction between all the major characters is intriguing and engages the viewer in a powerful fashion. The plot, although exceedingly predictable, is given more than enough life and vitality to make this movie successful.

Furthermore the wonderful selection of music contained in this movie creates a truly magical atmosphere and very nostalgic environment that enhances the quality and success of all the various scenes.

`Dirty Dancing' is a truly powerful, magnificent and very appealing movie that leaves you deeply touched and with a wonderful feeling in your heart and soul and an inspiration to dance. I highly recommend it","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is an excellent movie i have been watching it since i was 6yrs old with my big sister. it is the type of movie that u can watch over and over again and still laugh, smile, and cry every time with out ever getting bored of it like other movie's. it is a movie that will live on forever through generations of family. i love it :) when ranking from 1-10 in my case i would rate it easily 9.9 every time.

Itis a film about the change of a girl (baby) and her first boy-friend (Johnny)their relationships within the family, the changes in baby's and Johnny's view of the world during their relationship.

DIRTY DANCING WILL FOREVER LIVE ON AS A TIMLESS CLASSIC. thank-you sorry though for only the short comment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the best movie ever, but that is my opinion. Some say it's cheesy but I think it is truly a beautiful film. The chemistry between Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze it's like no other I have ever seen, and that is what makes the film so perfect. I always wonder what would have been of this film if these two actors never existed, because not just one them did it for me, they both did. If you have never seen this film, when you do you will understand what I mean. Dirty Dancing looks like it was done from the heart and it feels so real for some reason, like magic- and the soundtrack LOVE IT. Besides the 2 lead actors the soundtrack makes the film the beauty that it is. As you can tell I am in love with this film, and I know you will be too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

When this film was released I dismissed as being lightweight pop nonsense. That was a mistake.

After repeated viewings and seeing a documentary of the making of DIRTY DANCING, discovering the depth of this film certainly increases its appeal.

DIRTY DANCING is a film about change. The evolving nature of relationships within the family, the changes in one's view of the world during their coming of age, etc. The story takes place during August of 1963, the final weeks of the last summer of innocence for the American people. The many personal changes experienced by the characters reflect the many changes in American society that would be marked by the Kennedy assassinations and Vietnam.

Female movie go'ers adored this film and repeated trips to the movie houses made it the world's most successful dance movie. As a male I find the romantic pairing of ultimate stud Patrick Swayze with very plain Jennifer Grey very hard to accept. This would be fatal for most romantic dramas, and it also may have create the intense dislike expressed by most male reviewers.

The film's soundtrack found #1 status before the release of the movie. To this day it is nearly impossible to attend a wedding reception without hearing a DIRTY DANCING song.

Near the midpoint of the film Baby's mother wakes up and asks Baby's father, \"Is anything wrong?\"

Baby's father, the anti-change family member, attempts to keep all that is happening a secret. He tells his wife to go back to sleep. However, resist as one can, change is unstopable. DIRTY DANCING is the story of one person waking up just at the final moments of our country's last sleep in innocence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie with my fianc\u00e9e many years after it came out. I thought I would hate it, but to my surprise it is so cheesy that it's great. We've spent many hours reenacting parts of the movie (\"Sylvia?!Yes Mickey?\" or \"I'm sorry you had to see that Baby. Sometimes in this world we see things that we don't want to.\"). My financee cracks up every time I imitate Neil. Also the music is classic and fun to sing along with, especially on road trips. Of course I don't admit any of this to my male friends. It's like a guilty pleasure. I seriously watch Dirty Dancing once a month or more and it is just as good every time. Jennifer Grey is also so cute in this movie. Its too bad her career never really took off.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dirty Dancing follows the story of Frances 'Baby' Houseman (Jennifer Grey)and her family as they spend the summer at Kellerman's Family Summer Camp. We get to see her discover herself as she falls in love with the dance instructor, Johnny Castle (Patrick Swayze).

The movie is full of wonderful dancing (hence the title!) some great music, and terrific scenery. It handles some tough issues with dignity and grace, and, of course, has (shocking spoiler here!) a happy, wonderful, feel good ending! You know how it's going to end from the beginning, but that's really not the point here. The point is the journey, a journey that touches every member of the family.

It's one of the movies I need to see whenever it comes on TV...never mind the fact that I already have it memorized!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to admit, before i watched this film i thought, this is one of those soppy love stories where everything works out fine and dandy all the way through. but i was proved wrong when i actually sat down to watch this. I found that it was in fact a really good story about a family who go to a dance park for a 3 week holiday and there the youngest daughter, baby, finds love but has difficulty getting there with her new found love due to disagreements with her father. But along the way helps another dance instructor, and risks the whole relationship...A truly heartwarming film, like no other.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't understand what that line meant... I do now. I didn't really want to see Dirty Dancing either. I'd rented it out but never watched it - and today I did. And I thought it was a really fun, great movie that makes you want to get up and dance. Alright, it was cheesy at times... but it's still a great movie. I can't believe Jennifer Grey was 27 in this movie - my friend and I thought she looked about 18 or 19 - 20 at the most. I guess this is attributed to her acting talent. And she did really look awkward at times. Patrick Swayze is also very good, but you can tell he is in his thirties and seems a bit old. Nevertheless, still very good. I love 80s songs so it really struck a chord with me, and the love story (yes, I'm a romantic) was so wonderfully done. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Exceeded my expectations!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the greatest movies to come out of the 80's, Dirty Dancing was a low-budget film with high-budget returns. With a soundtrack that makes you want to get up and dance, to a love story that all of us wish we could live (at least if you're female), this is a movie that you will want to watch over and over again.

The music, which is what drives the movie, is upbeat and flows well with the emotions which are drawn from the viewer. From classic '60's hits like \"Love Man\" by Otis Redding and \"Big Girls Don't Cry\" by Frankie Valli to pure '80's hits like Eric Carmen's \"Hungry Eyes\" and Frank Zappacosta's \"Overload\", Dirty Dancing is a mix of fun and sensual, showing the transformation of a young girl from shy teenager into a blossoming womanhood, all against the beautiful backdrop of a summer romance that we all hope and wish turned into more.

The dancing in \"Dirty Dancing\" is not to be forgotten. Cynthia Rhodes shines in her role as Penny, a dancer who could challenge even the most fluid and lithe gymnasts. Patrick Swayze does more than a fantastic job and shows off more and more of his skills, not just as an actor, but dancer and singer as well. And Jennifer Grey shines as Baby, while her transformation in dancing portrays her transformation in status as well.

All in all, Dirty Dancing is one of the best movies of all time, and well worth watching at least once. It's doubtful that the first beats of the Ronette's \"Be My Baby\" in the opening title won't snare your attention and draw you in to a magical world of sensual dance and musical enchantment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jennifer Grey seems the unlikeliest of romantic leads and that's probably the reason why this beloved film is such a sure-fire hit. It's all very well doing a version of Montagus and Capulets with sweeteners like dancing and schadenfreude-baiting Jewish society family tropes thrown in but there usually has to be an X Factor.

Swayze probably makes this film safe with his rugged, post-Travolta moves and temperament but its being won over by this curly-mopped Penelope Pitstop teen that brings the dream in reach of the impressionable market. The super (dated? perhaps 'immortalised') soundtrack helps and of course the cunning conceit of setting the film in a resort away from day to day life altogether finesses the fantasy. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great music, great dancing, a sexy star (Swayze) and actual sexual desire shown by a female character (a very unusual event!). You rarely see female characters who are motivated primarily by lust and it is a nice change. I also think the movie captures very well what it is like to be a teenager coping with issues of class and of having ideals suddenly come up against reality. Of course, it is sappy at moments - it is, after all, a movie musical - but all in all it is a real pleasure - a fun romance and also politically enlightened. This movie also has one of my favorite all time movie lines: \"I carried the watermelon.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dirty Dancing one of my MOST favorite movies. I've only watched it two times on ABC because I haven't had the chance to buy it or rent it from Blockbuster. I had no idea Jennifer Grey was 27 at the time she made the movie, because she was very convincing as a teenager. Compared to some women in Hollywood she has a very flat chest, which is why I was fooled so easily about her age. So both physically and emotionally, Grey pulls off playing a teen very well. I also loved the dancing--who WOULDN'T? Both times I've watched Dirty Dancing, I keep wanting to look up dance classes. I also love the soundtrack, and I do recognize some of the songs from when I was eight or nine. I would LOVE to be able to watch this in my drama class, and I'm going to ask my teacher at some point if there's any part of the movie he can use for educational purposes. It's much better than the stuff he made us watch last year. And the ending was absolutely FANTASTIC. That's one of the best moments in the film.

I can't believe I'm looking forward to the first day back to school because of Dirty Dancing! Who could ask for a better influence from a movie with that sort of title?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dirty Dancing - I think everyone has seen this movie at one time or another. I can remember as a kid I loved this movie and watched it over and over again without tiring of it.

Now that I'm a little older, I bought the DVD recently and STILL wasn't disappointed with the performance.

Swayze and Grey create the atmosphere for this movie, even though it's claimed they don't get along, the chemistry in the movie is unbelievable! As the movie proceeds, we are sucked into their relationship, and believe every single one of their actions.

The soundtrack is amazing, the music only adds to the romantic mood of the movie and adds to the relationship between Baby & Patrick.

The last scene makes this movie, who can ever forget the famous line \"Noboby puts Baby in the corner.\" The song is perfect and the dancing is amazing!

I would recommend this movie to anyone, at any age, it's just a fun movie anyone can enjoy 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When dirty dancing was on TV in the middle of last year I was out so I didn't get to see it, my mum swore that I had seen it and that she had it on tape somewhere. Anyway getting to the point she couldn't find her video so for Christmas I bought her the DVD, well she hasn't had a look in. It sat around for a while then one night I decided to take it upstairs to watch and I fell in love with it. This is a great film with lots of lovely scenes! I love the plot and enjoyed every moment of it! It's definitely not for everyone but if you love a love story then you will want to watch Dirty Dancing again and again! Dirty Dancing - The Way Love Is Meant To Be!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i have seen this movie about 50 times already and it doesn't look like i am ever going to get bored of it. i always watch it with my best friend and it has become sort of a tradition for us now to watch it almost every month. every single time we see this movie we both get really emotional and we laugh and cry in front of the TV together and sing all the songs in a loud voice and in the end we always dance.by now we practically know even the whole dialog by heart and watching the film feels like seeing our own old friends on TV.

this film is perfect! even though i have to admit that the story itself is a bit cheesy but the characters, the dance, the music and even the place where it all takes place make you forget all about it and you start believing that things like that really do happen and that the song \"all you need is love\" actually has some kind of a meaning.

i am really a normal person and not too serious about this comment of mine but i just cant wait until the next time we'll be able to see Dirty Dancing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i think dirty dancing was a great movie, they tried to make another one havana nights which was good but it was nothing like dirty dancing. i would like to see another dirty dancing with the same people. without them i think it would be a mess. a lot of times movies are made then when they try to add on more they start to change the people an make the movies go down hill. i would love to see dirty dancing have another one to see what happened after they were able to be together. patrick an Jennifer did so well together. this movie was made in 1997 its time to make another one. but this time start where it left off an keep the same people in it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first heard of this film from a friend. She loved it and always watched it. When she told me about it and said how old it was, I immediately decided that I wouldn't like it. I was so wrong. Dirty Dancing was such an amazing film! I love the music and the dancing. I bought the soundtrack and DVD immediately after watching it. Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey were brilliant in it. They captured the emotions and feelings of the characters so well. They were both such good dancers. After watching the film I wished I could dance like them and I'm hopefully going to take up ballroom and Latin dancing soon. I've become a fan of that sort of dancing and am now hooked on all films and programs about it. Dirty Dancing revealed my passion for dancing and music. My favorite parts of the film are when Baby goes into the Staff's headquarters and sees them dancing and obviously the last scene where Baby and Johnny dance together in front of everyone. I believe that everyone must watch Dirty Dancing at least once in their lifetime. If they don't, it's their loss!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SO good, the acting, cutting, directing in there may not be the best ever, but the dancing, the moves, the heat and the passion in this movie is definitely the best (well...atleast for me ^^) it really touched me, inspired me to learn dancing. i even especially registered to this site just so i could vote on it and contribute my support for this movie. for this movie, it literally gave me goosebumps when i watched it. i love it. Jennifer Grey is SO pretty! Patrick is so sexy in there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the first thing i'll do tomorrow, on my way to university will be to drop by the video store n buy a copy of it, n watch it again n again till i am old n wrinkly n cant dance with the movie any longer. before than I NEED TO LEARN ALL THE DANCE MOVES THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When young Frances 'Baby' Houseman goes to summer camp with her family, she never expected to have so much fun! One night, after wandering away from a resort activity, she stumbles upon a all night dance party with Johnny Castle and other fellow dancers. Quickly enthralled by the raunchy dance moves, 'Baby' is eager to learn when she has to fill in for Penny just so she and Johnny don't lose their jobs at the resort. But young 'Baby' soon finds herself in a sticky situation; she has fallen in love with a man she knows her father will never approve of. However, when Johnny is accused of stealing wallets, it is up to 'Baby' to confirm his alibi by admitting that she was with him the night they were taken. Johnny is fired anyway for getting involved with a visitor, but quickly realises what a mistake it was leaving 'Baby'. He comes back with that famous line 'No one puts Baby in a corner' and they show the resort exactly what they're made of.

An amazing film, perfect for a girly night in. With groovy tunes, inspiring dances and a story that will make you feel all warm inside, this has got to be the greatest film of all time! **********","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like for most women this movie is the ultimate chick-flick. With it's hot chemistry, sexy dance rountines and beaitiful songs, i mean timeless classic like (I've Had) The Time of My Life & the wonderful She's Like The Wind makes this movie. I adore Patrick Swayze in this movie and he shows he can sing and dance it's so hot. He sings \"She's Like The Wind\" in the movie. The chemistry between Swayze and co-star Jennifer Grey is amazing. I love all the dancing and everything that goes with it. But saying this Dirty Dancing 2: - Havana Nights is also great but Patrick Swayze scenes makes this. I love the songs, dancing and everything about it but it isn't Dirty Dancing. Like I said it's an amazing chick flick. Please let there be a 3rd because I love to see what happens with Patrick's character Johnny. Jennifer character could have been more sexy but hey Patrick makes up for that if you know what I mean!!! Great movie and I'm so pleased Billy Zane didn't win the movie role. I heard whispers he was meant for the role but they found out he couldn't dance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hello all you lovely Dirty Dancing fans!!!! I came across this message board when i was bored one day and think it's cool. I absolutely love DD! I first saw it at my friends house when I was 13 (now I'm 17) and got hooked!! I saw it there at least 10 more times and soon after, I bought the DVD for myself. At this stage, I have memorized most of the script and can recite it whenever anyone asks me about it. ''I carried a watermelon?!'' It's gotten so bad that I bought the soundtrack and recorded Micky and Sylvia's song, and now it's the ringtone on my phone!! Most of my friends think it's a crap movie, but I don't care what they think of it, I know it's brill! I was reading the comments earlier and I have a few questions for you lot - 1. Why are you asking trivial questions like what ages Lisa and Baby are? I don't think it matters that much. They are teenagers in the 60's, isn't that enough? 2. Where did ye get this special edition that you're all talking about? It sounds VERY interesting... Please reply to this. I'd like to see other fans opinions... Cheers! charliesangel415 xxx","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's funny how time went by and never saw this movie...'till last week, when i was like under a spell. I saw it twice in a week and it still wasn't enough. It's a great movie and I will love to see it again. The story is great and it really moved me. I would love to live such a story. The actors are great, the music too and you can dream about your own love story. I just hope that someday I will find the opportunity to learn to dance like Johnny and Baby. I feel like dance connects people and brings them together. I think people should learn to dance...it helps a lot, especially in a relationship. It's great to feel the dance in your blood and in your body.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have watched this movie at least 30 times, maybe more, and each time I watch it I am drawn into the movie and back to 1963! The Movie takes me on a nostalgic vacation every time I watch it.

I think the important thing to say here is I was 15 in 1963 and I can remember \"before President Kennedy was shot and before the Beetles came.\" I can feel myself saying something like, \"I carried a watermelon.\" and then realizing just how stupid that was! Jennifer Grey plays Frances \"Baby\" Houseman in Dirty Dancing. Baby is going to start college in the Fall. She goes to Kellerman's for vacation with her family (mom, Dad and sister Lisa).

One of the staff dancers, Penny (played by Cynthia Rhodes) gets pregnant by another staff person (one of the college boys played by Max Cantor) and has a chance to get an abortion but it is on a night that her and Johnny (Patrick Swayze) are scheduled to dance at a nearby hotel.

Thus, the need for a fill-in dancer for Penny. Johnny is persuaded by Penny and his cousin Billy (Neal Jones) that he can teach Baby to do the dance in time for the show. Baby learning the dance steps with Penny and Johnny are wonderful scenes!

Baby's father (Doctor Jake Houseman played by Jerry Orbach) comes to Penny's rescue when the abortion is done wrong. Dirty Dancing brought back to me this time in history when girls got pregnant and had abortions in back rooms by butchers. Around this time (1963) many girls actually died from this type of abortion - but there were not many choices for a girl then.

Lonnie Price plays a great conceited grandson (Neil Kellerman) to Jack Weston's Max Kellerman. Jane Brucker does a great job as Baby's annoying sister Lisa Houseman.

The music is great and the dancing is wonderful! The \"dirty dancers\" are absolutely wonderful and very sexy - I can feel Baby's astonishment when she first sees them dancing and says, \"Where'd they learn to do that?\".

Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze are just perfect together in their respective roles. Patrick's song, \"She's Like The Wind\" brings tears to my eyes each time I hear\/watch it in this movie.

The movie ends on an up note, but leaves you wanting to know what happens next in Baby's and Johnny's lives. Dirty Dancing gives something new each time it is watched - It mesmerizes the watcher with nostalgia, a feeling of wanting it to be 1963 again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm 15, usually not kids my age usually watch these old classic movies. But this is one of my favorites. I was totally addicted after watching it for the first time. It's really good if u think about technology and movies back at that time, music is great, storyline is OK,choreography is great, must see it. I don't know why there's a prequel for this movie. Not many people like this movie, but i love classic love movies, they're so much better than movies now! This movie will make you smile, cry and make you start dancing. The music is absolutely ear catching and beautiful. I haven't seen Dirty Dancing 2 Harvana Nights(prequel), prequel should have star the original actors, thats what i hate about prequels, they ruin the original. No one wants a prequel, they want a sequel. Many people will agree that for a movie- the original, sequel and the 3rd one is enough. Beyond that, people wont be bothered to watch it. Who remembers the movie about the St Benard Beethoven? I think there's 5 movies altogether.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While most movies that pit humans against horrendous extra terrestrials end up being cheap imitations of the 'Aliens' series, Pitch Black stands as a fine piece of Sci-Fi, and an excellent movie all around. Perhaps my favorite aspect of the film is the lighting. This movie beautifully employs many different colors, shades and intensities of light which set the mood and lend a unique feeling to the film itself, something different than the 'normal' movie lighting we are generally subjected to. Vin Diesel brings his character to life in an excellent manner, skillfully avoiding the routine portrayal of the hardened criminal. After all, the film is about Riddick's (Diesel's character) personal journey, so thankfully Vin doesn't drop the ball. The remainder of the cast (with the exception of the talented and gorgeous Claudia Black) were unknown to me but all turned in marvelous performances, animating the diverse characters with unique quirks and mannerisms. Pitch Black is a perfect example of making a great film with out the resources of an excessive budget. The special effects are more than adequate, but at the same time they are by no means the sole focus, as in many high budget 'blockbusters'. It's a great movie because it uses Science Fiction as a medium to tell an engaging, provoking story, rather then telling a mediocre story to use the flash of Science Fiction.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the first 10 seconds of Pitch Black I was hooked. I had walked into this movie thinking that it would be just another cheesy sci-fi movie. Instead I found a highly entertaining, on the edge of your seat, thought provoking action film. The movie goes beyond your basic special effects flick. The actors are amazing, Radah Mitchell (High Art, Love and other..) as Fry is truly a joy to watch on screen, while Vin Diesel as Riddeck is so captivating that you are dying just to hear him speak again.

The look of the movie is breath taking, the contrast of blues, yellows and oranges due to the three different suns is amazing. Followed by the complete darkness of nightfall. I would truly recommend any lover of the ALIEN movies or Radha Mitchell (which is why I went to see it) to check out this film. I'm sure by the end you'll look at the dark in a whole new way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pitch Black is a survival story. It's about how to survive in an hostile, alien world against even more hostile enemies. The task gets even more difficult when the nearest enemies can be found within your own surviving group.

The plot of Pitch Black is quite usual and has been seen several times before in different variations. But what makes this movie shine above others, is it's well-written characters.

The group consists of very different people with few more interesting than the others: Jack, a boy with a secret; Fry, a pilot having hard time with her own conscience; Johns, a bounty- hunter with a drug-habit; Imam, a holy man facing the fact that God is sometimes cruel and Riddick, a convict and a murderer learning to value others, not only himself. Characters start to live in the movie. They aren't only paper like in many other movies of this genre. You start to care for the characters, especially for Riddick though that feels quite odd. He is supposed to be the bad guy. In this movie, the line between light and pitch black is very thin. All characters are familiar with both.

Other thing that works in this movie is the casting. Rarely do actors fit to their roles this well. Radha Mitchell is suitable for Fry. Cole Hauser brings the right amount of cruelness and sense of responsibility for Johns. But the most impressive work is done by Vin Diesel. He does great job as Riddick. In his hands Riddick is quite creepy, definitely very dangerous and also deep character, just as he is supposed to be.

So, how do you survive in Pitch Black? Keep your friends close and enemies even closer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The opening scene of this movie is pretty incredible. I've seen a number of sci-fi movies with great special effects but my roommate and I looked at each other after the opening sequence and he said plainly, \"sensory overload.\" The plot of the movie is pretty simple but the nice thing about this sci-fi movie is that it lets the audience figure out most of the technology for themselves instead of wasting time to \"subtly\" explain it. The creatures in this movie are also very interesting. You don't get a really good look at them until about two thirds of the way through. Overall, a very entertaining movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must say that I didn't expect much sitting down to watch \"Pitch Black,\" but I got a lot back, in terms of excitement and pure fun. It's the type of flick where you can just lean back, relax, and have a great time just being entertained. This isn't a deep film by any means. Everything that it offers is either recycled or ripped off of other movies such as \"Alien,\" \"Predator\" or such. But when I watch a rip-off, I want it to be good, and this rip-off is great.

It opens with a galaxy of stars. Some of the greatest films of all time open with this type of scene - \"2001,\" \"Star Wars,\" \"Alien,\" \"Predator.\" A ship is cruising through space when inside the entire cryogenically frozen crew is awoken. The ship has been hit by something. They crash land on a nasty little planet with three suns. Everyone flocks out of the ship when they find that their prisoner transport, Richard Riddick (Vin Diesel), has escaped confinement. They scan the desert planet in search of him and eventually find him, but they have no way of getting their ship to fly again. They search the planet for water and civilization but it seems that everyone suddenly disappeared from the planet not too long ago.

Then they find out that every 22 years the planets line up in a solar eclipse and the entire planet turns pitch black. There also happen to be hoards of aliens that thrive in darkness living on the planet - what are the chances? They happen to be on the planet right as the eclipse happens - what are the chances? And Riddick has a rare talent - he can see in the dark - again, what are the chances?

There seems to be a lot of coincedence in this movie, but a film like this isn't out to get Oscars for originality or believability. It's there to entertain the audience - it does so with ease. Vin Diesel is a big gorilla of a man with no acting talent whatsoever. But I've got to say if there's anyone who can fit the part of a trashy, homicidal felon it is Diesel. Listen to him mutter, \"He did not know who he was fu**ing with.\" Great stuff.

The aliens in this movie are a mix between hammerhead sharks, those from \"Alien\" and Predators. They've got long, horizontal heads like a hammerhead, the quick-moving agility of the aliens, and the stealth of a Predator. I assume David Twohy (director and writer of the movie) didn't expect audiences to believe his creatures were truly something never seen before. At least I hope not.

\"Aliens Redux\" might be a better name for this movie, but then again, it is better than both the second and third \"Alien\" films put together. In a time when apparently ended series are getting revived - \"Terminator 3,\" \"Alien 5,\" \"Predator 3,\" \"Alien vs. Predator\" - \"Pitch Black\" stands out as a new series altogether. Two more sequels are planned. Let's just hope they don't get carried away. I can just picture it twenty-five years from now: \"Aliens vs. Predator vs. Pitch Black Aliens: *The Fight of the Year.\"

*Fight of the Year title may be shared with the upcoming film \"Freddy vs. Jason vs. Michael vs. Leatherface vs. Norman Bates vs. Alien vs. Predator vs. Terminator vs. James Cameron vs. Barny the Dinosaur.\"

4\/5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a zombie fan, I really love these types of plots where people end up in strange places surrounded by wicked monsters! PB is also an excellent tie-in to Chronicles of Riddick (COR). The gang has to run as fast as they can away from darkness. There are so many metaphors in the story! Riddick is this bad guy, but he's also the hero who tries to save the slow-paced folks. The Muslim guy, Imam, relies on the sun's positions for the five times a day prayers, but he is stuck in a land where darkness will rule. Overall, I recommend this film to any sci-fi fans. You won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is without doubt the most exciting and satisfying film I've seen in years! The plot seen in print is almost banal- a ship crashes on a desert planet with three suns, the survivors have to adjust to the landscape and each other, then darkness falls and the monsters appear. Pilot Fry, after a moment of cowardice during the descent through the atmosphere when she almost jettisoned the passengers, takes charge of the group and enlists the help of convicted murderer Riddick to lead them through the darkness to the escape ship - he's the one with surgically enhanced eyes that can see in the dark. But it's really not that simple - every character is complex, three-dimensional, with conflicting traits so you never quite know who's good and who's bad.

The performances are uniformly superb - Radha Mitchell shows Fry steeling herself for leadership, overcoming her own fears, and trying to prevent further bloodshed, while Cole Hauser, as the man taking Riddick back to custody, shows he has his own agenda and his own idiosyncratic standards. But the film belongs to Vin Diesel as Riddick - he has the most magnetic screen presence I've seen in years. For much of the film his face is in shadow, and he doesn't actually say a great deal, but he draws your attention all the same. Sometimes he draws your attention by not speaking - or by not moving. And Diesel doesn't trivialise the character, as could so easily be done, by giving him a \"heart of gold\" - Riddick is still one mean and vicious man as they approach the ship - he just lets us glimpse those first tentative steps from caring only for the self to caring for others.

Technically the film is very good. The lighting effects are excellent at both ends of the spectrum - the overbright triple sunlight and the pitch darkness. Special effects showing both Riddick's and the monsters' points of view add to the suspense, as do sound effects of the monsters flying and using ultrasound to \"see\" (the monsters themselves are anatomically plausible and suitably frightening). Editing is so tight it's almost jarring at times - there is literally no padding in this film, no fades, no time to re-orient yourself.

From the opening shot to the end of the credits you have to keep your wits about you. Every scene, every line of dialogue, every single camera shot is important. See it three times to understand it all.

My only caveat is about the science - the solar system as shown in the model is impossible (planets revolve around suns, not vice versa). However, that doesn't affect the human story, so I haven't taken points off for it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is about the crew of a spaceship who crash land onto a strange bright planet with three suns. Among the passengers is convicted serial killer, Richard Riddick (Vin Diesel), and his nemesis, Johns (Cole Hauser). While the survivors of the wreck are getting their bearings, an eclipse of all three suns happens. Shortly afterwards, scary creatures begin to appear and start to pick off the crew members one by one. During the eclipse, Riddick comes into his own, as his eyeballs have been surgically shined, giving him night vision. The crew have to rely on him to try to get them to safety.

This is a very stylish film, with the colour of the sky changing scene by scene, giving it a very strange look. Vin Diesel is brilliant as Riddick, truly menacing but forced to help people who otherwise would only see him as a threat. There is also an underlying humour in his performance as well, which adds another dimension to the character. This is the sort of role that Vin excels in, the anti-hero, whos character is not as one-dimensional as first appears. I can imagine no-one else in this role, it could have been written specifically for him.

Roll on Chronicles of Riddick!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let me waste a moment of your time to explain how I approached this film. 1st I dismissed the trailers out of hand because the film appeared to be an uncredited remake of Aliens, which I consider to be one of the weakest films in the Alien series. Stupidly continuing to dismiss the film after I heard positive things about it from people whose opinions I trust, I missed the theatrical run completely. I then became hooked on Farscape, in its 3rd or 4th season at the time, and found Pitch Black on cable one night around bed time - so I said \"oh why not, at least it has Claudia Black in it.\" Soon, I recognized Keith David, and began to realize that Vin Diesel, Radha Mitchell and Cole Hauser could all act (why this should surprise me, I do not know). I was captivated. I have now remained captivated for four years. I just watched the film for the 3rd or 4th time, and I still love it.

This is not an art film, not an independent, and its not entirely original, but where it fails to break a lot of new ground, it utterly succeeds in providing interesting, realistic characters, hard-driving action in the medium of a compelling but simple plot, and non-stop entertainment; an absolutely beautiful environment with tastefully rendered special effects. Sound to good to be true? Don't take my word for it... see it for yourself.

The film also highlighted the charisma of the now somewhat iconoclastic Vin Diesel, introducing the character of Richard Riddick. Diesel would go on to star in the somewhat Riddick-ulous Chronicles thereof (which I also enjoyed, though recognizing its rather huge flaws) and is now something of a legend. Diesel is so charismatic, so big, and so interesting to watch that it is easy to ignore the fact that he is not only a talented actor, but a smart one too. Checking out the DVD version of Pitch Black, with the audio comments on might just blow you away.

The film is about the crew of an inter-system transport ship stranded on an unknown planet after a crash-landing in which their captain was killed. The new commander is inexperienced but bright and heroic (Mitchell), but she is caught between two dominant and dangerous personalities - a bounty hunter with secrets (Hauser) and a dangerous criminal who has been surgically altered to see in the dark (Diesel). Is that all? Of course not - the planet is inhabited, and the inhabitants are hungry.

As unoriginal and improbable as some of this may be, Pitch Black is beautifully filmed, well told, and very nicely performed. Don't expect to learn anything, and don't expect to have to think a whole lot, but do expect to have fun with this modern sci-fi action classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Pitch Black\" was a complete shock to me when I first saw it back in 2000. In the previous years, I was repeatedly disappointed by all the lame sci-fi movies (Ex: STARSHIP TROOPERS) and thought that this movie wouldn't be any different. But to plainly put it: This movie freaked me out... in a good way. I wasn't aware that I was still afraid of the dark till I watched this movie; I must have buried my fear in the back of my subconscious when I was a kid and it rightfully deserves to stay there.

The alien creatures sent shivers up my spine; the individual(s) who designed them have a twisted but brilliant and creative imagination to come up with something so impressive and grotesque.

I loved how the writers gave each main character a history and showed their flaws and strengths without much confusion.

Riddick's (Vin Diesel) gift for escaping out of any impossible situation and putting up a hell of a fight was jaw dropping. At first, you figure him out to be a coldly intelligent villain but in some brief moments, you can see something humane behind his animal side. But as soon you discover it, he does something maliciously devious. He certainly keeps you guessing right up to the very end. I didn't know whether to despise or admire him... he's definitely a love\/hate type of character.

Johns (Cole Hauser) was a perfect example of a character that puts up a good front but through a need for greed, shows his real intentions and what he's willing to do to survive. John's knack for knowing what buttons to push and the right words to say makes him as devious as Riddick.

Fry (Radha Mitchell) is a character who, as Johns so nicely expressed, looked to her thine own ass first before considering the consequences. But what's endearing about her is that she quickly realizes the errors of her ways and tries desperately to pay penance, even while endangering her life when others discarded all human values and went for the dark hills running.

Jack (Rhiana Griffith) simply wanted to have a hero and was the first one out of the whole group to look for that hero in Riddick; through a child's eye, good can be seen through the thick clouds of evil. I thought it was absolutely priceless when Jack shaves his head in ode to Riddick; you know what they say: Imitation is the best form of flattery.

Imam (Keith David), like Jack, has the ability to see good in any evil. He uses philosophy to carry him through the hardships that he meets and when time permits, he rationally grieves his losses and then soldiers on. In a way, he served as a morale booster for the survivors even though most of the characters acted as though they weren't listening.

The casting for this movie was positively perfect. Each actor shined brightly in their role and their talents blended wonderfully on-screen.

This movie may have had a small budget but the director's leadership and the actor's performances made the movie work and allowed the audience to use their imagination instead of letting some outrageously expensive Special Effects do all the work for them. This movie is a definite Sci-Fi classic. Watch it and judge (with an open mind) for yourself. It will be well worth it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film gets off to a bad start. An incredibly corny monologue is followed immediately by a brilliantly-done, truly amazing spaceship crash. Then things go downhill again, as you realize that the survivors are all a) bad actors (apart from the docking pilot and the psychopath) and b) almost all of them fit too nicely into the role of monster-fodder. Hell, half of them don't even speak English, preventing the audience from getting to know the characters at all. You feel as if you were watching \"Deep Blue Sea\" meets \"Silence of the Lambs\", minus the good bits. And unfortunately, the entire thing tries to hard to be \"Crashed on a desert planet with Hannibal Lecter\" during the daylight scenes. Vin Diesel is a great actor - but he is no Anthony Hopkins, and he frankly annoys as the smart hyper-cool psycho. There is at least one very good scene involving an unexpected survivor - but apart from that you could just as well have cut out the first thirty minutes or so...

But then things take a turn. I can't exactly pinpoint the moment, but soon the movie gets a lot better. It also feels less chopped - the scenes actually begin to follow each other with a consistent narrative, and Vin Diesel becomes much less annoying and soon he is a show-stealer. By the time the first monsters appear, the film is actually quite enjoyable. By the time night falls, it is great. Thrilling, horrifying and exciting. And even the character development of most main characters is well-done. If you can just sit through the poor bits at the start you're in for some GREAT entertainment.

Besides, the visuals are eye-candy, and I honestly admit: I love the colour and the tone of this movie.

7\/10 (could have been 9\/10, if only....)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this movie. It was edgy without being sociopath. Vin Diesel brought the Riddick character to life and made you feel good and bad about him on different levels.

I also saw Iron Giant and Vin is perfect. (The snowmobile movie - oh yeah, it's called \"Triple-X,\" or \"xXx\" - was a weak example of his work.) In Pitch Black he plays an anti-hero to the max. I don't think you can go wrong when Vin stars in a movie. Unfortunately, Hollowood might type cast him as an adventure action movie star - wrong! I think the script for \"XXX\" was weak for which Vin couldn't act down to it.

Anyway, Pitch Black is a great scifi - see it!

-Zafoid","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a Sci-fi movies fan I also like Alien. But Pitch Black is definitely better than Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection. It maches well into Alien series. But it isn't alien, it's something else. OK, enough comparisons. This movie but me think: Why people are afraid of dark. You can't run away from dark. It's impossible. You have to be faced with darkness and with that, what's in dark. In this movie I also liked that the Vin Diesel character Richard B. Riddick wasn't typical good-boy. He had a secrets and he has done bad things in the past. To the other people he is a hero who tries to save them all. First of all he want to get out of that planet himself. There is also other metaphors in this story. Every big sci-fi fan should see this picture.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a variation of a theme we've all seen over and over again - the Posiedan adventure in Space. The characters are all stock characters - feisty heroine, Judas, coward, etc. etc. The only question really is who's next to snuff it. Sometimes this tried and tested formula works - like in this case - but more often not - like the truly mind-numbing \"Red Planet.\"

So why does this one work? Because it's stylish. The acting is above average. And above all it isn't predictable. The conclusion isn't sign-posted. I really had no idea how it would all end and was surprised at how it did end. That alone deserves top marks in my book.

It's an intriguing and entertaining movie. And though it was never likely to change the face of cinema as we know it, it doesn't disappoint.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pitch Black is a surprisingly good movie. I was not a fan of Vin diesel before I saw Pitch black, but after seeing Pitch Black my respect for Vin Diesel has gone up. He did a great job playing Riddick a man wanted for many murders. His character is cold and makes many decisions that surprised me, like near the end Riddick was going to get on the ship and save his own ass leaving everyone behind to die. I like this movie and how it deals with human instinct. This movie is low budget but this movie goes to show you don't need amazing special effects and lots of money to make a good movie, I think all the characters made this movie. I give this movie 8 out of 10 ;)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a \"sleeper\" for sure!! Much better than I thought! Never realizing it was a horror flick.....and who was this gorgeous,baritoned voiced hunk, named Vin Diesel..adding spice and intrigue to this otherwise unpromoted film ??? The monsters in this film were quite unusual, not the same ol run of the mill gobble-you-up types!!The ending was great, too, for a change, not all \"bad guys are bad\"!!! I give it 2 thumbs up !!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"People who thought that THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK sucked harder than the black hole that swallowed up EVENT HORIZON, probably didn't see the movie that spawned Vin Diesel's skin-headed killer to begin with, and probably have no intention of doing so. Too bad, because PITCH BLACK actually does kick major ass.

Directed by genre vet David Twohy, (WARLOCK and the excellent but underrated BELOW) and written by siblings Jim and Ken Wheat (LIES, SILENT SCREAM), PITCH BLACK begins with an 'ALIEN'-esque prologue. When a combination cargo freighter\/passenger ship is badly damaged by a freak meteor shower (in which the captain is also killed), the co-pilot, Carolyn Fry (SILENT HILL'S Radha Mitchell) has an important decision to make: ditch the cargo or the passengers? Close to picking ore over occupants, the crash landing derails her ultimate course of action.

No matter, because the catastrophic landing has been made on a foreboding rock that once held a mining colony. Amongst the survivors are a couple of settlers, Shazza (FARSCAPE's Claudia Black) and Zeke (John Moore); an Imam (Keith David) and his young followers (can you say \"red shirts\" boys and girls?); an antiques dealer named Paris Ogilvie (Lewis Fitz-Gerald); a 'young boy' named Jack (Rhianna Griffith), and the most controversial members of the group: a Marshall named Johns (the excellently slimy Cole Hauser) and his prisoner...a dangerous murderer named Riddick (Diesel).

How the group dynamics shake out make for a lot of the dramatic tension, especially with concerns about Riddick and how many people he might slice and dice if he ever gets away. But no one here gets out alive, as the saying goes, and the biggest twists have less to do with how they get along, than how they'll survive when they discover the unthinkable. They are not alone on the planetoid. Things that are hungry, taloned and quick are slithering around just where they can't be seen, living in the darkness where they can survive and thrive. They want the flesh of the new arrivals to sate their appetites, but they can't come out into the searing daylight to forage for food.

Does the phrase \"total eclipse\" make things a little more interesting? You betcha. Hence the more-than-fitting title.

Vin, more monosyllabic than Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry on his grumpiest day, dripping more testosterone than sweat, has a field day here with a character that really does seem worth a sequel or two, and Hauser, oozing menace and bile is every bit as good as his dad Wings was at on-screen villainy. Surprisingly, though, Mitchell holds her own and manages to be strong and sympathetic as Fry. You would expect no less than a strong showing from Black, She Who Once Was 'Aeryn Sun', and she doesn't disappoint. (Too bad her role wasn't bigger, but that's all I'll say about it.) And David makes his usual indelible impression as the holy man whose faith will truly be tested in the very pit of Hell itself.

The pace moves faster than Riddick slipping up behind his prey with a shank in his teeth, and once the darkness descends, the terror and tension never let up, pretty much as in other classic sci-fi\/horror flicks which this imitates. But if imitation truly is the sincerest form of flattery, Dave Twohy and the Wheats deserve major backslaps for getting this one right with a vengeance, and for giving us an ending that is anti-Hollywood to the max.

I don't want to spoil the surprises, so I won't say much more, except that if you saw CHRONICLES first and weren't too happy, give PITCH BLACK a chance anyway. And if you've seen neither, definitely start with this one.

I don't know what Vin is up to now, but he could certainly do worse than to give these guys a call again. I'd love to see what they would dream up next...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even though this movie starts off with the usual: something goes wrong, spacecraft crashes, people are stranded etc. it still pulls off and introduces the viewer to some new ideas. Riddick is somewhat of a bad-ass convict and has modified his eyes so he is able to see in the dark which is a much sought after ability due to the situation the ship-crew and he gets in. The cutting in the movie is very good and emphasizes the mystique that shrouds around the anti-hero and male protagonist: \"Riddick.\" The story in Pitch Black is, as already mentioned, to some extent very unoriginal and dissatisfied, but the clipping and cutting in the movie blended with some surprising elements which has been added to the story helps it to still support itself very well and one is afterward left behind with a hybrid feeling of satisfaction and hunger for more. Vin Diesel acts really well in the role as Riddick and even though his character is a hardcore, tough survivor he still takes morale decisions almost on the verge of good, but that does not mean his decisions do not turn in his favor at the very end... Why destroy an already perfect reputation? All in all this is a very good movie though not perfect. The story seems very unoriginal at the surface, but underneath it shines with enough originality to entertain. Some scenes has that wow factor while it as a whole is a bit better than average. It could maybe be described as a cult movie and it is definitely a recommendation for people who wants a spiced up sci-fi story blended with some minor psychological moments and an intriguing protagonist, namely Riddick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a great movie and the sequel should know our socks off!!! The action will be nonstop and I just bought the special edition DVD with the animated background story similar to the Animatrix. This will put Vin Diesel back in the spotlight and hopefully get him the coveted role in Spider Man 3 as Venom. He would be the most logical choice for the role. Back to PB this movie even though it is a indie thriller, it has a great story and characters with backgrounds that scream for you to want to learn more. If they were to do books or comics it would be a great read. There was one thing that I felt was a little under done. The ending it needed a little work but not every movie will have the best ending.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oh my gosh! this was one of the best Sci-fi movies i have ever seen, and quite frankly i can't stand Sci-fi films.

Vin Diesel and his co-workers made this movie really enjoyable!!

I also must say that Vin diesel is by far the most sexiest and most talented male actors i have seen. Keep it up Vin! your doing great!! As for everyone else good job. i thought the drama and suspense kept the viewers really intrigued. again, great job everyone and i 'm rooting for you Vin.

Sincerely yours,

Alexandra","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're a science fiction fan, and you've only seen this movie once, please, PLEASE go and treat yourself to a second viewing. I just did, and I was AMAZED about how good I thought the movie was, as opposed to when I first saw it three years ago. The first time around I was certainly impressed by the astronomical vistas we're treated to in this movie, but by and large I didn't think that much of the movie as a whole. It was an Alien rip-off, and I thought the description of the monsters was a case of really bad science. That they were allergic to light was something I found especially ridiculous. Based on my first viewing, I recently rated this movie a 5.

However, now that the sequel, Chronicles of Riddick, is on the way, and the movie poster for that one looks amazing, I thought I'd better brush up on Pitch Black once more, so I borrowed the video from a friend. I am so glad I did. There's so much of what I thought I remembered from the first viewing that turned out to be wildly inaccurate. I thought most of the characters died very early in the movie. This was not so. I thought Claudia Black's character was the first to die. This was not so. I thought Riddick was the sole survivor. This was not so.

I see now that the movie works *extremely* well. There isn't an excessive, tiresome focus on the monsters. It's much more of a human drama. The main characters are appealing and capable of some convincing acting. And there are so many little details that make the Pitch Black universe coherent and believable, such as the shortage of oxygen in the atmosphere of the planet they crash on, and the fact that the monsters have eaten everything on the planet, and so they turn on each other.

And I have to mention the astronomical vistas again. I mean, we start out seeing the spaceship passing through a comet's tail, with bits of spacedust zapping through the hull. Then we come to a planet with three suns. Just as the shipwrecked people think it's about to get dark, a blue sun rises on the opposite horizon, and everything is engulfed in a blue glow. As the eclipse approaches, we see the huge, neighboring, ringed gas giant rise across the sky, and in the final scene of the movie we see the ship skid closely above one of these very rings. These scenes are created with a sense of beauty, wonder and detail, and I don't think I've seen any other SF movie that really made such a point out of including these things. I hope we see much more of it in the sequel.

Pitch Black now gets from me a rating of 9 out of 10. A cult classic? You bet!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw \"Into Pitch Black\" on t.v. and so I had to see this. I must say, I was very impressed.

Not only has David Twohy's style improved since he wrote \"Critters 2\", this film brought to my attention Vin Diesel. Sure, he was there in \"Into Pitch Black\", but here he was ferocious, scary, and intense. I haven't seen charisma like that since Schwarzenegger in the 80's.

The story is simple enough, but it is the characters that make this film interesting. Then there was what happens with the female lead. Unexpected. The dark humor helps the film move along, the effects aren't grand, but when Riddick fights the alien... it blew all of my complaints out.

Diesel hasn't done a whole lot since this film that I would care about, but I am eagerly looking forward to the sequel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It opens with your cliche overly long ship flying through space. All I could think at this point was \"Spaceballs\" and hoping there'd be a sticker on back that said \"We break for Nobody.\" The movie then shows some cryogenic freezers with Vin Diesel's narration. I've always thought his voice sounded cool ever since I saw Fast and the Furious. From when I found out he was as criminal, I thought the movie was going to be cliche. It was. It was very cliche and fate seemed to be against them at every turn. Black out every 22 years. Lucky them, they land on that day. Aliens can only be in the darkness, hey it's a solar eclipse. As much as I thought it was too easy and just a cliche, the movie pulled through and kicked major @ss. I even went out and bought a copy of Pitch Black after seeing it. I really can't wait for Chronicles of Riddick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*

I thought Pitch Black to be quite enjoyable, with some nice effects--I liked the larger beasts, although they aren't a patch on the Aliens from the Alien series. It had quite a good atmosphere, which I felt Vin Diesel helped contribute toward.

One thing which kind of stumped me was how it rained. If the planet has three suns and is in almost continuous daylight, where did the moisture come from to form clouds and therefore rain?

I liked the fact that Fry died at the end--it reminded me of the New Hollywood films of the 1970s, with the main heroine not making it to the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The influences of other science fiction and thriller movies and stories are evident throughout this film. The movies that come to mind immediately are Alien, Aliens, and Starship Troopers. The story itself is fairly straightforward and not all that original, hibernated traveling through space, crash landing on planet with no apparent life and a \"deserted\" geological expedition - except when the lights go out, forcing different types of people to work together toward their mutual survival, while the body count mounts. This kind of movie always tends to be fun, as long as it's done well. I believe that Pitch Black was done well. The characters are interesting and you want to find out more about them the longer the movie goes on, and I think people will be surprised by who does and doesn't make it.

Vin Diesel plays Riddick, the stereotypical convicted criminal who has a murderous past, physically prowess, high tolerance for pain, and conveniently can see in the dark. You know he is going to end up doing the right thing at some point in the movie, because it's hinted throughout the movie that he actually may have a conscience about things.

Cole House plays the drug-addicted bounty hunter who's probably in many ways a real bad guy compared to Riddick, as his character reveals itself throughout the movie. It is most likely that he is most courageous when the odds and firepower are in his favor. A very self-serving character that in the end gets what he deserves.

Radha Mitchell plays the co-pilot on the doomed vessel, who is jolted out of deep sleep because the ship ran through a meteor swarm or the tail end of a comment. Finding the pilot dead in his sleeping chamber she attempts to land the ship, which leads to our discovery of that's character's potentially fatal flaw - fear of responsibility, accountability, and being a leader. Her character in the short span of the story probably grows the most, in that she actually grows some conviction, takes charge, and doesn't sit around waiting to be gobbled up by night stalking aliens. She in some strange way connects with the ever-distant human side of Riddick, who in turn in the end, respects her for her choices and her sticking with them.

The story in some cases plays out as you would expect it, but I think you'll be mildly surprised by which characters survive this harrowing experience. This movie is an entertaining train-wreck in progress to watch. Go watch it!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the future, a disparate group of people asleep aboard a commercial spaceship is forced to improvise their survival when the spaceship crash-lands on a remote, barren planet. They already have one problem in that one of the passengers is intense criminal Richard Riddick (Vin Diesel, in his first top-billed role); however, they are soon preyed upon by a strange species of predator that thrives in the darkness - and a rare solar eclipse is soon to take place.

While the script for this movie is ultimately on the routine side, it is decently acted and it is especially well-made technically. Location work, photography, and design (production as well as creature design) are all very impressive. It is not the most original or stimulating science-fiction \/ horror picture ever made, far from it, but it still provides good entertainment. Diesel is particularly good at getting under the skin of his intimidating character. It is not ENTIRELY predictable, however, and gets some points for

**SPOILER**

having a more politically correct ending than most of its type.

Filmed on location in the desolate Coober Pedy area of Queensland in Australia.

A sequel of sorts is in the works.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(VERY mildly spoilerish)

I must start by saying that I'm not usually impressed by science-fiction, so Pitch Black (2000) was a pleasant surprise. It had me hooked from the very beginning with rhythm, intensity and visual outburst that left me fascinated and glued to my seat. I'm very happy to say that this movie was the best (okay, at least *one* of the best) science fiction piece that I've seen in a long, long time.

The plot in short might sound simple -- a (space) ship crashes on a supposedly deserted planet and the captain, Caroline Fry (impressive Radha Mitchell), must lead the survivors to safety. At first, a cold-blooded murderer, Riddick (Vin Diesel, who plays the role with very believable spare style), might seem like the group's biggest problem but as the dusk starts crawling in, the creatures of the night start awakening... This leads to a desperate attempt to escape from the bloodthirsty predators, which, as we all can guess, does not lead to a happy family picnic.

It's not the plot itself that makes the movie worth watching -- after all, let's face it, if you strip it down to the basics it's not *that* original -- but the skill in which it's told. The story flowed forward, didn't leave me yawning (at least not much) in any point. The directing was fabulous work. This was a very visual, even beautiful movie; the purple night view was a real treat. Although, 'beautiful' might not be the right word to use; yes, the images shown were candy to the eye, but they also added a touch of unspecified grotesqueness, eeriness, as if something was just about to burst out from under the still surface. (Not to mention that the monsters were really well done, they looked realistic, which seems to be rare nowadays [maybe people just can't be bothered to make them look real...])

I did not only enjoy the visual side of the movie but also the psychological aspect of the story. During the movie we get to see the characters unraveling -- some of them fall, some of them rise -- but what fascinated me the most was the developing of the character of Riddick. I enjoyed watching the change in him throughout the movie. To go even further, the other thing I enjoyed a lot with Riddick was the incredibly well and originally executed UST (Unresolved Sexual Tension) between Fry and him that \"didn't\" (you'll get what I mean once you see it). [One can't deny that they had chemistry. Don't even try or I'll seek you out and make you listen to me playing Chopsticks until you scream *grin*] It was fresh. As Radha Mitchell once put it (a modified quote), \"Pitch Black is a really sexy movie with no sex\", which is what makes it even more so interesting.

So, to summarize, I recommend this movie -- even if you're really not a fan of \"space stories\". The suspense was kept until the very end and, what's important, we were (or at least I was) left wanting for more. If you can't be bothered to think about psychology, subtext and such (as is my bad habit), you'll still find Pitch Black highly entertaining. Just kick off your shoes and enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Reasonably effective horror\/science-fiction a la \"Alien\" is fairly well done given its limited ambitions. Some nice special effects and well paced action sequences adequately patch the cracks in the rather tiresome dialogue. When a space craft crash lands on a remote planet the survivors soon become aware that a hideous terror awaits them in the dark of the upcoming total eclipse.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen Director's Cut version and can be nothing but content. Excellent acting (esp. Cole Hauser, I was sad about little space for Claudia Black though), subtle visual effects and photography in overall, believable plot (considering the genre) without a lot of logical holes, really non-predictable twists, build-up characters. These are the greatest assets of the movie. Combined with style - some may consider this movie a B-grade effort but I would disagree with that. The whole thing really is very original and stylish.

And even though I'm not a fan of Vin Diesel, this tough guy role of Riddick suited him well. Can't wait for Chronicles of Riddick, it's really cool this flick's gonna have a sequel...

9\/10 if you ask me","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For avid Sci-Fi fans this movie is just what you've been waiting for. Watching this movie gets you lost into the characters, especially Riddick, the movies bad guy. This is the case where you root for the bad guy and want to see him live and win. As you watch the survivors struggle to stay alive you long to see who lives and how they survive these unknown creatures that have taken over this planet. An excellent movie, Vin Diesel did a wonderful job as convict Riddick and the acting and suspense were ravishing.A+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Early Coppola with sublime cast that most folks never got to see (a pity). There's some wonderful things going on in this one - Shirley Knight's best performance (an underrated actress), a road trip in the late 1960's, James Caan very restrained and moving, Robert Duvall in a part he was born to play (edgy, lonely, motorcycle cop), and a touching script with F. Coppola behind the wheel.

If this had been made five years LATER by some nobody, it would have been a smash (so much for timing). Anyway, I recommend this to all people who don't need outer-space explosions and bad mother-in-law jokes or a billion dollar budget to sit for a few hours and watch a story unfold. Give this one a chance if you can find it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Newly-pregnant Knight bolts from husband for non-specific reasons which are apparently self-related. On the road, she becomes entangled with Caan, brain-damaged former football star, and Duvall, wacky but abusive cop. The type of movie that could only have been spawned in the 60's. Worth a look for its non-formula plot and for early performances by future stars.

Disappointing resolution does not take away too much from rest of flick, which shows an interesting slice of life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In some scenes in the Rain People, Francis Ford Coppola's precursor to his hey-day of the seventies, there is the mark of a similar situation to 1969's Easy Rider, but not exactly in the same reference frame. Here we have a drama about disconnected people from society, in some ways alienated by the choices or by limits imposed by one mean or another. It's one of those rare original dramas where some scenes stand alone as total knockouts. Even with such a low-string budget and a very freewheeling, so to speak, attitude about filming the movie, Coppola is able to capture everything that needs to be said through these clearly defined characters and the curved, unexpected degrees of one character versus the helplessness of another, or vice versa, or both. And, as one might be inclined seeing as how it is very much about the cutaways of suburban life of the 1960s, it has that escapism of the film mentioned before, but of a more concrete, near timeless quality with the drama and the underlying issues. In a way, if Bergman were on route as a quasi-guerrilla 20-something filmmaker out to get the strange truths of everyday outsiders, this might be it.

But along with all of the very direct and sometimes self-conscious photography (though also with a more documentary approach at times, akin with its indeterminable characters), the actors all fit into place. Shirley Knight, an actress I'm not too familiar with, has a complex, diverging role as a pregnant wife running off in a sort of existentialist conundrum of what life is there to have. There are moments of some awe-inspiring acting by her, and one of my favorites (if not my favorite) is when she is on the telephone calling her husband the first time. Such a tense scene on both ends, and in every small gesture and inflection of a word so much about her is spoken with so little. It's extraordinary in ways that mirror others in Coppola's films. Then comes in the character of 'killer' played by James Caan. This, too, is a dangerous character to take on, as it is a mix of childish bewilderment and amusement with scarred memories. Think Forrest Gump if he didn't make it past the football and wit. It's one of his best, actually, by being the most minimalist- for a guy who's usually playing tough guys in movies, here's one that also is part of the crux of the story and of Knight's character. Also very good in a supporting role is Robert Duvall as a cop with a rough side and rather checkered past; kind of an early sample of other defected characters he would play later on in his career.

So the characters, and what Coppola risks in having an uneasiness running in them, are really what make up the film, as whatever story there is it is definitely not resolved in the usual way you might think or expect. The last ten or so minutes are like others in Coppola's work, where the specific tragedies on all sides are undercut by the emotional- and psychological- implications this will leave on the principles are amplified to the sublime and sad. This is, for its time, brave on the part of what is trying to be represented (in both the freedom as well as the flaws and ambiguities) in the subject matter. And the style of the picture adds a fragmented kind of view onto it all with quick flashbacks that are graphic and self-contained in a contrast with the longer shots in some crucial scenes. It's a road movie of its period, but its also got a lot more working than it would under another filmmaker with less chances to take on the nature of these outcast characters. One of the best films of 1969.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have a letter from Ms. Knight, who went to college with my older sister. In it, she tells of the hardships of making this film. She, herself, was pregnant--an interesting conjunction with the movie's plot--and the novice director was unsure, fairly green, and having great difficulties with all the decisions, logistics, etc. They were on the move all the time, and it was a very difficult shoot.

The film, however, with a strong debut for James Caan, remains effective and affecting. It's a great showcase for the talent that Ms. Knight has demonstrated her entire career--on television, in movies and on the stage, where she won the Tony for \"Kennedy's Children.\"

This film has aged well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Francis Ford Coppola wrote and directed this stunningly personal story of a married woman's flight from her husband--and the reality that perhaps the youthful glee and excitement of her younger years are behind her. We learn little about this woman's marriage except that she has been feeling her independence slipping away as of late; she's also recently learned she's pregnant, which has further complicated her heart (she doesn't want to be a complacent wifey, despite the maternal way she speaks to her husband over the phone). She meets two men on her journey: a former college football hero who--after an accident during a game--has been left with permanent brain damage, and a sexy, strutting motorcycle cop who has a great deal of trouble in his own life. The clear, clean landscapes (as photographed by the very talented Wilmer Butler) are astutely realized, as are the characters. Shirley Knight, James Caan, and Robert Duvall each deliver strong, gripping performances, most especially since these are not very likable people in conventional terms. Some scenes (such as Knight's first call home from a pay-phone, or her first night alone with Caan where they play 'Simon Says') are almost too intimate to watch. Coppola toys with reality, turning the jagged memories of his characters into scrapbooks we've been made privy to. He allows scenes to play out, yet the editing is quite nimble and the film is never allowed to get too heavy (there are at least two or three very frisky moments). It's a heady endeavor--so much so that the picture was still being shown at festivals nearly five years later. Some may shun Coppola's unapologetic twisting of events in order to underline the finale with bitter irony, however the forcefulness and drive behind the picture nearly obliterate its shortcomings. *** from ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"**SPOILERS** Simple movie about simple people who's problems are far too complex for them to handle.

Natalie aka Sara Ravenna, Shirley Knight, has become overwhelmed with married life and the fact that she's now pregnant is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Taking off from her homes in Long Island New York Natalie has no idea where she's going but hopes to find peace and tranquility somewhere in the heartland of America. It's on the Pennsylvania Turnpike that Natalie picks up hitchhiker Jimmie \"Killer\" Kilgannon, James Cann,who seems as lost and confused as she is. As Natalie, calling herself Sara at the time, soon finds out Jimmie had suffered a serious brain concussion while playing football on his collage team and has been reduced to such a simple minded individual who's so passive that he lets everyone, including later in the movie Natalie, step all over him.

Sympathetic at first Natalie becomes very annoyed at the self pitying Jimmie for not standing up for himself and letting himself be used as a doormat by everyone he comes in contact with in the movie. Not knowing what to do with the child-like Jimmie Natalie finally gets him a Job in far off Nebraska as a cleaning man at the Reptile Jungle pet market owned and run by, Mr. Alfred, Tom Aldrege. Being the both kind and simple-minded person that he is Jimmie lets all the animals out of their cages causing havoc at the pet store and has him fired by his boss Mr. Alfred.

In the meantime Natalie who thought that she was finally through with Jimmie ends up back at the Reptile Jungle when she's given a speeding ticket by traffic cop Gordon, Robert Duvall. It seems that Mr. Alfred is also the acting county judge and is the person that Natalie is to pay her traffic fine to. While all this is happening Gordon-the cop- had developed a strong liking for Natalie and wants to get her in the sack, at his trailer home, the first chance he can. Gordon a widower with a uncontrollable 12 year old daughter Rosalie, Marva Zimmet, needs a mature woman-with lots of lovin'- to make him forget his many social and psychological problems and Natalie is exactly the medicine that the doctor ordered!

***SPOILERS*** Wild and shocking final with Gordon going completely out of his mind and attempting to rape Natalie, who refused his drunken advances, which has Jimmie finally get out of his self-pitying stupor and came to her rescue. There's no happy ending here with Natalie saved from being both manhandled and raped by Gordon but Jimmie, who was bouncing Gordon around like a Ping-Pong ball, ending up dead for all his good and noble efforts.

Jimmy by far was he most tragic and sympathetic person in the entire movie. All Jimmie wanted was a friend to talk to and spend time with and all he ended up getting was the sh*t end of the stick. By everyone even the one person who at first treated him with kindness and understanding Natalie Ravenna! In the end Jimmie even though he was treated like dirt by everyone despite his willingness not to offend even those who stepped all over him came out as the most likable kindest as at the same time heroic person in the entire film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shirley Knight plays Sara Ravenna, a Long Island housewife who runs away from her marriage when she discovers she is pregnant. She plans to drive into America's heartland and start anew. Along the way she picks up a friendly hitchhiker (James Caan) who calls himself 'Killer.' Soon she discovers that the good natured 'Killer' is actually brain damaged, and by picking him up she has unknowingly taken on a huge responsibility. The two of them drive all the way to Nebraska, where Sara gets Killer a job helping out at a roadside reptile farm. It is here that Sara meets Gordon, a local cop, and soon things go horribly wrong for everyone.

This is a powerful drama about people disconnected from society, alienated by the choices they make or by the limits imposed on them by others. Even with such a low budget and a very freewheeling attitude, the film is able to capture everything that needs to be said through these clearly defined characters. Shirley Knight has a complex, diverging role and there are moments of some awe-inspiring acting by her. One of my favorites is when she is on the telephone calling her home to her worried husband the first time. It is such a tense scene on both ends, and in every small gesture and inflection of a word, so much about her is spoken with so little. Then comes in the character of 'Killer' played by James Caan. This character is unlike any I've ever seen him play, and he performs wonderfully. It's one of his best performances as he is very restrained and moving.

The way Coppola develops the characters by using short, dream-like flashbacks is very clever, adding a fragmented kind of view onto it all. The quick flashbacks that are graphic and self-contained contrast well with the longer shots in some crucial scenes. Also, because this film was shot on location all over the Eastern U.S., it offers an interesting, authentic look at America in the late 1960's.

I haven't seen many other films starring Ms. Knight, I'm only familiar with her more recent work on television, usually playing a nagging mother in law or a dotty old woman. It was great seeing her so young, beautiful, and so wonderfully subtle in this movie. It's also kind of a shame that James Caan went on to be typecast as the 'tough guy' for the rest of his career, because this film evidenced that he is capable of so much more than that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Francis Ford Coppola's first 'personal' film, completed and released in 1969, was the last movie he made as a mostly unknown, up and coming director before The Godfather, and is in stark contrast to both that film, and the rest of his uneven career. It's ostensibly a road movie involving a disconnected young woman bored with domestic life, and pregnant with a child she isn't sure she wants, fleeing the trappings her dull marriage and hitting the open road in search of freedom. Along the way she befriends a nice man, an ex-footballer player that suffered brain damage from a traumatic head injury, played in unexpectedly subtle fashion by a young James Caan, and decides to 'help' him, despite becoming frustrated with his simple ways. Her efforts to rid of him always fail, either by guilt or chance, and eventually lead her directly into the hands of an emotionally wounded cop(Robert Duvall), who has ideas of his own. The plot is threadbare, but Coppola does a great job at detailing the emotional life of these characters, and uses editing techniques to relay back story that were not at all common in American films of the time. Shots are simple, yet extraordinarily effective, conveying both the moody desolation of the open highway, and the emptiness of American suburban life, infused with a gentle melancholy provided by the film score. Coppola also deserves credit for addressing the issue of domestic discontent from a woman's point of view in the culturally turbulent 60's. Overall, a fairly low-key film that is not what audiences have come to expect from Coppola, but one that is a minor triumph in its own quiet, unassuming way. 7.5\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At least one kind. Very human and moving. Not out to teach a lesson or anything like that. All principals are effective. I saw the movie years ago and still remember it (but can't remember the Morgan Fairchild role).

And a nice slice of American life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ghoulies IV may not be the best out of the series but it isn't too bad, if you don't take it fully serious then you may enjoy it.

It's nice to see Peter Liapis return as Johnathan Graves who has gave up using magic and has became a Detective but still thinks about what happened in Ghoulies.

The plot is about a woman named Alexandra that is Johnathan's ex-girlfriend that breaks into a museum and takes a red gem, using the gem she awakens her boyfriend named Faust that is Johnathan's dark side but he needs the gem so he can enter the real world and John is sent to hell.

Something goes wrong and Alex loses the gem so she needs to find a new one, as she leaves the gateway is still open and two little Ghoulies named Lite and Drak appear. They're not the true Ghoulies since they look like guys in a Troll costume wearing a mask but that doesn't matter since they are humorous in parts.

Lite and Dark need to find Johnathan since he can return them home so they go around causing mayhem as they try to find Johnathan. Another difference is that the two Ghoulies are the good guys unlike the ones in the previous films.

I found Ghoulies IV to be good but this film may not go for everyone, check it out if you like low budget films like Troll 2.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay okay, I must admit, I do somewhat like Peter Liapis and I'll admit this is not the best Ghoulies sequel. I mean, yeah, it had its flaws, such as NO GHOULIES themselves. But the two Ghoulies that come to earth were really funny, I guess they were called, Dark and Lite. I enjoyed the plot of the movie. And even at the end of the movie both Ghoulies implied that there would be a sequel. Still waiting. lol. Peter Liapis reprised his role as Jonathan Graves, this time playing a detective, how cute! Ghoulies IV may not be scary or suspenseful, but it is definitely funny. I thought I would comment on this movie and just say -- it's not that bad. It is worth watching even though the Ghoulies aren't in it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ghoulies 4 is pretty ghoulish sequel. The ghoulies look very different from the first three ghoulies, but there still cool. There are some nice flash backs, from Ghoulies the first movie. Jonathan is back once again in this one. He wasn't in parts 2 or 3 though. The movie is low budget at times, but fun to watch. You've got Tony Cox as the Dark Ghoulie and Arturo Gil as the Light Ghoulie. The ghoulies in this movie are actually good guys, instead of evil like in the first three movies. Both Ghoulies are pretty funny characters in the movie. Then you've got the very hot Alexandra! It's a great dark comedy and funny! Any fan of the ghoulies movies will enjoy watching Ghoulies 4. The DVD is finally coming out this July 2007! Hopefully one day Ghoulies III will be on DVD in the USA. I'd really like to see a sequel to this movie one day too. I doubt it will happen though. It's 2007 now and no sign of a sequel yet. If there ever is a sequel I hope Jim Wynorski will make it.

I give Ghoulies IV a 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seeing that this movie was on the IMDB Bottom 20, I simply had to rent it.

SUPRISE! SUPRISE! I have no regret of seeing this movie at all. In fact, I really enjoyed it. There's a level of camp in this movie that puts cult classics of the 80's to shame. Is it stupid? yes, but Jim Wynorski proves that stupid is not necessarily bad after all.

Rent it for a laugh that seems unintended but is actually meant to be funny. Wynorski is a genius. Hope he directs the next ninja turtles movie","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sixth (And last) movie in the boxset. Well, looks like I've saved the best one for last. Ghoulies IV. I originally did a review for this back in like February, but I decided to do a new one. The Ghoulies series is pretty awesome. I know there are some people who don't like them, and that's fine. This happens to be my favorite one in the series. Yeah, I know the actual Ghoulies don't appear and are replaced by 2 guys in costumes, one of them being Tony Cox from Bad Santa. Now, onto the movie.

The movie centers around Jonathan Graves, the main character from the first movie, being played once again, by Peter Liapis, who is now a cop for the LAPD and has put his past of the occult behind him. During the first part of the movie, we encounter Alexandra (Played by the very hot Stacie Randall) communicating with a demon from beyond named Faust, who is the dark side of Jonathan. Faust asks Alexandra for a red jewel and something goes awry, therefore, unleashing the Ghoulies from the beyond.

I think Jim Wynorski did a good job with the directing. And the music by Chuck Cirino is funny as well. (SPOILER AHEAD) At the end of this movie, the Ghoulies say that there will be a Ghoulies IV, Part 2, or Ghoulies V. I still hope that sequel gets made and I especially hope Jim Wynorski returns to direct. I agree with GimboTheGhoulies on that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, so Ghoulies 4 is kind of bad. And it doesn't really even have the ghoulies in it. And the acting is bad. The storyline is stupid. But I forget to mention how funny this film is. It is so campy, and so ridiculous it is too fun not to enjoy. There are only 2 ghoulies in the movie, and they don't really seem to be in relation with the Ghoulies in the other film. But they are pretty funny. And funny thing, that Jonathon Graves returns for this one. If you saw the first, he was a character in that. In my opinion, this is better than the first. There are some classic scenes and some classic lines, one which is in a grocery store. \"Attention K-Mart Shoppers!\" Watch this if you enjoy bad movies. It's so bad it is good. And did I mention Barbara Alyn Woods is hot?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The lovely, yet lethal Alexandra (stunning statuesque blonde beauty Stacie Randall, who looks absolutely smashing in a tight black leather outfit) must find a magic amulet so her evil demonic master Faust can cross over into our dimension. It's up to fearless, rugged cop Jonathan Graves (likable Peter Liapis) to stop her. Meanwhile, two pitifully unfunny \"comic relief\" dwarf gnome creatures run amok in Los Angeles. Seasoned veteran schlock exploitation expert Jim Wynorski relates the supremely inane story at a brisk pace and takes none of this foolishness remotely seriously. The cast struggle gamely with the silly material: the adorable Barbara Alyn Woods as sassy, fetching police captain Kate, Raquel Krelle as tart, sexy hooker Jeanine, Bobby Di Cicco as Graves' bumbling, excitable partner Scotty, Peggy Trentini as alluring museum curator Monica, and Ace Mask as the jolly Dr. Rochelle. Mark Stevi's puerile cookie cutter script, an amusingly lowbrow sense of no-brainer humor, Chuck Cirino's bouncy cornball score, the two dwarf guys sporting obvious cheap rubber Halloween masks, J.E. Bash's plain cinematography, no tension or gratuitous female nudity to speak of, and the tacky (less than) special effects all further enhance the overall delicious cheesiness of this prime slice of celluloid Velveeta. An entertainingly brainless piece of lovably lousy dreck.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ok i know the original Ghoulies aren't in this entry it even seems it doesn't belong in this series. But it still iz a good movie. It is hilarious i thought especially with the pepper spray or mace. I give it a 9","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If there's one theme of this film, it's that people can cope with hardship by having a good imagination. This family is poor, their father works graveyard, and their mother works double-shifts, and Peter is constantly picked on for a variety of reasons, and becomes increasingly frustrated that he is often mistaken for a girl. He is just starting to approach that age of 10 or 11 where your perceptions start to change, and thinks like your appearance start to matter. The backdrop of this story is the 1967 World's Fair and the Centennial of Canada. The film's greatest moments come during the various fantasy sequences where we see just how they cope. Watch the flim, and if you've ever had a childhood friend that you dreamt with, and then for some reason, lost, you'll really like this film. Perhaps kids will like this film, but only adults will truly appreciate it, including its references to bolshevik's and what parent's will do for their children.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I highly reccommend this movie. It blurs the line between childhood fantasy and everyday reality in such a seamless fashion that it has to be seen to be believed. The actors and director have such perfect timing that in one scene a name calling fight becomes a sort of dance. I loved the story line, the actors, everything. While I do think there were one or two decidedly cheesy scenes, over-all the movie was impeccably done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie for the first time on a sick day from school about ten years ago. Compared to the made for Lifetime movies I usually watched, it became an instant though obscure favorite.

I've seen it maybe twice since then. I think some parts are little cheesy, maybe the plot could use some more action.

Nevertheless, it captures the fantasies and realities of children with uniqueness and warmth. The magical realism is on par with that of Amelie, and the heart with that of The Wonder Years. Despite the particular development of my tastes, I still find the subtle magic of this film, the lovable characters, and its simplicity enchanting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Outstanding performance by Tantoo Cardinal. She carries this movie alone. Rip Torn is great but just a shadow to Tantoo. A bitter sweet story of a woman who loves a very stubborn man. Beautiful, funny, sad, touching, a must see film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a fine, under-rated film and Rip Torn, well-known as he is, is a seriously under-rated actor. I read Howard Frank Mosher's novel many years ago. How well Craven captures the book and the beauty of Vermont's Northeast Kingdom! I had the good fortune to grow up in VT in the 40s and 50s and was still living there when the \"Irasburg Incident\" took place. I've not seen _Stranger in the Kingdom_, the Craven\/Mosher collaboration based on the incident(and another Mosher novel), but this film has inspired me to track it down.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Director Jay Craven's adaptation of Howard Frank Mosher's 'Where the rivers flow north' is one of the finer transitions from literature to the screen. Craven is an admirer of Mosher's work -- he also directed 'A stranger in the Kingdom'.

The cast is superb -- especially Rip Torn and Tantoo Cardinal. Torn offers what could be the finest role of his career -- Noel Lord, the fiercely independent former lumberjack who is at the center of this story. Tantoo Cardinal's portrayal of Lord's live-in housekeeper\/common-law wife is dead-on as well. I'm both amazed and disappointed that neither of them were nominated for Oscars when this film was released. Performances of this calibre should be acknowledged. The only character that's a little hard to swallow for me is the power company executive played by Michael J. Fox. He just looks too much like a kid in this role. I guess there's a curse attached to youthful looks, no matter how much people want them.

Craven has done a nice job here in bringing the character of early 20th century Vermont to the screen -- locations, angles, sets, all combine to transport the viewer to the time and place of the story. Cinematographer Paul Ryan was exceptional. The score by the Horseflies is also first rate -- it fits the mood and scenery perfectly.

And the story itself...? One of the most compelling portrayals of the fiercely independent American pioneer spirit ever -- a trait that is on the wane in this day and age. When it appears in modern times, the person is often looked upon with suspicion and disdain. In Noel Lord, we have a character whom we can admire for his values, and even for his stubbornness.

This is not a stodgy 'period piece', but a vibrant look at an era that is gone, and a type of character that has all but vanished. These are not gold-plated heroes, but real people, with both strengths and weaknesses at play within them. struggling in a harsh environment to live their lives and at the same time be at peace with the world in which they live. Like today, there are those who wield power that would have it otherwise.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jay Craven's criminally ignored film is a sober breath of fresh air in the generally narcissistic and derivative world of independent film. First off, the photography is pure aesthetic pleasure, capturing all of the gloomy beauty of Northern New England in late autumn (Cinematographer Paul Ryan did 2nd Unit on Malick's Days of Heaven). Second, the performances are uniformly excellent - Rip Torn's Noel Lourdes is irascibly charming and Tantoo Cardinal's Bangor is at once sensitive and exuberant, to say nothing of a fine supporting cast. Overall though, it is a tribute to the narrative strength of the film that the story maintains a strong and lively pace while still unfolding in its own time, and the film comes to a conclusion, natural and genuine, that nevertheless does not seem expected. This is one of the rare cells of dignity in the independent film world, a film that explores a small piece of the intersection between humans and history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not sure how the IMDb \"weighted average\" came up with such a low rating on this film. It is in my opinion and by all other accounts an overlooked gem of a movie. Rip Torn is fantastic as the stubborn Noel Lord, and Tantoo Cardinal superlative as his housemate. Torn and Cardinal are both underrated actors who are finally given a stage to work their craft on.

Their relationship isn't always pleasant, but it's very real. This is NOT the \"humerous and touching love story\" it's billed as on the DVD jacket. In the end it is a tragedy. Lord simply aims too high and ignores all the advice to take the money offered by the power company to move.

The music is fantastic, as are the period sets.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Where the Rivers Flow North is a well-told story about two peoples' fight to live their own lives in the face of \"progress\" and development. Besides enjoying the movie as entertainment, I also learned quite a bit about life in rural New England back in the late 1920s.

The cinematography captured the raw beauty of Northern Vermont and set the stage, while the music brought the movie to life. Very well done for a low-budget, locally-produced film. I found Michael J. Fox's character the weakest in the film, but Rip Torn and Tantoo Cardinal turn in two of the finest performances I've seen in a long time. I was saddened she did not get a nod as best actress that year (I assume the film was too \"small\" a film to be considered).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kingdom County, Vermont, 1927. Noel Lord (Rip Torn) lives with his Indian mate, Bangor (Tantoo Cardinal) in the area where a large dam is to be built; Noel, however, is not willing to give up on his land, and he'll have to fight the dam company in order to prevent the County from any possible destruction.

\"Where the Rivers Flow North\" is a gripping, contemplative story powered by the memorable performances of Rip Torn (recently seen in the small but juicy role of Louis XV in Sofia Coppola's underrated \"Marie Antoinette\") and Tantoo Cardinal (\"Dances With Wolves\", \"Smoke Signals\"). Director Jay Craven (who also co-wrote the script with Don Bredes, based on Howard Frank Mosher's novel) and cinematographer Paul Ryan crafted this powerful story with unique, contemplative pace\/visuals, which remind me of Terrence Malick's and John Huston's best moments. It's an underrated independent period piece of the first (electric) half of the 90's, usually regarded as the rise of Quentin Tarantino's burlesque (\"Pulp Fiction\" is a masterpiece indeed, but the man suffers from Orson Welles' Syndrome), Todd Solondz's disturbing suburbia, Danny Boyle's dark vision of the UK (let's not mention that \"Beach\" flick with DiCaprio, though)... Jay Craven should be more regarded on the lists of great indie filmmakers as well. He's been leading a respectful, discreet career and it's always a pleasure to see a constant talent like his.

My vote: 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was really surprised when I came across this movie on cable TV a couple of years ago. The story is a wonderful example of how our land keeps changing and the fight to hang on to it and use it according to need. Conflicting desires of \"the people\" and the Government. The actors were fantastic in their portrayals and I absolutely fell in love with Tantoo Cardinal-she is so believable and was such a character in this movie, as was Rip Torn. The story was also a love story about the land, the past, and between the 2 main characters. I have tried to buy this film and have been unable to locate it-but I would sure would love to own it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an incredibly compelling story, told with great simplicity and grace. The story itself is the object of the film, although the scenery is beautiful. The acting is understated, even superbly so, for the characters themselves come through in all of their eccentric simplicity.

This piece of art will likely not be appreciated by those who view movies \"casually\", without due attention. It takes work to be brought into the story, but once you become involved the captivation is complete!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favorite movies. The performances of Rip Torn and Tantoo Cardinal are excellent and their performances combined with the music, scenery and reality of the movie are quite compelling. A look at a true, tell it like it is, logging, mountain man who refuses to give up his way of life in the name of progress and development. The music of the Horseflies is very unique and adds an eerie quality to some of the scenes. After seeing this movie for the first time, I had to go out and purchase the video and the soundtrack. Overall, a quiet type of movie with bursts of panic. Both Torn and Cardinal are very believable in their roles. I put this movie in the same category as Winter People with Kurt Russell and Kelly McGillis, another favorite.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show came to Canada via PBS in the mid 90s and I really, really loved it then. Even 10 yrs later watching the various news networks, I cant help but think of the cynical manipulation that goes on in the name of ratings and the various \"show ponies\" we all see on TV as depicted in various Frontline episodes. The scripts are tightly written and the actors all have impeccable comic timing and none of it is encumbered by an idiotic laugh track. There is a lot of funny material here really well executed and we don't need to be told when to laugh and what to laugh at. I don't understand why this show never took off in North America as its truly a gem! I was really excited to see the DVDs available, even though they are PAL format. I figured I would rip them to my computer and then watch the converted files. I took a chance and ordered it from ABC\u0085 6 to 8 weeks later, I had all 3 seasons. Even better it worked on my NTSC DVD player. I suspect any player bought in the past 2 yrs that does xvid\/divx will play them. Great stuff! 10 yrs later the episodes all hold up really well! You don't need to know anything about Australian politics to get the humor as it will all be familiar to western audiences. My wife and I had a 10 day Frontline fest and are still chuckling weeks later after watching all 39 episodes","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The sad thing about Frontline is that once you watch three or four episodes of it you really begin to understand that it is not far away from what happens in real life. What is really sad is that it also makes extremely funny.

The Frontline team in Series One consists of Brian Thompson ( Bruno Lawrence )- a man who truly lives and dies merely by the ratings his show gets. Occasionally his stunts to achieve these ratings see him run in with his Line Producer Emma Thompson ( Alison Whyte ); a woman who hasn't lost all her journalistic integrity and is prepared to defend moral scruples on occasions. The same cannot be said of Reporter Brooke Vandenberg ( Jane Kennedy )- a reporter who has had all the substance sucked out of her- so much so that when interviewing Ben Elton she needs to be instructed to laugh. Her reports usually consist of interviewing celebrities ( with whom she has or hasn't 'crossed paths' with before ) or scandalous unethical reports that usually backfire. Martin De Stasio ( Tiriel Mora ) is the reporter with whom the team relies on for gravitas and dignity, as he has the smarts of 21 years of journalism behind him. His doesn't have principles so much as a nous of what makes a good journalistic story, though he does draw the occasional line. Parading over this chaos ( in name ) is Mike Moore ( Rob Sitch ) an egotistical, naive reporter who can't see that he's only a pretty face for the grubby journalism. He often finds his morals being compromised simply because Brian appeals to his vanity and allows his stupidity to do the rest.

Frontline is the sort of show that there needs to be more of, because it shows that while in modern times happiness, safety and deep political insight are interesting things; it's much easier to rate with scandal, fear and tabloid celebrities.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even a decade after \"Frontline\" aired on the ABC, near as I can tell, \"current affairs\" programmes are still using the same tricks over and over. Time after time, \"Today Tonight\" and \"A Current Affair\" are seen to be hiding behind the facade of journalistic professionalism, and yet they feed us nothing but tired stories about weight-loss and dodgy tradesmen, shameless network promotions and pointless celebrity puff-pieces. Having often been subjected to that entertainment-less void between 'The Simpsons' at 6:00 PM and 'Sale of the Century' (or 'Temptation') at 7:00 PM, I was all too aware of the little tricks that these shows would use to attract ratings.

Fortunately, four rising comedians \u0096 Rob Sitch, Jane Kennedy, Santo Cilauro and Tom Gleisner \u0096 were also all too aware of all this, and they crafted their frustrations into one of the most wickedly-hilarious media satires you'll ever see on television. The four entertainers had already met with comedic success, their previous most memorable television stint being on 'The Late Show,' the brilliant Saturday night variety show which ran for two seasons from 1992-1993, and also featured fellow comedians Mick Molloy, Tony Martin, Jason Stephens and Judith Lucy.

\"Frontline\" boasts an ensemble of colourful characters, each with their own distinct and quirky personality. The current-affairs show is headed by nicely-groomed Mike Moore (Rob Sitch), an ambitious, pretentious, dim-witted narcissist. Mike works under the delusion that the show is serving a vital role for society \u0096 he is always adamant that they \"maintain their journalistic integrity\" \u0096 and his executive producers have excelled into getting him to believe just that. Mike is basically a puppet to bring the news to the people; occasionally he gets the inkling that he is being led along by the nose, but usually this thought is stamped out via appeals to his vanity or promises of a promotion.

Brooke Vandenberg (Jane Kennedy) is the senior female reporter on the show. She is constantly concerned about her looks and public profile, and, if the rumours are to be believed, she has had a romantic liaison with just about every male celebrity in existence. Another equally amoral reporter, Marty Di Stasio, is portrayed by Tiriel Mora, who memorably played inept solicitor Dennis Denuto in the Australian comedy classic, 'The Castle.' Emma Ward (Alison Whyte) is the Line Producer on the show, and the single shining beacon of morality on the \"Frontline\" set. Then there's the highly-amusing weatherman, Geoffrey Salter (Santo Cilauro), Mike's best friend and confidant. Geoff makes a living out of always agreeing with Mike's opinion, and of laughing uproariously at his jokes before admitting that he doesn't get them.

For each of the shows three seasons, we are treated to a different EP, Executive Producer. Brian Thompson (Bruno Lawrence), who unfortunately passed away in 1995, runs the programme during Season 1. He has a decent set of morals, and is always civil to his employees, and yet is more-than-willing to cast these aside in favour of high ratings. Sam Murphy (Kevin J. Wilson) arrives on set in Season 2, a hard-nosed, smooth-talking producer who knows exactly how to string Mike along; the last episode of the second season, when Mike finally gets the better of him, is a classic moment. Graeme \"Prowsey\" Prowse (Steve Bisley), EP for the third season, is crude, unpleasant and unashamedly sexist. It's, therefore, remarkable that you eventually come to like him.

With its cast of distinctive, exaggerated characters, \"Frontline\" has a lot of fun satirising current-affairs programmes and their dubious methods for winning ratings. Many of the episodes were shot quickly and cheaply, often implementing many plot ideas from recent real-life situations, but this never really detracts from the show's topicality ten years on. Celebrity cameos come in abundance, with some of the most memorable appearances including Pauline Hanson, Don Burke and Jon English. Watch out for Harry Shearer's hilarious appearance in the Season 2 episode \"Changing the Face of Current Affairs,\" playing Larry Hadges, an American hired by the network to reform the show.

Particularly in the third season, I noticed that \"Frontline\" boasted an extremely gritty form of black humour, uncharacteristic for such a light-hearted comedy show. Genuinely funny moments are born from Brooke being surreptitiously bribed into having an abortion, murder by a crazed gunman and Mike treacherously betraying his best friend's hopes and dreams, only to be told that he is a good friend. The series' final minute \u0096 minus an added-scene during the credits, which was probably added just in case a fourth season was to be produced \u0096 was probably the greatest, blackest ending to a comedy series that I've yet seen.

Below is listed a very tentative list of my top five favourite \"Frontline\" episodes, but, make no mistake, every single half-hour is absolutely hilarious and hard-hitting satire.

1) \"The Siege\" (Season 1)

2) \"Give 'em Enough Rope\" (Season 2)

3) \"Addicted to Fame\" (Season 3)

4) \"Basic Instincts\" (Season 2)

5) \"Add Sex and Stir\" (Season 1)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kennedy-Miller could hardly have done a better job at tackling a very challenging exercise: making dry political events work as human drama, and providing an even-handed representation of explosively controversial subject matter.

The key to its success on the first count is brilliant acting, although I was less impressed by Max Phipps' performance as Gough Whitlam than some other commenters here. The clear standouts for my money were John Stanton as Malcolm Fraser and Bill Hunter as Rex Connor. The latter must have been one of the easiest casting choices in history - Hunter could not have been more perfect for the role. On the second count, the series avoids the \"myth of objectivity\" trap through a narrator who articulates the sympathies of the director (Phillip Noyce, who more recently demonstrated his left-wing credentials in Rabbit Proof Fence), while being carefully even-handed and sympathetic in its dramatic portrayal of all parties. The adherence to the Lady Kerr\/Lady Macbeth theme popular among Labor partisans was perhaps a little partial, though not ruinously so. In particular, credit is due for the sympathy shown to Kerr and the extraordinarily difficult position he was placed in, whatever one might think of his actions.

However, there is one sour note for which the producers were perhaps not entirely to blame - the portrayal of the Jim Cairns\/Juni Morosi affair. Those who come to the series with no background to these events will get the impression that Cairns and Morosi were the innocent victims of a smear campaign by a prurient gutter press. The producers may have been restrained in this respect by Australia's stultifying defamation laws, and the recently demonstrated willingness of Cairns and Morosi to use them against those who suggested their relationship was sexual (which Cairns would eventually admit to a year before his death). However, more could have been made of the bizarre fashion in which Morosi managed Cairns's office as Treasurer.

Speaking of defamation, there are a couple of disorienting occasions where dialogue is obscured due to injunctions taken out by offended principals - by a beeping noise on one occasion, and a very loud telephone ring on another. A further curiosity: the DVD release excises a line from the comic relief scene where a customs officer (played by the late Paul Chubb) serves Tirath Khemlani on his arrival at Sydney Airport. Next in the queue is a dishevelled looking hippie, who now receives only a disapproving glare from Chubb when he presents his paperwork. In the original version, Chubb said something along the lines of: \"drug bust in Bali, eh?\". Obviously this line no longer rings true in the wake of the Schapelle Corby case, which dramatically illustrated that those busted for drugs in Bali can expect far worse than deportation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After traveling around the world, it dawned on me that Australia really lacks one thing that other countries have: history.

Fortunately or unfortunately, Australia wasn't establish following a war, it has not had a civil war and most of its political history is rather..... boring! Nothing \"big\" happened to mark some sort of turning point in Australia's history.... until the dismissal of the Whitlam government by the Governor-general of Australia - John Kerr.

For those who are Australian, you can skip this paragraph and move onto the next. This is for the benefit of curious non-Australians! Australia was colonised by the British. As time went on, it became apparent that Australia was capable of standing on its own two feet. Accordingly, the UK granted Australia permission to establish its own parliaments, laws, courts and so on. The law and politics of Australia would no longer be provided directly from the British; rather, Australia would be run by Australians in their own right, even though the courts, precedents, parliament and so on is largely modeled on the British system. This shift was codified in the Australian Constitution. Despite the fact that the constitution lawfully establishes Australian governments, law-making procedures, courts (but for those who are curious - no bill of rights), their are two \"pro-crown\" sections that were included and remain there to this day. These are more or less regarded as the \"reserve powers of the Crown (king\/queen of Great Britain).\" The first group of sections relates to the creation of the office of the Governor-general. Briefly, the governor-general is considered the Queen's chief representative in Australia and is described as the \"Executive\" branch of the Australian Government. When a piece of law is passed by the Australian parliament, the constitution states that it only becomes law when it is signed by the Governor-general. As such, the Govenor-general is regarded by some as nothing more than a rubber stamper performing an archaic and unnecessary constitutional function on behalf of the Crown. Theoretically, the Governor-general can refuse to sign a law passed by Australian parliament if he thinks fit. For instance, if parliament passed a law which allows the police to shoot dead any Australian over the age of 50 (hypothetically of course) then the GG could refuse to sign it and it would not become the law of the land. However, this power is theoretical and has (to date) never been exercised. By \"convention\" (which is the buzz word of the events leading to the dismissal), the Governor-general virtually acts at the behest of the Australian government and therefore, if the government passes law and the Prime Minister instructs the Governor-General to sign it, he will, almost always without question. In fact, by \"convention\" the Governor-General acts in accordance with the advice provided to him by the Prime Minister of the day (and the Prime Minister alone). The second aspect is section 64 of the constitution which states that the government ministers hold office at the Governor-general's \"pleasure.\" Now the events of 1975 - covered in this film - gave rise to a precedent on this particular section: if the governor-general is somehow 'displeased' with the government and\/or Prime Minister, it would appear that this section allows him to lawfully sack the government (which happened in 1975... hence the title of the film \"the dismissal.\") Whether 'at the Governor-General's pleasure' can be construed as \"the unfettered right to dismiss\" is a contentious point though that led to rather heated exchanges amongst Australians at the time - especially considering that the governor-general is not elected by the people of Australia.

Now that this background aspect is out of the way, let's get back to discussing the film. It was well made. The pace was patient, but didn't drag at all. The drama was well contained and very realistic. It didn't over-dramatise the events and most importantly, it did not present its point of view from one political perspective. On the contrary, I felt that it was fair and balanced, even though concluding text before the credits indicates that the film-makers probably didn't approve of the Governor-general's decision to dismiss the Whitlam government. But I wouldn't describe the film overall as bias in one direction or the other.

In terms of accuracy, it was virtually spot on. The film-makers certainly did their homework and evidently read the books and writings from all the principle players concerned. There were a number of finer details that were somewhat skipped over, largely because they took a long time to explain and ultimately had little impact on the events of 1975, so I forgive them for that. Further, I think it was difficult to recreate the public sentiment of that post-Vietnam war era, but Noyce pretty much pulled it off.

Finally, I was pleased that the film attempted to raise individual policies of both sides without becoming analytical, obsessive or judgmental over them. Moreover, any that we're raised, for example Connor's pipeline, had a great deal of relevance to the story. The film makers realised that their task was to tell the story of the events leading to the dismissal and not to present a political endorsement or opposition in relation to policies and viewpoints. This was smart because it meant that the film can't be accused of misrepresenting one side's policies.

The dismissal is probably the most incredible piece of political history that has occurred in Australia in its short life. I am glad that it has been crystallized in celluloid. Essential viewing for any Australian.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although I lived in Australia in 1975, I moved overseas not long after, fed up with constant industrial unrest, the general worship of mediocrity - unless one is a sportsman! - and the complacency of so many Australians who chose to ignore the breakneck pace of change taking place in countries to their north.

Consequently I missed The Dismissal, along with many other Australian-made TV dramas of the '80s and '90s, such as the superb Janus and Phoenix series, which I have since seen, along with Wildside.

To me the filmed story of The Dismissal is fair and, as far as I am aware, accurate. However, as to public \"outrage\" it only shows one side of the picture, not how families were riven by the controversy. I know, as my two brothers would not speak to me for months afterward.

But the commentary is, in my view, very one-sided throughout. The inescapable fact is that, notwithstanding fiery expressions of rage from a substantial proportion of the community, the Australian electorate chose - and chose decisively - in favour of Fraser, as they did again two years later.

This apart, a historically accurate and superbly well acted docudrama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In nineteen eighty two when it was announced that the Dismisal was going to be made , there was a storm of controversy. This was an event which still left open wounds in the hearts and minds of the Australian people. After some changes (listen out for the well timed telephones ringing to disguise names) the Dismissal went to air. It was nothing short of brilliant. The leads were perfect. Max Phipps as Gough Whitlam lead the way, closely followed by John Stanton as Malcolm Fraser and the evergreen John Mellion as Sir John Kerr. The time was created well, the feelings of the people were well done and the political elements were not two dimensionally made into melodrama as in so many American series. The Dismissal was a faithful re-creation of a time in Australia which some would rather forget and which we cannot forget. it did not take sides and it pointed out the mistakes and lies of both sides. It leaves one wanting to maintain the rage and change the constitution which still allows for this to all happen again. The Dismissal is now available on DVD in Australia. Watch it, learn from it and learn about our modern history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a Canadian, I didn't know very much about the Whitlam dismissal. I had read the Wikipedia page about those events, but that was about it. Earlier this year, when Canada went through a potential constitutional crisis (it fizzled out, thankfully) that might have led to intervention by our Governor-General, the Whitlam dismissal was mentioned in the press. In an effort to learn more, I ordered the DVD of this mini-series through EBay.

I was greatly impressed by how interesting the account was. As dramatic as events were, this could have been a very boring political drama. However, it was a pretty suspenseful mini-series. I was also impressed by how understandable it was, despite my lack of familiarity with Australian politics. It didn't take long to figure out who everyone was, and what their roles were.

Having said that, it is not an entirely impartial account. Malcolm Fraser is certainly portrayed as a rather Machiavellian figure, who lets no person or thing get in the way of his quest to be Prime Minister. Gough Whitlam is portrayed in a more noble, almost saintly, light. However, the actor portraying Whitlam channels the nobility in such a way that it comes across more as pomposity. I thought that Sir John Kerr was portrayed in a fairly sympathetic manner.

I must warn people that the DVD is of very poor quality. I understand that it was made for television in the early 80s, but it would appear that no effort was made to restore the picture quality or sound quality. It was very disappointing that no extras were added either. A documentary, or even some interviews with the historical figures, would have enhanced the experience, but there is nothing.

I highly recommend this mini-series for anyone interested in the real-life events.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this docudrama in the UK in the 1980's, and found myself intrigued and then astonished at how such good intentions could go so wrong. Previous commentators (who are Australian) have explained the unfolding plot's detail better than I ever could, but I would like to make an observation about what may lie behind the Governor-Generals 'UK Sovereign power'. All modern laws, as I understand them, need an ethical or philosophical root to exist in the first place and to become A law at all. That being the case, and if say the Conner's\/Khemlani mess had been possibly set up,(just how many businessmen\/millionares had been served by Khemlani, presumably without complaint), then the Labour government could have been victims of 'entrapment', which would surely have had to have been investigated' by the Governor-General as or until he could see that the budget standoff was A genuine result of Whitlam's fecklessness, and NOT elaborate entrapment, sponsored by 'person or person's unknown'! If its the case that Kerr in effect didn't have to refer to the law because fiscal circumstances overrides everything, then 'royal power' borders onto unreason; the implications in any Commonwealth country is that 'fiscal' rules literally, and that any person or organisation has Carte Blanche to break any other rule, physical or mental, so long as they have the control over the purse strings ultimately!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Governments are elected for three year terms, as Reg Whithers said in 1973, the Liberals were determined to continue forcing Labor to the Polls until they were defeated. If you ask me, this is portrayed in the docudrama, but, anyone who says Kerr acted properly in this fails to acknowledge the self-serving and costly strategy of the Liberal Party of Australia. On the series itself, I though Max Phipps was a poor Whitlam, his voice was too ghostly. Also, more of the key political players on both sides should have been used, though this may have been a reflection of budgetary constraints at the time. Nevertheless, I recommend it, with caution.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Do-It-Yourself indie horror auteur Todd Sheets returns with another entertainingly atrocious nickel'n'dime shot-on-video clunker that's basically just a feeble excuse to sling around a lot of watery blood and gleaming guts as often as possible. An evil demonic scarecrow resurrects the dead as ravenous rot-faced zombies so they can feast on the living. A bunch of bickering college kids, a trio of dangerous escaped convicts led by the vicious Slade (Byron Nichodemus hamming it up to an outrageous degree), two equally savage sleazeball hoodlums, and a trio of hottie sisters all have to do their best to survive this harrowing ordeal. That's it for the needlessly muddled and convoluted plot, but fortunately what this hilariously horrendous hoot lacks in narrative coherence (plenty) it more than compensates for with a pleasing plethora of gloriously gross'n'graphic gore. Disgusting highlights include a woman having her fingers chopped off, a fatal gunshot to a young gal's groin, attempted necrophiliac rape, evisceration, and, of course, more repulsive entrail eating than you can shake a pile of moist intestines at. Moreover, we've also got rough, grainy cinematography that constantly alternates between washed-out color and grimy black and white, ineptly staged fight scenes, lousy acting from a uniformly pathetic no-name cast (Jerry Angell in particular cops the top crummy thespic dishonors for his laughably abysmal histrionics as slimy no-count psycho criminal Joe Bob), a grating head-banging thrash metal soundtrack, and a generic shivery'n'ominous synthesizer score. Let's not forget the ridiculous ending in which several of our survivors stumble across a few vials of flesh-eating bacteria to use on the shambling undead hordes. Sure, this flick is pure dreck, but it has a certain endearingly abominable quality to it that in turn makes it a great deal of so-awful-it's-awesome Grade Z fun for hardcore aficionados of bad fright fare.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"you can't take it realistically.\" -sheets

Zombie Bloodbath 2 (ZB2) is a world all of its own. I've really never seen anything like it. The only thing I can think to compare it to is psychedelic drugs. Forgive the clich\u00e9\u0097I don't simply mean that it's incoherent and absurd, though occasionally it is. I mean that it takes you through such a broad range of intense experiences and unexpected emotions so quickly as to overwhelm you, and when it's over, you find that it's all happened while you were sitting on the couch.

It is worth noting that it's extremely low-budget, as a disclaimer to those who, after seeing \"Shaun of the Dead,\" consider themselves fans of underground zombie films. Also of note is that it is much more \"brutal\" than you'd expect. Children get disemboweled, and someone taunts a teenage girl before shooting her in the groin. Her corpse is subsequently \"raped.\" These are certainly not flaws, and indeed I feel it is to the film's credit. But if it doesn't sound like your kind of movie, don't waste your time.

(I don't mean to over-hype it, regarding brutality. Don't go in expecting \"Inside\" or something.) I hesitate to give away any of the plot, because it's really full of surprises. Even the opening scene, which has nothing to do with zombies, is at once a classic horror scene and something quite original.

Man, I'm three paragraphs in and I've hardly said anything at all. Here's why I thought the movie was awesome: 1. It's big, and it keeps moving. At one point, you expect it to turn into another NotLD clone, a board-up-the-windows movie where everyone stays in a farmhouse and argues with one another. By the end of the film, however, the farmhouse scenes will seem like a distant dream. There are also a number of outdoor, urban scenes. These are rare in low-budget zombie films.

2. The makeup\/gore is much better than ZB1. More convincing and more creative. Something kind of funny: the early zombies look really lame. Then, halfway through, they suddenly look really good, with prosthetics and everything. Some of them look like Fulci zombies, some are reminiscent of Mr. Tongue from \"Day of the Dead.\" And it's got big scenes of dozens of zombies shuffling around. Never gets old.

3. There's something oddly emotional about it. One character asserts that heaven exists, and that our dead\/undead protagonists are now in heaven. In the context of the film, we believe it to be true. Though the characters behave with typical horror film stupidity, they genuinely seem to care about each other, and accordingly, I found myself caring about them.

4. The pacing is great. There's hardly a dull moment.

My only observation that borders on criticism is that Todd Sheets comes up with the most bizarre dialog I've ever heard. I personally feel it adds to the experience, but I don't think he does it on purpose, so I can't fairly give the film a perfect rating. (Example: when a car breaks down, the owner yells at the passengers. Then he says something to the effect of, \"Sorry I yelled at you guys. You don't know what it's like to have your dad standing over you with a straight razor when you're five years old.\" wtf?) At the very end, it gets to be more than I can handle. Involves a montage with Bill Clinton, and then some preachy end credits explaining the zombie metaphor. Really, by this point, I was firmly re-living my drug experiences.

Highly recommended. 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, I got the DVD set last week and I am finally getting around to posting my reviews, but I sure liked this sequel in many ways.

Zombie Bloodbath 2: Rage of the Undead. OK. This one movies at a fast clip, has some really good gore effects and some really well done atmosphere and style. I would actually go on record as saying this may be one of the most stylish DV shot flicks that I have bought. Most of the time, I get rather angry at DV movies for being boring and looking like soap operas. Even a movie like Bone Sickness that I like, has incredible stretches of DULL. Not this movie. It never stops long enough to let you catch your breath. Although I wouldn't say I liked it better than the first film, I will say that Sheets certainly improved technically in the two years in between films. This one has better gore, the inevitable zombie feeding scenes, scumbag characters, and a few returning actors (although their roles are different) mainly Jerry Angell as a pretty good psychopath with a killer mullet from hell. The shots are more ambitious as well as the script this time around because you can tell Sheets is trying to pull a lot more off than he did in the first film. Some of it works and some of it doesn't, but I have to say that at least he wasn't just trying to do a larger version of the first film. There was no mention this time around of a power plant of chemical spillage, just Satanism and the occult that brings the undead back to life. So I say kudos to Mr. Sheets for trying to do something different with this one. I give this film two bloody thumbs up!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just finished with Zombie Bloodbath part one on the amazing Zombie Bloodbath Trilogy DVD from CAMP Motion Pictures. Zombie Bloodbath 2: Rage of the Undead is next. Now this one left me a bit puzzled due to a few plot holes and some confusing twists here and there, but it is a better film on many levels. Director Todd Sheets truly shows a major leap in style and talent between the two films. Again, this is not for people who want gloss and Hollywood style Horror films, this is for people who like their zombies bloody, raw and grainy. The story as far as I could tell, was basically about two robbers who in 1945 try and steal from an elderly couple only to find that the couple are members of a cult. One guy is simply killed and the other, the one in charge, is basically turned into a scarecrow and crucified and they stand him in the nearby field, still alive but dying. Cut to present day and a van full of college kids break down near a farmhouse. At the same time a group of convicts escape from a nearby jail. Both groups end up at the same house. The house was the one the elderly coupled used to live in and when one of the convicts knocks down the scarecrow and takes it's jacket, it causes the scarecrow to wake up and he in turn brings the cult members back from the dead. Wow. And this is all in the first half hour. There is another plot also going on in town where a couple of serial killer types have taken some workers at a deli hostage. This actually works though, as the people trapped in the house finally escape and end up in the same Deli. Most of the twists work out pretty good, but it is obvious that the film was just too complex in some spots for it's own good. It all ends in a huge showdown with the remaining heroes finding a delivery truck or something full of flesh eating bacteria vials. Of course they throw it at the undead and cause some major melting and a few heads to explode and then we get an odd, thought provoking ending. First, let me say, that while it was not always easy to follow, I still had a major good time with this movie. It was fun and the acting was pretty darn good for a low budget effort. It was obvious that Todd Sheets was truly trying to bring more to the table than a typical zombie film, and in that regard, he has succeeded. It had better special effects than the first film, great pacing and some cool music and visuals, plus there is a true show-stopper of a shot from INSIDE a mouth as a knife is jammed through it. Care was taken here and it shows. The weakness lies in the scripting and in a few of the lazier performances. Again, I recommend listening to the commentary track. It was even better than the first one and I learned a lot. Like finding out that some of the scenes were shot on Super 8 film for effect and that the film came back ruined from the lab and they could nit use it. And they had already been editing the film by the time they got the film back, so some of the confusion is from a few scenes not being in the film. Also, I learned that Todd Sheets truly has a passion and love for making Horror movies. It shows. The film is a good example of no budget cinema that could have used one more rewrite, but still shines with more style than most DV films I see. Not quite as fun as the first film, though a better movie technically. I really admire Sheets as one of the true innovators and trailblazers in the area of DV cinema... and this one is a great addition to the cheapo zombie genre!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just watched this one again. I wanted to show it to one of my friends and we had the best time. This is why these kind of movies are made, to entertain people and Zombie Bloodbath 2 does that for me and for everyone I have showed it to.

The story concerns a group of teenagers in a van that run into a group of escaped convicts who have taken over an old farmhouse. When a scarecrow (that is actually a demon I think) gets disturbed, it comes to life and re-animates dead bodies from the local cemeteries. This leads our heroes to escape only to land in the arms of two insane killers that are in the process of torturing some people in a deli in a small town. Pretty soon it's a showdown with humans fighting zombies.

I loved this movie! From it's different formats (black and white film, video and digital cameras) to the very fast pace and great music, there was always something going on and it NEVER bores you! Sure, it's cheap, but you can tell that a great deal of care and hard work went into this film. I have read other reviews and all I can say is that these people have missed the point. If you want 35mm Full Moon fluff, or if you are into modern stuff like Urban Legend, then I say pass on this. If you like low budget stuff like Gates Of Hell and Evil Dead, I say buy this now.

The make-up and gore is very good, the acting is uneven at times, but over-all it is pretty good and the editing is very impressive. There is enough going on in this one to fill two more films! It is actually one of the better b-movies I have seen in ages.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a glutton for B-movies. I love the old Drive-In fare like this movie. This film, made for very little money it seems, does do one thing that some bigger budgeted films fail. It is cheezy. It is gory. It has no real plot, but it entertained me for an hour and a half. I was either laughing or covering my eyes in shock. There are a few great effects like a shot from INSIDE a guy's mouth when he gets stabbed in the chin by a knife and it pokes up through his tongue and slams into the roof of his mouth, and one gross-out with a guy getting his eyeballs yanked out. But there is also loads of zombies, and some psycho killers patterned after Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and a demon possessed scarecrow. I loved the dialogue that the killers spout as they torture and kill people. It has great camera work, and some cool editing tricks. This one is more original than the first Bloodbath, and the undead look better, but it is still patterned after those dubbed trashy zombie movies of the 70's and 80's and it still has a cheeze factor that ranks mighty high. Don't expect Romero, just second-rate Fulci. I would say that Horror fans will like it, and it is funny and cheezy and a fast ride through B-movie Land.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Todd Sheets has created one of the greatest LOW BUDGET Zombie movies EVER. The story is great, the gore is grand, the psychos are wicked! Yet the movie is flawed by its petty dialogue and sluggish imaging at times.

Despite this ZB2 delivers what any Zombie movie should, gore, good plot, fast pace adventure into the macarbe. If only MR sheets had been given a 100k budget this movie would out do EVERY zombie movie ever even the almighty Dawn of the dead.

But as time goes by he gets better and as he gets better more money comes into his pocket. Thus allowing this man this modern day Genius to craft his vision better.

Just remember that Zombie Bloodbath 2 was just one of his great stepping stones when he is atop of Gore Mountain","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was at the world premier of this movie, and have even met Todd a couples times around town (once at Olive Garden). Todd isn't a bad guy, he is just a small time film maker with little to no budget and big dreams.

As for the movie, it is good if you like zombie films with very little plot and lots of blood and guts. You get to see some Kansas City locations and lots of raw meat, what could be better? :-) Look for the same 2 dozen people playing different zombies (with just a change of clothes or hats). You can have a good drinking game with this movie, take a shot whenever you see the same zombie in a different shirt.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To surmise, this film involves two actors (Caine and Moran) trying to con a gangster. The plot is flimsy at best as several plot holes occur throughout. However this normally shouldn't matter as the comedy should carry a film like this. There are some genuinely funny bits (mostly provided by Dylan Moran). However, other times, there are long melodramatic scenes that fail to add anything to the movie. Caine's character seemed overdone to me. Especially at the start, he continually quotes Shakespeare and acts like a pompous actor. One could say he was playing the part properly but the character seemed to me flat and unfunny. Overall I would say see only if a fan of the actors involved. Otherwise wait for video or tv.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like Dylan Moran from his work in Black Books, although I found some of his stand-up to be really indulgent in terms of long confused gaps... however I was intrigued to see this film starring he and Michael Caine and curiosity got the better of me.

I was stunned.

Dylan's vocal range and characterisation of the different people he was playing in the film was absolutely perfect, something beyond the skills of a mere stand-up comedian and really truly on a par with alec guinness, john hurt and the other greats- truly he was skilled in his portrayal.

Michael Caine was a very convincing prima donna and the standard british film device of having a precocious child on hand to be overly wise and withering worked- the only aspect I didn't really like was the unbelieveable plot feature of the chemistry between Dolores and the cockney gangsta's hard man played by Dylan.

Other than that, it was great.

I also like the non-cop-out ending where it did end up happily ever after, but with MC getting a beating. OK, it's not exactly being strung up by your goolies and beijng disembowelled (which is what a real crime boss would do to you if you nicked \u00a350k off them) but it showed at least a small measure of reality in the story.

I liked the film, and I would recommend it to anyone- but- I would also warn them not to turn it off after 15 minutes because it started a bit slow. If you stick it out, then it will all come back.

And with regards to the swearing- well, they're in Ireland. It wouldn't be real otherwise.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At first I thought this film was going to annoy me.It was as though I had seen this movie somewhere before. The disillusioned hero, the father figure and the 9 year old sister who is older and wiser than her years (see Gregory's girl), but then, not 15 minutes in, it became a laugh out loud, comic gem of a movie. Dylan Moran (who I thought was just going to bug me) was excellent. As was Mr Gambon and the mad Scottish hitman. Lena Headey was extremely sexy. For half of the film I was trying to remember where I'd seen her before. The Parole officer. She has the most amazing smile. But clearly the true hero of this film is Mr Caine. This man should do much more comedy. This ranks alongside some of his best comedy roles (Without a Clue, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels). He is a pleasure to watch in all of his scenes but especially the end.

No one can quite say f**k the way Michael can.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A ham actor without a penny. Who better than Michael Caine to play such a character? He is totally and utterly hilarious but, as in most of Caine's performances, he goes for it for real. The film seems to be a showcase of Dylan Moran and he's splendiferous in his double act with Caine. This, however, is where the script falters. Moran's impersonations should have been incorporated in a rather more organic way. They are too much of an act on their own and makes the potential plausibility of the plot fly out of the window. Never mind. Get it if you can find it. There is enough in it to make it a pleasurable journey.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know this film has had a fairly rough ride from the critics, but I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. The real star here is the fantastic Dylan Moran. He never fails to be both hilarious and convincing in all of his varied disguises. He also manages to radiate a sweet charm that belies his outrageous pratfalls. Special mention must also go to Michael Gambon who plays for laughs with a brilliantly accurate and yet comedic inner city Dublin accent. The only weak link is Caine who, while obviously having a great laugh hamming it up, plays the least interesting and most unsympathetic character. It probably won't play that well overseas but it's well worth a watch all the same.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although the plot of this film is a bit far-fetched, it is worth seeing just for the performances of Michaels Caine and Gambon. The latter delivers a truly wonderful Dublin accent. Caine hams it up...which is exactly what the character he is playing should do. Entertaining and fun, this is a hour and a half of easy watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you are going to watch this film because Michael Caine or Michael Gambon are in it then don't bother, it's not their typical role although I found Gambon fantastic. Instead watch it for Dylan Moran I am a fan of everything I have seen him in and this is no exception, I didn't even realise he could act but even the characters which he has to pass himself off as I found completely believable, which is impressive considering the audience knows they are fake.

The plot is genius and although it is not constant laughs all the way through it has plenty of other charms. A great film for people with a sense of humour.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a joy to watch and should do well on DVD and video. I suppose you really have to be Irish to appreciate the some of the subtlties such as accent, colloquialisms and the dress sense of some of the characters but let me assure you that when Dylan Moran impersonates 'Barreler' the impersonation is quite familiar to most people from Dublin because we have many characters in our fine city that look, act and talk like that! The sheer simple comedy employed and Michael Caines genius acting alone are worth the money but on top of this the plot is great, the script is fantastic and the dialogue fast moving and catchy. A perfect light entertainment movie without the madcap humour of Jim Carrey.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Look as being Anglo-Irish I assure you this reviewer is anything but Bias. But I assure you this is very much an Irish Film - and not English as the last comment seems to have suggested. This film was written by Neil Jorden and Conor McPherson and directed by Conor McPherson too - both Irish. The Cast is almost entirely Irish - it was shot in Ireland with an Irish crew. Even Michael Gambon was born in Ireland - I remember him joking about it in an interview about this film.

Michael Cane was evidently brought in to boost Box office takings abroad.

Loved the film, I just wanted to correct a totally uninformed comment!

Now on with the review - I loved Dylan Moran, have always been a fan of his, himself and Michael Cane formed a surprisingly good double act. It was great to see Morans range as an actor as he plays several different made up characters during the film. I would recommend this film to anyone with an interest in comedy - as it represents a fresh, quirky and inventive turn in Irish feature length chuckle films. I laughed a lot. what more could you ask for?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"tell you what that was excellent. Dylan Moran is simply the funniest actor on screen( and on stage) and with Micheal Caine as your partner ain't to bad either, both are great to watch in a really funny film. true, not all the gags come off but its worth sticking around for the ones that do, but come on its got Micheal Caine in a dress in it( the whole admission fees worth that) and every time Dylan Moran's on screen its more like Bernard blacks movie. the story is two actors(Moran and Caine) who decide to steal money from a group of gangsters by acting out different persona's to fool them all but getting away with it's a different matter. basically \"the actors\" is a great British comedy that was somehow missed by many, seriously if your a Moran fan(or want to see Micheal Caine in a dress) definitely see this","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is all about entertainment. Imagine your friends that you love spending time with, the ones that you know inside out becoming a bit silly and perhaps taking on a character or two. That's what this film is about. An inventive script and brilliantly performed. It's not about pleasing the masses with this one, it's about having fun with a bunch of brilliantly talented people. Which is what I'm sure they all thought when they signed up for it.

The above review sounds completely unfair and I think that the person who wrote that was in the wrong frame of mind when they watched the film. In a lighthearted moment, there is great dignity in it if you care to look.

A job well done, I thought it was a great film. I'd watch this before the North American norm any day.

In a nutshell, it's not the best film you're ever going to see but it has a hell of a lot of moments. I haven't laughed that long in an age.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First off- What are some of you thinking? This is the best movie I've seen in ages!

Secondly- I don't think of it as a British movie as it is set in Dublin and has mainly Irish actors- Moran, Gambon, Aisling O Sullivan(Rita), Deirdre O'Kane etc.

Thirdly- I thought that Moran was excellent. He was hilariously funny through out. Micheal Caine seemed only to be there to get Moran context. Each character he took on he perfected.

Abigail Iversen I thought was better than any other child actor I have seen. She was believable as the smart kid and also as a kid and an adult(yes I know that sounds strange but hey...). Even she managed to upstage Caine.

Iversen and Moran worked very well together and were very funny in the preparation scene.

Barreler(Gambon) was very funny in his ineptitude.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is completely underrated.

It's a film similar to Will Keenan and Patrick Hasson's Waiting, as well as Adrien Brody's Restaurant and the classic film Breaking Away, which are all about young adults who are stuck and know they're stuck, with little or no chance of breaking free.

Death By Pizza (Delivered) is about an intelligent, free-thinking, artistic young adult (Will, played by David Strictland) who is stuck and waiting, bitter at the world's hypocrisy and bitter at his own lack of direction and desire. Will meets his nemesis, Reed (Ron Eldard), another intelligent young adult who's so bitter, he's chosen the path of crime. Both end up helping each other to free themselves of their bitterness, which enables them to get unstuck.

For these young adults, getting unstuck, or, breaking free, can mean both forging ahead into life, and plunging downward into death.

Will's life is filled with the trademarks of a young \"stuck\" adult: a soul-sucking, sweaty, under-paying job, crude customers, an ex-girlfriend who left him because he was unmotivated, a partial college education with no degree, a house filled with self-made art, and of course the new friend whose ungodly choices help him to save himself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The original story and funny compelling characters went over well for a teen girls slumber party movie (2 times now). I loved it, it was fun and moved quickly, no boring drawn out scenes. It is violent and has a little language (though most of it is covered up). Its a great movie. David Strickland was a terrific actor. Ron Eldard gave a wonderful performance. I watch it with the girls every time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thoroughly enjoyed this made for TV movie. I was channel surfing, and came across the start of the movie. Boy am I glad I stopped. This movie has a real hot cast, as well as a semi-believable plot. There's drama, comedy, action, and best of all, the human nature aspect of this film is what makes it great. I hope it comes out on Video, because I will buy a copy. Rating...9 out of 10 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Inferno gives Los Angeles what it deserves-- a baptism in fire, death from above. An excellent cast of obsessed characters could survive and sweat out the passing of the coronal mass ejection but that would be no fun and certainly not dramatic. A really lame review in Variety criticized the characters for being concerned with their personal redemption instead of banning together to save the world. But what's refreshing about this big heat is that there's nothing anyone can do about it. We are, therefore, mercifully not subjected to \"heart warming\" scenes of fascist presidents and other big blowhard statists as they contrive implausible plots to save a chosen remnant of mankind (ala Deep Impact). Here the sweat drenched and lust-powered dirty half dozen work out their own redemption or face their personal oblivions the old fashioned way-- together as individuals or......alone with the Alone. Excellent TV film all in all. Clearly not denatured by the destructive meddlesomness of overzealous Network Execs. I highly recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is speculation. This movie could of inspired Paramount Pictures to film the movie The Core. Both movies have something in common nature.The only improvement for Inferno is a better cast. Inferno's cast is still good though. Excellent movie 8 out of 10. This is worth watching. This movie does have truth to it heat waves are real. Another piece of truth is heat related power outages. Where I live i have actually heard transformers blow. Unrest from heat is possible because people seeking to cool off may get rowdy. There is a considerable amount of team work in this movie. Again this a movie worth watching. The movie has a good cast. The movie has no slow spots.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought Rachel York was fantastic as \"Lucy.\" I have seen her in \"Kiss Me, Kate\" and \"Victor\/Victoria,\" as well, and in each of these performances she has developed very different, and very real, characterizations. She is a chameleon who can play (and sing) anything!

I am very surprised at how many negative reviews appear here regarding Rachel's performance in \"Lucy.\" Even some bonafide TV and entertainment critics seem to have missed the point of her portrayal. So many people have focused on the fact that Rachel doesn't really look like Lucy. My response to that is, \"So what?\" I wasn't looking for a superficial impersonation of Lucy. I wanted to know more about the real woman behind the clown. And Rachel certainly gave us that, in great depth. I also didn't want to see someone simply \"doing\" classic Lucy routines. Therefore I was very pleased with the decision by the producers and director to have Rachel portray Lucy in rehearsal for the most memorable of these skits - Vitameatavegamin and The Candy Factory. (It seems that some of the reviewers didn't realize that these two scenes were meant to be rehearsal sequences and not the actual skits). This approach, I thought, gave an innovative twist to sketches that so many of us know by heart. I also thought Rachel was terrifically fresh and funny in these scenes. And she absolutely nailed the routines that were recreated - the Professor and the Grape Stomping, in particular. There was one moment in the Grape scene where the corner of Rachel's mouth had the exact little upturn that I remember Lucy having. I couldn't believe she was able to capture that - and so naturally.

I wonder if many of the folks who criticized the performance were expecting to see the Lucille Ball of \"I Love Lucy\" throughout the entire movie. After all, those of us who came to know her only through TV would not have any idea what Lucy was really like in her early movie years. I think Rachel showed a natural progression in the character that was brilliant. She planted all the right seeds for us to see the clown just waiting to emerge, given the right set of circumstances. Lucy didn't fit the mold of the old studio system. In her frustrated attempts to become the stereotypical movie star of that era, she kept repressing what would prove to be her ultimate gifts.

I believe that Rachel deftly captured the comedy, drama, wit, sadness, anger, passion, love, ambition, loyalty, sexiness, self absorption, childishness, and stoicism all rolled into one complex American icon. And she did it with an authenticity and freshness that was totally endearing. \"Lucy\" was a star turn for Rachel York. I hope it brings a flood of great roles her way in the future. I also hope it brings her an Emmy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dramatic license - some hate it, though it is necessary in retelling any life story. In the case of \"Lucy\", the main points of Lucille Ball's teenage years, early career and 20 year marriage to Desi Arnaz are all included, albeit in a truncated and reworked way.

The main emotional points of Lucy's life are made clear: Lucille's struggle to find her niche as an actress, finally blossoming into the brilliant comedienne who made the character Lucy Ricardo a legend; her turbulent, romantic and ultimately impossible marriage to Desi Arnaz; Lucy & Desi creating the first television empire and forever securing their place in history as TV's most memorable sitcom couple.

As Lucille Ball, Rachel York does a commendable job. Do not expect to see quite the same miraculous transformation like the one Judy Davis made when playing Judy Garland, but York makes Ball strong-willed yet likable, and is very funny in her own right. Even though her comedic-timing is different than Lucy's, she is still believable. The film never goes into much detail about her perfectionistic behaviour on the set, and her mistreatment of Vivian Vance during the early \"I Love Lucy\" years, but watching York portray Lucy rehearsing privately is a nice inclusion.

Daniel Pino is thinner and less charismatic than the real Desi was, but he does have his own charm and does a mostly decent job with Desi's accent, especially in the opening scene. Madeline Zima was decent, if not overly memorable, as the teen-aged Lucy.

Vivian Vance and William Frawley were not featured much, thankfully, since Rebecca Hobbs and Russell Newman were not very convincing in the roles. Not that they aren't good actors in their own right, they just were not all that suited to the people they were playing. Most of the actors were from Austrailia and New Zeland, and the repressed accents are detectable at times.

Although the main structure of the film sticks to historical fact, there are many deviations, some for seemingly inexplicable reasons. Jess Oppenheimer, the head writer of Lucy's radio show \"My Favourite Husband\" which began in 1948, is depicted in this film as arriving on the scene to help with \"I Love Lucy\" in 1951, completely disregarding the fact that he was the main creator! This movie also depicts Marc Daniels as being the main \"I Love Lucy\" director for its entire run, completely ignoring the fact that he was replaced by William Asher after the first season! Also, though I figure this was due to budgetary constraints, the Ricardo's are shown to live in the same apartment for their entire stay in New York, when in reality they changed apartments in 1953. The kitchen set is slightly larger and off-scale from the original as well. The Connecticut home looks pretty close to the original, except the right and left sides of the house have been condensed and restructured.

There's also Desi talking about buying RKO in 1953, during Lucy's red-scare incident, even though RKO did not hit the market until 1957. These changes well could have been for dramatic license, and the film does work at conveying the main facts, but would it have hurt them to show a bit more respect to Oppenheimer and Asher, two vital figures in \"I Love Lucy\" history? The biggest gaff comes in the \"I Love Lucy\" recreation scenes, at least a few of them. It's always risky recreating something that is captured on film and has been seen by billions of people, but even more so when OBVIOUS CHANGES are made. The scene with the giant bread loaf was truncated, and anyone at all familiar with that episode would have noticed the differences right away! The \"We're Having A Baby\" number was shortened as well, but other than that it was practically dead on. By far the best was the \"grape-stomping\" scene, with Rachel York really nailing Lucy's mannerisms. The producers made the wise decision not to attempt directly recreating the \"Vitametavegamin\" and candy factory bits, instead showing the actors rehearse them. These scenes proved effective because of that approach.

The film's main fault is that it makes the assumption the viewers already know a great deal about Lucy's life, since much is skimmed over or omitted at all. Overall, though, it gives a decent portrait of Lucy & Desi's marriage, and the factual errors can be overlooked when the character development works effectively.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one peace of art! If you like comedy you should watch this! Here comes a funny moment from the movie: \"spoiler\"

Nikolai and Goroshkov are walking together in Paris for the first time. They are visiting the local market. And Goroshkov goes: -\"Look Nikolai, how much food they have! Look! One-two-three-ten-thirty-fifty-hundred kinds of meat! But if ask for a tiny-tiny peace, just for the taste, they won't give you. French are very greedy!\" Then Goroshkov takes Nikolai to a TV-shop...Goroshkov: \"Tell me, who needs all these televisions? Look at this monster here, for example!\" Goroshkov points a finger at the \"monster\"-TV and goes: \"And this motherfu*ker...he is supposed to be digging a ditch, but no, he's on TV...wait a minute... that's ME! hahah!\"

Wanna laugh? Watch the movie, you won't regret!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a wonderful little film that truly was creative and fun--something you see all too seldom in movies. The film begins in Russia just after the fall of the Communist government. As a result, society seems to be in chaos and life has yet to improve now that the old regime is gone. Dirty cities, crime and lack of housing still plague the poor residents of St. Petersburg.

Into this scene of bleakness and uncertainty comes an idealistic music teacher. He is among those without a home and he FINALLY gets a letter from the government that tells him he has a tiny room in a nearby flat. When he arrives, the place is a mess but the people seem friendly enough so they all have a lovely party. In the middle of the night, they are awakened by an old lady walking out of the giant wardrobe in the room (I was half expecting Lucy and the other kids from THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE to come out, but they didn't). They are too shocked to do anything at first but decide soon to investigate. Instead of just being a clothes closet, the wardrobe opens into Paris! How the residents of the flat respond to this magical gateway is really intriguing. Some, like the music teacher, are thrilled and in awe. Most of the others are more pragmatic and are mostly concerned with looting everything from Paris before the gateway closes once and for all! These Russian thieves are awful people--greedy, coarse and crude but down deep---VERY DEEP--are hearts of gold. I like how this is a metaphor for the nation now on the brink of Capitalism. At first, they run amok grabbing everything they can and only later do they reveal some depth--but mostly they act much like guests on THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW! The film has many twists and turns and is both funny and mesmerizing. About the only negative is that due to some harsh language and a nude scene (albeit, a very funny one), this is not a film for kids. This is a real shame, as with some very minor editing, this could have been a great family film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One unfortunate reality of post-Soviet Russia was that the people's welfare didn't change much from Soviet times. As we see in \"Window to Paris\", most people are still as depressed as ever, while they are encouraged to go after money.

Then, everything changes for music teacher Nikolai Chizhov (Sergei Dontsov) after he finds a window that leads to Paris. He and his friends are naturally quite amazed at what they find. This movie has one of the funniest discussions of Elvis Presley and Edith Piaf that I've ever heard. So watch this movie. You're sure to love it. It's sort of a precursor to \"Being John Malkovich\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I originally saw this movie as a Blockbuster VHS rental. That was quite some time ago, but still remembered it. Blockbuster doesn't have it anymore. Netflix didn't have it and there weren't many copies on the web -- only a few spendy VHS copies. Recently did finally find it available in DVD form on eBay for a reasonable price (in PAL format, but our DVD player will play PAL discs on our NTSC TV).

Wife and I both enjoyed it. The style of the movie is a bit strong, and many if not most of the parts are rather strongly over-played as if amateurs were making it(especially the kids), but it's not bothersome. The contrasts of societies are accentuated in the overplay.

There is a bit of political preaching in terms of saying that the young in Russia shouldn't try to escape their not-so-great life but instead should at least try to make things better first. But that's not dominant. It's fairly humorous most of the time.

Some downplaying of the west commented upon by others isn't that at all IMO, I take it as a comment about expectations of the Russian characters. At least when taken from my western viewpoint. Perhaps it's a downplay of the west from a Russian viewpoint (which it is literally by the characters saying it).

I can't say how literally true to the film the English subtitles are, but I can say that the subtitles were done very well, full of English idioms as if done by a native English speaker -- complete with \"colorful\" language.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For real though, this game is where it's at. I'm 20 years old and that's basically where it started for me. 4-bit graphics was fabulous. I hope you all remember this game with as much adoration as I do. That Bluto is a real meany.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As I've hopped from film to film at the SXSW Film Festival, this film from the opening night has stayed with me. Curious, because it is a dark comedy with quite an absurdist premise.

A family of hyper-stressed fundamentalists in a small community of like minds is changed by an auto accident. Three of the four have the same near-death experience in which they are fully opened, as each receives a reversal of the concept of original sin (I won't spoil this scene with the specifics). The fourth, a middle school cheerleader, is not just the only one physically hurt, but also is unchanged and is now witness to what has become her crazy, apparently spiritually bankrupt, family. Every new moment brings a new outrageousness as they have become innocently naked and frank in every way, horrifying her and then the community.

Forgiving the Franklins has the most beautiful sexual awaking scene between a husband and wife that I have ever seen, to the Sarah Brightman song \"Deliver Me,\" a song that can now bring tears to my eyes.

The cast is terrific. Robertson Dean as the dad, Vince Pavia as the son and Aviva as the cheerleader daughter are excellent, Mari Blackwell plays Peggy, the mom's questioning neighbor and best friend perfectly, a much more nuanced, fleshed out, real character than what might have been (everyone in middle America knows a Peggy). And Theresa Willis positively glows as Betty, the mom. There are lots of risks taken by the actors playing the three changed characters, and these risks pay off.

I hope this film gets a wide release - if so, I plan to see it again.

Very accurate review at: http:\/\/www.fosteronfilm.com\/phil\/forgiving.htm","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just got back from the GLBT Film Festival at the AMC Loews 34th in NY. A friend told me about this film. Audience response was very positive! Lots of good solid laughs as well as some quiet moments of realization. Top notch in every area. A movie that makes you think, and then makes you realize how lucky we'd all be if we could turn back time and live without shame or guilt. I imagine this will come close to, if not win, the audience favorite award! What was most surprising was the fact the the movie appears to start off as a satire and then slowly weaves into a genuine commentary on the negative and sometimes violent reactions of the very group it started to satirize. There isn't any mean spirited humor at the expense of one group, just a slow realization that we would all be better off if we just went back to the gentle innocence that we all started off with.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with the other 9 and 10 star reviews. I saw this at the South By Southwest Film Festival in Austin. Of the 20 films I saw,7 were really good and this was the best one for me. I'm a sucker for movies that have plot devices where characters go through transformations that totally change their lives. The excellent acting was mostly done by people involved in TV, or it was their first movie. It was written and directed by Jay Floyd. This was his debut as a director. Jay's day job is apparently as a clearance administrator for lots of famous films. Forgiving the Franklins was a total delight and extremely funny in spots. This is one movie where I would buy the DVD and re-watch it, truly a high complement from me. Well done, Jay, yes...give up your day job!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just saw this film the other day at the Santa Fe Film Festival. I was delighted by its honesty and humor. It was the most thought provoking movie I've seen in a very long time -- I just can't get it off of my mind for some reason. It may not be for everyone, because it makes you think. I don't know if people like to think in movies so much anymore, which is a shame. The actors who play the Franklins are quite a find. I couldn't imagine playing these complicated people with such frankness. Though I thought a couple of the supporting characters were not as good as the Franklins, I can totally forgive it -- because this is an important movie in my opinion. I didn't expect to like it so much, but as I've thought about it for a few days, it's proving to be a very relevant piece of entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Forgiving the Franklins at a Paramount screening and loved it I have to be honest I really didn't want to go and I had become quite jaded about the movies being made today I have to tell you Forgiving The Franklins was fresh and wonderfully put together I laughed my ass off it was great story telling I could not believe two guys shot this and put the whole thing together. I thought if these guys can do a movie like this with this budget imagine what they could do with big money behind them. And then I thought be the jaded guy Iam the studios would probably f...it up anyway. That being said thanks guys I got lost and in your film and that's why I go to the movies to forget the world for a couple of hours.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Forgiving the Franklins is the best film I have seen in years. The acting was fantastic..especially Mari Blackwell who was truly remarkable in the role of Peggy Lester. She brought Peggy to life with incredible skill and made her as real as my own next-door neighbor. I also enjoyed Robertson Dean in the role of the father... he is a true professional, and managed to pull off even the most intimate scenes with a rare grace. The performances by the entire cast were very good, excellent, in fact but Peggy's role as played by Blackwell made the movie. The cinematography was beautifully done throughout and was most impressive. The only criticism I have to offer is a slight weakness of the ending scenes, which were overly drawn out, repetitive and a bit too focused on the wrong character. I would have liked to see it end on a note of forgiveness....but spite of that slight flaw, it is very much worth the watching and applause for all involved in the making of it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"the most \"spiritual\" film I have seen in a long long time. maybe ever. also one scene around the dining room table a piece of comic perfection. I understand a release date is coming up in the fall. if it comes to your town and you want to see a movie that makes you think this is it. Aviva is great in it and she is most certainly a future star - (Superbad is out now which she is in) - also all the actors seem perfectly calibrated. There is a tone set by this movie that is used to surprise through out. i would not know what to call it - it is comedy but the undergirding message is so fierce and direct that \"comedy\" is not a big enough word for it. I love this film. It is a thinking man's comedy. but even that phrase is not really good enough. FTF does have a message and that message needs to be heard right now","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this tale of a tightly wound Christian family that has three of its four members \"born again\" after a cake-caused car crash, what really stands out is how grounded most of it is, where there is so much potential to go over the top, and how truly inspired most of the acting is. Where most of the film's moments, particularly its frank and \"innocent\" discussions of sexuality after three of the four family members have their guilt and shame removed, is hilarious, it is also thought-provoking and the characters stay with you.

How often, for example does a character in a comedy spin from near caricature to full-bodied emotional being in the course of one scene? How often do we see a cast that can pull back from showboating mid-sentence, in order to show a bit of the humanity beneath the character's skin? Even many of the \"bad guys\" in this film have moments of heart-breaking honesty, even while much of what they do can be absolutely ridiculous and horrifying. There is truth and history behind even the most questionable acts in this film, which is a difficult task in satire.

How refreshing it is to see a darkish comedy that can dare to be humanistic. How nice to see actors so fully committed to character that they can dare to let them be ridiculous and sublime.

And as a gay person, I do not think I have ever been quite so touched by a heterosexual sex scene as I was by the first sexual encounter between the parents of this family after their accident.

Bravo. Bravo. One of my favorites at Outfest this year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow, just caught this movie from Blockbuster and I love finding gems like this. While it was definitely shot on a budget and misses a little bit in clumsy editing (i.e. accident, hospital scenes, second to last end scenes), for a first directorial effort, I give this 10 stars! I absolutely loved the thought provoking concepts brought forth and if you're a free thinker and open to ideas outside the box, I highly, highly recommend this movie. I think the director and writer, Jay Floyd, should be given some attention and more opportunities in the film industry. Based on his credits, he may be another Quentin Tarantino.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's always a pleasure to see characters in a movie who are wholly good-hearted and well-intentioned, even when they're surrounded by those who are neither. The film's moderately silly premise is that the conservative, religious Franklin family (mother, father, teen boy and girl) are involved in an accident wherein the parents and brother have a near-death experience during which they meet Jesus, a pleasant but somewhat exasperated soul who removes from them the burden of 'original sin.' When they return to their lives, many of their views and attitudes have changed, much to the consternation of the daughter, who didn't share the experience. The religious side is, I think, presented with a good balance, from the good (Jesus) to the starkly awful (those of his 'followers' who are obsessed with the sins of others and utterly oblivious to their own). It's a movie to make you think, give you a few good laughs along the way, and leave you with the pleasant feeling that the world just might be a nicer place than you think it is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"saw this movie and totally loved it the characters are great . it is definitely my kind of movie you do not get bored in this movie i love independent films they are so much more rewarding. my husband and i really enjoyed Jay's style. if you are an open minded person who loves thought provoking films and loves conversation after it's over you will love this film. it is definitely thought provoking.the film definitely will step on some toes but who cares those people will probably not go to see this movie. it is amazing to see the characters evolve . Jay Floyd has really captured both sides of the table. Applause applause Jay i hope you are working on another movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at the Sundance Film Festival and I too was surprised that it didn't generate more notice because it was not only powerful and beautifully crafted but very original. The audience was totally engaged and the greatest part of seeing a film like this at a festival is the opportunity to talk to the director and cast in the Q&A session afterward. They literally had to throw us out of the screening room for the next film - we could have gone on for a lot longer. The film is thought provoking and hilarious at the same time. It will be a shame if this film isn't picked up for wider distribution - I hope it will at least become available on DVD because I want to see it again and share it with everyone I know.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was surprised that \" Forgiving the Franklins \" did not generate more buzz at this years Sundance Film Festival. There were times that the laughter at the screening I saw was so loud that you could barely hear the movie. The movie has some excellent acting and a story that really makes one examine broader issues . You know little issues like Religion, sex and the truth. Lots of comedy's seem to rely on the same old corny contrived situations, many leave you thinking \" I know they ripped this off from some sitcom \" .This film takes off on its own unique direction . I really think that Jay Floyd did a fantastic job with a tight budget on this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Amateur camera work aside, I thought this movie was very different, and unlike all the blogs and posts I have read, I got something totally different out of the ending than others. The premise of the story revolves around a very religious family and their ties to their church. How they must adhere to all the rigid rules and regulations, but the daughter seems to have problems staying on track, what with nasty thoughts of others and her use of bad language. Yet she prays a lot, as does her family. Then one day they are headed to a church picnic and are in an accident. From there the parents and her brother change; what with being knocked out and \"saved\" by Jesus. WARNING: MAJOR Spoiler ALERT. Or so we are led to believe. I think if you watch this movie from the point of view of the daughter only, then really pay attention to the end you will see that what we, the audience, thinks is an actual occurrence with the parents and son, is in fact all a dream, and from the daughter's POV. This would explain a lot of the actions portrayed by the parents and the son, which were totally opposite of how they lived before, especially the sex, and also would also explain why Peggy got away with murder, etc. Look at how perfect that pie is, but go back and look at the cake Betty makes. That is unless Caroline removed all evidence that the pie was laced. And also the fact that the scene where she sees her dead parents, laying there in each others arms, and her brother, all whom of which seemed to die very peacefully, even if being poisoned, fits with a dream sequence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a wonderful movie...it's funny, dark, poignant, thought-provoking, innocently naughty and generally entertaining all around. I don't know that I've seen the like before...\"The Rapture,\"or maybe one of Todd Solondz's black-as-night \"comedies\" or even the recent movie \"Teeth\" come to mind...but those are all bitter, nasty little gems. \"Franklins,\" despite the darkness around the edges, manages to have a thoroughly sincere and pure heart.

The story is similar to John Waters' \"Low Down Dirty Shame,\" only this film differs in that it actually HAS a story, and something to say as well, beyond Waters' juvenile \"Sex isn't dirty (snicker, nudge-nudge)\" message. A conservative, repressed family undergoes a drastic change as a result of a car accident and suddenly aren't so conservative anymore...in fact, they're finally actually happy, probably the only people in their town (or maybe the entire world) who are. To talk about why this is the case would be to spoil the film; simply put, everyone should see it, though of course only people who are already sold on what the movie's upbeat, hopeful philosophy is ever would.

The acting is great--just this side of realistic enough to keep the proceedings from getting too heavy...Teresa Willis gives an especially memorable and brave performance as an uptight mother who emerges like a butterfly when she's freed up. Both she and Robertson Dean deserve kudos for their unflinchingly sincere performances (not to mention frequent and extensive nudity and sex scenes); they turn what could have been a salacious joke involving a \"deviant sex practice\" into a touching, believable and endearing moment. Aviva as the daughter is a standout and someone to watch, perfectly capturing the attitude, angst and speech patterns of a girl her age. Vince Pavia as the \"himbo\" brother with a secret is good looking and functional although his storyline and how everyone reacts to it is more rewarding than his actual acting. Mari Blackwell as the conflicted best friend to mother Franklin is wonderfully cold, confused and even compassionate in a role that could have gone over-the-top.

Technically the film looks fantastic, all bright colors and wide-open locales...it looks like it may have been shot Hi-def...if so, the line has gotten very thin, it looks very much like film. There is a great deal of talking and a lot of it philosophical, which gets a bit preachy (moreso, I'd imagine to a viewer who disagrees with the film's politics), but this film says a lot of things that need saying...if only people wouldn't be afraid to listen and think. The arguments that take place are smart and well thought out, first and foremost refusing to demonize either the religious OR non-religious parties.

The ending is on the ambiguous side, which I found a bit of a disappointment somehow...I think it would've worked better had the author (as Jay Floyd is, since he produced, wrote and directed) given a more workable denouement, some sort of solution, but then again, there probably isn't one when it comes to pitting people with different faiths against one another. All the same, it was a moving, memorable final image that left me choked up--a success. Meanwhile, I'm awfully glad Mr. Floyd got this film made and look forward to sharing it with as many people as possible. Check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really liked this film about love between two adults in postwar Britain. The high standards of BBC TV is evident in the production, and superb lead actors (Claire Bloom and Joss Ackland) make this an uplifting experience. Bloom and Ackland have previously worked together in theatre, and their chemistry and interaction is splendid. I recommend this version of Shadowlands over the film version of 1993.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was recommended to me by the same person that blessed me with a copy of The Chronicles of Narnia. Shadowlands is one of the most amazing screenplays ever written. It is well executed, acted and directed. The cinematography is a bit dark for my taste but I'm sure it was intended to be so. The screenplay is like poetry in portions of the movie, through out the movie I found myself taking pause to reflect on the comments just made on screen. This is a wonderful piece of cinema and I can only hope that more people will run across it and add reviews. Fair warning though this was a 6 tissue movie for me. Very touching. Very Heartfelt performances.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This version did not move me as deeply as the later, Hollywood version starring Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger. While it was beautifully filmed and superbly acted, the BBC version was more packed with dialog that imparted information which I found fascinating. It gave me a detailed glimpse of the intellectual, theological and moral considerations that motivated C. S. Lewis. It was therefore more interesting and stimulating than the Hollywood version, but not nearly as visually stunning or viscerally affecting. Still, while I did not leave a heaping mound of sodden Kleenex in the theater, I did use one, and at frequent intervals. I enjoyed this film every bit as much as the Hollywood version, and was grateful for the increased understanding I gained.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a very faithful presentation of Lewis's life in the mid-50's. The dialogue on theology and the banter with his follow colleagues was exceptionally good. Michael White's book, \"C.S. Lewis: Creator of Narnia\" deals with this time frame in a very parallel way. Joss Ackland's acting was superb in catching the unemotional Lewis. The movie took great pains to be presented in an accurate English setting. The development of a strong bond between \"Jack\" (his preferred name) Lewis and Douglas Gresham, Joy's son from her previous marriage, was enjoyable to watch. The movie did avoid the distasteful element of \"Warnie\" Lewis's (Jack's older brother) drinking problem, but it would not have moved the story on, so it is best left out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Easily one of my favourite dramatic TV films, in many ways beautiful yet sad, heart-warming and thought-provoking, this is a superb dramatisation of a few years in the life of C.S. Lewis and his relationship with Joy Davidman. I found it to be incredibly absorbing with excellent and 'realistic' dialogue and situations. It all seemed very 'real', yet there were also 'magical' moments that almost leave you breathless with delight. Ackland and Bloom as the central characters were excellent, as were the supporting cast. It's one of those dramas that I find hard to criticise, simply because, for me, there is NOTHING to be criticised, it just works so well on so many levels.

Very highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 1990s film with Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger is rightly showered with praise, and I enjoyed it very much, but this TV original is just as good, and in some ways, more appropriately cast. Claire Bloom isn't a brash Joy, but she is still confident and throwing her cap at her favourite author (played by Joss Ackland in one of his best performances).

Quieter, calmer, and less emotional than the Attenborough film this may be, but it does justice to what is a marvellous play full of meaningful dialogue. You'll still cry to this version, but perhaps you won't have the musical prompts to set you off.

There's room for both - and having seen this on stage, I would say that the Ackland\/Bloom one is slightly more faithful. But they're both excellent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"True, this is not John Sayles finest film (Brother From Another Planet) but it is not entirely forgettable either, if not for any other reason than its message. Like Batman, Wild Thing's parents were murdered in front of him, leaving him to fend for himself in 'The Zone,' a corrupt section of an unnamed city where greed and violence reign supreme. Instead of falling in with the likes of Chopper (Robert Davi) Wild Thing fights for justice, using his powers of Tai Chi and eerie cat impressions, occasionally lighting himself on fire. He becomes something of an urban legend, a modern day Robin Hood, and a hero for the ages. 1987 at its finest, WILD THING LIVES","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is more than a Sat. afternoon special. Exremely well written if very low key there is a lot here if you look for it. Catch the cat companion\/scout for instance. It not only could have been a comic book it should have been a comic book. The comic industry (as well as the film's publicists) missed the boat on this. One of the least know really great films. A great script by John Sayles is a strong point but the acting is good as well. Probably the best \"super hero\" film I've ever seen. Short on special effects but long on believability. This one's a keeper. I have never seen a DVD of this film but i used to own a VHS version. Good hunting","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen \"Chasing the Dragon\" several times and have enjoyed it each time. The acting was superb. This movie really makes you realize how one bad choice at a weak moment can change your life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this film! Markie Post is really great in it. I saw it on lifetime, and it's in the same entertaining class as films like: 'The Betty Broderick Story', 'Locked Up: A Mother's Rage', etc.... {which, by the way, are also very good, entertaining films!} It's an over the top drama, about a single mother who tries to break away from her middle-class, predictable personality. This movie is just pure entertainment! It doesn't have to be a realistic look at heroin addiction. But, it does show how any \"regular\" middle class person can (& they do!) get addicted to heroin. Junkies aren't just homeless uneducated people on the street. {By the way, if you do watch it, check out how the kid bosses his mother around! Spoiled!} 8 out of 10 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on a True Story . . .

The premise of this film is to illustrate that through fairly normal events its possible for an outwardly 'decent' mother to get drawn into Heroin addiction.

***semi spoiler*** Some of the scenes are fairly inaccurate - whilst others almost make you want to get the 'fix' yourself.

Computer technician\/graphic artist woman with good relationship with her young teen kid spirals into addiction after work colleague, who is a 'chipper' (-someone who can take + enjoy it now and again - ) Then spirals into an addiction that leads her eventually to scoring off 'street' dealers after losing contact with her steady dealer.

The scenes that show her coming down and getting 'sick' are often VERY real - especially the first real 'night sweat' Prior to all these events she began a relationship with a guy who just happened to have lost his wife to the bottle, and insists he has an inner radar not to get hooked on such women. Some radar! However after after some late turn ups and weird behaviour, the boyfriend challenges her as to 'what is going on' His radar begins to get more with it and demands that she empty out her bag; she hits the roof and storms out.

Because of the excellent and open relationship she had developed prior to this tragedy, he is the first to 'find' some real evidence in her bag; he then looks around the hose for her 'stash' - apparently his sensibility is from school lessons on drug taking - and when he discovers a large stash in the bathroom he flushes it! NOT A HAPPY WOMAN when she takes her next bath and its 'disappeared'.

The kid keeps one back and places it on the meal table - she then goes into further denial - admits it and says its no worse than dope.

Thge kid does all the right things and calls her friends and generally puts her in a position where she has to come 'clean' - if you'll pardon the pun.

The movie takes the viewer through some pretty arduous situations where danger is not far away.

Eventaully she gets help from a professional organisation and does cold turkey - you'll have to watch the film to see what happens next . . . .","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i will like to order this movie for the women in treatment. i feel that this is a great movie for them to watch. i can't fine it no were i have been on ebay and all the other website to order this movie. now i am asking you for help to fine out where i can oder this movie at or what to do to get one. i will love to show this movie. yes i was like this movie and a lot of peoples here in treatment in to see how people can change there life around and move on. i think Markie Post played that move very well she is a great actor i love her movies. and if you have any other movie about addiction i will like to order them of the treatment center of women and men so that can look at other people go through what they go through in life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had heard about \"gaming\" and \"Dungeons and Dragons\" before, but I had know idea it could be like what I saw in the \"Gamers: Dorkness Rising.\" These guys are so funny and fun to watch. Especially the guy who plays the \"bard\" or \"minstrel\" or whatever, he has a gift for physical comedy and timing. There is so much background humor and energy in some of the scenes that make you really think that at least some of it was improvised there on set. The special effects needed to be worked on a bit, but I saw it at a convention last year and thats one of the things they said they were going to redo and make better, so it's probably wicked now!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am definitely not a gamer, but a couple people in my family and my boyfriend are. So, a little reluctantly I decided to find out what the big deal was with \"fantasy stuff\". I saw Dorkness Rising and thought it was HILARIOUS! It's slapstick, but not disrespectful to those that enjoy role playing games. Also, and most importantly, people who've never gamed before can enjoy it and not feel left out or lost trying to understand the plot. The acting was great and the field shots\/set were believable. This makes me want to see other movies by this production company. I can't wait to see what the future holds for this group! Three cheers - well done!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm new to gaming, but I would have started MUCH sooner if this film had been around! I caught it at Gen Con last year (a trip made only as a favor to my husband) and LOVED it! Even to a non-gamer like I was at the time, it's funny and accessible--so much so that I finally relented and started sitting in on my husband's gaming group.

I don't want to give away any plot details, but if you're a gamer, you NEED to see this film--and if you're not, you're going to have a great time despite yourself. There are certainly \"in\" jokes, but the vast majority of the film is accessible to anyone.

My only complaints: wish it were longer and wish it were available on DVD. Soon, perhaps?...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this at the screening at GenCon in Indy. I had some time to kill and decided to check it out. It played to about 1000 people in a packed standing-room-only ballroom.

Wow, what a ride! The script was tight. The action tense. The pacing perfect. The character exposition excellent. One thing I really appreciated was that you knew going in that this wasn't a big budget film. Yet it soon became obvious that the creators pushed their sets and effects as far as they could despite their limitations. And it was more than enough.

It's true that this film was targeted at a certain audience - gamers\/tabletop players - the creators make no effort to hide that. But other filmmakers could learn a lot from them. For in going for the jugular in scene after scene and not worrying about if Mom who happens to be watching will \"get it\", they got the biggest laughs time and time again. But there's enough universality there that Mom will be laughing too, even if she's not in on every joke. I think too many times I see films that try so hard to lower the bar to the lowest common denominator so that they will appeal to the most people, but the movie just ends up suffering for it.

But not this flick. Indeed, this film was so solid that it had the audience wrapped around it's finger from the opening credits. And, while the viewers around me *really* wanted to like the film, they weren't pushovers - gamers can be among the most critical niche out there.

I'm so glad I got to see this in a big crowd. At least 10 times the audience was having such a good time that they erupted into applause at a joke or scene during the film. How often does that happen at screenings? It should be no surprise that there was a huge standing ovation when the closing credits rolled.

For my own part, I can't wait for this to be released. After it ended, one of the producers said they were shooting for a simultaneous TV\/DVD release. That date cannot come soon enough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dead Gentlemen Productions has put together a film with amazing production values considering their budget. Anyone that has ever played any role-playing game, particularly any fantasy RPG (they play Dungeons and Dragons in the movie) will LOVE this movie. Brilliant performances all around--especially with regards to the dual nature of the principles, playing their players and their characters. Anyone who has ever filmed or acted in a student film will appreciate the amount of work and love they put into this project. This movie (and its prequel) is to fantasy movies and role-playing games what Blazing Saddles is to westerns--parody of the highest order. I only have a couple minor complaints about the movie itself, none of which will prevent me from buying the DVD as soon as it's available (only 6 more weeks--I'm counting the days):

1. When Lodge is talking to Joanna about joining the gaming group, he hands her a copy of the Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook and says \"this will tell you everything you need to know.\" The camera hovers too long on a shot of the book, and the moment really seemed like a commercial.

2. The jokes are hilarious, but they seem unevenly spread throughout the movie. The last third of the movie, after the almost continuous barrage of visual and verbal humor preceding it, slows down a bit, as if the narrative was catching up with the jokes. Odd, but Blazing Saddles always struck me that way as well. . . and I love that movie, too.

One of the narrative strengths of the story is the unresolved nature of the romantic subplot. Will Joanna become the GM's girlfriend? Will she go back to Cass? Or will the three maintain a platonic friendship, deepened by the camaraderie of role-playing? (Yes that sounds sappy, but there are a couple of saccharine moments, particularly when Cass and Lodge \"make up\" at the end.) But the movie spans one week: in terms of human relationships, those questions could not be answered in a week. The fact that the characters' relationships are left undefined strikes me as better than the more classical choices you see in most movies, like the girl gets her prince and they move into the castle, or the prince sinks into the North Atlantic after three trite, tedious, and predictable hours. The writers really seem to have a grasp of the psychology of the characters, and you can see the characters (both the gamers and the player's characters) change over the course of the movie, but not suddenly, and not unbelievably.

I would love to hear more wisdom from Brother Silence. \"The man who stands out in darkness is. . . fluorescent.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just got back from the European Premiere of The Gamers: Dorkness Rising.

All I can say is that if you are a gamer (CRPG, RPG or LARP), then this movie is for you. And if you're not a gamer? Well, it's still a great deal of fun.

The acting is certainly not Oscar-worthy, but in the whole element of the movie it adds to the charm. The humour is everywhere, along with some very nice touches (the tribute to Gary Gygax is especially well done, if you can spot it). The cast are very down to earth in their appearance, befitting the fact that they are ordinary people enjoying an ordinary hobby.

The quality of the movie's sound and vision are adequate, but again, it all just adds to the atmosphere that helps to define this movie as being the Dungeons and Dragons movie, written and performed by gamers for gamers.

Not afraid to use terminology specific to one system, they still manage to allow product placement to be a part of the movie, but in a very understandable and utterly fair manner. It also touches on some of the perceived prejudices that some gamers can have about other gamers and deals with that quite well.

All in all the movie is very much driven by an well-thought-out equal balance of character, plot and entertainment (the Bard is amazingly good value-for-money).

In the end it does make scoring this movie quite hard, so I have given it 2 scores.

Score (for non-RP'ers): 7\/10 (A few moments could go way over your head, but the main sections of the movie just work so hard and achieve so much more.)

Score (for RP'ers): 10\/10 (Everything fits together, in the perfect quantities, and with the perfect charm and sentiment)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Better than the original, \"the Gamers: Dorkness Rising\" manages to pull off a funny comedy with good acting, fine special effects, and comedy that transcends the \"gamer\" knowledge-base and do so on a low budget. I've seen many low-budget films that have been terrible and almost none that have been as good as their high-budget counterparts. This film blows most mainstream movies away! Parts are a bit weak (the bit with the pirates and ninjas -while funny- goes on a bit long without explanation and takes you out of the movie for a bit) but, overall, this is a very strong film.

I'm very happy to say that I bought this film as soon as I saw it and brought it home.

Any chance we can look forward to another feature Gamers movie from these guys? :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This groundbreaking film is truly a work of art. I went into the screening at the convention in Indiana with very low expectations, having already viewed 2 other film with \"gamer\" in the title (both of which were so bad that by the end of the second one I had plucked out one of my own eyes with my drinking straw and a twisted paper clip I found between the seat cushions). But from the opening credits \"Dorkness\" had me. The temperate Northwest setting made a beautiful backdrop for the drama surrounding the frustrated game master, Lodge(powerfully portrayed by Nathan Rice) and his misfit band of friends who set aside the real-life dramas they face everyday to face fantastical dramas in the setting Lodge provides for them. After the first scene(set in the fantasy world they inhabit) They are violently thrust back into the world they so desperately try to escape. This drew so many comparisons to my own life that I was moved to tears. Rice's acting is of such amazing caliber that I truly believed within the first 20 minutes of the film that he really was a twenty-something male suffering from frustration, male pattern baldness and an annoying group of \"friends\" that can't seem to grasp concepts like right and wrong. Lodge's friends are of some note here: Leo, the oldest and heaviest of the trio seems to be the only other character with a job, aside from lodge. Yet he seems to gravitate socially towards Gary, the youngest of the group. This seems only slightly odd at first until you realize that Gary is, in fact, a sexually confused sociopath with very few prospects outside his \"fantasy\" world. This dichotomy serves, not to confuse, but to inform and uplift the audience about the importance of diversity in our society. My only complaint about this is that the actors who portray Leo (Scott C. Brown) and Gary (christian Doyle) seem to play the characters for laughs at times, as though they were informed they were acting in a comedy instead of a hard-hitting action\/drama. Speaking of action, Brian Lewis makes his film debut as Cass, the third and most influential member of Lodge's motley crew. the tension is always high when he is on screen, both when he is arguing passionately about his beliefs to Lodge or when displaying his fantastic Martial Arts skills as \"Silence\" his fantasy character. Or even when he turns around suddenly to face the audience and you reflexively duck in the audience so as not to get smacked by his fantastic chin. Lewis Lights up the screen no matter what he's doing and I hope to see more of him in the future. Once the action begins in this movie, it just doesn't quit. the drama and the action blend so seamlessly at times that you can's tell whether your in the middle of a frenetic action sequence or a touching dramatic moment. Truly a thrill ride of Epic proportions, I would recommend \"The Gamers: Dorkness Rising\" as required viewing for anyone who loves film. It was almost worth losing an eye over.

~Chip Deedlenick","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is so wonderful it captures the gaming life. I laughed so hard while watching this. The movie is about a gaming group that have a hard time with a campaign that their dungeon master came up with. The movie switches from the real world and the gaming world as they play the campaign it shows them in the gaming world as their character, and then switches back to the real world when they are not playing. The campaign is the basis for a module that the dungeon master, Lodge, is writing. The problem is Lodge can't finish his module because the characters can't finish the campaign. They are more for killing and looting instead of role playing. Lodge wants them to role play through the campaign something they have never done before. They decide to bring in some extra help so they bring a,wait for it, girl in to play. Lodge also makes a npc, a non player character, a paladin,who can not witness or do wrong, to play. The film is how they do all this and more I don't want to spoil any of the film so I won't say any more. This movie may not be a big budget film the acting may not be Oscar worthy but if you are into gaming or into dungeons and dragons then definitely watch it. They had a lot of fun making this film and it shows I am not going to bash on it for any movie problems such as continuity or any thing it was a low budget film that is just fun. There is some slap stick comedy which I enjoy and some damn good writing in my opinion. So if you want a fun film try it .","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was laughing so hard most of the time I had people glaring at me because they couldn't hear over my laughter. I literally fell out of my seat at a specific point.

I'm a Bartender and Bouncer for a living in the Real world (note my use of the term Real world, sadly it always has to come first), and whenever I tell someone I play RPG's, it's usually followed by one of two questions: 1. What, like D&D? I played that back in Junior High.

2. Really? I've been looking or a group forever! Have room for another? Very rarely do people not know what D&D and Gaming are.

That having been said almost every person who watches this movie can get something out of it. Even if you aren't a Gamer, chances are there is something in your life you \"Geek Out\" about that can be made fun of in a light hearted way, and that alone means you can relate to the hijinx in this flick. It's just light hearted happiness in an hour and a half.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are few films that have had me waiting and waiting for release more than this one. This is the latest film from The Dead Gentlemen group responsible for the original Gamers film and the Demon Hunters films. This group has not been terribly active over the last few years but this film is a definite reason to try and keep things up in following their progress.

This film follows a group of gamers who are trying to finish a campaign run by a GM frustrated by his group's disregard for his story. With the help of some new blood they attempt the campaign again with hopes of finishing this time.

This movie is a breath of fresh air in the movie community and a great improvement over the original. The movie shows respect for the game much like the original movie did but on top of that this movie shows a dramatic improvement on special effects launching it above the simplicity of college films. The acting is fairly decent and the jokes are quite funny.

Unfortunately many of the jokes are in jokes so if you are not a gamer you may not find the film as funny as others. So this is why I give the movie an 8 instead of the 9 that I initially thought of. Any case if you are a gamer or know about gaming check this one out you will enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Best fan boy movie I've ever watched save \"Free Enterprise.\"

In some ways it reminded me of an early Kevin Smith film.

If you do any kind of role playing, this movie will likely have you laughing often at its insatiable fun. Don't expect a big budget here, the acting is also questionable at times, but it really adds to the fun of the atmosphere they create. The script is truly humorous with a lot of witty moments worth experiencing.

The bard that always gets killed had me rolling. The sexually confused player also had me smiling a bit too. But in the end... It was just a great movie showcasing some better moments in the lives of a few geeks having a great time with role playing.

If you are bored, and ever got into role playing, this will do nicely for a distraction. A real unexpected treat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the original rough screen showing 4 times at Gencon a couple years ago. I was delighted to have done so, my daughter is in the movie.

I stood in the back of the room with her watching the much younger fans sit on the edge of there seats, dead quiet no wanting to miss a line. The standing ovation afterward's was like watching the fans when the USA Hockey Team beat the Russians at the Olympic Games in Montreal.

I love excellent comedy and sight gags. Taxi, Barney Miller, Cheers, Frasier and Married with Chilren are my all time favorite comedy shows. Lesser shows I will not even watch.

This movie will do for Gamers what Animal House did for College Frat days, what Dodge Ball did for weird sports. Forget the lack of a mega budget backing the production. This is pure art, it's that good.

I could not be happier for the entire cast and production company.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie brilliantly captures the atmosphere of a D&D group. While watching, I could not help but notice how vividly characters reminded me of myself and my gaming friends to the point where they acted literally the same as we do. Including the bickering, the fighting, the internal jokes, driving the DM crazy. EVERYTHING.

It has it all. Jokes that made me cry, action scenes which, even filmed in low-budget, I found uncannily awesome. The story is pretty straightforward and unsurprising, but that doesn't really matter, since the best part of the movie is to see the characters react and interact with each other and the NPCs.

Seriously, if you're playing D&D or any similar RPG, I cannot stress this enough, WATCH THIS MOVIE, it captured beautifully the spirit of D&D.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gamers: DR is not a fancy made movie, it's more like amateur video. Horrible magic effect, really fake fireball, terribly made dungeon, castle, village...... sword, axe, shield, robe, plate..... okok... everything. You will need about 10 minutes to adjust your expecting on visual, then you will get 105 minutes of fun.

I'm from Hongkong and it's really hard to find RPers, none of my friends play RPG and I always fancy to be one of the character in the world of D&D. Watching Gamers: DR just show me what would it be like to be a gamer. You see rule books, dices, game set, etc etc etc; You hear terms like \"fighter\", \"wizard\", \"hit point\", \"level\", \"character\", \"flaming hand\", \"Chaotic Evil\".

What RPG fancy me is that it let you do anything u want to, not bonded by software RPG. Gamers: DR provide the same element, you wont know what happen next and it probably just make you laugh to dead. The movie goes both gamers's real life as well as in the D&D world. You will hear the gamer cast the dice when the character in game take action, which make you feel you really participle in the game.

I don't want to spoil anything, but in short, Gamers: DR is a must watch movie for RPG lovers. For people never play RPG game, I'm sure you still get many fun from it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are few films that deal with things that I would consider myself an expert on, this one is.

After some years of Fantasy Role Playing we split, me not leaving without a sense of shame of what I had become: a dork.

You see, these things are really canonical, it happens to everybody.

First you create a character fairly and it dies after the first attack.

Then you help a little with the constitution, and while you're at it, why not help with strength, intelligence, intuition, charisma and dexterity too? This in turn frustrates the game master who doesn't know how to deal with this invincible gang. And after a while it bores the players too, so they start to create ever more exotic race-profession combinations, no matter how ludicrous it is.

I created a Druedain warrior monk, yeah, not that far from the film.

And that's not all to be said about the destructiveness of the inherent dynamic of this devilish game (think the hunt for experience points), but just watch the film, it shows it all - and of course the stupidity of its most basic premisses.

For this end, in turn, there is no better profession than the bard. I don't exactly understand why the bard became a character in the first place, after all, the blacksmith is none. But once it became one, it had to be mapped into the game flow, that is: it had to be made lethal, at least indirectly. The poking of fun out of this never comes to an end and rightfully so.

Sure, it's not exactly a professional production, but I haven't seen a better satire in ages.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am so impressed, really. I expected cheesy gamer humor and nothing else.

OK, there's a ton of pretty geeky humor. But the movie is so well done. The acting is quite good.

The dialog, while gamer cheesy at times, I guess to cater to the gamer crowd, is not bad at all. At times it's even, dare I say, great.

When the female gamer, who built this non traditional fighter type character rather then the usual (min\/max) type gets all these additional attacks (seem right, I did not check the rules,) it was cool.

The sets are amazing for what must be a fairly low production movie.

The story moves right along. The transitions from game world to real world are well done. A male playing a female character would sometimes be played by a female, and sometimes by himself. Pretty clever, I thought.

The guy who decided to play a female, but kept forgetting he was female was good for a lot of laughs. He even said tag at one point, and the female walked on to play the role ( sorry, I did not look her name up, she did great though.) The guy always trying to \"get some\", got a bit tedious, but I guess that was more gamer humor.

There was just so much to like about the movie. Lighthearted. Fun! Very well done and I am saying that as a movie fan, not a gamer (and I am not a D&D player.) As I said I expected SO much less.

Movies often don't hold my attention, I end up listening to them while working on my computer. This one held my attention. I can't give a movie much higher praise.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't play video games at all but my children do.

I got a big kick out of this. Would like to see more of this type of film. \"very cool\" as my youngest would say.

Interesting characters and the overall story line was interesting. Like I said I don't play video games but I think that my children would enjoyed this. It was not full of bad language and that is a pleasant change. This visual concept was different which caught my eye. Plus the sound track was pretty good. I might even try out some of the games my sons plays to see because of this film. Who knows maybe I'll be a gamer someday.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My sister, dad, and I are really into D&D and one night we were browsing Netflix looking for a movie to watch when this one came up. We thought we would try it out and I ended up almost dying from laughter. The writing and acting in this movie is so amazing! Witty characters, great interaction, and hilarious moments kept us in stitches the entire time. I love this movie! It might not make that much sense for those who don't know about Dungeons & Dragons, but nevertheless, it is a good movie. This only goes to show that movies don't need an astronomical budget and big name actors\/actresses to be a success. Check it out if you want a good, clean comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"House of Dracula works from the same basic premise as House of Frankenstein from the year before; namely that Universal's three most famous monsters; Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and The Wolf Man are appearing in the movie together. Naturally, the film is rather messy therefore, but the fact that all three monsters are there is usually enough to ensure that the film's sixty seven minutes don't become boring. It's obvious that the idea of making another monster mash came into the writer's head before an actual plot did, as the yarn we're given isn't exactly without holes. The plot sees Count Dracula arrive at Dr. Edelman's home asking for a cure for his vampirism. Then, what can only be described as a coincidence, sees Lawrence Talbot, a.k.a. The Wolf Man turn up asking for a cure for his affliction! It turns out that Dracula is on the prowl for Edelman's daughter, but Talbot really is serious. When it turns out that he can't be stopped from turning into a wolf, The Wolf Man throws himself into the sea...where he ends up finding Frankenstein's Monster.

Overall, this film isn't as good as the earlier House of Frankenstein. The 1944 film put its plot together better than this entry in the series does, as the plot here doesn't give equal time to each Universal monster. Dracula's plot is the biggest at first, but soon fizzles out only to resurface at the end. The Wolf Man is the star of the show, but his story never really develops, and is essentially just another version of the plot he always finds himself in. Frankenstein's Monster is given the coldest hand, as he appears in the movie merely as an afterthought, and an obvious excuse to ensure that all three monsters appear in the movie. The story of the doctor who binds all three together is the most interesting, but this is a little disappointing as he isn't the reason why people will see this film. The acting is good enough, with John Carradine showing his sinister side and Lon Chaney Jr once again making sure that his character is bathed in tragedy. Glenn Strange is given nothing to do, and Onslow Stevens proves the real highlight as Dr Edelman. Overall, this film won't do much for anyone that isn't a fan of Universal horror; but as silly monster movies go, House of Dracula is worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This moody, creepy horror flick begins on a castle atop a cliff overlooking the sea, a great setting, as a vampire bat flies in and creeps toward a sleeping doctor (Onslow Stevens). The bat changes into a man known as Baron Latos, in reality Count Dracula (John Carradine). He seeks Dr. Edelmann's help to cure him of his vampirism. Eventually the good doctor also wants to help his hunchbacked nurse-assistant (Jane Adams), the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney), and Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange). But Dracula's trickery contaminates the doctor's blood, and he becomes a Jekyll\/Hyde vampire himself. This is somewhat better than the prior year's \"House of Frankenstein\", being less episodic and more exciting visually. There's a haunting scene where Dracula tries to lure the second nurse (Martha O'Driscoll) into his world, where she is initially playing \"Moonlight Sonata\" on the piano, which soon gives way to terrifying music. Director Erle Kenton uses expressionistic shadows and eerie music to frame many sequences, including a wonderful montage sequence that the studio frequently used in their horror features. Two performers are of note: Stevens, with his wonderful voice, is at first sympathetic, then convincingly menacing. Adams, her beautiful face in alarming contrast to her twisted body, exhibits great pathos and sympathy. It all ends in a slam-bang climax, typical of 1940s Universal horror, a little abrupt, with footage borrowed from \"The Ghost of Frankenstein\" (1942). I hope Universal releases it soon on DVD (it was left out of their Double-Feature releases).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is another Universal fun filled fright fest.Many people want to compare it to House Of Frankenstein.Even though it has similar cast and the same director it can stand on its own.(It does appear that Erle C Kenton directed most of the Universal horror films of the 40's).

The plot recap:Baron Latos appears at the home of Dr Eidlemann seeking a \"cure\" for his vampirism.Larry Talbot (who somehow survived House OF Frankenstein) also shows up at the good doctors door seeking a cure for his affliction.After a failed suicide attempt Talbot and the doctor find the Frankenstein monster. To complicate matters just before he bites the dust, Dracula infects the good doctor with his blood.The doctor becomes a bloodthirsty maniac at certain times.Where this leads to is something you'll have to see for your self.

Carradine actually gives a very good performance as Dracula. He isn't chewing up the scenery as he will in later roles. It is hard to repress giggles when he appears in a top hat though.The cape\/cloak is traditional but the hat has to go. Where does the hat go when he changes into a bat...?

Onslow Stevens gives an excellent portrayal of the doctor. He's torn between his basic kindness and the increasing blood lust he is now prone to. This is a very underrated performance.Chaney brings even more life to the Wolf Man in his 4th appearance in that role.

The monster isn't given much to do this time.Just lay on the table until the end(some stock footage from the Ghost Of Frankenstein is used).At least in House Of Frankenstein he was up and around a bit.

Yes this does stick to the basic Universal pattern complete with the angry village mob running amok with torches.But it isn't a bad way to spend an hour and ten minutes.It gets a low 8.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is quite an entertaining B-flick in the Universal Horror series featuring Dracula, the Wolfman, and Frankenstein's Monster. The plot revolves around Dracula (John Carradine) and Larry Talbot, the wolfman (Lon Chaney Jr.), separately visiting a revolutionary doctor. They both ask him if they can be cured, and the doctor attempts to devise a way for each. Beneath the doctor's castle, they find Frankenstein's Monster buried in mud (this is apparently a reference to the previous movie in the Frankenstein series).

Of course, if things had went as planned, the movie would have turned out incredibly boring. Instead, Dracula can't suppress his appetite, and the doctor is eventually infected, by a blood transfusion, with vampirism. As a semi-vampire, the doctor goes insane and awakens Frankenstein's Monster. As with all of the Universal Horror series, the ending is completely unsatisfactory. A beautiful woman with a hunchback, one of the doctor's two assistants, has a particularly gruesome end. Plus, you just have to feel sorry for Frankenstein's Monster in this film - he's awake for around two minutes, kills one police officer, and then yet another building (what's this, the fifth now?) collapses on top of him and is consumed by flames. It is also unfortunate that the great character created in The Wolf Man (1941), Larry Talbot, is really reduced here. People underrate that film and Chaney's performance in it. Here, he would be justifiably criticized as wooden. All in all, though, it's a pretty fun movie at just 68 minutes. A nice waste of time. 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Coming at the end of the cycle of the Universal Monsters horror films, and before the Golden Age of sci-fi films, House of Dracula is more science fiction than horror and incorporates some of the more cheesy {read:enjoyable} elements which would come to typify the sci-fi films of the coming era. Lon Chaney Jr. plays the Wolf Man, and John Carradine, Dracula and Glenn Strange, the Frankenstein monster.

A mad scientist sets out to \"cure\" both monsters of their \"sicknesses\" by means of modern {read:mad} science. When the scientist's beautiful nurse-assistant is revealed to be a hunchback early in the film, the viewer is thereby alerted to the fact this film is not going to be typical Universal fare; this film foreshadows the kind of sleazy exploitation we would come to take for granted in 1950's sci-fi.

If you don't mind the slower pacing of the older films and black & white does not throw you off, this film is recommended viewing. Afaik, this one is not currently available on DVD, but AMC airs it occasionally, so keep a lookout, or you could always wishlist it on your TiVo!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A year after the release of the average \"House of Frankenstein\", Universal released another Monster Mash where all their famous character would collide once again. \"House of Dracula\" would reunite Dracula, the Frankenstein's creature and the Wolf Man for what would be their final battle and will finally close an era for the studio. Directed once again by Erle C. Kenton, \"House of Dracula\" presents a slight but noticeable improvement over the previous film and delivers a better constructed (although still flawed) story that while far from perfect, is a more appropriate closure than the previous film.

The story ignores most of the events of the previous entry, \"House of Frankenstein\", and introduces a new angle to the story. Count Dracula (John Carradine), tired of having to hide during sunlight, asks help to the brilliant scientist, Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens), a physician famous for his research in biology. Edelman becomes fascinated by Dracula, and soon begins an experimental treatment, in the mean time, Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.), the Wolf Man, visits Edelman with the purpose of get rid of his curse. Soon Edelman realizes that Dracula is a monster that must be destroyed, but his own exposure to Dracula's blood is also developing a disease in him. The discovery of the Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange) in a nearby catacombs will bring more turmoil to the mind of the brilliant scientist.

After the previous clash of monsters, it is good to see the series going back to the roots and delivering an almost straight-forward Gothic horror returning to the dark pessimistic nature of this kind of films and moving away from the comic relief of the previous entries. The story (by Edward T. Lowe Jr.), has many interesting themes, as the contrast between Dracula and Talbot (both looking for a cure, but with different purposes) and Edelman's increasing madness. Probably among the most interesting themes is the inclusion of the character of Nina, a gorgeous but deformed woman who aids Dr. Edelman hoping to be cured of her condition.

Director Erle C. Kenton is back again and this time he finally captures the dark nature of these three characters, a nature that was apparently lost in the previous film. Despite the low-budget, Kenton crafts a Gothic horror that while simple, is quite effective, and even manages to present old partners such a these characters in a fresh way. While it's never on the level of the originals, \"House of Dracula\" recovers that charm that Universal Studios horror films used to have, and Kenton makes sure that at least for a last time the monsters receive a chance to shine.

The cast is very good this time, with Carradine, Chaney and Strange reprising their roles (although Strange's role is considerably smaller) with more enthusiasm than in the previous film. The addition of Onslow Stevens, Jane Adams and Martha O'Driscoll to the cast bring back the tragedy and the drama to the series, with Stevens giving a terrific performance as Dr. Edelman. A small cameo by Lionel Atwill and the presence of Skelton Knaggs as the creepy Steinmuhl complete one of the better cast Universal horror films has had in years.

\"House of Dracula\" is a nice addition to the series, specially after the mediocre \"House of Frankenstein\". It's nice to see Kenton back in form in a somewhat serious horror film, however, and while the plot is quite original, it suffers not only because of the budget, but because the film attempts to do a lot in a very short runtime with bad results. It's true that the characters have all very inventive story lines, but the film dedicates very few time for each of them to develop, and the film seems very rushed and disjointed.

While far from perfect, it's also far from being the worst of the series. \"House of Dracula\" is a nice closure to one of the best times for the horror genre, a time when ghosts and ghouls roamed the foggy nights, and mad scientists gave life to hideous monsters. Later the monsters would be back in \"Bud Abbott & Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein\" (1948), but that would be a whole different context. after the disappointing previous entries, it's easy to dismiss \"House of Dracula\", but give it a chance, and let the monster roam for a last time. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All-Monster congregation in the final film in Universal's renowned cycle of classic horror stories. Count Dracula (an intense, dapper John Carradine), calling himself Baron Latos, comes to Dr. Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) asking to be cured of his affliction. Naturally, this is just a ruse. Then, coincidentally, Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney), a.k.a. \"The Wolf Man\", shows up and of course he *really* wants to be cured.

As others have noted, the monsters don't get equal screen time. The Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) gets thrown in at the end just for the purpose of including all of the Universal Monsters. Stock footage and library music are re-used here as well. The film spends maybe a little too much time with the Dracula part of the story, although Carradine gives an impressive, non-hammy performance in the role of the Count. The film is mainly a showcase for Stevens, who goes through a tragic character arc of his own, and does an excellent job. The women are gorgeous, and I have to say that I loved Jane Adams as the luminous nurse - who happens to be hunchbacked.

Of course, it wouldn't be complete without the inclusion of angry villagers.

Competently, professionally made chiller is, just for my tastes, not really scary at all, but entertaining regardless. It's a respectable series entry overall.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has one of the more unusual plots I've seen in a horror film, but it's based on good, solid Universal Studios fare: Lots of monsters, pretty heroine, torch-bearing villagers. But my favorite part is Larry Talbot (The Wolf Man) searching for the cure for his lycanthropy. After dying in the original \"Wolf Man,\" he is resurrected and wanders through \"Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man\" and \"House of Frankenstein\" searching for a way to end his affliction. I think first-time viewers will find his search in this particular movie very interesting.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"House of Dracula\" is a good sequel to \"House of Frankenstein\". There isn't as much action but the acting is just as good. Onslow Stevens is the benevolent Doctor who turns bad after receiving blood from Dracula via a transfusion(Dracula was actually receiving the transfusion to overcome his \"affliction\" but he puts a spell on a hunchback nurse and then transfuses his blood into the Doctor.). It turns out that Dracula really didn't come to seek a cure but instead drain blood from a beautiful nurse. Dracula is destroyed and the Wolf Man is next in line for a cure(which is successful). In the meantime, Frankenstein's monster is discovered and revived briefly before burning to death(don't worry, the same trio came back in \"Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein\"). John Carradine again plays a sinister Dracula(Baron Latos is his alias at the start of the film and in \"House of Frankenstein\"). Lon Chaney is the sympathetic Wolf Man and Glenn Strange returns as the Frankenstein monster. Lionel Atwill again plays an inspector, which he often does in the Universal Studios monster films. A keeper for your collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"House of Dracula\" isn't all that bad of a film and is rather decent at times.

**SPOILERS**

Arriving at the home of Dr. Franz Edelmann, (Onslow Stevens) in his seaside home, Count Dracula, (John Carradine) discreetly seeks a cure for vampirism. He starts work on a potential cure involving blood transfusion, the Wolf Man, Lawrence Talbot, (Lon Chaney Jr.) arrives at his estate looking for a cure to lycanthropy. Working with the two patients, he discovers a possible cure in a mold found near the laboratory, and after searching the area, he finds the Frankenstein Monster, (Glenn Strange) buried nearby. Becoming obsessed with reviving it, Dr. Edelmann keeps neglecting Dracula and Larry's requests, and after demanding that they get their treatment instead of him working on the Monster, they turn on each other in a climactic showdown.

The Good News: This was a rather decent film. There is one main idea that is quite creative and imaginative. This is the first film to openly propose the idea of vampirism as a blood disease, and one that can be transferred from person to person through the exchange of bodily fluid, something that would be taken up by later genre works but rarely as directly as this. There's even a microscope slide of the parasite that is believed responsible for the condition. It works in some rather nicely used ideas and comes across as a rather nifty idea, even if some of the execution is a little stale. The fact that each of the creatures has at least one standout scene is a nicely done idea. The Wolf Man has a marvelous scene where he transforms inside a prison cell to the doubting members of the search party and goes crazy. Dracula's initial appearance of appearing as a bat and flying toward a prone figure sleeping and then appearing in human form looks really impressive. The Monster rampage is well handled and an appropriate amount of destruction is caused. The large bat that Dracula transforms into always looks decent for once, and is quite realistically done. It's a thoroughly decent affair.

The Bad News: There are several things that weren't all that great about this one. The fact that the film combines so much potentially intriguingly plots and ideas that it really doesn't know what to do with them. There are several different back-stories that have to be mingled together and which should be clear enough to mix well together and seem coherent. This really doesn't have any of that. The plot is rather flimsy and doesn't really give a preferential treatment to any of the stars, and instead concentrates on one then another and then includes all three in the ending. The monsters only seem to get engaged with each other for the smallest possible reason makes it a big distraction. The ending is for once a big let-down, and seems entirely like it was changed at the last minute. There's a few other small things that weren't all that spectacular, and pretty much also contribute to this.

The Final Verdict: It's quite a decent film and manages to get through most of the time with an entertaining style. Nowhere near the classic status of each monsters' debut features, but it's a nice enough watch for fans of the monsters and of Universal films in general.

Today's Rating-PG: Violence","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dracula (John Carradine) visits Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) who believes everything can be cured by science. He wants Edelamn to cure his vampirism--Edelman agrees. Then Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) pops up looking for a cure for his turning into a werewolf. Thr Frankenstein monster is discovered too but doesn't really do anything.

Very ambitious plot for a Universal horror film from the 1940s. Trying to cure the monsters by science is actually an interesting idea. Also this movie has beautiful sets (LOVE the castle to doctor lives in), tons of atmosphere, is very well-directed (great use of shadows) and has pretty good special effects.

The acting is all good except for Carradine--he tries but I could never accept him as Dracula. Also Lionel Atwill pops in playing (as always) the chief of police. This is pretty much forgotten and derided as a stupid film but I think it's very good. It's also to last time the Universal monsters were done seriously--the next film was in 1948 in \"Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein\". It's a great film but the accent is more on comedy.

The only real flaw here is there's a LOT of plot for 67 minutes and some gaps in logic: Why does Dracula try to bite lovely Miliza (Martha O'Driscoll) when he's being cured? And why (and how) does the doctor get Frankenstin into his castle? Still these are small complaints. Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The last of the sequels,not counting Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein which was more or less a spoof.this time count Dracula (John Carridine)takes center stage seeking a cure for his vampirism from a kindly doc(Onslow Stevens).well good ole Larry Talbot(Lon Chaney Jr)shows up also seeking a cure.the good doc succeeds in curing Larry's werewolfism,but Dracula tricks the doc and ends up contaminating his blood and makes the good doc a crazed lunatic.oh and all this time big Franky(Glenn strange)lies on a table awaiting his electricity fix so he can wreak some havoc.this was kind of a short movie,around 70 minutes and some change,but the action is there,and the great actors are there as well.Lionel atwill turns up as a police inspector,heres some trivia,Lionel atwill appeared in son of Frankenstein,ghost of Frankenstein,Frankenstein meets the wolf-man,and house of Frankenstein. and then this one.if there was another in the series they May have added the creature from the black lagoon to the line up,I'm giving house of Dracula 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The \"House of Dracula\" really has nothing new to offer in the way of chills or thrills or new twists on an already tired storyline. This film was made as a hasty sequel to the fairly better made \"House of Frankenstein\" from a year earlier. In \"House of Dracula\" you can see the factory like production values of 1945 taking their toll on an otherwise potentially scary movie. Stock footage from previous films in the series and then the ending from \"Ghost of Frankenstein\" used as the ending here just makes for an \"el cheepo\" flick. Therein lies the shame of the studio and the producer considering that they had top notch talent and merely wasted everybody's time and effort on a quick money return scheme. But that seems to have been the trend all throughout Hollywood at the end of WWII. This is what brought on some of those mindless SciFi pics of the 1950's with all their closeups of harmless lizards in order to make them appear as dinosaurs. The days of James Whale and Val Lewton, to mention two, were over as far as creating real mood and atmosphere in this genre. Keep in mind also that the makeup genius, Jack Pierce, who actually did medical research in order to create all of our favorites, was summarily fired right after this particular film was released. A lesser capable makeup man by the name of Bud Westmore was then hired as the head of this department at Universal, soon to be Universal-International. Not to denigrate Mr. Westmore's ability but horror films were just not his forte. OK, to watch or not to watch. Watch this film but only as part of the chronological order of the Frankenstein series and you'll see how this all ended up as comic fodder for Abbott & Costello.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"House of Dracula was made towards the end of Universal's horror cycle of the 1940's and I've seen this a couple of times.

A mad Doctor, Edelman is breeding plants for a serum that cures people. Count Dracula arrives for a cure for his vampirism and Lawrence Talbot then comes to see if he can cure him from turning into a werewolf at full moon. Frankenstein's monster is then discovered and Edelman brings him back to life just as the villagers descend on the castle and set it on fire. Talbot, now cured and one of Edelman's female assistants are safe though.

Like a lot of movies of its kind, we have a hunchback assistant and thunderstorm to keep it moving.

The cast includes Universal horror regulars Lon Chaney Jr (The Wolf Man), John Carradine (House of Frankenstein) and Glenn Strange as Frankenstein's monster. Also starring Onslow Stevens (Them!), Lionel Atwill (The Vampire Bat) and Martha O'Driscoll .

House of Dracula is a must see for all old horror fans out there. Great fun.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked House of Dracula much more than house of Frankenstein. Carradine is much more passable & his acting isn't as ridiculous & overboard as in HOF. The actors deliver solid enough performances. The subplots (eg the monster, the village mobsters, the village idiot, the hunchback nurse etc ) are mixed in well, so that none becomes an odd splinter as in HOF. Better run than the stitched-together HOF. The hunchback nurse is as likable as the hunchback in HOF. The doctor is very good. As well, Lon Chaney adds a classy touch with his wolfman. Worth watching twice. A classic universal horror with that typical 1940's, long lost flair. Especially good is the doctor's performance before\/after his blood had been contaminated with Dracula's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film marked the end of the \"serious\" Universal Monsters era (Abbott and Costello meet up with the monsters later in \"Abbott and Costello Meet Frankentstein\"). It was a somewhat desparate, yet fun attempt to revive the classic monsters of the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's monster, and Dracula one \"last\" time.

I say desparate, because in the previous film, \"House of Frankenstein,\" both Dracula and the Wolf Man are killed according to how the vampire and werewolf legends say they should be (Dracula by the sunlight, and the wolf man by a silver bullet). Yet somehow they return in House of Dracula with no explanation. This movie could have played as a kind of prequel to House of Frankenstein if the Frankenstein monster plot wouldn't be continuing chronologically into House of Dracula from House of Frankenstein, and if the wolf man didn't get cured. Then there'd be no plot holes. But since this is not the case, the plots of Dracula and the Wolf Man make no sense.

However, ignoring these plot holes, House of Dracula is a classic atmospheric horror film that's fun to watch. It has many high points. Especially seeing the wolf man get cured. I know I just said that this shouldn't have been included, but it was nice to actually see him get cured after all this time. And the scene with the lady playing \"Moonlight Senada,\" on the piano then all of a sudden playing a haunting melody when under Dracula's spell was very eerie. Dr. Edleman's transformation into the \"Dr. Jekyl\/Mr. Hyde\" type character was also done very well.

And it's great to see Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man together, one \"last\" time.

*** out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film marked the end of the \"serious\" Universal Monsters era (Abbott and Costello meet up with the monsters later in \"Abbott and Costello Meet Frankentstein\"). It was a somewhat desparate, yet fun attempt to revive the classic monsters of the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's monster, and Dracula one \"last\" time.

I say desparate, because in the previous film, \"House of Frankenstein,\" both Dracula and the Wolf Man are killed according to how the vampire and werewolf legends say they should be (Dracula by the sunlight, and the wolf man by a silver bullet). Yet somehow they return in House of Dracula with no explanation. This movie could have played as a kind of prequel to House of Frankenstein if the Frankenstein monster plot wouldn't be continuing chronologically into House of Dracula from House of Frankenstein, and if the wolf man didn't get cured. Then there'd be no plot holes. But since this is not the case, the plots of Dracula and the Wolf Man make no sense.

However, ignoring these plot holes, House of Dracula is a classic atmospheric horror film that's fun to watch. It has many high points. Especially seeing the wolf man get cured. I know I just said that this shouldn't have been included, but it was nice to actually see him get cured after all this time. And the scene with the lady playing \"Moonlight Senada,\" on the piano then all of a sudden playing a haunting melody when under Dracula's spell was very eerie. Dr. Edleman's transformation into the \"Dr. Jekyl\/Mr. Hyde\" type character was also done very well.

And it's great to see Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man together, one \"last\" time.

*** out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has the look and feel of having been put together in a matter of days-kind of like Plan 9 From Outer Space. In spite of this, it's still a classic-ranking among my favorite Creature Features. *****POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD******* Count Dracula and Larry Talbot; aka Wolfman, arrive at the laboratory of Dr. Edelman seeking a cure for their nocturnal anti-social behavior, such as killing people. In the meantime, kindly Dr. Edelman discovers the body of the Frankenstein Monster. Becoming obsessed with bringing it back to life( a common character trait among scientists, mad or otherwise), he goes against his better judgement, resulting in monster mayhem and madness. One of the final Universal classics of it's time (Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein followed 3 years later), it rates a 10 with this reviewer. Onslow Steven steals the show as good doctor gone bad after being infected by the blood of Dracula and becoming a half- werewolf\/vampire creature, coming to a tragic end. At 1 hour 7 min. it packs quite a punch. A worthy addition to my video collection.

Rating: ***** out of *****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite all of the comparisons to House of Frankenstein, this movie outshines its predecessor and is one of the funnest monster movies in the Universal Monsters series, and sadly, the last. O.k. so it doesn't exactly stack up to something like the Bride of Frankenstein as one a classic to revered by fans of all movies, but with a cast of Dracula, The Wolf Man and Frankenstein's monster (What? no mummy?) you can't help but enjoy this schlock fest! And unlike House of Frankenstein, the monsters in this movie interact a lot more. But this movie also offers some unique story lines for both Dracula and the Wolf Man who both go to Dr. Adleman for cures of their afflictions. While the Wolf Man actually does find a cure, Dracula injects his blood into the doctor and that's when the real fun begins! I highly recommend this movie to fans of classic horror movies. But remember, I never said it was good, just fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was a very good Universal Monster movie. It once again stars Lon Chaney as The Wolfman and Glenn Strange as Frankenstein's Monster. Oh yeah, that jerk John Carradine is back again as Dracula. I like every actor in this movie. I especially liked Onslow Stevens as Dr. Edelmann. (It's spelled with 2 n's) I thought it was a good idea to have the goodhearted doctor himself doomed like Talbot was. One scene that I think is very good is the scene when Dr. Edelmann is in deep thought as he changes. Everything that is troubling him flashes before your eyes. The good Doctor is saying no while his evil side is saying yes. That's the only reason why I didn't want the Dracula character eliminated completely from this movie. I thought Dracula had no business in House of Frankenstein. If his character was taken out you wouldn't miss him. In this film the doctor's blood is contaminated with Dracula's, giving him his Jekyll and Hyde curse. I hate John Carradine and I don't think he should have ever played Dracula. I didn't mind other actors playing the Frankenstein Monster after the great Karloff because they all did good jobs. But when they get another actor to play Dracula it stops right there. John Carradine thought he was so high and mighty. They offered him the role of the Frankenstein Monster once and he turned it down because he thought he was too highly trained. I could just picture Carradine if he did play The Monster arguing with the director on the set, \"I don't have to take this from you, I've done Shakespeare.\" John Carradine wasn't Dracula and he never will be. Sorry John, Bela Lugosi is the one and only Dracula. Thank God they got Bela to come back as Dracula for Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.

Don't miss this movie. It doesn't disappoint you and you will enjoy it as you did the other. This is a very good addition to the monster movies. If you're a collector, be sure not to leave this one out.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The reason I think this movie is fabulous is that it has so many layers of emotion. From the script and the fabulous acting you can tell that there is a history behind all of the feelings that there are. You understand why the characters take certain actions and why the do not make others. You can feel sympathy and joy and love and sorrow for them all at once. You see humanity at its best AND at it's worst. You can relate to the characters because although you may have never been in their exact situations before you see qualities and downfalls in them that you see in yourself. To a certain extent this movie kind of keeps you wondering but then at the end it explains itself and you feel a certain peace and understanding not only in you but for the characters. I will say that I have have never EVER cried so much in my life nor have gotten so much out of something. I implore you to watch this movie and take it's meaning to heart. That there is only one true thing and that is... love.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What impressed me the most about \"One True Thing\" was how up-front it was when the daughter mentions her mother's cancer at the beginning of the movie. As depressing the subject matter was, it was a refreshing change of pace instead of being blindsided with the revelation about a character's fatal illness 2\/3 into the movie (\"Love Story\" \"Terms of Endearment\", etc.).

Meryl Streep, Renee Zellweger and William Hurt give very strong performances that don't go over the edge. The characters they play seem human; they're not perfect people. (Arguably, one might not say that about the \"Martha Stewart\"-type character Streep plays but throughout the film, I found her character to be noble in a non-sappy way. She's dealing with her plight the best way she knows how.)

\"One True Thing\" is an observant, unsentimental family drama in which the tears at the end were well-earned.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One True Thing rises above its potentially schlocky material to give us a view of a family of complex relationships and flawed, real people. It opens with Rene Zeleweger discussing her mother's death with the District Attorney; sparing us the cheap cinematic shots of a \"shocking\" illness and death. From there it proceeds into a look at a family system, in which everyone plays by a set of unexamined rules, and uses the mother's cancer to show what happens when all the rules change.

William Hurt as the self-important father, and Meryl Streep as the Suzy Homemaker mother are both superb; nuanced and not what they appear to be. Zeleweger is seething, angry and surprised with herself. Tom Everett Scott doesn't have much to do, but he does it well.

The story is predictable, and takes at least one badly soppy turn it needn't have taken, but the performances, and the view of family as a place where anger and love are equally mixed, make it worthwhile.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's not surprising that the majority of higher-rated votes were submitted by females aged 45+. This is the timeframe in women's lives when they become the caretakers of aged and ill parents. I lost my mother, from complications of cancer, in June, and went through most of the same emotions portrayed by Zellweger in this film. Yes, it made me cry, but the tears were real, the characters were real, and the plot development extremely accurate. Kudos to the entire cast and crew for a wonderful portrayal of life and death, and the promises of tomorrow.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kate Gulden, played by one of the most nominated actresses of the last decade of this century, and also one of the most talented actresses Meryl Streep(Out of Africa). She is wonderful is every part that she plays. The Yale graduate is the pride and joy of the American Cinema.

Kate's health is deteriorating and her husband, George, role well developed by brilliant actor and also Oscar winner, William Hurt (Smoke, Kiss of the Spider Woman) has a hard time with the deteriorating health of his one true thing, and seeks his daughter's help. The poor daughter, Ellen Gulden, Ren\u00e9e Zellweger (Jerry Maguire) has way too much expected of her. No breaks! The story takes a very realistic view on the illness of a parent. In this movie the only daughter has to put her life on hold to care for the needs of others. There is always one in every family who faces that kind of responsibility. Ellen is angry the beginning of the movie, but as time passes she ends up understanding her mothers' life time dedication to her family. She even asks her mom: How do you do his, every day, in and out and nobody notices it? That is what women do, a lot of what I call invisible work. Moreover we clean, we fix, we mend, we stretch, we celebrate, we are the best friends, we are confidants, the mistress, outreachers, disciplinarians, sensitive. Some of us, like both women in this movie, have the perfect education, are the psychological pillar for the entire family and also do all that invisible work! That is Kate Ellen, and many women in our society. Many of us have already gone through that stage of life when our parents age and died. I have been there. They just went too young. I have given my parents my thanks, but I never understood them as well as when I had to play their roles, and had to walk in their shoes. This movie mirrors the reality of life. Perhaps it is sad, but that is how life is, at times. George a Professor at Harvard is complicated person, who appears to think that his work is more important than everybody else, and has a very \"master\/servant\" mentality toward the women in his life. He is not strong enough to cope. If you want to see good acting and the reality of life do not miss this movie. Favorite Scenes: The restaurant coming to Kate, violins and all. The making of a table out of broken china. That I so symbolic! We are all broken vessels! Favorite Quotes: George: \"It is only by going uphill, that you realize that you are really going downhill.\" George \"You have a Harvard education but where is your heart?\"

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wonder sometimes if maybe Meryl Streep has become so accepted as the most impressive, versatile actress since, well, maybe just about the beginning of the sound era that maybe her talent is now taken for granted. There are probably about three tics that she relies on consistently throughout her performances (most noticeably a pinched lip), but other than that, her performances are amazingly variable and original and fresh expressions of internal workings. Even though \"Sophie's Choice\" and \"A Cry in the Dark\" and \"Silkwood\" may be showier, her work here and in \"Bridges in Madison County\" is remarkable, too - just more subtle. In \"One True Thing\", she is mostly sweet and in love with her domesticated life, and Streep makes what could be routine, even boring, seem attractive and charming. I think that she must work out these mini-theses for each character and find what things make this person real and interesting. She works from the inside out with each character, and maybe it's this essential quality that has evoked the main criticism of aloofness or self-consciousness. I don't think she's cold at all, but instead has thought out her character's unique qualities. I think her critics are confusing self-consciousness with intelligence. Not too many other actors would be so complexly thoughtful and creative as to make Kate Muldrun lightweight and carefree within her beloved, homey environment, only to later reveal unprecedented depth because of her genuine attachment to that homey environment. Her performances are of an unsurpassed consistency, she rarely does anything wrong. I wonder if it's conceivable for any of Streep's pictures to not seem diminished because of her presence... Anyway, Kate loves her home, and her affection for her \"family life\" is as endearing as her new conflict within the home is jarring. When all of this comes together, and Kate starts to recognize that she can no longer function in the same capacity, and she breaks the pie dish and screams out that she is not handicapped, it is painfully sad to watch because this has not been someone prone to emotion. Streep is smart enough and generous enough to recognize how much better everything works because she has felt out the dramatic validity of Kate and it's really the only scene when she allows her character to go. But how refreshingly true it is to see a character who can really surprise you by displaying something that you wouldn't have thought possible. Once again, Streep's character has at least three dimensions... God, this sounds like a thesis itself, but as an actress, Streep just has a special kind of intelligence, incredible empathy and great expressive skills. The movie itself is probably somewhat mediocre. I suppose William Hurt is meant to be an unlikeable jerk, and he does pompousness very well. I think Hurt is really kind of creepy, though. Script is quite standard - another tribute to Streep that she was as touching and believable as she was.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Meryl Streep as Kate, a woman dying of cancer, performs her role admirably. No wonder she was up for an Oscar. In the part she proves that caring and nurturing housewives are just as important as their sisters out in the business world. And the lesson she teaches about life's expectations and their lack of fulfillment as the relationship grows, that is the most important thing she teaches her daughter. We can expect too much of our mates. Realize that there are many slips and forgiveness or understanding are the main ingredients of a happy life. This is a sombre movie and the ending though sad, shows reconciliation between the father and daughter. I give this one a ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"One True Thing\" is the kind of movie where the audience is inspired greatly greatly inspired performances. I am not necessarily stating that the film is uplifting, because it isn't. In fact, the movie is down right depressing. I am trying to say that it takes a lot for a movie to generate emotional tears from an attending crowd.

I cried in \"One True Thing,\" enough to conclude that this is one of the most emotionally powerful movies of 1998. The characters were perfectly casted. The performances are all guaranteed Oscar Nominees, especially Meryl Streep, who portraits the dying Kate extremely well. Her acting alone was enough to make the movie excel to the point of recommendation, and gives you a new point of view at her. I also thought that Ren\u00e9e Zellweger portrayed a realistic single, free-wheeling woman who has to take care of their own mother. The other cast members including William Hurt & Tom Everett Scott, were also superb. The script of this movie was really fantastic. It is kind of funny how the movie's concept has to do with the controversial happenings in my local area. You see, I live near Lansing, Michigan, and right now a big issue here is assistant suicide doctor Jack Kavorkian's (excuse my miss-spelling if so) ways have just been outlawed. The public will vote on this according to their beliefs in November After watching \"One True Thing\" it really changed my perspective at this topic, although I have always believed in it. Without revealing the ending of the film I will simply say that suicide is a distant theme in this movie and I think it fits in accurately with the gorgeous story. Overall, this movie does indeed have more emotional impact than \"Titanic,\" \"Saving Private Ryan\" or any other tearjerker released in the last few years. I think that is because the main idea of this movie is that this kind of thing happened every day, so it relates better to an audience. And indeed, that this could happening to you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The DVD jacket in which this movie came describes it as \"uplifting and humorous.\" Those are not the words I would have chosen - not by a long shot. I would choose a word like \"sombre,\" sometimes even \"depressing.\" Which isn't to say that it's a bad movie. It's actually a pretty good movie, featuring good performances from the leads, with enough uncertainty throughout about what's going to happen at the end that you keep watching. The uncertainty comes from the structure of the movie - it seems to revolve around Ellen's reminiscences of her mother's slow death from cancer, as she is interviewed by the DA. So, we know from the start that something suspicious happened at the end - the questions are \"what?\" and \"who?\"

Renee Zellweger was very good as Ellen - the somewhat resentful daughter who has to give up her life and job in New York to return home to care for her sick mother. Ellen evolves through the movie - moreso than any other character - as she learns to deal with both the strengths and weaknesses of her parents. Her relationship with her father (William Hurt) is quite interesting. My initial impression was that they were quite close, but the warts in the relationship start to show after a while. Hurt was effective as the detached husband - detached not in an uncaring way, but in the sense of being unable to cope with what's happening to his wife, and seeking escape from it in various ways. Finally, Meryl Streep as the cancer-stricken Kate was very convincing in the role, seeking to live out what remains of her life in the most fulfilling way possible, then dealing with the anger she feels at her increasing debilitation. In a way, watching a family deal with this kind of crisis reminded me a little bit of \"Ordinary People,\" although this movie was far less emotionally intense. So, not \"uplifting and humorous\" (with all due respect to whoever wrote the synopsis on the DVD jacket) but very good in its own way. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Written by someone who has been there, you can tell, but only if you've been there. Excellent performances by Meryl Streep (of course!), Renee Zellweger and William Hurt.

Many people have said that it is about a dysfunctional family, I think every family is dysfunctional when they are facing this kind of torment. To NOT be dysfunctional would be dysfunctional! You are losing your family as you know it, can anything be worse? People need to see this movie so when they are faced with this nightmare maybe they will change how they do it. Maybe they will see that the father is denying himself valuable time he'll never get a chance at again. Maybe they will realize how hard it is to die, or to watch someone you love die. They didn't miss much of the nightmare, it's hard to forget.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't cry easily over movies, but I have to admit, this one brought me to tears. Although I am not a Ms. Streep fan, her performance was excellent. The title defines in a sentence what a mother's love is. For the first hour I didn't like any of the characters, but that changed as the movie went on. The movie also explained why certain marriages last even though there are obstacles. A must see film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"One True Thing\" puts Zellweger in the midst of a family crisis as an adult journalist who returns home to care for her dying mother (Streep). Somber and plodding, the film studies the adult child coming to terms with the adult view of her parents as they are slowly revealed to be something less than the ideal she grew up knowing as a child. An excellent character study and a find production with little to fault, \"OTT\" offers three fine performances by a trio of top actors and some plaintive reflections on life and death.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One True Thing proves that it's the characters which make a movie. Streep will surely receive an Oscar nomination for her role. A beautiful drama, One True Thing is a prime example of movie-making in the late 1990's - there are still people out there who care about making and watching movies other than the big blockbusters with million dollar special effects. It's no Best Picture or anything... don't be silly. But the amount of emotion that was delivered by both the actors and the writer hit me like a shock-wave. I cried twice in this movie, which says a lot for a 24 year old man.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have loved One True Thing since the first time I watched it in the theater, and cried my eyes out. I bought it as soon as it was available, and have lost track of how many times I've watched it.

To me One True Thing is the ultimate family relationship movie. I love watching the relationships in the family change and evolve into what they end up being. I can relate to many details in the movie. My mother died of bone cancer, so it really hits home with me. Maybe this is why I love it so much.

I like the relationships between the children and their parents, and the relationship of brother and sister, but especially love the relationship between husband and wife. To me it is truly beautiful.

I highly recommend this move to anyone who enjoys this kind of movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you are among the IMDB audience that put High Fidelity in the all-time top 200, then this movie probably is NOT for you. This film is as unhip as Steve Frears is self-consciously hip. Renee Zellweger is excellent as a hip urbane magazine writer who returns to her suburban Bucks County nest in order to care for mother Streep (who delivers yet another hall-of-fame performance). William Hurt is ideally cast and the feckless, faithless, and egotistical husband. If this movie doesn't move you to cry and laugh, then you are much too hip to enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie started out confusing and grew into one of the best movies I have seen... The acting was utterly superb and when I wasn't drying my tears I enjoyed Meryl Streep, who's performance was extraordinary. The movie deals with the hardships of a distant family coping with a mother who develops terminal cancer. The movie was very difficult to watch and heartbreaking. The soundtrack fits this movie to a tee. Brava Bette Midler!! Out of 5 stars, I give this one 4 1\/2.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"One True Thing\" is a very quiet film, that opened in the fall of 1998 to glowing reviews but mild box-office. It tells the crippled story of Ellen (Renee Zellweger), a workaholic who is forced to move back home to take care of her terminally ill mother (Meryl Streep), so that her aloof father (William Hurt) can run his academic department. These terms are only general. The strength of \"One True Thing\" lies in the way the actors elevate their characters above Hollywood clich\u00e9 territory.

Streep is Kate, the perfect homemaker whose ability to light up a room with her charm is evident in her opening scenes at a costume party celebrating Hurt's birthday. But Ellen has never been close to her mother, and since she graduated from Harvard University, has a certain destain about her- Ellen almost thinks her mother is a simplistic air-head. While on the other hand, she admires her father- who shares a special passion: Writing. Ellen writes for an aggressive New York firm, and is almost heartbroken when her latest piece is torn down by Hurt, who seems to be a very lonely figure.

To get to the point, as Kate gets sicker, Ellen's perspectives change and she grows closer to her mother and more distant to her father. Hurt keeps making excuses not to be there when the family needs him most, and Ellen assumes he's having an affair. Meanwhile she's given up her desk at work to spend time doing craft activities with her mother's \"cult\" group The Minnies, and also learning that her mother isn't as weak as she first assumed.

Without giving too much away, \"One True Thing\" is a masterpiece in character study. Streep once again turns in a beautiful performance, this time working on a subtle level that starts slow but ends with a brilliant speech on the vows of marriage. Streep earned her eleventh Oscar nomination for this performance. Hurt is also convincing as the father who carries a secret that isn't revealed until the closing moments. But it is Renee Zellweger who steals this movie. Forget \"Chicago\", \"Cold Mountain\", \"Bridget Jones's Diary\" or whatever else you've seen her do and rent this movie. She is remarkable in it. Working within her character's bitter resentment at understanding her parents, Zellweger manages a realistic portrayal of a young woman fighting to keep her lip up while she's screaming inside.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie. To be very fair, the movie starts off very slowly, with none of the characters being terribly sympathetic. It continues in this way for a good half of the film.

But, if you're patient, you'll be greatly rewarded. What the first half of the movie lacks in character development and\/or sympathy is adequately compensated for in the second half. It's a bit like riding a roller coaster - a slow, uphill climb to strat off with, and then speed, twists and turns, and a few surprises.

As usual, Meryl Streep is wonderful. She is the finest actress of our time. William Hurt is good, if a bit wooden in spots. Renee Zellweger does a very good job, showing that her performance in Jerry McGuire wasn't a fluke.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Meryl Streep may be the greatest actor working today. Her chameleonic portrayals never fail to astonish; she seems actually to be the characters she brings to the screen. In \"One True Thing,\" she gives life to a deceptively straightforward, profoundly complex woman doing her best to play the hand life has dealt to her. Surviving with cancer is no easy task, and not just surviving but actually continuing to live one's life is even harder--and this is precisely what Kate Gulden (Streep) means to do. Renee Zellweger (\"Jerry Maguire\") not only holds her own in this exalted company but shines as Streep's daughter, who learns to see in a new light her parents' lives as well as her own. Streep is a powerhouse and deservedly received an Oscar nomination for her work here; her \"I'm only going to say this once\" dialogue with Zellweger will leave you devastated. Zellweger, though, is the real revelation--her face conveys every emotion, every conflict as she begins to learn the many truths about her parents' strengths and weaknesses. Director Carl Franklin (\"Devil in a Blue Dress\") handles the extremely difficult story material with sureness and delicacy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie in September with my mother. I was expecting a good movie, and I saw an excellent one. This is now my most treasured movie. It did not leave me after I left the theater. The situations in this movie reminded me of my late grandmother. Meryl Streep and Renee Zellweger were equally incredible. This movie has made me realize how important family relationships are. Rent it. I can't recommend it enough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After renting One True Thing the other night, I have learned to respect my family, and not take their health for granted. I have never seen such a real-life portrayal of a cancer victim on screen like Meryl delivered. She deserves the Oscar nomination, but she has some tough competitors in the running. All I can say is Beautiful film, great acting from Streep and Zellwegger. Meryl Streep revealed her one true ability in this excellent film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A great story, although one we are certainly familiar with. Meryl Streep proves that she is truly the best actress in film today. Very entertaining, and just what I expected. Don't go see this film unless you are prepared to be used and manipulated emotionally, but if you have that expectation, then you will enjoy the ride.....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think One True Thing is one of Meryl Streeps finest movies to date. Her depiction of a dying woman is perfect. I have recently lived this movie, and it touched me on more levels than I could have imagined. Meryl is truely the greatest actress to have ever walked the earth!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I hate to say I enjoyed this movie as the subject matter does not lend itself to enjoyment. However, I was moved by the way the family relationships were portrayed and the sincerity of the performances. It was the kind of film I told all my friends and family to experience as a reminder of how important we all are to each other.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film has the guts to suggest that it might be best to simply accept your life as it is, and keep smiling anyway. As one who is more excited by the idea of taking charge of one's life and moving forward, I felt slapped in the face, but that's okay: I don't have to agree with a movie to love it and respect it. Great acting by Streep and Hurt, and everyone else really, and some wonderfully quirky scenes. A serious film. And take a hanky.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excuse me if I'm wrong, but \"Cronica para un desayuno\" could be one of the most gretatest films in tne mexican movie history for a lot of reasons. We can get a lot of ingredients for a perfect mexican middle-class family breakfast: a cup of Bu\u00f1uel's surrealistic motifs with a little drop of Ripstenian desolated scenarios; a pound of phallus symbols around the film and a difficult psychological complexity, more than Todd Solondz's Happiness and the Dogma movement films. There`s a lot of sordidness, black humor, repressed dreams (Teodoro's dream of fly), incestual lack of control (the relation between Marcos and Luzma), no-sense parallel stories, a discrete violence, anachronisms and

a little sign of hope (spotlighted in Luzma, the husband's home return and \"Un poco Mas\" used for leit-motif). Marcos (Bruno Bichir) is a charming character ( I think in a Bukoskian way), the king-without a-crown who don't expects for anything, but broken noses. Luzma (Maria Rojo) , the lovable wife , put out a lot of faces, but the only thing that she worried is that her sons had breakfast; she' s a loser in many ways and sensual in few moments , but you will fall in love of her. The soundtrack's drag (too much woods) feeds the lack of technical merits, intentional , of course: out-of-focus shots, overlighted close-ups (in introspective scenes), dizzy pans and sudden edition cuts. \"Cr\u00f3nica\" is something difficult to digest, it get stuck in the throat and anything helps for it. It tastes bitter, like a rotten orange juice and sour like expired milk, but you want to enjoy it. So I recommend to get some Melox before the show, because you won't get hungry after all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes. Watch this movie if you like brave films. This is maybe the best Mexican picture since Midaq Alley just because the excellent cast, the outrageous direction and a sublime soundtrack. Many people did not like 'Cronica\u0085', they think it's very aggressive but they didn't understand that it was just a representation with hyper realism of the Mexican society but so similar to all the third world families. I hope that Benjamin Cann and Bruno Bichir (who in this movie gives another example of his greatness as an actor) soon get together again with a new film. Just Remember how Los Olvidados (Luis Bu\u00f1uel) was misunderstood when released, but now we consider one of the best movies of all times. Please, prepare yourself and watch this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

The kind of movie that demands too much from the audience, yet to disappoint most of them. I think of the Mexican people who (either in an attempt to support Mexican movies or willing to see a film casting top Mexican stars) saw it, half of the people went out of the theater when I went to watch it, it's definitely not the kind of movie one could expect. I think too of the people from other countries who dared spending 2 hours seeing it till the very end, \"what a piece of crap\". In order to understand Cronica de un desayuno, one has to be mexican, and one has to be familiar with the low middle classes (or even better, be part of them). There's nothing accidental in this movie, the family is and has what many families, in Mexico at least, share. One has to see it with a wide open mind to accept it entirely, it's not the kind of movie that you fully understand after you watch it. The older brother wouldn't let anyone sit on his RED couch, the sister is staying no matter how she wants to leave, the younger brother is going to an excursion, and all he cares about is the yellow radio, the mother has to prepare the breakfast for the family, no matter how tense and unbearable the situation is. The father came back after who knows how long, allowing the mother to live a night of passion that somehow turns out to be momentary, and ends up by repeating all the attitudes of his sons... The stories around the house are surrealistic (and so is the movie), a travestite looking for his penis, a factory worker and his attempt of suicide, subtled by the kisses of his girlfriend, a fat man riding his bicycle after a interesting conversation about homosexuals with his sister? wife? mother?... The music doesn't pretend too much but it achieves a lot, not more than a snare drum, cymbal, a some strings. Thanks good a movie like this was done and released.

One of the best mexican movies ever!, and one of the less understood, even by mexican themselves, no matter how identified the should have felt with it.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some people have the ability to use only 3 neurons, one for eating, one for breathing and the other one for s**ting... This is not a movie for them...

But for those who enjoy using the brain... the whole movie is a metaphor, everything is there for a purpose, every single detail, the coffee mug, the red couch, everything... is a underestimated masterpiece...

It is hilarious, is raw and totally realistic, that's how we actually interact.... it is a royal comedy... total causality...

Just hang on, don't let the first scene shock you..... hang on... and enjoy the show....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not American, but Meatballs still really hits me. Maybe because it's a sweet, sweet movie. Watching it again today made me sentimental for a time I can't really put my finger on and a place I can't quite remember.

Meatballs is just a great movie. It reminds me of innocent days when nothing really mattered and anything was possible.

If you're reading this you probably know what I mean.

All I can say on top of what I've already said is that Meatballs must be even more nostalgic if you're American.

I guess you know what I mean by that too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Meatballs\" is an ode to summer camp. Those of us who got to go to camp will see many of the scenes as we remember or wish they could have been.

Bill Murray plays senior boys counselor Tripper Harrison, who really runs the camp. He reminds us of the funny cool staff member who everyone loves. Young campers gravitate toward him and if he speaks to you, you feel like you are family. This is one of Murray's best roles. He drives the film with his one liners and ad-libs.

Chris Makepeace plays Rudy, the loner camper who is taken under Tripper's wing and breaks out of his shell.

The rest of the campers and staff in the film were excellent as well.

The overall theme of the movie is the underdog overcoming obstacles to finally win. From Rudy to Spaz to the Camp and even to Tripper himself, the underdogs of the film are the stars. The movie has heart.

The film is fun and funny without being cruel or oversexed as some teen movies are today. The cast look and act like real people.

The comedy and heart draw you in to the point that at the end, just like at camp, you are sad to leave.

In my summer camp experience we had underwear run up flag poles, mystery meat, trying to sneak a peek into the girls cabin, the lunatic-with-the hook stories around the camp fire, and moving sleeping people out of their cabins and putting them elsewhere. But we also had a dedicated camp staff guiding us to be the best we could be.

My favorite scene is the CIT overnight when they are canoeing across the lake singing a goofy song. The one line that cracks me up every time is when Tripper is announcing light outs the evening before Parent's Day and he ends \"Tomorrow is parents day, and you must look rested or Morty will be sent to the state penitentiary.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can hardly call this a great film but it is entertaining. In my case I, at the time this film was released, was the same age as some of the junior campers in the film. For me watching this film brings back the memories of my camp years. While some of the pranks that takes place in this movie, like carrying the camp director out in his bed and leaving him on the side of a road, strung up in the trees or out on a lake, are a bit over the top some of the other pranks are not. When I went to camp the campers and counselors pulled similar stunts such as running underwear up the flag pole, canoe battles and boys raiding the girls cabin. As I grew older I realized these night raids to the girls cabin that I participated in were carefully orchestrated by the counselors so that we wouldn't find the girls in embarrassing situations but at the time I thought it was real and it was fun. That's what MEATBALLS (MB) is.

MB captures not only the scenic beauty of camp surroundings but the beauty of being young and carefree. MB give a great example of pre-teens, teens and young adults living their summer with no concerns other than guys hooking up with girls and girls hooking up with guys and booth having as much fun as they can before they head back to junior high & high school and college. The opening title song that goes \"Are you ready for the summer?...no more homework no more books, no more teachers dirty looks...\" describes exactly how summer is viewed by school kids.

I personally enjoyed the two campers Spaz and Fink. What boy, nerd or jock, didn't spend all camp trying to cozy up to some pretty girl camper? What guy didn't want to be accepted by the other campers and counselors? While these two characters are somewhat over the top I bet everybody who watches the film can't help but to like these two guys. These two characters are a mix of Charlie Brown from PEANUTS and Jack Tripper & Larry Dallas from THREE'S COMPANY. I would bet that most viewers even cheer for Spaz in the egg carrying competition and for Fink as he attempts to \"beat the stomach\" in the hot dog eating contest.

Lastly, this movie had normal looking kids and counselors. No super models for counselors or campers that wore trendy clothing. It is fun to just kick back and watch this film and remember when life was as fun as this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Meatballs has been a main staple in my family for over 26 years! We saw this movie when it first came out and have seen it dozens of times since. Bill Murray is at his best and is most touching in the scenes where he reaches out to a lonely pre-teen boy and befriends him, while leading his CIT's into once mischievous scheme after another! The cast of characters are fun and zany and you really come to care about them and the relationships they have with each other. This is not another sleazy, dumb, teen sex-fest. It is funny and sweet and just all-around fun. Anyone who sees this will enjoy themselves. It is a must-see. Watch out for Spaz - he is by far the best character! (Especially during the camp social - while Bill Murray hams it up for the camera - just watch Spaz behind him dancing with the poor girl he picks to dance with!) By far, one of my very favorite comedies of all time!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No, it's not Citizen Kane. But would you expect it to be with a name like \"Meatballs\"? It's the best damn summer camp movie of all the summer camp movies. Does anyone quote \"Little Darlings\" line by line? Or \"Whitewater Summer\"?

This is just one of those movies that got into my brain when I was in junior high, and stayed with me all these years. Every time I feel geeky, I mumble \"Spaz. Spaz. Spaz. Spaz.\" Or when we're hiking in the brush in the forest, I tell my husband, \"I'm Wudy da Wabbit.\" (He doesn't get it). \"It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter.\" I mean, this stuff is classic!

Disappointed with the DVD, though. Wish there were special features, maybe a commentary or a making-of. But the movie itself is a perfect snapshot of life as an adolescent in the late '70s. Maybe not MY life... You can't help but want to run around out in the woods in shorty shorts and knee-high socks and feathered hair every time you see this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this on television one day when I was young and loved it. In the 1970's, there were a bunch of lame comedies that tried too hard to be be funny so it this was a nice surprise. It's one of the best comedies of the 1970's and the definitive summer camp comedy thanks to Murrary's excellent comedic performance, which still stands as one of his greatest. This is the film that really got Ivan Reitman noticed as a director. Reitman proves with this movie that he is one of the most talented comedy directors of all time. While this film is hilarious and MEATBALLS 2 is so bad that it's fun, MEATBALLS 3 and MEATBALLS 4 are absolutely dreadful. Recommended for those who enjoyed STRIPES and GHOSTBUSTERS.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seeing this movie always reminds me of what I remember summer being like, God! such a long time ago. The entire scene involving the \"overnight\", from the canoe procession to the end of the trip, is precious, and Tripper's story about the homicidal maniac is urban legend right out of my youth. A highly entertaining movie, made many times better by the awful sequels that followed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is easily the best of the summer camp movies. In fact, few of the others are even fair, let alone anywhere near as entertaining as this one is.

The film is just simply out to have some good, clean, fun. Many people who went to summer camp as kids will see that it is presented here faithfully to the way it usually was, but with slapstick comedy mixed in. Bill Murray, as the chief counselor of the camp, Tripper, leads a fine ensemble cast, and is usually at the center of the riotous nonsense. Tripper has great one-liners throughout, usually broadcasting his jokes as pseudo-announcements over the camp's public-address system.

Several great supporting actors played the campers and counselors to build a myriad of fun and interesting subplots, all the while sprinkled amongst the many incidents of camp hi-jinx. Spaz (Jack Blum) and Fink (Keith Knight) were two characters particularly well done. The adventures (and misadventures) of these two are hilarious. Each has classic lines, and they are characters you like and root for. Look for Spaz in the scene of disco dance pandemonium.

The girls in the story are realistic characters, too. They're not dumb, naive, freakish, oversexed, nervy, or any of the other overused, abominable teen character stereotypes. Kristine DeBell, Kate Lynch, Cindy Girling, and others make these characters believable.

The requisite pranks abound, usually at the expense of camp director Morty (Harvey Atkin). The nature of these pranks start at outrageous and progress from there. However, with all the silliness going on, Tripper and the others have their serious sides. For example, Tripper befriends a shy, lonely kid, Rudy(Chris Makepeace), and takes him under his wing.

The story culminates with a sports competition against a rival camp. It's a great \"root for the underdogs\" finale. When the chips are down, Tripper's motivational \"It just doesn't matter\" spiel is inspired, and one of the best moments in the movie. And get ready to root: \"Spaz. Spaz! Spaz!!!\"\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Camp North Star and it's Camp counselor extraordinaire, Tripper Harrison(Bill Murray)sure would like to end a decades long losing streak to rival Camp Mohawk, an ivy league type place where only the wealthy kids can attend. Meanwhile, we watch as Tripper tries his hand at love when he flirts aimlessly with fellow female counselor Roxanne(Kate Lynch)as other teen counselors pair up and also fall head-over-heels. The film comes to head at the Camp Olympiad as the rivals square off in competitive athletic contests with Tripper almost realizing their doomed to fail yet another year. The film also shows the growing bond between Tripper and a quietly lonely, puppy-dog eyed Rudy(Chris Makepeace of \"Vamp\" fame), whose dad is often away all the time. Rudy doesn't seem to fit in with the other kids his age and he seems to spend most of his time either jogging in the mornings with Tripper or taking his peanuts at Blackjack. The film mostly contains hi-jinx of fellow teen camp counselors cutting up and goofing around.

You have hottie counselors, total nerd Spaz(Jack Blum)with his taped glasses and bad acne, beak-nosed \"Hardware\"(Matt Craven)who likes to blow things up, fat kid Fink(Keith Knight) who is often stuffing his face, amongst others in the film. There's a basketball game where poor Spaz can barely bounce the ball against rival Camp Mohawk much less shoot an accurate shot with poor Fink tossing underhanded, between-his-knees fly-balls that sail over the back-board. There's camp fire coupling(with a spirited scary tale by Tripper about a hook-handed killer)and boys drooling over the lovely ladies.

Yes, I know it's desperate at times trying to squeeze out every laugh it can and occasionally indulges in lapses of sentimentality(such as the scenes with a sad Makepeace and Murray), but just as much as this recent viewing, I found myself giggling away. I'm licked and just can't help loving this. It's a summer camp movie through and through which simply wants to entertain you. I can't explain, or reinforce enough, the overwhelming joy that floods forth when I see a sleepy Murray's hand reach from the covers for the alarm clock that's piercing loudly pronouncing a summer camp movie is about to begin. His intercom jokes are especially amusing. But, the flick is, let's be honest, a series of comic vignettes with Murray dead-panning endlessly..not that there's anything wrong with that. The film, though, couldn't quite survive without him, could it? Hard to even think of this movie without Murray in the lead. It's a happier time and I think nostalgia of that summer camp experience plays quite a hand in why we grown-ups still connect with \"Meatballs\" warmly. And, poor Morty(Harvey Atkin), the camp head who so badly wants things to run smooth, and to beat Camp Mohawk for a change, is the constant source of Tripper and gang's amusement as they often play gags on him..especially when he's sleeping on his bed! Great enthusiastic cast who seem to be having as much as us.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, it feels, and for the most part plays like an \"after school special\", for a slightly more adult audience, alright maybe a teen audience. But add in Bill Murray (already showing some dramatic as well as his usual comedic talent), a nice supporting cast, and an unexpected sweetness about growing up, and remembering those great, or not so great days at summer camp, and you get a heartwarming, funny, sleeper hit.

It does get a little too smarmy for its own good, but that is also one of its charms. When you hear the title \"Meatballs\", and see the poster, you expect a teenage sex romp, but what you get is a sentamental, yet sometimes sexy look back at those formative years at summer camp. The sentamentality, and the remberances of simpler times reminds me of \"A Christmas Story\", which I also love. The rememberances of summer camp were never so well stated. The only movie I've seen that comes close, is \"Indian Summer\", which I like almost as much as \"Meatballs\", and also stars Matt Craven. Let's hope he completes the trilogy. Maybe he could come back for \"Return of the Meatballs\", and bring some dignity back to the franchise (Meatballs 2 through 4 bare no resemblence to the original classic).

\"Meatballs\" is easily on my Top 10 Guilty Pleasures of all time (not really guilty either). It's a wonderful little film, that always makes me smile.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this for the first time in 10 or 15 years...maybe close to 20. In some ways, it was better than I remembered...in other, it was MUCH worse.

First of all, there's the music. It's just plain awful. There are only 5 songs in the movie, most of them used more than once. The opening song is shrieked by a chorus of annoying children, and the disco-y title track is performed by Rick Dees. It doesn't get any worse than that. Even the background music is terrible, with much of it repeating the themes of the other nauseating tunes. We also get some truly lame slapstick, mostly in the opening credits.

On the other hand, Bill Murray is spot on brilliant as usual...you have to wonder if he ad-libbed the whole thing, or if the writers just gave him all the funny lines. Or maybe he's just that great- turning a weak script into comic genius. The best part are his surreal PA announcements. (\"Lobsters...get out of here...you're a menace!\")

You also get a lot more character development than you have any right to expect in a movie like this. At least half the characters seem like real people...and mostly real people you would like to have around. Even \"Spaz\" gets to do a more than any other Eddie Deezen-type character ever did, and when he gets the girl, it's plausible. (She's not absurdly hot, but he doesn't automatically pair up with one of the nerd girls- see \"Revenge Of The Nerds\" for examples of both cinematic phenomenons.)

And when the plot seems clich\u00e9d...well, ya gotta wonder if it wasn't a clich\u00e9 yet when they made this. While it wasn't the first summer camp movie- ya gotta go back at least to \"The Parent Trap\"- it's certainly the movie that made it it's own genre. In fact, I was surprised that there was no Talent Show scene...\"Wet Hot American Summer\" spoofed the summer-camp genre so perfectly, I just assumed everything in it came straight out of Meatballs. (I also half-expected Jon Cryer to pull up in a convertible with a chimp, thanks to \"Mr. Show's\" epic camp-olympiad spoof \"Monk Academy\")

Anyway, this one seems to be vanishing a little as far as the late-70's\/early 80's comedies- it's not a cable staple anymore, and certainly doesn't have the cult following of Caddyshack or Animal House. I was pleased to catch it on Showtime today- and in High Definition at that! Sure, it's pretty awful in spots, but you could do a lot worse in a 70's\/80's teen comedy. And again, Murray is a genius.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"... The reason I like this movie so much is because of the spirit it has. It's a genial summer camp movie, so the jokes aren't mean minded in a lasting way that makes one character the permanent butt of ridicule. Pranks do take place, but you get the feeling that the respective fall-guys would be able to look back and laugh, having been dopey enough to fall for them - and without being too cheesy, it's actually kinda nice that everyone still remains friends in the end!

It's an extra special bonus when the ringmaster of all these jolly japes is Bill Murray. For me, he's still looked upon as the comedy god without peer when he gets a chance to cut loose. No one's better at generating a sense of freewheeling wacky anarchy without really hurting anyone. The tone of the entire film has the same style as its leading man, established with a great opening scene showing the Murray way of getting ready for the day. Everything's silly, yes, but more important than behaving like an adult is to have a whole lot of good-natured fun. \"Meatballs\" promises such and ultimately delivers a nourishing watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wildman head counselor Tripper Harrison (Bill Murray in peak nutty form in his first lead role) presides over the various wacky hi-jinks at North Star summercamp. Tripper befriends sad and lonely misfit kid Rudy (a nice and affecting performance by Chris Makepeace). Director Ivan Reitman relates the amusingly off the wall comic vignettes at a ceaseless snappy pace and maintains an engagingly good-natured tone throughout. This film astutely nails the breezy'n'breezy essence of summer: making friends, first love, pulling pranks, competing in sports with a rival camp, campfire singalongs, and, of course, the inevitable scary urban legend about the escaped psycho killer with the hook hand. The sense of gleefully raucous fun this picture generates is positively infectious. Moreover, the humor is always goofy and occasionally gross, but never too nasty or mean-spirited. Best of all, there's a winning surplus of pure heart to go along with said humor (the warm relationship between Tripper and Rudy in particular is genuinely touching). The cast have an obvious ball playing their likable characters: Murray's gloriously gonzo and galvanizing presence keeps things constantly humming (his crazy PA announcements are absolutely sidesplitting), plus there are sound contributions from Harvey Atkin as hapless camp owner Morty, Kate Lynch as Tripper's sassy old flame Roxanne, Russ Banham as the amiable Crockett, Kristine DeBell as the sweet, foxy A.L., Sarah Torgov as the feisty Candace, Jack Blum as klutzy bespectacled nerd Spaz, Keith Knight as tubby slob Larry Finkelstein, Cindy Girling as the fetching Wendy, and Matt Craven as the hip Hardware. Donald Wilder's cinematography gives the movie an attractive sunny look and makes nifty use of wipes. Elmer Bernstein's lively and melodic score likewise does the trick. A real riot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this movie for the most part, but have to say had there been anyone else besides Bill Murray in the lead role it would not have been as good. He brings an energy to the role that steps this film up a notch than it would have been otherwise. I mainly enjoyed the pranks pulled on the one counselor and there are other humorous things in this movie too such as the hot dog eating contest. This movie would also set the stage for summer camp movies with the competition at the end. Nearly every camp movie has either this or the unruly or troubled kids plot, or a combination of both. This series also would take a rather strange shift in tone as this one and two are both family friendly movies while part three and four are more adult oriented, more like the old teen sex comedies of the time. It kind of did the opposite of the Police Academy movies that went from R to PG-13 to PG movies. This series goes from the opposite to R. Still this first one and only good one is worth some chuckles largely due to Bill Murray.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Imagine spending the summer without your family or friends from school, and meeting new people. Or yet, it's your first time where you're a nobody and the only person you can count on is somebody from camp. \"Meatballs\" packs lots of comedy in this film. In camp, there's a eccentric counselor(Bill Murray) who knows how the boys and girls can have a good time. Enter a kid named Rudy(Chris Makepeace) who has no one to look up to. He doesn't fit in with anyone, only Tripper can make him have fun. The rest of the can are just as crazy as Tripper. Camp Northstar is an average camp with an above average team. One the other hand Camp Mohawk is an elite camp that has them running for their money. In the basketball game, the Mohawks got pantsed! And in the Olympiad the Northstar teal got the revenge they needed when one of the members take out the saboteur. And Morty(Harvey Atkin), this poor soul can never get himself in gear if he tried. A very, VERY funny comedy, and it's a big keeper I'll say. This movie shows that camp can be fun, if you wanted to be! 5 stars!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a young teen when this came out, I completely related to it. As an adult in the present sex- obsessed American culture, it doesn't have enough nudity to be called tame.

If you are looking for American Pie-type lewdness, vulgarity or fart and feces jokes, Meatballs will disappoint with impunity and a guarantee.

If you like Bill Murray, and you like good clean fun, you will probably like and enjoy this film very much. Similarly with Stripes, Ghostbusters, Caddy Shack, etc.

Enough said, just go watch it, and stop intellectualizing it. It's Meatballs, for crying out loud! Why read a review? Just enjoy it and have fun. And ignore the trash talk by others. Films, like so many other things in life, are subjective. To each his own.

Always beware the 'expert' who diminishes others' taste.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The plot is predictable. It has been done many times in other movies. You have competing summer camps in this one: the rich kids vs. the underachievers competing for \"bragging\" rights in the typical camp contests, while the kids and consolers pursue pranks, sex, and \"a good time!\" \"Are You Ready For The Summer?\" Meatballs is the first (and best) summer camp movie for feel-good comedy. As others have posted, it's no Citizen Kane, but this type of movie isn't meant to be. The film works because of the wonderful comic timing and classic one-liners of Bill Murray. His scenes with a camper where he tries to raise the kid's self-esteem are very good. Bill's one-liners throughout the film are very funny.

I also like that this movie isn't dirty or explicit like so many other \"teens at camp\" movies today. There is some mild sexual innuendo and maybe one or two cuss words in the entire film. But Meatballs is the type of teen movie that is actually appropriate for the younger crowd. It's rated PG.

This is a movie that you have to see a few times to get all of the jokes! When Bill Murray is on the screen or making one of his classic \"PA Announcements\" you are drawn to the film. Bill seems to carry the movie all by himself. But he does it so well, that when you see Meatballs, you will realize that this is the film that made him a star! A side note to this review is to avoid ALL of the Meatball movie sequels. They are horribly bad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Luckily for Bill Murray this is such a light-weight project since he pretty much has to carry it. Meatballs is the story of low-rent Camp Northstar and how its counselors deal with the campers as well as one another. Then there is much made of their wealthy rivals from across the lake named Camp Mohawk which culminates in a two-day Olympiad competition. Above it all is Bill Murray clowning around and making a pretty memorable film debut.

The film is sprinkled with medium-sized laughs, chuckles, and more than a few guffaws along the way. The biggest laughs come from the pranks played on the nerdy camp director. Three of them involve the counselors moving his bed outside in various locations while he's sleeping. Morty, or \"Micky\" as everyone calls him, wakes up along the side of a road, strung up in some trees several feet above the ground, and finally floating on a raft in the middle of the lake! There are also some funny moments involving the counselors hitting on one another, but this is a PG rated film with little in the way of raunchiness.

The film takes a serious note involving a shy camper named Rudy who is played by Chris Makepeace. Of course it's up to Murray to teach the kid how to open up, and give him the confidence he needs to run a marathon during the Olympiad. The sentimentality of Rudy's situation seems tacked on to a great degree. Notice how when Murray first sees the kid sitting alone in the grass after getting off the bus he tells him, \"you must be the short depressed kid we ordered.\" Makes you wonder if that line was really in the script or Murray was just ad-libbing while the cameras were rolling. In other words, Murray might as well have said to Makepeace, \"you must be that actor we hired to play the stereotypical lonely kid you see in most summer camp films who doesn't fit in.\" But before it's all over, Murray's performance makes this plot device more than bearable. He really seems to have some good chemistry with Makepeace.

The film culminates with the games between the two rival camps. Very little of the events we are shown are even slightly believable, but \"it just doesn't matter\". This is a pretty good film on many levels. Don't let the absurd 5.6 rating this film is currently getting scare you off. Murray will keep you laughing throughout. Just be warned..... avoid the sequels!!!! Especially the one with Corey Feldman!! 8 of 10 stars.

The Hound.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know that was a goofy movie, but I enjoyed it immensely. It's one of the experiences that make me smile when someone says \"Bill Murray.\" I almost always like movies involving the underdog, and this movie has more underdogs than you can count. It's overall a kind movie--some of the adults are not wrapped tightly, but the laughter is accepting rather than brutal like so many teen movies these days. The rich kids across the lake take a beating, but no one I know minded at all. I never went to camp, but I did some things that were somewhat parallel and most of the \"bits\" and tricks ran true. They were even understated at times, but I'm sure that was an accident.The cast performed well, with Bill Murray showing hints of what he would become. It's not Groundhog Day or Broken Flowers, but, hey, a good goofy laugh should be appreciated these days, but then...it just doesn't matter...............................","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you take the movie for what it is worth, you won't be disappointed. If you think Murray is supposed to win an Oscar for his performance and that is the type of movie you are expecting, don't bother. It was funny when I saw it in 1979 and hasn't lost its charm. Good clean fun for the kids and mindless entertainment for the older folks. The story line is simple and easy to follow. Murray has done better, but this is his first film. The movie reminds me of a time when we didn't need blood and guts to be entertained. Morty is the head dunce and plays the part perfect. The other counselors are typical revved up teens looking to have fun during the summer. One nice thing about this movie, it has a message.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie in the mid 80's and thought it was a funny movie. As I have gotten older I watch this movie for different reasons. I like to view it when I'm feeling sad\/nostalgic for my \"lost youth\". I was a teenager (14) at the time of the release of this film so I can identify with many of the same problems\/dilemmas that the campers\/CIT's in this movie have. I enjoy seeing the clothes that were worn at this time and hearing the same old urban legends such as was told on the overnight canoe trip. The film is also full of funny one liners. I highly recommend this movie to anyone that was a teenager in the late 70's to early 80's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I rarely even bother to watch comedic movies or television these days. They're insipid, vulgar, and, most importantly, not funny. This one could be seen as a refreshing blast from the past. It's worth watching, and I don't believe it would be dated in any significant way. Classic humor is classic humor, and good writing is good writing regardless of the era in which created.

I would love to see this film again; it came to mind after having seen the somewhat similar \"Summer School\" on television recently. Like that slightly newer film, \"Meatballs\" is funny without being cruel, overly sexual or indulging in bathroom humor. The key, of course, is how the adult character makes such a difference in the life of the teen character -- maybe even a virtually life-saving change -- and how they both grow up in the space of a summer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The quintessential \"let's get ready for summer movie.\" It's dumb, goofy, and maybe a touch dated, but my kids just saw it and they laughed as hard as I did when I first saw it. In the style of all \"little guys versus the establishment\" movies, so yes, the plot is very predictable, but it's warm and funny. And no, it's not Bill Murray at his Bill Murrayest, but he is starting to stretch out in what was his first starring role. Odd, though, to see how few of the \"fresh young faces\" in this film went on to do much more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Meatballs works its way into conversations, like no other movie. Especially during Summer. Whether it's the song about the CITs (Counselors In Training) or the cut-downs or the inspirational Rudy the Rabbit or It Just Doesn't Matter speech...it pops up! Poor Mickey\/Morty, who knows where he'd wake up next!?! Such a great snapshot of the seventies and a cultural icon for my generation of those who understand that non-PC is really funny, no matter who you are! Wheels and Spaz are favorites, as is the hot dog eating contest with the famous line \"what..? no mustard?\" Oh, how many times I've reiterated that line and been the only one laughing! Thank you to the writers, actors and directors! Applause, applause!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Rattlesnake! Look out!\" \"Is that a bra you're wearing or are you expecting an assassination attempt?\" \"Spaz, what are you a homo or what?!\" \"OK way to go you guys! feed Fink, he's our hot man\" \"Do you know they use the most sophisticated training methods from the Soviet Union, East & West Germany and the newest Olympic power, Trinidad-Tobago.\" \"Oh Spaz you old make-out master!\" \"What, no mustard?!\" \"Oh my God his nose is bleeding.\" \"it's gonna get even bigger now\" \"Our political roundtable...Henry Kissinger will appear. Yassir Arafat is gonna come out, spend a weekend with the kids just rap with them.\"

These and many other great lines make Meatballs a hall-of-fame comedy. Only in Caddyshack is Bill Murray funnier. He probably ad-libbed half the lines. The high school actors seemed to have a blast being in the same movie with him.

Hilarious movie to watch any time of year, not just the summer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I was younger, this movie always aired on Friday night in the summer on Channel 40 (this was the years before Fox was a network and took over the programming). I always looked forward to it. I'd go grocery shopping with my parents, then sit down with my Swanson's TV dinner and a Lady Lee Cola(the only time of the week I was allowed to drink cola, and enjoy. Sure, the script is predictably late 70's (like Little Darlings), but it's a fun movie, and I loved Rudy and Tripper. Bill Murray coasts with little effort in the movie, but he is charming. Gotta love Spaz and those taped glasses (pre Revenge of the Nerds). Chris Makepeace is pretty much the same character he played in \"My Bodyguard\" but he does it so well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love Meatballs! Terrific characters and poignant situations make this one dearly loved. Bill Murray is hysterical and you gotta love that 4-mile trail race at the end! A total classic and one of my favorites now for about 20 years. It brings back fond memories of camp and deals nicely with the experience of being rejected by foolish peers and the empowerment brought one by being rescued by a sympathetic adult. Tons of great one-liners and quite an assortment of wacko counselors. This is the kind of movie where you repeat key phrases among friends for years afterward. Also nothing overtly crude and what a sweet late '70's soundtrack to bring on just the right amount of nostalgia. I can't say enough about Meatballs; it's a classic. Be forewarned! All the sequels are putrid stink bombs that simply bought the name rights for marketing. They have no connection to Ivan Reitman's masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Meatballs is a classic comedy with so many laughs that it's impossible to count.

In what was merely a precursor of what was to come, Murray rules the screen in what can only be described as comic mastery. Tripper Harrison is one of the greatest comedy characters in the past 50 years. Sarcastic all the time, smart when he has to be, stern when he needs to be, and caring when it suits him, Murray infuses Tripper with that SNL glint in the eye.

The C.I.T's are merely in awe as they cower beneath the comic genius that is Mr. Murray.

Summer isn't summer without a viewing of Meatballs. One of the best comedies to ever grace the screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the Message Boards threads at IMDb had two women talking about Colin Firth, how they watched the movie only because of him. Obviously these were two young women; but what struck me is how little this movie has been appreciated by audiences generally. The brilliant, and I mean brilliant, performances by Michelle Pfeiffer and Jessica Lange were hardly noticed, not only by audiences, but by the Academy and by most of the critics.

I think I know why. First, the plot--or actually just the setup--is a kind of bastardization of Shakespeare's King Lear with the dying, crazy patriarch and the three scheming daughters who will inherit. Their names even begin with the same letters, Regan, Goneril, and Cordelia--Rose, Ginny, and Caroline. And I guess \"Larry\" (Jason Robards) works for \"Lear.\" The apparent idea envisioned by Jane Smiley in her Pulitzer Prize winning novel was to tell a Lear-like story from the point of view of the daughters, and to tell it a sort of late twentieth century realistic way not considered by the Bard. The problem is, in Smiley and Moorhouse's story, the two older daughters are very human with strengths and weaknesses while the father is a most despicable character without much in the way of redeeming qualities. His only strength was his ability to make a financial success of the farm; however, we can even discount that since his father and grandfather before him built the farm and he inherited it.

The second problem--and this is one I cannot personally attest to, not having read Smiley's novel--is that the movie is only a limited and partial interpretation of that novel. Still, it is almost always the case that an excellent novel, especially a long and ambitious one with many psychological nuances, cannot be faithfully transferred to the screen. The vision and audio demands of film drown out the subtleties of a narration while the time constraints don't allow for the full development of character and motivation achieved by the novelist. Given five or six hours, perhaps Moorhouse could have made a movie more in keeping with Smiley's novel.

A third problem is one that is perhaps Moorhouse's alone. She began her directing career with the very well done Aussie film Proof (1991) starring Russell Crowe. She follow it up with How to Make an American Quilt (1995) which celebrated women, especially women of a certain age. However it was a bit heavy-handed and clearly and determinedly a chick flick. In a sense A Thousand Acres takes off from there, showing us not only the point of view of women, but does so in a way that may seem politically motivated to some. Larry Cook is clearly a bad, bad daddy. He beat his daughters and he had carnal knowledge of them. He ran the household with an iron fist. Jess (Colin Firth's character) seduces the inexperienced Ginny and breaks her heart for nothing more than a bit of fun it would appear. And then he goes to Rose, who clearly is going to be the power behind the new ownership, and hooks up with her, while incidentally inducing her husband to end his life in a drunken accident. The rest of the men are one-dimensional characters without nuance, the way they often appear in romance novels. I think most audiences were put off by the heavy-handed incest, adultery and sexual betrayal that was woven into the story.

Having said all this, I think the critics and the public are wrong. I think the direction was biased against men, but in this story it needed to be. I think Moorhouse did a fine job of making an emotional and engaging film about family dynamics that were none too pretty. And the acting by Pfeiffer and Lange was nothing short of sensational. They seemed to feed off of one another in a way that I found absolutely authentic and deeply moving. In particular Pfeiffer was riveting as she projected her bent-up anger and hatred. The way Moorhouse allowed her character to be revealed to us gradually is a tribute to her ability as a director as well as to Pfeiffer's outstanding performance. And the skill with which Moorhouse guided the change in Ginny's character as she went from a \"ninny,\" as she called herself, to someone with self-awareness and some understandable bitterness, was also excellent. The fact that she left her husband was as much out of shame as anything else. He needed to go get her and forgive her and bring her back. And Robards in his intensity and madness was also very good.

I predict that this film, which bombed in theaters, will be better appreciated in the years to come as people see it on DVD. My question is, whatever happened to Moorhouse? Her talent is obvious, but she has yet to director her fourth feature film. When she does I hope she remembers to go with what she believes but to be fair as well. I think, actually she was fair to the two lead character in this film, but didn't pay enough attention to the others. In addition to the unnuanced father, Jennifer Jason Leigh's Caroline was unfinished, leaving us to wonder about why she did some of the things she did. And the husbands needed to be something more than mannequins. They needed to be engaged and involved.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very unusual film which starts out with a rich dude getting a brand new sports car for graduation and decides to take it for a spin in the local town. Rich boy meets poor girl in 'Mabels Diner'who is a waitress and local boy friend gets very upset and a fight starts out. There is a car chase and all kinds of problems seem to take place and the Rich boy and Poor boy wind up having to do Community Service as ordered by the town judge. Rich boy and Poor boy just do not get along and the Rich boy winds up winning the heart and soul of the poor boy's girl friend. There are plenty of walks in the woods and poetry is quoted and some very deep thoughts about life. Poor Girl says, \"Some people go through life and never find Love, I can say that I found love and am holding on to It\". You will need some tissue's if you are sensitive, there are plenty of romantic scenes and I doubt very much if you will guess how this picture will end. The producer and director came up with a good idea and finally put an end to a film. If you like true to life stories with poetry and very sensitive subjects, this is your film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All I have to say is that this movie is the bomb. You are going to cry when you see this. I mean, this is a reminder for everyone how hard and easy it is to fall in love. It reminds you of the days during your youth when you were carefree and everything that was bad for you was washed away with a single kiss. Even though I am still a teen, this is how I live my life. When I am with that certain someone, everything that was negative in my mind was erased. So, I give this movie a 10 for it's heartfelt message and touching plot. Actors Josh Hartnett and Chris Klein I also give a 10 for having a cute face.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't understand why critics would bash this movie. It's a teen movie that's actually serious, which is a rarity. I'll admit that there are moments that are hugely sappy, but c'mon it's about young love, it's gotta be sappy to be valid. My biggest complaint is Chris Klein. While he was funny in American Pie, he apparently isn't ready for the switch into more dramatic fare yet, he's very uncomfortable looking in some of his \"mama stuff\". Hartnett and Sobieski on the other hand, demonstrate a remarkable amount of depth and believability, as do the parent's. Although the script is heavily cliched with the lovers spouting off poetry, the actor's make it work. The directing sports some powerful images on the screen. Beautiful cinematography, nice music, great young actors, I was impressed and I'm a jaded critic when it comes to teen movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alright, I'm 12, so this is where you get to see the movie from a pre-teen's point of view. I've also commented on Magnolia and Bicentennial Man, both great movies, if you want to check it out. Alright, Here on Earth was a beautiful movie with astounding scenes and images, very pleasing to the eye. The writer (I don't know who it was, check IMDB) either worked very hard or has a good appreciation for love, poetry, and drama. I cried 4 times throughout this movie, once for over 30 minutes. It was really sad, really beautiful, really meaningful. IT's a great movie for anyone, say, 11 and up who isn't a romantic-comedy freak. Yeah, it's romantic, yeah, it's comedic, but (in my opinion), it's better than \"She's All That\" or \"Whatever it Takes\". I never cry! It's a tender story. Go rent it and tape it :).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Here On Earth\" is a surprising beautiful romantic tale about Samantha who has both boy problems and health problems. As her love for her current boyfriend, Jasper, fades away, her love for Kelley blooms like a new spring flower.

I found this movie very touching, very warm, very romantic, and touching. I enjoyed every bit of this movie...and that's pretty rare! I highly do recommend this movie to all movie lovers! This is one film you don't want to miss!!! :D

By the way...if you're a very sentimental person who easily cries while watching movies, BRING TISSUES!!! On the other hand, it was a really really good movie!!! Very romantic...and surprisingly good!!! :D

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I own this movie. I've seen it over 20 times and every time I still get weepy. Its a Great love story, surprises, and you can definately feel chemistry between Klein and Sobiesky. I definately give this movie a perfect 10. I recommend this to anyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK..you people need to settle down! This movie is not that bad. I saw it for the first time last night and fell in love with it! I do have to admit that I have never been a fan of LeeLee Sobieski but she grew on me in this movie. I do think Josh Hartnett is good looking, but c'mon..Chris Klein is the most gorgeous man I think I have ever seen!!! He made that movie better for me. C'mon girls..when he has no shirt on and goes to get water I know your mouth dropped. Yes, I know in the beginning he is a jerk, but in the end he realizes how he acted and learns to be a great guy. If he wouldn't have come at the end..then I would have been mad. I do think a couple of lines did not need to be said but all in all it was a great movie! I definitely recommend it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely loved this movie! It's my number one favorite. Although there were a few flaws (what movie doesn't have flaws?), this movie was very well written, directed, and produced. The characters in this movie are very real and believable. They made all of the characters fit into a specific role. I think that the most apparent thing about \"Here On Earth\" was the love triangle as well as the other emotional situations brought into the movie. It's not one of those movies where you just can't seem to relate to anything, because in it are situations that everyone is or has been in. There are so many different things going on in this movie that it is hard not to relate to it. I am just 18 years old and I can even relate to it. It was heart warming and wrenching at the same time. \"Here On Earth\" will make you laugh, cry, and sometimes angry. I give this movie an excellent review and recommend it to anyone who loves romance and passion!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's become extremely difficult to find a good horror movie anymore, thought this movie was a good thriller.

Could have had better production values but what kept me going was the suspense and the twists. I had real reservations before seeing this movie (because of the cover). I was afraid that it would be excessively bloody and gory. I was wrong.

Although there is a lot of scary parts, there is a lot of suspense and drama too.

The acting in Dead Line was better than what you would expect from a micro budget horror flick. The characters were believable

The movie is really thrilling and quite scary at moments so it makes you grab your seat until the ending credits roll

Because of its production values (the sound is not very good for example) 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was pleasantly surprised by how good the movie was. Whether you're a gore fan or a suspense fan; you'll love this. I used to dislike horror movies, considered them stupid. But, anyway, it happens I make exceptions. I find something really extraordinary in this film. Rarely have I ever seen a film that has scared the crap out of me but I tell you the truth this film gave me shivers down my neck. Unlike most horror films this one cares about the development of the characters. I highly recommend this film and I'm glad that Asylum are finally bringing out good horror movies these days

I recommend! Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sometimes, when seeking a movie nothing will do except a good thriller. Dead Line certainly fits the bill.

A little warning however: if you are going to watch this film you are better off not knowing too much specifics about the plot.

The plot thickens as the film goes by. A really remarkably well built tension mounts.

It is deep and horrifying. It goes all the way to the darkest places in human mind.

The plot also has some very surprising shifts.

Just wait till nightfall, turn off the light and watch this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Good movie, all elements of a good movie was there, story, actors, script, and direction. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.

No question about it, is a low budget film, but I liked it more than many big budget films.

Andres Bagg plays Martin Sanders, who is dealing with his unfaithful wife. Then a voice in the telephone and then just fear.

Virginia Lustig is beautiful and brings a powerful performance. She is an excellent part to the film.

I liked the increasing ambiguity near the end, even though we know that the main character can be involved, we continued seeing everything from his point of view and asking: Who is the killer?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was pleasantly surprised to find a very enjoyable film that kept my attention throughout. I am a horror fan and I see almost everything in that genre, but Dead Line managed to freak me out. The pace is very cleverly set and Andr\u00e9s Bagg does a good performance as a desperate man. What is underneath the main plot? A trip to madness. How can you end up like that? Martin Sanders ask him self while he sees a homeless speaking to him self, alone in the street. Close to the end of the film, the character of Aaron Mandel asks the same question while he sees another homeless doing the same thing; not knowing, yet, that this homeless is Martin Sanders, answering the question of the beginning of the film. The broken eyeglasses in two are a clear symbol of rupture and division... of personality. The ending is jaw dropping and you just know that a sequel would have to be made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very dark movie, somewhat better than the average Asylum film. It was a lot better than I thought it would be, is a combination of a psychological thriller and a horror film.

The voice on the telephone is really creepy - this voice without a face, this unknown and threatening voice works really well in the film, since we never see the killer face is left to the imagination of the spectator.

The action and suspense never decay and after the first half of the film, it becomes vertiginous; there is not much gore in this film, just enough to serve the story and also the director does a good job at holding your attention.

I gave this movie a 8\/10 because some clich\u00e9s.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first thing I noticed about this movie was how well everything was set up. A quality movie all round.

I suppose you could love this film just for its action, but I liked it for more than that.

This is a pure thriller\/horror movie. It offers a more fully-fleshed script than most horror films do. I thought, at least the U.S. version, ended brilliantly, and was great throughout. The story felt honest and brutal.

The film has an excellent, tight script that keeps the action moving, with believable characters in largely believable situations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow, I loved this movie, this film was filled with plot twists, good acting, great story, and a surprising ending. To be completely honest this movie wasn't overly gory, it does contain some gore, though, but was more on the psychological side. I read it on the Internet: the film cost 3000 dollars and was shoot in 8 days. Amazing!!! This is for someone that wants to think and loves great film making. What starts out as a terrorizing thriller slowly transforms into something a bit more twisted, even a bit more sinister. Not much I can say without giving away plot points only that this movie went beyond my expectations","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After reading the terrible reviews of this movie, including comments said to be quoted from Colin, I almost didn't bother to add this film to my Firth Film collection, however being the Firth Fan which I am, intrigue got the better of me!

To my surprise I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It had suspense,drama and intrigue and V.sexy Colin scene's. The plot kept me guessing right until the end credits and I felt that once one got past Jennifer Rubens opening scene's that the actress played her role convincingly. Colin was as brilliant as ever and its great to see him play a character from the 'Dark side', a 'chill went down my spine' and after watching this I can't wait to see Colins recent film 'Trauma'soon to be out on DVD.

OK, perhaps it 'wasn't a film that was 'in your face' so to speak and one couldn't 'go to sleep on the plot',especially towards the end as there was a lot going on, but that was what I liked about it, the acting was subtle, thankfully not overdone (like many suspense thrillers), this made the film all the more chilling to watch. One just couldn't second guess what Colins character (Ross Talbert), or for that matter Jennifer Rubens character(Jamie Harris) was going to do next, and there were quite a few surprises in store, I sat on the edge of my seat throughout, with a cushion handy!!

Personally I am very glad that I watched 'Playmaker' and I shall certainly rewind and view again. I think that any Firth Fan would benefit from watching this film, if they didn't like the plot then just watch Colin ;-))","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This mystery\/psychological-thriller is I think one of the best I've ever seen. All the actors give a wonderful performance, especially Jennifer Rubin as Jamie Harris, who changes from the nervous starlet in the beginning through the strange events she is part of to the cool star. You learn a lot about the real inside emotions of people in this movie, and a lot about the movie business itself. The movie in movie situations in the beginning and through the game that is played with her by the \"acting coach\" are fascinating. Also the music by Mark Snow is possibly the best score I've ever heard. You won't forget this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like subtle psychological dramas\/thrillers this is a movie for you. Those who want to see an ordinary sex'n'crime erotic thriller surely will not understand this movie, as Colin Firth obviously did when he called it \"rubbish\". But Jennifer Rubin is the real star of the movie anyway. She is such a brilliant and beautiful actress! Along with the twisting and turning storyline, that gets more and more psychological and makes you think about yourself, the wonderful directing, photography and especially the music make this movie a masterpiece. Also the small parts are very good, especially Belinda Waymouth is terrific in her small scene. I hope it gets released on DVD soon, and a soundtrack album would be a dream coming true!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is one of the best and moving I have ever seen, because of the terrible good performance of the main actress Jennifer Rubin as Jamie Harris, who really makes you feel with her. Also the music by Mark Snow is wonderful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ah, how refreshing to see a vision of 18th century England complete with mud, the pox and gibbets... and accompanied by a delightful techno soundtrack to boot. This is the story of downtrodden highwayman Plunkett (Robert Carlisle) and Gentleman-fallen-on-hard-times Captain Macleane (Jonny Lee Miller), and how they get together and rob the aristo pigs. Plunkett is a hard nut, but MaCleane is far too polite for that, and thus becomes 'the gentleman highwayman'. He falls in love with Lady Rebecca (Liv Tyler), (who to be frank is the only weak part of the whole shebang) and wants to impress her.

The costumes are fantastic. Big, colourful, historically innacurate beautiful togs. Alan Cummings gets all the best threads, and the best lines as Lord Rochester, sporting a very non-18th century eyebrow piercing. The music shifts between swooping glorious choirs and thumping bass-laden techno, which doesn't jarr as you think it should do in a historical film. The script is fast-moving and peppered with modern-day colloquialisms; Merchant Ivory, this is not. There are hilarious parts, disgusting parts, sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat-and-nibble-your-fingernails parts, but the whole thing chugs along and is wonderfully entertaining throughout. This is cheer-in-the-cinema stuff. Unmissable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"** HERE BE SPOILERS **

Recap: Macleane (Miller) witnesses a robbery by Plunkett (Carlyle) that goes wrong. Plunkett's partner get shot (and killed) but not until after he has swallowed a great ruby. Plunkett and Macleane then meet at the cemetery when both try to get hold of the ruby. Unfortunately they are caught as grave robbers and sent to jail, but not until Plunkett has swallowed the ruby. The ruby is their key to freedom, and once they're free, they form a partnership in robbery. Macleane is to pose as a gentleman and find out who is worth robbing, and then simply they rob him (and rob them in style). But Macleane falls in love with the niece\/daughter (?) of their first victim, lady Rebecca Gibson (Tyler). And a Mr Chance (Stott) is out to catch them, and his methods are not very nice...

Comments: A good action flavoured by comedy and adventure. Carlyle and Miller form a good team, with a lot of friction and friendship. And then there is the relationship between Macleane and Rebecca Gibson. The scene with the ball is very good, especially the (anachronistic) use of the music. In addition to these interesting characters Cumming play the best of them all, Lord Rochester. Both the character and the acting are stellar and among the best in the movie. In total, the movie works very well, a nice balance between story and special effects, action and comedy. Very entertaining.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow! I picked this off the rental shelf because I loved Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller in 'Trainspotting.' This is a phenomenal movie; it has action, romance, suspense, intrigue and wit. When I wasn't laughing, I was at the edge of my seat. This is definitely a film I would recommend to people with an appreciation for intelligent dialogue and a fresh perspective of the 18th century. This film has everything to keep ME happy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"... because while I thoroughly enjoyed this film, it seems from other user comments that I'm in the minority. Maybe not one for the philosopher (eek), there are some wonderful scenes here (- particularly the techno), and the great life adventure story originally portrayed. Go see for yourself!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I sat down in the cinema to see this I was expecting to see a sort of stylish tongue-in-cheek action film, which had been implied by the trailers. However, it very quickly became apparent that this film was trying to be more.

Normally, I don't approve of films that try to entertain in as many ways possible. For instance, this film tries to mix action with comedy, romance, lightheartedness and gritty seriousness all at once. Most of the time this sort of approach doesn't work in films (just look at Batman Forever) but I was was pleasantly surprised to see that in this case, they pulled it off.

The end result is a highly entertaining film that should appeal to most mature cinemagoers. (However, the weak of stomach should really be warned of one or two scenes.) Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller pull of a brilliant double act and Ken Stott does a excellent villain. This mixed in with superb costumes and a few decent action scenes makes for a very enjoyable watch.

However, the big let-down here for me is that in having 'The Gentleman Highwayman' there was a real opportunity for some good dialogue but the script was definitely lacking in punchiness and there were few belly laughs. Okay, so the lines weren't terrible but to me it does highlight a problem with recent British films; ignoring a few notable exceptions the screenplays being written today are still relatively mediocre when compared to some of Hollywood's efforts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been waiting since last October to see this film! (it was supposed to come out October '98) and now I've finally seen it I am not disappointed. Bloody marvellous! OK it was a tad slow in the beginning, but once it got going it's a very exciting nail-biting tense Robert Carlyle is so different from either Gaz in 'The Full Monty' and Begbie in 'Trainspotting' ) that it's hard to recognise him! And Johnny Lee Miller, no longer with his Sick Boy from 'Trainspotting' blond hair, plays his dashing gentlemen highway man with the right about of humour and sensitivity that it is easy to see why Liv Tylers Rebecca falls for him. A great film. As Hades in Disney's 'Hercules' would say: \"Two thumbs way way up!!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm amazed that I have a real affection for this one inasmuch as I'm not an action and adventure lover. But hey... It's pretty tough to go wrong with a Robert Carlyle film. I've read several poor or temperate reviews on this film, pulling it apart for it's period errors or unlikely plot development, but no one seems to mention the rather intriguing character transition which features how a hardened, down-on-his-luck scoundrel (Carlyle) transforms into a rather noble, selfless hero and how the pretty-boy, cowardly vagrant (Miller)develops a real taste for the life of a highway man once he \"gets the feel of it.\" Filled with lots of bad-boy humor, lavish scenes (particularly the use of \"fireworks\" by former apothacary Plunkett) and a charmingly ecclectic musical score, Plunkett & Macleane is a fast-paced,highly enjoyable piece of film making. It's certainly worth your viewing time FOR THE CLIMAX SCENE ALONE! Shoot 'em up, boys!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":".. is the Princess Bride meets... well Trainspotting. But wait, really, it's a good combination! This was definitely one of the better movies I've seen in a long time... it has the kind of witty dialog I associate with The Princess Bride or Cemetery man, along with the disgusting scenes of violence of a horror movie... the heroic feel of Princess Bride combined with the (this is odd) lack of any really good guys that Trainspotting had.

I'm not saying it was as GOOD as the Princess Bride, but it was in the arena, and it rocked. Some of the dialog transcends pleasing to brilliant, the plot is interesting, the characters - while SLIGHTLY anacronistic - are anacronistic not due to their intrinsic nature (there WERE flamboyantly gay people in the 18th century, contrary to a previous reviewer's remarks) but just in a bit of the language they used. The anachronisms made it fun, though, and NOT cheesy and easily dismissed.

If you've ever read any Simon R. Green, or Gleen Cook's Garrett series, you know EXACTLY what this movie is. Check it out. It's great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very watchable film, and one which was eagerly awaited having seen the trailer a number of times.

The whole thing looks superb, from the ludicrous efforts of the effete upper class to distance themselves from the mediocrity, to the lower class scum just trying to keep their heads above the filth, the film captures the spirit of the 18th century brilliantly.

Jonny Lee Miller plays Maclean extremely well, though the part does not exactly stretch him, and Robert Carlyle seems a little wasted on Plunkett, Miller's highwayman colleague.

The real star of the show was undoubtedly Ken Stott, who plays Mr Chance (a kind of 1740's chief of police) with an evil glee that set him out from the rest of the cast.

A great film, and anyone that enjoys the colour and style of Peter Greenaway's films will love the look of this, although the thinness of the plot becomes apparent before the 2 hours are up.

Well worth a viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie, without doubt is the best I have seen, and really shows what British talent can do. It's effects are exceedingly good considering the movie is set in the mid 18th Century, and all the grittiness and disgusting filth of England at the time, is captured very well. The character's are developed and fleshed out, from MaCleane's whoring antics to his development into highwayman and exhibitionary 'The Gentleman Highwayman' contrast well with Robert Carlyle, who's cynicism and honour show that you can love a thief and a criminal cos I quote: 'He's got more honour in his little finger, than any of you fat bastards!'

Not referring to you of course! But it has arguably the most stirring and emotionally charged scene ever witnessed in a movie, but you'll just have to see it to find out, suffice to say that it involves rope round your neck.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you liked Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, the chances are you'll like this, too. Although I guess a few of the British in-jokes (like calling two London characters Dixon and Winterburn, after Arsenal soccer players) may be lost on some, this is still cracking entertainment, which veritably pumps with vitality.

Carlyle, Miller and Tyler are all excellent, bringing depth to their characters, and the interplay between the two protagonists is always well-judged. In fact Scott's direction is very assured, considering that this is his first feature film, and proves that he has his father's talent for putting us at ease in unfamiliar surroundings.

Hell, I've convinced myself. I'm gonna see it again!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Normally I hate period films. Living in England is a nightmare at the moment if you have an allergy to period dramas - which I do. However this one is the best. It doesn't take itself seriously and Jonny Lee Miller and Robert Carlyle are great together, Liv Tyler's good as well although her English accent is dodgy!!

The film has everything for someone who just wants to go the cinema to enjoy themselves. It has action, adventure, drama and comedy. I'm not sure how well the jokes will translate across the ocean but hopefully they will. It would be a shame for American audiences to miss out on this film. It shows that English film-makers can produce something that doesn't involve constant swearing and sex. Both do feature in this but in a balanced format. Iain Robertson's camp portrayal of the well to do gentleman is brilliant and the two brothers who are also part of the upper class set are hilarious!

As the trailer for 'The Spy who Shagged Me' is pupported to say....\"If you see one other film\"....this Spring make it Plunkett and Macleane. It's got fun, action lurve and of course, Jonny Lee Miller with an English accent for a change!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I'm not about to add to the diatribe that's been 'preached' about this film.

All I can add is that at NO time does it even pretend to be a 'historic' picture. Unlike 'Braveheart', 'Titanic' or 'The Patriot' all of which have very credible and serious historical amendments, purely for theatric effect (possible the worst of excuses).

Has everyone taken a sense of humor bypass?

All I can add is a paraphrase from the good Captain Macleane - 'It looked

fantastic and we have a bloody good laugh'.

- One last point. What astonishes me is that there are comments relating to the 'modern music' in a historic setting. I wonder if the same people made the same judgment about Moulin Rouge. I suggest not.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen the previews everywhere before deciding to watch it. And what do you know, I actually liked it! It has a new twist of the 18th century england. Although the music in the dance scene were obviously modernized and also the colors of Liv Tyler's clothers (although it IS pretty!), it fit quite perfectly.

If you just want a good time, you should check this out. Very different from other 18th century detailed films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Plunkett and Macleane is a wonderful updating of the swashbuckling tradition, predating Johny Depp and his pirate friends. The tone is lighthearted, with a touch of social commentary, but nothing too heavy. One could almost see Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone in this.

It starts out in low gear, with the introduction of the characters and the establishing of the themes of social inequality and rebellion; but, it kicks into high gear once the boys hit the highways. The robberies are grand and stylish, with romantic touches that are the bread and butter of swashbucklers. The actors are engaging and help elevate the material a bit, which is fairly hollow. There's not much depth to the figures, but they are played with such charm and skill that it doesn't matter.

Muh has been said about the modern music. Period music tended to the more serene, which seems out of place. A classical score with Celtic rhythms for the action pieces could work, but the more modern, rebellious rock and techno music seemed to add an edge to the action. Since the characters are more legend than reality, accuracy in the music seems pointless. The pieces tend to fit the mood of the aired scenes, so it mostly works well. I just wonder how they missed Adam Ant's \"Stand and Deliver.\" Make no mistake, this is not a serious film. It's pure escapism and a wonderful lark. Tony Scott shows some of the visual flair of his father, but I don't think we are going to see many Oscar nods in his career just yet. He seems to understand the material here and pulls off a fine film. With time he may prove to be a name to reckon with. His father took a while to mature beyond visual stylization and become a more rounded director. This is definitely one to watch for an entertaining evening or for a swashbuckling film fest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie almost has everything. The action is cool, it's funny, 2 great leading men and a truly nasty villain that I REALLY hated. Not a lot of films have BAD bad guys. Just mainly comic book villains. He really does deserve a might ass kicking.

Jake Scott really does have his fathers talent for knowing how to make great visuals. The direction is faultless and has an irresistible lighthearted feel. I don't usually like films set in the old days but this I liked a lot because it makes a point of boring like so many other period films are (Sense and Sensibility, Age of Innocence and the absolute worst...Lady and the Duke). This will restore your faith. Thanx mostly to Craig Armstrong's amazing score. The music is both atmospheric and ethereal and in scenes of action it is very exciting.

The DVD is in Dolby 5.1 and has a very grainy and muddy looking 2.35:1 anamorphic picture.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't want to write too much about the film but basically it's an action\/comedy with a little bit of romance thrown in about two men who come together in unlikely circumstances and become highway men together. Fantastic performance by Robert Carlysle and everybody else involved. A brilliant 'baddy' who really makes you hate him. Some great comical lines - actually laugh out loud, amazing action and a great plot. Choice of music and ambiance all fantastic, basically brilliantly directed and brilliants written. I recommend this film to anyone who likes a good British movie or a good bit of action, i don't know why the film never took off, i thought it got no where near as much recognition as it deserved. If for nothing else, watch this film for one of the greatest finale's of all time. Not to give anything away, but this one really get's the heart beating!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I tend to like Historical (period) films and get new ideas for costumes for my historical group, and a friend recommended this one to me. I like Johnny Lee Miller as an actor so I figured it was worth it, and I was definitely rewarded!! His portrayal as a member of the English noble class was by far more accurate than I've seen in the past. The comedy aspect of it left my sides hurting, the costumes weren't awful, and historically, I didn't wince too much. I also noticed the fact that England didn't have a proper sewage system until much later, but anyone who dose not go deep into the minutae of England's past won't notice nor care. Absolutely worth seeing. I highly recommend this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Plunkett & Macleane falls into my favourite genre of film (historical action adventure with comedy) which is probably why I rate it so highly.

The action centres around a highwayman (Plunkett) and a layabout 'gentleman' who gets entangled with him and his schemes (Macleane). This leads to all sorts of escapades and adventures which are all tinged with comedy. There is also, of course, a love interest.

The rest of the cast is made up of a number of vibrant, larger than life characters who add to the atmosphere of the film and show the excesses of the wealthy at this time.

This is an enjoyable film with a fairly simple but worthwhile plot that provides plenty of entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I went to the video rental store, back in the days when DVD was yet next to unknown to me, I had seen all the movies at the store that I was interested in. Or so I thought! The man behind the counter told me he had something for me that I definitely would like. He gave me \"Plunkett and MacLeane\". At first, I doubted it to be any good, but I trusted his advise and... man, I sure am happy I did take this jewel along! This is one of the best adventure movies in years, if you ask me! Of course, with Robert Carlyle as a major part, how bad can a movie get? Surely, Liv Tyler does once more what she's good at and nothing much more: being pretty. But still, you can very clearly sense that the cast apparently had a lot of fun, making this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I adore this film. The chemistry between the two leads Miller and Carlisle is amazing, they spark so well off of each other, creating an unlikely comedy Duo. Alan Cumming is hilarious, his enthusiasm for the role is clearly evident as he camps it up. The acting is superb and it is a genuinely amusing and touching film. Not the greatest film ever made, I'll admit, but it is a huge amount of fun, and I would recommend to those who enjoy other gritty Brit flicks. Includes some of the best British actors, including Michael Gambon so you can't go far wrong. Look out for cameos from David Walliams and Matt Lucas of Little Britain and Rock: Profile fame.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has to be my favourite film. The script is sharp and played to the limit by an excellent Miller and fantastic Carlisle! Sharp wit, excellent narrative and no Hollywood polishing; a totally immersible film which has you gunning for the bad guys! Stott excels again as the detestable Chance, while Liv Tyler truly beats her other, lighter performances as the excitement-hungry Rebecca! The soundtrack may not be known to you by name, but anyone who has ever seen Top Gear, watched the football or seen any TV action sequence is probably familiar with it, particularly due to Craig Armstrong's, 'Escape' which must allow him never to work again! The soundtrack on first play may seem out of place in a costume drama\/action\/comedy, but one re-watching shows it is perfectly at home in giving the the script it's drama.

My one gripe about this film is that it isn't shown enough on TV! Where is it? Truly excellent, sharp and classy - you'll not regret watching it - again and again! (exits to switch on DVD player!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is great. Stylish, fun, good acting. I'd seen it described variously as 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Muskets' and 'Reservoir Fops', both of which are excellent descriptions. The plot is simple, but it does not detract from the enjoyment. Carlyle is a brilliant ruffian and Miller is an excellent drunken gentleman. The sets and costumes are stunning, and the music and camerawork are refleshingly unusual for a 'costume drama'. Sense and Sensibility it definitely is not!!!!! My recommendation? Go see it, sit back with a huge tub of popcorn and have a damn good time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robert Carlyle excels again. The period was captured well and the soundtrack, although hearing modern techno in this period piece was a little disconcerting at first, proved to be very well chosen.

Well worth a watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Plunkett and Macleane is an entertaining, fast-paced and refreshing film. Refreshing because, unlike most other period films, it does not strive to give the audience a history lesson or preach pompously - indeed, historical accuracy is all but ignored. This film does not take itself too seriously, and seeks to entertain rather than enlighten. Plunkett and Macleane is set in the 18th century, yet director Jake Scott offers a thoroughly 90s take. There's action, sex and swearing aplenty, and in the inevitable ball scene the aristocracy dance to disco beats. Jonny Lee Miller and Robert Carlyle are brilliant as always, and the rest of the cast, especially Alan Cumming as a flirtatious fop, are also highly entertaining. The film is visually spectacular in places, and is a mixture of comedy, action and drama, with a love interest provided by Liv Tyler with a shaky english accent. In short, if you're looking for an entertaining couple of hours, this is the film for you. It won't make you think, but it could well put a smile on your face.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So it might not be entirely historically accurate. And there is little or no real character development. But for Jake (son of Ridley) Scott's first attempt, it's well worth the ticket price.

Captain James MaCleane (Jonny Lee Miller looking as good as ever) may be a gentleman, but he hasn't got the money or the clothes to prove it. Plunkett (Robert Carlyle with all his clothes on) is an apothecary-turned-outlaw. The circumstances of their strange meeting involve a dead body, a ruby, and eventually a partnership as the Gentlemen Highwaymen. As the tag line says, \"they rob the rich... and that's it.\" There isn't really much background, or even in-depth development, but the object seems to be to relieve the aristocracy of enough money and jewels to pay for the two Highwaymen's passage to America. One small problem: MaCleane falls in love. With the Chief Justice's ward, Rebecca (Liv Tyler). Who happens to also have caught the eye of the Thief Taker General.

The plot is original enough, the casting is excellent (especially Alan Cumming as the drag-queenish Lord Rochester, Carlyle and Miller--also together in \"Trainspotting,\" they haven't lost their dynamic), the costuming is fantastic, the makeup is outrageous, and the music is hard-edged techno with a strangely classical undertone. Jake Scott has an eye for light and shadow, a good sense of balance between spectacle and plot, and he isn't squeamish about showing the more unpleasant side of 17th century London. And lucky for us, he likes close-ups of faces, especially eyes. Jonny Lee Miller's eyes. And Liv Tyler's, too, but hey, who is this movie about? Rebecca? No. Plunkett and MaCleane. But there's more to this movie than just pretty faces. At the risk of sounding cliche, it's a fast, furious, and sometimes frustrating ride with the most noble highwaymen since Robin Hood. Decadent, sleazy, and violent, Scott's debut film makes for an entertaining evening at the movies.

As MaCleane says, \"I was terrific, and it was a bloody good laugh!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anyone who has seen the trailer for this film would be forgiven for thinking this film is an out and out comedy. In actual fact it's a light-hearted, though not overly funny, romp about a couple of highwaymen.

There are numerous faults in the film. The script and plot are weak and the love aspect of the story is strangely dull. Yet despite all this it is quite enjoyable, thanks largely to the two leads Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller. These two fine actors, Carlyle in particular, are always good to watch and here there exists a good chemistry between them.

Director Jake Scott is the next generation of the family whose brothers, Ridley and Tony, have given us films such as Alien, Blade Runner, True Romance and more recently G.I. Jane and Enemy of The State. His debut is directed with energy and enthusiasm, which keeps the film fizzling along, although without the strong cast he assembled the results might not have worked as well.

In short if you're looking for an easy enjoyable film to pass an hour and a half then you could do a lot worse than Plunkett and Macleane. If on the other hand you fancy something subtle, historically accurate and thought provoking, go elsewhere. 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Made the same year as the first Lumiere films, this is a much more dramatic short than the brothers attempted until the following year's 'Niagara'. The surviving print is very rough, but this only adds to the Turneresque visual violence, as huge surges of water dash against a stolid pier, and seem ready to engulf the camera, the viewer.

If you watch a number of these early shorts in chronological order, and try to get into the mindset of the times, there is a further shock in that, unlike the single frame set-ups of the Lumieres, this film features an edit, which for me at any rate, was as slashing as the razor blade in 'Un Chien Andoulu).

Unlike the mono-vision of the Lumieres' films, Paul opens up the possibility of multiple perspectives, freeing the viewer from the power of nature, eluding its grasp in a way the Lumieres never could. The second shot features a similar gush to that of Niagara, but is less frightening because, by way of the edit, we have sidestepped the danger. In a film like 'L'Arroseur Arrosse' or 'Repas du bebe', nature stands indifferent and powerful, uncontainable by the camera. Basic film grammar puts an end to its supremacy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I give this a 10 out of 10, not because the plot was hard to uncover because it wasn't... but because it leaves one caring for the characters. The acting, by all the cast, is superb, especially Joan Hickson, and it's a marvellous episode because of it's heart.

Miss Marple is called upon by Jason Rafiel's dying request to investigate, and solve, a murder that happened some seven or eight years previously, and she has to discover who, why and when as she goes along. Mr Rafiel is the same Rafiel as was in A Caribbean Mystery and so there is a sense of a connection here.

Nemesis is definitely one for the amateur psychologists among us, and if you are one of those who is only happy with lots of blood, guts and rip-roaring action sequences, then you won't like it. But if you are like me, one who loves knowing about PEOPLE and discovering what makes them tick, then Nemesis is the one for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have waited for ages to comment on this programme, and felt it was about time some justice was done to it. This is one of Christie's darker, more sinister and engaging works, not simply someone being killed for money, this is a dark and thoroughly engaging tale of mystery, intrigue, love and murder, made all the better by the amendments made by the adaptor. The level of acting is utterly superb, Joan Hickson is sublime in the part, as always! The rest of the cast, including the likes of Liz Fraser, Anna Cropper and Helen Cherry all perform beautifully, but it's my opinion that the show is stolen by Margaret Tyzack, the closing scene between her and Joan Hickson is simply magical, the acting is as good as it gets, chilling, moving and totally brilliant.

Please let me know if you agree with my words. I am seriously looking forward to the remake to see how well Geraldine McEwan's version is. Watch and enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As always Joan Hickson is wonderful as Jane M. Subtle, sharp and aware. I do not wish to dwell on her acting skills as they are praised enough on this site. I would like to criticize some of the smaller parts as the rest of the cast seemed to be hand picked by director David Tucker.

Liz Fraser's performance as Mrs. Bent (the mother of the missing girl Nora) is a joy to watch. Subtle and deeply moving as the alcohol-depending grieving mother who loves and misses her daughter desperately. A good long shot of her monologue (thanks Tucker!) so she can be enjoyed to the fullest. I was moved when I saw her the first time when it was broadcast and I am moved again, now I have it on DVD. Brava.

Joanna Hole as Madge the tour-guide I find highly amusing. She is on the edge of over-acting but her role can have it. She is SO funny as the over-organized guide who wants to do good with everyone on that bus, I find her hilarious. Her reaction after she boarded every-one on the bus is great... As always: to perform comedy one has to take it very seriously, and that's what Ms Hole does.

I do hope those two ladies have good careers (as I live in Holland I do not know if they have, not all theater productions can be googled...) -their performances on the screen deserve it.

Pieter","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I totally agree with the other poster. NEMESIS is one of the best of the Christie adaptations with a superlative plot and cast.

The scene involving Liz Fraser as the mother of the murder victim is a study in acting at the finest level. This underrated woman was a fave in Brit films in the 1960s who never got a mainstream break in US films. Check her out as Julie Andrews's friend in the 1964 THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY.

All of the perfs in this prod have a chance to shine with and without the peerless Ms. Hickson who was never nommed for an Emmy for her Marple work. Shame on them! And dig the lesbian CID agents! :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Nemesis' was the last book to feature Miss Marple written by Agatha Christie (the official final case 'Sleeping Murder' was written in the forties) and I've always had a very soft spot for it. I loved the characters and they are lovingly brought to life in this excellent BBC adaptation with Joan Hickson, terrific as ever, as Miss Marple.

On the whole it is very faithful to the book. A few characters are dropped, the first (new) murder is slightly different and a couple of new characters are introduced. Personally I felt that the added character of Lionel Peel was unnecessary and rather irritating. Tour guide Madge was irritating in a different way but often quite amusing. It's largely because of Lionel that I don't award 10 out of 10! The other characters are beautifully done especially Helen Cherry as a dignified Miss Temple and all of the three weird sisters but particularly Margaret Tyzack who gives a towering performance as Clothilde. She threatens to go over the top towards the end but just avoids it. The female bodyguards are good value too and the episode contains one of my favourite Hickson lines...'An Archdeacon?!'

This is another relatively early BBC Marple that looks wonderful and is has a gloriously nostalgic feel to it. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While not quite as good as A Murder is Announced, which was not only delightful but almost surpassed the book, this is an excellent adaptation. And you know what, it is a huge improvement on the Geraldine McEwan version. Now I don't take pride in bad mouthing the Geraldine McEwan adaptations, two or three of them were surprisingly good, but others started off well but ruined by either a poor script, a confusing final solution or both. The Geraldine McEwan version suffered from a plodding pace, and both of the above problems, and I would consider second worst of the ITV adaptations, worst being Sittaford Mystery, which even on its own merits turned out dull and confusing. This adaptation of the book Nemesis is a huge improvement, it not only respects the book, despite a few liberties, but it pretty much rectifies the problems the ITV version had. Despite the added character of Lionel coming across as rather irritating, more to do with how he was written than how he was acted, and one or two moments of sluggish pacing, this is solid as an adaptation of a decent book. It is beautifully filmed, with nice photography and period detail, and the music as always is excellent. The performances are wonderful this time around, and make the most of an in general well-done script, with Joan Hickson brilliant as always as Miss Marple, and solid turns from Liz Fraser, Helen Cherry, Joanna Hole and Anna Cropper. Margaret Tyzack is outstanding though in a chilling and moving performance as Clothilde. Overall, well worth watching, better than the recent version in pretty much all departments. 9\/10 Bethany Cox","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What often gets overlooked in Agatha Christie's stories is her progressive, anti-conservative attitude on a number of issues - from the role of women to the effects of tradition to people's belief in the supernatural. In \"Nemesis\", you can spot a lot of those subtexts - but you can also find a good old-fashioned intriguing mystery that keeps you in the dark for most of its length. Also lifting \"Nemesis\" above other series entries (\"They Do It With Mirrors\", \"4:50 From Paddington\", etc.), is the fact that in the crucial moments before and after the revelation of the killer you can actually feel the suspense. And finally, Jane Booker is welcome to guard my body any time. (***)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very bizarre bringing to the screen of William Shakespeare's tragic love story.

The Que family and the Capulet family have a long running hatred of one another which often results in violence. The hatred has something to do with a film company and the fact that everyone is pretty much crazy. In the middle of all of this insanity are Tromeo and Juliet, literature's most famous \"star crossed\" lovers that fall for each other at first sight and problems arise when they realize whose family the other belongs to.

The film follows the basic plot of the original play remarkably well and key scenes even use the original, or close to original, lines. But the infamous Troma bizarreness pervades the film from beginning to end. That makes for a movie that is definitely not for all tastes, but it is nonetheless pretty inventive. Tyrone (Tybalt in Shakespeare) has a particularly funny death scene. 7\/10

Many differently edited and rated versions exist. Each contains violence, profanity, drug use, and sex, all with a big dose of bizarreness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is truly unique. It really captures the spirit of the play, but makes it entertaining to the modern generation. The romance between Tromeo and Juliet was believable, and erotic, not pulled off by many adaptations. It is also so funny I was almost crying with laughter.

Like with most Troma its in your face, taboo subjects, gore and sex, and yet add in some really good acting and a Shakespeare plot. You really have to see this movie to believe it!

There are some hillarious jokes in the credits (best credits I've seen since Hot Shots) loads of Troma in jokes as well as general satire and shakespeare refs. And Lemmy from the house of Motorhead narrates. I lent this movie to a friend and had an almost impossible job of getting it back. Troma at its best, this film really is a gem, and goes in my top 5 favourite movies of all time.

Though its not the sort of film you'd watch with your mum, and might offend some people. For anybody bored with run of the mill cinema, with a wacky sense of humour you MUST SEE THIS FILM.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes!! They finally got it down to perfection. What a great idea, a refreshing exploitation epic for Generation-X, whether they know it or not. After disasters like Sgt. Kabukiman NYPD, and getting screwed by Blockbuster, our hero, Lloyd Kaufman just decided to go for it, stop catering to distributors, and let Troma be all the Troma it can be. Lloyd would make this one the most unapologetic, outlandish and downright hilarious Troma movie yet. This time, Lloyd takes Shakespeare's love story, turns it inside out, Tromatizes it, and adds that long, lost, entertainment value it was always lacking. Entertainment value, such as Lemmy Kilmister (the narrator), Debbie Rochon (the cook), Joe Fleishaker (the fat guy), and of course, brutal mutilations and toilet humor. Tromeo And Juliet is the definitive edition of a rather lackluster story, and the crown jewel of the Troma universe.

Years ago, in Tromaville, N.J. business partners, Monty Que and Cap Capulet start a film company called Silky Films, which would produce supposedly tasteful, soft core films. Monty considers Cap his friend, but Cap is out to screw the poor sucker out of his share of the company. On paper, and in books, it appears that Monty gave away his life's work for free. Fast forward to mid-90's Manhattan, we have two families who are extremely displeased with one another, it's to the point that they're just looking for a reason to take a limb, or preferably, a life. Monty has a son, Tromeo, nephew, Benny, they, with their friend, Murray Martini, who's just a little too excited about all the carnage, wage war on the incestuous Capulets, except Monty, he's too drunk to care. Like in the original, there is a confusing situation, leading to Tromeo falling for Cap's daughter, who he has never met, or never even knew about. Unfortunately, Cap is a sadistic pervert, who, not unlike Tromeo's dad, has a thing for the bottle, and this would of course, lead to daddy's little chenshaw melon being physically, and emotionally abused, and molested, and kept in a Plexiglas cage, off and on, depending on how foul of a mood Cap is in. Cap is also forcing his vegetarian daughter to marry London Arbuckle, a billionaire butcher, who, would make just about anyone uneasy, with or without the raisin loaf. With all these inconveniences, the young lovers feel that eloping would be the best decision, but how will this effect the big feud? It might, or might not, go a little something like the original, but figuring out how this one ends up is just simply not going to happen, you'll never see it coming.

\"The one with Leo\" is downright sleep-inducing compared to Tromeo & Juliet, but if watered-down, over-directed, big-budget, Hollywood, Garbage is what you've been programmed to go for, then by all means, go for it, but if you're in the mood for something a little more colorful, something that really packs a punch, and doesn't follow the \"normal\" movie pattern, and if you happen to have a rather abnormal sense of humor, then you just might not hate this movie. Tromeo And Juliet gives the finger to all that is mainstream. Full-blast exploitation with as much mean-spirited humor as anything from a young John Waters. Along with some badass acting, Tromeo And Juliet flaunts a thunderous score which includes the legendary Motorhead, and not to mention, much input from James Gunn, that really brought this one together. For more awesomeness from James Gunn, check out Lollilove, and for more excellence from Lloyd Kaufman, check out his next vision, Terror Firmer. Tromeo And Juliet is jaw-droppingly priceless Exploitation for the 90's brought to us by the one, and only, king of the B-movies. Thank's, Lloyd. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tromeo and Juliet (1996) is another jewel in the Troma Studios film archives. Like The Toxic Avenger, Troma's War, Class of Nuke 'em High, Terror Firmer and Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D. this film is an instant Troma classic. James Gunn updates Romeo and Juliet taking a medieval tragedy and reinvision's it as a modern day street punk drama. If you have seen or read the play before nothing much has change except it has been \"tromatized\".

Lloyd Kaufman adds his own twisted vision to the screenplay and makes it highly enjoyable film. The actors handle the script very well. I was surprised by how well they performed the dialog, a lot better than some Hollywood big budgeted actors utilizing a monstrous budget and expensive sets. I enjoyed this movie very much. Lloyd Kaufman doesn't disappoint because you know what to expect from his films and other Troma productions. I would rather watch one of his films and be entertained than watch an boring expensive movie with pampered over paid actors, lame scripts, lazy directors and those awful C.G.I. special effects.

I highly recommend this movie. If you like fun films with cheesy special effects, over the top acting and inspired directing, then this movie's just for you!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This trash version of `Romeo and Juliet' passes in Manhattan in the present days. Romeo (Will Keenan) is an a**hole and violent member of family Que, and Juliet (Jane Jensen) is a sexy (with beautiful legs and breasts) and bisexual girl of Capulet family. The scatological situations this romantic pair will face are very funny. Although being a cult movie (inclusive exhibited in Rio de Janeiro Festival), it is not recommended for all the audiences. If the viewer is fan of Peter Jackson's former movies (`Braindead', `Bad Taste'), `Toxic Avenger', `Body Melt' and other trash movie, he will certainly love this flick. Otherwise, he will hate it. Since I belong to the first group, my vote is eight.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the best movie I've ever seen. And I've seen a lot. I'm not even a Troma fan. I've never heard of Troma before watching this movie.

I had already given up hope to see a great movie until I saw \"Tromeo and Juliet\". This movie is a dream coming true. Shakespeare would likely be proud of this modern adaptation of his classic. There are sex, violence, humor and satire. It breaks many taboos.

This movie is neither disgusting nor stupid. It's hard to describe with words how clever, funny, exciting and witty this movie is. The music is great and perfectly fits every scene. The characters are very believable and the acting is great. I really cared for the characters.

It is certainly not for Troma's fans only. It's for all people who have a sense of humor and like clever and believable entertainment as opposed to totally stupid and unbelievable mainstream movies that don't dare to do what this movie does.

The bad reviews only prove that this movie is great and something exceptional. You either love it or hate it. Like all true works of art it isn't understood and appreciated by all people.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is really sick, and funny. I have made my friends cringe describing it to them. I saw it about 8 months ago, and I still have the song 'Shall we Gather at the River' echoing through my head.

So basically, it is a Tromatized Romeo and Juliet, but it goes beyond what you would expect. Let's just say incest, references to child molestation, gore (of course), but unfortunately, has a sort of happy ending...sort of...it's more weird than happy. Cappy Capulet was brilliant! He has this sort of intellectual snobbish tone, he's abusive, but civilised. He quotes more Shakespeare than anyone else in the film...all while engaging in his sadistic role as a husband and father.

The meat guy was pretty cool too. He was Juliet's fianc\u00e9, deeply infatuated with her, and soon to be heartbroken because of Tromeo. And Tromeo, a true romantic. He's a handsome, really sweet guy, desperate to find true love. 'She doth make torches to burn brightly!' Unfortunately, Troma just had to resort to that awful fake green vomit and their other antics. They really get carried away with that stuff sometimes. But hey, this film made a great impression on me. How often do I refer to it in real life situations...wow that's pathetic.

Anyway, enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once upon a time, Troma, the company that brought us cinema classics such as: The Toxic Avenger, Rabid Grannies, Poultrygeist, Redneck Zombies and Surf Nazis Must Die, decided long ago to adapt Shakespeare's famous play, 'Romeo and Juliet.' This adaptation decided to spice up the story by adding kinky sex, extreme violence, genital monsters, body piercing and incest and it succeeded in creating a bizarre yet hilarious film. Anyone going into a Troma production should know what to expect, and that is irreverent and perverse comedy with plenty of political incorrectness. Expect plenty of nods to other Troma films and plenty of re-used gags (flipping cars and head squashing). Many may think it sounds like utter crap that only morons would find funny...they may be right, but at the same time they may need to lighten up and enjoy the insanity and mind-numbingness that is Tromeo and Juliet.

With a great cast, a funny script (by James Gunn and Lloyd Kaufman), a fitting soundtrack and plenty of great visual gags, Kaufman has yet again succeeded in turning what is right upside down and grossing the hell out of everyone. Get some popcorn, grab a beer, invite your friends over and enjoy Tromeo and Juliet for what it is, a Shakespeare adaptation with plenty of balls. The end.

4\/5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This outlandish Troma movie is actually a very good movie. It is known as their epic and best and most highly rated production. Their version of Shakespeare's play is extremely funny with the usual dose of Troma nudity and gore. Troma has made some very good gore films, one of my favorites is \"Street Trash\" and of course the Toxic Avenger movies. I have one Troma movie, \"Terror Firmer\", which has a reputation as their goriest and nastiest movie. I enjoyed \"Tromeo and Juliet\" so much, that I need to finally watch \"Terror Firmer\". This is a 2-disc Collector's version with four commentaries and many many features. \"Tromeo and Juliet\" is an absolute hoot and highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"TROMEO & JULIET - 10TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION

William Shakespeare's play Romeo & Juliet has been interpreted hundreds of times on stage and in films. Sometimes literally following the original text (which is, at times, vague in stage directions), sometimes in new interpretations where directors chose to show their own view on the piece. Some are good, many are mediocre. Lloyd Kaufman's film certainly stands out as one of the most original, modern versions of the bard's creation, It may be placed in a modern-day decaying New York and full of the modern-day anti-social behavior, body piercing, dismemberment and kinky sex (which, for the more than casual reader, Shakespeare himself wasn't shying away from), but at the same time it stays incredibly close to the overall feel and point of what the play is all about, which is quite an effort. Kaufman wrote the script with his co-director on the film James Gunn, who is now famous for writing two successful Scooby Doo movies, doing the impossible by making a perfect remake of an already perfect film with his script for Dawn of the Dead and directing one of the best horror-films of the year: Slither. Lloyd Kaufmans innovative directorial view alongside with James Gunns original and unrestricted writing make for an interpretation of Shakespeare's play that maybe not everyone will \"get\" immediately, but will certainly be recognized by a truly unique and highly important view on a classic play. With a script that is written entirely in iambic meter, appearances of Motorhead's Lemmy and an outrageous forceful soundtrack watching Tromeo & Juliet is something no one will ever forget. Apart from it's historical significance, Tromeo & Juliet is a treasure for film-lovers of all kind. Not only for the script by James Gunn, now a good influence on Hollywood while working from the inside, but also because it features an early part of legendary actress Debbie Rochon. Well known by everyone familiar with films that are made on lower budgets. The 10th anniversary edition on DVD adds to all that by including so many as-yet undiscovered gems that not only all the information one could wish for about the film itself and the experience of making it is presented in ways that make it impossible to turn off the DVD, but also a very honest (and disturbing) look is given into the ways independent cinema has to surviver these days. In many ways the extra's on the disc are an invaluable addition to the already impressive amount given on Kaufman's film-school \"Make Your Own Damn Movie\". Furtermore historical items from the Troma vaults which include James Gunn, Debbie Rochon and all other contributors to this masterpiece are included, and the film itself is, apart from looking better then ever, accompanied by no less than four audio-commentaries, each and everyone informative, excruciatingly funny and all done for serious addition to the film instead of the boring and nonsensical commentaries that are so common these days. There are new commentaries (one with Kaufman and Gunn together), but also the one James Gunn did for the original release of the DVD but couldn't be included there for some of honesty he displays about some other people is present on this disc. With fan-recreations of a few of the scenes from the film, a video diary of Lloyd Kaufman's visit to the set of James Gunn's Slither and a visit the two brought together to Eli Roth's Hostel Birthday party and much more, this is the ultimate set everyone must own. Weather you are a film historian, someone interested in interpretations of the great Bard's work, a fan of great cinema, a fighter for independent cinema, a fan of James Gunn, interested in learning more on making films on a low budget, a fan of Lloyd Kaufman or whatever: this is the most important DVD-release of this millennium!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the seedy streets somewhere in New York City, a lonely punk named Tromeo ( Will Keenan) has little friends but all they ever do is get tattoos, piercing and just party all the time. He does fall for a beautiful rich girl named Juliet ( Jane Jenson) whom is also troubled as her father is being quite an abusive son of a you know what, but as our title characters meet and fall for each other things start becoming quite magical for them. Unfortunately their fathers are at each other as Juliet's dad wants to take over Tromeo's dad's movie studio, but could love really conquer them all and stop this feud?

Hilarious and gross horror comedy drama satire from the wacky and disgusting people at Troma is a wonderful modern day take on William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. This was released in theaters in 1997 and got some good reviews for this is a dark humored satire of the legendary story that started it all, it's got some good laughs, piercing, graphic violence and gore such as a head being smashed on a fire hydrant. For me this is the third best Troma movie next to the immortal \"Toxic Avenger\" and \"Troma's War\" being second, yes the acting can be a little bad like some Troma flicks but the stuff above makes it up for that and this is a must see movie if you like horror comedies, Peter Jackson, and Troma or if you wanna see a comical version of a beloved story, BTW also look for a couple of amusing appearances by The Toxic Avenger and SGT. Kabukiman NYPD.

Also recommended: \"The Toxic Avenger\", \"Meet The Feebles\", \"Ichi The Killer\", \" Re-Animator\", \"Terror Firmer\", \"Class of Nuke'Em High\", \"Romeo and Juliet ( 1968 and 1996)\", \" Pieces\", \" Troma's War\", \" Citizen Toxie: The Toxic Avenger 4\", \"Basket Case\", \" Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky\", \" Demons\", \"New Nightmare\", \" Freddy Vs. Jason\", \" Cabin Fever\", \"Nightmare on Elm Street\", \" Battle Royale\", \" Pink Flamingos\", \" Perfect Blue\", \" Rabid Grannies\", \"Surf Nazis Must Die\", \" Hostel\", \" Evil Dead II\", \"Serial Mom\", \" Dead Alive ( a.k.a. Braindead)\", \" Street Trash\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow, this movie is amazing. It is such an excellent film. Has some sick scenes (not nearly as sick as Terror Firmer or Citizen Toxie) some nudity, and this was the penis monster's debut on film! This has set the scene for many of Troma's movies, this is a very Tromatic film. It mixes comedy, romance, and my favorite, HORROR\/GORE! Not that much gore in this flick, but enough to satisfy. This is the best adaption of Shakespeare's Romeo And Juliet. Much better than any other version. THey make it so entertaining, and fun to watch. And we have Debbie Rochon...hehe...I like her. :) All I have to say is this is a great film, very funny, and Lemmy is a good host for it. The acting is good, and Kaufman directs stylishly as always. Must see for all TROMA FANS!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ah man this movie was funny as hell, yet strange. i like how they kept the shakespearian language in this movie, it just felt ironic because of how idiotic the movie really was. this movie has got to be one of troma's best movies. highly recommended for some senseless fun!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Who else other than Troma can take the classic tragedy and change it around to todays standards???? No one....in my opinion the Leonardo DiCaprio one sucked. Tromeon & juliet is a definite stretch from the original Shakesperan tragedy, but it holds up well. Its sick, demented, twisted, but yet insanely funny and fulfilling. For the most part it follows the true Romeo and Juliet story, but many Troma elements are added. Will Keenan gives a great performance as Tromeo. The acting is solid and the story is great. Many people look past these movies, not only the Kaufman Troma movies, but all the ones they distribute. Sure Troma movies are an acquired taste, but you need to see some of these. It is renegade filmmaking at it's best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i L-O-V-E this movie... everyone and their grandmother's sister's lawyer's dentist needs to own it! its witty, devilish, thrilling, comedic, and full of toasty action-packed goodness! with this movie, those amazing people at troma offer you a whole new perspective into the story of romeo and juliet in ways you never would have thought to be possible! it has all the makings of an instant classic-- car crashes, deliciously lewd sex scenes, feuding families, street fights, amazing music, severed heads, and lemmy from mot\u00f6rhead narrates the story line! and thats only a taste of what it has to offer! every single person i have watched this movie with now owns their own copy or longs to... A+++++ and ++","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tromeo and Juliet is perhaps the best Shakespeare modernization I have ever seen, not that there's much competition, but anyway...

All in all, Tromeo and Juliet is definitely one of Troma's better movies, one of the little pearls hidden in a towering heap of dung. It's a funny, action-packed, gory take on the world's greatest love story, but still manages to follow the original story as faithfully as one can except from this kind of movie. Well, except for the ending, where Tromeo and Juliet kill Juliet's abusive father, and live happily together in a sunny suburban area for the rest of their lives with their hideously mutated children.

THIS is the movie high school literature classes should show instead of making poor students read through hundreds and hundreds of pages of Shakespeare's scripts. Thumbs up!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ROMEO AND JULIET had been interpreted in so many ways, but very few of the versions captured the essance of the play. The ony ones I can think of that really nail the romance's spirit were WEST SIDE STORY and, beleive it or not, Troma Film's TROMEO AND JULIET. At first glance, this is another mere splatterfest, and many would think it bastardizes the Shakespearian classic. However, the film has an honest feel about it. Updated to appeal to the sick-minded youth of today, of course, but not without merit. Yes, the frequent dismemberments, body piercings, car crashes, lesbian sex scenes, masturbation and incest are in bad taste, but what's the harm when you have such a sweet love story as the foundation? As bad as most of the acting in this film is (I mean, it IS Troma, after all), the two leads have some genuine chemistry, more so than in big-budget monstrosities TITANIC and STAR WARS EPISODE TWO. There's a great deal of modernization, but much of the original text is in tact, especially when Tromeo and Juliet are together. There's a great scene where Juliet utters the famous, \"Parting is such sweet sorrow,\" and tromeo quickly follows, in mid-nineties grunge fashion, \"Yeah, it totally sucks.\" I think it's truly unfortunate that this film isn't going to get the recognition or the wide release that it deserves. I hop that people who see this on the video store shelves won't be turned off by the grossmess in the movie, because they'd be missing out on quite a subversive expereience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the more interesting films I've seen. Lord Montague is

black, Lord Capulet is in charge of the porn industry that was

handed down to him by Montague, not to mention the dismemberment of fingers, the squishing of heads, etc. etc.

Another Troma hit, this beats the Toxic Avenger. This is by far my

favorite Troma flick... And there's a priest who fights like Bruce Lee. Nothing can beat

that. -Joefro","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a absolute masterpiece!, 'Tromeo and Juliet' has all the Kinky Sex, Car Crashes, Mutations and a Penis Monster that Shakespeare always wanted but never got! This is Shakespeares classic retold, Troma Style! Tromeo and Juliet is about two rival familys named; the Que's and the Capulet's, non of the familys ever got along ever since Cappy Capulet (Juliet's father) screwed Monty Que (Tromeo's father) in the filmmaking business. Two rival familys grow apart, until Tromeo and Juliet find true love together and when each side hear of this..blood shed is the least that happens!..Yes! Tromeo and Juliet is the Troma classic adored by fans world wide! Witness Harry Balls (The Penis Monster) first feature film! and also has Lemmy's first Troma appearance...what are you waiting for?? Now go out and rent the movie!!

10\/10

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't think the world was ready for this film. I know I wasn't. I'd been expected a standard low-budget schlock exploitation potboiler. Instead, I got the most intelligent reworking of Shakespeare since Peter Greenaway's \"Prospero's Books\". This should become the definitive film version of Romeo And Juliet. It won't of course. But that's the world's loss.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can i say about Tromeo and Juliet, other than if you like twisted Troma machinations, then you MUST see this movie! This is my absolute favorite Troma flick, and i have seen almost all of them! Penis monsters, cecsarian births to live rats and popcorn, lesbianism, steamy sex scenes in plexiglass boxes, incest, nipple piercing, dismemberment, shameless Troma plugs, and computer masturbation...How can one go wrong? It amazingly follows the original story very closely. YOU MUST SEE THIS MOVIE!!!! OH, and speaking of shameless plugs...Check out Jane Jensen's \"Comic Book Whore\" CD on Interscope records. It is awesome!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a brilliant retelling of Shakespeare's classic love story, complete with \"kinky sex, body piercing, and dismemberment\". It does follow the same spirit as all the other Troma movies [except Combat Shock...That sucker was depressing] but it's not only for Troma fans. Anybody who appreciates lowbrow visuals and a hilarious script will without a doubt fall in love with this movie.

Don't expect pretentious, artistic-wannabe crap like the version of R&J with Claire Danes and Leo DiCaprio; this one knows its a silly movie and draws its humor from that. The acting is also surprisingly good, and you can just feel Sammy Capulet's pain as he tries to put his brain back into his head.

The soundtrack, which contains many original and high-energy bands like The Wesley Willis Fiasco, Supernova, and The Meatmen is also four-star. This movie should be viewed by all, because it remains faithful to the original story while still being jam-packed with Troma's trademark gore\/sex humor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found it real shocking at first to see William Shakespeare's love masterpiece reworked into a gory, violent and kinky sensual movie adaptation. But after you watched it once, it sort of grows on you when you watch it the second and third times, as you come over the shock and start appreciating the movie on its own merits - solid acting, good dialogue, nice sequencing and choreography, not-too-bad soundtrack and some of the (special) effects that go on. Oh, and also the ending. What a riot!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is amazing. It is funny, sexy, violent and sick, but it all holds together for a brilliant Troma rendition of Romeo and Juliet. If you don't mind being grossed out a bit (ok a lot, but it's funny grossed out), see this movie. It's worth it!There's not one level on which it doesn't deliver. I've seen it thrice now, and it is still amazing. I recommend it. Go! Get it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the best movie ever has seen on \"Germen's Cine Club\" (Buenos Aires) This movie is a realistic critic of the society of the past and the next century. It cause a very good impression to all the partners of \"Germen's Cine Club\". I recommend this movie to all the fans of Troma and to all the people who like the good movies, not the commercial movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think it was Fran\u00e7ois Truffaut who said that the best movies either involve the joy of making movies, or the agony of making movies. This flick is definitely of the first type. Tromeo and Juliet is a pleasure to watch from start to finish. The zany zeal fuelling this Shakespearian shenanigan is infective. I don't think I've laughed so hard since I saw Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It's that good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Superb! Even the Author was laughing at the end. And what a \"balcony\" scene! This film has it all. Wickedly funny and yet strangely faithful to the Bard of Avon. (But NOT for the Faint of Heart!) AND... the Best Credits since Monty Python and The Holy Grail! I am \"Troma\"Tized!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"These guys combine low-brow with low-budget. It's glorious.

Look- if you want Bergman, rent \"7th Seal\" or something. If you want to see gross-out humor and exploitation sex, this is the one.

I think Jane Jensen as Julia makes it all watchable. She can actually act (really well), she's a complete dreamboat, and she doesn't seem to feel above it all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Can this really be a Troma movie? Some scenes almost have an \"A\" movie look. The acting is generally competent (the two leads and the nurse-surrogate were especially good, and I liked some of the confrontations between the young Capulets and Ques); the scenes were smoothly edited; the plot is coherent. It's funny. It has a hip, original sound track.

It does have the usual Troma gross-outs and low humor, but I don't think Shakespeare would have minded so much. In fact, I think he might have gotten a few good laughs out of this.

It's a good DVD. There is an alternate sound track with a very informative commentary by the director, several deleted scenes, and the usual collection of Troma self-deprecating silliness.

I'm not going to tell you this was Citizen Kane, but it is some pretty inspired low-budget filmmaking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you've never been \"Tromatized\", this is the Troma movie to see first. Amazing acting, supercharged soundtrack, and bust-a-gut humor blend perfectly with Troma's unique brand of storytelling and special effects. Despite straying from a word for word retelling of Romeo and Juliet, the fact that it stays in iambic pentameter gives you the odd feeling that it's closer to Shakespeare than that overdone music video with DiCaprio and Danes. I assumed I'd seen the ultimate Shakespearian comedy when the cast of Moonlighting overhauled The Taming of the Shrew, but nothing comes close to Tromeo and Juliet. I strongly recommend the DVD version, which contains a second audio track with director Lloyd Kaufman which is just as entertaining as the main track.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's the story of three brothers pulling together in the midst of hardship and loss, and learning that the really important things in life are family, love, trust, and forgiveness. The entire cast manages to pull in a powerful performance despite a few lousy one-liners. A great film for fans of true to life problems befalling believable families. Also worth a look for fans of Dermot Mulroney or Sean Astin. They both do an astounding job, often bringing you to tears. Take my word for it and rent this today!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not for everyone, but I really like it. Nice ensemble cast, with nice contributions from better known players (like Stockard Channing) and strong eye candy (from Sheila Kelley). What really works is the bond between the three brothers! Try it, you'll smile a little.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those not in the know, the Asterix books are a hugely successful series of comic books about a village of indomitable Gauls who resist Caesar's invasion thanks to a magic potion that renders them invulnerable supermen. There have been several animated features (only one of them, The Twelve Tasks of Asterix really capturing the wit and spirit of the books despite being an original screen story) before a perfectly cast Christian Clavier and Gerard Depardieu took the lead roles in two live action adaptations that proved colossally successful throughout Europe but made no impression whatsoever in the English-speaking world.

The uncut French version is great fun, but sadly does not appear to be available in a version with English subtitles outside of the UK DVD. While there's still no sign of a US theatrical or DVD release, the Miramax version of Asterix et Obelix: Mission Cleopatre is also on that DVD (and has played on UK TV), and you'll never guess what - it's been completely re-edited (at least 21 minutes gone) and dubbed into English. Maybe Harve mistook it for a Hong Kong movie - after all, he never saw a foreign film he didn't think couldn't be improved by heavy re-editing and shelving for a few years.

Whereas Asterix et Obelix Contre Cesar was lovingly dubbed into English from a particularly good translation script by Terry Jones but otherwise left unaltered, that sort of thing really isn't the Miramax way. The results ain't good. The film was the best attempt to get the books mixture of slapstick, anachronisms and highbrow classical humorous asides to the screen, but a lot of the classical references are gone (such as the great Raft of the Medusa sight gag or the Cyrano de Bergerac references from Depardieu), alongside anything that seems too French or might slow the picture down, with the result that the first 20 minutes are now a real slog. Several punchlines to sequences are missing, Depardieu's part has been trimmed (his part was already fairly small because of his serious health problems during the shoot: the US version has been partially digitally regraded to change the unhealthy pallor of his face in the original!), and as usual with dubbing, because literal translations into English don't fit properly, lines are either rushed so much they're not funny anymore or the dialogue has been changed completely (a couple of these changes are admittedly funny, like one character dreaming of a world in which he could move his lips in French and hear the words in English).

Not a total disaster, but very disappointing considering how good the full-length version is. It would be nice to think that Miramax would do a Shaolin Soccer and release both versions, but since they've shelved both films for two years since paying $45m for them (another classic case of Harvey's notorious chronic buyer's remorse: gee, wonder why Disney were so p****d at their overspending) and still have no release plans, that may just be too much wishful thinking.

It's a real pity that such an accessible and entertaining film will now only be available to non-French speakers in such a clumsily bowdlerised version. It seems the plucky Gauls may have been able to defeat Caesar's legions but are no match for the Miramax jackboot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is definitely a \"must see\" film. The excellent Director Alain Chabat (also acting as Ceasar) has managed to capture the very essence of the \"Adventures of Ast\u00e9rix\" (the French comic books it's based upon) and to create a fantastically modern and intelligent comedy, which is also an homage to the world of animated films. This movie is so funny, so full of jokes (both visual and spoken) that it might take you two or three screenings before you notice them all, between your bursts of laughter. The only drawback is that a non-French audience (or at least a non-French speaking audience) might not get all the \"private jokes\". There are so many dialogues impossible to translate, so many situations directly related either to the comic books or to the French way of life, that the fun might be lessened. However, it's still totally worth seeing for the beautiful picture, the amazing stunts, the music, the totally crazy atmosphere and the excellent acting. All actors are great, but the film would not be the same without Jamel Debouze, G\u00e9rard Darmon and Edouard Baer. And please don't EVER compare this magnificent film to the terrible previous one based on the same comic books : \"Ast\u00e9rix et Ob\u00e9lix Contre C\u00e9sar\" and directed by Claude Zidi.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Making a movie about a Comic is hard to do. Making a good movie about a Comic is extremely hard to do. Making a good movie about Asterix & Obelix has been done.

This movie shows that the french do know how to make an : a) funny , b) hilarious , c) beautiful , d) superb movie. The acting is no less than superb , the sunny feel to the whole movie is perfect .. A MUST see ! This just has to be the funniest thing to come out since we started the new millenium.. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was lucky to see this sequel before the original because i'm not sure i would have gone out of my way to see it if the contrary had been true. I found \"Mission Cl\u00e9op\u00e2tre\" better than it's predecessor for different reasons, but the major one is this : it was almost word for word an adaptation of one book not an amalgam like the first movie. The physical resemblance of some characters to their animated self were very funny especially the bad guy (who's name is escaping me, but he's the other architect). I don't know how this movie played in English; my first language is french so i didn't have that problem... I imagine some of the jokes weren't that easy to translate. I've learned something with years it's better to watch a movie with the subtitles than with the dubbing maybe you wont understand what is said, but you wont lose the rhythm and i think that's important too. I would recommend this movie to anyone who really loves \"Ast\u00e9rix et Ob\u00e9lix\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this film, the audience I was part of loved this film, and the little 7 year old girl who was with me loved this film. We all laughed at the puns, the visual humour, and the good feeling you left the cinema with when it ended. I could easily see why it was such a huge box-office success in France. I am planning on buying the DVD, so I can see it again and laugh at all the bits I missed as I was laughing so hard the first time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to confess that I slept in the cinema while watching the first Asterix movie... but this one is simply FANTASTIC! It is really funny and it leaves the first one miles away. It has enumerous gags and funny situations that made me laugh since the first minutes of the movie and I only stopped laughing when I reached the car to return home. I repeat: this movie is spectacular... Obelix is really funny and Cleopatra is a real babe!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow! the French are really getting the hang of it. If we look at their first Asterix movie we see a good story with nice actors (especially thanks to Gerard Depardeu)but very lame special effect. In a fantasy story like Asterix Special Effects are really important. Well.. they did it right this time! It looks terrific. I personaly think Mission Cleopatra is the best Asterix story ever written. In the movie there's not one moment you're bored. Go and watch this! One thing! they didnt go exactly by the script which I think is a little bit pittyful. For example, In the comic Obelix breaks the nose of the Sphinx, immediatly all the little storekeepers start breaking of the nose of their miniature Sphinx. (really funny to see)..Well they didnt put it in the movie, instead they burried the nose under the Sphinx. Asterix: \"They will never look for it here\" (guess again). Was funny but not as good as the original. Another thing i disliked about the movie was their choice for music. It maked the film to childies. But never the less... It's a must C!

Grz Da Jean Holland","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After I read that ''At the time of its release in 2002, its budget of $47 million, or 327,000,000 FRF, was said to make it the costliest French film ever. However, Ast\u00e9rix et Ob\u00e9lix contre C\u00e9sar (1999) had a budget of $48 million, or 274,620,000 FRF, which supposedly made it the most expensive French film ever'' I discovered the reason why I found this movie to be one of the most beautiful and colorful of all I have ever seen. I loved the scenarios,the clothes(specially the ones from Cleopatra) and the atmosphere of the movie! It's so happy and cheerful! I found the jokes smart and hilarious and I have to consider this movie to be in my favorite comedies of all times!

The cast is also excellent, with Monica Bellucci(who is very beautiful as Cleopatra)G\u00e9rard Depardieu,(great Obelix!!Christian Clavier, Jamel Debbouze(That I saw for the first time in ''Am\u00e9lie Poulain'') among others!:)

I recommend this movie even for people who doesn't know Asterix and Obelix comics. You are going to have a great amount of fun!:)

aka \"Asterix e Obelix: Miss\u00e3o cle\u00f3patra\" - Brazil","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is the smartest comedy I have ever seen, a lot of jokes are either a parody of another film, (from star wars to dragon ball to power rangers to kung fu etc..) or somehow related to history of whatever, (Otis creates the elevator), a lot of jokes are also related to the modern world and made fun of because it was B.C. (Like the wheels of the horse wagon spinning) Other jokes are just plain total non-sense but also hilarious (like the famous scene, with the dog running after the roman guy with the little music) In fact in this movies they mix pretty much every kind of humor. I watched this film 6 times already and every single time I watch it I find other subtle jokes. (like the scene where waldo is part of the Egyptian crowd). It is the funniest movie I have every seem, finally a laugh-out-loud comedy, that doesn't include toilet or sex humor. Numerobis is also what makes the movie, everything that comes out of that guys mouth is hilarious. This movie is nearly perfect except a few clich\u00e9d thing, like the fact that Asterix gets his power back because he is kissed, that is plain stupid. But overall an excellent movie!! 9.5 out 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would say to the foreign people who have seen this movie and who did not understand it that it is normal because it was based on massive plays on words. A person not knowing about the French cultural funny references in this film could not follow all the subtleties. The movie has been a huge success in France and all the actors are well renowned here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've read every adventure of Asterix and Obelix at least 5 times and I'm also a fan of \"Les Nuls\" and \"Les Robins des Bois\" and Jamel so I expected a lot from this movie.... and I finally got satisfied. Unlike the first adaptation of Asterix on the big screen (Ast\u00e9rix et Ob\u00e9lix contre C\u00e9sar) which wasn't a real success besides the appearance of Laetitia Casta, this one really captures the spirit of the comic (and we get the beautiful Monica Bellucci). In the first movie the director tried to be too realistic about the time where the story is set and it killed the whole spirit that made Asterix hilarious. In this one all the clothing, the way of talking and everything is identical to Goscinny and Uderzo's work... more, it really stick to the original story with the downside that we know pretty much everything that's going to happen but Alain Chabat gave us a few surprises at the end. I really enjoyed that movie, and everytime that the first sign of boringness starts to appear, Jamel comes in and makes us laugh like crazy. This movie is a big mix of all the kind of humor I really like, and even if maybe it's mixing it too much, I can't help but to like it. So, if you like Asterix and the humor of all these young talents that started in \"Nulle part Ailleurs\" (a french mix of the tonight show and SNL) go see this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just managed to find a copy of \"Mission Cleopatra,\" which is not as easy as you would think for someone living in the United States. So far, I have only watched about the first 10 minutes of the film, and I can safely say that I laughed more in those 10 minutes than I did watching the entirety of the *first* live action Asterix movie.

I am watching the dubbed version, and while the dubbing job is a little disconcerting, I have found the movie to be very funny and true to the book. I see that people on here have said that the dubbed version is very inferior to the subtitled version, that may very well be true, and after I watch the subtitled version (also on my DVD) I may have to come on here and alter my review. As it stands, though, I find it to be a very entertaining movie, and it more than makes up for the mess which they made out of the first movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is the first time I can recall where an adaptation did exactly like the book... In fact, only jokes were added to the story rather than content blended or removed!

Such as the Egyptian slave Cellularis who had difficulty transmitting, um, communicating, LOL! Or when Tidivinnus was played like a quasi-Sith Lord and got annoyed when the Roman Empire endured a blow, the general ordered for the Empire to..? Ah, watch the movie folks!

I can easily believe that this picture was one of the most expensive in French Cinema History and for my part it was worth it, Depardieux was excellent as the Roman bashing and Boar chomping Obelix. Clavier playing the little indomitable Gaul was perfect and a far cry from his days as the bumbling squire of Jean Reno in \"Just Visiting.\"

The fight-scene between Artifis and Edifis was hilarious and was nice to see the Matrix theme was not borrowed to despoil an otherwise perfect battle!

Redbeard the pirate and his crew almost stole the picture, from scuttling their own ship to being the engine for Otis' (Edifis' Assistant) invention used at the very end.

I understand there's Asterix and the Olympics with many of the same team back, by Toutatis, I plan to view that too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched Asterix and Obelix in Operation Cleopatra, which was my first exposure to the live action version of the classic comic. Like the comic the whole movie is full of jokes based upon puns, anachronistic jokes and slapstick gags which rarely fall flat.

Asterix and Obelix are Gauls who use a strength potion to fight the Roman legions in their native Gaul. Here they end up in Egypt helping a friend build Cesar's palace (yes its puny) in three months to prove the Egyptians are just as good as the Romans.

The reason I picked this up was because Monica Belluci is Cleopatra. She's good but the role is little more than a cameo. However, even though she's rarely in the film I didn't care since its so clever and the jokes so funny I was in hysterics. I loved it. I loved it so much that I can't understand why the movies have never been released in the United States.

The import DVD has the film in English dub- which is quite good especially when you consider that when you watch it in the longer French version the puns (and hence the jokes) are not always apparent since they are aural, so if you read the names wrong the jokes are lost. Most of the jokes between the full French version and the shorter English dub seem to be exactly the same, though some have been changed sometimes for the better and some times for the worse. Personally I'm gonna stick with the dub when I watch this again since its easier to pick up the jokes and enjoy the humor.

You really will want to see this if you love puns and low brow, but clever humor This is a great comedy","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A great combination: - Chabat's humor - Uderzo\/Goscinny world and characters - limited presence of Christian Clavier

The original Comics was great - one of the better of an overall great series - and Alain Chabat, one of the funniest member of the famous French group Les Nuls, was able to film, replicate and supplement, the great work done by goscinny and uderzo by cleverly enforcing the story, giving to Djamel Debouze his best role (at last a little bit far from his usual repeatable part), gathering a bunch of great actors (Gerard darmon is wonderful, as often, Chabat himself is a great Cesar).

In addition, while being obligated to keep on with Christian Clavier as Asterix, Chabat cleverly tuned down his role in the movie to give prominence to Darmon and Debouze... which is always a good idea!

=> Great environment, great scenario, great director, great actors, great humor, beautiful Cleopatra... This movie would have deserved a 10 if Clavier hadn't been involved.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The second live action outing for Asterix is far better than the glued together elements of ten different stories that was called the first film, instead staying fairly close to the original comic.

In a nutshell, Queen Cleopatra has made a bet with Caeser to build a palace in Egypt to show that the Egyptians are a great people. Royal Architect Edifis seeks the help of Asterix, Obelix and druid Getafix to complete his task. There are several laugh out loud moments, some jokes that only the French might get (jibes at the 35 hour week) while others that are more universal. The big budget special effects are spectacular but overshadowed by the jokes from the original comic.

Depardieu and Clavier still work brilliantly as a pair while Monica Bellucci makes perfect casting as Cleopatra. Also, for fans of the comics the hilarious pirates get a look making up for their absence in film 1.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the original French version, the jokes of Num\u00e9robis (great, funny voice - Jamel Debbrouze) are very funny.

But in translated versions (I saw the German & English version) it's not half good than the original.

But: goof Special Effects, almost the full comic (with differences, like the Figure of L\u00fcgnix (German name) is placed in an other comic book.

Sure, the Asterix comic book are cult, but when you watch the animated comic movies from 1968 to 1998 you will see much better jokes, better story and the old \"charme\" and \"flair\" of the cult stories.

For French speaking people I suggest to watch it in it's original version, with or without subtitles, where available in different languages.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know about the English version of this movie, but the Norwegian translation is the funniest movie I've seen in many years. The characters say so many funny things and make so many weird references to current events that I'm amazed they kept having more options, like the architect who can never say the name of the wizard Miraculix correctly. It becomes things like Malcom(i)X and \"utenriks\", which is Norwegian for foreign affairs.

Like the word \"utenriks\", many of the translations does not give any meaning in English, and probably not in French either, so the translators must have made up their own jokes, and done so very well. Of course, they have a very good base to build on, with a film that's simply comical from beginning to end!

Recommended in all languages with a good translation!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you are French native, then you find this movie extremely funny. It's good, just good! Can though imagine that subtitles or translations don't mean much in english.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The above line sums it up pretty good. The best assets of the comics are it's visual gags and word-jokes (the latter of which are almost impossible to translate, which is why the comics are at their best in their original language).

Both are quite hard to capture in film, which is why those will never be as good as the comics. Movies are simply a different medium than comics. With that in mind, this movie does surprisingly well in capturing the fun of the comic.

The word gags are bearable, and sometimes even funny (Debouze does an Amelie reference!). I have to mention that I watched the french version. If you don't watch the french version or your lack of understanding of the french language limits you to the subtitles, the word jokes will probably suck.

The slapstick is okay as well; it's a very simple form of humor, and not really funny when you're older than twelve, but it captures the spirit of the comicbooks. The other visual jokes are the movie's saving grace for the older audience, as their often quite funny.

The acting is totally over the top, but again, that's not annoying at all as it captures the spirit of the comicbooks. Only Depardieu and Clavier don't really overact, which might be the reason some people think they didn't enjoy their roles (I didn't notice a thing). On the other hand Jamel Debouze and especially Claude Rich turn overacting into an artform. It's actually fun to watch. Again, I fear it wouldn't be nearly as funny when the voices are dubbed.

Overall not a bad movie at all, much better than the previous one. It's not a classic and it doesn't dethrone The Twelve Tasks of Asterix as my favourite Asterix movie, but it's still worth seeing. The french version, that is. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is quite better than the first one \"Ast\u00e9rix et Obelix contre C\u00e9sar\", but it is far away from perfection. The adaptation of the comic book is good, some of the pictures and the dialogs of the movie are the same as in the book. But there's few things that made the movie not as interresting as the animated movie released in 1968. For example the fighting between Numerobis and Amonbofis. This wasn't necessary or even credible, either for the little love story of Ast\u00e9rix. There were also some stuff missing, like the songs that are in the animated movie, and some other things... I am deceived by the movie because they cutted in the stuff I was expecting tho see and they showed things that I did not wanted or needed to see. I know that it would have been very difficult to make the movie exactly the same than the comic book or the animated movie, but that's what I expected. In conclusion, even if the movie is good, I still prefer the animated movie, wich is in my opinion, far better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The French people are not known to be great movie producers.

Though their Amelie scores high points at the Oscars. Asterix et Obelix is a very different film of what I am used to from the French. It is a great movie especially for kids. The only thing that boddert me was that it was spoken in French and subtiteld. Normally with the english spoken movies (here in the Netherlands) I don't have to read the subtitles. But with the French language you just have to read to understand. The story it self is just great with Obelix who doesn't recall him self of be\u00efng fat, but there also nice details mainly in names like brucewillix and malcomix. You all know the story from the comic books and this movie shows all most slide by slide the book. Every thing is in it, from the Sfinx nose braking till pirate red beards lose of three more ships. I would say a great movie for the weekend with the children.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is just great... It starts out real slow and boring but as the movie progresses.....well the fun keeps on coming. The power of the movie is perhaps in it's subtle references to a lot (and I mean a lot) of other movies. For me the best part was perhaps the Bruce Lee\/Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon scene. How the two actors switches from French to Chinese or whatever Asian language it was, it was awesome. Then the jokes with the names, they are hilarious but perhaps you won't understand all of them when your an American (no offense). Overall a great movie","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was a little afraid when I went to the cinema to see this movie. Indeed, it is always tough to make a movie from a comics and the first episode of the adventures of the French two greatest heroes was good but not fantastic. Finally, it is very funny from the beginning to the end with unexpected gags, some cartoon scenes, no timeouts, great FX, a great cast, great landscapes, great everything !!!

However, I wonder how they will manage to translate all the French names in English or German, because it is certainly funny in French but how will it be in another language ???","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Eh oui, impossible n'est pas gaulois.

Well paced, highly entertaining film. Pretty good command of the French language and knowledge of modern France (and history) are recommended. I don't think this film really works in any other language. The film is incredibly much better than the previous one (In search of...). Apart from great actors and savvy camera handling it's the wit and firework of allusions, word plays etc. that make for a really great movie. The cartoon vorlage is recognizable but the film is very emancipated. The cost of the film is put to good use. Indeed, all the special effects fit 'naturally' into the movie, you never feel choked by them.

Bref, oui, les 2CVs, \u00e7a tra\u00eene un peu mais \u00e0 part cela, Imhotep!

-A neighbour from the other side of the Rhine","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cleopatra (the delicious Monica Bellucci) is challenged by Cesar (Alain Chabat): in order to prove that the Egyptians are better than the Romans, she promises to build a fancy castle for Cesar in a period of three months, without any delay. She calls the one-arm architect Numerobis (Jamel Debbuzi) and gives him two options: to be covered by gold if he accomplishes his mission, or become crocodile food if he fails. Numerobis will ask for help to Panoramix (Claude Rich), Asterix (Christian Clavier) and Obelix (Geraard Depardieu) (with Ideiafix). This movie is very funny, specially the parts where Obelix and the Pirates leaded by Red Beard participate. However, the screenwriter and the director should have noted that French is not an universal language as English is. Therefore, the jokes with words (like in Austin Powers movies, for example) does not work well for people strange to French language. French people and persons fluent in French language will certainly like these jokes, but they do not make any sense for me, that do not speak French. My vote is seven.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The second (not animated) movie about the only people still refusing to surrender to the Roman Empire is even more hilarious than the first film \"Asterix & Obelix contre Ceasar\".

Where the first movie got all the laughs because all cartoon-characters were so perfectly brought to life without losing their cartoonesque identity, this sequel (which is a separate story as are all the comic-books) is even better. Sure, all the ingredients that you find in the first movie and in the comic-books are present again: Obelix is still dying to taste the \"magic potion\" that gives his other tribe members such enormous powers, Caesar and the rest of the Roman Empire are still enemy number 1, but some new, refreshing elements have been brought to the stage as well.

Not only is setting very idyllic (biggest part plays of course in Egypt) but rather than repeating movie number one, some extras have been added by making all kinds of references to other movies (Bruce Lee etc.). This is all not very new, but the unexpected combination of the known story from the comic-book (with almost the same title as the movie) and references to stuff that has got absolutely nothing to do with Asterix & Obelix really works.

In that way the movie builds further on a tradition by comic-writers Goscinny and Uderzo who didn't hesitate to bring Laurel and Hardy on the stage and even dedicate an entire story to Kirk Douglas.

If all of this doesn't convince you to watch this movie, I'm sure Monica Bellucci playing Cleopatra will....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You cannot be seeing the same movie if you didn't grow up in France (or spent at least 10 years there, like me). I don't know if it will ever make it outside French cultural borders (I include Belgium and Luxembourg here). You cannot translate its kind of fun - every name is joke (how many people outside Paris would understand the pun in \"Couloirdebus\", the name of one of the Roman legionnaires ?). However Monica Bel(l?)ucci is so beautiful, I almost forgot to breathe when I saw her.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The second film about the adventures of the Gaulois pair Asterix & Obelix is 10 times better than the first. The humor is great (and irreverant) and the script is well executed taken from the original 1965 comic book by Goscinny & Uderzo. I fell asleep with the first film (although i am a great fan of Asterix) and was reluctant to see this sequel, but i am glad this movie proved me wrong. Excellent comedy for everyone. Highly Recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A film of high intelligence and activity. As well as being a strong capsule of the time and persona that was the 60's, the film is also TRULY a surprise in its forward-thinking themes and the unique presentation of the system of power in a group. William Greaves appoints himself to the authoritative role in the group. He asks his crew members to film and film and keep filming. First the two actors, then the crew filming the actors, then the entire set including bystanders, policemen, and finally a homeless man whose been living in bushes in Central Park for 9 weeks.

Greaves edits the film (thousands of feet) together and surprisingly makes a strong narrative with an interesting arc and motivations. Don't expect to be bored by this film. Each of crew make for engaging conversationalists and often times are voicing the thoughts that the observer has watching this film. Greaves does well at integrating the multiple camera takes using synchronized three-in-one pictures and other attention shifting methods.

In the end, the film will really only be effective if it's what YOU'RE looking for: if you're looking for some abstract arty film that feeds your own self-indulgent ego while never having a point, look elsewhere. If you're looking for a film that will have you talking and thinking long afterward about the desire for honesty and sincerity in documented \"reality\" and the inevitable transparency that comes of it, then this is the perfect film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1968 when, \"SYMBIOPSYCHOTAXIPLASM: Take One\", was released, it came from out of nowhere, and struck like a psychedelic thunder bolt. Afro-American actor and film maker, William Greaves, aimed to forever alter the 'news-reel' style of documentary film-making, and to this day, there has never been anything quite like it. The movie is a film about 'the making of a film', and intentionally written and directed so as to create as much controversy and contradiction as possible. Set in New York's Central Park, the action and scant dialog concern a couple who fight and bicker about homosexuality and abortion. The woman wants out of the relationship, and the man wants an explanation. Near the end of this interaction, a drunk homeless man interrupts the proceedings and offers his commentary, and personal back-story. Then, after the principle footage has been shot, the film crew add their own views of the film-maker and what they feel is his inept handling of the movie. And during the entire film, multiple cameras are employed to record the action within the scene, and extraneous commentary by cast, crew, and onlookers. I would certainly recommend this film to anyone who has an interest in Avant Garde film makers such as Andy Warhol, John Cassavetes, or Jim Jarmusch. William Greaves attempts to show that a thing cannot be truly observed and understood because the viewing itself would alter the reality. \"SYMBIOPSYCHOTAXIPLASM: Take One\" can be seen as a cinematic representation or application of The Uncertainty Principle. This is only one possible explanation, and Greave's true intent is certainly open for speculation. Above all else, this film seeks to confound, confront. and stimulate, and without a doubt, succeeds admirably.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a documentary unlike any other. It has so many layers and shows us so much that trying to analyze it all at once is nearly impossible. Documentarian William Greaves shows us the process of film-making from a different perspective. We see the struggles of the actors, the director, the sound crew, and everybody else trying to hang in there and make this film successful. If this was just about a movie being made it would be ordinary. What Greaves does is make it more complex by having a crew film the actors, and then this will be filmed by another crew, only to have another crew film the whole thing. Three cameras, each with a different goal. It has an almost dizzying affect on you but at the same time is exciting. I like the parts where the crew organizes together and discusses what is going on. Even they are somewhat in the dark as to what Greaves is trying to do. Half see this as an experiment while the other half sees it as a chaotic and confusing failure. No matter what side you choose, you can't argue that Greaves doesn't get you involved in this process.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How important is the director, anyway? In this film, made in the politically tumultuous times of the late 60s where questions of social organization were prime conflicts, asks that question by making a movie that turns the camera away from the action and only begs to reveal the director, William Greaves. It is an important work, as it shows like no other movie shows the difficulties in blocking, organizing, and setting the scene; it reveals the role of the crew, something most directors frankly would like to disappear completely and that the invisibility of is essential for suspending disbelief; and it also puts into consideration the role of performance and scripting and how they match\/don't match reality and what that has to say about how the director ultimately influences reality (if at all).

The documentary, or pseudo-documentary, or fictional narrative (whichever you prefer, via your interpretations of the themes) has its brain in the over-educated, over-intellectual crew, its guts in the lost performers struggling to understand the vague and ambiguous directions, and its heart in the director, who stands in as the desire to portray, to represent, to express without any idea how to do any of those things or why he wants to do it. It's a film that purposefully repeats banalities just to see if they can become more than banalities. It's a film that sometimes shows the multiple shots simultaneously, just to leave the editing to the audience and also reveal how disturbingly different shots change perspective.

It's an important work, and something that everyone interested in the industry and process of film-making should watch and understand. It, like many experimental films, has no real mass-audience appeal--it's not for them. It's for the industry, and its for the 60s, asking what to do with a group-effort medium that still relies on a single \"voice\" and \"author\".

--PolarisDiB","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On June 22nd, 1941, the city of Przemysl, Poland is divided between German and Russian. When the German invades the city, the Nazis send the Jews to a ghetto. The young Catholic Fusia Podgorska (Kellie Martin), alone with her young sister, lodges and hides many Jews in the attic of her house along two and half years until the end of the war. \"Hidden in Silence\" is another good story of human sympathy in World War II. This film looks like \"Rescuers: Stories of Courage\", and is also based on a true story. Unfortunately, the actress Kellie Martin performs a strong and powerful lead character, but she is very weak for such a role. In many dramatic situations, the expression of her face is not convincing. I have noted that many IMDb Users liked her performance, but I am not sure whether they like her wonderful character or her performance indeed. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"Ocultos no Medo\" (\"Hidden in Fear\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the underrated Kellie Martin's best role. Based on a true story, it tells the story of Fusia's attempt to save the members of the Diamant family and other Jews she meets over time. One of my all-time favorite movie scenes involves an heroic act by Fusia's little sister. All children should see this scene-role models like this are very few and far between. The movie is well written and acted. I am a movie lover and this movie I rate a 10 on imbd's rating system. It is on my top 25 movies of all time and should be put out on video.

Mike Porter","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed the movie and Kellie Martins performance immensely. It's the kind of movie I can show my family and has an example of a young woman placed in extraordinary circumstances finding the courage to do the right thing in the face of extreme danger.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie just screened on Channel Seven - Australian TV - today.

In my opinion, it was a very interesting take on how the Nazi's treated the Russian Jews as mercilessly as everywhere else.

Kellie Martin did a really great job, and her tears and frustration as \"Frusia\" were quite convincing.

The Holocaust is a part of our history that WE MUST NOT FORGET. Schindlers List wasn't the first - and it wont be the last - account of survival and courage in that five year nightmare. My family is Dutch, and I will always applaud any movie makers who want to keep the candlelight alive by telling of someone's courage to stand up and help those who were being abused, violated and murdered for being \"A Jew.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought that i wrote a comment on this movie before, but i can't find it on here. anyway, i am writing it again. I accidentally found this movie from my college's library collections. It was free to watch, so why not.

I am certainly glad that I watched it. I love this movie. I have seen a few Russian movies before, most of them have serious topics. I am surprised that this was one a good comedy. I had a great laugh while watching it. and this is a movie that i want to buy. this thing is so funny. and they are not just silly funny, those plots were very original, and well thought, so they don't seem to be silly at all. I am surprised that this movie didn't attract many viewers. This is a classic that you can watch it over and over.

those actors were also very authentic, their acting are real, not faked. if you haven't watched it, go get a copy soon! definitely recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A funny and scathing critique of Russian society and culture during the transition from communism, OKNO V PARIZH also shows the west in an unfavorable light. A group of Russians living in St. Petersburg (a.k.a. Peter the Great's \"window on the west\") find a magic portal that instantly transports them to Paris. Mamin's film is truly hilarious, and just \"weird\" enough constantly keep even the jaded film viewer on his toes. The songs, the dream sequences, and the deliciously disgusting fringes of society from both cultures mingle to create a memorable and meaningful film. Anyone trying to understand the shift in Russian cultural sentiments since the fall of the USSR should begin here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My first Mamin film, saw it on IFC long ago, and LOVED it. It seemed absolutely artistic, original, fun and hilarious. Not a moment in the film let me down or made me bored, and i was laughing a lot or had a smile on my face. I mean this movie is truly funny. But here's the catch: it's also very artistic and creative - if you don't know Yuri Mamin (probably, sadly, because so many of his GREAT films aren't available here) he has a very original style like no one else's, and for me this isn't even my favorite film of his (right now it's the insane (\"Saideburns\/Bakenbardy\"). Also, i have to say as a Russian, this film is great because you really do see what Russians are like. And this is possible because this is a true Russian film to me, NOT a foreign film trying to be American or trying to appeal; Mamin did not sell out (nor has he since, Gorko (1998) was as good if not better. This is true Russian style filmaking that came out of communist Social realism.

If you liked this film, i think you have a very high chance of loving Mamin's other films, in fact i like quite a few of them more than this one. I guess this one is his most accessible film. A similar film is Fountain, taking place 6 years before during perestroika, it has the same actor in the leading role, and more of Mamin's regulars who you will recognize from Window to Paris; this one has one supernatural twist in the end but is mostly a realistic comedy, a great one. Viva Mamin, hopefully Criterion will hook all of his movies up one day, he's still working, and his catalog is so great! See any of his films if you can.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the most unfairly maligned programmes of all time, 'Terry & June' was also one of the most popular sitcoms of the '70's and '80's.

It started life as 'Happy Ever After', but when Eric Merriman decided he didn't want to write any more, it changed into this, hence the dropping of 'Aunt Lucy' and the Fletcher's becoming the Medford's.

Yes, it was cosy, domestic, middle-class stuff; the plots ran the gamut of clich\u00e9s from the boss coming to dinner, the vicar organising a jumble sale, and unwanted relatives coming to stay for the weekend. It was certainly not 'dreadful lazy comedy'. As for it being 'not clever', it was not meant to be. It was funny and well performed, and that was enough!

I too loved the 'alternative' boom of the '80's ( 'Spitting Image', 'Black Adder', 'The Young Ones' etc. ) but also enjoyed conventional stuff such as this. If nothing else, it provided alternative comedy with something to be an alternative to. I found it sad though when the likes of Ben Elton took against both this and Benny Hill. Well, family oriented comedy has all but vanished from our screens, but where has it left us? Take a look at the latest T.V. schedules. All soaps and reality dross. The few comedies left are aimed at teenagers, meaning they are jam packed with swearing, bodily function jokes, and explicit sexual references. And they are not remotely funny either.

The 'alternative comedy' boom was good in many ways, but had a dark side. It made conventional sitcoms appear old fashioned, drove away talented writers and performers such as Spike Milligan, and ultimately led to such unspeakable drivel as 'Little Britain' and 'Tittybangbang' ( heaven help us ). If it ain't broke, don't fix it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"terry and june in my mind, is a all time classic, along the ranks with bless this house with the late sid james and the late diana coupland, but terry scott will be sadly missed even tho he passed away in 1994. i have all the dvds upto press and i look forward to getting all 9, also would be nice to see \"happy after ever\" released on DVD

june whitfield is still going strong and terry scott will always live on in my memory

terry scott r.i.p. there aren't many comedies today that i can think of that will stay in the legends list and yes the middle class bit does get on some peoples wicks but i don't mind, i think it would be brilliant to see some celebration of the life of terry scott","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When the long running 'Happy Ever After' came to an end, its characters- 'Terry & June Fletcher' were revived for the longer running and more popular sequel- 'Terry & June', although their surnames were changed from Fletcher to Medford.

Terry has received a new job and as a result, he and June move to Purley where they end up in all manner of scrapes- unwanted guests dropping by to visit at an inconvenient moment, the boss inviting himself to dinner and Terry trying to chance his arm at D.I.Y but cocking it up each time. A fellow IMDb user branded this show as 'not clever' and 'never well written'. Fair enough, it wasn't clever, but that was the whole point. As for 'never well written'- some of the episodes were pretty substandard, I will admit, but overall I found it to be extremely well written, highly amusing and very well acted.

It was warm hearted slapstick, not dissimilar to the later B.B.C sitcom 'Keeping Up Appearances'. Eight different writers contributed to the nine series, giving the show plenty of scope. Terry Scott was a comic genius, as he well proved in productions such as 'Hugh & I', the 'Carry On' films and of course, here! June Whitfield likewise was a comedy legend in her own right.

I enjoy some modern shows- i.e 'Still Game', 'The Catherine Tate Show', 'Legit' and 'Empty'. I even enjoyed the 'alternative comedy'- 'Naked Video', 'The Young Ones' and 'The Comic Strip Presents' but I am more inclined to enjoy vintage comedy, such as this. Humour that you don't need to think about is excellent for when you are feeling down and want to lift yourself up. For the record, 'Terry & June' was wonderful stuff. Special note should be made of the catchy theme tune which caught the mood of the show tremendously well!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Terry and June was one of the classic British sitcoms in my opinion. You knew what to expect - and ain't that just so typical! :) Unlike modern sitcoms with utterly contrived plots, this show is still a breath of fresh air. How lovely not see or hear remarks about bodily functions or not to see a family PERPETUALLY late for breakfast or a family with impossible teenagers. And therein is the secret: Terry & June was based on a middle class couple living in relative harmony in stead of today's strained plots with the 'de rigueur' dysfunctional family (made to look hip).

Personally, I vote the \"Bridge to far\" episode as one of the best. In a way, Terry's antics reminds me of Basil Fawlty - both sometimes getting almost impossibly embarrassing!

Terry & June comes highly recommended. Have your tea and biscuits ready!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has one of the best club scenes, very good soundtrack (if you like techno\/trance music)

some situations (As the main character Carl begins to take drugs for example) are a little off reality, but the plot is entertaining, but the characters are all a little shallow...

I'd not recommend you to see this film if you don't like techno music

For the plot\/acting alone this movie is a 4\/10, with the really cool special effects and the club scenes and soundtrack it's a 7\/10, but if you would want to go to the movies just to hear nice tracks and grab a little club feeling, it's a 10\/10.

the special effects are sometimes hidden, sometimes clearly visible. (i.e. fast moving clouds\/sun\/moon, morphing background, morphing cuts)

I for one enjoyed it very much, a shame there was no dancefloor in the cinema ;)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Best club scenes that i have seen in a long time - atmosphere mesmerising - matthew Rhys's performance is impeccable and faultless. i would recommend this film to any age group. watch out for wonderwoman!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The club scenes in this film are extremely believable, Tim Curry is in his most venal mode, and there are enough drugs and violence here for two movies, maybe even three. What more do you require from an evening's entertainment? Pump up the volume.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have rented this film out about 6 times! it is very well directed and the story is unique and grabs your attention from the beginning. Big up to Jason Donovan whose acting in this film was wicked and i loved the guy with the st fighter moves - goood!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"it's a super movie!!!! i only seen it once but it's very good if you like music like in disco's and don't have problem with drugs.... It's fantastic movie!!!! it's only a little bit to short! but when you watch the movie make sure your sound system is at 100%!!! then you will love the music in the film and the funny things that a guy from the country comes never drink any alcohol and then he is under drugs in the biggest disco's and love the music!!

the only problem is that i want to buy it and i can't find it! so if anyone knows where i could buy the movie pleas mail me!!!

greets me from Holland

pleas reply me!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How on earth this film isn't more widely regarded is beyond me.

I picked it up for \u00a31, and I'm not exaggerating when I say it's the best pound I've ever spent on a film.

The thing that usually lets films about the club scene down is either the music or the actual scenes filmed in clubland.

Here, the music and club scenes are completely credible,using some big tunes of the time, and filmed in real clubs, with people actually looking like they want to be there.

The performances from the actors are of a high standard all round, although Jason Donovan in particular for me stands out (he was playing Frank N Furter in The Rocky Horror Show in London at roughly the time this must have been filming, so his drag phase was in full flow!), and of course Tim Curry who's eloquent drug land boss is convincing.

Simply put, if you're a fan of British film you have to see this, it matters not a jot if you're into clubbing as the film is strong enough as a story anyway.

Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Didn't have much aspiration for this film, but was pleasantly surprised. Very well made film, very well cut, doesn't really get to the height that Human Traffic did, but it's a very good effort. Well directed, and I thought the lead actor put in a superb performance! In fact the only really bad performance in the film was from Tim Curry, who is supposed to be the name.

Cool Film surprised it hasn't done better than it has. I'd never heard of it until I saw it at a mates.

I'm not a raver, but I imagine people who are will really like this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this movie in a sneak preview and before reading my comment you have to know that it is very subjective because I love Techno, Trance, Club, House and music like that.

The movie deals with Carl, whose brother Jason (or whatever his name was) died in an accident: he fell off a rooftop, \"drunk\". Carl meets his brother's girlfriend Sunny and the two of them quite unmotivated some kind of private investigation about Jason's death and Carl gets involved in Jason's ex-life that was filled with clubs and drugs. The movie itself, seen from an artistic point of view, is nothing more than a big pile of s**t. The plot is predictable, all of the characters are extremely cliched and two-dimensional (stupid boy from a small town, young good-looking innocent girl, big bad drug king... the list is endless) and most of the acting such as the plot are just not credible. Matthew Rhys' performance of the stupid boy coming to big London and sudden taking drugs from people he does not even know does not seem very credible, unlike his female counterpart Sunny, performed by Sienna Guillory, whose behaviour seems more realistic to the spectator. Nothing more than a joke was Tim Curry's performance of the drug king Damian: a phony caricature, too \"eeeevil\" and just too ridiculous to be true.

BUT: If you like club music (the club scenes such as the selected tracks are simply brilliant), if you enjoy a simple lovestory with a sweet girl like Sunny (yes, I confess, I lost my heart ;)... that makes my comment even more subjective, I guess) with some (predictable) twists and turns you will definetely enjoy this movie.

Anybody else: F.O.R.G.E.T.....I.T.!

3 out of 10 (objective view)

7 out of 10 (my personal view and also my final vote)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Pharaoh's Army\" defies formula. Instead of selling out for cliches and big stars, it relies completely on the excellent acting from a strong cast, the strength of a well written script, and a fascinating and bitter story. The result is a raw and realistic film that moves along fast, with a heavy emotional current. One of the best I've ever seen about the Civil War, and I think it can owe that to the pleasure of being an independent film (if you like this film, try to see the similarly brilliant indie Civil War film \"Wicked Spring\" as well).

\"Pharaoh\" simply tells the true story of a small expedition\/forage team of Union men who ride into a Confederate farm to take provisions, but end up stuck there because of an accident of one of the men. Tensions broil and relationships are made and broken. Nothing happens the way Hollywood would write it; this movie comes from the mind of someone who actually cares about quality film and the telling of history. Superb dialogue and plot exposition move along a film that looks highly professional, but often doesn't feel like you're watching a movie, more along the lines of hearing a story.

The film boasts an incredible performance from Chris Cooper who shows an amazing versatility in the exploration of his role. He transforms, but is always at the height of believability and is easy to emotionally relate to. Patricia Clarkson is equally as stellar and realistic in a role that many actresses would crumble in. She shares an interesting chemistry with Cooper's character and where she's the more severe of the characters, is still as easy to identify with. The rest of the cast is quite capable, and fill their roles in well.

The art design and the set are wonderful, and personally I love the cinematography. It all has the feel of a Civil War period photograph with the camera presenting strong contrasting colors and shadows and a tin-like metalic tint, but always keeping the naturalistic look of the rustic setting. They seem to have used natural lighting, but whatever they used works beautifully. Everything looks like it belongs where it is, it feels period, something I find rare in American period films. The actors act 19th century, not like 20th century people in old clothes.

Above all, this film is very personal. I think that as an indie it can afford it. The film is nearly flawless with an outstanding script that effortlessly creates and explores the relationships and personalities of these characters and lets them grow in a situation, as bad as it is. It doesn't fail in getting it's point across, and it gets it's point across without the usual and overused techniques that are used in all war films these days. It's brave. It relies on it's characters, a fantastic script, human emotion, and in the cold hard fact that the Civil War wasn't all CGI, big stars, and hoop skirts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thought provoking, humbling depiction of the human tragedies of war. A small, but altruistic view of one family's interactions with the enemy during the civil war in Kentucky. This movie lessens the \"glamor\" of war; showing it's effect on not only the soldier but the entire family unit.

A lot of today's movies show war as an opportunity to highlight the \"hero's\" and other glamorous features of war, but very little attempts to show the true effect war actually takes on a community. This movie attempts this through a retelling of a person's memory of those days. This movie is stated to be loose translation of an actual events, when in reality, this movie is probably a factual reality of hundreds, perhaps thousands of \"actual events\" during the civil war. I highly recommend those interested in our civil war to watch this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my personal favorites, a rare little gem that seems to be undiscovered by the general population. Chris Cooper and Patricia Clarkson form the heart of the piece in what is a well-chosen cast. Few movies have ever captured the true hostilities that undergirded the Civil War, but this one seems to capture all the right tones and moods. If you're a fan of the book, Cold Mountain, try this movie out and see if you don't think it makes a good companion piece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is characteristic that this film is not better known. It obviously lacks most elements that a successful theater film needs: heroes, villains, conflict and resolution, romantic love interest..

Everything is topsy-turvy here, nothing works out as it should, everyone is clumsy, sad, angry, hurt and hungry and nobody has a solution for anything. In short: it is war and it is hell for everybody involved. People try to do best, but interests, allegiances and so called duty interfere. The picture transports us back in time to the Civil War with an intensity seldom seen in today's cinema. Straightforward honest images of an intense beauty. The actors are very well cast for the story and they make the characters come truly alive in front of our eyes.

A silver dollar in a heap of nickels!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're even mildly interested in the War between the States, this film is worth watching. It is great historical story telling. No flashing sabres, no cavalry charges, no carnage -- just the story of a sorry group of Union soldiers stumbling into the farm of a Confederate woman and her son and taking as much as their captain's conscience allows. This quantity moves up and down as events unfold affecting his sense of humanity in conflict with his sense of duty to his men and his cause. Ultimately, he reaches a compromise that any of us would be hard put to top.

I appreciate the historical treatment of the war in Kentucky, a slave state that tried to stay neutral but eventually opted to remain in the Union under mysterious political circumstances involving the detention of certain legislators. Roughly half the soldiers from Kentucky fought for each side, but there's never been much treatment of what it was like to have lived there through those times. This film makes a great contribution simply in the \"look and feel\" of the time and place.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was my first acquaintance with the talents of Chris Cooper. I was deeply impressed with the character he played. I knew when I saw the film that more great things were to come from this gifted actor. He plays a Union Captain who, along with a couple of enlisted men, are foraging in Eastern Kentucky. They happen upon the farm of a \"Sesech\" woman whose husband has chosen to go off to the Confederacy.

The portrayal of Eastern Kentucky, and its seriously divided sentiments during the War, is so very accurate. If you are looking for a war film with a lot of blood and guts, this would not be it. If you are looking for a drama that explores the psychology of peoples at war, actually and philosophically, then this is the best study of how divided loyalties affected the interaction of peoples in the border states during America's Civil War.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had never heard of Silverwing before, then I saw it on Toon Disney and instantly loved it! I also think that it is not just for kids, and that people of all ages would enjoy it. It has a great plot, great effect, and cool characters. I will always love the show, and I heard it will be coming on on DVD worldwide soon, and I'm going to get it! I haven't read any of the books, but I intend to. The show deserves a 10 out of 10, and I hope the books are just as good. Well, that's all I have to say. But I still have 2 lines I have to fill up, so...who do you all think is the coolest character? Mine is Shade, and my second favorite is Marina.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sometimes good things happen by accident.

I'd never heard of \"Silverwing\" until late 2005--I was flipping channels and happened to see something on Toon Disney with bats in a sawmill being attacked by owls. I had no idea what it was, but I was motivated to stay tuned--it was hard waiting for a commercial so I could find out what it was called!

Part of what intrigued me was the looks of the bats--first of all, they didn't use the popular convention of giving the bats \"extra fingers\" where their thumb claws are supposed to be. Rather, they have palms like human hands, but the fingers are longer and have webs of skin between them.

Also the faces--they look like human beings (in fact, at one point I wondered if they had once been human but were transformed INTO bats). Ordinarily I don't like this in cartoon animals, but it worked here--the story is a human story, even though it's about bats and other animals (not unlike The Lion King).

What I saw on TV were the last two parts of the \"trilogy.\" I'd missed the very beginning of the first one, \"Towers of Fire\" (the second overall), but for the most part I saw all of each of them. However, I found myself wanting to understand what was going on, since the first part hadn't been on and I wouldn't have caught it anyway.

But I saw that it was based on a book by Kenneth Oppel. How fortunate that I paid attention and wrote it down--I was very disappointed when I learned that the series WASN'T AVAILABLE! It wasn't even that recently made that it made sense for it not to be available yet.

However, I did find not only the book Silverwing, but also the two sequels Sunwing and Firewing. When I read the first book, I was left wondering \"Is that it?\" Not only because a lot of what's in the series isn't in that book, but even had I not seen the animated version, the book Silverwing (otherwise a good story) doesn't end so much as it stops. Only one loose end is tied up--Shade and Marina meet the Silverwing colony at Hibernaculum.

In fact, Silverwing and Sunwing should have (in my opinion) been published in a single volume, because they make for a complete story together, but not separately.

Actually, the animated version takes some elements from Sunwing (e. g., Orestes, the lifting of the ban from seeing the sun) and some were completely original. It's not perfect, but it's definitely very enjoyable. I enjoy both versions of the Silverwing saga.

Which is why I'm glad it's finally going to be available in June. It was a long time coming, and it's well worth the wait.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, I'll say it. This movie made me laugh so hard that it hurt. This statement may offend some of you who may think that this movie is nothing more than a waste of film. But the thing that most people don't get is that this movie was intended to be bad and cheezy. I mean, did people actually think that a movie about a killer snowman was intended to be a masterpiece? Just look at the \"scary\" hologram on the jacket of the movie and you'll find your answer. Instead, like the original Jack Frost (which I thought was just as funny), this movie turned out to be a side-splitting journey into the depths of corny dialogue, bad one liners and horrible special effects. And it's all made to deliver laughter to us viewers. It certainly worked for me.

For example: Anne Tiler (to her troubled husband): What makes you frown so heavily darling?

If that chunk of dialogue doesn't make you laugh, then you have serious issues. Who in their right mind would utter those words in real life? Of course, no one because it was meant to sound ridiculous! Just take one viewing of this movie with an open mind and low expectations, and hopefully you'll see what's so damn funny about Jack Frost 2.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Worst horror film ever but funniest film ever rolled in one you have got to see this film it is so cheap it is unbeliaveble but you have to see it really!!!! P.s watch the carrot","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seriously, I don\u00b4t really get why people here are bashing it. I mean,

the idea of a killer snowman wreaking havoc on a tropical island paradise is pretty absurd. The good news is, the producers realized it and made it a comedy in the vein of Army of Darkness.

Especially in the second half of the film, when the little killer snowballs attack, I laughed my ass off. For example, the put one of the little creeps into a blender (a la Gremlins 1) and mix it. After that, it morphs back into a snowball and squeals with a high pitched voice \"That was fun!\".

Bottom line - incredible movie, rent it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is better then the first. The movie opens up with Sheriff Sam .Then, Sam and Anne pack there bags up and head to the Tropicana while Jack tags along.

People are shot, get glass through necks, get squished by anvils, get stabbed with icicles, eyes gouged out, head explosions, drownings, hangings, lobsters shoved into faces, slit throats, freezing to death, killed by snowballs, arms are ripped off, melted by anti-freeze, icicles down necks, hit in face with pots and pans, fingers getting' bitten off, icicles through mouths, bitten on the neck, exploding people, toasted snowballs, and shoved in blenders.

The snowballs are hilarious, they put it into a blender and turn it on, then it says 'that was fun' they put in in a waffle thing and it gets burnt.

This is just a great movie. Then they start thinking of other ways to kill it, and the snowball replies, 'that's not nice'

It was worth then ten bucks spent to buy this.

10 out of 10 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Where to Begin, I like the scary snow-monster named Jack Frost. The whole concept works well for me, we thought he'd be back and he was. Changing the local to a tropical resort works. Seeing old friends and meeting new characters. Scott MacDonald does a great job as Jack Frost, you can tell when an actor has fun playing a villain, you can see it or in this case hear it in the performance. Yup, Jack Frost 2 is a welcomed sequel that is better then the first. I do have one complaint, the little Jacks or the Jacklings as I call them. They looked like hand puppets. I think they could have done a better job with the Jacklings, the mouth could have opened wider, but the CGI was good and as a whole the whole movie is worth watching over and over again. If you liked JACK FROST, then you will like this sequel. No questions or debate, 9 BIG STARS.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has everything typical horror movies lack. Although some things are far fetched we are dealing with quality snow man engineers. The only preview i can reveal is that i cant wait for Jackzilla. Dare i say oscar winner. This is a perfect date movie. I advise all men for a nice romantic surprise see this movie with that special person.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The problem with so many people watching this movie is the mindset they watch it in. People come looking for a B-Grade horror film, or a \"So Bad It's Good\" movie. Jack Frost 2 is neither of these.

It is, to put it simply, a very good movie cleverly hidden inside a very bad one. To view it as anything other than a screwball comedy (easily funnier than all three absolutely meritless \"Scary Movies\" combined) is to misinterpret the movie on a basic level. It would be like watching Shawshank Redemption and then complaining that there were no explosions.

The premise is simple; the characters from the first movie, haunted by memories of Jack Frost, take a vacation to a tropical island. A new, improved Jack comes after them, now with essentially the powers of Hydro-Man from Spider-Man; essentially, he can turn from water to snow easily and quickly, divide himself, multiply himself, and, worst of all, he's managed to grow an immunity to his only former weakness...AntiFreeze.

What's sad about this movie is that the brain dead fans of the first Jack Frost (a simply HORRIBLE movie) can't appreciate the change of tone for the sequel. Just as Alien was a horror film and Aliens was all about action, Jack Frost was a weak attempt at gimmick horror and Jack Frost 2 is a cleverly written parody of the gimmick horror genre.

Most of the entertainment comes the live action actors, who serve admirably. Particularly funny among them are Ray Tooney (playing a caricature of a retired British Colonel from the early 1900s), Christopher Allport (offering an insane, hilarious spin on his wooden performance from the first film), and David Allen Brooks (taking the once serious role of manners to new, totally bizarre heights).

The lack of \"memorable quotes\" disturbs me.

As a horror movie, Jack Frost 2: Revenge of The Mutant Killer Snowman, rates a zero. But you have to understand, IT'S NOT A HORROR MOVIE.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*SPOILERS*

I don't care what anyone says, this movie is friggin' hilarious. This is the sequel to Jack Frost, a movie about a killer snowman. The snowman is created when a convicted serial killer about to be executed is taken to the execution chamber, but the truck crashes with a truck carrying DNA manipulation chemicals that make human DNA bond with dirt, or in this case, snow. The first movie was just boring, and eventually the snowman is destroyed by pouring antifreeze on him.

Or so they thought.

This movie takes place about a year after the second. Some scientists resurrect Jack Frost by mixing the antifreeze with chemicals. No explanation is ever given for why they do this, they just do. Meanwhile, the sherrif who arrested Frost in the first is going to the Bahamas. Unfortunately, the snowman comes with him.

This movie has it all. It has talking carrots that can stand up, ice cubes that explode when you stick them in your mouth, and killer snowballs. Yes, killer snowballs. They even say \"Dada!\" like babies. I'll have to give the makers of this credit. The snowballs are some of the cutest little things ever dreamed up. I wish that I could get one as a pet. Frost finally freezes the island, as if a killer snowman has the ability to influence major weather patterns.

Then there's the actors. There's Manners, the FBI agent from the first movie, except here he's wearing an eyepatch. YARR MATEYS, SHIVER ME TIMBERS, I BE AN FBI AGENT! YARRR! And then there's the stereotypical British adventurer and the stereotypical black Jamaican with dreadlocks. And finally, Captain Fun. The fruitiest man on the face of the planet, bar none.

This movie isn't scary, but is is hilarious. I laughed my butt off the whole way through, and I recommend this for anyone who likes a good \"bad\" movie.

*** out ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jack Frost 2, is probably the most cheesiest movie I have ever seen in my life. The complete title of the film, is Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman. Horror movie fans that have a taste for campy story lines, will be delighted to watch this. This film was straight to video, and for good reasons. Here's why: The acting, was so atrocious, and so terrible, that it could cause one to cry. The main character had no personality, and the actor's bad acting made it all worse. The screenplay was, was also atrocious. Each character always says a cheesy line, and add the cheesy lines to the bad choreography, then you have something bad. Second, the story line isn't really all that impressive, but since this movie was straight to video, it is forgiven. The director, and writer could have turned the idea of a killer snowman, into something cool, but they didn't. They story has lots of plot holes in it. In the beginning, a cup of coffee gets knocked into the fish tank, with the melted Jack Frost. Scientists try to restore his life, but they couldn't. Once the cup of coffee fell into the tank, Jack Frost was completely restored. Now he is immune to anti-freeze. In Jack Frost part 1, the main character's DNA got mixed up with the Anti-freeze that was used to kill Jack Frost. Since the main character is allergic to bananas, Jack Frost is too. Hence, here's my point. They say that Sam's DNA combined with Jack Frost's. But, one of the scientists had some saliva on the cup, so when it fell into the tank, the scientists DNA would have been combined with Jack Frosts. Another thing, the special effects weren't very good either. Here's the good points: Jack Frost 2 has lots of blood, that looks pretty realistic. Even though this movie is flawed to hell, it is still entertaining. Overall, Jack Frost 2 is an enjoyable horror movie. The first one was better though. 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some will say this movie is a guilty pleasure. I loved this flick but I don't feel guilty about it. You can tell the whole cast and crew had fun making this movie. But Jack Frost 2 won't go over well with some people. Right from the beginning you can tell this movie will be cheesy and it definitely has an amateurish look to it. Well, if you get the privilege to watch this movie, after watching it remember that Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman is a pleasure, not a guilty pleasure. Now, because I can't fill up ten lines heres some great scenes:

**SPOILERS**

The three women on the beach had great deaths. The first one had Jack in a tree trying to drop icicles on one of them. He kept missing so he dropped an anvil on her. The next woman fell on a bed of icicles. The last one was stabbed in the eyes with tongs.

The other great one was where two surfers stoners are hanging out near a frozen pole. One of them gets their tongue stuck on it (of course). Jack Frost pulls him back a rips his tongue off while saying \"COWA-TONGUE-A DUDE!\". Well, you have to see it for yourself.

And of course, the snowball children kicked ass.

**END SPOILERS**

infinity stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay , so this wasnt what I was expecting. I rented this film just to see how it would be since I want to see the first one anyway. But , this film had B-movie all over it. But when I watched it I realized that it was very funny. For the first 30 minutes It was just how the snowman was kiiling people and one man losing his sanity. But , those first few minutes had some funny one liners in it. When He throws up the first of his little minions I knew this would be very very funny. They all act like the gremlins in the ninteen eighty four hit gremlins that it made it look like it was spoofing it and made me forget it was a B-movie. So if you like to laugh rent this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this movie is different apart from most films I've seen. It was exciting in a way, and no matter what others say, I say, I was surprised about the final solution. Certainly didn't see it coming!! Although it's sad, it's worth watching.. I can't think of any movie that would be like this! Actors knew what they were doing. If you say this movie sucks, you say probably what most people would say. But, if someone says that this movie is ordinary, I absolutely don't agree. And Norman Reedus should be more noticed.

Maybe I'm freak but I liked this very much. It was kind of mess, but who cares? I'm tired of boring and ordinary movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first time I saw this film, I wanted to like it for so many reasons, but I simply did not. It just seemed a little dull. But there was a tiny question I had about something I saw near the beginning of the film so I watched it again\u0085 and then finally it clicked for me. I first watched the movie knowing the \"surprise ending\", and while I definitely wouldn't recommend having the ending spoiled for you, I have still thoroughly enjoyed the bulk of the film and discovering the many seemingly insignificant events that all unravel to point to a very sinister scheme.

I don't think that everyone will love this movie, or even like it. If you like any of the actors, you'll like this movie because the acting is fairly strong and they all get a lot of screen time. If you like mysteries (namely Hitchcock) you'll like this movie. If you like independent or psychological films, you'll like this movie. It really worked for me on all of those levels. If you don't like the actors, mysterious plots or psychological elements, you might not like this movie. But that's your loss. Personally, the only thing that irked me a little was the accents. Good try, Alan Rickman, on the American dialect, but it wasn't much improvement from the scene in Die Hard. (The wonderful voice makes up for the weird accent though.) The medley of accents in the movie was a little odd, but it was not so distracting that it became difficult or particularly irritating. Also, the camera change from scene to scene was evident and might bother some people, but I actually think it added to the scenes (or scene\u0085 I can really only recall one scene where the change was severely different, but it worked).

When you see this movie, see it at least twice. The second time you see it, I hope you realize how intricate the plot really is. Every time I watch this movie (it's under an hour and a half so multiple viewings are not difficult) I seem to notice something else about it and find myself wondering, \"Why did that just happen?\" or \"Was that intentional?\" I like movies that make me think. This one does. So just see it. Twice.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"It's funny your worst nightmare always seems so far away!\"

Dark Habour's characters, a married couple (Alan Rickman & Polly Hunter) and a vagabond (Norman Reedus), are slipping into a game full of hidden sexual energy and treason. Now-and-then tantalizing breaks increase the tensions and give much space for interpretations. Good acting and a story which, if not using the brain, will leave you in confusion. You have to watch it twice at least. The very strength lies in its unconventionality and in Alan Rickman, of course. Those who love him will love this movie.

Conclusion: It is not a typical prime time movie but Well Done !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Dark Harbor at the '98 Seattle Film Festival. Filmed against a autumnal Maine backdrop, this movie boasts an excellent cast and a plot that keeps you guessing throughout. At times eerie, at times funny, I have to say that it stayed with me for days after seeing it. Rickman and Walker are wonderful as the icy marrieds and Reedus is someone you'll be hearing more from, I'm sure. The opening shot of a winding, deserted road in a downpour at dusk (and the score that accompanied it) set the tone so well -- just terrific. Nice, nice work from a new-ish director\/screenwriter and his talented crew.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dark Harbor is a moody little excursion into murky emotional waters that run extremely deep. It's basically a 3-character piece, featuring a finely-layered performance by the always-great Rickman, with Polly Walker and Norman Reedus (also excellent) forming the other two sides of this strange triangle. A perfect late-night cable film, with a surprise ending to boot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If the ending hadn't been so fantastically unexpected, I don't think I could rate this movie so well.

This movie has a lot of uncomfortable, distressing, \"marriage falling apart\" character interaction. That sort of thing is not my kind of drama, so the pace seemed to drag for me.

In addition, the main characters are difficult to relate to and thus care much about -- the husband (Alan Rickman) is rather bitter and cranky and the wife (Polly Walker) is aloof and a little haughty. The acting was just fine (Norman Reedus was very alluring), but the characters themselves were perhaps a little TOO realistically flawed (for me).

The setting was nice and appropriately isolated and a little spooky. The cinematography had something to it that seemed a little old-fashioned to me somehow.

But the last 5-15 minutes of this movie are so ingenious that every uncomfortable scene, awkward conversation, and inexplicable character behavior absolutely worth it. I guessed every typical plot twist except the one that occurred.

The ending definitely makes this movie worth watching. The intrigue and the drama, not quite as much.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A few things to touch on as a response to the earlier person's comment. You just have to pay attention to what is going on in the film.

(I guess they are spoilers)

The red stuff under David's mouth? Poison ivy, the wife says not to scratch it or else \"it will spread\".

David goes \"insane\" because the stranger is telling HIM to get out of the house, which probably proves David's theory of an affair happening between the wife and stranger; he runs after the man.

David does not lose him in the woods, he simply hits the stranger a couple of times and leaves it to his wife to pick up the pieces.

Only the wife eats the mushroom.

I must say, after that one point with the wife and stranger, I began to feel disappointed. But the ending made up for the entire film.

And for that and the very last scene... this is one of my favorite movies ever. I should have put it together earlier, but let myself get sidetracked. I was really surprised, honestly.

This film is interesting, to say the least. But if you are not watching this for the performances that the actors give, I'd say you better let this one go, because that is all that keeps this certain film together.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rickman is sexy and good, but the \"stranger\" is less convincing - Reedus is sort of sexy, but he is not a consistent actor - this could be the director's fault in this case - we are supposed to find him alluring in the extreme just because he is \"pretty\" - but that's not enough. The thwarted wife is almost convincing - 7 years marriage and she and Rickman's character should be more settled with each other, whether their roles are to be incompatible or not - they must have patterns by now. i get that, although i think the wife is a bit stiff in her role - and not convincingly attracted to the \"stranger\" - so that's a failing - the unspoken bonding between the Rickman character and the \"stranger\" is better done, even if we are not sure what it is. i miss Rickman's sexy English accent (luckily he slips into it and out of the American pattern). disappointing but with some great acting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really loved this movie. I thought it was very well done. The character interaction was wonderfully done as was the characterization. The actors were definitely believable. The plot was very deep and intriguing. Even though parts of it are a bit slow and sometimes a bit boring, it's definitely worth watching several times. The chemistry between the three main actors was great. If you don't want to watch it for that, then at least watch it for the drama between the characters. I mean, the whole thing was just \"Whoa!\" It was like I couldn't look away. The whole movie grabbed my attention and kept my interest, even through the slow parts. I loved this movie and almost everything about it. I loved the ending because it was so interesting and, if you watch the movie a second time, makes perfect sense. But I'm not spoiling anything.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my all time favorite movies, it's great to watch in groups, I find. It's also great for any Alan Rickman fan, he does such a wonderful job. It's engrossing, entertaining, very surprising... you have to watch it twice, at least. I haven't watched it with anyone who didn't like it or at least find it worthwhile.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"in a time of predictable movies, in which abound violence, cheap romance and melodrama, it is delightfully surprising to find such a strange movie. the plot itself is compelling, and the actors are excellent, especially Alan Rickman. If you want to watch a movie that does not provide all the answers before asking the questions, a movie that will surprise you (in good or bad), Dark Harbor's for you. And if you're not convinced, believe me that Alan Rickman's performance is well worth it... especially at the end, ladies....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...this film noire set piece suffers from murky sound (at least, as shown on the inadequate equipment of both the Seattle and Maine film festivals) and murkier plotting, while Rickman suffers from an American accent, old tennis shoes and baggy sweats. Nonetheless, he has moments of stellar scenery chewing, and the film offers sinister ambiguity from Norman Reedus, the pretty Polly Walker, and a surprise ending (telescoped to frequent filmgoers), while affording a beautiful look at the physiography of both Maine and Rickman. Due out in video release (after a cable airing) in March. Not to be missed by any Rickman fan. Ignore the amanita hooey.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dude, I thought this movie rocked. Perfect for just sitting around alone and watching at like 3AM with just you and a bottle. The whole time you are watching it you are thinking WTF? What's gonna happen next.... dude just get with the chick already. Alright..... they are pickin mushrooms... this is odd... but kinda creepy cool. Damn this whole movie has an erotic dirty naughty cold evil undertone to it... it's subtle dance just keeps you drawn to it... you're just waiting for someone to get whacked. But damn... WTF!? You get that and then some. For the morally enraged stomach it is great running to the toilet to barf material. Any movie that can get that kinda reaction out of you deserves an award.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was an interesting study in societal sexuality, as well as the \"dark interests\" of man.

While I can't say the wife was a strong character - she was the wrong choice for the part, in my opinion - she was a rich kid in search of escaping her drool life. She was a rebel in fact, and never fully matured for her husband, a lawyer (Rickman). It's obvious he married her for her money and to cover his sexual desires, which is taboo. Rickman played his part to a tee, his flirtations with the young man, and very subtle undertones of gayness. The young man was gay to the hilt! When he did Marilyn impersonation that should have told the wife everything. He was perfectly cast as well. He has hustler written all over him.

I was not crazy about the ending, as I knew what was coming. Overall though, the acting from Rickman was great, Reedus was good, Walker was okay but I had misgivings. For a gay themed movie, it was average, but not blatant at least. It's worth viewing if you don't have \"Truly Madly Deeply\" lying around for a spin.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While driving in a dangerous zigzag manner on a lonely road in the night, the teenager Cliff (Jay R. Ferguson) has a car accident with his friends Lauren (Christine Taylor), Alex (Kim Murphy) and Eric (Christopher Masterson). While spending the cold night stranded in the woods around a campfire, they kill time telling ghost stories. In \"The Honeymoon\", the couple Rick (Ron Livingston) and Valerie (Jennifer MacDonald) travels in their RV to Las Vegas in their honeymoon. Rick takes a shortcut to visit the Clayton Caverns in the night, but the stranger Cole (Hawthorne James) advises them to leave the spot since dangerous creatures attack people in the full moon. In \"People Can Lick Too\", on the eve of her twelfth birthday, Amanda (Alex McKenna) tells her Internet friend Jessica that she is alone at home. However, Jessica is actually a psychopath. In \"The Locket\", the biker Scott (Glenn Quinn) is crossing the country on his motorcycle. When he has a problem with his bike, he finds an isolated house where the gorgeous dumb Heather Wallace (Jacinda Barrett) lives with her father. When the man returns from his herd, Scott finds the truth about Heather.

\"Campfire Tales\" presents three good horror tales, with monsters, psychopaths and ghosts and a surprising twist in the end. The weakest segment is \"The Hook\", with Eddie and Jenny, but the other stories a great. The plot point is totally unexpected and gives a great conclusion to this above average horror movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazul): \"Contos da Meia-Noite\" (\"Midnight Tales\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would like to say that I absolutely loved Campfire Tales! To me, it was one of the original horror flicks with a twisted ending. As if the contents of the movie weren't scary or weird enough, you have the ending. It's a very awesome movie and I'm so happy that it's being released on DVD on August 30th.I will not hesitate to get my copy on that day.I don't think the movie received all the credit or recognition it should have, because all these other movies came out shortly after and was acknowledge, but if it weren't for my brother telling me about the movie, I wouldn't have known. Which stinks because in my opinion it's far better than any \"Scream\", \"I know what you did Last Summer\", or any other horror for that time. So I hope that you are able to see the movie yourself and at least be able to see the difference. I loved it, and being a horror movie junkie, Campfire Tales was like dessert for me!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I originally posted the first user comment on this movie,and claimed it was crap and it didnt make sense.I DIDNT MAKE SENSE. Campfire tales is a thoroughly enjoying film (now that im 2 years older and watched it last night).The actors were famous but not TOO famous. The acting itself was more than acceptable,it was rather good.I will rate the movie per segment of films.

1)The black and white scene (A.K.A-\"The Hook\") This one was rather pointless,it looked good,but didnt hold much grip at all,the only disappointing one,i dont think it was even included as a segment.Here is the scare-o-meter.

------(Poor)

2)The R.V Story (honeymooners stuck in woods) Possibly the most entertaining of all tales,the acting was good in this one too,dissapointing bout the typical caravan sex scenes.Yet it was intruiging,you think \"WHo was knocking on that door\".It had suspense,and not too gory.Liked this one

--------------------------(Very Good)

3)Internet Chat Tale (Little Girl Meets Psycho) This was a smart addition,gore left at a minimal,frights left at EXTREME.Although dull at times,the last few minutes were most entertaining,dont get me wrong it was still fun to watch.Real creepy,and could happen to anybody,so watch who youre talking to.

---------------------------(Very Good)

4)Ghost Tale (Man kisses ghost)?? Not the best,it wasnt too atmospheric for a ghost tale.This one was strange,the aspects were rather good,playing music and the screaming,but everything was too real to be ghastly,although it was good,it was quiet bloody,and could have been better with that idea.

-------------(Acceptable)

5)The Ending (the 4 lost teenagers) These are the 2 attractive gals and guys telling the tales through-out the film.The best thing about the film is definantley the ending,it set a great impression,the ending was totally un-expected.Watch it,it was so well done,the realism was spectacular.

-----------------------------------(TOP NOTCH)

6)THE FILM OVERALL Campfire tales was more than i used to take it for,i actually like it so much now im buying it on video,cause its a truly entertaining horror movie forget the trash you see these days,like many,im dissapointed that this didnt really go nowhere,it was straight to video,to me it was better than all the hype \"horror\" you see these days. Overall for Campfire Tales

----------------------------- (Very Good)

8 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie late at night on a free-to-air channel, and I must say, I was pleasantly surprised. Being a horror movie fan, I often watch these sort of midnight movies during the school holidays. More often than not, the horror movies shown during this time are usually big lamers. 'Campfire Tales' certainly does not fit into that category.

Campfire Tales is basically an anthology of short stories based loosely on well-known urban legends. They are pieced together with a setting involving teenagers telling these stories around a campfire. This campfire setting has a mysterious plot in itself. However, this particular story is weak and confusing, obviously used predominantly to set up the other spooky tales.

There are three tales in this movie (four if you count 'The Hook' at the beginning), all of which are truly spooky and well-made. I especially enjoyed the third tale ('The Locket') involving a guy whose motorbike breaks down in front of a mysterious household. This particular story works well in really freaking you out with sudden flashbacks of the house's history. In addition to this, the ending of the tale will completely shock you! The first tale ('The Honeymoon') was also very creepy, though the second tale ('People can lick too') was somewhat lacking.

Being a horror movie veteran, I don't usually get freaked out. This film certainly did that job well! What I particularly liked about this movie is the fact that it's split up into three shorts. This means the movie won't plod through an hour or so of character development and setting establishment before the real bloodshed begins. That makes 'Campfire Tales' perfect for sleepovers, parties, etc.

Campfire Tales is a creepy, crisp horror movie that will make your heart stop more than once. It's certainly better than the crap you'll often find in the cinemas these days (Blair Witch 2, Urban Legends: Final Cut...bleah!). Find a copy and watch it...if you dare!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Definitely not only for urban legend aficionados, Campfire Tales is an often scary and always fun ride through several popular stories. It is also a film that exceeded the (low) expectations I had. A horror film I had never heard or read about, a straight-to-video release (granted, the latter often presents us with a pleasant surprise, but with horror films nowadays it can be all or nothing), a cast of mostly unknowns... well, I'll leave the math to you.

The film proves to be an entertaining, suspenseful and overall very enjoyable experience. The four stories are well-paced and satisfying. The only one I felt was a little weaker was \"The Locket\", for the simple reason that it offers almost no explanation for its plot or the characters' actions; however, I still loved the tale, its atmosphere and ending. My favorite one was the third story, \"People Can Lick Too\" - the suspense in it is not only palpable, but also educational.

I found Campfire Tales to be one of those horror gems one discovers by chance, and then goes on recommending it to everyone.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I decided to watch this on FearNet on demand for free because I figured well, nothing else looks enjoyable. And it turned out to be quite a good little horror surprise! The film serves as an anthology of four urban legends told from the point of view of four teenagers whose car breaks down in the middle of nowhere. After they decide to build a campfire in the woods, they begin to tell their spooky stories and the movie transitions to the events in the stories.

The Honeymoon- a newlywed couple traveling cross country in an RV to Las Vegas is terrorized when they park in a wooded area by evil beings that hunt by the full moon. (I won't spoil that for you!) The Hook- Amy Smart and James Marsden, (probably the most famous people in the movie besides beautiful Christine Taylor) play the young couple who come face to face with the maniac that has a hook for a hand in this most recognizable short.

People can Lick Too- this is probably the scariest and most dark of the stories. A young girl chats with another girl on the internet, but it turns out that it's actually a man who is obsessed with her and he proceeds to break into the house when she's alone. This was really chilling.

The Locket- This is also a great story with Glen Quinn and Jacinda Barrett, who play a motorcyclist and a beautiful mute girl who are terrorized by ghosts from a previous century in a mysterious farm house. This was good but it was the weakest of the entries.

The group around the campfire slowly develop their own terrifying experience in their segments between stories, and the end of this movie is surprising and really awesome! Overall this is not bone-chillingly scary but it's certainly a great little guilty pleasure that horror fans alike would definitely find worthwhile!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Campfire Tales\" is basically made up of three spooky stories that a group of friends tell after they get into a car crash in the woods after a concert. The film begins with the classic \"Hook\" story, and then we're introduced to the group of friends driving home from the concert. They crash their car, put out some flares, and start a fire in a little abandoned chapel, waiting for someone to arrive with help as they warm themselves by the fire. To pass the time, they decide to start telling classic horror stories, about terrorized honeymooners, a girl who falls prey to an Internet predator, and a motorist who takes refuge in a haunted house. As they tell the eerie tales, each story becomes increasingly terrifying, but the real shock that awaits them is yet to come...

In my opinion, the last story they tell is probably the scariest and had some genuine, frightening effects. The first story was alright, and the motorhome sequence near the end was a little creepy. The second story built a lot of suspense, more than either of the others did, but it's unoriginal plot was it's downfall. I remember watching this movie a long time ago when I was like eight years old on HBO and the third story scared the crap out of me, although it's not scary to me now. You'll probably recognize some of the cast here, particularly Amy Smart from the opening \"hook\" interlude story, and Christine Taylor as one of the main actresses in the film. The twist ending was kinda interesting too, I know I didn't see that coming, I thought it was all cleverly pieced together.

To sum things up, if you're looking for a horror movie that is worth the while, rent this, you should be happy. It's a great anthology of some classic urban legends, and the whole film was tied together neatly. It is much better than what one would expect. 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was on the Saturday before Halloween this year (today, at the time of this writing) and it has to be the best horror anthology out there. I am normally not a fan of horror movies - largely due to the volume of crap that's been recently released. However, the director of Campfire Tales has the Hitchcock-esquire gift of suspense - unlike other contemporary films, it doesn't take every opportunity to scare you silly, instead using foreshadowing and 'near-misses' - incidents that seem like the instant that the climax will occur in the instant before, but turn out not to be.

I didn't catch 'The Hook' or the first main segment, but from what I have read here, they were the two you could afford to miss.

'People Can Lick Too' was full of suspense - this short keeps you on the edge of your seat, waiting for something to happen to the little girl as she wanders about her yard and house looking for her soccer ball and later her dog. She encounters so many near-misses that the suspense reaches heart-stopping proportions before the climax of the short, when the girl gives up and goes to bed, thinking her dog is underneath it. She reaches her hand down to let him lick it, and she feels the touch of a tongue on her hand...before noticing that on her mirror, written in blood, is 'People can lick too'. I'll leave the last few seconds for you to find out, my reader, for at this point the short could have taken any number of turns.

'The Locket', however, was the unarguable masterpiece of this film. It begins with a man on a motorcycle, simply driving...towards what he does not know, but he can feel himself getting closer. As he's driving along, a storm breaks out, and he's forced to find shelter in the house of a mute girl. The two quickly cozy up to each other, but before they can do anything besides kiss, the girl reveals through writing that ghosts inhabit her house. They quickly begin packing up to leave, but they are caught in the middle of a reenactment of a scene decades past - a father, coming home to his daughter and her boyfriend preparing to elope, murders the both of them and then commits suicide. I'll have to leave you to discover the ending here as well - I couldn't hope to do the story justice in any case, and what I've said so far is just a brief summary of the story - I couldn't hope to convey the nuances and sensory details that add to it.

'The Campfire', being the connecting thread between all of the stories, is a fairly interesting rehash of the car accident theme, and the girls are very much attractive - in fact, most of the girls in this film are good-looking. Anyway, despite the fact that it's chopped up, the story is given justice, and the ending is difficult to predict if you're preoccupied with the other stories. However, if you pay enough attention to the segments of The Campfire spread through the film, it's certainly possible to predict the ending, especially if you've seen movies based on the same premise. (MST3k fans, remember Soultaker? Same premise, but without the god awful writing of Vivian Schilling, and the bulk of the movie. If you've seen the first 30 minutes of that you should be able to predict the ending.) All in all, the best horror movie I've seen in a LONG time, and the only horror anthology worthy of a buy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie dethroned Dr. Giggles as the best horror movie I've ever seen. The plot was great, the plot twists were even better and the cast was great. It's hard to believe that they compiled the most unknown people 8 years ago and they would be big names today!

The plot is simple. 4 teenagers wreck their car in the middle of nowhere. They stumble on this campsite and do what everybody who is in an accident should do. Build a fire and tell scary stories.

1. \"The Hook.\" Great opener. Anyone who is in High School has heard variations of this story on Prom night. But they do it real good in this movie.

2. \"The Honeymoon.\" OK, this was not the best of the 4. It was pretty good and you get to see some boob. Emphisis on the word \"some.\" It's just your basic creature in the woods story.

3. \"People Can Lick Too.\" This is a cautionary tale of what happens in internet chat rooms all across the country. This segment alone should be required viewing for parents whose children have access to the internet.

4. \"The Locket.\" Now this is the best story in the whole movie. A guy on a motorcycle breaks down and goes to this mute girl's house. Very good plot twist.

The main plot, \"The Campfire\" has the biggest and best twist in the whole movie. I won't tell what it is cause I don't want to ruin it. I was never this shocked during a movie in my life!

Plot: A+

Acting: A+

Writing: A+

Directing: A+

Music: A+

Overall: A+

I recommend it to anyone over 13 with the exception of \"People Can Lick Too.\" Any parent who's child has access to the internet needs to watch this one with their child.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is about a group of four friends who wreck a car while driving. They build a campfire to get though the night and wait for help. To pass the time, they tell each other scary stories. To tell about it would ruin the movie, so rent and enjoy it!!

I will say it starts out a little slow, but each tale get better and better. This movie stars some of today's hottest actors Christine Taylor(The Brady Bunch Movies), James Marsden(Disturbing Behavior) and Ron Livingston (Office Space). So you can see there are big name stars just not the really big ones!!GO rent or buy it ASAP !!This movie is awesome!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently bought this movie for three bucks at a garage sale, and while I'm glad I didn't have to pay the usual $19.99 for this DVD, I was pleasantly surprised by how good the film was.

It's set up like a horror anthology, broken up into 5 tales, including the 'connector' story which involves four teenagers who's car breaks down a dark, lonely road in the middle of the night. Apparently, these kiddos like horror stories, because that's what they decide to do until morning - tell spooky stories around a campfire. Each character takes their turn telling a story, after which their own story is wrapped up with a nice little twist.

The first story, \"The Hook\" is kinda a waste of time, a bit bland and dull. Luckily, this is not one of the main stories and only lasts maybe 5 minutes. It's intended merely to introduce the film and it's easy to overlook the unoriginality of this piece.

The second story, \"The Honeymooners\" is, eh, okay. It's about - you guessed it - two people on their honeymoon! They're traveling around in an RV headed to Las Vegas. They decide to stop somewhere for the night, but they're quickly warned by a mysterious stranger to leave the location, or risk being attacked by some dangerous, unknown creatures. This story has a pretty good setup, but just merely an 'ok' delivery. Basically, it's fairly entertaining and mysterious till the monsters show up, then it's just kinda iffy.

The third story, \"People Can Lick Too\" is my personal favorite. It involves a young girl who's parents are going out for the night and who's older sis is ditching her for a party. So, she's going to be all alone - a fact she makes known to an internet buddy of hers. Trouble is, that internet buddy? Is not exactly a thirteen-year-old girl. This story's conclusion is slightly less climatic than I might have liked to have seen, but still pretty dang good.

The final story, \"The Locket\" is definitely the one packed with the most atmosphere. Set in a creepy mansion on a dark, rainy night, it's the tale of a young man (played by Glenn Quinn!) traveling around on a motorcycle who stumbles across this house just at the time that he conveniently has a problem with his bike. He meets the mute girl who lives in the house, and falls in love with her at first sight. Unfortunately, not everything is all fine and dandy - and it might have something to do with that locket hanging around her pretty neck...

After the stories are wrapped up, we're presented with a twist involving the four teens in the car, a twist which, in retrospect, should have been obvious, but which it didn't really see coming, and it's a quite pleasing conclusion to film.

So, all in all, a good movie. Rent it if you can, because unfortunately, I don't really think it has a lot re-watching value. But next time you're in the mood for a vaguely scary litte flick in the same vein as \"Tales of the Darkside\" or something, grab this movie and some popcorn, turn off all the lights, and treat yourself to this surprisingly nifty little flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Campfire Tales (1997)

An excellent peace of work. Everything about this film is just perfect.

The film has a great cast as you can see from IMDb. The reason i brought the film was because of Christine Taylor and the love for horror films. lets get to the main parts

1. there are 4 Teenagers in this film , After crashing their car they decide to tell some spooky stories 2. there are 3 stories and the main plot ( the 4 teenagers are the main plot) 3. the best story is \" people can lick too\"in my opinion. the least scary story is possibly \"honeymoon\" or the 2nd story (can't remember the name\"

4. \"people can lick too\" is about a man pretending to be a 13 year old girl( over the internet). he starts chatting to a girl called Amanda and then enters her house . very creepy stuff this story will make you think twice of chatting to someone online. basically a pervert enters her house and things go creepy.

5. the main plot is sweet and simple, teenagers crash, tell stories, try to freak each other out. But there's a very cool twist at the end.

the only bad part of this movie is, the teenagers crash their car into another couple, but the kids don't bother seeing if the couple are OK. They just talk about the couple who they've crashed into.

The men and women who made this film made it to scare people, not to make money. unlike \"Scream\" and \"I know what you did last summer\", this film is created to Scare you. \"scream\" and \"i know what you did last summer\" were made to make Big time cash.

even though this movie wasn't pushed as publicly as scream was , it's still 10 times better than scream and \"i know what you did last summer\".

the characters in this movie are great and have realistic characteristics. The cast who play theses characters are great. Christine Taylor does a fabulous Job with Lauren, doesn't go over the top with the acting. The dude who plays Eric (laurens younger brother) also does a good job of showing men or teenage boys can also get freaked out. Screams is like a spoof movie, the murderer is a joke and the kids are dumb

Unlike scream and \"i know what you did last summer\", this movie has realistic people, not a goof of a movie, should of been more noticed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Good (not great) little horror film with a high \"creep\" factor (not to be confused with a 1991 movie by the same name, or the more recent (2001) Campfire STORIES). Central tale of stranded teens telling ghost stories around a campfire in spooky woods nicely leads into, and ties together the different stories that make up the bulk of the movie (Watch for Ron Livingston (Office Space, Band of Brothers) and Jennifer MacDonald in a spirited, sexy segment (\"The Honeymoon\")). Solid acting and a few truly \"scary\" moments make this an above-average chiller. Good example of interesting story line, coupled with quality ensemble acting resulting in a whole greater than the sum of its parts. \"Surprise\" ending of the main story adds nice creepy twist, although some may see it coming. Movie is not available on DVD, but can be found on VHS.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Caught this flick as one of a five-for-$5 deal from a local video store, and it was a most pleasant surprise. It's a collection of four interrelated tales built around four kids who've just had a car wreck and are waiting for someone to pick them up. They tell each other these stories to kill time, and are occasionally startled by flashing lights and funny noises which all come together in an O. Henry-esque ending that left me gleeful. A real discovery. Blood (and plenty of it), breasts and beasts round it all out rather nicely...Jacinda Barrett is worth the price of admission alone. This one is a keeper--Jim Bob says check it out.

Oddly enough, \"Pumpkinhead\" was one of our five choices too, and IMDB recommends that for anyone who likes \"Campfire Tales\". I'll followup as soon as I get a chance to sit down and watch that one. Joyeux Samhain!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is definently a horror movie and if you do not get scared than you must not be watching this movie. It works on the old techniques but throws something new into the mix. This movie grips and runs and hides within your mind. The movie has a point to it unlike other horror movies. Watch it for a thrill and shock to your system.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Remarkably well done, but under-recognized because of limited distribution. Has big-studio feel, understands the horror genre, speeds along with clever plot twists and never stumbles. Could have been a college cult classic, if it had ever gotten the opportunity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow! My mom bought me this movie because it was on sale really cheap in some store in my town, and she knows I love scary movies. First I looked at the cover and sighed, thinking that it was some ordinary B-movie trying to be scary. I was so wrong! I made the great big mistake watching it alone, my parents and my brother was asleep and it was really late. After I seen the movie I was so scared I was shaking... I didn't even dare to go up and take the videotape out of the VCR! I slept with the lights on...

This movies main story is about some teenagers who drives off the road and have to spend the night in the woods, telling scary stories... The first story is really scary, and it makes you hug a pillow really hard if you watch it alone.. The second story is scary too, but not in the same way as the first one. The third story (my favorite) is really, really creepy. It scared me most of all stories. It is about a guy who is driving around the country on a motorcycle. One night when there's a storm outside, he goes to the closest house and knocks on the door.. A girl opens, and she is mute.. Don't wanna tell you more, but you will get chills when you watch it (I might add that my heartbeats were really abnormal when I watched it). \"Campfire Tales\"' main story has a really interesting and surprising ending. I know some guys said it sucked, but me, my boyfriend and my friends loved it, and it was a long time since we got that scared.. rating: 10\/10, oh by the way, it is NOT like Urban Legend at all, it is so much scarier.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cannot believe I enjoyed this as much as I did. The anthology stories were better than par, but the linking story and its surprise ending hooked me. Alot of familiar faces will keep you asking yourself \"where I have I seen them before?\" Forget the running time listed on New Line's tape, this ain't no 103 minutes, according to my VCR timer and IMDB. Space Maggot douses the campfire in his own special way and hikes this an 8.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I switched this on (from cable) on a whim and was treated to quite a surprise...although very predictable this film turned out to be quite enjoyable...no big stars but well-directed and just plain fun. With all the over-hyped crap that is out there it is very nice to get an unexpected surprise now and then... and this little film fits the bill nicely. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is so awesome! I loved it, it was really scary. I love the Scream movies and all horror movies and this one ranks way up there. It probably helped that I watched it at midnight. If you want a real scare rent this one! 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It may not have had the big budgets, celebrities or endorsements of Scream, Urban Legend or I Know What You Did Last Summer, but Campfire Tales had one thing these three movies lacked: true horror.

This film tackled the subject of urban legends a year before the aptly titled and less than enthralling Urban Legend did. It was intriguing, masterfully scripted and logical in a way I Know What You Did Last Summer could only dream of. Finally, it held its focus and finished with a flurry while Scream fizzled and died.

What's most exciting about the film is the variety of horror that the writers and directors achieved. The overarching story of teenagers around a campfire was classic dread at the unknown (but certainly expected) doom that awaited them in the forest, but the tales themselves are where the movie really shined.

The opening sequence is pure, fast-paced urban myth. It's based on a popular legend, and the director plays on this with the style and pace of the action, making it more enthralling because we know what's going to happen.

The first campfire tale is a straight-forward thriller. Based on another popular myth, we don't actually realize this until the end, both because it blends so well into the story and because the action keeps our attention. Being the thriller of the trilogy, this one plays off our fear of the unknown and includes several well-done \"jump\" sequences that don't feel nearly as cheap or contrite as those in movies like Scream or Urban Legend.

The second tale is more suspense. This time, though the characters still don't know what's going on, we do, and this provides the horror. No need for cheap thrills here.

The final tale contains elements of the supernatural and uses a creepy\/trippy atmosphere to scare the viewer. Because we can relate so easily to the characters and their situation, our fear comes from their intensity and what they can't explain. This is the true ghost story of the trio.

I didn't expect to enjoy Campfire Tales when I rented it. I figured that if I didn't like its more acclaimed, bigger-budget counterparts, how could I like it?

The truth is, though, this film succeeds where the others fell far short of the mark.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie! I'm shocked and disappointed that it never made it to the theaters. Every story was better than the last..much better than the much hyped \"Scream\" series and \"I Know What You Did Last Summer\"and way better than the terrible \"Urban Legend\". I'd recommend this film to every horror fan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was talked about in Fangoria where I heard about this, it was interesting to me mostly becuase it was direct-to-video and I recognized two of the stars on the cover, James Marsden of Disturbing Behavior and Christine Taylor from The Craft. And to my surprise on Valentine's Day when I was searching through the horror aisle to find it on the shelf! I immediately had to grab it. Me and my brother and our girlfriends watched it and to my surprise it was pretty good, the tales were interesting and for once they were actually SCARY, unlike a lot of other horror movies being made recently. Some of the plot I do not understand but once I watch it again I bet I'll get it. And to even more of my surprise there were other stars I recognized including one of the girls from the TV show My So-Called Life and Jacinda from The Real World, I'm not sure why this movie was only direct-to-video, with a little advertising this movie could have at least made up for how much money was spent on making it. The only problem I have is that since it wasn't released in theatres I guess I'll never be able to view it in widescreen. You should definitely take a chance and rent this one.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Low budget, mostly no name actors. . . this is what a campy horror flick is supposed to be all about. These are the types of movies that kept me on the edge of my seat as a kid staying up too late to watch cable. If you liked the 80's horror scene this is the movie for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After the return of \"horror movies\" (come on Scream isn't scary!) i didn't have very high hopes for this low-budget three story horror movie. But i was positively surprised! Man this is scary!!! The first 2 stories are simply brilliant. The first one about a new wed couple driving in a dark forest with their RV, When they bump into a fierce........(watch the movie)! The second story is about a disgusting man who is obsessed with a little girl, who is home alone for one night.... I know it doesn't sound any special but it is Scary. I promise you. The last story isn't scary but atleast not bad. It's about a biker and a ghosthouse. In fact the stories are based on real urban legends(i guess kevin williamson can steal ideas too).Rent this movie it is Good!!! i'd say i'ts the scariest three-short-story-horror-movie ever made!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Loved it! This has to be the best horror flick of the 90's. I

was at the edge of my seat. I jumped a couple times. Wonderful

acting. It is totally horror but it was funny when it was meant

to be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, \"pretty good\" doesn't scream rent me but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Campfire Tales. While by no means a classic the directors involved do have an idea what suspense is. The scares don't just jump out at you but instead the directors build steadily to the climatic moments. The film is based upon popular urban legends and ghost stories. The writers have updated the tales rather well and twisted them just enough that the familiar endings still pack a punch. The best of the shorts are \"The Honeymoon\" and \"People Can Lick Too\", I enjoyed both as they have nice suspense throughout each story. \"The Locket\" was a good ghost story and the wrap around \"The Campfire\" is pretty good too except they go for one too many twists at the end. The only disappointing segment is \"The Hook\" which is fine because it's pretty short anyway. Overall I give this a 7 out of 10. It has suspense, which is lacking from most horror movies today, and good acting by the cast. It may not rate up there with Halloween and The Exorcist but it's a good little movie well worth the price of a rental.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This, without any doubt, is the greatest spin off to Jackass ever made, hell, it even blows Jackass out of the water.

Picture this: You have a group of guys who just didn't want to grow up, throw in a ton of money, and some seriously cool stunts, and you have Viva La Bam.

This show, it's such a family-based one, and it's not just \"the gang\" running around being complete jerks (like in Jackass). For example: Bam's parents, April and Phil, are in every episode, with appearances of Bam's obese uncle, Don Vito to boot! The reason why the Margera family makes us laugh is simple: Somebody in our family can relate. April: The woman who wants to live life by the book and follow tradition. Phil: The guy who tries to be a good father, and finally, Bam: That son that never grew out of high school.

The pranks and jokes in every episode will give you a guaranteed laugh, and buying the DVDs is definitely recommended! Another thing which is surprising to see, is how casual Margera is over the whole thing. He's said in interviews that for the majority of episodes, he isn't acting, and is just acting off instinct.

What I liked the most about the whole thing, however, is the amount of influence Margera has over MTV. He wanted Slayer to play in his backyard, MTV did it. He wanted to hang with Dani Filth for a day and have a Cradle Of Filth concert in his backyard, it happened.

Add to this his passion for the love-metal (and debated as emo) band H.I.M and his brother's garage band CKY, and there's a whole lot of head banging going on.

If you liked Jackass, you'll fall in love with this. I borrowed Season 1 from a friend last year, and I would give up my legs to meet the Viva La Bam Crew. You will not be disappointed, and I can promise you'll be in stitches by the end of it all!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love love love this show. Whether you say it's because I'm insane in the brain or not. I think this show is very funny and entertaining although sometimes Bam's uncle Vito scares me.. so all in all I give this show a perfect review. And so I really think if you're into the \"omg.. what an idiot \" kind of humor, this show is for you. It's really funny to see the look on the prank peoples faces and there are many musical guests who come to Bam's house. Buy this cause it rocks! You should buy it. yes. And Bam's brother is in the band CKY and they are really good and sometimes come on the show.

Bottom line is.. please watch the show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Viva La Bam was one of those shows that I didn't have high if any expectations for, before seeing it, and I never even knew about it until I saw my friend watching it. I had thought Jackass was pretty funny but the stunts were just that, funny and I never really got into the show. When I watched Viva La Bam for the first time it was the complete opposite effect, I loved it. It had more of a TV Show feel to it, which a lot of the \"Reality Shows\" have today. I was hooked and I wanted to see what new scheme they were going to cook up for each episode. All the way to the last episode it held my interest and even though some of the ideas seemed rehashed at times, it always had a newer and funnier twist to it. Viva La Bam is one of those shows that get you hooked and I have yet to see another show that is quite like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OMG, it is seriously the best show in the world. It rocks harder then Jackass and CKY and is so funny and entertaining. I love the show. All 5 seasons are awesome but for a quick summary: Season 1:- Great if you wanna plan a scavenger hunt, watch the house be pulled apart and enjoy seeing Phil bing starved.

Season 2:- Great if you wanna see them buy Castle Bam, watch a slayer concert, see the wonder that is Mardi Gras and the fun of getting to it, see a demo derby and actually see a the making and opening of a Tree Top Casino.

Season 3:- Great if you wanna see probably the first Driveway Skatepark, a civil war, Johnny Knoxville, a pirate ship and Don Vito actually winning one of Bam's reindeer games.

Season 4:- Great if you wanna see them in Europe, them getting Jobs, the building of a State and a bayou and The Dudesons Season 5:- Great if ya want to see them in Brazil, Ape's Birthday, Mike Vallely, The Metal Mulisha, Bams Lambo disappearing, Bams Hummer being destroyed, a playboy party in bams swimming pool and the very Last ever Viva La Bam :(","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I truly enjoyed this film. It's rare to find a star who can pull off the physical aspects of any sports\/dance themed film convincingly and do a first rate acting job as well. In this film you find two stars who rise to the occasion. Both women deliver warm, touching and at times humorous performances. The film also touched on a number of topics, from racial issues to sexual identity. And yet the approach wasn't heavy handed. The production values were also top notch for a small budget film. I saw this at the Philadelphia Gay & Lesbian film festival and went back to see it a second time. It was a real crowd pleaser. Everyone I spoke to seemed to enjoy this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The relationship between the main characters I thought was very realistic. How the two end up involved is believable. It doesn't have that whole \"oh yeah right\" that most Hollywood movies have. Not too mention how they captured the sexy, beautiful and painful side of trapeze. I am a trapeze student and I love that they showed how hard it is on the body, hands and yeah those fabric burns are brutal! Definitely a must see for the relationship as well as the art that is made in the movie. I loved it! I'm happy with the way the movie ended but I definitely wanted to see more. Be sure to stay seated through the credits for a special treat hehe. Great scene!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film tackles the subjects of loss, personal struggle and transformation in such a smart, artful, sensitive, and visually stunning way that I was completely transported. It is a rare gem of a film in the way it honors beauty and women. You'll have to see for yourself. Dreya Weber (Jane) masterfully portrays the subtleties of a remarkable if not somewhat broken personality, in a way that every woman will relate to. I found the honesty of the emotional interactions among characters to be very refreshing and profoundly engaging. There was nothing in this film that said to me \"low budget\" as far as quality is concerned. Nothing. The fact that it is a low-budget film is a tribute to the film's creators. The final sequence during the credits will also knock your socks off. It is a brilliant celebration of Jane's choice. Unexpected and inspiring.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now maybe it had something to do with the fact that I saw this movie at a low point in my life, when I was really trying to figure out where I was going and what I needed to make myself happy, but this film really spoke to me. Jane is an everywoman: although she has so many positive things going for her, she is still vulnerable and unhappy in her life. She is strong and intelligent, but she was cheated out of achieving her potential by an unfortunate accident and is living a second-choice life. She seeks out new challenges and happiness, seeking desperately to fill the hole in her heart. Dreya Weber is an exquisite Jane. As we journey with her we feel the depth of her despair, the torture of her desperation and, eventually, the strength of her conviction. The beautiful Addie Yungmee is also very well cast and an asset to the production. Allison Mackie is a scene stealer as a saucy character with impeccable timing. I highly recommend this film; although it's low budget, it has big budget writing and production values. PS- great aerial scenes with two beautiful sexy women. Women will love the story and characters, but there's something for the men here, too. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Somehow, somewhere, someplace.. you GOTTA see this film. Breath taking aerials, and incredible outstanding performances from highly gifted actors.You think Cirque du Soleil blows your mind,wait till you see what these 2 women do - most importantly, the emotional journey and struggles Jane(Dreya Weber) faces are universal in theme to many women. A superbly directed film which deals with the complexities of relationships,and holding on, until you're ready to let go. This masterpiece will touch women and men alike. Ned Far (director\/writer) and ridiculously talented Dreya Weber (star\/producer) just had the guts to tell it, honestly and sincerely. This film will hit big - see it HOWEVER you can - or you won't be \"in the loop\" when it becomes one of the most talked about films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Whatever you do, don't stop watching when you think the movie is over! Hang around for the first batch of credits or you'll really miss something! We saw this movie at the Savanaah film festival and thought it was the best of the bunch. Dreya Weber is a marvel really, not only because of her performance, but because she can pull it off so far above the ground. At the Q&A she said there were no wires or effects, so everything you see is really her going for it. Addie couldn't make it to the festival because she was dancing with Madonna. She was excellent and, my gawd, so beautiful. I was amazed that the film went over so well with the blue haired lady crowd, but there you have it, Savannnah isn't a backwater.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thankyou for making such a wonderful escape . That's what I love about movies. I'm so impressed with the aireals , the way they were shot and the timing was so dynamically perfect with the music .being a dancer myself , and having been a part of many dance films choreography is usually chopped ,diced and sometimes not even to the beat.....\"Showgirls\" the Movie . The relationship between the ladies was ever so present in the movement .

My favorite scene is the last one, when she is pulled over . I've seen the movie before, a different version ., and I disliked the husband more last time . I felt a little more sorry for him this time . It changes how I feel about the female love birds. Its all so magical .","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Gymnast (2006) was written and directed by Ned Farr. Dreya Weber portrays Jane Hawkins, a former world-class gymnast who was seriously injured and now earns her living as a certified massage therapist.

The promotional material leads you to believe that the plot hinges around Jane's accidental reunion with a former teammate. Although this meeting takes place, that plot line is secondary to the main plot, which involves Jane, her husband, and a professional dancer named Serena (Addie Yungmee). The two women develop an act of the type performed by Cirque de Soleil. The two complement each other--Jane is more experienced with heights and has tremendous upper body strength. Serena is more elegant and artistic, although, obviously, also capable of incredible physical feats.

The film works because we can understand how Jane would turn to Addie, who is caring and compassionate, while Jane's husband has taken her for granted for the many years of their marriage.

Both women are incredibly fit and athletic, and Dreya has the lean body and well-defined muscles that are characteristic of gymnasts. They clearly are truly performing their act, and the results are so excellent that we can believe they would indeed, be a success in Las Vegas, or anywhere else they traveled.

The sexual tension between the women is obvious, and the situation becomes even more complex when the act requires them to kiss while suspended in the air. A woman with a neglectful husband and an attractive woman partner make for an explosive situation, which isn't resolved in a neat and tidy fashion.

Of the six films we saw at the Rochester NY Lesbian and Gay Film and Video Festival, we thought this one was the best. It will work on DVD, and is definitely worth seeking out on large or small screen. NOTE: Stay for the credits!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everyone who worked on this film did an AMAZING job. This is honestly one of the best lesbian films I've seen in a LONG time. The acting, writing, cinematography, music, visuals, everything was top notch. As an avid fan of the genre (both lesbian films and gymnastics), I was so unbelievably pleased by this film. It truly gave me so much more than I expected across the board. Hearing the Q&A with the cast and crew was great, the lead actress has so much positive energy and is so humble and gracious, it's a pleasure to see people who can be talented and not lose sight of what's really important. And the writer did a hell of a job, as well as directing and the editing was awesome. Thanks so much for making a great film! Thanks also for the line about 'if you're going to slap a label on yourself, it would be bisexual'. I'm so tired of movies where characters who have a relationship with both sexes get passed off as gay or straight, it's wonderful to see bisexuals getting recognition for existing and being part of the gay community, and it was nice that labels weren't even necessary at all in this film. What an ending! Just when I thought it couldn't give me more, it did. Beautiful work and my applauds to all. I will spread the word, this is definitely a film not to be missed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Gymnast\" unfolds in short shots and short scenes, revealing its characters and message over time. The spare editing is accompanied by a beautiful, simple score. This intimate approach is wonderful for feeling like you're on a path of discovery as much as the characters are.

The spare approach is also its drawback; there are a few scenes that are confusing because they don't have enough context. There are some decisions made by the characters that seemed rather flip until I watched the interviews that were in the bonus materials. I'm glad I did, because the actors' descriptions of their motivations gave me a much more well- rounded understanding of the film overall.

Aside from the story itself, it was wonderful to see women so comfortable and strong in their own bodies. The shooting was very tastefully done; very matter-of-fact. One has the feeling of seeing a love story and a life story unfold, not a voyeuristic sleaze film. The physicality of the athletes -- their realness -- is a great contrast to the sometimes ethereal nature of the plot.

Not a film I'll need to see again anytime soon, since the storyline is simple but its delivery is powerful enough to stay with me for a long time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was beautiful and touching. It touched a place deep inside me and I'm not sure why. I am a happily married woman and I've never had lesbian tendencies, but my, this movie almost made it something I crave. The choreography, the storyline, the dialog... the movie was a work of art.

The synopsis without spoilers is that a woman gymnast unsatisfied with her life and looking for... something, anything. She is with a man who does not want a baby, but she does. He's not mean to her, but he doesn't treat her the way a woman should be treated either... I guess he doesn't really appreciate her. All these years she has stayed in shape and decides to go back to the gym. She meets another woman during her acrobatic training and an intimate and beautiful relationship unfolds. Throughout the movie she has another woman friend that she trained with in her younger years, and they have stayed close friends.

The relationship that unfolds is.. I don't know quite the word, but very understanding, comfortable, intimate but sexy... something that could only exist between two women. The kind of relationship that could really bring meaning back into your life. Someone that makes you feel special, exciting, beautiful, confused even.

The relationship with her close friend is beautiful in an equally different way. They have a close and intimate relationship. Her friend showed me what a true friend really is. Someone who is understanding, easy going, REAL, fun to be with, someone who is there for you no matter what. Someone who is supportive, and you can huddle with and tell your deepest secrets. Someone who shares your past but does not share your secrets.

The story is simple in the fact that it was not overdone, but not underdone in any way. It leaves a lot of sensual imagery to capture it's moments. The dancing and choreography was stunning. I could watch it over and over. The way the artist captured the main character's feelings and emotions was. The dancing and the imagery was very dazzling and mesmerizing to watch. What a cozy a wonderful story! I fell in love with this movie. If you have a chance, rent this and watch it!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...this one. What came to my mind immediately was Loving Annabelle, as it has this same kind of mature mood and distanced dealing with the subject. We simply observe as the story unfolds, without taking sides, or having to confront any \"moral\" issues (or of course we are, but are not spoon-fed them). Sure, there were some difficult facts to face, and choices to make, but it just flowed. Basically it was just like any other love story, in any other life, with any other sexes.

I personally found the girls having a good chemistry, and had fun with them on their night outs. The only thing i could really pinpoint as a problem would be it just felt kind of...retained. Held back. It's not about the sex scenes (or those missing), but given that i felt the film at its liveliest during the moments they were together having a good time, it kind of contrasted with the rest. Lowkey is good, but it just never quite sizzled like Loving Annabelle, nor touched me quite as much.

This said, i heartily recommend it, it's by no means a waste of ones precious time, on the contrary...

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow what can I say it was a good movie, very different to all the boring remakes we see lately the only thing I would have liked to see a bit more of an ending like when Jane left her husband Im guessing she was going to Serena cause she fell for her,not just her but everything that she is,I so wish Producers would actually show that sort of ending instead of leaving to it your imagination sort of ending I really hate it when they do that. The aerial acts looked like fun but I guess you'd have to be light and muscly, I would like to see more movies like this one, maybe the could do a sort of sequel of Jane and Serena.If I were in Jane's shoes I would have went for the girl too she was attractive.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this film in Austin Texas at the Austin Gay and Lesbian Film Festival and it was my festival favorite. The gymnast is a film NOT to be missed. It is an honest \"coming to terms\" story about relationships, self discovery , growing older and having the courage to change and move forward. Not only is this a good story but the glorious aerialist performances by Dreya Weber and Addie Yungmee will take your breath away! See this film! It will be coming soon to a festival near you. This film deserved to be picked up right away by a major network or studio. I will certainly purchase this when it becomes available on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of a very few movies with terrific acting, wonderful story line and worthwhile to watch. It is about changes in life. It is about how happiness can be found when one is true to oneself. It is about accepting oneself and others. It is about life challenges. It is about coming to term with reality. It is about courage. It is about love. Both actresses are very true to their role. The actresses had very good chemistry between one another in the movie. This is the key of the movie that made the movie. It is rare to see an independent film like this one. One could tell the hard work that the film crew had to have while producing this movie. I wish to see more movie from this producer\/writer. See the movie, you will love it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this was a beautiful movie- very brave. Such beautiful imagery-and I liked the use of breaking glasses w\/ applause. Also how the best friend repeated the line about \"..and she's one year older than me..\" showed that their friendship has rekindled and grown, but maybe some competition is left...i loved the footage of hands feeling the fabric. The dance concert was beautiful. The beginning seemed slow, though..it took awhile to feel for the characters-the husband could have been more abusive-he just seemed absent so when other characters talked about him-it didn't really fit. The affair btwn. the best friend and husband seemed random..the doctors meeting seemed to hint that there was not much time left(to live..) so when the infidelity was revealed, I didn't feel as much sympathy for the character-more like relief! the ending was so great- the lines btwn. her and the husband, and the scene where she is pulled over is brilliant!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Flipper is a nice heartwarming movie for whole family. It's obviously not a great movie, Free Willy looks much better almost in every component of film making. Possibly, at times it becomes a bit naive , and the writing and the script are not the best part of the movie, but it's a entertaining film with very good cinematography (including underwater shots) and some important moral messages. Elijah Wood proves himself one more time as an incredibly talented and underrated actor. He can make bad movie watchable, okay movie - good, good - great and great movie becomes all time classic. Paul Hogan performance also was very good and he is completely fit to his role. As I already say above, whole cinematography was very good. But underwater shots definitely is the best parts. So Flipper is a perfect way if you want to see nice, sweet and entertaining movie. If you like me become sick and tired of modern Hollywood trash, filled with sex, violence, vulgarity and profanity you most likely would like this movie.

My rating: 7,7 out of 10. Feel free for mailing me about any of my comments and posts here.

Sorry for my bad English.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like this movie. I may be biased because I love dolphins. However, my 3 and 4 yr. old will sit and watch the whole movie.... It's not Oscar material, but definitely entertaining. The dolphin cinematography is well done with a beautiful backdrop of ocean scenery and sunsets. My favorite scene is when Flipper \"flips\" the pop can out of the water striking Sandy in the head. It's an endearing funny moment that makes me laugh every time. On the other hand, the villainous banterings of the bully boatman (forget his name) are a little hard to take. And the shark scene is far from reality. Question: do dolphins really make that much noise? Or is there some serious dubbing happening here? Bottom line: my kids like it and it keeps recycling through our VCR.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was rather appalled to see the low rating this movie received here, personally considering it fun family fare. It revolves around a young teenager, Sandy Ricks, who is sent by his mom to Coral Key to spend the summer with his Uncle Porter. While there he befriends a dolphin named Flipper. Lots of adventures ensue amid the predictable nephew \/ uncle bonding as well as a little romance for Sandy with a local girl.

I'm a great Crocodile Dundee fan myself so absolutely loved Paul Hogan in his role as crusty and comical Uncle Porter. For starters, he keeps an endless stock of Spaghetti-O's in his house to serve as his usual meal, heated with a blowtorch! Elija Wood, Frodo from The Lord of the Rings, appeared quite competent playing the young Sandy, a boy at first none too fond of his forced summer vacation locale.

Of course the dolphin is magnificent and there are some wonderful underwater scenes. Set in the Florida Keys, it was apparently filmed in the Bahamas. This adaptation of Flipper makes great family entertainment, a sweet, sentimental, and fun movie that is infinitely superior to many of the cinematic offerings for youngsters nowadays.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't say that this movie deserves a ten, because I would be lying. I adored this movie when I saw it, though! It carries the unique bond of a friendship between a teenager and a dolphin. Although it doesn't display the sweetness that Jesse and Willy had in Free Willy, it provides an exciting movie that the whole family will enjoy! If you love marine animals, or if u love just a perfect family film, this movie is suited for YOU! Flipper definitely shows us how adorable dolphins are, and they are playful and could easily be house pets if everyone had a big enough pool! I love whales and dolphins, so obviously this movie works for me. I do think that the producers should have chosen another shark instead of the hammerhead to enhance the antagonist part in the story. Perhaps a great white? FLIPPER IS MAGNIFICENT! So check it out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, it's \"Flipper\". But writer\/director Alan Shapiro has put together a gem of a version. Spectacular above and underwater photography from \"Jaws\" veteran Bill Butler and haunting music by Joel McNeely and Crosby, Stills & Nash make this truly memorable family entertainment. Shapiro, whose last film was improbably \"The Crush\", shows himself once again to be an extremely talented -- and versatile -- filmmaker. Rent it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Universal Studios version of \"Flipper\" (1996) is a great heartwarming film for the entire family with good values and sentimentality. It is the story of Sandy Ricks, a teenager from Chicago who reluctantly spends his vacation with his Uncle Porter Ricks in the Bahamas. This ultimately changes the teenagers life and he grows up in the process. He learns to appreciate nature and to have a respect for the environment. I grew up in the 1960's and the NBC television show \"Flipper\" was my favorite childhood show. Elijah Wood is perfectly cast as a 1990's Sandy Ricks and gives an excellent performance. As much as I liked the NBC television show and MGM theatrical feature films with Luke Halpin as Sandy in the 1960's I liked this feature the best! I feel Elijah Wood is the best Sandy Ricks. With respect to Luke Halpin I feel Elijah Wood has more of a range of acting talent and emotes more as an actor which makes his performance excellent and more believable. I think Elijah Wood is the best young actor working today in films. Director Alan Shapiro also wrote the screenplay and has done an excellent job as both writer and director of this film. Paul Hogan gives a comical and likable performance as Sandy's Uncle Porter Ricks. Mr. Hogan's performance perfectly offsets Elijah's role as Sandy. I am a big fan of underwater films. This film was beautifully shot in the Bahamas like \"Thunderball\" (1965 UA) was. The director of photography was Bill Butler A.S.C. who lensed the film \"Jaws\" in 1975. Mr. Butler is a very talented cinematographer. The underwater director of photography was Pete Romano. He did a superb job with the underwater cinematography. I enjoyed the film score by Joel McNeely. This good film score featured Crosby, Stills and Nash among other talented artists. This motion picture was shot in Panavision like \"Thunderball\" in the aspect ratio of 2.35:1 If possible try to see this film in a scope version as originally framed and visioned by Alan Shapiro and Bill Butler. Another very nice thing is that Mr. Shapiro gave the \"original\" Sandy Ricks (Luke Halpin) a small part in this remake. He portrayed Bounty Fisherman #3 in this film. This was a very kind gesture on Mr. Shapiro's part! As you can tell I am a real true fan of this film. Sadly this beautiful film was met with harsh words by the majority of movie critics. I originally saw this movie on my birthday, May 31st of 1996 in a movie theater. It meant a lot to me. I have it on numerous video versions. The VHS versions are in \"pan and scan\". The laserdisc version is \"letterboxed\" 2.35:1! I even have a VCD in 2.35:1 from Hong Kong which is \"letterboxed\". But my most prized possession is an \"original\" 16mm theatrical feature print which I will treasure for the rest of my life! Thank you Mr. Shapiro, Elijah Wood, Paul Hogan and everyone involved for making this a memorable movie for me to enjoy!

P.S. I must add that the quality of the Universal DVD is superb! It is the best DVD as far as quality I have ever seen. The color and resolution is spectacular. The soundtrack is great. I think Universal must have used the same transfer for the DVD that they did for the laserdisc version. The 35mm scope print is \"mint\" and Alan's film really has a wonderful look to it. A great tribute to a wonderful film! The DVD's resolution is even superior to the laserdisc quality! It's just spectacular! Thank you Universal Home Video for the great quality control and transfer. Many thank's for doing a superb job on this wonderful family film. Also many thank's to you Alan for all your extreme kindness to me!!! It's a real honor to know you!!! (Review Revised\/Updated June 27, 2005)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is brilliant it has cute little dolphins in it and its a great storyline and it has elijah wood in it which makes it a great film too. his acting skills are very good and if you want a good soft family film. this is the one to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This belongs in their top tier, although there were others, such as Micro-Phonies and Punch Drunks, that were more deserving of Oscar nominations than this one. But if nothing else, the recurring loudspeaker announcement, \"Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard,\" followed by Curly's \"Woo woo woo woo,\" makes this a classic on two levels. First, it symbolizes all that the Stooges represent; my daughter loves to repeat the announcement when she is in the middle of doing something silly. Second, the absurdity of these three as physicians in a hospital; I imagine the terror I would feel if I were a real patient in a real hospital and heard this announcement over the loudspeaker. Throughout this short, you hear that announcement and you know that something horrible is about to happen, and the loudspeaker voice stays with you for months afterward.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Columbia Pictures Short Subject unit never had any delusions about producing any 'Art' Films. They wanted to give the film exhibitors just a little more for their money, when booking a Columbia Picture into their theatres. This would go double for The 3 Stooges films.

MEN IN BLACK (1934) came about as close as any of their Comedy Shorts in that it received an Oscar nomination for Best Short Subject, Comedy. Though it did not win, it well could have. It was good enough and even those who do not number themselves among Stooge-files, still seem to be won over by the clarion cry of \".......calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard!\" This was the second entry in the long series of Comedy Shorts made by the Stooges for Producer Jules White, head of Columbia's Short Subjects Department. Only WOMAN HATERS, described in its credits as a 'Musical Novelty' preceded it at Harry Cohen's Poverty Row sweatshop.

The film starts off in the office of Dr. Graves, the Head of the Hospital. He is receiving new interns and in addressing the group, he relates that three of them are passed along from Medical Conditionally as they had remained there so long. But, the good Doctor states that he will not reveal their identities as long as they pledge their all \"......for Duty and Humanity!\" The Stooges run up front pledging \"...for Duty and Humanity!\", and run out of office, breaking window glass in door. The game was on.

The Stooges took off and did not stop for the remainder of the 2 Reels. Every type of gag was in evidence. From broad Sennett-like sight gags, to puns, to dialect humor, to 'theatre of the absurd' and a surrealistic running gag involving a Public Address System, which seemingly takes on a life of its own and having the true culprit, a radio tube get shot to a \"........he got me!\" (It all plays out quite well, honest!) The sets used were very authentic looking and were no doubt borrowed from Columbia features being made around the same time. There are plenty of Wheel Chairs, Surgical Cotts, Stethascopes, Surcical Scalpels, etc., in evidence to maintain the illusion of a Hospital.

A true strength of MEN IN BLACK is the high number of usually nameless players, whom we all recognize by face. Along with them, the film boasts of a great number of veteran comedy actors, who always turn in fine performances, often stealing the scene. The people with names like Billy Gilbert, Hank Mann and Bud Jamison shine in even small parts.

And lastly we have the Maestro, the Conductor-Director Raymond McCarey, kid brother to Leo McCarey who showed off his abilities in getting this little film 'in the can'. He skillfully kept it all moving, acting as a Traffic Cop at times, what with all the actors, extras and behind the scenes crew moving and outside of each other's way. And that doesn't count the Giant 3 Man Tandem Bicycle, The Sway Backed Horse and Miniature Race Cars, not to mention the 'Giant, Green Canaries!'","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one particular Stooge short that actually uses satire in conjunction with slapstick, a rarity. As mentioned, the title and concept for this short was \"borrowed\" from a feature film from the same year with Clark Gable called \"Men In White\". It's basically about the trials and tribulations of interns and their sacred cause for \"duty and humanity\". I saw this recently and almost treated it like the Stooge version because it does take itself a little too seriously. In any case, \"Men In Black\" is so well written, directed and not to mention original, it didn't borrow a thing from Chaplin or any of the others, that the Motion Picture Academy nominated it for an award as the best short comedy of 1934. Some stinky short called \"La Cucaracha\" outdid it though and stole the award. Some producer's brother in law must have been on the Academy's voting board. \"Men In Black\" pokes fun at the whole concept of the medical profession much in the same way that the Marx Bros. always did at this time. May not be a fair comparison but I can see the Marx Bros. in this short. In fact in their feature \"A Day At The Races\", there is a scene where there's \"medical things\" going on and they cause anarchy as usual. My guess that this particular short was judged along those lines and hence why it was nominated in the first place. Try this in fact: watch this short first and then watch \"Duck Soup\" or \"Day at the Races\" with the Marxes and then see if there isn't the same great quality of comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Directed by the younger brother of great director Leo McCarey this is a pretty good short from the Three Stooges, nominated for an Academy Award. Here the stooges are doctors named doctor Howard, doctor Fine and doctor Howard. They are not the brightest doctors but they get the benefit of the doubt as long as they handle for duty and humanity.

I liked this short. It is not one of their best but some moments are hilarious though. One joke that is repeated more than once works every time. The part where they must operate the hospital's boss is terrific. To say more would spoil some of the jokes, so you must see it for yourself. Just another fine short from the Three Stooges.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the third Three Stooges short that the team ever made, and like a lot of their early ones, this is absolutely and totally hysterical! Now owning it on DVD as part of the Three Stooges Collection Vol. 1, whenever I feel like it, I watch this!

In this short film, Moe, Larry, and Curly play these three doctors in a hospital who are trying to help out everyone, but boy, they end up making a mess out of everything!

This short is another one of my all time favorite Three Stooges shorts, I also am a very huge fan of slapstick comedy, and the Three Stooges are the kings of slapstick!

When I heard that it got nominated for the Academy Award for Best Short Film, I really became curious about this, when I heard that it had lost, I was very disappointed about it!

This short is one of the Three Stooges funniest by far, I extremely recommend that you see this hysterical riot!

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though not a huge fan, I am a Three Stooges purist. I believe that their best work, by far, was with Curly as the third Stooge and their earliest films are generally their best. That's because after a while, they began remaking their films and the gags started to get stale. Here, in 1934, they were still rather fresh (in more ways than one) and funny.

Here they boys play very improbably roles--respected doctors in a hospital! The three run amok acting silly, hitting each other and scaring the pants off anyone who expects to get better. The non-stop energy and freshness make this one a must-see for fans.

By the way, although I liked this film, I STRONGLY recommend you try to find a much lesser known short from tiny Educational Pictures. NIFTY NURSES is much like MEN IN BLACK but manages to be funnier and is about the best hospital comedy of the era--better even than Laurel & Hardy's COUNTY HOSPITAL.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the Stooges best shorts. It was the only one of their shorts to be nominated for an oscar. In this short the Stooges play doctors, who cause some trouble as usual. This short has non-stop sight-gags, puns, and jokes. The part at the end, where the Stooges are breaking apart the machine. This is definitely a classic. I would highly recommend this Three Stooges short.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an early one from the boys, but some people may not be satisfied with this one like all the others. I found it to be different somehow than the your average Stooge slapstick. It was more funny for it's jokes rather than the poke in the eye or slap. Watch for a hilarious part when Larry grabs the stethoscope from Moe and sings into it. Moe gives him a good smack. That part made me crack up for a good ten minutes. Another hit for the Stooges.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everyone's favorite trio of bumbling imbeciles run amok in a hospital in this incredibly raucous and often hysterically funny romp. These guys are without a doubt the single most incompetent bunch of doctors to ever fumble their way across the screen. Comic highlights include the Stooges constantly breaking a glass pane in a door, their encounter with a deranged patient who claims that rats used to come out of the buttonhole of his shirt, the Stooges riding through the hallways on a giant bicycle, a huge horse, and miniature race cars, and our sublimely stupid threesome accidentally leaving instruments inside a hapless patient's abdomen after they finish operating on the poor fellow. Director Ray McCarey relates the frantic comic shenanigans at an appropriately nonstop hectic pace and stages the broad slapstick gags with considerable gusto. Moe Howard, Larry Fine, and Curly Howard are all in peak loopy form, with sterling support from Dell Henderson as long-suffering hospital supervisor Dr. Graves, squeaky-voiced Jeanie Roberts as a hiccuping nurse (the scene where the Stooges do an absurd impromptu group singalong with this gal is absolutely sidesplitting!), Ruth Hiatt as a whispering nurse, Billy Gilbert as the ranting crazy patient, and \"Little Billy\" Rhodes as a feisty tiny patient. The spirited lunacy never lets up for a minute, thereby making this beautifully berserk baby one of the Stooges' best-ever outings.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this one to be more chaotic than the average Stooges short (as strange as that may sound). There were several funny bits, especially the running gags (\"Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard!\", the glass door breaking, the Stooges running into the supply room and coming back out with... well, you know), but also quite of bit of it was taken up with things that just didn't make any sense to me. I have to assume that these were generally take-offs of scenes from the film \"Men In White\", but since I don't know much about that movie I can't say for sure. Maybe if someone could explain these I'd appreciate this short more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Three Stooges has always been some of the many actors that I have loved. I love just about every one of the shorts that they have made. I love all six of the Stooges (Curly, Shemp, Moe, Larry, Joe, and Curly Joe)! All of the shorts are hilarious and also star many other great actors and actresses which a lot of them was in many of the shorts! In My opinion The Three Stooges is some of the greatest actors ever and is the all time funniest comedy team!

One of the most hilarious Three Stooges shorts is Men in Black. In this short are Bud Jamison, Jeanie Roberts, Phyllis Crane, Dell Henderson, 'Little Billy' Rhodes, Billy Gilbert, and Ruth Hiatt The acting by these actors are good especially by Jamison and Roberts. There are many funny scenes here that I think most Three Stooges fans will love! In My opinion this one of the most different Three Stooges shorts. I recommend this one to all!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Norma Shearer dazzles as she is transformed from a frump, addle-brained house-wife to an alluring potential divorcee. Most 1930 films have a creaky edge to them -- the camera work is pretty sluggish at times -- but we must forgive these all-talking pleasures for their thump-a-long \"qualities\". As a guest of the eccentric globe-trotting Marie Dressler -- Shearer mixes with an odd assortment of lovelorn types, including her long-lost husband. The dialogue is fun, oft-times clever and the performances on cue. Shearer and Dressler shine the most. Shearer even shows off her piano expertise in a musical brevity. Her strange, yet appealing posturing and \"affair with the camera\" are evident throughout -- and she hits every emotional note, genuinely and on target. For its time . . .a good show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A rich old lady calls on a flirtatious divorc\u00e9e to woo a Lothario away from her silly soon-to-be-married granddaughter.

LET US BE GAY is an interesting little domestic comedy which features some tart dialogue (courtesy of celebrated screenwriter Frances Marion) & good performances. While perhaps a bit mawkish at times, this can probably be blamed on the difficulties with early sound technology which tended to limit action & movement.

Norma Shearer can be credited with appearing in this minor film, rather than using her undoubted clout as Irving Thalberg's spouse to insist upon only A-grade pictures. She is especially effective in her first few scenes, where dowdy flat makeup makes her almost unrecognizable. Her extreme transmogrification from goose to swan could only happen in Hollywood, but it's scarcely profitable to spend much time worrying about that.

Rod LaRocque doesn't come off too well as Shearer's adulterous husband. Quite popular during Silent days, the talkies were not especially kind to him and his career would suffer. Here his role is not in the least sympathetic and one has to wonder what masochistic impulse moves women to desire the cad so much.

Magnificent Marie Dressler is on hand as an eccentric Long Island dowager. As a great friend of Frances Marion, one can easily imagine that the part was written expressly for her. Full of cranks & crotchets, she is very humorous. However, the tremendous warmth & essential goodness which would very shortly make her Hollywood's biggest star are largely missing.

Among the supporting cast, Hedda Hopper scores as a slinky society serpent, as does Wilfred Noy playing a comic butler. Movie mavens will spot little Dickie Moore as Shearer's young son & elderly Mary Gordon as her housekeeper, both uncredited.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When a dowdy wife (Shearer) loses her husband, she decides to completely make herself over to win him back. Not \"politically correct\" by today's standards, but still fun to watch, especially the scenes with Marie Dressler and Hedda Hopper.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dutiful wife Norma Shearer (as Katherine \"Kitty\" Brown) waits on husband Rod La Rocque (as Bob Brown) hand and foot. While making him breakfast in bed, and helping him dress for a Sunday golf outing, Ms. Shearer suggests joining Mr. La Rocque for the day, noting how infrequently the two see each other. But, La Rocque puts her off, saying her presence adversely affects his game. Then, unexpectedly, Shearer meets the real reason for her husband's frequent absences\u0085 his pretty blonde mistress!

Three years later, Shearer is a glamorous and flirty divorc\u00e9e. While summering in Paris, she has struck up a friendship with wealthy, older socialite Marie Dressler (as as Mrs. \"Boucci\" Bouccicault). Ms. Dressler invites Shearer to her Long Island home, to socialize with some friends, and ask a favor. Dressler is worried about her granddaughter's relationship with a suave, worldly man. She wants young Sally Eilers (as Dionne) to marry Raymond Hackett (as Bruce), instead. Aware of Shearer's flirtatious conquests, Dressler asks her to lure the undesirable man away from Ms. Eilers. Shearer is stunned to discover the man is La Rocque, her ex-husband.

Shearer and Dressler make this a cute, entertaining play. They are in top form, giving guaranteed-to-be-popular performances, with enthusiasm and professionalism. The story is silly and predictable; yet, in a way which helps the humorous situation. And, the ending is quite clever. In fact, the comic \"Let Us be Gay\" may have aged better than Shearer's larger-produced, and more serious, \"The Divorc\u00e9e\", which was released around the same time. The cast uniformly fine. La Rocque is better than his film with Lilian Gish; but, his role is not at all endearing. Gilbert Emery (as Towney) and Tyrell Davis (as Wallace) are funny supporting suitors.

Those not familiar with Norma Shearer may not realize it is she who appears as the dowdy wife in the opening scenes. This is Shearer as \"Kitty\" before her make-over. Watch the close-ups of Shearer with light, natural make-up, for a good look at an intriguingly beautiful woman.

******* Let Us Be Gay (1930) Robert Z. Leonard ~ Norma Shearer, Marie Dressler, Rod La Rocque","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film begins with a dowdy housewife (Norma Shearer) finding out that her husband (Rod La Rocque) had been cheating on her. Three years pass and apparently they'd been divorced during these years due to the infidelity. Oddly, during this time, La Rocque did not see Shearer or his two kids as Shearer took them to Paris.

Marie Dressler is a rich society lady and she has invited a new and improved Norma to come to her house for the weekend--ostensibly to help Marie break up a budding romance between her daughter and La Rocque! Apparently, Norma is now a super-vamp and with her magical sex appeal, she can break up the romance--and no one seems to realize that she and La Rocque were married. Several others are there for the weekend and immediately Norma is a hit with her gay, carefree sexy ways--and almost all the men (including La Rocque) are captivated by her. Neither tells anyone that they were married but it's obvious that her ex- wants the new and improved Norma back! This film is a sophisticated comedy of manners among the upper-crust--similar in some ways to Jean Renoir's THE RULES OF THE GAME. Oddly, despite the severity of the Depression, such films about pretty rich folks were pretty popular though many today will doubtless find them a bit too droll in spots. However, fortunately, in LET US BE GAY, there are plenty of cute and funny moments (particularly towards the end when Marie Dressler shows her true colors). While not a great film, it certainly is a good one and more than just another time-passer. My only real regret is that I didn't love the very end. You'll just have to see it for yourself--perhaps you'll agree about the ending, perhaps you won't, but I'm pretty sure you will enjoy this clever film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Norma had spent most of the 20s playing beautiful ingenues but her first talkie cast her as a brassy showgirl in \"The Trial of Mary Dugan\" and she came through with flying colours. From then on her sweet and lovely ingenues were cast aside and she sizzled in parts that cast her as sophisticated women of the world or society girls out for thrills. \"Let Us Be Gay\" was made before but released after \"The Divorc\u00e9e\" and was an unusual twist on the upper crust dramas that Shearer made her own.

Norma first appears without make-up as frumpish Kitty Brown, who's main purpose in life is to pander to her very unappreciative husband Bob (Rod La Rocque). She is hurrying to get him off to his golf game - but in reality he is going to see his mistress. When Helen, the mistress, comes to the house for a showdown, Kitty faces the situation with civility but behind closed doors she is a mass of emotions and Bob leaves for good.

Three years later Mrs. Courtland Brown (Kitty) comes to stay as a house guest of the eccentric Mrs. Bouccicoult (\"Bouccy\")(Marie Dressler). Kitty is now a knockout and \"Bouccy\" has a job for her. She wants Kitty to romance a house guest, who in his turn is romancing her grand-daughter Diane (beautiful Sally Eilers). Shock!! Horror!! - the man is none other than Bob, her ex husband!!! Kitty carries off the meeting with sophistication and witty repartee - \"there seems to be something strangely familiar about that man\"!!! - and no one is the wiser.

The film then settles down into one of those early very \"talkie\", boring \"drawing room\" comedies. Kitty casts a spell over all the men and Bob is desperate to start again. The women have all the strong roles in this film - men are just puppets. Raymond Hackett seems to be in the film as an extra butler - \"pass me a cushion\", \"get me a drink\", \"move this chair\" instead of Diane's harassed fianc\u00e9. Norma Shearer is of course the whole show, Marie Dressler adds \"Bouccy\" to her list of eccentric portrayals and Sally Eilers is a real eyeful as the gorgeous Diane.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At the beginning it was almost a shock to see Norma Shearer without her makeup. Then she glamorizes herself and becomes the life of the party.

Anyway, she divorces her husband, makes herself over and gets on with her life; or so she thinks. Somewhat keeps you guessing if they'll get back together.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think several others have already commented on this film, but I liked it so well I wanted to just say how good a film this is. I gave it a rating of 9 out of 10. It did not get a 10 because it is very slow starting. I almost quit on it, but am glad I didn't. Hang in there, it is well worth the wait.

This is primarily a film about relationships: deceit, trust, and betrayal.

Michelle Pfeiffer, Jessica Lange and Jason Robards all do bang up jobs in this movie.

Set in midwest farm country, Jason Robards character is a farmer whose grandfather first settled there. Jason's character is getting older and he decides to set up a trust dividing the thousand acres of farmland among his three adult daughters. That's when the plot of this film really beginning cooking.

Sisters turn against each other due to misunderstandings rather than greed over the land. They also make some discoveries about each other's childhoods, and their present day marriages, including an adulterous affair, while the father becomes increasingly abusive, demanding and paranoid--until the terrible truth about everyone finally comes boiling out.

This film really reached me emotionally, I got angry right along with some of the characters, and sad with them. I could feel their pain due to the excellent performances that were given.

The ending was a bit of a surprise to me, but in keeping with the growth of the characters.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was very moved by the gentle power of this movie and by the mood it created. I think it should have gotten a great deal more credit than it did. I agree that Michelle Pfeiffer should have been nominated, but I think all the performances were outstanding, and that Michelle Pfeiffer and Jessica Lange portrayed the deep affinity and conflicts of sisters with great emotional depth and sensitivity. Although I didn't read the book, I found the modern concept of King Lear very cool. I certainly will never look at the play quite the same way again!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this movie a lot, but the feeling that I most came away with was the memory of how much I\u00b4d enjoyed the novel. The film features two of the best actresses working today--Jessica Lange, who is great here, and the divine Jennifer Jason Leigh, who does the best she can with the thinly-drawn character she is given--as well as a surprisingly excellent Michelle Pfeiffer and a steady Jason Robards. The adaptation is basically faithful to the book, at least as faithful as it can be in an hour and forty minutes. The film doesn\u00b4t really dazzle, except for certain scenes between Lange and Pfeiffer, but it does a thoroughly competent job of visualizing this wonderfully tragic story. As far as movies adapted from novels go, this was definitely among the better ones. If nothing else, it has sent me back to my bookshelves to rediscover favorite passages from Jane Smiley\u00b4s excellent novel, and back to King Lear to brush up on the minor characters in order to see just how deep the parallels go. Worth your time as a film, definitely, and hopefully enough to make you remember that reading great literature is a joy as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having watched this film years ago, it never faded from my memory. I always thought this was the finest performance by Michelle Pfeiffer that I've seen. But, I am astounded by the number of negative reviews that this film has received. After seeing it once more today, I still think it is powerful, moving and couldn't care less if it is \"based loosely on King Lear\".

I now realize that this is the greatest performance by Jessica Lange that I've ever seen - and she has had accolades for much shallower efforts.

A Thousand Acres is complex, human, vibrant and immensely moving, but surely doesn't present either of the primary female leads with any touch of glamour or \"sexiness\". I don't think this is well received in these times.

Perhaps one reason for this film's underwhelming response lies in the fact that the writer (Jane Smiley(, screenplay (Laura Jones), and director (Jocelhyn Moorehouse) are all women. I know that, in my younger days, I wouldn't have read a book written by a woman. I didn't focus on this fact until years later.

If you haven't seen this movie or gave it a chance in the past, try watching it anew. Maybe you are ready for it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is excellent in how it portrays the reality of sexual abuse. The daughters perfectly express their conflicting emotions of affection and betrayal. The on-location scenery is absorbingly authentic, and the soundtrack is unobtrusive yet moving. This film is a graduate-level course in a reality that's too little recognized in American society. Personally, I'm freaked out by the names of the characters -- Lange's character is Ginny Cook Smith -- my name is Connie Cook Smith, and my mom is Genny Cook. The youngest daughter is Caroline Cook, which is my sister's name, and the father is Larry Cook, my cousin's name.But sex abuse was not in our immediate family.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A Jane Smiley novel, loosely based on Shakespeare's KING LEAR about the Cook family and its dark secrets. Director Moorhouse seems tamed in her approach, allowing the characters to step forward and take a bow. And how could you go wrong with the talents of Pfeiffer, Lange, Leigh, Firth, Carradine and Robards?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie, having never read the book, and took the characters at face value, but having already been introduced to them, watched it again recently. I got a whole different viewpoint out of the film.

Without the burden of having to focus intently on each character, learning their quirks and foibles, allowed me to focus on the cultural issues laid out in the film. The farm families of Iowa are so intimately inter-related as they are in the area of Indiana where I grew up in the 40's and 50's that I immediately recognized the back-stories and motives behind the characters. Perhaps, Jane Smiley did mean for us to see beyond the superficial into the world these people had to live, but viewers are so caught up in the \"Hollywood\" aura of the individual actors that they miss a rich layout of a lifestyle that exists less and less as each decade passes. Another film with these characteristics is the \"Bridges of Madison County\". Try watching both of these films again with an eye to the whole picture.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A touching movie. It is full of emotions and wonderful acting. I could have sat through it a second time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay...so I am gazing through my Mom and Dad's extensive DVD collection (mostly because they don't charge late fees;-)) and I come upon \"A Thousand Acres.\" I was stunned that here was a movie that had Jessica Lange AND Michelle Pfeiffer (with a small appearance by Jennifer Jason Leigh) that I had not seen. I don't think I had ever even heard of it before. Well, this is exactly the kind of find that I dream about since I have to admit that my parents raised two movie buffs in my brother and me. With a few exceptions (Neither of us can even get them to consider watching the Lord of the Rings movies, but my Dad LOVES the Matrix trilogy -- GO FIGURE), we have very similar tastes in movies.

It was a particularly AWFUL day today, weather-wise. It poured rain all day, so I popped in this movie and shortly after I was mesmerized.

This has to be one of the all-time best \"sleepers\" I have seen. Jessica Lange and Michelle Pfeiffer are GREAT in their roles especially since they are playing very different types. Jessica Lange's character is a people-pleasing follower who, despite her being the senior child in the family rarely takes a leadership role. Rather, she bows to her father (Jason Robards) and sister Rose (Pfeiffer) and is hell-bent on teaching her little sister Caroline (Leigh) how to follow suit. Michelle Pfeiffer plays a very STRONG willed cancer survivor who is barely able to keep the anger at her unhappy life contained. This movie is five years prior to White Oleander, mind you, so it was definitely inspiring to see her playing such a strong, angry character.

I would have to say that this movie will probably appeal more to women. However, true movie buffs who enjoy a film for what it is, regardless of genre or target audience, will have a hard time denying the charm of this touching drama about family secrets and what they do the people involved and those who love them. I don't know how I missed seeing this movie before now, but it sure was a nice distraction on a rainy afternoon. ENJOY!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched this movie for the first time after finishing the book last week. What's the problem here? Folks admit that the performances are great--I mean, Lange is stellar!--and that the film is good-looking, but it's got less than a '6'! I don't get it. Come on! The writing's not that bad!

Having read a lot of Pulitzer-winning novels, and having seen a lot of the films based on them, I think a better-than-decent job was done in bringing the screenplay together. I thought the paring down of all the dialogue in the novel was executed almost perfectly. This story had a pretty hefty amount of dialogue in it, and the story really came through on the screen despite the fact that only a portion of it was used.

**BOOK SPOILER PART** I was, however, a little disappointed in the Ginny-tries-to-kill-Rose subplot's being omitted. I thought that was one of the more emotionally jarring parts of the book, but it was probably a good bet to leave it out. Avid movie-goers, more than avid readers, I think, tend to be less forgiving of protagonists pulling antagonistic stuff. It's apt to confuse Johnny Lunchpail and Joe Sixpack.

If you loved the book, you will like the movie. If you hated the book, you will likely hate the movie.

********

Rog","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

When I unsuspectedly rented A Thousand Acres, I thought I was in for an entertaining King Lear story and of course Michelle Pfeiffer was in it, so what could go wrong?

Very quickly, however, I realized that this story was about A Thousand Other Things besides just Acres. I started crying and couldn't stop until long after the movie ended. Thank you Jane, Laura and Jocelyn, for bringing us such a wonderfully subtle and compassionate movie! Thank you cast, for being involved and portraying the characters with such depth and gentleness!

I recognized the Angry sister; the Runaway sister and the sister in Denial. I recognized the Abusive Husband and why he was there and then the Father, oh oh the Father... all superbly played. I also recognized myself and this movie was an eye-opener, a relief, a chance to face my OWN truth and finally doing something about it. I truly hope A Thousand Acres has had the same effect on some others out there.

Since I didn't understand why the cover said the film was about sisters fighting over land -they weren't fighting each other at all- I watched it a second time. Then I was able to see that if one hadn't lived a similar story, one would easily miss the overwhelming undercurrent of dread and fear and the deep bond between the sisters that runs through it all. That is exactly the reason why people in general often overlook the truth about their neighbors for instance.

But yet another reason why this movie is so perfect!

I don't give a rat's ass (pardon my French) about to what extend the King Lear story is followed. All I know is that I can honestly say: this movie has changed my life.

Keep up the good work guys, you CAN and DO make a difference.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"FOUR FRIENDS was first billed on HBO in 82 as a sleeper hit. Having heard the term 'sleeper' when 14, back then - I was anxious to see one. (!) Boy - was I surprised! That film! I hadn't really fallen in love with a non-special effects film outside of TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE - much less a 'hippy flick'...but having had grown up with a couple of hippies - I understood the power behind Mr. Penn's film. FOUR FRIENDS is definitely one of a kind. The script is so personable - and that cast!!! Craig Wasson defines Danilo Prozor SO well! He just personifies the 'writer type' to a tee - both smart and clumsy (the scene at the window...) and strong yet so very vulnerable. For me - he captures what it's like to be so taken with agirl that it lasts over a decade...and I have always found solace in the character - and in the film. Throughout the 80's FOUR FRIENDS was a partner in crime to me - and I caught the movie whenever I could on HBO - even if I had to stay up until 5AM! And still, always at the end - there is a sense of loss when all those wonderful characters part from the viewers on the beach. Jodi Thelen personifies \"that girl\" to the hilt - it is so hard not to be charmed by her. This movie really stands the test of time. Every once and a while I check out my video of it...or show a friend...and it STILL gets a solid reaction. I've known women who absolutely fall in love with Georgia! So many levels..! Just an incredible little 60's piece of humanity. Very special, very magical. I recently found THE NOVELIZATION of FOUR FRIENDS by Robert Grossbach - and it's even more detailed that the movie! Actual dates of events, etc. A real find! And what's more - haha - I found the novel while thumbing around in a used book store...in Omaha, NE of ALL places!!! Guess you have to have an eye for her! When I was in L.A. in 92 working as an extra - I went into a ruddy lil memorbilia shop - and there were a TON of stills from the film!!! Unfortunately - I was broke and couldn't indulge...but boy, those photos of Georgia and the guys all together just went right through me! I met director Joe Sergant on the set of SKYLARK in Emporia, KS in summer of 92...and we spoke about FOUR FRIENDS - very cool! Also...working at a video store in Omaha in 98 - waited on a female who was a relative of Jim Metzler..! Told her to pass the word on that there was some kid in Omaha who was just fanatical about the film - and had gotten the utmost out of it. Once again - the movie captures everything that's in Danilo's character's heart...great, great work --- one of mssrs Tesich and Penn's finest efforts. Steve Tesich is sorely missed. An incredible writer. \"Isadora Duncan!!!\"

- C.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Unfortunately, many great films on IMDb such as this one have their scores \"adjusted\" by IMDb. This is truly a fine and intriguing film by the accomplished director of Bonnie and Clyde, Little Big Man, Night Moves, Mickey One, and The Chase.

If you click in the user rating area, you'll see that the actual median for Four Friends is 7.6. However, IMDb has \"adjusted\" (dumbed down?) the rating to 6.4.

Per IMDb: \"IMDb publishes weighted vote averages rather than raw data averages. Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate and reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing' by individuals more interested in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true opinion of it....The exact methods we use will not be disclosed. This should ensure that the policy remains effective.\" In other words, we won't disclose our methods, so you can't question how we arrived at the score! What a shame to see fine thought-provoking films like Four Friends fare no better than lame formulaic comedies due to IMDb's \"filters\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I rented this movie not knowing what to expect but WHOA was I in for a treat!

For anyone who, like myself, was waiting for a good movie that combined horror and sci fi, it is time to rejoice because the wait has finally ended. Writing, acting, filming and directing - all top notch. I hate to admit it, but I actually cried at one point (when Dracula was talking to the crippled guy). Truly an emotional roller-coaster from start to finish. The corridors of the ship provided the perfect spooky setting for this tale and the actors were really able to make their fear come alive to me. And Coolio as a vampire....very nice!

And believe me....as great as the bulk of the movie was...the ending will BLOW YOU AWAY! I know this movie gets a lot of flack on this site for some reason but I know NONE of you saw the ending coming. Brilliant!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So Udo Kier earned like nine bucks and free food for this so that is a victory in and of itself.

More importantly this movie tells a very interesting tale about a group of salvage guys coming across the broken down Demeter. I should warn you, i'm gunna bounce around through this review real quick so buckle up. First thing's first. Coolio plays a guy named 187. 187 likes drugs. 187 finds a bunch of caskets on board and... now i don't know anything about the future but maybe they smuggle drugs in caskets. Not gunna say that was the craziest thing in this movie. Later on the vampire gets out of his mist filled coffin and then the real hilarity begins. First, although this movie has the word Dracula in it he is actually not in this movie. I have a theory though. Out of the blue you see the salvage crew's ship leave without them. My theory is that Dracula was on board with his retarded brother Orlock. Dracula told Orlock he'll be right back. Dracula got the hell out of this movie before he could be seen leaving Orlock to play the vampire for the six or so minutes he is in the movie. The best part of this film, and for those of you that have seen this you know what i'm gunna say, is after 187 gets sired, embraced whatever. He has this huge monologue about ejaculating on various parts of erika Elaniak's body and... other super cool stuff. Coolio, seriously you are the best thing EVER.

Some other stuff happens in this movie too. Like Casper Van Dean gets some work. Orlock screams a lot and loses his arm and then we kinda lose track of him FOR THE REST OF THE MOVIE. And thank god really. We find out Erika's character is a police bot. As the movie comes to a close we find out that the ship is on a course to ram into the sun. The police bot and one other surviving character are doomed. Rather then avoid certain death Erika's police bot reveals she's also a whore bot and they decide to screw each other and die. Before they die in the sun they die for no reason, yep that's right... their ship blows up for no real reason.

This movie got the amazing rating for one reason, Coolio. My god, if they gave academy awards to black rappers then he'd be the first to get one. The only reason this didn't get a perfect ten is because there was not a drop of nudity. Now i know what your thinking, how can you judge a film by whether ladies show their goods or not. Well easy. A movie like this pretty much requires it. Its part of the process. Gore, gore, monsters, nudity, gore, end of movie final shock at the end. Its the formula. This had some gore, the monster was awesome because he sucked so hard he actually did us the favor of staying off camera. That was considerate of him and i respect that. Nudity, not a drop even though there was a length conversation about... well see the above statement and as for the shock\/twist... i certainly didn't see the end coming. That counts.

I hope Hollywood doesn't think Coolio gave this film his all and has nothing left. He deserves more work. Well, until Dracula 4000, i'm out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first of five St Trinian's films (although the last is usually discounted) was based around artist Ronald Searle's schoolgirl characters, and features the wonderful Alastair Sim in drag as Millicent Fritton, headmistress, as well as her own brother. Much of the humour is dated, yet curiously touching and outrageous in today's PC world - the girls drink, gamble, smoke and are later sold off to rich Arabs, yet always remain in charge, defeating bureaucrats, police, judges and other establishment figures as they maraud across England. Perhaps because the films have been so regularly seen on TV, St Trinians still inspires fancy dress parties and club nights. The films have recurring characters that include PC Ruby Gates (Joyce Grenfell) and Flash Harry (George Cole). The precursor to the entire series is a charming film called 'The Happiest Days Of Your Life' (1950).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This comic classic of English school girl antics is and was one of the great art house classics. Then the art house disappeared with the arrival of videos. And so did the audience for this movie. The loss is not to the art houses or to this great film. The loss is to those who will never have a real opportunity to view this memorable laugh filled cinematic masterpiece. But I am preaching to the converted aren't I. Who else would search for this flick?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This bright hilarious English comedy about school girl antics is a neglected gem. The significant question is where is the audience? The film is rated 10 by most voters, but how many voters is that? They don't make comedies like this anymore because the films don't get distributed or seen. I would never miss a chance to see this old art house classic again. But where are the art houses?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alistair Simms is a wonder in this. He makes such a good headmistress. The role given here for George Cole was made for him. Hence, the casting job on this film was perfect. I think it was one of those rare occasions where everything clicked. the story line was good, the comic dialogue a scream and the older prefect girls a delight!! Each character you are endeared to, even the villains. Why can't we make films like this any more. Basically, this is a very English comedy with good movement and fluidity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are other movies about boarding schools and the antics of the students and staff, but \"The Belles of St. Trinian's\" towers above them all! The plot has been thoroughly summarized by other posters, so I won't cover the same ground. I just want to say that it's a shame that it's FINALLY out on DVD, but in a format that can't be used in the U.S.! :-(

Enjoy, fellow fans in New Zealand and Australia! And if anyone reading this has any pull in such matters, PLEASE help get it released on DVD with Region 1 encoding! Also, is it possible to be notified via e-mail when (I won't say \"if\") it is released on DVD in the United States? Thanks!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A really funny British comedy from the mid 1950's about a school for girls. The girls are all involved in mischief and mayhem, making bathtub gin, smoking and gambling. Alastair Sim plays Headmistress Millicent in a glorious drag role, as well as playing Millicent's brother. A female police officer goes to the school undercover to see what is going on. This film is funny, having great sight gags and Alastair Sim is great. Just a classic Britsh comedy, lots of fun and not too cruse. Joan Sims ans Sid James, stars of many Carry On films, play small roles, but this film is about the girls. It spawned 3 sequels and a recent re-make. Watch and enjoy where it all began.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Choose your fate: The terrible tykes of the fourth form, playing practical jokes that involve axes, or the...ummm...well-developed girls of the sixth form, who discovered some time ago cigarettes, gin, sex and how easily men can be led astray. The problem is that one set comes with the other. They are all there at St. Trinian's, that remarkably easy-going English school for girls led by headmistress Millicent Fritton (Alastair Sim). As Miss Fritton is fond of pointing out, \"In other schools girls are sent out quite unprepared into a merciless world, but when our girls leave here, it is the merciless world which has to be prepared.\" Miss Fritton sounds something like a melding of Julia Child and Eleanor Roosevelt, and definitely has Sim's droll and deadpan comic genes.

In The Belles of St. Trinian's, a sly, chaotic comedy from the team of Frank Launder and Sidney Gilliat, St. Trinian's is, as usual, on the brink of financial disaster. Salvation may be at hand, however, when a rich sheik sends his daughter to join the fourth form and receive a proper English education. The sheik also is a horse owner and one of his prize racers, Arab Boy, is being trained near the school for a race. It's only a matter of time before the fourth- form girls form a racing pool and bet heavily on Arab Boy, with Miss Fritton adding to the pool what funds the school has left. (Much of the fourth-form girl's money comes from the gin they make in chemistry, then bottle and lower by rope to Flash Harry (George Cole), a Cockney fixer, for distribution. \"It's got something...I don't know quite what,\" says Miss Fritton on sampling the stuff, \"but send a few bottles up to my room.\")

Miss Fritton, however, has a brother, Clarence Fritton (who, by some coincidence of casting, also is Alastair Sim), a bookmaker who not only has placed a bundle on another horse, but who also has a daughter. And he has placed the precocious Arabella in the sixth form to keep him informed. Soon the sixth form has kidnapped Arab Boy, the fourth form has taken the horse back, Flash Harry has joined forces with Miss Fritton, the sixth-form girls are determined that Arab Boy will not leave the second floor of St. Trinian's, Clarence and his Homburg-wearing gang have arrived, parents are driving up for Parent's Day and the Ministry of Education has arrived in the person of a very proper inspector. Total war breaks out at St. Trinian's. It's hard to say which is more dangerous, the African spears or the flour bombs.

Alastair Sim as Millicent Fritton turns in a tour de force performance. Miss Fritton is a tall woman with a stately bosom, fond of long gowns with embroidered lace and Edwardian hats with lots of feathers. She takes everything in stride, even a fourth-former pounding at something in chemistry class and, after hearing an explosion a few minutes later, the results. \"Oh dear. I told Bessie to be careful with that nitro-glycerine!\" She is firm in believing that St. Trinian's is \"a gay arcadia of happy girls.\" Sim was one of Britain's great eccentric actors. Other than the sheer chaos of all the little (and not so little) girls doing terrible things, he delivers much of the film's pleasure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tremendous fun both as a film and as an excuse to sit back and play the 'oh, that's whassis name' game. Every star of the golden age of English films seems to be in this one and it was a joy to see them. And the greatest of them all, Richard Wattis, was as tremendous as ever.

There is actually a plot that trundles along very nicely, there's also some splendid jokes and comedic moments, but the key to this films triumph is the characters within it. Alastair Sim is magnificent and somehow convinces you that a six foot, big-boned Scotsman could be the headmistress of a girl's boarding school. George Cole, Beryl Reid and Irene Handl all have their moments but, with Alastair and Richard, the star of the show is Joyce Grenfell. She is an absolute one-off and brings a smile whenever she's on the screen...her rolling-walk and plum accent done to perfection.

And for those playing the , that's whassis name' game, you can even spot Arthur Mullard, Barbara Windsor and Ronald Searle if you look carefully.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alistair Simms inspired portrayal of Miss Fritton transcends drag. It is one of the great comedy characters in film. Equally wonderful is Joyce Grenfell's character - Ruby Gates.

This is a movie you should curl up on the sofa with on a wet Sunday's afternoon and be transported to a time long ago when terrifying, rampaging school girls only gained our respect - not our ire! I hear that a remake is in the offing with Rupert Everett as Miss Fritton? He will have a hard job competing with the master - or should that be mistress? - Alistair Simms.

Go and rent it - it beats so much of what today goes for comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those of you unfamiliar with Alisdair Sims, he is of course THE definitive Scrooge of all them Christmas Carol movies. (Me? I guess I'm REALLY bad.. I haven't actually seen the darn thing). I guess those who HAVE seen Christmas Carol and so used to his character might find The Bells of St. Trinians rather surprising. You see, in this movie, Sims has two roles. One, he plays a heavy better, and in the other, he's in drag as a headmistress for a private girl's school! So once you get that through your thick skull, this movie offers plenty of delights. The plot is deals with the way the school tries to make some desperately needed money through a horse race. It's actually a little more complicated for the small kids to handle, but I think they would be preoccupied with their antics, and with the horses to really notice. The adults too might get tripped over all the thick accents being thrown around as well. But again, the story is reasonably light, the action crazy and frenetic, for one to really notice. PS, the kids all look like they come from the Eloise school of cuteness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"About as hilarious as 50s British comedy can get, THE BELLES OF ST TRINIAN'S has almost a gag a minute... and at 91 minutes makes for a terrific time. Other films I equally recommend of the same period are THE TITFIELD THUNDERBOLT and THE GREEN MAN. In fact any film with Alistair Sim or Terry Thomas, George Cole, Richard Wattis or Joyce Grenfell or any combination is a delight. in ST TRINIAN'S we get a double dose of Sims playing two roles with that hilarious disdain he constantly lets ripple across his face. Joyce Grenfell as Ruby Gates (oh dear! that name!) plays her 'jolly hockey sticks' constable-incognito to hilarious perfection. Possibly the best laughs come from George Cole as Flash Harry (who comes out of a bush when whistled at) and various visits to classrooms by Ms Fritton (Sims) reacting to explosions ('Oh poor Betty!\") or science lab gin production (\"just send a few bottles of that up to my room\"'). Every part of the film is funny from the characters, their costumes the antics and the setting. There were sequels but the first three are the best: including this one, BLUE MURDER AT ST TRINIAN'S and later in color THE GREAT ST TRINIAN'S TRAIN ROBBERY.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a skillfully crafted piece of cinema that deals with a teenage boys confused sexuality.The cut scenes within can be lengthy but the cinematography is beautiful.This film would not appeal to many people, especially those who are queasy about gay teenage relationships, but the more open minded can sympathize with the puzzled protagonist.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this movie is underrated. To me it felt like a gulp of fresh air. Some people complain about the implausibility of the plot, overlong sequences and lack of sex (the latter being, I believe, the main reason for \"implausibility\"; and how come there are no drunken teenagers talking dirty?!); but it's just not their thing, and good for them if they can't relate to the story. The performances are great; I'd really like to see more of the actors in other movies. The emotions are genuine. The whole unrequited love thing is presented with uncanny subtlety. And it does give you the tingly feeling you expect to get from a good movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A stunning and thoughtful observation on modern life for youngsters in Japan, Like Grains of Sand delves into issues such as rape, homosexuality and pubescent angst in a subtle and significant way. It gives an insight in to the youth culture struggling to define itself outside of the bounds of their parent's generation, with it's strict conformity and facade. Typical to Japanese cinema, often what isn't said is more important that what is, so to those not versed in Japanese film and culture, beware. It can seem dull and minimalistic (pretty much like every film to come out of Japan bar Mangas) if you don't know what to look for. I saw it for the first time when I was 15 and was what originally sparked my interest in Japan, it's culture and language. Considering I'm now 22 and learning Japanese with the intention of living there for 2 years, needless to say it's a powerful film. Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Nagisa no Shindobaddo\" or \"Like Grains of Sand\" is an amazingly beautiful story about teenage boys and girls dealing with the state of becoming one with who they are. This movie isn't about homosexuality, but it IS about sexuality.

Aihara, an aloof girl, will definitely make the viewers ponder who IS behind the aloof girl. Does she love Yoshida? Or does she love Ito? Or did she somehow turn into a lesbian because of the \"incident\"? (I doubt it).

And what about Yoshida? Does he realize that he loves Ito in the end? Well, we all know he loves him as a friend. But you'll never know once you see this movie... haha :) In the end, Aihara (along with Ito) delivers an exceptional message to the audience: which is that it does NOT matter if you love a boy or a girl. And I have to tell you, I'm SO dense that I didn't get it at first. ^^;; It's because of the whole no talking scenes... You have to try to understand what the characters are thinking and saying through their actions and NOT by what they say (especially the final part... whew, boy, that was confusing!) It's a confusing story, but it IS beautiful nonetheless. :) This movie is certainly one of the best Japanese movies I have ever seen (and trust me, I've seen plenty).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Writing about something so wonderful is completely hard. Actually, it's almost impossible to describe the peculiarities of this movie. This is a marvelous story about sex and gender, and it's almost unbelievable that we have not to deal with obscene scenes of sex. Feeling, this film was made for people that like to feel, and just to feel, life in all its complexity in a gorgeous simple way. We look at it, and something starts growing inside our minds, even our hearts: it a pure poem. I've watched some \"gay\" movies, and I almost always got really unsatisfied with unnecessary scenes of sex, not because I don't like scenes of sex, but generally they are so pornographic that I'm forced to think that the director or the producers or the writer of the script thinks that homosexuality means perversion. Nagisa no Shindobaddo is totally different from that ones. Three are the main characters. We have Ito, Yoshida and Aihara, two boys and a girl in a peculiar love triangle. Ito likes his best friend Yoshida, Yoshida likes Aihara and Aihara likes Ito. Imagine what this could turn in unprepared hands? But in the contrary, Hashiguchi makes a magnificent story which goes profoundly in the philosophy of life, adding a question in our mind that made me think, astonished, in the end of the movie: Why? And that why expanded in multiple questions inside of my brain and inside of my heart. The scenes, actually, sometimes tending to be boring, are moments of the most delightful poem which we are able to feel, but totally unable to write down in words. And maybe because of that, we are unable to understand the question in the end of the movie. I'm sure this movie was not made for us to discuss every piece of it\u0085 Some people want to understand a film almost dissecting it. Others are so used to common \"American gay\" movies that can't appreciate the real value of this master-piece. Watch it, close your eyes in the credits and feel, everything, feel yourself, feel the wonderful song. For all this and much, much more, I give a nine. And I just don't give ten, because ten of ten is perfection. But I confess I almost did it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching this movie, I can't help drawing the comparison between it and Wild Reeds, another thoughtful film about teenagers coming of age.

Like Wild Reeds, this movie is slow and the director would not be hurried. So if you want a quick resolution to things, don't watch it. This movie is like a slice of life, beginning imperfectly and ending imperfectly. There's no resolution to anything, no happily ever after for anybody, just like real life.

This movie is as real as it gets. The acting is surprisingly good. The director is fond of long, really long, shots and the actors and actresses excel at showing subtlety and inner thoughts.

I love this movie. I almost didn't watch it but now I'm very glad that I did. It's not a movie for everyone but if you're willing to let it grow on you, you will be rewarded.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched this film, and I have to say it surprised me. It was very well done, with good acting and a deep look at high school students from Japan, in adolescent love.

The look and feel is a lot different from many movies, and you can easily get into the film. Much of the emphasis seems to be in the story itself, which is extremely subtle. The main theme and relations with other characters are a bit complex. But the the overall sense of realism and dimensions still pulls you in.

A main draw back is of course, those who like something simple. Which is not here. You have to be open to many things, including a new culture, to get more into the film.

I did enjoy this film though. It is worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pepe Le Pew can either really creep you out or totally sweep you off your feet. Either way, you can't help feeling a little awe on beholding this classic WB character. This commentater personally believes that Pepe was the inspiration behind other would be animated casanovas today from Cartoon Network's \"Johnny Bravo\" to Disney's Lumiere from \"Beauty and the Beast\".

His unique brand of love making is to be wondered at in today's world where his antics would normally be slapped with a sexual harassment warrant and at least a 50m distance from all his victims.

In this particular cartoon, a world weary cat decides to do an ultimate makeover and earn some respect for a change for pretending to be a skunk. All goes well, until Pepe arrives and promptly pursues the unfortunate feline with his overwhelmingly enthusiastic love-making.

The groundwork for Pepe's many trademarks are laid in this cartoon. From his adorable \"frenchified\" love calls to that aggravatingly calm hop-chase of his.

This cartoon only goes to show that as far as the world of cartoon fantasy is concerned, the most ardent wooer can go the distance...and have his beloved \"pig-eon\" leaving dust trails behind them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One day a red alley cat is fed up of being kicked by people and attacked by dogs and muses that life would be better if he were a skunk. He then paints himself black with a white stripe down his back and adds a bit of Limburger cheese to make him stink. At first life couldn't be better for him, the dog flees and the butcher abandons his shop letting the cat walk off with a pile of meat. Just as he is thinking everything is perfect he is noticed by a real skunk, not just any skunk but the overly amorous Pep\u00e9 Le Pew. Pep\u00e9 mistakes the poor cat for a female skunk and pursues him thinking his protestations are just shyness. Our poor cat thinks he has escaped when he throws a skunk skin from a tall building so that Pep\u00e9 will think he is dead, at first it seems to work but as he sneaks off Pep\u00e9 sees him and instantly forgets the dead skunk. In the end the cat realises he was better off being kicked and attacked than being lusted after by a randy skunk... there is a nice ending for the skunk too when his wife finds out what he has been up to.

This was a fairly funny introduction to Pep\u00e9 Le Pew who back then was just overly amorous but now looks like a randy sexually harassing stalker, although he was punished for his behaviour in the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"And thus was born the most amorous skunk ever to grace the silver screen. While the plot has an abused cat painting himself like a skunk and inadvertently attracting Pepe Le Pew (called Henry here), Pepe certainly steals the show. No doubt Chuck Jones realized that this love-seeking member of the genus Mephitis had that special something necessary to be a star in his own right, and so he cast Pepe in \"For Scent-imental Reasons\" four years later, firmly establishing PLP's enduring presence on screens everywhere.

So, while \"Odor-Able Kitty\" may be a place holder otherwise, I try to imagine watching it for the very first time in 1945. Could anyone have guessed that this supporting character would soon join the ranks of Bugs, Daffy, Porky, and the rest? Whether or not anyone did, Pepe remains one of the most likable characters to this day. C'est l'amour!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the first Pepe Le Pew cartoon and in some ways it's very similar to the later ones but in a few other odd ways it is not. While the object of Pepe's affections IS a cat, oddly it appears to be a BOY cat! This whole predicament occurs because a cat is tired of being abused by others and dresses up like a skunk and tries to smell like a skunk so it can be left alone. Unfortunately, this attracts our hero, Pepe. Most of the action is pretty typical until the very funny and unexpected ending--and this actually makes this one of the best of all cartoons in the series. Excellent animation (though the style is different than later examples), excellent writing and a good sense of humor make this one a keeper.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The brilliant Chuck Jones, master of Warner Bros. cartoon comedy, brings us the first (?) Pepe LePew cartoon. An alley cat, tired of being pushed around, paints himself in the colors of a skunk, and with a healthy dose of Limburger, turns the tables on his tormentors. Then along comes Pepe, and you know the rest. Many of Pepe's famous gags were born here, including his chase\/hop, in which he hops casually along while his prey runs himself to exhaustion.

In my opinion, Warner Bros. cartoons became less inventive and more ho-hum in the 50s. This 1947 'toon is one of the few examples of Mel Blanc putting his absolutely crazy voice into Pepe's mouth. But the kicker is the ending, where Pepe is revealed to be an American \"wolf in skunk's clothing\"! A must see! Classic Warner Bros...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This short, a formative cartoon featuring Pepe Le Pew, concerns a cat who thinks he'll solve all his problems by pretending to be a skunk. Trouble is, he attracts the most unwelcome attention of an honest and for truly skunk (our hero, Pepe, entering stage left) being decidedly more attentive, shall we say, than M. Cat would like. Every great plan has its drawbacks, but this one's a corker! I wonder if Jack Warner got a call from the Hays Office over the fact that Pepe and the object of his adoration were both male. After all, Betty Boop was in part responsible for the Production Code coming into existance. Subsequent \"conquests\" were clearly and most definitely female. Very good cartoon, but Pepe is a character who works better as the focal point, rather than supporting. Well worth watching. Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another Raquel Welch Classic! This Picture hit the theaters November 10 1969 starring Raquel Welch as Michele, James Stacey as Joe and Luke Askew as Alan Morris. Nikki is on her way to meet with her girl friends Michele and Jackie. While on her way there, she runs into her ex husband who wants a second chance. Nikki walk away from him goes to the table where she sees Michele and Jackie. Alan approaches her again and she starts to walk away when Alan shoots her in the back. Nikki is taken to the hospital while Michele and Jackie go to the police station. Michele goes to the hospital where she meets up with Jackie only to find that Nikki died. Alan then goes after Jackie who he hits with a car and then tries to run Michele down. Michele jumps into her car and heads for Los Angeles. When she gets there, she calls Lloyd her boss in Las Vegas to let him know that she was all right. Lloyd tells her to go to the club called the losers to see Jeri about a job. However, there's one problem! The bartender has a drug problem and Alan knows it so Alan and the bartender have a little talk. Back in Los Angeles Michele not only gets a job as a dancer with Jeri but also hooks up with Jeri bouncer Joe. Now some thoughts on this picture! This picture was far better then Raquel last, and this one had nonstop action. Luke Askew did a fine job of playing Nikki ex husband. He was your typical murder with the look that goes with it. As for Raquel Welch performance, the only word that comes to mine is fantastic. She was awesome in this movie and her beauty stood out and shined like never before. The outfit that she wore on stage to dance was breathtaking. In fact, all the outfits she wore in this movie were breathtaking. Of course, it doesn't matter what Raquel had on because she looks good in everything or nothing. I give this movie 10 weasel stars for two reasons. The first and by far is Raquel Welch who's the leading actress and deserves 10 stars. The second reason is that this movie was wall-to-wall excitement from beginning to end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anyone who has spent time working in a hospital or medical facility has got to appreciate this film. The plot is absolutely wild but entertaining from start to finish. The acting is superb. George C. Scott is the brilliant doctor but class A failure as husband, father. Diana Riggs, a sex symbol of the 1960s and 1970s (of The Avengers), saves him from himself. The surrounding cast is superb and the dialogue quite entertaining. I think I enjoyed the film more on viewing it the 4th., 5th. or 6th. time because I caught that much more of the richness of the dialogue and the interplay of the characters. Well worth seeing again and again. You just won't want to check in to a hospital in the near future.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Certainly the highlight of this film is it's cast.

Diana Rigg, George C. Scott, Bernard Hughes to mention a few.

I have accumulated more time in hospitals and with doctors over the years than I care to think about.

This comedy attacks the pomp and pretension in all aspects of our society, through the setting of one of it's \"Most Haughty\" institutions... the Medical profession.

The idea that such goings on could be possible, might be a shock to some, but is a delight to anyone with the perspective of experience.

Dr Brock (Scott) undergoes a mid-life crisis of monumental proportions before our eyes as we, and he, become enamored with the prospect of his involvement with Miss Drummond (Rigg).

The thread of the absurd is woven into this wonderful mix in the form of the irony that the Hospital appears to be killing it's own workers as they mismanage their affairs in it.

The climax is unpredictable (unless you've seen it) and made even more hilarious if you happen to guess.

It's not everyone's brand of humor, to be sure, and has uproariously funny \"Dark Moments\" if you're open to them.

I loved every minute, and was delighted to see it out on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had never paid much attention to this flick until I learned that Paddy Chayefsky - author of the brilliant \"Network\" - was the scriptwriter. His work there had instructed me as to his genius, so when 'Hospital' appeared on TMC, I was anxious to see it. I was not disappointed. Looking at both this film and \"Network\" it would seem that his big theme is the absurdity, inanity, and sheer viciousness of large human enterprises (e.g., hospitals, networks) against the sanctity of individual experience and the human spirit, and all of it delivered with a knife-edge sense of utterly black humor. \"Hospital\" is as black of a comedy as \"Network\" is, and the excellent cast, led by the incomparable Scott, does his work full justice. This is a keeper; definitely not to miss.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you liked Paddy Chayevsky's \"Network\" you'll probably like this black comedy as well, as it's another brilliant Chayevsky script, a wonderful satire on big-city hospitals and a perfect vehicle for Geo. C. Scott. He plays a burned-out chief of medicine on the most chaotic day he or his hospital have ever seen. His personal crisis is coming to a head and his hospital's falling down around him, as local residents demonstrate against the hospital and patients and doctors are dying at an alarming rate, thanks to a biblically-inspired and murderous saboteur. The latter, who theatrically declares himself the \"Fool for Christ,\" \"Parakleet of Kaborka,\" \"Wrath of the Lamb,\" and \"Angel of the Bottomless Pit,\" bops doctors on the head, administers lethal injections and swaps patients' identities, causing treatments and operations to be performed on the wrong persons.

This film makes you uncomfortable, as deadly mistakes like these do happen (hopefully not so many, not so often and not in one place) and at the same time makes you laugh at the priceless character portraits. One is Richard Dysart (\"L.A. Law\") as Dr. Wellbeck, a sort of celebrity surgeon who spends far more time worrying about his investments and publicly-traded stock than about his patients, who suffer lethally from his vast indifference and neglect. There's Diana Rigg as free-spirited, hippie-ish Barbara Drummond, who seduces the beleaguered chief of medicine (Scott) and tries to get him to run away with her. Then there's the deluded murderer, who happens to be Barbara's father and who \"functions well enough\" back at the Indian reservation where he lives with his daughter and even runs a clinic, but who's pushed to madness merely by being placed back in civilization. The strongest portrait by far is Scott's Dr. Bock, who bares his soul as former boy genius, failed father and husband, brilliant doctor and responsible administrator, who constantly dreams of suicide but must bear up under the demands of his job. Scott is exceptional in this demanding role.

Until the final scenes one doesn't know if Bock will leave the hospital behind for Barbara's Indian reservation and a quieter, simpler life, whether her murderous father will be caught or whether the protesting, rioting locals will take over and bring the hospital to its knees. Watching the crazed killer at work, one suspects Chayevsky is telling us our lunatic society makes him do these things, as we're told he's a different person away from cities and people.

As my own father was the chief administrator of a number of large hospitals over the years, I had some idea of the demands of his job and the huge responsibility he shouldered. This story makes that responsibility the linchpin on which Scott's crisis turns. This is both a funny and scary film, with the actors up to the considerable demands of Chayevsky's script. It's also a film I get more out of each time I watch it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anybody who goes to the Manhattan Hospital Center is taking his life in his hands. That includes the staff of The Hospital.

I had never seen The Hospital before and I was intrigued at how similar the characters and situations of the plot were to that other Paddy Chayefsky masterpiece, Network. There are elements in George C. Scott's character that have both Al Schumacher's and Howard Beale's.

He's the administrator of The Hospital and he's mad as hell and not going to take it any more. He's completely estranged from his wife and kids. It takes a Faye Dunaway type character in the person of Diana Rigg to make him snap out of it. One roll in the hay with her and he's shocked back to reality and the fact he still can contribute in the world.

But first he's got a real problem. Someone is out killing hospital staff, four of them in a 48 hour period. And the nice part is their deaths can be attributed to in large part to the general incompetence of a medical bureaucracy. That's where the comedy comes in.

There is an actual Howard Beale type character in the person of Barnard Hughes, Diana Rigg's father. His end is not quite as dramatic as Beale's though.

Back in my working days it was part of my job to pay medical suppliers. Some of them could be as big creeps as you'll find portrayed in The Hospital. The black comedy satire had some real bite to it for me.

George C. Scott was nominated for Best Actor, but having won and refused to accept the previous year's Oscar for Patton, he wasn't about to get a second chance. He lost to Gene Hackman for The French Connection. Still his handling of the role is unforgettable.

Try viewing The Hospital back to back with Network and see how many similarities you spot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Absolutely corrosive! Director Arthur Hiller and writer Paddy Chayefsky dismantle the American hospital system with this wicked comedy\/drama\/whodunit. The hospital depicted here is fraught with problems...from protesting neighbors to irate patients to a potential serial killer on the loose. George C. Scott is the top doctor who, on the brink of his own nervous breakdown, gets involved with free-spirited Diana Rigg and her wacky father Barnard Hughes. Alternately depressing and uproarious, THE HOSPITAL features some of the most acid-tinged dialog imaginable (note how Scott describes his love making session with Rigg). It also has a lot of great vignettes: Scott berating head nurse Nancy Marchand after one of here underlings accidentally kills a doctor; daffy administrator Frances Sternhagen trying desperately to collect insurance info from a waiting room full of sick people; Scott getting sobering advice from the hospital psychiatrist after telling him of his woeful home-life. All of the acting is first-rate. Scott and Rigg are dynamite and Hughes is a real surprise. The movie is a masterpiece with Chayefsky's script earning a well-deserved Oscar (over such stiff competition as KLUTE & Sunday, BLOODY Sunday). The opening narration is priceless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"George Scott gave the performance of a lifetime in Paddy Chayefsky's THE HOSPITAL, a very dark drama about an aging big city hospital and a middle-aged physician on the verge of suicide. Along comes Diana Rigg as a free spirit determined to save him from himself. Their dialog crackles, and it is clear they are made for each other from the outset. But will she save him? Their one sex scene is both graphic and memorable for its passion and fury. Meanwhile, the hospital is under siege by a group of agitators who don't want it to turn a condemned building into a cancer center. And a serial killer is loose in the hospital, specializing in doctors and nurses. A good part of the movie, though, is squarely focused on Scott. As it should be. What a difference a few years made back when this movie was made. 1962 had given us THE INTERNS, a hokey, old-fashioned reworking of DR. KILDARE with terrible acting and a cardboard script. Along came 1971 and THE HOSPITAL. Less than 10 years later. Hollywood did something right for a change. Watching THE HOSPITAL today is a reminder of how much medical shows like ST. ELSEWHERE and SCRUBS owe to this enduring classic. And if THE HOSPITAL reminds you of NETWORK, it should. Same scripter.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Read a biography of the late George C. Scott and you'll discover why he was so enormously talent. He was asked by an interviewer what his secret was when making each character he played his own. Scott replied, he possessed inside him a burning fire which drove him. In one of his last interviewers, he sadly revealed he had lost the drive. This was not the case when he starred in the movie, \"The Hospital.\" In this offering, he plays talented doctor Bock, medical director of one of the finest hospitals in the country. However, life has dealt him some crippling problems, such as losing his wife to a divorce, becoming alienated from both his promising children and worse of all, believing himself to be physically impotent. At this point, he is now becoming complacent, morose and frequently fantasizes various ways of committing suicide. To add to his growing list of personal obstacles, his main reason for being, his hospital has come under siege by students and neighborhood protesters, incompetent doctors like Dr. Welbeck (Richard Dysart) and a mysterious MD. who is killing both patients and doctors alike, because he believes he is \"the Wrath of the Lamb.\" (Barnard Hughes). Few choices are left to Bock. One is promising doctor Brubaker (Robert Walden) whom he confides in by saying, \"If there were an oven around here, I would put my head in it.\" The second is a luscious young woman, named Barbara who is attracted to Bock because he acts like a wounded bear. Paddy Chayefsky wrote the screen-play and Arthur Hiller did an extremely good job of directing this dramatically interesting, dark story, but a vehicle nonetheless, lit by the fire of George C. Scott. ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"May I never have to go to this hospital [or hospice, if I want to be politically correct] [which ass coined this asinine phrase, anyway?], for anything other than directions on how to get out of town. George C. did a masterful job playing the burned out, over worked cynic who has come to the conclusion that his life has been a waste, but is helpless to change his environment or conditions even when given a golden opportunity [which probably wasn't so golden anyway]. I got several laughs out of this brutally black comedy, however at the same time was sobered and often chilled to the marrow because I fear this very atmosphere pervades most houses of healing even as I write.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Patty Chayevsky was years ahead of most successful screenplay and drama writers in tackling sticky subjects. In this 1971 film he followed Sinclair Lewis and A. J. Cronin (in respectively ARROWSMITH and THE CITADEL) in looking critically at the world of medicine, although his target is centered on a special stage: a modern hospital in Manhattan. Chayevsky's point of view is quite direct: are hospital's places for people to go to to get well, or are they money making organizations where people frequently die due to incompetence.

As a person who has recently been to a hospital too many times (and will shortly have to return again) I find THE HOSPITAL a very timely and rewarding satire. George C. Scott is Dr. Block, one of the heads of the Manhattan Surgical Center, a major teaching hospital. He has just started his day when he is told that one of the second year residents has died during the night in an apparent mix-up. It seems he was sedated and drugged while sleeping on a bed (he'd been having a tryst with a nurse), and someone tampered with an i.v. that should have contained water with glucose in it (later it turns out he got an overdose of insulin in the i.v.). Soon Scott finds that whenever he turns around some other member of the staff dies of a heart attack or of a botched operation. The key to all this appears to be one patient who came to the hospital ten days before for a regular check-up, and has since lost one kidney, nearly lost his other kidney, and is now in a comatose state (Barnard Hughes).

Hughes' daughter (Diana Rigg) wants to bring the comatose dad back to his home on an Apache Indian Reservation in Mexico. Scott is not totally opposed to the idea - after all, hospital errors almost killed Hughes. Also, Scott is suffering a mid-life crisis with the collapse of his marriage and family, and his growing doubts about what his chosen profession really accomplishes. It is not only looking at a case like Hughes'. The hospital is in a constant state of chaos wherein the regular staff (Scott, Stephen Elliot, Nancy Marchand, Stockard Channing) is overworked and overtaxed, and is at war with the business staff (typified by Frances Steenhagen in a really chilly performance). The local community is hostile because of the expansion plans of the hospital - but when they meet to \"discuss\" matters with Elliot they prove to be as divisive among themselves (militant Black Panthers versus local clergy versus birth control seeking women and pro-abortion clinic types). Rigg (who falls in love with Scott in the course of the film) becomes more and more certain that leaving the insanity of the city makes sense, and Scott also toys with the idea.

Scott was at his acting height in this film, what with ANATOMY OF A MURDER, THE HUSTLER, DR. STRANGELOVE, and PATTON under his belt before THE HOSPITAL was made. His angst registered when he and Rigg get to know each other (she prevents him from killing himself due to his despair). He can't tell if anything done in the hospital is worthwhile, and screams out the window the words in the \"Summary Line\". Though he does later relax a little about how good his teaching has been for doctors studying with him, Scott really never fully is sure about it all - he does, however, fully accept his own sense of responsibility that others just dump. Rigg too was at the height of her international fame (if not her acting abilities) - her stint as Mrs. Peel on THE AVENGERS was a few years old, but she was recognized as a leading stage talent in Britain at the time, as well as one of the sexiest women performers of that period.

The supporting actors are good too. Besides the chilling Steenhagen (demanding Medicare\/Medicaid\/insurance information from comatose patients in the E.R.), there is Hughes as a religious maniac who wins, and Elliot as the fed up head of the hospital. There is also my favorite caricature: Richard Dysart as Dr. Elwell. Elwell is a butcher who has found a real home for himself on the Big Board of the Stock Exchange, having incorporated himself for tax incentives. Anyone recalling his performances as ethical types such as the head of the law firm in L.A.LAW or as the friend and physician to Melvin Douglas in BEING THERE, upon seeing his greedy Dr. Elwell see another facet to this underrated actor's talents.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the greatest films ever made. Brilliant acting by George C. Scott and Diane Riggs. This movie is both disturbing and extremely deep. Don't be fooled into believing this is just a comedy. It is a brilliant satire about the medical profession. It is not a pretty picture. Healthy patients are killed by incompetent surgeons, who spend all their time making money outside the hospital. And yet, you really believe that this is a hospital. The producers were very careful to include real medical terminology and real medical cases. This movie really reveals how difficult in is to run a hospital, and how badly things already were in 1971. I loved this movie. P.S. - I noticed that the incompetent, wheeler dealer surgeon played the head of the firm in LA Law. The young doctor played in Lou Grant. I also noticed that the registration nurse has appeared since in Becker and other shows.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movie is funny funny funny my favorite quote from the movie \"i think i saw a half naked Indian in my room last night\" response that was no hallucination it was a Indian in your room\" and another is \"what the hell are you talking about, just what the hell are you talking about\" but if i ever be admitted to an hospital like this one i will be prepared to write my will on the spot...i would say there were in my opinion three very funny characters in this film most funny but three is the funniest to me even though their lines were few.. and don't get me started on the crack-pot patient hehehe that one i will keep secret and fast paced too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Hospital is a movie that was made ahead of its time. This film, produced by screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky, who gave us the Oscar-Winning film, \"Network\", deals with overworked staff, gross incompetence, and bureaucratic corruption at a large conglomerate hospital in Manhattan. George C. Scott, in a superb performance as the head physician, is driven to alcoholism and a death-wish, as he tries to recover from a divorce, throwing his son out of the house, and worst of all, a medical facility where corruption and incompetence take precedence over caring and healing of the sick and injured.

Mr. Scott makes the movie his own, and viewers will be shocked at what they observe at this medical establishment. You can feel the \"pain\" (pun intended) of what this hospital has done to him. The vivid images of this hospital's incompetence are so vivid and dramatically powerful that you may find yourself laughing and being deeply disturbed from scene to scene.

If only the film had stayed with that premise in a documentary style fashion as it starts out, this picture would be brilliant. Unfortunately, there is a sub-plot of Scott falling for the daughter of a senile patient. The patient has been murdering people at the hospital. This is where credibility of the picture becomes strained. The romantic dialog scenes add nothing to the picture, and the mental patient, posing as a doctor, I found to be totally unbelievable. A simple security call and records check should have prevented the senile patient from doing the killings. It takes almost the whole movie, before security people are brought into the film to get the patient out of the hospital. I could not see ONE PERSON doing that much damage, even as corrupt as this hospital is.

Furthermore, George C Scott's character is \"overworked\" (another pun intended) because the script has too many things happening at once. For example, within a period of 20 minutes, you could have as many as 20 different doctors accused and denying what they should have done or didn't do. With the nurses and aids, it's the same story. Someone's chart was read wrong, someone was given the wrong medication and died, the doctor operated on the wrong patient, than another doctor does the same thing, blaming a third nurse who was not on call because the second nurse who was supposed to be admitting the patient was on her coffee break. There is also a lot of subtle, dark humor with the same messages of incompetence and corruption being fed to the viewer.

This repetition of medical ineptness is unforgettable. However, the murder subplot is a distraction more than a help to this movie. When the focus of this film is on the incompetence of the staff and Scott's reactions to this, you are glued to the screen. But the conversations between Scott and the mad patient's daughter force the film into a mystery type \"Who Done it?\" scenario that seriously hurts the quality of the movie. When the loony patient is revealing how he did the killings, I wondered the following: Why did the producers need the \"find the killer\" mad-patient sub-plot? I think the only point of Scott's character having a relationship with the senile patient's daughter, was to give him anybody with whom to communicate. The Hospital should have maintained its scathing indictment of the medical profession by removing the love-interest and mad patient scenes. It should have focused on the incompetent B.S within its walls more frequently. In an era where this movie could have been phenomenal, the sub-plot stories make the film very good instead of the great masterpiece it could have been.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is George C. Scott at his very best, Bernard Hughes at his very best and Diana Rigg at her most pithy, and of course Paddy Chaevsky writing at \"masterpiece\" warp! There are also very brief snippets of future biggies like Susan Sarandon, Stockard Channing etc., who have one scene lines that you don't necessarily spot until your fifth or sixth time watching. Nancy Marchand as a young to middle age nurse supervisor is also superb, as well as practically every \"face\" in Hollywood of 1970.

It is one of the few movies that gets better the more times you see it. Watch for the \"surprise\" scene ala \"Wait until Dark\"! This is one of the few movies I have ever bought on DVD. It is that superb.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am still waiting for years a new DVD issue of this marvelous film. I own a beta max recording with FRENCH language. Unfortunately, MGM omits the french track on his recent DVD... Just English spoken an french subtitles...I don't know how make MGM to be advised: I wrote emails to them but, of course, no answer. If I insist, it's because exceptionally, the dubbing track in french was spectacular, funny, well written etc... George C. Scott acting is always outstanding and, for people born like me during the 50ies, Diana Rigg represents something very different than Madonna (for example). Thanks for help... Kind regards...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dr. Bock teaches at the hospital and he is quite good at it. The thing about him is that he is depressed. Dr. Bock and his wife separated, his children are deviant, he cannot perform in the bedroom and he feels as if he isn't doing a very good job at healing people. He becomes suicidal but meets Barbara who changes his ideas for the better. All around this story is a murder mystery and a group of angry protesters outside.

The movie is well done and the character of Dr. Bock is well played out. It's a little sad, somewhat funny and somewhat of a drama. It was good to see a couple stories wrapped around the hospital even if they were somewhat unrelated to what Dr. Bock was doing. Great movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"PLOT SPOILERS!!!! Dr. Boch (George C. Scott) is the chief of medicine at a major NYC hospital. He's left his wife, his children have disowned him, he's impotent, drinks a lot and contemplates suicide. Also there's a killer roaming the hospital. Then he meets VERY strange Barbara (Diana Rigg) and falls in love. She wants him to run away with her--but can he completely give up on his old life and start a new one?

Very strange movie with an Oscar winning script by Paddy Chayefsky. It presents a suicidal main character and shows us a hospital full of overworked nurses and doctors that is run incompetently. It manages (somehow) to actually make this seem pretty funny. It's not laugh out loud humor--it's VERY black humor. Also the acting is right on target--Scott is just great (and Oscar nominated) here. You see him trying to keep his sanity in a totally crazy situation. Riggs character is more than a little odd but her matter of fact manner works and she's also incredibly beautiful. The script is strong and brutal--but never too much. I think it fumbles the ball at the end with a situation that goes way too over the top--but it's still worth seeing. If this had been done totally seriously it probably would be impossible to take. Also look for Katherine Helmond in a small bit and Stockard Channing and Christopher Guest in uncredited bits. I personally had trouble taking this seriously. From what I've heard hospitals WERE this bad back in the 1970s but not anymore. See it for the acting and script. I give it a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a retired medical\/health field \"toiler in the vinyard\" I never get tired of seeing this film. Paddy Chayefsky was a friend of my college comp teacher & visited him & us during several clases back in 1958. His writing ability has stood the test of time & the \"Hospital\" is as fresh as it was in 1971. I can watch it every week & still find something new. So many of the supporting cast members went unto bigger & better roles in both TV & film. George Scott made only a few comedies, but his timing & patter are as good as Jackie Gleason & Steve Msrtin. Mental humour rather than physcial\/slapstick wins in my book every time. And still a family film with only 1, four letter word during entire film","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another black comedy that won an Oscar for Best Screenplay. Starring George C Scott, this redefines the phrase \"tearing a new a$$hole.\" In this case, the target is America's Medicare and grand hospital system. Throughout the hospital, patients and doctors are dying because their names and prescriptions are being changed. Scott roars, screams and blasts away his workers and bosses as they fail more and more. His comment about Dachau to one of his many bosses is sure to elicit laughs. He even beats and rapes a hippie 3 times. This is one that has to be seen AND heard as the monologues and soliloquies are the key points in the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"George C. Scott gives his finest and funniest with wonderful drama as well in this Paddy Chayefsky screenplay. Diana Rigg is attractive and quite the complicated young woman. This film veers between tragedy and chaos in a New York hospital of the late 60's with staggering consequences. Barnard Hughes is delightful as always (great stage actor as well).

An 8 out of 10. Best performance = George C. Scott. Chayesfsky was a big blow-hard when he put down Vanessa Redgrave at the 1978 Oscar ceremony, but he's a good writer. A truly ensemble cast that works wonders, down to the smallest role. This won best script at Oscars and Scott was nominated. He should have won for this instead of PATTON the year before (which he was also brilliant in). Seek this out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For sheer quality of performance and the \"theater of the absurd,\" this one is hard to compare to anything else. With the world melting down in the early '70s this film made perfect sense then, and still resonates. George Scott could never be typecast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has some of the best dialogue ever written. The really good lines are all given to George C. Scott, a man who knew what to do with a juicy piece of dialogue. I just saw this movie again, for the first time in 20+ years, and the dialogue is as good as ever. The bizarre goings-on at the hospital are so imaginative as to dazzle you. They frequently involve such marvelous poetic justice as to be near strokes of genius. I love this movie!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"36. THE HOSPITAL (comedy, 1971) A series of emergencies has gripped Manhattan Hospital. Patients are dying left and right due to overcrowded conditions, and a ineptitude staff. When a resident doctor is caught up in the death count the chief medical examiner, Dr. Bock (George C. Scott), is called in to investigate. Having worked as a doctor for too many years, and going through a mid-life crisis of his own, Dr. Bock finds the going tough. He decides to commit suicide. But then he meets Barbara (Diana Rigg), a young-hippie beauty. Whose keen insights on life help the depressed Bock.

Critique: Black comedy features a 'tour-de-force' performance from veteran actor George C. Scott. He's good at playing high-strung, serious characters whose strict morals are severely tested. First half of the film unfolds like a melodrama, giving a pretty good account of hospital life, and the shambles they sometimes are. But then, as things look set for a dramatic climax it skews into slapstick comedy. If Paddy Chayefsky's script had maintained its dramatic feel I wonder if Scott would've walked out with another best Actor Oscar (he had previously won it, 'in-absentia', the year before). His breakdown (suicide) scene is one of the most gut-wrenchingly real in cinema history.

QUOTE: Dr. Bock: \". . .last night I sat in my hotel room reviewing the shambles of my life and contemplating suicide. I said 'no Bock don't do it. You're a doctor, a healer, you're a necessary person, you're life is meaningful'. Then. . .I find out that one of my doctors was killed by a couple of nurses. . .how am I to sustain my feeling of meaningfulness in the face of this?\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best screen performance ever by George C. Scott. The screenplay by Chayefsky, the irony-freighted dialogue, is near perfect ('Just where do you train your nurses, Dachau?'). Rigg is wonderful as the rescuing angel who saves Scott from doom, as is the whole cast. It's a hilarious and serious movie. It is a movie of the period, the 60's, but it is not in any sense dated. What it is about, the chaos and irrationality of the system vs. the sanity of the individual, is timeless. And the \"We heal nothing. We cure nothing\" monologue (delivered, shouted actually, as no one else but Scott could) with its references to cloning and other 'wonders' of modern science could literally have been written this morning.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those unfamiliar with Paddy Chayefsky, this is a very good introduction. While Chayefsky deals with the reality behind the myths of many things including medicine, this work is surprisingly prophetic of the way medicine is going today, two decades after the movie was made and over a decade after his death. Beyond that, some insights into Chayefsky's view of life in general are 'slipped into' the movie as well. The 20th Century may well turn out to be the first and last century of the United States in the History of the World. If it turns out that the contribution to the arts by the United States was in the dimension of the 'movie,' this is a prime example of that art.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As I stated earlier this year, in my review of Swordfish (which was scripted by this films writer\/director\/producer Skip Woods) this is a good film. It ranks very high up there in my crime flick list among Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, Pulp Fiction and Snatch. Basically I think this film is for me what Reservoir Dogs was for many people - a cult classic - although I prefer to compare it with Pulp Fiction. I mean I never liked Tarantino's first effort a lot, but I sure as hell liked this one as much as I like Pulp Fiction, for it simply has everything a classic needs. A great story and good actors. OK the budget might be not as big as in for instance Godzilla, The Avengers of Mission to Mars but it sure as hell beats the living crap out of those films (and numerous others).

The story of this film, is about a man named Casey (Thomas Jane), who has settled down with his wife in Houston. Unexpectedly an old friend of his comes by disrupting his life, revealing his secrets and basically making his day a living hell (and a bloody one too).

The film is very original and quite bloody \/ sexually tinted. So based on that first and that last quality I can assure you that if you like this film, you'll also like Swordfish, which of course has a much bigger budget and more famous faces than this one but is just as good (though not as bloody and not quite as sexually tinted). I saw this film for the second time last night and I really enjoyed it (again). I mean all the characters and actors are good, although I must give very big credits to Thomas Jane and Paulina Porizkova, who were the best actors (and had the best characters) in the film. Also I'd have to thank Skip Woods for being so imaginative and original. Brutal, sexual, offensive??? Maybe, but sure as heck enjoyable and a thrill ride to the end.

8 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK,so this film is NOT very well known,and wasn't very well publicised.I discovered this fairly brutal gangster gone good movie by complete accident on one of Skys millions of movie channels late on some boring evening,but I'm glad i did!The opening sequence to this film is fantastically comical in a very dark way.This in fact sets what i think is the general tone for the movie.I think a lot of critics and movie fans that have actually seen this film have been a bit unfair to just write it off as a lower budget gangster movie in the Reservoir Dogs vein.OK,so there are undeniable similarities between Thursday and some other crime genre films that it has been compared to,but in all fairness,i think this film takes a much more darkly comic look at this type of film,and the end result is a engrossing,well made,funny,if not totally original film.Tom Jane is good in this,and deserves the recognition he will now hopefully get thanks to the The Punisher.His performance as the bad guy gone good is realistic,funny and just cold enough to make you believe Casey really was a bad ass before he reformed.Thats another thing that makes this film stand out for me,the characters.In Nicks gang you get the strangest trio of criminals ever assembled,a smooth,charismatic but very cold leader(Nick),a trigger happy blood loving sexually predatory bitch of a woman(Dallas)and a psychotic hill billy with brains with a penchant for torture(Billy Hill).Throw in the most bizarre police detective ever seen on screen,beautifully over played by Mickey Rourke,and you've got a recipe for...well for Thursday really.Its at times darkly comic,sometimes brutal,sometimes unoriginal,but always engrossing and worth watching.8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Thursday' is a good movie but we recognize too much from other movies in its genre and therefor it lacks originality. If you have seen 'Goodfellas', 'Reservoir Dogs', 'Pulp Fiction' and a bunch of other movies that were inspired by that last one you have seen almost every part from 'Thursday'. There is a scene that involves torturing that has even the same dialogue as in Tarantino's 'Reservoir Dogs'.

Still, it is a good movie. Because not every part is taken from the same movie the complete thing has some new ideas and some nice touches. The opening sequence to begin with, is quite impressive. We meet Nick (Aaron Eckhart), Dallas (Paulina Porizkova) and Billy Hill (James Le Gros). They get into a fight with a clerk in a gas station over a cup of coffee and it ends with the death of that clerk and the arrival of a cop. We've already glimpsed at a suitcase with a lot of money in it.

Then we meet Casey (Thomas Jane) in Houston. He is married to Christine (Paula Marshall) but used to be working with Nick. She doesn't know a thing. Then Nick gives him a call and says that he is coming. We learn that he has screwed his friends over and the problems are about to start.

What happens exactly is not for me to reveal but we meet some other characters, all interested in the money or the drugs Nick also had with him. Casey has flushed those down the drain.

Very funny moments, a lot of blood, a very funny sub-plot involving actor Michael Jeter and some surprises (although if you really think about it you see them coming) this is a good movie with some very fine performances, nicely directed by Skip Woods.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is a damn good movie,with some surprising twists,a good cast and a great script. Only a couple of stupid bits,like the Rasta hit-man scene (This guy's a professional?) but that has been commented on already. The fact I had only heard one guy at work mention it before, and did not have many opinions or reviews to go on, made it even more entertaining. This gets a higher score than maybe some people think it deserves, but I have to factor in the low budget and the good effort from the cast. It sickens me that some movies get made whose budget equals the GDP of a small country,with a hyped up release,good reviews,an Oscar winning director and\/or actors, and turn out to be so disappointing,with actors sleepwalking through their roles and uninspired directing,with predictable plot lines and a story with holes in it so big,Sandra Bullock could drive a bomb-loaded bus through it. (Examples in my opinion are The Terminal,Castaway,Matrix:Revolutions) Extra points are awarded for the wardrobe department choosing great clothes for the cast,especially Paulina Porizcova,who wears a rubber dress in one scene,and a jacket with \"c*nt\" on the back in large letters in another!A sex scene which shows off her tight ass and a good soundtrack are added bonuses! And PLEASE,enough with the Tarantino comparisons,this did not remind me of a Tarantino flick at all.... and Tarantino borrows virtually every idea he has ever had from other movies! Even if that is your opinion,are we saying once a certain film or book is written or directed one way,no-one can ever use the same ideas again? get real. This film has it's own style.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is hard to knock. It follows in the tradition of Pulp Fiction, yet succeeds further by stamping its own unique style. The cast is awesome, the script is great - and things like the odd (Pulp Fiction-esque) time-sequencing is done brilliantly. I particularly like how the images provided in flash back vary dramatically depending on who is telling the story at the time. When it is one of the indoctrinated criminals everything is flashy and cool, but when it is the hero's recollection everything is skanky and disgusting.

This is an awesome film - and so I am extremely annoyed to find that I cant buy it anywhere!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When i watched this movie i had no idea what it was about, and i had never heard of it before. But i must say i was positively surprised. The first few minutes are almost the most funny of the whole movie. The store clerk from India is just too funny! Anyways, the story isn\u00b4t really too much to talk about, but i think it\u00b4s ok. The acting on the other hand is quite good, and still the only actor i recognized was Mickey Rourke who wasn\u00b4t really in the movie until the ending. And the ending is where the turn-off is i think, it\u00b4s not bad but i don\u00b4t feel like it really ends. I feel like there should have been something more. A final battle in some way. I don\u00b4t know. All in all, this was a good movie and i recommend it to anyone into Tarantino-type movies with loads of violence and dark, sinister humor! I rate it 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is a riot - hilariously funny yet graphically violent. Just when you think you can't take any more it gives you more. Great thiller. The cast is excellent and the plot is very convincing. The past does indeed catch up with our hero, but right(?) prevails.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It resembles so much to movies like PULP FICTION or RESERVOIR DOGS that is impossible to think that Tarantino's films weren't a source of inspiration to this THURSDAY. However for a low cost B-Series movie it's not bad. The plot about gangsters is captivating and funny and it also has a bit of dark humor and sarcasm we can find in PULP FICTION. The resources weren't many fore sure but the film is well produced. The acting also is good. I enjoyed the scene when the girl was sat on the sofa teasing the doctor... It was hot and funny at the same time! The soundtrack is nice too. I didn't hear too many songs but the ones I heard I liked. I score it 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ONE GOOD THING: This hidden treasure of a crime drama is incredibly entertaining from beginning to end. An example of low-budget film making at it's best, writer\/director Skip Woods uses seemingly everything he could find (ex: Lamborghini, super model, cow phone) and an ear for dialogue to add levels of satire to the plot and all of his camera set-ups.

ANOTHER GOOD THING: This movie seems to be made for the DVD era, with several segments that comprise a larger story (similar to the work of Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's Desperado). Each \"chapter\" of the film features Thomas Jane's main character spending one day at home encountering quick and memorable performances by Aaron Eckhart, Glen Plummer, Mickey Rourke, Michael Jeter, James LeGros, and an unforgettable role by Paulina Porizkova.

EVEN ANOTHER GOOD THING: Not exactly a \"good\" thing, but incredibly shocking and memorable... Every person who sees this movie remembers one important scene. Much as Deliverance will always be remembered for it's awful rape of Ned Beatty, Thursday will go down as the movie where a woman forcibly rapes an unwilling man. Unforgettable.

ONE BAD THING: The title makes people think it is somehow related to (or derivative of) the \"Friday\" series of films featuring Ice Cube.

GRADE: A+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A vehemently cynical, sarcastic and intense film, mocking and imitating the style of Pulp Fiction and stylized gangster films, Thursday is an entertaining, off-putting and hilarious thrill-ride. An amazingly eclectic mix of over-the-top characters and bizarrely entertaining situations, this day-in-the-life of a gunman trying to go straight proves to be a worthy addition to the series of films that attempts to mimic the genius of Tarantino's dark-humored masterpiece Pulp Fiction.

Nick (Aaron Eckhardt) stops by Casey's (Thomas Jane) house to catch up on old times. Casey was a former gunman for drug dealers who has since reformed, become an architect, married a successful businesswoman (Paula Marshall), and is now contemplating adopting a child. Nick, who still has ties to the gangster underworld, leaves a briefcase full of drugs at Casey's house while he borrows his car to run a few errands\u0085 a.k.a. unfinished business. Disgusted and angered by the introduction of drugs into his home, Casey flushes them all down the kitchen sink. That's when, one at a time, Nick's double-crossed accomplices, rapping Rastafarian drug messengers, and crooked cops all come a-knocking for the unsuspecting Casey, who is about to have one unbelievable Thursday.

The film opens with a hilarious sequence in a gas station in which Nick is looking for the best deal for a cup of coffee. After pondering which size cup to get, a fiasco breaks out with the cashier when he demands a free snackie cake and uses a $50 bill to pay. Resulting in comically brilliant bloodshed, the situation goes from bad to worse when a cop intervenes and is caught in the most unusual of circumstances. This opening segment establishes the perfect mood for the rest of the film, which never takes itself too seriously and includes outrageous characters that seem self-aware of their own existence in this nonsensical gangster flick.

The film is broken into segments based on various events and times during the course of one day. This effect is much like Pulp Fiction, which is a similarly given chapters, although Thursday doesn't mess with chronological order except for the occasional flashback. Also like Tarantino, music magnificently introduces each scene and each character. Oddly humorous creatures, such as the Jamaican hit-man pizza delivery guy that raps over the phone and shares his hashish, and Paulina Porizkova's narcissistic Dallas, who attempts to rape Casey, add humor to each event regardless of how horrifying and unnerving some of the coincidences are. When Mickey Rourke's calmly spine-chilling crooked cop Kasarov is introduced, the careful staging and intricate setup is fully assembled, and Casey's sticky situation becomes even more daring and laudable.

Definitely a wannabe Pulp Fiction, with plenty of violence, witty dialogue and extremely creepy antagonists, Thursday does some things right, but other attempts at homage may be going just far enough as to suggest rip-off. A flashback sequence that shows Casey shooting up baddies and sporting a hairstyle that exactly matches John Travolta's do in Pulp Fiction is easily one step too far.

- Mike Massie, www.MoviePulse.net","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, so it owes Pulp Fiction, but in my opinion has it's own voice and identity mainly because of the music-video direction style, sketch-like narrative and great performances. Thomas Jane delivers great (the drug-dealer show-down is extraordinary), Aaron Eckhart likewise. James LeGros has a short and effervescent appearance-great humor-\"they got the Wong house\". The Porzikova interrogation and rape scene is memorable, as is Mickey Rourke's cameo appearance-\"take a peak\".

Great Hollywood popcorn B-production with strong performances of A-level aspirants and renegades(Rourke).

Well, take a peak, it's worth.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is excellent. Not because it does anything special or new, but because it is consistently great in all of its parts. No part stands out as being \"ground-breaking\" or \"stellar\", but all parts are far above mediocre, and that makes, to me, an excellent movie.

I own several copies of this movie, and may acquire it on collectors DVD or Blu-Ray, someday (holding off right now due to high blu-ray prices, and of course the face that I don't have a blu-ray player... but that's beside the point of this review).

It stars off sort of ordinary, but quickly turns into a drama filled with tension, some action, strongly portrayed characters, and a well though out plot which keeps you interested until the very end.

Wait, no, it does NOT start out ordinary.

It starts out sort of like what a Qun. Tar. movie WISHES it could be. With an awesome scene where an attempt to buy coffee and a donuts goes... very, very wrong.

By the end of the movie, nothing was as it seemed, and a few people are dead, and a few people are very rich. I won't tell you who... watch and enjoy! Overall rating: 10\/10, A**, Excellent!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We are taken to a convenience store where Nick is looking at coins in his hand figuring if he can get the special, a 69 cents 20 ounce cup of coffee that comes with a free pastry. He decides to go for the larger size, which of course is more expensive plus it doesn't qualify him for the cake. He tries to argue with the Indian clerk at the register, who keeps her ground. With her it's a matter of principle. Well, Nick gets irritated not getting his own way and proceeds to kill her.

The tone of the story is set from the start. The people we are about to meet are not nice guys. There are Nick, his girlfriend, Dallas, and their partner Billy Hill. They are drug dealers. Nick decides to visit Casey, his friend, and former partner in crime, in Houston. He wants to do one more transaction and then go to Paris with the profits from selling the drugs he is bringing. What he doesn't realize is that Casey has gone straight. He is an architect, married to Christine, and wants to adopt a baby.

Casey doesn't appreciate his former friend bringing drugs into the house. He decides to get rid of the stuff by flushing them down the kitchen drain. The untimely arrival of Ice, a pizza delivery man, takes Casey by surprise. This man has been sent to kill him, but before that, Casey brings out some weed to share with Ice, who has a talent for rapping.

It is at this point that Dr. Jarvis, the man from the adopting agency, arrives. Casey's application shows a two year gap that he can't justify. Jarvis begins to doubt about the prospective father. At this time, Dallas makes an entrance. She is a woman that asks questions point blank, like when she demands to know whether Jarvis enjoys watching porn. Jarvis, who is aroused ends up leaving in a huff. Dallas has decided to seduce Casey at all costs. There is a surprise in store as Billy Hill enters the picture and he doesn't like what he sees, shooting Dallas in the process. Billy Hill has also come to off Casey, but he is overpowered.

Casey gets the visit of Kasarov who wants to get his money from Nick; in his absence, he'll take it from Casey. Kasarov gives a deadline and Casey makes up his mind to outsmart all these low lives. He has all the parties come to his house at an appointed hour and the different factions will take care of themselves. In the end, Casey has a better plan that includes taking Christine for a stay in Paris.

Never having heard about \"Thursday\" we were drawn into it because of the talent in it. Skip Woods directed his own material. This seems to be a film with good intentions. At times the film remember others of the same genre, not a sin by any shape, or form, which seems to be the main objection of the negative comments left here in the IMDb site. For starters, \"Thursday\" shows a witty Skip Woods that has gone to write other films, notably, \"Swordfish\". The screenplay is divided in chapters with suggestive titles, pertaining to the action. Denis Lenoir does wonders with the mostly interior photography.

Thomas Jane makes an excellent contribution to the film with his Casey. Although hard to imagine, he has beat the odds and made something out of himself. This actor, seen recently in the television series \"Hung\", is one of the actors we don't tire of watching. A dark haired Aaron Eckhart is a welcome addition to any film. He is a greasy criminal that shows no redeeming qualities, or anything close to remorse and doesn't hesitate to involve his former friend in his scheme. James LeGros has nothing to do. Same goes for Paulina Porizkova, a gorgeous creature that is only a distraction, or an afterthought to add a sexy angle. We enjoyed Glenn Plummer, who appears as Ice. He does a mean audition on the telephone. Michael Jeter and Mickey Rourke also appear.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"hey community! my question is about the song, the pizza man wants Casey to play right after smoking that weed. not his \"ragga application song\" but the cozy one! thanks

this page wants me to write 10 lines of text to be allowed to submit my comment. i don't know what else to ask but i'm just writing writing writing.

hey community! my question is about the song, the pizza man wants Casey to play right after smoking that weed. not his \"ragga application song\" but the cozy one! thanks

this page wants me to write 10 lines of text to be allowed to submit my comment. i don't know what else to ask but i'm just writing writing writing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thursday is clearly derivative of the 'new wave' of crime films released since Quentin Tarantino took the genre by storm with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction in the early nineties, but it has enough ideas of it's own to ensure that it remains an interesting little film. Thursday utilises a few characters mostly within a single location. It works because each character is quirky enough in their own right to be memorable, and when put together what you've got is a very amusing little thriller. There is little substance to be found within the plot, but it doesn't matter because nobody goes into this sort of film expecting a life-affirming experience. The plot follows Casey; a former drug dealer who has gone straight and is now living as a successful architect in suburbia with his wife. The pair wants to adopt a child, but things turn awry when Casey receives a visit from his old partner in crime, Nick, who brought with him a case of heroine and a load of money stolen from the cops. Thursday is going to turn out to be a very interesting day for our former criminal...

The first scene sets the film up rather nicely and ensures that we know what to expect. We see a coffee order go wrong, which turns into a murder scene that the culprits promptly cover up when a cop comes in for refreshments. The scene is soaked with dark humour and witty dialogues, and that is carried on throughout the rest of the movie. Thursday is a very funny film, and scenes such as the ones that see the adoption visitor turn up at an awkward time ensure that the film is difficult to dislike. It's true that the film doesn't bring anything new to the table, cinematically or plot-wise, but the fact that it's happy to wallow in its derision ensures that there's more time for the absurd situation to build around the central characters. The acting is decent enough, with the entire cast clearly having fun with this plot. Thomas Jane holds the film together well in the lead role, while amusing portrayals from James LeGros, Paulina Porizkova, Michael Jeter, Glenn Plummer and Mickey Rourke back him up nicely. This film is unlikely to impress the seasoned film fan, but if you just want an amusing little movie with a few enjoyable twists and performances; Thursday is likely to suffice.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was referred to this movie by a friend. I had never heard of it but I thought it had Christopher Lampbert so I rented it, and come to find out that wasn't Christopher Lampbert it was Thomas Jane who was great it this film. I love that almost the whole movie is set in this suburban house. The characters were great everyone of them and the script was amazing I really wish Skip Woods would write and direct another movie. In my book Thursday is the flawless tale of this guy trying to do the wife and kid thing after a shady past but then his old drug dealer buddy shows up and it becomes quite the Thursday. This is one of my favorite movies and it shows some real potential in Thomas Jane. But this movie is very rare but I have found it in a couple of Hollywood Video's on VHS. So dust off the old VCR and pop in Thursday because it gets Pee Wee's seal of approval","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love the premise, but it's replay value is only for certain parts(the opening scene of course). Some characters are a bit outrageous, but they are entertaining none the less. I think the Ballping sh-t was pushing it. I know it was to show that Nick and Casey were living foul out in LA and to show why Casey quit the lifestyle, I just think that the flashback's story could have been better. Also the Jamaican guy rapping on the phone is clever and entertaining, but once again I think the story was told sloppy. It really seems unbelievable. I actually believe Swordfish (the other movie Woods has written) more than some of the parts in Thursday because the government keeps sh-t a secret all the time, and has organizations set up that the public will never know about.

Thursday is the best Quentinesque movie I've seen. I think Woods is imaginative,clever and has witt; however, his work needs more maturation to even to get to the Natural Born Killer script (not Stone's movie) level. How old is he anyway?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very violent and nicely filmed movie. Paulina is a bad sexy girl who will show that men can be raped too. This movie has lots of black humor. This guy will kill anybody just to forget he used to be a gangster. There will be sometimes when you wouldn't know whether to shiver or to smile and think \"Am I laughing at someone who is killing people?\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Is Thursday an original film? Heck no, but it is a lot of fun! I just caught this buried on the movie channels one night and it was an enjoyable flick. I was expecting much but what I got was some interesting scenes (I really liked the first seen at the convenience store), some amusing stories as told by the characters and a little bit of action thrown in the mix as well. Some good performances from young actors, Paulina Porizkova was good and I was particularly impressed with Aaron Eckhart (who has gone on to impress me further in \u0091Yours Friends and Neighbours' and \u0091Erin Brokovich'). So if you want 90 minutes of easy going fun go ahead and check out \u0091Thursday'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this film! Fantastically original and different! A solid, intense, hard-core and suspenseful movie that has just the right touch of (dark?) humor. If you're tired of the typical, overdone, ridiculous Hollywood B.S. movies, how many big explosions and awful and unrealistic shoot em up gun fights that insult your intelligence can we take, then this film is for you. Fantastic characters that are wonderfully original and believable, and solid performances by all actors, not a weak character or performance in the film. Skip Woods' film is a breath of fresh air and I applaud his originality and efforts, his film has the feel of a cross between a Quentin Tarantino and a Cohen brothers film (not a bad mix at all in my opinion). This movie grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go, there's nothing boring or bubble gum about this film. The only disappointment is that nobody seems to know about it, everyone I've recommended it to has thanked me and shared my opinion on it. This film is a welcomed change\/alternative from the canned Hollywood mainstream garbage being produced today, even with their big name actors, big explosions, special effects and huge budgets. It's a terrifically wild, intense, violent, graphic, humorous and raw (I mean that in a good way, no phony Hollywood polish here) ride. Thank you to everyone involved in making this film happen, you did an incredible job!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was excellent from start-to-finish. I was riveted by the action, the black humour and the incredibly bad luck our hero encountered at every turn. Thomas Jane is a great actor and I hope to see him in many more movies to come. Reading through other people's comments, I have to admit I never once thought about Tarrantino while watching \"Thursday\" but now that I think about it I guess there are some similarities. I guess I don't spend much time trying to relate everything to everything else. The rape scene between Porizkova and Thomas Jane is one for the record books - sexiest scene ever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How 'Thursday' managed to avoid attention remains a mystery. A potent mix of comedy and crime, this one takes chances where Tarantino plays it safe with the Hollywood formula. The risks don't always pay off: one character in one sequence comes off inappropriately silly and falls flat. In the lead role, Thomas Jane gives a wonderful and complex performance, and two brief appearances by Mickey Rourke hint at the high potential of this much under- and mis-used actor. Here's a director one should keep one's eye on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I turned over to this film in the middle of the night and very nearly skipped right passed it. It was only because there was nothing else on that I decided to watch it. In the end, I thought it was great.

An interesting storyline, good characters, a clever script and brilliant directing makes this a fine film to sit down and watch. This was, in fact, the first I'd heard of this movie, but I would have been happy to have paid money to see this at the cinema.

My IMDB Rating : 8 out of 10

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie by accident while in Paris. I went into the wrong theater by accident and by the time I realized it wasn't a preview or a short film, I was hooked.

Paulina does a phenomenal job of holding your attention with her acting. I can't say enough how impressed I was with her portrayal of this real femme fatal. The rest of the cast performs very well too. Don't get me wrong, this is not the greatest film ever made but given I knew nothing about it I was left with a lasting and very positive impression.

Finally, NOT speaking French in France paid off for once! I didn't stop talking about this film for 3 weeks after seeing it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know what the critics were viewing when this movie was released, but it slipped by them unnoticed. It is well written, witty, satirical, and thoroughly enjoyable. It's like a video game brought to life. You never know who's behind the door or what will happen next. The violence is not gratuitous nor overdone for splatter effect.

One last word: For you Mickey Rourke fans...the Mickster is back and at his coolest in the cameo performance at the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie yesterday. I must admit - I love it! It's like early Tarantino, but better. Really a must, but... don't show this movie to anyone younger than 18. It's full of blood and sex (rape scene is great :) ). Now I'm just waiting for other movies of this director and a DVD release.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Truly a great film... I stumbled onto it at the video store and rented it because Aaron Eckhart (In the Company of Men and Your Friends and Neighbors) was in it as well as Paulina Porizcova... The lovely former SI swimsuit model does get nude in the film, but that is only one of the many reasons to rent it... It's very exciting, and the character development is fantastic... Eckhart is one of the most underrated actors working, and he steals this film... It is very dark and violent, but I enjoyed in immensely....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched the movie yesterday and for me it was a stunning combination of movies like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. The best of the best. It was never any dull and always moving, every hour there's another character bothering (trying to kill) him. You never know what's next. In one word TERRIFIC !!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very tightly written, acted, and filmed. Violent, but not too much so. Whoever edited this knew exactly what he wanted to portray. There isn't a wasted scene in this movie. \"The Usual Suspects\" was superb ensemble acting; this is a collection of outstanding individual performances. I rarely buy movies, but this one is worth owning.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is outstanding! On this date of APR, 8 2007 it was on On demand from show time. It had been a while since i seen it, but it does feature Thomas Jane in the first role i seen him in. At first you see a normal guy that seems kind of henpecked, with a wife that seems close to going her own way. The directors cut which i just watched has a opening scene that is cool. Paulina Porizkova is dressed as a cheerleader type, looking very fresh and hot. Trying to buy a coffee late at night with no small bills turns violent in a hurry, Paulina shows that her name on her letter jacket is the real deal. Meeting up with his old road pal Nick played by Aaron Eckhart was cool at first, and he even loans him his wife's car to take care of some business. Then he spots nicks silver briefcase, and the day changes for the weird and violent. There is a cast of real characters that parade through the next series of scenes. But, Paulina's Dallas steals the show i think. Her telling of a Casey story to the doctor that is there to get a personal interview in a adoption application, is outrageous. As a rule i have never thought tall women were that sexy,but as with any rule there are exceptions. Paulina is as one has never seen her before in films. Sexy and lethal, like in the one movie with Tom Selleck, but with a never seen before malevolence. If your looking for film to add to your collection, this one is worth the price. Paulina in the nude is worth the price alone, but this story has everything one might hope one has. Love,friendship,sex and violence in a terrific mix. When i first seen it years ago it blew my mind, and i know you will feel the same way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the pleasure of watching this two chairs down from (one of?) the Executive Producer at the Atlantic Film Festival, Which was interesting because he laughed at very different times than the rest of us.

Filmed in Atlantic Canada, the movie is about three teen-aged girls who in one of their last summers of their youth, devote a large deal of energy to sleeping with a married 30-year old man, despite much protestation.

It's definitely worth a watch, but the humour was geared a completely different demographic than the one I inhabit (Male 18-25), so I was shaking my head at the character's antics rather than laughing. Inspite of this, the story is strong enough to hold up for itself make it entertaining, without so much laughing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the honor this evening to see a screening of the movie \"These Girls\" at the Philadelphia Film Festival. Going into the movie, I knew very little about it and just took a chance on it because the film's plot sounded interesting. So as I entered the theater just hours ago I wondered what the final verdict would be thumbs up or thumbs down.

\"These Girls\" is the story about three best friends from a small town. Keira (Caroline Dhavernas) is the ringleader who basically doesn't know what to do with her life after High School but her father keeps pushing her to go to college which is something she doesn't want to do. Lisa (Holly Lewis) will be going away to a Christian school after the summer. And finally, Glory (Amanda Walsh) who plans on spending her summer babysitting. But this summer is going to be a special one as they all blackmail Keith Clark (David Boreanaz) the sexy older hunk who they baby-sit for. Fun times and a lot of laughs ensue\u0085

I normally don't like movies like \"These Girls\" but there is something about this movie that I really liked. I think the quality I liked most about it was that it seemed rather realistic. Three girls who want to explore their sexuality pick a hunky guy who lets all of them have sex with him only to be blackmailed by them later. It's a pretty funny tale about growing up, friendship and sex but even though it sounds pretty cheesy I can see majority of this film happening in real life.

The subject matter here is probably a main reason why this film didn't get a mainstream release in the United States. All the girls in this film are suppose to be under 18 which if I remember correctly two of them are 17 and one is 16. Now in the USA even though underage sex occurs on a daily basis many production or finance companies won't finance a film like this because of the sexual content. This information was actually confirmed by the director himself John Hazlett at the Q&A after the film. The thing that gets me is that the sex scenes in this film aren't graphic and the nudity is minor. Not to mention that all the actresses in this film are way over 18 in real life. Go figure.

What the movie does best is it provides a lot of laughs as well as very strong characters. I liked all the characters in this movie and each character seemed to have a \"Now & Then\" characteristic to them. The jokes were funny because they were cleverly written not because they were dirty or over the top. Everything seemed to flow together nicely both the comedy and the drama. The script was very strong.

The acting was very good for the most part. I thought all the three girls were great. Caroline Dhavernas who also starred in one of the most underrated television series of all time \"Wonderfalls\" was just terrific; as well as Holly Lewis and Amanda Walsh who both did a fine job as well. David Boreanaz did a good job and he looked like he was having fun while shooting most of the scenes. The guy played a pot head so it was funny seeing him play that role.

I had the pleasure of meeting John Hazlett tonight who seemed like a very nice guy and was very appreciative of the comments made about the film. I am shocked that this movie didn't go anywhere. I think with a little marketing behind it, it could have taken off. Sadly it's going to be one of these direct to DVD films which so few will ever have the pleasure to see. I think with what little budget Mr. Hazlett had to work with, the film turned out well and I think he did a fine job directing this little gem.

For someone who typically hates teen sex comedies I can honestly say I really enjoyed this film. The character development and witty script allowed me to sit there for an hour and a half and be amused. This is a fine comedy because it has heart and spunk to it. I know I will be sure to buy this film when it comes on DVD on May 16, 2006. If you're a fan of coming of age stories, teen sex comedies, or romantic comedies be sure to check this film out because it's one of the funniest films of its kind to be released in years.

MovieManMenzel's final rating for \"These Girls\" is an 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie starts out a little slow but kicks into comedic gear quickly. Each of the three \"teenage girls\" offer their own believable, distinct, assertive and entertaining personalities. I particularly enjoyed the dialog and interaction between Keith and Lisa. If one looked beyond the superficial \"action\" that was taking place, Keith's character treated Lisa's \"deflowering\" with tenderness and consideration. The comic development that followed was also pulled in expertly in my opinion. David Boreanaz gives a wonderful performance as the adult male who clearly gets himself into more trouble than he can handle. Dialogue was sharp, quick and flowed nicely. The director and writer of this film clearly showed how none of the main characters got to claim the moral high ground after all the shenanigans they pulled. Although the movie appears light on the surface, it reflects all the gray areas of becoming an adult, human emotions and desire.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My friends and I rented this movie simply to satisfy a friend who was very bent on renting it despite having no idea what it was about. We all thought it would be like \"a Canadian American Pie\" but when we watched it we were completely surprised, we were all silent throughout the movie and loved it! It was nothing like American Pie and had a plot that teenage girls are sure to adore (seeing as the guy gets the crap beaten out of him at the end), after that night it became my favorite movie for not only it's plot but the actors and the great writing. There wasn't a moment where i thought that it was unbelievable. Everything is very realistic and relate-able for anybody living in a small town with little prospects. I absolutely adore this movie and would recommend you to rent it next time you have a chance, it's worth it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am really amazed how little fame this film had. i think it has to do with distribution companies and etc.

Don't be idiots - if you are looking for a good fun take this movie - this is very nice movie to pass few hours with and the music is GREAT.

It's about ..... well girls and boys and whats between them with not too much story but not all movies should be PULP FICTION should they?? it's nice and cute and gives good time . The girls are also very good looking and this makes the whole movie even more enjoyable.

Why i gave it only a 9? well the story could be little more convincing from the middle and on. in some point you start to see events that are little less reliable. SMALL SPOILER: The baby is crying and the father goes in and tries to relax him. now i am not talking about some small cry but- no - hysteric cry and 30 sec after that the father goes out and \"baby is sleeping\"- excuse me , when and how exactly did you make him calm and sleep and be able to leave his room in 20-30 seconds. but ignore this kind of small picking because the film itself is not Docudrama - it's fun and this should be overlooked.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great movie. I read the brief synopsis and was unimpressed but as I watched it (mainly for Caroline Dhavernas) it grew on me.

It's such a nice change to see a movie where girls\/young women are not punished for their sexuality. The girls are given full license to explore and even the chance to make mistakes without ridiculous repercussions.

Some of the scenes are absolutely hilarious - and many of them the supposedly erotic scenes - which were not over the top or distasteful. The male characters in the movie were brilliant - David Boreanaz was great as the fickle hunk - and what is great is that the movie doesn't make us hate him all that much. The other two younger male characters were good too, without being overbearing.

This is one of the best movies I've seen that has girls growing up and is quite empowering to see how the they realise their mistakes but eventually come through and carry on with their lives rather than drag their mistakes along with them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Finding the premise intriguing, and reading the reviews, and being an Angel fan, I watched this movie. It's sexy and original, and quite entertaining. David Boreanaz is Keith. He's a hunky married man, stay at home Dad, and he feels a little inadequate in his marriage. He makes the mistake of penetrating a close circle of teenage girls who are fascinated with the idea of doing it with an older man. They'll do anything to get into his bed, including beg, lie, and blackmail, but they mostly try to push his buttons. The nuttiness that ensues sends Keith reeling, and pushes friendships to the edge. David Boreanaz shows a little skin in this one-- and he's looking hot. Yes-he plays a sleazy cheat - but he shows enough vulnerability and tenderness toward the goofy teens that you end up cheering for him in the end. One more thing, when someone moans \"oh yeah, oh..oh..YEAH!!\", it's hard to see them as a victim of rape.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with the posters before that the characters were exceptionally strong and believable and all the actors at their top form. I especially loved David Boreanaz stretching in a part so unlike anything else he played proving once again his amazing gift for comedy. The first part of the movie was light and funny, the blackmail part was a bit surrealistic but interesting - and it was all downhill from there.

I found it frustrating that at least two out of the 3 girls (Keira and Lisa) get out of the blackmail&betrayal scot free, nary a trace left on their psyche. I know the movie amended the darker ending of the play - and I am not saying I missed the murder part. But I surely needed to see those two getting their comeuppance somehow and I was left groaning in frustration with the ending. (It's why I gave it only a 9)

But definitely an interesting film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film by chance when I was visiting my uncle in Arizona about 3 and 1\/2 years ago. The VHS print was a little faded looking, but I was very haunted by what I had watched. Did it all make sense? Well, honestly, no it didn't. However, this is a film that requires more than one viewing to understand all of its aspects. The beautifully tragic score haunted me and the bizarre images made quiet an impression.

Well, when I found out that Anchor Bay had released this oddity on DVD, I picked it up immediately. I was very pleased by the transfer, though I felt the extras rather lacking. Though the film concerns the \"O\" and Sir Stephen characters, it really has nothing to do with Pauline Reage's original novel or the 1974 film The Story of O. However, the film does pay attention to artistic detail and symbolism of an almost mystic kind. \"O\" decides to prostitute herself for Sir Stephen in violent 1920s Hong Kong. Her mission is to prove her unending devotion and love for her master through giving her body to other men. Naturally, Sir Stephen enjoys watching her during her unpleasant sexual escapades and even finds himself a mistress. However, the tables are turned when \"O\" actually finds a kind of love with a young male admirer. Suddenly, Sir Stephen feels the threat...

I feel that the deep meaning behind the film (including the tragic score and artistic direction) really make this film a classic. The viewer is introduced not only to the lives and pasts of \"O\"'s fellow brothel mates, but the turmoil of 1920s Hong Kong is also explored. Like the political setting, the prostitutes all find themselves in need of belonging. No one is happy in the film, even if they believe that they are. (However, \"O\" does find a sense of happiness with her young admirer). One prostitute tearfully remembers how her father used to act like a dog when she was drunk, naturally leading to a fetish for having her customers act like a dog. Another older prostitute is obsessed with her past as an actress. She cannot let that vision go. She treats her clients as co-stars and even swears she hears a piano in the river.

As for \"O\", she has a flashback about her father leaving her in a chalk circle. When he leaves, she feels a sense of abandonment. Of course, in that same flashback Kinski suddenly becomes her father. I was very, very disturbed by this image. I truly felt for \"O\" at this point in the film. She hardly ever smiles and this scene really explains why. Her fear of abandonment is so great that she sees Sir Stephen as her father and caters to his every obscene demand in hopes of proving her love.

Another curious aspect of the film is the young child (that ages at the end) that sells fortune in a box. It is a very random character, but somehow it just adds to the sense of loss and emptiness in the film. At one point, the director even uses painted cardboard figures to represent people. Now, if that isn't symbolism for you! (Laugh)

All in all, I really love this film. I feel that it is a very deep and somewhat moving experience. It has erotic scenes, but the scenes aren't really meant to arouse. Like the lives of the characters, the sex acts are empty. They are motions, but lack feeling and tenderness. (Once again, the only tender scene is between \"O\" and the young man). \"O\" believes she is in love and that lowering herself is an honor, however, she finds in the end that she has choices. She too can be her own person and pursue her own happiness, however, she also has the option to stay in that circle that her father drew. The director leaves a lot of unanswered questions, however, some things don't need answers. The viewer will make the judgment that works for them.

I must say that I wish a special edition of this DVD would be released that had director commentary. I think it would be fascinating to hear his opinion of the film and its message years later. It is a shame that the soundtrack was never released. This film has a truly haunting and heart breaking score. There is something about the lingering vocals that send a chill up my spine. I can truly feel the sense of loneliness in the film by just listening to the music.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've always enjoyed animated ducks for some reason: Duck Tales, Darkwing Duck, Daffy Duck, Donald Duck. Though none of them are as deranged as Duckman. Originally broadcast between 1994 and 1997 Duckman lasted for a total 70 episodes but could easily have gone on forever without becoming stale.

The titular character is a discombobulated, unapologetic slob and pretty much the worst living person in the world. He's a private detective, a widower, a peeping tom, an alcoholic, a sex maniac, a murderer, a (fill in the blank). You name it, Duckman has done it. But who can blame him for being such a slimeball when the world he\/we live in is so insane, outrageous and just plain nonsensical? Eric Tiberius Duckman(voiced by the maniacal Jason Alexander) could carry the whole show by himself but when he's surrounded by a bunch of eccentric supporting characters you just know that trouble is just waiting to explode at every opportunity. My favorite has to be Willibald Feivel Cornfed (or just Cornfed Pig), Duckman's incredibly deadpan sidekick who is seemingly talented and highly skilled at everything and is perpetually oblivious to his partner's infinity of vices and incompetence.

The typical plot will involve some bizarre case he'll inevitably blunder through or will revolve around his highly dysfunctional household, though every now and again Duckman's arch-enemy King Chicken (Tim Curry), a sort of Professor Moriarty in fowl form, hatches some diabolical scheme in revenge for being bullied in high school.

Since I was a teenager this has been my absolute favorite animated show, better than The Simpsons, Family Guy and even King of the Hill. Nothing will ever surpass it. There never was, or will be, anything quite like Duckman ever again. The level of satire, observational humor and writing is so sharp it's deadly and the animation is done in that unique Klasky\/Csupo style (anyone who has seen Rugrats will understand). It's a wonderful, highly imaginative and wild world and all with a noirish, 1940s feel.

You can never have too much of this particular bird.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Duckman was a show that used to be on during the last hour or so before it was time to sleep about ten or so years ago. It was a contrast to a lot of the kid-type of animation I was watching at the time; I was still a minor junkie for Disney and Looney Tunes stuff, and most Saturday morning cartoons were still on the run-off of the peak from the days of Ninja Turtles and Batman. But also around this time I began to recognize that the more raunchy, mature, surreal, obscene, and (though I didn't know the term at the time) satirical cartoon shows were more creative than the stuff I was used to. Around the time of Beavis and Butt-head, Ren and Stimpy, and even The Maxx were hitting TV sets via MTV, USA put out two shows- one of them was Weird Science, and the other was Duckman. I've always remembered a few key bits from the show, and some of the lines are very quotable to those who haven't forgotten it completely. Luckily, I found a tape recently with about six episodes I taped long ago, and the jokes stayed very fresh. And the delivery of the jokes are rapid-fire a lot of the time in the better episodes.

In the voice department, the choices in talent are top notch for the story-lines, which are usually just an excuse for crude, fascinating parodies of pop-culture, politics, movies and TV shows, music, detective mysteries, and the dysfunctional family unit. Jason Alexander is a wonderful choice for Duckman, and his performance is a comedic 180 from his days on Seinfeld (even if there might be some similar characteristics here and there). Also, the voices of Gregg Berger as the unmistakably monotoned and deadpan Cornfed, Dweezil Zappa as the hilariously inept Ajax, and Nancy Travis as the sex-starved, obnoxious Sister-in-Law Bernice, all contribute in a full amount. Along with some great writing - even when a joke isn't sure-fire, the wit behind it compensates - the animation style, while a far cry from some of the refurbished, computer-enhanced product of today, is inventive and often abstract. It has that home-made, gritty quality that Beavis and Butt-head or South Park would later have. And, like those shows, if you're a little kid, I mean little as in younger than I was watching the show, you may not understand most of the jokes (i.e. there are enough stripper and VD references to fill two shows sometimes). But it's inventive to catch if it's on TV late at night, and it functions rather well in that time slot. One can only hope for a DVD box set.

So, to no one who's barely or even never heard of this program, here's a general note: think of this show as if Dashiell Hammett met up with Walt Disney and decided to go to slum part of Vegas with a free mini-bar and make a collaboration in the vein of Luis Bunuel and The Simpsons combined. Not to mention, it's by the group that did Rugrats.(strong) A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Perhaps the deepest cartoon made in the USA, \"Duckman\" runs short at 70 episodes in four seasons.

Unlike the often innocuous criticism found in \"The Simpsons\" (a pretty good show in its own right), and the rude-for-rudeness-sake humour in \"South Park,\" every bit of this series follows a plan. The criticism of US society, from its mercantilism to its selfishness, carries much more bite than it does in any other animated series.

The cultural references in \"Duckman\" also tend to be obscure sometimes (anyone browsing the fan sites will realize most have not even been caught). In that, it is different from \"The Simpsons,\" which usually uses pop culture instead of the high-brow stuff often hidden in \"Duckman.\" As other people writing about it notice, there is a growth in the characters (Bernice, Duckman and Cornfed). Also, by making the main character not just an offensive neurotic but in fact someone who is living a personal tragedy (as is made clear in episodes like \"The Once and Future Duck\" ('You'll love her until the end of your days...') and in \"Bev Takes a Holiday\" (when he takes a chance to tell Beverly all those things he couldn't tell Beatrice), the series is anchored in a deep sense of reality.

One can't avoid feeling sorry for him and his lucid madness.

All in all, in my opinion, the best cartoon ever made in the USA and one of the best series ever. I doubt it will ever be on DVD though. Far too many things the Duck said make much more sense today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rated TV-14 for Sexual Content and Language.

I remembered hearing about this show back in 1998 when it used to play on the channel Teletoon.I didn't watch it then but now, it plays on the channel, Razer.I have seen about four episodes of this show and I must say, it is fairly intelligent and funny.

The show stars Jason Alexander of Seinfeld fame and also Tim Curry of Rocky Horror Picture Show and It fame.The show is about a duck who is a police officer.He basically does his job as a policeman, while coping with personal problems.This show is fairly funny at times and fans of animated-comedy will like this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Duckman\" is a great show. I first saw it when I was 10 years old at the time and after school I rushed home and turned on Comedy Central. I saw a cartoon called \"Duckman\" and I LOVED IT!! It's such a funny and cool show. It's created by Klasky-Csupo, who are great creators of cartoons. They animated some of my favorite shows ever, like \"The Simpsons\" and \"Rugrats\".

I've seen lots of episodes of this show and I think they're all really funny and sweet. The voice actors did a great job voicing the characters, too.

I wish that Comedy Central could bring this show back, along with \"The Critic\" and \"Dilbert\".

But this is a great Comedy Central show. Great job, Klasky-Csupo!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Graphics: brilliant, obviously. The most stunning things were definitely NOT given away in the trailers. Fight sequences move extremely fast, but after watching a couple of them your eyes should be used to it and it won't seem so confusing. Cloud has a wide array of swords, and I kinda wish things were moving a LITTLE slower just so we could see them, because they were each incredibly detailed. Oh, and we finally get to see exactly how one equips Materia...

Music: brilliant also. I was a bit nervous about it, since (from what I've seen) Nobuo isn't the best at writing music to go along with action (remember the Steal the Tiny Bronco sequence?), but it's brilliant and it fits perfectly. I'm glad I preordered the OST. They changed the lyrics to One Winged Angel though, so you won't be able to sing along if you know the Carmina Burana Lyrics.

Plot: the first half of the movie sets up things and introduces everyone in a fairly complex tapestry, but the second half is almost entirely fight sequences, once all the players are in place. I wouldn't call it a weak plot, but it's nowhere near as convoluted as the game's plot was. I think this is in an effort to avoid trying to overshadow the game, and I think that's a good thing...the movie is its own entity, and shouldn't try to top the original in terms of sheer plot.

I admit, I was kind of hoping that this movie would bring FF7 to a wider range of people, but this is NOT a mainstream movie. I was going to give it only nine stars, just because it doesn't even really try to explain anything to newcomers...Marlene (at least I think it was Marlene...sounded like her) gives a bit of background at the beginning, but it's more of a refresher than a crash course. But then I realized, for me this movie is a 10\/10, so why should I take off points just because other people probably won't like it as well...if you've played the game, or are at least passingly familiar with it, you should see this movie. But you don't need me to tell you that. If you're not familiar with it, go out and buy it, sit there for twenty hours and beat it, and then see the movie...although even without any background, it's still stunningly beautiful. You just won't get any of the inside references...which make up 50% of the movie (that is, everything that ISN'T a fight sequence).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I do not have much to say than this is a great finish to the story. Most people have said that there is not enough plot and its just eye candy.But think about it, everything was explained in FFVII you cannot add more plot to such a grand story it would ruin it. They did the best that they could do and I think that this should be taken more as A Final FMV.. the last fight.

Graphics - 10\/10, Absolutely amazing

Story 8.5\/10 - don't think they could of expanded it that much more. And the stuff they could put in there was clever enough I thought.

Characters 9\/10 - Well most of them have already been explained during the game but still could not fit it all into 90 mins.

Sound - 10\/10, since i am a metal fan I loved the fight music.. and piano just reaches right in there..It is a great ST and I was not disappointed.

Tilt\/Replay 10\/10 - Enjoyable every time.

Overall- 9\/10 (FF Fan View 10\/10)

I personally think this is what was needed, a fight to end it all.. the plot was already in place. The action was necessary as much as people complained. I loved every second of this movie. It was a pleasure to visit the world of FFVII just one last time.

Just remember this.. most movies that have been made form a game have been directed by movie directors i think this is pretty great for a team of game directors.. Don't think I've seen a better game to movie..

Thankyou Square, I think you did it right!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now after watching The Advent Children twice, the storyline isn't as shallow as majority has criticized it to be in my opinion. If you haven't played FFVII or disliked it for whatever reason, this movie is most likely not for you. Being familiar to the original story is a prerequisite to understanding AC fully, otherwise you will just see the greatest CG animation in your life so far.

Without actually spoiling the storyline, I must admit that after seeing AC we have been putting pieces together with my friends relying on our knowledge of FFVII. Seeing it second time allowed to actually pay attention to the story more and most of the questions we may have had were answered. Some were not. AC is clearly for FFVII players\/fans and doesn't honestly try to be anything else. There is little to none realism in it outside FFVII world which serves the purpose. Music is mostly reconstructed FFVII themes with a heavier touch (TBM team according to end credits) and works well with the eye candy without exceptions. I found the music enhancing the experience added to the visual fireworks in all situations.

We all know you can't put a FFVII in 1.5 hours and keeping that in mind the storyline actually offered more to me than I expected. There are two issues at hand in FFVII : AC and both stories were wrapped up very smoothly between the action sequences. And trust me when I say there's a lot of it. Action that is.

I'm changing my vote from 9 to 10 after watching it the second time because I had missed a few explanatory sequences I couldn't put together the first time that provided some answers. As a warning, it's going to be easy to disregard the story and concentrate on graphics, but try not to judge the Adevent Children because of that. If you don't let the story in, it's no wonder it seems sloppy.

I'm not going to praise the graphics because I assume we all know they are awesome, which might be an understatement. Especially characters talk so much more with their facial expressions than ever before. I hope you pay attention to the storyline for it actually makes sense and works well with the whole. Get ready for the ride of your life, there are no breaks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes I AM a FF7 fan, but how many people who watch this movie are NOT going to be? And so, I'm reviewing this movie from a FF7 fan perspective, and with no regret. (I would not know how to adequately review the movie for someone who has not played the FF7 game.)

Visuals - 10\/10 I loved Advent Children. It's a sensory delight - a complete audio-video overload. The visuals were breathtaking: some feats were accomplished that I would simply have not quite thought possible with an animated feature. When the action scenes came about, they were, for lack of a more accurate word, a roller-coaster. With dramatic camera movement sweeping across from range to range, to seamlessly integrated bullet-time effects at the crucial moments, to the sheer level of detail - it's all hard to fault. The animation looks big budget, the style and imagery is awesome, and the effects at times made me forget that I was watching animation rather than live action footage. I could ramble on for hours repeating myself on the fantastic quality of the visuals, but it simply wouldn't do it any justice.

Sound - 10\/10 The sound was fabulous. The voices for all the characters didn't disappoint (no one sounded silly) and the sound effects were bold and sharp. The music - from the game that (in my opinion) had the best game soundtrack EVER, transfered beautifully to the movie. Most of the memorable themes from the game are present in the movie, albeit often using different instruments to fit in better with what's going on. There was some bolder rock and slight thrash metal music over the really intense action scenes from time to time, but it all fitted in well with the movie's situation at the corresponding time.

Story - 7\/10 The story and characters would be the main flaws of the movie. Both aspects were simply not up to par with the game - but then again, the game could spend 40+ hours developing these points - the movie only has about 90 minutes. As far as the story goes, the plot wasn't bad or anything, but just not as ambitious as was expected from someone who played the game through. In effect, the plot seemed rather weak in comparison. The game was so extravagant with the intricate plot twists and story progression\/development, that the movie never really stood a chance to compete in the same league. Instead, the movie took the more sensible approach - to expand on the action and try to place as many inside-jokes and themes into itself instead of trying to impossibly recreate the massive story factor, which was originally such a driving force in the game. The lack of Materia usage also caused me some controversy - the story of the movie chose to use little (though not ZERO) Materia, and instead lots of supernatural fighting ability and skill. I would hope that if a sequel was made it would incorporate Materia much much more extravagantly and importantly into the film. There were also many plot holes in the movie - all which can be forgiven if you think of Advent Children as a random anime, but seem ridiculous when you realise how it was based on a game that executed plot tremendously well.

Characters - 7\/10 The characters, whilst all being present in one form or another, don't necessarily shine to their true potential. There simply isn't really enough movie-time to spend with all of them. And so, all of their background stories and abilities are not entirely showcased, and in some cases, barely at all (Red and Cait Sith leave absolutely no real lasting impressions). Even Cloud, who is the focal point of the movie, I feel doesn't use enough of his familiar abilities from the game. The Materia issue is a strong reason for this. With that said, it's a joy to see the cast back in action, even if it's in such a role that doesn't utilise them to their fullest. The new characters were the ones that caused me most of the strife however - the Bad Guy Trio and the kid dude Denzel - there was a huge lack of explanation about any of them. Anyone willing to use their imagination can probably fill in the blanks with something reasonable and be done with it, but objectively speaking the issue is still there to be commented on and is therefore a little disappointing.

Value - 10\/10 The replay value for this movie is excellent - I personally want to watch it again in a more bigger and louder way - bigger screen, louder volume.

Enjoyment - 10\/10 Whatever the flaws of the movie, they simply weren't big enough to hinder my enjoyment of it, and I honestly think that will be the same case for most people. I enjoyed Advent Children tremendously, and encourage fellow FF7 fans to go see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What is there to say about this movie? This movie is simply gorgeous. A true feast for the eyes. In the same way that the game set the standard for 3D role playing games 7 years ago, this movie sets the standard for future CG movies. Many of you have seen the trailers and the amazing details in every frame and let me tell you this movie does not disappoint. You can actually see the fibers in Cloud's sweater vest.

The music is also very good. The movie contains several rearranged tracks from the video game that fans will definitely recognize and appreciate.

The movie's main weakness is its story. Its not exactly a bad story, but this story is exclusively aimed for people who have played the video game. First time viewers may feel lost at times, or they may not notice the significance of certain events.

I recommend this movie to everyone, even if you've never played the game because what we have here is a special movie. Watch it and enjoy the the beautiful show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I shall begin with a disclaimer: This movie is NOT recommended for anyone who lack interest or have never played FF7 the game before watching. The movie relies on the audience's knowledge of each character in the game to convey story plot elements. And it does so very subtly. Do your homework before watching this wonderful piece of CG film and I promise it'll be that much better.

With that in mind, this film has some of the most spectacular CG sequences I have ever witnessed. The whole experience felt like an extra long FMV sequence from the game, on steroids. Yeah. The attention to detail in each scene, especially in the heavy action oriented ones, is so impeccable it left me with a sense of awe.

I believe the soundtrack is simplified so as to help the audience focus on the animation quality more than the music. Again, for those who are familiar with the FF7 story and background, the music should not surprise anyone (although the timing and placement of each soundtrack from the original accompany each scene and mood to the point where the music simply enhances the animation).

Once again, I myself having only played through FF7 once, thoroughly enjoyed this piece of art from Square Enix. And that is the feel in most scenes, choreographed and organized. Like a dance.

In short, if you enjoyed the music or the game Final Fantasy 7, this film will blow you out of the water. If you're in the unfortunate majority who has not experienced the goodness known as FF7 on Playstation or PC, doing so before watching the movie will allow for an exponentially greater experience.

Finally, I just want to make a note of the quality in animating this film. Characters move with fluidity. Each scene background comes to life and tells its own story. For those who criticize the thinness and dependency of the story plot, I urge you to reexamine the animation. Facial reactions, subtle clues that bring about another level of entertainment above the typical narration method of story plot delivery.

Square Enix and the great Tetsuya Nomura has set a new bar for quality animation and storytelling. Advent Children has ushered in a new era for CG animations, allowing the subtleties that lie in each character to speak volumes in and of themselves.

Thanks Square Enix. The wait was well worth it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just watched it then. It is pretty damn awesome. The fights are fantastic and the magic is really cool! It's totally like a video-game in parts, with some amazing hand-to-hand combat in there.

This film is for the fans: \"To those who loved this world once before and spent time with its friends, gather again and devote your time...\" Besides this ominous opening, the story was not very hard to follow, and Ihave never played a Final Fantasy game. I think it pays to be familiar with Role Playing Games in general; knowledge of the genre kinda helps you grasp some of it better. I think though that if you pay attention, and accept what the film throws at you, it's quite easy to understand. There is a lot that isn't explicitly explained, and if you demand that it should be then you will probably be confused and irritated.

Watching the film is like being dropped into the middle of some grand saga, and having to put as much of the puzzle together as possible. I like that approach; you get caught up in the mystery and confusion that all the characters are going through. But like I said, just be accepting. If a weird red lion thing that talks, turns up and starts kicking ass and taking names, and the other characters just say he's an old friend, accept it and move on; you don't need a biopic flashback, or a tell-all sit-me-down. You are an observer here, of something beyond your experience and undestanding.

So: fantastic graphics and animation, great voice acting, cool video game styled music, involving story and characters, and maybe some of the coolest fights you'll see in a while. It's worth seeing, and while it IS for the fans, it is perfectly accessible for people like me that have never played the games.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Square really landed this one. They didn't try to please everyone and instead focused exclusively on Final Fantasy 7 fans. And boy, are those going to be happy fans when they see this movie! The story might not be all that interesting or credible but it ties in neatly with the story of the game and has several honest-to-god funny moments!! A total surprise there and a welcome one too

There are lots of cameos and funny references to the game too. And most important of all: The fighting scenes rock so hard they could cut through diamond! They are truly the total awesomeness and would have made the movie worth it even if everything else sucked. I mean, they are some of the best ever created PERIOD.

See this movie. Bye.

PS: I know my review sounds like the ravings of a teenage girl. It was, like, totally what I intended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Haven't played the game? Don't bother. This is for the Final Fantasy VII fans out there that beat the game, and no other will appreciate this rare gem of a movie. Want to watch it and love it? Buy the game, beat it and then watch it. When's the last time you've seen an excellent movie based on a video game? Well, this is it.

The story takes place two years after the game and no short summaries are given to refresh your memory (though I doubt many would forget), and goes right into the one hour and forty-one minute adventure.

All your favorite characters are there, even Cait Sith. The voice acting is superb in the Japanese version, every character is cast perfectly. Cloud sounds tough and broody, Tifa sounds kind yet strong...Aeris is also perfect, she sounds exactly as I imagined. Cait Sith sounds less cute than I imagined, but worked very well.

The character models are spectacular, great textures and lighting. The environments are breathtaking and the battles are choreographed in a way to make The Matrix blush. The amazing camera work comes through in the bike chases, for example, where your eyes are just screaming in satisfaction and your lungs breathing heavily without consent.

The music is typical Uematsu quality, which means its top notch. Familiar tunes are remade to accompany Advent Children's graphical leap, which meshes with the visual aspects very well. There's even an inside joke for the fans that involves music, it'll make you smile for sure.

I did not watch it with subtitles since I'm half-Japanese so I can't say that the subtitles are any good. In Japanese, however, the dialogue is very good and every word sounds like it's coming from real living beings, not just actors. Impressive. I'll watch this again someday with subtitles to see the differences since I've played both the Japanese and American release of Final Fantasy VII.

If you are a fan of Final Fantasy VII, buy this movie the day it comes out or pre-order it. If you haven't played the game but want to see this movie very badly, don't waste your time: buy the game, beat it, and then come back for this DVD. I won't tell you to not watch it, but play the game. It'll make the experience a lot better and won't leave you in the dust scratching your heads.

Come back, old friends - it's time to go on an adventure again with your brave comrades!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SOME MAJOR SPOILERS, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED

I saw this movie yesterday at Venice's film festival, and I must admit that, being a fan, it was REALLY IMPRESSIVE. Excellent graphic, excellent music, excellent dubbing, excellent action sequences and so on... BUT there's a but. ALL the film was thought EXCLUSIVELY for the gamers that have loved it, and that can therefore enjoy every single reference, character, inside joke (you should see a joke with winning music that's particularly comic) etc. A poor man not inside the world of FF will obviously see the magnificence of technical part, but CANNOT grasp the inner satisfaction of seeing, e.g., Barret appearing and shooting Bahamut TOTALLY OUT OF NOWHERE. He'll ask himself, \"WHO'S THIS GUY?\", and I cannot blame him. He cannot even understand what a gamer feels when in the OPENING SEQUENCE there's game's opening music, Nanaki running in the canyon with his two cubs, howling at Midgar's ruins, and then \"498 years ago...\". Almost all characters have made an appearance or quote (including Reeve, Tseng and Elena), and Reno & Rude were really goofy and comic to see, but the final impression the movie left to me was \"hardcore gamer's final dream, but far less for a MOVIE fan...\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is really cool, I thought. It sticks to the original game quite well, and some of the battle scenes are depicted in such high detail, it's incredible. I thought the movie could have been a little better if they'd give you a little more information before the end, but trying to figure out what's going on is what hooks on you this movie.

The CG is beautiful, I don't think they could have done a better job graphics wise. Every little detail, the way they move, the way their swords look, everything is perfect. The way they make the characters look is almost like they're real people.

The music was great, and I found it entertaining to listen to just how much of it was remixed from the original game, with new instruments and effects.

All and all, I'd recommend this movie to anyone that enjoys fast paced action and a good storyline. I would definitely play the game before I'd watch the movie though.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was definitely scripted with FF VII fans ONLY in mind. I am someone who has never played the original game and watched it with a friend who was a series fan. From a visual and technical standpoint this movie is just as good as \"The Spirits Within\", if not better, but from a story standpoint, I was pretty lost. One major plot weakness that stood out to me was the scene where \"all\" of the children dying of geostigma were brought to the healing \"reunion\" by the three Jenovites. All told there were about 15 kids in all... Hmmmm... I thought that this Geostigma was an illness of pandemic proportions... I understand why they did it that way (time, budget,CPU), but it just seemed cheesy after all the explanation about how the bad guys needed to collect all of those who had Jenova cells so that Jenova could be reincarnated. The subtitle version that we had (some fan sub from the internet) was a pretty direct translation and therefore probably added to my confusion.

It did prick my interest in FF VII however, and I spent a few hours on the FF VII wiki reading about the main characters and the plot. Once I read the Advent Children wiki, things made a lot more sense. If you are a video game or Sci-Fi fan this movie is a pretty good flick, but like a previous review said, it comes off like a 90 minute fight scene. You never really get to know any of the characters, and the story does just seem to jump from scene to scene without much explanation, even though some explanation just might be required. Thank goodness for wikpedia.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I generally like this movie a lot. The animation is supreme: meaning they took to trouble to animate the hair and fur on animals and people. And being an amateur at graphics and animation (self teaching myself through books. For those who are curious on the same matter, I use the program Gmax by Discreet. It is a high quality free program that can be downloaded from the internet) I see that the quality of animation shown here is of high standards.

The plot of this movie is good. Though this movie lacks character development, this story is still understandable. Generally, I believe that this movie is primarily should be watched by people who are fans of the game as its plot closely follows the game. As for me, I do not play the games and therefore I don't have the wowing effect it probably does on fans of the game.

For those who like the game, I suggest this movie to you, and if you haven't played the game, I would still recommend this movie to you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"hey i think this movie was great and it had great graphics and i was vary glad they used final fantasy 7 i think that game was the best i ever played anyways this is a great movie and i loved it.They should make another one but maybe they should ether use final fantasy 7 again or final fantasy 10 there both pretty awesome from:Tyler Sheena i hope you can email me back if you have any details if there is another one .people for anyone else reading this i suggest you see this movie it is animated but it looks pretty realistic and its got awesome fighting scenes i haven't see that fast of fighting in a movie for a long time. The game final fantasy 7 is also really great not good graphics but its really fun and challenging","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movie is simply amazing.. unfortunately in Portugal not even a shadow of him... and i agree with a former opinion, only FF fans will really give the movie the real credit... but for the rest.. i dare you to watch it. the story is great, and i thought that the game has ended the story, but the screenwriters have given us a great story to the god of all r.p.g.'s ... the ost, as usual, it came from heaven ;) ehehe but the little details that they gave us ( us fans of the game) are beautiful .. like the ring tone is the Battle winning song of the game, and even some moves are quite familiar just watch it it's a great movie great story, great animation... just a 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I play final fantasy 7, and this movie is EXCELLENT like the game, all fans of final fantasy will love this movie.

The music are fantastic and the history is good, but, the best of this movie is the visual effects, are amazing. The characters are equal to the game and that detail are good for the fans.

You don't need play the game to like this movie, all the people can enjoy the film, because the history is some different and is easy to understand. I buy the DVD because is EXCELLENT, IS 100% ADVISABLE, if you don't see this film, what you waiting for? believe me,you will fascinate like me","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cannot believe how perfect this movie is. Great CG graphics, good storyline, and the fights, oh the fights!!! This movie was great!! The characters. They look real enough to be considered real. They definitely resemble the ones from the game perfectly. The scene in which....well all the scenes, made my jaw drop. Fantastic 10\/10 graphics The story. Perfectly explained. Plus the way Aeris comes to help Cloud at many different times in the movie. They explain it very well, and make your jaw drop from how perfect it is. But the repetitive fights do take some story out, but that is only a minor thing. Story 9.5\/10 Everything else, great. The movie was just amazing. I really do not know what more i can say except that this movie was pretty much perfect. I LOVED IT!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It really isn't hard to understand this movie! I watched it with no expectations and no knowledge of the story from the games. I was completely blown away!

Initially, I wondered how most of the characters have some sort of super-powers but it IS called \"Final FANTASY...\". I also wondered about Cloud's past but that was easy enough to look up. In no way did these questions spoil the enjoyment of the movie, though. Just the opposite; it shows I kept thinking about the story long after seeing the movie.

It's one of the most beautiful movies my eyes have ever seen. The music supports the movie completely. The characters are incredible.

I want more!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really love this movie!!! I haven't played Final Fantasy VII but i still loved the movie, its really funny and I love the job the voice-over actors have done. The visuals are SO fantastic and all the lines are so well done.

I have to admit i have a pretty good imagination so I was able to fill most of the gaps the movie presented, and I suggest you watch it twice because lots of things \"suddenly\" make sense.

Also, (this is pretty funny) you should watch it with the subtitles on because what they say and what the subs say are sometimes completely different. Its really usually pretty funny but sometimes it helps u to understand what they say better.

Watch it!!! love Marnie","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I still can't believe that computer graphics are able to create 3D images. The moment I heard it from my friends over at a forum, I swear to myself that I am going to make myself watch it.

I managed to watch parts of it at a fellow shopping centre where they had many Advent Children DVDs and showed it at a few laptops for sale. Obviously I was overjoyed but it was still not enough. Then I headed off to YouTube.com to search for the movie. All I came up with was music video dedications. Until that fateful day...I found it. I watched it despite all the distractions because I knew that I have to watch or else I will be called a loser.

Enough about me more on the movie. As if Final Fantasy VII wasn't enough, they made a movie about it! My most favourite part was the end of Sephiroth's life. Cloud's OmniSlash couldn't be better. But I wouldn't entirely spoil the show for you. You have to watch it for yourself!!! Get the DVD now!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"o m g!!! did you ever think they would make a movie about it?? well i knew they would, but i didn't know when!! and now its here at last!!! when i received it yesterday through the post i put it into my (wicked) stereo that plays dvds and instantly had this huuuuuuuuuuge grin on my face as cloud appeared (looking well....gorgeous!!) and they followed by all the other fascinating characters from final fantasy the game! including tifa and aeris, my favourites....(they are pretty too in this) the graphics knocked me out!!!! they were truly amazing. so real down to the last hair!!! the story line is OK bit confusing, especially as my version of the film was in Japanese, but of course - being a long time final fantasy fanatic - i did not mind a bit - i just read the subtitles!!! all the characters talk the way they would do in the game, and reno and rude are still ridiculous. the dragon scene is wicked too. just looks SO good!!! anyway.... the graphics were, amazing....the storyline , fantastic....and the basic idea of even having a ff7 film.......genius!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i am an avid ff7 fan, for instance i have the game then sell it(bad mistake) but then buy it again (good mistake...erm)

anyways, yes this film is very good, the fights are very cool, music very good, and the cgi you cant falter.

only thing disappointing with the film i felt was the lack of other character involvement, it was almost all cloud which although is a great character, u cant beat a of cid and barret.

but despite that the film was great in my opinion, and a must watch.

overall a great film give and will give it 9\/10

squaresoft, make more films like this and you'll be worshiped more so than you already are!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is based on the game series: Final Fantasy. This one particularly is about FF7 or Final Fantasy VII. I loved the game, and I was very happy to see it be transformed into a movie, I loved the CG, that was awesome. Lot's of great fight scenes, action, and characters to make the movie memorable. If your a die-hard fan of the game you will love this movie. Personally, I'm not a die-hard fan of the games, but I am starting to become one.

My favourite character out of Final Fantasy VII besides Cloud, would have to be Cid. I love Cid, I think he's cute. I was amazed how real the CG images were, it was amazing, it's the game in 3D. I had a great time watching the movie, and by the way, I love the aeons to, especially Bahamut, he's great! Overall I gave this movie a 9, because yes, I loved it. I thought it was a really really good movie, and yes it's on my list of movies to get. The characters were amazing, loved the CG, story was wonderful, with lot's of action and fight scenes. All-in-all, it's the best movie I've seen yet, based on a video game.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Errol Flynn had quite a gift for comedy that was sadly rarely exploited. Given the right material this film demonstrates that he could have happily been quite at home in Cary Grant style, gentle comedies. Out of his various forays into the genre this is certainly the best. Patti Brady gives a fine performance in the child part and Eleanor Parker looks simply stunning throughout the film. An added bonus is the wonderful Hattie McDaniel who is sadly underused in this film- a welcome presence none the less. Flynn carries off his comedic duties with the same easy style that he brought to his swashbuckling roles. The fact that he makes it look like it's easy doesn't mean that it is. A super little family comedy, great for the Christmas period or any other time you feel like being cheered up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A young girl becomes a war-time marine's pen-pal, and when he visits at war's end expecting someone a bit more \"available,\" comic complications ensue. All ultimately works out well, naturally, but not before everyone involved has thoroughly chewed the scenery. Errol Flynn's dead-on impression of Humphrey Bogart from \"Casablanca\" is a highlight, as are various send-ups of his own swashbuckling image (the \"jumping\" scene in the kitchen with Forrest Tucker is a riot). It is Tucker, though, who \"tucks\" the movie under his arm, lowers his head and barrels over the goal line. He demonstrates the comic flair more fully developed twenty years later in \"F-Troop\" and imparts a liveliness and energy that Flynn repeatedly plays off to raise his own performance. Eleanor Parker does a fine job as the woman being pursued, and little Patti Brady charms as Tucker's actual pen-pal friend. A fine, lightweight \"coming home\" comedy in a genteel setting that children and romantics of all ages should find entertaining.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the third time I tried to watch this film. The previous two times, I found the beginning so sickeningly sweet and \"schmaltzy\" that I just stopped watching. However, now that I am a little older and more compulsive, I forced myself to watch all the film and I was very surprised to see that I actually liked it quite a bit. So, I look at the movie much the same way I would look at swimming in the ocean when the water temperature is 70 degrees (that's about 21-22 degrees Centigrade for all those metric-lovers out there). Sure, the water is terribly cold and shocking at first, but if you FORCE yourself to stay in the water, you'll get used to it--so resist that urge to jump out right away!!

The film begins with a lengthy exchange between Flynn and his daughter, played by a lispy Patti Brady. Some may find there conversations very cute and endearing, though others may find them a bit hard to take since these moments are so gosh-darn sweet! In a way, it was some amazing acting by Flynn because it's hard to imagine him in real life having kids or acting domestic especially that he wanted to be faithful to one woman in this film--now THAT'S ACTING!! NEVER SAY GOODBYE concerns the divorced couple, Flynn and Parker, and their mutual desire to remarry. Since they both love each other as well as their lispy kid, it seems like a foregone conclusion that they will once again tie the knot. However, there are some serious problems standing in their way: Lucille Watson (who plays her usual over-bearing and controlling mother-in-law character), Flynn's girlfriend (after all, he is Errol Flynn and he is divorced, so you gotta expect him to have a girl SOMEWHERE) and a marine (played by Forrest Tucker).

Not unexpectedly, all this does get worked out by the end and everyone lives happily ever after. However, despite it being formulaic and predictable, the film is a winner because it is so much fun to watch. Flynn, despite his reputation as an action-adventure hero, is very good with comedy-romance and it's just a lot of fun to watch him. Also, the film has the ever-scene chewing Cuddles Sakall--he's just so gosh-darn cute and sweet that he is perfect in this type of film. And, despite the sweetness, the film is pretty well-written. The bottom line is the film is FUN.

So my recommendation is that you DO watch this film and force yourself not to retch at the sickeningly sweet aspects of the film. Once you've gotten over this, the rest of the film is a picture that is well worth your time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a hidden gem. I can't understand why this movie doesn't get more air time. Errol and Eleanor Parker make for a real attractive and dashing couple. And their chemistry is impeccable. I really liked the touch of his daughters reference to him as being her Robin Hood. I highly recommend this to anyone who enjoys Errol Flynn. It's nice to see Errol playing a father as well. By all accounts from his very own children, he was a very attentive and loving father in real life. Also, the supporting cast is wonderful as well. You can't go wrong with supporting players such as Hattie McDaniel and Lucile Watson. Hattie McDaniel makes a movie that much better from the get-go. This movie has now become a Holiday tradition in my home. Enjoy!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"a fine romantic comedy. errol flynn shows what a deft touch for comedy he possessed. a talent that probably shows some of his true prankster self. the comedic writing on this film is excellent. eleanor parker does a nice job as flynn's ex wife whom errol is trying to win back. eleanor is also easy on the eyes. the sets exude 1940's glamour and style where appropriate.

flynn's comedic timing and wit are displayed to full effect here, watch his double takes, his ability to verbally counter punch with a snappy comeback or act the straight man, and his total believability and sincerity where required, this guy could act! it is a shame errol did not get a chance to do more roles like this throughout his career, he was multi-talented to the extreme. if you enjoyed \"it happened one night\" with gable and colbert or some of the william powell and myrna loy comedies you will enjoy this.

well paced and lots of laughs. a lost diamond of a movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A true comedy.The dialog is fast and very witty.Eleanor Parker at her physical peak .Flynn as only Flynn can be\"the charming rogue'..although now past his prime.. Most of the scenes between the principals are short so the movie moves well. If you haven't seen this movie please give a look.You will be surprised at Flynn's comedy timing.The scenes between him Tucker, Parker and \"Cudddles\" Sakal are hilarious.Just on the basis of the outfits worn by the most attractive Parker,this movie is worth a look.The romance of this 40's movie will not be lost on those so inclined to watch movies from Hollywood's golden past. My bet is that Never Say Goodbye won't disappoint.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I used to enjoy \"Happy Ever After\", but was absolutely hypnotised by \"Terry & June\". With Aunt Lucy gone, the emphasis seemed to fall more heavily on the relationship between Terry and June, a middle aged, middle class English couple, and I thoroughly enjoyed it, losing myself quite happily in each episode.

The 1980s were the era of alternative comedy, but they were also the decade of choice - and Terry and June certainly suited more traditional tastes. And mine - and I was a huge fan of \"The Young Ones\", too! Each week, Terry got into a silly situation and June got pulled in herself and usually ended up having to bail him out. How dated the shows seem now - it was a different world, but it's great fun to see trends of the 1980s featured - such as the CB radio storyline of 1982 (CB radio was legalised in England in November 1981), which saw Terry imprisoned in his car in the back of a lorry! I've been watching the shows again recently on DVD, and I still think they're terrific! Not loved by the enlightened elite - the chattering classes, but a huge hit with the masses! Wonderful!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the film in its original theatrical release in Austin Texas. The old Paramount Theatre (I don't know if it still exists.) went all out with speakers around the walls connected accurately to all six channels. At 15 years of age, I was blown away. The concept of surround sound was completely foreign to music and film at that time.

I vividly remember at least three outstanding scenes where the surround sound made a huge impact. (Though please forgive me if time has warped my memories with inaccuracies.) The first was a travel by the camera through Catfish Row, alive with the sites and sounds of daily activity. You saw each one first, such as a blacksmith for example, then as the camera passed them by their sound would continue to be heard passing left or right down the side of the theater to the rear. The second was a marching band that was seen first in the front, then it marched past the camera splitting left and right. Not only did the sound of each instrument follow its own directional path, it also changed in timbre as it played toward you, to the side of you, and then away from you. And if that wasn't enough, they also accounted for the Doppler effect for each instrument as it went by. The third scene was near the end of the movie as Porgy is leaving Catfish Row for New York to look for Bess. He and about half the cast members pass by the camera as they leave the village with the same sound effects as the marching band. The other half of the cast\/chorus sing along with them and also wave and voice goodbyes to Porgy and their other friends. The friends' replies can then be heard from the sides and the rear.

Surround sound was used with splendid effects throughout the movie. I think I remember a rock or something thrown from a pier and hearing it land in the water behind me. Little things like that were evident to theater-goers lucky enough to have the full six channels -- things that would just seem mundane in theaters without it.

I stayed in the theater for several showings. You could do that then. And I went back several more times before it left town. I never saw the movie again. It literally BEGS for release on DVD with restored picture fidelity and surround sound. I do hope someone somewhere has preserved it. Please, Gershwin family, allow it to be released before it is lost for good to other generations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is a shame that the Gershwin family and Goldwyn Estate has pulled this great movie from the viewing, thereby depriving the public from seeing some of the most wonderful actors and performances ever packed into one motion picture.

It is also true that the singing voices for Sidney Poitier and Dorothy Dandridge were dubbed for this movie, and that is used as one of the reasons that the Gershwin's do not want this movie ever released again.

For in spite the flaws in the movie and the creative differences between the Gershwins and the Goldwyns, this film has some of the most remarkable performances ever committed to the screen. Sammy Davis, Jr. and Pearl Bailey are especially deserving praise.

This film was the great independent producer Samuel Golwyn's swan song. It was also ironically, the Gershwin's greatest shame.

Finally, it is a loss to the wonderful black actors who appeared in it. For we can no longer see them at their best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie when I was very young. It is my all time favorite. I had been unable to obtain a copy until recently and viewing it brought back so many fond memories. I loved Sidney Poiter's portrayal of Porgy, he his character with such strength and courage. Pearl Bailey's part, although small, was not unlike many of our own family members. My favorite songs were and still are \"Bess You Is My Women,\" \"Porgy,Don't Let Him Handle Me\" and of course \"Summertime.\" According to the guidelines, if I'm interpreting them correctly I'm unable to post where I was able to obtain my copy, Sorry. That is why I registered so that I might be able to share this info. Before registering the guidelines are not posted.

Phone numbers, mail addresses, URLs. Availability, price, or ordering\/shipping information.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have searched for this movie for years. I have great memories of the first-rate acting and singing in this movie. I never knew that the reason the movie was unobtainable was because of the actions of the Gershwin family -- SHAME ON THEM for trying to suppress at American Classic!! I can only hope they will relent and allow this movie to be release and enjoyed by the American public.

Sammy Davis, Jr. is at his absolute best in this film. The only other performance of his this is it's equal was in 'Anna Lucasta'--another terrific film that I wish would be released on DVD.

Porgy & Bess contained a first-rate, all-star cast. Hopefully one day you'll get to see for yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The many comments made by others have been very informative and I join in their calls for the release of Porgy and Bess, the 1959 film.

In my early teens I joined a record club and this album was one of the free ones I chose for joining. I knew some of the voices were dubbed, but only Robert McFerrin was acknowledged on the album. Recently my daughter purchased a CD from Austria, I think. The quality is excellent, so I am confused about why it is available in Europe by CBS Records, Inc, when I have had no luck in local stores.

Actually, I never saw the movie but for years have pleaded with local video stores to get it. Now I know why it has never been available.

I add my voice to others who plead with the heirs of the property and rights and that they agree to release it, however imperfect they perceive it to be - the beauty of the music and story reached so many of us who would never have had the experience otherwise.

Trudy","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was given the solo \"Summertime\" in 5th grade for our spring choral concert. From that time on, a great appreciation for Gershwin's music arose in me. I love the haunting melodies of this opera by Gershwin. Back when I was in 5th grade (around age 10), I got the LP to practice with and also love the soundtrack very much. I recommend seeing this movie and if you can get the soundtrack, get it - you can sometimes find it on eBay - an old, used LP. I have been searching and searching to try to find the soundtrack on CD. The songs on this have marvelous musical arrangements and I truly wish it would be put on CD for purchase and also wish they would restore the movie and put it on DVD. This is truly a great work that I think present and future generations would enjoy and benefit from. Some may think the movie slow and dull, but I find it quite the contrary. Although Poitier and Dandridge have dubbed musical voices, I think the voices fit the faces and personalities well. A person's speaking voice and singing voice may be quite different. Porgy and Bess, and the songs in this opera, will always have a special meaning for me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this once probably like most people my age(55) back in the 60's. I understand the dissatisfaction with the final product by both families. But this is a great movie, it was a great Opera; but as a film it is wonderful. This film should be released at least to video, other generations can gain an appreciation of great music and story telling. The cast was made up of some of the greatest Black actors ever, most have now passed away; only Sidney P. is still with us. Please don't wait until he is gone and the film as all old film does, becomes unusable do to the ravages of time. Again this is a great film which is something that one does not see very often today, if at all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I stumbled on to this site while looking for a video or DVD of the 1959 version Porgy and Bess with Sammy Davis as Sportin' Life. If anyone finds this on a home movie format please let me know. I talk to my daughters all the time about things that they think are new which, actually have already been done. We went to see a live theater of version a couple of years ago and all I could talk about was this film. Sadly my daughters cannot remember seeing Sammy Davis Jr. in any production, although they have heard of him. Needless to say, they're not familiar with the other great actors in the film. It is a major oversight not to have this classic film (because of the cast) on a home movie format for collectors and for future generations. Anyway, in my opinion this version was the best!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this movie to be one of the best for this time and era. The cast was very exceptional and most entertaining to all that saw it.I would like for my younger generation to have seen this movie,but I haven't been able to find or see the movie in the past.My first viewing was back in the early sixties and I have been looking for it every since.The movie showed me potential of how far we come go to become a gifted at a craft where we could only have meaningless roles to act as buffoons and servants.

Porky and Bess showed some of the urban life of my neighborhood as I saw it in the time where I needed good solid male role models. The singing and acting had me skipping for days, playing the part of different characters in this excellent movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I see it when I was 12 year old and I dream to see it again !

What marvelous Sammy Davis Jr singing \"it ain't necessarily so !\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the great pleasure of recently viewing this beautifully filmed wide-screen adaption of the the 1943 stage revival (which unlike the original 1935 production) which included extensive spoken recitatives. This had been the fashion at the time, so to blame the film for an 16 year tradition. The film should be seen if only for Sammy Davis Jrs brilliant catlike performance as Sportin' Life, creeping in and out of shadows. His seduction of Dorothy Dadridge's BESS \"There's a Boat dat's leavin' soon for New York,\" is one of many highlights. Nearly all of the principal music is intact and beautifully sung. It certainly never bores which the recent PBS and MET versions did. It was a pleasure to see that time had not diminished the movie, and hopefully it will be made available in the near future for the generations that haven't had a chance to experience it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Otto Preminger's \"Porgy and Bess\" stands, to date, as a great American musical. I believe it is time bring this film out onto VHS and DVD for countless generations to view, admire, and absorb its wonderful music.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Viva Variety was a unique hybrid program that was both a parody of and a tribute to the programs it represented.

It was most directly a mock up of the classic 1970s favorite, \"The Sonny & Cher Show,\" With Thomas Lennon and Kerri Kenney playing a divorced show biz couple who were somehow forced to host this program together, the female of the pair towering over the male, and the constant barrage of \"insult humor\" the couple tossed at each other, plus sketch comedy bits and performances from what are most kindly described as \"specialty\" acts!

The \"hybrid\" was the mix of fact and fantasy. Of course, there was no \"Mr. and Former Mrs. Laupin,\" and the program's announcer, Johnny Bluejeans, was likewise equally fictional. But all the acts that performed were certainly real, and some were even entertaining! But there were also some acts that would have clearly been better suited for the old Chuck Barris \"Gong Show.\"

The show itself was really more like an extended sketch from \"SCTV\" (it was borne from the MTV series, \"The State,\" after all), and some would suggest that it would have been better as a five minute bit in the mix of a program like that one, rather than a stand alone series. But \"Viva Variety\" certainly should get high marks for original concepts, and even though it was often more odd than funny, it was certainly worthwhile, especially when they road tripped to Las Vegas and brought in even glitzier acts to perform. It's unlikely we'll ever see anything like this on television again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show was incredible, but too esoteric for most people. If you had never truly seen a European variety show in the 70's or 80's (or at least a Mexican one) the entire show would probably be lost on you. If you had, this show was a dead on skewering satire of the phony spectacle and shallowness that these shows dive into at their worst. Helmed by a chain-smoking suave wannabe with a pencil moustache and his ultra-glamorous and immasculating harridan of an EX-wife, \"Viva Variety\" is a variety show that tries to get off the ground every episode but always descends into in-fighting and acts gone very wrong. The hosts are joined by \"Johnny Bluejeans\", a dim witted side-kick who seems to have been named because blue jeans are a very popular product in his country and that means the kids will like him, which of course, they don't.

The result was a hilarious spoof of variety shows in general. Imagine the arguing that probably happened BACKSTAGE during the last days of the \"Sonny & Cher Show\". Now imagine it's happening ONSTAGE in front of you and the stars are trying to keep their composure. Now add cheesy acts and a Euro-riche mentality (tuxedoes, gowns, booze, accents and smokes). NOW you have \"Viva Variety\".

Have you ever heard a musician whose music was pretty much written for other musicians? Too conceptual? Viva Variety did this for comedians. WAY too esoteric for the standard American audience. It was funny as Hell. And doomed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've never read a good review for \"Vanity Fair\" and I can't understand why. For something that was \"rushed through in ten days\" it all comes off surprisingly well. Though admittedly \"Becky Sharp\" is a better movie and Miriam Hopkins a better Becky, there's nothing to stop this one from getting a solid 9\/10. At times, Myrna Loy might seem just too cute and nice to be playing an utter bitch, but at other times she just has to squint her eyes and the air temperature drops a dozen degrees. Meow! The move to a more modern setting did not work against \"Vanity Fair\" and the only thing that really causes some conflict is the casting. Barbara Kent (Amelia) was under 5 feet in height, and few of the leading men were very tall either - this all coming together to make Loy look like an absolute Amazon woman!

\"Vanity Fair\" is similar to \"Craig's Wife\" in that no matter how bad the main character is, you have to love her. And you know she deserves her comeuppance, and then some, but you still feel sorry for her when she gets it. Though based on the same story as \"Becky Sharp\", this version had a different ending, which is interesting to see because most of the rest of the films were almost identical. For pleasure value, the ending of \"Becky Sharp\" is ultimately more enjoyable, although aesthetically, and from the flow of the story, there is no doubt that the ending of \"Vanity Fair\" is the better one, whether or not you actually like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love the Thackeray novel on which this film is based. And while this modern version of Becky Sharp's story is a B film, the casting of Loy, in her first top-billed role, is rather fascinating.

Before Loy became MGM's reigning good girl in scores of genteel and comic roles, she was an actress. VANITY FAIR was Loy's follow-up film to EMMA, in which she played a snotty and greedy daughter who almost destroys the loyal housekeeper (Marie Dressler).

Loy's Becky is much nastier than Miriam Hopkins' version 3 years later in BECKY SHARP. Loy's Becky is very much a pre-Code film character with her plunging necklines and amoral ways. It's the type of character that Jean Harlow or Clara Bow could easily have played, but Becky here is still supposed to be of the genteel set. That's what makes her fallen character so tragic.

In counterpoint to Loy's grasping Becky is the goody goody Amelia (Barbara Kent) who is just not an interesting character. Mary Forbes is icily good as Mrs. Sedley. Most of the other actors in this version are pretty blah: Conway Tearle as Rawdon; Walter Byron as Osborne; Anthony Bushell as Dobbin. Others are nearly Dickensian is their quirkiness: Billy Bevan as Joseph; Lionel Belmore as Crawley; Montagu Love as the Marquis; Lilyan Irene as Polly the maid; Elspeth Dudgeon as the housekeeper.

Loy is front and center throughout. While the ending is rather shocking, she has several excellent scenes, such as the gambling scene in the casino where she tries to steal another woman's winning roulette bet. The more Loy's Becky descends morally, the more beautiful she gets until she is finally \"caught.\" Bottom line here is that this is a very solid performance by Loy in a film that should be seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can never fathom why people take time to review movies that they have not understood fully. I know people will read scathing reviews on these pages of this film, and it will keep them from seeking copies of this quite forgotten, late '20s style but 1932 movie, which should probably be referred to as \"Indecent,\" as that is the name on the main titles.

Myrna Loy, best known as a comic actress in countless genteel roles, shows herself to be miscast in all of them. She was a true dramatic actress, something that I did not know before watching this film, which predates all of her famous roles. She is exciting and moving here, two things she never was opposite the graceful and refined William Powell. I'm still rather in shock over how good she was.

Becky Sharp (1935), the first three-strip Technicolor feature, is more familiar but this one is far better artistically and an adaptation. It is also very poignant as an expression of a film style that was about to die. You cannot take my word for it, you must see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Eliza (Elizabeth Moorman) is a farm girl from the country coming to the city looking for love. She has met a man that has told her of an Astrologist who will show her the stars. This is a journey of souls...Eliza is put to the test, can she realize her true love when she sees him or not? Tommy (Tommy Lee Jones) is a construction worker trying to find himself in his native heritage. They show each other different ways of looking at things. All the while Eliza is still looking for love and Tommy is trying to protect the reservation that his grandmother lives on. This is a twisted story of looking beyond the obvious and finding beauty in the simple everyday things. The style is artsy and chock full of symbolism. The psychedelic camera styling might scare away the average moviegoer, but the deeper message and the interesting frames make this movie worth watching. It is a movie that explores the underworld of the weird, wretched and devastated individuals. This one strays from the path but certainly worth watching!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hercules the Avenger is by far the best single entry in the muscleman genre I can recall. The charge against it made by critics - it is a cut and paste of two previous Hercules films, with some added new material to make it appear fresh - misses the fact that this cut-and-paste approach solves one of the central problems of the sword-and-sandal movies. With most of these films, the middle third sags horribly - usually involving a sappy love story or arcane political intrigue or both (queen falls in love with Hercules and her evil brother plots against them, etc.) It's often hard to hold on through this to watch the exciting finale. Hercules the Avenger cuts all that crap from the source films, and adds a rather brisk narrative of a Hercules impersonator bullying his way into power. (It should be noted that this episode also functions as a distant but pointedly critical remark on the rise of Fascism in Italy.) This also sets up a fine final wrasslin' match between the real Hercules and his impersonator.

In a narrower focus, I might also add that further editing has improved individual scenes borrowed from the other films. For my money, the mutiny scene here is much better than it first appeared in Hercules and the Captive Women, since it has been tightened with the reduction of several characters and their plot complications.

There are also floppy monsters, creepy underworld atmospherics borrowed (literally) from Mario Bava, an entire city destroyed, and the usual amount of lovely babes in revealing gowns. Since no one expects any of these films to compete with The Seven Samurai - or even with The Magnificent Seven - it seems a bit picky to hold the film's borrowing from other films against it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hercules' son gets severely wounded during a lion hunt that goes awry. Hercules (a solid and engaging performance by the beefy Reg Park) has to venture into an eerie and dangerous alternate dimension ruled by the evil and vengeful Gia the Earth Goddess (a deliciously wicked portrayal by Gia Sandri) and battle various monsters in order to save his son's soul. Meanwhile, Gia's equally nasty son Antaius (a perfectly hateful turn by Giovanni Cianfriglia) poses as Hercules and takes over an entire city as a cruel and ruthless tyrant. Director Maurizo Lucidi relates the engrossing story at a steady pace and maintains a serious tone throughout. This film begins a little slow, but really starts cooking once Hercules enters the misty and perilous subterranean spirit world: Rousing highlights include Hercules grappling with a humanoid lizard beast, Hercules climbing a giant gnarled tree, and Hercules being attacked by a bunch of creepy rotting zombies. Better still, the bizarre spirit world just reeks of spooky atmosphere (gotta love that persistent thick swirling fog!). The strenuous rough'n'tumble mano-a-mano major physical confrontation between Hercules and Antaius likewise totally rocks. Of course, we also get a big mondo destructo climactic volcanic eruption as well. Allvaro Mancori's crisp widescreen cinematography gives the movie an impressively expansive sense of scope. Ugo Filippini's robust, rousing score has a nifty majestic sweep to it. Okay, so this flick is an obvious cheapo cute'n'paste job that uses copious footage from both \"Hercules in the Haunted World\" and \"Hercules and the Captive Women,\" but it's still an extremely lively and entertaining romp all the same.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beautifully filmed, mind expanding exploration of Gypsy culture in the context of their music. Travel across a continent, experiencing the amazing musical styles of various groups of Gypsy peoples. It is sort of misleading to say this movie is not narrated. It is masterfully narrated by the music itself, the soaring melodies and subtititled lyrics tell a story much better than a narrator would have. See this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Latcho Drom is a cinematic survey of Gypsy music from several countries. It is touching, sad and joyous. Most of the segments appear to be completely unstaged, unrehearsed. The music, ranging from the sensual flamenco music of the Spanish Gypsies, to the melancholy music of the Central European Gypsies, is exquisite. If you love Gypsy music, you'll find Latcho Drom absolutely beautiful.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is not \"direct cin\u00e9ma\", as a matter of fact it is its opposite. Second installment of filmmaker Gatlif's gypsy trilogy, this French work produced by Mich\u00e8le Ray-Gavras, is a film masterpiece, not pure documentary, no fiction by any means. Instead, Gatlif has chosen different locations of the route from India to Spain, wherever the Rom people have a strong presence, and with the help of art directors he has staged several musical numbers that tell us how the gypsies live, sing, dance, struggle and have survived. The movie may have strong opposition from those who question the hypothesis that the Rom tribe is of Indian origin, mostly challenged by those who see a direct link with the Hebrews (so, in a way, it comes as no surprise that they were also persecuted by the Nazis.) But above any anthropological argument, this is a work of great beauty, strong colors and wonderful singing and dancing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What makes this documentary special from a film-making perspective is its passiveness; which engages the audience to bask in the delight of gypsy music. It innovates the form of documentary while showcasing a tapestry of sound and movement that invites us to celebrate the primal similarity found within the traveling music of (historically) traveling peoples.

Indeed the film itself is a single \"take\" of sweeping movement that travels the globe and transitions effortlessly from one rhythmic culture to the next.

Watching this film, one's breath is taken away by the simple beauty in our common connection to music, rhythm and dance. If there is a more deeply spiritual, flowing homage to the sound and movement of gypsy cultures, it has yet to be filmed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Latcho Drom, or Safe Journey, is the second film in Tony Gatlif's trilogy of the Romany people. The film is a visual depiction and historical record of Romany life in European and Middle Eastern countries. Even though the scenes are mostly planned, rehearsed, and staged there is not a conventional story line and the dialog does not explain activities from scene to scene. Instead, the film allows the viewer to have sometimes a glimpse, sometimes a more in-depth view of these people during different eras and in different countries, ranging from India, Egypt, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, France, and Spain.

The importance of music in Romany culture is clearly expressed throughout the film. It is a vital part of every event and an important means of communication. Everything they do is expressed with music. Dance is another important activity. Like Romany music, it is specialized and deeply personal, something they alone know how to do correctly. We are provided glimpses into their everyday activities, but the film is not a detailed study of their lives. Rather, it is a testament to their culture, focusing on the music and dance they have created and which have made them unique.

Mr. Gatlif portrays the nomadic groups in a positive way. However, we also witness the rejection, distrust, and alienation they receive from the non-Romany population. It seems that the culture they have developed over countless generations, and inspired from diverse countries, will fade into oblivion because conventional society has no place for nomadic ways.

The other films in the trilogy are Les Princes (1983) and Gadjo Dilo (1998).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a tapestry, a series of portraits of Rom communities woven together by music. It's very much a musician's film, because of the paucity of spoken dialogue - and what dialogue there is, is not important to the structure of the narrative. Some might expect a National Geographic tale of \"customs, dress, and music\" or a plot-line orbiting a few central characters - don't look for that here.

This is because it paints a portrait of a family of peoples, rather than telling a story of individuals. The plot is the story through space (India to Andalucia) and\/or\/ time (we cannot tell) of a people. There is no need of narration. You get a sense of a joyous people, strongly linked in small communities where social interaction is very important. And a great sense of sadness in parts, at their rejection by society at large.

So it's a paean to Rom culture, very beautifully shot, with a wide spectrum of Rom music, and a sting in the tail which is the oppression these people have faced, and still face.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I ended up liking this movie but it was not the easiest to get through. What makes the movie great is the music and the scenery. The songs are beautiful and the musicians are talented. A great job was done to show different settings for the Rom people.

However, the viewer was not guided enough. A more in depth history of the Rom people would have been nice. Only a fraction of the of the spoken words were given English subtitles. In addition, more explanations about the settings and who was their and some of their challenges would have been appreciated too. It would have helped if there were a narrator too explain about customs, dress and music.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My girls 4 and 6 love this show. We stumbled across it on a PBS station and they always ask when its on now. It reminds them of their Grandma that takes care of them everyday in the summer. Its funny too and sometimes they can't stopped talking about one scene or another. I would definitely recommend this show to all young kids. It is very clean and shows you to slow down and its not about watching TV all day long. When Nana reads a story it is slow and she talks about each page with Mona. It reminds me to slow down when I read the next book to my girls at bedtime and talk about the book instead of going through it quickly just to get them to sleep.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We stumbled across this show one Sunday morning at 6:30 a.m. while flipping through all of the cable channels and this turned out to be best show on! It is absolutely adorable. We need shows like this for children (and adults, as I'm certainly way beyond my childhood years.) As one of the other commentaries pointed out, this show benefits from the simplicity of the characters and story lines. The puppets are fantastically cute, the backgrounds are colorful and even though they are created out of cardboard, foam, paint, and pure imagination, they remind us of our own childhoods, when we could spend the day at our own grandma's house, exploring the world around us. For those who never were lucky to have a grandma as nice as Nana, this show is for you, you'll make up for lost time! This show is a true inspiration and filled with cleverness and humor and just outright fun, for children and adults alike. In other words, don't overlook this show, just because you're over the age of three! Spend a half hour with Mona, Nana, Mr. Wooka, and Russell, they'll be friends you look forward to seeing!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This would definitely not have been my kind of movie, but my husband saw it on TV and said it was really good. So, on his recommendation, I bought a copy, since I didn't know if it would ever be on TV again. I had never heard of anybody in it except Armand Assante. At first I had a hard time getting into the story, because the first part of the movie is a jumble of images-- and it doesn't make much sense. It is only later in the movie that it all comes together. The scene-cutting- if that's what it's called, is a bit jarring-- it sometimes looks as if a few frames have been cut out of each scene, and the scenes are jerky--but I guess that was done to add to the unusualness (if that's a word). The story veers here and there, and just about the time you have it all figured out, everything turns upside down and you have to readjust your thinking as to who is the bad guy and who is not. Or bad woman. The acting is very good-- I kept thinking how much Norman Reedus looks like Leo Decaprio. The ending was a real twist, totally unexpected, which I liked. A good show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not having heard of this film, it came as a surprise when it was shown on cable recently. Gary Ellis, the gifted director of \"Tough Luck\", does wonders with the screen play written by Bill Boatman and Todd King. The film involves the viewer from the start.

Archie, the young hustler at the center of this story, has been involved in all kinds of petty crime. In fact, we witness a confrontation right at the beginning which makes him get out of New Orleans, as fast as he can. He ends up in the carnival that is run by the mysterious Ike. Archie falls for Davina, the woman he should have been wise to stay away from. The result proves a fatal judgment for Archie who then becomes the object of double crossing all around.

The director should be commended by the casting of Norman Reedus, who obviously is loved by the camera. In spite of his nature, one feels for him because we know his heart is in the right place. The beautiful Dagmara Dominczyk is perfect as the exotic dancer Divana who, in spite of being Ike's lover, entices Archie into falling heads over heels with her. Armand Assante is barely understandable with the thick accent he speaks during the first half of the film.

\"Tough Luck\" shows a new director, Gary Ellis, showing he will go to do bigger and better things because he knows what he is doing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Didn't really know what to expect from this movie-and found myself being pleasantly surprised. I picked it up because I recently stumbled across Norman Reedus and am trying to find more of the films that he's been in.

I'm not big into hustler movies or con movies, but I have to say, this one roped me in within minutes. Probably because I couldn't quit figure out exactly who was hustling who. This movie is stylish and fast-paced, with a story that is believable thanks to location and fantastic performances.

While I was impressed with most in the film, I must say Dagmara Dominczyk was simply excellent.

Give it a chance-it's a really fun film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This one surprised me.

I read a few reviews beforehand that called it a good B-grade movie and was prepared for the worst. Halfway through it I suddenly realised I was completely wrapped up in it and enjoying it a lot. There were some really tense moments that had you sitting forward fiddling nervously with the remote control or any other object in reach. Overall this movie definitely doesn't deserve the B-grade tag.

Credit must be given to Director, Gary Ellis and writers, Bill Boatman & Todd King for their movie debut. I hope these guys continue with bigger budgets and some studio backing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like Armand Assante & my cable company's summary sounded interesting, so I watched it, twice already, and probably will again.

The early part is difficult to follow, but later it clears up. I believe the screenwriter did a good job of tying up the loose ends.

Some of the acting is unconvincing, but maybe that's because I was always expecting some kind of double-cross. In that case, the poor acting would be the insincerity of the characters interacting with each other, so it fits very well.

The important theme is the carnival owner (Assante) is laundering money for a local casino & his snake-charmer wife (Dagmara Dominczyk) wants to steal it. She complains to \"Archie\" (Reedus) how terrible her life is, and how he could help her get out of it.

There are 3 or 4 plot twists (which is probably the reason for all of those loose ends), and just when you think you have solved the mystery, something else will happen.

My 8\/10 score is mostly for the plot.

I won't say any more - I don't like spoilers, so I don't want to be one, but I believe this film is worth your time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a quirky heist\/caper film, one that seems predictable at first then keeps surprising until the last scene. The protagonist is a grifter who goes to work in a little carnival, where he's paid to kill the manager's belly dancer wife Divana then ends up falling for her himself. She's alluring, tricky and deadly and she keeps disappearing and popping up again like some sort of magician's trick. The film's other props include her duplicitous husband\/employer (played by the talented Armand Assante), some nasty Dominican mobsters and most important to the plot, a suitcase full of money. Just like the old \"shell game,\" the one where you have to guess which one the pea's under, you'll be guessing who's got the money, and like the victims of the hucksters who run such games, you'll probably guess wrong. Dagma Dominczyk, as lovely Divana, is a talented performer and an eyeful, whether she's dancing with the huge snake around her shoulders or working her grift on all the unfortunate men in her orbit. Norman Reedus is fine as the young con who is flummoxed by the elusive beauty he was paid to kill. Don't count him out, however, for he turns out to be smarter than anyone gave him credit for. This oddball film is worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie on HBO and I had a good time.

The director has done a great work. I found myself totally absorbed into this movie once it started. Norman Reedus's performance is cool. I expect more chilling movies from him.

I was so absorbed that on occasions I wanted to grab gun from Norman and shoot that snake girl. Hehe. I like the movies when innocent looking girls play tricks with men really cunningly. The ending was what I wanted :))

This movie is filled with twists of moments. You expect this but something else happens.

In the beginning, those massive images cut scenes were really painful to eyes.

Although it was not shown when Norman Reedus changed currency notes? Or is it me standing by fridge. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"TOUGH LUCK follows a homeless drifter as he becomes entangled in the underground crime world of deception and chaos. Archie(Norman Reedus) has been released from prison and has nothing to lose. He is almost killed before the owner of a carnival named Ike(Armand Assante) hires him for work. Soon Ike discloses a strong desire for Archie to murder his mischievous wife, Divana(Dagmara Dominczyk), an erotic dancer for the Carnival. Things soon get complicated when Archie falls in love with Divana and warns her of the scheme. They become involved in a very steamy affair that leaves little to the imagination of the viewer, after which they soon make a plan. Together they plot to murder Ike, but things don't go quite as planned.

I would be lying if I said that this film didn't surprise me. I was, personally, blown away by how good this film was. Upon renting it several years back, I was expecting another clich\u00e9 thriller with a lot of the typical elements and themes that are shown in a lot of films of that type these days. Within minutes I was hooked and found myself quite involved with the world of this film. It's the kind of film, much like BUFFALO '66, that just sucks you in and transports you into the style and the feeling of paranoia. It is a film that really pulls it off in stunning fashion. One thing I particularly appreciated was how the film depicted it's characters. The film isn't as easy and clear cut as it may appear in the plot summary. These are characters that you actually grow to care about and are fascinated by, including the characters that are supposed to be the bad guys. In truth, there are no good guys or bad guys in this film. All of the characters are flawed in ways that are realistic and incredibly true-to-life. There aren't many films that manage to accomplish this task as flawlessly as this film does, but it's definitely a film style that I like and I want to see more of from films today. There were quite a few crime films that were like that back in the early 50s, but there hasn't been one as gripping and unique as this ever since!

In terms of flaws, I have mostly very minor gripes. The film itself isn't exactly original. However, I doubt that most folks would expect it to be original. The film's editing style also may be irritating to some folks as it tends to have a camcorder type of shaky cam throughout. While I wasn't bothered by it and actually felt that it added to the atmosphere, I'm sure most viewers will not be as enthralled by it and may find it generally off-putting. Despite the minor flaws, however, this is one of the most underrated films of the 2000s. It's so refreshing to get lucky and watch an unknown film that turns out to be good. It seems as if this film was a direct-to-video release, though this film is far better than that. Had it been put in theaters, it wouldn't have won any awards nor would it have been seen much, but it would have a lot more recognition than it has today. Recognition that this film deserves. TOUGH LUCK is an astounding, entertaining, and twisted neo-noir thriller with a real sense of class and style juxtapose and with enough substance to make the average moviegoer more than simply satisfied.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like a twisty country road, \"Tough Luck\" takes the viewer for a ride. There is nothing wrong with plot curves, as long as believability doesn't fly out the window. Unfortunately in the end the film does challenge an audience's belief tolerance. Nevertheless, it is easy to forgive this fault due to the superior acting, character development, and wonderful carnival atmosphere. Do not expect to like any of the characters. Armand Asante, Norman Redus, and Dagmara Dominczyk, play shady con-artists, not exactly the type of person easily admired. The double crosses come fast and furious, and the final cross is a bit of a stretch. Recommended. - MERK","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this movie on the Horror Channel and was quite impressed by the film's Gothic atmosphere and tone. As a big fan of all things vampire related, I am always happy to see a new variation of the vampire mythos, in this case, a ghoul-like creature residing in a Lovecraftian other dimension. The director has done a brilliant job of conveying the dark mood of the subject, using the decadent art scene as a backdrop to what is essentially a tale of love spanning time and space- the pure love of friendship opposed to the lust for blood and life by the vampires in the story. The characters in the story are transported to another dimension by the means of a mind-altering substance, where a shape-shifting vampire creature appears to grant them their hearts desires, whilst draining them of their life essence. There are some analogies to drug addiction and loss of control, and how this affects a group of friends in an artistic circle. I enjoyed watching the 2 main male characters in the story, Chris Ivan Cevic and Alex Petrovich, who were very attractive hunks, always a plus point in a vampire story for the female viewers! The special effects make up and creature effects were well done, and the set design of the vampire's dimension was very effective. All in all, an enjoyable take on vampire myths, and recommended for anyone who likes their vampires with some intelligence and not just action. The only thing missing to make it even better would have been a bit more eroticism and nudity, as it would have suited the plot and themes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't see why all the people are giving this film negative reviews?!?! I loved this movie! Bled is a form of abstract art, and if you don't appreciate art, I can see why you would not like this film. It was a great twist from the average, played out vampire movie. If you are looking for a fresh, new and ingenious new vampire movie, then this is for you. But if you want one of those turn into bats, wolves and melt in the sunlight movies, then go watch your old played out Dracula flicks. Sure, it is a bit on the low budget side, but they did a great job with the budget they had. I'm very happy that I found this movie, because I was about to give up on the vampire genre fro good. I thought this film was brilliant! I give 2 thumbs up to the writer, director and everyone involved in the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I gave this movies a 7 out of 10. I think the general dislike of this movie is due to people not really understanding the plot. If you think about the story line this movie actually makes perfect sense, it just doesn't ever give you a dumbed-down explanation. Its true that the special effects are sub-par and it appears semi low budget, but I think the originality of the plot keeps you drawn in. People say that the vampire genre is overdone and clich\u00e9d out, But with Bled, what you get is not your conventional vampire flick. Its a dream\/alternate reality story- line with a vampire\/eternal life spin on it. I loved it. The only thing that kept me from giving it a higher rating was the lack of special effects and that I personally dislike movies where most of the people have accents. But like I said earlier, if you really get the plot this is not a bad movie..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie thinking it was going to be absolutely horrible and was ready for all the corniness, bad special effects, etc. But, I was pleasantly surprised. Not to say that it's the best vampire movie I have ever seen, but it certainly isn't the worst. I liked the whole alternate reality\/dream state that played into the movie. The graphics were quite well for a straight to DVD movie and I liked the overall look of the film. I enjoyed the main character Sai. I usually end up hating the female leads but there was something about her that kept me interested. Yes, she does make some bad decisions, but that was to be expected. Yes, the other characters were stereotypical, but I was expecting that too. I don't know if I'd highly recommend this movie, but give it a chance and you might be pleasantly surprised. I'm putting this one on my guilty pleasures list.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Cherry\" tells of a naive, unmarried virgin who decides to have a baby but isn't quite sure how to go about it. This easy going little sleeper is full of quirky characters and tongue-in-cheek situational humor. Fresh, fun, mold breaking stuff, I happened to really enjoy this flick...for whatever that's worth. Recommended for lovers of romantic comedy who want something different.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's true that this is not realistic story, but romantic comedy is not a genre that I look to for realism. What counts is that the characters are likeable and, as needed, sexy. Shalom is beautiful and relaxed and Jake Weber is handsome in an offhand kind of way. They have enough chemistry to make the story believable in the area that counts, sexual attraction. I would love to see either of them in another movie. And yes, the clown is pretty cute too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"L'OSSESSA, also known as THE TORMENTED or THE SEXORCIST, or the ridiculously titled THE EERIE MIDNIGHT HORROR SHOW, is a forgotten EXORCIST rip-off which contains one of the best horror moments I've ever seen. The scene is when the crucifix comes alive. This great spooky scene is unforgettable and totally effective (great FXs). It's a shame the rest of the movie doesn't maintain the level of creepiness exemplified during that scene.

This is one of the most frustrating movies ever. Imagine the producers deciding to to make an EXORCIST copy but while making it, they actually succeed in creating something truly original (a possessed sculpture of crucified man, which is shocking when you think about it) but then completely forgets their original idea in order to make a boring and uninspired EXORCIST rip-off. Had the film continued with the possessed sculpture concept (with the characters trying to destroy it, etc), this film would have rocked. But once the girl becomes possessed by the spirit of the sculpture, she never tells anyone from where the demon came from. She, and the script, completely forgets the haunted crucifix, which is STUPID!!!

If you like so-called \"Euro-cult\" movies, the first 45 minutes deliver unlike any other Euro-cult movies. But after the scene when the girl has a vision of being crucified and she gets stigmatas, the remaining 45 minutes SUCK. Boring. It goes nowhere fast as it tries to emulate (badly) THE EXORCIST. So, watch the first 45 minutes of L'OSSESSA and enjoy the 1970s fashions, the sleaze and the amazing statue-comes-alive-to-ravish-the-girl scene but after the first 45 minutes, press stop and eject, and might as well go clip your toenails.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Italian soft X Exorcist clone.

Woman buy statue of crucified thief. Said thief comes to life and turns out to be the Devil with rape fantasies.

Ivan Rassimov plays the Devil brilliantly. Mostly due to his gift of evil looks. And Because he was never above doing nudity. Good on him.

The actress in the lead did a decent job. Her wide eyed innocence and the fact that she looked great naked helped.

This one has a similar plot element to most Italian horror films. The girl's parents are filthy rich, and depraved. Watch it to get the details.

Laura Gemser's husband, Gabriel Tinti, also appears as a random stud. His part is basically phoned-in, but like a cheap beer, it did the job.

Fault the director for its failings. This could have been a horror\/sex classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"L'Ossessa\" (released in English under many titles and the eeriest of them certainly is \"The eerie midnight horror show\") is one of the best Italian rip-offs of \"The Exorcist\". To really appreciate this film you should have a sense of humor. \"L'Ossessa\" is at the same time sleazy (but naive), pathetic and sometimes even moving.

Danila (Stella Carnacina), an art student, goes to an old church to see the statue she's going to restore. It's a wooden statue of Christ, a demonic Christ, maybe already overcome by evil, or fighting against it, or perhaps planning dark deeds. The face shows infinite torment. The statue dates from the 15th century. Danila is impressed by the mastery shown by the sculptor - the statue seems almost alive! She lives with her parents. Her mother Luisa (Lucretia Love) lives a dissolute life and doesn't care too much for keeping up appearances. Her father Mario (Chris Avram) observes everything with disenchanted eyes.

The wooden statue will soon assume a human form (Ivan Rassimov) and possess Danila in the carnal and spiritual sense. An amazing scene! The poor Danila, from now on, will suffer the torments of hell.

Danila (the lovely Stella Carnacina) was ravished, violated, possessed by the devil and now following his orders, she will try to seduce others. Ain't she emulating her sleazy mother Luisa (Lucretia Love) who feels great pleasure when her lover whips her with a bunch of roses? There is a scene so ridiculous as to be sublime and moving, when Stella Carnacina runs in despair through the narrow streets (possessed by the devil, remember?) of a small Italian town screaming her heart out. Luigi Pistilli is a very good exorcist. His performance is, as usual, intense. The exorcism scenes (particularlly the final battle) are very, very amateurish, but this will only enhance the fun (and\/or emotion?) if you've really got a sense of humor.

Stella Carnacina is beautiful and looks fresh and innocent, and that's a factor that adds to your pleasure when she's naked, but I think that the film could have explored more her natural beauty. Lucretia Love is a very good sleaze companion (her nude scene with the roses... well.:)

Other Italian exorcist rip-offs I would like to recommend for you are:

Malabimba (very sleazy and released uncut and digitally restored)

\"Evil Eye\" (Malocchio) - \"The Exorcist\" was the main source of inspiration for \"Evil Eye\", but others films, like, for instance, \"Rosemary's Baby\" should also be taken into account. \"Evil Eye\" is completely over the top. Not that sleazy but with plenty of gorgeous Italian and Spanish actresses. You'll be drooling all over the film. The film is ridiculous, the story doesn't make any sense, but if you see it in the right mood you might feel moved! - a diabolical sect, possession, murders, despair, love, investigation and beautiful women all around. A wild ride!

If you liked \"Evil Eye\", see also \"Ring of Darkness\" (Un'Ombra nell'ombra). This film can be found in the alternative market. Search this title in the IMDb. There are good reviews about it.

P.S. - \"L'Ossessa\" has many different faces. It's exploitative, but it can also be serious and moving. It's cheap, cheesy... sleazy (but not that much) and it has an underlying \"moral\" message. This strange brew can sometimes be very funny. We all already know that \"L'Ossessa\" is an \"Exorcist\" rip-off so why can't we see it on its own terms? Yes, Mario Gariazzo was trying to earn a fast buck, but he was able get the most out of a shoestring budget. The story is well told, the film is atmospheric and overall the actors are committed to their roles. See the film with an open mind and you may discover two or three new things.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surprisingly good film made in the wake of the Exorcist concerning a young woman who becomes possessed by a spirit after she goes to a de-sanctified church to restore a life size and life like crucified man . The piece was Christ and the two thieves, however Christ was long ago sold off. Trouble starts once the figure is removed from the cross and it seems to come to life and seduce the woman. From that point on it becomes a battle for the girls soul. Creepy, scary and much better than you think the film works because its cast sells the events which are decidedly adult. It helps that these are real people who are flawed so its easier to relate to them. I really liked this film, and seeing it again for the first time in at least a decade I was shocked at how good it is. Definitely better than any of its myriad of schlocky titles makes it seem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have read a couple of reviews of this film, which has recently been released on DVD by Eclectic. Apparently, the opening titles are letterboxed, but the remainder (most) is full-screen. The first release, in 1982 by Planet Video, is completely letterboxed. Though it was a primitive release, it did get the compositions right. Later releases had sharper and better picture quality, but they were fullscreen as the DVD is. Any release of this film should be letterboxed, as it adds significantly to the visual experience of the old Planet tape.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Prepare to meet your Messiah - they call him Masten Thrust. Male role models have become increasingly difficult to find in today's overexposed society. Every other day an apparent role model is forced to tearfully apologize for a youthful indiscretion or he innocently gets a few youngsters drunk on his ranch. The Last Dinosaur is the story of the last great hunt of Masten Thrust, an old, grizzled, big game hunter who serves as role model supreme. Despite his haggard features and bulbous nose, the females, including Joan Van Ark, are attracted to him like Meatloaf is to cheesy lyrics. Thrust is openly sexist and makes no apologies for his elaborate lifestyle, which includes a red kerchief and a private jet with a working fireplace.

Thrust embarks on a mission to find and hunt the last dinosaur on earth when ironically, after a rich full life, he is truly the last dinosaur. Despite his propensity for yelling at everyone in his presence, his employees and lady friends are unwaveringly loyal to him. He may act as though he's perpetually drunk, but make no mistake, if he calls you a 'Ding Dong' you are a 'Ding Dong'.

Not to be denied his own ballad, Thrust's song shamelessly praises him and his manliness. A sampling of lyrics includes: \"Few men have ever done, what he has done, or even dreamed, what he has dreamed\/Few men have even tried, what he has tried, most men have failed, where he's prevailed\/The world holds nothing new in store for him, and things that startle you and me, are just a bore to him\/Few men have ever lived, as he has lived, or even walked, where he has walked'. Even BMTG banned artist Clay Aiken could belt out those lyrics and become an rump-kicking machine.

Thrust and his crew of scientists strap themselves into the 'Polar Borer' wearing mini bike helmets, though Thrust affords himself the luxury of the red kerchief around his neck. The giant human filled drill bit digs through the earth and ice to come popping out into a lagoon. Dinosaurs from the air and land soon descend upon the scientists forcing Thrust and crew to run for their lives. After narrowly escaping a charging dino, Masten lays back and blasts out a hearty laugh, not so much to celebrate life but to acknowledge 'the game is afoot'.

Soon after, it is little surprise that we see a few slightly hunched over cavemen sneaking peeks at their visitors. Thrust, not content with simply killing a dinosaur, decides then to make it his mission to bag a cave broad. Throughout the movie, the lone T-Rex contradicts the belief that dinosaurs have a brain the size of a peanut. Despite its enormous size, the local T-Rex is able to sidle up next to its victims virtually unnoticed. With the element of surprise, T-Rex simply crushes a scientist or two and loots the campsite. Every so often the bloated and cagily faced Thrust is seen yelling at someone, shooting at something or flirting with a primitive J-Lo in manly fashion.

Thrust is like James Tiberius Kirk, not only in his addiction to love, but also when is comes to making complicated weapons using limited natural resources in a short period of time. Thrust and the remaining crew members construct a highly accurate catapult that flings a large boulder into the skull of the cunning T-Rex. Upon realizing that even he, Masten Thrust, cannot top this addition to his trophy case, Thrust decides to stay in his prehistoric surroundings. The ever-dwindling crew then leaves Thrust to live out his days with his lovely, although a bit gamely, cavewoman and introduce her to his personal collection of STDs. This is only a brief synopsis of a movie so complicated and rich in BMTG tradition that it takes several viewings to absorb its message and realize that Masten Thrust is the answer. The press conference, complete with a yelling Thrust, mumbling reporters, and the introduction of the great Bunta, is a classic moment. Also look for a body, resembling a dead Ricky Schroeder, lying on some logs, and the most powerful use of someone being called a 'Ding-Dong' in cinematic history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Last Dinosaur was one of those \"out of nowhere\" movie-of-the-week films in the 1970's that was pretty exciting for the time especially to fans of Japanese Tokusatsu films. Originally slated for a theatrical release (around when the Dino King Kong was out in the previous December) it was suddenly pulled and made into a Friday Night ABC Movie of The Week. Rankin Bass-who were no strangers to Japanese co-productions were the guns behind this production, co-produced with Tsuburaya Productions of Japan-the people who brought us Ultraman in various forms. Starring mostly an American cast including the late Richard Boone, Joan Van Ark and the late Steven Keats, it told the tale of a prehistoric pocket of time in what was a superheated volcanic caldera somewhere at the frozen arctic circle, containing dinosaurs. It plays a lot like the films The Land Unknown(1956) and The Land That Time Forgot(1975) in feel and pace. Sure the dinosaurs were guys in suits(A Triceratops with front knees!) but they were filmed in such a way, the music and score was so well done, and the cast did a fine job that this didn't matter much to many of us brought up on Godzilla. The film has a lot of class to it, from the opening score by Nancy Wilson \"The Last Dinosaur\" to the overall \"big\" feeling of the film-the locations at hot springs in Northern Japan were excellent and lush- and the undeniable feeling of Kaiju Eiga to it. There are some amazing set pieces-the T-Rex's \"bone yard\" and a tracking shot that takes us deep into the jungle to see the T-Rex eat a giant fish from a stream. Tsuburaya's FX people did their job in style here and aside from a few dodgy matte shots, they do their job well. This film is considered the best 1970's \"kaiju\" film from Japan, even over the five Godzilla films made during that decade. Rankin Bass did several other co-productions with Tsuburaya providing the creatures or miniatures- The Bermuda Depths(1978) and The Ivory Ape(1980)-but neither measured up to the epic look of this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Stupidly beautiful. This movie epitomizes the 'so bad it's good' genre of films.

The only two talents in it are Richard Boone and Joan van Ark, and only Boone is any good. It's kind of sad that the man who rose to fame as Paladin should wind up in this ugly pile of celluloid. While he turns in a fantastic performance, I couldn't help but feel that he so outclassed all his fellow actors in this piece that he shouldn't even have been there.

The effects in this film are laughable, but fun. The idea of a dinosaur being buried in the wall of a cave and suddenly coming to life is B-movie gold. When the 'triceratops' gets killed, watch how it falls. It's clear that the stunt performer in the FRONT of the costume knows the timing best. He falls to the ground, well before the back half of the dinosaur follows suit.

Speaking of 'suits', there is nothing good to say about the purple tyrannosaur, in this flick. It seems to have some kind of stealth technology, since Bunta (reputed to be the best tracker in the world) twice fails to notice it until it's within biting range of him. I don't know how all the prints are, but in the version I own, the Tyranno's roar contains Godzilla's trademark bellow.

This is loads of fun, to watch, if you like bad movies. I love them, and especially bad monster movies, so I consider this the gem of my collection. If bad movies are your thing, definitely get this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Last Dinosaur is a film that is meant to be fun and exciting. It succeeds at doing both.

Maston is a big game hunter who hunts big game(go figure). Owning a company he is planning on going on an expedition with a group of people including a photographer named frankie, a Japanese scientist, a guy who works for his company named Chuck, and an African guy who has aided him on many safari's named Bun Ta. The point is to study what is believed to be Tyrannosaurus Rex, dinosaur that killed the last expedition to the area. They will be getting to this prehistoric area taking a drilling vehicle that travels underwater called the Polar Borer. After getting to the area they soon find the Tyrannosaurus, which Maston tries to shoot but his gun gets jammed. Chuck immediately senses that Maston wanted to hunt the dinosaur all along to add it to his collection of \"Stuffed Animals\". WHile they were away, Tyrannosaurus invades their camp and takes the Polar Borer away from their camp. Upon returning the group realizes that they may be in the area longer than they expected and Maston states that he will kill the Tyrannosaurus.

THe story is great for a science fiction film. Drilling to a prehistoric area is something that seems could really happen. The scenery is beautiful and it looks like a place where dinosaurs could still reside.

Also I liked the characters in this film. Maston is the typical big time hunter who wants to get anything that could be a trophy kill. Also great was Bun Ta, played by Luther Rackley formerly of the NBA, who really looks and acts like an African tracker. Jackie is the typical female who causes problems for the group and seems to not belong in the wilderness. Chuck is the former employee of Maston who has his view of his boss change when he is in the wild with him.

The Tyrannosaurus in this film is one of the best in a film. It stands a little too up-right like Godzilla does and it drags its tail, so it is a guy in a suit. But the suit looks good, especially the head and the tail, and the Tyrannosaurus looks good and very scary. I have seen plenty of other films where dinosaur suits look way worse. Tyrannosaurus in this film sometimes emits a roar sounding like Godzilla's and other times roars like King Kong from \"King Kong Escapes\" and \"King Kong vs Godzilla\". SO a great Tyrannosaurus.

There is plenty of action in The Last Dinosaur. Of particular note is a great fight between Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops. Also a great scene where Bun Ta tries to spear the Tyrannosaurus. There are other great parts that I wont give away. You have to see for yourself.

I recommend this film to everyone. Watch it and you will not be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i was 9 when i first saw this on TV. on a Friday night. i remember the full page ad in the TV guide with the picture of the Rex. amazing how some things stick in your mind after 30 years. Anyway if your a kid who likes monster movies this one is entertaining enough especially with boone and Keats raging at each other. Special effects are no harryhausen but its worth the hour and a half if you find it somewhere on late night TV. Haven't seen it in a few years for some reason these classics fade from cable TV. If you do catch it on late night don't be too critical just grab some snacks and enjoy it. it might be cheesy but i thought it was a lot better than the kong remake that came out in the theaters a year before.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once a wise man from India once said, \"First they will laugh at us. Then they will hate us. Then they will fear us.\" Know that yes this film's budget was a bit off, but even then with its story still takes our interest many yrs later, regardless of how it may have looked. But know soon, in due time \"Masten Thrust\" will arise to the big screen once again. Then he and the new redesigned T-Rex will more then shock you. It will scare many for centuries to come!! This film is in current pre-production and will be nothing like anything you have ever seen before!

This will be beyond THX format.....right into 4-DX format.

\"Be afraid, be VERY afraid!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I guess this is the first movie that made me aware of the term \"cult flick\". It is totally a bad movie, but I can't help it, I like this movie. Richard Boone has made better and so has Joan Van Arc, but if you are in to staying up late and watching movies that don't make you think to much this one is for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great cult flick for MST-3K types: Richard Boone is a mess -- bad hair, arthritis, even his dark glasses aren't right; about as good as a bad dino-flick can get... actually, that charging saber-toothed Styracosaurus was pretty cool -- maybe Spielberg should take a couple of notes from that one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is kind of good. It seem that they used the Tyrannosaurus Rex like a blown up balloon, just like Godzilla, just maybe back in those 60-70's days, scientist haven't got enough info. on all sorts of dinosaurs. Back in those time scientist still making dinosaur, so I guess this movie was base on a Tyrannosaurus Rex movements back in the 60-70's. There even a part where a giant rock, fired by someone at the Tyrannosaurus Rex, it damage the Tyrannosaurus Rex and it was knock out for a little while. At the end, the Tyrannosaurus Rex went back to search for food. There is something wrong in the movie as well, like a rifle, how can one rifle kill a Tyrannosaurus Rex, when it could be 1,000-5,000 stronger than we are. If this film going to make a remake, I suggest make it more good and excited, because watching a old movie seems like to have a remake of it, if lucky.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not sure if these other people saw the movie - some apparently couldn't follow the \"complicated plot\". He's a billionaire who owns an oil company who ALSO happens to big game hunt - wow - that's really far fetched. Any way - his new \"drilling machine\" happens to break through a glacier and on the other side is a world seperated from our own time where dinosaurs and cavemen wander around. Nothing ground breaking about this but it certainly isn't ludicrous. Anyway the rest of the movie is about this T-Rex they find (which the billionaire, Boone, claimed was there) hunting them and them hunting it. Look - it's an old made for TV movie - of course the special effects look cheesy - they didn't have CG - they did the best they could and for a MFTVM they did a hell of a job for the time. This movie should be remade for the big screen - I'd love it and I'd be the first one in line. Seeing that Dinosaur with modern day special effects stalking those guys would be great!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I LOVED this movie. Not as great as \"50 First Dates\", but it's definitely a repeater, especially on a rainy day or with a group of girlfriends. Yes, the plot was \"cute\" and maybe even unbelievable, but what's so bad about a feel good movie. Drew as Josie and her romance with the teacher is so sweet and brother baseball wannabee adds to the movie's good feeling. With all the junk out there, what's so bad about a good movie the whole family can enjoy? Without being embarrassed while watching with your kids! Drew is an awesome actress that really seems to be unappreciated for the most part. This is definitely one of her best roles!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this movie more than any other shows what a great actress Drew Barrymore is because she plays a ugly duckling in high school which is something I never imagined her being. A great flick with lots of laughs . I don't usually go for those feel good movies but I really enjoyed this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a truly hilarious film and one that I have seen many times. Drew Barrymore is brilliant as Josie Geller, as is David Arquette as her brother. You cringe with embarrassment at the thought of her returning to high school as the film is a reminder of what high school was really like! Her outfits are wacky and weird, and it brings back memories of those who dressed a bit differently! The gorgeous Michael Vartan was adorable as the teacher (wish there had been teachers like that when I was at high school!) and Josie's boss is fantastic. This is a film you could watch again and again, with a fabulous sound track! One for all those at school in the 90's to watch!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very sadly, I can relate to this movie, as I'm 17, and have yet to be kissed, so I really feel for Josie. It's been a while since seeing this film, but to write this review I re-watched it, and remembered everything I loved about it.

Drew Barrymore is a great actress, and this role suited her really well at the time. The chemistry between Sam and Josie was really good, and Michael Vartan was an excellent actor in this.

I loved the storyline too - as i said up there, I could relate, and it's rare you find a film you can completely relate to.

All over - I loved it. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't say that I embrace this as a Romantic Comedy, as I found little funny about it. I did find it endearing, entertaining, heartwarming, and terminally sweet, and while there were some witty moments, I found them more bittersweet than outright comedic.

I liked this one. Barrymore has grown so much as an actress, and it's always wonderful to catch her on the big screen, but this translates well to the small screen, too. In fact, on subsequent viewings, I like this one more and more.

If you're a fan of the Romantic Comedy, then you may be a bit put off by lack of comedic effect with this one, but if you're in it for the romance, it's definitely here to be found.

It rates a 7.8\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this when it first came out and have seen it several times since. I have the DVD. It's one of Drew Barrymore's best works and one that is worth seeing more than once.

Not being popular in high school was one f the things in the film I could relate to. I wasn't quite as tortured as Josie was (during her real high school days) or like Aldys, but I was never the go- to-the-major-party type either. The prom scene were the three popular girls fall victim to their own prank as Josie pushes way Aldys (the intended victim) is my favorite scene and I clapped when I first saw it.

I can still watch this movie today. it is excellent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Never Been Kissed gives Drew Barrymore the chance to do something that maybe 70% of us would like to do. Go back to high school and make some necessary corrections. Actually the first time for me was bad enough and at my age I doubt I could pull it off the way Drew does.

Of course the reason could also be that once we leave high school it's like leaving a cocoon and we have to deal with the great big unfriendly world out there. I've known a few in my life who would go back and stay if they could. In fact there is a Law and Order episode which explores the dark side of this same situation. A girl looking young enough to pull it off, goes through high school at least three times and kills the person who stumbles on her secret.

With Drew though it's an assignment. She's a copy editor for the Chicago Sun Times who yearns to be a reporter. Publisher Garry Marshall who plays the part like Donald Trump took over the Sun Times gets this brilliant idea and just sees in Barrymore a young enough looking person to pull off the masquerade.

High School the first time was bad enough. Drew was not the most popular then and she's not doing better the second time around. That is until brother David Arquette also goes back to school and helps her over the rough patches.

Of course this raises a whole lot of issues for Drew, peer pressure from two sources, job and school. What's a girl to do?

Never Been Kissed is a light and charming comedy which to its credit skips over the opportunity to be crassly exploitive and gives us some good entertainment. Drew is very funny and sweet and her performance in moments of stress for her character moves nicely into pathos. Michael Vartan as her English teacher is the kind I wish there were more of in the education field and Leelee Sobieski and Jessica Alba play a pair of the empty headed cool kids that Drew tries so desperately to hook up with.

Still it doesn't inspire me to return to Midwood High School.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Never been kissed starring Drew Barymore as Reporter Josie Gellar is a sweet, extremely sappy and sometimes quite painful tale of a timid woman named Josie Gellar who though brilliant is quiet and shy and has never been kissed by a man. She is assigned her first major news story for the newspaper she works for-to go undercover as a high school student befriend the popular cool kids and get a scoop as to what really goes on in the world of high school. Only problem is Josie has never been popular. High School was in fact, a traumatizing experience for her as she was the recipient of quite a lot of teasing and cruel jokes. Josie grabs this assignment, as much to finally \"fit in\" as to get a scoop-what she finds is the major premise of the story.

Never been kissed is one of those movies that's so sappy and schmaltzy at times, particularly in a few scenes at the end that the limits of believability are sorely tested and many a cynic may not like this movie. It is however, very sweetly done. Drew Barymore is perfect as the bumbling yet lovely Josie-she breathes a breath of fresh air into the character and makes her appear perfectly realistic. I also enjoyed Leelee Sobiesky as the intellectual student who befriends Josie on her first day at the school.

Never been kissed has some really funny moments as Josie unravels in her frantic efforts to be cool. Example-the reggae bar scene.I also loved the appearance of Josie's brother Rob who also goes back and signs up as a high school student, the way that he helps to give Josie her \"dream\" of finally fitting in is just hilarious. At the same time, as Josie's woeful story of her original years in high school are shown in flashback it is extremely painful. You do not need to have had similar experiences in high school to Josie to be affected by her story-Drew is wonderful at making her character have a personal connection with the audience and we adore Josie from the beginning.

there is a lot of \"mean girls\" a 2004 release, in this movie but mean girls honestly was a lot grittier. Never been kissed becomes very much a romantic pic as Josie develops feelings for a certain man and the question becomes will they get together.

I liked this movie. It was really beautifully done in some areas. The movie is corny in some places yes, the last scene-realistic-no way-does this movie manipulate your emotions in the most obvious Hollywood way? Oh yeah yeah yeah baby! But it manipulates beautifully, there are some lessons to be learned here. The movie never preaches but manages to paint an accurate picture of what high school was like for a select few. I have actually met people who have had similar experiences to Josie-I've met people very much like all these characters-I think a lot of people simply don't know or can't conceive of the cruelty that can exist in the world of high school, and how hurtful it can be, but it's there. Not unrealistic at all. What struck me was Drew's speech at the prom, as she demonstrates the \"sheep mentality\" that can exist so prevalently -as Hollywood and manufactured as many think that may be, it was well done and very true.

I'm making never been kissed sound a lot heavier then it is, in truth this is a perfect movie to pick when one wants a sweet feel good light heartwarming picture. It's engaging, sweetly acted and just Rufus. I'd say check it out. 8 of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie so much. It always makes me cry. If you appreciate Drew Barrymore half as much as I do, you'll love this movie. It's got all the essentials I look for in a movie. It has good actors, good characters, good humor...a lot of heart-warming moments too. The flash-back moments when we see Josie in high school make me cry though. Every single time. I'm sure you'll like this one, don't judge based on the fact that it looks like a teen movie, even though it is, in a way, a teen movie. Sure, if you're a guy, and all you watch are hardcore special effect movies only in the top 250 movies of all time, then this isn't for you. But if you like romantic comedies you will not forget after seeing it, pick it up at a video store and enjoy: Drew Barrymore is great in this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Josie is a reporter from a newspaper is set a task to go back to high school as she is going to be 17 again. .

As she is there, she remembers some really awful stuff thats happened to her the first time she was in Highschool as we see in flashback scenes.

In the flashback they show that (little spoiler) Josie was kind of a nerd in high school and was picked on a lot and one day the cool guy tells her that he is taking her to the prom, only on the prom night as she leaves her house she gets egged by the ass hole and his bitch. what a horrible thing to do (some will find this hard to watch as it so nasty and it will make you feel warmer to Josie).

I did not find this movie that funny but there was some really funny stuff in the office scenes a lot more funnier then anything that happened in the school.

This movie did have the perfect happy ending, as it did bring tears to my mum and sister eyes. The acting in this movie was not outstanding, it was good for the most part of the movie, there is some poor acting in some parts of the movie.

I going to give this movie 7 out 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was really awesome! One of Drew's best. I am also a fan of Michael Vartan so I thought he was so hot in this movie. Why all the bad reviews. I would want to watch this movie over and over again if I could. I also loved the ending. This movie clearly has shown a smile on my face! I was also surprised that James Franco and Jessica Alba were in it. I love them both so I also highlighted this movie. At the end, when Drew is making the huge comment about the truth it really told the truth of what sometimes happens in High School. Again, the movie was amazing. Defiantly a 10\/10. Hope this comment was very useful to any IMDb readers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie for a first time years ago, when it was still new and I was satisfied. It's a great Hollywood make-belief story for teenagers. However, it's not lifelike. As much as you would want to believe it, these stories never happen. That's why it is irritating to watch movies like that. They play with teenagers' minds, just imagine how many girls still in high schools believed in that magic and got disappointed. I wouldn't recommend this movie to my little sister or my cousin. The director should have spent some more time thinking about the plot instead of thinking about actors. Yes, they (actors) were good, but the idea isn't worth a 10. There are a lot of films about teenagers. So why don't we make a better one?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of course, really experienced reviewers who like stuff like Star Wars and professional crap will definitely drag this movie and say really bad comments about it. But really, it is enjoyable teen comedy with an awesome story and good acting.

Josie Gellar (played well by Drew Barrymore) is part of a news-reporting team and she has been offered a ('real') job - she has to go back to school and find out what teens are like these days. Well this goes alright, until Josie remembers her horrible time at High School and gets freaked out. But she's never been hip, never been cool, never been popular until now!

Sit back relax and enjoy with Never Been Kissed!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i love this movie. it focuses on both issues: reality and fantasy. reality because hey, we all wanted a date from that popular guy Billy. and some of us haven't been kissed yet, right? be honest!

another real issue is because of the pain people gain from teasing. and whoa, high school life. remember it? the fantasy is finding your true love, when you're 25 and still in high school. not really fantasy, but close enough!

although some parts are unbelievable, it was a great movie. there are no other words to describe such incredible work. and the story was wonderful. Drew Barrymore did a charmingly wonderful job, same as the hilarious David Arquette. the people who worked in the movie are all wonderful. didn't i just repeat that?

Never Been Kissed is one of the movies that the later generations should watch. it shows reality and some-not issues for people like you and me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is little more that I would like to say about this movie than it really can touch your heart if you let it. Sure, it's surrounded by all the stereotypical Hollywood stuff, but I found myself actually engrossed in this movie and very interested in the outcome. I'd recommend it to all you romantics out there in a second!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Never Been Kissed' is a real feel good film. If you haven't seen it yet, then rent it out. I am going to buy it when its released because I loved it. Drew Barrymore is excellent again, she plays her part well. I felt I could relate to this film because of the school days I had were just as bad. I thought the plot was well written, there was comedy and romance which are the type of films I love. I loved the ending because even though you know what's going to happen, it still leaves you sitting on the edge of your seat waiting - anticipating!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie turned out to be pretty much what I expected. Of course it's sappy, of course it's predictable. We all know the fairytale. But knowing that when you go to watch it, it's enjoyable enough to watch. It was funny and sweet. I did find it annoying that they showed geeks as either kids who didn't wash there hair or kids who loved math and joined clubs about math and wore T-shirts about math. I was an outcast in high school and I didn't do these things. It goes much deeper than that. Having to do with many things, some of that being how much money your family has, how much you are willing to hide your uniqueness and how mean you are willing to be to other kids. Anyway, I won't get into it. I don't agree with other opinions that Drew isn't convincing as a geek. With braces, no make-up and unwashed hair, I don't think too many people would be drooling over her. And even when she goes back to high-school and sheds those things. She's still wearing the \"wrong\" clothes, \"wrong\" hair and has the \"wrong\" attitude to be considered cool. And her other \"geek\" friend may be beautiful but it doesn't matter, where I come from, you can still be an outcast and be beautiful. (inside and out)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie may superficially appear to be flaky and for teenie-boppers. It seems to be the stereotypical high school movie. But in fact, it takes an honest and touching look at the high school experience. It doesn't propose some unrealistic ending where the geeks and the popular kids reconcile. It doesn't change what happened in adolescence; it just attempts to reckon with it. This is a really great, fun, heart-warming movie, good for teens and for those who can still remember being one...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was great, not only because of it's storyline but because it was portrayed greatly by the excellent cast. I read that Drew Barrymore wasn't exceptional as Josie Geller because she is beautiful. Yes she maybe but in the movie she played outside herself, which brought on a plain girl searching for who she is in the world. The story is sweet and definitely for the hopeless romantics out there, I for sure am. David Arquette is mad as her brother Rob, and Michael Vartan is gorgeous as Sam Coulson. Leelee Sobieski did an excellent job as her mate Aldys, someone who wasn't afraid to be herself. I think this movie should get more credit rather than being branded as a \"teeny boppy\" flick","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Drew Barrymore gets second chance at high school, on undercover assignment as newspaper reporter. In flashbacks, we see that the first time around was, to put it mildly, a major disaster. David Arquette is amusing in modest role as Drew's brother, who also enrolls to help out sis. Lots of subplots endanger but never overwhelm simple charm of movie. Drew keeps making her niche as major innocent-sexy light comic actress.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this movie for the second time with my 8-year-old daughter and I remembered why we liked it the first time. All these people who say it is bad are too uptight and critical! It is simply an entertaining little movie, it's not supposed to change the world. I thought all the actors did a great job with their characters. (Except for Jeremy Jordan as Guy--he was a maggot who looked seriously in need of soap and shampoo. If HE is supposed to be the hot guy in their school, then they've got slim pickins'.) But I digress--Drew Barrymore was delightful, as usual, and David Arquette was even enjoyable, and I usually can't stomach him, if only because of those STUPID AT&T commercials! Molly Shannon is always entertaining, and Leelee Sobieski did a great job as a tortured brain. Some parts were actually painful to watch, reminding me of high school. Even though I thankfully didn't get made fun of, it made my heart ache for those who do. Movies like this are actually good for children to see--my daughter made several observations about the cruelty of some of the students and how wrong it was. This movie is appropriate for anyone and a good way to while away 2 hours. If there's ever a time you want to see a lighthearted little movie with a happy ending where you don't have to think very much, then this is definitely a consideration.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Women will like this movie better than men. Of course, women like all romantic comedies more than men - on average. I generally like romantic comedies quite a bit, however I considered this a 5.5 for the first 50% of the movie and about a 6.5 for the next 40% and about a 9 for the last 10%. So, begrudgingly, I will rate it a 7. I tape and keep all movies rated a 7 or better and none that are a 6 or worse - at least that's my objective. I have over 1200 movies, so why keep the dogs.

My wife liked this movie quite a bit more than me, though I'm not sure why. I am a bigger Drew Barrymore fan than she is.

The whole point of this movie was about a young woman who goes back to high school (undercover) to write a story about the high school experience nowadays. She was a dork in high school the first time around and has to learn how to be cool the second time around. Her journey toward cooldom, as well as her falling in love with a teacher, is the story.

What drove me nuts for the first half the movie was just how mangy she looked. I wondered why they would pick her for this role until I realized how capable she is at looking like a dog. So much so that I truly don't think I want to see her in 15 years when she gets up in the morning. ARGH! Naturally, she transformed into a rather attractive (cute) woman by the end and she became very popular.

The ending is about a 9.9 on the very sweet scale, so you sappers out there will like that. Otherwise, it isn't very memorable and easily missable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing this movie, I came to the realization that Drew Barrymore is a great actress. This movie wouldn't have been watchable without Drew. The fact that somebody as attractive as Drew, could actually gross me out, and she did when she was \"Josie Grossie\". Her attempts to \"transition\" as the cool girls called it were hilarious, especially her trying to dance at the night club.

We also had SNL favorite, Molly Shannon, playing a great part as Anita, Josie's best friend. One of the funniest scenes in the movie was Anita trying to teach the class sex ed. This was one of Mollys funniest performances and best.

Leelee Sobieski also had a great part and I really felt for her, because I know people like her that got tortured like that.

This movie is a must see for Drew Barrymore fans, because Drew makes the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Drew Barrymore is such a great actress when it comes to these kind of movies. She stars wonderfully and gets away with the quirks and jokes. Romantic comedies like this suit her and I believe that she's done her best so far. Check out her other romantic comedies. You'll see what I mean.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"it doesn't matter whether drew or leelee are total babes, but there are a lot of girls who are so pretty and hot but they appear to be so nerdy. This movie is not oscar type of movie but it has at least a good point of view of what life is like for young people or for \"real\" people. It made us laugh and learn to accept others for who they really are. this movie represents the real world and that what really matters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that Never Been Kissed was a totally awesome movie. The casting was really good and they acted very well. I really like Drew Barrymore and of course for me it was excellent. I was scared at first because it said that it wasn't coming out on video. Boy, am I happy that it is because it's a beyond cool movie. Go see it if you already haven't!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are worse ways to spend an evening than watching this movie, although it IS a tad predictable. Drew Barrymore does a very good job of being the outcast nerd in this film - excellent casting choice. What I found a bit hard to believe is that the popular girls finally accept her - in my experience that crowd has a longer memory than that, and knowing how AWFUL Drew's character was (ostrich feathers?) at the start of the school year would have kept them miles away, regardless of what rumors her brother drums up. (And does \"Kole Slaw Food\" really make HIM all that popular? I doubt it). As for rooting for Drew's character to win big as a reporter - well, I would have hoped she could have come up with a story long before the prom. A bit contrived. Having said all that, it was a cutsie piece of fluff that will be entertaining as long as you don't expect too much.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm very surprised that so many people don't like this movie. I think it's a lot better than most of the teen films that have come out recently - Ten Things I Hate About You ( can we say teeny bopper film and what was with the principle writing those porno novels ? ), Cruel Intentions ( where a character gives up their virginity because of a fun car ride ), and She's All That ( mediocre ). If your looking for something that's just fun - I say go with Never Been Kissed. My mom loved it and she hates movies ( one of her favorites is BEACHES ). This is a great fantasy about what you would do different if you could go back to high school. People who were outcasts in high school will probably like this movie better. It reminds me of 'Romy and Michele's High School Reunion'. And the ending puts me in the best mood. Sure the plot has been done, but how many recent movies can you honestly say haven't been done in one form or another. The cast is also charming. And for those who think Drew can't be geeky - she pulls it off just great. Another good teen comedy that I recommend which was made recently is ELECTION but it's more of a satire on school and politics.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although little more than a pleasant 11-minute musical diversion (it's rightly billed as a \"Tabloid Musical\") EVERY Sunday is one of the most famous and precious documents in cinematic history, since it provides an invaluable look at the burgeoning talents of two of the screen's most talented and beloved musical performers: Deanna Durbin and Judy Garland.

Although often cited as an screen test of sorts, produced by MGM to test the adolescent appeal of studio contractees Durbin and Garland whose options were reportedly coming up for renewal, this assertion is not entirely accurate. By the time EVERY Sunday was produced in July, 1936, Deanna Durbin's contract with MGM had already lapsed and she had been immediately signed by Universal a month earlier, in June 1936.

However, a provision in Durbin's MGM contract permitted the studio to exercise an option on her services for up to sixty days, providing she had not yet begun work on a picture at her new studio. As Durbin's debut vehicle, THREE SMART GIRLS, was still not ready to begin filming, MGM chose to exercise its' option and, although officially under contract to Universal at the time, Durbin found herself back on the MGM lot filming this agreeable short subject with fellow adolescent singing hopeful, Judy Garland.

This, along with Garland's far more extensive prior professional performing experience\/training (which included appearances in several earlier movie shorts), may explain why EVERY Sunday often seems to favor Judy Garland over Deanna Durbin, giving Garland more lines to speak and an original song (\"Americana\") to sing, while Durbin offers the popular classical art song, \"Il Bacio\" by Luigi Ardiiti. Certainly, it would make perfect sense that MGM would want to favor one of its' own contract players over another from a rival studio.

Ironically, although Garland's character is the more overtly pro-active one of the two girls in this short, it would be Durbin's feisty and impulsive \"Little Miss Fixit\" screen persona at Universal which would propel her to instantaneous worldwide super stardom as the world's first \"Teen Idol\" with her debut vehicle, THREE SMART GIRLS, while Garland's more passive \"wistful wallflower\" adolescent image would see her generally cast in supporting roles opposite frequent screen partner Mickey Rooney and (in ZIEGFELD GIRL) the up-and-coming Lana Turner. Not until her fifteenth MGM feature, 1942' FOR ME AND MY GAL (which was also her first fully \"adult\" role) would Garland achieve the solo above-the title billing and \"solo attraction\" status of a true superstar that Durbin had attained instantaneously six years earlier.

It is entirely inaccurate, therefore, to assert that Garland was the only \"superstar\" attraction of the two girls, as Durbin attained this status with press 'n public, almost a decade before her MGM rival. Literally in foreclosure at the time of her signing, the on screen evidence strongly suggests that Universal was much quicker to realize Deanna's full superstar potential than MGM was with Judy, and it's worth noting that almost every notable accomplishment Garland achieved at MGM, from superstar billing, to having starring vehicles specially written to showcase her talents and appeal, to being invited to plant her footprints in the forecourt of Graumann's Chinese Theater, to receiving an \"Honorary\" Oscar\" in recognition for her talent, Deanna Durbin received well before her gifted MGM contemporary.

In any case, EVERY Sunday is a delightful, utterly unpretentious musical short. Its plot line (Durbin and Garland use their singing talents to save Durbin's grandfather from being forcibly retired by the town council from conducting his Sunday concerts in the park), presages the plot lines of both Garland's \"Let's Put On a Show\" musicals with Mickey Rooney and Durbin's 100 MEN AND A GIRL. Unlike Garland's later BABES films, the short never treats the insubstantial storyline seriously, and consequently, its' eleven minute running time flies by.

Of course, the true magic of EVERY Sunday is in observing the already remarkable performing talents\/screen presences of Durbin and Garland at the very beginning of their legendary careers. Both girls, even at this early stage, possessed remarkable screen presences and are utterly natural and unaffected in their presentation as both singers and actresses. Garland fairly explodes off the screen with vitality as she literally punches out the lyrics to the jaunty \"Americana.\" As she socks across the number with appropriate hand gestures, Judy literally seems to be chewing on the words of the song as she screws up her mouth and bugs out her eyes in her intense eagerness to show what she can do.

By contrast, Durbin's presentation of \"Il Bacio,\" is far more demure and subdued. Although entirely appropriate for her \"classical\" selection, Durbin's delivery of Arditi's waltz is much more of the traditional \"stand 'n sing\" variety than Garland's physically emotive turn. Nevertheless, though \"miniature diva\" Deanna does nothing to call attention to herself, with her candid eyes, dazzling smile and artless delivery, she easily holds the screen with \"jazz baby\" Judy, and their delightful duetting of \"Americana\" in the short's finale makes one regret all the more that producer Joe Pasternak was never able to realize his dream of pairing Durbin and Garland in a musical feature film (because Universal refused to loan \"Number One Asset\" Durbin out).

A priceless document of the nascent talents of two remarkable and utterly unique talents. See this one if you get a chance!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Canthony is correct that this little short is just an excuse to hear a very young Judy Garland (fourteen years old!) singing with a slightly older (by one year) Deanna Durbin. But I must disagree with everything else he or she said, including the running time -- which is only about ten minutes, not twenty (a single-reeler).

The song is not her best, obviously; but it's enjoyable and definitely worth the ten minutes to watch on Turner. The duet with Durbin is quite interesting: two conflicting styles that nevertheless dovetail reasonably well.

The short is just a throwaway, but it's nowhere near as bad as the other reviewer made it out to be. Honestly, I enjoyed it.

Dafydd ab Hugh","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This one reeler produced by MGM in 1936 showcases the talents of two of its young stars under contract, Judy Garland and Deanna Durbin. In a way, these short films were promotional trailers that featured new talent in front, or behind the camera. Felix Feist directed this one which was a way to promote the two talented stars to the public.

The story is simple enough. The orchestra that entertains in a public park every Sunday doesn't get the attention it deserves. Enter two music aficionados, Judy and Edna, who love to hear the band play conducted by one of their grandfathers. Two of the town's elders sensing there is no public for this type of entertainment have decided to cancel their Sunday concerts in favor of a more popular orchestra that will attract a wider audience.

The two girls embark in a promotional tour of their own doing what they only know, calling and running errands and being helpful to their neighbors in exchange for a promise they will attend the park concert next Sunday. Well, that day comes, and to their surprise, hardly anyone comes as the music starts. The two girls decide to take matters into their own and ask the conductor to play a song for them to sing. The result is clear, people all over the park flocks to hear the talented young singers, thus ensuring the orchestra's existence.

Of course, the only attraction of the short film is the inspired singing by the two stars who are wonderful in their rendition. Ms. Durbin's operatic voice blends well with Ms. Garland's natural one creating a lovely duet.

Don't miss it whenever it shows on TCM!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every Sunday is an eleven minute short subject featuring the talents of two of its young juvenile contract players, a pair who would develop into players of note in the future. It's interesting and entertaining to see the contrasting styles of Judy Garland and Deanna Durbin as they perform at a Sunday concert for Deanna's uncle.

Of course no one knew how big both of these young ladies would get to be. I've always wondered why Mayer kept Garland and let Durbin go to Universal. L.B. always had pretensions to culture and this was the guy who had Jeanette MacDonald at his studio and later on hired such lovely soprano voices as Jane Powell, Ann Blyth, Doretta Morrow, etc.

Judy certainly had her glorious career at MGM, but she paid a heavy price for it. Deanna, along with Abbott&Costello and several Gothic horror monsters preserved Universal pictures. She was smart enough to get out at the top and make it stick.

So, in their salad days, Deanna Durbin and Judy Garland.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As has already been noted, the short film \"Every Sunday\" (1936) could be considered the first music video. This was a happy accident resulting from MGM's need to crank out a variety of short films for exhibit with its feature length material. They had a couple fresh young singing talents (Judy Garland and Deanna Durbin) available and essentially slapped together a blend of music styles in a kind of Norman Rockwell concert in the park setting.

Who would have dreamed at the time that they would capture the best collection of images since Eisenstein's \"Odessa Steps\" sequence.

It's Sunday with some inattentive folks sitting around a small wooden band shell in the park while a tired looking ensemble play Strauss. Events unfold and the next Sunday Judy and Deanna save the day. The operatic Deanna sings \"Il Bacio\" (The Kiss) and Garland follows with the contrasting \"Waltz with a Swing\". The climax nicely blends the two styles into a duet of \"Americana\".

A must see.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having previously seen this short on VHS tape with the feature Summer Stock, I just rewatched Every Sunday on the TCM site. It marked the film debut of 15-year-old Deanna Durbin and of 14-year-old Judy Garland outside of her two older sisters. These two teens showcase their musical talents with a solo from Deanna of \"Il Bacio\", then one from Judy of \"Waltz with a Swing\" before the two climax with \"Americana\". The slight plot of this 11-minute film concerns the possible unemployment of Edna's (Durbin's real first name which is the way she's addressed here) grandfather's conducting job at the park because of low attendance. With the two girls' help, you can probably guess what happens from there! Contrasts are marked not only with Garland's and Durbin's musical choice but also with their height, poise, and movement. Despite all that, they perform quite well at the end and it's almost surprising that M-G-M chose Garland while Durbin was already contracted at Universal as this short was made but was briefly allowed back in since her feature debut (Three Smart Girls) was in the early preparing stages. Judy herself would make her first feature (Pigskin Parade) at 20th Century-Fox as M-G-M was deciding what movie she would next star in. That would be Broadway Melody of 1938 where she would perform the show stopping number, \"Dear Mr. Gable (You Made Me Love You)\". But back to this short, Every Sunday provides a warm and wonderful glimpse of two star singers at the beginning of their legendary careers unaware of what the future holds for them...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen over 2000 Studio-Era sound films-- including lots of Judy Garland, Lena Horne, Shirley Jones, and Deanna Durbin's own Universal features-- plus a decent amount of live and studio-recorded musical comedy and opera. And I assure you, no one tasked with singing in front of a camera and microphone, or maybe anywhere ever, HAS EVER TOUCHED DURBIN'S SOLO here...mono soundtrack and crap 1930s microphones and all. The kid from Canada sings this bit from \"Il Bacio\" like she lived and wrote it herself and then happened to show up for a retrospective in Italy late in her career, not like a child who learned it from her music teacher.

If you skip this Extra on the DVD-- or skip ahead to the Garland solo-- you are just depriving yourself, since this cheap MGM teaser just happened to capture one of the greatest performances of the 20c.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Horses on Mars is a wonderful journey taken by very small creatures. It doesn't have to work hard to hold your attention and the characters are truly memorable. Most of the credit must go to Eric Anderson for his choice of visual style and for writing an interesting story, but credit is also deserved by Anuj Majumdar for the narration and the wonderful music score. These choices were obviously not an accident. If you can, see it in 35mm scope for the most impact. It is quite a beautiful film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Horses on Mars is an engaging animated short that takes a sometimes comical look at the process of evolution through the eyes of those yet to evolve. The story is personal, and at times sentimental, and is supported by strong digital animation and narration that involves the viewer in this science fiction story. I was fortunate enough to view this short in widescreen format at the 2002 Sundance Film Festival, and must suppose that when transferred to the small screen, it will lose some of its ability to draw the reader into the no less thoughtful story and stunning graphics.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the history of cinema, every great film-maker had to create a first film. Many times when viewed after they have become a success, a light bulb goes on in our heads. The connection is made and we see the solid foundation from where they started. So it is with HORSES ON MARS. It is the subtle humor woven around a seemingly straight-forward narrative that tells a great story, but allows you to enjoy the visuals at the same time. In the imagery, I found great attention to detail and a production polish that is rare in any student film.

A young film-maker always has improvements to be made. But if Mr. Anderson continues on this path, I think we will someday look back on this film as the beginning a great career.

You should definitely view this film. Nothing beats the grandeur of the big screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not a movie maker but I do know it is hard to tell a story in seven minutes and draw your audience into the character. Horses on Mars does this and more. When you are watching a good movie you don't want it to end. This is how I felt watching this film. It is visually expansive and the microbe takes on such human qualities that you feel you are on the journey with him.

Really looking forward to see what exciting adventures Mr. Anderson takes us on in the future. Well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anderson's animation easily rivals that of Pixar and goes well beyond most anything I've ever seen Disney do. While some say the story is a bit too abstract, I find it a thought-provoking and refreshing change from the exaggerated characters and bumbling animals typically found in animated shorts. It's an interplanetary version of CASTAWAY! Anyone who has left the safe harbor of home and gone off to a lonely, frightening place by themselves, will readily identify with this forlorn microbe. Excellent work, Mr. Anderson!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am not a movie maker but I know it is hard to tell a story and draw people into it in only seven short minutes. I think a good movie is one you don't want to end. Eric did a great job of developing the charater of the microbe and making him seem \"human\". Loved the music and the voice used for the microbe. I am looking forward to seeing what Eric has in store for us in future films. This is one movie I didn't want to see end. Great job.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen this movie a few times and with each viewing I still feel the excitement of embarking on a journey and the frustration of trying to overcome the barriers that impede the path. It's more than a mere desire of finding home; it's about the very basic human spirit of finding one's way in the world, of overcoming despair, of facing the character foibles that deter our goals. Underlying these human endeavors is the challenge to reconsider the origin of life. While this film is imbued with serious ideas, it has just enough comedic lines to leave the viewers hopeful. It is surprisingly funny. The execution of the story line is excellent! This is all packaged with visually engaging animation. A must see.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed two of the three movies in the \"Sarah, Plain & Tall\" trilogy. This, the final of the three, was definitely one of the \"good ones. \" It is an excellent family film with wonderful acting by the three adult stars: Christopher Walken, Glenn Close and Jack Palance.

The storyline is simple but well-told. The only sub-par performance was by one of the kids. It was interesting to see how the kids had grown since that first movie.

Of the three, that initial \"Sarah,\" was the best- filmed with some beautiful cinematography. This movie didn't have that, but it had the best story. It had some genuinely-tearful sentimental moments and a very nice ending.

Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't ever remember reading Sarah, Plain and Tall in school, but when my son told me about it and said they watched the movie in class, I wanted to see it too. I borrowed the video from the library and watched it as a family. It was a wonderful story. However, I didn't know until a few months ago that there were sequels. I finished watching those this week. I discovered one small oops: in the second movie, Skylark, Jacob is reminiscing when he was a boy, and tells Sarah \"my brothers and sisters and I would dream...\". In Winter's End, those \"brothers and sisters\" don't exist in conversations between Jacob and his father. But it is a very small oops, and I only caught it watching the trilogy, the second time around. Great movie, a must see for good wholesome family viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Glenn Close is back as Sarah Plain and Tall, a woman who keeps a family together through the good and bad times. The acting is superb -- Christopher Walken (unusually non-spooky) as her husband once again delivers a top-notch performance. It's good to see young Christopher Bell all grown up; too bad we don't get to see much of Anna (Lexi Randall, also a few years older), but the new addition to the Witting family (played by Emily Osment) was very welcome. And finally, Jack Palance, as the long lost Witting patriarch, is as fine as ever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a joy to watch this family grow up and see the same children acting in this series eight years later. Anna (Lexi Randall) is a beautiful young lady, working for a physician in town. She is in love with his son Justin, who went away in the army and was injured in war. And the newest daughter of Jacob and Sarah, Cassie, is an outspoken cutie, so transparently honest she often is embarrassing.

On a cold winter day a stranger shows up at the farm. He is slow to reveal his identity. When they find out he is Jacobs father, John Witting, thought long ago dead, hard questions about the past are difficult to get answered.

Glenn Close is magnificent as a loving mother, who wants only the best for all her family, and is constantly wrestling with the forces that tend to separate them. Sarah talking to Jacob said, \"It's all so fragile, this life. Anything can happen in the blink of an eye. I could have died in that blizzard. Think of Justin, and John. probably more ill than we know. Time moves on. The moment passes, then it's too late. It's a shame, don't you think?\"

Life lessons on honesty and forgiveness make this a meaningful evenings entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent story of lives that need repair....one of those rare films that I could watch with my 7 and 8 year old daughters... Glenn Close was excellent in the title role. It was also nice to see Christopher Walken in a more normal role.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sarah Plain and Tall's Winters end was the best movie I have ever seen. The person in the story that I liked best had to be Cassie played by Emily Osment. Just because of her energy and how she speaks her mind. For example when Anna calls from town Cassie wants to answer and she says,\"Hello? Anna guess what. Grand father was lost but hes back now and he is not a good man!\" I loved all of the Sarah Plain and tall movies for my rating I think Sarah Plain and tall was #3. Skylark was #2. Winters end was #1! If I could live in any family from the past It would have to be the Witting family. I think there are so many good parts in this movie I can't name all of them. I think they picked the best and perfect actors to play all these people in the movie so if you ever want to watch a movie from the past I would highly highly highly recommend Sarah Plain and Tall's Winters end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jack Palance,(John Witting), was usually a bad guy in most of his films and in this film, he showed his great acting talents above and beyond my expectations. John Witting unexpectedly returns to his son's farm after years and years of separation. Christopher Walken,(Jacob), has a hard time trying to accept his father's appearance after he spent the night in the family barn. Jacob's son and younger daughter greet their new grandpa and accept him just as he is, a very old man, at the end of his ropes. Glenn Close,(Sarah Witting), delves into the character of John Witting and starts to bring out the truth about what happened to him during his years of absence from the family. This is a very warm and loving down to earth film about real events that happen in most families for generations to come and go.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love Sarah Plain and Tall:Winters End. Its such a good movie. It tells of the hardships of living on a farm.I live on a farm so I know what its like to have hardships.

I love the setting in Kansas. Its such a beautiful place. My favorite country star is from Kansas. I love the country in Kansas its just so beautiful. I would love to live in Kansas.

Sarah Plain and Tall:Winters End I think is a love story. I love love stories they are so fun to watch. I like to watch them because it is nice to watch people fall in love. Falling in love is not as hard as most people think. I've fallen in love once. Sarah Plain and Tall: Winters End is my favorite love story","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had borrowed the three Sarah movies from a friend, and had watched them while sick in bed during one weekend. I thoroughly enjoyed every one of them. I enjoyed how the last movie gave a glimpse of what Caleb and his sister were like when they grew up. In addition, I liked the carry-through of the \"Billy-boy\" song that first was heard during the credits of the first movie, the title \"Sarah, Plain and Tall.\" However, the one thing in Winter's End that I didn't like was the youngest daughter. She was a very cute little girl, but she just had too much spirit and looked like a brat compared to the other kids, even compared to talkative but still good-natured Caleb when he was younger.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best independent film of 2001 - I went to see The Wind at the recommendation of friends who caught it at Dances with Films Festival in LA last summer - it's a great, scary, well made film. The score was amazing. Can't wait to see his next movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Zeke Rippy (Mic) is great, you totally believe his character. And it's scary as hell, I spent half the movie covering my eyes, the other half on the edge of my seat. It's cool to see something this suspenseful and frightening that isn't all blood and guts - but it did give me bad dreams.

Basically this is a great movie - see it the first chance you get.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, despite the low rating on this site, I saw something quite worthy in this film and will gladly defend it. And no, I'm not connected to the crew in any way...

I came across the DVD of The Wind by accident, and had this strong feeling that it wasn't going to be quite like the video packaging described. So I took a chance, and was pleasantly surprised by this strange, very different drama. I'm assuming the DVD marketing and summary were the work of MTI Home Video to hook a rental or sale (the tag line \"Love comes in many forms\" was changed to \"Terror comes in many forms\"). Sure, smaller films' rentals and sales depend strongly on grabbing a person's attention, especially if they've never heard of the film before (a similar case happened with the film THE ITEM). That's probably what is working against this release, as horror fans read the description of an \"ancient wind\" carrying with it \"omens of the apocalypse.\" It's easy to think that that is what this film is all about, and will turn some college students in the story into crazy savages that go on a killing spree. Thus, at the time this review was submitted, is most likely the reason for the lower rating on IMDb. I can understand people becoming upset and thinking they were fooled by that summary , seeing the apocalyptic intro but then experiencing a dark drama. I can forgive the marketing choice since I enjoyed The Wind and thought it was a refreshing change of pace from major Hollywood offerings, it's just that if the intended audience was given the attention, more might voice a higher rating.

The \"wind\" in this film is basically just a metaphor for society, and is the story of four friends who make some bad choices and how their lives quickly turn into ones of desperate self-preservation. After going too far in 'teaching a lesson' to one of their own, a death occurs and each person tries to save his\/her own standing. Manipulation between them becomes the norm, and by the end we see how self preservation becomes their main motivation over good judgment. Civilized to savage, basically. This is very apparent throughout by noticing that the use of a knife, branches as clubs, fists and kicking are instruments of violence instead of guns. These characters are, in a way, doing all the wrong things for the right reason just to stay on top of the situation since they've already taken things too far. While there are many implied violent images, it's interesting to see that there is an absence of cussing and nudity.

What works in favor of The Wind are the \"unknown\" actors. Bigger stars were originally intended, but I find it works better when you have lesser known, capable actors. This way you can get into the story without sometimes thinking \"oh, that's Tom Cruise\" for instance, instead of an actual tormented person dealing with an extraordinary situation. Even unusual conversations (like between Mic and Billy in a field, and Mic confronting Claire in her bedroom) hold up well and feel quite natural in the strange universe of Fairview...which has cozy homes,a forest, and wide open fields. I kept thinking of the calm landscapes concealing darker secrets in The Reflecting Skin, which director Michael Mongillo mentions as an inspiration in his commentary.

The Wind manages to get messages across without being heavy-handed about it.

Sure, if you look carefully you'll see many symbols and dialogue that other directors would just pound you over the head with. I even understood the infamous \"kissing scene\" between Claire, John, and Billy within the context of the story without being surprised it happened. I am still amazed at how some people (guys, mainly) who complain about two men kissing in a scene would obviously have NO problem if the scene were of two gals kissing instead. All is handled nicely here, and additional viewings will make things more clear without making you groan and say \"oh man, how did I miss THAT....\" Things sink in gradually and I appreciated that. Or you could listen to the DVD commentary as well for more things revealed!

For those of us that \"got\" the intentions of this film, The Wind is a breath of fresh air (no pun intended) in a time when most films are made in order to JUST make money and be heard knocking other films out of their \"box office competition\" standing when mentioned on Entertainment Tonight or CNN.

Years later, it's always the great little discoveries like The Wind that stay in my mind, not processed star-driven blockbusters.

Get past the marketing ploy from MTI Home Video, and you just might find this an engaging story indeed. I strongly recommend it to friends that seek out unusual films like this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Someone definitely has it in for The Wind and I cannot believe that what I saw on the screen has much to do with it. This is a better and more solid movie than most of the independents I watch all year long. The cinematography displays a genuine love and mastery of the craft and the casting was just fine. I would love to see more of these folks, especially Zeke Rippy.

As far as the story and script, I'm not so sure that the negative comments preceding this post were written with the intent of informing anybody else about the movie. The long drawn out nit-picky bashing posts that must have taken hours to compose and are the only comments ever left for any movie on this site by the reviewer, are obvious slander directed at the producers of the film. I don't know the inside story, but it would probably make a good movie. What I do know from being around this biz, is, productions that try to make everybody happy usually end up being awful and when the filmmaker has the guts, drive and common sense to \"kill the babies\", someone always ends up with hurt feelings. That's part of the biz too, and one of the finest learning tools available to those truly dedicated to making it in the movie business. Of course, the failures have nothing better to do than to sit at home and write false reviews on the internet as a form of vendetta against those that snubbed them (read: were honest and truthful with them). And that is my best guess to explain the nasty, nasty reviews. In as much as there is a grain of truth behind everything, there is a point to be made, but these exaggerations of the grains are so over the top that they become obviously fictitious.

It's not a slasher blood bath if that's what you're looking for, it's more the psychological suspense thriller, which typically is not appreciated by the lowest common denominators out there. The best way to see this movie is to try to expunge any pre-conceived notions, pop it in and let it unfold - seriously, characters are defined by their actions and words and when you see what these people do and what they say, I don't think you can come away with the conclusion that these characters were poorly developed. Poorly understood perhaps.

Overall, I do agree that this is a nicely done, compelling movie. Perhaps I would not have given it a 9 under normal circumstances, but the severe negative comments actually attracted me to the picture (I have a secret love for really bad cinema). To me, the ratings below 5 should be reserved for the shlocky, inept, poorly acted and stupidly written movies. None of that applies here - it is quality movie making with some real talent in there. I gave it the nine to to tip the scales back in the correct direction. Watch the movie and tell me I am wrong.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Behind the nostalgic music, we see a young boy get off a train. He is arriving from Yugoslavia to meet his father, a man he has not seen in a decade. At the train station, we meet the man. He never smiles.

Thus, we begin our journey into \"Four Friends\", Arthur Penn's powerful and amazing film. You may ask why I began my review that way. Well, that is the way the video box describes the film. You may have figured out that the film will be the story of the boy trying to get along with this emotionless man and eventually, he will peel away at his cover and expose the kindness.

Well, if you bought that, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. You see, modern Hollywood would make that film. Penn has always been an outsider and has never resorted to typical cliched storytelling. He always tells interesting stories about people (his credits include \"Bonnie and Clyde\", \"The Chase\", \"Alice's Restaurant\" and the underrated \"Mickey One\") and \"Four Friends\" is no exception.

A typical Hollywood film would focus on the boy who is named Danilo. But Steve Tesich's script only focuses on that for about 4 minutes and then abandons him. We meet the adult Danilo, played by Craig Wasson (whom you may recognize from \"Body Double\" and \"Nightmare on Elm Street 3\") and his friends, Tom, David and the passionate Georgia. The movie takes us throughout the Sixties. Now in a lesser film, the events would receive the attention. But in \"Four Friends\", these events happen, but Penn and Tesich is more concerned with character study than plot and I think the film is better that way. We know the events; we don't need to dwell on them again.

I know I haven't described much of the plot, but I don't know if you can describe \"Four Friends\". It's not one of those \"high-concept\" films that can be described in a single sentence. It's a film of many moods and textures. It's also a genuinely emotional experience. The final twenty minutes of this film moved me to tears. I'm not ashamed to admit it. Rarely does a film have such power that it can reduce me to tears. The acting is first rate, especially by Craig Wasson, who seems to be one of the most underused actors working today. This is such a difficult, emotional performance and Wasson pulls it off. He should have received an Oscar for this. Another great performance is by Jodi Thelen, who has an even more difficult role than Wasson. But she handles it extremely well and gives Georgia a certain dignity most Hollywood actresses wouldn't (they'd be too scared to even try; they'd be more concerned with image rather than giving a great performance; that's not what acting is about). She also deserved an Oscar.

\"Four Friends\" didn't receive much of a push in 1981. Maybe people just didn't have the emotional capacity to handle it. And clueless executives couldn't push it as another \"American Graffiti\" (it lacks the wallop of \"Four Friends\"). So they let it die. Too bad, for this is one of the very best films of the 1980s, a decade where more and more slick trash was created and great art like this was without a home. I ask you to give this film a chance.

**** out of 4 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best presentations of the 60's put on film. Arthur Penn, director of Bonnie and Clyde and Little Big Man, saw that Steve Tesich's outstanding script rang with truth, and from these two talents comes solid cinema. Jodi Thelin's Georgia Miles gives male viewers a hit of pained nostalgia for the archetypal beauty who is almost within our grasps, but, always just out of reach. Just see it, or you cinematic education will be incomplete.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a great movie!! It's a touching story about four high-school friends who grow up in the 1960s. Throughout the decade, the friends are somewhat separated, but they mnnage to see each other occasionally. There are many tragedies, but there are also a lot of happy moments that make you laugh and smile. It's a heart-filled tale of life, love and friendship. Definitely a must see for drama fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't seen this film for over 20 years, but it had such an impact on me that I remember sitting through the credits and for several minutes after in complete awe. This is one of the most underrated films of the entire decade in which it was originally released. I just ordered a copy of it on DVD and paid for overnight shipping and can't wait for it to arrive. It is uplifting at times, and also very dark and somewhat disturbing. It's a story of a close-knit band of regular kids growing up in the inner city and makes one feel as though they are actually sitting on the sidelines, rather than watching on a movie screen or television. Hard to explain, but it is something that must be experienced. The story starts at childhood and tracks the lives of the four main characters through high school and as they embark on their separate journeys in life. The entire cast did an incredible job and it's by far the best work of Jodi Thelen's career. I'm hoping that the DVD lives up to my memory and plan on watching it this Friday with a good friend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Will some company PLEASE make a (good+) DVD of this film!??? Aside from being a wonderful film about relationships and friendships, \"Four Friends\" is the ONLY film I've ever seen -- And I have, literally, spent *years* of my life watching films! -- that captures the essence of the 60s experience (and I was there!): the idealism, the hope, the freedom, the confusion, the betrayals, and ultimately its upbeat but bittersweet denouement. And all of this is accomplished without being a story about any of the numerous upheavals of that era, although many are just touched upon... as part of the tapestry. But the story is primarily about the characters and their friendship over about 10~15 years... and that those survived and deepened, despite the tragedies of that turbulent decade. Absolutely a joy and must-see film... even if one's not an old hippie!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was so moved by this film in 1981, I went back to the theater four times to see it again! Something I have never done for another film. No movie evokes the feelings of growing up in the 60's like Four Friends. That it so closely approximated my own experiences in the 60's is probably something that many will share. Jodi Thelen is radiantly beautiful and unforgetable! Why she didn't become a major star after this I will never know. The acting by the entire cast is flawless as is Steve Tisch's script. I always wanted to know how much of the story was autobiographical. But alas, Steve is no longer here to answer that question. I have all but worn out my VHS copy of this great movie! Highly recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best presentations of the 60's put on film. Arthur Penn, director of Bonnie and Clyde and Little Big Man, saw that Steve Tesich's outstanding script rang with truth, and from these two talents comes solid cinema. Jodi Thelin's Georgia Miles gives male viewers a hit of pained nostalgia for the archetypal beauty who is almost within our grasps, but, always just out of reach. Just see it, or you cinematic education will be incomplete.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A great look at the 60s through the eyes of four friends from their student days in 1960 to their reunion 10 years later - a Yugoslavian immigrant in love with the American dream and struggling to cope with the often violent reality; a prematurely balding undertaker's son; a soldier; and the crazy hippy girl they all love. Good direction and a strong cast do justice to Steve Tesich's brilliant script; the dialogue isn't as snappy as in \"Breaking Away\", but the themes of growing up and father-son conflict are dealt with just as well, and there are still a few wonderfully comic moments among the shocks and drama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...that maybe someday people will wake up to. People who can resist the urge to separate each and everything, and who see the 60s for what they were. People who can see that it was the individuals who made those times; not the other way around.

The \"Forrest Gump\" comparison is a good one. Both films look at the 60s, but \"Four Friends\" is about human beings, as opposed to caricatures. FF delves deeply into the very thing that FG (quite successfully!) tries to condense and classify as nothing more than a backdrop. But while \"Gump\" files the 60s away in an attic like old toys in a box, \"Four Friends\" picks up and embraces each toy, thus blurring the lines between what you hold dearly and what you are.

If you associate romance with shoe polish, you'll hate this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Film follows four friends from the 1950s (when they're in high school) up to 1981. They are Danilo (Craig Wasson) a Yugoslavian immigrant; Georgia (Jodi Thelan) a \"free spirit\"; David (Michael Huddleston) who has no personality and Tom (Jim Metzler) a big, strong, handsome, rugged guy. All three of them are in love with Georgia but she only loves Danilo. The film mostly focuses on those two--it chronicles their lives, love and attraction to each other over the years. It also gets into Danilo trying to win the love of his tough immigrant father.

I love this film but it's not without its bad points. Thelan's high, squeaky voice is annoying (but you get used to it); the story jumps around very quickly; Tom and David's lives are never explained (Tom shows up with a Vietnamese wife and kids and David has a wife we never meet until the end); some crucial scenes are badly written and there's some obvious pre-release cutting (probably to keep the film at 2 hours).

But everything else is so good you can easily forget the problems. The story is compelling--you really get to know and understand the characters and always get caught up in the lives. With a few exceptions, the script (by Steve Tesich) is good--in fact, Tesich was a Yugoslavian immigrant himself and based much of the script on his own experiences. All the acting is great--especially Thelan and Wasson--also Reed Birney throws in a strong, likable performance as Louie, Danilo's college roommate. And Lois Smith is very interesting in her role. And look quick for Mercedes Ruehl and Glenne Headly!

Basically, it's a real great story about immigrants, coming of age, love of America and covers the 50-80s perfectly.

This film was (unjustly) maligned on its release. The studio didn't know how to advertise it (it IS a hard film to market) and the critics stomped on it (Pauline Kaels' review in \"The New Yorker\" was particularly harsh). It barely played in theaters (I was lucky enough to catch it in 1981 in its short theatrical run) and has simply disappeared. That's a shame. This is a movie that is just ripe for reissue. I'm not betting on it--but you never know! A definite 10 all the way!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wonderful movie about people. I first saw Four Friends when it was originally shown in theatres and I've seen it many times since. If I'm not watching it when it's on TV, I'll get together with friends and rent it. Invariably, the people I've watched this movie with find it enjoyable. It deals with friends from childhood to adulthood, in the 50's and 60's. It's very funny and touching, dealing with first love (and first sex), racism, war, politics- the whole 60's shebang. It can also be quite dramatic. If you enjoy movies about people, this one is definitely worth the time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This may be one of the best movies I have ever seen. It has anything but a trite plot, and leaves one wondering which way it will go next. It is an interesting portrayal of the struggles of youth, youth who are interested in more than immediate gratification, youth who show some concern about the desires and needs of others.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first encountered Arthur Penn's \"Four Friends\" late one night on HBO. Having never heard of it, I expected very little, but watched because I was interested in seeing what a creation by a teaming of Penn and screenwriter Steve Tesich would be like. For the next two hours or so, I sat mesmerized, watching this incredible teaming of talent and the story they wove. A semi-autobiographical tale of a young immigrant to America growing up amidst the turbulence of the 1960s, \"Four Friends\" follows the story of Danilo, an eastern European immigrant (the brilliant Craig Wasson), from his arrival in the United States through a decade that changed the American landscape. Accompanying Danilo on his journey are his friends Georgia (the radiant Jodi Thelan, in a role that sadly, she has never had the opportunity to equal), Tom (Jim Metzler) and David (Michael Huddleston). \"Four Friends\" covers way too much territory for me to attempt to explain it here, but if you haven't seen this film, I urge you to find a copy (it's just been released on DVD) and watch it. You won't be disappointed. Tesich's script is wonderfully poignant \u0097 at times funny, at times incredibly sad, but always fascinating and honest. Penn directs with a sure hand, and an obvious love for the period and the people whose lives we're following. The cast is uniformly superb. This film should have made a major star out of Wasson who is truly one of this country's most wasted talents. Jodi Thelan, not your standard brainless Hollywood sexpot, heats up the screen in a performance that makes the audience fall in love with her character as easily as the characters in the film. Metzler and Huddleston subtle performances could easily be overlooked in the shadow of their co-stars, but they are excellent and help anchor the film. Also superb are Miklos Simon and Elizabeth Lawrence as Danilo's parents, as well as Reed Birney and Lois Smith. I have not been without a copy of \"Four Friends\" since the day after I first saw it on HBO those many years ago. It has been and remains one of my all-time favorite films for more than 20 years now. I can't recommend it enough and feel, if you give it a chance, you'll feel the same way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Four Friends is one of those films that you go to without any expectations, only to find yourself knocked for a loop. You sort of file it away, but then you hear the song \"Georgia On My Mind\" by Ray Charles, and images and vague feelings begin to flicker on the edge of your consciousness, and then you remember this crazy film which made you laugh and cry, almost at the same time.

Why is this film so memorable? First, at least for people who lived through it all, because it captures so well the tenor of the times - its dashed hopes, its successes, its sincerity and above all the emotional roller-coaster ride that leads to a poignant nostalgia. And then, the acting is just so amazing. Danilow, all angst and passion, Georgia, as difficult to grasp as a will 'o the wisp... but enchanting, nevertheless, and Louis, the handicapped room-mate with charm to spare who attacks life with gusto and takes each moment with a wry smile, because he knows only too well that it just might be his last.

How long has it been since you saw a film that made you really care about the people in the story? Even if they were far from perfect? The film presents you with people whose choices are not necessarily commendable, but the film never moralizes, it just allows us to appreciate the human condition in all its variety... even the minor characters have a well-defined personality and a history, which is why this film seems so real even when some of the actions and reactions might seem over the top... because that's the way life is, when you think about it. And why this film engages you with a complexity that is defined by character. Truly an amazing and satisfying experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's simply ridiculous how underrated this movie is. It is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. It never lags, it never slows down, it is a movie that has a wonderful flow to the plot. That along with the brilliant writing makes this an awesome movie. Aamir and Salman are outrageous, even Raveena and Karishma are funny in this movie. Paresh Rawal and Shakti deliver some great bad guy comedy, but Viju Khote and the Ajit-wannabe are the best with their dumbfounded bad-guy intentions. If you want to laugh, and enjoy a movie, watch this movie, do it with family or friends, you will not regret it. Most indian movies tire me out by the end, cause they are 3 hours long. This movie is just as long, but I wish there was more when it ends, cause it's an amazing flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Its a spoof, its an intelligent comedy, it has some a pathetic action and choreography (and mind it, it is intentional), good hummable songs, good performances by the entire cast, brilliant by Amir, Salman and Paresh and over all an script which is so rare in Indian cinema that too in comedy (watch David Dhawan, Harmesh Malhotra etc). Story is of two wastrels whose only aim is to get rich and famous by any which ways. They come across one such way when they find out that a rich NRI is coming India to get married. Rest of the story is about oneupmanship and how these wastrels try to out wit each other. Entire cast is perfectly cast right from Deven Verma till Viju Khote. Songs are rightly placed and are funny. Surprise package is Salman who acts with perfect timing and this particular act gave him his style of comedy.

All an all a fum film which you should not ignore if you like and watch Indian Cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are some movies that are loved by almost everyone who you come across and yet happen to be box-office failures. Andaz Apna Apna, an intelligent and hilarious comedy falls in that catogory. For once, an Indian director has kept in mind the sensibilities of the audience, and not churned out a Kader Khan type stereo-typical hoax. The movie is about two guys who dream of riches, and try to accomplish that by wooing a millionaire's daughter. A humorous drama unfolds while a lot of complexities surface in the story. The complexities add to the sheer comedy of the entire plot. Aamir Khan plays the a street-smart guy, while Salman Khan gives an unexpectedly good performance as the dumb guy. The villian played by Paresh Rawal,and his henchmen, Junior Ajit and \"Kaliaa\" make you laugh in your sleep. Although the movie borrows from a lot of other movies, despite shoddy camerawork, and despite being \"loud\" at times, it remains one of the scarce \"funny\" movies Bombay has come up with after movies like Padosan, Golmal and other Amol Plaekar movies. It is sad that it didn't do well at the box-office, for that means producers turn back to formulas and creativity is abandoned.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Its a very good comedy movie.Ijust liked it.I don't know why i love this movie i just love it.Storyline:It is a story of two boys Amar (Aamir Khan) and Prem (Salman Khan) who want to get rich quickly by taking all the short-cuts in the book. Amar is the son of an honest barber, Murli Manohar (Deven Verma) in Mumbai, while Prem is the son of Bankeylal Bhopali (Jagdeep), a hardworking tailor in Bhopal. Both Amar and Prem sell their father's shop and house respectively, and zero in on a hill station where a beautiful wealthy heiress Raveena (Raveena Tandon) has come from London accompanied by her friend cum secretary Karishma (Karishma Kapoor) with the intention of getting married to a virtuous Indian. The lucky man to wed Raveena will inherit her father Ram Gopal Bajaj's (Paresh Rawal) entire wealth. Amar and Prem see their get rich quick chance and woo Raveena, each trying to out do the other. Enter Teja (Paresh Rawal in a double role) whose sole ambition in life has been to grab his twin brother Ram Gopal Bajaj's millions. So Teja plants Bhalla. (Shehzad) and Robert (Vijoo Khote) in Raveena's house, to help him in fulfill his ambition. As the story progresses it turns out to be a mad chase from Ram Gopal Bajaj's wealth, full of humor, romance thrills and chills. Will Raveena & Karishma see through Amar and Prem's mischievous intentions? Will Teja succeed in his motives? See it all in super comedy ANDAZ APNA APNA.

Aamir,Salman,Raveena,Karishma and Paresh at there best.

Good Music.

Good Direction.

Good Story and Screenplay.

and very good Comedy !!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i have been watching this movie repeatedly, since it came out. even though it is 8 years old now, it still cracks me up. the jokes are still hilarious and the way the characters are portrayed will make anybody of any age laugh like they've never laughed before. Enjoy it","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It'll soon be 10 yrs since this movie was released....still makes me laugh.... If u enjoy this film, try the new Hera Pheri....t'is as hilarious. And my favourite bit of the film must be when Salman realises that he has no bullets left in his gun while he has the upper hand and has everyone at gun point...and he actually says it out loud!!! U just wanna bash him....but u know u can only do that if u stop laughing!!!! Fantastic film.... 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Andaz Apna Apna is a movie that I treasure and its one movie, I don't mind seeing at any time... well almost any time! This movie is simply marvelous and according to me, is the funniest movie I've ever seen! And yes, I do put it over Hera Pheri... reason? Hera Pheri has scenes you'll watch out but Andaz Apna Apna? Not possible! Simply because every scene is a scene you got to watch out for! Aamir & Salman share great chemistry and are perfect in their shoes but I'll put the characters in order of favoritism:

Rank # 1. Crime Master Gogo (Shakti Kapoor's best performance till date and yes, this happened before the casting couch): Gogo is an innocent character who belongs to well reputed family of Mogambo (Mr. India fame). Crime Master Gogo is actually Mogambo's nephew but for Mogambo, he's more than a responsible, handsome, charismatic charming son. Gogo, makes the biggest mistake of life by lending 36,000 rupees to Teja (who is as Balla had once said, \"A Fraud and a Cheat!\"). Now, Gogo's only goal is to get back what's his and in his journey of recovering his lost money, Gogo realizes that there is more than 36,000 that he needs to achieve and thus begins... Gogo's struggle against the sinner-world.

Rank # 2. Teja (Teja Main Hoon, Mark Idhar Hai!): Teja is an evil character who is Ram Gopal Bajaj's twin. Originally named Shyam Gopal Bajaj, Teja chooses to change his name to suit his personality. Teja, as a child had always envied his brother and then one day, things took a turn for the worse when his father gave his entire wealth to Ram Bajaj. Teja decided to kill his father but in the night's darkness, instead killed Munshi Harish Chandra (Raveena's Dad), though Teja doesn't regret his actions. Teja's sole mission, now, is to get back his property somehow and start his own Poultry & Bakery Farm. Teja also needs to return back the loan to Gogo (but has no intentions whatsoever to do so). In order to achieve his evil goals, Teja employs two people: Robert (Vijay Khote, who is very good at aiming) and Balla (Shahzad Khan, Ajit's clone and son... who is a very very smart boy!)

Rank # 3. Amar (Aamir Khan): Wants to marry the rich heiress Raveena, so he sells his father's cheap saloon and heads off for Mumbai. Amar, has no problem taking care of the big business that Raveena's father will hand him over after their wedding and is willing to sacrifice his happiness and shift to London, if needed.

Rank # 4. Prem (Salman Khan): After Gogo, Prem is the second most innocent character to appear in the movie and the way Amar tries to take advantage of him in the mask of a friend, is tragic.

I won't reveal any more characters because Jesus Christ! I just wouldn't stop typing! The movie is outright stunning! Go and get the DVD now and beware of those cheap VCDs as they have omitted many good scenes out of the movie.

The background music is stud and the action is better than the Matrix, especially the final encountered between Prem and Crime Master Gogo (watch out for it), it appears in the climax. Andaz Apna Apna is also a drama with many negative and positive characters and teach us a lot about life and values and ethics. It teaches us about bravery (why else would Amar ask Prem to stay back when they go to meet the kidnapper, even though Prem was complaining that he had to go to the toilet???). Andaz Apna Apna is also a tragedy, especially the scenes where Salman is targeted by Aamir and is given overdose of stomach-upsetting pills, the part where Teja reveals his sad feelings regarding why he couldn't go to London and the part where Gogo is arrested in the ending, without even getting back his 36,000. Andaz Apna Apna is overall a complete package.... sit back and enjoy the ride! Bet there'll be a second ride after that... and then a third!

The movie was considered a flop back then and I bet no one liked it but buckle up guys! This movie is a big hit! Even if it didn't have enough people coming to theatres, the movie is one of the highest selling Home DVDs and one of the most frequently movie on most of the channels so the producers have laughed their way to the banks long time back!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my favourite Indian movie of all time. It is comic genius. Salman Khan is hilarious. But Amir Khan steals the show with his witty dialogue. Karisma Kapoor's outfits tell a story of their own - makes you wonder if the stylist deliberately made her wear some of the clothes just to make the movie funnier (at one point she looks like she's wearing a nappy). Andaz Apna Apna is the only comedy genre movie to make me laugh from the beginning till the very end. There is not one dull moment, every scene is hilarious, even the songs and dance moves will have you in stitches of laughter. I especially loved the scene in which Amar (Amir Khan) 'regains his memory'. I've seen this movie so many times I've lost count. And I'm so glad to say that this time Bollywood can take all the credit for this fantastic movie as far as I know A.A.A it is not a replicate of a Hollywood movie (THANK GOD). Overall I recommend this movie to anyone who understands Hindi\/ Urdu and loves good comedy.

Watch it you'll love it!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie Andaz Apna Apna in my books is the top 5 intelligent comedy movies ever made in Bollywood perhaps even Hollywood.

When the movie released i was a 8 year old and I heard it was a flop but I never understood till now why was it a flop...but let me tell you one thing...this movie would have more money by selling home Cassettes and DVDs and by showing in TV movie channels than any hit movie in theaters. This movie has been shown countless times in Movie channels and I think even now the public love and the TV producers keep repeating the movie again and again. I personally have watched the entire movie more than 80 -100 times and I still love it.....

The performance by both Aamir khan as Amar and Salman khan as Prem is mind blowing but i especially liked the performance of Aamir khan as a street smart guy....his dialogs in the movie are Hilarious... the story is simple and heres how it goes.....

Amar and Prem are poor , lazy chaps and come from a poor family of tailors and Amars father is a barber. Then they both get a news that a Millionaire 's daughter from London is coming to India to look for a suitable match ...both Amar and Prem think that this is a brilliant opportunity to become super rich.....therefore they both head out to woo Raveena Tandon..(the millionaires daughter)......in their journey they both hate each other and each one of them try to fool the other in order to marry Raveena.....the comedy scenes in between are so hilarious that you would need a glass of water to stop the pain in your stomach by laughing.......and then there is Raveenas Uncle (Millionaire's look alike brother) Teja who wants to take revenge from Raveenas father.....since he is broke and Raveenas dad is a millionaire......his plans include kidnapping Raveena to blackmail Raveenas dad for which he hires 2 butlers.....

but later on we get to know that there is a twist in the movie (watch the movie to know).......then there is Shakti Kapoor as crime master Gogo who is also incredibly funny......

The thing which stood out for me were the dialogs in the movie which has become a legend of sorts.....Aamir khan uses his \"aaila \" brilliantly and Salman goes like \"OOima \"........and for Gogo there is \" Jab Raat Ko Bacha Soota Nahi Hain to Ma Bolti Hain Ki Sooja Nahi to Gogo Aa Jaega\" ......each and every scene is so funny......

I especially liked the one in which Aamir khan and Salman goto get Raveena from Teja and they both go in a Luna having \"chillar\" money in a bag....that scene is so funny..

I recommend anyone who understands Hindi or Urdu to watch this movie ......this is one movie that I would recommend having a DVD and you will never regret.......","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I find it hard to believe that this movie has such a low rating. It is arguably one of the best comedies ever made, and surely the best Bollywood comedy of the 90s. The film did not do too well on the box office and people had diametrically opposite reactions after seeing it. My guess is most people didn't expect it to be an all-out comedy and were expecting a regular movie. If you love comedies, this is a must-see. And Aamir Khan is outstanding.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is an amazing comedy.. the script is too funny.. if u watch it more than once you will enjoy it more. Though the comedy at times is silly but it really makes u laugh!! Salman Khan and Aamir Khan have given justice to their roles. After 1994 i have not come across any hindi movie which was as funny as this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"a hilariously funny movie! of course u gotta have a sense of humour to be able to appreciate it. the music is excellent, reminded me of 50-60's hindi music which is a rarity nowadays... worth the $$$! go check it out :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rajkumar Santoshi tries his hands at comedy and succeeds. One of the few good movies that involves Salman Khan. A very funny movie from start to finish. All the characters contribute to the movie and believe me, there are a lot of them. Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, Raveena Tandon, Karishma Kapoor, Paresh Rawal, Viju Khote, Jagdip, Deven Verma, Shakti Kapoor, Harish Patel, Tiku Talsania and more. The direction, editing, sound are not up to par, but that still does not matter, because the actors more than make up for that part.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"AAA is my favorite movie... I have seen it a number of times (don't remember the count now) and every time I just love it.... This is the best movie of Raj Kumar Santoshi..The comedy, dialogues, and performance is amazing.. All the actors and actresses have done a superb job... You cannot stop laughing while watching this movie... its just hilarious... Amir khan and Salman Khan have done a great job... and acting by Paresh Rawal was excellent as always..... The music is inspired from the old Hindi movies (60s music) and is good...the entire cast of the movie has done great job...

Overall its a great Indian comedy movie to watch...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first time I watched it was when it came out (1994), and the last time I watched it was just before writing this review.. It still makes me laugh my brains out...after all these years,it dose not disappoint. Truly the smartest Bollywood comedy ever made. This is one Indian movie which deserves its place in the IMDb Top 250. Aamir Khan and Salman Khan in probably one of their best performances in comedic roles. The thing that makes this one a time less classic is its comic timing and wonderful editing...The jokes are refreshing and not cheap.. This is one film truly ahead of its time. If you haven't seen it yet GO WATCH IT NOW !!!!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie probably more than 20 times. The jokes are now 10-15 years old but every time I watch it it makes me fall off my chair. Two of the finest actor Salman Khan and Aamir Khan plays the lead roles here. Even if Aamir Khan is a much better actor and got the better role(smart guy) in the movie Salman Khan matches and sometimes perform even better as the dumb guy. All the characters are memorable. This movie is filled with hilarious one-liners and funny situations(a little too silly probably). Don't try to look for logic in this movie. Let your brain relax for some time. I promise it will be an experience to remember.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best part about this movie is that you can watch it over and over again n still not be content of watching it. I have watched this movie least 10 times over the past 12 years and still it makes me laugh as if i was watching it for the first time. I have great liking for good comics like the Orgazmo,Cheech n chong, Monty Python series and many others but this one in Hindi is one of my favorite outstanding movies. Some of them recently in Hindi are Golmaal,Munnabhai series and Herapheri series. SO all i can say is Hind comedy is finally evolving. But Andaaz Apna Apna is pretty different from the movies i have said above. Its what i call the Hindi stoned comedy and very few of the kind found around 1994 in Hindi cinema.Cheers to Rajkumar Santoshi for the brilliant movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well to start with Rajkumar Santoshi is not a comedy film maker ,and this is really unfortunate because the only comedy film he has made is a masterpiece.This film is really funny .Loud in bits ,overacted in a few scenes but still the dialogues r really laugh riots and characters r really full of fun . Story line in simple a Billionaire's daughter come to India for marriage and Two young chaps r behind her ,the story has a twist as well with a connection of a Gangster .Aamir playing a street smart guy Amar has played his role with brilliance and Salman has played the role of an innocent stupid to perfection.Raveena has done fine ,but Karshima really turns irritating in some sequences .But real show stealer r Paresh Rawal and Shakti Kapoor ,they enter the frame and automatically u start laughing . Overall such an enjoyable film that u can watch it any no. of times without getting bored.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this film. Shehzad Khan's portrayal as Bhalla a.k.a. \"Shut up, Robert!\" was so hilarious. Whenever he got hit during a fight scene, you could hear him squeal. Viju Khote is the dumbfounded Robert a.k.a. \"Rabbit\". I love that Shakti Kapoor a.k.a. \"Crime Master Gogo\". Paresh Rawal's double role is so awesomely hilarious for his portrayal as Ramgopal Bajaj & Shyamgopal Bajaj. Raveena Tandon and Karishma Kapoor are out of this world. My brother does a really good mimicry of Bhalla saying. \"Relax. PLEASE relax.\" I love the scene in which Aamir Khan puts a laxative in Salman \"Muscles\" Khan's food which caused the irregular bowel movements forcing him to use the toilet umpteen number of times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is the best movie released in Bollywood upto date. The best comedy, the best acting and the best direction till now! Rajkumar Santoshi's writing and direction proved that he is one of the best directors in the industry. Aamir Khan was absolutely amazing, Salman Khan looked good the way he acted. Shakti Kapoor was good, but Jagdeep over acted as usual! This comedy is still copied by people and no other writers and directors have been able to make this thing again! Even Rajkumar Santoshi hasn't been able to make this cult classic again! This movie was a flop when it released but it has been a cult classic since it released and loved by all kinds of people.

STAR.

ACTING 10\/10.

DIALOGUES 10\/10.

SCREENPLAY 10\/10.

DIRECTION 10\/10.

MUSIC 9\/10.

LYRICS 9\/10.

Overall, This movie is strongly recommended. If you didn't watch it till now, you missed something big! It is a laugh riot and the best comedy i have seen till date! Classic Films like Hera Pheri, Golmaal and Jaane Bhi Do Jaaro are not even half as funny as this.

GREAT MOVIE, HATS OFF!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Andaz Apna Apna is my favorite comedy movie of all time.Both Aamir and Salman khan have acted brilliantly while Aamir's acting was far better than salman.Aamir Khan is known as 'MR. PERFECTIONIST' in Bollywood and he proves it in every of his film.

The story moves around two young guys Amar (Aamir Khan) and Prem (Salman Khan) both are from poor families and are a big dreamer.They want to become rich without bearing any pain.so when they hear about Raveena Bajaj (Raveena Tandon) daughter of Mr.Bajaj(Paresh Rawal) who comes to India to find his bridegroom , they both fool their fathers to marry Raveena Bajaj and the journey begins.There is also a twist in the movie that makes movie even more funny.Paresh Rawal is in double role (Teja and Mr. Bajaj) and has acted brilliantly as he always does.Shakti kapoor (crime master Gogo) also adds a great comedy.

This movie is a rib tickling comedy from first minute till last and it is one of classic comedy movies of Bollywood.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"RKS after the success of GHAYAL started work on this film which was a comedy The film was in making for 3 years and released finally in 1994 but didn't work for some reason Before this film, DAMINI(93) released and did well

The film is a mad comic film like most Priyadarshan films nowdays but it is funny and well handled The film has a proper plot unlike today's films and makes you laugh most characters became famous, be it Crime master gogo(Shakti Kapoor), Paresh Rawal and others

The film keeps you laughing throughout it's run time though being too slapstick and overdone yet it's one of the funniest films

Direction by RKS is very good Music is good

Amongst actors Aamir steals the show and delivers his funniest performance, this was his first out n out comedy Salman does well but looks amateur front of Aamir, yet does a good job and their chemistry is delightful Karisma is annoying and sounds like a child Raveena is adequate Paresh Rawal is too funny in both roles, Shakti Kapoor is hilarious in his over the top act Shehzad Khan(dubbed by Ajit) is very good and Viju Khote too is funny rest all are good too","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"According to me, a movie can be best rated by the number of 'best scenes' there are. There are probably at least 80-90 scenes in the whole movie that is probably rated as 'best' by somebody or the other.

This movie is a masterpiece. Period. I know many who have called it ahead of its time, probably because it bombed at box-office. However, I think any generation can relate to this movie and have a good laugh through out.

I am personally glad that Mahmood is part of the movie too. His role isn't that 'meaty', however its good to see that he is a part of the cast in the funniest Hindi movie ever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well this is the best comedy movie i have ever seen... My both Favorite actors did good job. Salman khan and Aamir khan rocked. Hope to see Andaz Apna Apna part 2 soon as i heard they will come back with part 2 as well. i have request to those who haven't watched it yet. please buy DVD and watch it u wont feel bored. i am watching this movie 1 times a week. All other was also good in this movie. Paresh Rawal, Shakti and others The music is also good it have also nice songs. there are some sense which will kill u from laughing Salman khan did very nice role and also Aamir.

so must watch movie excellent job by actors and director..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The summary is only for those who hate this movie, as finding the movie OK or average is acceptable. Visiting this movie on IMDb has made me nostalgic as I can't help myself going back in the year 1994. I was one of the few lucky ones who saw this movie in theaters. It instantly became one of my favourite comedies and took some years to make it my favourite. How can I say what made this movie my favourite? Was it the excellent writing ( story was OK but screenplay and dialogues were fabulous) Was it the superlative performances? Was it the mood of the film?

After thinking about it for so many years I say it has to be a mixture. It is one of those movies which didn't have any flaws not even its music.(the other movie coming up in my mind right now is Sholay)

PS: Rajkumar Santoshi please keep a balance between your drama and comedy movies. Only 1 comedy is not enough. I want moreeeeeeee..........","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"very rarely it happens that i sit down to write a comment for a movie....but this movie!!!!!!oh my holy god!!!!!!!!never ever was there a Hindi movie better than this......and never ever there came a movie better than this......it's the king of all comedies.....

aamir khan is arguably the best COMIC actor in Indian film industry...though its funny to say that because he is a class act,not a comedian...but what he has done in this film is perhaps the most hilarious performance by any Indian actor in an out and out comedy...

salman khan has never been a good actor in my eyes....but this movie got the best out of him....he was innocently comic...if ever there was a term like it....just what the doctor ordered as far as his role in the movie was concerned...

rajkumar santoshi i don't know why, never tried his hand at comedy again....he directed great ventures like The Legend of Bhagat Singh and khakee but could not recreate the magic of andaz apna apna....

i don't care why this film bombed at the box office....though i feel sad that a film like \"hum aapke hain kaun\" was the reason for it's failure...... as of now i hope the rumors become true.....there'll be \"andaz apna apna-2\" they say.......we as the audience can only say AMEN!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my favorite love story it has every element that a good love story should have. Poetry, jazz, friendships the ups and downs in a relationships. Finally a movie that shows positive aspects of the black community. Larenz Tate was great I can't picture anyone else playing the role of Darius. He recited that poem like he had written it himself and meant every word. I own this movie and if I had the time I would watch it everyday it always makes me feel better and that's what a good movie should do. Also, the character Savon could not had been any better dealing with the subject of marriage. We would all like to find a Darius out there but most of us just settle for watching this movie. My vote is 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Love Jones cleverly portrays young African-American men and women in a clear, positive, realistic sense. I feel that all of the actors and actresses were magnificent and really did a great job at capturing the mood. Nia Long and Larenz Tate worked well together and I hope to see more work from the two of them. As a matter of fact all of the actors\/actresses did such a fine job it would be great to see another romantic-comedy from them. This movie can be compared to most any well-written, romantic comedy. If you have not seen this movie already I strongly recommend that you do, it can definitely give you another perspective on life and love.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of my favorite movies of all time. Beautifully done, well written and well acted. It portrayed 20 something blacks in a way I don't think has yet been duplicated, and the dialog? Hmmmm, so stimulating. Makes me want to find love like that........","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie features some of the best ensemble work I've seen in film or on stage. The actors play off each other with a skill and vivacity that in no way can be achieved through editing.

\"Love Jones\" a good story, period. But it is also an excellent portrayal of the urban, middle-income, twenty-something African-American set that is not often seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a shame this movie didn't get more play in theatres. It's a rich, textured love story with believable, all-too-human characters, who are too busy gaming and protecting their hearts to recognize The Real Thing when they experience it. One of the most pleasurable aspects of this movie is its setting in Chicago, among hip, artistic, literate, middle-class African-Americans who discuss poetry, music and literature. Another is his Royal Fineness, Larenz Tate -- and if you are even half a fan of his, you NEED to see this film! His boyish cockiness and vulnerability are perfect for the role of Darius. Nia Long also shines as Nina, who longs to tell Darius she loves him but is afraid the break \"the Rules.\" A great movie to watch curled up on the couch with your sweetie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think it's about 3 years ago when I saw this movie. Accidentally I revisited the info-site for it here and immediately I felt good again! I remembered seeing this movie and loving life again! It showed me I could find love and what-do-you-know?? I have a boyfriend for a year and a half now and love is definitely there..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this is one of the best movies of all time. I just think it shows realistically what romance and especially black romance is all about. Would love to know what others think as well. The acting was just out done. Where is Tate anyway? It has been awhile since I have seen him in anything, however I think he has out did his acting performance in this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After viewing this movie, lets say, around 8 times, the story line has never bored me. Each character has their own distinct personality and their own views of \"love\". This movie has timeless, almost realistic, love lessons. Filled with philosophies on love, a jazzy soundtrack, and great actors is why I would call it a classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a must for All but especially African Americans. It is about time there is a movie that expresses and shows the concerns going on in African American relationships. It also allows other cultures to see in a fictional humorous manner how positive African American relationships are and the outcomes of them instead of the undesirable stereotype that plagues the African American community. I love this film a must see!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the opening sequence, filled with black and white shots reminiscent of Gordan Parks photos, this film draws the viewer into a feeling of artistic renaissance. The backdrop of a poetry cafe aptly named, \"The Sanctuary,\" provides just that. The jazz that permeates the film and the cinematography will seduce you.

This story of love actually allows love to grow, to evolve, and ultimately mature, a rarity in hollywood. Everyone can identify with some stage of their journey towards each other. This tale of two artist that just can't quite get it together sparked a debate amongst its viewers. Should she have gone away? Should he have stopped her? Who knows...?

Starring Larenz Tate(Darius Lovehall), and Nia Long(Nina Moseley) with a scene stealing performance by Isiah Washington(Savon) and Lisa Nicole Carson(Josie Nichols) as the ultimate best friend, this film is a romantic jewel.

See this one with someone you love (wink).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have watched Love Jones over thirty times. It is one of the rare films that depict a love story about people who happen to be African-Americans. The dialogue was realistically written, and delivered with honesty. It was so nice to see a film where the story line centered on young professional African-Americans. This is virtually an untapped market. Love Jones was visually captivating as well. The chemistry between Lorenz Tate and Nia Long will bring memories of past and present love. The feeling of the film is jazz and blues, and brings to mine the sensuality of a warm creamy hot chocolate with a splash of Kahlua and Butterscotch. If you hadn't guessed, I loved it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was filled with great acting, great musical sounds that blow your mind completely away. Larenz Tate,(Darius Lovehall),\"Waist Deep\",'06 was a sharp cat with the gals and he soon met his Waterloo with Nia Long,(Nina Mosley),\"Big Momma's House\",2000. Nina put her heart and soul into this role and when she meets up with Darius, the sparks fly at first and then there is a sort of hate relationship. The entire cast of actors made this a very entertaining film, with plenty of comedy, drama and lots of loving and cheating going on. This is a very down to earth film and at the same time shows how everyone eventually has his and her destiny in life and are placed in their little corner of this big world. Great film, enjoy !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Love Jones is one of the best movies I've experienced.

The main element that sticks out to me is the fact that it is very well-directed. I have studied this film in it's entirety - with watching movies more than once, certain things dawn on you subconsciously - the direction of this movie, as well as the writing, is chic, hip, and artful! I am in love with the direction. The scene where Larenz Tate and Nia Long are riding the motorcycle through north Chicago at night is astonishing. The director of this movie DESERVED awards for his great job.

Love Jones is a classy and sexy film. It highlights the fact that we can be people who love, who have flaws, who love living, learning, and just being us without the hype. Being our Natural selves.

The poetry is wonderful, but the story line, the dialog, and the scenes really make this movie.

This movie deserves to be seen. It is a great movie for lovers and friends to sit back and watch, or, the hopeless romantic (like myself) to sit back and enjoy alone on a Friday or Saturday night. Any day of the week where peace, solitude, and a little entertainment is needed, Love Jones is what I recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Late film critic Gene Siskel said that this movie shows how easy it is to make a movie. He was giving it a compliment even though now that might have been taken as an insult these days. Even though I didn't always agree with Gene Siskel, I agree with him here. Love Jones is a shining example of how a love story should be: realistic with real characters in real situations.

The story chronicles the ups and downs of the relationship between Darius Lovehall(Larenz Tate) and Nina(Nia Long). Larenz Tate and Nia Long are more than just a beautiful couple on screen. These two actually have chemistry together. You can feel the vibe between these two whenever the are on screen and its fantastic.

Bill Bellamy is pretty funny as the deceitful Wood and Lisa Nicole Carson is great as Nina's friend Simone. Isaiah Washington is just as great as Darius's close friend Savon and I sigh every time I see him in a movie. The guy is a great actor whose career is ruined by industry lowlifes and the childish games they play. You can believe that he called the little weasel on Grey's Anatomy out of his name but anybody that knows how Follywood works knows better than to believe any \"official story\" from the place of make believe. At any rate...

Love Jones is a wonderful love story full of interesting and likable characters that are in realistic situations that anybody that has been in love can relate too. You love these people because they are believable and are not portrayed as gangsters and tramps. Not one obscene stereotype can be found here. Contrast that with the Romance movies of toady. Exactly. In closing if you love Black Cinema then you would do well to own a copy of this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie had reminded me of watching the old black and white movies with my dad. More true to life characters looking for love, being in love, and loosing it. Old story fresh view. Larenz Tate was so Cary Grant in style as the character may have been in a clumsey situation, but the actor kept him from looking silly and like a cardboard cut out. Nia Long has always been a favorite of mine she is sweet even when she is tough, almost like a Kathrine Hepburn. This is one of his best work and showing that he is better than always playing an angry black man

This movie is a classic, superb acting, well written, a real love story set in Chicago, what more can you ask for?

SuperB Black Love Story","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I try to be diverse in my movie watching. I can get into \"Pride and Prejudice\" as easily as I get into \"Disappearing Acts\". Love Jones is my all time favorite, it is the standard by which I judge any Modern Urban Romantic Comedy. Shot very well, the shot of Nia and Darius riding up Lakeshore Drive on the Motorcycle is one of Classic 3 second movie shots of all time. Of course no one will ever remember it. When it came out, I though it would be a new paradigm for Modern Urban Film-making, good actors, no guns, and so forth. The movie industry has disappointed me to a certain degree, you will have your occasional Drumline, or Roll Bounce, or Tyler Perry's \"Why Did I get Married\". So whenever I need to see \"my people\" presented on screen in a very professional and stylish way, I pop in Love Jones. There is no Best Movie ever made, to many people and opinions for that. But it is my personal best. My favorite line from Love Jones \" Baby, I just wanna come up and talk!!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my favorite movie that portrays African Americans in whole different light. because it shows a different side of African Americans that it is not shown in the movies. its not the gang bang, urban ghetto setting or having to deal with deep racial issues, it captivates the whole essence of being young and trying to be successful and having problems with letting your guard down and letting someone into your life, and the whole bohemian atmosphere gives that great touch that makes all that great, its a great script great dialoge that captivates you and you just get involved with the character. perfect casting with a lot of chemistry and very good acting and i still haven't seen any other movie with black characters that are portrayed in this format the only one that get close is \"Sprung\" but since its a comedy it looses it very quickly I give this movie 9 out of 10 and i wish they would keep making movies with this type of attitude about African Americans","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Working in a music store, my collegue first tipped me this soundtrack. The music of this movie is perfect. One of my favorite CD's. Only years later I saw the movie, I was afraid it would not fulfill my high expectations, luckily it did. A feel good romantic love story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A Must See!

Excellent positive African-American Love Story. This movie had reminded me of watching the old black and white movies with my dad. More true to life characters looking for love, being in love, and loosing it. Old story fresh view. Larenz Tate was so Cary Grant in style as the character may have been in a clumsey situation, but the actor kept him from looking silly and like a cardboard cut out. Nia Long has always been a favorite of mine she is sweet even when she is tough, almost like a Kathrine Hepburn. This is one of his best work and showing that he is better than always playing an angry black man

This movie is a classic, superb acting, well written, a real love story set in Chicago, what more can you ask for?

SuperB Black Love Story

Amsterdam, Holland","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, let me start off by saying that, on the whole, I don't like anime very much. I've enjoyed a couple of the oft-cited \"classic\" series, but regard the medium as a whole in exactly the same way that I do American television: namely, that a good 90-95% of it is utter tripe, with the remainder falling anywhere from \"watchable\" to \"decent.\" This being the case, it's no wonder that I don't like the self-deprecating anime parodies out there. I don't get most of the jokes, and the medium itself enforces a certain style of humor that doesn't appeal to me at all - loud, hyperactive, lowbrow, and completely over the top.

So, when I started watching this series at the behest of a friend, I was primed for disappointment after the first couple of episodes. I figured that the characters were supposed to represent clich\u00e9 characters from shopworn story outlines, and that their actions were supposed to be similarly satirical. I could kind of see where it was coming from, but didn't think that it was all that clever - lots of \"wacky, fun-filled high-school shenanigans and goings-on, only now we're being ironic about it.\" At about the third episode, my opinion drastically changed.

It was at that point that the strengths of this series started to manifest themselves. The quirks of the non-chronological episode order, its snarky sense of self-awareness, and, above all, clever humor with (gasp) a well-executed straight man.

In what I consider to be a rarity in any medium, this show presents well-thought out, witty interactions between diametrically opposed characters. Protagonist Kyon's perpetual sense of vaguely annoyed resignation provides the perfect foil to the actions of title character Haruhi's generic \"anime-like\" exploits. It's a break from formula, and it works incredibly well.

Based on that strong foundation, the series further succeeds with a truly phenomenal level of attention to detail. As previously stated, the episodes air out of chronological order. I considered this to be a gimmick at first, but it works surprisingly well. The chronological sequence of events makes sense logically, but the aired order of the episodes more closely follows the traditional structure of Aristotelian drama. The order chosen leaves no narrative gaps that cannot be filled by simple inference (but while it is possible to guess what happened in an unaired \"preceding\" episode, one still feels compelled to watch exactly how those events unfold), and superb planning prevents any plot holes or contradictions. I watched this series a second time immediately upon completing it the first time, and I was amazed at how well even seemingly inconsequential events were all tied together.

The last point is indicative of the extreme attention to detail in every area of the series. While the stock \"anime\" character designs grate a bit, the background art is exquisite, realistically rendered based upon actual photographic references. Animation quality is also excellent at important points. For example there is a musical performance late on in the series in which the characters are shown actually playing a song - this may sound trivial, but the subconscious effect of watching (film-quality) animation which actually corresponds to the soundtrack is incredible.

In short, I love this series for some reason. By its very nature it is something that I generally dislike, but its execution is so unique and well-carried out that I can't help it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu is a very high-rated anime in almost every review page you'll find on the web. So I really wanted to know why, and I was anything but disappointed.

If you can get past the very bizarre (but rather funny) first episode, you'll find yourself in a very entertaining and much strange world. A very well drawn, perfectly animated world, that is.

I can't tell much of the story without spoiling it, so I'll just say that it's a high school comedy... and yet it's not. I can't really say what it's about, really.

Seriously, I'm a HUGE anime fan, and I've got around 50 full series, and I'm not kidding when I say that, even though I haven't finished watching Haruhi Suzumiya, it is actually standing in a very high rank in my personal collection. I fell in love at first sight with this one, and I assure you that, at the very least, you won't be indifferent to its irresistible charm. Trust me, I don't go around giving a 10 to every thing that I watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Suzumiya Haruhi no y\u00fbutsu (The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya) might at a first glance make you think that this is just another animated school comedy\/drama. Well, it's not! The setting just happen to be a school environment. This is a comedy alright, but a very smart one with a lot of sarcasm. And the characters does have a psychological sublimeness which is almost in the same class that can be found in the works of Ingmar Bergman. The episodes is aired, as it seems, out of order, i.e. the pilot is in fact episode 11. This makes it possible to present small clues to upcoming episodes. The show is an adaption of Nagaru Tanigawa's popular novel series about Haruhi Suzumiya.

What about the story then? Like in all the episodes does the story revolves Haruhi Suzumiya, who tries to ease her own boredom by embarking in adventures. Haruhi her self has no interest in ordinary humans, and actively searches for aliens, time travelers and espers (persons with supernatural forces). To find this sort of people she has formed a club which she calls the SOS-Brigade (Save the world by Overloading it with fun: Haruhi Suzumiyas Brigade). Except for Haruhi, the other members of the SOS-brigade is Kyon. He is the real protagonist of the show. It's trough his point of view that we follow the story. He just happen to sit in front in class when Haruhi came up with the idea to form the SOS-Brigade. He is quite sceptical to most club activities and tags along just to ensure that Haruhi don't go to much to the extremes, and he is the only one in the class that Haruhi likes to talk with. Another member is Yuki Nagato, which is the \"indispensable silent member\" and is also the only remaining member of the Literature club, which room the SOS-Brigade has occupied in the quest for a free club room. She doesn't mind that the SOS-Brigade uses her clubroom, as long as she can sit in a corner and read her books. She also participate in the brigades activities. Mikuru Asahina was \"voluntarily arrested\" by Haruhi because the club needed a Lolita-like mascot for anything suspicious to happen. She often act as the clubs maid. The last member is the always smiling Itsuki Koizumi, who happens to be the \"mysterious transfer student\" (meaning he transfered two months in to the semester which Haruhi finds to qualifies as mysterious).

Haruhi thinks that all members but Kyon are some random picked people in school, but the do indeed have their own interest in her.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Good animation, nice character design, and a light-hearted story make Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu enjoyable to watch.

After my first viewing, I thought that this anime was pretty good, but but was much better on for a second watch.

This is because it is done out of chronological order, and once you re watch it in correct order you notice connections you didn't see before. (OR it may be that you see a second meaning to some events you didn't notice before) You may want to read the original novels (not manga) by Tanigawa Nagaru before\/after seeing this. The anime is very good at visualizing every detail in the stories it shows.

However, there are some short stories from the book that are not animated, but are referenced to.(bamboo w\/ wishes attached shown in episode 14) Overall, this anime is actually very good once after brief analyzation of the plot (reading the book improves upon it as well). It is a nice break from the shounen-jump anime that seem to be taking over.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At first sight this is yet another highschool anime with lots of excuses for 'fanservice', but there is a lot more going on. The 'fanservice' is part of the plot, the main character is a tired cynic (unusual), and most importantly there is a clever plot that ties all the episodes together, and that poses some interesting questions. The episodes are deliberately non-chronological, and it is certainly worth watching the series again in chronological order.

The series is worth watching carefully, because there are a lot of casual hints in there that foreshadow and explain things, plus a good number of in-jokes about other series, anime and other.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A 2006 online poll of Japan's top 100 favorite animated television series of all time, conducted by TV Asahi, placed this series in fourth place. That tells you everything you need to know. So go and watch it.;) I won't comment on the story, simply because I don't want to ruin anything. I only urge you to keep watching after you saw the first episode. The Animation is really good and above TV average. The best thing about this series is, that there is finally something new. I mean it's not groundbreaking but still it offers a fresh new idea and likable characters. You won't regret entering Suzumiya Haruhi's world.

and the best thing a movie is coming soon","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the get go, you won't be able to look away, and you won't want to. \"The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya\" (Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu) is one of the most entertaining animes I've seen in a long time. If you can look away from the insane, and sometimes perverse, humor, it's easy to find a brilliantly constructed and masterfully executed work.

Part of the brilliance comes from the fact that the episodes are not in chronological order, so you may not understand some of the things they talk about at first, but as the series progresses you'll find yourself saying \"ah, so that's what they meant!\" Even though this might confuse some people, after watching the show you'll be hard pressed to make a case against telling the story in this fashion.

After all the focus is on the characters. The title character, Haruhi Suzumiya, is by far one of the most eccentric heroines of any anime ever. Her opening speech to her class, in which she declares she is \"not interested in normal humans,\" and is searching for \"espers, aliens and time travelers,\" is absolutely bizarre, but she's lovable that way.

Then there's Kyon, the \"normal\" guy who is pulled into the madness surrounding Suzumiya-san. He's the narrator, and his quick wit always makes the scene that much more entertaining. He finds himself caught in the middle of various factions all trying to influence Haruhi Suzumiya, and the other three characters are representatives of these factions; ironically, they are the very beings Haruhi is searching for, and yet they cannot reveal themselves to her.

The first is Yuki Nagato, a quiet girl who happens to be the only member of the school Literary club, and also a representative of the Integration Thought Entity; she is basically an alien, though the best description of her is a computer program in a human body. Her purely emotionless responses make her comically deadpan and always make you think there's more than meets the eye. Then there's Mikuru Asahina, the time traveler, who happens to be incredibly cute, a major ditz, and the subject of Suzumiya's plans to advertise her club, the SOS Brigade, to the world. The end result is that Suzumiya does things to her that border on sexual harassment, making her dress up in fetish uniforms. The final character is Koizumi Itsuki, the timid and perpetually optimistic philosopher who happens to be Haruhi's \"esper,\" though he can only use his powers in certain conditions.

The end result of all these characters is a comedy unlike any other, that is both crude and deep, and always brilliant. Don't believe me? Watch the first episode, their \"student film.\" You'll see what I mean.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first heard about The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya from a reviewer on Youtube. He literally slapped the show with a big bad rant, condemning it rubbish and confusing. Curious, I decided to watch the show (once I got the order of the episodes right, thanks to those who made the lists), and I found it absolutely brilliant and enjoyable to watch. Great memorable characters who are full of life and are absolutely lovable and hilarious; a unique and not over blowing plot that makes sense now that I've watched the show; and two of the best anime moments in history, in my opinion. Plus the opening and ending themes are great.

The anime, based on a collection of successful manga novels, follows a simple plot, once you understand it. While the show's focus is on the main character, Haruhi Suzumiya, the point of view is from her friend Kyon. Kyon is a regular high school student who doesn't really believe in supernatural stuff (e.g. Santa Clause, aliens, time travellers, ghosts, espers) but he soon ends up talking to Haruhi, who is the most oddest girl in the school and would prefer to date an alien, considering all men worthless. She even joined every club in the school to find something interesting, but quit as quickly as she joined. Upon \"advice\" from Kyon, Haruhi decides to form her own club with Kyon's club. Setting up in the literary club room, Haruhi forms the SOS Brigade - its mission to investigate supernatural cases (think Scooby-Doo minus the dog, the masked man and the Mystery Machine).

Haruhi \"recruits\" three extra members. The first is Yuki Nagato, a bookworm of sorts who speaks very little and spends most of her time reading and sitting. The second is Mikuru Asahina, a shy girl who is forced into the club by Haruhi who thinks they need a cute mascot to get some things done. She is often forced into costumes by Haruhi to further her cuteness. The third is Itsuki Koizumi, a friendly and sociable transfer student who is always smiling. While Haruhi thinks her group is filled with normal people she couldn't be more wrong. While Kyon is as normal as you can get, the other three on the other hand are rather unique - Yuki is an alien, Mikuru is a time traveller from the future, and Itsuki is an esper (a person who has ESP). All three have come to watch over Haruhi who may just have the powers of a god, and if she becomes bored, she may be able to discover her powers and create a whole new world, and Kyon is involved somehow.

The show is worth watching with great characters, music and some hilarious and wonderful moments. However, for parents, there is some sexual references including Mikuru's cleavage being exposed or touched several times, and several swear words used as well. Apart from that, the show is one of the greats.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is an anime that left quite the impression on me. Partially for the characters, many of whom fall into anime fantasy\/sci-fi stereotypes, but placing these stereotypes in the rather mundane setting of high school is a twist that I appreciated. Then there's the somewhat insane titular character who is something else: a headstrong, almost amoral, girl with ridiculous amounts of talent and a secret that she's not aware of.

The set-up for the series is a bit of a mind-trip. Essentially Suzumiya, unbeknown to herself, is a sort of super-powerful being, capable of god-like feats of creation and destruction, as she can destroy and rebuild reality to her whim. Our narrator and primary character is Kyon, a high schooler whose sympathy\/curiosity for Haruhi appears to cause her to drag him, against his will, into a club she's starting to spice up her life, because she's bored with the normal life. Searching for adventure, she claims three more unusual members, each with secrets and they all end up being dragged into her crazy schemes.

There is a bit of crazy, but enjoyable, philosophic consideration early on as we debate whether the world is merely Haruhi's creation as she gets bored of the old one and whether our characters exist to serve her or serve her to continue to exist or whether they could exist without her. It's a bit of a conundrum, but an enjoyable one all the same. While sci-fi\/fantasy scenarios do occasionally occur in the series, I think the joy of the series lies in how normal things are, while there remains this tension in knowing that if things are too boring, Haruhi might destroy the world in hopes of making it more interesting.

The art is clean and in line with what I've come to expect from the anime that typically gets imported to the US; I like the character designs and while there isn't a whole lot of action in the series, I think it sits better that way. The series is narrated from the mind of Kyon and he doesn't play an omniscient narrator but only comments on what he knows and what he feels. He's has a lot going on in his head, but he doesn't actually speak a whole lot so it's good that we get to hear it.

The voice acting in the English dub is acceptable enough, but I prefer the Japanese acting over it. There are some stranger aspects to the series, some of which both parodies and traffics in fanboy-ism, which I found amusing. For the first season, I have to admit that there's a lack of closure, as the series doesn't really have an larger story arc, but seems to take things one at a time, so it's an easy series to pick up and put down, although I think that because of its rather entertaining qualities, it's still quite hard to put down. It's also based on a series of light novels and the author was directly involved in the writing of the series.

Even though it's based on the novels, I still wish that the over series had stronger story arcs, but I love how naturally we get to watch these characters develop and how well the series can play out the quiet moments as well as the crazier ones. Seeing Haruhi grow herself was quite a treat as well as watching the relationships develop between the SOS Brigade (Haruhi's club).

It's not for everyone, due to its mind-twisting premise and \"extra-ordinary beings in a mundane world\" setting. It probably won't sate fanboys who are into action\/sci-fi\/fantasy and might be a little too off-kilter for the more relationship-oriented drama lovers, but for those willing to try out something a little different, or that like strangely quirky series like this, I think The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is a rather refreshingly unique and enjoyable series. More please. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On the surface TMHS appears to be yet another generic high school drama; but surprisingly hidden away underneath is immense amounts of depth, originality and eccentricities that will not only render it unforgettable to the viewer, but also makes it indisputably one of the best animes that the medium has produced in the last few years.

We see the world through the eyes of Kyon, who on his first day of High School meets Haruhi Suzumiya, a girl that boldly claims to the rest of the class she has no interest in 'normal humans' and to top it off casually invites any aliens, time travellers, sliders or espers to meet up with her. Kyon stares in disbelief, wondering if shes joking or has a few screws loose. However defying his gut instincts he begins talking to her. In doing so it soon becomes apparent she isn't some ordinary high schooler. Not to long after, she creates her own aptly named 'SOS Brigade' school club, and drags Kyon amongst other highly unfortunate people to attend.

Nothing in this anime conforms to the usual standard conventions, Kyon the protagonist is an overly cynical pessimist, and contributes a witty narration to the show. A far-cry from the usual 2D male leading characters that tends to populate the medium. The episodes themselves are not chronological,and forces the viewer to think about the events unfolding and how they relate to prior instances. This is a stroke of genius; the effect is like a jig-saw puzzle, as a new piece is layed we get more of a sense of the bigger picture. Previous scenes are now given entire new meanings, and the realization of them are profoundly satisfying. This does mean however that it feels dis-jointed (its anything but), a very cleverly written script has bypassed this problem and ensured that it flows smoothly from start to finish.

The story itself is strikingly original, but I won't delve further than the simple bare-bones plot outline I gave earlier, as it will no doubt spoil it for you. However what I will mention is the plot incorporates a vast array of genres, ranging from comedy to sci-fi. How they managed to accomplish this in the space of fourteen episodes is beyond me, and no doubt a huge achievement in itself.

TMHS is a true gem, which has such diversity and depth that it will appeal to pretty much anyone with an interest in anime. Watch it, rather unusually this is something that lives up to the enormous hype that it has received- and even exceeds it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I tend to fall in and out of love with anime, as the more you watch the more you notice a lot of shows are just poor copies of the few gems or rehashes of old formulas. But every once in a while one of the true gems comes along and it's originality just blows you away. Haruhi is truly one of those shows. Many anime series are originally manga and sometimes the translation into an animated show is rather poorly done and doesn't utilize the benefits animation has over static drawings. Haruhi is actually based on a series of light novels and fires on all cylinders, beautiful animation, great voice acting, great music and a complete and well paced story. Watch it you won't be disappointed, and I'd suggest watching it in broadcast order it works so much better that way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have no words to really describe this series.

The premise behind this concept (a highly hyperactive girl with a very eccentric personality which ends up whirling up a team of oddballs into her own rendering of the world, which after all was a creation of Haruhi, since she wants a world with aliens, espers and time travelers) is a breath of fresh air in a world ridden with repetitive anime series and non innovative TV shows.

Characters are well developed, and you will end up loving them, some less than others. The word to describe the animation job does not exist, since \"excellent\" would really fall short to describe how was done. There are many funny situations which either will make you smile or put you into deep thoughts. Don't fall for the impression of the first episode, since that's only the tip of the iceberg, as the novels are yet to come.

The only problem comes due to the lack of chronological order in the episodes, but you can solve that problem, no?

Conclusion: Unquestionably, one of the best series of 2006.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is based on somewhat pat formula by now of Japanese school drama anime. The formula somewhat goes like this:

1. The main protagonist comes from world outside the normal society, and has super powers.

2. There's a very beautiful and sexy girl in a supporting role.

3. A normal character is in there who shares the main role in the story.

4. Unusual things happens in an usual social settings.

5. Sometimes the story is about the main protagonist, and the normal character that connects to the existence or destruction of the world.

6. Absolutely no effort is spent by anyone to gain all the magical powers. They just have it.

7. Usually, people outside of this tight nit group is not aware of their super powers, and goes on with their daily lives.

So there you have it. Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi is made along these lines which became the success formula for comics and anime in Japan. Even though it follows a pat formula, the series is superbly crafted and the episodes are always set in an interesting back drop within the normal social settings which always morphs into unusual circumstances surrounding Haruhi Suzumiya. Each player in the story brings some unusual insight into the daily life that usually we are not aware of. The philosophical twist of their insights are what makes this series extra entertaining. The visuals are first rate, and done beautifully.

The crazy ideas Haruhi always seem to come up with along with complicated settings of the story may give you headache from time to time. It's further complicated by the fact that the episodes are played out of sequence which further adds to the confusion. When I watched the episodes in the chronological sequence, some of the plots finally made sense. I recommend you do the same. It's much more entertaining to watch the series this way. Google

List_of_The_Melancholy_of_Haruhi_Suzumiya_episodes

for the correct sequence of all the episodes. And oh, you might notice the headache while you're watching this like I did. Let me know if you had it too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is great. Not only is \"Haruhai Suzumiya\" a very well written anime show, it also reflects things like Philosophy, Science Fiction and a little religion. It's hilarious at some points and \"cute\" (for lack of a better term) at others. Actually this may be effect to my lack of experience with Japanese anime shows, but it is one of the best of its genre I have seen.

I mainly have to give credit to the writers. I haven't seen such brilliant scopes of imagination in a television show since the original Star Trek. I hope the writers continue to add strange new characters and give more insight on the already great characters that have been added.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was quite good. It was on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) at three am one night, and its offbeat humor kept me up til five. Kelly performs beautifully in this role, especially with the Grandma (whose quip almost caused me to laugh out of my seat). The main actress was alright, but the father was able to keep his character isolated from the marriage conflict and kept the humor coming. If you like a good offbeat, older movie, I would recommend it. Unlike the other comment, I do like Gene Kelly. He was the perfect leading actor for many of the early musicals and I think in this role, he oozes his charisma. One drawback is the dance scenes get a little long-winded, but if you can get through those, you're in the clear.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was fun. I have never really watched old movies before and this one was a really great first date film. It had warmth and heart and spirit. Was kind of cheesy but in today's film industry, cheesy is cute. I gave it a ten and I highly suggest renting, buying or seeing the movie anyway you can. Gene Kelly was very dreamy and a little bit sarcastic and you knew the character thought that he was gonna have it all. The female lead was cast perfect because their two personalities had spark and you wanted to hold on and see what would happen. The grandma in the movie was priceless. The perfect addition to a great old movie. I love the fact it was black and white and Gene Kelly is so sweet with all the kids in the movie that you can't help liking him. See It.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely fell in love with \"Living in A Big Way\" when I first saw it! Reason #1 is because I LOVE, ADORE, and am a HUGE fan of GENE KELLY. He was such a wonderful dancer, actor, and choreographer. Not to mention his extremely handsome looks and his sensual personality. I love his role in this movie. He was such a gentleman. This movie showcased his wonderful talent for acting. I enjoyed Marie MacDonald as well. It was my first time of ever seeing or knowing anything about her, and this excellent movie made me a fan of her's as well. Actually, the whole cast in this movie was enjoyable and great. The humor between the butler,\"Everette Hanover Smythe\", and the father, Mr. Morgan; Mrs. Morgan's courtroom humor, and especially grandmother Morgan's immediate attachment to, and concern for \"LEO GOGARTY.\" And GENE'S number \"FIDO AND ME\" is adorable. The opening dance number with GENE and MARIE is very nice too. I would recommend that anyone see this movie. It will truly remain dear to your heart forever. Or at least it has to mine. And you'll fall in love with GENE all over again. I rate it my #2 favorite GENE KELLY MOVIE, and I've seen and own a quite many of his movies. They're a part of my daily routine! So trust me when I tell you, you'll love this movie! Watch it and enjoy!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've rented this gem several times! It's a small, yet somehow sprawling masterpiece taking the viewer from Manhattan glitz to the beauty of the Greek islands. John Cassavetes on-screen marriage to his real-life wife Gena Rowlands is on the rocks. He finds meaning in a fling with footloose Susan Sarandon whom he finds in Greece while their daughter, played in her earliest film role by the pubescent Molly Ringwald, falls for the son of the Greek shipping tycoon who is courting her mother on a yacht sailing in neighboring waters. Meanwhile, the immensely talented Raul Julia plays a goatherd living in a cave with his Sony Trinitron. He has the \"hots\" for Molly Ringwald's character until confronted by John Cassavetes. All comes together at the end in a classic closing scene where all is reconciled. Raul Julia, the goatherd, is seen dancing with his goat. This film is full of mysticism, beauty, young and old love, humor, sexiness, and more. See it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Tempest\" is a somewhat self-indulgent, uneven, discursive movie. But as Lord Byron, another visitor to Greece, protested to his friend John Murray about his similarly self-indulgent and discursive \"Don Juan,\" \"It may be profligate but is it not life, is it not the thing?\"

The connections to Shakespeare's \"Tempest\" may seem, as another commentator here claims, a bit tenuous. But watch the film again after re-reading \"The Tempest,\" and they'll seem far closer. What makes this film flawed is its uneasy mixture of straightforward normal narrative and sudden jarring apparent improvisation, particularly between Cassavetes and Rowland. But to be honest, these scenes are the most remarkable and gripping in the film, if the hardest to watch.

The music of this film, composed by Stomu Yamashta, is also overlooked. Particularly fine is the perfect little piece played to accompany the afternoon siesta, as people, animals, and seemingly the entire island collapse to sleep away the hottest part of the afternoon. It's a sublime moment, and representative of the best aspect of this movie and the one thing that keeps it somewhat unified, the fact that (aside from extensive flashbacks and the very end) it is the story of one day on an island, from awakening to night.

Overall, I'd rather watch this film a hundred times than see some bombastic Hollywood piece of crap once. And in fact, I probably have watched it several dozen times. Most times, I see something I missed before.

(Confession: I'm biased. This was the second movie I took my Greek-American goddess wife to see.)

Trivia notes on this flick:

- It was Molly Ringwald's first movie, as well as Sam Robards';

- It was actually not filmed on an island, but in Gytheion, the southern tip of the remote Mani peninsula of the Peloponnesus of Greece;

- The (by today's standards) primitive special effects were done by Bran Ferren, who later became head of Disney Imagineering, and still later was an adviser to the US intelligence community;

- Paul Mazursky, the director, chose the title of his recent autobiography, \"Show Me the Magic,\" from the script of \"Tempest.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For many years I thought I was the only person on the planet who had seen TEMPEST, and I am so glad to learn that I am not the only person who discovered this sleeper somewhere in their movie-going travails. Loosely based on the Shakesperean play, TEMPEST follows an architect (the late John Cassavettes, in one of his best performances), bored with his work and his crumbling marriage (to real life spouse Gene Rowlads), who decides to chuck it all, say the hell with the rat race and go live on an island with his daughter (Molly Ringwald, in her film debut), and new girlfriend Aretha (a luminous Susan Sarandon). Even though Paul Mazursky is credited as director, Cassavettes hand is all over this film...the long scenes filmed without cutting, the improvisatory feel to the dialogue..., the self-indulgent storytelling style, this is definitely his show from beginning to end, and if you're not a fan of his work, the film will seem laboriously long and dull but if you are a fan, there are rewards to be had. Cassavettes is surrounded by a first rate cast...his scenes with Rowlands crackle with intensity and his surprising chemistry with Sarandon is a stark contrast to his scenes with Rowlands. Ringwald shines in her film debut and there is a scene-stealing performance by the late Raul Julia as Kalibanos, Cassavettes' manservant on the island. Julia stops the show in one scene dancing with a flock of sheep accompanied by Liza Minnelli singing \"New York, New York\". This film is sad and tragic and funny and intense. Yes, it's a little long and disjointed and it works a little too hard at being different (there's even a curtain call at the end of the film), but it never fails to hold the attention of those who like something a little different in their filmgoing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't say what knowing the source for this movie adds, but this is one of my favorite films from Paul Mazursky (director and co-author). This is a retake on the Shakespeare \"comedy\", but utterly removed from the stage. Without much text, Mazursky and star Cassavettes make visual a mid-life crisis of passion and purpose. Desperate to re-center himself, Cassavettes retreats to a remote Greek island--where the locals and the island itself weave a little magic. With Raul Julia especially, Susan Sarandon and Molly Ringwald, this is an adult fantasy that is emotionally satisfying and visually gorgeous. And funny. It wasn't a big box office hit, but whenever it does come to DVD, it will sell.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie and all aspects of it, well directed as a comedy and as a drama. The acting is tremendous, performed by an all-star cast who play the high society New York perfectly. The scenery is incredible, totally breathtaking. I also love the story: a successful NYC architect who is going through a midlife crisis leaves his cheating wife and runs off to a Greek island to hide out with his daughter who chooses to go with him.

I just cannot express my love affair enough regarding this movie. \"Show me the magic\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've often heard people express disappointment that Mazursky's \"Tempest\" has little to do with Shakespeare's original. In my opinion, that is both true and false, but most of all, it's a bad starting point for offering critique. A work of art should never be criticised for what it isn't, but for what it is. The movie \"Tempest\" is nothing like a faithful rendition of the play, but to my mind, it is faithful to Shakespeare's work in spirit. What \"Tempest\" is, then, is perhaps one of the most successful experimental films of all time. No, not experimental as in hand- held camera and mumbled dialogue, but experimental as in exploring the convolutions of a story without undue regard for box office earnings. Mazursky's Tempest is epic, sad, realistic, joyous, full of life, but most of all, it is imaginative. Cassavetes portrayal of Philip\/Prospero is in itself worth a 10\/10 rating, and when you add Gena Rowlands, Susan Sarandon, a wonderfully deep Molly Ringwald, Raul Julia, the dialogue, the music and the exquisitely suggestive little tableaux scattered throughout the picture... I rest my case. One of the best movies of the 80's. Don't miss it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What will be Prospero in the twentieth century, what is his life? Why a man would need to choose to live on an island with his daughter and girl friend? Because it is too hard to live and love in good conditions in \"civilisation\". This man (John Cassavetes) is a broken hearted giant, he can command the storm. He's got the power, the strengh but he is human. Deep love of life is the subject of this extraordenary movie. The acting is incredible, all the genius of John Cassavetes, Gena Rowlands, Vittorio Gasman and Shakespeare and paul mazursky of course. don't miss it it'll be a mistake this film is one of the most beautiful I've ever seen.and i've seen a lot of movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie despite the fact it just misses being great. It's an adult entertainment, full of issues that a grown person can relate to. The acting is superb. It's fun watching John Cassavetes and Gena Rowlands as a feuding middle-aged couple. Who knows how much of it came from their own marriage? Susan Sarandon has never been sexier or more appealing than as her freewheeling character, Aretha. Raul Julia is a hoot as a lusty goatherd. The scenery in Greece is spectacular; the New York settings cause me to squirm due to many shots of the World Trade Center. Fantastic score by Stomu Yamashta. With so many things going for it, why isn't this a great film? It's a bit rambling and overly long, unfocused, and uncomfortably imbalanced between humor and drama. Still, it's engaging, entertaining, and deeply thoughtful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cheers to all the wonderful fans of this film that have not only seen and appreciate it, but (based on the many literate comments) actually GET IT! I for one have always considered Paul Mazursky's \"Tempest\" a musing on the Shakespeare play of the same name, as has been noted in a few of the other reviews here. On the other hand, if you're looking for a more straightforward adaptation of the play, you should look elsewhere. As an experiment, however, it succeeds just spectacularly. Charming, moving, funny, sad, dramatic ... it's all of that and much more. Cast, locations, script, music are just fantastic. Cassavetes and Rowland were never better. Susan Sarandon's turn more than hinted at the great work to come from her in the future. Molly Ringwald makes her film debut memorable and you just have to love Raul Julia's performance ... he steals the show in several scenes. What's more, the always great Cassavetes was confident and assured enough a performer to have let him! A study on what the thematic elements of Shakespeare's classic might be life if updated into more \"modern times,\" Mazursky's \"Tempest\" burns brilliantly!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"William Shakespeare probably didn't envision Stephanos as a gay doctor, Antonio as a faithless wife, or Caliban as a goatherd with a Trinitron, but the Bard's had worse done to his good work over time, and might even enjoy the sumptuous pageant of life that is his \"Tempest\" as re-configured by Paul Mazursky and co-writer Leon Capetanos.

This time, Prospero is Philip Dimitrius (John Cassevetes), a Manhattan-based architect tired of designing Atlantic City casinos for the amiable Mafioso Alonso (Vittorio Gassman), especially after discovering Alonso is carrying on an affair with Philip's wife Antonia (Gena Rowlands). Along with daughter Miranda (Molly Ringwald), Philip escapes to a remote Greek island with Miranda and his new mistress Aretha (Susan Sarandon), a nice Catholic girl who struggles with Philip's celibate lifestyle. Will a sudden storm bring all right in the end?

Here's a thought on the career of Cassevetes: How many other actors could make a film so confused into something so riveting? A darling of film critics for his earlier work, often with his real-life wife Rowlands, he presents a central character who really suffers for his art here, but seems to enjoy himself and makes us enjoy him, too. It's not Prospero, but something rich and strange that makes for a terrific sea change all his own.

\"It's all here,\" he tells one of his faithful companions, Aretha's dog Nino. \"Beauty, magic, inspiration, and serenity.\" That it is. \"Tempest\" transfers 1611 London to 1982 Manhattan and finds some nice resonances in Philip's displaced life. \"Show me the magic\", he calls out to a storm-tossed city skyscape, and Mazursky's version, augmented by Donald McAlpine's sterling cinematography of purple seascapes and naturally sun-burnished Greek landscapes, does just that.

It's not a perfect movie, by any means. In fact, the big finale, which is the only part of the movie that follows Shakespeare's storyline to any faithful extent, is a mess. Rowland's character is hard to care much for in this film, and after meeting Sarandon in all her braless glory, it's hard to understand Philip's continuing concern for his wife, let alone his left-field desire to make an unhappy \"sacrifice\" in order to restore the natural order of things.

But there's a lot to love about \"Tempest\". In addition to Cassavetes, there's Ringwald's film debut as his loyal but restless daughter, here as in the play an object of desire for the primitive rustic \"Kalibanos\" (Raul Julia). Ringwald here is very much the same teenaged muse of privileged adolescence that would inspire John Hughes, but with an emotional depth those later Hughes films didn't delve into. Ringwald and Julia never got any Oscar attention, but they both would win Golden Globes for their playful work here. He tries to woo her in her island isolation with his TV reruns of \"Gunsmoke\" in Greek, tempted by her 15-year-old body.

\"I want to balonga you with my bonny johnny,\" Kalibanos declares, getting shoved aside but winning our sympathy anyway, especially after performing \"New York, New York\" with a chorus of goats. (When \"Tempest\" hit the screens, Julia was the toast of Broadway as the lead in \"Nine\".)

It's Mazursky's show, even if it feels at times that Cassavetes is running things with improvisational line readings and emotional breakdowns galore. (Philip introduces himself to Aretha by telling her \"I'm right in the middle of a nervous breakdown\".) He plays his character as an amiable obsessive, seeking to crystallize his happiness by building an theater in his otherwise uninhabited island.

Adding to the enjoyment is Gassman's rich performance as the other man, who is as completely amiable as Julia while telling a youth-obsessed Philip: \"Boys don't have half as much fund as we have. They're nervous...and they make love in the back of an old sports car.\" Despite being overlong and pretentious in spots, like so many art films, \"Tempest\" is entertaining in its excesses and a trip very much like Shakespeare intended, even if his dreams didn't involve smoking pot backstage at a Go-Gos concert.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Paul Mazursky's Tempest - Interesting,odd and strange movie about a mid-life crisis.Set in NYC and a remote Greek Island with John Cassavettes as world renowned architect who decides to drop out.He is accompanied by his daughter(Molly Ringwald) and a lounge singer(Susan Sarandon).A beautiful transfer of this 25 year old movie on the DVD- but without any extras-not even the theatrical trailer.Tons of great scenery and razor-sharp dialogue make this 2 and a half hour movie an interesting trip.Raul Julia and Gena Rowlands round out a strong cast.A good drama mixed with comedy and tension and near insanity.This recent DVD release is worth renting. B+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just cannot believe the low scores for this movie. Probable reason has to do with the low number of votes meaning few people have seen it. This is simply a fantastic movie! There are so many stories inter-wined within but it's not complicated. Each character grows with the movie and we experience with them undergoing life changes. The scenery is simply amazing and the end credits are the best ever in any movie I have seen (just like a Shakespeare play). Yes, it's a little dated (filmed in 1982) but the issues the characters face are very current. It could have been filmed in 2002 without modifications to the story line. Raul Julia is amazing, best role ever in a movie - this is his signature piece. A young Molly Ringwald is excellent as she matures from girl to young woman. Susan Sarandon is perfect as a young carefree woman and John Cassavetes is the force that puts this all together. Do yourself a favor, find this movie, view it & enjoy it. Come back to IMDb and score this movie into the top 250 of all time where it really belongs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film much like Skywalker02 did, but when I could manage to see it again and with formal film training, psychology, and life has had the time to really take me by the hand and start beating me about,..I really click with the film. I remember the pay for service cable channels played this thing almost to death, much like poltergeist when it first came out, and many other popular films. I felt back then it wasn't worth the fuss and constant \"airtime\" (I know cable isn't really on air) given it, but I was very young and adult situation drama wouldn't have and shouldn't have worked. However, recent viewing of the film has enlightened me on the film. I think that Susan Surandon and Molly Ringwald were likely studying the script together, and I would be a bit surprised if Surandon had coached Ringwald during this project. Ringwald's other projects, while good, do not have her exhibiting the potential depth as this role. Surandon nailed hers, as Raul Julia did also. Cassavettes and wife delivered acceptable performances, but I will admit at times first class acting turns to mediocre. A steady ebb and flow to the acting does take place during many scenes, but overall I can see why the story might call for the dynamic to become more subtle.

All in all, I don't find this film to be the \"take me out and drown me\" kind of boredom fest as Skywalker02 would have you believe. I think that perhaps with the right psychological training and a bit more hardship in one's domestic life strategically placed, coupled with some film courses perhaps this film would appear different. I would say if you are feeling a bit melancholy and yearn for a simpler life, and you have had your share of marital discord amongst dysfunctional family units, then perhaps this film might provide more insight and entertainment than you might think. I do feel it is a classic and find it much more entertaining than mainstream films that are supposed to share many of the same elements, such as Terms of Endearment which as far as I am concerned could be stripped of a few extraordinary performances by Jack Nicholson, then ceremoniously burned until nothing is left. (How could a film like that get more attention than this one. Talk about boredom.)Best thing, don't take my word or anyone else's, see the film and support our industry.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just lovely. It is long. No climax. Don't wait for anything to happen. Great for a rainy day. About a man in a mid life crisis who takes his family to a secluded area of the Greek isles. I saw this in my teens and still love it 20+ years later. I have been unable to find it in video stores however. Molly Ringwald is a cute average teenager who basically wants to go home and then kind of settles into the place. There are no phones, no TV, boredom, which when hit with quietness like that, the human condition is to be bored and then to reflect. And each character does so. Susan Sarandon plays a beautiful woman who wants to be sexually involved with John Cassavetes' character, but he is unable to, well, you know. Gina Rowlands, is the wife that loves him but is just about to give up on their marriage. He is demanding and frustrating to everyone. There is another character in the movie, a Greek who talks to Molly Ringwald inappropriately about sex, but things that she is curious about. But he is irritating and horny and i didn't like this character. The locale of the film is what makes this film so so good. It wouldn't work if filmed anywhere else. I recommend this film and give it a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An extremely gentle retelling of the Shakespeare play (and much more overt about it than Forbidden Planet). Cassavetes is always a joy to watch, and even more so with Gena Rowlands sharing the spotlight. His take on the Prospero role is well suited for the sort of craggy all-knowing expression he brings to the story. This especially comes to the forefront in a scene when, upon spotting his estranged wife and her lover in a speedboat, he conjures up a storm (accompanied on the soundtrack by an appropriate selection from Stomu Yamashta's \"Go\"). This is only one of the moments throughout the film where the line between reality and fantasy becomes nicely blurred, and the viewer is left with the feeling that magic is more possible than one might believe. Add to this an excellent performance by Raul Julia, plus good work by Susan Sarandon, Vittorio Gassman and Molly Ringwald, and the film becomes a nice little treat to occupy the space behind your eyes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really liked this film - not so much for the story (which was okay, but was a bit slow-moving in spots) but moreso for the incredibly beautiful scenery of Greece and the Greek isles! Susan Sarandon is utterly engaging as the carefree love interest of John Cassavetes - a man \"on the edge\". But the scenery! Oh oh oh!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent movie in many aspects. Vicente Aranda has succeeded in depicting the time (1830) with meticulous care. The light, the places, the feeling, are perfectly perceived from the very start of the movie. And along with it -in opposite to what happened to \"Mad Love\" (Juana la Loca), a rather episodic historical movie- all of this beautiful photography\/ music\/ clothes is wrapping a very fluid screenplay that reaches its climax in the only possible way.

Concerning the actors, Paz Vega as Carmen is outstanding: liar, seductive, agressive, totally sexual, so beautiful Carmen. Sbaraglia is a little less convincing the audience about his instant mad love for Carmen, but he succeeds in conveying the proper tragic mood to the whole movie. I recommend it to everyone: the best spanish movie of the year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are several ways to misunderstand this movie and a couple of them have been shown in some of the past comments. This is a movie to be analyzed as a free recreation of a known subject and therefore not to be compared with the opera, the book or other Carmen movies seen before. It just stands for itself and I must say that this Carmen does it very well. It is a mistake to compare because that is the first step to deny movies the chance to be autonomous creative works of art. Vicente Aranda is a master of atmosphere and the art direction, the costumes and the photography are extremely well put together to achieve a pleasing aesthetic experience. Let's take it as it is.

And that brings us to the next misunderstanding. Someone complains about the typical Spanish clich\u00e9s in the movie. Well, historically the movie is extremely well researched and you can see the results of that very serious work in every scene. It is not only an accurate portrait of the \"black Spain\" of knife and espadrille that Goya portrayed so vividly, but it's also of that part of history as seen by a foreigner fascinated with the folkloric side of that society. Honestly, anyone who doesn't want to see any clich\u00e9 about Spain shouldn't buy a ticket to see Carmen, but in this case those clich\u00e9s are presented before they became one and the way to see them is getting rid of our own prejudices.

Another important requirement to understand this movie properly is to speak the language. It is not acceptable to criticize any actor performance for not having understood his or her lines. If all the rest of the audience did, the problem most likely lies somewhere else. Paz Vega has an immaculate diction with her Andalusian accent and all she says is understandable and credible. Her Argentinian partner, Leonardo Sbaraglia, gives also a convincing portrait of the Basque officer that became a \"bandolero\", and her accent is very well learned.

No less important is to have a minimally open approach to the material. To say that Paz Vega is \"horrible\" suggests that the author of the phrase entered the theater for the wrong reasons. We already had in Spain a critic in one of the most prestigious papers that used to recommend us pictures he found homosexually arousing, without mentioning it explicitly. And that was not totally fair for the rest of us, especially for the ones that hadn't detected that the man was writing with parts of his anatomy that many readers didn't necessarily had to care for. I'm not suggesting at all that the reviewer had the same motivation, but the expectations must have been different as the ones of those among us that went to see a talented and beautiful actress play an almost classic role, because that's what we got. Paz Vega IS Carmen, and an excellent one, in Vicente Aranda's movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thoroughly enjoyed Carmen, better than Original Sin (Angelina Jolie & Antonio Bandaras), which share some thematic similarities, and which I also enjoyed very much. I felt the acting was stronger here (Paz Vega displayed a wider range, has more fire; and Sbaraglia was also great). Overall, their acting was more gritty, more believable (less dreamy than Original Sin, and both actors here had less 'celebrity status' and 'pretty face' to depend on to make the movie work. Vega definitely sizzles, as to be expected.

Director Vincente Aranda has also built a detailed world (again, better than Original Sin) that lets you feel the grime and the daily goings-on of archaic Spain - for example, people unloading goods from a cart on the street, workers changing the candles of the street lamps, all in the background of the action.

Whilst I greatly sympathize with the recent idea of redeeming our femme fatals (like Brian de Palma's Femme Fatale), Carmen is a poignant, modern take in the tradition of the noir classic Double Indemnity, and is a delightful pleasure to watch. This is another fine example of the triumph of daring European cinema over glitzy and safe Hollywood fare.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even for the non-opera loving public the name CARMEN is immediately recognized as an opera by Bizet about a gypsy girl whose capricious loves destroy men. But as much as the opera is now considered a staple in every opera house repertoire, the real story of the wild gypsy lass as created by Prosper M\u00e9rim\u00e9e in 1845 has never been told as well as in this cinematic version by the abundantly gifted Spanish director Vicente Aranda ('Juana la Loca AKA Mad Love','Amantes', 'If they tell you I fell', etc.). Incorporating the author of the novel as a main character seeking the story of Carmen from one of her lovers - Jos\u00e9 - provides just the right vantage for the story of this famous gypsy wild lady to be told.

Carmen (the amazingly beautiful and talented Paz Vega) works in a cigar factory in Seville, a factory adjoining the military station where the very proper Jos\u00e9 (Leonardo Sbaraglia) is stationed. Carmen is tempestuous and in a fight instigated by a fellow factory worker bringing attention to the fact that Carmen is a gypsy, Carmen murders the co-worker and is arrested. Jos\u00e9 is physically attracted to the voluptuous Carmen and when Carmen flirts with him he consents to allow her to escape - his payback is the promise for a night of passion with Carmen. Carmen keeps her pact, providing Jos\u00e9 with his first sexual encounter, and Jos\u00e9 is doomed. His lack of military discipline results in his losing his rank and being imprisoned for a while, but at his release Jos\u00e9 encounters Carmen again, kills a fellow officer, and in fear runs off to the hills to live with the smugglers and gypsies that are Carmen's people. Many incidents occur to try the passionate bond between the lovers, but when Carmen's real husband is released from prison, destructive behaviors take over, behavior's that include Carmen's infatuation and affair with a bullfighter and the passion of Carmen and Jos\u00e9 comes to a tragic end.

One factor that makes the story (as adapted for the screen by director Aranda and Joaquim Jord\u00e0 move so well is the role that Prosper M\u00e9rim\u00e9e (Jay Benedict) plays: his questioning of Jos\u00e9 completes the story that Bizet's opera only outlines. The acting is superb, the cinematography by Paco Femenia and the excellent musical score by Jos\u00e9 Nieto contribute enormously to the success of this very fine film. This is a must for lovers of the opera Carmen, and a splendid action drama for those viewers who admire historical pieces. Highly recommended. Grady Harp","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a nice movie with good performances by Paz Vega and Leonardo Sbaraglia . Of course Vicente Aranda is a legend in Spanish Cinema and surely one of the great directors in Spanish cinema but I don't think this is one of his greatest movies even if it's fine. The screenplay plays with the introduction of Merime\u00e9 as a character , it's a nice touch but it's unbelievable. The music is composed by Jose Nieto , National Spanish Prize in Cinema. I mean this movie is very good in all the technical aspects .There are very good actors in supporting roles like Antonio Dechent , Maria Botto and others . I give it 7 out of 10 cause I think this could be a better movie but as it is it is not boring at all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There have been approximately 60 different films & Television plays,besides the classic Opera of this tale of a sex mad girl and her hapless soldier lover. This story has been done so many times, in various ways.

Vicente Aranda directs Joaquin Jorda's screenplay adaptation of Prosper Merimee's classic novel & play.

This is the story ONLY of Bizet's opera Carmen

Pas Vega is an exciting Carmen,full of passion & the ability to drive simple men to do terrible tragic things. Leonardo Sbaraglio is the hapless soldier who is ensnared into Carmen's poisonous web & led to doing bad things.

Jay Benedict is the author Prosper who tells this tale.

There is not much action, BUT there are some very hot sex scenes.

In fact this is almost an NC-17 film.

since I have seen this tale so often in so many guises I was not overly impressed.

It is a very well made film & will be of interest to those that may not know of it,

My not overly enthusiastic review also could be that I miss the fantastic Opera score by Bizet.

See this as you may like it more than I did.

Ratings *** (out of 4) 82 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a quite fair adaptation of the Prosper Merime\u00e9's novel. In the novel Merime\u00e9 himself is a character, Don Jos\u00e9 is from Navarra (North Spain, and historically a Basque Country zone, they can speak Basque language). They are in Seville (Andalusia, South Spain) and they only speak Spanish with Andalusian accent, in no way they speak Basque, but Carmen explains to Don Jos\u00e9 that she was living in Navarra. You can believe it or not, anyway this is the book's version, then you can't be critical with the movie about this, be with the book! You have to note are different the novel by Merime\u00e9 and the opera by Bizet, and this movie is an adaptation from the novel, anyway in the opera Don Jos\u00e9 is still Spanish from Navarra, never he's French. Why so many people keep thinking Don Jos\u00e9 is French? I don't know but I guess because the novel and the opera are in French although is supposed to be in Spanish.

The only important difference between the movie and the novel is that in the movie Don Jos\u00e9 also kills the \"torero\" lover of Carmen and in the novel he doesn't (neither in the opera). I guess they wanted to keep the movie a little more gore! I think the movie is quite good, anyway.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Typically Spanish production - slow-moving, but with great sensuousness and sexuality oozing from the lead actress Paz Vega. (Watch her in \"Spanglish\"). Great sets, lots of colour - you get to see Cordoba, Seville, Spanish mountains and countryside. The plot tends to meander here and there, but if you follow closely (I managed to, even though the film is in Spanish), you'll get the gist of it.

It's about how one very highly sensual young Gypsy woman, Carmen, uses her feminine wiles to seduce men to do her bidding. Carmen is being taken to prison after attacking a fellow cigarera at the cigar factory where she works. She persuades Jose, the soldier in charge of taking her to prison, to let her escape. Jose succumbs to her charms because she speaks Basque (he is Navarrese and speaks the same language). Jose is punished by 1 month in jail and demoted to foot soldier. He later meets Carmen at a party and they end up becoming lovers. But Carmen refuses to commit to him, and continues her lascivious and flirty lifestyle. In a jealous rage, Jose kills a fellow soldier who has been with Carmen. They then have to leave town. Life on the run turns Jose into a bandit. Carmen, meanwhile, remains the same, a wildly promiscuous woman. In the end, Jose loses his mind and ends up killing Carmen.

The story is told by Jose in prison, awaiting to be executed. The person he tells the story to is Prospero Merrime, a French writer and anthropologist, whose fancy watch (it plays Beethoven's Fur Elise) was stolen by either Carmen or Jose.

Worth watching for the sets and for the delectable Paz Vega.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For people who are first timers in film making, I think they did an excellent job!! We have to support the emerging industry especially coming from up north. It was very popular when I was in the cinema, a good house and very good reactions and plenty of laughs. It's a feel-good film and that's how I felt when I came out of the cinema! It has northern humour and positive about the community it represents. The film has just opened, I do hope it does well - people should support this little film. I think this 'vinny...' person is very bitter, about something! And getting too personal\u0085? shame!! I say well done to all those involved\u0085have a drink on me!! I look forward to you next venture.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is about a young Indian guy who comes home one day and finds himself getting engaged to a woman. The problem is that he is gay. In order to stop the wedding without telling his parents that he is gay, one lie leads to another until it spirals out of control.

This film is hilarious and got me laughing many times. Sally Bankes' acting is superb and she plays this strong woman who does what she wants convincingly. The plot is outstanding as well. I find the plot very realistic, and I can completely identify with Jimi's feeling of being terrified, worried and upset. On the other hand, Jimi's boyfriend, Jack, is given much less attention in the film. I would have liked him to be given more lines in the film, and have more character development. However, as I guess the director wants to make this a more mainstream film, the love between Jimi and Jack was not developed in the film.

It is great to watch a gay affirmative film. Furthermore, this film preaches us to be accepting to other people's difference, be it sexuality, culture and the way of life. This film makes viewers think hard.

We need films like this to give us a boost. Thanks for making this film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My comment is mainly a comment on the first commentator (the extra on the film) and his unhappy assessment of the film. I think his perspective indicates why an extra is an extra and a director is a director. The film was sweet, the acting sufficient, the experience of watching it a nice diversion from a busy work week. It wasn't \"The Hours\" (acting), or \"The Matrix\" (Special Effects), or even \"The Color Purple\" (Direction). Most movies won't be. But it also wasn't the crap fest that \"vinny...\" would lead you to believe. Sorry guy, just my 2 cents.

As to the movie itself, it was in the end very gay affirming (+ #1). It showed a world full of diverse and less than perfect people--you know, just like ours (+ #2)! It opened a door on one culture without excluding other cultures (+ #3). And I liked the music (+ #4).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"have just got back from seeing this brilliantly funny film.

granted, part of the reason i loved it so was because i could point out people and places i knew ('i walk there everyday!', 'i work there!', 'i've had drinks there!', 'hey! that's our postman!' etc...). but, still, if you're out for a 'feel-good' with a bit of spice (excuse the pun) - this is just the right answer. relationships, culture and, most importantly, love are all woven together within the plot.

with preston (where the film is set) recently being made a city, it is good to see this work featuring the place and adding to the feeling of uprise. it is also a brilliant representative of the many cultures in this part of the north.

fabulous!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just how exactly do gay Asians manage in a culture that generally refuses to even recognize the concept of homosexuality? For millions of gay Hindus and Muslims there seems little hope of ever leading a life that is accepted and endorsed by their otherwise very close knit families. This is the main point explored in Chicken Tikka Masala - presumably named after the Western spicy dish involving tender pieces of young chicken flesh! Jimmy is a typical young Asian brought up in Britain by traditional parents with the common narrow minded and selfish views on marriage and grandchildren. Like millions of others he is led into an arranged marriage that seems inescapable even though he is apparently completely gay and deeply involved with a very attractive young man with whom he lives. He knows that the truth should be told but fears for the consequences of that particularly so as his father appears to be terminally ill. And so he becomes embroiled in a web of deceit that becomes wider and wider as the plot develops.

The film is beautifully sensitive and not at all judgmental or patronizing to any group portrayed. The acting is generally excellent although it might seem a bit ham in places as the director tends to search for humor rather than letting it blossom naturally. There are no prizes for photography or script but the film is made entire by the wonderful sentiment expressed at the very end - a sentiment that all fathers across the world would do well to learn from.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow, its been quite a while since I've watched anything so mysterious in the way it is portrayed.

A Detective Story uses old fashioned black and white images to portray a private investigator who dresses in an old fashioned trench coat and hat. The theme of this animation is reminiscent of that of Sam Spayed which was briefly mentioned by Ash.

Sick of spying on cheating house wives because of his clients, Ash was offered a chance to track down a \"computer hacker\" which he thought was a worthwhile chance for a four figure sum he could not turn down and the rest is history.

The ending was a little bit bland but still okay. For those out there who like old fashion stories this is the one for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the anime films from The Animatrix collection, one of nine - the only one done in black and white, and the only one featuring Trinity. Richly textured and beautifully rendered in every way, and the animated version of Trinity definitely does her justice. If you're a fan of The Matrix, you will need to put this on your short list.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen three of the Animatrix episodes, and this is my favorite of all of them. The Second Renaissance provided a flimsy back story to the already flimsy universe. Program was a stylistically impressive number, it just felt kind of silly. I guess what gives this one it's special touch is the direction from Shinichiro Watanabe, director of the incredibly popular (and for good reason) series Cowboy Bebop. It has some of the best elements of Bebop: slick, sci-fi adventure, a no-nonsense, slightly apathetic hero working for hire, a bounty-head (more or less), and a chase scene, all wrapped up in an excellent film-noir packaging. Watanabe's Tarantino-style slickness comes through here full throttle.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The eighth, and thus second-to-last short of the Animatrix ones, this is the only one quite like this. This takes two of the main types of filmed entertainment inspirations of The Matrix, and combines them unbelievably well. This is immensely faithful to the trilogy in that aspect, the tone. The animation is a gorgeous, breathtaking Anim\u00e9. The style, which is omnipresent in this, is Noir. The plot is fitting, and the story-telling, as well, as the music, is spot-on. The sound in general is fantastic, and really helps solidify the mood and atmosphere, along with the drawings and designs. The voice acting is impeccable. This is one of only two where people also in the movies reprise their roles, and both have Anne-Moss, who is the only of them appearing in this. This is one of the best of the nine, and also one of my personal favorites. This is about ten minutes long. The pacing is perfect. It never slows down terribly much, but it's not overwhelming, either. The ending could not have been more appropriate for this. This shares a nine and a half-minutes long making of with Kid's Story, and it's well-done and informative. I recommend this warmly to any fan of the universe and the two genres that this is made up of. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the periphery stories told by the Animatrix that isn't directly relevant to the war stopping One glorifying plot of the films, but Trinity, voiced by Carrie, does appear in it. it features a private detective who is hired for big money to look for a hacker named Trinity. we see his search which features other PIs, only one who he meets, who has seemingly gone mad from his own experience trying to track Trinity down. eventually he makes contact with Trinity who he assumes to be a man of course - told in the narrative and something that firmly puts us in his own perspective despite what we already know - on a hacker chat-room, and solves a riddle which forces him in a hurry to catch a train. he forgets his hat but his faithful cat throws it to him in a moment of ludicrousness so absurd it's hilarious.

he meets her on the train but the ruse is thereby revealed when agents attack; the agents were using him to get to Trinity and Trinity was trying to free the PIs sent after her, which he doesn't know of course, and which isn't explicitly stated in the animation itself, something common to film noir titles, which often hint at plenty of interesting back-story, subplots, developments etc. but don't show you more then the core story and a limited point of view to create an extra air of mystery and intrigue.

almost everything in this short is in black and white, the music is reminiscent of film noir and the offbeat, old fashioned yet dedicated detective is the perfect protagonist for a film noir title. the trivia section of this title's entry on IMDb also helpfully presents a few references this title makes to hardboiled literature, something it also borrows heavily from, a genre of mysteries for detectives, gangsters etc. who engage in challenging conflicts readily and often. animated aptly by Studio 4\u00b0C and directed by Shinichiro Watanabe, it is an enjoyable variant on the usual matrix story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the fifth part of 'The Animatrix', a collection of animated short movies that tell us a little more about the world of 'The Matrix'. This time they introduce Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) in a story about a detective who is hired to find her. With great black and white animation and an interesting story this is again a great animated short from 'The Animatrix'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The detective story is not typical for the Matrix Universe. It is a film-noir-esque private eye story, with a strong narrator and a very rich feel. Rich, in terms of its visual appeal. The snowing scenes, the grainyiness, it all stuns the eye.

But what about the story? It is interesting, even if it feels a little out of place. The agents hire a privat detective to track down Trinity. He finds out that they tried the approach before, but with hazardous consequences for the hired detectives. Still, he tries to locate her and eventually succeeds, through Alice in Wonderland references and hackers and chat rooms. Then things begin to get interesting...

All in all, this is a perfectly satisfying short animated movie.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Film noir meets anime... brilliant! This was one of the highlights of the surprisingly creative Animatrix shorts. This was one of my favorites if not my favorite (I also loved World Record). This is basically a reference to those classic film noir detective stories and movies of the 40s, except it's animated and involves the Matrix. But by being animated, it is able to take the extreme camera angles, the detective life style, the shadows, and everything film noir to an entirely new level. The Femme Fatale? Trinity. The detective in this story seems to be living in the 40s in his mind but stuck in a modern world, and everything becomes too much for him when his case suddenly involves science fiction and agents when a mysterious woman in black walks into his office...

My grade: 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of nine shorts on the anime disk, \"The Animatrix.\" It is my favorite. The artwork is amazing. The black-and-white, somewhat grainy texture perfectly captures the mood that the segment is trying to portray. The story is tight, and the ending is true to film noir.

Overall, I gave The Animatrix a \"7\", but this particular segment deserves a \"10.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Animatrix: A Detective Story is very well planned and has a great storyline to go with it. Carrie-Anne Moss plays Trinity in this animated cartoon. I really like the 'Private Detective' ideas created by the Director.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tracy and Matt, Michelle and Sebastian: these are the two couples whose lives of addiction, crime, and squalor are brilliantly captured in this raw and honest HBO documentary. They're in turns petulant, charming, repulsive, astonishingly stupid, and dedicated: to the drugs and to each other. They're also each very different: Matt is a working class boy who clearly revels in his naughtiness, whilst prep school dropout Tracy supports the couple with Western Union money from her moneybags father, who makes a surprisingly sympathetic cameo towards the end of the film. Meanwhile widow Michelle (whose hubby died of an OD) earns her daily bread by posing as an NYPD vice cop willing to cut her would-be Johns a deal to avoid prison time, and sad sack companion Sebastian lives off the proceeds. You'll be pulled into their stories and will wish the film went on for twice as long. Unlike most documentaries of this kind, there's no coda providing us with an update about their progress (can Matt and Tracy really keep that Brooklyn apartment? Will Michelle go back to Bellevue for more detox? And can Sebastian become any more pathetic?). As a result, the film seems incomplete, but that may have been the point. Essential viewing, as long as you aren't completely averse to scenes of people shooting up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Dope Sick Love\" is a really remarkable documentary made for HBO about two pairs of heroin addicted lovers roaming the streets of NYC. I managed to catch it one night by accident and found it absolutely mesmerizing. There is no narration and we never see any interviews with the subjects, the camera just follows them around, like a third eye, completely detached. The people being followed don't even seem aware that they're being filmed! (or, at least, they don't seem to care). The footage is amazingly candid. Some of the most candid I've ever seen. This is as real as it gets. The nuts and bolts of what its like to be on the street and addicted to heroin. We watch them score dope, shoot it, make up, hustle, and even impersonate cops to rob people, and about a million other tiny details that less observant documentary filmmakers would leave out.

Some of the footage is truly horrifying. Like watching one guy frantically searching for fix he lost. I found myself praying that he would find it, just so that his misery would temporarily end. And when he does find it, the guy literally dances in the street.

The cyclical nature of drug addiction becomes very apparent while watching this. EVERYTHING is about getting the next score to these folks, yet the next score seems to be well worth the immense trouble they go through.

I would love to get a copy of this, if anyone knows where it is available. Highly recommended, if you can catch it on HBO.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i watch this film with horror in my heart because my mother also was a crack head like Michelle. i've been wondering where Michelle is now. there has been times where i had to find my mother in places i was scared to be but more scared to leave her there! to see Michelle act like that made me wonder where she was sleeping all that time?? i watched in hopes the it was never that bad for my mom! and what i want to know is... where did Matt and Tracy \"tear that ass up\"?! worst scene for me was watching Tracy shoot up in an old navy dressing room!!!! u never who try clothes on before you and it looks like all of them except Michelle has aids!!!! where are they know 2008? can we get an update??????????","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the most macabre, depressing, yet eye-opening docs. I've watched in awhile. There's no narration or story that's told, just a \"third eye\" type camera following around 2 couples of heroin addicts in NYC through the seasons. Watching them shoot up on the floors of public washrooms then \"clean\" their needles in the public toilets... sometimes it's a bit too much and you need to hit pause just to go for a breather.

Anyone currently in recovery of alcohol\/drug addition should watch this when they're craving - it really shows you to what you could be going back to! After seeing this it's a wonder how anyone could even try this drug to begin with.

The only thing it needed was a follow up at the end to tell where these people are today. Judging from what is shown in the doc., there's no hope for any of them. They mention wanting to get better and quit, but it seems the only end to their habits is to quit by way of dying.

This definitely isn't for all audiences. I found myself kind of like watching a car accident - after I started watching it I just couldn't turn it off. I had to keep watching with a dark\/morbid fascination of what it's like inside the lives of these addicts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A great suspenseful thriller the acting is first rate and the plot keeps you guessing. This well performed and directed movie is based on a true story and well worth while Joe Penny is cast extremely well and Ann Gillian is convincing as the concernened and terrified sister. Joe again prove he's acting ability is amazing and the ending well done. It,s worth watching I hope they repeat it soon on any channel, I will definitely record it. For Penny and Gillian fans it's worth your time. Rent it if you can better still try to buy it I going to. Perfect early nineties thriller watch this

movie it's great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A man and his wife are not getting along because of the wife's jealousy and drinking problems. When the wife disappears, her sister begins a vigorous search involving the local police, state government, and a television crime show. What she finds out stuns the entire community. Good drama with lots of fine performances; based on a true story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This story takes place in Wisconsin. I was half heartedly watching my tape when I heard the name Appleton. I wasn't sure where it was taking place until I heard them say Green Bay & then I figured it was Wisconsin. Watching further confirmed it.

Anxiously awaiting the outcome I could really feel Corrine's frustration. I did not know it was based on fact until the end. It left me glad but sad and wanting to know more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well done melodrama that tells the story of Sally, tomboy dancer in the circus, raised by sideshow performer McGargle (played by W.C. Fields), he of the top hat, little mustache, checkered pants, and proficiency as juggler, pickpocket, and runner of carnival con games like Three Card Monte and the Old Shell Game. McGargle has raised Sally, who worships him as her \"real father\" since Sally's mother (kicked out of her home by her father, a judge, when she married a \"circus man\") died and left Sally orphaned. Sally is feisty and loyal to McGargle no matter what he gets up to - but McGargle seems to feel a bit of guilt over keeping her in the circus instead of with her own family all these years. When they end up performing in a carnival in the town where her wealthy grandparents live, McGargle uses the opportunity to \"investigate\" Sally's real family, with the idea that he may restore her to them. But grandfather the judge takes an immediate disliking to Sally 'cause he doesn't like a \"show girl\" - what a stern, narrow-minded man he is, a real piece of work that guy! And meanwhile Sally is busy being pursued by a handsome and rich young man, son of the man who helped grandpa get his riches.

This is a very good film with a few laughs here and there and a sort of odd editing style (I don't know how to describe this other than it shows long shots, then sort of jumps back a few seconds or changes angle suddenly as a close up is shown). Carol Dempster, who plays Sally, is delightful here - quite cute and comical in her performance. W.C. Fields, even without his famous voice, is very funny - just the way he moves and his amusing, comical reactions to things (like a small dog seen in one funny scene), we even see him juggling briefly in this. I love the few peeks at the old-fashioned circus and carnival that is shown here. The print of this featured on the DVD is very nice looking, tinted a light sepia tone, and the piano score for this is really excellent, performed by Philip Carli based on the original cue sheets.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The plot of \"Sally of the Sawdust\" is the usual melodramatic stuff-- an orphan, rags-to-riches-- but the film rises above most silents thanks to three people:

This is not, of course, D. W. Griffith's masterpiece, but it does showcase his film-making savvy in full maturity. He uses all his innovations, which are techniques we take for granted now: close-ups, cross-cutting, a mobile camera, and the ability to modify acting from theatrical exaggeration to cinematic subtlety.

W. C. Fields also showcases his skills-- not his signature gruff delivery, but his remarkable dexterity as a physical comedian. He does a few inventive juggling acts, cut too short to be fully appreciated, and some very deft pickpocketing, but it seems that every prop that comes within reach gets manipulated for comic effect-- hat, cane, car roof, dog, cash. He's a joy to behold.

Finally, there's Carol Dempster. Much has been said against this actress, but her performance here is also richly comic. She was 22 at the time, playing a teenager, and her approach to the role is a combination of grace and awkwardness that may not be wholly convincing, but she truly engages the eye when she's on screen-- particularly when she's dancing. She's not a beauty--though she's positively luminous in the one scene where she's gussied up like a Talmadge sister-- but her plainness only adds to Sally's character, especially in the many moments when she shows very obvious affection for Fields as her guardian\/\"father.\" Few, if any, Hollywood performers could compete with Fields when it came to comedy, but Griffith gives his leading lady every chance to match her co-star, and Dempster absolutely holds her own.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seems to have been made as a vehicle for W.C. Fields and Carol Dempster and they dominate it. Fields already has his film character well developed. Carol Dempster seems to dance through the film and her acting reminds me of Mary Pickford, who also worked a long time under D.W. Griffith. Typical of later Griffith films technically.

Later remade as Poppy (the original title) with Fields in the same role.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Porgy and Bess\" is an outstanding production of George Gershwin's masterpiece. It is tastefully done in muted colors. The voices are outstanding. Although Sidney Portier's voice is dubbed for his singing portion, he gives a very touching performance. There is a remarkable performance by Sammy Davis Jr. as Sportin Life. There is yet no DVD available for viewing, and this piece begs for one. All intelligent movie goers who enjoyed it in 1959 will appreciate the release of this masterpiece on the new medium. The screen is filled with a dynamic presentation that rivals all other musicals including the outstanding ones by Rodgers and Hammerstein. Be sure to ask for it an your video supplier. Like \"Songs of the South\" by Walt Disney, it may be the assumption of racial overtones that is preventing the marketing of this cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was @ 13 yrs of age when I saw this greatly underappreciated film at The ADAMS theatre in Newark, NJ, I purchased the Program, and later bought the soundtrack... still have both.... I am now 55 + yrs.. and have not seen it since (possibly once on network TV, in 1960's???) One of the greatest casts ever assembled, great score and production , please let another generation see this great film... It was my introduction to opera, and aided with my understanding of Tolerance.. Please family of Gerswhins or Premingers, release this classic soon !!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have always been a fan of this largely unseen filming of the Gershwin opera, since I last saw it in 1959. As many of you know, it has been unavailable on video or DVD; in fact, the Gershwin family sought to destroy all existing prints.

Yet, for some reason--hopefully signaling an end to its opposition, the Gershwin family recently approved the showing of a collector's print at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens. .

Well, the wide-screen, Technicolor print was excellent! (Not perfect, but excellent.) The sound was outstanding, in road-show quality stereo. The folks who saw this in its original release wouldn't have seen a much better copy. (The program notes include the original Variety review, which cautions that people might balk at the steep limited-release ticket price of $3.50!)

And, as much as I loved it originally, PORGY AND BESS was better than I remembered it. It's just wonderful. Sidney Poitier as Porgy was at the point where his career was just beginning to catch fire, and his charisma shines through. Dorothy Dandridge as Bess is spectacularly beautiful. Brock Peters as Crown is aggressively masculine. Pearl Bailey as Maria provides a few comic moments, although her role is small. And Sammy Davis, Jr., as Sporting Life, steals every scene he's in; he's especially riveting in his two big numbers: \"It Ain't Necessarily So\" and \"There's a Boat that's Leavin' Soon for New York.\" (That last one won applause in the screening I saw.)

PORGY AND BESS is set-bound, but it really doesn't matter when the set is as gorgeous as this one. The costumes are also outstanding.

Sidney and Dorothy's singing voices are dubbed in, but they are dubbed in extremely well. The exquisite \"Summertime\" is sung by Clara, played by a young Diahann Carroll; her singing also is dubbed. (Actually, only Pearl and Sammy do their own vocalizing.)

The music is sublime, of course, but what really struck me this time was how much emotion Preminger got out of the story. People were actually sniffling in the audience a number of times--once when Bess sings that beautiful \"I Loves You Porgy.\" And I got a kick out of the audience actually laughing out loud at the lines in \"It Ain't Necessarily So.\" Could it be they had never heard this song before-- or never really listened to it? I believe that much of the emotional impact of this film is due to Poiter and Dandridge's performances--you root for their love to win out.

A minor quibble with the 136 minute running time--one or two slow spot, and a stereotypical, Amos-n-Andy kind of scene about Bess seeing a shyster lawyer to get a divorce from Crown, even though she's not even married to him. (I would have cut that.) And the beginning is a little confusing--both title characters are introduced awkwardly--they're part of the movie before you realize who they are.

And I don't think Preminger used a single close-up in the entire movie. It all seems to be shot in 3\/4, which I'm guessing was his way of working with the wide screen.

PORGY AND BESS has always been a cult film for those of us who saw it, for those of us who loved the soundtrack, and for some of us who have only heard about it. Let's hope they find a way to re-release this, and put it out on DVD. It deserves the widest audience possible.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was\/is an incredible movie, with incredible cast, music, singing, story, etc. It is a tragedy that some arrogant families (the Gerswhins or Premingers) can keep it from being available to generation after generation. I have wanted to see it again all of my life. I just found this site and read why it has not been available. Shame on these families for their pettiness. My wife is from Germany and she has never seen the movie. Neither have my step-children or my grandchildren. It is very sad that a movie of this depth and quality is not available for them to see. Where do these families get off making such a conceited, self-important, egotistical, condescending decision to prohibit generations from enjoying this film, these stars, these performances, this music! Release the video and let them world judge and enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie when I was a kid and have been looking for it ever since.It rates up there with Cabin in The Sky, Stormy Weather and Carmen Jones as a must see in movies that showcased the awesome talent of African Americans.In the 60s the local Los Angeles TV stations would have a movie of the week and some stations would show the same movie for 5 days.Porgy and Bess was one of them and my whole family would be there all 5 nights in front of the TV and only moved on the commercials.South Pacific,Oklahoma and The Sound of Music are all musical classics that you can pick up at any video store. It would be a shame to let this collection of some of the best talent America had to offer be forgotten or locked in a vault.Please make the film available to the public.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw the opening of Otto Preminger's \"Porgy and Bess\" on TV, probably some time in the early 80s, and my younger self found it a bit slow, despite the timeless music. I turned it off

Last night, an extremely rare, cobbled together print screened at the L.A. Cinematheque and it was a bit of a revelation. The performances are strong and memorable. Dorothy Dandridge brings a great deal of vulnerability, strength and subtle (at least by today's standards) eroticism to her part. Sidney Poitier is said to be uncomfortable with the movie, but his performance is terrific, as is Pearl Bailey. Even better are Sammy Davis as the amoral, cat-like Sportin' Life and Brock Peters as the villanious bully Crown.

Still, I'm no fan of Preminger's earlier, leaden -- and far easier to see -- \"Carmen Jones.\" Porgy and Bess\" is far superior to that less controversial film -- though that may have to do with the fact that the source material is also far superior.

As seen last night, this is a sturdy but far from perfect work. Not all of the moments quite come alive, and there is some awkwardness in the way the film mixes the overtly stylized Catfish Row set (beautifully done by Oliver Smith) with actual locations. Also, even to my rather untrained ear, some brief portions of the score seem unduly popularized.

Moreover, while this doesn't detract from the achievement of the filmmakers -- Preminger's decision to film almost entirely in wide shots, with no close-ups and occasional medium shots, no doubt rendered it unwatchable on TV \"panned and scanned\" and may doom it even on widescreen DVDs if it gets the restoration it deserves. On smaller screens, we won't be able to make out the many details that are crucial to the way Preminger staged the film.

Also, the mix heard last night was odd. Many of the vocals, particularly on the opening \"Summertime\" seemed unduly soft and were overwhelmed by the instrumental music. Perhaps this can be fixed in a restoration.

There is the issue of the film's racial politics. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it, at least in a contemporary context. At the time when so few films depicted strong African-American characters, this may have seemed an unfortunate choice for a big-budget Hollywood film. And, while there may not be much \"empowering\" here, these are recognizable human beings that are not racial stereotypes. These are operatic characters who make poor choices because that's what tragic characters do. That alone made it a giant stride forward at the time.

In a modern context where strong and heroic African-American characters are less rare (though still not common enough), these characters seem nothing more nor less than human. They truly could be poor and undereducated people of any ethnic background.

Thorny politics aside, the original work is undoubtedly one of the truly great achievements of American music and (secondarily) theater. Poitier, Davis, Dandridge, Peters and, yes Pearl Bailey, were all amazing performers who we'll never see the likes of again. This less than perfect but still solid film clearly deserves to be seen and treasured.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this on television more years ago than I can remember, but never forgot the performance of Sammy Davis, Jr. I just by chance thought to look for it on video. This rendition of Porgy and Bess is a treasure. I would love to see it again and introduce my son to it as well. I just can't imagine why it is not heralded as one of the greatest performances Sammy Davis, Jr. every gave. Whoever is responsible for not bringing this to audiences should be ashamed of his\/her ignorance. I will continue to look for it though. Maybe the execs responsible for such things will come to realize the forgotten work of so many African American actors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the privilege recently of viewing what is said to be the last 35mm, Technicolor, stereo print and found it much livelier and more touching than remembered. Also closer to the original material -- basically, all screenwriter N. Richard Nash did was trim, change much recitative to spoken dialog, and insert a transitional scene or two (including a very amusing one for Pearl Bailey). Oliver Smith's production design is stagy in the \"Li'l Abner\"-\"Guys and Dolls\" '50s adaptation mode, but it works well for this work's folkloric, unrealistic quality. Stereotyping and racism are present, but not to a wince-inducing degree. Further, for a movie of its time, it's pretty frank -- the adultery, violent behavior, drug use, and self-destructive habits of the denizens of Catfish Row are not at all minimized in the telling. But there are debits, beginning with all that variation from the stage text. The loss of so much compromises Gershwin's brilliance -- no wonder the family doesn't like it. The reorchestration, especially of Sammy Davis Jr.'s material, is disconcertingly trendy and vulgar. George knew what he was doing, folks; you didn't have to mess with it so much. And while Poitier and Dandridge act well and their singing doubles sing well, there's a huge chasm between the characters' singing and speaking voices -- you're constantly aware of the artifice. What really counts here, of course, is the music, among the greatest ever written for the theater, anywhere. Despite all the tinkering, it survives,and you'd have to be made of stone not to be moved by it. If the treatment isn't entirely to the estate's liking (and it shouldn't be), there's still no reason not to spend some bucks to restore this ambitious filming of Gershwin's masterpiece and make new generations more aware of his genius.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Porgy & Bess\" was the very first movie my parents ever took me to see. Even at the tender age of 5 years, I was so greatly moved by the drama that I cried aloud at the screen \"Crown, PLEASE don't take Bess!\" I was fortunate enough to see the one TV broadcast of \"Porgy & Bess\" so many years ago and now all I have are the great memories (and the record album) to remember this wonderful, wonderful movie. I have been waiting and wishing and hoping that one day I might own a copy of \"Porgy & Bess\" - but it doesn't look like it will happen. What is the hold up? Obviously, there is enough public interest in this movie to warrant a release. After all these years, I remember it and it sure seems like I'm not alone. This movie is brimming with human emotion - jealousy, lust, anger, bravery, determination. \"Porgy & Bess\" is a buried gem that deserves to be brought forth into the light for a new audience to admire and an old audience to relish.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing this movie as a child in the 60's. It took my breath away then at young age. I was glued to my seat in front of the black and white TV. The cast was one of the best i have seen in my life. The musical was one the greatest ever have been written. Please to the Gershwin and Goldwyn Families please release this on video or DVD so that the generations now and in the future can experience what I'm sure what so many of us have done when we saw this great work of art .Please consider, let not this great man's work go unseen for years more. I,m praying and hoping that the hearts of these families will be soften and let the world see this great movie again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is one of the only historical documents displaying the talents of so many black singers, actors, actresses, and dancers. Many who are no longer with us. Those which we are blessed to be able to enjoy today in 1999, through this film lets us recognize the talents that existed then. This is why those individuals still living today as well those who are deceased are super star icons. Due to the educational history in music, drama, filming, design, singing, etc., this movie alone belongs to the people of this country.

I viewed this movie recently. The sound was excellent! The movie appeared to be complete, color and clarity was fare, but good considering how old this movie is without any repairs on frames. I agree with all prior positive reviews. I do not have any negative views.

I only would like to make one request. Please to whom it my concern, please make this movie available so all can have this historical experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was in my early 20's, just graduating from college when this movie appeared. Seeing it was event of great impact, not only because of the high quality of the film (as evidenced by its many awards), but because of its place in the historical context of 1959. Because of social progress since then, it is nearly impossible to fathom that my college had only begun admitting (carefully screened) black students in 1953. A mainstream, high-budget extravaganze with an almost entirely black cast was a distinct novelty in 1959.

The movie was given a deluxe roadshow (reserved seat) presentation in only the best theatres, complete with a souvenir program detailing the lavish care that had been taken with lighting and color, multi-track stereo sound, etc. Almost every black entertainer that we white people had any knowledge of was in the movie. Gershwin's music, superbly performed, and the sheer universal humanity of the story was tremendously moving.

I was recently able to obtain a faded copy of a two-hour cutting of the film, and repeated viewings have confirmed my opinion. Time has made what seemed steamy sex scenes in 1959 seem quite tame, but the musical quality has not diminished. Sammy Davis and Pearl Bailey are masterful in their portrayals. What a crime that the young black artists of today are unable to see these performers at the peak of their careers!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When is ART going to overcome racism? I believe the American people have grown up since this movie was made. Porgy consists of a stellar cast and music. This motion picture is an excellent adaptation of a great opera. i.e., Miss Saigon is based on Madame Butterfly, Les Miz is based on a classic book. Recently, an opera has been introduced here in Los Angeles, based on the movie The Fly. AN OPERA!! So be it!!

Disney is hesitating about releasing Song of the South. The NAACP has voiced no contest for race issues, and let us not forget Amos N Andy was a huge hit in the 50's as a TV series. Ethnicity is our heritage in the U.S., and we should embrace all forms of ethnic artistic diversity.

PLEASE RELEASE 'PORGY' ON DVD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

j hartz","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been waiting 30 years to see this film. I played the soundtrack album as a teenager and through my 20s. Recently, I located a reasonably priced dvdr and I watched it this morning. It was in widescreen, probably even a 70mm print, stereo, the colors were quite good, very little fading, certainly not remastered but I'm very very happy with this clean copy.

Now for the film. It's pretty good. I wouldn't say it's great though there are great scenes in it. Perhaps Premminger may not have been the right director for it, but I'll say this. For me the center piece of the film was the hurricane scene. Marvelously staged by Premminger. One of the great weather scenes of all time.

In fact, I'd go as far to say that the acting scenes are better than the musical scenes, not that the musical sequences are bad. Not at all. They did lack... something though. Perhaps it was the fact that there are no close ups and very few medium shots. It was almost like watching a filming of a stage production. Perhaps that was the feel that Premminger was going after. In the end it may not have been the right choice, but so it goes. It is far from a ruined movie.

Having said that, not everyone loves the singers on the soundtrack either. I always have. They are perfect for this film. I love the singing voices. The actors lip-sinking are excellent for the most part. I just wish the songs were staged more imaginatively. Sportin' Life's two numbers are fine, but the intimate numbers don't even feel intimate. They just feel... far away. In spite of that, you cannot deny the power of the music. And in the end, that is what comes through loud and clear. Once again, maybe what Premminger was trying to do was to stay out of the way of the incredible music he was working with. I believe he had the right idea but perhaps went too far in that direction.

The acting is terrific. Top kudos goes to the great Brock Peters who acts and sings the part of Crown. He is the ultimate meany. We just want him to leave poor Bess alone, and he doesn't. As proud, arrogant and nasty as he is, Sammy Davis Jr's classic rendition of Sportin' Life is the slick devil himself and a very charismatic one at that. Arguably, Davis's best film acting. Poor Bess just can't handle two bad men. I'm glad the Hermes Pan gave Davis a tap dance number to do.

Dandridge and Poitier, reportedly not impressed by being in the film, really are very sweet together. I don't know about chemistry... there was more chemistry between Dandridge and Peters than there was between Dandridge and Poitier. Still, it worked out fine for Dorothy and Sidney.

Even so, I think they should both be proud of the work they did on this film. They both managed to bring more than one tear to my eye. Their characterizations where very 3D and believable. Sidney Poitier's Porgy, however, seems almost out of place in catfish row. I couldn't help thinking he was Mr. Braithwaite in \"To Sir with Love\", very educated and well mannered and spoken, fallen on hard times. He probably wouldn't have been my first choice for the part of Porgy, but hey, he was a huge star at the time, so why not? Dorothy's Bess was as perfect as her Carmen Jones, in fact even more vulnerable this time around. Carmen was probably the flashier part for her to do.

A very very good film indeed, it is two sticks short of what I would call a classic. It just doesn't make the ultimate classic grade. Still, there is no reason on earth why the Gershwin estate has decided to keep this beautiful film, even with all of its flaws, hidden from the public as they have. Premminger may have made some odd choices as a director, but the film is nothing to be ashamed and embarrassed about for anyone involved with it. It is what it is and there are a lot worse movies than this that are embarrassing out on DVD and in theaters today. Porgy and Bess is not one of them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i was a projectionist while in the U.S.A.F. and remember this movie very well. we had just been set up with Stereo Sound!! o-o-o-o-o!! well, it Was a big deal in 1959. instructions came with the reels. the overture played while the projected curtain image was closed and i followed suit with the theater curtain closed too. for intermission the theater curtain was closed and after five minutes i restarted the movie with the projection curtain closed while music used as a curtain call to the second part. being the first stereo movie i had ever seen and being such a huge musical production i certainly enjoyed watching it every time i showed it for the run.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surely the Gershwin family realizes this is one of America's greatest opera. You have thousands of fans of this opera waiting for it to be released on DVD. Please don't be so stubborn, give us a break. Think of the joy and wonder you can bring to a starved public for quality music, by releasing this great GEM. Don't wait until the film is beyond repair. The cast is first rate, the music is just awesome, we need beautiful music in today's world. It may never be filmed again with such a great cast again. With today's home theater systems,wonderful sound systems and need for great music, I'm pleading with the Gershwin family to reconsider and release this awesome movie. Thanks So Much","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I was a child my grandmother took me to see this movie. And I fell in love with it. I admired Dorothy Dandridge so very much and wanted to be like her. I fell in Love with Sidney Poitier. Pearl Bailey made me laugh. And Sammy Davis Jr. was so great as Sportin Life. The music was just breath taken. When I had my first son and the movie came on TV I let him see it, and to this day he has never forgotten this movie. He loved it. I will always remember Porgy and Bess. It has a special place in my heart then and now. I really wish that they would restore this movie, because it was one of the greatest movies there has ever been with an all star \"Black Cast\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Eisenstein describes his collaboration with Prokeviev as an equal partnership, where they worked together to match image and music, scene by scene. Unfortunately, the sound recording was a disaster, so for once the devotion to authenticity in Criterion DVD's backfires. Fortunately, there is at least one restored version of the film on VHS (BMG Classics) with an excellent re-recording of the music (by the St. Petersburg Philharmonic Orchestra and Chorus).

It is interesting to compare this film with contemporary propaganda films in England, Germany, and the United States. Eisenstein's film was made in 1938, in response to the fear of a German invasion; and Olivier's in 1943, when a German invasion of England was still expected. Both films are stagey, but in different ways. Olivier begins by showing a staged performance of the play in the Globe Theater by Shakespeare's own company, then takes us out of the theater to a more cinematic (though still stylized) setting. Eisenstein's film is cinematic from the beginning, but the dialog and speeches are still influenced by the melodramatic acting conventions of the old Russian theater. This works very well for Cerkassov's speeches as Alexander, because part of his job as a prince and military leader was to play a role in public.

In Nazi Germany, the first major propaganda film was Leni Riefenstahl's tedious Triumph of the Will, which recorded a huge political spectacle - massed crowds cheering Hitler's ranting speeches. The propaganda in her masterpiece, the film of the 1936 Berlin Olympics, is much subtler, with its worship of the athletic male body carrying disturbing undertones of the Aryan superiority myth. But wartime German propaganda films could also be subtle. Karl Ritter's Urlaub auf Ehrenwort (Furlough on Word of Honor) is typical. It shows a young lieutenant letting the men in his company go on a 24-hour leave before returning to the WWI trenches (and almost certain death). Against the advice of veterans, he accepts their word of honor to return, though he will be courtmartialed and shot if they don't. Naturally, they all return, (though some of them berate themselves for it), presumably inspiring the audiences to similar displays of duty to their country.

In the United States, one of the better WWII propaganda films was Howard Hawks' Air Force. In it, we follow the mismatched crew of a bomber as they bond to each other with the experience of battle, and overcome obstacles to continue their part in the war. Typically for Hawks' films, however, their real loyalty is more to each other than to their country.

Eisenstein has to reach far back in history to find any Russian military triumphs. Ironically, Alexander (like the other Russian princes) is descended from the Vikings who sailed up the Russian rivers to conquer and rule their own fiefdoms. So he is a conquerer repelling another would-be conquerer. Physically, they are not that different (though the actors portraying the German princes were obviously chosen for their ugliness and smirking stupidity). But the real contrast is between the common soldiers. The Russian peasants are as tall and strong as the nobles; whereas the German peasants who scuttle out of the shield wall to kill wounded Russians are a foot shorter than their masters. There is some historical truth in this contrast. Russian serfs in the Middle Ages were much better off than their European counterparts, because they could always escape into the wilderness and clear their own land.

Eisenstein's film also cleverly gives us our first sight of Alexander as a fisherman. In the battle with the Germans, he uses his fisherman's knowledge of the ice as well as his knowledge of their military tactics to defeat them. When Gavrilo breaks the shield wall, they are forced to regroup and mass on the West side of the lake, where the ice is thinner.

One of the other pleasures of Eisenstein's film (which most audiences miss) is the historically accurate way that he portrays the politics of medieval Russia. Cities like Pskov and Novgorod owed their growing wealth and prominence largely to trade, which put the merchants into power, and sidelined the princes until their military expertise and feudal levies were needed to repel invaders. In the film, Alexander is shown not only as a military leader, but also as a master politician, who knows how to wait for his time, and how to make the most of his popularity after the victory.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nevsky is one of the great epic war films. Sure, others, such as Birth of a Nation and Napoleon had come before, but this one is just as influential. The acting is stock, but anyone who knows the first thing about Eisenstein would know that that was part of his theory of film. This film, unlike many of his silent works, is about the heroic individual as much as it is about the group. This reflects the Stalinist philosophy that had risen to the fore by 1938. Still, his film shows us the power that can be generated by people coming together to fight something they perceive as evil. Nevsky is just one of many men. He is prince because he is strongest, but not because he is somehow different than the rest. The film's romantic angles provide more of a personal story than Eisenstein had previously allowed. Not all of the elements work and the film is probably a bit too long, but it still resonates.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of so many excellent and so on in Nevskiy, one particularly compact *zing* out of them all tickled me so thoroughly that it ends up being the definingly terrific moment of the movie for me.

Or at least the one that tends to drive hassling people to see the film, brandishing the disc in hand for emphasis.

The existing vague abstract acknowledgement of the fairly simple and concrete guilt involved in the guilty pleasure of this may truly gel and prod me into paying the intellectual bill eventually.

Till then..

The demise of the organist was so right on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I learned much from previous viewer reactions. Is there one that does not mention 'propaganda'? Too glib. 'Perception is concept dependent'. I love Fred Astaire musicals, the great, great songs, & Fred's peerless grace. But comrades, if you see idle, brainless, rich parasites dancing on the downtrodden & unemployed, that's a valid criticism of 'capitalist propaganda'. Any movie is steeped in the values of its time & place, not to mention those who fund it \u0096 the pipers who call the tune. Great art transcends all, as did 'Nevsky', as did 'All Quiet on the Western front'. I confess. I saw it last 40 odd years ago. But the images are burned in my brain. It's the greatest battle scene ever likely to be filmed. And it makes you horrified to be thrilled. 'Plastic ice' did someone say? That's real death you're watching. Real extras died making this. 'Real looking' is now special effects-defined it seems. Likewise 'too long' - for an age of shrunken attention spans? Mozart had 'too many notes'? Propaganda, Catholic Church defamed? The Vatican was STILL at it when they called on ancient favors to get the German Christian democrat gov. to recognize Croatia in the 1990s \u0096 remember the chaos & genocides? Forget the props, the lighting of Nevsky painted the Medieval world \u0096 like a Breughel. There's one in Hampton Court Palace showing a massacre. Crude Dutch nationalist propaganda maybe, but it tears at the heart. Stylized acting? So what's Henry V (Olivier movie)? Naturalism? Does anyone believe English medieval knight-killers talked like that? As said, the music of Prokofiev is magnificent. Only Ken Russell & Eisenstein had the balls & genius to match sound & image at this 100 octane level. OK, you want the snaffle & bit. I'll risk the nervy thorobred every time. Eisenstein did not copy Wehrmacht helmets, rather, his model seems to have been those buckets worn by 'Teutonic knights' in nazi pageants of the 1930s. Eisenstein was a genius , but unlike Hollywood directors, he had near unlimited (non-commercial) time & funding. Modern Russian directors are free from political shackles, but have no money. Even Kurasawa had to make a late (great) movie in communist Russia. He was revered but unfunded in his own country (much like Russell). How much propaganda is in the eye of the beholder? Imagine sane people from another, peace-loving world. How would they react to Nevsky? Would the battle, or the grieving for the dead dominate their cognitions? If we didn't know about the gas chambers & SS, what about 'Triumph of the Will'? Where can I get a Nevsky DVD, cheap?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching some of the sequences (err, the entire 1\/3 of the film devoted to the battle on the ice) in Alexander Nevsy, a film directed by the Russian legend Sergei M. Eisenstein (co-directed by Dmitri Vasilyev in his only significant credit), made me realize how much must really go into directing, at least on a scale such as this. If I were a member of an awards group at the time of this film's release I probably would award Eisenstein with the director's award of the year, posthumously. It is such a mad stroke of cinematic genius to pull off some of things that are pulled off in the film, though for someone like this director after coming off of his best work- Battleship Potemkin and October- it could have been something he scoffed at at first. But amid a film that is sometimes a little frustrating with how little grays come in to the black and white subject matter, it's still a marvel of celluloid almost 70 years later. Lord of the Rings fans, meet the films' grandfather, so to speak.

To say that something is a propaganda piece already puts a connotation to it, and often a bad one. It is something that has a full-blown message to it, and a point of view. It's still a matter of hot debate (see the swarms of argument over Moore's films for proof), about whether great art can come out of something that is point-blank meant to rouse the audience in a specific manner. In this particular case, the Russians against the Germans. At the time it was nearing WW2 and Russia once again faced the 'German invaders', and it's interesting to note that Eisenstein was actually commissioned to make this film, as a rallying call for the Russians to never forget a crucial piece of their history. The end result comes out as being something that is actually slightly common from seeing Battleship and October, however; if nothing else comes through those films it's that Eisenstein is most concerned about how the image and the content can come together finitely for the viewer, that style can completely envelop the viewer without fail. On those terms Alexander Nevsky is fearless.

But even with the whole idea of 'Russia great, Germans bad', there are some small moments where things are made a little less stringent, a little less strict to these ideals. For example, when we first see the Germans in Privka, they're not some faceless blob who are totally barbaric and have a blind conquering intent (not that they aren't out to take whatever they can). They have their own national pride going too, that it would be nothing less for them to go forward with whatever their Christian-led masters tell them to. At the least, the evil of the picture has a face, however kept at a low minimum for the more prevalent side to kick in. There's also a brief scene, before the ice-scape battle, where the Russian troupe has a joke that's being told and laughed about, and it adds a little extra depth where else there might be precious little. Because more often than not in Alexander Nevsky, with its battle songs loaded with a pride in warfare, there aren't any complexities to characters, most notably Nevsky himself (played in ultra-heroic fashion, only questioning near the start, by Nikolai Cherkasov) who perhaps has to be this way in Eistenstein's intention of having him as the one infallible force to be reckoned with in the tale. After all, to be looking for naturalism in an Eisenstein film is like trying to find non-Kosher pig's feet at a deli.

But the real reason to see the picture isn't the acting, anyhow, but for the look of the film, how it moves and takes in such an expansive environment that Eisenstein lays out. On the epic scale it's just as ambitious as his 20's films, with a number of extras not just in the main battle scenes but also in the scenes in the cities, of the hundreds of people rolling on through. In fact, I'd say that any director working in Hollywood or elsewhere thinking of doing some kind of huge epic, particularly war, would do very well to take a look at this film, even with just the sound off. It's even better if thought of as a silent film, with the visual strokes accentuated fantastically at times. One could spend a whole month analyzing the battle on the ice, how it starts with the German soldiers far away and then coming forward like bugs, and then how Eisenstein inter-cuts between close-ups of the actors fighting and then to wide-shots and with sped-up editing. And, of course, one can't discount the power of the music as well, Sergei Prokofiev delivering one of the great rousing scores of any epic work. All the while the director's editing keeps our eyes moving along with this frantic action at breakneck speed. If this was just a short film, it would surely rank with the greats, much like the Odessa Stairs sequence.

If I did find it a little less than totally magnificent, it would be because of the faults that do come in from a director who is much more suited to the silent medium than for sound. While I have yet to see Ivan the Terrible, my one negative criticism would be of his direction of actors, which is really as broad as can be, with the melodrama at such a high-pitch its staggering (the sub-plot of the two soldiers vying for the Olga is the best example I can think of). But even this considered, Alexander Nevsky overall is too extraordinary to ignore, and ratchets up an engagement in the action and the film-making to a level that puts a benchmark for films even today to try and live up to. Grade: A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Eisenstein wasn't just one of the greatest soviet,russian, films'directors, but one of the great masters of the cinema, among Griffith, Murnau, Ford, Hitchcock, Welles, and others. One of the greatest things in all his films was the edition, very personal, and in this movie is exceptional. This was his first sound movie and the use of the musical score by great russian composer Serge Prokofiev in the sequence of the battle is a perfect contrast between music and image. Watching this film is like taking a class or lesson in Cinema, something that no many film directors can afford. I never get tired of watch REAL CLASSICS like this film. I hope that in near future more people will recognize a great work of art.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is one of the classics of cinema history. It was not made to please modern audiences, so some people nowadays may think it is creaky or stilted. I found it to be absorbing throughout. Cherkassov has exactly the right presence to play Alexander Nevskyi, just as he did when he played Ivan Groznyi (Ivan the Terrible) several years later. The music was beautiful.

My one complaint was the poor soundtrack that was quite garbled. Although I only know a little Russian, it would have been nice to be able to pick out more words rather than having to rely almost 100% on the subtitles. I was watching this on an old videotape from the library, though. Perhaps by now a DVD version exists on which the sound has been enhanced. I would like to know whether the actors were using archaic Russian or even Old Church Slavonic when they were speaking. The subtitles were strangely worded, and it's hard for me to tell whether this was to reflect an older manner of speaking, or whether the subtitles were just somewhat poorly done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Contains spoilers)

Russia in the 13th century. The opening shot shows the relics of the last invasion: moldering uniforms, human skulls and a horse's skeleton. Prince Alexander Nevsky (Nikolai Cherkasov) chased the swedish army away and impressed the mongol ruler to such a degree that he proposes to promote him to the rank of captain. But Nevsky replies: \"Die in your homeland but don't leave it\". He intents to fish, build ships and trade. But he warns of a more dangerous enemy: Nearer, meaner and no possibility to buy oneself out: Germany. Their objective is Novgorod. They have already reached Pskov: Mothers and daughters suffer for their fathers and sons. The marauding occupation forces distribute the looty. Rich merchants want to purchase their liberty (always a place for some anti-capitalist p. r.), but the \"common people\" are ready to fight. They want Alexander as their leader. Pskov is burned to the ground. The teutonic knights feel invincible and have just a smug smile for the russian women who witness helplessly how their fathers and sons are butchered. Babies are thrown in the fire while high dignitaries of the church look on and remain idle. In Novgorod: Olga Danilovna has two admirers: rich and staid Gavrilo and tall and jolly Vasili. She promises to marry the most valiant. Vasili calls on Alexander Nevsky in Perejaslav. The prince decides not to wait for the attack but to strike at once. Even women put on a chain armor...The invaders want to bait the \"russian bear\", but Nevsky's stratagem stands the test: Lake Peipus is his war zone : His men know the territory but the germans, who are heavier, will break through the ice...

Open your eyes and watch the most impressive battle scenes ever filmed. It's not just the multitude of extras (Who were, I think, pressed in this patriotic exercise), but Eisenstein's masterful management of such a large number of individuals: he displaces divisions like pieces on a chess board and nearly every shot resembles the composition of a painting by Rembrandt or Rubens (Including horses in phantastic outfits). Russia in winter looks intimidating in itself, but Eisenstein's visual imagination is hors concours. Heaps of corpses are plunged in cosmic light under an endless horizon. At nightfall, Olga and other women search with torches for survivors. A devoted falcon sits on his master's dead body while a crow waits for the right moment to pick out the eyes of the deceased. Eisenstein's direction and Prokofiev's score make ALEXANDER NEVSKY the \"Rolls Royce\" among propaganda films. Nevsky is, of course Stalin's alter ego, and the russians are tall, good-looking, heroic, and they have a perfect hairdo. The germans are bearded savages and look like members of the Ku-Klux-Klan. The actor who plays Vasili gives a one-man-four-characters performance: first wavering, then heroic, youthful lover and comic relief. Cherkasov's main duty is to look heroic. At the end, Nevsky-Stalin displays his generosity: He pardons the \"little soldiers\" and barters the knights for soap. Only a bearded killer and a traitorous cleric are turned over to the mob. He does not forget a final warning: Who comes with the sword will die by the sword...He kept his promise. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tom Clancy uses \"Alesandr Nevsky\" in his book \"Red Storm Rising\". In the book, Nevksy was show in theatres across Russia as a prelude to the Soviet invasion of West Germany. I felt I had to check it out. It was excellant! The cinematography was magnificent and storyline incredible. I do not regret watching this movie and added in to my collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was Eisenstein's first completed project in over ten years. The film takes place in the 13th century during an invasion of Russian by Germans (Teutonic Knights - I think). Released in 1938 its a very loose parallel to Russia's nearing involvement in WWII, and Germany's advancement into Eastern Europe. There are some incredible scenes, most notable the battle near the end of the film, and there is a shocker when children are thrown into a pit of fire, but its not an easy watch. The film drags and isn't as consistently brilliant as \"Potemkin\" or \"Ivan the Terrible\". Sometimes Eisenstein is better in clips. His brilliance is present, however, and its a \"must see\" for Eisenstein fans and film historians. Russian Propaganda at its finest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Went looking for this movie after i read Tom Clancy's \"Red Storm Rising\" novel. Timeless masterpiece about 13th century Russians being invaded by the Germans. Movie was made in 1938, under orders from Joseph Stalin to warn Soviets about Hitler and Germany. Battle scenes are wonderfully done, showing that you don't need computer animation to make a great fight scene. Probably Sergei Eisenstein's greatest work. Also see 'Battleship Potemkin'. Any history buff or poli-sci major should watch this movie. 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has to be seen for the music, which is actually a wonderful cantata composed by Sergei Prokofiev. Obviously, the original soundtrack is not exactly hi-fi, but there are many excellent versions available in classical music selections. The cantata can be appreciated for itself, but having seen the movie helps.

The story itself is fairly standard Soviet wartime anti-German propaganda. An amusing anecdote is that Stalin was later so eager to buy time by appeasing Hitler at the onset of World War II that Eisenstein was seconded to a German movie for a short while, as penance.

Prince Alexander Nevsky (revered as a saint by the Russian Orthodox), having earned his nickname by defeating Swedish raiders on the river Neva, musters Russian resistance against an invasion by the Teutonic knights, and concludes his victory with a stern warning to other would-be invaders.

An interesting scene: Alexander sees a convoy of Russians being taken as slaves by Mongolian soldiers, and does nothing to stop this, as the Teutonic knights are his priority. The historical Alexander Nevsky paid tribute to the Mongol khans, as his father before him, while working to consolidate his realm's future independence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ALEXANDER NEVSKY is nothing short of a grand film on a grand scale. The film opens a window to a world and culture most Americans will never become acquainted with. And much has been said and written regarding the film's thinly veiled patriotism in the face of imminent war with the German Nazis.

By US standards the acting is a bit stilted. The screenplay is short on words and big on visuals and action. And while the action can become tiresome, the visuals are often stunning. Direction is incredible.

On another note, fans of Ralph Bakshi animation might notice that he stole a lot of his visuals for WIZARDS directly from a copy of ALEXANDER NEVSKY.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Warning: spoilers! -- although it's hard to spoil this film by telling story details.)

Eisenstein's black and white propaganda film is not for everyone. It's very old and it's, er, clumsy. What makes it great for me is the soundtrack, not the original but the updated soundtrack. Better still, the orchestral version Prokofiev created (my favorite performance is by Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony).

The film is actually funny in places. It's reminiscent of the old \"Midsummer Night's Dream\". Some of the outdoor scenes are quite magnificent. Some of the actors are also quite magnificent. (The actor who played Nevsky could have been a superstar today. Ditto for the warrior chick, Vasilisa -- definitely a rocker.)

This may be the world's best collection, on film, of pithy Russian sayings (there are tons of them -- they make up the bulk of the spoken lines).

The battle scenes actually look much more realistic than most high-budget Hollywood flix. These guys are as clumsy with their fighting as real peasants would be. The weapons look nasty, so the actors were probably trying to avoid actually wounding one another.

The actor playing the German \"grand marshall\" is trying *really* hard to look scary early in the film, but he looks like he was really a pussycat. After he's captured he looks *so* pathetic. (Speaks volumes about the intended audience, da?)

A really humorous touch is that the German army brings an *organ* with it, played by a character in a black robe. Watch the Russians bring this guy down *while* he's playing.

After the battle is over and almost all of the Germans are dead comes the best part of the film (and the music), the song sung to the dead soldiers who've died defending the motherland. This part is so sad it's almost an anti-war statement.

Ten times as many men as ladies have rated this film. Wonder why?

Warning: Joseph Stalin liked this film. Ironic -- he killed more Russians than anybody. \"Those who come to Russia carrying a sword will die by the sword\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those movies where you have to put to one side some of its obvious shortcomings (a result of the date and location of its production)and accentuate the positive. In many ways this is a truly superb film.

Forgive the parody in the one line summary, but the most serious shortcoming for an English speaker like me was the ghastly subtitles. The print I saw had 1982 Soviet \"Film Export\" subtitles, which consistently used inverted grammar, presumably to give the impression of 13th century speech. The actual impact of this nonsense is to make it harder to follow the subtitles which means you spend less time looking at the images. Given that the cinematographic imagery is this films great strength, this is a real issue.

Other IMDB-niks have written plenty about the Stalinist propaganda elements of this film (just in case the viewer doesn't notice them for him\/herself). They have also written plenty about the battle on the ice scene, which is superb in my view.

The love interest almost totally lacks subtlety and yet strangely..... almost totally lacks charm also. But it is good to cringe every now and then.

I was familiar with the Prokofiev music to this film long before seeing the film. The images and the music complement each other marvelously. And it is the images that will stick in the mind for a long time. Bergman clearly learned a lot from these images - the imagery of his medieval pieces (e.g. The Seventh Seal, The Virgin Spring) building upon and enhancing Eisenstein's ideas. This film was made in 1938 in the USSR. In that context it is a masterpiece, albeit a flawed one.

For the modern viewer, I suggest that you go with the flow and enjoy the many treats on show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is being commented on only because Serge Prokofiev(1891-1953)may not of known at first just how powerful a score and how actually majestic these lyrics really are.If you read the lyrics to Alexander Nevsky op.78 there is nothing here that is less than a witness through the song to one of the most beautiful and moving scores in all of musical literature.This film with its accompanying score have a special place in the world and that may be just as true on the internet as anywhere.The composers own website which is underwritten by his estate provides for additional care given such a score as this score truly deserves.It is to me as deep as it is wide with such boldness that you wish to be the one,the one they called Great Novgorod!This is a song about Alexander Nevsky.Yes,it happened on the River Neva-on the River Neva,on the wide waters.There we slew our foes'pick of fighting men-there pick of fighting men,the army of Swedes.Ah!How we fought,how we routed them!Ah!smashed their ships of war to kindling!In the fight our blood was freely shed for our great land,our native Russian land.Hey!Where the broadaxe swung was as an open street,through their ranks a lane where spears ran!We mowed down the invading Swedes like feather-grass grown on desert soil.We shall never yield native Russian Land.They who march on Russia shall be put to death!Rise against the foe,Russian land,arise,rise to arms,great Novgorod!(the call to arms goes on)Arise to arms,ye Russian folk,in battle just,in the fight to death,arise,ye people free and brave,defend our fair native land!To living warriors high esteem,immortal fame to warriors slain!For native home,For Russian soil,arise ye people,Russian folk!In our great Native Russia no foe shall live.Rise to arms,arise,native mother Russia!No foe shall march across Russian Land,no foreign troops shall raid Russia,unseen are the ways to Russia.no foe shall ravage Russian fields.(here dear reader we are asked to live forever with the following verse)titled\"The field of the dead\"-I shall go across the snow-clad field,I shall fly above the field of death.I shall search for valiant warriors,my betrothed,my stalwart youths.Here lies one felled by a wild saber,there lies one impaled by an arrow.From their wounds blood fell like rain on our native soil,on our Russian fields.He who fell for Russia in noble death shall be blest by my kiss on his dead eyes;and to him,brave lad,who remained alive I shall be a true wife and a loving friend.I'LL not be wed to a handsome man,earthly charm and beauty fast fade and die.I'll be wed to the man who's brave,Give ye heed to this,brave warriors!(now to its conclusion with Nevskys entry into Pskov)In a great campaign Russia went to war.Russia put down the hostile troops.In our native land no foe shall live.Foes who come shall be put to death!Celebrate and sing,native mother Russia!In our native land foe men shall not live.Foes shall never see Russian towns and fields;they who march on Russia shall be put to death! In our Russia great,in our native Russia no foe shall live!Celebrate and sing,native mother Russia!All of Russia came in triumph to the celebration.Celebrate and rejoice,Russian motherland!- It should be noted that Prokofiev was under quite a bit of pressure from Stalin, to if you will, make good.This musical score was really very much approved of by Stalin.To me there is a unmistakable beauty in how we love this world and Nevsky tells of a Hero whose God Like attributes provides for all participation in that love.A truly beautiful and furtive telling of the story of Alexander Nevsky.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I believe anyone who enjoyed Eisentein's Ivan the Terrible movies would enjoy this well crafted movie. This movie played out like \"Lord of the Ring: Return of the King\", but without the special effect but as good and better drama.

We have the German, who dressed like KKK, conquered Novgorod of Russia. The Russian summoned Nevsky to lead them to fight the German to save Russia. Nikolai Cherkasov, who played Ivan in the Ivan the Terrible films, was charismatic as Nevsky. The first 10 min how he handled the passing by Mongol was captivating.

Many of the scenes were beautiful even in black and white. The anticipation of War did not require any dialogue such as \"how many enemy we will be killing\", etc. Except for a few speeches, the film can basically be played out as a silent film. The fighting scene can hold up to those of the Civil War fighting scene of The Birth of a Nation.

Another strength of the movie is the great musical score, by Sergei Prokofiev. The music gave an epic feel to the movie in those scenes without dialogue.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is important to realise that Eisenstein was a committed Marxist film maker who held some very specific and particular theories about what film could achieve, and how.

It is simply idle to compare Alexander Nevsky negatively with anything from a similar period in the US; this film comes from the oldest film school in the world, from another continent, from an entirely different approach to cinema.

To appreciate this film a little more, try finding out about Pudovkin's and Kuleshov's theories of montage, for example, or read the Wikipedia entry on Marxist Film Theory. If you're feeling really bold, you might even investigate the triadic forms of Hegelian dialectic.

It follows that if you watch this film without some understanding of Eisenstein's ideas and ideals, you probably won't get it. In Alexander Nevsky the main characters aren't playing themselves, they are meant to be distillations of their nation's character. Nevsky and his generals are deliberately shown larger-than-life, because they represent stylised, heroic aspects of the entire Russian people.

The acting isn't wooden, it's meant to be slightly mannered. It represents a completely different school from the more naturalistic, narrative style which Hollywood was rapidly adopting. Eisenstein's films are especially designed *not* to be realistic. If anything seems somewhat \"obvious\", whether lighting or language or a pose struck by an actor, it's meant to be that way. Eisenstein was one of the early proponents of film as an art form, not just as entertainment.

If the editing sometimes seems to consist of a clash of images, well, that's the idea. Shots are meant to contrast with each other, Eisenstein's films contain and embody elements of a political\/philosophical argument, namely Marxist dialectic.

So sit back, shout hurrah for Russia and her folk-hero defenders, boo at the cowardly nobles and the Teuton invaders, and enjoy the difference.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Alexander Nevsky\" marked director Sergei Eisenstein's return to film-making after a period of exile, and what he produced is a bald-faced propaganda film proclaiming Russia's superiority over Germany.

There's very little plot: Russians unite to battle Germans; Russia wins. The film is really an extended montage of mostly battle scenes, mixed in with some moments of German brutality (like a rather shocking scene that shows German soldiers throwing Russian children onto a raging fire). This was Eisenstein's first sound film, and it's clear that he had no idea what to do with the medium. Indeed, this film really looks more like a silent film with some sound added. There are some dialogue scenes, but they sit rather lifelessly on the screen, and the pacing is all off, as if the actors weren't actually on the set together at the same time when they were filming them. Eisenstein mostly uses sound as an excuse to overlay a rousing Prokofiev score over the proceedings, and indeed, that's one of the film's biggest assets.

Say what you will about Eisenstein's ability (or lack of) to direct actors or tell his film in a more narrative format, he certainly knows how to edit images and music together for maximum effect, and \"Alexander Nevsky\" over all shines through its deficiencies.

Grade: A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alexander Nevsky is rightfully held up as a cinematic masterpiece. It has however aged very badly. People decide not to mention this and talk about the great battles and the great music. The sound effects may have been good then but apart from the foreboding organ all the sounds are risible. I may be shot by film buffs for this but i'm sure the modern viewer of Alexander Nevsky will agree that the blatant propaganda and the appalling music to detract from the film. I gave this film 10\/10 because it is undeniably a master piece. It does have its great bits however. The costumes of the Teutonic knights are superb and the battle scenes are fairly good for the time.It is however a master piece that is showing it's age.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Eisenstein's first sound film retells the battle of the ice of 1242, when the Russians under Alexander Nevsky defeated the Livonian knights, eager to bring Russia under Roman Catholicism. Made in 1938, Nevsky can be seen as a piece of propaganda: the Germanic knights, with their sinister (and somewhat goofy) helmets are obvious stand-ins for the Nazis. The butchery by the knights when they enter a Russian town seems a prophetic warning of the massacres of World War II. The film ends with a warning: those who came to Russia with the sword will die by the sword. Made in delicate black and white (somewhat reminiscent of a daguerreotype), it also marked Eisenstein's return to official favor. By the late 1920s, Stalin wanted Soviet filmmakers to stop experimentation and made movies that would be more populist and palatable to the Russian public. That stopped Eisenstein's career in Russia for a decade, and in Nevsky he came back with his more accessible film. Nevsky's strong point is in its second half, which features the battle itself, and it is justly seen as a milestone in movie history: never before (and probably never after) a battle would be so vivid in the screen. Another strong point is Prokofiev's beautiful, haunting soundtrack (using a composer to score a movie was completely unusual at the time). One of its weaker points: the comic relief (in the form of two simpleton Russian warriors trying to woo a beautiful Russian peasant) is really jarring.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When Patricia Newell is attacked after witnessing her cousin's murder,Detective Carrella searches the city for her killer.Identifying the murderer after an intensive manhunt,Patricia is sent to live with relatives in the country.For Carrella the case is closed...or is it?\"Blood Relatives\" is an overlooked masterpiece.Donald Sutherland plays a cop and it's nice to see Donald Pleasance in a small role as a child molester.The conclusion is pretty disturbing.Still \"Blood Relatives\" is more of a mystery than a horror film,so fans of gore will be disappointed.A must-see for fans of old-fashioned mystery movies.9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I honestly can't believe that this film isn't more highly rated. Claude Chabrol could be described as something like a French Alfred Hitchcock, and while this film is only the second one of his that I've seen (the first being Le Boucher), I can already see that this guy is something special just on the strength of these two films. The film is a French and Canadian co-production, and takes place in Canada. The cast is made up of British and Canadian stars and the high quality performances bode well with the rest of the film; most of which is high quality also. The film is a murder mystery and begins when a young girl covered in blood is brought into a police station. After being questioned by Inspector Carella, it emerges that the young girl, Patricia, and her sister Muriel were attacked by a man who killed the sister and only just allowed Patricia to flee. However, as the investigation goes on, Patricia goes back to the station to give new evidence, which reveals a far more shocking identity to the murderer.

The performances in this film are excellent. Donald Sutherland is subdued as usual, but he suits the role he's given here very well and I wouldn't hesitate to name his performance in Blood Relatives as one of his very best. The film also features supporting turns from British stars Donald Pleasance and David Hemmings who both give good turns; Pleasance in particular who shows just how great an actor he can be and highlights what a shame it is that he went on to waste himself in Halloween films. The unknown Aude Landry also gives a great performance in her role as Patricia. The movie is very mysterious for the first hour and really keeps the audience hooked. When Inspector Carella discovers Muriel's diary, the film turns into more of a drama in which the girl's last actions are shown; and while this section of the film is not as good as what went before it, it's still interesting and leads into a great twist at the end! Overall, Blood Relatives is a great film that really deserves to be better seen. Le Boucher is a better known effort from Chabrol, but for my money this is at least as good! Highly recommended viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Evocatively directed and slickly photographed psychological mystery thriller with an exceptional lead performance by a sombre Donald Sutherland, and potent support roles from Donald Pleasence and David Hemming. The material decides to keep it all glum, and moves from the investigation period into the back-story of the victim. The seldom, and quite sullen nature of investigation pulled me in, but when it flashback to the victim's side showing her final days weren't as compelling, and became somewhat stodgy and stock-like. While the script is strongly detailed and to a certain degree complex in stringing us along, however the final and surprising revelation should have been more bone-jarring and it's not helped out by its sloppy execution. Howard Blake's music score has an emotional sting to its cues that simply linger, and director Claude Chabrol's capable handling (well for most part) has a strong stylistic and tight manner, which gets the best out of moody locations and flexible cast. The young faces Lisa Langlois and Aude Landry do an incredibly good job as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Considered by many to be a strangely overlooked Chabrol it seems to me the reason it has been cold shouldered is its sleaze factor. Not as overtly sexy, violent or gory as many films of this period it nevertheless starts rather startlingly and although becoming more measured continues to ooze a rather unpleasant odour. Ms Audran, not here the ice maiden but a drunken mother, Donald Pleasence does a cameo as a child molester, David Hemmings has his eyes on underage sex and the central theme involves the relationship between a brother, sister and niece. No not very nice at all and Chabrol treats it all as if it is very normal (like it might be in some small French village!) instead of Ed McBain's New York City. Had this been treated in a more sensational manner then it would have been a more acceptable but lesser film. Here we really have to choose between the likelihood of various unpleasant options before the final denouement. Very watchable","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Finally I discovered what I thought I remembered as a four year old. After seeing the 1960 color version on VHS, I kept saying I remembered seeing it in black and white 2 times before. Now the IMDb has helped me to know the truth, that it was broadcast twice (2 productions) in black and white in 2 successful years, 1955 & 56. These are the ones I remember best as a four year old. I didn't realize the 56 broadcast was not the same as the 55. In 1960, I was 9 and the color production just didn't do it for me. The black and white version was wonderful with just as much awe and wonder impact as the high tech films of today, even without any computer effects. You had to have been there! Please comment if you had a similar reaction to the b&w version.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This 1955 Producers' Showcase version of the musical Peter Pan with Mary Martin has the benefit of showcasing most of the original Broadway cast, including Kathleen Nolan as Wendy, who was more natural an actress than the girl they hired for the 1960 color televised play. It's a shame that most people won't sit through anything black and white anymore because in many respects this earlier production - which doesn't even show up in the IMDb listings when you put \"Peter Pan\" into the search engine! - is superior to the cutesier color version most people have watched. I obtained the original on disc and then did work on it to make it look and sound better digitally. Now when I put the 1960 color version on it looks garish in comparison. I suspect Mary Martin herself no doubt preferred this original 1955 b\/w Producers' Showcase televised version.

As an added plus the disc I got also showed the original commercials and opening promo. How far away the 1950's seem now - such an innocent time compared to today. I miss it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A tough life gets tougher when the three children of a single mom are scheduled to be sent to separate foster homes after her untimely passing.

To stay together, the older boy plans a daring, high risk escape to find a distant lost uncle- their only remaining next of kin.

Their trek takes the three fearful runaways on a chase through the desert in a classic beetle, penniless, hungry, desperate, terrorized by delinquents and too young to drive, hunted by the ever threatening civil authorities.

What the movie lacks in acting and plot realism, it makes up for in the honest human need to be a part of a fulfilled and complete family- even if that family is cobbled together with spare parts of broken lives.

Sure, the ending is forced and too over-dramatic for the critical movie goer, but every heart beats the same cry for family togetherness and belonging.

With all its weaknesses, I still give this movie a strong recommendation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My cousins and I have watched this movie ever since we were little. I don't know exactly what it is about this movie, but we latched on to this endearing movie and it has become a special part of our family's memories.

I totally and absolutely recommend this movie to anyone who likes good wholesome family movies because that is exactly what this is. The things that the four kids get themselves into is absolutely hilarious to watch. It is an old movie but don't let that fool you. This is one of the best movies out there that shows such strong sibling bond for each other.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's really too bad that nobody knows about this movie. I think if it were just spruced up a little and if it weren't so low-budget, I think one of the major film companies might have wanted to take it. I first saw this movie when I was 11, and I thought it was so powerful with the many great, yet illegal lengths that Mitchell goes to just to keep his family together. It inspired me then and it amazes me now. If you're lucky enough to find a copy of this movie, don't miss it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Commenter before me stated this movie is the worst that was ever forced upon him\/her as a child. I have to say though that I loved this movie when was little and I still love it today. The movie has the best running theme of all-family togetherness. Considering the time period the movie was released I thought the movie was acted out well. I only wish I could still find a copy of it somewhere!! Of all the 1980's films I watched as a kid this was on of my favorites. I know I probably watched it at least once a week with my brother and my mom. I would definitely recommend it to anyone I know-or don't know. So if you do find a copy of it I suggest watching it! It's wonderful and heartwarming.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"on our own\" is a touching story of four kids who run away from foster home after their mother dies, with only one suitcase, their dog Ralph and $9 they set off in their mums old car in search of their uncle Jack. On the way their car breaks down and they meet Peggy Williams, a schoolteacher on holidays and she offers to help them out. Together she and the children search for uncle Jack but are forced to hide from the authorities that plan to take them back into foster care as they do so. This film tells a story of love, friendship and how important it is to stick with your family as the children venture out on their amazing journey.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Vanaja (2006), written and directed by Rajnesh Domalpalli, is an extraordinary film from South India. Mamatha Bhukya plays 15-year-old Vanaja, who lives in a rural area with her loving but alcoholic father. If she is going to succeed in life, she will have to overcome the liabilities of low caste and poverty.

I went to the film expecting the depiction of an wretched girl who is crushed by society. This isn't what \"Vanaja\" shows us. The young woman is attractive, intelligent, and ambitious. She won't accept her fate with tears or simple resignation. She wants to succeed, and it's never clear that she won't succeed, despite the odds.

The acting that Mr. Domalpalli draws forth from his cast of amateurs is miraculous. Mamatha Bhukya is outstanding in the title role, and Urmila Dammannagari does an exceptional job as Mrs. Rama Devi, the wealthy landowner who is a formerly famous classical dancer.

In the film Vanaja learns South Indian classical dance, as she did in real life. I couldn't tell how good Vanaja's dancing was by Indian standards, but the many dance scenes were spellbinding. (Don't think Bollywood--this is classical dance. It's also very different from ballet, because in ballet the dancer lifts her heels away from the floor. In Sound Indian dance, the heel is the primary contact point.)

This is a movie that is not to be missed. It will work on DVD, but will be better on a theater screen because the dancing will be shown to better advantage. However, if DVD is your only option, then see it that way. Just be sure to see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is not your typical Indian film. There is some great sense of humanity, and the characters are pretty realistic. There is great dynamism in the interpersonal relationships, and there is a sense of guilt, grief, passion, passivity among the many characters. While seeing this, one gets a feel for the heavy burden of the 5000 years of layers and layers of history of social existence of one of the oldest civilizations. The final scene of an elephant walking away in the rural area was a great footnote to such a ancient civilization, and yet, human relations are still preserved and nurtured. Saw it on DVD, the two interviews with the director and the main actress are very interesting. Was surprised to learn that the movie has not done well (or not being shown) in India (... but maybe not too surprised). The artistic patrimony of rural societies is being slowly lost and its inheritance not picked up by younger generations, as some of the older musicians in the movie are no longer living today. Great film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Winning 26 out of the 28 awards it was nominated for, there is no doubt that this film will stand as one of the best of 2007. The fact that it was made with non professionals who were trained to act and dance makes it that much more special.

It is not a Bollywood production, but it is about art. A lower caste girl wants to sing and dance. She wants to move up in society, but there is a limit. Everyone cannot be President in India, there is a caste system, and the narrow minds will not allow it to be breached.

Vanaja (Mamatha Bhukya) quits school at 15 and goes to work for the Landlady (Urmila Dammannagari), who was once an accomplished dancer. After some time working the animals, she is taught to sing and dance. The film is strikingly beautiful with rich color. It is amazing what can be done with $20,000, as this film was a Master's project for the writer director.

The Landlady's son (Karan Singh) returns from America to run for office and is struck by the girl. But, she is lower caste and can only be a vessel for his lust. Things are no better at home as her father drinks and eats and steals her money. She ends up pregnant and has to sell the baby to the Landlady.

In the end, she never rises above her caste, but the story was fascinating and the acting was really good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Vanaja is a film of superlatives. It has an exceptionally well thought-out cast with Mamatha being the crowning jewel, a superb production and possibly pre-production with Rajnesh at the helm, a fantastic journey of rural Southern India through the eyes of a 15 year old, a remarkable mixture of song and dance, traditional and modern, blended perfectly, and a beautiful backdrop of lush color of the flora and fauna that make up the magnificent experience. What a towering achievement for a debut director!! The casting was absolutely dead-on. I wish India would come out with more of such films. This film will remain as one of my top favorites for my entire life. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"let's face it, you know what to expect when you tune into a post 1990 Corey Feldman film, there are probably boobs, guns and cars. saying that, there is more to this movie than just naked ladies (i'm sorry to say), cos it's mainly people getting themselves killed in a variety of unusual, and as the name suggests, often 'mystical' ways. I love crappy horror, and i love this film. If you don't, you probably wont. but i think it's worth most people giving it a go, it's not so crappy that it'll ruin your weekend or anything. All in all, if its mindless good fun, a bit of corpse loving, and an 80's childhood superstar your in the mood for, then you've come to the right place. its a cracker!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't care if some people voted this movie to be bad. If you want the Truth this is a Very Good Movie! It has every thing a movie should have. You really should Get this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Caution-possible spoilers ahead\u0085.. Just watched 'Joe' for the second time. The first time was 30+ years ago on an Air Force Base. I was reminded of that by the Air Force overcoat with Tech. Sgt. stripes wore by the boyfriend\/dealer; we airmen had quite a laugh the first time that appeared on the screen because that is a 'lifer' rank. Over the years I have carried several other images from the film. Foremost was the absolutely beautiful and vulnerable daughter of the executive. As someone else commented, you could not take you eyes off her. I did not realize until now that this was a 20-year old Susan Sarandon in her first movie. What a loss that she did not do more movies when she looked like that. I also recall the irony of having a counterculture hero like Peter Boyle playing the title role of a right-wing gun nut. Not unlike George C. Scott playing generals in Dr. Strangelove and Patton. And of course the shocking ending made a lasting impression.

30+ years ago it was the most talked about movie that ever played on the base. We thought it was a great film then and I have been reluctant to see it again because I was afraid that it would be as disappointingly dated as Easy Rider. But watching it today I was amazed at how well the film has held up. It is a very strong script with few holes although you have to wonder about the boyfriend immediately getting out of the bathtub when Sarandon gets in with him.

Searching for an explanation of why this film is still so entertaining I have to think it has something to do with the perfect physical casting. Boyle was physically believable as Joe (as others have pointed out his portrayal would inspire the Archie Bunker character a few 'years later). Did Ted Knight model his 'Caddyshack' character-Judge Smails after the Dennis Patrick's advertising executive in 'Joe'? They look alike and sound alike. Patrick was totally believable as the wrapped-too-tight upper middle class executive. And Sarandon's doe-eyed innocent with the Raggety Ann doll still evokes a protective response from all male viewers-perfect casting.

The nude and drug scenes actually hold up (they were very provocative for their day) and are as explicit as anything to be found in 'Thirteen'. About the only thing that dates this film is that the violence is not realistic or graphic. 'Joe' was about the same time as 'The Wild Bunch', and the tone of movie violence had a just begun to change.

Another reason this film holds up is that events in the past couple of years have brought back the relevancy of the theme and context of this film. In the film both types of 'conservatives' are portrayed as full of fear and hate toward the unconventional ways of the counterculture; and filled with envy at their free and hedonistic lifestyle. The counterculture is portrayed as mocking the straight culture; and although paranoid toward conservatives (legitimately so given that this was just a couple months after Kent State) they cannot resist flaunting their lifestyle in an attempt to antagonize. The political landscape is not all that different 30+ years later. I'm not sure conservatives envy young people and liberals as much as 1970, but they fear and hate them more.

An excellent film that surprisingly is as relevant now as it was in the early 1970's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wealthy businessman Bill Compton (played by Dennis Patrick) accidentally kills his daughter's hippie boyfriend after an argument. Panic-stricken, he retreats to a bar, and meets Joe Curran (played by Peter Boyle): a loud-mouth, angry, bigot who is bitter over how his beloved country has become. Unintentionally, Bill allows Joe to find out that he just killed a hippie. And this is only the beginning. \"Joe\" is a classic film of an unlikely friendship. A bond between two men, one of a white-collar background, the other of a blue-collar background. Bill & Joe have one thing in common, they are disgraced over how crazy the world has become. Dennis Patrick & Peter Boyle have both given very realistic portrayals of their characters. Director John G. Avidsen with this \"pre-Rocky\" effort, directs this low-budget gem with the same finesse as a movie with a $100 million budget. The script is loaded with excellent character development and very snappy, realistic dialog. In spite of its strengths this film does have its weaknesses. The script falls asleep roughly 3\/4 of the way through, but it wakes up just in time for the jarring climax. This film also features a very early and uninspiring performance by a 24-year old Susan Sarandon as Bill's daughter Melissa, along with her hippie boyfriend Frank, portrayed very blandly by Patrick Mc Dermott. One could only be thankful that he was killed off early in the film. In spite of its few flaws this is one of those forgotten films of the 70's that should not be. Even though \"Joe\" is very dated to today's standards, the chemistry between Dennis Patrick & Peter Boyle is completely relevant today, and it is the glue that holds the whole film together.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Joe\" is one of those movies where, although you think that it might go along smoothly, ends up hitting you like...I can't come up with an analogy. It showed not only that America's long-standing idea of unity was moot, but also the various aspects within our society. Melissa Compton (Susan Sarandon) is the ultimate flower child, while her father Bill (Dennis Patrick) is a clean-cut executive. One day, Bill accidentally kills Melissa's boyfriend. In the immediate aftermath, Bill gets acquainted with Joe Curran (Peter Boyle), an ultra-right-wing, rabidly racist working stiff. As a result, the two of them end up associating more and more with the hippies, whom Bill finds unpleasant and Joe outright hates. But in the end, everything has dead serious consequences.

True, some parts of the movie are a little bit dated, but it's a good juxtaposition of America's two sides during the Vietnam War. And rest assured, the residual effects of all that will probably never go away.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was surprised by how emotionally invested I became in this film. Peter Boyle is a tour de force as the working class socially conservative bigot, Joe. I actually sympathized with some of his complaints. Of course he doesn't mention the underlying historical socio-economic reasons for many of his prejudices. The film also provides interesting insight into the rapid change American society was undergoing at this time. Recreational drugs, casual sex, and the challenging of parental authority became in vogue and replaced the more time honored traditions of respect for God, country and seniority. Susan Sarandon fans will be delighted. Joe is her film debut. She also provides viewers with a visual treat near the beginning of the film. Recommended, 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If Archie Bunker was armed, he may well have been \"Joe\". However, \"All in the Family\" would have had a rather short run because the censors would never have allowed it to run along the lines of THIS movie. Joe is a working class guy who is a racist and a bigot, and has a big mouth, especially when he's drunk. One night he meets a man in a bar, Bill, who is having a drink to soothe his frazzled nerves after accidentally killing his daughter's junkie boyfriend and he lets that slip to Joe. What happens is that Bill's daughter was living with the junkie, and she's hauled off to the hospital after an overdose, and he goes by the apartment to collect her things but doesn't expect that he'll actually run into the boyfriend, who comes in fresh from a big drug deal. In the struggle that ensues, the boyfriend is killed accidentally and Bill doesn't want anyone really to know, of course. But he lets it slip to Joe, and then when the newspapers and TV reports come out, Joe sees them, puts 2 and 2 together, and suddenly this man is a hero in his eyes. He hooks up with him later and Bill is of course concerned that Joe is going to blackmail him, but not for money, he wants to hang out with him. Which is, in a way, almost worse. Now, Bill's daughter escapes from the clinic she's in, and slips back home, and accidentally overhears what happened and then is on the run, and most of the rest of the movie consists of Joe & Bill infiltrating \"the underground\" to try to find her. This builds up to a rather shocking ending, which to me was totally unexpected and ends on just the right note, or wrong note, depending on your point of view. A sort of decent but dim view of life in the early 70's, mostly from a working class bigot's point of view, which makes it not for everyone, but it's not a bad film at all and it's a decent watch. 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"22. JOE (drama, 1970) Joe (Peter Boyle) is a racist factory worker who's known to hate \"hippies and ni**ers\". He meets Bill, a businessman who has just murdered the lover of his drug addict young daughter Jill (Susan Sarandon). Jill runs away and joins a hippie commune at the outskirts of town. Bill turns to Joe for help. Their search leads them through the seediest parts of town where both men's inner hatred and loath is furthered tested.

Critique: This was director John G. Avildsen's first sleeper-turned smash hit (an amazing run which included: 'Rocky', 'The Karate Kid', 'Split-Image', 'Weekend at Bernie's'). Film is interesting enough in that it served to encapsulate the themes and ideas of the turbulent 60s (Vietnam War, black power, women's lib etc.). It also has a good performance from Peter Boyle as Joe, one of the cinema's first antiheroes. He's always been good at playing creepy, bossy heavies whose abstract ideas are enforced by his intimidating presence (he would play the Frankenstein monster in Mel Brook's spoof Young Frankenstein). He reminds me of a little kid trapped in a big, dumb, awkward body. Film has a weak script (the meeting of Joe and Bill, for instance, is a bit coincidental), but it has a particularly gruesome, post-Taxi Driver ending.

QUOTE: Title Song: \"I saw a fella selling junk to children. He gets nervous every time I pass Cause he knows that if I catch him I'm gonna kick his head and kick his fat a$$.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I finally have seen the real reason why Peter Boyle became famous. It wasn't being the monster in \"Young Frankenstein\" or being cranky Frank Barone on \"Everybody Loves Raymond\". For younger people who only know him from TV,give this film a try,it makes Frank look like a saint.

\"Joe\" is Boyle in his finest acting role and as someone mentioned,most likely gave the inspiration for \"Archie Bunker\" on \"All In The Family\". I think Boyle even went back to \"Joe\" a little to play Frank. (I say this because I noticed the basement of both \"Joe\" & Frank Barone look similar.)

I knew nothing of this movie when I checked it out of the library,I just knew Boyle and Susan Sarandon were featured. Yes,Susan does look great here and for a young actress a very good early role. A young hippie wanna be,who escapes her parents home and lives with,the ultimate lost in a drug induced haze hippie,who also sells as much as he buys.

After a near-fatal over-dose on too many pills,she is hospitalized while her parents go to collect her things,her mother wont go into the smelly,run down apartment but her father does. While Dad gathers up her things,her boyfriend comes home and the two exchange words and then the father does what we will later hear Joe say he'd like to do to a hippie.

Joe is shooting his mouth off about how he hates different cultures\/races,hippies and a laundry list of others. When he says,\"I'd really like to kill one of them\",the father (trying to look like he's kidding)says,\"I just did\". Joe almost buys it but then takes it as funny.

Later,when the police are at the scene and the story is in the paper,Joe realizes,he wasn't kidding. Instead of nailing the rich guy for money through blackmail,he actually,kind of,does blackmail him. By just wanting him and his wife to \"get to know\" him and his wife. Long story short their association is awkward but after Sarandon gets wind of what her father has done,the bottom is at risk of falling out.

How this all plays out in the end you'll have to watch for yourself. Although it's over 35 years ago,the ending is something you wont expect. Unless you've seen the film before of course. Again,I recommend it mostly for those who haven't seen it.

10 stars for Boyle not just playing someone completely opposite his nature but for what will show others that he was more than just a TV and movie comedy actor. (END)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I only voted excellent because this film took two snapshots of Americana: one in 1970, and one for every year afterward.

Nothing's really changed.

Joe is actually a jerk, a big stupid slob who's mad at everybody else in the world for his own idiocy. This ain't really a spoiler, but the key to the film is the big, corporate \"never does wrong\" guy making friends with this semi-troglodyte Joe, and he gets some kind of...validation from his bigotry and stupidity and sense of being wronged.

Yet, few would argue, that the dealer boyfriend did deserve to die. And those kids shouldn't have ripped Joe and Compton off. And Joe and Compton were actually getting into the hash and the young skin until they got ripped off. A simple film in many ways, except that in 1970 New York City was par to a battle zone thanks to Nixon's care, and all of the money going to the war in Vietnam. As I write this (2\/25\/2007) there is a \"very long wait\" on Netflix for this film - which makes me happy because I think there are people out there who want to learn. This was a pretty good snapshot - not exact, a bit caricaturist - but actually pretty close to how it was back then. And the scary thing is - things haven't changed that much. Sure, there's no more welfare, but that just means the wage-slavery has won out.

Amazing how millionaires will complain about not making enough money, then complain that $5.15 an hour is too much to pay their people.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WARNING: Reading this entry after watching the movie! Like 'Easy Rider' released a year before, 'Joe' tries to illustrate what happens when the counterculture and mainstream (albeit right-wing) America meet: a violent end ensues. Although this film is for the most part a slow-moving display of traditional \"old-fashion\" American morals versus the 60's \"do-what-feels-good\" lifestyle, it is also a commentary on upper-class vs. lower-middle class and their inability to meet in the middle as illustrated when the Comptons meet the Currans. Boyle's Joe represents a generation stuck in the 1940s and 50s where 'Kill a commie for Mommy (or jap or hippie for that matter) is okay so long as it helps and saves America. Joe and wife Mary Jo are clearly the archetypes for Archie Bunker and Dingbat wife, Edith. This movie - which will forever be known for it's violent (but not bloody - no blood is seen at all) ending is uneven however. Joe blasts (verbally) the hippie generation then (literally) lays down with them to infiltrate their numbers to locate Compton's daughter - when clearly he should have been repulsed by the idea but forgoes the separatist idea for the sake of sex. When he is betrayed through thievery (read: trust of the older generation to the newer generation), he lashes out through an unrelenting chain of murder. Perhaps it is due to the Tarantinos of Hollywood that the watcher expects blood-streaming death in the end scene, but the bloodless shootings long for any sort of impact or realism. 'Joe' is not a great movie, but it is an interesting display of class and culture alienation and the animalistic underlying extremes to the generation gap.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After recently seeing, Cry Uncle, by the same director, I decided to seek this out and am I glad I did!? This is an extraordinarily good film. Far, far better than it would seem likely given the ingredients. How many times have we had to suffer the embarrassment of someone playing a middle class Dad mixing it with the flower children aagh! And yet here thanks to a perfect script it is made believable. Not ideal, not good or bad but believable. Peter Boyle, as the working class, hippie and ni**er hater and Dennis Patrick as the uptight suit, play their respective parts immaculately and I can't remember ever seeing the two classes getting together like this without things getting sentimental. Susan Sarandon is effective as a hippie chick but doesn't have all that much to do in her first film. This is a truly, must see film capturing as it does that very short period in western and in particular US times when the counter culture was about to bust itself wide open.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Unusual film about a man who befriends his social opposite out of fear of blackmail. Peter Boyle makes this film with his foul mouthed boorish portrayal of a working class stiff \"Joe\" in love with the past and fearful of the future and worried about the present. The first half hour of the show features the film debut of a young Susan Sarrandon as Melissa Compton, a weak willed rich girl who slums with her loser boyfriend, replete with a full nude scene. Her boyfriend is the film's weak spot, a poorly portrayed drug addict and dealer who meets his demise following Sarrandon's overdose. We meet Boyle's Joe in a bar as he spouts off and rants about minorities, crime, hippies and drugs, and it is easy to see that the later Norman Lear television character of Archie Bunker is based on a cleaned up version of Joe. The comparison even carries over into Joe's wife and personal life and pastimes. Joe insinuates himself into the life of Bill Compton, Melissa's father, and the two make an unlikely pair as they search for Melissa who has run away from drug treatment and back to the drug addicts she calls friends. Their search leads them to an \"oar-gee\" as Joe calls it, a free love fest fueled by drugs a lot of nudity and surprisingly, uptight Bill Compton and Ultra Conservative Joe both join in. They get robbed and this leads to a violent and murderous ending that foreshadows the stark and chilling ending to Taxi Driver six years later. Joe is a funny film that on the surface at least, is anti violence and anti racist. Yet the film's main character, Joe, becomes the very instrument of the upheaval he fears when he enters and joins in the illegal and unbridled sexual excesses he rants against. So in that respect, the film falls short of being a powerful message and leaves you wondering what the final outcome really was all about.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recall so many things about seeing this movie back during it's original theatrical release - the post Woodstock afterglow of peace and love, along with the pre-Watergate tension of fear and paranoia. It's hard to believe that it's thirty seven years later, and I can still remember the thoughts going through my head while watching the film with my best friend. Like marveling at Peter Boyle's characterization of the ultimate redneck, sure to typecast him the rest of his career (Oh, how wrong!), and how the counter culture jarred the sensibilities of most of the country. To this day, my buddy and I still use Joe Curran's line from my summary above when faced with a dilemma; curious how a simple line like that can stay with you for decades.

It's curious to read comments about the film from others on this board, particularly the ones stating that the film has a dated quality and how over the top the characters were. Still, if you were around during that time, the picture gives a pretty accurate portrayal of the polar opposites that existed back then, pretty much side by side as the events in the story reveal. If you really want dated, when was the last time you heard the words Macy's and Gimbel's in the same sentence, or a line like Joe's - \"Come on, get with the Pepsi generation\". For historical perspective, you have that great Nixon poster lingering in one of the background scenes - \"Would you buy a used car from this man?\" With minor intricacies like those, director John Avildsen captures many of the subtle but ever present hints of how life was four decades ago.

Today's viewing was only the second time I've seen the movie, and I have to admit I don't remember Susan Sarandon in one of the lead roles, but then again, this was her very first picture. The scenes of nudity and free love were something actually quite new and bold at the time, shocking in fact, as film makers began to experiment with their ability to push the envelope of propriety and convention. \"Joe\" took a major leap in that regard, particularly since it was a 'mainstream' picture.

With the passage of time, the thing that impresses me the most about Peter Boyle was how he overcame the stereotype of Joe Curran to appear in or star in some of my very favorite pieces of work. I mean, how do you go from \"Joe\" to that hilarious rendition of 'Puttin' on the Ritz' in \"Young Frankenstein\"? And my absolute favorite episode of 'X-Files' has Boyle as Clyde Bruckman, in both a tender and tragic, funny and serious portrayal that turns the tables on Scully and Mulder more than once. And as a career capper, Frank Barone has to be one of the funniest characters in the history of television. Even repeat episodes in syndication are funny as he-- whenever the elder Barone lets loose with one of his observations. He is one actor that this viewer sorely misses already.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"New Yorkers contemporaneous with this film will recall how reflective of its time it is and how well cast and crew captured America, New York City of that era.

Norman Wexler's script delineates the different worlds the various sub groupings live in and Avildsen's direction brings out phenomenal performances all around. Peter Boyle's prodigious talent is on display as never before nor since. Clearly it is the best character portrayal the always likable Dennis Patrick ever accomplished.

What I will always remember about JOE is the feeling of having been in a virtual state of shock coming out of the theater. Knowing that what the screen portrayed was seething under the surface in neighborhoods throughout the five boroughs of the City of New York.

This film needs to be remembered.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though I saw this movie about 4 years ago long before I started commenting on IMDb, I decided to review it now which is unusual for me since before now I often reviewed something just after seeing it. What can I say? Well, the best performance is that of the late Peter Boyle as the title character who, after finding out about a man's killing the drug-dealing boyfriend of his daughter, wants to bond with him even though he's a Madison Avenue executive who has nothing in common with the very lower-class conservative Joe. In fact, there are plenty of funny scenes of Joe at this guy's party making smart alecky remarks there. Oh, and it should be noted that the actress that plays the daughter who they're looking for after she disappeared from the hospital after overdosing on some drugs is none other than Susan Sarandon making her film debut! This was a pretty hard-hitting movie for the time it was made (late '60s-early '70s) and was compelling work from scripter Norman Wexler (later of Saturday Night Fever) and director John G. Avildsen (later to do Save the Tiger, Rocky, and The Karate Kid). Certainly the ending packs a wallop even today after all these years! Highly recommended for anyone curious about the counterculture of that time. P.S. Among the cultural artifacts seen here are a Raggedy Ann doll, a box of Ritz crackers, a bottle of Heinz ketchup, and, unique for the era, a Nixon poster asking, \"Would you buy a used car from this man?\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a classic movie that dramatizes the plight of a man who cannot adjust to changes taking place in society and feels more and more alienated, which leads to violence. Joe is a worker, and he is dissatisfied and angry, and all he is needs is a pretext to lash out, which is what the story is about. Alone, Joe is quiet; together with someone else, he becomes lethal. And what makes the character of Joe even more chilling is that he fully rationalizes his violence so that to him it's not only not bad, it's necessary. For Joe projects his own violent tendencies onto those who he considers \"the enemy\" and therefore considers himself to be in a war, and in this movie, the \"generation gap\" is portrayed as a war. But it is a war in Joe's mind only, because \"the enemy\" in this case is in his imagination. Nobody wants to fight Joe, but Joe feels he must defend himself. Although this movie was released in 1970, it's message is as relevant now as it was then as society continues to undergo major changes which lead to the kind of intense alienation that the movie effectively dramatizes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dennis Patrick plays a man who accidentally kills his daughter's boyfriend and then reveals his secret at a local bar. Joe (Peter Boyle), a bigot who is getting drunk there, at first takes it as a joke, but then the story is confirmed on the evening news. Instead of calling the cops or the like, Joe decides that, since the guy killed a hippie, they must be kindred spirits! He blackmails the man into becoming his pal. At first, the film seemed harsh and judgemental, but, as it revealed itself, it actually became quite a complex portrait of the current society. Yes, I think it does exaggerate a bit, but in amusing ways that don't really detract from the power of its messages. Susan Sarandon debuted in this film, and it's a shock to see how pretty she was around 23. Well worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Joe is the movie about the dark side of the force of the 1960's in America, and Susan Sarandon had nice boobs. This movie scared me so much when I saw it in the theatre that I never liked Peter Boyle until Young Frankenstein and was still quite leery of him even after that comedy. Looking back now from today's experience, this film seems current again in being direct and to the point of half the electorate's approval of John McCain's \"Joe The Plumber\" typecast and their fear of electing a black man as President of the USA in the coming weeks. A black Prez would be seen as sweet revenge of the \"niggers\" but bound to again bring fire to many minds if not the streets, this time by Joe enthusiasts. So, the spirit of Joe in the film is resurrected in the campaign of Joe The Plumber! Still, I love to be American and be terrified at both and by the knowledge that they illustrate what ironically Gregory Peck said our civilized law also is: \"a living, breathing reality!\" God help us.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really liked the Movie \"JOE.\" It has really become a cult classic among certain age groups.

The Producer of this movie is a personal friend of mine. He is my Stepsons Father-In-Law. He lives in Manhattan's West side, and has a Bungalow. in Southampton, Long Island. His son-in-law live next door to his Bungalow.

Presently, he does not do any Producing, But dabbles in a business with HBO movies.

As a person, Mr. Gil is a real gentleman and I wish he would have continued in the production business of move making.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peter Boyle was always a great actor and he proved it by his performance as a gun-ho Bigot, making me hate him everytime he used the \"N\" word, I watched him and his big mouth and wanted to punch his lights out. ( Just think, Peter Boyle was a Monk once) (Now a supporting actor in \"Everybody Loves Raymond\") Susan Sarandon making her first debut need a bath right away and enjoyed sharing it with someone else in his own dirty water. I noticed a large Raggerty Ann Doll(creator, John Gruelle) was the only thing that Susan could actually trust and love and the doll appeared in quite a few scenes. If you really want to know about the way out 70's with drugs, free love and pipe dreams, then, enjoy the excellent direction of John G. Avildsen (\"Rocky and \"The Karate Kid\") I always thought that Peter Boyle should have been blown away in the end!! This is definitely a cult classic well worth viewing and sharing with others.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fascinating relic of the turbulent cultural\/political aura of the late 60s (taking in the class struggle as well) which, ironically, in view of its outdated and occasionally embarrassing conservative views, makes full use of the permissiveness that prevailed for a while in mainstream cinema and which came about as a direct result of the liberal attitude it purports to criticize! Norman Wexler's incisive Oscar-nominated script is superbly enacted by Peter Boyle (in a powerhouse performance) who manages to make his garrulous, down-to-earth yet hypocritical and opportunistic character (with a barely-disguised fascist streak which comes to the fore in the remarkable violent conclusion) likable, even admirable; indeed, he comes across uncannily like a flabbier version of the young Marlon Brando! Similar to other generation gap movies of its era like TAKING OFF (1971) and HARDCORE (1978) but also nihilistic vigilante films like DEATH WISH (1974) and TAXI DRIVER (1976) - interestingly enough, two of these also feature Boyle - JOE ultimately emerges as an engrossing and powerful drama which could have been a masterpiece if it had had a more experienced director at the helm...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oh man , this movie is amazing, It's very good it's a story about a man who isn't so accepting of Black people, he sits at a bar drinks on his night out and he rants about hippies who are anti-war , and how blacks and hippies don't deserve to get any welfare checks. This movie is very realistic ,because it portrays a guy \"Joe\" who represented a lot of guys back then, and now too. The story goes like this.... Joe is in a bar and he rubs shoulders with a rich guy who just accidentally killed his daughter's hippie boyfriend. And this rich goes to the bar to rethink what he just did, and while he's doing that, \"Joe\" is in the bar ranting about hippies and people who are against the war. The rich guy accidentally tells Joe that he killed a hippie ; and obviously joe applauds the rich guy, Cause Joe hates hippies, Amazing movie watch it to see what happens next. I liked this movie , because it was reminiscent of those days in the early 70's, I liked the way movies were shot back then in those days, very good stuff , it's not like today's movies. Basically the movie gives you an inner look into the mind of the lead character \"Joe\" . I like the theme of the movie ....... about the working man , who's busting his ass trying to make a living","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My 2nd favorite film of 1970 (after Five Easy Pieces) was totally dismissed by a lot of idiots, calling in an audience-baiting piece of trash. Peter Boyle, a well-known liberal, is incredible as the hard-assed working stiff who has a few problems with the younger generation. He's a frightening dude, but has a great imagination and is very funny. I was a teenage liberal when this was released, but as horrifying as Joe seemed to me, he also cracked me up! Susan Sarandon, in her first role, is perfect and a mixed-up stone rich fox. The dinner scene in Queens is hilarious and insightful for everybody involved.

This WAS NOT an exploitation film and the script (which was Oscar-nominated) should have won that year. The director just didn't WASTE enough money making it to give it enough credibility in Hollywood. No matter your political pursuasion, then and now, you'll like somebody in this film. A definite 9 out of 10. It's on DVD and video. Check it out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Imagine that \"Dragnet\" episode where Friday and Gannon go into a typical 1970 den of hippie inequity, but instead of giving everyone a lecture, they \"get some.\" That's \"Joe\" in a nutshell.

This film of a working-class bigot and a rich guy who's just killed his girlfriend's drug-dealer boyfriend has dated terribly and most of the supporting acting is stilted, but it's still interesting to watch. Peter Boyle, then about 35, plays Joe (the bigot), and he looks like James Gandolfini. In her film debut, Susan Sarandon plays the doe-eyed daughter, and while she doesn't necessarily hint at her future greatness, you can't take your eyes off her.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a rather unnerving look at an ostensibly functional family confronted by their daughter's druggie boyfriend. Father tangles with and ultimately kills druggie boyfriend. Wallowing in guilt he reveals to a drunk redneck what he has done. Things spiral rapidly out of hand before degenerating completely. The ending you dread stalks the viewer throughout, but is still able to startle when it finally arrives.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i see hundreds of student films- this is tops. james cox is a fantastic director- he moves the camera, tells the story and uses music in a way that is far advanced for his years. no wonder he got a feature from this film.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw this at Sundance one of the first years I attended the festival - blew me away...

It went by much too fast, and I've never been able to find it again. I figured it would show up on a compilation somewhere, but still no joy. My memory's foggy on the details - I just remember being surprised over and over again, and on the edge of my seat.

Anyone reading this have any leads? Online, DVD, beat-up VHS copy - I'd try to make it worth your while...

Over the years, I've probably seen over 200 short films (used to live near Aspen where they have an incredible Shorts Fest in April). This definitely ranks among my favorites, and I hope to see it again!

Many thanks to anyone with leads on how to see it :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this short film on HBO the other day and absolutely loved it. Eight different characters, eight different perspectives. At first I was confused by the way the story was moving along, but then I realized that it was just one scene being shown over and over again, just to show us the different perspectives of the characters.

At first, you think the clerks are yelling at the teenager for stealing. They speak in their own language, which I (and Chris the teenager, played convincingly by Eleonore Hendricks) cannot understand. The perspective of the clerks dispels that view. I didn't realize how wonderful the short really is until the last two scenes.

Excellent short film. Hopefully, the director James Cox can turn the short into a feature length film with the same cast, or win us over with a whole new film.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the most energetic and entertaining ten minutes of film >I've seen in a long time. As a film student at NYU, where this >short has been screened several times, I salute Jim Cox for his >astute sense of style and pace for our generation. I'm sure >I'll see his name later on the big screen. Hopefully this short >will find a market on TV or somewhere, so this inspiring work >can get the wide distribution it des","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Beguiled\" is one of my favorite Clint Eastwood films, and a departure from his typical early roles. Directed by Don Siegel, with whom Eastwood collaborated on several films, it was made a year before Eastwood's directorial debut with \"Play Misty For Me\". An alternate title considered for the film was \"Pussy-Footing Down At The Old Plantation\", which thankfully was not used, otherwise I am sure raunchy jokes about the fact that it takes place at a girls' school would be difficult to avoid. I first saw this movie in one of my college film classes in the mid-1970's, and was immediately taken with it. I only had an old battered VHS tape of it until I recently purchased the widescreen DVD, which also includes the hilarious, awful trailer that makes the film come across as a \"Peyton Place\" soap opera, and conveys none of the creepiness of the film.

Interesting notes: Eastwood and Siegel had to battle with Universal Pictures to keep the original ending, and they won out; and, the film was billed as a standard Eastwood western, which it certainly is not. It is a Gothic tale of deception and horror set in the time of the Civil War, with an underlying tone of eroticism and sexual tension running throughout.

I'm not putting any spoilers in this review, and if you want to see the film as it should be seen, then be careful of looking it up on the internet, as spoiler reviews of it do abound.

Clint Eastwood portrays John McBurney, a Union soldier who is shot on Confederate ground and discovered by a young girl from a nearby girls' school. She rescues him and takes him back to the school, but instead of notifying the local patrol of his presence so that he will be taken to prison, the headmistress, Miss Martha (Geraldine Page), her assistant Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman), their black servant Hallie (Mae Mercer), and the mostly teenage girls take him in, heal him, and fall under his spell. The film sets its tone of creepiness and Gothic horror right from the titles, as it shows real battleground shots from the war, while Eastwood's voice is heard quietly singing a funereal song of the time.

The opening scene of his encounter with the little girl who saves him sets the tone of his character, and the tone of the entire movie. To say any more than that would spoil the surprises in that first scene. To say much more about the film itself might ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it...if you are into creepy, Gothic tales, find it and rent it. Eastwood is excellent in the film, and it is interesting to see him in an early role, or any role, where he portrays a character that is for the most part very unsympathetic.

Geraldine Page had a plum role in the film as the headmistress, and I cannot imagine another actress of the time being as good in the role; a long shot could have been Piper Laurie, but I don't think Laurie could have embodied the role in the same manner as Geraldine Page.

Elizabeth Hartman (whose wonderful performance in the film \"A Patch of Blue\" as a blind girl who falls in love with Sidney Poiter's character is another high point in her short career) is at her prime here, delicate and masterful at the same time. Unfortunately, her delicacy on film was also a part of her real life; she committed suicide at age 45.

I end this review with this observation: one manipulative, lying Yankee man is no match for a houseful of deceptive and libidinous Southern belles.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":".....and it's a good one, too. In fact, this may be one of the best studies of sexual repression ever made. It's extremely well-acted and has some downright chilling moments. An often overlooked film in Clint Eastwood's filmography, and atypical of him, to be sure, but if you're willing to accept him in such an ambiguous role, it's certainly very gripping. (***)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Clever psychosexual drama about a wounded Union soldier (Clint Eastwood) who seeks refuge in an isolated Confederate school for young women during the Civil War. Slowly, Eastwood begins to seduce every girl in sight, until the tables are turned and he becomes the pursued in an unsettling, gothic-toned finale. Never has a film been so deliciously erotic yet disturbingly macabre at the same time.

This is undoubtedly Eastwood's finest hour (those who tune in for \"Dirty Harry\" will indeed be surprised), while the rest of the cast gives uniformly superb performances. Try to see the film on video, as television prints usually delete crucial flashback scenes between Geraldine Page and Patrick Culliton.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another well done moral ambiguity pieces where the anti-hero makes it hard to decide who to root for.

If nothing else \"The Beguiled\" silenced anyone who said there were no good parts for actresses in movies-at least in 1971. There were four excellent parts for actresses in this film and all were well cast and well executed.

Pamelyn Ferdin did a fine job as Amy and would go on to play \"Wanda June\". This must have been the first time an adult male box office star shared an extended kiss with a twelve-year-old girl on camera, wonder if there was much controversy about this at the time. It was probably Polanski's favorite scene. Given the fate of Amy's turtle \"Randolph\", it is no surprise that Ferdin grew up to be a hardcore animal rights activist.

Geraldine Page was likewise excellent, playing a complex character with just the right amount of restraint. It is interesting that she died just three days after Elizabeth Hartman committed suicide (throwing herself through a fifth floor window) as they had also worked together in \"You're a Big Boy Now\".

Hartman (who looks like she could be Blair Brown's sister) was wonderful as Edwina and should have gotten an Oscar (no other performance was even close that year), but given what we now know about her you wonder just how much of her performance was a studied effort and how much just came from inside her. Edwina shows such raw pain it is difficult to watch. Like Marilyn Monroe's incredible performance in \"The Misfits\", the viewer is probably seeing a whole lot of her own demons in the character she is playing.

Finally there is Jo Ann Harris who is stunningly perfect as the flirty Carol. For my money Harris was the sexiest actress of the 1970's, combining sensuality with intelligence and humor. She was the best reason to watch the \"Most Wanted\" television series and the only reason to watch \"Wild Wild West Revisited\". Hard to believe that someone who could bring all that to the screen never became a big star.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Don Siegel\/Clint Eastwood strange and hypnotic drama was left by the wayside in 1971 and what a pity. A fascinating character study with some great women for Squint to deal with. Geraldine Page was one of our supreme actresses and she's perfectly cast. Young Jo Ann Harris is a flirty minx, and Elizabeth Hartman (who died too young) is undeniably repressed.

A 7 out of 10. Best performance = C. Eastwood. Released the same year as DIRTY HARRY, this did no business, beside getting some good reviews. Seek this out unless you're only into \"Explosion\" films. Very subtle and frightening, this piece will stick with you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Combining the conventions of both Western and Gothic horror, and often directed as if it were an art movie, this is one of Siegel and Eastwood's best collaborations.

Eastwood plays a Yankee soldier who, after being wounded during the Civil War, takes refuge in an isolated Southern seminary for young women. Shut away from the world, the women project their romantic fantasies on to him, and he responds with callous, male manipulation. But jealousy and resentment raise their heads, and he finds himself in a world of brutal revenge. And boy is the revenge brutal.

Beautifully shot by Bruce Surtees, and carefully paced, \"The Beguiled\" is a haunting, elegant work that seems to have influenced the troubled sexuality of Eastwood's own \"Play Misty for Me\" and \"Tightrope\".

The film is a gripping depiction of a fierce battle of the sexes and oozes a dreamlike mix of horror and sexuality. All the characters are ambiguous, displaying traits of both good and evil, leaving it up to us to choose whom we should root for.

Don Siegel left quite a legacy of fine films behind. Everything from \"Invation of the Body Snatchers\" to \"Dirty Harry\". But though his early black and white pictures have aged well, the majority of his colour films seem grainy, dated and badly shot. His gritty \"realism\" must have seemed fresh and kinetic 40 years ago, but when viewed today, I just don't think they've stood the test of time.

\"The Beguiled\", however, is in a different league. Mature, ambiguous and starkly shot, it's a shame it isn't more widely known. While evolving technology and technique have rendered the majority of Siegel's tough, masculine action thrillers obsolete, \"The Beguiled\" still entrances audiences today due to it's surreal atmosphere and unique subject matter.

8.5\/10 - Better than the similarly themed \"Black Narcissus\", this is, in my opinion, Siegel's best film. Part horror, part drama, part sexual odyssey, \"The Beguiled\" is a surprisingly arty film (especially when considering that Siegel viewed his films to be, quote, 'meaningless'). A large part of the film's artistry is due to Clint Eastwood, who would, from this point onwards, make an effort to choose mature material.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"During the brief period between Clint Eastwood's string of spaghetti westerns and his Dirty Harry films, he and director Don Siegel teamed up to make this unusual picture. Eastwood plays an injured Union Army corporal during the Civil War who is taken in by a southern school for girls until he recovers from his wounds. It has been a while since the young women (most of which seem to be teenagers) have had a man on the premises, so they are reluctant to turn him in to the local rebel soldiers. The resulting situations are often humorous, shocking, erotic, or even downright grotesque as Eastwood slowly regains his strength and begins to brood over the establishment.

The basic storyline almost sounds like the makings of a porno film. We have a masculine male suddenly surrounded by young nubile women. Most of them are sexually attracted to him. And he is more than willing to spread the love amongst them. The material never really slips down to the level of \"tasteless\", however. Eastwood, Siegel, and cinematographer Bruce Surtees are such skilled filmmakers, that the film always retains its dignity.

Eastwood's John McBurney is like no other character he has ever played. McBurney is an amoral, conniving, and lustful charlatan. He knows that most of the women, even the youngest want his bod, and he lets more than one of them have a shot at him. McBurney often uses flattery to butter the women up, then uses his rugged good looks to reel them in. He is like a drunken player at a cocktail party, often hitting on different women even in the same scene! Eventually, his lustful ways cause him great agony and loss in a way you must see for yourselves. This author would not dream of revealing the specific consequences of his actions, but there is little doubt he has them coming.

Eastwood gives a typically great performance. He seems to be having a blast with the role until things turn really ugly, then he turns mean and ugly. Geraldine Page is a treat as the steely B*tch who runs the school. We know she wants McBurney as much as the other girls, but with her checkered past shown to us in flashbacks, we find out that isn't all she's after! Mae Mercer as a slave belonging to the school gives a great performance, too. She obviously knows McBurney is a skunk from the beginning, and she never lets his phony charm bring her guard down. This is a character you will want to know more about after the film is over. She seems to have a greater knowledge of the world than anyone else in the film.

The Beguiled did poorly in its theatrical release. Nobody was quite sure what to make of it, and some of its content no doubt raised a few eyebrows in 1971. For example, in an early scene we see Eastwood romantically kiss a 12-yr-old girl. Is he just trying to keep her quiet when the rebel soldiers get close, or is he really enjoying it? Probably both! A fantasy sequence later on even shows Clint getting it on with not only Page, but her young assistant! Truly some interesting goings on in this one. It's a good thing Eastwood became the star he did, or this one might have been long forgotten.

Highly recommended. 9 of 10 stars.

The Hound.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It took me years to finally catch this gem of a film and it was worth the wait. In nearly all of his films Clint always plays the hero. Be it hero, anti-hero or avenging hero. In this film he is pure villain and he plays it well.

As a wounded union soldier he is brought into a confederate girls school by the students and teachers to heal. Soon after he begins to seduce the ladies no matter their age and some are quite young. He also plays upon their jealousies and pits them against each other. In the end you are never so happy to see Clint die a terrible death.

That is what makes this film such a gem. Clint has never done any other film like it and after seeing this film you wish he had. He plays the role of the villain so well it will make you wonder why he never did any more films like it. It also explains why the film is not seen very often. Most people don't want to see Clint as the villain and with Dirty Harry being released shortly after this film it has become a hidden gem. If you are a Clint Eastwood fan you owe it to yourself to see this film. You might not like what you will see but you won't soon forget it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is hard to know what category to put this film in, most films set in this time period of US history are westerns but here instead of the wide open plains of the west the action is almost entirely confined to a claustrophobic girls boarding school in Louisiana.

The film opens with Amy, a young girl, walking though the woods picking mushrooms, as she does so she stumbles upon Corporal John 'McBee' McBurney, a wounded Union soldier, who she takes back to the school. We know that he isn't a particularly nice person when he kisses her on the lips to distract her from alerting a passing Confederate patrol even though she told him she was twelve.

Once back at the school opinions are divided about what should be done with their new guest, some think they should look after him till his wounds are healed while others believe that it is treason not to hand him over to Confederate forces at the first opportunity. The former group prevail and he gradually recovers. As he does so his presence has an effect on all of the girls who haven't had a man on site for a long time, including a young teacher and the head mistress who's previous relationship appears to have been with her own brother. McBee sets about seducing them, emotionally if not physically, this leads to considerable jealousy amongst the girls.

While this film is rated fifteen it is definitely not for younger viewers both for the sexual content, of which little is actually shown but much is implied, and for a very gruelling scene which had me squirming more than any other scene in any film I've seen for quite some time. It is interesting to see Clint Eastwood play against type, instead of being heroic his character is both unpleasant and for most of the time at the mercy of the women around him. The acting is solid throughout, not just from Eastwood but also from all the actresses, including the young Pamelyn Ferdin who played Amy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Director Don Siegel really impressed me with this film. It is starkly shot, graphic without being visually graphic, well-acted by all concerned, and covers some of the most taboo issues of any day in a workmanlike, almost expected normalcy hitherto not seen in any other film by this reviewer. I didn't know what to expect sitting down to watch this: a civil war movie or some kind of 70's soft-core peddling with Eastwood descending on a school for girls in the South. But really is is neither of those things but rather and examination, exploration, and descent into the soul of men and women - a dark commentary on what is at the core of the civilized. as one reviewer previously noted, none - none - of the characters are likable by the film's end and yet each one is interesting, complex, and enigmatic. Eastwood plays Cpl. McBurney, a Union soldier found by young Pamelyn Ferdin(you'll recognize that voice as soon as you hear it), a girl at a school for manners headed by Geraldine Page amidst the chaos that was the Civil War - particularly in the South. Soon, Page, teacher Elizabeth Hartman, lovely, young seductress Carol, and even Ferdin(Amy)have emotional\/sexual ties to Eastwood - each having their own needs and secrets and problems. Eastwood is not a nice man. he plays the girls off of each other always trying to get the sexual advantage. In the unfolding we get some real interesting things revealed from latent lesbianism to incest. The Beguiled, for me, is a masterpiece that far exceeded my expectations on every creative front. This might be(except for Invasion of the Body Snatchers) Siegel's best film. It certainly is one of Eastwood's best REAL performances. page is always so very good and Hartman, Fe5rdin, et al excellent. the Gothic manse set for the school is effectively claustrophobic. Some of the sexual-laced scenes disturbing. And what happens to Eastwood is a leg up on much of the competition for creepy, eerie, demented film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This super creepy Southern Gothic melodrama stars Clint Eastwood as a wounded Confederate officer in the Civil War who's taken in by a rural girls' school and nursed back to health. A weird clash of genders ensues, with the supposedly \"dangerous\" male falling prey to a batch of seemingly harmless women, who prove themselves to be every bit as brutal as the men waging war on one another at the battle fronts. This is a classic spider and the fly story, but here there's one lone fly and a whole bunch of spiders.

Geraldine Page plays the head mistress of the school, and she gives a characteristically sensational performance. Page was trained as a theater actress, and it shows in all of her performances. No matter what role she played, she always committed herself 100% to it, and never once let herself drop out of character. So it is here, with this lethal spinster, who takes her sexual repression out on this helpless man. Each of the other girls responds to him in her own particular way as well. The two most prominent are the slutty girl who can't wait to throw throw herself at him, and the virginal one (played by who else but the mannered Elizabeth Hartman?) who acts like she would fall over in a dead faint if someone so much as said the word \"penis\" to her. The schematic Madonna and the whore storyline would seem heavy-handed if the movie didn't keep you so off-kilter and so completely unsure of what was going to happen next.

The most memorable scene in the film for me occurred when the group of women perform an amputation of Eastwood's leg, which has become infected with gangrene. Again, the spider\/fly allusion is clear: they hobble him so that it's that much harder for him to escape their web.

A classic chiller. Not a great film, but a morbidly entertaining one.

Grade: A-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Clint Eastwood plays a wounded Union soldier found by a girl from a Confederate boarding school and he's taken in and nursed back to health instead of turned over to Confederate soldiers. Seems that the women-folk at this place have ulterior motives. Geraldine Paige, the headmistress, justifies not turning him into the Confederacy and even passes him off as her cousin. Of course when the man gets to feeling better he becomes quite the lady's man and is pretty much making the rounds, but when he gets busted he REALLY gets busted, in fact so badly he gets his leg cut off, but it's for his own good, of course, not out of retribution. Things get carried a bit further though when certain women don't get what they want. I haven't seen this for years and it still has a certain creepiness to it that by today's standards is still pretty strange. Not typical Eastwood at all. If you haven't seen this one it's worth seeing. 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is not what it appears to be. Clint Eastwood is not Dirty Harry or a \"cowboy\" here. The movie's appeal comes from its careful manipulation of atmosphere and theme. It's a Gothic tale set in the Civil War and as such all the film's \"action\", or lack thereof, takes place inside a house populated by Southern Belles of all ages and shapes.

The horror comes from viewing the whole story through the eyes of the Clint Eastwood character. Seeing him stranded in the house and held captive by the women is a very \"beguiling\" experience indeed. And who is \"beguiled\" here exactly? Are the women beguiled by Eastwood's incredible looks? Are we, the viewers, beguiled by both his sexual allure and the potential deviant sexualities it unleashes? Or does \"beguiled\" refer to what the director does here-- holds us enthralled for a short space only to (maybe)let us go? Don Siegel does all of the above in one of the most memorable and disturbing films I had the pleasure of watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was a surprise. The plot synopsis sounds kinky, and stars Clint Eastwood and the great Geraldine Page. I didn't know what to expect. There is that opening scene where the wounded soldier says that age 12 is old enough to kiss and proceeds to give a child a lingering, and very adult, mouth to mouth kiss. The child takes him to the girls boarding school where she lives. He takes advantage of the situation by attempting to seduce the headmistress, played by Page, her assistant and another student. Jealousy, sexual tension, incest, intrigue, and the macabre all meld in this wonderfully original story.

I've read the other comments here and find little to disagree with. However, I wanted to clarify a point made earlier that there are no sympathetic characters in the film. I find that there is one. The attractive female slave successfully resists the soldier's advances in a scene that works well because it touches upon the common history of black women slaves taken advantage of by white men. Even though her strength and lack of illusion are the sum total of her experience, she is what I would consider a sympathetic character. She, more than any of the other women and girls at the school, has a legitimate reason for participating in what happens in the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of eastwood's best movies after he had separated himself from the westerns. which in themselves were good whenever I had a chance to see any of clint's earlier work I would sit in front of the set and watch whatever was on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Probably this is the best film of Clint Eastwood. Here action is minimal, but with plenty of good acting. A Yankee soldier Eastwood is wounded and taken by the female pupils and teachers of a school in the South, where he is hidden and taken care. Shortly after his recovery all ladies wanted to have fun with him, and some of them succeeded including the director of the school(Geraldine Page). Erotic scenes are coming until the ladies discovered that their \"macho\" was shared by several of them, so they became angry and poisoned him in a farewell dinner. Geraldine Page, although somewhat old, was able to play a very suggestive role as the director of the school, a woman with more failures than happiness in her life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought that Eastwood's most unusual role was that in The Bridges of Madison County, but that was until I saw The Beguiled. He manages to pull it off, giving a very good performance and so does the rest of the cast. The direction is imaginative given that the film was made in 1971 and had there not been some plot holes - which the director seems to struggle to cover up at times - we would be talking about an excellent film. It remains powerful, nonetheless.

8","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a good movie, I won't go into any details as the other user comments do a good job of taking care of that. However, I disagree with the statement that this is Eastwood's best work. That is just not a very defendable position based on the volume of strong movies he has directed and starred in. I would like to note that I find it interesting that two of the actresses who played in this movie, Pattye Mattick and Peggy Drier, never again appeared in another film or television show, in spite of giving good performances. My curiosity has me wondering what happened to these two actresses?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was amazed about this early performance of Clint Eastwood. I had not read a summary of the film, when I decided to watch it on TV. Due to Mr. Eastwood, I expected some nice shootings and no deep story. I was quite mistaken. I found a couple of topics unusually explicitly addressed, and until the end, I couldn't make up my mind about who's good and who's bad. This movie is definitely not typical Eastwood, but surely worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film has some rather shocking scenes and subject matter considering it was made in 1971.

Clint Eastwood, Geraldine Page, and Elizabeth Hartman do excellent work in the film, as do all the cast members.

Set during the Civil War, the film begins when a wounded Yankee soldier, Johnny, portrayed by Clint Eastwood, is given refuge and help at a girls academy located in the south.

The headmistress of the school, Ms. Farnsworth (Geraldine Page), the one teacher-Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman), and a small group of half grown girls have been without a man in their midst for perhaps a little too long.

While their loyalties lay with the Confederacy-- their emotions and physical needs definitely lead them in the opposite direction. Johnny immediately uses his masculine charms to try to win the women over to his side--and keep them from turning him over to the patrollers.

However, feelings previously stoked by incestuous behavior, an adulterous father, a brutal rape, and adolescent inexperience combined with jealousies--turn things upside down with some unexpected consequences for both Johnny and the school's residents.

10 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Beguiled was one of the few early Eastwood films I hadn't seen until I gave the DVD a spin today. And from it's opening sepia-tinged shot to the macabre climax I was utterly enthralled. Too many film-makers these days substitute special effects, fast editing and dizzying camera-work in place of character-driven stories, but Director Don Siegel knew how to get the maximum effect from this relatively simple plot, and the characters are believable and compelling.

The story concerns a ladies finishing school which happens to be situated on the edge of various skirmishes during the American Civil War. The south-supporting ladies find a badly wounded Union soldier (Clint Eastwood); nursing him back to health he begins to manipulate the sexually frustrated women for his own ends.

Geraldine Page is excellent in the role of the headmistress with a secret, and her descent into madness is subtly conveyed. For a film that virtually takes place in a single location it never loses visual interest. There's even a chance that the normal status quo, long abandoned when Eastwood's machinations are uncovered, could return; but the mistresses and pupils descend upon a darker road...

This is a totally different style of film from the same Director's Dirty Harry, made in the same year, and yet they are both equally superb. Eastwood is great playing against his usual stoic anti-hero image, yet there's also some mysterious quality attached to his character. We never really learn much about him prior to his incarceration, and the viewer is free to decide upon his well-shaded persona. Villain or Victim? Whatever you think, all I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let us assume for a moment that you haven't experimented with the psychotropic mushroom and you're wondering about the so called bad experience and just how something like that might play itself out\u0085 Well go ahead and pop in a fresh copy of The Beguiled. See, with film you have your clean trips (Solaris and anything else directed by Andrei Tarkovsky), whack trips, i.e. the experience-from-which-you-never-recover (Sweet Movie and El Topo), and you're bad organic trips, a category specifically reserved for a film like The Beguiled which is the sort of content those keen writers at the Times who made all the right decisions with their lives and graduated from the Harvard Department of English refer to as \"hallucinogenic in tone.\" By the third act of this Don Siegel directed movie, you may not exactly observe that your two lead-heavy hands have become shrunken and assume all the characteristics of a burrowing insectivorous mammal, nor will you exactly fall under the suspicion that your spine has achieved the same sinuous shape and knotty texture of a pomaceous fruit baring tree incalculable in age, but you will feel something.

In 1970, when this film was filmed, most Americans were looking for an anodyne for their collective pain, a movie like The Graduate perhaps, a lot of world-endism was going on and, of course you had the nightmare break down of war in Vietnam. What you get with The Beguiled, banal drug metaphors aside, is a screenplay adapted from a novel by a guy who at least for the moment wanted to be known as Grimes Grice, and direction from the director who helped bring about the work and career of Sam Peckinpah. In the Beguiled, Donny Siegel, born in 12, Chicago, Il., less than 45 years after The Great Fire is showing his attempt at grappling with all that contemporary cultural madness of the early 1970's in the form of a classical film artifact. The Beguiled is an incredible film and an outstanding contribution to the cinematographic arts in almost every aspect: the shooting, editing, direction and story are all fantastic, and you're not likely to see anything else like it. Undoubtedly, a sinister film, its effects, as I've said, both dizzying and adulterating; frankly it's hard to believe would ever Universal attached its name to this picture, but you are going to see upon viewing some of the sweet, sweet camera moves, and cinematographer Bruce Surtees exploiting every bit of dark myth you harbor in your head about the American Plantation South, conflating beauty with evil in every location shot. Clint Eastwood, needless to say, has never been like this. Old Clint, he moves at instant from coy to livid, his eyes like two Archimedean spirals in medium close up. The rest of the cast is equally exacting and uncanny.

This Beguiled will never make the AFI 100 in my lifetime, but that doesn't stop me from positing that it's one of the best American synch sound films ever made. While most people catalogue it as a western, to include the folks at The Western Channel, The Beguiled is a problem because you don't really know what it is: A sort of war movie? A drama? Psychological thriller? Maybe the answer to all those emotionally wrought Noir films starring Kirk Douglas? I actually call this piece a horror film because when my old man, who likes to kick back with the cheap, gratuitous violence projected in entertainments like The Wire, saw that high angle medium long shot of Geraldine Page wrapping a tourniquet around Clint's bloody leg, Pa was pretty quick to suggest we watch something else like the Outback Bowl, right before he absconded to another room. My advice: watch this one, and make sure it is on a very large screen, preferably run on that DPL home theater projector you're contemplating. I would put The Beguiled right on order along with that important consumer purchase, turn the overheads out, throw some cinematic light up on the big blank wall, and try not to lose your grip because just like Norman Bates, \"We all go a little mad sometimes,\" even the beguiled.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"During the Civil war a wounded union soldier hides out in a isolated Confederate ladies' school; where the head mistress and the teacher of the school decide to care for him and keep him about, until trouble starts brewing between the lonely and sexually frustrated women and girls. The soldier decides to take advantage of this situation, but it all comes at a price in the end.

\"Dirty Harry (1971)\" (which was made about the same time of \"The Beguiled\") might be my favourite collaboration between Eastwood and Siegel, but after seeing this, I tend to think this to be the pairs' finest work together. A very atypical, savvy and stylish vehicle for Eastwood is always on the mark with richly controlled direction by Don Siegel and a hauntingly rousing music score by Lalo Schifrin. Standing out strongly is its sultrily lurid and bleak nature that's intrusively planted into the film's psychological makeup and manipulative strangle hold in sexual depravity. It's assiduously played out and makes it more the brooding and blood curdling when those random shocks and saucy intentions take hold with gripping tension. The way Siegel illustrates John B Sherry and Grimes Grice's alluring bold, slow-burn screenplay (taken from the novel of Thomas Cullinan) is effectively done through stark emotions and the script's tight, lyrical context. Siegel's strong direction captures the idyllically southern Victorian setting with such potently garnished photography and he sets up some strangely piercing imagery with great clarity and restrained.

While the performances, are truly commendable and high of quality. Clint Eastwood as the smoothly suave, sweet talking chameleon union soldier is very impressionable and delightfully assured. A profoundly eminent Geraldine Page steals the picture as the hardened head mistress and the elegant Elizabeth Hartman adds a delicate sincereness to her innocent character. Mae Mercer is strongly tailored as the black maid and Jo Ann Harris is the pick of the crop from the young pupils with her seductively sly persona.

Honestly while Eastwood's charismatic character plays the field for his own selfish needs, there's still mixed intentions there that the one's being played (where rivalry between the women creep in) turn out to be no better than their guest at the end. Throughout there's a perversely dark sense of humour and ironic touch settling into the material. What's demonstrated here, is simply more than your basic little minded shocker, but one that's thickly layered with intrigue and a sense of realism that's hard to shake. That also goes for its extremely eerie title and closing song.

A effectively chilling, low-key item that's hard not to be tempted by it's swinging hospitality.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Beguiled is a pretty satisfying film for those who are after the things above. For Clint Eastwood's die-hard fans, it will be a disappointment. Although Eastwood does his best here in his so atypical role (except for the fact that his character is a charming womanizer, which he isn't so unacquainted with), the ambiguous nature of his character, which goes from being a sort of fallen hero to a manipulative and insatiable woman eater (to put it that way) will eventually be too much to handle for anyone used to see him play heroes in the best western tradition, morally a bit unclean but still without that dark side. I think he manages to pull this unlikely part off, but those who really steal the show are the two rivalising women, the schoolmistress Geraldine Page and the head of the students, played by Elizabeth Hartman.

We see that there is a potential devil in every man and a potential witch in every woman, especially when it comes to sexuality and sexual desire. Hartman's Edwina is the sweetest, most innocent girl in the world until she becomes infatuated with John McBurney and becomes possessive of him. This is what causes tragedy, as well as the headmistress' secret lust, the forbidden fruit. She carries a great and ugly secret about her incestuous relationship with her brother, whom she clearly idolizes still. The fourth factor in this \"unholy\" love spiral is the wicked Carol, played by Jo Ann Harris, who lures John away from his crush on Edwina and into her bed.

The whole nature of the story gives this film a sort of Gothic feel, which makes it a pretty rare thing in the Western genre, but a popular thing in the movies of the 70's. A unique achievement by the Siegel\/Eastwood team and a movie not for the faint hearted.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Beguiled is one of those under-seen films in the careers of a director &\/or actor that ends up playing better than expected. In the same year that Clint Eastwood and Don Siegel collaborated on Dirty Harry they also worked together on this little psycho-sexual drama set in Civil War era Confederacy country. It's almost a 180 from what 'Harry' had for audiences. Here is a film that is under the radar, and with a low-budget to almost no business when compared with what Dirty Harry pulled in. It is also a story where Eastwood is not surrounded in a world full of dangerous men but women who, despite their first appearances, have darker sides to them. And there's even romance in it in between some of the rougher and more complex scenes. But in this kind of framework to make the film, Siegel therefore actually has a little more freedom to do things with the style of the picture that roams into something more European; I'm reminded here and there of Polanski's work in the 60's. It all works though pretty well even with the initial doubt that these two figures of masculine film-making (Eastwood the obvious and Siegel having made his niche in B-noir and low-budget thrillers) can pull off material that could possibly be made for a Lifetime movie.

It was also captivating and really darkly comic here and there to see Eastwood's performance working off of these girls. He's doing something a little subversive in his performance by still having the sort of Eastwood machismo- if there is such a thing close to his clich\u00e9d movie image- by being a step ahead of this little school for young women at times and not at others. To see Eastwood in a performance like this, as with Play Misty for Me (the other Eastwood work of 1971), shows how cool he can act believably with very good actresses. Particularly here are the four main female characters, each of varying ages and each with varying attractions to their 'Yankee' man. While Siegel's work directing all of the actors has its moments in the first half it's really once the story crosses the half-way mark in the dream sequence (less successful than the director could be capable of) that the real juicy scenes start to pick up. A lot of this is the best that Siegel directed dramatically, pushing the psychological and emotional edges of scenes where not expected.

It's a difficult film, all of this praise aside, as it doesn't paint anyone as being too respectable- only the character of Hallie the slave on duty played by Mae Mercer is sort of separated from what transpires between the all-too-curious women and McBurney. Along with this, Eastood here is acting in a role that is and isn't what he's usually seen as during this time of his true formative years in the movies. He's an anti-hero here, which was his trademark of the westerns and other thrillers he was doing at the time. But unlike those films he's not really in a mode where he's 'larger than life', to put it in a way, as he is both deserter and womanizer, deceiver and tricky even in his most charming and affable moments. If it's not one of his best acting jobs, which is hard to really put together considering his catalog, it is one that is worth a look for fans who might want to see another side of him. It's a credit to him, but also to what clicked with his collaborations with Siegel, as they both took chances at this time in Hollywood.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a wonderful film taking place during the romantic period of the Civil War. This film is a must see for Eastwood Fans and Eastwood claims this is one of his most favorite films that he did. I couldn't agree more. Watch out! This is a spoiler- Eastwood does die in the end. Eastwood and director Don Siegel rightfully argued that the ending should be unexpected and should be unhappy for a few reasons. They wanted to stick to the book, for one. Secondly, there can't always be a happy ending. Thirdly, this was written during the Vietnam War- they wanted a negative statement to this terrible struggle of war where people were needlessly dying. I agree with all of this. It is a wonderfully shot film and I love most films involving the Civil War. It is more of a portrait of how deceptive women can be- that they can be more dangerous than men, hence the title has much to do with the statement of the film BEGUILED- to be deceived. The song sung by Eastwood at the beginning and the end of the film is another statement against not just the Civil War but the Vietnam War and maybe indirectly the women he comes across during the film. Wonderful story of love and deception and many memorable scenes- NOTE: This film is rated R for no reason. There is hardly any language, it is probably some of the subject matter involving sex- but there is no nudity really. Excellent film- 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another well done moral ambiguity pieces where the anti-hero makes it hard to decide who to root for.

If nothing else \"The Beguiled\" silenced anyone who said there were no good parts for actresses in movies-at least in 1971. There were four excellent parts for actresses in this film and all were well cast and well executed.

Pamelyn Ferdin did a fine job as Amy and would go on to play \"Wanda June\". This must have been the first time an adult male box office star shared an extended kiss with a twelve-year-old girl on camera, wonder if there was much controversy about this at the time. It was probably Polanski's favorite scene. Given the fate of Amy's turtle \"Randolph\", it is no surprise that Ferdin grew up to be a hardcore animal rights activist.

Geraldine Page was likewise excellent, playing a complex character with just the right amount of restraint. It is interesting that she died just three days after Elizabeth Hartman committed suicide (throwing herself through a fifth floor window) as they had also worked together in \"You're a Big Boy Now\".

Hartman (who looks like she could be Blair Brown's sister) was wonderful as Edwina and should have gotten an Oscar (no other performance was even close that year), but given what we now know about her you wonder just how much of her performance was a studied effort and how much just came from inside her. Edwina shows such raw pain it is difficult to watch. Like Marilyn Monroe's incredible performance in \"The Misfits\", the viewer is probably seeing a whole lot of her own demons in the character she is playing.

Finally there is Jo Ann Harris who is stunningly perfect as the flirty Carol. For my money Harris was the sexiest actress of the 1970's, combining sensuality with intelligence and humor. She was the best reason to watch the \"Most Wanted\" television series and the only reason to watch \"Wild Wild West Revisited\". Hard to believe that someone who could bring all that to the screen never became a big star.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here you see Mr. Eastwood in all of his glory (i.e., at the top of his form as an actor and at the height of his physical appeal), but the \"ladies\" depicted are hardly typical of the South, then or now. The young girls at the boarding school are incredibly naive, some showing signs of developing into really depraved women, and Geraldine Page, full-blown in her corruption, hardly represents the mean when it comes to head mistresses of girls schools, either then or now. (That is not to say that there isn't the occasional bad apple in any barrel.) Mr. Eastwood has said this is one of his own two favorite films.

\"The Beguiled\" does have an original plot, a lot of attractive characters and many surprises in store for the viewer. It's thoroughly engrossing and entertaining but not really realistic. (I know, having grown up in the South and attended a girls' school and college. Moreover, I have been acquainted with innumerable girls who did the same, not to mention their laid-back teachers, or you might even say \"repressed professors\" who were a far cry from the headmistress depicted here.) She is downright comical in her depiction of a Southern gentle woman who is not quite what she seems.

This movie was a little outrageous when it first appeared and still is, I think, but you won't be sorry you spent your time watching it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Beguiled\" is a strange work among Clint Eastwood's oeuvre. By 1971 he had become well known as the star of action movies, not only Westerns (the genre in which he first made his name) but also war films (such as \"Where Eagles Dare\") and cop thrillers (such as \"Coogan's Bluff\"). Yet although \"The Beguiled\" takes place during wartime (the American Civil War), and was made by Don Siegel who had earlier directed Eastwood in \"Coogan's Bluff\" and was later the same year to direct him in \"Dirty Harry\", it is not an action film in the traditional sense. In most of his previous films Eastwood had played an active role, but here his role is largely passive- his character, Sergeant John McBurney, is a wounded fugitive forced to rely upon the charity of women in order to survive. Even while serving with his unit, McBurney played no active part in the conflict; he is a Quaker, whose religious principles forbid him to bear arms, and was serving with the Union forces as a medical orderly.

The film is set in Louisiana towards the end of the war and starts with the injured McBurney being discovered by a young girl named Amy and brought back to her boarding school. The school is a small one, with only two teachers and a handful of girls. Although some of the girls are ardent supporters of the Confederate cause and want to hand him over to the authorities, the headmistress, Martha Farnsworth, decides to shelter him and tend him, fearing that his injuries are likely to prove fatal should he be sent to one of the Confederacy's notoriously harsh prison camps.

Although McBurney scrupulously follows the teachings of his religion as regards pacifism, he is not so scrupulous when it comes to following its teachings on the sin of fornication, and as he starts to recover he makes full use of his opportunity to exercise his charms on both the staff and the older girls, and he wins the affections of number of them, including Miss Farnsworth, her assistant Edwina and Carol, one of the older girls. Even twelve year old Amy appears to have a sort of childish crush on him. In the sexually repressed atmosphere of the all-female school his presence gives rise to jealousy and hatred, and Miss Farnsworth, rejected in favour of the sluttish Carol, plots a terrible revenge. (Interestingly, the one female to resist McBurney's blandishments is Hallie, Miss Farnsworth's black slave, even though he tries to win her round by pointing out that he is fighting to free people like her).

\"The Beguiled\" has been described as an anti-war film, but this seems to me to be a misconception. The film is not really about the rights and wrongs of the Civil War or of war in general. The only acts of violence we see are perpetrated by non-combatants, and they are motivated by a desire for personal revenge, not by zeal for the Confederate cause. It would be more accurate to see the film as a drama about the psychological stresses that can be caused by the peculiar circumstances of war.

At the beginning the school, set in a beautiful old antebellum mansion, seems like an island of peace amid the war. The building is in the Classical style, associated with order, harmony and restraint, but the story that unfolds within its walls is one of disorder, passion and violence, qualities associated with the Gothic school of writing which in the 19th century was often regarded as the antithesis of Classicism. The film can be seen as falling within what has been called the \"Southern Gothic\" tradition in American film and literature.

The film was not a great hit at the box office, possibly because Eastwood was cast so much against type. It is not perhaps his best film, but it did show that he could expand his range and play something other than action heroes. (In \"Play Misty for Me\", his first film as director made the following year, he was again to play a \"passive\" character in danger from a vindictive female). There are some very good performances from the female members of the cast, particularly Geraldine Page as Martha Farnsworth, outwardly a respectable middle-aged spinster but inwardly a woman of strong passions. (There are hints that she may have been having an affair with a man whom she passed off as her brother). There are also good contributions from Elizabeth Hartman as the shy, repressed Edwina, who falls in love with McBurney and rejects the idea of revenge and from young Pamelyn Ferdin as Amy. (Amy is an animal lover- a key moment in the film comes when McBurney kills her pet turtle- so it is interesting that in later life Ferdin became an animal rights activist). The one character I was less keen on was Jo Ann Harris's Carol who seemed too modern, like a swinging seventies chick transported back in time to the 1860s. The film is notable for the emotionally intense \"hothouse\" atmosphere which Siegel brings to it. This will not be a film which is to everyone's taste; some will find it too overwrought and melodramatic, and some have found it misogynistic. (Judith Crist called it a film for \"woman haters and sadists\"). Others, however, may find it a compelling psychological drama. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watch The Beguiled because it's a good place to begin when you study the femmes fatales in Clint Eastwood's filmography.

The smothering Gothic sexuality of The Beguiled has already been discussed. What everyone missed is the synchronized sexual physiology that occurs in a group of females living together, especially when a man is introduced into the group. They all become horny and then bitchy at the same time.

Femme fatal filmography for Clint Eastwood: Inger Stevens, Hang 'Em High, 1968; Jean Seberg, Paint Your Wagon, 1969; Shirley MacLaine, Two Mules for Sister Sara, 1970; Geralding Page, The Beguiled, 1971; Jessica Walters, Play Misty for Me, 1971; Sondra Locke, Sudden Impact, 1983; Genevieve Bujold, Tightrope, 1984; Marsha Mason, Heartbreak Ridge, 1986; Burnadette Peters, Pink Cadillac, 1989; and the best heart-breaker of all, Meryl Streep, The Bridges of Madison County, 1995.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all I'd like to start by saying it's a refreshing start to see a British Drama that finally looks and feels believable.

Patrick Stewart does the role justice as (Ian Hood), the government Science adviser, with his constant and unwavering views on authority and thoughts about the future of \"real world\" science and how he feels It's either being used or abused by others.

Not only is the casting thoroughly maintained all the way throughout the Series, but it makes it's characters seem more believable than most other British Drama's.

Ashley Jensen also delivers a first rate performance as Dr. Hood's Appointed bodyguard (Rachael Young), she brings a refreshing take on the unscientific, Uninterested everyday views of science, and her constant battling with Hood makes for some very funny and memorable moments between them.

The way the series keeps all the scientific elements more realistic I Find positive and more engaging than the psychobabble we are so used to in other Fiction or Science Fiction TV shows.

There are however notable disappointments with the series, every time an Episode ends I find myself disappointed that they didn't seem to cover all aspects of the plot and sometimes leaving open-ended stories unclosed.

Although bearing in mind that this is still the first series, I hope that we see a return to form in the near future where these open ended stories can finally be given a significant conclusion they so rightly deserve.

For those who enjoy more slow paced science related plot lines, this is the ideal show to watch as it always manages to stay believable and more Importantly to the point.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've just seen a couple of Episodes of \"Eleventh Hour\", but I must say that they were enough to impress me. This series is just so impressive and interesting... I'm definitely going to follow it.

First of all, I must say that the acting is top-notch. Patrick Stewart plays his character - Ian the scientist - believably and coolly, and he makes the audience believe in the character. Other characters, such as Rachel, are also believable, and, although they sometimes are a little cold - due to the way the series is filmed - they're interesting.

The stories told by this series are also interesting. For example, one of the episodes I saw was about cloning, and a man who was trying to clone humans. The way the Episode was developed, and how Ian - Stewart - kept following clues and saving people was amazing. In addition, it made you think about ethics and how good or bad could this be.

Anyway, I think this is one good TV shows. I just hope it keeps going on like this - interesting, thought-provoking and with good acting. Even though it's filmed in a kind of cold way - little lightning, cold photography, lots of close-ups - it never stops being interesting. Highly recommendable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found the episodes to be fascinating and well written. As a TV show, it was entertaining which is what I expect from fictional entertainment. I like the \"relationship\" between the Professor and his female Security Guard ... although sometimes her Scottish accent makes it a bit difficult to understand what she is saying. I was hoping that there would be more than just four episodes. I recognize that one commenter\/reviewer of this series had comments relating to his opinion as a physician. I understand this gentleman's comments; however, this is a fictional television series which is meant to entertain ... not present precise facts like a documentary. Patrick Stewart performs well and makes his character believable. If you want to watch a documentary, then this is not the series for you. But if you want to watch unique scientific-based theories in an entertainment-based medium, then you will enjoy the four episodes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Forget some the whiny (and pointless) comments left here by some. This series is well acted, well shot, and makes a refreshing change to most of the pap on TV.

Any fool can nitpick anything. However, in this show the characters are believable, the story lines intriguing and compelling (but do require some intelligence on the part of the viewer), overall it's enjoyable, and it's British !! (We do occasionally come up with some gems, and this is one of them).

The shows are an hour long each and i think there are four of them all together (at least I've only seen four of them). The show clearly impressed some U.S. TV station\/director who made a longer series which was nowhere near as compelling in spite of the bigger budget.

If like soaps and reality shows you won't like or understand Eleventh Hour.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let's get one thing straight, this gets an 7 out of 10 not on a normal scale, but out of the bad movie scale. this is the kind of movie you rent on purpose, where you intentionally walk in knowing that it is a horrendous knockoff and shun'd by everyone else.

I went in with one promise from the movie, that there will be snakes on a train, and it Delivers!

The gore itself is really good, and the characters have awesome roles. Come on, it has everything from stoned train pilots to teenage girls trafficking drugs, even a Electrical Engineer getting his pimp on! You get to see some topless nudity, explosions, snakes, gore, and a Mexican main lead running around curing his girlfriend by hitting his crack pipe and blowing the smoke in her face!! As I mentioned and many others have, the movie pacing is a bit off, but respectable nonetheless.

Movies like this keep our group tradition of banding together and all chipping in a buck or two to watch masterpieces such as this. There can be no better time spent then coming together to enjoy a good bad movie.

It could learn a thing or two from the likes of other such fine flicks as Alien Lock-down or Boa vs Python, but those are some big shoes to fill.

A solid 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Forget everything that you have ever read about the Mallachi Brothers' straight-to-video release \"Snakes on a Train,\" especially if it was a negative review. This movie is way more fun than the movie that it obviously rips off: \"Snakes on a Plane.\" Frankly, I am surprised that more people aren't rhapsodizing about this low-budget Asylum Release. Instead, most reviews that I've read have nothing kind or critically worthwhile to say except the usual stupid herd mentality idiocy, such as the acting was amateurish, the action didn't numerically live up to the advertising, and the entire thing amounted to a hideous waste of time. Of course, it doesn't help that the title is a tip-off to the obvious rip-off nature of this film. Actually, I felt that \"Snakes on a Train\" surpassed \"Snakes on a Plane\" for a number of reasons.

First, the producers used real, genuine snakes until the last fifteen minutes when they substituted either giant fake snake heads or computer generated a super-giant snake that consumed an entire Amtrak like train. How many movies have a snake gobble a train? As a result, \"Snakes on a Train\" ranks as the first movie to scale that height.

Second, this low-budget movie employs some grisly gross-out effects. The woman who coughs up baby snakes--real ones--was fantastic! The special effects of her forearms getting tore up later in the movie were visually enticing! Also, you get to see a little white girl get eaten alive by a snake. She was as cute as she could be, no more than 10 years old or thereabouts, and she died screaming all the way as nasty ol\u00e9 giant mister snake head swallows her. Not only kids in jeopardy but kid eaten! This is exactly the kind of graphic material that you won't find in 99 % of all theatrical Hollywood releases. Of course, she wasn't eaten by a real snake, but it's the subversive thought that counts.

Third, it is one of those cursed upon movies where Alma (Julia Ruiz of \"That Guy\"), the chief female character--no heroine--has a curse placed on her by her parents because she didn't marry the man that they recommended. As a result, she is filled with snakes, coughs up quantities of green radiator fluid slop then chucks up a baby snake. Imagine Medusa, the mythical characters that had snakes for hair, only with the snakes in her belly. Her psycho-shaman type boyfriend collects all the snakes that come out of her because they are heading to L.A. on a train to see a relative of his who can put all the snakes back inside of her and return her to normal. Talk about a whacked out character performing stomach churning routines. Prepare yourself for lots of slime, blood, and gore.

Fourth, the train had only about twenty or so passengers, not hundreds. Nevertheless, it looked like the Mallachi Brothers filmed this above-average horror flick on-board a real train with real snakes and they played up the swaying motion of the train on the tracks.

Fifth, the snakes slither around for the first hour, quietly infiltrating the train before they turn weird and attack everybody. In other words, it's suspense, suspense, suspense, before people start dying from snake bites.

Up until the last five minutes when the snake grows bigger than the runaway train and swallows it, \"Snakes on a Train\" is warped, wonderful, and way-out. It doesn't have the Attention Deficit editing of a big league Hollywood movie. It's a fantasy about an unfortunate Hispanic women victimized because of her feminist, at-odds-with-society attitude.

Altogether, you've got gory fantasy type stuff; suspenseful snakes slithering around the train, and am over-the-top gigantic snake at the end. Incidentally, they get on board the train because a bunch of other Mexicans have bribed a train employee and the Mexicans on board think that the girl is so cute that they let her and her boyfriend on free.

I think it's better than \"Snakes on a Plane\" if you want a tough, little, independently produced horror movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The tagline on the box hails, \"100 TRAPPED PASSENGERS... 3,000 VENOMOUS VIPERS!\" You almost have to admire that degree of \"no chance in hell we're ever going to deliver on this promise\" bullshit. I could admire The Asylum's hucksterism more so if they made movies that, well, you know, were good or, at the very least, worth a damn. Haha, and it's what I like about theses movies. They are garbage. You put them in a toilet and then you flush. It worth the price if you are a fan of cheesy movies. It may become a cult classic among many fans. The gore scenes are effectives, there's not much I can say, it's a Z flick that parody the new movie with Samuel L. Jackson, hell, it may be better so who knows!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK firstly, if your not a fan of the whole low budget horror genre then don't bother with this. You really need to be a fan to get the gag.

The move is basically about snakes ..on a train. Lots of them.

There is an ancient curse involved and a crazy ending which I wont spoil. The gore effect are full on and real icky... but the movie is mainly one big gory gag about snakes scaring the hell out of a bunch of people trapped on a train.

The suspense is built up well and there are some memorable and well composed scenes.. some of the acting is a bit hammy (watch for the surf dudes) but thats not really the point... Give this movie a go. Know what to expect and you wont regret it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ladies and gentlemen, we've really got ourselves a winner here. Actually we don't, but boy is this film an often hilarious and always entertaining horrible hoot of a stinker. Poor Alma (fetching Julia Ruiz) is suffering from an ancient Mayan curse that causes lethal poisonous snakes to grow inside of her body. Alma and her deranged shaman husband Brujo (Alby Castro, who feverishly overacts with delicious eye-rolling intensity) stowaway on a train that's bound for Los Angeles. Naturally, a bunch of deadly vipers get lose so they can terrorize the motley assortment of passengers. The Mallachi Brothers, working from an absurd script by Eric Fosberg, treat the ridiculous premise straight, thereby creating a wonderfully wretched piece of deliriously campy cheese. The cruddy CGI effects, the pathetically unfrightening common variety Gardner snakes (there's would-be scary rattlesnake noises added to the soundtrack to imbue them with a faint sense of otherwise nonexistent menace), the plodding pace, the total dearth of any tension or momentum, the obvious rickety stage-bound train set, and especially the simply astonishing \"you gotta be kiddin' me!\" over-the-top preposterous ending are all downright awesome in their very jaw-dropping awfulness. Better still, we also got game (if lame) acting from a no-name cast, a nice smidgen of tasty gratuitous female nudity, a funky hum'n'shiver score, and plenty of extremely gross and grotesque make-up f\/x. Bonus points for the fact that the token irritatingly cutesy little girl gets eaten by a large reptile and for the stoner engineer who gets caught smoking crack out of a hollow light bulb (!?). An absolute gut-buster of a kitsch howler.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the funniest movies ever made. And for those of you who don't get it, it's supposed to be funny. So often comedies try to be so intentionally funny that it misses, but here is finally a movie that succeeds in being hilarious in the most subtle of ways. Even \"spoofs\" lack the originality and natural feel of this film. It is a comedic classic that will surely be appreciated in another time when studios are fdoing this sort of thing regularly. kudos to the makers, and to a hilariously subtle cast of actors, including Isaac Wade, whose performances is top-notch. Truly, a real break-out star performance by an true underrated stage actor. It'll be great to see this guy get his due.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Snakes on a Plane was such a well hyped film that it was both inevitable and a little crazy to try to release another movie with almost the same title in the same year let alone the same week. Reading the other comments here I see the results. A lot of people are mad. Mad because it doesn't have the best special effects. Mad because it doesn't have a star cast. Mad because they wanted to see Samuel Jackson say \"I'm sick of these M^*&*&%-Er F*^(^%-Ing Snakes on this M^*&*&%-Er F*^(^%-Ing Train\"!

Well, this sure ain't the Samuel Jackson version. And maybe that's good.

Snakes on a Plane was lost between cop film and horror, a family action film and a bloody gory movie of death. Saturday Night Live performers got laughs while Jackson swore enough to make a grandmother cover her ears, and as far as kids go, they would be traumatized by the violence.

Snakes on a Train however knew exactly what it was. This was a cheaply made horror movie on a train. Sure it had snakes and sure many of them were scientifically harmless garden snakes with fake rattler sound effects. But never once did it miss a step in its plot or intention where as the \"on a Plane\" version was tripping all over itself from the first scene on.

I did enjoy the over the top fun that Snakes on a Plane had to offer and I admit that the \"...on a Train\" version was a little dry. But hey, in trade, it was a cool and unexpected story. This little horror film could have gone way more wrong than it did.

For this it gets a 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Without doubt a great all round show that if shown today would attract a huge following.Bodyguards was only 6 episodes and a trailer,but deserved a few more series to really bring it up-to speed.With outstanding performances from the highly talented and versatile Sean Pertwee and the dynamic Louise Lombard,it really did put it up with the likes of the Proffesionals,The Sweeney and Thief Takers.The story lines are based on the Diplomatic Protection Services and with great filming and story lines and scene locations,it stood out from some of the junk that gets churned by other TV production companies.I do not think that it has been shown on terrestrial TV either,such as Sky or Freeview,witch is a shame as if it were to be shown nowadays,i am sure it would get a large viewing audience.So i hope one day the guys at Carlton TV decide to release it on DVD,cheers,Nick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When i first saw this show advertised to be on Australian TV back in the late 90's i ignored it thinking it was just capitalizing on the Kevin Costner movie 'Bodyguard'. But then i caught an episode and i wish i had watched it from the start. The partnership between Sean Pertwee and Louise Lombard was so well acted and the structure of each episode was extremely entertaining. It wasn't an overblown TV show that you can tell spent most of its energy in making things explode so that they could put that clip in the commercial to lure audiences and then not deliver on any other level. The show delved into the lives of the two main characters and thats what made it interesting. The stories for each episode where also well written with interesting guest stars who were good actors. And of course there was a lot of action and intrigue which is always good. But what was great was that there was humour, and it flowed naturally from the characters, it didn't appear contrived. It was British but in a good way, and if this show was made in America it would no doubt be on DVD by now. I don't know why British TV production companies are not interested in releasing this show on DVD. It was a great show and deserves a DVD release.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's very easy to figure out why The New Professionals was a dud, at least in New Zealand: it didn't just follow in the footsteps of the original, it followed Bodyguards, which out-Professionaled the show considerably with its boss-and-two-agents formula. Cmdr McIntyre was a latter-day George Cowley: tough on his team, but one who would defend them to the death against others. The shadow the show cast was huge.

Well, not as huge as it should have been in the UK. Here, it was networked in prime-time. It was even marketed in the promos as, 'They are the professionals.' Someone else obviously noticed the difference. We were fortunate enough not to have this show released in different regions at different time slots.

It was the high production values that sealed the deal for me. As other reviewers have noted, it followed the great British tradition of the one-hour actioner, but blended in personal elements at the same time. There's a slight undercurrent of something developing between Liz and Ian, though that never distracted one from the real plot. Most episodes were based around inflammatory diplomatic incidents, the sort of thing that helps Spooks along from time to time.

Unlike many 2000s shows, the plot was not sacrificed at the expense of fancy-pants photography or over-stylish direction. Directors like Christopher Young kept the pace up and did their job. They made use of good locations, making Bodyguards slicker than if it had been shot on back roads and alleyways. It was contemporary, it would still stand up beautifully today, and it was one of the better examples of the British actioner in the 1990s, showing that the UK can still do them better than anyone else.

Maybe except for the Germans and their Cobra 11.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is to typical of people complaining about something when they no nothing about it...So this is about a gay man falling for a straight women. First of all...This is a true story so you cant say its not believable Second its written by a gay man so the whole thing about this being against the gays are just plain stupid. Personally I think this was the best love story I've ever seen. And I am very pro gay. I think this shows that real love is about personality not just looks and sex. And it has nothing against anyone who is gay, straight or bi unlike so many other shows. Maybe we in Europe take to it more cus most TV here are a bit deeper and make you think more then American TV...Plus we don't fear when it comes to showing certain things.

If you want something funny with one of Englands best (Lesley Sharp) and you want to see a decent believable love story without too much sap this is for you. I know I love it","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sometimes, you're up late at night flipping through the stations, bored out of your mind, and wanting some light and fluffy romantic comedy that doesn't make you feel bipolar. And this movie fit that exact billing. Sure, the plot was ripped right out of the 1930s....the writing as schmaltzy as the Hallmark Greeting Card company's legendary poetry, and the one- dimensional characters were played by a cast plucked straight from Central Casting - but it was CUTE, and exactly what I needed last night.

Lauren Holly and Costas Mandylor have great chemistry together - I liked it on \"Picket Fences,\" and I'm happy to say they still have it over 10 year later. Costas Mandylor, at 41, is still possibly one of the handsomest men to grace the screens since ol' Rudy Valentino kicked the bucket 80 years ago. RRROWRR! Bonus points for casting that funny man who used to be on the roller skates on that show about the cartoon lady. I always thought he was something straight out of a Hepburn-Grant comedy. BRAVO!

Some people will probably say this was the corniest piece of cinema ever made, and I would probably have to agree - but come on! It's on the Hallmark Channel. What were you expecting? Just sit back, relax, eat some sesame sticks, and watch a sweet little movie with two cute people and down a bottle of Zinfandel. Trust me, you'll love and accept the schmaltz a whole lot more, and then you can go to sleep dreaming about Costas Mandylor swimming in a sea of tempered chocolate feeding you petit fours with minty fresh chocolate icing. YUMMO! (PS. Now I have a hankering for petit fours. THANKS A LOT, HALLMARK!)

I really wish the evil girl had been cast with Rachel Ray, and maybe that dishy food nerd Alton Brown as the announcer instead of the creepy dude with the Van Dyk beard. Shudder!

That would have made my night. But hey, check out \"Just Desserts.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a made for TV movie by Hallmark. Hallmark has always made quality movies that are family orientated. Just Desserts is a boy and girl fall in love while working together movie. Two bakers competeing for a $250,000 prize against a field of professional bakers. It is fun and light hearted. The desserts look great. The movie has a catchy, upbeat little song played during the competition. I assume that it is a made for the movie song by Roger Bellon. To bad that no soundtrack is available. I would really like to get a copy of the song. I don't even know the name of the song, because the credits are squished at the end of the movie to make room for hundreds of promos. Anyway, the cast is great. It is always nice to see Brenda Vaccaro. She is very bubbly and upbeat. Lauren Holly is always a plus and Costas Mandylor rounds out the good guys with a wonderful performance. Professional chef Wolfgang Puck has a guest appearance. The movie is worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great Valentine's Day gift. A gorgeous guy and a pretty girl fall in love while trying to beat the competition at a baking contest. Very romantic. I'm a real fan of Costas Mandylor since his days at Picket Fences and he hasn't lost his appeal. Lauren Holly is still lovely and adorable and the two still have great chemistry together. The supporting cast was good as well. Seeing all those wonderful desserts being made was a delicious sight in itself. I loved that Costas and Lauren teamed up to win in the baking competition and in love. This is the kind of film that satifies all palates, romantic and otherwise. Hallmark always shows excellence in their programming and this is no exception. The whole family can view this film. Also shows that sometimes love triumphs over any adversity. I found myself sighing and wishing for more for this film and also yearning for those wonderful desserts. I recommend this film highly for all ages. A great treat for all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie because of Costas Mandylor and Lauren Holly. I adored them together on Picket Fences, so it was a treat to see them together again. This was not the best movie ever made, but it was cute. Very predictable, but sometimes mindlessly fun movies are just what I need.

The desserts were gorgeous, and I wanted to eat all of them. I did love it when that one fell apart though. I bet it still tasted good.

Costas and Lauren still had the great chemistry that they had back on Picket Fences, and I swooned as they kissed in this movie.

I wouldn't watch this again, but it was a great filler for one night.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Marco Poloni (Costas Mandylor) was born into a baking family in the Bronx. Although the Polonis have been well known for their confections over the decades, the business has fallen on hard times. Meanwhile, Grace Carpenter (Lauren Holly) is a most talented dessert maker in Manhattan but, she can not seem to land a prime confectionery position because of the glass ceiling. An accidental meeting between Marco and Grace results in a conversation about a possible solution for them both. There is a high profile bake-off, The Golden Whisk, taking place in the near future and Marco wants Grace to partner with him. There is a hefty amount of \"dough\", haha, at stake for the winners, enough to set Grace up in her own business and save the Polonis eatery, too. Reluctantly, Grace agrees. But, there are complications. Some of the judges and fellow contestants may have past issues with both Grace and Marco. Then, too, although Marco and Grace both feel some sort of attraction for the other, Grace has a long standing, very rich boyfriend. Can Marco and Grace win the contest? This is a lovely film for the romantic at heart. First, there is the nice cast. Holly has always been a lovely actress with a notable husky voice that furthers her attractions. In this film, she is perfectly cast as the determined but beautiful Grace. Mandylor, a newcomer, delights, too as the good-looking rival baker. The rest of the actors, including the wonderful Brenda Vaccaro as Marco's mother, is quite nice. As a Hallmark movie, the costumes, sets, and production amenities are beyond reproach and the script still manages to seem fresh and funny, despite some familiar themes. Treat yourself, romcom lovers, to a most sweet confection by securing a viewing of this film. It is definitely the movie equivalent of a big box of quality chocolates.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie, it was cute and funny! Lauren Holly was wonderful, she's funny and very believable in her role. Costas Mandylan was also very good, nice to look at too!! Brenda Vaccaro, as usual was a pleasure to watch, she did a great job with her character. It was a pleasure watching a movie that is funny, interesting and can be watched by the whole family. It's difficult to find nice wholesome movies anymore. Thank goodness for the Hallmark movies, they are wonderful! I wish I could buy it, if anyone knows where I could purchase this movie, please let me know!! I have purchase several Hallmark movies and am very happy with them. I hope I can buy this one!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A charming movie enhanced by the musical and vocal background, especially during the competition. My understanding is that there was never a soundtrack but could you, through your sources, advise me where I might get information on the singer and the likelihood of getting a copy of the song he sang. Your help would be appreciated. The song really touched me and my wife and we would like to secure a copy wherever possible so that we might play it as background music when we have our family and friends over for our \"Italian Nights\". If you are able to get this information to us we would be eternally grateful. Even if you can advise of the studio contact so that we might go direct.

Regards,

John Payling","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are a number of reviews that comment on the cast of this film. Suffice it to say that Alex Cord plays a strong lead opposite Robert Ryan and Arthur Kennedy. What concerns me is that many of you may not be aware of the (at least) two existing versions of this film. In the U.S. version Clay McCord gains amnesty from Governor Lem Carter and then rides out of town redeemed. I agree that ending is less than satisfying. However, in the original Italian cut Clay McCord rides out of town (weaponless as he has turned in his pistols to the Governor) and is bushwhacked by the bounty hunters that have been slowly depopulating the bandit town of Escondido. The Bounty Killers are excited at the prospect of splitting the $10,000 reward but are disappointed to find McCord's amnesty agreement in the corpses pocket. As they ride away one is heard to comment,\"If this amnesty keeps up I'm gonna start hunting buffalo !\" . This alone takes A Minute To Pray...A Second To Die and places it on an even playing field with movies like Keoma and The Big Gundown. As the end credits say in the Italian cut \"FINE\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The cast alone tells you this will be a notch above the usual Italian western. Veteran actors Robert Ryan and Arthur Kennedy team up with Alex Cord who, at the time, seemed on the verge of stardom. The result is a movie that's both off-beat and down-beat and yet it'll satisfy those who seek more from a western than just gunplay. Especially interesting here is the character played by Alex Cord. One expects the \"hero\" in these westerns to be taciturn and introspective, but \"Clay McCord\" is an extreme example and, surprisingly enough, he's often shone in a passive, even weak position. Much is made of the fact that he fears falling prey to the epileptic fits which immobilized his father, and in these moments of helplessness he's either at the mercy of those who wish to harm him or those who wish to help him. To emphasize his passivity, Clay McCord -- don't you love that name? -- is often shone stripped to the waist as if he were little more than an attractive plaything being put on display. There's even a strong masochistic streak in his nature, most in evidence when he's used as a punching bag by his enemies and then suspended by his wrists and left hanging above the middle of a street. Not only does he often fail to protect himself, but McCord is equally ineffective in protecting those around him. Nearly everyone who helps him is killed.

While \"A Minute to Pray, a Second to Die\" is far from being a complete success, it has a depth and a tone which sets it apart and causes it to linger in the memory. It's also a good showcase for Alex Cord whose career tended to decline after this point following a few promising years in the mid-1960s. He must have been about 36 years old when he filmed this -- in his physical prime -- and the scene of him hanging by his wrists, bare-chested and sweaty, is a memorable piece of cinematic \"beefcake.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"A Minute to Pray, A Second to Die\" is a quality spaghetti western with a solid cast and an interesting storyline. It is filmed beautifully, with a relatively high production value for a film in this genre.

Alex Cord does a terrific job portraying Clay McCord, an outlaw who is suffering from increasingly debilitating seizures. He is seeking amnesty before his enemies close in on him, but is being too cocky for his own good when he asks for it. Robert Ryan delivers the best performance in the film as the governor of New Mexico. Mario Brega and Arthur Kennedy are also great here.

This movie is very good, but it doesn't stand out to me as being one of the best spaghetti westerns out there. It's lacking too much in style to be in the same league as any of the great ones. It does have some cool spaghetti overtones, but overall it's a bit too much like an American western. This is especially evident in the music score, which is OK as movies go in general, but pretty dull by euro-western standards. The soundtrack kind of reminds me of the music from \"The Unforgiven.\" Although there is an interesting story here, it is told in a manner which is a bit too conventional for my tastes. If a spaghetti western fan and a Hollywood western fan had to watch a movie together, this one would be the perfect compromise.

All of this is not to say that anyone should avoid this film. I did enjoy watching it very much. As I said, it is a very well-done film and I recommend it to anyone who likes westerns, spaghetti or otherwise.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this for the first time a few nights ago on television. I expected to only tune in for a few minutes, but found myself intrigued by the movie. I ended up watching it all and found it surprisingly compelling. The acting by the three American leads was quite good, especially that of Alex Cord. He plays a gunslinger with quite a degree of vulnerability. Very different from how most of them are portrayed in westerns. He ended up in several situations where he was at the mercy of the bounty hunters. The final shootout between the three leads and the bad guys was very good, as was the scene where the doctor digs a bullet out of Clay McCord. Somewhat gruesome, but realistic. I must admit that, despite my initial misgivings at watching a \"spaghetti western\", I ended up enjoying this film quite a bit. I would recommend it to anyone who likes westerns.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this to be an underrated, quietly compelling Spaghetti Western (also known as DEAD OR ALIVE). Despite modest credentials (apart from multi-purpose co-writer\/producer Albert Band, the only notable crew member is composer Carlo Rustichelli), the film clearly benefits from the presence of its three American stars (newcomer Alex Cord is an ambiguous anti-hero, while veterans Arthur Kennedy and Robert Ryan lend a mythic quality to the proceedings) as well as the unusual plot (involving a crippled protagonist, an amnesty ruse covering a strategic clean-up of the town, and which has the law finally siding with the gunfighter against a horde of Mexican bandits).

There are several tough action scenes on hand \u0096 the film is capped by a terrific climax in which the star trio is besieged inside a blazing cabin \u0096 plus a couple of outrageous moments which are something of a Spaghetti Western trademark: from the middle of the street, Cord sees a hidden gunman at a window reflected in a whiskey bottle; a man who helps Cord escape is repeatedly immersed in a pool of oil by the villains. Nicoletta Machiavelli also makes a nice impression as a village girl with whom Cord lodges; the supporting cast, then, is peppered with familiar (if largely anonymous) faces \u0096 all of them essentially genre fixtures.

I wasn't aware of the fact that the English-dubbed version of the film on MGM\/UA's R1 DVD was cut: I was fooled by the wrong running-time being listed on the back-cover; the film was only 99 minutes long and not 118 \u0096 apparently, Cord's character is killed in the longer Italian version!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In A Minute To Pray, A Second To Die, Clay McCord (Alex Cord) is an unhappy outlaw with a ten thousand dollar bounty on his head and degenerative epilepsy.

Realizing his days as an outlaw are numbered, he wants desperately (though somewhat reluctantly) to take advantage of an amnesty being granted by rough and tumble territorial governor Robert Ryan, (excellent performance) who badly wants McCord to renounce his ways and accept the amnesty as an example to others while in the bandit hub of Escondito, outlaw Mario Brega plans to kill McCord to stop that from happening.

Also starring Arthur Kennedy, Aldo Sambrell and a slew of other familiar European faces, this is co-written and produced by (American) spaghetti western pioneer Albert Band, also responsible for the pre-Leone film Gunfight At Red Sands.

Though the solution to the main character's \"epilepsy\" is lifted straight out of Howard Hawks' El Dorado, the script is solid, pretty fresh and unpretentious. This has a great balance of action and story and Alex Cord is great in it. He really should have been a bigger star.

In defense of the shorter (well dubbed) English version: personally I'm past that age where the longer version is always the better version and the ending where McCord is ironically gunned down by grimy bounty hunters after his pardon, is needlessly nihilistic and completely destroys the film's message about hope and redemption.

Call me old-fashioned, but I rooted for McCord and felt he earned that happy ending!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie fully deserves to be one of the top Hindi comedies ever made . Rajkumar Santoshi is mostly known for his gritty hard-hitting social dramas , but this is easily the most effortless movie he has made .

The plot revolves around two small-town buffoons Amar (Aamir Khan) and Prem (Salman Khan) . They want to get rich quick and so move to the big city . They hatch the same plan separately - to woo a rich heiress Raveena (Raveena Tandon) who is the daughter of a rich businessman Ramgopal Bajaj (Paresh Rawal) . Thus the one who marries Raveena gets his hands on all her wealth . but when they get to know each other's plan , there is an intense tussle of one-oneupmanship over who marries Raveena . Hilarious gags and situations ensue as the battle rages on .

At the same time Ramgopal Bajaj's identical twin brother Shyamgopal Bajaj wants to eliminate his brother and niece and usurp the family fortune . Add to this an assortment of funny characters including a Raveena's maid Karishma (Karishma Kapoor) , a mistake-prone butler named Robert (Vijoo Khote) , a manager named Bhalla (Shehzad Khan) who mimics yesteryear's villain Ajeet and a funny gangster Gogo (Shakti Kapoor) who looks more like a pirate and a rollicking comedy awaits you .

Do not waste your time looking for LOGIC in the movie . Leave the company of your brains and just ENJOY . The actors are so much in sync with the script that no room is left for mistakes . Dialogues (Rajkumar Santoshi , Dilip Shukla) are witty . Music (Tushar Bhatia) and lyrics (Majrooh Sultanpuri) are memorable . The picturization and choreography (Saroj Khan) of \"Yeh Raat Aur Yeh Doori\" , \"Ae Lo Ji Sanam\" and \"Dil Karta Hai Tere Paas Aaoon\" is fitting and will remain etched in my mind forever .

The film starred two superstars-in-the-making , Aamir Khan and Salman Khan (they eventually became superstars) . Aamir Khan is impeccable in his first all-out comedy role . I salute his sense of comic timing . Salman pales in comparison with Aamir but is still likable . Among the supporting characters , Paresh Rawal stands out in his dual role of Ramgopal and Shyamgopal .

The movie surprisingly failed at the box office . I fail to understand why . I recommend it to all nevertheless .","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There have been very few great comedy films in the history of Hindi Cinema. Andaz Apna Apna happens to be one of them. The film is based on a very simple story of two poor young men (Aamir and Salman) who dream of becoming rich by marrying a millionaire's daughter (Raveena). Aamir and Salman Khan try their best to outwit each other and woo Raveena. The plot thickens when Paresh Rawal & Co. plan to take over all the wealth. The movie is well paced and very funny. Rarely does one come across a Hindi comedy which is both funny and intelligent. This is one of the few films with Aamir and Salman together (probably the only film!). Unfortunately it did not succeed at the box-office, and we might never see a film of this calibre again. Aamir Khan is brilliant in the film and has proved his versatility as an actor in this film. Salman Khan gives a very good performance as a dim-wit. Raveena plays a convincing role as a confused rich girl, and Karishma who is Raveena's assistant\/friend is also funny. Paresh Rawal, Junior Ajith, Shakti Kapoor, Deven Verma, Jagdeep and Tiku Talsania just add to the flavour of the film! All in all, the best Hindi comedy ever made and I wish they make more quality films like this one. You will want to watch this film time and again.

P.S - For those of you who have watched this film, I also suggest Gol Maal, Chupke Chupke, Chhoti Si Baat, Naram Garam, Hera Pheri (old and new), etc.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is simply excellent. For some reason it wasn't a success at the box office in India. In New York, however, I have yet to come across a person who disliked this movie. This is definitely the funniest movie to come out of India. Everyone gives a good performance; Amir Khan; however, just takes over and puts the movie over the top.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Andaz Apna Apna is by far my second favorite comedy of all time, first being Namak Halal (even though that was technically a drama). Story is nothing groundbreaking, but the complications that are added to it make it awesome. Aamir Khan is a total cartoon. Just watch his expressions in the song Yeh Raat aur yeh doori. He is amazingly good at comedy, I never knew. Salman Khan was also good as the somewhat dimmer of the two characters. The noises he makes are almost as funny as Aamir's faces. Raveena and karisma serve their purpose but are nothing amazing. The real pick of the lot is Paresh Rawal as usual.

The plot is rather simple, Amar (Aamir) and Prem (Salman) are useless sons of poor fathers. They don't believe in hard work and just want to get rich the easy way. So both their brains come across an idea to woo a rich man's (Paresh Rawal) daughter (Raveena Tandon) who comes to India to look for a husband. So Amar and Prem meet on the trip and join hands to drive off the hundreds of other men trying to marry this girl. When they succeed, they now have to get rid of each other. Somehow both of them get into Raveena's house, Amar as an injured guy and Prem as his doctor. From here on they try to oust each other. But things are complicated as Raveena's friend (Karisma Kapoor) falls for Prem and pursues him. And rich man's evil twin brother (Rawal also) tries to get rid of the heiress and her father so he will inherit the money and sends in his two most trusted but bumbling fools to do the dirty work.

This is a movie you do not want to miss. Watch it! It will be worth it. I even own the DVD, its that good. And if you like this movie, I'd also recommend Gol Maal if you haven't already watched it. Other good comedies are Namak Halal and Hera Pheri (new).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Through the years I've been very much interested in the life of this teenager who left such a profound, indelible mark on the world. My fascination has also been born of fear, as in, could this happen again.

And throughout the ensuing years, yes, I fear 'it' continues to happen around us and of course 'it' was happening long before Anne. The 'it' of course is can a so-called civilized society turn on its own or on an innocent country\/race\/continent and murder citizens in cold blood on the flimsiest of excuses? I leave that question out there.

At the beginning of the documentary there is a statement about the leader Adolf Hitler in that the one profound fact about Hitler that is never mentioned was that he was elected democratically and all of the atrocities committed were done as the result of a compliant poodle-press and fear-mongering propaganda played over and over again for a docile population.

One of the atrocities was Anne Frank, who put a face to the death camps by the miracle of her diary's survival.

Kenneth Brannagh does a wonderful job on the commentary and interviewing, he has that rare gift of minimizing his own persona thus allowing the subjects to speak for themselves.

Many new facts and people never before interviewed are brought to life in the meticulous research, which I will not go into here as they add immeasurably to the reality and gut wrenching sorrow of the film.

Glenn Close reads selections from the diary and her voice is perfect for the part, she brings a naivet\u00e9 and freshness to the role.

Old childhood friends of Anne's are interviewed at length and her last days before death are well recorded and witnessed along with her vibrant and mischievous personality.

This is not to be missed. A wonderful and respectful film about the seldom seen Anne.

10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As good as Schindler's List was, I found this movie much more powerful as it is a documentary and based on real life. It details the story of the Frank family, and Anne in particular. Although it is a bit slow moving at first (detailing their family life before the war); it becomes very powerful.

Due to some of the footage and photos of the camps, I would not recommend it for children but for adults, it illustrates the horror of the Holocaust through one young girl. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've read \"Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl\" when I was in high school, and found myself completely engrossed in her story, and also in the Broadway play of her life in the Secret Annexe.

However, I'm a little perplexed about how people have perceived her diary and of her as a person, seeing her as a little saint or having a message of hope for the world. I don't think that was the original intention of her diary. She wrote it mainly for herself, even though she did make some rigorous rewrites before the occupants of the Secret Annexe were betrayed, intending it to be published someday.

But I never saw her as a saint or as a messenger of hope...but as a very talented writer who could express her thoughts very well and very entertainingly in a diary. No doubt she was a very engaging writer, and she did possess an extraordinary talent with expressing herself fully with words. You really got to know her well through her diary. But the importance of her diary lies in the fact that it is a testament and an important historical document of the proof that the Holocaust did happen.

It also brought the tragedy of the Holocaust closer to home, to lose someone that we could put a familiar face and personality to, at such a young age...literally having had her young life ripped away from her and from the other occupants who were murdered in the Holocaust. It's a searing indictment of the Nazis systematic murder of over 6 million Jews, and that should not be forgotten.

But it's sad to me that her diary is being so misconstrued as anything more than that. When I look for hope, I have the Bible...the first most widely read non-fiction book in the world. God's Words in the Bible is eternal...but Anne's diary is a diary of a young girl under extraordinary circumstances, and that is it. She is not someone to be worshiped or idolized, because she was an ordinary girl with many flaws, who possessed incredible talent as a writer, and who died at age 15 from typhus in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. She was a victim of the Holocaust, and as this otherwise excellent documentary has so vividly testified, she was Hitler's most famous victim.

Besides the Anne Frank's story...the stories from her family members and friends and survivors of the Holocaust were engrossing, vivid and powerful. I especially enjoyed Miep Gies' testimony, and marvel that she is still strong and alive today. Hannah Goslar's testimony was also very interesting. And I also liked hearing from Otto Frank. But I also agree that the moving picture of the young girl with the dark hair and the familiar big eyes at the end was particularly memorable.

Another thing about the Holocaust that I kind of disagree with the documentary...is that I don't believe it was just a matter of discrimination...but rather something deeper and more profound, and that was just an act of pure evil. Pure evil. Nothing else but pure evil.

Excellent documentary of Anne Frank and of the Holocaust that should be watched.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a film that every child should see before they grow and get distorted often passed down ideas from generation to generation of family. I grew up in two different places although only 20 miles apart. I went to school & had friends of every color creed & religion for the first 8 years of my life. Then I moved to hillbilly country (although not anymore) where it was very unusual to even have one African-American kid in your class. My graduating class in high school had 2 or 3 African-Amercians (god why can't I just say Black? You can call me a honky or whitey or whatever! all of this political correctness peeves me as it does most others!) Anyway back to the film give this a try to see what happens when people get a distorted view or just what ignorance or a lack of understanding does to a culture or a country! This is an excellent film everyone should see especially children.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After World War II the ungoing crime in Phenix City, Alabama, encouraged by the money from an Army base just across the river in Georgia, got even worse. Gambling, prostitution, loan sharking, and the like helped an organized crime apparatus in the city. Soon it was too bad and violent to even tolerate anymore. This movie is based on the real story of that fight.

By the standards of the 1950's it was shockingly explicit. Although low-budget, that same small budget helped with the realism requiring location shooting. A very gritty film. Richard Kiley was marvelous as always, and John McIntire stolid.

Why this good movie isn't on video is a real puzzle!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"During the Clete Roberts preface, I was beginning to think this was an Ed Wood production, however, what rolls out here is some pretty hard hitting stuff. The story of crime and corruption in a Southern town is told using a cast culled from Hollywood's Poverty Row, and this makes the movie all the more realistic. There are no punches pulled here, and at times the film is reminiscent of \"The Well\"(1951). The Black and White texture gives a newsreel-like quality. For certain, younger viewers will be reminded of \"The Blair Witch Project\" but this one IS based on REAL events!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To view the fictionalized biography \"The Phenix City Story\", I claim, is to enter fields where U.S. filmmakers have seldom ventured, Director Phil Karlson got his directorial assignment on \"The Untouchables\" TV mega-hit series largely on the basis of \"Kansas City Confidential\" and this film; and it has become one of the most admired and most- imitated movies ever made. The rarest feat for US filmmakers seems to be the hero-centered purposeful anti-crime film or TV series; I remind the viewer how mightily \"Cain's Hundred\"'s and \"Hardcastle and McCormick\"'s and even \"the Untouchables'\"' producers had to work to produce anything but episodes devoted largely to the unfictional activities of criminals rather than those of their ethical opponents. This powerful, seminal and very-gritty movie has a style all its own; and its lesson seems to be attention to detail about the opponents and victims of criminal organizations as well as their gang members. There is a twelve-minute prelude to the film, in which reporter Clete Roberts interviews the real participants from the Alabama city's who had struggled against its corrupt vice gangs. The problem grew out of the presence of Fort Benning across the river, and the nearly century-long existence of vice dens in the area. The film details the return of John Patterson from Germany where he has been a prosecutor. His father, defeated for Attorney general of Alabama, refuses to join his pursuit of the 14th street vicelords despite several provocations including a beating of his son, avenged by Patterson on his tormentor. There are several well-developed characters, including Ellie, who works in one of the clubs and her honest boyfriend, the leader of the syndicate, the Pattersons and John's wife, Ed Gage, the vicelords' operatives and Zeke Ward, an honest black man victimized for his opposition to them. The cinematography by Harry Neumann and the art direction by Stanley Fleischer are in B\/W and are very much like news-film, adding to the film's realistic power. Music by Harry Sukman contributes to the film effectively. Writer Daniel Mainwaring and Crane Wilbur produced a swift-paced and straightforward story that divides into parts. Part one illustrates the vicelords' empire from inside one of their clubs, showing the fate of a victim who is beaten and then picked up by police in the pay of the Mob. In part two, Albert Patterson refuses to oppose the leader of the Mob, the intelligent Rhett Tanner. In part three, young Patterson returns and after several incidents including his having to beat up the Mob's head goon to avenge his own beating decides to run his father for Attorney General of the state. His wife is horrified; and the Mob kills Zeke Ward's daughter and dumps the body at Patterson's house with a warning his children will be next. A few more such incidents, including the loss of a trial in which the Pattersons prove the goon killed a friend of theirs who had found the car implicated in the murder of the little girl, and watch the inquest declare the death accidental, convince Patterson to run, and he wins the Democratic statewide nomination despite the Mob's statist tactics--and is promptly assassinated. John Patterson stops a vigilante crowd from starting open warfare with the 14th Street mob and uses their voices to call the capital and demand martial law for Phenix City. The clubs are closed and equipment confiscated, but not before the girl inside is murdered by the Mob's goon, and Patterson has to be stopped by Zeke Ward from killing Tanner instead of delivering him to the law. The drama's ending is upbeat; but the prognosis for the town is less- sanguine than painted; the mob in fact tried to come back then moved to Tennessee. In this well-acted classic of anti-crime film-making, Richard Kiley is young but very strong as Patterson, playing it without an accent. John Mcintyre as his father is very good, while Edward Andrews as Boss Tanner is award caliber. Others in the cast include Kathryn Grant as the girl inside, Ellie, Jean Carson and Kathy Marlowe as the Mob's women, John Larch as their goon, Biff Mcguire as the young victim, James Edwards as Zeke Ward, Lenka Peterson as John's wife, and some good character actors as townsmen and Mob bosses. It is I suggest hard to say enough good things about the realism and lack of posturing in this film; it is certainly one of Phil Karlson's best directorial efforts. Karlson also did \"The Scarface Mob\" later did \"Walking Tall\" as well. A sobering and inspiring look at the ease with which complacent citizens of a public-interest democracy can acquiesce to tyranny, and how a few honest men can teach them the need to fight for their rights.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having been brought up in Phenix City as a child, I recognize many of the local people in the movie, so for me, it's like a trip down memory lane to see \"The Phenix City Story\" again. As a matter of fact, my granduncle is in it in one of the very first scenes. Uncle Drew's the one in the Hawaiian shirt who scoots his chair out to get a better look at the singer\/stripper.

Unless you've been there, like Mr. Page and I both have, you couldn't possibly understand the story it tells. The reviewer from New York calls John Patterson racist, most likely without ever having had an encounter with Mr. Patterson or his father. And what is your point in bringing up Mr. Patterson's employment now? It has nothing to do with the film that you're supposedly reviewing. How in the world can you sit back and judge either them or this film when you've probably gone no further yourself than the south Bronx? It's been my experience that people who do that are simply attempting to feel morally superior to the folks portrayed in the movie. By most accounts of the time, both Mr. Pattersons were basically good and decent men. Their families were respectable people, as were most of the people who lived in Phenix City.

By the way, why is so hard for those who live outside of the south to believe that there are good and decent people even in small towns in Alabama? And why do they assume that everyone living in a small southern town is a racist? My parents lived there and yet, they didn't tolerate it in our household. Others didn't tolerate it either, but the myth that everyone in the south is racist lives on through the willful ignorance of others.

The movie itself is simple and direct. It isn't the whole story --- Hollywood added a certain sensationalism when the film was made. Parts of it were absolutely on target. Other parts of it bordered on fairy tales. And if it's the source that anyone uses to decide how folks in small southern towns are, they need to get a grip and understand what most of us do --- it's ONLY a movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Phenix City Story\" is a brutal, hard-hitting docudrama about what was once dubbed the \"wickedest town in America.\" The film documents the events that led up to the murder by the Phenix City crime syndicate of Albert Patterson, an Alabama attorney who made a bid for the state attorney general's office as a way to clean up the vice and corruption plaguing his hometown. His son, John Patterson, picked up his father's mantle after his death and won the post, making clean up of Phenix City a primary item on his agenda.

Director Phil Karlson created a film that has the ability to shock even today. The grimness is so relentless that the film is actually difficult to watch. We see the crime syndicate beat and kill in order to get what they want -- the beatings and killings include women and children, and one scene in particular, revolving around the death of a little black girl, is especially disturbing. It's not exactly an enjoyable film, because there's very little payoff at the end to reward the viewer for sitting through the infuriating events leading up to it, but it's a well made film, full of an intense and angry energy.

A 15-minute prologue includes a series of interviews with the actual inhabitants of Phenix City, some of who are then portrayed by actors in the fictional portion of the film. It lends the film a quality of urgency that carries over into the narrative, so that we feel like we're watching a documentary the entire time, a feeling that's helped by Karlson's choice to film on actual locations.

I'm glad I saw this movie, but it's one of those films that fills you with a sense of righteous indignation and then makes you feel helpless because you can't do anything about it.

Grade: A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"**SPOILERS** Shocking yet true story of the horror that befell the Alabama\/Georgia border town of Phenix when it was taken over by a gang of organized hoodlums who turn it into the Sin City of the South.

With crime skyrocketing and no one to turn to a group of concerned citizens get well respected Phenix lawyer Albert Patterson, John McIntire, to run for the office of State District Attorney. With the criminal element of Phenix doing everything, from intimidation to outright murder, to keep the voters form getting Patterson the nomination he still wins with the other 86 counties of the state, not including Phenix's Russell County, giving him the nod by just over 1,000 votes.

Terrified in what Patterson would do when he takes office head of the Phenix Mob Rett Tanner, Edward Andrews, has a hit put out on him. Patterson is gunned down while driving to his office but his killers are spotted by Ellie Rhodes, Kathryn Grant, who soon becomes, through an informer in Patterson's office, Tanner's next person in line to be targeted for murder. What Tanner & Co. didn't expect is that the late Albert Patterson's son John, Richard Kiley, got the news from Ellie about his dad's murder before his boys could shut her up! That major miscalculation on Tanner's part will end up putting an end to both his criminal organization as well as his freedom!

Powerful documentary-style crime movie with the actual persons involved in the events given some 15 minutes, at the start of the film, to tell their stories. This despite the fact that they were still in danger of being murdered by the Tanner Mob that was still at large at the time their interviews were filmed!

Finishing what his brave dad started John Patterson single handedly brought the story of Phenix City to the front pages of both the state and national newspapers giving Tanner the very negative publicity that he tried so hard to avoid. With the now Alabama National Guard flooding into Phenix City the blood-thirsty and gutless, in not willing to stand up to people with guns in their hands, Tanner Mob evaporated from sight like a morning mist after the sunlight hits it! And with John Patterson now taking the place of his murdered dad as the state of Alabama's new Attorney General you can be sure that the Patterson Mob has seen its last days of pushing people around as well as murdering them. The only thing that they'll see now in the future is the gray prison walls and bars that will be their home sweet home for the rest of their rotten and miserable lives!

Very probably the most graphically violent movie to come out of Hollywood up to that time \"The Phenix City Story\" didn't pull any punches in showing how a group of lawless and powerful criminals can turn a quite American city into living hell for everyone in it. No one was speared from these ruthless gangsters who didn't even think twice when it came to murdering even women and children if that's what it took to keep them in power! As for the Phenix City Police Departmentn they had better thing to do then enforced the law that they were sworn and paid to uphold. They were out having coffee and donut's while their city was being burned to the ground by the gangsters like Tanner who had them in their hip pocket!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Born in 1946 I was about eight years old when first viewing this movie and it left a deep impression.Not only scary ,for lack of a better word this movie haunted me for more than 50 years.The mob goon played by John Larch was terrifying.The only scene that stuck out in my mind during those 50 years was the killing of the little girl and the uncaring policeman referring to her as a \"little n----- kid\".Those words were replaced when the movie was shown recently on TV,maybe there are two versions of the movie or someone felt compelled to alter a little bit this heart breaking scene.Accurate or not the film went a long way in formulating my opinion of the South and still till today the closest I've come to visiting a southern city is El Paso.That stand may seem extreme but there is a little bit more to the story.When the movie was shown recently it became clearer why it haunted me for years.With the newsreel like beginning this movie gives the impression that what is being shown is fact.The film is made supposedly only one or two years after the depicted incidents adding to its realistic credibility.The terror in the movie isn't provided by creatures or space aliens but by persons living in our society at the time.Re killing of little girl:The recent viewing helped make clearer the impact it had on my 8 year old mind.When this movie came out the only school I had ever gone to was attended by mostly African-Americans.The victim looked like a girl in my class,it was like seeing an actual killing.It made a horrible scene that much worse.Maybe no one will find this review helpful but it helped me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm from Phoenix city and the first time i saw this movie and read the book it only confirmed the stories i had heard all of my life. i asked my grandfather about the mob and he told me that when he got back from fighting in the pacific theatre he started up a CPA firm that is know the largest in the Columbus area. when he was just starting out he was asked by the mob to do financial work for them, but he said that he gently declined. even when the FBI and army came through Phoenix city and cleaned it up my grandfather wouldn't take it lightly when my mom, aunt, or uncle went across the river, but i assure you all of that is over now. the downtown area of Phoenix city is in need of restoration and it has slums by the courthouse where all of the shooting STILL OCCASIONALLY takes place over angry, uneducated, low socio-economic people, and the 14th street Phoenix-eagle bridge has been shut down for a solid 15 years and replaced by a newer 13th street bridge, but on the more fair side of Phoenix city on summerville rd. it is very quaint and the scenery depressing.

another incident was told to me by my best friend's family from high school that lives in a nothing spot on hwy 165 called Holy Trinity, Alabama, which is about 28 minutes outside of Columbus, Ga. my best friend in high school's uncle was a man that went by the name of Old Man Davis. regardless of how the movie goes, that fact is that there were 3 bosses and Old Man Davis was one of them...you can even read about him in the original book. legend has it that he was so cold-blooded that he went to downtown Phoenix city to make a deal with a man, but apparently the man backed out on the deal right in front of Old Man Davis, so the Old Man Davis proceeded to take a sawed off shotgun out of his coat and shoot the man in the chest in the middle of town by the courthouse. they say he even walked off nonchalantly because the mob had paid off every law enforcement official in town so he had nothing to worry about.

another incident is about a bridge that another one of my friends owns a rental house next to in downtown Phoenix city. it is the same bridge that the mob killed and threw a black man off of, and you can even read that part in the book. i also would like to as that in many columbus and Phoenix city civilians were asked to be extras in the movie. when the patterson's friend is murdered and brought to trial and proved guilty in front of the judge but still set free, well, the judge is my fathers partner in his law firm in columbus, who unfortunatlly is deceased.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is a starter to what really happened in Phenix City. I'm a grandchild of the people who really lived the story. The truth never has come out to my knowledge. I have tried to find the whole story out but the people who lived it are still scared to tell it. Phenix City is still run by crooked people. Albert Patterson was not quite the saint the story wants you to believe. The story was filmed in Phenix City. It still has some of the famous sites in it that you see in the movie. The Colonal Funeral Home still looks exactly the same. But if you are wanting the real history of Sin City you have to visit us and find people willing to tell you about Ma beachies and her kindness. She didn't get the name ma for nothing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While I score the movie a 7, I also should point out that it is both interesting historically (as it stars Mae Marsh, Lillian Gish and Lionel Barrymore when they were all younger and less well-known) and features pretty exciting action for its day.

The plot is odd for a Western, in that all the trouble with the Indians begins for the weirdest reason I have ever seen! The Indians decide to have a giant dog banquet (no, they are not feeding dogs, but feeding ON dogs) and when two Indians arrive late, there are not pooches left! So, they steal two dogs belonging to two orphans from the nearby White settlement and this actually touches off an all-out war!!!! Not only is this silly, but seems to play on the prejudices of audiences. I don't know if American Indians actually ate dog, but it sounds like the sort of stereotype that later was applied to other ethnic groups. All this over dogs! The movie has some excellent battle scenes and exciting moments--such as when Ms. Marsh crawls across the battlefield to save a baby! Exciting stuff! But, STRANGE, too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's hard to imagine that \"The Battle of Elderbush Gulch\", directed by the legendary D.W. Griffith, was made a way back in 1914. It is a showcase for Griffith's emerging style.

The story centers around a group of settlers called the Cameron Brothers and their families which include a young waif (Mae Marsh) sent out from the east to live with her uncles and a young wife (Lillian Gish) who has just given birth. A group of Indians tries to capture the waif's pet dogs and are driven off by the men folk. During the confrontation the Indian Chief's son (Henry B. Wathall) is killed. The Indian chief plots his revenge and launches an attack on the small community of Elderbush Gulch.

It is this attack, which is quite brutal and graphic for this or any other time, that forms the core of the picture. The Indians slaughter the towns folk, women and children alike and drive them out of town towards the Cameron's homestead. The newborn baby becomes separated from its mother and all hell breaks loose. Someone goes for help and returns in the nick of time with the calvary.

The battle scenes contain some graphic violence. For example, we see a woman being scalped alive and there is also a sequence where we see a horse being shot down. I have never seen an animal being slain so convincingly on screen. Mr.Griffith was becoming a master of staging large scale battle scenes, a talent that he would use extensively in his epic Civil War drama, \"The Birth of a Nation\" released the following year.

Even though it runs a scant 29 minutes, \"The Battle of Elderbush Gulch\" is nonetheless an exciting and historic bit of film making. See if you can spot Lionel Barrymore and Harry Carey in bit parts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Epic early film, directed by D.W. Griffith. Mae Marsh, her little sister, and their dogs are orphaned - they must go to live with an uncle. Aboard their coach is young couple Lillian Gish and Robert Harron, celebrating the birth of their first child. The coach arrives in Elderbush Gluch. Marsh's uncle tells her she can't keep the dogs, and they are put out. There are Indians (Native Americans) nearby; and, Indians love to eat dog meat (no kidding?). These Indians are hungry! Lionel Barrymore is sympathetic to Ms. Marsh, desiring to help her recover the runaway dogs. While rescuing the puppies, an Indian is shot - resulting in a \"Cowboys vs. Indians\" confrontation.

This \"Saga of the American West\" is certainly an important film; however, the reliable Griffith performers begin to overplay their hands, and the story is too contrived. Many of the Griffith elements are in place - some good, and a few bad. \"The Battle at Elderbush Gluch\" foreshadows the later epic, \"Birth of a Nation\".

******* The Battle at Elderbush Gulch (3\/28\/14) D.W. Griffith ~ Mae Marsh, Robert Harron, Lillian Gish","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some of the reviewers here have foolishly judged this silent film by political-correctness standards of today.

\"Battle\" was an excellent film for several reasons, correctly noted by more rational reviewers: Superb cast, lots of action, innovative editing and photography.

Its stars were in effect the D.W. Griffith stock company and to this silent movie fan, that is inducement enough to watch it and to enjoy it.

I saw it many years ago and just watched it again at YouTube; that was a very poor quality print, but coupled with my memory of a good print in a real theater, I can justifiably recommend this to reasonable people and film historians.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Battle at Elderbrush Gulch was Griffith's longest and most expensive short he had made up to that point. In it we see him trying to perfect the large-scale action scene that would be necessary in his full-length features, packing in all the elements that had made his previous action shorts successful.

Griffith uses the western format \u0096 already the ideal backdrop for pure, straight-ahead action set pieces \u0096 as the setting for his first epic battle. Like many westerns of the 1910s, the starting point is a character from the east heading out west \u0096 a device which perhaps helped ease the audience into the wilderness, and here those easterners are a pair of children, which was important for the type of picture this develops into. For Griffith, you couldn't have action without a sense of vulnerability and here he crams it in, with the kids from back east, Lillian Gish as the distraught mother of \"the only baby in town\" and even some puppies that are at risk of ending up on the Indians' menu.

All this paves the way for an exceedingly complex and layered action sequence, blending the trapped heroine scenario and the ride-to-the-rescue with the battles that Griffith had been depicting since his earliest Civil War pictures in 1909. There is a phenomenal amount going on here, and Griffith does very well at maintaining the exhilarating pace throughout and keeping everything coherent and logical. However, juggling x amount of elements in an action sequence does not necessarily make it that many times more exciting, no matter how skilfully they are balanced, and Griffith did create better tension-soaked finales before and after this one.

But even a Griffith picture so heavily focused on action would not be without its drama, characterisation and atmospherics. In The Battle at Elderbrush Gulch, the emotional set-up is dealt with briefly but economically. First, we have the scene in which the waifs leave their home. The cart they travel on heads away from the camera, making use of depth and distance to express their moving away from safety and civilization. An equally effective scene is the one in which we are introduced to the young family of Gish, Bobby Harron and their baby. The people of the town coo over the precious tot, then saunter off screen, revealing that two Indians were watching them from the background, adding a sinister little note of danger.

Of course, many viewers today have pointed out The Battle at Elderbrush Gulch's offensive portrayal of Native Americans (in contrast with the more sympathetic Red Man's View), but perhaps all is not what it seems. First of all, take a look at the Indian Chief's son's waistcoat \u0096 it's black and covered in shiny white dots. It looks to me like a pearly king's jacket, perhaps modified slightly for the warmer climate. Now have a look at the \"war dance\" they perform later on \u0096 it has a certain \"knees-up Mother Brown\" air to it. These aren't Indians, they're cockneys! So it shouldn't be offensive to Native Americans. Just cockneys.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie really proves that the world is all too often an unfair place, especially the world of motion pictures. \"The Assignment\" received barely any attention upon it's release and not surprisingly flopped at the box-office, but when history will be written this movie will most surely receive some long lost praise.

Thank God I'm surrounded by friends who knows what's good for me. Being a movie buff like myself a pal highly recommended \"The Assignment\", a movie I hadn't even heard about. I decided to check out what Leonard Maltin gave it, and not surprisingly he gave it **1\/2. Knowing that this is the same grade he gave classics like \"Alien\", \"The Usual Suspects\" and \"The Matrix\" (I kid you not) I knew his meaning didn't mean diddly squat jack s***. So without hesitating I went out and bought it on DVD. This was about 3 years ago and the movie is still one of my proudest belongings in my DVD collection, despite a cover design that echoes a low budget stinker with Casper Van Dien.

\"The Assignment\" is expertly directed, delivering some really intense moments that will hold you on the edge of your seat throughout the movie, on top of that it boasts an at times brilliant story that you know will be riddled with unexpected twists and turns. It stars Aidan Quinn in one of his best performances, and serves him with great support by Donald Sutherland and Ben Kingsley who are both in great form.

Something like 40 out of 42 user comments like this movie, most of them can't seem to praise it enough. So what are you waiting for? If you call yourself a fan of action-thrillers you should have bought it, rented it, seen it YESTERDAY!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Assignment is an outstanding thriller with several plot twists driven by character, rather than star turns, the need to stage special effects, obligatory romance, and endless car chases. However, there is a car chase in here, and a dandy it is. Aidan Quinn is wonderful as both the terrorist and the naval officer \"recruited\" to eliminate him. It is rare that a second or third tier actor, such as Quinn, is given an important starring role like this that carries a film. Usually, such a role is given to an A-list actor with box office draw, which is probably why I never heard of this film before I saw it. Donald Sutherland is great as the morally ambiguous, somewhat creepy at times, agent that recruits Quinn. Ben Kingsley is fine also as the Israeli agent. The plot is very complex and there are multiple story lines, which converge in gradual fashion toward the end, and not all at once as we're used to seeing. The paranoia and claustrophobia of these type of thrillers is captured and portrayed with both moral ambiguity and frightening intensity. The locations are convincing and effective. The soundtrack is nothing special, but rarely do we get all of the above mentioned qualities these days, without dumb and\/or meaningless plot developments; unconvincing star turns; loud, annoying, music video type soundtracks; a villain that hams it up; and repeatedly a cast, costumes, and plot that cater mostly to an audience under 25. This is an outstanding thriller, which most assuredly did not get its just due upon its release. ***1\/2 of 4 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Slick, tidy, and well-made old school version of how a great international thriller should be made. Determined to nail a feared global terrorist who is known as \"Carlos the Jackal\", Jack Shaw (Donald Sutherland, \"Without Limits\", \"Space Cowboys\"), a CIA operative and his Israeli counterpart, Amos (Ben Kingsley, \"Gandhi\", \"Sexy Beast\") get a noble Naval officer, Annibal Ramirez (Aidan Quinn, \"Music of the Heart\"), to become Carlos and use him in a daring plot to get the KGB to kill the real Carlos, because he took an offer from the CIA. Sutherland and Kingsley are both good here, but the movie really belongs to Quinn here, who embodies himself here (in a dual role). Director Christian Duguay and cinematographer David Franco provide another great asset of the film here with Hitchcockian-like suspense and great sights of the world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is certainly a quality movie with a classy cast. As far as movies about Carlos the Jackal go, this one beats Bruce Willis' feeble efforts in 'The Jackal' to a bloody pulp, then spits on them. I am a bit surprised that this movie hasn't attracted more votes, something of a 'sleeper' obviously. A pity because this film is definitely worth a watch. It is clever and never dull. See it, 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Stunts sequences (as well as the Special Effects) are Brilliant, in this movie. Michael Scherer must be one of Canadas BEST Stunt Co-ordinators of all time. The explosion in the Caf\u00e9, is a wonderful combination of Stunts, Special Effects AND Visual Effects. The Director HAD an idea, that the Crew managed to create on film.

Besides that; Donald Sutherland makes one of his best performances in this film.......","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It worked! Director Christian Duguay created a very clever action\/spy thriller. The actors Donald Sutherland and especially Aidan Quinn gave a top performance. What a pity that we couldn\u00b4t see Aidan Quinn in others movies like this one till now. He was simply the best in the role as Ramirez\/Carlos for what he should have earned the Oscar. The picture was very nice. The scenes are fast paced from beginning to the end and the story doesn\u00b4t let you a chance to get bored. The movie is too underrated and I recommend it to anyone otherwise you will miss something great. Believe me you will not be disappointed. That\u00b4s why i give it 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Christian Duguay directed this tidy little espionage thriller early in his career. It plays on TV pretty regularly, albeit with some terrific scenes of violence and sex unfortunately trimmed. I finally got around to seeing the theatrical version on a $3 tape from the local video store. Naval officer Aidan Quinn is recruited to impersonate the notorious Carlos the Jackal, and gets a little too caught up in the role. Donald Sutherland Ben Kingsley play Quinn's superiors, with Sutherland a true zealot and Kingsley as the more level-headed one. The first half of this fun flick shows Quinn being trained and indoctrinated. The second half has him out in the field, making love to the Jackal's woman and shooting it out with sundry enemies. The idea is to make the Jackal look like a turncoat to the Russians, and let them take care of the world's most notorious assassin. Things don't exactly play out as planned. At times, I almost expected the cast to break out laughing at some of the corny dialogue, but they all play it very straight. In the end, this is one terrific little thriller that deserves your attention. The Jackal's former mistress teaching the highly proper and very married Quinn to rough her up, lick blood from her face, and then go down on her, alone is worth the price of admission.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best thrillers I've seen. It's intelligently made and brilliantly filmed, and is one of the few thrillers that creates complex, interesting characters and makes the movie about them, not the action. I would recommend it to just about anyone, especially people who like movies with both style and substance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this movie to be quite enjoyable and fairly entertaining. Good characters,good actors and enough suspense to keep your interest throughout. The plot twists might have been a bit much but overall a decent thriller. If you liked this film I would recommend The Spanish Prisoner, The House of Games and No Way Out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I will not comment on the story as such. I agree with most peoples comments that this is a good all round action movie with a well told story and good acting.

This film deserves 100% for cinematography for its opening sequence. The opening shot is stunning and I have not yet figured out how they did it. The movie is worth watching for that shot alone! A pity therefore that the DVD that is currently out is just the movie and no information is given as to the making of the film. Let's hope somebody comes up with the special edition.

And the even better thing is that the opening sequence also becomes the ending leaving you totally guessing! Great stuff. A must have for a collector of classic film moments.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is probably one of the best thrillers I have ever seen. It has action, but not this bullet-flying, good guys - bad guys, van damme - stallone action, but quick, realistic and nervous action, it has a plot, cause till the very end of the movie you don't know how this is gonna end, it has characters, aidan quinn, donald sutherland and ben kingsley are just perfect, and it has suspense, this movie just won't let you go away before you've seen the end of it.

Though there are only a few characters, I didn't find it difficult to keep my attention the the story, and as for the story, it's basic (not too tom clancy-difficult, but simple and raw) and realistic.

If you're in for a movie with a good story, some action and great acting, watch this and I promise, you won't go away till you've seen the end of it. The very end of it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this film. It was so intelligent but it also had some great action sequences, without basing the movie solely around them. Quinn, Sutherland and Kingsley all put in fantastic performances and there are enough twists to keep anyone interested. The ending was great as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you liked the Richard Chamberlain version of the Bourne Identity then you will like this too...Aiden Quinn does this one brilliantly, you can't help but wonder if he is really out there...I reckon he and the other main cast members probably had nightmares for weeks after doing this movie as it's so intense. When I first saw it I was just flicking channels on the remote late one evening..& I got hooked within minutes. look up www.answers.com for Ilich Ram\u00edrez S\u00e1nchez who is the character that \"carlos the Jackal\" is based on for both... I remember reading about Ilich Ram\u00edrez S\u00e1nchez's arrest in the paper in 1997. It was front page for weeks, through the trial after his arrest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"2002's the Bourne Identity is one of my all-time favorite movies. however, many fans of the book have complained that the movie had very little to do with the book's plot.

The Assignment is the real deal. It's odd that no-one on the \"Bourne Identity\" threads has mentioned this movie at all. (Well, I jst did.)

Besides the excellent plot, I personally found this movie to be as good as any espionage movie I've ever seen, with the possible exception of The Bourne

Identity itself.

The action is all completely realistic. I especially liked the protagonists' training regimen, which was very inventive.

The feel is dark and gritty. There are a few surprising plot twists. The acting is excellent.

If you like this genre, I cannot recommend this movie highly enough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Throughout the world the unmistakable imprint of the American C.I.A. can be found in many a muddled mess they have left behind. In the beginning, their objectives were simple: spy, remove enemy agents, steal classified information and destabilize unfavorable governments. Years have elapse and although their mission remains similar, their clandestine black operations now include domestic spying, discrediting U.S. citizens and infiltrating American organizations who criticize the U.S. government. This movie however, centers on the C.I.A.'s world manhunt for the infamous 'Carlos, the Jackel.' The film is called \" The Assignment \" and tells the story Lt. Cmdr. Annibal Ramirez, (Aidan Quinn) a U.S. naval officer who bears a striking resemblance to the mastermind of so many terrorist bombings. Recruited by Jack Shaw (Donald Sutherland) of the C.I.A. and Amos (Ben Kingsley), a special agent from the Israeli Mosad, Ramirez is secretly trained to look, pose, infiltrate the elusive organization and to thereafter discredit the real Jackel working for the Russians. This film is Explosively exciting, and packed with wild chases, killings and inter-country mayhem. Quinn is wonderful and surprisingly artistic playing both sides of the war. Easily one of his best efforts. ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a huge fan of the spy genre and this is one of the best of these films. The Assignment is based on a true story, which has been somewhat embellished for the big screen, and it really takes you on a fun ride. The film has a great cast, starring Aidan Quinn, Donald Sutherland and Ben Kingsley.

Naval Officer Quinn is a reluctantly recruited by Sutherland after a chance meeting with Kingsley who believes Quinn to be the famous terrorist Carlos the Jackal. Because Quinn so closely resembles Carlos, Sutherland stops at nothing to recruit him because Sutherland is obsessed with the terrorist's capture or death.

The training sequences are awesome. Quinn is really put to the test by Kingsley and Sutherland, having to withstand attacks from remote controlled snowmobiles, from eating the same food each day, to being drugged with a hallucinogen. He even has to learn how to make love to a woman the way Carlos would.

The film has some great action scenes with Quinn eluding allies because they believe he is Carlos and in his final mission when he is to kill the jackal. Throughout the film, Quinn must struggle with the new personality he has attained versus his own. Will he remain as ruthless and free as Carlos or will he once again return to his life of a good husband and father?

If you like the spy genre, this is a must see. The action is used only to propel the story of this thriller forward; no gratuitous explosions or fight scenes. Rating 10 of 10 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once I knew that Donald Sutherland, (Jack Shaw\/Henry Fields) was appearing in this film it instantly told me this was going to be a good picture to view. Most of Sutherland's pictures are full of action and suspense and he can play a rather cruel character and can also be quite charming and kind. In this picture, Jack Shaw did his very best to be a good guy and a bad guy while he was training a Naval Office to become a spy who had to change his entire identity and become a different person over night. There is plenty of car chase scenes and plenty of stunt men situations which I would not want to perform. This Naval Officer lived in a quite community with his wife and was a father, but you would never realize that fact until the film reveals his horrible background secrets which he had to keep from his family and friends. Good spy film and great acting by all the actors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is about Carlos \"The Jackal\" (Quinn), an international terrorist who, by CIA agent Henry Fields's (Sutherland) description, appears to maim women and children for the heck of it. At least that's what he says to guilt US Naval Officer Annibal Ramirez (Quinn again) into taking on the assignment of posing as Carlos and setting him up as a traitor in the eyes of the KGB. Ramirez is apparently physically identical to Carlos but mentally he is his antithesis. He is borne of order and Carlos is borne of chaos.

The movie isn't all shoot-gun-jump-around action, and that's a good thing. In its first half, Ramirez undergoes training to act and think like Carlos, and that's actually where the movie achieves its distinction from other run-of-the-mill action flicks. An Israeli agent (Kingsley), joins Fields in training Ramirez, and together they appear to take on the roles of parents in the birthing of Ramirez's new character. Ramirez is taught to dislike the things Carlos dislikes, to act on the split second like Carlos would, and even to make love like Carlos (courtesy of an ex-girlfriend of Carlos's). Naturally all that he is taught would be put to good use in the later half of the movie. It's a little contrived but Quinn gives a riveting performance as a Carlos-wannabe.

Another thing I liked about this movie was that it didn't utilize the much overdone plot point in evil twin movies - you know, the one in which the evil twin insinuates himself into the good twin's family. Ramirez's family does come into the picture, but instead they highlight how his new character wrecks havoc on his family life.

Good chuckle humor is injected into this movie, often coming the acerbic duo of Sutherland and Kingsley. An exception is the overused and apparently gratuitous joke involving Ramirez's first name (Annibal, Annabelle, get it?). Also overdone was the constant harping by the duo about how powerful and cunning and intelligent Carlos is. In my opinion, during the final showdown, the payoff wasn't able to match the build-up.

On the whole, the movie was enjoyable. I'm not a big action flick fan but this movie was more intelligent and engrossing than the average action movie and it maintained my attention throughout.

My rating: 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was over-shadowed by 'The Jackal' (Bruce Willis, Richard Gere) which was released the same year. Having seen both films, I can honestly say this is the superior film.

Granted, the production value of 'The Jackal' was very good, it probably had a substantially bigger budget. However, 'The Assignment' is well written and has a fascinating story. Aiden Quinn is flawless in dual roles. Aiden Quinn and director Christian Duguay did a great job of establishing a deep and multi-layered relationship between the title character and his family. I particularly liked the ending.

I was reminded of the Jack Ryan character in the Tom Clancy movies. Both are Naval officers thrown into unbelievably dangerous roles as they covertly work on behalf of National security. And yet, both Harrison Ford and Aidan Quinn reveal their respective characters as heros who manage to be both virile and gentle. They have a genuine tenderness and vulnerability in their relationships with their families.

What I don't understand is how the opinions of all who have posted on this movie (myself included) can be so much more positive than the luke-warm reception the film has received. This is a movie that has enough complexity and subtlety that it remains compelling after multiple viewings. If you are a fan of espionage-genre films, I recommend 'The Assignment' enthusiastically.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the classic case of an excellent film being looked over by the American public simply due to the fact it didn't have Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenneger as the lead man - Adrian Quinn does a better dual performance, thats right you heard it dual performance in this film than either of those have ever pulled off in their careers! Well anyway, now to the review...

The Assignment is loosely based upon the story of Carlos the Jackal, a 1970's radical who terrorized Europe for years before finally being apprehended by French agents. In this adaptation, a US Naval officer (Adrian Quinn) is on leave in Israel when he is apprehended by Mossad (Isreal's crack intelligence \/ counter-terrorism agency) and took in for questioning due to the fact he looks EXACTLY like the jackal (this is the one extremely cheesey part of the film, but trust me it doesn't detract from the great value of this film). When it is discovered Mr. Ramirez is not the Jackal, however, he is recruited by a hardened CIA agent by the name of Jack Shaw (Donald Sutherland, who does his usual grizzled mysterious government authority figure routine but in a stupendous manner) who has spent his life hunting the Jackal, and the series of events which follow will captivate anyone who watches this film - it is chock full of great acting, without all the usual action film cliches and one-liners, and a great plot which will surprise anyone. The three leading men - Quinn, Sutherland and Kingsley - carry this film much further than its modest budget would have allowed with anyone else filling their shoes. Also kudos to the director and his staff, the camera angles and cinematography are top notch, especially in the action scenes. The Assignment is better than anyone renting it could ever expect, its a pity the film did fairly poorly in the box office, otherwise we might see a sequel to this stupendous espionage thriller.

9\/10 stars, this reviewer HIGHLY recommends it to all potential viewers!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie last night and thought it was decent. It has it's moments I guess you would say. Some of the scenes with the special ops forces were cool, and some of the location shots were very authentic. I won't be putting this movie in my DVD collection but it is fair enough to recommend for renting. I guess nothing set the movie at another level compared to others of the same genre. The action is good, the acting is decent, the women are extremely seductive and exotic in my opinion, and the story is pretty interesting. 7 out of ten","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

When I first heard about this back in 1997, over coffee with friends, I decided to check it out. The only problem was that it was on a small screen at one of my local cinema's.

That didn't stop the enjoyment of seeing a simply great movie, with a top notch cast in Aidan Quinn, Donald Sutherland, and Ben Kingsley. The whole movie, kept me glued to my seat.

I simply found no flaws in this great movie, I give it my highest recommendation to those who love thrillers. I am very proud to have this in my collection.

10\/10 ( I don't hand this out lightly).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Picture the scene: A bored student with an empty day ahead, A video shop with a special offer of 5 video for a week rentals. This ex-student usually just grabbed a pile of videos of dubious quality for the most arbitrary of reasons (The Turning anybody?). Occasionally the odd undiscovered gem did make it into his VCR - this being the case with this film. Everything about the film is good, but much more than this the parts all mesh to provide something all too rare - a cracking good film. Why this never got a UK cinema release is beyond me, especially when we consider the crap that we have to wade through at the multiplex week on week. Whilst I'll happily accept this isn't Oscar material (but neither was sodding Titanic - schmaltzy cgi-tinged bollocks) it is a an extremely enjoyable film. I was trying to think of a way to describe how best this film should be appreciated\/accepted - The perfect film to watch while bonding with your Dad, after a coming home for the holidays, after a large Sunday lunch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must say I didn't expect much about this movie, but it turned out not to be bad at all. Most striking of course, was Aidan Quinn's performance. I would never expect to see this fine actor as an action hero. The great thing about it is that he really builds up his character (Annibal). I mean, it was not like Mel Gibson or Bruce Willis would do it, he was sensitive and modest. For example, he's really upset when he kills someone. I also noticed that some clich\u00e9s were avoided. When Annibal gets his training, you would easily expect him to be a rebel and act like any average American would do in such a situation, ask what the f*** is going on and refusing to cooperate. But Annibal is a professional marine officer, he doesn't give up and he tries not to lose his courage, in which he succeeds pretty well, except for a brief break-down on Christmas Eve, which I think was very realistic. I'm glad that Aidan Quinn got this opportunity to show another side of him (in fact two, because he plays the villain as well), even although the film wasn't that successful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An excellent \"sleeper\" of a movie about the search for Carlos the international assassin. Am surprised this film didn't rake in $100-million-plus because it's much better than most films that do so. Rent it NOW.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The acting is good, the action is good, and so is the plot. If you like some good, fast entertainment with an air for authentic action scenes, not the Hollywood (looks great, but is totally ridiculous) kind, you're in for a special treat. Just sit back and enjoy...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very intelligent and exciting thriller that doesn't rely on action but on situation, which is all to rare these days. I would compare this film to The Day of the Jackal, another film about the pursuit of a dangerous international criminal. The acting across the board is superlative - Aidan Quinn has a tricky double role as the vicious terrorist Carlos and as the Navy man who impersonates him. Donald Sutherland plays the amoral CIA agent who hires him. Ben Kingsley plays the Israeli officer who assists in the plan. This is a very tense and effective film, and it's remarkable considering just how little action there is in it. The first half of the film is all set-up, as the Navy man prepares to impersonate Carlos. The second half is a breathless actioner, the action coming out of the characters and their situations, thus making it all the more gripping. A really tight film that shouldn't be overlooked.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While \"The Jackal\" [remake of the excellent \"Day of the Jackal\"] has better esthetics [and a boatload budget], this film nails the actual persona of \"Carlos\" down...

Quinn excels as the Naval officer enlisted to impersonate the wiley Jackal to draw him out of hiding and, at the hands of Kingsley and Sutherland, turns himself inside out to do so. Risking his family, his career and all that he believes in, he takes on the task, albeit utterly unwillingly.

To say more would spoil it... this is an excellent film.

3 1\/2 Niro~Stars [of 4]","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay so I love Aidan Quinn's acting even with a bad script. This is not the case in The Assignment. As other viewers have said, this was a movie I stumbled upon on cable and got so into it I didn't want it to end. Take one Cuban American Navy Ofc.(Quinn)who is an upright, uptight soldier and family man. Add a crazed agent(Donald Sutherland) who is looking for the worlds most notorious terrorist and add a Ben Kingsley and you have \"The Assignment\". Sutherland is a witness of the most notorious terrorist Carlos actions in a cafe on a lovely day where he is so profoundly rocked at this mans evil that his sole reason to live is to get this man as long as he draws breath.

Take one soldier on a pass in Israel who is a dead ringer for this man and is beaten and held by Kingsley until they realize they have a plan. By taking on Carlos by being him, or being forever responsible for never helping rid the world of him, makes for a very heavy assignment and guilt trip. By not helping his country he is bound as a man and his military duty to chose wisely. So the training begins. Lets say Carlos training is right up there with the academy of arts and holocausts. When I say this intense and wonderfully casted,scripted and executed film rates the best, I am not understating it. All three actors could save almost any script..together this is a movie to be seen from frame one to credits. I am not into terrorism or movies about it but I got hooked! Bravo again to Aidan Quinn who for once plays a heavy that could hold up to any actor including Gary Oldman. Thats a compliment. Rent it and get lots of popcorn. Oh did I mention the sex?? It works better than \"Last Tango!\"and its educational.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was an excellent movie - fast-paced, well-written and had an intriguing plot. The special effects were innovative, especially in the opening scene. The training segment got a bit silly but overall it was a tense movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"These were two video shot movies that Troama decided were horrible so in a desperate move turned into this one movie. Perhaps the bitterness on Troama's side helped spark the comedy, but for whatever reason this is very funny stuff with an inspired bit with \"Oliver Stone\" doing commentary during the movie. Lots of cameos, lots of use of the Lesbian Cannibal HoeDown song add to the fun. Trey Parker, Ted Raimi, Julie Strain etc etc....

One of the best of recent Troama releases. Yes it's all over the place, know that going in, the production quality, or lack of, becomes one of the many running jokes. Go with it and you'll be in for a good time.

The behind the scenes, frequently the best things about Troama releases are also above average this time around. I really think the anger they felt over these two lousy films helped drive them to, well not greatness, but drove them to \"fix\" this film in a way that's better than either of the films would have been as they were originally planned.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Therefore it is important to talk about the DVD release instead of just the film. Tales from the Crapper is a film that only one studio in the world could deliver. The one that has brought us innovative and original REAL independent films for 30 plus years now: Troma. This is truly a very special film because it manages to be certainly not my favorite of the Troma-productions, but released on a disc that because of what I just said is one of my most valued and favorite DVD's. Not only counting the countless Troma discs I own, but counting my entire collection of films. The film itself is the result of an ill fated plan to produce a television series to be directed by a director who was trusted with a substantial amount of money (especially for Troma) to make something wonderful and delivered a lot of unfinished and incomprehensible material before quitting (or being fired, I am not sure which at this moment). In order to prevent having to shove a vast investment down the toilet Lloyd Kaufman and Michael Herz decided to get together a team of directors and actors and use the material as the backbone of one movie. One movie that really consists of two, in the nice old Tales From The Crypt anthology fashion, hosted by the Crapkeeper played by Mr Kaufman himself. But, as I said, not quite my own favorite of all their movies. That is greatly due to a weird sense of discipline at the various sets, forgetting about the hard Troma rule of \"no booze on the set\" which was discovered by a furious Lloyd and other less respectable employees that Troma had at the time of the filming of the added scenes. All this made it all but impossible for Mr Kaufman to make a worthwhile product in the editing room. But Lloyd Kaufman is a genius, and with the troubled added scenes to an already misshapen start-product he crafted not much less of a masterpiece. The film itself is as good as circumstances would allow the most brilliant filmmaker to slice together and it is certainly highly entertaining, totally confusing, loaded with those elements that made Troma great and certainly unique and one of a kind. As a film itself, though, not as brilliant as many other Troma productions. The genius of Independent Cinema however made the DVD of this film so much more than a release of a film with some extra's. The film is, when push comes to shove, actually only a part of the entire DVD that in its whole is a document of the difficult situation serious filmmakers find themselves in having to survive in a world that is monopolized by the few Very Big Ones who don't really allow any other players on their market turf. A document of the problems one has when trusting people to be on the level, only to find out that freedom sometimes is something that is hard to live up to and realization that access to a Movie Budget when the Boss is not around can corrupt even those who should really know better. The brilliance of this DVD is that the film is not perfect, and that Lloyd KNOWS it, and doesn't want to make anyone think he believes it is. The full-length commentary is a show in itself (as is often the case with Mr. Kaufan's audio commentaries), mixing humor, sneers at those who deserve it and highly interesting information for anyone interested in Independent Film-making in such a fashion that watching the film again with this commentary straight after viewing it on its own merits is so interesting it is hard to stop. The feature-length documentary THE THICK BROWN LINE takes us behind the scenes at the various locations where Lloyd visits the sets only to sometimes take over and make the most of what he finds there. We see him somewhat disillusioned sometimes, different from his appearances in other Making Of Documents such as Fart of Darkness and Apocalypse Soon, both to be found in the must-own MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN MOVIE box set.

The added scenes with James Gunn (who started his career at Troma only to find success as a writer an now a director in Hollywood) and Trey Parker (again someone to start out with a Troma-released work, to later be a national hero with his South Park series) are entertaining and probably (as is much else on this release) a reason for obtaining this disc alone for anyone remotely interested in the work of these two characters. Loaded with much more than I could mention here (including a SECOND audio-commentary) this is one of the best Troma-DVD-releases.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After watching this film I experienced a new sensation. I had watched a film in which the lead actor had put in a performance that almost rivaled the legend Chevy Chase in 'Fletch'. This isn't to say that the performances are comparable, but both give practically flawless delivery of their lines. That actor is Marc Singer! Singer is Jack Ford, the 'Droid Gunner' of the title, grinding out a living collecting the bounty on androids.There are some mutants, topless pleasure droids(!), a Scandinavian smuggler, and possibly a half-hearted attempt to make a statement on class or maybe even globalization or......... well it doesn't really matter. What matters about this film is the dry manner in which Singer delivers his lines resulting in side-splitting humour! What matters about this film is that director Fred Olen Ray seems to realize that serious sci-fi very rarely works, and when your budget is skimpy it is best not to take yourself to seriously. Olen Ray has said that everyone involved in this film had great fun and this transfers onto the film.I dare you to criticize a film that allows itself to portray futuristic Earth as eternally dark and neon-lit and then ends in a 'pipes and valves' warehouse. Self parody is a very redeeming quality. To summarise, Fred Olen Ray is an ambassador for independent film making and Marc Singer the perfect B-movie lead.If only Olen Ray could draft in Tim Thomerson to the equation then we'd have a film on our hands.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"me and a coupla friends form university - alberto lopez, dave hall, celina alcock (we graduated from uea, norwich, uk in 1997) still get together and watch b-movies once a month.

We are consummate experts in the art of bad movie-making, and this film was quickly placed in the top 10 of awful\/brilliant movies.

so if you've just got the beers and weed in, and need a film to laugh like a drain at, DROID GUNNER aka PHOENIX 2 is the film for you! Marc Singer is totally aware he's in a turkey of a film here, and milks it for everything he can! Matthius Hues is sublime in his wooden acting and musclebound moronity (is that a word??) as he grunts \"But I want my 20 thousand!\" Pure Shlock Gold! If you liked this, also see: TRANCERS, THE RUNESTONE, DOLLMAN and anything by Charles Band or Fred Olen Ray.....(but be warned: some of their films are completely and utterly without merit and you'll be screaming for those lost hours of your life!!!?!).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this show until my puberty but still I found it to reflex many situations that worry us when we're teenagers although it was a family oriented show. Until the mid 90's it focused more on the young adults and their situations.

That's why I loved \"Step By Step\". I mean, it offered situations for every age and unlike many shows of it's kind, it delivered expectations.

Let's be honest; this wasn't an extremely funny show, no, but it had some situations that you could feel related to but only funnier.

There was an extremely good charm between Patrick Duffy and Susan Sommers. Duffy rocked! Sommers was tender and actually funny. I was in love with Stacy Keegan because she was extremely sexy (loved her legs) and witty. But Sasha Mitchell stole the show with his Cody character. He was the man back in the day! Oh, the memories. Nowadays, this show wasn't been able to adequate correctly on the new generations and that's why it should be kept in the vault of memories. That's it, only memories.

Thank you Step By Step for making my puberty funnier.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"STEP BY STEP,\" is my opinion, is a pure ABC hit! I can't recall every episode, but I still enjoyed it. It's hard to say which episode was my favorite. However, I think it was always funny when a mishap occurred at school. I always laugh at that. As a matter of fact, I think just about every single one of J.T. (Brandon Call) and Cody's (Sasha Mitchell) lines were funny. It would have been nice if Penny (Patrika Darbo) had stayed on the show throughout its entire run. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, I hope it never stops airing in syndication.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i like full house and step by step the same. i don't have a favorite episode i just like certain scenes. but some scenes i don't like but i haft to say the reason i started watching this show is because it had Suzanne Summers in it. and my most favorite character was Dana. and Karen could be a snob sometimes, but she was good character also. i just like to watch family shows instead of trash that has a lot of drugs and violence. this show is a lot like other family shows where one of the parents are always strict about curfews and dates. other than step by step, my other favorite shows are full house, Sabrina the teenage witch, gomer pyle usmc, the andy griffith show, and dukes of hazzard.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Out of all the Bat-films, Batman Returns is my favorite. This beautiful, dark, and funny film is one of Tim Burton's best work. Although it is much violent and darker, this is the Batman that creator Bob Kane envisioned many years ago. Michael Keaton reprises his role as the avenger of Gotham City. This time he's up against two deadly foes, Danny Devito's Penguin and Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman. With a great cast and film score by Danny Elfman, the movie takes us on an adventure as Batman battles the evil forces that are trying to take over Gotham City. Christopher Walken makes a great appearance as Max Shrek, a shrewd businessman who has an evil scheme up his sleeve. But of course, Michelle Pfeiffer is the one that steals the show. With all of these components, you have a film that will blow you away. This is the reason why you go to the movies. It's got everything. It's really a shame that Tim Burton didn't get to direct the other sequels. If so I think the franchise would still be going strong today. Batman Returns is an awesome experience for fans that like cool movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"And a perfect film to watch during the holiday season as the winter\/Xmas atmosphere that Burton creates for Gotham City is way cool. It's weird that Warner decided to release this as a summer film. It doesn't fit.

But what's even weirder, when you consider the content of this film, is that it was aimed at families. An upper-class family throws their mutant baby down the sewer, a socio phobic billionaire dresses up in leather as a flying rodent, a lonely secretary dresses up in leather as a feline and a freak runs for political office. And S&M and bondage are presented in a very perverted way. But Burton got away with it. His visual style in this film is at it's best.

This and Batman: Dead End are the only true live-action incarnations of the comic-book character. True, the animated series was the closest to the source material, but compared with Batman Forever and the un-nameable one after that, Batman Returns is the best of the four.

Darker and more violent than the first movie, the sense of Gothic pathos reaches a new high. I was quite keen on Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne (don't even get me started on George Clooney!), he displayed the right balance of weirdo loner and cool crime fighter. Michelle Pfieffer is great as Catwoman (much sexier and more 'realisticly' cat-like), she wears that leather outfit better than Halle Berry. And Danny DeVito was so convincing as the Penguin that his scenes became disturbing to watch. And Christopher Walken is brilliant as the spooky Max Shreck (if you think you recognise Chip Shrek it's none other than a very young Leatherface\/Butterfinger).

Danny Elfman's score is also even better than it was first time round. His powerful and engaging themes are way better than the dross that followed in the later 2 Schumacher movies. This movie is the Batman phenomenon at its Zenith. Forget the following sequels and stick to the animated series after this. Let's hope that Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale can bring some integrity back to the live action Batman with their movie next year.

This DVD was one of the first ever DVDs released by Warner (almost 7 years ago!!!) and as a result there are NO features and the case is a snapper. Pick it up cheap like I did and hope for an SE in the future.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ah, Batman Returns, is it possible to have a sequel to be almost as good as the original? With Batman Returns, it came pretty close! We have terrific actors and a great plot with the dark knight and two new villains, Catwoman and The Penguin. We have Michael Keaton back as Batman and he's still awesome than ever. Michelle Pfieffer, the perfect choice for Catwoman and was perfectly cast into place. As much as I love and is such an incredible actress Annette Benning, she couldn't have been Catwoman, she doesn't really have the look. Danny DeVito, who could have imagined him as The Penguin? He was just great and terrifying!

Batman returns with a more loving community of Gotham City, they are celebrating Christmas time with, Max Shrek played by a creepy Christopher Walken. The perfect villain who mistreats his lovely secretary, Selina who happens to hear too much at his office causing him to push her out the window in hopes that she dies and will never reveal the information of knowing the Penguin and the attempt to make him loved in Gotham. When she survives and is awakened by cats, she wants revenge and is ready to go at it with her cats! But there is also another active villain, The Penguin who is in search of his parents that abandoned him and now he is looking to be the new mayor of Gotham City! Can Batman be able to stop both super villains from creating their hanous acts and stop the mayor from destroying the city as well?

You'll have to see! Batman Returns is just as good as the original Batman, despite the first one remaining the true classic, this one still takes you for a ride. And come on, I mean we've got Michelle in leather! Her classic moment of just meeting Batman and The Penguin \"Meow\" is classic! There are memorable characters, lines, and sets! You'll have a blast! Trust me!

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many of us find art agreeable only when the masterpiece itself touches something deep inside us. That is, the completed creation can only be accepted and appreciated if we can somehow personally relate to it. It was winter, here in Australia 1992 when I had seen Batman Returns at the cinemas and it blew me away. Both \"me's\". I was supposed to belong to an ideal, a standard, but at the same time I was living another life. Tim Burton was the first film maker to say its OK for a comic movie to be dark and to confess that darkness can happen to us all. After Tim Burton's Batman interpretations, many other dark comic book heroes and anti-heroes flooded the cinemas. Comic book folklore for decades had told of friendly, likable heroes with dashingly handsome smiles and magical superpowers who fly in the sky, and spun powerful webs from their wrists and wore red boots and had the strength of a locomotive. But what happens when you are only ten years old and you see your parents coldly executed in front of your very eyes? You snap. Somewhere in your psyche,your young tender psychological make up breaks apart. The only way such pain and hurt can be managed is to create an alternate persona.You make a promise. Your other self will be stronger, harness all the anger all the rage to use whatever means available to avenge the innocence of your parents onto that criminal, those criminals, any criminal. This is life seen through Bruce Wayne's eyes. Both pairs. The world he sees is dark, gloomy, and cold. Although he patrols the streets and people hear him cruise by, they don't rush out to get his autograph. He is their Saviour, not the winner of a personality contest. Batman Returns is about losers. Batman, for yet another Christmas, remains \"the only lonely man beast in town\". Bruce Wayne never gets to lawfully arrest the vile Max Shreck. The Penguin never gets to unleash his pain of being discarded by his parents onto the citizens of Gotham, and Selina Kyle is forever lost to being mentally fragmented and traumatized. And the hero doesn't get the girl- or cat.This movie delves into the desire in all of us to want so desperately to belong, to have a home, as expressed by Bruce Wayne and Oswald Cobblepot.The film brings out a need in all of us to be heard, respected and not ignored as desired by Selina Kyle , Oswald and of course Bruce Wayne. But sometimes we are all suppressed in one way or another, we are told to be an ideal, to behave to a certain standard. That is until we finally snap. Only hope remains at the end of the movie as we see Catwoman rise towards the night sky. But come what may we all must wish good will towards all men and women. As for me , I cant say that I will reach a point where I will believe my problem with duality will be reconciled. But thats OK. We all have a dark side. Batman Returns is not only the best of the Batman films ,it is truly a stand out exceptionally fine masterpiece of storytelling.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know why critics cal it bizarre and macabre. I really don't. Dark -yes, bizarre - no. It i s sad and with lots of emotions, specially with the Pinguin's story. They say it has elements of S&M but I really don't find anything of that sort except for Catwoman's whip.

This movie is deeper than its genre and villains aren't just some crazy freaks dressed like on a masquerade. They have strong motives with strong feelings involved. Catwoman (a great performance by Michelle Pfeifer!) isn't just a sexy chick who likes steeling jewels - she's on her personal crusade and Pinguin... well, by the end of the movie you really feel sorry for him (strong performance by Danny DeVito). Again, I think Michael Keaton is the best Batman and he carries his costume well.

You can totally see that it is a Tim Burton movie, because he has an unusual style and is a very talented guy. But also the music is fantastic and fits the emotions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tim Burton the man behind the original Batman film and Beetlejuice, brings the world the sequel to Batman, that exceeds the original in more ways than one. Firstly Michelle Pfeiffer and Danny De Vito are a great mix of Batmans enemies. The dark, deadly and sexy Catwoman works well to rattle some heads within the story and penguin works in the same way that the joker worked in the original. The sets are stunning and immaculate. Gotham city has so many dark alleyways that you could never know what's happening at one time or another. The only thing that gives it a bad name is its script, which at times seems to lapse and then not recover for while. Tim Burtons direction bring superhero films into a new realm. Beats all the superman films and the other Batman films by a mile. Though in terms of realisation the new Batman begins has a bite where this one lacks, but Burton is a more original director than Nolan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really wanted to be able to give this film a 10. I've long thought it was my favorite of the four modern live-action Batman films to date (and maybe it still will be--I have yet to watch the Schumacher films again). I'm also starting to become concerned about whether I'm somehow subconsciously being contrarian. You see, I always liked the Schumacher films. As far as I can remember, they were either 9s or 10s to me. But the conventional wisdom is that the two Tim Burton directed films are far superior. I had serious problems with the first Burton Batman this time around--I ended up giving it a 7--and apologize as I might, I just couldn't help feel that Batman Returns just has too many small direction, plot and script problems scattered throughout to justify a 10.

But Burton _almost_ trumps the problems with sheer force of style, and even though there are a lot of small flaws, Batman Returns is still a great film, especially if you're a Burton fan, as Batman Returns has just as much in common with The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) and Edward Scissorhands (1990) as it does with anything else in the Batman universe.

The film begins strongly, with the Cobblepots having a baby. We see their dismay--people walk out of the birthing room with horror on their faces, ready to vomit. Later, they have the baby in a small cage. Finally they take it out for an evening stroll and dump it in the Gotham City River. The baby ends up becoming Batman villain The Penguin (Danny DeVito).

Meanwhile, Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) is the film's \"evil capitalist\", comparable to Grissom (Jack Palance) in Batman. He is planning on duping Gotham City in various ways, and we see him emotionally abusing his secretary, the timid Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer). When Kyle discovers one of the nefarious plots, Grissom tries to get rid of her, but she is rescued by cats, becoming Catwoman.

While all of this is going on, The Penguin, who has long been only rumored to exist and who is thought to be dangerous, begins a scheme to be presented to the public as a good guy, despite having less than benevolent, ulterior motives.

Before re-watching Burton's Batman films this time, I didn't remember just how little the films are about Batman (Michael Keaton). It's almost as if Burton didn't feel the character was interesting enough to focus on. The focus here is much more on the villains, especially The Penguin. Batman doesn't appear very often, especially in the beginning of the film, and surprisingly often, we're watching him watching The Penguin.

Although some viewers necessarily count the above as a flaw, I can't say that I do, even if I'd like to know more about Batman and follow his story more. The villains' stories are interesting, too, and as an \"origin story\" for two major Batman villains, Batman Returns is already more than complex in terms of plot.

However, there are some character problems that I do count as a flaw. The Penguin has a cadre of circus performers who do his bidding, but even though they're frequently on screen, we never get to learn anything about them. Burton has a core of characters as intriguing as those in Tod Browning's Freaks (1932) available, with actors as interesting as Vincent Schiavelli, but he just doesn't have the space to use them.

For that matter, he hardly has space to explore Catwoman. The film plays as if Catwoman may have been as developed and featured in as many scenes as The Penguin, but that cut of the film would have been 4 hours long. So the bulk of the Catwoman scenes had to be excised. Of course, all of this barely leaves any room for Batman. Burton has Batman turn very dark in the public's eye in this film, and unusually, he never bothers to resolve this. As far as we know, at the end, Gothamites still think that Batman is a murdering lunatic. That's an interesting development, but unfortunately it ended up being dropped between this film and the next.

As for the script, although there are minor problems including some non-sequiturs and bizarre decisions (in terms of logic) made by characters, it's clear that Burton and writers Sam Hamm and Daniel Waters are not exactly trying to tell a traditional story. A lot of the dialogue is pun-oriented, but often this is fairly subtle and\/or complex (of course, sometimes it is very blatant or transparent, too). It helps to look at Batman Returns as a more \"poetic\" film, as I believe was the intention. This also carries over into more general plot and directorial decisions--plenty of odd character actions, including from minor characters, are done in service of a general mood or style, and that style works very well.

\"Dark\" is the easiest way to sum up Batman Returns in a word, and whether that's a positive or negative depends on your disposition. Anyone who knows me knows that I love dark. So for me, Burton's style largely transcends the flaws in the plot and the script. In many ways, Batman Returns is like an insane, campy horror film, with beautifully eerie production design. Like Batman, Burton is still making many references to other films, but instead of Vertigo (1958) and Star Wars (1977) (well, there's still a slight Star Wars reference), he invokes films like Nosferatu (1922) (including that \"Max Schreck\" was the name of the actor who played the Dracula-like character there), Motel Hell (1980), the aforementioned Freaks, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) (which has a surreal, dark edge to it) and zombie films--made most explicit in The Penguin's final scene.

In terms of visuals and general atmosphere--and that includes the general \"feel\" of the story, the characters and so on--this couldn't be a stronger 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Batman Returns is a really dark movie, that shows the Caped Crusader fighting against the Penguin and the sexy Catwoman (I'll get to them later). Michael Keaton acts well as Bruce Wayne, showing he is a good actor. Tim BUrton directs this picture well, and the locations of the movie are impressive. The villains: Danny deVito is menacing as the Penguin. A cruel, yet disturbed man, that had a really hard childhood. But, Michelle Pfeiffer steals the picture. She is the BEST Catwoman ever! She is threatening, and extremely sexy. There's a scene where she kisses Batman the cat way that just heats the movie up. The action scenes are good too, and the ending is dramatic and tragic, probably the best ending of a Batman movie. Tim Burton shows he can manage a Batman movie really well (he already demonstrated this with the first Batman) and also gives Batman a darker nature. So much like him.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's been said that Batman Begins in the first Batman movie to \"get it right\" but I think that's a horrible overstatement, for I think the new Batman film, although greater that Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, pales compared to Tim Burton's classics, with this one being the best of the five. The darkness is beautiful, as is the music and scenery, creating a Gotham City cloaked in mystery, unlike Batman Begins, where Gotham City is a normal-looking city. The villains are terrific in this movie. You literally can't take your eyes off of the penguin and cat woman. I applaud Tim Burton for being original with his use of the penguin as a freak, rather than an ordinary criminal or a clone of the old Batman TV show. In Batman Begins we have the scarecrow, whose not nearly as demanding on screen as the penguin or cat woman. The film doesn't need to focus only on Batman, because we already know his story, and it is the villains who we are exploring and trying to figure out, and they are the ones who create the plot, with the penguin running for mayor and seeking revenge for his parents' desertion by killing the first born sons of Gotham, a task he fails. Danny Devito gives the finest performance ever by a superhero villain in any film, surpassing even Nicholson's joker. The closing scene where the penguins drag the dead body of the penguin into the water is touching and powerful. It's a tragedy that Tim Burton wasn't allowed to complete his trilogy, since Warner Bros., interesting in marketing appeal, wanted to \"lighten\" the Batman movies up. And they got their wish...unfortunately. Tim Burton planned on directing the third film, using the Riddler as the villain, with no Two-Face and Robin to mess it up, and I'm sure Michael Keaton would've signed on. So this is the last great Batman Film. Batman Begins is dark, but boring, tedious, ordinary, filled with lackluster villains, and a playboy Bruce Wayne. A decent Batman film, but the best Batman film ever? Never. Batman Returns holds that crown.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Batman Returns is to be considered quality when one speaks of superhero films. Its predecessor, Batman, in my opinion, is by far the greatest and most well thought out of the comic book genre. For one to say that Batman Returns was disappointing, he or she has not fully watched the movie and considered the acting of Danny Devito as the Penguin. Devito and Walken offer some memorable moments. The tale of Batman is suppose to be dark and Tim Burton has fulfilled how the comic portrays Batman. Batman Returns provides comic relief, action, suspense and fantasy; and it should not be viewed as 'crap', although we are all entitled to our own opinions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This sequel proves that Tim Burton was for all intents and purposes THE best choice to ever direct a Batman movie. The story focuses on Baman taking on three enemies: The Penguin (wonderfully played by Danny DeVito) Catwoman (the slinky Michelle Pfeiffer) and Max Shreck (the superb Christopher Walken).

Perhaps the best entry in the series, it has it all: complex themes, complex characters and a dark tone that truly stands out. The cast is simply wonderful although the obvious stand-out is DeVito as the multi-layered Penguin. Here is a guy who is evil, pitiable, funny and perhaps most importantly, scary. The infamous scene with Shreck's image consultants still sends shivers up my spine. In other words, the cast is simply a joy to watch and all turn in first rate performances.

I do not hesitate to say that \"Batman Returns\" is my favorite of all the Batmans released (sorry, Dark Knight fans). If you want a superhero film that has a little more to offer besides flashy effects and big scale action, then please check out this badly underrated film.

If nothing else, it's at least the best film Tim Burton has ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So what is 'Batman Returns', anyway?

It was marketed as an action film, and many people who've seen it seem to think that they've watched an action film - but really, there isn't that much action, and Tim Burton barely seems interested in it.

People often align it with the 'grittier' superhero comics of the late eighties, but honestly, if you've read 'The Dark Knight Returns', that seems just a little absurd; Burton's excessive imaginings have more in common with the day-glo sixties TV series (the Penguin drives around in a giant plastic duck, for goodness' sake).

Burton's style is often described as Gothic, and that's a little closer to what we see on screen; the Penguin - deformed, malign, with a tangled history and a subterranean lair - is a Gothic menace dressed up in more respectable Dickensian clothes - Udolfo masquerading as Uriah Heep.

But what of Catwoman? She may be raised from the dead, but that PVC catsuit is decidedly Twentieth Century, and her alter ego Selina Kyle's world is all boardrooms and apartments - reminiscent of a 1930s romantic comedy.

And then it clicks. The smart but downtrodden secretary romanced by a lonely millionaire? The ensuing complications caused by deception and disguise? 'Batman Returns' is, quite clearly, a romantic comedy in the old Hollywood style, filtered through Burton's S&M dungeon sensibilities. It has more in common with 'The Hudsucker Proxy' (including expressionist sets) than it does with other superhero films.

Like many a romantic comedy, it centres around the make-over of the heroine; not from ugly duckling to swan, but from doormat to dominatrix. Michelle Pfeiffer gives one of the performances of her (often remarkable) career; she's iconically sexy as Catwoman (poor Halle Berry never had a prayer), playful and vindictive, memorable because she knows how to act with her whole body. In retrospect, though, it's her scenes as Selina that impress; almost every one of them is a little comic gem, particularly the glimpse we get of her lonely home life. It's a delicately balanced tragicomic performance, and it's in these scenes that the film really sparks to life. Nothing moves me quite like Selina and Bruce Wayne dancing under the mistletoe to Siouxsie and the Banshees, a gun held between them, simultaneously empowered and trapped by their alter egos, doomed to conflict. Forget the easy sentimentality of 'Big Fish' or the gossamer emotions of 'Edward Scissorhands' - this is the most heartfelt scene in all of Burton's films. Love, revenge, fatalism, fetishism, insanity, self-loathing and not a little wit, all in a few short lines and absolutely nailed by the actors - particularly Pfeiffer.

Elsewhere, Danny de Vito almost matches her, finding the wounded dignity buried beneath those truly repellent long-johns. The upper-crust villain of the comics is revealed to be nothing more than a sham; Burton's Penguin is a feral creature subjected to his own, Eliza Doolittle-style make-over (almost literally an 'ugly duckling'). It's Burton's most radical - and funniest - reinvention. Christopher Walken's Max Schreck completes a perfect triptych of villains, sliding between casual charm and blank-eyed psychosis with unnerving ease (and is it just me, or does his company's logo bring to mind Mickey Mouse? Perhaps we should ask former Disney animator Burton).

Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins' - a real action film - has been much praised as the first film to do justice to Batman; I admire Nolan's film, but it would be a pity if it were allowed to overshadow this idiosyncratic gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"forget the over-rated \"Batman Begins, THIS is the ultimate Batman movie that you are not gonna want to miss out on. this movie has everything, and it totally surpasses the first 1989 mega hit. it may not have done as well as the first one in at the box office, but this is certainly a much better film. the visuals are amazing, Burton works his magic as he always does in his films once again. Gotham city, Batmans hunting ground, is an amazing sight to behold. the story itself is actually quite good and the 2 villains in this one are VERY interesting, much more interesting in fact then there comic book counterparts. Tim Burton and screenplay writer Daniel Walters go a step further to bring you a truly emotional connection with these characters. the Penguin, played to perfection by Danny Devito, is a type of tragic character who was abandoned by his parents at birth and later in life seeks revenge on the world that denied him. very disgusting to watch at times, but he has some of the most classic lines a villain could ever utter in a single film. the other villain is Catwoman, played so absolutely brilliantly by Michelle Pfieffer, one of the most beautiful actresses of our time and gives a WOW performance, and totally steals the show as far any of the past and present live action batman villain's is concerned. she also has a tragic background. her name is Selina kyle, and she is a very put-upon, mousy secretary for a shrewd business man called Max Shreck, who later murders her by shoving her out a window. somehow, she survives and is \"awakened\" by cats, and decides right then and there to become the legendary Catwoman, not before, of course, the amazing sequence in which she completely lets loose and wrecks her entire apartment in one of the most Oscar worthy performance's of rage and anger i have ever seen in an actress.

Michael Keaton once again dons the cape and cowl as Batman and also as Bruce Wayne and THIS time hes much darker. there's not much else to say here except that Keaton is simply the best actor to play Batman ever. he just oozes cool, and he has a kind of Clint Eastwood approach to playing Batman, and he is very dark. he doesn't talk a lot, and when he does, he sounds very cool and he doesn't make his voice sound all goofy and fake IE bales \"batman\" voice in batman begins. he struts around Gotham like a man possessed by his own inner demons. he's pshycologically disturbed, and you know it. in this outing he takes on 2 of the most famous baddies to ever grace the batman comic book world.

i have to say though, despite the awesomeness of the action scenes, like the scenes with the coolest Batmobile EVER racing down the street knocking thugs to the ground and batman gliding across Gotham, its the romantic angle between Pfieffer and Keaton that really makes this movie classic a top choice for anyone who wants to see the REAL Batman in action, i rate this a 10, would give it more if i could.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why is it better? Because it's true to the dark vision of the comic. Because the imagery is inventive and, unlike the first, there are real moments of fear and pathos in this one. The first one had too much of Jack Nicholson's shtick, too much Prince music, and an awkward \"romance.\" Here, instead of one villain, there are three. No Robert Wuhl, and the leading lady is more than just a pretty face. In fact, Pfeiffer is the #1 attraction of this film. Her transformation is what drives the running theme, teetering on the edge of sanity and insanity, good and evil. She becomes truly fearsome. The costumes and makeup are excellent. Danny DeVito's Penguin is inspired and anguished, not just a nut. His circus gang posse is the one element of comic relief (besides that giant duck). Max Shrek is the only character I'd have toned down, Walken is pretty hammy as the ruthless businessman. Danny Elfman's score is a perfect fit as usual, and the Siouxie and the Banshees song (\"Face to Face\") is easily the best of any of the songs from any of the films, a perfect match of musical artist and film soundtrack. The least campy of the films, it is macabre, doesn't pander, and demands second and third viewings like an amusement park ride. Bravo Tim Burton and cast!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I always thought the Batman Returns was a great sequel to Batman. The story was an interesting one and Danny Devito, Christopher Walken and Micheal Keaton gave great performances. Plus lets face it, Tim Burton was a genius and did the comic book character more justice than Joel Screwmacher ever did.

Plot: Oswald Cobblepot also know as The Penguin(played By Danny Devito) is abandoned by his parents as child for being deformed. He uses this as an excuse to masquerade a sinister plot to abduct the first born children of Gotham with the help of his goons(Red Triangle Gang) and a very shady tycoon Max Shreck(played by Christopher Walken). Max Shreck later makes Penguin the mayor of Gotham. Selina Kyle(Michelle Pfeiffer) is pushed out of a window by Max Shreck and is revived by cats. Later on she develops cat-like qualities and seeks to destroy Max Shreck and Batman. Her reasons for wanting to destroy the dark knight are not explained.

Opinion: Batman Returns is a classic. It has a darker feel in terms of atmosphere. Tim Burton always had a knack for making grim backgrounds look appealing. Micheal Keaton is still sharp as Batman. Danny Devito steals the show as Oswald Cobblepot\/The Penguin. When you think about it, he would have made a better Violator for the movie Spawn than John Leguizamo. Michelle Pfeiffer gave Catwoman more personality than Halle Berry ever could. Max Shreck is one of Christopher Walken's best roles. The main reason why I like Batman Returns is that its fun. Its not only creative but its also fun. Something a lot of big budget movies these days sorely lack. The Batman series goes to the dogs after Tim Burton decided to do no more. You don't believe me, look at Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Thank god that Christopher Nolan breathed life back into the series with Batman Begins.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've enjoyed this movie ever since I was a kid and I still do. I also liked Batman forever back then but the real difference is that THIS movie didn't date when I grew up. I did notice a few scenes in this film that didn't make any sense like: 'Hhmm... the crowd is angry. Hey! Where did they get those tomatoes from?' Then I thought: 'who cares? This movie is not 100% serious anyway!'

The original Tim Burton Batman was great as well but it was a bit cheesy at some parts and I didn't like all the actors. This movie improved on almost every aspect with a wonderful cast, a more Gothic style and no involvement of Prince.

Nowadays, many fans of the Christopher Nolan movies dislike Burton claiming that the Nolan movies are more serious and therefore more loyal to the comics. I don't think this is entirely true: -There has never been an adaptation of the original concept of Batman which was a vengeful criminal killer with a gun. -Batman has taken many forms over the years peeking its silliness in the 60's (and a bit with Batman & Robin). A director is free to choose what kind of Batman he's going to portray as long if it's good.

My opinion: Batman doesn't necessarily have to be serious. It's about a man in a rubber suit with pointy ears. Burton managed to create a perfect balance between the silliness and the darkness surrounding the whole idea.

I just recently watched the Nolan movies and I love those ones as well (especially The Dark Knight). There's simply something about this movie that interests me more. Nolan's goal was to give the character much more depth and in doing so, he looked for an explanation of nearly every aspect of Batman. That's a bit too much for me, I'm a bigger fan of the more abstract version of Batman. The Burton movies are more theatrical and centered around the atmosphere.

My conclusion is that you shouldn't compare the Nolan with the Burton movies. They're just different and it's up to you to decide which one you like better. My respect is for both directors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1992's \"Batman Returns\" was Tim Burton's second round as director and yet again he scored a hit by making this film again dark and gloomy like his 1989 one. Gotham City again is a place of darkness and gloom with crime and corruption boiling out from every street corner. It was also clever to see how Burton used politics as a subplot that tied in well and neat with the business corruption of businessman Max Shreck(Christopher Walken)and the plan to make the \"Penguin\"(Danny DeVito) mayor of Gotham! Anyway Keaton again returns as \"Batman\"\/Bruce Wayne and he gives another stellar performance as a strange and torn man who just can't find love in a normal world yet he is challenged when he meets another lonely soul in Selina Kyle only Ms. Kyle has a dark secret of her own one that's very slinky and she's just a downright vamp as the sexy and mysterious yet dangerous \"Catwoman\"(Michelle Pfeiffer). A plan forms between both villains to destroy Gotham and most of all both want to rid themselves of the bat. Really this film even though violent and somewhat gross with many penguin scenes is clearly an exciting thrill ride from start to finish as you never find a dull moment and thumbs up to Tim again for his exploring of the characters as dark and conflicted it just made the film even more interesting. The performance from Michelle Pfeiffer was the best ever as no one could have played \"The Catwoman\" any better and Devito was perfect as the \"Penguin\" his body frame fit the character just perfect his performance even though ghoulish was fun to watch. \"Batman Returns\" is an entertaining thrill ride that you can't take your eyes off of as a viewer you will enjoy it many times it's that thrilling and explosive.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember really liking BATMAN RETURNS when it came out in 1992, but now I think that this is the best of all the Batman movies (even over Christopher Nolan's terrific 2005 BATMAN BEGINS and definitely over the seriously over-hyped overrated 2008 THE DARK KNIGHT!). I originally remember thinking that the 1st BATMAN w\/ Jack Nicholson was the best (and I still love it). But I think that this movie really hits the nail on the head. The 4 main characters (Batman, Penguin, Catwoman, and Max Shreck) are all vivid and memorable. You really get to see what Batman\/Bruce Wayne is all about in Keaton's terrific characterization. Keaton is the best Batman, not Kilmer, Clooney, or even the up-and-coming Bale, who was exceptional in BB and could have stolen top honors from Keaton had his character not been destroyed by Nolan's hack film-making in TDK !.

Danny DeVito as The Penguin is disturbing, scary, hilarious, and lethal. DeVito is great and doesn't need scenery-chewing to give great performance like Nicholson's Joker. The viewer can actually sympathize with this disfigured outcast and his plight to fit into normal society. I had never really been big fan of Michelle Pfeiffer until this film, but this is definitely my favorite performance of hers. Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle is goofy and odd at first, then when she is transformed into Catwoman, she is simultaneously sexy and scary, a total deadly sexpot! Also, I feel that Keaton and Pfeiffer have more chemistry than Keaton and Basinger from BATMAN; they form a tragic love story. And Christopher Walken as Shreck is, well, as always, Christopher Walken!

BATMAN RETURNS, more so than BATMAN, is more confident and focused. It is assured film-making from beginning to end. The way Burton introduces the Penguin's heartbreaking backstory grabs you from the very beginning. The first 5 minutes are among my favorite beginnings to any film: Danny Elfman's music sets an ominous foreboding tone that defines the rest of the film. It is a modification from the original BATMAN and a great one!

Then flash forward 33 years to the present day Gotham and we are introduced to powerful businessman Shreck who wants to build new power plant in Gotham. During same scene we meet Shreck's meek, bullied, under-confident secretary Selina Kyle. And not long after all this is the film's exciting opening action sequence as Batman must battle The Penguin's Red Triangle Gang, a fun yet lethal group of outcasts and circus performers. Penguin sets plan in motion to attack the Gotham Christmas celebration, kidnap Shreck in the chaos, and force him to help re-introduce him to society. Meanwhile, Selina discovers Shreck's criminal plans and so he \"kills\" her by shoving her out his high-rise office, then she is revived by cats.

Sound convoluted? Yes, but Burton never claimed to be posing a realistic story. He has created a world where the viewer can accept that things like this can happen, a dark, noirish world comprised of mistreated, deformed outcasts who deep down only want acceptance and to fit in. Confident storytelling if you ask me!

The action scenes are few and far in between, but they are all exciting, entertaining, and nail-biting. They aren't there just for show, the way some in BATMAN are. And they all make sense. The climactic scene with Penguin's \"army\" marching into the center of Gotham with Batman zoning in on Penguin's hideout and sidekick butler Alfred (Michael Gough in a welcome return from the original!) assisting Batman is succinct, solid, heart-pounding fun!

I also love the Christmastime, wintry setting, which adds to the super-dark, cold feel of Burton's Batman world. I also love the way Burton slowly introduces to us the Batman \"toys\" without shoving them down our throats. Each \"toy\" is appropriate for that moment in the film and we are compelled to accept them for their purpose. And although dark, RETURNS is still a funny film. DeVito's Penguin has many funny lines. So does Walken's Shreck. The Batman-Catwoman exchanges are extremely stimulating and humor-filled as well! A great ensemble! All in all, BATMAN RETURNS is a tightly woven tale of the dark forces at play in Tim Burton's fun, comic book world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a kid I grew up with the chintzy 60's TV series (and no I'm not that old\u0085 POW!). However when director Tim Burton brought his novel vision to the silver screen, I simply took an immediate shine to it and never backed away from favoring his installments over the much hyped-latest additions ('Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight'), which I don't really care for. Even if they're going for a much more grounded approach and wanting to explore Bruce Wayne\/Batman psyche further\u0085 but in honesty I don't think there's all that much to tap in to. I wanted crazy fun with a dark streak and in my eyes that's what Burton brought across, and this is the reason why I can watch them over and over again.

After wowing audiences with the 1989 'Batman', thanks to the gaudily Gothic art direction and Jack Nicholson take no-prisoners performance of the camped-up, but psychotic Joker. Burton would return 3 years later for the follow up and my favorite of the batman films so far; 'Batman Returns'. Camp, but well-done. In what would fair up to being even more expansive, louder, dreary, and nihilistic and having two villainous foes for the price of one. Enter the grotesque Penguin (with Danny DeVito magnificently going out on a limb) and the ravishing Catwoman (a steamy Michelle Pfeiffer who fills out the suit nicely) coming to spoil Gotham's party. Again Batman (an aptly brooding Michael Keaton is equally commendable and looks quite imposing in that bat suit\u0085 look at the eyes) plays second fiddle to the bad guys, but I always preferred this sober interpretation of Batman that gave him an ominously gloomy mystique, but also a wearing psychological complexity that never felt the need to force feed. And his turn of Bruce Wayne was well served too. Burton's illustratively atmospheric direction opens with his sleek Gothic style engraving an carnival comic book world filtered in with a splendid range of characters and vivid costumes. The moody narrative (in what probably is a tad too long) is more so symbolic in its progression, rather show-piecing its spontaneously arresting and extravagant set-pieces and sharply etched art direction covered with shadowy tinges and grey\/blue neon lighting of a wintry backdrop. The magnetically free-flowing camera-work takes flight and Danny Elfman's stately spacious score balances the playfulness along with gloomy touches with a very hypnotic pull. The rest of the performances might be overshadowed, but Christopher Walken digs in his teeth into a smarmily glassy role of a two-faced businessman Max Shreck. Pat Hingle is back, but gets very little to do as Commissioner James Gordon and Michael Gough is delightful as Alfred. In solid support are Michael Murphy, Andrew Bryniarski, Vincent Schiavelli, Doug Jones and Peter Rubens also makes a cameo appearance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Batman Returns It is my opinion that the first Batman of the Batman series was only half the movie that Batman Returns is. In the first Batman by Tim Burton we had only Batman and The Joker both played wonderfully by Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson.

In Batman Returns we have what I feel is the most perfectly cast Batman movie (yes even better then Dark Knight). Keaton returns as Batman and is perfect in the role never going to far over top with the character of Batman, which is perfect in this film when it comes to the two villains that he's up against. First you have Danny DeVito who is delightfully insane as the Penguin. Then you have Michelle Pfeiffer as Cat-Woman, who I dare to say is one of the most interesting and complex villains in the Batman movies. I feel this way about Pfeiffer because of the way she becomes the Cat-Woman she starts off as the rather pathetic mousy Selena Kyle and then truly dives into the dark side of her mind and what you get is a brilliant performance of a woman who goes from trying to be a hero to a villain and then I suppose back to a hero in the end. Also in this amazing cast you have the evil businessman Max Schreck played by the amazing and legendary Christopher Walken. While in a supporting role there's something about this role that I love and maybe it's the look of Schreck in the film that makes his performance all the better then it already is.

Story wise I have to say that Batman Returns has so much more going on this time around as opposed to the first Batman. Part of the reason I loved this story so much is the fact that Burton dared to go in a much more darker and twisted direction as opposed to Nicholson's over the top antics. You have the story on the Penguin and how he tries to deceive the people of Gotham into making him the new hero and mayor of the city. Then you have Cat-Woman and her struggle to decide just who she really is and what she should do with her new persona. When it comes to Batman I feel that in this one he's more the ring leader that holds the two stories together but of course kicking ass at the same time.

Cinematography was the film is dark and atmospheric just like the story that's taking place within it. Gotham City never looked as good as it does on Blu-Ray and HD so if you have the chance to see it this way then by all means do because it truly adds to the overall experience of Batman Returns.

So all in I truly feel that of all the Batman movies Batman Returns believe it or not tops the Dark Knight for me because while I enjoyed that movie for Heath Ledger's amazing performance as the Joker I felt that the movie was lacking something. Batman Returns lacks nothing, so if you want to see an amazing film with what I feel is a perfect cast then this is the Batman to light the Bat signal for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first rented Batman Returns, I immediately thought it was going to be less than exceptional. I mean, Jack Nicholson was undoubtedly the best part of the first, so without him, how could there be a good movie? Simple, throw in Danny DeVito.

Batman Returns is an arguably more dark movie than Batman. There are more villains here, less actual dark comedy in a lot of aspects, and more nerve-striking issues. However, the music is similar to the first if not darker. The scenery is definitely more depressing than the first, every detail right down to the time of year. This movie follows the same comic-style format we came to love in the first Batman.

Now for the performances. Michael Keaton thankfully returns as Batman\/Bruce Wayne. He was great in the first movie, and just as much in this sequel. There was not enough screen time in the world for Keaton as Batman, need MORE! Danny DeVito gave an award-winning performance as The Penguin, the most grueling, disgusting, lovable, angry, evil, sad, pathetic villain ever to grace a superhero movie. You hate him so much yet feel so bad for him at the same time. And it explains him down to the last detail too, making it all the more conflicting. Michelle Pfeiffer was excellent as Catwoman\/Selina Kyle. Two completely different personalities in one. She actually got a good amount of back story as well. Christopher Walken didn't disappoint as Max Shreck, the greedy, judgmental, selfish CEO of the power company. Michael Gough also thankfully returns as the lovable Alfred, and he was just as good here as well. Pat Hingle also returns as Gordon, although I feel he was really never in the spotlight.

With lots of great twists and sub-plots, Batman Returns is sure to please any fan of the original.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First off, this film has no story. It's obvious there were a lot of rewrites during production -- sometimes characters reference a timeline that is impossible, and this is probably because the timeline of the entire story was never known to anyone on the set.

That said, the film is kinda brilliant. Pfeiffer is amazing -- and I mean amazing, as Catwoman; she nails the character's inherent sexy darkness and good\/bad tendencies. Walken is Walken -- but even more nasty than usual. Devito is not true to the comic book when it comes to Penguin, but he is good and memorable.

Keaton is underrated as Batman.

And the music and style are pure cinema thrill. True, the 3rd act doesn't work. But the final 2 scenes are knockouts, and it's clear Pfeiffer and Keaton were meant to be in a trilogy that got derailed by this film's kinky darkness. That's too bad, because Pfieffer and Keaton had classic chemistry, and had they acted in a third installment, Joel you know who might not have gotten the chance to destroy Batman for an entire generation of movie fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best Batman movie of the 90's no doubt about it. This movie takes place in a city filled with insecurity and nightmares.

Although the villains are somewhat cheesy, they fit perfect for the movie's tone of colorful but nightmarish cinematography.

The performances are really great and the comic tone behind them really delivers expectations.

Don't get fooled by the cheesy outfits, this is a movie in the pure style of Burton. That can't be described; Burton is a sui generis director that took the Batman franchise to another obscure level but not forgetting about it's comic style past.

Recommended for fans of action cinema and best of all, if it deals with super heroes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"what can i say, this film is amazing. it has its flaws like every film does for example wobbly headstones in a graveyard, a clearly visible slide board during the penguins death scene, Max Shreck losing his heavy coat in a split second between shots during the image consultancy scene, batman losing his black eye makeup all of a sudden between shots so he can reveal Bruce Wayne to Catwoman, dialogue being recorded but is played back and spoken differently than when it was spoken in the first place and lastly Catwoman all of a sudden knows how to use a bull whip without any training whatsoever. these flaws are minor compared to some you would see in for example batman forever where the riddler can obviously be seen waiting for his cue or val Kilmer's hair changing between shots.

what makes this film so deserving of an 8\/10 is the great acting because the performances are absolutely amazing. Michael Keaton reprises his role as Batman and has a lot more to do in this film. He looks more comfortable in the role the second time around and is on par with the villains performances. Danny Devito is the perfect penguin. I really like the conversion of the penguin into the grotesque penguin man instead of the non threatening character from the comics or TV show because now the character has more depth and has a far more interesting story that generates from the basic need of family and to feel accepted and wanted. this gives us an evil character who we feel sympathy for because he was rejected for being what he is which is not his fault. Michelle Pfeiffer is excellent as Catwoman. she is sleet and sexy and she is also a villain we can feel sorry for because of the way she is victimised. Christopher Walken is a great secondary villain and is so interesting a character even though he is not even in the batman universe.

the soundtrack is far better than the first and Danny Elfman gets more of a chance to show off his musical talents this time around. The sets are amazing. They are detailed, eye catching, sinister, Gothic , unique, dark and so many other adjectives can describe how amazing they look. the costumes and make up are great and obviously a lot of work went into making them and all the work pays off because the Batsuit is better, the cat suit is amazing to look at and the penguin make up and effects are so convincing.The animatronic penguins look really realistic and are played to good effect. The script is really good and the Storyline in my opinion is a plausible one. overall, because of all these factors this film deserves an 8\/10 and stands as my favourite of all the batman films","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tim Burton is in essence an expressionist film-maker, disinterested in dimensions of character and obsessed with Gothic scope, opting for style over substance incessantly throughout his career. However, with his style being so poignantly endearing, I, like many moviegoers, forgive all the countless flaws that can be found in many of his movies and become engrossed in what are essentially, one hundred million dollar art films.

It's almost embarrassing for me to see a poetic, emotionally involving spirit within the second installment of a mediocre franchise, especially when that franchises target audience are half-witted 15 year old boys. Batman Returns should have been every bit as commercial as its predecessor, ensuring box office draw and cheap (in actual fact, very expensive) thrills, being entertaining without ever truly involving its audience. Had this been the result, then Tim Burton would have surely been required to direct a third installment. Instead, Burton delivers something that can only truly be defined by the phrase, 'out there'.

From the melancholy opening in which a high society couple throw a prison-like bassinette containing their newly born deformed baby into a river, it is clear that Batman Returns, ain't no picnic at Buckingham Palace. Cut to thirty three years later, during a political speech made by bad guy business tycoon Max Shreck (sinisterly portrayed by Christopher Walken), the Red Triangle Circus Gang attack Gotham City. Batman (Michael Keaton returning to the role) makes his first appearance sporting a new logo, eventually saving the day. Shreck is soon kidnapped by the circus gang and black-mailed into endorsing the political return of the baby, now a fully grown Penguin man (Danny DeVito in hideously perfect make-up), whose motives for return are suspicious only to Batman.

Meanwhile, Shreck attempts to off his nosey and awkward assistant Selina Kyle (played perfectly by Michelle Pfeiffer who quite frankly deserved more recognition for her performance) who transforms into the deliciously sexy and psychotic Catwoman, out for revenge and harbours, for some unexplained reason, a deadly vendetta against the Dark Knight.

Batman Returns is bleak. The production design is breathtaking, delivering a cold haunting Gotham City with an even more apocalyptic feel than its predecessor. Danny Elfman's score supports the film brilliantly, ranging from invigorating to tragic. The tone and direction of the whole film itself is intensely brooding, shot like a sad nightmare, Burton's direction overshadows what is in fairness a diabolical screenplay with an almost totally irrelevant plot and yet at the same time perfect for Burton's visual style of film-making. And whilst Burton's action sequences struggle for exhilaration, the real excitement lies in the directional choices displaying the fall of each of its main characters, the Penguins demise, the Catwoman's mental state and Bruce Wayne's lonely destiny.

Warner Brothers hated it whilst critical and audience reaction was mixed. After all, they wanted a Batman sequel, not a weird, somewhat ghastly horror movie, in which a deformed psychopathic orphan attempts to kidnap and drown a batch of babies, all-the-while vomiting what can only be described as green mucus. The production company wanted an audience friendly feature, something for the McDonald's clan to promote their happy meals with, not a movie of dire irredeemable characters, including a sexually repressed secretary who is pushed from a skyscraper and revived by a gang of cats awakening her from unconsciousness by chewing on her bloodied ice cold fingers.

It's easy to understand the mass disappointment that followed the release of Batman Returns. The film never felt like a Batman blockbuster. It is questionable if Burton really knew who Batman actually was or even if he cared about the character as much as he cared about the film fitting in with his usual themes of beautifully haunting art direction and misinterpreted, lonely characters who rarely conform with societies standards and expectations. This is why Burton failed to create a great Batman film. He did however; create a nostalgic and stunning, ballsy piece of cinema that remains a personal and nostalgic favourite of mine.

This may not be a great Batman movie. But it is a great Tim Burton film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Batman Returns is more Gothic and somber than its predecessor, and I like it a lot. Also, the scenery is more darker, and the entire environment is saddening along with the soul-chilling music composed by the so-talented Danny Elfman.

However, I didn't like the idea to make the Penguin a monster, unlike to the comic books, where he's human. Even if he looks like a monster, he shows well that he possesses a human dignity, and I felt very sorry for him when he saw the tombstones of his late parents. But still, he was a dangerous villain in fact, and he needed to be stopped.

Michael Keaton made a \"tour de force\" with his return as the Dark Knight, and this time he's powerful as in the original Batman. It's not difficult to understand why he's called Batman in public sometimes...

Also, Michelle Pfeiffer is so sexy and well-fitted in her role, and she gave a faithfully performance as the female villain\/crimefighter dressed as a cat. Really, the actors did all a masterful work with Batman Returns, which made it a successful movie.

If you liked Batman, watch its awesome sequel, cause it's very worthy for all the Dark Knight's hard-core lovers.

Steve Baillargeon","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Any Batman fan will know just how great the films are, they've been a major success. Batman Returns however is by far the best film in the series. A combination of excellent directing, brilliant acting and settings makes this worthy of watching on a night in.

Tim Burton, who directed this movie, has specifically made sure that this film gives a realistic atmosphere and he's done a great job. Danny Devito (Penguin man) is a man who has inherited penguin characteristics as a baby, and grown up to become a hideous and ugly...thing! Michelle Pfiffer plays the sleek and very seducing 'Catwoman' after cats had given her there genes from being bitten. The result in both the character changes is excellent and both Catwoman and Penguin man play a very important role in this excellent film. The mysterious Catwoman is great fun to watch - her classic sayings and a funny part in which skips with her whip in a jewelry shop adds such fun to the film. Danny Devito also does well, his ability to impersonate some strange creature was vital, and he adds a great atmosphere to the film that takes us back to the dull sewers where he lives.

You can't forget Batman though. Micheal Keaton once again pulls of a comfortable performance, and shows us a different side to Batman. His affection is let loose when he confronts Catwoman at the end of the film, and his meetings with her when she's a normal person, Selina Kyle, result in him being seduced badly in his own home. There's a clever part after this when they leave, and the film is full of great scenes. Its worth noting that Bruce Wayne's Bat mobile is not used as much as in the other Batman films, as close combat and story telling scenes make up this film.

The winter setting is created perfectly in Gotham City with most of the scenes being set at night, and with the town being filled with snow. Therefore, if you watch this film during the summer like I have, it doesn't feel the same. Best watch it during the winter.

Overall, its an amazing movie. All the credit goes to Tom Burton and the cast, they've done an incredible job.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is where the Batman franchise ought to have stopped. Though I will concede that the ideas behind \"Batman Forever\" were excellent and could have been easily realised by a competent director, as it turned out this was not to be the case.

Apparently Warner Brothers executives were disappointed with how dark this second Batman film from Tim Burton turned out. Apart from the idiocy of expecting anything else from Burton, and the conservative cowardice of their subsequent decision to turn the franchise into an homage to the Sixties TV series, I fail to understand how \"Batman Returns\" can be considered at all disappointing.

True, it is not quite the equal of the first film - though it repairs all the minor deficiencies of style found in \"Batman,\" a weaker script that splits the antagonism between not just two but three characters invites unflattering comparisons to the masterful pairing of Keaton and Jack Nicholson as the Joker in the first film. Yet for all this it remains a gorgeously dark film, true to the way the Batman was always meant to be, and highly satisfying.

Michael Keaton returns as the Batman and his alter ego Bruce Wayne, tangling with nouveau riche tycoon Max Schreck (Christopher Walken, named in honour of the 1920s German silent actor), his partner-in-crime Oswald Cobblepot, the Penguin (Danny DeVito in brilliant makeup reminiscent of Laurence Olivier's \"Richard III\"), and Selina Kyle, the Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer), whom Wayne romances both as himself and as the Batman. The four principals turn in excellent performances, especially Walken and DeVito, while together Keaton and Pfeiffer explore the darker side of double identities.

There are some intriguing concepts in this film. About the only weakness I can really point out is a certain limpness to the script in some places, which I think is due mostly to the way this film is a four-cornered fight. There simply isn't enough time to properly explore what's going on.

Nevertheless, this is a damn good film. I highly recommend watching this in conjunction with the first, and then weeping for how good the series could have been had it continued under Burton and Keaton.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With \"Batman Returns\", Tim Burton succumbed to an important priority in American cinema: giving a sequel to a blockbuster. Three years after the most successful movie of the year, \"Batman\" (1989), here comes the hero of Gotham City again for the pleasure of many spectators. Like its predecessor, \"Batman Returns\" enjoyed an enormous commercial success. Tim Burton made Batman come back once again because it is to believe that the victory of the latter on his enemy the Joker did little to improve the image of Gotham City. Indeed, violence and corruption still exist and here, the second word is epitomized by Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) and the penguin (Danny De Vito). These two crooks who are eager to take control of Gotham City are going to make life difficult for Batman. His task will be more difficult with the apparition of Catwoman...

Tim Burton still delivered much work on the scenery and it seems that he tried to correct the faults of the first movie. It means that the director gave way to fight sequences which are better mastered than in the first Batman. But he didn't neglect the psychology of his main characters for all that. If in the movie of 1989, Burton had focused on Bruce Wayne\/Batman's psychology, here, it's the penguin that obviously interested him. The director attempted to make of him, very well acted by De Vito an ambiguous character. On one hand, he's full of bad intentions (previously quoted) but on the other hand, he's searching for his past and would like to be considered as a real man.

\"Batman Returns\" also appears as crazier than its predecessor, especially with the cast. I think of Mich\u00e8le Pfeiffer who offers a daring and powerful performance as Catwoman. Besides, at the time when I'm writing this review, it makes me remember that a new version of Catwoman is currently at the cinema. But given the bad reviews (3 out of 10 on IMDb!), it is sure that her performer Halle Berry must pale into insignificance beside Pfeiffer.

Ultimately, this film is one of the best sequels of 1992 and it enables to develop Tim Burton's peculiar style. We also still find his taste for the strange and the Gothic. Concerning Batman's other adaptations for the screen, you can skip them. \"Batman Forever\" (1995) and \"Batman and Robin\" (1997) are no good. I heard that Christopher Nolan was shooting the beginning of the Batman story and it was to be released next year. Will it match Tim Burton's works?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For a long time, this was my favorite of the Batman films. It had the best cinematography and an edgy feel to it with two wild characters - Catwomen and The Penguin - along with the always-interesting Christopher Walken. However, after the last viewing it finally slipped in my ratings and, frankly, I now prefer the last Batman: Batman Begins, with Christian Bale.

THE GOOD - Nonetheless, this is still the most intriguing of the five latter-day Batman films. The stylish cinematography in here is the best of any of the Batman movies. Director Tim Burton is known for his films which feature stunning visuals, as this is a great example. The three characters listed above are all very different and very interesting, almost fascinating. Of the villains, I preferred Catwomen, finding her the most fun to watch before and after she changed. Violence is not overdone here as it was in several of the other Batman stories but one is never bored watching this. As he did in the first film, Michael Keaton does a fine job playing Batman\/Bruce Wayne.

THE BAD - For a movie based on a comic strip that mostly kids read, I still think these first two Batman movies, both done by Burton, were too dark and the profanity was definitely not appropriate. Although, unlike the first movie, there was no usage of the Lord's name in vain in here, there still was profanity and both villains made too many sexual remarks. That would have been okay if they hadn't marketed this film for kids as well as adults. Danny DeVito's \"Penguin\" is downright gross in spots. \"Grotesque\" I can handle, but who wants \"gross.\" Few guys, meanwhile, complained about the beautiful Michelle Pfeiffer playing Catwoman. Generall too much darkness and some cheap shots on Christian- bashing also made me re-consider my previously-high rating of this film.

OVERALL - Fabulous visuals and memorable characters make this the most interesting in the Batman series, but too-dark an edge, too gross and too much anti-religious bias all finally turned me off after a half-dozen looks at this film. Sorry, but I prefer a kinder-gentler Batman movie. After all, it's just a cartoon. Most will disagree, but I was glad to see the series lighten up after this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a cute little movie that provides pretty much what it promises - some good entertainment. After all, when a movie proclaims it features top SASS shooters, you have to figure that it is not a likely candidate for the \"Best Picture\" Oscar. Those guys are shooters, not actors. Your next clue is that the movie doesn't star Nicholas Cage or Jennifer Aniston, i.e. you shouldn't expect to see the current hottest names. It was meant to be just plain old entertainment and in that regard it is every bit as good as a lot of the old \"oaters\" I have seen through the years.

SO what do you get with \"Hell To Pay\"? You get 100 minutes of good old entertainment. You get a chance to see some stars from past years, who act pretty much like what they did in their prime but a little older. You get to see some good SASS shooters in major roles and a few SASS hams in the background. It was a lot of fun for me seeing people that I have shot with, visited in their homes and who are my good friends get to do something that a lot of people only ever dream about - they're in a real, live honest to gosh movie. They're doing something a lot of wannabe actors and wannabe shooters will never get the chance to do and I think that alone makes it worth the watch.

Admittedly, not everyone is a SASS member and so I saw lots of fun and humor that others may miss, but it is still good, old-fashioned entertainment, and frankly, there are a LOT of movies in the theatre right now that I wouldn't give a nickel to see, so save the money to go see \"Brokeback Mountain\" get \"Hell to Pay\" and watch some real cowboys have some fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed watching Hell to Pay. I've been a fan of Westerns for as long as I can remember and this one reminded me of a lot of the Westerns from the 1960s (even though I was too young to have seen them in their first run). The one thing that bothered me about the movie was the constant music. It was distracting at times. One thing I did notice, and I wonder how many other fans of Gunsmoke noticed, was the name of Buck Taylor's character. It was a play on Doc Adams' name from Gunsmoke. Instead of Gaylan Adams, Buck Taylor used Adam Galen. I wonder if that was his choice or Chris McIntyre's? Anyway, I would recommend this movie to fans of Westerns. Don't expect anything too \"deep\". Just plain old entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like shoot em up westerns this is a keeper. I thought that the movie was fun to watch and to see folks that I have not seen in a while. I am no expert but I liked the acting. The town and props etc seemed to fit the period and kind of town that you would find out on the frontier. This is not an A western, not enough people and budget. The costumes and firearms were correct for the time! I expect to see the young actors in the film again in the future. Rachel, Chance, Rebekah and Kirby were great. The SASS (Single Action Shooting Society)members that contributed to this effort were pretty darn good. Hope to see more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent movie and I would recommend it to everyone. Mr. Drury's acting is top notch as it always is and he blends well with the other actors in the movie. Can't give away any of the suspense or drama found in the movie. Hell to pay is a must see movie!!! The plot was very suspenseful. I would watch this movie over and over again because it has all the elements of a great western movie. It was very authentic in how they displayed the components dealing with this movie which includes the guns, horses, and clothing. The soundtrack is enjoyable and adds flavor to the movie. James Drury has the right touch when picking out a movie to be involved with. This is a another winner for the western genre. !!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hell to Pay is a bit bloody for my taste, even though it is no worse than many films. Nevertheless, I did enjoy the parade of seasoned stars and the western scenery & all; but, the story-line was very weak and I couldn't really see the point of it all. However, the music that accompanies the movie more than makes up for the lackluster film.

Where did the guys -Nate & Noah Cryns- who wrote this music come from? They are awesome!! From the moment the music begins, it is by far, better than anything I've heard in years. I think it may be the best I've ever heard! Even though I wasn't thrilled with the action taking place on the film, the music evoked the exact emotion that was needed for each scene. I was transported in time to the old west during the opening credits and really felt like I was re-living those old days through the music.

This movie is definitely worth a purchase and a viewing for the beautiful music and a trip down memory lane to see the old western stars once again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This certainly is one of the best western movies produced in the new Millennium. It's an homage to all the stars of the great TV western classics, and it is the ultimate revival of the western movie. The story of two brothers who meet after the War between the States and end up on different sides of the law isn't new but interesting nonetheless, and the shootouts and the atmosphere are great. There is some graphic violence like bad guys getting chopped to death with an axe or women being shot down in cold blood, and Lee Majors doesn't take part in the action until the very end, that's why I gave it 9 out of 10 points. But it still is one of the best new western productions I've ever seen. I've had the honor and pleasure to meet Chris McIntyre at the Festival of the West and have a nice chat with him, and I've had the chance to meet Buck Taylor who performs the role of town doctor. In my opinion, we ought to be much obliged to Chris McIntyre for his efforts to gather that many stars of the classic TV westerns and SASS around him to perform in a new western such as this. Chris has an outstanding talent for choosing the right actors for the main characters, too. Both are young and promising, and I think we should see more of them in future western productions. I sincerely enjoyed this western movie - it was worth every minute. I hope that Chris McIntyre will continue to work on other western movies and present us with some more great productions such as this one. Great work, Chris! Jasper P. Morgan (Pete)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Hell To Pay\" bills itself as the rebirth of the Classic Western... it succeeds as a Western genre movie that the entire family could see and not unlike the films baby-boomers experienced decades ago. The good guys are good and the bad guys are really bad! . Bo Svenson, Stella Stevens, Lee Majors, Andrew Prine (excellent in this film) Tim Thomerson and James Drury are all great and it's fun to see them again. James Drury really shines in this one, maybe even better than his days as \"The Virginian.\" In a way, \"Hell To Pay\" reminds me of those movies in the 60's where actors you know from so many shows make an appearance. If you're of a certain age, Buck Taylor, Peter Brown and Denny Miller and William Smith provide a \"wow\" factor because we seldom get to see these icons these days. \"Hell To Pay\" features screen legends along with newer names in Hollywood. Most notable in the cast of \"newbies\" is Rachel Kimsey (Rebekah), who I've seen lately on \"The Young and The Restless\" and Kevin Kazakoff, who plays the angst-ridden Kirby, a war-weary man who's torn between wanting to live and let live or stepping in to \"do the right thing.\" William Gregory Lee is excellent as Chance, Kirby's mischievous and womanizing brother. Katie Keane plays Rachel, Rebekah's sister, a woman who did what was necessary to stay alive but giving up her pride in the process. In a small but memorable role, Jeff Davis plays Mean Joe, a former Confederate with a rather nasty mean streak. I think we'll be seeing more of these fine actors in the future. \"Hell To Pay\" is a fun movie with a great story to tell\u0085 grab the popcorn, we're headin' West!.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A tremendous action movie that I have ever seen. It was the first expression that I uttered after watching it twice on the local TV in my country, Indonesia. A combination between a constant shooting and a great fighting choreography played well by David Bradley. He was good here besides \"American Samurai\". His skill in martial art was performed above average. He succeeded to make the fighting scenes nice to watch. Not only punching and kicking like what most of martial artists show in their movies. David Bradley could utilize all the martial arts techniques such as throwing, smashing and kicking. Very Recommended for action fans.I have tried to look for the DVD but I still cannot get it particularly in my town. Anyone could help me?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is very similar to Death Warrant with Jean-Claude Van Damme and also has some similarities to Island of Fire with Jackie Chan and I also heard that there is some other very similar action movies, but this film has a much better action than Death Warrant or even Island of Fire (that's right, the Jackie Chan's movie). Rarely American action movies has such a great action sequences, though there was many negative reviews on this film, it easily beats most of the action movies of that time who were more successful. There were many martial art's scenes, David Bradley was fast as Bruce Lee in this film and what else was good, that fighting scenes were much longer than in most of the American martial art's movies. The shoot-out scenes were similar with John Woo's movies, maybe not that good, but still very exiting. There was also many impressive explosions and one great chase scene. I've seen some other David Bradley's movies, but this one, yet is the best in terms of action. OK, this movie has some cheesy moments, but which movie hasn't? The acting was decent, Charles Napier was incredible and his character was real tough. Adam Clark who played Squid and Yuji Okumoto who played the main bad guy were also very good. Other actors acted pretty well too, though the acting isn't important in this type of movies. If you are action movies fan (I mean the real action movies fan, who really can appreciate the good action), than you must see this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hard Justice is an excellent action movie! The whole movie is really nothing but shooting and fighting! For the people who say they don't make shoot em ups like they use to. Well, this one is really hard-core! David Bradley is really good and his character takes a pounding in the movie. He gets hit by the stick over a dozen times, gets stabbed in the back and is in a coma for three days and then wakes up and fights again, gets beat up, recovers and is ready for more action! His character is incredibly tuff! Charles Napier was very good as well and he arguably steals the show! Vernen Wells was good! Professor Toru Tanaka had a short and an uncredited role in Hard Justice! As for the action, it is truly awesome with all of the gun fights and the huge stand off like scene in the beginning has cars getting blown up and flipping up in mid air! There is so much that happens in the 95 minute run time. For the action fans you will be blown away by all of the fire power and fighting that this film has to offer! Hard Justice is a movie that isn't easy to locate and if you are at a video store and you see it for sale buy it up because this movie is big keeper an d plus the box is cool! There is a ton of action that has to be seen to be believed! Look and see if you can find some good deals on Ebay, Half.com, Amazon.com's Z-Shops and Market Place Sellers! I strongly recommend that any action movie fan who loves shoot ems and fighting movies and has been disappointed by other movies that have the look like a true non stop action flick but fails to deliver it to get Hard Justice!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once you sit down to see this film \" A Cannon for Cordoba \" you get the feeling it's going to be a great. The reason? The film begins with a rousing score by noted composer Elmer Bernstein who gave us such memorable themes as 'The Great Escape and the Magnificent Seven.' Indeed, when you read the opening credits headlining the cast is none other than George Peppard as Capt. Rod Douglas, you know it's going to have action and lot's of it. Furthermore when you see actor John Russel playing General John J. Pershing, you know you're in for a heroic saga. The story is taken from the annals of the Mexican revolution and involves the U.S. in a border town dispute with the Mexican bandits who cross the Rio Grande in the early 1900s. Among the most brazen of the rebel leaders is General Cordova (Raf Vallone). With his army of Mexican revolutionaries, he attacks Pershing, kills his men and steals some valuable artillery pieces. Since the United States Army cannot enter Mexico legally, Capt. Douglas is sent on what is slated a suicide mission, without orders and without aid from Pershing. His mission is to retrieve the Cannons, destroy a rebel stronghold and bring Cordova back alive. Selecting the roughest, toughest, most experienced, certainly the most insolent men available, Douglas enters Mexico and attacks the nearly impregnable fortress. Dramatic action follows, as does lots of explosive excitement. If one is asks for criticism, I would say the choice of heavies. Vallone and John Larch are not very menacing. Not so with the men who side with Peppard. Pete Duel and Don Gordon (Who is superb.) Nevertheless, this movie is recommended as good viewing. ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have reasons to love the great users of a camera; fluid direction of action lends itself to fast-paced adventure and comedy narrative; but such a skill, in the hands of a King Vidor or an Anthony Mann can also be applied to idea-level work. This is Paul Wendkos' masterpiece. Its storyline can be retailed in a single pair of sentences. General Hector Cordoba is setting up as near-emperor in Northern Mexico, and steals a huge cannon from General Blackjack Pershing. he sends his crack mission unit, divided, apprehensive but determined, led by George Peppard, to get the cannon back and bring back Cordoba alive, to put an end to the rebellion. Charismatic Raf Vallone plays Cordoba; the ladies in the piece are Giovanna Ralli and Francine York; with the squad even further comprised of Nico Minardos, Peter Deuel, and Don Gordon. Other stalwarts in the class include John Larch and John Russell. Also horning in on an already fantastically-dangerous operation are Miss Ralli, and a stubborn Mexican Teniente (Gabriela Tinti) whose regiment was betrayed when Cordoba set up on his own. The danger is multiplied when Gordon's brother as advance spy is captured and tortured to death while he has to watch...and he decides he needs to kill Peppard. The attack that captures the cannon, when Peppard's orders are not obeyed by a regular army type, is one of the most electrifying visual and staging achievements in cinematic history; the penetration of Cordoba's stronghold, the revelations uncovered there, and the actions that win the mission team a chance at victory--or almost victory--are flawlessly presented. This is a beautiful color adventure film, with unusually strong costumes, acting, lighting, art direction sets and music by Elmer Bernstein. The script by Stephen Kandel is probably his best ever for a feature film. This is probably the most underrated major western at the moment, but I have always appreciated its heroes as result- getting hard-workers. But as Peppard reminds his group on the way home, \"The trouble with being a \"hero\"--is the morning after\". To find out why he says so, you will have to see \"Cannon For Cordoba\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Towards the end of his career Jack Arnold, a very efficient director who gave us such classic 50's creature features as \"It Came from Outer Space,\" \"The Creature from the Black Lagoon,\" and \"Tarantula,\" teamed up with former football star turned top 70's blaxploitation film headliner Fred \"the Hammer\" Williamson for a pair of movies, producing the amiable, if unremarkable Western \"The Black Bounty Hunter\" and this refreshingly breezy, clever and highly entertaining 70's black action variant on your standard 40's film noir down-at-the-heels private detective yarn.

Williamson displays a charming combination of dry, self-deprecating humor and relaxed, easygoing self-confidence as Shep Stone, a cheap, affable, and forever in debt erstwhile Los Angeles cop turned private investigator. Stone's so hard-up for cash that he uses a bar as his business office and just barely makes ends meet doing penny-ante low-paying minor cases that the police don't want to bother with. While pounding the pavement for one of these deceptively simple gigs (Stone's trying to find some guy's runaway teenage daughter who's hiding somewhere in Hollywood), Stone finds himself elbow deep in a complex, dangerous, seemingly bottomless criminal plot which includes a flipped-out Jesus freak religious cult, assorted deadhead hippie dopers, a sordid porno ring, a priceless missing gold-tipped cane that belonged to a legendary silent movie star, a nefarious underground drug smuggling operation, and an ever-growing number of fresh corpses.

While lacking the wickedly playful, mischievous ingenuity of Robert Altman's masterful \"The Long Goodbye\" or the haunting, unremitting pessimism of Arthur Penn's beautifully bleak \"Night Moves,\" \"Black Eye\" nonetheless still makes the grade as a highly successful hip'n'flip 70's spin on 40's mystery suspense thrillers. Arnold's capable direction keeps the pace moving at a nice, steady clip, punctuated with sporadic exciting mano-a-mano bare knuckle fight scenes and excellent use of various colorfully seedy L.A. locations (the rundown abandoned amusement park at the film's conclusion is especially effective). The script by Mark Haggard and Jim Martin supplies a goodly amount of fairly complicated and often genuinely surprising plot twists. And the expected array of quirky, rough-around-the-edges secondary characters are an interesting oddball bunch, with particularly notable turns by Rosemary Forsyth as an alluring, powerful lesbian model agency owner (Forsyth has the picture's best line, boasting to Stone when she first meets him, \"I'm a whole lot of woman\"), Teresa Graves of \"Get Christie Love\" TV show fame as Stone's loyal bisexual girlfriend (the film's casual, nonjudgmental depiction of both Foryth's unconventional femme fatale and Graves' equally atypical gal Friday is one of its strongest assets), and Bret Morrison, who did the voice of radio's \"The Shadow\" in the 40's, as a smugly sleazy porno filmmaker. All in all, it's a modest, yet surefire winner.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was very happy and at the same time quite surprised by other positive comments written by non-Koreans below. This movie is amazingly heartshaking, and shows very 'sad but warm' view toward life which is typical to Korean people. I thought other foreigners would not understand this delicate feeling and under-rate this quiet film as a boring one, but I was wrong. The attraction of this film might be hard to avoid to foreigners, too. (Even without subtitle...)

I would like to mention some points others have missed. Of course, this film depicts love between a man and a woman. However, the very theme is way beyond that. Actually, it is about time, value of remembrance, and death. In this film, the focus is not on the 'love affair' between two people. As some pointed out, they do not kiss, they do not hug each other, even without holding hands. So love itself is not completed (whether positively or negatively) in the film. Rather, what haunts Jungwon (a leading actor) is his impending death. He's running out of time, he can't hold it, leaving a few behind including his father and of course, Darim (a metermaid). So the problem is how he can face the death and leave something valuable in his short life, not how he can make love with Darim.

This kind of theme sounds very familiar to us. There are lots of movies regarding patients with uncurable disease such as 'Love Story'. However, what makes this film outstanding is the way Jungwon deals his death. He is a loser, but tried to do his best while he's alive, IN A SILENT WAY. He does not tell anybody around him about his death. He hides something in his mind but without rage, hate, vengeance. He just tried to do best while he was alive. This limited communication and obedience to fate is the typical mindset of Koreans and the point most Western people don't understand or at best, misunderstand.

This theme is very effectively expressed by the director of this film (surprisingly, his debut). Some say he's much influenced by Japanese director Ozu Yasujiro, who directed Tokyo Story. Indeed, I remember I read in some magazine that the director himself admitted he was influenced by Ozu. I'm not that knowledged to analyze his style comparing to Ozu's, but they have some in common and some not. Low angle and static camera, especially remind us Ozu's style. But, in terms of theme again, this Korean director seems to have somewhat warmer and hopeful vision.

It is expressed concisely with Jungwon's last photograph. Very well done and really heartbreaking scene, I think. Actually, the director first had the idea of this film when he participated the funeral of a very famous Korean folk singer who died young of mysterious suicide. They say he saw the photograph of the singer at the funeral and thought of a film on death and remembrance. (And possibly hope for the remnants, I think...)

I highly recommend this film to anybody who has deep interest in film art as well as Korean culture. This film, in my opinion, can be rivaled with other movies like Tokyo story, and a sort of American Beauty. It is that great if without language barrier. DVD version is going to be out in the market this February, so it might be a little help for foreigners with English subtitle.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hooray for Korean cinema! Last year I saw \"Chungyang\" and \"Nowhere to hide\", now I catch up with Hur Jin-ho's directorial debut \"Christmas in august\". The variety of themes and level of achievement speak highly of a national cinema ripe for discovery. This film's major themes are death and love. The graceful and thoughtful way Jung Won(Han Suk-kyu) copes with his impending death, and the sublimation of his desires toward Darim(Shim Eun-Ha) out of true love for her. I was deeply moved by his careful management of behavior and emotions, shielding Darim from unnecessary pain without rejecting her.

The success of this type of film is predicated on the skill of the actors. Han and Shim excel, being both quite expressive yet naturalistic. A number of secondary characters, Jung Won's relatives, friends, and clients, are quickly delineated to enrich the story without detracting from its main focus. To LIVE is to love, but all things must pass. Pain subsides. Life goes on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How often do we live our romantic life as on the big screen, with torrid affairs and passionate encounters? Almost never, if what I see as normal life around me is anything to judge by. Romances, as previously stated, are hardly ever earthshaking affairs that leave you at the top of the world or batter and bruised.

Romance, in its every day form, as lived out millions of times over around the world, is a slow, subtle, and quiet affair. Something that grows in you, ever so slowly, probably without you even noticing it slowly taking over your being. No one can tell me when I am in love. For if someone did, I would not believe him anyway, for no one but me would know. And even then, it is just a feeling, a certain knowledge that you are feeling this exalting emotion. That you want nothing but the best for someone, that you would never want to see them suffer a moment of sadness. That you are willing to take a great degree of pain for them. I would not go so far as to say be willing to die for your loved one, for we are all human, and we do not know what we are capable of in the face of death until that moment is upon us.

Is the love between the main characters of the film, ever so subtle and understated, no less noble than that between Romeo and Juliet? The unstated emotions, the unsaid feelings, convey far more than any repeated shouts of \"I love you\". The restraint shown by the lead actor, displayed ever so poignantly in the scene where he watches his love interest through the cafe window, yet never did he move to make himself known to her, was simply heart-wrenching to watch. Would most of us be selfless enough to remain hidden, knowing that her emotions and feelings could not possibly be reciprocated?

On another note, how will I deal with my own certain death? While I can claim I have been seriously ill, I can not in all honesty say that I have ever come close to death. Will I be so calm, putting all my affairs in order, and leaving instructions for others to take up what I leave behind? I suspect I will be calm, for I will have little choice in the matter. Can I be so selfless? Again, the answer will have to be in the negative. I can empathize with the anguish, knowing that your life is forfeit, that fate has dealt you a fatal blow, and that future events, however little there are of them left, are no longer under your control.

Life is nothing more than a series of small events, the culmination of which may seem great for some in retrospect. But only very rarely.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is, without a doubt, one of the most accomplished debut films for any director. The Movie is only 90 minutes long, but manages to say just about everything about life and death. Not much action, and dialogue is minimal, but the movie flows perfectly and demands your attention due to the wonderfully natural feel of everything going on. The performances by the leads are perfection, and even some supporting characters get strong emotional scenes. The movie will be somewhat lost on today's modern audience, but this is one that everyone ought to see.Refreshingly unsentimental and honest, this is on par with Ozu's works.

Scratch my title, this one is perfect!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Last time I checked in here I think there was no more than one comment. I'm very glad that more people have caught on this flick now,and even more so about you all digging it as well. I caught this the night of Christmas 2004,and I found myself unable to change the channel on my TV,even though it was an Asian flick-and I'm-sadly but truly-very used not to give any chance to any Off-Hollywood products. I did that night,though,and I thank God deeply for it. I've not been able to shake that movie out of my system since-not that I've tried to or wanted to-and it still amazes me-in an extremely grateful way-that such a great,beautiful experience came in such a way,completely unexpected,like a Christmas Miracle.Please,if you got the chance go see this movie,buy it or rent it of bootleg it or whatever,but watch it. I guarantee it will affect you. I'm out of time,but I'm far from finished with my appraissal here,so Ill be back as soon as I can.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A photographer in the small city of Gunsan in South Korea learns that he has a terminal illness but downplays the seriousness of it to his family and friends. We never find out the nature of the disease but the main focus of Hur Jin-ho's poignant first film Christmas in August is not his illness. It is the grace in which he conducts his life - his ability to accept what life has in store without remorse. Sadly, it was the final film shot by cinematographer Yoo Young-kil before his death, and the film is dedicated to his memory.

The photographer, Jung-won, is played by Han Suk-kyu, at one time, Korea's most popular star. A handsome man in his early thirties with an infectious laugh, he is so warm and full of vitality that it is difficult to picture him as nearing the end of life. Jung-won owns a small photography shop and lives at home with his hard of hearing father (Goo Shin) and sister (Oh Ji-hye), teaching his dad how to play movies on the VCR, and writing instructions for him to take over his shop if he were to die. As Jung-won goes about the day-to-day business of getting his affairs in order, Dar-im (Shim Eun-ha), a meter reader, comes into his store with an urgent request for some photographic enlargements.

Abrupt and impatient, he treats her with disdain but later apologizes and she becomes a regular customer. Without overt expression of romantic feelings, their relationship develops a growing intimacy. Love is not something they say or do. It is their ground of being, the place where they come from. To protect Dar-im from suffering, Jung-won does not tell her that he has only a short time to live but this does not make the situation any easier for her. Inevitably his increasing absence from the shop causes her to feel betrayed and frustrated to the point where she throws a rock through the shop's window. Although Jung-won's decision to withhold his illness from Dar-im is open to question, it feels organic to his character in the film and is not used simply as a plot device or an excuse for the character to \"live life to the fullest\" by playing around.

One of the most touching sequences in the film is when an elderly woman returns to his studio to take a memorial photo of herself. Jung-won makes sure the picture is an exact likeness, knowing that soon he will be taking his own picture of remembrance. Christmas in August is an unpretentious film that never resorts to melodrama to make its point. It is about taking pleasure in ordinary moments: riding a bike, sharing a joke, eating ice cream, being thoughtful and considerate, and feeling good about what life has to offer. It is a love story where love means having to say you're sorry. Although there have been many films on the dying process, Christmas in August propels the genre in a new direction and, in the process, offers an unforgettable commentary on the human condition. Incongruously, this film about death is an experience of the utmost joy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"CHRISTMAS IN AUGUST is a perfect movie. A flawless movie about all the flaws of humanity. On the outside it may look like a movie about death, but is in fact a movie about life. I simply cannot recommend this movie enough. And be not afraid, dear readers, it is not a depressing film. As stated, it's a movie about the brightness of life coached under the guise of death. You will laugh. You will cry. You will realize that life is fragile and short. And you will leave the viewing with a better understanding of how precious life is.

10 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of this movie and reviews of other foreign films)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Palwol ui Christmas is very Korean, if you have been to Korea or have Korean friends, you should know what i mean. Korean are very traditional people, they see love very quitely. a kind of feeling you don't find in today's world. i think that is why this film is so special. it is wrong to compare this film with \"Love Letter\" by Shunji Iwai, japaness are very good but could never make one like Palwol ui Christmas. if you have a chance please see this movie for yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I always had this concept that Korean movies were all about comedy and drama, but \"Christmas in autumn\" has changed my point of view. This movie is so simple. It doenot have any melodramatic scenes or over the top comedy scenes. Not a single scene where the actors cry out loud. Not even a scene where the actor and the actress kiss, not even a simple kiss. And yet this movie is able to reach it's viewers in ways that I dint know existed. The ending of the movie left me Speechless. I dint even cry, but my eyes were red hot. This movie left me a feeling I can hardly describe in words.

I don't think I can recommend this movie to everyone but I do recommend this movie to people who want to watch real cinema. 9.4\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you want to see a film with no guns, blood, sex, shouting angry people, hero, bad guys & girls or even clumsy love words and you want to see a film in which every shot has the meaning of \"LOVE\" , this one is a must see film. For me I've been waiting for a film like this all of my life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film would have put the typical Hollywood \"tearjerkers\" to shame. The emotions portrayed are subdued and understated in a very comfortable fashion. The plot is cliche enough with a lead role having terminal disease (this is not a spoiler and was well established quite early into the movie) The method of execution is somehow unique from most love stories you ever saw--not even a kiss was being exchanged and yet you will feel the enormous current of love between the two leads. Initially, I assumed this \"restriction on emotions\" to be something analoguous to the typical \"eastern values\" but later decided against it.

This film is so understated that if you compare it with movies like \"Cinema Paradiso\", CP would have felt overtly manipulative by comparison. So, it's definitely not everyone's cup of tea.

After watching the film, I have this strong feeling that Holly- wood love movies, (or love movies all around, to be accurate) have been glorifying romance or passion and label it as \"love\". I am sure we all have our own definitions and I wouldn't say these qualities are mutually exclusive. But, I would venture to say that the movie will let you wonder if there is any added dimension you have with you loved one.

It's very obvious that I enjoy this movie a lot. Considering the fact that the movie is so plain in appearance, it is paradoxically one of the more \"cinematic\" movie I saw lately.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This wonderful movie really takes the time to step back and tell the story without words. The end of the movie contains almost no dialogue but what is in the minds of the characters is always perfectly clear. You know the film is not going to have a happy ending but you leave the film feeling hopeful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really appreciate what Jung-won had done before his death. Everything. I want to say that his choice for love is unselfish. If he chose Da-rim , that will be good for him. But Da-rim will need more time to recover from his death. Obviously he does not want to let it happen. As he did in the film, he chose giving up. So it was just temporary agony for Da-rim.

As comparison, My Life Without Me is very different. Their behavior shows big difference between eastern culture and western culture. I cannot say which is better. Every one can has right to choose. That is totally up to you. Life is equal for everybody. We can live only once. Any choice is acceptable if only you think it is fit for you.

In truth the slow pace of the film cannot be the excuse for rejecting the movie. Just calm down. You will get more from the movie.

One of the best Korean movies I ever watched. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Korean \"romance\" about the owner of a camera store who is diagnosed with a fatal disease. As he goes about his daily routine and prepares for the end he becomes acquainted with a young girl who is a customer. A friendship and romance grows, eve though neither expresses any sort of affection for the other. Good film is unlike anything you are likely to see remade in America simply because the studios would insist that the \"couple\" act on their feelings. He will not say anything because he doesn't have that long to live, she won't because its not the thing thats done and he is not responding as she thinks he should. Of course its much more complex than I'm making it out to be and in all honesty its the sort of thing that you should discover for yourself. Is it a great film? No, but it is a good one that will move you emotionally. The final lines of the film still haunts me: \"I always knew that love would fade like a photograph - but you will remain in my heart as you are in my last moment. Thank you and goodbye\". It may seem odd out of context but with in the context of the film it is very moving.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this film with high expectations but was somewhat disappointed. Although I like this film and was engrossed by the story, I did not find it moving and think the ending falls flat.

The story consists of the friendship between a man running a photo shop and his best customer who is a traffic Policewoman. The location is a quaint Korean village.

This film is in some ways realistic as there is an element of tragedy and yet it is not melodramatic. However I was not ultimately moved by a film depicting a man who is loved so much by a woman, yet does not even give her the choice to enter his life. In my mind he is a sweet, noble loser.

Good points - Excellent acting by the two main leads, enjoyable snapshot of village life

Cons - Flat ending

Overall - Good but I prefer the Before Sunrise and After Sunset films (or is it Before Sunset and After Sunrise)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How would you feel if you had only a few weeks left to live? This film helps you to know through the eyes of one guy who is faced with that situation. It is told with sympathy and without too much emotion. Some might feel it rather slow - but I think that adds to the realism of the film. Some might see it as a love story, but I think that is secondary to seeing his last days through his eyes. The loves of his life are part of the end of his life and give it more impact. Low key and gentle, the film rolls out the story much as life does. Without clich\u00e9s and with unexpected events set against a backdrop of getting by. If you like your films gently emotionally realistic this may be for you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was lucky enough to watch this film in the recently concluded international film festival here. I was actually able to watch another South Korean film (The Power of Kangwon Province) but Christmas in August caught my attention more. The story is simple enough, the usual boy-meets-girl (or shall we say girl-meets-boy?). What made it special for me was how it was rendered. We can say that the movie was quiet and endearing. We don't have flashy and contrived romance here, only two ordinary beings made wonderful by their friendship and unexpressed love for one another. I also loved how the movie used pictures as expressions of relationships past and present. I wished that this was shown here as a regular film. I'm sure it would call out to a bigger audience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILER ALERT--AND I REALLY MEAN IT!! READ NO FURTHER UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO HAVE A MAJOR PLOT ELEMENT REVEALED!!

Okay, first I've gotta say that I have a relatively high tolerance for depressing films. I'll watch and appreciate films about true life horrors (such as war and the holocaust) or where death and sadness are important to the plot BUT I hate films like STEAL MAGNOLIAS and TERMS OF ENDEARMENT where the film is built around a manipulative death of a main character. So, already no matter how well made this film is, it's got a MAJOR strike against it because one of the main characters dies from a disease at the end (though they never say WHAT he had in the English subtitled version).

So you might ask yourself, \"then if this blow-hard hates this type of film, then why did he watch it in the first place?\" You would have an excellent point to ask this, though I hope I am not really a blow-hard! Well, when I found it in our local library I had no idea what it was about!!! The movie was not intended specifically for export, as the subtitles were in Korean, English and Japanese and the box was printed all in Korean. Well, being a fan of trying films from any nation (I've seen films from probably at least 30-40 different countries), I gave it a try.

Well, apart from the obligatory death, I loved the film and so hated the way it ended. While I usually hate Hollywood-type miraculous endings, I wanted to see the guy saved through some new drug or experimental surgery. I was really bummed that he had to die--particularly since he seemed like one of the nicest people I've seen in films in a long time. His smile was infectious and I really wanted him to get the girl in the end. Oh well, at least I can appreciate the film's message that you need to seize the moment. Great acting, music, etc., but just not the most satisfying ending for me. This film was good enough to encourage me to try some more Korean cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this film recently for the first time in over 30 years and was very pleasantly surprised. I remembered a film that caught the mood and feel of Britain in the mid 1960s without falling into the 'Swinging Britain' clich\u00e9s that so many other films thought they had to propagate, my memory proved correct. Those who feel that this is like a TV play are not entirely wrong but while Andrea Newman was to become famous for risqu\u00e9 TV drama, this film is more in the tradition of the 'kitchen-sink'films such as 'Saturday Night And Sunday Morning' but with an emphasis on middle-class rather than working-class life. Rod Steiger is excellent as the middle-aged angst-ridden lead, unhappily married to a repressed and apparently barren wife (Claire Bloom). The onset of the 'Technological Revolution' is the the backdrop for the drama in which old values and certainties are challenged. This is the stage for the central character played by Judy Geeson, a role which at the time was a shocking departure from the typical prim behaviour of contemporary heroines. The reversal of roles, with the girl rating her conquests in a little-black-book was a precursor to the Feminist movement and was criticised at the time for promoting promiscuity among young girls. The irony of these criticisms is to be seen in both Claire Bloom's and Peggy Ashcroft's characters who are both acceptingly dissatisfied. Peter Hall made few films and on this evidence that is a great shame. Steiger is exemplary and wholly credible showing why he was so highly regarded","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many accuse Rod Steiger of overacting, and anyone who has seen the Amityville Horror and the 'fly' section would struggle to say otherwise. That said, he's brilliant in this.

It's never on TV, you can't buy it on DVD (legitimately). In 1988, when Channel 4 still had a prescription for innovation, they showed this amongst a small amalgam of 60s films, Privilege etc - and I remember an essentially theatrical experience, transposed well to film. The great thing about theatre is it's enclosed - how do you make it available and interesting on screen? PH just about pulls it off. Because this sort of film is never even on cable or Sky TV anywhere it's hard to get a debate going, but for anyone out there who has seen it or can remember, my memories are of a forthright, almost strident performance by Sally Geeson 'thats all taken care of' (which eschews the almost diffident general performances of her and her sibling in many early 70s offerings) she says ref conception. There are several of these - key lines you remember years, decades on. That's the power of a film like this.

PS I just saw it again and its just as good. One day, TV too will be enlightened.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film back in the early 70's and I was mesmerised by Judy Geeson. For me it captured the clandestine nature of Rod Steigers irrepressible obsession with the young and extremely sexy hitch hiker, played by Geeson.

You couldn't help feel a little sorry for the wife, played brilliantly by Claire Bloom. I was really disappointed to see that the original cut may have been lost and there is little chance of it being released on DVD.

I defy anyone who saw the film, and it's strong message not to be equally absorbed by the three main character performances, and I would have loved to have seen it again, if nothing else for a purely nostalgic reason.

Going back in time, some 35 years.

A real classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1242, Russia in being invaded by two sides: from the orient by the Mongols and from Europe side, by the Germans Teutonic Knights of the Holy Roman Empire. The city of Novgorod is the last free city in Russia. The population, in order to organize the defense of Novgorod and the lands of Russia, calls the Prince Aleksandr Nevsky, who had defeated the Swedish in a previous battle. His successful strategy defeats the Germans, after a great battle on a frozen lake. This movie was made in 1938 due to the threaten of the German to Russia, in a pre-Second World War period. The idea was to make propaganda pro-Russia. However, it is an overwhelming, marvelous, stunning powerful masterpiece. It is amazing the combat scene on the frozen lake. The present generation is very accustomed to special effects, like in the `Lord of the Rings' trilogy, and maybe cannot understand how fantastic is this black and white fight. If the viewer can forget the ideology and watch it as an art, he will certainly be astonished in the end with such a masterpiece. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): Alexander Nevsky","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At school I was taught how some shots were called and there were two directors constantly mentioned : Orson Welles and Sergei M. Eisenstein. I didn't care that much then (I was a kid!) but now I know why, Eisenstein is a genius and it is a shame to see what was possible in 1938 where as almost more than a half century we're stuck with countless blank movies! Some say this movie isn't worth the genius of Eisenstein (then they have to watch it over and over till they can say anything bad) or even worse that it is just some propagandamovie for the Russians. Let's say it as it is, it is indeed pure propaganda for patriotism but isn't \"Saving private Ryan\" or \"The longest day\" so? I could sum up so many movies in where America is being raised to the top so why not Russia, and besides every war is fought for itrs patriotism why else would they raise flags? Aleksandr Nevsky is a must for anyone who cares about cinematography as almost every shot is a sublime picture. Perhaps it's all overseen but I am in wonder why this isn't included in IMDB's Top 250 where as there is so many overrated Oscarcrap in it as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alexander Nevsky (1938) is a brilliant piece of cinematic propaganda. The people of Russia are threatened by two major enemies, the Mongols and the Teutonic Knights of the Holy Roman Empire. In ordered to unite the warring, rival Princes in the Russian Realm, Nevsky takes charge and fights the lesser of two evils (The Teutonics). This influential film was copied many times over and it still holds up to this day. The soundtrack by composer Prokiev and Eisentstein's direction are a sight and sound to behold Many years later, John Milius used many of the movies scenes, set pieces and costumes from this film and incorporated them into Conan.

One of my favorite lines from Conan was taken from this movie. \"It's not the strength of the iron in a weapon but the strength of the person that wields it is what matters.\" The comparisons are unmistakable. The armor that James Earl Jones and the Leader of the Teutonic Knights wear are virtually identical. A true tribute paid from one director to another.

I give Alexander Nevsky one of my highest recommendations. The movie plays like the final Act of Richard III. The presence of Prince Alexander on the screen is truly amazing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw this film around 6 months ago, I considered it interesting, but little more. But it stuck with me. That interest grew and grew, and I wondered whether my initial boredom and response had more to do with the actual VHS quality rather than the film itself. I purchased the Criterion DVD box set, and it turns out that I was right the second time. Alexander Nevsky is a great film. It is rousing, and I'm sure it succeeded in its main aim: propaganda against the Germans.

That is the most common criticism against this film, and against Eisenstein, that it is merely propagandist and nothing else. It's untrue. He is an amazing film artist, one of the most important whoever lived. By now, the world is far enough beyond Joseph Stalin to be able to watch Eisenstein's films as art.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A stunning piece of art.You can watch every image of the film and see the beauty in it.First I would like to say that \u00b4when I saw the German\u00b4s soldiers helmet\u00b4s I understood that it was from here that \"Star Wars\" hade been inspired.The scene were they kill the baby is frightening and when I saw it I did not like it.But when the film was end I thought about that scene and I changed my mind and thought that in the World War 2 that was exactly what the German\u00b4s did.

The Ice-battle scene is some of the best war scenes I have seen(If not the BEST).They way this film combines music and so superbly stunning visual images is really excellent.Then the Prokofiev score is one of the most famous sound track\u00b4s in history and I thought it was some of the best to.

what more can you say then a work of art.Eisenstein have created a stunning masterpiece,a propaganda film and a Beautiful work of art. I am very happy because I have just got the criterion collection Eisenstein set.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film with a live performance by the Buffalo Philharmonic, and the music was one of the two things that definitely made the experience for me; particularly, the song after the battle where the woman is looking for her husband was just devastating. The other thing that stood out to me is the battle on the ice itself, a bit of strategy ripped off thoroughly by the makers of _King Arthur_ in 2004. Also, the battle goes on forever (half an hour?)-- painfully long. I can't think of another propaganda film that makes war look less glamorous or rewarding. I'm surprised Stalin liked this film so well; I wouldn't want to go out and fight after watching it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alexander Nevsky is a series of superb sequences of cinematic opera that pass from pastoral to lamentation and end in a triumphal cantata. The story takes place in 1242. Prince Alexander Nevsky (Nikolai Cherkasov) defeats the Teutonic Knights in a battle on the ice of Lake Peipus.

The film is a splendid historical pageant which shows director Sergei Eisenstein at his most inventively pictorial, and climaxes in a superb battle sequence using music instead of natural sounds. Several films have scenes strongly influenced by the Battle of Lake Peipus, including Doctor Zhivago (1965), Mulan (1998), and King Arthur (2004). Alexander Nevsky was kept out of circulation due to changing political winds, and then enshrined as perhaps the most influential Soviet-made historical film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is a version of \"Nevsky\" that is shown with a live symphony orchestra, chorus, soloist and the movie. If it's EVER performed within a day's travel of you see \"Nevsky\" done that way. The Oklahoma City Philharmonic did it with the OKC Canterbury Choir (one of the finest anywhere) a couple of years ago. I think I cried through the whole thing, it was one of the most emotionally powerful movie experiences of my life. I'm listening to \"Nevsky\" on the radio right now and it still tears me up. There are movies that I love, and classical music pieces I love, but there is no combination I can think of that comes close to the impact of \"Nevsky\" performed in real time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've loved this movie since the first time I saw it lo these many years ago. I'm not sure how many times I've seen it, perhaps 10, perhaps 20. This last time I watched it I was struck by a detail that I hadn't noticed before.

Toward the end of the picture, the slain heroes are conveyed back to the town via sled. There are a couple of closeups of the dead men. The one that struck me most was a shot of the blond youth. All you see on the screen is his profile from head to hands. His hands are holding a flickering candle. The wind is blowing and his thick blond hair is dancing in the wind, in tune with the flicker of the candle flame. The contrast between death and the life he has lost is incredibly powerful. The moving hair and candle flame remind us of the life force that once inhabited his body.

Every time I revisit this film I see something new.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This 3 hour epic (seems much shorter) explores the will to power and conquest and the conflicting motives that underlie that quest by tracking two parallel lives: the emperor Q'in, whose desire to unify the Chinese feudal states has its basis in noble aims but devolves into violent oppression,isolation, and ultimate powerlessness; and the assassin Jing ke, a mercenary killer who comes to recognize the unintended consequences of murder and finds a form of salvation. As with all great art, this can be understood on many levels. The movie evoked for me images and ideas from Homer, Euripides, Machiavelli, Shakespeare, and Freud.

The story itself is true (I checked it out at britannica.com!), so this film will appeal to history buffs. It's ironic that Q'in spent much of his last years in a futile quest for immortality (not shown on the screen, but consistent with the plot).

The movie can also be viewed as an allegory of Maoism and the Cultural Revolution. Through the movie, one can understand that the last 50 years of Chinese history have had their precedent in the last 3000.

Fortunately for the audience, these complex ideas are developed in a film that is rich in imagery, action, and pagent. The battle scenes alone are worth the price of admission.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on the actual event , this epic, is set in the year 221 B.C and tells the true story of the unification of China. Action packed and filled with intrigue, passion, betrayals and unforgettable battle sequences, it held my attention throughout in spite of its 160 minute length.

The king, Ying Zeng, played by Li Xuejian is obsessed with unifying the seven kingdoms of China and becoming its first Emperor. His lover, Lady Zhao, played by the beautiful actress Gong Li, devises a plot whereby she will travel to the neighboring kingdom of Yan to set a fake assassination plot in motion which will give the king an excuse to invade Yan. However, she falls in love with the assassin as the king becomes more and more ruthless.

There are subplots, and tragedy and constant high drama. There are scenes of great beauty and of abject cruelty. There is great cinematography and brilliant use of physical space.

The deep characterization made me think of Shakespeare. And tragic events that call to mind Greek drama. And yet it is totally Chinese as it deals with age-old questions of whether the ends justify the means. And raises the questions dealing with life and death and good and evil and all the blurred edges in between.

It is the story of individuals against the backdrop of history, a history that has shaped China for the past two thousand years. I was swept up in the story as well as the moral questions raised. There are no easy answers and this was one of the strengths of the movie.

Recommended. But be prepared for the violence and gore.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chen Kaige lost his sense of tempo. I envy Europeans and Americans who can watch the film without following the dialog with their ears, because it is painful to do: slow, unnaturally heavy, and over-deliberate. But Westerners, on the other hand, suffer from the poor quality of subtitle translation, which manages to lose all the subtlety and double meanings that make a careful study of the film so much fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is beautiful in many ways: the plot, the depth of the characters, the stunning photography and acting, the kolossal-like scenes of battles (no computer graphics here, just thousands of people). Someone said the story has something to do with the Sheakespearian tragedies. I find some connections with the Greek tragedy tradition, too.

The emperor, extraordinarily acted, struggles between power and love, but he is forced (for the greater good, for the will of his ancestors) to choose the power (and the loneliness, the hate of his subjects and kins) as his destiny. He, like Creon in Antigone, was a good guy before becoming emperor. Once gained power, he has to be merciless and cruel (with innocent children, his mother, his father, etc.) to defend and expand the empire. Entrapped by power he becomes a monster. Overall, The Qin emperor is a majestic Greek tragedy figure.

The assassin evolves towards a different direction: from pure evil to heroism and morality. Even this character is forced towards his destiny by love and by his new ethics. This character is really unforgettable, too.

Lady Zhao, a wonderful Gong Li, is the uncorrupted morality, nor by power or love or hate. She is morality against power, somehow like Antigone. Her conspiracies (for and against the emperor) have always a moral rationale.

In conclusion, a wonderful movie. If you love cinema and you want to try Chinese movies you can start here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed the film very much, especially the performance of the exceptionally beautiful Gong Li as the concubine.

It was a little distracting, however, to have Chinese dialogue PLUS English subtitles PLUS American-accented voice-over, even though the voice over was very well synchronised.

Qin shi huiang di's (The First Emperor of Qin's)family name was Zheng, and his given name Yiong so in the English he should have been referred to as \"King Zheng\" or \"Emperor Zheng\", and NOT as \"King Ying Zheng\" as in those days the two family\/given names were not used together.

The State of Qin is pronounced \"Chin\" not \"shin\" - a pity the researchers didn't get this right.

I forgave this but was dismayed at the end when the commentary announced that he was buried at \"Zai-an\" together with his terra cotta warriors. The town Xi'an is pronounced \"See-an\" , never \"Zai-an\"- surely the American voice-over speakers could have got that right !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Leaving aside the drawbacks and deficiencies of the film mentioned by other viewers I must say that it seemed to me a film about power,which is in my opinion one of the most luring illusions. I saw the drama of an emperor and people. It seems to me that the director wanted to pose a question of what the benefit of nation is and what the price of \"happiness\" for all is. Is there justification for the enforced benefit and \"happiness\"? How much can be forfeited for the nation's security and peaceful existence? Is the idea of a powerful would-be empire worth reducing to misery and killing thousands of its citizens now? It seems to me that the emperor himself does not know the answer and seeks to learn it all the time the film runs. He is desperately torn between these desires and at the same time psychologically harassed by the discovery of his true origin. He seems to half hate his subjects for having to renounce his father and his love, half love the people as a good emperor should. No wonder his actions are controversial and emotions confused. It seems to me that as another film presenting the problem of power of man over other men the film is a success.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chen Kaige gives us magnificent depth of atmosphere. Yes, it's a 'period piece', but Chen's artistic use of imagery makes it something more. The actors often behave like players using the stylized diction, postures and facial expressions of Peking Opera. All the actors in a scene play to the 'back wall' even when addressing each other. They are like spirits of the past enunciating with powerful clarity a story with urgent meaning for those in the present. Combined with close attention to scale and masterful cinematography indoors and out, \"Jing ke ci qin wang\" is a stunning tale told with great reverence in its own idiom that captivates completely.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kaige succeeds in this beautifully done film. The pace matches the story, the direction is superb, and the casting\/acting is perfect. The only draw back are one or two slight editing errors. I love film and I am a confessed stickler.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Quite a production from the director telling the story of The Qin Emperor's ambitious plan to unite all kingdoms of China. Some great characters, sets, costumes and scenes. However, I was not blown away by the film in terms of the actors ability (which was good I enjoyed the Marquis the most) or its look (although the massing of troops was extremely impressive, if it was real man that is a lot of extras!).

I have seen Li Gong in other movies and she is always great. Good period piece I think, but not one to judge the true historical accuracy of it. Good film and found the 2 1\/2 + hours not a problem.

Rating 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie invites comparisons to Shakespeare. The Mandarin is beautifully written and spoken, and the plot is intricate and intriguing. Never has Gong Li looked better, never has the glory that is China been better represented on the screen. The balance between political turmoil and personal intrigue that Gladiator hinted at but never really delivered is here in spades. Simply incredible.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This story documenting the rise of China's first emperor and his efforts to unify the empire was the most expensive movie production in Chinese history.

It's worth every penny. Visually dazzling cinematography, a sweeping score and outstanding characters make this one of the finest epics ever put on film (foreign or otherwise.) Please do not miss the opportunity to see this on the big screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another period piece for Chen Kiage... (can't remember him doing a modern film!)...

Good characterization with a simple story of trust and broken promises. None of the HK fighting scenes, or the Hollywood type of heroes, but it is good because of it. The characters are strong, I really felt for them.

Understanding the mandarin definitely gives the English subtitles the edge. The film is 3 hours, but it didn't feel like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is not for those expecting a martial-arts extravaganza. As for historical accuracy, I will leave that issue to those better informed on that subject. I thought the performances were wonderful. Gong Li never disappoints as the resourceful and (initially) loyal consort of the King of Qin. Fengyi Zhang showed a lot of flexibility portraying a ruler descending into madness. He chose the \"Hannibal Lector\" route, rather than resorting to ranting. For me, the best performance was from Zhiwen Wang as the supersmooth Marquis. The character came across as very oily, but in a subtle \"Sir Humphrey Appleby\" - Yes Minister kind of way.

The cinematography is the standout feature of this film. The scene when the Marquis and his men stormed the palace was breathtaking. There are also a number of wonderful battle scenes. Therefore, this film is highly recommended on the big screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The pace of the film is ponderously slow in parts, but if you can tune into its languid speed and lengthy silences then it is a satisfying piece of courtly intrigue. The story of the first Emperor of China, his childhood sweetheart and the personal cost of power. The film is very atmospheric, the extremely mannered and polite courtly ceremony and ritual contrasted with sudden brutal violence. Filmed in a way that evokes shadows and cold spaces. Battle scenes are rare and short, the focus is on the battle within the individual on what is right to do and whether the ends justify the means. The emperor's journey from idealistic peacemaker to ruthless tyrant is aiming to be subtle, but gives little background or convincing insight into the motivation of the Emperor, indeed his actions and aims do not really change throughout, only Gong Li's attitudes to him are altered. The most interesting performances are Gong Li's and the titular Assassin as they reassess when to fight, when to retreat, when to kill. The most expensive film ever made in China at the time, the Emperor and the Assassin does not rely on hysteric emotion or big battles, but rather a brooding atmosphere of menace and inevitability. Gong Li fans will be unsurprised to hear she is as stunningly beautiful as ever, giving an understated performance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is excellent ( i watched the French version ). There are many subplots (which usually detracts from the whole ), but they nicely unfold and concur to the \"discovering of one's real self\" main theme. In fact, the whole movie (besides his background ) is the journey to the discovery of one's ( or someone else's ) self. Is the King really a \"good peacenik monarch\" trying to wage a \"war to end all wars\" or is he just a disturbed, blood thirsty hoodlum? Is he a true king, after all? Is the attendant to the queen mother just a lusty, career-driven, spineless sock puppet or rather a sharp thinking, bold individual? Will the dame\/concubine realize who the king truly is? What's between the king and the old chancellor? What's the secret everyone knows but won't tell? What's the true reason the assassin quit his \"job\"? Subplots (something i'm not particularly fond of ) are handled well and keep one watching until the end. Scenes are well crafted and CGI fits nicely in, without going overboard. Suspense is properly maintained and actors are upto the task. There is a lot of brain-damaged smiling, but that is how one was supposed to behave at the king's court ( as the dame\/concubine complains about ). Realistic movie without superhero moments. This Chinese movie really puts Hollywood cardboard colossals ( Gladiator etc ) to shame.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story of pre-unified China must be a popular one. Jet Li's Hero made the assassination of the King popular.

This is another story made a few years earlier. It stars the incredibly beautiful Li Gon (Memoirs of a Geisha, 2046, Miami Vice) as the King's lover, who was sent to recruit an assassin so that the King could defeat him. She recruits Fengyi Zhang, but falls in love with him.

No matter, he is not able to complete the mission anyway, as the King knew about him beforehand. I suspected he also knew, but went anyway.

It was a beautiful story with massive military operations, and, of course, another chance to see Li Gong.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very great movie.

A big love story. Lots of sword fighting. Huge battle scenes. Heros and villains. Real history.

Few in the West know much Chinese history. Chin Zchaundi founded China. The country is in fact named after him. Some are familiar with the terra cotta army recently unearthed. This is a historical epic of how he ended the Period of Contending States and unified China. He founded a dynasty that only last 14 years but it was immediately replaced by the Han dynasty that permanently defined Chinese civilization ever since.

Chin (or the King of Zheng as he was known before he founded the empire)was roughly contemporaneous with Scipio, Hannibal, and Fabius in the West. The parallel Roman world dominance (West and East worlds) was achieved without a single towering personality like Chin. It would not be for another century before the West produced Caesar - the nearest comparable Western figure.

Chin is shown very sympathetically here in the beginning but he develops over the course of the film into a ruthless despot. History only records the ruthless despot part but the sympathetic beginning leaves room for real character development over the course of this long film. The famous story about the meeting with the assassin is as true as any two thousand year old anecdote can be. Gong Li is lovely. She is the emotional core of the story. It all makes for great movie making.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have found this epic to be of an astonishing, striking, even heartbreaking beauty. Some kind of monumentality in beauty and decorative richness, a magnificent dramatic movement and dynamism. The choreography herein is hugely enjoyable, the actors are thoroughly enjoyable. I have been a big fan of CROUCHING TIGER \u0085 as well, but this one was even better. They have Kitano's ingenuity in delighting in what is pleasurable. This beauty affirming adventure cinema is an act of courage. When was the suspense so exquisite and genuine? And the art of showing huge crowds, gigantic armies \u0085. The film has something deeply satisfying, and a steadfast good taste. There is an enormous pleasure in making such a deliberately impressing and clean show \u0085.It's good beyond words. Few, few adventure films ,let alone epics, gave me such an uninterrupted delight.

Fan can be monumental. \u0085is not monumental art\u0097but is monumental fun,like Leone's movies, like some '60s epics; also like the hobbits trilogy. It is large\u0097sized fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have nothing but good things to say about this tasteful and heartwarming film. I think that the effort of the film's director\/writer is courageous as well as inspirational. I loved this film not only for the fantastic story (which needed to be told), but also for the way the actors delivered the story. This is not another shallow \"gay movie\" that depicts stereotypical characters in humorous situations. This was a memorable and flawless effort to show people that love truly knows no bounds, and love is still as beautiful and wonderful as it always was.

Another thing that touched my heart was how well I could relate to the emotion portrayed in this film surrounding the coming out of one of the main characters. We all have to go through similar situations living in the society that we live in and feeling that feeling of detachment from everything that is \"right\" and \"normal\". I give my most heartfelt praise for this fabulous and courageous story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having grown up a Mormon and grappled with the church's bigotry towards Blacks (they were not allowed to hold the church's priesthood when I was a member) -- I wasn't aware of the organizations policy of excommunicating gay men and women until after I left the church in 1966 -- (I was 20.) I was stunned when I learned that friends who were gay were excommunicated even after serving on missions. LATTER DAYS exposes the Mormon's persecution of gay members. The film is LONG overdue. It does an excellent job of showing how the two lead males come to terms with one another, while managing to grow up and develop more fully as individuals. LATTER DAYS has great heart, wonderful original music and an added touch of class from Jacqueline Bisset. The film brilliantly tells the story of an individual who leaves behind the confines of organized religion and reclaims his very soul.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love so much about this movie: the music, the cinematography, the acting, the story, and all the Mormon clich\u00e9s. Just because they are clich\u00e9s doesn't mean they aren't true! This is not perfect, it is a movie after all. Though excommunications are held in well-lit rooms with nice big desks and chairs, it was totally appropriate to portray it as the dark, cold scene they did in this film. I also liked the scene with the angel waiting at the bus stop, smoking a cigarette. I thought that was so cool. I mean, I believe that angels do watch over us. What is one supposed to do while waiting? Smoking is a way some people pass the time while waiting. I loved the irony cause Mormons make such a deal about smoking. I saw this movie 7 times in theaters in Salt Lake, and cried every time! It blows me away. And I've watched it 3 times on video now and it still makes me cry every time. I would jump at the chance to see it again on a big screen. I hope the Tower Theatre in Salt Lake will bring it back regularly at General Conference time, as a cult movie (pun intended, but no offense intended).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I may be a sentimentalist. But i found this movie truly moving. It was the first movie that reduced me to tears. And it did it more than once!! I recommend it to anyone both gay and str8. Religious or not! Supporting co-star Jackie Bisset stole the show, especially with her one liners. The nude scenes were superbly crafted as well, and all in were good taste. Most shocking was the portrayal of the orientation reversal deprogramming instituted by the Mormon church to the lead character. It shocked me that this still goes on in the world. Nevertheless I enjoyed this movie tremendously. This is definitely the best gay film since Torch Song Trilogy. And much better than the other gay movie offering that year - The Fluffer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Latter days is the best gay movie of the homosexual genre. Most of the films entail sappy stories, one night stands, and let us not forget infamous baseball teams? Latter days actually contains male affection beyond the kiss in the dark, and quite graphic material that made me wonder whether the film belonged at Blockbuster or badpuppy.com. The films emotional journey is what sets it above the rest in the genre. Not until this film had I seen a story of such intense passion and love, and the torture that it can bring. I think when people cry during movies they should be beaten, but I found myself sobbing throughout several scenes because of the realistic nature of the world in which we live. I suggest every gay male see this film, and if you have a boyfriend, thank him...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a Sociologist\/Anthropologist specializing in the field of Symbolic Interactionism, and I must say that this film exhibits high quality in the symbolic context throughout the entire film. To anyone who has not yet seen this, I recommend that you also read \"Man's Search For Ultimate Meaning\" by Victor E. Frankl. I think you will be able to draw some amazing correlations.

That being said, I would like to say that despite the fact that the main characters are gay, this is not a story about being gay. This is a story about seeking out and finding meaning in life, despite the difficulties and challenges, the pain and terror that stand in your way. This is a story of seeking and finding balance and wholeness and happiness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was truly a deeply moving movie in every sense of the word. I myself was a Mormon missionary and I know first hand the wanting to complete my mission but at the same time hiding the fact that I was gay. Like the character Aaron, I was sent home for being found out and excommunicated, but being the only Mormon in a family of Catholics wasn't as big a shame as it was for the lead character. This movie really took me back to those days and helped me to realize, years later, how fortunate I was to have a family that accepted me and understood what I was going through. I found myself applauding the end of a movie when Aaron and Christian find each other again by shear chance at Lila's Restaurant. I was truly moved to tears. I highly recommend this movie to all who read this review and also declare it a must buy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, I'd like to say I'm just an amateur in commenting movies and that English is not my native language, but that I felt a strong feeling compelling me to write about such movie; possibly as a way to thank and congratulate C. Jay Cox, the cast and the crew for such a brilliant production.

Yesterday I watched \"Latter Days\" for the first time.

At first I thought it might be similar to the movie \"Priest\", which I liked very much for showing a gay priest out of the closet. But \"Priest\", maybe due to its restrict Catholic Ideological notions, didn't supply my spectator's needs by revealing a profound sad end.

\"Latter Days\", on the other hand, broke that concept (and some other ones as well, such as the Mormon's principles); presenting a tender and cheerful story, leading it to a happy and emotive end, and yet arousing a feeling of God's blessing and hope. A great movie indeed!

Somehow \"Latter Days\" made me feel L.A. as a city of angels.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes astoundingly beautiful gay love stories!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The very first time I heard of Latter Days was when I was renting DVD's and I was interested as I am a member of the LDS Church. I found this movie very heartfelt and in several areas it made me cry. The reason for this is that too many years ago I knew a young man who went through what Aaron (played by Steve Sandvoss)does in Latter Days, but unlike Aaron this dear young man did not survive the ordeal. He ended up taking is life after his church, his friends, and his family disowned him because he was gay. There have been many people who do not think that the things that are shown in the movie really happen in this day and age, but the sorry and sad thing is they do. For those of you out their who are gay and young you need to see this movie and if you are a gay Mormon you really need to see this movie. Plus if you get the DVD there is help for you listed in the DVD. Teenage suicide in the gay world is very disturbing and this movie touches it but that part is hidden to a degree. The acting and the music is excellent. This movie sold out every movie house that it showed but it only showed in major cities and had a very limited release, so for those who would like to see this movie I would recommend the DVD release. The only people that I know who did not like the movie are members of my own church and they did not see the movie because of the subject matter gays and the LDS Church. See the movie, experience the story, and feel the emotions that are showcased in this movie you I feel will not be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Four holy young men from Mormon country go to L.A. to preach the gospel to urban heathens. But, one of the young Mormons is a repressed gay who \"happens\" to cross paths with a very \"out\" young L.A. party boy. (What would film plots be without coincidences?). These two, very different, young men become friends, and in the process, affect each other's outlook which, in turn, sets up an inevitable clash between gay and Mormon cultures.

That is the premise of \"Latter Days\", a 2003 film, written and directed by C.Jay Cox, himself a former Mormon missionary. The film's story is, of course, highly relevant, especially in contemporary America. Variations of this story need to be told, and retold, and retold, hopefully in future films ... because the underlying theme brings to light the hatefully superior attitude that Christian fundamentalists too often display toward gays. By its nature, \"Latter Days\" is provocative, and I doubt that the film was well received in Provo or Pocatello, even though the script is intelligent, sensitive, and insightful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"LATTER DAYS

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Stereo

Trouble flares when an LA party boy (Wes Ramsey) falls in love with a handsome Mormon missionary (Steve Sandvoss).

A huge hit on the festival circuit and on limited theatrical release, this likable movie - the feature debut of screenwriter C. Jay Cox (SWEET HOME ALABAMA) - is an exercise in 'opposites attract', in which Ramsey's shallow-minded character is changed forever after falling hard for vulnerable beauty Sandvoss, who is constrained by the dictates of his religious convictions. Here, the path of true love is paved with hardship, not least of which is the reaction of Sandvoss' fellow Mormons to his newfound sexuality, which results in his excommunication from the church and the wrath of his indignant parents (Mary Kay Place has a small but devastating cameo as the boy's outraged mother). But Cox's script focuses chiefly on Ramsey's path to redemption, as his hedonistic lifestyle is thrown into disarray by Sandvoss' influence, and by the responsibilities which emerge as a consequence of his developing maturity: He volunteers as an outreach participant, delivering food to AIDS patients living at home, leading to an unexpected friendship with former party boy Erik Palladino (TV's \"er\"), whose illness provides Ramsey with a much-needed wake-up call.

Cox's script is laced with juicy one-liners and various pearls of wisdom (on Mormonism: \"Your church doesn't like alcohol or homosexuals? Well, I'm definitely not joining - I can't imagine heaven without both!\"), and the characters are surprisingly complex and well-drawn. Ramsey has the showier, sexier role (he's first seen doing something rude to a willing participant!), but it's Sandvoss who has become something of a gay icon, with his sensitive portrayal of a sweet-natured innocent whose journey from Darkness into Light leads to a startling revelation about his place in the world around him. He and Ramsey are well-matched, and their inevitable sex scene (brief but memorable) is followed by a compelling sequence in which Ramsey describes a childhood trauma which has defined his life to date.

Filmed on hi-def video and transferred to 35mm for theatrical exhibition, the movie's meager budget places limitations on the scope and grandeur of Cox's ambitions, though the characters and situations are strong enough to survive this minor drawback. Jacqueline Bisset shines as a worldly-wise restaurateur at the diner where Ramsey waits tables for a living, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (\"Third Rock from the Sun\") steals everyone's thunder as Sandvoss' fellow Mormon, opposed to his friend's relationship with Ramsey on religious principle... but ONLY on principle. Though a little stilted in places, the movie aches with romantic longing, and deserves plaudits for its honesty and compassion. Best seen with a crowd of like-minded viewers, preferably with a loved one by your side.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was impressed by the story. It had the \"typical\" predatory gay male and the \"typical\" Mormon missionary. But, they each also had friends and family who balanced their lives well. There are a number of characters, some nice and some not so nice, each with their own personality nuances. And, most reminded me of people in my own life.

The story starts out with several humorous moments and slowly evolves into a heartwarming relationship film. The story progresses without obvious plot turns and never talks down to you. It makes you think a bit while waiting to see what happens. Even when I thought I could foresee something coming, I was surprised by how it actually came about.

Not many movies make me laugh knowingly at real gay dialogue and then bring a tear to my eye when I feel the characters' pain. I watched the film on DVD, and couldn't bring myself to stop watching until it was over. (Usually, I watch a film in pieces over a couple of days.) It's nice to see a film with gay characters that is uplifting, but not preachy. I highly recommend this film! And, not just for gay audiences. The relationships transcend sexuality.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Without a doubt the most impressive recent gay oriented film I've seen. C. Jay Cox hit the nail on the head with this one. The way he handled the issues surrounding faith, family and sexuality were very well done. Casting was perfect. Wes Ramsey did a fantastic job at pulling off the character of Christian and Steve Sandvoss will knock your socks off in the role of Aaron. Both brought an incredible amount of realism to the roles and the impacts these issues have on young gay men. As a gay man who grew up in a very religious environment (though not Mormon)the identification with Aaron's character was phenomenal for me. Strongly recommend this film to anyone, faithful or not, who is interested in how young gay men have to deal with family and friends in an oft times unfriendly world. By the way, the music in this film rocks! Another great job by C. Jay Cox.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Back in 1982 a little film called MAKING LOVE shocked audiences with its frank and open depiction of a romantic love story that just happened to be about two men.

I have been waiting for years for a good, old-fashioned romance between two men; LATTER DAYS is all that and more.

Yes, it is soapy, melodramatic, clich\u00e9-ridden, and quite corny. That is what makes it so wonderful. There is nothing like a good romantic movie, and this movie is romantic in the best sense of the word.

As to the issue of religion, sorry folks, but these things do happen and are happening to gay people even now. It is not just the Mormon church that rejects its gay members. Gay people in every religion have faced harsh judgment and rejection.

I loved this movie. It has a perfect blend of a fantasy-romance grounded in the reality of the day-to-day lives of the characters. If I could give it more than ten stars I would. Good love stories never go out of style; great love stories like LATTER DAYS are unforgettable.

It's about time!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"From C. Jay Cox, the writer of the hit comedy 'Sweet Home Alabama', comes a heartwarming and tender gay romantic drama that combines laughs, seduction, tears, and plenty of romance. The handsome Aaron (Steve Sandvoss), a Mormon missionary, travels door-to-door in Los Angeles spreading the word of his religion. Christian (Wes Ramsey), a cute West Hollywood party boy, goes from man-to-man without much commitment. Opposites attract when Aaron and Christian meet, and sparks begin to fly.

\"Featuring two star-making performances from Sandvoss and Ramsey, the film also features a terrific supporting cast including Mary Kay Place, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and international screen legend Jacqueline Bisset,\" according to the DVD sleeve description. Not to mention some sweet vocalizations from Rebekah Jordan (as Julie), the stock sympathetic roommate. Debuting director Cox turns his otherwise ordinary \"Latter Days\" into a enjoyable and touching drama, due to some story surprises and an engaging team.

******* Latter Days (7\/10\/03) C. Jay Cox ~ Steve Sandvoss, Wes Ramsey, Jacqueline Bisset, Joseph Gordon-Levitt","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Latter Days is a very, VERY independent movie. And compared to many of today's more modern films, it's lacking on many parts. The shooting seems at times quite amateurish, the dialogues can be a bit chopped up and the characters are not impressively complex. So, don't have too high hopes for this movie, because as I've said, it's very independent. But whatever it lacks in the concrete aspects of the film can be overlooked because of the story's charm! I cannot claim that the plot is outstandingly original, but the story is still beautiful and heart-warming in many ways! It's not about being gay versus being straight, it's about faith, and how you decide to run your own life! It's a silly story, that makes you want to both cry and smile at the same time! So to be honest, Latter Days is far from perfect, but I truly loved the movie and I highly recommend it! It's very critical towards the religious aspects of our society, and there is homosexuality involved - but approach it with an open mind, and I'm pretty sure that most people will enjoy it as much as myself!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent performance by Mary KAy Place, Steve Sandvoss, Jacqueline Bissett and Rebekah Johnson. Superb story that reels you into the movie, emotional, yet light-hearted. I own this movie, and everyone that I've shared it with, loves it. Great for mixed company, 18+ crowd.

Nice production, not a cheap budget, well organized, and keeps your interest. Uses dome newer ideas, for flashbacks, and at one point keeps the viewer at the edge of their seat.

No matter what walk of life a viewer is from, they will buy-in to one or more viewpoints in this film.

Would love to see a sequel!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an all-around superb film. A moving experience filled with real life emotion. There's lessons to be learned here about love, sex, work, religion and American culture regardless of one's sexual preference.

While this film is also a scathing indictment of the Mormon's (Church Of Latter Day Saints) belief system, any conservative faith could easily take its place. But it's a bit ironic that homosexuality is currently condemned by the Mormons in no uncertain terms. Here's a faith that mandated for generations that believers practice polygamy! And these true believers only gave up this practice because they were forced to do so by the Federal government in order for Utah to join the Union. Talk about a unique form of hypocrisy!

The sex scenes portrayed in the unrated version are tasteful, and surprisingly brief. There's nothing here that would offend anyone with an open mind.

What this film makes so obvious is that homosexuality is perfectly natural to people who are gay, as heterosexuality is to people who are straight! While love and sex are obviously quite different needs, its absolutely beautiful, beyond words, when both occur at the same time between two adults! Profound erotic love is one of life's most precious gifts! My congratulations to the filmmakers for a job well done!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hey guy, this movies is everything about choices. All the times in your life you must pick something or it just pass away... And this movie prove that! Of course, life in fact is not like a beautiful picture as this movie shows... it not shows indeed but some may figure that. I'm trying to say it's full of pain, love and deep lessons of live. Aaron, the Mormon missionary is the real shepherd digging out the thing beautiful deep inside Chisthian, the skin feeling guy...

It's a great end and you do always believe in fate because it will surprise you in a turn or in other of your live like Latter Days...

Big deal watch it!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie on LOGO television today. I was absolutely enthralled by the powerful messages and plot line within this film. I don't want to spoil it. I will say this, I related to the inner struggle of Aaron and his upbringing. As a gay man growing up in a small town, I related SO well to the \"big secret\" and the choices I made. This movie has made a HUGE impact on me and I plan on buying a copy of it in the very near future for my personal library. I no more than finished the movie and began calling my friends to recommend it. It had that profound of an effect on me. To those who read this comment. WATCH it. Try to have as little distraction as possible. Also,keep an open mind. This is not a film that can be viewed like a Disney film or the movie of the week. Instead, take the time to watch and actively LISTEN to the dialog as well as read between the lines and get involved in the plot. You may find yourself in tears. Not since \"Steel Magnolias\" have I been moved to tears by a film. This one did just that. Thank you to the cast and writer and crew for producing an emotionally charged romantic film about homosexuality and religion. It has been LONG overdue.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you've got a box of tissues, a comfy couch, a large bowl of popcorn and no social commitment on a Friday night, this is definitely your movie! Its romantic, its hot and its challenging. For most of us gay people, religion is just one of those things that we did when we were kids and probably just starred at the alter boy and how cute he was! But in Latter Days, you see the struggles of being gay when your entire world revolves around belief's which totally contradict being gay. The two main cast members were totally hot, but at the same time managed to capture your heart and even make me 'almost' cry (I have never cried in a movie!), which I thought was quite impressive for a B grade movie. I highly recommend this flick, you will laugh, you will cry (unless your me) and you will definitely drool! I love it so much I even purchased the DVD for my collection. Its truly the most beautiful movie ever","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For an independent film it scores well with reasonably high production values and a great cast. The acting is uneven but the plot is compelling. We could have used a bit more development of Wes Ramsey's character, but hey, the guy's fun to look at nonetheless! Mary Kay Place and Jacqueline Bisset are like icing on the cake.

It's not surprising that it was controversial on its release. It presents a less than flattering portrayal of the Morman Church and its relationship with gays. While, like Brokeback Mountain, it's about tolerance and accepting one's own life, I found it to be more successful in conveying a positive message. It was more moving, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love a cute heartfelt movie with a happy ending. This movie could be considered a drama, bout two characters realizing true love, but the story's so touching and so sweet that in my mind its a romance. Granted, the acting is not so great (thats y i didn't give it a 10) but they do the job, and they don't overact (thank god) plus they're cute, but the story's powerful and just plain adorable (some of u pansies will choke up)!!!!!! its a great watch for a love story, but if ur homophobic, STAY AWAY! for everyone else, i loved the movie, its soo sweet! i felt its a brokeback on a smaller scale...but with a happy ending....so enjoy!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched it last night and again this morning - that's how much I liked it. There is something about this movie... When the movie was almost over, I was about to cry. I would strongly recommend \"Latter Days\" to my friends - it's definitely worth seeing! I agree with those who say that some parts of the movie do not look very realistic. For example, both main characters are totally cute and in perfect physical shape (although, round is also a type of shape:) ). I rarely meet people like this as singles and I have never met any in couples. Other parts of the movie, including all those \"coincidences\", do not look very realistic as well. BUT, after all it is A MOVIE, not a life story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With the exception of the main character, the acting didn't convince me, but the story was quite good: It's about a love affair between a gay party boy and a young Mormon missionary. As you can imagine, such a relationship is quite problematic. The movie is very American and, as such, has some metaphysical undertones to counterbalance its criticism of religious intolerance. But some story lines are hilarious: one of the main characters asks his gay colleague: \"Do you believe in God?\" And he answers: \"\u0085you mean: other than Madonna?\" All in all, the film is not one of my all-time favorites, but the script is really good and I really liked it: it's entertaining and stands up against (religious) prejudice and intolerance. I think this is an important message in our times. Since I rated films that I liked less with 9, this is clearly a 10 for me. Some people may find this exaggerated, but I think this film deserves it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Latter Days for me was a very moving film, it showed just how hard and disrespected the gay community really is. The film etherizes true passion and really explores the feelings of these two characters, the film holds a real depth of compassion for the gay community, as it really speaks out for the gay man\/woman. Personally i think it's about high time that the homosexual community of all religions should no longer hold there head in shame, just for being there beautiful self. The film was very much of a eye opener for me as I could not believe how anti homosexual this world really is. Even at schools if a kid dislikes something they will refer to it as being \"gay\". I real hope that more film like this one are made, and that they are not just labelled as a \"Gay\" film but as a love story, as I believe that gay directors should stick up for themselves and tell their story through their eyes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Honestly, at first, I watched this movie because of the gratuitous sex scenes I heard it possesses but by actually watching the film, it just made me realize that there are still good and sensible movies out there. Truly, it is one of the most well-crafted and touching movies I've ever watched. I'm a teenage bisexual and the film spoke to me about my predicaments - sex, religion, love, acceptance, etc. It gave me an idea on how to deal with these issues with the help of my self and others around me who love me for who I am. Cox really handled the movie well by sprinkling dozes of heart-warming lines and a bit of sexuality in it. It made the movie more interesting. Some people compare it to Brokeback Mountain but I don't agree myself. Brokeback Mountain has more drama while Latter Days is well-balanced.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When i was told about this movie i wasn't too happy to see it, although by the end credits, turned out to be one of THE best movies i have ever viewed.

the movie it self is quite graphic (male to male scenes, you don't see everything) wouldn't be a gay themed movie if there wasn't...

the movie is very light hearted with humor and contains some very funny parts. i highly recommend this movie, about 3 quarters through you really feel for the main characters, and this i think brings the whole flick together.

once again, very nicely put together.. plus cute Mormon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this film!!! It was so easy to become a part of the characters lives and really feel the emotion they were going through.

A film filled with laughs, sarcasm, shocks and upset just a fantastic romantic drama really!

The only part i didn't enjoy was in the special features. The behind the scenes commentary was a little off putting. Because i'd seen the film before the extras i prefer thinking of the actors like the characters (silly i know) but the actors personality's are very different from the characters they play. But nevertheless its a totally fantastic, spectacular, brilliant film i recommend that anyone who looked at this film and thought hmmmmmmm should i buy it? answer must be a definite yes!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A truly remarkable film that takes you on a journey through your hidden emotions,a deep and enlightening story. The story takes you through the lives and beliefs of gay and religious cultures, with excellent performances from an superb star cast. It will touch the deepest reaches of your emotions, for those who belief that a love that risks nothing, is worth nothing. The film starts with introducing us to the characters that on the surface seem to have everything ,later we find that beneath the surfaces of each character they are looking for a journey of self discovery. We learn from this story that we all must chose the path in life that we are destined to be on despite what difficulties we encounter,an all thumbs up film!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Purgatory Flats\", shown on cable recently, is a small movie that packs a lot. Harris Done directs with style. The screen play by Mr. Done and Diane Fine makes a good thriller.

If you haven't seen the film, perhaps you would like to stop reading.

The film is the story about a young L.A. doctor that made a mistake and lives to pay for it. Upon being released from prison he wants to hide in a small town where he feels he will be forgotten. Bad choice! What Thomas Reed finds in Purgatory Flats is hell in the desert. Right after landing a job as a bar tender, Thomas meets a pretty young woman, Sunny, who, clearly is someone to stay away from. The young doctor is called to help as Sunny's boyfriend Randy, is gunned down by a drug dealer.

We get to know Randy's family. His uncle Dean appears to be OK, but his brother Owen is a loose cannon. Every one in the household is connected in more ways than one to the nubile Sunny.

The performances are fine. Vincent Ventresca is Thomas, the man who should have gone to his L.A. practice instead of making a detour to the small town. Alexandra Holden is Sunny, a young woman with a tremendous ambition to escape her surroundings. Kevin Alejandro, Gregg Henry, Brian Austin play the men in the Mecklin family well. Nicholas Turturro makes also a good contribution as the drug dealer.

The film shows a director with promise who will go far judging from this tightly constructed film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After spending five years in prison, Dr. Thomas Reed, played by the incomparable Vincent Ventresca, exiles himself to Purgatory Flats and winds up tending bar. He soon meets the luscious, angel-faced Sunny (Alexandra Holden). \"You are wicked.\" he tells her. \"You have no idea.\" she replies as she sips her Slo Comfortable Screw and languidly drags on her cig. Reed finds himself entwined in the violent troubles of her family and the femme fatale story unfolds set against the desolation and desperation of the oil-drained western town.

Canny direction. Great performances. Superb entourage work. And some lust scenes that sizzle like the sun in Purgatory.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My friend took me to a screening of this movie in Hollywood and it was awesome! It's a film noir with amazing acting, great script, cool music, the whole thing was very well done and entertaining. Don't know if it is getting a release in theaters, but this would be a great date movie or a fun movie to rent if you see it at Blockbuster. This is the kind of movie I love, low on budget but big on style and imagination. I hope Alexandra Holden gets more big parts like she has in this one, she is fantastic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am so happy not to live in an American small town. Because whenever I'm shown some small town in the States it is populated with all kinds of monsters among whom flesh hungry zombies, evil aliens and sinister ghosts are most harmless. In this movie a former doctor, who's just done time for an accidental killing of his wife in a car crash, directs his steps to the nearest small town - he must have never in his life seen a flick about any small towns - which happens to be the Purgatory Flats. And, of course, as soon as he arrives there all the hell breaks loose. He meets a blond chick who out of all creatures most resembles a cow both in facial expressions and in brain functioning and at once falls in love with her. But there is a tiny handicap, she is already married to a very small-time drug dealer who in a minute gets himself shot pitifully not dead. To know what has come out of all this you should watch the movie for yourself. I'll just tell you that it's slightly reminiscent of U Turn by Oliver Stone but is a way down in all artistic properties.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Found this movie in a rental store. Never heard about it before, but it was a good movie. Great acting, and thrilling story line. Great kudos to Vincent Ventresca. He made Thomas character very attractive, and brought a special atmosphere to this movie.

NJ

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This short movie intends to focus on one issue sociologically known as cultured shock. the film presents the condition of average Romanian in democratic Romania who finds out that the life and the problems are not different from Communist period, and if you want something, you must bribe around to get it.

So, our main character is fired after a long while, he is around 50 and needs to get a similar job, but the only job available is one inferior. He is forced to take it because the lack of money.

My opinion is that you have to live in Romania so that this movie can be as real and tragic as it seems.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What are the movies? I mean.. what are movies made for? Shootings? Killings? NO. They are made for life stories and this is what this movie does. It presents how the life has changed between two ages. The father and a son, the father being in a need of a job and asking the son for help.

Although there is another generation, there are some characteristics which remain including the caress for the family.

The main subject is, in my opinion the love of the son to the father and vice-versa.

The movie is consisted of ONLY one dialog but that dialog is more than I could ever wanted. This movie is a pure art! Once again, after \"Marfa si Banii\", Cristi Puiu delivers us another beautiful movie. Well done !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No this is not an Ed Wood movie. \"Angora Love\" is Stan Laurel's and Oliver Hardy's last silent movie. The end of an era! In the '20's Laurel & Hardy left a real mark on the silent movie genre with movies that are still popular and being watched and aired regularly, this present day.

It's a shame that this movie is however not among their best.

The premise of the movie sounds good and is good. The boys team up with a goat this time, which of course leads them into trouble and for us some hilarious situations to watch. It however at the same time is extremely silly and just totally unbelievable to watch the boys doing comedy stuff with a goat. Most of the jokes in the movie still work good but the movie just however never gets truly hilarious or memorable. The comedy and story really feels lacking at times and is mostly too simple and predictable.

Of course still good and fun enough to watch for the fans but still a slightly disappointing last silent Laurel & Hardy entry.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WHENEVER an idea was successful during those \"Golden Days\" of the Silent Movies, you could bet your bottom dollar that it would be repeated; although \"Reworking\" is the term that is used. Of course one could make the argument that this reworking business has never left us, for success in the Movies or TV always leads to a trend; with all competing parties vying to come up with their own version of said hit Movie or TV Program.

TO this last premise we strongly disagree; for this is copycatting or plagiarism, plain and simple.

THIS, the last Silent Laurel & Hardy Short, surely must have been quite well received; for ANGORA LOVE (Hal Roach\/MGM, 1929) was reworked on the Roach Lot, not once, but twice over the next three years. We were treated to LAUGHING GRAVY (Roach\/MGM, 1931), in which the Goat was replaced with a cute, little puppy-dog. Also, the weather is transformed into the dead of Winter, in the middle of a blizzard. They also made other line-up changes with substituting Landlord Edgar Kennedy with Landlord Charlie Hall.

THE second reworking of the hidden animal premise is the 3 Reeler, THE CHIMP (Roach\/MGM, 1932), which substituted a female ape from a dissolved and defunct Circus, to which Stan and Babe were former employees. The Circus paid off its employees with their assets and the Boys received the Chimpanzee as their final payday.

BACK to our original 'victim', today's subject, ANGORA LOVE. Recomember? THE short starts off simply enough. The boys encounter the Goat on the street and the Nanny in return follows them back to their rooming house; after Stan feeds a doughnut to her. The comic moments that follow are generated with the interplay between L & H and slow-burn exponent, Edgar Kennedy, their Landlord. The incident's impact is amplified by having the interplay occur at night. And as luck would have it; their room is situated directly above the Landlord's quarters.

IN addition to the noise, the bathing of the goat, its odor and Landlord Edgar's suspicions about Laurel & Hardy's having another person illegally in the room; we were most amused by a little throw-away gag, which may well have been missed by the Censors. While admonishing the boys about the noise they'd been making and reminding them of the house rules about any unauthorized person's being in there overnight, regardless of their sex.

ITS camera shot is made from inside The Boy's room, over their shoulder. With Edgar in the hall and facing them, he warns; \"Remember, this is a respectable establishment!\" Just as he says this, a lady clad in evening clothes walks across and behind the Landlord; followed by a uniformed Sailor, who cocks his hat forward as they pass! POODLE SCHNITZ!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was Laurel and Hardy's last silent film for Roach Studios. However, since the public had a real thirst for \"talkies\", this same short was re-made by the team just a few years later with only a few small plot changes. LAUGHING GRAVY was essentially the same plot except that Stan and Ollie were trying to hide a cute puppy from their grouchy landlord--not a goat like in ANGORA LOVE. This whole goat angle is the worst part of the film. While you could understand the boys wanting to keep a cute little dog (after all, it is snowy outside), why exactly they bring a goat home is just contrived and pointless. According to the plot, the goat followed them home and so they got tired of shooing it away and kept it. Huh?! This just doesn't make any sense--if it had been a giraffe or a cow, would they have done the same thing?! Apart from being an unconvincing plot, the movie itself is pure Laurel and Hardy, with a familiar plot and familiar roles for the comedians. This film features quite a few laughs, but unfortunately isn't one of their better films to wrap up their silent careers. This aspect of their careers just seems to have ended with a whimper.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, I don't kid myself that this is the typical gay love life but since when are straight romances in real life as they are on the screen? This movie is well-balanced with comedy and drama and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. It was a riot to see Hugo Weaving play a sex-obsessed gay real estate salesman who uses his clients' houses for his trysts with the flaming Darren (Tom Hollander). And having seen him in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert only the day before, he is probably one of the most secure-in-their-masculinity actors around. :) Anyway, the plot flowed smoothly and the male-bonding scenes were a hoot. Thumbs up! 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though I saw this movie dubbed in French, so I'm sure it lost something in the translation, lack of accents, etc., it was an excellent, fun movie for a lonely night in a hotel room--a real pick-me-up that portrayed accurately and positively the complexities of individual sexuality, gender role, and finding a place within the communities to which one is supposed to belong--male, gay, urban, 30-ish, etc. I was very proud of French television for showing such an honest and positive portrayal of the gay community. While the fact that the gay lead character ends up somewhat \"straight\" in the end is mildly disappointing, that's life, and that happens sometimes. This is a great movie, whether alone or with a date! A really enjoyable experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a thoroughly enjoyable, well-acted film. It is funny and sometimes hilarious. The finale is a bit disappointing, since it tries to wrap everything up into too neat a package. The film is better remembered for its priceless vignettes: the Jane Austen staging, the camping trip as examples. B & H does not attempt to mirror the predominant attitudes toward homosexuality and bisexuality. Most of the characters are quite accepting of sexual diversity. In that sense it is a joyous vacation from homophobic society. And it is a celebration of a flexibility, a loosening of rigid sexual categories--perhaps a happy harbinger of things to come.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The biggest tragedy surrounding this thoroughly delightful movie is its lack of U.S. distribution. I was fortunate enough to see this film at the Boston International Festival of Women's Cinema, and highly recommend it to anyone who gets a chance to see it. Terrific performances, and thoughtful script and great direction from the talented and funny Rose Troche all combine to make this film a winner!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bedrooms and Hallways was one of the funniest films of the 1999 Melbourne Film Festival. From the UK, it is about a young crowd of flatmates and their various relationship dilemmas. Much of the humour is centred around a new-agey men's self-help group where they pass around various implements like the 'rock of truth'. They also go on a 'hunter gatherer' weekend with hilarious results. Trust me, you'll laugh your teeth out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An inspired choice of director for this latest Brit-Flick, Rose Troche, who burst on the scene with the budget-free tale of NY Dykes, _Go Fish_ brings a gently Jaundiced view to this tale of a Londoner choosing the slightly inappropriate milieu of a male bonding society to declare his lust for a fellow seeker of masculine truths. The highlight for me is a scene where the society try to revert to being primitive hunter-gatherers but end up ordering a take-away. The film as a whole is wonderfully acted and Troche, who'd never be accepted by some of the lesbians she portrayed in her previous film, relishes the bigger budget by indulging in some wonderfully lingering pan shots that contrast with _Go Fish_'s grainy hyperkinesis. A really enjoyable film","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I seriously enjoyed watching this movie for the first time some years ago and whenever it gets aired again somewhere (which luckily happens from time to time in European cable television) I experience the same thing, I'm moved, entertained and end up wishing there were more movies like this one.

It all deals with Leo (Kevin McKidd) and his group of friends living in urban London, Leo as a gay guy who follows a friend to a hilarious New Age Men's Group and falls for straight guy Brendon, played by dashing James Purefoy, who turns out not so straight after all. Thrown in as side characters are the equally great Tom Hollander and Hugo Weaving whose side story alone is worth watching the movie, Simon Callow as the leader of the Men's group, turning in a great as ever performance. But it's really hard to pick some folks out here, because every character, the female ones like Jennifer Ehle's, Julie Graham's and Harriet Walter's as well, are exquisitely acted. Maybe even Kevin McKidd looks a little pale compared to his co-actors but it benefits his somewhat subdued character.

The idea behind this movie is a simple one: There is never only black and white, classifications are difficult and may not always stand the test of time.

Leo identifies as gay but ends up falling for a woman as well who turns out to be his teenage sweetheart and Brendon's long time girlfriend. Brendon starts out straight but gets to learn that gay may be more than just an option for him and being bisexual might not be that bad after all. Darren and Jeremy (Hollander and Weaving) are gay and loving it and even the straight folks in the movie, like Angie, Leo's female roommate, get their fair share of love and funny moments up until the end of the movie. The comedy bits(especially Tom Hollander who's just hilarious) are funny and on point and the emotions are believable, as confusing as they may appear at times reading this summary.

What I like about this movie is its genuinely positive notion. Whether you're gay, straight, bisexual or simply not sure, this movie leaves you feeling that it's just okay NOT to be sure and that \"not being sure\" might be something worth living out as well! Sexuality is portrayed fluid in this movie and none of the main characters seem to have a real problem with it, apart from all the gay\/straight camp fights that you sometimes get fed with in other gay themed movies. I can only wholeheartedly agree with the subtext of the movie, that what you feel certain of one day, when you think you identify as gay, straight, whatever, can look very different on another. I have never seen (what to call it?) bisexuality or maybe just the absence of the segregating need for sexual classification being portrayed in such a heartwarming and true to life manner.

This movie dares going where few movies go, gay or straight movies, by not playing on labels and stereotypical assumption of sex and relying on that. It goes further and assumes that there may be a life to sex after well-known classifications and I think the times are more than ready for that and other movies exploring postmodern themes like this one!

And for all others who don't care about that, heck, it's just a funny comedy worth watching on a rainy Saturday evening with some popcorn on your hands. Give it a try!

Loved it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was a pleasant surprise because I didn't expect much. I didn't know that some of the actors have since become bigger stars in major pix. While moving on to the Matrix is not a plus in my book (hated it), I'm sure it's a career plus for Hugo. James Purefoy is great in this and Jennifer Ehle sweet and wonderful. It seemed sometimes like a Carnaby street romp 30 years later but I enjoyed the thrift shop Janis Joplin clothes mixed up with the modern mindsets of sexual and gender blur. The real estate agent who has an erotic relationship with his listings is loads of fun. The Iron John mens' group meetings are a bit dated but I still loved them. It's a social satire sex comedy in the best way and reminds me a bit of the old \"Carry On\" movies. The British know how to do sex comedy and it's an old tradition, unlike the United States which is too prudish to really understand that sex is funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bedrooms and Hallways gives its audience a look into the mind of a man who thinks he's found himself, only to find out that he's not so sure he found the right guy. If you think that all gay comedies are the same, check this one out. Although the movie ends without much resolution, the hilarious one-liners, peculiar situations, and quirky characters are sure to satisfy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bedrooms and Hallways gives its audience a look into the mind of a man who thinks he's found himself, only to find out that he's not so sure he found the right guy. If you think that all gay comedies are the same, check this one out. Although the movie ends without much resolution, the hilarious one-liners, peculiar situations, and quirky characters are sure to satisfy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"By the acting in this movie, it is sometimes hard NOT to imagine that the cast are who they portray themselves to be. Unbridled passion and acting at times make this a very enjoyable and engaging movie. Wouldn't even have known about it except for HBO late night. And the biggest reason I like UK films much better than American ones are that the actors aren't afraid to act out what is needed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i enjoyed this film immensely, due to pungent scenes (humorous as well as ironic, some even \"tragical\"), believable performances, witty dialogue and a heartfelt rendering of what it\u00b4s like or rather c a n be like to be hetero- and\/or homosexual & on the lookout for fulfilment of your desires. i\u00b4m aware of the paradox here: homo- a n d hetereosexual.... this is something the film tackles on end, but never uses for caricature. if you\u00b4re as open-minded as the people seem to have been who made that film, in the end it won\u00b4t matter to you if those who lie in each others arms are of the same sex or not.

\"mr. smith\" from the matrix gives an admirable turn as a gay houses-salesman with \"strange\" appetites here, but that\u00b4s not the only thing to marvel at. enjoy.....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After a long wait, \"Bedrooms and Hallways\" made it to Perth cinemas - not a commercial one mind you - and I thought it was fun, honest and took a swipe at those 'tribal scream' groups running around trying to find meaning in rocks and 'what's behind my eyes'. It is playing to full houses over here because it tells a story, has terrific acting and says something about the human condition.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was a fun film to look at. Though the chance this happened in your street is small, there are still a lot off recognizable situations that will ring a bell. The simplicity of the film and the humour DO work. I must admit that you don't have to see it in a theater; it will do very well on a small TV-set. Tip: see it with some close friends.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bedrooms and Hallways is the kind of film that makes you realize that the drama of life is hidden in the details. And that drama can be great fun too! Even though your own love life and your own friends may not be as unique as the characters in this movie, every one is bound to recognize themselves and others in the colorful protagonists of this film. And that's the great strength of Bedrooms and Hallways, that the irony of life is that the most confusing things that happen to you can be the most interesting\/hilarious\/funny\/sexy\/...things too! Hope you'll enjoy the film as much as I have!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Quite a ways away from \"Go Fish\". Both were good films but Troche had a bigger budget and cast to work with here. This film was very entertaining and easy to like. The acting was good lots of slow burn sexual tension.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at the Boston Internation Festival of Women's Cinema last night, and was saddened to hear Ms. Troche tell us (in her Q&A after the screening) that she doesn't expect to see too much US distribution, due to her insistence on including all of the so-called \"gay content\". It was a FANTASTICALLY entertaining comedy, and it just seems to me that American audiences might enjoy it in much the same way they enjoyed \"The Full Monty\", so it's really unfortunate and kind of ridiculous that a few shots of two boys kissing is keeping it away from mainstream theaters. Wonderful cast, FABULOUS script, and of course, Rose Troche's direction make this one of the funniest films I've seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Never have I seen a movie like this; didn't plan on seeing it but it was worth the turn of the TV channel. I am mostly a scifi movie watcher,but I would be more than happy to add this one to my collection. It starts out as a one sided film with a simple love triangle, then became something a little different(can't tell more then that. but it does involve two guys and one girl. juts not the way you would expect). Also, this movie starred Hugo Weaving from the \"MATRIX\" and \"THE LORD OF THE RINGS\" in a role I would not have expected...very funny guy. This movie is playing on HERE TV, but if you do not have satellite, it is worth a rent. So give it a try; you won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie! It was adorably touching and funny. Finally, here's a story about a group of people who meet some challenges, flounder a bit, and then decide to just be themselves and end up happy for; when was the last time you saw that in a film? Dealing with the fluidity of life, love, and sexuality, the characters are faced with real problems (albeit in often ridiculous situations like the men's group camping trip, and the explicit realatory liaisons) and manage to learn and grow without the movie getting preachy, darkly desperate, or too unrealistic. You'll love and care about the characters who, far from being hollow stereotypes, portray real people with just a touch of the truth behind their would-be labels.

A good romcom for a Saturday afternoon, and the only movie I've ever seen where sexual fluidity ends happily, and no one is forced to be anything they don't want to be. Far better than Kissing Jessica Stein, a good choice if your tired of watching gay movies that have some painful lesson and bitter lesson. Or, maybe you just like a good British romp? James Purefoy looks dashing as always, and Tom Hollander is deliciously funny. So go forth, watch, enjoy; you won't regret it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved that the mood was light and airy. I loved that the lead character wanted guarantees about his future, and that his roommate sets him \"straight\" of all people. I loved that they tackled the dynamics of how the members in the men's group dealt with each other, considering this was directed by a lesbian,the whole theme of masculinity was put out there, ridiculed, dissected and questioned. What makes a man? What makes one straight, gay, or bisexual? You aren't really sure if our lead character has decided on who he really wants; he's living in the moment and thrown caution to the wind. These, and other reasons, make me love this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Absolutely fantastic! Whatever I say wouldn't do this underrated movie the justice it deserves. Watch it now! FANTASTIC!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film entered production before WW2 began, but was not released until it was well under way. With significant fascist-sympathy in the US, and Chaplin himself being suspected as a communist sympathiser, The Great Dictator was a very courageous endeavour. Such risks in film-making - thinly veiled political statements - would be almost inconceivable today. Imagine the fallout if someone were to make an equally satirical film today which criticised the USA's foreign policy?

This film is hilarious, poignant and tragic. The tragedy is that Chaplin makes a plea for the madness to end, but it is already to late - for him and for us. A must see if you have any interest whatsoever in history, film-making, politics or sattire as an art-form.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Great Dictator is a beyond-excellent film. Charlie Chaplin succeeds in being both extremely funny and witty and yet at the same time provides a strong statement in his satire against fascism. The anti-Nazi speech by Chaplin at the end, with its values, is one of filmdom's great moments. Throughout this movie, I sensed there was some higher form of intelligence, beyond genuinely intelligent filmmaking, at work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hynkel, dictator of Tomania, is a spoiled child who becomes angry when he cannot gets what he really wants... And what he simply wants is nothing less than the world...

In one of the extraordinary scenes of Chaplin art, Hynkel performs a ballet with the 'world' which bursts when he thinks he has it in his grasp...

Chaplin also has some biting words on war and war films... In a scene at the beginning of the movie, which takes place during World War I, the Tomanian messenger crashes the plane and thinks... He is about to die... In a state of delirium, he begins to say ridiculous words... The empty double-talk continue ascending into a brilliant take off on all the heroic death scenes of War films...

In another scene when he becomes a fugitive in the Jewish ghetto and assumes command of the resistance fomenting rebellion among the old men, he plans to kill the dictator... One of the group must kill the ruthless conqueror of Austerlich... Whoever is chosen will naturally die, but his heroic death will be rewarded and his name will shine like a star in Tomanian history...

The sequence in which he and four other characters eat cream cakes containing coins to determine which shall sacrifice his life to murder the dictator is a bitter hilarity filled with great fear...

For all its disappointing shortcomings, \"The Great Dictator\" is still a significant movie for the ironic tones of the film adding something that neither Chaplin nor anymore else could have given it: the irony of history... The necessity to murder Hynkel presages the assassination attempt against Hitler by his generals... The force of the original satire is only surpassed by history's imitation of art...

With a splendid sequence like the duck-shooting accident which leads to the dictator being mistaken for the humbly Jewish barber and vice versa, \"The Great Dictator\" is Chaplin's first talking movie... This time 'Charles' and not 'Charlie,' wanting to say more through his movie and not through an amusing comedy, the last in which he uses his celebrated 'Tramp Character.'","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"..this movie has been done when Hitler ( and Mussolini who is as well in the movie) was at the top and many politics and even the Roman Church used to close eyes about brutality and evil of Nazism. Especially in USA there were many people who had not understood what was really going on in Germany and Europe ( Charles Lindenbergh for example ).It would be as today a big actor would made a parody of Berlusconi or Chirac. Chaplin maybe made a lot of mistakes in his life, but this is really a masterpiece of humanity and IMHO a great demonstration he was a courageous man. The movie is funny and deep, the final speech has a terrible strength and is still updated. I think this movie is one of the best ever done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was surprised and impressed to find out this movie was released in 1940, before the United States entered World War II. On the surface, satirizing something as solemn and horrible as Nazi Germany could be misconstrued as rash. But Chaplin's brilliance isn't limited to making a joke out of everything. In fact, the seriousness of his message wouldn't have been nearly as valid if not for the excellent use of humor in this movie along with the moments of stark drama blended in. Drama alone wouldn't have had the bite and resonance that this film did. Laughing at someone (Adenoid Hynkel) can be the best way to attack them, while laughing with someone (the Jewish Barber) can be the best way to love them. In the Jewish Barber's final speech, I forgot for a moment that the war he was talking about happened more than half a century ago. They are words that have meaning now, and in any time of war. For this reason I believe the film did far greater good than harm, as it still has the same profound effect today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here we have the inimitable Charlie Chaplin forsaking his slapstick past to tackle the serious subject of anti-Semitism, and intolerance in general. He portrays two characters - the sweet, innocent Jewish barber - a war veteran, and the raving and ruthless dictator, Adenoid Hynkel. The Jewish ghetto in this country is not safe for long, due to the whims of Hynkel and his armed thugs, who routinely rough up its residents, or leave them alone, dependent upon his mood that day or week. The barber is among them, but is befriended by his former commanding officer, Schultz (Reginald Gardner), who seems to keep things quiet for a while, until Hynkel condemns him to a concentration camp. He seeks refuge with the Jews in the ghetto, most specifically the barber, and the feisty young woman, Hannah (Paulette Goddard). The premise will be - who will be the one among these Jews to put their lives on the line to get rid of Hynkel and his cronies? We needn't guess too hard to know the answer; the barber is a dead ringer for the dictator, and he is outfitted in his image, accompanied by Schultz, also in full military gear. Hannah escapes with several of her ghetto friends to the country of Osterlich, where Mr Jaeckel's (Maurice Moscovich) cousin has a farm, and they can live peaceably for a while. At this point, Hynkel himself has been arrested by his armed forces, thinking him to be the notorious barber. The latter, meanwhile, has been escorted with Schultz to a podium, to make a speech announcing the conquest of Osterlich. The ensuing ten minutes is pure Chaplin himself, speaking from his heart of tolerance, love and freedom, and denigrating greed and hatred. Albeit Chaplin started production on the film in 1937, it can be forgiven some naivete. He was allegedly unaware of the gravity of this persecution and hatred, and said had he known the full extent, he would never have made the film, because he most likely believed it would have trivialized the situation. He has a marvelous supporting cast: Reginald Gardner, Henry Daniell as Garbitsch, his aide-de-camp, the always wonderful Billy Gilbert as the bumbling Herring, Paulette Goddard, Jack Oakie as the dictator Napaloni, his rival for conquest, veteran European actors David Gorcey (Leo's father), Maurice Moscovich, among others. The scene he choreographed with globe, with just a musical accompaniment is sheer, luminous inspiration, and luminous, as well, is Paulette Goddard at the film's end, smiling through her tears. I have seen this film before, but there is always something new in it for me. Last evening, when it finished, I sat there in tears. I defy anyone not to be moved by it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before I saw this film I didn't really expect to much from it, although my friend advised otherwise. Due to this request from my friend I decided I was really going to watch this film. The minute I sat down to view the film I was absolutely blown away. From the credits I was falling of my seat; I just couldn't contain myself. The film is about Hitler in all the glory of comedy. Hynkel is the absolute double for the Jewish Barber, who comes back from fighting in the war. Due to the heroics of the barber, he manages to save one of the germans and by doing that gets a member of the enemy on board, which helps in the struggle which the jews had. But things went wrong and Stolz was arrested, but only then to escape to the confines of the Jewish surburb, 'The Ghetto'. Due to this escape, the german army began searching which meant that the Barber and Stolz got arrested but again they escaped, only to be mistaken for hynkel and consequently takes his poistion. *****THE SPEECH THAT CHAPLIN MAKES AT THE END IS FANTASTIC, IT COMPLIES THE MORALS WHICH SOCIETY COULD ONLY DREAM ABOUT. IN THE SPEECH IT CONTRADICTS THE WHOLE MEANING OF THE FILM BECAUSE OF THE SERIOUNESS AND SINCERENITY WHICH IT ENTAILED, AND IT DEFINATELY WORKS, BECAUSE I DID WALK OUT FEELING GUILTY ABOUT HOW WE LIVE OUR LIVES, LOOKING AT THE SMALLEST THING SUCH AS BEING IGNORANT TO SOMEONE TO THE BIGGEST, MOST PROMINENT THINGS SUCH AS WAR.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I once caught about a 20 minute portion of this movie on Turner Classic Movies about 6 months back. I thought every minute of what I was watching was gold, and, because it was somewhere in the film's middle and I didn't want to spoil the whole thing if I were to watch it from the start, I decided that I would rent it immediately. Well, the video store which I frequent did not have a copy, so it took me six months to finally go somewhere else and rent it. I had previous to that experience only seen some Chaplin shorts, funny but not greatly artful, but after I saw the snippet of The Great Dictator, I checked out three of his other films, City Lights, The Gold Rush, and Modern Times (City Lights was great, I found the Gold Rush a little overrated, but still worthwhile, and I found Modern Times to be one of the funniest films I've ever seen (second funniest, behind Keaton's Sherlock Jr., more exactly).

Finally, the whole of the Great Dictator. Well, to be honest, it had its moments, both of comedy and of drama. But these moments don't always mix well. Chaplin's comedy worked well when mixed with melodrama (City Lights is the best example of this), but it didn't always work with social commentary. Plus, the fact that there was dialogue lessened the impressiveness of Chaplin's talent. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie as a whole, but I thought it of little consequence. I would have given it a solid 7\/10 on the ratings scale...if not for the ending. The final speech that the Jewish barber gives is enormously powerful. Yes, it is adressed to the tempora et mores of 1940, but his message is perfectly applicable to the world today. The speech brought me to tears, and I consider it one of the best endings I've ever seen. Final score: 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This ingenious and innovate comedy packs many moments priceless and great sense of pace, though overlong. Chaplin's satire with several classics scenes , he has dual role as a Jewish barber and dictator Hynkel, an offensive portrayal of Hitler . Then the barber is mistaken for the Hitlerian tyrant and happen bemusing events. Funny and extraordinaries acting of all casting, as the co-stars Jack Oakie as Napolini(Mussolini-alike), Henry Daniel as Gasbstich(Himmler-alike) and Billy Gilbert as Herring( Goering). Chaplin's first spoken film is brilliantly photographed by Karl Struss.This splendid film contains numerous amusing scenes, the funniest are the following : 1) The one when during the WWI the barber-soldier along with a co-pilot are flying in a turned plane without aware 2)Dictator Adenoid Hynkel doing overacting speeches including a twisted microphone 3)Hynkel playing with an enormous balloon of the world 4)The Jew-barber shaving a man fitting to Hungarian Dance number 5 of Brahms 5) when Hynkel and Napolini each try to keep his body higher than other in a barber's chair; among them.

Hitler banned movie exhibition to the Germans due to its satire of him, and put him in his death list after his proposed conquest of America.The movie is co-starred by Paulette Goddard, third of his four wives , they were married in 1936, although no announcement of the marriage was made later, one time finished The Great Dictator.The picture was released in 1940, when Chaplin had survived a moral scandal by a paternity suit but a brush with the House of Un-American Activities was the signal for the USA to refuse him re-entry from Britain and he fled to Switzerland.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Great Dictator\" is, arguably, one of Charlie Chaplin's most widely-known films. It is notorious for it's blatant satire of Adolf Hitler and Nazism. Until watching it, I only knew of it's fame. Now I know how much the film deserves it.

The film basically shows the exploits of the somewhat clumsy, ambitious, short-fused and impressive dictator of Tomania, Adenoid Hynkel; and with him, his near and dear staff: Field-Marshall Herring and Herr Garbitsch. Also, it entails the exploits of an amnesiac, emotional and often clumsy Jewish barber, a veteran of the First World War.

Stopping with the plot, I would like to say that this film has various qualities that make it both unique and wonderful. While the comedy is decidedly both verbal and slapstick and incidental, the entirety of the film shows how serious it takes Nazism or aggressive nationalism as a theme with various interludes. Chaplin's impeccable acting skills range far and wide in the film, he keeps revving it up and up until he simply explodes. Paulette Goddard's position as an ambitious Jewish would-be revolter and Henry Daniell's delivery of a nasal, calm-as-Death-serious-as-a-heart-attack lines makes for wonderful viewing.

Further, one aspect of the film is what makes it so special: it pulls no punches. It isn't \"covert\", it has no business being covert. It is an \"overt\", blatant, in-your-face, obvious lampooning of both Hitler and Nazism.

To sum up briefly, watch it. Just watch it, you'll see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With the Nazi rise to power in Eastern Europe in the late 1930's, Charles Chaplin turned his attention to creating a reaction to it. The catalyst may well have been a propaganda publication referring to Chaplin as a Jewish sympathizer. In The Great Dictator, Chaplin created a dead-on parody of Hitler that is as funny as it is frightening at times. The film traces Hitler's experiences in the German army from World War I up to the present day. Simultaneously, Chaplin plays a Jewish barber who dresses like the tramp who comes out of a hospital after a long long time, only to discover how different the world is under Nazi rule.

Paulette Goddard, Chaplin's wife at the time, plays a young Jewish girl whose family is oppressed in a Jewish ghetto. Jack Oakie has a great, Oscar-nominated supporting role as a Mussolini look-alike (Benzini Napaloni) who gives Chaplin's Hitler character, Adenoid Hynkel, a lot of fits. Henry Daniell is his usual staid self as Garbitsch, chief adviser to Adenoid Hynkel. Chaplin wrote and directed the film and received Oscar nominations for his screenplay and his acting. The film was also nominated for best picture.

Chaplin made the film under tremendous pressure for some obvious reasons and some not so well known. He financed the entire film himself at great risk because of the subject matter, and there were no other major films made regarding Nazi Germany up to that time. The film spent about twenty-one months in production with Chaplin even rebuilding a set and re-shooting a scene to get things right. By the time of the film's release in October of 1940, the war in Europe was well under way with Hitler conquering one country after another, so the film became much more topical at its release than when production first began.

There isn't much plot in looking at the film in retrospect; the film seems more like a series of comedy sketches and\/or mishaps strung together to get to a purpose independent of the film itself. Several examples of this occur in the last third of the film with the meeting between Hynkel and Napaloni. The scene is very very funny, but it leads no where in terms of the plot. Likewise, the escape of both the barber and Schultz simply leads to the mistaken identity of the barber for Hynkel in order to give Chaplin (through the barber character) an opportunity to pontificate to the audience at the end of the film. On the other hand, what better way to make a point about the misplaced narcissism of Aryan superiority than to have a Jewish Barber mistaken for Hynkel?

Still, the film contains many high comic moments, such as the rally speech, the new war developments (bulletproof uniforms, etc.), the dancing globe scene, the coin in the pudding scene, and the entire scenario between Hynkel and Napaloni (including the barber chair scene) to highly recommend the film. One can also not forget the risks Chaplin took in making his first talking film, an anti-Nazi film, and financing the film himself. ***1\/2 of 4 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the beginning of the film I found myself laughing trying to keep quiet so I did not wake anyone in the house, this didn't continue so much throughout the rest of the film, I didn't find everything completely \"laugh out loud\" funny, but still I found certain things quite funny. At the beginning I had to hold in laughter when he drops the very crafty looking Hand Grenade down his sleeve. Then there are scenes where you will just smile, like when the Barber falls through a roof into someones apartment, I can see that being quite funny but in todays days and time that has been done quite a lot it didn't feel original, though at the time, I'm sure it was. I loved Hynkels (Hitlers) bursts of raging German with the nice subtle English translation.

The final scene is wildly discussed because, well it's absolutely true, and so very intelligently constructed. Though the film is sixty eight years old the final scene is still relevant today, if this doesn't show how great a writer Chaplin is, then I don't know what will. The acting in this scene in particular was quite good, the Barber transcended the message perfectly and makes you realise the serious nature of the film, at the same time enjoying the humorous side.

Another element about this film is the fact that this was such a brave film, that almost feels ahead of it's time. Of course, Chaplin did not know what was going to happen after 1940, he was not aware of the Holocaust (obviously), he's also gone on record as to saying if he had of known he would not of made this film. The fact this film is so anti-Hitler is interesting, it's more interesting that it wasn't anti-Germany which would be very easy to have done back in those times, Chaplin could of easily made this a propaganda film, but instead did something more, he made an honest film.

I recommend anyone remotely interested in this film to see it, as well those who has studied or is studying Hitler and WWII to watch this film. It's entertaining to say the least, it doesn't have an annoying out-dated feel that some films of the time did. Unlike most \"comedies\" this film actually has a message it tries to bring to you, watch this film, you will be better off for having seen it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, it's too long and it's too satisfied with itself. Still, \"The Great Dictator\" is a fascinating movie. Chaplin does a terrific job satirizing Hitler and trying to portray the oppression of the Jews in Nazi Germany (this was before the concentration camps were common knowledge). Not a Chaplin masterpiece, but still worth seeing.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chaplin stars in a dual role as a jewish barber who, with amnesia, is mistaken for the dictator Adenoid Hynkel, (i.e Hitler) A movie made in 1940 when the war was in its dark days and was in no way won by the allies..it was banned in Germany by Hitler and was a risk in a way for Chaplin because if the war was lost, he surely wouldve been sent away to be \"reeducated\"

A funny satire with the classic scene of Hitler tossing around a giant balloon of the world..good fun but with a message..a little preachy in the end. This was the last movie with Chaplin's trademark little mustache. on a scale of one to ten..9","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being quite a fan of Charlie Chaplin following good vibes after seeing first 'The Gold Rush' and then 'City Lights', I was eager to see 'The Great Dictator' as I had been told this was, arguably, his best film. I was also intrigued at the fact it was a talkie; my first one, Chaplin-wise.

The start is typical Chaplin and blatant proof that when it comes to sound, Chaplain can cut it whilst not solely relying on music to set mood and to do the talking; it's funny, well timed and the elements of slapstick such as falling off an anti-aircraft gun are well tied in with the jokes. It was good to draw the viewer in with this 'classic Chaplin' opening and at the same time, kick start the narrative of characters getting to know one another. What was also well done was the way in which Hitler is spoofed. Any scene involving Hitler or 'Hynkel' in this film, was funny and even now; makes you think back as you know exactly who he's spoofing and does create an internal reaction of some kind. The way in which English in mixed in with the mock German during the dialogue scenes is further proof of the way Chaplin managed to adapt to the talkie era. My favourite joke was the five minute speech Hynkel gave, only for the English translator to translate it into a mere few words; making you think back to footage of Hitler you may have seen giving a speech at some point in your life and, indeed, laugh at him.

Historically, the film got a few things right as well. Hynkel is seen getting his photograph taken with children; something Hitler did for recognition as he manipulated the media but here, Hynkel is seen to yawn and act bored; stabbing at Hitler's underhand technique of winning over the German public through sympathy (Oh, he hugs and kisses children. He must be OK!). The film is also given a fantastic premise of a Jewish civilian reinstalled into the ghetto amongst all the travesties going on but with the catch that he is oblivious. Films such as 'The Pianist' and 'Come and See' are two good examples of Nazi cruelty towards 'inferior' people which nowadays, we can all look back on and shake our heads at whereas back in the late 1930's when this was filmed, the fact he had the cruelty going on and was exploiting it makes it even more an astounding achievement. Chaplin has managed to replace guns and truncheons for tomatoes and saucepans and still pulls it off.

What I didn't like about the film, however, was the fact it settled into an actual narrative after the opening. This slowed the film up and this is very noticeable as the foot was taken off the gas somewhat. The film started to hint at stories and sub-stories. These included the barber and the female neighbour falling in love and the supposed destruction of Hynkel's palace whereas none of these were actually developed. The 'giving a woman a shave' and the 'whoever has the coin in their pudding does the deed' gags were hinting at these plot paths but in the end, just materialised into nothing but excuses for drawn out, unfunny gags which was disappointing.

During the final straight, The Great Dictator gets a boost from the fact the Italian dictator is introduced who adds some much needed life and excuse for comedy to the film. It works a treat as we see them argue and more underhand tactics are exploited when Hynkel attempts to 'overpower' his Italian counterpart through a series of dirty tricks (although, they are humorously foiled). Despite a few weaknesses in pacing during the middle segment and the fact I felt the message at the end was a little forced down my throat, The Great Dictator holds up for viewing today but that's only because he took the gamble of exploiting things nobody else really knew were there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This must have been one of Chaplin's most ambitious projects; he throws in virtually everything, from visual gags and blackout comedy sketches to social relevance, romance, even some violence. The mixture is challenging and intriguing, and the film has many entertaining and clever sequences (like the one where Chaplin and four other guys try to avoid finding a coin that will order their self-sacrifice), but the ingredients don't always click together, and the mix (and tone) seem kind of disharmonious. As for the famous final speech, though undeniably honest, it also seems a bit naive today, with its allusions to \"a better world where man will overcome his hate and brutality, and his soul will fly\". Great perfornmances by Jack Oakie and the beautiful Paulette Goddard. (***)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A good, but not great film, \"The Great Dictator\" is Chaplin's first talkie. It's a good effort, and at times a remarkable satire on Hitler, but unfortunately the moments of Chaplin brilliance on offer here are let down by a tendency to use too much unnecessary dialogue. Yes, Chaplin, the silent screen master, just uses too many words in this film, and his tendency towards writing long speeches and extraneous passages of dialogue would carry over into his other talkie films, such as (better) \"Limelight\". Still, Chaplin was extremely daring in even making this film and his performance in dual roles is certainly memorable. Paulette Goddard doesn't have the glow she did in \"Modern Times\" (her off-screen affair with Chaplin was cooling at the time), but she is always worth seeing, and Jack Oakie just about steals the show as a rival dictator to Chaplin's famous creation Hynkel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although I haven't seen it yet, I know that Chaplin is a genius, and only someone of his talent would take on this daring subject matter--a comedy about Hitler. All great satire is based on going out on an edge. Also, all great comedy deals with the other side--pathos. This film seems like it will skirt both sides. Like Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, The Great Dictator deals with history through the distorted lens of satire. The only way to deal with the horrors of this world is by laughing at it. And hopefully, through laughter, we can learn to view the world in a new light. Another film that does this that comes to my mind is Emir Kusturica's Underground, and Fando And Lis. So, let me watch the film first.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Written, produced and directed by Charlie Chaplin, this is the great actor's anti-Nazi propaganda piece, skewering Adolf Hitler.

Chaplin plays Adenoid Hynckel, the dictator of Tomania, as well as a Jewish barber who is Hynckel's spitting image. His parody of Hitler is brilliant. Anyone who has ever seen newsreels of Hitler speaking will recognize the eerie resemblance of the caricature.

I thought the movie got off to a slow start with some typical Chaplin slap-stick focussing on the First World War adventures of the Jewish barber. Having never seen it before I must confess that after the first 20 minutes or so I was wondering what all the fuss was about. But the movie picks up steam quickly. There are some very funny moments, and enough emphasis on the anti-Jewish nature of \"Hynckel-ism\" to make the propaganda point. The climax of the film is a brilliant anti-Nazi speech given by Chaplin at the end of the movie.

As good as Chaplin is in this movie, though, I thought the whole thing was stolen by Jack Oakie, playing the dictator of \"Bacteria\" - \"Benzino Napaloni.\" Our first look at Oakie shows how well he had studied his subject - he had Mussolini's arrogant posturing down pat. The scenes in which Hynckel and Napaloni negotiate over the fate of \"Osterlich\" had me in stitches.

This was a very good movie, and well worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most of this film is an alternately hilarious and brutal satire on Nazism and Fascism, made at the height of those movements' success.

Sadly, in the final moments of the film, Chaplin abandons all pretense of making art (not to mention comedy) and switches completely to propaganda. And not anti-Nazi propaganda, either, but some of the most mawkish and idiotic \"progressive\" propaganda ever to ooze out of Hollywood.

Never mind that nothing we have seen so far indicates that the barber is even capable of giving the speech we see him give (delivered, ironically, with a disturbing wild-eyed fanaticism); such trivialities must not be permitted to interfere with The Message.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was Chaplin's first all-talking picture, and the results are mixed. The movie is a biting satire of Hitler and Mussolini, their henchmen and their fanatical way of life, especially regarding the persecution of the Jews. It was daring and forward for 1940 and must have made a lot of people squirm.

When compared to Chaplin's earlier works, this is quite pale in comparison. The sweet, funny style of his silents, in my opinion, is far superior to his first talkie. There are lots of meaningless bits that drag on. If this was a silent, it probably would not have happened.

I find one of the funniest moments to be the musical barber moment and the globe dance. One of the most touching moments is, obviously, the speech at the end.

The Great Dictator is an effective and at times moving film that is a very big part of both Chaplin's history and movie history. It is flawed, but Chaplin is in great form.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great comedy from Charlie Chaplin. I've seen Chaplin's 4 major films (Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times, and The Great Dictator), and I think it is easily the funniest of the four. This movie had me laughing more than almost any other I've ever seen. From the very opening disclaimer (\"Any similarity between the Great Dictator and the barber shop owner is purely coincidental\") the movie is a laugh-a-minute with a blend of wonderful slapstick and verbal humor. And at the same time, Chaplin manages to portray the evils of totalitarian persecution. Maybe a little short on the ending and the lasting timeliness of the subject matter, but easily a 9 out of 10 for me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was Charlie Chaplin's first all-talking film. Yes, there had been a little bit of sound and speaking inserted into his previous film, MODERN TIMES, but it was still essentially a silent film. So, it wasn't until 1940 that the public got to hear Chaplin speak on film.

The movie is incredibly famous and has a stellar reputation. While I enjoyed the film, I was not nearly as impressed by this as Chaplin's other full-length films of the mid-20s and 30s. That's because I really felt annoyed by some of Chaplin's dopey over-acting when he played Adenoid Hynkel--especially when he was giving his speeches. The silly pseudo-dialog just seemed akin to something a lesser comedian would have used (such as the Three Stooges). Plus, playing a funny Hitler is hard for me to take.

However, when Chaplin played the Jewish barber, he wasn't especially funny (he really wasn't intended to be a funny character) but he was a tremendous voice for reason and decency. This film should not be remembered as a comedy (especially since it doesn't really excel there), but for its excellent acting and humanity. The final speech by the barber (impersonating Hynkel) is brilliant and almost brought tears to my eyes. Watch the film for this reason alone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This satire is just really, really dead-on, and nobody is spared. But even though this movie has plenty of laughs within the silly story and the grotesque imitation of Hitler (here cleverly renamed as \"Hynkel\", and speaking in a hilarious kind of pseudo-German), the general tone is pretty sad, maybe because of the movie's place in history. And the actors aren't even exaggerating that much I suppose. One of the greatest movie moments of all time must be the Jewish barber's ending speech, if only things could have ended in that way. It's not even really the character talking anymore, it's Chaplin saying something he really wanted to say. If you ignore the technical aspects, the movie doesn't feel dated or old, it actually moves at a pretty nice pace. And the sharp humor we find everywhere in this work will never die, the only thing I don't care for is the slapstick, but that just comes with the era I suppose. This is an incredibly daring, harsh take on fascism, it's so hard-hitting still after all these years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is the absolutely perfect way to explain what a good movie is. It is a movie both for children and parents, and it is \"timeless\". I saw this movie before Ocean's Eleven and must admit that the actors in OE has class in advance, but the play of Klatret\u00f8sen is much more down-to-earth and moving. Why i say Ocean's Eleven, is the fact that these 2 movies has many things in common and Klatret\u00f8sen is THAT good ! that it can bear comparison with OE. The 3 youngsters play their part in a perfect way not to believe, compared to what we are used to in Denmark. The different cases of impossible acts, is handled in a way that you wouldn't belive from many young actors (and sometimes not even from the \"old boys\"). The story ? again it has things in common with Ocean's Eleven except for the reason of stealing the money and in Klatret\u00f8sen they need to climb up to the strongroom. The part in which the young people has to take care of Ida's younger brother, gives a fine element in the movie. Try to imagine how to rob a bank with a 2 year child with a nappy, on your arm :-).

This movie can bear comparison with most \"grown up\" movie like MI2 and Ocean's Eleven. Yes i do believe it is THAT good. It is best to see it in a theater, as all the children in the room comments the movie and these comments will stay in your hearts forever :-).

Regards Klavs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this movie at the Berlin Film Festival's Children's Program and it just killed me (and pretty much everyone else in the audience)! And make no mistake about it, this film belongs into the all-time-250! Let me tell you that I'm in no way associated with the creators of this film if that's what you come to believe reading this. No, but this actually is IT! Nevermind the \"kid's-film\" label on it, \"Klatret\u00f6sen\" (\"Climber Girl\") is on almost every account a classic (as in \"biblical\")! The story concerns 12-year old Ida (magnetic: Julie Zangenberg), who is devastated to learn of her daddy's terminal illness. Special surgery in the US would cost 1.5 million and of course, nobody could afford that. So Ida and her friends Jonas and Sebastian do what every good kid would - and burglarize a bank! Sounds corny? Don't forget: This is not America and \"Klatret\u00f6sen\" is by no means the tear-jerking Robin-Williams-multiplex-plat-du-jour nobody takes seriously anyway. Director Fabian Wullenweber set out to make a big-budget-action-comedy for kids and, boy, did he succeed! Let me put it this way: This film rocks like no kid-film and few others did before. And there's a whole lot more to it than just the \"action\". After about 20 minutes of by-the-numbers-exposition (well, granted) it accelerates into a monster that:

- effortlessly puts \"mission impossible\" to shame (the numerous action sequences are masterfully staged and look real expensive - take that, mummy!)

- dwarves almost every other movie suspense-wise ( no easy-they're-only-kids-antics here )

- easily laces a dense story with enough laughs to make jim carrey look for career alternatives

- nods to both damon runyon and karate kid within the same seconds

- comes up with so much wicked humor that side of p.c. that I can hear the American ratings board wet their pants from over here

- manages to actually be tender and serious and sexy at the same time (ohmygod, what am I saying?? they're kids! they're kids! - nevermind, watch that last scene!)

- stars Stafan Pagels Anderson, who since last years \"Mirakel\" is everybody's favourite kid actor

What a ride!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Klatret\u00a9\u00aasen(Catch That Girl) is really great movie! It's a 'happy' movie. I watched this movie in 'Puchon International Fantastic Film Festival(PiFan)' on July 12nd, 2003. There is Action + Adventure + Comedy + Thrill + Happy + Romance(cute kids' love Triangle!). You must see this movie. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, I am sentimental, and yes, I love movies where kids are the better humans. True, Klatret\u00f8sen does have some logical or even plot shortcomings. These are more than compensated by the kids' great acting (Julias first movie role at all!) and the charm of a Dogma film (I liked this kind of cinematografic art long before the Dogma; ever since Herzog's 'Herz aus Glas'). Well, I cried through the last fifteen minutes which is a higher tear factor than bambi or Fly away home had for me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a plot driven movie and extremely entertaining. Nothing startling or original within the plot, but crucially, it moves along at a great pace and therefore keeps your attention. I didn't really notice the acting which I guess is a good thing. John Mills was fine but did seem to take everything in his stride somewhat considering how his life was falling apart around him. He would be clumped on the head, stand up 20 seconds later, dust himself down and carry on as if nothing had happened. A minor quibble in a film with a strong story, authentic locations and a plot that continually keeps you guessing right up to its conclusion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Vicious Circle\" is a very unknown British mystery story. Like many Hitchcock movies, it's about a man who is being accused of a crime he didn't commit, and does everything he can to prove it. This time it's a Dr. Latimer (John Mills), who finds a murdered German actress from his floor. As an honest man, the doctor calls Scotland Yard, which turns out to be a big mistake...

There's really nothing special in this little movie. Still, watching the film is an entertaining way to pass time. I enjoyed following the plot development. Fine actors are a plus.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film is a remake of a 1956 BBC serial called'My Friend Charles',& as such gallops thru the material in a relatively short time.I found it fast moving,enjoyable & unpretentious.Did anyone else notice the scenes,towards the end,where John Mills was being gassed?-the producers obviously decided to omit the scenes-maybe censorship?,but notice when he's sat by the window of the flat,deep breathing closely followed by similar scenes with the car window open. The Francis Durbridge serials all seemed to inhabit the same universe,that of unexplained happenings,people being not what they seem & the villain being someone close to the hero\/victim.A predictable universe in some ways,but one with its own rules & regulations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like the phrase \"British post war suburban paranoia\" that one of the reviewers used. It describes so well the kind of films John Mills excelled in (\"The October Man\" (1947), \"The Long Memory\" (1952)) in between \"big\" pictures (\"Scott of the Antartic\" (1948) and \"War and Peace\" (1956)).

This distinctly \"Eric Ambler\" style plot had John Mills playing Dr. Howard Latimer, who promises his friend, Charles, (unseen) to meet a visiting German actress, Frieda Veldon (Lisa Daniely) at the airport. A creepy \"reporter\" Jeffrey Windsor (Lionel Jeffries) is in his consulting rooms at the time and offers to give him a lift but while he is tracking the actress down Windsor informs him she is already in the car waiting!!! (something fishy is going on!!!). Howard is dropped off for his date and thinks no more about it.

The next night he finds her body when he arrives home from work, further more, he finds his friend Charles could not have rung him as he is still in New York and Windsor doesn't seem to exist. Earlier on a patient, Mrs Ambler(Rene Ray) who has been referred to him by Doctor George Kimber (Mervyn Johns) tells of her recurring dream about finding a dead body and a brass candlestick with a square base. It is a nightmare that is coming true for Howard but of course when Detective Inspector Dane (Roland Culver) interviews her, she denies all knowledge of the conversation - the candlestick is later found in the boot of Howard's Daimler.

When Howard is lying low, Robert Brady (Wilfred Hyde-White) visits him. He calls himself a \"friend\" - he has a photo of Windsor that he wants to trade for a box of matches Frieda gave Howard at the airport. Howard returns to the flat, Charles rings and while Howard is on the phone an unknown assailant knocks him out and steals the matches!!! Who can he trust - who hasn't something to hide!!!

This is a top thriller - not quite in the same class as \"The October Man\", but with John Mills doing what he does best - playing ordinary men caught up in impossible mysteries!!!

Highly Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For a made for TV movie I thought that it was a great popcorn movie - don't expect anything to be very accurate and don't expect any award winners in this bunch but I do recommend this for a TV type version somewhat like \"The Replacements\". Look for cameos from real NFL players & officials.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the year 2000 (keep in mind, this is two years ago, not four), two men had the motivation to create the most miraculous piece of art on this side of the Mississippi.

Thanks to Jere Cunningham and Tom Flynn, the world can now enjoy Second String, a delicious TV movie depicting a tale of a rag-tag gang of second stringers (thus the title) who are thrust into the position of starters due to an order of bad oysters.

Because of the motivational direction of both the director Robert Lieberman and the Buffalo Bills' last minute QB, Dan \"Give 'em hell\" Heller (portrayed by Canadian actor, Gil Bellows) the oft Super Bowl snake-bitten Bills find themselves in the ultimate position.

With an intriguing mix of internal and external conflict, a love story, comraderie that only the fine sport of football can bring, and an overall theory that the underdog can compete, Second String is an excellent movie worthy of viewing every possible moment that it appears on TNT.

The only thing potentially bad about this production is the spelling of the Costume Designer's first name, Jenifur Jarvis.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a Bills fan, I originally found it annoying that they made a movie about the Bills and the losing of four superbowls. But once I began to watch, I felt really connected. It was actually nice to see the \"Bills\" win the superbowl, and I must say, that for a TV movie it was actually very well done. Gil Bellows as the QB, and Jon Voight as the old-school Coach did a very fine job. 8 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So forgive the *really* lame game-play scene, cardboard background and studio like stadium. For this part I should have give the movie 5 instead of 7, but read on...

From the premise to plot there is a lot similarities with \"The Replacements\". Some say this movie rip off \"The Replacements\", while some say this script wrote before it.

Both movies require some sort of \"suspension of disbelief on the basic premise, and this is especially difficult for \"Second String\" since it has NFL license team and all the history behind it. Food poison excuse may sound too lame for some people, and not to mention in \"Second String\" Bills has to overcome big scores again and again, with the limit budget in shooting the game play scene, this make it look even bad.

In \"Replacements\", the premise and the league is fictional yet you know it happen in real life. I believe it is easier to accept fictional story and setting with real event (\"OH yeah, this happen before!\", rather than real setting\/background with fictional scenario (\"There is no way Bill can win a Superbowl!\"; Some of the scene were actually shoot in pre season game of Raven games, real stadium, real audience and some NFL match alike shooting angle.

But let say both movies came out on the same day, and we erase the budget factor (thus forgive the game play action scene): Overall, I like \"Second String\" over \"Replacements\", not by much, but I like this more.

It has \"relatively better\" character development. In \"Replacements\", Keanu character is too \"out sync with the world\", and all he care is maybe, get a girl? In Second String you see the struggle of the QB from getting the job back, and deal with his past with coach. Or the fumble guy problem. This \"hold the ball all day long\" solution of course is not new, but we see progression in fixing it.

How about those trick play? I think it is \"relatively realistic\" than \"Replacements\". The \"Dan Marino\" like fake knee pass, flea-flicker, wild cat full back rush, all real, except sometimes this look a bit too easy. But for me it is better than \"Replacement\"'s center catch and rushing for 50 yards call, or how a 60 yards field goal look too easy. OH BTW, I am glad they didn't force the TE kicker made his shot....

Of course ---if you objectively review this movie over other football movies all there, this could easily be a 5 out of 10 movie. But some say this is the worse football movie? Try \"The Comebacks\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All y'all hatin' on the fact you'd probably neva make the cut for \"Second String\" need to save it. If more guys out there took their sorry behinds to the gym for once...maybe y'all have a chance....well,...maybe. Take Shawn Woods' \"HOOK\" physique for a \"perfect\" example...and I stress the word \"perfect\" Put that in your pipe and smoke it...!!! You couldn't look better Sha-Shawn","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"LA ANTENA (Esteban Sapir - Argentina 2005).

A completely unique take on silent cinema in this fairy-tale like story by Esteban Sapir, beautifully shot in black-and-white and practically without dialog, \"La Antena\" is a feast for the eye and a must for lovers of German expressionist cinema, with most of the nods to the works of Fritz Lang and Friedrich Murnau.

'The City without a Voice', 'La Ciudad sin Voz', is ruled by Mr. TV. He has taken the inhabitants voices and is in total control of all spoken words and images, forcing everyone to eat his own brand of TV-food. Mr TV is not just a monopolist, he is the personification of evil and totalitarianism, even the swastika appears as a symbol a number of times. He secretly works on a hypnotizing device to control all the citizens minds through his television broadcasts. For this purpose, he kidnaps the only one left with The Voice, a beautiful singer, but a TV repairman witnesses the kidnapping and flees to an old TV antenna in the mountains in order to halt Mr. TV's evil plans.

The production design is stunning with beautiful sets and imagery. Although shot primarily with the basic language of silent cinema, Esteban Sapir also adds a number of fresh techniques of his own, like a combination of typographic and animation techniques. Everyone talks with each other through text balloons (usually floating near their mouths), the louder they talk, the larger the characters. The texts themselves can be pushed away or crushed. In the opening sequence, we see a book, titled \"La Antena\", that opens and a city of paper rises from the pages. There are hardly any references to Argentina. It's constantly snowing, which gives the film a very un-Argeninian feel, while the surreal setting suggests any large city in the Northen hemisphere, with only some of the songs revealing the film's Argentinian background.

The pace is swift and there is so much happening on screen, it's hard to keep track of the film's surreal narrative. Not only breathtakingly beautiful to look at, we're also given a few messages about media monopolies, corruption and totalitarianism, but they are breezily packaged. One of the most original films I've seen in years. A delight.

The film was shown as the opening film at the IFF Rotterdam 2007.

Camera Obscura --- 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen this movie twice on Transilvania International Film Festival(TIFF), the movie is in competition and I really hope that Esteban Sapir will get one of the awards (at least the best image award).

As a silent cinema fan I'm interested in contemporary movies that quote or recreate the language of the yester-year cinema. The previous reviewer emphasized the quotes from Fritz Lang and Fr. W. Murnau. As I see it, the movie references directly Lang's Metropolis, and the allegorical-parabolic character of his plots. But I didn't see Murnau in it. There's a more obvious Melies-homage though: the Moon with a (here cigar-smoking) human face, and the paper-made, painted mountains and city-landscapes. I enjoyed the film mostly for its visuals, and in the meantime I found very interesting the story on muteness, and the creative means of communication used by the inhabitants of the voiceless city. From this perspective this movie is an unique reflexion on the muteness of the silent cinema, because in the films of the silent period one can hardly find stories with mute characters. In this case can be questioned whether the story on the stolen voices was the motivation for the silent film form, or there's an intention to play upon the muteness of the silent films. Another example of this kind of reflexion I found in Guy Maddin's Careful,where the inhabitants of a mountain-village have restrictions in using their voices. I intend to write a paper on it, if you know movies related to this topic, please let me know!!!

I highly recommend Esteban Sapir's film to every moviegoer (one of the critics called it: the jewel of the festival).

PS: Winners were announced, and the film won the award for best cinematography!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those who appreciate the intersection of silent cinema and social commentary, this is a unique film. Part homage to German expressionism, part allegory, the film is replete with visual symbolism and an artistic style that rivals anything seen since the 1920's. Moreover, the attention to period detail and the visual composition of the scenes as an instrument for advancing the story is stunning. Aside from this, the plot offers an interesting commentary on the role of the media in society and its effect on social voice, perception, and opinion. In truth, it's not so much the silence that permeates the film as it is the loss of voice and the loss of words to communicate and express thought that inevitably follows. In sum, this film is something not often seen and, as the producer of the film said in the Q&A that followed, will leave you thinking about its meaning well into the next day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't see such a movie where the creators put so much heart's blood into their work and paid attention to the finest details for a very long time.

Everything was well thought and perfectly put into reality. Camera-work, editing and compositing worked so good together it was just amazing. The titles were so fun and so perfectly choreographed.

This movie just blew me away.

The \"Showdown\" could have been cut down by 10 or 15 minutes though.

It's a near to perfect homage to early silent noir Films story, acting, scenery and costumes were perfectly fitting and believable to have com from the times of silent film-making.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some would argue that Argentinean director Esteban Sapir's La Antena is an exercise in anachronistic futility; that, while the silent films to which Sapir's pays homage were at the cutting edge of cinema when they were made, they are outdated today, leaving La Antena a meaningless oddity.

I would disagree. Fervently. La Antena melds the conventions of the silent film with 21st century technology, making it the ultimate exercise in post-modern film-making.

The film is set in the timeless \"The City Without a Voice\", so called because the citizens have been rendered speechless by Mr. TV, a dictator\/media mogul with his hair painted on. The City resembles the titular one in Fritz Lang's seminal Metropolis (1927), perhaps 100 years before that film. It is all expressionist skyscrapers, TV aerials, and animated billboards.

The citizens of the City are mollified by La Voz (The Voice), the only person with the gift of speech. Her face perpetually shrouded by a hood (kept on even when she is naked), La Voz is forced to sing on Mr. TV's television network. But when Mr. TV concocts a plan to steal the written word as well, La Voz and her eyeless son join forces with a renegade family in an attempt to return the freedom of speech to the people.

La Antena is nothing but pure cinema. Burdening himself with the conventions of the silent film, Sapir has to rely upon images to tell his story. There is sound, most notably in the almost continuous score by Leo Sujatovich. It evokes the best of silent movie music, as well as ingenuously working itself into the film's diegesis, such as the beeping of car horns, or the rhythmic ra-ta-tat-tat of gunfire. And, underlying the whole film is a familiar whirring, as if it were being shown on an ancient projector.

There is a fair amount of dialogue as well. But instead of using intertitles, Sapir has the characters' words appear in the frame. They are larger or smaller, filling the screen or hovering meekly in the air, depending on what is being said. Think a more imaginative version of the subtitles in Night Watch (2004).

Thankfully, the words don't distract from the images. Which is very fortunate indeed, because La Antena boasts some of the most creative and original images we've seen in a long time, all captured by Cristian Cottet's sumptuous black-and-white photography. There are the expressionist cityscapes. The hooded singer and her eyeless son. There is the city's abandoned aerial, which looks like the decayed remains of some colossal spider. And there's the sinister Dr. Y, whose jabbering mouth is displayed on a television screen attached to his face.

La Antena has been criticised for relying too much on its imagery, while skimping on the allegorical depth. But, again, I would disagree. It is true that the sudden appearance of a mind-control machine shaped like a swastika, or the eyeless boy seemingly crucified on a Star of David, feels out of place, a tad over the top in what is otherwise merely a well-crafted fairy tale.

But the lack of overt symbols (the two previous examples aside) works in the film's favour. It allows us to make up our own minds: to decide whether to infer political meaning, to see La Antena as an allegory for fascism, the danger of capitalist monopolies, and the power and responsibility of the media; or to just take the film at face value, as a visually stunning adventure through a world simultaneously unique and familiar.

The sacrifice of explicit depth in favour of unique imagery may seem like a compromise. But, really, when a film looks as good as this, it's hard to care. There is more imagination and artistry in every frame of La Antena than Hollywood can shake a derivative stick at. Evoking films almost 100 years old might be futile, but in doing so, Sapir may be showing us what is lacking in the films of today. He may be telling us that it is time for another artistic revolution. And he may be right.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The summary line is some men's wet dream for the ideal woman ... ;o) Seriously though, back to the movie, which has classic cinema written all over it (pun intended and quite literally shown in the picture, too as you'll see)!

How could someone make a silent movie in this year and age? It's not completely silent for once (take the music for instance). With great cinematography is the answer. And it's no wonder that it did win prizes (as another user stated) in this area! But it's also sometimes it's downfall. Although the pictures are great, it sometimes delves too much in them instead of moving forward (plot and time wise). If you can cope with that, than you'll enjoy it even more than me. I haven't told you anything about the story, but I'll never do that, because I don't want to spoiler anything for you ...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"La Antena, an audacious film by Argentine director Esteban Sapir, succeeds both as a reinvention of the silent movie genre and a gripping cautionary tale. The setting is a city in thrall to mindless television, its people deprived of the power of speech except for a solitary and mysterious screen presence known simply as The Voice. In a bid to cement their grip on power the marvellously villainous duo of television mogul Mr. TV and mad scientist Dr. Y set out to kidnap The Voice and turn her unique talent towards their own dastardly ends. It is up to a young family and The Voice's nameless, eyeless son to stop this evil scheme. The result is a roller coaster of a story that is bewildering on occasion but never less than engrossing.

This is a silent movie that wears many of its influences on its sleeve; the overt references to silent movie greats such as George Melies and Fritz Lang will be readily apparent to anyone with a passing familiarity of their work. But more subtle references and symbolism lie behind such tributes. I particularly like the fact that Mr. TV and his henchman drive around in typical 1930s gangster cars, drawn from the decade when the silent movie era died away and a very different industry began to emerge.

La Antena mines the clich\u00e9d plot devices and theatrical over-acting common to so many silent films, albeit in a very knowing and humorous way. It is the astonishing visual style of La Antena that really sets it apart from the movies that it pays homage to. From the hypnotic TV logo to the menacing hilltop transmission station, this film abounds with dazzling visual inventiveness that is the rival of a Studio Ghibli animation \u0096 and all this using real actors and handmade sets.

Moreover, though the style is often intentionally corny and theatrical, this is still an unsettling, provocative and emotional picture. The use of religious symbolism throughout La Antena lends added resonance to the struggle between the TV Empire and the waning power of words. At the same time, many of the most powerful images are original ones, including the hypnotic swirl of the television sets and the nightmarish TV food factory.

I hate to end this review on a sour note, but I feel that the English-language release of La Antena is let down by the subtitles. The original Spanish subtitles are used to great effect, with much playing around with words on screen. However, the English-language subtitles that accompany the original dialogue are frustratingly incomplete, with omissions and mistakes at times leaving the viewer to piece things together for themselves. La Antena is nevertheless a striking piece of cinema; a visually breathtaking experience that displays great energy and humour whilst narrating a powerful cautionary tale.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although it might seem a bit bizarre to see a 32-year-old woman play the part of a 12-year-old, Mary Pickford soon makes you forget the incongruities and simply enjoy the fun.

Mary is a street kid in New York City, with her own lovable gang of mischief makers, whose attentions are engaged by the older William Haines (he was 25 at the time & just on the cusp of his own screen stardom.)

To give away too much of the plot would not be fair. Suffice it that Mary is great fun to watch & amply displays why she was Hollywood's first and most beloved super star. Production values are very good, with lots of extras making the NYC street scenes quite believable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Annie Rooney lives with her officer father and brother Tim in the slums of New York, where she is constantly getting involved in many fights with the other neighborhood kids. Annie secretly has a crush on Joe Kelly (whose little brother Mickey is head of the gang that Annie constantly battles), who is in a gang that is headed for trouble, says Officer Rooney. Kelly sponsors a dance, where Tony plans to shoot Kelly in order to get even with him for making him look like a fool in front of his girl, but Officer Kelly gets fatally wounded instead. Tim (part of Kelly's gang) is told by Tony, and friend Spider, that Kelly shot his father, so he goes after him in vengeance. Annie learns of this and goes to stop her brother, if she is in time. Very good mix of humor and heart in this film, even though the plot doesn't start until the 40 minute mark of the film. Pickford is enjoyable (even though she was 33 playing a girl no more than 12-13) and really gets into her character. Haines doesn't play Kelly as tough as he should, but is able make the audience feel for him on an emotional level. The scenes where the officer tells Annie of her father's death and the ending really put a lump in your throat. The mix of all sorts of kids throughout the film are fun to watch. Rating, 8.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mary Pickford plays Annie Rooney--the daughter of a cop that lives in the tough part of town. She is a rough and tumble young lady of indeterminate age (somewhere between 12 and 16) who loves to scrap but down deep has a heart of gold.

This is a very typical style of film for Mary Pickford. Like so many of her films, she plays a young girl--even though she was nearly 40 when she made LITTLE ANNIE ROONEY. And, like so many other stories, she was both plucky and courageous. As a result, I had a strong feeling of d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu. Now if you haven't seen her other films, this isn't an issue. However, she is essentially playing a character much like the one in SPARROWS or DADDY LONG LEGS--though these two other films are a lot better. Now this isn't to say this is a bad film--just that it's certainly not among her best work--mostly due to a rather \"schmaltzy\" story that is very heavy on sentiment but not especially convincing. Entertaining but not essential viewing unless you are a huge fan of the silents.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although the concept of a 32 year old woman portraying a 12 year old girl might be a stretch for today's

sophisticated audiences,in the 1920's this was what the fans of Mary Pickford desired and expected from their favorite star. The opening scene displays Annie's tomboyish character as the apparent leader of a multi-ethnic street gang in comic \"battle\" with a rival group. The sight of a young girl being socked in the jaw and kicked may be a bit crude, but the scene is played in such an \"Our Gang\" fashion that it would be hard to take any of this seriously. Anyway, Annie can dish it out as well as take it. Once Annie returns to her tenement home and replaces her street duds with more girlish attire, it becomes more difficult (especially in close-ups) to imagine this beautiful young woman as a street urchin. However, for those who can muster the required suspension of disbelief, the rest of the movie has it's rewards. Vacillating between comedy (Annie's gang puts on a show) to sentiment (Annie plans a birthday surprise for her Irish policeman father) to tragedy (her father is killed on his birthday), the film gives Mary ample opportunity to display a range of emotions that would please her fans of any era.

Of course the requisite \"happy ending\" is eventually achieved; the evildoers are apprehended with the help of Annie's friends and rivals and she is last seen in the company of her pals riding down a busy thoroughfare on a sunny day. Which is a good a way as any for a Mary Pickford movie to end.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Diary of Anne Frank is the second best-selling nonfiction book in the world, and for good reason. Nonetheless, sitting through this documentary about her life, which fills in some of the details where the diary left off, I thought, \"Just another documentary about Anne Frank.\" I found it to be competent but not extraordinary. That was my complacent attitude because I was already well aware of the story of Anne Frank; most of what the documentary had to tell me wasn't news to me.

Everything changed, though, when I got to the end of the documentary---when I saw the motion picture footage of Anne Frank. The emotional impact of seeing this footage, only a second or so long, made everything that came before it a thousand times more real---but not just everything that was in the documentary; everything I had previously known about Anne Frank suddenly became more real to me, more personal. I'd always been moved by her story, but when I saw that footage, what I felt was stronger and deeper and more profound than any other film experience of my life. (I knew beforehand that this documentary contained live footage of Anne Frank, and I'd even seen the footage in a movie review on television, but seeing it in the context of the documentary was a completely different experience. It's not likely that my mentioning it here will spoil it for anyone.)

I realize now that many people still don't know the story of Anne Frank; it's discouraging at times to be witness to this kind of ignorance. I think to myself, \"How could someone NOT know the story of Anne Frank?\" This being the case, though, ANNE FRANK: REMEMBERED, along with reading her diary, is the best place to start. It's a story that everyone should know.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This series when the Dinosaurus lived for 65 million years ago. The Dinosaurus looks very real and are very realistic when they moves. It is also very interesting how the climate changes.

I am very interesting in how the dinosaurs lived and died. I am also interesting in how the dinosaurs behaved.

The color of the dinosaurs is also interesting to see and discovered. They think which color they had.

The most interesting is why the dinosaurs died and what happened after that.

BBC have made a brilliant series how the dinosaurs lived and died!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Walking With Dinosaurs is an amazing Documentary, educational for both the Ignorant of Dinosaurs and Dinosaur-Lovers (like myself) alike. I admit, I was very young when I saw this on Discovery, but I was obsessed with it immediately. (Spoliers!!!!!) The series contains 6 episodes, going from the Late Triassic when dinosaurs were just first evolving to the Late Cretaceous, at the end of Reign of the dinosaurs. When I first saw this film, it was like I really had traveled back in time. The majesty of the Diplodocus, the adventures of Opthalmosaurus, and the caring mother version of T-Rex all astounded my family and me. It is an amazing film, and I believe that BBC managed to do just what they set out to do. Awesome job!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(r#88) Brilliant, very entertaining show with spectacular effects. Any fan of these prehistoric reptiles has to see this. The CGI blends in extremely well with the environment and it's just plain fun to watch these giants walk about their daily business as casually as on Discovery Channel. This show was a stroke of genius and it blows its followers \"Walking with beasts\" and \"The future is wild\" out of the water.

The greatest episode was definitely the last, where we got to watch the final days of the Tyrannosaurus Rex and the meteor strike that became their doom. This stuff is almost too awesome for television. How about a theatrical release? I would pay anything to see these dinos in the cinema.

If you're in the mood for a show that manages to be spectacular, engaging and educational at the same time, this is for you. Dinosaurs have never been cooler.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILER WARNING

I got this dino-documentarie on DVD at Christmas 2004. I had longed to see it and was by no means disappointed. The score is memorable ( my

favourites were the \"Sauropod\" theme song and the \"Winters Coming\" song ). The effects were dazzling, you could almost believe they were there. You actually learn something too ; Stegosaurs MAY have been able to pump their plates with blood. Female T-Rexes MIGHT have gone on a killing spree before laying their eggs. I know there's a lot of people who thought this was based too much on speculation, but there will always be questions that we can only guess at. And there is a lot of hard-core, undeniable FACT as well. We KNOW that some dinosaurs travelled in herds, we KNOW that Diplodocus swallowed stones to grind up vegetation in their stomaches. Despite this \"speculation\" the series did extremely well. So well in fact, that it spawned a followup, a prequel and several specials. If you're a dino-fan, then this IS for you. It makes Jurassic Park look small and weedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is well done. It really attempts to show what the dinosaurs had to contend with in their daily lives. The animation is very well done and the film makers have done a great job of giving scientific fact in such a way that it is entertaining. This is a great movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This documentary on dinosaurs was undoubtedly fascinating and very well made. However, I found myself watching many of the bits with unease. The film generally took a rather confident stand on anything it said and showed, but inevitably much of the behaviour of the beasts, their interaction with each other, what they looked like, how they moved, what they ate etc. much of that is surely guessing - sometimes guessing with reasonable confidence, sometimes just wild guessing. But the viewer is never made aware of that, the film pretends to actually observe real dinosaurs and their real behaviour etc. That makes probably better viewing than confronting the audience with mountains of disclaimers, but it makes it just a bit too populist in my estimation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tomorrow Is Another Day is NOT the sequel to Gone with the Wind but a lovers-on-the-lam story, and a surprisingly alert and moving one as well. For a supposed hack relegated to B-minus features like The Devil Thumbs A Ride, Felix Feist proves adept at filling his work with unexpected, inventive details. Steve Cochran leaves prison after 18 years for killing his brutal father when he was only 13, and now he's still a tentative, gawky pubescent operating inside a man's hulky frame. Lonesome, he visits a 10-cents-a-dance palace and falls for brassy, grasping Ruth Roman. But the sudden shooting of her police-bigwig boyfriend causes the ill-matched couple to hit the road, ending, like the Joads, in a California migrant-worker camp.

Roman's the revelation; in her best-known role, as Farley Granger's fiancee in Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train, she was ill- and under-used. Here she modulates persuasively from bottle-blonde taxi dancer to sacrificing wife and mother-to-be (and a brunette, to boot). Cochran's almost as good, waffling between the suspicion of a wounded child and the explosive reactions of an under-socialized male. And the ending, while unconvincing, is nonetheless welcome. Along with They Live By Night and Gun Crazy, Tomorrow Is Another Day displays a redeeming sweetness and warmth that belie its film-noir pedigree.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film screened at the American Cinematheque's Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood on April 7, 1999. It was described in the American Cinematheque schedule as follows:

\"TOMORROW IS ANOTHER DAY 1951, Warners, 90 min. Steve Cochran's an ex-con who's never been with a woman. Ruth Roman is a dime-a-dance dame with no use for sappy men. A hotel room, a dirty cop, a gunshot - the perfect jump-off for a fugitives-on-the-run love story. This virtually unknown noir is Felix Feist's masterwork, packed with revelatory set-pieces. Cochran was never more vulnerable, Roman never sexier. Imagine GUN CRAZY scripted by Steinbeck - it's that good.\"

I just saw this film, and I agree with every word of the above description.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"His John Dark-Kevin Connor fantasy adventures were a mainstay of Summer holiday movies in the days before Star Wars: they weren't masterpieces, they didn't boast state-of-the-art special effects, but they were exactly what an audience of kids wanted from a film back in the mid 70s.

At the Earth's Core catches just the right tone for the appropriately named Burroughs' pulp adventure about Victorian inventor Peter Cushing and the inevitable Doug McClure ending up in the underground world of Pelucidar and battling its evil telepathic fighting dinosaurs. This time the puppets are gone in favour of men in monster suits, which is a lot more fun if you're willing to suspend your disbelief, and if you're not there's always Caroline Munro's cleavage to look at. Aside from what may well be Peter Cushing's worst performance, an irritating but dottier rehash of his movie Dr Who (\"You can't mesmerise me, I'm British!\"), it's easily the best of the John Dark-Kevin Connor-Doug McClure fantasy adventures, surprisingly well directed and boasting an atmospheric use of colour. Never especially good at exterior scenes, Alan Hume's photography gains immensely from the control a studio set gives him (the film was shot entirely on soundstages) to paint a luridly vivid world worthy of a pulp novel cover. Not high art but definitely great Saturday matin\u00e9e fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The main criticism of AT THE EARTH'S CORE is that it's cheap, the special effects are bad and so on and so forth. Yes, some of the special effects are painfully bad but what a lot of folks overlook about it is that it's actually quite fun, which is very important in my book.

In comparison, just look at the latest STAR WARS films: they have the latest, greatest special effects created by the latest technological advances which are capable in creating stunning visual effects as far reaching as the human imagination can imagine and yet, with all the razzle dazzle, those films were as exciting as a funeral. As Yoda would say, Fun they're not! In other words, who cares if the FX aren't the greatest when the spirit of the film is fast-paced, humorous and clearly set on the side of action. I love everything about AT THE EARTH'S CORE: the contrast between stodgy Victorian England VS the wild other-worldly, colorful setting of Pellucidar, the cast of characters, the concept of a lost underground world, the telepathic Pterodactyls, the human slaves rebelling, Jubal the ugly one (lol!), the inspired teaming of Peter Cushing (who's great!) and Doug McClure, the excellent music (it's really good), cinematography by the amazing Alan Hume and last but not least, Caroline Munro. She's effing sexy in this movie. One of the sexiest B-movie babes ever captured on screen.

Seriously, anyone who doesn't like this movie doesn't know what fun is. Gimme AT THE EARTH'S CORE over any turgid STAR WARS prequels any time! At least it has Caroline Munro, which no CGI fx can ever recreate.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"CONTEXT is everything when one goes to rate a movie. When rating this movie one has to consider the time in which it was made. We didn't really know WHAT the inside of the EARTH was in those days so you can't rag on the movie too much for the plot (based on a much older book). For the era, this was top notch special effects and the production quality was great. I watched this movie in a masterfully restored HD master. For the time the makeup and effects almost make the guys in the rubber suits look plausible as a monster-thing. This is pure movie cheese complete with bad rubber suits, models, and creepy costumes. AWESOME. PS Doug McClure ROCKS!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shame on you if you give this film a low rating. How can you not like a film that has Doug McClure, Peter Cushing, silly rubber monsters, fights, (and for the guys, that woman that was the baddie's henchwoman in The Spy Who Loved Me and one of the seventies Sinbad films, not wearing very much of whom my mother said \"She wasn't picked for the colour of her eyes\"), lava, silly wigs and a daft Victorian drilling machine very much like the one used in the old Thunderbirds series? Whoever watched this film and slagged it off was watching it for the wrong reasons. It may be crap, but is definitely good crap. They don't make 'em like they used to, sigh......","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was the second movie I saw on the cinema as a child. It scared the living crap out of me. So much so that I asked my father if we could leave halfway through.

Nowadays, the only people leaving halfway through are the ones who have a good taste in movies.

I, however, still have fond memories of this flawed masterpiece of awfulness. Doug McClure and Peter Cushing in the same movie! Great! Monsters made of polypropylene substitute. Scary stuff. A rubber monster is, when you think about it, is even scarier than a real monster.

The astonishing thing about this movie is how good the score is. Truly rousing stuff.

There's also plenty of prehistoric tit on show, too. Nice.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Due to the fact that in 1976 there were no CGI I felt that the movie was quite watchable. The studio productions were very good and very elaborate. The background effects were very believable and always appeared as if they were part of the whole set. The actors did OK considering the premise of the film being set in a type of Jules Vern atmosphere where imagination and possibilities of future exploration were at most improbabilities. Had I watched this film in 1976 I probably would have been in awe of the ability of man to build a machine that could travel to the earths core. I still wonder to this day why we are not all flying around in our cars but I digress. McClure and Cushing have their funny moments, mostly from their facial expressions toward each other which of course makes the film somewhat campy which I loved. The 'monsters' left something to be desired but the story had a good premise although I feel as though some other sort of 'thing' could have been more believable under those circumstances. All in all quite watchable for its time and fun now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My father took me to see this film when it was released in 1976. I was but a child and it scared the crap out of me. So much so that I had to leave the theatre during a particularly claustrophobic tunnel scene as it was too intense for me!!! I went home to the safety of my family. I saw the film all the way through as I got older and thoroughly enjoyed it. Shame about the men in monster suits, though. If you overlook the cheapness of the production and delve deeper, you'll find an excellent performance by Cushing, a stunning opening score, some nice photography and the ever reliable Mr.Douglas McClure, my childhood hero!British police constables guarding the Whitehouse at the end! Titty bang bang cave woman! Monsters with beaks! Actors in monster suits gliding on wires! This has it all! Superb.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have fond memories of watching this when it came out. It's one of those films that you know is rubbish, even when you're a kid, but at that age you overlook the ludicrous acting, special effects and plot (so there's a race of big-busted nymphets living underground, huh?) and just enjoy the campy monsters for all they're worth.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this is a great, classic monster film for the family. The mole, what a machine! The tall creature with the beak, the flying green lizards, Ranthorincus\/mayas or whatever they are and the ape men things the speak telepathically with them. The battle of the men in rubber suits fighting for a doll for breakfast umm! yummy! Class, what else can I say? How would they make a 2002 remake of this one?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a true gem of corny sci-fi! Peter Cushing adds a great personality to this midnite movie classic.

I particularly like the sound design. The weird choppy voices of the creatures and the rhino creatures all provide a bizarre backdrop (Of course the scantily clad babe doesn't hurt either!)

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nice way to relax. I am packing my suitcase now so I can go and be with Caroline Munroe. Phony monsters and scenery make for 89 minutes of harmless fun. Something you can enjoy with your family and not be offended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Agreeable \"Boy's Own Paper\" nonsense with a sprightly performance from Cushing, some amusing rubber monsters, colourful jungle sets, & the ever-welcome appearance of Caroline Munro in animal skins.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rugged David Innes (solid Doug McClure) and doddery Dr. Abner Perry (a delightfully dotty Peter Cushing) drill their way into the earth's core in their spiffy mole machine. The duo discover an ancient prehistoric world populated by dangerous gigantic beasts and human beings who are used as both food and slaves by evil telepathic pterodactyl men. Director Kevin Conner, working from a blithely silly script by Milton Subotsky, maintains a constant brisk pace throughout and treats the exceptionally foolish premise with astonishing seriousness, thereby giving this picture a certain clunkily earnest quality that's amusing and endearing in equal measure. The lovably hokey (not so) special effects are quite (unintentionally) funny. The cheesy array of cut-price creatures in particular are positively sidesplitting: cruddy guys-in-obvious-shoddy-rubber-suits pterodactyl men, equally rinky-dink savage ape-man brutes, and a hilariously ludicrous fire-belching frog thing who blows up real good. One gut-busting highlight occurs when McClure mixes it up with a fat and clumsy giant reptile. Another priceless scene depicts a dinosaur clutching a doll in its slavering jaws. Moreover, we also get some rousing rough'n'ready fisticuffs and an exciting climactic slave revolt. It's a total treat to see Cushing gleefully ham it up in a rare broad comedic part and become an unlikely, but enthusiastic arrow-slinging action hero in the last third of the flick. The ever-luscious Caroline Munro looks positively yummy as the fetching Princess Dia, plus there are nice supporting turns by Cy Grant as gallant warrior Ra and Sean Lynch as treacherous coward Hoojah. Mike Vickers' neatly varied score alternates between jaunty orchestral music and wonky droning synthesizer stuff. Alan Hume's crisp cinematography adds a glossy sheen to the infectiously inane proceedings. A complete campy riot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm serious as well, I mean don't get me wrong, if you haven't got a bent for this type of Z grade, creaky creature feature {why would you be watching is my first thought?} then it's a rating of about 3 to 4 out of 10 tops, but to me it's a special kind of nonsense that takes me back to a nice time in my childhood. You know the kind, the memories that never leave you. Eagerly taking it all in with youthful wonderment as Doug McClure and Peter Cushing tunnel beneath the mantle to do battle with a host of creatures and sub-human species'. And guys,! now we are all grown up we can admire most seriously at the wonder of Caroline Munro and her heaving cleavage. No wonder my older brother was keen to take me to the cinema to see this one!.

Yes the effects are bad, men in suits, strings pinging parrot monsters around and exploding rubber frog like thingies amuse us greatly. And yes, Cushing and a surprisingly pudgy McClure act as if they have truly been mesmerised by the evil Meyhas at the \"core\" of our film. But it matters not, zany and clunky and awash in glorious colour, At The Earth's Core is a throwback to a special pre-ILM time when kids like me queued around the block to see such joyous nonsense. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once a year in America, Saturday morning would give way to new cartoons, usually sometime in America. Just about the time school started.

I guess this was to make not having school on Saturdays that more bearable.

One Friday night before the premiere of the new Saturday morning cartoons, a movie came on.

\"At The Earth's Core\" I had not a clue who Cushing nor McClure were. Clearly they were not from the same country, so I couldn't grasp why they were traveling together.

I do recall seeing the mechanism in the fire-breathing monster's mouth.

What connects this movie for me is the opening with the molten metal and then suddenly we get the band playing as we see the factory.

How do you end a movie like this? The music again, and two bewlidered cops as the drill appears behind them.

Whatever reason, I remember watching this movie more that Friday night than I do any new cartoon that came on the following morning.

That was definitely the late seventies.

It would be during Jurassic Park mania, cicra '93, I believe, before I would see this movie again.

Yes, people in costumes. There was the fire-breather again.

Still loved the ending with the two cops.

Finally, it would be nearly another decade before I would send off for the movie on DVD.

Now I would just watch the beginning and intro.

Oh, I do love much of the movie. Of all these sci fi Jules Verne, HG Wells, ERB movies, this one stands as my fave.

What I note now is that one of the cops begins turning around a wee bit too soon, then turns back, then he and the other cop are synchronized as they turn inward once again to look behind themselves at the drill.

Perhaps for me, this movie stands as the best of the Saturday morning shows, which is why I enjoy it so much.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The family happiness is crumbling when, the from the beginning rich father Ward (Michael Ontkean), gets poor and cannot support the family any longer. Then the mother Faye (Jaclyn Smith) has to take the role as the breadwinner in the family and starts to work in order to support the family and at the same time, periodically alone, has to manage the family life. Not always that good, but as good as she can. The family life hardly gets easier when the father learns that the son Lionel (Joe Flanigan \"Stargate Atlantis\") is gay and is living together with his lover John (Joel Gretsch \"The 4400\") also an old family friend, resulting in that the father makes clear to Lionel that he is no longer welcome in the family. Lionel is the one who meant the most to his sister Anne (Leslie Horan) during her up-bringing, since the family neglected her. Anne cannot stand the fact that their father have cut the cords with Lionel and therefore she run away from home. As this wasn't enough, the son Greg (Brian Krause \"Charmed\") enlists in the marines and is sent to war. The storyline in this film can on some occasions feel a bit thin, in spite of that it still has a lot of realism in it, which makes it well worth seeing. Since this film illustrates many sensitive relations and situations, I would believe that it is best appreciated by a mature audience even though it wouldn't hurt for teenagers to see it and get something to think about before adulthood.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie it was a great portrayal of a family who had it's share of ups and down, but in the end they knew that special love they had for each other. I have seen many movies starring Jaclyn Smith, but my god this was one of her best, though it came out 12 years ago. This movie contained an all-star cast, and what I loved the most was that it opened my eyes to see other actors who I haven't seen before. This movie was kind of long in length, but I enjoyed every minute of it. It is a movie that you can sit down with your family and watch, though we would have to cover the kids eyes a few times due to the discretionary love scenes. Overall I rate this movie a 10 out of a 1-10 scale. Lifetime does not air it enough, so if anyone knows what store sells it let me know because this is a must-have.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The only print of CHIKAMATUS MONOGATARI I've been able to find was abysmal - I almost couldn't watch it. Which is a shame as this is among the greatest Mizoguchi films. The story - which I believe had been done before and since by other Japanese directors - is a bit straighter than my favorite Mizoguchi films (SANSHO THE BAILIFF and UGETSU MONOGATARI), and is essentially a tale of tragic romance, in this case a transgressive romance that crosses strict class boundaries. As always with Mizoguchi, there is an exquisitely expressed tone of defiance, and - bad print aside - I was very pleased. As with all of Mizoguchi's films, I'm eagerly awaiting a restored DVD release - whenever that may come...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is certainly a good film, beautifully photographed and evocatively acted. Yet one should certainly criticize it, and Mizoguchi, for it is not without flaws and weaknesses. Mizoguchi really cared for women, and wanted to make statements on man's lack of sympathy and total cruelty, yet he sometimes gets ahead of himself in trying to make this statement by adopting the wrong means. This is certainly a case in 'the Crucified Lovers', 'Princess Yang Kwei Fei' and 'Zankiku monogatari'. He sets the scenario in feudal Japan, which leaves the viewer at the end with the partially right exclamation: \"boy, does feudalism suck, I'm glad that it is over...\". And true, some of the scenarios such weaker films of Mizoguchi present would be literary impossible today. Also, his women characters sometimes become archetypes of unrealistic self-sacrifice, which also simplifies the scenario less appealing. Saying that, \"Crucified Lovers\" is a good film, with such few relative weaknesses, though the sometimes chilly, cynical prose by Ueda, the screenwriter helps this film allot. I still highly prefer and recommend Mizoguchi's 'realistic, 'contemprary' films of 1936: 'Osaka Elegy' and 'Sisters of the Gion', as well as his late masterpieces, in which he showed more restraint and subtlety: 'Ugetsu', 'Sansho Dayu', and 'The Life of Oharu'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've loved this movie for a LONG time. I hadn't seen it in a while, so I again checked it out and actually found it even more enjoyable now. I loved the Chipmunks cartoon when I was young, so naturally I adored 'The Chipmunk Adventure.'

I honestly can't think of a better plot to this movie. It's not wildly creative, but I've always wanted to travel all over the world, and so I just have so much fun watching it as my longing to travel grows even more. The part with Elenore singing to the little penguin always makes me cry...

'The Chipmunk Adventure' will remain a favorite of mine forever, I'm sure. I guess it's because I saw it when I was so young. I don't think it would make quite an impact on someone older seeing it for the first time. (Unless, of course, they have a young heart)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of my absolute favorite childhood films. The Chipmunk adventure packs incredible fun geared for young and old alike. The animation is lively and colorful and the film itself boasts some of the best songs ever put in an animated feature. Who could forget the dynamic \"Boys\/Girls of Rock n' Roll\", the exciting \"Diamond Dolls\", and the heartrending \"My Mother\"?

This should be considered a nostalgic classic animated gem from the eighties. It's too bad they don't make them like this anymore. Most animated films today resort to violence, crude humor, or sentimental mush... except of course the folks from Pixar.

BOTTOM LINE: An amazing and unforgettable adventure for all ages.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE

There are some movies that I could watch all my life and never grow tired of them, and this nostalgic favorite is one of them. THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE was a 1987 attempt to bring the old favorites back to the forefront of animation, this time on the big screen. In an age when Disney dominated the film industry in terms of animation quality and box office, THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE stands as one of the best animated films that Disney didn't produce in the 80's.

The story is simple and elementary, having Alvin, Simon & Theodore compete in an around-the-world race with the Chipettes (Janette, Eleanor, & Brittany). However, as the chipmunks encounter exotic dangers, they are unaware that they are the pawns in a major diamond heist.

THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE never was and never will be a film that soars thanks to an engrossing plot. And to people who didn't love it as a child, the film will probably never be more then an enjoyable, yet forgettable, animated movie. But for me, it will always be a little known masterpiece. Something about the film just clicks for me in a way few films do.

Every song is fun, upbeat, and harmless. Highlights include the Chipettes in a slightly risqu\u00e9 Arabian dance to calm snakes. There's also a very sweet song in which the Chipmunks sing about traveling the world and we get to see them at major landmarks throughout the globe. One thing about the Chipmunk characters is that, despite the potentially annoying vocals, the songwriters always managed to write songs that were catchy without ever being grating. This film is no exception... it actually boasts one of the best Animated movie soundtracks of the 80's if you ask me.

Every joke is cute, sincere and amusing. The bits between the bad guys and a pampered puppy are very amusing. And the shock of seeing the Chipettes nearly forced into marriage by a child emperor is as well. The comedy manages to constantly play to the kids so that they don't miss anything, but everything remains charming for the adults with enough nostalgia to keep them entertained.

It's really just a fun trip that is completely humble in it's ambitions. THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE never aims to be anything more then it is, harmless fun. I'll be the first to admit this is a biased review because I have such a nostalgic fondness for THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE that I would never be able to give it a bad review... but nonetheless, it fills me with such a childish contentment while watching it. Everyone has their random favorite from childhood that no one knows, and for me it's this movie. And any film that I can watch over and over whether I am 5, 12, 23 or older is a great film in my eyes.

... A- ...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To this day, there isn't a movie I've seen more times than The Chipmunk Adventure, nor has any movie brought me more happiness. This is by no means the greatest film or even the greatest animated film, but to an 8 year old girl in 1988 it was the coolest, funniest, most exciting film ever! I'm still equally as impressed today with the musical numbers, each one a standout song with wonderfully dramatic lyrics in the epic tradition of 80's pop (think Pat Benetar on helium, only catchier).

Controversy has stirred over the blatantly suggestive tone of the Chipette's song \"Gettin' Lucky With You\", which to me seemed much more innocent at the time. However, looking at it as a rational adult, I can totally understand the concern; you've got three young girls in skimpy harem outfits passionately proclaiming \"getting lucky is what it's all about\". The Chipettes' were definitely sexualized tenfold for this movie.

But this controversial issue doesn't even come close to overshadowing the Chipmunks' otherwise fabulous feature length animated adventure, I encourage parents and childless adults alike to check out this movie. Especially if you were a child of the eighties\/early nineties like me. :-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie when I was a kid. I saw it theatrically. Randy Edelman did a good composition of the soundtrack. David Seville is the Chipmunks' father and recording manager. The Chipmunks consist of Alvin, who is best known for playing the harmonica, Simon, who is a bright and studious chipmunk & Theodore, who is the youngest and is always hungry. There is a lady known as Miss Miller, who looks after the chipmunks and has 3 daughters known as Brittany, Jeanette & Eleanor, who all have the same character as the Chipmunks. My favourite songs from this soundtrack include \"Diamond Dolls\", The Girls of Rock & Roll\", & the touching \"My Mother\". Alvin really wanted to see Europe when Dave had to go there for business. The Chipmunks meet the Chipettes playing the Around the World in 30 days video game which led them to race each other doing the real thing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although it is more of a kids movie, it still holds its own, especially when compared to the more recent assembly line animated films being made. The music is fantastic!! I don't care how old you are, you will still find yourself rockin to \"Girls of Rock and Roll\" and Diamond Dolls.\" Definatly a must for animation lovers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Chipmunk Adventure\" is one of the greatest animated movies of the 1980's. Alvin and the Chipmunks have always been of some interest to me, since they were what really got me into rock and roll. Neither one of the Chipmunks has any bad traits. Alvin's really the star and has all the cool looks. Theodore is the lovable sensitive one. Then there's Simon (my personal favorite), the smart one who is often a party pooper. I also like the Chipettes a lot. There's Brittany, who, like Alvin, is one who is always trying to be so popular. Then there's Eleanor, who, like Theodore, is sweet, sensitive, and loves food. Janette is the only Chipette who is not much like her counterpart; she's very naive and really clumsy.

In the Chipmunks' very first full-length movie, David Seville is going on a business trip to Europe, and he's leaving the boys with Miss Miller while he's gone. While playing an arcade game, Alvin loses against Brittany and then says that if he had the money, he'd race Brittany around the world for real. Unbeknownest to the kids, a man named Klaus Furschtien and his sister, Claudia, who have been trying to come up with a sneaky way to deliver diamonds around the world in exchange for cash, overheard this conversation and said that they'd let them race around the world for $100,000. Alvin and Brittany accept it and go on the race.

This adventurous movie has a lot of great songs. \"Off to See the World\" made for an appropriate theme song for the movie. Then there is \"Getting Lucky\", one of my favorite songs in the movie. \"My Mother\" is most likely the sappiest song in the movie, but it always makes me cry. \"Wooly Bully\" is the only cover song used in the movie (the rest were completely original). Then, of course, there's \"The Boys and Girls of Rock and Roll\", which, in my opinion, has to be one of the greatest musical numbers in movie history.

I used to watch this movie very often, until my recorded tape of it died. I still watch the movie, though. This is actually a fun movie for people who are about to go on a vacation to a foreign country for the first time. It'll give you an idea of what kind of stuff you'd expect out of world travel. Definitely one of my childhood movies, and one that I'd recommend to 80's fans and Alvin & the Chipmunks fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"AWWWW, I just love this movie to bits. Me and my cousins enjoy this movie a lot and I am just such a HUGE FAN!!! I hope they bring the TV series out on DVD soon. Come to mention it, I have not see the TV show in a LONG time. Such geart times! Where I come from Australia The Chipmunk Adventure is only known by people in their late teens and adult years which is kinda sad because the young kids don't know what there missing.

The songs in this film are ace the ones I love the most Boys\/girls of rock n'roll, Diamond Dolls and the song that ls sure to make you want to cry My Mother.

This film is sure to excite both young and old GET THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE TODAY!!! 10 out of 10, such an excellent movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw this movie I was only a little kid and I fell in love with it, they really don't make movies like this anymore,I just watch this again now slightly older and still love it.

The Humour is perfect and fits into the movie really well, all the gags are kind of childish but will make adults laugh as well,and in a kids movie is really very rare.

The Animation is amazing and to watch hand-drawn animation is a real breath of fresh air to all the computer animation we see today. The Backgrounds are stunning and the coloring is amazing.

The Characters are just the kind of characters that you fall in love with the moment you start watching girls will think the Chipmunks are adorable and Guys will think the Chipettes are really kinda sexy.

The Songs are fun to listen too and some just really make you wanna cry or get up and dance, its also fun to watch visual humor to go along with them.

The Voice Acting is great no doubt even if most of the voice acting is high pitch, but an interesting thing popped up and it one of the songs from this movie but the slowed down to show the real voices behind them and its really kinda fun to watch.

If you see this movie in a store or somewhere to rent I say check it out it's really worth seeing and is a perfect family movie its absolutely amazing, words can not express this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was one of the best movies you could find as a child. I lived with The Chipmunk Adventure from 4 years old to 8 years old. The story of this film was: Dave's going on a business trip to Europe and sticks the boys with Miss Miller. While playing an Around the World in 80 Days video game, two villains, Klaus and Claudia (brother and sister), round the Chipmunks and Chipettes into an adventure in which the kids must hot-air-balloon their way across the globe. What they're unaware of is that the \"game\" is really a diamond-smuggling ring. And when found at the airport by the villains, a chase ensues! And which ends in Klaus and Claudia off to jail and Alvin, Simon, Theodore, Brittany, Jeanette, and Eleanor safe with Dave and Miss Miller. But I am warning you now, this is a musical and quite a damn good one at that. Most people hate musicals, but I am not one of those people, I frigging love musicals like Rocky Horror, Grease, Sound of Music, Cats Don't Dance, and just about anything (except for My Fair Lady). If you see this, share with your kids (if you got any)!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie and i never knew it was this old it came out the day n year i was born in and now i am 19 now i still love this movie especially the songs like \"My Mother\" and \"Boys and Girls of Rock N Roll\" and i remember as a kid i believe i was 5 n my sister was 6 and my cousin (boy) was 6 as well we used to pretend to be the characters in the movie i was Eloner and Janette and my sister was Britany and my cousin was Alvin Simon and Theodore those were good times and i miss it and having this movie reminds me of the good times since my cousin is old for this stuff and so am i and my sis we are not going to forget about the chipmunk and the chipmunk movie i still even remember the songs and the words off by heart even though i haven't seen this movie for 12 years but now starting to love it again ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS AND CHIPETTES <3<3<3<3","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i think it is great one of my favourite films as a kid and who said there songs were unforgettable they were mint i can still remember them now WORD FOR WORD the film remains a favourite with my family and my younger cousins are now addicted to it too they even know the songs this film is great and a enjoyable film for kids it has a moral lesson so don't say its not good because it shows how lying gets you nowhere ill leave with a parting comment: this film is amazing love me xxx P.s i would like the soundtrack but i cant and yes the animation is good the jokes are humorous and the action never stops.This film will go down in children's film history and in my opinion one of the only remaining safe films to show children.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a classic. Kids now will love it, and people like me, who were kids when it first came out, still watch it for its nostalgic value as well as for its humor and great story. It introduces kids to different cultures and inspires them to adventure. It's not JUST a cartoon, it's a masterpiece. I love it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been an avid chipmunk fan since the late 70's - early 80's. When this movie came out, it was a must to see it. And after seeing it, I went right over and bought it! The movie is great, I love the animated action it brings, and the music is great (yes, I bought the soundtrack on CD...) A recommended video for everyone to watch and enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If your a child of the 80's and have not seen this movie you have failed to be a true child of the 80's. How can you not love those great chipmunks (don't forget about the chippettes), lines, and songs. Years later i can still sing every word to every song. The story line is great and much better then the films for kids today. It's just pure fun and worth the rent, even if your all grown up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The feature length CGI movie has just been released this year, but whilst it will provide kids a lot of entertainment, for die-hard Alvin fanatics and followers who grew up with the 60s and 80s versions of the cartoon shows, The Chipmunk Adventure is probably the best Alvin and the Chipmunks based animated movie, ever.

For starters, the animation is as ever terrific, the character designs are as they should be in the cartoons- unlike the motion picture film itself, it is just sheer fun to watch. there are no celeb voices, no CGI generated effects, just pure quality 2-D, hand drawn animation and the colours are fantastic- bright, bold and beautiful. The jokes and humour is typical chipmunk standard and the narrative is spot-on. In truth, The Chipmunk Adventure is everything the live action movie ought to have been, but isn't. Alvin, Simon and Theodore compete with the Chipettes, Elenor, Jeanette and Britney in a hot air balloon contest and along the way, the kids encounter all manner of problems and dilemmas that they have to resolve in their own way. And no chipmunk movie is complete without the odd renditions of classic rock and pop anthems.

The Chipmunk Adventure is for kids and adults alike-, which is another advantage over the CGI movie- as whereas, the 2007 version will gain a few new admirers, the 1987 movie will appeal to both young and older Chipmunk fans. Bagdarasian and Karman provide the helium-like voices of the film's trio.

Overall, this film is a must for fans of the cartoon shows themselves- you will not be left disappointed. If you have seen the live action version, then you'll feel that this movie is a much better effort in contrast. If you haven't then you should go and see it still, or even still forget the Jason lee movie and as an alternative, stick with this","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was -Unlike most of the reviewers- not born in the 80's. I was born on may 14th 1994. Despite this, my life was very much in the style of the 80's. When other kids had playstations, I was playing Zelda on my NES etc. Now, this movie holds a special place in my heart already despite me being only 15 years old at the time of writing this review. I, because of my 80's style early Childhood, watched many TV shows and saw Many movies that other kids didn't see, and this movie was one of those, and one of the greatest too.

It starts off in the Los Angeles home of Alvin Seville, Simon Seville, Theodore Seville and David Seville. David, the Chipmunk's adoptive father, is in a rush to get to the airport as he is going on a business trip around Europe. His taxi is almost there and The Chipmunks help him pack. While they are talking, Alvin expresses his will to come with Dave and to see the world (Even though, technically Dave is only going to Europe, so to Alvin, apparently only America and Europe qualify as ''The World''). David is leaving the Chipmunks in the care of Miss Miller, much to the displeasure of the boys. Soon Dave is off to the airport and the Chipmunks are left at home with Miss Miller. Later, at a local Caf\u00e9 the Chipmunks are playing a game of ''Around the World in 30 days'' against the Chipettes(Brittany, Jeanette and Eleanore). After losing the game to Brittany after having his Hot air Balloon eaten out of the sky by a crocodile, Alvin get's in an argument with Brittany about who would really win a race around the world. Two diamond smugglers sitting at a nearby table, Klaus and Claudia Furschtien overhear their argument and, needing a safe way of transporting their diamonds over the world, decide to fool the children into delivering them for them. They set up a race around the world, where each team will have to deposit a doll in their own likeness (Secretely filled with diamonds) at drop offs around the world and receive a doll in the opposing team's likeness (secretely filled with the payment for the diamonds) to ''varify that they were there''. The winning team would then receive a 100.000 dollar reward. They do this because they believe that Jamal (An Interpol agent who has been hot on their heels for some times now) would never suspect them because they are just kids (However, this seems to be redundant, because on their travels, the kids do not have to go through any security checks and are never even questioned about the dolls, I suspect that neither would Klaus or Claudia if they had taken the diamonds there personally.) And so begins a great adventure. This film is a classic and I see no reason why anyone would not like it. It features great animation and top-notch voice acting, not to mention the Kick-ass music (Pardon my french :P). My favorite song is without a shred of doubt ''The Girls and Boys of Rock and Roll'' An amazing rock song that cannot be topped. It's also my favorite moment in the film. Other notable songs include ''Getting Lucky''(Kind of Suggestive for a kid's film eh?) and ''My Mother'' as well as ''Wooly Bully'' and ''Off to see the world'' Not to mention the main theme of the movie heard during the opening credits performed by the Royal London Philharmonic Orchestra. The scene with ''My mother'' still brings a tear to my eye. In relation to the song ''Getting Lucky'' I first didn't think anything of it, but when I grew older and learned about life, it became clear that that song was a little bit suggestive. That song, along with the fact that the animators insist on the audience knowing the color of the Chipettes panties. This is especially apparent in the scene in Egypt when the Chipettes are being chased by the Arabian Prince's men, when Eleanor leans over the side of the hot air balloon basket and her skirt defies gravity completely. While this does nothing to draw from the overall quality of the film, it's one of those unexplained things like why nobody in the world seems to mind that there are 4-feet tall Chipmunks walking around and speaking in incredibly high-pitched voices and treat them just like they would any human child. Anyway, A bit after that scene, the Chipettes discover the diamonds in the dolls and decide to go find the Chipmunks and get home. The Direction of Janice Karman perfects this movie as she and her husband, Ross Bagdasarian Jr. know the characters better than anyone. They even do the voices of the Chipmunks and the Chipettes. Ross doing the voices for Alvin and Simon (as well as Dave) and Janice doing the voices for All the Chipettes and Theodore. Speaking of male characters that are voiced by female voice actresses, Nancy Cartwright (The voice of Bart Simpson) makes an appearance in this movie. She plays the part of the Arabian Prince, a very small, but important role. The ending is of course, a happy one. The Crooks have been caught, the loose ends tied and The film ends when the Children, Dave and Miss Miller are driving into the sunset, Alvin complaining about not having gotten his 100.000 dollar reward for winning the race, which annoys Dave until he finally yells ''ALVIN!'' and the screen fades to black

Classic ending, by the way. I hope you found my review of this movie useful, and if you haven't seen this flick, give it a watch, It's worth the money. This Nostalgic classic from the 80's gets a solid 10 out of 10.

''Headin' for the top, Don't you know! we never stop believing now''","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"PLOT IN A NUTSHELL: Dave Seville, father figure & manager of the Chipmunk brothers Alvin, Simon & Theodore, has gone off to Europe on a business trip, leaving the boys at home with Miss Miller as their watcher, much to the chagrin of Alvin, who wanted to go to Europe. While playing against his female counterpart, Brittany, the leader of the Chipettes, comprised of her younger sisters Jeanette (the female counterpart of Simon) and Eleanor (the female counterpart of Theodore) in a fierce arcade game of Around the World in 30 Days, they catch the attention of two evil foreign siblings who need to smuggle money & diamonds around the world, but need a way to do it that won't draw the attention of their arch enemy, Jamal. The 2 evil siblings, Claudia & Klaus, overhear the banter between Alvin & Brittany and decide to use them as the delivery boys & girls for their loot (more Claudia's idea than Klaus's, the latter initially objects feeling that it's too dangerous for children). The 2 siblings make an offer to the boys & girls - travel via air balloons to 12 drop off points to leave dolls (which resemble the kids) that contain diamonds and\/or money to indicate their arrival, with the promise that whoever wins the race will get an obscene amount of money. But as the two different set of talking animal siblings make their rounds, they are stalked by the henchmen of Jamal - but who is Jamal? Is he friend or foe?

OVERALL: Enjoyable, lighthearted farce based on the 1980s TV series version of Alvin & the Chipmunks. Beautiful animation is a highlight, lacks the crude humor that keeps creeping into today's family films and engaging songs (Boys & Girls of Rock & Roll being a stand out). Eagle eyed fans will probably notice that Brittany's character design has been tweaked from the animated series, giving her a less round face while adding a seemingly permanent blush to cheeks (which Jeanette & Eleanor also display).

Keep an ear out for Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a charming movie starring everyone's favorite cartoon chipmunks. In this feature we follow the band of rodents on an unforgettable balloon race around the world. Although there are lows, including an orphan penguin, all in all it's a great family film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When this was first aired on Masterpiece Theatre, it had a profound effect on me. It's beautifully filmed and acted. I immediately read the book by Mary Webb, and it remains one of my all time favorites. Janet McTeer is wonderful as Prue, and I fully expected her to become a regular on the British drama scene. I guess she chose to focus on the British stage instead.

I was hoping that with the American success of Janet McTeer years later(with Tumbleweeds) this film would again become available to us. Alas, it has not yet been released on DVD. If anyone out there is listening, please make this available again!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm so happy I recorded this on VHS tape when it was featured on Master Piece Theatre. This is a movie I can watch again and again. Like living in the early 1800's in England isn't hard enough, Prue is born with a \"hare lip\" and is outcast from birth. The people in her village accept her somewhat but always fear that she is \"from the Devil's smithy\" and are quick to turn on her. Especially when a lot of bad luck befalls her family. She is strong and courageous but shies away from Kester Woodseaves, a traveling weaver who catches her eye. Partly because she fears rejection and also because she thinks he is so virile that he should have a wife who is as lovely as a lily. Kester is a modern man who does not believe in the superstitions of the time and he speaks his mind and follows his heart. The movie stays true to the original story by Mary Webb and is riveting from beginning to end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great TV miniseries of a classic novel. Janet McTeer and John Bowe, in the lead roles, are exceptional. This is one of the best adaptations from a book that I have seen. I would LOVE to get a copy of this - let me know if you know how I might get one...Thanks!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"hi i am john and i would like to tell you all that my dog was in this film at the baiting screen he was the pit like one, that was going to bite the man chained up. my dogs name was Colin and he stayed away filming for a week for this film. he was also in other things like crime watch uk and some other small parts. he won some dog shows but he has passed away now i miss him he was a great, true and loyal dog and we had some great times together but he got cancer which could not be treated so i had to get him put down that was the worst day of my life i hope this gives you some thing to look for in the film if you watch it again.

thanks all","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just reading the reviews of this wonderful BBC mini series reminded me how much I enjoyed this when it was first broadcast many years ago. At the time I remember waiting with anticipation for the next installment and fell in love with John Bowe and Janet McTeer ,two talented actors that we don't see enough of on TV or cinema these days.

I have tried without success to obtain several of the BBCs fantastic dramas from the past, including the 1973 version of Jane Eyre and the 1972 version of Anne of Green Gables, all wonderful timeless classic stories, which sadly the BBC seem to have no intention of releasing on video or DVD. If anyone learns otherwise I would love to hear from them.

In the meantime we will have to content ourselves with our recollections of how wonderful they were.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having known and loved this book since I was eleven I was terrified to see it coming up as a movie - what if they'd made a dreadful mess of it? In the event I needn't have worried at all. Everyone was very well cast and the acting is terrific, it followed the story very well except for the strange addition of the scene in the prison, which to me added nothing at all. However it really is the most beautiful love story and I'm so glad I videoed it so I can watch it again and again. My only gripe is - why didn't they give Kester a green waistcoat 'which made him such a personable man'? Such a simple thing, when they went to so much trouble for everything else. If you get the chance, see this, it is excellent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When Precious Bane aired in America, I was stunned by this beautiful story. All the actors were brilliant; Clive Owen really understood the character he played. I went right away to a bookstore and ordered the original novel, which is even more beautiful, and which went out of print just after I bought the book - although I've seen it online a few times now. I had also hoped with the Oscar won by Janet McTeer and the huge popularity of Clive Owen the BBC would naturally get this fine production on DVD...I cannot believe all these years later we still have no DVD. It has to be the only production ever created by the BBC that is NOT for sale. Come on BBC - you have money to make off us fans here. Get this on DVD please!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have copied my video of this on to DVD so that I can enjoy it whenever I like and it makes a very successful (and rare) wedding present as well! This is just an absolutely wonderful adaptation of a much loved novel. Everything about it is just perfect and it has aged amazingly well. There is always a chance with something this old that it might appear a bit creaky next to more modern dramas but 'Precious Bane' more than holds its own.

The quality of the acting is amazing with Janet McTeer making a superlative Prudence and a young Clive Owen stomping around as the taciturn Gideon Sarn.

I challenge anyone to watch the final sequence without at least sniffling a little at the sheer romance of it all. It is the perfect film to watch when it is cold outside and you are snuggled up on the sofa.

I really can't recommend this highly enough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm lucky enough to have a good quality copy of my VHS on DVD so I can now watch this over and over again. The characters are so well played I can't find fault with any aspect of the casting. OK, so there are a few differences from the book, but the old clich\u00e9 of love conquering all is so powerfully portrayed that it makes no difference. The reality of living in the rural countryside of early 19th century England is beautifully contrasted by the changing seasons, from biting winter to glorious summer days and this is mirrored in the different characters, from Prue's bullying father to Kester's all encompassing love. A story that changed my life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was fortunate enough to record this wonderful drama, both parts, when it originally aired on Masterpiece Theatre. I loved it but lost it. Then one day, while going through old tapes, found it again. I recorded it to DVD and watched and --- WOW! I still love it! The leads are excellent and my only complaint is I wish we had seen more Kester! What a man! And Prue. She's so strong and wonderful ... living in a time and age where her affliction and how she deals with it is seen as unfortunate and evil. Even her own brother tells Prue to her face that he doubts that a man will ever have her. *sigh* Unfortunately my copy is not the greatest, with wear and tear over the years, and I too would absolutely love to own this on professional DVD if it ever happens.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the early 19th century, a young woman with a harelip falls foul of her family's ambition and the superstitions of the local community, but she meets a man who may see her differently, and just may, change Pru's life forever.

Precious Bane is a British Broadcasting Corporation adaptation of the highly acclaimed novel by Mary Webb. It's a beautifully filmed piece that is acted to an incredibly high standard, the story {screenplay by Maggie Wadey} is excellent, and the period detail and use of dialect is second to none. It's such a shame that this film has yet to get a DVD release, one would have thought that with Clive Owen's {great here as Gideon} rise to stardom, the BBC would get it out there, but sadly no, so the only way of catching it is on the very rare occasions that TCM shows it. The lead performance from Janet McTeer as Pru Sarn is simply brilliant, guts and genuine emotion go hand in hand as McTeer gives it her all. Pru has to not only contend with her facial disfigurement, but also the constant snides and hurt from the ignorant villagers. This is a time when folk believed that if a Hare ran in front of a pregnant woman it spelt doom, a time of Bull Baiting, a time of superstitions and talk of witches. In spite of constant set backs Pru is strong and resourceful, even her own family knock her dreams back without realising it, but this road may well be a terribly bumpy one, but hope is everlasting, and Pru has hope in abundance.

8.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As you can see, I loved the book so much I use the title for my internet alias and have for over 15 years. (Okay, so it had to be spelled phonetically to fit the name character limit for the BBS at the time but what could I do?) If anyone every finds this movie, I would absolutely love to see it! Janet McTeer is great in everything else I've seen of hers. I think she would have made a great Prue. And it even features early Clive Owen - from before Chancer (a great series itself). What's not to love? I hope the powers that be wise up and make this available on DVD soon! With some of the true dredge they pout out, it's about time well executed productions make it on the market too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Please let me know of any versions of Precious Bane or Gone to Earth on video that people may be aware of. I love the books of Mary Webb wholeheartedly and would be very grateful to have any information on either VHS or DVD.

I've read Precious Bane and Gone to Earth, which are my favorites by Mary Webb, many times, and have collected other novels by her also. I was lucky to have found her \"Springs of Joy\" poetry and essays, but I've never been able to see the Precious Bane version that was on Masterpiece Theatre, or the full version of Gone to Earth, although there was an American Movie Classic airing of The Wild Heart which was a chopped-up version of Gone to Earth's original film.

If anyone can assist me in obtaining copies of either or both of these films (full versions), I would be so thankful!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I LOVED this program, and for years searched for it on video. I've contacted a great many folks in my attempts to get a copy...to no avail.

I DO, however, have the second half of the program. I would be willing to share MY half, with anyone who can give me a copy of the FIRST half of this show. I'd offer to provide copies of what I have to anyone, BUT it's just only part of the program...so it's just not an adequate representation of the show.

There are a few folks selling this on EBAY for some incredible cost (and that's plainly not fair...not to mention blatant copyright violations!).

Please send any correspondence to: thndrmouse@aol.com","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Superbly adapted to the screen and extremely faithful to Mary Webb's period novel, this film is a true masterpiece. Aside from the exceptionally talented rising star, Janet Mcteer as the lead and one or two established actors, the film used mostly little known names. Yet the drama was all the more convincing for that. The social and personal tension is almost tangible and I felt as if the cast were reacting each other's character as though they would have done in real life. I saw that one commentator asked if Janet McTeer really had a hare-lip, a testimony to just how good was her characterisation. I saw this on TV when it was first shown, taped it, then later the tape was sadly lost. But it remains clear as anything in my mind. If you have any fondness at all for the social period, it's an absolute must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"please why not put this fantastic film on DVD,i have been searching just like the previous writer for years, whats the hold up, or show it on TV. its so underestimated its one of the most romantic and beautifully written books i have ever read, and believe i have read some.I seem to think it was read on radio 4, but i can't find that either. Why not try and remake it even, i promise it will be top earner, people love those sorts of stories, So please either release it and take us out of our misery or remake it,although i doubt if it could be improved upon. Has any one read gone to earth by the same author or seen the film with Jennifer Jones, this is superb, but not to the same extent may be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this movie about 4 times and every time I am impressed with the Second Camera Assistant's work. Seems trivial but there is something very professional, knowledgeable and talented there. The movie as a whole suffers from other problems, as stated by other comments. The significance so the issues being approached are as relevant today as it was 40 years ago. The acting is a bit strained but the work of the Second Camera Assistant is stellar! This person needs to get back into the business - perhaps directing? What is this person waiting for? I will be watching and waiting and cheering from the sidelines!- Bob","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is an almost forgotten gem from 1979 which although in essence a comedy it was based on one of the UK's biggest ever bank heists. In fact one of the titles that this film is known by includes \"caper\" therefore that in its self is an indication of the type of movie. A of a bunch of lovable rouges, who are not the violent or psychotic types, who with cheek an guile pull off the biggest job of their lives. To be honest I don't really know too much about the real crime and can't comment if it accurately depicted the events that unfolded or the characters involved.

Richard Jordan handles himself very well playing PINKY Green and is very believable as an easy going small time American born crook who seems very comfortable with himself. I have to add that sometimes American actors struggle gel well with English actors in a British made film, the chemistry is not always there, however this is no problem for Jordon who fits right in with his role.

It's worth pointing out that Jordan himself was probably one of the most underrated actors of the 70's and 80's and never really got the recognition he deserved. He seemed to get stuck in supporting roles and B movies, not a fair representation of his acting ability. He has played a corrupt cop in THE FRIENDS OF EDDY COYLE, a sadistic killer in THE MEAN SEASON. In THE SECRET OF MY SUCCESS he played a sort of comical Gordon Gehco character and also in the 1980's EQUALIZER TV show he played a good guy. All of this displays the versatility of his acting skills while mixing with the likes of David Niven, Kurt Russell, Edward Woodward and Robert Mitcham.

In this movie he effortlessly plays his part as a small time crook with the eye for the ladies and you immediately take to his character and root for him from the beginning. You can't help liking Green, \u0096 \u0096 you see he really did want to go straight but once blackmailed it all seemed too much of an opportunity to pass up and in the end he relished the thought of all that money.

David Niven is the boss and calls the shots, the police inspector was brilliantly played by Richard Johnson who typically portrayed a smarmy but thorough London detective who clearly loves his job. The other supporting cast don't say too much but looking at them they were all very well known British character actors who often found themselves playing either villains or coppers(isn't that ironic). Elkie Sommers, Oliver Tobias do what they have to do and it's good to see Gloria Graham in a cameo role.

To some viewers particularly Americans it would seem ludicrous that somebody with Greens record could land a maintenance job at of all things a bank and come and go when he pleases. In addition the stunt he pulled at the crown court after sentencing was not as far fetched as it might seem, back in the 1960's and 70's security was not as nearly as tight as it is now.

As for the movie itself there are a couple of interesting observations. With small time crooks the haul here was too much. There have been other movies where this occurs too i.e. THE BRINKS MAT. It's not just the disposal or the hiding of the loot but with so many people involved somebody is going to be careless, is going to blab or just simply break once leaned on. In addition the authorities come down on very hard on local rouges when such huge robbery is carried out. Also, they say there is no honor amongst thieves but Ivan was adamant that PINKY got his whack. You only had too look at his stare in the dock, if looks could kill, a look of total betrayal! How could he have dobbed them all in after taking care of him? You have to ask yourself a question why is it that crooks can be so stupid? Did Green really think that he could sweet talk his way out of suspicion a second time around? Inspector Watford was not at all fooled by his innocent looking face as well as a well constructed alibi, the whole caper reeked of inside job. In addition you have to wonder why they leave so many clues? A note pad with the safe numbers jotted down, travel brochures for overseas trips, still leaving his telescope around as well as unusual behavior on the day of the robbery which was out of character.

With some decent but common sense police work Insp Watford quickly had the measure of Green, picked him up and soon had him singing like a canary. It just shows how despite well thought out planning things can unravel very quickly, there is never a clean getaway for every body, some are always going to get nabbed. Although it's worth pointing out that a lot of the money was never recovered.

All in all an entertaining movie, interesting shots of London and England in the late 70's, well paced, with a great ending. I would highly recommend this particularly if you enjoy capers. ( Note: I recently purchased a DVD of this but the transfer was obviously taken from a VHS tape and is of poor quality. Therefore do not pay too much for it!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently bought this movie on DVD at a discount store for $5. Although it is a no-frills DVD on the Geneon label (just the movie that starts playing immediately - no menu, no special features) the picture and sound quality were EXCELLENT. The movie is based on the true story of one of the biggest bank robberies in history.

Richard Jordan, who I must admit to not having heard of, plays the lead - Pinky Green. A charming young man who had spent too much of his few years in prison and now wanted to go straight but is not allowed to do so! He portrays an American in England. David Niven plays the lead bad guy, also with the great charm for which he is famous. Bad, but with scruples as when he refuses to deny Pinky his \"whack\" for the job. Whack, in England, apparently is the fair share of the take and not a bullet in the head as in American gangster films! All the supporting cast do an excellent job producing a very believable movie.

What is perhaps best, to me, is that the whole movie is quite enjoyable and understandable (I frequently find myself lost in plot confusions and various characters) without ANY special effects. NO blood. No violence. Not even a single car chase! Just a well written story, well acted, well directed and well photographed! If I had any complaints about the movie, I would question the music. WHAT is bluegrass music doing in a bank heist story that takes place in England?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I provided location services on the this film every Sunday we would shoot in London's Berkeley Square. David Niven ever the gentleman thoroughly enjoyed the role, sadly to be his last. we had a moment of panic when a trunk load of fake Krugerrands (cast for the film..) tipped down a storm drain.

Imagine frantic crew opening all the drains to recover every last one. If you know and love London you'll love this comedy romp - also starts Richard Jordan who sadly died from a brain tumour. A good film, great crew ,superb cast. look for the current stars of coronation street then playing crowd scenes or extras.The car lot and Ivan's retail enterprises were all shot in west London, Chiswick the entire shopping parade and the American used car lot were dressed overnight, the car lot is still there as are the shops. A restaurant was suddenly turned into a funeral parlour. If you see the film on the listings make an effort to see it! By the way Sally Harrison the Bank receptionist was married to the production designer Tony Curtis..

April 2007 Just thought I would add a few extra comments on locations:

Pub: just off Berkeley Square Elke Sommers Cottage: in back Road alongide Twickenham Film Studios Ivans Used Car Lot: along Chiswick High Street and all shop locations near roundabout. Workshops (converting armoured vans)Factory on roundabout opposite Fullers Brewery Jail (see workshops above) Telephone box see Elke Sommers cottage ( it was the wooden studio prop box used in many films, look for the lighting cable at gound level and the wood hinges on the door!!! Computer room Honeywells near Olympia Graveyard - Chiswick - Grave just outside the boundary on common land Bank interiors, ceiling void and strongroom :Twickenham studios

And just to add David Niven ever the gentleman, joked and mixed with the crew, extras and so on......Niven would dine in the Connaught hotel bu join the crew for coffee!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Delightful! It never pretends to be a masterpiece, but it's a mini-gem of late seventies British comedy. Given that the producers wanted to sell it abroad, it stars an American (the late character actor Richard Jordan), but at least he isn't the usual dull Hollywood hunk type. Surrounding him is the cream of British character acting talent, led by a wonderfully waspish and superior David Niven.

Niven's Ivan the Terrible naturally gets the best one liners and all the best reaction shots. He also manages to be surprisingly menacing and intimidatingly dangerous. The moment in the snooker club when he drops the charming facade and threatens Richard Jordan will come as a shock to those viewers who think of Niven as being only a light drawing room comedy star. He is filled with genuine power and ruthlessness as we see all at once how Ivan earned his nickname. All the more surprising given how ill Niven was at the time. Shortly after filming this production he lost his powers of speech to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (known as Lou Gehrig's disease). This is the last picture Niven made where you can hear his own voice, being dubbed thereafter by the comic impressionist Sid Caesar.

Alongside him you can spot numerous familiar faces from seventies cinema and television. Elke Sommer (flashing her breasts in true seventies era politically incorrect bimbo mode), Oliver Tobias, Michael Angelis, Brian Croucher, Davy Kaye etc, etc. Davy Kaye gets one of the biggest laughs as he holds up a security guard caught making a phone call. \"Who you ringing?!....Bloody Dial-A-Disc! You gormless git!\"

Great shots of London street locations; making the film a period patina time capsule of red phone boxes with chunky round-dial manual handsets, black cabs driven by \"Cor blimey, gov!\" cockneys, and ladies and gents modelling all manner of deeply dodgy late seventies retro leisure wear and hair styles.

Unlike the classic Ealing comedies of an earlier era, the 'hero' is allowed to get away with his crime and escape to a life in the sun. How times had changed! The morality code by which crooks in films always had to be seen to be punished had long gone by the seventies, with anti-heroes like Pinky Green earning status through their cheeky anti-authoritarianism and determination to 'cock a snook' at a stuffy capitalist establishment of be-suited fat cat businessmen. We are encouraged to cheer as Pinky makes off, unpunished and free as a bird with his ill gotten gains. Compare that to the ending of The Lavender Hill Mob!

Highly entertaining, quaintly dated in its fashions and attitudes, and the stuff of late night cult viewing. Perfect to watch at midnight after the pubs have shut; if you're of a certain age, are feeling a touch nostalgic, and have always wanted to see David Niven in a branch of McDonalds, silently intimidating an American via the use of a retractable telescope!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing this film in the mid 80's thought it a well paced and well acted piece. I now work quite often in Berkeley Square and the had to get a copy of DVD to remind myself how little the area has changed, although my office is newish it just 30 seconds away from \"the bank\". Even Jack Barclays car dealership is still there selling Bentleys and Rolls Royces.

It's look like the DVD is due a Region 2 release soon. The region 1 copy I is very poor quality. Let's hope they've cleaned it up.

Only the slightly dodgy escape sequence from the court spoils what would otherwise be a great film but I guess is in line with the caper tag the film goes with.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just ingenious enough to be plausible and still a lot of fun, this is a pure slice of the 1970s (Even the cops need haircuts badly!). Shot in and around London, the plot of the American ex-con who tries going straight but finds himself sent as an electrician to a bank in Mayfair, and then has the screws put on by crime lord David Niven, and finds himself plotting the crime of the century is well-handled.

I liked its simplicity and even innocence, it harks back to a time when caper films where just that, a caper, and violence wasn't a part of the deal.

All in all you could do a lot worse than watch this: it has enough twists and turns to give it some oomph and a cast that obviously had fun making it.

Nicely made and watchable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A gem of a British caper-comedy. Poor American schlub Pinky Green (Richard Jordan, playing another bad guy but this time an adorable one) gets out of a British jail and tries to go straight, but his maintenance man job in a bank is too attractive for his never-reformed criminal friends, headed up by a really nasty Ivan (David Niven in one of his last roles). Pinky resists, but the lure of all that money is just too much for him. Things unravel and reravel and it's all joyous to watch. Jordan must have played 20 bad guys in his career, but he never played the same one twice - this one is just too lovable to hate. Niven never played a slicker bad guy, oil all over. Two fine actors we've lost that I wish we had back.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When Pinky, a qualified electrician, is released from prison, his parole officer has found him a job working at a big city bank. When some of the crime underworld from his past learn of his position they plan to exploit it and rob the bank. Pinky is at first horrified because he really wants to go straight, but when a twist of fate happens Pinky begins to think one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Also known as The Mayfair Bank Caper {amongst others!}, this is a hugely enjoyable piece that is quintessential 1970s. London and all it's highly dubious fashions are lit up like a Christmas tree in Ralph Thomas and Guy Elmes' cunningly crafty caper. If the viewer can accept David Niven as an aged crime lord of some evility {it's not easy i can tell you}, then A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square could well surprise you. The actors aren't pulling up any trees for sure, but it's really not hurting the picture at all, it has an honest fun quality that is never less than entertaining. The score and soundtrack is perhaps guilty of over jollification during the dramatic criminal moments, but it's a minor complaint to leave me thinking this is an under seen British gem.

Richard Jordan takes the lead role of Pinky (obviously hoping to lure in American viewers}, 70s heart throb Oliver Tobias {a mass of hair} is in there to keep the ladies interested, whilst the blokes get the pleasurable sight of Elke Sommer and her delightful legs for company. Moving along at a decent enough clip and containing a seriously rewarding finale, A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square deserves far better than the paltry 5.7 rating here on IMDb, but just how many people have seen it i wonder?, hmm, go on give it a go if you the chance, it's good stuff. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"David \"master of debonair\" Niven plays the Big Boss (IVAN) who preys upon the unfortunate Richard Jordan (PINKY) by forcing the hapless ex-con to exploit his ill-found new position in a bank. Elke Sommer (Miss PELHAM) most effectively provides the female interest, whom Pinkie cannot simply cannot resist.

It seems they were unable to decide on one name for this film so instead they used four .... makes sense ???

Sadly, this turn out to be one of Niven's last roles.

Overall, this film is fun and well worth watching if you manage to catch one of its rare or late night TV screenings.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen this amusing little 'brit flick'many times. The only problem is Its currently unavailable on video or DVD. I'ts certainly a contender for a DVD release. The much missed Richard Jordan plays 'pinky' an Ex-pat American, whose Just been released from prison,he finds himself A job as an Electrician in a bank, it all goes well until he finds Himself Embroiled in a bank heist with his ex cronies, David Niven Plays the mastermind Ivan, Its an enjoyable little romp, hopefully studio canal or anchor bay, will come to the Rescue. Look out for john Rhys Davies Before he struck it big with 'shogun' Raiders of the lost Ark 'Lord Of The Rings' In a small role as a barrister,","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is an interesting split in the voting for this movie (at the moment at least). Those who go expecting a documentary are impressed, or at least not disappointed. I anticipate that those giving the film 1 out of 10 are those who expected a war movie or a re-enaction of the invasion of Gallipoli.

So - if you want to see actors, gunfire and gore, this film will not suit you. If you want to see an independent documentary about Gallipoli, without bias towards any one side (the only enemy in these events was the War itself) then you'll come away both impressed and sobered. I found it a very moving film, and even quite liked Captain Guy Nightingale by the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In my opinion, the movie is an excellent example of the realities of war and a tribute to the soldiers of all nations who fought and bled into the soil Gallipoli. The lack of violence in no way detracted from the magnitude of the tale in hand. It is honest, true and brave, just like the men that fought and died at the Hellespont. The lack of brutal depictions of violence are just and proper. Those men suffered enough for freedom, liberty and the right to self determination in a free and better world. They never wished to ever see such scene's again.That is the legacy of the event of Gallipoli. To suffer scene's of gratuitous pyro-technics and blood and gore is best not shown for the maintenance of proper respect for the combatants of this crucible of nationhood.

This film glories in the magnificence of men fighting for their lives,with honour, courage, dignity and irrepressible spirit and humour in the face of appalling adversity. This film is not interested in making a spectacle for fools to cheer over. The brutal outcomes that occoured from these personal combats of these men is not a thing that those that survived ever wished to see on a screen for entertainment. They saw enough of that at the time, and would much rather have never seen it at first, and never wished to review such scenes again on a screen in the name of \"entertainment\". The brutal horrors of the actualities of the vicious combat fought at Gallipoli were scenes that haunted their waking and sleeping hours for the rest of their natural days. It was the painful internal scars they, the men of all those nations who fought, carried inside to their graves. They all fought,and many died in the face of it all and somehow they, those mighty hearted men, managed to laugh in the teeth of constant dread death because they would'nt insult their mates by not being prepared to die game beside them. That's Australasian for brave, game is, but it applied to all combatants to a greater or lesser degree, but word from the boy's that fought was that Johhny Turk was as game, that is as brave, as you would ever wish for a soldier to be.

ANZAC's and Turks were fighting to establish their place on the world stage, and from 25\/04\/15 onwards, their respective claims for equality in Nationhood were made known and undeniable to that world. The director has made a masterpiece that truly honours the spirit and memory of those soldiers and serves as a reminder to future generations of all ages, for children can be taken without fear of frightening them for the sake of visual \"horror\" and it's morbid and pointless appeal. And children should attend this movie so as to learn what happened at that sacred shore before they were born. So that they can remember. For it is the nature of men, that they soon forget.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to say that I know the documentaries of Mister \u00d6rnek and so I knew that I will get a very well made piece of movie documentary. I was not disappointed. As a history nerd - I did saw hundreds of documentary and liked the different approach of this work.

The Director and his 17 Consultants (historians, Veteran families) tried to access the reality of the gallipoli through the letters of solders from both sides. So, the history is followed by British, Australian and Turkish soldiers.

Narrated is this docu by Jeremy Irons and Sam Neill - both boost the intensity and emotionality of this documentary by their great voices.

I saw this film in a cinema in italy in Dolby Surround. I did buy the DVD last year and will wait again 3-7 years for the next work of this talented director and his very good documentaries.

Summary: Well made. Intense. History with emotions - wrapped in a war documentary with great narrators","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We went to the cinema expecting a biggish budget release and got an art-house movie. The movie was projected digitally onto about two thirds of the screen real estate with sloping edges classic of digital projection, and had a limited stereo soundtrack which was wasted on the cinema experience.

The content of the film was the same old historical content we have all seen before, but heavily sanitized to prevent the audience being sick. Live action scenes what little of them there were, were re-used constantly in classic documentary style, which became annoying after a while.

I was somewhat amazed that only 4 people turned up to watch it, guess the rest knew something we didn't.

I suspect the producers made the film to recognize the ninetieth anniversary of Gallipoli. I have to question whether they should have bothered.

Seven out of Ten for trying, and out of respect for the ANZAC's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a child growing up in the Sydney of the 1950s, I can readily identify with the content of this fine film. Each week I visited the Wynyard Newsreel cinema on George Street to watch the Cinesound (and usually 3 Stooges) shorts. Never has there been a better blending of B\/W and colour in a film. Faultless production values round off a never to be forgotten movie experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A really good Australian film .Beautifully recreates the look and feel of Sydney as it was in the 1950s. This movie greatly impressed me when I first saw it during it's initial cinema release and it still stands up very well. Fine directing job by Phil Noyce, wonderful camera work , thoughtful lighting and some fine performances across the board. An absolute \"Must See\" for any students of 70's Australian cinema.One out of the box !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This little-known comedy from the hit play by Ruth Gordon is a delight. The script, based on the play, is spicy, rich, and completely undated. Ditto the cast but I must underline the work of the leading lady,Irene Dunne. Irene is simply superb - as usual - and lights up the screen with every frame she's in (and she's in it a lot, thank heaven). In addition, director Vidor has given her some unusual close-ups that are mesmerizing. What a gal! I know of no other Hollywood actress from any era who has her versatility and is so convincing in every film. Why she remains so little known is a mystery. I have seen most of her films and this one was a surprise, even for a solid ID fan like myself. See it, everyone!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The beautiful, charming, supremely versatile and talented Irene Dunne is one of the greatest 5 or 6 actresses of American cinema. In Over 21 - as in all her films - she lights up the screen with a natural, yet glamorous presence. She is simultaneously authentic and human, AND a charismatic, inspirational model. This role is quintessential Irene Dunne, full of pathos and wit and a little mischief. I love all of her films, and this film was a fantastic new discovery for me when TCM aired it last night. I hope they don't wait years to air it again.

Likewise, Charles Coburn is one of the greatest character actors in all of American filmdom. True, he often portrays variations on the same theme, but I never tire of watching his soft-hearted curmudgeons. Here his character is the perfect foil for Irene Dunne, and he is portrayed perfectly by Coburn. Their conflicts in this film are absolutely fantastic. They never miss a beat. In addition, they represent the central conflict of the film and the moral conflict of Irene Dunne's husband, portrayed by Alexander Knox.

I am not as familiar with Knox's work. He was recognizable, but that was about all. However, cast with Dunne and Coburn, he holds his own. He delivers a fine, nuanced performance. His character has noble motives that are made accessible to us by Knox's performance and never held over us like some holy grail. He is noble, but conflicted and doubts his ability to successfully complete OCS. His interaction with Dunne, is always convincing, too. Dunne supports him without being syrupy or becoming a martyr, and he responds in kind. Their scenes are very well done.

The film, itself, is a fantastic snapshot of a moment and a milieu not portrayed in other movies. I don't recall off the top of my head another movie that portrays America still fighting WWII, but with the end in sight and the focus on the establishment of the post-war world. Not the usual WWII movie! That in itself is interesting; it is also essential to the plot and the movie's message. In contrast to other commentators, I thought that the climactic speech was okay, but not great. It was delivered very well by Knox, but it was not as \"tightly\" written as the build-up led me to expect. I have heard better cinematic speeches addressing very similar themes. It served its purpose.

For me, the greater value of the movie, was the depiction of the life of Dunne and Knox, as it reflected the typical OCS experience. The sense of community among the wives living on Palmetto Terrace seemed absolutely authentic - as did Palmetto Terrace, itself, despite the fact that it was obviously a sound stage set. The incredibly brief encounters between the wives and their OCS husbands. The rigors of the OCS candidates, mastering the difficult and complex material they had to learn. The shabby \"base housing\" - obviously hastily constructed. The tired and worn furnishings. The constant and harrowingly short deadlines - for returning to base, for learning lessons, for catching trains to subsequent \"posts.\" Tenants constantly running into their predecessors and successors in the base housing, as they were moving in and out. Yes, I suspect this was a glimpse of a real WWII experience - clothed in some comedy, but very real at its core. I loved it, and I recommend it highly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A light, uplifting and engaging movie. Watching Irene Dunne is a delight! As you watch her, she ceases to be Irene Dunne and becomes in every way Paula Wharton.

I have enjoyed Irene Dunne in every movie that I have seen and that would be nearly all of them. What a shame that most of her movies need restoration so badly. I do hope Irene Dunne movie are restored before it is too late they are such treasures Thank goodness this is not the case with Over 21.

It is a must see if you like superb acting and witty comedy with serious overtones. I agree with a previous comment on the speech \"The World and Apple Pie\" it was one of the many highlights of the movie. I read somewhere that Irene Dunne helped in writing that speech along with Director Vidor (Irene Dunne was a very good and charitable person in private life) and it certainly seems to show through in her movies!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is well known that Irene Dunne could sing somewhat more than a little. And I think her talent as a comedienne can only be really understood once one has struggled through a sonata by Haydn or a song by Debussy and made a success of it. Her instrument is her voice and her handling of it is pure musicianship. She could tackle any part. The only thing she couldn't do was to not make a success of it. This film is a perfect example. In it, she channels Ruth Gordon (because the play is the thing), is feminine, charming, willful and self-effacing, generous, protective and combative but never pretentious. She manages to stay as believable as Alexander Knox is in another difficult role he assumes with aplomb. The viewer gets to believe in what he is seeing and to care for it. It is refreshing to see a film that is both entertaining and intellectually challenging while pushing all the right patriotic buttons. I sincerely hope the entire Dunne oeuvre makes it to DVD one day because it's really hard to keep a secret like that among just a few initiates.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Over 21 the film version of the Ruth Gordon play which detailed her experiences trying to keep the marriage together with Garson Kanin after he'd gone in the service provides Irene Dunne with one of her better later roles on the big screen. It's also in keeping with what was then an upbeat spirit in America about how we would not screw up the peace as we did in the first World War and sow the seeds of yet another global conflict.

The play Ruth Gordon wrote and starred in herself ran for 221 performances in 1944 on Broadway and was confined simply to the bungalow that Gordon and Harvey Stephens who was the male lead had on a training base. If you look on the Broadway credits list it says that the production was 'staged' by George S. Kaufman as opposed to being directed by him. I'm not sure of the distinction, but I can imagine that with a wit and will as strong as Kaufman's it must have been an interesting period putting the production together before opening night.

When Columbia bought the screen rights, Sidney Buchman had to do some considerable script reconstruction to move the action beyond the bungalow. The film bears very little trace of its stage origins.

Alexander Knox plays the husband and Charles Coburn the employer of both Dunne and Knox who are writers. Knox has graduated to not only editor, but featured columnist. His words and thoughts help sell the paper and Coburn is in a bind. But Knox feels he has to get into the war, the seminal event of his time in order to speak authoritatively on the kind of post war world he wants. This was not an uncommon theme in those years.

Irene Dunne has some good comic moments, the kind she used to have when she was appearing opposite Cary Grant. In fact Garson Kanin directed both of them in My Favorite Wife a few years earlier. Coburn is his usual cantankerous old water buffalo of a boss who ultimately has a good heart.

Over 21 was an optimistic picture which sad to say wasn't accurate about what the Allies and I mean all of them could bring to the peace conferences to create a better world. Still hopefully a new generation will get it right.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"During WWII, there were a bazillion movies created by Hollywood and after seeing many of them they start to seem alike. However, OVER 21 is unique in so many ways, as it shows a side of the war you won't see in other films--making it well worth seeing, even if you have seen the bazillion other films!

Alexander Knox plays the male lead, but the real lead of the film is Irene Dunne--who looks amazing for a 47 year-old lady (yes, I checked--she really was this old when she made the film). In OVER 21, the pair play husband and wife. He enlists in the military, much to the consternation of his father (Charles Coburn) and owner of the newspaper where Knox is employed, and most of the film takes place when he is in officers candidate school. The film shows little of Knox in the school but instead centers on Dunne as she lives in nearby spartan housing for spouses. During this time, she (as the British say) keeps a 'stiff upper lip' and makes the best of it--even though she really isn't a housewife but a famous professional writer. Occasionally she gets very brief visits from her harried husband but most of the time is spent doing housewife duties and keeping the meddling Coburn at bay. Eventually, she decides to stop the pesky Coburn from phoning incessantly (he ALWAYS complains that his paper won't survive without his son) by pretending to be Knox--writing wonderful editorials that everyone just assumes were written by him.

While there is nothing earth-shaking in this film, it's a very interesting slice of life move. Additionally, the acting all around is very good. It's interesting that this film is a fictionalized reworking of the experienced of Ruth Gordon (a famous screenwriter) and her husband, Garson Kanin (also a famous screenwriter as well as director). When Kanin joined the military during WWII, Gordon soon wrote and starred in the play that became this film.

By the way, I noticed that some of the reviewers really liked the speech towards the end of the film and were inspired by it. While it was very good, it was also very sad as all this hope for a better world following the war was short-lived.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Note the wide release date of Aug 8, 1945 - about a week before Japan surrendered in WWII, so there will probably be a message for us in \"Over 21\". Irene Dunne (It Happened one Night, the 1939 version of Love Affair) is Paula Wharton, who goes to live on an army base while her newspaper editor husband is in training school. Alexander Knox ( the Longest Day) is her hubby Max. Look for Charles Coburn (Monkey Business, Gentlemen prefer Blondes) as the stuffy, commanding, newspaper boss. Also look for Cora Witherspoon as Mrs. Gates, from The Women, Bank Dick, Libeled Lady. War story written for the wives' point of view, which wasn't too common in those days. fun commentary on the shabby condition of the \"married housing\"; Irene's wardrobe in this film certainly wasn't at all shabby.. since they never had to leave their little cottage, it appears the whole movie budget was spent on her always-exquisite dresses and hats.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This one is a very solid Randolph Scott Western. He plays Bat Masterson and goes to Liberal, Kansas to clean up the town. He becomes good friends with Robert Ryan who played a very, straight up leading man role. It was not until after this that Robert Ryan began playing much darker roles. In fact, in 1947 Randolph Scott made one other movie which was not a western and never made anything but westerns after that until he retired in 1962. This movie has good pacing and builds up to the climax steadily. I can't say any more as it would give away the plot. Be sure to see this one. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After cleaning up Dodge City (with a little help from Wyatt Earp) Bat Masterson goes to Liberal, Kansas where they've got a nice little range war going. Plus a rather interesting scheme of sharecropping.

Randolph Scott is Bat Masterson and he's after villains Billy House and Steve Brodie who are driving homesteaders off their farms. The homesteaders they are driving off are in a sharecropping scheme financed by Robert Ryan. Seems as though he's staking the various farmers to a parcel of land to homestead for a percentage of profit from their crop. Ryan's about to lose his shirt as a result of all the shenanigans.

As portrayed by Scott, Bat Masterson is a stand-up western hero who has a passion to go east and become a reporter which we all know he did later in life.

Anne Jeffreys and Madge Meredith are involved in a romantic subplot involving Brodie and Ryan which is a little silly and does detract from the action. Anne Jeffreys does sing nice though.

Of course Gabby Hayes as always provides the great comic relief.

A good addition to the Randolph Scott collection of westerns. Also interesting because his later western films don't have him as wearing a hat as white as the one here.

This review is dedicated to Kasey Hayes of the Professional Bull Riders who is a proud resident of Liberal, Kansas, a town with a great tradition whether Bat Masterson marshaled there or not.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a modest ,unassuming traditional Western with a formulaic plot about opposition between ranchers and crop farmers around the town of Liberal ,Kansas .The story is essentially routine and features a number of the classic Western conflicts .There is the farmer versus the cattleman;there is the clash between cultivated land and \"civilizing\" tendencies on the one hand and the wilderness\/frontier ethos on the other and what this represents ultimately is the opposition of two value systems -democratic and community values as set against rugged individualism .

Randolph Scott plays legendary lawman Bat Masterton who rides into Liberal at behest of a land agent (Robert Ryan ) to help him sort out the bad guys who are the hard drinking ,brawling cattlemen .The two men quarrel but reunite to tackle the troublesome elements in the town .

The script is clich\u00e9d but the action is propelled along with vigour by director Ray Enright and there are solid performances all round .In addition to rugged performances by the male leads there is comic relief supplied by George Gabby Hayes ,an oily villain nicely played by Steve Brodie and attractive contributions from Maggie Meredith as a prim and proper Easterner wooed by Ryan and Anne Jeffreys as a saloon singer As long as you do not place a premium on originality this is good sturdy entertainment for Western lovers","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a fan of Randolph Scott Westerns. While some of them are amazingly clich\u00e9d (as are most Westerns of this era), his easy delivery and style really elevate the films to classic and near-classic status. While this film features yet another example of real life Western heroes being exploited after their death by Hollywood (in this case, Bat Masterson), the film works well due to him as well as excellent supporting characters. One is the always strong acting of Robert Ryan--an excellent actor who is sadly almost forgotten today. The other is the ubiquitous Gabby Hayes who has one of his best roles as the crusty and very colorful deputy. Here he is more enjoyable than in his many supporting roles for Roy Rogers and John Wayne--mostly because his part is better written and he's given more to do.

The plot is pretty much the plot of half the Westerns ever made. There are some baddies who hire a bunch of thugs to run roughshod over the locals and it's up to a do-gooder (Scott) to restore the peace and kill off the villains. However, how the plot is executed is much better than average and due to this the film is still watchable fun. Just don't expect a whole lot of innovation or uniqueness--unless you want to see what might just be Gabby Hayes' best performance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I read ashew's comment and thought they must have been watching an entirely different picture!

I just watched the film this morning and was quite surprised.

To address ashew's comments:

Trail Street is a very well done western.

And Randolph Scott was in it quite a bit!

Gabby Hayes was funnier than I've ever seen him!

The bad guys had very good comeuppances as far as I was concerned.

Plus:

It was interesting to see Robert Ryan as a straight-laced good guy - he's usually so slimy.

In all, a good western, very well acted and written.

I liked the background story of Kansas and the \"winter wheat\" that supposedly helped it become a state, too.

I thought the girl who played Susan was lovely - can't think why she didn't become a bigger star!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Do a title search on Randolph Scott and TRAIL STREET is the one film missing from the list you've seen. One of 4 films Scott made at RKO during his prime (1947) the others are always easy to get. Liberal, Kansas is just southwest of Dodge City and is a powder-keg about to explode between the trail-riders who drive the longhorns into Trail Street, the town's main street, and the sod-busters who feed our bellies. It'll take a strong man like Bat Masterson to step between the two groups and bring the town to order. More I won't say, except that Scott movies usually have just one pretty girl and this one has three. RANDOLPH SCOTT always played men you could look up to for their sense of honor, courage, level-headedness and willingness to do the right thing. Fifty years ago parents could send their kids to a Scott movie with confidence they'd learn positive values. ROBERT RYAN co-stars in this film, playing a good guy for a change. In real life, RYAN was one of the many WORLD WAR II HEROS who starred in America's movies. How sad what we get these days. George Clooney teaches our young that we ought sympathize with suicide bombers, while Steven Spielberg teaches there is no moral difference between the Olympic athletes murdered in 1972 in Munich and the Palestinian terrorists who killed them. Hollywood 2005 derives their moral compass from too much cocaine and too much commitment to the wacky left. I wonder how all this plays out in Liberal, Kansas. Liberal, after all, was not a dirty word 150 years ago when the city was named.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ronald Colman plays a prodigal son. While he is NOT a bad guy, he is a bit flighty and hasn't done a lot with his life other than travel the world and have a jolly good time. Now that his latest venture in Africa has failed, he's on his way home to England. His rich upper class father plans on tossing him out on his ear, though thanks to Ronald's winning style, he is reluctantly welcomed back with open arms.

At this point, there are two women in his life--showgirl Myrna Loy and rich girl Loretta Young (who is already engaged). How will all this work out and will Ronald wise up and act like a responsible adult--these are the main themes of this pleasant little film.

This isn't a great movie and certainly won't change your life, but it certainly is very entertaining and fun. Most of this is due to the always genial acting of Ronald Colman. Heck, in the heyday of his career in the 1930s, he could have played in REEFER MADNESS or some other dreck and still made it entertaining and likable due to his charming persona. His seemingly effortless style in this movie make it very easy to like him and it's easy to see why both Loretta Young and Myrna Loy are in love with him in the film! Plus, the writing is very witty and make this a nice romantic-comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film directed by George Fitzmaurice, who made so many excellent films, is well up to his excellent standard. It is crisp, witty, with some wonderful lines, and has the inimitable Ronald Colman in the romantic lead. Colman plays the irresistibly charming younger son of a wealthy English peer. He is financially irresponsible (spending, for instance, \u00a315 of his last \u00a320 in the world on a cute little terrier whom he names George), but open, wildly generous, contemptuous of lucre, irreverent in the politest possible way, and hopelessly sentimental. He is so dashing that all the women fall in love with him. His girlfriend is a star of the music halls, and hence in 1930 a denizen of the demi-monde, played with her typical svelte, narrow-eyed silkiness by the youthful Myrna Loy. Fitzmaurice was not a great user of closeups, and gals of that day had their faces half-hidden with those awful clinging hats anyway, so we do not get as good glimpses of the faces of the two heroines as we would like. The director seems more interested in the charming Colman, anyway. The romantic female lead is the youthful and fresh-faced Loretta Young, who had not yet become the proto-Julie Andrews we generally know her as, but was still a blushing girl exuding all the sweetness of a rose garden and laughing merrily and heartily the whole time. It is obvious that a character with her terrific sense of humour was needed to appreciate the snob-busting social anarchism of the refreshing aristocratic character played by Colman. The plot barely matters, as is so often the case with these light and amusing films. This is just such fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ronald Coleman had been a star of the screen for several years when talkies came in, and what a boost it was to his career. His Oxford English accent is so enthralling I could listen to him recite the farmer's almanac and not be bored.

Coleman plays Willie Hale, a 30ish playboy from a wealthy family who spends his time womanizing and gambling. Yet, he's a likable rogue - not only likable from the standpoint of the audience but by family and friends too. He has yet again gone broke due to his constant gambling and sells off his possessions in a foreign location to settle his debts and provide passage back home to England. When he gets there, he at first is met by a father who insists he'll kick him out - he's had it with Willie and his layabout ways. However, five minutes alone in a room with Willie and his charm, and Willie is not only forgiven by dad, dad has given him one hundred pounds to boot.

Willie then goes for a day's recreation with his sister and her friend, Dorothy Hope (Loretta Young). Dorothy is set to be engaged to the Grand Duke Paul that very night, mainly just because her dad wants royalty in the family, and there is nobody else special in her life. That changes after her day with Willie, and soon there is a scandal brewing as Dorothy refuses to go through with the marriage as planned.

Ronald Coleman is always a delight to watch in these early talking films he did for Sam Goldwyn where he is playing the confident adventurer or cad or both. He has a demeanor akin to Errol Flynn, but he is unable to display Flynn's physical agility due to a disabling wound he received during World War I. However, what he lacks in physical agility Coleman always made up in agility of soul. Loretta Young, only 17 when this picture was made, shows the beginning of her trademark sweet girl that can erupt into a ball of fire when the occasion calls for it. Myrna Loy plays Willie's girl from the past - Mary Crayle - a showgirl. Here Myrna is still playing a part similar to the exotic vamp parts she got stuck with so often over at Warner Brothers when she was a contract player from 1926 until shortly before this movie was made in 1930.

This is pretty much a light and breezy romantic comedy from start to finish. If you're in a mood for the kind of escapist entertainment that lightened the hearts of audiences during the Great Depression, this little film fits the bill.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Regard of Flight, written and performed by Bill Irwin, is a true classic theatre piece which translated quite well to the small screen. Full of quick and sparkling dialog and some of the best physical comedy of the decade, it is head and shoulders above 99% of \"Comedy\" as it is presented today. I am sure it will one day take its rightful place with such great shows as \"The Fantastiks\", and \"Waiting for Godot.\" Why it isn't available on DVD yet is a mystery and a tragedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Regard of Flight and the Clown Bagatelles as performed by Bill Irwin are some of the funniest (both in terms of physical comedy and verbal and visual gags) performances I've ever seen. My father taped this special when it first aired in the 80s and my family has loved it ever since. We quote it back and forth fairly constantly. It's a crying shame that copies are not readily available for purchase. I have a bad VHS copy that I acquired from a specialty distributer a few years ago, but Mr. Irwin's performance deserves a proper DVD treatment with a restored version of the original performance and interviews with the performers\/producers as well as more examples of modern clowning.

Bill Irwin's talent deserves more exposure to mainstream audiences than it has enjoyed in his limited wide release appearances. I share \"The Regard of Flight\" with friends quite often and though I am always greeted with a small amount of skepticism when I mention that it is a mixture of clowning and vaudeville I have yet to have anyone come away from seeing it without loving it. In case the powers that be ever happen upon this IMDb listing, please consider releasing this and other Bill Irwin work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This adaptation for TV was a wonderful vehicle for Bill Irwin to show his ability to perform physical humor. With the backdrop of a struggle between an actor and his writer\/director, Bill uses his clowning antics to showcase a variety of skills including hat tricks, pantomime, dance and various physical devices.

Although it takes a big swipe at the entertainment industry and his craft, it is engrossing for people of all walks and ages.

This work was televised as a PBS special. Bill performed a piece of it on the Tonight Show, but out of context it did not go over well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this performance on TV and taped it. My daughter played it over and over again. I loaned out at work and everyone just loved it. It is just brilliant physical comedy. Bill made an appearance here in California, (he was working and living in New York) and performed the Regard of Flight on stage. I was able to take my daughter and her girlfriend to see this brilliant performance.

Bill was awarded a Federal endowment, and my daughter wrote him a letter of congratulations, and Bill was so kind to write her a note back and enclose a photograph.

People ask me, and I can't decide if he is a comedian, and actor, or a clown. Actually he is all three. I really wish this was on DVD, my tape is lost.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this stage show when it was broadcast on PBS in 1983. I was involved in local theatre at the time and had seen some pretty incredible stuff out of the Dell Arte Players, but Bill Irwin floored me.

I was most impressed at how a man of his size (he's quite tall and beefy) could fold himself up into a small box without so much as a pause for adjustment and move across the stage at a dead run without even a whisper of sound from his feet if he chose not to make any noise.

Most amazing for me, though, in this performance, was the way he rose to his feet during the jack-in-the-box \/ marionette piece. Those who saw this show will recall that when he climbed from the box and collapsed to the floor with his body limp and limbs akimbo, he \"pulled\" himself up by the top of his head as if by a string, and rose not just to his feet, but to a full ballet point\u0097and did it in one fluid, seemingly effortless motion. Just consider the strength, grace, balance and focus such a series of movements must take in order to accomplish them the way he did! Add to his physical prowess his strong and believable characterization skills, and there lies a consummate actor \/ performer. My jaw dropped at the movement and my heart broke at the portrayal of a puppet who is determined to be more than just a lifeless thing in a box.

As to the unfortunate (yes\u0097\"tragic\" would be a better word) unavailability of this piece in home media form, I have noticed that much of PBS' works are not available on tape or DVD. Sometimes, PBS shows will be available for direct purchase from them for a limited time immediately following a broadcast, but they seldom stay on the market for long. There are exceptions, of course, but these are mainly the science and history documentaries; rarely does an arts piece remain in print for long\u0097assuming it ever made it into VHS \/ DVD to begin with. I don't know why this should be so; certainly, PBS could use the income from home media marketing of their shows, but they don't take advantage of it much. This is a shame. There are many things I've watched on PBS that I wish to own, but pieces such as \"The Regard of Flight\" are, I'm afraid, a one-shot, once in a lifetime treat, never to be repeated on PBS again and never to be available for home media purchase. That really sucks. I'm lucky to have caught it when I did.

Oh, yeah\u0097our local library did get a copy of \"The Regard of Flight.\" And yes\u0097it was stolen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a typical Sandra Bullock movie in which she plays a mousy (but profane) woman who is in trouble but finds a way to survive and be the hero. Sound familiar?

There are plenty of holes in this story. Things just don't add up and some of the suspense is a little corny. But - that suspense is very good. There is a lot of tension in this story which has strong paranoia running through it. The story starts off slow but kicks in pretty soon and stays that way, making it an involving movie for the viewer. That's why I give it a pretty good rating - the movie gets you involved in it. Bullock is more cute than annoying, which she normally is to me, so this is my highest-rated movie with her in it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're actually reading this review, I give you a lot of credit. You care enough to actually look up this movie, which most people have forgotten about and then cared to read beyond the first review! So for your reading pleasure...

I'm assuming you know the plot line already so I won't waste time typing that out. I will mention that Sandra Bullock did an amazing job with this movie. She really brought a lot of sympathy to the role of a computer programmer, often difficult to do. I can say this because I happen to be a computer programmer.

Anyway, I thought the basic plot was a very good one. You can easily build sub-plots upon its mainframe and turn it into a very enjoyable movie. The premise is also scarily realistic in that this can all really happen if the right precauctions aren't taken.

To make a long review short...oops! Too late! If you enjoy Sandra Bullock bringing a role to life and want to see a very well made movie for the time, take a look at this little gem. You won't be disappointed. :-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The net is an excellent movie! It's about Angela Bennett(in a great performance of Sandra Bullock) who is a computer expert who works for the Cathedral Company, cleaning virus and testing games for the clients. Angela is a typical nerd who doesn't have friends outside of the cyberspace,almost doesn't take vacations and go out, and stays almost all the time connected. One day her friend Dale Hessman(Ray McKinnon) asks her to help him,sending Angela a disk with a strange program that has many confidential informations. At the same night, when Dale was going to meet her, he is suddenly killed in a plane crash.Going to Mexico in her vacation,Angela meets a beautiful guy called Jack Devlin (Jeremy Northam)who shows to be a cold blood killer bastard and one of the guys behind all the secret of the Diskette.

Her life then turns into a nightmare: All her records are erased and she is given the new identity of Ruth Marx, a woman with serious problems with the police.

This movie is great because it shows how we, humans,depend a lot of the computers and machines(sometimes more that we should) and how vulnerable we are if someday ,someone decides to control and change our personal records,without letting us the chance to prove the error.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was suspenseful and fun to view. As I am a fan of these type of movies, I did enjoy this. The premise is kind of scary but the fact that I didn't rate this a 10 was because the movie was a little over the top in some areas.

SPOILERS:

Cmon:NOBODY could identify this girl? I understand the concept of isolating oneself but I find it hard to believe that SOMEBODY-ANYBODY wouldn't have been able to ID this girl as Angela Bennet. That was over the top and so was the scene where she WALKED over to somebody's desk and started typing. This was overall a really good movie, suspenseful and keeps your interest. Dennis Miller was great as Allen, REALLY believable, Bullock was good as the lonely reserved computer worker the bad guys all underestimated.

I think the PREMISE of the movie was really different-and scary. In today's times who knows what could happen? But some of the over the top scenes prevented this movie from being a 10. 8 of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just a short comment! I want to say that I like this movie very much! Sandra Bullock is my favourite actress. I like the whole story, from the beginning until the end! I have it on tape and I can watch it a 100 times, it doesn't matter!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the many Techno-phobic movies that sprouted like mushrooms in the mid-90s, after the Internet went mainstream.

Hollywood movies have always had their way in \"beautifying\" the depicted ongoings, to make them look better and more appealing. The same happens when Hollywood tries to show us some hi-tech. The outcome of such attempts varies from being very far-fetched and ridiculous (see Hackers (1995), Johnny Mnemonic (1995), etc.) to being quite realistic (see Sneakers (1992)).

\"The Net\" lies somewhere between those extremes. By nitpicking, one can end up with quite a lot of technical inconsistencies, and a lot of cases where the ongoings seem to be much more \"sexy\" and graphical than the way things are in real life (as usually happens in movies).

However, by simply overlooking those, the viewer ends up with a quite solid, entertaining movie. The characters and acting are convincing, and the movie does a good job in keeping you in your seat till the end of it. The plot is okay (a fairly standard one, really -- based on the good ol' paranoiac design, but with a hi-tech edge this time), and quite convincing (again, when disregarding technical issues). The development of the plot is a bit sluggish, though, and occasionally you can anticipate some supposedly surprising turns in the plot.

The bonus here is cutie-pie Sandra Bullock, which besides being cute (something she does quite easily, apparently), also portrays a solid act. You can really feel her character -- her despair, her emotions.

In the bottom line, the movie is entertaining and interesting, rates about 7 from 10 in my scale. It's worth renting from the video library, or even watching in the cinema. Whether to buy it or not is up to you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At last!! Sandra Bullock is indeed a beautiful woman, but I've finally found a film that she gets to be an actress! Forget the predictable Keanu-fodder of SPEED, forget the predictable Kleenex-fodder of WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING - this tests her!

And she is great! A techno-feminist role that really works well on screen, on a subject that is very close to the bone. The issues raised don't seem far-fetched at all and the whole experience, helped along by a fine supporting cast, makes for quite an un-nerving couple of hours.

You may never enter another chat-room again, in fact I'm getting quite nervous just writing this review...er...bye!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When this movie firt came out in 1995, I found it amazingly great. Especially with Sandra Bullock.After having watched her brilliant performance in Speed , i was ready to enjoy any of her movies.

Back to The Net, it was a movie that keeps you in suspence.All in all, i enjoyed it so I give it a **** out of *****.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All the comments so far about this movie are negative but I have to say I found \"The Net\" engaging. Few movies can keep me on the edge of my seat but this one did. Another plus for it is that most action\/suspense films are full of language but this one had little profanity. I found it an enjoyable movie to watch. I am slightly biased though, being a big Sandra Bullock fan. *wink*","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why all the negative reviews??? You didn't expect a movie like this to be a masterpiece did you??? What we have is a movie that tried to entertain us and it worked for me. Not an oscar contender, just entertainment. You can really see how the movie has aged, especially with everything the internet has to offer nowadays. I still remember when this was first released and the net was still so new. Crazy and scary thoughts when I saw this for the first time; I was 15 and seriously thought anyone could get a hold of your information on a computer and destroy you. But, who's to say it can't happen??? I'm not the type of person to nitpick a movie to death, analyzing it until I'm blue in the face. That's not my style. Average acting, suspensful and once again, very entertaining. Sandra Bullock as Angela Bennett is so cute. This is my favorite movie with her in it because she's like the computer genius, which I find very attractive. Of all the movies that were released in 1995, this would have to be my favorite, although, I didn't see it until 1996. My rating, 9\/10 because it did slow down a little.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie!

Movies and plays fulfill their purpose when they expose social, political, and other problems that affect the majority. This movie served that purpose.

I identify with the plot and know people to whom this has happened. At the time this movie was made, concepts presented in this flick were advanced for the public, yet had already happened to friends of mine by way of people in powerful positions. And, I know what it is like when people do to you what they did to Angela Bennett, because they have done it to me.

I greatly enjoyed Sandra Bullock's portrayal of Angela Bennett\/Ruth Marx. She portrays a pretty, intelligent, and witty young woman who has the courage to avoid giving up to overwhelming odds, fight hard to keep her sanity and restore her life, and try to protect those whom she loves. Losing her self-concept and succumbing to that age-old attempt to bolster a sagging self esteem by indulging in sex with a stranger added a poignant touch of reality.

The climax of the plot reveals the only real solution to this kind problem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Following the advice of a friend, I got myself this movie. I'm very fond of computers in general - hence why a 1995 film about identity theft on the Internet could not be left unseen. I had some bad echoes about it, but in the end, I wasn't so disappointed : the story, though classical, is kind of interesting and must have been really new back in the days when it was released in theatres. I was gladly surprised when I figured out that contrary to what we usually see, computer-performed actions are somehow realistic, as they use Windows 3.x and normal computers. The storytelling is median and not bothering the viewer. The end is typically American. The actors' performance is globally OK, Sandra Bullock usually annoys me with her \"oh my god why me\" way to behave, but this time she seems to have controlled herself. I'd recommend that movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a solid underrated little thriller, that has thrills-a plenty, with a cool story, Sandra Bullock is terrific!. All the characters are great, and I was surprised by how unpredictable it was as there were only a few predictable moments, plus Sandra Bullock is simply amazing in this!. Jeremy Northam played an awesome villain, and I know what Bullock's character in this is all about, because I'm kind of the same type of person(I hardly ever go out), plus this is pretty well made and written for the most part. This should be higher then 5.5 in my opinion, plus Denis Miller was surprisingly better then expected in his small role. The scene where Northam terrorizes Bullock on his boat was quite suspenseful, and was one of my favorite moments, and I also liked the chase scene in the carnival, plus I liked the ending too, as it was quite well done, even If i did think Northam was defeated too quickly. There are lots of other good chase scenes as well, and it's also clever at times too, plus there are quite a few shocking moments as well, This is a solid underrated little thriller, that has thrills a-plenty, with a cool story, Sandra Bullock is terrific, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is great!. Irwin Winkler does a great! job here with excellent camera work, adding good atmosphere, good angles and keeping the film at a very fast pace. The Acting is fantastic!. Sandra Bullock is amazing as always and is amazing here, she is extremely likable, tough as nails yet quite vulnerable, and I was able to feel for her because as I said I'm sort of like Angela,I hardly ever go out, I really enjoyed her work in this movie! (Bullock Rules!!!!!!!). Jeremy Northam is excellent as the villain, he was sneaky, unpredictable and very menacing, he was great. Dennis Miller is surprisingly OK and non annoying in his small role, and managed to bring some comic relief. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1\/2 out of 5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow! In my opinion, THE NET is an excellent, nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat techno thriller that will leave you feeling good all over. When I first saw it, I was feeling good all over for days. When Angela (Sandra Bullock) went to Mexico, I thought to myself, \"That is a really nice place to vacation.\" From the moment Jack (Jermey Northam) and Ruth (Wendy Gazelle) began chasing her, I thought to myself, \"Don't let anything bad happen to her! Please!\" I also took quite a few deep breaths to prevent myself from screaming any more than I already had. On the bright side, if you ask me, the house was very luxurious and spacious. In conclusion, I give this excellent, nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat techno thriller four stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Movie is a warning to all people sat surfing the internet on a typical day at the office. My Warning is ,Do not reveal too much about yourself, 2 Be careful who you cross!! ,there are spies on this internet thing. I thought that it was so scary what that man and woman combination did to poor Angela Bennett, I did not realise that somebody could take ones life away in one click of this mouse Angela I thought did a sterling job of outwitting Jack Delvin and that awful girl my question is, why does that computer make that noise when it works? like a clicking sound mine does not do this or this one. This film also tells you that there is fraud on this internet Also why couldn't Angela do the virus destroyer programme at a CyberCafe? I also thought that like all computers the transfer rate to disk was slow that is correctly portrayed in this film when you save the programme to your floppy disk the bar only moved slowly!!! I quite liked Angela's house at the beginning of the film as well Why did no one believe Angela???","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You could get into the nitty gritty of this film, and say how it couldn't happen, or how could the main character just walk into offices and start using computers etc without someone noticing and really pick the movie to bits...or you could just sit back with a bucket of popcorn and enjoy the story and the acting. Personally, I prefer the latter, I live real life and watch the news with all it's doom and gloom, and so would much rather be entertained by my movies, and see the bad guys get their just rewards. Don't take it too seriously, and you can thoroughly enjoy this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When \"The Net\" was first being advertised, the ads made it look ridiculous. Then, when I saw it, it was actually quite good. Angela Bennett (Sandra Bullock) spends her days working on the computer and has never gotten to know her neighbors. Then, through a series of events, her identity gets erased by a cabal of shadowy people, and she can't prove that she exists.

Some parts of the movie are a little bit far-fetched; you'd probably know which parts if you saw the movie. Still, it's a good look into what the existence of the Internet may have wrought on unsuspecting people. I do recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was a movie that made ya think a little. Some parts a little cheesy, some parts pretty good. Plot did thicken at times and just when you thought Angella (Sandra) found a friend the friend was fraud or dead. All I got to say is that DENNIS MILLER should have been in the whole movie. His character was the best, very refreshing after all the crap Angella went through. He would have lifted me and Angella through the dumps.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Angela (Sandra Bullock) is a computer expert but, being shy and somewhat of a recluse, she does all of her work from the confines of her condo. Just as she is about to take a vacation in Mexico, a co-worker sends her a computer disc with disturbing information on it. Angela agrees to meet with her fellow employee but he mysteriously dies in a plane crash. Angela heads to Mexico but takes the disc with her. While she is sunning on the beach, a terrific looking gentleman named Jack (Jeremy Northam) makes overtures to her. She falls for them and the two end up on a boat to Cozumel. However, Jack works for the folks who generated the secret information on the disc and he is out to get it. Even after Angela escapes from his clutches and lands back in the USA, Jack makes things difficult. He changes Angela's identity on every computer across the nation, making her lose her condo, her bank account, everything. Can Angela, a computer whiz, beat Jack at his own game? This very exciting movie has many assets. First, Bullock and Northam are two very beautiful, interesting actors and their presence adds immediate captivation. The script is very clever and sure in its knowledge of the capabilities of computers and their relevance in today's world. The costumes, sets, production, and direction of the movie are also quite wonderful. And, despite how it sounds, there is a great deal of exciting action as Angela goes on the run to defeat her enemy. If you love thrillers without unnecessary bloodshed or violence, this is a great choice. It delivers twists and turns with great frequency, making it possible for the viewer to \"net\" a very good evening of entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've read some grumbles about the court scenes. These people betray their ignorance. This production went to simply amazing lengths to recreate all aspects of the period in which the story occurred. Courtly manners are something few people outside the court ever see. While the acting may appear highly stylized, it is, in fact, as close a replication as possible of the behavior of individuals in their particular stations as the director could create. The actor's facial expressions are a marvel, particularly the duplicitous Marquis Changxin and the King's mother.

There are, of course, reflections of both Greek and Shakespearian tragedy in the relationship between the king, his parents and his love. The juxtaposition of the king transforming from good to bad and the assassin from bad to good provides much food for thought on the evolution of an individual's nature. This movie would provide much to ponder in a college course on the humanities.

At the same time, it almost rushes along, even in the slowest scenes heading towards an inexorable denouement. One suspects the involvement of large portions of the troop movements, which were quite awesome. It makes The Lord of the Rings battle scenes pale by comparison. Few directors have the ability to literally field thousands of humans on the field of battle just for art's sake. I recall one scene in which at least 30,000 troops can be seen moving across a huge plain. The logistics for such a shot would have been staggering.

I could go on... but simply, I can't recommend this film highly enough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I will admit my ignorance of this film's existence, until I saw it advertised on a cable outlet. I was very impressed with the novelistic structure of the film. The film, which is in a language I do not understand, shone with intelligence and nuance for me. I think this speaks to the film's quality. It was visually stunning. The acting was visually entrancing. The Chinese theater traditions of movement, used to enhance the delivery of dialogue, is so compelling after watching Western film, where actors traditionally focus more heavily on the dialogue. The action in this film comes right at you, without a lot of explosions to get your attention. It is human action that is so affective here. The added advantage that the film taught me history about one of the world's greatest tourist attractions, the funereal clay army of China's First Qin Emporer, was very impressive. It seemed to give the film an international relevance beyond the film's great ethical themes. This is a film I can comfortably recommend to a wide variety of friends and acquaintances.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an epic film about the unification of the ancient kingdoms of China in the third century BC. What makes it interesting is the tragic downfall of the king and all the palace intrigue going on around him. It reminded me a bit of \"King Lear\" and some of the other Shakespeare plays.

The king starts out with noble ambitions, to unify the kingdoms under one ruler and to stop all the quarrelling so that the people can prosper and lead better lives. He and his childhood sweetheart, played beautifully by Li Gong, concoct a scheme whereby she pretends to go into exile in a rival kingdom in order to recruit an assassin to kill the king, thus giving him a pretext to go to war. But while she's away, the king becomes sadistic in his lust for power and goes on a killing spree.

There are numerous side plots that keep the action going. There is the Marquis, who pretends to be stupid and foppish but who's really very clever and wants to become king himself. He fathers two children with the king's mother and manages to keep it secret for years. Then there is the Prime Minister, a political rival to the king, who turns out to really be his father.

The assassin is a complex character himself. An adept swordsman and killer, he is undergoing a reformation when the king's lover comes to recruit him. He wants nothing more with killing, but is eventually won over by Li Gong (who wouldn't be?) when he sees how cruel and vicious the king has become.

Some spectacular cinematography, especially the battle scenes that are carried out on a grand scale - like they used to say, a cast of thousands, literally. The acting is OK, nothing special. It's the story that's interesting, though at over two and a half hours, it pushes the limit.

Definitely worth viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This three-hour Chinese epic, set in 220 B.C., may ultimately amount to a familiar theme of an Emperor's idealistic dream of peace through unification mutating into corrupted isolation, and there's nothing inherently challenging about the film, but it's a compelling narrative, crammed with intrigue and passion and betrayal and epic events told in vivid strokes. Even for those not drawn to such historical spectacles for their own sake, it's an astonishing feast for the eyes: the scene depicting the coup attempt of the Marquis is one of the most staggering evocations of physical space and grandeur in memory, and the battle scenes are memorable both in their scope and their immediacy. The title sums up the film's use of compelling contrasts - huge plainland vistas set against intimate horrors; the noblest of motives set against the most degraded; hope turning to dust. If you've never seen a three-hour Chinese epic, this wouldn't be a bad place to start.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After watching the movie a few times, I found so many subtle touches and emotions within the dialogue. Jing Ke, the Assassin has become one of favorite movie characters of all time. This fine Chinese actor says more with his eyes and his economy of words and movements then any big screen American actor today. Qin, the Emperor, is brilliant as he leads the audience to believe the kindness in his heart, only to unleash the most cruel acts upon the people around him. The promises he makes with incredible passion and shattered with an evil fist. Gong Li, as in just about every movie I've ever seen her in, is simply fantastic. Her screen dominance is so graceful and emotionally charged.

In case you couldn't tell, I loved this movie.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent film. No, it's not Mel Gibson in \"Braveheart,\" but then, it's not trying to be. Actually, \"The Emperor and the Assassin\" probably has (thankfully) more in common with a Shakespearean production than a Hollywood blockbuster.

In the third century BC, the King of Qin is attempting to unite (in other words \"conquer\") the seven kingdoms of China. He has already overthrown the Kingdom of Han. Now he needs an excuse to invade the Kingdom of Yan.

This is where the Lady Zhao comes in. She and the King have been friends since childhood. They are obviously very much in love, but cannot marry for political reasons. Together they devise a plot. She will pretend to have fallen into disfavor with the King and escape to Yan. Once there she will convince the Prince of Yan to send an assassin back to kill the King. When the assassination fails, the King will have his excuse to invade Yan.

Once in Yan, however, Lady Zhao begins to reconsider. Hearing and seeing more and more examples of her old childhood friend's ruthlessness, she begins to wonder if the King may need to be assassinated for real.

One sure sign that you're not watching a Hollywood production is the final encounter between the King and the assassin. Unlike a Hollywood movie where the hero and villain are clearly defined and the final outcome already predetermined, this is a fight that could truly go either way.

This is a well crafted and well acted story of a tumultuous time in Chinese history. There is a mixture of both incredible beauty and incredible ugliness. Most beautiful of all, however, is Gong Li as the Lady Zhao. I grow more and more convinced every time I see her that Gong Li is the most beautiful woman in the world.

I must say, however, that she does have one unintentionally funny line in this film. Early on Gong Li asks one of her servants \"Do I have a beautiful face?\"

Duh!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For a feature film, the plot closely follows history--or at least historical gossip. But then the Chinese, who know the story very well from seeing it portrayed again and again, would never tolerate it otherwise. The attention to detail is wonderful, especially for anyone who has read Sima Qian's account in the Records of the Historian. Jing Ke, according to Sima Qian, did indeed make an attempt on Qin Shi Huang's life at the request of the Crown Prince of Yan before unification. Sima Qian explicitly mentions both the head of General Fan and the dagger rolled up into the map, as well as the dagger being thrown into the brass column. Although Jing Ke is described as no stranger to swordplay, he's hardly the invincible warrior portrayed by Chen Kaige. Jing Ke is indeed this film's weakest link. In reality (again, according to Sima Qian), he was a heavy drinker and put off his visit to Qin for as long as possible, spending a good deal of time with the ladies of Yan before the crown prince finally ordered him on his way. He was, in short, a human being and was not looking forward to death although he was willing to accept it. Chen Kaige's Jing Ke is afraid of death, but not his own. He is the classic ruthless killer turned disillusioned pacifist. His love (or maybe just affection) for a woman and pity for several hundred children whom Zheng had buried alive (not even two thousand years of hostile Confucian historians claimed Qin Shi Huang did this, although there is a legend about him burying 460 Confucians up to their necks and then beheading them)is enough to make this former assassin kill again. The melodrama is not convincing and the character ends up being just plain boring. The acting here isn't shabby, though not very interesting given the character. As for Lady Zhou, in all the numerous stories I've heard about Qin Shi Huang, she's never come up. Anyway, Gong Li is famous enough for Americans to have heard of her (thanks to Zhang Yimou) and there needed to be a love interest, so here she is. It's unfortunate that her performance is almost as wooden as Jing Ke's character. She's done much better (in Qiu Ju for example) at being subtle; here she just barely manages presence. But all of this is trivial compared to the extraordinary acting of Li Xuejian as Zheng himself. Qin Shi Huang is for the Chinese rather what Milton's Satan is for us: accepted as a villain, but a noble one. Qin Shi Huang's accomplishments radiate an awe all the way across two thousand years into the present and Li captures his frightening will without compromising his humanity. Li's performance is enough, but the scope of the film is grand although the photography is purposely drab. It does feel ancient. The score is adequate, scarcely moving though very appropriate to the action. Though I've only seen it once, I believe that Chen Kaige should be given more credit for his camera work than other reviewers have allowed him. The opening credits are exhilarating. If five stars its absolutely average, I given three more for Li Xuejian's acting and Chen Kaige as an actor, writer, and director.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Emperor and the Assassin (w\/English Subtitles) at 161 minutes is long, but the time is packed with a story that barely fits into it. Golden hued palace scenes and dusty yellow panoramas of Chinese landscapes background a true story of China's unifying King, circa 300 BCE. An intricate plot with a myriad twists and turns is played out with excellent portrayals by the cast. King Qin's simple wish for a unified Empire for his common people is fulfilled, but not without treachery, plots and counter plots and oh yes, bodies. Lots of bodies. This epic story of China's beginnings is a great way for Westerners to glimpse little known Asian history. Emperor Qin's legacies include the thousands of life-size terra-cotta figures which are still being excavated today. As an historical person, this film makes it clear that Emperor Qin should be regarded along with George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and Julius Caesar, to name a few of the world's greatest conquerors\/statesmen. I highly recommend seeing The Emperor and the Assassin, especially on the big screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"May contain spoilers

This historical movie was so refreshing. Although it may be exagerating the actual events, it does show the heartless nature of emperor Qui, which he was later infamous for. And there wasn't a single computer generated person in it. I think it's great that China has produce such an epic film. The costumes and the settings were beautiful, the performances were also excellent. Dignity vs. death is a major theme in this movie and i think it reflects the Chinese history and culture. I also enjoyed a little allusion to the terracotta warriors, a 3d map carved of the conquest of China with individual soldiers. Emperor Qui of course later as entombed with his life size terracotta warriors.

I also enjoyed the scene with the dwarf, he was a very interesting character, even if he only had a small scene.

9\/10

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I work at a nuclear power plant, so I am getting a kick out of these replies.

Seriously, I do. Go to http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Palisades_Nuclear_Generating_Station and you can see where I work.

I could not think of a safer industry to work in. We are required by procedures to report events as minor as paper cuts. Any issue identified as being a potential concern with respect to nuclear, radiological, or industrial safety is immediately reported in the corrective action process.

Bottom line is that nuclear plants in the US operate with safety in the front of their mind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":">>>>Author: msgreen-1 from Canada >>>>The big problem was the \"China Syndrome\" claim - that if the reactor error occurred and radioactive waste leaked out it could burn its way straight through the earth to China. A lot of people have made fun of this and if the movie makers meant it seriously then yes it should be made fun of. The spill wouldn't make it anywhere near the center of the earth or even the molten rock. Even if it did make it to the center of the Earth how would it come out in China? It would have to flow against gravity the rest of the way! Also China is not the opposite side of the world, the Indian Ocean is.<<<<< ......... ......... ........................ ................ ..................... .................. .............. ............ ................

This point is brought up by the characters of the film, saying that of course it could not happen, as the core would hit ground water and release a radio-active cloud, raining down on the population.

Before you try to find a weak point in the film, you should watch it first!!!! Don't judge a book by it's title...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As long as you don't mind paying a little more attention than you normally might for other films, this is one of the best \"thrillers\" you'll ever see. The film portrays an incident that might occur in real life; nothing in it seems fictional at all, in fact. It also portrays how people might react in real life.

In fact, it portrays these so well that is seems like real life. Combine that with the lack of a soundtrack, and you've almost got the best news-like movie you've ever seen. Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon are particularly good in this late-seventies masterpiece, evoking concern on her end and genuine tragic pity on his end. I highly recommend it to anyone who likes thrillers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Reporter Kimberly Wells presents the minor side of the news; puff pieces that don't hold much news merit. While shooting footage on alternative energy at a nuclear power plant, an accident occurs. Friend and cameraman for Kimberly, Richard Adams illegally films the men controlling the incident in the control room. Jack Godell, head of the control room, prevents the reactor from disaster. After an investigation into the incident shows nothing is wrong, Jack can't help but feel something isn't right. On discovering that the weld seals on the generator pump are cracked, Jack with Kimberly and Richard seek to tell the public and shut down the unsafe plant.

Nearly made thirty years ago, The China Syndrome is a riveting drama that still holds so much relevance today. Nuclear power has always been a hotly debated subject, whether it is the safest source of alternative energy, radioactive waste, and are nuclear plants waiting to be the next Chernobyl. Just not about nuclear power, The China Syndrome explores freedom of speech, right of press and big business. On Jack's findings of falsified information, his knowledge halts a massive investment on the construction of another nuclear plant, which many men seek to profit from. Kimberly, desperately wanting out on the puff news, sees the fight for truth is more important than boosting her career; constantly pushed by Richard, never wanted to be silenced demanding the public be told of the accident.

Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas and Jack Lemmon are simply flawless. Fonda shows Kimberly as a fragile woman on her exterior, yet emotionally hard and determined to reveal this cover-up. Douglas brings a strong performance as Richard, fighting for honestly and truth. Lemmon shines over all as Jack., his performance is highly charged drama.

The China Syndrome is riveting viewing, that still holds much relevance today as it did when first released.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's some years since I've seen this movie, so forget most of the details. However, I loved it at the time and found the plot intensely gripping, the climax heart stopping. I remember being literally on the edge of my seat at the theatre back in 1979.

Jane Fonda plays a Los Angeles reporter, Kimberley, who stumbles upon an accident at a local nuclear power facility. She wants to go public with the story, aided by her hippie cameraman (Michael Douglas) who has photographed the event, but a sinister conspiracy attempts to cover it all up. Jack Lemmon is absolutely wonderful in the role of the nuclear plant's conflicted middle manager, torn between loyalty to his company and 'doing the right thing' by reporting the perilous situation. His facial expressions speak volumes here.

Apart from the engrossing plot and riveting tension, this film is all about Jack Lemmon, his character, and his superb acting performance. As for Jane Fonda (I was a huge fan of hers at the time), I suspect she just moved on from her anti-war protests to taking on the nuclear industry.

This movie seems intended as a nuclear scare tactic. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island notwithstanding (they're different types of reactors), our Canadian CANDU reactor is safe and well respected around the world. I wouldn't hesitate to reside near the nuclear power plant about an hour's drive away, where my friend works as a very competent engineer. Apparently they shut down for every teeny problem, irregardless of the financial loss. I sincerely doubt that there are any conspiracies afoot there. One can hardly imagine any of the managers or highly trained operators willing to risk any sort of meltdown or whatever...it's absolute tomfoolery. Of course the moral here is to spare no expense or effort either in building the facility or ensuring its ongoing safety.

If we want our Western lifestyle, we have to get our energy somewhere. For those who claim nuclear power can never be made completely safe (true, of course), perhaps they should volunteer as a coal miner or else return to pre electricity horse and buggy days.

By all means, enjoy this entertaining and highly suspenseful movie, which apparently is based (loosely? embellished?) on a true story. It's a real chiller, a thriller, and maybe (?) even a killer, but please, don't get your attitudes about the operation and safety of nuclear power plants from it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was easy to dismiss this film as hyperbole at the time of its release. Fonda, Douglas and Lemmon were known \"lefties\", but the accident at Three Mle Island provided shocking context to this fictional drama.

This film works on many levels, taking shots at both public utilities and TV news. 1979 was the zenith of the infamous \"Happy Talk\" format of TV news (see also \"Ron Burgundy\") and it's on display here in all its glory. The sonorous anchor grimly reads a story about a \"grinding head-on collision\" before cheerfully introducing Kimberley Wells (Fonda), doing a story about a veterinarian who makes house (or is that \"aquarium?\") calls. The show's producer and the station manager argue about content - or lack thereof - behind the scenes.

There are a few technical errors. The PR flack (James Hampton) shows Fonda and Douglas the requisite scale model of a pressurized water reactor plant, built by Westinghouse. Later, as Lemmon and Wilford Brimley (nicely playing Lemmon's friend\/colleague, caught between duty and loyalty) fight a sudden crisis in the plant' s control room, they're obviously running a boiling-water plant (built by GE.) A small point, but curious, considering how many details the screenwriters got right.

Like any good drama, the film asks more questions than it answers. The real-world accident at TMI proves the film's basic premise. The working title for the film was originally \"Power\", and you'll see why. As nuclear power prepares to make a comeback in these days of $3 gas, \"The China Syndrome\" is as relevant today as it was over 25 years ago.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Large corporations Vs. Conscientious Do good-ers. We seem to witness events (both real life and reel life) of this sort all the time and most of the time greed wins by employing every means (dirty) necessary and the truth gets suppressed. At least in this movie Jack Godell (Jack Lemmon) got his points across and paid for it dearly. We have seen several more movies of this sort being made in the recent years, the most memorable of which was 'The Insider' where Russell Crowe played a tobacco industry scientist who tried to blow the whistle claiming that the Industry added more nicotine in cigarettes to make smokers addicted. There was also this reporter-protagonist angle where the reporter is looking for the scoop of his\/her dreams and the protagonist is faced with this moral dilemma where he\/she has to choose between righteousness and his livelihood and sometimes his\/her life.

Jane Fonda played reporter Kimberly wells to perfection. She plays a reporter who wishes to pursue serious news whereas her bosses value her more as an 'Eye-Candy'. She and her crew (the cameraman played by post-'Coma' Michael Douglas who is also the producer of the movie) witness an accident in a nuclear power plant while they were on a visit. Cameraman Michael Douglas sneakily\/illegally gets footage of that event on tape in spite being a no-photography zone and smuggles it out of the station. The station refuses to air it and informs the corporation that owns the nuclear station.

In the mean time the chief engineer Jack Godell launches an investigation of his own and discovers a lot of irregularities in the equipment that's being used for the reactor. This starts all the dirty politics of corruption and greed.

This is a good thriller and it managed to create a lot of tension in the audience till the end and the funny thing was that there was no background score to suggest all the scary moments. Now that's great and unusual in movies. Performances were all good and I love Jack Lemmon. We primarily know him for his comedic roles but he is equally good in dramatic roles. I give this movie an 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The thirty years that have passed since the making of this movie have made the suspense wither somewhat, and will not keep the public as attentive as I am sure it did in 1979. It is still entertaining enough though - and regains some of it's power when one finds out its sad relevance today (check out the story of FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse nuclear plant). With the top of the line actors and steady pace one can learn to overlook the dated '70s environment, and see it for the political critique that it is. I doubt however it will survive the test of time. It might not be entirely forgotten thanks to its cast, but otherwise the dialog, setting and score will make a remake of this movie unavoidable . As the oil situation now is comparable to the situation in the 70's, and alternative sources of energy are again becoming a hotter topic, we can only hope the current generation gets blockbuster warnings about the risks of (privatized) nuclear power like this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a pretty good thriller at a nuclear power plant in southern California that was directed by James Bridges and stars Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas. Fonda plays a TV reporter who wants to be an investigative journalist but is only allowed to be a TV reporter. Douglas is an independent cameraman and Lemmon is a supervisor at a nuclear plant. Fonda and Douglas are sent on a routine assignment at a nuclear power plant and an accident almost happens and they get it all on film. Everyone tries to cover it up except Fonda and Douglas, so Douglas steals the film. Lemmon starts to investigate and finds out the company cares more about profit then safety at the plant. It's a good movie with a pretty good ending.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I rented \"The China Syndrome\" recently mainly because I read that it was this film that inspired ABC to make \"The Day After\". \"Syndrome\", however, is more of a thriller than a drama. The film is quite political, but I agree strongly with its message - nuclear power, though extremely efficient, is far too dangerous for common use. The risks are simply too high. Hopefully, the persons in charge of real nuclear plants are far more responsible and ethical than those depicted in the film. However, given that the real-life near-disaster at Three Mile Island happened mere months after this film was released puts that in question. (In fairness, that case was probably more one of incompetence than of corruption.)

\"Syndrome\" is not just critical of nuclear power, but also of modern news media, similar in vein to \"Network\", only much more serious. Being a print journalist myself, I am quite familiar with how people perceive the media; but it was a little frightening to see that even in the '70's TV news was already selling out. When Jane Fonda's character tries to convince her boss to let her do real news instead of fluff, she is advised not to try the change, as \"research\" finds that people prefer a pretty girl to do fluff, not hard news.

What truly makes the film memorable, however, is the incredible suspense generated in its final third. During this period, the viewer is constantly fearing for the lives of the protagonists, whether the danger is coming from hired thugs or the potential meltdown of the nuclear plant. And that very last scene - I won't give it away, of course - but it will keep you guessing.

On a final note, I did get a distinct feel watching the film that it seemed at times more like a TV movie than a true theatrical film. This could be, however, due more to the fact that the rental tape I was watching was quite old, and not formatted to fit TV screens the way videos and DVDs are today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"James Bridges' \"The China Syndrome\" is a first rate thriller; a model for those who want to make a genuinely terrifying thriller but don't know how.

Most thrillers end with the standard shoot-em-up and chase that ends with the villain getting what he\/she deserves. But Bridges understands that such a standard finale isn't the case in some scenarios. \"The China Syndrome\" is thrilling in a way no one would expect. It has the type of ending that's so unexpected, but yet so logical.

The film stars three (then) current Oscar winners: Jack Lemmon (Best Actor 1973 for \"Save the Tiger\"), Jane Fonda (Best Actress 1971 and 1978 for \"Klute\" and \"Coming Home\" respectively) and Michael Douglas (Best Picture 1975 for producing \"One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest\". This isn't your standard \"spot the star\" flick that became so popular in the 70s. The acting is so solid and strong that we forget who's playing the roles and believe that the characters are real people. That's a testament to the collective ablities of all three actors. They may be stars, but they're actors first.

There is no music score in the film. Asides from a few background songs from jukeboxes or TV shows, there is nothing. Bridges doesn't allow any directorial style to come through on screen. He is simply presenting the material straightforward. With a strong dramatic story like this, we don't need a score to distract us. It kind of strikes me as a predecessor to the Dogma 95 filmseries started by Lars Von Trier in 1997. It focuses on the characters and story rather than style.

The story is about a nuclear power plant located in Southern California. **SPOILER** An accident appears to have happened and basically the film is about Lemmon,Fonda and Douglas try to expose the truth. In a way this is not a spoiler, since the trailer, TV spots, video boxes and reviews all give this away. But from this seemingly simple premise, a surprisingly complex morality play springs and the suspense comes from human nature and the actions of people rather than a villain framing another guy (although this is an element in the film). That's what makes \"The China Syndrome\" so good.

**** out of 4 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is definetly Fonda's best film. The Plot is amazing, the acting is amazing, and the directing is amazing. An all time classic, this should have won best picture not kramer Vs. Kramer. Though it was not even nominated. Jack Lemmon and Micheal Douglas are also at their best. One of the best endings ever. If you haven't seen this film run don't walk to rent it. Should have been on afi's top 100. See it not just for Fonda but for everything.

**** out of **** 4 out of 4","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The China Syndrome is a perfectly paced thriller and not slow or boring at all, as some people tend to say. The transitions from one scene to another are great and the tension build up in the film will keep you on the edge of your seat for the entire two hours. Jack Lemmon is great, as always, as the somewhat nervous plant operator and Jane Fonda succeeds again in bringing some real emotions into the story. You can see this film as a political statement of the time, or just as an intelligently made thriller. Either way it is definitely worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wish Hollywood would make more movies like The China Syndrome. Because this one scores on every level.

It has an intelligent, believable script. It shows you that it's not only nuclear power itself, but the money involved in it, that causes danger. And the movie also gives you a great behind-the-scenes look of how television is made.

It scores as a thriller: the first time I saw it, it kept me right on the edge of my seat. And it scores as a character-movie: I really cared for the main characters. Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas, Wilford Brimley and, most of all, Jack Lemmon are great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an extraordinary topical thriller. Fonda and Douglas are good, but Lemmon blows them away. He plays a man who must go against everything he thought was right. Bridges paces the film very well with a lot of tension. The last of the seventies expose films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Highly politically charged drama that, while biased, is extremely well-handled and one of the most intelligent films ever made. It contains almost no preaching, but rather follows a naive TV reporter who gradually comes to realize the threat presented by nuclear power plants, not because of an inherent danger, but because the purveyors are more interested in the bottom line than in the safety of those affected.

Many hated the film because they saw it as a political tract made by ultra-liberals like Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas, but if you view it simply as a drama, it's gripping, exciting, full of well-developed, distinctive characters and, ultimately, a truly suspenseful contemporary thriller that hits close to home.

Historical note: For some, especially those in the energy industry and inhabitants of the Harrisburg, PA metro area, it hit perhaps a little too close to home, as less than a week after this film was released, the devastating explosion at the Three Mile Island nuclear facility occurred.

Update, 04\/08\/2007: In the nearly a decade since I first wrote this critique, I've heard a lot of commentary on the film. One thing I think really needs to be noted is that this film is not the \"ultra-liberal\" anti-nuclear tirade that it's often tagged as being.

While the makers and stars are (or were) notable \"Hollywood establishment\" liberals, what this film attacks is not the very idea of nuclear power, but rather the idea of human greed, corruption and fallibility calling into question the potential hazards of something that nature has already made dangerous.

No one who accepts reality can argue the fact that human exposure to nuclear radiation is at least quite likely to be fatal. Close friends of mine who worked at a nuclear plant for several years even told me of their employer's official policy on the maximum \"safe\" exposure levels that its employees could handle.

You don't have to believe that corporations are inherently evil in order to accept that individuals, in pursuit of wealth and power, are greedy and often corrupt. And even if you refute that claim, you can't dispute that all humans are prone to make mistakes. When it comes to exposing innocent people to nuclear radiation, we can't afford any mistakes, and that, more than anything, is the argument this film seeks to make.

Condemn it if you must, but try to have a little perspective. We're currently engaged in a war whose ongoing results are quite different from those originally predicted, an incredibly costly war with no end in sight. And whether or not you feel the war was necessary to combat global terrorism, you can't dispute the reality that the length, the financial cost, and most importantly the loss of human life have all far exceeded the levels that the \"experts\" assured us of back in 2003. So even if no one involved is greedy or corrupt, \"mistakes were made,\" and mistakes of a pretty serious magnitude, to boot. The same kind of serious mistakes, if allowed to arise in the nuclear industry, could render much of the earth's surface uninhabitable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was harrowingly close, but The China Syndrome received the worst kind of publicity when as it was going into theatrical release, the accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant happened. I still remember the whole country's attention was glued onto hourly bulletins coming out of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. And wouldn't you know it, a scientist in The China Syndrome describes the worst case scenario as rendering an area as large as the state of Pennsylvania uninhabitable.

Less than a decade later in the Ukraine at Chernobyl, the Soviet Union in its last days dealt with such a crisis that didn't get righted in the nick of time. The China Syndrome once again became a relevant movie.

The film is more about cutting corners for safety than it is about being anti-nuclear. Jack Lemmon is a man who lived with nuclear power all his life as the captain of an atomic power submarine. What angers him and sets him off to create the confrontation that climaxes the film is the stupidity and greed of the power company managers. Stupidity and greed though are commodities found every day. The problem with them is that there are places where it can be tolerated less in human society.

Lemmon shares star billing with a couple of famous Hollywood offspring, Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas. Jane is a TV News reporter who is constantly being assigned to puff feature stories and just happens to be at a nuclear power plant when an accident occurs. The cover-up by her own station and her later meeting with Lemmon set off the chain of events depicted in The China Syndrome.

Fonda's best scene I thought however was with Peter Donat a news executive with her station. Take a look at her facial expressions as Donat fluffs off the importance of the story and patronizingly tells her that her very beauty demands she stick to puff pieces. Fonda knows she's got something and sticks with it.

Michael Douglas plays her iconoclastic cameraman, this was a typical part for him back in the day. In his TCM tribute to his father Kirk Douglas, Michael said he opted for roles showing sensitivity. Still I could have seen a young Kirk Douglas in this part.

What to do about energy for industrial and post industrial nations, a vexing problem that will bedevil our government for a couple of generations to come. This film shows what can happen with a dependence on nuclear power. Our current problems geopolitically in the world stem in part from a dependence on fossil fuel, specifically oil. Everything we use brings consequence some unforeseen.

The real hero of the film in my opinion is Wilford Brimley, Lemmon's colleague at the nuclear power plant. In the end Brimley really steps up to the plate.

See The China Syndrome to know what I'm talking about.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The China Syndrome\" could not have been released at a better time: twelve days after its release, the infamous screw-up in Three Mile Island happened. But even if that (and\/or Chernobyl) had never happened, this movie remains an important look at what could happen through mismanagement of nuclear facilities. Jack Lemmon turns in a five star performance as the supervisor trying to expose a cover-up at his nuclear plant, with Jane Fonda playing the reporter trying to investigate, and Michael Douglas plays her cameraman.

I don't know whether or not the current threat of a terrorist attack makes \"The China Syndrome\" more disturbing, but either way, it's still definitely a movie that everyone should see.

I hope that those people who spent years pushing nuclear power saw this movie just so that they could know that their views and ideals are completely defunct.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a big fan of the 1995 version, which I have seen many times and consider a subtle, excellent film. This 1971 version I bought yesterday, a bit hesitantly, but now that I have seen it I am glad I did, because it is truer to the book and to Austen's insights. The 1995 version has more dramatic power largely because it sharpens many of the characters -- in the 1995 version Lady Russell is snobbier, more manipulative, less truly looking out for Anne; Sir Walter is even more vain and vapid; Elizabeth is nastier; Mary is more insufferable; Mr. Elliot is more smarmy; Lady Dalrymple is much more stupid -- but I think the characterizations in this 1971 version are closer to the book, to Austen's vision, and to the real people of the time. The 1971 version also includes more of the key lines and scenes from the book, including especially the key scene in the field where Anne overhears Wentworth talking to Louisa (or is it Henrietta?) about the importance of strength of character. I found the acting more subtle and evocative than do many of the critics here, but the acting in the 1995 version is more powerful. I agree with the critics here that the actress who plays Anne is too old for the part; I looked up her entry on IMDb and she was 38 at the time of the filming, when her character is supposed to be 28. I thought her acting was subtle and effective, however. Wentworth is of the correct age and I found him very convincing. In particular, this 1971 version of Wentworth has much more of his sense of humor and teasing; the 1995 one, much more of the sense of power a sea captain would have, and more passion. The admiral in the 1971 version lacks the gruff presence and human warmth of the one in the 1995 version and lacks any feeling of the power an admiral certainly would convey; I found him the one truly weak element in the production. I agree with others that the staging of the \"falling\" scene was too wooden, and it seemed unconvincing that she would have been so injured by such a little fall. However, it could be that she banged the back of her head on the edge of the stone step, which if so, really would produce a very dangerous injury, and would make the scene more convincing than the scene in the 1995 version, where she falls farther but is clear of any sharp edge that could plausibly cause a major head injury. As to the costuming that some have criticized, I am no expert and can't respond, but I will note that none of the Navy characters (Wentworth, admiral Croft, Benwick, Harville) in the 1971 version wear their uniforms, while in the 1995 version all of them consistently wear their fancy uniforms. I suspect that the 1971 version is the accurate one, and it always bothered me a bit in the 1995 version, the officers being always in uniform when clearly the nation is at peace and the officers are detached from active duty. My father and grandfather were career US navy captains who commanded aircraft carriers and submarines, and they did not spend every day while on leave or at leisure in their dress blues. I doubt it was any different 180 years ago. The uniforms give the 1995 version a lot of zing, and I prefer it, but I doubt it is accurate historically that these officers wore their uniforms so frequently. Lastly, it is true, the production values of the 1971 version are a lot less than the 1995 version, but given the year (1971), the TV format, and the budget, we can't blame the artists for it. Contemporary viewers who can make a mental allowance for the lower production values can find this version well worth their time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm just getting the chance to dig into past Austen films, and I picked this up because Persuasion is, has been, and always will be, my favorite work by Jane Austen, and Anne Elliot my favorite Austen heroine. So it was with great anticipation that I popped the disc into my player.

I wasn't disappointed, either. I knew there were bound to be some draw-backs, so I'll state them, and try not to be too thick about them. Anne Elliot is the most introverted of Austen's characters; she is the least talkative and the least witty. There are passages in the book where Anne says nothing - only her feelings are described. This works fine in print, but how to successfully transfer this to the big screen? Short of doing thoughtful voice overs (which would grow tedious over four hours) you're left with a long succession of shots where the heroine says little or nothing, and must communicate all by her facial expression. This can leave the feeling that the film is slow, and lacking in purpose. If you need a more overt style of Austen, then certainly this film is not for you; but if subdued is more your style, and you tend to pick up on unspoken 'vibes', this will fulfill all expectations.

Anne Firbank (as Anne Elliot), is, thankfully, an actress whose face can convey much. She looked as I had always imagined Anne Elliot would look: not a knockout - Anne wasn't supposed to be the elegant one of the family - nor in her first youth - which is also highlighted occasionally by the lighting and make-up. What you see is someone who is very like Austen's character: someone whose appearance you might pass over once; but hear her speak, and look more closely, and she grows more attractive the better you know her. This is Anne Elliot, as brought to life by Anne Firbank.

Captain Wentworth's portrayal is ably handled by Bryan Marshall. The bitterness is never apparently obvious (save at the concert scene); and, yes, I found it hard to believe he wound find Louisa Musgrove interesting as she was shown. But that is another point of Austen's book: he did not find her interesting, he TRIED to find her interesting, and, ultimately, failed (sigh of relief). So this, too, fits with Austen's original story.

I especially liked the portrayal of Lady Russell, who I thought in the book was not portrayed as TRULY bad; this also comes out in this adaptation.

So this is one film which closely followed the book; I could write much more about how faithfully everything was reproduced, but I'd run out of space here. Charles Musgrove remained one of the most buoyant characters (good fun), Mary the most annoying (I was dying to have her just shut up - but I had that feeling when I read the book, too), captains and the admiral I thought charming.

The cinematography I thought a trifle stiff. There was little or practically no fade from one screen to another - perhaps this is due to it being a TV movie. One scene - CHOP! - the next scene, the actors enter from right, proceed left, and - CHOP! - another scene, where the same thing happens. This was the only part of the movie which I felt cheated me a little. A Low Budget has to show itself somewhere, I suppose.

And, as I said earlier, if you like some pace to go with Jane Austen, don't bother with this one, as you'll find it way too slow. I enjoyed it enormously, though, as it brought a wealth of detail (the sets were richly elegant!) to an excellent adaptation of my favorite Austen novel. I highly recommend it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I finally found a version of Persuasion that I like! Anne doesn't look like a scullery maid in this version, just a very thin, aging, pretty woman, quite like she's described in the book. Captain Wentworth doesn't look like he's 50, nor does he look perpetually angry but rather, as he's described in the book, he hasn't aged as much as Anne and is quite handsome. And they play their parts with such conviction and realism...that's what acting is all about. They were believable. They created real characters, and it was like the characters in the book came to life. If you haven't seen this version, I urge you to find it, order it or request it from either a bookstore, or a library if you must. It's worth the price and worth the wait.

I watched the 1995 version, and the 2007 version and this one towers over the other two. Why it isn't rated higher is beyond my comprehension. The book conveys the tenderness of their relationship and this movie makes the book come to life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here is one of Jane Austen's movies that I found very delightful. I read the book first then listened to it on CD and was captivated by how a young Victorian girl could be persuaded against marrying the man she loved due to his lack of a fortune or education. The joy of knowing that Anne is evidently reunited with a lost love. The fact that her godmother tries to marry her off to a good for nothing cousin who's only out for money. Looking at the snobbery that comes from the upper classes and how class distinctions can divide couples from following their hearts. Captain Wentworth realization that he still loves Anne after seven years. His final understanding that Anne's love was constant all that time and they she wasn't going to let her family interfere with her true happiness and eventual marriage to one she truly loved.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite this production having received a number of poor reviews, it actually holds up quite well for its age. Note also that it is not a BBC programme, it was simply licensed to them by Granada Ventures when the Jane Austen collection was released on DVD.

So how does it compare with other adaptations of the same novel? The most well-known version these days is the 1995 film with Amanda Root as Anne Elliott and Ciaran Hinds as Captain Frederick Wentworth. That film was of course shorter but a good snapshot of the story - the earlier version, with Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall in the same roles, had four hours to tell the story and moved at a more leisurely pace.

Firbank is a good ten years too old for her role, but she is very good - Marshall is excellent as Wentworth, a man disappointed in love, and bitter about interference. And hidden in the cast are people who also contribute - Michael Culver, later seen in Cadfael, as Harvill; Richard Vernon, later seen in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, as Admiral Croft; Noel Dyson, earlier in Coronation Street, as Mrs Musgrove.

One criticism I do have is that the hairstyles are a bit distracting, and that the costumes are awful! Still, this shouldn't detract from a hugely enjoyable Austen adaptation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This review has been written by someone who has read it (several times) and knows what they are talking about!. Firstly I have read others comments and noticed that some of the objections were really quite stupid. People who have read the book and other Jane Austens or for that matter any good book, will know that sticking to the book is vital you have to trust an author with what they do. If the viewer does not like it BECAUSE it sticks to the book well it shows they do not understand Jane Austen and obviously are not a true fan.

Firstly if the viewer truly loved the book or Jane Austen in general, watching it for four hours should not prove difficult. Secondly, their society did care a lot for looks and so big, fancy hair styles would show off how rich you were, which in their day was a key factor for getting along in \"good\" society. I have to confess the female costumes were not brilliant but there were only a few bad ones and the males made up for it, also this prejudice for the Naval men not in their uniform is in nice words very silly!, today people do not go out with their uniform away from school or work because they have casual clothes and it was just the same in the 19th century. Also as it goes the acting is very good, it is subtle because that is how Jayne Austen writes! and the scene at the end is beautiful. You can not compare the filming to that of the 1995 version as technology has improved so much since them it is ridiculous to compare them in that. The actress who plays Ann is too old but her air of acting and how she does it makes up for it.

People seem to prefer the 1995 version for some reason that I can not comprehend!. It does not stick to the book at all and so is flat, the ending is sentimental, they change major scenes, the only good actors are the leads and they I give you did a good job for what was given to them. Obviously the people who really, really like it are (I am sorry) stupid as they do not understand Persuasion and so need it to be overdone. The 1971 version is beautiful, romantic, was written by an excellent script writer (same who did Inspector Morse), had very good actors and really it is a film you can watch many times and during each you can be delighted with it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know it was supposed to be a long walk, but really!!!!

The costumes were a bit yuk, but still... it was the 1970's I suppose!!!

It was a bit long and dull, so give me the newer version any day!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very touching movie. This is a story about a special bond between a child and his grandfather. A villager (Arun Nalawade) brings his grandson, Parashuram, to the city to get his eyes treated. But comes to know that Parashuram (Aswin Chitale) has some rare cancer of eyes and has to undergo an operation and will lose both his eyes. The movie is all about the emotions and the turmoil both them go through and how they accept the whole thing. The movie avoid any melodrama and tells this story in a simple way. Though the movie is in Marathi, language is not a barrier at all.It proves that to make good movie you do not need item songs, superstars and usual masala. Excellent performances. This is India's entry for Oscars 2004. Hope it gets the nomination at least. Would rate 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a film about a six year old child from a village in Maharashtra (a state in India) and his grandfather who come to Pune (a city in Maharashtra) to treat the child's eyes. here the grandfather gets to know that the child has cancer in both eyes and that they have to be removed to save the child's life. the movie is all about the main characters' and their feelings and actions until the operation.

The movie is not a typical clich\u00e9 Indian movie, so dun expect to see songs or romance or melodrama. this ia a supremely crafted sensitive movie which resorts to silent expressions rather than over the top dialogs to get the point thru. witness the scene where the grandfather is told about the need to remove the child's eyes. the acting is superb, dialogs heart breaking. your heart goes out for the grandfather who has the unenviable task of telling the child and his mother about the operation.

the handling of the subject has been excellent. the film was made under great hardship by the director, Sandeep Sawant who had to knock many doors to gather the Rs. six million (approx. $130000) budget. even then the final product seems polished and has decent production values. also witness the subtle city village contrast shown by the director by incorporating some random shots of the boy's life in the village. Sawant definitely seems to prefer village life.

THe acting by all is excellent. Amruta Subhash as the social worker is competent adding the required humane touch to her role. Sandeep Kulkarni as the docter is great, showing perfect mannerisms of a doctor. Ashwin Chitale as the child is a natural. he doesn't seem to be acting. everything about him is natural and does not seem forced.

But towering above all is Arun Nalawade as the grandfather. he is astounding in his role. mere words cannot describe his work. it is a performance to cherish forever.

Shwaas is a sincere effort to make good cinema. it should not be ignored just for the fact that it shows that if things are kept simple, the the results can be really surprising. 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Caught this movie on DD while flipping channels...And thank heavens, that too when it just started.. Having studied in Pune, this film touched off many happy memories of the city...that apart, one wonders why more movies like this aren't made...Every character is so well etched-the grandpa, the kid, the doc...except for the social worker who grates a tad, the rest of the movie hardly has a flaw...a deserving entry for the Oscars, even if it wasn't nominated...definitely leaves a lump in the throat...who sez u need mush to tickle ur lacrimals ? And to think that this movie needed Sachin Tendulkar to propagate it. Inspite of being in Marathi, there was hardly a moment where I wasn't able to follow the movie...the subtitles were good.. A must watch for any fan of good cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shwaas is awesome ! considering that the producers had a meagre budget, they have done an excellent job. It is a must watch. The small kid has done an excellent job with a lot of emotions flowing through his eyes. Grandfather is at his best. The photography is superb. Technically correct and very creative. It helps in adding a lot of emotions to the mainstream content. The movie will keep u engrossed and don't be surprised if you are shaken after the movie and the story lingers in your mind for a few days.I sincerely hope that they make it to the final Oscar nomination

Enjoy and again don't miss it","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a Maharashtrian, a teenager living in the 21st century, and its obvious that I'm not much into even Bollywood, let alone Marathi movies. Yet, when I watched Shwaas, it left me with a unique feeling, one which only an extremely effective movie is capable of generating.

It is a fact that, like most Indian movies, the movie has its true and complete effect only if viewed in its original language. A lot of the emotion and meaning of the movie is embedded in its Marathi dialogues, which, however hard one tries, can not be effectively translated into English.

Shwaas explores, in intricate detail, the relationship between a grandparent and a child. And it does complete justice to this strong bond. Dialogues like \"mazha parsha pan laakhat ek aahe\"(My parsha is also one in a million) enhance the emotion. Anyone who has closely observed the grandparent - child relationship will be able to relate to the situation portrayed in the movie.

Overall, it definitely worth watching. Its a movie that has left a profound effect on me. I will surely recommend it to anyone!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After a very long time Marathi cinema has come with some good movie.This movie is one of the best Marathi movies ever made. It shows how a old grandfather tries to save his grandsons eye. He tries everything that is possible in his hands to save the child's eye. Doctor and a relative of his tries to help him in his attempt.

The acting by the grandfather, the boy and the doctor are simply superb. They have shown true picture of a typical Marathi life. Every bit of action has some meaning in it. I would recommend to watch this movie, as initially I thought this one would be of documentary type but this was above my expectations.

This film is really going to touch your hearts.I would expect more Marathi movies to come up with performances like this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was very refreshing to watch this beautiful movie. The director maintained focus on the main subject without venturing into side plots (the doctor's family or stories of the other hospital patients), that are so typical of Bollywood assembly-line products. He kept the narrative simple to comprehend and made sure all the actors are true to the characters that they are supposed to portray. The rustic ways of the grandfather in the clinic, the cold and unemotional behavior of the surgeon, the zeal of the social worker gave the movie a feel of genuineness. I am also glad that the director did not fall for the temptation of adding songs or special effects and reduce it to the level of Anand or Safar. A couple of scenes toward the end of the movie, such as the boy visiting other blind children and a blind worker's workplace and also the final scene where the boy claps at the sound of splashing and birds chirping are sure make your eyes misty.

Many Bollywood players do not realize that Oscar committee members value simplicity of the subject and genuineness and brevity of the movie more than the glitz and glamor. Shwaas is certainly a better nomination than Lagaan, which dealt with a subject that has already been beaten to death. No MPAA member is willingly going to suffer through 4 hours of jingoistic drama and a lot of song and dance.

I look forward to more movies from director Sandeep Sawant in the future.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hadnt heard a lot about this movie, except it being National award and Oscar entry. Its a Marathi movie, n I cant make out apple from orange in marathi. But when I saw the movie playing on DD1 late Sunday night, I just got glued. Now I am no judge of cinematic techniques and acting skills. But I have watched a good number of movies, of various genres, and for an average viewer, I will highly recommend this movie. The feel is very earthy and realistic, though there are some melodramatic moments. Watch it to feel human. Lately haven't seen any movie, which touches heart, especially in Hindi cinema. the crowning achievement of the movie is when the young kid returns home. The camera moves around to reveal the kid, wearing black glasses, having lost his eyes, the kid hears the other kids splashing in the water and starts clapping. I was awestruck. And the two hours I spent watching the movie - very much worth it :-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"James Hacker MP didn't expect that he would be the next prime minister. Unlike in America, the party is elected in Britain while we, Americans, vote for candidates regardless of their party. Despite the differences, Paul Eddington CBE's performance as minister turned prime minister almost overnight is helped by his senior adviser, Sir Humphrey, played by another knight, Sir Nigel Hawthorne, and veteran actor Derek Fowlds also returns to the scene as well. Now instead of pleasing some people, he has to please the nation rather than his constituency. Now, he has a hard job to do even more difficult than before. Now, he must approve the honors list and work with Her Majesty as well on a regular basis. Hacker is not the hacking type. He is rather than the every man who we like and don't want to dislike and turn into a villain of sorts or a vicious dictator. Now, we see the prime minister's point of view and all the pleasing that must go on as well as handle strikes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Following on directly from the last episode of the previous series Yes Minister.

Jim Hacker now finds himself inside Number 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister of Great Britain, instead of a Cabinet Minister and a member of the government, he is now leading Her Majesty's Government.

All this after some scheming maneuvers by Sir Humphrey Appleby after the previous Prime Minister resigned at the end of Yes Minister.

Sir Humphrey Appleby is now the head of the Civil Service.

I thought that this series was better than the first series, or though it did not last as long as the first series unfortunately.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't read the book \"Scarlett\" and when I watched this mini series I enjoyed it very much and thought it didn't need to be compared to GWTW. The story may differ from the book, but who cares its a movie. Even in the credits its based on the book, its not the book. The film is clearly under appreciated with the reviews that other people write but can't even spell the main characters names right.

The acting in Scarlett I thought was superb. Joanne Whalley and Timothy Dalton were excellent. They took the characters and gave them there touch. Now as far as other people go by, they compare them to the great Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable. They obviously did fantastic, but the leads in this film are completely different people who have there own acting methods and shouldn't be pressured of what people have to say. If you wanted certain actors to do well then you should have directed the film, I'm sure that other actors would not do as well as these with the chemistry and cleverness they brought to these roles. The supporting cast stood out with there grandness, and Jean Smart steals the scenes that shes in with her comedy genius.

The locations in the film were very beautiful and it was just grand to see Scarlett go to all those places in the film as she causes trouble and other things. Also the scene in which Scarlett talks to her dad's grave it was very dramatic and I thought from then on that there were two GREAT actresses who brought Scarlett O'Hara to life. Not just Vivian Leigh but also Joanne Whalley.

The film and the book may differ, but you must not take to heart that this is a sequel to one of the best films ever made otherwise you will think that this has to be like Gone With the Wind and you will not like this film. But this is an under rated classic that is unlike GWTW, its its own movie. Also keep in mind that \"Tomorrow is another day\"...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've always loved \"Gone With The Wind\" and have seen it numerous times. However, its ending left me not only \"hanging,\" but depressed, with a hopeless feeling. Finally, in \"Scarlett,\" Ripley took us to a very plausible and satisfying end (\"beginning\") of the original story.

It follows that someone of Scarlett's obvious intelligence (as originally written) would eventually grow up. Although, like most people, I fell in love with Scarlett in GWTW, I tired of her constant insipid infantiilism to the point of exasperation, and I was disappointed that Mitchell did not show Scarlett using that obvious intelligence to even make an attempt to grow emotionally. Thankfully, someone finally did. (After all, isn't that nagging immaturity that conflicted with her beauty and intelligence the very reason Rhett finally gave up on her in the first place?) I think Ripley did an excellent job of describing that long-overdue process, and Whalley-Kilmer did a superb job of portraying it. Joanne W-K has all the fire, exuberance and intelligent sparkle as did Vivian Leigh, and she is certainly at least as, if not more, beautiful.

There was, is, and always will be only one Clark Gable. However, if I had to pick an actor out of the thousands to which I've been exposed to portray him in his biography, it would definitely be Timothy Dalton. Dalton possesses the same elegant charm that Gable did, which is essential for Rhett's character. I can't imagine anyone else who could come close.

In my opinion, both Joanne Whalley-Kilmer and Timothy Dalton were superbly cast and the only actors who could have possibly played Scarlett and Rhett. I think both their performances did justice to not only the late actors but also the spirit of their characters.

I enjoyed the whole cast. Julie Harris was her usual delightful presence, and Jean Smart was an adorable kick! Even Ashley's character was nicely played by Stephen Collins, and the progression of his relationship with Scarlett was totally believable.

The story became a little convoluted in Ireland, but so is life, after all, and I still found it entertaining.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the fruits of Ripley's imagination. I wish I'd written it!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

It's common knowledge and has been said before: No one can ever play Scarlett and Rhett like Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable. Joanne Whalley Kilmer (no longer Kilmer having been divorced from ex-hubby Val Kilmer) plays her own Scarlett and although this is a sequel and not a re-make (God-forbid!!!) she still cannot rise to the occasion (i.e. her voice sounds evil on several occasions, she's got brown eyes [Scarlett in both novels had green eyes and even Vivien Leigh's eyes were green] and her vocal power was not up to the job either. Scarlett is a Southern Belle; therefore she has an incredible talent for flirting (as she did in SCARLETT the novel and GWTW, of course) and to be a great flirt like Scarlett is, you would most likely need a higher-pitched voice, like Vivien Leigh.

I suppose I'm comparing Kilmer to Leigh a bit too much but when someone possesses a role so masterfully as Leigh did with Scarlett you simply can't help but to criticize any new prospective Scarletts. Timothy Dalton should have had no accent whatsoever, due to the fact that both Margaret Mitchell's Rhett and Gable in the film had none. His acting has never been truly noteworthy (except, maybe his portrayal of the evil, conniving King Phillip of France in THE LION IN WINTER) and he gives very little (if any) freshness or vitality to his Rhett.

Standouts in the cast are most notably Tina Kellagher (a born actress with plenty of authenticity in her deliverance) as the tragic victim Mary Boyle. And then of course there's Sean Bean as the cold, calculating and not to mention, almost demonically evil Lord Fenton, Mary's nemesis and Scarlett's eventual violator. One thing I could not forgive the writer for was the fact that Scarlett is raped in this movie (a fact that never occurred in the novel; Lord Fenton is cold and of ill-repute among the Irish in the book but he's nowhere near as heartless as his screen counterpart. Another omission from the novel but readded for the film is the character of Belle Watling, played most horribly by Ann-Margret in a cameo role, which we all could have lived without, seeing as how the book was such a run-away bestseller without requiring any assistance from Ms. Watling.

For a film by itself, SCARLETT is a very good one but not quite in that lofty of a place in terms of being GONE WITH THE WINDs sequel. Another actress was highly necessary for Scarlett as well as Rhett.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, nothing will ever compare to the original movie, but for gosh sakes, they're not trying to. It is just one persons opinion about what could have happened after Rhett left Scarlett at Tara. I for one thought it was a terrific movie and would like to add it to my GWTW collection. The scenery alone would make me want to watch the movie. Just view this movie as an extension of the original and don't think they are trying to replace Vivian Leigh and Clark Cable and you will enjoy it a lot. They really captured the spoiled selfishness of Scarlett in many of the scenes and you can see from the longing in the looks from Rhett that he is clearly still in love with Scarlett. The fact that you can recognize many of the actors in the movie is another plus even though some of them have only been seen on TV. I always wanted them to have other children after Bonnie Blue died in the movie and this satisfied my need perfectly.

Lore60","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved the movie. I loved Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whaley. The movie had many different locations in it. I really liked when Ann Hampton realized she could not make Rhett love her. And when Scarlett and Ann where together and Ann apologizes for taking Rhett and Scarlett just told her not to worry she would get him back. It had a great story it told. You just can not compare it to GWTW. It just has so many great scenes. I love both SCARLETT AND GWTW! Of course do not forget to have a hankie handy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A letter to the guys. I tried guys, I really tried! I tried so hard not to watch this movie. I would leave the room when it was on or jump on the computer when the wife watched it. This is her second favorite movie, the Godfather being first (which I love).

I ended up catching little bits of this movie and finally after maybe a year I was actually sitting down watching it with her. I can't believe I am saying this, but I loved this movie. Dalton plays a great Rhett and has his cockiness down pat. Whalley plays a delightful Scarlett. Full of fire and brimstone and NOTHING is going to stop her.

My favorite scene is when she is overseas in (Ireland?) and the government is going to tear down a peasant's house because they are behind in the rent. Scarlett gets all mad at this and pays the entire debt, thus making a huge name for herself around this small town.

All I'm saying guys is you might want to try this movie... especially if you are a fan of Gone with the Wind. It does take a little bit to get used to the new actors, but I think you will find them refreshing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having grown up with GWTW, I shunned both the \"Scarlett\" sequel book and the mini-series until now. When I recently viewed the video for the first time, I was amazed how much I enjoyed watching Timothy Dalton's depiction of Rhett Butler and Joanne Walley-Kilmer's as Scarlet. I feel \"Scarlet\" should be judged on its own merits rather than attempting any comparison with the venerable Selznick masterpiece GWTW. While the \"Scarlet\" story line and some of the dialogue suffered from lack of inspired writing, overall I thought this was a worthwhile dramatization of what might have been between Scarlett and Rhett.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Overall, I enjoyed the movie Scarlett. I am a huge fan of Gone with the Wind. I have read the book and seen the classic movie many times. I even have a small collection of Scarlett O'Hara ornaments and other things. I must admit that Gone with the Wind is my all-time favourite book and movie. Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable are remarkable actors and two of my favourites. Unfortunately, I was unable to read the book Scarlett, but I was excited to see the movie. Truth be told, the movie is not any where close to the calibre of Gone with the Wind and neither are the actors. However, Joan Whalley Kilmer and Timothy Dalton were pleasant actors in the roles and at many times Joan sounded like Vivian Leigh in her portrayal of Scarlett. Dalton also portrayed Rhett well at times. It took some time getting used to the different actors, but overall I really enjoyed it ,being the fan of Gone with the Wind as I am. One major disappointment was that Joan did not have green eyes and Scarlett O'Hara and Vivian Leigh both did. I also found the Lord Fenton absolutely appalling and I did not like his character. If you are a Gone with the Wind fan and\/or enjoy romantic stories, see the movie Scarlett. However, do not expect it to be remarkable like Gone with the Wind. It is far from it although it is interesting with the new characters and so on. I am happy it is not a remake and some of the events in the story was what I imagined the continuation to be of the Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler love story. If you haven't seen it today, get it tomorrow\u0085after all tomorrow is another day. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"gone with the wind and scarlett are two different films they were never meant to be compared obviously the original actors in gwtw are all passed away and deserved their own separate award and praise i loved gwtw and never really expected a sequel to be made or ever live up to half the praise of gwtw but to my shock scarlett was just as well written directed and acted as gwtw scarlett in its own right deserves just as much award i now can honestly say i don't know which i like better i think the script for scarlett was a- number 1 perfect' as a sequel. Bravo! writer director producer and all actors Bravo! AS sequels rarely live up to their name sake this one runs equal to its predecessor. To those who don't like it you miss the point and a great ending to phenomenal beginning","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw Gone with the wind I thought that there could not be better actors than Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable to play Scarlett and Rhett but then I saw the movie Scarlet. I fell in love for this dramatic story. I love Timothy Dalton as Rhett Butler, he's fantastic. This is a movie I could watch a thousand times and it still wouldn't bore me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a huge Gone With the Wind fan, and I read \"Scarlett\" before it was a miniseries and loved it. This is a sequel of sorts. Like you didn't expect it with that \"Frankly dear, I don't give a damn\" ending. Timothy Dalton was great as Rhett, though no one will ever replace Clark Gable. Joann Whaley-Kilmer, on the other hand, could give Vivien Leigh a run for her money (though I feel almost guilty even saying that.) Her attitude and presence in the film fits the character to a tee, making you love and hate her at the same time, which is how most feel about Ms. Leigh's portrayal as well. The film does move slowly, mostly because it follows the book so closely and was not released as a feature film. Excellent choice on the producer's part. I think this movie deserves some recognition for the great storyline, the revival of characters that had been gone for almost 50 years, and for being something that even Margaret Mitchell herself could have been proud of.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My God, this was a fantastic film. Every time we watch it takes us to another place of \"WOW\". Rhett & Scarlett were played brilliantly by Joanne & Timothy. They did a fantastic job revising the roles of our two favourite heros. Everyone! It is a must see..... Dont deprive yourself of this movie. If u loved Gone With The Wind you will love this mini series. Go Rhett!!! Go Scarllett!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This miniseries is a reasonable sequel to the original Gone With The Wind. If one views this on its own merit (and not immediately following the original), it comes out pretty good. I am sure that most viewers will question the performances of Scarlett and Rhett, but it seems unlikely that anyone else could have done better. Many of the characters here are new to this storyline, so comparison in those cases (Rhett's mother, Uncle Henry Hamilton, Will Benteen)is not a problem. No one will every be Vivien Leigh or Clark Gable.

The best part of the whole production is the beautiful scenery of springtime Charleston and Ireland. Watch it for that alone. Obviously, this was a high budget TV miniseries. It follows the book for a while, then has a totally new plot when Scarlett goes to Ireland.

The acting is credible if nothing special--kind of the way I feel about Roger Moore following Sean Connery for James Bond.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I, having both read and watched Gone With The Wind, found it very difficult to not compare this movie with the original. Although I thought Scarlett, the novel, was superb, the movie didn't add up. It was a completely different story. Of course, there will never be another Scarlett and Rhett besides Leigh and Gable, but the new actors did a fine job, considering. I loved the way the book and movie wrapped up the story of Gon With the Wind, because after reading it I felt a surge of disappointment because it just stopped and left the readers to wonder what happened. Scarlett finishes the story very well, and Alexandra Ripley did great on the book. I just wish the movie followed the story more, although it is great in itself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watch this movie without big expectations, I think everyone should do. It's a great Tv-serie and of course we couldn't compare it with Gone With the wind, but it's still nice to watch. It's also weird to see a different Scarlett. Joanne Whalley don't play Scarlett with passion and fire like Vivien Leigh, but I believe that Scarlett is changed when she became older. Don't expect to much of this just watch but don't watch like: I think this would be horrible.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gone with the wind is one of the most popular books ever printed . It is by far the movie of all movies . The romance between Scarlett and Rhett made people dream all over the world and turned the lead actors into cinematographic icons . One can ask , is it really necessary to make a sequel ? And ... there are some big shoes to fill .

Well , there was the book first . 'Scarlett' by Alexandra Ripley is , we have to admit , well-written and fully respecting the world created by Margaret Mitchell . She picks up exactly where we left our heroine previously and gently leads us from Mitchell's heritage into her own fantasy . In the book Scarlett , defeated after Melanie's death and Rhett's leaving , travels to Charleston to reside with her mother-in-law in hope of regaining Rhett's love . Her typical manipulative behavior evokes once again a lot of criticism from Rhett and drives them further apart ... until a certain boat trip that will change everything . Scarlett now carries a secret . The series follows the book quite accurately until the arrival of Scarlett in Ireland . From then of , book and series slowly split ways . The actual end differs , but of course the both have Scarlett and Rhett back together .

The production of the series was announced with a worldwide search for the next Scarlett O'Hara . Many countries made their own television shows featuring young actresses auditioning for the part . Eventually , about twelve girls were chosen to participate in the final screen tests and interviews in Atlanta , Georgia . Unfortunately , the producer found no Scarlett amongst these actresses . Sad for the girls , major publicity for the show ( it was already sold to many television stations worldwide before shooting even had started ). Robert Halmi , the producer who bought the rights to 'Scarlett' , told he discovered the right actress while watching TV , gave her a call and two days later signed the deal . Joanne Whalley-Kilmer ( who starred in'Willow' and 'Scandal' , the latest being the movie Robert Halmi was watching that faithful evening )is not Vivien Leigh , but she certainly is Scarlett ! Her performance is not a copy of Leigh's , she makes the character her own . The major difference between GWTW and 'Scarlett' is the fact the lead character evolves and grows as a person . This is the series prerogative , why copying something that has been done before ? Considering there is a gap of almost seventy years between the first and second storyline , it is natural that both authors emphasize on different aspects of the characters . Whereas Mitchell works around Scarlett dealing with the consequences of the civil war and fighting for Tara , Ripley lets Scarlett face her demons . This to me , is the most interesting aspect of the series , we get to know Scarlett in a different way as she learns that not everything can always go the way she wants . I totally agree with the choice of Timothy Dalton as Rhett Butler . He portrays him with charm and irony and is less of a cardboard figure than Clark Gable's performance . The rest of the cast was well chosen . Julie Harris is endearing as Rhett's mother , John Gielgud gives a very amusing performance as grandfather Robillard and Sean Bean is always at his best playing a dirty character , his Lord Fenton makes no exception . Poor choices however with Stephen Collins as Ashley and Ann-Margret's adaption of Belle Watling was a waste of money . Costumes , sets and locations are elaborate and convincing . The newly built Tara set looked exactly the same and it is a moving sequence in the series when the house appears for the first time .

Is there a point in making a sequel ... Well , six hours of romance are to me . One to watch !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My mother is as Gone With The Wind as one can be. She has the collector's plates, the Rhett and Scarlett Madame Alexander dolls, GWTW Christmas ornaments, even a GWTW cookbook! My sister and I had only seen bits and pieces of GWTW but we knew the whole plot by heart. On a whim, my sister bought this miniseries thinking my mother would like it and we had taken an interest in it after leafing through the novel a bit.

Yesterday we decided to watch both Gone With The Wind and Scarlett. We started GWTW at about 2:30 in the afternoon and ended it at 6:30. We started Scarlett right after. My mother usually goes to bed at about 10:00, she wound up staying up until 1:30 with us to finish it! We were riveted! I like how the movie starts off at Melanie's funeral, right where Scarlett left off saying, \"I'll think about it tomorrow.\" Scarlett doesn't stay in Georgia for long, she runs off to Charleston in her quest to win him back. Rhett is not happy when he finds Scarlett in his home so he leaves for the family's plantation. Scarlett, being Scarlett, follows him and they finally agree to put aside their quarrels for a time in order to keep the gossip at bay. Rhett starts to enjoy her company again and takes her out on his boat. A storm comes up and they sink. He helps her swim to the shore of some island. Terrified that she has died, Rhett is anxious until she awakes. When she does they both get swept up in the moment and make love. Scarlett wakes up the next day back in Charleston but Rhett has gone and writes that he thinks it best if they never see each other again.

Scarlett is heartbroken and when she is so she does some stupid things, in this case she is seen by Anne Hampton going up into a hotel room alone with Ashley. Nothing happens, but her reputation is stained so Scarlett goes to Savannah with her two spinster aunts. She soon discovers that she is pregnant and decides to wait for the right time to tell Rhett. While in Savannah she meets many of her O'Hara relatives and grows to like one cousin in particular a Father Colum. She soon gets her divorce notice from Rhett and then decides she will never tell him about her baby just to spite him. Typical Scarlett.

She decides to go to Ireland to make sure Rhett can never discover her condition. She meets many more relatives and buys a beautiful ancestral home Ballyhara. Through out this time, Rhett is courting Anne. It is on Halloween when Scarlett gets the notice that Rhett has remarried, she goes into labor that night.

The movie skips to a year later and Scarlett is very happy with her beautiful daughter Kat. She is being pursued by Lord Richard Fenton who is really an evil man, forcing a young girl named Mary Boyle to sleep with him. Scarlett meets Rhett and Anne again at a horse fair. After a riding accident, Scarlett has a conversation with Anne and learns that she and Rhett are to have a baby. Heartbroken again, Scarlett leaves and goes to Dublin with Fenton. There she cultivates a relationship with him, like I said, she does stupid things when she is heartbroken.

Mary Boyle has discovered she is pregnant and goes to Colum for help. The priest urges Fenton to help the girl and Fenton murders him after Colum threatens to tell Scarlett. Fenton convinces Scarlett to go to London with him to escape her grief over Colum's death. Mary asks to go with her. Back in Charleston, Anne has died of Yellow Fever. It is made clear that she never bore Rhett a child.

In London, Scarlett sees Fenton's true colors after he hurts her when she isn't in the mood the sleep with him. Fenton rapes her after she tells him she never wants to see him again. She falls unconscious after and when she wakes up Fenton has been stabbed to death. Scarlett is charged with his murder.

Rhett hears about it and rushes off to England with Sally in tow. Fearful of the gallows, Scarlett has no choice but to tell Rhett about their daughter. Rhett is furious at her for keeping such a secret but stays to help her. Mary Boyle, the real killer, can't be found. Scarlett is found guilty but Mary finally arrives to declare her innocence. After promising to help Mary, Scarlett leaves with Rhett for Ireland because as he says, \"It's time I became acquainted with my daughter.\" The scene where he sees Kat for the first time is absolutely beautiful. In Ireland, Rhett sees how much Scarlett has changed and the two finally reconcile completely and admit they still love each other deeply.

After seeing GWTW, I will say that yes, Vivian Leigh was a better Scarlett, but I liked the character of Scarlett in this film than in the first. The reason being that in GWTW, you don't know why you like Scarlett. She's so cruel to Rhett and haughty and spoiled, but you like her lively spirit. In Scarlett, you see how much she has changed. Oh she is still in the lap of luxury, but she's not haughty anymore. You see how she becomes a true mother to Kat and a generous person to the poor people of Ireland. Joanne Whalley does and excellent job at playing this new side of Scarlett. Timothy Dalton is not Clark Gable, but at times you swear that you can see original Rhett in him.

If you just sit back and not compare Joanne Whalley and Timothy Dalton with Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable, you will most certainly enjoy this movie. It's a chance to compare the Scarlett of yesterday, the one she becomes after \"tomorrow\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the most cerebral insightful movies I have ever seen. The script language, costumes, scenery, plot, characters, etc. all are supreme. You will not be bored. I have watched intensely or even just listened to this movie while working so many times I have lost count. Scarlett ages gracefully, acquiring wisdom beyond her years in the end. This movie takes you from Tara to Ireland where her family is originally from and you see the results of another civil war played out there, this time between the Irish and English.

This movie depicts the double standards of men at the time--a man is still respected if he has girlfriends and whores, but not a woman. If she is merely seen in a private place with a man society accuses her of impropriety. And of course Scarlett was always thinking outside the box, breaking rules when necessary to create needed change, help people, and\/or survive.

Scarlett's beauty definitely is to the bone. Her strength, self-esteem, and wisdom grow as she ages.

I remember her lines when I am confronted with too much on my plate, such as, \"tomorrow is another day,\" and the way she carried herself, her determination and courage, and have learned from her experiences. This is a good movie to show your daughters as it teaches a woman how important it is to have respect for yourself, and that men, especially very handsome ones, can have two sides and may treat a woman differently, depending on how she acts and respects herself. An attractive woman needs to learn what this movie teaches.

This movie is like therapy to me, and it is better than Gone with the Wind. The second part takes place in Ireland and anyone who is of Irish decent will cherish the scenery, people, and Scarlett's character within it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a big Gone With The Wind nut but I was disappointed that both Gone With The Wind the movie and Scarlett the mini series are so different from the books. Gone With The Wind left so many things out in the movie that were in the book and they did the same with Scarlett. Both were good movies, but I really liked both books better. There were so many characters left out of Scarlett, and the ages of some characters didn't seem to match up with the book. The time lines don't match up either. Scarlett realizes she is pregnant on the ship to Ireland in the book, but she realizes it when she is throwing up while in Savahanna. Also Sally is made out to be an ugly monkey like woman in the book and the movie casted Jean Smart to play her, who is obviously not an ugly woman. Over all, Scarlett is a good movie, and it helps anyone who was disappointed in the way Gone With The Wind ended, to see what might have happened if Margaret Mitchell had lived to write a sequel herself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is about as good as gone with the wind was.I love this movie I could watch it over and over again.Scarlett always gets what she wants no matter what the cost.She tries real hard to forget Rhett but she just can't do it. She loves him so much. This is a story of real true love.It started in gone with the wind and ended up in this movie.The only real way to end this movie for real true love.Was to have Scarlett and Rhett back together at the end.And thats the way it ended with them back together with their daughter.What more could you ask for. There's not a better ending to this great love story than this.What else can i say about this great movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not your everyday Tom and Jerry short for many reasons. One, there's a voiceover narration by Jerry, which is odd, because Tom and Jerry rarely speak. Two, the two are friends, which was also rare and seldom works as well as the more adversarial shorts do. Third, and most importantly, the cartoon is rarely humorous (by design) and the jokes here are dry chuckles with a little cough and a bubble of blood at the end. Think a Tom and Jerry cartoon directed by Tim Burton. Not wholly successful, but it largely does work. The creepiest ending for an MGM short that I can recall. Not for everyone and proof that these shorts were never intended solely with children as the target audience. Well worth watching. Recommended with the caveats above.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While I agree completely with drvn below about Mary McCormack flopping a milk-bag out on TV, the rest of the show is fantastic! Phil Hartman was great in a professorly way, teaching the celebs the ins and outs. Foley's a nut, but in a good way. You never know what self depricating humor he's going to come up with next. As for the game play, it's entertaining, filled with witty banter, and great for any newbie that may have even a passing an interest in the game. Too bad it isn't on anymore :( I just checked the schedule all the way to August and it doesn't appear to be scheduled for any time in the future. Bad Bravo! You deserve a beating!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It just goes to show how wrong you can be. I had not expected to like this film. I was disappointed by both the Kill Bill films (although i preferred the second) and Death Proof (although it was better in the shorter cut of the double-bill release). I love Reservoir Dogs, admire Pulp Fiction and think that Jackie Brown is Tarantino's most mature piece of film-making - technically his most superior - including the last great performance elicited from Robert De Niro. Since then it seems to me while his films have been okay (i haven't hated them) he has been treading water in referential, reverential, self-indulgent juvenilia.

Then i read the script last year for Inglourious Basterds - and i hated it! Sure it had some typical QT flourishes and the opening scene was undeniably powerful. There were a couple of great characters. But on page it was more juvenile rubbish, largely ruined by the largess of the uninteresting Basterds of the title. It made me seriously contemplate not seeing the film. The trailers did nothing to convince me. I only changed by mind when i had the opportunity to see the film with a Tarantino Q&A following in London. I figured it would be worth enduring to hear him in Q&A as i know from interviews how entertaining he can be in person.

So little was i prepared for the sheer exuberant fun and brilliance of Inglourious Basterds.

Easily Mr Tarantino's best work since Jackie Brown it is a triumph.

Yes the references are there but they do not interfere with the story, they are not the driving force. Yes Eli Roth is stunt casting but he works fine, with little to do but look aggressive, and does nothing to hurt the film as i had feared. While i admired Mr Tarantino for using stuntwoman Zoe Bell as herself in Death Proof in order to amp-up the exhilaration of the major stunt scene her lack of any acting ability in a key role was a problem for the film. The same could be said of Tarantino's own appearances in several films, especially Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Till Dawn, which Tarantino wrote.

What really makes this work is how BIG it is. The spaghetti western vibe to much of the style, dialogue and performances is wonderfully over the top without descending too far into the cartoon quality of Kill Bill. The violence is so big. The audacity so big. Brad Pitt is so big! In the trailers the Hitler moment and Pitt's performance bothered me but in the context of the film they are hilarious. Pitt is actually brilliant here, exactly what he needs to be. He is Mifune's blustering samurai in Yojimbo, he is Robards Cheyenne from Once Upon a Time in the West, there is a very James Coburn vibe to him, and of course a suitably Lee Marvin edge.

Christoph Waltz (who i did not previously known) and Melanie Laurent (who i first noticed in a brilliant French-language British short film by Sean Ellis) are sensational and i expect to see both used a lot more in the future. Tarantino has clearly not lost his eye for casting, which seemed to desert him in Death Proof. Waltz is equally large in his performance. Chilling, yet theatrical. He is Fonda from OUATITW, Van Cleef from Good, The Bad & the Ugly. And Laurent is suitably Cardinale innocence but tough, a fighter. They both dazzle here.

That every member of the cast gets the fun to be had from what they are doing while not indulging themselves in just having fun and trying to get laughs helps tremendously. The laughs - and there are loads - come organically. Only Mike Myers comes close to tipping the wink and pushing it too far but his scene is reigned in just enough - with the help of a fantastic Michael Fassbender who seems pulled directly from the mold of Attenborough's Great Escape leader.

All the actors shine and Tarantino throws in wonderful flourishes, but ones that work with the story. The introduction of Schweiger's Hugo Stiglitz is a riot. After a sensational slow-burn opening and a glorious intro to those inglourious Basterds the pace never lets up and over two and half hours flies by.

It also looks beautiful, marking this as a return to real film-making rather than just self-indulgent silliness. The musical choices, as always, are inspired from Morricone on.

The film is audacious and hilarious. After a summer when nearly every film has disappointed me it came as a huge surprise that the real fun and entertaining, but also involving and impressive film should be this one, when i would never have believed it from script form. Welcome back QT.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Inglorious Basterds makes no apologies, asks for no forgiveness, it's a no holds barred assault on the senses. Tarantino doesn't care if he offends, if he steps all over stereotypes and clich\u00e9s, this is film making at it purest. It's great to see a film maker whose work clearly isn't interfeared with by the powers that be. Tarantino is a master of effortlessly cranking up immense tension and suddenly mixing it with laugh out loud moments; you're not sure if you should be looking away in disgust or rolling around laughing, either way it's a roller coaster and one not to be missed! It's not for everyone and I'm unsure how Germans will take the film, certainly if you're not a fan of Tarantino's style, this may be a little hard to swallow, but never-the-less, it is a film which simply has to be seen. No self respecting film fan should miss this. And the performance of Christoph Waltz... Oscar don't you dare ignore him!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Inglorious Basterds is a dark and violent comic fantasy, gloriously so. Built on the framework of The Dirty Dozen, Inglorious Basterds ditches the elongated training sequences of The Dirty Dozen to plunge into the action right away. In the process, Tarantino fixes one of The Dirty Dozen's major flaws by giving the bad guys screen time to remind us just how bad the Nazis were. The Nazis with the most screen time end up becoming the most completely human characters in the film, which ironically makes them even worse monsters.

Bu ditching the training sequences, Tarantino is also able to give us a picture of the entire war, showing us not only British, American and German soldiers, but also giving us glimpses into the world of French and German civilians, both collaborators and Resistance.

It goes without saying that any Tarantino film is going to have fantastic dialogue, but when Tarantino made the decision to have the French characters speak French and the Germans speak German, beyond adding a level of authenticity, Tarantino also somehow ensured that his dialogue in French was as sharp and funny and clever as his English dialogue.

Case in point, during the opening sequence the Nazi \"Jew Hunter\" SS Colonel Hans Landa (Christian Waltz) is interrogating French dairy farmer Perrier LaPadite (Denis Menochet). Landa suspects that LaPadite is hiding a family of Jews. While subtly pressuring LaPadite, Landa asks for a glass of milk. After greedily gulping it down, Landa compliments LaPadite on his daughters and his cows, \"\u00e0 votre famille et \u00e0 vos vaches, je dis bravo.\" The thing of it is, in French \"vache\" means cow, but it is also a vulgar name for the vagina. If reprimanded for this vulgar pun, Landa could quite convincingly claim not to understand French well enough to have meant it that way, but Landa does mean it that way and he means it as a threat. And LaPadite understands his meaning all too well.

That is a really subtle piece of acting and word-play that many audiences would never catch, or at least they might understand the subtext without knowing the exact nature of the threat. The film is rich with that kind of detail. All of the French and English dialogue is chosen with that same attention to detail and while I can't swear to the German, I would suspect that it shows a similar level of craft.

Inglorious Basterds opens with the phrase, \"Once Upon a Time... in Nazi-Occupied France.\" Personally, this reminds me of the opening of every Asterix book and movie, another comic fantasy in a war-torn occupied France. Like Asterix, Inglorious Basterds is howlingly funny in places, although the film also turns darkly serious.

In its more serious moments, Inglorious Basterds reminds us that the first casualties of war are compassion and the ability to relax, as in almost every elongated sequence of the film, Tarantino finds a new way to build cruel tension to almost unbearable levels.

Tarantino also reminds us that film is dangerous, even inflammable and that its power deserves respect.

If you can see this film as I did in a packed theatre filled with knowledgeable fans who get every joke, that you will see this masterful film the way that it was meant to be seen. If you are not that lucky, all that you will see is a great, great film that delivers a darkly funny punch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't imagine a director whose thirst for blood and violence is greater than Quentin Tarantino's. (At least in his films) Inglourious Basterds is no different. We all know Tarantino, the guy who exploded on the scene in the early 90s with cult classics, such as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Since, he has been a disappointment for some. Well, I am relieved to say, Tarantino has not lost his touch. He brings us his best since Pulp Fiction and thankfully so.

We know the story, a WWII tale told only as Tarantino can. (Fictional of course) A war film hasn't been done like this before. Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine leads the Basterds in Nazi occupied France. Their goal - killin' Nazi's. Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa plays a similar role on the other side. He's know as the \"Jew Hunter\" and goes about his business as ruthless as no other. The third sub story consists of a young Jewish refugee, Shosanna Dreyfus, who witnesses the slaughter of her family. And she, of course, wishes to plot revenge on the Germans for her devastating lose. There actually is three stories here intertwining and connecting with each other. If you know anything about Tarantino or his films, this is nothing new for him.

War has never been been so fun. The Basterds, are haunting, but at the same time, very funny, at times even hilarious. The dark comedy aspect play a big aspect in this as in many other Tarantino films. The entertainment and hilarity is led by Brad Pitt. I found him extremely funny and entertaining. I couldn't wait to see him on screen again. Even with his crazy accent, he works in this type of film. Also making great impressions were M\u00e9lanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz, who were tremendous. The film was filled with noteworthy performances.

The story itself, has so many historical inaccuracies to even count, but so what? It isn't meant to be a documentary. Tarantino wanted to have fun with, as should we. The cinematography department deserves big props with beautiful vibrant colors highlighting the film. You've really got to love the last line in the film... but Pulp Fiction remains his masterpiece.

Quentin Tarantino among all other things, is an entertainer. WWII, is one of the most tragic events in history, but Tarantino some how manages to make it fun. Inglourious Basterds is a fun film, it's tremendously entertaining, shocking, dramatic, suspenseful, and funny at the same time. Jam packed with everything you look for in a movie, done with that certain Tarantino style, it's worth being checked out. It's time to experience for yourself what war is like through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the PRIVILEGE of attending the UK premier of Inglorious Basterds this evening! Having seen the trailers i had high hopes but had doubts due to a string of self indulgent films (c'mon lets be honest, self indulgence is his tarantinos middle name)

I was surprised to find though that he had pulled the cat out of the bag with this one. The film is rich with interesting dialogue, Perfect timed comedy with a dash of brutal assassination.

The crowning glory of this film though lies with Christoph Waltz whom no fault or error can be found. He manages to create a real tension in the audience whilst remaining quite \"theatrical\" (couldn't think of a better word). He definitely deserved his prize at Cannes and is heading for an Oscar no doubt!!!! Hoping to see him in something again soon!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...\"Inglorious\" as our local theater decided to display its title on their marquee, minus the second word. It is terrific cinema.

I don't hesitate to recommend this film to all but the over-squeamish. Let them never know what they're missing.

I did hesitate to give it ten stars because of my experience of Tarantino's previous films. In every case, save \"Reservoir Dogs,\" they have improved with additional watching.

So although I gave it ten stars, I did so reluctantly. It leaves me no \"up\" to go to.

Yes Christoph Waltz is the Nazi we've all imagined the worst to be. He is cultured, sophisticated, suave and most sadistic, the kind of man who can make a glass of milk a threat and who puts out his cigarette abruptly in a strudel, grinding it into the whipped cream as if he were grinding his heel into a victim.

To understand Tarantino's films, you need only have a sense of dialogue, color and pacing. The colors are as bright as necessary and when necessary, brighter yet. In the French farmhouse of the opening scene, they are muted and dark, but excessively so. Outside a brilliant sun is shining, but in the one room of the house, everything is bathed in shadows and black.

It is a brilliant setting for an interrogation by Waltz, as the \"Jew Hunter\" of the SS, who dangles his host French farmer over the precipice of revealing what he cannot reveal numerous times, then pulls him back with obsequious lines of friendship and understanding.

A second sadistic German, well-played by August Diehl, later functions as important actor in the final plot twist. Diehl's Nazi Major, who has an ear for German accents, is almost as good as Waltz....almost.

Film classes will study much from this movie. They should look lovingly at the superb pacing. Tarantino knows just how long to draw out a scene, building suspense in the manner of Hitchcock, then at just the breaking point, suddenly coming to a resolution.

For color, look for a final shot at a French Theater, where its secretly Jewish proprietor is staging a surprise for the upper reaches of Nazi leadership.

We see her, played by Melanie Laurent, awaiting the hated German dignataries who will arrive for a film preview of the latest Deutsch film masterpiece, a propaganda piece about a German hero and his dubious accomplishments.

Laurent is framed on a balcony, reflected in the glass mirrors of the gorgeous theater, her red lips and low cut dress reflecting everywhere the intensity of her designs on her guests. It is a single shot that would be worth an entire film.

There are thankfully many more such images, many more paced scenes of exquisite dialog and suspense.

In short, see it. I'm sure you'll see it again and again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"That's what I thought, when I heard about the cast of Inglorious Basterds. And I'm both from Germany and into movies.

That guy is older than 50 and so far he almost only played in mediocre TV series - and even there he didn't play the main parts. Obviously nobody ever noticed, what he's capable of. Now, thanks to QT, he got one shot to change that - and - let's put it this way - that was a bingo! He is the living proof of what a great caster Tarrantino is.

By the way: I think it's a great privilege to watch the movie as a German - being able to understand everything. And the German dialog is written almost as good as the English.

Now I could repeat, what many others have written here before. I'll put it short: Finally, QT is back.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must admit when I saw the preview for \"Inglorious Basterds\" I gave myself big expectations. THIS FILM DID NOT Disappoint.

Rarely when I watch a movie with such high-expectations do I have those expectations met or exceeded; this film did that and more. Even more rarely do I clap at the end of a movie, this I and everyone else in the theater did.

I have to say I am a little biased towards Quentin, I grew up with \"Pulp Fiction.\" I watched it when I was 12 and it is still my favorite and most influential film.

However, since then Quentin has not really lived up to his billing. His style was getting a little predictable instead of familiar, the quality honestly wasn't there (I never watched Jackie Brown, and then there's Grindhouse). That is until \"Inglorious Basterds.\" What Quentin did was exactly what was needed for the war genre, a spaghetti western feel that could only be done by Tarantino or Sergio Leone, but seeing how Leone is dead, Tarantino's the self appointed guy on this masterpiece.

So let's look at the movie which I won't give away. The writing was spot on, a beautiful transition between using not one but four different languages in this movie. Not to mention this movie was set up in the classic Tarantino mold, great scenes of rich meaningful dialog and sudden shocking action.

The acting was superb!! Christopher Waltz deserves an Oscar, seriously. I don't say that often, but honestly the man should get one for this movie, he spoke every language in this movie, and delivered with such amazing touch and poise. He stole the show in a movie that everybody was amazingly impressive.

I have no problem building this movie up, because this movie is the best film I've seen all year, and probably all of next year. Quite frankly the more I think about it, this movie may crack my top films of all time, and is Quentin's best movie since \"Pulp Fiction.\" Take it from me, watch this film. I loved it doesn't do this movie enough justice.

I watched it yesterday and I'm still blown away. Thank you Quentin from the bottom of my heart for you making this movie. You're back on top again buddy. I can't say enough for \"Inglorious Basterds!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brad Pitt sticks his index finger in Diane Kruger's leg wound and keeps it there until he gets what he wants. Funny, horribly so. The invented yarn takes \"The Dirty Dozen\" for a ride and sometimes abandons it to pay tribute to other movies. Lots of fun. Even \"Paris when it sizzles\" is mentioned in a delightfully organic piece of dialog. I was thrilled by Christoph Waltzer's character and by his sensational performance. Brad Pitt creates a true original. I love the actor's lack of vanity. There's a quirk in the character that is pure Brad Pitt. Tarantino visits a new universe but. fortunately, his hand. his brain and his heart are visible all over the place.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been feeling a little disappointed by Tarantino ever since death proof. But i insist it was only a little, because i can appreciate the amount of work in producing such an homage to stunts people. Inglorious Basterds has definitely propelled Tarantino to the top ranks in my universe. This movie can be summed up (albeit inadequately) in one word : \"RAW\".

There is an intense emotion in every scene. Revenge and justice seem to be the main themes, From the start of the movie one feels compassion towards the victims of the Nazis, and is placed in Tarantino's fictional dimension of the WW2 historical context.

Characters are unpredictiable, fun, scary, brutal, sexy, and other adjectives i am sure are escaping my mind that are just as fitting and positive. I won't go in to an appreciation of each character, but the other comments by fellow users sum up the appreciation of the various performances.

Dialogue has evolved from the classic Tarantino \"bad ass\" provocative style as seen in Pulp Fiction and Death Proof. One can feel in the dialogues that Tarantino is making more open references to other movies. Indeed, many dialogues were near lessons in cinema to the audience, the setting partly takes place at a movie premiere ; a reference to a movie is close around every corner.

It is nice to see that each language presented (German, French, and English) is employed rather equally and naturally. I speak both French and English very fluently, and am frequently disappointed in how English speaking characters in french movies act poorly, and how french speaking characters in English\/American movies act poorly. Amazingly enough, Tarantino managed to make his actors pull off a natural and graceful performance from his actors. It helps put the audience in context of the historical context. Indeed ; soldiers, spies and civilans rarely understood soldiers\/spies\/civilians from other countries.

The visuals\/photography are beautiful, with sceneries convincingly conveying a 1940s WWII Europe. The outfits are perfect, and the violence orgasmically\/realistically conveyed. No punches are held back, and the Nazis are often shown being tortured. This makes the movie not open to all audiences ; the graphic violence can shock the more sensitive demographic.

volumes can be written about this movie. But the movie is so good, that during the North American Inglorious Basterds premiere at the Fantasia Festival in Montreal, i had to pee, but refused to go so as to not miss one single scene. I hope that image conveys how strongly i feel about this movie, and i'm a hard audience to please.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Operation Scorpio (AKAThe Scorpion King) doesn't slip into top gear until the last 25 minutes or so, but when the action does hit top speed, it delivers some truly amazing martial arts scenes that demand the viewer's attention. That is not to say that the first hour is worthless\u0097 just that compared to the final fight-fest, it seems a bit underwhelming.

The plot revolves around Yuk-Su, a talented comic artist who dreams of being a hero\u0097just like those he depicts in his drawings. When Yuk-Su rescues a young maid, Siu-Yu, who is being sold into prostitution, he incurs the wrath of her evil boss, Wa. Led by Sonny, master of scorpion style kung fu, Wa's henchmen give chase to Yuk-Su and the maid. Yuk-Su's father intervenes but he is injured. After being rescued by some friendly bodybuilders, the three eventually hide out at a noodle restaurant, owned by their friend, Master Yat.

Yuk-Su learns to cooks noodles, but also regularly sneaks out in order to secretly build his strength and learn kung fu under the tutelage of Jean, the teacher of the musclebound hulks who rescued them. When Master Yat must leave on business, Yuk-Su is left in charge of the kitchen; however, he pops out to practise his skills with Jean, leaving Siu-Yu to serve the customers. Sonny and his men visit the restaurant and, disgusted by the noodles they are served, trash the restaurant.

When Master Yat learns that Yuk-Su has been sneaking out, he tells him that he should have learnt kung fu from him; it transpires that Master Yat used to be a top Triad assassin, until he decided to try and change his ways. Under the guidance of Master Yat, Yuk-Su improves his skills, even learning the art of the shadowless kick! Yuk-Su eventually gets a chance to try and become a real hero when his friend, Fatty, announces that his maid has also been sold into prostitution. With Jean, they visit Wa posing as French brothel keepers looking for new women. When Fatty's maid is presented to them, she accidentally blows their ruse and at last the action kicks off big style. Despite his best efforts, Jean is badly beaten by Sonny and he and Yuk-Su are forced to flee. On returning to the restaurant, Yuk-Su finds it ablaze; and worst of all, the bad guys have found Siu-Yu! Yuk Su, accompanied by Master Yat, returns to Wa's place to try and rescue Siu-Yu...

Despite some fairly entertaining training scenes, the slow build up to the final action at Wa's house is rather too drawn out and devoid of any serious fight scenes. It is a shame that the tedium wasn't broken up by a decent scrap midway, rather than saving all of the juicy stuff until the end.

The last fight, however, is worth the wait in the end; Won Jin gives a jaw dropping performance as the high kicking Sonny who scuttles, flips and spins with amazing skill and dexterity, and Chin Kar-Lok gives a solid performance as Yuk-Su, the artist-turned-fighter. Also particularly good is old-school kung fu star Lau Kar-Leung (AKA Liu Chia Liang) as Master Yat, proving that this old-timer has still got what it takes to kick ass! Although not a perfect film, Operation Scorpio has enough standout action in its finale to definitely warrant a viewing.

NB. I may have got some of the names wrong. My DVD calls characters by different names than those listed on IMDb.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hong Kong, the 1920s. A young man from poor beginnings dreams of being a hero, and spends most of his time training and learning about kung fu and bodybuilding, much against his father's will. He helps a servant girl escape from a ruthless businessman, whose goons then come after them, and terrorizes the young man's uncle's noodle restaurant. The uncle turns out to be an old, reformed Triad assassin, who now helps the young guy become proficient in martial arts. It's all-out Karate Kid style with \"wash the wok\" instead of \"wax on, wax off\". The kung fu villain is the ruthless businessman's son, who has a trademark scorpion style that looks cool although it is quite silly and surely completely unrealistic.

But the story, which develops over time, has an epic feel, good characterization, great kung fu and is generally very entertaining. The young hero is very sympathetic and provides a good protagonist to root for. The romance dimension remains undeveloped, though, which is a bit disappointing. Otherwise a great movie.

My rating: 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There's a \"Third Man\" look to the shadowy B&W photography of STOLEN IDENTITY, a thriller produced by Turhan Bey, ex-star of Universal pictures during the '40s. It's an expertly filmed tale of jealousy that leads to murder when a famous pianist (FRANCIS LEDERER) becomes overly possessive of his wife (JOAN CAMDEN) and is soon intent on carrying out a scheme to murder a man she's having an affair with.

A taxi-driver (DONALD BUKA) happens to be giving the woman's lover a lift to the hotel when he steps outside a moment to chat with a worker digging up the street. Lederer uses the sound of the drill to muffle the sound of the bullet he puts in the head of the passenger from outside the back of the car. When Buka returns to his cab, he finds a dead man in the passenger seat.

Enroute to report the murder to the police, he changes his mind and decides to switch identities with the dead man who has an American passport which means Buka could realize his ambition to return to the United States. The stolen identity plot becomes thicker when the man's girlfriend (Lederer's wife) shows up at the hotel to accuse Buka of impersonating the dead man.

It's the sort of plot movie-goers have probably seen countless times, but it gets a nice workout here, with plenty of tense scenes as Buka and Lederer's wife plan how to run from the authorities until a final confrontation with the murderer and the police.

It's extremely absorbing, well done and holds the interest throughout with some excellent atmospheric photography of Vienna that will remind most movie-goers of \"The Third Man\".

Well worth viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A quick paced and entertaining noir set in Vienna just after W.W.11. Donald Buka is a refugee who can't find legal work because he does not have any papers. No papers means no work permit, which means no way to get a passport. He survives by driving a friend's cab at night. If he gets caught it means three months in jail. One night he picks up a fare at a big hotel and drives the man to an airline office. Buka takes the man's luggage in and returns to the car. There he finds his customer has acquired an unneeded hole in the back of his head. What to do? Call the police? Without a work permit they will put the grab on him real quick. No, he needs time to think this out. He drives to a secluded spot, empties the man's pockets and hides the body. He now has an American passport and plenty of cash! He drops by an underworld contact to have the passport photo changed. Now he just needs to go to the man's hotel and collect the man's plane ticket. His ticket to freedom! Needless to say that would be too simple. Waiting at the hotel is the dead man's mistress, Joan Camden. Camden is on the run from her rather nasty husband, Francis Lederer, Lederer is of course the swine who had bumped off the man in Buka's cab. Camden calls the police since she believes Buka has robbed her lover. Buka shows his new passport and manages to talk his way out of the mess. Camden breaks down when hubby Lederer shows up at the police station. Lederer convinces the police Camden has suffered a mental breakdown and she is released to him. She escapes again, finds Buka, and the two decide to flee the country together. Lederer again puts in an appearance and Buka must decide if helping Camden is worth his freedom. This film is much better than I'm making it sound. Buka is best known as the low-life cop killer in 1950's \"Between Midnight and Dawn\". The film was produced by actor Turhan Bey.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Previous commentators have noted the similarity in appearance between this film and The Third Man, director Carol Reed's classic film noir starring Orson Welles and Joseph Cotten. This similarity strikes the viewer almost immediately. It is, indeed, high praise to be compared to Robert Krasker's academy award- winning cinematography in The Third Man.

The plot of Stolen Identity also has been delineated fairly accurately but in rather ordinary terms. I found it highly creative and entertaining. As common as the \"Mistaken - or Stolen - Identity\" device is in both theater and cinema, it is only a device and not to be mistaken for the plot, itself. Consequently, while the viewer may have seen this device \"a thousand\" times, the plot of Stolen Identity is full of surprises and twists based upon this device. It is the unexpected turns that make this film much fresher, more original and engrossing than a plot synopsis might convey. Stolen Identity doesn't rely on the kind of suspense that characterizes most film noire, because there is no real mystery here. Instead, it relies on constant, smaller surprises. In short, the Mistaken Identity device is rather common; but this plot is not.

Finally, although I was not familiar with the cast, I found the acting to be uniformly good, occasionally outstanding. I easily could have imagined other actors turning this film into a melodrama, with bombast, overblown gestures and obvious facial expressions. The acting is always more restrained and subtle. Donald Buka is especially restrained and credible, never \"blowing his cover\" with an obvious facial expression as we see too often in films that depend on the maintenance of subterfuge to sustain dramatic tension.

The only disappointment in this otherwise fine film was the very weak development of the love story sub-plot. As it stands, it seems like an afterthought - a mild surprise, in fact - tacked on to the end. Or perhaps during their shared ordeal, the actors simply couldn't convey a palpable level of chemistry that I could appreciate. This sub-plot should have been made more apparent as the story unfolded. All in all, I thought this film was a fine little gem, and I wondered why I had not seen it before. Try it, you'll like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Its a good film set in Vienna about a cab driver, Toni (Donald Buka), who steals a passenger's identity when the passenger is shot whilst sitting in the back of his cab. This gives him an identity as he is an illegal immigrant, but he needs to play out the role of the victim until he catches a flight to the U.S. with a ticket in the victim's name. Mrs Manelli (Joan Camden) rumbles him but she is accused of having mental problems by her husband, Claude (Francis Lederer), a concert pianist. As a result, Toni is let off the hook. Claude does not want to part from his wife, but she runs away from him. There are several plot twists and eventually both Toni and Mrs Manelli make a run for it together - they are both trying to escape from their lives in Vienna. There is a tense, exciting build-up to the finale. Are they going to get away.....??...

Unfortunately, the picture quality isn't fantastic and there is a line that runs down the middle of the picture for a while. The cast are all very good in their roles, especially Francis Lederer's portrayal of Claude. Also important to the story are Heinth (Manfred Inger) as the cab company owner, Marie (Inge Konradi) as Toni's hometown girlfriend and the inspector (Hermann Erhardt).

Its a good film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An unusual film for an audience outside the USA. Lena Horne looks fabulous and so does Ralph Cooper. There is not added background of tap steps as in other musicals so you do not hear the beat of the taps which is great realism. Music is muted to hear what dancing steps there are. Acting is a little stilted and the casts speak slowly so that you think the movie is older than it is. Costumes are daring for the time in the dance routines at the end. Often feels like you are part of an audience at a stage show. What furniture you see is very modern which adds to the movies feeling of other worldliness. A must for all film buffs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The only reason The Duke Is Tops, one of several \"race movies\" made during the times of segregation, would be worth noting today is because it made the film debut of a 21-year-old singer named Lena Horne. She plays Ethel Andrews, a singer who has to leave her producer mentor Duke Davis (Ralph Cooper) in order to branch into the big time. Davis, however, has to fake having taken the money for her services in front of her so she won't feel sorry for having done so. He then teams up with Doc Dorando (Lawrence Criner) for a series of medicine shows throughout the south. Meanwhile, in New York, her new producers have bombed big time because they made her the whole show instead of simply the specialty act. Davis finds out from the radio and offers his services as producer and band leader to bring his lineup of other specialty acts, many of whom make their one of their few or only film appearances here, for his chance at the big time with Ethel next to him. Guess what happens? While the plot is the kind you've seen in thousands of other movie musicals during this time, the fact this was made for a certain audience makes this one of the more fascinating features I've seen during this Black History Month. Ms. Horne's singing is on good display here and it's interesting seeing her so young before her professionalism takes full hold later in her career. Among other supporting players there's an unconfirmed, according to IMDb, appearance by Lillian Randolph, Annie in my favorite movie It's a Wonderful Life and sister of Amanda Randolph who I just saw in the musical short The Black Network, as the woman with Sciatica who complains of not being cured after taking the Doc's medicine before Duke explains it's for the feet! And as a longtime Louisiana resident, I'd like to take note of two players from here in this movie: Joel Fluellen from Monroe as a tonic customer and Marie Bryant from New Orleans as the sexy dancer who appears near the musical climax. So for just Lena Horne alone, The Duke is Tops is worth seeing at least once.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sam Lion (Jean Paul Belmondo) discovers he needs to take some time off as everybody around him relies to much on him and stages his own death. When he discovers those he loved ans still loves are in need, he gets Albert Duvivier (Richard Anconina) to help them. In search of his own past, of his own desires, this fabulous film by Claude Lelouch is a man's quest for himself at a ripe age.

Built like all Lelouch films, the film's beginning with constant flashbacks may be puzzling, especially scenes where Paul Belmondo (who looks a huge lot like his father) is playing a young Sam Lion while Sam Lion stands in the same room - a flashback sequence which takes a second to grasp.

One of Lelouch's most elaborate works, L'itineraire d'un infant gate is a must-see tale of self fulfilment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surely the best film directed by Claude Lelouch after \"L'aventure c'est l'aventure\". The Jacques Brel's life inspiration is really present. Richard Anconina and Jean-Paul Belmondo played a really amazing duo and are really great in the psychological discovery of the two characters they are playing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Claude Lelouch's movie is a pretty good moment of cinema. One of the most touching films about family and loneliness, and surely the best interpretation of French actor Jean-Paul Belmondo.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is not the best movie you might ever see, but it still is very refreshing. Of course, it has it's flaws, it has it's humbling moments and yet at the same time it's different from all the sh*t you're used to and is funny in a way only the french can give you this. You might recognize a little from the masterpiece Amelie, when you see the opening. I give it 7 out of 10, but still reccomend it to you if you're tired of the usual bore you can rent in the videostore.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was born in Beijing, China and moved to the United States at the age of 9. Been home to Beijing several times since and loved it each time. One of the many things I love about Beijing is the people and the ambiance they bring to the city. \"You hau hao hao shuo\" (which translate more accurately to \"if you have something to say, say it nicely\") delightfully and truthfully captures that feeling of Beijing. I suppose you would have to have lived in and kinda understood Beijing and its people to get the most out of this movie, though you might enjoy it regardless.

> The story is not complicated, intentionally kinda quirky, and captivating. I will leave it to unfold by itself and not tell you too much except some comments. Each detail, from the pictures on the wall, to the decorations, the streets, and restaurants feels like home. (Zhang Yimou most likely shot everything \"on location\") But more importantly, the characters - our \"hero\", the girl, the kind-hearted but unfortunate \"laptop man\", and the night club owner are each native to Beijing and lovable in their distinct ways. Their conversations really capture the essence of each character. The story, mostly driven by situations and conversation (save the brilliant bafoonery near the end) is intriguing and always interesting.

> I am 21 now. My parents and I love this movie. We are always so amazed by Zhang Yimou's ability to transform ordinary people into believable screen characters, and everyday life into extraordinary situations.

\"keep cool\" - different. hilarious. meaningful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I could never imagine I would start loving movies like this. After seeing Yimou Zhang's 'Hero', I decided to check his other movies, perhaps looking for something similar. The second Yimou Zhang's movie I watched was 'No One Less' after which I realized what kind of cinema I'm now in. No wonder why I got 'Keep Cool' immediately. It is a simple, touching and brilliant piece of cinema, I pay my respect to the director.

This movie shows that it's not the amount of money makes film good. It's all about what the director wants to show and how successful he is in doing this. The story is very simple, a typical extract of a typical daily life, moreover shown in a very simple way, the movements of camera also strengthen the impression and the feeling of the movie. I give a top rating to this film and impatiently waiting to see other Yimou Zhang's films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shuai is a burly and uncouth young Beijinger with a punkish haircut, who ekes out a living selling cheap books from a stall in an indoor market. He wouldn't appear to have anything in common with the wiry, middle-aged, would-be intellectual, Zhang - and yet the two of them wind up in a restaurant together discussing the pro's and con's of murder (the Chinese title would perhaps be better translated as 'Talk It Over'). If that makes it sound kind of pedestrian, don't be misled: this film is profusely inventive in its plot, and mostly races along at breakneck speed (although the pace does flag quite badly towards the end).

If you only know Zhang Yimou's worthy historical dramas like Raise The Red Lantern and Shanghai Triad, or his more recent martial arts epics, Hero and House Of Flying Daggers, you'll be amazed; in fact, whichever of his other films you've seen, you'll be surprised, pleasantly surprised - this is far and away his most original, most quirky, most experimental work. It was shot within a couple of weeks on a minimal budget, almost entirely on location in Beijing (and making use of many ordinary Beijingers in the smaller supporting roles - there's even a fleeting cameo by the director himself), and mostly with a hand-held camera, in a jerky, hyper-kinetic style which is a million miles from the elegant formalism of his best-known films.

OK, I live in Beijing, so I find an additional delight in all the bizarre little details of everyday life that I am coming to recognise and relish (even though it was shot in '97, and things are changing so rapidly here), but I really think this film can be appreciated by anyone. I saw it, as I have so many other Chinese 'comedies', at a movie club that screens sub-titled versions of recent Chinese films for an almost exclusively expat audience; and it is the only one I can recall where the audience was laughing out loud. Some non-Chinese audiences might find it a little too strange, a little uncomfortable at times, in that it does include some violence, and, after opening as a breezy, offbeat romantic comedy, mutates into something much darker in its second half. It is, however, very, VERY funny.

It's also superbly acted by the two leads, especially long-time Zhang Yimou collaborator Jiang Wen, who is probably mainland China's foremost film star, and has a brooding screen presence reminiscent of a young Depardieu or De Niro.

Watch this film - for proof that the Chinese have a sense of humour that CAN translate to other cultures, for proof that Zhang Yimou is far, far more than a one-trick pony...... and for a thoroughly good time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a fan of Zhang Yimou and finally found this DVD title from the shelves of a Shenzhen bookstore after a long search at many places.

This is a huge departure from previous Zhang Yimou work, esp in terms of style and locale. The director himself has said that this is the first and only time he'll ever attempt to make a black comedy set in contemporary China. You may even say this work is experimental in nature, compared to his other well known big budget and formal pieces.

Filmed with a hand-held camera and wide angle lens throughout the duration of the whole film, the quick pace editing and high energy performance & naturalistic tone never let you go once it grips you from the start. It presents a very realistic account of modern Chinese urban sensibilities, which in this case is set in Beijing. If you appreciate and love this kind of black humor, you will love this film totally. Also look out for hilarious cameos by Zhao Benshan (Happy Times)and the director Zhang Yimou himself.

A last point of note: I find the characters in this film, as in all other Zhang Yimou films, exhibiting similar personality traits - stubbornness, always trying to beat the odds & up the ante. Do let me know your thoughts on this.

David Lee","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shazam was okay, but Hero High was my favorite when I was a kid, I mean before there was Sky High(2005) and Zoom(2006), there was Hero High, a school for super hero's in training, Teenagers with super powers would help police capture bad guys, and other times they would get in embarrassing situations like The Greatest American Hero(1981). It was a fun cartoon to watch, what was also fun, was the live action stage show called The Kid Superpower Hour with Shazam. The actors who voiced the characters, also dressed has there characters in the show. Rex Ruthless(John Berwick), Misty Magic(Jere Fields), WeatherMan(Jim Greenleaf), Captain California(Chris Hensel, who also sang the theme song), Dirty Trixie(Maylo Mccaslin), Glorious Gal(Becky Perle, who looks like the love child of Superman and Wonder Woman), and Punk Rock(Johnny Venocour). The whole cast just went with anything, when it came to the jokes. The cartoon was a fun superhero comedy, I shore up it will come back in live action like Fat Albert(2004)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Kid Power Hour featured two segments: Hero High and Shazam. let's start with Hero High.

Hero High was intended to be a new Archies cartoon, featuring their superhero identities: Pureheart the Powerful (Archie), Captain Hero (Jughead), Superteen (Betty), and Evilheart (Reggie). However, Filmation couldn't get the rights to do it so they tweaked it a bit and came up with this. Here's the breakdown of characters: Captain California (Archie), Glorious Gal (Betty), Weatherman (Jughead), Dirty Trixie (Veronica), Rex Ruthless (Reggie), Principal Samson (Mr weatherbee) and Miss Grimm (Miss Grundy). The show featured live action sketches, as well as cartoon adventures. The humor was the typical lame Filmation jokes, but at least it had a sense of fun about it. It was entertaining enough for kids, though not quite up to previous standards.

The other segment was Shazam!, which was very faithful to the comics, unlike the previous live action show. All of the major villains made appearances, as well as the entire Marvel Family (including Freckles Marvel, in at least one episode). Uncle Dudley had the correct WC Fields voice and shady character, as well as his perpetually acting up \"Shazambago\". Burr Middleton, a veteran of 70's TV shows, like Fish, voiced the Big Red Cheese, while Alan Oppenheimer (Rudy Wells in the early 6 Million Dollar Man episodes and voice of Skeletor in He-Man) handled Dr. Sivana.

The Marvels had always had a sense of whimsy to them, so little alteration was required for their adventures, to meet the Broadcast Standards and Practices requirements (the censors). As such, the stories were very imaginative and inventive. Amongst the villains who appeared were: Dr. Sivana, Black Adam, Mr. Atom, Mr. Mind, Aunt Minerva, Ibac, and the crocodile creatures. Mr. Tawky Tawny also made his on screen debut.

Hero High is due to be released from BCI, but Shazam! is still in limbo, as well as the live-action show. Hopefully, the proposed movie will help shake them loose on DVD. It is well worth watching and deserving of DVD treatment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Time travel into the past is tenuous at best as a topic. In this episode a man who has been thinking about the possibility, finds himself at the date and location of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. He tries everything he can think of in the short time available to him with predictable results. Of course, he is thought to be quite mad. He is arrested and eventually remanded to the very man he is attempting to stop. Serling was bright enough to let him return to the present, but is the present the same? This is kind of a precursor to \"The Time Tunnel\" where time travelers on a weekly basis were given the same task, overcoming what had already happened. Unfortunately, the implications of the distortion of time and the future always negate the result. Unless you have something like Ray Bradbury's \"The Sound of Thunder.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like a great many twilight zone episodes, one of my favorite parts of this one was the overt social commentary that Serling is making with the story. As was the case with a recent episode \"The Howling Man,\" I was reminded of my long standing suspicion that, for example, if Jesus were to come to earth to bring his followers to Heaven, he would be immediately judged insane and probably thrown into an asylum. Our main character in this episode meets a similar problem when trying to convince the 1860s Americans that he is from the future and the President Lincoln is about to be assassinated. The episode wrongly asserts that this means that some parts of the past can be changed while others can't, but it's a fun time travelling romp nonetheless.

Granted, we don't know for a fact whether history could be changed by time travel, because time travel has never been accomplished and, sadly, never will be. But it seems logical to me that, if you could physically place yourself in a time of the past, you could physically prevent something from happening, as long as you didn't flail around like a lunatic yelling about assassinations.

One of the consistently interesting things about time travel films and TV shows, in my opinion, is the method by which the time travel takes place. There is really no method at all here, our main character is having a conversation about time travel at a posh gentlemen's club and then walks outside and into a dissolve from the early 1960s to the mid 1860s, but no matter. The twilight zone has thus far not struck me for its complex sets or high production values.

Russell Johnson plays the part of Peter Corrigan, the time traveller, and upon discovering that he has been somehow transported back to the exact day of Lincoln's assassination, he manages to get himself thrown in prison, but luckily for him John Wilkes Booth, for some reason, just happened to be hanging out at the police station and overheard the frantic Corrigan desperately trying to describe the very assassination that Booth was planning for that night.

Booth requests custody of Corrigan for some psychiatric experimentation, and the police officer sees nothing wrong with relinquishing custody to this guy. He had a business card, after all, how bad could he be?

The show seems to suggest that you can change people's lives by slightly altering events in the past through time travel, and while I'm not willing to accept that time travel would include such limitations, it's still a fun episode that really makes you think, which is one of my favorite qualities of the good twilight zone shows...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a fan of time travel stories I was surprised that there was no 'device' that sent Russell Johnson's character through time. He just appeared in 1865. It was a disappointing part of the episode. I enjoyed the premise of the dangers of 'altering' the future by changing the past. Other Twilight Zone episodes about time travel such as \"No Time Like The Past\", \"Once Upon A Time\", etc. were more to my liking because of the uses of time travel 'devices'. Perhaps if Russell Johnson's character had been the same character he played in \"Execution\" it would have been more acceptable to fans like myself. As sci-fi fans know, no characters really ever have to 'die' in time travel episodes. All sorts of plot 'twists' can be applied in these types of stories. That was the only flaw I could comment on for this episode.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When the episode was made and aired Eisenhower was President. Kennedy was President-Elect.

As for the episode, it was a passable episode, if not a bit earnest. \"The Professor\" shows not much range here, and the whole thing seems a little rushed (a lot of episodes of the TZ seem to not fit the time slot, some seeming like they're crammed in and rushed, some with little or nothing to it spread out over the half hour, and some, of course fit). I guess you just expect a little more tension than to be taken back to some rooms and drugged. But overall a decent episode. Indeed the \"what if\" motif of time travel is a nugget in itself and sets the table of with basic interest.

7 out of 10, considering there were a lot of TZ episodes not quite as good, and some a great deal better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Aslan Adam, or Lionman as it's more commonly known amongst English speaking audiences, starts with an epic battle as King Solomon & his army defeats a load of guys although I'm not sure who they were & the film itself isn't too helpful in establishing the fact. Anyway, after King Solomon has slaughtered all these guys Princess Maria, Bishop Osorio & Commander Antoine are forced to sign a treaty which lets King Solomon rule just about everything in sight. Soon after Princess Maria seduces Solomon & they have sex, meanwhile in the shortest wedding ceremony ever (just two sentences long) Antoine weds Princess Maria & is planning to rebel against Solomon & gain some sweet revenge in the process. Antoine & his guards attack & kill Solomon even though his pregnant wife Princess Almunia escapes with her protector Rostin with Antoine's guards in hot pursuit, after the shortest labour ever (less than 5 minutes or the time it takes to run around a bush) Princess Almunia gives birth to a young baby boy who is hidden in some bushes away from Antoine's guards. Unfortunately when Rostin tries to retrieve the little fella he finds that the baby has been adopted by a pride of Lion's as one of their own! Year's later & the evil Antoine now rules treating his subjects with no mercy, Princess Maria has given birth & he has a son but Rostin is also still kicking around trying to put together a gang of rebels to overthrow Antoine, the task seems hopeless unless they can enlist the help of the legendary Lionman who is more beast than man...

This Turkish Greek co-production was directed by Natuk Baytan as Natuch Baitan & is a one of a kind type of film, I found it hilariously bad but at the same time immensely entertaining. The script never seems to take itself seriously, it is a pretty funny film at times, it moves along like a rocket & is never dull or boring & some of the English dubbed dialogue is just hilarious in context with what's happening on screen. None of it makes any sense, we get a boy raised by Lion's, an evil king, betrayal, dark family secrets, birthmarks that form the shape of Lion's in an element of the story that was present before the kid was raised by Lion's, crazy fight scenes, torture scenes where the posts people are supposed to be tied to wobble, ancient castle interiors that randomly contain zip wires & gymnastic rings, idiotic bad guys who all seem to have extensive facial hair & a central character who has a jaw line resembling a house-brick, can be stabbed twice, have his hands covered in acid (this acid can eat it's way through steel trapdoors but is kept in a ceramic jug!) & fall over 20 feet onto a concrete floor & yet maintain no serious injury! Aslan Adam is a terrifically entertaining film, I don't think I've seen another film quite like it that I can compare it too, if your looking for something serious then forget this but if you like 'so-bad-they're-good' type films & want to have fun, laugh & be entertained then Aslan Adam should be at the VERY top of your list. Total 100% gold for bad film fans & those with a taste for the different & bizarre. On the disappointing side Lionman only gets his steel claws 10 minutes before the end which is a shame.

Director Bayten certainly keeps things moving along at a brisk pace although it's far from well made, during the opening battle one moment guys are fighting on a sand dune the next their on a grassy hill with trees in the background! There is one point where Lionman uses a 'branch' to pole vault but it's obviously just a long tube with a vine wrapped around it! Then there's the scene when a bloodthirsty pack of bloodhounds are supposed the chasing Lionman down but the dogs used are obviously different breeds including some of the most harmless looking dogs ever! There are just so many individual scenes in Aslan Adam that are just hilarious, stupid, bizarre or all three that I could go on forever. Just check the ending out when Lionman is jumping & flying about everywhere like he can fly. There's lots of blood in Aslan Adam although not much actual graphic gore or violence, a few stabbings & someone has their hands cut off is as graphic as it gets.

Technically Aslan Adam is pretty ropey, the period costumes are bright & garish featuring purples, yellows, reds & various other bright colours. The fight scenes are cheap but at least the filmmakers tried to put as much action in as they could. The music seemed like it was more suited to a classical ballet rather than an action film & is yet another bizarre aspect to Aslan Adam. The acting was bad, even dubbed you could tell the acting was bad.

Aslan Adam is pure gold from start to finish, there are so many things to like, laugh at & enjoy in this film that I just ended up really liking it. In no way whatsoever can Aslan Adam be considered a good film in any sense of the word but it's one hell of an entertaining one. I may have have to watch this one again sometime soon just to prove to myself that I didn't dream it all! The best Turkish action film about a man raised by Lion's you will ever see, period. Proved popular enough to spawn a sequel, Lionman II: The Witchqueen (1979).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hilarious film, I had a great time watching it. The star (Cuneyt Arkin, sometimes credited as Steve Arkin) is a popular actor from Turkey. He has played in lots of tough-guy roles, epic-sword films, and romances. It was fun to see him with an international cast and some real lousy looking pair of gloves. If I remember it was also dubbed in English which made things even more funnier. (kinda like seeing John Wayne speak Turkish).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Where do I begin? Walt Disney's happiest motion picture \"Lady and the Tramp\" is one of, if not possibly, my favourite in the theatrical canon of Disney animation. The sequel, however, is... to say the very least, enjoyable. I enjoyed myself throughout the whole movie. It was, (flame-shield up!) adorable! The Broadway style of the songs and the movie kind of worked, and I was humming the songs for the rest of the night. I can, if you asked me to, still sing all of the songs.

But where the movie was (really) good for me, it was bad in a lot of other places. The animation was kind of scary at times. Every time there was a close up shot of someones face, I don't know... it just seemed scary to me. Also, where the hell was Lady? She gets like two lines of dialogue and only doggy hugs Scamp at the end. She gets 0% interaction with the plot and her only son!

But all in all, I liked it. Compared to the original does it hold up? No. The songs aren't as good (still kind of catchy though), the plot was a lot less involved, Lady had almost nothing to do with it, and it's not as cute as the first one. But, if you go in with an open mind, you'll have fun, and maybe 'gasp!' Like it?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, first of all, it's not a bad movie. It is good, and I like the characters introduced. I also like Lady and Tramp's voices more in this.

However, I would like to see Lady And Tramp more. I know it says 'Scamp's Adventure', and I love Scamp And Angel to bits, but it's a sequel to the original, where in my opinion, they should of just released it as 'Scamp's Adventure', not 'Lady And The Tramp II:Scamp's Adventure'.

Tramp did have quite a role, but he didn't have much time with Lady.

But anyway, the songs are quite good, and Scamp and Angel are sweet. I've seen better sequels, but hey, it's not a failure.

I give it 7\/10. Very good, but still had flaws.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another good animation from Disney. Sequels are not always that great and tend to follow the same plot as the original. However, the son of Tramp tries to savor the world out side the home and family he knows and learns where he actually belongs. Being a junkyard dog is not for everyone, er dog that is, but Scamp overcomes adversity. The voices of the various characters were superb and provided by several well know actors such as Scott Wolf, Alyssa Milano and Mickey Rooney. Entertaining and a well made family movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought that this is a wonderfully written movie. I love little Scamp, and the street-wise Angel. This movie is very easy for little kids to understand, but a good movie for adults as well. I liked this movie because it continues the original Lady and the Tramp, and that movie is a classic. Lady and the Tramp 2 Scamp's Adventure was filled with new characters, catchy songs, brilliant animation, and unforgettable classic characters. I have loved the movie ever since I saw it for the first time. I also loved how they showed the different personalities of each character. It also shows the downfalls and good things of making new friends that you can hang out with. My favorite song in the movie was Always there because it showed the different characters sharing their views on how they feel. I definitely recommend this movie for everyone that was a fan of the original Lady and the Tramp.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is excellent!Angel is beautiful and Scamp is adorable!His little yelps when hes scared,and the funniest parts are when:Scamp is caught under the curtain and when Angel and Scamp are singing 'Ive Never Had This Feeling Before'.I totally recommend this movie,its coming out on special edition on June 20.The cover has scamp on a garbage can and Angel underneath the lid.

I just cant explain this movie more than romantic,charming,hilarious,and adorable.The junkyard scenes are funny,all the junkyard dogs have something special.Too funny i laughed,kids will LOVE it.Buy it when it comes out,it has new features!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*minor spoilers*

You know, it's getting to the point where Walt Disney Television Animation might just as well be called Walt Disney Sequel Animation. These sequels range from excellent (\"Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas\" and the fantastic \"Lion King II: Simba's Pride\") to horrible (\"The Return of Jafar\"). (This is, of course, my personal opinion.) Now Disney brings us their latest sequel. \"Scamp's adventure,\" and while it is flawed, it is still entertaining.

The quality of animation is not up to par with Disney Feature Animation; still, the animators do a good job of bringing the characters to life. Lady and Tramp have not aged a day since 1955. Trusty still talks about his sense of smell and \"Ol' Reliable,\" and Jock still gives him grief about it. There's a nice fight between Tramp and a huge dog in the dog pound, and once again we are treated to a spaghetti dinner with the two romantic leads (though it is highly doubtful that this will become a classic scene like its predecessor.)

I really don't care for most of the songs (though Roger Bart and Susan Egan--the singing voices of Scamp and Angel--sing their parts very nicely). Both Melissa Manchester and Norman Gimbel have done much better work in the past. Danny Troob's score is okay, but nothing memorable. And some of the junkyard gang seem like excess baggage; that is, they really don't do much.

The voice work, on the other hand, is quite good. While I don't like Jeff Bennett as the dogcatcher, he is very good as Tramp. Chazz Palminteri does a nice job as Buster, leader of the junkyard gang, and Alyssa Milano gives what may be her best performance as Angel. Then there is Scamp (who is the spitting image of his dad). He is voiced to PERFECTION by Scott Wolf. Wolf does a superb job of showing Scamp's wild streak and his soft side.

All in all, while \"Scamp's Adventure\" is flawed, it still makes for rather entertaining viewing. It is my hope, however, that Walt Disney Television Animation will turn their attention to more original material for their future releases.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lady and the tramp ii: scamp's adventure i think is a good movie but i think the first lady and the tramp movie is better because it is the original and i would think that the original movies compared to the sequeals is better. Lady and the tramp ii takes off after the original, but this time it's junior's turn, Lady and Tramp's youngster (scamp) always hates been treated with the things that has to be done with him, following the rules in the house, taking baths all the time and taking things nice and easy, scamp gets angry and runs away with a pack of dogs that are left off the loose. Scamp meets another dog called Angel, they both get along fine and do the things scamp's mother and father did, having an italian meal (Spagetthi and Meatballs etc:)Afterwards, Scamp realises that he is loved by his family especial his pal, which is the baby, scamp comes back and Angel is joined in the family. I give this movie 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Since watching the trailer in \"The Little Mermaid II: Return To The Sea\" DVD, I had a feeling that this movie is gonna be great 'cause I am a huge Disney fan. And guess what? I'm right! This movie is a very worthy successor to the original classic \"Lady and the Tramp\".

It tells the story of Scamp, Lady and Tramp's mischievious son Scamp, who wants to be wild and free instead of living a housedog life. Though the movie might not be as good as the first one, it has a great moral that you couldn't find anywhere else until you watch it.

I admit that the movie isn't for everyone, but those of you who hate it, all I can say is that you don't have a spirit for this and I suggest that you shouldn't go see it again. But hey! It's really an awesome story, packed with brilliant animation, music, and star-studded voice talents featuring Scott Wolf(Party of Five) and Alyssa Milano(Charmed). So if you haven't seen the movie, why standing there? Go and grab the copy!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this film almost as much as the origional version!What teenager DOESN'T go through what Scamp's going through;wanting to find independence by getting more and more distant from your family?The songs were nice to,and the character designs were great.Lady and Tramp look almost exactly like they did in the origional feature.They did a good job on the voices of those two,too considering the fact that the origional voice actors are probably dead.However,I do think they should've given more lines to Lady,Annette,Colette,and Daniel.Oh well;at least they had the common sense to keep the same scenery from the original film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure is a cool movie that many kids today can really relate to. It's a well-presented story about a kid who longs for the freedom to do things his way, and how he goes about getting this freedom is only a part of what makes this film interesting. Just forget the itty-bitty disappointments, like the fact that there were only adults in this movie based on a pup's point of view, because that's just 0.5% or less of the movie's wonderful effect on the viewer. Great music, lively acting, talented animation and directing, and a powerful storyline tell a tale of the difference between freedom on the streets of New England and a cozy home with your family. And that no matter how bad things seem, your family and friends are \"always there\" to help you though any tight spot.

I can't wait to get the soundtrack!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lady and the Tramp II is very colourfully animated, and the songs, especially that of the Junkyard Dogs, are quite good. However, the family seems even too idyllic, and I can't help understanding that Scamp is discontented when everything is forbidden. However, I also pity Angel who never has had a loving family until she meets Jim dear and Darling.

In any case, it's clear that the original Lady and the Tramp is better than this sequel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a college student and I bought this movie at a used book store because it sounded really funny from the back description. Nothing would prepare me for what would be the FUNNIEST MOVIE EVER MADE!

It is especially good to watch if you are an Atheist, like me. Because then you can see how silly these Christian people are. They seem to think non-believers like to live in really disgusting, messy houses and do nothing but drink beer and be mean to the neighbors. It's a LAUGH RIOT!

My buddies and I watch it every couple of weeks so that we may be entertained beyond our wildest imaginations! See this movie NOW!

Let's hope Rich Christiano makes some more of these movies to entertain us heathens!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is apparently intended for a young, evangelical Christian audience as a teaching tool. For that I give it a 7 out of 10 point vote. It's a decent movie to show a youth group, but I don't think it will be very well received beyond that. For any other audience, I'd rate it lots lower.

The reviewers that saw \"It's a Wonderful Life\" in this were right on, though I didn't think of that until they mentioned it. I was more reminded of a \"Chick Tract\", those little 3\" by 5\" gospel comic books. If Jack Chick ever made a movie out of one of his tracts, it would probably look a lot like \"Second Glance.\" It has a strong Christian message about the power of prayer and the influence each of us has on earth, but it is somewhat hampered by Christian stereotypes. The Christians are all very nice, somewhat passive, and squeaky clean, while all of the non-Christians seem to be bad people.

Muriel the angel plays a major part, and he is the corniest, cheesiest character in the film. He is the most unlikeable angel I have ever seen in any movie, and the biggest negative. I don't know if the directors intended for his personality to come off so badly, or if he just struck me that way. (I admit that he reminded me of someone I know.) Dan's love for a very worldly girl who is not at all his type drives the plot in this movie. Why he ever fell for her in the first place is the one question that I wish had been answered.

But the movie does display positive Christian values, and your youth group will be entertained as they view something wholesome with a good lesson.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is about a teen who is struggling with his social status in school. He is a \"Good Christian\" and feels that he is missing out on all the fun in high school. So he wishes he had never become one. After getting his wish and trying a worldly lifestyle he realizes that his quality of life has been dramatically diminished and wants to go back to being the person that he was. Good family-oriented film with a positive message of being proud of who you are even if you're not the most popular.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dan Burgess is a nice guy. He happens to be a Christian. Dan can't get a date with a girl and thinks that all of his friends are having all of the fun. He is constantly being bothered by non-believers and being made fun of.

Dan prays one night, and wishes he was never a believer in Jesus.

His prayer is answered for one day. Things get hairy from there. An angel appears to Dan and explains his prayer is granted.

So, all of the impact that Dan has had on starting a Christian club.

He be-friends Scot Parks and making a difference, is erased for one day.

Dan's eyes are opened. His life really did make a difference.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Way too many Christian films become centered around the fear of the Judgment, and as a result come across as condescending and indeliberately cheesy. \"Second Glance\" gets it right. This is a near perfect evangelical tool; it deals with the real reason why so many young people want nothing to do with Christianity. It assures viewers that one must give up their sin--not their fun--to succeed in the Christian lifestyle. \"Second Glance\" even works as a piece of film-making. The filmmakers obviously were working on a very low budget, but they managed to write a script dynamic enough to divert viewers' attention from this obvious fact. This film brought me to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and thanks to Christian stations everywhere which show it, it surely has impacted more people than just me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those films that looks so \"dated\" that being that way is part of the fun. You see and hear things you would NEVER see or hear on the silver screen today. Some of that is good; some it too corny for words, some of it bad (depending on your viewpoints on certain cultural issues.)

For instance, in this short (68 minutes) 1931 film you have:

The grandpa of the family that is featured in this story extolling the value of patriotism and why one should speak up against criminals for the good of the United States (picture that in today's films!)

A district attorney (Walter Huston) almost begging for death penalty sentences and the populace shown as supporting it 100 percent (once again, picture that in modern-day movies.)

Along the way you have some shocking violence, such as a young boy being picked up a few times and literally thrown head first into a closet, and his father being picked up and swung repeatedly head-first into a wall. This is a tough stuff, to say the least.

Yet the film is dotted with comedy, mostly by the patriotic grandpa, memorably played by Charles \"Chic\" Sales. There are a bunch of laughs for all those who view this unique crime film. And, for soft touches, there are the two young boys, one of whom - Dickie Moore - went on to become a pretty famous child actor in his day. Here, he is just a little tyke of about 5 years of age who, understandably, is far from being a polished actor, but you can see stardom for him on the horizon. In fact, he did just that the following year with a solid performance in \"Blonde Venus,\" starring Marlene Dietrich.

Anyway, this is an entertaining film because of an effective mixture of violence, comedy and sentimentality....and it has a nice feel-good ending and a thought-provoking message. It was up for an Academy Award, too, for \"Best Writing, Original Story.\" I am sorry to say it is only available for viewing on cable TV as it has never been put out on VHS or DVD.....and that's a shame.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film, an early William Wellman, has an important message, particularly today. It posits the notion that sometimes there are things more important than your own personal safty or well-being. The film, which has Walter Huston as the lead, is stolen by the performance of \"Chic\" Sales as Grampa. He's the most completely drawn character in the film and a joy to watch. You'll recognize some familiar faces if you watch many movies from the '20's and '30's. Wel worh your time to watch if you get the opportunity. Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Charles \"Chic\" Sales is absolutely terrific as the sole member of the Leeds family willing to testify against a gangster they saw murder a policeman and an informant. He fought at Bull Run in the Civil War and his patriotism runs high, even after his son-in-law is beaten and one of his grandson's is kidnapped by the gang, intimidating all the other members. Fear of his grandson's death is no excuse, he says. He wouldn't want his grandson living in a country run by gangsters anyway. The conflict between civic duty and personal safety is driven home sharply in this Oscar-nominated story. Walter Huston is also a standout as the hard driving district attorney threatening the family with perjury if they don't back up their identification of the killer in court. The rest of the cast, including the sleazy killer, Ralph Ince, are all excellent, and the film is snappily directed by William A. Wellman. There's also good suspense, as Sales disappears just as the trial is about to begin.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...Our the grandpa's hour.

More than the gangsters ,it's a detailed depiction of an American family circa 1930:the father,proud of his job who worries about his son who's given up high school,the mum everyone would like to have ,the daughter who forgets dinner time in his squeeze's arms,and the twins who are absolutely lovable (\"Don't go to sleep first ,please!\").

And there's the grandfather ,playing the Yankee doodle on his flute .Have you noticed that this tune plays the same role as Doris Day's \"Que Sera Sera\" in Hitchcock's \"The man who knew too much\" (1956)?And there's this grandpa who is finally the most courageous person of the family .So old he does not even tell you his age ,but proud of his country and resisting to the gangster's hateful blackmail.

A good film by Wellman.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILERS AHEAD\u0097 For the first ten minutes or so of Star Witness we're introduced to a quote typical urban American family unquote in a nameless city, which is another way of saying Warner Brothers' version of NYC. Except for the young children, including the charming Dickie Moore, and sprightly Sally Blane, they're a pretty dreary lot, and their dinner table conversation is tedious and we wish the story would move along and bring in the star, Walter Huston. But wait, folks, wait. All of a sudden serious gangster movie action breaks out, drawing the family in against their will, and after that this baby never lets up. There's suspense, an Oscar-nominated script, good acting; everything you want old movies to be\u0097it is here. I do question Chic Sales performance; he must be an acquired taste, but his presence turns out to be crucial to the plot. He's treated to special status in the credits, so Warner Bros. must have really been high on Sale, but how his corny old man routine fit in with the public then is something lost to me. Perhaps it is lost to time period, an unknowable factor you had to be a 1931 moviegoer to understand. Also, the climax is typically melodramatic. Nevertheless, this right now is the best release of the studio that year I have seen so far (however, I've only seen eight, so perhaps that's an inconclusive view). Do not miss this when TCM shows it. 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"FOLLOWING the business coup of the year of 1941, Max and Dave, the Brothers Fleischer were removed from their own Studio by Paramount Pictures Corporation. Former employees such as Seymour Kneitel and Izzy Sparber were put in charge of the new operation, now renamed Famous Studios by Paramount. Early on, the finished product of Famous was indiscernible from that of the recent output by Fleischer. The existing series (Popeye, Superman) continued as if nothing at all had transpired.

TODAY'S subject, JAPOTEURS is one of the earlier Famous Studio's SUPERMAN Shorts.

AS had been the custom, the SUPERMAN Cartoons were a great combination of fine, fittingly fashioned music in the score. That goes for the theme (overture) as well as all the multi-mood background (incidental) music. It was if each cartoon short had its own background music, as all was kept fresh by apparently recording it anew with each picture.

WITH regards to JAPOTEURS, we must remember that this was filmed during the first year of the United States' involvement and the characterization of the enemy was very stereotypical, short-handed and outright evil. The dialogue and personality of the villainous Japanese saboteurs was strictly from the stock characters of the old pulp magazine stories, with their every word being said in a sarcastic, totally insincere politeness as the characters would flaunt their cold bloodedness as they made the most demonic of threats and outrageous acts toward the occidental world.

JAPOTEURS is visually bright and uplifting, stunningly laid out and makes use of some multi plane or table top animation in order to give its flying sequences a real depth.

MAKING good use of the tie-ins between the animated cartoons, the SUPERMAN Radio Show then heard over the Mutual Broadcasting Network; the cartoon bears a close resemblance to the Comics Page and uses the very same talents of voice actors Bud Collyer and Joan Alexander from the Radio Show.

WE rate it with a *** \u00bd stars.

POODLE SCHNITZ!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A SUPERMAN Cartoon.

When America unveils its colossal new bomber, the JAPOTEURS, an elite force of Japanese spies & saboteurs, strikes. Stealing the behemoth, with intrepid girl reporter Lois Lane aboard, and the destination either Tokyo or destruction, it's time for Superman to get involved...

This was another in the series of excellent cartoons initially created by Max Fleischer for Paramount Studio. They feature great animation and taut, fast-moving plots. Meant to be shown in movie theaters, they are miles ahead of their Saturday Morning counterparts. Bud Collyer is the voice of Superman; Joan Alexander does the honors for Lois Lane.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In WWII, America has developed a brand-new HUGE bomber plane. Lois Lane and Clark Kent go to cover the story when the plane is going on its first mission. Lois stows away on the plane before it takes off. There are also some Japanese saboteurs on board who have every intention of flying the bomber to Tokyo. Will Lois be able to warn Superman? What do you think?

Fast-moving, colorful cartoon. The animation is a little jerky but much better than anything we see today. The color and sound have been beautifully restored. Just two problems--the lousy music score and the racism (especially in the title). That aside this is pretty good. An 8.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This documentary is absolutely fantastic. I was really astonished that you can make with so less money such amazing fx. Especially the scenes of the birth of the Diplodocus babies or the sad story of the big flying dinosaur were wonderful and breathtaking. Well the only flaw was: It was to short!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great \"documentary\" of how scientist's believed dinosaurs behaved, captured with some of the most spectacular CGI since \"Jurassic Park\". Done completely seriously, like a prehistoric episode of \"Nation Geographic\". Grabs your attention from the first frame and never lets go. My favorite part was when the Diplodocus fights off the Allosauros.

10 stars. This is what science is all about.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We bought the DVD of \"Walking with Dinosaurs\" and have been nearly ecstatic over the things that are done so very well on it.

Many DVDs today offer the bare minimum ... the feature itself, and maybe one other language (which doesn't help the viewer at all, but makes it easier for the company to see the DVD in multiple markets).

Not so in the case of WWD. There are so many wonderful extras and well-thought-out vignettes that watching even the *navigation menu* is interesting. The intros to each chapter in \"The Making Of\" DVD are laugh-out-loud funny. The quality of the sound and video is terrific. And of course the story and content ... what more could a dinosaur lover ask for?

I did watch most of the version broadcast on TDC (narrated by Avery Brooks) then watched about half of the DVD (narrated by Kenneth Branaugh). As near as I can tell, the broadcast version slipped in a number of mostly American slang terms in the narration (i.e. in a section about T. Rex mating, Branugh says \"the female is tiring of the male's attention\" and Brooks says, \"The honeymoon is over\")and cut out some of the closer-in puppet work. I prefer the Branugh version simply because it is more complete.

Overall, a great value and wonderful production. many kudos to the BBC and the crew that made this gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Walking With Dinoasaurs is a new and exciting programme that uses amazing visual graphics to display the living dinosaurs. The information presented here is stunning. The moods in the series alter to get your attention, things such as dramatic music when fights break out. There is clear evidence here for one cracking documentary! My greatest thanx to the writers, directors and producers, and not forgetting the other people involved. If you stumble accross this video in shops I suggest you buy it not just for the graphics, but for the extreme efforts and productive work the series has to offer. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is as good as it gets.

This is six episodes tracing (briefly) what life may have been like when dinosaurs ruled the earth. Done in the style of a nature documentary this show does away with talking heads instead just gives us the good stuff with the dinosaurs attempting to survive.

Certainly this isn't a true documentary since none of what we see on screen can be attested to with any certainty, but its a best guess, and an entertaining one at that. Here is a show that brings dinosaurs to life in a realistic way that doesn't involve them eating people. This is a show that should be shown to any kid who loves dinosaurs since it will instill them with the OH WOW factor to go out and find out more. It will also entertain the hell out of them, and you.

See this. If you love animal shows or nature or science or Disney True Life Adventures (except no one really gets killed) or just a really good trip to somewhere else run out and get yourself a copy. Your brain will thank you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you haven't seen this yet, you really should, on DVD. I can't believe how much I enjoyed it! It is amazingly realistic and believable. True, much of it is speculated, and I would have liked to have known more about what was speculative and what were proven facts (there aren't many of them), but it handles everything quite well with a \"Cruel Mother Nature\" theme. It will remind you of the nature programs that you've seen on Animal Planet and the Discovery Channel, only the animals here are Dinosaurs. They act natural; they eat, kill, mate, play, and fight for survival. You will actually find yourself rooting for some of them and against others.

For the most part, the effects are excellent. At times they will look a little too much like CGI's, but then you will see them in a different angle that makes them look more realistic. In some cases, you will actually be convinced that you've seen a dinosaur. My favorites were the Coelophysis, the raptors, the diplodocus, the iguanadons, the allosaurus and the arctic bipeds. I was most disappointed with the T-Rex, however, which looked a little too computer generated at times.

In any case, you should definitely see this production. It is educational, well made, and very entertaining. For what it is, its an A!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When Jurassic Park first came out, it was revolutionary in filmaking and special effects.For the first ever time people cold go to a dinosaur movie and be convinced they were looking at real dinosaurs brought to life.However whilst some dinosaurs were almost perfect examples of what the real creatures could have been like (T.Rex,Brachiosaurus,Triceratops etc)some were altered to fit the movie(Velociraptor,Dilophosaurus)and the film took place n the present on a tropical island where they were not in their natural habitat. Walking With Dinosaurs shows us the real animals in their real habitats all those millions of years ago. The amount of detail and scientific information used in this is great. Now we can view sights such as a grim Triassic desert,a whole herd of Diplodocus, an Icthyosaur give birth, a MASSIVE sea monster, a pterosaurs eye-view,dinosaurs thriving in the South Pole, two Torosaurus lock horns,T.Rex roaring at the camera and the impact of the comet that spelled their doom. These dinosaurs walk,run,feed,fight,breed,hunt and swim. But the series also reveals the other creatures that they shared the world with,two episodes are mainly focused on two different kinds of animals, the flying Pterosaurs and the marine reptiles that lived beneath the waves. The locations and scenery are spectacular and look all the more unique when a CG Dino walks onto screen. And as for the CGI and animatronics, the movements of the CGI dinosaurs look totally and completely natural,the colouring is bright and vivid and the crewmen have taken careful steps to ensure that the CG animals interact with their environments in any way an actual creature would by making splashes in the water,brushing by bushes, kicking up dust and casting shadows on the ground. Admittedly the CG isn't perfect with a few brief instances where the animals look too computery but the rest of the time it looks breathtaking. The puppetry is poor in some cases but it has its moments particularly the scene with the Cynodonts in the first episode. The narration by Kenneth Branagh is pretty good as well giving us vital bits of information and drama at the same time. But of course the true pleasure is seeing a living dinosaur doing what they did all those years ago and also seeing some truly cute moments with Cynodont(mammal\/reptile hybrid)pups,Sauropodlets(baby Diplodocus)and T.Rex chicks(Yes even T.Rex can be cute)and then reminds us that nature can be brutal and was even more so back then. All this adds up to a prehistoric nature masterpiece that lets you see a real dinosaur and take your breath away, all from the safety of your living room. If you like nature, Dinosaurs, informative learning, amazing visuals or just to have a truly good viewing and be entertained then Walking With Dinosaurs is definitely for you. Easily recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This BBC series is excellent. I am no Paleontologist, but this series gives the best historical representation of dinosaurs I have ever seen. The 3D animation and animatronics are very good and make you believe you have travelled back in time. The BBC deserves a pat on the back for such a fine series as well as Tim Haines who must have spent a great deal of time getting this series to air.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those that are great fans and collectors of dinosaurs like I am, it is not only a very informative series but also puts our imagination to fly. Colors, composition, great models and camera angles. Fantastic photography and filming presentation. Superb. Thanks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this series in 1999 in London TV and was blown away. Like another user commented - This is what i would have liked to see when i first watched \"Jurassic Park\" - Life and death of Dinosaurs in their natural habitat as a documentary. The CG are very lifelike, and the diversity of dinosaurs and habitats shown makes it also very educational.

The series takes everything factually known about dinosaurs, adds a lot of good ideas on \"what it could have been\" to make up what then looks like a documentary series. What i missed was some small bar-graph constantly in one corner of the screen, moving between \"fiction\" and \"fact\" along with the narration and the pictures, because you often wonder how much is educated guessing, and how much is pure fantasy.

To some clues on facts & fiction, you have to see the 50 minute \"Making Of\", which is not only very educational about the CG process and collecting and including the paleontologists knowledge into the series, but which also is very funny (Dinosaurs smoking cigarettes and complaining about CG animators).

I highly recommend to watch this series before going into the upcoming Disney Dinosaur movie or watching any Jurassic Park (like) movie again. It will surely make you much more critical towards those movies. The Disney Trailers looked especially bad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As John Grierson pointed out: \"The documentary genre can be defined like this: the creative interpretation of reality\"

This fabulous 180-minute documentary marks the first time a computer-generated project about dinosaurs respects the intelligence of the viewer.

When I saw Jurassic Park, which I was expecting with great excitement, I was left extremely disappointed. Of course the dinosaurs were great, but the story-telling was unnecessary. I thought: \"What if they made a documentary on dinosaurs, with no crying children or bad puns, just dinosaurs made as realistic as possible, to let us marvel at what was once reality.\"

My dream came true. The BBC has produced an exhilarating documentary exploring the different eras of the dinosaurs.

This part is to all the people that seem to disagree with the fact that they had to guess at many points concerning the behavior, skin patterns etc: Of course they have to. Nobody was there. I think it is fantastic that they could present something as realistic as that. The guessings are all based on the knowings of many paleontologists, and it allows the viewer to have a pretty good idea of what it was like. If you wanna stick to what we know for sure, then just go visit a dinosaur bones museum. That is why I incorporated the Grierson quote at the beginning of this comment.

Anyway, hats off to the creators of it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"and quite frankly that just sums it up.

It is a small computer animated series that is filmed just like an animal documentory....

The animation is almost flawless (I thought the long necked swimming dinosaurs eyes looked fake).

However some of the model shots didn't look quite that realistic...

and I thought that Jurrassic park made a better T Rex..

If this is the type of thing we see on a normal British TV series then I cannot wait to see what they can accomplish in the movies..

I give this 10\/10 stars...

(and the \"making of\" video was also great.....the dinosaur on the skate board was halarious)

<..>","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Walking with Dinosaurs\" is absolutely brilliant in every regard. Kenneth Branagh narrates in a way that really makes you want to listen. The script for the documentary really sounds as though the researchers and writers had done their homework, it is so insightful and it does get you hooked and never lets go. The music is also brilliant, very dramatic when it needs to be. But the visual effects and scenery are what makes this documentary work so well. The scenery is breathtaking, and the dinosaurs look so real, thanks to the simply astounding effects. This is so informative with such a good concept and attracts not only adults but kids too.

In conclusion, this is a must watch. Not only did I love this, but this is quite possibly the best documentary I have ever seen. If anything, it could have done with being longer, other than that this is perfect. 10\/10 Bethany Cox","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wanted to love this movie. Everything seemed to be in place for an enjoyable, if not groundbreaking, film. It was set in southern France, good-looking and recognizable actors led the cast, and I really admired the vibrant African costumes, the proverbs and music. Despite all this, I didn't love it. Movies are supposed to convey their meaning at the first viewing, but \"Secret Laughter\" doesn't do that. Nimi and Matthew, as played by Long and Firth (both of whom have played romantic leads before and should have known better), radiate as much warmth and passion as dried fish. I used 'dried fish' deliberately, because it was one of a few - too few - strong lines and moments sprinkled throughout the film. Another winner was when Nimi catches Matthew snooping around her apartment. He finds a book of hers with her first name written on it and says: \"Your name is Nimi. I never knew.\" Then he insists that she call him by his Christian name. I watched this scene intently as Matthew asked Nimi over and over to \"say my name\", realizing that up until that moment, they always called each other by their last names. I thought this was a turning point for the film, and expected that it get better. It didn't. Why do Nimi and Matthew always seem to stand at ten paces, even in that \"say my name\" scene? What does Matthew like about Nimi, aside from her obvious beauty? And why would a sensible woman like Nimi fall for a comic book writer who regards his marriage as something he can put on hold when a beautiful exotic 'adventure' comes along? And I'd like to add that it was a little hard for me to get behind a romance built on adultery. Yes, Jenny is a vicious harpy, but if I were in her shoes, but I'd probably match her Cruella tactics to stop my husband from straying. Believe it. The story hints at Nimi's painful past, but never fully explores it. Some critics say Firth seemed a little awkward here, and I agree. For goodness sake, the actor summoned more palpable longing and passion as that early 19th-century snob Mr. Darcy (and while wearing those hideous britches)! As for Long, who did shine in 'Love Jones', there were times when she seemed to concentrate more on her accent than playing her character. Even so, there were many moments \u0096 the 'say my name' scene among them \u0096 when she was in total control and came across really well. Yet, 'Secret Laughter' is not without its redeeming qualities, and I've found that it grew on me with more viewings. Nene was well portrayed as supportive and well-meaning, even if she doesn't fully understand Nimi's attraction to Matthew. I absolutely loved it when Nene faced off with Mama Fola in those dueling proverbs scenes. My husband liked it, and usually he's the first to sigh and throw insults at the screen if he doesn't like what is going on. He even chuckled at the scene when Sammy asked Matthew some very frank questions about sex. So there you have it. 'Secret Laughter' was good enough to entertain an avowed curmudgeon like my hubby, but an avid moviegoer like myself will need more than one viewing to appreciate what the director and writer were trying to convey.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Man this movie is awesome especially the part they show the Italian chick damn shes incredibly hot shes not your average Italian. Mna i would go see that movie over and over just to see that chick. i really enjoyed the movie really hot girl shes steamy sexy. also the actor are really good but the girl is better. I think the actor played a better part in pride and prejudice so i don't think he acted in his highest level but yeah back to the girl i mean shes gorgeous perfect and i could only wish her luck in her future movies yeah also her acting skills in such young age was awesome i was just amazed Wit her performance. what a great actress so yeah i recommend everybody this great movie","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you watched this film for the nudity (as I did) you won't be disappointed. I could have done without the bumbling crooks or the bear though. Some bottomless nudity could have be shown but for what it was I think H.O.T.S. has to be the best of its genre.

It is not the sort of film that could have been made today which is a pity because it is the sort of film that is worth watching in these times.

I would take mindless nudity over pivotal plot points any day.

It is a shame that the DVD doesn't have any extras but as they didn't have DVDs when this was filmed that is understandable. I would have like to know more about the shooting of the film especially where they shot the football match at the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm grading this film on a curve, in other words, it isn't the greatest film that has ever been made but it does exactly what it set out to do. This is an excellent T&A film. I have no idea the count of how many T's or A's were seen in this film but I did see one shot that had 16 bare T's at one time, just to give you an idea. There are topless girls all throughout. There is a wet T-shirt contest scene. And the climax involves a game of touch football between two all-girl teams and every time one scores a touchdown the entire opposing team losing a piece of clothes. I don't know why this gets such a low rating here. Perhaps the people who gave it low scores thought they were going to see Citizen Kane. I love this movie and hope to find more similar ones. If you are looking for a GOOD campy T&A film I'd recommend this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Topless touch football!! A wet t-shirt contest!! A jockstrap raid!! This \"SheAnimal House\" has it all. Except a plot and good actors. The film consists of several pranks and catfights between the H.O.T.S. girls and the bitchy PI house. The dialouge is a scream and the soundtrack is sublimely brilliant. Over the past couple of months it's been popping up all over cable, so do yourself a favor and watch out for it. H.O.T.S. is so bad it's good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This HAS to be my guilty pleasure. I am a HUGE fan of 80's movies that were designed to entertain and they didn't care if they offended anyone. This move has no meat, not substance, no deep thought provoking scenes. Just plain old college kids having fun and if a few breasts have to be shown, then so be it! This movie is for when you just want to relax and NOT think. Viva la nudity!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"H.O.T.S. is a fun film for a trip back to when skin flicks had a more positive fun-filled agenda. They were made simply to titillate and have a few laughs. Everything seems less cynical and jaded. The girls all have natural figures and some are Playboy playmates. The simple plot deals with a group of young women who open a non-sanctioned sorority house to get back at the snooty sorority girls who spurned and insulted them. Instead of the mean spirited tricks of today, most of the hijinks are simply innocent fun. The women are decent actresses for this genre and are mostly very attractive. To keep our attention between the topless scenes, we have mafia henchmen, a stolen bear, a hot air balloon, a funky house mother, and the cheapest robot ever seen. There's even Danny Bonnaducci of the Partridge Family. If you have a sense of humor then let yourself go and enjoy some light entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember hearing about this movie and how it played at nearly every drive-in theatre here in Toronto. It's about a group of girls that are not accepted by the other sororities at their college, so they start up their own, and of course call it H.O.T.S. It's a fun movie, that is just bursting with drive-in nostalgia! Lots of fully endowed t-shirts, vans, fighting, and a football game showdown like no other! It's been compared to \"Animal House\", which is a good movie in it's own right, but to me nothing compares to H.O.T.S. It has it's own brand of fun & character. If you are looking for a classic T n'A movie, look no further because the H.O.T.S. girls are to the rescue, boom-boom shorts & all!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"H.O.T.S. is proof that at one time, the movie industry said \"F-OFF\" to the censors, and made movies with whatever they wanted! In today's world, this movie would be too \"over the top\" and \"extreme\" for it to be anywhere than behind a velvet curtain. Although, BestBuy had several copies on their $5.99 rack (in case anyone wanted to get a copy)! The movie was brilliant in its own way, in that it blended humor into a T&A movie loaded with Playboy Playmates! Unlike most skin flicks, it did have a plot. That, however, is not exactly why you would watch H.O.T.S.

H.O.T.S. is a college movie that reminds me of the Revenge of the Nerds movies, in that it takes a group of \"average people\" and puts them against the elite rich preppies that most people can't stand! The only difference is that the \"Nerds\" in this movie have a much better shot at getting laid! I notice that there are some people who would rate this movie low, and to me that is ignorant! Obviously this is not intended to win Oscars or break barriers in film. If you are looking for that, then go watch what ever the critics pick for you! You have to appreciate the fact that this movie actually had a funny plot, decent acting (for the most part given the genre), and plenty of girls getting naked! H.O.T.S. is one of those movies you watch to get your mind off of modern day problems and daily stress, and instead, laugh and have a good time! If you are looking for a funny college-based movie that has enough skin to turn a pink Miata straight, then you should really check out H.O.T.S.!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This HAS to be my guilty pleasure. I am a HUGE fan of 80's movies that were designed to entertain and they didn't care if they offended anyone. This move has no meat, not substance, no deep thought provoking scenes. Just plain old college kids having fun and if a few breasts have to be shown, then so be it! This movie is for when you just want to relax and NOT think. Viva la nudity!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's not Citizen Kane, but it does deliver. Cleavage, and lots of it.

Badly acted and directed, poorly scripted. Who cares? I didn't watch it for the dialog.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I gave this a 10 because it's the best film of its kind...a good old-fashioned T & A film in the shadow and spirit of \"Animal House.\" I saw this with a similar film called \"Swap Meet\" and both were good of their type...a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon. Let's be honest...there are more breasts in this movie than one could imagine for an R-rated movie. From beginning to end, they just seem to keep showing up on screen (sunbathing scenes, bedroom scenes and, of course, the climactic football game). Also, a memorable kissing booth (kiss me, Clutz!) Everybody seems to be having a good time in their roles (several Playboy Playmates, Danny Bonaduce, several familiar TV and movie actors, etc.). The only complaint I have to register is that Lisa London's character is called by her last name \"O'Hara\" and not a good 1970s name like \"Olivia\" (or even Ora or Ona or O...??!!). I saw this again in the late 1980s with my now ex-wife (pretty well endowed herself) and she couldn't believe I was actually enjoying the movie!! She was probably jealous!! Again, this movie is a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon...just don't think too hard!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This picture was released in May of 1979 starring Playboy Playmate Susan Kiger as Honey Shayne, Playboy Playmate Lisa London as O'Hara and Playboy Playmate Pamela Jean Bryant as Terri Lynn. In one of the most delicious sec comedies in drive-in history a bevy of bouncing young lovelies all come together in a tale of battling bikinied sorority sisters who will stop at nothing to bare everything. So what does H.O.T.S really stand for? You're going to have to watch the movie to get the answer. You see, the girls are having there problems with the society girls on campus that make them out to be nothing but sex craved maniacs. Therefore, the girls set out to discredit the society girls no matter what they have to do to get the job done. In addition, cut up in this mess is the Dean of the college who wants to dismantle the group of girls before they grow out of control. I loved this movie especially Lisa London. I thought her acting was fantastic and I'm disappointed that she didn't get other acting jobs. Based on the three playmates alone I give this movie 10 weasel stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this film with my family over a long Thanksgiving holiday weekend. I am thankful that someone insisted that we watch it, though I didn't pay much attention until the end of the film when a head shearing seems promised, but, alas, doesn't happen.

On the other hand, I watched this movie some years later and loved its liveliness, absurdity, sparkle, and just plain fun. I think that the film has a female tone. Women are not exploited in it even though I am sure that someone might think that the movie is pure exploitation. I think the movie plays with tropes of the period.

I keep thinking someone ought to remake it. And flesh out some of the implications in the original.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree that this film achieved its goals perfectly. I saw it on Showtime late at night as a teenager, and again in college. I thought it was funny. And there are boobs everywhere! It seems like in the late 70s and 80s there were loads of this type of film made, from R-rated films like \"Porkys\" to soft-core \"Au Pair Girls\"; it's a shame they seem to have fallen by the wayside in terms of popularity. The thing that made HOTS great was that, like the previous two films, it's a hell of a lot of fun. HOTS is like a girl-power version of \"Animal House\", with the girls forming a sorority of sorts and engaging in campus bedlam. On a side note, whoever designed the \"Hooters\" girls outfits must certainly have seen this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of course, going into it, one would expect it to be a typical, stupid T&A flick, and it is. But it really does have some fairly well thought out humorous moments. Given the era in which it was made, and the obvious exploitation aspect, it is still one of the better B comedies of the time.

While watching this movie, you will see quite obviously the inspiration for many of the scenes in \"Revenge of The Nerds\", and numerous other films of the same genre. Most of the acting is horrible, and WAY over the top, but that's exactly what I expect in a movie like this. What it lacks in the way of acting ability, it more than makes up for with its camp value and complete disregard for anything of merit.

The amazing thing about this movie, is that there was obviously some money that went into it. Films like this made today just don't have the same style. If you can turn your brain off, and turn your sense of humor up for an hour and a half, you will enjoy this flick. I dare anyone to not find at least SOMETHING in this movie that they think is funny, if not hilarious.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"H.O.T.S. is not for those that want hardcore porn. Instead, this film is a precursor to many 80s era cult-classic college\/frat films like REVENGE OF THE NERDS and PORKY'S and a post-cursor to the world-renown ANIMAL HOUSE. A good time if you dig a lot of big-titted 70s\/80s Playboy type chicks and cheezy slap-dick comedy - but nothing too notable if you wanna use it as whack-material...

H.O.T.S. is an \"unauthorized\" sorority of sexy outcasts doing battle against the popular and trendy Pi girls. This one has pranks, an Aunt Jemima-ish house keeper, and even an over-heated robot that makes it relatively fun viewing if boobies are your \"thing\"...

Well...I like tits as much (or probably more...) as the next guy - but with all the sleazy sh!t that I've seen, I couldn't help but wish for a few hardcore scenes to make this one truly worthwhile. I knew it wouldn't happen, but I still wish that H.O.T.S. had a bit more sex and a bit less cheeze. Not quite as notable as NERDS, PORKY'S, or ANIMAL HOUSE, but worth a look for fans of those types of films...7\/10

P.S... and I forgot - this one has consummate douche-rag Danny Bonaduce in probably the best role of his career outside of his \"reality show\"...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"h.o.t.s. is one of those sexy 70's drive in movies that features many of playboys famous playmates from the 70's like sexy tall blonde Susan kiger,Pamela jean Bryant,Lisa London,kc winkler and the late sexy Angela Ames.and would you believe a post partridge family Danny bonaduce?its the snobby girls verses the good girls(the hots girls)led by Susan kiger.there's a couple of comedy relief gangsters,a runaway bear,a trained seal,misplaced bras,etc;etc;think animal house meets hooters.h.o.t.s. is an enjoyable little comedy with t& a no complaints here.i actually think that Susan kiger was one of playboys sexiest playmates from the 70's.she did do a few more movies including deathscreams.if you like fun drive in movies you will no doubt enjoy h.o.t.s. 7 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We don't know why this extraordinary film was never made available officially on DVD... Anthony Quinn's performance alone makes this a must-see. There are relatively few films in which an actor identifies so profoundly with his character, a phenomenon always unique for us, moviegoers.

But Quinn's powerful portrayal of an innocent Romanian, literally dragged out of his house and everyday life by forces he cannot comprehend, is only part of what makes this film great. The script is based on a book published in Paris by a Romanian priest who fled the Communist take-over of his country, and the film succeeds to go deep into a little known area of East-European history. Told as a succession of Kafka-esquire twists of fate, the misadventures of Johann Moritz (told openly and honestly, without any of the political correctness currently so precious in Hollywood) are in fact a eulogy for the lost innocence of the Romanian people... it is devilishly ironic that this eulogy is signed by a French director, working with the American money of an Italian producer, and overseeing a multinational cast fronted by an extraordinary Mexican-born thespian.

I've seen mentions of VCDs of this film in various Asian internet stores, and I was fortunate to take possession of a digital recording of this film, broadcast on the British version of TCM. But it's a shame that \"The 25th Hour\" isn't anywhere on the future DVD release map of MGM studios.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this movie maybe a 100 times, never grow tired of it.I saw this movie the first time when i was 7 years old, and it has left a mark in my memories since then. Its a enchanting love story that brings the sun out in most people, even in the darkest times. I think that this is a \"must see\" movie and one of Anthony Quinn's best performance ever. I just wish that the TV-channels would send this movie more often. It has inspired me in a good way and surly will do that to many others. If there is any actor i wanted to meet, it would have been Anthony Quinn. There will never be a like of him on the silver screens,,, ever. Wish that Anthony Quinn was still alive. May god bless his soul.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught up with this movie on TV after 30 years or more. Several aspects of the film stood out even when viewing it so many years after it was made.

The story by the little known C Virgil Georghiu is remarkable, almost resembling a Tolstoy-like story of a man buffeted by a cosmic scheme that he cannot comprehend. Compare this film with better-known contemporary works such as Spelberg's \"Schindler's List\" and you begin to realize the trauma of the World War II should be seen against the larger canvas of racism beyond the simplistic Nazi notion of Aryan vs Jews. This film touches on the Hungarians dislike for the Romanians, the Romanians dislike of the Russians and so on..even touching on the Jews' questionable relationships with their Christian Romanian friends, while under stress.

As I have not read the book, it is difficult to see how much has been changed by the director and screenplay writers. For instance, it is interesting to study the Romanian peasant's view of emigrating to USA with the view of making money only to return to Romania and invest his earnings there.

In my opinion, the character of Johann Moritz was probably one of the finest roles played by Anthony Quinn ranking alongside his work in \"La Strada\",\"Zorba the Greek\" and \"Barabbas\".

The finest and most memorable sequence in the film is the final one with Anthony Quinn and Virna Lisi trying to smile. The father carrying a daughter born out his wife's rape by Russians is a story in itself but the director is able to show the reconciliation by a simple gesture--the act of carrying the child without slipping into melodramatic footage.

Today after the death of Princess Diana we often remark about the insensitive paparazzi. The final sequence is an indictment of the paparazzi and the insensitive media (director Verneuil also makes a similar comment during the court scene as the cameramen get ready to pounce on Moritz).

The interaction between Church and State was so beautifully summed up in the orthodox priest's laconic statement \"I pray to God that He guides those who have power to use them well.\"

Some of the brief shots, such as those of a secretary of a minister doodling while listening to a petition--said so much in so little footage. The direction was so impressive that the editing takes a back seat.

Finally what struck me most was the exquisite rich texture of colors provided by the cameraman Andreas Winding--from the brilliant credit sequences to the end. I recalled that he was the cameraman of another favorite French film of mine called \"Ramparts of Clay\" directed by Jean-Louis Bertucelli. I have not seen such use of colors in a long while save for the David Lean epics.

There were flaws: I wish Virna Lisi's character was more fleshed out. I could never quite understand the Serge Reggiani character--the only intellectual in the entire film. The railroad station scene at the end seems to be lifted out of Sergio Leone westerns. Finally, the film was essentially built around a love story, that unfortunately takes a back seat.

To sum up this film impressed me in more departments than one. The story is relevant today as it was when it was made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I stumbled upon this movie whilst flipping channels on the teevee late one night. It has continued to hold my interest some twenty years later, because of the important real-life lesson it teaches us about the dark side of human nature. And although it tells a true story that takes place in WWII, it is amazingly apropos to the ugly things happening in Europe today.

If you thought \"ethnic cleansing\" as it's called today, has anything to do with race or ethnicity, you'll think differently after viewing this story.

I guess I'd been pretty naive in thinking that evil follows any prescribed set of rules. Evil is as evil does.

This movie teaches a valuable lesson, and I recommend it especially to e.g. church groups or civil rights organizations.

I don't expect it will be too easy to find and rent, but I'd really like to see it again, because there is one amazing scene in it which gives a totally unintentional yet interesting glimpse of the banal intricacies of \"race expertise\". In this scene, the protaganist, who was taken prisoner by the Nazis at the beginning of the war, is \"discovered\" by an SS race authority, and ushered into a room. There the two play a sort of guessing game, where the SS officer is able to determine where our hero (Anthony Quinn's character) came from -- and where his ancestors came from. Well \"come to find out\" that Quinn's character isn't a member of an \"inferior\" race after all, but to the contrary, he's a perfect, archtypical Aryan! Which doesn't mean a whole lot to Quinn's character, who is more interested in talking about the towns, rivers and mountain ranges that the SS guy had just been naming... Nevertheless, being a perfect Aryan archetype has its perks. Among other things, he gets to leave his job in a slave labor factory where he wears striped rags, and into a slave modeling job where he gets to wear tailored Nazi uniforms. Yeah, it's a better gig for sure for a guy who always did appreciate wearing nice clothes... until the Allied armies arrive, and recognize his face from magazine covers.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie ... I saw it 15 years ago and in the last years couldn't remember it any more, name or anything else, just it was about a Romanian country man played superbly by Anthony Quinn. The impression I got from this drama will be eternal. Finally I found the name of the movie, I hope I will be able to buy it. And honestly this movie worth 10 Oscars. Ten times BRAVO. I was quite young when I first saw the movie. I asked my friends if they heard about this story but nobody would know anything about Anthony Quinn playing the role of a Romanian peasant. I remember when a German officer came and saw Anthony and told him he was a good \"breed\" but in fact the German was cheating on him. For few bucks you won't get rich in case you buy the movie but you will be rich if you have it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"living in Romania, i was almost stunned by the very realistic setting for the scenes and the great care paid to local details by the director. The performance of Anthony Queen is absolutely great, and the rest of the cast does a great job supporting him. The movie does take a little knowledge of the east European context in order to be fully enjoyed, but it remains otherwise a great performance with some memorable lines. the ending is maybe a bit too melodramatic, but that's actually the way people are in this part of the world I believe the screenplay is great, because it presents the horrors of the 2nd WW in a most original manner - no blood, no battlefields. Still, lives are shattered, and the smiles you get every now and then throughout the movie are quickly killed by the war realities touching the characters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was wrapped to see many other people also enjoyed this film. First watched it when I was in my early teens and then again several times late at night a few times after. Then sadly, no more. I'm now nearly 49 and so wish it could be made available on DVD. Why not? The best Anthony Quinn role, no one could have been more suited for the part or parts he plays - I've mentioned it to other film buffs of similar age and alas, no one I know recalls it. As the daughter of a generation that went through WWII and its aftermath (and myself deeply fascinated by what that generation endured) I guess this film at the time gave me a wonderful cinematic insight into some of the heartbreaking issues of the day. For classic final scenes this movie is a stand out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a finely crafted movie with moving sequences, humor, and best of all a love story. Anthony Quinn is wonderfully casted and after seeing several of his movies, this has to be categorized as one of his best performances, besides Zorba. The movie makes you really wonder if its filmed in Romania, which apparently is not the case. It is sure to fool even native Romanians, with its authentic-like landscape, costume, and ways of life. According to IMDb it is actually shot in France and Yugoslavia, hmmm. The story is compelling, making you want to watch the entire movie over, to see if you missed something. It provoked me into researching to find out if this is a truth based movie, but to my disappointment, it is a novel based film, seemingly fiction. It seems a bit far fetched to have happened for real, but one never knows.... The one problem with this film, is that it doesn't seem to cast any Romanian actors, and it is a film about a Romanian character. There are probably many Romanian fill-ins in the beginning, but maybe not, it is filmed elsewhere. The author of the book was Romanian, at least thats all fine and dandy - overall a masterpiece in cinematography.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anthony Quinn was a legend of 20th century in cinema by his great roles obtained this movie about a policeman innovated a false guilt for Toni to rape his beauty wife (Lisi) but he failed in this trap because he faced the strength of Lisi but he succeeded in his trap which was prepared by him for Toni that he put his name in the list of Jewish people in Romania and he transported from country to another in east Europe.

This movie was directed in 1967 at the time of Arab -Isreeli war in 1967 (Six days war) as an evidence of harmful works from Jewish people which were caused by Jewish people not only in Europe but also in the rest continents.

Jewish people were a great cause of French revolution in 1789 , the Pelchfik revolution in Russia 1917, the Turmoil of different countries in any time.

Pearl Buck wrote a novel (Peony) in 1948 at the time of occupied Palasteine in 1948 about Chinese Jewish people and their problems they faced in China because of their bad instruments they used in these countries as keys of crisis.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ? I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ? I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie years ago and I never forgot it. The theme is very timely. It was on TCM this morning and I am wondering why this wonderful film is not on VHS or DVD. I have searched extensively for this movie but cannot find it. I believe that if enough people request it, the movie will ultimately be put on DVD. It amazes me that such a stunning performance from Quinn and such a powerful plot is not yet available to the public. The fact that ethnic cleansing exists today in many parts of the world makes this film a must see for teachers and students alike. This film is a great teaching tool from the past yet in many ways as contemporary as \"Crash\". From previous comments I can see that this film as made deep impressions on everyone. Again, too bad it is not available for sale.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anthony Quinn is a master at capturing our heart and sympathy. He portrays a Romanian peasant with a below average IQ, harassed by his wife to do more. It's WWII and the Nazis have taken over his country. Soon he finds himself digging entrenchments hoping to benefit himself in his wife's eyes. The Nazis have different ideas. Through the next years we watch events unfold through his naive eyes, but all he wants to do is go home. His manipulations and ill luck just get him in further hot water. Finally, through no fault of his own, we see his picture on the cover of \"Der Spiegel\" as the perfect Aryan. The war ends and the allies put him on trial for war crimes. But all our peasant wants to do is return home to his wife.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are many, many older movies that deserve to be transferred to the DVD format. This is surely one of them. An Anthony Quinn triumph! Scores of movies portray the victims of Nazi atrocities before and during the war, but, I don't think any of them have delved into the psyche of the victim and predator as well as this this one has. Anthony Quinn was truly a man for all seasons. He had the ability to portray the humblest of creatures devoid of any human vises to a creature of extreme animalism and pull it off as believable to the audiences who watched with no afterthought of what they had just witnessed! Truly one of our greatest artists. He is missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"the 25th hour was a movie i just chanced upon.tuning in late at night, this movie kept my fascination throughout the entire film.tony quin is this poor unsuspecting guy who just wanted to fall in love with a woman,and by simple jealousy , goes on this incredible journey--terrific movie,and a hidden treasure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie in Papua New Guinea in 1967 and have remembered it since, although I have never seen it since that first time.

Just how easily good people's lives can be destroyed by the pure evil that existed then and still does is a memory that will haunt me forever.

The movie is funny and immensely sad at the same time and the role played by Anthony quinn is superb.

This movie should be in all college studies about man's inhumanity to man.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It has past almost 25 years since I saw this movie. I would consider this film as an all time classic in a drama category. Anthony Queen gives one of the most wonderful performances ever. In a matter of minutes he takes you from laugh to tears. This movie represents a splendid picture of how humanity changed after the II World War. How a great part of that generation and the forthcoming lost its innocence. It has taken me long time to find this film by its name \"the 25th hour\". This type of films are not a moneymakers but they are for sure a treasure for some. I am very surprise why this movie is not used for the media in a broaden way in order for more people to enjoy this picture.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You know those films that are blatantly awful but you can't help but love them? Well that's what Evil Ed is, possibly the best awful film in the world. The sound is rubbish, the dubbing is crap, the screenplay is nonsense and the special effects are pap. However, I can't help but love this film dearly and I have recommended it to at least 50 people over the years. Sam Campbell (or the guy who plays him) should be featured on the Actor's Studio series as he is that memorable. Possibly the greatest movie villain not named Tony Montana. Seriously, if you don't expect a lot then you won't be disappointed. Keep a light-hearted approach to watching this film and you'll soon rate it a ten afterwards.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The box at my video store is why I rented this one. It looked cool from the guys face axed in half so of course I had to give it a try. I was pleasantly surprised when I actually watched it being an \"Evil Dead\" fan. The Swedish makers must of been fans as well as they included lots of references in this masterpiece. A criminal tries to break into the house Evil Ed was editing the movies that ultimately drive him insane in and says \"groovy\" as he looks at his weapon quite like Bruce Campbell does when he finishes his chainsaw hand in Evil Dead 2. There is also many posters of that movie scattered around the house and office in the movie. They don't just spoof Evil Dead, as there is a Gremlin style puppet monster that cusses at Ed in his refrigerator. My personal favorite is when he chases his wife around the house and says \"I'm coming to get you Barbra\" which in case you did'nt know is Barbra's brothers main line in \"Night of the Living Dead\". This movie pretty much has it all good plot, cool characters, funny stuff (Gremlin puppet),scary stuff (demon doctor), excellent effects (exploding head) and a fair amount of female nudity. I only gave it a 9 because its kind of slow before Ed goes insane but its well worth the wait. So if you liked \"Evil Dead 2\" or any of the other movies I mentioned above you gotta rent and watch it with a freind, and when your done try \"Brain Dead\" because I hear it is similiar to this masterpiece.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ed (coincidentally an editor) is hired to cut horror films down to be favorable in Europe (where standards are much more rigorous). But he finds the films very mind-destroying and starts going a little bit mad. Okay, \"a little bit\" might be an understatement.

Let me just say this first of all: best. opening. scene. ever. A man in an office who blows up his head with a grenade. His boss then says -- with a straight face -- \"you're fired\". The entire film does not keep up this level of intensity, but it certainly tries.

Take the shotgun scenes, the decapitation, the clips from \"Lost Limbs\" (which my friend Jason wishes were a real film). The writer of this film thought up the idea of a woman who gets raped by a beaver and then immediately after gets shot in the face with a bazooka. That is something you won't find in any other movie (at least, I'm pretty doubtful you will).

This film's biggest flaw is the quality. The picture isn't as crisp as a 1997 film should be, and the sound could be touched up (though it's not bad). I thought I was watching a 1980s film. Although, that gave it a bit of a boost in my mind -- the film also had the 1980s style of writing and directing in it: a sense of fun and giving the audience a little something extra over the top. I do miss those days.

I wish I had more to say, though at the moment I cannot think of anything strong enough to praise this film. I do think you ought to see this. You've seen the box in your video store with the ax splitting the head... maybe you've passed it up a few times. Maybe you thought it would be cheesy. Pick it up. Savor it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Evil Ed is a Swedish film about a man named Ed (of course)and his collapse into total madness after editing a series of B horror films known as \"The Loose Limbs\" series. Ed becomes so mad that he thinks he's seeing demons and monsters but in reality they are people he knows and people that are close to him, such as his wife and daughter.

I first saw this movie back in 1998 and was baffled by what I had seen. To this day, this movie I consider to be one of the darkest comedies out there. As the movie is almost slapstick funny with its gore scenes there are still a few creepy moments.

This is a cool flick but don't expect anything marvelous. It's simply just a fun movie that is good to show some of your friends for some laughs. 8\/10 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oh my god. Obviously, when you rent or buy this, you're not expecting to see a documentary on the mating habits of small rodents in their natural habitats. You're expecting a visual feast of blood and gore and and maybe even a scare or two. well, for those who are as sick and twisted as myself, you won't find many scares, but you'll come very close to urinating all over yourself in laughter. the catch phrases in this movie will stay with you and your friends forever. The first time i showed this to my friends and colleagues was over 3 years ago, but still we laugh our asses off and use the catch phrases. it's as addictive and funny as Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn and Peter Jackson's Dead Alive\/Braindead. From the opening scene's absolutely ridiculous dialog, to the Splatter and Gore Department's finest works, to the wondrous abilities of Ed the film cutter, you will laugh and laugh again. As far as the visual feast of blood and gore, oh yeah, they've got it. And they're pretty damn good at it... \"The neck-bone's connected to the head-bone...\" This film also may have done the best nightmare\/hallucination\/totally effing nuts scene i have ever seen. and that one's not mean to be funny, but man is it well done (and creepy.) Overall, to anyone who is not against a bunch of blood and a damn good time, IF YOU EVER SEE THIS MOVIE GET IT!!!! it's on Netflix, i know that for sure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First off, to rent or watch this film you are expecting something in the B-horror range. What this film delivers for the astute fan of this genre is quite a hilarious romp via nordic flavor. At times reminding me of the humor of Jackson's Dead Alive and others of a Stuart Gordon flick this little find should have most chuckling throughout.

The f\/x reach a few highs of truly spooky (the first time Ed meets his nemesis) but generally have the feel that this film was put together by a f\/x team that decided to use any and all props at their disposal from other films...gremlins, devils, slasher films, etc. to pretty good effect and worked in thru the use of hallucinations.

The gem of the film is the humor. The gore works most of the time but more for laughs. At its heart its a parody and a fun one at that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I honestly didn't think at first that this movie would make me laugh like hell and admire the great gore effects, boy was I wrong! From the very beginning to the very end the film showed some great gore effects accompanied by spoofs from other titles like \"Evil Dead\" and \"Gremlins\". This movie could be compared to Peter Jackson's works of art, though this movie isn't as gory as \"Braindead\", but I sure wait these guys'll make another splatter movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Spoilers warning) I cannot say enough good things about this movie. It is a great horror comedy\/spoof that does everything right for a change. The humor is great and ranges from funny to so-funny-you'll-cry funny. In one scene, Ed goes edit-crazy and deletes a big scene. When his boss is looking at Ed's edit, he yells out: \"Where in the fu%# is my beaver-rape scene?!?!\" Hysterical. There are also many other great, humorous & memorable quotes and moments throughout: Ed yells out \"Don't you fu#$ing look at me!!!\" while punching some poor schmuck repeatedly in the face. Very funny stuff. The plot of the movie itself is so ridiculous that it's priceless: Ed is a mild-mannered everyday guy that gets moved over to the horror-film editing department, and after a while goes nuts, sees monsters, and attacks people while quoting the horror movies that he has edited. This movie has it all and is simply hilarious. The DVD only costs about $7, and is a great bargain as it is the unrated widescreen cut. I own a lot of DVD's, most of which cost a lot more money than this one, but not many are as great as this movie. My Evil Ed DVD is one of the highlights of my collection and i would beat someone with a telephone receiver if they tried to steal it. Evil Ed oozes style and quality -- something that Hollywood filmmakers need to majorly learn. Evil Ed is a rare gem, and i would like to thank everyone involved in making this wonderful movie -- you did everything right, and i love Evil Ed! 10 out of 10!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On monday, earlier this week, sometime in July, I happened to be under the influence of the sweet leaf, and me being a horror fan, wanted to see something scary. I was thinking of The Ammityville Horror 2, but I got something way better. I was at my friend's house, and he had the VHS Evil Ed. No cover or anything, he didn't even see the whole thing himself, but he told me it was about \"A guy who goes crazy and kills a lot of people.\" Well, this movie was very shocking,I've never seen the actual brutal nature of sadistic violence until this movie, It buries Ted Bundy and Ed Gein both! It is pretty funny too, with references to The Evil Dead trilogy( and plus the Evil Dead 2 poster is everywhere in the movie!) The movie is about Edward, a obsessive-compulsive, nice guy, who happens to be a film editor. He is then lent to another department in the building, and he is sent to the posh yet violent world of Sam Campbell, the Splatter and Gore department. Sam Campbell, Eddy's new boss, is telling Eddy about the big break on his movies, the gruesome Loose Limbs series, and he needs Eddy to make the movie somewhat less violent so they can be shown all over Europe. Eddy has his regrets soon, as the images and scenes that are displayed to him from the lonely suburban house he is sent to work in, and then, what happens from there is truly nightmarish. Imagine yourself in his place! The acting is great, the overdubbing is little funny (Sam Campbell's voice is often found funny, same with the other actors). However, the overdubbing job was done pretty good, I give this movie a 10\/10, and it's a good introduction to the Gore sub-genre to Horror. Very good, Nightmarish, bloody.......You just have to see it for yourself.

quote from movie: \"Where in the f**k is my Beaver rape scene?!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The filming is cheesy. Some of the actors overact. Some of the actions are unexplained and unexplainable. But...

This movie is in the mode of the psychological dramas of the 50s.

It is a morality play. Similar to the movie in which a \"method\" actor becomes the evil character he portrays on stage, Ed is forced to watch slasher movies because he is the film editor. It gives him a nervous breakdown which leads to a complete psychotic break.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You got to love this movie! I mean, what other Swedish splatter movie could be so evil, bizarre and totally cruel...The whole movie is stuffed with some kind of weird humor, like: The old cencoreguy just blows his head off and the boss just wipes the blood off his glasses and says with a mean voice: - Your fired!!! wouppie!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, first of all - i am a big fanatic of horror movies, but however - I am pretty sick of all those damn American horror movies. They are all about the same thing - blood and violence. It's not even creepy. Well, it's nothin wrong with the blood and all that - doesn't even bother me - but that's not what makes a movie creepy! That's why I find this movie entertaining - it's fun to see a satire which is making fun of the koncept \"main horror USA\". American splatter\/gore-movies, they are not suppose to be creepy, only funny. That's OK. But when they're suppose to be \"creepy\", it mostly gets pathetic. However, there are a few great american horror movies (Poltergeist, Psycho, Birds), but in the end it's all the same thing. That's why this movie came as a relief. Evil Ed is not just a cult movie - it's a classic! I can't wait untill master director Anders Jacobsson makes another goddamn splatter movie! Untill than I have to watch Evil Ed again - and again - and again! But I don't care - it is such an outstanding movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The year 1983 saw a strange phenomenon; two rival Bond films. \"Octopussy\", starring Roger Moore, was part of the official Cubby Broccoli Bond franchise. \"Never Say Never Again\", made by a rival producer, is, apart from the awful \"Casino Royale\", the only Bond movie which does not form part of that franchise. Its big attraction was that it brought back the original Bond, Sean Connery; its title reputedly derived from Connery's remark after \"Diamonds Are Forever\" that he would never again play the role. Some have complained that Connery was, at 53, too old for the role, but he was in fact three years younger than his successor Moore, who not only made \"Octopussy\" in the same year but went on to make one further Bond film, \"A View to a Kill\", two years later.

The film owes its existence to the settlement of a lawsuit about the film rights to Ian Fleming's work. It is perhaps unfortunate that the terms of the settlement included a clause that the new film had to be a remake of \"Thunderball\", as that was perhaps not the greatest of the Connery Bonds. (A remake of \"Dr No\" or \"Goldfinger\" might have worked better). The plot is much the same as that of the earlier film; the terrorist organisation SPECTRE, acting together with a megalomaniac tycoon named Largo, have stolen two American nuclear warheads and are attempting to hold the world's governments to ransom by threatening to detonate them unless they receive a vast sum of money. It falls to Bond, of course, to save the world by tracking down the missing missiles.

The film is fortunate in that it has not just one but two of the most beautiful Bond girls of all, Barbara Carrera as the seductive but lethal Fatima Blush and Kim Basinger as Largo's girlfriend Domino who defects to Bond's side after learning of her lover's evil plans. A number of the Bond films have a plot that hangs upon the hero's ability to win over the villain's mistress or female accomplice- there are similar developments, for example, in \"Goldfinger\", \"Live and Let Die\" and \"The Living Daylights\". In the official series, Bond's ally is normally regarded as the female lead, but here Carrera, playing the villainess, is billed above Basinger, who was a relatively unknown actress at the time. Basinger, of course, has gone on to become one of Hollywood's biggest stars, whereas Carrera is one of a number of Bond girls who have somewhat faded from view.

Of the villains, Max von Sydow makes an effective Blofeld, the head of SPECTRE, but Klaus Maria Brandauer seemed too bland and nonthreatening as Largo, except perhaps during the \"Domination\" game, a more sophisticated variant on those violent computer games such as \"Space Invaders\" that were so popular in the early eighties. Brandauer can be an excellent actor in his native German, in films such as \"Mephisto\" and \"Oberst Redl\", but he does not comes across so expressively in English.

One of the film's features is that it both follows the normal Bond formula and, at times, departs from it. There is the standard world-in-peril plot, chase sequences, a series of exotic locations, glamorous women, sinister villains and a specially written theme song based on the film's title. There is, however, no extended pre-credits sequence, and we see some familiar characters in a new light. For example, Bond's boss M becomes a languid, supercilious aristocrat, his American colleague Felix Leiter is shown as black for the only time, and the scientist Q is portrayed by Alec McCowen as a disillusioned cynic with (despite his characteristically upper-class Christian name of Algernon) a distinctly working-class accent. There is also an amusing cameo from Rowan Atkinson as a bumbling British diplomat. Although Connery was perhaps not quite a good here as he was in some of his earlier films in the role, this ringing the changes on the familiar theme makes this one of the more memorable Bonds. 7\/10

A goof. Rowan Atkinson's character states that he is from the British Embassy in Nassau. As, however, the Bahamas is a Commonwealth country, Britain would have a High Commission in its capital, not an Embassy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1965 producer Kevin McLory -who owns a part of the Bond cinematic rights- associate with EON Productions (Harry Saltzman and Albert Broccoli) for making \"Thunderball\", the fourth film of the 007 franchise. The star is Sean Connery, of course.

In 1982 McLory wins a legal battle and can produce an \"independent\" Bond film. \"Never say never again\" (NSNA) is one of the two \"unofficial\" 007 films made outside EON (the other is the 1967 comedy spoof \"Casino Royale\"). NSNA is a remake of \"Thunderball\" and stars the original Bond, Sean Connery -who comes back to the role after many years of absence.

The film is released some months after \"Octopussy\" with Roger Moore, the 13th episode of the EON series. At the time press calls it \"War of the Bonds\"... Both films are a big success in 1983, even if \"Octopussy\" earns more money at the box office.

NSNA is a luxurious film made by excellent technicians -director Irvin Kershner who led \"The Empire strikes back\", Douglas Slocombe -cinematographer of \"Raiders of the lost Ark\"-, and screenwriter Lorenzo Semple Jr -who wrote \"The three days of the Condor\"- among others...

The cast is excellent with Connery, a then relatively unknown Kim Basinger, Barbara Carrera, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Max Von Sydow, Edward Fox...

Although all that the film remains inferior to the original \"Thunderball\". It lacks many fundamental ingredients for being a real Bond movie: there's not the traditional gun barrel sequence, there's not the \"James Bond theme\", M and Q are not played by the traditional actors... It's a copyright reason: EON only is allowed to use these elements. Briefly, NSNA lacks the classic cinematic 007 atmosphere.

On the other hand the film is exciting and enjoyable. Brandauer is a very good villain and the women (Basinger and Carrera) are sensual and gorgeous. But the main highlight is Sean Connery! He's once again wonderful in the role, he's older but looks fitter and nicer here than in \"Diamonds are forever\", his last performance in the role of the British super-spy before NSNA.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Only Connery could bring that particular style with a line like that\u0085 Fatima crashes into Bond's arms when she water-skis up to the super agent in Nassau and apologizes, 'Oh, how reckless of me. I made you all wet.' The super agent replies, 'Yes, but my martini is still dry.'

Barbara Carrera makes a great villain, stealing the show as SPECTRE executioner Fatima Blush\u0085 Fatima is number 12 in the SPECTRE chain of command, and is a gorgeous assassin who takes intense sensations of pleasure in killing\u0085

Fatima assumes all the deadly characteristics of Fiona, proving to be one of Bond's toughest adversaries\u0085 She is a victim of her vanity\u0085 She's good at what she does, and wants the world to know it\u0085 But her vanity is her downfall\u0085 Using every possible approach to eliminate 007, Fatima is a wild and cunning woman who makes love to the man she is about to kill\u0085

Austrian actor Klaus-Mar\u00eda Brandauer (Largo) does not make a very formidable opponent for 007\u0085 Referred to as number one in the SPECTRE chain of command, Largo resides in the Bahamas, and travels aboard his super yacht, the Flying Saucer\u0085

Max Von Sydow becomes the fourth actor to appear as SPECTRE chief Ernst Stavro Blofeld, once more plotting to put the world at ransom\u0085

Kim Basinger takes the part once owned by the lovely French actress Claudine Auger\u0085 She is Domino, the mistress of Largo, who soon falls deeply in love with her rescuer\u0085

Black actor Bernie Casey becomes the sixth actor to play CIA agent Felix Leiter after Jack Lord, Cec Linder, Rik Van Nutter, Norman Burton, and David Hedison...

Edward Fox portrays the new, unsympathetic 'M.' Pamela Salem is the third actress to play Miss Moneypenny. Lois Maxwell was the first and Barbara Bouchet was the second.

Valerie Leon is the sexy lady in the Bahamas who fished 007 out of the blue water and saved his life by making love to him in her own room\u0085 Valerie was the Sardinian hotel receptionist in 'The Spy Who loved Me' when Bond and Anya arrive seeking Stromberg\u0085

Prunella Gee is Shrublands physical therapist Patricia\u0085 Saskia Cohen Tanugi is Nicole, Bond's Secret Service contact in the South of France\u0085

Gavan O'Herlihy is Jack Petachi, the U.S. Air Force communications officer who duplicates the President of the United States' 'eye print' and arms two cruise missiles with nuclear warheads\u0085

Rowan Atkinson is the bumbling foreign officer Nigel Small-Fawcett; and Alec McCowen is Algernon, the armorer who provides 007 some formidable items\u0085

If you like to see Connery playing a tense battle of wills, disguised as a masseur, attacked by robot-controlled sharks, giving away a considerable amount of money for a tango dance, thrown into a medieval dungeon, don't miss this second of only two \"unofficial\" James Bond films\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw this on tape, about 10 years after it had been released, I thought it was one of the better James Bond movies. However, after seeing it again around the turn of the century, I was disappointed.

I think it's a bit overrated only because critics were so happy to see Sean Connery end his 12-year hiatus from playing Bond that they didn't dare criticize the film. I guess what disappointed me was the ending. After investing two hours into the film, you expect a less-hokey, more satisfying ending. And, it may be nitpicking, but I was disappointed in not seeing the regular actors in the supporting roles such as Miss Moneypenny, Q, Felix Leiter, etc.

On the positive side, there was plenty of unique action scenes, particularly early on, and the two villains were interesting. I thought Klaus Maria Brandauer was the more intriguing of the two because he was so low-key and looked the \"nice guy next door.\" He wasn't your normal Bond villain.

This had plenty of \"skin,\" for a PG movie, especially with Kim Basinger starring, never being an actress known for hiding her figure. The language was very tame, but most Bond movies are pretty good in that department.

All in all, it's a \"fair\" Bond and nothing else. Just because Connery is in it, it doesn't mean it's automatically good. Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan have proved they could play the role well, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've always liked Sean Connery, but as James Bond I've always favored Roger Moore. Still it was Connery who set the Bond standard and while he had by 1983 established himself as something other than James Bond, the money must have been irresistible for him to make one more appearance as 007 and save the world from the evil designs of Spectre.

And what designs they are in Never Say Never Again. SPECTRE with the help of a foolish young Air Force officer who happens to be Kim Bassinger's brother stole two nuclear missiles during a war games exercise and now SPECTRE headed by Blofeld, played here by Max Von Sydow is threatening blackmail of the world.

Von Sydow's operations guy is Klaus Maria Brandauer who is also courting Bassinger and is a bit on the crazy side. And he's got a female assassin working for him in Barbara Carrera who makes Angelina Jolie as Nora Croft look like Mrs. Butterworth.

But before Sean Connery can even get started he's got to deal with a new 'M' running things at British Intelligence. Edward Fox thinks Connery is old fashioned in his methods and costs the British taxpayers too much money with his violent ways. I really did enjoy Fox's performance, he's like the great grandson of Colonel Blimp.

I also enjoyed Carrera, she's something to look at and quite resourceful in her methods. When she's scuba diving with Connery in the Bahamas, note how she puts Mr. Shark on 007's case.

Will Connery do James Bond again? He was widely quoted as saying who would they cast him as at this point, Roger Moore's father? But I think Connery would still be formidable in a wheelchair.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent James Bond movie. Although it is not part of the original and more famous series, and it is a standalone film, it is very well done. Enticing Sean Connery to return to the role he made famous was a stroke of genius, as was titling the movie in a way that references his past vow to not play Bond again. Connery was as great as he was in his earlier 007 appearances. The script is outstanding, as are the photography and the performances. It's the earliest movie I recall with Kim Basinger, who became much more famous after this film; Barbara Carrera was excellent; and Klaus Maria Brandauer was absolutely perfect as the main villain. The frequent references to the aging of Bond and the changing times and attitudes of the British secret service were most humorous. The 007 gadgets equaled those of the other Bond films. The only thing missing was the famous 007 music theme, which, of course, could not be used by this competing production. It was rather amazing to me to be able to see two excellent James Bond movies released in the same year, this one and Octopussy with Roger Moore. An interesting aspect of the film is an emphasis on video games and computer graphics. The early 80's were the first heyday of such things, and the use of them in this film made it a very contemporary movie. The film is actually a different version of Thunderball, updated with newer technology. Regardless of the repeated theme, there are sufficient differences to make it most entertaining. I will watch this one frequently.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1983 two Bond movies was made, one was the official Bond movie Octopussy starring Roger Moore who starred as James Bond for the first time in Live and Let Die and the other was the unofficial Bond movie Never Say Never Again starring Sean Connery who played the role as James Bond for the first time in Dr. No, that film was also the first 007 James Bond movie to be made. Never Say Never Again is called unofficial because the company that made the other James Bond movies didn't make this one. Never Say Never Again is also a remake of the 1965 007 movie Thunderball, there are several differences in Never Say Never Again that lets you know it wasn't made by EON. One thing is that the opening is different, there's no gun barrel sequence and no pre-credit sequence, another difference is the music score. Some things in this movie does feel like a James Bond movie like the gadgets and cars, plus James Bond always getting it on with the ladies and the film does have an opening credits song. Sean Connery still does a great job playing Bond, the acting from the other stars is also great.

Never Say Never Again is a good film that's just has entertaining as the official James Bond films. Check this out. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You don't review James Bond movies, you evaluate them, rate them according to how well they meet expectations. There are certain things one has come to expect, even demand of a Bond film and each individual effort either delivers or it doesn't. So, here are ten elements that make a Bond film a Bond film. And even though NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is not technically part of the official Bond filmography, the mere presence of Sean Connery returning as 007 makes it something more than merely an honorary member of the series. Anyway, here's how it rates on a scale of 1 to 10:

Title: NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN: The clever title has no apparent link to the actual storyline, but is instead an in-joke reference to Sean Connery's vow to never play OO7 again after having been lured back once before for DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. Whatever the case, it is a catchy title. 8 points.

Pre-Credit Teaser: Perhaps trying to avoid any obvious parallels to the official EON series of Bond films, there is no Teaser; the opening scenes are just shown behind the credits. And even that is disappointing: yet another \"oh-no, Bond has been killed\" fakeout. 4 points.

Opening Credits: Other than a screen full of tiny 007's, they didn't even bother trying to jazz up the credits with graphics or split screens or interesting camera angles. 1 points.

Theme Song: As written by Michel LeGrand and sung by Lani Hall \"Never Say Never Again\" would make for a perfectly pleasant part of a particularly long elevator ride. As a Bond theme, it's merely okay. 6 points.

\"Bond, James Bond\": Appropriately, since this film sees Connery being lured back into service as Bond after a decade's hiatus, the story begins with 007 facing the question as to whether Bond\/Connery is still up to the job. Happily, Connery more than proves himself ready for Bondage again. Though he is a bit grayer, sporting a bit more girth and wearing a slightly more obvious toupee, he seems to have no trouble slipping back into action. All in all, it is one of Connery's best, and most relaxed, turns as the character. 9 points.

Bond Babes: Even in the best of the Bond films, the female characters aren't given much dimension; they exist largely as necessary props for Bond's use. Future Oscar-winner Kim Basinger is granted a great deal of leeway in creating her character of Domino Petachi and the film benefits from this. She does a nice job -- and she's not bad to look at either. 8 points.

Bond Villain: The reports of his death being obviously exaggerated, Blofeld is back -- at least, for the moment -- showing he has more lives than his prized pussycat. One-time Jesus portrayer-turned-stereotypical villain, Max von Sydow isn't given a lot to do in the role, but is a silky presence nonetheless. But he is overshadowed by a wonderful performance by Klaus Maria Brandauer as Maximilian Largo. After a string of banal Bond villains, it is so refreshing for Brandauer to gave a performance that is both subtle, yet colorfully evil. Funny without being campy, ruthless without seeming cartoonish; his Largo ranks right up there with Auric Goldfinger as one of Bond's best villains. 10 points.

Bond Baddies: Fatima Blush! What can I say? As played with all the bold style of a particularly flamboyant drag queen, Barbara Carrera breezes through the film, displaying a mix of self-amused evil and more than a tad of pure psychotic insanity. Bond has crossed paths with a variety of femmes fatales, most of whom have been so easily disposed of that they existed more as amusing eye candy than as characters. But few dared to exhibit such a flare for the dramatic or such fierce determination. Even her untimely demise is spectacular, even by Bondian standards. 10 points.

Sinister Plot: As a remake of sorts of THUNDERBALL, the film does seem a bit been-there-done-that: nuclear missiles are stolen and major real estate will go kaboom if all the countries of the world don't pay a multi-kazillion dollar ransom. But at least producer Kevin McClory was lucky enough to find himself forced to remake one of the weakest Bond adventures. By comparisons, this effort blows THUNDERBALL out of the water. And despite the absence of many Bondian trademarks, the film succeeds on its own. 9 points.

Production values: The film starts out with an uneasy style, like a TV movie trying to be more than it can. But as the story progress, the film gains momentum and a sense of purpose, making it a superior adventure. 8 points.

Bonus Points: There are several odd changes that sets this Bond film apart from the official series. Miss Moneypenny is hardly acknowledged; as played by Edward Fox, \"M\" is a cranky old grouch with no respect for the \"Double Os,\" a foreshadowing of how Judi Dench would later play the part; and \"Q\" suddenly has a cockney accent and is all buddy-buddy with Bond. And there is a curious sense of nostalgia throughout the film, such as replacing Bond's Astin-Martin with a vintage Packard and a tango dance number that is cleverly inserted into the story. And a big rescue near the end is on horseback, an homage to THE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, which was itself a tribute to the Bond films. 5 points.

Summary: NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is a mixed bag. In the really important areas, it more than holds it own thanks to hero Connery, villain Brandauer, assassin Carrera and damsel-in-distress Basinger. But the devil is in the details; as seemingly unimportant as the opening credits, theme song and such seem, the film is lacking because of their absence. It all comes off as a faux Bond film; a very good substitute, but a substitute nonetheless.

Bond-o-meter Rating: 78 points out of 100.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As the '70's drew to a close, rumours began to fly in the entertainment industry about the possible return of Sean Connery to the role he had made famous back in 1962 - James Bond.

Cubby Broccoli was asked on location in Brazil during the making of 'Moonraker' by the B.B.C.'s Barry Norman how he viewed the prospect. Understandably, the producer was reluctant to commit himself to an opinion.

When 'Moonraker' opened, Bond fans were outraged by what they perceived to be a cheapening of the character, and the jumping onto the 'Star Wars' bandwagon much as 'Live & Let Die' had done with the blaxploitation craze a few years earlier. Many publicly vocalised their hope that Connery would return, if only to show Eon how a real Bond movie should look.

Years of legal battles followed. The original script, entitled 'James Bond Of The Secret Service' ( later retitled 'Warhead' ) was written by Kevin McClory, Len Deighton, and Connery, was never filmed, and remains one of the great unmade movie blockbusters.

A new script, closer to the 'Thunderball' storyline, was commissioned. It was written by Lorenzo Semple Junior, best known as the man who put the camp into 'Batman'. He had also written 'The Parallax View', one of the decade's finest conspiracy thrillers. Feeling the script needed a British touch, Connery brought in Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, writers of hit British sitcoms 'The Likely Lads' and 'Porridge'. The witty title was suggested by Connery's wife Micheline.

'Never Say Never Again' opened just before Christmas 1983 to a shower of critical praise; normally sensible critics were so ecstatic at Connery's return they ignored all other aspects of the film. Many used it to viciously attack the Roger Moore series, particularly that year's 'Octopussy'. In truth, 'Octopussy' is superior in every respect. 'Never' lacks the excitement and spectacle one associates with Bond, at times it looks like a made-for-T.V. movie. The story had been done before and better in 1965's 'Thunderball', hence 'Never' was always going to come off second best. It was also hampered by not being part of the official series, meaning that Monty Norman's 'James Bond Theme' and Maurice Binder's gun-barrel logo could not be used.

As Bond, Connery is magnificent, effortlessly stepping back into his most famous role. Playing Bond as an older, wiser agent worked. Barbara Carrera landed her best movie role as villainous 'Fatima Blush', a lady whose love for murder is such she dances after ( so she thinks ) killing Bond. Kim Basinger smolders as 'Domino'. As S.P.E.C.T.R.E. agent 'Maximillian Largo', Klaus Maria Brandauer gives a chilling performance. A major disappointment though is Max Von Sydow as 'Blofeld'. The posters gave the impression he would be a major character, in fact he appears only in a few scenes. With a stronger script, he could have been one of the all-time great Bond villains.

'Never' promised to be a throwback to the early Eon Bonds such as 'From Russia With Love', but did not deliver. The gadgets were there, but were used almost apologetically. Bond's rocket-firing motorcycle was a tired gimmick even in the '60's. The film tried to compete with Eon's Bonds in terms of humour. Bond saving himself by throwing his own urine sample into an assassin's face is a farcical a moment as any you will find in 'Moonraker'. But the nadir comes with the introduction of Rowan Atkinson as bumbling Foreign Office official 'Nigel Small-Fawcett'. He gives a performance so staggeringly awful you wonder if he thought he was in a Footlights revue.

Michel Legrand's music is horrible, the man seems to never to have seen a Bond film in his life.

Though the film was a financial success, viewed years later it stands as the weakest Bond of the '80's. Connery himself was disappointed with it, and not did act in a movie again for some years.

1983 was a good year for 007 maniacs, in addition to the Connery and Moore movies, George Lazenby did a delightful cameo in the made-for-T.V. 'Return Of The Man From U.N.C.L.E.: The Fifteen Years Later Affair'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, it's Sean Connery playing Bond again, looking more alive and into his part than any time since the first time they made this film, in 1965 when it was called \"Thunderball\". But the tongue is so firmly in cheek one wonders if Connery isn't employing a few observed tricks from his friend and more humorous successor, Roger Moore.

Moore is my favorite Bond, but Connery makes a strong case for himself in this unusual outing. The only serious Bond film not made under the aegis of the classic Eon Bond series, \"Never Say Never Again\" is an irreverent return to the well. Soft on action, it's nevertheless strong on character and clever dialogue.

Bond, it's made clear right away, is a man in disfavor. No matter how many times he has saved the world, his new boss thinks little of his fat lifestyle. \"Too many free radicals, that's your problem...Caused by eating too much red meat, white bread, too many martinis.\" \"Then I shall cut out the white bread, sir,\" Bond smartly replies.

An early fight sequence in a spa represents the movie's high point action-wise, with Bond and an attacker fighting their way through a kitchen, a bedroom, and a laboratory before Bond finally douses his opponent, ironically with no small help from those free radicals. Humor is liberally applied in the film, rather more cleverly than most of Moore's outings, though Connery seems to be having more fun sending himself up as a result of Moore's less egotistic example.

Was it because he was making a good chunk of the gross? Or was it working for less stingy producers? Whatever it is, the screenplay serves his laid-back style well, and the result is richer and more entertaining than Connery's prior two Eon Bond outings, \"You Only Live Twice\" and \"Diamonds Are Forever\".

The 1980s were not a good decade for Bond, whether it was Connery, Moore, or Timothy Dalton. Leg warmers, video games, and ugly sports cars are all in evidence, and the Bianca Jagger sunglasses Klaus Maria Brandauer is seen wearing in his first scene do him no favors. Forget first impressions. Brandauer's role as the chief villain, Maximilian Largo, is one of the best in any Bond film, with Brandauer enjoyably playing up his character's menace and mania. At one point, he allows Bond free roam of his situation room, with a martini to boot, and his dancing eyes and mad, engaging grin make for compelling company throughout.

The best thing in this film, other than Connery, are the Bond girls, shot with more attention to personality than normal in Bond films, a testament to cinematographer Douglas Slocombe and director Irvin Kirshner. Barbara Carrera was nominated for a Golden Globe for her role as the villainess Fatima Blush, every bit as crazy as Largo and even nicer to look at. She doesn't last the whole movie; you almost need her gone in order to focus on the others.

Kim Basinger's breasts and buttocks should have had their own agents for the screen time they get in this film, but I'm not complaining. Basinger's a rare beauty who in this early role as Largo's mistress mixes incredible hotitude with a childlike vulnerability that brings out the Bond in me, and many others I suspect. (Her lips and cheekbones are pretty sweet, too.)

It's not a well-constructed film. It's a knockoff of a better Bond movie with a sloppy storyline, a terrible score, and a flat ending. But it does have Connery, proving his was the definitive take on cinema's definitive secret agent, even if he steals a page or two from my 007, Mr. Moore. The end result is entertaining enough, so I'm not complaining.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Empire Strikes Back\" director Irvin Kershner's \"Never Say Never Again,\" a remake of the 1965 James Bond movie \"Thunderball,\" doesn't surpasses the Terence Young original, but this non-Harry Saltzman & Albert R. Broccoli film is well worth watching if you call yourself a 007 aficionado. Nevertheless, despite its shortage of clever gadgets and the lack of a vibrant musical score, \"Never Say Never Again\" rates as an above-average, suspenseful doomsday thriller with top-flight performances by a seasoned cast including Sean Connery, Kim Basinger, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Max Von Sydow, Barbara Carrera, Edward Fox, Bernie Casey, Alec McCowen, and Rowan Atkinson. The film bristles with surprises galore from the invigorating title credits sequence throughout its generally exciting but lengthy 134 minutes. Unlike the franchise James Bond sagas with their breath-taking moments of spectacle, \"Never Say Never Again\" provides few of these scenes because of its prohibitive budget. Indeed, the film features only three gadgets: an explosive ball-point pen, a wristwatch with a laser, and a souped-up motorcycle. Aside from the flavorful Lani Hall opening theme song, \"Ice Station Zebra\" composer Michel Legrand's orchestral music score leaves much to be desired. Legrand replicates none of those snappy, jazz cues that made John Barry's music for the regular Bond franchise so memorable. All in all, \"Never Say Never Again\" seems to fit more into the first two Bond movies\u0097\"Dr. No\" and \"From Russia With Love\"\u0097and \"On Her Majesty's Secret Service\" in terms of its more down to earth approach to the subject matter.

\"Never Say Never Again\" presents Sean Connery's James Bond as an older 007 who has seen his day and has been taken off active service to teach. Ironically, Roger Moore was a year older than Connery and Moore's Bond movies treated 007 as an active, young guy. Sean Connery seems to be responsible for making 007 a more mature secret agent and a number of changes take place in the Lorenzo Semple screenplay that emphasize Bond's age. Initially, Connery had lobbied to play Bond without a hairpiece, but mercifully wiser minds prevailed and Connery sports a hairpiece. He looks tanned and fit and appears in better condition than he did twelve years earlier when he was rushed into \"Diamonds Are Forever\" at the last moment to replace John Gavin. Connery had been working on another movie and had gained weight for the role that he was unable to remove in time for \"Diamonds Are Forever.\" At 52, Connery still has a youthful vigor here despite the contrived demands of the script.

The action unfolds with 007 single-handedly trying to rescue a kidnapped woman on a remote desert island. He dispatches several guards armed with machine guns and frees the woman, only to have her stab him with a knife in the side when he isn't looking. It seems that this entire sequence was an exercise designed by M (Edward Fox of \"Day of the Jackal\") to test Bond's ability. The new M doesn't share his predecessor's use of field agents. M decides that Bond needs to clean out his system of all 'free radicals' and has 007 packed off to Shrublands. While at the country clinic, Bond notices suspicious activity between a nurse and a patient and gets noticed watching them. The nurse is none other than SPECTRE assassin Fatima Blush (Barbara Carrera of \"The Island of Dr. Moreau\") and she is in charge of making sure that nobody sees USAF officer Jack Petachi (Gavan O'Herlihy of \"Superman 3\"). Petachi is part of a SPECTRE plan by millionaire businessman Maximilian Largo (Klaus Maria Brandauer of \"Out of Africa\") to black the world powers by stealing two nuclear warheads. The villains implant a duplicate eyeball into Captain Petachi who has access to the highly sophisticated computers and can order the arming of weapons. After he steals the weapons for SPECTRE, Fatima Blush runs him off the road by tossing her pet snake in his lap and then attaches an explosive to his wrecked car and blows him up. Indeed, the first part of \"Never Say Never Again,\" apart from the SPECTRE planning conference, belong to Fatima as she supervises Petachi's stay at the clinic and then repeatedly tries to kill Bond, one at sea with sharks and later in a motel suite with an explosives device.

Eventually, Bond meets the beautiful blond Domino (Kim Basinger of \"Mother Lode\") and sneaks into Largo's charity banquet at a Monte Carlo casino where the two face off in an elaborate video game called 'Domination' to see who will rule the world. Bond bests him and Largo hates him doubly now because 007 is his only rival to Domino and a thorn in his side that not even Fatima seems to be able to remove. Bond and Fatima have it out after a motorcycle chase when he returns the favor and blows her up. Their earlier encounter in the Bahamas when she attached a device to lure a shark after him is pretty lame. Like in the original \"Thunderball,\" the villains recover the hijacked nuclear warheads at sea, but just the warheads themselves.

Bond flies to the Bahamas where he meets his diplomatic liaison, Nigel Small-Fawcett (no lesser than Rowan Atkinson of \"Mr. Bean\" fame, who is worried that Bond may kill somebody and ruin the island paradise. Of course, Nigel Small-Fawcett serves as the film's source of comic relief. The C.I.A. sends Felix Leiter (Bernie Casey of \"Guns of the Magnificent Seven\") to back up Bond. This is the first time that an African-American portrayed Leiter. Bond encounters his share of problems, involving saving Domino from Arab slavers, while Leiter and he save the world. \"Never Say Never Again\" is a richly respectable James Bond thriller with many neat touches, but it never generates the air of danger that the franchise Bond films have. Indeed, \"Never Say Never Again\" looks like a dignified Masterpiece Theatre take on 007.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1983 was \"the battle of the Bonds\". That year both Roger Moore and Sean Connery starred in two separate James Bond film, the former (Octopussy) was produced by the \"official\" makers of the Bond films while the later (Never Say Never Again) was produced \"unofficially\" by a group led by Kevin McClory who held the film rights to Thunderball. Surprisingly enough is the \"unofficial\" film that is better despite the obvious flaw of and the fact that Never Say Never Again is a remake of Thunderball.

Never Say Never Again has the distinction of sporting one of the best casts ever assembled for a Bond film. It all starts with Sean Connery, returning to the play Bond for the first time since 1971's Diamonds Are Forever. Connery might be older then he was then but he looks better here then he did in Diamonds Are Forever. The Bond of Never Say Never Again is the sleek and dangerous shark of Dr. No or From Russia With Love, just a few years older. Connery's delivery of one liners and dialogue is as dead on as it ever was. The one downside to Connery's age is his believability, especially when it comes to the ladies of the film. Let's face it even Connery, despite being in top physical shape, looks as odd as Moore when he is bedding women half his age. Yet despite this believability issue, Never Say Never Again shows Connery in one of his better Bond performances and a definite improvement on his two earlier Bond performances.

Kim Bassinger plays Domino in one of her early film roles. Bassinger plays the role with considerable confidence for a relative newcomer and she makes the character believable. Bassinger holds her own against her co-stars and has considerable chemistry with them as well. In fact she may well outshine her Thunderball counter-part played by Claudine Auger.

Then there's the villain, Maximilian Largo played by Klaus Maria Brandauer. Brandauer's Largo is everything a James Bond film villain should be: suave, charming, evil and above all believable none the less. Brandauer makes the role realistic and chooses not to fall into the trap many other Bond villains have fallen into by going over the top. Brandauer plays Largo with a silent menace and charisma unseen in many adversaries of 007.

The excellent cast extends into the supporting cast as well. Barbara Carrera makes a fine henchwoman in Fatima Blush and the screen lights up when she appears. Max Von Sydow a nice appearance as Blofeld, though his appearance is more akin to a cameo. Rowan Atkinson makes an appearance as Bond's bumbling contact that makes for some of the best scenes in the film. With all that the highlight of the supporting cast comes from the MI6 staff from Edward Fox's M who makes for a great contrast to Bernard Lee, Pamela Salem who make s affine Moneypenny and the icing on the cake with Alec McCowen's wonderful Q. The supporting cast has a couple of misfires though in the form of Bernie Casey as Felix Leiter and Gavin O'Herlihy as Jack Petachi who both seem to lack credibility in their respective roles. Otherwise this film sports one of the best casts ever assembled for a Bond film.

On top of an excellent cast the film has several other essential ingredients. From the opening Central America sequence to the fight at Shrublands to the underwater sequences and motorbike chase, this is a film where the action sequences are not only great but service the plot as well for the most part. The film also sports good special effects in terms of cruise missile models, explosions, and all the things we expect from a Bond film. Irvin Kershner, then fresh off doing The Empire Strikes Back, brings a tight sense of direction to the film especially in sequences like the substation of nuclear warheads and the subsequent theft of the cruise missiles.

Yet this film is far from perfect. Never Say Never Again is easily one of the most dated of the Bond films with its heavy use of 1980's computer sand video games. While technology dates any film after a time, this film's heavy reliance on it, especially in the hijacking of the cruise missiles and the Domination sequence makes the film look incredibly dated some quarter of a century after its release. The script also tends to suffer from predictability due to the very fact it's a remake of Thunderball.

Yet for its predictability the script for Never Say Never Again is pretty good. The script sports good dialogue scenes, not a single cringe worthy one liner (how many of the Roger Moore era scripts can you say that about?), some humorous situations, and yet is watchable and tense for the most part. Once you look past he fact that it's a remake, there's quite a lot of good things in the script for the film.

Music is in fact the biggest weakness of the film. Due to the \"unofficial\" status of the film, the James Bond Theme could not be used. That said this could have shown with the right composer that a Bond score without it could work. Unfortunately Michael Legrand's score is far from adequate. Legrand's score is totally out of place in a Bond film and there is only of or two places where it actually works. To make matters worse the film is also lumbered with one of the worst title sequences ever to grace a James Bond film.

Despite being heavily dated, somewhat predicable, and having a bad score Never Say Never Again is still a good Bond film. With one of the best casts of any Bond film, good action sequences, good special effects, good direction, and some terrific dialogue, this film proves that \"unofficial\" isn't a bad thing. In fact it is is better then Octopussy and the winner of \"the battle of the Bonds\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you can watch a Bond film from 1983 that isn't as good as Octopussy and still enjoy it.

If you can accept production values which aren't that much above the level of a TV movie.

If you can look at Sean Connery with wrinkles on his forehead beneath an obvious toup\u00e9e and still see James Bond.

If you can get past an inexperienced Basinger, a weaker Largo and a jolly Q.

If you can learn to love an idiosyncratic score, not up there with Barry on his worst day.

If you don't believe the hyperbolic reviews that it was greeted with on release.

If you can meet a poker battle and a video game face off and enjoy them both the same.

Yours is Never Say Never Again and everything that's in it.

And, what is more, you'll probably enjoy it, my son!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are lot of similarities between Never Say Never Again and Thunderball not only on Sean Connery but also the story and plot. except the actors all other are same like hijacking Atomic bombs, asking for ransom, trafficking nukes in a ship, etc only difference are place of occurrence in thunder ball plot it is in Bahamas in Never Say Never Again it is over North Africa. And in thunder ball the NATO \/ RAF itself loads the nukes into plane and in Never Say Never Again it is changed by an \"rouge arm of the Axe\" and air dropped over US and stolen in Caribbean. Almost 99% is same.If anybody wants to dispute this they are most welcome.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Background info - The movies Octopussy & Never Say Never Again were both made the same year, 1983, and so naturally people compare them. Moore vs. Connery. Bond vs. Bond.

I've heard many people claiming that the \"official movie\" Octopussy is far superior. Well, I just watched Octopussy. Bond is riding an airplane at 100 miles an hour (impossible---the wind would blow him off), using his feet to force the plane to ground, and then jumping off at some 60 miles an hour (again impossible---try jumping out of your car---you'd end up with a shattered body). How is that octopussy scene supposed to be \"good\" in any sense of the word? Suddenly Bond has super-human strength & a titanium body. And he does all these stunts at the ancient age of 56??? Complete crap. Unbelievable. Farse.

---> Now let's contrast the above scene with Connery's \"unofficial\" Never Say Never Again: It doesn't have the same polish due to its independent film status (less money), but at least you can believe that Connery is a real spy in real danger.

The movie starts off with Bond showing his age (he is 50 after all) and being sent off for recuperation. Entirely believable. But of course, there's no such thing as a \"day off\" for a world-famous spy, and Bond quickly finds himself a target, even inside the hospital. From that point the story spins off into another adventure, with Bond trying to locate his attempted killers and ultimately foiling an attempt to steal nuclear weapons.

As usual Sean Connery did a brilliant job, and avoids the over-the-top\/unbelievable stunts. This movie feels like a natural successor to Connery's last film, 1971's Diamonds Are Forever... the old style of Bond... before the franchise got silly.

Highyly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like most people out there who have watched James Bond 007 movies. Most people NEVER knew that Thunderball was originally the FIRST 007 Movie to be released, but after Ian Fleming, wrote the story with kevin mcclory and jack whittingham. The 2 other authors took Ian Fleming to court and WON THE CASE providing evidence that ian fleming took the ideas of SPECTRE(Special Executive In CounterIntelligence Terrorism Revenge Extortion). So rather than making Thunderball they(fleming,broccoli,saltzman) went on to make Dr NO.

This movie had the best of the best, From getting sean connery to come back one more time, he was paid over 5,000,000 for NSNA. Irvin Kershner and Sean Connery had problems on the set, that much is true. But overall this movie was up there i think with(Thunderball, Licence To Kill, Dr No) those are my favorite from the bond series. David Dryer was hired for Special Photographic Effects, he was working at the time on Bladerunner beFORE NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. The 100 million dollar yacht makes the disco volante, look like a canoe. This movie starred the best Villian in a bond movie just behind dr no. Klaus Maria Brandeau held together this neurotic business like calm manner, with a little wit to his authority over bond. Barbara Carrera was excellent as fatima blush.

The Music was better than every score that didnt contain John Barry doing the backround score music in most bond films. Michel Legrand is not big in the usa compared to over in europe, he has played with miles davis and many other GREAT jazz musicians over the years. Its a little bland at times but the 007 theme that happens around 3 or 4 times in the Movie NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN IS so Cool, i like it more than the original.

007 is back One More Time

Timothy Dalton explained it right i thought, YOU CANT RELATE TO A SUPERMAN OR A SUPERHERO, he or she has to be human and have feelings. He was by far the BEST SERIOUS TRUE TO FLEMINGS VERSION OF BOND. But Sean Connery proves he can still do the role that made him and others to follow, i bet at 75 now he could still pull off a villian role in a MCCLORY 007 movie if one ever surfaces.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let me depart from many comments I've read here, and say that this film ranks as one of the five best Bonds, along with On Her Majesty's Secret Service, From Russia With Love, Licence To Kill, and For Your Eyes Only (the ONLY time Roger Moore actually played the role of Bond, instead of futzing around). Of course, Sean Connery pulls the whole thing together -- as co-writer, co-producer, and in his best performance since From Russia With Love. He is fit, energetic, and obviously enjoying himself. His acting is mature, confident, and laced with the right amount of humour. This is in contrast to his mechanical performance in Thunderball, his sleepwalking through You Only Live Twice, and his jowly, paunchy romp through that cartoon known as Diamonds Are Forever!

This is an imaginative reworking of Thunderball, without having the sets and machines overwhelming the characters and plot. This cast is far superior, as well. Klaus Maria Brandauer brings his unique style to the role of Largo, without relying on an eyepatch, SPECTRE ring or a boring uniform. Kim Basinger is athletic and lovely, Barbara Carrera is dynamic, and for once, we have a great Felix Leiter in Bernie Casey. The depictions of M and Q are original, and the addition of the bumbling agent Small-Fawcett is fun without lapsing into slapstick.

Director Irvin Kershner makes good use of his locations (the Bahamas and the French Riviera) without losing sight of his actors. Although close inspection reveals some mediocre special effects and lapses in continuity, Kershner keeps the film moving at a good pace, unlike Thunderball (which even its director, Terence Young, did not like). Obviously fans will miss the gun-barrel trademark and the 007 theme music, but they are, after all, owned by Eon Productions.

Michel LeGrand may not have composed the most memorable score, but it captures the atmosphere of the locations without being overly intrusive. Not surprisingly, his best moments are in the south of France, with his French love song (at the health spa) being particularly attractive. And tell me, how many really remember the music for Moonraker? I personally would rather forget Man With the Golden Gun and A View To a Kill!

The Eon folks can sneer at this film if they like. (Yes, Octopussy made more money.) At least Connery's mature 007 didn't swing through the jungle emitting a Tarzan yell. He did not frolic with a Bengal tiger, nor did he fight off \"Indian\" snake charmers with a tennis racket. Despite Eon's desperate efforts to stop this production, Kevin McClory and the late Jack Schwartzman put together a fine film, one that I think Ian Fleming would have appreciated.

If, however, you would rather see James Bond get kicked in the shins by a dwarf, engage in another tiresome struggle with \"Jaws\", jump into bed with Grace Jones, or lead a slapstick firetruck chase through San Francisco, this is NOT the film for you!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"People criticize NSNA because it is a low-point in Bond god Sean Connery's career, and because it is unofficial. ***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* First of all, this movie is better then any other bond film featuring any other actor then Connery, all sub par wannabes in my book. Sean Connery is the only real Bond, no one comes even close to his toughness, good looks and sex appeal. Yes, this movie is a low point in Connery's Bond career, but it is still the definet best bond film of the 80's. Sean Connery is the only Bond actor who is good at an older age. he did not become a baggy mess like Moore, but kept his good looks and toughness, but gaining some gray hair. So what? hes still the only real 007, and he is as cool, and tough as ever. Sean Connery is the one and only 007. And this movie is definitly worth seeing, no matter what anyone says. No gun-barrel opening, but you can't have everything, can you? great theme song, though.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although Never Say Never Again (NSNA) has a weak sound track, it is far superior to its competition at the time, \"Octopussy.\" Never Say Never Again is an updated and improved version of Thunderball (Connery's least popular bond flick). NSNA is rich with clever dialogue, wit, smarts, sex appeal, and one of the best and most convincing bad guys in the entire Bond series. In addition, NSNA features a very talented young and beautiful Kim Basinger. British comedy fans will also recognize the actor (Attwood), known as, \"Mr. Bean.\" I wouldn't trade any of the Moore pictures for this one. However the earlier Connery\/Bond efforts (with the exception of \"Thunderball,\") are superior.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm sick and tired of people complaining that Never Say Never Again is just a weak remake of Thunderball. Yes, that movie's influence is unmistakable, but the tremendous and almost universal inferiority of re-made films is reserved for such thoughtless and unintelligent films like the 1998 re-make of Psycho. While it's true that the opening theme of the twelfth (and Connery's last) Bond film is one of the worst of the entire series, the film itself still manages to stand on its own, despite many other weaknesses. Besides that, even the weak title song is made to blend pretty nicely with the closing dialogue in the film.

Sure, Sean Connery was getting a little on in age when this movie was filmed (at least by James Bond standards), but there is plenty of evidence in the narrative that makes it clear that this was not exactly unknown to the filmmakers. James Bond is near retirement before he is handed his assignment, having spent most of recent time teaching, not doing, and there is even the tongue in cheek insistence from M that he pay more attention to his health, dieting and training and getting more exercise and whatnot. Besides, this is James Bond, remember? This guy is supposed to be some kind of super human, and all of his fans are getting all upset because he's got some gray hairs. When this guy retires at the end of the film, M sends poor `Small-Fawcett' (in a hilarious cameo from Rowan Atkinson) to tell Bond that without him, he worries about the safety of the free world, and all of you people can't get over the fact that he's not a sprightly young man anymore. Come on, Sean Connery could STILL play James Bond just as good as he ever could, or at least better than anyone else ever has been able to.

The majority of the film deals with the elaborate plan to steal nuclear missiles and hold the world hostage (as Dr. Evil would say, `Oh hell, let's just do what we always do\u0085'), so there's clearly not much new there, but this is one of the Bond films that had the better one liners. There's the amusing scene where Bond is asked for a urine sample \u0096 `If you could just fill this beaker for me\u0085' `From here?' There are a lot of good one-liners, but the sexual innuendos aimed at Mr. Bond are especially prevalent in this installment. But then later he happens to throw that very urine sample into a villain's face, making him scream as if his face were burning off. Not a very good attempt at comic relief, especially since this guy had been kicking Bond's ass with some sort of super-spring device that could cut through pretty much anything. And of course, Kim Basinger stars in this film as one of the best Bond girls of the entire series.

It's no secret that Never Say Never Again has dated badly, and one of the things that has dated the worst is the special effects \u0096 with the one exception of the flying missiles, which were obviously fake but still impressive for 1982. The colored contact lens at the beginning of the film was totally without effect, and the laser watch was one of the worst things in the entire movie, second only to those damn sharks. Evidently, Fatima Blush put some sort of device on his scuba tank that attracted sharks (granted, they did have weird guiding mechanisms of their own), in a scene that more than likely inspired the classic line, `I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with FRICKIN' laser beams attached to their heads!' And then, of course, there is the exploding hotel room scene which was redone in an episode of The Simpsons, and which was obviously followed by another obligatory and overly casual one-liner from James.

The domination video game created by Largo, the film's villain, is an especially memorable scene, and the film also boasts what is probably the best motorcycle chase in the entire series (far to superior to the laughable one in Tomorrow Never Dies). But despite many strengths, the film's weaknesses are left clearer in the audience's mind at the end of the film due in large part to the anticlimactic underwater conclusion (one of the more obvious parts borrowed from Thunderball, and inferiorly recreated). Never mind the fact that Largo revealed some crucial information to Bond as he left him in the tower alive (Dr. Evil's brilliance, once again, `I'll just leave him there without actually witnessing his death and just assume everything went to plan. What?'), the climax of what is expected to be a fast-paced action film should never take place in a muted underwater atmosphere.

All in all, Never Say Never Again ranks very highly on the James Bond scale, and Connery's wink at the end of the film (as well as the two closing lines) suggested at the time that he may still return for another turn as Bond. Clearly, this is no longer very likely, so we can only hope.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many have disparaged Never Say Never Again because it is not an official Bond movie. Nevertheless, it is manifest that the producers adhered to the fruitful Bond formula. Although the film does not have a pre-credit sequence, it is clear that the training exercise at the commencement of the film is meant to be the introductory scene. It would have been impossible for EON to stop the producers from including a pre-credit and title sequence, albeit without the gun-barrel introduction.

Sean Connery is on fine form as the immortal secret agent and this film is certainly better than Dr No, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever. Although, NSNA is meant to be a remake of Thunderball, it is a vast improvement. 007 spends more time on terra firma and a more diverse range of exotic locations are included in the film.

There is some resplendent acting in this movie. Barbara Carrera is impeccable as the bizarre Fatima Blush. One of the best scenes in the film is the coup de grace between Bond and Fatima in Nice, which is preceded by a dynamic motorcycle chase through the city. Klaus Maria Brandauer plays the psychotic Largo and Max Von Sydow is free of the melodrama that other actors portraying Blofeld have indulged in.

NSNA tends to centre on Connery rather than the character of Bond. At the commencement it is stated that Bond is ageing and has been out of action. This seems to refer to the 12 year hiatus in Connery's portrayal of Bond. Bond promises \"never again\" to work in the Secret Service; an allusion to Connery's portrayal of Bond. It appears that the producers were trying to hurt the official Bond franchise.

Nevertheless, this film is definitely worth watching. This is the last time that Sean Connery played James Bond, but his performance convinced me that perhaps he should have never have said \"never again\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, let's get this out of the way before we begin: *This is the one that Sean Connery returned to in 1983 after the stint we had of Roger Moore. *It's Connery's last film. *And YES it's a (kind of) remake of Thunderball, but more of a film inspired by it. If all you Bond purists out there think I'm gonna get controversial, you're right. Bond is one of the greatest movie series ever, but that doesn't mean that a series should go on forever. This, I think, is one of two films where they could've done themselves a huge favour and ended the Bond saga. Not offended yet? Then I'll continue... Hey, if you're thinking I'm indifferent about Bond flicks, you're wrong. I grew up with my Mum being OBSESSED with them. Any spare moment, Bond and his antics would be on the TV. Bond rules, and 'Never Say Never Again' (directed by Irvin 'Empire Strikes Back' Kershner) is one of the best. It may not be 'Goldfinger' or 'From Russia...' and may not have been done by the same production house as all the others (which I hear is why they refuse to accept it was ever made!?), but still stands head and shoulders above the recent Brosnan outings... (if you haven't spat at the screen, read on). CHARACTERIZATION!!!!! Something so many blockbuster films forget about these days, but something which is essential to telling a good story. 'Never' played a superb hand by treating 007 like he had been ageing since 'Dr. No'. He's 'getting on a bit' and so has to do things like go to a health farm - a direct order from 'M' (!). Yeah, if you haven't seen this film, I won't give too much away with the plot because A) Loads happens and B) Obviously, I want YOU to see it for yourselves. Don't be put off by my 'old Bond' revelation, Connery still get plenty of superb set pieces to charge, swim, punch, speed, smash, and snog his way through. The man is a legend, and this film is one of his most enjoyable outings as Bond. High tech gadgets galore, some great villains, and an excellent supporting cast (including a fantastic cameo by Rowan Atkinson) lift this movie high above audience expectation.

This could've been the last Bond film ever, and it would've been a party to remember. Playing the secret agent as someone nearing retirement was refreshing stroke of genius - the last scene wraps things up perfectly for the series.... ...but still we had more, and then more, and more still, and one more Moore. Still, if you fancy finding out what \"Fatima Blush\" is all about, get this film. Then you can at least pretend 007 spent his last moments as a wisecracking secret agent, in the arms of Kim Basinger, and smirking at Mr. Bean. (P.S. * That other film that I think could've finished it all off? The gritty 'License to Kill'","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen 'NSNA' just after I've seen all Roger Moore-films and I must say that it felt so good to see Connery again. He proves for all times that he is the one and only Bond.

The film itself isn't really a masterpiece but it is really worth watching. The jokes sit much better here, the effects are funny and interesting, Connery is Connery and Brandauer is really a good villain. But von Sydow is just wasted and the score is not often good and there are a few scenes that seem pretty unnecessary.

7\/10 \\ 2.5\/4 \\ 3+ (1+ - 6-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like both this version of DORIAN GRAY and the MGM version. Both add a little girl early in the story who grows up to have an association with Dorian (this is not in the original book), and that is my only complaint. I especially like Angela Lansbury as Sybil Vane and George Sanders as Harry in the MGM version, but Shane Briant as Dorian in the TV-version is much better looking (I think) and far more ruthless than Hurd Hatfield in the MGM version: I think Briant is more true to the novel's Dorian. In the end, this is a very good adaptation of the novel (it even hints at Dorian's liaison's with men, as does Wylde, which could not be done in the MGM version).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this one when it was first shown, so I'm not too objective about it. It really managed to scare me, partly because it was so late at night, but partly because of that whole feeling from a videotaped suspense story (the same thing that helped Dark Shadows itself). And the casting was so right. I hardly know Shane Briant from anything else, so it might not be so right to call HIM \"well-cast,\" but to me, he IS Dorian Gray. And as far as the other male actors, the one who fit his part so well was Nigel Davenport (who's so good at \"larger than life\" characters) as Sir Henry. And John Karlen, a sort of Dan Curtis \"repertory player\" at the time, because of Dark Shadows. As one poster points out, this version manages to include the involvements with men, in a fairly subtle way. The scene where Dorian recites a list of men's names to John Karlen's character, as a way of blackmailing him, and the look on Karlen's face, were very well-done. (If that scene were done now, it would probably be done in a TOO OBVIOUS way, and be bad by comparison.) I saw it when \"Dorian Gray\" was barely a name to me, let alone more, so even more than the famous 1945 version (which is rightly famous), this is THE version to me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The famous French detective Henri Cassin takes his first vacation in 11 years in St. Margot where he meets Nanette, the daughter of the vacation spot proprietors. Despite Nanette being promised to childhood sweetheart Leon, Henri and Nanette fall in love and decide to marry, despite Nanette's father objecting due to Henri's age. On the day of their wedding, Leon returns and Nanette runs after him. Nothing is heard of the two until both are found dead, and Henri swears he won't rest until he can find the killer. The only clue Henri has to work with is a footprint found by Leon, but he is also getting written warnings that others will die soon. Soon Nanette's mother is found dead and Henri has no idea as to the identity of the killer. Thinking himself a failure he returns to Paris, then he realizes (and fears) that the killer can be only one person, even though none of his colleagues can believe his explanation. Out of the ordinary murder mystery that doesn't really follow the formula in other of the genre by Columbia or other B studios. Credit to that certainly goes to director Lewis who does manage to turn this into a noirish film despite the setting of the film, also aided by the use of good camera-work and lighting. Geray turns in a very good performance in probably his only lead and the rest of the cast is able to carry their performance. Rating, 8.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So Dark The Night poses a tough challenge: It's very hard to write about it in any detail without ruining it for those who haven't yet seen it. Since it remains quite obscure, that includes just about everybody. The movie will strike those familiar with its director Joseph H. Lewis' better known titles in the noir cycle \u0096 Gun Crazy, The Big Combo, even My Name Is Julia Ross, which in its brevity it resembles \u0096 as an odd choice.

For starters, the bucolic French countryside serves as its setting. Steven Geray, a middle-aged detective with the Sur\u00e9t\u00e9 in Paris, sets out for a vacation in the village of Ste. Margot (or maybe Margaux). Quite unexpectedly, he finds himself falling in love with the inkeepers' daughter (Micheline Cheirel), even though she's betrothed to a rough-hewn local farmer. But the siren song of life in Paris is hard to resist, so she agrees to marry him, despite the disparity in their ages, which inevitably becomes the talk of the town.

But on the night of their engagement party, she fails to return to the inn. Soon, a hunchback finds her body by the river. Her jealous, jilted lover is the logical suspect, but he, too, is found dead. Then anonymous notes threaten more deaths, which come to pass. For the first time in his career, the bereaved Geray finds himself stumped....

A particularly weak script all but does the movie in; it plays like bad Cornell Woolrich crossed with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. But Lewis does this creaky vehicle proud. He takes his time near the beginning, but then the story \u0096 and the storytelling \u0096 gain momentum (alas, just about the time the script breaks an axle). Burnett Guffey lighted and photographed the film, with an intriguing leitmotif of peering out of and peeping into windows; there's also an effective score by Hugo Friedhofer, who supplied aural menace to many noirs. A good deal of talent has been lavished on So Dark The Night, but at the end it boils down to not much more than a gimmick \u0096 and not a very good gimmick at that. It's a one-trick pony of a movie.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't forget the lover on the side!! She is a 'hottie', Karen Parsons is delicious, she is wonderful, in acting and beauty and style. It's just his Job! HO, well now here is a show that the writing slugs you in the gut and while your doubled over, kicks you in the butt! In quoting Peter's wife,(The Associate\/ writer\/ Producer) she said when they were watching the 'previews' for up coming 'new' shows at an ABC network party, she looked at her husband after the preview for 'the Job' played and said, \"This doesn't look like anything else that is on this network. You guys are in trouble.\" Meaning, it 'looks' very good! But it's not looking like the regular 'shiny happy people sitcom' fare or over-hair-styled drama that they (ABC) are regularly comfortable putting on the 'Air\". From the time I saw this, after the first episode finished, I made sure that I didn't miss that time slot next week. I was instantly addicted to \"The Job\" Cutting wit and cynicism, outrageous situations, and laughter rolling writers makes this series a Hit!!

Then I felt anger and a feeling of being let down, that the show just sailed off the air. I wondered what executive, made that decision to tear down a major comedy cornerstone for their network?

I talked to other people about it some knowing, some not, but I know that the stupid network didn't promote this hard enough, or I should say visually enough. If they had it would have run at least 3-5 seasons, maybe even six. I just believe that knowing network short comings and being overly subscribing to one 'formula' or another that they missed the boat with this one. There was so much room for expansion, it had barely just begun. The situations were funny and serious, fast and sometimes slow, though not much it kept a good pace. some years later, I finally found it on DVD new for $50.00. To me it would be worth $1,000.00 to have this in my entertainment library. I watched in amazement as I went through both seasons again for the third time on DVD and the ending 'Betrayal' episode, was going into a total serious drama segment with them uncovering a murder victim, it was better than most of the drama 'victim Unit' and 'cop' shows on the air now!!! They went into the scenes as serious as a heart attack and as believable, did so as if not even skipping a beat. Just like it was meant to be serious, I am so impressed with the 'versatile ways' that Tolan and Leary shared in the story-lines and scripts.

In another outrage of the 'entertainment week' I learned that the beautiful wardrobe, of silk ties and expensive suits with pressed shirts and ultra stylish footwear...was all sold to the movie made for cable \"In the cut\" (2003) for only four hundred dollars, thats it!!!! I'm sick. Did you see what they all wear for each show?? A good over coat alone could run that much.

This was Denis Leary at some of his finest. I recommend this great cop 'dramedy' for East-coasters or wherever you are in this country. I even heard that people from Ireland were joking with Leary the 'Bathroom' episode, repeating lines back to him from that one, because they saw it over there. (****) A Superbly intuitive, comedic New York Leary\/Tolan cop Show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Denis Leary can indeed be funny and clever at times and is always likable, but this takes the cake! This show showed Leary's genius.

The Job is set in New York. Leary plays Mike McNeil, a hard-nosed detective who is married, has a occasional drug problem, and has a girlfriend. McNeil has serious attitude. So much he's dripping in it. The precinct is filled with funny, interesting and likable characters besides McNeil. An excellent cast too. All of the episodes in this show are really funny and are addictive. The one liners in this show are everywhere. You'll be in stitches after hearing them and still laugh about them a few minutes after and then some. The cases the precinct deals with are something else to stripper nuns, a bathroom hostage situation, and more are over the top. This show was too good. Could have grown legs to last many more seasons.

The Last Word: A great, fantastic show. I miss this show dearly. All episodes of this show are great. You get even belly-laughs...a lot. ABC made a huge mistake by giving this the ax. Too bad Leary did not revive the show for cable TV. Still, I give this show one of my highest of recommendations. Truly a one of a kind show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This type of show is not supposed to happen on television. This is the type of edginess usually reserved for independent film. This is what only HBO is supposed to do. Fact is that Denis Leary has managed to come up with one of the best television shows ever, easily joining the ranks of THE SOPRANOS, OZ, ED etc.. Kudos the gang at ABC for showing that NYPD Blue was not a fluke, and to Mr. Leary and his gang for creating a truly unique viewing experience. My only complaint is that the show is not long enough ... an hour would make it better, but I can't wait for the next episode!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My wife wanted to see this movie and I grudgingly went along. I have never been a big fan of the biopic - believing that cinema is more exciting when it isn't structured in non-fiction. Beyond that, although I like Ray Charles' music just fine, I don't consider myself a fan of him or his music.

I expected to either suffer or coast through this movie.

I was wrong.

This is an engaging story told in a classic cinematic style. The realism is in the nuances - the tilt of a character's head after a dramatic moment or the look in their eyes while they sing. I literally discovered myself involved in this movie during the course of viewing it.

Jaime Foxx, of which much has been said, heads a cast of immaculate re-creators of not just a time, but an ERA, a LIFE that never really existed to those of us under forty. This movie sinks the audience into time without the gimmicks and grand sweeping panoramas of Titanic or other period pieces of that ilk. This movie doesn't present you with the 50's and 60's music scene, it takes you there.

This is a movie about Ray Charles, but your appreciate of it should not be limited to the story of his life. This is the kind of movie, like Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, that does what a movie should do - bring you to another place, another time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If someone had nudged me about 15 minutes into 'Ray' and asked what I thought of Jamie Foxx in the title role, it would have been time for a blank stare. After all, what is this (fictitious) person talking' about? That wasn't Jamie Foxx up on the big screen. That was Ray Charles. This is one of the best performances by anybody in recent years. Like the soundtrack, Jamie as Ray is flat-out brilliant.

The blind Genius of Soul (who took a revolutionary step of mixing gospel with R&B) died during production. The movie about his troubled life is good, not great. Taylor Hackford's direction and James L. White's script follow the well-worn biopic outline. Super-talented youngster battles adversity, achieves greatness while also self-destructing, then picks himself up out of the gutter for a happy ending. The film shows Charles' flaws (heroin abuse, chronic womanizing, persistent bastard-fathering) even as it sucks you in with his beautiful music.

Kerry Washington and Regina King play the main women in Ray's life, one his long-suffering wife and the other his longtime mistress. Both actresses match Foxx stride for stride. What takes him to a different level, though, is his deep understanding and uncanny impersonation of the great musician. The entire cast is effective, especially Sharon Warren as his headstrong mother and Curtis Armstrong as a music exec. Hackford's stars are likely to be rewarded with trophies and---better yet---more starring roles.

I was not a Ray Charles aficionado before 'Ray'. Apparently, the film has left out a lot (as do all biopics), but this picture functions as both an old-fashioned crowd pleaser AND a dark investigation of a brilliant\/troubled man. For those who whine that Foxx doesn't actually sing (as if that somehow diminishes his performance), take a hike. No mere actor can sing like Mr. Charles anyway. You can't have everything. What the talented star does in this picture is about as close to \"everything\" as we'll probably see for a while.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, it is sheer joy to hear the legend perform such wonderful and timeless music. This movie and soundtrack is a tour de force. Ray Charles is unique and amazing. I truly adored the film as it was inspiring and entertaining throughout.

Jamie Foxx has become one of the premiere actors in Hollywood as is clearly shown in Ray and he should get an Oscar for this role, it is unprecedented. In fact, everyone who worked on this film should receive accolades. I really liked Kerry Washington who played the exceptional wife...Ray Charles obviously married well. Regina King is a fine actress as well as the extraordinary Sharon Warren who plays a struggling young mother.

In all honesty, I'd say this whole project was providentially arranged. The entire cast was perfect, great screenplay and awesome settings...major props to the director Taylor Hackford and crew for doing such a splendid job in bringing the life of Ray Charles to the screen so flawlessly. This is my picture of the year, certainly one of the best biographical films ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best movies I have seen in years. I took me to a new time and place. It was as though I was right there with Ray through his many trials and triumphs. Jamie Foxx transformed himself into Ray. During the movie he was Ray. Also, Kerry Washington, Sharon Robinson and Regina King were superb. The movie was well cast and directed, the music was fantastic.

I've seen the movie four (4) times with different people and the last time was just as enjoyable as the first time. I will buy the DVD as soon as it is released. This is a movie that will viewed over and over for years to come.

Thank you for a great experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has inspired me to be a better person. In life you don't know who you will run across and sometimes our prejudice will cause us to prejudge a person wrongly. I have learned to give a person the benefit of the doubt because of this movie. I also learned that tough love can build a stronger person. Now I want to know where to find the movie soundtrack. There are songs in this soundtrack I have been trying to get for years. May I comment on the acting for a second. Jamie Fox was outstanding. The man has risen to be the actor of actors. Also the performance of Regina King was awesome. If I can get a woman to look at me the way she looked at Ray...I can only dream. I plucked down $18.00 for this movie and I don't have a lot of money but I am willing to see this movie again and again. This movie touched me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Taylor Hackford wanted to make this movie for 15 years, and finally found Jamie Foxx to play the title role. Foxx is amazing in his portrayal of Ray Charles. From an interview I saw with Foxx, he met Charles several times and the two of them also played piano together (Foxx had piano lessons as a young child and actually played piano in all his scenes). I didn't see Charles live until his later years, so it was great to get a perspective on how his career developed. I hope Foxx gets nominated for the Best Actor Oscar as he certainly deserves it. The music, also, is incredible - it really showcases the breadth of Charles' music, from country to blues, and everything in between. The movie also gives an unblemished account of Ray Charles' life, from the many women he had relationships with to his drug habit and the consequences of that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let's get the flaw out of the way right off the top - the movie should have been much longer. Ray Charles was a brilliant, fascinating man who lead a complex, challenging life. There was simply no way to fit it all - or even touch on it all - in a standard length movie. Given that, the makers of this film did an admirable (and I'm sure quite agonizing) job of putting together a film that could not tell the whole story yet managed to set forth a representative sampling of the man and his music. Ray Charles' strengths were evident throughout the film and his weaknesses were neither amplified nor sugar-coated. We could have wished for another hour chronicling his life after 1980, but I suppose that would have tended to turn the film into an homage and, while it would have also allowed for the resolution of several things that were left hanging at the end, on balance I guess it was better as presented.

Now for the big question: what are the criteria for an Oscar? The wife and I have seen untold numbers of films in our years, but we immediately agreed that we have never seen a performance the equal of Jamie Foxx's. The line between actor and character was not blurred - but rather it disappeared completely. We had heard much of the hype before seeing the movie, but this was uncanny. Foxx WAS Ray Charles. You didn't watch the movie with the feeling that you were watching Foxx do an outstanding job of portraying Ray Charles - you watched it somehow believing or understanding that you were watching Ray Charles himself. I don't know how else to put it. We were completely blown away. I'll admit that we haven't seen all of the other performances up for an Oscar this year, but that really doesn't matter. Foxx took this to a whole nuther level, one which we've never witnessed before and doubt that we may ever see again. I can think of no other movie I've ever seen in which a person playing a part so completely and convincingly became the person portrayed. We salute you, Mr. Foxx. We understand that the awarding of an Oscar has to do with much more than the performance, but whether or not you win, we want you to know that you have done something that is in a class absolutely by itself and you should take enormous pride in your unparalleled achievement.

P.S. The music was naturally great. I remarked to the wife that if there is one moment in the history of music to which I wish I could have been witness, it would have been the genesis (in Kansas City, wasn't it?) of What'd I Say? The film did a wonderful job with it - just wish I could've been there!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The year 2004 was the year of the biopic with no less than four pictures tackling real events, real people, with varying degrees of critical praise. Of the four pictures to make it to the race to the Oscars in early 2005 (KINSEY, THE AVIATOR, HOTEL RWANDA, and, RAY), RAY became the big winner of the night as the acting award went to Jamie Foxx for his portrayal of R & B genius Ray Charles.

And it was well-deserved despite that Leonardo diCaprio came close and Liam Neeson wasn't even nominated. What made Foxx the winner was that the other two were playing relatively obscure eccentrics, Ray Charles was still making music right up until his death in 2004 and by then there wasn't a soul who didn't know at least one song that Charles' had penned. It did help that Jamie Foxx rose well above the movie -- itself as a whole somewhat weak and often looking like it wouldn't be out of place as a TV biopic -- and his portrayal is detailed as it's ferocious. He has the delicate assignment which is to embody a person down to nuances, and once the crisis of Ray's addiction to heroin hits a head, Foxx pulls out all the stops and it isn't hard to imagine the real Ray actually going through such a painful ordeal.

The low point of the film is how it spends a little too much time in detailing Ray's relationship with women. Like THE AVIATOR, Taylor Hackford wishes to establish that Ray had this turbulent life, a product of his own demons and his entry into success at a time when being black and successful brought a huge amount of baggage. Of the women, the only one to succeed bringing real life is Sharen Warren as Ray's mother. Hers is a difficult role since she is alone on screen with the child actor playing young Ray but her facial and body language is gut-wrenching, especially at the moment she must relinquish her maternity to have Ray find his way around the house. Such intensity of emotion, to stand there and watch your blind son crawl across a room and having to force him to have this rude awakening into independence. A beautiful performance, and one which should have been acknowledged.

A fantastic counterpoint to RAY is the featured music. Anyone who knows R & B will enjoy the early recordings of Ray's radio hits as much as his later ones which would bring him to the forefront of popular music, and Jamie Foxx virtually steals the show as he performs the songs as Ray. That alone will live on even when the movie in itself is little more than a stiff biopic. I would have, though, loved it if they would have used his last Adult Contemporary hit from 1993, \"Sing my Song for You\" in the closing credits. After all, it is Ray Charles, a performer who had a fierce dedication to his art.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jamie Foxx does a fine job of impersonating the famous blues\/soul\/country singer Ray Charles. To the film's credit, it shows both the good and the bad regarding Charles' character and the choices he made, both personally and professionally.

This is a slick-looking film that provides you with a rich feel of the periods in which the story takes place. Not only does it look good, it sounds good. I only wish there was more music in here. When it's inserted, it's fabulous but there isn't enough of it.

Assuming, at least for review purposes, that the story was true, I was impressed and disappointed with Charles, meaning the story left some memorable impressions since I'm writing this 16 months after viewing it. Main impressions include:

GOOD - Re-living Ray's immense talent and his foresight to step out and take chances musically, such as going \"country\" for awhile. The man had supreme confidence in himself but didn't come across as arrogant about it. Also memorable was showing him beating his heroin addiction - with no help! That's just amazing.

BAD - I also remember through this film how easily hooked Ray got in the first place and disappointed he was so unfaithful to his wife. A really sad comment was that his wife was more upset with him for missing his kid's Little League games than she was for all the cheating he was doing on her, even fathering a child with a member of his singing group.

The only negative I had with the filmmakers was the overemphasis of his problems being blamed on one early childhood event, the accidental death of his brother. That tragedy was used as cop-out for all Ray's misdoings as an adult, which is another example of a culture in which people refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

Note: There is an extended version with the DVD but word has it that it is so poorly edited that it's not worth watching, so stick with the \"theatrical version.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jamie Foxx leads a brilliant cast in this powerful voyage through the life of the blind, emotionally troubled, African American genius of pop jazz, Mr. Ray Charles. Though the entire cast performs wonderfully, Mr. Foxx earned more than simply an Oscar. If it were possible to nominate an actor in consecutive years, I would consider doing so for Mr. Foxx. Foxx doesn't just play Charles, he re-creates him. CJ Sanders and Sharon Warren also deserve special mention for their portrayal of Ray's mother (the inspiration of his life) and young Ray. These two provided the strongest support in the film.

The dramas of Charles' struggles with guilt, the death of his younger brother and mother, blindness, discrimination, addiction, and success, are neatly woven into the tapestries of his music. The music is beautiful, the script is, as far as I can tell, perfect, and the acting is nothing short of legendary.

The directorial method of the film warrants discussion. Taylor Hackford - a director I am generally ambivalent about - had to choose what aspects of the larger-than-life and complex life story of Mr. Charles would tell his story most honestly, dramatically, and understandably. Though some disagree (seemingly wanting a documentary instead of a dramatized biopic) I believe he selected his themes admirably. A big part of the success of this film is its consistent focus on a few persistent themes in Charles' life - his profound love and respect for his mother, his need to be loved and accepted, his addiction and guilt complex, his musical genius, and his deep-seated fear of responsibility for others. Charles is depicted as a man struggling valiantly against an army of personal demons. I learned more than I could have imagined about one of the men I used to listen to on my old turntable with my dad in his livingroom on Sunday nights while football games were on the TV. And nothing was sugar-coated in \"Ray.\" The themes are carried forward with power and human dignity. These themes create a unifying drama which span the length of his long and illuminated life. The power of these themes, the strong script and directing, the music, and the acting make this one of the most enjoyable and evocative biographical films I have seen.

Recommended for everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Ray' lives on

Ray Dir- Taylor Hackford Cast- Jamie Foxx, Kerry Washington, Regina King, Clifton Powell, Curtis Armstrong and Sharon Warren. Written by- Taylor Hackford and James L. White. Rating- ***

\"Hit the road Jack, and don't come back\u0085no more, no more, no more, NO MORE!\" Who would've thought that this immortal line that has almost become a remedial mantra for broken relationships in popular culture was conceived over a lovers' brawl! Ray Charles was a genius. And if there was one thing that he knew, breathed and lived for; it was music. So in a lifetime that comprised acute poverty, a desperate struggle with darkness, guilt, drugs and painful affairs; Ray still found moments when inspiration hit him out of nowhere and words and notes took their own shape to form an instant eternal classic!

There are some lives that deserve to be transformed on the silver screen. Ray Charles's life was one of them. It almost comes as a shock to learn that this project had no studio-backing until it was completed! And that backing probably came after the initial screenings where Jamie Foxx's performance was lauded and predicted as a surefire Oscar winner in hushed voices. Jamie Foxx as Ray almost convinces us that it is indeed Ray Charles performing on screen and not an actor impersonating! From the crooked all-knowing smile to the bent gait of not so much a handicapped but a man dancing through his demons, Foxx captures every essence of the actual Ray Charles. Ray was a complicated man. He never demanded sympathy and very rarely showed it himself. An astute businessman, he ensured his success at any cost, sometimes at the price of losing his loved ones. He never apologized for his philandering ways and always maintained that he loved his family, which we are convinced he did. He liked sex; it was as simple as that! But beneath all, there also existed a Ray that was afraid of darkness. Imagine the horrors of a blind man afraid of darkness! His fear was because of his guilt. Ray was convinced that he was the reason for his brother's death, and his whole life was spent trying to redeem himself. Ray was a maverick who fused gospel with jazz, an unheard blasphemous practice in the 50's. But his intentions weren't to instigate. He was simply practicing the only way he knew of getting close to God!

It is hard to capture such an eventful life as that of Ray, and that is perhaps where the movie fails. We are never really allowed to get close to Ray as a person. We know him only as much as we see him. His relationships, especially with Margie Hendricks(Regina King), aren't explored in detail. And the script barely passes over Della Bea(Kerry Washington), Ray's wife, who everyone knows was a rock by his side. And the biggest blunder of all is the rushed, almost abrupt climax. It's as if the director suddenly realized he was out of stock and called for a pack-up! Nonetheless, 'Ray' is definitely recommended for a flawless performance from Jamie Foxx and an able stellar ensemble. The songs and age create a sense of nostalgia, and we get a genuine feeling that the film is made with sincerity.

- Abhishek Bandekar

Note- 'Ray' is nominated in six categories at this year's Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor(Jamie Foxx).

Rating- ***

* Poor ** Average *** Good **** Very Good ***** Excellent

19th February, 2005","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A couple of days ago I saw the awesome \"House of Sand and Fog\" and I was impressed with the amazing performance of Ben Kingsley in the lead role. I decided to see \"Ray\", trying to understand how and why Ben Kingsley did not win the Oscar of Best Lead Actor. After watching Jamie Foxx in the role of Ray Charles, I agree with the Academy: he really deserved to be awarded. I like Ray Charles, I was not his fan, but it is amazing the resemblance of Jamie Foxx with him. The film is completely supported by Jamie Foxx, who participates of most of the shootings, and his movements on stage looks like as if he was a reincarnation of Ray Charles. With regard to the story, I saw the extended version on DVD, too long but also very pleasant, with many beautiful songs and scenes showing mainly a junkie Ray Charles. My greatest surprise was to find that Ray Charles was heroine addicted, and how he treated his own family. The presentation of his childhood through fragmented flashbacks was the boring part of the movie. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): \"Ray\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jamie Foxx was the epitome of Ray Charles. After a few moments you stop seeing a film and see a biography played by the great man himself. Ray Charles was truly a genius of music and the movie excellently depicted that. No one has ever or will ever write, play, or record music like this musical giant. When he passed the flesh, the world lost one of it's greatest American heroes. As far as the movie, the fact that Jamie Foxx received a classical music scholarship to college and could play like Ray was an asset to the director. What could be better than that? You don't have to have a \"double\" play piano and then try to split the screen from someone else's hands to Jamie's face. It worked beautifully. I loved the fact that it also picked up how difficult Ray was. He wasn't always a nice man. You didn't also root for him. He was a drug addict, a womanizer, and sometimes just plain hard-headed. But I guess that's what made him genius so I can't fault him for that. I pick Jamie for Best Actor!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Ray when it first came out. Why? Partly, because of the advertising hype, secondly because I just loved the heck outa Ray Charles's music. But not being around when his biggest things in music and his life happened, I wanted to learn more about the man's life. And in this film, I did. His addiction to drugs was something I didn't know, and the film let us know.

But here's the thing, while this was a decent autobiographical film...I cannot say it was a \"great\" film. I've seen \"Malcolm X\" and was blown away. Same with \"What's Love Got To Do With It\" and \"Bird\". The performances of each of those films was outstanding. I wasn't just drawn into the main characters in those films - who did incredible jobs - but to those around them as well. That helps make a picture to me.

I felt that at some parts of this film was shallow and heavy handed for emotional appeal. And yes, I'll admit at certain parts of the film I almost fell asleep. And the film was too long. And the film left out several \"other\" important details of Ray Charles life that would have made the film flow better. The film got \"choppy\" to me in certain parts. And the film seemed to end with a whimper, not a bang - certain parts, including the ending played like a tacked on \"Lifetime\" cable network movie to me. I expect more outa cinema.

So -- where does my ambivalence come in? With Jamie Foxx's performance. Overall, he did -- okay. Not Denzel Washington's Malcolm X or Angela Bassett's Tina Turner's spectacular, but...okay.

Sorry folks, but to me, there were several points in the film where I saw Jamie Foxx's interpretation of Ray Charles, and in others - thanks to the wonderful camera angles and lighting - he \"looked\" like Ray Charles. But I paid attention to the ... acting. An actor has to make you believe he IS the character he is playing. Not make a caricature of the character. Did I believe Jamie Foxx was Ray on the screen? Sometimes yes -- sometimes no.

Did Jamie Foxx deserve a Golden Globe? You betcha. Does he deserve an Oscar...? Depends on who's he's up against. He's got a few major competitors there, and he might just edge them out. But then again...maybe not. If Jamie Foxx doesn't win, I will not stand up and say \"he was robbed\". I wont particularly feel that he had been.

This was a decent film with decent performances and a decent story. A \"great\" autobiographical film of the late Ray Charles? No. Somewhere out there, I feel there IS a great film about Ray Charles just waiting to be made, and an actor that will blow you completely away in doing so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let's not beat about the bush here, Taylor Hackford's undoubtedly slick movie has little to make it stand out from the biopic genre other than Jamie Foxx's exceptional, career-making performance. Remember the year they handed the special effects Oscar to the Terminator 2 boffins, uncontested? They should do the same with this year's Best Actor gong.

That Ray Charles' story is worthy of filming is not in dispute. Indeed, the many flashbacks to his traumatic childhood are well-handled and judiciously used. But for a life so unique, the film seems incredibly formulaic and familiar. It follows the 'history of a flawed genius' template almost to the letter: hardship and exploitation, women and drugs, recording wrangles, band squabbles, rehab, yeah yeah yeah. And surely there was more humour in his life than we're treated to here?

I appreciate Charles' music yet where neatly-cut medleys would have kept the story rolling, Hackford indulges himself with near-full-length renditions of too many songs - in gin joints, in the recording studio, in concert halls, infinitum. Narratively, and for non-devotees, they begin to act like a cinematic brake. This may seem like harsh judgement on a music biopic but with a catalogue as extensive as Ray's, we need a taste not the whole dish. Otherwise, we'd buy the albums.

Intrigued as I was, I glanced at my watch more than once. So for all Foxx's brilliance, maybe Ray would have been better served as an HBO two-parter?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ray is interesting in parts, and technically it's very well made, but Ray is often sluggish, and forgets some important details about Ray's life. All the movie shows us is parts where he's in his prime, and most successful, which is good, it's just I wanted to see some bits about his older life too. Jamie Fox mimics Ray Charles to a t, at times it's absolutely uncanny. I have to say, Jamie is the reason I got through this movie. The 1st half is a lot better then the 2nd. It's more interesting, it has more Oomph, and it's nowhere near as sluggish as the 2nd. I wasn't a big fan of Ray Charles to begin with to be honest, so I really didn't have any expectations for the film, what so ever. Ray's biggest problem had to be the over length. This could've been cut very easily, with more relevant scenes, other then the ones they used. I found the early part of Ray's life when he was just starting to get successful, the most interesting. He was humble back then, and somewhat a gentleman. And while the film may have over exaggerated his actions, he got a bit too full of himself for me to care.

Performance. Jamie Fox gives a performance for the ages as Ray. He looks like Ray, talks like Ray, acts like Ray. He even sings like Ray!. This is much more then an impression, I truly believed he WAS, Ray Charles. He was the heart of the film, and without his presence, this film would've been a complete and utter bore.

Bottom Line. Ray is interesting at times, dreadfully dull at others. When all was said and done, I was disappointed by how routine it seemed at times. Just because it's a bibliographical film, Doesen't mean it's automatically Oscar worthy. Jamie Fox deserved his Oscar, but the movie is above average at best. Worth a watch, but if I were you, I'd keep my expectations at a rather comfortable level.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jamie Foxx did an incredible job playing Ray Charles. I loved this movie because every so often there would be a flashback scene and then to the current movie. When Ray Charles was little, he went blind and his mother didn't baby him. She was a strong woman who didn't treat him any different because he was blind. She made him do things on his own and that really pushed him to become a great musician later on in life. His mother also sent him to school as well. Then when Ray Charles became a man, he could stand up for himself and take care of himself but there was a downfall into narcotics, sex and betrayal. When I am discouraged about something I can just think of this movie and it will inspire me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like almost everyone, I am familiar with the music of Ray Charles. Who hasn't heard \"Georgia ON My Mind\" and \"The Mess-Around\" and some of the other marvelous songs featured in this movie. But about the life of Ray Charles I was sadly ignorant until watching this. I have to say that Jamie Foxx brought Ray Charles to life brilliantly. His performance was powerful, right down to the mannerisms and voice inflections. The movie also offered a no-holds-barred account of some of the trials and tribulations Charles dealt with over the course of his life, and with some demons from the past that haunted him well into adulthood. Perhaps the most powerful scene in the movie was the heroin withdrawal scene, which was painfully realistic. The movie portrays Charles' growing awareness of and involvement with the civil rights movement, culminating in his refusal to play before a segregated audience in Georgia, which led to a ban on him performing in the state. His drug addiction and extra marital affairs are also well documented. The movie revolves around a plea from his mother when he was a child: don't let anyone or anything turn you into a cripple.\" The point is that drugs did just that, and to honour his mother's memory, he had to beat them. There's not much here about his later life and career after breaking his heroin habit but up to that point, this is really powerful stuff. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jamie Foxx absolutely IS Ray Charles. His performance is simply genius. He owns the film, just as Spacek owned \"Coal Miner's Daughter\" and Quaid owned \"Great Balls of Fire.\" In fact, it's hard to remember that the part of Ray Charles is being acted, and not played by the man himself. Ray Charles is legendary. He is well-established as a musician and the music is deep, complex, and innovative ~ even more innovative than I realized before watching this movie. The film should make new fans of a young audience who might come into it knowing little about his music. Ray Charles' life provided excellent biographical material for the film, which goes well beyond being just another movie about a musician. I confess that I knew very little about the man's life until I saw this film. I came out of it being impressed with Ray Charles' courage, strength, and innovation as man and musician.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am so glad when i watch in every time the movie of (Ray) for the Sidney pottier of the 21st century (Jamie Foxx) who played this role as an evidence of his brilliant ability as an actor to take his position beside great actors in Hollywood by his golden supporting for the strong abilities of afro American actors all over the times and periods by his eternal work as an evidence for the eternity of Ray Charles as a grand prove for their legend appearance in every time by their success for winning Oscar prize as (best actor for leading role) an (best mixing sound) between fact and cinematic scenes upon Ray and Jamie as a mixing between two copies of Ray (ray of the past) and (ray of 2004 acted in the person of Jamie Foxx).It was nice from the director to choose those songs to be adapted with dramatical scenes in the accidents of film to enter for the atmosphere of success in legend corn with legend movies in Hollywood since 1893 till now and his cleverness of choosing Sharon Warrne in the role of Ray ,s mother that she succeeded in this role by brilliant analysis for the core of her character that Ray,s mother was the turning point for him upon her grew up to be independent on himself to take his place in this world and to be icon in his talent as (Nat king Cole , Louis Armstrong , Duke Ellington) and at the end of this film by receiving his honorable report from Gerogia and their decision to take his song (Georgia on my mind) the national anthem for this state he made his promise for his mother to be alive until now by his legend songs and brilliant life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lecture over the life of the tormented magician named Ray Charles. His pulses on the piano made fire music and his nostalgic voice created exciting, cool tunes. Each barrier that Ray was facing never kept him down, and he found his way all over conflicts. A real lesson. A great team of producers help recreate the era and armed with great costumes, hairs and settings one will follow Ray's story believing its true, direct filming! An icy music freezes and goosebumps the audience with clever sound editing. But, the most important part of the movie is Jamie Foxx. His acting is really superb, the most diamond polished acting ever seen. He lives his role. He is the Ray of Light.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ray Charles Robinson (Jamie Foxx) is a extremely talented pianist and singer as well. Ray is an smart man as well. Ray started his career in the late 1940's before he finds his distinctive style. Ray is certainly popular at the night clubs with his music. Things changes, when he meets an ambitious music producer (Curtis Armstrong). Who knows Ray got what it takes to be an strong performer and he also meets an woman (Kerry Washington), he loves as well & marries along the way. Ray's album becomes an hit, when he mixes soul music and gospel together. Which makes Ray an Controversial man during in the 1950's to the 1960's. Ray has love for all kind of music, including Country. But Ray isn't always the perfect man as he seems to be. Since he had plenty of failed relationship with other woman, while he's married. But he also had to battle with racism, people who double-crossed him, his music ideals and of course, his drug addiction. Which it made Ray's life extremely difficult for him and as well for battling the tragedy of his childhood. Which Ray always blamed himself for.

Directed by Oscar-Winner:Taylor Hackford (Against All Odds, Devil's Advocate, Dolores Claiborne) made an fascinating true-life story of the always interesting of the late \"Ray Charles\". Foxx won an Oscar for his touching performance of the late entertainer. Foxx brings heart and soul in the film and humour as well. But this film has plenty of rich performances by an top cast including:Regina King, Clifton Powell, Bokeem Woodbine, Aunjaune Ellis, Warwick Davis, Terrence Howard and Sharon Warren as Ray's mother. This is probably THE best film of Hackford's career to date. The film has plenty of song of Charles's best music as well.

DVD has an sharp Pan & Scan (1.33:1) transfer and an excellent Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. Disc 1 has an informative commentary by the director and the DVD also has the original theatrical cut and extended version as well. But u are better watching the theatrical version instead, because the bonus footage is in bad shape at times and u have to click on a logo if you want to see these Deleted Scenes. Disc 2 has deleted scenes with optional commentary by the director (Which is seen in the Extended Version), featurettes and more. But the featurettes are disappointingly short for this DVD. Since the movie is extraordinary good. This film was nominated four Oscars including Best Costume Designs, Best Director, Best Editing and Best Picture. This is an amazing true-life story well told but of course, Charles' life was even more controversial and outrageous than the final film. Still, it's pretty damn close. Screenplay by James L. White. From an Story by White and director:Hackford. Oscar-Winner for Best Sound. Don't miss it. (**** \u00bd\/*****).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brilliant Biographic FILM\u0085\u0085\u0085..

Well this certainly is one of my very fav. Biographic movie. This movie came as a Total Surprise to me. I had been avoiding this movie for a very very Long time. Now that was because I am not a fan of Jamie Foxx. I still am not a Big Fan of him But I sure am a FAN now.

Well He deserved every BIT of that Oscar. His performance is one of the BEST performances I have seen in a Long Long time. He is truly Sensational!

Well the narration, or the Flow of the story is Brilliant for a Biographical movie. I am a DRAMA fan so I wasn't bored at all.

I was way too much surprised to have being liking the movie so much that I did not see any flaws in the movie. I think there isn't any flaw in the movie. Maybe some Events errors But hey who Cares?

The performance by the woman who plays ray's Mother was also really GOOD. And well Kerry Washington \u0085 she has so much Potential.. if given the right role She might just be the Next Oscar winner.

Well the Story of them movie was so EMOTIONAL so TOUCHING.. I Cried\u0085 I Cried very Badly\u0085\u0085

I don't give a damn if the things were mad- up or not cuz this movie mad me cry\u0085 And that's a lot for me!

All in all a SUPERB FILM\u0085\u0085. One of the very best of this century!

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the true story of the great pianist and jazz singer\/legend Ray Charles (Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe winning Jamie Foxx). He was born in a poor African American-town, and he went blind at 7 years old, but with his skills of touch and hearing, this is what would later in life would lead him to stardom. By the 1960's he had accomplished his dream, and selling records in millions, and leading the charts with songs and albums. But the story also showed his downfalls, including the separation from his wife and child, because of his affair with a band member , his drug and alcohol use, and going to prison because of this. Also starring Regina King as Margie Hendricks, Kerry Washington as Della Bea Robinson, Clifton Powell as Jeff Brown, Harry J. Lennix as Joe Adams, Bokeem Woodbine as Fathead Newman, Aunjanue Ellis as Mary Ann Fisher, Sharon Warren as Aretha Robinson, C.J. Sanders as Young Ray Robinson, Curtis Armstrong as Ahmet Ertegun and Richard Schiff as Jerry Wexler. It is a great story with a great singer impression, the songs, including Hit the Road Jack, are the highlights. It won the Oscar for Best Sound Mixing, and it was nominated for Best Costume Design, Best Director for Taylor Hackford, Best Editing and Best Motion Picture of the Year, it won the BAFTA for Best Sound, and it was nominated for the Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music for Craig Armstrong and Best Original Screenplay, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy. It was number 99 on 100 Years, 100 Cheers. Very good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Recent years have seen a number of biopics of famous singers, and \"Ray\", the story of Ray Charles, has much in common with \"Walk the Line\" which was made the following year and told the story of Johnny Cash. Cash and Charles were near-exact contemporaries, both being born in the early thirties and dying in 2003\/04. Both grew up in poverty in the American Deep South. Both lost a brother in an accident during childhood. Both achieved success in the 1950s. Both experienced problems in their marriages, and both were addicted to drugs. All these matters are emphasised in both films. There are also similarities with Ron Howard's \"A Beautiful Mind\". Although that film was about a mathematician rather than a musician, it, like both \"Ray\" and \"Walk the Line\", stressed the part played by its subject's wife in helping her husband to overcome his problems.

Ray Charles was born to a single mother in a poor black community in Georgia in 1930. (His original name was Raymond Charles Robinson, but when he was starting his career as a musician he dropped his surname to avoid confusion with the boxer Sugar Ray Robinson). In some ways Charles had an even harder time than did Cash, having to cope with two additional disadvantages in the shape of his blindness and of the racism which affected all black Americans, especially in the South, during his lifetime. Charles had a particularly traumatic childhood, witnessing the death of his younger brother George in a drowning accident and going blind about a year or two later. He appears to have been haunted by nightmares and feelings of guilt over George's death throughout his life.

The first half of the film is rather slow moving and is a standard rags-to-riches showbiz biopic, telling the story of how the young Charles is taught to play the piano, becomes a nightclub performer and then rises to fame as a major artist, falling in love along the way with the beautiful Della Bea. The best scenes in this part of the film are the flashbacks to Charles's childhood. There is an effective recurrent image of coloured glass bottles hanging from a tree in front of his house; perhaps this was one of his few visual memories of his life before he went blind. There is also a memorable scene in which the teenaged Charles shames a prejudiced bus driver into letting him on the bus by pretending to have lost his sight on Omaha beach (In reality he would only have been thirteen at the time of the Normandy landings).

The second half of the film becomes more interesting as it moves into more controversial territory, focusing on Charles's drug addiction, the problems in his marriage caused by his affair with Margie Hendricks, one of his backing singers, and his battles against racism. In the early sixties Charles caused a sensation by refusing to play in front of a racially segregated audience in Georgia (although, contrary to what is stated in the film, this did not result in his being banned from performing in the state). He also fought against racial divides within the music industry itself, performing not only traditionally \"black\" styles of music such as gospel and rhythm and blues, but also traditionally \"white\" ones such as country and western (regarded by many black Americans as the music of choice of the redneck community).

As Peter Bradshaw, film critic of \"The Guardian\", noted \"Ray\" is a sunny film which diplomatically turns away from the darker side of things. It omits any mention of such matters as the death of Charles's beloved mother Aretha during his teenage years, his brief marriage to Eileen Williams in the early fifties and his eventual divorce from Della Bea in 1977. It also plays down the extent of his womanising and the number of his illegitimate children. There are similarities here with \"A Beautiful Mind\" which also omitted a number of controversial details about its subject's personal life, including a divorce.

Fans of Ray Charles will no doubt enjoy the film for the music, but it is worth watching even for those who do not know much about him, chiefly on account of Jamie Foxx's Oscar-winning performance in the title role, reproducing Charles's mannerisms so exactly that we think we actually are watching a blind man, even though Foxx himself is sighted. (Unlike Joaquin Phoenix in \"Walk the Line\", however, Foxx did not do his own singing- doubtless Charles's distinctive singing voice was too difficult to reproduce). He receives good support from some of the other performers, particularly Sharon Warren as Aretha and Kerry Washington as Della Bea. The film is uneven and overlong, but nevertheless rewarding. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree that this film was spectacular. The way in which Jamie Foxx captured, not only the impression of Ray Charles, but the essence of Ray Charles really made the film. His life made a great story and it is good that it is finally being told. I also found a great interview with Jamie Foxx about this role by Ernie Manouse from InnerVIEWS on KUHT, Houston Channel 8. The link is http: \/\/video.google.com\/ videoplay?docid=-3001837218936089620&q =innerviews+ jamie+foxx&hl=en . I encourage everyone to check it out, as it gives in depth looks into what went into his role and his personal feelings about Ray Charles. The only problem I might cite with the film is that the shotting style was rather bland at times, but in the end I think it helped make the story more realistic and keep the focus on the person, Ray Charles, rather than the film Ray.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A masterful performance by Jamie Foxx is just one of the highlights of \"Ray,\" a 2004 film also starring Kerry Washington, Regina King, Curtis Armstrong, Richard Schiff, Sharon Warren, Patrick Bachau, and many others, all giving excellent support to the film.

The film has several main focuses: the first is Charles' childhood - the drowning of his brother George which haunted him for years, the glaucoma that blinded him, and the strength taught him by his mother - don't bend, don't break, don't ever be a cripple. She eventually sends him to a special school where Charles' gift of music is discovered. The next focus is Charles' artistic evolution as a Nat King Cole-like singer, to his arrangements of gospel music, his foray into country music, and the unique sound that became Ray Charles. The third focus is Charles' personal life - his marriage to Bea, his many affairs, his heroin addiction and eventual rehabilitation.

Because Charles lived a packed 74 years, there's a lot skipped. Though Charles was orphaned while in his teens, the death of his beloved mother, his rock, isn't in the film. While he is shown on the chitlin circuit and refusing to play in segregated clubs, his near-starvation as a musician isn't covered. At one point, he found a jar of jelly and attempted to eat it, but the jar broke. He was that down and out. Bea is shown with him when the State of Georgia, which banned him, adopts \"Georgia on My Mind\" as their theme song in 1979 and welcomes Charles back to his native state, yet he and Bea were divorced in 1977 which isn't mentioned. She probably was there, however. Also, she wasn't his only wife - he was married once before he met her; that marriage isn't covered. In the movie, we're told of one illegitimate child - there were 12. It would have been impossible to get all of that and more into a film.

What isn't skipped is his glorious music, which seems to go on constantly throughout the film, continually reinforcing his genius and artistry.

Charles' story is compelling and holds the audience's interest throughout. Those who scoff at it as a made-for-TV movie don't give it the credit it deserves. Taylor Hackford's direction gives \"Ray\" a good pace, and the movie has a lot of atmosphere and evokes the various decades beautifully.

As Ray, Jamie Foxx inhabits the character and makes one forget he's a comedian playing a part. Foxx wore prosthetics, did his own piano playing, and spent a great deal of time with Charles preparing for the role. He nails him, but it's not an impersonation - he's a flesh and blood man with hallucinations of standing in water and finding his brother's body; a man full of denial about his addiction, hating the word junkie and believing he's not hooked; and he's in denial about his home life, thinking that his wife doesn't know about his various affairs and illegitimate children (in the movie, child); and a man taken terrible advantage of early in his career because of his blindness who refuses to be walked on later on. He demands to be paid in $1 bills so they can be counted; when he discovers he's a gravy train for a club owner and her partner and was nearly cheated out of a record deal, he makes his own deal and leaves his job.

One doesn't so much marvel at Foxx's performance as accept him as Ray from the first time he appears on camera.

This is an excellent biography, which, like \"Walk the Line\" is punctuated with the fantastic music of the artist. Whether or not you're a Ray Charles fan, \"Ray\" is something to experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ray is one of those movies that makes you pause. You actually think about what you heard or think about what you read about this man and it doesn't even come close. During my first viewing of Ray I forgot I was watching a movie I felt like a peeping tom watching this man's life thru a window. This movie is so compelling it drags you in and it involves your every emotion you go thru a emotional roller-coaster ride and when it's over you don't want to do it again so soon because it has that kind of emotional punch that other movies are lacking. Jamie Foxx deserved his Oscar and quite rightfully so his performance is spectacular and it should be held up as the standard for anybody wanting to do a bio pic anytime soon. This movie is as good as it's subject both deserved the titles classic and legend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not saying anything new when I say that \"Ray\" was magnificent. As I proceed to laud this movie I have to mention something that sets it apart from other films. Very rarely is a film made entirely by the actor(s). \"Ray\" quite simply was made by Jamie Foxx. Without the wonderful performance of Jamie Foxx, \"Ray\" would just be another interesting and informative biopic. I always thought Foxx was funny, stemming from his days with \"In Livin' Color\" and \"The Jamie Foxx Show\", and I also knew that he was talented, as he used his own show (\"The Jamie Foxx Show\") to show off his musical talents. But never did I imagine that he could pull off a role like this. I don't know much about acting and what they go through to get into character or other things like that, but what I saw from Jamie Foxx was extremely impressive. He wrapped himself into that role and made us see Ray Charles rather than an actor portraying Ray Charles. The story of \"Ray\" was great yes, but it was given life by Jamie Foxx.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The very first talking picture has returned from oblivion, and now you can hear it and see it! In autumn of 1894, at the Edison lab complex in West Orange, New Jersey, Thomas Edison's associate William Dickson tried to combine two existing technologies (the phonograph and the kinetoscope) to record sound and image together. In the event, Dickson was unable to synchronise the playback of sound and image, so this experimental film was never released to paying audiences ... and consequently (unlike many silent films which Dickson made for Edison at this time) it has no official title. The silent image (recorded at 40 fps) has been in the Library of Congress for years, known to film historians as a mute curiosity. It was also known that the 'soundtrack' had been recorded on one of the crude wax cylinders languishing at the Edison National Historic Site ... although nobody knew which one.

But now that's changed. Recently, curators located the wax cylinder, which had broken into several pieces. These were reassembled: a playback was obtained, and the sound was digitised. Hollywood's veteran soundtrack editor Walter Murch cleaned up the background noise and tweaked the digitisation to make it synch with the film image, which Murch had digitally compressed to 30 fps. Sound and image are synchronised at last!

The film begins with an offscreen man's voice calling: 'The rest of you fellows ready? Go ahead!' (The unseen speaker remains unidentified, but was probably Dickson's assistant Fred Ott.) On screen, Dickson plays a violin into an immense funnel mounted on a tripod (one of Edison's sound-recording devices) while alongside him, in full view of the camera, two male lab assistants embrace each other for some quick ballroom dancing to the tempo of Dickson's music.

The film lasts barely 17 seconds: just long enough for us to marvel at this crude technology before being provoked to laughter at the sight of two men waltzing in each other's arms. Speaking of which, here's a WARNING: a well-known but extremely inaccurate reference book ('The Celluloid Closet', by the late Vito Russo) includes a frame enlargement from this movie and identifies it as 'The Gay Brothers'. That's incorrect. 'The Gay Brothers' is an entirely different movie, made by Dickson at the Edison lab during this same period. 'The Gay Brothers' never had a soundtrack: it's a brief fiction film about two brothers who are NOT 'gay' in the sense Russo meant it. The deceased Mr Russo, for his own reasons, wanted us to perceive Dickson's experimental sound film (arguably the first movie musical!) as an artefact of 19th-century homoeroticism. (Hmm, what is it about gay men and musicals?) Sorry, but there's just no such content here.

This vitally important film deserves a rating of 10 out of 10. I've often maintained that no 'lost' movie should ever be considered irretrievable unless it was deliberately destroyed: I'm delighted to report that this film is finally available to audiences as its producer intended it, more than a century after it was filmed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was on a day in 1891 when Scottish inventor William K.L. Dickson surprised his boss, Thomas Alva Edison with his remarkable work in the development of motion pictures. After many experiments, Dickson was now able to capture scenes of real life with his camera, and reproduce them through his invention, the Kinetoscope, as if a fragment of time were preserved in celluloid. Soon, Dickson's Kinetoscope would become an enormous success as a new way of entertainment, with many people eager to pay the nickel that was charged to be able to watch people dancing, or acrobats performing stunts through the \"peepshow\" of the Kinetoscope. However, the invention wasn't complete, in order for it to capture on film the real life as we know it, sound was needed on the movies. So Dickson kept experimenting and this short experiment, Kinetophone's first film, was the result.

In this experiment, codenamed simply as \"Dickson Experimental Sound Film\", director William K.L. Dickson stands in front of a recording cone for a wax cylinder (earliest method of recording sound), with his violin on hands, playing a song named \"Song of the Cabin Boy\". The idea was to record the song into the cylinder at the same time that the camera was recording his movements. In order to show that this was a motion picture, two of Edison's \"Black Maria\" laboratory decided to do a little dance in front of the camera. Unlike what author Vito Russo claimed in his book, \"The Celluloid Closet\", this little dance had nothing to do with homosexuality as it obviously is a reference to the environment of loneliness of the lab, akin to the lonely sailors to whom the \"Song of the Cabin Boy\" was dedicated to (the title Russo suggests, \"The Gay Brothers\", is actually anachronistic as \"gay\" had no homosexual connotation in the late 1890s).

Sadly, Dickson was unable to achieve the desired effect, and the Kinetophone never could really produce the synchronized audio with images. While he had the cylinder with the sound and the celluloid with the images, the synchronization of the two elements was not exactly effective, and the sudden appearance of Auguste and Louis Lumi\u00e8re's Cin\u00e9matographe prompted Edison's team to focus on projecting systems and eventually Dickson left the company. Fortunately, in 1998 Dickson's cylinder with the movie's sound was rebuilt and film editor Walter Murch made a restoration of the experiment as it was intended. Finally, \"Dickson Experimental Sound Film\" could be heard with synchronized sound, just as its creative inventor had intended. While it was not a successful attempt, this outstanding film is a testament of the enormous genius of the father of Kinetoscope. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a pretty interesting experiment to watch. It's the first ever, still existing attempt, to unite sight with sound. It features two men dancing to a violin player (possibly William K.L. Dickson himself), who is standing next to an Edison recording cylinder, that is capturing the sound.

The sound and images were not linked together as one yet. And it wasn't until recently that the sound and image have been added technically together. It's probably the reason why people hesitate to call this movie the first ever sound picture.

The movie is made by William K.L. Dickson, a assistant to Thomas Edison himself who ordered him to come up with a way to unite pictures and sound. The answer he provided was the Kinetophone, a Kinetoscope (basicly a large wooden box with a peephole in it, so people could watch the moving images) with a cylinder phonograph inside of it, for the sound. This is the first, that we know off, surviving movie-experiments that feature this technique. All of the later movies using this same technique were shot as silent movies and sound effects were recorded later and separately. So the Kinephone was not an attempt to synchronize sound and images but more an attempt to have images accompanied by sound. In some cases, people could even choose from three sound cylinders, featuring 3 different orchestral performances to accompany the images. Only 45 Kinetophones were ever made so you could hardly call the Kinephone a success. Also after this experiment, focus went off to other cinema techniques, mainly regarding movie-projectors.

So the experiment itself obviously did not become a success, also since it took over 30 more years before the first movies with sound were made and commercially released. They just couldn't yet technically synchronize and put the sound and the images together yet at the time and even if they could and techniques would had been available, it would had been a very expensive job to do so. It therefor really isn't the most influential or historically important movies out of cinematic history but it's very interesting to watch, how people constantly tried to improve the quality and techniques of early cinema and movie-making.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is an eery, but interesting film. I will tell you why it is eery later in this review.

The film is interesting because it was the first film to ever contain sound. No, it may not be a one hour and forty two minute film, no it may not contain great action scenes, but it is still a wonderful film to me. It sparked a whole knew revolution if you will, of sound movies. This can be a little eery to watch, knowing that everyone in that film are now dead, I can hear the voice of a man in the beginning who no longer walks the Earth visible, and that the sound is cracky and broken.

I recommend this video for everyone to watch. This created movies as we know it today!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There have been several books that have cited this as the earliest gay cinema. I don't really see this as all that gay in the homosexual sense but then seeing two men dancing in what has to be the worlds first movie musical does have its attraction.

There have been several earlier comments about this film dismissing any homosexual overtones. As to those that are quick to dismiss this film as just being silly and an experiment done late at night after too many drinks... Well I've heard that story before.

This film is of interest as an oddity and if folks want to consider it the first gay film so be it. Better this than the depressing 1919 Anders als die Andern.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The fact that this film was shown at London's Barbican suggests to me that the print must have been acceptable enough for such a showing. Now the question is, Why isn't this long lost and important film available in DVD (or even VHS)? A large number of persons in Europe and the USA have for many years hoped to see this film, if for no other reason than the wonderful music written for it by Sergei Prokofiev. What does one have to do to get such a wonderful production as this available for a wider public, not just patrons to the Barbican at London? Having been a devoted listener to Prokofiev's music for many years and aware of this film, PLEASE, someone 'out there' do the right thing and bring it out as a DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went to see this film out of curiosity, and to settle an argument. The film is now best known from the suite of music Sergei Prokofiev extracted from his incidental music to the film, the Troika movement even turning up in pop arrangements. The general outline of the plot is well known from the sleeve notes on various recordings. A clerk accidentally generates a non-existent Lieutenant Kizhe in a list to be presented to the tsar. The tsar is interested in this person, and rather than tell him he doesn't exist, the courtiers and officers maintain the pretence that he is real. Kizhe is exiled to Siberia, recalled, promoted, married, promoted again, dies, is given a state funeral, revealed as an embezzler and posthumously demoted to the ranks.

I had heard conflicting stories about how the clerk invented Kizhe, involving ink blots and sneezes, but I'd heard the film was lost, so there was no way to find out what happens. Then the film turned up at the Barbican in London as part of their Prokofiev festival. For the record, it turned out that all that happens is that the clerk confuses two words whilst writing an order and turns Kuzhe into Kizhe. As the tsar is in a hurry to see the order, there's no time to correct the mistake.

Having gone expecting an historical curiosity, I was pleasantly surprised. The film is very funny, and the audience, myself included, laughed continuously. Although most of it is filmed straight, set mostly in the palace, there are a few \"trick\" shots where multiple images appear on the screen. For instance, the tsar's army is represented by a small group, repeated across the screen. Four identical guards perform perfect drill in perfect unison. Two identical servants scrub the floor.

One slight drawback was it was very difficult to work out who everyone was. There were two women who might have been the tsar's daughters, or a daughter and a servant or something else. And very few people were named. But all in all, an enjoyable film and I'm surprised it's not seen more often.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ever wonder where that episode, \"Tuttle,\" came from in the middle of the first season of M*A*S*H? Well now the cat's out of the bag: they got it from this Soviet film, a satire on how dumb the Tsar is, due to the slip of a pen (rendering the phrase \"the Lieutenants, though ...\" into \"Lieutenant Kizhe\" which has no meaning) and nobody being honest or gutsy enough to contradict him and just tell him the truth -- Kizhe doesn't exist and never did. So they make up an imaginary life for him and eventually kill him off. And 40 years later, David Ketchum and Bruce Shelly borrowed this zany plot and gave us essentially the same story, only on the other side of what had become the Cold War, proving that people in high positions can be equally dumb no matter what their loyalties may be!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw this movie when it came out and then a couple more times years later. I'm watching it now 20 years later and it's still a very good story. Does it wreak of \"lifetime movie network\"? Yes, but alas lifetime was not even in existence back then so it needed somehwere to air.

The cast was excellent. The story was a little schmaltzy; two women become close friends and unbeknownst to either one friend is having an affair with he other friends husband. She's invited over to the house for a dinner party which is how she discovers that her lover is the husband of her best friend. She is horrified and tries to break off the affair. Shortly afterwards he is tragically killed in a car accident which is devatating for both women. Of course the wife finds out by accident about this affair and wants Holly out of her life now, but their friendship is able to prevail because they need each other.

I thought it was a very good story a great cast and perfomrances. I really enjoyed it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Christine Lahti (Sandy Dunlap) and Mary Tyler Moore (Holly Davis) worked well with soapish material, Ted Danson did his best with a thankless role of Chip Davis The premise of this that the two ladies' friendship, one a seemingly happily married woman and the other a career woman who is aware of her biological clock ticking. I found the relationship that Ted Danson's character had with the single woman played by Christine Lahti's rather sordid. He behaved in a caddish way, yet he left two \"widows\" pining over him, bawling. I found it revolting when when Sandy told him she wanted to break it off after meeting his wife, he calls her saying he misses her (did he call his wife? There was no sign of that). He behaved like a heel. It perhaps would have made a more interesting film had he not been killed off. Perhaps both ladies would have wised up and dumped him. I liked the friendship between the two ladies but it was spoiled by what they had in common: The Cad of a husband.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although the premise of the movie involves a major \"coincidence,\" the actors all do a creditable job and look great bringing the story to life. I found myself rooting for the characters played by Mary Tyler Moore and Christine Lahti, empathizing with both, and wanting them to reconcile. Sam Waterston and Ted Danson are fine in their roles as well, doing a decent job with the stereotypical buddy relationship. While the story tends to leap through time, occasionally leaving the audience perhaps a little hungry for missing detail, it still flows and avoids any real confusion. This interesting storyline has all the elements for a good \"chick flick.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I normally don't comment on movies on IMDB, but in this case I feel like I should. I love movies, and I want to make them, and this movie is a perfect example of fine filmmaking.

This is one of the few movies that I have seen on the small screen (originally seeing it air on AMC, I believe, and then on the DVD I just watched) that made me get that feeling in the pit of my stomach. That little gnawing sensation that the director would hope you feel while watching his thriller.

Jack Lemmon's performance is a fine one, and Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas follow. I felt so much empathy of Lemmon, who's character Jack Godell, only wanted people to listen to his warning.

But what impresses me most about this film is the lack of a score, and this is also what makes it beautiful to me. Apart from the opening titles there are no background music to increase the tension, because none is needed. And while the credits run, white on black, in silence it drives the point home.

I use the movie as an example to anyone who says music makes the movie. I think the movie should make the movie and the music should only amplify that. But for The China Syndrome music is not necessary to get across the realism and the urgency depicted here. The characters portray all of this far better than the music ever could.

I highly recommend this movie, it is one of my favorites. If you like movies, you won't be disappointed. If you like movie soundtracks more, you might not want to give this one a go.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Intelligent, nail-biting drama came out of nowhere in 1979 and soon was on the cover of every newspaper in America (when life imitated the film). A nuclear power plant employee in Southern California is threatened by superiors when he decides to go public with the real story behind an accident at the plant. Ostensibly a stuck valve problem, a TV news-crew's film shows that it was an accident verging on disastrous proportions--and worse, that safety conditions are being scrubbed to save millions of dollars, a cover-up that endangers everyone's lives. The movie occasionally gets too technical (especially in the second-half) and could use more human interplay, however the performances by Jack Lemmon, Jane Fonda (as a puff-piece news-woman in the right place at the right time), and Michael Douglas (as a freelance cameraman) are superb. The throwaway bits involving nuclear protesters is both entirely accurate and bitterly satirical, and the news-biz (with its corporate structure and vapid yes-men) is vividly captured. ***1\/2 from ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first thing you see in this film is a static angle(one which will be repeated later in the film), depicting the chaos going on(unseen to the audience) in a studio that airs news. Soon after, Fonda's character's typical story is shown, in that same angle. Don't let this mislead you; the film is not about a female reporter, a woman struggling to succeed in a male-dominated profession. That is merely a lead-in, a way of starting the film(though it's used later). The actual point to this production is revealed gradually, and the first we see of it is in a deliberately long scene early on. The entire film has that pace; not slow or drawn-out, but deliberate. It's never really fast, even in the few sequences that one would normally expect to be so. This pacing(especially because it seems to slow down further as the plot is revealed, as the disturbing, unsettling nature of the film is unraveled) is strong, almost painful to the viewer. It inspires you to, if it had been possible, jump into the screen, grab the people responsible by the collar and yell at them to *do* something about it, to remedy the situation. Never once did I feel like getting up or even taking my eyes off the screen for a moment. The subject is extremely important to be aware of, and it's handled perfectly here. No over-dramatization(well... very little, anyway), just an accurate presentation of the issue. The direction is astounding. The empathy felt for Lemmon's character is profound. The editing is masterful... one scene near the very end illustrates that perfectly. The editor, judging from his filmography, is vastly underrated. The writing was excellent. The acting was great, in particular by Lemmon, Fonda and Douglas(who also produced it). The lack of a score is perfect; no music is needed to enhance. The ending is sublime and effective. The movie does have a few negative points... among them, some of the dialog is obviously and undeniably mainly exposition, one particular part of the film, whilst dramatic, doesn't seem to mesh with something that follows it. Not everyone will watch the film because of two features of it which are commonly (and rightfully so) attributed to bad movies; the pacing(which can be mistaken as being slow) and the (lack of) score. One could argue that to be a negative thing, as everyone ought to consider the points it presents, but maybe it's better this way; handling the heavy subject with the intelligence and respect(for the topic as well as the viewer)... something like this, maybe it shouldn't be spoon-fed. I was mesmerized with the film, and left very taken aback. I recommend this to anyone who believe themselves strong enough to handle it. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When THE CHINA SYNDROME was released, plenty of right-wing critics and pro-nuke supporters blasted this film, particularly since its three leading stars were all known for their liberal politics and their overt distrust of nuclear power. But it only took two weeks and a near-catastrophic accident at Three Mile Island to shut those critics up.

Fonda and Douglas are the L.A. news crew that witness a potentially nasty accident at the Ventana nuclear power plant. Douglas films the event through the plant's soundproof glass; but the TV station will not air the footage, fearing a massive lawsuit. It is thus up to Fonda and Douglas to get at the truth, despite a massive attempt by the plant's owners to cover up the accident.

But a conscientious shift supervisor (Jack Lemmon) has uncovered certain defects in the plant's pump support structure. He believes that these defects were the cause of the accident and that, though it would be extremely costly and lengthy, if repairs aren't made, the next accident could be apocalyptic. But he can't get anyone who works with him to believe his story. The result is a nightmarish climax that pulls various political, technological, and human interest stories together in one disturbing package.

While obviously quite politically liberal in nature, THE CHINA SYNDROME, well directed and co-written by James Bridges (THE PAPER CHASE), is also fundamentally a message movie about the inherent dangers of putting technology and nuclear power together. Fundamentally, nuclear power can NEVER be made safe because people can NEVER be perfect. That is what the film is saying; and in a highly entertaining and suspenseful way, it says it brilliantly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All the right elements seemed to conspire here to make this a memorable thriller for years to come. You have the stellar cast - Michael Douglas in an uncharacteristic 'free-spirit' role that pretty much launched his movie career, Fonda playing her typical forthright female doing her bit for womens lib, and Jack Lemmon as assured as ever showing us a man with a crisis of confidence. Give them a hot-button topic about big business being duplicitous, and that's encouraging for a kickoff, but to have life imitating art so soon after is a marketing man's dream.

The script is impressively taut, intelligent but mercifully keeping the jargon to a minimum, and there is a genuine sense of sustained tension brought in play by the director as our three protagonists race to beat the clock. If you like 'whistle blowing' dramas, then this is not quite as good as \"The Insider\", but the whole thing is more than nervy enough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bridges's drama about a reporter who discovers some flaws in the safety precautions taken at a nuclear powerplant is directed well and a pretty interesting film from the late 70s. Its not amazing, but its solid, the acting is pretty good especially Jack lemmon, but Douglas and Fonda were good too. It was a pretty good screenplay and Bridges's direction was solid and suitable. This is definitely not one of the best films of the 70s, but its one of the better ones. A good early Michael Douglas film and Lemmon in his prime.--- IMDb Rating: 7.2, my rating:, so in simple words, solid but not amazing... thats what this film is, solid but not amazing 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"TV newscaster Kimberly Wells (Jane Fonda) and her radical camerman Richard Adams (Michael Douglas) are at a nuclear power plant when a serious accident happens. The plants managers play it down but Adams has filmed it all. Wells and Adams try to get it on the air but the corporation that runs the plant prevents it. Plant executive Jack Godell (Jack Lemmon) realizes there are serious problems and tests have been falsified. He tries to get executives to believe him--only they know it. Wells, Adams and Godell find all their lives are in danger.

I saw this in a movie theatre in 1979. I was only 17 and it scared me silly. To make matters worse the Three Mile Island accident happened around this time making the movie all that more real. Seeing it over 20 years later it doesn't scare me but it still is an excellent film--it works as a mystery, a gripping drama and an expose on the nuclear power industry. Fonda (with red hair) has one of her best roles as Wells--she perfectly conveys her character's growing suspicion and horror when she realizes a nuclear disaster could happen. Lemmon is (as always) excellent. He starts out believing in his company and the job and slowly starts to unravel when he starts finding things out. He was rightfully nominated for an Academy Award for this. Douglas is good but he has a small part and is completely overshadowed by Lemmon and Fonda.

A really great film--one of the best of the 70s. Don't miss this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thoroughly enjoyed this film when it was first released, and on each occasion I've seen it since. The political drama is effective, if not especially new or inspired. The decades since the release of the film have demonstrated that the willingness to cut costs at the expense of public safety is definitely not just something imagined by a screenwriter.

However, I think the most impressive element of this film is Jack Lemmon's performance. It is absolutely astonishing to watch him at work. He has the gift to be able to communicate so much, at times without saying a word. Next time you watch this film, check out Jack's face at the times he is not saying anything. He does not need to speak (or worse yet, to mug) to let you know what's going through his mind.

I am calling this a spoiler, because of the impression it made on me when I first saw the film: in Lemmon's last scene in the film, as he is lying on the floor, he feels a slight vibration. The terror in his eyes is one of the most frightening images I have seen in any film. It is perfect acting, because it conveys instantly the threat about to occur--if Jack's character is so terrified, there is certainly something awful about to happen. And it does.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best and most exciting of all conspiracy thrillers, (there were a number of such film in the 1970's). This one is about an accident at a Neuclear Reactor and of the attempts to cover it up. Jack Lemmon is the employee who realizes just how dangerous the plant is and Jane Fonda is the crusading television reporter who takes the story on board and both players are at their best.

The events portrayed in the film are, of course, terrifying and not in the least bit far-fetched, (much of what happens here happened in real life at Three Mile Island), and although it now looks like something a period piece it, nevertheless, highlights just how fragile and dangerous a world we have created for ourselves. Expect a number of similar films about the effects of global warming any time soon, (and not rubbish like \"The Day After Tomorrow\" either).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The China Syndrome\" launched a whole string of films about the potentially devastating effects of misused nuclear power, a black cloud of paranoia that would hang over America for much of the Reagan years. It's a well-made and effective drama, given an extra punch by its high-power stars, notably Jack Lemmon who plays a senior official of the nuclear power plant who suffers a crisis of conscience. But one can't help but think that it was the serendipitous timing of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident that occurred just a couple of weeks after this film's release that has given it its lasting appeal as a classic from the 70s. As watchable as it is, it's certainly no classic.

With a red-headed Jane Fonda as a news reporter and a bearded Michael Douglas as her camera man (and the film's producer, by the way).

Grade: B+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great film from the late 1970's. Says much about corporate corruption at the expense of the common person, so that the powerful can gain gain huge profits and disregard the environment and safety of others.

Nearly 30 years later this film is compelling about the power of certain corporate entities that since the films release have gained ten fold in their ability to control; It shows the need for regulation of the public against powerful business interests whose primary goal is profit.

Jack Lemmon is brilliant- while Jane Fonda and Micheal Douglas are as equally compelling in their roles. The frivolous 70s where damned for much, this film redeems the decade.

A film that becomes better after each watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Again, I've read all of the comments posted here and agree with the many intelligent ones, but totally disagree with those who think it was\/is hokum.

Personally, I think nuclear is about the only energy left to us, unless our governments (feds and states) increase the grants thinking homeowners will use photo-cells on their roofs. Many attractive and pricey homes in Southern Calfifornia are designed and built to take advantage of the cleanest energy around, the sun. I live in a loft, which is exposed to total sunlight on its roof the entire day. I hardly use the AC - I'm sure it would consume too much electricity to convert the intense heat in the attic to about five degrees cooler. We are blessed with \"dry\" heat in this part of the country. I'm from the Gulf Coast of the USA, so I know about humidity.......

That said, I found \"the China Syndrome\" to be a convincing movie about what COULD go wrong, if the industry is not busy regulating and inspecting nuclear plants. I think there are enough comments posted here to enlighten those who still fear it like the plague: they ARE safe. TMI is still on-line....

Director James Bridges carefully guides this plot (by Mike Gray-T S Cook) to build suspense and to a thoughtfully interesting film. All the roles were well-played: Jane Fonda (\"Kimberly Wells\"), Jack Lemmon (Jack Godell\") and producer Michael Douglas (\"Richard Adams\") are all excellent in their roles, plus all of the rest of the cast. I, too, loved there being no score. It was so interesting to get a true-to-life glimpse of the behind-the-scenes of the TV industry - that shouldn't be surprising. Currently, Dan Rather is sue-ing CBS, and I hope he wins. Can you believe Donald Trump saying \"he's a loser\" ? Trump - who cares? \"tiberius1234\" posted a very good comment here - I agree. It is my opinion that getting \"vaporized\" by a nuclear spill is much better than living in a world which has been wasted, and becomes \"Blade Runner\" and\/or \"Solyent Green\". Come away from your video-games for a couple of hours and watch this \"dated\" movie (really isn't), and get a little education on nuclear energy. I Recommend it to the whole family....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"first watched this film years ago with my daughter who is now 13 and fell in love with the vampire. we both thought it was a top film, then watched sub 11 then sub 111 now i find there is sub 1v which i cannot wait to get my fangs on, and also there is a fifth in the pipe line. if no one has seen the movies. these are the best of the best. i think it deserver's a thousands Oscar's. i could watch these from morning to night.i would love to have a set of nails like he has, watch out girls. i love it as all the story lines continues from film to film. these ant typical vampire movies they are better. i would love to live in the life that is protruded in the films. it would make all my dreams come true","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"the subspecies series is an always will be the best vampire movies ever. there is something about them that makes them special i think it`s the feeling you get when you watch them .

they are set in modern times and yet they feel as if they are set in the 1700`s or 1800`s i think it has some thing to do with the set`s that are used if so then it`s working keep it up guy`s :).

in a quick round up of what`s happened in the first part - Radu was supposedly bannished from his home land years ago by his father and he has decided to come back and take what he thinks is his birth rite. the blood stone and all his father has so he kill`s his father who is played by Angus Scrimm (the tall man from the Phantasm movies). and takes the blood stone which has emense power to who ever has it because who has it need never kil anyone again because the stone is supposedly meant to drip the bloody of the saints and every time the Radu takes a drop from it he is slowly going insane. (thats all we need an insane vampire as if a normal vampire aint bad enough). well Radu`s brother Stephan try`s to put a stop to his evil ways all while trying to stop himself falling inlve with a tourist who is staying at a house\/fort which belongs to a friend of his.

well one thing leads to another and the two brothers clash and well you will have to see the movie to see what goes on from here on in.

i will review\/comment on the other sequels soon .

the difference between this and buffy is buffy is too commercial and this is not so this will not appeal to everyone but this has an atmosphere far superior to that of buffy although Radu does not look as good as the wonder full Sarah Michelle Gellar :).

rating for this movie 10\/10 a fine example of how a vampire movie should be done :).

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"King Vladislav (Angus Scrimm) of Romania is a vampire, but a vampire of light who wants nothing more than to live in peace and harmony with mankind. But his son, Radu (Anders Hove), is a cruel creature to his very heart (which is pretty obvious as soon as you see him). Three female students have come to study local folklore, but find themselves drawn into the vampires legends at just the wrong time: Vladislav has been killed.

Who can say anything bad about a film featuring a cameo from Angus Scrimm? I can't. I mean, I had some low expectations after seeing other Full Moon pictures (\"Puppet Master\" in particular, and \"Demonic Toys\"). But despite the really bad animated effects of the demons, this film was actually really well done and very fun to watch. Plenty of blood, a good plot and backstory (the Bloodstone story was surprisingly refreshing) and even some new angles on the vampire mythos, which you'd think would be dead by now. (Maybe I'm wrong, but this is probably the first film to feature rosary beads being fired from a gun.) Aside from vampires and blood, you get a share of nudity (gratuitous, but welcome) and I had to notice the excellent score from the composers (not sure who deserves credit, but those involved include Stuart Brotman, Richard Kosinski, William Levine, Michael Portis and John Zeretzka). This is Horror 101 all the way. Heck, you even get two sequels, which is the sign of a true horror film. (Of course, some bad films get sequels, too -- did I mention \"Puppet Master\"?) The Romanian theme was well-done, and the film even seems to have been made by Romanians if I am guessing their name origins correctly. And the score -- the music -- really stood out for me as a nice change of pace, very mood-setting. I like Richard Band, but I'm glad another composer was given a shot because he nailed the atmosphere on the head. If you like vampire films and want a slight variation (one of the Eastern European variety), this is worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For pure gothic vampire cheese nothing can compare to the Subspecies films. I highly recommend each and every one of them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK. So it can be done! We have here the perfect vampire movie. Gothic, beautiful. With all the ingredients. A realistic vampire. A wonderful story. Take note - I am from Transylvania and I assure you, this movie respects the vampire lore! It's exactly like the tales I heard in my childhood. For a transylvanian, it is quite... believable. You must see it, if you are interested by real vampires, as they were depicted in medieval chronicles and not how are they done in recent Hollywood movies (as far as I can guess, the Hollywood problem is they mix vampires with the incubus - which is pretty hilarious for me. Vampires are never good-looking or attractive, they can inspire only horror and repulsion. The incubus - called in my country The Night Flier, is the one beautiful demon which kills his victims by loving them.) I strongly recommend this for any Gothic person out there! See also the sequels, they are all 4 very good! And of course, don't miss DArk shadows! Something similar is Nosferatu In Venice with Klaus Kinski. I recommend that one to.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A few years ago, while I was renting some movies, I came across Subspecies 4, ended up watching it and actually kind of liking it, we need a good vampire gore flick that doesn't hold back. But when I went back to the video store, they said they didn't have any other Subspecies videos, unfortunately, the same went for any other video store I checked out. I gave up, until someone on youtube actually posted all the Subspecies films and I got to watch them all last night and I'm hooked. I am now a fan of the Full Moon Subspecies series. I think because this was the type of horror film I have been looking for, I've been looking for a good cheesy scare for a long time and Subspecies filled that spot. Radu is one of the coolest vampires on screen and almost gives Nosferatu a run for his fangs!

Radu is an evil vampire who is after his blood stone, his birth rite, the stone contains some blood that is absolutely incredible and gives him strength. Three American girls who are studying Romanian history and culture bump into a man, Stephan, who offers to help. They stay at Radu's castle where we find out that Stephan is Radu's brother; Radu seduces and turns two of the girls, but Stephan falls for one of the girls, Michelle, and will do anything to protect her.

Subspecies is a fun series, despite the cheesy effects, it makes it in some ways more likable. Plus Radu was a perfect villain as Stephan was the perfect angel like romantic vampire. The story is chilling and I think this was a fun vampire movie. This was also the first in the series, the best part is, the sequels are just as fun. I would recommend this for a scary movie night, watch it in the dark, Radu is sure to send shivers down your spine, or even your neck... OK, cheesy joke, couldn't resist.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Absolute grabber of a movie, and given its age, years ahead of its time. I first saw this the week my dad came home with a neighbor's TV, that the guy had thrown on the scrap heap. A tinkerer with all things electrical, dad had it working inside two days. This was July 1955...and then probably only the third house in the street to HAVE television! Pretty much the first thing we ever saw on that grainy and flickering old 12-inch screen was THIS film. \"It's pretty OLD dear,\" I recall my mom telling me!

Almost 50 years on, and it doesn't seem any older - rather like World War I in that respect! Terrific little fantasy about a London omnibus carrying thirteen passengers, that crashes, killing one of their number. Then, in flashback we pick up on the lives of these people and what brought them to being on this bus that very day.

Returning to the crash at the end of the film, the victim's identity is revealed, perhaps the inspiration behind the 1960 movie THE LIST OF ADRIAN MESSENGER.

If ever you come across this little gem, I suggest you watch it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So many early British sound films that I've seen on video suffer from either poor print transfer quality or poor sound or both. Fortunately, I was able to obtain a copy of this movie on a video of excellent quality, enabling me to focus on the story itself.

And, an excellent story it was. At first sight, the passengers on the ill-fated bus looked like a pretty boring lot (except for the always lovely Jessie Matthews). But, as the film went back to show each passenger's story on the day before the accident, I discovered that the cast, contrary to initial appearance, was a talented group of performers, skillfully directed so as to bring a real individuality to their distinctive characterizations.

Viewers may have different preferences as to which two passengers are going to meet a tragic end and which ones will survive. But, the movie holds your interest as it keeps you guessing. This film deserves a much wider audience - a real gem of early British Cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film has an excellent premise and is really crying out to be turned into a Hollywood blockbuster. As I recall (and it's a few years since I've seen the film) the action starts with a London omnibus filled with people. There is an horrific crash and one passenger dies. The rest of the film is then told in flashback, with 13 characters who were on the bus getting their recent lives explored in intricate detail. At the end of the film we return to the crash and find out which of these chirpy, vivid characters has met a gruesome end. Great stuff, a little like a good tabloid news story fleshed out in precise, even handed detail. If only it were available on video...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie pops up now and again on the ABC in Australia at about 3 am in the morning.

It starts off with the scene of a bus crash in London.

The films has got flashbacks of each character as the film progresses, plus the lapsed photography of Big Ben winding back, to symbolise what events occurred thirteen hours ago, up until the bus crash.

It took me a while to understand it, but it was enjoyable nonetheless.

If Sean Cunningham and Quentin Tarrantino got together and made a film, this may be the result - due to the flashbacks and small stories tying in, and deaths.

I am unsure of the main characters, as it has been a while since I have seen it, but a rare gem indeed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an exceptional film. It is part comedy, part drama, part suspense. The dialog is exquisite. Most of the actors and actresses were very famous in their time, and for good reason. You will probably recognize someone, even if you don't usually watch older movies. They are also each in a role that particularly suits their talents.

One correction to make on another users comment is that two people, not one, are announced to die in the accident. Maybe the unlucky two are a reflection of what the writer considers important in life. The movie is too engaging to worry about who it is until it happens.

The story is ahead of its time, but it does not lose the quality of an older movie. Time and effort was spent perfecting the camera's view and the soundtrack, something modern movie makers tend to forget.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite its age, this film retains its undoubted charm and attraction, and is a fine, surviving example of early British cinema. It has an underlying air of eeriness, interspersed with shafts of humour which are not out of place, and serve to demonstrate the assured direction & production values involved. So many episodic type films are disjointed and untidy, but this is not one of them. The standard of acting helps a great deal, and the various disparate characters come across as interesting and believable. All in all, this long-forgotten little gem is well worth anyone's attention, in spite of the one jarring note in the film which, surprisingly, escaped the censor's attention!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why Jessie Matthews, one of Britains top musical stars, was in this movie in between her sparkling \"The Good Companions\" and the classic \"Evergreen\" is a good question? When I first saw it I was really disappointed. I wanted to see her sing and dance - she was billed as \"Millie - the non - stop variety girl\" but there was more stop than variety.

Now I see it as a good little drama.

It is about a bus crash and the stories, leading up to it, of the people on the bus.

Apart from Jessie Matthews, who is great as Millie - Sir Ralph Richardson plays her fianc\u00e9e ( yes, that's right).

Edmund Gwenn - who went to Hollywood to co-star in Lassie movies and also with Natalie Wood in \"Miracle on 34th Street\", plays a grumpy businessman. Gordon Harker is his very annoying partner.

Emlyn Williams - who wrote \"Night Must Fall\" was the black - mailing villain and Frank Lawton, who went to Hollywood and appeared in \"David Copperfield\" and \"The Devil Doll\" is the young man in trouble. Sonnie Hale who was married to Jessie Matthews at the time played the bus conductor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With looks that could kill, and a willingness to display her charms, Paget's sensuality leaves no doubt as to where her assets lay...

She plays a sultry-innocent 13th-century princess who rouses her people to save Egypt from the ambitions of a powerful Beduin (Michael Rennie) and joins her forces with the son of the Caliph of Baghdad (Jeffrey Hunter) to save her trembling throne... She also finds time to fulfill a great deal of exotic dancing... Her luscious legs make her hard to forget!

The emphasis is not on the plot, but on the visual pleasure of a great number of beautiful girls in sensual Technicolored costumes...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even the Maria Montez\/Jon Hall technicolored baubles of the '40s are eclipsed by \"Princess of the Nile,\" Fox's entry in Hollywood's mid-'50s obsession with things Egyptian (see \"Land of the Pharoahs,\" \"Valley of the Kings,\" etc.) Pure, unadulterated, mindless hokum, lavishly produced (low-budgeted, actually, but using sets and costumes left over from \"The Robe,\" this Technicolored spectacle looks like it cost millions). 71 minutes of eye-candy (the plot, having something to do with nefarious derrings-do in ancient Egypt, is beside the point) offers the cinematographer and audiences the delectable sight of Debra Paget wearing an assortment of see-thru veils, most of which hit the ground when she shakes and shimmies thru a slave-girl production number unparalleled in film history. Female moviegoers were not shortchanged: Fox's handsomest young contract player, Jeffrey Hunter, is as photogenic as Ms. Paget, while Michael Rennie lurks around in the background, stirring up evil doings in the land of the pyramids. For those who might think Paget & Hunter can't act and were only hired for their physical attributes, check out their subtle, overlooked, heartbreaking work together a few years later in \"White Feather\" (another Fox production that has sadly vanished into the realm of \"lost films\"). \"Princess of the Nile\" still stands in a class by itself as a cheerfully mindless, breathlessly fast-paced, dazzling testament to the glories of 3-strip Technicolor--and the seductive charms of Ms. Paget (all of 20 at the time). Put this one-of-a-kind kitsch classic at the top of your \"guilty pleasures\" list, and enjoy. Satisfaction guaranteed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For the most part, I only enjoy the kind of movie that allows one to escape the current time into the future or past. This movie is pure escapism. The dancing starts almost immediately, and Debra Paget in her \"purple harem\" bikini dress simply has no equal in film in my opinion. Her dancing, while sultry, is surpassed by her dance in Fritz Lang's Tiger of Eschnapur, available on DVD, where she played the temple dancer Seetha.

One problem with the movie is the closed setting. There are few outdoor scenes shot, and they as well as other scenes are a bit claustrophobic. The same locations are used over and over again, but with some interesting secret passages and waterways. Her secret double identity is totally unbelievable with beauty of that magnitude. Debra even wields a sabre and holds 2 enemy soldiers at bay on a staircase, she could do it all.

What does work is Debra Paget as a princess. With her beauty, she certainly would be the center of attention anywhere at any time in history. This movie, when hopefully it becomes available on DVD, will be a must buy. Overall, taken with a bit of humor, I loved it.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favorite films for many reasons. To begin, there are standout performances from lovely Debra Paget as a princess\/dancing girl, from Michael Rennie as the villain, handsome young Jeffrey Hunter investigating crime in her city\/state and others. The film is an unusually colorful adventure, and we even see the princess rehearsing the dance she later performs (for once). She manages to skewer Hunter before she learns he is on her side; also the photography, the costumes by Travilla, Lionel Newman's music and the film's style are unusually fine. Add to this rousing action, intelligent characterization and fine direction by veteran Harmon Jones of a Gerald Drayson Adams' script set in 1249 AD, and you have the ingredients of an enjoyable Grecianized Near-Eastern. But there is much to praise about the unusual and well--developed storyline here, as there is much more to praise other than the film's swift pace, well-managed physical action sequences and superior technical aspects. Classically-trained actors such as Michael Ansara, Edgar Barrier, Wally Cassell, Jack Elam and Dona Drake are not commonly found in one \"B\" film together; nor are there fascinating sets, a variety of locales and a mystery of the quality that is supplied here. One way of assessing a film is, \"If I were guaranteed to live through the experience, would I choose to undergo these events and perform these actions?\" Since my answer is a resounding \"yes\" in this case, this film remains one of my choices as a favorite and very-underrated cinematic work. Could it be that US critics' all-too-frequent disdain for females as warriors and thinkers that as in so many other cases has caused closed minds to misprize this estimable film's obvious anti-tyranny and pro-entertainment qualities?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched Princess of the Nile for the first time when I was about 10 years old. I am 63 now and have never forgotten the movie. Nor have I gotten over my fascination with Egypt. I have searched the internet trying to buy the movie, but have not been able to locate it. It makes me wonder if this is one of the lost movies in Hollywood. I loved Debra Padget and Jeffrey Hunter together. They have such charisma together. If you were to ask me anything about the movie I could not tell you anything other than who was in it. I vaguely remember a scene by the Nile with Debra Padget a bunch of other women.I have always wanted to see it again. I never thought of it as an escape movie back then, but I can see now where that was probably the case. I do hope they will put it on DVD and I will be able to see it again before I die. It was a wonderful movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"algernon4's comment that Ms Paget's \"ultra lewd dance in (this film) is the most erotic in the history of films\" is certainly one doozy of an exaggeration. It isn't even Debra Paget's most erotic dance. Her near nude gyrations in Fritz Lang's \"The Indian Tomb\" make this number look decidedly tame. As for being the most erotic in the history of dance. Well! Where do I start? Salma Hayek's performance as Santanico Pandemonium in \"From Dusk to Dawn\" (1996); Jamie Lee Curtis in \"True Lies\" (1994); Jessica Alba in \"Sin City\" (2005); Rose McGowan in \"Terror Planet\" (2007); Sheila Kelley in \"Dancing at the Blue Iguana\" (2000), blah, blah, blah.

Don't get me wrong. I love the sequence and have included it in my \"Cheesecake Dance\" series on Youtube. I just think that making a claim like \"most erotic in the history of film\" is really going out on a very fragile limb.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw a test screening of Blurred recently, and I am surprised to say that it was actually pretty good! Its a film about different groups of kids, your hillbillies, your rich snobs, your typical teenage couple, plus two geeky guys and one post hippie babe. Together, but as separate storylines, each group is travelling to the Gold Coast for Schoolies Week. Australia has never had any problems writing comedy and Australia is never short or actors who can play comedy with subtlety and just the right amount on quirkiness. The cast is full of stellar Aussie actors with enormous talent and loads of screen presence. Keep your eyes on Craig Horner, a young graduate, who's optimism for a week long party gets lost in his friends shenanigans. Travis Cotten and Mark Priestly, who successfully tackle some tricky physical comedy as two bummed out bogans and Jessica Gower as a cutie but confused teen angsting about love. Veronika Sywak makes her film debut as every adolescent boys dream girl, and holds her own amongst an array of considerably more experienced performers. Look out for Matthew Newton, cleverly cast as a seedy limo driver. Fantastic Aussie","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All i can say is that, i was expecting a wick movie and \"Blurred\" surprised me on the positive way. Very nice teenager movie. All this kinds of situations are normal on school life so all i can say is that all this reminded me my school times and sometimes it's good to watch this kind of movies, because entertain us and travel us back to those golden years, when we were young. As well, lead us to think better in the way we must understand our children, because in the past we were just like they want to be in the present time.Try this movie and you will be very pleased.At the same time you will have the guarantee that your time have not been wasted.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was brilliant. It was so funny and so true too. A great idea for a movie. Five groups of friends on their way to schoolies. I've got to say that Matt Newton as Mason was probably my favourite character. I wish i could give this movie more than a 10 rating.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Track Listing: 1. Spiderbait - Outta My Head 2. Lash - Take Me Away 3.Lavaland - Everwonder 4. Machine Gun Fellatio - The Girl Of My Dreams(Is Giving Me Nightmares) 5. Butterfly 9 - Growing Pains 6. Grace -Good Thing 7. Katchafire - Giddy Up 8. James - Lick A Lounge 9. K-lee -1+1+1 10. The International Noise Conspiracy - Smash It Up 11. Cartman- Shock (Living With You) 12. Pollyanna - Rebound Girl 13. Filler - Machines Don't Sleep 14. Giants Of Science - Complete This Progression 15. Rocket Science - Hyperspace 16. The Cruel Sea - Three Legged Dog 17. Lazaro's Dog - Home Entertainment System 18. Drag - Secret Design 19. Grinspoon - Chemical Heart (Acoustic Mix) 20. Subware - Come On (Jp Mix)

Loved this movie, sure it wasn't Hollywood material (some people complained about the script\/acting) but thats the beauty in Australian movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I read most of the comments here were everybody saw only the flaws of the movie. I agree, the director it's not Kuprik, the actors are not Oscar winners, but it has something everyone could relate to. I don't want to spoil but telling more then the plot - the finishing of school and the trip to a big party, or if you like to see beyond the metaphor, is choosing the way trough life. Remember that days of youth? the days when you or our friend acted like the characters? Or do you think you should acted like one of them and now you regret you didn't? if you can go back in to that time and if you can ask yourself any of this questions maybe the movie wasn't so bad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must say THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN. i know that on this website it's received only negative reviews, but for once I'd like to be the good person who gives the worlds best movie a good review. i find the movie to be extremely funny, and it has the perfect mix of everything. it makes me feel all sorts of emotions when i watch it, and I can't get enough of it. the soundtracks brilliant. I LOVE IT, i understand why people may not love it as much as I do, but I don't understand how people could hate it. The movie is 100% brilliance. Blurred is amazing. i never realised that Aussie movies could be so good, and i also never realised I could watch one movie, so many times in a single day without getting sick of it. i think that everybody should watch it, whether its to get a feel of what life was like in the younger days, or if its to see what your in for when you reach the end of year 12.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Andreas arrives in a strange city. He doesn't remember where he came from and how he got there. He is ordered to arrive at work, and gets his own apartment in the city. All his co-workers are nice and polite to him, they say hi and smile when they pass by him. But then later on Andreas discovers that the city isn't that pleasant as it seems. Going home from work, he see some people wearing grey suits, cleaning up the bloody mess of a dead body, apparently a suicide victim that had thrown himself out of the window. The procedure is done with a calmed mind, as if they were emptying a trashcan. The following day, Andreas meets the suicide victim fully alive at work. More and more Andreas discovers the feelingless atmosphere of the city.

Den brysomme mannen might be the best norwegian film I've seen. Original, artistic directing is usually missing in norwegian films, with only a few exceptions. The plot is also very original, and could even be called post-modern horror, as the film present us a terrifying thought of having to cope with a world that is completely feelingless. and the more you try to fill your life in this city with a meaning, the more meaningless it becomes. I am fascinated by how the director manages to create the feeling of a disembovled universe, a nightmare, that you simply cannot escape from, not even with death.

go see it, its really worth it! i gave it 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Imagine a world, in which everyone treats anyone nicely, no foul word is ever uttered, office bickering is nonexistent, and your boss invites the office crowd regularly to self-cooked dinners where you can chat about latest interior design styles. Everything is neat, pleasant - well, just nice. In other words: you are in hell. After being dropped off in the middle of nowhere, mid-thirties Andreas (Trond Fausa Aurvaag) starts a new job as a book-keeper in a small, clean city. From the beginning he feels foreign in this proper, impersonal world of superficial kindness, surrounded by pleasant but lifeless interior architecture and likewise colleagues. Food tastes of nothing, drinks don't get you drunk, no children anywhere; after initial steps of fitting in, Andreas searches for ways to escape the bland new world. He doesn't know where he came from anymore, but still remembers rich tastes, true feelings - anything beyond the non-committal flatline life he's leading now. THE BOTHERSOME MAN resonates ideas of Huxley and Kafka, but here the cruelty is the omnipresent noncommittal neatness. Unlike PLEASANTVILLE this is not about narrow-minded bigotry, more a fable of our urban free-world civilisation of fitting in. It mostly reminds one of the ingenious FIGHT CLUB scene, in which Edward Norton walks through a mock-IKEA catalogue. Spiced with macabre humour, this Scandinavian laconic tale convinces on every level: story, characters, and relevance. A true screen gem. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I heard an interview with the main actor who said that the film was not intended to be a horror movie but he himself would describe it as mental horror. I strongly subscribe to that.

It is not clear why he travels to this place, but everything there is monotonous, no bright colors, no honest smiles, nothing personal. Everything is ordered and everyone seems to be satisfied living this kind of life. Our \"hero\" though from the beginning seems to be misplaced and feels it himself.

What makes this film so important and good is the remarkable similarity to life in many large cities or even countries nowadays. You have to function, you are not supposed to let your colleague know your weaknesses, you show off on your wealth, your car, etc., and most of all you lack the true love of life that children have. Naturally, in this film you see neither children nor old people - they simply do not fit in a society of strong workers.

I would recommend this film to everyone - and make sure that this utopia does not come true!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Totally different, with loads of understatement and black comedy, this is a film few get to see, but those who do will remember it. This movie creates its own universe, and is fascinating in every way. What it is about? Estrangement, I believe. Probably up to the viewer, but I found that this movie tries to say something about the coldness and emptiness behind all the designer furniture and perfect facades. Don't know if I'm right. But this movie really got to me. See it. I really hope the team behind this movie makes more movies, and that they will continue to do so in their own, some kinda weird style. And I forgot: The Casting here i superb, with Trond Fausa Aurv\u00e5g being perfect in the role as the Bothersome Man, who doesn't understand where he is, what he is doing and why. The acknowledgment of not understanding the purpose of life (in the city), is what makes him bothersome. All the others do as they are told, and pretend (?) to be happy. This movie is a good and humorous comment on life in 2006.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this is the best Norwegian movie I've ever seen. It's about 40-year old Andreas who gets hit by a subway-train, and suddenly finds himself in a strange city, however, everything here has been made ready for him. He has got a job, a house and clothes. At first, this city seems perfect, no death, no pain and no problems. Everywhere there are men in gray suits who cleans up and fixes everything that doesn't fit into their definition of perfect. However Andreas can't really seem to fit in and starts to long back to his old world, and tries with all means to get back.

The thing that impresses my the most in this movie is how they way of making the city seem so surrealistic, even though I have seen a lot of these places in real life they seem so distant. Another thing that contributes greatly to the is the performance from the actors. Trond Fausa Aurvaag is just the perfect guy to play the confused and bothersome Andreas. And all the other characters are also doing a great job by playing apathetic (sounds like a hard job, doesn't it?). The strong difference between Andreas and the others leads to very amusing situations as well.

All in all, this is a fabulous movie. The plot may be a little confusing, but the movie has such a great atmosphere I would recommend that everyone should go see it.

And I wouldn't recommend listening to \"ccscd212\", as it seems he has seen too many commercial American movies and seems to have became too used to just getting served the moral on a silver plate. The way I see it there is not much in this film that tries to tell us about suicide being right or wrong. I consider it more of a warning of a direction our society seems to be taking. But sure, everyone can see a film in their own way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What we have here is a film perfect for anyone that participates in the world of post-industrialism: those who sit in their privatized home, earning money by buying and selling sensual-less commodities and perpetuating a system that values little other than the preservation of self.

The beautiful filming (I always appreciate fix 35s and soft boxes) makes it an even stranger place to travel through, both enjoyable to look at but frightening to comprehend (perhaps that's overly dramatic, but its true).

Andreas' journey through his hell is overwhelmingly tragic. His quest is honorable, laudable, and precious. The conclusion is necessary and we are left not sure if he's better off, which is the perfect conclusion.

Breve! Highly recommended to all people who view their world with a critical eye and especially to those who don't (perhaps it will encourage a reflection or two).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best films I've seen in a long time, precise in its vision, and beautiful and highly imaginative in its realization. I can't say much without giving it away, and I don't recommend you actually read that much about this movie before seeing--just see it.

But ah, one must come up with ten lines of text to have a review listed on IMDb. Conundrum. What can I do? Tell you about the film? Nope. Can't do it. I think I enjoyed this movie precisely because saw it with no preconceptions. Please you do the same.

I suppose this can be said: the acting is excellent and understated, and what I have come to love about foreign movies is that the movies are actually about the MOVIES, not the stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Andreas arrives in a strange, inhuman place, where everything seems perfect. He's given a good work, everyone is kind to him and to everyone, and he really doesn't trouble too much even in finding a beautiful girlfriend. But in this no-named city Andreas finds soon that a perfect commercials-type world is really not a paradise. Really one of the better movies i've seen this year. The attractive plot is perfectly supported by a smart direction where every single component (cool desaturated photography; cold symmetrical design; unemotional acting; slow, highly controlled camera movements) helps in building an unique weird atmosphere that will keep the audience suspended until the end. A sarcastic, ironic, bitter comedy that made me laugh ant think, as only best films are able to do. Nothing new, probably, in the analysis of the modern de-humanizer civilization, but really a smart work with great surprising ideas that will hardly be forgotten from whom had the luck to see it. Simply beautiful the amazing scene in the metro underground.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie yesterday and can't stop thinking about it. I moved to Norway four months ago, and have tried ever since to find the origin of the strange emptiness i felt. When I saw this film I was striken with the brilliant snapshot of this society. Yes, this is all true!!! I too found a great job with a great pay, and I live with my norwegian boyfriend in a nice apartment downtown. But, so far everyone I have met have left me with that tasteless, empty feeling I had never had before - this is what this movie is about. Dinner parties with nothing to say to each other but emotionless comments, long silences, no stress, a creepy calm, and frozen smiles of niceness. This Scandinavian nightmare is perfectly rendered in Den Brysomme mannen. See this movie!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I believe there are two angles to the story, first, it's the world satyric view, presented in an obvious Kafkaesque manner, underlining the sordid spectacle behind some of life's most common, but also pleasant, or comfortable moments and elements, which are usually enough to keep man functioning in society. Like: a good job, a good home, a good wife, a good car, and even a good mistress. Apart from this so called common bliss, there are some, who cannot help asking themselves some more uncomfortable questions, like, where they come from, or weather they can have some other form of bliss, weather there could be a reason for them being or weather there could be something they missed out on, or, even more sinister, weather there could be something the system itself is withholding from them.

Second, the most interesting aspect of this film, I believe, is the fact that it attacks head-on this natural compulsion to dissect the world around us, questioning it by our personal judgment, and usually condemning it because it doesn't serve us better, because it's not tailor-made to suit us as a person.

The symbolism behind the train-accident, I believe suggests that our own will can be overpowered by fate or some other universal greater power, even in the face of our so called power to decide when we want out. Instead the man gets to be dismissed by this greater power(let's call it THE SYSTEM, because the authors clearly avoid calling it GOD, perhaps further underlining that the SYSTEM is MAN - made and therefore can be mastered by man, unlike FATE, which is a concept closer to religion) on it's own terms, not by killing him, but by showing him that there is a place for the man who asks\/wants too much, suggesting maybe, that true fulfillment does not come from the outside world, but from within, and if the outside world \"decides\" to provide you with some comfort, you should learn to accept it, without questioning the fabric of every little aspect of it.

Unconfortable, but makes you reevaluate some existential questions which have become mainstream in the last century, like what can man do in a world increasingly drained of substance, a consumer-driven world in which man can be interchanged without making a difference to the bigger picture, but only as long as he is of some use to the system.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At first sight The Bothersome Man seems like several other movies\/books rolled into one. Kafka's The Trial, Melville's Bartleby, The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin and Groundhog Day instantly spring to mind. A man, Andreas, arrives in a nameless city where he is immediately given a job in an office and finds a beautiful new girlfriend. However, there's a catch: his colleagues are all friendly, bland and utterly characterless, and everyone he knows, including his girlfriend, seems to have only one topic of conversation -interior design. Welcome to the hell of modern consumerism, in which people throw themselves from buildings and no one raises an eyebrow, or spend their days reading furniture catalogues and eating food that tastes of nothing.

Andreas quickly realises his predicament and spends the rest of the film trying to escape, in various ways. Suicide turns out not to be an option, and when he finds a new girlfriend she is just as bereft of feelings as the old one - there is a wonderful scene in a restaurant where he asks her to move in with him and all she can say is, 'I don't mind'.

In fact, much of what The Bothersome Man has to say has been said before, and after about 45 minutes you begin to feel that you indeed are experiencing a certain sense of deja vu. Yet its point is one that is probably worth repeating, over and over again: an unexamined life is one that is not worth living. Added to which, it provides a decidedly modern take on the perennial theme of how capitalism is destroying our souls. More than one character reminded me of people I've known, especially his furniture-obsessed girlfriend, and if by the end of the film the film-makers have run out of ideas, maybe that's the point - there will no end unless you can find other people who share your sense of alienation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As you may know Norway is the most developed country in the world (regarding to HDI; Human Development Index). This film craftily reveal our future to us. Our future would be that of Norway since we are all paddling to achieve the best and offer the least. The life that was shown was maybe an exaggeration, yet comparing today's concerns with those of our ancestors it is not far-from-reality reasoning.

Watching this film free from all of our pre-assumptions, we can find both of our faces; the one that is laughing at the brilliant scene of Andreas dumping her girlfriend and the one that is searching through magazines hours and hours to choose some stupid chair among stupid collections.

The idea of the hole with the hope of lightness was another magnificent idea of the film. The slight glory; yet the only one, and the effort that was put to reach it makes us feel closer to Andreas.

Although I was attracted mostly to the idea and production of the film, Trond Fausa Aurvaag played pretty well and the atmosphere of the film was quite matchable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Where the heck is Andreas(Trond Fausa Aurvaag), exactly? Heaven? Hell? A parallel universe? When the bothersome man steps off the subway platform and meets an onrushing train, his next conscious moment occurs on a bus; riding solo, the newest arrival, in a dead netherworld where all the suicides go. Dressed as he was at the time of his sudden departure from the corporeal biosphere, Andreas is greeted by an official man, who processes and transports the bothersome man from the barren flatlands to a city, if the eyeballs work, is a dead ringer for the sort of urban landscapes that he once inhabited, if memory serves him right. Andreas retains the look of a sleepwalker in a trance, a man estranged from people and objects, struggling to find his bearings; at home, or rather, his assigned apartment; or at work, where the bothersome man is randomly designated as an accountant for an independent contractor. Havard(Johannes Joner), his boss, tells him, \"You'll get used to it,\" which covers more than just crunching numbers, we suspect, in this world, same as the old world.

If life is meaningless, like French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Satre said, the same can be said for death, as well. The subculture of office life might be heaven for one man, but it looks like hell to us, under the context that \"Den Brysomme Mannen\" operates on. To work in the afterlife, in essence, is to work for the rest of your life. The social intercourse among Andreas' office mates may pass as normal in the physical world, but death is a variable that creates estrangement in the viewer, as he\/she now recognizes the drudgery of white-collar labor performed by white-collar laborers, who kill the hours with their inconsequential small-talk and designated jobs they perform during the course of a day like automotons, each and every day, seem irrational in its self-evident absurdity. To see daily life replicated in a speculative light, \"Den Brysomme mannen\" makes normal human interaction look like deadpan comedy, as quotidian life becomes a performance, which transforms Karl Marx's meaning of the word \"alienation\", because here, the men and women in the office, \"do\" identify with their labor, like actors in a play who conspire to make their fictionalized selves appear real. But the bothersome man never fully participates in the facade. He's always aware of the cracks.

From a wooden bench, Andreas witnesses the aftermath of a jumper, who impales himself on an iron fence while people on their lunch breaks walk on by, indifferent to his escaping intestines that create red splatters on the clean sidewalk. Andreas faces the same impassivity from his own co-workers after he purposely cuts off his own finger, with the hope that he'll feel the pain, on a paper slicer. He doesn't. It's just another sensation, in addition to being able to taste and smell that's lost to the bothersome man. This inability of being able to take solace in the simple pleasures, amplifies the bothersome man's need for love,where simple pleasures compensated for his loneliness in the physical world. At a dinner party, hosted by his boss, Andreas meets Anne Britt(Petonella Barker). They hit it off. He walks her home. She invites him in. They become a couple. He moves in. When they have sex, however, it's good for neither Andreas, nor Anne, who seems to get more pleasure out of interior design. Love is an abstract concept, another sensation that's unattainable in this world, but love matters to the bothersome man, so he tries again with Ingeborg(Birgette Lagen), a girl from work. \"Den Brysomme mannen\" deconstructs love by presenting its foundation as a series of gestures that require performances from both the man and woman. When Ingeborg doesn't elicit the same tender feelings for Andreas after his hyper-romantic gesture of leaving Anne Britt for her, this Norwegian film reveals its secrets about the prosaic, but odd city, with an open-endedness that's solvable, and offer up multiple interpretations.

Wounded by Ingeborg's apathy towards his avowal of love for her, the bothersome man wanders into the same subway station, stands at the same platform, leers at the same couple aggressively making out, and jumps. This time, he can't die. How can you die when you're already dead? Hit repeatedly by train after train, Andreas' face turns into ground beef; his body contorts in angles previously seen only seen in art. When the bothersome man realizes that love and death are out of his grasp, he seeks out the man from the club, who was willing to say what goes unsaid in this city of the walking dead. Which is: death, not life, has no meaning.

Getting to the bottom of the mystery behind Andreas' whereabouts drives the narrative, and to the filmmaker's credit, this enigma is satisfactorily addressed, in a scene that recalls Spike Jonze's \"Being John Malkovich\", when Andreas crawls through a tunnel in order to cross over into another world, like a newborn baby, which resembles the portal to Malkovich's brain that Craig Schwartz charges people to crawl through. Andreas' attempt to traverse the great divide presents a beguiling paradox. Since heaven and earth are literally separated by a wall, this vulnerable boundary acts as a perfect encapsulation of the atheistic belief that \"heaven is a place on Earth\". But at the same time, heaven is proved by the reality of a hell; the place that Andreas is sent to after being banished from the city of his destination.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It would seem we should acknowledge Scandinavian cinema for more than merely the Dogma 1995 movement as cooked up by the Danish all those years ago. Den Brysomme Mannen, or The Bothersome Man in English, is a surreal and deeply thought through film yet deeply entertaining and rich in content both on and under the surface. As a film alone, it is a scathing comedy on society and attitudes in the post-modern world we live in; a world that judging by The Bothersome Man has reached the regions of Norway and the like. But along with this black comedy feel to it, it would seem the film delves a little deeper and raises issues, at least to me, of metaphorical religious spaces and our human instinct to want to uncover the truth amongst so much material in our world that perhaps seems alien to us.

This was, in truth, a fantastic introduction to contemporary Norwegian cinema for me. The film very much falls into that category of the European art cannon with its deep themes and ambiguity shrouded atmosphere whilst maintaining an open finale and not so much a narrative as a procession of events that may mean one thing or another. So many times we've seen films that use the set up The Bothersome Man adopts and so many times it's turned into a close to predictable routine revolving around a detective story or a chase story or something along those lines but this film allows its setting and situation to act as a mere backdrop for its protagonist, named Andreas (Fausa Aurvaag), to explore who he is; where he is and what the possible mysteries behind this location really are.

The set up I'm talking about involves said hero arriving at a location with no prior memory or what happened before this. I'll jump right in and say it's in my opinion he's dead and has been sent to some sort of purgatory, as have all the city's inhabitants. Everybody in the city that Andreas mixes with are of the same age; same mentality and same attitude suggesting to me that most of them are victims of their own suicide and have been sent to a purgatory devoid of any emotion, feeling, colour or most importantly, pain.

When we first see Andreas, he gets off a bus which he later discovers is uncanny in its abilities, and approaches a petrol station in the middle of rural nowhere. He is scruffy and has a huge beard but soon he will be the opposite, sporting a suit and tie; clean shaven face and a home of his own complete with new job in which the film makes one of the best transforming shifts between the rural and the urban that I've ever seen. But the new job as well as the new city is uneasy; you can take breaks whenever you like; bosses are unusually kind and there just seems to be no emotion or reaction to anything. These ideas are best put across in a cinema when Andreas, still a relative newbie to the city, is crying and is clearly affected by a film on show but everyone else watches in stone faced style. There is also the initial example when one man has jumped from a window and lies impaled on some spikes but everybody walks on by without fuss.

To back up my idea on everyone already being dead and the city acting as a sort of purgatory, death and harm in general is impossible. There is a particularly nasty scene involving an electronic paper guillotine and someone's thumb, but everyone's reaction to the event is stone faced and it grows back within the hour. Similarly, a suicide attempt involving trains later on comes to nothing and instead we get the point of view regarding what it's like to be dragged down tube tracks with invulnerability on your side. The city acts as a barrier, a painless society in which the masochistic need to self-harm oneself is impossible; a place in which sexual relations can occur and break-ups equally so but both under emotion-less and passion-less circumstances; a place in which people can attempt suicide but it is impossible to actually die. The city adopts these powers because the damage has already been done in 'real life' and thus, the film says you cannot kill yourself twice, indeed you cannot feel pain or emotion in an afterlife of purgatory.

But the film's best part is the one that sneaks up on you. Judging by the closing five minutes of the film and the side-story that opens up involving some music coming from another man's house, it would seem there is a fine line between the spaces the film dictates as 'heaven' and 'hell'. We get to see these spaces only very, very briefly \u0096 so briefly that they consist of a single shot. The 'heaven' is a colourful kitchen with music and children playing: it offers life, hope, emotion and happiness whereas the hell is a snowy nowhere which haunts you thanks to its hopeless build up and eerie cut off point. The introduction of these two spaces at the very end of the film suddenly informs you of the reality Andreas and co. faced: purgatory and everything that came with it, the afterlife just was not ready for Andreas and his freethinking, adventurous mind \u0096 and look where the thinkers end up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Den Brysomme Mannen is one of the better films of all time and is about a man trapped in a world where there are no senses, no feelings, no Love, no Truth and definitely no Freedom. A world where people become afraid when someone speaks their mind, expresses himself or show affection, a world where no one is Free and no one has any idea what the Meaning of any of this is. Just like the world we live in, the world in Den Brysomme Mannen is a world of lost souls trying to become fulfilled but focus on the complete opposite of what fulfills them, materialism, social acceptance and mediocre satisfactions.

Den Brysomme Mannen deserves full attention by every human soul, because we could all use a fresh Wake Up call.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A bus drops off a nameless man outside a run-down Standard Oil gas station in the middle of nowhere. We never learn where the bus came from, or why he is on it, or who he even is. Why is he the only passenger? Is he a prisoner? Is he the \"bothersome man\" referred to in the title of the movie? Has he died and gone to heaven, or hell? Like our man, we don't get a chance to stop and wonder. He is met by a gatekeeper of sorts and shuttled off to a nondescript city. From day one, all the choices are made for him. An apartment has been rented, a job has been found, an office assigned. In fact, his life is not entirely unlike life in the virtual reality of corporate cubicles and suburban condos. Women are heartless, dinner parties are a drag, office jobs suck. But some pieces don't fit the puzzle. Silently efficient, gray-clad goons roam the streets. Are they some sort of paramedics, or the secret police? And why are there no children? Is the story even set in the real world? Whenever we think we might be getting some answers, new mysteries unfold. \"The Bothersome Man\" leaves you half relieved that it's over, half wanting more. I hope they make it into a computer game soon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Bothersome Man is one of the best foreign films I have ever seen. All the technical aspects are, in my opinion, perfect (lighting, acting, directing, pacing, etc). The STORY is breathtaking.

Seemingly beyond death, our main character finds himself inhabiting a world without beauty, passion or anything remotely pleasing to the human senses. His work is cold and uninteresting; his relationships are numb and uninspiring, and when it all becomes too much, he seeks to end it in front of a train. But it doesn't end - he can not leave this strange world by suicide! Working his way back to a man who seemed to be feeling he same isolation and loneliness, our main character joins him in excavating a stone wall in hopes of revealing the source of a strange and wonderful smell and music. Just as they break through - and I will not reveal THAT much, it all comes to an end and the movie ends as oddly as it began.

Suffice it to say you will either love this movie or hate it. I feel that it is like a magical poem - open to many different interpretations and all of them as valid as the next. If you enjoy new experiences in film and want to be taken away from Hollywood's crap-feast, try this movie!

9\/10 (and I don't rate easily!) because in spite of its darkness, this movie left me with a sense of something greater...something mysterious and beyond ourselves. Well done!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Norwegian film starts with a man jumping over the subway, apparently committing suicide. But the next scene shows him arriving in a lonely bus into a desert. He meets a man, and is shipped off to a mysterious city, where he starts working in an aseptic modern office as an accountant. The coworkers seem nice, if guarded, he soon meets a girlfriend, yet the city seems utterly strange, as food has no taste, alcohol doesn't make you drunk, and there's nary a children around. Is this a dream, or is he in paradise, or in hell?. While at times, the films looks as extended episode of The Twilight Zone (even at ninety minutes, the movie seems a bit long), it is quite thought provoking. The best scenes are those in which the exaggeration is minimal, as when the people engage in banal conversations about interior decoration, and recoil at discussing deeper issues. I always thought there was something inhuman in advanced capitalist societies, in the way they try to repress the basic urges of human nature. And this movie is best when it devastatingly critiques this life style. Unfortunately, the movie ends up a big long, and the director doesn't seem to know how to end it, but most for of the running time this is very much worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a great movie this was. Is it heaven? hell? or something in between? I disagree with many reviews of this movie saying that this is a depiction of hell. It is not even clear if the opening scene starts the movie or is a flashback from the end. Further, it is not clear that the main character goes to hell, but perhaps someplace in between. The review I read on IMDb says this is hell, but I disagree whole-heartedly. Take into consideration that perhaps good people who commit suicide may not be condemned to hell...this only one religious belief. This is indeed a thinker, and I have\/would recommend it to anyone who likes that type of movie. Definitely worth it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"first real movie in this year. amazing long shots, sometimes with fix camera, so specific for Nordic cinema (let aside Dogma). A true auteur film I find it. Athmospherique :-) It simply delighted all my senses and keep in mind how the image goes violent and painful during the scenes when he's trying to kill himself. That's the point I don't think it stands up in the whole plot. Why, if this was an ideal world, couldn't you die but still you were keeping your conscience ? Either was the real world with \"tailored\" rules or was a \"fantastic\" world but in this case no accidents like people remembering how it was before can happen.

It reminded me of Kafka and maybe more, of Huxley's Brave New World, especially in that part where sex was actually available to everyone, since it was viewed like a right to pleasure. It lacked a plot but I think it was better like this, since you realized and sensed the whole strange behavior of everyone, the absurdity and the lack of real sensations in this \"happy\" world.

I think also that the end was brilliant. true world is indeed a homo homini lupus, you're eaten if you are not strong enough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Synopsis: Andreas (Trond Fausa Aurvaag) finds himself alone on a coach, getting dropped off on a desert land, at what seems the last stop of his journey. He doesn't know how he arrived there, but a welcome sign has been erected for him. After momentarily pondering his whereabouts, he is greeted by a man who takes him to his new life. He then enters a world different to the one he came from.

As Andreas is quickly introduced to his new job as an accountant, he senses that his surroundings are a bit too uniformed for his liking. As he takes his first lunch break, he instantly notices that everyone in the city walks around in grey suits. On this same day, he sees a fellow businessman dead on some fencing spikes, of what looks like an act of suicide. The strange thing is, the city folk pay no attention to this horrific act and walk on by as if it never happened. It is quick to see that these people are genetically desensitised, and their ability to distinguish between anything humane or inhumane is absent.

To help Andreas settle in, he is invited to go out with his co-workers to a local nightclub. The club appears to be one step away from becoming as exciting as a bingo night..and as Andreas drinks his sorrows aways, he realises that no matter how much he drinks, the alcohol has no effect on him. As he tells these observances to a stranger in the men's room, a man in a toilet cubicle starts to utter words which have been on Andreas' mind all along. Realising that this man is thinking what he is, he follows him to his house, and notes where he lives for future reference. The plot predictably evolves with Andreas wanting an escape. He seeks out the man he once followed...hoping that he could lead him to becoming human again...but is it too late?

My thoughts: This norwegian film is something which everyone should see, as it holds the answer to the big question! What is the meaning of life? (well, close enough). The film sketches out the dark realities of what has become of today's working man (or woman). It's sole purpose is making people realise that life is too short to be materialistic. It tries to show that small clich\u00e9 things, such as the sound of children playing, should not be taken for granted, because the moment you stop hearing that sound, is the moment you're one step away from becoming a robot. The ending of the film reiterates what happens when its too late to escape the mundane routine you've now become used to. You start to adopt the saying of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', and become too comfortable to take a risk of change.

Even though this film is not to be taken as a piece of realism...its message is more than real. The lack of empathy conveyed in the film, and that of which Andreas sees, is a bold statement of what life can become. The director, Jens Lien has put together a film, which in any other director's hands would have failed. This is a fine piece of cinematic genius, and i eagerly await to see what he does next.

The lead role, played by Trond Fausa Aurvaag is perfectly cast. Representing the average Joe, Trond provides a good catalyst in making this picture darkly humorous. The supporting actors also do an apt job, and for some reason, i feel that Keanu Reeves would have been perfect in this film, as most of the supporting cast required their acting to be emotionless.

The score for this film was beautifully composed. The recurring theme was always a delight to listen to, and it provided a very sombre but welcomed feel to the movie.

Set for a release date in the UK for 25th May 2007, i will definitely be going to re-live this experience on the big screen. This film has gained its way in my top 10...now quickly becoming my top 20! It has some shocking scenes, and is darkly humorous throughout...A MUST -SEE!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Bothersome Man is a smart, surreal movie that makes you reevaluate what you're doing with your life and what makes you tick. When you see these people in zombie like trances doing everyday events and realize that's what we do and what we want in real life it really hits close to home. This is a surprisingly effective movie that at the end leaves you asking questions about your direction and not so much the movie.

Andreas is the main character whose life we get a 3rd person view of as he tries to adapt to a new life after being relocated. In the beginning he seems to be the most popular guy in town as everyone at work caters to him and he's invited to dinners etc. A good example of this is in the scene with his new boss who offers him an envelope of an unspecified amount of cash saying \"here's a little something to get you started\". Andreas even gets a girlfriend 20 minutes into the movie, which he eventually moves in with. This seems like an ideal living situation as his girlfriend is an established interior designer, attractive, and doesn't ever nag about anything he does. But Andreas is unfulfilled with their relationship as with everything else in this world. He then begins an affair with a coworker named Ingeborg who he eventually leaves Anne for and claims he is in love with. After telling Ingeborg how he feels she tells him that she is also seeing other coworkers and says all of the relationships are \"nice\". Soon after we see Andreas at a train station where he tries to end his misery and to the audience's disappointment doesn't come about. Still looking for salvation Andreas meets Hugo who has found a hole which music can be heard coming out of. So they embark on a mission to get to the other side, will it be better or will it be worse?

\"The Bothersome Man\" shows us society's obsession with appearances and its materialistic mindset. It does a great job making fun of us by filling homes with IKEA products that the characters spend each lunch picking out. I think he is mostly poking fun at the dull Scandinavian society and its high suicide rates. For example there is a scene in the movie where Andreas comes across a man who jumped out of a building and onto a spiked fence. Also, Andreas fed up with this world cuts his finger off and then later jumps in front of a train; this is one of the most weirdest\/outrageous scenes I've seen. This world created by Lien is equivalent to purgatory where there is no punishment or reward. In this world drink after drink Andreas never got drunk, sex was unfulfilling, and no matter how many times he tried he couldn't kill himself. This movie reminded me of \"Fight Club\" and how both main characters were kind of out of sync with the world around them. In \"Fight Club\" Tyler Durden creates a second persona that does everything he wouldn't and in this movie the awakened Andreas is the equivalent to Tyler Durden. After a while he wakes up and tries to escape the bland life he is now apart of by escaping through a hole in a wall.

Lien does a great job with continuity in this movie meaning when a character has a half full cup in his hand and they cut away then come back they have the glass in the same hand and its not full or empty showing that the shot was done another day. Nowadays directors are more worried about the sound effects and overlook the little things like is that character wearing the bracelet on the same hand as yesterdays filming? Since I took TV Production for three years in high school it's hard for me not to look for continuity or voice overs which drive me nuts. Lien does the little things well he's got great lighting in each shot, never leaves you wondering why something is in a shot and brings about an interesting topic. This film really worked for me because it not only mocks Scandinavians' but the western society and what's wrong with it. The only real issue I had was with the man who commits suicide by jumping on a spiked fence. Because you eventually find out this world has no death but he laid motionless forcing you to assume he was dead and this never gets answered in my opinion.

Andreas is the only main character as others come and go and never do more than support his him. His first girlfriend Anne Britt is an interior designer who at the surface seems perfect for him but eventually turns out to be dull. This leads him to Ingeborg who he starts an affair with and falls in love with. He soon finds out that she was with a handful of other men and that what he felt was not real. Andreas eventually meets Hugo in the bathroom of a bar complaining about how nothing tastes good anymore and how he can't even get drunk anymore. He follows Hugo home to find the hole in the wall with that is filled with children's laughter and birds chirping.

Lien doesn't have a lot on the resume but \"The Bothersome Man\" is more than a jump start to a great career but a preview of an up and coming director. If this is any indication of his talent and potential as a story teller, Lien has a bright future and we can only hope that his future movies don't take so long to make it overseas for our viewing pleasure. So take a seat and enjoy the ride as Director Jens Lien takes you from the comfort of your home to the dreamlike world that is \"The Bothersome Man\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Enjoyed 'Den brysomme mannen' http:\/\/ow.ly\/PTTp (my wife didn't, so I watched it in bits over a few days.)

Reviewers mainly confused - most agree it's allegorical, but not of what; 'Heaven', 'Hell', 'Socialism', 'Capitalism'?

That most people don't wish to escape, and it's, essentially, forbidden goes with most of those options.

So, presumably you're supposed to project your favourite preoccupation\/prejudice\/fear onto it.

So I'd say it's about an a-epicurean life. A live desaturated of colour, literally in the film, figuratively in the interpretation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Grabbed my attention on Netflix Instant Play because it was only an hour and a half long (it's nearing 4 am here), and because it's Norwegian, which I wanted to follow up with Dead Snow and see what else the country is offering in international cinema right now. A droll and deliciously wry romp, this movie features a man, Andreas, who gets shipped out to some Purgatory of a Brave New World city, where everyone is happy and bland and food has no taste, nothing smells, and even sex loses its appeal. Driven to the edge by his lack of common senses, he feels nearly ready to kill himself.

After an hilarious botched attempt at latter, Andreas tracks down a man with similar complaints and the two discover a tiny, vagina-shaped hole in a concrete wall from which music emanates. The two attempt to break through to see what is on the other side, tracking a tiny bit of light they can barely see. But of course, in fantasy allegory land, desire and nonconformity are not allowed and the elements of the city operate to end Andreas' attempt at freedom and sensuality.

Jens Lien and crew create a simple, straight-forward movement to the story, one that flows well with its themes and moves along at just enough of a pace to keep from lagging. The similarities in other similar science fiction aren't worth enumerating, but still the movie has a unique feel and balances some very funny scenes with some pretty horrifying ones. I like the limited but effective use of gore in this movie, some disembowelment and flagellation that will get your heart stammering harder than The Passion of the Christ simply because it is so perfectly out of place from the gray-toned mise-en-scene. Trond Fausa Aurvaag is a dependably squirrelly actor who physically feels out of place from his surroundings, which works very well. Despite the fact that the concept itself isn't anything to write home about, everyone involved makes it work and the movie fully realizes its own world.

--PolarisDiB","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Scandinavians are pretty good at making me laugh at the drab nothingness of my soulless life, huh.

The film-making here was incredibly meticulous, every piece of framing, every deadpan stare, every element of the colour palette, every snippet of muzak or whooosh of those street cleaners was there to hammer home this world's calm emptiness.

In fact, I think I might have found the general sense of emptiness overbearing had its absurdity not been genuinely funny and relatable. Like when Andreas is telling his boss that he misses children and looks up and the guy is smiling and halfway out the door, it's a sort of sad but true reflection of working with people, spending 7\/8 hours a day with them, seeing more of them than the folk you love, but ultimately knowing deep down they don't give a damn about your troubles and you the same.

This might have been a film the Coens had made had they been born in Oslo and not Minnesota. I think their humour is more aggressive and more wrapped up in cinema's past but they have the same mastery of technique and their films have the same underlying sense that life is pretty inconsequential.

I'll stop before I talk myself into taking a bus into the wintry wilderness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film is a great watch very thoughtful.I believe it is a film about how your like would be if you lived in a world created by catalogues. The scenes are all perfect recreations of an Ikea catalogue they even watch furniture on their TV. When they break into the kitchen they break into another perfect picture of how a kitchen would look like in a catalogue. When he is reborn or whatever you would like to call it he returns to the harsh reality of life. I love the bit when he tells his new love he has left his partner. It pokes fun at commercial bliss by saying you can have it all and whilst it it is nice to have the same things, but some things you do not want to share. A film without children also per Say makes for a perfect ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very interesting addition to the Scandavian surrealistic collection. Recommended viewing for those who like their movies complicated. My interpretation of the 'strange' ending would be that Andreas' journey ends in Hell. He dislikes the bland consumer-led emptiness of purgatory; a sort of 'living' but not progressing, i.e. not getting anywhere - even the city's metro trains don't stop at the stations. It has a Metro system, like you should be able to travel, freedom, escape, but you can never actually board those trains. He is unable to reach fragrant, sensory heaven and winds up continuing his bus journey to its final destination. The old Norse version of Hell (Hades, NOT Hell the terrestrial city) isn't burning hot like the British version, its cold, freezing, the land of Niflheim (land of cold and mists). This appears to be where Andreas end up, having just failed to access Heaven through that tunnel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A man arrives in a strange, beautiful, sterile city where no-one feels any emotion and obsesses instead about interior design. The essential sameness of his days is reminiscent of 'Groundhog Day'; the strange passages in and out of this world more remind one of 'Being John Malkovich'. But truly, this is a Scandanavian movie, a piece of self-satire that is also Scandanavian in style: the tone is austere, and even the most fantastic scenes are played straight, daring you to laugh at the absurdity. To my mind, the combination isn't wholly successful: there aren't enough genuine laughs to compensate for the difficulties of taking the piece as pure drama. It certainly is original; perhaps my problem is that the world that it satirises is not one that I recognise. Perhaps I should move to Scandanavia!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The whole movie made me think of the first circle of Dante's Inferno, Where the souls who 'fool' themselves in believing that they are happy go to. They never realize they are actually in an inferno, but nothing is enjoyable, they just move on without any emotion. In that sense Dante thought that they the were in the worse part, as they would never actively try to change their situation. Nobody can die in that place, but trying to certainly does hurt. I am not sure if the writer based his story on this medieval manuscript or not, but the resemblance is absolutely striking.

I didn't enjoy the movie when I was watching it, as I was expecting a climax which never came. Nevertheless, it made me think afterwards and now I actually think it's a good film - it surely does stick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the beginning, with the careful, remote location and sweeking metal sound, I thought of the opening scene in \"Once upon a Time in the West\". When it gets to the city, then it begins to feels like \"Kitchen Stories\", or \"Drifting Clouds\", even possibly \"Grimm\".

Then it turns out that this is more similar to \"Joe Versus the Volcano\" in theme (not style). And the movie executes from beginning to end the same, understated style. Letting you observe, take in the steel, blue-grayish tone of the suites, dresses, wall color, furniture, bedsheets, mirrors, cars, music, background sounds and even people's expression. Then near the end, there is one shot of a completely different tone - warm orangeish-yellow with soft music and ocean splashing, children and laughter.

But maybe the observation is too long for me, I would much rather to see the alternative side or what happens to the character after the ending shot. Still beautifully done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"10\/10

PLOT DISCUSSION

This is one of the best movies ever made and I am not saying that because I am being fooled by the seemingly nonsensical presentation. Those who dislike the film because they don't understand the story often criticize those who are praising the film by saying that they are assuming its genius because they don't understand it. I don't view this movie as very allegorical. To me, it is a story with a beginning, middle and end. People become confused by the film because they expect it to have a deep, philosophical meaning that they are to interpret from the allegedly meaningless scenes. I feel they fail to realize that the crypticness comes from a chopped-up and rearranged plot combined with a very long and rather explanatory fantasy sequence and not from a chaos of visual allegory. Because of the limitation of length, I will try to keep this short and to the point and touch on the major concepts.

The general plot: Diane moves to L.A. after jitterbug contest to get into acting. At an audition, she meets Camilla with whom she falls in love. Diane becomes enraged with jealousy since Camilla sleeps with other men and women. Diane discovers the other man (the director) at a film shoot and discovers the other woman (a random blond) at the engagement party for Camilla and the director. Motivated by her rage and possessiveness, Diane hires a hit man to kill Camilla. After that is done, she is overcome by loneliness and slips into an unconscious fantasy world where she lives the life she wants to. Diane is then awakened. In her conscious state she is haunted by what she has done.

The significance of the fantasy: The film starts out, after the credits, with a 1st person p.o.v. shot depicting somebody collapsing onto a bed and slipping into unconsciousness. This is where Diane's fantasy starts. The accident is there as an excuse for her to \"bring back\" her dead girlfriend and justify the fantasy life. She depicts her girlfriend as meek and innocent because that is what she wished she was. In the meantime, she acts like everything is \"like in the movies\" because she has an escapist personality. She also, in a sense, kills herself off and assumes the identity of a waitress named Betty at a diner. The story revolving around the director is a direct result of her feeling that he was in someway victimized in reality just as she was and \"convinces\" herself that he was forced to choose Camilla. It was also an unconscious expression of the lack of control she felt during the party. Camilla Rhoades in the fantasy is actually the random blond from the engagement party. She hated her so much that she turned her into Camilla and made the ultimate antagonist. She then took the real Camilla and turned her into a perfect, submissive out-of-the-movies girlfriend and used Rita Hayworth as an inspiration. She also paints the hit man as a very clumsy and incapable person to further justify the survival of Camilla. Her fantasy world, unfortunately for her, was a search for Diane which ended up being herself and made the dreamworld die by taking her through a series of reminders of reality. The first reminder was Club Silencio which chanted that \"there is no band\" and the \"instruments\" you hear are not really there; this is a metaphor for the fantasy. She begins to shake violently because it shakes her perception of her surroundings. The other reminder is the blue box... Actually, the blue box is not the reminder itself (more of a Pandora's Box, really), but the blue key that opens the box. The blue key reminds her of the actual death of Camilla because it is what the hit man said would show up when it was done. Along with having love, this entire creation of hers is an escape from reality by living in the idealized Hollywood that she expected to be part of when she arrived.

This is a story showing the psychology of a very troubled woman who lost a dream. It is not series of random things specifically designed to disturb and it is not a cryptic philosophical message. It is an unfortunate chunk of the human condition that is presented beautifully.

However, ultimately this is all my opinion. I may be way off. Or it may not be intended to mean any one thing. There are many who disagree with me. Great! Afterall, why does it have to mean anything? Why can't it just be a statement in itself? What if coherent, sensible narratives are shackles for artistic expression? Peter Greenaway, for example, has spent many words eloquently supporting that idea by such statements as \"I would argue that if you want to write narratives, be an author, be a novelist, don't be a film maker. Because I believe film making is so much more exciting in areas which aren't primarily to do with narrative.\" And where is the written rule that everything must be immediately understandable with only one possible interpretation? There is no such rule because the clarity of the movie is unrelated to the art of it. \"I didn't understand it!\" So...? \"Mulholland Dr.,\" story or not, affects the viewers, harasses them, drags them, awes them, lulls them. The way it lends itself to interpretation is amazing. It never gets old. It never loses its luster. Its visuals are always effective and beautiful. It is cinematic perfection no matter what. Enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There's a sign on The Lost Highway that says:

*MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD*

(but you already knew that, didn't you?)

Since there's a great deal of people that apparently did not get the point of this movie, I'd like to contribute my interpretation of why the plot makes perfect sense. As others have pointed out, one single viewing of this movie is not sufficient. If you have the DVD of MD, you can \"cheat\" by looking at David Lynch's \"Top 10 Hints to Unlocking MD\" (but only upon second or third viewing, please.) ;)

First of all, Mulholland Drive is downright brilliant. A masterpiece. This is the kind of movie that refuse to leave your head. Not often are the comments on the DVDs very accurate, but Vogue's \"It gets inside your head and stays there\" really hit the mark.

David Lynch deserves praise for creating a movie that not only has a beautifully stylish look to it - cinematography-wise, has great acting (esp. Naomi Watts), a haunting soundtrack by Badalamenti, and a very dream-like quality to it -- but on top of it all it also manages to involve the viewer in such a way that few movies have before. (After all, when is the last time you saw a movie that just wouldn't leave your mind and that everyone felt compelled to talk and write about, regardless of whether they liked it or hated it?)

Allright, enough about all that, it's time to justify those statements.

Most people that have gone through some effort to try to piece the plot together will have come to the conclusion that the first half of the picture is an illusion\/a dream sequence.

Of course, that's too bad for all those trying to make sense of the movie by expecting \"traditional\" methods in which the story is laid out in a timely, logic and linear manner for the viewer. But for those expecting that, I urge you to check the name of the director and come back again. ;)

MD is the story of the sad demise of Diane Selwyn, a wannabe-actor who is hopelessly in love with another actor, Camilla Rowles. Due to Diane's lack of talent, she is constantly struggling to advance her career, and feels she failed to deliver on her own and her parents' expectations. Upon realizing that Camilla will never be hers (C. becomes engaged with Adam Kesher, the director), she hires a hitman to get rid of her, and subsequently has to deal with the guilt that it produces.

The movie first starts off with what may seem as a strange opening for this kind of thriller; which is some 50s dance\/jitterbug contest, in which we can see the main character Betty giving a great performance. We also see an elderly couple (which we will see twice more throughout the movie) together with her, and applauding her.

No, wait. This is what most people see the first time they view it. There's actually another very significant fact that is given before the credits - the camera moving into an object (although blurry) and the scene quickly fading out. If you look closely, the object is actually a pillow, revealing that what follows is a dream.

The main characters seen in the first half of the movie:

Betty: Diane Selwyn's imaginary self, used in the first half of the movie that constitutes the \"dream-sequence\" - a positive portrayal of a successful, aspiring young actor (the complete opposite of Diane). 'Betty' was chosen as the name as that is the real name of the waitress at Winkies. Notice that in the dream version, the waitresses' name is 'Diane'.

Rita: The fantasy version of Camilla Rhodes that, through Diane's dream, and with the help of an imaginary car-accident, is turned into an amnesiac. This makes her vulnerable and dependent on Diane's love. She is then conveniently placed in Betty\/Diane's aunt's luxurious home which Betty has been allowed to stay in.

Coco: In real life, Adam's mother. In the dream part, the woman in charge of the apartment complex that Betty stays in. She's mainly a strong authority figure, as can be witnessed in both parts of the film.

Adam: The director. We know from the second half that he gets engaged with Camilla. His sole purpose for being in the first half of the movie is only to serve as a punching bag for Betty\/Diane, since she develops such hatred towards him.

Aunt Ruth: Diane's real aunt, but instead of being out of town, she is actually dead. Diane inherited the money left by her aunt and used that to pay for Camilla's murder.

Mr. Roach: A typical Lynchian character. Not real; appears only in Diane's dream sequence. He's a mysterious, influential person that controls the chain of events in the dream from his wheelchair. He serves much of the same function as the backwards-talking dwarf (which he also plays) in Twin Peaks.

The hitman: The person that murders Camilla. This character is basically the same in both parts of the movie, although rendered in a slightly more goofy fashion in the dream sequence (more on that below).

Now, having established the various versions of the characters in the movie, we can begin to delve into the plot. Of course I will not go into every little detail (neither will I lay it out chronologically), but I will try to explain some of the important scenes, in relation to Lynch' \"hint-sheet\".

As I mentioned above, Camilla was re-produced as an amnesiac through her improbable survival of a car-accident in the first 10 minutes of the movie, which left her completely vulnerable. What I found very intriguing with MD, is that Lynch constantly gives hints on what is real and what isn't. I've already mentioned the camera moving into the pillow, but notice how there's two cars riding in each lane approaching the limo.

Only one of the cars actually hit the limo; what about the other? Even if they stayed clear of the accident themselves, wouldn't they try to help the others, or at least call for help? My theory is that, since this is a dream, the presence of the other car is just set aside, and forgotten about. Since, as Rogert Ebert so eloquently puts it \"Like real dreams, it does not explain, does not complete its sequences, lingers over what it finds fascinating, dismisses unpromising plotlines.\"

Shortly after Rita crawls down from the crash site at Mulholland Dr., and makes her way down the hillside and sneaks into Aunt Ruth's apartment, Betty arrives and we see this creepy old couple driving away, staring ghoulishly at each other and grinning at themselves and the camera. This is the first indication that what we're seeing is a nightmare.

Although the old couple seem to be unfamiliar to Betty, I think they're actually her parents (since they were applauding her at the jitterbug contest). Perhaps she didn't know them all that well, and didn't really have as good a relationship with them as she wanted, so the couple is shown as very pleasant and helpful to her in the dream. They also represent her feelings of guilt from the murder, and Diane's sense of unfulfillment regarding her unachieved goals in her life.

A rather long and hilarious scene is the one involving the hitman. Diane apparently sees him as the major force behind the campaign trying to pressure the director to accept Camilla's part in the movie (from Adam's party in the second half of the movie), and he therefore occupies a major part of her dream. Because of her feelings of guilt and remorse towards the murder of Camilla, a part of her wants him to miss, so she turns him into a dumb criminal.

This scene, I think, is also Lynch's attempt at totally screwing his audience over, since they're given a false pretence in which to view the movie.

Gotta love that 'Something just bit me bad' line, though. :)

The next interesting scene is the one with the two persons at Twinkies, who are having a conversation about how one of them keep having this recurring nightmare involving a man which is seen by him through a wall outside of the diner that they're sitting in. After a little talk, they head outside and keep walking toward the corner of a fence, accompanied of course by excellent music matching the mood of the scene.

When reaching the corner, a bum-like character with a disfigured face appears out from behind the corner, scaring the living crap out of the man having the nightmare. This nightmare exists only in Diane's mind; she saw that guy in the diner when paying for the murder. So, in short, her obessions translate into that poor guy's nightmares. The bum also signifies Diane's evil side, as can be witnessed later in the movie.

The Cowboy constitutes (along with the dwarf) one of the strange characters that are always present in the Lynchian landscape -- Diane only saw him for a short while at Adam's party, but just like our own dreams can award insignificant persons that we hardly know a major part in our dreams, so can he be awarded an important part in her dream. We are also given further clues during his scenes that what we're seeing is not real (his sudden disappearance, etc.)

The Cowboy is also used as a tool to mock the Director, when he meets up with him at the odd location (the lights here give a clear indication that this is part of a dream). Also notice how he says that he will appear one more time if he (Adam) does good, or two more times if he does bad. Throughout the movie he appears two more times, indicating to Diane that she did bad. He is also the one to wake her up to reality (that scene is probably an illusion made to fit into her requirements of him appearing twice), and shortly thereafter she commits suicide.

The espresso-scene with the Castigliane brothers (where we can see Badalamenti, the composer, as Luigi) is probably a result of the fact that Diane was having an espresso just before Camilla and Adam made their announcement at Adam's party in the second half. It could at the same time also be a statement from Lynch.

During the scene in which they enter Diane's apartment, the body lying in the bed is Camilla, but notice how she's assumed Diane's sleeping position; Diane is seeing herself in her own dream, but the face is not hers, although it had the same wounds on the face as Diane would have after shooting herself. This scene is also filled with some genuine Lynchian creepiness. Since Diane did not know where (or when) the hitman would get to Camilla and finish her off, she just put her into her own home.

In real life, Diane's audition for the movie part was bad. In her dream, she delivers a perfect audition - leaving the whole crew ecstatic about her performance.

Also interesting is the fact that the money that in real-life was used to pay for Camilla's murder now appears in Rita\/Camilla's purse. This is part of Diane's undoing of her terrible act by effectively being given the money back, as the murder now hasn't taken place.

When her neighbor arrives to get her piano-shaped ashtray, another hint is given; she takes the ashtray from her table and leaves, yet later when Camilla and Betty have their encounter on the couch, we see the ashtray appear again when the camera pans over the table, suggesting that Betty's encounter with the neighbor was a fantasy.

The catch phrase of the movie Adam is auditioning actresses for is \"She is the girl\"; which are the exact same words that Diane uses when giving the hitman Camilla's photo resume.

The blue box and the key represent the major turning point in the movie, and is where the true identities of the characters are revealed. There's much symbolism going on here; the box may represent Diane's future (it's empty), or it may be a sort of a Pandora's box (the hitman laughs when she asks him what the key will open). Either way, it is connected to the murder by means of the blue key (which is placed next to her after the murder has taken place). The box is also seen at the end of the movie in the hands of the disfigured bum.

Club Silencio is a neat little addition to further remind the viewer that what s\/he is viewing is not real. It also signifies that Diane is about to wake up to her reality (her reality being a nightmare that she is unable to escape from, even in her dreams).

During the chilling scene at the end where the creepy old couple reappear, Diane is tormented in such a way that she sees suicide as the only way out in order to escape the screams and to avoid being haunted by her fears.

Anyway, that is my $0.02. Hope this could help people from bashing out at this movie and calling it 'the worst movie ever' or something to that effect, without realizing the plot.

As usual, Lynch is all about creating irrational fears, and he certainly achieves that with this picture as well.

10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After two brief scenes that at first seem unrelated to the rest of the film, we see a dark-haired, obviously rich beauty in the back of a limousine. Her driver stops at an odd location on Mulholland Drive, which is a twisting, thickly wooded two-lane road full of mansions overlooking Los Angeles. Just as her driver and another man in the passenger seat turn around to kill her, two drag racing cars from the opposite direction come crashing into the limo. Only the dark-haired woman survives. She works her way down the ridge to Sunset Boulevard and hides in a vacationing woman's apartment. Shortly after, Betty (Naomi Watts), the vacationing woman's niece, shows up at the apartment and runs into the dark haired woman, who now has amnesia. The bulk of the first part of the film is Betty and the dark haired woman trying to figure out who she is, why people were trying to kill her and why she had thousands of dollars and a strange key in her purse. This is interspersed with oddly surreal threads about Hollywood producers and directors, with occasional forays into a land of hoodlums and prostitutes.

The above may sound a bit complicated and disjointed, but that's not the half of it. The film is constructed so that the meaning will always be open to interpretation. It's basically guaranteed that you will not understand this film and you will not have very much confidence arriving at your own interpretation the first time around. Even if you have a lot of experience with like-minded films--such as Memento (2000), Donnie Darko (2001), The I Inside (2003) and The Butterfly Effect (2004)--you may not understand it on a second viewing, either. The studio was aware of this to the extent that they had director David Lynch write \"10 clues to unlocking this thriller\" and they put it on the back of the chapter listing insert in the DVD. Lynch being of a particular disposition, these clues are almost as cryptic as the film itself. It doesn't help when trying to figure it out in the early stages that the structure is extremely complex. It takes a very long time to figure out what parts are supposed to be \"real\" and there is a complex nesting of flashbacks in some sections, with only contextual clues that they're flashbacks.

But is the film worth watching, or worth trying to figure out? That depends on your tastes, obviously. On a surface level, the film is certainly attractive if you are a fan of surrealism, although it will tend to seem a bit slow and overly disjointed to some viewers. But those qualities, and many other surrealist aspects of the film, are typical of Lynch. A prime Lynchian moment is the old couple in the beginning bizarrely smiling almost as if they're alien pod people trying to put on a front. If you're familiar with that style and like it, you'll find much to love here, although in many ways, Mulholland Drive is fairly understated for Lynch. It's also worth noting, for viewers who'll primarily be interested in it or who enjoy it just as much as other aspects, that Mulholland Drive has a quite steamy lesbian scene. It's not gratuitous, although I have no problems with gratuitousness, but is instead an important hinge in the film.

Like all of Lynch's films, it's easy to become enraptured in his unique approach to every aspect of filmic art and his attention to detail. Any serious student of film (including \"armchair students\"\/\"cinephiles\") should study Mulholland Drive; many will love it. Lynch doesn't let anything pass unmanipulated. He includes brilliant color schemes (such as the plethora of reds and pinks) with important symbolism. He makes unusual use of sound, such as the ringing telephone carrying over into the section of score that follows it (when Betty first arrives at the airport). He directs his actors to deliver their lines in a plethora of bizarre ways, such as his characteristic odd pauses. He lets his odd and surprising sense of humor poke through, such as the name \"Winkie's\", and the \"Hot Dogs--made for Pinks\" sign that provides a clue to some of the color symbolism.

Lynch's attention to detail in production design provides important, subtle clues throughout the film to help one unlock the meaning. It's interesting to note that Lynch even apparently demands that the DVD programming be unusual--there are no chapters on the disc; you must either watch the film in real time or fast forward or rewind to get back to particular points.

If the surrealism and veiled meaning of the film are attractive to you, or if you're just fond of \"puzzles\", then Mulholland Drive is well worth watching for that aspect. There is a fairly accepted interpretation of the film, at least on a broad, generalized level. I won't recount the standard interpretation here--it is worth researching, but only after you've seen the film a couple times and have reached your own conclusions. Many articles and monographs have been written on the film and interpretations; there are even websites dedicated to it.

For my money, however, although I generally love Lynch and find many things about Mulholland Drive attractive, it is not quite a 10 for me, at least not yet (I have a feeling that my score could still rise on subsequent viewings). To me, though, the \"twist\" aspect of the film is done much better in other works such as The I Inside and The Butterfly Effect. Mulholland Drive is more attractive to me for its surface surrealistic touches, but the plot doesn't carry them as well as some of Lynch's other films.

Still, Mulholland Drive is certainly recommended for the right crowd. If you're serious about film and do not mind having to think about what you watch (as if those two would not necessarily coincide), you shouldn't miss this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"twin peaks\" and \"blue velvet\" have always been two of my favourite pieces of film-making, and even though past films by lynch have been slightly disappointing for me they have always been worth watching a number of times. to be pretentious, lynch can be like a good wine - he must be savoured and mulled over. but in the end you must make up your own mind about what you have seen, for lynch never gives you the full answers.

many people will walk out of \"mulholland drive\" possibly wanting to throttle themselves over the mind-bending visual jigsaw puzzle that has just unfolded before them. but there is a twisted logic to this film, you just have to look for the clues. betty (naomi watts) arrives in hollywood, doe-eyed and in search of stardom. she then finds an amnesiac in her bathroom who has escaped from an attempted murder on mulholland drive. together they try to uncover the secrets behind the amnesiac's life. this all leads to a club called silencio, where a blue box will reveal all. and that is when the film throws everything out the window. people we thought we knew are entirely different people altogether... is it a dream? a reminiscence about life's previous escapades? you will either love this film or hate it. david lynch always draws such extreme reactions from his viewers. but as his universe itself is always about extremes, it is fitting that his films provoke such reactions.

It is best to look at this film thematically, rather than as a straight-forward narrative. and appreciate the fact that lynch is a film-maker who will still let you draw your own conclusions. he has had many imitators as of late, particularly in \"vanilla sky\", where a mind-bending film decides to give you all the answers in the last rushed five minutes, and you will probably forget about that film as soon as you walk out of the cinema. mulholland drive will haunt you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hitchcock would be proud of this movie. Even when nothing happens, it is suspenseful. Director David Lynch overuses a few cheap thrill tricks here and there, but he intersperses them with other cinematographic techniques to keep it from becoming obtuse.

Altogether surreal, this movie is like waking up and remembering most of a dream but not enough to make it sensible. I am still trying to figure it all out and will probably have to see it again to catch things I missed and which may help me understand it better. It is a very detailed plot that very slowly comes together, so you must be patient and pay attention. Get your bathroom trip out of the way before it starts. And yet, the plot is overshadowed by the theme, the mood, the character development, and the filming techniques.

The dual roles of the main actress, Naomi Watts, showcase her enormous talent. That is, when I could get my eyes off of her co-star. What an acting pair.

Lynch surprises throughout the movie with unusual camera angles, the length\/timing of editing cuts, jumping back and forth between scenes. Combined with smart use of music and sounds, it all helps to build suspense in our minds, doubtless a major objective of the director. Well, he kept me on the edge of my seat, even had me talking to the actors to be careful here, and not be so naive there. You know, the kind of stuff you want to smack your kids for doing at the movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Originally filmed in 1999 as a TV pilot, \"Mulholland Dr.\" was rejected. The next year, David Lynch received money to film new scenes to make the movie suitable to be shown in theaters. He did so - and created one of the greatest, most bizarre and nightmarish films ever made.

The film really doesn't have main characters, but if there were main characters, they would be Betty (Naomi Watts) and Rita (Laura Elena Harring). Betty is a perky blonde who's staying in her aunt's apartment while she auditions for parts in movies. She finds Rita in her aunt's apartment and decides to help her. You see, Rita's lost her memory. She has no clue who she is. She takes her name, Rita, from a \"Gilda\" poster in the bathroom. So the two set out to discover who Rita really is.

David Lynch has been known for making some weird movies, but this film is the definition of weird. It's bizarre, nightmarish, and absolute indescribable. It's like a dream captured on film. By the 100-minute point, the film has become extremely confusing - but if you've been watching closely, it will make perfect sense. Having watched the movie and then read an article on the Internet pointing out things in the film, I now understand the movie completely.

The acting is very good. Watts is terrific. Justin Theroux is very good as a Hollywood director facing problems with the local mob. The music is excellent. Angelo Badalamenti delivers one of his finest scores. And the directing - hah! David Lynch is as masterful a filmmaker as ever there was.

Is this your type of film? Well, that depends. You should probably view more of Lynch's work before watching this movie. You'll need to be patient with the film, and probably watch it a second time to pick up the many clues Lynch has left throughout the movie. For Lynch fans, this is a dream come true.

\"Mulholland Dr.\" is a masterpiece. It's brilliant, enigmatic, and masterfully filmed. I love it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The case history of 'Mulholland Dr.' is known: What should had been another excursion (after 'Twin Peaks') into the rivaled field of TV-series ended up abruptly after completing the pilot. It was too risky and twisted for the producers to venture an investment. Lynch used all the filmed and cut material and started new shootings to finish a completely new feature film. The result: One of the most impressive cinema experiences of this decade which can be ranked among the best works of David Lynch. His earlier movies 'Eraserhead', 'Blue Velvet' or 'Wild at Heart' kept aloof in an irritating way which hustled the viewer into the role of a voyeur, but never involved him as part of the plot happening such as here.

'Mulholland Dr.' is a puzzle where pieces are missing, others obviously were taken from 'Eraserhead' and 'Lost Highway', but it never seemed to be unfinished work. In the internet I came across with a lot of instructions and essays to explain this film. I am aware now that it loses its magic when you try to decipher it completely. All those detailed solution explanations are not only waste but also the questionable attempt to offer an answer where no such thing is completely required. Imagine this scenario: A little child is dissecting his teddy bear to find out where the secret and the specific of that bear lies. Is it because it wants to destroy his toy? Does the secret lie in the teddy bear or actually in the heart of the child? Transferring this to 'Mulholland Dr.' it means innocence is one of the most important conditions to watch and appreciate it.

David Lynch succeeds not only to picture the surface of human behavior life but also to grapple with everything beneath that. Human desires, dreams, obsessions and fears - all that what remains unspoken; emotions that are often repressed. 'Mulholland Dr.' has the intensity calling for a cast that completely takes issue with the substance. Actresses and actors who are ready to follow the visions of the director selflessly.Laura Elena Harring, Naomi Watts, Justin Theroux solve their task in such an impressing way that you wouldn't want or couldn't imagine another cast. While their acting at the beginning seems to be a little superimposed you soon will realize that this stereo typing is set in with a purpose to manipulate the viewer and to baffle him as soon as the red thread of the film is visible.

When you claim the criterion of a well made film in being able to lose yourself and dive into what you see on screen than Lynch succeeded in making a masterpiece. A modern masterpiece that manifest David Lynch's status as one of the most important, creative and courageous directors of the present. Like every film maker who go beyond the limits he is confronted with criticism and ignorance. This will fade as soon as you find the individual key to Lynch's world of films. 'Mulholland Dr.' is more than just a sleeper \u0096 it is a must see for everyone who loves ambitious cinema. And besides, the film is a pay-off with Hollywood, in form and content, which in that distinctness was hardly dared before.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spoiler Alert - although this is a plot almost as impossible to spoil as it is to completely explain.

'Mulholland Drive' is by far the most successful expression of David Lynch's cinematographic style and vision since the first season of his 'Twin Peaks' TV series. As Lynch enthusiasts know, his is a style and vision uniquely blended from film noir, horror movies, surrealism, and parapsychology \u0096 with a healthy dose of postmodern self-consciousness and black humor thrown in for good measure. All these elements are richly at work in 'Mulholland Drive,' making for a riveting, hair-raising, and highly satisfying film experience \u0096 especially if one does not become overly obsessed with trying to make all the plot pieces fit into a logical, mystery-unraveling whole.

The film features wonderful performances by Naomi Watts and Laura Harring in the lead roles of young women whose lives intersect in various ways amid a Hollywood setting that is itself an hallucinated blend of contemporary reality, retro '50s nostalgia, and satirical self-aggrandizement. Their seemingly random initial meeting occurs after the film's opening scene, in which Harring's character escapes an attempt on her life thanks to a fortuitous, not to mention horrific, automobile accident. Staggering down the hillside from Mulholland Drive to Sunset Boulevard (the two most archetypal of Hollywood thoroughfares), she finds her way to the very apartment that Betty (Naomi Watts) is about to sublet from her 'Aunt Ruth,' a purportedly successful actress who is off to Canada to begin a new movie. As we later learn, Betty had herself arrived from Deep River, Ontario, shortly after winning a jitterbug contest.

A highly energetic and stylized flashback to the contest forms one of two pre-credit prologue sequences that frame Betty's descent from the clich\u00e9d would-be-starlet's bright-eyed innocence to the debauched madness of spurned lover and going nowhere bit-part actress. Unable to remember her own name, the Harring character adopts the name 'Rita' from a movie poster for the film noir classic 'Gilda' that adorns Aunt Ruth's apartment. (Actually, it turns out Aunt Ruth has long since deceased and whose apartment we're really in is a good question to be resolved in future viewings.) Anyway, Betty determines to help Rita find out what happened and to discover the source of the rolls of cash and a mysterious blue key that the women find in Rita's purse. The two women begin to piece together clues that would seem to lead to Rita's true identity. They also, by the way, become lovers, at one point radiating such an incendiary chemistry that I cannot recall its equal in mainstream treatments of Lesbian lover affairs (if a Lynch movie can ever be designated 'mainstream').

At the local Winkies restaurant (a recurring location fraught with dream-like significance behind its grubby realistic facade), Rita's attention is caught by a waitress's name-tag reading 'Diane.' This leads her to a recollection of someone named 'Diane Selwyn,' whose apartment the two women soon visit and, at Betty's insistence, break into. I won't reveal what they find within, but suffice it to say the scene is rendered with vintage Lynchian creepiness. Subsequently, Rita wakes in night sweats speaking Spanish and hurrying Betty to an all-night magic show\/theater called 'Silencio,' where the arts of illusion and lip\/instrumental- syncing are practiced with manic intensity and where the Blue- Haired Lady, as she is noted in the end credits, reigns as the presiding Muse. Framed by the blue-lit, red-curtained Silencio Theatre, the blue-haired lady occupies the last shot in the film, perhaps a symbol for the controlling artistic imagination \u0096 rather like Steven's \"man with the blue guitar\" as filtered through bad- drug surrealism.

During the Silencio sequence, and as Rebekah Del Rio cameo lip-syncs her own powerful Spanish rendition of Roy Orbison's 'Crying'), a shattering epiphany occurs when Betty opens her own purse to discover a blue box with a keyhole that obviously matches the key in Rita's purse. Even if we do not delve too deeply into the Freudian sexual symbolism of purses, the moment is a singularly Hitchcockian one in that the matching of the key and box leads to a complete inversion of what we thought we knew and into a whole new set of character relationships and meanings. Not the least of these reversals is the discovery that Betty is the sought-for Diane Selwyn and the spurned lover of Camilla Rhodes (i.e. Rita). Camilla in turn is a Latin femme fatale movie star to whom Diane is indebted for the few minor roles she has managed to secure and, more significantly, to whom she is emotionally subjugated.

After these and other discoveries in the last third of the film, the problem of accounting for the first two thirds of the movie is not so straightforwardly resolved as in 'Vertigo.' While bits and pieces of imagery and dialog suggest that much, if not all, of the earlier material is projected and displaced from the fevered subconscious of Diane herself, other bits and pieces suggest the perhaps supernatural intervention of a cast of characters drawing direct inspiration from 'Twin Peaks,' including Michael J. Anderson reprising his unearthly dwarfish powers and a Bob- variant who hangs out behind Winkies and is the ultimate repository for the blue box and its id-like associations.

However one fits the pieces together, though, the whole of 'Mulholland Drive' is much greater \u0096 and more mysterious \u0096 than the sum of its parts. Lynch takes us on a wonderfully inventive, provocative, and pleasurably disturbing mind trip. What's more, the film's cinematography is stunning, the soundtrack filled with evocative atmospherics, the acting superb, and the directing \/editing masterful. This may well have been the unacknowledged Best Picture of 2001 among major American releases.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"David Lynch's ninth full length feature film, Mulholland Drive is a deeply touching story about betrayal and jealousy. If anything, it brutally contrasts our ambitions and hopes to the often bitter truth. Every frame of this movie has importance and links to other parts and to themselves at the same time. Nothing is what it first appears to be and you're left with a real puzzle as you end up trying to put the pieces together. It is a movie that does not compromise, nor does it fail to fully handle the challenging form and camera language, as might have been the case earlier with Lost Highway.

Although one clearly recognizes classic lynchian motifs and devices, the movie remains highly original, even in the light of it being a Lynch movie. Lost Highway marked a new way of telling a story; bred an unconventional mean of setting emotions on to the screen. With Mulholland Drive, Lynch not only managed to control this technique, but takes it to new levels in making it much more complex and multi dimensional. In doing this, he creates a framework of different layers in time and of the human mind. In a press conference on the Cannes film festival 2001, David Lynch said that striving for perfection at best could give a result where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Talking about synergies like this becomes highly relevant to Mulholland Dr. where the different sequences and many details contribute to the total; dreamscapes and parallels intertwine to create the story. In some art, the beauty of it lies in its simpleness. This is not the case with Mulholland Drive, and has never been with Lynch. It is the complexity that colors and builds the worlds Lynch creates, the same complexity that characterizes the real world.

It never gets forced like, in my opinion, for example Memento does, using an original way of communicating with the viewers. Further comparing Mulholland Drive to other movies, I think it proves David Lynch as a master of what he does and bridges art and film making in a way that no one has ever done. Compared to for example Alejandro Jodorowsky or contemporary Matthew Barney, I do believe that Lynch more clearly manages not letting the artist dominate the film maker or, more likely, David Lynch better understands and executes film making as an art form.

Understanding the plot is no small feat, but Lynch's way of working with sound, perspective, chronology and form paints a work of art so dark and frightening that it sometimes feels more realistic than real life. The lynchian cinema is often, and most definitely in Mulholland Drive, a surge of human emotions. Working with emotions is a delicate craft that demands understanding and depth. As Lynch puts it: \"A little bit too much, and the emotion goes away. A little bit too little, and it doesn't happen.\" In Mulholland Drive, David Lynch has no problem making this balance. Lynch's portraits span all kinds of dimensions and take different directions, creating incredibly realistic characters and situations. Watching Mulholland Drive is a journey through the subconscious. It is a truthful and naked movie with indisputable artistic value. That is why I love Mulholland Drive and what's taken it to the pinnacle of cinema history. The ultimate movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow, what a strange film. It's a David Lynch movie so it's no surprise that it is weird.

I defy anyone to totally explain everything in this film. I can't be done. After some research following my second viewing of this film, I pretty much know most of the story but on a first look, and with no aid from other reviewers or outside help, it is hard to figure things out. So, if you're in that boat and was confused, don't feel bad; that's normal. Let me just say the key to the film is Naomi Watts' character.

At any rate, I find the film fascinating. I love the wonderful visuals and rich colors and find each character in this movie really different and fun to watch. The camera-work is excellent and the music is creepy, a la Lynch's \"Blue Velvet.\" There also are some good sound effects to help some of the dramatic scenes. In all, it's very well scored.

Like Lynch's \"Twin Peaks\" television series, this was a film in which the end was pieced together afterward since Lynch thought this film was going to be a long, drawn-out TV series. When that didn't happen, he pieced at the last minute this ending. That may account for some of the confusion at the end and the lack of explanations concerning characters we see earlier in the film but who mysteriously disappear.

The theme of the story, supposedly, is a negative comment about Hollywood and what it does to people, especially those whose dreams of being an actor are crushed.

Both Watts and the other leading lady, Laura Eleana Harring, are very interesting to watch, especially in their celebrated lesbian sex scene. Looks- wise, both women were chameleons, looking average at times, stunning at other times.

I enjoyed this movie more on the second viewing than the first. It's not just a curiosity piece; it's a very intriguing movie.....just don't feel stupid if you can't make sense of a few things.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With an opening segment that imitates the music and cinematography of Todd Haynes's Safe (1995), David Lynch uses dream, myth and warped notions of reality to tell the fractured story of a failed bit-part Hollywood actress\/waitress, Diane Selwyn, let down by fame and her own demons and obsessed with Camilla Rhodes, who is engaged to hotshot director Adam Kesher.

The film effectively takes place in Diane's drug-fueled head; we are witness to her crazy distortions, her wish-fulfillments, regrets, obsessions and fears. Using the dream narrative as a way of presenting two notions of reality in conflict, Lynch does not simplify the opposition between reality and fantasy but actively entangles them. The last 45 minutes are as dream-like as what came before; and the troublesome air of detached, otherworldly ambiguity still pervades, fracturing the seemingly secure distinction between reality and dream we expect to see in films about nightmares and dreams.

Lynch's film borrows from many films, old and new, but ultimately is a film unlike any other with the exception of the director's own Lost Highway and Blue Velvet. It constantly challenges the viewer to interpret what is seen, not only intuitively but intellectually. Yet it is not as pretentious as one would have imagined because Lynch makes us sympathize with the protagonist despite her murderous deeds - an element that was missing in all of his other films except the Straight Story. He does this by presenting Diane's dream alter-ego, Betty, as a wholesome Canadian farm girl destined for fame. Lynch also presents us with an intriguing story that affirms and negates in equal measure. Are Camilla and Diane really lovers or just friends? Who is the blue-lady? What does she signify? Who is the bum behind Winkies? What is the significance of the rotting corpse at Sierra Bonita? Does Aunt Ruth really exist? Is silencio an abstraction of hell or perhaps a self-referential take on the film's status as fiction? Lynch isn't prepared to answer any question he poses, choosing instead to present his \"love story in the city of dreams\" as a set of interconnected abstractions and motifs.

The acting is top rate, especially Naomi Watts as Diane Selwyn\/Betty, who is yet to eclipse this performance. Laura Harring has the requisite Hayworthesque allure as Camilla\/Rita, while Adam Theroux as Adam brings an freewheeling arrogance and sublimated paranoid aggression to his role. It was staggering and a grave injustice that not one of them was even nominated for an Academy Award.

This is a film that demands to be seen and analyzed closely. The mystery at the heart of the film remains in Lynch's hands but half the fun is finding consistent ideas from the maze of seeming incongruities that he presents. Upon closer inspection there is a definite sense of a puzzle, perhaps an incomplete jigsaw that teases us with closure but denies the imaginary plenitude of narrative coherence. Ultimately, this is Lynch's key film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mullholland Drive proves once again that David Lynch is the Master of cinematic expression. At the screening last night I witnessed a brilliant addition to the history of cinema. The performances are astounding, the score entrancing, and the photography mesmerizing. David's ability to weave the many elements of film making into a unique and stunning cinematic experience is unequalled. As I watched Mullholland Drive I couldn't help but realize that with David Lynch in this world we are truly blessed. The cinema is blessed as well for, in the films of David Lynch, we are shown that one man's vision can be realized with stunning results. We realize that blockbusters are not the only path. We realize that a true cinematic artist has a chance in this world and in that we are blessed indeed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is a bunch of movies that we say must be seen twice. In most cases this is mainly a recommendation: you understand the movie anyway after the first viewing, and watching it for the second time helps you catch the plot twists you just did not notice. However, for Mulholland Dr. this is different. The sequence that worked for me was: see it first time - spend a day in Internet trying to figure out what this was all about - and then see it second time. Otherwise most likely you will not be able to enjoy this film to the full extent. Then you start to understand that this piece is ingenious, camera work is stunning, and the aftertaste follows you for weeks.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've loved this movie since I was a little kid. I remember the night my mother brought this movie home for me. I loved it and I still do. I think it's very funny and original. There are also some very catchy tunes in this movie. Lou is also a surprisingly good singer. The actors that portray Prince Arthur and Princess Eloise are okay too, but Abbott and Costello are the best. Former heavyweight boxing sensation Buddy Baer, also brother of former heavyweight champion Max Baer is good in this movie as the cop and The giant. He's a better actor than boxer. He had a natural talent. The beginning of this movie is hilarious how Lou Costello keeps crashing the car and how he gets into trouble with Buddy Baer. The slapstick in the house is good too. I especially like the comedy in the Giant's castle. My favorite parts are; the part were Lou is climbing the beanstalk and they're all singing as a farewell. Jack is singing back to them that he'll return. Lou Costello is a very good at singing. My other favorite part is the part when Jack is fighting with the Giant. I like when Jack makes exploding eggs and when he tries to make the Giant an omelet they keep exploding. Abbott and Costello are hilarious and the greatest comedians of all time. This is only one of their great movies that I will love and cherish. The reviews for this movie aren't very good and I can't understand why. This is a very good Abbott and Costello movie. I also love how Lou Costello comes back to reality in the end and thinks he's back in the dream when Bud hits him. He starts singing his song and leaves with an attitude like no one is going to push me around. Very good movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bud Abbott and Lou Costello always had a good following among children, but in their careers I think you could say that they only made one film that could be designated for kids. Jack and the Beanstalk was that one film.

It was part of a two picture independent deal from Warner Brothers, the second film being Abbott and Costello Meet Captain Kidd. These were the only two films the boys made in color.

The two of them, out of work as usual, take a job for a very precocious and obnoxious young David Stollery as a babysitter. Although it starts out with Costello wanting to read the kid, Jack and the Beanstalk as a bedtime story, the young lad winds up reading it to Costello. Lou falls asleep and in his dreams he fantasizes he's indeed Jack the Giant Killer.

Buddy Baer who menaced the boys in Africa Screams plays the giant and he's got a giant size Dorothy Ford as his housekeeper. Dorothy was a big girl, 6'2\", and you can imagine she had some difficulty being cast except when her height was used as a joke. One of the only players who ever looked down at her was John Wayne in Three Godfathers at 6'4\". Henry Fonda and James Stewart in On Our Merry Way also stood barely above her, but again her height was part of a gag.

Shaye Cogan and James Alexander were the princess and prince of the fantasy and they sang beautifully, but couldn't act worth anything. This was the last film of William Farnum who's career dated from the early silent screen days and even to the turn of the last century on stage. He played princess Shaye's father the king.

Some not terribly memorable musical numbers came from Jack and the Beanstalk, save the title song. I well remember as a kid having the 78 record of Bud and Lou singing the song and reciting the story. I was in my early single digit years, but became a lifelong fan of their's through that and their television series.

Jack and the Beanstalk is still a good children's picture for the very young, though I would warn parents to warn their little urchins not to imitate young master Stollery.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having read so much negative press on this movie over the years, I'd always avoided it, but the advent of the cheap public domain DVD encouraged me to finally give it a viewing.

Unfortunately, it's been transferred from a poor copy. The modern prequel, shot on tinted stock, is blurry and the contrast, non-existent. Faces are occasionally difficult to make out. Having said that, the actual story is entertaining and Lou comes across as an accomplished actor, more so than in many of the boys' movies.

Once the movie switches to the 'Jack' story, the film switches to 'colour' and I use that term loosely. Most hues are orange or brown. The greens look particularly bad.

Dorothy Ford as 'Polly', the giant's maid, was a big plus for me as I enjoyed her in an early 'Andy Hardy' appearance.

With so many negative comments put down to the actual quality of the print, I'm still happy to give this movie a 7. It gave me a lot of laughs and that's more than the greater majority of comedies I've watched over the decades can manage.

One to watch if you get the chance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Abbott and Costello's talents shine in the happily childish version of \"Jack and the Beanstalk\". The use of sepia tone and colour, the music and choreography, song and dance, the crossing over of players from one role to another, plus various other aspects of this very fine movie make it obvious that techniques and styles used for \"The Wizard of Oz\" are being toyed with here. And that works right well for our intrepid duo. There are certain other things involved that make this movie a treat for me ... Buddy Baer's, Max Baer Jr. of \"The Beverly Hillbillies\" uncle, appearance as the cop and the giant. Pat Costello, Lou's brother, having been involved in the writing of the script. These things help make this film fun. It does, however, have it's down side. I do think that the choreography is poorly done. But the cute tunes and accompanying vocals help detract from the rather sloppy dance numbers. Some of the players, the couple in love ( prince and princess ) to be precise, aren't very good at their trade. But these things are a small price to pay for an otherwise throughly enjoyable walk down the yellow brick ... er, I mean ... climb up the beanstalk.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although copies of this movie are hard to find, if you can find it, get it!! !!! I believe this was, aside from In The Navy, Abbott and Costello's only musical. Although they twisted the plot around a little, (I've never heard a version where the butcher goes up with him), you still enjoy the antics of the slightly idiotic but lovable Jack, and the greedy butcher, Mr. Dinklepuss. Slightly reminiscent of DuBarry Was a Lady, this uproarious film will have you rolling on the floor - only to get up and dance as Lou Costello sings. (I don't know why they didn't do that in other films.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wanted to see this movie because I am a very huge Abbott and Costello fan, and when I saw it, I liked it.

This movie is funny, not hysterical, but funny. I mean I laughed at a lot of the funny parts and I just plain enjoyed it.

Though it is not of the best of the Perfect Straight Man and the Perfect Buffoon, you should see this if you really love Abbott and Costello.

Out of all of the Abbott and Costello movies that I have seen, I can't say I've seen one that I hated. This is decent, funny, and entertaining. Abbott and Costello at least made some pretty decent movies in their later years.

All in all, I liked this movie, it is not one of their best ones, but I liked it.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So I guess that Bud and Lou just liked to mess with classic stories (although they did have some interesting results). In this case, they're baby-sitting a bad boy, and Lou tries to read him \"Jack and the Beanstalk\" but falls asleep and dreams that he's Jack and Bud's the butcher, and they climb the beanstalk to rescue the prince and princess from the giant (Buddy Baer).

I think that my favorite scene was when Lou was trying to make the giant an omelet, and...well, I'll let you see what happens. As this was an Abbott and Costello movie, they did have a few unnecessary songs, but other than that, it was pretty funny. For other interpretations of the classic story, \"Bewitched\" and \"Gilligan's Island\" both had episodes portraying it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For us, an Abbott and Costello movie is something you have to be in the mood for. I'm very happy I recorded this -- my wife remembered it from when she was young, but I had never seen it. The family wanted to watch something not too serious before bed and this was selected.

Our daughter has watched many of the old movies with us -- always complaining in the beginning, but most often coming around. She mostly ignored this in the beginning, preferring to check her email, but she started enjoying herself -- many times laughing out loud to the zaniness.

It's wonderful to think you can have a fun evening with a 55yr old. The mono-colour introduction that blends into the full-colour fairy tale. It's a fun twist of a story that everyone is familiar with, that includes a little song and a little dance, along with everything you expect Lou and Bud to delivery.

Watch it with your children and have a very fun evening!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The duo of Abbott and Costello lives on in this version of a story-time classic. In \"Jack and the Beanstalk\", there's everything to see, music, magic, and comedy rolled into one. Costello play plays Jack after he listens to the story being told by a young boy one time. We know Jack was a poor boy who sells his cow \"Dolly\" for 5 magic beans. Well, he plants those 5 beans, and they were indeed, magic. He climbs to the sky, sees a big castle there, and he would sing a song, unknown he would encounter the giant(Buddy Baer). Not only him, he would dance with the woman who was also a giant. She would clobber Jack with her elbows during the dance. That was funny! You got the playing harp who knows how to put the giant as ease. The goose who lays golden eggs. And my favorite, the way Jack gets rid of the giant. He gets the ax, and started chopping down on the beanstalk. Another funny is where the ax got stuck during the chop, and the final celebration happens when the people dance around the imprint where the giant fell. A lot of fun, and fun for the whole family as well. Very recommended! 5 stars!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I grew up with the Abbott and Costello movies, A. because my dad grew up with them and both our last names are abbott so we owe the deo a bit of respect, I didnt realize the flack this movie and others of theres gets. It was a really clasic due, it was funny cause abbott and costello were always the same characters, but it was sooo funny, now what i like about jack and the beanstalk is that even though the love story is totally boring and that one song the prince sings, omg , awefull, but i like the angle they took on the love, story, the couple has to get married cause one kingdom is running out of money, they meet in the jail cell and fall in love becaue they both pretend not to be royal and they end up being the couple, so happy ending, i dont think that was the orginal version, if it was they should have cut it out of this movie, but i think it was orginal and i love it. but watching it sucks, lol, also when the movie really kicks in with the giant + abbott and costello it is sooooo funny. when the giant is beating jack into the door and jack is screaming \"OPEN THE DOOR, OPEN THE DOOR\" that stuff is really funny. And that once joke where jack starts screaming prince, prince and all those dogs jump him. kinda cheezy but really orginal. i wish they would have al least tried to remaster it, though i got that africa screams\\jack and the beanstalk, and i dont mind the quality cause when i had it on tape it was bad quality also so whatever i guess. the begining is mildly funny the middle is really really funny, and the end is not funny in the least, but i am 19 years old and when a movie made in 52 makes me laugh this hard, it rocks, this movie is really funny. i love their style. also the chapters suck. also the part where jack is climbing the beanstalk and they are all singing a song about what a dipstick jack is and that he will be killed, thats pretty funny","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"About 12 minutes into the song, in the scene where Daryl Hannah and JFK Jr are first embracing, there is a really pretty song playing...what is that song?! And, who is it sung by? It's a song that sounds very romantic and it is a female singer, piano playing, etc. I have tried everything in the world to look up the music on Google and on iTunes, etc., but it just doesn't come up, not even on Lyrics websites. So, if you hear it I would sure love to know enough about it so that I can try to either go get the CD with that song on it, or find it in iTunes. I don't know if my email will pulblish, I am new at this...but I will be looking back here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"with what they had. John and Carolyn were very private so the writers had to put together what they could. I really liked Portia de Rossi as Carolyn, but Jacqueline Bisset's voice grated on my nerves. She should have used her regular voice. I would have preferred that the whole movie focus on John and Carolyn instead of rehashing stuff we already know about John.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While I thought this was a good film about JFK Jr it was a little hard to follow the timeline. It jumped around quite a bit without ever mentioning what year they were in. Otherwise not great acting, and not really a great film, but it was nice to learn a little more about who JFK Jr was.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked the movie but it should have been longer. The actors did a great job. Portia De Rossi is a fabulous actress and Kristoffer Polaha is a hottie. He didn't look like John at 100% but he did favor him from a distance. I look forward to seeing more of him on the big screen. He didn't have john's charisma, but he definitely has a charm about himself. He has beautiful eyes and a great smile. He reminds me of my boyfriend alot. Ms. Bissett was just too breathy for me. She should have that asthma checked out. Im not going to comment on the Darryl Hannah character. My mom always said, \"If ya can't say anything nice, then shut the hell up!\" so that's what Im gonna do.

Molly","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is very hard to come up with new information about JFK Jr. and this fine movie had very little of it, but it was a joy to watch. The casting was very good and the script, while somewhat like a documentary, was also good. My only complaint was that it wasn't long enough. Perhaps a two-part movie could have told us more about his \"pre-George\" days and his relationships with his mother, sister, and other relatives. Some of the material in the book, \"American Son,\" by Richard Blow would have enhanced the movie a lot. WTBS should be applauded for producing such an entertaining movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The accounts seem real with a human factor added to the mix. A lot of sadness. I'm sure glad that I wasn't him....another thing to add is that all the women in this show were not really pretty accounts of the real women. But, I don't think that it was about the women, although it was to JFK Jr's passion. What a shame. any loss of life is a real shame.

Seemed like a good account of his life. I recommend it if you are into biographies and melodrama!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another fabulous movie from Catherine Breillat, this time about the difficulties of shooting a sex scene in a movie. Using comedy \u0096 a new genre for Breillat \u0096 we get a backstage view of filmmaking but in documentary style. The character who plays the director in the movie is based on Breillat, the sex scene in question is taken from her earlier film \u0091A Ma Soeur' as is the main teenage actress. But the film, like all of Breillat's work, is not entertainment alone. It is peppered with philosophical observations on the nature of sexuality as well as demonstrating a devotion to \u0091purity' (as opposed to pornography) that is a cornerstone of Breillat's work and a devotion to real emotion. We see the director character harangue the young lead actress and actor to bring the best out in them, hypnotising them into the parts they need to play, bringing out part of themselves that the director can see in them but they cannot see in themselves until they achieve the heights of acting that she demands of them. She makes meaningful movies, not titillation, but she shows the work that is needed to produce this, and so gives us insights both into the (decidedly French) film making process and the psychology of male \u0096 female sexuality.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Catherine Brreillat is a French director who loves to provoke her audience. She takes us along to witness how a film is done on location. The movie in production seems to be based on herself, since the person at the center of the story is Jeanne, a woman director, much like Ms. Breillat. Jeanne acts as the alter ego of the real director.

Jeanne reaches an impasse at the start of filming. Not only has she picked the wrong time to photograph this movie during a cold spell, as it involves beach locations that are obviously too cold for the actors and extras. Jeanne has problems with the two principal actors, especially, the male lead who has problems accepting the way the director has decided to show him in the movie; the lead actress is no angel either.

Movie making, Ms. Breillat tells us is a process like no other in a creative work of art. First, there is the writing period, in which, in this case, Jeanne, has written a screen play, that when it goes into production reveals problems the writer\/director didn't think about. There is the problem of how she wants to photograph a love scene in which the young woman of the story has her first sex contact. What appeared clever in the written page, doesn't necessarily translate into an easy time in front of the camera. The actor is made to wear a false penis and has a lot of problems accepting the fact that a make up has to touch him in ways he never thought he would ever be touched by another man.

The luminous Anne Parillaud is marvelous as Jeanne, the director. She makes observations about the production, the actors, and the crew that fit well into the story being told. Gregoire Colin and Roxane Mesquide play the lead actors, with all the insecurity that some actors bring to a movie set. Jeanne has to massage their egos in order to get what she wants in the end. Ashley Waninnger plays Leo, Jeanne's assistant.

\"Sex Is Comedy\" allows Ms. Breillet to give us her own take on films in general. This is a great look at the way movies are done in a typical Breillat style.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was very interesting to me, virtually a film within a film, which is about a very whimsical director who cleverly persuades an actress and and actor (who happen to dislike each other) in producing sexual chemistry on film. The director is faced with a fusillade of obstacles as she tries to get the two individuals to perform beautifully on film. Sex is Comedy is much more than a comedy, packed with uncomfortable quirky moments the movie also addresses the psychological and innate instinctual behavior of men and women in regards to the sometimes controversial act of sex. I loved this film, the character Jeanne played by the beautiful Anne Parillaud performs wonderfully on screen as you share in her struggle to produce a motion picture work of art.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like Breillat's movies, but this one is the best I've seen at balancing animal warmth with sexual intelligence. Anne Parillaud is electric, and the script is amazing - especially considering it's supposed to take place on the set of another of Breillat's movies. You don't have to agree with her take on everything to get a lot out of this. It made me think a lot about vulnerability and power. Try to imagine a male director with Jeanne's openness - not impossible, but a little mind-bending. The unannounced sexual undercurrents that are always present when humans get together to make anything is held up to bright light here, but not a cold light.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wasn't surprised to read a comment by the director to the effect that she made this film as an antidote to all those \"making of\" DVD featurettes, as that certainly struck me. I do confess that I have a penchant for \"meta,\" but I found this film to be very accessible and entertaining, and not even in a labored, self-consciously clever way, which is certainly a bit of what you expect in a film about film-making. It is very \"French\" in that there are a great deal of outlandish, yet occasionally compelling theories about how film-making (and even sexuality) \"works,\" but since the director doesn't quite play herself (using an avatar instead), we're left with a lot of choices (since I'm pretty sure she's constantly contradicting herself). Apparently Catherine Breillat specializes in hard-to-watch films, but I'd definitely say this one doesn't qualify. I really enjoyed the dialog, the balance between the cinematic and the natural, the relationships between the director character and her assistant and actor, and so on. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As being selected during the Quinzaine des r\u00e9alisateurs, this year 2002, Catherine Breillat is masterfully halvedivided of her autobiographical film, there where her lead actress, Anne Parillaud (La Femme NIKITA, Luc Besson), embodies admirably the Film Director of \"Intimate Scenes \".

This is a comedy of actors' manners. Making-Of ? Film genre ? Pornography or Exhibitionism? Sex Is Comedy is a post modern film, with its script based on a film within the film. As an implosive story of a minimalist love scene, the film is built with a constant solidarity of the forms and the spirit, in which, Breillat keeps on breaking and analyzing the taboos. Using visual codes and certain sense of the formula, Catherine Breillat implement her clinical analysis of the sexuality as an isolated problem outside the society to be communicate by the door of the heart.

Therefore, Gr\u00e9goire Colin (Good Work, N\u00e9nette et Boni, Claire Denis, The Dreamlife of Angels, Eric Zonca) in the role of the Actor and Roxanne Mesquida (Fat girl, Catherine Breillat, Marie from the Bay of Angels, Manuel Prada), the Actress, are actors whom she invents, she does clarify in an interview. Breillat observes the man in front of him even, a chaste man. Then Breillat films the shame and the sexual mutilation, but also a big hope, a disturbing dimension of the ecstasy, a nudity of the feelings, the halving of the exhibitionism, playing to be one to be one. The Director is finally expected to lead the actors to give their feelings, their body and their soul. So arranged, facing the problem of the order of \"who I am \", the actors of Breillat put on an inorganic vitality to merge in her work in progress. But, for what is a shape of incredible exorcism, for an actor, Breillat puts many questionings. Enduring at the same moment a big suffering, the actors appear to be the ones who look for this loving transport to be part of the eternity of their work.

The Art of Breillat is of researcher, to know how to undertake in a dialogue aiming at pushing away the limits of intimate scenes. Join make-up, prosthesis in erection and syndicates are not without reminding what pictures and scenes of Jan Steen's and Rembrandt could be in the anecdotal and the daily of characters on a shooting set. While the moral categories disappear from the background of Sex Is Comedy, Breillat succeeds in revealing the loving imitation power of the actors in a landscape of formidable and dramatic humanity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sex is Comedy, though not driven by a fantastically imaginative plot, concentrates effectively on the relationship between film-director and crew during the process of film-making, whilst successfully addressing the dynamics of human relationships and more specifically the issues and problems encountered by actors involved in filming sex scenes. Director, 'Jeanne', features prominently throughout, for it is she who carries the plot forward, in the place of a narrator, and gives us numerous little pearls of wisdom to think about. She is a social commentator, relating to her assistant and others the problems she finds with her new male lead by way of associating him with a masculine stereotype. Their ambiguous relationship typifies something about human nature \u0096 the tendency to be fickle. On one hand, the two seem close; when he is not in sight, she claims to hate him. Jeanne also addresses his masculine pride perhaps in a feminist take on things.

The taboo of what constitutes obscenity, is raised: the content of the sex scenes is not considered obscene but beautiful, because it is fakeness which constitutes obscenity - that is the director's justification. This is, however, doubly ironic, for the film we watch is in itself a construct within a construct.

There's more to this film than just relationships, of course. Watching this film is not simply a question of analysing it for the sake of drawing out some sort of meaning. One can delight in the natural lighting which pervades the movie. This makes it realistic and believable. A static camera is sometimes used taking in a heavy composition and at times the camera appears shaky like a home movie. If you're looking for something fun to watch on a Sunday afternoon that isn't too heavy but still leaves you thinking: this is it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's particularly hard for a director to capture film-making without getting precious, inbred, over-dramatic, or all three. Breillat ably demonstrates the instinctive, lizard-brain methods of a female auteur in extracting from two \"cattle\" (as Hitchcock called actors) a love-scene of searing intimacy. Her main battle is with her leading man (\"an actor is really a woman\" she opines), although, naturally, it is the leading lady who will steal the show. I disagree that this is Breillat's first comedy. 'Romance' was at various points hilarious, but I accept that the French sense of humour can be elusive for foreigners; indeed, dozens of IMDb reviewers detected no comedy in Romance. By contrast, Sex Is Comedy raises plenty of laughs, mainly by using an actor's prop that goes back thousands of years to Plautus and the ancient Greeks. We wondered, leaving the theatre, whether Roxane's \"beard\" was a wig. A lovely performance from Anne Parillaud as Breillat wrestling with her own script, looking ten years younger than her age.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Smashing film about film-making. Shows the intense and strange relationships that can develop between directors & their actors; the manipulation and mind games; the preening egotism of performers. As in any workplace, sexuality complicates matters, but here to the nth degree as they are filming a sex scene.

Absolutely fantastic performances from Gregoire Colin as the fragile, wannabe macho male lead, and - supremely - Anne Parillaud as the director's self-portrait. The image of her laughing & eating a banana at the end, having finally got what she wants out of her puppets, is pure delight.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a fascinating drama about the Making of a movie. The Actor and the Actress really can't stand each other, but we build up to a scene in which they are to have sex - she for the first time, per script. The actress shows little emotion on or off camera in the plot, aside from she is freezing in the early scenes on a beach. The actor is self absorbed and increasingly defies the direction of the Director, Jeanne. I could not help being drawn in to the drama of 'how are these two possibly going to ACT their way thru a Sex Scene?' That drama in itself becomes more exciting than the actual nudity and foreplay performed for the cameras. Not that Roxane Mesquida isn't lovely and worth seeing naked! However, there is a pretty young stage hand who walks thru a few scenes as an extra. I think that is her in the far left edge of one of the pictures (2 of 9) here in IMDb. I don't even know if this girl is credited, but when she walks by (fully dressed of course) in confident indifference with her short blonde hair -- SHE is Sexy! WHO IS THIS GIRL???","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pretty darn good for a French film. I have not seen any of Catherine Breillat's previous films, and so have no opinions about this compared to her previous work. French cinema usually sticks to the ultimately arty films, and leaves the shoot-em-ups and star vehicles to Hollywood. That is probably a good business strategy, as no other nation's film industry will likely have the resources to compete on those sorts of projects. Films about film-making are often a bore, as it has little resonance for people not in the business. But this one held my interest much more than I thought it would. In spite of the title, (oddly in English) it really isn't much of a comedy, in spite of a few droll moments. I've only seen a few of Anne Parillaud's films, but she shows a generous amount of talent and range, from the action\/psychological drama of \"La Femme Nikita\" to the wry comedy of \"Innocent Blood\". This film also extends her range as she plays a more or less ordinary woman, yet is still compelling on the screen. Kudos also to Roxane Mesquida, with whom I was unfamiliar. She plays a very inexpressive actress for most of the film, whose talent is drawn out at the end. If you don't HAVE to have car chases and explosions to be entertained, check this one out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The opening of Imamura's masterpiece avoids mere sensationalism in its depiction of the unfathomably horrifying events of August 6th, 1945, in which 90% of Hiroshima and tens of thousands of lives were annihilated in an instant. Instead, Imamura emphasizes the unprecedented strangeness of the catastrophe, focusing on such portentous images as the diabolic mushroom cloud louring silently in the distance and the black rain that spatters a beautiful young woman's face. The rest of the film traces the ramifications of the latter incident, bringing the atomic holocaust and its aftermath (over 100,000 people died of radiation poisoning) down to the intelligible level of the plight of Yasuko (Yoshiko Tanaka) and her small \"community bound by the bomb.\"

The survivors strive for normalcy and continuity, most notably by attempting to find a suitable marriage for Yasuko, but the imminent possibility of radiation sickness shadows every aspect of their lives. Yasuko's potential suitors, naturally enough, shy away from a young woman, no matter how attractive, who might suddenly grow sick and die. Genuine love, when it finally does appear, does so unexpectedly and ambiguously. We are left wondering if love across class lines is more a token of Yasuko's status as \"damaged goods\" or of a common humanity, thrown into bold relief by harsh circumstances, that transcends class divisions.

The film's classically restrained style intensifies the impact, the spare, eloquent interior shots reminding us that Imamura began his career as an assistant to the great Ozu. Imamura's mastery is evident, for example, in the paired scenes of Yasuko bathing, the first emphasizing her lovely back and legs, the second how her hair is falling out. The shots stand almost as bookends to the narrative's trajectory, distilling its tragic essence. The film's documentary-style realism is violated for expressive purposes several times, perhaps most notably in a scene that lays bare the troubled interior life of a shell-shocked veteran. Both the score by the renowned avant-garde composer Toru Takemitsu and the stunning black and white photography contribute greatly to the film's brooding atmosphere. When, in the final shot, Yasuko's uncle (Kazuo Kitamura), the film's laconic narrator, looks to the vacant sky for a rainbow as a sign of hope and regeneration, the black and white imagery suddenly becomes so poignant that it is almost unbearable. Few films from Japan (or anywhere else, for that matter) could be compared to the great, humanist Japanese masterpieces of the 1950s. This film is one of them. When I finished viewing it for the first time, I sat stunned, unable to move for at least five minutes, overwhelmed as I was by the emotions great tragedy should inspire: terror and pity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It infuriates me no end that, now and forever, I will have to identify this movie (which I consider a masterpiece, and I don't use that word lightly) with the qualifier \"Not the Michael Douglas movie!\" Not only are the titles the same, but they refer to the same thing- the radioactive fallout that rained upon the survivors of the first nuclear bombings. In Imamura's film, this is no cheap metaphor; the whole movie is about the fallout, physical and emotional, from Hiroshima and the war itself. As the deterioration of a couple and their grown niece becomes more grimly clear, the ironic imagery becomes more potent, from the old clock that is reset each night to the stone gods that gradually pile up outside the heroine's door. (These, in turn, are carved by a shellshocked veteran who is compelled, in a series of tragicomic episodes, to attack anything with a motor that approaches the town.) The bombing day itself is shown in piecemeal flashbacks that are coolly horrifying. Yet \"Black Rain\" (\"NtMDm!\") can be watched, even repeatedly, because of Imamura's compassion for his characters. I repeat: a masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shohei Imamaura's Black Rain was released in 1989 just at the onset of the AIDS epidemic, a fact that gives the film about the slow deterioration of Hiroshima radiation victims an added poignancy. The black rain in the title refers to the combination of ash, radioactive fallout, and water that fell one or two hours after the explosion. There have been other books and films about the dropping of the atomic bomb but none as unique and powerful as this one. Based on a novel by Masuji Ibuse who gathered information from interviews and the diaries of real-life bomb victims, the film depicts how an entire family is affected psychologically as well as physically by the bomb years after the original explosion. It is a horrifying vision but one that resonates with deep compassion for humanity.

The film begins in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 as soldiers and civilians go about their normal daily activities. Suddenly a blinding light flashes and a thunderous blast is heard. Almost every single building is destroyed or damaged beyond repair. The first atomic bomb ever dropped on a city is now a part of history. Survivors must somehow restart their lives, unaware of the bomb's devastating after effects. Filmed in high-contrast black and white, the story centers around Yasuko (Yoshiko Tanaka), a young woman who is caught in the radioactive rain as her boat heads back to the city to search for friends and relatives. In Hiroshima, Imamura shows us indelible images that remain with us: a young boy with skin hanging from his body pleads with his brother to recognize him, an older man is in tears over his inability to free his son from piles of debris, a mother is in torment as she rocks the blackened body of her child.

When the family returns to their rural home, Yasuko's life is forever changed. She sees her friends dying around her and waits for the inevitable bouts of radiation sickness that have already affected her Uncle Shigematsu Shimuza (Kazuo Kitamura) and Aunt Shigeko Shimuza (Etsuko Ichihara). Pretending that there is only business as usual, the family denies that the bomb has affected Yasuko. \"She forgot how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed. Everyone forgot it. They forget the hell of fire and go to rallies like an annual festival. I'm sick of it,\" says a friend Katayama (Akiji Kobayashi). Yasuko internalizes the tragedy, feeling shame for being different than others and guilty for being contaminated.

When her aunt and uncle try to find her a husband, the eligible men refuse to marry her because of suspicions about her health, even though Shigematsu has copied her diary to prove that she wasn't directly exposed to the bomb. The only suitor she feels comfortable with is another damaged man, Yuichi (Keisuke Ishida), who has a panic attack every time he hears the roar of an engine. At the end, the beauty of life shows itself ever so fleetingly when Yasuko goes to the pond and sees a sight she has been longing for all her life, the king carp jumping in the water, playfully as if to say that beyond despair there is still joy. Sadly we hear on the radio statements by politicians about using the bomb once again in the Korean War. \"Human beings learn nothing\", says Shigematsu. \"They strangle themselves. Unjust peace is better than a war of justice. Why can't they see?\" Immamura's Black Rain has hopefully allowed all of us to see more clearly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After the atomic bomb hits Hiroshima, charred bodies lie all around, deformed victims attempt to communicate with relatives who can't even recognize them, and one person after another dies of radiation sickness. This black and white film, however sad and scary, is not without humor. The story revolves around a young woman Yasuko, who was hit by black rain after the explosion. She is trying to get married, but everyone keeps dying, and people are worried the same will happen to her. After finding a suitable mate (who is losing his mind after being in the war for too long), she ends up showing signs of radiation sickness. This film is a great portrayal of the atomic attacks on Japan, it will frighten you, and will perhaps make you cry. The acting is good, not overly dramatic like many other ww2 films that have been made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a pretty faithful adaptation of Masuji Ibuse's novel, \"Black Rain.\" Like the book it is very moving and thought-provoking. The story revolves around a couple's attempts to see their niece successfully married. They are having trouble finding suitors because of a rumor that she suffers from radiation sickness, after walking through Hiroshima on the day of the bombing. Well filmed, well acted, moving, tragic, horrifying and funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Black Rain is a superb film, but watch out for the DVDs currently being sold for as much as $300 apiece. I have the DVD, and it's terrible. Very tiny non-anamorphic image that has to be blown up to resolution-killing size. Acceptable sound. This is a primitive DVD that absolutely *has* to be rereleased.

BTW, I also own the laserdisc and the VHS of Black Rain. The VHS is a huge step upward from the DVD! And the laserdisc has far and away the best picture of them all\u0097subtitles in the black, sharp, big picture, simple but very good soundtrack. Buy the VHS and avoid the preposterous prices these scam artists are demanding!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't really concentrate on the larger Genocidal aspects of the story (although the horrific images at the beginning are very powerful). I was really taken with the human story of the girl and her family. Imagine living your life not knowing if you have a time bomb ticking away inside you. I was really wrenching to see Yasuko being rejected as \"tainted\" by the bomb. The image that stays with me most is when Yasuko stands before the mirror combing her hair, silently watching it come out in clumps.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was evident until the final credits that this film was made in 1989, as all the elements of its production were made to look 1960's - the acting, the characterisations, the sets and the props all had an aesthetic from an earlier time.

The film opens to the moments prior to the dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and how this tragic incident affects one family: a young woman, Yasuko, who lives with her aunt and uncle. Even in black and white, and using special effects that are quite primitive by modern standards but emotive and effective nonetheless, the depictions of the immediate aftermath of the bomb are quite horrific. Family members become unrecognisable to each other, others resemble zombies as they wander the streets bedraggled and in shock.

The title refers to rainfall that fell soon after the bomb, which was mixed with radioactive ash, and in which Yasuko is caught. Rumors of Yasuko's being in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing affect her marriage prospects and it is later learnt that the black rain is indeed causing sicknesses. The film is concerned not just with the physical effects of the bomb on the Japanese, but on the social and psychological damage that was wrought.

I found the film compassionate and a fascinating journey into a unique culture. While the film is primarily concerned with the pain felt by one family, the film's gentle political message is relevant today and probably for all time - wars have horrific consequences, and should not be entered into unless absolutely necessary. It is said that history repeats itself, and the current leaders of the 'Coalition of the Willing' have learned nothing. While atomic warfare has not resurfaced since 1945, other deadly after-effects have. This film is compelling viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the light of the recent typhoon that hit the country hard (that is, typhoon Ondoy), I thought it upon myself to re-watch \"Black Rain\" (1988, Japan), Shohei Imamura's haunting black-and-white masterpiece on the destruction and after-effects of the atomic bomb that hit Hiroshima in the closing period of the Second World War. The destruction and impact of both catastrophes (war and typhoon) may differ in degree and quality, but the trauma and scar (physically and psychologically) nevertheless are still there.

It is a testament to a film's power that its images remain as potent and as indelible as when they were first seen. It is only that the difference now, in my case, is that watching those images has assumed a greater sense of poignancy and potency due to a first-hand experience of a near-monumental weather calamity. There is a sense of kinship, so to speak.

Imamura has always been one of my favorite Japanese filmmakers. His films are always a pleasure to watch because of their anarchy, sensuality and earthiness:\"The Pornographers:Introduction to Anthropology\" (1966), \"Eijanaika\" (1981), \"Warm Water Under a Red Bridge\" (2001), his two Palme d'Or-winners \"Ballad of Narayama\" (1983) and \"The Eel\" (1997), to name some. Given the mood of his films, who would have thought that he once served as an assistant director to Yasujiro Ozu, Japanese cinema's most austere and minimalist filmmaker? But then, it is Ozu's rigorous formality and domesticity that Imamura was rebelling against.

But then again, with \"Black Rain\" one can unmistakably sense Ozu's imprints. The father (or the father-figure) being intent on seeing his daughter get married before time runs out on both of them, and the stillness and calmness of the scenes showing all members of the family together (notably, the dinner scenes or in Ozu's film lexicon, the tatami) are something that the revered master filmmaker would perennially explore in his works (\"Tokyo Story\", \"Late Spring\"). Essentially, the over-all subdued and deliberate quality of \"Black Rain\" is a remarkable contrast to the bacchanalian chaos and instinctual drive of Imamura's entire filmography.

Still, this is not to say that watching the film would not be an altogether unsettling experience. \"Black Rain\", as aptly described by American film reviewer Leonard Maltin, is \"filled with haunting black-and-white images.\" In the film's first 15 minutes, Imamura pulls no punches in showing the immediate and graphic horrors of the nuclear bombing, one after another (stiffly-burnt bodies, hanging flesh, walking dead, fires and debris everywhere, madness all over). An assault to the viewers' senses, definitely it is, coupled with Takashi Kawamata's somber b\/w photography (he did the lensing in Yoshitaru Nomura's crime drama \"The Incident\") and Toru Takemitsu's chilling score (he did the music in such classics as Akira Kurosawa's \"Ran\" and Masahiro Shinoda's \"Double Suicide\").

Even during the film's supposed \"tranquil\" phase (that is, five years after the atomic bombing), one can still never have a sense of contentment and order, with the uneasiness and pain still being strongly felt by the survivors, not only in terms of failing physical health, but more so in terms of psychological trauma and social stigma. The human race, it now indisputably appears, has been destined to bear the legacy of the Bomb, for as long as it lives.

I already wrote a piece about \"Black Rain\" some years earlier (posted in IMDb.com), but only in comparison to Volker Schlondorff's magnificent \"Tin Drum\", another film dealing with monumental human folly and global catastrophe. Moreover, it has never been my practice to write twice about a film that I already wrote something about before. It is in the light of the recent weather calamity that devastated our country that I was prompted to re-visit and write something again about this remarkable Imamura film, as there is a wealth of lessons to be learned from both the film and the recent event in regards the imperfections and dangers of scientific knowledge and action, and the long-term scars and wounds inflicted by a wide- scale destruction (whether human- or nature-induced).

There have been a number of films dealing with nuclear holocaust and destruction (\"Testament\", \"Threads\", \"The War Game\", each situated within their own respective countries);and \"Black Rain\" stands among them, if not more so, for both its unapologetic and somber portrayal of individual and communal disintegration brought about by atomic devastation and the fact that it has a historical event as its basis.

Few weeks from now, another disaster film from Hollywood, Roland Emmerich's \"2012\", will finally hit (no pun intended) the big screen. As we all know, this American director's bunch of \"disaster\/apocalypse\" films--\"Independence Day\", \"Godzilla\", \"The Day After Tomorrow\"-- serves no other purpose than to be of mere entertainment value, with no real insight into the nature and wisdom of apocalyptic disaster and the human condition being affected. I wonder how this \"gigantic\" movie would exploit the trauma, disorientation and apprehensions still being experienced by our people because of the recent weather calamity. To say that this flick is a precautionary tale would probably be no more than an overstatement.

But yes, I will still watch \"2012\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nothing is worse than the genocides of our world's history. This film attempts to describe the horror faced by one particular family - a common narrative device - in the atomic bomb world of Hiroshima. The most memorable parts are the graphic and saddening images that the people of Hiroshima face in the aftermath of war. The story, however, becomes more concerned with the effect on a specific group of people and how they cope with getting on with their lives; in other words, if you don't really care about them, the film grows boring. It's hard not to care, though, when a family's homeland is wrecked. I'm not sure if I would recommend this film, because it says very little politically and, honestly, did not keep my interest in the family's troubles.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, where to start? I stumbled across this one in 1993 and just hit \"record\" on the VCR out of habit, more than anything else. \"Citizen Kane\" it sure isn't...but if you've had a bad day and are in the mood for crashing out in front of something not too intellectually stimulating, then I tentatively suggest this might just be your \"thing\".

We have the lot here - great title track, more stereotypes than you could shake a stick at, unconscious comedy, the bitchiest fight scene of all time and more, more, more! David Hemmings plays the diametric opposite of his role in the 60s classic \"Blow Up\" - still a photographer, still hormonally stimulated but not \"quite\" the same.

John Philip Law is easy to slam as an actor who makes a log appear unwooden but that wouldn;t be fair seeing as how he had about 5 minutes notice before accepting the role.

Wexler as \"Amanda\"? Suffice to say it was her one and ONLY film role! The real star of this movie, though, is Ethel Evans who plays a, shall we say secretary (?), with the morals of an alley cat and an ambition to match. The way she manages to reconcile her present life with that of a future with her comedian husband-to-be is actually quite touching in an earthy, gritty, what-is-to-be-will-be way.

I actually love this movie when I'm in the mood for it.......and wouldn't touch it with the proverbial bargepole when I'm not.

Kudos to the cast for keeping a (relatively) straight face when filming.

A \"classic\" in the Edward D Wood school of cinematic endeavours!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why is there so much angst among the IMDb reviewers who hate this film? It isn't a masterpiece, but having viewed it twice it does come across as compelling drama set in the world of network TV. Robin Stone is the epitome of every Dan Rather, Phillip Stone, and Brian What's-his-name on NBC. A mannequin of a man incapable of love who succeeds professionally, but fails miserably in his personal life. I worked for eight (8) years in network news and Robin Stone's DO EXIST!

The supporting cast works for me from Cannon (who can be annoying, but isn't in this film) to Greene (who plays pathos just right) to Wexler (who scores as the young model in love w\/ the image of Prince Charming and can't reconcile that image w\/ the true ugliness inside). Also of note is the ending which some IMDb reviewers claim is a cop-out. It's not! Listen to the song \"He's Moving On\" for clues as to the arc the Robin Stone character travels that brings him to finally face his issues. He realizes the answers don't lay w\/ the life he's lived and the symbolic walk away from those he's associated himself with, at the end is perfect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have never read a Jacqueline Susann novel, but I have also seen Valley of the Dolls, based on another of her books. On both occasions I thought the movie is probably better than the book and will further improve with age (certainly contrary to the books). The reason being that a movie focuses more on a specific style in fashion, design and behavior patterns. And in this aspect The Love Machine offers quite a lot. The set design fits the story perfectly. And all the characters fit in, too. They're perfect in the way that they complete a well balanced general picture. They are superficial and do not develop, it is true, but in this movie I wouldn't want it any different.

David Hemmings reprises the role he played in Antonioni's Blow Up. And it's more than a rip-off. He's a fashion photographer, looks visibly aged and seems to start going slightly to seed. Robert Ryan reprises the role he played in Max Oph\u00fcl's Caught, he is Smith Ohlrig all over again, greedy, bored and boring, uninspired and uninspiring. It's possible Ryan did not want to be in this picture and acted accordingly, on the other hand he might have thought a lot about his part and then given a carefully studied performance. Whatever happened, it fits the picture. Dyan Cannon is great (fantastic wardrobe!), she dominates every scene she's in and is involved in the two highlights of the movie: the burning of a luxurious bed and the knocking down of the Hemmings character with a Academy Award statuette.

The title, The Love Machine, is, of course, meant ironically. Robin Stone is a kind of a Barry Lyndon of the pop era (incidentally, the movie IS slightly kubrickysh). That he chooses a TV station to work his way up to the top seems to be a mere coincidence. He sees love (meaning sexual favors) merely as a means for personal advancement. There are rather scary hints of a troubled sexuality which are not explored in the movie. Homosexuality is treated very casually, probably not the standard for mayor movies of the period. The open cynicism of the TV executives need not fear comparison with other good movies about the subject like A Face in the Crowd or Network or Truman Show. They are producing crap, they agree among themselves it's crap and they know they will make a lot of dough with it.

I did not regret spending the odd 108 minutes with this movie and would not be surprised if it picked up a cult following, provided it's given the chance (meaning a DVD release).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is the best movie I have seen in a long time. It is also the best movie seen that uses a drama to tell history, without going to speculation such as with JFK,Nixon or Hoffa. It deftly depicts the clutches that Belgium had on the Congo. It also teases out easily for us the European and American forces that were behind the power the inflict the Congo today. The film was sure to specifically implicate the U.S., rightly so, in the murder of Lumumba. This film could never be made in the U.S. for U.S. film rarely criticizes itself in acts of imperialism and murder. (Save Stone's JFK) It also lets us in on the problems that were present with the inner conflict of the Congo, between Lumumba, Mobutu and Katanga. We can see how precarious countries sit in establishing new governments when their history is one of colonization and those who were the colonizers continue to pull the strings of power and force. The film is excellently shot with Eriq Ebouaney an excellent Lumumba. The cast is great and they really draw you into the feeling of the climate in the Congo during that time.

Again, this is a must see for those who love drama with a correct historical background. See my notes on Quilombo.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I feel very fortunate to have the chance to not only watch this film, but also learn more about this fascinating person and time. Lumumba is an outstanding portrayal, giving a full sense of the story without falling into the usual Hollywood trappings - yes, he is shown with his wife and children, but the essence of the story is his politics and those of the still-emerging independent Congo. The film is brilliantly made, moving along at a pace that is consistently engaging. I look forward to seeing other Raoul Peck films, as well as more from Eric Ebouaney!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To answer the question of a previous reviewer who asked the name of the U.S. official mentioned in \"Lumumba\", the name of the character is \"Mr. Carlucci.\" Frank Carlucci is reported as having been at that time Second Secretary at the U.S. Embassy in the Congo. Subsequently, among other assignments, he was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Portugal, Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Secretary of Defense, and is now the Chairman of the Carlyle Group. It's hardly surprising that Carlucci's biographical sketch on his www.carlylegroup.com web site fails to credit his service in the Belgian Congo. If his name was deliberately censored from the HBO version of \"Lumumba\" it may have been to avoid the possibility of HBO's being sued in U.S. courts. Carlucci's name, however, is clearly mentioned in the theatre version of \"Lumumba\" that I saw recently. In the event, I expect that he would deny any involvement in Lumumba's murder.

Others have commented on the evenhandedness with which the film \"Lumumba\" treats the parties concerned: Lumumba-supporters, other Congolese, even Belgians. A somewhat more sinister view emerges, I think, from the BBC documentary entitled \"Who Killed Lumumba?\", based on the book \"The Murder of Lumumba\" by Belgian historian Ludo de Witte. When examined closely, these films demonstrate that the fate of Lumumba and the history of the Congo is not just a matter of black and white. Only Lumumba's murderers believe that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When it comes to political movies I usually come out feeling empty. They generally take up some moralistic stance and you have a clear good vs bad story line as if it is some sort of Batman movie.

But with Lumumba it is the first movie I've seen that showed politics for what it is, and the real issues of trying to rule a country of broken people who have known no other rule but violence. There were no good or bad there were just interests and conflicts of interest. This is the only political movie in my opinion that one can come out of it truly learning something. Especially for anyone with their eye on politics as a career this movie shows you, you cannot rule on what you want for a country, but what the country wants from you.

That's why I disagree with a lot of reviews that say everyone comes of bad, I think they come of too idealistic, (the Belgians want the perfect colony, Lumumba wants a perfect Unity Congo, Tshombe wants wealth and riches, America wants the perfect ally against communism, Russia wants the perfect aide for Communism). And the Congolese? They come off used and abused, ( best example in the movie when G\u00e9n\u00e9ral Janssens tells his black troops your government lied to you and it leaves them all in an uproar) they are always being pulled and pushed into supporting this person or another.

This movie shows in politics a mistake can cost you dearly and this movie everyone makes mistake after mistake until it escalates and ends up destroying the country. Their intentions might be good (or at least in the characters opinion), but it's everyone's mistakes that lead to the downfall of Congo. I don't think anyone is bad in this film, I just think they want too much from people sick of giving and want to start taking.

Overall, it's not just the best political film, it is a great film in general. Acting is fabulous (Eriq Ebouaney as Lumumba was perfect casting I really believe him) script flawless, editing perfect pace, and production value higher than I expected for a central African film. A must watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"an excellent, thoughtfully produced historical drama--well played, artfully written, shot in ways that convey accurate visual images of the congo, and with more than a few moving moments, especially for those who care about the history of Africa and imperialism. however, a fair amount of worthwhile content gets lost in translation, and because names, acronyms, and so forth are hard to follow. so i would strongly recommend checking a neutral source such as wikipedia to get a basic sense of the story being depicted (and the subsequent history) before enjoying the film. if you have the DVD version, there is also some useful historical background. there is a point towards the end of the film where the name of a character who then speaks with an American accent is actually beeped out--a simple google search of \"lumumba film censor\" or something similar will reveal a truly fascinating (and perhaps disturbing) twist regarding the production of this important film. this film, if coupled with a little outside research, helps contextualize dozens of other films relating to central\/east Africa and\/or imperialism, e.g. hotel rwanda, shake hands with the devil, various adaptations of conrad's heart of darkness, and even \"ali\" when mohammed ali visits kinshasa.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story of how the (communist) leader who freed the Congo from Belgium imperialism was eliminated by the Western powers through the hand of Mobutu. A story of struggle and injustice, of hope and the search of freedom. The story could be the one of any African country. A very moving film with images full of symbolism and beauty. If you have to see only one foreign film this year, see this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Good Movie, acting was terrific especially from Eriq Ebouaney(Lumumba)and very well directed.

It also shows how Lumumba was cornered by the Belgians, U S A and United Nations and how they labelled him a `communist' to scare people as they did to all the Honest True African leaders like Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Nyerere and many others. It shows how western countries preach democracy while they have something else on the back of their minds. It is a story of injustice, struggle and brutality.

It shows how Lumumba couldn't control his people, yes they were his people, but before we put the blame on him, was he getting enough if any from the people he appointed in his government like Mobutu? Or his colleague had other things in their minds, to find out go and see the movie! Certainly Mobutu did, went on to loot the country for the next 35 yrs, before he was overthrown and fled the country. Died a billionaire.

Some flaws: There was too little explanation how the man (Lumumba) got to rise in the first place. Also there should have been more explanation about the country, Congo Kinshasa (after independence), now known as Democratic Republic of Congo formerly known as Zaire when it was under Mobutu. There should have been an explanation why he (Lumumba) couldn't keep the second largest country in Africa in one piece. And also what was going on with Tshombe and Katanga . Just heads up if you gonna watch the movie Tshombe was controlling the Katanga region which (if I am not mistaken) is the number one copper producer in the world.

In all it is a good movie to see. You will learn something new about Africa, it's leaders and it's people and probably will open your eyes why this continent is ridden with wars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, it is interesting to note that one of the users here who commented on this film (from Belgium) had to add that Lumumba was \"communist.\" If this user indeed watched the film, the message was that he was not communist but pigeonholed (by none other than Belgium, the U.S., the UN, etc.) as a \"communist\" leader for other individuals', corporations', and country's political and economic gains. Even if one decides to accept that the film partakes in \"revisionist history\" it would be naive to assume that Lumumba was communist, especially coming from the country which \"granted\" the Congo independence, and since Lumumba was elected DEMOCRATICALLY to his seat as Prime Minister.

Onto the film...

This is one of the most important and powerful films I have seen in quite some time. Depicting the struggles of the African freedom fighter, and ELECTED Prime Minister's struggles as its first leader, Mr. Peck, does a quite commendable job of putting together all of the pieces into one work. And this must have been quite some task. Due to the fact that most people outside of the Congo and Belgium likely do not know the history of Lumumba and the Congo, outside of some light coverage of African Imperialism (hopefully) in one of their high school\/secondary school (or maybe university\/college level) history classes, he had his work cut out for him.

And to to think that Oliver Stone's \"JFK\" took over 3 hours, \"Lumumba\" runs under 2 hours. And a most engaging 115 minutes it was, as we find that his desire to not compromise with Western powers (whom he holds responsible for the atrocities to his people, particularly Belgium), while trying to deal with power struggles within his own borders, apparently even with some of his friends, it is amazing that the man lived as long as he did.

This is a MUST see for anyone interested in equality, justice, humanity, history, politics, and true freedom. You will not be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the film, Lumumba, we see the faces behind the monumental shift in the Congo's history after it is reclaimed from the Belgians, and we see the motives behind those men into whose hands the raped and starving country fell.

Lumumba is not a movie for the hyper masses; it demands the attention of its viewers with raw, truthful acting and intricate, packed dialogue. Little of the main plot is shown through action, it relies almost solely on words, but there is a recurring strand that is only action, and it is the stroke of genius that makes the film an enlightening and powerful panorama of the tense political struggle that the Congo's independence gave birth to.

This film is real. It is raw inits depiction of those in power, and those on the streets. It is eye-opening in its content. And it is moving in the passions and emotions of its superbly portrayed characters.

Whether you are a history fan, a film buff, or simply like good stories, Lumumba is a must-see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is always great to see a movie that teaches us about history in Africa as they are definitely too few. However, the movie depicts Lumumba as a political leader who wanted the new independent country to be the same as the old colonialist one..., I felt it hard to sympathise with this kind of leadership, yet the movie is somewhat like a homage to the man. There was too little content, explaining how the man got to rise in the first place, and the whole context of Belgium \"letting them go\". So it is certainly worth going to see as the acting and photography are excellent, especially Mobutu himself. I would just have liked a better political analysis.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being Belgian myself, I take interest in the history of Congo. It has been our only colony for many years (Rwanda was a Belgian protectorate, but not a colony), and it is part of our country's history. Nowadays it seems to be very popular to say that all that the Belgians did to Congo was wrong, especially in the 19th century. I'm not saying that bad things didn't happen. Of course they did, but back then this wasn't abnormal. Do you really think the French or the Brits were that much nicer in their colonies? No, they weren't. It was 'normal' at the time for our king Leopold II to use Congo as a way to gain personal wealth. It was his private property (it didn't belong to the state then) and he tried to make the most out of it. Of course gruesome things like hands being chopped off happened and yes to todays standards that's inadmissible, but in those days it was common practice. And it has to be said, all this didn't happen anymore during the last decades... I know several people who have lived an worked in Congo for many years before the declaration of Congolese independence. It's true that they had several black servants, but they are very nice people and I really can't imagine they ever treated them bad. For as far as I know they have always treated them with a lot of respect (However, I'm not saying all Belgians did). In fact if they weren't that old now (almost all about 80 years old now) they would love to return to Congo.

The good thing about this movie is that it gives an historically accurate vision on what happened during the last years of Belgian governance and the first years of Congolese independence. The story isn't as black and white (perhaps not the best words in this context, but how else to explain what I mean) as I feared it would be. It doesn't say that all the Belgians did was wrong and all the Congolese did was good. It shows perfectly how the Congolese, in their rush of getting independent from the Belgians, didn't mind to accept help from the Russians as well as the Americans, who both had more eye for the raw materials like copper, diamonds, bauxite, rubber,... and getting the Congolese in their political 'camp' and weren't all that interested in their independence. It does not only give a good idea of how Lumumba became more powerful, but also how Mobutu played a double role. It shows the Belgian reaction on some of our compatriots being violated, threatened and even murdered (My father was one of the paratroopers who were send to Congo to rescue the Belgians). It gives a good idea of the political problems Lumumba encountered as the province Katanga didn't want to be part of the Congolese Republic, the role that the Belgians had in the murder on Lumumba ... it all gets it's part in this movie.

The story seems to be very accurate and the characters really look and act like the real ones. This movie has been able to give a very good idea of what life in Congo in the late fifties and early sixties was like and should be seen by everybody who is interested in the history of the country. But it should also be shown in history classes, especially in Belgium, because it's a part of our history that should never be forgotten. I give it a 7.5\/10, perhaps even an 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I suspect there's some revisionist history going on here,but one definitely comes away with the feeling that Patrice Lumumba was a trouble-maker who incited his people to violence from the moment the Congo declared independence.His inability to control his people and his decision to bring in Soviet help to get his military back in line was obviously what got the United States involved and led to his assassination.However,by replacing him with Mobutu,the United States didn't solve anything.They made the situation just as bad.Well-acted with excellent cinematography and a rousing score.Definitely worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The English are a little too evil, the Scots are a bit too

heroic. The dialogue is overly dramatic at times, and the

transitions between scenes could be smoother.

Still, \"The Bruce\" has the feel of authentic, if unpolished,

history ... even if it does play loosely with some important

facts.

Sandy Welch is no Gibson or Branagh, but he makes a stalwart

Bruce. And Brian Blessed chews the scenery in delightful

villainy as Edward I.

While lacking the budget needed to make the final battle truly

impressive, they still marshalled an impressive crowd for the

English and Scottish armies. It is, according to filmmakers, the

\"largest filmed reconstruction of medieval battle ever staged in

the British Isles.\"

Allowing for a few failings and shortcomings, the film still

does a convincing portrayal.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fabulous film,which I have now watched several times over since buying the video only four days ago.Yes I am a Colin Firth Fan and Colin was his usual talented, natural gorgeous self.

The interaction between Colin (Matthew Field)and Fissy(Sammy, Nimi's 7 year old Son) was very special and so natural to watch. They were hilariously funny together and also touched my heart strings. The scenes which I loved the most was Sammy and Matt sitting on the wall chatting and Matt then falling backwards off the wall in an hilarious fashion (I won't reveal the content of their discussion so as not to spoil the plot). Also very hilarious was Sammy quizzing Matt about sex, Colin and Fissy were perfect in this scene and making what can be an awkward subject between adult and child just so natural. Colins words and face at the end of that scene were so delightful and said it all! just brilliant. Credit, of course, must also go to Fissy Roberts for his delightful portrayal of Sammy. He played such a lovable and cheeky child character. The two actors were just perfect together.

The interaction between Colin (Matt) and Nia (Nimi)was perfectly balanced and I couldn't agree more that the chemistry between them was wonderful to watch, displaying love,tension and of course passion. It was exciting to see how their delicate blossoming romance gradually unfolded, also showing how their cultural and social divides affected their relationship and was good to see how Colin and Nia sensitively portrayed Matt and Nimi discovering, accepting and overcoming these differences. It kept me fixed to the TV and guessing right until the end of the film.

Colins portrayal of Matt's vulnerable and juvenile side was also perfectly portrayed, so much so, that I found it was difficult to watch when Matt was so mean and childish towards Sammy because he (Matt) felt that Sammy was getting in the way of his romance\/relationship with Sams Mother Nimi.One couldn't help feeling very disappointed, angry and frustrated with Matt for treating Sammy this way and this in turn threatening to spoil Matts special relationship with Sammy and Nimi. Colins special talent of 'getting inside a character's head' and displaying to the audience the different sides of a character, was very much in evidence here and pure magic to watch. I must also mention that Colin also has such a good rapport with young actors (see also 'My life so far'a wonderful and not to be missed film).

I also loved the relationship between Matthew and his wife Jenny, both were excellent in displaying to the audience the dark side and tensions within their marriage and that not all seemingly 'Happy Marriages' are quite what they may seem from the outside.

I mustn't forget to mention the reverend whom I thought was very funny, in a serious sort of way! Also Nimi's Mother and family were hilarious as well as bringing across the importance of Nimi's culture and her situation.

The downside, I can't really find a downside,but to be objective about the film and to give credibility to my review, the only negative comment that I would make is that the script writers didn't explain in enough detail as to why Matt collapsed in the car, there was only a vague suggestion, from Nimi, of something being wrong with his heart. However, this didn't detract from my enjoyment of the film, far from it.I just needed to rewind the tape a little for a 2nd take.

I felt that this film had it all, entertaining, uplifting and I loved the rich colours and sunny scenery.The film warmed up a cold winters day and made me smile :-)) All the essential elements were there,laughter,love,tension,sadness,anger,drama and a Warm feel good factor, with, yes plenty of those delicious Colin Firth moments including a very soaked Colin in a 'Wet Shirt scene',not to be missed by any fan, what more could a girl want;-))

I would strongly recommend this film, specially to any Colin Firth Fans ;-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen this movie twice already and am very impressed with it.

The conversations between Nimi and her mother plus Nimi and Matthew are very touching. The Nigerian community is shown very truthfully and as colourfully as it usually is.

Although certain things could have done with a bit more explanation; if we knew why Matthew was in the South of France in the first place, the scenes following Matthew being found in his car would be more understandable.

Luckily, Optimum Releasing have a website that has detailed production notes that help to make such scenes better to understand.

I would go and see it again but unfortunately it had a limited release in London and is not longer available to see. I hope the video release gets it to a bigger audience because the film deserves it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*Warning! Some spoilers!*

Matt, a rich writer, is in fact still just a boy in his behaviour. He doesn't care about anyone's but his own needs and couldn't care less about the consequences of any of his actions. Just as he gets to know Nimi and her bonds with her familiy and her communitiy he starts to feel that something is missing in his live.

He starts to realize that he is in fact lonely and stuck in impersonal structures that are just convenient but lack heart and commitment. Nevertheless he shies away from any responsibilties and is reluctant to change his live. But will he be able to settle again in his old life and ignore the bonds he's already - unconsciously - formed?

Nimi's situation is the absolute opposite. She is pressed into the regulations of her Nigerian community, its prejudices and its medieval values. Being a single mother her position is difficult and it gets even worse when she falls in love with Matt, a white devil (as the Referend would say), a man who cannot commit. The women of the community plan to marry her to the Referend to end her single status and give Sammy \"a name\". But that would mean for Nimi to give up all independence and self-determination. But is there an alternative for her if she wants Sammy to be accepted and herself to become a respected member of the community?

This movie has it all: a very sensitive and sensual love story (with VERY sexy scenes of Matt and Nimi) and an endearing child who is eagerly matchmaking, a beautiful scenery in lively colours.

Colin Firth (*swoon*) and Nia Long show a great chemistry. It's just fantastic to watch them. And Fissy Roberts as Sammy is just to die for. You simply want to adopt him. I just love the way Sammy and Matthew talk to each other. They are both on the same level in many ways. Especially when Sammy asks Matt about Sex. This scene is absolutely adorable!!

Almost nothing to complain about.... wait! That's not true. One thing is not good: That the movie is not long enough! (Well, and maybe that the Referend is too bad and too silly to be convincing....)

10 of 10, by all means!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great movie. When two people from different backgrounds and social status think that they have nothing to offer each other and in the end they what each other needs it a testament to what the heart knows. Sometimes we wonder why one man is with a woman or vise versa and the outward appearances say one thing to our eye, but what they offer each other from within that we cannot see is amazing and unexplainable. When Nimi thought that Matthew had nothing to offer her and when Matthew was only looking for a fling (because he had an open marriage w\/his wife Jenny), in the end they realized that they could not and did not want to exist without the other. It was worth it to them to resist what family and friends thought and what society said was right to be with each other. This movie kind of restores my faith in love.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this film. There is something for everyone. It if funny, saddening, passionate and dramatic. The mixture of two completely different cultures creates a whole new world that the viewer cannot help but want to be a part of. I must admit that I am slightly biased, as Colin Firth is my favourite actor and so nothing that he does is wrong in my eyes (!), but in this film his tremendous acting talent is apparent and it is furthered even more by the beautiful acting of his co-star Nia Long. The problems that their love affair suffers makes it, ironically, more believable and the simple features like the contrast between the colours of Matthew's and Nimi's clothes alone, makes this film all the more enchanting. I defy anyone that cannot be moved by this story. I find it enchanting and have watched it at least ten times since I bought the film a week ago!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Personally, I think the movie is pretty good. It almost rates an 8. I liked the ethnography aspect as well as the gorgeous photography. Colin Firth's character isn't the most likable but he does a better than decent job with the role. The heroine, played by the beautiful Nia Long, is a familiar film heroine in that she's trying to do what she thinks is the best for her child -- marrying a respected member of her expatriate community -- while fighting her attraction for the \"bad\" man -- one who's not a member of her community (the \"outsider\"). Most of the film is about this mother's struggle: should she do what's expected of her, what she thinks is best for her son or should she follow her heart? I don't want to give away the ending. Let me just say that it's a feel-good movie with gorgeous location shots, exquisite African dress (it's worth seeing the film just for the women's brilliantly colored African clothing and headdresses), and likable characters overall. The actor who plays Nia Long's son is bright and adorable. The plot is a bit formulaic, but I liked the movie nonetheless. If you're a Colin Firth fan you MUST see this film. If you like chic flicks, see it. I think I'll watch it again tonight!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen this movie twice already and am very impressed with it.

The conversations between Nimi and her mother plus Nimi and Matthew are very touching. The Nigerian community is shown very truthfully and as colourfully as it usually is.

Although certain things could have done with a bit more explanation; if we knew why Matthew was in the South of France in the first place, the scenes following Matthew being found in his car would be more understandable.

Luckily, Optimum Releasing have a website that has detailed production notes that help to make such scenes better to understand.

I would go and see it again but unfortunately it had a limited release in London and is not longer available to see. I hope the video release gets it to a bigger audience because the film deserves it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Duck_of_Death needs to watch this film again, as his major criticism is completely baseless. The film never once forgot about the time delay, and it was mentioned explicitly in a couple of places. The crew were never shown having conversations with mission control that didn't obey the time delay rules.

One thing I did think was a bit far-fetched was the amount of risk involved - would a crew land on a planet on which pressure suits would only last two hours? I doubt it. Would a manned space ship go into a star's corona? I doubt it. Would humans land on a moon that was being bombarded with huge amounts of radiation? I doubt it. Also, the ship seemed overly sturdy. Would a ship designed like that risk atmospheric flight to slow it down? I doubt it. Would it survive being hit by comet debris? I doubt it. I think in both cases the stresses on the structure would be too much. But all-in-all, the unlikely scenarios were compensated by some nicely done special effects, good editing and production, and some good acting, especially by the actors portraying the ship's commander and the Russian cosmonaut.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'd first heard of this show in 2005, first online and then by viewing (and of course, buying)the typically gorgeous, BBC tie-in book. Then I got the DVD; it did not disappoint! I'd been hoping for years someone would make a science fiction program with the emphasis on the thrill of discovery rather than aliens, laser gun fights and other Hollywood 'boogieman' gimmicks! Thank you, Joe Ahearne (also for your Dr. Who work, and Ultraviolet--the mini-series; not the crap movie of the same name)! What compelled me to write this now (2 yrs. later) was that I'd just seen SUNSHINE last night. And what appeared to be in the same family as SPACE ODYSSEY turned into (about 2\/3rds of the way in) Freddy Krueger meets 2010! That was when SPACE ODYSSEY really stood out as a positive example of how to do a REAL science fiction film; more science, less fiction! ODYSSEY (like SUNSHINE) also dealt with astronaut shortcomings (Zoe's failed EVA, Ivan's over exertions on Venus, the spats with mission control) and the sheer danger of exploring new planets with unfamiliar dangers (the fatal radiation spike on Mars). I would've easily paid to see this in a theater (I-Max, anyone?). And to top it all, not only were the space vistas jaw droppingly beautiful, but the characters were nicely drawn, too. I found their interplay more realistic than the wall-slamming histrionics of SUNSHINE's Icarus 2 crew (Icarus; dumb name for a solar mission--did anyone read the mythology of Icarus??). Sometimes it takes a not-so-good film to compel one to re-watch a better film. As an armchair astronaut, I'd trade my passage on Icarus for a seat on Pegasus any day. In all fairness, however, the visuals of SUNSHINE are quite stunning, though, and quite memorable. Which is why I was so strongly rooting for it to succeed as an honest-to-goodness sci-fi film. So, even though this review is almost a back-door review of SUNSHINE, I hope it's read for what it was meant to be; strong support for a BBC telefilm that succeeds where most big-budget, bloated cinematic spectacles fail. SPACE ODYSSEY (a.k.a. VOYAGE TO THE PLANETS here in the States) whets the appetite for solid, SCIENCE-fiction and delivers a banquet. I very much enjoyed the pseudo-documentary approach as well. As for the time lag\/light-speed quibbles, they ARE addressed, if you pay attention. Where SUNSHINE melts, ODYSSEY keeps its cool. If you're considering going to the movies for another dose of SUNSHINE, stay in; go for a true SPACE ODYSSEY instead!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1 let's suspend belief for a moment and let's stop pretending we could, might or ought know \"how it is\" or \"ought to be\" there in space. Human knowledge in that area is probably primitive as say middle ages maps are compared to today's satellite maps, so we really have no clue. 2 considering this is \"just\" a BBC TV docu-simulation, it gets much better than many big budget Hollywood blockbusters, and that is just incredible. 3 all in all, a show worth watching as it portrays the CGI enhanced and fictionalized account of what we know of the solar system this far. 4 probably fictionalizing and CGI-ing the whole thing is the only way to make it palatable to a large public. Ever watched clips from REAL space missions and REAL space probes? The quality is generally average to poor and the comparison would be between looking at a chest x-ray (and what it tells about the human body ) and compare it with a CGI-ed cyborg movie...which one would be most entertaining? Yet the chest x-ray is real, while the cyborg flick is just fictionalized SFX. 5 actors do a good job. None i'll tell my grandchildren about, but very fair for it being a BBC docu-simulation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i strongly recommend it to anybody who likes good plots, good actors (even if not well known)(often, it's just better that way), science and\/or science fiction presented in an intelligent way on the (small) screen, good special effects even if they did not have billions of dollars to produce it...

much better than any war in the stars...

there was only one comment which was not necessary: talking about the comet, the commentator says that LIFE was maybe brought on earth through a comet... that's fun, there must be always a chance for a magic way, huh?! That's what's great about LIFE, can come anywhere, no need of extern force","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My main criticism is quite simply that it isn't long enough or detailed enough. I would have loved to see more of everything: the building of the vessel, the engineering, the training, the first lift to orbit, preparations for departure, Venus Orbital Injection, everything. I would have liked to see more of the first leg, Venus to Earth, instead of zipping there like a n\u00b010 corporation bus. In fact, I would have liked to see a series on the scale of Earth Story made of this, with a full hour dedicated to every planet and maybe another to the loop around the Sun. As it was, I was left hungry. On the other hand, I do understand budgets and viewers' attention-spans.

Re the science: Let's be fair about the speed-of-light time-lag: they did mention at the beginning that there was a lag in conversations, but they let this evaporate once they reached the outer planets. Some kind of conversation had to be presented to the viewers, and we have to assume that the lag was edited out for the sake of palatability; so no complaints there. But zero for noisy spaceships. The only film in which spaceships make no noise was Kubrick's 2001, and even then he copped out by using the noise of the crew breathing in their helmets - which *was* pretty effective. I wish the makers of Space Odyssey had realized just how eerie the sight of vast rocket-motors blasting in absolute silence might be but alas, Pegasus lets out much the same roar as every other cardboard spaceship in every other cardboard SciFi film.

But the rest of the science was excellent. No complaints there, in fact praise for bringing out the radiation problems as well as they did. I just hope that having done this film won't discourage the BBC from making a really detailed version, but I suppose that's not for next week or next year either...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every time the supposed explorers and we , the audience, is primed to set its first sights one of the wonderous new worlds, for some ungodly reason, the filmmakers decided to distract with an \"emergency\" or some false alarm or some bit of artificial dramatic suspense.

So instead of calmly enjoying the surface of Io, or standing over the rings of Saturn or concentrating on the magic of flying by a comet or an asteroid, we are distracted into worrying about the wellbeing and survival of the characters. Big let down !!!!

The filmmakers seem to be unsure what they want. A documentary of the natural wonders in our solar system, or a suspense thriller in which the viewer cares more about the characters than the subject matter. Come on.

Hello. If I wanted suspense and tension I'd watch a real Narrative sci-fi movie.

Sure it's a docu-drama. But the characters and their survival here (the risks of such a mission - should be secondary to the subject matter ). Wait. Yes the risks of such a mission are an important part of the subject matter - since essentially this is a film about a space mission , not just about the solar system. But it was overplayed and distracted strongly from the discovery of new worlds we were supposed to be enjoying.

Otherwise, the film was remarkable in giving a very realistic feel for the human elements of a space mission , the squabbles, the tensions, the weight of responsibility, the near-fatal mistakes, the sacrifices , etc. Also it would fit very well in the hard-sci-fi subgenre - in fact it would be one of the best , because here the science was almost closely adhered to.

But the distractions were awful.

Otherwise, I missed showing the effects of being in space for several years on the astronauts AFTER landing on Earth. Also not","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching this PPV, I had high expectations for it, since Smackdown is the best show in WWE, this is a very good PPV as it is the last one before Wrestlemania.

FIRST MATCH-HARDY BOYS & CHRIS BENOIT VS. MVP & MNM W\/ MELINA IN A 6 MAN TAG TEAM MATCH Good way to start the match. It started a bit slow at the start, but later the pace quickened & the match got more exciting & entertaining. Benoit rolls through & makes Joey Mercury tap out to get a victory for the Hardy Boys & himself. 6\/10

SECOND MATCH- GREGORY HELMS {CHAMPION} VS. SHANNON MOORE VS. FUNAKI VS. CHAVO GUERRERO VS. DAIVAIRI VS. SCOTTY 2 HOTTY VS. JAMIE NOBLE VS. JIMMY WANG YANG IN AN OPEN CRUISERWEIGHT INVITATIONAL MATCH FOR THE WWE CRUISERWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP I'm a very big fan of Cruiserweights, & I never get disappointed watching them, especially in this match here. Chavo Guerrero nails the Frog Splash on Jimmy Wang Yang to get the win & become the new WWE Cruiserweight Champion. 5\/10

THIRD MATCH- FINLAY & LITTLE BASTARD VS. BOOGEYMAN & LITTLE BOOGEYMAN This was not really a wrestling match, it was more like a comedy match, despite not being a clear wrestling contest, it still entertained me with the funny antics. Finlay nails the Little Boogeyman with the Shillaegh to get the win. Boogeyman does not deserve to be on a PPV, & does not deserve to be in WWE. 4\/10

FOURTH MATCH- KANE VS. KING BOOKER W\/ SHARMELL This was a surprisingly good match, I thought it would be mediocre, but it turned out into a real competitive wrestling contest. Hats off to both men, pulling a very entertaining match. Kane wins after a Chokeslam on King Booker. 6\/10

FIFTH MATCH- PAUL London & BRIAN KENDRICK {CHAMPIONS} VS. DEUCE & DOMINO W\/ CHERRY FOR THE WWE TAG TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS Not really that much of a good match, Deuce & Domino need more training to wrestle, & London & Kendrick are the only ones keeping this match fast paced. London & Kendrick retain their titles, after Kendrick gets a roll-up on one of the guys for the win. 4\/10

SIXTH MATCH- BOBBY LASHLEY {CHAMPION} VS. MR. KENNEDY FOR THE ECW CHAMPIONSHIP Mr. Kennedy attacks Lashley from behind, before the match starts. It was an okay match, but not really good. Lashley & Kennedy have a bit of chemistry, but not enough to pull a great match. Kennedy wins by DQ, after Lashley nails him with a chair, then assaults him with the chair all the way to the entrance area. Lashley still retains his title. 4\/10

SEVENTH MATCH- JOHN CENA & SHAWN MICHAELS VS. BATISTA & UNDERTAKER This is probably the greatest tag team match that I have ever seen. Hats off to all of these men {yes even Batista} for pulling off as close as a 5 star main event classic. All 4 of these men played their parts in the match very well, as this was a very great & entertaining tag team match. Batista turns his back on Undertaker spine-busting him, then leaving the ring, which prompts Michaels to nail Sweet Chin Music, then Cena to nail an F-U for the hard fought victory. 7\/10

I don't know why everyone says that this PPV is not good enough, or it is boring, I just don't get it. It is a great PPV which Smackdown always delivers. A great PPV indeed.

Overall I'll give it 8\/10 & a B+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this very emotionally painful portrayal and it was fascinating. The conflict between the public and private faces of Williams and the pressure he was under is illuminated in a way that even those who knew something about him would be surprised. The cast acted superbly, but Michael Sheen was outstanding. I only realised it was him when I saw the earlier comment. He looks completely physically different in this role, from any other role I have seen him in or as himself. Williams autobiography differs markedly from his diaries,as represented in this film. The film is at times distressing to watch, because of the emotional anguish displayed. However, it is a worthwhile experience and a film that can be recommended highly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lot of my childhood was spent lying in front of the wireless listening to Round the Horne or Hancock's Half Hour or watching Carry On films. Probably the most famous line in comedy \"Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it infamy!\" still makes me laugh.

This is a rare insight into the man behind the comic figure and the whole production is a brilliant mix of tragedy and comedy right down to the final quotation from the coroner's court read in four different voices by Michael Sheen. He was brilliant in the role. Most of the other members of the Carry On team were so-so and their Kenneth Horne was very good but Michael Sheen carried the show and there should be an award of some sort for him.

It left me feeling \"wow\". To quote Kenneth Williams, to the cynic who says 'life is a joke' the only response can be 'Yes, well let's make it a good one.'","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched fantabulosa! because over the last few years Michael Sheen has become one of my favourite actors, and if you haven't seen him in anything before firstly shame on you, and secondly get your hands on a copy of either Heartlands or Dirty Filthy Love. This production did not disappoint - Michael Sheen transformed himself almost magically into Kenneth Williams, and gave a performance that was as tragically moving as it was skillful. Not to take anything away from the other performances but like Kenneth, Michael truly stole the show. I don't know how he does it, but every performance I have seen Michael give he seems to metamorphose until the character he plays is truly, utterly believable, and no matter how hard I try I cannot fault him. Must go get my tea, enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a \"docu-drama\" of (mostly) the later years of KW's life, with nearly all the parts played by actors (but spot which TV quartermaster plays himself!). It was made for the BBC4 arts channel but my guess is there will be syndication and DVD releases soon. KW is ably played by the excellent Michael Sheen, here repeating his previous stage role with great success. Most of the supporting cast are also very good, and a nice touch is the recreation of period TV appearances with the new actors. This is not, however, light viewing - anyone familiar with KW's diaries and general unhappy demeanour will already know how twisted he could be in later life - so don't expect 80 minutes of Carry On styled buffoonery, since the emphasis is decidedly downbeat throughout. Recommended, but it's tragi-comic, indeed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michael Sheen shines like the afternoon sun in this brilliant portrayal of a comic genius. If you are familiar with Kenneth Williams' mannerisms and Diaries then this drama captures the essence of them perfectly. When i read about Kenneth hoovering in his swimming trunks i laughed and then it was brought to life on the screen, but this time i didn't laugh as it was put into perspective as the actions of a repressed and tortured man. It must have been such a lonely existence being in Kenneth's skin, craving attention but shunning it when it TRULY mattered! The last 20 minutes are heart-breaking as you see Kenneth gradually sink to the depths of despair and consider suicide as the only alternative. I have seen it a dozen times and still cry uncontrollably at the point where he bids goodnight to LOUIE. I cannot recommend this drama enough. Sexually explicit but it drives home the fact that Kenneth couldn't let anyone invade his world and this is where the sadness of the man lies. For a genius who brought happiness to so many, it's such a shame that his private life was filled with such despair and sadness. Pauly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wonderful little production.

The filming technique is very unassuming- very old-time-BBC fashion and gives a comforting, and sometimes discomforting, sense of realism to the entire piece.

The actors are extremely well chosen- Michael Sheen not only \"has got all the polari\" but he has all the voices down pat too! You can truly see the seamless editing guided by the references to Williams' diary entries, not only is it well worth the watching but it is a terrificly written and performed piece. A masterful production about one of the great master's of comedy and his life.

The realism really comes home with the little things: the fantasy of the guard which, rather than use the traditional 'dream' techniques remains solid then disappears. It plays on our knowledge and our senses, particularly with the scenes concerning Orton and Halliwell and the sets (particularly of their flat with Halliwell's murals decorating every surface) are terribly well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All in all, Big Bad John was a hilarious, and touching movie. If you want romance, tragedy, and humor, this movie's got it. If you're a fan of the song (like I am) you pretty much know how it ends. But if you don't, or do and want to watch it anyway, I strongly recommend this movie. Jack Elam and Jimmy Dean are a hilarious pair with great chemistry. However, I wouldn't recommend this movie to strict urban folk. You have to understand where these people are supposed to be coming from, and only a handful of us are left. But even a few urban folk might understand it, and appreciate it for what it is: a good, down home movie that'll make you laugh, cry, and be inspired.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This blaxploitation classic about a kung fu mama who travels to Hong Kong to avenge her brother's death offers everything you learned to expect from the genre. Playmate Jeannie Bell (with a giant afro) really kicks ass and usually loses her clothes very quickly. If you don't take it all too seriously, the movie is great fun to watch. Stan Shaw gives a solid performance, Jeannie Bell is a little less convincing. Pam Grier she ain't.

This is where Quentin Tarantino got his idea for the light switch scene in \"Jackie Brown\" from.

The soundtrack by Don Julian is a gem and is frequently used in rap songs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Feisty Dianna Jackson (a winningly spunky performance by gorgeous former \"Playboy\" Playmate Jeanne Bell) goes to Hong Kong to take out the evil heroin ring that murdered her brother. Dianna's assisted by friendly karate master Joe (amiable Chiquito), faces opposition from undercover narcotics agent Elaine (lovely, buxom blonde babe Pat Anderson), and romances cocky, ruthlessly ambitious Charlie (essayed with supremely arrogant aplomb by Stan Shaw) while plotting her revenge against nefarious drug kingpin Sid (an effectively slimy Ken Metcalfe). Director Cirio H. Santiago, working from a blithely trashy script co-written by none other than Dick Miller (!), crams the lively and eventful 72 minute running time with a plethora of gratuitous distaff nudity and loads of badly staged martial arts fight scenes (Bell is clearly doubled by a squat guy wearing a giant Afro wig!). The definite sleazy highlight occurs when a topless Bell singlehandedly beats up a bunch of thugs in her hotel room. Felipe Sacdalan's raw, grainy, scratched-up cinematography, the clumsy use of strenuous slow motion, the funky-groovin' score, the laughably inept fight choreography, and the surprisingly gruesome conclusion add immensely to the overall scuzzy fun of this deliciously cheesy grindhouse exploitation hoot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was hilarious. It provided a somewhat comical view of the British club scene, which, if you really look at it, is a funny thing. The characters in this flick were so realistic to those of us who watched here at my place that it was like watching a movie about ourselves.

There were a few pivotal scenes which really made this movie work: the getting ready scenes; the \"Get me a real doctor\" scene; the white background scene showing each character in a total state of being wrecked, ending with the infamous line \"what was i saying?\" and the comedown-sunup scenes. I have lived these moments myself and found myself laughing hysterically at my own ridiculous behaviour.

I can't give this movie a 10 because it doesn't measure up to Groove, which I thought was out of this world, but it certainly has its moments. The mise-en-scene and the camera work is superb, the special effects are well worth mentioning, and the acting is fantastic.

After waiting a long time to see this film, I am glad to say that I was not disappointed. I hope to see more from the writer\/director in the future.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every time I watch this film, it just really makes me wanna go out and have a good night! My mate uses \"the weekend has landed\" speech to psyche himself up before going out! and so do I...sometimes.

This film is a great debut for the writer\/director - well done mate!

The acting is great, all the characters are believable and are larger than life! The 'weird' scenes are a joy to watch, Jip's running Mr floppy flashbacks\/explanations\/visualizations are all great! The scene in the huuuuuuuge pub when everyone stands up and starts singing the mock national anthem is a laugh too. There's loads of comedy here - Howard Marks' 'spliff politics' speech is hilarious!

Oh god, you just need to see this. Mind you, I felt the film did somewhat glorify the use of ecstacy, but hey, that's the truth of the matter eh? At least the film doesn't shy away from this fact. I suppose the film does carry a decent message to it as well - don't take life TOO seriously, you have to let you hair down sometime. And of course the chat in the pub when Moff tries to explain to his mates that he's coming off the drugs is a sure reminder that when the come down's out-way the good times, you know the party's over!

This is at times a very clever film in it's use of the camera, lighting, etc. It was a realised piece of cinema, and a great feel-good tale of mates, love, clubs, and drugs.

Get outta the 'rat race' people!!!

8\/10

Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have a completely biased point of view mainly because I live and enjoy the club culture lifestyle. Being a DJ and frequent club goer I see the honesty within this movie and I love it. If you don't know the club\/rave culture then it will be a great foray into that culture for anyone that doesn't know it first hand. The honest portrayal of human emotion and issues in the part of Jip I loved. The characters were well constructed and I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I really don't enjoy the fact that you have to write ten lines on this web site. I will write at least 6 or 7 but i feel that i can portray my point with fewer than ten. Here are some extra lines to make the IMDb gods happy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely love this film. Everything about it. It almost felt like watching me and my friends on screen. The way this movie was filmed was a pure masterpiece, very original and creative. I related to these characters and even had the same thoughts as some. I'm really glad I ran across this movie. If only there were more genius' like justin out there!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cardiff, Wales. A bunch of 5 mates are deeply bored in this town. There's Jip who works in a clothes shop. Coop, an easy-going DJ. Nina, inseparable from her best friend Lulu and Moff. The week is hell for them and they only wait for one thing: the week-end. At this time, they got out to a nightclub and to the sound of tech no music, they experience different drugs, particularly ecstasy. Then, they usually continue the party to a friend's. At the end of this really good time on Sunday, the feelings are the following ones: tiredness, melancholy, just the memory of a crazy night...

Surfing on the wave of the notorious success of \"Trainspotting\" (1996), this debut movie written and directed by Justin Kerrigan brings and develops a new variation about the notion of hedonism. It means: how to have fun as much as possible while knowing that you have a shortened lapse of time. Indeed, as I have previously written, for the 5 main characters of the movie, the week is hell and the weekend is the only time they can free themselves and have a wild time without the single pressure (besides, Jip in one sequence talks about the positive aspects of shooting oneself: you are numb, you don't feel any pressure, you are like an astronaut in orbit above the earth. Kerrigan's relentless directorial style expresses very well the spirit of debauchery and care freeness of the 5 protagonists. They only live to take advantage as much as possible of an hedonist week-end. Furthermore, to spice up a little more the festive atmosphere in which his movie bathes, Kerrigan isn't afraid to include dreamlike sequences which represent his characters' fantasy or embarrassments. Then, \"Human Traffic\" (1999) is also served by a particularly bouncy sound track. The amount? A perfect symbiosis between the sound and the music. At last, this week-end of euphoria enables to shelve momentarily the usual drab image of the popular social classes, British cinema has studied a lot.

Notwithstanding, when a movie (conscientiously or not) exploits the fame of another famous one, it rarely matches the brilliance of its predecessor. \"Human Traffic\" is in this condition. There's little inventiveness at the level of the narrative structure and the introduction of the characters and one can note down a few useless digressions (Jip who, in the nightclub goes in the manager's office and tells him a cock-and-bull story so as to enable Moff to enter the club but that's no use because the latter succeeds in coming without problems). One can also blame Kerrigan to overlook the dramatic sides that the story could have involved. His movie can also be read as a transition from euphoria to paranoia and the dramatic connotations of this second pole aren't virtually explored. It's a shame! It could have conveyed the following message: even in the happiest moments, there can be something terrible preparing which can flop them. The same remark could also be said when Coop has a fit of jealousy because Nina broaches a guy.

It may not be the last great film of the nineties as it is billed on the DVD cover but \"Human Traffic\" is to be taken as a good and incisive little movie which conveys with the styles and the fashions of the end of the twentieth century, a will to have fun without ulterior motives and trouble. An ideal movie to start any party or before going to a club.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It takes a lot for a movie to reach the already numb particles of my brain which have not already been tapped out due to the overcharge and redoredoredocopycopycopy world of movies. But this movie has made it onto my 'Magic Movies' list. To become a 'magic movie', it must leave every string of my being quivering in that which I can only define as 'bliss' and 'complete satisfaction'. This movie has tapped into the fibers of how my mind thinks and if not for the deeply personal bond my head and the head of whoever made this shares, it would look like another 'dead rave scene' movie from back when the 90's exploded with its Ecstasy craze. This is not how the movie came off to me at all. It's reached into me and pulled up something that I thought was dead for a very long time and pushed me as far as to give it a critique of my own. I forgot how long it's been since I've seen something that left me feeling this good inside. I strongly suggest seeing this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you \"been there\" and \"done that\" you will absolutely love this film. I have and by \"there\" I mean underground clubs and house parties where there is far more rare to find people just being drunk than it is to find people high to their ears on extacy, speed or LSD.

By \"that\" I mean dancing and sweating like crazy for eight hours or so in a row with out even a brake and , that followed by a way to long morning of no-can-sleep and almost wanting to die, followed by a week of just waiting till the next weekend to do it all again.

So even though this film now is one of my absolute favourites I can certainly understand why some people, or most people even, would dislike it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember a time when the only thing that did exist where clubs, drugs pubs and parties. This movie came out a couple of years after i started going clubbing. If i had never discovered the ravier side of things this movie may not have made sense to me. That night when i watched it for the 1st time, with some mates, i was completely blown away. I had never watched a movie that hit so close to the reality of where i was in my life at that time. Almost everything i could relate to in some way. There was never 1 character i could fully relate to but more a combination of all of them in one way or another. My mates where no different and i remember us all saying that they where us or we where them. We had all been out that weekend together doing exactly what the crew do in HT. We where coming down while we watched and when the movie \"came down\" i remember actually coming down a bit further. it was actually quite depressing in our room during those \"low points\". Thats what's so good about Human Traffic. it really taps the whole situation.

its a unique movie in the way its not plot driven, but then its not completely character driven although the characters are important. it always seemed to be based on the situations. Situations as a group and as individuals. Each character is lost in life, for their own reasons. yet each of them responds to the lostness in the same way. work any job to make money to pay for the weekend and escape it all. for them its their holiday. But the reality is you cant truly escape. Another situation they all have to face.

Me and my mates where no different from these guys. We all had our own stuff going on. Human traffic helped explain to us what we didn't understand about our selves. It does it in a way that doesn't talk down to you. It made us feel like we weren't the only ones out there like us and that the lessons learned where ones many others, from all over the world, had gone thru. it wasn't until my lifestyle changed from party popper to career driven that i would fully understand this movie. these days i watch HT, every now and then(as i just have), and reminisce the old days. No other movie can do this. I was peter popper, i was jip travolta, i went to never never land with my chosen family. i'd have $200 in my back burner and i wax the lot! No worries!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As I sit here, I find myself laughing at certain moments in this film. Go and see this film.

If you've ever been clubbing, go and see this film.

If you've ever wanted to go clubbing, go and see this film.

My bet is that the film was borne from an idea whilst out clubbing and this is the product of that one-in-a-million chance that someone remembered it in the morning and had the application to follow it through.

In summary then, go and see this film.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Human Traffic is a view into an average weekend for a group of friends, it is a fly-on-the-wall view into their lives (and minds) which will show you how this group of friends relate to each other. There are many moments in that every one can relate to, Like being out of you skull at parties and talking complete rubbish to strangers. The characters are all people that you can relate to and they are believable in the roles that they play in the movie. The situations that they are in are all situations that we all have found ourselves in, and that is where this film succeeds. The topics of sex and drugs are handled superbly as to no get in the way of the characters relationships with each other. The story to the film is not all that, but that is not a criticism. This is a film about people. This is a well written film, with a sound track to die for. D.J's Pete Tong has put together an superb selection of tracks for this file which all goes to make this one of the best films that I have seen in 1999. After watching this film I felt like I had been out partying all weekend. Fantastic Movie! Jo Brand as the voice of reality - Need I say more!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film brought back a lot of good memories and really works to give a good buzz. There was no pc message and the film is all about having a good time, which is all there really is to it when people go out clubbing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A highly original film using a myriad of genres and film techniques to stunning and powerful effect. All people involved gave only their very best and it shows on screen. A committed film with a committed cast and crew. Simply Brilliant. Just go and see it NOW!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went in expecting not much from Human Traffic and came out really pleased! The film is well made and acted and very stylishly shot. It has so much going for it - it's a film I really recommend, especially to those who liked Trainspotting (or for those who like to argue the debate in the drugs and the media sector). Tremendous fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the very best films i've seen in ages... it's right up there with the likes of trainspotting and pulp fiction. It just epitomises teenage culture today. The soundtrack is absolutely amazing... overseen by Pete Tong. It's a must see!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great movie in a Trainspotting style... Being billed as the Welsh Trainspotting, but then so was Twin Town, although this is streets ahead.

Takes in a weekend in the life of Cardiff Clubbers, good debut movie from Kerrigan and some great performances in the cast.

Go see ! then go clubbing","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you've ever had a mad week-end out with your mates then you'll appreciate this film. Excellent fun and a laugh a minute.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Human Traffic is without a doubt the most original and compelling film that I have seen for a long time. It documents 2 days in the lives of a group of young people, bored with their everyday existence and dead end jobs and taking ecstasy at raves on the weekend. It is hilariously funny and extremely poignant, and at times very sad. In the same genre as 'Trainspotting' it has a great soundtrack and features hot young rising British stars. The movie was made on a miniscule budget and I look forward to future offerings of Writer\/Director Justin Kerrigan when his talent is discovered by the major movie makers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"the film itself is absolutely brilliant, its that buzz, that rush that makes you just want to go out, blow your wages and loose yourself. It's what the weekend is all about, its our sanitation where we can come together as one and be ourselves without a care in the world. The film is layered in depth and the dialogue in places is just spot on, especially with Jip. The characters themselves are instantly likable, one in particular is obviously dyers character and his views on what \"Star Wars\" is really about, genius.

If ever you've got an hour to kill before going out, stick on this, you'll immediately feel yourself growing in confidence, definitely recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film has a brilliant soundtrack and superb acting from some pretty unknown faces. I especially like the welsh docklands bad boy characters in it who strut around like American rappers acting tough. The banter between Jip and Koop is brilliant they come across as being best mates almost as if it were true in real life. I have experienced some of the things in this film and let me tell you first hand these folks ain't acting (especially the seen with Jip and Koop talking and snorting coke). Danny Dyer is priceless as Moff the 'party prescription' dealer and has the funniest lines in the film...

\"I'm happiest when i'm off my pickle feeling the music, you get me.... yeaahhh! I knew you wouldn't let me down, I knew it!!!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"hello everyone, all i have to say is that Human Traffic and all of its characters are so real its funny. I live in Australia (melbourne) and I'm finally out of the clubbing and staying out all weekend lifestyle. This movie explains everything that is currently going on in the world. So exactly that i cant stop watching it.... I used to be exactly like Moff, so my friends said and i hadn't even seen the movie.. I left the weekend partying behind about 3 months ago after 4 years of intense partying to change my life around.. I was at a DVD store when i saw Human Traffic and i remember my old friends going on an on about it, so i bought it to see what all the fuss was about.. I was so into it i watched it 4 times in a row because i couldn't believe that someone had made a movie that explains everything to a T. Anyways this movie is by far the best and funniest movie i have ever seen.. Its funny because its so truthful in everything that goes on in the movie.. AND Moff is a legend!!! Thats all i have to say.. :) Enjoy 11\/10 blew my socks off at how real it was, its exactly whats going on in the world.. hr rm i jabber a lot

take care everyone...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The only way to truly understand and relate to the characters in this movie is to have experienced the situations your self. To a lot of people this movie is almost mock-biographical, a sort of snapshot of one weekend in our lives. (I have done about 85 percent of the things in this movie and witnessed the other 15 percent, usually all in the same weekend) For me and others I know it is nice to have this movie to look back on because other than a few pictures of people we sort of remember and nights that are patches and blurs, this movie is our generations \"Studio 54\", a piece to add to our scrap books to look back on and smile. Personally I'm glad those days are past but it is great to watch this movie and say \"I remember when.........\" Thank you Justin for making this mock-biography of one weekend in my life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is too good for words. Its so unbelievably great and funny and true to life. You just know from watching this that the person who wrote this has DEFIANTLY felt the way that Jip and his friends do through the film. It was my life at one point and I would rely on coming home to watch Human Traffic ever night before I could even think of going to bed. I think you just get so loved up with the characters and their life style. Of course, this film wouldn't be for old people more around the age of 16 to 22 I guess. There is defiantly nothing wrong with this film and it will have you in stitches all the way through. It doesn't have a particular story line to it. The general idea is a weekend in the life of older teens in London and what they get up to. The places they go, the people they meet, the drugs they take and the experiences they have. You have to get this movie on DVD never mind just watching it, you have to have it!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I should say, \"the only film related to club\/dj\/electronic music and raves...that ravers respect\".

Seriously now. It's a gloriously fun, fast paced and fairly accurate portrayal of the night of a raver. Albeit, its in a club, its in Wales and its somewhat dated. The film leaves out some of the sketchier elements of club life, but doesn't disassociate from them altogether. It presents a idyllic yet serious portrayal of the ups and downs of the characters lives.

At the core of the film, and the best element of Justin Kerrigan's script, is the characters, eccentric, unique yet completely understandable and accessible. This film simple would not work and be infinitely less entertaining were it not for Jip, Koop, Nina, Moff and Lulu. Viewers can deny the political and social implications of the subtext of Human Traffic as a drug film, Trainspotting wannabe, important peg in British youth culture circa 90's, BUT....they can't deny that these are engaging characters.

It's frantic, its brutally honest, it's sobering, it's over the top, but its a great comedy.

Raves are a complex thing, so are the drugs that are taken at these events, so are the people you will encounter. But from someone who has gone to parties, become jaded and still goes...Human Traffic is the best snapshot that could be taken of the subculture. Just whatever you do, avoid \"Groove\" as its the antithesis of all that is good about Human Traffic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just adore this film! I love all characters and I can watch it again

and again...and I use to listen to the soundtrack again and again.

Although I have seen it about two years after it was made and I

have never been such youngster as Jip and company I can

understand them and I love their stories. And if somebody thinks this film is crap, I disagree and I say it is

full of positive energy and friendship and love...and full of youth!

The weekend has landed...enjoy it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great movie! oh yeah! Full of energy, full of fun, presenting our generation, our alienation: a hymn to positive thinking despite this world we live in, a tale of a great party, a tale of a bunch of friends who desperately must do something in a week end and the only thing to do is The Club. But fun and extasy keep boredom away! Very funny, nicely grotesque in a few points, nicely shot... and great soundtrack!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hitchcock made at least 11 films about the ordinary man, wrongly accused, on the run (sometimes really running, sometimes not) to prove his innocence in a situation beyond his control, the first one being \"The 39 Steps\", which really made him popular in Great Britain. It really is his signature theme.

Others include \"Young and Innocent\", \"Saboteur\", \"Spellbound\", \"Stage Fright\", \"Strangers on a Train\", \"I Confess\", \"To Catch a Thief\", \"The Wrong Man\", \"North by Northwest\", and finally \"Frenzy\". \"Saboteur\" starts Robert Cummings as Barry Kane, a wartime aircraft plant worker during wartime accused of murdering his co-worker and best friend during an act of sabotage on the plant. He meets up with model Patricia Martin, played by actress Priscilla Lane, during his run from the law, and later, of course, the various Nazi\/Fascist sympathizers along the way.

\"Saboteur\" is mainly like \"The 39 Steps\", even including similar plot devices such as handcuffs, the blonde who doesn't trust the main character in the beginning, a race across the country (in one case London to Scotland, and in the other California to New York), and meeting the \"colorful\" locals along the way. And so, just like \"The Man Who Knew Too Much\", I believe this is an American remake of one of Hitchcock's earlier works.

I think Robert Cummings was chosen because he comes across as a very ordinary American, sort of an \"everyman\" with whom the audience can identify. I like Priscilla Lane because her character is a more involved in the action than Madeline Carroll in \"The 39 Steps\" and Ruth Roman in \"Strangers on a Train\". As mentioned elsewhere, though, Otto Kruger steals the show as the villain. I also liked Vaughan Glaser's performance as the blind uncle; his lines are great. There are some funny touches all along the way for some comic relief, such as road signs featuring Priscilla Lane's character on them, and circus sideshow performers, and the truck driver, Murray Alper. Contrary to other opinions here, there aren't too many characters who believe Barry Kane's innocence immediately.

There are some slow parts, mainly when the action first moves to New York, but it picks up quickly when the last planned act of the fifth columnists gets underway.

It's one of my favorite films from Hitchcock (I put it in my top 5), especially in these days of the new war on terrorism. I think it hits home.

It makes you think, \"Could my coworker be involved in something evil?\" In fact, one of the movie posters for \"Saboteur\" proclaimed \"Watch Out for the Man behind your back!\" Imagine how that played in the mind of adults during the Second World War.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"NO SPOILERS!!

After Hitchcock's successful first American film, Rebecca based upon Daphne DuMarier's lush novel of gothic romance and intrigue, he returned to some of the more familiar themes of his early British period - mistaken identity and espionage. As the U.S. settled into World War II and the large scale 'war effort' of civilians building planes, weaponry and other necessary militia, the booming film entertainment business began turning out paranoid and often jingoistic thrillers with war time themes. These thrillers often involved networks of deceptive and skilled operators at work in the shadows among the good, law abiding citizens. Knowing the director was at home in this espionage genre, producer Jack Skirball approached Hitchcock about directing a property he owned that dealt with corruption, war-time sabotage and a helpless hero thrust into a vortex of coincidence and mistaken identity. The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker (during her brief stint in Hollywood before returning to her bohemian roots in NYC) who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities.

This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) who, while at work at a Los Angeles Airplane Factory, meets new employee Frank Frye (Norman Lloydd) and moments later is framed for committing sabotage. Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City. These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who, during the worst crisis of his life as well as national security, he falls madly in love with! Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix.

In good form for this outing, Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists that harbor criminals, pull guns and detonate bombs to keep things moving. It's a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales. Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions). While Saboteur may not be one of Hitchcock's most well known films, it's a popular b-movie that is certainly solid and engaging with plenty of clever plot twists and as usual - terrific Hitchcock villains. Remember to look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance outside a drug store in the second half of the film. Hitchcock's original cameo idea that was shot (him fighting in sign language with his 'deaf' wife) was axed by the Bureau of Standards and Practices who were afraid of offending the deaf!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alfred Hitchcock's Saboteur is not one of his best-regarded films; made between two vastly more popular and critically praised pictures, Suspicion and Shadow Of a Doubt, it's generally regarded as a lesser effort. I agree that the later film is groundbreaking, drawing Hitchcock wholly into the American mainstream for the first time, but Saboteur is in its way at least as lively as Suspicion; its chief flaw being its less than charismatic star players, Bob Cummings and Priscilla Lane.

In Saboteur we find Hitchcock feeling his way around America, literally, as its lead character travels from California to New York in search of an arsonist for whose crime he was accused. Cummings is very youthful here, and quite engaging. His boyishness (but not immaturity) perfectly suits the character he is portraying, and seems appropriate, as the director, though middle-aged, was in the process of reinventing himself, and an older, more established star might have thrown things off. Priscilla Lane's spunky heroine, which not a typical type for the director, was very much a common type in American films at the time; and she and Cummings provide an openness and a youth the director needed both in his life and work at this time. I cannot imagine older, more solid types,--Cooper and Stanwyck for instance--doing any better, as they would have, between them, carried, well, too much baggage.

As is the norm in Hitchcock's films, nothing is as it appears. Where Saboteur differs from his better known films is that the audience is let in on the game early. Though Cummings is an accused arsonist, we know that he is innocent. The villains become apparent fairly soon; and the movie hinges more on its plot than its ironies. What pleasures there are are incidental, and here the Master does not disappoint. There is an interesting, Tod Browningish interlude with some circus freaks, who help Cummings elude capture. In another scene, reminiscent of James Whale's Bride of Frankenstein, Cummings spends some time in the cottage of a blind man, who, as it turns out, is Lane's uncle. Was the director perhaps studying key American films of the previous decade? Whatever the case, these and other offbeat and discursive aspects of the movie give it a playfulness and variety, which, when one adds the factor of quite youthful leads, makes the picture seem like the work of a younger man, still learning his craft.

The film's later scenes, in New York, are more suspenseful and typical of the director, as the picture gradually becomes more Hitchockian as it moves along. In the end I find it a satisfying work; and as neither Cummings nor Lane has a dark side as an actor, neither does the movie have one. It is deliberately lightweight, and I suspect semi-experimental; an attempt by Hitchcock to see if he could pull off, in an American setting, the sort of story he had done so well in England. He succeeded admirably. The next logical step: Shadow Of a Doubt, a film in which the main character travels east to west, and with a wholly different set of values and plans.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You can't help but marvel at Hitchcock's early work. \"Saboteur,\" for example, is so slick and quick that it's hard to believe he made this film over 60 years ago. There's some propaganda elements but they're woven into the mystery so well that the thing plays beautifully years later. You also get some previews of stuff that Hitchcock would do later--like using a national landmark as a backdrop. This time it's the Statue of Liberty. In \"North by Northwest,\" of course, it's Mt. Rushmore. You'll also recognize things that pop up later in \"Rear Window\" and \"Vertigo\" in \"Saboteur\" but let's not give away the show. Robert Cummings is excellent as is the oh-so-charming Otto Kruger. Look for Hitchcock's mini-western in this one. It happens quickly so don't blink.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) is wrongfully accused on sabotaging a hanger making aircrafts for the war. He goes on the run, meets Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) along the way, and she joins him to find and bring the real criminals to justice.

There are a lot of things wrong with this film. Robert Cummings was a good actor but he's totally miscast in this role; Priscilla Lane is pretty but was never a good actress; the story doesn't make a whole lot of sense (and rambles on longer than needed); it wears its patriotism a bit much (but this WAS made while WWII was in full swing) and there's no ending. It shouldn't work but it does.

It's full of bizarre lines and characters that certainly hold your interest.

For example: Lane says to Cummings (while they're falling in love), \"I wish I could have met you a hundred years ago\" (????!!!!); Lane PAYS a villain for getting her lunch and Cummings and Lane join a circus troupe briefly while on the run. Also Hitchcock's direction was (as always) just great--he throws in some truly amazing shots and sequences--especially the Statue of Liberty climax.

This is not one of Hitchcock's classic movie but is still very good and worth catching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoy this film. It is a look back in time when this nation was truly at risk from nations who either attacked or delared war on us,i.e., the Japanese and Germans. Robert Cummings and Pricilla Lane were excellent in the lead roles. The supporting cast... Otto Kruger, Alan Baxter, Clem Bevins, and Norman Lloyd were also outstanding. The direction, pace, and finale held and continue to hold my interest. So much so, that I bought my own copy. Thank goodness for Turner Classic Movies, they show so many of the truly classic films, including this one.

Robert Cummings was certainly no light weight as an actor and although I am a great fan of Gary Cooper and Joel McCrea, two of my favorite actors, who were first offered the lead role, I don't see what they would have brought to the role that would have surpassed Bob Cummings' performance.

This is a film that I enjoy watching repeatingly and urge others to view.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An entertaining first draft for \"North By Northwest\", \"Saboteur\" has some wonderful Hitchcockian moments (one of the best occurs at a table, when the hero is asked by a woman who hasn't yet seen that he's wearing handcuffs, to give her a plate; trying to do that, he also drops a knife to the floor, exposing himself even more!) but suffers from a poorly chosen lead (whether he's delivering patriotic speeches, romancing Priscilla Lane, making jokes or trying to look worried, Robert Cummings is wooden), and from a lack of really distinct villains (oh, there are villains, many of them, but hardly anyone has enough screen time). (***)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Screenwriters Peter Viertel, Joan Harrison, and (of all people) Dorothy Parker enable director Alfred Hitchcock to expound on what may have been his favorite movie theme: innocent man, wrongly fingered for crime, takes it on the lam. Hitchcock, who some credit with originating the story, engineers a great deal of suspense in plot about a warehouse worker blamed for the explosion which killed his best friend; he sets out on journey to find the real culprit. Plenty of excitement on a grand-scale, with usually-colorless actors (Priscilla Lane, Norman Lloyd, Alan Baxter) doing surprisingly fine work. Even eternally-smug Robert Cummings gets into the proper spirit! *** from ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ah, Hitchcock! It's hard to find a bad Hitchcock movie until he lost it after THE BIRDS (1963) and SABOTEUR proves the point. Having admired most of this director's work for many years, I had managed to skip this one, perhaps from lack of interest in Priscilla Lane and Robert Cummings as lead actors. I was of course familiar with the Statue of Liberty climax from having seen it repeatedly in film retrospectives but I wrongly assumed the story leading up to it might not hold my interest. Was I wrong! The suspenseful plot gets cooking right off the bat through a chance encounter between the Bad Guy Saboteur and the Good Guy Wrongly Accused protagonist and continues zooming along through a series of further chance encounters and narrow escapes. Familiar Hitchcockian elements are all there: the innocent person wrongly accused of a crime; people not being what they seem to be; dramatic or unlikely locations that intensify the suspenseful scene being played out within them (an airplane hangar, a ranch, a bridge from which the handcuffed hero hurls himself to escape the police, a sumptuous charity ball in a palatial mansion, an upper floor of a skyscraper, and finally the torch of the Statue of Liberty).

Throughout is humor provided by supporting players, generous dollops of early WW2- vintage social comment, moments of human warmth where suffering people find it within themselves to lend a hand to help a fellow human, getting nothing in return \u0096 in short, there was always a basic humanity at the core of Hitchcock, however grisly the trappings - a sensational cast of supporting players, chiefly Otto Kruger as the slickest villain this side of George Sanders (his Broadway credits include the male lead in Noel Coward's PRIVATE LIVES \u0096 and that says it all) and weaselly Norman Lloyd as the titular saboteur, not to mention Alma Kruger \u0096 no relation to Otto \u0096 as a prominent society dowager involved in fifth column intrigue (her character foreshadows that of Claude Rains's mother in NOTORIOUS). Priscilla Lane does a fine job with a difficult role. For most of her early scenes we can't tell whether she believes the hero to be innocent or guilty and she seems constantly to shift her opinion, not coming over to his side fully until late in the proceedings. One cannot ascertain whether her acting is at fault or whether we are meant to be kept in a state of uncertainty, but the plot developments are so swift, fun and clever that we really don't care what she thinks.

Then there are the peculiar Hitchcock touches that have nothing to do with the plot. Twice the Lane character pauses to get change for a quarter \u0096 once to reimburse her kidnappers for an ice cream soda and again to make a call from a phone booth. Why these scenes were inserted are anybody's guess, perhaps to make the film seem more realistic and thus heighten the believability and suspense? Or perhaps to give the audience a moment to catch its breath? Some of the characters are over the top \u0096 the garrulous truck driver, the impossibly kind and trusting blind man living alone in a spotlessly maintained forest cabin, the political-philosophy-spouting \"human skeleton\" and other members of the circus caravan who hide the protagonists from their pursuers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cummings is falsely accused of sabotage and goes on the lam, looking for the real culprit. The familiar Hitchcock theme of a man wrongly accused of a crime is nicely played out in this entertaining fare that has elements of \"The Thirty Nine Steps\" and \"North by Northwest,\" although it is not as good as either of those classics. There are some impressive set pieces, including the finale on the Statue of Liberty. The plot is implausible and unconvincing and, after a terrific start, it seems to run out of steam. Cummings is likable if somewhat stiff in the lead. Lane is the blonde but not the cool variety of the director's later films. The supporting roles are generally well played.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are many familiar Hitchcock elements (of previous and later films) and this time they mix to a jolly, but hardly suspenseful piece of entertainment. You can tell that Dorothy Parker had a hand in the script, the most memorable scenes are the dialogues of hero Cummings with the blind man and his encounter with a rather bizarre group of circus people. The famous climax on the Statue of Liberty seems a bit heavy-handed - judged by today\u00b4s standards, but also compared to other Hitch monument finals (e.g. Blackmail, North by Northwest).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thoroughly enjoyed this film, which in many ways, as Hitchcock did on several occasions, was a first attempt at a plot which he re-shot later in his career. Possibly the most amazing thing about it, however, is how faceless the lead characters are. After watching, one remembers Murray Alper as the jovial truck driver, Vaughan Glaser's touching turn as a blind \"patriot\", the unforgettable traveling Freak Show and of course Otto Kruger as the suave and sophisticated villain, all of whom completely overshadow Bob Cummings as the rather wooden fugitive (compare that bridge jump to Harrison Ford's similar stunt in Andrew Davis' \"The Fugitive\") and Priscilla Lane whose change of heart and subsequent love towards Cummings is never quite believable.

The other major support player is, of course, Hitchcock himself who bookends the film with 2 extraordinary stunts. Many people criticise the older films for their lack of realistic special effects. My feelings are that with lack of technology, to even attempt and convey what the director wants to show is an amazing achievement.

Obviously this film carries an anti-fascist message, made at the time of the Second World War, but being a Hitchcock it is never the most important thing and the emphasis is always on the action. Well worth checking out, especially for the support roles.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I consider Saboteur as Hitchcock's first \"American\" film, because the story takes place completely in U.S.

There are brilliant scenes in this film. Statue of Liberty Scene, Barry Kane jumping into the water from the bridge, Water fall scene are amazing. Its not Hitchcock's fault that he didn't get the actors he wanted. Hitchcock originally wanted Gary Cooper for the leading roles in Foreign Correspondent and Saboteur. But Gary Cooper wasn't interested in doing a thriller. Another reason why Hitchcock didn't get big stars was because he wasn't one of top directors. Although Rebecca was a huge success, still most of film's success went to Producer David O. Selznick. For Example, David O. Selznick got Best Picture Oscar for Rebecca. And Hitchcock didn't get a Best Director Oscar for Rebecca. Hitchcock started getting some attention after Foreign Correspondent (1940). But Universal gave him a low-budget for Saboteur (1942). Hitchcock tried to get Joel McCrea for this film, because he was willing to work with Hitchcock again with a low salary. He enjoyed working with Hitchcock in Foreign Correspondent (1940). But he was unavailable. So the role went to Robert Cummings. Hitchcock called Robert Cummings \"a competent performer.\" I thought he did his best. He was a less known actor who was willing to play a role when many big actors refused to play the leading male role.

As for leading female role, Hitchcock wanted Margaret Sullavan or Barbara Stanwyck for the leading role. They weren't interested either. So Universal decided to give the role to Priscilla Lane. I read in a book that this was one of her favorite films.

I also liked the scene at Blind Man's house. That is my favorite scene. If we listen closer to the dialogue in scenes that happen in Uncle Philip's house, then we will see how intense it is. Uncle Philip (Blind Man) was studying Barry Kane's character the moment he entered his house. The moment Barry entered his house, he heard Barry's handcuffs. Through conversation, he realized that Barry Kane isn't a criminal at all. We also see his hearing ability through those scenes. For Example, Barry hears the sound of a car says \"Is that a car coming?\" Uncle Philip says \"2 cars I think.\" Uncle Philip was right. We see 2 cars in the next scene. Priscilla Lane did a fine job playing her role. She was no big star. But I thought her performance was really good. Another brilliant scene in Uncle Philip's house is the scene where he asks Priscilla Lane (Patricia Martin) \"Are you frightened, Pat? Is that what makes you so cruel?\" I thought Otto Krueger played the villain brilliantly. Hitchcock wanted Harry Carey for the villain. But he refused. Harry Carey is famous for his role Mr. President in \"Mr. Smith goes to Washington.\" I want to mention more about this film. But I think my post is getting too long.

Every Hitchcock film is special in its own way. I am sure Hitchcock fans will like this film. I rate 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hitchcock once gave an interview where he said he like to direct screenplays that had an ordinary person minding their own business, who's accidentally caught up in an awful chain of events that they can't get out of until the dastardly plot that's behind their troubles is resolved. That way, the audience can feel more sympathy for the hero. We certainly do in this fine film. Barry Kane is only trying to help his fellow-man out by performing acts of kindness and consideration, like helping Fry pick up the letters he dropped at the factory. Barry even returns a lost $100 bill to Fry later on...that was BIG money in 1943!! It's Barry's acts of Christian kindness that get him into trouble and soon, he's wrongly accused of sabotage and murder and will likely hang if he can't clear himself. Similar to The 39 Steps in plot, the hero travels cross-country where he discovers plans for further acts of terrorism by fascisistic cells, an arch-villain who nobody could believe to be a closet-Nazi, and a beautiful blonde, Patricia Martin, who first suspects and hates then eventually falls in love with Barry Kane. Hitch's trademark touches of humor are here, too. Patricia is a billboard model who's various roadside ads are a help and comfort to Barry as he hitches a ride with the bad guys, all the way from Las Vegas to NYC. We meet a trucker who's a one-man comedy act \"Someone convinced my wife it was stylish to eat three meals a day.\" Field employees of the fascist spy ring grouse about being forgotten or ignored by the \"suits\" just as if they were working for some legit enterprise. During a chase scene into a cinema, audience members laugh at the action of a schlocky comedy\/gangster flick as the saboteur cell shoots it out for real with the good guys and accidentially kills a guffawing movie-patron. Awful for the dead old man, but funny! Hitch liked to use famous monuments in his movies and this is the best instance, with the Statue of Liberty as backdrop and ironic icon! It works even better than the Mt Rushmore scene in NBNW.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a masterpiece of brilliant acting and timely patriotic sense of pride in America. The Nazi Saboteurs of the 40's are replaced by the Middle East Terrorists of today. The intent is the same, to terrorize, disrupt lives, destroy property, and kill Americans! We see a wrongly accused Barry (Bob Cummings) on the lamm, trying to uncover the real Nazi terrorists plot, meeting the beautiful Pat (Priscilla Lane) and together, they travel to New York chasing the devious and evil saboteur Fry, played expertly by Norman Lloyd. Along the way, they encounter the also very sinister Otto Kruger playing the leader of the Nazi saboteur ring but disguised as a distinguished model citizen, where Barry seeking saboteur Fry, takes him into his confidence, only to handed over to the local law enforcement. He escapes, meets a kindly blind gentleman and his niece, enter Priscilla Lane. From there, Barry and Pat travel to Soda City Cal., run into the West coast saboteur gang heading East. They trail ends up in the mansion of a unlikely New York Socialite. The going gets tough when the bad guys kidnap Pat from Barry and he goes after her with reckless abandon. The movie climax is the famous Statue of Liberty scene which is excerpted in many compilations. This is a true, blue patriotic flag-waving performance at it's best and what is wrong with that! See this movie if you don't see another Hitchcock film. You will be swept up in the patriotic furore and the love interest between Cummings and Lane will make you wish they had been paired in other movies. She is the beautiful, ideal girl next door, often underrated, her talent shows through in this film. See it and Go Bless America!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really loved seeing this movie. I think it's a brilliant, underrated Alfred Hitchcock movie. Everyone is familiar with the famous Statue of Liberty scene, but there's a really great movie before that. Robert Cummings is great in what I consider to be his greatest role, and the beautiful Priscilla Lane shows that she has a lot of talent too. But I think Norman Lloyd gives the best performance. His character, Fry, is so evil and devious. Even though he's not in it for very long, the movie wouldn't be the same without him.

\"Saboteur\" is a great movie that every Hitchcock fan should see. I give it a 10 out of 10!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Overall, this is entertaining and odd film. Don't try to make sense of it. There are more holes in the story than a computer could keep up with, but Robert Cummings and a cast of minor characters are mostly fun to watch in this \"Fugitive\"-like story.

Unlike the popular TV show and then 1993 movie, this fugitive isn't looking for a one-armed man, but a two-armed Nazi saboteur by the the name of \"Frank Fry.\" Cummings (\"Barry Kane\") gets blamed when a defense plant blows up in Los Angeles and goes on the lam looking for the man who did it (Fry) to clear his name.

The first 40 minutes or so are very tense and interesting. Then Priscilla Lane (\"Pat Martin\") enters the story, and it starts to bog down a bit with some sappy dialog. Director Alfred Hitchcock often did that with his female characters, to the point I wonder if he had a clue how woman talked. Lane's character here was a little lame.

Actually, the villains played by Otto Kruger (\"Charles Tobin\") and Norman Lloyd (\"Frank Fry\") were the best, in my opinion......just fascinating. Kruger's acting and dialog was especially good.

If you haven't seen this film but saw Hitchcock's well-known \"North By Northwest,\" you'll chuckle at the ending and really enjoy it. Instead of a climactic scene at Mount Rushmore, here we have a memorable last 10 minutes at the State Of Liberty. As usual, Hitchcock camera angles are great and fun to view.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a massive Hitchcock fan, ever since seeing \"Rear Window\" on television. \"Saboteur\" is not Hitchcock's best for me though, it is very good but not a masterpiece. It does have its faults, some parts are rather slow moving and as a consequence of it being written off in a hurry the script felt rather incomplete. But Hitchcock's direction is superb, and the performances weren't that bad. While Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane both do a good enough job, Otto Kruger and Norman Lloyd come very close to stealing the show. The story is good, about a wronged man on the run, very similar themes used in \"39 Steps\" and \"North By Northwest\", and cleverly provides some much needed escapism. The music score was absolutely outstanding; the music in the opening title sequence was phenomenal, almost like a distorted march, and I liked the digs at Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto and Beethoven's 5th Symphony. The cinematography is also crisp and smooth, the scenery and landscapes almost dazzling and there are also a number of very effective scenes. Namely the Statue of Liberty climax, but the circus troupe encounter and the Radio Music City Hall shoot-out is also on the money. Overall, not Hitchcock's best, but definitely worth the look. 8\/10 Bethany Cox","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bob Cummings is excellent in this, as this technically brilliant Hitchcock film really does not get the fame as some of his other films but is very watchable even today. Priscilla Lane proves in this one that she can hold her own with other blonde's that worked with Hitchcock later. She just did a handful of films after this which makes her almost forgotten today.

There are sequences in this that will remind the viewer of set ups in later films by the director. The acting is so well done and the story so well done that this film is still very entertaining today. Every person in the cast performs well. There are several great backdrops in the black & white film.

This was the first film at Universal for Hitchcock. Long run between the feature films he did at Universal, plus the television series, Hitchcock would make as much box office for the studios as anyone who worked there. This fact gets lost in film history.

Norman Lloyd is well cast as the real bad guy in this film. The story moves along really well including Hitchcock's only filmed western sequence. This film is very good with lots of great work by everyone involved making it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the second Hitchcock film to appear on the list and the second Hitchcock film I've seen in full, the first was Rope, which I really enjoyed. With Saboteur Hitchcock was more room to roam free, whereas Rope took place all in one room. I didn't enjoy this one as much as Rope but that's not saying this is a bad film, it just seems like an average flick that could have been something more.

It seems like a film Hitchcock would make as a break in between his more serious ones. As a thriller, I feel it fails to really get my on the edge of my seat or engaged with the lead character who is running around the States. The climax of the film feels like a miss opportunity to really amp up the tension. The sound design is almost non existent. You can hear their dialogue and a bit of the environment around them, but the important things are missing, the stitches ripping apart from the sleeve, the need of music to amp of the tension, all missing. Intentional no doubt, yet it lacks the emotional punch one would want from such a scene. Then it ends abruptly leaving you empty inside.

The film doesn't feel like it should either, they are almost globe trotting from place to place, yet it feels more confined. The script itself is very average and seems to go about the more obtuse ways to get the plot moving.

The performances are there, but nothing amazing. Everyone plays their parts to scripted words on the page. The relationship between the two leads is weak and needed more work. The one stand out is Otto Kruger, who has that rich, ego, evil persona down pat.

In the end, I wanted more from this one. I understand it's one of Hitchcock's least exciting films, but I did have a good time watching it. I can recommend it, just not enthusiastically.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A man is wrongfully accused of killing his friend in an aircraft plant fire, and must travel cross-country to avoid the police and discover the true sinister nature of the situation at hand. A plot line that was later used to fuel Hitchcock's classic North by Northwest, Saboteur benefits from some very good performances as well as some masterful suspense sequences from the Master himself.

For any Hitchcock fan, the plot is a bit too familiar, but he was always able to infuse the story with its own memorable supporting characters and charades. Here, the likable and charming Robert Cummings is the lead and soon finds himself visiting many strange and quirky characters, not withstanding a troupe of circus performers, a rich businessman with hidden motives, and a blind loner who shows him the best way to judge someone.

In terms of sheer originality and quality, this does lack in some areas, particularly the motive of the antagonists. However, there is some nice chemistry between Cummings and his lead lady, the much under-appreciated Priscilla Lane as well as a truly moving performance as the blind man by Vaughn Glaser. The best part is the final sequence, which perfectly mirrors what Hitchcock would use later in North by Northwest, only this time the climax is atop a statue in New York. Certainly not his best, but the Master of Suspense gives us some great moments to wait for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alfred Hitchcock's \"Saboteur\" (1942) (not to be confused with another Hitchcock film, \"Sabotage\" made in 1936 which has a completely different plot) is not the Master of Suspense greatest film. It dose not have the depth of \"Vertigo\" (1958) nor the brooding atmosphere of \"Rebbeca\" (1940) and it certainly dose not have the emotional impact and acting talent that can be found in \"Notorious\" (1946), but what it dose have is thrills, adventure and a nail biting climax. The two leads, admittedly, are quite weak. It is easy to understand why Hitchcock wanted Gary Cooper for the Robert Cummings role and Barbara Stanwyck for the role that was taken by Priscilla Lane. Also, the patriotic speeches that Cuumming says (that were written by Dorothy Parker) have dated badly, and the encounter with circus troupe is poorly done (the beard on the bearded lady is clearly false). However, the last half hour is edge-of-your-seat viewing, the climax atop the Stature of Liberty is very well done, and the film is a clear predecessor of \"North By Northwest\" (1959). The two villains, Otto Kruger and Norman Lloyd are very good and the beginning fire at the Aircraft Factory is a superb sequence. This not the best film Hitch made, but it is surly one of his most entertaining.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent Hitchcock thriller with Robert Cummings proving once again that he could really act up a storm.

This time he is a defense plant worker caught up in a horrible plot when his best friend is killed at the plant.

Priscilla Lane is the girl who suddenly becomes interested in Cummings as the plot thickens and he is pursued from California to N.Y.

There is a diabolical plot by a group of wealthy 5th columnists to destroy from from within. Hitchcock was known to play up the upper echelons of society involved in mayhem in his long career as a director.

Ironically, the film implodes at the very end. While we see what happens to the guy who killed Cummings' friend, we don't see what happens to the rest of the gang, again, many of whom represent the upper crust of society.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The subject is banal, even in 1942. It is war propaganda. The fascists are among us and they are doing all they can to sabotage the war effort and to prepare their victory and their seizure of power then and their establishing an effective totalitarian state. But Hitchcock has to make it a real thriller. So he invents a first sabotage that succeeds but one of the victims, the friend of the one who dies in it, becomes the prime suspect and run-away for the sabotage. That enables him to so-to-say visit the country and discover the tricky organization of the local Nazis who have acquaintances and support in the top benevolent society and use the small little dissatisfied whites to do the dirty work. The chase after the real saboteur takes our young false suspect from Los Angeles to New York and to the top of the organization. He meets a blind pianist who believes his senses to know the chap is not guilty, his niece who is a star of the advertising billboard but also a frenetic and fanatic patriot who only thinks of going to the police. Then the rich rancher and his nest of plotters. Then, on the road some sympathetic and friendly truck driver, and the long caravan of a circus going around and their dwarf, bearded woman, Siamese sisters, and a few other grotesques of that type. And he discovers the target in a Soda City, an electric dam that provides Los Angeles and its war industry with the energy they need. He takes part as a gravel in the organization in the sabotage of a USS Alaska military ship when it is launched. And finally with some inventiveness, creativity and elbow grease he and the pianist's niece manage to get the whole lot cleaned up, most of them arrested and the first saboteur, a certain Fry, falls down from the torch of the Statue of Liberty. That one won't fry on the old electric sparking chair. But Hitchcock is not yet in his habit of having a personal cameo appearance in his own films, so don't look for him. It's well built and well performed, but it is only a propaganda film with an extra style.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Barry Kane is an aircraft factory worker.Suddenly sabotage takes place at the factory and starts a fire.His best friend is killed.They accuse him of the deed but Kane knows it was a man named Fry who was there.He becomes a fugitive and goes to find this man named Fry.He's helped by a kind blind man.He lets his niece, the billboard model Patricia Martin take the man to a local blacksmith to have his handcuffs removed.They don't end up there for the woman doesn't believe Barry and wants to take him to the police.But soon he changes her mind about Barry and they find out about another sabotage attempt that's going to take place soon.There's a group of anti-American fascists.And Frank Fry is a member of that group.Saboteur (1942) is another example of the fact Alfred Hitchcock could not make a bad movie.Robert Cummings plays Barry Kane and he's really good at that.Priscilla Lane with her good looks plays Pat Martin.Also really good.Otto Kruger makes a great main villain as the leader of the fascist group, Charles Tobin.Norman Lloyd, still alive at 94, plays Fry and makes a very believable crook.Vaughan Glaser is the most sympathetic character as the blind man Philip Martin.The dance hall sequence is fantastic.And also the moments on the circus train.In the end we're at the Statue of Liberty.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saboteur is a 1942 film, partly aimed at getting American support for the war against Nazi Germany. Propaganda or not, it's great entertainment. The leading actors are Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane, although director Alfred Hitchcock wanted Gary Cooper, and Barbara Stanwyck in the roles, which would have given the movie more stature. This is a good movie anyway with Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane bringing their own style to the characters. As in other Hitchcock movies, we see the director's disregard for the socially suave and the well-heeled. He often portrayed spies and foreign agents as nice upper-class folk who at the same time sneered at democratic values and concepts such as guilty until proved innocent. These upper crust traitors are the last the police pursue or even suspect. Hitchcock had a lifelong distrust of the police. He wanted to elevate the regular guy, the bungler and the fellow who doesn't take himself too seriously. One can see him wanting Gary Cooper as an icon in the Frank Capra mold. Nevertheless, Bob Cummings puts his own stamp on the boy-next-door and works well in the role. Priscilla Lane, as the spunky female lead, comes off as the all-American girl who can handle herself quite nicely when put to the test. Robert Cummings, as defence plant worker Barry Kane, is framed for a bombing that kills his best friend. This leads to a cross-country chase scene reminiscent of other Hitchcock heroes on the run. Hitchcock repeats some of the well-established formulas from previous films - the reluctant female who is drawn into the action, e.g. Madeleine Carroll in the 39 Steps, and risking his life to evade the authorities who are on his heels. We view scenes of America as Kane tries to find the real culprit in the bombing he stands accused of. We see rivers, bridges, backwoods cabins, truckers, the Hoover Dam and finally, New York City. New York is a fitting backdrop for the climax as we go from Rockefeller Center to the ocean liners (with a cut to the ship Normandy) and the grand finale on the Statue of Liberty. Great movie with uninterrupted action. Don't miss it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Traffik', despite its title, is not really about drugs. In the best tradition of crusading British TV drama, 'Traffik' analyses and moralises about its ostensible subject, which is not some mythical scourge, but a matrix or process with identifiable social, economic and historical roots, causes and effects. There is something almost scientific in the way the film takes four sets of characters from spectacularly separate global and class backgrounds - a poppy grower forced into the Pakistani underworld by poverty and a cynical government; the English, ex-Olympic swimmer wife of a drugs baron on trial for trafficking; two shambling German policemen whose determination to convict the latter arises as much from class anger as any faith in the law; and a Tory junior minister whose Cambridge-student daughter has become an addict.

'Traffik' is unapologetically didactic - from the early scenes of Jack Lithgow in Pakistan, investigating the government's success in eliminating drugs before sanctioning more British aid, we are bombarded with facts about the problem. But these 'facts' come from a variety of sources - dissembling government representatives; left-wing lawyers with vested (ideological and domestic) interest in the corruption; poor farmers who need to grow poppies to survive.

Facts, normally reassuring markers on a map, are clearly not enough - the more facts we get, the less controllable the situation seems. It is not until Jack, the film's moral centre, the man who connects all the narrative threads, actually journeys into the heart of the drugs darkness, learns to shed his tory hypocrisy (deploring the use of drugs, but refusing to put any serious money into tackling the problem, and creating the conditions, through various free market initiatives, where drug-traffiking flourishes. Just as the anti-heroes of the old Warners' gangster films were actually model American capitalists, so the traffikers are the ideal being espoused by Thatcher and Reagan) that at least the reality of the problem can be acknowledges.

Like I say, 'Traffik' isn't really about drugs. As Jack finally recognises, after being sacked as a Tory minister, drugs isn't really the problem. It's a society dismantled by a woman who said there was no longer any such thing (as proved by Jack's non-existent family life), systematically depriving the vast majority of people of hope and happiness, increasing numbers of whom turn to drugs.

What is most frightening about 'Traffik' is not the graphic, numbing depictions of drug abuse (the technical detail of which ironically reflects the presentation of more 'legitimate', verbal factual information), but the dystopian vision of a Britain stripped of any joy, beauty or community, a bleak wasteland of derelict tenements and soulless modernity, a society of defeatists ready for the thatcherite smugglers and barons to ply their trade.

This isn't just a contemporary British story - it records the decline of an Empire built on trade reduced to lawless drug traffiking. It is surely significant that the other sites in the programme are Germany and Pakistan, crucial agents in the Empire's decline. Here the old imperial amorality comes home to roost, the formerly enslaved victims, their bodies abused by their masters' power, returning to the Imperial centre, London, the seeds of its decline literally carried in their bodies, embodying the fears of all those late 19th century gothic novels.

'Traffik' is one of the great achievements of British TV, and is in many ways superior to the recent Hollywood remake. The political focus is obviously sharper - Jack's decline is much more effective than Wakefield's because he, as agent of government policy, as well as a bad father, is very much part of the problem, whereas the American's only real political flaw is complacency. In almost every case, characterisation is tighter and much more plausible (compare Lindsay Duncan's steely Helen, already bitten by experience and failure, and her risibly superficial counterpart).

Unlike the dubious racial undercurrent of 'Traffic' (making Mexico dark and Other; the ultimate WASP horror being sex with a black man), the portrait of Pakistan is richly, tragically drawn, with disconcerting arguments about drug protection punctuated by scenes of gruesome violence. Throughout, the inextricable linking of public and private is expert. Visually, the film is remarkably inventive, without ever being flashy or 'cinematic' - especially in the last episode, where the buildings and decor seem to move as the system closes in. If 'Traffik', like its remake, feels the need to shore fragments, then the prevailing sense of waste and loss is much more damning, Jack's speech bitterly despairing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is hard to put the devastating beauty of Traffik to words, partly because I am still grasping to comprehend it myself, several hours after my second viewing. First, it must be said that Traffik contains some of the most incomparably and unforgettably haunting scenes I have seen in a film or television production. The acting is excellent, particularly that of Bill Paterson as a British minister grappling with his heroin-addicted daughter and an aid deal to Pakistan that hinges on drug issues. Another plot line describes these drug issues at a ground level in Pakistan, and revolves around a struggling opium poppy farmer and his interaction with a successful heroin smuggler. The third main storyline involves the prosecution of a Hamburg drug importer, and the conflicting efforts of his wife and two German detectives while he is under trial. It is a profound accomplishment that the interaction between these stories feels natural, transcending the forced plot entanglement often found in Hollywood movies. It is an even greater accomplishment that a work spread over three countries and half a dozen main characters can be so focused and enthralling, without having to oversimplify. It is devastating--bleak and brutal but never apathetic. In short, Traffik is a rare work of film that handles challenging subjects with unmatched compassion and clarity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"beautifully constructed, \"Traffik\" tells the story of narcotics usage and commerce from multiple points of view. From a policeman view, from a politician view, from an addict view, from a smuggler's view, and from a farmer's view. In a carefully contructed storyline, one gets the impression on how everything is inter-related. From beautiful on-location shots in the poppy fields in Pakistan, to downtown Karachi, to the entry points airports of Frankfurt and London, to the delapidated buildings where the smuggling takes place, one sees the massive dimension of narcotics consumption.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Traffik 1989\" is an Emmy award winning six part miniseries out of the UK which was the inspiration for the Oscar winning \"Traffic 2000\". The five hour film breaks down the opium\/heroine trade for the viewer from the handcasting of poppy seeds in an Afghanistan field to the \"head rush\" of a mainlining junkie in a flat in England. Not only does \"Traffik\" offer entertainment value through interleaved dramatic stories it also provides an overview of the international drug trade at all levels answering the who, where, how, and why questions of the age old and unstoppable narcotic supply\/demand machine. Synergistically entertaining and educational, \"Traffik\" will prove to be time well spent for teens and up. (A)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you've not seen this then look out for it. It is available on DVD. It is a channel 4 (uk) production, possibly, in conjunction with German and danish TV. If you've seen the film it is basically the same plot. Several interleaved stories are connected through the drugs trade. The story jumps between the housewife (played by the excellent Lyndsay Duncan) trying to complete a deal on behalf of her husband, who to her surprise is an international drugs dealer (and generally dangerous man).

A minister, who is embedded in his job to the detriment of his family, is investigating the whole state of affairs with international drugs trafficking. He gets a few eye openers to the reality of heroin when his daughter turns out to have a 'problem'. He then visit Pakistan, officially, where he seems to be taught that the abuse (not simply the drug or its casual use) is the problem and also gets to sample some produce (an excellent scene where he simultaneously realises what the attraction is and why it is and why it is such a problem). In Pakistan we get to see the other side. The desperation of farmers who can barely survive turning to opium production and crime lords. The pointless attempts at subsidy resulting in the system getting rich. And a country so drenched in drugs yet only a relative fraction of the abuse we have in the west. Around all this a customs official\/interpol agent tries to catch the 'dutch' connection in heroin smuggling. Seeking justice for his murdered partner. This really is a masterpiece. Super, understated performances from all the main actors in a way only European cinema can really do.

A must see. Especially if you have seen the film, they compliment each other abd present some subtly different opinions\/attitudes from both sides of the pond.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can only agree with many observers that Traffik is one of the most memorable dramas ever made for television. I saw Traffik when it was on TV, and I have just watched it again. I am particularly moved by the haunting original music of Tim Souster, and especially by the dolorous strains of Dmitri Shostakovich's Chamber Symphony in C minor ( the music over the credits and in parts of the film). The music intensifies the desperation of the characters as they pursue their sad fate. The music is powerfully emotional. This arrangement combines two of the movements from the symphony, but I recommend listening to the symphony per se.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Four stories about the drug trade in Europe become intertwined over the course of this 6 part miniseries. In Germany a businessman is arrested on drug smuggling charges, and his wife attempts to save her family by continuing her husband's illegal trade. Meanwhile the British Home Secretary travels to Pakistan to negotiate an aid package that he hopes will stop the drug flow from that country. Even as he does this however his own daughter succumbs to heroin addiction, tearing their family apart. This is the miniseries on which the American film and miniseries were based. The original is far superior to its two decendants. The poverty and desperation of the third world are portrayed very well. It is stark, uncompromising and brutal.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had been very curious to see the original six-hour miniseries that Steven Soderbergh's latest movie was based on, and now that I have, I am happy to say that one is not better than the other. They are both intelligent, involving and extremely entertaining. The only real advantage that the miniseries has over the movie is that it is three and a half hours longer, so we get to know the characters more in depth.

There isn't a false note to be had in this production, one that you should definitely make time for when PBS re-broadcasts this miniseries sometime in 2001. You won't regret it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Traffik is a really well done 6 hour drama about drugs (circa 1987). It tells three stories, in parallel, about how opium is grown in North-East Pakistan, how drugs are smuggled from Pakistan into Europe, and finally, how people addicted to drugs spiral out of control. All three stories are told realistically and with empathy. You see enough of the characters lives to understand how ordinary people can get sucked into a life that is really immoral.

These aren't card-board cutouts, the opium grower is trying to feed his family in a dry area filled with guns and other opium growers. The drug smuggler is a rich German with no heart but his wife (one of the three main characters) is just an ordinary woman who has to choose between leading her life \"the old way\" or giving up. Finally the main character, the government minister has the toughest role as he must deal with the emotional devastation caused by his own daughter. She slips into the world of drug addiction and starts stealing, suffering from ill-health, attacking her parents emotionally, all so she can continue to satisfy her craving for the drug (heroin) that is destroying her life.

Traffik is one of the best dramas I have ever seen on TV. The scenes in this show will remain with you for a long, long time. Highly recommended. -- Colin Glassey","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing this in the early 90's on UK TV and was hooked. The international scope of the production is breathtaking and watching how the characters develop through the five hours it runs for is magnificent. The scenes set in Pakistan and Afghanistan are of particular interest, and as a viewer you get a real sense of a grounds-eye view of the culture and vibe of these countries during the closing stages of the Cold War. The characters of Fazal and Helen develop really well throughout the series and rivals modern shows like The Sopranos and Six Feet Under in this area. In the UK, the VHS goes for about \u00a36 and the DVD about \u00a310 - a quality bargain. I thought Soderbergh's version was great too - but clearly owes this masterpiece a huge debt.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best thing one can say about the film \"Traffic\" is that it brought attention to the superior British mini-series \"Traffik\". As many people have noted, the current film suffers from truncating the story to accommodate the short attention span of cinemagoers and the turn-around time of the theater owners, who measure a film's success by the overpriced food sales.

I first recorded this mini series in 1990 when it was shown on Public TV and have watched it many times. The whole documentary-style series has a strong element of tragedy and doom about it, as the characters are all moving toward their eventual fate. The strongest of the three tales is that of the Pakistani family forced into the City to find a way to keep body and soul together after the poppy crop is burned by the army in a staged show of force put on for the benefit of western politicians. The hardships of the family are similar to that of the rickshaw pullers family in \"City of Joy\". Eventually the farmer finds work, but he compromises his pride and honesty.

The Pakistani segment of the film has a particular relevance to today, with the fight against the supporters of Al Quaeda, and gives some understanding of the support for such movements among the disadvantaged poor of Pakistan and Afghanistan who rarely receive any of the money going into those countries. The film makes a point that the farmers see barely 25% of the aid which is supposed to encourage them to grow other crops.

With the American inability to see anything other than in terms of black and white - good guys v. bad guys - it is interesting to see another view where there is no black and white, only shades of grey.

Possible spoiler ahead. The only problem I had with the story was that rather than things continuing as they did before, as they would in real life, being a work of fiction they had to wrap it up with the \"bad guys\" getting what was coming to them. Other than that, this was a fine piece of work of the kind we see all too rarely. The cast was outstanding and the German and Pakistani locations helped give the film a \"different\" feel (what a change it made seeing Germans as something other than the villains in a WWII film).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brilliant. Ranks along with Citizen Kane, The Matrix and Godfathers. Must see, at least for basset in her early days. Watch it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this programme immensely. It is exceptionally well written, with finely judged performances and clever visuals.

It is also very frank and honest, refreshing compared to the sanitised representation of drug use in films and television.

Unmissable - one of the finest television shows of recent years, and triumph on all scales for Channel 4.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Contains spoilers I had it recorded a while ago when it was on PBS but never got a chance to watch it (probably due to prejudice about having to sit through 5-6 hrs of Masterpiece Theater, with its BBC made for TV production style (no music, settings all in one room, no outdoor scenes flat TV look...)) But after watching the movie Traffic (which I thought was pretty good at that time,) I couldn't help digging up the Traffik tape to see what else could they have dwelled into with the extra 2 1\/2 hr.

Boy, was my preconceptions wrong about this TV series. It is so much more involving than Traffic. The characters are fleshed out better so that their actions are more believable. And the whole subplot involving Pakistan completes the whole point of view of everyone in the whole supply chain, from the farmer to the end user. In Traffic, the Pakistan story was rewritten and reduced down to a good cop vs bad cop plot.

There was alot more meaningful discussion and debate about alcohol and other forms of drug, whereas in Traffic they mostly became passing references of no significance. Same with social issues, which in Traffik, were conveyed realistically w\/o sounding preachy. Whereas in Traffic, the characters jus t blurted it out as a statement like the way they do it in those made for TV \"issue of the week\" movies.

There was no bad guy vs good guy in Traffik, even the dealer is portrayed as a junkie that sells to support his habit instead of the \"nobody messes with me\" type of person in Traffic.

The only down part is that since I watched Traffic not much before watching this, it was hard not to compare scene by scene, and even though the scenes were not the same, I knew what the outcome was going to be already. Thank god for the Pakistan story, which is different enough that it allowed me to enjoy it completely w\/o thinking which scene it compares to. Although I was thrown off thinking the drugs were fused into the ceramic of the statues in which Helen brought back to Germany (as in the storyline of Traffic.) Thank god Traffik was not that hokey and far-fetched.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What an awesome mini-series. The original TRAFFIK completely stole me away from anything else that was on. Far more engaging than the American remake, the original TRAFFIK boasts an amazing cast formed of lesser known actors to North American audiences. Juliette Binoche being the mainly recognizable actress who plays a drug addicted teenaged daughter of a government official. But it's not star power that carries this film (though I enjoyed the American version, I felt it was dimmed by the famous Americans in the picture).

Unfortunately, I saw the American version before I found the original BBC mini-series. Of course there were no picture filters, lush locales, and the big name stars\/director. However, the grit and grime of Europe (through the drugworld) perfectly compliments the impending sense of danger, which permeates throughout this film. The problems, such as getting addicts off of drugs by giving them more, poor anti-drug campaigning, and the resistance of foreign governments to assist with destroying their drug cultivators from within, all make TRAFFIK bold, immersive, and horrific all at the same time!

The truly incredible portions of the movie all come from Pakistan. My God, I never knew how bad the problem really was over in Europe...even all over! For a real education on the problems of drugs, beyond how they affect the human body you must watch both this and the American version. Each show one very clear and undeniable fact. Those countries, which are leaders in the eyes of the world, have a culture that has led to the death and suffering for many.

Drugs are worse than war. They work in the shadows, the dark secrets of any \"successful\" society.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Compared to the acclaimed Hollywood remake, this film is less flashy but much stronger at providing an overall picture of the drug problem. The remake loses the most interesting of the three plot threads, that of a farmer whose meager livelihood depends on drugs as a paying cash crop and whose increased involvement with the drug trade in an effort to better himself destroys himself and his family. Additionally, the story of the daughter's addiction goes into the problems not only of withdrawal but the high likelihood of relapse. This original miniseries makes good use of the additional time to go into the issues more thoroughly and remains stronger meat on this controversial subject.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't seen the more recent 'Traffic' which is based on this, but I'd bet on this one as the better creation. I know of no other movie that has so well portrayed the intricate tragedies of the drug trade and the 'war on drugs.\" I've watched this one at least four times and am enjoying it again as part of Masterpiece Theatre's 30th anniversary presentations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was disappointed with the recent (2000) American remake of this English mini-series. Though it followed the plot line very closely, it seemed to leave the heart and soul of the original out. Not to mention adding shallow preachy heavy-handed 'messages'... So my advice is to skip the modern remake and stick with the original. It's much longer, but gripping and totally well done. Interesting, complex and textured, without the preachy self-righteousness... and it's beautifully shot, as well.

I find it galling that these heartless remakes of great overseas films get so much Hollywood fanfare at the Oscars. (Though I did like Benicio Del Torro getting some deserved praise...)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a wonderfully gritty drama, detailing the various sides of the international heroin drug-trade--From the hills of northern Pakistan, where the tacitly allowed cultivation of opium-poppies occurs on a vast scale; to the jetsetting \"Euro-Trash\" in Germany and England who arrange the importation of processed heroin in multi-kilo smuggled shipments; to the end-users caught up in the web of addiction and the crime needed to support their growing habit; and finally all the levels of international government corruption and hypocrisy surrounding police efforts at controlling \"the drug problem\"---this drama is sketched out with a wide array of in-depth well-rounded characters, fully evolved plot, and excellent character acting and location shooting.

This puts Hollywood epics like \"The French Connection\" in their place!

Traffik is a deeply thought-provoking and suspenseful tale of modern drug-related espionage, and the international efforts of many people to try to eliminate it.

Unlike many \"crime dramas\" revolving around drugs, Traffik focusses strongly on uncovering the societal *reasons* that people slide into drug addiction... As one of the characters puts it \"...until we, as a society, construct a world that people want to participate in, instead of wanting to escape from, we will not be able to stop people from taking drugs...\"

This is a fascinating and fully engrossing drama. I highly recommend it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've read innumerable reviews talking about the superiority of the mini-series. I certainly can't agree on such a blanket statement. If you analyze all of the aspects of a video\/film production, there are numerable areas where the film is arguably vastly superior.

Certainly, many of the comments are valid with regard to particular areas of the mini-series. Specifically regarding more threads (customs officers) and more developed threads (such as the Pakistani farmer and family). That said, I found Catherine Zeta-Jones' character much more compelling as the desperate women, from poverty to riches who \"won't go back.\" That's a much more likable character than this cold women who didn't seem to have as much reason for her quick turn to evil. (And yes, I understand...her children. She was desperate; I just didn't see her as being as desperate.)

Further, while I appreciated some of the more fleshed out story threads in the mini-series, Benicio del Toro's character was very compelling. An anchor for the film. That thread was changed (as an alternative to the Pakistani family) in nothing but good ways. A fantastic adaptation. (Of course, I'm skeptical that someone so pure can exist within such a system, but I don't know enough about the politics of the nation to argue).

After watching the first episode of the mini-series, I actually rewatched the film. Why? I kept reading about the fantastic acting. I found the performances in the first episode of the mini-series to be borderline laughable. Certainly, this improved as the mini-series progressed. Now having just finished both versions in a few days, I can't agree that the performances in the mini-series reached the same level as, say, Benicio del Toro, who was brilliant in the film, though Ormand, Paterson, Shah, and Lindsay Duncan were very good. I also feel the police in the film far outclassed the mini-series. I was not impressed with the Germans throughout.

Finally, the dialogue, as delivered in the film, is much more nuanced. Especially in the scenes which are almost verbatim. \"Careful, you're beginning to sound like your husband.\" as opposed to \"HAHAHAHA! You sound like Karl.\" Again, I found some of the acting in the mini- series very unconvincing. This was a prime example.

Other superior aspects of the film, in my opinion: score, cinematography, editing.

Should I complain that the film wasn't longer? No. I think it was a fantastic adaptation given the format. The changes made stood on their own. I mean, would you sit in a theater for 5\/ 7\/10 hours. Of course not.

Mini-series: 8 out of 10

Film: 9 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember watching this when it was made and thinking it was brilliant at the time. Watching it for the second time nearly 20 years later, I still think Traffik is brilliant and much better than the US film that was based on this drama.

It should also be watched by all our come today gone tomorrow politicians who think they can win the war on drugs, as the issues raised in this film are as pertinent today as they were back then at the end of the 80s, and unless they change their policies, will be so in another 20 years.

Well written, well made, beautifully acted and superbly filmed. A thought provoking drama that entertains as well as brings to light some of the hard realities of the criminal drug trade.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Traffik is an excellent miniseries dealing with drug trafficking in Europe. This is the European produced PBS series on which the Oscar-nominated movie Traffic is based on. If you loved Traffic then Traffik is a must see.

Overall I would highly recommend this miniseries to anyone that is interested in seeing drugs from a social point of view. The screenplay is exciting and unexpected as it weaves through the lives of drug dealers, traffickers, farmers, policians, and police officers. Unlike other movies that sensationalize the issue of drugs, Traffik presents it AS IS.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a phrase, moral ambiguity. In the Soderbergh remake, there ARE good guys and bad guys. Benicio del Toro's character is clearly the good guy, morally clean and uncorruptable. His counterpart in the BBC original, Fazal the farmer turned dealer, is realistically flawed and conflicted over his fate. The two relentless cops are similarly different. In the American one, they win our hearts. In the BBC original, they are over-zealous, nearly obsessive.

The best moment for me in Soderbergh's was when the college student rhetorically asked the Drug Czar, \"What would you do if you were poor and black and rich white people came into your neighborhood looking for drugs?\" That point was insinuated throughout the BBC show, and crystallized in Jack Lithgow's final speech. Both are excellent, but the BBC towers over the remake. My conclusion after seeing both shows is that dealers are innocent pawns who are only supplying a demand, and it is the demand that causes so much suffering.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Starting on or around 1965 American movies took a turn for the shocking and the iconoclastic which was great for the times -- sort of the seeds that would pave the way for grittier, daring dramas. However, because the very decade that gave birth to these films was so ruled by its own convictions, most all of the films released at this period have dated. CACTUS FLOWER is no exception. Its very title suggests a \"sunny\" romantic comedy with occasional lapses into the risqu\u00e9. This is not to say that it's a bad thing: quite the contrary, films about risqu\u00e9 subject matter have to begin somewhere and America being a culture rooted in specific traditions, themselves laced in deep hypocrisies, shocks itself for the sake of it when seeing an indirect reflection of the mores of the time. Meanwhile, European films address these same situations, walk off looking like a million bucks, and have a longer shelf-life because what we consider scandalous, they shrug off, say \"Next,\" and move on.

Toni Simmons (Goldie Hawn in her breakout role), a young, very sixties bright young thing, is carrying on with a much-older dentist named Julian Winston (Walter Matthau), who has commitment issues. He can'r marry her: he's already married. Toni decides instead of wilting away she actually wants to meet his wife and \"set things straight.\" Into the picture comes his assistant, Stephanie Dickinson (a luminous Ingrid Bergman, returning to American cinema after a twenty-year absence), a woman closer to his age who acts as if she and he had the perfect marriage and household. There is a reason for this: she has harbored quiet emotions for Julian, emotions he is unaware of, even when he asks her to play his wife to ward Toni off from wanting to step their relationship further. And then he steps it up a notch when Toni's blissfully innocent actions veer the action off into the unexpected and he introduces Harvey Greenfield (Jack Weston) as Stephanie's \"lover\". By the way, Harvey is also an older gent who is having an affair with a much younger woman (Eve Bruce) whom he also lies to in one very funny scene.

It's funny how the person whom we're looking for is the one who's always been there. What could have been a thankless role for Rick Lenz who plays Igor Sullivan, Toni's next door neighbor, turns into the man who not only sees the true beauty in fellow outcast Stephanie but the one who saves Toni at the start from killing herself. (Not the stuff of comedy, suicide. Then again, this is not your average comedy.) And needless to say is Ingrid Bergman's subtle, poignant portrayal of a woman who's somehow missed her chances at love, who's become prickly, who due to a lie said to another she becomes the real person she was always meant to be. I can't imagine anyone else in this quiet but deep role.

Movies like these can be enjoyed at face-value and seen as escapist fun -- a product of its times -- or be viewed for the deep symbolism that, like its title, it carries deep within. It's a tricky film, the same way Hawn's and Bergman's performance are equally tricky because in seeming so simple, devoid of flourish and pose, neither come out and proclaim what they are about. Their acting becomes \"not really acting\" but playing real people, warts and all. CACTUS FLOWER is a story that never appears to take itself too seriously, but reveals itself to be deep and very human after all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film has not exactly remained fresh in the minds of film buffs, and it's a crying shame. Its witty screenplay adaptation should have netted Oscar nominations for the great screenwriter I.A.L. Diamond's adaptation, and Ingrid Bergman's flawless performance. It must have been an honor for Goldie Hawn at such a young age to work with Bergman, looking more than a decade younger than her 54 years--fifty four! When she's on the screen, it positively twinkles.

This is a film which may appear dated at first, but it actually made me wish I was around during the swingin' 'sixties. Hawn's fashions are as tacky as Bergman's are chic. (That's one minor flaw--isn't her character a little too soign\u00e9e for a gal who still lives with her sister? But then again, would we have Ingrid any other way?) And who wouldn't want to hang out at a nightclub called The Slipped Disc?

The best compliments I can pay to this film is that it somehow made me nostalgic for a decade that I never saw, and that it left me wanting more. Speaking of wanting more, I wonder what ever became of sexy supporting actor Rick Lenz? (He resembles Griffin Dunne in this film.) This was his film debut, and I don't see any other major roles in his filmography. As for Goldie Hawn, she's done so much since then it's easy to not be impressed, but I can't imagine any other actor in the role, either.

Since the movie is based on a play, the line delivery may seem a bit stage-y, but it did not inhibit my enjoyment at all. In fact, I am amazed at how funny it still is after over thirty-five years. Because this film represents a bygone era, it has unjustly slipped from the consciousness of film buffs. It is more linked to the era films that came before it than the ones that followed. But don't let that stop you from savoring the delights it has to offer. Grade: A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ingrid Bergman, playing dentist Walter Matthau's faithful receptionist who harbors a little crush on her boss, is absolutely wonderful in this film. She handles the witty repartee in the script with aplomb and steals a terrific scene where she and Goldie Hawn talk in a record booth (Ingrid's monologue is a front, but her face tells you she believes in it with all her heart). Matthau is an odd choice for the leading man (he's too old for Goldie Hawn and too unrefined for Bergman, not to mention too unfocused to be a dentist), but I liked the way he tries hard to please Goldie and stumbles around trying to free himself from a lie. Hawn (who won a Supporting Oscar) is just as fresh and bubbly as she is today. This bedroom farce isn't terribly sophisticated (and faintly reminds one of \"Any Wednesday\" besides), but it's a welcome relief from the noisy, teen-oriented comedies they turn out today. \"Cactus Flower\" is a lovely sigh! *** from ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cactus Flower is what I call a \"pizza movie\" -A personal favorite that never fails to satisfy. Perfect for an evening at home with a pizza. Knowing all the lines (and what lines!) by heart only enhances the enjoyment.

Since so many others here have retold the plot, I'll simply add the correction that Bergman's character, Miss Dickinson, was a nurse-receptionist, meaning she was a skilled nurse -and therefore an educated person -not \"just\" a receptionist.

Bergman's performance in this film -and the film itself- was largely dismissed at the time, but today's audiences will marvel at her range; not just the impeccable comic timing, but the ability to make us believe her character is unaware of her own feelings while revealing them so clearly to Toni and to us. While the general plot stretches credibility, Bergman's performance is compelling: honest and utterly believable.

Also a standout is Jack Weston's performance as the Matthau's old friend and co-conspirator, Harvey. No one could deliver a zinger like Weston, and I.A.L. Diamond's script gives him plenty. For example: \"That's such a big, dirty, rotten lie it has class.\" Weston excelled at slightly seedy characters because he exuded a warmth that allowed you to forgive his characters' flaws.

The film is a fairly straight adaptation of the Abe Burrows play (which was itself adapted from a French play by Barillet and Gredy). On Broadway Matthau's role was played by Barry Nelson. Bergman's by Lauren Bacall, and Hawn's by Brenda Vaccaro. It ran for 1,234 performances (three years) and was nominated for two Tony Awards (Vaccaro and Burt Brinckerhoff, who played Igor).

For me, the film's score, written and adapted by the legendary Quincy Jones is another highlight. The main theme (A Time For Love Is Anytime) is performed by Sarah Vaughn over the opening and closing credits. It is also insinuated in different arrangements throughout the film, most notably as the romantic piano music underscoring Berman's speech to Hawn in the record store. Jones also created covers of popular songs from the period (To Sir With Love, I'm A Believer) for the night club scenes. As with all of the film's elements, there is a tremendous amount of talent, taste, and professionalism evident.

In my opinion, few modern romantic comedies can hold a candle to this classic. It's great to finally have it available on DVD. Time to call for a pizza...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Walter Matthau is wonderful as the \"philandering\" dentist Dr. Julian Winston whose frequent fibs to girlfriend Goldie provide textbook proof of the dangers of lying. Goldie Hawn's touching kook Toni Simmons certainly deserved to win her Oscar. Ingrid Bergman's work as the stiff-as-starch nurse Stephanie is also touching to watch as she comes out of her shell, slowly and nervously. This is a great movie to watch in the springtime, or any time for that matter. It's very underrated; I never heard about it until I found it in the video store, and what a find!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I discovered this late one night on Turner Classics. I kept saying to myself \"I'll turn it off as soon as it stops being funny\", but needless to say I watched the whole way through.

I am a movie junkie but I had never even HEARD of this movie (or if I did in 1971, I forgot). It's worth watching just for the performance of Goldie Hawn as the tart-tongued ing\u00e9nue. Her acting is a revelation in this movie. Yes, the script is sharp and excellent (when was the last time they made a Hollywood comedy with a smart script?) but her acting is extraordinary. I never realized how funny Goldie could be, and it makes her later appearances in roles such as Laugh-In and Private Benjamin a little sad. In her later career she is far too over-the-top compared to her minimalist, wickedly funny appearance here.

It's a pleasure watching the young Matthau, the great Bergman and the stellar supporting cast, but it's Goldie Hawn that will make this movie worth watching again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everyone told me to see \"Cactus Flower,\" and I finally did. What a wonderful movie -- the perfect pick-me-up for a Sunday night\/dreading Monday morning. Matthau and Hawn were good, but Ingrid Bergman really made this movie -- after all, it was really about her. The truly great actors can do anything, and Miss Bergman proves it. She shows us -- in the course of one film -- a range few people display in their entire career. The scene in the dance club was as hysterical as it was touching. Even as the film drew to its obvious conclusion, I found myself cheering for Miss Dickinson as if she were the Boston Red Sox. Thankfully, she made out (no pun intended) much better. ;)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw LAUREN BACALL do CACTUS FLOWER on Broadway, I never dreamed that one day I would see an actress like INGRID BERGMAN playing the Bacall role on screen. But here Ingrid really lets her hair down for some good comedy moments as the dental nurse pretending to be WALTER MATTHAU's wife so he can go on with the fib he's told GOLDIE HAWN.

It's a story played for laughs from beginning to end, good-humored stuff that never runs out of dry humor and wit throughout its running time. There are plenty of one-liners or gags that are way above the usual situation comedy stuff one hears on TV--the lines ring true because they blend so well with the characters and their motives.

As the daffy girl who contemplates (in the beginning) committing suicide over her unhappy affair with Matthau, GOLDIE HAWN (fresh from her days as a star on TV's \"Laugh In\") does a dumb blonde role to perfection. Easy to see why she won that Supporting Actress Oscar.

Ingrid is surprisingly fetching in a rare comedy role, although there are times when she seems just a bit too matronly for the part. At any rate, she's a surprising choice to play the nurse who puts on a freeze act at the office but is considerably warmer off duty.

As Goldie's next door neighbor, Igor, Rick Lenz acquits himself admirably, and makes a suitable match for her in that final scene.

Matthau plays the kind of character that became his stock in trade in all those Neil Simon roles he had--a lovable cad who gets caught up in his own messes when he tells lie after lie.

It's the kind of rib-tickling comedy that'll have you laughing out loud at some of the amusing lines that Abe Burrows and I.A.L. Diamond have managed to scrap together, based on a French farce.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been playing this movie incessantly this month, and I just love it. I was around in the 60s (oh dear), so it is nostalgic in one sense. However, it's the funny premise, the snappy dialogue and the great performances that keep me watching.

Dr. Winston's reactions to Stephanie at the end of the movie are priceless. (I'd be more specific, but don't want to spoil it for anyone.) Who other than Matthau can play a man not entirely on the up-and-up and yet have us still love him? As for Bergman's costumes, I think she looks as dowdy as she's supposed to. I think \"she was robbed\" the one time that she appears in an evening gown. It doesn't suit her at all, which is too bad. I never liked it when I first saw it on her and I still don't.

Goldie won an Oscar for her role. People thought it was a groundbreaking performance at the time, and yet it's the one performance that I don't love as much as the others. She does have the right amount of sweetness and likability, however, which is important for this role.

And I agree - I thought Rick Lenz was great in it and it's too bad that his movie career didn't take off after this.

I hope more people watch this movie ... they'll love it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"CACTUS FLOWER was a delightful 1969 comedy based on a Neil Simon play about a dentist (Walter Matthau) having an affair with a young free spirited woman (Goldie Hawn), totally unaware that his devoted nurse\/assistant(Ingrid Bergman)is in love with him. Matthau can play this kind of role in his sleep and he doesn't disappoint as the philandering dentist, Dr. Julian Winston, who is dating one woman but really has no clue that he's in love with another. Goldie Hawn won an Oscar for her sparkling performance as Toni Simmons, the aging flower child who slowly comes to realize she is trapped in a dead end affair and is not as dim as she appears on the surface. But the real pleasure for me in this film was the performance of the legendary Ingrid Bergman as Stephanie Dickinson, Dr. Winston's completely devoted assistant, who is willing to to bury and sacrifice her own happiness as long as Dr. Winston is happy with Tony. Bergman is luminous in this film, looking absolutely beautiful (though the camera has always loved her) and showing an unforeseen knack for light comedy. Yes, the dialogue and the settings are slightly dated, but the story is timeless and the performances by the stars make it imminently watchable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was very surprised to learn that Goldie Hawn won an Oscar for this film. She seemed very lifeless and completely schooled by the 54(!) year old Bergman in the scenes where they are side by side. If it had been written today, I think that Bergman and the young man Ivan would have wound up together (Ingrid is so much hotter than Goldie...) and the two self-absorbed characters played by Matthau and Hawn would be left out in the cold. But it was written at the end of 60's and feels like Plaza Suite or Barefoot in the Park. However, Matthau's one-liners, Hawn's innocence and Bergman's classy performance make this quite pleasant to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Far more sprightly, and less stage and set bound than Gene Saks' previous efforts Barefoot in the Park(67) and The Odd Couple (68), Cactus Flower is not a work of art, but compared to most of the tired farces from the 60's like The Apartment, How to Murder Your Wife, Goodbye Charlie, A Guide for the Marrried Man, Divorce, American Style, Any Wednesday, Kiss Me Stupid, Boys Night Out, it's a masterpiece. Director Saks and writer I.A.L. Diamond have effectively \"opened up\" Abe Burrows' Broadway hit, and the film benefits greatly from New York City location shooting and excellent performances from Ingrid Bergman and Goldie Hawn. Bergman is charming, looks great, and demonstrates a flair for comedy. Hawn in her Oscar winning role has never been better or more appealing. Matthau is OK though it's hard to believe that Hawn's character would be so enamored of him. And in retrospect, Hawn's attempted suicide at the start of the film is out of character and unbelievable. Nonetheless, the film has a plausible farcical set up, and once it gets going it generates laugh. Rick Lenz, Jack Weston, Eve Bruce, and Vito Scotti provide good support. The film is likable and fun, and Hawn and Bergman make you care.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am surprised by the relatively low rating this film has. It is a screwball comedy & romance film rolled together by someone besides Billy Wilder but it does a really good job & even won an Oscar.

It is Ingrid Bergman's first film in the US since the 1950's & even though she is no longer the young bombshell she was in her early films, she brings off a difficult role quite handsomely. This film proves she had multiple talents beyond her good looks.

Goldie Hawn who won an Oscar in this, her first film, as supporting actress is very good as the modern sophisticated yet quirky latest mistress to Dentist playboy, love them & leave them Walter Mathaw. Goldie is delightful to all the senses in this role which with a great cast set her up as a slam dunk for this early career award.

This film is not real deep, but is a gem that has stood the test of time very well. Not sure why it's average is so low as I give it a solid 8.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anyone who has ever doubted Ingrid Bergman's ability to play comedy need only look to \"The Bells of St. Mary's\". OK, so she's a nun with TB who's probably in love with Fr. O'Malley, (think what Luis Bunuel could have done with that), but she also displayed a wonderfully sly sense of fun that made you wish directors had cast her in comedies more often. In \"Cactus Flower\" she's a starched dentist's nurse, (Walter Matthau is the dentist), in love with her boss but keeping it buttoned up. When she's forced to act as his 'wife' in order to hoodwink his mistress, (don't ask), she lets loose and the buttons pop. And she's a joy to behold.

The movie itself is a hardier than usual translation to the screen of a Broadway hit, (you can see it's three acts). It's a French Farce, (it was originally; it's taken from the play 'Fleur de Cactas' by Pierre Barillet and Jean-Pierre Gredy), and it hits all the right spots. Matthau uses his great hang-jowl expression to wonderful effect and a klutzy blonde newcomer, as she was then, called Goldie Hawn almost steals the film as the dizzy mistress who decides to give up her meal ticket because she feels sorry for 'the wife' even though 'the wife' is having a ball. Hawn made such an impression in the role that what she did steal was the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Goldie Hawn's depiction of a simple young lady caught up in a love triangle with an older man, a dentist, played with such relish by Walter Matthau, that she won the best supporting actress Oscar for 1969.

The film, however, is another tribute to Ingrid Bergman. Rarely, did we ever see her in a comedy and she literally kicks up her heels here as a dedicated dental nurse who is thrust into a scheme for Matthau to tell Hawn that they're married.

It is such a joy to watch Matthau and Bergman fall for each other here. Theirs is an accidental love affair in the making.

As Matthau's friend, Jack Weston is fabulous as his partner in the scheme as well. Rick Lenz gives ample support as Hawn's newly-found boyfriend as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Goldie Hawn, in 1969, was best known for playing in television comedy shows - in particular ROWAN AND MARTIN'S LAUGH IN, where she was the giggly cookie young blond. She did make movies before CACTUS FLOWER, the most notable being a Walt Disney feature, THE ONE AND ONLY GENUINE, ORIGINAL FAMILY BAND. But CACTUS FLOWER picked up on her character from LAUGH-IN, and (due to a good script by I.A.L. Diamond - Billy Wilder's second partner - based on an Abe Burrows play) she was able to develop the television character so that a real performance was fleshed out. As a result Ms Hawn won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in 1969, and her career took off to such future hits as PRIVATE BENJAMIN and THE FIRST WIVES CLUB. Although other stars of LAUGH-IN did well on television (Henry Gibson has a recurring role as a judge on BOSTON LEGAL) only Goldie was able to have a career as a bonifide movie star.

On LAUGH-IN Goldie's personality would show a naivet\u00e9 that would be embarrassing. Occasionally she realized it, and would laugh loud to cover, but sometimes she just did not see her error (example: Goldie is introduced to the 1950s variety show host Gary Moore, and is told, \"Goldie, this is Mr. Gary Moore.\" She shakes his hand and says (much to his confusion), \"I've always wanted to meet Mr. John Gary Moore!\"). But as Toni Simmons it is quite different. She is desperately in love with Dr. Julian Winston (Walter Matthau), a successful dentist, who can never marry her. Julian has told her that his wife (with whom he has had two sons and a daughter) will never give him a divorce. So at the start of the film Toni tries to commit suicide by the gas of her stove. But she is rescued by her neighbor, Igor Sullivan (Rick Lenz), a struggling dramatist, who breaks into her apartment and turns off the gas.

Toni is resigned to live, but she has sent a suicide note to Julian. Igor tries to deliver a message to ignore the note but Julian's receptionist\/nurse\/assistant, Stephanie Dickinson (Ingrid Bergman) won't stop Julian's work schedule to pass him the phone when Igor calls. Instead Julian finds the letter and races to Toni's apartment, only to find her alive. When Igor supports her story that she tried to kill herself, Julian realizes the depth of her love, and decides he must marry such a woman. Unfortunately Toni has swallowed Julian's lies, and believes in his wife and children. You see, Julian has no wife and children. Since Toni is a firm believer that she can't marry a man who would lie to her Julian is stuck on a weakening tree branch.

Julian comes to solve it by getting Stephanie to pretend she is Mrs. Winston. Stephanie is opposed to it at first, but on her own, on her first free Saturday, she confronts Toni at the record shop Toni is at. They talk, and Toni notices all the fine strengths of character and personality of Stephanie (and since Stephanie has her two nephews with her, Toni thinks they are Julian's kids). Toni tells Julian they have to see who is the man that Stephanie is supposedly going to marry. So the lie starts spiraling for Julian, Stephanie, and Toni. Soon a lover is given to Stephanie in the form of Julian's friend and freeloading patient Harvey Greenfield (Jack Weston). Greenfield is so sleazy (Stephanie loathes him) that Toni feels that he is unworthy of Stephanie.

And so it goes, with one complication (most caused by the well-intentioned, misinformed Toni) following another until the conclusion. The script is full of first rate situations and one-liners (example: Julian to reward Stephanie for lying about their marriage, buys two record albums from Toni's store. He has given a mink stole to Toni, but she decides to send it to Stephanie with Julian's card. Stephanie is quite happy at getting the mink, but she does not say a word about the nature of the gift she got - when she profusely thanks Matthau, he says the thought she'd like Horowitz - meaning Vladomir Horowitz. But Stephanie thinks Horowitz is the name of the furrier!).

Bergman must have enjoyed the filming, as several scenes shows that earthy radiance that was a trademark for her in the later 1940s films. But there was also the resemblance to her 1958 film comedy smash hit, INDISCREET. There Cary Grant lied to make sure the pair would concentrate on the romance of their affair without having to think about marriage. When Grant's lie is revealed to Bergman she decides on a lie of her own to convince Grant that she was making him a cuckold. Here, instead of being the passive lover believing Matthau is telling the truth, Bergman gingerly tries to get Matthau out of his mess by little white lies, only to find one leads to another to complicate everyone's lives. Bergman is seen as a nice woman who becomes part of the problem, despite trying to be part of the solution.

All the leads perform well, in particular Bergman, all business thoroughness at first but gradually reclaiming her sexuality. Matthau is delightful as a man who finds a useful lie is an impediment that just can't be kicked aside. The supporting cast, especially Weston as the mooching and sexually slimy Harvey, and Vito Scotti as the U.N. ambassador who actually has the hots for Bergman. It was a clever comedy, and a really good way for Goldie Hawn's movie career to push forward.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well I would say that this is a very enjoyable and somewhat touching movie despite its flaws. I didn't believe for a minute that Matthau knew the first thing about being a dentist. Also, Hawn's character seemed to recover from suicidal depression rather quickly at the beginning of the movie. Not to mention the entire thing seemed rather ridiculous. However, the film does succeed due to a good pace, humor, and its stars. Matthau may not have been a dentist, but he was as amusing as he usually is. Bergman brought a great deal of sensitivity to the film (especially during the scene where her and Matthau go out for a drink after work) and also a good deal of humor. I believe it was her performance that made my brother take notice of this movie after overhearing a couple scenes. Hawn's performance is noteworthy, although an Oscar may have been over doing it a bit. Basically, don't take this movie too seriously and you will enjoy yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I knew next to nothing about this movie until I chanced to rent it. It was a very pleasant surprise. The cast is excellent including Matthau whom I do not normally care for. He makes a credible romantic lead. Hawn is a sweet kook and Bergman is touching as a woman coming out of her shell.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As much as I like Walter Matthau, I felt that the majority of his roles were tailored towards his personality. This role is one of the exceptions. He plays a dentist who is both charming and dishonest. This role does require much more acting than in most of his other roles. I liked the fact that the movie was honest about how a professional can be dishonest in order to avoid commitment in a relationship. His whole aim was to find a way to be in a relationship with a much younger woman, but not to be committed in any way. The alibi - using his secretary (Ingrid Bergman) to pretend to be his wife. At some point in the movie, the pretend Mr. and Mrs. actually are deluded into believing that they were actually really married. The ending was good, because a middle aged man found that pursuing someone in his own age group was more worthwhile. The movie was funny, entertaining, and didn't sell out by being preachy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What an absolutely charming movie. The cast is wonderful, and the story is witty and fun. An all around pleasant movie experience. Although the plot is somewhat predictable, it doesn't make the story any less enjoyable, in fact I didn't want it to end. I've always been a Ingrid Bergman fan, and I was interested to see her in a comedic role. She didn't let me down, Ingrid Bergman's performance as Ms Dickinson is fun to watch. I loved her interaction with Toni at the music store as well as her Dancing and doing \"the Dentist\". It only further proved what I already knew, that she is one of the greatest actresses of all time. Goldie Hawn is also delightful to watch. Her fun, gentle-hearted and lovable Toni is the driving force of the movie. You don't even question why she would be so concerned about her Finacee's wife, you just accept that she's just that type of person who wouldn't be happy unless she knew everyone else was also. And Walter Matthau is great as Julian. His actions never create a feeling animosity for the viewer, in fact they almost make him more enduring. There wasn't an unlikable character in the bunch. This movie has definitely with stood the test of time, I watched it just last night and I think it's one of the best romantic comedies I've ever seen. If you're looking for a fun, lighthearted, romantic comedy look no further.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Aside from the discotheque scenes that epitomize the swinging sixties (especially with everyone dancing to instrumental versions of Monkees hits), I am surprised how well this lightweight farce holds up 37 years later, but indeed it does thanks to the breezy execution of its deception-based plot and the sharp interplay of the three leads. Directed by the redoubtable stage-to-screen expert Gene Saks, this 1969 comedy is about Julian Winston, a successful Manhattan dentist and confirmed bachelor, who pretends to be married in order to avoid long-term commitment with his young girlfriend of a year, Toni. In response to Toni's half-hearted suicide attempt, Julian agrees to marry her, but Toni first insists on meeting his wife to alleviate her conscience. Enter Julian's devoted nurse Stephanie to play the wife, and the inevitable complications ensue with white lies growing into major whoppers that lead to presumed couplings and de-couplings.

As Julian, a relaxed Walter Matthau dexterously plays the deceptive dentist in his typically sardonic manner, but he lets his two female co-stars walk off with the picture. In her big screen debut, a pixyish 24-year old Goldie Hawn is still retaining her giggly \"Laugh-In\" persona but provides unexpected savvy and depth as Toni. She and Matthau have great, unforced chemistry in their scenes together. Screen legend Ingrid Bergman, still serenely regal at 54, is obviously having a ball playing Stephanie, initially starchy and quick-witted but blossoming into a liberated spirit as the story evolves. I particularly like how casual she appears after her overnight romp. There is nice supporting work from Rick Lenz as Toni's bohemian neighbor Igor and Jack Weston as Julian's smarmy actor buddy Harvey. Billy Wilder's longtime collaborator, I.A.L. Diamond, provides the sparkling screenplay and opens up the story beyond its stage-bound origins for Saks, who is not the most cinematic of directors. Other than a couple of trailers, there are no significant extras with the DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Swinging bachelor Matthau, a successful dentist, is stringing along his blond mistress Hawn, having told her that he's a married man with three kids. After she attempts suicide Matthau decides to get responsible and marry the girl. Worried that she's going to be a \"homebreaker\", bright eyed Hawn wants to meet his wife and explain everything to her. Matthau employs his faithful nurse Bergman to act his wife and that's when things really get complicated.

A farcical comedy with irresistible leads quite often hits the mark but isn't for one second believable. The script asks us to believe that us men are such one-dimensional turds that it's truly beyond belief. But maybe this comedy doesn't need to be analyzed too deeply, just sit back and enjoy the ever so funny Matthau, the ever so charming Bergman and d\u00e9butant Hawn, who here basically created the dumb-blond girl role.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another \"oldie but goody\" from about the same time as \"Out of Towners\" is \"Cactus Flower\", with a great cast: Goldie Hawn, in her first film appearance (pre-facelifts), Ingrid Bergmann in one of her later ones, and the ever-funny Walter Matthau. The story is about a dentist who pretends to be married in order to have an excuse for not marrying his girlfriend, leading to the need to come up with a fictitious wife for proof. He cajoles his spinster receptionist (Bergman) into taking the role, leading to multiple comic disasters and surprising romantic turns. It's in the same vein as the Doris Day\/Rock Hunter comedies. Fans of those - as I am - will like this movie; if not, don't bother.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was lucky enough recently to see Ingrid Bergman's name attached to a film I had never seen (or even heard of) on AMC. What a stroke of luck.

To marvel at her flawless and seamless performance isn't the only reason to stay up late and watch this movie. The writing is wonderfully comical and the performances are excellent.

Walter Mathau (not my favorite) was nearly perfect and Goldie Hawn (suprisingly) was fabulous. Tender at times, demanding, then just plain goofy. There are times in the film that even the most hardened film viewer will get caught up in the story and forget that it is a movie.

That Bergman can steal a dance scene among a crowd of 20 year-olds was amazing to watch. She is effortless in her return to the screen (at age 54?). The supporting cast was great and the lines... the lines are exquisite.

A top 5 romantic comedy of all time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Vadim changed Brigitte's image and way of life from that of the young society beauty he had married to that of a rebellious and challenging teenager of the 1950s\u0085

\"Une Parisienne\" succeeded in launching her ravishing figure as the teenage goddess, the casual sexuality, the provocative gaiety in confrontation with men\u0085

Charles Boyer \u0097 as Prince Charles \u0097 was the perfect, ideal choice of those magically romantic moments\u0085 His deep and vibrant voice spoke a promise of new adventures in love\u0085 His deep, wondering eyes bespoke a worldly knowledge untarnished by cynicism\u0085 He had the boudoir grace of Valentino without the hysteria or the sometime effeminacy of the great lover\u0085 Under Michel Boisrond's direction, Boyer was an old-style romantic without the grand manner\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to agree with all the previous commenter's--this is simply the best of all frothy comedies, with Bardot as sexy as Marilyn Monroe ever was, and definitely with a prettier face (maybe there's less mystique, but look how Marilyn paid for that.) I don't think I've ever seen such a succulent-looking female on screen, so perfect that even a gay man like me got excited by it--and not just for purely aesthetic reasons (if the idiot evangelicals really want to do their 'convert-a-queer' number, they are really going to need to up their standards, as no church mice need apply here...)Her breasts, the rest of her figure, her adorable voice, the hilarious way she shakes as she walks across a room...only to arrive in front of a man, breasts literally pointed as if in exquisite confrontation...

I think Boyer is one of the greatest leading men in all of film history. No one played opposite more great female stars than did he: Garbo, Dietrich, K. Hepburn, Colbert, and here Bardot, among many others. And he was also in 'Fanny' with Leslie Caron, and had small parts in 'How to Steal a Million' with A. Hepburn, as well as being in the Deneuve movie 'The April Fools' (although not opposite her.) The only thing I could disagree with in remarks is that even the loud, obnoxious music over the opening credits is appropriate--I mean, Bardot is not meant to be subtle on top of everything else, and her essential loudness (I don't mean her voice) is part of her irresistible and, one might even say, exemplary charm.

Vidal is thoroughly handsome, even if pouty Brigitte says toward the beginning 'I don't know why I am in love with you, you're not even handsome.'

Dear, dear Bardot! Truly one of the wonders of the 20th century, not to mention the joy that she is still with us, when so many of the truly characterful are passing away so fast, in all her eccentric glory.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most of the Brigitte Bardot movies I've seen have failed to take full advantage of her captivating screen presence. Unfortunately, she was given few really good roles in movies of undeniable quality, which was a real oversight. She deserved them and was able to demonstrate her full cinematic power when they came her way. As Genevieve in \"Love on a Pillow\" we had a clear exception to the trend of light, fluffy vehicles, for it was an interesting, artistic film by any reasonable measure, and in it, a 28-year-old BB was at her most alluring. \"Une Parisienne\" is another, featuring an extremely captivating Brigitte in an interesting, well-crafted comedy that explores how an ambitious lady's man can be convinced to remain faithful to an incredibly beautiful young wife. There are several good performances here. Her playboy husband, Michel, is one, \"the prince,\" played by Charles Boyer, is another, with entertaining efforts by a good supporting cast. As for Brigitte Bardot, the way she looks in this movie is the way I remember her as a kid in the fifties. She was 23 in 1957 and way ahead of her time, more beautiful than any other actress of the period, including Marilyn Monroe. Her curvy, coquettish sexuality, amply displayed in several bosom-baring, skintight dresses, simply jumps off the screen. She was more hip and cute than the women of America are today, nearly fifty years later. Obsessed with their careers and still desperately clinging to feminist politics, they come off like a bunch of clueless lesbians. In stark contrast, the sex kitten was sexually liberated, intelligent, and clearly independent long before it was fashionable, yet while fully understanding the power of her exceptional femininity, she used it for a higher purpose than mere self-interest -- she believed in love. A still photo simply could not do her justice. You had to watch her slender yet voluptuous form (with its 20-inch waist) lightly cross a room. You had to see that wild blonde mane, gaze into her big, brown, seductive eyes, and listen as her full, pouting lips spoke French. In a closeup at the end of this movie she winks and flirts with the camera, her beautiful orbs twinkling. What a babe! For fans of Brigitte Bardot, \"Une Parisienne\" is not to be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bridgette Bardot, looking as sexy as ever, plays a spoiled but innocent daughter of a French Ambassador. She cons one of her father's top aides (womanizer MICHEL) into marrying her and it turns out to be the best thing for both of them. Michel is soon flirting with his old girlfriends and in order to teach him a lesson, Bridgette flirts heavily with a married PRINCE CHARLES. Michel is surprised by his jealousy. A cat-and-mouse game ensues between Brigdette and Michel (\"I'll have an affair\"...\"No you won't\"...) And finally Michel realizes she just might and vows to give up all the other ladies in his life. Bridgette and Michel settle comfortably into their happily-ever-after while Prince Charles jets home to England.

It's an admittedly light piece but it's incredibly charming. While some may fault it as a product of it's time, I found that completely enjoyable. Worthy of a rental.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of all the 48 films of Brigitte Bardot, \"Une Parisienne\" is widely regarded as (one of) her best. What we see is special: for once the plot has a value of its own, does much more than only providing a cheap vehicle for BB's sex-charged appearance.

This film is your true & well worked-out light comedy, with a good and coherent story. Set in France's government circles in the late 1950's, it entertains from beginning to end. Providing many amusing twists & turns and some slapstick -- all acted out by at least three starring leads, including Bardot.

\"Une Parisienne\" (= French for \"female inhabitant of Paris\") focuses on telling a story, not on showing Brigitte Bardot. Brigitte serves the plot very well by using her talent for acting in light comedies.

When you settle on your couch on a Friday-night, tired and weary from a week's slaving away, just turn on \"Une Parisienne\". This film will make you feel better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A sparkling movie. BB is a marvel. She's sultry. She is a feminist. She is still very much in love.

The movie features Paris in the 50's. It is wonderful to look at the sites, the cars (DS!) and Orly.

A simple but very enjoyable romantic comedy. The music is horrendous. It almost dissonates. On the other hand it is hilarious. But it is probably the only thing amiss, at least looking at it with 21st century eyes.

The movie comments on the French manner of treating infidelity. It is that sense modern. A movie like un elephant se trompe enormenent did it in an 80's way. But the basic premise stays the the same.

Thanks to makers for providing BB with this opportunity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Words fail me whenever I want to describe my feelings about this movie (and the sequels)... Does it have flaws? Sure it does... Starting with the \"Subspecies\" themselves,which were not executed well enough for a special effect.So why do I glorify these movies??? For the herd of movie mass-consumers out there,who care more about quantity than quality,about cheap fun more than about depth, crap like \"blade\" (it doesn't even deserve a capital letter),\"underworld\",\"Dracula 2000\",\"dracula 3000\" and so on are good movies to munch popcorn to and drink a couple of cokes... What makes Subspecies a superior effort for anyone claiming to be a Vampire fanatic,on the other hand,is obvious: The Vampire Himself is Romanian,the story is set in Transylvania (the scenes filmed on location are more than convincing),and the atmosphere is not based on any \"action-packed\" chases or expensive orchestral music.Radu Himself is the source of the atmosphere... This is what a Vampire should look like and this is how He should behave! Add a breathtakingly gloomy castle with dark passageways situated in Romania,include some typical Vampiric elements ( such as the movement of the shadows on the walls when the Vampires take to flight) and you have a work of art! In short,if ,like me,you 're fascinated with Vampires and feel that their appearance as well as the setting should be sinister and dark,there's no better place to look in than in a Subspecies movie... Or in Vampire Journals,the brilliant spin off of the former...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best and moodiest Vampire Tales ever! I love this movie really. The character are great, even the locations and the story. Indeed the Picture isn't a big budget production, but it is absolutely worth seeing.

OK there are some faults (especially the Names of the Castle and the Locations) in this movie, but such mistakes are typically and are almost in every Horror Movie.

The scenery fits perfect to the story and is close to reality,I can say that honest, because I visit them once when I was in Romania in my Vacations.

In my opinion this is the Best Part of the Subspecies Series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my all time favorite cheap, corny, vampire B movies.

Calvin Klein underwear model...oh, I mean, Stefan the Good Vampire, returns to Transylvania to ascend the throne of Vampiric Royalty, but Manicure-impaired and eternally drooling half brother Radu has other plans. Having killed their father the Vampire King, Radu now sets his sights on Stefan, Stefan's new mortal girlfriend Michelle and her two pretty friends, and the all-powerful Bloodstone.

Okay, the scenery is beautiful, and it should be as it was shot on location in Transyl-fricken-vania for gosh sakes. The actresses are no great shakes and Stefan the Heroic Vampire is about as charming as a refrigerated fireplace poker, but who cares? There's only one reason to watch this movie, and his name is RADU! He's a physical homage to Nosferatu and he has the best lines in the movie, all spoken in the raspy voice of a man who smokes ten packs of cigarettes a day. The cemetery festival scene is one of the best scenes in the film, as Radu slowly approaches the camera and reveals his grinning, slobbering face for the world to see. I found myself cheering him on as he collected victims and taunted his perfect brother. But maybe I'm just a sicko. Questionable taste in men aside, I highly recommend this film to vampire enthusiasts. It's original, it's fun, and Radu is one of the best vampires I've seen in a long time...much more fun than the stiff, tragic, whining Undead brats that endlessly grace the horror screens these days. Radu enjoys his sadism and never apologizes. He's what a vampire should be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a perfect example of a Classic Full Moon Pictures movie. Any fan of Horror\/Vampire Flicks should definitely check this one out. Original Plot and good, easy to follow Story. Also, this movie has some heart-racing scenes that combine Horror with action. As of now, the only sequel I have seen to this movie is Part IV, which I have to say is almost better than this original.

I give it 10 \/ 10

Fans of Horror Movies like this should Check out Puppet Master, Slumber Party Massacre, Skinned Alive, Sleep Away Camp, and other Full Moon Pictures flicks. For other recommendations, check out the other comments I have sent in by clicking on my name above this comment section.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Subspecies,\" like many other horror films, gets a raw deal on IMDb. The majority of movie-watchers have a hearty contempt for horror, and when they occasionally rent horror films, they either want to laugh at them or cringe at excessively gory scenes. Unfortunately, \"Subspecies\" is not particularly laughable, and not that bloody, so it gets a low rating. That's too bad.

Of course, there's plenty to criticize here. The non-actors are flat, the subspecies are a poor special effect, and the nighttime scenes are too brightly lit. But what do you expect? For a straight-to-video horror film, \"Subspecies\" boasts decent production values and more integrity than you might anticipate. The film's Romanian setting is virtually unique (I believe it was the first American movie made in that country, post-Communism), and the locations, both interior and exterior, are beautiful. The script has moments of intelligence, especially when it delves into local folklore (all bogus, I'm sure). Somehow, the location filming and smartish script work well together - \"Subspecies\" has its own very distinctive world. To risk damning with faint praise...it could be a lot dumber.

Fans of the more gruesome aspects of horror will no doubt get a kick out of the blood-drooling vampire villain, Radu. He's pretty effective in this movie - powerful, with a memorable raspy voice - but I like him better in the sequels, when actor Anders Hove gives a more self-parodying, campy performance. A totally sincere Radu is somewhat silly. Other silly aspects include gratuitous nudity and the subspecies themselves, who are clearly only in the movie because producer Charles Band has a fetish for evil little creatures (see also Puppetmaster and Demonic Toys).

But I linger too much on the movie's flaws. For what it is - straight-to-video vampire horror - \"Subspecies\" is perfectly fine. The sequels boast better production values, more violence, and somewhat more thoughtful story lines, so I recommend them even more highly. Still, this isn't a bad start for the series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this on Sky TV late one night, as I am a Vampire fan. I must admit I half expected it to be a B-Movie disaster but I was pleasantly wrong.

Subspecies is about a family of Vampires. When a Vampire Lord dies, his two sons, the handsome and Noble Stefan, and his brother, the Evil, hideous Radu start a war with each other over their birth right, the Bloodstone. The bloodstone is a holy grail of sorts for Vampires and it bleeds the blood of saints, which give the vampire who drinks it an ultimate High.

The fight for the Bloodstone takes an unexpected turn when 3 College Students turn up in the Brothers' territory on a school trip and Stefan has to protect them from his brothers Lusts.

Like, I said, I went into this film not expecting much at all but it was one of the best low budget movies I have ever seen. The sets and locations (Romania I think, been a while since I've seen it) are very nice and the music score did the film justice.

Most of the acting was adequate, but its Anders Hove as the evil radu that steals the movie (and all the subsequent Sequels). Hove's performance as the twisted Vamp is truly breathtaking and bumps the film simply from okay, to pretty d@mn good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen a number of horror movies to know that this one was one of kind. Full Moon Pictures has a knack of giving this fan an entertaining night. For all the cheesiness of most vampire films, This Is the ONE that has not only a good premise but has two good sequels. A Must See.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was ten years old when I saw Subspecies, I instantly had the hots for Michael Watson and Laura Tate, they really do have some great on-screen chemistry in the earlier parts of the movie. I ordered a copy back in 1993 from Full Moon and I learned this: Ion and Rosa, the servants, have much bigger roles in the screenplay along with the King. What most people don't know is that there was an alternate sequence that was supposed to occur in the ending scene: Michelle and Stefan get cornered into a room and Michelle has the idea for Stefan to make her a vampire to help fight off Radu and her demonic controlled ex-friends. However, for some reason or another that scenario never made it on camera. Another scene in the script, that can be confirmed from the original trailer shows Stefan drinking blood from a wolf, or actually in the trailer you see him coming up with blood on his chin.

This movie gets a 9 because it's one from my childhood and I have fond memories attached to the characters; even though my favorite characters were Stefan and Michelle I think Anders Hove's Radu is pure feeling-evocative acting, so much feeling in his work there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once again, I am amazed that Thomas Gibson did not come to the head of the pack earlier in his career. In this film, Gibson once again demonstrates his ability to grasp a character regardless of sexuality, social status or nationality. Gibson plays a very convincing gay male of the late 20th Century. Tender yet not effeminate, afraid of the basic tenets of love, Gibson's character touches a variety of emotions. Also worthy of praise is Cameron Bancroft's performance. His need to be the heterosexual conqueror as opposed to his best friend's \"homosexual conquests\" provides dynamics for the relationship that are in many ways unexpected. Bancroft and Gibson's chemistry is apparent from the first scene they appear in together. There are many \"panels\" in this quilt. From gay relationships to straight relationships; from heterosexual relationships to the exploration of lesbian love; this film travels across the broad spectrum of sexuality while having the story of a serial killer at its core. My only regret is that it took 6 years since its release before I discovered this movie! I look forward to seeing it again and highly recommend it to any fan of Bancroft, Gibson or Director Denys Arcand.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Extremely good cinematic story of gay, embittered former teen star, now waiting tables. The sexual ambiguities are explored here realistically, and with an actual human face. This, and throw in a serial killer on the loose, and you have LOVE AND THE HUMAN REMAINS. A well portrayed drama, a strange sense of humor and a mystery. The screenplay is fluid and believable. The performances are well above average, and the twists in the story are sharp.

This certainly isn't everyone's ideal notion of a movie, but for those who appreciate something different and slickly written, it's very much worthy of your time. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I bought this film from my local blockbuster for 99p an it's been sitting in my video bookcase for at least a year now. Then tonight I decided to see it, the film was quite different to what I had expected and I didn't find any humour in it all I saw was that it was a bleak look at people dealing with love relationships and sexual orientation and I didn't really see the psycho killer plot really having a point except to add tension to the end of the film. I felt that the person playing the lesbian woman did a great job. I was following her emotions and what happened around her. Some people would probably have seen some of the stuff that she does as funny but I could really put myself in her place, loving someone but them rejecting you at every turn no matter how hard you try. I thought it was a very moving film and dealt with all the different sexualities well. I was expecting something like Bound & Gagged : A love story, but this is a very different film. Not for bigots.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first watched this movie in Istanbul Film Festival back in 1994. It was so good I took couple of friends with me and went to see it again the same week. The characters are very well played and the humor here and there is amazing. It sure is a very powerful gay movie. Some scenes make you feel you're watching an episode of Friends with much more sophisticated lines. I guess I'll put it in my VCR and watch it again tonight...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is, as many reviews have observed, a strong dark streak to this movie. The director it most recalls to me is John Landis (yeah, go ahead and howl about what a peasant I am). Arcand has the gift of exploring frivolous things in a bleak, gray kind of way, then turning round and exploring the horrors of life with a lighthearted touch.

The cast is, without exception, above average. Thomas Gibson, as David, is outstanding as the moody and self-deceptive center around whom the rest of the characters revolve. He talks a good nihilist, but his actions reflect more love in his character than he is willing to acknowledge. Gibson was already a strong and subtle actor in 1993. It was difficult to look at him and see Greg Montgomery, let alone Agent Hotchner of Criminal Minds.

Perhaps not the best scene, but the one I enjoy most, my \"rewind scene,\" is the section where Candy is expecting a visitor, and one uninvited person after another shows up at the door. As Candy's interpersonal environment swings further and further out of control, David just grows bouncier, perkier, and more enthusiastic, like a gaunt Gen-X \"Tigger.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watched this flick on Saturday afternoon cable. Man, did it drag. I got the metaphors, symbolism, and all that stuff. No, I didn't care one way or another about the sexuality of the characters. But, the pacing of the story and the scripting almost put me to sleep.

That is..... until Ruth Marshall got naked. If you're a breast-man who is not homo-phobic, you may want to rent it. Ruth has a lesbian sex scene that's pretty hot, and then a hetero sex scene that is a notch higher than most standard movie fare. Her jiggly D-cups made the film worth the watch.

--The Mighty Avatar","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the film that started that the cinematic love affair

between the Jaundiced Eye crew and Matthew Ferguson. His

ability to portray RELATIVELY normal characters like Birkoff in

\"La Femme Nikita\" is counter-balanced by his equally deft

handling of weirdos like \"Kane.\" One wishes that he would only

be given more roles, bigger roles, and other, even more complex

roles to assay to push the limits of his abilities. There were

four or five memorable scenes in this film, and Matthew Ferguson

stole two of them from far more experienced actors. This film

itself is good, and it is worth watching on its own merits, but

Ferguson makes it a little extra special. His *ouevre* may

eventually show what the career of Anthony Perkins MIGHT have

been like if he hadn't been typecast as \"Norman Bates\" so long

ago. \"Kane\" isn't quite as whacked-out as Norman, and far fewer

people saw \"Love and Human Remains than saw \"Psycho,\" so we can

hope that Ferguson will show us some hint of what Perkins MIGHT

have been able to accomplish, had he been allowed to do so. . . .","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this a very enjoyable light hearted comedy set in Wales with some truly funny sequences highlighting the rivalry between two funeral directors. The showbiz ideas used by Christopher Walken's character to liven up his funerals are genuinely laugh out loud moments.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very lovely love story between Brenda Blethyn and Alfred Molina. The whole story is very bizarre and funny. An undertaker (A. Molina) loves a married woman (B.Blethyn). They try to fake her death to escape her husband and the village. A scenario of strange situations starts. As good as SAVING GRACE and LONG LIVE NED DEVINE.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once again seeing this kind of movies turns me more and more into English humor, not too often seen on screen since the days of Monty Python and Man About The House. Too bad.

Brenda Blethyn (Who I first saw in Saving Grace early in the year, another must see by the way.) just excels, as Alfred Molina does. The rest of the cast, while virtually unknown to me, turns on great performances too. The film starts slowly and gradually gains in pace and amusement - midway I had tears in my eyes from laughing.

All in all, a funny English movie, a thousand times better than the supposedly 'funny' garbage that comes from Hollywood.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is one of the funniest I have seen in years. A movie which deals with death and funerals without being depressing, or irreverant. Christopher Walken provides much of the comedy in this charming romance and I could hardly breathe for laughing so hard.

I saw the movie a preview, and when it was over, the audience not only applauded, but cheered. I am telling all my friends to watch for it's arrival in the USA. I definitely plan on seeing it again in the theater and purchasing it on DVD as soon as it's available.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this in a preview and it seems to have not been released in the U.S. Nonetheless, it was one of the more enjoyable little comedies. It concerns the rivalry between two funeral directors in a small British town. The plot [of the movie] gets a little out of hand in the third act but the characters are very enjoyable and memorable.

The acting is great across the board. Sure to be overlooked in the crunch of blockbusters, this is a movie worth looking out for. I know I will try to catch this in the theaters again and\/or buy the video.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hilarious from start to finish, there's got to be great courage to handle the theme of death with a smile, specially when two funeral parlors are battling for control of the market: a classic parlor and a revolutionary one where every funeral is a show, lead by Christopher Walken, a treat in the role of the visionary american mortitian. But the rest of the cast is great also, and this one is another success that only UK is capable of making. Surprising among the ensemble cast is Naomi Watts, that strikes in another metamorphosis (accent included). Always sporting a smile on its face, it seems like a paradox that there could be so much comedy to be taken from a movie that could be called \"Four Funerals and One Wedding\", but you'll understand when you see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two funeral directors in a Welsh village? English humour as opposed to that other stuff from over the Atlantic? How could I resist. My wife and I saw it on March the 6th for our belated Valentines day celebration and both of us enjoyed some good belly laughs. We were going to see another movie later but decided not to because we wanted the experience of THIS movie to stay with us for the evening.

The mortuary scene in the last 20 minutes of the film is worth the wait. It raises issues rarely talked about in the community, but I know three funeral directors, and the humour is right on the money

Highly recommended and congratulations to the writers. Without you all the actors, directors and the others havn't a job on any Monday.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A humorous voyage into the normally somber funeral business. It's easy watching, and even offers Blethyn & Molina stealing a scene from an old Fred & Ginger movie. Walken is over the top as a zealous competitor of Molina in the undertaking business, trying to bring a new style to an old Welsh town. We see a couple of very funny examples of the \"new style\". The plot thickens with Pugh having an affair with Watts, and her suggesting that they do Blethyn in. Meanwhile Molina has rekindled his long suffering romantic feeling for Blethyn, and convinces her to fake her death so that they can run away to the South Seas, and dance away their days together. During the \"fake\" funeral Blethyn learns of her husbands' infidelities and plots her revenge. Watch it for a view of what funerals probably should be--a celebration of life!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I accidentally bumped into this film on Cinemax while channel surfing. I must admit that what attracted me was Christopher Walken. And the setting was the kind I would like, so I started to watch it. At first I expected a serious drama film, and it seemed like so for a while... until I started to giggle here and there, and before I know it I was laughing so hard all through the film. I really like how subtle and light-hearted it is, but still has a huge impact on the audience. The plot is very simple, and it's far from trying too hard to be funny like many Hollywood \"comedies\" are, yet it almost had me rolling on the floor. A must see for a nice evening rest, or any time in that case.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this movie deserves a 10 out of 10 because it is hilariously funny from start to finish. The plot is simple and straight forward but it keeps you watching and there are so many laughs that you really start to love it. When I went to see this movie I hadn't heard much about it and I didn't know what to expect. I thought it was going to be an old ladies' type of film like Calendar Girls or something but it took me completely by surprise. Even though I am still a teenager and the film was probably not directed at my age group, I still found it excellent and I think that people of all age groups would like it. I think it is a shame that it is not at all famous and it deserves more publicity so that more people will go and see it and realize what a great movie it is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wales seems to be turning out some quirky movies recently. Actually, Wales seems to be developing its own little film industry. I recently saw Very Annie Mary, which I thought was very good. But Plots with a View is not only quirky, it's laugh out loud funny, has a cast of wonderfully talented actors (Brenda Blethyn is amazing), and a plot that, while not entirely original, is so cleverly written that one is always gleefully picking up what might almost be throwaway lines. It was the kind of movie that I wanted to watch again immediately it was over, and one of very few that I would actually like to own. Even though many of the characters are caricatures, and you have to have been to a Welsh village to appreciate that, they are also very human, and the rapport between Blethyn and Molina is a joy to behold.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film had a distinct Woody Allen feel about it, so if you're not a fan of dry humor, dark humor, or back-handed humor, you probably could find something else to do. If you ARE, however, this is quirky, with some nice twists and a flowing, natural dialog.

The story itself is quite engaging, not quite like a train wreck from which you cannot disengage your eyes, but close. I mean that in the best way possible. The intrigues are plenty, the twists are enough to fully engage the senses, and the characters are downright lovable.

I had a great time with this movie.

It rates an 8.3\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Betty and Boris eye each other at a junior dance when they're still kids, but unfortunately Hugh gets to her first and thirty years later when we tune back in--Betty is married to Hugh and putting up with his fussy mother, who also lives with them.

Neither Boris, nor Betty, however, have forgotten each other and when their paths cross again, they soon declare their feelings.

But Betty feels she can't divorce Hugh, a Councilman, it would hurt him too much. What Betty doesn't know is, Hugh isn't hurting at all. He's rolling in the sheets with his beautiful secretary Meredith.

Boris, an undertaker, thinks he has the answer. They'll fake her death.

Christopher Walken plays Frank Featherbed, an outrageous, competing undertaker in their medium-sized town--that causes additional problems for Boris and Betty.

All kinds of complications arise as Boris and Betty try to pull off this major coup.

There are laugh out-loud scenes, some delightful dancing, and nary a curse word to be heard. In short, the film was a pleasure to watch.

10 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's been a long time since such an original, quite funny, black comedy has surfaced. If \"Eating Raoul\" is on your top 100 list, do yourself a favor and find \"Undertaking Betty\" immediately. The subject of death being funny has been attempted before (see Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov in \"Mortuary Academy\"). While that movie has some brilliant moments of black comedy, \"Undertaking Betty\" is much more steady, with a better cast. Who could imagine that the undertaking business might be fertile ground for an original, uplifting, and heartfelt comedy? I was surprised and you will be too. I highly recommend seeing \"Undertaking Betty\" - MERK","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Viewed this the other night on cable on-demand and thought, \"this is the type of movie that might have starred Alec Guiness and Glynis Johns if it had been made in the late 50's\". A farce in the English tradition. Alfred Molina and Brenda Blethyn are very sweet and sincere in their portrayals. Naomi Watts simply sizzles in a ditzy Jayne Mansfield-ish (if she could have acted) way. Rest of the cast have some great turns and bits. The Welsh landscape is delightful. An absurd premise, indeed and not at all believable, but that doesn't get in the way of enjoyment. Not a GREAT movie, mind you, but a truly fun watch. And Walken is at his wacky best. A joy to behold!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Plots With A View\" of 2002 is a delightful little comedy like only the British could do it. The film's sense of humor is both mildly morbid and black and yet very lovable and sometimes very slapstick-ish. It's the only film by director Nick Hurran I've seen so far, and while I am not intending to watch any of his other films at the moment (I'm not a big fan of romantic comedies), this one is highly enjoyable and very funny. The film takes place in a little town in Wales, where Betty Rhys-Jones (Brenda Blethyn) is married to the town's drunken and adulterous major (Robert Pugh). The local mortician Boris (Alfred Molina) has been desperately in love with Betty since their childhood, but has always been too shy to confess his love to her. Apart from being desperately in love, Boris has some other problems, as the eccentric American mortician Frank Featherbed (Christopher Walken) has opened a funeral flourishing business in the same town... The film's odd, very British wit should amuse everybody with a sense of humor, and the story sometimes becomes quite bizarre. Also, \"Plots With A View\" profits from a wonderful cast. Brenda Bethlyn, who has already proved herself to be a funny lady in 2000's \"Saving Grace\", plays the lead, and she is once again very funny, and very lovable in her role. Alfred Molina, who plays her shy admirer, delivers a great performance as always, and Robert Pugh fits perfectly in the role of Betty's sleazy husband. Beautiful Naomi Watts is also great as the husband's 'secretary', I'm becoming a bigger fan with every film I see her in. The greatest role, however, is played by the incomparable Christopher Walken (one of my favorite actors). Walken is brilliant as he always is in the role of the eccentric Mortician who arranges funerals that are quite unorthodox. Overall, \"Plots With A View\" is a vastly entertaining little British Comedy that I highly recommend!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching \"Plots with a View\" (called \"Undertaking Betty\" in the US), I got the feeling that there need to be more movies filmed in Wales. This one portrays a woman (Brenda Blethyn) in a small Welsh town trying to get away from her cheating husband. So, she and the funeral parlor manager (Alfred Molina) come up with a plan...but there are likely to be some glitches along the way.

I would actually say that Christopher Walken's character is the neatest in the movie (how could he not be?). But overall, the whole idea is just a really neat one, stacked with some \"uh oh\" moments...especially the haunted house scene. It's the sort of movie that I wish that I could enter, just to experience it.

Also starring Lee Evans, Naomi Watts and Miriam Margoyles.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Only the Brits could make a film like this and have it be so tastefully charming! Betty (Brenda Blethyn) wants something more out of life, but she doesn't know what, when she realizes she is in love with her childhood friend, Boris (Alfred Molina), who owns the local funeral parlor. Meanwhile, an American mortician (Christopher Walken) who \"wants to put the 'fun' back in funerals\" moves into this small Welsh community with his assistant (Lee Evans) and wants to give Boris a run for his money with flashy, themed funerals. (Star Trek funeral, anyone?) Brenda and Boris decide to stage Brenda's death and funeral, with hilarious results. A very enjoyable film - if you're a fan of British comedies such as \"Waking Ned Devine\", you'll love this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have always loved Brenda Blethyn and \"Undertaking Betty\" was no disappointment. I saw it on Satellite on dreary Sunday morning. Life has been stressful and this movie made me laugh and see things we usually consider dire in a mirthful way. I wish she would make more movies like this and \"Saving Grace.\" Brenda Blethyn is a great gal for us approaching 60 to see in action. She is cute, beautiful and full of life without appearing plastic and phony. Not many actresses are out there for us to relate to in a realistic, yet comical and\/or serious way. Brenda - if you see this - keep going with gems like this. We need more Mrs. Bennetts, Bettys and Graces.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been wanting to see this movie for a very long time. I eventually just bought it on E-Bay since it's so hard to find state-side. But the wait was...somewhat worth it.

I can't say the movie was great. And I can't say that the movie was hilarious. But it was good and it has some pretty funny points. That aside the shots in this movie are just beautiful. And the entire cast, especially Brenda Blethyn (someone I hadn't seen before, sadly), were excellent.

In the end this is a feel good romantic comedy and I recommend checking it out, unless you've just had a death in the family.

If anything, the final chapter is highly worth the money. >.<","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this film on a Sunday evening and I must say there is no better way to end the weekend. I am totally pleased with the humor and the warm charm this film offers. It simply leaves me in beautiful mood. Watching this film means having a great time and keep a warm feeling.

The film offers sharp black British humor and feels very fresh to me. You really enjoy the story and the characters. Brenda Blethyn is SO great. I don't know exactly why. She's too old to be a love interest for me and too young to be my mother. But I really feel comfortable when she shows up in the movie.

Some may say the story was thin and predictable. But who cares? There simply has to be a happy end, dancing in the sunshine! Are the characters stereotypes or cut outs? I don't know- better I don't care! I just loved them and enjoyed watching them.

Furthermore, I must say that I usually don't like romantic comedies. But this one is outstanding: a black comedy with a heart of gold !!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, my Dad drove Lee Evans back and forth the hotels so i got to see some being made. Its a brilliant film! Bob Pugh walked past a shed with a lawnmower and he accidentally let go and it went into a fence and he fell over.

Lee Evans was also funny as he seen me and said are you cold I said Yes and he said Well whack your hands in your pockets! I think it was really funny and it will be a well-known comedy. As like every other Lee Evans film! They were really great people. they seemed to be quite polite and funny. I would like to meet them again one day. Brenda Blethyn walked out of her caravan with blood down her and twigs in her messy hair and i got really scared as i didn't notice her until she was right behind me","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"EIGHTEEN as written and directed by Richard Bell may have a few too many stories to tell simultaneously for a 102 minute movie to completely succeed, but there is such a fine sense of commitment on the part of all the cast and crew that the viewer ends up wanting the movie to work - and so it does. Yes, aspects could have been finessed if the producers had more money to spend on the final cut, but as a small independent movie from Canada this is a tender, gently humorous, very touching tale about vulnerability and communication and commitment. It works on many levels.

In a very well choreographed opening we are voyeurs at a family dinner where obviously something has gone awry and results in a father and two sons taking off in a car and having an accident in which one of the sons is killed. With an introduction like that the mood is set for the surviving 18-year old Pip son (Paul Anthony - looking far too old for credibility as a teenager) to desert his family and live on the streets. He meets Clark (Clarence Sponagle) a male prostitute who gives Pip food and shelter, Jenny (the very fine Carly Pope) who saves him from a bashing by her associate Derek (Ryan McDonell) and becomes romantically entangled with Pip, and Father Chris (Alan Cumming) in a finely wrought sympathetic role as a priest. It is Pip's 18th birthday and his father (Serge Houde) traces Pip down to give him a present from his deceased grandfather with instructions the gift should be opened on Pip's 18th birthday.

Pip, though drinking too much and full of anger, pawns the tape machine but keeps the tape and begins to listen to the words of his grandfather Jason (voice by Ian McKellen) who recounts his own 18th birthday in WW II in France where he (now the very sensitive actor Brendan Fletcher) has an experience with a wounded medic named Macauley (Mark Hildreth, also superb) and reflects on his one night marriage with a cabaret singer Hannah (Thea Gill of 'Queer as Folk' fame and a fine singer and actress here), only for something to live for during the war: Jason offers succor to Macauley as he dies, with a beautiful scene of redemption for he two men at the end. The parallels of Pip and grandfather Jason interplay every time Pip listens to the tape and lead Pip to ultimately alter his view of life and love. Subplots include Clark's isolated existence as a hustler being altered by Jeff (David Beazely - in a surprisingly fine film debut) who simply wants to be loved; by an unexpected pregnancy between Jenny and Pip; by the trust Father Chris instills in both Pip and Clark in a good shepherd's manner: and by a flashback to the car accident where Pip could have saved his brother Daniel (Paul Dzenkiw) from an abusive act at the hands of his father, just before the accident, but failed to do so, opening his deep guilt and resultant misplaced anger, mirrored by his grandfather's taped experiences. Each of these subplots pulls together at the end, creating a sense of closure for each of the people involved.

There are aspects of this film that make it seem like a big budget production: the musical score by Bramwell Tovey is performed by the Vancouver Symphony members, the cinematography by Kevin Van Niekerk is aptly atmospheric, and the general quality of acting by this Canadian cast is very fine. Though Paul Anthony handles his role well, casting a very young teenager in the pivotal main role would have made the story work much better, and Richard Bell, with only one other film 'Two Brothers' on his resume, gives promise of a young talent to watch. Despite the shortcomings, EIGHTEEN is a worthwhile film and deserves attention. Grady Harp","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Eighteen\" (2004) tells the story of Pip Anders, a depressed and extremely cynical young man who is estranged from his dysfunctional upper\/middle class family and living on the streets of Vancouver. On his 18th birthday, he receives a cassette tape and player from his recently-deceased grandfather, relating his memoirs of his own 18th birthday, spent serving with the British army in France, trying to help a mortally-wounded comrade avoid capture by the occupying Germans. As Pip listens to the tape (Ian McKellen provided the voice of his grandfather), we see the scenes he is describing as flashbacks, alternating with daily scenes of Pip's life, as well as more recent flashbacks filling in the dark secret why Pip left home and finds it impossible to trust anyone who is nice to him.

An ambitious second film from writer\/director Richard Bell (\"Two Brothers\"), with a polished look, excellent photography, well-developed non-stereotypical characters (with gay and straight treated equally), and commendable efforts in emotionally and physically-demanding roles from some talented new actors (especially Paul Anthony as Pip and Brendan Fletcher as his grandfather at 18). There is also a noteworthy turn by Alan Cummings as a priest who tried to help Pip, and a small supporting role played by Thea Gill (\"Queer As Folk\"). The complex story - in the director's own words in his DVD commentary - is meant to drive a \"vortex of emotion\" pushing Pip to his breaking point, and it certainly accomplishes that. My only criticisms are that the overall effect is too \"schmaltzy\" or artificial for an audience to truly identify with, much of the supporting dialog (and the ending) too contrived and predictable, and the direction needed to be sharper to curtail sloppy overacting in some scenes. I do recommend it, 7 stars out of 10, including extra points for a noteworthy effort.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was incredible! Looked high budget but felt heartfelt and original like an Indie. The most amazing part of this film were the astonishing performances by David Beazely, Mark Hildreth and Paul Anthony who plays the main role. He carried this film with ease, humor and charisma balanced with a huge depth.

The cinematography was really beautiful even though some of the subject was quite ugly. It wasn't very realistic in that way but it didn't have to be to make a larger point. It was really great seeing Alan Cumming in this too. The script was tight and propelled very nicely with some of the best acting I've seen in a while.

Go see this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I rented this movie with very low expectations, but was pleasantly surprised. This movie is extremely good stuff. And one would never guess it was low budget.

EIGHTEEN, directed by 'Richard Bell' centers around an 18 year old named Pip, played by the superb 'Paul Anthony' who leaves his home because of the circumstances surrounding the way his older brother died. He is overcome with guilt by this event and falls into a hard life of a runaway teen on drugs and alcohol. On his 18th birthday, his father tracks Pip down and gives him a tape left for him by his grandfather, of which he was to listen to on his 18th birthday.

The way the whole film is told is with two simultaneous stories unfolding at the same time. The present life of Pip and the past life of his grandfather during WW11 of which Pip listens to on the tape.

The three outstanding performances in this movie are the ones from 'Paul Anthony' as Pip and 'Brenden Fletcher' playing Jason, the young 18 year WW11 soldier, his grandfather. Also, the role of the WW11 wounded medic 'Macauley' played by 'Mark Hildreth.' All putting in fine performances.

A couple of concerns and scenes that didn't sit too well with me...the priest, Father Chris played by 'Alan Cumming' who is gay and in broad daylight pick's up the local street hustler the whole neighborhood knows about. And then we have the local store clerk named Jeff, a sweetheart played by the attractive 'David Beaszely' who just wants to be loved, and for some unknown reason is attracted to the very unattractive and sleaze ball street hustler, Clerk, who sleeps with just about anyone and in all likelihood is a walking toxic time bomb. On top of all that he's not a very likable person. This part just didn't ring true.

The parts I really like the most was the flashbacks to the War. They were so well acted and very touching. There is a scene at the end where the one soldier is dying and the other soldier, 'Jason' is there for him to comfort and show him love as he lays badly injured and dying. This is such a wonderful and touching scene it left me in tears. Beautifully acted.

I highly recommend this movie. It is one of love, redemption and the power of the human spirit to survive.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I read a viciously hidden remarks on a previous comments stating that this film showed a bunch of gay guys romping around their gayness.

This couldn't be more misleading. \"Eighteen\" is not a gay film. It has only three gay characters in it and one of them is the victim of prejudice of people like the one who wrote the comments, despite his confession of fairness.

Pip's grandfather was not gay. The tender scene of the soldier and his sergeant is male bonding at the crucial moment of death. But some people gets appalled by a kiss and welcome scene of guts flying out of a man killed by a bomb.

The focus of the film is the straight relationship of Pip and that sweet girl and their facing their social obligation and parenthood.

Ralph Rewes www.r1313.info","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a 55-year-old fairly jaded gay white man. Since I don't watch TV, I watch at least 250 films a year, most on DVD. I keep notes on all the films I see and rate them. Since December 2003, I have seen only five films as great as EIGHTEEN. So, I've rated EIGHTEEN better than at least 700 other recent films. Mr. Bell is far too modest in his film commentary. EIGHTEEN is a Great Film. And, it also resulted in two \"firsts\" for me.

I watched the film, the first time, and I was riveted throughout and weepy during the last half hour, something that's only happened to me three times before. (Five minutes into the film I knew it was going to be very good.) When Jason began reciting Whitman, I lost it, and then... The Kiss. Well, that is one of Film's great kisses, and that scene among Filmdom's most poignant and unforgettable. When Pip blows out the candle at the end and the credits rolled, I clapped. I cheered. I love happy endings. I wept.

Then I watched the trailer and the TLA previews and thought, \"Okay, is this $800,000 or so Indie really that Great?\" So, I immediately watched EIGHTEEN again, something that's only happened three times before. And, EIGHTEEN blew my socks off yet again, even more so. Then I watched \"The Making of EIGHTEEN\" documentary and was completely charmed by the cast and Mr. Bell.

So, I thought I'd watch EIGHTEEN again with the Director's Commentary. I have never before watched a film three times in one night. After the third time, at 3:00 AM, I knew I had just experienced a Great Film; EIGHTEEN now ranks #10 on my Top Twenty Films of all time. And, in the very small universe of great gay or gay-subtext film, there is Brokeback Mountain, EIGHTEEN, Mulholland Drive, and Maurice.

Thank you Mr. Bell! EIGHTEEN is brilliant and fully-realized, with a magnificent cast, a wonderfully moving, understated score, excellent cinematography, an entertaining, touching, totally appropriate and hummable song. I can go on, but I won't gush too much more.

This film should have received Oscar nominations, certainly one for Best Picture. The performances, without exception, were all wonderful. Ms. Gill's lovely, sultry voice was a surprising epiphany. And Sir Ian McKellen? 'Nuf said. Awesome.

EIGHTEEN is the reason I slog through over 200 mediocre to utterly horrendous films (some in the $150 million plus range) a year, to find that one treasure, that one exquisite, magical, unique and enchanting, perfect \"Faberge egg\" enfolding an unforgettable heart.

Finally (I promise), my second \"first\" -- I've never before posted a commentary on any film I've seen.

Thank you again, Mr. Richard Bell! Breathtaking genius. Give this man $100 million for his next film! He made $700,000 US into one of the top 50 films of all time. If I had the cash, I'd grant him $75,000 a year living expenses and match any funds raised for his next film. Mr. Bell is already a great director at 31-years old. Can you imagine him at 45-years old?

Wise and witty, tender and brutal, poised, poignant, understated yet edgy, chilling and thrilling, mesmerizing, haunting, unforgettable: EIGHTEEN, THE MASTERPIECE.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was clearly an early attempt for a new director, but still succeeded in being original and entertaining as well as in some moments thought-provoking. However, I have to say the story would not have come across as well without the stellar performance of Paul Anthony as Pip. He made the well written parts very believable and affecting, and the more weakly written parts much more bearable. Also, I have to mention the performance by Alan Cumming. It was refreshing to see him in a part like this. He brought a weight to his role that provided a very grounding element to the film. As for Paul Anthony: Who is this guy? Why haven't I seen more of him? Someone give him more roles, please!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent film, full of complexity, themes and great dialogue. The characters are well drawn, with Phil the biggest loser of all time.

Adam Haddrick's character is the most vicious thing I've seen on screen since Alec Guinness's portrayal of Adolf Hitler in 'Hitler: The Last Ten Days.'

I just wish they'd all got away with it. But without giving too much away, there are some situations you just cannot lie your way out of.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not many people have seen this film, and it is a shame because it is a work of art. The characters are brilliant, the dialogue is sensational and the use of themes leaves the audience wondering. I truly loved this film and can't wait to see more of Matthew George's work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK so some of the plot points might be a bit obvious but over all an interesting idea which works towards a tight ending. The acting is solid particularly Lachy Hulme who plays one of the central characters in this ensemble piece. He certainly has a screen presence and he is interesting to watch. It has a low budget feel which works for the sort of thriller\/horror genre Four Jacks belongs to. The film doesn't try to take itself to seriously which adds to the overall charm. The character of Phil(Dave Serrafin) has to be one of the most annoying character seen on screen since Rupert Pupkin\/ King of Comedy. Worth adding to a weekend pile of DVDs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My friend made me sit down and watch this film. This is out there material. \"God the Devil, Heaven Hell... and a restaurant thrown in for good measure.

Four guys and a prick. Who dies? When and how?is That's the story. You'll never guess the ending for this one. A skillfully realized little gem of Aussie cinema. Hats of to the team that made this one.

10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This truly is an Australia cult classic. If you're one of the lucky ones to have seen it-- then you are very lucky. It has been released in most countries, but not in Australia for some reason. I have a copy on DVD from the UK. Not a great transfer, but I bought it, having seen it previously at a film festival. The directing is spot on and the performances rock! This is dark film scary film, but often times, very funny in parts. I urge you to see this film, there is a coolness about this you don't see in 99% of the typical Aussie fare. The screenplay is very well crafted and sends you on a journey where you know it will end badly, but until the last ten minutes, you just can't pick how badly. Great work from the four leads, especially Lachy Hulme.

When its all said and done: Great work on display!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I will admit that this movie was awful, cheesy, sexist, badly dubbed, and poorly edited, but I loved it anyway. I first saw this movie when I was 14, and it has stuck with me ever since. FYI, this is very close to hard-core porn as I remember. It certainly got my juices flowing. This flick gives a whole new meaning to swedish erotica. It is a humourous take on human sexuality as seen by hot randy female aliens who are, I think, just looking for some spermatozoa for their dying race.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't be fooled: this isn't yet another tired example of the Girls From Outer Space Pretending To Be The French Ski Team Come To Earth To Collect As Much Sperm As Possible genre, though the synopsis may suggest otherwise. This movie is a gem, an absolute jewel that has enriched my life from the moment I laid eyes upon it. Hilarious, exhilarating, action-packed, and stunningly erotic, \"Ach jodel mir noch einen\" is a Euro-Madcap Tour-De-Force, a grossly underrated Bavarian classic.

Stop everything you are doing and run out to rent, or better yet, BUY this movie immediately.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you are looking for an erotic masterpiece this isn't it. If you're looking for a comedic masterpiece this isn't it. If you're looking for something hardcore this isn't it.

That being said if you are looking for an example of the fine art of European erotic comedy from the the early - mid 1970's this is it.

I see many people complain about the quality please understand it was made in 1974. Yes the women do not conform to the modern ideal of attractiveness. They are by no means ugly women but they do not have the same looks which are idealized in our silicone culture. Yes the dubbing is not great but they are speaking German and anyone who speaks any German will realize it is pretty hard to dub over a word with 12 syllables.

If you have seen the DVD prior to the latest release it is marketed with 2 covers of 80's and recently 90's adult stars. The film is an R film so those complaining about hardcore should have realized this, the film is edited from the original BUT it was also edited prior to its run in the drive-ins in the late 1970s.

I first saw this film as a young man and judging by some comments there are many in the same boat who caught a glimpse on Cinemax. Many people become upset when later in life it doesn't live up to their previous memories. It's understandable considering the raunch and nudity packed into todays erotica.

If you compare 2069 to a modern soft-core erotic comedy you may be disappointed. The film while outlandish is actually quite fluid and the jokes while generally innuendos and double meanings still hold up and can still garner a chuckle. If you compare it to a hardcore movie you will be further disappointed, compared to today you see very little.

It is still one of the best examples along with Bottoms Up and The Other Cinderella of European Erotic\/Comedic Cinema of the 1970's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why do I give this 1974 porn movie 7 points? Because I watched it. And I found it hilarious! Aliens, their weird spaceship, their weird helmets... my God, was that a sight. And all what these desperate alien women need is semen from the earth.

And where do they look for it? In upper Bavaria, Germany. And that is where the main fun comes from: In Europe (and more so in German-speaking countries), Bavaria is seen as a traditional and backward region. And then the actors are so helpless with the alien women. Well, there have been films about people being unable to deal with women like the \"American Pie\" series.

But what this film achieved is a true, funny weirdness. You constantly wonder how they came up with these crackpot ideas. But it was 1974, and looking back 35 years fills one with a kind of nostalgia. You've never seen a film like that.

And if you don't mind seeing the casual pubic hairs and breasts, watch it once. It is a comedy essentially, not a porn flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"And a hard spot somewhere else. I haven't seen this movie since i was quite young, maybe 12 or 13, who knows. But what i do know is this is the movie that taught me how to masturbate. I kid you not. I have no idea if it is any good by any real standards of today, but for me, back then, it was everything.

The only reason i feel comfortable writing this is because i'm sure no one will ever get around to reading it. I mean, really, who is going to look up this movie these days?

I just discovered that i have not yet used up the ten line minimum for the amount of length i most take up in a review. i had no idea there was such a minimum length, but there i go, like a student trying to fill up a page in a journal, my ten lines. thank you very much.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is more to this movie than meets the eye. If you're looking for groundbreaking originality or easy comedy, you'll be disappointed. But for an entertaining 90 minutes, this is just fine.

The cinematography is careful and precise. The sex scenes, which one comment decries as gratuitous, are anything but - every gesture contributes to the development of the characters.

Yes, some of the main characters are not exactly lovable human beings. But the movie makes an honest effort at showing their interactions in an honest light, without being sensationalistic (at least not for early 21st century urban standards). And there are many very amusing moments.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alien Warrior (or King of The Streets) is one of those 80s gems you stumble across by mistake, then watch awestruck, marveling at how wonderfully silly and over the top it gets.

A rather hunky alien arrives on earth (LA to be exact) and stumbles into a world of drug dealers, gangs, and corrupt cops. He falls in love with the flaxen haired, beautiful teacher who only wants to help inner-city kids read more. He also manages to anger a coke-snorting drug kingpin who vows to destroy him.

I fell in love with this film at first viewing... sure it's hokey, silly and low-budget. But you can tell the filmmakers had their heart in the right place, and damn if the thing doesn't work! I only pray it'll be on DVD soon.

It's got a hot soundtrack, break-dancing, violence, nudity.... all with a positive, wholesome message! See it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First off, the alien saves a little black boy as well as a Mexican, despite what the IMDb plot summary suggests. This film is the fulfillment of the purest of male fantsies, interracial rape. The main character in this film is a George Michaelesque dope, who doesn't understand primal human urges like drug abuse and murder. In fact, every time he uses violence to solve a problem he has an internal conflict that physically hinders him. What a square. In any case, my favorite scene is when he writes the gang members a letter stating if they want the 500 bucks they get from the Reading Center for protection they must meet with him. At the meeting he is surrounded by countless Chicano gangsters, but he keeps a cool head. In slow motion, he punches the wooden post of a stop sign that shatters upon contact. Then, still in slow motion, points at the leader of the gang and says, \"Noooooooooooooooooooo, mooooooooooooore!\" The gang members comply. Cool, right? The beauty of this film shows through in these simple solutions to social problems like prostitution and gang violence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"MONKEY is surely one of the best shows to have ever been shown on TV. I remember when I was a kid, I'd go to my grandma's house every Saturday morning and I'd turn on the TV so I could watch MONKEY. I loved it. It had kickass action scenes, cool special effects, a great story, a fantastic theme song that was guaranteed to never leave your head and hilarious dubbing. But it is kind of weird that it's set in China and the actors are Japanese and filmed in Japan, but that is no stop towards making this TV show lovable.

MONKEY is about the adventures of three people: Pigsy (Toshiyuki Nishida), Sandy (Shir\u00f4 Kishibe) and of course, the unforgettable and most lovable character, Monkey (Masaaki Sakai) who travel from China to India to get a bunch of holy scrolls in order to save the world.

MONKEY is great fun and it's magic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In fact, the nature of the whole series is irrepressibly funny! But not always funny... there are moments of extreme poignance as the deeper aspects of human emotion are touched on.

Over and again, the series comments on the frailties of human nature and the life long, or in this case eternal, struggle to overcome them. Monkey is both smart and stupid at the same time, his arrogance and reliance on his own martial skills lead him into trouble in almost every episode. Pigsy is just plain gross. Sandy has a philosophical turn of mind. He has many of the wittiest lines.

The English translation is a delight. \"Ignorance can always be improved upon,\" drawls Sandy in his laid-back manner, \"but you can't do anything to help stupidity!\" \"Who are you?\" the group of travellers are asked. \"We three kings of Orient are,\" says Monkey.

This is not just for children, it is a magical romp for anyone who can suspend reality","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Easily one of the best shows ever made, & it just gets better with age.

For me , one of the chief reasons for this was the English adaptation done by David Weir.

A Japanese friend of mine once told me that the show in it's original language was more whimsical & less flat-out hilarious that the version we all know.

The fact that the show resonates so strongly for its non-Japanese fans is , I think, largely because of Mr Weir's inspired efforts & some winning voice-over work.

Well done, sir!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like so many other reviewers on here, my memories of this show are universally warm. In fact, so fond are said cherished memories, that I recently purchased the DVD box set in order to revisit that happy and carefree period of childhood, whereby I used to sit utterly mesmerised, as I watched the ongoing quest of Monkey, Pigsy, Sandy, Tripitaka and later Yu Lung a horse\/dragon\/man (you'll really need to watch it to understand), when the much loved show initially aired on BBC 2 on Friday evenings, as I recall.

Well, I'm pleased to say that even after all these years and now viewing this with adult i.e. more cynical(!) eyes, the show has lost none of its inimitable charm.

Simply wonderful entertainment, from the magical characters and their comical interactions with one another to the perhaps not so special effects (which actually serve to heighten the fun) and of course, not forgetting the hugely memorable opening title sequence from the first season, the passing of time has not in any way, shape or form diminished any of Monkey's spellbinding charm.

As Monkey himself would probably say, 'Oi! You there! Go out and grab yourself some nostalgic fun.'","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Since the last horrid Ast\u00e9rix film and the fact that we only get the Swiss German version in cinemas, here, I went to watch it with quite a bit of trepidation... Unfounded, as I was happy to discover ^____^

The film is funny and modern, has good gags, a good animation, an amusing character interaction, a good voice cast (Note: I can only speak for the Swiss German one!) except for the Viking chief's daughter Abba (her name is great, despite the not very inspired voice actress)...

I especially liked the character Justforkix (Goudurix in French, Grautvornix in German. He's the young man who is supposed to be put in shape...). He's a very amusing portrayal of a mollycoddled, urban teenager; but he's very likable, despite the teenage mannerisms... XD The interaction between Ast\u00e9rix & Ob\u00e9lix and their young charge is fantastic and thoroughly entertaining.

It shouldn't be compared to the old films, since this one is quite different... Which surprisingly doesn't make it bad. On the contrary. When they tried to modernize the last film (twelve years ago), they completely blew it. This film, however, proved that it can be done just fine... ^-^

I came out of the theater cheerful... Always a good sign ^_~","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Attending this film was an excuse to escape the work I had to do for my classes but it turned out to be one of my best experiences here in France. The film makes quick work of building multidimensional characters and has an excellently smooth storyline. The characters really did have the voices you would expect reading the graphic novels and the artistic talent exceeded my expectations The music was catchy and the comedy toying and lighthearted, almost a flinstoneish inclusion of modern items in playful manners. The film was attention grabbing, cute and action packed at the same time. A wonderful tale spun expertly. I'll be showing it to my French students.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"... but I laughed. A lot.

I saw 'Ast\u00e9rix et les Vikings' at a public screening during the World Cup. The sound was lousy, it was too bright to see the screen properly - but I still enjoyed myself immensely. The names of some of the characters had me rolling on the floor: Smsix, Abba, Vikea... All not very witty, but in good Ast\u00e9rix tradition. Some very good jokes, but also some that not everybody seemed to get.

The only thing I didn't like were the voices of Ast\u00e9rix and Ob\u00e9lix, in the German version at least. The voice actors are very well-known around here, which was the only reason they were casted, really. They don't fit the characters at all.

All in all, a good way to spend some time (and if it's free, like in my case, all the better) and to have a couple of laughs. 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"wow! it's even better than I expected! the best animated Ast\u00e9rix movie ever! and it feels so good to hear Roger Carel doing the voice of Ast\u00e9rix again! I surely recommend it to everyone who likes the comic books of Ast\u00e9rix! but I suggest that you go to see the french version, cause it surely is the best and you hear the original cast! did you know that Roger Carel has played Ast\u00e9rix for nearly forty years? i think he did a marvelous job! and the song from C\u00e9line Dion at the end fits rally good to the end credits! the music is good, the drawings are good, the actors are wonderful... in a word: a masterpiece! go to see it! you will not regret this!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having been a faithful Asterix fan all of my life, I have to say that \"Asterix and the Vikings\" is probably the most well done of all the Asterix films. Its got some very funny jokes in it and the animation is superb. As many people have pointed out, it doesn't really follow the plot of the comic (\"Asterix and the Normans\") very closely, but in many ways that's just as well, because that book stands out in my mind as one which poked a great deal of fun at the culture of the sixties, and much of it is very dated today.

What really rubbed me the wrong way, though, is how they incorporated a Disney-style plot into the film which took much of the focus away from Asterix and Obelix. We have a misunderstood boy who doesn't fit in, Justforkix. We have a tom-boy girl who doesn't fit in because she wants to be treated as equal to men, Abba. They meet and fall in love, but their love is threatened because boy is ashamed to be totally honest with girl, but in the end their love wins out. This has been the plot of so many Disney (and, be fair, other studios too) films that its not funny and the plot was old twenty years ago. I mean, they even gave Justforkix a whimsical animal sidekick.

Not only did I find this derivative and clich\u00e9d, but it really detracted from the story and left me dissatisfied.

I think that it speaks volumes about how superb the rest of the movie was that I still think very highly of it, despite the way the plot got hijacked.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After another raid in an empty village, the chief of the Vikings Timandahaf misunderstands the explanation of his adviser Cryptograf that \"fear gives wings to the dwellers\" and believes that fear actually makes the villagers fly. They decide to chase the champion of fear in Gaul to learn how to fly and make them invincible warriors. Meanwhile, the nephew of Vitalstatistix, Justforkix, is sent from Parisium to the Gaulish village to become a man and Asterix and Obelix are assigned to train the youngster. The stupid son of Cryptograf, Olaf, listens to a conversation of the coward Justforkix with Asterix and Obelix and kidnaps him. While returning to the Viking village, Justforkix meets Abba, the daughter of Timandahaf, and they fall in love for each other. But the Machiavellian and ambitious Cryptograf plan to marry his son Olaf with Abba and become powerful. In the end, Asterix realizes that it is not fear that gives wings, it is love.

When I was a teenager, Asterix was my favorite comic book and I read all the Goscinny and Uderzo stories. This feature film shows all the original elements and humor of the comics in a delicious and wonderful animation. The romance of Justforkix and the gorgeous Abba is delightful and the situations Asterix and Obelix get involved are hilarious. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): \"Ast\u00e9rix e os Vikings\" (\"Ast\u00e9rix and the Vikings\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was a huge fan of Asterix comics when I was a kid and watched every one. I never heard about this movie when it was released but I watched it with my kids last night. I remembered the comic well enough to know that a lot was added to the story for the film. Some of the changes I thought were a bit corny (like the nephew's 'modern' dancing, and the viking chief's daughter - almost everything about her), but I found most it amusing enough. Most importantly, seeing the reactions as my kids watched it, confirmed that the film pleased its target audience. As a family film it works better than other Asterix titles I've seen. Many of the names that weren't in the book I found had the same appeal as ones that were. Overall, an enjoyable family film, regardless of whether you're an asterix fan or not.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Asterix and the Vikings is the first animated asterix movie in over 12 years since the 1994 \"Asterix conquers America\". It also has the honor of being the first digitally colored asterix animation, which makes the largely entertaining story a lot more breathtaking to behold.

Every scene of this movie is vividly rendered in bright cheerful hues adhering closely to the color schemes of the comic books it was based on. The character designs also stick relatively close to the comic, for better or for worse, preserving the simple but unique look of the characters. Being simple in terms of character design, this allows for more time and effort to be spent on the actual animation, which by the way surpasses many other big screen theatrical animated movies. Character movements are very fluid and possess a quality that looks way beyond what a modest budget would usually produce; there is always something moving in every scene and no evidence of the usual cost cutting animation short cuts. 3D computer images are incorporated seamlessly with the traditionally animated 2D art. If anything, the style of shading makes the 3D elements look more like traditional comic book paintings than CGI models.

The storyline takes much of its elements from the \"Asterix and the Normans\" comic, and this is where its main flaw lies. As an adaptation of said comic, \"Asterix and the Vikings\" takes way too many liberties with its source material. Long time fans of the comic would no doubt find much to dislike about the movie's story and its lack of adherence to the source.

On the other hand, one can see this story as a really fun one if taken on its own without comparing it its source material. Highly comedic, well written jokes pepper the upbeat script. The funniest parts were the numerous pop culture references and jibes at modern day 21 century life. Mobile communications, the shopping channel, commercial airlines and even sports cars are spoofed to great effect. Excellent chemistry and acting by the cast (I watched this in English by the way) though a couple of voices like Cacofonix I found really irritating (but I guess it is all part of his character).

If there is anything to criticize about the story, it is the lack of \"asterix\". This story seems to be more like Justforkix's story of teenage romance and \"coming of age\" with Asterix and Obelix merely playing supporting roles. This gives a pretty big sense of staleness since much of the story's elements are the usual staples of such teen movies. Derivative and clich\u00e9d at times, only the witty comedy and traditional \"Astrix\" elements (the Romans, the pirates etc) manage to save this film from falling into plain mediocrity.

While not the best installment in the Asterix animated movie library, it is certainly one of the funniest, the best scripted and the most beautifully animated. DVD seems a little hard to come by though\u0085\u0085\u0085\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't pretend to be a huge Asterix fan, having only seen one other movie adaption and read only two of the comics, but this was a superb movie, all the same. I only saw the English version, and found the voices to go perfectly with the characters - Brad Garret as Obelix and Sean Astin as Justforkix especially. The story itself was both interesting and truly funny (especially the contradicting name endings - all the viking names end in \"af\", while all the Gaulish names, of course, end in \"ix\"), with a little romance thrown in that (I though) enhanced the story, even though it weighed down the overall production with unnecessary clich\u00e9s.

The plot is this - the Viking chief, Timandahaf, is sick and tired of going to raid villages and then finding them emptied. So, he consults his \"wise man\", Cryptograf, whose entire repertoire consists of old proverbs, and Cryptograf tells him that \"fear lends the villagers wings\". Taking this literally, Timandahaf believes that fear actually allows people to fly, and sets out on an expedition to retrieve the \"Champion of Fear\", an expedition that, of course, leads him to the Gaulish village where Asterix and Obelix live.

The pair are currently very frustrated - Chief Vitalstatistix's cowardly, pacifist nephew, Justforkix, has been entrusted to them so they can train him to be a man, and the boy is making little to no progress. When Justforkix unwittingly confesses to being \"afraid of everything\" in the presence of the brainless viking Olaf, he is believed to be the \"Champion of Fear\", and is kidnapped. Asterix and Obelix are sent by Vitalstatistix to go rescue Justforkix before his father returns to the village to bring his son back home.

Ultimately, this is a great movie with few flaws besides the clich\u00e9s and, at times, defective dialogs. I thoroughly enjoyed it, despite the fact that it wasn't true to the comic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a shame that Asterix and his buddy Obelix do not get the world wide recognition that other cartoon comic characters get.

This is another funny Asterix cartoon jammed with entertainment. The animation is excellent and the voice Characterization good, even if the synchronization is a little out. The music and score fit well within the story and the slotting in of some modern musical numbers is a nice touch.

The running time seems short and while it's not the best Asterix story or the most developed cartoon, it's good clean fun. The modern (Disney like) animation will capture children, Asterix fans and new comers... Enjoy the Gaul adventure!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As much as I hate to disagree with the original poster, I found Asterix and the Vikings quite good, and a HUGE step above previous attempts at animating everyone's favorite Gaul.

For someone not familiar with the famous comic series, the show would be hard to follow, but for those of us in the know, it's a pleasure to watch.

First and foremost, the animation is far superior to earlier comic adaptations. You can tell they took the time and effort to really recapture the look and feel of the comics this time around.

As mentioned, there are elements of other Asterix titles in the movie and I can see how fans of those titles might feel confused or a bit let down, but I was so caught up in actually seeing one of my favorite childhood comics faithfully represented on the screen, any qualms I had were minor by comparison. Minor spoilers follow...

Asterix and his faithful friend Obelix travel north to rescue the nephew of their village chief, who has been captured by the Vikings. The Vikings think that by the boy teaching them about fear, they will be able to fly, thanks to some poorly worded advice from their village druid. In the process, the boy meets the Viking Chief's daughter Abba and they fall in love, etc etc etc... If my explanation sounds convoluted, don't worry.. The plot is easy to follow! Definitely a great buy.. You can purchase this DVD through Amazon France, but be warned.. Your DVD player probably won't be able to play it. I had to change the region setting on my computer to view it..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those who have enjoyed the Asterix books and films, you'll LOVE this film! Yes, I will admit that it does mix some of the books and films, but the characters are brilliant and it's not just people showing off their CGI left, right and centre. I've already seen it several times and laughed my socks off at it.

Of course it contains the main heroes Asterix (Ast\u00e9rix), Obelix (Ob\u00e9lix) and Dogmatix (Id\u00e9fix), but this time they have someone new to... deal with.

With a sense of humour like that, the Gauls will go on and on and on. Bless 'em.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Owen loves his Mamma...only he'd love her better six feet under in this dark, laugh-out-loud comedy that both stars and is directed by Danny DeVito, with admirable assists from Billy Crystal and Anne Ramsey in the title role.

\"Throw Momma From The Train\" is a terrific comedy, even if it isn't a great film. It's too shallow in parts, and the ending feels less organic than tacked on. But it's a gut-splitting ride most of the way, with Crystal and DeVito employing great screen chemistry while working their own separate comic takes on the essence of being a struggling writer (DeVito is avid but untalented; Crystal is blocked and bitter).

Crystal's Professor Donner believes his ex-wife stole his book (the unfortunately titled \"Hot Fire\") and can't write more than the opening line of his next book, which doesn't come easy. He teaches a creative writing class of budding mediocrities, including a middle-aged woman who writes Tom Clancy-type fiction but doesn't know what that thing is the submarine captain speaks through; and an upholstery salesman who wants to write the story of his life. Mr. Pinsky is probably the funniest character for laughs-per-minutes-on-screen, an ascot-wearing weirdo who sees literature as an excuse to write his opus: \"100 Girls I'd Like To Pork.\"

Then there's DeVito's Owen Lift, who calls himself Professor Donner's \"star pupil\" even though the teacher won't read his work in class. Owen is a somewhat unusual character to star in a movie, a man-child in his late 30s who lives with his overbearing mother, Anne Ramsey, who calls him \"lardass\" and other endearing sentiments. In any other movie, we'd be asked to feel sorry for Owen, but \"Throw Momma From The Train\" piles life's cruelties onto this sad sack for laughs and expects us to go along. That's one big reason why this film probably loses a lot of people.

For those of us who enjoy the humor of this character, even identifying with him, and take the rest of what we see here as a lark, it's not as big a stretch to go along with the bigger gambit this comedy takes, asking us to watch in amusement while Owen enlists Professor Donner's help in a plan to kill his mother. Actually, he first goes to Hawaii to kill Donner's hated ex, then tells the professor it's his turn to kill Mrs. Lift, \"swapping murders\" as seen in Hitchcock's \"Strangers On A Train.\"

As a director, DeVito not only complements his actors' performances with scene-setting that places the accent on dialogue, he makes some bold visual statements, throwing in bits of amusing unreality to keep the audience on its toes (and away from taking things too seriously.)

Also helping matters is writer Stu Silver, who keeps the laughs coming with his quotable patter. \"You got rats the size of Oldsmobiles here.\" \"She's not a woman...She's the Terminator.\" \"One little murder and I'm Jack the Ripper.\" Those are all Crystal's words, but some of the funniest lines, which work only in context but absolutely kill, are DeVito's and Ramsey's. Apparently Silver never wrote another screenplay after this, according to the IMDb, and that's a shame, because he had real talent for it.

The best scene in this movie, when Crystal meets Ramsey, was actually used in its entirety as a theatrical 'coming attraction' presentation, the only time I've seen a movie promoted that way. Owen introduces the professor to his mother as 'Cousin Patty,' and when Momma says he doesn't have a Cousin Patty, panicky Owen loses it. 'You lied to me,' he yells out, slamming the professor's forehead with a pan.

Of course, in reality the professor wouldn't groan out something witty from the floor, but 'Throw Momma From The Train' works effectively at such moments, when playing its Looney Tunes vibe for all its worth. DeVito hasn't disappeared from films, of course, but it's a mystery why he hasn't really followed up on the directorial promise of this movie. Maybe it's because, as 'Throw Momma From The Train's lack of mainstream success shows, his kind of vision isn't to everyone's tastes. That's too bad for those of us who can watch this over and over, and like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Billy Crystal is Larry, a writer who hasn't written and is suspected of murder in \"Throw Momma from the Train,\" costarring Danny Devito and Anne Ramsey. The phrase \"black comedy\" was invented for this insanity, which is a take-off on Hitchcock's \"Strangers on a Train.\" In fact, Owen (Devito) gets the idea of having Larry kill his mother in exchange for Owen killing Larry's ex from watching that famous film. \"I saw the movie. Criss-cross,\" Owen tells Larry. Not that Larry knows what he's talking about until it appears it's too late - just like \"Strangers.\" Larry, a writing teacher, claims that his ex-wife, played by Kate Mulgrew, stole his book and put her name on it. She has become a big celebrity, appearing on \"Oprah,\" where she refers to Larry as \"a beast.\" Owen is in Larry's class. He lives with an abusive Neanderthal mother (Ramsey) and has visions of poisoning her, sticking a scissors in her head - you name it. It's not long after seeing \"Strangers on a Train\" that he's in Honolulu, stalking Larry's wife. While she's leaning over a boat railing trying to get an earring, Owen stands behind her and creeps up...Soon the police are looking for Larry to question him, but he's at Owen's where he's being encouraged to live up to his end of a bargain he had no idea he made. You know, \"criss-cross.\" There are several scenes copied from \"Strangers,\" which are hilarious. I especially loved Larry's confession to the sleeping Mrs. Lift, Owen's mother, similar to when Guy thinks he's talking to Bruno's stepfather.

Crystal and DeVito are complete masters of comic dialogue and timing and will leave you laughing, often out loud. Ramsey is repulsively funny - a totally \"out there\" performance. Kim Griest and Rob Reiner also have roles - Griest is Crystal's girlfriend, and Reiner has what amounts to a cameo.

The ending is very clever, and the whole film will leave you laughing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The college teacher Larry Donner (Billy Cristal) is a blocked writer since his former wife Margareth (Kate Mulgrew) ruined him, stealing his novel that became a best-seller. He does not hide his hatred for Margareth, upsetting his girlfriend Beth Ryan (Kim Greist), who is an anthropologist teacher in the same college. While giving classes of Creative Writing, he is stalked by the student Owen (Danny DeVito) that wants to know his opinion about his crime tale. Larry tells that he did not like it, and explains that in every mystery tale, the murderer should eliminate the motive and establish an alibi, otherwise he would get caught. Further, Larry suggests Owen to watch Hitchcock's movies to understand the structure of a suspenseful story. Owen, who wants to kill his detestable mother (Anne Ramsey), watches \"Strangers on a Train\" and misunderstands Larry's advice, believing that his teacher wants to swap murders to eliminate the motive. Owen travels to Hawaii and while in a ship, Margareth falls overboard vanishing in the sea and is considered dead. However, Larry does not have an alibi and becomes the prime suspect, while the deranged Owen presses him to kill his mother as part of their supposed deal.

\"Throw Momma from the Train\" is one of the funniest comedies of the 80's and a great tribute to Alfred Hitchcock. The direct reference is \"Strangers on a Train\", but there are jokes with \"Vertigo\" (with the spinning camera), \"Family Plot\" (with the car without breaks) and other movies. The lines are excellent and there is an interesting point when Larry tells that every great romance or mystery has a train. Anne Ramsey is amazing in the role of a nasty and abusive dominating mother and the viewer will certainly feel sorrow and understand the insanity of Owen. Kim Greist is very beautiful and Kate Mulgrew is the perfect bitch. Billy Cristal performs an obsessed character with many silly and unreasonable attitudes but necessary to the plot. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"Jogue a Mam\u00e3e do Trem\" (\"Throw Momma from the Train\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Larry Donner (Billy Crystal) has a crazy life: His wife (Kate Mulgrew) stole his book and left him, he has a new budding romance with a girl named Beth (Kim Greist), he doesn't know how to start his book, and his students of his screen writing class are stranger than most. However, one student (Danny DeVito) is extra strange. He lives with his evil Momma (Anne Ramsey) and he can't get up the courage to kill her. So than he goes to Larry for help, making his life go from normal crazy, to extra crazy!

Stu Silver should have done more! The dialog, the characters, the whole script is near perfect! And Danny DeVito has proved to me he's more than a great actor: he's a great director! His kid's movie Matilda is among my favorite family movies and now this is one of my favorite comedies.

It's a black comedy, most jokes are about murder, but it's damn funny! All of the actors are doing their full potential, whether they're main characters (Billy Crystal) or just one-bit minor characters (Olivia Brown).

If you like comedy (Who doesn't?) than you'll like this! 8\/10 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A deliciously nasty black comedy about a middle-aged schlub (Danny DeVito) who wants to bump off his mother and hatches a plan to do so with a bitter divorc\u00e9e, who wants to bump off HIS ex-wife. The movie is completely unapologetic in its cynicism, and gives us no one to like, but for once that works in the movie's favor rather than as a turn off.

Anne Ramsey, as DeVito's battle axe mom, steals the show in a grotesquely funny performance. Even though she's a horror, you end up rooting for her, because it seems like she could kick both DeVito's and Crystal's asses at the same time with both hands tied behind her back.

Grade: B+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you had a mother that described you like that, you just might be looking to bump her off yourself. It's how Danny DeVito feels about Anne Ramsey, it's just how to put the plan in action.

And his creative writing class taught by Professor Billy Crystal gives him the idea. That and a viewing of Alfred Hitchcock's classic Strangers On A Train which gives DeVito the idea to switch murders with Crystal who hates his wife, Kate Mulgrew, who not only is cheating him out of an idea for a book he wanted to write, but is also carrying on with hunky Tony Ciccone.

Throw Momma From The Train plays out kind of like Strangers On A Train as DeVito seems to have carried out his end of the murder scheme. But Crystal's having a bit of a problem putting Ramsey down even with Danny's help. That woman might need killing, but she's going to take a lot of it.

The only Academy recognition that Throw Momma From The Train got was an Academy Award nomination for Anne Ramsey for Best Supporting Actress. Ramsey lost to Olympia Dukakis for Moonstruck, but the film turned out to be her finest hour. Ramsey already had the throat cancer that would eventually kill her the following year, but look at the list of credits she managed to amass even after Throw Momma From The Train, she worked right up to the end.

I've seen interviews with both of the stars of Throw Momma From The Train, Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito, and both have gladly conceded that Anne Ramsey's performance as the mother from hell both made the film the success it was and stole it out from under them. Their acknowledgment of Ramsey's talent and performance is the best possible tribute.

If Marion Lorne in Strangers On A Train had been anything like Anne Ramsey here, Farley Granger would gladly have joined Robert Walker in disposing of her. Throw Momma From A Train is one of the best black comedies out there, should not be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Black comedy isn't always an easy sell. Every now and then you get a black comedy that is hugely successful, like Fargo, for example. But usually they don't often find big audiences. People seem to either set their minds for comedy, or for serious mayhem. There doesn't seem to be a big market for a good mixture of both. Throw Momma From the Train was a fairly decent hit, yet few people seem to remember much about it in this day and age. Danny DeVito just about hit this one all the way out of the park back in 1987.

DeVito plays an odd mamma's boy named Owen looking to rid himself of his outrageously overbearing and unpleasant mother whom he still lives with. The mother is played by Anne Ramsey, who passed away shortly after this was released, and she is quite a caricature. She is loud, ugly, rude, and overbearing. Though Owen hardly seems like he could take care of himself, he wants desperately to have his mother offed. He fantasizes about it in some truly weird scenes, but he clearly doesn't have the guts to actually do it himself. That's where Billy Crystal comes in. Crystal plays Larry Donner, Owen's creative writing teacher at a nearby community college. Larry is a paranoid would-be intellectual novelist who claims his ex-wife stole his novel and made millions off it. He is currently trying to write a new one, but cannot even come up with a decent first sentence. \"The night was....\" Owen hears Larry wish his ex-wife were dead during an outburst at the school cafeteria. And borrowing the idea from Strangers on a Train, Owen decides to travel to Hawai'i and murder Larry's ex-wife. Once it appears he has done so, he expects Larry to return the favor and kill his mother. The resulting action is often quite funny, and even poignant. It's certainly never dull and often full of surprises.

The acting is exceptional, even if Ramsey was a bit over the top. Crystal is as good as he can be, and DeVito has always been undervalued as a performer. The film relies on quite a bit of physical comedy which usually works, often painfully so. The film makes use of some truly innovative editing techniques in some scenes, and the off-beat tone is truly refreshing. I have often been critical of the late 1980s as being a time of artistic malaise and down right lazy film-making. Throw Momma From the Train takes chances. Both in how its characters are drawn as well as its general plot. How many comedies revolve around a son having his mother murdered? The film isn't too long, and it is chock full of laughs. Writers are apt to find it more interesting than the general public, but it can still be enjoyed by just about anyone. 9 of 10 stars.

The Hound.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We're living in sad times today, in which it seems like every comedy movie and TV show is painfully unfunny and inflicted with cheap, crude, or poor humor. Most people don't know what it means to really laugh at a comedy, and these people desperately need to watch \"Throw Momma From the Train.\" I say with little hesitation that this is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen, from beginning to end. The comedy is so unpredictable and twisted just enough to make us laugh out loud many times throughout. Don't be fooled by the murder plot. The plot is not serious enough to make us care or worry about what's going to happen. The story involves a young man (Danny DeVito) who wants to get rid of his annoying, grouchy mother (Anne Ramsey, nominated for an Oscar in a role that was completely flawless, in my opinion) and does so by killing off Billy Crystal's wife, whom Crystal wanted dead for stealing his novel. I don't want to spoil the jokes and gags in this film, but all I can say is that you must see this film if you want to laugh. Fast-paced and genuinely, a real treat to comedy lovers, and the type of film you just do not see today.

***1\/2 out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Inspired by Hitchcock's STRANGERS ON A TRAIN concept of two men swapping murders in exchange for getting rid of the two people messing up their lives, THROW MOMMA FROM THE TRAIN is an original and very inventive comedy take on the idea. It's a credit to Danny DeVito that he both wrote and starred in this minor comedy gem.

ANNE RAMSEY is the mother who inspires the film's title and it's understandable why she gets under the skin of DANNY DeVITO with her sharp tongue and relentlessly putting him down for any minor infraction. BILLY CRYSTAL is the writer who's wife has stolen his book idea and is now being lionized as a great new author, even appearing on the Oprah show to bask in adulation he should be enjoying. Thus, DeVito gets the idea of swapping murders to rid themselves of these nuisance factors.

Of course, everything and anything can happen when writer Carl Reiner lets his imagination roam with unending ideas for how the plot develops. And it's amusing all the way through, providing plenty of laughs and chuckles along the way, as well as a good deal of suspense.

For devotees of black comedy, this one is guaranteed to please.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I watched this movie when I was a kid I didn't understand the premise of Hitchcock movies, and dark comedy. Now that I'm in my mid 20's it makes a lot more sense.

I think the reason I like this movie so much is that the comedy duo of Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito make for some interesting comedy, both slapstick (the frying pan and car scenes) and verbal (the arguments\/conversations over murder and writing).

The story revolves around Larry Donner(Crystal), a struggling writer who has his masterpiece stolen from him by his wife Margaret (played by a surprisingly radiant Kate Mulgrew, aka Capt. Janeway from Star Trek: Voyager).

While he shifts between writer's block and teaching creative writing class, he meets with student Owen Lifts(DeVito), an aspiring writer and overgrown mama's boy who sadly still acts like a kid. He has toy train tracks, need I say more? Think of Failure to Launch, only Matt McConaughey is short, fat, and bald.

Owen is stuck in his own life, with a demanding evil mother(Anne Ramsey) who he can't stand. He seeks Larry's advice on how to get out of it, and when he says to go see a Hitchcock film Owen gets the wrong idea that if he kills Larry's wife, he'll return the favor and kill his mom for him. Hilarity ensues while the two try to deal with each other's problem. Owen goes to extremes to kill Margaret while Larry, who refuses to agree to do his \"part of the plan\", is driven nuts by Owen's mother.

Throughout the film, Larry and Owen slowly but surely form a bond of friendship that is rare in dark comedy nowadays. One part of the movie I really loved was where Owen shows Larry his coin collection, and lets just say its more a sentimental collection than anything.

The two main stars aside, the late Anne Ramsey is hilarious as Mama, and deadly with that cane of hers. She's a lot more comedic verbally and physically in this as opposed to her role as Mama Fratelli from The Goonies. So she curses like a sailor and belittles her son at every turn, but thats what makes her character so vivid. She makes her character the kind of person you love to hate.

Another treat in this movie is the music of jazz great Brandford Marsalis, who plays Larry's neighbor and friend Lester. There is a great moment in the movie where he plays jazz for Larry, who is depressed and needs some good tunes to relieve the pain. Jazz can do that.

In closing, I wish Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito would do another good movie together, but their kinda getting too old for the game I'm sad to say. This is one of those rare movies where both stars shine in their own subtle ways. DeVito's childish comedy and Crystal's sharp wit made this movie for me. 5 star comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Had it with the one who raised you since when you were young? You just want her gone from your life? That woman is your mother. You should respect her, you should honor her, whether she's in sick or well. But that in times, it can be aggravating. Especially when she becomes very overbearing. That's how Owen(Danny DeVito) had to deal with in \"Throw Momma Fron The Train\". His Momma(Anne Ramsey, 1929-88), is one of the worst. He trying his best to be a writer, and she is everything but grateful. Calls him a \"clumsy poop\", a \"larda$$\", and \"fat\" and \"stupid\". For his friend, Larry Donner(Billy Crystal) he has his own woman problems, his ex-wife. She trying to discredit him. So what did Owen do? Push her overboard. What does he do? Help return the favor, get rid of Mrs. Lift! In the kitchen scene, I liked it where Owen called Larry, \"Cousin Patty\". And Momma said, \"You don't have a Cousin Patty!\" and Owen shouts \"You Lied To Me!\" and El Cabongs Larry with the frying pan. Then comes the fun part when they where on the train and try to kill Momma Lift. That is thwarted, and she kicks Larry off the train. Well, everything back to normal, the ex-wife lives, but Momma kicked the bucket on her own. Maybe she should have seen the errors of her domineering ways. A fun movie it is, and the cast is great. A classic! 5 stars!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"stars: Danny Devito, Billy Crystal, Anne Ramsey, Kim Griest, Kate Mulgrew, Oprah Winfrey and Rob Reiner.

After college class, teacher Larry (Crystal) wants his ex-wife dead and Owen (Devito) wants his momma (Ramsey) dead. When Larry brings up that he wants his wife dead, Owen knows what he must do for him, in order for a favor in return, for Larry to kill his mother. Devito is absolutely hilarious in this as the brain dead wannabe writer that has daydreams of poisoning his mom and sticking scissors through her head. He has a child like role that makes him seem more of a confused man than a killer. Ramesy was actually nominated for an Academy Award for this because of her wonderful performance as mean old Mrs. Lift. Along with having comedy, the film also has heart. One scene between Devito and Crystal starts off seemingly as a joke, but goes deeper, actually making me slightly sad. Danny Devito directed the film and did a good job getting the dark tone in to his direction. For any fan of comedies I recommend this.

My rating: B plus. 84 mins. PG-13 for Language, Sexuality and Violence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is basically a spoof on Hitchcock's Strangers on a train, which i thought was overrated anyway. The plot has Danny Devito going to see Strangers and then thinking Billy Crystal wants them to swap murders, For Crystal to murder his mother and Devito to murder his wife. Both Devito and Crystal are great and so is Devito's mother. This is Devito's directorial debut and it's better than the war of the roses.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A picture starring Danny Devito and Billy Crystal. They are both famous actors, and in this charming comedy entails them trying to murder each other's pet peeve. Billy Crystal's pet peeve being his ex wife who stole his book and put her name on it, and Danny Devito's pet peeve being his malignant mother. Billy Crystal is an author and a teacher apparently and Danny Devito is one of his students. This comedy classic is very entertaining and for all ages.

Danny Devito seems to act like a child in this movie because of his evil mother who keeps putting him down all the time. She says things like \"You have no friends!\" and when Billy Crystal fell down, she said \"Burry him before he stinks up the basement!\". She puts down Danny also by calling him \"Lard ass!\" and other things just to make him angry.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am surprised people, after such lousy movies getting to be in the top 250 or just being in the 7.0's, I thought more people would get a kick out of \"Throw Momma from the Train\". This was a great comedy by two terrific comedic actors, Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito. Together they made a great duo of insanity and obsession. Billy is a man who just lost his million dollar story to his ex wife and repeatedly wishes her dead, Danny has an insane and senile old mother who just abuses him. When Billy gives some \"misunderstood\" advice to Danny, Danny offers a proposition to Billy, if he kills his ex wife, Billy has to kill his mother. This is a crazy and funny story that can always get a good laugh. Please, sit back and enjoy this movie, people! It's a good one!

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now, Throw Momma from the Train was not a great comedy, but it is a load of fun and makes you laugh. The title may seem a little strange, but the entire movie isn't literally about that, although it is about something just as sinister.

Danny De Vito basically wants to kill his overbearing mother, and fast forward a little bit, some random and funny events take place. The premise is quite funny, and the things that Billy Crystal and Danny De Vito get into were great. Some of the scenes seemed to not fit in for me, but this didn't make it a bad movie.

For what it is, a wacky comedy, it pulls it off well and should be seen once just to say you saw it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was one of the rolling on the floor laughing movies I have ever seen. Danny De Vito plays Owen perfectly. Momma is excellently portrayed, and was one of the highlights of the movie.

At the beginning of the movie it starts of differently then what you would expect. Larry is trying to write a book and is having some troubles. Larry teaches a writing class and Owen tagged after Larry trying to get him to read his story. Owen eventually asks Larry to kill his mother, and in return Owen would kill Larry's ex-wife. The whole movie was really hilarious.

One of my favorite parts of the movie is at the end when Owen writes \"Throw Momma from the Train\". Larry gets furious because he just wrote a book of similar plot. It turns out that Owen wrote a children's pop-up book.

I would really recommend this movie. I gave it a 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The one thing I really can't seem to forget about this movie, is its beginning: classic comedy, brilliantly crafted. I love it. See it for yourself (no spoilers here! :-). The sparring between DeVito and Crystal also glows in this movie, with DeVito as the perfect oppressed son. One of my favourites. Highly recommended for fans of Crystal.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just thinking about the movie, i laugh to myself. Anne Ramsey plays an unforgettable part as 'Momma,' probably the most nasty, yet hilarious matriarch ever captured on film. Danny Devito and Billy Crystal make a fabulous duo, bringing a true warmth to the film. Though not exceedingly complex, the cute story holds your attention, and keeps you laughing the whole way through. It's a fun comedy to lighten things up, and even will entertain the kids. I give it my full recommendation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is extremely funny - the character of momma keeps me returning to the movie time and time again! I can't get enough of her dry lines ... like when she tells her son Owen to bury his friend in the back yard before he smells up the place ... and her suspicion that Owen is trying to kill her by giving her unsalted nuts! It's hilarious!

If you like movies such as National Lampoon's Vacation, Uncle Buck, or Planes, Trains & Automobiles, this has similar humor. It's a great, wholesome laugh ... a must see!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You don't see the meaning of the title till much later, but you get the point of it in the first few minutes. This directorial debut from Golden Globe nominated (for actor) Danny DeVito, also playing Owen\/Ned 'Little Ned' Lift, is a terrific Hitchcock-like film about one man's hate for his wife's book (she stole his), and one man's hate for his mother. Basically, Owen wants to be a good writer, like his teacher Larry Donner (Billy Crystal), and he inspired by murder stories. Larry suggests he see a Hitchcock film, quite ironic, and that is when Owen has the idea to kill Larry's ex-wife, Margaret (Star Trek Voyager's Kate Mulgrew). Owen is inspired by 'Strangers on a Train', swapping murders, so Larry must kill Owen's horrible Momma (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Anne Ramsey). Larry was convinced Owen killed Margaret, and also that he had to\/wanted to kill Owen's Momma, but there is a happy ending when months later both Larry and Owen bring out books, Momma died naturally, and they went on a holiday with Beth Ryan (Kim Greist). Also starring Rob Reiner as Joel and Oprah Winfrey. With hilarious moments, a great director\/actor and his support, this is a must-see comedy. Very, very good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a really neat spin on Hitchcock, Larry (Billy Crystal) and Owen (Danny DeVito) lead unpleasant lives: Larry's ex-wife has gotten rich by publishing a book that he wrote, and Owen has the most overbearing mother imaginable. When Larry tells Owen to calm down by watching \"Strangers on a Train\", Owen gets the idea that they should do criss-cross murders like in the movie. And just like in the movie, Larry thinks that it's a joke, but Owen's serious.

How they came up with the idea for \"Throw Momma from the Train\" I'll never know, but it's a hilarious movie. There isn't a dull moment in it. And that ending was a hoot. Crystal and DeVito are at their best, and Anne Ramsey is as much of a hag here as she was in \"The Goonies\". A modern classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought that the interplay between Crystal and DeVito was great. The movie is rather off the wall, but there are some unforgettable lines. Ramsey as \"Momma\" is vulgar and over the top, but also very funny and effective. The character HAS to be pretty awful for why else would someone entertain thoughts of killing his mother? Now Crystal's wife -- she is a \"slut\" whom everyone would like to receive her comeuppance, thus her role, though minor, is also effective, because it has to justify Crystal's ridiculous case of \"writer's block.\" While there are certainly dark moments, the movie is not depressing and, despite the murderous urges that the protagonists feel, they have redeeming qualities too.

Overall, this is one of the funniest movies I can remember, one that I don't mind watching over several times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie sat in a dusty stack of videos in my house for ages before we watched it. We knew it was there- every time someone wanted to watch a movie, it was suggested. It almost became a joke... \"I know, let's watch Throw Momma from the Train\"... I don't know why it was always turned down, it just was. Little did we know what we were missing out on. It still befalls me why it took us so long...I mean it stars Danny DeVito, Billy Crystal, and Ann Ramsy (who we referred to as \"The Lady from the Goonies\"), an all star cast that should have appealed to everyone in my household. But there it sat for nearly ten years. Until one day it was suggested and we could turn it down no longer....

It was like finding King Tut's tomb...

No movie has ever made me laugh so hard, and I doubt any movie ever will. I had to rewind for almost every line because I was still laughing at the line that came before it, and lost ability to hear or pay attention. Not just simple laughing, either... the kind of laughing that expends more energy than running ten miles in the cold. The kind of laughing that you cannot control, that causes rolling around and spasms, and tears and snot running down your face because it's just that freakin funny. Once I learned the movie by heart I will say this effect has lessened, but I don't think I will get tired of watching it and finding new quirks in it to appreciate. I think that's all I can say. I would recommend this movie to anyone, but if you don't enjoy it please don't let me know, I will probably be offended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't understand this movies distinctly average rating!?

I really really enjoyed it, i even stayed up till early morning to finish watching it on late night t.v

There are three excellent characters here, excellent characters. Danny DeVito played a gem, quite a feat considering he was directing as well. His down trodden laughable at times character was brilliantly written and was surreal in a absolutely believable way. There ARE people like that, Owen was just on the line without crossing it.

Billy Crystal's comic syle and sense of timing was PERFECT for his role. His frustration\/comedy was interesting and captivating and what's more... you could understand his feelings. To really feel like you know a character is hard to achieve from the writers point of view, to find the right actor to pull it off is an art in itself and both were achieved here thrice over.

Thirdly, who else could have played Momma? There is no one that can play this part so well. There is a style there unlike any other, something you love to watch, i found myself waiting for her to appear on screen... and not because the rest was bad, oh no, but because Momma's character was, again, so on the line without crossing it that it was excellent to watch.

And what's more? A happy ending with new found friendships, no one getting hurt and everyone getting what they wanted in life... WITHOUT a big hunk of cheese tied on the end.

Brilliant script, brilliant idea, perfect cast, great film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Throw Momma From the Train\" is a simple dark comedy with lots of laughs.

Billy Crystal plays a frustrated writer on the verge of collapse; Danny DeVito plays a man in one of Crystal's writing classes. Crystal's ex-wife is a *hag* to put it nicely, and Crystal hates her. DeVito, sensing this, offers Crystal a deal one night: DeVito will kill Crystal's wife, if Crystal kills DeVito's nag of a mother. Crystal does, of course, refuse, but later, corruption deep in his heart makes him say yes. And so as things play out we see what happens when you try to throw someone's momma from a moving train.

This story is an interesting character study; a story of evil, greed, revenge, ego, trust, doing what's right, but most of all corruption. We see Crystal's white-collar writer become ever-stressed with events colliding around him, and because of DeVito's constant nagging, he says \"yes.\" But we know deep down in his subconscious he wanted to say \"yes,\" and he's pleased that he said it to DeVito.

This movie is a bit of a dark spoof on Hitchcock's immortal film \"Strangers on a Train,\" and it plays an homage to the film early on, when there is a theater playing \"Strangers on a Train.\" We see DeVito watching the movie, and a lightbulb in his head pops on. He gets an idea. Throw Momma from the train!

Billy Crystal gives another convincing and strangely comical performance as a hassled writer on the verge of collapse. He has been so beaten down by everything around him that his inner-emotions come out and he agrees to throw DeVito's momma from the train.

Danny DeVito directed this film excellently. He uses just the right touch of comic darkness to create a world of corruption and sickness. Everything is demented, but not to an extreme like in some other dark comedies. It has just the right touch of darkness that shone through in \"The War of the Roses.\"

Not only is \"Throw Momma From the Train\" a simple tale of corruption and morality, but is also an interesting character study. Definitely worth catching on TV.

3.5\/5 stars -

John Ulmer","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was very funny, even if it fell apart a little at the end. Does not go overboard with homage after to Hitchcock - Owen (Danny DeVito) was lucky he had \"Strangers on A Train\" playing at the local cinema, so the movie flat out tells you that that was the inspiration.

DeVito is very funny but also a little sad. He has no friends and all he wants to do is write and have someone like his writing. His teacher, Billy Crystal, is going through some serious writers block of his own and his wife has stolen his book and made it her own success, which also has him frustrated a great deal.

Best parts are the book proposal by Mr. Pinsky (\"One Hundred Girls I'd Like to Pork\") and all scenes with Anne Ramsey, who is so horrible that even Mother Theresa would have wanted to kill her, too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Throw Momma hasn't dated at all, it's as funny now as when it was released. A genuinely eccentric comedy, that doesn't try too hard to be liked and is all the better for it, full of memorable laugh out loud lines. Even small characters are well written and beautifully played, like Billy Crystal's best friend's girlfriend, and a lovely cameo from Rob Reiner as Crystal's agent. A little bit insane and a lot funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"I know I'm human. And if you were all these things, then you'd just attack me right now, so some of you are still human. This thing doesn't want to show itself, it wants to hide inside an imitation. It'll fight if it has to, but it's vulnerable out in the open. If it takes us over, then it has no more enemies, nobody left to kill it. And then it's won.\"

John Carpenter's \"The Thing\" is one of the most entertaining horror films ever made \u0096 fast, clever and purely exciting from start to finish. This is how all movies of the genre should be made.

Taking place in the Antarctic in 1982, the movie focuses specifically on a group of American scientists. We are given no introduction to their mission, but are thrust into their existence when a pair of seemingly crazy Norwegians appears at their base camp, chasing an escaped dog. The Norwegians are killed, and the dog finds its way into the colony, which is when things really start to get crazy.

It is soon made quite clear that the \"dog\" is actually a shape-shifting alien organism, which manifests itself upon the physical form of its victims \u0096 in other words, it begins to eat the Americans, and imitate them so well that the remaining humans cannot discern the difference between their friends and enemies

The pack of scientists, led by MacReady (Kurt Russell), begin to fight for their own survival, using wits instead of brawn. If the Thing is indeed amongst them, then how are they to go about revealing it? How many Things are there? How can the Thing be killed? (Or can it be destroyed at all?)

The creature's origins in the film are explained easily: Thirty thousand years ago a spacecraft plummeted to Earth, and was frozen in the Antarctic ice. The Thing tried to escape, and was discovered in the ice by the Norwegians, who unknowingly released it from its natural prison.

\"The Thing,\" the movie itself, is similar to Ridley Scott's iconic \"Alien\" (1979). Many comparisons have been made \u0096 the protagonists are stranded in a desolate area, stalked by a seldom seen foe that manages to kill them off one-by-one. However, \"The Thing\" \u0096 for all practical purposes \u0096 came first.

Based on the famous short story \"Who Goes There?\" by John W. Campbell, Jr. (writing under pseudonym as Don A. Stuart), the film was originally adapted as a feature production in 1951 by Howard Hawks and Christian Nyby. The result was \"The Thing From Another World,\" an unarguable classic. But to be fair, it bore little resemblance to the short story, and Carpenter's remake does it more justice.

The idea of the Thing being able to adapt the physicality of anyone is what essentially makes this movie so great, and is the most vital link to the short story. In 1951 the special effects were simply too poor to reasonably portray the shape-shifting organism, but thirty-one years brought many advances in SFX.

Creature effects artist Rob Bottin does an excellent job of turning what could have easily become a cheesy gore-fest into a startlingly frightening (and realistic) mess of blood and fear. The Thing, although never actually taking one specific form, is constantly seen in a morphing stage, and the effects are simply superb. They still pack a punch twenty-two years later.

Ennio Morricone's score (nominated for a Razzie Award at the time) is a bit too electronic and tinny, but nevertheless haunting when used correctly.

From the fact that its cast consists entirely of males, to the fact that its ending is one of the most thought-provoking and untypical conclusions of all time, \"The Thing\" \u0096 by any standards \u0096 is unconventional Hollywood at its best. It comes as no surprise that, at the time of its release, \"The Thing\" performed poorly in theaters, and \"E.T.\" \u0096 released the same year and featuring a much kinder alien \u0096 became the higher-grossing picture of the two (by far).

In the long run, however, \"The Thing\" is superior in almost every conceivable way. Spielberg's tale is outdated and flopped during its 20th Anniversary Re-Release. \"The Thing,\" on the other hand, has gradually climbed a ladder of cult classics \u0096 it is one of the most famous non-famous movies ever made.

Carpenter is notorious for having a very uneven career \u0096 from his amazing \"Assault on Precinct 13\" (1976) to the magnificent \"Halloween\" (1978) to the disappointing and silly \"Escape from L.A.\" (1996), \"The Thing\" remains his very best motion picture. Although its reputation over the years has never been honorary enough to land it a spot on most \"great movies\" lists, \"The Thing\" is still one of my favorite horror films, and \u0096 upon close inspection \u0096 masterfully crafted. It is a daring and ingenious thrill-ride that is simultaneously unique and chilling \u0096 a genuine relief for film buffs who are tired of the same old horror knock-offs. This one, at the very least, is genuinely unpredictable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am ashamed to say it, but I have to admit, the first time I saw this film was only about a year ago. After seeing it, I immediately rushed out and bought the DVD collectors' edition and have watched it many times since.

The film is terrific on many levels. It works as your straight monster or action type film, as a horror\/sci-fi and also as a very intriguing look into the human psyche. The incredible sense of paranoia, mistrust and fear, lent not only by Carpenter's direction (which is stunning) but also by the incredible acting of the cast in general. Kurt Russell (obviously) is spectacularly understated in the lead role of MacReady, and, as a direct result he \"feels\" like a real person, rather than a hollywood \"all american hero\". The other cast members all carry off their roles with style, and the net result is an intensely believable atmosphere, and a truly fantastic film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is another one of those films that I remember staying up late to watch on TV, scaring the crap out of myself at the impressionable age of 12 or so and dooming myself thereafter to a life of horror movie obsession. This is a GREAT movie, and stands as living proof that there were indeed realistic effects before CGI.

Set on an isolated base in Antarctica, this version seems almost to pick up where the original version (The Thing From Another World) left off. The American scientists discover a decimated Norwegian base some miles distant. Everyone is dead, and only the half charred remains of some unidentifiable thing left to smolder outside the compound might offer any answers to what may have happened. The Thing is brought back to the American base and, too late, the scientists realize that it is alive and lethal. The Thing thaws out and is off, not only killing anyone and anything that crosses Its path, but also absorbing them, making Itself into whoever and whatever it wants. The film then turns into a brilliant paranoia piece. Everyone is suspect, anyone can be The Thing, and no one trusts anyone anymore. Gone is the strength and security found when human beings band together in spite of their differences to battle a monster. The group splinters and fear rules supreme. Who is the Thing?

The gore effects here are absolutely amazing and messily realistic. I could have done without the dogs head splitting open like a banana peel, but that's just the animal lover in me being picky: kill all the humans you want, but leave the kitties and puppies alone. Sanity and reason disintegrate rapidly as, one by one, the humans are taken over by the shapeshifting alien. The power of this film lies in its paranoia, and although I liked the original version, I prefer this one; the real threat lies within, and is scarier for the fact that it cannot be seen or easily detected. When it is forced out of hiding, it's wrath is huge and the results are horrific.

This is one of Carpenters best films, right up there with The Fog and Halloween. All of the actors give strong, realistic performances and the special effects are so powerful that they stand as their own main character. This film has something for any lover of the horror genre. Don't miss it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Carpenter's The Thing is hands down the best horror film ever made. Not only that, but it is also on of my personal favorite films of all time. What makes the movie so great? It's hard to put my finger on it. Everything just seems to work in The Thing, it's one of the rare occasions where everything just seems to fall in place. The film is even superior to Alien in creating a type of moody atmospheric hell. The fact that it's not only about the gore (which is wonderful btw), but it is able to create a paranoia that is unmatched in films. A truly wonderful film that is worshiped by all horror buffs, and anyone who has good taste in films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Antarctica, winter 1982. The team on an American research base get surprised by a couple of mad Norwegians who is chasing a dog with a helicopter, trying to kill it. All the Norwegians are killed and the Americans are left with nothing, but a dog, a couple of bodies and questions. That's the beginning of the greatest horror\/thriller film I've ever seen.

From the very beginning all to the end you feel the tense, paranoid mood. Helpless and alone out in no-mans land. Ennio Morricone was nominated for a Razzie Award for his score. Why I don't know 'cause as far as I can see his score is simple, creepy and very good. It really gets you in the right mood.

The acting is great! The best performance is probably given by the dog who's just amazing. As for Russell and the others on two legs I can say nothing less.

You may think 1982 and special effects are not the most impressive? Well, think again! You haven't seen it all until you've seen this. Bodyparts falling off and creatures changing forms... Rob Bottin has done a great job witch today stands as a milestone is special effects makeup.

The movie didn't get a big response when it first hit the big screen due to other alien films at the time and so it's not very well known. In fact you can almost consider it an unknown movie. Nobody I've asked have heard of it. However the movie has managed to survive for over twenty years as a cult film on video and DVD. Twenty years is a long time and except for the haircut the movie is still pretty much up to date. This movie is to be considered a classic.

The movie is without doubt one of my, if not my favorite. I've seen it several times, but it's just as good as the first time I saw it. As a Norwegian the only thing I don't like about this movie is that MacReady keeps calling the Norwegians swedes!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many people has got a film they think of as their favourite movie. My movie will always be John Carpenter's The Thing! The main reason why this movie is a cult-film is perhaps the splatter-effects created mainly by genius Rob Bottin and that this is the movie that made Kurt Russell what he is today (along with Escape from N.Y.) In my opinion, this is not a great film because of the effects, it has to do with the story, the atmosphere, and of course, the acting. I have watched thousands and thousands of movies (3-6 every day the last 10 years), but none has had the impact on me as this one, not even the great \"Das Boot\".

Here's my suggestion to you who likes sci-fi and horror movies: Place yourself in the good chair of your home. Be sure you're not interupted by anyone. If you aint got a projector, sit close to your TV and watch this miracle of a film. Let it absorbe you, and you'll see it my way!

Best View Time: Late February between 5 and 9 in the evening.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Remake of the classic 1951 \"The Thing From Another World\". 12 men are in a completely isolated station in Antartica. They are invaded by a thing from outer space--it devours and completely duplicates anything it chooses to. It starts off as a dog but gets loose--and has a chance to duplicate any of the men. Soon, nobody trusts anyone else--they're isolated--the radio is destroyed--their helicopter likewise. What are they going to do?

The 1951 film had the thing just be a big, super human monster. That movie was scary. This one is too--but the story is different (and based more closely on the source material--the novelette \"Who Goes There?\") and it's scary in a different way. The movie starts right off with Ennio Morricone's extremely eerie score setting just the right tone and--when the Thing gets attacked--the amount of gore is astounding. There's blood and body parts flying all over--arms are bitten off, heads detach and--in the strongest one--one man is devoured face first by the Thing. The gore effects are STRONG and real nightmare material. I don't scare easy but I had to sleep with the lights on when I saw this originally back in 1982. Rob Bottin's effects are just incredible--how this picture got by with an R rating is beyond me!

It also has a very creepy feel--gore aside, it is very suspenseful. You're not sure who is what and Carpenter's direction and the score really build up the tension. One complaint--no one is given any distinctive personality traits. They actors just remain straight-faced and say their lines. That's annoying...but the movie still works.

This was a critical and commercial disaster in 1982--it competed with \"E.T.\" and MANY critics complained about the amount of gore and there being no female characters in the movie. It's now considered one of John Carpenter's best. A must-see...for strong stomaches. NOT a date film!

An amusing note: When this was released Universal sent a note along with all prints of the film. They suggested to theatre owners that they play the film in an auditorium near the rest rooms. They were afraid that people would be so sickened by the violence that they'd have to be close to a facility to throw up!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Carpenter shows how much he loves the 1951 original by giving it the utmost respect that he possibly could, the only difference here is that Carpenter chooses to stick to the paranoiac core of John W Campbell Jr's short story. The secret to this version's success is the unbearable tension that builds up as the group of men become suspicious of each other, the strain of literally waiting to be taken over takes a fearful hold. Carpenter manages to deliver the shocks as well as the mystery needed to keep the film heading in the right direction. Be it an horrific scene or a \"what is in the shadow\" sequence, the film to me is a perfect fusion of horror and sci-fi. The dialogue is spot on for a group of men trying to keep it together under duress, and Carpenter's score is a wonderful eerie pulse beat that further racks up the sense of doom and paranoia seaming thru the film. The cast are superb, a solid assembly of actors led by Carpenter fave Kurt Russell, whilst the effects used give the right amount of impact needed. But most of all it's the ending that is the crowning glory, an ending that doesn't pander to the norm and is incredibly fitting for what has gone on before it, lets wait and see what happens indeed, 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Thing has to be one of the all time great movies. Of course it was ground breaking special effects at the time of it's release that impressed me so much, back in 1982 it just blew my mind, I'd never seen anything like that! However, although the effects themselves made the movie more horrific, it was the story itself, the music score , the claustrophobic atmosphere of the Anarctic as well as the interaction and tension between the members of the doomed research station that makes it a classic.

Movies don't get any better than this! In the opening scene with the the chopper chasing this husky you just assume that it was some bored scientists from some station letting of some steam. Yet when you see them continue their chase at the US base you then think that the Norwegians are suffering from some form of advanced or extreme strain of cabin fever. Yet this is offset by the menacing opening music score that sets the tempo! You just know that something is not right! At this point it's a mystery until 'the thing' reveals itself.

However, the mystery returns because it becomes a sort of Agatha Christie \"who dunnit\" ( i.e. ten little Indians movie) sci-fi style as the members don't know which one of their team is really an alien. Suspicion continues to go back and forward between them all as one by one they eventually get knocked off or revealed as the alien. The mistrust between the station crew is absorbing as the movie progresses until the final showdown.

After 20 years of advances in computer graphics and film making production the special effects in \"the Thing\" don't carry the same weight as it did in 1982, but other than that it holds up very well all round with some great performances by the cast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The silly saying, \"You can't touch this\" surely applies here. With all the clone horror and sci-fi films coming out, along with all the inferior remakes, it's hard to find anything worthy of 2 hours of your time. That's why I always rely on the classics that scared the weewee out of me when I was a pre-teen.

THE THING is, without an ounce of doubt in my mind, the goriest, ickiest, screechiest sci-fi horror classic that John Carpenter, or any other director (sorry, even you Mr. Spielberg) ever made. What really gives it power, though, is not the gore (it OOOOOZES of slime and blood and God knows what other fluids), but rather the sense of dread, isolation, and distrust it fosters in the characters and the viewer.

You can't get more remote than Antarctica, and in this howling, freezing white setting is where the story takes place. Several Americans, researchers and military men, are stationed there. One day, they witness a Siberian Husky dog running for dear life from gun-wielding Norwegians. Before they know it, the American outpost is battling a mysterious creature that can imitate any creature it wants. It may morph into disgusting slimy bloody shapes before it's finished, but once it's finished, if you didn't see it in progress, you can't tell it among humans or other normal Earth animals.

Kurt Russell, Keith David, Wilford Brimley, Richard Masur, Donald Moffatt, TK Carter, Thomas Waites and Charles Hallahan are just a few of the fine cast. This film is the reason why horror CAN be a great genre. It actually STILL scares me. The alien blood \"jumping\" out of the petri dish when the hot wire touches it still makes ME jump!!!

Still the scariest of them all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In following the lines of the classic formula to a point of taking another leap off from the material, The Thing remake becomes one of the coolest remakes of its time. John Carpenter fashions out of what must've been a fairly vague screenplay about certain things (or maybe very descriptive who knows), bringing forth incredibly wretched, brilliant puppetry and animatronics by Rob Bartin (with Stan Winston also on the team). These effects help set the tone against the harsh, detached environment Carpenter sets up with his characters. The film takes the story of a group stationed in a research bunker in the middle of an arctic climate, pitted against a malevolent force that takes the shapes of others. It's given a full life by Carpenter's choice of tones, and surprises. For someone following in the footsteps of Howard Hawks, the filmmaker here has a lot more trust and talent in executing the material than most given the chance to have another go with an old film.

With the effects people working to full force- amid what would likely follow Backdraft as containing the most fire per scene (it could become overkill, but it all fits into the suspense after a while)- the actors pull along as a fine ensemble. Unlike the squad in Predator, these are mostly just regular working guys, with the leader coming in the from of Kurt Russell's MacCreedy (very good role for his style, excellent in fact). Juicy supporting roles are out for grabs for the likes of Wilford Brimley and Keith David. And it is refreshing to see how the sort of absurdity of what's going on in the film (an alien that starts off with dogs and then moves onto the others in gory, demented transforming form) is pit against such a tone of timing with everyone. I loved the long silences at times, with Ennio Morricone's spooky, curious music in the background (and that bass line is of merit in itself).

It ranks up with being, if nothing else, delivering what it strives for for its genre\/cult audience. It remains one of Carpenter's best; a rare breed of horror film where the story is told clear and precisely by way of the position of the camera, dialog, and timing with the scenes. That's not to say the film isn't chock full of violence, it is, and in fact a couple of times it's almost funny. But given that it goes back to what is ridiculously seeming like a by-gone era, the creatures\/make-up, alongside the steady, well-calculated script, was done completely without CGI. It's disgusting, but it's real, and atmospheric to a T.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1982, two films were released within weeks of each other that were both about aliens. Steven Spielberg's ET, and John Carpenter's The Thing. Of the two of them, ET was the one that won the hearts of people the world over, even though The Thing debuted first. Because people were so entranced with Spielberg's warm, fuzzy feelgood alien fable, they stayed away from The Thing in droves.

Its not hard to see why. The two are diametrically opposed. One is an optimistic tale designed to warm the cockles of the still-beating heart. The other is a harsh, uncompromising film that paints alien life as something purely determined to destroy us. I guess audiences felt ET was a much cuter prospect than The Thing's tentacles and slime coated saliva!

It's taken some time, but The Thing has gone on to win over a substantial cult audience. As it should. Because The Thing is that rare example of a superior remake. It takes all the best qualities of the 1951 classic, and reinvents them in startling and imaginative ways. Indeed Carpenter does his job so well he actually succeeds in making a film that is in every inch the equal of the genre's showrunner, Alien. And that's even rarer!

Carpenter's film follows its source material more faithfully than The Thing From Another World did. It keeps the frigid wastes of Antarctica as a setting, because its the perfect backdrop when you're trying to establish a heightened sense of isolation. But although a bit thin on characterisation, the remake gets right inside the mindset of the actors, and amplifies the uncertainty and fear that slowly surrounds them.

Frequent Carpenter collaborator Kurt Russell returns, hot off the success of Escape From New York, cast once again as one of Carpenter's perpetual anti-heroes. He plays MacReady, the helicopter pilot at an Antarctic research station (what they're researching is anyone's guess). The trouble begins when a Norwegian chopper from a nearby station flies over MacReady's, trying to gun down a Siberian Husky from the air.

They end up dying for their troubles, and while the camp tries to solve the mystery of what happened, they take in the Husky and add it to their own. Except that this Husky, is not a Husky at all. But a shape-changing alien. The Norwegians discovered it frozen in the ice, and when they thawed it out, it massacred their crew. Capable of absorbing its victims at will, it can duplicate a living being right down to the smallest detail. Soon paranoia and suspicion works its way through the 12-man crew, until no-one is certain who is human and who is not.

The Thing is one of John Carpenter's finest films. In fact I'm tempted to say its the best film he's ever made. Even surpassing classics like Halloween and Dark Star. The reason why I place The Thing at the top of Carpenter's list is that it feels like the last film of his that could truly be called a classic. All the others thereafter have felt like Carpenter was slumming it. Films that didn't flow with the cool sophistication and ragged intensity so prevalent in his earlier works.

But The Thing had John Carpenter at the peak of his powers. Never has he generated suspense to such an unbearable degree. Not even in the ferocious Assault on Precinct 13. From the second the alien makes its presence known, Carpenter ratchets up the tension level relentlessly. And when he delivers his punches, they come with an agonising jolt.

The film is a blend of pure atmospherics and visceral horror. An approach that can often seem at odds with one another, but in Carpenter's hands melds together beautifully. Bringing in Rob Bottin of The Howling fame, he lays to bear some of the most astonishing transformation effects you'll ever see in a horror film. Amorphous shapes. Half-formed human features starkly contrasted with gaping jaws, spider legs and fully flexible tentacles. Indeed the film's effects are so amazing and squirm-inducing, The Thing came under fire for being too realistic!

That type of thinking misses the point entirely. It only shortchanges the film's values. And there are many. Carpenter only stages an effects setpiece when he needs to. Its in the film's quieter moments where he seems especially attuned to the story. The Thing is an often bewildering tale of shadows, whispers and implications. Characterisation has never been one of John Carpenter's strong suits, but it works to his advantage in The Thing. Because we hardly know anything about the cast, it only makes the present situation that much more confusing. We're never certain, from one moment to the next who is who. And because of this, The Thing holds up very well and maintains its mystery on subsequent viewings.

A special mention should go to the excellent film score from Ennio Morricone. A pulsing thud thud every two seconds. It creates an eerie, spooky feeling that is very hard to shake. The whole film is a wonderful exercise in paranoid manipulation. The scene where they blood-test each other to see who's human is wound up with such dexterity by Carpenter, you may find yourself biting your nails without even realising.

The Thing is a pure unadulterated classic. Even the ending leaves you with the vague suspicion that not everything is resolved. An underrated film, well worth the reappraisal it received. And so much better than ET!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Thing is a milestone in movie-making and remains one of my favourite films of all-time. Despite the film's roots in science-fiction it is ultimately a horror film that brilliantly balances splatter with psychological trauma. Today, Over twenty five years after its release, the special effects stand up as an example of sheer brilliance and effects man Rob Bottin suffered a complete physical breakdown for his art. It would be impossible to make the same movie today as the Studio would most certainly insist on casting a female character or a Paul-Walker type.

An all-male American Science team in Antarctica are thrown into turmoil when an alien lifeform able to perfectly absorb and imitate other lifeforms infiltrates their camp. Their trust in each other steadily crumbles as they become increasingly unsure who is real and who is an imitation, and this 'body-snatchers' scenario sees their numbers steadily dwindle as one-by-one, they fall victim to The Thing. When cornered, it manifests itself as a different nightmarish creature, the metamorphosis always horrific and compelling.

The helplessness, isolation and claustrophobia of a team of desperate men with no way out of their situation and no way of help reaching them is expertly sustained. The long hours of darkness and the mounting snowfall provide a bleak backdrop to the terror that unfolds. Director John Carpenter selected with great care a team of brilliant character-actors and each member of the team fits perfectly into the part they play, whether it be the young and street-wise chef, the elderly and wise Doctor or the bitter and cynical helicopter pilot. The point is that no-one here comes close to being an all-American badass superhero with blonde locks and a six-pack and the film's real strength is thanks in no small part to this stark realism. The people suffering on-screen are recognisable in our daily lives.

The Thing remains consistently enjoyable and affecting even after repeated viewings. I have now seen the film on more than twenty separate occasions and my amazement at the quality of the direction, the acting and the special effects is unwavering. My girlfriend prefers the high-school spin-off of the film -The Faculty- which is good and solid entertainment but far more light-hearted and whistful. She still loves and acknowledges the brilliance of The Thing however, and thank goodness for that... Because I could not remain in the company of someone who didn't love this movie.

A classic and then some.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When in 1982, \"The Thing\" came out to theaters everywhere, it had a cold reception and very poor box-office results, becoming almost a failure in John Carpenter's career as a horror director; however, time has proved that \"The Thing\" was definitely not a failed project and that the disappointing commercial results were not the film's fault. Nowadays, John Carpenter's \"The Thing\" has gained the appreciation it rightfully deserves and is considered by many horror fans as a horror classic, and not without a reason, as this new version of John W. Campbell, Jr.'s story \"Who Goes There?\" (previously adapted as \"The Thing From Another World\") is closer to the original tale and keeps a pessimistic feeling of dread and high doses of suspense in a masterfully crafted study about paranoia.

The plot of \"The Thing\", begins in the winter of 1982 in a U.S. research station located in the remote territories of Antarctica, when the members of the crew notice a Norwegian helicopter coming their way. The two apparently insane pilots of the helicopter are trying to kill a Husky dog who makes its way into the American base. After the Norwegians are killed accidentally, the Americans try to figure out what made them to be insane. Soon they'll discover that the Husky dog the Norwegians were hunting was not a normal dog, but a creature able to mimic every living creature, and not only that, it has a tremendous hunger.

Director John Carpenter earned a place in history when in 1978 he directed the seminal slasher \"Halloween\", where suspense and atmosphere were above gore and shock. \"The Thing\" could be seen as an evolution of that style, as even when Carpenter makes great use of Rob Bottin's special effects (which were labeled by critics as \"repulsive\" on its day), the film still focuses more on atmosphere and suspense rather than in the violent (and very well-done) displays of gore. The feeling of loneliness, as well as the \"bad karma\" between the members of the crew increase the feeling of paranoia as anyone could be the Thing, even our main character, R. J. MacReady (Kurt Russell), ending in a situation where nobody can be trusted.

This plot element was more faithful to the concept of the source novel, and was blatantly ignored by the previous version (not completely a bad thing, just a big difference), making this version feel less like a remake and more as a new conception of the source novel. Bill Lancaster's script handles the characters with brilliant domain, giving us enough to distinguish them, but not too much to completely trust them, making them an essential factor in the film's haunting feeling of dread that keeps running through the movie. The mystery and the suspense are at the max, as never one can tell who is the Thing and who is normal, enhancing the paranoia and unpredictability of the plot with excellent results.

The cast is very effective, and their performances as a whole so effective that one can almost feel the bad feelings between their characters as real. Carpenter's regular collaborator Kurt Russell as MacReady carries the film, and through his eyes we witness the madness and the horror the research station becomes as the situations goes worse. Definitely one of his best performances. Wilford Brimley is also terrific as Dr. Blair, a scientist that goes insane after discovering the Thing's purposes.

\"The Thing\" is a film so wonderfully crafted that its flaws tend to go unnoticed, although they exist. The most notorious being the very low-key and at times unappropriated score by Ennio Morricone. It's not exactly bad, but it just feels out of place at some scenes and it's not one of the best works by the legendary composer. Also, due to some misshapes with the special effects, some scenes were left out that actually fill some small plot holes, although nothing of big importance or actually annoying.

When talking about John Carpenter's films, most people will almost instantly name \"Halloween\" as his favorite film, but personally, I would go with \"The Thing\", as I consider it Carpenter's greatest achievement so far, and one of the most interesting and actually scary horror films ever made. I would go as far as to call it one of the finest films ever made. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Carpenter's brilliantly suspenseful flick is a great fusion of Sci-Fi and horror, adopting the classic body-swap theme and taking it to the extreme. A remake of the Howard Hawks produced 1951 original, Carpenter keeps the Cold-War themes of paranoia and trust as a backdrop of alien takeover and impending doom amidst madness and the isolation of the Antarctic setting. Carpenter's direction as always is excellent as his camera glides through the lonely world of the characters whose inhabitable environment is about to be corrupted by the primordial fear of body takeover. But here and much like the work of David Cronenberg, Carpenter doesn't hold back on the incident, as through some fantastic special effects we are witness to some insane moments of surreal gore. However, he never loses touch with the human side of the story, as in the face of everything shocking happening in front of us, we are left with perceived notions of trust and suspicion.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"People with an aversion to gore may find some scenes hard going, but The Thing is far from being simply a horror classic. The fact that the extraordinary special effects stand up against most modern day CGI is only a small part of why this movie is, finally, rightfully regarded as a masterpiece. Technically brilliant in its camera-work and editing, superbly scripted and acted, one of the best openings, one of the best endings, tension and paranoia sustained throughout (with countless viewings), an excellent soundtrack, and open to multiple readings and analogy, there simply aren't enough superlatives to do this film justice. Absolutely essential viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Carpenter's \"The Thing\" is undoubtedly one of the best horror movies ever made. Sadly as with most Carpenter movies go it is also one of the most underrated movies being panned by critics shortly after it's release for a reason that is almost pathetic. It seems that at the time people were overwhelmed by the idea of the \"good\" alien. An idea spawned after the success of \"I.T.\". And the very thought that a movie dealing with aliens could deviate from that idea was regarded as heresy. Human ignorance is truly a frightening thing, people need to judge films for what they are not for what they want them to be.

\"The Thing\" itself is an interesting study on human paranoia as members of a U.S. Antarctic base discover the presence of an alien being (refered throughout the movie only as a \"thing\") able to imitate any form of life. Not knowing who might or might not be the creature, we see how every character reacts to the situation. There is no mass hysteria or panic just a slow and gradual descent in to chaos as more and more people turn up to be... not quite human.

Carpenter succeeds into elevating this movie into something far more than your average Sci-Fi\/horror. There are no \"whats behind you?\" jumping moments here. Instead relying on an intense atmosphere of mistrust and pre-apocalyptic despair along with some nicely balanced moments of visual terror with no small thanks to Rob Bottin's impressive creature effects, he gives us an experience not matched by many other horror films.

Instead of just throwing facts and plot elements at our face Carpenter offers us a much a more gradual and delicate approach. By implying a sense of mystery he gives the viewer enough freedom to interpret-ate what has transpired in certain scenes, while giving enough plot to those who are not so fond of interpretation in movies.

Ennio Morricone's score works all the way. It's minimalistic and depressing sound perfectly fits the movie's overall tone. Although I've always wondered how would it have sounded if Carpenter (he has been known to compose all of his movies's OSTs except this one) did it? Characters while not as deeply developed are still memorable thanks to the good performances of the actors especially Kurt Russel who plays the \"down-out\" apathetic helicopter pilot R.J. MacReady. Its worth noting how his character transforms through the movie. From his disregardful \"don't give a ....\" attitude in the beginning, to that of a unifier and leader of the group of men who try to fight \"the thing\". But even with that said, there are no false heroics here, there are no \"laughing at the face of death\" moments and there certainly isn't any sort of comic relief, the movie keeps its atmosphere from the very first scene to the last. Speaking of which, here once again Carpenter keeps his tradition of creating a powerful ending.

Quarter of a century after its release \"The Thing\" doesn't feel dated. And with the disturbingly growing use of computer-generated effects it feels even stronger then before because it shows the life's work and dedication of human beings not computers. Combined with its openness for analyzing it gives the viewer a lot more reasons to watch it for a second or third or fourth or ... time. A masterpiece of terror that will never be forgotten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A brilliant horror film. Utterly gruesome and very scary too. The Thing is a remake from John Carpenter, but please, do not let that put you off this film. It is simply brilliant. The start of the film has the alien's spacecraft hurtling towards the Earth centuries before mankind walked the planet with an explosion that unleashes the film's title in amazing shining white and blue stating 'THE THING'. One of the best opening credits for a horror film ever.

The cast of actors who play the twelve man science team are a joy to behold and the locations for the setting of their Station in Antartica is visually impressive on DVD widescreen. It must have been great in the cinema. I regret not seeing this on the big screen.

Kurt Russell is excellent as Macready, the helicopter pilot who reluctantly becomes the leader of the men trying to combat a lethal shape changing monstrosity that has infiltrated their base. All the actors in this are really good and create terrific scenes of paranoia and tension as to who the thing has infected. My favourite scene in the whole film has to be when Macready tests everyone thats still alive for infection, it is tense, scary and finally spectacular. I love it because its funny as well.

Special mention must go to Rob Bottin for his truly amazing make up effects and shape changing designs of the alien itself. If he didn't get an Oscar for best visual effects at the time then he damn well should have. This is also debatable as to whether this is John Carpenter's greatest film...its certainly a gruesome masterpiece.

Wait for a cold winter night. Get some Budweiser from the fridge. Sit down and watch The Thing, a horror masterpiece of flame throwing heroes fighting shape changing towers of gore and slime.

Utterly brilliant.

Ten Out Of Ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In an era where nearly every great horror film of the 60s and 70s is being remade for audiences weaned on horror flicks of today that are not too terribly good, it is instructive to look back at John Carpenter's 1982 opus THE THING, which itself is a remake--of a childhood favorite of the director's, Howard Hawks' 1951 sci-fi\/horror classic THE THING FROM OUTER SPACE. Although Carpenter's film was not initially that big a box office hit when released in mid-1982, it has since garnered a very large following.

In fact, Carpenter's film is less of a remake of Hawks' film than it is a reworking, as he goes back to the original idea posited by the source material, namely the John W. Campbell story \"Who Goes There?\", in which a US scientific crew in Antarctica is menaced by a shape-changing alien thawed out from the ice after 100,000 years. Kurt Russell, who had starred for Carpenter in the director's 1979 TV movie ELVIS and the 1981 film ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, heads a cast of stalwart character actors, including Keith David, Donald Moffat, Richard Dysart, and Richard Masur, in this tension-filled exploration of paranoia, as the shape-changing \"thing\", which first comes to their camp in the form of a guide dog a Norwegian team is trying to kill, takes over each of them one by one. It isn't long before everybody in the camp begins to mistrust his fellow man. The ending of the film, in which Russell and David are the only ones left, has a disturbing and chilling ambiguity akin to the similar codas to both THE BIRDS and STRAW DOGS.

Almost universally, when the subject of THE THING is bought up, the emphasis is on the extremely gory special effects make-up and alien designs created by Rob Bottin, who had worked with Carpenter on the 1980 horror classic THE FOG, and on Joe Dante's 1981 werewolf film THE HOWLING. These effects are indeed quite spectacular and graphic, and even today, they can also be quite stomach-turning. But all of this would make Carpenter's film nothing more than a high-end splatter epic if the direction, the story, and the acting weren't up to snuff; and thankfully, each of them are. When he's not concentrating on the enormously gruesome transformation sequences, Carpenter builds suspense in the same Hitchcock-influenced way that informed his previous films HALLOWEEN and THE FOG, with cinematographer Dean Cundey's prowling camera-work, particularly through the corridors of the station, a significant help. The acting enhances an already-fine screenplay adaptation by Bill Lancaster; and we are also given a taut score by Ennio Morricone, whose work on director Sergio Leone's classic 1960s Italian spaghetti westerns is well known to all, including of course Carpenter himself. THE THING also features additional fine visual effects from Albert Whitlock (who worked on many Hitchcock films, including THE BIRDS), and Roy Arbogast, who worked on CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND and JAWS 2.

Carpenter's film was not the success it could have been because Universal chose to release this graphic shocker a mere two weeks after it had released Steven Spielberg's far more family-friendly E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (not surprisingly, critics and audiences at the time favored Spielberg's excellent film over Carpenter's equally excellent but exceedingly different one). Also, most of the horror film box office business in 1982 was going to another Spielberg-produced film, POLTERGEIST. As a result, at a cost of $15 million, THE THING suffered from lack of attention in its time.

Over time, however, many have come to see Carpenter's film for what it is--an extremely gory but extremely intelligent combination of science fiction and horror, done with a great deal of flair and a true understanding of the psychological paranoia at the heart of its story. Though it is still quite gruesome, THE THING should be as much remembered for the skill by which the story is put together as it is for the gory alien designs and make-up effects; for it is the storytelling skill and the suspense that make it so memorable in the final analysis.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For me, a ten-star film is one that never dies in my memory, and yet can be watched over and over again with the same pleasure as the first time. This could be a technically flawed movie; the pleasure has nothing to do with spit-and-polish (my personal top-ten is idiosyncratic, to say the least!). John Carpenter's \"The Thing\" is one of very few films to fit this criterion.

I've been a science fiction fan since I was a child in the Sixties, and I read the John W Campbell short story on which the film is based (\"Who Goes There\") before I saw the original, black-and-white Howard Hawks film (as with a lot of people, that viewing was illicit, on the TV, when I should have been in bed!). That movie, as with so many that you see as a child in such circumstances, seemed near perfection: the suspense, the inexplicable nature of the alien, the photography; it all just seemed to work. I watched it many times in the years after (and still do, when it is shown on TV). Because of this, I avoided the Carpenter version for years - seeing remakes of one's favourite film is, I thought, always a mistake. When I did eventually watch it sometime in 1988\/9, again on TV because there was nothing else on, I realised that I need to change \"always a mistake\" to \"usually a mistake\"! Carpenter had produced something different from the original film, closer to the original story, and truly wonderful. From the opening scene of the helicopter and husky, through the viscerally disturbing scene in the dog-pound, to that ending (sorry, no spoilers here!), I was hooked. The sound track alone lives with me - all I have to hear is a close similarity to that bass-over-snare drum beat, and I'm *in* the final scene again ...

Until seeing \"The Thing\", I had Carpenter down as just another gore-monkey, based only on comments and reviews in mainstream press. Since seeing \"The Thing\", I think I have seen most of his movies - I haven't gone out of my to do so, but if one comes up, just seeing his name as director is enough to make up my mind to watch it. He is thoughtful, and knows how to build a film up so that it reaches a point at which something will stick in the memory.

If you haven't seen \"The Thing\", and you enjoy science fiction, do yourself a favour - sit down in a dark room, wrap up warm, and prepare to have your memory enhanced!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Aaah...The Thing.

To see a horror film in which not only is every character over the age of thirty, but distinctly UNattractive, makes a refreshing change, and reminds me of those distant times when actors were chosen because of their talent and their ability to play realistic characters, rather than because of their teen appeal on a magazine cover. And Carpenter chooses a production designer and a cinematographer who can actually create realistic environments rather than over-styled parodies. And there's no gimmicky 'twist' ending, or cameo celebrity appearance, or lame pseudo-romantic subplot.

And I REALLY miss on-set physical effects; with all those 20 year old kids trying out crazy new ideas with vats of blood and latex and early animatronics. In the 5 years between 1979 and 1984 we saw Alien, The Elephant Man, Poltergeist, The Howling, An American Werewolf in London, The Thing, The Company of Wolves, A Nightmare on Elm Street...what an era for horror effects! And don't get me started on the death of matte painting. The matte work in this movie is beautiful and seamless.

What do we have now? Third rate CGI, former music video directors and professional stylists, that makes even 'gritty' horror movies look like glossy MTV videos.

Now I'm going to go Netflix 'The Howling'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This being my first John Carpenter film, I must say I was very impressed by The Thing. Right from the beginning, the film draws you in, and never lets up on the tension. The film's special effects and models hold up well even today. Other than Kurt Russell, I wasn't familiar with any of the cast members but they were all exceptional in imparting fear, paranoia, and the desperation to survive. The Universal DVD has a wealth of very interesting behind the scenes extras. Strongly recommended, 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cannot believe I never added my two cents about this film as yet!

This is one of the best films of all time. Many critics and movie-goers alike talk of John Carpenter's \"Halloween\" for setting trends and being \"his best work\". Those folks have not seen this version of \"The Thing\" because it is right up there with \"Halloween\".

John Carpenter's work shines in this film. He took a film that was already made and instead of \"re-making\" the film, he made the book the first film was based on! Brilliant.

The casting of each man was great, the tension between them was real, it made me scream, made me scared, made me guess, made me laugh, made me question, even up to today \"who goes there?\" in that film. This film had no Hollywood sweetie pie or funny-type ending, and what a bold move not to have one in 1982. Another brilliant move.

I was at the screening for this film when I was on vacation in Southern California. The audience at the screening went wild! I carry those memories for years, it was so much fun! We all thought that there was no way on God's green earth this film was not going to be a hit. But by box office receipts, it was a dud because of \"ET, The Extra Terrestrial\" and \"Poltergeist\" two very good family oriented films took the box office in 1982 when this film came out.

This film was what I, as a horror film adult buff was looking for, a horror\/thriller with an adult script, and real adult actors. Not kids playing adults. Not little Miss \"big-breasted\" scream-queen of the day running around screaming for titilation BUT real guys with real problems delivering some of the best monologues you'll ever hear. Heck, being a feminist, I didn't even MISS women in this film! And good for Mr. Carpenter by not putting one in there, it really wouldn't have made sense! (Unless, \"The Thing\" was actually feminine! Something to think about!)

I saw special effects of that time I had never seen before, I saw makeup that made me sit up a few nights. This is what horror\/thrillers of today are missing. Today, the Directors wimp out. Today, the Studios wimp out. Too much CGI and not enough belief, too much CGI and not enough story, not enough imagination. You leave the theater and in a week -- or less -- you forget about the film and move onto the next grand film opening. This one stays with ya. That's one of the marks of an excellent film.

On many reviews I've written how now paying $10 for a film is horrid. For films like this one, you'd pay it and not feel slighted. This film is NOT for everyone.

I find it horrific that they lable this film a \"cult\" film. I find that the audience is broader than many would lead you to belive and although not a commercial success in 1982, this is an example of how releasing a darn good film on the wrong date can make a darn good film look bad. After John Carpenter's film, many people copied many techniques, make-up, special effects and story lines from this version of \"The Thing\".

I am now excitd to go on record and state that this film is one of the best films of all time, very much under rated. Please see it uncut, please see it in letterbox and please hear it digitally. You'll talk about it for years as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the most outstanding horror movies i've ever seen in my life time. Forget the exorcist and all the other hype horror movies out there.John Carpenter as made a tour-de-force horror epic with outstanding special-effects great performances from Kurt Russell and co and a great soundtrack that will haunt you for ever! The greatest thing about this movie after 17 years is it has'nt dated it looks fresh and new and you don't get many movies like this.Back in 1982 this was up against E.T. and of course it failded and was a box-office bomb. Over the years THE THING as made a cult following from video and t.v sales and as many new fans. In the end this movie kicks ass and to me it as never loss it's edge to scare the pants off of you and to me that a horror movie. Long live John Carpenter!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Thing\" is John Carpenter's best movie. Merging his talents for tension building and shocks with decent production values he turned out a perfectly crafted sci fi \/ horror movie.

By filming in truly difficult conditions he creates a very believable isolated research base which sets the tension before anything has even happened. The ensemble cast work well together with Kurt Russell proving a charismatic leading man even under all that beard.

By building the tension slowly with moments of gory horror (courtesy of effects meister Rob Bottin - currently directing Freddy vs Jason) Carpenter creates a movie that has rarely been matched. Considering this came out the same year as ET it could not be more different!

Worth a watch \/ rewatch. 9 out of 10.

p.s. the DVD is excellent. Lots of extras plus the best DVD commentary going (with Carpenter & Russell). Plus remixed in Dolby Digital for even scarier sound effects.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film accidentally when they showed it on TV and I was up far too late... I really lucked out there though. It's truly incredible; from the location (as isolated as it's possible to be on this planet; it made \"the abyss\" look like ET in the council swimming pool), through the interesting characters (Keith David is especially good as the reactionary Childs -\"What if we're wrong about him?\" - \"Then we're wrong.\") and the effects (more yucky than Alien).

Moreover, however, the real tension and fear in the film has nothing to do with the effects. It's the people you start being scared of; knowing that one of them may - or may not be - \"All they appear to be\". It's certainly got the feel of \"who goes there?\".

The soundtrack is great; it really plays up the isolation, fear, and gravity of the situation.

Finally, the epilogue scene really, really cuts. Even more than the \"But then again who does ?\" punchline of Bladerunner. Enough said.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It couldn't.

From the cutting dialogue to the super special effects this film was a joy to behold throughout. The immediate feel for the bitterness of the antarctic, the affinity for the characters that is built up at the base level before the real action heats up and the cunning finale combine to make this one of the most memorable and enjoyable films around.

Up against a long list of films that have attempted to exploit the theme of visitors from another planet, The Thing comes out on top and laughing. Who can forget the perfectly timed dialogue and the chilling special effects? Special effects that are a lot more impressive than the computer generated images that we get to see today. I for one found some of the most enjoyable aspects of the film to be the way that we were introduced slowly to each member of the crew, and the way that they all had some distinctive character traits. This wasn't just a senseless bloodbath-come-slasher-horror flick. This film had feeling. Emotion.

I truly can't recommend this film highly enough. I have yet to see anything in it's class that comes anywhere near to matching, let alone bettering, the near perfect acting and timing utilised in this cunning polymesmeric feat of cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When John Carpenter's masterly version of \"The Thing\" was released in summer 1982, it was panned by critics and bombed at the box office. The audiences couldn't handle another 'bad' alien, they wanted ET. Their loss in the long run.

I would kill to be able to see this great movie on the big screen. This is a movie that was way ahead of it's time; now it has influenced a new generation of filmmakers, showing it's trail on things like \"Se7en\", \"Alien 3\", and even \"The X Files\", which unceremoniously ripped it off page by page. And the structure, which eschews character development in favour of incredible SFX, is commonplace in today's blockbuster flicks.

Carpenter shows the same skills he honed in \"Halloween\", using the camera to create an unsettling and claustrophobic atmosphere. The performances are all fine, and the ending is terrific - still unique today.

A paranoid masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ironically, what makes John Carpenter's \"The Thing\" such an entertaining sci-fi film are its genre-defying elements of mystery, suspense, and tight plot structure. It puts to shame such films as \"Aliens\" or \"Armageddon\" that are content to inundate the viewer with special effects while their plots revolve around stunts that butcher the laws of physics, testosterone-laden one-liners, heroes equipped with enough artillery to conquer Iraq, and pathetic attempts to inject \"meaning\" into the barrage on screen with \"emotional sequences\" that only serve to further insult the intelligence of the audience. The supreme tragedy, of course, is that these kind of lobotomized movies are also the most popular. I think that there is a cause for this, although it isn't very comforting. There is an increasing trend in our culture to passively \"surrender\" to the media -- to immerse oneself in the images we see without dedicating a single brain cell to comprehending the statement the work is trying to make. This mindset is becoming increasingly dominant in all arenas; even the once-hallowed print medium is being diluted, thanks to the abominable \"reader response\" theory that pervades our schools and the \"tabloid brigade\" that lines our magazine racks whose mentality appears to be infiltrating the once-venerable mainstream press. Nowadays, we just flip the switch and put our minds on \"pause.\" Is \"The Thing\" a \"good\" movie? For the rare individual who still values his faculty of reason, a more appropriate term would be \"entertaining.\" Its plot keeps one guessing, its ending is uncompromising, and it has some redeeming statements to make about human paranoia. Upon subsequent viewings, one begins to note a conspicuous lack of depth in the acting, but the taut storyline remains compelling. Of course, \"Citizen Kane\" it's not, but then again sci-fi never was a thinking-man's genre...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best horror\/sci-fi movie i have ever seen. I was myself in the Arctic, working for Canadian government , in a small northern station when I see this movie for the first time; needless to say I was in the mood...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So, Americans make t.v. series based on movies, whilst us Brits make films based on t.v. shows.It should never work, but on this occasion it does because of a sublime meeting of character and actor. Cliches are sometimes justly so, and Leonard Rossiter was BORN to play Rigsby.This is one of the great comic creations, kind of how Norman Bates would have turned out if he'd been melancholic instead if murderous.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The history of TV to film adaptations are littered with aberrations which almost conclusively prove that the tradition should never have started in the first place. There are, however, some examples which manage to pull it off, just. Rising Damp would, at first, appear to be the last sitcom suitable for the big screen treatment as this hilarious series was based within the tiny confines of a northern bedsit. Also the writer, Eric Chappell, wasn't being paid enough to spend time crafting an entirely original screenplay so he harvested a batch of TV episodes and stitched them together to form the body of the film. This, in itself, didn't necessarily mean that the script would fail. David Croft and Jimmy Perry did the same thing with their screenplay for Dad's Army and it worked superbly. Although, the early Dad's Army episodes, with their staid pace and over arcing plot, lent themselves far better to film adaptation. The Rising Damp episodes, however, were high energy affairs from the first scene to the breathless climax. As a result, as one story is concluded and another started, the scenes within the film become disjointed. Another pitfall for the movie version of a TV series is the inevitable comparisons that are made. In this respect the film pales in comparison to Rising Damp's brilliant series. Despite all this, Rising Damp the Movie manages to be entertaining and occasionally uproarious. It is perhaps not surprising that the finest moments occur during sequences written specially for the film. This includes a rugby match where Rossiter does a brilliantly timed pratfall. Indeed, while all the cast handle their roles perfectly (bar a sub standard replacement actor for the late and truly great Beckinsale), it is Leonard Rossiter as Rigsby that shines the most. In fact Rising Damp should have been made as a film just so Rossiter could have been eligible for an Oscar, such is the magnificence of his acting talent. Criminally, he wasn't even nominated. Ultimately, the film fails to match the giddy heights of the TV series while managing to hold its own as a comedy in its own right with some beautifully played moments. Recommended viewing.

One last thing: The opening and closing music is by far the worst in film history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Obviously, the the responses here were written many years after the film was released and cannot be taken in context. Back in 1980 in post labour England, this film was bloody funny. We were glad of something to laugh about and Rising Damp, with its sympathetic mockery of a complete social strata, was one of the best British sitcoms of its period, if not ever. It struck a chord in almost everybody and in true British fashion, we laughed at the Rigsby in ourselves. America had nothing to touch this type of humour because self debasement was not amusing to our overseas cousins. Leonard Rossiter was one of Englands finest actors, on stage, on TV and in Movies. His commitment and professionalism were second to none. Richard Beckinsale was, although young, a perfect comedic foil to Rossiter and should, by all rights, be classed as an all time great. Had he not been taken so young, I feel sure he would, by now, be classified as one of Britains greatest comedy actors. Frances De la Tour found her finest television moment in Rising Damp and, for me, never quantified her undoubted ability with further roles. If you did not see the film at the time of its release, you are not qualified to comment, simply because you cannot understand why it was funny, the humour of the moment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i was part of the cast of Space Odyssey, playing FIDO in mission control. i just want to say that none of us actors, specially those in mission control who had to react to a green screen most of the time, had any idea how amazing it would turn out to be. i knew it was going to be good, if only for the sheer camaraderie and professionalism that the production team at Impossible Pictures provided for everyone involved. but when we all saw it for the first time at the screening at the Curzon Mayfair, well, i for one felt very proud. I was so glad that none of us looked like we were in Star Trek. Joe Aherne, the screenwriter and director, is the most amazing man to work for. He pretty much gets a good team together and then just trusts them implicitly to freely do what they do best. I'm really lucky to have been part of this show. Who knew something this epic and complicated to understand would turn out to be so enticing to watch. and my god it's a beautiful universe out there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I came across this movie on DVD purely by chance through a Blockbuster rental. Voyage to the Planets is an excellent BBC 2hour documentary\/drama about a future \"grand tour\" of the solar system. Taking pains to adhere to current knowledge about the planets and space flight, and plausible extropolations from existing technology, this movie tells the story of astronauts on a journey to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto.

The special effects are excellent for a TV show. I found the actors believable as astronauts. The situations presented are for the most part plausible, and you learn a lot about the science of the planets and spaceflight! Only two minor complaints: I found some of the situations and dialogue somewhat maudlin at times. Furthermore I am unsure that a single crew and ship would be sent on a single mission to see all those destinations at once time. More than likely, visits to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc. would\/will be separate missions.

They didn't try to skimp on this show with production values. The scenes of Venus and Mars were actually filmed in the northern deserts of Chile--the driest area on earth and a dead-ringer for the Martian landscape. Weightlessness sequences were filmed in a diving Russian transport jet. The producers could have fudged on either of these using studios and CGI, but chose the real thing instead.

I would like to especially mention the marvelous music that was composed for this movie. Don Davis's thrilling theme is the first thing that grabs you when the movie starts, as the magnificent shot of the Pegasus passes the screen and David Suchet intones \"it is the destiny of man to explore the stars...\".

Watching this on a small television screen is one regret I have. What a thrill to see this in a movie theatre, or even better an IMAX presentation!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cocky medical students play chicken with process that simulates death, in attempt to get a (hopefully temporary) view of the afterlife. Certain plot twists and themes are a little off the mark, and the acting occasionally goes over the top. But the underlying message - about God's and others' forgiveness for our real or perceived sins - is positive and unique in cinema, and the cast is very very good. The last sequence between Julia Roberts and her father is so effectively done that, years after having seen it, I still get chills thinking about it. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Can't get much eerier than Flatliners. This deep, dark film had my heart pumping throughout. The lighting is dark and will get you in the mood for a death defying experience, literally. Keifer is in top form as he is today in 24. He's a great actor and he plays a very convincing and shocking role you won't forget for years to come. And what can you say for the rest of the cast? An all-star lineup, Julia is hotter than ever, Will, Oliver, and Kevin light up the stage in this thriller that will keep you gripping your seats. It's a refreshing sight to see a true thriller, with top notch professional actors. You won't regret seeing this 2 hour seat bender. -JL","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nelson is a medical professor who wants his four students to put him to death and then bring him back to life so that he can prove that there is an afterlife. So they do and soon enough all of the medical students want to know if there is life after death. The afterlife isn't about pearly gates and lights at the end of the tunnel but something more sinister.

Past ghosts come back to haunt them and surely this movie will haunt anyone. It has some pretty scary moments that could translate into real life and it makes people wonder somewhat about what happens when you die. It's a good movie to see when it's raining and you're feeling down. It's also a little weird.

See it with a haunted past.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A film that reveals the unease of modern men and women in life when confronted to death. We are beyond the simple religious belief in the afterlife, and what's more in any kind of hell or heaven. Religion is declared dead. Yet human beings are more obsessed than ever by death, especially since we can push it away for quite a long time. What's more the scientific and technological development of our societies leads us to believe we can explain everything, know everything and do everything. That was quite typical of the end of the 20th century. Today things are changing, especially when the president of the United States himself, Barack Obama, in a public speech to journalists speaks of their search for truth and qualifies that truth as being of course relative because it is more a quest than a final end, objective or achievement. The film shows the end of the good old metaphysical thinking that was starting to evolve into a truth obsession, an obsessive conception that truth was unique and irreversibly reachable. Post modernism had not reached Hollywood yet, though today it seems to have reached the White House. So some young doctors and medical students decide to go into death and come back. Technically it is possible but the result is not surprising. It reactivates old guilty feelings and frustrations that had been buried into the unconscious. One has to do with a drug addicted father of a Vietnam veteran who commits suicide, another with a young boy who was stoned to death by some others the death tripper included, another still with a young black girl who was victimized and bullied in grade school out of racism, sexism and hatred if not fear in front of her shyness. It is so na\u00efve that you could cry out of shame for these young adults who are highly qualified and behave like babies who are crying for their bottles of edulcorated fruit juice. The film though is interesting but in something quite different. The setting and the shooting and every single detail or treatment of any detail is baroque, morbid, decadent, quite in the style of \"Death in Venice\" or Greenaway, or some other works of art that deal with making friends with the basic enemy that death is. Of course that does not save the film but at least that makes it worth watching.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is great from start to finish about a group of med students that get together and literally kill each other by stopping their hearts and then revive themselves. They then research what happens from the \"near death\" experiences. As each one goes through the experience, they become haunted by their deepest fears that seem to materialize as reality. This ranges from dead kids with hockey sticks to dead fathers that seem to be upstairs.

The cast is first rate and Oliver Platt is hilarious in one of the best roles of his career. I am not a big Keifer Sutherland fan but even he does an excellent job. This is a movie that I can watch over and over!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although Flatliners is 15 years old, tonight was my first time ever seeing it. I had heard about the movie Flatliners, but there was never a buzz about it to make me go out and rent it or make a point to see it period. Well, I caught it on one of the premium channels and I must say that it was very good.

This movie was about some brilliant young medical students deciding to explore death. They have figured out a way to cause a person to die briefly and bring him\/her back to life. Besides the all-star cast, this movie had some serious bite to it. Just the very thought of exploring death is riveting enough, but I really thought the writer & director did an excellent job in giving a different yet hair raising view. This was no generic attempt to thrill, frighten, and make one's mind race... this was the real deal.

Instead of making it an empty, superficial, star-studded thriller, this movie had substance. A nail-biter, white knuckle, edge-of-the-seat, hard nose thriller. I give it an 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watch this move recently on Encore channel. What a great film, a great cast as well. Flatliners is very suspenseful and unpredictable. The movie has a great opening scene by the ocean then to a series of scene establishing the questions about life after death which provide a very strong upfront story involvement. Therefore Nelson played by Kiefer Sutherland was the first to go through the test to die and come back to life. Then it's gets very dramatic by bringing back his wrong doing from the past to life. Then all of the above mentioned characters went through the same experience except for Randy steckle played by Olliver platt. Then the story unfold into a resolution and basic understanding about life and the presence and meaning of God. David Labraccio played by Kevin Bacon an atheist end up questioning his own belief about God. It's amazing to watch Julia Roberts along with Kevin Bacon, Oliver platt, William baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland at such a prime time of their careers. One can ask how come we don't have such great movie produced anymore. This is one of the best productions from Joel Schumacher. I really enjoy this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nostalgia isn't always the best reason to watch a movie. More often than not, the movies you loved as a kid will disappoint you as an adult. While there are exceptions to this rule, it's hard to justify owning a DVD of Krull, regardless of how many insightful the director's commentary may be. But stay sharp Gen X\/Y'ers, because the dozens of disappointments dominating your trip down memory lane, might stop you from stumbling across one worth revisiting.

One surprise film worth another look is Joel Schumacher's Flatliners, the supernatural thriller starring 80's popcorn heavyweights Keifer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts and Billy Baldwin. You would think that a stew comprised of this cast, the flamboyant flair of Schumacher and the \u00fcber slick eye of cinematographer Jan De Bont would result in something sickeningly stodgy, but calories aside... Flatliners ain't half bad. Even though it's production design is inexplicably over-the-top and the photography is achingly over- stylized (replete with neon soaked streets spewing endless billows of steam), Flatliners still manages to be an effectively dark and compelling thriller. If there's an explanation why Flatliners was forgotten, it might be because 1990 saw the release of another, far superior, supernatural thriller: Jacob's Ladder.

Had Flatliners been released a year or two after Jacob's Ladder, it's likely Schumacher's flashy thriller would have been dismissed as a toned down, commercialized rip-off of Adrian Lyne's nightmarish masterpiece. But with these films being released in the same year, Flatliners enjoyed a different fate, tripling JL's take at the box office despite being a watered down version of a similar premise. The passage of time hasn't been as kind to Flatliners, it has been lost atop a dated heap of throwaway 80's Brat Pack dreck, while JL has cemented its reputation as a timeless classic. Fates aside, JL is seamlessly terrifying and it manages to keep audiences guessing right up until the last frame, whereas Flatliners falls victim to over- simplification and Hollywood conveniences that drag down the final act into a predictably tidy denouement. Comparisons between the two movies is unfair, and ultimately overlooks Flatliners ability to represent the 80's at its quintessential best. Released at the end of a decade of shallow excess, Flatliners will always be dated by its hairstyles and clothing styles, but in fairness, it should also be remembered as a well executed movie at (or at least near) the top of its particular heap of dreck. For intents and purposes, it's an entertaining walk down memory lane.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Someone i know said that there was this film called flatliners that was probably up my street. I was told about this movie after watching final destination 2 and watching the extra feature about near deth experience.

I bought the DVD of flatliners at the modest price of 5 pounds. Got home and watched it. And i could not help but smile and feel good wondering how this film hadn't been in my life before. The film is about a group of medical students try to see what it's like after near death experience. But then there sins come back in reality and can harm them physically.

Acting from Kevin Bacon and Keifer Sutherland is great as you would expect from the pair. And Joel Schmacheur made this a great movie like he did with the lost boys.

This is an edgy and stylish thriller bound to please nay type of film fan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hollywood is one of the best and the beautiful things that had occurred in my life. I admire and am very much fascinated by the way Hollywood generates ideas and implement them. It makes me wonder about the scope of human brain. I saw Flatliners a long time back but the story, direction, cast and of all acting is still fresh in my mind. The story begins with our lead actor Sutherland saying during sunrise \"what a beautiful day to die.\" For all of us, It's a story which shows emotions that are sometimes withheld in our mind during our entire life. Never able to understand few things in life. It shows us to get motivated and to improve our quality of life. Anyway I suggest it to all that watch it once.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*Flat SPOILERS*

Five med students, Nelson (Kiefer Sutherland), David Labraccio (Kevin Bacon), Rachel Mannus (Julia Roberts), Joe Hurley (William Baldwin) & Randy Steckle (Oliver Platt) decide to attempt an experiment; dying for exactly 5 minutes (it is the maximum amount of time somebody can do this before being risk of brain damage).

Almost everyone does this experiment, Randy being the lone exception, but they begin to have unwelcome visitors; David sees a little black girl shouting crude insults to him, Joe sees all the women he has had sex with (and which he videotaped) asking him why from the TV Screen, Rachel relives her father's suicide and Nelson faces a little boy with murderous intentions.

Why are they here? And how will they get rid of them? This tense and interesting movie, set in an hallucinated city and into a Gothic Med School, is quite the experience, both for the story and the characters, played by then-budding stars such as Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Oliver Platt, Kevin Bacon and William Baldwin.

The director is Joel Schumacher, who had already worked with Sutherland in 'Lost Boys', and this second cooperation is even better than the first.

A must for psychological-thriller-horror buds and metaphor lovers (this story is about forgiveness and righting of past wrongs), this is one of the minor classics from the '80s that get respect even today, like the mention by Rebecca Gayheart in 'Scream 2' or the Tru Calling episode which used the movie's premise.

Flatliners: 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is definitely a good movie unlike what other people are saying. Peline and I have both seen the movie 3x and the end is cheesy but that is part of the package... to experiment with death is the same as trying to defy it, so the movie is cool. For those who wish to see a classic Kevin Bacon movie, see this please. take care greeting from Istanbul. we will write 10 lines if you really want us 2 but we think it is a waste of time bye. The rest of this review should not be taken seriously because we just wrote it to fill the 10 line requirement (which is crazy) but we are kind people and will therefore adapt to the rules that are set out for us. So people watch this movie not because we wrote 10 lines, but because it is good. and by the way we wrote 12 lines!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My mom always told me to sit down and to actually watch this movie because it's one of her favorites, I never did for years until I caught one night on TV. This movie was great, I don't even know how to explain it. Not only is the cast excellent (Julia Roberts, Keifer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, William Baldwin, and Oliver Platt) but the story is awesome. It's freaky but not too scary and it makes you think. I was left speechless after this film and amazed of how good of actors and actress all five of these people really are. Where did William Baldwin go, he's great. This film is a must see for anyone, if you haven't seen it go rent it, you will not be sorry. Amazing!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Five medical students (Kevin Bacon, David Labraccio; William Baldwin, Dr. Joe Hurley; Oliver Platt, Randy Steckle; Julia Roberts, Dr. Rachel Mannus; Kiefer Sutherland, Nelson) experiment with clandestine near death & afterlife experiences, (re)searching for medical & personal enlightenment. One by one, each medical student's heart is stopped, then revived.

Under temporary death spells each experiences bizarre visions, including forgotten childhood memories. Their flashbacks are like children's nightmares. The revived students are disturbed by remembering regretful acts they had committed or had done against them. As they experience afterlife, they bring real life experiences back into the present. As they continue to experiment, their remembrances dramatically intensify; so much so, some are physically overcome. Thus, they probe & transcend deeper into the death-afterlife experiences attempting to find a cure.

Even though the DVD was released in 2007, this motion picture was released in 1990. Therefore, Kevin Bacon, William Baldwin, Julia Roberts & Kiefer Sutherland were in the early stages of their adult acting careers. Besides the plot being extremely intriguing, the suspense building to a dramatic climax & the script being tight & convincing, all of the young actors make \"Flatliners,\" what is now an all-star cult semi-sci-fi suspense. Who knew 17 years ago that the film careers of this young group of actors would skyrocket? I suspect that director Joel Schumacher did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Flatliners left quite a noticeable impression in my head. The story is quick paced and leaves you constantly absorbed and at many times quite tense. Its about five remarkable student doctors (notably Julia Roberts and Kevin Bacon) among whom, one of them has devised the mechanism of remaining dead (or getting flat-lined)for a few seconds and then coming back to life.

The procedure is quite 'complex' involving a plethora of medical knick-knacks - injections, electric blankets, oxygen masks and a variety of esoteric medical terms. I strongly suspect doctors coined all these words so that they never need to get layed off. But funnily they follow the KISS (Original version for engineers: Keep It Simple, stupid) (Extended version for doctors: Keep it Stupid, Simple) philosophy as well. At the risk of getting euthanized by some revenge-taking doctor reader, let me continue.

So the first guy who gets flat-lined hopes to find the answers to life which philosophy and religion cannot convincingly answer. He hopes to get it answered (and become famous) through applied science. He flat-lines for around two minutes and then comes back into our world left quite shaken. During death, he has a vision of an incident, when he was young, which left the strongest impression on his life. He killed another boy when he was kid, by accident, and he still feels responsible for it.

With the success of the first flat-liner, the others follow suit each of them extending their flat-line time further and further to test the limits of how long one can remain dead and experience life after death.

Meanwhile monsters from the past and future, keep coming back to haunt them after their flat-line experience. The first flat-liner is haunted by a young kid who tortures him when he is alone. The second who camera-ed all the women he took to bed, sees television sets all over playing his videos. The third is haunted by a young girl who he teased in school. The fourth is haunted by her suicide-dead father, for whom she feels responsible.

All of them are driven insane by these haunting and obsessions and think that the past seems to want to take revenge on them. The main focus on getting flat-lined is that your entire life passes through your eyes, at the moment of 'dying', whatever stage that is, and you are left mostly with the strongest impressions of life in your mind. Since they didn't die these strong impressions have somehow resurfaced and have become the focus of their lives.

All of them somehow come to terms with (and extinguish) their past demons. All of them except the first one who realizes the only way he can move on through life is getting flat-lined AGAIN. During this flat-line session, he sees himself getting flat-lined the first time and also sees the boy he killed, trying to kill him this time round. The boy kills him this time for a few minutes and in doing so has sought revenge. For a few minutes in the movie one is left wondering if he gets to come back. Thankfully (because most of us like happy endings) the boy absolves him of his past and he comes back to life again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The bevy of box office big league stars is phenomenal in this movie!! William Baldwin, Kiefer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon and Julia Roberts!! This movie was made in one of my favorite years too, 1990!! I am a Chicagoan, and the setting in Chicago was very identifiable and artistically expedited as well!!I liked this movie, and the agitation which motivated the climax in this picture was a powerful element to the plot which was utterly sensational!!

\"Flatliners\" centers around a group of disgruntled pre-med students who want to be flat lined as a way of attaining some sort of societal vindication!! When life does not make sense, it would appear very illogical to get curious about apocalyptic nightmares!! At the same time, once their desultory curiosity has gotten the better of them, there is no turning back!! The king of the hill, (so to speak) is the one who vehemently shouts: I WILL DO TWO MINUTES!! WHO ELSE IS GOING TO DO THAT!! ANYONE WANT TO TRY FOR TWO AND A HALF!! Ultimately, all of these newly arrived and very unwelcome recriminations now have an extremely ubiquitous disposition in these re pro-bate's lives!! The consummation to their justified or unjustified pathos required a full 360 degree perspective on the issues they were agonizing over!! Whatever purpose all of this reckless and academic chicanery serves, it is definitely an original approach for asserting your personality!! I liked this movie, 1990 was a good year for me too, things seemed to fall into place that year!! When I saw this movie some night in November during the year 1990, I was very glad that I did!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very suspenseful, surprisingly intelligent film about five medical students flatlining themselves and then being resuscitated to share their experiences of death and what lies beyond. Joel Schumacher directs with some skill - creating some very eerie scenes as well as particularly beautiful ones. The visions of death are not what viewers might expect nor is that which awaits us all when we go - thanks to screenwriter Peter Filardi who really did an outstanding job coming up with this story. While the creativity of the story is impressive, the story has many holes as well, particularly in the logic department and believability factors. Notwithstanding all of that Flatliners is a good effective film because of the script, the direction which again is very surreal at times, and the acting which brings four very talented actors and William Baldwin together. This core of actors acts and reacts off each other very nicely. Keifer Sutherland does a very impressive job as the head of the group - the one who comes up with the idea to die and be born again. He also manages to portray a man- a young man - with a damaging, destructive secret from his past. Kevin Bacon is fine as the most pragmatic and skeptical of the group. Oliver Platt is really good as the voice of reason and human fears. Platt has some really good lines and plays the paranoia well. Yes, Julia Roberts is here too and very good. the actors do best though by playing off each other and making us believe they are such good friends. I was duly impressed with much of Flatliners but more than anything else the story affected me the most. The scene with that dog hobbling around the street just one of those powerful images evoked as were many of the \"flashback\" scenes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Im usually wary of movies hovering around the 6\/10 mark on IMDb. Id like to think people know what they are talking about and know what they like. I guess the trick with reviewing is to take an approach of \"Hey, if i liked types of movies like these- would i give it a higher score than i am about to give it now since I don't like these types of movies\" Then again people judge differently , basing more value on acting, or perhaps story or directing. Anyway, landing the plane here- i had rented this movie out before and hadn't had time to watch it, this morning i did.

Wow! See this movie. I am personally interested in the paranormal\/have read a bit about near death experiences, so automatically i was hooked. I am unsure about some of the comments here saying that a quality cast here was wasted - i disagree- the acting here was superb from all- i think this is the only time i didn't mind Julia Roberts, it was good to see 24's Kiefer Sutherland (Currently at the time of this review, serving a jail sentence for DUI), and Kevin Bacon sporting an interesting hair style.

Overall- i liked the direction, the atmosphere, the acting, and the story line most of all- particularly the idea of karma, and , to quote Nelson Wright \"Everything we does matters\" So true.

10\/10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peter Lorre gives one of his most evil performances as the owner of the titled place. The plot has a new government agent being put on the track of Peter Lorre's character. When the G-man's contact his killed by one of Lorre's agents, the G-man is sent to prison for the killing even though everyone knows there is more to the story. Lorre has the man paroled into his care and brought to his island where he is mining diamonds. Lorre wants to know what our hero knows, but he isn't talking and a battle of wills is set in motion.

This is a good solid little thriller that doesn't quite make a great deal of sense plot wise, but even so the film holds your interest. I had put the film on last night in order to use it as something to drift off to, instead I found the tale riveting enough I was up an extra 70 minutes. Lorre is the reason that one falls into this. His quite demeanor is unnerving. He does very little but its clear from his orders and the way everyone reacts to him (watch how they light his cigarettes) that he is a bad dude.

Worth a look if you should run across it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story in this movie is fairly implausible B grade stuff, but the script called for a creepy guy to play the lead, and in 1940, that meant Peter Lorre. And Peter is at his creepiest in this one as island owner Stephen Danel, who gets prisoners paroled to his custody to work at his island diamond mine. Upon arrival the parolees discover that they are slave mine workers that can be beaten or killed at the whim of Danel.

Only two things seem to have it worse off than the slaves; Danel's wife, and monkeys. Monkeys tick him off so much that his violence towards them probably leads to the only meat the slaves get.

Lorre is perfect in his role here, and creeps up the screen in industrial-strength fashion. Although the script is not Casablanca caliber, the editing is very tight and there are no wasted scenes. This is a very watchable story, but I'm not sure what niche this movie filled. Too long for a short subject, and too short for a feature length film, I'm not sure how this was marketed to theaters.

I just caught this for the first time on a late night\/early morning TCM showing. Lorre fans will not want to miss this one if they haven't seen it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peter Lorre was born to play Stephen Danel with lines like: \"Mr. Smith, you shouldn't hold my wife like that.\" and \"I told you not to keep the monkey in the house!\" The poster for this film is an eerie green and Peter Lorre leers in way that makes you never want to go to his penal colony \/ island. This film is not available on DVD although it is a classic and very rarely shown on TV. What exactly is the relationship between Stephen Danel and the monkey? Why does the monkey upset him so much. We will never know. The film should be colorized by someone and excerpts should be made into a Kinks video. The film was re-released in the 1950s and only a few of the Peter Lorre biographies spend any text on this film. Casablanca was right around the corner. Bogart could have been on that island but they surely did not have the budget for him","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw this at Newport Beach Film Festival the other day. The film is REALLY exceptional. The crowd I went with all loved it. Funny, poignant and great acting. I'm tired of the tried and true Hollywood romances, who can relate? David Krumholtz (Max) is really amazing as the sure and true lover of the ultra-screwy Grace (Natasha Lyonne, who is also excellent). When Max falls for Grace we believe it. Why? Because love at first sight IS crazy and we're dealing with two lost, and maybe not so crazy, souls. Also of note are Giullmo Diaz as Hector and Rosanna Arquette as a sexless\/sexy neurotic, both \"roommates\" of Max and Grace before they embark on their trip to Sheboygen, WI and finding themselves. Don't miss this one, its something special! P.S. The soundtrack, led by Kevin Hearn (of Bare Naked Ladies fame) is really super super cool as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really loved this original screenplay and the different places it took me, emotionally, spiritually and just plain silly stuff. I didn't get caught up in \"believability\" in the screenplay or the actors and didn't even think about it until reading the reviews listed here in IMDb for the movie. Listening to Michael Parness talk at the Q & A about his idea of the film, wanting to see how crazy people, or \"f'ed\" up people, as he put it, fall in love is really interesting. I identified with not having a story book romance and liked seeing dysfunction at it's best. I like watching David Krumholtz in anything he does and have followed his career for a few years now. I believe this is some of his best work and say to anyone, just see this film to watch an amazing young actor. I agree that Guillermo D\u00edaz really was a scene stealer, and what he did with his character is really a great acting lesson in commitment. I laughed and cried both in this movie and was disappointed that it didn't win any awards at the festival. I question why that didn't happen. I gave Max and Grace a ten because these interesting, unique, creative Indie films deserve an audience. Technically watching this film, it's really beautifully done \u0096 the colors are amazing, and lastly, it's one of the best soundtracks I have heard in a film in awhile.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was original in an unoriginal way. Although many movies have tackled the subject of suicide and mental institutions, it was always about treating the patients and making them better because of the doctor's assistance, in this film, however, we follow a depressed guy who falls in love with a suicidal girl and will stop at nothing to make her happy even though she doesn't care for happiness at all, she just wants to die. This was a very interestingly cute romance comedy that in nothing less than enjoyable. This is a fun one to check out if you ever get the chance, you just have to be open minded about the material. Overall i give it a 6.4, i just voted 9 to get the rating higher :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many films attempt the ambitious. Few succeed. This film is one of them.

Though billed as a black comedy, that term seems too limiting to express the true nature of the story behind Max and Grace. Multi-hyphenate Michael Parness has managed to weave elements of absurdest comedy with incredibly real human emotion. Quite a remarkable feat, to be certain.

While the comedic aspects are certainly present, the heart of the film lies in its leads: David Krumholtz and Natasha Lyonne. The delicate balance of the film - really crazy versus real love - falls to them and they achieve it, carrying it through from the opening scene to the heart wrenching climax and on to the heartwarming ending. David Krumholtz, in the titular lead role and as narrator, anchors the picture and does an exceptional job. We see the world through Max's eyes and Krumholtz imbues them with a sort of wonder and hopefulness that one would not expect to be believable coming from a character who had previously attempted suicide. There should be no doubt from this point on that he has truly achieved leading man status, well deserved after more than a decade of memorable supporting roles. Natasha Lyonne might be something of a revelation for anyone who has seen her only in less challenging roles. The role of Grace is expansive in scope, requiring her to show both great rage and great tenderness - sometimes within seconds of each other. She manages to convince us of Grace's deep seated desperation that lies just beneath her alternating torpor and mania.

This is not a laugh a minute type of comedy so don't see the film expecting strictly humor from start to finish. Think more dramedy than comedy. There are some very dark moments, as one would expect given the subject matter of suicidal individuals, and some oddly real moments delivered most notably by Emma Adele Galvin as Max's sister, Sis. The most humorous scenes are those populated by the myriad of name actors in supporting roles. While Lorraine Bracco and David Paymer lend the most surreal aspect with their scenes the other supporting characters who populate the institution where Max and Grace meet are the real treat. Guillermo Diaz is a wanton scene stealer as the delightfully frenetic oddball, Hector. Ralf Moeller, as Bruno, acts as his straight man but has his own charm and appeal. Rosanna Arquette fully inhabits the role of Vera with the crass vitriol of an embittered truck stop waitress. Even her hardhearted character melts eventually, as does everyone who is touched by Max's literally undying love for Grace.

Can love conquer all might be the question behind the film and even though the realist within says no, movies are about an escape from reality, even if only for a few brief hours. I recommend seeing this film as an antidote to not just reality but to the cynicism that says that a love story like this never happens. Spending a few hours immersed in a world where it can and does works wonders on the psyche.

(Seattle International Film Festival - June 2005)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Quirky, vulnerable, raw, honest and a treat to watch. I'm not here to give a summary or synopsis of the film. I simply wish to congratulate this small film with the GREAT BIG HEART. I tip my hat to the filmmaker and it's excellent cast. If you want to know what happens in the film...then go see it. Michael Parness, writer\/director, has handled a very sensitive and emotional subject matter , Suicide, with great compassion, comedy and empathy. I see a great career ahead for Mr. Parness. This film works. Right from the outrageous opening sequence to the tender, honest moments between David Krumholtz and Natasha Lyonne. As with every movie, we need to suspend some disbelief, yet I found with MAX AND GRACE I was easily transported and completely convinced with it's \"surreal moments\". I only wish they would have pushed some of those moments even further. Mr. Parness has \"pulled\" some wonderful performances from this already talented cast. For instance Guillermo D\u00edaz' performance as a patient in the asylum was hysterical as well as moving. The colossus Ralf Moeller, former Mr Olympiad, as a terrified patient...perfect. I can go on and on...This independent feature has the star power of a big budget Hollywood film however, you forget about the STARS on screen as you flow along with this wonderfully written story. The real star here is the brilliant screenplay. I look forward to seeing more from Writer\/Director Michael Parness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Who'd a thought suicide could be dealt with in a way that's palpable by everyone? I saw the film at SXSW at it's premier and it turned out to be the best film there by far. Yes, its warped and it's bizarre, but it makes sense in the world the filmmaker (Michael Parness) creates. If you didn't laugh (most everyone did), then you just ain't getting it and thats a darn shame. Particularly of note, Guillermo Diaz as Hector steals a bunch of scenes and the chemistry between Natasha Lyonne and David Krumholtz is intense. The film reminds one of Harold and Maude, but not really, it takes one bizarre spin after another, and they do all make sense in this crazy mixed up world we all live in. I stayed (as did most) for the Q & A afterward and what was great was hearing that the same things I thought in my head as to why things \"happened\" are the reasons they did. I don't think you can say much bad about the film, unless you didn't get it. I think I got it and it seemed like most everyone else did as well. The film is dubbed a suicidal comedy, but its got a lot of heart, a lot of laughs and offers a lot of hope, yet it doesn't shy away from the horrors of suicide as well. A nice little movie that should get attention when it gets a release, which will hopefully happen sooner rather than later.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not since \"Harold and Maude\" has suicide been so successfully used as the theme for a love story. The acting, by a top notch cast is terrific. With a well structured script, things progress at an enjoyable pace. There are moments of black comedy, but I would classify \"My Suicidal Sweetheart\" as a unique romantic comedy, with a touch of dark humor. The relationship between two psychologically challenged lovers, is both touching and engaging. The movie actually makes you question, what is a normal relationship? I highly recommend \"My Suicidal Sweetheart\". Seek it out on DVD under the title \"Crazy for Love\". You will not be disappointed. - MERK","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On a scale of 1-10 \"Suicidal Sweetheart\" got an 11 from me and from everyone else at this showing. The picture was incredibly funny. I told my wife \"It's obvious that this man walks on water but across a bed of fire, that's a bit much.\" This is one of the very best blends of comedy, satire and uses of innuendo I have seen since Mel Brooks' \"Young Frankenstein\". I can't believe this picture was not picked up by a major studio.

This \"Film Festival\" audience was sophisticated and was able to pick up on every comic innuendo either visual, spoken or implied. The characters are real and the combination of a great script and a great casting was obvious. Max and Grace are real people with real problems that are dealt with regardless of the odds of success. It keeps you smiling while being serious and laughing with all the indirect humor brilliantly built into this production.

To sum it up, this is a \"must see\" picture.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went it to see this film with caution. A suicidal \"comedy\" didn't seem consistent. Having a brother who is has attempted suicide and seeing the devastation that has caused our whole family, I know first hand how crushing it can be to deal with this issue. I must say - This film deals with it in a way that allows the viewer \"inside\" someone who is suffering and simply doesn't know why, or how to stop it. While the film is not perfect, it respects the subject matter and more importantly makes it accessible for the masses. I know for our family, humor has helped us through a lot of the pain. And, Max and Grace is just what it portends to be - a suicidal COMEDY. It's funny - And, I also felt that characters were real and vibrant. It's also extremely intelligent, yet simple. It cuts to the chase and I appreciate that! I give it a 9 and will recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This really is a great film. Full of love and humor, it compels the audience to really care about the characters and participate in their journey. Michael Parness managed to assemble a great cast of top players, a minor miracle for a first film. No doubt, they were moved to help him tell this beautiful story. David Krumoltz carries the film with his understated intensity and honesty. Natasha Lyonne is unpredictable, exasperating, and yet totally lovable as Grace. Also a great turn by Karen Black (great to see her on the screen again) as Grace's crazed but sympathetic mother. There is cutting wit throughout, allowing us the relief of laughter when faced with life's pain. The acting is impeccable, the editing tight, the direction inspired, and the music creates a fitting backdrop of mood. Given the present-day Hollywood Blockbuster craze, full of big budgets, big names, car crashes and special effects, 'Max & Grace' is a refreshing departure. Give yourself a treat and see this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I usually steer clear of Film Festivals and don't enjoy slap-stick comedy but I must say that this picture was great. I immediately recognized David Krumholtz from the TV show \"Numbers\" and Lorraine Bracco, Roseanne Arquette and Karen Black were at their usual best. This is comedy at an incredibly high level with visual, spoken and satirical interludes that kept the audience, and me, laughing throughout a rather deep rooted plot.

Kudos to Mr. Parness for dealing with a delicate, but real, subject in a manner that can be enjoyed but fully absorbed by his audience at every level of intellect. The plot stays intact throughout the film and the comedic relief adds to the message without being laid on so thick as to distort. The blending of segways is done beautifully and the overall product is wonderfully tasteful.

I can definitely state that this film is one that will go a long way and should be seen by audiences of all ages; the problem is real and so is the powerful impact of this production.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Man, is it great just to see Young and The Restless star Melody Thomas Scott as something other than flighty Nikki Newman! A doctor with a brain no less! And super nice to see her with the likes of the gorgeous Lorenzo Lamas instead of Victor Newman!

Mel plays a college professor of micro-biology who goes to the islands with her son for spring break, only to find herself a prisoner of the island infested with a rapidly spreading virus. Handy for her there is the hunky character played by Lorenzo, who has a daughter just her son's age.

Mel shines, as does Lorenzo with a bit of the overacting from the younger couple. Interesting premise in these times of chemical and biological terrorism talk. Worthwhile seeing, especially for Y&R fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hick Trek is clearly a film that is envious of even an El Mariachi-level budget ($7,000). Still, the creators are able to pull off decent effects at times (often due to great editing) such as the beamings, the situations aboard the cat ship, and Slim T. Jerk's unique way of communicating with his ship without use of a traditional communication device.

The acting does have its rough spots but the portrayal of \"Horns\" McBoy is excellent and Fluffy is certainly not too hard on the eyes.

I do wish that the film had been longer than its approximate hour - and that should be seen as a compliment. This movie is a success due to the sincerity and hard work of those involved.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now this is classic. A friend of mine told me about this flick, saying that it's incredibly lame, stupid, retarded, and moronic. He also said that I'd love it.

To my surprise, I found it available from netflix and rented it at once. I'm just shocked that I had never heard of it before. If I could give it an eleven, I would.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hey, its great not to have to wait for the next Star-Trek convention to see hick-trek! Its a cheesy film by a bunch of treckies with no budget, but a good way to spend an hour. They got most of the special effects right, the dialog is classic trek and it just feels right for a trek-knockoff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This 60min film shows just how much fun filmmaking can be. It's all in good fun as it plays-out a no holds barred comedy assault on the Star Trek genre. In \"Hick Trek - The Moovie\", a group of good 'ol boys are on a mission to stop a group of renegade cats out to destroy the entire Redneck Federation.

Can Captain Jerk stop the villainous Fluffy with the power of the R.S.S. Bovine and it's Cow Ray?? She may have nine lives, but he has ten bullets! This cult classic (previously only seen at scifi conventions) is a party favorite. Lots of funny moments!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite looking dated, \"Inki and the Minah Bird\" is, my opinion, an enjoyable and charming cartoon. The artwork isn't extraordinary, but good enough. This cartoon has no dialogs, just sounds and music, but this combination works out pretty well. The cartoon itself is good, funny, old fashioned, creative, entertaining and amusing.

This cartoon also makes the difference because it focus in just 3 characters: Inki (the little black girl), the Minah Bird (a very strange bird) and a hungry lion that wants to have both Inki and Minah for breakfast - so he chases them both during most of the cartoon.

I actually find that lion very handsome, hilarious and cool. I really like that lion. That poor lion is so silly and loser that you have to feel sorry for him. For me, the real enemy is the Minah Bird, not the lion. At one point, the lion almost eats it - too bad he doesn't get to gulp it, because it deserved to be eaten.

Back to this animated short, there isn't a single dull or boring moment. At least for me. The only bit that I find stupid is the ending because the bird has a major fight with the lion, steals his teeth and puts them on itself. Other than that, I have nothing major to criticize about this, aside the fact that the steak should've definitely have gone for the lion and not the bird.

In my opinion, this is a very forgotten and underrated little jewel that should definitely get more credit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If a joke doesn't offend anybody, it isn't funny.

The Inki cartoons are offensive, no doubt about it. So is rap music. Get over it. I suspect that any sane Black person will find the Inki cartoons hilarious, and that the people who are offended by them White people who still think Black's need their patronizing protection against racist humor.

Seriously, the Inki cartoons are funny. It saddens me that, not because anybody is really offended, but because somebody might, just might, be offended, I can't buy Inki cartoons or The African Queen or Song of the South on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, I'll admit right up front that the Inki cartoons made by Loony Tunes are pretty offensive and I can understand why Warner Brothers has pulled them off the market. Seen today, the huge-lipped and very stereotypical Inki is not politically correct. However, the cartoons were well-made and it's a shame they aren't released with some sort of explanatory prologue (such as the one with Leonard Maltin they included with some recent politically incorrect Donald Duck cartoons that were recently released on DVD). In other words, throwing out the cartoons completely is to forget our history. Plus, Inki, Little Black Sambo and other racist cartoons are out there--especially on the internet.

This Inki cartoon has our little hero out hunting. At first, he's chasing a cute little caterpillar but later accidentally happens upon a lion--a lion that is more than happy to make Inki his dinner. However, through all this, a weird Minah appears again and again...and eventually you'll see why this bird is so important to the story.

Cute, well made and clever. I like the Inki cartoons. Plus, I take pleasure in showing them to extremely thin-skinned liberal friends just to watch them have apoplectic fits or even heart attacks. Loads of fun, folks!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dexter (Kurt Russell) returns from The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes for a new adventure that can stand alone. Dexter, ever the college student prone to misadventure, has an idea for a formula to render things invisible. Dean Higgins (Joe Flynn) is less than impressed and sets his hopes for winning a lucrative science prize with the pupil studying bees. However, the bees sting the student and he turns out to be allergic. There goes THAT chance for a prize. But, wait, Dexter does it! He actually concocts a liquid that makes him invisible. Trouble is, a unscrupulous businessman (Cesar Romero) learns about it and decides he can use that formula, thank you, for something illegal. Can he manage to steal the bottle out from under Dexter's nose? This is a companion movie to the TCWT but one need not have seen the first film to enjoy this one. Russell is a genial leading screw-up who comes through when it really counts. The rest of the cast is also a dream, with Flynn, Romero, Jim Bacchus and others showing why their comic abilities are still held in high regard today. The script is just innocent fun that is charming, with the special effects somewhat simple, by today's standards, but effective nonetheless. If you want to sit down and relive a bygone era or just want to share a quality, G-rated film with your family, this is a great choice. Although it is over 30 years old, there is a great possibility that even now you will see your loved ones giggle away the blues with a showing of this fine flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is Classic Disney at its live action cartoon best! Bumbling college student Dexter Riley (Kurt Russell) develops a mysterious liquid invisibility formula that actually makes objects disappear and helps him to save his cash strapped college. Further experimentation reveals that it works amazingly well on humans too! Riley's startling discovery takes some hilarious new twists when a gang of crooks headed by the notorious A.J. Arno (Cesar Romero) steal the formula and attempt to use it for their less-than-legal activities. Dazzling special effects and a fast-paced story make this lively film a textbook case of college comedy! I love this movie! This movie has always filled me with a sense of wonder and joy.A pleasant little comedy that the entire family can enjoy. Not much violence or sex and absolutely no swearing, makes this a movie that parents can watch with their children.Merely one in a series of Kurt Russell movies set at Medvale College. A pleasant little series set in a wholesome America before terrorists, when people valued integrity more than cash! I highly recommend this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It may not be a 10 out of 10 but for me the jokes didn't fail. I've seen it many times when I was younger and again on DVD I believe, and I laughed each time.The humor is simple and fun,this film was just one of many small flicks Disney was throwing out at the time. I found the parts where the people out of the invisible loop saw people invisible. THere expressions were priceless Great film, if the opportunity to ever see this arises I recommend seeing it for a good oh fashion laugh. My favorite character in all the Dexter series would most definitely have to be Dean Higgins, I love his voice and hearing him get upset especially seeing his expression at the end was just pure hysterical for me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a 1972 Disney movie. For the time, I was eleven years old and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Feeling nostalgic, I purchased the three series DVD's of the Dexter Riley movies and even now, at age 46, I still enjoyed them. It was all about fantasy, magic, and clean fun. And it still is! I wasn't sure which of the three movies came first then second and last. So now I have the official dates. On December 31, 1969 The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes--On July 12, 1972 Now You See Him Now You Don't--On February 6, 1975 The Strongest Man In The World. I still think the middle movie was the best. The special effects were amazing back in 1972 to us kids. I definitely recommend it to all ages.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An unjustly neglected classic, \"Intruder in the Dust\" is one of the great films of the 1940's which has unfortunately slipped into obscurity. Based on a story by William Faulker, and shot in his hometown of Oxford, Mississippi, \"Intruder\" tells the story of Lucas Beauchamp (played with great dignity by Juano Hernandez), a black man unjustly accused of the murder of a local white man, and a white boy (Claude Jarman, Jr.) who uses this situation as an opportunity to pay a previous debt to Beauchamp. Terrific acting, especially by two great character actors, Porter Hall (as the dead man's father) and Elizabeth Patterson (best known as Mrs. Trumbull on \"I Love Lucy\") as an old woman willing to stand against the townspeople to see that right is done. This straightforward, tense and sincere study of racial bigotry deserves to be seen more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is easily the best cinematic version of William Faulkner's fiction that I've ever seen, and I've seen several of the most prominent ones. Filmed in Faulkner's hometown of Oxford, Mississippi, it really captures the feeling of Jefferson and Yoknapatawpha County. Intruder in the Dust is not one of Faulkner's best novel, but, even if it is a clich\u00e9 to say this, it would be the crown jewel in any one else's career. It beats Harper Lee's good but simplistic To Kill a Mockingbird fifty feet into the ground (I read that one in ninth grade, and that's exactly where it belongs). Two of Faulkner's most prominent characters play major parts in the film, Gavin Stevens and Lucas Beauchamp. Stevens is probably the single most common character in all of Faulkner's fiction. He's a lawyer and he works easily as a narrator, because, unlike many of his other characters, Stevens is a man of logic, not emotion (at least when he's older). Lucas Beauchamp may be the most prominent of all of Faulkner's black characters (he plays a major part in one of Faulkner's out-and-out masterpieces, Go Down, Moses); unlike all of the other black folks in Yoknapatawpha, he refuses to bow down to any white man. He has pride, and many in the white population find that an execrable quality in a black man. One day, Lucas is found standing over a dead white man with a recently-fired pistol in his possession. Most of Jefferson and the surrounding areas don't see the need for a trial, and everyone's pretty sure that Beauchamp will be lynched before the evening's over, or at least the next day, as the murder and arrest occurred on a Sunday. Beauchamp, on the other hand, declares his innocence and tries to get Stevens to help him. Stevens refuses; the case seems open and shut. But his young nephew, Chick Mallison, because Lucas had helped him in the past, is willing to help him now.

As far as I know, no Hollywood film of this period deals with racism as overtly as this one. Hollywood films rarely persecute the black population, but instead prefer to relegate them to servant roles. If you're an African American actor, you might as well give up and accept that role as either the mammy, the maid, the servant, or the porter, because that's the only way you'll work. In Intruder in the Dust, there is to be found one of the most memorable non-porter roles a black actor ever had, Lucas Beauchamp. And Beauchamp, as I described above, is no stereotypical character, and might have been hard for audiences to accept. Even today, black characters are usually simple, magical, and kind. The recent arthouse hit Far from Heaven is a great example of that. Beauchamp is kind of a jerk, and he's very stubborn. Although he's perhaps a little less so here than he is in the novel, he's not any kind of stereotype. He's a complex human being. Juano Hernandez plays Beauchamp extraordinarily well. I haven't seen the film in a while, but he also appears in Robert Aldrich's 1955 film, Kiss Me Deadly, as well as the cinematic adaptation of Faulkner's final novel, The Reivers.

All the actors are great in the film. I should also praise quickly Claude Jarman Jr., who has the great role of Chick Mallison. The novel takes place from his point of view, and he is the conventional hero of the picture. Jarman is quite an actor; he captures the character (who also appears elsewhere in Faulkner's fiction, narrating, for example, events that happened a decade or more before he was born in the 1957 novel The Town) perfectly. He would appear in another great role the next year in the underrated John Ford film Rio Grande. The only other film of Clarence Brown's that I've seen is National Velvet, quite a different picture than Intruder in the Dust. His job here is exceptional; I really have to credit him with capturing Faulkner perfectly. Other famous Faulkner adaptations are too melodramatic (The Long Hot Summer, filmed in 1958, which I really like despite that) or too cold (Tomorrow, filmed in 1972, which I do not like; that coldness is a complete misunderstanding of Faulkner). The only other one that really does well according to its source material is Douglas Sirk's great 1958 filming of Pylon (really a different sort of Faulkner novel altogether), Tarnished Angels. 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No movie could ever do justice to Faulkner's command of the English language. but they did a pretty good job here. Lucas Beauchamp is exactly the way I pictured him in the book, as is Chick. What the movie couldn't really go into was how Beauchamp wasn't liked by the Negro people either, because he was equally as stubborn. Not that it is a bad thing, but from my take on the book that was his attitude toward the world (yet, I got the feeling it was white society's racism that started it and it spilled over into Negro society, until that became his attitude toward everyone).

the best part of the movie is that you get to see Yoknapatawpha county (actually, Oxford, Mississippi) exactly as Faulkner wrote about it (the film was made when Faulkner was alive and writing). It doesn't look that much different today. Because of this alone, the movie is worth a watch considering it is filmed in Faulkner's backyard. A true must see for Faulkner fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's pretty surprising that this wonderful film was made in 1949, as Hollywood generally had its collective heads in the sand concerning black and white issues at that time. The film deserves strong kudos for taking this stand, for having exceptional acting from its mostly lesser-known cast and for the super-intelligent script that doesn't insult the audience or take the easy way out when it comes to white racism. Plus, with the movie's rather modest budget and fast running time, it does an amazing job!

Juano Hernandez (an exceptional actor who played supporting roles in many films of the era) is a proud black man who is accused of murdering a white man in the South. The crowd could really care less about the details--they are just hell-bent on a hanging. And, despite his commitment to the law, the one lawyer in town who has agreed to defend him also assumes he is guilty and doesn't really want to know the truth--just delay the hanging until they could try and convict him and then have a LEGAL hanging! Fortunately, a young white man (Claude Jarmin) begins to wonder about Juano's innocence and begins seeking out the truth. At this point, the best character in this wonderful drama is introduced--played by Elizabeth Patterson (the old lady who later played Mrs. Trumbull on I LOVE LUCY). She single-handedly steals the show as the white person with not only a conscience but the will and determination to stand up for the black man. At one wonderful point in the film, a mob is trying to push past her to get to the prisoner to kill him, but she stands very firm and forces them to back down. There is a lot more to this rather complicated but intelligently written story, but I'll leave it to you to see it for yourself. See it with your kids if you have a chance--it will open up some amazing dialog about how far race relations have come in the last 50 years.

By the way, apparently 1949 was a great year for Hollywood finally addressing race prejudice head on, as Twentieth-Century Fox also released \"Pinky\"--an equally effective and strong film about racism, interracial marriage and even rape! See both films if you can.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a fan of Wm. Faulkner since college, I was especially pleased to see Intruder In the Dust and for other reasons. My grandfather, also named Clarence Brown as was the director, grew up in the Oxford area having been born near there in 1888. We attended a week long family reunion at Oxford in July, 1964 a mere 15 years after filming the movie. It still looked mostly like it does in the film but was going thru a period of civil rights upheaval then as the site of Ole Miss. My recollection is of its being a nice little college town that summer but I was just an 18 year old college sophomore and white. I was just then beginning to see the injustice of segregation and prejudice but still had a long way to go. Anyhow, the movie is well worth watching but the filmmakers must have had to walk a tight rope to get it done there and I would love to know more about that story.

Now days, Oxford is a larger, more modern college town with all the ills that go along with such things and I hope to return again to see how it must have changed socially in the last 40 plus years. Juano Hernandez should certainly have been nominated for an Oscar that year but Hollywood was still to bigoted itself to let that happen. Other Faulkner stories have been filmed so look for them and compare. One of the best was a PBS treatment of The Barn Burner from about 1985 or so starring Tommy Lee Jones. It really captured the intensity of rural Southern whites that Faulkner wrote so incisively about so often.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was set, filmed, and premiered in Oxford, Miss., the hometown of W. Faulkner, the locale of the 1948 book. Most of the extras were locals. I've been to Oxford, and it has greatly changed. This film features Will Geer as the sheriff;he was later blacklisted. It was the writers and actors of social dramas such as this film, and Grapes Of Wrath, that were targets of the HUAC a few years later. I don't recall if the actor playing the young Mallison boy (Claude Jarman Jr) did anything after the TV series Centennial (1978), but he was terrific in this earlier film. And do not miss Elizabeth Patterson who later played in Little Women.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Take a look at those faces alongside the entrance to the jail. They're not the faces of Hollywood extras. Somebody in production was really smart to take filming to Oxford, Mississippi, because you can't get that kind of authenticity from a studio backlot. Scope out the narrow dusty roads, the frozen earth beneath, and the skeletal trees just barely hanging on. No wonder those faces look hard and unforgiving; they're just reflecting the soil from which they spring. Old man Lucas (Hernandez) better fear for his life, but then he springs from that same hard earth.

The movie works because it tells a good story that neither preaches nor sentimentalizes and even has some suspense. Old man Lucas is not very likable. He's a victim and we sympathize, but he's also haughty and unfriendly. Wisely, the script refuses to sweeten him up. That way we're forced to recognize the effects of racism and injustice on even the less sympathetic. The script also wisely avoids dealing directly with racism since that tends to become preachy and less effective. Instead, we're shown how easily prejudice can convict an innocent man and condemn him to a horrible death. So, it's through our common instinct to see justice done that the effects of racism are exposed, a much more effective pathway. It also makes the actions of the sheriff and the lawyer more understandable since they are otherwise part of the Jim Crow system.

Note how the movie doesn't attack segregation. It's doubtful that old man Lucas would want to mix with whites anyway and there's no hint that even lawyer Stevens (Brian) wants to cross the color line except to see justice done. No, the possibility of reconciliation lies in the future as symbolized by the kid (Jarman) whose head is not yet filled with \"notions\". He's not exactly friends with Lucas, but he has glimpsed the common humanity of being befriended after falling into the frozen creek. The last line of dialogue also shows him siding with his uncle, the lawyer, instead of his more hidebound parents (the dinner table scene is important and easily overlooked). The lawyer might not join a future civil rights march, but the kid might. That's the movie's realistically hopeful side.

There was a bunch of racially themed movies during this brief 3 year period, 1949-51, (The Well, No Way Out, Home of the Brave, Lost Boundaries). Even famously detached MGM got into the mix with this little gem. Unfortunately, the McCarthy purges in Hollywood put an end to \"problem\" films that might not serve Cold War ends. Even so, each of these is worth catching up with, not only because they're good movies, but because even with the passage of 60 years and Jim Crow, they're still relevant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've described this film as surprising... this is true in many respects. The subject material (black man wrongly accused), the characters (people you expect to be stereotypes often show uncharacteristic attitudes during the film), the production...

All of these factors make for a refreshingly unusual film, especially for its time (1949). The only possible spoilers being the sometimes cheesy dialogue and occasional high moral stance.

But, if you happen across it when you weren't planning to watch a film, you might find yourself like me - staying up into the middle of the night just to see what happens.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Intruder in the Dust (1949) Dir: Clarence Brown

Production: MGM

Excellent 'Southern Gothic' tale, adapted from the Faulkner novel, about a black man, accused of the murder of a white man, who asks a young white boy he has befriended to help him prove his innocence. Lucas Beauchamp (Juano Hernandez) is something of an anomaly in this small town. He's a black man who owns the land he lives on and doesn't think much of the diseased social order that mostly keeps the peace here and in many similar small towns. So when Lucas is found holding a gun over the dead body of Vinson Gowrie, shot in the back no less, young Chick Mallison (Claude Jarman) (who Lucas once saved after Chick fell through the ice while hunting on his land) fears that the town finally has the chance to \"make Lucas a n*****.\" Arrested, and with a very real chance of being lynched before the night is through, Lucas reaches out to Chick for help, as the only person he knows \"not cluttered with notions\". Chick asks his Uncle John, a lawyer, to defend Lucas and while the man is initially bothered by his own notions he agrees and they race against the gathering mob to save Lucas' life.

The film has an uncommon frankness for its time and is mostly free of moralizing. The lawyer character has a tendency to speak incredibly self-aware dialogue that sounds mostly like something from the printed page, but it has minimal impact on the tone. That's a credit to the rich characterization of everyone else. Juano Hernandez, who had mostly appeared in Oscar Micheaux films, is superb as the proud Lucas. Porter Hall as the murdered man's father, in maybe the best role I've ever seen him in, and Elizabeth Patterson as a plucky old lady sympathetic to Lucas' case, standout in support roles. The setting is perfectly realized. It is actually filmed in Oxford, Mississippi, Faulkner's hometown. Brown also uses the crowd in an effective way, it's always an anonymous mob against a single person (like Lucas when he's arrested or John when he's going up to his office), that is very threatening. Or the grotesquerie of the whole town gathering at the jailhouse to witness the lynching like it was a parade. Of note is an absolutely riveting scene when Chick and his friend Aleck go evidence gathering in a cemetery. Robert Surtees (THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL, THIRTY SECONDS OVER TOKYO, BEN-HUR) shot the picture.

*** 1\/2 out of 4","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"hello there; i would just like to say how much i enjoyed your review and comments about that excellent film 'intruder in the dust'. i believe that the points you made were insightful, intelligent and totally valid. it's also a shame that this film is hardly ever shown on TV these days and that it isn't available on DVD region 2 - i live in england. once again, many thanks for your review. the actor juano hernandez was in another brilliant film, 'young man with a horn', which also starred kirk douglas and lauren bacall. that was a very evocative and stylish film with some superb music. i wish that someone with influence could release the entire back catalogues of films like 'johnny belinda', 'i remember mama', and 'the yearling' on DVD region 2, we love these movies in great Britain. i'm not of pensionable age, i'm still reasonably young and my family and i love classic films!!films like these were so beautifully made and they bring back wonderful memories. anyway...! many thanks for your comments!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am not a Faulkner fan (which is considered sacrilegious, especially since I grew up near the author's hometown); however, I think this is an excellent movie. On par with the quality of the movie \"To Kill a Mocking Bird\". If you haven't seen it, buy it anyway. It's well worth having in your permanent collection. TCM recently played the movie as a part of the Race on Film series. I wish they'd play it more often. Very moving.

On a side note, the folks from Oxford, Mississippi, will also enjoy seeing the footage of the town square as it was back in the 1940's. The Courthouse, City Hall, etc.: They're all on screen. I never knew the movie was filmed there until I noticed the familiarity of the buildings. When I saw the arch in the front of City Hall, I began to get suspicious. Look closely at the pennants on Chick's wall: You'll see two for Ole Miss !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very potent drama of Faulkner's small town south dealing with an innocent black man's murder of local ne'er do wll. Striking cinematography and good narrative (via flashback) take us through the uneasy relationship between the suspect and the son of his lawyer. A still powerful story that predates the Sidney Poitier films of racial prejudice. Porter Hall has a great role as the murdered man's father. Trivia: this was actually filmed in Faulkner's home town of Oxford, Miss. with many of the residents used as extras.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's too bad iameracing wants to deny the reality of Faulkner's and Clarence Brown's purpose in the creating of the story and film of \"Intruder In The Dust\". I suppose the burden of a history of racism is difficult for any Southerner to bear and I can understand that. But to say that this film was not specifically about racism is ridiculous and inaccurate. YES (to borrow your use of the upper case) iameracing, there are many many many places where blacks and white people in the South get along quite well. But to deny the way that black people were and sometimes still are forced to live, the conditions and injustices they have had to endure are not imaginary. Sometimes black and white people got along because of genuine affection and understanding. Sometimes it was only as long as blacks 'knew their place'. The point of making Juano Hernandez character (in film and print) a somewhat prickly type, not warm and fuzzy, was to underscore the fact that bigotry is wrong in and of itself and human rights are just that for everyone regardless of whether we like a particular individual or not.

It would do iameracing good to stop denying the existence of racism and the great harm it has done to Americans of all stripes. The fact is that black people (among others) did not, as a rule, not an exception, receive the benefits of the justice system as even-handedly as whites. Segregation, discrimination and lynching are historical fact. People like iameracing might claim these things were not as widespread as some think and would probably love to exonerate their ancestors and heroes from any connection with such behavior. It would be a wonderful thing if iameracing's Southern ancestors (if any)never participated in any of the horrible racist actions that mar this country's history and I hope they didn't. If that is so congratulations to them but that fact, if true, does not erase the fact that others did. And even if the horrible things that were done to blacks in the South (and other areas, let's not forget the Draft Riots of the Civil War Era)were only half as numerous, only a third, does that make them any less horrible? Is the murder of ten children the hanging of ten men the sexual assault of ten women any less horrible than the same things happening to a hundred?

Iameracing asks us to get the \"Mississippi Burning\" chip off of our shoulders before we see \"Intruder In The Dust\", well I ask you, did the murders of the civil rights activists happen or not? Why should that be forgotten? Forgiven? Maybe. But in order to prevent their recurrence they cannot be forgotten or revised into minor occurrences. The racism that is displayed in \"Intruder In The Dust\" is displayed there quite purposely. It is there to make a point.

On a cinematically historical level it is also ridiculous for iameracing to discount the racial angle. Any viewer of films that were filmed before the 1960's knows that black actors\/characters\/extras were usually deliberately cast. To judge from our movie history; wars were always fought by middle aged white men; There were no black people in the Old West; it was possible to walk down a street in a major city and never encounter a black person; there were no black hospital orderlies,taxi drivers,clerks, salespeople etc. Blacks were almost never cast with regard to a role unless race was a factor. If Falukner (and Brown) had wanted to tell a simple murder story he probably would not have made the Hernandez character black.

Racism exists iameracing. Probably for different reasons I am sure, we both wish that it didn't but it does. Wanting things to be the way we would like them to be probably can't be helped but it still does not make them so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Had it not been for To Kill A Mockingbird, this movie would be much more famous. Had it not been for Gregory Peck as Addicus Fitch, the acting here would be much more lauded. Had it not been for William Faulkner, perhaps To Kill a Mockingbird might never have been written in his shadow.

I found this movie to be sadly familiar because it showed me that one of my favorite movies, To Kill a Mockingbird, may not have been as original as I'd always thought it was. Perhaps it was inspired by this very similar movie. Oh, the \"whodunnit\" is different, but the underlying story, a lone righteous \"white\" attorney against a white Southern town defending a Black man is all too familiar. And, written by a woman, Mockingbird concentrates on rape, the ultimate betrayal to a woman while this movie concentrates on brother against brother hatred, the rape a man feels by fraternal betrayal.

There's not the depth of Mockingbird here. Not the comfort that Addicus brings with his presence. So you're just left with the sadness that, whether she intended to lift the plot from this movie or not, Harper Lee's Mockingbird reflects. Nothing changed in that 10 or so years since the time she may have read Faulkner's book and saw his movie while in college in Alabama and unconsciously or not took most of it as her own in later years. Nothing changed in race relations and some may say nothing has changed even now, these many years later.

It's all too sadly familiar, and one wishes there were an Addicus of our day to make it all right. Where Mockingbird leaves you with hope of that, rocking in the arms of Addicus and waiting for a morning of better times, this movie leaves you just sad that pride from Black people might equal or better the pride of White people. But pride from either is no answer at all.

Rather, it's the answer of Addicus we need, comfort that we are all flawed and that in our frailty we should have mercy, not pride, when facing each other in our differences.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When It Comes to ANY Movie that was made in or about the South,The Characters are Labeled Racist or Hillbillies or Even Worse That Awful RACIST TERM \"Rednecks\". This Movie Was a Murder Mystery, Plain & Simple. It was a Great Murder Mystery & Did Demonstrate Some Of Human Feelings About Each Others Race. The Same Type of Observations Made By Black Character Actors Toward Whits in Todays' Movies. Before Watching This Movie, One Should Get the \"MISSISSIPPI BURNING\" Chip off of Ones' Shoulder & Enjoy the Plot, Wonderful Acting, & Reminiscent Scenes of Simpler Times That While are Gone, They Will Not be Forgotten. Mr.Faulkner Did His Hometown of OXFORD,Miss. Justice by Having this Movie Shot There. The Producer Noted While Shooting the Movie There, His Stereotypical Perception of Whites were Misconcieved & That He Observed WHite & Black Townspeople & Locals Getting Along With Each Other in the Same Way. So, Sit Back & Enjoy one of Mr Faulkner's Great Classics & Try to Figure out Who The Killer Really Is...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is not a serious film, and does not pretend to be, but it is not as bad as some of its reviews, it's title, and the first ten minutes lead you to expect.

The plot is very silly, but this adds to the light-hearted fun and enthusiasm which runs through the film. The characters are played sympathetically, and while they do engage in typical teenage angst, they generally avoid the sickly sentimentality usually to be found in this film genre.

Unusually set in London, sympathetic to geeks, this is well worth a watch if it happens to be on; if you want some tongue-in-cheek silliness, and don't mind suspending your disbelief.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really can't see why people seem to dislike this film. I found it very entertaining (of course the fact that it stars the gorgeous Laura Fraser is a bonus!) When I first heard about it, I thought it would be along the lines of a role-reversed \"Weird Science\" and, to an extent, this is true, however there is a twist which I really didn't see coming. Having seen the trailer on the DVD (which I hadn't seen before watching the film) I saw that the \"twist\" is actually shown in the trailer! Very strange.

As the film progresses the \"Weird Science\" comparison fits less and less, and I think this is the better of the two films. Certainly there are some scenes which don't work wonderfully, but these are made up for by the enthusiasm of the young cast.

In summary, I'd suggest that this is a fine example of a Sci-fi chick flick, and I don't think I've seen many of them!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film, won't win any awards for greatness. But if you have an hour and a half free and fancy a bit of light hearted entertainment then you could do much worse than watch this...

The cast are mostly young and pretty, the script has some genuinely funny moments and the soundtrack is pretty cool too. Rupert Penry-Jones as Jake seems to have the most fun, while Laura Fraser as Justine is sweet, likable and funny.

I rented it because I like the series 'Spooks' that RPJ is currently starring in. And here he's young and buff and the perfect eye candy for a girls night in.

Get some wine and some ice cream and have a chuckle.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, so it starts very unimaginatively with a narration from the lead character (Justine played by Laura Fraser - an amazing actress in her own right) but it goes on to become something miraculous. It has silly little things that you really shouldn't find funny but do every time. There is an especially memorable moment that sees your jaw dropping to the ground the first time you watch it when the male body of Jake, containing Justine's female mind, is trying to get used to her new anatomy. I wont spoil it for you, but the second time I watched it was with friends; seeing their faces was brilliant. It makes you cringe, but laugh at the same time. I am also a big fan of the music used. There is a beautiful small band that appears randomly on the street or on a pathway every now and then, but also some gorgeous, yet unknown (often the best), pop songs. It has the feeling of being written for an English cast by an American writer, which does annoy me only a couple of times. Overall, this film is hilarious. I am a massive fan of Laura Fraser's now, after being given his film for my birthday, and expect that, even though some of the cast are little-known to most, you too will enjoy every bit of it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great film for pure entertainment, nothing more and nothing less. It's enjoyable, and a vaguely feel-good movie.

A minor, but nonetheless irritating thing about the movie is that we don't know why Justine and Chas broke up. Okay, most first relationships don't work for one reason or another, but they more or less seemed like a nice couple.

In a nutshell, it's worth a watch to escape reality.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a very funny movie, not Oscar-worthy, but definately the best dollar I've ever spent at Blockbuster! Rupert Penry Jones is a shining star, and very well might be the new Jude Law! So, if you're in the mood for a British Teen Flick- RENT IT!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie. I just saw it for the first time about 10 hours ago and had to rewind it so that my sister could watch it. This movie is so funny. There are two times that I was laughing so hard my sides hurt. I didn't expect to watch a movie so funny; I really only wanted to see it because Laura Fraser is in it. I first saw her in Titus which is an awesome movie as well.

Like others reviewers have said, too many people are expecting a deep moving film. You are not going to get it. What you will get is humor, eye candy and the chance to ask yourself exactly what your perfect mate would look like if you could create them. You can also wonder what it would be like to be stuck in the body of the opposite sex.

A hilarious sequence involves Justine first seeing herself as a naked man. I was cracking up.

I swear, this movie is the most imaginative teen film that I have ever seen and it is now my favorite.

Just remember why movies were originally created; as entertainment not philosophy in motion. Remember this and you will have a great time watching Virtual Sexuality.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this movie \"Virtual Sexuality\" the 17 year old Justine is not lucky in love. One day when she is stood up, she goes with her friend to a virual reality conference, there she is introduced with a machine that can change your look, dody and whatever you like in Virtual Reality. She decides to try it out, but begins to make a boyfriend of her own, her dreamdate. Then suddenly there is an explosion in a gas pipe and her creation comes to life. I'll say no more, you'll have to watch the movie, which is quite fun to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film a week ago and I had to persuade my friend to come with me because this film seems to be getting such bad reviews. Sure it is no 'Human Traffic' or 'Lock, Stock...' but is by no means a flop. I think the fact that there are so many big budget films out at the moment means it has been ignored but it shouldn't be. I reckon it sets out to do what it wants to do- entertain us for an hour and a half and leave us feeling happy and contented. I would much rather go and see it that 'The Mummy', which looks boring. And no, I'm not a teenager. Don't listen to the critics, Star Wars fans didn't. This film is well worth seeing, if just to see the gorgeous Luke de Lacey and Rupert Penry-Jones. Go see it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I tend to watch films for one of three reasons. Unfortunately, there are no Transformers in this film, so I can recommend it only on comedy value and pretty women (read girls)

Yes, it is funny, I know this due to the number of people in the cinema who were laughing on a regular basis throughout. Personally though, I loved it for Laura Fraser, who IMHO is FIT!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's pretty good, all things considered. A must for anyone perplexed about the opposite sex (i.e. all of us!). The trailer doesn't give away any of the plot FOR GOOD REASON.

The premise is absurd, so it's nice to see that it doesn't take itself seriously. It's like someone from the BBC children's department decided to make a film for adults. That's not a bad thing IMO.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In England we often feel very attached to British films that we like, as we are so used to the usual American settings and accents. Being from London, where Virtual Sexuality is set, I felt a strong emotional attachment to it. The characters in Virtual Sexuality, particularly the females, are exactly what British teenagers are like, I felt like I was almost in the film. I immediately related to the character of Alex from the film, his shyness is quite common in most British teenage boys, especially around girls. Virtual Sexuality made me feel really good as its one of the only British films that isn't about gangsters or the middle-upper class, but about the people who are watching the film, average teenagers. Americans wouldn't really feel the emotional attachment, but every British teenager should watch it. Anyone from London will recognise the parts of the city from the film, it's definately got a special place in my video box!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It would appear that some previous reviewers may have had their expectations set a bit too high going into this film. I found it scanning the satellite channels for something (not knowing what) and happened upon it. I thought by the title it might be one of the myriad soft-core porn flicks appearing regularly on the movie channels but I was pleasantly surprised. Although there was some male frontal nudity (in fact, more than your typical soft-core title -- go figure!), this was not the focus of the film. It was just fun.

Don't be deceived by my tastes: my recent screenings have included Before Night Falls and Europa, Europa (both geat, IMHO). But I also enjoy total mental shutdown when watching a movie. Virtual Sexuality did this for me and that's not a bad thing!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the privilege of attending a regional premiere for this, this is one of the funniest British movies ever, the plot is fantastic, focusing around a young girl, who unwittingly changes into her ideal man at a computer fair, whilst also creating a copy of herself, who falls in love with him, the film is full of jokes, both visual and aural, and has a bright and fresh feel to it, and the acting is of great quality, released in U.K. on July 2nd this film is a must, go see it!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While I understood, that this show is too weird to please everybody, I don't get where all these bad reviews come from, and I'm most surprised over the bad reviews, that it has gotten from fans of the movies. I liked it and got hooked on it since the first episode I watched. It's a little messed up though, that Kuzco was put into school. And it seems to be High School rather than College. But I guess he's only eighteen, right, so it's not like he's too old to get educated? And haven't the royals always had to get the best education avaible to them? So the \"Kuzco has to graduate, or he won't become emperor\" thing doesn't sound too weird for me. And I guess his education was neglected before, so that's why he has to be educated now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Original Movie lovers can actually love this show, if they just stop complaining all the time.

The Emperor's New School brings up some old jokes from the movie, like pulling the lever to Yzma's lab and Kuzco pausing the episode. But since it's a kids show, it's just classic and is in their right places. Even though the style is much more simple, the animation and characters keeps their personalities very well and it surprised me, actually. Eartha Kitt makes excellent voice acting for Yzma and J.P Manoux does a wonderful job for Kuzco's voice instead of David Spade, who played Kuzco in the movie. Great plots, hilarious moments and Kuzco's amazing looks makes this show worth watching. (Just stop complaining about everything!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've never been compelled to write a review about anything, but seeing such bad reviews about such an innovative show made me say something. First, people just have to get over the fact that the voices are different. Once you watch an episode, it never really comes to mind ever again. The humor is original and while, yes, some jokes do carry over from the movie, they are delivered fresh. Some of it is even reminiscent of Shrek--self-referential humor. A lot of these jokes seem aimed at teens or original fans of the movie as much as tweens and younger. Patrick Warburton and Eartha Kitt are both hilarious as they reprise their roles as Kronk and Yzma and their Annie Award nominations were well-warranted.

This show takes some time to love, to really get in \"the groove\" of things, so to speak. If you ignore the horrible theme song (which really shouldn't warrant that much in the way of how you judge a show since it's only 30 seconds of the overall product), this show is laugh-out-loud hilarity and doesn't lose any of the Emperor's New Groove spirit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's not as good as the movie, that said it's a cute kids show. Okay so the Emperor has back slide and become a selfish spoiled brat once more, accept it and enjoy the cartoon as something entertaining. It has plenty of jokes for the parents and still holds the attention of children. Also it boasts two of the original voice actors from the movie. Earth Kitt who has been in numerous films but I'm sure many people know as Catwoman. And Patrick Walburton (sorry if I misspelled) who also has appeared in many films and TV series but is most widely recognized as The Tick. It's really a rare and wonderful combination. If for no other reason I highly recommend comic book fans watch at least one episode just to enjoy the dynamic duo. To sum up, entertaining children's show, with plenty of inside jokes for the grown-ups to laugh along with. If your looking for educational value this isn't your show. If your just looking for something funny this is a great Saturday morning pick!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just love this show.It's so funny and cool.Kuzco is such a hilarious and interesting character, I love him.He's the thing that makes this show what it is, although Kronk and Yzma are so funny and charming too.Everything about this show is great for me, because it always manages to make me laugh, no matter if it's only once an episode.It's just so funny and all the characters are so lovable and cool, it makes the show worth the time to watch, unlike some crap on Disney channel.Give this show a try next time it's on, if you've seen the movie, and even if you haven't seen the movie, you'll find this to be very enjoyable anyway, so go ahead.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spin-offs, for somebody who don't know, are not usually successful because most of the original characters are absent.

Here they are and you couldn't ask for a better ensemble in what is essentially a silly little cartoon, not meant to do anything but entertain.

J. P. Manoux, replacing David Spade, does an admirable job of retaining Kuzco's ego and yet not seem as annoying as Spade's character (a character Spade has done for decades and gets on one's nerves after a while). He has a softer voice but it fits somehow.

Eartha Kitt, reprising her part as Yzma, is brilliant. She hasn't really been given much accolades since her turn as Batwoman centuries ago, except maybe for her vile part in Boomerang. It's funny how much the character looks like her, though.

And Patrick Warburton. There is no way that he can't be funny, except when he was thoroughly wasted in Men in Black 2. I have been a fan of his since Seinfeld but unlike that character, he plays a genuine likable guy who is sucked into doing not so nice things.

The animation is really beautiful as all Disney usually is but sometimes the character design is a little too sugarcoated. Oh, well. Two out of three ain't bad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It helps that the characters this show is based on are among the best Disney has ever come up with. The writing is what really makes this show. It's a total classic. Given, you need to appreciate the type of humor to enjoy it, and this is hard to explain. The humor is akin to the old school scenarios of 40's and 50's Disney, with modern spins. It never degrades into fart jokes or anything of that type. It's not adam sandler humor either, though I have enjoyed that. It is the exact same humor of the movie, only expanded upon for the length of time a TV show permits. So if you didn't like it in the movie, you won't like it here, but IMO The emperors new groove was the best thing to come out of Disney since Gargoyles.

A+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The new voices scare me! Kuzco doesn't have to pass some frickkin' academy to become emperor again! It's the same thing over and over, isn't it? This IS a kids' show, right? Yzma turns Kuzco into something stupid, like an animal. He learns a lesson. EVERYTHING IS THE SAME!!!!! David Spade and John Goodman never returned... *sniffle*! Nothing changes 'cause Disney won't do anything 'bout it. It's probably one of the most retarded shows ever! The first movie was so damn better! Malina's probably the only person I like. Kuzco's such a crybaby! Kronk is retarded! And Yzma's retarded-ER (if that's even a word)! What I meant to say is... How could you, Disney... why?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Forever strong is one of those sports movies you can actually watch. It reminded me a lot of Remember the Titans because it included comedy, sadness, and just awesomeness. I saw it at a pre-screening and all my friends liked it and easily put it in their top 2 sport movies. The acting is great in the movie. Even though it is similar to Remember the Titans it there is something very unique about this movie. I feel this is definitely Oscar worthy and will receive many awards. Everybody should definitely go see this movie and it is worth your $10. I'm going to have to see it again when it comes out because it was that good. I cant say one bad thing about the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a former Highland Rugby(HR) player, I feel like I can possibly answer some of the questions and confusion that has been put forward. I think that I am also in a position to offer some insight into the club and back stories. Oh, and this is gonna be a long post, I can tell already.

First off, the people who said that the movie doesn't show real rugby, have a valid point. The movie is full of bad tackles, people in the wrong places, and much much more. If you want to know what a real rugby game feels like, you won't get the best idea from this movie. But the thing is, anything short of actually sitting down and watching a highlight reel or jumping into a game yourself, is not going to be satisfactory. It's Hollywood, not ESPN! Really, how many sports movies really make you feel like you are in the game? Not many that I have seen. I think it's important to keep in mind that the movie is about rugby players, much more than it is about rugby.

Next, the Haka is VERY much a part of Highland Rugby. It is not something that they just threw into the movie. To be honest, I don't know how the tradition got started, but Highland emulates the All Blacks in many ways. The uniform is based off of the All Blacks as well. The movie did not do a good job of explaining the origins of the Haka, and to be honest, I don't think that that is right. But I can tell you that every member of the team knows exactly where it comes from and what it means. As for the person from China(?) who said that only a Maori can perform a Haka, I would suggest that they take a look at the All Blacks and tell me if they think that they are all Maori. Believe it or not, Utah has a very large Polynesian community, and a good portion of them like and play rugby for the local teams. I, myself am part Hawaiian. Whenever possible, the Haka is led by a Maori. The team does not do it because they think that they are Maori, they do it because of some of the issues shown in the movie. The concept of unity and \"those who have gone before\" is a huge part of the HR culture, and the message behind the Haka, for any of those that are familiar with it, support those values. It's a chant by a chief who thought he would die (Ka Mate), and those around him supporting him telling him he will live (Ka Ora) and boosting him up. How appropriate it is for a bunch of white boys to do it is not for me to say, but that is the ideology behind it and why it is done. \"Kia Kaha\" is also a well used team motto, even if the actors had a hard time saying it.

Also, for the people who questioned Highland's Rugby playing ability, I would just remind you that you were not really watching Highland play in this movie. Many of the extras were former players from Highland and other teams, but the main characters were all actors. Believe it or not, Highland really is pretty good at what they do and pretty well respected in the international community. Granted, some years produce better teams than others (it's what you would expect with any sports team), but you don't accumulate HR's win record by just being okay. The year after I graduated, (1998) Highland was one of 12 teams to be invited to the World Schools Rugby Championship in Zimbabwe. The teams were hand picked from around the world and represented the best of High school rugby talent at the time. Highland obviously didn't win first place, (New Zealand did that), but they did manage to take third place in the tournament, beating the Tongan national champions in their last match. And while American rugby may never reach the level of talent that New Zealand or South Africa has, third in the world is also nothing to hang your head about. Highland also has a tradition of touring New Zealand every few years, and usually comes back with more wins than losses.

The majority of characters portrayed in this movie are based off of real people and real stories. I watched this movie with my brothers, who also played for Highland, and between the four of us, we were fairly certain that we were able to identify ALMOST every main character. Nobody knew a white Rasta. Of course as this wasn't a documentary, Hollywood did take some liberties, but to tell you the truth, not as many as you might think. The film was actually pretty accurate in showing the 2 and a half hour daily practices, as well as the mandatory personal running and weight training. Sometimes it really was running until you threw up. It also showed the service and other team activities (like the chuck-a-rama buffet) that were very much a part of team bonding.

And finally the movie, in my (obviously very biased) opinion, it was a pretty good movie. And I think that the reason for it is that I watched it as an inspirational sports movie. I didn't think that it would be a pure rugby movie or an academy award winning drama. It was just an uplifting movie about a rugby team, complete with morals, encouragement, and a good dose of jokes thrown in for entertainment. I hope that I addressed some of the problems that people have had with the movie, and hope that you can now enjoy it for what it was.

Kia Kaha","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like most sports movies which have come out in the past, this movie is similar in respects, that it is based on fact. What sets this movie apart is that its about a rugby team, a sport that not too many Americans are familiar with. Set that aside, this movie is very rewarding piece of film noir. It reminds me of \"We Are Marshall\" , but with a smaller budget and an independent movie feel. Its a fine effort by director Ryan Little to bring us a story about a rebellious teen played by Sean Farris (Never Back Down), as Rick Penning that finds himself in an odd place, both on and off the field. Despite a few plot lines holes, this film has heart, rewarding each of its viewers with good characters that we can identify with. Also good performances by supporting actors Gary Cole as coach Larry Gelwix & Neal McDonough as coach Penning(Ricks dad). I felt myself go through a lot of different emotions watching movie, in the end I was left with a feeling of faith in mankind & a hope for the future for my children, especially if there are coaches out there like Gelwix.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, I know almost nothing about rugby, so although I found the rugby-aspect of this movie to be interesting it could have been any sport and I think I would have enjoyed it just as much. The fact that it as about rugby didn't make it any better or worse for me.

What made this movie great is the story itself, based on actual events that have occurred over the last 30 years with the Highland Rugby club. Coach Gelwix is the kind of coach that most every parent would like their children to have, someone who cares more about the person than the sport (even though they have won 17 national championships and have only lost 9 games in over 30 years!). The more I have learned about the coach and team the more I like this movie and its message.

I have seen other sports movies that seemed great at first, but then I researched the details only to find that most of those movies were 10% fact and 90% fiction, with the 10% of facts being greatly exaggerated. Not so with Forever Strong. It may seem too good to be true, but that's what's so amazing about it. If it were fiction it would just be an enjoyable story and nothing more. Instead, the movie is inspirational and makes you want to be a better person.

Don't miss this movie because of a few negative reviews by professional critics. I have been reading some of their reviews and most of them have given the movie horrible reviews. These are generally the same critics who rave about movies that most people hate. In fact, I would be worried if some of these critics had given the movie good reviews because I almost always disagree with their opinions.

Go see this movie and post your review (positive or negative)! Currently most of the audience reviews are enthusiastically positive (here and on Rotten Tomatoes and similar sites), and I am interested to see if this trend continues. Thanks!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now before people start having a breakdown about this movie (those who play rugby anyway) this is a film! It's been given the Hollywood treatment to entertain people and therefore those who play rugby (myself included) are naturally gonna pick holes in the choreography of the game in the film. Althogether it is a decent film and bring to the attention the morals and ideas behind the game of rugby.

The film is based on a real team, a real coach and his work helping guide kids in the right direction to be better people in the future, and also is based on real people who have played for the highland team. Its just a typical sports movie with a character who is misguided and eventually finds his way on the right track again through the rugby medium in this case. Is generally a feel good movie that is enjoyable but has flaws in terms of it's portrayal of the game. however, like i said it is a film under the Hollywood treatment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Forever Strong is a type of film we've seen many time before,just in different types of genres. However that being said,I really thought it was a great film,Sean Faris is showing the type of potential that usually lands actors into big time stardom. Apparently this film got a limited release as I wasn't even aware of it,but I saw it in the video store and decided to take a chance with it after I remember enjoying Sean's performance in Never Back Down. I ended up making a great decision,I'm not a fan of rugby what so ever,but the film really isn't fully about rugby,it's about making a stand in you're life,challenging yourself,reaching your goals,there is a whole lot more then the simple plot suggests. At 1st we don't give a damn about what happens to Rick,he's mouthy,full of himself,and completely arrogant,we feel he's completely sealed his fate as a trouble maker. Along the way we see the changes in his character,he starts to hang around with better people,he starts to better himself,we learn how much negative impact his father has had in his life,it's just a great swerve and the film did a great job of turning Rick from cocky prick to a good hearted person.

The rugby action itself is not too bad at all,unlike the stuff I played and saw in high school,this was actually quite fun to watch and beautifully choreographed. A great young cast combined with some veteran experience helped this film immensely,it just did a fabulous job of avoiding in what could've been a run of the mill type of thing to a poignant and effective drama. I also liked the conflicting contrast between The Coach|Garry Cole| and Rick|Sean Faris|,it made for a very interesting storyline,and I loved seeing him help out Rick along the way it was emotional and heartwarming at the same time. This is a real hidden gem that i'm truly glad I discovered it made me think about my life and a lot of times I need something like that.

The Performances. Sean Faris is outstanding as Rick Penning. He reminded me an awful lot of a young Tom Cruise cocky yet very charismatic and talented. It was a tough role to turn going from a mouthy teenager,to a good hearted young man,but Sean pulled it off with pure perfection. He clearly put his heart and soul into this film,so big kudos to Sean for putting so much effort into this great film. Gary Cole is excellent as the preachy yet likable coach who wants to help out the kids. I've always found him to be likable,he always has a sort of presence he carries to his films. Neal McDonough is fantastic as the selfish yet pressured father of Rick. For the majority of the movie,the script leads you to believe he's nothing more then a selfish bitter man who wants Rick to be exactly like him,but in the end you start to see the real him come out,I felt sorry for him a bit. Julie Warner is a good character actress and she plays the good hearted,yet clueless mother well. Penn Badgley is required to play a real jerk,and boy does he ever do that well. On numerous occasions I wanted to pop him one,so I must say it's a great performance. Arielle Kebbel is the love interest not much of a part,she did OK. Nathan West plays a somewhat mysterious character,he did quite well. Sean Astin is billed as a major player for the film,but he barely does anything,he did good with what he had to do.

Bottom line-Forever Strong is a great feel good film,it will definitely make you stop and think about how your life was much better then you thought. Don't let this one slip you by,you won't regret it.

8 1\/2\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched it last night and it was great.I can see why some ppl have ill feelings towards it from a rugby fan and maori culture point of view but other than that I have no idea what's so negative about it. The movie is great. It has a lot of heart. Very inspiring and encouraging to all ages. Great family movie! They did a pretty good job considering that it was a budget movie. I love movies based on true stories\/events. I was raised around rugby all my life, it is a great game but I was never really taken to it because (please forgive me if I offend anyone, nothing personal this is just how I saw it) I thought, their trainings are not as ruthless or hard, the players are not as disciplined and don't seemed as serious like other sportmen and it looked like it's all just muscle and blooming tackling each other etc. But after watching Forever strong, I was like, wow! I was proud! It did good things for rugby (well it changed my view of rugby) and also the New Zealnd Haka. I actually cried. I am not even New Zealander and I was proud of their culture. Didn't even know what the chant meant until this movie. The movie is NOT about rugby techniques or rugby, it's not even about New Zealand All Blacks or the Haka or etc......Mother of pearls!!!!! hahaha SHUX!

So to all you beautiful negative ppl, You are missing the point! I am sure if they had the means, it would have been better, the haka is in there because that was part of Highland Rugby culture, tradition or what ever you want to call it.

So any new members on this site such as myself, please don't be put off by those negative comments. See it for yourself! Must see movie! There is a lot you can learn from this movie, ppl of all ages. It definitely makes you want to be a better person and be humble! This movie reminded me of a lot of things that I already know and was raised with but I kinda lost along the way! Loved it! Happy reading ppls and All the best!

Muawha!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think a several of America's baseball movies are among the best movies ever made. When this movie was in production and heard it described as a rugby movie. I'd read about the Highland team in the newspapers, but didn't have high expectations for this film about a sport that didn't interest me.

Last night I viewed it \"on-demand\" and loved it almost as much as my favorite baseball movies. Ryan Little and the cast and crew did an amazing job. Neil McDonough was especially convincing. As the \"bad dad\" he displayed fine range and a subtle, but moving character arc.

I also enjoyed the Pacific Islander actors. I've been fortunate to know many of these fine people and this film captures their wonderful spirit and culture. A flashback showing how the Islander culture became such a key element of Highland's team would have been a excellent addition to the film.

Some pretty tacky movies have been shot in Utah recently. It's good to see a quality film like this from the Beehive State.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First, let's call this movie what it is:

1. It's a feel-good movie with a message.

2. The acting is just okay, dialog slightly better, production value pretty good.

3. Rugby scenes...just barely passable.

But here's the trick: this isn't something Hollywood contrived, and it isn't trying to be a ferociously accurate portrayal of the sport. It is instead a pretty good representation of mostly real people, in real circumstances, and a real storyline. Sure, they could have done a better job actually rep'ing the sport, but my vote: it does a pretty good job at what it sets out to do.

(And fwiw, I can't think of many football, baseball, hockey or soccer movies that are true to the sport either. C'mon...Bull Durham?)

I'm not a rugby player (I was a wrestler) but I graduated from Highland, attended '86-'90, and occasionally trained with the Rugby guys. My brother-in-law David, however, was one of the original founding members of the Highland Rugby Club in 1976. (His younger brother, Billy, played the next year, as I recall. If you're interested, there's a Highland Rugby site at highlandrugby.net that addresses the history of the team.)

By the time I was there the club had been in existence for about a decade, and had long since built a reputation for excellence. It's a fact that they focused on \"broad\" training topics: devotion, honor, discipline, effort, not tactics. I thought the rugby guys I knew were a little 'off' in the head, but I think I might have just been a little jealous. They were hard-core dedicated to the belief system that Gelwix promoted.

With regard to the \"cultural mixing\" issues that have been brought up, it might be interesting to note that while I was there in the 80's, one of the larger schools in the city was shut down - South High School - and its students distributed among the other 3 primary SLC schools. To be honest, Highland pre-80's was pretty whitebread...I've got a picture of the team from (I think) 1977 that shows an *all* white club. South High, on the other hand, was a much more racially integrated school before it closed: I had a pair of friends from South who joined the team, one Tongan, one Samoan, and as I recall there were a bunch of Island-nation players that joined up '88-'90. I don't think anyone questioned the credibility of the team in adopting Maori (or other cultural) traditions: if there was one thing that was obvious about these guys, it's that they walked the walk.

And as to the strength of the team when compared to the best highschool-age teams in the world: yeah, it's true that US-Rugby, on average when taken as a whole, does not represent particularly well against the best elsewhere. There are exceptions, but hey - it's a simple fact that Rugby doesn't have the prominence or exposure needed to develop the multiple traditions of excellence in the US that arise in other countries.

With that said, judge Highland on its merits:

- the *only* team to qualify for the USA Rugby National Championships every year of that organizations' 25-yr history.

- a win record of 392 wins, 9 losses. Read that again...winningest coach in any US sport in history.

- regular international tours.

- some compelling wins against some legitimate international teams.

Are they the world best? Maybe some years, probably not most...but they're pretty good on a consistent basis. And it's disrespectful to the game to blow them off, when Highland Rugby may be the best ambassador to the sport in the US.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has made me a rugby -- and Coach Larry Gelwix -- fan. The story's characters slipped and fell before they begin to grow as they struggled through incredibly strong conflicts. Those were understandable and completely believable. Like life, there were no easy answers for the problems facing them all. Superb actors and an excellent script brought this true story to life. I wish there were more movies like this one. These days, I watch almost exclusively, worthwhile true stories because they are typically far more interesting than fiction. Additionally, this one is inspirational and it teaches us to not to give up on anyone too quickly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very positive message for our youth is shown in this movie. Through the sport of rugby as a mean, a High School rugby coach leads his players in their behavior and lifestyle, ON and OFF the field.

The acting and directing are good. The rugby shots are just OK if you know some rugby or really cool if don't know much about it.

I recommend this movie, worth watching, especially at a point in time when this sport is gaining more and more adepts every day.

The plot is based on a true story taking place in Utah. The coach portrayed in this movie has been at the helm of the Highlanders for over 30 years (and loosing only game every 3 years).

Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My family truly enjoyed this movie. As far as what this movie will do for Rugby in the USA...well I am sure that will be debatable. But as for me and others around me, I know that we were more curious about the sport after seeing the movie and I personally gained more respect for the game. You may wonder how this possible, especially since the movie does not dive in and explain Rugby. But the simple fact is it drew you into the players and emotion of the game and life. The film was inspirational as well as entertaining. It made us laugh and cry. The chemistry between Sean Astin, Big Budah and Sean Faris worked well. Some may think the movie is a little clich\u00e9, but I seriously wish Hollywood made more movies like this. I couldn't help drawing analogies of the game and life's struggles. At the end of it I found myself examining my own life to see what I needed to do better, in order to be the best person I could be. Honestly I was grateful this movie taught morals, values and teamwork, there is so much to the contrary. After watching this I really hope my kids are coached by someone who has a philosophy like Coach Gelwix.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wanted to see this movie ever since the previews came out. I don't understand why everyone is so hard on this film. It may not all be technically true to the sport of rugby, but this film is not mainly about the sport. It's about a rugby team that is taught how to be more than the world expects of them. They are taught to become men, and not temporally vain boys. Hollywood is never 100% correct in their productions. They are there to make a product that sells. Something entertaining. The story of Coach Gelwix and what he has taught over the years is simply amazing. He teaches about service, honor, integrity, and moral cleanliness. How many other movies are teaching that to our youth these days? I was proud to see such an amazing story that taught reverence and respect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wonder how someone could diss on this movie. It is based on an actual story. It is not necessarily about \"Rugby\" itself so to the one that posted on here that they need to make a \"real\" rugby movie, you missed the point. This is not another typical sports movie where a team sucks, they hire Emilio Estevez and turn the team around and win the championship and give everyone the warm and fuzzies. It focuses on a STORY. It shows how someone can change his or her life for the better. The movies now days are all about sex, drugs, partying etc. That is Hollywood. I am a big fan of movies, but I have to say this was an inspirational movie with a great message. If you consider yourself a \"tough guy\" don't watch the movie, it won't live up to your standards. If you want to watch a good, inspirational movie, this is a good one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am huge movie enthusiast and also an active rugby player who believes that rugby is the greatest game ever played. Forever Strong is a mix of Coach Carter and sloppy rugby. This movie is full of great acting, well developed characters and in action shots that will have you ducking and dodging in your seat, but with more arm tackles than pee wee football and almost every shot cuts away as soon as a player touches the ground its filmed to almost seem like football. If you want to bring your kids to see a movie that will build character from within and could inspire a blind man to see again I can easily give it 9 out of 10, if you want to see a great rugby movie that truly shows the sport your going to have to wait for the next one because Forever Strong is mostly practice, running, and a one ruck film, for this I give it a 7.75 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie forever strong will never be nominated for an Oscar, it will never be nominated for best acting, for best motion picture. But this movie does have things that other movies don't. In a nation with so much scandal, so many problems, movies being poured out with little thought to the morals of society, at least this movie promotes good. What is wrong with standing behind something that promotes happiness? We should support movies that tell our American teens that there is more to life than sex drugs and alcohol. As for this Haka debate as previously stated, the Hakka is not exclusive to the New Zealand All Blacks, various Utah high school football teams and colleges perform this ritual before games. Including Hawaii, BYU, etc.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like most sports movies, it's not surprising that people who know something about the sport can find flaws in it. As a soccer referee, I have yet to see a movie or TV show get it right when depicting a match. \"Forever\" has good actors, but I found Sean Astin to be a bit young to be an administrator in a juvenile jail. I was very thankful that the plot did not involve the lead character turning his fellow inmates into rugby players and taking on Flagstaff as well as Highland. Which gets to credulity: a police squad car just happens to pull up at precisely the time the Flagstaff baddies are hazing Rick Penning. Even though rugby is not a sanctioned high school sport nationally, the team is a school-based club sport -- much like rodeo. That said, I find it hard to believe that high school officials would allow students to play with open wounds: That just isn't done in this day of AIDS and Hepatitis. I don't care what the tradition and macho image is. Despite that, it was a cool movie in that teens were expected to act like adults (and sometimes actually did). Sadly, far too many coaches are like Flagstaff's -- or worse.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now, I realize that most people on here trash YOUNG WARRIORS or hail it as \"so bad it's funny\" type entertainment, but let me make something clear: It's actually a quality piece of low rent action, if you're willing to watch such cinema without a critical eye. In fact, it's a good deal more entertaining and thought provoking than the bulk of the action films of the 80s.

The key is in the film's subject matter. I'm always a sucker for movies that tackle the subject of vigilantism, especially when they ambitiously probe into the psyches of the characters involved. YOUNG WARRIORS may not have the intelligence or sensitivity of the first DEATH WISH film (and yes, I do think the first one had both of those elements), but it's trying to be different from the run-of-the-mill Cannon films of the period in that it's genuinely unique.

The plot is simple (don't worry, there won't be spoilers): A group of college student pranksters change their ways when one of their family members is assaulted by a tough street gang. The students take to the streets in an effort to combat general street crime, being that they don't know who the gang responsible is. They eventually acquire some heavy artillery (machine guns and grenades) and prowl the night fully armed. However, these are not Schwarzenegger types; they're vulnerable, inexperienced novices who make sizable blunders nearly each time they set out to clean up the city (usually with their frat mascot dog in tow). They finally figure out who the gang is and go after them, but by then you won't be expecting a standard climax in which the good guys walk away unscathed.

One thing about the film that struck me as strange yet effective is that the bulk of the first act offers no indication that we'll be seeing any action or violence later on as it's treated like a goofy frat comedy you'd see on USA's Up All Night (where I believe this was actually shown at one point). The comedy set-up actually lulled me into forgetting that the VHS cover showed a guy riding a motorcycle with a machine gun strapped to his back. Then, when the violence finally arrives, it's not fun or cute at all... it's shockingly disturbing. From that point on the film becomes a full blooded, uncompromising action yarn containing some startling gunfights and gore.

The acting, while nothing special, is far more impassioned than I anticipated. James Van Patten, who plays the protagonist, gives his all and his performance is surprisingly good for this type of movie. The rest of the cast is equally invested, including the always dependable Ernest Borgnine as the hero's cop father. The cinematography is also above par and the action scenes are handled with a level of severity that I personally wasn't expecting.

I can understand why some people thought this movie was worthless as much of it is extremely dated, but those facets struck me as nothing short of cool in and of themselves. Van Patten's character is studying animation and his patently early 80s style work that's on display in several scenes is a retro film lover's psychedelic wet dream. I'm sure most contemporary viewers would cite those very moments as low points in the movie, but I disagree. Also, Joe Walsh's soundtrack - which sounds like it could have only been recorded in '83 - seemed particularly fitting and enjoyable, regardless of how \"old\" it seems today.

YOUNG WARRIORS is one of my favorite action films of the 80s and I highly urge anyone interested in the genre to take a look. Sadly, however, it's only been released on VHS as of this writing, and it isn't being shown on TV these days. A nice DVD presentation would make me moon-walk around my living room with such intensity that I'm sure my ankles would swell. In the meantime, I implore you all to go on Ebay or Amazon and cough up the ten bucks or whatever for the old big-box tape. It really is a remarkable staple of ambitious trash cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Young Warriors (1983)

While this is a deeply flawed (and in some ways idiotic) movie, the way it continually defies expectations makes it decent viewing for the adventurous sleaze fan.

Meet yuppie college student Kevin and his gang of lovable frat boy buddies. In what starts out as a particularly egregious teen sex comedy, we follow this bunch of jerk-offs and their antics, which involve, among other things, making pledges tie bricks to their genitals. The movie abruptly shifts gears when Kevin's high school freshman sister is brutally raped and beaten into a coma by a gang of bikers who apparently have nothing better to do. When she dies in the hospital, Kevin vows revenge, much to the chagrin of his detective father.

So far, we've gone from Porky's-lite, through Last House On The Left territory, into what is apparently shaping up to be your typical urban vigilante revenge flick. However, Kevin and his gang's portrayal goes from vaguely sympathetic until they become kill-crazed lunatics. It's to the film's credit that it doesn't glamorize the fascist anti-crime rhetoric that Kevin continually spouts, while still making it understandable that he would feel the way he does.

The mood goes from lighthearted to grimy and downbeat very quickly, and by the end it's so over the top and exploitative that it'll leave you incredulous. And that's the strength of this film. You never know what to expect next.

At over 100 minutes, it's a little lengthy for this kind of fare, but you won't get bored. Poorly acted for the most part, with cardboard cutouts for characters and some particularly ludicrous situations and rather stupid dialogue, this won't be topping anyone's list of forgotten classics anytime soon. I got a kick out of it though, and I'm sure anyone reading this knows if they're up for it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie starts off as a college T'n'A flick, but turns pretty ugly after the main character's sister is gang raped by a biker gang driving a van. It has a pretty good pace, and James Van Patten does a pretty good job in this Cannon tax write-off movie. This was the first movie I ever saw at the Parkway Drive-in, here in Toronto. The main feature was \"Alphabet City\", and \"Young Warriors was the added feature. Out of the 2 movies, \"Young Warriors\" was by far more entertaining and memorable. If you are a fan of blow 'em up, excessively violent movies, this one would make a great addition to any collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this a few times on TV in the late 1970s. It only played late at night (past midnight).

Peter Lorre plays a kind, happy man whose face is disfigured in a fire. He is rejected by his girlfriend and left alone and filled with despair. He turns to a life of crime and eventually becomes very successful. He makes a mask to hide his disfigured features and falls in love with a beautiful girl (Evelyn Keyes)...who is blind! He tries to go straight for her...but he can't escape his life of crime or his hatred of his own scarred face.

A no budget B film. Very short (runs only a little over an hour) but well made and superbly acted by Lorre. This has a lot more depth than you would expect from a quickie B picture. Ankers especially takes the thankless \"girl\" role and makes her character fresh and appealing. This has sadly disappeared from TV and was never put on video or DVD (as far as I know). TCM did show it recently and it was great to see the movie still holds up.

Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peter Lorre turns in one of his finest performances as a Hungarian watchmaker coming to the United Staes to make a new life for himself and someday bring his girl across the big pond to be with him. Lorre's infectious optimism and bright outlook come off very effectively which makes the performance all the better when he has his face hideously burned in a hotel fire and, when no one will give him a chance to work, turns reluctantly to a life of crime. Lorre's range as an actor is seldom as apparent as in this movie with his jovial, good-natured immigrant, to his depressing, melancholic, disfigured self searching for the truth behind what he believed America afforded him, to his suave, intelligent, better-than-your-average hood, to his sympathetic dealings with a blind woman with whom he falls in love. The story is well-paced, has some interesting twists, and gives Lorre many opportunities to shine. Director Robert Florey does a quality job behind the lens, and all of the supporting cast help aid the film with Evelyn Keyes giving a particularly good turn as the blind girl. I loved the ending - and the truth - that was shone to exist in Lorre's character despite all the negative things society had done toward him. For a little B picture, The Man Behind the Mask is good movie-making for its time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film stars Peter Lorre as an exceptionally nice guy who immigrates to America. Unfortunately, shortly after his arrival, he's in a horrible fire and his face is horribly burned. Because he looks so awful, no one wants to hire him and out of sheer desperation, he resorts to a life of crime in order to earn the money needed to buy a mask to hide his ugliness. Where exactly the film goes from there, you'll just need to see for yourself.

I scored this movie an 8 because, for the money spent to make it, it's a heck of a good film with a lot of good twists in the plot to keep it interesting. The film could have degenerated into a simple horror or crime film, but it goes far beyond this an offers some genuine surprises. In addition, the excellent acting by Lorre shows that he was capable of more than just supporting roles. This is an excellent film and delivers more than most \"A-pictures\" of the day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film grabs you from the opening scenes and never lets go. You watch indulgently upon viewing Janos Szaby's excitement over coming to America. He's a likable fellow. You cannot help being fond of him even when his eagerness is replaced by bitterness as his fortunes turn. You know that in his circumstances,you would be forced to make the same choices he does to survive. This movie comments on society's worship of beauty and all things superficial and is only more true in the culture of the twenty-first century. Janos himself becomes victim to this philosophy when he tells his blind girlfriend \"you're young and beautiful; if you could see, you would have the world.\" And like many a modern gangster movie, when her safety is threatened, he extracts a powerful revenge. His innocence is not altogether lost however for he demands an equally high price of himself, knowing he deserves his fate.

Peter Lorre is in fine form in this starring role. Only a few actors could convincingly accomplish this character's transformation from innocent to embittered criminal in sixty nine minutes. Lorre is well supported by all the cast making this a real ensemble picture and not just a vehicle for one star. With a bit less preachy dialogue, this movie would be a 10. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mike Nichols in finest form. I was not a fan of \"Closer\", so it's refreshing to see him again right back on top with this comedy set in the darkest of circumstances. Just one slip in tone could have wrecked this compelling picture but Nichols and his very strong A-list cast never put a foot wrong in this biopic of a deeply flawed but utterly compelling Congressman.

Philip Seymour Hoffman as usual is scintillating and brilliant - here playing a damaged but ultra-smart CIA manipulator, and it is in the exchanges between Hanks and Hoffman's characters where the comedy soars. Rarely is movie humour laugh-out loud and also smart... This hits the spot time after time with a biting satirical edge that makes you both laugh and weep at the state of the world (often simultaneously).

One other major plus is the length of the picture. The film is based on George Crile's fat book of the same title. The temptation for screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (his claim to fame is \"The West Wing\") must have been to make a fat movie, but what we get is a breath-taking 90 odd minutes of great story with sweeping implications.

This film deserves to be seen and to be recognized for finding an extraordinary balance between the darkest of dark subject matter and the lightness of touch of it's sparkling witty script - even if it does flunk the obvious link between the help that Herring and Wilson provide and the ultimate consequences (9\/11).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It doesn't happen very often, but occasionally one man can make a difference -- a big difference.

George Crile's 2003 best seller, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, is a fascinating and eye-opening account of the most unlikely \"difference maker\" imaginable. A relatively obscure Congressman from the Second District of Texas, \"Good Time Charlie\" was known more for his libertine lifestyle than his libertarian legislation. Likable and licentious (even for a politician), Charlie Wilson served his constituency well since the good folks of Lufkin only really wanted two things, their guns and to be left alone. It's Easy Street replete with his bevy of beltway beauties known, appropriately enough, as Charlie's Angels.

When asked why his entire office staff was composed of attractive, young aides his response is a classic, \"You can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits.\" No argument there.

But even the most rakish rapscallion has a conscience lurking somewhere underneath, and for Charlie Wilson the unimaginable atrocities being committed in Afghanistan moved him to muster his entire political savvy toward funding the utter, humiliating defeat of the Russian military and, possibly, to even help hasten the end of the Cold War as a result. Fat chance, huh?

Under the skillful direction of Mike Nichols and a smart, snappy screenplay by Adam Sorkin, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR is a sparkling, sophisticated satire that chronicles the behind-the- scene machinations of three colorful characters comprising \"Charlie's Team.\"

The on-screen \"Team,\" is composed of three marvelous actors with four (4) Academy Awards and nine (9) nominations between them. Charlie is beautifully portrayed by Tom Hanks in a solid, slightly understated fashion that is among his best work in years. He's aided, abetted and abedded by Joanne Herring, a wealthy Houston socialite played by the still-slinky Julia Roberts. Hey, why else have the bikini scene than to let the world know this? By all accounts Ms. Roberts looks good and holds her own, but the screenplay never gives us even a hint why Kabul and country is so important to her character. Maybe the two Afghan hounds usually by her side know -- but we as an audience never do. As for the third member of the \"Team,\" Philip Seymour Hoffman steals every scene he appears in as Gust Aurakotos, a smart, street- wise (i.e. non Ivy League graduate) CIA malcontent who knows the score -- both in the Agency's boardroom and in Wilson's bedroom.

For the Mujahideen to succeed, the most important assistance the U.S. can provide is the ability to shoot down the dreaded MI-21 helicopter gunships which rule the skies. This takes money, lots of money, and eventually \"Charlie's Team\" covertly coerces those in Congress to fund the effort to the tune of $1 billion dollars for advanced weaponry to arm the Afghan rebels. This includes top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art anti-aircraft and anti-tank rockets as well as other highly sophisticated killing devices. Nasty, nasty stuff.

That this kind of multi-billion dollar illicit activity can and does take place behind Congressional doors is truly alarming. Every American should see this movie or read this book because it reveals a truly frightening aspect of the business-as-usual political scene rarely seen outside the walls of our very own government. Oh momma, I wish it weren't so...

Even though the initial outcome for \"Team Charlie\" was an unqualified success, the unimaginable, unanticipated final result is that these sophisticated weapons are now used against our troops by the Taliban and others. Since the funding was entirely \"covert,\" the young generation in this part of the world has no idea the fall of Soviet oppression and the end to Russian barbarity was the direct result of American intervention. Yes, once the Russkies left, so did our aid -- zip for schools, zip for infrastructure, zip on maintaining meaningful relationships with the Afghan people. As a result, the overall consequence is an unmitigated disaster -- it's like the forerunner to \"Mission Accomplished.\"

As Nichol's film so pointedly points out, \"The ball you've set in motion can keep bouncing even after you've lost interest in it.\" Mike Krzyzewski knows this, Eva Longoria Parker knows this, little Lateesha in Lafayette knows this, but the typical American politician doesn't. So we go from good guys to bad guys because we couldn't let the world know we were the good guys. Talk about a Catch-22 (another Mike Nichols film).

Perhaps Charlie Wilson said it best, \"We f&%ked up the end game.\"

Again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Told in flashback, the film opens in 1989 with Charlie being given award for his role in the defeat of Communism. I must admit my heart sank as at the thought of have to endure yet another earnest, somewhat boring and overlong life story. How wrong was I, because that short scene is as close as the film ever gets to boring.

The film is full of entertaining & amusing set ups and cracking dialogue in some of the most unexpected places. The next scene after the Awards ceremony is Charlie in a Hot-Tub with some naked women and a guy trying to get him to invest in a TV programme. Another rather amusing scene is about 3 quarters into the film comprises Charlie, a group of his rather sexy Secretaries, Phillip Seymour Hoffmans CIA Man and a bottle of Whisky. As to dialogue what about this for a line, \"The Senator says, He can teach us to type but can't teach us to grow Tits.\". OK, School-boyish I know but the film is laced with great lines.

As to performances well Phillip Seymour Hoffman as usual steals every scene he's in. Hanks is OK but surprisingly to me anyway was Julia Roberts who is very good in the role of a rather eccentric Texas Oil Millionairess.

Charlie Wilson's War is one of the best non Musician Bio-pics in a long while as well as being that rare thing a film that entertains, amuses as well as informs all in equal measure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like Tom Hanks, and he is one of few actors who will draw me into the theatre regardless of any misgivings I may have concerning the film. I worried about Mr. Hanks return to \"light comedy\" as this is the arena where he made the transition from TV to film- remember \"Big\"? Well, \"Charlie Wilson's War\" is not light comedy. It is political satire, and extremely well-written political satire at that. The script is the star of this film, and the word-smithing by Aaron Sorkin is some of the best on offer this year.

Mike Nicols holds the entire escapade together, delivering a film that zips along in a very quick 90 minutes (timing is everything in comedy, and nothing is ever funny if it drags). Nicols' choice in sets and lighting are also very reminiscent of '70's and '80's TV, a move used deliberately to root the piece in period.

The return to the use of model work and stock photography over digital special effects also enhances the retro look and believability. Note to the production designers in your choice of stock footage: I know the difference between an F-16 and a MiG, and a Bell and a Hind. But that may have been part of the joke, too.

I saw this film in Philadelphia. It was interesting to watch and listen to the audience NOT get the historical references to their own history. History tends to repeat because the recidivists have forgotten what happened the first time around.

Kudos to both Mr. Hanks and that chameleon Phillip Seymore Hoffman. Sorkin's script is brought to life by these actors, and the entire production team is on the top of their game.

Heartily recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Charlie's Wilson's War demonstrates with deft veracity just how futile wars can be, especially to the very people who spend countless hours and finances to fund them. Virtuoso performances and remarkably memorable characters teamed with a riotously sarcastic script catapult the film, helmed by the continuously unpredictable Mike Nichols, to the top of the year's best. Politics has never been so much fun.

Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a Texas congressman who is credited with almost single-handedly winning the Cold War. Hanging around plenty of drugs, women and scotch, he also takes an unexpected interest in the events in Afghanistan and the terrors of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Enlisting the help of Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) a renegade CIA covert mission expert and Joanne (Julia Roberts), a wealthy socialite, he raises money to provide Afghanistan with the rocket launchers and antitank weaponry they need to cause serious damage to Russian military. Eventually by the end of the 80s the Cold War would come to an end, and the funds would immediately be cut, thereby removing all help for the fledgling country to rebuild and recoup.

The acting is exquisite, although it's to be expected from the more than accomplished cast. A large part of that however, should be attributed to the script, which allows each character to be undeniably well-developed and memorable. And a hearty helping of that credit goes to the novel of the same name, which is hilariously honest. Tom Hanks delivers yet another unequaled performance as Charlie Wilson, the man who did so much for so many and yet still remains relatively unknown. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Gust, a character that is vividly boffo in both his physicality and his wry cynicism; the inimitable Hoffman once again shows superb range in the characters he portrays. Julia Roberts is perhaps the only weak link of the film, with her generic snobbish character and not-subtle-enough accent. And then there's Wilson's \"jailbait\" squad of young secretaries that scamper about to keep him happy. Led by the always delightful Amy Adams, each supporting role has its mirthful moments.

Defeating the Soviet Union was not an easy task, especially considering the many conflicting goals between the various political leaders. \"Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?\" queries a disgruntled politician. \"Tradition mostly\", returns Wilson. Everyone appears to want the Cold War to end, yet a blind eye is being turned to the atrocities taking place in Afghanistan. It takes a trip to the war-torn refugee camps in Pakistan to motivate Wilson, as well as with his main financial source Doc Long (Ned Beatty). Wilson uses strategic ties with committees to raise funding of weaponry in Afghanistan from $5 million to $10 million with a simple command, but the president of Pakistan scoffs at the idea of winning a war for such a trivial amount. By the end of the Wilson campaign, $1 billion is sent to the Mujahedin to shoot down Russian helicopters - the first step toward victory, as Wilson predicted. Beyond the scope of the film, the unresolved turmoil in Afghanistan led to further, less ignorable problems, which Wilson presumably foresaw.

During the course of Charlie Wilson's War, the main characters travel from the United States to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Jerusalem to Egypt, but wherever they go, sarcasm always follows. There's a surprising amount of comedy in the film, considering the political undertones are generally serious. Hoffman provides jokes with almost every exchange of dialogue, as does Hanks, with his naturally witty woman-chasing ideals. A scene early on featuring Gust being continually ushered in out of Wilson's office as he tries to straighten out a legal issue with his posse of gorgeous gals (\"you can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits\") reminds me of a slapstick routine from the Marx Brothers.

With the press focusing on the drug allegations against Wilson, instead of the important issues of the Cold War, and the conflicting desire of officials to budget their help, it's clear that by the end of the film, the politicians are still oblivious to what's really necessary. And since the screenplay is so quick-witted and astute, some audience members may not be able to keep up with all of the dialogue-intensive events. But, as demonstrated by the politicians who are ignorant as to the difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan, it's essentially another argument to support Charlie Wilson's point.

- Mike Massie","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I quit watching \"The West Wing\" after Aaron Sorkin quit writing and producing. It just wasn't the same. Imagine my thrill at seeing a film that he wrote again. It has been a long time - The American President, A Few Good Men. His script was a beautiful blend of humor and tragedy. He made a compelling story believable, and made me weep at the same time.

Tom Hanks was incredible as a small-time Texas Congressman whose constituents only wanted lower taxes and to keep their guns. Not a hard job, so he had plenty of time to fool around - and that he did. His office staff looked as if he were at the Playboy Mansion. Like he reportedly said, \"You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits.\" Despite his sexist attitude, which fits right in with a Texas Congressman, they were fiercely loyal, especially his aide, Amy Adams (Junebug & former Hooters girl).

Now, add a rich Texas socialite who wants something done in Afghanistan, played perfectly by Julia Roberts; and a pain-in-his-boss's-ass CIA agent, superbly done by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and you have a movie well worth watching.

Outstanding writing, and superlative acting, and a story that needed to be told. What more do you want at the movies?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In one of the better movies of the year, Tom Hanks stars as Congressman Charlie Wilson in this sardonically funny and extremely relevant (given reasonably current events) historical comedy-drama surrounding the 1980s Afghan\/Soviet fiasco. The Soviets were attacking Afghanistan killing hundreds of people. Why should anyone care? People are dying, right? No, the reason the United States got involved through Charlie Wilson was because the Afghans, in fear they would get blown to sh_t, started illegally coming into Pakistan which in turn p_ssed Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq off. Charlie Wilson in an effort to fix this situation teamed up with the sixth richest woman and religious fanatic in Texas, Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) and a amusing and robust American spy for the CIA, Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to help supply Afghans with high-tech weapons to destroy Soviet fight air-craft that would try and attack their land.

Although certainly not a serious Oscar contender for Best Picture, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is probably one of the best of the many political films of the year. Academy Award Winner Mike Nichols provides solid directing as to be expected while Emmy Award Winner Aaron Sorkin (Sport's Night, The West Wing) provides a remarkable screenplay that near-flawlessly balances comedy and drama. The acting is great for the most part as well. Tom Hanks delivers his best and most enjoyable performance since his 2000 Oscar-nominated turn as a FedEx worker stranded on a tropical island in 'Cast Away'. Hanks takes a slimy character like Wilson and with his trademark charm turns him into a likable guy. Amy Adams and Ned Beatty are reliable as always, but the real stand-out performance of the film is from Philip Seymour Hoffman. Arguably the finest actor working in the film industry today, Hoffman takes a small supporting role and upstages everyone around him. From his first scene where he's screaming at his boss before violently breaking his window, Hoffman sucks you in. The only disappointing cast member is unsurprisingly overrated Hollywood starlet Julia Roberts. Hamming her way through yet another movie, Roberts' overbearing and over-the-top portrayal of a rich Texas oil woman hits all the wrong notes and is at most times flat-out annoying. At 97 minutes, the movie is short and sweet, and that isn't to say it doesn't drag at some points but when it does drag it's for a very brief amount of time.

In conclusion, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is not a perfect film by any means, but it's certainly worth a look. Grade: B+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Aaron Sorking raises the same questions as Shakespeare did or does. How could they possibly know so much about the inner workings of palace life. Here like in The West Wing, Sorkin opens surprising doors that are hardly a shock but seem ton confirm our worst fears. Everything is so casual and at the same time so directly responsible for so many people's lives. A puffy Tom Hanks tells us one way or another that things can be manipulated with semi pure intentions but without weighing the consequences and Julia Roberts in a blond southern hairdo reminds us of the powers harbored in the sidelines. The subject is serious but the treatment is light, intelligent but light. Philip Seymour Hoffman, as the invisible middle man, steals every scene he is in, just like Charles Laughton did in every movie he was in.The dialogue is fast but not fast enough for us not to catch up and discover that this is not an ordinary comedy. The seemingly casual pace filled with strokes of wit and provocation grants another badge of honor in the Mike Nichol's collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nice to see a comedy for grown ups. Masterfully structured by Aaron Sorkin via Mike Nichols's own mastery. Mr Nichol's mastery is to present characters in all their shocking truth, from the sad and riveting Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in \"Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf\" to the sad and riveting Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Jude Law and Natalie Portman in \"Closer\". In \"Charlie Wilson's War\" the shocking truth is outside the characters and the sad and riveting Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams are at the service of something else, it's personal only to a point. Hanks has to bury his brilliance in single malts and Julia Roberts throws parties and introduces characters with blatant straightforwardness. Amy Adams witnesses and exist as a character, witnessing. An insurmountable task that Miss Adams manages to surmount, beautifully. It is Philip Seymour Hoffman's Gus with a t, however, that monopolized my attention. His character may not be a first but it is a first the way that Hoffman presented him to us. Someone who survives the disregard with which he's treated by the absolute conviction that he's smarter than all of them put together. Hoffman is superb. The pacing of the tale helps enormously not to fall in a myriad of useless questions. A sharp, short, smart, sad comedy and when was the last time I was able to say that?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well we definitely did see and I and many other people were actually expecting worse. It did have some good parts too it that I was not expecting it still did fail in other areas though.

First off the acting was above average. I love Phillip Seymour Hoffman in this movie and I liked Tom Hanks. Hoffman was the glue to this movie. If it were not for him this movie would have crumbled and hit rock bottom. His performance was by no means stunning but absolutely necessary. He gave a good witty, cynical performance in what most other actors could have easily made his character into a clich\u00e9. Tom Hanks really gave a nice loose performance and did not disappoint but he certainly did not impress. What I could not stand was that Julia Roberts was involved in this movie. She was as big of a miscast as I have ever seen. For one she is a bad actress, at least to me, she was to young for her character and was to phony even for the character she was playing.

The directing was average to me. I'm not really a big fan of the recent Mike Nichols movies and I'm not exactly impressed by this one either. It was made with such a Hollywoodish, cartoonish touch hat I could not stand. The worst part about it was that he tried make it be a really meaningful movie at the end. I love meaningful movies but not when a movie tries to rush a scene or two at the end and show something that tries to justify the rest of the garbage spread throughout the whole movie. That is something that Mike Nichols has seemed to have done a lot in his recent track record.

The one impressive part of this movie was the writing. The dialog was put together very well and was able to let the story play out. The writing was what was able to really able to take this movie to an above average level. In so many scenes I found myself laughing in part by the writing.

Well that is some of what we saw at least. A lot of the scenery was good in the movie if you get what I mean but not a lot other than that. I did like that this movie did not glorify everything America had done. It is obvious that during this whole war in Afghanistan the U.S. gave weapons to the people who are now against us. This movie kind of show we are too blame for that. It shows that what may seem good in the short term may turn into something horribly wrong in the future. This movie did have a good original message but it just did not deliver it right. Overall though it was entertaining.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's possible to have a good time with this film while, at the same time, regretting all that it isn't. In the 1980s, a raffish U.S. congressman (Tom Hanks) engineers support for Afghan partisans resisting the Soviet Union.

Hanks is in breezy, hail-fellow-well-met form as roguish, politically incorrect Charlie Wilson, first glimpsed sharing a hot tub with three deeply available looking women. If only the film had the same air of insouciance; but apart from Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn as a cynical CIA agent, it tries to be perceived as patriotic too. Aaron Sorkin's trademark staccato dialogue serves its purpose, but the story is no more plausible than one of Wilson's tall tales. And there's an oddly unspoken subtext: Wilson's Afghan pals later mutated into the Taliban and other anti-western groups, leaving the world worse off than it was when these events occurred.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Charlie Wilson's war is an excellent example of how films should be made. This movie is of the highest quality and is cast perfectly. Tom Hanks play the lead and delivers an exceptional performance. Furthermore, Tom Hanks is complimented by the unparalleled acting ability of the incredible Philip Seymour Hoffman. I have never seen him in a role that suits him so perfectly.

The film is witty, intelligent and well written. Julia Roberts also stars in this film but is easily over-shadowed by the other two leads.

I rated this film 10\/10 and am pleased to recommend this film to anyone that is interested in quality cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here is a movie that almost gets it all right, with good performances from everyone, and three strong leading performances from Hanks, Seymour Hoffman, and a fine turn up from Julia Roberts that had me spell bound from the first few seconds, these are performances that lift the production to the stars, and keep it there for the duration.

Apart from one or two very minor factual problems with the script, the only thing that lets this movie down, is the technical direction, there are far too many bad cuts (fudged continuity)and a number of camera \"cheats\" that simply do not work. This is surprising for a movie of this stature, and is a little annoying to watch, but it does not destroy an otherwise beautifully crafted film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Charlie Wilson's War, based on a true story, tells the tale of a Texas congressman and a CIA agent working to secure funding for covert support of the Mujaheddin in 1980s Afghanistan following the USSR invasion of the country. This conflict played a major role in the final years of the Cold War between the US and the USSR.

In terms of film making, Charlie Wilson's War is a definite winner. It well-written, well-acted, and well-shot. While most of the attention has gone to Tom Hanks for yet another fine performance, I was even more impressed with Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn as CIA operative Gust Avrakotos. Scenes of Soviet attacks on under-armed villages and of the refugee camp effectively tug at the heart. The film also gives a good behind-the-scenes look at the wheeling and dealing that Congressman Wilson must go through to secure the desired funding.

There are, however, two complaints I have about the film. The first is that there is a subplot involving an scandal investigation that is not well-developed and as such only serves as a minor distraction to the story line. The second complaint is that the film lacks some of the context of the war. The film makes the Mujaheddin look like innocent victims, and while they did suffer large civilian casualties, the Mujaheddin were in fact rebels trying to topple the government of Afghanistan. This government, ignored entirely in the film, not surprisingly fought to suppress the rebellion, later calling on the Soviet Union for support in their effort. The film also ignores that the US was aiding the Mujaheddin prior to the Soviet deployment in Afghanistan. The film did hint at the unintended consequences of our covert actions -- consequences we are still feeling today -- but it seems as if screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director Mike Nichols were willing to sacrifice some historical context to provide a cohesive narrative. (Not having read the book, I do not know if George Crile made the same compromise.) Those complaints notwithstanding, I did enjoy watching Charlie Wilson's War and do recommend it. I would have preferred a film that more accurately depicted the complexities of the situation, as Stephen Gaghan did in Syriana, but the audiences connected better with cohesive narrative of Charlie Wilson's War than with the ambiguities present in Syriana.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Consistency is perhaps this movie its biggest problem. The movie starts of as a fast, stylish and just plain fun political satire but in its second halve the movie gets more serious of tone, in an almost Oliver Stone kind of way. It's of course also a very serious subject but I would say that the movie would had been way better and also more effective if it had been completely done in the same style as the first halve of the movie got shot in.

For a biography and a movie concerning the subject of this movie, the movie is also quite short with its mere 102 minutes of running time. The movie because of this feels like it isn't telling the whole story. Of course the following up of the events after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan gets hinted at in the movie but the movie doesn't go deeper into it and it doesn't explain much about it, which feels like a cheap way to just glorify Charlie Wilson, without showing the other side of the medal. Also the actual events in the movie itself gets rather simplified, even though the story still gets told (needlessly) complex at times.

Yes, the movie would just had been way better if it was not trying to be so serious at times and overall more light with its style and atmosphere. The movie should had been for instance more like \"Wag the Dog\", that achieved to find a right combination of satire and sensitive political issues.

Because of this incoherent style and way of storytelling, the acting performances are also mixed. When Tom Hanks is playing his character more playfully and in a more comical kind of way he's just excellent. But this just makes it sort of hard to take his character serious in the more serious and sensitive\/shocking moments of the movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman is always excellent though, as he is in any movie that he plays in. He also received an Oscar nomination for his role in this movie. Most of the other actors just seem to walk around in this movie, just to be in the movie. This goes mostly for Julia Roberts, whose character I found just too mysterious to seem to have a clear enough purpose for the movie. She made a redundant impression on me and is therefor also really forgettable in this movie.

It's not that the movie is a bad watch, it actually is quite good and also enjoyable but if the movie would had dared to be a bit more edgier the movie would had been a better and foremost also more effective one at what it tried to obviously achieve.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mike Nichols' film \"Charlie Wilson's War\", set in the 1980's, tells the story of how the title character (played by Tom Hanks) managed to wage a covert war with the Russkies by way of aiding the Afghan forces. Of course, we know how well that turned out in the long run but, thankfully, the film does not gloss over the unpleasant after-effects.

The cast is star-studded, with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts being among the most bankable stars in Hollywood. As a bonus, you've got the versatile Philip Seymour Hoffman in a characteristically memorable supporting role, one for which he received a not unwarranted Oscar nomination. I'm not much of a fan of Roberts but Hanks is always dependable. Nevertheless, I can't quite buy into him as a drug-using womanizer, although the real Charlie Wilson seems just as eminently likable as Hanks. Apart from the big three, though, there's not much worth remarking on, even from a recognizable name like Amy Adams.

The story is engaging and is bolstered by a fine script from Aaron Sorkin. The verbal interplay between the main characters is excellent and is chock full of memorable lines. The later events set into motion by the war are not ignored though the bookending scenes honoring Wilson seem to me to be too earnest to achieve the bittersweet feel which was likely intended. On the whole, Nichols' direction is workmanlike and follows the action of the script admirably.

This is a film that, like Charlie Wilson himself, has flaws but is nevertheless disarmingly likable. Certainly recommended for fans of the three stars and for those looking for an engaging political drama with a light-hearted feel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Charlie Wilson (Two time Oscar-Winner:Tom Hanks) is a easy-going Congressman... Who loves to party, enjoys the company of woman and especially drinking his booze. When Charlie's old friend and ex-girlfriend Joanne Herring (Oscar-Winner:Julia Roberts) wants Charlie to visit Afghanistan, which that country certainly need of help. Charlie is shocked of what he seen, especially from all different ages are killed or hurt from this war with the Russians. He decides to help the people and the rebels to fight the Russians, who started the war. Charlie, Joanne and one renegade CIA Agent by the name of Gust Avrakotos (Oscar-Winner:Philip Seymour Hoffman) will start a good fight to bring the largest covert operation in history.

Directed by Oscar-Winner:Mike Nichols (The Birdcage, Regarding Henry, Wolf) made an lively, entertaining sharp satire war comedy that is based on a true story. Hanks, Roberts, Hoffman in a Oscar nominated performance and Amy Adams as Charlie's loyal assistant are very good in their roles. Despite the excellent true-life premise, \"Charlie Wilson's War\" never really catches fire and it is not as wickedly funny as you liked it to be. Director Nichols and Screenwriter:Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men) keeps things moving and the characters are well liked throughout.

DVD has an sharp Pan & Scan (1.33:1) transfer and an good Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD's only special features are the behind the scenes featurette with the cast & crew and a real-life featurette with Charlie Wilson and Others. \"Charlie Wilson's War\" is a good movie that could have been really great but it's not. But this movie is smart enough to please for those, who enjoyed well written or well acted adult comedies. (*** 1\/2 out of *****).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"... with a single act.

Charlie Wilson, congressman, a real character. During the 90s, when the communism on USSR, the Wall of Berlin and the war on Afhganistan (with the Soviets) broke over. He did it, a single denial for money, and everything went down. He should be remembered, so here it is. His memorial.

Back to the movie. Funny, dramatic, snob, politic or just boring. Anyways, it's a smart movie about politic life, about ruling the world and about, above all, a lesson to the world. A lesson to every politic out there, a critical point of view referring to countries who support wars with money, guns and words.

Lesson Learned - World isn't a nice place to live in","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great film, a very worthy 7\/10.

Tom Hanks was at his usual best, the heavy drinking congressman who saved Afghanistan from its communist oppressors! Based upon a true story tells us how the West throws money and arms at a problem and expect it to go away. Well, it did go away, albeit temporarily. Look who we (the British, amongst others) are now fighting the very same people who the US gave arms, training and money to in the 80s.

This film was always going to provoke political thoughts by the people who watch it, but it does portray a very nice story. However, once the main objective is achieved, i.e. ridding the communists from Afghanistan, it is seen how quickly the plight of people is forgotten about.

This film was good, it was a well deserved 7\/10. It told the story of the Communist invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent covert operation by the US to some detail and was dramatised well. Although being a good film, I will recommend it to people but some people will not enjoy it particularly is a serious film about good (US) v evil (Russia) isn't your thing!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Recap: Based on the true story of Charlie Wilson, an American Congressman, who (according to this movie) was instrumental in USA's covert war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.

Comments: A rather funny movie about not so funny things, especially since they were real. But focusing on the movie, Hanks performs very well as a mischievous womanizing Congressman with a good heart that becomes the champion for the covert war in Afghanistan. Hanks, and the entire movie, Philip Seymor Hoffman especially, has a rather humorous tone. So much that adding comedy to the genre would be appropriate. But, the story that it tell, and maybe the ending the most, are serious indeed.

A story of what happened with some questions about what might have been. So the movie works as a comedy if you want one, and a much more serious one if you want that. Something for everybody? 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a hard-partying, womanizing Texas Congressman with no discernible legislative record. In 1980, he finds himself becoming interested in the plight of Afghanistan, which is in the midst of a brutal war with the USSR. On the auspices of his old flame, arch-conservative Texas socialite Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), he travels to Afghanistan to assess the situation, and is stunned by what he sees. He returns to the US determined to help the Afghans, only to find his colleagues extremely indifferent to the situation - and himself under investigation for allegations of drug use. Undeterred, Wilson recruits Herring and the vulgar, outcast CIA Agent Gust Avrakotos (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) to begin a convoluted arms deal involving Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and a mostly unknowing US Congress. Ultimately, the Afghans defeat the Soviets, but while America celebrates their victory, Wilson and Avrakotos find their warnings about the instability of post-war Afghanistan falling on deaf ears.

Charlie Wilson's War is slick brain candy, a really neat film for the more intellectual viewer and fun entertainment for the average film-goer. The movie assembles an astonishing array of talent, both in front of and behind the camera, and delivers on its promise of being one hell of a good time. The film's has only one flaw, which we'll arrive at later. As an examination of the improbable way in which the 20th Century's largest covert war was waged - and, perhaps, the way that things get done by the CIA and other intelligence agencies - it's fascinating.

The movie is interesting on a number of levels. The story portrayed in the movie - with all of its outrageous double-dealings, sneaky covert operations, and, perhaps most of all, its success - would be so outrageous as a work of fiction, that it could easily be dismissed as a satire. But things really did work out this way, at least within reasonable bounds. The film portrays our three protagonists in an interesting way that highlights their virtues without obscuring their flaws. Wilson as a person who is unapologetic about his vices (even embracing them) - yet willing to embrace a righteous cause. Herring is something of an elitist, and her born-again attitude of righteousness is off-putting - yet she's deeply committed to the cause of the Afghan people. Avrakotos is a CIA outsider with an attitude problem, looked down upon because of his \"street\" background - yet his love of country and hatred of Communism are unwavering. The fact that this odd trio could play a major role in the downfall of the USSR is not only proof that anyone can make a difference, but also that truth is stranger than fiction. It's also very interesting that all of this is played as a comedy - not too surprising, given that our writer is Aaron Sorkin, but it's an interesting way to approach this story.

The movie does, however, have one drawback, which is a bit surprising. The film seems to unabashedly celebrate Wilson and Co.'s achievement. This is fine - nothing wrong with defeating the Soviet Union, is there? - until one considers that out of the ashes of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan came the Taliban and eventually al-Qaeda. Regardless of the US's level of responsibility, it happened, and the movie's portrayal of Wilson's success is almost unmitigated. To be fair, the movie does address this issue towards the end, with a rather topical speech by Wilson about the US's inability to clean up after themselves, but it's done in such a tertiary manner that the average viewer will probably not take much from it. The overall impression will be that these three remarkable people helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets. This isn't a fatal drawback, mind you, but it's one troubling aspect of an otherwise brilliant movie.

The film's talent is remarkable. The legendary Mike Nichols delivers a slick, gorgeous-looking production; the material is perfectly suited to his understated, wry directorial style. Sorkin delivers yet another brilliant screenplay; the film has dozens of quotable lines and classic Sorkin exchanges (the best being the \"Scotch bottle\" discussion between Wilson and Avrakotos), and keeps something of a political and historical perspective behind it. The film's cast is a marvel: Tom Hanks gives a fine performance as the lovable rogue with a cause, Julia Roberts is alternately charming and repulsive as the obnoxious but committed Joanne, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman steals every scene (par usual) as the abrasive Gus. The always-lovely Amy Adams takes another step on her road to stardom as Wilson's long suffering assistant, and Ned Beatty, Om Puri, Emily Blunt, Christopher Denham, and Ken Stott flesh out the supporting cast.

Charlie Wilson's War is an intelligent and fun movie, a wonderful bit of a-bit-more-than-light entertainment. The fact that it decides not to be more than that shouldn't be held against it; it's brilliant at what it does.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i am not exactly how sure the accuracy is with this movie, but i can tell you that i was thoroughly entertained by this movie. the character of gust,played perfectly by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, was one of the most unique, yet entertaining characters in recent memory. this movie informed,yet managed to avoid preaching to the audience. it made me laugh, made me sad, made me feel alive, and glad to be spending the time to watch the movie. it takes no time to understand what is going on, and takes you on a roller coaster ride of genuine, human emotion. i thought i knew my history, apparently i didn't know it at all! i give this move 9 out of 10, and recommend it for all adults, and young adults, and the young at heart, just not the young. but as soon as they are allowed to see \"r\" rated movies, make it a priority.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, this film has many gay characters. It also has straight characters, characters who are not sure about their sexuality, people who are searching for some truth about their existence.

This is not a film about sexual orientation. It's about loneliness and the difficulty human beings often experience in connecting to one another. Filmically, Denys Arcand cleverly balances the various dimensions of the relationships and the contrasting, constantly shifting relationships. The serial killer element is a bit less successful (it feels more like a way to wrap up various plot points and, unlike the rest of the film, is thematically heavy-handed).

Thomas Gibson centers and grounds the film; it's a quiet performance but behind the handsome, arrogant exterior he slowly reveals a terrified soul afraid of showing or accepting love from those around him. The supporting cast is strong, especially Mia Kirshner as Gibson's friend, a dom-for-hire with precognitive powers. Her role is more metaphor than a literal conceit---strangely innocent and depraved at the same time, she represents the light and dark of the characters' sexual consciousness.

The film's involving and often surprises in its character development. The effect is somewhat like Robert Altman directing a David Mamet script---the dialogue doesn't shrink from some searing observations aside from a few contrived moments in the beginning. Often, in our search for love and a conventional \"relationship\", we ignore the love that already exists around us---in our friends, family, those who are able to see us as we are. Arcand and the writer, Brad Fraser, make some canny observations on the different ways human beings try to escape and deny their loneliness and how that denial returns to haunt us in so many unexpected ways.

This film is a rewarding experience. It may not be for bigots who can't get past the sexual orientation of some of the characters to see the greater, transcendental message of hope and redemption. Loneliness is a universal experience. A film like this, that dares to explore the darker side of our lives with a clever and perceptive eye, deserves applause and an open-minded approach.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The worst movie ever?? HARDLY!!! This is one of the BEST animated movies i have ever seen! It has appearances from all the great characters from the animated tv series Rainbow Brite. Very safe for small children and the colors capture their attention like no other! There is an evil Princess trying to steal the diamond planet Spectra, which would in turn cause all life on Earth to cease. This tells the tale of how Rainbow Brite and her new friend Krys are able to stop the Princess' evil plot and restore life and color back to Earth. It's proof that kids can make a difference! Rainbow Brite will live on forever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must admit that I am a fan of cheesy '80's cartoons, but this is among the best. Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealer is one of the most watchable and entertaining of the Rainbow Brite cartoons, and is much better than the TV series. I especially like the relationship between Rainbow and Darian and find it very amusing. My favorite character, though, is Starlite who is definitely the most \"magnificent horse in the universe\"!

I also recommend Rainbow Brite: New Beginnings, which tells the story of how Rainbowland came to be. Have a Rainbow-Day!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"wow! this was a great movie! i just got it from the u.s. and it was worth all the money i gave for it! this movie is one of the best movies for children i have ever seen, maybe the best!!! all you who like rainbow brite, must see this 1 ! the first 7 minutes, you can not believe what you see! it's so great!!!

scooter.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All right guys, here's the deal with this movie. it's not the best but for all of you 80s kids out there it'll bring back fond memories of your childhood. Personally, i love this movie. i still love rainbow brite and the care bears. so, in my opinion, if you aren't a kid now or were a kid that loved and\/or loves rainbow brite you won't like this movie at all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just got into viewing program for the first time recently - the 2-hour \"kidnapping\" program. Don't know why I didn't sooner?? James Caan is outstanding and wholly-believable in the role as the chief honcho at the featured 5* Vegas complex.

So often, programs like this have one or more in the ensemble who are either outright annoying, or seem to have been picked because they must be related to the producer or director.

That is certainly not the case with this program. Along with Caan, all of the primary and supporting cast are engaging attractive, and believable. The guest actors are well-chosen.

The stories I've seen are interesting, and the show presents a good view of the city as well.

This is an entertaining program, and one I hope will remain. I don't know how I managed to miss it for so long, but plan to TIVO it from now on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very reliable entertainment, as Las Vegas amuses as well as intrigues, very light hearted and very much bolstered by Josh Duhanel!! I like this television show and I think that many people watch it as a form of escapist voyeurism...Voyeurism in this case is very positive, and many females in this series are very nice to look at...This show incorporates Las Vegas legends such as Wayne Newton as intermittent characters to authenticate the Las Vegas genre!! There have been copious depictions of sin city, this is one of the better efforts...The producers and directors are lucky to have James Caan in the show, as he is very much a totally accomplished actor!!! By and large, I like the T.V. Show Las Vegas and I watch it on Fridays, I watched it on Mondays as well, but with Monday Night Football, I could see why NBC switched it to Fridays...Nonetheless, I like Las Vegas a lot!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that Vanessa Marcil is the best actor in the cast. She makes Sam one of the best character on the show. James Cann is also pretty good. I love it when he worried about Delinda. One of my favorite scenes in when Ed and Delinda are beating the crap out of some guy. That was funny. Nikki Cox is also good and she has great chemistry with Josh Duhamel. Lara Flynn Boyle was awesome in her guest role. I wish they hadn't killed her off. The show has a great cast with no bad actors which isn't something you often see on TV. I still think Vanessa Marcil is the best though. She should have got an Emmy in my opinion. It's a shame the show was cancelled","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would like to vent my displeasure at NBC Canceling Las Vegas. The show had been Top Notch for the past 5years. Tom Sellecks addition was great. He really brought a nice fresh addition to the show. What does NBC have now? Lame reality and night time game shows. I mean come on Keep the Old and Tired Law and Order? Not even putting Jack McCoy as DA can keep the show interesting. Gee let's keep quality program like Deal or No Deal or ED? ER should be put out to pasture to. NBC is worse now than it was in Pre Seinfeld Cheers days. With cable and internet, NBC cannot afford to fall flat on its face.PLEASE BRING BACK VEGAS! i remember when Homicide Life on the Street ended the way it did. At least they had a two hour series final. Hey CBS are you listening? Please pick up Vegas it is a great show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think Josh Duhamel is so great!! The rest of the show is fun to watch, but, I think it is the handsome and sexy Josh Duhamel that makes the show \"Las Vegas\" really fun to see!! In the days of \"Magnum\" I loved Tom Selleck, I thought he was the sexiest man on the face of the earth!! A hunk on a television show is a must in order for women to enjoy watching something, especially just for purposes of innocuous entertainment!! I would have done anything to \"Win A Date With Tad Hamilton\"!! Josh Duhamel is incredible and I will always have a super crush on him!! Josh is definitely a HUNK!! and I will watch \"Las Vegas\" all the time, Josh Duhamel is a big reason why too!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Las Vegas is one of the most brilliant shows of our time, its combines hard-hitting action with light drama and heavy doses of comedy. It features fantastic characters lead by the charismatic tough-guy Ed Deline (James Caan). The show uses cool high-tech surveillance equipment to bring down the cheats and schemers. The characters are joyful to watch especially as their different departments within the hotel\/casino cross paths.

The show is mainly centred around the surveillance and security part of the hotel\/casino. The two leading characters are Ed Deline, president of operations and Danny McCoy (Josh Duhamel), former US Marine who served in Iraq but is now head of security. The shows five other main characters are former valet now security personnel MIT graduate Mike Cannon (James Lesure); the feisty, sexy casino host Samanthat Marquez (Vanessa Marcil); Danny's childhood sweetheart hotel manager Mary O'Connell (Nikki Cox); Danny's current sweetheart also Big Ed's daughter and manager of Mystique Delinda Deline (Molly Sims) and Ed's adopted daughter from his CIA past casino floor manager Nessa Holt (Marsha Thomason) who left the show after the second season. Each character is unique in their own quirky way, giving the show its energy and charisma that keeps its audience entertained for the entire duration of an episode.

Every episode features a special quest star either a singer, actor or band who perform at the hotel's nightclub Mystique. These cameo appearances by big names is a specialty that is popular among the shows audience.

Las Vegas is a show that can appeal to both male and female audiences. For the guys the show features sexy women, classy sports cars, high stakes gambling, adrenaline pumping action and overall a pool for topless women. For the ladies there is the young and handsome leading man (Duhamel) and the tough edgy Deline, romance and tanned topless guys around the same pool.

The plot of each episode combines action with light drama and comedy to break the ice. Each episodes also features 2 even 3 secondary stories which revolve mainly around the female characters. Every season also ends with a bang which leaves the audience hanging until the airing of the next season. An excellent way to end a season! With a mix of genre's driving the show and a cast of colourful, charismatic characters and of course lets not forget the topless pool makes Las Vegas one of the greatest TV shows ever aired.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've read the comments on Las Vegas and do agree with some of them, it's not brain surgery TV, but then again I was under the impression that TV was mainly for escapism, especially with what is going on in today's world. Let's face it, a show about Vegas (that isn't a reality based programme) isn't going to one based on reality because to me Vegas is pure fantasy! It's the sort of place where we can go and pretty much do what we want when we want (subject to funds obviously!).

Therefore the fact that Las Vegas is pretty, sexy and cliched with characters that reflect all this seems to be on the money in my eyes. If you don't like it, don't watch it, that what we have a million channels for!

We're coming up to the third episode here in the UK and I know that I will be making a beeline to watch it again. I just hope it's not cancelled, something that seems to be happening a lot with most of the shows that come to the UK that are half decent! (Firefly and Jake 2.0 anyone?!!).

It's harmless, great looking fun and everytime I watch it, I want to go back to the real thing :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Las Vegas is very funny and focuses on the substance.....

The sets are amazing and the scenes outside are breathtaking; the characters are all very fun and cool.

The women are a plus....

Holly Sims is lovable as the daughter of James Caan who heads the security of the casino. While Josh Duhamel is very funny and lets face it, he looks like he can take down anyone.

Vanessa Marcil and Nikki Cox add that special touch.

The story lines are very fun and weird at times.

You can easily just relax into this show and doesn't bring the heavy story lines like the other shows that rule the ratings...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was shocked to learn that Jimmy Caan has left this show, does anyone know why? I regard James as one of the all-time greats and wasn't surprised he ended up on TV, which can be better than the crap you see on the big screen. The stories are slick and the camera faster than a speeding bullet! Mustn't forget the rest of the cast: James, Vanessa(yum!)Nikki, Molly, Josh, Mitch.. Also,can anyone tell me why on earth there's a crap theme tune on the DVD sets, but Elvis's JXL remix of A Little Less Conversation is used on the initial NBC broadcasts?? Does it not make sense to use a tune that you would associate with the gambling mecca of America for DVD releases??","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Frankly i just enjoy watching James Caan. Wonderful actor. With such simplicity you know exactly what he's thinking. A true pro.

I have watched the show from the very beginning and found it different - that's something that is unique in Hollywood - a new idea - not a 3rd version of a current hit show -

I also find the show fun and exciting -I like the pacing - you're never bored - I especially like the mystery in each episode - the way it unfolds. I am a big mystery fan and have read a lot of the great mysteries but I find the stories in the show well written and the outcome is rarely obvious. Also extremely interesting to me, probably because I am not a gambler, is the different cons that the 'gamblers' come up with - I was fascinated by the number of schemes that people have come up with to rob Las Vegas. The music: I like the music at the top of the show. Absolutely perfect for the show...Sets the tone and atmosphere . Just marvelous. And of course, there is James Caan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is awesome! I love all the actors! It has great story lines and characters. It is the perfect drama. James Caan and Josh Duhamel have great dialogue. They both can be really funny.I miss Vanessa Marcil on General Hospital, but she's great on here. James Lesure is great! He can be hilarious. Molly Sims plays a dimwit very well. The writing is awesome!They keep up an excellent pace. The show can really leave you hanging, which is one of my favorite elements of a show. I cannot wait until the new season starts. This show makes it to the top ten of all my shows. I hope this show stays on for a really long time. If people know what good is, it will. I never want the show to end. Ever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't usually comment on films or TV shows but had to post a comment about Las Vegas.

Naturally here in the UK we are about 2\/3rd's through the 3rd season and though i have managed to watch the last series of season 3 ( via other means ) i'm still glued every Friday at 9pm.

From the very first episode of season 1 i have been a big big fan of this show and own all 3 seasons on DVD, yes i cannot wait for season 4 to start in October.

So why do i love this show so much, well i have to agree with the last poster.... James Caan, i know one person cannot make a team but Big Ed Deline was made for Caan or maybe it was the other way around, i read that the producers were considering Martin Sheen for Ed Deline.... Do'h no way!!! i also agree that Caan's character is getting very soft, i also preferred the tough take no sh*t Big Bad Eddy D that we saw in season 1 & 2, he seems to have mellowed out.

As i said no one person makes the team by themselves's and of course the other cast members Josh Duhamel\/Danny, James LeSure\/Mike, Vanessa Marcil\/Sam, Nikki Cox\/Mary, Molly Sims\/Delinda all contribute well, even outside cast members such as Cheryl Ladd as Jillian Deline, Harry Groener as Gunther, Dean Caine as Casey, Mitchell Longley as Mitch who may feature 6 or 7 times during a season can fit in just as well as if they've been in every single episode from day one.

This show has everything, drama, action, suspense, laughs, romance, glitz's, glamour and big time celebrity's who often play themselves's.

Many may disagree but this is one of the best shows on digital TV and i hope it may long continue after season 4.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is sheer entertainment and doesn't try to be a Greek drama. It certainly contains elements of one what with all the plot twists, but it's immensely engaging and fun. Las Vegas is the perfect setting for a show and they will certainly never have a lack of material to work with! Anything and Everything DOES happen there! The actors in this show are extremely personable and you really do want to see what they are up to and into each week. The show is also very funny. The humor arises from the characters and situations. Not just thrown in gratuitously. It's a well-crafted show in that regard. It certainly makes me look forward to Friday nights and I'm glad I now own the first two seasons on DVD!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had heard interesting critics on this movie. I believed it was a love story but I wasn't sure what was the plot about. So, when I finally saw it, I found myself in the middle of a love relationship between the ex-con Isabel (Isabel Ampudia) and the junkie Rufo (Sebasti\u00e1n Haro). So, a love story but not probably what I was expecting.

The movie is focused on Isabel, as she struggles to get back into society. She doesn't want to return back to her neighborhood and she finds herself without a home or anywhere to go. So, while she just experiences those first hours of freedom after being released from jail she came across Rufo, an old acquittance of her which while she was in had become a junkie and lives on the streets. Not having where to go, and without money or feasible source of income, she decides to join Rufo on his residence: a covered area on a lonely street.

The story by itself is moving. It explains how the, impossible, relationship between Isabel and Rufo gets deeper until the the almost final twist of the movie.

Definitely, the movie is worth watching. Sebasti\u00e1n Haro is splendid in his role of the junkie. A person being able of both being an innocent and tender giving person and a ruthless street scum. Just depending whom deals him with. I believe his role.

On the other hand, I don't quite believe the role of Isabel Ampudia. Although the movie tries to show the bitterness inside her through several scenes, she is not capable to make me believe it. She is in a way too sweet and too honest for which might be expected of somebody on the same situation.

The movie tries to show a love on a desperate situation. It is a enjoyable movie. But the feeling I get when the movie ends is that Isabel, with the way of thinking and acting she has, would never have arrived to that situation. Her role, partly because of the script, partly because of the acting is difficult to believe.

I specially like the ending, and because of it I have raised my rating one or two points. I liked its bittersweetness and the fact of showing that sometimes, survival instinct is above other more spiritual considerations as love.

Summarizing, an interesting movie, but it lacked some punch to be a total \"must see\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is probably one of those films too many commented but undiscovered... This is probably one masterpiece of Spanish cinema like some Bu\u00f1uel's masters-piece. \"15 days with you\" could be the better \"now and them\" re-visitation from others films of long-time ago: could be \"Midnight cowboy\" but could be also \"Les amants du Pont-Neuf\" or a realistic and non-spot-look (but most realistic) \"trainspotting\". This hard story has place to humour, love and obviously dramatic sense. In the new social Spanish cinema this little diamond could be the resurrection of the Italian neo realism mixed whit the best Ken Loach films.

Probably the better film I discover in the last 10 years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1st watched 10\/28\/2007, 8 out of 10(Dir-Jesus Ponce): Simple, sweet story of a homeless couple and their daily adventures surviving in the everyday world without a roof over their heads. The movie starts with the woman in the story(played by Isabel Ampudia)being released from prison but we don't know what she was in for or how long she was there. She runs across the anti-hero of the story and her boyfriend, played by Sebastian Haro, as he's parking cars for change. They shack-up together underneath an old dilapidated building with nothing but each other's warmth and a small mattress to their possession. He is a drug addict who just tries to make it from one fix to another, but she has a strange, obsessive attraction to him as a person, which we eventually accept. He also has some sort of sexually-transmitted disease, so sex for them is out of the question but this doesn't appear to be a problem for either of them. She loves this man as he is, without question, and without him having to change, which is a rare find anywhere. She earns her keep by carrying a bucket around and washing shop windows. They eat a bakery roll every day and consider it a feast. Isabel's character dreams of a normal life but doesn't expect it to happen and doesn't expect to fit into that role so doesn't think much of it. Both characters come from extremely broken homes and therefore the audience has sympathy for them despite their imperfections. Without giving up much of the story, Isabel's character continues to persevere while the man gets worse and worse in his drug obsession. There is a nice melodramatic conclusion to the story that lifts it up for the masses to enjoy, but overall this is a wonderful independent film about a relationship between un-worldly misfits that keeps you interested until the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Isabel has just gone out of jail. She is decided to not return again, but life is difficult for ex-convict, specially if they are homeless, as Isabel. When she finds the one that was her boyfriend Rufo, she can see a light of hope, but Rufo is now not only a junkie but also an AIDS ill. This will not make Isabel surrender, because, if there's a will there's a way and she is going to fight for her future, to have normal life, with a house and a family. A very hard and touching film that has passed unaware by most of the Spanish cinemas, actors are great and the story is very touching, maybe a better treatment of the secondary characters would have made the movie better, but it is really good. I highly recommend it to watch it, but be aware that this is not a Disney happy film, it is hard and dramatic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like in \"Les amants du Pont-Neuf\" two outsiders lives a love story without concessions. The film consists out of a lot of interesting conversation and a lot of sweet moments. The best one comes in a listening booth. They listen to a record together and once in a while they look at each other. They talk, they like each other. She suggests a change in their lives but he is out of hope. The realistic stylestrokes over the realistic (but) emotive dialogs. A really mathematic screenwriter's work for this film. Spanish novel director Jesus Ponce creates one of the most perfect gallery from the latest year of Spanish cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Someone reviewed this movie as a \"waste of time\" because he\/she was expecting the \"beautiful scenery of Brazil and Portugal\" but then everything looked \"washed out\" or gloomy, or something to that effect. I believe this person missed the entire part of the film. This is reality. The point of this movie is to show that life is not, indeed, ideal, and to show what people go through in their lives for family, love, and survival. A young man leaves his slum in Sao Paolo, Brazil, to go to Portugal to visit his mother's home country after her death. He discovers that not everything is free, and that Brazilians are looked down upon by native people from Portugal. He eventually finds a life, a love, but the story does not end as expected and this is not a \"fairy tale\" story. The part that got me most was the ending song, \"Zeca Bailero (Honey Baby)\" by Gal Costa. It fit so well with the movie; especially the ending.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have read the last comment made on this film and have to utterly and totally disagree with it.

You see, I am of Portuguese nationality and even though this film may say little to someone coming from Boston, it surely says something to both Portuguese and Brazilian people, as well as immigrants everywhere.

And why, you may wonder? Well, firstly, this film deals with two sibling nations: Portugal and Brazil. Brazil gained its independence in the early 19th century (by the hands of the heir to the Portuguese throne)and since then relations improved greatly.

However, meaningful as this may be, there is still a lot of prejudice. Because of the economic climate in Brazil during the 1990's, immigration to Portugal grew massively. You see, Portugal is not only a country sharing a similar language, culture and beliefs as Brazil but is also a gateway to the rest of Europe. Some people were thus forced to make the decision to cross the Atlantic and look for a better life and Portugal was the first logical place to try to immigrate to.

As it happens still with a lot of immigrants, they were paid averages below the minimum wage and were treated like \"dirt\" - only in this case, because the language is similar, they were constantly made aware of their status as immigrants.

Another curious thing in this film is the idea it conveys of how a man so knowledgeable of the history of his own country still tried to make a quick buck through exporting coveted national resources. It is exactly people like this that keep Brazil in a constant state of arrested development, as the country is well endowed in natural resources and could easily climb the economic ladder should it be given a fair opportunity.

In a sense, this goes to show how colonialism still exists - Pablo representing the exploited people, Igor the man whose status as a \"nobleman\" (or at least rich or \"well off\") is assured by the foreign colonialist power which is in turn represented by Kraft.

If you have seen other films by Salles you will recognize this as a recurring topic - the struggle against an oppressing power. I do not mean to lecture or be patronising as to teach anyone history but I thought this film was, symbolically speaking, very powerful. I am not saying there wasn't room for improvement (as there always is) but I think the last comment written on it was not only narrow minded but hands down ignorant.

One last thing to be said on this, I have to assume you have watched this film with the eyes of an \"American film watcher\". No harm intended by this remark but I mean \"foreign\" films cannot all be about \"beautiful scenery\" - Art deals with the problems of its time. You would not expect Otto Dix, for example, to paint all the lovely places in Bayern and the Black Forest... Why should you expect a film maker to focus exclusively on scenery when he feels there are more relevant issues to attend to?

In a nutshell, do not judge films lightly and with only two or three criteria in scope. This film is very interesting, its photography is quite good and even the idea the black and white colouring conveys goes hand-in-hand with what it deals with. I believe the image is purposefully grainy... like reality, no? :)

Watch it and reach your own conclusions...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This existential thriller, in Portuguese with English subtitles, is a modern version of the American filmes noires of the 40s, complete with a surprise twist at the end. It is riveting from beginning to end. My only criticism is its poor production values. The film looks cheaply made, and it probably was, so the black and white cinematography is vastly inferior to that of Godard in Vivre Sa Vie, to cite another film noir of more than 30 years earlier. Most maddening of all, the subtitles are often hard to read. When will filmmakers learn and provide yellow subtitles so that they can be read against a white background. I'd give this an 8 overall, although with better production values it could have been higher.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fado is a sad almost bluesy style of Portuguese Gypsy music that is heard repeatedly trough the movie. As explained by one of the main characters (Igor) it also means fate.

Indeed it's fate that bring the two main characters Paco and Alex together and triggers the problems that ensue.

On the whole I enjoyed it quite a bit. It starts out as an 'on the down and outs' drama\/road movie an builds into a suspenseful thriller \/ road movie.

There were two things that I found unrealistic that kept me from giving it a higher rating (I gave it an 8). The first is the major point of why did Alex give the stuff away. She was so desperate for cash that she sold her passport for a paltry sum and then she gives away things worth thousands to a stranger? Her explanation was unconvincing. Also how did they get through the gate, where were the cops?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wasn't sure about getting this movie on DVD because I really do have something against people making black and white films in the 21st century, but I ended up buying it anyway. I still don't understand why it had to be black and white, but that's the only negativity I can see about the film, and it sure is a perfect example to see the definitive rise of Brazilian cinema. Not everyone can understand a film like this, but it's quite rewarding to those who do. Unlike O Homem Que Copiava, the surrealism fits this movie pretty well, and the acting is at least as good as that one, or other successful Brazilian films such as Bicho de sete cabe\u00e7as, Cidade De Deus, Brava Gente Brasileira, etc..

My only hope is that this gem doesn't get insulted and raped by a crappy Hollywood remake. It's amazing to see how those guys spend zillions of Dollars and still can't make a movie that's 1% as good as this possibly low-budget flick.

Bravo to the entire crew! 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a movie that, at the end, I thought \"Now that was an enjoyable 2 hours!\" I hate spending around $20 (not including baby-sitting $$) for my husband and myself to have that \"It was OK\" feeling.

I think I like Will Smith better as a comedic actor than an action hero. He was well cast in this. His character was very likable, as was Kevin James'.

There were several laugh out loud scenes. It's also a romantic movie, so guys, if you want to impress the lady in your life, take her to this. Women will like it as much as any chick-flick, but I wouldn't categorize this as one. There is plenty of guy humor in it for men to enjoy. I think that's one of the reasons why this movie is so perfect as a date movie. It has romance AND slapstick. I don't usually like slapstick that much, but it wasn't overdone and I can't think of any those scenes that didn't deliver laughs.

I definitely recommend this movie. The first thing my husband said to me after it was over was \"I want to see it again!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was not about stereotypes, nor dance moves, nor pickup lines, really. This film was about the vulnerability of peoples' hearts. It was hard to believe that Kevin James could play in a convincing role, that Will Smith could satisfy without action, and that such a hackneyed genre of film could succeed in such a way. I don't intend to sound overly endeared with this film - it wasn't \"groundbreaking\" in any sort of way - but it was a film worth seeing. Was it believable? No. New York couldn't be so simple and there has been no human being in the history of mankind that has the \"hutzpah\" of Hitch. Sure, there are bar-studs, but not ones that can get any chick, at any time - excluding those raking in seven figures, of course. The thing that worked best for this film was its true focus on the dramatic side of things, not just on the comedy. It was a funny two hours, no doubt. But it was also two hours that made you sit in your seat, become immersed in the characters, and smile.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I expected a good movie. What I got was an even better movie. The chemistry between James and Smith is just incredible. Glad to see him in a major motion picture for once!

The movie works, because the actors play their parts perfectly. Will Smith is fantastic with his never ending charm; Kevin James is hilarious, and Eva Mendes...well, let's just say she plays that bitch\/sweet\/annoying role to the best of her ability.

What I loved about the movie was the fact that Will Smith didn't even have to try to be lovable. He just was!! The \"date doctor\" had all the right moves, said everything in the most perfect of ways, and never ever went over the top.

The funny parts are hilarious...and the cute, romantic parts are unforgettable.

I totally recommend this movie. And no, it is not a chick flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Last evening I had the remarkable pleasure of seeing the movie Hitch. I was stunned and amazed. Will Smith did a phenomenal job in a role that he isn't always associated with. He proved once and for all that he does not need to be holding a gun to be a great actor in a movie. Kevin James was also very impressive. I admit that I've always like him on \"The King of Queens\" but this role really brought him into the light more, and i hope to see him on the big screen a lot more in the near future. The movie was funny and adorable and I recommend it to any guy as the best date movie you could ever imagine. The mix of comedy, romance, and drama left me feeling complete. It's nothing like most \"chick flicks\" in the sense of tears and sadness, but holds its own and i think can be equally enjoyed by males as well as females. I encourage all couples especially to see this movie but even if you aren't involved with someone you may pick up some great ideas from Hitch.

TWO WAY BIG THUMBS UP!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not having seen the film in its commercial debut, we just caught with it via DVD. Expecting the worst, \"Hitch\" proved to be a pleasant experience because of the three principals in it. Thanks to Andy Tenant's direction, the film has an easy pace, and while predictable, the comedy has some winning moments.

Hitch is a sort of \"date coordinator\" for losers like Albert, who is not exactly what one would consider a hunk. Yet, Albert is a genuine guy who, without some professional help would go unnoticed by the same women he would like to take out. Enter Hitch, to prepare him to overcome the obstacles that he can't overcome, and even though Albert stays overweight and never gets to master social graces, he conquers us because he is a real, in sharp contrast with all the phonies making the rounds in Manhattan.

The basic mistake most production designers make, when preparing locales for Hollywood films, is how out of touch with reality they are. The apartments in which they situate these characters are so rare to find that only by the magic of the movies can these people live in places likes these. Evidently most of the movie people are dealing with fantasy since most city dwellers would kill for spaces so fabulous as the ones they show in the movies, let alone these same people depicted in the film would not be able to afford them.

Will Smith is a charismatic actor. He has a disarming way to charm without doing much. The surprise of the movie though, is Kevin James, who as the overweight Albert, not only win us over, but he proves he can hold his own in his scenes with Mr. Smith. Eva Mendez is fine as the main interest of Hitch. In minor roles we see Adam Arkin, Amber Valletta, Michael Rappaport, and Phillip Bosco, among others.

\"Hitch\" is a fun film to watch thanks to the inspired direction by Andy Tenant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"That is the promise of the trailer I saw and by which I rented Hitch. Exactly, a serious film viewer shall not expect much further from this title but, surprisingly enough, Smith, Mendes, James and Valletta managed to reach a theatrical performance which could be metaphorically summarised on their rap dance-floor routine by the end of the film: their characters formed an effective combo which may prompt more than a good laugh with this Sunday afternoon DVD, providing your date is not an exquisite, french-swedish-directors-of-the-60's movie fan.

P.S.: The techniques to score are all TRUE, especially the \"cocktail girl\" routine!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Will Smith is perfectly endearing as the \"Relationship Doctor,\" here to heal all your relationship woes.

I expected this to be a standard RomCom with little to amuse. I'm happy to report that I was wrong. Will Smith is delightful and unexpectedly \"fresh\" in this Andy Tennant vehicle. Surrounded by a great supporting cast, an interesting story, and fed with witty dialog, I was thoroughly engaged.

We found this one cute, quirky, and inspirational without being preachy.

It rates a 7.4\/10 from...

the Fiend :.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, OK, I must say I was impressed. It's hard to say what I'm more impressed with: my ability to choose the right romantic comedy to watch so that I don't gouge my eyes out, or the movie itself. Either way, \"Hitch\" was pretty darn good. Hey, it was good enough for me to watch twice. Will Smith was funny and good. Kevin James was just hilarious, and absolutely essential for the movie. As much as this movie centered around Hitch (Will Smith), without Kevin James it's just not the same.

The story is: Hitch is a match maker that helps the guy woo the girl. His job is to create the chance for the girl to notice the guy when she otherwise wouldn't. After the encounter, the rest is all up to the guy to make or break the relationship. He works on referral only and stays largely unnoticed during the process. Albert (Kevin James) is Hitch's project this time around, and Albert has eyes on Allegra Cole (Amber Valleta) a Paris Hilton type figure. While that plot unfolds, Hitch himself has eyes on Sara (Eva Mendes), a sharp, independent, fanged gossip columnist that wants nothing to do with a relationship.

The two stories make for some funny moments and they tie together for a bit of a quagmire. Of course no love story is complete without the obligatory miscommunication, misunderstanding, or mishap to send the guy chasing after the girl. Fortunately, they make it brief and unsappy. Hitch was a fun and funny movie that flowed very well and rolled along without a hitch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When one watches romantic comedies, one knows what to expect; we've seen enough of them over many, many years to know how they go. There's a formula, one which almost always begets movies that become popular with the genre's audience... not always in relation to their actual quality. How to play around with that, and create something more interesting? This movie has a suggestion... and it works relatively well. Instead of simply following a lead, we follow him skillfully helping the unfortunate men, those who lack the attractive facade that would allow them to reveal the unseen good qualities that they possess to the women they are in love with. The plot follows Smith as he works on his self-proclaimed most difficult such case; Kevin James. Alongside his aid of James, we also follow Mendes, who is fed up with men who lie to get what they want(one particular scene that inspires great respect of Smith's character is him meeting one such jerk, and putting him in his place). After seeing Smith helping the disaster that is James, we see him with Mendes... and in spite of his talent for helping others, he messes up... badly... with her. Making a marvelous point about love, and how falling in love affects us. For a romantic comedy, this mostly avoids the pitfalls of such(at times almost bordering on feeling like a spoof of the genre), though the last few scenes has the sweetness and the emotions of this type of films. Whether or not they follow the formula will not be revealed in this review. The pace is quite good, it never really slows down, and seldom moves too fast. The acting is great, as far as pretty much everyone goes. The characters are nicely developed, and come off as real people. The humor doesn't always work... there are occasional gags that are less than fortunately executed, and one or two jokes that seem forced. However, for the most part, the film was funny. I recommend this to anyone who likes romantic comedies and anyone who is or have been in love. Those who do not believe in love will have a difficult time with the last few scenes. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this comedy so much. Will Smith does not do anything slow. It is always right on target with the greatest scripts and comedy that keeps you laughing, and involved in the plot. You are watching a skilled comedian, who plays all his parts well. One fully believes he is who he is playing. I loved him and Tommy Lee Jones in the Men in Black. This comedy rates right up with that movie. The humor is fast moving, and Will Smith is as sure of himself as he was in Men in Black. Quick witted, and well skilled in the art of making others score each time, but doing it in a tasteful manner, and with finesse.

Will Smith seems to have honed his comedy routine well. He was so darn funny. I loved the part where he had an allergic reaction to something he ate, and his face swelled up, and he looked more like Cassius Clay after a fight then he did himself. Then seeing him sipping on the benadryl bottle trying to bring his head back down to the right size. I laughed so hard. He knows how to make us all laugh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a romantic, simple funny movie. I really enjoyed it and would definitely say to watch it and enjoy it, Will Smith was funny, fumbly, nervous, sweet and just a simple guy who got hit by Love. It was cute to see him fall for someone and be so nervous and lost as to what to do or say. It was great. He was great, funny as usual. Eva Mendes was better than i expected her to be as well, i thought there were moments in the movie where Will got the shaft, he was doing everything he could being a good guy and still getting treated bad. The ending was romantic and happy and it was great. I have seen it several times, and would watch it again. A funny, movie, something you don't see a lot of anymore. It had the old time feel with a fresh new look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"-love is hard to find in this fast food society that we live in so man called Hitch makes it duty to help men find love with women that they are beyond madly in love with. his rules are that he only helps you find love and not just some casual sex which seems like a great deal but soon word begins to spread around and people begin to get the wrong idea about what he does which begins to complicate the relationship with woman he just met that he is madly in love with.

-I have to say it's really nice to see Will Smith in a movie that doesn't have him trying to save the world from aliens or robots. There are no jaw dropping effects nor is he showing off his beefed up body. He's just a normal human being in this movie which was really nice. He doesn't necessarily stretch his acting muscles in this movie but then again the story doesn't call for that but all the same it was nice to see him relaxed and not showing off his ripped body to make those of us without six packs jealous. His character here is as with all his characters likable, witty and very charming which is something that almost all the characters in this odd love tale seem to share. The Kevin James character is just a regular guy that needs help hooking up with the girl of his dreams which really makes you feel for the guy and root for him every step of the way. the only character that was a sore spot for me was the Mendez character because she's so cold and calculated that it's hard to believe that Smith could fall for her. He must love a challenge I guess.

-now this is the part of the review in which I'll make a joke about how I would never need Hitch because I'm such a player but I just got through writing about 16 reviews for another web site plus I'm still working on a little project so I'm a little jaded right now. whiles the movie is packed with enough charm and likable characters with funny lines it slowly but surely falls into the sea of formulaic romantic movies in which after the big scene where the terrible secret comes out everyone is forgiven and the relationship is even better than before. But hey there's like 4000 movies about the underdog overcoming adversity so I guess one more movie having a predictable ending that's been done to almost death doesn't cause much harm. I really like the message of the movie as well because in the end you don't need a formula to get the right girl, just be yourself and all will fall into play which is theme of the movie and why it works so well. I'm sure if it had turned out that the James character gets the girl after following everything that the Smith character said then it would have being a pretty empty movie but as it stands it works really well.

-despite being predictable this is a PERFECT date movie. It's sweet, it's funny, and it's romantic so anyone that watches this movie on a date should be getting some after it's over. and by some I mean sex","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Hitch' is a nice surprise: A romantic comedy that actually has romance and comedy. Most romantic comedies for me range from mediocre to horrible because they are not funny or romantic. 'Hitch' takes actors like Will Smith, Kevin James, and Eva Mendes into a fun, light-as-a-feather journey that actually had me laughing and, yes, a little \"aww, how sweet!\".

Meet Alex Hitchens (Will Smith), aka Hitch. He's a self-proclaimed 'Date Doctor'; he helps hopeless guys like Albert (Kevin James) win guys like Allegra (Amber Valletta). Unfortunately, Hitch has to deal with Sarah (Eva Mendes), a gossip columnist bent on breaking the Date Doctor...

'Hitch' is actually pretty funny, and it even makes the standard slapstick scenes work simply because the cast is so energetic and clearly having fun. I have to wonder why Will Smith hasn't made more movies like this. His sharp, rapid-fire delivery is perfect for this genre, and his chemistry with Mendes and James is wonderful. James is a real discovery; I have never seen his show 'The King of Queens', but he is funny and heartfelt, and he proves once more that fat white men cannot dance hip-hop (Smith's responses to his attempts are hilarious). Mendes is hot and bouncy (not that way, geez) as Smith's perfect match, and Amber Valletta is sweet as Allegra.

'Hitch' isn't perfect; it's a tad too long, and things get too \"dramatic\" near the end (although this is redeemed by the happy ending filled with funny dancing). But's it a great refresher from the cookie-cutter romantic comedies that keep littering theaters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A chick flick that Guys still like - Yes! Wonderful. Now I can have fun, enjoy the company of my girl, and not feel like I can't wait until the movie ends! Light - but funny. Great stuff. What ever you do don't miss the DVD extras. This a great \"blind date\" file too. Will Smith does well in this - even though in is light acting - he pulls trough it all well. The movie is a little slow in pacing - don't expect too much action - the laughs are there - and so is the message - but the timing is a little slow. Use the low moments to whisper or kiss - it will pick up. The ending makes the feel good moments worth it. Most of all expect fun light hearted fare - and watch for some great upstaging by the supporting actors - they make the film. The plot twists are predictable - but it IS a date move, so get the refills of popcorn from the kitchen - and don't make her pause it. Count on more dates after this movie - she'll want o see what is next in line. Remember Hitch's advice!!!

Enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hitch is a light-hearted comedy that will entertain you with some fine performances. Will Smith turns in a believable performance as a cloak and dagger Date Doctor who must remain invisible to protect his clients and his profession. Smith was excellent, never schmaltzing it up too much.

The best piece of acting goes to the actor (don't know name) playing this accountant who has fallen for this woman who is out of his league. This actor did an excellent job of character development as he listens to Smith's directions, but in the end, just can't help being who he really is.

And in the end, that's the main message of this film. Be who you are in love, and you'll be OK.

At the same time, Will Smith meets this attractive lady and the Date Doctor gets a taste of his own medicine as he slowly falls for this woman. Don't know her name, but she was pretty good too.

Overall, this was a delightful, light movie that is definitely worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just wish I was eloquent enough to say how GOOD this movie is.

I...it's hard to say.

Maybe I'll just say what comes to mind.

I laughed. I really laughed. I couldn't believe it. I laughed, and, it wasn't bitter-laughter. it wasn't cynical laughter. it was the laughter that is generated by genuine joy.

joy. that's a foreign word for me. i don't feel that word often, but, i did while watching this movie.

Will. Maybe it's Will's face. He is a great human being. \"Smile on my face and there's a twinkle in my eye.\" That line in one of Will's songs describes him perfectly. He has \"joie de vivre\". Trey is a lucky, lucky boy to have a daddy like Will. Jada is a lucky, lucky woman to have a husband like Will. He is someone...special.

Happy. I actually feel happy. It's a strange feeling. I don't feel this way very often. It's just so nice to see, to see...other people really happy. I mean really happy. In this movie, I did. As Will says in the movie, \"Maybe I'm not happy with just 'fine', maybe I want 'extraordinary.\" You know, watching this movie made me think: so do I.

Fun. Being yourself. We all know we're supposed to be ourselves, but, it feels like we're punished if we do so. Maybe it has to be earned. Maybe it's something that we show after having not been ourselves for a long time. That's why I just loved the ending. Will, Eva Mendes, Kevin James, Amber Valleta, Julie Ann emery all dancing at the wedding. Dancing without inhibitions. NO THEY WE'RE NOT DRUNK! except, on actually being happy. I can understand that, at least, I think I can (at least, I enjoyed seeing them happy, really happy).

Women and Men. I don't know anything about relationships, but, I do feel. Watching this movie I feel like connecting with someone, striving, pushing, wanting to be with someone. It seems to make life...something else entirely. I don't really know. I'm just guessing. but, I felt something, watching this movie. I felt like, that connection, must be...must make, life worthwhile.

That's the kind of movie this is. It's FUNNY. It's CLEVER. It's TENDER. It evokes feeling. It made me think, that maybe, just maybe, life is, truly is, a wonderful thing.

Want to LAUGH? Want to FEEL REALLY GOOD! Want to GET SOME ANSWERS ABOUT GIRLS (and Girls, answers about Guys)? Watch Hitch. YOU-WILL-GET-IT-ALL!!!

GO WILL!!! You are a great human being.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While the \"date doctor\" concept is the one thing that saves this film from being an otherwise average romantic comedy with a standard plot for the genre, I found it enjoyable enough to elevate my opinion of it so I ended up liking it a lot more than if it'd had just a mediocre plot without many twists. Will Smith does a great job, as always, acting as Hitch, the man who devotes his life to advising men how and how not to win over women...ever since his failed attempt to keep his college girlfriend. There're plenty of laughs as he tries to help his latest patient, overweight, gawky asthmatic Albert Brennman (Kevin James) successfully court beautiful co-worker Allegra Cole (Amber Valetta). Also, when he decides to rid a woman he meets in a bar of the turkey who just doesn't seem to get she doesn't want him around, he finds himself attracted to Sara (Eva Mendes) - it appears to be a big deal for him, so I guess since college he never actually practiced his own rules on himself. Unfortunately, Sara is a gossip columnist who is interested in \"the date doctor\" who got a seemingly dorky guy like Albert together with Allegra - especially AFTER player\/jerk Vance Munson (Jeffrey Donovan) breaks her best friend's (Julie Ann Emery) heart and hints the date doctor he saw disgusted him, when she doesn't realize that he refused to see him. Still, trouble follows and Hitch is stuck left wondering about what to do with his own relationship, while not being any great help to Albert when he tries to figure out what more to do in his. The acting is good, there's a great deal of humor and some other fine points with meaning. Hitch's character is witty and wise, sometimes managing to be both at once. True, the misunderstanding where the woman is affronted at something the man hasn't truly done (why do they always show that?) as common and irritating - guess it wouldn't have been if it was the 1st, not 5th, time I've seen IT - but the rest of them were completely new. I only wish this movie was longer - I remember being able to watch 3\/5 of it while it was playing on a restaurant's TV once - but I still approve. It's definitely worth the money to pay for its brevity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Over the past century, there have been many advances in gender equality, but not so much in the world of movies. I'm not talking about what goes on behind the camera, I'm referring to the tastes of the audience. The idea of a \"chick flick\" is alive and well today, while there are still plenty of action and horror films which appeal primarily to males. Sure, there are men and women who enjoy the movies that fall outside of their typical demographic, but there aren't many movies which have appeals across the board. Hitch, the latest Will Smith vehicle attempts to change that trend by being a chick flick which throws in a dose of male perspective.

Smith stars in Hitch as the title character, Alex \"Hitch\" Hitchens, a \"date doctor\" who trains men on how to approach a woman and have a successful date. Hitch enjoys his job and loves to see men successfully accomplish their goals of going out with the woman of their dreams, but due to a bad experience in college, Hitch himself is somewhat sullied on the idea of love. As the story unfolds, the film introduces two seemingly separate story lines. Hitch's latest case is Albert Brennaman (Kevin James), an accountant who is very attracted to one of his clients, the beautiful heiress Allegra Cole (Amber Valletta). Hitch has his doubts about Albert's chances, but if his clients desires seem sincere, Hitch supports them.

In the mean time, Hitch meets gossip columnist Sara Melas (Eva Mendes) and is instantly attracted to this strong woman. However, the date doctor can't seem to follow his own advice in pursuing Sara. Things get even more complicated when Sara's job leads her to investigate the relationship between the accountant and the heiress. Will Hitch be able to balance his private life and his job? And more importantly, can Hitch believe in love again? If you are a true movie fan, then there's been at least one time in your life when you've complained about the redundancy of the Hollywood movie factory and cried out for something new and original. Well, Hitch ain't that movie. But, most movie fans will also admit that occasionally a formulaic movie can work solely on an entertainment level. Hitch does qualify as that film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to admit that I liked this film much more than I expected to. Will Smith has that clean-cut charm that you just can't help but like. The plot was a minor twist on basic romantic comedy stuff, somewhat reminiscent of Jane Austen's \"Emma\". This guy Kevin James has a real flair for comic timing and physical comedy. I have never seen his TV show, but he was cast very well in this film. Amber Valletta was good enough. I can't remember why she was a rich celebrity in this film, but if she was supposed to be an actress or model, then the casting might have left something to be desired. I enjoyed Julie Ann Emery, and wish she'd had a larger part. But, saving the best for last, Eva Mendes more or less stole the show. Her beauty, and charm, and just the right amount of standoffishness had me glued to the screen whenever she was there. I hope to see more of her in the future. This film is definitely worth checking out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Will Smith is smooth as usual in the movie Hitch. Smiths character Hitch is a date doctor. He dates Mendes character who is a gossip columnist. At one point Hitch shows his love interest her Great Grandfathers name in the immigration book at Ellis Island pretending what is actually an arranged event is a coincidence. Not long after I mentioned starlight in my previous review today. There was a view of the starry sky in survivor hinting that My Moon 168 Rtexas already knew that was going to be there due to faster than light communications.

The male star from the show The King of Queens is very funny in this movie especially his dance moves. The allergic reaction on Hitchs face is a little cruel to laugh at even though it is just pretend.

My latest message from my Daughter Julias Artificial Intelligence computer on the Creator of Humans Home world Coaltrain that my Moon 168 as part of Moonfleet is near says: \"Daddy I'm Okay again.\" Her messages are always very short. It is a curious pattern. Daddy will always Love you Julia. Thanks to our Creator we can talk forever. Yesterday Daddy talked to the first you on the telephone and told you your homework time wouldn't be that bad and you said \"How bad will it be Daddy?\" I said that your Grandma and I would help you with it. You only have to put pictures of our friends the police on a bristol board display and write a title like \"The Police protect us.\" Check out the other movies of Will Smith as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As I've said in the title of this review, It pains me to say this, but \"hitch\" reaches the zenith of what Hollywood Romantic Comedies can ever hope to aspire to. I've been a critic of both the Genre and it's namesake for as long as I can remember myself, but on an almost tragic note, \"Hitch\" has caused me to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of two hours of my life with a ridiculous smile plastered across my face.

This movie may be misogynistic and presumptuous at times but it nonetheless possesses a certain humor about it whose subtlety may only be described as British. This is a wonderful attempt by Hollywood to make (Or remake as the case may be...) a film which appeals to all of our wishes for a Romantic Comedy which can make us both think and laugh simultaneously. I grudgingly and most evasively give this movie a 9 out of 10... Something you shall hardly see me do for a Romantic Comedy in the near future, or so at least, I hope.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that the basic idea of any movie is to entertain or to inform. If you want information you are looking at true life movies and historical movies. Sometimes these are one of the same. The other side of the coin is to entertain. Did Hitch entertain me? Yes it did. Okay the formula is standard. Boy meets girl or in this case boys met girls. They get together have a falling out then get back together. However the way it happened in this movie was refreshing. I particularly liked the bar scene with Hitch and Sara. The Allegra Albert romance was a delight to watch unfold, most REAL men are shy when it comes to wooing the woman of their dreams and had I had Hitch's advice I would probably have got my wife up the altar in half the time.I read the first comment on this film that appeared to suggest that this movie was played safely and good have had a few more laughs. I tend to disagree there are so many laughs you can pack into a romantic comedy without turning it into a farce. Besides relationships have there serious moments. All in all I found Hitch quite entertaining, the actors did a good job (I will be looking out for them in other movies) and Hitch is a film that I am very happy to have in my DVD collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was much better than I expected. After a couple of films by Will Smith that weren't that great like I, Robot, he is back to being likable and fun in this one. Smith plays, Hitch, a date doctor. Most of the film centers around him teaching Albert how to be himself and get a date with Allegra Cole, a rich famous celebrity whom he works with. Albert is a klutz and goof and always tripping on his feet or what-not. All Hitch does is teach him how to act more cool and not be so nervous around Allegra.

During all this, Hitch meets Sara, a gossip columnist whom has sworn off men. Hitch charms her, so of course, they go out. But, Hitch may teach other guys how to get the girl to fall for them, he doesn't believe in love himself. He has never really had a girl since he was dumped in college. But, he likes Sara, so keeps going after her. Sara's friend is hurt by guy whom she thinks went to the date doctor. So Sara tracks the doctor down, only to learn its Hitch. So of course, she thinks he's a pig. Then it's up to hitch to explain to Sara and Allegra what he does, so they both end up forgiving.

FINAL VERDICT: Good, has some laughs, and is entertaining. I recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Italian concept of \"sprezzatura\" was the grace and nonchalance in social manners that led to success in love, as described in the 16th century manual \"The Courtier.\" The film \"Hitch\" is worth watching for the embodiment of the \"sprezzzatura\" concept in the dynamic performance of Will Smith.

Smith plays the character of Alex \"Hitch\" Hitchens, who is a professional dating consultant to those short on luck and confidence. The best scenes are when Hitch coaches the painfully shy and maladroit Albert in his quest to win the heart of a New York socialite and in Hitch's own attraction to Sara and a surprise for her when visiting Ellis Island. In these scenes, Smith is supported with good work from Kevin James and Eva Mendes. But this film is driven by the charm and winsome personality of Smith.

From start to finish, Smith rises above the average comic script to make \"Hitch\" an eminently watchable and entertaining film. I do not believe there is another actor working today who is capable of delivering the charisma and the perfect timing with the comic moments like Will Smith in this film. And his secret is in the \"sprezzatura\"!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would recommend this as the most successful attempt so far to make a movie on Soviet Afghan war. And it is very honest and responsible picture starting from small details of uniforms and weapons up to human relations, war routine and Central Asian landscapes. It's been shot in Tajikistan just after the the troop withdrawal which happened in 1989 not in 1985. The Italian star Mr. Placido was just perfect in the role of Major Bandura. Other characters looked also very natural especially always drunk club managing officer:-).The scenario seems a bit jammed in the end but it might be an impact of the Civil war in Tajikistan which had started right during the shooting of the film. All movie team had to escape sometimes even under fire. The last scene is purely \"harakiri\" type of behavior and reminded me the final phrase from one famous samurai movie - \"We've won all battles but lost the war\". It could be also a metaphor of USSR collapse - the great country allowing to shoot itself to the back by the small offended child.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Filmed less than a year after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the subject matter was fresh in the minds of the cast, the director and the audience. Most of the cast are actual soldiers and officers just back from the war. The Soviet army cooperated quite a bit during filming, which is odd.

The Afghan intervention was a bloody and pointless war in which even the generals had forgotten the reasons for the bloodshed. This film shows the tension and the cruelty of military life, the emotional atrophy experienced by the troops and the pain that convulsed a small nation torn by war and civil-war.

There is no lack of powerful scenes. One of the first is footage of steel coffins being loaded onto a transport bound for the USSR. Solders go about their work while an officer calmly ticks off the destinations: Moscow, Rostov, Donetsk, The Baltic.

An earlier comment describes the last scene with Maj. Bandura as illogical. It is perfectly logical and in the spirit of the film: the only human relationship Bandura maintained was with the Afghan family which he accidentally kills in the assault. Having lost his only buffer against the senselessness of the war, Bandura turns his back on the boy(and his gun) in resignation to his fate.

I particularly liked the last scene: a flock of MI-28s rising over the mountains as the voice of a pilot yells: \"Uhodim! Uhodim rebyata! (We're leaving! Boys, we're leaving!) in a tone of sincere relief.

Afhanskii Izlom is an excellent film - brutally honest and as unholliwood as they come.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the first to the last scene, this film is made very realistically,even too realistically that sometimes we can't see details in night scenes(it's dark as real night),in the desert(sunshine is so strong as in real desert).

Script and actor's play are also very realistic. Shots and episodes are edited not to show things and events \"effectively\", to \"explain\" them, or,as many Hollywood films do, to \"entertain\" viewers. Editing here is to represent the events as if they really happened in Afganistan. Camera is set sometimes far from dying solders, even the moment when the main character Major Bandura is shot and killed.

Such method reminds me of masterpieces of Italian neo-realism. And the construction of the story here is based on the same principles as \"Pais\u00e0\",or \"The Bicycle Thief\"--chronological series of \"true to life\" episodes and a few pathetic moments, which at first seem to be sudden and illogical, but have inner reasons.

I think the inner reason of Major Bandura's suicidal death is religious emotion--Repentance for innocent people's death(not only his accidental killing of family in the village, but also death of solders under his command).He is not depicted as a eager believer,on the contrary he is depicted as tactful and responsible officer.Exactly for this reason his last decisions(to go back to the destroyed village and to turn his back to an armed boy, whose family he killed)seem an act of Repentance.

The Russian Orthodox choral, which sounds at the end(\"Evening Sacrifice\")is another context,by which all the film can be seen from this point of view.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, the movie is basically about the last days of a specific Russian regiment stationed in Afghansitan, before the main troop withdrawal in 1985. The movie accurately portrays the grim realities of Russian army that have made it infamous: \"dedovshina\" (officers and NCOs physically harassing, beating and humiliating younger recruits), mixed character of war (you can trade with your enemy one day and kill him the next), life of women at the front lines, documentary footages of helicopter assaults, and coffins being soldered and sent home in heave C-130 Hercules class Russian cargo planes with tracer to jam Stinger missiles, fatigue, boredom, anti-war sentiment, emotional side simply put. The there's some action scenes, but they are poorly done, and often are illogical, like Major Bandura's suicidal walk and turning of his back to 10-year-old kid armed with AK-47 who's father he just killed. Also the fact that in the middle of firefight in the mountains heavy grenade launcher pops out of nowhere (and any half-bright person knows that it's virtually impossible to hump 40-50 lns launcher on the march anyone). But at the same time films shows that war is a dirty affair, where murder is sometimes condoned, wanton destruction of whole villages for little or no reason is normal, indiscriminate killing of civilians is overlooked as collateral damage inevitable during war... Some food for thought as to why Afghan war as lost.. Not the best war movie made, but profound and intelligent enough to be worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"American war movie fans might be bored out of their skulls by this movie, but that boredom is born of ignorance. Guerrilla suppression operations are always like that. Sit around and wait, get some hookers, get drunk at the base, wheel and deal with the businessman, kick a prisoner around, cover up the killing of the street merchant by the green private. Then, boom, there goes two fuel trucks, and for 10 minutes a small-arms battle with one high-caliber machine gun. Then wait for brass to plan a way to knock out their stronghold, and then end up killing a few civilians in the process of doing it. If reality doesn't work for Western viewers, there's always Top Gun or Rambo (Top Gun realistic? nope)

The best part of Afganskiy Izlom's realism was the way all the planes dropped flares like confetti. They had to do that because Carter and Reagan gave the Mujahedin so many missiles. Also, the wave of Mi-24's was excellent, a better helo attack even than Apocalypse now. The sight of their missiles dropping and shooting was a scene of impending \"death from above\" for whoever they were aimed at.

It's funny how the Soviets were able to make an honest Afghanistan movie within a year after their departure, but it took the US six years. Afganskiy Izlom is just as real if you apply it to NATO's occupation too. Someone will always pick up the gun and shoot you cause they care more about the land. It's a movie Westerners should watch. Unfortunately I don't think anyone has ever made English subtitles; I might have to make some.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"NBC was putting out a lot of good product when this series came out, but none of it was getting viewers. At least according to their executives who wisely canceled good shows like Star Trek & My World & Welcome To It because of low ratings. NBC's advertisers were getting a bargain from NBC's ignorance.

This show stands out as the only time James Garner wasn't enough to get viewers. It is ashame as this show had an excellent support cast from Stuart Margolin (later Angel in the Rockford files), to Neva Patterson to Margot Kidder.

It was set in a 1900 western town. Garner was playing a sheriff who did not want to use violence to do his duties. It was small town stuff, but it was excellent. It wasn't long after this that Jim Rockford brought Garner back to success, but for my money, this show was good enough, it just wasn't in the right time, right place, or given the right opportunity.

The show was so good that most of the folks who worked on it also got jobs on Rockford.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As I recall, my family made a point to stay home on the night \"Nichols\" was on (Mondays? Tuesdays? NBC?). It was a superb vehicle for James Garner, very well written, great ensemble cast. His character very much like the \"Support Your Local...\" films: Retired gambler with mysterious past settles into town and has adventures every week. In fact, it seemed fairly obvious that it was the same character. It was just a charmer of a TV show. A sleeper, like \"My World And Welcome To It\", which may have been its contemporary--I forget. I dearly wish these shows would be made available on DVD. It was Just Good TV. Perhaps \"Briscoe County Jr.\" come close, but only by a mile.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hey, you are not alone! I remember Nichols! I was just 17 when it was on. I remember James Garner was one of the coolest actors, and Nichols was such a great show. I couldn't believe it was on such a short time, wish I could remember the last episode, I probably didn't see it...there were no vcr's back then so it when it was on you saw it, and if you missed an episode it was gone forever unless it came back on summer reruns. Anyway, sure would be great if it came out on DVD, but I don't think that many people even knew about it. What a shame.

Garner would hit it big a few years later with Rockford Files, and he brought along his buddy Stuart Margolin from Nichols to play his sidekick Angel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show was a really good one in many ways, although certainly an atypical Western with the hero (?) riding around on a motorcycle rather than a horse, due to the 1914 setting, very \"late\" for a Western, which tend usually to be set between 1866 and 1890. I remember some controversy about its cancellation at the time but didn't really watch it during its time on NBC. When I came to see it and love it was a decade later when I was in the Army stationed in Germany and it was shown every week from the beginning on Armed Forces Television. By then, Margot Kidder was famous as Lois Lane but I'll also always think of her as Nichols' girlfriend. In a lot of ways, Nichols was a lot like Maverick; both were much more attracted to getting rich with little effort than they were fighting. It was in the little TV magazine that they distributed at the PX (not really an authorized edition of \"TV Guide\" but made to resemble it as closely as possible without getting into copyright trouble) that I first learned the real story behind the cancellation. I really wonder what the next season with the more violent twin would have been like if they had really made it as planned. Of course, by the time this show was made the \"Western era\" of TV had been in decline for around a decade; someday I hope to be able to write that the \"reality era\" has been in decline for that long! While \"Gunsmoke\" and \"Bonanza\" were still running, they were both nearing their ends and it had been years since a new Western had really caught on; I think that this trend did a lot to hold \"Nichols\" back, and was the main reason that NBC executives doubted that it would ever find a large audience But to me, a good Western, unlike a show set in contemporary times, is somewhat timeless, as are other \"period\" shows; changing fashions and the like do nothing to make them look any more \"dated\" than they were supposed to be, and I think that watching this show, 10 years after it was produced, is really what brought this point home to me. Also, this show is an early pairing of Garner and Stuart Margolin, who is really one of the all-time great sidekicks, and not just in Westerns.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this show but then I don't remember ever not loving anything he did, starting with \"Americanization of Emily\". A town sheriff who keeps trying to steal the town blind and ride off to Mexico, gotta love it. Like everything he does it has a tongue in cheek flavor that brands it as a Garner product. James plays the same character in lots of his shows and movies but somehow it never gets stale.

P.S. re: Killing off the main character

If I remember right the \"good\" brother was killed off and replaced with the \"evil\" twin in an effort to increase the ratings i.e.; make it more like every other western on TV at the time. I think this show was too far ahead of its time and I still miss it. TV without a Jimmy G show is missing something.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Superb silent version of the story of Francois Villon. Although remade in the thirties as IF I WERE KING, with Frank Lloyd directing, Preston Sturges scripting and Ronald Colman starring, this version is even better. Barrymore, with a cohort of comedians, plays the comic fool and the wine-depressed Villon with a verve that Colman could not match. The photography is startling in its beauty and innovation and the supporting cast, particularly Conrad Veidt in his American premiere, the incredibly beautiful Marceline Day, and the supporting comics, Slim Summerville and Hank Mann, steal every scene they are in.

It is a shame that Barrymore did so few first-rate comedies. Among his sound films, only his lead in TWENTIETH CENTURY and his supporting role in MIDNIGHT can compare to this, and those stand up only because of his superb voice. In this silent movie, Barrymore must tell his tale without benefit of words, and he does so, alternately hilariously unrecognizable as the King of the Fools and tenderly as Villon in love. He even gets to leap around in the swashbuckling style of Fairbanks, most convincingly. He also lets his supporting cast have their share of glory, capering in this ensemble work like any talented comic of the era.

Finally, a brief word about Alan Crosland, a director known today only for directing the first talking feature, THE JAZZ SINGER in the same year this was released. Crosland was a careful, innovative, delightfully original director, and it is a shame that more of his works are not known. Perhaps this movie, far more interesting as a movie than his best-known work, will be your introduction to his other talents. If so, you could do far worse.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"And nothing wrong in that! Heartily endorse the comments of boblipton and Snow Leopard.

I'm thrilled to find this movie is available on US DVD - I've only ever seen it through once - I persuaded the Goethe Institute here in London to show it in their Conrad Veidt season some years ago - and long to see it again.

Barrymore is resplendent when engaged, as in this movie, possibly because of the prick of having a renowned German actor as a foil. And Veidt is such a wonderful scene stealer (doesn't he pick his nose at one point?) This is one of the seminal films to connect 'Dr Jekyll' with '20th Century', 'Grand Hotel' or 'Midnight'; and 'The Cabinet of Dr Caligari' or 'The Student of Prague' with 'The Spy in Bladk', 'Contraband' and 'Casablanca'.

See it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Beloved Rogue is a wonderful period piece. It portrays 145th century Paris in grand Hollywood fashion, yet offering a bleaker side to existence there as it would be experienced by the poor. And the snow. It's constantly swirling about, adding to the severity of the setting -- brilliant! The setting is enhanced by the odd cast of characters, including beggars, cripples and dwarfs.

A brilliant performance is turned in by John Barrymore, outdone only by the magnificent Conrad Veidt, who portrays a degenerate, dissolute Louis XI to perfection. And yes, Veidt picks his nose on purpose, pushing his portrayal to wonderfully wry limits.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most of the silent films I've seen have been serious in nature, so it was fun to see one with a comic touch. The setting and some of the scenes for \"The Beloved Rogue\" were reminiscent of 1923's \"The Hunchback of Notre Dame\" relative to the Paris street scenes and the celebration of the 'King of Fools'. John Barrymore portrays France's greatest poet Francois Villon in a characterization that ranges quite broadly from virtual slapstick to romantically tender; that 'water into wine' bit early in the picture was rather amusing.

It seems that times never change, and it's interesting to see the movie make a cogent observation nearly a century ago - Paris has it's fool to reign for one night, while everywhere else has one all the time. How true.

The appearance of Conrad Veidt in the film was a little surprising for this viewer, I've only seen him as Major Strasser in \"Casablanca\", oddly one of his very last movies. As King Louis XI, he's a monarch obsessed with astrology, crafty but suspicious, and it was a bit unnerving to see how closely he resembled Brad Dourif's Wormtounge character from the final chapter of the 'Lord Of The Rings' trilogy. Not exactly exuding the confidence a King of France might be expected to bear. Which is why the ascendancy of Burgundy's duke (Lawson Butt) seemed all the more plausible, until Villon rises to the occasion to put one over on both rulers.

I found it interesting that the use of inter-title cards was exceedingly spare, used only when absolutely necessary to advance the story. Without them though, one would have missed a curious nugget. It seems Villon carried out his exile from Paris at the Hostel of the Lame Flea!

The print I viewed was of exceptional quality, the very first film presented in a one hundred Action and Suspense movie DVD set from Mill Creek Entertainment, that's saying something for a film that's now eighty years old. It's great that movies from the silent era are now finding a wider distribution in this type of commercial format, making them accessible to an entirely new generation of movie lovers.

One question - did it seem like Conrad Veidt's King Louis picked his nose on purpose, or as an inadvertent gesture that simply remained safe from the cutting room?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fran\u00e7ois Villon was a real-life poet and rogue who lived in Paris in the 15th century. However, most of what is portrayed in this historical film is actually fiction--from a play created at the beginning of the 20th century. Whereas in the film he met and became friends with Louis XI, in reality he died in his 30s and was never involved in all the intrigues like he was in this film. In reality, he wrote some lovely verse and was frequently on the wrong side of the law--not the combination of a patriot and Robin Hood-like character like he is in the film. Provided you know that the film is nearly 100% fiction, then it's well worth seeing--just don't assume it's a good history lesson.

In THE BELOVED ROGUE, Villon is played with wild abandon by John Barrymore. I was also pretty excited to see that his three friends were all played by very familiar faces. Angelo Rossitto, who was the plucky dwarf, played in tons of films over the years and had a very long career. Slim Summerville was a character actor known for adding a touch of comedy to films. Mack Swain is best known as the silent film foil in many of Chaplin's short films and played his partner in THE GOLD RUSH. All four of these men did a nice job and have no complaints---even with Barrymore's rather over-the-top treatment that was rather reminiscent of a Douglas Fairbanks performance. However, the performance I had a serious problem with was Conrad Veidt as King Louis XI. To call this \"unsubtle\" would be a gross understatement. He played the role like a high schooler who thought he was supposed to be the stereotypical Richard III--skulking about and acting like a demoniacal caricature. While Veidt was wonderful in many, many films (both silent and sound) but here he is just ridiculous.

As for the story, it's full of lusty adventure and action--like a swashbuckling film minus the sailing ships. The sets worked out well for all this, as they'd been used the previous year for THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME. Both films were set around the same time period.

Overall, it's one of the last great silent films. There's a lot to like and the film is a lovely combination of romance, comedy and action. Well worth seeing, though it loses a couple of points for Veidt's overacting as well as the way the film plays fast and loose with history.

By the way, this film was also made twice as IF I WERE KING (1920 and 1938) and apparently these two films are closest to the original play. However, in total, six films have been about Villon and tell, more or less, variations on the same tale!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a good start for novices that have never watched a 'Silent Film' and for those who believe that quality Cinema started with their generations efforts. They are doing a disservice to themselves by not expanding their horizons. The 'Silent Film' is a art-form of acting in pantomime that is different from the sound film and the stage, it can stands on it's own merits.

THE BELOVED ROGUE (1927) United Artists is a fictionalized history of the relationship of French Poet 'Francois Villon' and 'King Louis XI'. Through 'Villons' prodding 'King Louis' will defeat his nemesis 'Duke of Burgandy' minimize the Feudal System and establish the KING as head of the State and the beginnings of modern France.

The cast is exceptional, lead by JOHN BARRYMORE (yes, Drew's GrandFather). For those who only remember him for the decaying actor 'Larry Renault' in DINNER AT EIGHT (1933) or the ham in THE INVISABLE WOMEN (1940) this will be a revelation. Fit, trim with the 'Great Profile' still in evidence he commands the screen. Co-Starring in his first American film is CONRAD VEIDT with his 'cadaverous spider' interpretation of 'Louis XI'. This is a duel of acting titans, each not giving the other a inch. On a trivia note is Character Actor and Dwarf ANGELO ROSSITTO in his first film, his last, MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME (1985). There are other character actors who would continue in sound that are easily picked up on.

United Artists spared no expense in this handsome production supervised by WILLIAM CAMERON MENZIES. Costumes, Props and Sets are well done and not exaggerated like in a DOUGLAS FAIRBANKS productions. There is a touch of reality here. The copy on DVD that we watched from 'Delta Entertainment' came from a good master. Though not 'restored' its musical soundtrack was clear and the print only suffered from nuisance black-spots (dirt) and drop-outs. The only major damage at the end of the last reel from water. 'Kino' also has a edition which may be of a better quality since they do major restorations on their prints. Best check with them. In our opinion this is a 'must have' particularly if you have no 'silents' in your collection. This is a good place to start.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just love the interplay between two great characters of stage & screen - Veidt & Barrymore","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No matter how many times Wile Ethelbert \"Famishius Famishius\" Coyote tries to get Road \"Burnius Roadibus\" Runner, we always know what's going to happen, though our sympathy always remains with WEC. The highlight in \"Hook, Line and Stinker\" is a Rube Goldberg-style scheme that WEC hopes will finally finish off RR; but of course you know what happens.

So, Wile E. continues hilarious engaging in fanaticism (defined by George Santayana as redoubling your effort after you've forgotten your aim) while Road Runner pretty much never becomes aware of the potential danger - or lack thereof - in which he could find himself. A real classic.

And yes, the coyote's middle name is Ethelbert. I learned that from \"Jeopardy!\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you love Vampire lore and are a fan of Gothic horror, then you might want to check out Soul's Midnight. I did not know much about this movie before I watched it, and I wasn't expecting much, but I found the movie to be fun and entertaining.

Starring Armand Assante as the leader of the vampires Simon, Soul's separates itself from other low budget vampire flicks by weaving in the mythology of St. George and the Dragon in a fun new way.

I'm not sure what the budget for this movie was, but I sense that if it was a little more then they might have really been able to hit home the gore and effects.

If you're up late one night and you're in the mood for a fun low budget vampire flick then Soul's Midnight is a good choice.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Soul's Midnight stars Armande Assante (Simon) who stared in \"The Mambo Kings\" and Elizabeth Bennett (Alicia Milford). Together with Sexy vampire vixen, Lucila Sola (Iris), Simon lures pregnant Alicia and her husband Charles into the netherworld of Soul's Midnight. Assante sinks his fangs into the script by writers Brian and Jason Cleveland and you enjoy watching him and Iris kill. Alicia and Charles (Robert Floyd) try to stay alive while gore keeps your lust for blood sated.

(spoiler alert) In today's jaded landscape, it comes as no surprise that a back-stabbing preacher gets bitten. Set looks cool \u0096 lots of detail at the Borgo Hotel and cool special effects at the end. I had a lot of fun watching this movie \u0096 it doesn't take itself too seriously and looks great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a huge fan of horror, I had given up on the vampire sub-genre due to the fact that in most vampire flicks the vampire has become feminine and non-threatening, benign and basically weak. This was the attitude I brought to a viewing of Soul's Midnight and I am happy to say that the vampires in this film at least have the hunger to kill old ladies and sacrifice babies! Armand Assante, one of my favorite actors of all time, was born to play the charming vampire with savage intensity.

Another thing that interested me is that the central location is the Borgo Hotel. That is cool because (and I went back to my high school copy to look this up) in Dracula, the Borgo Pass is where Jonathan Harker must pass to get to Dracula's castle.

Finally, my hats off to whoever made the decision to make the creature a real effect and not a darn CGI! That's the one thing great about many low-budget movies, they cannot afford the garbage computer effects that plague many Hollywood monstrosities.

Bottom line...this is better than Underworld for sure, especially if you are a vampire purest. Cheers, JA","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"China White (1989) was Ronny Yu's first international film. This U.K,\/Holland\/Hong Kong production was shot in English and was slightly edited for the western audience. The American Wong brothers (Michael and Russell) were supposed to star in the film together but due to prior commitments was unavailable so another western actor Steven Leigh took his spot. Several Hong Kong stars such as Tommy Wong (playing a mute) and the always creepy William Ho appear as well as the director in an interesting cameo spot.

The Chow brothers are in Holland to run the family business. They want to the family business to go legit but the other Asian gangs don't want to and see there move as a face saving move to please the \"foreigners\" and want to keep on making money the old fashion way. Others want to take their business to even a new low by smuggling drugs and what not. After the Chow elder is gunned down in cold blood, the brothers make their move against any family who's not with them. Can the Chow family keep the families from killing one another or while the streets of Holland flow with the blood of the innocence and gangsters?

A highly underrated movie. I was surprised by how good it was. I haven't seen the Hong Kong version. That would be a huge treat for me. It's longer and has a lot more stars of the Hong Kong Cinema involved with the production. Too bad this film isn't available on D.V.D. The video print i saw was washed out and the sound reproduction wasn't that great.

Highly recommended for action fans.

factoid: This film takes place before the decriminalization of drugs

in Holland.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I already gave my comment on this movie under the name BruceV3. Now under BruceV13 I want to add something! Now after a long time I have seen a lot of so called heroic bloodshed titles! But not many come close to the action shown in John Woo movies! That's why after all these years I think it is strange that \"China White\" doesn't get the credit it deserves! No matter what version you have seen! The action is top notch! The scenery,China Town in Amsterdam is very unique. You get the impression it is a large district. But having lived in Amsterdam myself I know it is only a small area part of the red light district which happen to have a lot of Chinese stores and restaurants! But because of the way they shot the movie it actually looks like a big and important territory where people know not to mess with the triads (chinese mafia)! Besides the action \"China White\" is a compelling gangster drama with some good acting! For this i have to give credit to Russel Wong! Too bad we don't see much of him lately,since he has a lot of potential! Must see movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With some wine, some friends and some good humor, I had a really good time watching this film. I particularly enjoyed the performance of Jilon Ghai (as \"Randy\"), who was such a kick in the pants! His scenes with Charity Rahmer (\"Michelle\") were wildly amusing. I wouldn't want him coming on to me, but it was great watching \"Randy\" try to score with \"Michelle\" and even better seeing the results! Of course, the girls in the film are lots of fun to watch too. AND, a friend of mine showed me the PLAYBOY issue that had Pilar Lastra as the Playmate of the Month. She's definitely a looker. All in all, this film totally served its purpose, which was to entertain us in a light and care-free way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow, I just LOVED watching all these hot babes! The scenery around Malibu and California was off the fizzy. I could watch it again just to see all that flesh crammed into those tiny, teeny bikinis! I recently saw Pilar Lastra, the steaming hot housekeeper in Malibu Spring Break, as a center fold in my favorite mag, PLAYBOY. She is hot, hot HOT! The opening seen was bitchin. When the two main girls run out of gas and stop at this desert gas station, they drive the gas-guy nuts with their bodies and skimpy outfits! The slow-mo lets me enjoy every inch of them! My girlfriend liked looking at this shredded hot dude too (now I'd like a bod like that) and at all the other hot dudes....and some of the girls too! Any movie that can bring that out in my girlfriend is a 10 + for me!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not having seen this film in quite some time, we caught with it not long ago in the nicely transferred Criterion DVD. \"Le cercle rouge\" is a film that owes a lot to other movies, as it keeps reminding us about \"Rififi\", \"The Asphalt Jungle\", among others, because they all deal with capers that take center stage in the movie and reproduce it in great detail. Unfortunately, one knows that old adage that crime does not pay, and from the start, these men involved in it are doomed from the onset.

Jean-Pierre Melville was a director of few words. He didn't fill his pictures with a lot of dialog, as it's the case here. Yet, for not being \"talky\", they had a style of their own as proved with \"Le Dolous\", \"Le Samurai\", and his masterpiece, \"Bob le flambeur\", among others. Mr. Melville had a sense of style that comes across in everything he did. In this film, working with his cinematographer, Henri Decae, he takes us along for a ride through the streets of Paris that shows the vibrant city mainly at night and the bleak winter in France. The score is by Eric Demarsan that emphasizes a jazzy music that accompanies most of the action.

Although the film shows Alain Delon, as Corey, at the center of the action, it is however, the smart inspector Mattei who is the real hero of the movie. As played by the great Bourvil, he is a man that shows a lot of patience because he has figured from the beginning how to catch Vogel, and in the process he gets involved in the investigation of the jewel heist in which he knows the escaped man he is tailing looms large behind it. Bourvil gives an enormously satisfying performance as Mattei showing equal parts of determination and tenderness, as it's the case with the three cats he adores.

Alain Delon always responded with interesting performances his appearances in Mellville's pictures. In here he is Corey, the man who is first seen leaving prison and promising himself he won't go back, but he cannot pass a good thing when he decides to go ahead and participate in the robbery. His association with Vogel and Jansen, pays off in the way they get the job done, but it will also prove a mistake in the way they will not be able to dispose of the loot as the fence they have relied on has a change of heart.

Gian Maria Volonte and Yves Montand are seen as Vogel and Jansen, respectively. They were excellent actors who blend well in the action of the film. Both actors were at their best moment when they took the roles in the film and it shows. Mr. Montand has the more complex character to play as we witness him in his first moment in front of the camera as a man with many demons inside his head.

Jean-Pierre Mellville got wonderful results from his cast and crew in a film, that although feels a bit longer, but still succeeds in showing his style in one of the most memorable pictures from the director.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE RED CIRCLE (Jean-Pierre Melville - France\/Italy 1970).

This might be the coolest film ever made, in the most literal sense of the term. The men here never lose control and never - not once - show their emotions. No dramatic outbursts in this film. Everyone is cool all the time. It's an abstract dream-world, where the men live by their own code, a gangster code with the values of the outside world conspicuously absent. In this masterfully filmed heist saga, Melville tackles the American crime thriller in his distinctly dark and desolate style, yet made in grand fashion with a hefty budget of ten million dollars and with four of the greatest French stars at the time. Alain Delon as the master thief, Yves Montand as an alcoholic ex-cop, Italian star Gian-Maria Volont\u00e9 as an escaped criminal and Andr\u00e9 Bourvil in an atypical role as the cynical police chief.

Melville described LE CERCLE ROUGE as his penultimate film and it is indeed a masterfully stylized policier. He also claimed he wanted to shoot a film noir in colour and in many ways he succeeded. The two primary influences for this film were John Huston's 1950 heist movie THE ASPHALT JUNGLE and Jules Dassin's RIFIFI (1955). But unlike these films, where we learn much about the background of the individual gang members, with all their petty needs and worries that motivate them, making clear these are not just ruthless underworld types, but ordinary individuals engaged in a world of everyday worries and human endeavour, Melville, though, tells us almost nothing about his criminals. Why was Corey (Alain Delon) in jail? Why was his associate, Vogel (Jean-Marie Volont\u00e9) arrested in the first place? Or why the ex-police marksman Jansen (Yves Montand) left the force, was it his alcoholism? We never learn the motivations behind their actions and never find out what drives these men. Women are even more absent than in his earlier films, with the \"emotional\" ties exclusively between men. They don't even seem to have personal lives. A sort of an emotional twilight zone and although the setting is not as abstract as in his earlier LE SAMOURAI (1967), Melville still sketches a very eerie world. Melville's favorite actor, Alain Delon, is perfect and almost outdoes himself in coolness, if imaginable.

Deliberately paced and with a length of over 140 minutes, Melville takes his time to tell the story, but its slow pace and length seems a perfect way to show the desolate world these men live in. Nothing is ever out of place in Melville's films and here it's no different, every little detail seemingly of pivotal importance for the story. Although LE SAMOURAI remains my favorite Melville film, even up there with the greatest films ever made, this one also belongs to the very best.

Camera Obscura --- 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everyone likes the coolly created, memorable heist movie. Alain Delon provides the antihero, Melville provides the cool, and a handful of other great talent (Yves Montand, Gian Maria Volonte, and Andre Bourvil, mostly) arrives to add a crisp engaging movie...

...with very little dialog. This is great, because one certain aspect of the genre tends to be a lot of dialog involving the quick-witted and their various repartees. This movie, however, could be watched with the sound completely off and not too terribly much would be missed. Not to say the sound is bad, oh no, the jazzy soundtrack and the crisp audio catching the little movements makes the slow, patient deliberation of the patients very compelling.

What's also really neat about this film is that the color cinematography is pretty fantastic. Usually when it comes to cinematography, black and white movies tend to stick out in my mind, but this film has some very strong and beautiful imagery that makes the movie pure visual pleasure to observe.

--PolarisDiB","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I decided to write a comment on this amazing movie because here on IMDb it is cited that John Woo, a mediocre director who made some decent films back in his pre-American years but totally ruined his reputation by his latest, made in US films, plans to remake it. Well, here are a couple of reasons why it is one of the stupidest ideas for a remake ever: The plot of the film is simple and even clich\u00e9d by today's standards, but what makes the film a masterpiece is acting by the four leads, unique direction by Mellville, cinematography, music and its style. There is no way any director today can make such film, it is impossible to create such an atmosphere in a movie in today's Box-office targeted movie business.

John Woo did make a more or less decent film which borrowed from Melville's Le Samourai - The Killer, but remember, it was made when the director was not spoiled by big budgets and expensive (in salaries) but cheap (in acting merits) actors. So what I'm saying is that this is one of the greatest films ever made, together with another film by Melville - Le Samourai. Watch it. And even if the remake will be made, try to avoid it before seeing the great original first.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jean-Pierre Melville is a director I've only recently gotten acquainted with (I need to see Bob le Flambeur and Le Samourai again to fully grasp them), but in watching Le Cercle Rouge (The Red Circle, supposedly based on a saying in Buddhism) I realized I was watching as skillful and absorbing a crime film as I had seen in a quite some time. Though his film has dialog, it is mainly to keep the film's scenes rolling along, adherent to the plot. What kept me on the alert, even in seemingly mundane scenes\/sequences, was the emphasis on the characters' movements, or behavior patterns. Melville has his story laid out, and he is careful to take his time to tell it (this could seem boring to some, but it does seem to work since he puts a little more emphasis on the weight of the characters\/environments over plot).

Yet look at each of the four main players: Alain Deleon as Corey (just released from prison, scheming a new heist), Gian Maria Volonte as Vogel (escaping & on the lam from hand-cuffed custody, meets Corey by luck), Yves Montand as Jansen (an aged pro with many years of experience with weapons, a friend of Vogel), and Andre Bourvil as Mattei (an experienced investigator, who is on the look-out for Vogel, and on his toes with internal affairs). Each of these actors plays their parts with precision, detachment, and they each have their own kinds of moments that indicate to the audience what their personalities might be besides as criminals and cops. The heist sequence gives little hints, for example, like how Vogel cops-a-feel off a female statue while passing down the halls, or how Jansen takes out a flask and merely has a whiff of the contents (and what a dream this guy creates). Even Corey's movements involving a photograph of a woman arouse interest.

As absorbing and cool the story becomes, and as great the skills were to make it happen (via cinematographer Henri Decae, the editing, and the musical score by Eric Demarsan), it's the people on the screen that gain fascination, in how they stay true to their natures and ideals. Not a film to be missed by French new-wave enthusiasts, and modern-day crime movie buffs might want to take the 140 minutes to soak up the atmosphere of Melville's work. A suave piece of film-making that still ranks as one of my all-time favorites.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While its not the masterpiece that \"Le Samourai\" was (I've accepted by now that Jean-Pierre Melville was never able to top that classic), I find \"Le Cercle Rouge\" to be much better than \"Bob le flambeur\". I felt that \"Bob le flambeur\" was an above-average and influential b-film, but still a b-film. \"Le Cercle Rouge\" proves that as a filmmaker Melville improved as he continued. John Woo is a massive fan of Melville, even though their film-making style differs. While Woo uses fast-motion for shootouts and an operatic sense of violence, Melville has a minimalist style that suits him very well. He wasn't interested in creating quickly paced action films but more meditative crime thrillers. In that department, he was one of the best.

\"Le Samourai\" is still his best work, mainly because it has more character development than this, but on a technical level they're probably equal. Besides, while \"Le Samourai\" had one great lead performance, this has four. Alain Delon is once again an ultra-cool gangster on the prowl - this man's silence is fascinating. Bourvil is superb as the police inspector on the case of the heist and escaped con. He steals every scene he is in, and proves that he was a skilled dramatic actor (in France he is best known as a slapstick comedian in the mode of Buster Keaton). Yves Montand is great also as the shaky and paranoid gun expert. Gian Maria Volont\u00e8 (a regular in spaghetti westerns) is overshadowed by his three co-stars but still does an adequate job.

Once again, Melville's direction is superb. Taking equal influence from both American crime thrillers and the French new wave, the man always seems to know the best shots and angles to choose. This is more slowly-paced than most caper flicks, but it really pays off by the end. \"Le Cercle Rouge\" is a bit short of being an absolute classic, but is still one of the best heist flicks ever made. Tarantino must've seen this before making \"Reservoir Dogs\". (8\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having finally caught up with this \"masterpiece,\" it strikes me that it must have seemed terribly clever, in its day. It's French, arty, under-played to the point of agony, and ultimately downbeat. But viewed from the vantage of 37 years in the future, it's also just a bit vacuous, pretentious and unsatisfying.

Others have summarized the story, but I don't think anyone has pointed out the dramatic flaw at the heart of this film: the lead characters, Corey and Vogel, really don't deserve what they get. They play square within their code, never harm anyone who didn't ask for it, and show great courage and initiative. Moreover, Corey in particular is victimized by his former gangland 'friend,' who stole his girl and who repeatedly tries to have him killed, apparently just because he (Corey) dared to 'borrow' a few thousand francs. These are guys who really ought to be due for a break! Instead, things go far worse for them than they really need to, within the logic of the story.

One might contend that this is the whole point: that the real villains never get caught; that they collude with the police as needed, sell out their friends, and always come out on top. But that's not shown either. Corey's old gangster friend is not shown colluding with the police. Nor is he shown gloating over his victory. In fact, after materializing several times when he's needed, he's nowhere to be seen at the conclusion, leaving a dramatic tension (his feud with Corey) entirely unresolved!

Nonetheless, I'd say this film is well worth seeing for its beautiful photography, its slow, deliberate pacing, its great deadpan performances, its elaborate heist sequence, and its encapsulation of the art-film style of the late 1960s.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I guess Melville intended this movie to be the definition of the cool; it has the cool approach of the late '60s\/ early '70s thrillers\u0097the same discrete quirkiness. LE CERCLE ROUGE, a bitter and fatalist story, is also the playground of Delon, Bourvil, Volont\u00e9 and Montand in defining roles.

Bourvil is a cop who has in his flat three cats and a daily routine. Delon is a hoodlum. Montand is a sick, failed cop. Volont\u00e9 plays an escaped suspect. LE CERCLE ROUGE is of course far above a heist movie; Melville uses his techniques \u0096long wordless detailed depictions of every step of the heist, etc.. Yet this particular action drama is far better than his other movies\u0097and it's very unlikely them by being so much better. The look of LE CERCLE ROUGE is very peculiar to Melville, very Melvillian.

Delon was sharp and cool; Bourvil brings his craft, and Montand makes maybe the finest role of this movie; his performance has an unexpected warmth .

On the other hand, the characters are barely sketched, no more than strictly necessary, and are personae. Or masks; yet the portrayal is inspired, economic but suggestive.

Another of the movies that prove Delon to be a good, a very good actor; and the fact that he's not a genius does not imply that he ought to be despised as a fourth rate actor. He's good, he can bear the proximity of a Bourvil and Montand.

Only ten yrs. before LE CERCLE ROUGE, Melville was doing, towards the end of the '50s, a boring overlong insipid noir pastiche (starring himself)\u0097and after only a decade, here he is, in full form, with this quite amazing action drama. Stylistically, it's a success.

Before seeing LE CERCLE ROUGE, I was not a Melvillian fan; now I guess I rather am one.

LE CERCLE ROUGE is a drama\u0097namely, an action drama, one of the most exigent genres. Melville scores.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"you have loved The shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Vertigo, Oldboy.... And i guarantee you will love this one more. its a brilliant thriller. The story is so simple yet so gripping. it keeps you at the edge of your seat till the end. the slow moving scenes, simple music adds more perfection to the movie. its so genuine. the performance is top class the direction the sequences...they are too perfect..if i could i would place it in top 10 thrillers ever made. Most entertaining thriller i have seen in a while... *****\/***** my vote help me move this movie to top 250

you will love it...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Commissaire Mattei(Andr\u00e9 Bourvil) is a single with a little gun who loves cats and his boss at the Paris police department is a philosopher who knows that even the police becomes sooner or later guilty. That is what the film is all about. And a jewel robbery at the place Vendome.

Corey (Delon) brings the plan from prison, Vogel(Volont\u00e9)joins him and helps him against two tough guys, who are after him, because he took mafioso Ricos(Andre Eycan) money, while Rico already took Coreys girl friend and left him very much alone for five years in jail. Corey and Vogel find a third man, Jansen(Montand), a former police officer and sniper who opens a security lock by shooting special hand made ammunition into a hole. A perfect plan and cooperation, but they have to sell the booty and there is Mattei in the role of a buyer in disguise. The circle closes. Running to help each other they are shot by the cat loving Mattei and his little pistol.

It took Melville 20 years he says to make a robbery film after he failed to get a contract for RIFFIFI. Melville wrote the screenplay and filmed in the south of France and in Paris of yesteryear. The great Henri Decae is as usual the lighting cameraman. It is the one before last picture of Melvilles who died after another film with Delon in 1972.

Melville actually wanted Belmondo instead of Volont\u00e9, he didn't like that Italian at all, but Volont\u00e9-Vogel is an excellent fugitive and gives next to Bourvil the most convincing performance. But mind you: Melville notes, that Volont\u00e9 is an instinctive actor, a strange character, very wearying and absolutely impossible on a French set. Melville didn't like him at all and didn't want to work with him ever again.

Melville is wrong. Volont\u00e9 give the most lively character in the nowhere of not so many interesting characters. You can see what he is feeling being chased by Mattei and his little dangerous gun and all the dogs of France in winter 70. A wild actor.

Also Andr\u00e9 Bourvil, who passed away close to the time of the filming. He also was not first choice, but definitely a great substitute. He carries the instinct of a lonely hunter through the whole film and gets in the end his chance to become guilty once more.

Jansen has entered at night the jewelry shop with a rifle and a tripod but risks eventually freehandedly a successful shot. When he meets Delon the first time we already know that the elegant Jansen has a severe drinking problem. After the robbery Montand renounces to take his part of the booty and mentions to Delon, who looks up to him, that he only got into the red circle, because he wanted to take revenge on the inhabitants of his wardrobe. Delon doesn't catch what he means. The audience recalls having seen Montand in a great scene in his haunted house fighting helplessly nightmare creatures that come out of the wardrobe and attack him. At that time a very rare scene, one recalls a long time after. I bet it was ever so difficult to arrange and direct that stuff at a time no one imagined the coming days of digital movie making. Great artwork when art was made by hand.

We sure will remember a crew like the actors, still it seems even after 33 years this one stays the less popular of the six thrillers of Melville. What is wrong with it? I am afraid one doesn't take much interest in those three actors (showing three criminals) and their police hunter. We learn too little about Corey and his fatal 5 years away from his beautiful girl(Anna Douking). Montand is still a great sniper, but what made him become a drinking man with funny creatures in his wardrobe. Delon acts as if he is in an earlier adventure of the samourai, Volont\u00e9 is the man in the trunk of Delons American car and superbly moving and Mattei is swell to look at, a great actor at the edge of his life. But how could he ever possibly doubt that all are guilty ?

In an interview Melville states, that there is no woman in the film. Not in the very red circle, but I remember well that jolly good looking female Anna Douking (with no future career). We are in the 70s. There in fact rises a woman from the bed of an old mafioso wearing nothing and walks slowly to the door to listen to the voice of her old lover Delon. Bardot did something like that 10 years earlier. This time Melville was directing. Well done.

The RED CERCLE has certainly added a few but not many glittering gems to film history. The robbery at Place Vendome and Montands wonder bullet the inhabitants of the wardrobe and Volont\u00e9 escaping Bouvil in white underwear and carrying his trousers carefully across a stream. That is too little for a great gangster and robbery movie. But the 110 minutes never bore you and it is a game on a high level. And there are probably some secrets you learn when you see the film over and over again. None of the secrets is that we are all guilty and the late Francois Perier is also featured.

Michael Zabel","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just as in Rififi, the most compelling scene in the movie is the perfected silence of the jewel heist. The scene is masterful in its execution, each of the robbers having their own specialized job to perform, each one successfully combining their own unique talent towards the objective, and each one, until a month before, complete strangers.

Many of the scenes play out very slowly. In fact, the opening scene is a long character introduction to both Corey and Vogel, as we see Corey getting released from prison and Vogel escaping capture on his way to prison. The two characters are then methodically brought together through fate at a roadside diner as Vogel hides inside the trunk of Corey's automobile. From this improbable break in, the two strangers agree to become partners to commit a perfected and precise jewel heist.

However, to pull of this heist they must include the help of a third man named Jansen. Jansen is hired as the sure shot gun man. His inclusion into the mix was an interesting and desperate choice. At the time of his hire, Jansen is in a full battle with DT's and spent most of his day on his cot hallucinating over lizards, snakes and spiders. His transition from the disheveled and hallucinatory world of a William S. Burroughs dream into the steady handed and sober sharp shooter is a very quick one and perhaps the only real false moment of the film, but that's just me being extremely picky.

One other mildly false note was that of the police inspector Mattei. At times he appeared to be brilliant in the ways of strong arming the right people or gathering information and waiting out for his escaped prisoner to make his move. Other times he appeared to be 10 years past retirement, especially at the beginning during Vogel's escape through the woods.

I wonder if I got too much hidden meaning from the beginning of the movie. At the start of the movie, as the police car is speeding through the city, the first image we see is that of a red stop light. My first thought was that this may be the 'red circle' and that if I am to find a deeper meaning in the movie, perhaps it is that this car, or rather the people inside of it going through the red light, will be the ones who will 'stop' the jewel heist. Hmmmm?

Perhaps the red circle refers to the triumvirate thieving ring? Perhaps it was the burning sled? No matter.

It's a long movie, but it doesn't feel that way. The ending is a bit of a disappointment. It seemed too hurried for a movie that felt like such a delicious slow burn. 9\/10

Clark Richards","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How good is this film? Apparently, good enough that they plan to remake it in 2011. Jean-Pierre Melville, who gave us Le doulos and The Good Thief, wrote and directed this film.

The film is almost a silent. These are men of few words, preferring to let their actions speak for them. They live by a code that governs their every move.

There are some great actors in this film - Alain Delon (The Leopard), Yves Montand (Jean de Florette, Let's Make Love), and Gian Maria Volonte (El Indio from A Fistful of Dollars & A Few Dollars More). The film does not shine on them; they are along for the ride that Melville has for them. Melville makes the film; they make it better.

You see Melville's work in the Ocean films, but they just get the idea. The can't make it work like he did. A great loss in the seventies, but his work remains for our pleasure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"LE CERCLE ROUGE is a very good film, though it does suffer a bit since there have already been similar films. In all too many ways, the movie is reminiscent of previous heist films such as RIFIFI and GRAND SLAM and many others. So, while director Melville and the actors did great jobs, it all seems like a case of D\u00e9j\u00e0 vu. Because of this, I had a hard time giving this excellent film a higher score.

The one unusual aspect of the film is how the crooks get together. Instead of the usual means, Vogel escapes from prison and just happens to meet up with Corey, a career criminal just released from prison! Both are a good match but having them both work in parallel for much of the film until they meet was a clever touch. Apart from that, as expected much of the movie concerns the meticulous details in planning and executing the crime. I also appreciated how the film showed the crooks in such a cold and detached manner--something relatively common in French crime films but rare among American films until recent years.

Overall, extremely well-crafted and worth seeing...if you don't mind that it seems a tad repetitive, you'll see some fine acting, direction and a lot of great tension.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jean-Pierre Melville's Le Cercle Rouge follows the lives of two criminals: Vogel (Gian Maria Volont\u00e8), a murderer who gives the cops the slip while he's being transferred from one city to another by train; and Corey (Allain Delon), a thief just released from jail. Fate decides to join these two men to pull off a spectacular heist. In the background there is Matei (Andr\u00e9 Bourvil), the detective Vogel escapes from, implacable in his pursuit and sometimes ruthless in his methods. Along the movie the viewer meets other minor but fascinating characters, the best of which is Jansen (Yves Montand), a disgraced ex-cop and an excellent marksman.

Melville has such a unique style one doesn't need to watch many of his movies to catch on. Le Samourai, Un Flic and Le Cercle Rouge are clearly made of the same cloth: the symmetrical angles; the long shots; the silences; the coats and hats and cigars; the quotes at the beginning; the amazing heists, the fatalism; the unglamorous and inglorious criminal life. Everything that's great in Melville is present here in top form.

And his shortcomings didn't bother me so much this time: the illogical, perplexing behavior of his characters and confusing storytelling, which hurt my enjoyment of his other movies, are almost invisible here. Since Le Cercle Rouge preceded Un Flic that doesn't mean he got better with time; perhaps I'm just getting more used to it and reaching a mindset where it doesn't bother me anymore.

Melville made unique crime movies. As old as they may be, they show more ingenuity, realism and grace than the modern techno-thrillers in which cool thieves use computer systems and James Bond-esquire gadgets to pull off impossible crimes. Melville's criminals aren't cool: they're lonely, socially awkward and probably aware they're not good for much more than planning heists. They're society's unwanted, living in the night, always one step ahead of the police in a game they know they'll lose eventually. There's nothing romantic about them.

Amazingly for a movie of this type, the cops aren't complete idiots either. Matei is smart, crafty, patient and even compassionate. He's not an unlikeable villain or a clich\u00e9, he's just an old man doing his job and doing it right. He knows when to use force and when to use brains. Many movies could learn from him.

It's this down-to-earth, unromantic style that makes Melville's movies such a joy to watch and puts him on a special pedestal as one of cinema's great crime masters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"All men are guilty,\" says the chief of the police. \"They're born innocent but it doesn't last.\" Add this bit of nihilism to Jean-Pierre Melville's fascination with the idea of the crook's code of honor and you have Le Cercle Rouge. This code of honor among crooks, however, is not simply a clich\u00e9; it's a figment of the imagination even when film moralists -- realistic moralists by their viewpoint, romantic moralists by most others' -- began to make movies on the subject. Their theme is that it isn't what one does, but how one does it. We most often wind up with stories all about experienced men with their own sense of honor, stories where fate, fatalism and the code run things.

For most of humanity, except screen writers and movie directors, this would seriously get in the way of living one's life, raising one's children and being a good friend. This mannered fatalism is something of a self-indulgent notion. Le Cercle Rouge is, in my view, a classic film for people who may secretly enjoy the adventure of just missing the last bus home. But where Melville's Le Samourai - Criterion Collection, in my opinion, is style dominating story, Le Cercle Rouge manages the great trick of combining style with a strong story and with compelling actors. The point of the movie, in my view, is nonsense...but the movie itself is a first-class experience.

Melville's hopeless tale of three crooks -- Cory (Alain Delon), Vogel (Gian-Maria Volonte) and Jansen (Yves Montand) - is based on a bit of wisdom which is, maybe, attributed to the Buddha: That all men who are destined to meet, will...along with their destiny they cannot change. Maybe, because some believe Melville himself came up with the wording if not the thought. Either way, we know right at the start that this movie will not end happily, will depend upon fate and coincidence to set things up for us, and will leave us recalling the nihilistic philosophies we discovered and loved when we were in high school. Once Corey and Vogel meet and then gather in the unique talents of Jansen, we are off on a one-way ride to rob an exclusive, heavily protected jewelry story on the Place Vendome. The tension arises because we not only know the French police are after Vogel, we also realize that some determined crooks are after Corey.

The great pleasure of the movie, for me, came from admiring the work that Delon, Volonte and Montand brought to their characters, and the intelligent ruthlessness that Andre Bouvril brought to his character, the police captain Mattei. Melville hooked me as he developed these characters and their own situations; he built me up emotionally and then released me when he brought me to appreciate their probable fate and let me see see it happen. Melville establishes his set pieces -- the escape from the train, the escape from the woods, the later shootout in the woods, the meetings with Mattei and a man who refuses to inform -- with intriguing possibilities. He builds tension in all these cases by taking his time; a rare trait in movie making and an even rarer trait now. And Melville takes the time to build up Mattei as an individual. Mattei is a rueful, experienced man. He's a loner. He has a set routine when he returns to his apartment -- he greets his three cats affectionately, he draws his bath and while the tub is filling he sets out food for them. I don't know who Mattei is destined to meet, but I hope it's someone who likes cats.

Nihilism is always fashionable among some creative people and some critics. In most cases, I think it's a much harder task to set nihilism aside and to simply live one's life without damaging too many people. (And that's even more challenging to show compellingly in a film.) Le Cercle Rouge is a movie which, for me, tells me little, but it is in its own way, I think, a beautifully put together film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Meville's caper film is not as good as his most famous movie, the deliciously stylish \"Le Samourai (1968).\" I don't even think this is the best example of the much-loved heist subgenre. The main thing against the film is its long running time. Meville has this tendency of concentrating on too many trivial details. He could have told the same story in a relative short time, but for reasons that I don't understand, the film seems to go on and on. Still, the movie is never boring. Melville's direction impressed me and the cast is very good, especially Alain Delon as a very \"cool\" master thief. The movie's must-see color photography is a great asset and Melville uses sound (or lack of sound) in a very effective manner. From a technical standpoint, the movie is practically flawless. At times, one gets the feeling that Meville is merely showing off, but when someone is as talented as he is, one has little reason to complain. I still like other heist movies a little bit more (Jules Dassin's \"Topkapi (1964),\" just to name one), but there is no denying that this film is a good piece of pulp entertainment and a good example of what people refer to as \"cool\" cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After 30+ years of hiatus, once again I immerse myself in the mist of uplifting melancholy. The cold, slow-paced and existential treatment of this crime story comes from a different world, Melville's world, where darkness is pure enlightenment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There were heist movies before this one, and indeed the likes of Rififi were an obvious influence on it - but The Red Circle is more than just another entry in an overpopulated genre and with this film, director Jean-Pierre Melville has managed to create something that both thrills on the surface and gives its audience something to think about. Being cool is just as important a feature of the modern crime movie as guns and gangsters, and Melville delivers that with this film in droves; the tone of the film is very relaxed too and Melville allows the bulk of the film to bubble under the cool exterior. The story has a number of angles but the central character is Corey - a thief who is released from prison. His release coincides with the escape of infamous murderer Vogel, who slips from under the nose of Police Commissioner Mattei during a train ride. The first thing Corey does upon release is steal some money from his former boss Rico, and the second thing he does is recruit Vogel and a sharpshooter to help him pull of a jewel heist. But Rico and the police are hot on the thieves' tails...

The film is bolted together by four excellent central performances. Alain Delon is calm and calculating as the film's anti-hero, while Gian Maria Volont\u00e8 looks formidable in his role as the escaped murderer. Fran\u00e7ois P\u00e9rier is good also as a dubious club owner, while the real standout performance comes from Andr\u00e9 Bourvil in his role as the police commissioner. The film runs at almost two and a half hours and is not exactly a thrill ride. However, the director keeps things interesting by keeping the action focused on the important elements. The film does feature crime film stapes such as shootings, but they are kept to a minimum. The first two thirds of the movie are really just building up to the suspenseful heist scene towards the end. Rififi was most famous for its heist sequence - an intricately designed scene in which nobody speaks a word. The heist in this film is similar in that it is also wordless, and I have to say that I preferred the scene in Rififi; but Melville's skill in direction and the calm and composed way that it plays out make good of it. The film boils down to an exciting climax that rounds it all off nicely. Overall, this might not appeal to all crime film fans as the action is more than a little bit slow; but The Red Circle is an excellent film and deserves its reputation as a masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love a film that mixes edge-of-the-seat suspense, laughs, style, good acting, and a bit of self-parody. Hitchcock consistently carried this off, and in \"Le Cercle rouge\" Jean-Pierre Melville does the same. I was sorry when this long film ended.

I agree with the English commenter who found remarks by one of my compatriots chauvinistic. I love French films, Italian films, English films, Indian films--and the increasingly rare good American films. I also feel the writer who panned the film for being not even a good copy of an American gangster film, missed the point completely. But I guess it's like jazz: either you get it, or you don't, so why waste time trying to explain.

Just see \"Le Cercle noir\" and be prepared to be deliciously entertained.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just saw it at as closing film of Austin Film Festival. Going in, a had seen a few snippets of their act at Alamo Drafthouse, and thought the trailer was amusing but I wasn't expecting such an epic theme music and the use of tarot cards is genius in the title sequence. Watch out for cameos from Ben Stiller and Tim Robbins, and the dark lord himself (who has a fetish for KG). So much over-the-top fun and the songs are so catchy. The car chase was by far my favorite scene. I know this will earn cult status right away and win over some new Tenacious D fans, just like me. I hope this does well in the theaters. \"Follow me, we are the shadows\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie on a fluke.I was standing on 42nd street waiting for a bus to go home and a sister started passing out free tickets for a preview of this movie.I gave it a chance not expecting much.The promotional movie posters I've seen on the subway station walls do not give this film justice at all.

The movie is about a young rocker who goes on a journey to learn the craft and art of heavy metal.I'll leave it there.The movie is a heavy comedy and lot's of fun.If your are old enough to remember when Heavy Metal dominated the music scene in the eighties you are going to love this film.Jack Black is an amazingly talented comedian and actor and assuming he really wrote and performed the songs in this film he is also a talented musician.

Tenacious D is definitely worth a look!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw The D's new film tonight at a special advance screening, and I was so blown away by its sheer greatness that I felt I had to come onto IMDb and get the word out. Admittedly, I was already a huge fan of the D's work - I loved the HBO series and listen to their music weekly (there's nothing better to sing along to), but this appreciation actually made me more apprehensive going into to tonight's screening (for we've all been disappointed one time or another by something we love when it attempted to make the jump to the big screen). With Tenacious D's \"The Pick of Destiny,\" this is not the case.

Simply put, this film rocks harder than anything I've seen and is funnier and more majestic than anything Peter Jackson, Pixar, and Will Ferrell together could produce. It tells the story of the D before we came to know them, setting up intriguing histories of Kage and Jables' upbringings, their comings together, and how they were inspired to write songs about such things as Lee, Sasquatch, and Dio. Most importantly, they reveal the true inspiration to the Greatest Song In The World, \"Tribute,\" and how it came to be (which is different than the HBO Series' version). After you've witnessed it you probably won't be able to remember it (hence the Tribute), but your mind forever be changes by its genius.

I don't go out to movies very often anymore due to the high ticket price and the hassle of getting parking, paying outrageous concession prices, etc., but I usually make exceptions when it's starring someone I really love or concerning something of the the same variety. \"The Pick of Destiny\" was so good that I have no qualms going back to see it again when it releases nationwide, and I plan on convincing all of my friends to go, too. Last week we saw \"Borat\" and loved it, but this is honest to goodness TEN TIMES BETTER. For anyone who truly loves rock music and comedic brilliance, see this film. These guys' talent is so great you should have no hesitation supporting their cause. You will not be disappointed, and the Rock Lords will smile upon you favorably.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was able to see a preview of this movie through UCLA's pre-screening program, and let me tell you: THIS MOVIE IS UNBELIEVABLY GOOD!!!! I have seen many movies, but few have made me laugh so sincerely or talk about the movie afterward as much as this one. I had a decent respect for Tenacious D before seeing the movie, and now I am MAD about them. I will most definitely buy their album when it is released on the 14th and will see this movie again.

If you were on the fence about seeing this movie, GET OFF AND GO SEE IT!! It is worth the extremely expensive price of movie tickets these days, as you will surely bust a nut laughing during the whole thing.

Aside from the comedy, the glorious and divine music that flows from KG's guitar and JB's voice is awe inspiring. The audience is left in a stupor that such beautiful harmonies and amazing riffs can be created in conjunction with such ridiculous (and hilarious) lyrics. If for nothing other than the music itself, this movie is worth the price of admission.

With a wonderfully coherent storyline tying in almost all aspects of the traditional \"D\" history and hallmarks, great new songs, hilarious comedy, and some pretty awesome cameos, this movie ranks up there with the best! Go see it!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I managed to see the MTV premiere of this movie last night and I needed to tell everyone that this movie brought the thunder. Obviously this movie will be most enjoyed by fans of the D as it has plenty of in-jokes for those that have seen the HBO series and has more than enough D for newer fans and the mass of soon-to-be converts. The music really shines with the new songs \"Kickapoo\" (which is much better than it sounds), \"Master Exploder\" (possibly the 3rd best song in the world) and \"Dude (I totally miss you)\". There are a load of excellent scenes (the car chase, the rock-off, the meeting) and cameos (including Dave Grohl as Satan!). I really could go on for hours but I don't want to give the movie away. Go see it. You won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you are like me and you bought the new Tenacious D album the day it came out, and went into the film knowing all the lyrics to all the songs....then you will CERTAINLY enjoy this film. Yes I am biased as a huge Tenacious D fan, but i really did like this film which made me chuckle quite a lot.

This movie was pretty much everything I expected. Comedic genius backed up by great songwriting and some great cameos from Ben Stiller and Tim Robbins. I particularly enjoyed Tim Robbins' part.

If, however, you are unfamiliar with Tenacious D's HBO series and fantastic debut album, then this may not have quite the same comedic impact on you. I would still recommend you go and watch that because it still worth every cent of the admission price and will make you smile even if you aren't in stitches the whole time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was amazing!!!! From beginning to end, the movie is packed with fun, laughs, music, enjoyable rock music, hot chicks, more music, action, drama, and the f-bomb.

Although some scenes are entirely bizarre and unfitting, they were fun to watch and enjoyable. All in all this movie left you feeling great and happy. Especially those that love rock music.

The soundtrack is great, the laughs are plentiful, and the storyline is simple, entertaining, yet complex. You have to see this movie if you love rock music!

Overall Vote: 10 out of 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tenacious D: in The Pick of Destiny tells the fictional tale of the formation of the band Tenacious D and their quest to find the Pick of Destiny, a guitar pick with supernatural powers made from the tooth of Satan himself (played by Dave Grohl). JB (Jack Black) and KG (Kyle Gass), joined together by fate, must travel to the Rock N' Roll Museum and steal the Pick of Destiny to become the greatest band on earth. The movie is hilarious and delivers non-stop laughs. Jack Black and Kyle Gass work perfectly together, having been real life friends and co-workers for over 20 years. The film is in part, a musical. All (or most) of the music was written and performed by The D. All of the songs are new material and many of them are classic. The soundtrack is definitely worth checking out. This film will be mostly appreciated by fans of Tenacious D, but if you are not a fan of The D, I still think you will enjoy the movie. If you are a fan of the D, then you must see this movie. The acting isn't as bad as you may think, and the laughs and crudeness never stop coming. I highly recommend this movie to anyone looking to get their socks rocked off and laugh as hard as they have laughed in a long time. Look out for cameos by Dave Grohl, Ronnie James Dio, Meatloaf, Ben Stiller, Amy Poehler, Tim Robbins, John C. Reilly, and Neil Hamburger. Also, stay tuned for an extra scene after the credits.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a HUGE Tenacious D fan, and I think this is not the funniest movie in the world, but the most entertaining. It's not laugh-a-minute but that's not what the D intended it to be. I went into the movie seeing all the HBO shows, memorized both albums, and that made it even more enjoyable. Plenty of inside jokes from past Tenacious D albums, and HBO shows. Since I knew the new album already, I knew 40 minutes of the movie because it is a musical comedy. I would say it has the best first 5 minutes of any movie and the best last 5 minutes of any movie. Hands Down.

See This Movie Now!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first heard that Jack Black and Kyle Gass would make a movie about their band I was freaking out! I love their music and I hoped that this movie would be really funny! Now that I have watched it I can't really say that these hopes weren't satisfied but I think I expected more. The movie is full of Tenacious D's great music and I really loved listening to all of it. There are a lot of great jokes and I just love the story, at least the first bit. I don't like the way the movie ends. The ending is very abrupt and in my opinion they could have extended that a bit more.

Overall I think it is a good movie to watch! Everyone who likes rock music should watch it! It'll give you a good laugh!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film rocks...so hard...

The cameos...the drug references...the sharing...the love...the ROCKING!!! When Jack and Kyle first met in Tim Robbins' \"Actors' Gang\" theater company years ago, who knew that such a legacy of awesome music and hilariousness would ensue?? All that door to door rocking paid off...

Although anyone who enjoys classic rock will get a major kick out of this film, I would definitely recommend renting the original 6 HBO episodes at your local video store before going to see the film in the cinema. They're on the Tenacious D Masterworks DVD, which is available for rent at pretty much every video store. There are some inside jokes in the film that refer to these earlier episodes that will add something more enjoyable to the overall viewing experience...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Calling all D-sciples! Grab your friends, hit the theater and see the hell out of this movie. From the opening sequence until after the credits you'll be laughing your self breathless.

This movie is a wild ride through the history of the D, and not just some bull-crap list of the things they've done, but a chronicling of their rise to power. I am a huge fan of Rage Kage(Kyle Gass) and Jables(Jack Black), so naturally I loved the movie.

It helps to know about the show they had, and their first CD, but it's just as funny if you don't. From the hilarious and vulgar lyrics, the rocking rhythms, the massive amount of pot smoking, and the cameos, down to the outright insanity that is the story line, this is a movie for D-sciples and newbies alike.

Many of their songs are referenced, such as Two Kings, Tribute, and Kielbasa to their many audio tracks like Cock Push-ups, every fan in the audience will be saying I remember that as well as new comers saying \"That's F'ing hilarious!.\" I highly recommend this movie to any body that's ever rocked out. This movie is certainly in high competition for being the next \"This is Spinal Tap.\" One of the best ever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Probably the best comedy in a long time. keeps you laughing nonstop! the acting is good and there are a lot of hilarious cameos such as Ben stiller as the guitar store guy. The plot wasn't as good as i had hoped but the comedy makes up for that. I can only hope for a sequel cause it seems like they can still do so much more. Even though it was 1 hour and 40 minutes long i still wanted more at the end :) also there is a scene after the credits which is actually one of my favorite parts of the movie!! I suggest this to anyone who loves a good comedy and Definitely suggest it to fans of The D or Jack Black. You should buy the album also, the songs are so damn catchy and hilarious, the music on it is Top Notch as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been waiting for this movie for SO many years! The best part is that it lives up to my visions! This is a MUST SEE for any Tenacious D or true Jack Black fan. It's just so great to see JB, KG and Lee on the big screen! It's not a true story, but who cares. The D is the greatest band on earth! I had the soundtrack to the movie last week and listened to it non-stop. To see the movie was pure bliss for me and my hubby. We've both met Jack and Kyle after 2 different Tenacious D concerts and also saw them when they toured with Weezer. We left that concert after the D was done playing. Nobody can top their show! Long live the D!!! :D","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the only thing I will be able to look back on from the year 2006 and say now that rocked. It rocked hard, and yet it also rocked tasty. Mr.MEATLOAF added a nice little touch to this dish of a film before the opening credits even rolled. Now that tells you something, this filmed rocked even before it STARTED! Now I don't want to give to much away or be a \"spoiler\" but this movie ROCKED! If you have heard the new album and thought to yourself \"this seems a bit substandard Tenacious material,it is like I a merely playing badminton with Satan, what gives?\" Then this movie will elevate your appreciation for the music and you will marvel at this steamy satanic masterpiece. For those who would want it better do not know what they want,because better would no longer be the D. This movie is the D period.!So venture if you dare to the local viewing theater if you to want to have your socks rocked.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was lucky enough to win free passes to the sneak preview of POD. Let me just tell you, from just the previews I was excited to see it! The movie absolutely rocked! What I really liked about it was the fact that JB was in his element. With other movies like \"School of Rock,\" he does namby pamby music for kids and families, but this music is obviously all his.

I took my brother and sister with me to see it, and we laughed basically the entire time. There are a couple places where I wonder what the hell they were thinking, because some items are a little disjointed, but for the most part it was great. A lot of the time it didn't seem like a low-budget film, so that is a plus.

What I was most surprised about was Dave Grohl as Satan. That is f-ing hilarious! You honestly wouldn't know from seeing the film that that is him.

I say that if you are a rock fan and are into JB, KG, and\/or Tenacious D, go see the film. Be prepared for a LOT of drug references, a LOT of four letter words and some skull shredding rock!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Very mild spoilers; a basic plot outline, no real details)

IF you go into this movie with sufficiently low expectations. I saw this film at a free screening a few days ago in Maryland, and the only reason I agreed to go...was because it was free. I expected a few chuckles, but as I have never been a huge fan of Tenacious D, not much more then that.

The first ten minutes of the film are hilarious, as we are given a look at Jack Black's humble Christian origins in a Midwest American town. The film then takes us years into the future, to the first meeting between JB and Kyle Gass, the second half of Tenacious D. We see the formation of the band and the genesis of its name. Finally, as the title suggests, the second half of the film details their quest to obtain the fabled \"Pick of Destiny.\" Again, the beginning of the film was laugh out loud funny, and most of the movie at least kept a smile on my face. That said, there were times it felt a bit long; it's only 100 minutes, but it still felt like it should have been a bit shorter. The story is every bit as absurd as it sounds, and this is not a film you see if you want a real plot. Which is fine, except it means that many of the jokes are very hit or miss...and when they miss, they miss bad. Same thing with the songs; it is a musical, but many of the songs lost their appeal after the first minute or so...then kept going anyway.

I will say that the R-rating really saved this movie from bombing; The D's humor simply couldn't work without cussing, sex, and drug references. But unless you're a real fan of the band, or at the very least know you appreciate their style of comedy, I would recommend you save yourself some money and rent. \"Pick\" will make you giggle a bit...but is it worth 9 bucks? I don't think so. I was tempted to rate it a 6, but since I do think that many would enjoy it enough to justify seeing it in theatres, a 7 seems more appropriate. Just be sure it's your style.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is very silly and very funny. You can't ever criticize it for taking itself seriously. If you've heard their previous album or seen their HBO videos from the album, you can imagine the extremely foul-mouthed, rocking good time that is this movie which tells the fable of how the group Tenacious D came to be formed.

Full of cameos, it not only gives a fictional account of Tenacious D but is a send-up of musical history as well. The humor reminds one of Something About Mary in that they often \"go places you'd thought they wouldn't,\" but it lacks the scatological humor of South Park. This movie contains no nudity, except for mooning.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely loved every minute of this film. Jack Black and Kyle Gass most definitely brought the thunder in this epic tale of friendship, hard rocking and destiny.

Filled to the brim with unnecessary swearing in every sentence, toilet humour and the general rule breaking attitude, this movie is a must see for the hard core tenacious D fans of the world.

We follow the journey of young Jables (Jack black) and Kage (Kyle Gass) as they try and recover the pick of destiny, to win the open-Mic night, and to become the greatest band on the planet. The duo have to overcome obstacles such as a room full of lasers, a man with one leg and the devil to accomplish their task. I'll let you see whether they make it or not.

The soundtrack itself is awesome enough, and now we see the D in person, making the experience even more magical. A must see for anyone who calls themselves a tenacious D fan. Watch out for the inside jokes from the first album!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie!! Jack Black and Kyle Gass have probably made one of the best comedies since Up in Smoke. This movie has something for everyone: rock, drugs, and Satan. What more could someone want? I suggest this movie to anyone that wants to sit back and forget all the trouble in the world and have a good laugh. Even if the movie does not do well in the theaters it is sure to become a cult classic. I do suggest anyone going to see the movie pick up the D's first album because a lot of the jokes are made only funnier if you have heard the songs( such as JB's obsession with Sasquatch and the epic battle against the devil.)The movie still is guarantied laughs even if you have not heard their music but the songs are so great you can't pass them up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is everything a Tenacious D fans can hope for. Director Liam Lynch partnered with The \"D\" is a concoction of epic proportions. Of course you need to understand the humour and format of Tenacious D. When I saw it there wasn't too many laughs from the audience but the reason is not a lack of humour or intelligent jokes. This movie seems to have been released on to an unsuspecting public that haven't familiarised themselves with the musical duo. This movie does stay true to it's roots. For the few of you who have seen the HBO TV series and heard the album, they have not forgotten what their audience loves. Like the TV show people have noticed from the trailer the JB and KG apartment scenes and of course the open Mic nights that each Tenacious D episode would start and finish with. The soundtrack is phenomenal and each song blows you away.

...And Dave Grohl plays a fantastic Devil.

This is the perfect movie for those of you looking for a hard time and a rocking musical.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those who loved \"Wayne's World\"...\"The Blues Brothers\"...and hell, even \"Raiders of the Lost Ark,\" you will find much to like (but probably not love) in \"Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny,\" a fictional epic about the formation of the JB (Jack Black)\/KG (Kyle Gass) band. Two out-of-work losers with a love for rock n'roll are met with a dilemma when KG's long-supportive mother stops sending him rent checks; JB and KG make tracks for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame after a sage music-store clerk (an inspired Ben Stiller) tells them about the titular pick (a funny animated-tapestry sequence gives the backstory). Along the way, our zeroes encounter a snaggle-toothed stranger (a game Tim Robbins), Sasquatch, stoner security guards, sorority chicks, and Satan himself (an ironically-cast Dave Grohl), in a climactic sequence that has to be seen to be believed (and preferably played at high volume). Rarely do I see comedies in the theater, but \"Pick\" is an extremely nice change of pace...it may not go up to 11, but it hums a tune both crude and clever for a good 90 minutes. And the songs are inspired low-brow hilarity. Recommended.

6.5 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jack Black and Kyle Gass team together to promote their band Tenacious D in this Rock Classic called Tenacious D In The Pick Of Destiny. Jack Black and Kyle Gass invent their own Rock Opera..it was like an Opera of Rock 'N' Roll. Some of the most twisted events took place in that movie....the big foot part....the mushroom part....and in the end when they did the rock off against the Devil. A classic formed in Tenacious D....one of the best films I have seen in a long time. The last couple things I saw in the theater were stupid..but this movie rocks. This really made me laugh hard. The whole basis is Jack Black runs of to find his rock partner in Los Angeles. His partner is Kyle Gass and man who has always been bald. They work together to find this magic pick that can make the most terrible musician play greatly. They finally make it to the Rock 'N' Roll Museum and steal the pick. On the way they meet The Stranger Played By Tim Robbins. They make it to the club to win their prize money when the owner grabs the pick and all along he was the devil and he battles the D in a Rock Off. The D doesn't win but the Devil's horn falls off sending him back to hell. Therefore LONG LIVE THE D!!!!!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just Go see this movie. It taps into everything awesome about rock and roll, the band comes up with some great songs (Classico, Pick of Destiny, Master Exploder etc). All this with the Humor of Teancous D makes this the best movie ever.

The Cameos are great right of the back, with Meat Loaf and Dio singing to JB. Ben Stiller and Tim Robbins are great, I really like Tim Robbins character. You also find out who Satan really is! The Music and Musical references are hilarious and Awesome. Playin songs great songs from The Who, Dio, and others just complete it. i personally didn't think the band could top the awesome songs of the D, but they did with songs like Classico and Master Exploder. Seriously awesome music.

Just go see it, its a must for anyone who loves rock!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Originally I was a Tenacious D fan of their first album and naturally listened to a few tracks off The P.O.D. and was rather disappointed. After watching the movie, my view was changed. The movie is pretty funny from beginning to the end and found my self engaged in it even though it was really was a stupid storyline because of the attitudes that KG and Jaybles portray in the movie.

Much more entertaining and enjoyable than movies I have seen in the theaters lately. ex. Saw III (dull and dragging), Casino Royale (way to homo-erotic) which in prior installments I have really enjoyed

If you enjoyed Borat, you will enjoy the tale of The Greatest Band on Earth","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seriously, it had everything you could want in a movie, everything! Screw you scalawags who like Gone With The Winds, and screw you Titanic fans even harder! Tenacious reins supreme, forever and ever, amen!

Climb upon my faithful steed, Then we gonna ride, gonna smoke some weed. Climb upon my big-freaking' steed, And ride, ride, ride.

What's the name of the song, Explosivo! Don't know what it's about, But it's good to go. What's the name of my girlfriend I don't know, But she's built like the best And she's good to go, go, She's good to go, She's good to go.

We are fueled by Satan, Yes we're schooled by Satan. Fuelled by Satan! Writin' those tasty riffs just as fast as we can. Schooled by Satan!

We were the inventors of the cosmic astral code. We've come to blow you away, We've come to blow your nose. We've come to freaking' blow, We've come to blow the show. We've come to freaking' blow, You know it, you know it!

What's the name of the song, Explosivo! Don't know what it's about But it's good to riddle-ah!

I am not one of you. I come from an ancient time. I am known as The Kicker of Elves. I am also known as The Angel Crusher!

Explosivo.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Worth the admission price for the Rock-off alone!! Any D fan will LOVE this movie (even though it's a tad short) and cameos from John C Reilly, Ben Stiller, Tim Robbins, Meatloaf and Dave Grohl (just about recognisable) prove that the D rock hard enough for anyone. Even Dio... The sasquatch\/mushroom scene is going to become an instant classic (I don't want to say any more and be accused of putting spoilers in here). Fans of the original HBO series will see a couple of nods to the D's early on-screen appearances in characters such as Lee and the open mic host. I only wish that they had played a few of the songs from the first album and the omission of 'the government totally sucks' from the POD album is also a shame. Other than that this movie rocks. Obey the D!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The basic premise of Flatliners is fairly simple. Several medical students put themselves at the point of death in order to find out exactly what the brain does during the fact. It sounds like something a mob of bored students would do for a joke, but it forms the basis of some very creepy substories. In today's world, where Hollywood has to mine foreign markets for the ideas to make a horror film, Flatliners is one of those rare gems that show Hollywood can make something different when it tries hard enough.

What separates Flatliners from a lot of films based on this premise that would come out today is that it does not stoop to being condescending or arrogant. Flatliners recognises that people go to films to be entertained, not moralised to. In this kind of supernatural thriller, the difference this restraint makes is really incredible. What's even more incredible is that Julia Roberts appears without being annoying or demonstrating that she can only play Julia Roberts. The theory of obscurity, that performing artists do their best work with the smallest audience, is in force here.

The subplots concerning what the characters find during their loss of pretty much everything that makes them alive, and how it comes back to intrude on their present time, are done surprisingly well. The moments when William Baldwin's character finds his personal videotape collection coming back to haunt him are especially intriguing. That William Baldwin seems so perfectly cast in the role says a lot either about the script or the direction. I am not sure which.

Kiefer Sutherland, on the other hand, really shines as the lead. One really feels for him as the mystery of what past experience is intruding on the present and why unfolds. As Kevin Bacon's character goes to find an old school pier whose life he made hell and tell her how sorry he is, it becomes clearer what the film is about. We can try to change the past as much as we like, but it's what we do with the present that matters most.

Another good aspect of Flatliners is how it achieves an atmosphere without the use of expensive, elaborate visual effects. Quite unusually for what is essentially a horror film, Flatliners did not expend its budget in places where it did not need to. Much of what we see during the more surreal sequences is a case of professional pretending, simple trick photography, or stock footage. Sometimes the simplest things are the best.

If there is a problem with the film, it's that it feels about ten minutes too short. The ending seems more perfunctory than conclusive, as if someone in the studio asked the director to wrap the film up so they can bring it out at a certain market time. Of course, many films have been left with sore spots for this very reason, so Flatliners shouldn't really need to be any different. The hundred and fifteen minutes we do get is highly satisfactory, though not overly brilliant.

I gave Flatliners a seven out of ten. It works well as a date flick or a kind of late-night popcorn film. That aside, it makes a good reminder that low-budget horror shows weren't always sad pieces of garbage.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been intending to write a review of this film for some time, but only now have I actually managed to get my thoughts down for the perusal of others.

I never had the pleasure of seeing this film on the `big screen' which is a shame, as it is often visually stunning, but I have revisited it on video numerous times over the years, enjoying it immensely every time. It definitely is on my personal list of favorite movies, and for more than just starring Kiefer Sutherland and Kevin Bacon, two of my `actors to watch.'

Perhaps I appreciate this film so much because it appeals to my slightly off-kilter taste in entertainment. I like my movies a bit left of center - unpredictable and fresh. And whether or not you `believe' the story line of the film, you have to admit, it is different!

Everyone has different tastes and opinions, but my impression of some of the negative reviews of this movie is that the viewers never really saw past the surface level of this film. They got caught up in technicalities, `Why would there be green lighting in a subway?' or `Why would medical students pull such a stupid stunt?' and failed to see the artistry and psychological depth of the piece.

Yes, there are some medical and technical aspects that do not make logical sense, but if you are willing to suspend disbelief just a tad, this can be a very engaging film.

First, a note about the artistic quality of the movie. Some have complained about the murky lighting, and the illogical nature of the sets - but for me, the use of innovating lighting techniques, the plastic and sheet draped sets, the unusual settings in old buildings and dank, dripping tunnels, the use of statuary, rain and billowing curtains - all add a poetic flavor to this film, a haunting beauty that suits the dark nature of the questions being asked about life, death and forgiveness.

I will focus on just two examples; in an alley scene, a change in lighting allows for certain elements of the set to come dramatically into focus, then to fade away once lighting returns to normal. It is an innovative means of conveying a shift in the `reality' of the moment, and works beautifully. We are also allowed to see the interior of the character's apartments - contrast the warm wood, bright colors, golden lighting and cluttered comfort of Labraccio's rooms with the stark, white void of Nelson's. Both are reflective of the characters themselves. Nelson's lack of `objects' reflect our lack of knowledge about his past. and his carefully constructed mask that keeps his companions at a distance. His past, we come to learn, is one of chaos and conflict. He has determined to leave that behind in favor of an uncluttered emptiness. unfortunately, the emptiness is also reflective of his relationships with others, a realization he comes to along his personal journey of self-discovery in this film.

Flatliners is not your typical horror film. Nor is a typical drama or suspense movie.it is rather more of an amalgamation of all, having the best elements of all genres intertwined in a complex, suspenseful plot.

This is an ensemble piece, and the cast does an excellent job of breathing life into their individual characters. Your immediate impression is that the characters are each representative of a well-established `stereotype': The female ice queen, the slightly neurotic 'physician', the playboy and the socially conscious `nice guy' etc. However, as the film progresses and the characters are further fleshed out, they take on multiple dimensions and depth.

Most interesting of all is Sutherland's character of Nelson. Nelson is not a character that is easy to like - indeed he is a bit of a b**tard, a master manipulator who definitely places self-interest above all else. Yet, Sutherland plays him with a hint of insecurity that lends him a certain appeal. As events unfold, you come to realize that much of Nelson's unpleasant personality is a smokescreen, a protective mask behind which hides a very uncertain and vulnerable young man burdened by a terrible secret.

By revealing bits and pieces of Nelson's complex personality throughout the film, the writers, directors and cast gradually lead you towards a greater understanding of and sympathy for him. The character who started out as a `jerk' becomes important and valued in his own right - as you learn to `forgive' his previous behavior in light of new information. Your journey of discovery with Nelson reflects the characters own journeys towards self-understanding, as they too come to realize that everyone has value, and `everything we do matters.'

Which leads to my final comment. Although many of the posters here have picked up upon the theme of defying death.. few seem to have touched upon what I see as the main premise of the movie - the importance of forgiveness, and the need to be cognizant of all you do, because it does `matter.'

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first watched Flatliners, I was amazed. It had all the necessary features of a good movie: the cast was superb, the plot was superb, and in the case of thrillers, there was genuine \"thrills\" throughout.

Keifer Sutherland offered a marvelous performance as the male lead in the piece, portraying a scientist who believes he can find the answers to life and death by killing himself and then coming back to life, essentially \"stealing\" death's secrets away. Kevin Bacon offers an excellent performance as the more morally decent counterpart to Keifer, while Julia Roberts offers her most convincing role. William Baldwin portrays a student who excels in class and, apparently, intercourse. And Oliver Platt, in another outstanding performance, portrays the voice of reason for the group and the most innocent.

The story is relatively simple, yet original, and the acting is refreshing-- definitely a stand out film for the genre, and one that has set the standard for measuring other thrillers for me.

8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Flatliners has all the ingredients of a good Joel Schumacher film - intelligent, youthful characters, stunning cinematography, a gripping story, and excellent performances. It's escapist fun but it's done very well and resonates with a positive spiritual message despite the unnerving precedings.

Schumacher has a knack for spotting talented young actors, and all of the main five here have gone on to greater things (see the cast list). Their believable performances help to raise this movie well above average. Kiefer Sutherland shines in his egotistical med-student role.

The cinematography really stimulates the right side of the brain, which is what I love about Schumacher; his use of light and location create images that stick. A disturbing nightmarish atmosphere is created which unsettles you while you watch the film and haunts you when you go to bed - reminded me of The Lost Boys.

This is a film that takes an awesome premise - curious students want to find out what's after death, and successfully follows it through into a scary, gripping tale of redemption. One of Schumacher's best; highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film has a decidedly weird setting, taking place in a school that's really old to begin with but it certainly doesn't look like any sterile medical school environment. Very Gothic and atmospheric. As for the film itself, well, OK, the premise is a bit far-fetched but hey, that's why we watch movies, isn't it? And it's less far-fetched than some of the garbage that's out these days, that's for sure. Medical students are experimenting with 'short term' death, as in allowing themselves to be briefly dead so they can experience what the afterlife is like. It's kind of nice, in some cases, till parts of it come back with the voyager and start meddling in their earthbound lives. I hadn't seen this film in years till I got it on DVD and I have to say that I'd forgotten just how good it was. And it struck me that Julia Roberts looks truly beautiful in this film, not like actresses of today that are supposedly gorgeous but are dressed and made-up like cheap hookers. Ahh, the good old days. Anyway, this is a great flick, perhaps not for fundamentalist Christians but many others may enjoy it. 8 out of 10 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Countless TV displays and the memorable appearances from 4 of today's mega-stars(plus Hope Davis's screen debut) keep Flatliners still in prudence. The plot is about a non-academic research of five medicine undergrads pursuing one's crazy idea on discovering the secret of death, and learn what's after death, then come back to life again. Yet the storyline hasn't been designed as fascinating as the idea of the plot.

There are popular stereotypes to develop a regular teen-slasher script in Flatliners. There is Nelson who creates the idea of decoding death, pretty but introverted Rachel, David who cuts the Gordian knot on luckily not to be dismissed from the school, ladies' man Joe and finally the smart guy Randy(\"I did not come to medical school to murder my class mates no matter how deranged they might be\"). They join hands altogether in an experiment where Nelson's heart will be stopped and rerythmed. Then they decide to continue this experiment in strict confidence at night times in the campus. Not long after Nelson's experience everyone starts a race over having the wildest and the longest death experience, risking their lives one by one. Yet, soon they realize their daily life becomes affected from those experiences they had. The visits to the afterlife brings back their delinquent feelings from their childhood memories. Depolarizing their deep subconscious watchfulness, they begin having somatic delusions and visual hallucinations.

When the point comes where the explanation of subconscious, director Joel Schumacher skips that every humankind has a subconscious personality which they are not aware of. This inner personality keeps one from altering into identity loss. If you lose or if you depolarize this subconscious personality you certainly lose your identity instead of refreshing childhood memories. I wanted to add this as a movie mistake, which already has been mentioned via movie critics in the earlier 90s'. Obviously here in this movie Schumacher made the actors have it least affected. Then why do they hesitate continuing on the experiment after learning their lesson, as if death is designed indiscoverable by God? David had been introduced as an Atheist, now he turned out to believe in God when he recalled a flashback from his childhood. After witnessing this 180 degreed change in David, it's clear to see that Schumacher's film was so conservative and lily-livered; that's ultimately why it's never classified as a work of science fiction. Alas! It had a good potential. It even tried to tell the unconscious maturation from having a death experience, beginning to believe that death is so simply natural and it's only a part of a human's life.

More than what's in the movie, it was also memorable to recall what's with the movie. Jan de Bont as the cinematographer, who had worked almost every time with Schumacher, creates an dreamy atmosphere like it's being an Gothic horror movie. The blue color schemes all over the walls reflecting into the actors' faces deliver first class of lighting, that suits perfectly with the film. The close-up shots of the gargoyle statues in the campus buildings, Catholic frescoes in the walls, stop-motion cameras, and the dynamic camera speeds were all belong to Bont's skills.

Flatliners became a cult movie in time with its sociological pen-portrait of the X-generation juvenile especially via its futuristic editing style with storyboard connection sequences like being part of a video music clip so much aesthetically. Those were the times where fast-paced and multi-sequenced video music clips were on rise. This style was very rare to come across in those years after its pioneer Tony Scott's \"The Hunger(1983)\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Landis truly outdid himself when he directed Michael Jackson's THRILLER as a short film. Of course, it's corny, the dialogue is terrible and it all seems way too cheesy, but it's perfect none-the-less.

Michael and his date are out at the cinema to view the latest horror flick. When it all gets a little too graphic for the date, she leaves. Michael follows. On the way home, they decide to take a shortcut through the local graveyard. There, it begins.

The actual thriller dance is amazing. It's full of those trademark Jackson moves, as well as some memorable zombie moves, too. It doesn't appear rushed at all, nor too long. The whole thing seems movie-like and it really is actually rather scary. Of course, it's one of the most famous music videos of all time, and is probably the greatest music video ever made as well.

Overall: Watch it, seriously. Those 13 minutes will be some of the best ever spent staring at a screen. (5\/5)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michael Jackson's Thriller (1983) has to be the greatest video ever made. Dude you have Zombies, gore and a catchy tune, what more can you ask for. John Landis mixed elements from Night of the Living Dead and American Werewolf in London and out came this video. What starts out as a nice evening for a young couple turns into a date from hell, literally. You have dancing zombies, a werewolf in a funky jacket and Vincent Price \"rapping\". A cool video to a song that everybody in the neighborhood marked out to.

I have to give this one a high recommendation because it has to be the best music video ever made. There hasn't been another one like it.

Check out the \"making of Thriller\". The documentary has some \"interesting\" stuff in it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The stars and the planets must've all been in just the proper alignment, the day that THRILLER was conceived. Michael Jackson's album was slaying the charts, John Landis still had a lot of good will built up from his genre pic \"An American Werewolf In London\", (not to mention his classic comedies ANIMAL HOUSE and THE BLUES BROTHERS) and choreographer Michael Peters was creating some of the most innovative and influential pieces for music videos of that period.

Not before or since has one single piece of film illuminated, exploited or underscored MJ's incredible talent or the more \"otherworldly\" aspects of his persona quite like THRILLER, the world's most successful (if not officially the first) long-form video, and the most fondly remembered. Also the most expensive at the time, but every penny and every bit of the talent behind its creation and execution is up there on the screen. And how would it not be complete without the \"rap\" from the original song, provided by the late, great Vincent Price, to add even more cache to the chills already there?

The glory days of one of the world's greatest performers have long since passed, but no one can ever take away the man's towering achievements, of which this is probably the most memorable. If you don't think so, now, remember: Halloween is coming. I won't be one bit surprised when, like other Halloweens before it going back decades, this appears on some Saturday Night Creature Feature special.

As it will next year, and the year after that...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before this clip, music videos were merely to display an artist. Michael Jackson's \"Thriller\" created a whole new section of music videos which can honestly be called mini movies. \"Thriller\" follows a couple as they travel to the girl's house from a movie. On the way they encounter zombies announced by the immortal Vincent Price. My favorite part is where the zombies stagger in on the couple and the girl turns to see that Michael has turned into one of them. Then, they do a little dance. The scariest thing about \"Thriller\" may be the fact that it is consistently more fun and enjoyable than a lot of movies that are made. After twenty years it remains the premier music video.

P.S. My music video Top 5: 5 - Madonna \"Like a Prayer\" 4 - Guns N' Roses \"Sweet Child of Mine\" 3 - Nine Inch Nails \"Closer\" 2 - Peter Gabriel \"Sledgehammer\" 1 - Michael Jackson - \"Thriller\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't particularly care from Michael Jackson. Aside from being a pedophile, I really do not like his music, with the exceptions of a few songs from his landmark album, THRILLER. This is one of them. I do like this video because it is one of the first and most important music videos ever made.

This was directed by John Landis, best known to horror fans as the director of AN American WEREWOLF IN London. This music video is not so much a music video but more or less, a short horror film. M.J. and his date are at a werewolf movie. When they leave the movie, they are attacked by a horde of bloodthirsty zombies, when Michael Jackson does his famous \"Thriller\" dance.

You know, this actually is a pretty good song with good synthesized beats. This and \"Beat It\" are probably the only two Michael Jackson songs I can tolerate over and over. I especially love Vincent Price's cameo as the narrator. His distinctive voice is perfect for a horror-themed music video. Even if you don't like M.J.'s music, you need to see this video at least once. By the way, he was good before becoming a creepy white woman with a fake nose.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Without a doubt, this is the big momma of all music videos!!! Unlike most music videos that are either \"dance videos\" badly storied and\/or badly interrupted lyrics this was done right. Jackson was co-writer and by evidence of VH1 heavily choreographed and directed this masterpiece. In fact you could say Thriller is creepier then most horror movies with that last second sparkling eye. To me this music video is what you judge all other music videos on. You can easily see the ominous influence M.J. had on early break-dancing with the zombie march number. Because of the dancing, comedy, storyline, and yes horror. I give it a 5 of 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The video opens with a scene from a horror movie, in which a man proposes to his girlfriend. He begins to tell her that he is \"different.\" As the full moon rises, he morphs into a werewolf. He then pursues her through the woods, and right before he attacks, we're taken to the inside of the movie theater. Inside the theater are Michael and his girlfriend. She's too scared to watch any longer, so they leave. As they exit the theater, he begins to tease her. (\"It's close to midnight, something evil's lurking in the dark...\") Michael then sings and dances his way down the street with his girlfriend. This scene shows Michael's skill with the camera. He never once acts \"aware\" of its presence, as many other artists do. As they make there way past the graveyard, the graves begin to open... Once they arrive at an alley, they are confronted with a horde of the undead. We then see the horror stricken face of Michael's girl. Who wouldn't have a horror stricken look if their date morphed into a zombie? Yep, he becomes one of the undead. (A very bright and shiny one, though.) He and his fellow zombies then begin what may be the most well known dance choreography of any music video. To tell you any more would give the ending away.

This is my favorite music video of all time! You don't want to miss it! I give it a 10\/10. (Yes, I know you can see the curtains in the back of the sound stage, and the werewolf looks kind of cheesy by today's standards.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Back in 1983, Michael Jackson's popularity was such that if he wanted to make a $1 million horror music video with the \"American Werewolf\" team and featuring the voice of Vincent Price, then that was exactly what he was going to do. And never has a music video created such a sensation, before or since ... when it was released on VHS, this 13-minute short became the world's largest selling musical of all time. But odds are you already know all about it, as whenever there's a list of the greatest music videos of all time, this one almost invariably takes the top spot.

It begins with Michael Jackson walking down a dark street with his date after their car has broken down. He explains to her that he's \"not like other men\" (damn right), and then the full moon appears from behind the clouds. His girlfriend stands there and screams, and screams, and then screams some more, during a lavish transformation sequence as Michael Jackson becomes a werewolf. He chases her through the forest, catches her and we ... cut to a movie theatre. Ah, all of this is just occurring in a horror movie that Michael Jackson and his date are watching.

So, we're five minutes in and still no sign of the song \"Thriller\". Extravagant, much? Anyway, you must know how it goes from here ... dancing, singing ... graveyard ... Vincent Price ... zombies ... \"What's the Problem?\" ... then end credits. End credits for a friggin' music video. \"Thriller\" isn't one of Michael Jackon's most memorable songs, but even by today's standards it sure is a bitch of a visual experience. If you still haven't seen it in it's entirety, then you definitely should someday soon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It may be a little creaky now, and it certainly can never have the impact it once had, but this is still a thrilling reminder of what Michael Jackson could once do. Looking back on it now for the first time since its initial prominence, I was struck not by the horror trappings - quaint, but fun, and Vincent Price has never sounded so genuinely, un-camply (sic?) menacing - than its absorption of the horror film, allowing Jackson, behind genre and make-up, to give us a bravely revealing portrait of male sexuality.

Because THRILLER isn't really about horror, in the way horror isn't really about horror: it is about that age-old theme, the sexual awakening of a young woman. The film opens in a cinema, with Jackson's girlfriend uncomfortable with the imagery, and the aggressively gendered response. Of course, she is on a date, and she is less scared by the film than what she knows will be expected by her boyfriend.

The mainstream imagery of the film they watch, the group atmosphere all suggest the socially conditioned expectations. This leads her not only to think of the body in disgust - hence all the decaying ghouls; the loss of her virginity is seen as a kind of death - but the sexual rite is not just about her boyfriend, but her peers, her society, hence its visualisation as a gang violation.

This is brilliant, disturbing stuff, the best thing director Landis has ever done. Jackson, the most popular artist on the planet, was still willing to show that the fixed image of a star contained multitudes, not all of them reassuring. The song itself has held up remarkably well, the creepy, insistent bass rhythms, the extraordinarily salacious lyrics, the beautiful 70s disco ecstasy tailing the chorus, shattering timelessness, revealing the milky desire behind the fear.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those who remember this video's initial impact, it will never be forgotten, and a viewing of Thriller is all that's needed to feel twelve years old again. But, while it's a great video, it's not perfect, even though it seemed like it at the time. When this video first came out, nobody had ever seen anything like it before. Now the music video medium has grown by leaps and bounds, and a fresh viewing of Thriller will reveal its faults. Why was it necessary to deconstruct the song? When Michael Jackson is walking beside the girl after they leave the movie theatre, he sings all the verses of the song, skipping the choruses. After he becomes a zombie, when it comes time for him to sing again, his zombie makeup inexplicably disappears, and he sings the chorus again, and again, and again, as if to make up for its previous absence. This may have been the first time a song had ever been deconstruct to fit the visuals in a music video, but it certainly wasn't the last time. It has continued to be a problem in the age of MTV. The best videos, like Jackson's Billie Jean and Beat It, have used visuals to serve the music, not the other way around. Still, Thriller is great fun, and an absolute must on Halloween.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although I am not a Michael Jackson fan, I like some of his early songs and some from Jackson 5 too. 'Thriller' is one of his great songs and it comes from the best-selling album ever with the same title. As for the video, it is awesome, one of Michael's best, but also very eccentric and weird.

There is a story behind this video, but it's so complex that even I can't fully understand it. It's freaky. The freakiest things are Jackson's transformation into a werewolf, his evil red eyes at the end (like a werewolf) and those dead people dancing.

The video is very dark, thrilling, chilly and original. There are great sceneries and settings. The music itself is full of life and rhythm, characteristic from the good old pop from the 80's.

I like Vincent Price's soliloquy. He does a great narration with his distinctive and unique voice and his evil laughter at the end is awesome! My favorite videos of the 'King of Pop' are \"Billie Jean\" and \"Don't stop 'til you get enough\" (both among his best songs).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am not a big music video fan. I think music videos take away personal feelings about a particular song.. Any song. In other words , creative thinking goes out the window. Likewise, Personal feelings aside about MJ, toss aside. This was the best music video of alltime. Simply wonderful. It was a movie. Yes folks it was. Brilliant! You had awesome acting, awesome choreography, and awesome singing. This was spectacular. Simply a plot line of a beautiful young lady dating a man , but was he a man or something sinister. Vincent Price did his thing adding to the song and video. MJ was MJ , enough said about that. This song was to video , what Jaguars are for cars. Top of the line, PERFECTO. What was even better about this was ,that we got the real MJ without the thousand facelifts. Though ironically enough, there was more than enough makeup and costumes to go around. Folks go to Youtube. Take 14 mins. out of your life and see for yourself what a wonderful work of art this particular video really is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Music videos are often completely disregarded in any discussion about film, with most people considering them to be a lesser art form. While a great majority are merely flashy clips to advertise a popular performer's latest hit single, a precious few really do rise above the rest, becoming works of art in their own right {anything directed by Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry is always worth watching}. While \"art\" isn't precisely the word I'd use to describe Michael Jackson's 'Thriller (1983),' it is an intensely-likable hybrid of schlock horror and music, and an outrageously-campy short film that remains remarkably endearing nearly 25 years later. The thirteen-minute music video, both the longest and most expensive ever at the time of its release, was directed by John Landis, a filmmaker I'm not terribly familiar with, though 'The Blues Brothers (1980)' is a classic, and I hear that 'An American Werewolf in London (1981)' is a stupendously entertaining horror\/comedy.

Whether or not 'Thriller' actually qualifies as a music video is certainly up for debate, taking into account its extensive length {though Jackson bettered this effort with 1997's 'Ghosts,' at 38 minutes} and the fact that the title song comprises less than half of the total running time. The video opens with a brief film-within-a-film, as Michael, on a quiet and brightly-lit night, reveals to his girlfriend (Ola Ray) that he is \"different\" from other guys, transforming into a hideous werewolf as the nighttime clouds part to reveal a full moon. As he presumably decapitates the unfortunate heroine, we come across Michael and his girl in the movie theatre, actually watching this drama unfold in a horror picture. When the girl becomes frightened, they both leave cinema and begin to walk home, at which point Michael begins to sing the opening lines of his latest song, \"Thriller.\" However, when a hoard of blood-thirsty zombies emerge from the local graveyard {their entrance ghoulishly narrated by Vincent Price}, the situation begins to get interesting.

It's difficult to quite put my finger on why 'Thriller' is considered one of the greatest of all music videos. It can't simply be that the song itself is a lot of fun, and Michael Jackson \u0096 though he has since become the butt of all comedians' jokes for his peculiar personality and doings \u0096 there's no doubt that he is an excellent singer and performer. Perhaps a decent explanation for the film's popularity is the incredible amount of work that must have gone into it; nothing like it had ever been seen before, and it still remains something of an oddity in the world of music videos. The gruesome monster make-up effects were engineered by Rick Baker, and are surprisingly graphic for a music clip, though it's all carried out with a good sense of fun. Several moments make for some genuinely exciting suspense, successfully capturing the atmosphere of the films which it is parodying {though always with a cheesy twist on the usual formula}. Simply put, you'll never look at a zombie movie in the same way again!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before this was shown on MTV or VH1 it was at my local theatre playing just before the main movie. I remember this short movie more than the film I saw that day. It was the first time I had ever a music movie like this, but I will tell you that seeing on the big screen from a 35mm print in a darken theatre gives it a much better impact than seeing a cropped pan and scan version on VH1 at Halloween.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thriller is the GREATEST music video of all time !!!!! Performed by the GREATEST artist of all time ! Thriller really sent music videos going, and other artists have been trying to copy Thriller in one way or another ever since ! IT'S A THRILLER !!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of Michael Jackson's best music video's ever made. Vincent Prices rap is totally cool and the zombies dancing with Michael is totally amazing! Michael Jackson is one of my favourite singers and he is one of the best singer's in the world. Way to go Michael!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No matter how you feel about Michael Jackson himself, you can't deny that this video is the most unique video of all time. There is no other video that is even remotely close to \"Thriller\" The first time I saw it was when I was 6 years old and it scared me bad. Now I watch it with a smile because I can now appreciate the marvel that it is. I love this video and it will be around for as long as music videos exist. I think everyone should sit down and watch it when its on sometime and look back and see how great it was, especially for being 1983.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"michael jackson is the greatest singer and the greatest dancer that ever lived and this film proves it. It is brilliant to watch and the dance is fantastic. when michael turns into a werewolf is a bit of an on the-edge-of-your-seat part the first time you watch it. and vincent price's rap adds to the fear when all the zombies a rising from their graves. if you like this then i suggest you buy 'Making Michael Jackson's Thriller' which has the film then the making of it after it. the making shows an unbelievable performance of 'Billie Jean' by michael, which is when he first did on television the moonwalk. watch it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When it was announced the \"King of Pop\" was dead at age 50, a month before he was to start a series of live comeback shows at London's O2 Arena, it was a huge shock to millions of people around the world. He was, and will forever be one of the most talented voices and dancers in the music industry, and he will be missed terribly. I decided to remind myself how wonderful he was by watching what is considered by many to be not only Jackson's best video (and possibly song), but the greatest music video ever made, from director John Landis (An American Werewolf in London). The film opens with Michael and his Girl (Ola Ray) having their car breakdown, and after giving her a ring, the moon comes out and he turns into a werewolf. We then see Michael and his Girl watching this horror film in the cinema, she is scared and walks out, and Michael soon follows her, singing the iconic song. Soon enough the voice of Vincent Price comes on, and zombies start crawling out the earth and open coffins from the graveyard, and Michael and the Girl are obviously surrounded. She turns away, and Michael has become a zombie himself, and with all the other creatures they do the iconic dance, before he turns back into his normal self, at least for the chorus. The Girl runs into the near creepy house, blocks the doorway, but zombie Michael still manages to break through, and when he touches her she screams to see normal Michael say \"what's the problem?\" The film ends with him taking her home, and looking at us with evil eyes. Michael Jackson was number 14 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, and he was number 6 on The Ultimate Pop Star, the Thriller album was number 4 on The 100 Greatest Albums, and this video was number 71 on The 100 Greatest Scary Moments, and it was number 1 on The 100 Greatest Pop Videos. Very good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those too young to remember, or too old to have been part of the \"hype\", the Michael Jackson fad in the early-to-mid 80's was at a fever pitch- like the hype about Titanic, except this just didn't let up. Every song, every video, every word uttered by Michael was important. Nothing similar had been seen since the heyday of the Beatles.

I remember seeing this video for the first time, at a roller skating rink. Everyone stopped skating. There was no question as to whether you were a Michael Jackson fan or not; you were. Everyone crowded around the projection screen, and watched the video...

This is probably one of the longest music videos ever made, and definitely the best. It perpetually gets #2 on the annual MTV top 100 videos (#1 is always the flavor-of-the-month, and somehow whatever was #1 of all time slips past #2, to make way for the new #1. Go figure.), and Thriller became a phenomenon in and of itself.

If you ever get the chance, you must watch the video; not just the excerpts shown on MTV or VH1. If necessary, you should search out Making of Thriller at a video rental store. Hey... your parents probably made you watch Beatles and Woodstock footage because \"it was important\"... well, this is important too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Musical bios are all cut of the same cloth. Hopeful struggles, succeeds and finally wins the girl, but this one - a life of Irish tenor, Chauncey Olcott\/Jack Chancellor - has more going for it than the usual trappings. It has great charm and great sincerity and is played beautifully by all concerned. Dennis Morgan is fine in the lead as is Arlene Dahl as his love interest. Andrea King's supporting performance as Lillian Russell is far better than Alice Faye's leading bio performance in the film dedicated to her career. William Frawley is touching as the aging tenor champion, William Scanlon, and Sara Allgood is lovely as Olcott's mother. George Tobias, Ben Blue and Alan Hale lend good support. There are over 25 songs (a true treasure chest): Come Down My Evening Star; My Nellie's Blue Eyes; You Tell Me Your Dream; Wait Till The Sun Shines, Nellie; Will You Love Me In December?; By The Light Of The Silvery Moon; Minstrel Days; Polly Wolly Doodle; The Natchez and the Robert E. Lee; Miss Lindy Lou; If I'm Dreaming; Wee Rose of Killarney; Shake Hands; One Little Girl; A Little Bit of Heaven; Mary; Sweet Innescarren; Tiddely Um; When Irish Eyes Are Smiling; Mother Machree; The Kerey Fair; Room In My Heart; My Wild Irish Rose.

Although the film only earned one Oscar nom -for Scoring - and deservedly, it also deserved nods for Art Direction and Costume Design - sumptuous and lovely in Technicolor.

Reasons why this is not on video may be due to the large chunk of time spent within the Minstrel Show atmosphere -at least a quarter of the film - with a great deal of material quite politically INCORRECT for today's audiences. It's historically accurate, however.

This is a true gem and very worth seeking out. It leaves one with a warm glow.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This excellent musical movie, in beautiful Technicolor, is so wonderful it's enough to make every person of Irish descent feel proud. Full of the joy and celebration of all things Irish, a fine cast, with brilliant settings and superb theatrical trappings, lovely Irish music and the superlative Irish tenor voice of star Dennis Morgan, 'tis the luck o' the Irish to have such a marvelous movie to enjoy over and over again! Not just just for St. Patty's Day, mind you, but for all year round.

One of the jewels produced by Jack L. Warner during his heyday as studio boss in Burbank in the 1940s.

Shame on Warner Brothers for not having this fine picture available on home video and DVD!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this film very much. I found it to be very entertaining for me in that I feel that it captured the romanticism of turn of the century Irish-American culture. There's no messages. There's no violence and there's no overt sex, just wholesome 1947 style entertainment and Dennis Morgan had a chance to sing some really good songs. A really good movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the better musical bios. Dennis Morgan is great as the singer\/composer Chauncey Olcutt. The supporting cast is very good, especially Andrea King as the glamorous Lillian Russell. The turn of the century atmosphere is the perfect setting. The technicolor is excellent. A simple plot, but the movie just makes you feel good. Morgan was always underrated as an actor and a singer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, I give it a 10 because I compare it not only to others of it's kind but also to the dreck one is bombarded with on a daily basis in what's laughably called today's \"popular culture.\" That aside, the film is beautifully cast, as has been stated elsewhere, and gives us a fairly good look at popular theater of the late 18th and early 20th centuries. No small coincidence is that many of the plays that Olcott played in involved a similar plot: Boy meets girl, someone objects, (usually the father or some authority figure) boy struggles, boy wins girl. The was actually known at the time as a \"Chauncey Olcott Act.\" No coincidence, too, that John Ford directed one. He called it, \"The Quiet Man.\" And, \"My Wild Irish Rose,\" is, in itself, a \"Chauncey Olcott act.\" Great stuff, no? Anyway, great songs, great stuff. Enjoy.

PS - After seeing the film I'd like to know more about Bill Scanlan. I found an obit that said he quit \"Mauvorneen,\" as a result of insanity (replaced, as in the film, by Chauncey Olcott) and died in an asylum several years later. But he had been, apparenlty, a very big star in his own right, who wrote songs and plays and had plays written for him.

Anyone know more?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nothing better than an android boasting 80's technology and a coming-of-age storyline to pull your thoughts from the depths of your mind front and center to be taken captive by a beautifully lovable cast. Growing up in the 80's gave me the priceless opportunity to see re- runs of \"not quite human\" on many special occasions. Considering the fact that my parents were never present during the viewings, I would guess that I would most likely not enjoy it near as much as I did as a child. So perhaps this is a film to dig out of your VHS collection and hand to your kids, it can be found on the same tape as \"The apple dumpling gang\" and an episode of \"tour of duty,\" that is if you recorded in LP mode of course.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before I continue forth with the new millennium, I will go back in time once more because I had completely forgotten about these gems!!!!!

In 1987, Disney, while still a \"low\" company in the 80s, was able to start a series of films on television called \"Not Quite Human,\" about a geeky teenager who, like in \"Inspector Gadget,\" looks like a human but is really a robot!!!!! Now this SCREAMS 80S, along with other films like \"Tron\" and \"Honey, I Shrunk The Kids\" because it combines everything of yesteryear with the technologies of tomorrow!!!!!

My parents remember seeing this on the TV back then, back when I was just born or something. However, my very first encounter with this film was on the Old Disney Channel (one time, I've seen this, and the other parts, on my 12th B'day in May of '99!!!!!)

\"Not Quite Human\" is a very good series of films to watch, if you can ever find these movies again.

Has this been shown recently? If so, give me an e-mail or personal message.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Purportedly made back to back with 'Erotic Nights of the Living Dead' with the same cast and setting but for certain this one does not have Laura Gemser. Much derided by all I rather like this movie. Sure enough the storyline and dialogue are codswallop, but this is so beautifully filmed in such a marvellous setting and I actually like the hardcore. I find it at once naturalistic and exotic, and that doesn't just mean there is a black girl and some limp penises! I find the numerous and varied sex scenes very believable, even if two are set upon a tree trunk at the edge of the ocean with the waves constantly splashing around. The creature does not deign to appear until half hour before the end and is, it has to be said, a disappointment. Still, in the time remaining he manages to kill off all but two of the expedition and in the case of the girls having sex with them first (or afterwards in at least one case!) and this film is not as slow as some maintain. Moreover there are some fine moments of sexploitation, not least the lady scientist and her urge for two 'natives', and the glorious finale when the two survivors speed off in their boat, gaze back at the island they have escaped from, and find there is still time for one last act of copulation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've heard a lot about Porno Holocaust and its twin film Erotic Nights Of The Living Dead. Both films are interchangeable and were filmed at the same time on the same location with the same actors changing clothes for each film (and taking them off). If you are expecting the D'Amato genius displayed in films like Buio Omega or Death Smiles on Murder, you won't find it here. Nonetheless this film has a charm that exploitation fans will not be able to resist. Where else will you see hardcore sex mixed with a zombie\/monster and his enormous penis that strangles and chokes women to death? Only from D'Amato. There is some amount of gore in which many of the men are bludgeoned to death. The film is set on a beautiful tropical island. As far as I know there is no subtitled version, so if you don't speak Italian you wont know what is going on...but who cares right? In all honesty, Gore fans will probably fast forward through the hardcore sex. And if anyone is actually watching this for the sex only, will for sure be offended instantly. I can just imagine modern day porn fans tracing back through D'Amato's output and coming across this atrocity! Out of the two I find Erotic Nights Of The Living Dead far superior. But, don't bother watching either if they are cut. Porno Holocaust is extremely low budget as expected. Even the monster looks no where as good as George Eastman's character in Anthropophagus. The film is worth watching for laughs and to complete your D'Amato film quest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have spent many years studying all the great directors, like Kurosawa, Lean, Fulci, Lenzi, Deodato, Peckinpah, Kubrick and admire them greatly. My favourite film is Once upon a time in America.

I have only recently become a fan of D'Amato, and while he was no horror master, his films were extreme whether it be soft core, hardcore or extreme.

Porno Holocaust is now one of my favourite films, the way its shot is brilliant and the music is catchy.

Joe D'Amato, wasn't a horror master, he's no Fulci or Bava, but however he was a master of erotica, no other director could shoot erotic films like him, he also never tried making any films outside of these genre's either.

Long live Joe D'Aamto-Master of Porn and Erotica!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How is bear\u00b4s paw, elephant\u00b4s trunk or monkey\u00b4s brain for dinner? Let Tsui Hark tell you in this wonderful and lighthearted comedy about the art of cooking the traditional(?) Chinese way.

This movie shares the common structure of an American sports movie, but instead of focusing on baseball it centers around cooking which makes it all the more interesting. I even think Leslie Cheung\u00b4s character look a lot like Charlie Sheen in Major League...

This movie also contains a bit of Zhao Wen Zhao vs Xiong Xin Xin fighting (love seeing more of that after The Blade) and a quite funny in-joke concerning a Leon Lai pop song...

Perhaps not the ideal movie for the strict vegetarian though.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first time i saw this movie was on a flight between Guangzhou, China and Los Angeles. It was a real hoot and made the trip pass with much less discomfort than the normal 10 hour flight. I tried to locate a copy of it without success until I discovered a copy for sale on eBay. Having now watched it twice, I recommend it as good entertainment. My only real criticisms are that the choice of English translation words for the subtitles is sub par, even by normal standards. Also, the subtitling is little to small, blends into the movie too often and frequently travels too fast to read well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a very funny, fast paced movie. I watched it more than once and am keeping my rental around to show others. I'd just like to take this opportunity to ask anyone in the know, how do HK producers choose their subtitle translators? I'm most curious. Please direct me.

Again, to return to review, it is a really rollicking film with plenty of content, subtleties reminiscent of the classics, though full of slapstick. Reminiscent, say, of the Mexican comedies of Cantinflas.

The film does not disappoint fans of the director who have noticed that he chooses distinctly Chinese themes, trying to get to characteristics rarely explored. The director's entire collection is way of getting a look inside the culture in a disarming way.

And I don't see how his funny girl in Chinese Feast could be topped.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay maybe it was because I happen to be in Yangchun China when I saw this movie. Maybe it was because I finally had something on TV I could understand or at least read the subtitles, or maybe it was just funny. Whatever it was this movie was worth the time.

I had just arrived for my foot and head massage when they gave me the remote so I could watch TV. Usually I would turn the darn thing off but I stumbled upon this crazy movie and got hooked.

The plot if you could call it a plot sort of revolves around a cooking competition and sort of is a love story and the food in this movie is the real star. If you like Iron Chef and many of the other cooking shows currently in the reality TV mode, then you will love the scenes with food in this movie.

It goes fast and the subtitles are so fast you better be up on speed reading for this one. However the action is mostly slapstick so you don't always have to read the entire subtitle to get the idea.

The main actress is lovely eye candy and the main actor isn't bad to look at either. They are both worth watching. Finally if you have some time to kill and want a good laugh this isn't a bad choice for both.

I don't speak a word of Chinese but I was totally able to understand the cultural humor of this film. For those who do speak Chinese maybe it is even better. Overall I give this an 8 out of 10 and currently I am even looking to find a copy to have while I stay in China, and keep for when I come back home, it will be a nice reminder for me of my time in Yangchun and a silly afternoon at the massage salon watching a silly movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's rare for a movie to both encompass the process of problem solving and a fantastically far-reaching moral quandary AND be a fairly accurate historical movie, but Fat Man and Little Boy pulls off this trick.

It's the story of the Manhattan Project -- the World War II effort to build the atom bomb, told as the conflict between the two men who made it happen, Gen. Leslie Groves and Robert Oppenheimer.

The historical figures are a great study in opposites: military vs. civilian, practical vs. idealistic, emotional vs. scientific, brute force vs. consensus-based problem solving, immediacy vs. long-term vision. A fictional character, played by John Cusack, is added as a sort of synthesis of the two historical figures, to show the humanity that oddly escapes the real people (and of course the obligatory love interest, played by Laura Dern). One looking for a straight documentary might criticize the lapses into melodrama (and occasional looseness with the facts, but that's Hollywood for ya), but the purpose of fiction is to synthesize and galvanize events into more universal truths, so I think this can be forgiven.

One of the great visuals in the movie is when Oppenheimer witnesses the first atomic explosion: it's done entirely through his reaction, and considering the awesome visuals inherent in an atomic explosion, it's a brave and entirely effective way of describing in a single moment the ambivalent effect on humans of unleashing such power (the sort of thing lost in the typical Hollywood shoot 'em up version of history.) The use of music is particularly excellent in the last third of the movie.

Fairly accessible and highly recommended as both a historical movie and drama of the highest order.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was a fascinating story waiting to be told. FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY takes us inside the trials and tribulations of a group of top American scientists handed a lofty task during the Second World War: beat everyone else to the atomic bomb. Sequestered in a heavily-guarded New Mexico compound, the brainiacs slowly turn the idea from ambitious concept into immense reality.

FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY is one of those films that requires your close attention. It's a real thinking person's movie, not only from the scientific aspect of developing a seemingly impossible weapon, but also the moral implications of contributing to killing on a massive scale. Characters are constantly torn between that reality and their wartime duty as Americans. The film is never preachy about, however, leaving us free to marvel at the enormity of the inner turmoil these men face. The performances deserve special mention as well. Paul Newman delivers one of his great, understated performances as the Pattonesque general in charge of delivering the ultimate big stick for the Allied Forces.

Where FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY loses much of its traction is in the unnecessary romantic component. Dwight Schultz as the leader of the scientific team struggles with his affections for his family and his relentless obsession with his big project. Director Roland Joffe apparently felt the need to explore the more human angles of this story, but the romantic overtones serve primarily as a distraction. Besides, it's the interaction among the scientists and their military hierarchy that give us the greatest insight into the thoughts and feelings of these brilliant men.

Still, it's difficult not to recommend FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY. It's a largely forgotten gem that puts a human face put on one of the most intriguing stories in human history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We watched this movie in my chemistry class, so obviously it had educational value. I thought the film did a really good job of intertwining the subjects of the science, moral issues and personal experiences of the manhattan project, but wasn't exactly focused on strong acting. I would recommend this movie for the scientifically inclined or those interested in the moral issues behind Fat Man and Little Boy, but if the subject of nuclear bombs bores you, don't see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fat Man And Little Boy were the code names of the two atomic bombs that were dropped in reverse order on Nagasaki and Hiroshina. How these came to be and came to be in American hands is the story of this film.

The terms by the way are the code names of two bombs fueled with plutonium and uranium. Fat Man was the plutonium bomb and that one was dropped on Nagasaki and Little Boy was the one used on Hiroshima

The film is primarily a conflict between General Leslie R. Groves of the United States Army and physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer who led the team of scientists who developed the bomb under Groves's direction. With two men from as widely divergent backgrounds as these were, conflict was inevitable.

Paul Newman who all his life has been a disarmament activist plays General Groves. To his credit Newman does not play a man whose views he would very little in common with as any kind of caricature. Groves is a military man first and foremost with an engineering background. He wanted a combat command as trained military professionals would naturally want in this greatest of wars. But because of his background in engineering Groves got to head the Manhattan Project which was what the effort was code named. So be it, Newman is determined to make his contribution to the war effort count.

Most of us first became acquainted with Dwight Schultz from the A-Team as H.M. Murdoch the pilot whose grip on reality is tenuous at best. If one was only acquainted with the A-Team, one might think that Schultz had a great future in comic roles.

Instead Dwight Schultz is one of the best actors in the English speaking world with an astonishing range of dramatic parts since leaving that television series. J. Robert Oppenheimer in life was a complex man who recognized the dangers and benefits of atomic energy. The challenge of the problem also intrigues him. Later on Oppenheimer got into a real bind because of his left-wing political views and associates which everyone knew walking into the Manhattan Project.

Some of the lesser roles that stand out are Bonnie Bedelia as Mrs. Oppenheimer, Natasha Richardson as Oppenheimer's Communist mistress whose affair with Oppenheimer got him in such a jackpot later on, and Laura Dern as a nurse at the Los Alamos site.

But the best is John Cusack who as Michael Merriman is a composite of some real life scientists who might accurately be labeled as the first casualties of the atomic age. His scenes with Laura Dern, especially with what happens to him, take on a real poignancy.

The debate over the bombs as the use put to them is still a matter of raging debate. Fat Man And Little Boy presents the facts and lets you decide what might have happened if an alternative use of them had been taken.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you know anything about the Manhattan Project, you will find \"Fat Man and Little Boy\" at least an interesting depiction of the events surrounding that story. The film is in all ways a very realistic portrayal of these events, and in many ways it is almost too real (such as some scenes involving radiation poisoning). Paul Newman, as usual, is brilliant in his role and always manages to come off like a real person on the screen. The supporting cast, such as John Cusack, Laura Dern, Bonnie Bedelia, and Natasha Richardson, is fairly good as well. This film is not, however, one of the best examples of turning a true story into a movie. Great films are able to take a true story and use just enough artistic license to keep its audience engaged for the entire movie. This one, however, tends to drag a bit throughout, and some scenes (such as John Cusack and Natasha Richardson's love story) could have been eliminated entirely without causing the film to lose much. Nevertheless, there are enough interesting facts and tiny humorous bits to at least keep the audience interested enough to see the entire film. It does not always entertain, but as far as great depictions go, this is very accurate, fascinating, and will leave the audience with something to think about.

*** out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There have been numerous productions that tell of the development of the atomic bomb. The Robert Taylor film ABOVE AND BEYOND (flag waving interservice propaganda really; if you believe this one you think that the Army Air Corps, in the person of Paul W. Tibbits, ran the entire show!), the NBC produced ENOLA GAY (probably A LOT closer to the mark), and the BBC-TV series, OPPENHEIMER, with Sam Waterston in the title role.

FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY takes the same approach that the BBC series did but widens it; it avoids the \"Gee Whiz\" technology of the Manhattan Project and focuses on human aspects; the personalities involved in the work. Instead of focusing on Oppie, it covers a wide swath of mythical but pretty typical people who were part of it.

With reservations, Dwight Schultz did a good job as Oppie, presenting a dreamy, Ivory Tower academic who struggles to relate his contributions as a physicist to his inclinations to view the world in a wider social and moral context... only to have that struggle won by an overriding lust for personal power and glory. In THE DAY AFTER TRINITY it was made clear that Oppenheimer viewed himself as a \"superior being\" by virtue of his vast, wide ranging intellectual prowess. In the end that was Robert Oppenheimer's downfall; he saw himself as a sort of \"Philosopher\/King\", a moral and intellectual superior who could (and rightfully SHOULD) \"wisely\" prescribe what was best for the rest of the world re. nuclear weapons development and deployment.

Unfortunately, wisdom doesn't dictate the actions of nations or direction of events on a global scale. Wisdom doesn't bestow temporal power. When it tries to exercise such nonexistent power (as Oppie found when he opposed the development of \"The Super\", the hydrogen bomb), wisdom is ignored and banished by those who REALLY have the power.

I found myself faulting Schultz character in one way; his Oppie exposes himself TOO closely and personally to the Manhattan Project, despite the doubts and fears that tore at his intellectual basis. The real Oppenheimer would have had to take a different approach; at the beginning he would have had to come to the firm resolution that the project would result in ultimate good. The ugliness it produced along the way would be an incidental price that must be paid to attain that ultimate good, and it must be ignored... at least until the end of the project when there was leisure to assess the gains and losses. Oppie clearly did that, and it resulted in his controversial postwar statements to the effect that science had now known sin, and that was a knowledge it could never lose.

While the project went on, such considerations HAD to be pushed aside if he was to maintain his sanity.

Because of this ambiguity, Schultz character comes off as a weak, frightened little boy who could NEVER have served as \"Coordinator of Rapid Rupture\", as Oppenheimer unofficially dubbed his post.

Paul Newman's take on Gen. Leslie R. Groves is fascinating, and a bravura performance, if possibly a LITTLE BIT over the top.

Groves was a civil engineer by training, but first and foremost he was a SOLDIER, and a general to boot! He's accustomed to DEMANDING that things go HIS way... intensely driven, a foul mouthed, spoiled child who has tantrums at the drop of a hat, who reveres his country and isn't too proud to fall on his knees and pray. In other words, very much like REAL (ie, NON civil engineer) soldiers, aka George Patton! Grove's MISSION not only comes first, it is his ONLY consideration... feelings and egos be damned, except for his OWN, of course!

Groves couldn't admit it, but he knew full well that he NEEDED Oppenheimer; military rank meant NOTHING in the world of theoretical physicists. Oppie was a necessary interface between the two worlds he had to straddle.

Again... I have to fault the script on this, and for the same reason.

In reality, Groves already OWNED Oppie; if he didn't, Oppie would never have been chosen for the post in the first place. History tells of MANY cases where other scientists, some as stellar as Oppenheimer, simply walked away from Groves recruitment efforts. At one point Groves was so desperate that he proposed DRAFTING the physicists he needed!

Groves attempts in the film to maneuver and control Oppie were UNNECESSARY... they only exist here as a dramatic device which indeed helps make the atmosphere of the film quite ugly.

Kusak's \"Michael Merriman\" is a composite of several real characters, but they're from a different time frame. Several research accidents similar to the one depicted happened in POSTWAR weapons research.

Merriman's radiation overdose creates another ugliness in the film, but one which is, IMHO, necessary, and pretty accurate. People with weak stomachs will have a hard time handling the hospital sequences; they're all TOO real.

The main idea that comes across, but not strongly enough IMHO, is the big truth of the Los Alamos experience. The scientists who signed on were young, idealistic and naive as well as talented. Most were on their first excursion out of the shelter of the campus. To them the project was a patriotic adventure that allowed them to practice experimental physics on a large scale without the constraints of budgets or \"excessive\" bureaucratic oversight.

It was not only their brilliance, but their youthful exuberance that produced the atomic bomb.

There's plenty here to make the thoughtful viewer intensely uncomfortable about this movie. Just the same, if you filter out the Hollywood BS (there isn't that much of it really), this is probably a pretty accurate view of the inside of Manhattan Project.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I find it remarkable that so little was actually done with the story of the a-bomb and it's development for decades after the Manhattan Project was completed. My suspicion is that this was due to serious fears in the movie and entertainment industries (in the 1950s through the 1970s) with \"McCarthyism\" and related national security phobias (including the Hollywood blacklist). There was one film in the 1950s (with Robert Taylor) about Col. Paul Tibbits who flew the Enola Gay in the Hiroshima bombing, but otherwise nothing else. One could glance at a side issue tragedy (the sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis soon after the delivery of the bombs to Tinian) in Robert Shaw's description of the shark attacks on the survivors in JAWS. But the actual trials and tribulations of Groves, Oppenheimer, and their team was not considered film-able.

And then in 1989 two films appeared. I have reviewed one already (DAY ONE) which I feel is the better of the two in discussing the lengthy technical and emotional and political problems in the Manhattan Project. The acting of Brian Dennehy as General Groves and David Strahairn as Oppenheimer was first rate and neatly balanced. Small side vignettes concerning the anti-bomb crusade of Szilard (Michael Tucker) help fill out the story well.

That's the problem here. Paul Newman is a great actor (as is Mr. Dennehy) but Newman approached Groves in a different way that while not dreadful is lesser than Dennehy's intelligent but soft spoken military brass. Newman seems too popped eyed about the possibility of the weapon as the biggest stick to confront the other boys in the after-school yard with. Yes it certainly was, but the real Groves would have been more like Dennehy keeping his mind not on that great toy of the future but on the business of creating that great toy.

Dwight Schultz's performance as Oppeheimer helps maintain the film's basically interesting and good production, aided by Bonnie Bedelia as his wife. But the most interesting aspect of this film is in the upgrading of the two tragedies of Daghlian and Slotin, in particular the latter, in the character of John Cusack's Merriman. Inevitably in all technological advances people are killed. It's just that these two tragedies (on top of the tens of thousands that were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) brought home the dangers of the new unleashed power even in a so-called peaceful, controlled experiment. The two tragedies (particularly Louis Slotin's slow, agonizing death by radiation poisoning) showed how much care was needed in using atomic power - and how the barest of chances could still cause disaster. The only really different thing I saw in Cusack's performance (and the script) and the actual incident with Slotin was that Slotin actually took some time after the accident to figure out where all his fellow research scientists were when they were hit by the radiation from the accident (he was able to show that only he got the full effect of the accidental blast, so that only relatively minor treatment would be needed by the others). Perhaps the full story of Slotin's actions was too technical for the screen, but given the humongous pain he suffered in the end that he took time off to think of the others shows what a first rate person he really was.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a weird and compelling film. The topic, about the atom bombs created at Los Alamos, NM in the USA and used on Japan during the latter part of World War II, is huge, and of course deeply disturbing. The film's plot takes on a lot of heavy issues and the actors have to carry much of the creative tension. I had never seen the film, or was much interested in it I have to admit, until I read the book \"Smoking in Bed: Conversations with Bruce Robinson.\" Robinson wrote the story and screenplay. I think the film was better than I expected from reading Robinson's point of view in the conversations about it, but I can see how he thought it got derailed. I think Paul Newman is pretty good, but is somehow at bottom, miscast. He's too Hollywood. At one point, a big, mean-looking guy storms into Newman's office and has such a striking presence, I immediately thought he should be playing the character Newman is playing. The other lead, who plays the head scientist, is also fairly good, but somehow not brilliant enough to portray the huge angst that goes with the part - the immense responsibility for creation of an ultimate machine of death and destruction. One of the more effective characters seems to be a composite personality, played by John Cusack. He is oddly affecting throughout, and in the end, is the character whose fate really hits home and who made me think most vividly of the fate of more than 200,000 Japanese people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie seemed a little slow at first. But it picked up speed and got right to the point. It showed exactly how the government and the scientist argued for humanity and the reasons of the \"gadget\". I enjoyed it. It is very close to reality as any movie about the Atomic Bombs that were to be dropped on Japan. I have recommended it to friends. I was particularly pleased with the acting ability of Dwight Schultz.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this again today for the first time in about 6 years. I had forgotten how well acted this movie is. Paul Newman gets the billing, but Dwight Schultz holds his own and shows how good an actor he really is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know one is not supposed to comment on other users' comments, but I will say that a lot of the negative reviews seem to come from people who already knew quite a lot about the Manhattan Project and were annoyed at things that were left out. (From his book 'Smoking In Bed' it appears the original screenwriter Bruce Robinson is another such.) I knew very little before watching the film, however, and found it rivetting. Dwight Schultz is absolutely mesmeric as Oppenheimer - a truly magnetic, charismatic presence, an inspired piece of casting that makes me wonder why he isn't given better roles and more leading parts. John Cusack and Paul Newman are excellent as always. One could quibble with various script or direction choices, but as it is the film is extremely intense and horrific at times and overall I give it four stars out of five.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lets face it, Australian TV is for the most part terrible, but this is a real diamond in the rough that not enough people are watching. The Chaser crew who do the satirical newspaper and CNNN try something new by mixing live comedy, pre-recorded skits and political satire into one show filmed in front of a live audience, sorta like Rove, but funny. They love causing controversy and this causes some of the shows funniest moments, especially Chris telling his wife to \"f-- off\" live on breakfast television and Julian handing a novelty cheque signed by Saddam Heusein to the head of the AWB. It has to be one of the funniest Aussie shows since the Micallef Program.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The chaser's war on everything is a weekly show from the guys that brought you CNNNN and the chaser decides where each week the 5 chasers and Firth break down the issues that we didn't know were important.

This show goes beyond the mere satirizing of politics and television by not being afraid to take the mickey out of anyone whether it be a counter-girl at subway or even the prime-minister of Australia and although this may be familiar ground in say American television it has never been this well executed.

The Chaser's war on everything is the smartest, funniest and overall most entertaining show on Australian television and if you haven't seen it you seriously owe it to yourself to give it a watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For comedy to work, there are many factors involved:

1. Don't be afraid to take risks. 2. If anyone or anything deserves to be poked fun at, do it and continue to do it,

...but most of all:

3. BE FUNNY!!!!

\"The Chaser's War on Everything\" succeeds in all those three things. In fact, the show proved to be so popular and so funny that already only months after it's first episode, a DVD of the first season was released. I picked it up within days of it being released and hit the floor laughing and had so many fu#@ing tears in my eyes- It's that well, good!

In short and to save me blabbing on about the show- watch it, buy it, podcast it, whatever will make you watch the fu$#ing best show in the world!!!!!

Go the CHASER!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No matter what country your In you have to buy this show, Sure It is Australian and if you ever seen any attempt of our comedy's they pretty much suck but with the chaser's they aren't boring forty year old men making bad puns they are a team of people who talk about current affairs (pretty much in Australia) make fun of our crap ads, make fun of our politicians and so on.

The guys also had a show in 2002 called Cnnnn which was not as successful as the War which had only started this year so everything they talk about is current news which is really good considering no matter how boring or tragic it is they try to shine some humorous light on things.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The hilarious team that brought you 'CNNNN' and 'The Chaser Decides' have returned to the ABC with their new series, 'The Chaser's War On Everything.' Filmed in front of a live audience, the Chaser team, once again, does what it does best- lampooning key political figures, international celebrities and media personalities.

The satire is simply priceless, and nothing is sacred. In recent weeks, the Chaser Team has chased alongside the Queen (during her visit to Australia) to try and have John Howard Dismissed and had Kim Beazley (Aust. Opposition Leader) threaten to kneecap them.

A particularly funny segment is \"Mr. Ten Questions,\" showing an overly enthusiastic reporter who approaches celebrities (recently Charlize Theron and The Backstreet Boys) and asks them ten such inane questions as \"what is your optimum length of rice grain?\" Just for the record, Theron ignored him and walked away, and one of the Backstreet Boys got angry and \"refused to dignify it with a response.\"

A segment that recently had me in stitches was when one of the team decided to become a 'statue busker' to score some extra money. When he realized how hopeless he was, he put a real statue in his place. THE PERFECT SCAM! He got thirty dollars in twenty minutes!

A brilliant satire of everything in Australian society. Two thumbs up!

(By the way, the show won't be showing for the three weeks after Easter, because \"though the team are all atheists, they're also hypocrites.\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is up there with the best Comedys made in Australia as it makes fun of pretty much anything which is what lots of our public want. Some of the best bits in the show are the ad road test which tests out how an ad would do in real life. What is really great about the show is how original it is and the fact that it has people(the chasers)who love doing what they do and who would n't. This show has loads of bits in it that can crack up anybody like the ad road test which I've already mentioned, Mr ten Questions where he asks 10 questions really fast in front of famous celebrities like Hugh Jackman and the Beach boys, temporary ones like The Chasers Emmys and ones that have been there from the start like What have we learnt from Current affairs this week. Overall I rate thin show 98%.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is exactly what Australian Television and Australian Politics needs, people with a sense of humour!!! Good on ABC for supporting these guys. The show is based around a couple of Aussie blokes who know how to take the mickey out of politicians or other people in the limelight. The boys use Sydney as their main base for making a splash in the public. Keep an eye out for the Crazy Wharehouse Guy or Mr Ten Questions. The guys who perform these acts are the same guys that presented CNNN. If you enjoyed CNNNN and the Glasshouse then you will love this show. I am still interested in knowing which stunts are real and which are purely acting because there are some questionable actions made by the guys...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When you think of brilliant Australian comedy you don't think of Skit shows (Although I'm quite partial to a bit of 80's and 90's Full Frontal) or even Sitcoms - you think of SATIRE! Something that we Australians really know how to do well. (Eg: Front Line, The Micallef Program) We know how to take the pi$$, and The Chaser's War on Everything, is a classic example of how to do it, and how to do it really well.

I've been a huge fan of Chris Taylor and Craig Reucassel for a long time. I remember listening to them on Triple J's afternoon show. They were, and remain, two of the funniest comedians around.

Although I was sad when they left Triple J, I was excited to find out what they were investing so much time in that made them have to leave. (They were doing CNNNN and Triple J at the same time, so I figured this was something much bigger) And what an amazingly HILARIOUS show Chaser is. Biting political and social satire at it's best.

I'm also pleased to say that it has recently received a MUCH better time slot than Friday nights and has been moved to Wednesday nights right after Spicks and Specks. THANK YOU ABC!! Finally I don't have to tape it! :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is non Stop hilarity. the first joke will make u wet your pants. And thats probably the weakest joke of them all. I started watching it when the second half of season 2 started airing. and straight away. I'm hooked. only 2 weeks after I started watching. I've downloaded episodes and bought the DVD's. Reoccurring Clips Such as \"the Ad Road Test\" and \"current affairs\" Are quiet hilarious. Then There's the ad's they take off \"Use Emo. Use your Own Tears For More Effective Use\" Also Funny in the politics Side of things. Nothing is wrong with them doing this. it's funny. Any Australians Who Don't Find This Funny. Don't Complain And don't Watch it. ALL Australian TUNE IN Wednesday AT 9 ON ABC","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"everyone is a genius in something. Albert Einstien was a genius in science, William Shakespeare was a genius in literature and the boys from the Chasers war on everything are truly comedy geniuses. Their satire TV show is a constant hit on the Australian broadcast commission ( ABC ). After a small start as a satire newspaper, the chasers popularity skyrocketed when given their own television show. Never short on controversy with the cast members will do everything some of it even being arrested for. Chris Taylor going on Sunrise, a very popular live morning television show and telling his partner to f***k off, creating a fake motorcade and driving into APEC high security area and doing a very funny satire of a Australian ad about nicotine by following smokers around yelling out \"NO GARY NO NO GARY NO\". While controversial the show is increably funny and worthy of running for years to come.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very funny look at some of Australia's current affairs and political goings-on. The Chaser boys really seem to have fun with this show, and what I enjoy is that they all have their strengths; some are brilliant (Chas) at making complete idiots of themselves, whereas Julian can pull off the whole \"I'm interviewing a famous politician and I'm about to suggest that he disguise himself as a pot of jam\" type of humour.

They have great segments in the show taking the mick out of all sorts of aspects of Australian culture such as our Current Affairs Shows, our Adverts and Early Morning TV programmes. Some material is a bit tired and predictable, but overall it's a lot of fun to watch, and will leave you with a smile on your face.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For one used to the comedies on television now- whether sketch, sitcom or animated, it's nice to watch something truly refreshing.

The Chaser has to be the best comedy of this decade, Seinfeld being the last's triumph. It follows the hosts urban crusades to fix situations, do 'ad road tests' and try to get the facts from our politicians the good old fashioned way.

Despite being very controversial at times, the shows excellent quality, from the well made and truly funny opening credits to the sketch style investigations (sketch style only in time, they are not scripted, at least, not the ones at the other end of the joke) is certainly worth watching. Even the most cynical and intellectual viewer won't be disappointed, and the show deserves ten stars.

All in all, well done to the ABC for showing this and i recommend it highly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If I was only allowed to watch one program in my entire life, I would definitely have to pick \"The Chaser's War on Everything\". Of all the satirical shows that have been on Australian television, I found \"Chaser\" to be the funniest of all. It is just so Amazing, the boys aren't afraid to do anything.

Whether it's dress up as Hitler to get into a Polish Club, or push a MASSIVE ball of string around Melbourne to try out the tourism ad's or rock up to the Coke factory naked in a bath with $2.40 to buy some water. The Chaser boys will go there.

In agreement with the comments above (and\/or below) \"The Chaser's War on Everything\" is more popular than their previous program \"CNNNN\". But CNNNN was just as funny. Some unforgettable moments from that show... Clean up Cambodia!!! Classic.

So anyway to stop me from Ranting further, I STRONGLY advise you to at least give Chaser a chance, you'll more than likely find it HILARIOUS!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This program is certainly my favorite non-sitcom television comedy. Australia produces very little good programs - most of the TV which I watch (and I live in Australia) is from the US and England.

The funniest part of this show is just how controversial it is. Like when they went past numerous security barriers at the APEC summit pretending to be Canadian diplomats.

The show is made up of pre-filmed stunts, general satirical discussion of current world events, and sometimes on-stage skits. These all come together to make a fabulous, extremely funny TV show. The segments like \"Ad Road-test\" and \"Message from Osama bin Ladin\" are hilarious. For anyone interested in watching hilarious satirical TV comedy - then this is definitely the show you should watch.

All the guys are great and do an excellent job in entertaining you for half an hour.

I would rate it 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Chasers War On Everything. 5 words that I love to watch. The chasers war on everything is an excellent Australian comedy. As the name suggests they wage war on everything. They seem to love hitting the politions most of all.

The Chaser is one of the best comedies I have seen and is the top of the line in Australia. It is on the Australian Broadcasting Corparation (ABC) which is where some of the best comedies are.

It has won the Australian Film Industry (AFI) awards but did not win the best comedy at the logies.

Last Year (2006) the chaser was aired on ABC on Friday nights when everyone was out so no one could watch it. Well they have been moved to Wednesday nights at 9pm (a heaps better timeslot) and the best thing is if I miss an episode or even just want to see it again i can download it from www.ABC.net.au\/chaser.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes non-Singaporean's can't see what's the big deal about this film. Some of the references in this film fly right over the head of foreign viewers and mostly Singaporeans are the ones who would actually 'get' it. But i plead with you, foreigner, look at the other crap that's been churned out from Singapore and compare it to this film. It's like comparing a mule's diarhhoea chunks to a little diamond. This film is the first to truly show some the singapore's seedy underbelly - something the forces that be, pretend does not exist. And there's a part in the film where a gangster(ah-beng in our unique colloquial 'ingris') curses in 4 languages, namely Tamil English Malay and Hokkien. Well the truth is most of us can and do do that all the time. The sad thing is that viewers from foreign contries will have an easier time getting their oily little claws on this gem, in its country of origin, it was banned initially, only to be given and R-rating, and that too with about 20 cuts to it. It's nice to know you that one of the best, creative, edgy and original films ever created would be easier for you to obtain unadulterated, uncensored; halfway across the world than in your own nation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the first movie I've seen from Singapore and it's great. If you don't know a lot about Asia, its languages and its culture, then this film may be a bit confusing for the non-informed people. As an Asian-American who's double majoring in two Asian languages (one of them being Mandarin) and has taken some Asian American Studies classes, this film was easier for me to understand, but even without that kind of knowledge, I believe this movie is still accessible to its foreign audiences as long as you keep in mind that it's a coming-of-age type of movie. The film is definitely worth seeing just so that you get the chance to see what kind of issues Singapore's young teenage boys are struggling and having to deal with. This is an awesome coming-of-age movie, but filmed and shown in a more artistic and original way. The actors are outstanding.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm totally agree with GarryJohal from Singapore's comments about this film. Quotation: 'Yes non-Singaporean's can't see what's the big deal about this film. Some of the references in this film fly right over the head of foreign viewers and mostly Singaporeans are the ones who would actually 'get' it.' It's still not quite the truth and as a Malaysian-Chinese, i do 'get it' although i don't speak Hokkien because we do have the similar 'problems' in Malaysia too. I know that it's really hard to understand and to accept this as a REALITY but it is definitely NOT a 'no real story'. I was pleased to see this film outside Malaysia because it will and definitely be banned in Malaysia too. Which means either you get it in 'illegal copied VCDs or DVDs' or hope that someone to be kind enough to 'share' it in the internet. This is not an 'another violent teen drama.......' because it portrays the reality which exists in Singapore (and in Malaysia too) in an interesting way (sad+humour). I was just a little sad to know that this film got about 20 cuts in censorship. What a waste!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Um .... a serious film about troubled teens in Singapore, a country I have not much knowledge on but have the previous wrong impression that all the kids there are highly disciplined and controlled by their family and government. Well, I guess I am wrong, just like other cities\/ countries, they also have their troubled teens who also lead the not so surprising rebellious way of life of drugs, fights, bad language, and .... many other obvious signs of being a bad boy. The surprising part of this film isn't really about how these kids running around causing themselves and others trouble, but rather the subtle gayness hidden behind their so call loyalty between them. The bond between these \"brothers\" may very well originated from an unconscious gay tendency inside these boys. Though it isn't uncommon for str8 guys to have very close friendship with each other, but watch this film closely, it should be entering all sorts of gay film festivals and I would not be surprised that it may win itself a lot more awards toward this direction!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite the previous reviewer's screed, this is a well paced and interesting documentary with lots of clips from classic 1950s sci-fi films that influenced Spielberg, Lucas and others in their more recent efforts. I agree that Spielberg's films aren't even in the same league as the films discussed here, such as William Cameron Menzies' brilliant INVADERS FROM MARS, to name just one of the many titles examined, but this is still a remarkably good overview of 1950s paranoid sci-fi. Yes, it turns into a commercial for the tepid remake of WAR OF THE WORLDS during the last fifteen minutes; you can turn that off. The rest is surprisingly good, and it's nice to see contemporary filmmakers remember the films that inspired them, even if they can't begin to match the originals.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was really looking forward to watching this documentary on what I considered to be some of the most entertaining films ever made. Growing up in L.A. during the 60's many of these old black and white films were shown on the local stations. I even remember a Friday night show called \"Strange Tales of Science Fiction\" that showcased a different Sci Fi flick every week. This documentary however spent way too much time on the opinions of the four famous filmmakers and how they felt about the classic movies of that genre and how they used them as inspiration in their filmaking.

That is not what I was hoping for in this documentary. It really could have been a comprehensive examination of the decade instead of a brief highlighting of the most well known films of the era. Anyone who has studied or been interested in these films are pretty familiar with standouts such as War of the Worlds, Forbidden Planet, The Thing, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc. I would have liked to see some excerpts from lesser known films and perhaps some interviews with people involved in the making of these movies. I would have to agree the documentary was way too focused on Spielberg's opinions and was a type of commercial for his new release of War of the Worlds.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Watch the Skies\" (2005 - 60 minutes) is an excellent documentary about movies of Science Fiction. It was produced and directed by the critic Richard Schickel, author of more than 20 books on this theme. Mark Hamill is the documentary narrator. Schickel joins directors as Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, George Lucas and Ridley Scott to carry through a trip in time and space to show some of the most memorable science fiction movies of the fifties and also some more recent classics. The documentary shows six different approaches: The paranoia of the atomic war; The fantastic trips to the Moon; The enigmatic planet Mars; Good and evil aliens; The after-apocalyptic world; and The humanity future. It presents comments and scenes of the following classics: The Flying Saucers, Rocketship XM, Destination Moon, The Space Children, The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, Godzilla: King of the Monsters, The Incredible Shrinking Man, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, A Trip to the Moon, The Angry Red Planet, Forbidden Planet, The Thing From Another World, Earth vs. The Flying Saucers, I Married a Monster from Outer Space, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Blob, The War of the Worlds, The Day the Earth Stood Still, ET: The Extra Terrestrial, The Omega Man, The Planet of the Apes, The Terminator, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Things To Come and Metropolis. Highly recommended to Science Fiction fans!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I suspect there are several cuts of this doco doing the rounds. The copy I saw focused heavily on Joe's erotic films and referred to his horror output in passing. There are numerous X-rated films presented in their X-rated glory and EMMANUELLE IN AMERICA'S legendary \"snuff\" footage (the breasts being cut off) is given generous screen time.

The interviews with the highly likable Joe are informative and candid. He is an unassuming, articulate gent and discusses his interest in shocking audiences, why he wanted to mix erotica with horror, and how he may have been responsible for one of his performers turning gay.

His friendship and working relationship with Indonesian beauty Laura Gemser is touched on, as is his indifferent attitude to shooting hardcore.

Joe D'Amato personifies an incredible period in Continental cinema that has now passed. It is great to see a documentary dedicated to him and his fine, unique work.

RIP, Joe.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This documentary is as unique as it's subject. And while D'Amato's staple was erotica, the film manages to show some decent clips of the films you may remember from old time, late night Cinemax... One problem... Joe did hardcore porno at times mixed with softcore erotica, even mixed in his gore films. The gore films are cult classics, going for like $20 a pop for a dubbed copy on the net (not peanuts for 20 year old films, folks.) I want to see why those are cult classics. Also, as sweet as Joe seems (he did seem more elegant than one might expect,) the dude liked to shock. Both \"Caligula: The Untold Story\" and \"Emanuelle in America\" show us hardcore rape, snuff, and beastiality (in both, you'd be suprised how far he goes in \"Caligula II\" with that one, if you can track down an uncut print.) Although these scenes may be disconforting in a documentary of a persons career, hey, he did it... Also, I would have liked to see more interviews of people Joe worked with... Maybe that's just me wanting to see what Laura Gemser looks like these days... I still think she's a goddess and one of the sexiest women ever to grace the genre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was very excited to see a documentary on one of my favorite Italian directors. D'Amato has dabbled in everything from Horror, post-apocalyptic to hardcore Porn. He has touched upon genius a couple of times with films like Buio Omega and Emmanuelle & The Last Cannibals. This documentary is a lenghty and informative guide to the films of D'Amato. He is interviewed throughout with English subtitles rolling across the bottom of the screen. The excerpts from his films are narrated by a narrator (with english subtitles). The documentary proved extra interesting when it analyzed the often censored \"Emmanuelle In America\". Here D'amato explaines the faked \"snuff\" scenes in detail and recalls some funny stories. In fact, good ol' Joe is very warm and funny throughout, always wearing a smile and smoking a cigarette. The one disapointing aspect of this documentary is that it spends little time on D'amato's Horror films like Anthropophagus and the brilliant Buio Omega. It spends too much time on the erotic cinema and hardly touches the post-apocaplyptic films. But, I can't complain. It is wonderful to see D'amato get the respect he deserves. Highly recommended for fans of D'amato. May he rest in peace.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A refreshing interview with the legendary Italian cinematographer-producer-director who passed away in 1999 with close to 200 features to his credit as director. A large portion is spent on D'Amato's softcore sex films including his notorious EMANUELLE entries with Laura Gemser. They also briefly cover his porn career, which kept him afloat during his last decade or so. More interesting to me is the section focusing on his horror and action efforts. D'Amato has plenty of great anecdotes about actors and his low budget film-making including a story about an assistant accidentally collecting real bones amid the fake ones while shooting in a 2,000-year-old catacomb. Other interviewees include George Eastman and Al Cliver. I would have liked a bit more conversation about his Stateside Filmirage productions (not a single question about TROLL 2; granted it wasn't the cult film then it was now).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Remember Greg the Bunny? It was this show that started on the Independent Film Channel, but got turned into a full blown sitcom on Fox. My cousin and I thought it was pretty funny, beyond the precocious idea of puppets taking on TV-PG material. Puppets Who Kill occurs in a similar universe, where puppets live in the same world as people, and like us, take on jobs and lives of their own. Let's just say if you couldn't handle that, then don't bother watching PWK, as this show is a profile of 4 puppets who fell out of society's good graces through drug abuse, hedonism and violent felonies only to end up in a half-way house. There's plenty of violence, sex, and bad language (so it would never make its way to U.S. Network TV). As if sociopathic puppets weren't enough, the fact that this takes place in Canada makes it even more disturbing (btw, the government pays for this), and I think any American television viewer would demand more demented cable TV fodder like this. I don't know where you can get it in the U.S., beyond extra satellite Tv, but I'd advise you give it a try. Really funny stuff. (It airs on the Comedy Network in Canada)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So totally unique and entertaining! Another great Canadian invention. A regular \"Joe\"(Dan) and a bunch of misfit delinquents (aka Puppets), all share residence at a half-way house. Its Dan's job to keep an eye on four 'menaces to society' and help them to rehabilitate. Bill, the homicidal dummy, Rocko the cigarette smoking dog, Buttons, the nympho teddy bear, and Cuddles the comfort doll. The five of them find themselves in all sorts of odd predicaments. Despite their homicidal, and often overtly perverse sexual tendencies, it's hard not to find them lovable.

I give this show a 10\/10 simply because it provides good entertainment, without needing a huge budget, and exudes a Canadian flair that makes me proud.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are so many episodes that make me howl over the stories

that I wish I could pick the best ones , Rocko and Bill make for a strange pair that are beyond help but manage to play the victim and BS their way out of hard time just to drag Dan into their life of crime .

Canadians will notice the odd joke for Toronto or the Federal Government, and because the CBC axed a really good show by the Frantics that Dan was part of , the show takes shots at them and in the episode \"Dan's Umbrella\" the CBC is raked across the coals .

When Dan says that the CBC would never waste taxpayers money on useless venture , Rocko enters the room and gives Dan back his Tape of Friday-Night with Ralph Benmurgue , this show was a flop and most people wouldn't get the joke unless they knew the CBC's history for making shows people don't watch or axing good shows that they do watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went into \"The Closer She Gets\" knowing that it was the story of the filmmaker's mother fighting cancer. I expected it to be a very harrowing, depressing movie. And although the subject matter is certainly emotionally wrenching, the remarkable thing about this movie is the positive message it sends. It shows a family's total dedication to meet the challenge of cancer together. They refuse to lose faith in each other, even in the darkest moments.

The most moving moments to me are when this faith is revealed. Little comments that the mother and the family make to each other that reveal her (and their) will to survive, and their defiant emphasis on love and family togetherness. In this way it is an uplifting and profoundly hopeful film. We should all be so lucky as to be surrounded by family like this in times of serious illness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this documentary film at the 2005 Slamdance independent film festival. This documentary is shot, directed and edited by a son (Craig) of his mother's year long battle with cancer. Shot over the course of one year \"The closer she gets\", is a documentary in the truest form and gives you an inside look of a family's struggle with battling with the cancer, the viewer gets an inside point of view of the effects cancer has on a family as well as the individual throughout the entire process. I have never seen such an honest film, this is a powerful and raw film, and since it wasn't shot by an outsider you get the true emotions of everyone involved. Many documentaries are shot by an outsider, but having this story told by the son adds another emotional level to the film, unlike any I have seen before on this subject or any other. This is a touching story that everyone should see, and can relate to. I would highly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Closer She Gets... is an artful documentary dealing with the death of a person I actually knew. It allows a glimpse into the private moments of the family involved in the most trying time of their lives. Parents tend to support the work of their children, in this case the subject of the documentary went above and beyond. She was willing to share her death experience as an act of love for her son. It is a most touching work of art, weaving the serious, serene, and lighter sides of life for this family. The story is one which can make you laugh, but also cry as it addresses issues we all must face. I highly recommend this documentary to those unafraid to cry, and are willing to deal with the issue of mortality in a most human manner. This film will touch you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is so different to anything you would have seen before. It's an honest and chilling account of an entire family's battle with a terminal illness.

'The Closer She Gets' is shot in a very unique style. Craig Oulette films in a very different way.... using different angles and viewpoints, in what i find is a very eye catching manner (perhaps due to his experience with photographic works).

His style gives such a clear picture of not only what the patient herself is facing, but what loved ones close to her also have to deal with.

A very sad, but extremely interesting and unique film. One I would definitely suggest watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I became a fan of the TV series `Homicide: Life on the Street' late in the show's run, but became a fan very quickly. It was a cop show unlike any other: visually different in its use of hand-held cameras, taking the viewer everywhere, with its multiethnic and mutiracial cast and their varying and fascinating personalities, and that it covered all of the good and bad of a police department, including the corruption and personality clashes that bubble up to the surface.

Homicide: The Movie, the reunion follow-up to the series, is as good as a made-for-television film can be. After Lt. Giardello (Yaphet Kotto), now a candidate for mayor of Baltimore, is shot, the series' cast members are back to help find the killer. In addition, the cast members who left the force and those who died, also manage to have their place in the film. The intensity and fire that marked the series return, and the script bristles with the same fire that marked the series. All in all, a terrific TV movie.

Vote: 9","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have always been a huge fan of \"Homicide: Life On The Street\" so when I heard there was a reunion movie coming up, I couldn't wait.

Let me just say, I was not disappointed at all. It was one of the most powerful 2 hours of television I've ever seen. It was great to see everyone back again, but the biggest pleasure of all was to have Andre Braugher back, because the relationship between Pembleton and Bayliss was always the strongest part of an all-together great show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In all truth, this really isn't a \"movie\" so much as an extended final episode; by this I mean that, had you NOT followed the TV series (Homicide: Life On The Street) I suspect that you would have a hard time following this made-for-tv movie. Having said that, \"Homicide: The Movie\" is still a great watch. I think it says a lot about a television production that EVERY single cast member would return, many after years of absence, to once again portray their characters and bring closure to an incredible program. The movie brings out that sense of \"family\", not only amongst the characters, but amongst the actors, as well. It's all very bitter-sweet knowing that this will be the LAST time we will see them all together again under the title of HOMICIDE. Story-wise, I found this film somewhat lacking. Giardello's mayoral candidacy seems particularly contrived, and I felt his shooting could've been dealt with within the parameters of his regular position, as Leiutenant. Also, Det. Bayliss's extreme plot twist, which was left hanging at series end, is finally resolved, but I, for one, NEVER felt that it needed to be; I enjoyed being left with a mystery (let us recall that the very first episode's first case also went unsolved for the entire series run!). As a DEVOTED fan of the TV series I can love this movie, and the fact that it even got made after H:LOTS had been canceled, but I would not recommend it to anyone who hasn't had the slightest exposure to the series. Now, if they'd just release it on DVD...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say? An excellent end to an excellent series! It never quite got the exposure it deserved in Asia, but by far, the best cop show with the best writing and the best cast on televison. EVER! The end of a great era. Sorry to see you go...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Homicide: The Movie proved to be a good wrap-up to a well-written, well-directed, and well-acted series. Loose ends were tied up that weren't properly addressed at the end of the final season. The entire series, and especially the movie, provided a life-like look at life (and death) in Baltimore, a culturally unique city with an extremely high murder rate. My attraction to the series began long before I moved to Baltimore, but once I experienced life here for myself, I realized how realistic it was. And the movie certainly retained that spirit. I will certainly miss new original episodes of the series, but am very grateful to NBC and the producers and cast for giving us one last glimpse at the dark side of Charm City.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Following a roughly 7 year rocky road on NBC, it was decided to do just one last Super Installment. The Series had been on the bubble several times thanks to not having the numbers that would qualify it as a block-buster of a TV hour. It had always had a sizable, hard core of hard corps of followers.

It was almost as if the series with the full title of \"HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET\" (1993-99) was a sort of \"Mr. In-Between\" of series. It was too big to just cancel, but too small to get a case of 'Rabid Ratings Ravings' over.

During the precarious tenure on Friday evenings, they had presented some of the best and most daringly Artistic of Hourly Dramas. There, I've said it Artistic, Artistic!! But please, remember we mean Artistic, but not just Phony, Pretentious, Pedantic, Politically Correct preaching.

When at last, it was a sure thing that it was the end of the line for \"HOMICIDE\"; this super episode was prepared as this 2 hour made for TV Movie.

Looking at all the past seasons' happenings and parade of regular characters, the Production team went out and gave us what proved to be a super send off.

OUR STORY\u0085\u0085\u0085. As we join the story, we find that Baltimore Homicide Unit Commanding Officer, Lt. Al Giardello has \"pulled the pin\", Retired from the job, that is. But 'G' isn't ready to really retire-retire yet. So, instead of a rocking chair o a fishing rod, we find that Al is running for Mayor of 'Charm City.'

While out in the City, making some campaign stops and speeches, the former Detective Lieutenant takes an assassin's bullet. Alive, but in a comatose state, he is taken to the Hospital.

News spreads quickly and as if officially summoned, we find all of the Detectives of the Baltimore Unit we've seen on the show showing up to offer their services and assistance. There is a great meeting of all of these former and present gumshoes as they pitch in and follow every lead and possibility of a lead.

The Producer found a way to deal with those who had died previously in bringing their memory into the story. They managed to answer some long standing questions and even introduced some here to unrevealed ones. The whole story winds up the series in a most satisfying and original way. But at least for now, we'll leave that as \"classified\".

In wrapping up everything into a neat, little package, this TV Movie surely gets our endorsement. As for grading \"THE HOMICIDE MOVIE\", we must give it an A or A+, even. But, no matter the Grade here, it didn't score as high as a typical weekly episode.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My favourite police series of all time turns to a TV-film. Does it work? Yes. Gee runs for mayor and gets shot. The Homicide \"hall of fame\" turns up. Pembleton and nearly all of the cops who ever played in this series. A lot of flashbacks helps you who hasn\u00b4t seen the TV-series but it amuses the fans too. The last five minutes solves another murder and at the very end even two of the dead cops turn up. And a short appearance from my favourite coroner Juliana Cox. This is a good film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie was excellent, save for some of the scenes with Esposito. I enjoyed how it brought together every detective on the series, and wrapped up some plotlines that were never resolved during the series (thanks to NBC...). It was great to see Pembleton and Bayliss together at their most human, and most basic persons. Braugher and Secor did a great job, but as usual will get overlooked. It hurt to see that this was the end of Homicide. Memories, tapes, and reruns on CourtTV just aren't the same as watching it come on every Friday. But the movie did its job and did it very well, presenting a great depiction of life after Al retired, and the family relationship that existed between the unit. I enjoyed this a lot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For anyone who liked the series this movie will be something to watch. However, it also leaves you wanting more. I loved the way that every character (detective)made an appearance. Least with the ending of who is the fourth chair for they leave a reason for another movie. My guess is Bayless of course. This like the series was a very well put together series of scenes. This is a series I wish had lived on. Thanks to the cast for some wonderful TV.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the final episode we deserved. At the end of the last season, things were left in a 'life goes on' mood, which was hardly the wrap-up that this realistic series deserved. While not a happy show, this series was always one that made you think (a rare thing on television), and this is no exception. 'Is death justified by reasoning?' 'Are morals reflective of society, or is society shaped by the morals that are selected by the few in power?' 'What is a just death, and can it exist?' All of these questions, and more, are posed by the writers of this show every week, and this is their final thesis. Fine acting, great writing, wonderful camera-work, brilliant editing, clean direction. If you have seen the series and you missed this when it first ran, then get a hold on a copy somehow. If you never watched the series when it ran, then this will stand up on its own, but it may be heavy going trying to keep up with who all the characters are and what they are alluding to in their varied pasts. For those of us who were avid viewers of the series in the last two seasons, this is very satisfying viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For all the Homicide junkies out there, this movie was great! Every single character that ever was on the show made an appearance in the movie. It helped to resolve some (but not all) issues from the series. Unfortunately, unless you actually did watch the series, most of the enjoyment would be lost, as the movie made heavy references to every season of the show's existence. This probably would have been appropriate as a series finale as opposed to being a separate movie, but we gotta take what we can get. I hope they make more movies, and continue to feature Homicide characters on Law and Order.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"HLOTS was an outstanding series, its what NYPD Blue will never be, on HLOTS the plots are real, the dialog is real, the Relationships are real. With HLOTS back as a movie, Tying up all the loose ends, it was good to have all the gang back together, even a few that passed away show up (wont say how) The storyline was fast paced, emotional and full of the spirit the series had week in and week out. Homicide , Life on the Streets, Network drama at Its BEST!!!! 5 STARS!!!! Thumbs UP and all That. Thanks NBC for giving us the Finally we didn't get!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Well, seeing as I am a major H:LOTS fan, maybe I liked the movie more than normal people would. However, this movie is still excellent. It had tons of surprises, and it gave some more closure to the series. While I was sad that Bayliss turned into a murderer, the overall feeling I felt was satisfied.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not only was this movie better than all the final season of H:LOTS. But it was better than any movie made for TV I have ever seen!

Looking at the \"Top 250\" I see that only one small screen movie has made it: How the Grinch Stole Christmas. I think it is time to increase that group to 2.

I will admit that the original series had several shows that were better than this, but I didn't mind. I just LOVED being able to enter the world of the Baltimore Homicide Squad again!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although there were a few rough spots and some plot lines that weren't exactly true to character, this was Classic H:LOTS. The characters, outside of Mike Giardello (Giancarlo Esposito), were true to form, and the reunion scenes of Pembleton (Andre Braugher) and Bayliss (Kyle Secor) were as deep and well acted as anything ever to grace the small screen.

\"Homicide: The Movie\" aka \"Life Everlasting\" is a fan flick, but stands on its own as well as any 2-hour episode of the series. Fontana, Overmeyer and Yoshimura did a wonderful job in pulling loose ends from 7 seasons and every major cast member of \"the best damn show on television\" together for the series finale that NBC never bothered to give it. True to \"Homicide\" form, there were no happy endings, such is life. That's what has always set this show apart from the mindless cookie-cutter cop shows left on television. Kudos to the writers and the cast for creating something over the span of the series and in the movie that challenged television viewers and producers alike.

** I call myself a \"Homicidal Maniac\" if for no other reason than to keep my co-workers in a cooperative mood. **","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have always been a fan of the show so I'll admit that I am biased. When the show's run ended, I felt like too many questions remained unanswered. This movie to me felt like closure. To see all the people I'd followed over the past few years together at last was most rewarding. I have heard that this is probably the only Homicide movie that we can expect. If that is so, this is the appropriate way to go out. This movie is sometimes poignant, sometimes upsetting, but always satisfying. If you are or ever have been a fan of the show, watch this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am sligthly biased because I appear in this film but i loved it and I am only in about seven dispersed minutes and am not nearly the most interesting part of it. The film is an honest and intriguing account of a noble independent group of filmmakers trying to make a lovable movie. It is also an account of bloated expectations and fallen heros The interviews are well patched together in the editing. The different people are all interesting and there is never really too much of one person. Also, the interviews are shot in a pretty interesting fashion keeping the film visually satisfying. Definitely a worthwhile film. I hope it gets around.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"http:\/\/video.google.com\/videoplay?docid=211772166650071408&hl=en Distribution was tried.

We opted for mass appeal.

We want the best possible viewing range so, we forgo profit and continue our manual labor jobs gladly to entertain you for working yours.

View Texas tale, please write about it... If you like it or not, if you like Alex or not, if you like Stuie, Texas or Texas tale... Just write about it.

Your opinion rules.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All of the trials and tribulations of making a no budget movie right from the mouths of those involved. You feel all of the sweat, guts, determination and dedication Stuie put into this labor of love and the frustration of being left hanging after all his work. The clips of interviews with all involved provides a great flowing narrative and conveys the balls-out, hardcore punk, almost anarchic attitude it took to film \"Waldo\" and subsequently the documentary. Stuie and company deserve all the props in the world for not giving up when the going got tough and getting \"A Texas Tale of Treason\" out so we can see what it's like for the budding filmmaker on the street!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are a limited number of fans for movies in the world that would love a particular genre to go to the depths that this crew has done to bring to life something that the very writer of the original film had, up to this point, never achieved. This is a wonderful exploration of the real dedication and love it takes to reach towards a potentially very successful cult film.

Originally, with the blessings from Alex Cox, this crew began producing the sequel of one of his movies in absolute true punk fashion. Their goal simply being to fully capture the atmosphere as it should be for a complete tribute to the original \"Repo Man\" film.

This is a great tale of dedication and the treachery that can occur along the path to wonderful movie making. A truly entertaining tale and a guaranteed learning experience for the viewer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nice doco Stuie!

Even though it didn't work out how you wanted with the original film you have a fantastic piece of work and great viewing.

It is self evident how much you put into it.

That goes for everyone else too. It's great to see the warts and all account of the process without being 'too nice'.

Loved it! Well worth a view.

Que pena, the writer of 'the original' film couldn't appreciate what you have achieved.

Love the attitude too. Great piece. Looking forward to seeing the next work.

Keep going bro! Paully","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this to be an entertaining account of the challenges an independent film maker might encounter (something I never even thought about). The film managed to keep my interest the entire time and I actually laughed out loud more than once! I'm not a film maker so I know nothing about the technology but I though it was well edited and flowed smoothly telling the story. As a disclaimer, I contributed to this effort after the fact providing music for the soundtrack but I was not involved in the creation of this film and I could not tell you a thing about Repo Man except that I remembered seeing it way back when (I'm not really a sci-fi fiend). I enjoyed the comparisons the film made of punk rock file making to punk rock music. My wife went with me to see the film and she did not know a thing about it before hand and we had a great time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fascinating look behind the scenes about how a really good movie CAN get made if the producers, director, & cast simply \"refuse to quit.\" These guys encountered serious obstacles throughout the two years of the project (miniscule budget, trouble with the script and with the script writer) so the finished product wasn't what was first envisioned, but probably turned out to be more interesting than the movie they set out to make, which goes to show that the punk mentality of \"just do it\" ...with or without any backing, money, or help...figure it out on the fly and do what you want to do. I really liked this documentary movie and know that viewers will see and learn things they didn't know before. This movie is truly \"one of a kind...it's hard to classify because it has pieces of \"sci fi\" and \"suspense\" and also \"how to make a movie.\" It tells the truth about how films get made, what can go wrong, and how to overcome. I especially liked the music written by Ed Ivey. These guys know how to produce a good movie on a shoe string because they're creative and know how to build props, dollys, staging, lighting with what they can scavenge up...pretty amazing stuff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I viewed this movie at the Magnolia Theater in Dallas a couple of days ago. Punk! Everyone and everything involved in the movie added to the punkiness of it. The music, well of course. But the movie itself captured the whole punk genre. Even a grandmother and school teacher (me) can appreciate artists who are able to turn their ideas into reality (well, reality, film-wise). This movie takes a handful of ticked-off young film makers and clearly and cleverly shows the \"why\" of their angst over not being given the green light on finishing the Waldo film. The (relatively) happy girl gave good comic relief, a nice respite from the continual (but understandable) ragging on the dude who left them in a lurch. Gotta love Stu, though. And be sure to watch\/read the credits - they're the icing on the cake!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everyone who has ever wondered how to make a film on no budget should see this documentary. The determination of everybody portrayed in this project was very moving to me, and should connect to those of us who have ever ventured into any part of show business, be it film, music, or writing. I think the film makers could have done a better job with foreshadowing the events that led up to this film becoming a documentary, perhaps by use of a narrator; other than that, the film comes off as a real example of how show business isn't about \"the show\", but rather \"the business\".

I hope that the actual intended project, \"Repo Man II\", gets to see the light of day. I think the film makers did a fine job on it with what little they had to work with, and all that they had to overcome to complete it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I too must apologize for a somewhat biased opinion of this endeavor as I contributed to the soundtrack. Still I received my copy, sat back and enjoyed the rolling cast of characters who were perhaps more colorful than the characters they were creating in this tale of a film sequel shanghai. For those who feel George Bush is a \"credible Texan\", one need look no further than this film to shatter the image that Texas is full of truck driving, one-dimensional rednecks. The cast contains some of the most intelligent, peculiar and humorous folks you'll find anywhere as they spin their tales of agony, bliss and disappointment in going for a great film sequel, no budget, guerilla style (i.e. \"punk rock style\" as each person helps define).

This is a great documentary made with passion and guts and all the venom you'll need to break through to the other side of whatever industry b.s. and doublespeak you're dealing with (take note authors, painters, musicians and fellow filmmakers). It hearkens back to the credibility of the first wave of American hardcore music when the term \"D.I.Y.\" was the standard, a period where courage, passion and commitment mattered way more than technique, style or precious calculations. Not that there isn't plenty of technique or style to this...the tone of the documentary is quite refreshing. The editing cuts provide as much drama as the dialog therein.

The idea of creating a documentary out of the sad demise of the cast, crew and director's initial intent is brilliant, totally Texas and absolutely punk rock. In the truest sense of the term.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing A Texas Tale of Treason, the measly correspondence efforts by Cox could not even afford the massive collusion Stu directed with no budget. It tells a story about dedication, sweat, whiz, fire and punk rock. I love it! My favorite parts are the interviews with Marci (she's such a hot baby babe and she digs me but she just doesn't know it yet). The Japanese clerk muffing his lines, that cracked me up. The sex scene was really cool. I am going to see if Stu will come over sometime and do the box light wave thing when i'm doing it with my woman. The intro and of course my 5 seconds during closing credits. I know thats going to get me some chicks. I hope to see more from Antstuie because I know I can expect the unexpected.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"watch this movie. it's truly a good ride through the difficulties of making a indie movie, and what happens when it blows up in the film maker's face. there's a lot of stuff about punk rock, and the philosophy behind that movement and it's relationship to this project. so if you're into old punk, American punk, you'll dig it.... but, beware, there's a ton of bad acting bits from the failed project that are incorporated... yet they do come off funny at times. and, actually, some of the best parts are listening to people who have never been involved in movie making pontificate and what they went through in the three year period that it took to put this together. so anyone out there that's about to make a film, especially if you haven't been to film school or worked in the field, you should watch this and learn from the film maker's mistakes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film would be particularly fun for anyone who has been in the film industry, especially in any indie capacity... those whose inheritance includes a film introduction may not appreciate it quite as much. I am hard to please in the documentary category. This doc is different though- its pleasure comes from an earthy realism of indie filmmaker punks who are a hoot to be around and watch. Whether you've ever wondered what it is like to be in films, in front of or behind the camera, or whether you have worked your way through the sometimes painful and hard but rewarding indie world, you'll certainly get a kick out of this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After watching \"A Texas Tale of Treason\" you feel a renewed disgust for the nature of the Hollywood beast. Inside the interviews and conversations of all involved with the project there is a common sense of comradery and rebelliousness that spans backgrounds, social classifications, and even geography. This can be attributed to hard work on the entire production's undying commitment to the project and the love the of the story from the original film, and the complete creation of vacuum that is it's creator. The scale of people involved in \"Waldo's Hawaiian Holiday\" was amazing to me, at a no budget, no glory production. There were no trailers or craft services, no amenities at all, and yet everyone involved stuck right there with it. If nothing ever comes of this project, Antstuie Productions have laid their foundation for being a serious, honest company that's never going to lay down and take it or sell out and make a movie just for the money. I'd like to see any L.A. director go through the guerrilla process to get a shot. More realistic true to life cinema is lacking in this time of CG and green screens. The masses may enjoy their entertainment spoon fed to them in nice bite sized censored calm bits, but there is a large group of people out here in the world that share the opinions and insights of the filmmakers that still make films for the love of the material or love of storytelling, not DVD sales or box office. I loved this documentary, and I hope that IFC has the cahones to pick it up and air it so that maybe, just maybe, one more person will decide to pick up a camera and film some real life so we the viewer can have even a temporary understanding that everyone everywhere is the same, and anyone anywhere can be a true storyteller.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film proves you don't need a Hollywood budget to make something fun to watch. What stuck with me is how the crew from different locations was able to pull together with no promises of riches to make something just because they believed in it. I think anybody who makes low budget movies can relate to certain scenes such as actors who just can't get that one line, being bothered by the police, and having most of the crew disappear after the first week. Nobody got paid for this which says a lot for the people who had to travel cross country and for the long hours spent editing. After watching Stuie sell his personal property, use his own money, and trash his house to make the movie I am a bit curious how close his wife may have come to leaving. Good job to all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very funny movie. There is a self deprecating, iconoclastic tone to the movie that is very appealing. The characters are interesting. The movie flows very well and holds your interest throughout the 1 hour, 50 minutes duration of the film. The film quality is not of the highest Hollywood standards; however the original film was supposed to be made in the genre of a gritty punk-rock style. The documentary about the attempt to make the film and the subsequent betrayal of the film makers is very well detailed and easy to follow. The original film makers themselves become the main characters in the documentary version of the movie. The interviews of the film makers and the actors has been assembled in a highly entertaining story that illustrates the struggles involved in making the original film, the eventual failure of the original project and the phoenix-like rising from the ashes that evolved into this documentary film. In my mind the documentary (A Texas Tale of Treason) is a much more interesting and entertaining film than the original film (Waldos Hawiian Vacation) would have ever been. Two thumbs up for a job well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Iam not sure if discussing the television series is exactly where the comments should be drawn to,however it is on the television where the The Lone Ranger really made a name for himself.Iam not even referring to the original radio broadcasts of this masked rider of the plains,Iam though referring to a point where in a little boy, about 9 or 10 years old,I was to see the movie,\"The Lone Ranger\"and never forgot it.I can recall that I was on a line or we were moving toward the Paramount Theater-the theater was located in the theater district,if I remember correctly.It was directly across,going East to West from the building that has the ball that drops on New Years Eve-This is of course if anybody doesn't know, New York City.High Above the street on the roof tops there was a time and maybe even still today huge billboards would advertise what was being shown and so on.It was at that point in time that I looked up and was never more impressed as I was when I looked at that billboard to see The Lone Ranger across the roof tops-It was great-It made an impression and was never forgotten.That day we went to see The Lone Ranger-It was the story of how the Lone Ranger was born-The terrible ambush that the Texas Rangers rode into and the subsequent rebirth of one of its fallen heroes.It was in this film we learn that The Lone Ranger will not shoot to kill but to injure so as to let the law be the judge.That type of thinking is so worthwhile that we might be good to learn something from history.This is where we learn that Tonto discovers the fallen Ranger and upon seeing the symbol of the boyhood friendship that The Lone Ranger established years earlier when he as a younger person came to the aide of a injured young person in Tonto-For the aide given, Tonto gave to his faithful friend, a symbol of his thanks which now was part of a necklace that Tonto recognized.Tonto said,\"you are Kemosabe\".The Lone Ranger said,\"kemo-sabe,that is familiar?Then Tonto tells the story of this \"trusty scout\"(the meaning of Kemosabe)I think the Lone Ranger is one of the true heroes of the silver screen and one of the great heroes of television.It should also be stated that these very respected individuals Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels sought to live there lives according to the legend of The Lone Ranger-It may very well be that there is an inspiring story in the story of the Lone Ranger and his faithful companion Tonto.I myself was so pleased by the ability to find and buy the DVDs, that I stayed up all a Saturday morning and watched The many episodes now available.Long Live The Lone Ranger and His faithful companion Tonto-Hi-Ho Silver-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Someone once defined what is the definition of AN INTELLECTUAL as being: \"A person who can listen to \"The William Tell Overture\" without thinking of the LONE RANGER!\" In this, we heartily concur! It surely would be a tall order to accomplish this, and one that Leopold Stokowski, Arturo Toscanini or .Leonard Bernstein would all find nigh well impossible to do.

And in this there is no disgrace. The Radio Series and the Television Series, along with some Movie Serials, Feature Films, Syndicated Newspaper Comic Strip and Comic Books, all did their part to make \"the Masked Man of the Plains and his Faithful Indian companion, Tonto\" a deeply seeded element of our collective psyche and of our literary folklore.

As with most legends, it all started gradually, first with a series of Radio Plays, written for local use in Detroit over Radio Station WXYZ. The Creator was one George W. Trendle and the Principal Writer on the Series was Mr. Trendle's brother-in-law, Mr. Fran Striker. The year was 1933 when the Ranger first rode out to \"\u0085the Plains of the Early Western United States!\" The Lone Ranger, Tonto and the Radio Series all successfully guided Depression Era Americans through the mid and late '30's up to and through World War II. But the Post-War Era found the country in the midst of a Super-Nova Explosion of invention and technology. There had been a new communications medium standing ready in the wings, but unable to go forth until both VE Day and VJ Day had been achieved. Once these were accomplished and the World and America was ready to settle down to both Peace and Prosperity. The \"New Technology\" was, of course was TELEVISION! And we would surely need something else than \"Roller Derby\" and \"Wrestling From Marigold Arena\" to fill up the broadcast hours. And while at first, the time that a TV Station had anything on, except that portrait of that Mohican Chief (Test Pattern, Schultz!) Very soon and with post haste, the Networks began tapping their existing Natural Resources, their existing programming! Virtually all would be ripe for adaptation to the TV Screen.

So, the folks over at Lone Ranger, Incorporated were very interested when Producers Jack Chertok, Harry Poppe, Sherman Harris and Jack Wrather all approached them with a deal to put The Masked Man and Tonto on the Television waves, as well as the Radio.

Immediately they went to work and gave us the first season, which made use of the considerable back log of Radio Dramas, all potentially adaptable to TV dramas. They cast Clayton Moore, a fine supporting actor in many a feature film, and with about a dozen years experience. He also had done some work in Serials over at Republic Pictures' \"Thrill Factory\", which would be invaluable experience in doing \"THE LONE RANGER\". Cast as his \"faithful Indian companion\" and partner in bringing Justice to various parts of the Frontier, we had sheer perfection in character-supporting Actor, Jay Silverheels.** We must mention that there was that rift in about '53, when Clayton Moore walked and was replaced with John Hart. After a season or so, Mr. Moore was back in-having been missed so much! Now, Back to Our Story!! The first years of filming gave the episodes a look and a sound all of their own. They made good use of off screen Narrator, which gave these shows a feel of authenticity and an individual, stand-out one of a kind series. The actors employed were all veterans of the movies of the late silent era thru the 1930's and 1940's. A lot of them had been just about exclusively \"Cowboy Movie\" players. A good example of these is the casting of Glenn Strange (Bartender Sam on \"GUNSMOKE\") as the vicious, murderous Gang Leader, Butch Cavandish. And it was the Cavendish Gang's massacre of the Texas Rangers that led to the origin of John Reid (thought to have been slain with the other Texas Rangers) as the \"LONE RANGER\".

In addition to the old timers in the cast, you will find a lot of new and up and coming talent (then) in the cast. We see people like Phyllis Coates, Dwayne Hickman, Denver Pyle and others in the cast from week to week. All of this, along with an always calling for fair-play, justice and peace in a western world.

The last couple of seasons brought some big changes. First was the use of Colour Filming. That made no difference as a Colour TV Set was still a long way off for our household. The second was a new set of musical themes and queues. (Other than Rossini's Finale from \"U NO Wutt!\") The new music was never a big deal to us, as we preferred the \"old Radio\" stock stuff.

With this series and two Feature Films done during this period, THE LONE RANGER (Warner Brothers, 1956) and THE LONE RANGER AND THE LOST CITY OF GOLD (United Artists, 1958), the character has been permanently and indelibly impressed in our identity as a People, we Americans!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 221 episodes of \"The Lone Ranger\" were originally broadcast on ABC from 1949 to 1957; and then for many years they played in local syndication. For most of the original broadcast years the series was ABC's most watched piece of programming.

The new DVD set from Pop Flix contains the first 16 episodes (15 Sept-29 Dec 1949) and for some reason unknown to me episode 22 from the fifth season, for a total of 17 episodes (the same 17 available on last year's Mill Creek Entertainment release so these are probably in the public domain). These sets pretty much render \"The Legend of the Lone Ranger\" movie superfluous as all three episodes that were combined in 1952 to form the movie are included in these releases.

The early episodes hark back to radio as there is considerably more voice-over narration used as an introduction and to introduce key plot moments.

The series itself was pure kiddie western with clear-cut good and evil distinctions and no romance. The title character (played by Clayton Moore) started out Texas Ranger John Reid. The first three episodes provide the background for his transformation to Lone Ranger status, his partnering with the Indian Tonto (Jay Silverheels), and the taming of his horse \"Silver\".

There is an unambiguous code of positive morality infusing each episode. The Lone Ranger is totally good but he adopts the guise of evil. While a masked man in the west was normally feared by the good citizens and an Indian was distrusted, the Lone Ranger is feared by those who would do evil. One persistent theme is that when the Lone Ranger and Tonto first encounter an average citizen they are greeted with suspicion, and by the end of the episode the citizen has been convinced of their value. The trademark ending was a secondary character asking the question: \"who was that masked man?\".

To really enjoy the series you must accept it for the simplistic morality tale it was intended to be. If you don't take it seriously and keep wishing for some self-reflexive campy parody elements you will only get frustrated.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bullets may not have bounced off his chest, but The Lone Ranger was every bit the symbolic icon to me as my other boyhood hero - Superman. He represented truth, justice and the American way in a classic TV Western setting, living by the principle that he would never use his gun to kill, while scouring the American Southwest with his faithful Indian companion Tonto to bring every single outlaw to justice. The advent of TV provided the perfect opportunity for a post War generation to find it's ideal in an enigmatic masked man who stood for law and order, while providing unparalleled entertainment for five seasons spanning almost eight years.

Today I had the opportunity to view for the first time the complete three part origin episodes start to finish without the standard opening and closing sequences to interrupt the continuity of the story. For fans of the Ranger, this is the grand daddy of all Western sagas, telling as it does how Texas Ranger John Reid survived the ambush by the Butch Cavendish Gang, and how he was nursed back to health by an Indian friend from his childhood. Tonto (Jay Silverheels) declares his companion a 'trusty scout', and names him Kemo-sabe. I've read various interpretations of the origin of the term Kemo-sabe, but I'm satisfied with Tonto's explanation. Reading too much into it just detracts from the story, just like the English translation of 'tonto' from Spanish, which I won't reveal, because it's just better not to know if you can help it.

I thought it quite clever how the origin story created the mystique of the Lone Ranger, like the sixth grave that created the illusion that all the Rangers died in the box canyon ambush. You never see the face of the man who becomes the Lone Ranger, as it's always turned away or obscured to hide his real identity. Even the origin of Silver is handled brilliantly; the voice of the story's narrator describing the wild stallion's sterling qualities. Would that relate, say, to sterling..., silver? I got the biggest kick out of that.

Of course with the passage of time, watching the Lone Ranger episodes today offers a view of how unsophisticated the show was beyond the origin story. Some of them are almost embarrassingly goofy, particularly when it comes to a Lone Ranger showdown when he shoots into the middle of a crowd of bad guys to knock a gun out of it's owner's hand. And how about that little wave he gives to Tonto whenever they're about to ambush the bad guys - it's always the same gesture, but Tonto always knows what it means in different circumstances. Then you have the episodes where Clayton Moore takes off the Ranger mask to don a different disguise to impersonate another character in service to the story. He even went under cover once as an actor portraying President Abraham Lincoln to uncover a villain, top hat and all!

Few fans that I come across ever know that actor John Hart replaced Clayton Moore for the 1952\/53 season in a contract dispute that Moore had with the show's producers. If you ever saw that \"Happy Days\" episode where Fonzie idolizes his boyhood hero, you'll notice it was John Hart listed in the credits. It's difficult actually, to tell if you're watching a Hart episode or not, the key is to listen to the voice; Moore's is so distinctive that it's a dead giveaway.

If you ever get the chance to sample some of the final season color episodes, you're in for a treat. The renditions I've seen on VHS are absolutely gorgeous, although I don't know if commercial prints are available. Most of the black and white episodes around have been re-packaged by any number of distributors in different configurations, so getting your hands on those should be no problem. The must see of course is the three part origin, and if you don't watch anything else, this gives you all the flavor and excitement you need to capture the imagination of one of the West's most famous heroes. Hi-Yo Silver, Awaaaay!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wasn't even born when this series was released in the USA. It took about another decade before British TV networks laid hold of it.

In fact, I was fortunate enough to see the very first episode, in which The Lone Ranger was one of a posse who ran into an ambush and got slaughtered. TLR was the only survivor. Although badly wounded, he was saved by a passing Indian called Tonto. I believe he took to wearing a mask in order to hide his true identity for fear of reprisal. But instead he made himself all the more recognisable. Dunno if he wore it in his sleep.

This was Saturday teatime staple. The fanfare bugles of William Tell's overture presaged a dash to the telly, food still in hand. Though it very quickly became repetitive, predictable hokum. Nobody ever unmasked him. Nobody ever landed a punch, nobody ever out-shot him. He was a little too good, and just a little too camp in his dress for most kids. Poor Tonto, on the other hand, became his Aunt Sally. He was always getting slugged and tied-up and kidnapped and stuff.

And what did he keep calling The Lone Ranger? 'King Savvy' was the general consensus where I lived. It seemed to imply 'the big know-all' in Indian-speak. But is sounded like something else, as if Mr Silverheels had a speech defect. 'Kemosabe'; what the hell's that?

A later, and less well-merchandised duo called 'The Range Rider' and 'Dick West' eventually won my vote. This featured a naked-faced Jock Mahoney who got beat-up pretty thoroughly in each episode and was altogether less camp, less super, and more believable.

Still; even today I can't hear William Tell's overture without expecting the gallop of hooves and a hearty Hi-Oh Silver.

Devine daftness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this movie on one of my old videos, after \"Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster\" (which should INSTANTLY give you an idea of it's tone) and I hadn't seen it in a while so I decided to watch it. I didn't remember much about Rainbow Brite except I used to like the cartoon and that it was cute. Most people feel that way about her. You probably do to.

Well, when the movie started, I wondered if it was the right one! It didn't fit the mold of Rainbow Brite as I remembered her. But it turns out she kicks butt! This has to be the strangest animated movie EVER! I can't believe these characters were so popular (the series isn't much different) while being so bizzare. As soon as I watched this movie again, it became one of my favorites.

I really don't want to give too much away. Just know that if you see the movie in the video store, rent it and watch it. No questions asked. You will get a kick out of it. Especially the outrageous Princess character. And the robotic horse. And the hypnotized sprites.

If you can't tell by know, this is an 80's cartoon that is really an undiscovered \"head\" movie in disguise! Have fun!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rainbow Brite and the star Stealer is not for people who were born before 1980 or after 1989. Most of those people would not appreciate the great things that are 80's cartoons. The fact that Rainbow Brite was made into a movie is a guilty pleasure for many of us who remember watching the tv show as a child. Granted, much of the dialogue is quite amusing and silly, and the plot is nonexistant to pointless, but it's a very cool movie none the less.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here's what you have to remember about this movie.... IT'S A KIDS MOVIE!!!!! I don't know about the rest of you but I'm an 80s child. I was obsessed with Rainbow Brite. So, naturally I love this movie. But if you watch the other Rainbow Brite movies this one is by far the best. But, like I said, it's a kids movie. You have to judge it as a kids movie. It doesn't matter to kids if the acting, animation or script is fantastic or even good. All they care about is what happens to the characters. If the good guy (or girl) wins then it's a great movie. If not, then it's bad. You all know what I mean. You were all kids once.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"RAINBOW BRITE AND THE STAR STEALER, in my opinion, is an excellent masterpiece. I felt all warm and tingly when Rainbow Brite (voice of Bettina) and Krys (voice of David Mendenhall) set out to get revenge on the princess (voice of Rhonad Aldrich). If you ask me, the princess was absolutely bitchy and diabolical. To me, she deserved to have Rainbow Brite and Krys seek revenge on him. However, I liked her castle as well as the rest of the setting. In addition, I thought that Lurky (voiec of Pat Fraley) and Murky (voiec of Peter Cullen) were diabolical. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone was perfectly cast, the direction was flawless, and Disney has scored a big hit. In conclusion, I highly recommend this excellent masterpiece to everyone who hasn't seen it, especially die-hard fans of the TV series. I guarantee you you'll enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"People talk about how horrible the script was, and how horrible the animation was, but Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealer really is a Japanese Anime aimed towards children. If you look at the anime today it's done in the same style, and it's immensely popular. I don't think this movie was ever intended to be viewed by adults. Just as I don't think it was ever intended to be serious. The very things that people seem to hate about this movie are the things that I love. Rainbow Brite is one of the best cartoon characters ever created in my opinion. She's smart. She's funny. She cares about the enviorment. She cares about her friends. This movie can teach so much to young kids. My little brothers even liked this movie. I have to say this movie taught me a lot when I was a kid. When it came out on DVD I was first in line to buy it. It's a great kids movie. So what if it's not perfect, nothing is really perfect when you look closely enough at it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie when I was very little. I was born in 1985, so it was around the age when 80s cartoons were big. My mother taped it one day thinking I might like it. I had never even heard of the Rainbow Bright TV show before I was introduced to the movie. When I saw it (on one of those old BETA tapes...) I loved it. I became addicted to it. There are people who say it's badly written and all that, but it's a kid's movie, and things like that don't matter much to children. I loved the story, and especially liked the songs and all the female characters. Of course I pretended to be them, and in the scene where Rainbow first met Krys and they were repulsed they had to work with the opposite sex, I could totally relate. The story was the basic good vs. evil that children enjoy, and there were enough happy moments to balance out the scary ones. The world is a fantastic place that would stimulate the imagination of any young child. I am very glad I had an opportunity to see this movie when I was little. It made a big impact, and watching it now brings back happy memories of childhood. I would recommend to any parent with young children to rent this movie. It will trigger their imagination and provide plenty of entertainment. You're only a child once, so don't let them miss out on this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"when i was a child this was the movie i watched. i think it is a great movie for the kids to watch and parents don't have to be afraid of any violence or obscene images. rainbow brite is a cheerful young girl and she is trying to make the winter go away. she finds that something or someone is trying to steal the source of life and keep it for themselves. i love this movie and i think that even adults can enjoy this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I adored this, but I am an 80's kid. I loved Rainbow Bright my whole childhood. I don't know if little ones these days would be very interested in the show, mine wasn't. (But thats okay, I bought it for me anyway. I just brought the little one so the guy at the checkout stand wouldn't look at me funny.)I love the non violent drama, and the colorful scenery. It just reminds me of a simpler time before cartoons had more violence than our local news can legally show. :) Although I may be just a little biased on the subject. Afterall I was Rainbow Bright 6 years in a row for Halloween........I wonder if they make a Rainbow Bright costume for adults. Lol.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Um, hello.. Rainbow Brite.. the name alone is hard to take it seriously, like she could be the cousin of Strawberry Shortcake.. but when you're a kid, this is definitely serious stuff.

So, there's this vile, snotty, spoiled girl and she wants Rainbow Brites belt, amongst other things, ie the light of the whole universe, and Rainbow Brite and her friend Cris are bound and determined to stop her. As I remember, Murky and Lurky had a minor role in this production. Maybe they wanted too much money?

So anyway, snotty, evil girl has a powerful jewel and she channels it's power to take Rainbow's belt.. imagine? But somehow, Rainbow gets her belt back and re-energizes it with \"star sprinkles\" and kicks the bad girls' butt with the help of Cris and his prism bracelet, and they also save the whole universe in the process.

So good triumphs over evil, niceness triumphs over rudeness, and Rainbow Brite and the Color Kids are once again safe to spread color and joy for all mankind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie as a child and still enjoy viewing it every once in a while for the nostalgia factor. When I was younger I loved the movie because of the entertaining storyline and interesting characters. Today, I still love the characters. Additionally, I think of the plot with higher regard because I now see the morals and symbolism. Rainbow Brite is far from the worst film ever, and though out-dated, I'm sure I will show it to my children in the future, when I have children.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the very first movie I ever saw in the theatre by myself. I was 7 years old, and to this day it is one of my favorite movies. It's pure smarmy cheese. The cartoon was marketed towards young girls, selling dolls with soft bodies and big plastic heads, one for every colour of the rainbow, with their own special animals, 'sprites' and even a talking rainbow horse. Typical of the time period, each show was about how hope, togetherness and magic can make 'everything all better'.

The movie concerns the coming of spring, when all the light and colour returns to the world, but this time it just isn't happening for our lovely hero. A spoiled Princess plots to overtake the soul lightgiver (and implied life giver)of the universe, which happens to be a giant diamond, for her own devious purposes, with no regard for reality, and now Rainbow and her newly found friends Orin, Onyx and Chris must save the universe. As I said before, it's cheesy, but it's cute, and it's exactly like all of the other cartoons from that time period, like the CareBear movies, Strawberry Shortcake, Rose Petal and the Smurfs. All movies created to sell dolls to kids. And it works. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of my favorite villains, the Evil Princess is just the perfect villain for this movie. Full of space travel, horses, diamonds, mystical characters, colorful backgrounds, evil characters, etc etc. Very bright, full of action, you will not get bored. Great movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is awesome due to the fact that it showed how good cartoons really looked in the 80s,the animators were not lazy like they are today,the cartoon had so much detail with very little resources they have with them compared with what we have today.If more people would request these cartoons to be rebroadcast then maybe all of the other 80s cartoons would be shown on television once again,therefore to finish my sentence i would just like to say that this was a cartoon that i grew up with and really would like it to be on tv once again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I got a chance to see this movie at an early screening in Brea and I have been crazy for it ever since. The film is based on Shakespeare's Twelfth Night which I have read and loved and seen on stage a few times so I certainly liked the references. But whether you like Shakespeare or not it won't matter - the movie stands on it's on. It is super funny, witty and charming. Amanda Bynes is hilarious and so was David Cross. Actually the whole cast is great - I just happen to be a huge David Cross fanatic. The cast is hot and the soundtrack kicks lots of cool bands and a few I hadn't heard before but I know they have a CD coming out so I will definitely buy it. Everyone in our audience laughed from start to finish - all age groups. !!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"She's The Man was everything I wanted it to be and maybe even a little more. I love the teen type \"chick flick\" films and I knew this one would be great!! In the same vein as 10 Things I Hate About You (one of my all time faves) She's The Man is a unique, well written, very well performed comedy with some of the funniest lines, and physical comedy I have seen in a long time. It's probably the funniest movie I've seen this year (with the exception of the hilarious Pink Panther.) But She's The Man is actually a more intellectual funny and most of the humor relies on the witty script, \"Three's Company\" style story of mistaken identities, and mixed messages, and the cast.

Amanda Bynes is a star!! Even since the days of the horribly campy (yet strangely entertaining \"The Amanda Show\", she has shown a brilliant talent for comedy. She's probably one of the most talented comediennes out there. Her style of physical comedy, impersonations, and witty dialect makes her hilarious. Previously her big screen debut (where she was the star) was the rather hilarious and well made \"What A Girl Wants.\" If that wasn't her break out vehicle than She's The Man takes care of that hands down. Bynes is really the ultimate girl next door. It's a shame she doesn't do more big screen work because she could be the next \"It\" girl. She is the All American, cute, down to earth, bubbly teen (although she's twenty now) and whether or not she'll be able to carry her talent and style over to being an adult actor will remain to be seen. But for the purpose of this film she is perfect!! She actually legitimately pulls off the rather outlandish plot of her impersonating her twin brother and makes it believable. Not entirely...but believable enough. Most of the script relies on the comedy of her errors trying to be a guy but it's just hilarious, non stop laughs. Channing Tatum redeems himself from his deplorable performance in 2005's \"Havoc\" by plays Duke. He's the jock, the captain of the soccer team, and eventually Bynes' object of affection, unfortunately he's also Sebastian's room mate (who is Bynes.) He's a good leading man, and the chemistry is perfect between them. Laura Ramsey is Olivia, who happens to be attracted to Sebastian (who again is Bynes.) She does good as well although her part is small and she doesn't really effect the rest of the cast one way or another. James Kirk is great in his small role as the real Sebastian. His resemblance to Amanda Bynes is astonishing...they are absolutely believable as twins and further more, from a distance you could understand someone believing Bynes is Sebastian. The rest of the cast all fit in there somewhere and their roles range from brief to more supporting but essentially they are all supporting the story between Bynes and Tatum but everyone is more or less supporting Bynes terrific performance. She easily carries the film with no hesitations and makes it worth while.

This is one of those films that shows so much in the trailer and yet it's not one of those films that when that part comes up it's not funny anymore. The parts in the trailer that make you laugh are even more hilarious in the actual film. Relative newcomer director Andy Fickman does such an incredible job on this film. He weaves together a potentially complicated storyline and makes it flow naturally and makes everything fall together. The story which is loosely based off of Shakespeares Twelfth Night but it's remarkable how much they managed to translate over to this modern day film. It's seemingly completely off the wall but more exact to the classic comedy than you'd think. There isn't too much to say about a downside except that the last half hour drags a little and also becomes a might predictable but it doesn't change the hilarity of the first half of the film. Nonetheless you'll be laughing to tears and it's one of the funniest films in the theater right now hands down!!! 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was absolutely hilarious. I already knew it was going to be a funny movie, but it was funnier than I expected. Sure there were some lame jokes, but they cracked me up. I thought the actors were going to turn out to be pretty bad, but the actors were good in acting out this comedy. I have to give kudos to Amanda Bynes, she looked surprisingly like her brother and pulled off an awesome performance as a boy. As for the other actors, they were funny as well. Of course there were moments where you yell at the screen \"how can you not tell?\", but that's all part of the fun. In the end the plot turned out pretty well. There's a happy ending, but what'd you expect.

Overall,just hilarious.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at a special screening. At first I thought the movie would be like a typical Amanda Bynes movie, but I was wrong. The movie is based on the Shakespeares book \"The Twelth Night\" This movie tells the story of a girl who lives to play soccer. Well when the girls team is cut she has to go to great lengths to get on the guys team at a different school to get revenge on the egotistical guys team at her old school. On her way she gets caught up in a long tangled web of love, lies, and deception. This movie is this years Mean Girls. I think it shows some great new actors abilities and there are defiantly some big stars to be featured in this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a great movie, however it is, as most movie highly predictable. The greatest highlight of the movie of course is the star character Amanda Bynes, who is absolutely gorgeous and hilarious. She is one of very few people in this world who can use all 53 muscles in her face to make the most strangest and gut-busting faces ever made. It's good for the kids, and contains upper male nudity and suggestive nudity towards the end. All in all, they did a good job updating an old classic, and deserves to rest on the movie stand along with O and 10 Things I Hate About You. The other actors also do a swell job, in many of their first time debuts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is full of charming situations and healthy young people easy on the eyes, whether they are wearing clothes or not. The strong superstructure of its plot is upheld by the art of Shakespeare. As Joseph Papp discovered back in the 1950s in Central Park, Shakespeare's plots can be adapted to the manners and customs of the present. And, so the classic tales of cross-dressing and other mischief found in such lighthearted comedies such as Twelfth Night and A Midsummer Night's Eve and As You Like It are used to good effect in this film. All the young actors and actresses do a good job of advancing the plot with their blocking and dialog and costumes. And the idea of a soccer game to bring things to a climax reminds me of Bend It Like Beckham, another charming coming of age movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to be honest, I really had a good time watching She's the Man. Despite it being a typical teenage comedy or if you will the switching of the sexes movie, it had some pretty decent laughs that I think anyone could get. Adults and teens alike would over all enjoy this movie.

Amanda Bynes is your typical rebellious teen who dresses and acts like a guy, and when she is turned down to try out for the boy's soccer team, she decides to take over her brother's appearance to prove herself worthy of being on the boy's soccer team. Of course, love shows itself when she meets another guy who thinks she's her brother. She also has a girl who is chasing after her. Well, the tag line says it all.

This is a fun little teen drama that I think will be remembered for a while. Amanda Bynes did prove something in the film, it's really hard to really act like a guy. :D Well, it's true!

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At first, I honestly thought it would be a corny movie. But after seeing this, I was quite surprised. Amanda Bynes was convincingly funny along with the supporting cast (Especially that character played by \"Bullet tooth Tony\" from Snatch. What a contrasting role between those two movies!). Now, i'm not one to say whether or not an actor is good or not, but her act, especially, was thoroughly enjoyable. Even though the plot devolved into a teeny-bopper love triangle (though very funny) half-way into the movie, I feel that this shouldn't discount, what I think, the movie really is: simply entertaining. So if you happen to stumble upon it, whether by DVD or theater, i'm confident that you'll enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, now at first i thought this was going to be another cheesy romantic comedy, which held back on the comedy but this wasn't. I mean how could it have been with the fabulous Amanda Bynes staring in it! She was amazing, really funny & is still stunning! The boys in it were also extremely fit, one major reason for going girls! The plot is strongly based upon the Shakespeare play 'Twelfth Night', as it was extremely similar, there was even a spider called malvolio, which belonged to the malvolio like character. The script was really well written and pulled together and it was very witty. The football skills in it were also amazing, it even made me think of playing football myself! Anyway, to sum it up this is a light hearted film about young romance, which gets very confusing! Go and see it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is about Viola (Amanda Bynes) and her quest to beat her school Cornwell boys team after they kicked the girls team out. So she goes to the rival school Illaria and joins the boys team, in doing so she falls for Duke (Channing Tatum) who thinks shes a guy and likes Olivia (Laura Ramsey) who likes Viola as a her brother.

I was in a version of the 12th night play and the beginning was very modern. So I knew the play well. I was very exited about seeing this movie and when I saw it it exceeded my expectations. It kept a lot of my favorite lines and I could see big connections to the play. Though it was like the play it was not as complicated. It was also more of a chick flick than I expected but it was good. It was very funny. It pulls you into a whole bunch of crazy love stories and lies. You saw how viola (Amanda Bynes) thought wrongly about what guys thought and her complications in living in a guys world. You also see her room-mate, Duke's(Channing Tatum), impression of this. I really liked seeing the characters being portrayed in a modern way. It also tells the modern theme \"Follow your dreams\" but this time it has a twist. I think this movie was a great movie about a girl who loved soccer and stuck up for herself and her family and her dreams. I think this movie will be the big break for many raising stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think a person would be well-advised to read or see (I favour reading) \"Twelfth Night\" before seeing, or re-seeing \"She's The Man\". The movie is good on its' own, but comparing the two, and looking for the in-jokes makes it a lot more fun. Shakespeare was inspired by others. I think he'd give a thumbs-up.

Harld Bloom said in \"Shakespeare, The Invention of the Human\", that most of the people in \"Twelfth Night\" need to be locked up. Malvolio, the person Malcolm is based on, is-for no good reason. People in \"She's The Man\" are sane in contrast. For instance, Duke Orsino is far more leval than the Duke of Orsino. He also shows that a man can have feelings without being gay. He displays a lot of self-control.

It's a teen comedy (a clean one), so it doesn't have the dark edges of the play. For instance Olivia in the play is mourning the death of her brother. In the movie, she has been dumped.

If you like Sir Andrew and Sir Toby in the play, they don't have the same attention in the movie.

The in-jokes are quite often quick. The hairdresser Pauls' last name is given once. It is Antonio. Lots of people who've read the play say that Antonio has more love for a man than is just friendship. Deep love between men was noted in those days. Some see a sexual side to it-homosexuality was illegal.

The only line from the play I caught is where Duke Orsino quotes the coach on greatness during the soccar game. In the play, it is said by Malvolio, quoting Maria).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this movie right in my eye when I was passing by a hall of posters in the nearby cinema. The tag line was sort of confusing and immediately after reading it, I thought of the possibility of it being similar to National Lampoon's Dorm Daze. I liked that movie, aside from having a huge collection of such genres, I decided to hit it to the cinemas right after my exams for a tension releaser.

Delightfully, I came out smiling from cheek to cheek and had an equally great amount of laughter at bits and points of the movie. Amanda Bynes definitely kicked it off better than Keira Knightley in Bend it Like Beckham. Being both a male and female actor is definitely not that kind of easy especially having to face the similarities of life, coupled together with the reactions that the actress have to respond to. This movie requires a great deal of confusion to confuse themselves and us viewers at the same time. The only way of pulling it off is through this movie.

The principal is obviously sickly hilarious in a serious manner, the girls are equally sexy and beautiful and so are the actors. I'd recommend this movie to all who needs a weekend relaxation and don't worry, you will get laughs throughout the movie. It is a definite guarantee.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shes the man is great. its funny, original and made me laugh so much i nearly wet my seat. the day i went to go see it at the movies i wasn't in the best of moods (man trouble)but leaving the movie i had a grin plastered on my face. The story is a bit out there with the whole no-one noticing that she looks way too much like a girl but hey who am i to say whats believable, the jokes are great and some of the one liners in this 2006 hit could go down in history. Amanda B. did a great job as the main role and Channing Tatum looks too good to be true as her opposite as the gorgeous Duke. So girls go see this because its a great laugh and there's a hot guy in it and boys u go see it because you might just learn something about girls!

All in all a brilliant,fantastic and fun movie which i will be buying on DVD when it comes out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I went to see this movie i thought that this would just be another chic flick i would have to endure with my sister. Plus too Amanda Baynes last movie was not so hot, making me doubt the movie for she is the lead actress.However within 5mins i was laughing so hard i had tears in my eyes, the jokes were not \"out there\" that it took more then a second to understand it but very funny. The script was not too complex that I could not understand the love triangle but was very true to the original play by Shakepeare. I loved every minute of it so much that I kicked a guy two seats away from me in a fit of laughter lol!!! very embarrassing! I'd definitely advise people to see this movie especially girls as the guys in this movie are hot hot hot!!(lol) so much so that I might just get it on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been a fan of Amanda's since All That, and she is still funny. Too me, it's as simple as that. If you like the Bynes, you will like this film. It's harmless fun and quite funny in parts. Vi's wacky Sebastian accent and mannerisms are entirely unrealistic but made me laugh so hard at some points I almost choked on my popcorn.

And anything that gets teens reading Shakespeare (maybe) is a good thing for me.

On a shallow note, Tatum Channing is quite *ahem* freaking hot. He also does a good job with some of the film's tougher scenes.

Some of the side characters are VERY broad, but they are broad in \"Twelfth Night\" so it's cool.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw the first preview for this, I nearly passed out from excitement. I have long been a fan of Twelfth Night- it turned me on to Shakespeare, so to have a modern adaption is a dream come true. My anticipation was not disappointed.

The plot basically follows the original storyline and that means: complicated! I don't want to even try to relate it, the plot summery will probably cover the basics. Just imagine having a girl pretend to be a guy at a boarding school and think of all the possible situations that would create. I will not even pause to question the plausibility of such a plot; reality is NOT the point of the film.

What it IS, though, is absolutely hilarious. Nearly every scene nails the comedic set-up. Kudos to the writers, director and actors on that count.

Amanda Bynes is the star of this film and she carries it wonderfully. She's super-cute, not a vixen and can do faultless comedy. I admire her so much for not going full-on tramp in her films or public life like so many starlets today do. I'm glad there is at least one decent young actress left in Hollywood. OK, I'm off my soap-box...

Channing Tatum, yeah he's hot and built like a flippin gorilla, but he really makes me laugh! My favourite scenes in the whole movie are when he's trying to converse with Olivia first by talking about cheese and then later about his workout regimen.

The rest of the cast did not fail to perform either, with marvelous additions to the characters in the forms of the inane d\u00e9butante mother and Monique, the classic evil girlfriend.

Overall, lots of fun, loooots of laughs, and a highly attractive cast. Maybe not on par with the original, but it beats out modern versions of other plays, including the much-touted 10 things I Hate About You.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you haven't seen this movie than you need to. It rocks and you have to watch it. It is so funny and will make you laugh your guts out!! so you have to watch it and i saw it about a billion and a half times and still think it is funny. so you have to. yes i have memorized the whole movie and could quote it to you from start to finish. you must see this move. it is also cute because it is half a chick flick. if you don't watch it then you are really missing out.this movie even has cute guys in it and that is always a bonus. so in summary watch the movie now and trust me you will not be making a mistake. did i mention the music is good too. So you should like it if you enjoy music. This is a movie that they rated correctly and it will work for anyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought that this movie was going to be totally lame based on the advertisements that I saw in theaters. When my sister borrowed from a friend I decided to watch it because it was summer and there was nothing else to do. . .needless to say ten minutes in the movie and I loved it. Amanda was a great actor in the movie, her comedic timing was perfect. The guy who played Duke was hot, plain and simple. My favorite scene was definitely when Amanda walks by the gardener and a fellow student who is suspicious of her and she is talking to her mom about dresses--as she is pretending to be a guy! I re-watched this part over and over... to make a long story short, the movie I thought was going to be lame--I now own it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie was great and everything but, there were a lot of mistakes in the \"soccer\" scenes, i wonder if any of the guys who were working on the movie have ever seen a soccer match before..? first of all, i don't understand how she wanted to try for the boys team? in soccer boys and girls cant play in the same team and these are the FIFA rules. And don't get me started on who when they found out that she was actually a girl they let her continue to play...!! second of all, players cant paint their faces with colours and play like that, again FIFA rules not mine.

and don't get me started on the way they scored goals its was ridiculous completely unrealistic. and all the players seemed like they didn't know Jack about soccer.

and when duke was training Viola why did they only concentrate on shooting what happened to passing and dribbling. or was shooting her only problem?! and why the hell were all the posters on the wall in their room were for players from Chelse ?! don't they like any other players from any other teams.? it was like this was the only team they know...! but other than that the movie was good and i enjoyed the rest of it, just the training and the game scenes were unrealistic for me. they really should have consulted some one a bout them...!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just rented this movie from the video store last night. It being new and not released long ago here, the rent was only overnight. Me, my little sis, and my older brother who usually hates watching these kind of movies sat down and watched. Once the movie started and after sitting there watching it for a while we were all laughing historically. Even my brother. This movie is hilarious, I actually laughed. No matter how funny some movies are... even if I think its funny I sometimes can't seem to laugh. But this movie... I laughed. My brother ended up thinking it was the best \"that type of movie\" he had seen. I ended up watching the movie again about 2 or 3 hours later.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a fantastically written screenplay when it comes to perceiving things from another perspective. The comedy was timely and not overdone, the acting was generally terrific, and the plot line served a greater purpose of generating misconception when we think about people solely based on their external appearance. The plot twists as the brother\/sister character of Amanda Bynes tries to play soccer on the boys team finding instead a new love interest along the way. Tatum Channing is where the real misperception lies and he does a fine job of acting disinterested at first, later coming to realize the most important thing in life is friendship, not attitude.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well,i'm not a movie critic or something like that.But I have my opinion for this movie.I think that the best in this movie was Amanda Bynes,she played her roll for my look very well,i have watched many her movies,this I liked most!When you are watching this movie,you just can relax,come down,and watch it.You don't have to try to look for subtext or something like that.You just watch it. Movie is really great. Maybe I liked it for actress,maybe for all the scenery,but i liked it.The whole atmosphere that was created.In one moment I just felt like I was in that university,in that room.It is not another drama movie that is made to win Oscar,it is just nice movie to watch in your free time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is a classic American movie in combination with comedy, romance & dream. you may say:' there have been lots of these kind of films already. but just believe me, you'll find this a good one because it's well directed, scripted and played. Amanda Bynes's just crazily amazing! she's humor, cute & charming both inside & outside the screen. she's the MAN indeed!!! the message i get from it is to pursue your own fairy tale. what i mean by'fairy tale' is not the one with prince & princess, but indicates 'faith'. namely, it tells us to hold your faith, dream & things that make you regret for your whole life if you don't do that. one of those movies you can't miss out in your life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this movie is amazing but there is one problem. there is one song that i want to find but cannot find it. it starts on about 18 minutes just after the coach has said \"what are u the runt of the family\", and then looks at the fat kid takes his hat off then he says go, the song that starts there, i would like to know what it is? Does any 1 no email me please or add a comment.It Starts Zaga Zow, Ziga Zow something along those lines. I just think it is an amazing dance track i would love to have that song so that i could use it in my break dancing lessons. It starts when they are jumping and running over the orange fast stepper things which are used in football training to help you run faster","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"She's the Man was the funniest movie I have ever seen. I laughed so hard that I was crying. It was also very romantic. Channing Tatum is absolutely gorgeous and can really act. It sure doesn't hurt that he has quite a few shirtless scenes either. Channing and Amanda have amazing chemistry and were absolutely wonderful together. I love this movie. When you watch make sure to watch the last deleted scene. It was a huge mistake to cut that scene because it is one of the best scenes in the movie. I highly recommend this movie. Amanda has never been funnier. And Channing is going to be a huge star. This is just the first of many for this bright new star.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, so I don't understand why people are getting so aggravated over this movie. So I thought it was going to be the usual Amanda Bynes movie, but it wasn't. It was GREAT.

Okay, okay, so the acting wasn't the best, but I thought the performances were still overall great. Also, you could tell that the actors were having fun while doing this movie. In other movies, that have surprisingly won awards, where the actors didn't like working on the film, you could tell. All of the actors had chemistry, and that also showed.

A ton of people are ripping on the soccer skills that the actors have. Yah, so they're not perfect...get over it! They are actors, not soccer players. I have been playing soccer for my whole life, and trust me, it is hard to learn, so stop ripping on the level of skills they have.

I thought this movie was going to be stupid, but it was really funny. The way Amanda Bynes and Channing Tatum can make a situation funny without even saying anything is funny. I found myself laughing a lot in this movie.

Overall..I LOVE IT!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie so much. I'm a big fan of Amanda Bynes's recently ended show. I admire her(besides her body) for her acting capability. She is a good actress.

The movie was great. Its about a girl named Viola who wants to play soccer, but when her school cuts the girls soccer team she gets upset. Her brother is set to go to a prestigious school and he decides to leave to England. So Viola wants to make an impression by playing on the soccer team at the boarding school. She goes to the school and tries out for the soccer team. She gets in. Meanwhile she meets Duke who is a sensitive guy who plays on the soccer team. He really likes Olivia (Laura Ramsey) who likes Sebastian-who is really viola. Sebastian is dating Monique and suspects that Sebastian isn't being himself.

This is certainly NOT a chick flick and I enjoyed it a lot. Its so funny and lovable. I don't think I have seen AManda act better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has got to be one of the best episodes of Doctor Who that I've seen since it came back last year. There is a brilliant mix of amusement, fear and tenderness all mixed up which equals one amazing episode. The ood were brilliantly designed and I'm pretty sure there' going to be a lot of ood jokes in the next few weeks. I myself am guilty of that already.I particularly liked the way that we saw a different perspective of Rose's and the Doctor's relationship and the ending;well, it's the first time I have ever hidden behind a cushion! I cannot WAIT until next weeks episode to find how they get out of this mess.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even an old cynical DOCTOR WHO fan like myself can be left breathless by watching an episode of my favourite show . It happened previously during Eccleston's finale and it happened watching this episode . It doesn't happen often though but The Impossible Planet is an example of both the show and of television at its very , very best . This is stunning television

The Doctor and his companion land in a mysterious place where they see strange writing on the wall and the audience ( Many of who will be moving behind the sofa ) are instantly transfixed . A door opens and horrible monsters start stalking the time travellers . This might have taken up an entire 25 minute episode in the original show but all this takes place in he pre title sequence . You may miss the longer drawn out format of the original show but at least this new series is tightly plotted and if we're treated to a disappointing story then at least it's usually only for one week

There is nothing to disappointment a viewer here . It is DOCTOR WHO at its most traditional best . Writer Matt Jones and director James Strong have gone out of their way to make a story that will be regarded for years to come . They do this by constructing a doom laden narrative . The Doctor and Rose lose the Tardis and they're stuck with the protagonists in the far flung future . It's interesting how many stories never feature this type of plot point where the Doctor and his companions no longer have access to the Tardis which makes for a more intriguing type of story . Without doubt the highlight is the scene where Scooti goes to look for Toby only to find him standing on the surface of the planet where he turns and beckons her outside . Everything from acting , make up and Murray Gold's music makes this a scene that genuinely shocks its audience

I can imagine immediately after this episode the BBC switchboards received a tsunami of complaints for distressed parents saying how traumatised their children were . That it took them several hours to get them from behind the family sofa and that they're now refusing to sleep with the lights out . To do this complaining would be to deny the magic of DOCTOR WHO . Yes it can terrify and yes such images will burn themselves in to the mind of a child , something they will never forget even if hey live to be a hundred . But I will bet my life that these same \" traumatised \" children would have spent the week begging that no matter what they'll be allowed to watch the next episode","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you want to really terrify people, choose the Devil as your subject. After all, a good deal of the population believe that he is real. Therefore you are plugging into a whole meaty swathe of pre-existing religious and mythological imagery. And bound to cause quite a few nightmares in your young audience.

This episode had all the appearance of a Hollywood blockbuster. In fact, having finished watching it I flicked over to another channel which was playing a recent Bond film and quite frankly couldn't split a hair between the differences in SFX. With a minimal cast, restricted by its situation on a space station; complete with overwhelming panoramic views of an imploding universe, it was as claustrophobic and intense as Alien or Event Horison. The black hole outside made it feel as if the black hole's weight of dark matter was pressing the station onto the planet and to Whatever was sealed inside. And as the horror is intensified by the knowledge that the Dr and Rose are stranded, the sinister Ood start channelling a disembodied voice and then the characters start being picked off one by one...

This has all the best qualities of the cream of this new Dr Who endeavour; Girl in the Fireplace and the Empty Child. Emotionally engaging, frightening and humorous all without seeming cheesy. This is far scarier than any amount of flying Daleks. But it has to be asked, is this really suitable viewing for children? This is not a family friendly episode. Pity the poor parent who has to put their kids to bed after this one. I'm not sure I even want to see what happens next!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oooooh man was I pleased I didn't miss this. I wanted to post this review as this episode in particular does what a certain recent movie did not. It pays true homage to the game DOOM. Its plot is different yes, and the characters are obviously set in an entirely different universe (obviously the doctor who universe) however the feel, the pace, the references and the location are perfect. And for all original Doom fans listen out for the door opening and closing sound effect, it was the icing on the cake for me.

Please all doctor who and Doom fans alike, check this one out. its a gem!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rose and the good Doctor find themselves in a space station that is on a planet that's quite impossibly hovering in orbit right below a black hole. The crew of the station is just as perplexed at that as the two new inhabitants are. Suitably spooky in it's atmosphere and gets better as the Doctor and Rose find themselves stranded due to circumstances out of their control and speaking through the submissive alien race of the Ood, something quite dark is coming from below the crust of the planet. Not haven seen the second part of this two-parter I can't vouch that the end is as strong yet. But it does make for one hell of a beginning.

My Grade: A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What's the most violent movie of all time? Rambo III? Commando? Robocop? Add these three very violent together, and you still won't equal the carnage in The Stabilizer, the wildest, silliest, craziest action movie I have ever seen. For one hundred minutes things blow up and people die in dozens of strange ways. It will make you laugh and cheer, and when it's all over you'll be more than a little exhausted. This movie is a buried gem, a cult classic sadly lacking a cult.

The Stabilizer is the nickname of our hero Peter Goldson (Peter O'Brian), a large oily man with a curly mullet. He arrives in Indonesia on the trail of the villainous and mean Greg Rainmaker. We know he is evil because he is only referred to by his full name (\"I hate SCUM like Greg RAINmaker!\") and utilizes a method of killing that is so horrible I can't even utter it here. Wait, yes I can. He steps on people in spiky shoes. Greg Rainmaker: Cleat Killer.

When Greg Rainmaker isn't pouring alcohol on women for their sexual pleasure, he's kidnapping important professors and heading a huge underworld empire. It's up to Goldson (A Jewish action hero? Gevalt!) and his motley crew of sidekicks to stabilize the situation by killing everyone and blowing lots of stuff up. Maybe \"stabilize\" has a different meaning in Indonesia.

And the violence, oh the violence. This is a film unwilling, nay, uncapable, of letting five minutes of screen time go by without some sort of explosion, knifing, car crash, or squib interrupting the dialogue. The violence is extreme; not graphic and bloody, just really weird. For example, The Stabilizer & company invade one of Rainmaker's warehouses (by driving through a solid concrete wall on a motorcycle, of course). When perched on the balcony, with heavy fire coming from below, The Stabilizer does the one thing he can do. He drives off the balcony into the guy's head, his front tire bouncing off it like a basketball. Astounding.

From the overly-gratuitous love scenes (Both major female characters hop in the sack with the hero of their choice not two minutes after they speak to them alone for the first time) to the poorly dubbed dialogue (\"Victor, you talented bastard!\") The Stabilizer has it all. This is a film for the ages, right up there with Citizen Kane and Gymkata. It is not widely available in release. If you find it anywhere for any price, buy it and relish the insanity.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would like to start by saying I can only hope that the makers of this movie and it's sister film The Intruder (directed by the great unheralded stylist auteur that is Jopi Burnama) know in their hearts just how much pleasure they have brought to me and my friends in the sleepy north eastern town of Jarrow.

From the opening pre credit sequence which manages to drag ever so slightly despite containing a man crashing through a window on a motorbike, the pitiless destruction of a silence lab, the introduction of one of the most simultaneously annoying and anaemic bad guys in movie history and costume design that Jean Paul Gautier would find ott and garish. Make no mistake; this is a truly unique experience. Early highlight - an explosion (get used to it, plenty more where that came from!) followed by a close up of our chubby heroine and the most hilarious line reading of the word \"dad\" in living memory. And then... the theme song...

Yeah, this deserves its own paragraph. Sung by AJ, written by people who really should wish to remain anonymous, it makes the songs written for the Rocky films sound like Schubert. This is crap 80's hero motivation narcissism at an all time high, with choice lyrics such as \"its only me and you, its come down to the wire\" and much talk of having to \"cross the line\" (it'll make sense in time - our hero cares little for the boundaries of bona fida police work) abounding. Not to mention the Indonesian Supremes cooing the film's title seductively. At this point anyone wishing to switch off officially has no pulse.

Our hero is Semitic cop Peter Goldson (essayed brilliantly by Intruder star Peter O'Brien), the \"stabilizer\" of the title. The man's bull in a china shop approach to crime fighting and particularly his less than inconspicuous undercover work truly leaves much to be desired, but he is without question an entertaining guide through the mean streets of downtown Jakarta, with local sleaze ball connection Captain Johnny in tow, as well as Peter's own waste of space partner in fashion crime Sylvia Nash, who does little. So many highlights, so little time - the \"slide please\" arrogance of Peter's not all too convincingly argued case against chief baddie Greg Rainmaker (Intruder fans will know hirsute slimy bastard Craig Gavin as the monstrous John White - helluva name eh? No! Oh well...), the x marks the spot location map stupidity, our hero taking horrible advantage of heroine Tina Probost during a moment of weakness on her behalf, the latter turning up at a sting operation dressed like a member of a particularly flamboyant dancing troop. And believe me that barely covers it.

There wasn't even time to go into the plot revolving around the hunt for a drug detection system and a kidnapped professor with an alarming but commendable amount of national pride. Or our hero turning up at a funeral dressed as if an extra on Boogie Nights. Or the absolutely hysterical craic between Captain Johnny and Goldson - two guys have never made more heavy weather of buddy buddy shtick than these clowns. The trowel was possibly too subtle me thinks.

Ah it tails off people, and you never thought scenes of wanton destruction and general mayhem could be so unbelievably boring, but the character interaction is stupendous, the dialogue truly priceless and the incompetence on show somehow endearing. Oh and the shoes people - watch out for the shoes!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Do you like explosions? How about fighting? Well, this movie has both of those. You know the other thing you can't have a movie without: a kick ass motorcycle, the type that bounces off someone's head and knocks them out at the same time. You bet the Stabilizer has one. There's even a classic cliff scene.

All in all, I'm quite proud that I have even seen this movie...and even prouder to have my review be the first one...YES!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) begins this story in disguise, helping to smuggle famous physicist \"Dr. Franz Tobel\" (William Post) out of Switzeralnad and under the watchful eye of the Nazis, who want his bomb sight plans. The Allies obviously want it, too, and Sherlock is there to help. Dr. Tobel has invented an instrument which greatly aids in the accuracy of aerial bombardment.

Holmes and Dr. Tobel arrive safely back at Baker Street but the scientist would rather be alone, for some mysterious reason, although he had promised the English to help them, not the Germans. He stays true to that promise but there are some desperate moments for Holmes and the English along the way.

It's an entertaining film and one in which our famous detective uses not one but three different disguises. He needs all the help he can get when he goes up against his arch-rival, \"Professor Moriarity.\" One complaint: if Moriarity was that evil, he would have dispensed with Holmes without batting an eyelash, instead of giving him openings to escape. It's pretty sad, too, when the usual dim-witted Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) has to rescue his boss from certain death a couple of times!

Yes, there are some credibility issues in this story but if you can put your brain on hold a few times, it's a fun film to watch....and it looks beautiful, thanks to the great restoration job done on this DVD. It makes the old print come alive with some wonderful visuals, particularly the night-time shots.

One other note: whoever did the English subtitles in here misspelled or misinterpreted at least a half dozen words. It's very sloppy work, and not the first time I've encountered this watching the entire series on the restored DVD set.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) have been hired by the British government to protect a Swiss scientist Dr. Franz Tobel (William Post Jr.). He has a bomb that the British want to win the war. Unfortunately the evil Dr. Moriarty (Lionel Atwill) is working with the Nazis and will stop at nothing to get the doctor--and his invention.

Moving Sherlock Holmes to the 1940s sounded like a stupid idea but it does work for one reason--Basil Rathbone. Arguably he is the BEST Sherlock Holmes ever put on the screen. He plays the character so well (and accurately) that it doesn't matter what era he's solving crimes. As for Nigel Bruce as Watson...everybody has problems with it. He plays Watson as a bumbling old fool...that is NOT the Watson of the books. You seriously wonder why Holmes puts up with him. Still, he does grow on you (in a way). Then there's Atwill having a whale of a time playing Moriarty--the discussions and battle of wits between him and Holmes are just great! I've never liked Dennis Hoey as Inspector Lestrade--he's such an idiot. Makes Watson look like a genius. And Post Jr. is pretty good as Tobel (even though his accent amusingly keeps changing!).

This movie is done elaborately and runs only a little over an hour. Still, it does have it's slow spots and I never understood the secret code section.

Still, worth catching if just for Rathbone and Atwill.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The evil Professor Moriarty plots to gain control of both SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SECRET WEAPON which could win the war for the Nazis.

Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce return to the screen as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's beloved detective and sidekick, Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson, in this entertaining little mystery. Universal Studios wasted no money on either fancy production values or a sensible script, knowing that its two stars would be all the attraction an audience would need. Indeed Rathbone, as the cerebral ego, and Bruce, as the bumbling id, seem to actually become the characters they are creating, gleefully keeping their faces straight while engaged in the most utter nonsense.

Dennis Hoey makes his first appearance as the dogged Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard; teamed with Bruce, these two good-hearted but pedantic fellows actually get to save the intellectually superior Holmes' life twice. Lionel Atwill, a master of the sinister who deserves more recognition for his talent, does a fine job as Moriarty, making the wicked rascal a foe worthy of Holmes' steel, relishing the scenes in which he gets to inflict torture & pain.

William Post Jr. and Kaaren Verne play the Swiss scientist and his girlfriend who are at the heart of the mystery, but they're not given much to do. Sweet Mary Gordon makes a token appearance as Holmes' landlady Mrs. Hudson.

Rathbone spices up his already classic interpretation of Holmes by getting to appear in disguise three times during the story, thereby revealing to the viewer that the great sleuth was a bit of a ham actor at heart.

This film--which is based very loosely on elements in Sir Arthur's short stories 'The Dancing Men' and 'The Empty House'--followed SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE VOICE OF TERROR (1942) and preceded SHERLOCK HOLMES IN WASHINGTON (1943).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a fair number of Sherlock Holmes accounts but the popularity of the famous detective insured that sequels in both print and on film would extend far beyond the author's works.

In \"Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon,\" Holmes, Basil Rathbone, patriotically serves British intelligence in order to secure a Swiss scientist's desperately needed bombsight. The film is from 1942 and I wonder if the producers and writers realized how vital bombsight secrets were (the American Norden bombsight was guarded almost as zealously as the new radar sets that would change the course of World War II).

Holmes and his faithful but expectedly bumbling companion, Dr. Watson, Nigel Bruce, battle Dr. Moriarty, Lionel Atwill. As evil as Moriarty has always been it's a bit of a shock to see he's signed up with Hitler. Has the man no vestige of decency? I guess not. But Atwill is deliciously evil.

The story is reasonably fast-paced as Holmes and Watson seek to recover stolen bombsight components before they can be delivered to a U-boat. Rathbone is his usual suave self and several Holmsian disguises are well carried out.

This and other 1940s Holmes stories are now available on DVD and oldies.com has put out a very nice four-disc set in a wooden box: this film is included along with a bonus CD of an interview with the aged Doyle. The set retails for about $26 in major DVD and CD stores but I found this and other sets from oldies.com at a warehouse club for $14.98. The transfers are very good.

Very nice and relaxing late night viewing.

7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This jingoist outing concerns the usual battle Holmes vs. Moriaty,but this time in an effort to save the British war against the Nazis.Sherlock Holmes(Rathbone) and Watson(Bruce),the detecting duo living in 223 Baker Street,again are up against their old enemy Dr. Moriarty(Lionel Atwill).The film starts in Switzerland where Holmes saves from the Nazis to an inventor of a bomb-sight,named Dr. Tobel(Post).Back in London,Tobel hand over four parts of the device to diverse scientist.But Doctor Tobel is kidnapped by Moriarty.Sherlock must to solve his disappearance and some vitally important.Holmes only holds a clue left his girlfriend(Kareen Verne),the detective with an extraordinary mechanism get decode it.But dead body scientific are accumulating but have appeared murdered and Moriarty knows the keys ,as well.Holmes disguised as sailor goes out to investigate ,finding the Moriarty's shelter .The picture is based on\u00a8 the dancing men\u00a8by Arthur Conan Doyle.This is a Rathbone-Bruce effort for the WWII along with \u00a8The voice of terror\u00a8 in which we are asked to believe the magnificent detective could have lived in this century. Both stories are completely patriotic and flag-waging movies.In fact,on the end there's an advertising buying of war bonds with evident propaganda.

The movie is an excellent Holmes thriller with gripping wartime setting and unanswered mysteries and unstopped suspense.In the film appear the habituals from Holmes series.His nemesis Moriarty,,Mistress Hudson,Inspector Lestrade( a funny Dennis Hoey) and of course the bumbling Dr. Watson.Basil Rathbone performance is splendid ,he's the best cinema's Holmes similar to television's Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett.Rathbone as whimsical sleuth is top notch,he's in cracking form,intelligent,broody and impetuous.He's finely matched in battle of wits with Moriarty,his arch-enemy,a first range villain: Lionel Atwill.Nigel Bruce plays Watson with humor,jinx,goofy and mirth.He's the perfect counterpoint of Holmes.Besides appear briefly distinguished secondaries as Paul Fix and Whit Bissell.This classic gets an atmospheric black and white cinematography but available colorized in a horrible version.Adequate music score fitting to suspense by Frank Skinner.The motion picture is professionally R. William O'Neal,the usual saga director and habitual in the monsters movies Universal.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not too bad entry in the series, heavily ladled with war propaganda, but Rathbone & Bruce's sincerity keep me happy.

It's a rather fantastic story from start to finish, just how many McGuffin's are there? Holmes (and Moriarty independently) reeling out the Dancing Men code uncoded so fast was Amazing Watson - so why weren't you amazed! The post explaining the bomb-sight\/enlarger tickled me, it was just the kind of cheap trick Universal would play - once again reminding me that they didn't expect people to be critically watching this over 60 years later. This (and I think every other potboiler from Universal at this period) were meant to be viewed the once or twice and forgotten. They perhaps should have realised that basically people don't change, that what was entertaining to ordinary people in 1942 would still entertain a select group now (2005) and tightened up on the script and sets!

Lionel Atwill was going through his Hollywood rape court case at about this time, I wonder if it was that or particularly effective make-up that made him look so haggard as Moriarty?

The important thing about SW though is that this was the first Holmes film Roy William Neill directed, I think he directed all of the rest and produced all but one, thus establishing a marvellous ambient continuity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dr. Franz Tobel, a Swiss scientist, is smuggled out of his home country by Sherlock Holmes in order that the Nazi agents spying him do not get his invention of a new bomb sight. Arriving in London, he takes residence with Holmes and Watson, but goes out for a visit with his girlfriend, Charlotte Eberli, where he leaves a clue for Holmes as to the locations of his bomb sight, which he has divided into four pieces, but Holmes' eternal nemesis, Professor Moriarity, is also seeking the bomb sight to sell to the Nazis, and abducts Dr. Tobel and the clue left at Charlotte's, a code series of dancing men, which both Holmes and Moriarity are both unable to decipher completely. Holmes eventually discovers the clue to the code and get the location of the fourth piece of the bomb sight, but Moriarity has the other three and a showdown is inevitable. Very good entry in the Holmes series with plenty of mystery and guesswork to go about. Atwill's portrayal of Moriarity is more sadistic than the cunning sort described in the Doyle stories (or George Zucco's performance in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes), but Atwill's skills as an actor makes his Moriarity quite the benevolent fellow. The script and direction both make this entry more of a cat and mouse game between the two characters and that is one of the reasons this entry succeeds so well. Great job on the cinematography as well. Rating, 8.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the Universal series of modern Sherlock Holmes stories with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SECRET WEOPON is not one of the top films - although it is entertaining. I think the problem with it is that much of the film's \"dueling\" between Holmes and his nemesis Moriarty (here played by Lionel Atwill) seems to delay the actual point of the Professor's work.

Moriarty appears in three of the Holmes films with Rathbone. In THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES he was played by George Zucco, who gave real relish to the love of villainy for its own sake to the role. For my money Zucco's performance as the Professor was the best of the three (there is even a brief moment of comedy in his performance, when he's disguised as the \"Sergeant of Police\" towards the end - like he's preparing to sing \"A Policeman's Lot\" from Gilbert & Sullivan). Next comes Mr. Atwill's performance here - more of that later. Finally there is Henry Daniell's intellectual Moriarty in SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE LADY IN GREEN. It's a typically cool, classy performance by Mr. Daniell, but his confrontations with Holmes seem to be a tedious bore to him. They keep him from completing the main plan. In the stories that the Professor pops up in, he really senses Holmes is a nemesis who will remain a danger as long as he is alive. Yet, because of the intellectual tennis match between him and Rathbone, Rathbone (in his autobiography) actually felt Daniell was the best of the film Moriartys.

If Zucco captured the love of evil in the Professor, and Daniell seemed to demonstrate the tired Oxford Don (in the stories the Professor is a well regarded mathematician, whose volume on the binomial theorem had a \"European vogue\", and who wrote an intriguing book, THE DYNAMICS OF THE ASTEROID), Atwill demonstrates the Professor as pragmatic businessman. First of all, he's sold his services (apparently) to Nazi Germany. This is never gone into, but one presumes (as this is before the Nazis began to really collapse) he figures they will win the war. Secondly, he is not a fool. When Dr. Tobel (William Post Jr.) has shown he is a state of near physical collapse due to the torturing of Moriarty's gang, the Professor decides to kidnap one of the other scientists who are assisting Tobel, because he's as good a scientist as Tobel and would be able to put together the bomb site. I somehow can't quite see Zucco making such a sensible decision on the spot, and if Daniell had to make it, he would seem annoyed that there is yet another delay to his plans.

By the way, one trick used in all the Holmes series regarding the Professor is how to rid the film of him. If you read the Holmes stories, Moriarty appears as the villain three times: in THE MEMOIRS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES' last story (\"THE ADVENTURE OF THE FINAL PROBLEM\"), in THE RETURN OF SHERLOCK HOLMES' first story (\"THE ADVENTURE OF THE EMPTY HOUSE\") and the last of the four novels\/novellas (THE VALLEY OF FEAR). It's amazing how much mileage the Professor got out of so few appearances (he is mentioned in two or three other stories as well - in passing). But because of his fate at the Reichenbach Falls in \"THE FINAL PROBLEM\" and \"THE EMPTY HOUSE\", we always see him fall to his death. Zucco falls off the White Tower on Tower Hill. Daniell (with more imagination) tries to flee Gregson and the police, but is shot as he jumps, and wounded fails to hold on to the wall of an adjacent building. Atwill (here it is not seen, but heard) seems to fall down a trap door he's planted in an escape tunnel). It is really tedious after awhile to see the Professor always fall in these films. One turns to the Gene Wilder comedy (admittedly a comedy) SHERLOCK HOLMES' SMARTER BROTHER, wherein Leo McKern is a wonderfully wacky and villainous Moriarty (complete, finally, with an Irish accent), who is not killed at the end, but just left mulling - in a rowboat - over how his careful schemes did not work out. I rather liked that better.

The use of the \"Dancing Men\" code here, like the use of the \"Devil's Foot Root\" in DRESSED TO KILL, snags a part of a mystery from a short story. \"THE ADVENTURE OF THE DANCING MEN\" appeared in THE RETURN OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, and deals with a client of Holmes whose wife has been getting weird, blood-curdling messages in this code. Charles Higham, in his biography THE ADVENTURES OF CONAN DOYLE suggests Sir Arthur may have picked up the code from a magazine game in the 1870s, but we really don't know. The code is basically one of letter substitutions for the figures of the dancing men. The story in the short story is dramatic, but deals with a triangle. The only innovation in the film is that Tobel makes a slight change that confuses both Holmes and Moriarty.

The film will entertain, but I still think THE HOUSE OF FEAR, THE SCARLET CLAW, and SHERLOCK HOLMES FACES DEATH are better films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For the sake of propaganda during World War II, Sherlock Holmes was moved into the then-present. One of the results is \"Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon,\" starring a top Holmes, Basil Rathbone, along with Nigel Bruce, Lionel Atwill, Dennis Hoey and Kaaren Verne. It is Holmes' assignment to deliver a scientist, Dr. Franz Tobel (William Post Jr.) and his weapon design to the British government before the Germans can get him. Once the man reaches England, however, his troubles are just beginning. Can Holmes decode the message Dr. Tobel left before falling into the hands of the vicious Moriarity, save the weapon and possibly the scientist too? This is an effective Holmes story, set in the atmosphere of Switzerland and blackout England. The series worked just fine in the present day. It was not without its problems, but those problems had nothing to do with the time period. Whose idea was it to make Watson an idiot? Nigel Bruce's characterization - aided and abetted by the scripts - has always been the false note. I much prefer the characterization of Edward Hardwicke in the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes series - there, he's attractive, intelligent and a believable companion for Holmes. In the Rathbone series, Holmes is often condescending and treats Watson like the bumbling fool that he is. However, in this particular film, Watson has a chance to be quite helpful in several parts.

I admit to being a complete sap for Rathbone's recitation from Richard II - \"...this blessed plot, this earth, this England\" - I can't imagine how much it meant to the Brits watching the film in 1942. Sherlock Holmes really served his purpose.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and Professor Moriarty (Lionel Atwill) engage in a battle of wits for control of a Switz inventor's newest bomb-sight creation. Holmes wants to safeguard it for the British while Moriarty isn't above selling out to the Nazis.

While no doubt many fans will be disappointed to see Holmes updated to the 1940s war-time setting, this particular film proves light-hearted fun which doesn't wallow in wartime propaganda as it might well have done. Dennis Hoey's Inspector Lestrade and Nigel Bruce's Dr. Watson do tend to steal the show as their characters bumbling methods consistently provide delightful comic relief. The sparring between Holmes and Moriraty is colorful and well thought out to boot. Atwill does well enough as Moriarty even if he's not as memorable as some others who played the role.

While this provides nothing especially new or thrilling for fans of the series, it is a wonderful escape from reality, somewhat appropriate for 1942 in my opinion, that mirrors many movie serial adventures of the 1930s and 1940s but boasts a more compact, less repetitive plot. And all this is done while still remaining true to the basic spirit of Sherlock Holmes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Since others have complained about putting Sherlock Holmes into a contemporary setting, I won't do that. Basil Rathbone could have fit in in any era with that voice, that savoir faire. This is a nicely put together mystery based loosely on \"The Dancing Men,\" one of the best of Conan-Doyle's stories. Instead of the original plot, it makes the men part of a Nazi plot. Holmes becomes a spokesman for the British war effort. His adversary is Moriarity, who seems to die frequently enough to rival the central figure in the Friday 13th films. He is certainly creative, but the Rathbone Holmes is unflappable. Watson is just along for the ride in this one. He isn't given much stupidity to spout in this film and that's a real plus. The plot is complex enough to keep ones interest. There is a concluding speech that is almost a parody of itself. But then I can't be critical of a time and nation that was under great duress. If they needed to call in Holmes, so be it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great late night movie! What I mean by that is that I truly have enjoyed playing my $3.00 VHS copy (now I have a $6.99 DVD Copy!) many nights just before bedtime or if I have insomnia. There's just something about this movie that makes it fun to watch in repeated viewings. It could be the fun that Basil Rathbone has in \"The Secret Weapon\" wearing several disguises which fool the bad guys and Holmes's assistant Nigel Bruce (Watson) but not the housekeeper (Mary Gordon). It could be the espionage, code cracking and WW II theme. It could even be the light touch which the director uses to handle the threatening situations Holmes finds himself in while keeping the story moving. Whatever it is, \"Secret Weapon\" is simply a pleasant and enjoyable detective story which takes us back to a time when the Nazis were seeking world domination and does it with the bonus of the camaraderie between Watson and Holmes. Whether you agree with the patriotic speeches and noble \"save the world\" themes of this movie or not (I think they are right on!), I find that they only add to the flavor and fun of this fine old adventure film that holds up to repeated viewings. I rate it a pleasant 83\/100 points.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce return as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in this superior tale of Holmes battling the 3rd Reich and the mastermind genius of Professor Moriarty. The film opens up in Switzerland as Holmes is in disguise as an \"old bookseller.\" He must bring Dr. Tobel and the Tobel Bomb Site to England before the Germans can kidnap Tobel. Holmes succeeds and the Germans recuit the evil Professor. Moriarty manages to outwit Scotland yard and LeStrad \"Dennis Hoey\" by kidnapping Tobel. The only clue left by Tobel is a list of \"dancing men.\" Who will break the hidden code of dancing men, Holmes or Moriarty first? Can Holmes prevent the bomb site from falling into the German hands thereby saving England from the precision bombing techniques developed by Tobel's bomb site? Watch and enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this probably slightly more than Terror by Night though not enough to give it the extra *. The beginning is just brilliant, as we peek in on Nazi agents scheming to get their hands on a new bomb sight and its inventor in a small Swiss village, only to be foiled by a disguised Holmes who spirits the scientist back to London. Once there, he does everything he can to keep the scientist from falling into the hands of the man behind it all -- not Hitler, but worse: Holmes' arch-enemy Moriarty. Of course the scientist disappears, leaving a tantalizing coded note, and Holmes goes in pursuit, once again in disguise. A climax in Moriarty's dockside lair is suitably exciting, and we can all guess that all ends well, can't we? Slightly over-the-top patriotic message as the credits roll. Now that I think of it, the fine sense of place despite the obvious sets, Rathbone's use of disguise and the way in which so much plot is crammed into just over an hour -- what the heck it gets that extra * and is my favorite of the 5 Rathbone\/Bruce films I've seen to date.

Watched on DVD, part of the \"50 Mystery Classics\" set from Mill Creek Entertainment. Many of the transfers on these el cheapo box sets are of very poor quality, but Holmes fans take note that the Rathbone\/Bruce films (there are 4 on this set) are all quite watchable and reasonably sharp.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beginning in 1942, the Sherlock Holmes character as portrayed by Basil Rathbone was set in the then 'modern' Britain. Many Holmes purists have praised the first two entries in the series (produced by FOX), but dismissed the 12 features that followed. I for one was never an avid reader, and thus I appreciate these films as they are without any initial bias. In fact, the setting of World War II for this entry places it as a period piece with the British propaganda evident throughout the film. The execution of the modern Holmes is handled with much more care than the previous entry (Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror)and fares much better for two reasons. First, Roy William Neil is on hand to direct (and would be for the rest of the series), and second although Holmes is pitted against the Nazis, the inclusion of Professor Moriarty makes this feel more like a battle of the intellect between two rivals. Lionel Atwill's performance has been criticized by many as being far inferior to that of George Zucco and Henry Daniel, but I feel as if its more the script than the character interpretation. Especially after seeing that Atwill was very capable of being much more diverse and enthusiastic in other horror roles. Basil Rathbone on the other hand is exceptional in this entry. He seems to be enjoying himself in the role of Holmes, but for that I blame the writing. For example: The introduction of Holmes in the Voice of Terror tries to hard to immediately establish how superbly intelligent Holmes is as soon as he is on screen, whereas this film shows Holmes' brilliant deductions, but also his shortcomings. Even in the climax Holmes initially has the upper hand, only to then have his blood slowly drained from his body. Now there are a few flaws in this film I thought I might point out. First the opening; Aren't the Germans fooled a little too easily? Maybe its just me, but the book seller just waltzes into the bar, says he's gonna get Tobel to not only answer his door after weeks of hiding, but allow him to come in and then go for a walk with him? What!? Second, Tobel certainly seems to put everyone around him in danger. Leaving the secret bomb parts with genius scientists. Leaving the note with his fianc\u00e9. Like what was he thinking? He was endangering them all. I thought he was this superb scientist trying to save England? And isn't the whole concept of 'use it on them before they use it on us' a little harsh. Obvious propaganda. Third, just how in God's name was Holmes supposed to fit in the bottom of that chest? Its really small! In fact the entire execution of Holmes finding Moriarty in the ex-con disguise really doesn't explain itself that well. I have seen this film well over fifty times and there are still parts like this that I find are executed in a very confusing fashion. Fourth, okay so Holmes finds out the first three scientists are dead then immediately assumes that Moriarty couldn't know the name of the fourth man because he wasn't dead yet. Well if Holmes didn't know the name then how could he assume that? The guy could very well have been face down in a lake. Lucky guess. Fifth, again with the confusion. When Holmes is supposedly dying on Moriarty's operating table, how can he recover so quickly? He sure was acting like he lost a few pints of blood, but not enough to stop him from saving the day. Now despite these flaws this is a highly entertaining film. The disguises are well done, the mystery of the dancing men is well done (especially the back-to-back scenes of Holmes and Moriarty each figuring out they were over analyzing them) and Dennis Hoey as Inspector Lestrade is always a plus. And as a final note, the interrogation scene still kinda bothers me, I always thought that was one of the most well done sequences in the whole film. Overall, this film holds a special place with me as it was the one that solidified my Rathbone as Holmes obsession. A classic. 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson respectively, the second of the Universal series, where it's again established by means of a written prologue that the famed detective is legendary and spans time. This helps to comfortably set things up here in the \"present\" era of the early 1940's.

In this offering, Holmes goes through a few different disguises (with Rathbone's very prominent features, is it likely that people really wouldn't recognize his true identity?) as he protects a physicist from the hands of the Nazis as well as from Holmes' greatest nemesis Professor Moriarty (now played by Lionel Atwill). The scientist has developed a bomb sight which will greatly aid in aerial bombardment, and he's promised his plans to the British. But Moriarty wants to get hold of it so he can sell them to the Nazis.

A good entry boosted a bit by the participation of the properly villainous Atwill now cast as Moriarty (though George Zucco was no slouch himself in THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES). It's always intriguing watching Holmes and his greatest enemy engaging in witty banter together (\"the needle to the last, eh, Holmes?\").","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's one of the paradoxes of Basil Rathbone's wartime anti-Nazi Sherlock Holmes films (Voice of Terror, SH in Washington, and this one) that while the plots and settings are mostly terrible, he is so good in them. Despite a bizarre wind-swept hairstyle meant to make him look younger, he blazes through every scene with so much bite and attack that you hardly register how flimsy the plots are. Here he also has great acting rapport with Lionel Atwill, who makes a wonderfully repulsive Professor Moriarty -- a heavy lidded cockroach with nice hints of sadism and depravity (it may not have been acting, kids). At the climax, changed into a lab coat in order to drain Rathbone's blood \"drop by drop,\" he's as over-the-top sinister as Seinfeld's arch-nemesis Newman. The movie itself is ancient kiddie matin\u00e9e fare, but it benefits from director Roy William Neill's attention to staging and atmosphere. It also looks fairly sharp in the DVD's UCLA restoration -- don't even think of buying any other edition, all of them faded, choppy public-domain prints.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A brilliant Sherlock Holmes adventure starring the brilliant Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Despite many other actors brilliantly playing Holmes and Watson and making a great job of it- Rathbone and Bruce will always be the best two.

Holmes takes a Professor Tobell from Switzerland to London. Tobell is wanted by the Nazi's. He has a bomb sight that could win the Second World War. His bomb-site has been split into four parts, each hidden in books. Tobell agrees to give his bomb-site to the British government. On the night of his arrival, Tobell goes to the house of his girlfriend. He has drawn some figures of men, if Tobell was to disappear, the lady was to give the drawings to Holmes. On his journey home he is attacked, but a Policeman stops this and the attacker runs away. Tobell is happy for the British government to use his bomb-site but refuses to give it to them, Tobell wants to look after it. The bomb-site is split into four parts, each part completely useless without the other. He gives one part each of this bomb-site to one of his scientist friends. Then Holmes's greatest fear happens, Tobell goes missing. Holmes visits the young lady Tobell was with the night he was attacked. She tells him about the drawings. The drawings have been stolen. She says only one man came in during the time Tobell left, to fix the light-bulb. The man she describes is Professor Moriarty. He is working for the Nazi's. Seen as he has the drawings, Holmes is done for. But he finds the writing pad he used and using Science, he manages to see what Tobell drew by looking at the next page on the pad. He sees it's code. He sees it's the name of four scientists. The first three he works out the code for, but he can't work out the fourth. The three scientists he has worked out have been murdered and the bomb-site has been taken. Holmes can't work out the fourth scientist, but neither can Moriarty. Disguised as a sailor, Holmes manages to get in Moriarty's office. Moriarty sees straight away it's Holmes, puts him in a box and has him thrown in the sea. But Watson and Lestrade insist they search the box and find Holmes in it. It's now obvious Moriarty is at large. Holmes manages to work out the fourth code, a Frederick Hoffner. Holmes gets round to his house straight away and get Hoffner and the decisive fourth part to safety. Holmes now needs to get Moriarty charged for working with the Nazi's. He pretends to be Hoffner. Moriarty works out the fourth code and gets two men to go round and get Hoffner. They take him back and he comes face to face with Moriarty. Meanwhile Tobell is not in a good way, he has been tortured and tortured to get the name of the fourth scientist. Moriarty has had it with Holmes now, he has got him and his death must be a long one for Holmes. The idea is to put him in his hospital, put a needle in his vein and watch him die of blood loss, drop by drop. Watson runs in and saves the day though. Moriarty gets away, but Holmes was only careless enough to leave Moriarty's trap door open. Moriarty plunges sixty feet.

So, Moriarty dead. No. He makes his final outing in the film 'The Woman in Green' but in 'Green' he is definitely dead, a suicide, he jumps off his roof. It was Moriarty's second of three appearances in the Rathbone series, a different actor playing him on each occasion. His first appearance in 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' was played by George Zucco, his second in this film he was played by Lionell Atwill and Henry Daniels plays him in his final outing in 'The Woman in Green' The first three Holmes films made by Universal were set in the war as Holmes triumphs over the Nazi's. 'The Voice of Terror' was the first, then this film and then 'Sherlock Holmes In Washington' Then it was back to Victorianish times, with definite relations to Edwardian and Georgian (George the fifth and sixth) times. This film had a close link to the Sherlock Holmes short story 'The Dancing Men' which can be found in 'The Return of Sherlock Holmes' A great film, though obvious propaganda, it was a brilliant Holmes outing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched two very different Holmes adventures this morning, but you would be amazed at the similarities.

The was presumably the first collaboration between Basil Rathbone (If I Were King, Romeo and Juliet) and Nigel Bruce, and director Roy William Neill. It was not their first Sherlock Holmes adventure, as they did one a couple of years before this.

The made an excellent team, but I prefer the Hammer version, which I will talk about later.

Holmes relies on a lot of disguises to do his work, and I am constantly amused by the mannerisms displayed when they figure something out. They always seem to dash on when they find a new clue.

The story itself about keeping a bomb site from the Germans in WWII was interesting and kept you focused on the mystery.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sherlock Holmes films from the classic Universal era tend to range in quality. This range goes from very good to above average, with none of their output being abysmal, or astoundingly brilliant. Sherlock Holmes and The Secret Weapon fits snugly into the middle ground quality-wise, and, as ever, it's an enjoyable outing that fans of the series, like myself, will enjoy very much. This film sees Holmes in the middle of a World War 2 plot by the evil Nazi's to steal a Swiss scientist's invention, which could turn out to be a key element on the battlefield. The World War 2 Sherlock Holmes films don't tend to be as good as the ones such as The Scarlet Claw where Holmes is conducting private investigations, as they're usually dogged by too much propaganda or a plot that is more to do with the war than the mystery. This one, however, pretty much stays away from both and by putting the focus on Holmes and his investigation, the film works much better. Perhaps Universal saw what brought down the earlier Voice of Terror and changed the focus because of that.

Basil Rathbone once again puts in an excellent maverick performance as the ace detective and while Nigel Bruce doesn't feature as much as normal, it's nice to see him when he does. The two don't spent much time together, which is disappointing because their chemistry is always one of the best things about Holmes films; but this does allow more time for Holmes to showboat in various disguises, which is always lots of fun. Dennis Hoey's Lestrade is definitely my favourite of the secondary characters, and while he's not as funny as usual; his facial expressions are great, and his presence helps to emphasise how great Holmes is. His scene with Watson in a car following paint drops on the road is my favourite moment of the film. It's good to see Holmes' nemesis, Professor Moriarty return, even if it does seem like he's just been thrown in for the hell of it. Lionel Atwill's performance isn't as good as George Zucco's in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, as he never really convinces that he is indeed a brilliant mind; but seeing him lock horns with the protagonist is fun and it's nice to see him in the film to offset the World War 2 themes, which are never as interesting as Holmes himself. The film starts off as more of a thriller than a mystery flick; but once it gets going, it's hard to put down and this is a more than solid entry in Universal's oeuvre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movie takes the voice of terror and makes it better. holmes is protecting an inventor in switzerland and is on the trail of professor moriarity, who has become a nazi. this is a better version of holmes in a WWII world. rathbone does a great job with holmes as a spy and a detective. see this if you liked the voice of terror.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One hilarious thing I'll say off the top, is I'm not the biggest Seisun Suzuki fan. I've actually seen a fair number of his works (thanks to a retrospective the film festival had) and I found his films just a wee too Yakuza-driven for my tastes. So, I went into Princess Raccoon wary of what I was going to see. Boy! Was I knocked out! 'Raccoon' is Suzuki's attempt at a musical, using the elements of Japanese opera mixed in with many modern elements (both Audial and Visual), Raccoon is a treat from start to finish. The lead actor, Joe Ogdari, proves that he's one of the hottest actors in Japan these days in this role. I have to admire that the younger Japanese actors still take roles that take place in Feudal-times Japan, dressing up in Samurai gear to full effect. The story itself does get a bit confusing, if you don't follow it really closely, but even if you don't, prepare yourself for the treasures that Princess Raccoon has.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I use \"Princess Raccoon\" (to give the film its not-quite accurate English title) as a litmus test for my friends' sense of humour. It either leaves them cold and baffled - as it clearly did several other commentators on this site - or results in doubled-up laughter, unassailably huge grins and occasional gasps of admiration.

The laughter comes from the film's consummate mixture of parodies in contemporary style. Targets include a bouquet of Japanese and Western classical stage drama forms, from Kabuki to Late Shakespearian and Spanish renaissance Christian fantasy; the naff vacuity of the modern American and European musical, as witness a host of random tap- and rap- dance songs and some very funny banal lyrics, all choreographed with loving \"amateur\" clich\u00e9; Japanese anime and samurai live-action clich\u00e9s; portentous Buddhist ritual; and the overweening sweetness of Viennese operetta. I've not laughed out loud so much at this type of film since Ken Russell's outrageous musical deconstruction in \"The Boyfriend\".

The grins come from the clever textual subversion of the Japanese legend, told in a traditional 5-act structure reminiscent of the plays of the 17th century master Chikamatsu. As in his work the narrative is advanced in a mixture of song, recitative, high-flown poetry and low comedy relief - here the pot-broiling of the incompetent ninja, Ostrich, by peasants under the illusion that he is a tanuki-raccoon in human guise. All of this somehow does hang together, and even more remarkably does manage to engage the watcher's emotions through the welter of cultural references.

In truth \"Princess Raccoon\" wears its pan-cultural garb with alluring lightness, and that's where the gasps of astonishment come in. Visually - again, as with Russell's masterpiece - the film is a treat, a riot of colour with its digitised backdrops of classical Japanese images from screens and prints, over-the-top costumes and stage sets, mixed with some breathtaking live action sequences in summer fields and seashores. You'll love it or loathe it, but there's no point castigating chalk for being cheese; and \"Princess Raccoon\" stands, first and foremost, as a wickedly funny as well as affectionate put-down of our contemporary cultural vacuity, in both East and West. Bravo!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Maverick director Seijun Suzuki finally was able to film his dream project, \"Princess Raccoon\" and in a way it's lucky he didn't try this in the 1960's. Special effects and computer graphics certain made this sort of production easier to achieve than the old film matte technology would have.

Some familiarity with Japanese history and theatrical traditions will help with the enjoyment of this film. Much as familiarity with Shakespeare's \"The Tempest\" would help with Peter Greenaway's dense \"Prospero's Books\". These two films actually have a bit in common although, \"Princess Raccoon\" is much more colorful and easier to watch for someone without the background to fully appreciate it.

While the art design, acting and direction are fine for most of the film, it seems to this viewer that the energy runs out in the last third of the film. Most of the interesting sets have been already been introduced and the camera seems to step back for more of a filmed stage play experience.

This is certainly a unique film experience and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in alternate forms of film performance. It's not really meant for children although nothing happens that would upset them. If the last third was better I would have given it nine stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's interesting that someone made a comparison of the \"Fifth Missile\" to the Star Trek episode. It should be pointed out that the original Star Trek TV episode in which the crew of the Enterprise undergoes a space madness while orbiting planet Si 2000 is entitled \"The Naked Time\", not the \"Naked Now\". The \"Naked Now\" refers to the first regular Star Trek The Next Generation episode in which the Enterprise-D encounters a science vessel. This episode, though, does refer to and is based on the \"Naked Time\" original series one.

Now, to the Firth Missile. While the reactions of the crew in the Star Trek episodes were based on those similar to alcohol intoxication, the crew's condition on board the Montana was caused by a much more serious situation, namely the paint vapors emitted by the faulty bulkhead finish. There are few places where such a reaction could have more serious consequences than among a crew who has responsibilities as serious as a crew on a ballistic missile submarine, and of course this is what makes the film so suspenseful and such a thriller. The plot is very believable. At the same time, this film, along with \"Crimson Tide\", \"The Day After\", \"By Dawn's Early Light\", \"The Hunt For Red October\", \"Ice Station Zebra\", and many other similar movies give us much insight into how easily things could go wrong and just how easy it could be for a nuclear holocaust to begin. Thankfully such an event has not occurred and (God willing) such an event will not happen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, it is a bit cheesy. But it's suspenseful and entertaining, and one of my favorites; there are some excellent actors in the film, and they do a commendable job given the limitations of plot and characters. It's interesting to see David Soul in a 'bad guy' role; I thought he was quite believable--and rather chilling--as the ever-more-paranoid CO. Robert Conrad is a long-time favorite--I think he brings his character to life very well; and Sam Waterston has been star quality in everything of his I've watched--movies or TV.

I watch this movie every so often but our tape (a VHS TV copy I got) is such poor quality it's difficult to fully enjoy it. This is a movie I think they should put out on DVD; maybe it wouldn't be universally sought after, but I'm sure there are lots of people like me out there who like this sort of film so there WOULD be a market for a DVD version. I'll keep hoping!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having seen this without knowing all the hoopla surrounding the lead character, indeed without even knowing that it was based on real-life events, I must say I am impressed. \"Murder in Greenwich\" is an above average production for a made-for-TV movie - the acting is uniformly great, Christopher Meloni in particular putting in a stand-out performance and the teen actors excel in what are difficult roles. The idea of the dead girl narrating the movie is a stroke of genius which elevates the movie from merely good to excellent. The script is exemplary for what is essentially movie-of-the-week fodder and the cinematography is beautiful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'd heard of the case, but hadn't really paid attention during the whole hoopla of Fuhrman writing the book, Skakel being arrested, etc. However, this movie did an excellent job of detailing Martha, the Skakel brothers, the murder, Mark Fuhrman's involvement and the results of his investigation. I especially liked the flashback scenes with Martha talking about her last summer. The actress who played her literally glowed with life and made it even more poignant that the real Martha was probably like that. It made Martha seem like a real person rather than a victim. I'd definitely recommend watching this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1974, the teenager Martha Moxley (Maggie Grace) moves to the high-class area of Belle Haven, Greenwich, Connecticut. On the Mischief Night, eve of Halloween, she was murdered in the backyard of her house and her murder remained unsolved. Twenty-two years later, the writer Mark Fuhrman (Christopher Meloni), who is a former LA detective that has fallen in disgrace for perjury in O.J. Simpson trial and moved to Idaho, decides to investigate the case with his partner Stephen Weeks (Andrew Mitchell) with the purpose of writing a book. The locals squirm and do not welcome them, but with the support of the retired detective Steve Carroll (Robert Forster) that was in charge of the investigation in the 70's, they discover the criminal and a net of power and money to cover the murder.

\"Murder in Greenwich\" is a good TV movie, with the true story of a murder of a fifteen years old girl that was committed by a wealthy teenager whose mother was a Kennedy. The powerful and rich family used their influence to cover the murder for more than twenty years. However, a snoopy detective and convicted perjurer in disgrace was able to disclose how the hideous crime was committed. The screenplay shows the investigation of Mark and the last days of Martha in parallel, but there is a lack of the emotion in the dramatization. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): Not Available","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was excellent. Jon Foster is one of my top favorite actors, he was perfect as Micheal Skakel. I found everything about it to be great, acting, costumes, production, directing, photography, script and music, etc.

Spoilers Coming Up! You Have Been Warned!

Martha Moxley, who they had tell the story in the movie was bludgeoned to death by her violent troubled neighbor Micheal Skakel. Micheal did this out of jealousy of his brother Tommy when Martha rejected him and took Tommy instead. Thankfully though, they caught him years later and he was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison. Although, I think he should have been sentenced to \"natural life\" without the possibility of parole.

Kudos to the cast, crew and filmmakers. Two thumbs way up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This great TV movie told of the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley in Greenwich, Connecticut by a nephew of Ethel Kennedy. The use of the \"ghost\" of Martha to provide some of the details was very effective and added a lot of heart to the story. Christopher Meloni seemed to capture the personality of Mark Fuhrman very well. Furhman, who got so much underserved bad publicity in the O.J. Simpson trial has certainly vindicated himself by his contribution of bringing the killer to justice after about 27 years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"too bad they showed palm trees that could not be more inaccurate for Connecticut in October ... this was filmed in New Zealand ...This Martha Moxley case had been 'cold' for 20-25 years ... her family worked hard to keep it alive and when Mark Fuhrman decided he did not want to be remembered only for his involvement in the Nicole Simpson case .... which could have been deleterious to his reputation (if it already hadn't)... Anyway, he followed along as the police tried to get enough information to write a book. ... with the use of flashbacks we can see the relationships Martha formed .... Unattended boys coming of age without a mother around to help and a dad who was always looped ...

Plus the fact that they portray the real Martha as if she were a movie star... she was a cute sweet girl next door type. Other than that, the other characters were really great, especially Jon Foster and Toby Moore, who played as Michael Skakel and Tommy Skakel respectively. They were good as well, the costumers had to keep it all in the 70s look and back up to the 90s ....

It kept my interest even when I caught on about the Skakel guy ....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was quite impressed with the narration by Martha and how it pulled on the emotional heartstrings of the audience as well as how it must have impacted the family. The forward-backward motion of the storyline was well-done, and normally I don't enjoy movies with the flash-back\/flash-forward effects. I felt during the whole evolution of the movie that \"surely Tommy did it\". It leaves you with a sense of how these people lived their lives almost totally devoid of each other and the consequences of not having any desire to answer the question, \"It's 10 o'clock. Do you know where your children are?\" And furthermore, \"What the heck are they doing?\"!! Or \"Do I care?\"!! Rich, spoiled brats literally getting away with murder. Or so they thought.......","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like detective and police shows and you like suspenseful movies, then you will love this movie!! This movie is great! Christopher Meloni has amazing acting skills. You may think you know who the killer is in the beginning, but you don't. This movie is about the true story of the murder of Martha Moxley. Watch the movie!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is a TV movie based on the murder of Martha Moxley in Greenwich in the mid 1970's.based how much on truth it's hard to tell.this much is certain.it is based on the book written by Mark Fuhrman.anyway,the movie depicts the crime in flashbacks and its aftermath,including the arrest of a suspect,some 25 years after,who was never considered a suspect at the time.in the movie,Fuhram of course is largely responsible for the arrest and closure of the case for Martha's surviving family,in particular her mother.the narrative of the film is by the ghost of Martha Moxley,talking in the first person.this is a very effective device in this movie.to me,it adds more impact to the movie,and puts a human face on the murder victim(if only an actress playing the part)Maggie grace plays Martha,and i was really impressed with her.there is no way for certain to know Mark Fuhrman's motive in investigating the crime.it could have been out of a sense of justice and maybe he really cared.or maybe he just saw dollar signs from a future bestselling book.either way,it makes for an interesting movie.it's well acted and fairly fast paced.i don't think there was a lot of extra,unnecessary stuff in the movie,just what was needed to tell the story.one could argue that they left out things that would have shed a bit more light on the proceedings,and one would be right.also,one may argue that the ending was abrupt and again one would be right.but,as i said,for me,i think they told the story with at least most of the essentials.anything else would have likely required a miniseries.as an aside,there is a miniseries entitled \"A Season in Purgatory\" which came out 6 years ealier(1996)which this movie has some parallels to,even if only faint.however,if you like this movie,\"Then you may be interested in \"A Season in Purgatory\". it is my belief that \"a Season in Purgatory\" is in fact a fictionalized account of the same crime.anyway,for me,Murder in Greenwich\" is an 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently rented Twister, a movie I'd seen several years ago on TV, and it has aged well; I found myself laughing out loud several times at it and as weird as all these people are, by the end I profoundly cared about them. This is the sort of little movie that is made for a cult audience because, rather like Howdy's gazpacho (well, I think that's what it is), it's an acquired taste: you have to be attuned to its peculiar wavelength. The production values might be charitably called inexpensive and the pace and atmosphere take a while to get settled, but the film has a \"look\", especially in some wonderful shots contrasting the dry flatness of the land with the cluttery nouveau-riche opulence of the mansion interior: Michael Almereyda had a good eye even then. Life with sodapop magnate Eugene Cleveland (Harry Dean Stanton) and his household (two adult children, a grandchild, and a housekeeper) seems so detached from life outside we could be in Gormenghast. Everyone in this film is wonderful (especially Suzy Amis and Crispin Glover as the directionless genius siblings Maureen and Howdy), inhabiting their roles so comfortably after a while you just buy the strange premise, that somehow, having survived the tornado and being apparently incapable of happiness, these people are lucky, and yet don't know quite what to do with their luck. There are some truly great scenes: Eugene's sudden confrontations first with his gold-digging children's tv host girlfriend Virginia (an acidly pert Lois Chiles), then with his children; William S. Burroughs taking target practice in the barn and telling a story about a mysterious Jim; Maureen's boyfriend Chris proving himself by battling a shed full of wasps cloaked in a tablecloth and doily and old fedora; Howdy, Violet, Maureen and Chris all sitting on the couch (the latter three in appropriately lightweight summer garments, the former in a red blazer and black leather rock'n'roll gear) staring at images of deserts on the huge tv, and contemplating the future (the images were done by Bill Viola, who did the backdrop video installation for Nine Inch Nails' last tour). Crispin Glover is predictably magnificent as Howdy: as always, he remains perfectly in character. Howdy has made a cult of his misery and brilliance; he's like the Oscar Wilde of Kansas, striving to live up to his red velvet suit. Whether he's thrashing away tunelessly yet loudly on an electric guitar, cracking a fullsize bullwhip while wearing an all-black cowboy outfit, demolishing a room, or even doing simple things like driving or pouring the aforementioned soup from a blender pitcher, he's mesmerizing. If you like his work, you'll like this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is on my top 20 comedies list. This is a truly unique film. To the reviewer who said \"I must be really missing something.\"--you are correct. You are missing something. If you don't have the kind of sense of humor this film requires, that's one thing. But don't give it a bad review because you think it's \"looney\" but isn't intended to be. Loony is an apt description of both what it intends to be and what it succeeds in being. I laughed much more often and much more intensely at this film than I do at most other funny films.

Michael Almereyda brought out the best in his cast in this, his first big film, for which he was nominated for an Independent Spirit award for Best First Feature. Crispin Glover, as usual, is absolutely brilliant in some perfectly inexplicable way, and some of his very funniest lines ever were said in this film. Glover is clearly the best comic actor working right now. Harry Dean Stanton puts in an excellent comic performance. William Burroughs is incredible in a small role. Dylan McDermott was ideally cast, and Lois Chiles is completely excellent.

All of the above are perfectly funny in their own perfect way, but this is one of Crispin's finest performances--up there with his performances in River's Edge and Willard. If you are a Crispin Glover fan, but have somehow overlooked this film, you need to stop whatever it is you're doing and see this immediately.

But just remember to relax first, and maybe have a beer or something. This is a great film, but it is very unusual, and I recommend being in or inducing an appropriately silly state of mind before viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great film with an amazing cast. Crispen Glover is at his freakiest . His guitar solo is amazing. Also watch out for a cameo by William Burroughs. Truly a cult classic. This is on my top ten list. Don't miss this twisted film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everything about this movie is perfect. The set design, the acting, the camera movement, the mood, the colors - everything. You'll be hard pressed to find a better movie. Easily, the best film generated in the last 35 years. Keep an eye on Michael Almereydas!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's really rather Simple. The Name of the Movie Is Death Bed, The Bed that Eats. If you are anything like me, You already know if you are going to like this movie. I stumbled across this gem at Best Buy the other day and picked it up for Ten Bucks. I got ten bucks worth of enjoyment out of the title, and the box alone.

I'm a huge fan of B movies. This is in my opinion one of the greatest B movies i've ever seen. Now, it's not for every one.

Granted, it's not even for most people. As a matter of fact, i suspect their are only going to be a handful of us who truly enjoy this movie.

For those of you who like B movies though, this film is a Diamond in the rough. It has a great premise, A bed... That eat's people. It doesn't walk, it doesn't move, it doesn't have a siren call to attract people. It pretty much relies on people wandering by and sitting on it.

I loved every inch of this movie and have already seen it three times in the scant weeks i've owned it.

Like I said, After reading the title of the film, You already know if you'll like it. If you laughed or smiled, Then give it a go. it's worth it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not sure what I can add that hasn't already been said in some of these other fine, and quite hilarious, comments, but Ill try.

So you know the plot: there is a bed possessed by a demon that \"absorbs\" and selectively disintegrates the bodies of whoever (or whatever) lays on it with its orange soda-filled body. We have the man, in some scenes looking uncannily like Robert Smith of The Cure, hanging out inside the wall commenting on the goings-on, and we have our various victims that just cant resist the comfort of this mystical bed.

This is no ordinary bed. No sirree Bob! Not only does it eat people, but it cleans up after itself, draws the covers back, and it even makes itself. Who wouldn't want a bed like that? It can even use its sheets as a rudimentary \"lasso\" to wrangle escaped victims back in (especially if they're taking up half the length of the film to try and escape).

Our \"main\" story (if you can call it that), is about these three girls who go out to this remote area to house-sit(??). I don't recall exactly, but it doesn't really matter though as there are plenty of things that defy convention that you just have to give in and accept. The dialogue in the film is like no other; the characters talk to each other seemingly by telepathy as their mouths never seem to move and there is a constant echo. One of our girls believes she isn't liked by the rest of \"the gang\" and makes sure to tell us all her feelings on this matter through an echoey voice-over, but we don't care; character development was thrown out the window a LONG time before in this film so why start now? There are scenes when the bed laughs, snores, crunches, and makes various other noises that we assume judging by our cast's non-reaction to said noises, cant be heard. This and the telepathy makes the issue of diegesis very difficult to ascertain...but thats OK....this is Death Bed: The Bed That Eats and it defies all logic so its OK. It makes for a lush dreamy quality to this most bizarre film If you buy (hehe buy...did I say \"buy\"?) this DVD, make sure to check out the introduction by the director. He explains that the filming of this \"flick\" started in 1972, didn't wrap up until 1977, he shopped it for a few years with no luck, and then fast forward 26 years to 2003 it gets released on DVD. Supposedly someone somewhere had a print of this in some other country and made bootleg after bootleg of it and it was quite by chance, on a message board no less, that our director found evidence that people knew, and gasp! cared, about his little-known film. Its from there that he decided to give it a shot and release it. I'm glad he did. Once you've even so much as heard the title to this film, you MUST see it. I for one am going to buy this and I'm going to preach its gospel around the world...starting with this comment","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, it's easy not to confuse this with the lame Stuart Gordon movie called \"Death Bed\" that came out a few years back, because this one is \"The Bed That Eats\". And how do I even begin to describe this? Well, for starters, obviously there is a bed that eats. This is as a result of demon teardrops, which of course affect most things, I guess, in a negative way. The bed is in some old servant's quarters or something, and has been responsible for the disappearances of quite a few people in its time. We have a narrator, who is a ghost that sits in the wall behind a painting, and collects all the non-edible goodies (jewelry, etc) that the bed passes on. He died of consumption, one of the few people to lay in the bed that didn't get eaten, probably because he was sick, he theorizes, as we see him hacking blood into hankies.....bleah. The thing about this movie is that is has a very odd sense of humor to it but it's all played pretty deadpan. The movie is divided into several \"acts\", I guess, \"Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, & Just Desserts\". For fans of the unfathomably weird and bizarre, well, this may just be right up your alley. All I can say is you have to see this one to believe it, it pretty well defies description. 8 out of 10 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hmmmm. I'm kinda at a loss here. I mean, I know I liked Death Bed, I know I'll be spreading the gospel of Death Bed to all my friends and acquaintances, and if you're reading this, I urge you to see Death Bed, but I can't really say why. Perhaps that's the secret of its charm.

Plot? Well, sort of. There's this bed that eats people (and fried chicken, apples, flowers, suitcases, and any other darn thing that gets near it) by sucking them inside its digestive-fluid filled mattress. Amongst its near-limitless powers, Bed has the ability to keep the spirit of Aubrey Beardsley trapped behind a picture to observe and narrate the events of the film. Various people then wind up at Bed's abandoned mansion (Bed's habit of eating anything that moves gave the place an unsavory reputation), and lay down to have sex, or take a nap, or because they don't feel well, and get eaten, sometimes having trippy dreams first. And in the end we have the explosive final confrontation between Beardsley, Bed's mom (you had to be there), and Bed.

Seems rather straightforward, when I put it like that, doesn't it - well, except for the Aubrey Beardsley part. But something feels constantly off-kilter, and the story seems to glide sleepily from one scene to the next, even when indulging in cheap laughs or strange gore effects. Imagine Bunel crossed with Bergman, then left to soak in a big vat of Herschell Gordon Lewis. The tone of the story shifts from horror, to fairy tale, to comedy, to existential meditation, without breaking stride - an incredible achievement for a no-budget student film shot in the Detroit area.

All in all, an astounding little film that, quite probably, no review can ever completely do justice. See it for yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A demon, from a tree, removes itself in the form of a human man to make love to a young fair maiden only for her to die. The demon's eyes freeze, two drops of blood fall onto a bed he had specially created for his object of desire. The bed consumes the blood and it's hunger remains..anything that comes in contact with the bed is consumed! This is explained to us by one of the bed's victims, a painter whose soul is trapped \"inside\" one of his last works, the artistic rendering of the his final resting place(..he was dying of consumption, coughing up blood, deciding to die on the death bed). You see the painter, who we are able to see as if he were trapped in a small room looking through his painting, unfortunately a spectator to the bed's meals. The bed has a dark sense of humor, and we see this through it's allowing the painter to live, even giving him jewelry and other possessions once owned by eaten victims. One victim's skull grows bright red flowers not far from the basement housing the bed. The film features three young women who come across the mansion which holds the basement containing the death bed. The painter(Dave Marsh)might just have a method to destroying the death bed but it will include a human sacrifice in order to resurrect the body of the one whose death caused it's hunger in the first place. Patrick Spence-Thomas provides the soft, depressing voice of the trapped painter, narrating the film, lamenting about his current situation, telling us about past victims, and often scolding the bed of it's predatory nature.

A definitive, genuine cult film..I expect it's status to soar now that DEATH BED:THE BED THAT EATS has found it's way to an audience(..such as myself)who appreciates the bizarre and grotesque. The bed itself contains a liquid type of acid with an apple-cider hue where we see the objects and humans(..struggling for naught) consumed. Many might recognize a young William Russ(BOY MEETS WORLD, THE UNHOLY)in curls, seeking after his runaway sister, finding her in the basement, zombie-like and traumatized(..of course, Julie Ritter pretty much was this way the whole film, in a trance, barely uttering a word)with them both trapped. In one of the film's most demented scenes, Russ attempts to stab the bed only for his hands to get caught in it's grip, the flesh acidified with only skeletal bones remaining, the cartilage deteriorating. There's one lengthly attempted escape by a victim whose legs were caught in the bed, almost out of the basement when it's sheets snatched her back into it's belly where she belonged. The film feels almost completely surreal as if we were watching a macabre nightmare unfold. Director George Barry often features gags regarding the victims who find themselves in the most unfortunate position choosing the death bed as their place of refuge..the painter gives us a recollection of all the various people who were eaten. There's really nothing like this movie anywhere, it's definitely one of a kind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"George Barry is a genius. \"Death Bed: The Bed That Eats\" is a prototype for much of the 'slipstream' fiction and camp surrealism that is so chic now. Truly innovative, maverick, and just effing brilliant. Hyper-strange acting, subtly nightmarish atmosphere. I recommend reading Stephen Thrower's book \"Nightmare USA\" (there is a chapter devoted to Barry and \"Death Bed: The Bed That Eats\"). Available from FAB Press. On a related note, \"Death Bed: The Bed That Eats\" and \"Beyond Dream's Door\" make a perfect double-bill. Furthermore, it's trite and tired - and ultimately stupidly ironic - to criticize a low-budget cult film for being 'poorly made' or 'technically inept.' The B-movie aesthetic is part of these films' charm. No amount of CGI could duplicate the cumulative effect \"Death Bed: The Bed That Eats\" has on the viewer with an advanced palate.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Death Bed:The Bed That Eats\" is a supremely bizarre horror film that truly has to be seen to be believed.There is an ancient four-poster bed that just loves to eat humans and it does so anytime it can lure anyone to lie upon it.There is also a long-dead artist,imprisoned behind one of his paintings,who provides a voice-over narration.George Barry's the first and only one film offers some truly surreal moments such as the bed absorbing its victims in a mysterious sea of yellow foam and liquid.The atmosphere is dreamy and there is only a little bit of gore,unfortunately the premise is rather silly and the acting is amateurish.Still as fan of unusual cinema I enjoyed this low-budget oddity.Give it a chance.8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film plunges headlong into the realm of the surreal \u00e0 la Lynch and Jodorowsky--with an atmosphere that is strangely compelling, lulling the viewer with the dream-like intensity of its images.

The narration is to be savoured--the narrator being trapped behind a painting (adjacent to the bed), who often speaks for it, vocalizing its desires and reasoning. Yes, Beardsley would sound like that.

There are some flaws, but its strengths overwhelm its weaknesses. The sequence with the woman wrenching herself out of the bed and crawling across the floor, trying to escape, will leave you breathless.

The film possesses a fin-de-siecle air about it; and should be read as a disarming cry from the bowels of the 20th century.

Find this film and bathe in it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I do love B- horror films. I however, am generally not a huge fan of \"so stupid it's funny\" films. I HAD to rate this so highly simply because Death Bed: the bed that eats, is so one of a kind, and so original. there are plenty of question marks, plenty of plot holes, and the WTF factor is cranked up to 11, but i was really not bored for a second. I really couldn't call it creepy at any point, Every minute i was saying to myself \"what the hell is this bed\/film going to do next!\" I watched this with a friend that is in no way a fan of horror or B- movies, and even she was pretty into it. the effects were actually very inventive and the colors, and atmosphere were quite good. it keeps a very consistent and even tone throughout most of the film, (albeit an incredibly ludicrous consistency) and the acting wasn't TERRIBLE. I can see from the point that there are certain inconsistencies in the actions of the bed that make the suspension of belief damn near impossible, but the film itself was such a unique and bizarre concept, that that fact didn't really bother me. seriously, for me, this film hit that realm of one i will not only never forget, but i guarantee i will find myself thinking back on certain scenes in the future. does anyone else know of any other films in the inanimate objects that eat people genre? totally fantastic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watch a lot of movies. A LOT of movies. Getting a graduate degree in film forces one to watch 2-3 flicks a day for years. It all gets very exhausting. Mostly because I feel I have seen it all. So rare is it when I get surprised by something, mostly I hope to see something as good as I expect it to be.

Death Bed is so unlike anything I have ever experienced I actually had to stop the DVD in order to rant about its genius.

The rhythm of the piece is psychotic. It's structured in a way that forces the viewer to stay outside of the frame. It's not like something like Halloween with all its snappy editing and POV shots; Death bed actually comes across as kind of dreamy. The most pretentious way I can phrase it is: this is Samuel Beckett making a haunted house movie. I mean it's a manic depressive bed that eats people! And fried chicken! Out in the middle of nowhere! And there's bone hands! I can barely articulate my feelings about this film. And yeah, copping to liking this will open you up to ridicule. But things get real same-y after awhile. Its hard to be a cinephile and consistently stay engaged. I can honestly say this is a fully unique film up and down. From what it is to how its put together. We need films like that, movies that shake us out of our complacency. Consider it like existential camp. it's fun and it's stupid, but also brilliant in its weird little way. The worst horror villain of all time? Maybe, but at least it isn't a guy in a mask.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Death bed: The bed that eats.

Judging from the title, you can guess what this movie is about. And yet there is a lot more (background) story to this film then one might suspect.

Okay, so the main plot is about a bed eating people and food, but there are also a few subplots. I won't spoil them for you, but they're a nice touch.

Sadly, the acting in this movie is very mediocre. The fact that most dialog is not even spoken by the actors doesn't really help to improve the quality of the movie as a whole.

Because there is a lot of voice-over work. The thoughts of characters are also revealed to the watchers. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

The effects are fine. Sure, it could be a lot better if you compare it with today's movies. But you really shouldn't; just judge the movie as it is and don't take it too seriously. You have to admit that a killer BED is quite creative. If you are easily spooked, don't watch this movie. You might never want to sleep again...

Death Bed: The bed that eats is a strange horror gem with a low budget, but I'd still recommend it to fans of horror movies.

In conclusion, I give this movie a 7 out of 10 stars for it's creative story and unexpected twists here and there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As Roger Corman has said in an interview, low-budget film-making enables film-makers to take chances on offbeat ideas. Well, you'd be hard pressed to find a film that thrives on the offbeat as mightily as George Barry's \"Death Bed: The Bed That Eats\".

The film does have a back story to it, and it's an interesting one at that. I'll forgo relaying any sort of details so you can hear them for yourself if you take a chance on watching it. Suffice it to say, the title item of furniture has an insatiable hunger, consuming the unwary with a bubbling yellow foam that dissolves its victims like acid.

\"Death Bed\" is an eerie, haunting little flick that plays out its absurd premise in such a way that it transcends the usual assortment of schlock fare. It occupies its particular dream world in such a way that it was possible for me to take it seriously. It's a truly strange and unconventional horror flick. It dabbles in exploitative ingredients - there's some tasty dollops of female nudity - and yet is also art, albeit art with a completely skewed sensibility.

The special effects are not too bad for a film with a microscopic budget, and Barry gives the film a good and atmospheric \"midnight movie\" quality. The acting from the cast is as uninspired as one could imagine, although Patrick Spence-Thomas lends a reasonable amount of gravitas as the artist \/ narrator, and one definite point of interest is seeing one familiar face on hand: future 'Boy Meets World' father William Russ!

This film might not have even found the small cult following that it does have were it not for pirated copies making the rounds; this certainly has to rank as one of the instances where such a practice ultimately ended up helping the film - even if the exposure took years to take hold.

If you have a taste for truly bizarre obscure items, \"Death Bed\" may be just what you've got in mind.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is seriously one of the best low budget, B movies that I have ever seen. I am not one to stand up and cheer during a movie, but this one was definitely worth it. Obviously the premise is that there is a bed that eats people, well...eats is a subjective term I guess, it really secretes acid bubbles to suck the victims into itself and dissolves them in it's acidy goodness. The best part of this movie is that William Russ is one of the main characters. The typical family man actually started his career with this movie...and an afro. There is plenty of nudity in this flick, so obviously not for the children, but that should not deter anyone from seeing this movie. It is my belief that everyone needs a little Death Bed in their lives at some point or other, it's best to get it sooner than later.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A large bed possessed by a demon eats people, among other things. I'm not making this up.

Completed in 1977 and not officially released until it came to DVD in 2003, \"Death Bed: The Bed That Eats\" is a movie whose plot is impossible to describe. You most likely know of it thanks to Patton Oswalt's excellent bit about it, as well as Stephen Throwers essential book \"Nightmare USA.\" While watching it, you wonder the following

-Who is George Berry, and what drugs did he smoke\/inject\/snort before writing and directing this movie?

-Is this a horror comedy? A combination of a horror flick and an art movie? A weird prank being pulled on the audience?

-What the hell am I watching?

\"Death Bed\" really defies any explanation. I know, that term is overused, but it couldn't be truer than it is here. This truly beggars description. It is a horror comedy, as well as art film\/horror hybrid. But the whole thing is so surreal, it must be seen. The score sounds like the electronic bits from an old Candlemass album, the acting is terrible and disconnected from everything, the direction is surprisingly competent, and the movie at times feels like a Jesus Franco movie-that is, if his movies were intentionally funny.

In the end, there really is no proper way to describe this movie. Lord knows I've tried, but really, few movies are as odd, unique, or mind boggling as this is. See it...but you've been warned. This is also the only movie George Berry has ever done. He definitely left his mark on the exploitation genre with this, I'll tell you that much.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can honestly say that \"Death Bed: The Bed That Eats\" was a much better movie than I expected. Allow me to clarify the plot in case the title of the film is a little too vague - there is a bed that eats. An evil bed. It eats people. Several unsuspecting women on an \"outing\" of some kind, stumble across the sinister \"sack\" and ultimately fall prey to it's hunger. The bed's devouring process consists of a yellow foam soaking people into it's inner... stomach acid; all complete with chewing sounds. This is a very strange cult flick and the only film from George Barry who had forgotten he made it until word-of-mouth of it's newfound cult status got back to him and he decided to release it on DVD. Not a bad movie at all, if you can look past the lousy acting and enjoy the hokey effects - the most laughable being the guy whose hands are eaten off and he is left with only plastic looking skeletal fingers... Pretty dreamlike tone to it, too, coming across as very surreal and aberrant - mainly the whole thing involving the artist behind the painting and the demonic back story of the bed. If you like bizarre no-budget, oddball flicks than definitely seek out \"Death Bed\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching \"Death Bed: The Bed That Eats\" is like waking up in the hospital, two days into a suicide

watch, disorienting but oddly stimulating. There are few cinematic equivalents to this disturbing yet often humorous lesson in mythology, morality and surrealist ideology.

Cocteau's \"Blood of a Poet\" and Maya Deren's

experimental works evoke a taste of the strange atmosphere found in DEATH BED. A close comparison are the dark adult fairy-tales by literary genius- author Angela Carter, the short disturbing stories of Unica

Zurn or E.T.A. Hoffman.

DEATH BED has many recognizable elements of the

past, but displays a wholly unique and original storyline.

As a story, DEATH BED is an amazingly simple yet original

vision, something which only one-in-a-thousand independent releases will manage to accomplish. This unassuming film has its technical flaws but overcomes them all with a cast of beautiful non-actors

and lost creepy locations- a true 1970s independent classic.

DEATH BED also displays a unique, subversive, 3-dimensional personality-- a deep and continuous layering of dream images and ideas that lend it a \"fun-house\" type of construct. The passage of time told in flashbacks and historic time travelogues, the bed with its sinister black humor, the rich yet understated symbolism used within its imagery. Most pleasing is the image of Aubrey Beardsly, the suffering artist, forever trapped inside the frame of his own painting as he comments on and fondles with the murdered victim \"offerings\" gifted to him as love offerings by the demented bed's spirit. -- A sick refrain and wonderful element \/metaphor for the \"trapped artist\" -- Nothing but the weirdest in POE or MALLARME can equal that.

Anyone who values the spirit of independent cinema and craves the multi-layered symbolist experience, or craves the Surrealist concept of \"convulsive

beauty\" and the Gothic-horror leanings of low budget exploitation film-making will dig this totally unique vision. A simple and fun film with deliciously deep psychic undercurrents. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. *****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"George Barry's \"Death Bed: The Bed That Eats\" is, at root, a dark fairy tale told via a horror-movie framework. It is, in my opinion, one of the best films of the 1970s, and it's downright criminal that the picture was basically stolen and distributed without Barry's knowledge (those responsible for this theft should be fed to the bed, ASAP). If you're looking for overt gore or rabid action, \"Death Bed: The Bed That Eats\" isn't the flick for you. \"Death Bed\" is a gentler, weirder drive-in picture; it plays like an utterly strange dream, half-remembered. I'd recommend reading Stephen Thrower's summation of \"Death Bed\" in Thrower's FAB Press book, \"Nightmare USA\" (he describes the movie's vibe perfectly). Whether intentional or not, I've noticed shades of \"Death Bed\" in everything from the \"Phantasm\" films to Michele Soavi's \"Cemetery Man\" to the magic-realism\/slipstream fiction of authors such as Kelly Link. Barry is an original and in a fair world I'm sure he would've followed \"Death Bed\" with a number of fantastically bizarre films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Never has the words \"hidden gem\" been so accurate. Bad movie lovers might search all over for the next hidden obscurity, sometimes coming up short with stuff like Weasels rip my flesh, but other times, luck will prevail and you might end up with something like Death Bed, then hopefully realizing it's not a bad movie at all, it just has a bad title, and not even a bad title, but a humorous one that might throw you off, but Somehow Death Bed still fits into the \"bad\" category. With a vibe that's somber and empty, Death Bed is a true masterpiece of low-budget horror, reserved only for those fortunate enough to appreciate such a dark shadow of a vision.

Death Bed involves an incoherent, yet intriguing relationship between a demon in the bed and the sympathetic ghost trapped in the portrait, who only wishes he could spare someone from the awful fate of being devoured by the yellow suds. Although not all that scary, considering it's about a killer bed, Death Bed possesses the qualities that make for successful horror. A dark, desolate vibe, confusion, an eerie, subtle score and that dream quality that this masterpiece almost flaunts. Such a quality, or vibe usually seems unintentional. Not only is it intentional, but from what I've read, Death Bed is based on an actual dream, George Barry, the director, successfully transferred dream to film, only a genius could accomplish such a task.

Old mansions make for good quality horror, as do portraits, not sure what to make of the killer bed with its killer yellow liquid, quite a bizarre dream, indeed. Also, this isn't quite the brand of B-horror I was expecting, considering the title and all. Before viewing this Gothic gem I expected something more like Class Reunion Massacre, now thats a bad movie, if you've seen it, you know what I'm saying. After considering all of the above, I feel like Death Bed deserves only eight stars, but since it stayed so obscure for so long We'll say the bed that eats deserves nine.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Taut and organically gripping, Edward Dmytryk's Crossfire is a distinctive suspense thriller, an unlikely \"message\" movie using the look and devices of the noir cycle.

Bivouacked in Washington, DC, a company of soldiers cope with their restlessness by hanging out in bars. Three of them end up at a stranger's apartment where Robert Ryan, drunk and belligerent, beats their host (Sam Levene) to death because he happens to be Jewish. Police detective Robert Young investigates with the help of Robert Mitchum, who's assigned to Ryan's outfit. Suspicion falls on the second of the three (George Cooper), who has vanished. Ryan slays the third buddy (Steve Brodie) to insure his silence before Young closes in.

Abetted by a superior script by John Paxton, Dmytryk draws precise performances from his three starring Bobs. Ryan, naturally, does his prototypical Angry White Male (and to the hilt), while Mitchum underplays with his characteristic alert nonchalance (his role, however, is not central); Young may never have been better. Gloria Grahame gives her first fully-fledged rendition of the smart-mouthed, vulnerable tramp, and, as a sad sack who's leeched into her life, Paul Kelly haunts us in a small, peripheral role that he makes memorable.

The politically engaged Dmytryk perhaps inevitably succumbs to sermonizing, but it's pretty much confined to Young's reminiscence of how his Irish grandfather died at the hands of bigots a century earlier (thus, incidentally, stretching chronology to the limit). At least there's no attempt to render an explanation, however glib, of why Ryan hates Jews (and hillbillies and...).

Curiously, Crossfire survives even the major change wrought upon it -- the novel it's based on (Richard Brooks' The Brick Foxhole) dealt with a gay-bashing murder. But homosexuality in 1947 was still Beyond The Pale. News of the Holocaust had, however, begun to emerge from the ashes of Europe, so Hollywood felt emboldened to register its protest against anti-Semitism (the studios always quaked at the prospect of offending any potential ticket buyer).

But while the change from homophobia to anti-Semitism works in general, the specifics don't fit so smoothly. The victim's chatting up a lonesome, drunk young soldier then inviting him back home looks odd, even though (or especially since) there's a girlfriend in tow. It raises the question whether this scenario was retained inadvertently or left in as a discreet tip-off to the original engine generating Ryan's murderous rage.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Edward Dmytryk directed this shadowy movie about a murder investigation involving demobilized military personnel. Robert Young gets to lecture us about hatred, Robert Mitchum walks through most of this picture, and Gloria Grahame revisits the feistiness she exhibited in \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" It's Robert Ryan who gets at the heart of the matter: anti-semiticism. He goes so deep into his role as Monty Montgomery (Imagine parents named Lawrence calling their son Larry!), that the drama sits squarely on his shoulders, and he is more than up to the challenge. Without him, the movie would be commonplace. Ryan has played a number of memorable villains in his day (\"Bad Day at Black Rock;\" \"Billy Budd\"), but this performance put him on the map. With Sam Levene as the murder victim.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a rule, there are few things more dispiriting than Hollywood's attempts to be courageous. Mixing caution with heavy-handedness, \"message movies\" pat themselves loudly on the back for daring to tackle major problems. CROSSFIRE is not entirely free from this taint; it includes a sermon on the nature of senseless hatred that is embarrassingly obvious, assuming a level of naivity in its audience that's depressing to contemplate. As late as 1947, it was a big deal for a movie to announce that anti-Semitism existed, and that it was bad. (It was unthinkable, of course, for Hollywood to address the real subject of the book on which the movie was based\u0097its victim was a homosexual.) Nevertheless, thanks to good writing and excellent acting, CROSSFIRE remains a persuasive examination of what we would now call a hate crime.

Postwar malaise was one of the major components of film noir, and CROSSFIRE addresses it directly. The film is set in Washington, D.C. among soldiers still in uniform but idle, spending their days playing poker and bar-crawling. Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene), an intelligent and kindly Jew, explains that the end of the war has created a void: all the energy that went into hating and fighting the enemy is now unfocused and bottled up. Samuels meets three soldiers in a bar: the sensitive Mitchell, who is close to a nervous breakdown, the weak-willed Floyd Bowers, and Montgomery, a tall, overbearing bully who nastily belittles a young soldier from Tennessee as a stupid hillbilly. The three soldiers wind up at Samuels' apartment, where the drunken Monty becomes increasingly abusive, calling his host \"Jew-boy.\" Samuels is beaten to death, and Mitchell disappears, making himself the prime suspect for the killing.

Unraveling the crime are Detective Finlay (Robert Young), dry and by-the-book, and Sergeant Keeley (Robert Mitchum), a thoughtful and experienced friend who knows Mitchell is incapable of murder. Among the pieces of the puzzle are Ginny (Gloria Grahame), a nightclub hostess who met Mitchell and gave him her apartment key, and Floyd (Steve Brodie), who as a witness to the crime holes up terrified in a seedy rooming house. While there is no real \"whodunit\" suspense, the story remains gripping, and the trap laid for the killer is extremely clever.

The strong noir atmosphere saves the movie from feeling didactic or sanctimonious. The cinematography is a striking shadow-play, with inky darks and harsh lights, rooms often lit by a single lamp filtered by cigarette smoke. World-weariness is as pervasive as noir lighting. \"Nothing interests me,\" Finlay says quietly; \"To nothing,\" is Ginny's toast in the nightclub. Gloria Grahame, the paragon of noir femininity, nearly steals the movie with her two scenes. Platinum-blonde, jaded and caustic, she's the quintessential B-girl, poisoned by the \"stinking gin mill\" where she works (\"for laughs,\" she says bitterly), her sweet face curdling when Mitchell tells her that she reminds him of his wife. Now and then a wistful kindness peeks through her defensive shell, as when she dances with Mitchell in a deserted courtyard, then offers to cook him spaghetti at her apartment. When he goes there, he meets a weasely, crumple-faced man (Paul Kelly) who seems to sponge off Ginny, and whose conversation is a dense layering of lies and false confessions. Gloria blows Mitchell's good-girl wife off the screen in a scene where she's asked to give Mitchell an alibi. Slim and frail in her bathrobe, with her girlish lisp, she lets us see just how often Ginny has been insulted and dismissed as a tramp.

Robert Young is a nondescript actor, and he stands no chance against Mitchum's charisma, but he does a good job of keeping his pipe-smoking character, saddled with delivering the movie's earnest message, this side of pompousness. Mitchum, meanwhile, gets some cool dialogue, but not nearly enough to do; still, even when he's doing nothing but lounging in a corner you can't take your eyes off him. The third Robert, Ryan, creates a fully shaded and frighteningly convincing portrait of an ignorant, unstable bigot; we see his phony geniality, his bullying, his resentment of anyone with advantages, his \"Am I right or am I right?\" smugness; how easily he slaps labels on people and what satisfaction he gets from despising them.

CROSSFIRE's message seems cautious and dated now, though not nearly so much as the same year's A GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT. Finlay's speech about bigotry cops out by reaching back a hundred years for an instance of white victimhood, reminding us that Irish Catholics were once persecuted; next it could be people from Tennessee, he says, or men who wear striped neckties. Or maybe blacks, or Japanese, or homosexuals, or communists? The script seems afraid to mention any real contemporary problems. It sweetens its message by making the Jewish victim saintly, as though his innocence were not sufficient; and it takes care to exonerate the military, having a superior officer declare that the army is ashamed of men like Montgomery, and stressing that Samuels served honorably in the war. Still, it did take some guts to depict, immediately after World War II, an American who might have been happier in the Nazi army, and the movie's basic premise is still valid. If Monty were alive today, he would have gone out on September 12, 2001, and beat up a Sikh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Definitely a \"must see\" for all fans of film noir.

Thanks to a fine script and crisp, razor sharp direction a top cast comes together and works like a well oiled clock to produce a crackerjack psychological thriller.

Wonderful characterizations articulate the movie's powerful message of racial and religious tolerance. It's difficult and almost unjust to single out any one particular performance because there isn't a weak link in the entire company but Robert Ryan as the hateful and violent white supremacist is truly spine chilling.

Making this film in the 1940s would have taken a lot of courage. Now,all these years later, at a time when contemporary movies are dominated by a ridiculous over abundance of foul language, bare breasts, crummy acting and deafening soundtracks it's refreshing to get back to the basics of quality film making with a viewing treat like \"Crossfire\".

Another low budget gem from the Hollywood archives .","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A bigoted soldier kills a man for being Jewish and tries to pin it on a fellow soldier. Not as good as the novel it was based on (\"The Brick Foxhole\") in which it was a gay man who was killed...but Hollywood wouldn't touch that in 1947. That said, it's still a very good film. The anti-Semitism is handled very well, but it's hammered into the audience that bigotry is bad...well duh! But this was 1947. The picture is well-acted by the entire cast (especially Robert Young and Robert Ryan) and the tone is very dark...as it should be. Very atmospheric too. A deserved big hit in its day...well worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't read the source, Richard Brooks' novel \"The Brick Foxhole,\" which I hope is not as infelicitous as its title, but I understand the original villain was a homophobe not an anti Semite. (And to be honest, Sam Levene is written as a gay guy who picks up a drunken soldier.) But, okay, you have to go with the flow. Consider 1947. Not even anti-Semitism has been treated on screen yet. Many of the people responsible for contemporary movies were themselves Jews but anti-Semitism had been verboten for years because it was considered unpleasant. So we can hardly blame the makers of this film for not leaving the victim a homosexual. Now that's REALLY unpleasant -- and besides there might have been many among the audience rooting for Robert Ryan to get away with it. We are by no means free of prejudice but we've still come a long way since 1947.

Watching this again for the first time in years I was impressed with the rather slow pace of the first half of the movie, the many shots of two people talking, the shadows, the time that passes between the question and the answer, the uninspired editing. But I could live with that because of the film's subject matter and because of a few other things.

One of the things that keep me glued to events as they unfold so deliberately is Robert Ryan's performance. The guy does a splendid job. At times he can seem thoughtful, cheerfully subordinate and helpful to the police -- \"Any way I can help, yes sir.\" Then, alone or with another soldier, the simmering hatred rises to the top, not so much through what he says but the way he LOOKS. That scowl, that penetrating stare, those dark eyes glittering. Wow.

The film has taken a lot of heat because of Robert Young's preachy speech about his Grandfather's murder. That doesn't bother me at all, although I guess Dmytryk didn't have to have Young shove his face into the camera while talking about \"MICKS and PAPISTS\". Still, taking the context into account, it's one of the more shocking moments of the film. Part of its impact is due to Young's almost casual delivery of the message, and part of it is due to the message's not having been heard on screen before.

Another feature of the film that transforms it almost into the surreal is the Paul Kelly character and his relationship to the whore Gloria Grahame. Holy Guacamole, what elliptical conversation Kelly is given to. \"You know what I told you? All those things I just told you? They're all lies.\" His character neatly crosses pathos with creepiness. It's impossible to know what to make of him. He adds virtually nothing to the plot but the movie would be a lot less without his presence.

It's a moody, murky film. Its people live in the dark. And there is murder afoot. Practically no one screams or shouts. The horror that these men have experienced and that some of them still carry with them like malaria seems just beneath the surface.

See it if you have a chance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Crossfire (1947)

Great Message, Great Symbolism, Very Good Movie

It's hard to go totally wrong with Robert Mitchum, Robert Young, and Robert Ryan all together as the three male leads, and with director Edward Dmytryk pulling together a complicated murder and detective yarn. That's reason enough to watch it once and even twice.

You might need a second look to fully catch the plot as it is explained (too much) or shown in flashback (also too much) because it's a little complicated without good reason. But it makes sense overall, and we see early on (too early probably) who the culprit is, and even why.

Besides the drama, well done in typical noir lighting and filled with those short quips that make post-war films dramatic, there is the social message, the anti-anti-Semitic point of it all. It only borders on preachy once or twice, and it's such an obviously good point to make we watch it being made approvingly and wait for the plot and the dramatic acting to take front row. Which they do, especially Young, who is a brilliantly laconic and patient detective, and Ryan, who is mean in a believably crude and angry way (Ryan is good at that, his typecasting reasonable). Mitchum mostly plays a watered down version of what he is famous for, and the fourth known acting force, Gloria Grahame, is a great, brief, presence even if slightly dispensable.

Though the movie is dominated by the sequence of events and by the message, both of which grow in force as we go, it is really easy to watch just for the lighting, camera-work, and acting, including the classic fight scene that opens the first few seconds of the film, all done with shadows.

The archetypes of soldiers presented is very deliberate, and this might be something people at the time were very familiar with and could relate to as much as the anti-Semitism thread. The shell-shocked soldier rendered helpless (but still intrinsically capable), the modest youngster without confidence (but capable, too), and the weary but outwardly able veteran are all there. And of course, the angry, violent soldier who is a product of the war, too. This last is also a responsibility of society--even the army goes all out to make good on the injustices here, not just because they are criminal, but because they stem from the wear and tear of a long awful war.

The audience then, more than now, could really get, but it's there to appreciate still.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Crossfire\" is remembered not so much for the fact that its three stars all had the first name \"Robert\" but as being one of the first Hollywood films to deal with anti-semitism.

The story opens with the murder in silhouette of a man whom we later learn is a Jewish man named Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene). Pipe smoking police Captain Finlay (Robert Young) is assigned to the case. An ex-soldier, Montgomery (Robert Ryan) comes upon the murder scene and we learn through flashback that he had met Samuels in a bar along with other soldiers who were in the process of being mustered out of the service following WWII.

According to Montgomery, he and pal Floyd Bowers (Steve Brodie) had followed Samuels and Cpl. Arthur Mitchell (George Cooper) to Samuels' apartment for drinks. Montgomery tells Finlay that Mitchell left the apartment first and that he and Floyd followed soon after with Samuels still alive and well.

Unable to locate Mitchell, Finlay suspects him of the murder. He enlists Sgt. Peter Keeley (Robert Mitchum) to help him locate Mitchell. Mitchell meanwhile has been wondering the streets in a dazed state. He meets prostitute Ginny (Gloria Grahame) in a bar and strikes up a friendship. She gives him a key to her apartment and he goes there to rest. Unexpectedly a man (Paul Kelly) turns up looking for Ginny. Mitchell, still in a daze, leaves and goes back to meet Keeley and his pals. Keeley manages to keep him from the police and hides him in an all night movie house.

From Mitchell's perspective we learn that Montgomery hates jews and is probably the killer. Finlay begins to focus his investigation on Montgomery trying to prove his guilt. He arrangers to have one of the soldiers, a kid named Leroy (William Phipps) set a trap for Mongomery.

\"Crossfire\" is considered to be one of the best of the \"film noire\" genre. In fact it garnered several Academy Award nominations including Ryan and Grahame for best supporting actors. It was made on a modest budget in about three weeks.

It has all of the elements of classic \"film noire\", the shadows, low key lighting and the story playing out mostly at night. The requisite \"femme fatale\" of the piece is Grahame's Ginny who plays a minor role but is nonetheless your classic \"femme fatale\". The unnamed character played by Paul Kelly (in an excellent bit) has been chewed up and spit out by Ginny and was she about to do the same to Mitchell?

Robert Ryan steals the picture as the brutal Montgomery although it would type cast him in similar roles for years to come. Robert Young makes a good low key detective but Robert Mitchum has little to do other than befriend the Mitchell character. Others in the cast are Jacqueline White as Mitchell's wife, Lex Barker (who would go on the following year to play \"Tarzan\") as one of Mitchum's soldier pals and Richard Powers (who was previously known as Tom Keene) as Finlay's assistant.

Director Edward Dmytryk would shortly run afoul of The House Un-American Committee as having communist affiliations and spend a couple of years in jail.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"**** SPOILERS THROUGHOUT **** This is a very strange film - particularly for its time - in every respect. For six years, American movies had shown American soldiers as everybody's son, brother, father.

In movies like The Best Years of Our Lives and Til the End of Time, our hearts are tugged by the difficulty that the sweet returning soldiers have in adjusting to peace and their families. Yet in this same year, this film shows soldiers as a mix of people rather worse than the viewer - one message of this film is - \"lock up your daughters.\"

Even the good soldiers - with plenty of time on their hands - are gambling all the time, getting stupefyingly drunk, and are wholly indifferent to whether they even have wives any more. And their reaction to the police investigating a murder is -- to conspire against them.

Mitchum, the most sympathetic soldier says things like \"I don't know if my wife wants to make a go of it now after the War. Haven't seen her in two years. Do I care? Not really. Maybe we'll make a go of it, maybe not.\"

Another soldier is shown as unusually sensitive because after years away, he would like to see his wife again.

Later, when this soldier states at the police station that he spent the evening at a whore's home - without knowing his wife is sitting just behind him, there seems to be no question whatever that his wife will be fine. Indeed, she is - I guess it's \"Hey, soldiers will be soldiers\".

The police detective played by Robert Young who is trying to crack a murder case, states convincingly and with infinite weariness about someone's account of their actions on the night in question,

\"Do I care? No. I don't really care about anything any more. I've done this too long, I guess.\"

A man shows up at the whore's apartment. He says \"I'm just a man like you, interested in\" the whore. Then he says, \"No that's a lie, I'm her husband. I'd like to be in the military, I was turned down before.\" T

hen he says, \"No, that's a lie, why would I want to be a soldier?\" He goes through another series of lies when the police ask him who he is. To the end of the movie, we haven't a clue who he is or why he is there!He's one of the strangest characters in the history of movies!

A man stands with his girlfriend at a bar talking to four soldiers, when a clumsy soldier knocks a drink onto his girlfriend. She leaves to change her dress - and is right back wearing another, no problem. Yet the man doesn't leave with his girlfriend - who simply disappears - but instead follows one of the soldiers when he leaves to go to another area of the bar! The man then extrapolates from the minimal information he's learned about the soldier -- to philosophize grandly about the problems of returning soldiers -- and immediately invites the soldier home because he is drunk and feels sick. This is strange stuff.

Similarly, a dance hall girl is irritated by the sentimental soldier who would like to take her out \"for a real dance - and dinner maybe\". Yet she does dance with him - and immediately gives him the key to her home!

Were people in the late 1940s always urging soldiers to come to their homes after they just met them?

Robert Ryan kills his host, a stranger, when he's enraged that the Jewish host tries to get the steadily drunker Ryan out of his home. The reason for the murder? \"No Jew tells me how to drink\". \"How to drink?\" Huh? What does that mean?

This movie is always off-kilter, quite deliberately so - the soldiers act consistently with total complete defiance of the law, and all the characters are as cold and tough as any movie I've ever seen.

And yet the movie is utterly gripping! You simply have no idea how these people are going to act - or what new bizarre character is going to pop up - without anyone thinking the person's actions are strange in the least - e.g., the wife's behavior.

The acting is about the finest I'e ever seen - from Robert Young, Robert Ryan, Gloria Grahame (who earned an Oscar nomination), Paul Kelly and other actors I'd never heard of.

I'd never heard of this movie - and it's a complete delight that I've discovered one that I shall want to see again and again and again. it's really strange but impossible to look away from because you've no idea what these creatures will do next.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Crossfire\" feels like an underdeveloped masterpiece -- it's well acted and beautifully filmed, but thinly written and way too short. As is, it's just a decent police procedural with hints of film noir (at its zenith in 1947) and social commentary (also trendy at the time) thrown in for good measure. It's remembered today as one of the first two Hollywood films to deal with anti-Semitism, and as being much better than the similarly-themed \"Gentleman's Agreement\" (no mean feat). But its real subject is the difficulty that WWII soldiers, as trained killers, were having as they made the transition to civilian life. (For a more genteel take on this topic, try \"The Best Years Of Our Lives.\") A man is beaten to death in the first few frames of the film. We do not see his attacker. The movie is about the investigation of this murder, which is actually pretty straightforward, but it takes some unnecessary detours, like when the main suspect, a depressed soldier, winds up in the apartment of Gloria Grahame, a dance-hall hooker with a really weird pimp played by Paul Kelly. There's also a civics lecture halfway through the movie that slows the proceedings to a crawl, and the ending is tidy enough for a cop show. But otherwise it's a pretty decent mystery. Still, what a great noir it could have been. Director Edward Dmytryk drops a few hints at the subject of the original novel -- homosexuality, not anti-Semitism -- like when sadistic creep Monty seethes at the image of his friend Mitch talking with a strange man at a bar. And the cast is excellent. Robert Ryan makes for a very credible cretin, and even becomes a little sympathetic in his final scenes, not unlike Peter Lorre as the child murderer in \"M.\" He deserved an Oscar but lost to Edmund Gwenn that year (you can't beat Santa Claus). Robert Mitchum is onhand as a soldier friend of the accused killer. Was Mitchum a great actor or a great star? Someone else can figure that out, but his sleepy eyes and bemused half-smile work very well here since they imply that his character knows something everyone else doesn't. (And he does.) And Robert Young, as the detective assigned to the murder, is surprisingly gritty, discarding his usual avuncular affability even when he has to deliver the civil-rights sermon midway through the picture. There's no question that Bogart or Tracy would have been brilliant in the role, but neither of them were at RKO in 1947 so you'll just have to deal with Dr. Welby. Still, Young is good enough to make you wish someone had cast him in a detective drama instead of \"Father Knows Best,\" which he hated and which drove him to alcoholism and suicide attempts. The man deserved better than smarm and Sanka.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Crossfire remains one of the best Hollywood message movies because, unlike the admirably intentioned Gentleman's Agreement, which it beat to theatres by a few months, it chooses to send its message via the form an excellent noir thriller rather than have an outraged star constantly saying \"It's because I'm Jewish, isn't it?\" It's much easier to get the message that hate is like a loaded gun across when the dead bodies are actual rather than metaphorical. Somewhat shamefully, the brief featurette on the Warners' DVD doesn't mention that novelist Richard Brooks disowned the film over the shift from a homophobic murder to an anti-Semitic one, but it's interesting to note that while the victim is killed primarily because he is Jewish, there's little doubt in Sam Levene's performance that the character is in fact also gay \u0096 not a mincing caricature, but there's definitely a two lost souls aspect to his scenes with George Cooper's confused soldier. There's not much of a mystery to who the murderer is: even though the killing is carried out in classic noir shadows, the body language of the killer is instantly recognisable, but then the film has its characters drift to the same conclusion before the halfway point: the tension comes from proving it and saving the fall guy.

There's an element of Ealing Films to the gang of soldiers teaming together to get their buddy out of a fix (you could almost see that aspect as a blueprint for Hue and Cry), but the atmosphere is pure RKO noir. Set over one long sweltering night, the film has a great look filled with deep dark blacks and shadows born as much out of economy as style (it cut back on lighting time and allowed director Edward Dmytryk more time to work with the actors) and the excellent cast make the most of the fine script: a laid-back but quietly charismatic Robert Mitchum, Robert Young's Maigret-like detective, Gloria Grahame's tramp and the perpetually creepy Paul Kelly as her compulsive liar admirer, a guy who tries on stories the way other people try on ties. But the lasting impression is of Robert Ryan's excellent performance as a guy who could do with a good leaving alone as he does his best to help the wrongly accused man all the way to death row. A big surprise hit in 1946, as a reward, Dmytryk and producer Adrian Scott found themselves investigated by the HUAC, which itself had a notable tendency to target Jews. So much for crusading\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A film like Crossfire puts another film that spreads around its social consciousness- i.e. the recent film Crash- almost to shame. Not necessarily because either one puts forth its message of intolerance-is-rotten more significantly (although I'd wager Crash throws the hammer down much more thickly in comparison with this), but because of how the storytelling and contrivances never get much in the way like with Crash. Maybe it's not really necessary to compare the two, as Crossfire is in its core all deep into the film-noir vein like its going out of style. It was interesting actually to see what the director Edward Dmytryk said on the DVD interview, where he mentioned that the budget for the photography was significantly lower (on purpose) so that more could be spent on the actors, and the schedule went through at a very brisk, quick pace. But then what comes off then as being incredible about the picture is that you would think looking at many of the lighting set-ups that it took a lot to do. Just for a small scene, like when Robert Mitchum's Keeely first goes in for questioning under the Captain Robert Young- the contrasts of shadows seamlessly in the room is exquisite. That there are many other lighting set-ups that go even further with so little marks this as something essential in the realm of just the look of the noir period. Just take a look at a shot of characters on a stairwell, the bars silhouetted against them, and see what I mean.

But back to the substance part of the film- it's really a story that consists of a murder mystery, but one that we as the audience don't take long to figure on the answer. It's then more about something else then in the mind and soul of a killer that wouldn't be found in a common crime picture then, as there are really no 'criminals' for the most part in the film. There's a very calculated risk with this then that characters could be too thin just to prop up the (worthwhile) message against anti-semitism. But Dmytryk's direction of his top-shelf cast, along with a really terrific script by John Paxton fleshes out the characters, least of which for what they should have to not seem too thin alongside the message. And what would a noir be then without some attitude to go along with it? Mitchum helps that along, even in scenes like between him and Young where its very much based in the situation of the story's moment (i.e. a detail in the plot), by injecting a little sly wit into some of the dialog. It may already be there in the lines, but he helps make the character with a good edge for his scenes.

Then there's also Robert Ryan, who excels at Montgomery as a man who you know you don't like much at first, just through his b.s. demeanor, but you're not totally sure about either. Then once it starts to come clearer- ironically through a subjective view-point of the suspect Mitchell (George Cooper) at the apartment of the soon-to-be-deceased Samuels- his performance becomes a great balancing act of being full of crap and also rather frightening in his blind-way. It's a good performance when also countered with Cooper, who has actual personal issues that he faces and comes forward with regret and humility. It's really after the film ends that one thinks about a lot of this, however, and while you're watching the film it's more about getting into the dialog and the flow of the scenes, and in the sometimes stark, overpowering camera moves on the actors, so the message is in a way secondary. Not that it isn't an important one, especially for the time period (coming right off of WW2), but years later its seeing the actors, even the ones that don't get the big marquee status like Gloria Grahame as Ginny (the femme fatale of the picture, if it could've had time for one which it doesn't) and William Phipps as Leroy (the \"hick\"), working off one another that sticks much strongly in the compacted screenplay.

Dmytryk is also very wise in choosing to limit the musical score is powerful too, as for very long stretches we hear nothing, and mostly when it does come up it's incidental to the character's surroundings. He could've just as easily gone with added musical notes on some dramatic scenes for emphasis, most specifically the opening audience-grabber into the film. By sticking clear of that, and getting the right attitudes and nuance in camera and cast, it uplifts standards in genre material to a very fine, memorable level. My favorite scene would probably go to Finley's story about an Irish immigrant he tells to Leroy, where all such elements come into place well. It might not come in very high at the top of my favorite noirs- and I'd still throw-down Murder My Sweet as the director's masterpiece in this kind of picture- but it's assuredly higher in quality than something of the B-level too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The real Best Picture of 1947 also deals with Anti-Semitism and is superior to Elia Kazan's GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT (the eventual winner at that year's Academy Awards) in practically every department. Edmard Dmytryk's near-perfect direction, John Paxton's terse script and J. Roy Hunt's expert Expressionist lighting are wonderfully abetted by a superb ensemble cast. Although Robert Young (playing an easy-going, methodical and very likable cop) and Robert Mitchum (who actually does have the occasional throwaway witty remark) are the nominal stars of the film, it's Oscar nominees Robert Ryan and Gloria Grahame - as well as Paul Kelly, in the small but pivotal role of Grahame's pathetic husband - who give the film's most memorable characterizations; Ryan proved so convincing as a homicidal racist that he was eventually typecast for a while, excelling in equally villainous roles in such films as ACT OF VIOLENCE (1948), CAUGHT (1948), THE RACKET (1951), CLASH BY NIGHT (1952), THE NAKED SPUR (1953) and BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK (1955). The film is also notable for its atypical structure in that Ryan's \"flashback\" sequence, a complete fabrication, is shot in a straightforward manner while the actual truth emerges from the hazy, distorted recollections of the real protagonist of the film who, furthermore, isn't even played by any of the film's stars! Also, CROSSFIRE was originally to have treated homosexuality (as per Richard Brooks' original source novel, \"The Brick Foxhole\") but this taboo subject was unacceptable to the Hays Office at the time - a far cry from the situation we have today when (at least) 3 gay-themed films are in the running for this years' major Oscars!

The print utilized for Warners' DVD transfer shows some regrettable signs of wear-and-tear at times but the Audio Commentary by noir experts, James Ursini and Alain Silver, is a good one, even though I don't happen to share their opinion that Dmytryk's career declined steadily after his HUAC troubles, as such excellent pictures as THE SNIPER (1952), THE CAINE MUTINY (1954), BROKEN LANCE (1954), THE YOUNG LIONS (1958), WARLOCK (1959) and MIRAGE (1965) amply prove; having said that his collaborations at RKO with producer Adrian Scott and screenwriter John Paxton - MURDER, MY SWEET (1944), CORNERED (1945; hopefully this will be part of the next Film Noir Box Set from Warners) and CROSSFIRE - do constitute his best work. In any case, in my opinion, the latter is not only one of the key films of the 1940s but also one of the finest noirs ever made, period.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Edward Dmytryk's \"Crossfire\" is a rare film coming from the Hollywood of the 1940s. This was groundbreaking territory for Mr. Dmytryk and the studio because of what the director and his adapter, John Paxton, decided to do with the novel, in which the film is based.

If you haven't seen the film, please stop reading now.

Richard Brooks novel was about the killing of a gay soldier. In the movie, the subject matter was turned around to prejudice against Jews, a theme that was taboo during that time in the American cinema. It's to Mr. Dmytryk's credit to have had the courage to get involved with this film project, at all.

The movie is an outstanding piece of film making because the way the director presents it. Obviously influenced by the film noir style, we are taken to the Washington of the post war. The opening scene about the brutal murder of Samuels shows such unusual cruelty being inflicted to a decent man, who we don't know yet, or why has been killed, but who didn't deserve to die in such horrible fashion.

The basis of the murder is prejudice, pure and simple. We realize how in the mind of an ignorant man, the mere fact of being successful and different, plays in the mind of the assassin. Samuels stands as the sacrificial lamb, the same way the gay soldier is the victim in the novel. The parallels are well drawn.

This film makes compelling viewing because of the brilliant star turn of Robert Ryan, as Montgomery. Mr. Ryan was an actor that always played interesting roles, but never so well as in \"Crossfire\". Also, there is a great appearance by Gloria Grahame, as Ginny, the prostitute with her heart in the right place.

The rest of the cast play as an ensemble. Robert Young, as the police detective in charge of the investigation plays is a decent man who has known prejudice first hand in his own family and speaks loudly against it. Robert Mitchum plays a cool Sgt. Keeley who is deeply touched by the crime when one of his men is accused of committing it. Sam Levene is excellent in his small role of Samuels.

This is a film to watch because of it probably the first to speak out loud against ignorance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brilliant thriller, deserving far more fame, Mitchum and Ryan are awesome in their starring roles, as is the entire supporting cast. A truly gripping film noir featuring some wonderfully images and some great dialogue, at the heart of it all is a strong message of tolerance and understanding. Based on a novel concerning homophobia, this movie attacks post-war anti-emitism, and all intolerance and hatred, with considerable power. Though parts may seem a little preachy to modern audiences, it still has the power to shock, and works very well as a thriller in its own right. A credit to all involved.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Crossfire is one of those films from the Forties that is crying for a remake, if for no other reason than maybe it's time it should be done as originally written. The story on which the film is based is about the killing of a gay man. But anti-Semitism was certainly a hot topic in the days of post World War II with the holocaust fresh in everyone's mind.

In the Lee Server biography of Robert Mitchum, Edward Dmytryk the director was interviewed and and bluntly said that the film could never have been made about a hate crime against gays at the time with The Code firmly in place. It could have been though because the character of Robert Ryan is such an equal opportunity hater of everything that deviates from his societal norms.

Mitchum was told in no uncertain terms that he was in the film strictly for the ride. Robert Young was cast as the Washington, DC Police homicide captain who catches the case and while Mitchum was second billed, he knew from the beginning the film would belong to Ryan. But he was RKO's new star by dint of his performances in The Story Of GI Joe and Till The End Of Time so he was there for box office insurance. Mitchum's part was as a sergeant and friend of the original suspect in the case, George Cooper.

Crossfire is not a whodunit, even though we don't see the crime it becomes clear that Montgomery is the one who kills Sam Levene, the quintessential Jewish salesperson. And it becomes clear to Young and Mitchum that Ryan is the guilty party almost as fast as it does to the audience. It becomes just a question of getting the evidence.

Ryan earned one of several Academy Award nominations the film garnered, his Best Supporting Actor category. Though he lost to Edmund Gwenn, the film was Ryan's breakthrough role. Similarly Gloria Grahame was nominated for a brief part as a party girl for Best Supporting Actress, but she lost to Celeste Holm for Gentleman's Agreement. In fact Crossfire ran up against Gentleman's Agreement and lost for Best Picture and Best director for Dmytryk to Elia Kazan. It's fifth nomination for Best Screenplay and Crossfire came up short again with the winner being Miracle on 34th Street.

Gloria Grahame also had her own problems on the set which spilled over from her personal life. She was having big trouble with her then husband Stanley Clements who was an abusive husband. He was hanging around the set causing Ed Dmytryk a lot of problems. Fortunately Grahame's part was a small one. In fact the whole film was shot in typical RKO economy style in 20 days.

Robert Young has a particularly fine scene with William Phipps a young kid from Tennessee in Mitchum and Ryan's outfit who Ryan constantly belittles. Young is most eloquent in speaking about the corrosive nature of hate and how it affected his family as Irish Catholics who came over in the potato famine years. It was one of Robert Young's best moments on screen in his long career.

As fine a film as Crossfire is, it's time to be remade as a story about an anti-gay hate crime. Especially with the real killing of Barry Winchell from the last decade and the debate about gays in the military.

That's a film who's time has come and almost gone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"RKO Radio Pictures made a real classic in 1947 and even managed to get it nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award. The acting, script, continuity, et cetera, are all just about perfect; and the story is well worth the viewer's 82 minutes. Although the picture soft-petals the true life story by making the murder victim a Jew rather than a homosexual, most viewers will see the victim as a Jewish homosexual -- such disguises never work, perhaps weren't intended to.

I could nit-pick about a few details, but just for fun. There was no all-night movie house in Washington, DC in 1947 --- and if there was I wish Robert Mitchum and his pal wouldn't talk through the show. There weren't any bars where a GI could pick up a pretty blonde. NONE! If Robert Ryan wanted to read the latest murder scoop he ought to have bought the Daily News; not the Times-Hearald, Evening Star and certainly not the know-nothing Washington Post. But these little things take nothing away from this classic.

The film benefits a lot from the absolute lack of a musical score, except during the credits. I've only seen this done in a few films.

On the negative side, since 1995 it comes with a TMC introduction where some liberal blabs about what the public was \"ready for\" in 1947... blah, blah, blah! As if this fool has any business judging his betters. I'd say the ex-GI's in 1947 -- the Greatest Generation -- were much smarter --and had better values -- than some commentator, film historian, or other wise-mouth in 1995. Put a sock in it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a very gritty movie about anti-semitism. However, unlike GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT (that also deals with anti-semitism), the movie has aged well and doesn't seem heavy-handed. In other words, it deals with the topic without seeming preachy or trite by today's standards.

Robert Ryan plays one of the most vile characters, as he beats a guy to death just because he's Jewish. Robert Mitchum plays the investigator trying to get to the bottom of this crime.

I give the movie kudos for its gritty and unflinching look at hate. It is in many ways an example of Film Noir--even though the topic isn't about the usual gangsters or robbery.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** There must have been something in the air in the immediate postwar years that made night cities attractive settings for movies. A gaggle of nocturnal, urban films were made at that time, and not just in America. One of the most notable was Carol Reed's Odd Man Out, an English picture about a wounded gunman staggering through the streets of Belfast. In America it was the high noon, or more properly, high midnight, of film noir.

Crossfire isn't really film noir, but has the trappings of noir, though it uses them for its own aims, which have to do with bigotry. Directed by Edward Dmytryk, written by John Paxton, it was adapted from a novel by Richard Brooks. The book concerned the murder of a homosexual; in the movie the victim is changed to a Jew. Though filmed like a mystery there is little suspense in the film, as it is fairly obvious who the murderer is early on. What makes the film so watchable and beautiful is its evocation of a city, Washington, D.C., just after World War II, by some of the most gifted craftsmen working in films at that time. Unlike many night movies Crossfire is set mostly indoors: in police stations, rooming houses and all-night movie theaters. Soldiers are everywhere in the film, and most are itching to get back to their civilian lives. Yet one senses, from most of the men we meet, that their personalities have been so shaped by their military experience it's going to be tough for them to return to their old neighborhoods; for some maybe even impossible. They seem more bound to one another than to anything or anyone else.

Yet some men never truly bonded with anyone in the military. The murderer, Monty, is one such individual. One senses that he was never connected in his civilian life, either. He is a lone wolf who also needs people. Desperately alone, he has a sadistic streak a mile wide, and always needs someone nearby to be the butt of his jokes. The man he kills did him no harm, and was in fact a stranger to him. But once Monty figured out the man's religion, that was enough. He didn't really mean to kill the guy, as it was his intent to 'merely' humiliate him and just beat him up. But as he was quite drunk at the time, Monty's fists got the better of him. It is this act that sets the story the story in motion.

Once the movie builds up a head of steam the other characters come rapidly into focus. Monty's opposite number is Keely, another soldier, who, though introspective like Monty, and somewhat detached, harbors no resentment toward anyone and seems a reasonable, even amiable guy. Finley, the pipe-smoking homicide detective, is dandyish and a tad effete compared to the men in uniform, but proves more than a match for the various and mostly recalcitrant soldiers he deals with. The actors who plays these roles, Roberts Ryan, Mitchum and Young, give excellent performances, each in a different key. Ryan, as Monty, is tense and paranoid, always looking around for someone to pick on; and one can feel his anxiety over becoming a victim himself. As Keely, Mitchum is low-key, almost nonchalant; he never raises his voice; and he seems to have more to say, more to offer, than is permitted by the script. Young's performance has often been criticized as being too soft, but I find it deceptively strong and nicely offbeat. He cuts against the stereotype of the hardboiled cop, and makes the character of Finley a bit of a prince of crime detection.

There are few surprises in Crossfire, though the script is at times surprisingly well-written, even brilliant. Character actor Paul Kelly gives one of the best short performances in the movies as the 'boyfriend' of a woman a soldier picks up in a bar. Kelly may or may not be her husband; and he may or may not live with her, though he seems relaxed enough in her apartment. The beauty of these scenes are that nothing is made clear, and this man himself seems more than a little confused over what his role is, was or ought to be. In a way these few scenes form the thematic core of the film, which is anomie. With the exception of the detective all the men in the film are drifting, aimless and basically lost, some more seriously than others. In this respect Crossfire is, for all the preaching near the end, a film about the vagueness of identity, and how easily it can be lost or warped. Men drift from one bar to another in this film, as they engage in a sort of woozy camaraderie, their personalities merging into a kind of general American male template. Then something happens, something is nailed down. A word is mentioned, whether 'Jew' or 'hillbilly', and things suddenly turn tense, and the very notion of individuality, of an identity outside the group, of anyone not like them, becomes deeply offensive, even loathsome. Then, after tempers flare and whatever stirred them up has been resolved or forgotten, the men revert to their loose, non-personal group normality, and order is restored.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Crossfire\" is ostensibly a murder mystery but what distinguishes it from other similar movies of the period is the killer's motive, which is anti-Semitism. The story highlights examples of the kind of ignorance which fuels bigotry and contains references to a \"hillbilly\" and an Irish immigrant who also suffered maltreatment because of their ethnicity.

The movie's plot is based on Richard Brooks' novel called \"The Brick Foxhole\" which is about a hate crime where the victim was gay. It's ironic that this story about a form of intolerance should be met with intolerance by the censors who stipulated that, for the screen version, the type of bigotry involved should be changed to anti-Semitism. Another irony is the behaviour of a soldier who seems fiercely proud of having served in a war against the Nazis and yet embraces their hatred of Jews. The director and producer of this movie also suffered another type of intolerance when they were blacklisted after being called to appear before the \"House Un-American Activities Committee\". All these points just seem to underline the deeply entrenched and intractable nature of the whole problem of bigotry as depicted in this movie.

When Police Captain Finlay (Robert Young) investigates the murder of Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene), he discovers that on the night when he was killed, Samuels had been socialising with a group of soldiers and one of these, Corporal Arthur \"Mitch\" Mitchell (George Cooper) is quickly identified as the prime suspect. Further information is also gathered from Montgomery (Robert Ryan) who is another of the soldiers who was present that night and Sergeant Keeley (Robert Mitchum) who's a friend of Mitchell. Keeley, with the help of some other soldiers, then searches for Mitchell and when he finds him, hears his account of what he did on the night of the murder including his meeting with a dance hall hostess called Ginny Tremaine (Gloria Grahame).

Keeley helps Michell to avoid being arrested and tries to identify the murderer. Ginny Tremaine is questioned but her information is insufficient to prove Mitchell's innocence but Finlay's investigations lead him to recognise the motive for the crime and subsequently, he sets up an elaborate trap which leads the real culprit into exposing his own guilt.

\"Crossfire\" is a movie with a message and the identity of the murderer is revealed at a very early stage in the story. The \"message\" is conveyed in a way which was, no doubt, appropriate for the period in which it was made but by today's standards seems rather heavy handed. The cinematography by J Roy Hunt is just wonderful with low key lighting and creative use of numerous strategically placed table lamps combining to evoke a look which is perfectly compatible with the drama being played out on screen.

Despite it being a low budget production, \"Crossfire\" was a great box office success and benefited from having an absorbing and very relevant story with a marvellous cast, two of whom were nominated for Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actor (Robert Ryan) and Best Supporting Actress (Gloria Grahame). The additional nominations for Edward Dmytryk (Best Director), producer Adrian Scott (Best Picture) and John Paxton (Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay) are just further evidence of the positive recognition which this movie justifiably received.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A March 1947 New York Times article described Crossfire as one of the first Hollywood films of the 1940s to \"face questions of racial and religious prejudice with more forthright courage than audiences have been accustomed to expect.\" While RKO was producing Crossfire, Twentieth Century-Fox was making Gentleman's Agreement, another story about antisemitism. RKO raced to beat the much \"ballyhooed\" Fox picture to the theaters, releasing Crossfire several months before Gentleman's Agreement. In July 1947, RKO screened Crossfire for representatives of various Los Angeles religious groups. In addition, several surveys, which were designed to gauge the audience's prejudices, were conducted before and after screenings of the film. Crossfire received both praise and criticism for its depiction of antisemitism in America and was the subject of many editorials. Crossfire received an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture, but lost to Gentleman's Agreement. It was also nominated for Best Supporting Actor (Robert Ryan), Best Supporting Actress (Gloria Grahame), Best Director and Best Screenplay (Adaptation). In September 1947, Crossfire was named Best Social Film at Cannes. In December 1947, Ebony magazine, an African-American publication, gave the film its annual award for \"improving interracial understanding.\" Loved this movie. If you get the chance to watch it, see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Crossfire\" is a justifiably famous 1947 noir that's a murder mystery with a strong message. It stars Robert Young, Robert Mitchum, Robert Ryan, Sam Levene, and Gloria Grahame, and is strongly directed by Edward Dmytryk. We witness the murder in shadow at the beginning, and for the rest of the film, Young, as the detective, Finlay, in charge of the case, seeks to figure out which of three soldiers is responsible for the death, and just as important, why. The victim, Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene) is someone the soldiers meet in a bar; they go up to his apartment to continue their visit, and Samuels winds up dead.

I don't know about 1947, but seeing \"Crossfire\" today, one knows who did it and why the minute we see the suspects. I don't suppose it was so apparent back then, as these actors were just getting started. Nevertheless, the film packs a big punch with its powerful acting, good direction, violence, and unsparing anti-Semite language.

The characterizations are vivid, including that of Gloria Grahame in a smallish role - she's a woman who meets Mitchell (George Cooper), one of the suspect soldiers, in a bar and can provide him with an alibi. The big performance in the film belongs to Robert Ryan, but everyone is excellent. Robert Young especially is effective as a tough but intelligent police detective. Mitchum is very likable as a soldier trying to help his confused friend Mitchell, a lonely man unsure if he still has feelings for his wife.

Truly excellent, and a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After a man turns up dead, a soldier becomes the prime suspect. Undoubtedly the best film to feature three Roberts and all of them are in fine form. Young is the cool-headed, pipe-smoking cop investigating the murder, Mitchum is the murder suspect's concerned friend, and Ryan is a hot-headed soldier with something to hide. Grahame has a brief but effective role as a femme fatale. Future Tarzan Barker has a bit part as a soldier. This film touches on anti-semitism, a subject also covered in Best Picture Oscar winner \"Gentleman's Agreement,\" which was released the same year. It is solidly directed by Dmytryk, who creates an effective film noir atmosphere.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A man by the name of Joseph Samuels is found brutally murdered in his apartment. It would appear that Samuels was visited by a group of drunken soldiers the previous evening, and with one of them seemingly missing, the evidence certainly implicates the missing soldier. But as detective Finlay digs deeper into the case he finds that they could be barking up the wrong tree, and that this crime is dealing with something desperately sad and vile, anti-Semitism.

Crossfire was born out of the novel written by Richard Brooks, adapted by John Paxton and directed by the shrewdly excellent Edward Dmtryk, Crossfire {originaly titled Cradle Of Fear} is a taut and gripping picture that boldly tackles anti-Semitism. Tho the makers were forced to tone down the story from the original source, the novel is about homosexual hatred as opposed to anti-Semitism, what remains, largely due to RKO supremo Dore Schary and producer Adrian Scott, is a sort of creeping unease that drips with Noirish style.

The cast features three Bob's, Young, Mitchum and Ryan, with Noir darling Gloria Grahame adding the emotional female heart. Tho only third billed, it's Robert Ryan's picture all the way, his portrayal as the bullying, conniving Montgomery is from the top draw and perfectly showcases the talent that he had in abundance. Ryan had good cause to give Montgomery some of is best work for he had served in the Marine's with Richard Brooks himself, both men having discussed the possibility that if the novel was to be made into a film?, then Ryan wanted in and to play Montgomery, thus the genesis of Ryan's career as weasel types was born!. Gloria Grahame also puts in a wonderful and heartfelt turn, which is all the more remarkable since she was being plagued by her abusive husband at the time. Stanley Clements was known to be violent towards her and his constant presence around the set irked others in the cast, but Grahame, probably channelling real life emotion, became the character of Ginny and shone very bright indeed. Both Bob Mitchum and Bob Young come out with flying colours as well, to really seal the deal on what a smartly acted picture Crossfire really is.

Tho Crossfire was released before the other 1947 anti-Semitic picture, Gentleman's Agreement, and raking in over a million and a quarter dollars at the box office, some of its thunder was stolen by the Academy Award winning picture from Fox Studio. Nominated for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor {Ryan}, Best Supporting Actress {Grahame}, Best Director and Best Screenplay, it won nothing, but critics of the time hailed it as a brilliant shift in American Cinema, and today it stands tall, proud and dark as a bold and excellent piece of work. 8.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Crossfire is a fantastic film noir that is both a product of it's time and a timeless classic. This film achieves this by addressing issues that haven't been brought to the screen before its 1947 release, and by being a high quality film that holds up to this day with a good script, great look, and fantastic performances from it's actors. The first American film to take the issue of anti-Semitism head on, Crossfire is cemented in classic standing. Set in post-World War II America, a lurid whodunit develops after a Jewish man is found murdered.

The story is great, its anti-hatred theme wrapped up in a dark multiple-character crime thriller, and along side the anti-Semitism angle is some great post-World War II dialogue and themes as well. Unlike other mystery thrillers, the audience is alerted to who the perpetrator is almost immediately. However, the film's story is still engrossing because of the struggle of all the great characters involved are going through while trying to make sense of the situation. Outside the great overall story and themes, the entire script is simply smart, complete with meaningful messages and razor-sharp exchanges between characters.

The film's captivating story is played out wonderfully by the its excellent cast. Robert Young is fantastic as Capt. Finlay, the leading investigator of the murder case. Finlay's my favorite character of the film, he's just a cool character - dry as bone and tough as a two-by-four and stopping at nothing to bring the killer to justice. Robert Mitchum is also great in the film, very vivid in his soft-spoken army sergeant character due to his superb screen-presence. Gloria Grahame gives a memorable performance in her small Oscar-nominated role; George Cooper also does a good job as the sick and distressed Corporal Mitchell; Paul Kelly gives an eerie portrayal of a bizarre character; and Steve Brodie, Sam Levene, Jacqueline White, and William Phipps also give strong supporting performances. Robert Ryan ends up being the most talked about performer of the film, giving a chilling performance as Montgomery and also being nominated for an Oscar.

Crossfire has a terrific look. Director Edward Dmytryk does an extraordinary job with the film's execution and cinematographer J. Roy Hunt does a masterful job with its black and white picture. Crossfire's picture is as dark and dank as its themes, covered in shadow with an almost glossy overtone, yet also very raw in parts. Ironically, the film's great look was not the result of hard work - or even intention. Dmytryk wanted to spend more time and money on the actors rather than the lighting - so that's what he did. Less lights, less preparation (around a 6 hour work day), and it resulted in a fantastic looking film. Not just a well done piece of cinematic art, Crossfire is also a great example of a cheap film that ends up a rich classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Exceptional movie that handles a theme of great proportions with a very well-balanced direction. Dmytrik was a very good director, at least from what I can tell from this movie and Murder my Sweet but he was seriously affected by the HUAC as other movie directors and actors. It is in a way ironic that Crossfire received no Oscars, because it is exquisite example of how to make a great film on low budget. Everything about this movie is exceptional: a well-written script that makes use of extensive flashbacks, a great cast, superb lighting that seems to tell the story more than the actions proper. What more can you expect from a top-notch movie? Might I add that noir is here used for its stylishness, and I might add financial advantages. But this proves once more that what was originally deemed a B-movie can have more impact today that most of the heavy-handed A-movies that lost their audience with the passage of time.

This film is not a noir movie per se and this rises serious questions about what noir actually is. The style is definitely noir, in terms of sets and especially lights but the theme surpasses the recipe of the \"noir genre\". You can see things from the opposite perspective and claim that Anti-Semitism is only a pretext for the criminal investigation, the puzzle around the murder being the actual focus. This would have been the case had it not been for Robert Ryan in an outstanding performance. Either way, the movie has a lot to offer and it is truly a pity that the director had to suffer so much iniquity for his former beliefs in a really \"noir\" period of America","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My top 2 actors happen to be in this film - Robert Ryan and Robert Mitchum.

Ryan could play anything from Shakespeare to Arthur Miller and play it magnificently. In this film when he starts his speech \"...people with names like Samuels and others with names that are hard to say\" - it is chilling to watch him.

Robert Young plays the policeman who is called to investigate the murder of Samuels (Sam Levine), a civilian, who is chatting with several soldiers in a bar. Mitchell is the soldier wanted in connection with it - his wallet has been found in the apartment. But Mitchell is a gentle soldier, who is only missing his wife.

The story is told from different perspectives. Mitchell and Samuels strike up a friendship and go back to Samuels apartment. Samuels seems to know the loneliness that Mitchell is feeling. \"For years you have been concentrating on one peanut and now it is gone you don't know what to feel\" he says about the war.

Ryan is superb as Monty, the psychotic racist.

Robert Young (along with Dick Powell) was an actor whose career was re-juvenated by film-noir. \"Crossfire\", \"They Won't Believe Me\" and \"The Other Woman\" are great examples.

Robert Mitchum is his usual laid back self as the philosopical Keeley.

Gloria Graham and Paul Kelly as the \"odd couple\" are outstanding as well in their brief but telling roles.

This is probably the best film about racism ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a fine film! Unfortunately, being 1947, the movie script couldn't have followed the book from which it was adapted, but the murder of a homosexual would have been too hot to handle in that era.

I thought all of the performances were outstanding, as well as the script, direction, brilliant black and white cinematography, music and film noir atmosphere.

I do understand that in 1947 the film couldn't portray racism against blacks or prejudice against homosexuals. (Robert Young's account of prejudice against his grandfather who was Irish and who endured this racism 100 years ago was pretty lame, but the times dictated that the film avoid a further examination of racism.)

I do have one observation and one question to ask the viewer: 1. Did you notice that Robert Young didn't aim his gun when he shot and killed Robert Ryan who was running fast in the dark and Young shot from an upper story window into the dark without aiming? 2. If Robert Young's grandfather was killed 100 years ago in 1847 (the film was made in 1947) and Young was 40 years old, the time line would not be logical. If the grandfather had been killed 50 years ago then the time frame would be realistic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"**SPOILERS**Actually based on the novel \"The Brick Foxhole\" about a gay man who was murdered by a GI on leave because of his sexual orientation. The movie \"Crossfire\" is about a violently anti-Semitic GI who because of his own failures and frustrations in life takes it out on those of the Jewish persuasion. Whom he obviously feels threatened by.

Getting himself tanked up at a local ginmill in D.C barley sober US serviceman Montgomrey, Robert Ryan, spots Joseph Samuel, Sam Leven, and starts to get a bit overly, yet sarcastically, friendly with him. It seems that Montgomery is a bit ticked off at Samuels because he's talking to his best friend and GI buddy Arthur Mitchell, George Cooper. Samuel is also getting through, which the Neanderthal Montgomery can't, to the sensitive young GI who's into the arts, he's an artist and painter on the outside, about war, WWII the war that just ended. As well as the shaky peace, if that's what it is with the dawn of atomic bomb, that's now following it in this very dangerous and unstable world. What really outrages Montgomery more then anything else about Samuels is that he's obviously Jewish. That more then anything else is enough reason for the racist Montgomery to want to do Samuels in.

Samules Inviting Mitchell to join him and his lady friend Miss. Lewis, Marlow Dwyer, at his apartment to have a couple of drinks and continue the very deep and stimulating conversation that they started at the bar. This has a, what seems like, very jealous and feeling hurt and rejected Montgomery together with his also inebriated but somewhat clueless, in what Montgomery's plans for Samuels are, friend and fellow GI Floyd Bowers ,Steve Brodie, later that night go uninvited to Samuels' place.

With the party already ended, with Mitchell and Miss Lewis gone, the two very drunk GI's unceremoniously crash the place. The fact that Samuels, in Montgomery's sick and anti-semitic mind, stole Mitchell away from him had him whip himself up into a white hot frenzy. Montgomery and Bowers break into Samuel's home raiding his well stacked liquor cabinet with Montgomery taking a couple of swigs, against Samuels' strong objections, of Samuels' very expansive and refined wines and spirits which is very unlike the watered down and cheap booze that the uncouth Montgomery is used to guzzling. This all soon lead to a violent and brutal assault on Samuels by the angry psychotic and drunk Montgomery, with Bowers out cold on the sofa from all the liquor he consumed, who beats the poor and innocent man to death.

The movie \"Crossfire\" then goes into a long and tedious, since it's obvious from the start who Samuels' killer is, investigation into why Samuels a wounded and decorated WWII veteran, who got the purple heart in the battle of Okinawa, was murdered with Montgomery acting like he's really interested, yeah sure, in finding Samuels' killer, which in reality is himself. This so-called voluntarily action on Montgomery's part in order to throw off suspicion on himself that he may be the man who killed him.

Montgomery is so ridicules and even, for someone who smugly considers himself to be very smart, stupid in him constantly opening up his big yap and spewing out anti-semitic and racist epitaphs and slurs about the murdered Samuels! That only throws suspicion on himself and no one else. I guess that guy just couldn't help it.

It's not enough that Montgomery murdered Samuels who in his sick mind was one of \"them\" he even murders his friend the scared to death, in being implicated in Samuels' murder, Bowers! Who in Montgomery racist way of thinking is one of \"us\"! Just because he was afraid Bowers would talk to the police in order to save his own sorry neck and thus have the spotlight put on Montgomey in Samuels' death.

It doesn't take that long for the detective on the case Capt. Finlay, Robert Young, to see through Montgomerys obvious lies and deceptions and then has him set up by having another GI \"friend\" of his Leroy (William Phipps), who was the butt of all his dumb and racist hillbilly jokes, set the arrogant creep up. This has Montgomery coming back to the scene of his crime, where he murdered Bowers, where a trap has been set up for him. That was all Capt. Finlay needed to get Montgomery to panic, when Montgomery saw that the jig was up, and make a run for it straight into the crossfire of a police ambush.

Dated a bit now but very hard-hitting back in 1947 when it was released. \"Crossfire\" addressed the horrors of anti-Semitism when it at the time was kept under the covers, and out of sight, in almost every post-WWII Hollywood movie about the evils of racism in the US, and in Europe. Even after the Second World War and with what happened to the Jews in it. When it should have been given the very full and honest exposer, to the movie going public, that it so rightfully deserved.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Film noir at its best. Set in the immediate aftermath of WWII ( 1946), \"Crossfire\" depicts the good, bad and ugly of that time. Monty Montgomery kills Sam because Sam's a Jew and therefore, automatically perceived through Monty's narrow lens, to have been a slacker who got out of fighting the war. Monty doesn't like people like that. The truth is that Sam was a soldier too, but the truth is something which disappears when you're feeling right about the ideologies of hate you've been immersed in and the world is full of dirty this and thats, badly in need of your brand of \"cleansing\".

Monty is a sadist in winning soldier's clothing. The losers of WWII had more than their share as well hate filled, prejudiced leaders and soldiers as well. Some of them were hung for war crimes, like starting a \"war of aggression\".

This movie got its makers in trouble when that other sadistic cleanser of America, Joe McCarthy got his hearings going in the early 1950s.

See \"Crossfire\", just to see how good an actor Robert Ryan was. The real Robert Ryan was no Monty. He WAS a great, if underestimated, under used actor.

See \"Crossfire\" and get a taste of the dark side of post-WWII America. See it to get a taste of the good side of late 40s America as well. Robert Mitchim and Robert Young also play leading roles. Mitchim could have played Ryan's role, in fact, he did when he played the psychopath in \"Cape Fear\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen this movie more than once. It isn't the greatest scifi flick I've every seen, but it is not a bad movie. The acting is good and the characters are more \"real\" than most in low budget sci fi. (At least it isn't full of dumb bimbos like so many other low budget scifi.) I especially like Elizabeth Pena. She is a good actress and she does worried single mother as well as any and better than some.

Don't let the nay sayers run you off. See it for yourself and judge it for yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It Came from Outer Space II is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Brian Kerwin, Elizabeth Pe\u00f1a, Jonathan Carrasco, Adrian Sparks, Bill McKinney, Dean Norris, Dawn Zeek, Lauren Tewes, Mickey Jones, Iilana B'tiste, Jerry Giles, and Howard Morris! The acting by all of these actors is very good. Kerwin and Norris are really excellent in this film. I thought that they performed good. The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is great by Shirley Walker. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Brian Kerwin, Elizabeth Pe\u00f1a, Jonathan Carrasco, Adrian Sparks, Bill McKinney, Dean Norris, Dawn Zeek, Lauren Tewes, Mickey Jones, the rest of the cast in the film, Mystery, Sci-Fi, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting Action films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!

Movie Nuttball's NOTE:

I noticed this is the second film that Dean Norris and Mickey Jones were in a movie together. The other being the classic violent epic Total Recall! Funny seeing them in another alien flick!

If you like alien movies and\/or the subject of aliens I also recommend the following films: The Thing from another World, The Day the Earth Stood Still, War of the Worlds (1953 & 2005), Horror Express, The UFO Incident, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, John Carpenter's The Thing, Krull, The Return of the Aliens: The Deadly Spawn, Time Walker, My Science Project, Howard the Duck, John, Carpenter's Starman, John Carpenter's They Live, Mac and Me, Explorers, Invaders from Mars, Alien Seed, The Abyss, Communion, Suburban Commando, Fire in the Sky, The Arrival, Mars Attacks! Contact, Men in Black I & 2, Stephen King's Dreamcatcher, Xtro 3: Watch the Skies, Battlefield Earth: A Saga for the year 3000, Stargate, The Puppet Masters, John Carpenter's Village of the Damned, Independence Day, Life Form, Contact, The X-Files: Fight the Future, Roswell: The Aliens Attack, The Faculty, Mission to Mars, Pitch Black, Evolution, K-Pax, Signs, Silent Warnings, The Forgotten, Alien Hunter, Spaceballs, Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Predator & Predator 2, AVP: Alien Vs. Predator, The entire Star Wars saga (A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, The Return of the Jedi (Original and Special Editions!), The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, & Revenge of the Sith), the entire Star Trek movie saga (Star Trek: The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, The Voyage Home, The Final Frontier, The Undiscovered Country, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, & Nemesis) and Stephen King's IT!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first music video I ever saw, Thriller, my mom told me that she took me home from the hospital and when we arrived, my sister had MTV on the TV and Thriller was playing, my mom said that I smiled. Silly I know, but I have loved Michael Jackson since that day, the music video Thriller inspired me to dance, still I have the dance memorized to this day. I even performed it for an audience 3 times! Words cannot describe the power of this song that makes you wanna sing and dance, but Michael of course had to raise the bar for MTV at the time by signing on American Werewolf in London director John Landis and directing the one, the only, Thriller.

Michael and his date, Ola Ray, run out of gas in a dark, wooded area. They walk off into the forest, and Michael asks her if she would like to go steady. She accepts and he gives her a ring. He warns her, however, that he is not like other guys, no really, not like the other guys. A full moon appears, and Michael begins convulsing in agony \u0096 transforming into a horrifying werewolf! His date shrieks and runs away, but the werewolf catches up, knocking her down and begins lunging at her with its claws. The scene cuts away to a movie theater where Michael and his date are actually watching this scene unfold in a movie called Thriller. Michael smiles but his date is frightened, and tells him she's leaving. Michael catches up to her, and says that it's only a movie, but she doesn't like his jokes on her and she starts walking away. Michael and his date then walk down a foggy street, and he teases her with the opening verses of Thriller. They pass a graveyard, where corpses suddenly begin to rise from their graves as Vincent Price performs his rap. Michael and his date then find themselves surrounded by the zombies, and suddenly, Michael becomes a zombie himself. Michael and the undead perform an elaborate song and dance number together, followed by the chorus of Thriller.

Thriller is arguably the best music video of all time, funny thing is people who wanna argue that is with other Michael Jackson videos, but what makes Thriller so special is the dance, the story, the effects, this at the time was the most expensive music video of it's day. Michael of course rose that bar again with his famous music video Scream and then again with Ghosts. But say what you will, Michael was the star of the 1980's, there was no celebrity like him, he loved the life, he lived it, breathed it and embraced it. Thriller is proof that he was willing to work to make the best and that's what we got with the legend that is Thriller.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Thriller' remains the greatest of the pop music promos to have a plot, great visuals, and a tip-top song to wrap the film around. Michael Jackson was at the top of the tree at this time (and not so altered in his plastic surgery regime for it to matter). Here he is in good form - the song is terrific, he leads the zombies in dance like no other.

Ola Ray plays the girl who watches with incredulity as her sweet boyfriend (Jackson, natch) turns into a werewolf! Then to the pulsing rhythms of the opening line 'It's close to midnight', he stomps around the graveyard with the other zombies and creatures of the night.

The crowning glory of all this is the fruity voice of the great horror star Vincent Price speaking in the middle of the record. Terrific.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Thriller\" is brilliant. It is a long video, but simply brilliant nonetheless. The song itself is...excellent...add Michael JAckson dancing and you have a golden Phenomenon. Out of all the videos I have ever seen, this is the best. If you have not seen the video yet, then I urge you...

The special effects are amazing for it's time... everything from the wearwolf transformation to the idea of these creepy zombies slowly raising from their graves is grand...spookishly grand that is. Vicent Price has his segment of bone-shivering lines...known simply as \"the rap\" Ola Ray does good as Michael's girl, and Michael JAckson himself...the dancing, and singing (although not during the video itself) is unmatched...

10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michael Jackson is amazing. This short film displays the absolute highest standard in music video and no-one will ever be able to out-beat this 'King Of Pop' masterpiece! It shows Michael turning into a zombie and dancing in the street with some spectacular choreography. The story is great, the scenes are marvelous, the music is fantastic and overall the clip is fun, eye-popping, spooky and is a real spectacle. Today everybody is still doing the same thing in music video with dancing and film-based story-lines which he innovated. This ground-breaking video is the toast of MTV and will forever be remembered for what is the greatest music video of all time!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am not a footie fan by any means but watched this with a friend as there wasn't anything else on the box at the time.(thank goodness). Not only did we laugh from start to finish but about a week later in the pub, when we started discussing it, we made a right spectacle of ourselves with uncontrollable laughter. Does that sloping pitch actually exist??? I have released my e-mail here so if anyone hears about it's future availability or a repeat on the telly please let me know. Definitely the funniest thing I've seen on television!!! King Leek was good too!! another Tim Healy classic","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a fantastically funny footie film. Why won't they show it again? Tim Healy was superb, as were all the players. Direction was inspired, and some of the gags were matchless. The sloping pitch had me on the floor. Show it again, ITV, so I can video it!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a true gem of a TV film. Based on a completely untrue story, it follows the course of the down-and-out football league club through their course in the English FA cup, where mayhem ensues and the players all sport seventies styles. The ending is unexpected, the performances are great, and Nick Hancock shows that he CAN do something other than host sports shows. My only regret is that I didn't tape it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this filmshow about the most unlikely, success? ,from a lower league, football team. The plot is thick and roles out some great tenuous twists and turns. Intercut with shots and commentary from the 70's .I was taken aback by its shear footy fun.

A great cast includes the excellent Tim Healy as the crazed(drunk) manager , bumbling along hanging on to anything that will make his team win...? I keep remembering bits such as the stolen secret file that Don Revie( Super leeds united and england manager-loved by the fans hated by everyone else)has on Bostock United ( the underfelt men) which in its detailed report of their opposition, Bostock United, in this the FA Cup final, merely says \"Sh-te\".

Lots of other footy gags a long time before the fantastic feature length \"Mike Basset - Football Manager\" Starring Ricky Tomlinson.

Up there with the, Gung ho English beating Germans, at football. Well morally.Although the score lines says different , of \"Escape to Victory\" ( I still cheer when England score )

And the thankless eternal grind of following a really bad team in Micheal Palins \"Golden Gordon\" from \"Ripping Yarns\" series ( with Terry Jones)the team were called Bostonworth United ,in case your interested.

I've looked high and low for a copy of Bostock's Cup-even Nick Hancock's biography doesn't list it ( probably someone -not mr hancocks- error)

Play it again or sell me a copy- PLEASE....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a reviewer has already commented, this made for tv comedy is up there amongst the best football parodies ever. But....having failed to video it when it was first aired, I now find that it isn't around in any format. OK, so this has only polled 17 votes to date, but a 9+ average does seem to suggest something special. Basically, I suppose it's a case of tough luck if you missed it 'cos it's no longer available to view !! Aaaaaaaargh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have it on VHS but its not a great copy as I have watched it 2 or 3 times per year since 1999. I am also in fear that 'her indoors' will throw it out in the annual VHS purge.

My brother and I (Late 30' still laugh at the carry on in this fantastic show.Tim Healys Lucky Cup Hat and telling the apprentice YOU Can DO NONE OF THAT (Shooting, passing etc) and he turns out to be Peter Beardsley.As a Leeds fan I have to laugh at the empty dossier on Bostock before the cup final (or did it say S**t ?)

The reason I came on line today was that my Bro wants it for Christmas so ITV please bring it out on DVD Come on The UnderFelt Men !!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this TV film was first aired the same week that Manchester Utd played in the Champions League Final (1999), they run a lot of football related items that week and this one was an absolute standout.

It played on all the clich\u00e9s that are churned out every season during the FA Cup ie, plucky underdogs, lucky clothing\/mascots, name on the cup etc and turned out to be brilliantly funny.

I'm surprised it has never been repeated prior to other big football occasions, even now with the world cup just getting underway.

A few previous posts from non-football fans have said they still love it, but a football fan will find it hilarious imho.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To anyone who is interested, I have managed to get this on DVD from Ebay (haven't received it yet - any day now).

I have been desperate to get this even if it is a VHS quality put on a DVD I don't mind. So to anyone interested get in touch with me and maybe I can help you out.

To be honest it's ridiculous that I've had to wait nearly 7 years to see this again but boy it will be worth it.

All my mates at work are desperate to see it too.

Anyway I'll post later regarding the quality.

Just do a search on Ebay if u want it guys. it's there to buy","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":".....whoops - looks like it's gonna cost you a whopping \u00a3198.00 to buy a copy (either DVD or Video format)from ITV direct.

Ouch.

Sorry about this, but IMDB won't let me submit this comment unless it has at least 10 lines, so...........

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblah !!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm like the rest of the fans who love this comedy,i've been waiting for it on DVD. I've got it on VHS and got so fed up waiting for a release and worrying that my VHS copy would ruin i got the equipment to get it onto DVD. The picture and sound are excellent to my utter surprise. If anyone else want's a copy drop me a line at

stone_stew@yahoo.co.uk

and for \u00a37.00 i'll put it onto a DVD,print the DVD and get it in the post to you. \u00a37.00 just covers my costs & recorded delivery etc with maybe a little over so i'm not after making money out of it,i'd just like the world to see this ignored gem of a comedy.I recently saw a copy of ebay got for over \u00a326,amazing. How can they not release this classic. Email me for payment details like cheque or Paypal etc etc","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK...time for a bit of a rant I think. It's been 2 flamin' years since I submitted my original comments praising this top-rated footy comedy.....and the damn thing still hasn't made it to video or DVD (or for that matter even been repeated on the telly !!) !!!!!

Does anyone out there know why not ? Has there been a BBC-style error whereby the original copy has been deleted\/mislaid\/wiped ??

Listen up you lot in charge of ITV - whack this on to DVD now !!! Do you even realise how funny this programme was ? It makes \"Mike Bassett\" look as bad as the current pants Spurs team.

Rant over. For the moment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tweety is sent in his cage on a train by his old-lady owner. In the same baggage car, also in a cage, is Sylvester.

In no time, Sylvester has grabbed Tweety but a trainman comes back and slaps the \"sneakin' feline,\" as he calls him, back in his cage. He puts Tweety \"in a safer place,\" up high and tells the cat, \"Now, remember: no tricks!\" Sylvester puts his halo on and looks innocent. Yeah, right.

I found the funniest stuff, however, didn't involve Sylvester versus Tweety but the \"viscious dog\" that is in another cage next to Sylvester. The cat gets mouthy with him, and pays a big price in an extremely funny manner. Sylvester just doesn't learn, but that's one reason we love him! (I know a number of IMDb reviewers don't like Tweety but I like both main characters - they both crack me up!)

Also, the train, and the passing scenery, is beautifully illustrated in here - really nice visuals.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tiny Tweet and Sly the sneak are locked up in cages for a train ride to who knows where. Swinging Tweety begins belting out an insufferable song as soon as the train leaves the station, so lets hope that Puddy Tad gets him this time. Sly tries out a couple of funny hand tricks but spoil sport conductor man puts the bird in a safer place amongst the baggage. The cat's next attempt has him ending up in the coal oven of the steam engine. And the chase is on. Of course there's a bulldog too, and silly Sly just cant keep his big mouth shut.

Next up the persistent pussy tries the old-stacking-of-the suitcases-bit (twice) producing a payoff Tex Avery would be proud of. Unfortunately for Sylvester, that bulldog seems to be everywhere. He even displays a talent for shape shifting and producing enormous clubs from his back-pocket. Not even Sylvesters ability to outrun a speeding train can save him when he is thrown off, Silver Streak style, several times in a row. Arriving at Granny's new place, (Gower Gulch, population 86) the cat's final attempt involves cross-dressing. But you know what happens to men in dresses, they always get more attention than they bargained for.

7 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I always enjoy watching this cartoon, with Sylvester trying to catch Tweety on a train, rather than at Grandma's house. It's actually a standard fare, but entertaining, especially when Tweety pulls the emergency stop cord. One of my complaints about this is how sloppy the animators were with the train. When you watch this over and over, like my little boy did (who loves trains, which is why he liked it so much), you begin to notice some things.

Throughout this short, the position of the baggage car changes on the train, either 3rd, 4th or 5th, and in long shots not at all. The engine has either the number 651 or 814, or none at all. The coal tender has either the number 99, or the letters \"S.P. & Q.R.\" on it, or no number or letters at all. The coaches carry the \"S.P.Q.R.\" without the \"&\" in long shots, and then in closeups it has the words \"SouthEast and Western.\"

All of this doesn't interfere with the story, but the production details were obviously not looked into very carefully.

Still this cartoon is among my favorites with Sylvester and Tweety.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Friz Freleng's 'All Abir-r-r-d' is one of the best Sylvester and Tweety cartoons. Unlike the many repetitive cartoons in the series which simply transplant the same tired gags to a new setting, 'All Abir-r-r-d' makes the most of its concept. Tweety and Sylvester are domestic pets who are being sent unattended across country by train. With both a watchful official and a vicious bulldog to deal with, Sylvester has his work cut out. The Sylvester and Tweety cartoons always benefited from some extra participants and 'All Abir-r-r-d' is a good example of how much these additional characters help. Although they are not especially memorable creations, they throw some more obstacles in Sylvester's path and make for a more interesting battle. This early Sylvester and Tweety short presses many of the right buttons and, while Tweety is often particularly irritating with his forced cuteness, there's some deliciously violent antics between Sylvester and the dog, culminating in a surprisingly brutal climax which is unfortunately marred by a final unfunny non-quip by Tweety.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, so I admit that it often seems like most of the Sylvester\/Tweety pairings have exactly the same plot: Sylvester tries to get Tweety, but repeatedly fails and always gets maimed in the process, often with the help of a bulldog. I guess that it's sort of like Wile E. Coyote chasing Road Runner (in other words, mammals should never go after birds). \"All a Bir-r-r-rd\" has the same plot and sets it on a train. In a way, the best part of these cartoons is seeing what sorts of schemes Sylvester comes up with to try and go after Tweety. We know that he's going to fail miserably, but it's also funny to watch Tweety turn into a bad-ass (if you've seen his really early cartoons, you'll see that he was not \"cute\" at all, but in fact had a cruel streak). This one mainly works as a way to pass time.

By the way, I thought that I saw - I mean, I taut I taw - Sylvester pass a piece of baggage with the name Friz Freleng on it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Its such a shame that an important film like this is virtually unknown.

I don't think Alan Bates has done a better film than this.

Its never shown on television. The only time I can recall it being shown on British TV was in the summer of 1998. I have it on tape but sadly the quality isn't great due to a dodgy aerial at the time...

I remember wanting to see this film for some time before it appeared on TV. It was shown on Channel 4 in the early hours of the morning, thereby ensuring that it still remained unseen except for a very small audience.

I was living in Bristol at the time and it was ironic that, when I finally saw the film, I realised that I had walked past the VERY house where it was filmed several times before!! The film treads a fine line; a married couple attempting to make light of their tragic predicament of coping with their severely mentally handicapped daughter by laughing about it and even involving the child in their jokes.

The direction and the acting are so superb that the film is always compassionate and moving and is never in danger of lapsing into bad taste.

A couple of years ago I saw a clip of the filmed theatre production with Eddie Izzard in the role of Bri and Victoria Hamilton playing Sheila.

It showed Izzard improvising and larking about and Hamilton jokingly telling the audience to ignore him when he's being like this.

I maybe taking this out of context as I only saw a brief clip but having read the play and seen the film this is clearly such a delicate subject that such an approach is both insensitive and disrespectful.

Izzard was praised for his performance but I felt uncomfortable with what I saw.

It is perhaps surprising that such a successful play failed to find an audience when it was finally filmed.

This is one of the best British films of the 70s and hopefully it will be released on DVD one day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Long before Terri Schiavo brought the issue of living as a \"vegetable\" to the public view, \"A Day in the Death of Joe Egg\" dealt with it. Alan Bates plays Bri, a schoolteacher whose daughter is almost completely brindled. He and his wife Sheila (Janet Suzman) try all sorts of dark humor to try and get on with their lives, but they can't escape the facts. At one point, they even consider euthanasia. The question circling them and their friends is: what will ever become of this predicament?

With this movie, Alan Bates continued his streak of really good movies, preceded by \"Zorba the Greek\", \"The King of Hearts\" and \"The Fixer\". We can safely say that he will be sadly missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another masterpiece that needs a DVD release but some libraries have the VHS and well worth seeking out. Just a brilliant play about many things, foremost being euthanasia, \"respectability\", religion, and fundamental human relationships. The script effectively uses intelligent humor not only to cope with an issue like a severely disabled child, but to bind the parents in their love for \"Jo\" and each other. As the couple, Alan Bates and Janet Suzman are perfectly matched both in acting virtuosity and in bringing their deep, intelligent characters to life.

I've recently seen Bates' brilliant performance in \"Butley\" which was released as a film a couple years after \"Joe Egg\" and he plays a teacher in both, cynical, intellectual, and funny, although Butley is much darker than his character of Bry here. If you throw in such great performances in \"The Go-Between\", \"Women in Love\", \"Whistle Down the Wind\", \"The Caretaker\" and \"Georgy Girl,\" not to mention the more obvious \"King of Hearts\" and \"Zorba the Greek\", and I'd say that Alan Bates had a career comparable to Peter O'Toole, Albert Finney, and the other great British actors of his era.

Director Peter Medak also had one of my all-time favorites \"The Ruling Class\" released the same year (1972) as \"Joe Egg\", which comprises a career year in anybody's book. He's had kind of a spotty filmography(\"The Krays\" was another highlight), but these two gems will mark him as a great director.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...the opportunity it gave me to look at Ireland's past was invaluable.

I had the benefit of seeing this with my Mother who hailed from Cork, and in watching, we talked and I learned a lot from her about how things were back then.

Stuff like how Deasy and Co. was a Cork soft drinks company; how rain truly could destroy a harvest; how farmers used to have to collect the crop; how in dance halls the women and men did really have to stand along opposite walls before the men walked forward and asked the woman to dance; about the bellows that kept the fire going; how priests really did call out the list of church donators and their donations and a bit about the currency back then (which my Dad helped by showing me a case displaying the pence, shillings and crowns that were used back then (which were legal tender in England also)).

I didn't pay that much attention to how good the movie was, but I was very grateful in having this opportunity to look back on a period of time that for some is Irish History, but for others including some of our parents and grandparents, is just their childhood.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How often do you see a film of any kind that has a talent show with refreshments? Waldo's Last Stand is a refreshment. Here Waldo is selling lemonade but isn't making any money. Alfalfa, Spanky, Darla, Mickey, and Buckwheat come to visit him which is ironic because in both 3 Men In A Tub and Came The Brawn where there was competition between Alfalfa and Waldo for Darla's affection. Back to the story: The Gang taste the lemonade to see if Waldo made it right. One funny moment is when Alfalfa gets a glass cup for lemonade and Waldo fills is and gives it to Darla and Alfalfa has an angry expression on his face. Spanky proposes a floor show to go with the lemonade and even Mickey agrees ever so cute. When the floor show begins there is no one at the barn but then a customer comes in (Froggy). Spanky asks him if he wants lemonade but all he does is nod no. Spanky asks him numbers of time in the short and every time Froggy nods no Spanky displays many expressions on his face which is funny. Spanky tries many ways to make him thirsty. One way is when after Mickey said ever so cutely \"Those crackers are salty and they made me thirsty\". There is also many entertain musical bit is this short. The opening number is by Darla which she tap dances and sings. The second includes Alfalfa singing off-key (as usually) with Mickey, Leonard, Spanky, and Buckwheat about \"How dry I am!\" (I believe they sing that to make Froggy thirsty. It also made me laugh.). The closing number includes boys and girls all dressed up in an old fashion way. This was Waldo's last Our Gang short. A grand musical short that is a pure 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'll admit that I've never seen \"Waiting for Guffman\", 1997's critically acclaimed comedy mockumentary about a small town thats that stages a pageant. When the advertising for Best in Show had the tagline \"From the Team That Brought You Waiting for Guffman\", a fair number of critics out there implied in their reviews that only people that are familiar with the film or its filmmakers and cast would have a good time seeing this film. For shame, critics, for shame times two! Any critic that implies something like that with any film probably doesn't want to share the film's wealth with the rest of the world, but this is one film that I hope people will experience, now that its video\/dvd. \"Best in Show\" is, without a doubt, the best comedy of 2000.

The film begins with a mockumentary style, introducing the main competitors (not to mention screwballs) of the annual Mayflower \"Best In Show\" competition, where dogs of all breeds come to compete to see who is the top dog. We have the loveable and gullable Harry Pepper (Guest) with his bloodhound, the simple Gerry & Cookie Fleck (Levy & O'Hara) with their terriors, nut-case yuppies Hamilton & Meg Swan (Hitchcock & Posey), the gay dog groomers Scott Dolan & Stefan Vanderhoof (Higgins & McKean), and the airheaded millionare Sheri Ann Ward Cabot (Coolidge) along with her trainer Christy Cummings (Lynch). They all have their minds on one simple object: The Blue Ribbon, which will be awarded to the best dog. And...do I have to tell you the rest?

Director\/writer\/star Guest's idea of humor is one that assures me that there are comedies out there that are worth laughing at, and that the idiocy of films like \"American Pie\" or other pointless \"teenage\" flicks won't take over the world after all. His idea is simple: make your comedy not just funny, but SMART funny. But instead of following in the brilliant footsteps of films like \"Zero Effect\" and \"High Fidelity\", he used a rather unusual approach (and as I understand, he also used this approach for \"Guffman\"). Whether you notice or not, a very large part of the film is improvisation. In other words, what the actors say and do were probably not written in the script, maybe even not even dreamed of by Guest and co-writer\/star Levy. But with a gentle hand from Guest, he and the actors pulled off a hilarious theatrical feat that probably would have flopped if handled by other, less adept actors. Now that's smart!

The cast is, of course, what makes improv work the most. All of them are a (comedic) marvel to behold, especially Guest as Pepper. But the real standout has to be Fred Williard as Buck Laughlin, the clueless announcer at the competition who can spin out the most outrageously funny stories and comments that no announcer would even dream of...that is, if the announcer was trying to be funny. Williard can go from talking about the dog to suddenly going on and on about how much he can bench press. There's even a part were he gives out an idea for a new marketing strategy: have sexy women pose in tight shirts and shorts with the dogs and imply something like \"have a doggie-style of a time\". Its priceless, as is his performance.

I hope that people engage in this 90-minute \"dogumentary\". The film deserves so much recognition. It did get nominated for Best Picture-Comedy at the Golden Globes, but didn't win. I can't see why. I mean, in the comedy department, it is best in show.

GRADE: A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the era of the Farrelly Brothers and the Jackass series, to have a movie made and performed by Americans come out that is well paced and full of charm as well as hilarity is well-nigh miraculous. This ensemble has been behind some other efforts, most recently \"A Mighty Wind\" which was so subtle it seemed to be an actual documentary without the overlay of entertainment, but \"Best In Show\" hits on all cylinders. It is superbly cast with some of the best of current US actors, Parker Posey, who exudes energy even when she stands still, Eugene Levy as tolerant everyman who is nobody's doormat, even when he appears to be (or maybe, 'indomitable doormat'). The brilliant stylings of Fred Willard, the understated performances of so many others, which is a characteristic not normally associated with Americans or American actors. One of the few humorous movies I can watch again and again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the only Christopher Guest movie that rivals Spinal Tap and Princess Bride for sheer entertainment value, but somehow never gets near the recognition. The plot surrounds the contestants--dogs--and their owners as they venture into the world of competitive dog...OK, it's about a dog show. The owners truly are characters, as one would have to be to be so attached to their dogs. That's really all there is to it, but that makes it funny enough.

You'd never be able to convince me that a mock-u-mentary about dog shows would be funny prior to catching the hilarious scene where Levy and O'hara visit Larry Miller's house on TV...but that's really all it takes to convert any doubters. Spinal Tap was non-stop hilarity, joke after joke whereas Best in Show was had a few more lulls (and by that I mean say 3 minute at MOST where something riotously funny doesn't happen), but the big laughs are even bigger.

The casting in this one is great and even the typically out of place in, uh movies in general Parker Posey does a fine job. In fact, her tirade directed at Ed Begley Jr. and a pet store owner over a lost dog toy is probably the funniest running gag of the film.

What's amazing about this movie to me is how the writers somehow managed to weave a plot, simple as it was, around these great jokes so that it actually felt like it had direction. I guess there's a freedom in having such a minimal plot. Everyone's role is pretty well crafted here and the characters are rarely over-the-top. The realism of how pathetic they seem to the outsider is what makes it funnier than Mighty Wind or the uneven Guffman. I actually encounter wierdos like this now and then. If you like Guest's stuff at all, you should definitely own this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You know, this movie reminded me so much of so many people I know, I think that's the reason why I loved this movie so much. I was just on the floor laughing because this had such a serious and document feel to it, but the dialog is so hilarious, that you can't help but have a good time. Basically the movie is about these crazed dog owners who are competing in a big dog show to see who is the best of the best. Whlie it seems like it should be the dogs who take this competition seriously, it turns out the owners are just as insane. Megan, one of the dog owners, goes almost serial psycho killer on the hotel manager because she cannot find the special bee squeaky toy for her dog.

There is another couple that is just great, Gerry and Cookie, this complete nerd and attractive woman that are just so lovable. In the beginning of the movie, Gerry describes how many boyfriends Cookie had. Throughout the movie, her \"lovers\" see her and hit on her even in front of Gerry! It was just great and fun to watch Gerry's looks. This whole movie is just a hoot, and you can't stop with the recognizable faces that keep popping up. It's a great movie is just fun to watch, I'd highly recommend it! Now, I have to find a nice way of showing this to my friends who are like these couples to see the mirror image of themselves. :D

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the funniest movie I have ever seen. However, I have laughed harder at plenty of movies. This is because Best In Show's brilliance lies not in slapstick or one-liners, but in sophisticated and layered verbal wit. The improvised dialogue is is so quick that you end up laughing not at each individual joke, but only until after several jokes build on one another, each disarming your senses until the jokes climax and you can't help letting loose.

It's a well-shot film, but what makes it extraordinary is the acting. I was impressed on my first viewing, but when I watched it after having learned that virtually every scene is improvised, I was amazed. It was thoroughly enjoyable to see the comedians work off each other, build jokes out of nothing, and completely immerse themselves in their characters.

I imagine the golden days of Second City were like this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Functioning as a sort of midpoint between \"Waiting for Guffman\" and \"A Mighty Wind\", \"Best in Show\" portrays a dog show and the various people who bring their canine friends to participate. Some are weird, some crazy, and otherwise, but they all make the movie good. Director Christopher Guest is particularly funny as gay Harlan Pepper, very much trying to promote his dog. Eugene Levy, Parker Posey, Michael McKean, Catherine O'Hara, and Bob Balaban also do great jobs (I can't imagine them not doing great jobs, at least not in a Christopher Guest movie). As someone who's never attended a dog show, this movie is my main exposure to them. They sure look neat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love the mockumentary format that Chris Guest and crew have developed over the years. I actually like this and \"Waiting for Guffman\" better than \"Spinal Tap\", which was the first of the group (and made by Rob Reiner but starred Guest and several other of his mockumentary regulars). This humor is not for everyone. IT's rather subtle and not too physical, so some people may not relate. However, as a dog lover (and a dog show fan), I loved this movie. There are so many funny lines in it! My daughter and I quote them to each other often. I find it amazing that these people can ad lib so much funny material for each movie! What a fun bunch they must be. I highly recommend this to people who prefer their humor on the cerebral side.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie should go down as one of the funniest movies in history. Its cousins A mighty wind, Spinal Tap and Waiting for Guffman are terrific in their own right but Best in Show takes the cake.

A movie about the idiosyncrasies of dog owners that show their dogs competitively, it's the intricacies of the characters that make it so good. After watching the movie about 75 times I have come to the conclusion that there is no weak character or actor in this film. There is very little interaction between any of the \"groups\" of characters but that only seems to add to the beauty of the film.

If you watch this movie and don't find it as funny as I am billing it as, watch it again. The first time I saw it I thought it was serviceable but not overly hilarious. It is a film that grows on you. Defininatly a movie that you will find yourself quoting frequently.

Characters: Hamilton and Meg Swan: A+ if you get the DVD check out how these characters were \"born\" amazing that these two could hit it so on the head. And to find out that they really didn't go by a script and sort of made it up as they went.

Gerry and Cookie Guggleman: A Cookie is especially funny and she does a fantastic job of selling the Cookie character. Gerry (Eugene Levy) delivers his standard stellar performance of the hilarious discombobulated type weaker half.

Stefan Vanderhoof and Scott Donalan- A+ Find me a funnier character than Scott Donalan, I DARE YOU! He will forever be typecast as this character to me as he was so natural and didn't seem forced at any point. Stefan (Micheal McKean) was very good as well and they interplay here (and a brief appearance with the Gugglemans) goes to show why he is always in these films. A great actor with razor like wit.

Harlan Pepper- B+, I don't want it to seem like he isn't funny, he sure is but being the only \"Solo\" act he can't be quite as funny as the others above. He does use the dog more than others and has some other idiosyncrasies going for him.

The rest are all great as well, there is no weak character. See this film at least twice. Buy it, you will not regret it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the best of the films (so far) that Christopher Guest has created using his very talented ensemble cast. Previously, they'd made the excellent WAITING FOR GUFFMAN and following BEST IN SHOW, they made the very enjoyable A MIGHTY WIND. As for their latest, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, the less said the better.

The film appears to be a documentary about dog shows and several contestants in particular. You follow these few chosen dogs from pre-show preparations all the way to the big night where one of them is chosen best in show at the fictitious \"Mayflower Kennel Club\". However, none of these people are real dog show enthusiasts but talent improvisational actors that parody many of the common types of people you meet in the dog show world. Amazingly, even though the characters are rather outlandish, there is a lot of truth to the personalities they are parodying--as decades ago I had some experience with dog shows and this is a VERY cutthroat group of people! My favorites of the dog owners were the incredibly high-pressure and tense yuppie couple who just exuded anger and volatility. I also loved the openly gay couple, as they were terribly funny and clever. However, the best performance probably wasn't from any of the couples but from Fred Willard who played the world's stupidest and least talented announcer in human history. His comments were uniformly inane and often betrayed his as an incredibly stupid person--how he got to be the announcer for such a prestigious show is anyone's guess. The other contestants featured were also quite funny--the high-priced professional poodle handler and its rich owner, the country boy and his hound as well as Winkie's \"parents\" who could barely scrape together enough to make it to the show.

Despite the improvised style of film making, the pieces all fit together wonderfully and told a very funny and compelling story--one that is NOT for dog owners only. Exceptional acting made this one of the best comedies of the last decade. Clever and consistently funny.

By the way, try to find this on DVD as the extras were actually worth seeing. While a bit painful to watch, I loved seeing Harlan Pepper and his beach ball collection in particular!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie brought together some of the old Spinal crew for another mockumentary film, this time revolving around the world of the Dog Show, how their owners prepare and train for the show before moving on to the show itself.

We meet several teams as they hope to win the top prize- The Fleck's, Cookie who seems to have slept with every man ever, and Gerry who tries to cope with his wife's old escapades and the fact that he literally has two left feet. Harlan, whose dog talks to him, and enjoys ventriloquism. The Swan's who have taken far too much coffee and scream at each other. Donalan and Vanderhoof the gay couple, and Cabot and Cummings who have won the last two years. Fred Willard commentates on the show, and is very funny as always. Funny scenes include the 'Look at me!' scene, and any with Levy. Unfortunately some of the best scenes were deleted or filmed later- Willard interviewing Leslie Cabot, and the alternative epilogue with Gerry is one of the funniest things i have ever seen. If these had been included, i would give the film an extra mark. But...

7 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has got to be the funniest movie I have seen in forever. Chritopher Guest is truly talented. He has a gift for humor. I almost died laughing. Actually, when I saw this in theaters, I considered walking out because the movie was so dumb. But it is dumb in a good way. It is funny-dumb. And this is a really good combination. You will be laughing from start to end.

This mockumentary style film follows an array of characters all competing at the Kennel Club Dog Show. The cast includes Parker Posey, Fred Willard, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, John Michael Higgens, Michael McKean, Larry Miller, Bob Balaban, Jennifer Coolidge and tons more.

This is a truly funny movie that will have everyone laughing. Someone born without a personality would laugh at this film. It is presented in widescreen to give the image that you are viewing an actual documentary and that is probably what adds to the hilarity. BEST IN SHOW: 5\/5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well in to 2002 I've got some catching up to do. And looking back on a lacklustre year, Best In Show shone. No great storyline. Little action. Just a cavalcade of magnificent characters. Particular reference to Fred Willard and Jim Piddock as a rattling pair of TV commentators. Well done. Well worth the effort.

Ron (Viewed 24Mar2001)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film isn't a comedy, its an expose. I've always hated dog shows, considering the ridiculous get-ups people put their dogs in and the idiotic names they give them. Hence, the reason for my uncontrolled cackling while watching this film. I get a kick out of something being taken so seriously, even though the gains are small and insignificant. It's like miniature golf, or jump roping championships or the need to set some obscure world record. The acting was much more refined in this film than Waiting for Guffman, and its mainly due to the more fluidity of the characters, who seem more comfortable with their specific acting partners in this film than the previous. Eugene Levy was great, as was Michael McKean and Fred Willard. However, it was the dogs who eventually stole the show. But then again, who wants to see a bunch of humans in a film about dogs anyway.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie with an open mind, not knowing what to expect. I was pleasantly surprised to see that this movie was written, directed and acted in such a manner that every minute of it is a delightful watch. The people don't seem like they're acting, more like they are real people who really train dogs and lead the lives portrayed in this movie. There are some wonderful moments where you laugh or chuckle, some jokes may be dry but are presented in a very viewable fashion. Highly recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Best In Show\" tracks the stories of a handful of human contestants as they prepare for one of the biggest dog shows in the calendar. Any amateur psychologist would say that an unconditional love and obsession with a pet is a sign of something missing in someone's life, and each of the characters in some way fills this cliche. There's the former High School Hottie who's now married to a geeky man, the childless, label-obsessed yuppie couple, the solitary outdoorsman, the young wife of a wealthy old codger (along with her short-haired dog trainer), and the gay couple.

What makes this film so funny though is the way it portray's these stereotypes in a completely believable way - almost affectionate, in many cases. Every ridiculous thing one of the characters does or says - with their dog as an innocent onlooker - seems like the kind of behaviour you'd totally expect to see at a dog show.

The biggest laughs come from the commentary team of an all-american style sports announcer, comparing moments in a dog show to parts of a baseball game, and his English, canine academic, foil.

The trials of the geeky husband as his blonde wife meets an astonishing number of men from her past is also always good for a chuckle, as is the demented behaviour of the yuppie couple as the pressure builds, while their hound stays completely unflustered.

Well worth watching - even if cats are more your bag.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently saw this movie for the first time. I enjoyed it so much that I went right out and bought the DVD. This movie is pure genius and only gets funnier with each viewing. Anyone can write jokes or funny dialog and have actors memorize them, but the basis of this movie is improve!! How do they do it? Thank you, Christopher Guest!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first time you watch this movie you may hate it, but the 2nd time you see this movie I guarantee laughs all around. The owners of the dogs are so ecclectic that you can't help but look at them and laugh. From the littlest toy poodle to the announcer, everything will make you laugh. And you may learn every single nut there is!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This flick was even better then 'Waiting for Guffman'. The great strength in these two films lie in the brilliant character acting by Guest and Levy's little second-second city troupe. If one finds this movie boring or pointless, God help 'em, they just didn't get it. It is a mockumentary, something at which Guest and Levy have a genius for. At the end of the movie where Guest's southern down home dog lover tells us that to relax after the show, he went to Israel to work on a 'caboose', or when he tells us that ventriloquism is an ancient art and we see a hieroglyphic

of an ancient Egyptian holding a tiny ancient Egyptian in it's hand, I realized it is moments like this that make life worth living. Thank you Mr.Guest and Mr.Levy, and God bless you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the funniest movies I've seen in ages. I watched for about 20 minutes, slightly puzzled by what was going on. Then I started to laugh and didn't stop 'til long after the movie ended. Such deadpan satire is rare indeed. Christopher Guest has a true eye for the humor inherent in those who have no sense of humor about themselves (about 90% of white heterosexual males, to start with). As in \"Waiting for Guffman\" Guest nails middle America's idiotic self-importance to the wall. I can hardly wait for his next film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In an earlier comment I mentioned how much I enjoyed this film - better second time around. I don't resile from that opinion. Strangely, I can't find anyone else who did like it.

My mother was going to see it but several friends told her \"No way\". My sister and her family saw it and half the theatre walked out part-way through.

My wife's suggestion is that Australians see the characters as just normal, everyday Americans and therefore it's not funny. But, hey, most Americans think all Australians are like Crocodile Dundee, so it's nice to have the boot on the other foot for a change.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this offering, one only has to view the current Westminster Kennel Club's annual offering to see the parallels. Outrageously funny and captures the true essence of the competition. One can only imagine the wit of the producers and the amazing ability of the performers. I too would have nominated this movie for a Globe Award and feel it is one of the funniest I have ever seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Best in Show\" is certainly Christopher Guest's funniest and deepest movie yet. The characters are excellently portrayed and the connection of pet to owner adds a new level of comedy to the movie. I've been a fan of Guest since Spinal Tap but in this movie he has truly achieved what he set out to do in the \"mock-umentary,\" a genre he invented and has now perfected.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Best in Show\" is a often hilarious mockumentary that takes us into the world of dog shows and some of the dog owners who prepare for the event. The only thing that separates this movie from real dog shows is that the dogs in \"Best in Show\" act more sane than their owners! Funny stuff from a top-notch cast that includes Eugene Levy (who co-wrote the film), Catherine O'Hara, Parker Posey, Michael McKean, Jennifer Coolidge, Jane Lynch, and Christopher Guest (who co-wrote with Levy and directed). They're all funny, but Fred Willard steals the movie with his explosively funny performance as the dog show announcer who says the most outrageous things. Plus the dogs are cute too. \"Best in Show\" isn't exactly the laugh riot that I expected, but there are laughs and it's worth seeing.

*** (out of four)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

This is the best mock documentary of a dog show that I have seen in a long time. A very long time. Well lets face it,ever. Isn't that part of the charm ? The idea of actually going to the trouble to make a movie mocking a documentary about an event that most people would find odd in the first place. Even if there were no big laughs, one would still be smirking at the thought. Any movie that attempts something new scores highly in my proverbial book. I loved the dogs too !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watch out! This is not a gross out comedy like American Pie or you know the comedies of the new millenium. This is a sweet satire of dog shows focused on a bunch of completely different characters. Oh and the commentator is hilarious!

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rented the video for a slow Saturday night. First viewing I thought it was funny. Took a while to get used to the American caricatures (here we're more attuned to British grotesques) but very enjoyable.

Watched it again next night and really warmed to it. The characters seemed more human - lovable, even. A film one could watch several times and get more out of it each time. However, my wife *hated* it. No accounting for tastes in humour I suppose.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is my favorite comedy of all time and I have seen a lot of comedies.First of all,I should not this film had no script.Just a storyboard.The dialogue is almost completely written by the actors.Which makes this film absolutely hsyterical.The cast is one of the best comedic ensemble's you will ever see.The story is about the Mayflower Dog Show in Philadelphia and some of the contestants in them.Parker Posey shines and is absolutely great!This is one of those films that most of the laughing comes from the absolute pathetic-ness of the characters.*****\/*****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Man, I really enjoyed this, if only for Fred Willard's commentary at the dog show. There are some dead spots and some gags that don't work, but overall the film works very well. When I was younger, my parents bred dogs and the people that I met at those shows were not significantly less bizarre that the freaks at this show, I can assure you.

I enjoyed this film for its artistry and for its commentary about how we tend to take frivolous things far too seriously... I enjoyed the acting for its accuracy (most of the accents were flawless) and its subtlety (I loved the way each person walked their dogs)...

Rent this film if you have any appreciation for the strangeness of human existence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"when fellini committed 8 1\/2 to film many commented that it was the most personal vision ever to find its perfect expression. when dante cast betrice to the flames of his undying passion many were aghast at the honest brutality of his unrequited feelings for a younger woman. when onur tukel, and a merry band of wickedly talented and misfited filmmakers--from the mecca of movie-making insanity--band together, during the course of two chilly weeks in december 2000, many commented that nothing more sophmoric had ever been committed...much less on film.

well, to the doubters out there, watch this original piece and find out why the ID is both a charming and powerful thing. and if that doesn't getchya, roll over and rub one out...it's probably time you did so.

kudos onur on a great piece of art","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are films that make careers. For George Romero, it was NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD; for Kevin Smith, CLERKS; for Robert Rodriguez, EL MARIACHI. Add to that list Onur Tukel's absolutely amazing DING-A-LING-LESS. Flawless film-making, and as assured and as professional as any of the aforementioned movies. I haven't laughed this hard since I saw THE FULL MONTY. (And, even then, I don't think I laughed quite this hard... So to speak.) Tukel's talent is considerable: DING-A-LING-LESS is so chock full of double entendres that one would have to sit down with a copy of this script and do a line-by-line examination of it to fully appreciate the, uh, breadth and width of it. Every shot is beautifully composed (a clear sign of a sure-handed director), and the performances all around are solid (there's none of the over-the-top scenery chewing one might've expected from a film like this). DING-A-LING-LESS is a film whose time has come.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the movie in Izmir as the closing film of Izmir film festival. I didn't know anything about it but right now I'm glad I didn't refuse the chance to see Ding-a-ling-less! It IS one of the funniest movies I've ever watched and believe me I've seen zillions of movies!! (I'm a film critic!) Clever script and dialogs... Smart details... What else can I say? AN indie masterpiece with a totally unique style of humor... One can't stop by wonder what he's capable of right now. Ding-a-ling less was shot five years ago and i'm sure the director Onur Tukel is more mature now. I heard that his next feature will be a political satire and I really can't wait to see that too among with his previous works like \"House of Pancakes\"...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What could ever happen in a dull Texan town in summer? Well, a bunch of teenagers find out a few things can and do happen.

It turns out the Mexican werewolf of this story is nothing less than el chupacabra, and the movie, unlike the name would suggest, is not a remake or lookalike of the American Werewolf movies, but something completely different.

Overall, for an obviously low-budget movie, it's not bad! Some clever camera work, quite decent looking traditional creature and gore effects, and for once not all-knowing people that can and do make mistakes, like shooting a colleague thinking it's the big bad beast, and are baffled by things they could not possibly know.

Sit down at this expecting a blockbuster million-dollar production, and you will turn it off in disgust after a short while. Sit down at this expecting a bit of entertainment and a relatively simple story, and it's quite good! Overall it gets an 8\/10 from me for being creative, having OK acting, and pulling off some good work for the budget this movie had.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am salivating for the sequels. I needed something to keep me from going insane with tension, anxiety (what if it isn't as good?!), and constant lack of information. I needed something to calm me a little, something to pass the time, other than, of course, The Matrix. This was just the thing.

I found it informative (like the part about Keanu's neck...) and some of it was funny. I pitied Carrie-Anne soooo much when she said there was only one bathroom and all those guys. I found only one problem with it. Given that 95% of the people there were as a matter of fact male, they just kinda let their mouths run wild, and there was language in it. It's not near as bad as The Shawshank Redemption's cussing runs, but that one scene were Keanu is describing a bad day, plug your ears if you are little. >

It was entertaining and was just what I needed. It is what all Matrix fans who are going nuts need to keep them quiet. They mention a tiny bit about the sequels, and someone almost gives something away, but he catches himself in time (shoot!). It gives you almost no spoilers, but it is great to have if you are a Matrix Head like me.

There is no spoon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Long trailer? whoever said that has got to be joking. this has got to be one of the most in depth behind the scenes or making of documentary ever made. how can it be a trailer when several minutes are spent telling the audience how the movie was conceptualized and then brought to the studios? this documentary also spends lots and lots of time detailing how stunts were done and the new technologies created to achieve them. then it shows us how woo ping's team came up with the fight scenes along with blocking tapes that pretty much put to shame the actual scenes with the actors. there is stuff mentioned about matrix reloaded, but there's hardly anything really. if you are a real fan of the matrix, you have to see this documentary. the original documentary in the dvd is good, but incomplete compared to this one. for instance, it never explained why keanu wore a neck brace in the original documentary, but that is explained in Revisited. the Revisited dvd also shows carrie ann moss spraining her ankle during the lobby scene and being really distraught because she feels like she's letting the crew down. and that's just the tip of the iceberg. so ignore that \"just a long trailer\" review and go check it out for yourself. you won't regret it. casual matrix fans need not apply...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This covers just about every area of the creative process, and goes through the three stages chronologically, with the main focus squarely placed on the production. There are documentaries that go into more detail, and cover the other two groups better. This consists of artwork, behind-the-scenes footage, clips of the movie, and many interviews. With a running time that comes in at just over two hours the audience is entitled to a lot of information, given that this is nearly the same length that the film itself is. It could be argued that a lot of the time is spent on the people, with the craft and the result of their collaborative efforts coming in second. This is well-done, with tight editing. It gets into the technology some, and reveals how certain effects were achieved. This spends a lot of time on the physical training, in preparation for the fighting and such. You do get nice candid shots of the people, crew and actors alike. The Ultimate Matrix 10-Disc Set of this also holds nearly three hours of music, in a simple system, with individual track selection and a Play All function, about 38 minutes worth of BTS material in addition to the title itself, in various featurettes. The original release, however, has several very brief extras, including clips of the making of the sequels, a preview of The Animatrix and Yuen Wo Ping's Blocking Tapes(a complete run-through of a couple of the biggest martial arts sequences, with stunt performers and almost the exact cinematography, with the same shots and angles of those bits in the finished silver screen effort). The language is quite strong, but rather infrequent, nearly non-existent. I recommend either version of this to anyone who enjoys the concept, and\/or wants to know about how they put the first one together. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I avoided this film as a boy because I thought it would be boring\u0085no fights or shooting, cops, robbers, cowboys or Indians. It was definitely not a cool film to like. So I didn't see TRC until I was in my twenties and found it one of the most beautiful, captivating films I have seen. All the actors deliver the characterisations perfectly and each emotion is drawn from the viewer scene by scene. The filming and direction are deceptively simple but feel so natural and drew me completely into the story. My two favourite scenes are Bobbie's birthday party and the scene on the station platform near the end, directed and edited to perfection. The quality and phrasing of Jenny Agutter's voice when she calls: 'Daddy! My Daddy!' wrenches emotion from the viewer. Tears are welling in my eyes as I think of it.

This adaptation isn't just a movie it is a piece of precious art, as well as being the perfect example of what all film makers should be striving to achieve\u0085creation of an emotional experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This wonderful film has never failed to move me. The colour, convincing cast, and stunning scenery all make big contributions. This production, unlike the later remake by Carlton, is more impressionistic, and presented more from the children's own perspective. It focusses on certain episodes from E. Nesbit's charming story rather than trying to make a somewhat more documentary \"warts-and-all\" style that Carlton adopts. Above all, the superb musical score of the late Johnny Douglas underpins the story throughout, adding extra emotional depth. The net result is a truly formidable combination of sensory experiences that cumulatively present the poignant story of \"The Railway Children\".

One uncomfortable factor for the viewer to ponder throughout this film is how things have changed since those times - and in many ways, for the worse! Yes, maybe many of us no longer have to use outside toilets and travel in horse-drawn carts, but what about the quality of life in general? Consider the foul-mouthed celebrities who now \"grace\" our TV screens. Their language is now apparently considered perfectly acceptable. Consider, too, the fragile \"here today, gone tomorrow\" aspects of so many of today's \"partnerships\" plus all the single mothers - whatever happened to that institution called \"marriage\", when people accepted each others' flaws but still remained together, loving their children? These details add extra piquancy when watching this marvellous film.

I hope that, as generations pass, children will still be able to enjoy this film. Not to mention certain adults!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This almost perfect cinematic rendition of Edith Nesbit's popular children's novel follows the lives of Roberta (Bobbie), Phyllis, and Peter, and their mother, after their father is unfairly accused of treason and sent to prison. They go to live in an almost uninhabitable house in the country which stands near a railway line \u0096 mum writes stories to make enough money for food and candles, while the children spend much of their time around the railway station and, specifically, waving to one particular train to 'send their love to father'.

Always an involving and clever novel, the characters are here brought to life under the perceptive direction of Lionel Jeffries (better known as a fine character actor). Jenny Agutter plays Bobbie, while Sally Thomsett and Gary Warren are her sister and brother. Their mother is Dinah Sheridan, while the other memorable characters are played by Bernard Cribbins (Perks the railway-man) and William Mervyn (the old gentleman on the train).

'The Railway Children' is gentle entertainment from another age, but does its job beautifully. As we watch Bobbie grow up with the worries of an absent parent jostling against her own needs both to be alone and to have fun, we can only rejoice when events come together at the close of the picture. Throughout we have a sense of time and place \u0096 be it from the steam trains, the university paper chase, or the red flannelette petticoats worn by the girls (and used to avert disaster!).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Railway Children is perhaps my favorite film of all time simply for the brilliant acting of the cast,the warm,humane interaction of the 3 children and the people they encounter living near the railway in the beautiful English countryside. Jenny Augutter is especially believable in her role as 'Bobbie' the older sibling of her sister Phyllis and brother Peter.The adventures they discover and relationships formed in their new home and surrounding area are very real and fascinating.The scenery is lovely,the trains a part of Britain's vast history and the soundtrack is very moving. This heartwarming film never fails to bring tears to my eyes,each and every time as well as makes me homesick.I often wonder if I should have been born in that era as I think I would have fitted in just fine as people treated each other with such chivalry and decency.

In short I consider this film somewhat of a masterpiece and a must see for anyone who considers themselves a 'sensitive or caring type'.Edith Nesbit wrote this story around the beginning of the 1900's and what a wonderful story it is.More kids today need to read this or see the film instead of playing violent video games.If we had more films of this nature ,the world would become a better place.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a film that I love above all others. I try to revisit the main film locations in Oakworth and Oxenhope whenever I can, which help to re-establish those magical qualities that this film seems to embody so uniquely - recalling a gentler and more mannered age, with its unspoken assertions that people really do matter, that family life is not just another disposable, and that life really is worth living (though sometimes, we may doubt that). In short, a film that soon brings tears to my eyes, helped perhaps by the deeply evocative music - some tunes are jaunty (like the Perks' tune, played on a trombone, sometimes with spoons), the stirring melody when the family first set off for Yorkshire not knowing what lies ahead, and the haunting little tune played on a solo clarinet (or is it an oboe?) that precedes sudden child-felt changes in fortune.

This is as much a film for adults as for children, appealing to the eternal child in us all - a key that effortlessly reactivates those deep and apparently long-lost values and feelings buried inside us, which are normally swept aside by the demands of modern everyday life. This is a film about basic human goodness and decency in which we the viewers are left to make of it what we will, and there are welcome touches of humour sometimes added for good measure, such as the arrival of the aunt or, on a more earthy level, the bedroom scene on Perks' birthday - \"All right Bert - as it's your birthday!\" I must know every scene, every line of this film, and yet so great is the magic that each time I watch, it is like I am opening a box of delights for the first time, savouring each moment - sometimes humorous, sometimes....well, very different. As Peter says in the film: \"it's perfect - more perfect than you know\". And so it is!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...apparently Bernard Cribbins ad libbed nearly all of his lines. If you can sit through the 'Daddy! Oh my daddy\" bit without blubbing then you really need to get in touch with your inner child (trust me. I'm a 41 year old bloke).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Perhaps once in a generation a film comes along that is perfection. For me, \"The Railway Children\" is that film - a timeless classic that was directed and performed most beautifully. It depicts all that is worthwhile in humanity and climaxes in the conquest of love and faith over cruel injustice. Every performance is a gem, though Bobbie stands out and, like Judy Garland as Dorothy before her, Jenny Agutter makes it impossible for us to imagine anyone else in the role.

The world is all the better for this film and the children of today would be much the better for watching it.

Of course, like so many young men of my generation, I fell hopelessly in love with Jenny Agutter and her hold was as strong when I had the great good fortune to meet her a few days ago - the bewitching smile and voice like dripping honey were still there to send me weak at the knees as they first did all those years ago!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The book \"The Railway Children\" is a children's book published in 1906 by Edith Nesbit, an early British socialist who had very strong views about the importance of family values for the upbringing of children, and the story it told was presumably intended to be contemporary. Somewhat surprisingly, it seems to retain a significant appeal for today's children a hundred years later.

A film adaptation of an Edwardian classic children's story with the principal roles those of the children, does not sound very exciting to most film-goers in this day and age. But a really great performance by Jenny Agutter who (near the start of her long and distinguished acting career) played the part of the oldest girl Roberta (Bobby), combined with remarkable work by the script-writer and director Lionel Jeffries and outstanding photography by Arthur Ibbetson, have made this a film that is still not to be missed, and one which most of its viewers find quite memorable. It is remarkable that this book, set in the year 1905, was filmed five times between 1951 and 2000, (four of them by the BBC for British television), and all of these versions are not only still greatly admired but also very highly regarded (something that user comments on this database will confirm), even though this may seem almost inconceivable for a nostalgic period story designed to appeal primarily to children. Since I have not seen the four BBC TV versions, these comments relate exclusively to the 1970 film version produced for showing in cinemas. Unlike most films of children's books, 'The Railway Children' may appeal more to adults than to children. The structure of family life has changed so much in the last century that many children may feel totally lost by the way in which it is depicted in the film, whereas many older adults may find it has a considerable nostalgic appeal. Perhaps compensating for this, the children featured in the film are full of life and vitality, whilst the adult characters although well rounded tend to mostly be 'stuffed shirts'. The story is a mature one, which deals with love, support and encouragement, it is not only timeless but capable of appealing to all ages. It can fairly be described as sentimental and more than a little idealised, but it is never in any way mawkish, and that rarely justified adjective 'uplifting' fits it like a glove.

Spoiler Ahead.

The film starts with its upper middle class Edwardian family celebrating Christmas in a comfortable and fairly spacious London home when two unexpected visitors call and take Father (who is a senior government officer) away with them. Mother has to move to a very small cottage alongside the railway in a remote part of Yorkshire and the children gradually build a new life mainly associated with the railway and the few trains that pass. This life proves quite eventful in small ways and the elder daughter Bobby grows up rapidly as she takes over more responsibilities from her mother. At one point she averts an accident to the train when her sharp eyes spot that a landslide has created a natural hazard. Father's story is never given much emphasis, but he is never forgotten and it gradually becomes apparent that he is incarcerated and suspected of treason. Finally these suspicions are cleared up (we are not told how or why) and he reappears unexpectedly at the local station to rejoin his family.

For many years this film was not available in any home video format in North America, but Anchor Bay created a DVD from it three years ago, so they clearly recognised that this quite simple film has not yet lost its appeal. For anyone who has not got one already, I would very strongly recommend rushing out to buy a copy of this DVD whilst it is still available - you would be most unlikely to be disappointed unless you have become totally cynical, or your minimum requirements for a film include buckets of blood and\/or intense sex scenes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This brings back so many childhood memories. (I'm not old, I'm 19) It's brill. The trains, the old house, the fallen runner, the really scary landslide (well it is when you're 6), the drama if the children can stop the train, or will it crash? This is a children's film without a doubt, but it offers great harmless no blood\/guts\/guns etc for children. And it's got Bernard Cribbins in it, who's cool. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What is enjoyable about watching random movies at random times is that one never quite knows what to expect or where the next great piece of cinema will emerge. Recently, my viewing has taken the form of stapled classics like \"Raging Bull\" or \"Raiders of the Lost Ark\", but this time my VCR took me away from modern conveniences and plopped me right down in front of Lionel Jeffries' \"The Railway Children\". This is a skillfully directed film about three youthful children, a mysterious event with their father, relocation to the open fields of England, and eventually the rewards inherited by merely waving at trains. At first glance this seemingly simple children's film doesn't seem all that hopeful as it has been lost on VHS rarity for some time, but within the first fifteen minutes of this film, one realizes that it is more than just your common place children's movie \u0096 \"Railway Children\" was created during a time when purity was more than just saying \"no\", when family meant everything, and where adventure was ready for you around every railroad track bend. This is more than an adorable film, it has amazing cinematic techniques used, it keeps the regular viewer glued to the screen with unanswered questions, and gives three perfect companions to follow along this 110-minute voyage. \"Railway Children\" is a lost treasure that needs to be seen by families and film aficionados alike.

There are several moments that stand out proudly in \"Railway Children\" that transform this from mediocrity to excellence \u0096 one happens to be our three children; Bobby, Phyllis, and Peter. Modern cinema assures us that these three children cannot provide ample darkness, laughter, and insight into the world surrounding them, but Jeffries' children prove otherwise. From intelligently spoken lines (both from acting and the script), to sincere kindness and dedication to this small village, all the way to the final meeting at that train stop; these children are more than just child stars advancing a story, they are leading us with emotion, persuasion, and a realism unseen by today's children. There is more imagination packed in this small VHS than I have witnessed in film for years. A favorite scene that could have been handled with generality, of which I have seen in other films, was the birthday scene for Bobby. The way that Jeffries floats her between guests and gifts was exciting and refreshing, keeping our eyes excited about each scene, as well as our mind. Another scene that captured my attention was when the children were working on gifts for Perks, when asking one man for a gift, Jeffries has him merely state, \"No, I will not. I don't like Perks.\" The children's reaction is hilarious \u0096 providing moments for both children and adults to enjoy throughout. Filmed in the 1970s, this tiny feature provides genuine laughs than most modern comedies. It is a creative film coupled with great choreography and direction.

That is to say, as much as I loved this film, it wasn't perfect. Jeffries does a great job of keeping us guessing as to what happened to father, but it did feel like the event occurred, the children were kept in the dark, and it suddenly resolved itself by the end. More detail to father, not much more, would have solidified his character and given us the opportunity to see more of the children's reaction. Also, there is one scene in this film, one of those grandiose wide-screen shots of the English countryside that is just breath-taking, but when looking a bit closer you happen to see cars in the background. It made me chuckle, but didn't distract too much from the overall picture. Cinema like this is sorely missed today, and oddly, it seems that only the British have the gumption to produce it. Films like \"Love, Actually\" or \"Vicar of Dibley\" demonstrates the power and excitement for community towns, places where everyone knows everyone and we aren't afraid to be neighborly. This is more of a theme that American audiences could have more of \u0096 more understanding of what is happening outside, instead of remaining secluded to your own events.

Overall, I loved \"Railway Children\". I didn't know what to expect when I first put it in the VHS player, but from the opening scene, to the exploding train set, to Perks birthday, Jeffries proved that he could handle the most child-friendly story with ease. His ability to make the child actors feel like real characters, to involve the adults less, and to involve the children like they were adults was outstanding. This is a film to be viewed as a strong alternative to anything Disney releases. The continually occurring themes of friendship, kindness to strangers, and forgiveness blasts through the TV with grace and power. \"Railway Children\" is more than just a kid's film; it is a feature that should be a staple to modern audience viewing. Not only does it give a great visual to the English countryside, but it also teaches (and shows) how life would be greater with an emphasis on imagination and courage, instead of fighting any CGI bad guys.

Grade: **** \u00bd out of *****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Edith Nesbitt's best book has been adapted into a truly magnificent film, I love it. The film itself has gorgeous cinematography, and fine realisation of the subject matter. The ending is enough to have you in tears, as it is so beautifully done. Lionel has directed some truly excellent films, like the Amazing Mr Blunden, but this is his best film as director by a mile. The costumes were absolutely lovely, that matched the beauty of the countryside, and the sparkling and conveniently-faithful script helped matters. However, it is the quality of the acting that holds this film together, as it is nothing shorter than incredible. Dinah Sheridan is suitably sincere as the mother, a much-needed characteristic of the character, and Bernard Cribbins was hilarious as Perks. In fact, I preferred Perks on film, as he isn't as humorous in the book. The children were perfect. Gary Warren and Sally Thomsett both gave spirited performances, but it is Jenny Agutter's enchanting portrayal of Bobbie that impressed me the most. Another special mention is the gorgeous music by Johnny Douglas, the title music reminded me of Charlie Chaplin's Smile. In conclusion, a funny and poignant masterpiece, that is better than the book, I think. 10\/10. Bethany Cox.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Proudly and defiantly working class porter Perks(Mr B.Cribbins)is eventually won over by upper middle class family down on their luck. Father(Mr I.Cuthbertson) incarcerated for treason - for which the penalty was death in those days,lest it be forgotten),mother(the very beautiful Miss D.Sheridan)brave and resourceful,loyal and loving,and - principally - older daughter (Miss J.Agutter) tottering on the cusp of adolescence - hurt and confused about the fate of her father. Mr Perks,like many working people of his time,will have nothing to do with anything that he considers smacks of \"charity\" and it is a key moment in the movie when he finally accepts that birthday gifts he has been given by the children do not compromise his principles. Although the lovely Miss Agutter has received all the accolades it is Mr Cribbins and Miss Sheridan whose performances dominate \"The Railway Children\".They both know how Edwardian society works from opposite ends of the spectrum but there is an unspoken mutual respect and understanding between them. But this is basically a movie about family.In an era when a mother can kidnap her own daughter and hold her to ransom and be considered as \"socially inept\" rather than unfit to live in decent society,and when two \"human beings\" can beat and kick a baby to death without being charged with murder,\"family\" may be seen as an old - fashioned,elitist, racist even homophobic concept,but a century ago it was the glue that held society together at all levels.Mr Cribbins' and Miss Sheridan's families are archetypal for the age.Strong and loving,sticking together against outside influences,integral units with a moral certainty mocked in the 21st century. What might seem to be a dull,preachy political tract is turned by Mr Lionel Jeffries into a delightful hymn to hope,faith,optimism and courage. That all those attributes were once considered the norm and are now too often the subject of scorn and cynicism is a reflection on our society rather than Miss Nesbit's. No one with more than a passing concern for the human condition can fail to be considerably moved by this quite perfect movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Railway Children was on TV again this weekend, and I had forgotten how good it was.

If I have a criticism, it is that the episodic structure sometimes shows a little too clearly, there being little narrative flow from sequence to sequence. The charm and beauty of the film are such that this matters very little, however.

I won't revisit the comments of others, other than to add my vote for the final scene on the platform as being possibly the single most emotional scene in the history of British cinema: as a cynical old git passing through middle age rather too quickly I, too, find I cannot even think of that moment without being hit with a severe case of \"I've got something in my eye.\" In fact, it's not just something in my eye, it moves things around inside me, too, with that beautiful happy pain we sometimes feel.

And Jenny Agutter was exquisitely beautiful in this film, standing with one foot in childhood and one in young womanhood, and bringing qualities of both to her portrayal of a girl having to grow up rather too quickly.

Plus a quick plaudit for Bernard Cribbins. Regarded mostly as a lightweight actor, he deftly created a Perks of great humanity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An extremely powerful film that certainly isn't appreciated enough. It's impossible to describe the experience of watching it. The recent UK television adaptation was shameful - too ordinary and bland. This original manages to imprint itself in your memory.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have watched this movie countless times, and never failed to be charmed by it's homely simplicity, sincerity and goodness. Great characterizations by all of the cast, and the lovely little steam trains that play a such an important supporting role.I confess I fell in love with Roberta in 1970, and she still touches me today. Shown on TV in New Zealand on Christmas day, the nicest present I could have had.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I try to catch this film each time it's shown on tv, which happily is quite often. But I keep forgetting to video it. As it is, I practically know the script by heart, but that doesn't stop me having a good cry, in fact it probably adds to it as I cry knowing what's coming next. It's such a lovely film - well made, well cast, good photography. I love it. One of my top ten films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Victorian times a father is separated from his family when he is falsely accused of treason and they are sent to live in the country. The children adapt to their new situation, make friends, and enlist the help of a kind old man they wave to on the train to help reunite their family.

Actors who direct movies are often not very good at it. Jeffries however, the great veteran actor of dozens of British comedy classics, is one of the few exceptions. His brilliant conception (he also wrote the script, from the novel by E. Nesbit) of a classic British children's story is what raises this film to art. Whilst the story may be highly idealised, the wonderful performances and the fabulously evocative Yorkshire dales settings combine to make a truly memorable movie. The photography by Arthur Ibbetson is the definition of good movie-making - not a shot is wasted in telling the story but at the same time the images combine to create a fabulously romantic atmosphere. Agutter is simply perfect as the kind-hearted Bobbie (okay, I fell in love with her at an early age, but I defy anyone to disagree) and Cribbins, whose comic acting pedigree is on a par with Jeffries, is unforgettable as Perks the humble-yet-proud railway porter. This is a film out of time; romantic, charming, hugely enjoyable and with a beautifully naive sense of good-hearted kindness towards all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think together all the reviewers have captured this film really well. I have seen it many, many times, but I still feel a sense of joy and warmth just as I did the first time. My emotional response to this film never seems to fade. The final scene certainly brings me to tears, but so does the scene between Perks and The Children on his birthday. And as for the Kindly Gentleman. Something else is going on with that character. The generous provider and solver of problems. He knows everything about everything and has connections everywhere. A perfect father to run to and make us feel safe. I do not know how the film does it, but it touches something very English deep inside, which has long gone from our daily experience, but yet we all instantly recognise and yearn for again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Railway Children, at least this 1970 movie version written and directed by that long-time British character actor, Lionel Jeffries, is an unmitigated...classic. It tells a childhood story with great simplicity and charm; the sentimentality is muted; the evocation of childhood adventures is involving; and Jeffries brings cleverness and style to his production.

The Waterbury family is leading an idyllic life in Edwardian London. The father is prosperous, the mother is beautiful and loving, the children are well-mannered and affectionate, their home is warm and cozy. Then one night during the Christmas holidays two men appear at the doorstep, talk quietly to the father, and then take him away. In a moment the lives of Mrs Waterbury (Dinah Sheridan) and Bobbie, 14 (Jenny Agutter), Phyllis, 12 (Sally Thomsett) and young Peter (Gary Warren), have been changed. Only their fortitude and good spirits are going to see them through. Now teetering into poverty, Mrs. Waterbury takes her children to live in a musty old brick house in the countryside near a rail-line, not too far from a small village with a train station. The children discover the rail and regularly sit on a small hill to wave at the passengers as the train chugs by. One day an old gentleman, going to his business in the city, looks up from his newspaper and finds himself waving back. It's not long before he will play an important part in the story.

As time passes, Mrs. Waterbury brings all her love and intelligence to bear on her children. She begins to write stories to earn money. She teaches them their lessons and provides a home of warmth and security for them. The story, however, is about these three children, especially Bobbie. At 14, she is old enough to want to share her mother's worries, yet young enough to enjoy the adventures she has with her sister and brother. They find a poor man at the station who cannot speak English. They discover he is a Russian refugee who no longer knows where his wife and child are. They insist he must come home with them, and their mother takes him in. Before long the children have written a large sign to the old gentlemen on the train asking for his help. They help a young man taking part in a steeplechase who breaks his leg in a train tunnel. Soon, he is at their home recuperating. They decide to have a birthday party for the station master, a man with few friends and several children who is a stickler for his dignity. It's not long before the children help him realize the difference between friendship and charity. In other words, the three children encounter all sorts of problems in their childhood adventures, and manage to be instrumental in seeing that all the problems have happy endings.

But what of their own problems? Bobbie finally learns from her mother that her father was taken away because he had been accused of treason, of giving state secrets to the Russians. Will Bobbie be able to find a way to help? Will the old gentleman be something more than simply an old gentleman on a passing train? Will their father's case be reopened? Will there be a happy ending?

Jenny Agutter was almost 18 when she filmed her part; she plays the 14-year-old Bobbie with great naturalness and charm. As important as the other players are, especially Dinah Sheridan as the mother, Agutter is the heart of the story. For me, it is Jenny Agutter's talent and Lionel Jeffries' style and restraint that make this movie so memorable. The story's problems come with no serious doubt but that they will be solved. And Jeffries does not just give us an expertly adapted and directed movie, he adds touches that are barely noticed but which charm us. This might include just a split second of a freeze frame as two people talk; or a slow close-up of a small, yellow wildflower in the grass outside Bobbie's home, then a slow pull-back from a yellow oil lamp being turned up inside; or the realization that a delightful interior shot or a view of the green countryside or a look at the train station from a hill...all suddenly recall those charming Edwardian hand-tinted drawings of a perfect by- gone time.

Perhaps this gentle story can't compete for the time kids need nowadays to perfect their Nintendo monster-splatting skills. I'm almost positive it would never capture the attention of most of their parents, especially those weaned on Batman and Leone. Still, it's a perfectly put together movie and shouldn't be forgotten. As an aside, 19 years later the story was retold as a television program. This time, Jenny Agutter played the mother.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I will admit I possibly missed tiny moments when I wasn't paying proper attention, but I got enough of the story to agree that it is a great family film, from director Lionel Jefferies, who played Grandpa Potts in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Basically it starts with a happy upper-middle class family living in Victorian London. One night the Father (Iain Cuthbertson) is visited by two strangers, and he leaves with them, and does not return. They move to a cottage in the country, and here the children; Bobbie (Jenny Agutter, who I first saw in Child's Play 2), Phyllis (Sally Thomsett) and Peter (Gary Warren) keep their spirits up, with their fascination for the nearby railroad. Everyday they wave faithfully to the passengers in the passing trains, and with courage and vigilance they also avoid an accident and are made heroes. Their kindness makes them friends, including important people who can help find the mystery of their missing father. Also starring Dinah Sheridan as Mother\/Mrs. Waterbury, Bernard Cribbins as Albert Perks, William Mervyn as Old Gentleman, Peter Bromilow as Doctor Forrest, Ann Lancaster as Ruth and Gordon Whiting as Russian. It was number 29 on The 100 Greatest Family Films, and it was number 24 on The 50 Greatest British Films. Very good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For all of us American Deneuve fans, this little gem is a little tough to get ahold of. Fortunately, I found myself so wrapped up in the short bits that I saw previewed on youtube.com that I was willing to go to any lengths. I found it on ebay.com, ordered it directly from France, and changed my laptop so it would play Region 2 DVDs. Let me tell you that it was well worth it. Be warned - there are NO subtitles (unforunately, Pathe shouldn't have released this on DVD, Koch Lorber should've - they're good about the subtitles). I don't speak a word of French. I can utter a syllable here and there, order a drink and whatnot. That having been said, this film was a treat anyway. I couldn't fully appreciate the supposed \"bawdy\" humor or the witty dialogue. Watching Deneuve and her cohorts was enough for me. I understood what was going on without need of the dialogue. It really says something about a film when those who can't speak the language enjoy it.

The cinematography is wonderful. London is adorable as the smitten son-on-law. Loved the lesbian Mom. And, of course, what can I possibly say about our dear Mademoiselle Deneuve. She is one of a kind. Those eyes, that smile. I could watch her films all day. She really goes beyond beauty. People always say she's gorgeous. Well, yes, she is. But she is also VERY talented. I believed her every second of the way. Her conversation about chocolate and vanilla with London is too sweet. Her character even gets arrested for smoking dope with some 15 year old in the street. NOT TO BE MISSED! Fly to France and buy this if you have to. Great. 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I always loved French movies because I think they are filled with much more emotion and sense than the Americans. This film is a gem.

Starting with the wedding which is so funny that you just want to join them and in the end where the little family kids tell us who is with who which is extremly funny. Catherine Deneuve is simply hot and so good that it is absolutely possible that a young man can fall in love with her, and Vincen Lindon is perfect for that role. The best scene (except the wedding party) is in the family reunion where Antoine has got mad and yells his feelings to Lea in front of the family. It is such a shame that I could buy this film only from the French and not from the English (so I have to learn in French to enjoy watching it)!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Starting with a \"My Name is Joe\" like scene in Alcoholics Anonymous tBM careers into a mad spiral of infidelity, double standards and clandestine affairs. but what do you expect from a family of lawyers?

A genuinely funny film, with some of the most outrageous characters since The Birdcage, plot and subplot are intertwined with surreal scenes of decadent Parisian life (ever been to a wedding reception in the gents toilet where the brides grandmother and her deranged girlfriend are smoking dope and cracking blue jokes? No, me either!) leading to a final scene of almost Arcadian symbolism.

Excellent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Or at least you feel pretty high after this movie. It's the kind of film that the word \"rollicking\" really can be applied to, though it's rollicking in that entirely casual, intelligent, and open-minded way that belongs to the French.

No, Catherine Deneuve does not spend the entire movie high (sorry to disappoint any puritans with an agenda).. but the one scene to which I refer involves all the members of a wedding party - AND it's a musical number! Anyway, everything fits pretty seamlessly together, and the unusual, bright, colorful family ( Deneuve's mother is a lesbian, Deneuve her bon vivant daughter) alternately entertain and annoy us as real families do..but since it's a movie they mostly entertain.

Don't want to say too much about the ending, but Deneuve ends up marrying a man about twenty years younger. This is entirely believable as we see the relationship develop over time, and as the two are naturally drawn closer and closer together. The ending is a happy one; and like the rest of the movie, satisfyingly quirky as well as pitch-perfect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow....it's been a long time since I've last seen such a hilarious movie like this one!!!!! I've never been a great fanatic about French movies, but ever since I fell in love with the beauty and the acting skills of Catherine Deneuve I decided to see all of her movies... however I didn't think this one would be so fantastic as it turned out to be. Lucky me, that I bought it even though I had some doubts! This is really \"feel-good-time\" film with class and quality. There are some great social topics and moral drama's involved that are very close to today's modern way of living, which are shown very beautiful and realistic. I also liked the dancing scene in the men's room a lot! But my favourite is the rather timid attempt of Catherine Deneuve to sing.....she brings it the way she is, with lots of grace and modesty at the same time...very tempting! Further on I would also like to express my respect and admiration for Line Renaud, who played a fantastic role (I didn't even know she acted....I've only known her for her music). So, don't wait any longer and go see the movie...you'll be surprised in many ways.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is yet another gem from the pen of Daniele Thompson - in fact that same year (1999) she wrote and directed La Buche, the first of three writer\/director credits so far. Belle Maman is first of all 'French' whatever that means which is, of course, different things to different folks. The premise is simple: At the altar where he is marrying Mathilde Seigner, the groom, Vincent Lindon, gets his first glimpse of her mother, Catherine Deneuve, and suffers what the French call a coup de foudre which we know as love at first sight. In theory the story is either 1) over right then and there assuming he called the wedding off or else 2)just the beginning as he goes through with the wedding and thus lives a lie until it is resolved one way or the other. Thompson veers towards #2 but not without hitting us with the odd subplot along the way like, for example, Deneuve's cigar-smoking lesbian mother Line Renaud (in real life, if anyone cares, Renaud is in a long-term relationship with Stephane Audran, who co-stars here) and throws in a brilliant set-piece in a luxuriously appointed Men's Room at the wedding reception, which takes the form of a hilarious song-and-dance. Consummate writer that she is Thompson also leavens the comedy with drama like the brilliant climactic scene where Vincent finally spews out his feelings for Deneuve at a family gathering whilst simultaneously wrecking the joint. This is one to savour. Again and again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you want an excellent survey of Byzantine history done in colorful fashion, this is for you. This documentary would also be excellent for educators, who are teaching about Roman, or medieval history. This documentary is divided into three portions, first dealing with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity and the beginning of the Byzantine Empire. The second video deals with Byzantine diplomacy and the iconoclastic controversy. The third and final video explains the decline and fall of Byzantium. The series is shot in several countries, and beautifully integrates Byzantine history into the realities of the modern world, showing the place of this civilization as part of human civilization in general. Do, take the time to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Though not a Greek I have had a lifelong interest in the Eastern Empire. Its fall in 1453 was the Greatest loss to Christianity in its entire history. Yet while the Easter Empire is not a topic much discussed in American intellectual circles, the US did not merely mimic Golden Byzantiums public architecture, the US is much absorbed in the fated Byzantine historical cycle and now has faced many of the crises involving certain people of a middle eastern extraction about whom it is said that there is a slight tendency for excessive exuberance on religious matters which humbled Great Byzantium. I wonder if the loss of the ability to speak plainly was the first sign post on the road to disaster.

John Romer is to be credited not only for his excellent production but also for his joyful enthusiasm for the subject which is most refreshing.

Not recommended for Americans who like political correctness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another \"end of the world\" film that begs comparison to the abysmal \"Day After Tomorrow\". Following the same sort of structure as DAT but with a distinctly Japanese style. How does it fare? That depends on your taste for Japanese melodrama.

I found that the small human touches to be what makes this film compelling for most of it's 2 + hours. Also the frequent title cards explaining some of the science. The effects are probably the best I've seen in a Japanese film and they compare very well to anything out of Hollywood. Many of the disaster scenes are truly horrifying even though the human carnage is usually off screen. And that is one of the drawbacks. While the terror of thousands of on- screen deaths like in the recent \"War of the Worlds might have too overwhelming, we also don't really get a sense of the chaos of an entire nation crumbling into the ocean. A few scenes touch on the chaos but for the most part this part of the story is barely touched on. Regardless, this film works on a lot of levels and is way more realistic then DAT, that is until the end.

Unfortunately the story hinges itself on one clich\u00e9d plot device and another plot device that would be at home in the 1960's Japanese Earth in peril film \"Gorath\". After the reasonably good science and mostly realistic take on the disaster, this makes for a bit of disappointment. The sudden stopping of the film for a pop love song doesn't help either (unless you like the song). This made the \"exciting\" ending a bit of a drag for me.

The overall direction is good and the art design is excellent. Acting is all good as well. Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I actually caught an ad for JAPAN SINKS in a Japanese magazine last year, and wondered what the heck it was until I saw the trailer for the film. It was then I remembered that I had seen the English translation of Sakyo Komatsu's novel some years back. I got it, and it was quite good, as well as chillingly realistic. It's enough to make the reader dread hearing any news about earthquakes in Japan.

Now, I've read the book, and seen this 2006 movie version (the first movie came out in 1973). And you know what? I thought the movie was quite good, even if there are major changes from novel to film (but that's understandable). The story is simple--a major tectonic shift will cause Japan to sink within a year. Massive earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis rock the country as frantic efforts are made to evacuate as many people as possible. One scientist has a plan that could stop the sinking of the country and save what's left of the landmass, but can it be implemented in time? I saw JAPAN SINKS at Otakon 2007, and while there were a couple of problems I had with it--it does run a bit too long, and a couple of the character moments were a little too sappy--I was nonetheless blown away. The sheer concept of an entire nation sinking into the sea was made terrifyingly real, and the effects were some of the best I've ever seen, rivaling anything that Hollywood has done. The film also plays no favorites with the main characters, with some not making it to the closing credits.

Frankly, I've been surprised by some of the negative comments made about this film. Difference of opinions, I guess. Personally, I enjoyed it. And I've read the original book.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As spectacle, it's hard to fault Nihon chinbotsu. The Japanese people have benefited from their intimate relationship with the sea, and the concept of the film implies that an entire world and way of life at risk - thanks to its volcanic heritage. From the standpoint of reality it's rather silly to have a drama wherein the entirety of Japan vanishes under the waves; why just Japan?

So, presume instead that we have movie reality, fueled by spectacle (and popcorn), and some may find this quite affecting. Compared to adventures with Japanese radioactive monsters, this comes off as more mature and better paced. The emotional element is underplayed, and it really works. (It loses a bit with the overblown theme song at the climax, however.)

Is Nihon chinbotsu credible? Probably not, but the thrilling eruptions, and the relaxed pacing make for a more pleasing entertainment that one night expect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know what Dick steel was talking about, but I found this film to be one of Japan's most thrilling epics to date. As for Armageddon or Deep Impact, or for that matter The day after tomorrow is pale in comparison. For what I know of films, most of the catastrophes in films are basically run of the mill asteroid flicks or one of which of Global Warming. This how ever ran a different course. A course of natural means where the earth's crust is beginning to erode to such a degree, that it will take another piece of land with it for the ride. What the scientific teams had to do was create a way to stop the erosion from going to far and Sinking Japan altogether. In most cases this would simply be called tectonic shifting on steroids. I found the characters rather appealing in every way, from the child who lost her mother only to face her own demise among unfamiliar friends. Or the rescue girl who does all the she can to save lives in the face of disaster. Or a man who thought he could change her mind not to be such a dare devil and go with him to safety, only to become the hero himself and save his homeland. And let's not forget, how the rest of the world just shucked them all back only to be forgotten, by having the world turning their backs on the Japanese citizens who cried for help. This was a great movie in all aspects. What Dick is trying to say is that this movie was not Hollywood made, that it was made in Japan, that it had characters which rival other actors around the world, that the effects are very gorgeous as he mentioned but it's all he was waiting for, and nothing else. He lacks the vision of what's important to everyone, and why this film had every element of feeling, of grandeur, and of humanity. I thought this film was top rate, and I have seen many disaster films to know that Japan Sinks was possibly one of the most original and well thought out projects I have witnessed. I really hope Shinji Higuchi will make another of such films. Oh and by the way, I am not Japanese, though in many ways I wish I was. I am Canadian, born and raised. And an avid movie buff in all aspects. Predjudicial visions are bitter and not worth the effort to be recognized as an opinion. Dick you should watch it with a more open heart and mind, don't just look for the eye candy which makes a films content, look for what's more important, and understand it. They may not be American, but the Japanese have cornered the market lately for some of the most breath taking and down right gritty film making to date. Which is why spending 25,000,000 is just what the Doctor ordered. You heard right, 25,000,000 to make this film. Now you tell me, was it worth it? or was it worth it because American actors weren't in it?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've never watched a file in a language I don't understand just because I wanted to see the movie and I couldn't find it with English subs. I don't know how much I missed but it wasn't much. Probably just specific details which sounds silly until you see the emotional level of this movie and how the characters interact together. I want to mention to The Diceman from Germany there's no reason to feel that he 'sucks' when it comes to commenting on the emotional strength of the film. Like I said, I don't understand Japanese -or at least only the very small amount I came away with from reading the very lengthy novel -pro- bably my favorite all time book which I could not put down & took the next day off from work just to finish reading! I don't know if there's an English dubbed or subbed version but if the film but if there is I'd love to see it. The film was incredible in Japanese anything better is icing of the cake!! Slainte', Maegi","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's the best movie I've watched this year! Excellent detail and storyline (for a remake).

It presents to you a \"what if\" situation wherein the island of Japan could totally be wiped out of this earth. A thought-provoking, life and death situation and not to mention all life on earth (well in this particular Japan). It also presents a great and genius solution to this massive tragedy.

Horror, action, suspense, sci fi, documentary, love story and all the human interest story you can get you'll find everything here! But I also warn you that it is a real tearjerker! The casts, actors and all are all excellent, better than any Hollywood movie!

The thing is...this could really happen to anywhere on earth! Now let me ask you this after you've seen it...\"what would you do if you are faced in this life and death situation\"?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen films come and go in my years,and when i see a disaster film i keep hoping i wont be disappointed.And with this one i was not in the least.The story of a whole country sinking into the ocean was a great concept written by sakyo komatsu,a novelist with intense theories on where this earth is going.The characters were top notch,and even though i am not Japanese,i didn't need a translator to give the idea of how people in their most desperate needs can come together for the common good.The special effects blew me away,i was literally on the edge of my seat watching the tidal waves lava flows and land explosions that must have taken months of work to perfect.As for the acting i thought yes,this is acting at its best,emotions run rampant throughout the film and i cried at the most severe scenes.For movie goers alike,you don't need to speak or understand Japanese to watch this film,you can get the idea and feeling from each person and character to understand it well and to follow it along like you are there.My hats off to Shinji Higuchi for directing it,i hope he can outdo his work with another mind blowing experience.As i said,....Fantastic Film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This review contains MILD SPOILERS, but not enough to spoil the story...

Watched Nihon Chinbotsu (Sinking of Japan or Japan Sinks, depending on where you live) recently, a remake of the 1970's movie of the same name, which itself was based on Sakyo Komatsu's best-selling novel. This movie is a gem of Japanese film-making. It appears that Japan is sinking due to a subduction of a tectonic plate to the west. The Americans predict that it would happen in the period of 40 years, but according to Dr.Tadokoro (a seemingly 'mad' scientist), it will happen in less than a year. The Japanese government isn't that convinced but sets up a Disaster evacuation plan as well as form a new D1 team to handle the crisis. While on a trip to China to negotiate evacuation plans, the Japanese Prime Minister was killed, and sends the cabinet into a state of panic. The D1 team is left to handle most matters, and led by the newly elected Minister of Crisis Management, Saoro Takamori (Dr.Tadokoro's ex-wife). She turns instead to Dr.Tadokoro for advice, and he has plans to blow astronomically HUGE holes under Japan to avert the process of sinking.

Japan would soon have to negotiate with various countries and persuade them to adopt Japanese refugees. Soon, it seems that a lot of countries are reluctant to accept any more due to the sudden influx of Japanese in their country and the chaos that follows (if this ever happens, touch-wood, I hope Ito Misaki will be safe... she can always stay at my place... hee hee). The scenes of evacuations are really well done, showing the havoc, suffering and desperation civilians have to face in such disastrous times. And the many faces of human beings surface, arrogance, selfishness, bribery, bravery, cowardry...

This is a really well-made film. the storytelling is solid, with an engaging storyline and wonderful acting. Dr.Tadokoro (played by Toyokawa Etsushi) was done really well, portraying a divorced and often mad scientist who kicks and bashes up stuff. His frustration and concerns were very visible and that's a really good thing. Reiko (played by gorgeous Shibasaki Kou) was also played rather well, and has the most memorable line in the entire movie (go watch it to find out) and I fancy that she has a nice acting voice. She plays the love interest of Toshio Onodera (played by Tsuyoshi Kusanagi of SMAP). Oh, I almost forgot... she has really, really long hair~ And there's also a subtle but background love story, which is well written and if there's something the Japanese do really well, it's love stories...

One thing that makes this movie interesting is the technical explanations of the events that occur, and if you're interested in geography, you'll have a really good time (I know I did... hehe). I can see that they went to great lengths to make this movie's theory believable, and the first few graphical displays and explanation were done rather well (although you'll have to excuse the Japanese's famous \"Engrish\".

OK, now about the effects (it's all about the effects, isn't it?). After watching the movie with pure awe, I must say that this movie has special effects that are on par (or even better) with some Hollywood productions. The volcanic eruptions... the massive earthquakes... destruction... tsunamis... explosions... all done splendidly. The opening scene is so cool, the 1st earthquake catches you by surprise, mountains fall, the destruction due to volcanic eruptions makes you cringe... to actually watch Mount Fuji heat up is a marvel... then you see Shibuya fall to the ground... it's so sad!!! However, what I felt was one of the best scenes was the giant tsunami scene, which sees rescue operations fail and people left with nowhere to run and no hope to hold on to... the ending scene also deserves a mention... wonderful stuff. If you like effects, you'll love this movie.

Oh ya... every good movie has a great song behind it. The seriously addictive \"Keep Holding U\" sung by the super-cute and adorable SunMin is a duet with Kubota, and it's simply lovely. I feel it suits the movie really well and it shows that no matter what disasters hit us, our love and strength would keep us holding on. The disaster scenes are handled with orchestra music and at times silence (a Japanese specialty) and really gives a sense of chaos to the destruction on screen. Oh, and did I mention it's a really, really, really WIDE screen? Okla, been going on and on about this movie. Yeah, I LOVED it, and hoping to watch again... It does have plot holes, but it's all excusable because it was just a wonderful popcorn movie. Not perfect, but really well-made. I'd give it a 9 out of 10. I'm glad to say that the most expensive movie in Japanese history is also one of their best. If you haven't watched it, you really should today... it is a MUST WATCH!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"They were alternative before there was alternative, The Residents are a band like no other, and I love them for it. This has all their classics, from 'Hello Skinny', 'Third Reich and Roll' to their homage to the great James Brown with a take on 'This is a Man's Man's Man's World'. But that is just the beginning. As a bonus it even has Renaldo & the Loafs hauntingly beautiful 'Songs for Swinging Larvae' and even features The Residents cover of it. Needless to say, I highly recommend the purchase of this DVD, I would also recommend buying their latest album 'Demons Dance Alone', it is fantastic.

Uncle Willie Eyeball Buddy #502","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As other reviews have stated, there are a few missing videos from this collection, but what is on this disc is overwhelming. There are two separate soundtracks, an original recording and a completely redone new performance version. Any new music from the Residents is welcome, and I suppose for a first time listener, the new version may be more ear-friendly, but I prefer the original recordings (probably simply because they are \"the originals\". Production of this DVD is amazing, new and old videos are all interesting, with live performance videos probably the least interesting of what is offered (although the snippets of live recordings hidden as easter eggs are extremely welcome). This is not a renter, this is a must own collection. Enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This video was my first introduction to the Residents, and I couldn't stop playing it for the past three days. The visuals are dynamite and more inventive and technically complex than any I have ever seen on the big screen or small.

The DVD loses points, however, for the pointless addition of new music. The original Residents music is unlike anything else you've ever heard, and will really tweak your brain in the best possible way. The new music however is uniformly uninteresting and in most cases is rather bad in comparison to some of the classic tracks. Also, the uncompleted Vileness Fats video feels VERY incomplete, and I could only fathom the plot of the story from extensive reading of the notes on the disc.

Speaking of notes on the disc, this DVD features lots of cool easter eggs that will probably appeal to long-time fans of the Residents. Hint: look for icons on the notes pages that shouldn't be there.

From a technical standpoint, the disc is one of the best DVD transfers available. There is virtually no observable pixelization, and only a little edginess in strong contrast points.

Kudos for a top notch presentation. This disc really deserves your attention.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Icky Flix\" is an excellent starting point for anybody with even a vague interest in the Residents. Most of their classic videos are present (although \"Earth vs. Flying Saucers\" and \"Don't Be Cruel\" are curiously missing), and the \"concentrates\" of their various CD-ROM projects offer tantalizing glimpses into how the orbed ones have been spending their time since they realized MTV was no longer putting them in heavy rotation (or, indeed, showing videos period).

All of the videos on this compilation feature striking imagery and idiosyncratic music (with a choice of the original tracks and newly-recorded ones). And two of them -- \"The Third Reich 'n' Roll\" and \"One Minute Movies\" -- are in the Museum of Modern Art's permanent collection. Check out this DVD and find out why.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Residents are a band known for their strange appearances and odd musical stylings, so obviously, their music videos aren't going to be exactly normal. In fact, these little videos are abnormal, and bizarre, but have a huge artistic value to them. The atmosphere is built with lighting, and thoughtful visuals. It's a great watching experience.

Basically, Icky Flix just consists of many Residents music videos made for their songs. The music itself ranges from rock to synthesized music that sounds like it's straight out of an 80s horror film. What doesn't change is the quality of these videos. They're great!

Any fan of art films will love these. They're so original with their visuals, and the angles they are filmed at, and the lighting especially make these so interesting. The music is creepy and catchy and highly original and these short films are mini-classics that deserve multiple watchings. This is a near-perfect collection of short videos.

My rating: **** out of ****. 56 mins.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cecil B. DeMille directed a series of domestic comedy-dramas in the late teens and early 20s. He found his perfect leading lady for these provocative pieces in Gloria Swanson. In Don't Change Your Husband, Swanson plays a bored housewife whose wealthy businessman husband (Elliott Dexter) pays more attention to work than to her. She is chased by a handsome roue (Lew Cody) until she relents and divorces the boring husband for the new lover.

Things soon become familiar and Swanson discovers the new husband is as neglectful as the first. To make matters worse she discovers Cody has a woman on the side (Julia Faye). After several confrontations and convenient meetings, things are resolved.

This was a smash hit in 1919 and helped make Gloria Swanson a major star. Although she was only 20 when she filmed this she is very good as the maybe foolish wife. She looks great and wears some stunning gowns.

There is one memorable scene that is 100% DeMille in which Cody is luring Swanson with promises of wealth, pleasure, and love. As he coos to her she imagines the scenes. Pleasure is a fantastic scene of Swanson in a spidery hammock swinging out over a pool while people dance around. Wealth is a scene in which Swanson is gowned like a Babylonian queen as servants bring her chests of jewels, which shes tosses aside. Love is a scene in which she is a wood nymph making love in a forest glade with a Pan-like character (Ted Shawn). Pure hokum but very entertaining, and Swanson looks great.

Dexter is very good as the bland husband who shaves off his moustache and starts to work out in order to win his wife back. Cody is also good as the fake charmer who is a liar and cheat. Faye is funny as the bitchy other woman--named Toodles no less--who gets hers. Sylvia Ashton plays Mrs. Huckney. Ted Shawn was married to Ruth St. Denis and together they were groundbreaking and influential modern dancers (of the Denishawn School).

Swanson impresses me more every time I see her. She seems to have been such a natural actress and yet there is a way that the camera captures her expressive face that is just mesmerizing. She's a joy to watch.

Very entertaining film with lots of color tints in varying scenes to keep things lively. And a lot of the furnishings are back in style 86 years later.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No more corned beef and cabbage for her!

This little romantic comedy clips along from scene to scene with a few exotic twists (some imaginary scenes and a costume party). All of this is centered around the wife of the husband(s) who is looking to break out of the doldrums, played by Gloria Swanson (she is twenty here!). Both the leading men have a natural air that is convincing and of course Swanson is perfect in all kinds of moods, from frivolous to worried to hopeful.

Behind all the games and apparent lightheartedness is that old serious problem of staying in love and not straying in love. There's a little corniness, but director DeMille is on top of keeping it snappy and believable in all. As with many films from this period, the subtitles do not just tell what they are saying (or thinking) but often give a kind of philosophical insight, as if to justify the tragedy (or raciness). And there is that higher purpose here, probably better without the instructional text, but it's part of the narrative style, and it's kind of quaint.

If you are looking for visual or formal amazement, you won't find it here. But as a story, well acted, and filmed with precision and economy, it's really a great example. The events might not come as a total surprise, but it's such a modern love story, set almost a hundred years ago, it's a gas. And did I saw Swanson was perfect?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't Change Your Husband is, on the one hand, the beginning of a series of lightweight marital comedies from Cecil B. DeMille. On the other it is his first picture to star Gloria Swanson, probably the greatest actress of the silent era, and is the film which made her a star.

Although the old DeMille formula was beginning to change, and his films were becoming wordier and less purely visual, with such an expressive performer as Swanson we regain much of that silent storytelling style. Her character does very little, but conveys volumes through subtle gesture and facial expression \u0096 with a particular talent for looks of disdain. In real life Swanson was herself coming towards the end of her disastrous marriage to Wallace Beery, and it's possible that this fact fuelled her convincing performance.

As if to best complement his leading lady's talents, DeMille's use of framing and close-ups is particularly strong here. He uses cinematic technique to show off the acting \u0096 often holding Swanson in lengthy close-ups at key moments \u0096 and also to clarify the story visually. For example, when we are introduced to the character of Toodles, she is shown reflected three times in a dressing table mirror. Her character disappears from the story, only to become important towards the end. That attention-grabbing first shot of her helps us remember who she was. Later, at the anniversary dinner, Swanson and future husband number two Lew Cody are framed together in one shot, while Elliot Dexter is isolated in his own frame. Also \u0096 and this is a sign of the increasing sophistication of cinema in general \u0096 there is much use of reaction shots \u0096 for example the disapproving glance of the bishop when Cody acts out his intentions with the wedding figure dolls.

In contrast to DeMille's visual narrative method was the increasingly verbose screen writing of his collaborator Jeanie Macpherson. As I've remarked in several other comments, Macpherson could put together a strong and dramatic story, but like DeMille she tended to state her themes in a somewhat pretentious and flamboyant style. And so we get these very long quasi-philosophical title cards about the pitfalls of married life which, if they improve the story at all, it is only because they are unintentionally funny. For example, only Jeanie Macpherson could come up with a line like \"Fate sometimes lurks in Christmas shopping\". Fortunately though in this picture these titles mostly introduce scenes rather than break them up.

Although the pictures he made around this time tended to be small scale, it is at this point that DeMille seemed to develop his taste for the spectacular. You can see him start to sneak in excuses for a bit of razzmatazz like the little fantasy scenes of Swanson being showered with \"Pleasure, wealth and love\". It wouldn't be until the early twenties after the unofficial embargo on historical pictures was lifted that he would get the chance to go all out with the grand spectacle.

All in all, Don't Change Your Husband is a fairly decent DeMille silent picture, although to be honest it is only really the presence Gloria Swanson that lifts it above the average. It's curious though that this is supposedly a comedy, and Swanson was cast at least in part because of her background at Mack Sennett's slapstick factory. She hated comedy acting, and here gives a dramatic rather than a comic performance. It makes sense then that the only straight drama she did with DeMille, Male and Female, was by far the strongest of their collaborations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gloria Swanson (as Leila Porter) is an understandably bored wife. Workaholic husband Elliott Dexter (as James Denby Porter) has \"lost his romance\" along with his waistline; he also smokes cigars in bed, eats onions, and snores. He can barely remember his own anniversary - which is attended by caddish Lew Cody (as Schuyler Van Sutphen); the younger man eyes Ms. Swanson's voluptuous figure, and flirts unabashedly. Soon, Swanson is drawn to Mr. Cody. Then, Mr. Dexter decides to try and get her back. Who will win?

The three principals are fine, with Swanson most impressive in the pivotal role as the woman torn. Julia Faye grabs supporting honors as Cody's other interest, \"Toodles\"; off-screen, she tempted director Cecil B. DeMille. The DeMille touch is evident; especially in an imaginary sequence wherein Cody promises Swanson... \"Pleasure\u0085 Wealth\u0085 Love\u0085\"

******* Don't Change Your Husband (1\/26\/19) Cecil B. DeMille ~ Gloria Swanson, Elliott Dexter, Lew Cody","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is apparently the first film featuring Gloria Swanson--the film that made her a breakout star. While she was good in the film, I can't see how this performance in particular was so noteworthy at the time--but, still it was a very good film.

Gloria plays the wife of a rich slob that continually takes her for granted. He cares little for his grooming, eats onions and forgets their anniversary! And, at the same time, a Lothario comes into their lives and begins paying a lot of attention to Gloria and her dippy husband doesn't even notice or give her any reason NOT to cheat on him. Ultimately, she divorces her hubby and marries the smooth-talking Romeo. However, while the movie could have just been an overdone melodrama (they were pretty common at the time), it takes some interesting twists and turns and is an imaginative and fun film. While not the greatest silent film I have seen, it is a standout and deserves to be remembered.

By the way, the DVD release from Image Entertainment is surprisingly good--with a decent print and music. This hasn't always been true of other Image releases (particularly how sloppily they handled the Chaplin releases).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this movie to be filled with irony. But watching the movie you can almost for see what will happen. Leila is a confused, bored house wife, who is constantly looking for happiness. When she thinks she finds true happiness, she clings onto it, leaving behind all that she knew. But she finds her self almost comparing notes between her ex and her current husband. She learned that if she only had communicated more about what had bothered her in her previous marriage, that it could have been salvaged a lot easier that she intended it to be. She realizes that words are nothing with out action, but she learns that too far into her second marriage and finds herself looking back and hoping for change once again. The main conflict in this movie, is Leila vs herself. You can not have true happiness with out yourself being truly happy. I liked this movie, but I would only recommend this movie to women, I can't see a man truly finding enjoyment in this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was really good. It ends up showing the viewers in the end that Leila should of kept what she had. Leila was sick of her husband Jim, who was more worried about work then her. He was so into his work that he forgot their anniversary. He was also very sloppy. She couldn't take it anymore so she left to see if he would miss her. The movie shows that he misses her, he even tries to make up for the night he messed up. He goes to her and tries to bring her home. She ends up finding another man named Schuyler. He seemed like the man she always wanted neat and notices her. In the end she sorta foreshadows by when she look at Schuylers shoes and the way he let his cigar ashes fall on the floor the way Jim did the same kinda thing. Jim ends off making lots of money and cleaning himself up. Leila thinks in the end that she should of kept her husband because thats all she really wanted and he did changing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this film. It manages to make the characters sympathetic (well, most of them) concerning the problems they have with their relationship.

Gloria Swanson, as Leila, is in a dusty marriage with a husband who barely notices her presence (though he does notice her absence). The film shows very well why she is tired of married life, and why she is susceptible to a sweet-talking con man, without making her selfish or demanding. The reaction shots of Leila at the dinner table on her anniversary, while her workaholic husband (late to dinner again) eats salted scallions with gusto and pushes bride-and-groom dolls out of the way of his plate, are perfect.

The show is stolen - and stolen effortlessly - by Elliott Dexter as Jim, Leila's neglectful husband. After losing Leila to another man, Jim literally cleans up his act, shaving off his mustache, working out to lose the middle-aged spread, and dressing neatly. There are several shots of Jim at home, lonely and thinking of Leila, including a powerful scene when he finds one of her old dresses in the closet. The film gives the audience the advantage of watching Jim's transformation along with Leila. It isn't just the exterior that's more attractive; we come to know much more about the kind of person Jim really is, and we see how completely different he is from Leila's second husband, Schuyler (Lew Cody). Dexter shines as the before-and-after Jim, who is determined, after discovering Schuyler's true character, to win Leila back, if he can. The film's most touching moment comes when Jim and Leila discover that they are standing under the mistletoe, and Jim talks of what he has lost.

Definitely worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Don't Change Your Husband\" is another soap opera comedy from Producer\/Director Cecil B. De Mille. It is notable as the first of several films he made starring Gloria Swanson. I guess you could also call it a sequel of sorts to his \"Old Wives For New\" (1918).

James (Elliot Dexter) and Leila (Swanson) Porter are a forty-ish couple where James has gone to seed and become slovenly and lazy. he has a penchant for smelly cigars and eating raw onions. He takes his wife for granted. Leila tries to get him to straighten out to no avail.

One night at a dinner party at the Porters, Leila meets the dashing Schyler Van Sutphen (now there's a moniker), the playboy nephew of socialite Mrs. Huckney (Sylvia Ashton). She invites Leila to her home for the weekend to make James \"miss her\". Once there Schyler begins to put the moves on her, promising her pleasure, wealth and love, if she will leave her husband and go with him. The sequences involving Leila's imagining this promised new life are lavishly staged and forecast De Mille's epic costume drams later in his career.

Leila, bored with her marriage and her disinterested husband, divorces James and marries the playboy. James ultimately realizes that he has lost the only thing that mattered to him and begins to mend his ways. He shaves off his mustache, works out, shuns onions and re-acquires some manners.

Meanwhile, all is not rosy with Leila's new marriage. Schyler it seems likes to gamble and has taken up with the gold digging Nanette (aka Tootsie, or some such name) (Julia Faye). Schyler loses all of his money and steals Leila's diamond ring to cover his losses.

One fateful day, Leila meets the \"new\" James and is taken by the changes in him. James drives her home and becomes aware of her situation and.................................................

This film marked the beginning of Gloria Swanson's rise to super stardom in a career that would rival that of Mary Pickford. Barely 20 years of age, she had begun her career in Mack Sennett two reel comedies as a teen ager. Elliot Dexter was almost 50 at this time but he and Swanson make a good team, although it's hard to imagine anyone tiring of the lovely Miss Swanson as is the case in this film.

Dexter and Sylvia Ashton had appeared in the similar \"Old Wives For New\" where the wife had gone to seed and the husband was wronged.

Also in the cast are De Mille regulars Theodore Roberts as a bishop and Raymond Hatton as a gambler.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just re-watched a few episodes of this series on very poor VHS tapes that I recorded the series on. I'm glad I did, though.

Ramona is based on the children's books by Beverly Cleary and follows the adventures of the title eight-year-old (Sarah Polley). She has fun with friends and family and gets into trouble much like many eight-year-olds. All ten episodes are pretty good. \"Mystery Meal\" kind of grosses me out as a vegan, but it's funny seeing the parents trying to get their kids to eat cow's tongue! And any episode that mentions Godzilla Versus The Smog Monster twice can't be all bad. I like \"Ramona's Bad Day\" even more. Although it's disheartening to see Ramona going through a rough day, she does imagine herself getting revenge on her friend Howie's uncle (a pre-Psi Factor Barclay Hope), who always teases her. \"The Perfect Day\" is also good.

Lori Chodos plays Beezus, Ramona's sister. I swear I've seen her on something else, but IMDb doesn't list anything besides this show. Unfortunately, this series is not on DVD. Why is every crappy show made these days on DVD except something I'd actually like to buy? An injustice if there ever was one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some people don't like Led Zeppelin, but luckily the number of people who versus the number of people who don't is WAY unbalanced. I am the proud converter of 2 or 3 Led Zeppelin fans and the only reason I was able to do this is because of this DVD.

For one, how someone can listen to \"Stairway to Heaven\" or \"Immigrant Song\" without falling in love with Zeppelin is beyond me, but to play the guitar and not like Page... That is like being Christian and not liking Jesus. My friend was like \"Led Zeppelin sucks!\" and I was like, \"Oh yeah, watch this!\" After about 2 mins of watching Page pick through \"White Summer\/Black Mountain Side\" he was glued to the screen and has never said a bad thing about Zeppelin since.

Incase you haven't been following the running metaphor I am calling this DVD the Bible of Led Zeppelin. Held high by the followers and used as a converter for the unwashed heathens.

Course there are some things missing like \"Over the Hills and Far Away,\" a good version of \"Immigrant Song\" and I really didn't need 2 version of \"Whole Lotta Love,\" but what the hell, I'll take 'em.

Because there is nothing besides \"The Song Remains the Same\" to compare this too I gave it a 10 and even if there were more to compare it too I still would have given it a 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I bought my first Zep album in 1974 (at 17) and have been hooked ever since. This DVD has now taken pride of place in my music collection. It is not often that a band can boast 4 virtuosos in their lineup but here we can. Each member made their own contribution to the band but on the stage together, the electricity they generated was bigger than the 4 individuals. This masterpiece covers the band's entire career from Led Zep 1 to Coda and this is captured magnificently on this DVD as each concert shows how the band became bigger and bigger over the years. Recently my copy disappeared, but I'm happy to say was found in my 17yo son's room as the new generation discover just how great these guys were. This is a must have for anyone who has an appreciation of rock music. Long live Led Zeppelin.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"just another showcase of led zeppelin at their finest and their absolute rocking best . every band member is at their best jimmy page and his bow and guitar JPJ with his thunderous bass bozo pounding away and Robert singing like theirs no tomorrow . i have to say when we get into the first song where gonna groove it is the beginning of something very special . this DVD follows zeppelin through their 11 year Carree starting in 69 in the royal Albert hall then Madison square garden 73 followed by a much older and mature band in 75 at earls court and finally a different looking band at their last English show at Knebworth in 79. this DVD is fantastic showcase of zeppelin and if your not a fan you will be after . N","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Zeppelin is my favorite band, so when I heard that this double dvd was coming out, I was understandably excited. I'll just cut to the chase here, and say that if you are any kind of Zeppelin fan, you must run out and buy this right away! It's absolutely spectacular! It blows 'The Song Remains The Same' completely out of the water. Why this material was never released before is beyond me. The footage presented here really shows Zep at the peak of their game, which I never really felt that 'Song' quite did. Jimmy Page is the best ever without a doubt, and these performances make Jimi Hendrix look like a chump! Be on the lookout for the live jam 'White Summer'... whew!

Viva Jimmy Page!

Viva Led Zeppelin!

11 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The only footage of Zeppelin I've seen prior to this DVD is 'The Song Remains the Same' movie from 1976. We used to spend hours round a friends house watching this, but I never really liked it and hated the fantasy sequences....

So what of this DVD? I didn't know it existed until browsing for the Physical Graffiti CD.....'When did this come out?' I thought

For some reason I thought that Page wasn't a great live guitarist, but to say that watching this DVD has changed my opinion is a massive understatement.

There's 'White Summer' from 1970 - 10 minutes of guitar wizardry.

There's an acoustic set from 1975 - 'Bron-y-aur Stomp' has a brilliant finger-picking improv section.

The 'In my Time of Dying' and 'Trampled Underfoot' performances (also from '75) are breathtaking - with Page and Bonham tearing things to pieces like no one else ever has. Demonic possessions of rawk!!

The magic continues into the Knebworth 1979 section. The rendition of 'Achillies Last Stand', considering their various drug-addled states just beggars belief! A song of complex guitar overdubs, Page arranged it in a way that lets him just 'punk it out' live - the effect is totally mesmerising. 'In the Evening' - I never liked this on disc but it zings along here. 'Sick Again' - great piece of sleaze-rock. The footage from Knebworth is very interesting, cutting between big screen, various rostrums and bootleg footage to great effect.

Plant is amazing throughout all the performances. Page, despite being painfully thin, looks like a six-year old kid having the most fun of his life at the Knebworth concert - and makes infectious viewing.

One thing that puzzled me - The 'Black Dog' performance from 1973 sounds very 'camped up'!! Robert Plant always did love a little 'mince' and those jeans are absolutely ridiculous - and would warrant an arrest nowadays. All very different from the muscle-bound kick-a$$$ studio version.

I love this DVD. It has reminded me how good Zeppelin were and remain.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This two disc set is incredible! If you're like me and never had the opportunity to actually see the band live, then this is the next best thing. Jimmy Page, who in my opinion is the second best guitarist ever to walk the face of the earth (second only to Slowfingers himself), He puts on an amazing show in every piece of footage in this film. John Paul Jones, although not as up front as Page, puts on one hell of a show. Although in the live atmosphere, his rythmic bass lines aren't as defined as they are on studio recordings, except of course in songs like Dazed and Confused, or What is and What Should Never Be), but his wide array of instumental talent is well displayed in these DVD's. John Bonham is John Bonham, what can I say? There is no comparison, his beats stand out like no other, and this DVD is proof. Last, but not least, Robert Plant wails like no other can wail. If you've ever read Hammer of the Gods, you'll be wondering the same thing as Page was when he first met Robert Plant, why the hell isn't this guy already famous? And so concludes my review, sorry about and spelling or grammar mistakes, Zeppelin rocks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say about this band, I was hooked in 68, I was a ten year old kid, I grew up on the Blues though my Dad, then these guys from the Midlands came along, a fusion of Country rock, Heavy Rock and Blues, I wish I could have got to see them live in the early years, I was lucky enough to be there in 79(Knebworth) that was the best concert I've seen to date, I hope a full version of that hot August night will be realest soon. This CD gave me a chance to see the boys over and over again, The Song remains the same is great but This CD gets down to the nitty gritty.

Long live the Zepp.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a professional musician who was inspired nearly 20 years ago to begin playing guitar after hearing Jimmy Page on Led Zeppelin II. While I don't play in the same genre or style, the impact of that man has been huge. Now, nearly 20 years later I finally got to see something more than the not-so-good The Song Remains the Same. Again, I have seen SO many bands perform, some small - some the current 'masters.' No band, no where, no way has EVER been able to pull off the magic that you can actually taste by watching this DVD.

Robert Plant can be a bit much at times, and you can nearly sense Page's annoyance for him forgetting lyrics, but that didn't matter I guess - especially for the era. Bonham's genius shines more on this DVD then on any album with Zeppelin, the Band of Joy or Lord Sutch. JPJ is pretty ordinary - but the magic of this DVD is how well the four of them perform together. The world loved to imagine that they were into black magic(k) etc. - that was only a matter of interest to Page. The magic (notice I say this a lot), is that this DVD captures a rare glance to the rawness of 4 young boys who can play brilliantly, no matter how sloppy they are actually playing. It didn't matter.

A quick breakdown. The first of the two DVD's is where the true magic is. You should be able to sense the power and rawness Zep had in their early days. By the end of the second DVD Page is struggling with his sanity during the Knebworth songs. (It's no secret that by this time he was severely addicted to heroin). So, I'd recommend the first disk to ANY music lover, and the second for the only true Zeppelin fan.

I may be going too far here for some guitarists, but I would say after watching this, Page is certainly more creative and inventive than Hendrix. Yup, I said it. And if you disagree - watch the DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing this DVD, I was floored. It is SO wonderful. Not only does it capture Led Zeppelin during convented performances, they span a few years. This only shows the growth of the band, and the growth of their GREAT music. This DVD is a MUST HAVE! The DVD is over 5 hours long, with extras. The extras are also great pieces, some are of the band performing in Denmark, and other various promo spots. This contains footage that was once thought lost, thankfully recovered, and carefully restored to 5.1 Dolby Digital, under direct supervision of Jimmy Page himself! Includes many timeless classics, such as, Stairway To Heaven, Going To California, What Is And What Should Never Be, Moby Dick, and so many more. Great acoustic songs are also included. This will correct any forethought that Jimmy Page isn't a supreme guitar legend!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Buy this if you like rock, led zep or just want an amazing experience. world class! I love this band, and the dvd was even better than i had hoped for, believe me, if you took the time to read this thread, you need this dvd. period.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the opening drum hit of \"We're Gonna Groove\" to the last guitar hit of \"Whole Lotta Love\", this two-DVD set might be one of the best music DVD's ever to hit the shelves since the Beatles Anthology was finally released earlier this year.

One of the best things about this DVD is that on Disc 1, a whole concert and many television appearances can be found. For instance, the whole Royal Albert Hall concert is on the DVD, as well as some of the best performances from the band's last concert at Knebworth.

In the Royal Albert Hall concert, for instance, the band had a lot of room to improvise. Jimmy Page's guitar solos make \"Dazed And Confused\" a huge rock power ballad as opposed to the laid-back blues song it was on Led Zeppelin I.

Next, on DVD 2, is a promotional video for the Led Zeppelin III hit song \"Immigrant Song\". One of Zeppelin's hardest rocking songs, the video is about as sketchy as a Pre-MTV video was, but it displays a lot of guitar power by Jimmy Page, as it was taken from a live performance. After the video ends, we are treated, in transition, with a short picture of fans filling the seats at Madison Square Garden. The following are performances that were supposed to be part of \"The Song Remains The Same\", but did not make the cut. Excellent riffs like those in the songs \"Black Dog\" and \"The Ocean\" were both present.

After the Madison Performances, we are treated with Earl's Court. Most of the Led Zeppelin IV material was played here, like the most popular song that Zeppelin ever recorded, \"Stairway to Heaven\". It is brilliant as always, even more so than the version on IV.

Finally, to end the 5+ hours of live material, is Led Zeppelin's final concert in Knebworth in August of 1979. As the viewer watches this, they have to admit that Robert Plant's voice is getting throatier and deeper from all of the screaming he has done in the past, and it is evident here. On songs like \"Kashmir\" and \"In The Evening\", Plant does not have his vocal boost of old, yet, on \"Whole Lotta Love\", it returns for one more song.

Overall, one of the best musical DVD's ever released, only next to the great \"Beatles Anthology\" boxed set that was released earlier in 2003. The sound, both in 5.1 DTS and 5.1 Dolby Digital, just like the Beatles DVD, gives you a feeling of being on-stage with the performers, standing right next to them, as you would feel on the Beatles DVD when they are jamming in the studio. Even though The Beatles and Led Zeppelin are different bands, though, they each received different DVD's. Even though this set comes on only two discs compared to the five disc Beatles Set, it still feels very filling to the viewer after they have gone through all of that content. It is also a pleasure to watch again and again, not only because of the sound quality, but because of the sheer energy on stage when Robert Plant begins to sing.

A brilliant effort from Atlantic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After waiting years for a definitive collection of Led Zeppelin perfomances on video, fans have finally been rewarded with what is undoubtedly the greatest concert video ever! Much better than the dismal \"Song Remains the Same\", this video includes performances from no less than 5 different venues spanning a decade. It also includes rare interviews and TV appearances. The sound quality is amazing, considering the source material used. And the video quality is even more impressive. This is an ABSOLUTE MUST for any Led Zeppelin fan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first time I've seen this DVD, I was not only happy because of the fact that it was the first time in decades that the band put out anything, but also because the DVD itself is extremely loud. Jimmy Page obviously can't live with quiet music, I guess. I do must say though that during the concert at Royal Albert Hall, they expanded 'How many more times' and 'Moby Dick' too long. Other than that, it was exquisit. My favorite song of all time is now on that DVD. Trampled Underfoot. It's either that one or 'In my time of dying'. In that song, Jimmy really plays that thing good. Ever seen Randy Rhoads play? Well, Jimmy plays just like him, except his guitar is lower.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like Cagney you'll like this film. It has the pretense of American integrity at any cost, personal or social. Cagney plays the head of weights and measures in NYC. Cagney goes up against crooked politicians, the criminal underground, a prominent philanthropist and simple grocers who add a few ounces to the price of a chicken. The chicken scene is hilarious where Cagney finds a weight placed in the bird cavity by an unsuspecting butcher. The chicken gets tossed around the shop in a hilarious scene about who controls the \"evidence\". If you like old telephones there are interesting scenes of dials, phones and even bizarre phone cords. Compared to a lot of film made today this is pure entertainment and includes mystery with comedy and a message that honesty above all should be the guiding principle of humanity. Made in simpler times it reflects a world we can't find today. The fashion (especially hats) outwear and automobiles all play a prominent visual role in defining this little film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Early in the movie, Cagney's Johnny Cave character tells his gumshoes in the Office of Weights and Measures that in the previous year, unscrupulous shop owners had cheated the American consumer out of more money than the aggregate National War Debt! Then he goes out and tickets a particularly greasy green grocer for short-selling him a bag of sugar that is four ounces off (oh, the horrors!!) and one skinny chicken that his butcher's scale has rather generously proclaimed to be six lbs., after which the fur--or in this case feathers--flies. Er, fly. When a racketeer in politician's clothing attempts to derail an investigation into the paltry poultry purveyor's practices, our hero becomes a lone wolf waging the war of the weights on behalf of housewives across America. After all, four cents here and a quarter there add up and before we know it we have anarchy! Word of his intransigence soon reaches both the Mayor and the Governor's offices, and Cagney becomes a marked man. If it sounds silly, it's not--the dishonest retailing practices are only a plot tool (or as Hitchcock would say, the McGuffin) and while unfamiliar, it works every bit as well here as any Treasury Agent or G-man anthology in which the fight is taken to shady crooks who are operating outside the interests of the country's common good. The production standards are decidedly Grade-B, but it is Cagney who makes this movie the delight that it is: this was his first film away from Warner Brothers after seeking release in court from his unreasonable contract, and he seems to be at ease and enjoying himself tremendously--the performance turned in here is intelligent and crackles with his unique energy and surefire charisma. Mae Clarke's presence lends a definite Warner's feel to the overall production. The supporting players turn in solid performances and the story moves along smartly after a rocky introduction that seems to begin three or four reels into the story--but sit back and enjoy it for the Cagney showcase and engaging Depression-era time capsule that it is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is what James Cagney is all about, wisecracks, cockiness, hard as nails and no-nonsense charisma.

Although the plot sounds serious, the film is anything but. It is done in the 30's screwball comedy style and works well with his 'bickering' with fianc\u00e9 Mae Clark and his reactions to the tall stories of his colleague James Burke.

What raises it above normal is the dialogue and the cast that delivers it. Dialogue is good but it is nothing unless delivery is spot on and can bounce about the characters involved. This is done well by all throughout.

Good entertainment and thoroughly enjoyable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's fun to watch a young James Cagney doing his thing. He plays the cheapskate Weights and Measures guy who takes his job very seriously, stepping on the toes of a group of crooked politicians. He is offered the world, but keeps his integrity. He is beaten and set up, but that's the problem. We never know if he is really in danger. They say he's in a spot, but still seems to have carte blanche to move around and do what he needs to do. At times he's so cocky he doesn't do much to protect himself. His allies are in the police department but just about everything else is pretty corrupt. He perseveres (almost too good to be true), of course, and we pull for him. The problem for me is a lack of sustained suspense. It would have been much better if he had had to clear his name. He never drops into the depths, even when rejected by his wife to be. It's still fun with the bad guys kind of imploding. See it just to watch Cagney do his tough guy posturing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the first James Cagney film I have ever really watched. I was never interested in his movies before because I figured I wouldn't like anything in that style of cinema and because I've heard most Cagney films are the same. I have to say I really liked it. By today's standards for movies, it was not special, but I found it surprisingly entertaining. Cagney did not have the look of a tough guy but he played the part very well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Five years after she teamed up with James Cagney in \"The Public Enemy\", Mae Clarke makes another appearance, this time as his fianc\u00e9e with Cagney's character on the other side of the law. It seems like she was calling more of the shots in their relationship as well, trying to get Johnny Cave to be a little more practical with his money and his career. You had to figure they'd get back together after she gave him the boot for challenging her crooked boss; those things have a way of working out in pictures.

I got a kick out of watching Cagney in this one. I usually do, and here he looked like he might have auditioned that characteristic shoulder shrug move that he used to good effect in \"Angels With Dirty Faces\" portraying Rocky Sullivan. It was right after he threw Cavanaugh (Robert Gleckler) out of his office during the first attempt at bribing the new Weights and Measures boss. He turns to the camera and hitches up as if entirely pleased with his response to the crook - very cool.

It's my understanding that this wasn't one of Cagney's Warner films, but it might as well have been. Warner's often took up the cause for the common man, and the expose of crooked merchants and the politicians who protected them would have been right up their alley. You also have those great New York City street scenes depicting cars and shops of the era, with home made signs pricing flour at eighteen cents a pound. Hey, how about the furniture store selling the living room set for a hundred eighty nine dollars, you might get a single stick chair for that price today.

Best part of the picture just might be that meat counter scene when Cagney, James Burke (Aloysius) and the butchers play catch with an underweight chicken. One of the film's lighter moments, but you get an idea how tense people can get when they're caught cheating. Same with the truck driver who's pressured by Johnny into signing for an accurate delivery; he just wasn't used to doing that.

All in all, a nice diversion from Cagney's more typical gangster presence, even if not up to the standard of his feature films. It's easy enough to obtain as one of a handful of public domain Cagney pictures out there, and often found in relatively inexpensive compilations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just took my 11 year old daughter and 8 year old son to this movie and I can't remember a movie where I laughed SO hard -- literal out loud, deep bursts of laughter because this movie is hilarious. Granted the story line is predictable but the ride is so extremely enjoyable it doesn't matter that you know how it's going to end. The actors' comedic senses of timing were impeccable. The actors were perfectly cast. My children mentioned that Amanda Bynes seems to be the last of the young women actresses who aren't ruining their lives. She is so refreshing. My children said this is now their favorite movie of 2006. Our money was well spent on this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie today (opened yesterday here) and was simply delighted.

I saw a review that said something to the effect that the reviewer thought this would be just another teen movie, but then found it was based on Shakespeare's Twelfth Night ... and then started trying to justify liking this flick on Shakespearean grounds. I really think this is going way overboard: the only connections I could see with Twelfth Night are (a) the basic conceit of a girl masquerading as a man; (b) the extensive male-female humor arising out of that basic conceit; and (c) some of the names (including Viola & Duke).

Aside from those names, the thematic commonalties (a & b) are really great themes for any script, and this movie's script is no exception. Beyond that, though, this really is a simply delightful and very contemporary\/traditional teen flick. And that's a perfectly legit genre even if highbrows have to find an excuse to like it ... like alluding to Shakespeare.

The movie is bright, fast-paced, emotive, stylized, funny ... full of teen hormones and teen humor and male\/female humor suitable for all ages. And that's really the best part IMHO: really just about every male stereotype and every female stereotype is depicted in roundly appealing over-the-top fun. Those stereotypes are parodied relentlessly but affectionately, with such a complexity of invention that I'm still a little bewildered ... but really don't feel at all disappointed in that regard, it's not that kind of a movie: things come at you fast and fun and you get a laugh and a groan and then move on to the next split-second happening.

Amanda Bynes really is just delightful as Viola \/ Sebastian; Channing Tatum makes a wonderful Duke; David Cross does a wonderfully over the top Principal Gold. All of the acting and characterizations were fine and on target. Cinematography was excellent.

Wonderful entertainment from beginning to end ... check it out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Apparently a B movie ...B must stand for Better acting and a Better message than we get in big budget \"A\" pictures today. Modern-day movies aimed at young women, surely aren't designed to encourage depth of character over shallow self-serving behavior... or increase the self-esteem of young girls who don't conform to \"feminine\" standards. (After all, criticizing the fake and flashy, like this movie does, ain't gonna help sell more products that depend on girls *not* being satisfied with their natural attributes or inner beauty.)

Laraine Day is lovable as a mechanically inclined tomboy who \"bounds\" into rooms and confesses to an inability to flirt. She bonds with Robert Cummings due to similar interests, a shared sense of humour, and her honesty, loyalty and good friendship, which he gradually comes to value over the superficial \"charms\" of her selfish glamour-girl sister (who only brings out his own selfish, reckless playboy tendencies).

Although Laraine is outwardly beautiful as well, it's refreshing to see inner beauty valued more, and the depiction of true friendship leading to the most fulfilling romantic relationship. I wish young girls (and guys) were getting this kind of down-to-earth message today.

Maybe if Hollywood returns to making \"B\" movies again, with modest budgets, and tries to be content with modest profits... what am I saying? Sacrificing the blockbuster mentality to create something sincere on a smaller-scale, would be like expecting a guy to give up the shallow sexpot for a sweet girl who really cares about him. That's crazy talk.

Please, somebody invent a time machine already! I belong in 1940.

I'd rate this movie higher, but the ending is a bit too abrupt, and perhaps lacked sufficient indication of Robert Cummings' change of heart. (I like the fact that B movies are short & snappy, not bloated & self-indulgent, but this one might've needed more than 70 minutes.) Also found it somewhat unrealistic that a widow and young children would be so unaffected by a sudden death in their family...or be so forgiving of the one who caused it. I mean, I guess it's *nice*, but a little more grieving or bitterness would've been only natural. Maybe a deliberate choice to make this family act lighthearted about their loss, to lessen the impact of the tragedy and make sure *we* forgive those involved in the death - since it's just a plot device anyway, not the real point of the film. Still strange though.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Had no idea what I was going to experience viewing this old film from 1940. However, I always enjoy viewing Laraine Day, (Katie Lattimer) who plays the role as a younger sister to Jean Muir, (Helen Lattimer) and also their mother, Billie Burke, (Mrs. Julia Lattimer). Thought I was going to be bored with the story of two sister's and a mother who is overly protective of her daughters until they meet up with Robert Cummings, (Ridley Crane) who has the reputation of being a millionaire playboy who has plenty of gals and is a heavy drinker who parties all the time. One night, Helen Lattimer goes on a date with Ridley and he proceeds to get bombed out of his mind and simply cannot drive his car. It is at this point in the film when this becomes a drama and changes the complete direction of this film which will definitely hold your attention right to the very end of the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the best television series for children (and adults) ever. John Hurt is a great actor, with many excellent performances over many years, but he was born to play the storyteller. The scripts for almost every episode are superb pieces of craftsmanship, and the productions run the gamut of the emotions, being alternately funny, sad, happy, exciting, and always hauntingly beautiful. It is hard to pick a best episode from so many excellent contenders, but \"The Soldier and Death\", with its timeless pathos, is unbeatable. It is a series to watch with your children, over and over again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Series as a whole - Jim Henson's best work. John Hurt *is* the Storyteller. Often Oscar-caliber screenplays, not surprising when you consider Minghella doing the writing. Oscar-caliber acting, always.

Sapsorrow - Everybody loves 'The Soldier and Death,' but something about 'Sapsorrow' pushes it an iota higher in my favor. In the first ballroom scene, the costumes, the music - perfection. Hurt and the dog typically semi-interact with the story, but this time Minghella pushes it up that extra notch in the 'ring' scene between Hurt and Sapsorrow. The chemistry between characters is especially well-developed, more so than usual in the series, in reference to the friendship between Straggletag and the prince. Seen it? See it again. Pay more attention (to those of you who don't fanatically adore this 22-minute piece of cinematic perfection). Never seen it? I am so, so sorry.

Luck Child - not as sophisticated as Sapsorrow, but very clever in its own right. This is a story about irony. Irony upon irony, within irony... I love it. Every character is acted to perfection, with the exception of the ferryman. He was doing drama; everyone else was doing romantic comedy. I forgive him. This is my favorite of the primarily comedic episodes, 'Sapsorrow' and 'The Soldier and Death' being examples of more dramatic episodes.

Side note: Greek Myths. What it lack in Minghella subtlety (different writer) it partially makes up for in boldness as it portrays the four chosen myths with more sympathy and respect and history than is usual. Also check out the Jim Henson Hour if you can get your hands on it. For Storyteller adicts, it features The Man Himself introducing the myths, the lion from 'True Bride,' and... No Annoying Opening Theme! Half Storyteller, half pure, unadulterated muppet wit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beautiful art direction, excellent editing and wonderful stories make this some of the best television ever produced. The fact that it was relatively short lived is sadly reflective on the state of television. I highly recommend snatching these up as they're released, you'll love them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite its pedigree, the most interesting things about this series are not the animatronics or puppetry, which, while charming, are little more than sideshows, at least in the story I saw, A STORY SHORT. In fact, loathe though I am to admit it, the programme's chief pleasure lies in that most ancient art, storytelling.

John Hurt, in Rowley Birken QC-mode, grotesque, medieval make-up, relates a story about story telling, seated by the fire, accompanied by a cynical dog. One winter's day, starving and poor, he spots a fellow beggar thrown out of the Royal Kitchen by the nasty cook. The Story Teller tricks this latter into giving them an excellent soup. Furious, the Cook pleads with the King for permission to boil the villain, but, pleased with the Story Teller's wit, the monarch offers him a reprieve - for 100 nights, he must tell the King a new story: if he fails to do so, he will hand him over to the cook.

The story may be old, but it's told with great gusto. Anthony Minghella's script is excellently dramatic (as befits a playwright), witty, and with some disturbing concerns beneath the fun, such as fears for the self, or the culturally self-generating power of storytelling, linked to the continuation of ideological power. For a programme aimed at children, it is bracingly self-reflexive (with little nonsense about film being the new oral culture); despite the Americanised style, there is a charming sense of medieval bustle, its grotesqueness and arbitrary terror, as well as its magic and power.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"its been years since i have seen these shows. i have been searching years for anyone else that has seen these or know anything about them. i thought i made them up. the one i remember most is the soldier and death. i'd ask movie fanatics if they had seen these, mentioning its a Jim Henson and people still didn't know. these are great fables. i was very young when i was these, not even 10 and it left a lasting impression on my life and beliefs. i would recommend anyone to watch these, just remember they are from the 80's so they don't look like the movies today. just give them a shot. Jim Henson was way ahead of his time and died to early.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Each story has a lesson for young and old. But what more I have to say may spoil a future story. But, I believe what I have to say is for everyone; just for one particular episode: The Soldier and Death.

Okay... of all the stories the one that sticks out for me is \"The Soldier and Death\" because is was the point in my life I realized that life was terminal. I am not kidding. The airing was on my 8 1\/2 birthday... and I will always remember it. I didn't remember its title until tonight, but I new the synopsis. (May 15th, 1988)

It is always difficult to explain that Death is a natural part in Life. It is also difficult for adults to accept that children can accept this fact. I am living proof (currently 28 yrs old) that children can accept this fact and from time to time remind adults...

I write this with tears in my eyes. Heath Ledger - a wonderful actor my own age - died today. It kinda reminded me of many lessons I have learned in my life. So I write this as a reminder to Young and Old... no one is immune to whatever is in store for us.

I hate to say that Death is going to happen, but this Story was the first time I saw Death as not a bad thing; but a part of Life, was quite literally in this story. I can't help it. It was a life changing moment for me and will alway be.

And for that...

I love you Jim Henson (and I still remember much of your work in life up until the day you died, and your memorial Muppet Show) and thank you Brian Henson for keeping the Workshop alive!!! Honest, I do thank you, all of your co-workers, editors, and interns.

The stage is just a stage\/ And a show is just a show\/ But Imagination will create Magic\/ That Forever the world will Know.

Thank you!!!

(And for all who doubt me... Dance, Magic Dance)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember my dad hiring these episodes on video. My whole family loved them, and now that I have moved away from home and have my own life I am trying to share these fabulous Jim Henson creations with my Husband and stepson but as I am starting to find out not everyone is a Henson fan. Which is a pity since it means they will just have to put up with me searching for this series. But even though they don't find these interesting, I would highly recommend anybody getting hold of the Storyteller. You will be lost in a world of tales from a time when people could only talk about unexplained situations through stories and how people need to care if they were ever confronted with these situations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jim Henson always seemed to put out wonderful television shows. This was sadly one of the shortest lived. It was endearing to hear each tale with their delightful morals. Each episode was a new story, with new characters. John Hurt did a wonderful job playing the Storyteller, and the sarcastic tone of Brian Henson as the dog was always enjoyable.

The set designs and costumes were very well done. The Muppet work, when required, is classic Jim Henson work. You know it is a Muppet, but it's endearing appearance more than forgives. You find yourself enchanted and compelled. When each episode comes to an end, you realize that you were quite entertained. An entertained that is fulfilling, not the kind that wears off after a few moments. You sit back and think about each episode, realizing that each story is indeed timeless, and presents a strong tale of morality.

I have yet to show this to my own children, but this is indeed a series that is more than family entertainment. I implore you to find it on DVD, and snatch it up. If you can't do that, then just find it some how.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sadly, every single person I ask about this series says they've never heard of it. I remember it fondly from my early childhood (I wasn't quite 10 when it came out).

My favorite story was \"A Story Short\". Something about the way the \"stone soup\" story was woven into a greater story gets me every time. And then the storyteller explains why he has no story to tell, and it becomes a story itself. I've always been a fan of Jim Henson, and this is just one reason why.

I'm adding this DVD on the self with Labrynth, The Dark Crystal, The Neverending Story, The Princess Bride, The Last Unicorn, Willow and MirrorMask. These are all DVDs I share with my siblings who are 6, 5, and 4 yrs old.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"it would be a shame if one has yet to watch speed racer, be it dubbed or subbed (i prefer the dubbed version (which is rare) because it was funny...in a good way). what's great about speed racer is that you're never too old to watch it. go red and yellow!! i first saw this when i was around seven and enjoyed hearing the catchy opening. it disappeared for some time then i saw it again a couple of months ago (i'm 19). imagine the feeling of nostalgia surging in, singing \"here he comes, here comes speed racer! he's a demon on wheels~~~\" over and over again. anyway, the concept of the mach 5 spawned so many 'ultra-multi-function-special-cars' but none were able to surpass its genius in construction. the other cars just seemed too much. and it wasn't just the races or battling different bosses that made it interesting for me. it was racer-x's mystery persona and how the world of speed racer pretty much 'happened' to revolve around it. they did some tweaking to some story lines from the manga, but it all turned out pretty well. though i can't remember if the show actually revealed how racer-x looked like, in the manga, they did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The role of economics in the industrialized North American market must have always been theorized in the homelands of the engines creation. Persons and industrialist such as Mercedes Benz and the Bavarian Motor Works (BMW) surely realized the opportunity of the North Ameircan market with the purchase of fuel and number of automobiles purchased per household. This type of economic phenomena sparked the concept of Speed Racer.

After the new constitution of Japan the industrialization of the isolated island nation of Japan must seek opportunity once again via economic partnerships with its global neighbors. This also helped spark the economic opportunities in the European and North American market if not the global market.

Speed is a young avid driver who without knowing any better is driven by his demanding father Pops Racer who has challenged himself his whole life to make a better machine better at winning races. It was in fact Pops Racer who drove his first son Rex Racer to the brink of destruction with his strategy of how to best use the technology he developed. As a mature Racer, Rex, finally realizes his own inherent values and becomes independent but still feels obligated to his younger bother Speed.

The exact relationship of Rex Racer to persons such as the Inspector are never really clear, but put into dramatization. Rex is eventually accused of being a type of agent for a country or organization due to his ability to be in places at times when there is no other explanation to how he would have known Speed was in trouble. Or the fact that the situations involved some types of illegal activity were his secretive knowledge is leveraged against an evil plot. This brings a level of cloak and dagger romance to Speed Racer.

The mixture of Speeds innocence with Trixy, Sprital, and Chim Chim brings a level of comic human nature. This concept is a good form of rhetoric to balance the themes and plots as they are played out from episode to episode. So, instead of a dry detective story the thrill of international race car driving, romance of cloak and dagger, and comedy of human nature is put into one story, Speed Racer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It seems everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon and say \"Maha Go Go Go\"....The word is MACHA........Like \"Mach\".....Pronounced maa - ka\"...

I grew up with this series in the early 70's here in LA on the late and VERY lamented channel 56...Before that there was Tetsuwan Atomu (Astro Boy), dating from 1963 on ol' KHJ TV. Astro Boy was the first TV example of anime we got here in the states...I was into anime as a kid and followed it until the late 80's when, by then it'd become a series of badly animated \"talking heads\", a phenomenon which has only gotten worse. 'Nuff said.

As for \"Speed Racer\", I really enjoyed the basics there, the POV shots, the cinematic aspects of live action skillfully adopted to animation...That was fairly typical of most Japanese anime back then...Graphics graphics graphics! Take note sometime how obviously the series was inspired by Stanley Kramer's film \"Grand Prix\" (1966), especially the redone American credits....

Oh yeah, I have the original comics from which the series is based, so I know of which I speak.

What were we doing animation-wise besides crap like Johnny Quest?.....Th' same ol' stuff we'd been doin' since the 20's....Ho-hum!

I guess the real problem I had\/have with the way anime was\/is shown on American TV is the hatchet job done on the scripts, credits, etc to \"sanitize\" them for American audiences...I won't go into other programs as we're talking' Speed here.

Look at clowns like Peter Fernandez as one of the culprits here, as he was 99% responsible for the re-writes of the series...Not to mention the voice of Speed, Racer X and others...Between him and the goofs at Trans\/Lux ( Think Felix the Cat and the Mighty Hercules - oy vey!) they took a slick, very sophisticated show and dropped it down to the level of Sesame Street. Think \"Cruncher Bloch\", The \"Forthebird Company\", \"Skull Duggery\"...If I go on I'll puke.

This series dates from 40-odd years ago but I, at the time, was keen enough to feel insulted by the dumbing down of this and other Japanese programs...I mean it's obvious when someone's getting' killed but they either remove it or gloss it over........Pleeeeeze!

Good show - originally. Sadly all the more recent incarnations of the series have that CRAPPY \"made in Korea\" look, not to mention being nauseatingly \"pc\" in content. Even the Japanese outsource their animation now..

Try watchin' the original Japanese opening on YouTube sometime...It sends chills up my spine.....If only......Oh well. Robert","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie blew me away - I have only seen two episodes of the show, never saw the first movie, but went to a pre-screening where Johnny Knoxville himself introduced the movie, telling us to 'turn off our sense of moral judgment for an hour and a half.' He was right. As a movie, this would probably rate a 2, given it has zero plot, no structure besides randomness, and very little production value. However, that isn't the point. Everyone in our theatre was laughing and gasping the whole way through - not only were some of the stunts creative (see trailer if you need to know but they hid some of the best (or worst depending on how you want to look at it)), but some of the stuff they did took us completely by surprise. These guys do some stuff that won't make it into your newspaper reviews (and probably can't even be published here), involving lots of things below the belt. However, almost 3\/4 of the stunts are fantastically hysterical (even if morally condemnable, but remember Knoxville's statement), and if you are in the right mindset this movie is hysterical to watch. Only about 20 minutes of this movie could have actually been shown on TV, so consider yourself warned of what you're getting into - some stuff is disgusting, but instead of being repulsed by it you end up laughing at the sheer stupidity of it all. As a person who thought Jackass the TV show was an over-hyped fad with only a few funny sketches and lots of unnecessary pain, the amount of fun I had at this movie has made me realize that having no boundaries is the best environment for these guys to work in. It's a lot of fun and should be a great comedic fix until the Borat movie comes out. With this movie, you may think you know what you're getting, but these guys are a few steps ahead of you - I guarantee you'll be surprised by the 3rd sketch. So enjoy, and don't worry: you won't want to perform almost any of their stuff at home.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The sequel is exactly what you will expect it to be. And it is good enough that everyone who would have wanted to watch this should leave it happy.

This is not a movie that will win an Academy award. But it does take what made the Jackass TV show and original movie a success, and it turns it up a notch. It is funnier, more brutal, and more disgusting than the original. And I loved every minute of it.

The original had a few notorious stunts, and there is at least one stunt that this movie will be remembered for. You will wince, cringe, look away, and laugh very, very hard.

In any event, you probably do not need to read this review, or any others, to know if you will like this movie, unless you have never heard of Jackass.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Where do I begin? I sat down ready to laugh a bit and I was blown away! This movie is just perfect, it's indescribable. Jackass Number Two in all honesty was grosser, more obscene, funnier and more entertaining than the first. This was just what I needed tonight.

There are so many scenes in this movie that will make you say \"Oh My! No Way!\" or \"Ouch!\". Perfectly mastered and set up, each event and scene were coordinated way before and therefore made it even more perfect. I loved every minute of it! I'm just going to say that there was even a scene where it was necessary to censor particular footage in order to prevent an NC-17 rating! It was so hilarious that they had to put it in anyway! Amazingly good.

9\/10. Incredibly funny, Do Not Miss Out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes. Bam cried a couple times and so did Englund. And most probably you will too. The whole cast is back in action and Knoxville has stepped up to become the true leader of this gang of messed-up retards (I mean this in the best possible way). I first thought, maybe Bam or Steve-O were the main go-to guys....nope, the main man is now Johnny. Don't get me wrong, everybody, and I mean everybody is great in this flick! Right from the get-go you're laughing, and believe you me, don't plan on resting that smile of yours. I personally think the movie definitely has better moments than the first. You know when you go into a theater, and you kind of don't want to have high expectations for it.....well, this movie blows all expectations away. If you love Jackass, you can go into this with gigantic expectations. No matter what you'll laugh your ass off. If you're not laughing, the reason is most likely someone has a gun in your face telling you if you laugh you die or maybe you are embarrassed about the sound of your laugh or the highest probability is that you were eating Jack Sh!t for breakfast and Jack left town. All I have to say is, prepare yourself to have a sore face after the movie. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film tops the previous incarnation by a mile, taking everything to the next level. As always the JackAss guys are purely unbelievable, and I personally laughed harder in that theatre than I have in a long time. Like the first JackAss, this isn't so much a movie as an eighty minute long string of stunts and pranks. It is pure circus entertainment taken to the highest level. Essentially these guys are clowns, debasing themselves for the amusement of others. And its great. The shenanigans are so low, outrageous, and often disgusting that they transcend into a higher form of entertainment.

You can't rate this along other movies, its in a class of its own. And it shines. Go and enjoy it for the pure spectacle that it is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's what you expect. It induces laughter, cringing, and dry-heaving, not necessarily in that order. It's over-the-top. You will see things that you may never be able to erase from your mind's eye. \" Jackass Number Two\" is better than the first; the actors definitely took more risks while filming this movie. There are many stunts which could have killed the actors, especially Johnny Knoxville. The treatment of animals was suspect, but other than that, the movie achieved what is was made to achieve. If you like the preview, see the movie. If you don't, steer clear!

8 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Johnny Knoxville has gone insane.

In the first Jackass he delighted in practical jokes more so than the physical stuff \u0096 his opening car rental gag and the later bit involving an air horn on a golf course were more akin to some type of extreme Candid Camera \u0096 but in Jackass: Number Two he's really off his rocker.

Beginning with a sequence where he is chased through a living room by a bull, or later when he rides a rocket (a stunt which almost cost him his life due to an unexpected explosion from the side of the rocket), and especially when he stands willfully in front of a defense mechanism and takes a spray of pellets to the stomach, Knoxville is a madman. In the first film Bam Margera and Steve-O \u0096 notorious party animals \u0096 were the daring ones, but you know it's pretty bad when you see Knoxville enticing them to do a stunt.

This is essentially a series of stunts pulled off by guys consumed by testosterone, constantly trying to one-up each other. It will eventually end in death for one of the cast members \u0096 in Jackass 2 Steve-O nearly loses a leg to a shark, Knoxville (as aforementioned) is nearly impaled with an explosion from a rocket, and so on and so forth. Jackass 3 has already been confirmed owing to the success of 2, and frankly I can't imagine any stunt out-performing the bull run in the opening scene of this film \u0096 that's incredible footage. It's almost unbelievable, and I wondered whether it had been faked, but apparently it was 100% genuine. (Which is actually kind of frightening.) And in terms of extremes Jackass 2 far outdoes its predecessor \u0096 it also feels more cinematic than the first film, with less of the cheesy titles preceding stunts that were made famous on the original MTV television show.

Unfortunately, the boys were given too much freedom here, and a good number of the gags are simply lame exercises in crudity \u0096 I can enjoy the occasional poop gag, but watching a man relieve himself on a miniature toilet, or see Steve-O take beer up the butt (yes, honestly), gets grating after a while. Even the frat boys in the screening I attended \u0096 who were enthusiastic when Wee Man took a playing card up the rear and got zapped by a rigged chair \u0096 were disgusted by some of the scenes in this film. It's not a matter of getting away with as much as possible \u0096 it's a matter of saying, \"Is this even entertaining or funny?\" Many times, sadly, it really isn't.

But for every lame stunt involving fecal matter and farting on people's faces, there are some brilliant hidden-camera bits. Wacky director Spike Jonze (\"Adaptation\") dresses up as an old woman and hits the streets naked, with sagging breasts and no shame. And my personal favorite skit involved Knoxville as an irresponsible old man, out for lunch with his grandson, letting him drink alcohol and smoke and swear and insult people. That's classic comedy taken to new extremes with the liberties of an R-rating. It's a shame they had to ruin all the great stuff \u0096 including a final segment involving an elaborate terrorist prank \u0096 with poop jokes along the way.

Still, there's enough sheer spirit and craziness in this film to merit a viewing, and it's really taken the concept of extremity in cinema to new heights.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just got out of an advance screening, and wow was this movie hilarious. Possibly better than the first one, but at least its equal. If you don't like jackass, or really unnecessary amounts of male nudity(way more than in the first) then stay far, far away. But if you dig the whole Jackass thing, then this movie will not disappoint. Toro Totter is the greatest invention ever. OK. so my review wasn't long enough... All else i have to say is poor, poor Dunn, they really kick the crap out of him in this. So if you enjoy masochistic humor, and prolific male nudity, and by far the most disgusting female nudity ever (John Waters is involved, need i say more?) then this movie will keep you in stitches for it entirety. I never stopped laughing, and actually came out drenched in sweat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Johnny Knoxville and the boys of Jackass go over the top for \"Jackass Number Two.\" At a press screening, the laughter was so loud and raucous it was hard to hear all the dialog. The stunts are over the top and the pranks are funnier and more outrageous than ever before.

All of the guys put their limbs on the line to make a great film, and they succeeded. If you like this genre, you'll love this film. If not, don't bother.

Some of the funniest bits are the pranks the guys play on themselves, and they have no regard for what happens to them. They'll do anything to make a stunt work.

Many critics panned Johnny Knoxville for a less active role in the first film, but not to worry, he is front and center in Number Two, and they have enough footage in the can to be half way through a Number Threee.

This is a must see for fans of this type of humor.

Chris Sansone, Entertainment Editor, Fort Bend Herald","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like the first one,the team of JACKASS are back to try to kill themselves with whatever manner they see fit.Either,it's fitting yourself in a tractor tyre and rolling down a slope.Or getting yourself deliberately smashed by a bull.Or something even worse.

The first one was crazy,and that's how you can describe it.It was also really hard laughing film.But this one is completely nuts.It's got even more dangerous stunts,and even harder laughs.So,I think watching dumb idiots getting themselves killed is gonna be the funniest thing this week.

So,before BORAT comes out,I shall laugh my A** out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is just about as good as the first Jackass, but with slightly more disgusting skits. I wouldn't say this was as good as the first, but it came very close. Jackass fans will not be disappointed, but if you didn't like the first movie, you will hate this one. There are scenes that will be seen as Jackass classics (the elderly suits with \"additions\", the \"cab ride\", and many others), and those that you will wish you never watched (eating crap, drinking semen, etc...) Overall this movie was a good watch, and I am glad I got to see it. I'm sure this movie will not have the best rating due to critics that rate it (I sat in the press section and most of the older viewers seemed disgusted), but don't let that stop you from enjoying it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My sister, a friend and I went to see this film for my birthday on the 24th of September. We had all seen the first \"Jackass\" movie a while back, and we all enjoyed it. We were really looking forward to Number Two.

We were not disappointed.

From start to finish I was laughing hysterically. It is equal parts shocking and amusing, however, and is definitely not for those with weak stomaches. It is obscene, but it is also groundbreaking American cinema... well, perhaps that's a bit too much praise for a movie where men intentionally get their scrotum's stuck to ice sculptures, but it IS groundbreaking in that it shows us obscenities whether we like it or not, things that no other \"decent\" American movie released nation-wide would dare show us.

There was only one scene in particular that I felt was unnecessarily obscene, and it involved a horse - I'll not elaborate.

I laughed, I nearly gagged, and I came damn-close to crying (out of a physical reaction to viewing a scene involving a leech and an eyeball, not sadness). In my humble opinion, \"Jackass: Number Two\" is THE film of '06.

Does that make me a jackass? Perhaps. But if it does, I could really care less.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been a huge fan of the Cky videos, Jackass, and Viva La Bam for a long time. They've had a great run and I expected my laughter to end, eventually. But, it hasn't yet. This movie kept my mouth open the entire time. I'm still laughing, randomly. I went to the theater with low expectations, thinking it wasn't going to be better than the first. Oh, how incredibly wrong I was.

There were many great moments in the movie. If you're squeamish, don't like randomly placed raw humor, or if you disliked the first movie, you probably won't like this. But, with that said, I almost wet my pants from laughing so hard. It had all kinds of different pranks, masochistic humor, toilet humor, puking, laughing, some great falls and massive damage done to all of the cast. Ryan Dunn even branded Bam's rear end with an image that will be stuck there for a long time. I'm sure you can only imagine how raw this movie is.

No pain, no gain? Right? This movie has already done well, causing theaters all over America to laugh so hard, they'll be wishing it could last longer. I know I did. This movie did not feel short, at all, especially with the credits continuing the footage. But, I still wish it could've gone on forever. Now, let's just wait and see when they release Jackass Number 3! Overall, an excellent film, if you can get past the male nudity and a few sickening images. Keep your kids out of this film. They don't need to see this, at least until they are older. Support the crew and BUY THIS when it comes out on DVD! I know I will.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We've all see the countless previews and trailers. If you enjoyed Knoxville getting flipped by the Bull you'll take great carnal pleasure in the opening \"act\". I must caution the masses however, I considered taking my (under-18) son with me but am relieved I did not. This compilation of obnoxious skits contains a few that albeit as hilarious as they may seem to the adult community, a few are not for the immature. These guys must get paid a great ransom to tolerate some of the devious stunts, sometimes played at their expense. In particular, Bam Margera and Ehren McGhehey are slighted by the group in a few particular stunts. Enjoy","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is hilarious. I would say much more painful & disgusting than the previous movie. The entire cast from the previous movie & series is present.

These kind of movies are great to watch in the MovieTheater cause the whole audience is crying with laughter, especially at the terrorist part that was damn disgusting. I wish they made more of these kind of movies.

Strong stomach required! They got some insane stunts this time around. Warning: includes a lot of snakes! I would love to write about it but I just can't spoil the fun. Go see it!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All you could ever hope for if your a Jackass fan.As always Knoxville & his crew risk life & limb just for our viewing entertainment. If you are fan of the series & of the first movie you won't be let down like most sequel often do. The jokes they pull on each other as twice as funny,cruel,crude as ever before & the stunts & dares are twice as rough as any Jackass episode you have ever seen. If your a fan don't waste time go check it out for yourself because on Jackaass standards this movie is an easy 10 out of 10 just for the opening credits alone, I can't go into detail without spoilers but you've got to see it to believe it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was Hilarious! It occasionally went too far, but isn't that what we expect from them? The theater roared with laughter and ooooooed at all the incredibly crazy stunts. It's rude, crude, and occasionally frighteningly intense. The whole gang is back and even more out of their minds, which in turn provides for some great entertainment. I don't want to give anything away, but the little snippets of clips going around the net are nothing compared to what comes after.

This is a great movie to go see with friends. Try to see it with a big crowd. You will not be disappointed. Just don't go with anyone who can't take it (see above). It will not go over well, you can be sure of that. But that's pretty obvious in the first place. If you enjoyed the first one, you will loooooove this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've always been a fan of Jackass, as well as Viva La Bam and Wildboyz. And when you're a fan of something, your expectations are high to whatever your \"heroes\" might star in. And if there's one thing I've learned about expecting a lot from the people you simply love to watch and listen to, it's never to expect to much, 'cause in 99 out of a 100 times, you'll get disappointed.

Although, when I heard there was a Jackass 2 coming up, I thought \"Not even I can turn down my expectations for this movie\", and as a result of that I sat down today, ready to laugh, but also ready to say in the end \"Well, it was OK, but I'm a little disappointed\". How wrong was I! Every single member of the Jackass crew brings this movie way over the first one, showing you the one crazy ass stunt after the other, making the whole world see that there's nothing they wont do to try to harm themselves - and that's what we love! I cried my eyes out laughing from the first minute and till the very last second of the movie, at some times even shouted in laughter, not able to control myself! Stunt after stunt, prank after prank, and hilarious comments on the flow - it can simply not get any better than this! Amazing from start till end, guaranteed to make you laugh your ass off. I've got two things left to say; WATCH IT, and PLEASE God, let there be a Jackass 3 - these guys clearly has a lot to offer!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Does exactly what you expect, and then some. The first movie, was a step up from the TV show with sicker stunts airing uncensored and a gnarly factor that had increased. Surprisingly, Jackass Number Two is even more twisted.

The stunts have become more dangerous and spectacular, with some mind blowing painful antics sprinkled with good fun skits to keep that smile turning into a curl of disgust.

Knoxville, like always, dominates the proceedings, but this time he has reason to take centre stage as he volunteers for the most dangerous and idiotic of all the stunts, with Bam Magera also proving himself as wild as ever, despite having had his image toned down in 'Viva La Bam'. Surprisingly, the infamous Wild Boys (Steve O and Chris Pontius) seem to take part in fewer of the skits, despite being focal in the previous outings.

If you like Jackass or Dirty Sanchez then you will definitely enjoy this film, and will laugh your guts out for the 100 minutes of its duration, if you see it as childish, disgusting or a sad snapshot of the youth culture of today, you will find it as offencive as ever. So f**k off.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I shouldn't like Jackass Number Two. No one should. There is and never has been anything particularly redeeming about Jackass. And yet...it's one of the funniest things I have ever seen - and I simply cannot explain why.

This new movie leaves the first one in the dust. It's so funny, so horrible and so wrong. The whole team give their all - with Jackss in chief Knoxville leading the charge. He's nuts. I adore him, but he's insane. And more power to him. With his burgeoning film career he could have sat back and just let everyone else do the dirty work, but the fact that he threw himself, almost literally, back into the world of the 'Ass so wholeheartedly makes me oddly respect him. More kudos must go to Bam Margera who previously seemed content to sit back and just make sure everyone around him did pretty much what he wanted. Here Bam isn't the tormentor but the tormented and is all the better for it.

I simply can't say what my favourite part is because I laughed the whole way through. Admittedly I viewed much of the movie from between my fingers, but there hasn't been a 'real' movie I've seen in a very long time that made me feel as invigorated as this did. Love them or most probably hate them, the Jackass team have delivered above and beyond my expectations. But I do agree with Bam. There can never be a Jackass number three because someone will die and I want these guys to stick around.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is not the kind of movie that really merits critical attention. It's not going to win any Oscars - it's really not a very good movie at all. Heck, it's not even really a movie - just a string of short disgusting, gross-out skits strung together in an effort to make entertainment. And as much as every critical bone in my body cries out to give this movie a failing score, gosh darn it, I'm going to give it a much better score. The kind of people who are going to enjoy this movie are not the kind of people who really care what critics have to say, so I'm not going to give some snobby critique of Jackass's quality of surreal existentialism that permeates and commentates on how our society....oh forget it.

What's to say? There's no plot development, no character development - no real beginning - there's a semi-enjoyable end that's not nearly as funny as the skit that precedes it, and everything in between reeks of improper, bathroom humor that junior high kids laugh at. It's actually pretty funny.

Leave at the door all your preconceptions of a good movie. Jackass: Number Two is just gross-out crap. That's really all it is. I do give the filmmakers this, though: they come up with some pretty imaginative stuff. You'll probably cringe several times throughout, want to throw up a couple times, wiggle and shift uncomfortably as the people on screen do death and vomit-defying stunts. Vomit, crap, urine, semen....virtually every bodily fluid can be seen in Jackass: Number Two. There's nudity, sexual humor abounds, and so on and so forth.

It's entertaining. If you're the kind of person who finds this stuff enjoyable, then you will probably really like Jackass: Number Two. I laughed several times. Like I said, it's pretty imaginative stuff. I never once wanted to vomit - though I do have a pretty strong stomach. Just accept the movie's premise: a bunch of idiotic guys do weird crap for fun. Once you get past that, accepting it and going with it, you'll enjoy it. The only flaw in the movie is the sheer excess of all the weird and disgusting stuff. There are several very imaginative, very disturbing skits, but it drags in many places as they do ones that are less interesting. Towards the end things pick up, but in the middle of the movie the drag hurts the overall film's quality. In a half hour TV show this isn't a problem, but with film length celluloid, it's inevitable that boredom will ensue at some point. After awhile the gross crap just becomes desensitizing.

On the whole, though, Number Two is an entertaining, imaginative, and above all, disgusting comedy that will leave you with a feeling of pain, nausea, and hilarity. Go see it if you must, but hey, if you know you don't like this kind of stuff, don't bother. You'll just be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First off I want to say most of the people who give this a poor review don't like this kind of comedy, the movie is great if you have an open mind and aren't afraid to laugh at some stupid things.

This movie is shot just like the TV show with a lot of short clips compiled into one long movie. Some of the scenes don't even have dialog someone will just come out and do something unexpected and it is funny!! The only negative I had is I felt like I wasted money on my Popcorn and Icee, there was no way I could eat or drink anything during this movie I was constantly laughing. I was honestly nervous of drinking some Icee and seeing something that caused me to laugh and shoot it everywhere.

If you don't mind some male nudity, and you enjoy Jackass the movie, jackass the TV show, and viva la bam, then for YOUR SAKE go see this movie.

And if you DON'T like the first movie, or the TV show. Don't see it, and if you do see it don't post a bad review about it. Hardcore christians who see this and bash it just doesn't seem right to me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i would give this movie an 8.5 or a 9. I thought it was just straight up hilarious i don't know how you could not think this movie was funny but the only thing that disappointed me was that there was alittle bit too much gross stuff because personally i think when they fly off of bikes and stuff like that is much funnier but I'm sure there are people that think the other things are very funny so that is not my desicion but anyways great movie go see it and after that you should definitely go buy it also if you do not like this movie that is fine because I'm sure there are many people who think that this movie shows how downgrading our society is or whatever this is just my personal opinion and you have yours. also the jackass box set is definitely something worth downloading or buying or whatever you do to get your videos","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jackass Number Two is easily the most hilarious film of 2006, beating the also hilarious Clerks II. It is one of the best sequels in recent memory, beating Jackass The Movie in every way. Now, this film may be the funniest, but it is also the most offensive, appalling, and utterly disgusting. You will find yourself feeling sick several times throughout the film. I'm completely serious when I say don't eat anything before watching or during this film, because chances are that it will literally come back to haunt you. Keep the drinking to a minimum as well. You've been warned, because, just like the tagline says, it will make you beg for mercy.

Jackass Number Two follows the crazy men from the hit show Jackass, Johnny Knoxville, Bam Margera, Ryan Dunn, Steve-O, Chris 'Party Boy' Pontius, Preston Lacy, Ehren McGhehey, Dave England, Brandon DiCamillo, and Jason 'Wee Man' Acuna (Chris 'Raab Himself' Raab is absent) as they perform the most outrageous, life-threatening, and revolting stunts imaginable. I'm not going to tell what the stunts are, but I will warn you that any scene with an animal will be sickening or psychologically frightening, and that one cast member (once again, not telling) will flirt with death several times in the film.

What makes Jackass Number Two so entertaining is not the stunts themselves, but how the cast reacts to them and to doing them. To put it simple, if they loved doing it and had a blast, you will too (this goes for 99% of the stunts). All the stunts are very original, and 90% of them are never-before-seen. You will witness a few recycled ones, but they're amped up. You wouldn't think directing really factors into a movie like this, but it does; Jeff Tremaine's direction makes the movie so much funnier, because he provides guidance for the gang in their comedic timing, which is simply brilliant on his part. He could have just sat back and slept throughout filming (actually, you'll see in the film that he did sleep through some filming), but he went out there and helped these crazy guys make the stunts as funny as he could. I give Mr. Tremaine two thumbs up for that. Another great thing about Jackass is its bonanza of celebrity cameos, and this time they include BMX legend Mat Hoffman, skateboard god Tony Hawk, director\/actor Jay Chandrasekhar (Super Troopers & Beerfest), actor Luke Wilson, Miami Dolphins star Jason Taylor, and director\/actor Mike Judge (Office Space). The scenes with Hoffman, Taylor, and Chandrasekhar are among the funniest in the film, as it's even funnier to see these men as a part of the film.

Jackass Number Two is one of the most politically incorrect, morally degrading, and just plain wrong movies of all time, if not the most. Despite this, it is so original and so hilarious that you won't care about that. You'll be gasping for air, laughing so hard you'll be crying, and jumping out of your seat laughing throughout the entire film. Due to the explicit and potentially disturbing graphic content of this film, no one under 18 should watch this film. You've been warned. I hope you enjoy Jackass Number Two as much as I did.

10\/10 --spy","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"seriously people need to lighten up and just accept that funny is funny, and this movie is f**king hilarious. Better than the first and Knoxville really grew a pair for this film and did way more crazier stunts then the first. If Ebert and Roper(not saying that I'm a huge fan of theirs) can look past the pure idiocy of this film enough to give it 2 thumbs up then i think other people can to. I wasn't sure what to expect from this but i was floored and it is rare when a sequel is better than the original. This new one I believe exceeds the first big time. so do what i did,just relax kick back try not to barf at some points and laugh your ass off.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movies had to be the funniest movie i have ever seen in my entire life. I laughed so hard i almost puked. After the movie was done i laughed for about an hour just thinking about the very last seen in the movie. Its is definitely 100 times better than the first Jackass movie. I loved seeing all of them back together again. If you are squeamish or don't like raunchy childish humour you will not like this movie. If you can go in with an open mind and not take it so seriously then you will laugh your ass off. Its amazing no one was killed in this movie. Every seen in this movie is so original and so different from the next you will not know what to expect.

Mike Webber","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're a fan of Jackass, Viva La Bam or the CKY videos, then you already know what you're in for. But this is one of those rare happenings when a sequel is better than the original! And man does this movie pack a mean low blow. But i mean that in a good way. It's the same type of death-defying, gut-wrenching insanity that we have all come to know and love and expect from Bam, Knoxville and Co. But this time with even more laughs than ever before! With Johnny Knoxville's insane tolerance for pain, Bam Margera's love for harassing his friends\/family and Steve-O's gross-out factor, you have one hell of a funny film. The bar for the stunts, skits and general mayhem of the Jackass crew has been raised. Jackass 3? Doubtful, because it's nearly impossible to improve on perfection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"....but at the same time part of you is thinking \"Am I ready for what I am about to see?\"

In the end, you are happy you saw it. I was, at least. Jackass Number Two has twice the laughs and twice the action. Some stunts will leave you breathless. Besides Little Miss Sunshine, I think it was the best movie I saw this summer. Maybe even this year.

The entire cast returns, besides a few such as Chris Raab and Rake Yohn. I don't think any of the cast members had a dull moment. Each and every stunt was either funny or dangerous or a combination of both; stupid. The beginning was just as funny as the first one, and the ending was interestingly hilarious; the cast performing a musical number.

Jackass Number Two is the perfect movie to see with your friends. Stay during the credits, there are some pretty funny moments. One involves Luke Wilson.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was borderline in crude humor....I utterly can not believe that these people can get away with this. Johnny Knoxville didn't cross the line...he was stomping all over it! This was better than the first...ALL THA WAY! The thing I found about the 1st movie was that the shenanigans were somewhat as if it was on the t.v. show. NOT THIS TIME!!! they completely made a 180 degree flip...the whole cast is so outstanding in what they do and not were the stunts crazy...but the music basically fit every situation...GOOD WORK!!!! When you go see this be sure to use the bathroom before going to the theater, maintain a strong stomach and rememba to not let your beverage spray out your nose....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love everything about family guy.

My favourite characters in family are Brian and Stewie and I like the episodes when it mainly features them such as \"Road to Rhode Island\" (Season 2), as they interact very well. The comments they make just have me in stitches. Peter's behaviour is also very funny as some of the things he does \"are just so brilliant they're retarded.\" The voice acting is excellent, especially Seth MacFarlane as he provides the voices for half of the Griffin family as well as their perverted neighbour Glenn Quagmire and how he manages this range (particularly with singing) I just don't know. He deserves his two Emmy's for providing the voice of evil baby genius Stewie. Adam West also steals the show with his funny and completely insane regular character the mayor of Quahog. What I like about Chris (voiced by Seth Green) is the things he says show that he takes after his father when it comes to intelligence and common sense.

The only thing I have found annoying is that in the UK Fox has decided to change the seasons to increase DVD sales, which in no way reflect the programme itself but rather the marketing.

If you enjoy Family Guy then I would thoroughly recommend Seth MacFarlane's other project American Dad which uses a different style of humour but is still extremely hilarious.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite the apparent structural similarity with The Simpsons - loud fat dad, housewifey mum, 3 children, a pet, typical suburban home, Family Guy is actually functionally and stylistically opposite to The Simpsons. Its avid use (and sometimes too much) of cutaway gags has been its main stay since the first season. While some hit the nail on the head (The Rhea Perlman and Danny Devito bit in Season 5 is spine-snappingly hilarious), others are less successful, coming across as contrived. And they can be annoying, especially when they don't advance the story line. (The Jesus bits are entirely unfunny and insulting)

The chemistry between Stewie and Brian Griffin lends itself to pure comedy gold, so much so that Chris and Meg only manage to fulfill the role of the obligatory teenagers in your typical dysfunctional family.

However, the feature film Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story, is MINDNUMBINGLY horrible. Thank goodness it went straight to DVD.

Contrary to tiresome comparisons with the perennial Simpsons, Seth Macfarlane's approach with Family Guy is actually very different - it's much more politically incorrect, and amazingly, a lot more brazen.

Creator of Ren and Stimpy, John Kricfalusi, famously criticized Family Guy for having \"extremely low\" graphic standards from a cartoonist's standpoint. I don't think it looks that bad though, the detailing and accuracy of some of the spoofs are quite successful.

All in all, a great series to go with a great big bowl of chips smothered in ranch sauce and ass jokes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Family Guy\" is probably the most ballsy sitcom ever produced. It relentlessly skewers everything it can think of, from TV shows to family drama. Best of all, it's one of the few TV shows on today that's actually funny.

The show revolves around the Griffins: Peter, the obese father whose schemes are limited by his lack of intelligence. Lois, the mother who is more or less the head of the family, even though Peter considers himself to be that. Chris, the fat teenage son who has just as few brains as his dad. Meg, the black sheep of the family that is the but of everyone's jokes. Stewie, the baby who has plans for killing his mother and taking over the world. And Brian, the family dog, who is frequently the voice of reason, but is frequently corrupted.

\"Family Guy\" employs many tactics to get laughs from the audience. Most notable are the frequent cutaways that spoof what has just been said. They are effective because of the impeccable timing, and in how they play out. \"Family Guy\" uses spoofs to get humor as well, most commonly from 80's TV shows. What really makes the show so great is that a person doesn't have to be familiar with what it's spoofing. I'm sure it would help, but the material is funny enough in its own right. But the show doesn't stop there. Not only does it spoof just about everything, it skewers its own spoofs! The show is filled with off-color humor. The only reason why people aren't up in arms about the show is probably because it makes fun of every race, sex and other generality equally. There is nothing sacred here, and no one and nothing is immune from \"Family Guy's\" satirical jabs.

Putting on musical numbers in a film takes a lot of time and effort, and it's a very big risk. But \"Family Guy\" contains some great songs. All well-written and performed, and of course they are hilarious (perhaps the most famous one, \"The Freakin' FCC\" is both catchy, and hysterical because it hits the ratings board where it hurts).

The voice characterizations are right on the money. Seth McFarlane is tremendously talented. He provides the voices for Peter, Brian (which is his own natural voice), and Stewie. Not only are the voices consistent and creative, he can alter their pitch at will, so it really seems as if they are spoken by three different actors. Alex Borstein brings a nasally drawl to Lois that is perfect for the character. Seth Green is unrecognizable as Chris (had I not looked on IMDb, I would have never known that it was him). Lacey Chabert originated the character of Meg, and while she was good, Mila Kunis really elevated the character with her sharp voice. Kunis gives Meg a new, sharper edge that she didn't have with Chabert.

\"Family Guy\" has been compared to \"The Simpsons,\" and that's entirely understandable (and not just because they are produced by FOX). Both are satires of blue-collar life, and while \"The Simpsons\" is good, \"Family Guy\" contains are sharper edge. The show is utterly fearless. There is no real sacred cow. The show lampoons handicaps (physical and mental), ethnicities, TV shows and movies, celebrities, politicians, religion (especially catholicism), drug use and addiction, sexual humor of all kinds (including S&M), and some that's just beyond description. Not everything \"Family Guy\" throws at the audience works, but as a whole, the show is consistently amusing and frequently hilarious.

If there's any flaw with \"Family Guy,\" it's that the jokes run on far too long sometimes. Particularly with the \"awkward moment\" jokes, the sequences are stretched for so long that not only does it cease to become funny, it becomes so irritating (and long) that a fast-forward button is warranted. These can be effective at about 10 to 15 seconds, but the show sometimes stretches these to beyond two minutes. One could argue that the show rewrites its rules to suit the plot, and it often does (for example, Brian frequently acts like a person, but he still acts like a dog when the story requires it). But that's not a problem because the show still works.

Some people have argued that the show has stopped being funny. While I agree that it's not as edgy as it used to be, I think the blame lies with FOX, not McFarlane and his crew. The show originated with FOX, but after some lackluster ratings and viewer turnout, it was canceled. However, DVD sales were large enough for it to be picked up by Adult Swim. The show became an instant success, and it was once again bought by FOX. However, because the show is so big now, FOX is afraid to let the writers experiment and try new things. While it's still funny, the humor is not as fresh and edgy.

Definitely check this show out. It's awesome.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Family Guy has been hilarious for so long but I feel like it lost it's sharp and random humor at the start of season 6. Although I enjoyed Blue Harvest, it felt like the remaining episodes were \"wrapping-up\" - episodes where the producers made little attempt to fulfill Family Guy's reputation of American social satire.

I have seen all the episodes from season 7 and I was utterly surprised and happy that Family Guy has found their true colors again. Season 7 delivers a lot of fantastic episodes and with a lot of jokes about the current situations in America which is exactly what we need right now - more fun.

I feel that the Simpsons has lost its spark all together, this show, however, has made a terrific recovery from going down to proving how perfectly satirical they can be. Great job!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a Russian myself, sometimes it's hard for me to get the reference jokes about American TV personalities or celebrities. Apart from that, Family Guy is the smartest, funniest and most politically incorrect shows seen on earth. The voice acting is excellent and sounds clear enough even for a non-English speaker as myself to comprehend. Animations are good too, maybe even too good for a TV-show. Here we have the equivalent of the Adult Swim Channel, but nothing there simply compares to this gem. Not even Simpsons or South Park. Hope the creators will continue to entertain and amuse us. Don't want to see the whole thing spiraling down into mediocre entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If Family Guy offends you or you simply don't get the humor, unfortunately this show is making fun of you and the masses of overly religious, dull, and politically correct people in America. So put your morals aside and have fun with this show. FG is a hilarious mind opener on the reality of today's society. Whoever said this show is for a young immature audience is very mistaken. With all the references to old movies and politics 10-80 years ago, I couldn't imagine any young immature kid finding this funny. Family Guy is definitely for a mature open-minded audience who are not afraid to criticize American society. Hats off to Seth and the whole crew who were able to make this show happen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely love this show!!!!!!!, Its basically fox's improved version of the simpsons (cau'se lets face it the simpsons are very dry if you're above the age of 9. It's political, irrational, and irresistible. Anyone who says they don't like it is lying, There is a character for every one. Peter, Stewie, & Quagmire are my favorites. Peter because he is rude, obnoxious, and just doesn't give a crap. Stewie because of his amazing intelligence and how he hits you with something an adult would say when you least expect it. And quagmire because one of guilty pleasures is dirty jokes. Also there is an episode for everybody too. If you're the political type there is Mr. Griffin goes to Washington (VOL.2 SEASON 3). If you like more of the sexual and bodily humor there is emission impossible (VOL.2 SEASON 3.). Or if you like any other kind of humor there is dammit Janet (VOL.1 SEASON2).Basicly what i'm saying is that when you watch this show there is side splitting humor for everyone. GIGGITY GIGGITY GOOOOO!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw this show, I was 9, and it caught my attention right away when Stewie was trying to call Lois on the phone in the hotel. I laughed and kept on watching. When the episode was finished, i wrote down the name of the cartoon and watched it regularly. This separates itself from the Simpsons and other shows on say, Cartoon Network because the jokes are more mature, not too much, but it's TV-14 for a reason. The quick film cuts after each punch line and cute, funny movements and behavior of the characters make it special. Talented Seth Macfarlene is the creator and the voice of quite a lot of characters in the show. A good theme song, and a crazy family that there's always something funny, makes this my favorite cartoon along Sealab 2021 and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Check it out it's funny stuff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Family Guy is THE best show on TV. EVER. It has achieved great things that no other animated sitcom, or any show, has even come close to achieving.

In terms of animated sitcoms, this era should be referred to as \"The Era of Animated Sitcoms\" because there are so many of them, and almost every one of them imaginable is being released on DVD. There are some good ones (i.e. South Park, Futurama, and The Simpsons). Every animated sitcom has its own style\/technique of creating humor. For instance, Futurama is funny because it always comments or acts on what just happened with a touch of humor. The Simpsons is also a great show because it uses the same comedic technique and style that Futurama does, but The Simpsons deserves the credit for it since it was on the air way before Futurama and still remains on the air using the technique. South Park, in my mind, is the funniest show next to Family Guy, because it uses a smart blend of vulgarity and silliness as it's technique of creating humor.

But enough about other animated shows. Let me tell you what makes Family Guy so funny. Family Guy uses a comedic style that no other show has ever used before. It uses a technique of having flashbacks occur after every joke. This not only reinforces the joke, but makes it seem funnier. It also moves at a very quick pace. These two criteria make it the funniest show on TV. You have to see the show to believe it, but once you see it, you will most likely agree. (FYI, the two funniest moments on Family Guy were: 1) The 5 minute chicken fight in \"Da Boom\", and 2) The Dick van Dyke spoof in \"Holy Crap.\") Also, in my mind Family Guy is a very modest show because while other shows create humor by getting familiar with their shticks\/routines and characters, most of Family Guy's jokes are based on the silliness of current events and pop culture. This also shows that Family Guy is intelligent, in addition to being modest, because it reveals that the show has insight. And this technique is extremely effective because they relate their pop culture references to the particular plot of the episode they are found in.

Family Guy can be enjoyed by all ages, because while younger children may not understand the pop culture references, they will be amused by the hilarious, silly antics of the characters, especially Peter. The show is, however, a little bit more vulgar than The Simpsons and Futurama, but it is less vulgar than South Park. So, in terms of vulgarity, Family Guy would rank somewhere in the middle when associated with the above shows, but it would rank No. 1 in terms humor and intelligence!!

Sadly, it was cancelled last year, not because it wasn't popular, but because FOX kept changing it's time slot, so no one ever knew when it was on. Luckily, we've got the DVD box sets (which, by the way, are selling like crazy) and reruns on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim available to us.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"> This show is the single greatest thing to come out of America since The > Simpsons. Not only does it have thousands of new ideas, but it's actually > controversial (see the Jewish joke, Season 1, Episode 1) and isn't scared to > \"tick\" people off. However, the great minds at Fox have canceled it, along > with Greg the Bunny and Futurama, so make sure you buy the Season 1 box set > while you still can. It'll be the best money you ever spend. It's > definitely a show that gets better the more you watch it, as at first the > constant flashbacks can get a little annoying and don't always seem to fit > the story properly. However after a couple of episodes you realise how > brilliant it is, and how well it compares to any other show currently on air > at the moment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one great show, that it makes me wonder why it got pulled off the air so many times. But I believe its now here to stay! This show cant compare to any other, Before Simpsons was pretty \"on the edge\" and than came Family Guy, and they are stretching it out to go off the \"edge\". The things this show gets away with is incredible. Totally work the watch! If you like the Simpsons you will LOVE Family guy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I own all family guy seasons so far and i have to say Vol. 6 has been the biggest disappoint of them all. There are still plenty of laughs to be found here but i think Vol. 6 like the last few volumes is slowly providing less and less laughs. At least for me.

The biggest annoyance i had with Vol. 6 is it seems to be VERY heavy in left wing politics. I'm a big believer in if you can laugh at other people you should be able to laugh at yourself but this Volume REALLY seems to shove their political view points down your throat and i think it takes a lot away from the show. Insinuated all conservative sates are horrible places, Insinuating we need more gun control, Insinuated school are under funded, Insinuated religious people are crazy, Bush is friends with the devil.. I could go on and this is just from the first three episodes.

Sure some of it was funny but there becomes a point when you're not making a comedy and you're really just shoving your political views on other people.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Family Guy has to be my all time favorite cartoon.It is definitely the funniest TV show ever made and is better than The Simpsons.I have never laughed so hard at a TV show in my life The things that make the show so funny is the plot,characters and themes that are dealt with in the show.There are very few themes that have not been dealt with on Family Guy.

I have seen just about every episode of Family Guy ever made and would have to say that the show was better in the first two seasons.My favorite characters are Peter because he is very funny and is the best character of the show.My second favorite character is Stewie because he is the funniest villain to be on a TV show.If you love Family Guiy you should check out American Dad because it is just so similar and is created by Seth McFarlane.I hope this show never ends because it is a comic genius! 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seth McFarlane is a true genius. He has crafted a show that is witty, culturally sharp and just downright hilarious.

For those that think its 'offensive' take on social or cultural topics makes no meaningful comment, just causes 'offence', can be pointed to this quote:

Peter (coming out of the stem cell lab): How long was I in there? \/\/ Guard: Five minutes. \/\/ Peter: Why aren't we funding this?!?

Why indeed.

Thanks family guy, for being not only the funniest show on TV (with the possible exception of the much loved, much missed futurama), but for also being pretty clever to boot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the greatest show ever made next to south park. I love this show! it is so funny, and Peter's laugh is hilarious. You need to watch this show right away for the few people who have never seen this show before. One of my favorite shows of all time.

If you can, try to see some of the later episodes such as I dream of Jesus, or Tales of a third grade nothing. But there's never been an episode I didn't like. All of the episodes are absolutely hilarious. It's got a great satire to it as well. You can find a lot of clips on you tube. If you're somewhere near a computer or a TV see it right away however you can.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ignore the comment before mine. The show is comic genius, most underrated show ever. 3 reasons why. Reason 1, the flashbacks are hilarious, who cares if they have absolutely nothing to do with the story, they make me laugh so hard it hurts and isn't that the idea of a good comedy programme? People who think this isn't funny just have no sense of humour. Who cares if they are random, its a t.v. show, you can do what ever you like with it and people say its not realistic, neither is a cartoon, its animated. Reason 2, The jokes are just generally hilarious, Seth McFarlane and the other writers are soooooooooooo funny, everything from the Star Wars references to making fun of celebrities, i love them all. And Reason 3, the story lines are just brilliant and funny, they set up all of the jokes with their crazy nature and wackiness, just all the more funnier.

I caught this one late night on BBC2 and have never gone back, i have all 7 seasons, plus the kind of movie thing (Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story), i have several t-shirts, posters and my collection is still growing. I've never got a collection of any TV show before but this was so funny i just had to get everything.

Just watch season 3 and trust me you will be hooked for life, the funniest show ever created and i hope it never ends!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a brilliant series along the same lines of Simpsons. Following a family as they go through life and problems etc. Slightly less realistic than Simpsons, talking baby and dog anyone? Family Guy goes where SImpsons or Futurama dares not, reaching past into the sicker jokes and more racy gags. And believe me, it works! Almost all the gags hit the mark and they'll have you in stitches(especially the random, frequent flashbacks!) When my brother first showed me this I wasn't hooked but after a few episodes I was hooked. You will be 2. 10\/10 for a truly brilliant show. COngrats to Seth Macfarlane for bringing this show to life. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Romanian cinema is little known out of Romania. No directors from Romania came out to the attention of the international public, as some from other countries from Eastern Europe like Hungary, Czekoslowakia, or Yugoslavia succeeded to do. One of the few great directors in Romanian cinema is Lucian Pintilie, who 35 ago directed a great movie 'Reconstituirea' - quickly taken out of the circuit by the communist censorship. After that film, still a reference for the Romanian cinema, Pintilie was not allowed to create freely in Romania until the Communist rule fell in 1989.

'Furia' reminds me Pintilie's film 35 years ago. The title means 'The Rage' and I cannot imagine why the distributors chose to translate it differently. It is about a lost generation. While in the classic of Pintilie the root of evil is in the oppression and lies of the communist regime, here the young folks need to deal with the emergence of the sub-culture, and the moral filth that filled in the void left by the totalitarian rule. The end is tragic and painfully expected.

The movie is well directed, and the acting is good. Without too much complexity, it succeeds to create an emotional link between the characters and the viewer. One would say that some situations seem similar to '8 Miles' or 'The Fast and the Furious' - but look at the date of the production! This film was made at the same time, if not before the Western peers. If this is indeed the first film of director Dan Munteanu, as IMDB says, it is an outstanding debut. In any case, a good movie, can compete and may sell well on the Western market.

There is hope for a new generation of Romanian films that with some luck and good distribution will make its place in the international cinema scene.

8\/10 on my personal scale.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Looking backwards to that year 2002 when \"Furia\" was made, one can easily recognize the heralding sings of today's New Generation in Romania.

The main qualities of \"Furia\" stand in a very solid script, with a substantial dramatic core and a really professional developing, plus a cast of excellent actors. All four leading roles are admirably performed, both with depth and casualness: Dragos Bucur and Andy Vasluianu confirmed, since then, being two of our best performers today, Dorina Chiriac follows them closely, and Adrian Tuli, a non-professional (in real life, a graveyard manager!) cast as Gabonu, was a genuine revelation!

Further, Radu Muntean's directing is skilled and expressive, creating in a very compelling style that feeling of \"a fateful night\" and inescapable destiny. One can easily pass over the few awkward and even failed moments, since time proved them to be only the uncertainties inherent to a debut, never repeated in his subsequent movies: \"H\u00e2rtia va fi albastr\u00e4\" and \"Boogie\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"now we know radu munteans movies, the excellent PAPER WILL BE BLUE and BOOGIE, but its worth to see again (or at last) this first FURIA, which shows perfectly clear his initial qualities.

its very interesting to see how his beginners talent developed into confirming him as one of the best romanian contemporary directors.

of course, the movie itself is excellent - intelligent and professional script, sure-handed direction, stylish photography. definitely, one of the best - in the most serious and competent sense! also, munteans storytelling sense is compelling and gripping - and he actors... well, they simply rock!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"is not a bad movie but the acting and the screenplay can be better. I like this movie because i have a life that is in good part like the one in the movie. is hard for a lost generation to get a life in Romania, and 90 percent of us choose something else, and that something else includes dealing with people with \"bad habits\" if you understand me but that comes with the territory. this movie represent me and i like it. i have a rage in me that i barley talk with people, i live in a messed up society and i can't fit in and i don't want to,and that's the story of movie also, if you r like me you can understand the true movie, if not you will find it easy and cheap.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie has an excellent screenplay (the situation is credible, the action has pace), first-class direction and acting (especially the 3 leading actors but the others as well -including the mobster, who does not seem to be a professional actor).

I wish the movie, the director and the actors success.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to say that I haven't expected that this movie to be this good. Usually, the eastern cinema presents the communist past in 90% of the films. However, this film surpasses the Romanian Cinema, being worthy of some more advertisement.

The acting is truthfully and not exaggerated, the plot is simple yet complex as it presents the life in the Romanian suburbia, the sound amazed me, the directing was good and what more can I say...

This \"Crash\" of Eastern Europe was drawn me into the film living each moment of it. I have even felt a desire coming out of me, a desire for adventure after seeing it.

Watch it! You will definitely enjoy it!

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My teacher did this movie. It's a new beginning. Watch it, and you won't notice that it is a Romanian movie. The old boring style has gone. Now it's something else. A post-revolutionary movie. It is using the latest imaging technology and mostly unknown artists. They are unique. You won't even know that you're watching, you will be simply transferred beyond the screen and you'll feel every frame. Don't miss it, pay attention to the plot but don't ignore the details. They make the difference between this movie and the others Romanian movies. You will hear some music at some point. It's representative for a part of us, but it does not represent us. Please, just keep your head straight and leave your body free.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is probably the best movie of 2002 regarding Romanian cinema. I do recommend it being an intense drama with no lack of action and thrills. The movie concentrates upon teen life in the Bucharest suburbs trough the main character, not focusing so much on the character's shape or definition but more on the anger that he and other characters feel. The title \"Furia\" means rage rather than anger, but could be regarded in the movie in both senses from the behavior of actors. The rather odd love story (not a typical romantic one, but rather a modern suburban conception) is well shaped towards the end. It is a captivating picture, and cinematography is pretty good in catching the suburban night life thus making it a nice movie to watch and.

You won't get bored for a minute, i promise!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is movie about love,violence,illegal affairs and romanian tycoons. A romanian story combined with an occidental adaption resulting in a modern international film that can be understood both by western audiences but as well by eastern European audiences that HAVE LONG forgotten about the conservative comunist regim over film-making.

A film full of violent fight scenes that are very numerous and create more and more tensed situations as the movie goes on .

A story that impresses because of its view over the hard life from the neighbourhood. Two young men do illegal car races. They work together as a team and prosper from their occupation ,but when they are asked by a local tycoon to lose one race things start to get messy and the fuse from the bomb lights up creating a very tensionated movie that will keep you close to the screen until the ending of it when you will still be asking yourself a lot of questions long after that.

Brilliant acting both by Dragos Bucur and Dorina Chiriac along with high quality directing and screen writing by the young but talented director Radu Muntean also give a unique charm to Furia. All this and many other elements that can be noticed while watching have created a must see movie by all the filmlovers around the world and its message is clear to all not depending of race ,language we speak or country. It is a real hope for the Romanian cinema as it tries to keep up with the more advanced occidental cinema.

I hope you enjoy watching it as I'm sure that all the people that have seen it liked it and understood it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Satisfying fantasy with ships sailing thru clouds with cannons, evil plotters, strange landscapes, manipulations of time, great sets, void of reality, maybe like Never Ending Story or some Merlin stuff. If you like that, you'll love it. Christine Taylor is beautiful. Sword fighting is phoney. Music is delightful. Good wins out, they kiss, all is well, and the cook is pleased.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie for the first time ever on the Sci Fi channel and I must say.. it was simply awesome. For those of you whom loves 'The Never Ending Story' this is one that would bring back memories of that movie. Even though it is a 1996 movie it has a hazy like setting and look which makes it feel like it is, a fantasy. The acting was brilliant and the music was great especially the beginning battle song and end song. To those of you who have yet to see it, WATCH IT! I recommended completely!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This a lovely and charming epic fantasy with lots of heart. I got lost in this sweet film watching it at the Mann's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. It's truly romantic with a touching message.The artwork and the effects are visually striking and the fact that the director is an amazing artist is so apparent. The frames are like watching moving art. It also has a strong and talented cast of actors. What a wonderful surprise to see Joss Ackland, he is just a fairy-tale perfect King. Sarah Douglas is terrific as the villain and Christine Taylor and Tom Schultz make a lovely romantic pair. The fact that the movie was made on a ridiculously tiny indie film budget just blows me away. It may not be the slick Hollywood stuff we're inundated by but it's a really nice movie to rent and enjoy curled up on your sofa on a rainy Saturday. Don't forget the microwave popcorn. That's my advice. Just enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great movie, a must own. I really liked every aspect of it, from the sword fighting, the romance, the costumes were really well done and put together. The scenery is absolutely beautiful. I also loved the mystery and magic. Also the message of the power of love, that love is the greatest power there is. I really like the heart of the king in the sense that he desires peace instead of the bloodshed and hate. I wish that I could live in a world like that with flying ships, to castles in the sky. I also think that it was really nice how they brought the animals into the movie. I also thought that the cook was really funny. I have watched it many times in one day and still never tire of it. Just wish they would bring it onto a DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Philippe Garrel makes us breathe the forgotten atmosphere of the Nouvelle Vague, almost lost among the vestiges of its ancient splendor but ready to rise again from its ashes if recalled from the past. They who are a little acquainted with the director's subjects, on the other hand, may know very well how he's obsessed by a lingering sense of loss as far as fickleness of reality is concerned. \"Les amants r\u00e9guliers\", therefore, show us the parallel stories of an \"amour fou\" and of a tempted revolution gone to ruin under the direction of young French students.

The first part of the story is about the dramatic events of May '68 in France evoked in a series of astonishing plan-sequences, a sort of cinema verit\u00e9 style, that place the student insurrection in anything but an enviable light against a pitch-black background.

There's much that can be said about the peculiarities of black-and-white photography used to describe the battle between students and police, where the high contrasts confer an unrealistic atmosphere to the sequences and darkness closes in upon the excited bodies wrapping them in mystery. The images, completely deprived of words, show the real consistence of the myth, made of crude violence, more and more emphasized by the exasperated reality of the movie shootings. The individual doesn't count anything at all here: he tends to disappear in the mass. What really matters in these fight scenes are the significance of the mass-suggestion, the blind fury of the juvenile assault, sinister eulogies of the power of the mob, even if conceived like separate entities apart from any kind of emotion, with the cold and distant look of an entomologist intent to catalog his insect collection.

The second part of the story is described in a quieter and most intimate way. Stands out on the horizon the distressing portrait of a self-centered generation in search of its lost time, completely disenchanted about the individual values of men, inclined to rotate on its own axis between opium fumes and making a funeral oration in the praise of its recent defeat.

\"Les amants r\u00e9guliers\" seems to evoke from time to time the shadow of the great Robert Bresson, revised and corrected by Garrel's particular sensibility without drifting away from the main argument, trying to expand overall perspectives on the subject of human disillusions that though painful may bring us to the truth. In my opinion, trying to penetrate deeply into the substrate of the story, if a man lets himself go and play things by ear, he probably will find that he can bring out the dark side of his self with dire and irretrievable consequences.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is probably the best new French film I've seen in this century so far. There have been some great ones including Noe's Irreversible, Green's Le Pont des Arts and Hadzihalilovic's Innocencebut none of them come close to Les Amants Reguliers' timeless glory.

The movie is a description of the events of May 68 and what followed in the wake of it and furthermore it is and update of, and a homage to, the Nouvelle Vague-movies of those days. Concerning the depiction of the riots in Paris the movie is meticulously accurate (I'm only 19 and I wasn't there myself but you know what I mean)and the almost real-time and very long riot scenes set the stage perfectly for the aftermath of the events in the streets of Paris. The riots are not glorified or beautifully photographed like the ones in Bertolucci's The Dreamers (to which the movie is comparable in many ways) instead they are filmed in grimy black and white shots courtesy of the excellent William Lubtchansky. The love story that is the movie's main concern after the riots in 68 is filmed in stunning and far less blurred shots and manages to evoke true feelings of love and adolescent confusion in the midst of the otherwise politically concerned and seemingly cold environment.

This film is a beautiful love story and it radiates through it that the director wants to depict his own experiences of those mythical late 60's which makes the film all the more compelling. But the film is also a homage to the whole Nouvelle Vague canon. Much of the dialogue evokes early Truffaut, and the length and non-action and plot less structure is reminiscent of Eustache or Rivette. There are even Godard-like verfremdung-effects with the persons looking directly into the camera and even addressing Bernardo Bertolucci directly. This film is no doubt an answer song to Bertolucci's The Dreamers and it is also a Nouvelle Vague homage but still it stands by itself as a beautiful and radiant love story.

Bottom line: This movie is incredible and if you love French cinema you shouldn't sleep on it. It may be the finest french film since Eustache's La Mamain et la Putain.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the best French movie of the year ! I saw it twice and I found it great both times. I didn't think it boring at all even though it is very long (3 hours). I'm seventeen so I obviously didn't get to live the events of may 1968 that marked an extremely important turn in French history, but it doesn't really matter since I still really enjoyed the film. It's actually quite universal : people of my parents' age can identify to the characters and so can people my age. Garrel seems to perfectly understand young people, the way they think and the complications of love as well as the loss of illusions concerning the possibility of changing the world. Maybe that's because the character played by Louis Garrel (his son)is actually meant to represent Philippe Garrel himself. Well anyway, great movie, no action (have to be honest on that point) but so strong feelings that you can't possibly stay indifferent to it. If you're looking for a relaxing Sunday-evening movie, don't waste your time on this, you'll be disappointed. But if you like cinema, you'll like Les Amants R\u00e9guliers which is a bewitching movie close to those made in the 50's and 60's by the Nouvelle Vague artists.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The reason I am reviewing this is that the previous review, was written by someone who walked out of this film, not even half way through. Unfortunately for him, he missed out on a film of tremendous beauty. Agreed the film was very slow to start, in fact the friend I was with fell asleep briefly,I woke him before his snoring disturbed the rest of the audience. Thankfully the film developed from there into a story of love, drugs and what it was like to be young and free in the experimental 60s. Fantastic performances from the two leads and a great look to the film that gave it a real authentic feel. Be patient, like many great films its well worth the wait, and is certainly a film that I will look forward to revisiting! 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seeing Les Amants Reguliers calls immediately for comparison with Bertolucci's movie 'The Dreamers', in my opinion the best film made about the 1968 revolt of students in Paris. Actually director Philippe Garrel does not seem to avoid comparing with his much more famous colleague, sharing the principal actor and even including a direct replica eye-in-viewer-eye about an older film of Bertolucci. And yet, LAR is a different film, and an interesting one.

The story line seems also familiar. The movie starts with long scenes of the 1968 'emeutes', maybe among the best done until now. The film is made in black-and-white, and the perspective of the static camera on one side or the other of the barricade reminds Eisenstein. Then, as in The Dreamers, the action moves in the Parisian flat where the heroes of the defeated revolt make art, smoke drugs, dream, and fall for one other. There is no direct social comment, no real explanation of the background of the revolt. The movie focuses on the psychology of the characters and on the love story between the main characters. It's like a premonition of the process of transition to the establishment that the generation of the 1968 went through, it's just that not all the participants may adapt or survive.

The film is more about the characters than about the events. And it is merely for the style it will be remembered about. The black-and-white cinema is memorable not only in the revolution scenes, but also when looking at the characters evolution. Many sequences are enhanced by a technique that is derived from the silent films movies, with long takes accompanied by a off piano tune. The effect is exquisite. Yet the length of the film is hardly justified, it lasts more than three hours and I doubt that cutting it to only two hours would have been a miss - actually I am convinced it's quite a contrary.

Without raising at the depth and subtlety of Bertolucci's movie LAR is another perspective to remember about one of the more important years in the history of France and of the world in the 20th century.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very long movie, indeed. But it is quite beautiful, and a good example to show why cinema can be considered art. A story easily told cannot be expected in Les Amants R\u00e9guliers, but every scene, every silence here tells much more than a hundred dialogs. Touching, different, perfect in its pictures and soundtrack, showing why the close brought by the cinema as one of its main features became the greatest innovation in any dramatic representation. Someone who is used to that kind of movies where everything is told, and action takes place all the time, will find this tiring. But it is worth watching, to find out other possibilities of feeling a story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's not like an historical movie, it's not a movie with unforgettable love stories, it's not a movie with a spectacular scenario, but i can surely say it's a movie with a great atmosphere...

It had that 60's kind of bohemian and rebellious spirit: a group of friends living in a poor apartment in Paris, each one making art, dreaming of changing the world, doing drugs and loving in his very own way.

It takes a lot of patience to watch, and a special mood, that if you're not in, you might find it extremely boring and dull.

I liked a lot the very realistic approach of the events that took place and their immediate effect on student's lives: the fear for their future, the difficulty of earning their living, the obstacles in following their dreams.

What i absolutely loved was the black & white image. The still camera angles were amazing, they were like freezing moments. It left me the impression of a long slide show of old and very emotive and suggestive photographs. I actually had to see the movie again, just to take those amazing screen-shots.

In one word: beautiful...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't have a really solid thesis here, so I'm just going to toss out some observations.

First of all, the film is absolutely gorgeous. It's shot in high contrast black and white, and some of the scenes are so well composed that they're almost distracting.

There's a sequence early on of some intense protests, and some of the shots were amazing -- three guys launching tear gas at the protesters, etc.

Second of all, I think that one of the biggest signs that this is a recent film looking back on the 60's is that it's really about how the idealism of the revolution morphed and shifted into something different. The take on this shift is really interesting -- I think that both the political phase of things as well as the artistic and more self-indulgent phase have strong points and weak points. The film doesn't necessarily take the position that things decayed.

Third, I think the romance works very well.

Finally, I really, really, really hated the ending. It was way too melodramatic. You could even say that the ending is unworthy of the film that preceded it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I felt compelled to give some feedback on this movie that I rented from Blockbuster. This movie has it all - comedy, drama, crime, suspense and \"realism\".

This movie also had a lot of action with just the right amount of humor! I will definitely watch it again! There were some funny parts as well as action-packed drama. I enjoy movies that keep you wondering what's going to happen next.

The writer\/director, Travis Milloy, should make more movies!!! In my overall opinion, this movie was great! I'm looking forward to his next one! Travis Milloy has real talent as a writer and director.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You can tell that this is the first offering by the Director (who also wrote it), but you can also see the potential this guy has. This is an obviously low budget film in the spirit of Boondock Saints. Of course, Boondock Saints came out a few years after this, so you could look at this as a diamond in need of some polish. The acting was good - if you're looking for DeNiro or Michael Madsen in a crime drama, remember that these are young guys, playing young guys trying to be criminals. They're not going to be \"supercool\" (tm) like some of the veterans. I would have love to have seen Justin Pagel (Joe - the main character) go on to make more movies - he was great in this. Good movie - 3 stars out of 5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The crew of an American submarine discover it's HELL BELOW while fighting in the Adriatic in 1918.

Although nearly forgotten, this excellent war film still delivers solid entertainment, thanks to a literate script, superior performances and highly believable action scenes.

Robert Montgomery & Walter Huston play submarine officers under the stress of war who quickly are at odds with each other, with dramatic and tragic results. Since Montgomery is in love with Huston's daughter, Madge Evans in a well-played role, the situation becomes even more complicated, both on shore and beneath the waves. The viewer is torn between the two strong characters, one of whom is governed by his heart and the other by the rules.

Robert Young makes an effective appearance as Montgomery's buddy. Sterling Holloway creates a brief, vivid, portrait of a doomed seaman.

Eugene Pallette as the torpedo master & Jimmy Durante as the sub's cook make for a very funny comedy team and provide the story with plenty of laughs. Durante's nose comes in for lots of ribbing and his obsession with amateur dentistry leads to some chaotic encounters with British tars.

Movie mavens will recognize Babe London as an obese Italian miss; Maude Eburne as the wife of a British admiral & Paul Porcasi as an Italian admiral - all uncredited.

MGM has given the film absolutely first-class production values, with the undersea sequences especially well produced. Both the claustrophobic compactness of the ship and the inevitable tension associated with submarine warfare are accurately portrayed. Other moments of unexpected drama (Montgomery & Miss Evans caught on top of a stalled Ferris wheel during an air raid) and hilarity (Durante boxing a kangaroo) are expertly threaded into the fabric of the movie to provide a totally satisfying viewing experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As I type these comments I'm watching a DVD of this movie that I just got from a mail-order dealer, and I'm finding that it holds up extremely well, with strong characterizations, believable situations, and well-staged action scenes.

It's been a good 45 years, maybe 50, since I saw HELL BELOW, but the one scene that made an extremely deep impression on me was Sterling Holloway's death scene, which several other commenters have mentioned here. I haven't gotten to that scene yet on this viewing, but I can vouch for what other comments have said: once you see Sterling Holloway's death scene in this movie, you will absolutely never, ever forget it. Judging from how strong the film so far is holding up, I fully expect that scene to live up to the memory of it -- as unquestionably one of the greatest death scenes in movie history. The movie's worth seeing for that moment alone, but even without it, it would be a first-rate early submarine drama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recommend that movie viewers if in the New York City area go to the Intrepid museum and get some idea of how closed in and cramped the living was for the crews of World War II vintage submarines. How much more so that must have been for the seamen during World War I. It must have truly been hell below.

Walter Huston and Robert Montgomery head the cast of Hell Below, Huston as the by the book captain and Montgomery as his free wheeling number two. They're both quite believable as Naval officers and the rest of the cast like Robert Young, Eugene Palette, Jimmy Durante, Madge Evans, Sterling Holloway, etc. fill their roles quite nicely.

The silent service got more popular during World War II and after. It's amazing, but I could name a whole slew of submarine pictures like Torpedo Run, Operation Pacific, Hellcats of the Navy, Run Silent, Run Deep and many more and you'll see the same plot situations in all of them. I guess there truly is a limit on situations as well.

Jimmy Durante's performance is interesting. He's pretty funny and his scene with the boxing kangaroo while on shore leave is very funny indeed. But I'd have to say a character like him in those cramped quarters is probably very necessary for morale. If you don't have someone like that to break the tension on board a submarine, you ought to get one transferred to your ship immediately.

The highlight for me however is Sterling Holloway's death scene. Very similar to Sean McClory's in Island in the Sky. It will haunt you long after you've seen this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robert Montgomery and Robert Young are outstanding as a duo of young submarine officers stationed in Italy during World War I. The dialog is highly entertaining, and Jimmy Durante is hilarious as the ship's cook, \"Ptomaine\". Walter Huston's character is inspiring as the captain of the submarine, a stellar example of an officer and a gentleman. One of the most interesting aspects of this movie was the level of technology displayed in the battle scenes. I was surprised at how similar the technology of World War I was to the technology displayed 25 years later in World War II. Basic human nature was portrayed as very similar to modern times, and far from the conservativism I thought existed in the so-called \"innocent\" past. All in all I felt that the cast, characters, action scenes, and view of history depicted in this movie were first-rate.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Exciting, action-packed, and interesting film telling the tale of a group of men stationed at a naval base in Italy and their adventures aboard a Navy submarine during WWI. Tommy and Brick (played by Robert Montgomery and Robert Young) are two pals, and make for a couple of very handsome officers, I must say. A new Captain arrives on-board, already known by a few as \"Dead Pan\" Toler (Walter Huston) and he's a real stickler for following the rule book and a \"code of honor\". Soon Tommy and Brick are chasing after an attractive blonde at an officer's dance, Tommy insults the Captain - and, of course, the blonde is actually the Captain's daughter. But Tommy wins out anyway as he and the daughter sneak away from the dance to a street carnival outside, and soon bond during an air raid - unfortunately for him, she reveals she is married. Later Tommy gets himself into some real trouble when he disobeys orders in an effort save his buddy.

This film is quite entertaining with an absorbing plot line that held my interest and top-notch performances by all. A climactic death scene featuring Sterling Holloway is haunting indeed - the most memorable scene in this film, I thought. Eugene Palette and Jimmy Durante add some humor here playing a couple of goofballs - Durante's character is actually studying to be a dentist via mail-order and continually has onshore run-ins with a British man who makes fun of his nose. Okay - if you're looking for a movie showing a man boxing a kangaroo, this would be the one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Good footage of World War I-era ships and planes supplement this excellent war drama set in the Adriatic. Walter Huston is excellent as the commanding officer who knows his place and his place has no room for personal feelings. The safety of the ship and the mission must always come first. Robert Montgomery is the Lieutenant who has not yet mastered the role that a leader must play in combat. He makes bad decisions, endangering the submarine and its crew but finally becomes a \"real man\" after he is court martialed and dismissed from the Navy. Robert Young plays a lieutenant junior grade and Jimmy Durante as a cook. Paralleling the war drama is an equally important wartime love triangle between Montgomery and Madge Evans who plays Huston's daughter and the wife of a tragically injured aviator. Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In my personal opinion - \u00abThe Patriot\u00bb is one of the best Steven Seagal movies.

I've heard people say it's the worst one ever, it's not like SS etc. I disagree. As a highly spiritual person, a great master Seagal established a good tradition in action movies. He always has a good background, great action, high professionalism and a clever message. This movie has it all. You have good shooting scenes, great aikido. Although there isn't a lot of it, it shows us its peaceful side. This change in his film making only proves his spiritual growth (he doesn't kill Chisolm's buddy in the end).

\u00abThe Patriot\u00bb is definitely one of the best films from the \u00abfilmmaker's\u00bb point of view which I have seen lately. You have great panoramic shots of Montana, we see real American nature and beautiful wildlife(among others - horses and flowers). The soundtrack also deserves a few words. During the film I had a great opportunity to listen to classical American-cowboy-western music(not Country though). Similar music was heard in \u00abBack to the Future Prt.3\u00bb. SS's acting has greatly improved since his last films. His role is unfamiliar to him(unlike cops & commandos), but he does a good job playing the-retired-doctor-from-the-government. His acting is convincing and his lines are good.

I was really pleased with the cast. LQ Jones proves that life & death walk the Earth together, Whitney Yellow Robe plays a beautiful and clever scientist, Camilla Belle makes a great appearance as McClaren's daughter.

Mr.Seagal discusses the much debated \u00abReal American\u00bb tradition and the militia squads, providing his own point of view(he likes the Constitution just fine, but chubby bearded men have nothing to do with it). Also good points are raised regarding the Eastern-Western Medicine system and nature.

Seagal's best. And opening new horizons in his film career.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this is one hell of a movie...........We can see Steven fighting around with his martial art stuff again and like in all Segal movies there's a message in it, without the message it would be one of many action\/fighting movies but the message is what makes segal movies great and special.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is another classic Seagal movie. He walks, no, cruises through the patriot just all the other Mega Seagal movies. Nothing even comes close to challenging Seagal in this movie except maybe the part where he has to find a cure for this so called 'plague' and he starts throwing things about the lab but it all works out, i mean lets face it, its Master Seagal, he's got to win. What about his outfit in the film, masterpiece, he must have picked it himself. Its great that everyone in the film is dying after being exposed to the virus but Seagal doesn't even get a cough. The incident at the end when he kills the fat guy with the broken glass, genius, i bet Seagal thought of that one as well. This film is class pure and simple. great plot, great characters, and Seagal.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK...ths film (like Segal's last few films) once again goes beyond the \"knock 'em down, kick 'em in the groin, shoot 'em in the face, get revenge against the bad guys for hurting my sister's niece's cousin\" stuff Seagal was into for a while. Geepers, Steven started thinking, and using his bucks to make movies with actual ideas in them. SURE....there is plenty of action in this flick, but also some thought and heart. It's not an Oscar flick, but well worth the effort, unless the viewer is so into brain dead violence that it hurts to have to think for longer than a second. It's worth a rental..or two!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many people are making fun out of Steven Seagals acting abilities. And I really see why if I remember Fire Down Below. Well...ok his other films are acceptable (regarding to his acting!).

After reading reviews about The Patriot I didn't expect anything from this film. I barely came through Fire Down Below and I read a lot that The Patriot was even worse. So I was really surprised about this one. In my opinion it is one of his very best movies. If it had have more action sequences and a couple more fighting scenes it would be THE best. I liked the story the directing and the actors. Cammilla Belle was just incredible. She will have a great movie-career in the future. The few action scenes were very well made. And Steven Seagal was very believable in his unusual role.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Basically, this is a very good film. It is very different from Seagal's other films though, which unfortunately may turn off some of his fans. Unlike some of the other films, this does not feel like a 'Seagal vehicle'. You get to see plenty of the other characters as well and all of Mr. Seagal's actions are not the same as we've seen before. The concept of him being an 'intellectual' in something other than bombs and other weaponry is a nice change. Although there are some unrealistic parts to the film (some more obvious than others), in general you can let them slide since the film is fun to watch.

It boils down to this: If you are looking for a classic Seagal action film, sorry, but you're going to be disappointed. Watch it anyway for the fun of it. If you're open to seeing Seagal without the action, it's well worth a look. I personally believe it is some of the best work he's done in quite a while.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Man, I think people have forgotten how to watch a movie. Everyone thinks they're a critic. They comment on things that the average movie goer doesn't even know or think about.

I enjoyed the film. It was what I was expecting therefore was not disappointed. Steven gets a bad rap for putting his views into his films but that's also a reason to watch. What's even more funny is the people that complain about his films, say he's the worst and that we shouldn't watch his films, yet watch his movies anyway. All so they can comment on how bad they are. Who's the dummy? If you don't like his work, don't watch it. Then you won't have to subject yourself to this supposedly painful event.

Stop comparing movies to other movies and watch a movie on an individual basis and you may begin to enjoy films again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It seems that all people didn't like Steven Seagal: Just take a look at his nomination list, there are only razzie awards nominations (with one win) for him, but I think he didn't earn anything of it. I saw good movies with Steven Seagal, I saw bad movies with Steven Seagal. And THE PATRIOT (1998) is one of his best movies, nearly as good as UNDER SIEGE (1992) or HARD TO KILL (1990). THE PATRIOT shows his activities to protect nature. Surely, this movie is not a great one, and I must say that there is more violence than I like, and why must Seagal's best friend L. Q. Jones die the death of a victim? The role of Dr. McClaren is one of Seagal's best performances. He has, as always, a very good charisma. And in summary, THE PATRIOT is good entertainment-and with an average rating of only 4 points the most underrated movie of all time.

Regards, Hans-Dieter","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed The Patriot. This movie had less violence and was based on a real life threat that could inevitably destroy our civilization. One line in the movie from wesley mclaren (seagal) stuck out in my mind to be very true of our society, \"western medicine is in the practice of prolonging illness and I am in the business of curing it.\"

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Patriot is a well thought out, well produced film, that will draw the viewer into the story directly, and keep them involved to the very end. Granted, it is not in the same vein as Under Siege, et. al., but this is definitely the trademark film of what might be described as Seagal's second era of films. Not so much Action movies with a nod to a story thrown in for good measure, but a good story, matched with a point, and injected with some of Seagal's unimitable action sequences. Is this the kind of film that hardcore action junkies will enjoy? Probably not. But for those of us who not only like our action, but also can appreciate a well told story, this is a big step forward for Seagal. It's almost like the transformation Clint Eastwood made as he tried to step out from underneath the shadow of his \"Dirty Harry\" series. Either man, had he continued in the singular direction they were headed, would have forever been keyholed in in specific role and guaranteed the brevity of their careers...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Five Fingers of Death\" started the American kung-fu movie craze but I remember seeing it for the first time as \"King Boxer\" in Chinatown, NYC, without the bad dubbing and few Americans. I also was fortunate enough to see the American premiere of \"Five Fingers Of Death\" on Times Square, NYC. What a contrast this turned out to be...same film but different audiences.

In Chinatown, this film took on a more serious tone to the viewers. It was because of hearing the real voices of the actors(In Chinese) that made this movie more believable. Chinatown theaters were showing violent kung fu films for years(1972's \"Boxer From Shantung\" beat them all in gore), so the action choreography & story were the main attraction. Rival school plots were not overused yet so the storyline seemed fresh. Every great kung fu film had wonderful, dastardly villains you wanted to see get their comeuppance and FFoD had them too. The star, Lieh Lo, was a known actor in Chinese theaters. The mostly Chinese audience enjoyed this film immensely. The audience buzz while leaving this film gives the final satisfaction to me.

On Times Square, this film was an action comedy...probably unintentionally. I enjoyed it here too but for different reasons. The crowd was ethnic and quite energetic. From the start, the movie made you laugh. As soon as the audience heard those strange British accents come from those Chinese actors the movie turned into a violent and gory cartoon. Most American audiences saw this kind of gore in a horror film not in an action film. The action sequences blew the audience away. Unfortunately, the movie studios saw that they enjoyed it so much that, bad dubbing and unnecessary violence became a kung fu flick formula.

I had fun seeing this movie with an American audience but enjoyed it much more in Chinatown. Some films can pass the test of time but the dubbed version of FFoD can't. The original \"King Boxer\" is still enjoyable...a CLASSIC!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is truly a kung fu classic. This film appears to have influenced martial arts films for decades. The Spanish guitar background music, the competing schools, the impossibly high leaps onto the edges of rooftops, catching thrown spears, cheating in tournaments, the secret training for an exotic karate technique, themes of patience and perseverance, and more were copied by many later films such as \"The Karate Kid\" (1984), \"Hero\" (2002), \"Kill Bill Volume 2\" (2004), and \"Kung Fu Hustle\" (2004).

I feel lucky to have first seen this film in 1972, shortly after it was released, just before kung fu films became mainstream and before Bruce Lee became a household name. I saw it with two buddies of mine in a downtown San Diego theater frequented by sailors, and although the scenes of the glowing red hands and gouged eyeballs got some laughs, clearly the audience was getting into it, as was our little group. It was a very memorable movie for me. Decades later I could still recall several specific scenes, even after I had forgotten the film title. This film is extra special to me now because one of those two buddies with whom I first saw it (sailor Kenneth Lee Hines of the Kitty Hawk) has since passed away, so this film serves as a memento of that day together before we took judo and karate lessons in subsequent years.

Relative to kung fu films, I'd rate this film as 10\/10. But since I have to keep the larger film audience in mind, I'll more objectively rate it as 8\/10, due to obvious technical flaws. I just recommend that neophyte viewers consider those technical flaws to be proof of its vintage nature and of its authenticity, and then merrily proceed to enjoy its testosterone-charged mayhem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Five Fingers at the Drive-In in...what, 1973, '74? It was the the first Kung-Fu movie I'd ever seen and I was greatly entertained. I recently bought it on DVD and watched it again. I was greatly entertained the second time, too. I believe this is probably the one most Kung-Fu movies are modeled after. Rival Schools, different styles, revenge, \"white hat\" good guys and \"black hat\" bad guys. They even threw in the Japanese (VERY bad guys) styles of Karate and Judo. I remember being amused by the dubbing dialog, along the lines of \"Hey You! You are a very bad guy!\" and \"They should not get away with this! I will have a go at this bad crowd!\" This time it wasn't so distracting, I guess I'm used to it. If you have even the slightest appreciation of this genre, this is one you should see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my favourite kung fu movie. It has a very authentic flavour, seasoned by an eerie music score (of tradition chinese instruments, I think), and some wonderfully over-acted melodramatic moments contrasted by heavily affected comedy. Indeed, while attempting to create their own \"Western\" (i.e. Cowboy film) genre, the Chinese concocted a whole new animal, marked by kung fu fighting and its associated sound effects.

The story of Five Fingers of death is simple, a story of revenge (for killing a loved one) and the pursuit of the main character to master the \"iron-fist-technique\" that will enable him to wreak holy vengeance on his enemies. There is even a love interest, though the awkward, polite kind (found in most Chinese films of the period). The end result however is great and much more authentic than any Bruce Lee movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the very first kung fu movie that I have ever seen. The dubbing is not the greatest but alot better than some that I had seen. The plot is much better than some that are made today. It is gory at times but that is what gives it that special push. Academy award material is it not. But if you like to watch fights and a decent story backround, this is for you!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Five Fingers of Death\" is a classic of 70's kung fu cinema. As the film that \"broke out\" HK cinema to the west, this is a must see for any serious fan of the genre. It's also a damn entertaining film, with hard-hitting, non-stop action, solid and mostly believable fight choreography and great over-the-top 70's era dubbing (\"Oh I see ... so you want it THE HARD WAY!! HWAA!!\").

\"Five Fingers\" is an eye-for-an-eye revenge tale ... and I mean literally, eye for an eye! It's great to see Lo Lieh portraying a hero. He played so many great villains later in his career - including Pai Mei in the classic FIST OF THE WHITE LOTUS, which was one of the characters Tarantino used in creating the Pai Mei of KILL BILL.

My only complaint is that I wish there was a better quality DVD - mine looks like it was a VHS transfer. Overall this is a great film - don't miss it!

Bart Blackstone Film Club - Hollywood, CA","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While it's generally acknowledged one of the first martial arts movies to play here in the West, it's real impact comes in retrospect. Lo Lieh is VERY low key throughout and many of the fight scenes, while often hailed as innovative (which they were at the time of the movie's initial release), are a tad tame compared to what came after (particularly after Bruce Lee, who became the instant standard by which all others will forevermore be judged). That's not to say that FIVE FINGERS OF DEATH\/KING BOXER is anything less than a classic in its own right, because it is. Like many of the leading characters in many martial arts movies, the character Lieh plays lays low through most of the movie for a reason- but, when he cuts loose, he effectively cleans house. You can't ask for more than that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The martial arts movies got huge in the 60's in parts of Asia but with the growing popularity of the infamous Shaw Brothers films, America was bound to catch on. This movie was the first to be presented in America under the Warner Bros. label and it did in fact start a craze here that flooded the 70's with martial arts films. Many of the films to follow would pale in comparison but some were great and many like Enter The Dragon (which came out shortly after this one) became huge success stories and made superstars out of these fighters.

Fast forward almost 40 years later and this movie still holds up. Most Shaw brothers films are as good today as they were back then and truth be told no films have been made in this genre to compete with those made by The Shaw Bros back in the day.

I like to think Martial arts are like porn and nobody watches porn for the plot just the action, well same goes with M.A. films and most of them are just a bunch of great fights with little story, this one is an exception. It doesn't have an amazing story but there is one there.

The main guy played by Lo Lieh actually stands out amongst karate film heroes. He never brags and he never fights just because he can, he is often seen as weak and less of a fighter than most, but when he must fight, he is damn well the greatest alive. I really loved this character. Many of the bad guys were memorable and the fight scenes were just presented so amazingly. Even a small role with Bolo Yeung can be seen as the huge Mongolian, and Bolo is in my top 5 as greatest martial artist film stars ever, he was also in the above mentioned Enter The Dragon.

The production as I've said over and over is wonderful, you can't beat the Shaws, the direction was something unlike I have seen much in films of the 70's, the use of color was well placed and made this movie stand alone and rise above the others. When the light shines on Chi Hao's hands as he does the Iron Fist, its pure beauty.

The music was superb as well. Martial arts films were to Asia what westerns were to Italy, two separate art forms with so much in common. The countries making these films had all genres but the Japanese films were what was making waves there as the spaghetti westerns were in Italy. With their many differences the styles of these two genres were neck and neck. As seen in movies like 5 Fingers Of Death, the fights were easily compared to Sergia Leoni cowboy stand offs, and the music tied the genres together so well. The music here borrowed a little from Ironside, but it was still very original.

Many films were inspired by this one and when I watch it I can see everything from The Master Killer to Bloodsport having been influenced. The most obvious movie to have been influenced was Kill Bill, which to me is the greatest of all time. Many of the sets Quentin used are complete replicas of ones seen here and he used the music from this film, even though the music he used was the music borrowed from Ironside. And the fight scene at the end of Kill Bill vol. 1 with The Bride and O-Ren is at times exact in comparison to the fight with Chi Hao and the Japanese thug at the end of this movie.

I have seen many martial arts films, a few even better, but this is a MUST-SEE for fans of the genre. You can't go wrong here. The movie starts off slow but 15-20 minutes into it it picks up and doesn't slow down.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hong Kong filmmaker Chang Chang Ho's 1972 martial arts movie epic \"Five Fingers of Death\" is widely considered by a great many film experts and kung-fu movie fanatics to be the martial arts movie that started it all.

Being released in 1972, it was phase-two of the three-step process that would lead to the explosion of martial arts movies in the West - \"Billy Jack\" (1971), with its famous Hapkido showdown in the park, was released the year before, and Bruce Lee starred in \"Enter the Dragon\" (1973) two years later, thereby solidifying martial arts movies' place in Western cinema.

But what is all the hoopla about regarding \"Five Fingers of Death\"? The movie, with its terrible dubbing, explosive (if not highly improbable) action sequences and technical flaws and all, has a plot, albeit a very thin one. Chih-Hao (the late Lo Lieh) is a young and dedicated student of Chinese gong-fu who is selected to represent his school in an upcoming martial arts tournament. His teacher offers to allow him to self-train in the \"Iron Fist\" style of fighting, a style so deadly that it could very easily kill a man with only one blow.

Additionally, Chih-Hao's arrival at the school coincides with a violent conflict with a rival school, its students, and a trio of murderous heavy hitters from Japan. Before you know it, a major setback threatens Chih-Hao's training, and his ability to represent his beloved school in the upcoming tournament.

Let me just say that \"Five Fingers of Death\" is in fact the movie that started it all. As another viewer mentioned, \"Five Fingers of Death\" helped to set a lot of standards in martial arts movies over the next three decades - Asian, European, and North American martial arts movies. Such standards include the dedicated student, the learning of patience and endurance, conflicts between rival schools, the intense ethnic animosity between the Chinese and Japanese, and learning a system of fighting for that good old-fashioned action movie motive: revenge. \"Five Fingers of Death\" would also serve as a major influence on American filmmaker Quentin Tarantino's \"Kill Bill\" movies (Tarantino borrows quite liberally from this project, among many others, just so you know).

The acting is pretty good, considering the fact that this is a martial arts movie from the early 1970s, the best of which is Lo Lieh. As the atypical student of the martial arts, his performance is quite groundbreaking, though upon first glance at this movie you wouldn't really know it because of how that particular character arc has been done to death so many times over the years. He's quite humble in his acting, doing anything he can to persevere over his enemies and not fight them in anger or stoop to their level of stupidity or arrogance. Also, when he suffers his major setback, it does make your heart sink a little bit because it's so brutal and you wonder if he's going to recover enough to realize his life-long ambition.

\"Five Fingers of Death\" is a classic in every sense. It's by no means perfect, and viewers would be crazy to expect something on the caliber of the \"Godfather\" of martial arts movies. What it does offer you is the ultimate example of Eastern hand-to-hand combat from the time before Eastern cinema was a major fixture in the West.

7\/10

P.S.: \"Enter the Dragon\" Bolo Yeung also appears as the Mongolian street fighter near the beginning of the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having recently seen Grindhouse, I was browsing in Video USA looking for some movies that might have played in real grindhouse theatres in downtown areas during the '70s. The Hong Kong action flick Five Fingers of Death seemed just such a picture. The cartoon-like sound effects and the quick jump cuts seemed a little distracting at first but after a while I was so involved in the story and the characters I didn't care. Parts of the music score sounded like the \"Ironside\" TV theme song that was subsequently used in Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill movies. Some scenes involving the hero's fianc\u00e9 seemed to border on parody but they were so brief that they didn't ruin the film. The most exciting parts involve the tournament and some revenge segments after that. Well worth seeing for kung fu fans!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Five fingers of death: Although previous Shaw Martial Arts epics had shown the influence of the American cowboy genre, none had paid such open tribute to it as this one, especially in the saloon fight scene. And though Shaw Bros. films had borrowed from the Japanese chambara (swordfight) genre before, none had done so with such success as this one. i suppose some of this had to do with the fact that the director originated from Korea, and thus brought a non-Chinese perspective to such borrowings, which certainly raises some interesting questions about culture; but in any event, this film presented real innovations in technology and technique in Hong Kong action films. for the first time in Hong Kong, the camera was given access to the whole of any given set, which meant shots from many different angles, such as the low-angle interior shot showing the ceiling of a room (the original American innovation of which usually credited to John Ford), or the high angle long shot that allowed visualization of a large ground area, or the frontal tracking shot.

It is true that this was not the first hand-to-hand combat film of real cinematic substance - that remains Wang Yu's 'Chinese Boxer'; but on a commercial level, Shaw Bros. were right to choose 'Five Fingers' as their first major release to the West because, one might say, it was the 'least Chinese' of their action films, that is, the least dependent on purely Chinese theater traditions. Although this made no impression on the American critics at the time (who universally trashed the picture), it wasn't lost on American audiences, especially among African Americans, whose culture had always been - by necessity - an eclectic patchwork of borrowed elements and innovation. In 'Five Fingers' they were given the opportunity to discover the core of the story, in the earnest young man forced to make the extra effort to overcome social barriers and betrayal in order to have his merit recognized. This seems to be an issue universal to Modernity, but each culture has its own way of expressing and resolving it; 'Five Fingers' presented it in a way many Americans could relate to as well as Chinese.

So is the film now only of historical value? Certainly not. For one thing this issue hasn't gone away. Secondly, some of the innovations leave much of the film looking as fresh today as it did on first release. Also the action is well-staged, and the performances, though a little too earnest, are crisp. The film is a might over-long, but the story does cover a lot of ground. And there are marvelous set-pieces through-out, such as the saloon confrontation, the fight on the road to the contest, the odd double finale.

definitely looks better on a theater screen, but still impressive for home viewing: recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was first introduced to this movie while in San Antonio, Tx. This movie was the 2nd. in a double feature. Unfortunately, the theater where I saw this was torn down. Anyways, Five Fingers of Death (aka: King Boxer), was released in 1972 and introduced in the U.S. the following year. Like a lot of \"other\" Kung-Fu movies released while riding on the \"coat-tails\" of Enter the Dragon, this particular movie actually was pretty good. It's the story of a country boy who is sent to a martial arts institute to better himself & his fighting skills. Meanwhile, the \"opponent\" martial arts school plans & scheme to thwart our hero, utilizing dirty tactics to try to throw him off track & try to prevent him from participating in the tournament. By surprise, I had thought since Warner Bros. distributed this movie in the U.S., Warner Bros. was going to issue a DVD. It never happened. As far as I know, this movie has been released in both English & Cantonise, w\/sub-titles.....the latter a more \"cleaner & clearer\" version. Although the fighting sequences are a bit funny to watch (i.e.: flying in air & hitting, jumping on buildings, a fighter using his head....literally....to hit his opponent, etc.), nonetheless, it's classic kung-fu action wonderfully planned & executed. If you like Enter the Dragon, Five Fingers of Death would be an excellent addition to any Movie collection.....if you can find it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well as a life long fan of Kung Fu films I have to say this is one of the best I have ever seen. Sure there is nothing special about the plot but man does it entertain. As does most movies of the genre. This film is packed with action and does not boar its viewers. It's so damn fun when I watch I have a smile on my face the whole time. This also has an impact on future films like Kill Bill. (Many of Kill Bill's Sound effects come from this film for example.) This is essential viewing for all knew viewers in Kung Fu. Form open to close this film is filled with fights that really are some of the better I have seen in the genre. There are few Kung Fu films out there that measure up to the sheer magic and entertainment of this film. So if in search of a Great Kung Fu movie check this one out for sure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The skeleton of the story is that the main character needs to win a public kung fu tournament with high stakes. The flesh of the story consists of LOTs of fighting, a love triangle, betrayals, rivalries, and revenge.

There is a lot to this story. The main character is very likeable as an even tempered, mild mannered, and very tough country boy. A good versus bad movie is only as good as the villains and the main villains are tough and smart, not to mention ugly, devious and tricky.

If there is one weakness, it's the scene where the fiance of the main character is imagining her and the protagonist running towards each other in a flowery field and hugging when they meet. I thought I was watching The Sound of Music for a second and nearly lost hope for the movie. Luckily, the movie recovered quickly with a fight scene.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Released as KING BOXER in the U.K.

This film was essentially the FIRST kung fu film to go on general release in the U.K. Many of us had ratcheted through Kurosawa's astonishingly gritty and involving dramas and were used to oriental film being beautifully shot and lit, with somewhat restrained pacing, all in all like leafing through an album of very fine still photographs that just happened to be moving.

Along come Run Run Shaw and co. with their widescreen \"home movie\" production values, and astonishing ripe-for-parody dubbing and all the rules have changed. KIng Boxer was the first in through the door, leaving a clearly marked trail for others to follow with their feet planted firmly on top of the blazed footsteps.

In spite of hokey plots, pantomime acting, cheesy jump-cuts and spaghetti western style snap-stepped zooms, this film was marvellous. Gorgeous without being opulent and with the most brilliant fight choreography ever to grace a screen. We loved the sickening violence, the anguish, the testosterone. The martial artists among us found some of the techniques fascinating, if flamboyant and oftentimes silly. It was so very different from the Japanese stuff we all knew, and it had lovely acrobatic grace that perfectly complemented the sickening violence and bloodstained floors. Delightful.

The \"KIng Lear\" scene was, at the time, quite a milestone in schlock \"You cruel bastards.. My **** !!\" Now it's rather less shocking, but still a bit of a gut-churner

We didn't notice that any females in sight were absolutely one-dimensional. After seeing more films of the genre, it now stands out like a sore thumb, but at the time it didn't matter

This film defined what would rapidly become the kung-fu movie clich\u00e9s. All of them. Watch it and remember that until this burst onto the western screens, there was no genre for it to slot into. It was unique and awesome. It was the first kung fu movie and it still is, for me and many others, the best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie on the base movie theater while in the Air Force so my affection for it might be influenced by the reaction of the raucous audience in attendance at the theater that night. But I do think that this movie was one of the first popular kung-fu movies and helped to begin the trend in the early 70's. It's worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is the best kung fu film of all time. Although there is not wire-work and special effects like those used in Crouching Tiger, this movie uses ingenuity and creative camera-work to create memorable fighting moments, and the fight scenes are well choreographed and tight. There is a ton of action in this film with lots of great fight scenes, but the story is very good too,with lots of twists and turns. The characters are well rounded and have real depth to them, as the motivations for their actions and personality are revealed in a much greater detail than most kung fu films. There is some really great camera-work in the film, with my favorite shot starting as a close up on our hero's face showing his reaction, then pulls back quickly to reveal the scene before him that is the cause of his look. Originally, I bought the movie to hoping see some great fight scenes, but upon multiple viewings I learned how terrific the acting and story were as well. Overall, a great film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Crimson begins with some cool jazzy music so I liked it immediately, but as the film wore on I began to wonder if the music wasn't the best part. We have some thieves pulling a jewel heist and when one does something wrong the alarm is triggered and the cops chase them and when the car turns around at a road block one of the thieves (Paul Nash, Jacinto Molina, whoever he is here) gets shot. Now, it seems like he might die but with the help of a drunken doctor and his mad-scientist friend (and wife) he is saved, with a part of the brain of some nightclub owner called \"The Sadist\". The Sadist is unfortunate in that the gentlemen that kidnapped him lost their knife to remove is head, so to add insult to injury (or, in this case, death), they remove his head using a train, leaving the body for the authorities to find, oops. Once the brain transplant is complete Naschy wants to ravage any woman that comes near him, because he now has the mindset of his donor. Well, of course this is all pretty improbable and features medical equipment that looks to have been purchased at Radio Shack, and overall it's pretty cheesy and sleazy. But, it has a good early 70's look and feel to it and the music is cool. This isn't so much a horror movie but more a thriller with lots of thugs battling it out over turf and babes and other thug-type things, but it's strangely entertaining in ways I can't begin to describe. 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The undoubted highlight of this movie is Peter O'Toole's performance. In turn wildly comical and terribly terribly tragic. Does anybody do it better than O'Toole? I don't think so. What a great face that man has!

The story is an odd one and quite disturbing and emotionally intense in parts (especially toward the end) but it is also oddly touching and does succeed on many levels. However, I felt the film basically revolved around Peter O'Toole's luminous performance and I'm sure I wouldn't have enjoyed it even half as much if he hadn't been in it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peter O'Toole is a treat to watch in roles where the lines he speaks are good and offer a chance for him to swagger in drunken stupor. The lovely Susannah York provides a good foil for O'Toole's dramatic presence.

The film alludes to incest--without a single explicit scene--but it is able to entertain the viewer in its raucous social commentary. Though this is not major film by any reckoning, it will be remembered for its entertaining performances.

Even York, signing the papers at the end, is a treat to watch, exuding tragedy silently. The possible weakness here is Thompson's laid-back direction. But the film floats because of the actors and the script.

I saw the film twice over a period of 20 years--on both occasions with the name \"Brotherly love\". \"Country dance\" is a rather farcical and inappropriate title for this movie, wherever it was released as such.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A somewhat typical bit of filmmaking from this era. Obviously, It was first conceived into this world for the stage, but nonetheless a very good film from beginning to end. Peter O'Toole and Susannah York get to do their stage performance act for the silver screen and both do it effectively. There is very little in the way of story and anyone not familiar with this type of off beat character study may be a little put off by it. All in all, though, A good film in which Peter O'Toole and Susannah York get to overact.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After all these years, of Peter O'Tool's brilliant, costly giving of his Soul, film after film, at last, Hollywood tosses him an Oscar recently.

Country Dance showed up one night late, and of course, blew me out of my complainant niche in my alleged \"Life\". How does he do it?

York again also is brilliant in this kind of play. Both psychological battleships loaded for bear....

Bravo to author, director, cast, and camera crew. No wonder the Nazi's lost to these Irish, Scot, English blends....brutal honesty hurts...back in the 70's, when I personally believed \"honesty\" was pure and absolutely vital to trust. I have modified my edgy extremes, and will settle for more human, warm flaws within myself and others.

Forgiveness allows humanity to have a reverse gear, and allows us to fix our own bull headed egos and erotic mistakes....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this back in 99 and I remember loving it. Still to this day I can remember parts of the movie in my head, like the slanted pitch. Unfortunately from 99 - now I could never remember the name of this until I was looking through the filmography of a friend of my uncles and came across this (he played Clive Kennard). Straight away after reading the description I knew what it was. After catching up I was shocked to find out that not only did it not make a release on video or DVD but still has yet to be repeated. This is a massive shame, I am begging you ITV at least repeat this superb TV Movie. Nick Hancock showed in this movie he could do more than just host a show with his character Mike Tonker. This is a movie that most football fans would love and even those who aren't too keen on the sport would be able to enjoy the comedic value of this. Yes this is a brief review but there is not much to say apart from this is an underrated movie, deserves to be repeated or released on video\/DVD so ITV, myself and other fans of this movie beg you. PLEASE CONSIDER ONE OF THOSE!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having obtained a copy of Bostocks Cup I must confess It is not as funny as I originally thought!! IT IS BETTER!!!!! Charlie Williams ... eat your heart out. Match fixing???? Never! Sloping pitch at 45%? Ronnie and Reggie Kay? George Best? The Coach Driver who thinks Pontefract is in South Wales ( It's all Ponty this and Ponty that)Bertie Masson's (Tim Healey's)lucky Cup hat!! (not that he's into gimmicks) Sugar Plum Fairy????? Confused???? Watch it again. The innovative use of real footage with Bostock players was brilliant and the producer should be proud of giving us a MASTERPIECE. Come on ITV do the viewers and yourself a favour - show it again!!! Please>","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As you can see I've submitted 2 comments about this show since 1991....and no, ITV have still not made it available for general release.

HOWEVER, I recently contacted ITV to see if there was any way of getting hold of a copy, and this was their reply.......

\"Unfortunately there are no plans for this programme to be released on DVD\/video. You can however, purchase copies from our Viewers Requests dept. Their email address is: viewers.requests@itv.com \".

Hope you all now get the chance to enjoy this classic short comedy again.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":".... could it be that ITV wouldn't want to release this absolute classic because it would show up their current series of Mike Bassett for what it is? When discussing Mike Bassett with some work colleagues I mentioned Bostock's Cup as being a far superior offering and was surprised to find that I seem to be the only person in my entire office that has actually seen it. This can't be right for a film that has got to be the funniest thing I have ever seen.

Let's face it, ITV don't have the greatest recent record for producing comedy so you would think that they would jump at the chance of at least repeating something which is genuinely funny. Perhaps if it could be combined with a lucrative telephone competition of where we think the coach driver will go next then they might be interested.

Come on ITV, there are still some of us out there who would like to watch original, quality comedy\/drama. Do the decent thing thing. Repeat it then get it out on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Airplane apart, I don't think I've ever laughed at a film so much in all my life.

I love football like mad, but I tend to hate almost any song or film about football as they tend to be unrealistic. This wasn't.

I watched it once, it was over 2 years ago & it was brilliant. Everyone I know loved it. I remember the gay physio, the sloping pitch at about a 45 degree angle and 'Shoes' (a player so named because he once turned up for training in a new pair of shoes). Brilliant, that's what goes on in park football.

A definite 10\/10. If anyone from the TV industry is reading this, considering all the crap you repeat on English tele, please have the sense to show this again (and the Muppets while you're at it). Also does anyone know if this was shown on BBC or ITV. I think it was ITV, so it's worth asking them if they plan to show it again. They should do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't add much to what has been said already, except I'm going to have to because of the 10 lines minimum policy.

I've actually got this on a VHS-to-DVD copy, but the quality is quite poor and I desperately need for it to be officially released.

I can just imagine what extras I would like to see (Tim Healy's character swearing his way through one of those 'Football Bloopers' type programmes would be great!). You can imagine it now, can't you? But of course, it looks like most people will have to carry on dreaming about a DVD release.

Surely to God there must be someone in the DVD releases department at ITV who also knows something about British culture, is web savvy and has enough about them to look at IMDb now and again? Oh, well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Can't believe that Bostock's Cup isn't available on a proper video or DVD yet. I've only seen it once, on a dodgy copy taken off the TV and despite not being a footy fan (at all,) thought it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

The famous sloping pitch of wherever it was, the clueless coach driver (\"Ponty-this, Ponty-that\", \"I'll take the next exit\"), the pointless plot; it all added up to aching sides.

Being stuck in the US I'm desperate for some good British humour but not quite enough to spend the amount that the production company are asking for. C'mon, get it out on kosher DVD pronto.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a crazy film!It lasts 12(!) hours and you don't understand who these people are and what are they doing!The main plot is about a bunch of clueless actors trying to bring on scene \"Prometheus\",but there are lots of sub-plots,like the disappearing of Thomas and a crazy guy looking for Monsieur Warok....what's the meaning of all this???","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This documentary is not only one of the best documentaries I've seen, but also one of the most moving and quietly beautiful movies I've seen period. It follows the lives of two Sudanese young men, Peter and Santino, as they try to make their way into the American culture. Peter and Santino are friends at first, but they gradually drift more and more apart, as Peter goes to Kansas City, and Santino stays in Houston (\"a land called Houston\"). Santino's beauty is in his eyes. He takes people onto his back, he supports an apartment full of other Sudanese, paying the rent, doing everything for other people. He is a quiet sufferer. Peter looks out for himself, getting a high school education while playing basketball and making Christian friends. It seems that director Megan Mylan did not know what she was getting herself into with the beauty of this tale. Peter and Santino are amazing characters that move you. But the real strength in this movie lies in its commentary on American society. It is not judging. It shows the strengths and weaknesses of our world, and how difficult it can be to outside people. I suggest you find this film, and look at America through the lives of these two fascinating and beautiful people.

My grade: 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Sudan, the Arabs rule and are constantly at war with the Christians and Animists who inhabit the southern portion of this East African country. This film follows a group of of Dinka boys, a tribe of cattle herders, whom were left orphaned after their village was destroyed and their families killed in a brutal attack carried out by the Arab forces. Most of these boys are now teenagers and have been dubbed \"The Lost Boys\".

The filmmaker follows a group of the \"Lost Boys\" on their journey, as they have been accepted as refugees in the US, where they will land in Houston. Those who've been accepted as refugees gain celebrity status, as they feel (from what they've heard) that America is amazing. Making a trip from Sudan to America is like \"making a trip to heaven\" says the one young man. A huge party is thrown for their departure, and they are told to do Sudan well, and once they have been educated, to return to Sudan so that they can contribute to Dinka society. They are also warned not to be like \"those with the baggy pants\" whom are responsible for the negative stereotype of Black men, and also, no matter what happens, not to forget the Dinka culture.

You watch as the boys come from a third world country into America and how they attempt to integrate into American society, as they have gone from a place with practically nothing to this plentiful world where everything is massively overproduced and overconsumed. They are taught about cleanliness and how to use all the utilities that we take for granted on a daily basis. It is humorous at times, humbling at others.

Listening to the comments they make about Black Americans and American society\/culture are quite interesting. As the film progresses you see how American culture begins to corrupt their previously humble ways of thinking.

One of the boys, Peter, is not content with working and making just enough to survive, so he up and moves from Houston to Kansas City so that he can pursue an education. When the other boys visit him, they talk about how they cannot get into any schools. The main reason they came to America was to get an education and the media is saying that the boys have been brought from Sudan for an education. This is occurring because the boys were given arbitrary ages, making them older than they actually are, preventing them from being able to enroll in high school.

The film juxtaposes images from Houston to Kansas. We watch as Peter enrolls in school, where he befriends a group of Christian conservative kids, and as Santiago attempts driving school(even though he drives without his license anyways), and works at Walmart. We see Peter struggle with high school life as he strives to make his schools basketball team, and as Santiago has trouble keeping up with work, the rent, appeasing tensions back home in Sudan, and most of all, coping with loneliness.

It comes to the point where the boys want to return to Sudan, and tell them that everything they are taught about America there is lies. \"You must make it alone here, do everything alone\" one of the boys says. A damning message to a Liberal Capitalist lifestyle, showing how it causes people to become radical individualists (a trend which led to the creation of both the neo-conservative and radical islamist movements). Their biggest beef with America though, is that there is no time; time is money and we don't waste a second!

Despite all this, the boys never lose their sense of Dinka culture. They celebrate Southern Sudan Liberation Day, which marks the day which the SPLA began to fight in Sudan, a fight which continues today. They also meet with other \"Lost Boys\" on the anniversary of their arrival in America, where they discuss their experience in America as compared to back in Sudan. When asked, one boy says that if he were able to make a living he would much prefer to live in Sudan. It is much too lonely in America he adds. They never lose their sense of community, which has been conditioned into them as part of their culture!

This film makes us question the way we live, makes us question the artificial happiness that materialism and the nature of our societies has created within us. It will also change the way I look at refugees, I will never again take for granted how hard they must work and what immigrants mean for a country such as my own, Canada. This is a wonderful film. I laughed, I cried..a very emotional journey, and a very well made documentary. 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've heard about this documentary for so long I knew I needed to take the time to watch it. As a documentary it's very well done, in that it takes a neutral observant view of their experience. There are no voice-overs, or interviewing. It is honest. It is true. It is also humbling. Two comments really stayed with me after the film was done. One was how the boys are told to not to become like the American boys who wear the baggy pants, and how in Africa there is time but no money, but in America there is money but no time. The biggest impact was how the boys hungered for education, and how one of the boys totally relocated himself so he could go to school. I watched this film with a high school sophomore who said it upset him to see how the boys were brought to their new life without any real orientation to America. He also said he knew so many American teens who simply cannot appreciate howblessed their lives are in America. I would agree with him on both accounts. A strong film that will leave a person thinking about many things.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well made documentary focusing on two Sudanese refugees who get resettled in the United States. It's your basic fish out of water story with a non-fiction twist. I found it fascinating to see how Peter and Santino lived prior to coming to America and how they adapted once they arrived here (in Houston, Texas.) They expected a sort of heaven but found out that it's a lot harder than it looks to cope well in the states. They go from hopeful idealists to somewhat more realistic skeptics. Everywhere they go they meet bureaucrats with paper trails that most citizens may take for granted. They fret that they are blacker than the African-Americans here and don't feel accepted because of that. One of the \"Lost Boys\" manages to leave Houston to go to Olathe, Kansas, where he finds conditions slightly better but still less than ideal. There are people that try to help them as well as try to hurt them in this film. Not shown, but talked about, are those who put a gun to their heads and robbed them, leading one Lost Boy to comment negatively that \"all black people in America are no good.\" I found it interesting, too, that they arrived in Houston in August 2001, a month before the World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists. I had hoped to see their reaction to this tragedy but it's not mentioned at all. Still, all in all, a really well done documentary with no narration. None is needed really. The \"Lost Boys\" do a fine job expounding on the events going on around them without any help at all, thank you very much.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you have not heard of this film, it follows two Sudanese refugees from a refugee camp in Africa to America, where they convince themselves they will find success and riches. Life is harder than expected in the states, and this film beautifully captures the frustration felt when things are not going right. The lives are captured so well many moments seem scripted because they're so perfect. Whether it be on the job, at school, or the time in between, the two boys, Peter and Santino, are very honest with the filmmakers, and make some very thought-provoking comments about life in the states. It's one of the only documentaries I can recall that, when it ended, I wanted it to go on for another two hours. It might be difficult to find this movie cause it didn't get great distribution, but check your local \"art house\" or independent theater and give this one a go (side note, if you're reading this when it's already on video then definitely it's worth a rent). Rating: 28\/40","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peak Practice was a British drama series about a GP surgery in Cardale \u0097 a small fictional town in the Derbyshire Peak District \u0097 and the doctors who worked there. It ran on ITV from 1993 to 2002, and was one of their most successful series at the time. It originally starred Kevin Whately as Dr Jack Kerruish, Amanda Burton as Dr Beth Glover, and Simon Shepherd as Dr Will Preston, though the roster of doctors would change many times over the course of the series.

The series was axed in 2002 and ended on a literal cliffhanger when two of the series main characters plunged off a cliff. Viewers wrote to ITV in their thousands and a petition for one last episode was set up by website Peak Practice Online. However, all pleas were unsuccessful and ITV said they would not make any more episodes.

Peak Practice was replaced by Sweet Medicine, another medical series set in Derbyshire. It lasted a few episodes before it was dropped from the schedules.

Cardale was based on the Derbyshire village of Crich, and the series was filmed there and at other nearby Derbyshire towns and villages, most notably Matlock and Ashover. After the end of this programme, ITV attempted to launch a follow-up series called Sweet Medicine, which extended the stories of different characters from the original show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I mention that there may be a spoiler here just to be cautious because of what I discuss, although I don't really think I am giving away anything important. Any \"suprises\" are really unimportant to this film's success or a viewer's ability to enjoy it.

While not without some very minor flaws, this is a beautiful and very moving film about friendship, time, uncertainty, and the choices people make about their lives. Yet, at the same time, it is also a very humorous film, with small, mostly understated bits of comedy woven in throughout. For much of the film, it progresses at a fairly leisurely pace, but it does not seem slow at all since the film draws one into it and into the lives of the characters, and at first it is mostly rather light-hearted. Some have commented that much of the film seems slow, but it is such a wonderful portrayal of the lives of such sympathetic characters that one could watch it almost endlessly. As it progresses, the film becomes more emotional and moving up to the very end and the progression is handled wonderfully.

Eventually, some of the characters decide to rob a bank and although it is perhaps somewhat hard to believe, that is beside the point. It is a wonderful addition to emphasise the love that these friends have for each other while at the same time it accents the humour and adds a little more irony to the film. And, although hardly original to have a bunch of old guys rob a bank, the context and details are quite original and they do it wonderfully, making it really quite funny as well, such as when Ismet (if I remember correctly) exaggerates his aggressiveness to \"disguise\" the fact he's old.

As I said, most of the other comedy is rather low-key but still very humorous so I was constantly chuckling throughout.

The actors are probably the real key to this film. They imbue the characters with deep personality and sympathy and portray them with great care and warmth. There are some small transformations or tiny details of the characters' personalities which are pulled off smoothly and beautifully. Of course, the film is about the personalities of these very characters and how they care for and interact with one another. It succeeds so well because of them and if lesser actors had the roles the movie could well have failed.

Gule Gule is not without sadness, but that simply provides the full range of emotions and provides a more powerful experience. In fact, the film is so moving and filled with so much love from such rich characters that it is in the end a very heart-warming, satisfying, and even happy film despite its sadness. I could watch it over and over.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is the best movie on acting I have ever seen. All the artists are old Turkish theater actors, they are magnificent in this movie.It is sometimes said that \"They do not act, they live it\", you can really see this in this movie. The director is also competent, you cannot see lots of moving cameras around but the positions of the cameras are also good. But after the acting, the most outstanding part is the content of the movie. It gives happiness, enthusiasm, desire to live, importance of real friends to people. We all started to live individually nowadays, in this film you see that there are someone other then us. And most importantly, you see that the most honorable feeling in the world is love, loving your friends, loving your darling. All people should see this movie...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The great James Cagney, top-billed in big letters, doesn't show up till the movie's second third, and probably has less screen time than Dudley Digges, who plays the eee-vill reform-school potentate. But when Jimmy arrives, as a deputy commissioner of something-or-other out to reform reform schools, he slashes the air with his hands and jumps on the balls of his feet and spits out punchy Warners-First National dialogue with all the customary, and expected, panache. The psychology in this crisp antique, one of Warners' many efforts to assert its place as the \"socially conscious\" studio, doesn't run deep: Digges is bad just because the script requires him to be, and there's the quaint notion that juvenile delinquents will turn into swell kids if they're just given a dash of autonomy. But it's made in that spare, fast style that the studio specialized in, and it never bores. Frankie Darro, who got into all kinds of onscreen trouble during a brief tenure as Warners' favorite Rotten Street Kid, is an ideal JD -- a handsome, charismatic toughie with a pug nose and a hate-filled stare that could wither steel. No kid actor today can touch him.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a typically fast-moving entertaining movie of the early 1930s. When you have James Cagney in the lead, these \"pre-Code\" films are even better: just fun stuff to watch. Usually, when films are \"dated,\" it's a negative but not so with films from 1930-1934. Yeah, with the slang and the attitudes, dress, hairstyles, etc., they are dated but that's a big part of the fun. These films have an edge to them that almost always are fun to view.

They also have a corniness which is appealing and fascinating. You see people - like the juvenile delinquents pictured in this film and their goofy parents - that you just don't see in any period but this one (early '30s). Early on this movie, the kids go before the judge and you sit and just laugh at these crazy characters that appear in court on behalf of their kids, one after the other. Yes, we get the stereotypical emotional Italian father; the Jewish dad; the Anglo-Saxon mom and a few other moms who all, in dramatic form, plead theirs is \"a good boy.\" Even though things are predictable in some cases, you don't mind because everyone in here is so much fun to watch.

This also teaches you that kids were punks 75 years ago, too, stealing, robbing, mugging, lying - hey, that's the human condition. This movie debunks the theory that \"people were nicer back in the old days.\" No, people have always been rotten or good. The degree was aided by their environment, parents, financial situation and other things. Here, we get a bunch of \"Dead End\" kids who wind up in Reform School.

The ridiculous and stupidly-liberal storyline has kids acting immediately like angels once they run the show at the reform school; not punished in the slightest for causing a man to fall to his death and setting the institution on fire (the explanation: he was a meanie and deserved it. So much for real justice and reform.); and \"Patsy\" shooting a guy bit never having to even be questioned by police because he's the good guy! Notice the subtle anti-religious dig in which the only guy seen praying is the evil \"warden.\" That's no coincidence, no accident. That sort of negative-association things has been going on ever since the Hays Code was canned in the late '60s and was seen, as you see hear, in the Pre-Code early '30s.

Dudley Digges, by the way, is outstanding in his \"bad guy\" role of \"Mr. Thomson.\" I especially his voice was very effective and could picture him playing one of those similarly-evil roles as an institution boss in a Charles Dickens film adaptation. Cagney played his normal role, the take-no-guff tough guy who gets the pretty girl, \"Dorothy Griffith,\" played by Madge Blake. Frankie Darro also was effective as the leader of the boys, \"Jimmy Smith.\" Just the looks on Darro's face alone made his character believable. Some thing he was the real star of the film, but I'll still go with Cagney. The rest of the reform school kids weren't too believable and they were really ethnic stereotypes, but they were all fun to watch.

I thought the most interesting part of the film was the first 20 minutes when we saw how bad these kids were and witnessed the good and bad and stereotypical parents in the court after the kids were arrested. Those scenes are pure 1930s Dead End Kids stuff. They always showed the kids to be bad news at the beginning of the film, but by the time the story was over they all looked acting more like Wally and Beaver Cleaver - hardly rough \"delinquents.\" It's very far-fetched but it works, entertainment-wise.

Overall, a hokey but very entertaining movie, typical of Cagney films and those of the early '30s. Almost all of them rate at least eight stars for their entertainment value.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"James Cagney, racketeer and political ward heeler, get to become a Deputy Commissioner of Corrections and visits a boys reform school. The catch is that Cagney is not in it for the graft, he genuinely wants to make a difference in the lives of the kids there because he comes from a background like their's.

The villain of the piece is Dudley Digges who is a grafting chiseler and a sanctimonious hypocrite to boot. One of the subtexts of the plot of The Mayor of Hell is that these kids are mostly immigrants and those that judge them and are in positions of power are those who are here a few generations. Note in the mess hall scene as Digges offers a prayer of thanks for the food they are about to receive, Digges is eating well, but the kids are getting quality you wouldn't feed to your pet.

Cagney has his own troubles back in the city with some of his henchmen and he has to take it on the lam. That puts Digges back in charge and setting up the film for it's climax.

The Mayor of Hell was a typical product from the working class studio. And because it was pre-Code it gets pretty gruesome at times. A later version of this, Crime School, with Humphrey Bogart and the Dead End Kids, was a more sanitized remake.

Although Cagney is fine in the lead role as is Madge Evans the school nurse, the acting honors go to Dudley Digges. Hard to believe that the same man could portray the drunken, but kindly, one legged ship's surgeon in Mutiny on the Bounty. But Digges is a fine player and a joy to watch in every film he's in.

This film is not shown to often because of the racial and ethnic stereotypes it portrays. A whole lot of minorities would be offended today. Still it's a fine film.

Interestingly enough a few years ago the film Sleepers came out and it touched on some of the same issues. I guess films about reform schools don't change in any time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"James Cagney (The Yankee Doodle Dandy Boy) was just starting his career and was able to perform as a gangster and also a social worker for a Boys Reform School which is being run by corrupt politicans. The reform school inmates are underpriviledge minors from the streets of New York, like the \"East Side Kids\" who were poor and uncared for during the great Depression. In the final scenes, there is a trial held by the reform school boys with flaming torches and a barn which is set on fire and a big leap by the corrupt warden. I noticed that they did let the horses out of the barn first. This film is not shown very often and I really can understand WHY!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This one of those social dramas that WB knew how to put together and were guaranteed boxoffice hits in the thirties. This early \"dead end kids\" are sent to a reform school where they are mistreated. Cagney, a gangster as part of a deal is appointed as the commissioner of the school. He doesn't take it seriously at first but he changes and makes the necessary changes to improve the lives of the boys. The idea is to let the boys rule and administer their community. Whether this is sound social reform is beyond my belief but it's a movie. It's a lot like Boys Town with a slight darker tone. A useless happy ending deluges what impact the scene prior hard but is still good. WB would later make this same movies with Bogart in the Cagney\/fatherly role.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Remember - before there was Sidney, there was Dudley.

Dudley Digges is barely recalled today - because his heyday as a fixture in sound movies was the late 1920s and through the 1930s. Except for one major performance: the ship's good natured, if tipsy doctor in the 1935 MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, most of his films are barely revived. More's the pity because he was a wonderful actor. In 1931 he played Casper Gutman (the original actor to play that villain) opposite Ricardo Cortez's Sam Spade in the first THE MALTESE FALCON. Similarly, about the same time, he played the recording angel in Leslie Howard's version of OUTWARD BOUND - the same role that Sidney Greenstreet tackled in BETWEEN TWO WORLDS a decade later.

Digges could be likable and lovable (that ship's doctor again), or detestable (in CHINA SEAS, as the judgmental First Mate sneering at poor Lewis Stone but then proving he's as big a coward in a moment of crisis). He held his own against Paul Robeson in THE EMPEROR JONES. He is the Chinese freedom fighter working with Gary Cooper in THE GENERAL DIED AT DAWN. Digges could do anything.

Here, he is Mr. Thompson, the hypocritical and thieving warden of a reform school that Frankie Darro and his friends are sent to for committing a robbery and injuring a Greek-American store owner (it is the latest incident for most of them). Digges is as bad here as in CHINA SEAS, but it is a close thing to totally dislike him. He's able to somehow transcend his roles...more later about that.

Darro has a gang of urban delinquents (including a Jewish boy and \"Farina\" from \"OUR GANG\"). As pointed out in another review, it is a prototype of the Bowery Boys. We see them shake down car owners to pay them to \"watch and protect\" their autos. When one guy won't do it, they calmly wreck his car. The snatch and grab robbery at the store of the Greek-American is also rather graphically shown - his skull getting fractured when pushed.

The boys are rounded up and brought before stern but decent judge Arthur Byron, who realizes that he can't leave the kids with their parents: the parents are unable to watch them, or are incompetent. Unfortunately there are three racial stereotypes in this sequence: a Jewish father who is more concerned with his business than with his son, Farina's stereotype \"Yassum\" father, and the an Italian father whose willingness to cooperate gets his son out of going to the reform school.

Once there the boys find the regime oppressive. Occasionally one of the guards or the nurse (Madge Evans) tries to speak up for them. But Digges has no time for coddling. His is a regime determined to break the boys so they behave themselves. Unfortunately, Digges and his bookkeeper partner are greedy. They have been serving inferior food to the boys and pocketing the profit.

One day a new official comes from the state to look at the reform school. It's Jimmy Cagney, who is a hack ward heeler whose gang got the vote out for Edward Maxwell. As a reward (he could not get the Park Commissioner post) Cagney was made an Assistant school inspector. He is supported by his hanger-on pal and factotum Allan Jenkins (in his first Warner Brother film).

The irony is that if Digges were a bit more careful, Cagney would probably have let him continue running things. But Cagney arrives to see Darro brought to Digges for fighting. The Warden and Darrow have had problems about respect earlier, and Digges now intends to punish Darro who flees - but get seriously injured by Digges' barbed wire fences and his free use of a whip. Cagney stops Digges and lets Evans treat Darro's injuries. And she explains the reality of the situation to Cagney, and her own idea of real reformatory reform of the boys by building up trust in them with responsibility.

The film follows this to the end, showing that Cagney and Evans are on the right path, turning the reformatory as a \"republic\" for the boys to run properly. This leads to conflict with Digges, whose profiteering is reduced as he is no longer getting supplies. But the scheme is derailed when Cagney himself finds he may be in serious trouble with the law. Digges sees his opportunity and fully takes it. But then he goes too far...far more than he ever bargained for.

The 1930s had many films showing kids taking steps to right wrongs and change things. Darro appeared in such as WILD BOYS OF THE ROAD. Cecil B. De Mille did THIS DAY AND AGE, where the kids teach a lesson to a gangster played by Charles Bickford that scares the hell out of him. So it went in the 1930s. THE MAYOR OF HELL reaches a similar intensity of vengeance and juvenile justice seeking. But that's the one problem of the film. Digges' character is a knave and hypocrite, so we never really cheer for him, yet if he wasn't a thief we might go along with his view (even if it is counter-productive). The scenes at the start of Darro and his gang preying on people actually make the harshness Digges would follow seem fairly understandable (even if his thieving ways are not). Also he has one moment when he's justifiably angry at Cagney - at that point in hiding from his own clash with the law - giving orders over a phone from long distance to a befuddled Digges. When Digges learns what's actually happened he is justifiably furious at Cagney lecturing him about proper behavior. It is the closest thing to making Mr. Thompson sympathetic in this fine movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Mayor Of Hell\" has the feel of an early Dead End Kids film, but with a much harder edge and very few light spots, preceding the first appearance of the Dead Enders by four years. James Cagney has a full screen opening credit, even though technically, the 'mayor' of the movie's title is actually portrayed by Frankie Darro, one of several boys sent to reform school during the opening scenes. Darro's character is Jimmy Smith, a young tough who's befriended by 'Patsy' Gargan (Cagney), and is elected to the position when Gargan takes a chance at humanizing conditions at a state reformatory.

Warner Brothers made a lot of these types of films, attempting to provide a conscience of sorts in an era that only too well knew about the effects of crime and poverty. This movie is quite gritty, with no apologies for ethnic stereotyping, as in the submissive posture of a black father in court or the way a Jewish kid gets to run a candy shop in the reform school. The rules at the reformatory are simple enough - work hard and keep your mouth shut; step out of line and you answer personally to Warden Thompson (Dudley Digges).

Cagney's role in the story seems somewhat ambiguous, since even though he makes a serious effort to improve conditions inside the reformatory, on the outside he's still nominally in control of a criminal racket. The film's attempt to juggle this dichotomy falls short in my estimation, the finale attempts to wrap things up in a neat package as Gargan awaits the outcome of a near fatal shooting of one of his henchmen. Not exactly the kind of role modeling one would look for in a film like this.

Warner Brothers would sanitize some of the elements of this story in a 1938 remake titled \"Crime School\", featuring Humphrey Bogart in the Cagney role, and Billy Halop in the Frankie Darro part. If you're partial to the Dead End Kids you'll probably like the latter film better, since it also offers familiar faces like Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Bobby Jordan and Gabriel Dell. However the ending is somewhat muddied in that one too, with Bogart's warden character involved in a cover up of a prison breakout. Both films offer a romantic interest for the lead characters, in 'Mayor', Madge Evans is a reform minded nurse that falls for Cagney's character.

Curiously, a lot of James Cagney's early films aren't commercially available, so you'll have to keep your eyes peeled for a screening on Turner Classics, or source the film from a private collector. Personally, I can't get enough of this kind of stuff, and find intriguing points of interest in the films of all genres from the Thirties and Forties.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Frankie Darro was a wonderful child actor who excelled at playing pugnacious little toughs with gigantic chips on their shoulders. He appeared in a couple of top films of the early 30s - \"The Public Enemy\" (1931), a ground breaking crime drama and \"Wild Boys of the Road\" (1933), a topical depression era movie about kids who ride the rails. He was essentially a younger version of James Cagney. Although short of height, his willingness to do his own stunts kept him employed in a series of programmers when the bigger studios had no more use for him.

\"Crime School\" was supposed to be a remake of \"The Mayor of Hell\" but it had far more humour in it and featured The Dead End Kids and Humphrey Bogart as a very laid back Deputy Commisssioner. \"The Mayor of Hell\" is really a combination of \"Hell's House\"\/\"Crime School\"\/ \"Boy's Town\". Even though Cagney didn't make his appearance until around the 25th minute his impact (as usual) was immediate. He plays a hot headed gangster who is on the payroll of a political group run by the mob.

Jimmy Smith (Frankie Darro) and his gang (including \"Farina\" from \"Our Gang\") run a car washing racket but bite off more than they can chew when they rob a general store and push the owner through a plate glass window. They appear before the juvenile court and are sentenced to go to the state reformatory. It is painted in glowing terms - a model school where boys are given a chance to learn a trade. In reality, it is a hellish place run by a sadistic warden, Mr. Thompson (outstandingly played by Dudley Digges). The only compassionate person is Dorothy Griffith, the live-in nurse (played by Madge Evans).

\"Patsy\" Gargan (James Cagney) has been given the job as the new Deputy Commissioner, as a favour. On his arrival at the school he witnesses a failed escape attempt and after talking to Dorothy, realises the school needs sweeping reforms. He is soon running the school and brings in a system of \"self government\" - rather along the lines of \"Boy's Town\". Even though Cagney doesn't have a lot to do, the picture is carried along to it's gripping climax by the energy of Darro. After \"Patsy\" is temporarily out of the picture (he accidentally shoots a mobster and has to leave the state), Thompson returns and his brutal treatment, resulting in the death of a boy (\"Skinny\") turn the rest of the boys into an angry mob. They burn down a barn and Thompson falls to his death - \"Patsy\" returning just in time to quieten the mob with some sobering talk.

Sure, all the boys seemed to get was a stiff talking to for their crimes but I do disagree with one of the reviewers - Thompson was more than just a \"meanie\". His sadistic treatment resulted in a boy's death. There is a scene at the beginning where the boys are served some inedible slop - Thompson orders ham and eggs and keeps piling the butter on his bread while talking to Dorothy.

Allan Jenkins plays \"Uncle\" Mike and Sheila Terry, although billed only as \"a blonde\" has one of the most memorable lines when she pouts and says \"I thought there was going to be young boys here, where are they?\"!!!

Highly Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is not a 'real' James Cagney vehicle since his screen time is unusually slim. Frankie Darro plays tough kid Jimmy Smith, the leader of a gang of street thugs that is sent to reform school with a few of his hoodlum friends. Cagney plays Patsy Gargan, a gang leader himself, who is given a token position as a deputy commissioner. When he finds out first hand of the brutal treatment dished out at the reform school, he is compelled to make some major changes with the help of the reformatory nurse(Madge Evans).

THE MAYOR of HELL is fast paced and is still entertaining after all these years. The cast is well rounded featuring: Dudley Digges, Arthur Bryon, 'Farina' Hoskins, G. Pat Collins and Allen Jenkins.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Years ago, I didn't love and respect the films of Jimmy Cagney nearly as much as I do now. I noticed that many of Cagney's films done with Warner Brothers in the 1930s lacked realism and his acting style was far from subtle. However, the more I watched these films, the more I found I was hooked despite these aspects. In fact, I now kind of like and expect them! Fans of old time Hollywood films probably understand what I am saying--teens and other young whippersnappers don't! Well, when it comes to entertainment, THE MAYOR OF HELL never lets up from start to finish. While the idea of a shady character like Cagney played taking over running a reform school is ridiculous, and while all the changes he made also seemed far-fetched, it all somehow worked out and delivered solid entertainment.

The gang of tough thugs were pre-Dead End Kids and instead of the likes of Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall and Billy Hallop, similar roles are played here by Frankie Darrow and Farina. Yes, I did say \"Farina\". This Black actor was already famous for his roles in the Our Gang comedies and was, believe it or not, one of the highest paid child actors in Hollywood. All he needed to give up in return was be named an insipid name and act like a nice stereotypical \"Negro\". Here, he actually was pretty good and the usual Black stereotypes are a bit more subdued than usual. However, some will cringe at the very funny but horribly offensive court scene involving Farina and his dad, Fred 'Snowflake' Toones. With awful names like \"Farina\" and \"Snowflake\", don't say I didn't warn you.

Apart from this small complaint and a plot that is tough to believe, the film is exceptional and fun. The kids do a great job, as does Cagney and Dudley Digges in a truly despicable but exciting role as the evil warden. Also, as an added plus, you get to see perennial Warner stock actor Allen Jenkins in his first role for the studio.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is a show that is great for adults and children to sit down together and watch. The stories are a little slow for adults but they are still good. There are lots of children in my family, boys and girls, and it is hard to get them all to agree on what to watch, but they always agree with each other when they want to watch the Mystic Knights. It is a wonderful show and I hope that they will continue to keep making it. All of the kids in my family and myself think that Vincent Walsh is the best of them all. We have seen that he has done lots of other work and think that he is doing a great job. We wish all of the actors, actresses, writers, directors, and producers the best of luck and would just like to say keep up the good work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a fan of history, mythology, and fantasy \"Mystic Knights\" show pulled me in from the get-go. It has semi-decent scripting, the costumes are fantastic (there are exceptions), it has pretty good acting, and the heroes and villains all play well off each other.

SCRIPTS--Half a script is pretty great, the other half falls flat, but its all mixed together, meaning many episodes turn out so-so. Also, some of the key players are repeatedly being given dead lines (King Conchobar and Angus for instance) they need to be given something... more. I'm not sure what but the writers should be able to come up with something. ACTING--Apart from some over acting by villagers (horrid lines they end up putting too much effort into), casting did extremely well in choosing their leads and so on. Everyone, good and bad, works well together! COSTUMES\/WEAPONS--The everyday clothes that everyone wears are spectacular! Mystic Knight armor that falls short are Deirdre's and Garrett's. A chainmail bikini would probably have better protection in her case... and wouldn't look as plastic; his looks like bunch of snap-it-together pieces of brown plastic, when it should look bronze. Ivar's trident looks like it was bought at a discount store and while Garretts weapons look cool, they also look plastic.

Recently \"Mystic Knights\" has taken on too many \"Power Rangers\" traits, if you watch the show, you'll know what I mean. As the series progresses, though, it should find its niche and perfect its style. Overall, it is a wonderful show that all ages should enjoy (most of my friends and I watch it and we're all 20+). The plot thickens and twists, though it gets a bit juvenile in places, and everything just keeps getting more interesting. It might be of some interest to fans of the movie \"Willow\" or the T.V. series \"The Adventures of Sinbad\". A lot of adventure, a dab of mystery, a dash of romance, a sprinkling of forces at nature... Check it out! (My Score: 7\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"True, there are some goofs, for the one who wants to find them. They're not important, though.

The primary feature of this film is watching veteran expert actors do their craft. Kristin Scott Thomas is beautiful and plays well the part of a strong woman, but one who has been hurt. Same for Harrison Ford, who, for the ladies, is just as beau as Kristin is belle for us guys.

Their hurt at the hands of their adulterous spouses brings them together in an awkward manner, but one in which they find support in each other. How they evoke their hurt feelings and their humanity within on th screen is why these are such sought performers. The viewer cannot help but feel what they feel, nor can one help wanting to cheer them when they're together.

Yes, there are several action scenes involving angry corrupt cops, but they only spice it up a little, and are not a significant part of the movie.

For the lover of music, Dave Grusin provides a superb Jazz based background, featuring trumpeter Terrence Blanchard. Like the actors, Grusin shows why he is one of the most sought musical consultants in the movie business. Blanchard shows why he's one the premiere trumpeters on the scene.

Not a movie for the lovers of guts, blood, and gore. But for those who want to see a lot of what makes us feel inside, watch a beautiful English actress with big expressive blue eyes who can act, like Harrison Ford, to the endless soothing accompaniment courtesy of Dave Grusin and Terrence Blanchard, this is a move to watch with someone you love. Preferably in bed.

I thought it deserved at least an 8.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I admit I have been a fan of Harrison Ford for many, many years now so it didn't surprise me that I enjoyed his performance here. But I also enjoyed the way the storyline developed and thought the casting was well done. I don't know whether I \"buy into\" Kristin Scott Thomas as a Congresswoman but she is a fine actress and a beautiful woman. I took notice of her in the first Mission Impossible. Although her part was small she stuck out on the screen.

Here her and Ford play people whose spouses are killed in an airplane crash. They are seated together and this is where the plot takes off. Apparently Ford, a police detective in Wash D.C., discovers that his wife was having an affair. He further discovers that the affair was with the husband of a New England Congresswoman.

The story takes on many subplots as Ford and Thomas find themselves drawn together by revelations of their marriages, the uncovering of deceipt, and the pure grief and anger over the loss of a loved one.

I think the movie is worthwhile either renting or catching on cable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Random Hearts snuck up on me. Criticized for the implausibility of a) the premise and b) the pairing of an IA cop and a Congresswoman, as well as for its slowness, the film felt just fine to me , and even ended up being surprisingly absorbing. I found my interest engaged as the film cut back and forth between Ford's and Thomas's lives as they first found out about, and dealt in very different ways in very different environments with, their spouses' deaths and the subsequent revelation that they were involved with other people. It could happen; two people's philandering spouses could be on the same plane, the plane could go down, the survivors could be brought together by the aftermath. So what if it's improbable? Improbable is not the same as far-fetched. So..what if it did happen? Why not speculate?

Ford's and Thomas's performances are believable and nuanced. Instead of finding their coupling implausible (opposite sides of the tracks--give me a break) I felt it driven by a grief and betrayal neither party knew how to deal with. The script does not bring them together too soon or too easily, and the end of the film does not resolve their relationship conventionally, either. Where I find it unsatisfying is when the dialogue brings up interesting wrinkles in or insights into the ramifications of the situation, personal and professional, but never seems to pursue any of them very far. And if you make the mistake of thinking about it too hard, Harrison Ford does seem about 10 years too old for the part.

For five and a half bucks at Wal-Mart, with full length director commentary and behind-the-scenes featurette, the DVD is well worth owning. I don't think I would pay $20 for it on a bet, but my wife might. OK, ten...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must be getting old because I was riveted to this movie from the first time I saw it. I'm watching it again right now on HBO. It's a very simple film about 2 people that fall in love after they found out that there spouses were having an affair. Plot is very thin, but the actors acted very well in this movie. In the mix of Kristen Scott Thomas running for congress and Harrison Ford being an Internal Affairs cop, these two meet, under unfortunate circumstances and fall in love. I love the soundtrack. Perfect fit. One thing I can't figure out, this movie had a budget of $68 million dollars. Were was it spent? The plane crash or Harrison Ford's salary?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Random Hearts is a very well directed, well scripted and perfectly cast actors for the primary roles. I found it to be so intense, that you have to stop and wonder in almost every scene Harrison and Kristin are together, how their characters deal with this horrible situation they find themselves in. Very talented acting from both of them. A lot of people I believe who did not appreciate the movie for what it was, did not get the point of the movie or could not even fathom a situation like theirs.

(please skip this next part if you have not seen the movie yet)

I loved the ending, which was a great surprise which tied the whole movie. It was relieving to see how these two good persons can come out actually happier in the end.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the late Sydney Pollack comes a grown up love story about human nature,pain,passion and betrayal. Police Sergeant Dutch Van Den Broeck(Harrison Ford)is devastated when he learns his beloved wife has been killed in a plane crash,he's even more upset to learn of her affair with the husband of a famous congresswoman Kay Chandler(Kristen Scott Thomas).He arranges to meet her and see if she knew or like he had no idea.They start to befriend each other then out of their mutual pain and distress begin an intense affair(which could be seen as healing for them both).However will the memories of the dead and pressures from their respective jobs drive them apart and cause more harm than good or can they escape the past?well you'll have to watch Random Hearts and find out.A moving and well acted film with a great cast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of all the actresses in film today, Kristin Scott Thomas would be my choice if I had to select one for stranding on a desert island.

I could watch her simply, say, sitting in a chair for a couple of hours. So it's difficult for me to be objective completely with respect to one of her films.

However, I did enjoy this movie and its story, per se, more than that indicated by the average ranking among the many persons previously commenting on this site.

Harrison Ford is not one of the actors, though, whose performances I enjoy most. But he's one of a handful who have reached the level of moving from 7 figures to 8 per film, so who am I to argue?

Ford though is often droll in his acting style, and sometimes seems to be in serious need of an antacid and a shot of caffeine - and \"Random Hearts\" is in this grouping.

His obsession in probing the losses, which both he and Thomas have endured with regard to their linked spouses, is understandable, given his profession as a detective - but not to the level presented here. Although not far, it crossed the line into the \"annoying\" category.

However, most of the scenes after he and Thomas became involved were interesting and well-played.

This film could have been a 9*, but I'd lower it a couple of levels, based upon Ford's overall performance, and and another, because it contained a bit more of the extraneous sub-plot elements than seemed required.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed \"Random Hearts\". It was shocking to see such a low rating on IMDB, but chacun a son gout and all that. I am a big fan of Harrison Ford, but I do have to admit that he was ill cast in this movie, and the reason I gave it 9 instead of 10. Kristin Scott Thomas, though, was just wonderful. She was believable and beautiful, in spite of being made up for half the movie like she'd been crying for days. Could \"Random Hearts\" have been better? Sure, but it is very much worth seeing as it is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why do people need to follow the opinion of the herds of masses and critics? RANDOM HEARTS, directed by the brilliant Sydney Pollack (who has a small role in the film too) is another Harrison Ford vehicle. As such, it is quite good and entertaining. Surely, anyone who goes to see it has this in mind, or read the book which is no better. Even Kristin Scott Thomas fans, myself included, knew it would be a variation of her again playing the love interest of her eldest uncle. Even as such, the film is satisfying. What's so bad about this movie that is much better in the other (much higher rated) Harrison Ford vehicles? This film is no masterpiece, but it's not as bad as the masses would have the potential viewer believe.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I read the other comments here about this movie before watching it. If you've read them, you will know that they are almost all negative. I really don't understand that. I admit that it is far too long (it needs about a half hour cut out to speed it up a bit). The music is often inappropriate. But, strong performances by Ford and Thomas are indeed enough to carry this. With all his fame as a movie star, I'd forgotten that Harrison Ford really can act! This role as a man who has defined himself based upon a lie is remarkable. I find it completely believable that he wants all the details he can get so he can see what was real and what was deception. Thomas is always wonderful and this is no exception. Her initial denial which leads to confusion and then to inner calm is tremendous. This movie is never going to be on anybody's list of great flicks, but it isn't that bad. I'm glad that I waited to see it on video, but it is worth the $3 or $4.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know how I would feel if I lived in USA. I would watch some preview scenes, advertisements, I would know, Sidney Pollack directed it, Harrison Ford and Kristin Scott Thomas starring in. I would watch this film as soon as possible without reading any bad review. Would I be disappointment?

I read a lot of review which is said how bad this film was: This is boring, long film without passion emotions and it is not interesting. Harrison is wooden, cold. The sublots should be cut. Too serious, particularly for Harrison Ford. I am interested in the subject, and I like Harrison Ford in the films which are not actions. I like Sidney Pollack and Kristin Scott Thomas too. So reading the reviews on IMDB website then in other sites then in February in the Hungarian movie magazines I was wonder and wonder what the film was. Anyway there are films, directors, stars what\/who I want to see despite any reviews.

I can understand people who thinks this film is boring and cold and has got not any passion, but I feel different. It is true I liked Sliding Doors, The Forbidden Woman (this is a French film, I don't know what its title in English, or in French). Basic of these films is development of a love.

I think Random Heart is a nice and interesting film in its own way.

It may be true that the sublots -the congress election and the cop's investigation after a corrupt policeman- are not written well, are not worked out in details but add something to the leading woman and man character.After his wife's death and betrayal emotion, angry of Dutch comes to the surface during his work. He will be suspicious and almost lost his best friend (then the woman too). The film shows two ways to survive the tragedy: our wife\/husband's death and cheating. One of them is the woman's: this is tragedy, but the life is continuing. She doesn't want to mourn forever. What she wants to know-what her husband's lover-the cop's wife- thought about her she will not learn never. She is forced to behave in this way. The elections are comes, and anything about his husband may become scandal. She wants her daughter not to be disappointment with her father. The man is a cop.He suffering from the fact he lived in lies. He wants to know -maybe every men would want to know in this situation-when his wife started to cheat him. How long had she got lover?. He needs the woman's help but she doesn't want, but the guy is stubborn and steady\/persistent. The woman can't stand him because he always steps into her life and she cannot forget. Their relationship is tense at the beginning then slowly developments a type of silent sympathy which is prefer an alliance against the outside world, the tragedy. (I said it in spite of that they made love in bed) However the cop, can't stop with investigation, can't stop close and can't allow the woman close to him but he starts the \"love\", and the woman wants their relationship to continue. But it can't. The woman realizes it. The end is a bit sad, but logic, and nice at the same time.

It was pleasant for me to see again Peter Coyote-I like this man's face- Sidney Pollack. I hardly knew Bonnie Hunt but she was good.

I think Harrison Ford did an okay job. His eardrop is unusual but at the beginning then finally I believed that the woman liked being at his company in spite of his temperament. It was pity he had not got any joke. But Ford has got a good sense of humour. A reviewer noticed (in Hungary): \"Ford is charismatic against his haircut and ear drop and we are waiting for his presence and would like him to smile at us and make an ironic notice. But Dr Jones is not smiling at us\".. But he smiles at the end and it is soooo good. With the rest I agree. I very like him in this role- He is good in acting of this a bit rough, cool but somewhere in his soul smart cop.. The character of Kristin Scott Thomas is a woman who is determined, self confident, but she is closed inside a ivory tower and she keeps aloof from her emotions. But she is a really woman who become indecisive and find support on the cop.The two cool, reserved- people find each other.

Maybe the script is not good. It is full of common, banal sentence, but there are some humorous sentences from the woman and movement particularly from the man. It is a good film but not for everybody, not for the general big audience. I watched the females under 18 and males above 45 liked this film better. About the latter, maybe Sidney Pollack made this film for his age-group which doesn't go to multiplex. Anyway I advice the people who like energetic plots with action scenes, who like only Ford's action films miss this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like many others, I had been attracted to the combination of Pollack, Ford and Scott-Thomas. I had enjoyed the work of Pollack and Ford on Sabrina, a well made film and a careful rewrite of the old material. On hearing that this film was in production I ordered and read the book. Immediately it seemed that this would be a more difficult story to film. The characters are not always sympathetic, there is little if any humor and the author makes numerous plot shortcuts to focus on his principal theme: that, since each would see the other as the only one sharing the unique combination of loss and betrayal brought on by the air crash, the adulterers' completely surprised spouses would seek each other out. Moreover, he imagines that resolution could come to both through a bitter exploration of the adulterers' hidden lives and that this experience of \"thick and thin\" could yield a deeper love than each had previously. Although much of the book deals with their bitterness and their building hatred of their former partners, in the end acceptance and forgiveness are found. The film script retains only the air crash and the shared predicament of the spouses. Where the woman is the research aggressor in the book, it is the man in the film and the woman is never a willing co-researcher. The film has a completely new dramatic sub-plot for Harrison Ford which seems even more contrived than the double coincidence of the air crash. The \"congresswoman up for re-election\" sub-plot for the woman is also new, yet it works better. Audience the expectations of pure romance or romantic comedy cannot be met because this story focusses on a very bitter pill. Where resolution and forgiveness is achieved in the book, however, lifting the burden of bitterness from the reader and permitting levity, there is no corresponding moment in the film. Although forgiveness is never hinted at, we are left to surmise that healing following a shooting does double duty. Ford's character need not be such an unentertaining man of few words and Scott-Thomas's accent change is a little disconcerting at first. This film is not the dead loss suggested by others. It is, however, a difficult film to appreciate because the rewrite and adaptation to the screen is below the standard previously achieved by the director cast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've read approximately 10 reviews of this film, but haven't taken any of them \"to heart\". Harrison Ford is being criticized for everything from his haircut to his earring and I really don't see what any of these things have to do with the film. As I recall, he had bad hair plus bad reviews in Blade Runner but it's still a favorite among us videophiles. It is slower than the majority of his previous films but not worthy of the trashings it has received.

I would gladly pay $7.50 just to watch a bald Harrison Ford mow his lawn.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A film for mature, educated audiences...

I saw \"Random Hearts\" in an advance screening shortly before its North American release. This romantic drama was quite a treat. I'm sure this story will not be everyone's cup of tea, especially considering the film's darkly downbeat premise. But the pic has some very uplifting strong points in its favor.

All-time Box Office Draw Harrison Ford (\"Star Wars,\" \"Raiders of the Lost Ark,\" \"The Fugitive,\" \"Air Force One,\" \"Patriot Games\") is at the top of his game as the harried and desperate Internal Affairs officer, Dutch. Ford's very subdued, nuanced performance shows quite the range he can achieve with class and determination in bringing the audience into his world of loss & betrayal. This is the perfect complex role and very different type of film for Harrison Ford to grace the screen with between his action blockbusters. Next year Harrison Ford returns to action, first for director Robert Zemeckis (\"Forrest Gump,\" \"Back To The Future\") in his summer 2000 thriller, \"What Lies Beneath,\" and reportedly later in the year in the film adaptation of Tom Clancy's \"The Sum Of All Fears.\" 'Fears' will be Harrison Ford's third outing as CIA operative Jack Ryan.

Director Sydney Pollack (\"Out of Africa,\" \"The Firm,\" \"Tootsie\") has a supporting role in this feature as a political advisor to Scott-Thomas' congresswoman. It's a very sharp & energetic portrayal for Pollack. Not only is Sydney Pollack a gifted director, he is also one of the most believable, natural and charming actors around (see \"Eyes Wide Shut\" as well).

Kristin Scott-Thomas (\"The English Patient,\" \"The Horse Whisperer\") shows that you don't necessarily have to be eccentric or worldly to be considered sexy. This is one of her better films, and she gives a tremendously crafted and mellowed performance that works well opposite Ford's quiet-man toughness.

The subplots work wonderfully, especially the subplot involving Ford's character's investigation into police corruption. Look for a chilling & effective turn by \"Heat\" actor, Dennis Haysbert, who plays Detective George Beaufort, the obstacle to overcome in Dutch's investigation into police corruption.

The rest of the supporting cast is a wonderful delight. Charles S. Dutton (whose long overdue for a film leading role) goes to show that he is one of the best character-actors around, and Bonnie Hunt, who I find extremely solid in this production, steals most of her scenes with that wonderful, charming smile as Wendy Judd.

The technical side of Pollack's thriller is top notched. From Dave Grusin's (Pollack's \"The Firm\") perfectly surreal-feeling jazzy score, to Philippe Rousselot (\"A River Runs Through It\") crisp photography, to the sharp editing that keeps the film feeling fresh, despite the film's unfortunate downer premise.

I highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a good yarn of mystery, well-paced plot, character-driven stories, and romance all rolled into one. This is a terrific story about betrayal & forgiveness. It also features one of the most surprising, yet poignant, and certain to be controversial endings for a Harrison Ford film in recent times. \"Random Hearts\" is definitely one of the better films of the year.

(***1\/2 out of ****) or (8.5 out of 10.0)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this unlikely love triangle, set in 19th century Italy, `The Beauty and the Beast' is being turned upside down and inside out and then some: Giorgio, an army officer and the very image of male beauty, is being transferred away form his (married) lover Clara and sent to a small garrison somewhere in Piemont. There - initially much to his horror \u0096 Fosca, the grotesquely ugly cousin of his commander, develops an obsessive love for him. He suffers her passionate and demanding displays of affection out of pity and concern for her health (she is gravely ill), but becomes more and more fascinated by her \u0096 until the dramatic finale\u0085

Do not miss this most unusual love story, as twisted as it may sound. Valeria d'Obici, who deservedly won a price for her portrayal of Fosca, is as alarming as she is touching. Buy the video, read the book, go see the musical!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the few movies that was recommended to me as absolutely brilliant, that really is. If you give this movie a low note than you really missed the point. You could describe Fosca as manipulative, but what if it is really serious, that she gets ill when the love she is sure of isn't answered. But what would you do when you are sure that the other one loves you, and is 'only' rejected by the fact that you are ugly. Wouldn't you fight for it. At least I think it is better to fight for it that die in bitterness. And it reminds me of the fact how I, as a man, react at first sight completely on the physical ugliness of Fosca and don't look further at the person she is or might be. This movie confronts me with very solemn questions about respect, trust, feeling manipulated and so on. How do I now if someone manipulates me or is just trying everything to make contact? What I think to be the most outstanding feature in this movie is that Ettore Scola made it absolutely believable that Giorgio falls in love with Fosca.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ettore Scola's masterful rendering of this epic of the heart deserves a much wider audience. It is a worthy successor to the risorgimento classics such as Vischonti's Senso and Il Gattopardo, as well as Rosselini's Vanina,Vanini. The 19th century is indeed a fruitful source for Italian filmmakers. The period settings and trappings are beautifully realized here, but the story is timeless and could occur in any period. What is so intriguing in this story is that the hero becomes trapped in a claustrophobic situation in which he finds himself the vigorously pursued object of desire and he is quite powerless to extricate himself from the alarming circumstances. Handsome and callow Giorgio (Giraudeau) is frustrated by his inability to visit his charming but light-minded married mistress (Antonelli) and falls prey to the dangerous passion of enamored Fosca (D'Obici), the ugly and sickly daughter of his stern commander (Girotti). The resulting anguish and ensuing tragedy this unlikely pair undergoes make them both understandable, pitiful and immensely sympathetic to viewers. Bernard Giraudeau's stellar performance will captivate and leave a lasting impression. Not to be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A clever and bizarre angle to \"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder\". At times you think this is campy and over the top, but the underlying poetic soul comes across strong and believable thanks to the performances of the two leads. One worth tracking down.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film, based on the book by Pascal Laime' -La Dentelliere- is an acclaimed film of excellent cinematography and costly Italian language. Set in a \"scholastic\" 19th Century, Balzac-style set, it portraits the story of a mad love story: a man and a woman. There is an infamous line at this shadowy-Mussolinni strike which reads: \"She does not smell like tomatoes.\" Sage perfumery of this Italian masterpiece, Scola is a director of the stature of Mussolinni: his cake will jump in your strawberries and if you let this director he will cream your olives as a Superman. Remember Nietzsche? This one will scare the HELL out of YOU: don't forget to visit Mussolinni's cake next to the Colisseum in Rome, across the Via Appia. This movie will wipe your Pampers inside-out and outside-in, it will make you cry out of Romantic joy! If you liked Ulysses, you will wipe it good with these strawberries until the end of the roll. Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This bittersweet slice of magic realism had a checkered production history (director\/writer replaced) and tanked at the box office, but it's a helluva film.

Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello are pre-teen brothers whose flaky mom (Lorraine Bracco) shacks up with a mean-spirited alcoholic (Adam Baldwin). During his drinking bouts, Baldwin physically abuses Mazzello and manipulates him into remaining silent about his situation. But when Wood cottons on to what's happening, the boys put their heads together and hatch a fantastique solution to Mazzello's devastating dilemma.

I love films that mix fantasy and dark reality. They are rarely successful financially (\"Lawn Dogs\" is a similar example), but they are usually original and intriguing.

The drunk Baldwin is shot from a low, child's perspective and his head is deliberately lopped off below the top of frame. This device allows us to judge him purely by his actions and as a totally physicalized beast. Both Wood and Mazzello are excellent, and they pull us effortlessly into their dark, frightening world.

The \"radio flyer\" of the title is a small red wagon kids transport their belongings in. Here it transports a dream.

Seriously interesting stuff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In reply to \"State of Confusion\" The dogs injuries do seem to disappear rather abruptly, but that may have only been an error in continuity. But, as for the kids trying to build a plane out of junk, it's just a simple matter of imagination. These are two very young kids who have extremely active imaginations and they must rely on those imaginations to keep themselves from being exposed to the reality of the level of abuse that goes on in their home from their stepfather. As for the stepfather, it's very interesting that the director chose to no show his face. That makes him seem more monstrous. If you show his face, then that character becomes a person and not just this \"monster\" who is terrorizing the childhood of these two innocent children. By showing only the concequences of his abuse and not focusing scenes on the abuse itself, the children then become the main focus of the movie. This film has no loose ends, but runs just as a father's tale to his children would. It has embelleshments. This is a fine American classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everything about this film is simply incredible. You truly take this journey through the eyes and soul of a child.

I do feel it is important to note this tale is about child abuse. Don't rent it for your kids thinking it is a fun, disney-esque film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Simply an amazing bittersweet movie that portrays a side of life often skipped over in feel good movies. I saw this as a child and came back to it very recently and fell in love again.

As a child it sparked my interest purely for the building of a plane, as an adult it captured me in the dark world and a young mans escape from that world.

The portrayal of the King was great, the camera style chosen with low shots and shots focusing on actions and hand movements was I thought well done, I personally can not recall anything quite done in that style and adds to the character and portrays him as a force almost not human (which may not be far from reality) it makes for interesting developments

Worth a watch any day","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not sure as to call this movie a children's drama or a fantasy film. When I first watched this I couldn't really make out the ending and that's the only part of movie that's seemed to lack depth and left me a bit depressed for awhile. Then I watched it a second time and realised how great the acting was and was clueless as to why it received the meager attention it did at the time.

Unforgettable performances by the young Mazzello and Wood should have made this film a classic.

Although the it was probably intended to be a fantasy\/drama by the original writer\/director (Evans), once Donner took over he presumably made it with a more dramatical outlook especially the ending, which left a lot to be desired as to what really happened to Bobby - Was he killed?, did he escape & really do all those fantastic journeys?, or was it just an imaginary story woven by Hanks to prove a point to the kids?

But in all it didn't provide the closure of a happy ending that we are so used to in a children's film. Perhaps it's because it's not just that.

To see what may have been a more classical ending check out the Official Elijah Wood Site where you'll find the First rough draft script of the conclusion of the movie(presumably by the original writer)

Also a note of the music by Hans Zimmer which is one the best Soundtracks I've ever heard, a mixture of childish and dark sentiments throughout the movie. A great CD to get hold of if you can.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILER NOTHING BUT SPOILER

I have to add my name to the list of folks who feel that the other viewers just don't get it. But no one has even mentioned the \"s\" word so far as I have seen.

While I agree that the kid died I think we can be more specific: he committed suicide. He races down the slope in an old wagon, shoots off the cliff and...\"flies away\". Maybe the whole account of the form of death is allegory or maybe he does commit suicide in a wagon as laid out. In either case, he \"flies away\" (c'mon, not that tough a metaphor).

Maybe I just have a thing for Tom Hanks, but I was ok with the narration. Besides he is raising $ for the WW2 memorial and you gotta love him for that.

Oh yeah, I loved the movie and found it incredibly moving.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I started watching this one very tensed because I heard so many different things about it. Somewhere I read it was a drama about child abuse and rated PG-13 for violence. Another critic said it was a fantastic and nostalgic adventure of kids (and I thought it was also for kids to watch). Well, now I've seen it so many times and still don't know in which category to put it. It is extremely funny at times but terribly sad and depressing the next moment. Because of the nice relationship and the adventures I would like to recommend this film to all the youngsters I know but I fear the somber atmosphere is not suitable for children. Because of the perfect performances and the magic of the film I must say this nevertheless: Watch it, especially the kids! The last thing I have to say is that I hate the scriptwriter for letting poor Bobby never see his family again after having fled from The King (who didn't even return to terrorize the remained Mary and Mikey). It is very good for this film not to have a perfect happy ending with everybody being happy - and I didn't expect it to - but this solution left me very, very sad!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even people who dislike the film, usually because they find the ending confused, should appreciate the strong acting of Elijah Wood & Joseph Mazello who played the two young leads in this movie.

Spoiler WARNING: At a literal level, the ending makes no sense. People who think the ending makes some sense at other levels are divided between those who 1) think the younger brother was killed by the step-father either the one time Mike (the older boy) was away dealing with the neighborhood gang, or flew off the wishing spot in his wagon to escape the situation through death & those 2) who think the younger brother is imaginary & his flying off in the wagon transformed into a flying machine signals his overcoming the abusive situation.

I favor 2). It makes a lot of sense in terms of the way many children deal with abusive situations. It is not uncommon for an abused child to split his or her psyche & project the abused self into something else; a stuffed animal, even an imaginary friend. This way, it makes a lot more sense that it is always the younger boy who is abused & never Mike. In reality, it is unlikely for one of two brothers to get all the abuse, although that does happen. Also, it is Bobby, the younger brother who is also the encouraging one, the one who insists that they can overcome the situation. Also, the death of a real-life sibling through abuse would have been too shattering for an adult with this in his history to transform into as upbeat a fantasy ending as this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You got it right! Bobby was Mike's imaginary friend through the whole movie, even at the beginning when on their way to California. His mother knew of Bobby and didn't discourage Mike leaning on Bobby since imaginary friends are common with young children.

That's why they both got stomach aches at the same time. That's why the boys' were so close.

At the end Mike was letting Bobby go. The \"King\" was arrested. Mike could go on without Bobby. It's also why Mike's mother didn't seem disturbed when Mike received the postcard (Mike had written & mailed) from Bobby the Ol' West tourist stop and the other postcards from all over the world. You noticed Mike's mother turned the first card over and looked at the postmark. What a great mom doing the best she could in the late sixties.

A 9 out of 10 for me. Brought back memories...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I believe, that this is a heart tugging film. Richard Donner (Directed the top grossing film \"Superman\"), had done a great job directing this film. Some of the segemets were good, and several were horrible because, Bobby (Mazzello) was beatened by The King (Baldwin, and especially their dog, Shane attacked the King which meant that he paid for what he had done to Bobby.

Elijah Wood, portrayed a good role in this film. The memorable scene in this, he dreamt that he took the buffalo's advice about Bobby being battered. Lorraine Bracco, (Pre-Soprano)had portrayed an impressing role.

I give this film *** out of four!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I rented the movie and liked it so much that I bought it. Elijah Wood (Mikey) and Joseph Mazello (Bobby) are outstanding as the two boys. Their new stepfather physically abuses Bobby. The abuse is implied, for the most part, not seen, and roused a lot of passion in me to help abused children. There is a magical quality to the movie as the boys' imagination helps them find a way to deal with the abuse. You have to try to understand the story from a child's point of view. I'm still thinking about the ending. I've watched the movie 3 or 4 times and each time I think of possible new meanings. I'm not sure exactly what Richard Donner intended me to think, but this is an excellent film! Joseph Mazello and Elijah Wood will make you go hug your kids.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am surprised that so many viewers didn't find all the symbolism in the movie.....it's what made the movie an incredible work of art! The story deals with some of the saddest content a movie could hold, yet it is one of the best movies I've ever seen because of the need for your own imagination and the brilliance in the storyline.

If you will pay close attention, the message is there. The younger brother is killed by the stepfather. The older brother made up the story about the wagon flying as a way to deal with the pain of his brother's death. There are those that would argue why would he lie to his own children with the story. To me the answer is because he doesn't want to share such ugliness with his own children, or that he has blocked it out and replaced his memory of the horrific event with the thought of his brother flying away to safety. I've read some of the reviews that believe he was an only child and that he created the younger brother as an escape to deal with the abuse he suffered. Although this is an interesting idea - I love the imagination used to come up with that. I don't think he would have lied to his own children about having a little brother. But, I do find it plausible that he would have lied about his little brother's death. However, I like that idea of an ending much better than the notion that the movie had no symbolism at all.

There are many different takes you can have on the movie, but if you take the movie at face value.....two brothers creating a wagon that flies to escape an abusive stepfather - you've missed the brilliance. The fact that I was able to see the subtle messages in the script were what made the movie so incredible to me. It requires your own thought process and your own imagination to make it work......dig deep when you watch it. You'll be amazed at the genius contained in the film. The only other movie I've seen as close to this in symbolism and subtle messages is Pleasantville.....but that's a comment for another movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was a heart-felt piece of cinema that helped show the darker side of childhood, and the little things that shaped who Tom Hank's was. Using a very cryptic story, they were able to give you an idea of what truly happened to Tom Hank's character as a child. And while scenes like the flying machine may have never happened, it helped to show how even denial can help tell the truth. In all good conscience, I could not rate this lower then a 9 out of 10, great performances from all the actors, and while many may not have understood the cryptic ending in which the brother is murdered by his step father, and Tom Hanks covers it up using a far-fetched story about a flying machine, pay close attention to the little details, such as the turtle that he still has, even though his brother \"flew\" off with it. Truly, a beautiful piece of cinema, and every actor deserves recognition for it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My take on the ending. Bobby died at the hands of his step father. Mike had tried as he may to get Bobby out. Only a child could think that it would be possible to build a machine that could fly. Bobby died.... Mike as a child survived by creating an alternative ending in his mind...on how Bobby left....Mike made a plane that flew Bobby out. Children who are sexually and violent abused often create whole other worlds in their minds to survive.

Was also great seeing my old housing area. We called it San Jose Boulevard and I lived right around where these house were filmed. It was so strange to see that they filmed inside the houses...not studios... It was my kitchen, bedroom and living room. And those hills...we use to hike them as kids....looking down on our little valley....seeing glimpses of the bay. Was a real nostalgia trip for me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has to be the best movie of all time (in my opinion). It really taught me when i watched when i was 10 (in 2000) that the freedom of a being a child slips away sooner then we expect it to. Also Joseph Mazzello has to be my favorite actor ever, and i think that him and elijah wood did a Great job in the roles of brothers. This movie is quite sad, and some people don't understand the ending. But the story itself is quite incredible, the thought of a poor 7 year boy (bobby)getting abused by drunken step father is horrible, and what the two boys do about this is sad, and important. My favorite part of the movie is when Tom Hanks (older Mike) lists the 7 things of being a kid that are lost to the grownup world. However there are some parts that could have been done better in this movie, such as the casting of the mother (lorraine braco), who i think is a horrible actor. \"the king\" played his role well, since it is a hard role to play. Joseph and Elijah definitely were the stars of the movie. i couldn't believe how well they played victims of a abusing stepfather, being the age that they were (7 and 9). But overall, i recommend this movie to anyone, who loves great child actors, and a great movie. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie as a younger child. My sister had told me about it and I thought it would be more of a kid's movie. However it remains to also be an incredible movie. True that the subject behind the movie is ruff but also true this movie will never stop touching your heart.

I was only 6 when I first saw it and just yesterday, 7 years later, I saw it again. For the first time in a long time. Even after I knew how it ended, I knew that I had seen it a billion, bizillion times I wept like a teeny weeny little baby. When I saw it a few years back I finally got the idea and the seriousness of the film. So I stoped watching it for a while. But yesterday I didn't change the channel, I watched it. By the end I was astonished at how much it still made me laugh, cry, think, and above all, believe in mericals again. I haven't belived in a long time and this movie got me out of my shell and opened up my heart. This movie wasn't just impacting. I was also so impressed with the actors. Especially Bobby. So if you are wanting to see this movie for the first time I suggest seeing it alone. With tissues. And being ready to discover your young, sweet, innocent side and the side that still has hope. This movie touched my soul when I was only 6, and even in this time of trying to figure out who I am this movie helped me realize both what I don't and still do want to be in life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This story is an excellent tale of two boys that do whatever they can to get away from there abusive drunkard father. \"Lord of the Rings\" star Elijah Wood is outstanding in this unforgettable role. This movie is one of the main reasons I haven't touched a single beer and never will as long as I live. That might make me sound like a nerd, but that's what I have to say. It is a wonder why this isn't hearld as a classic American tale.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Young Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello are outstanding in this excellent film about two boys who have promised to \"take care of their mother,\" and how they cope when their new stepfather begins beating the younger boy. The supporting cast around the boys is top-notch as well. The script really gets inside the mind and heart of an imaginative child. It's hard to believe Wood could grow up to look anything like Tom Hanks, but that's nothing new in Hollywood. That's honestly my only criticism of the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a 20 year old bloke from England. I don't cry at films. But this one moved me. I cried like a girl! This is absolutely the most moving film I have ever seen, even though the story was questionable. Joseph Mazello's little face when he dreams of crying made me sob every time. How could anyone hurt such a sweet looking kid? I'm going to cry now just thinking about it! Remarkable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Where do I begin? I first saw this film in 1995 and had no idea of what to expect, I was actually at the time searching out films that Elijah Wood had starred in and this one had come highly recommended. I sat down and watched the film once and didn't know what to think. I watched it a second time a few days later and the floodgates just opened. Never before in my life had I ever really cried while watching a film, and I was blubbing, every high and low the film I was riding right alongside, on an emotional roller coaster.

It struck such an emotional chord in me on many levels, the intense sadness and elation we see in the film, the wonder and innocence of childhood, the yearning for a time that once was, but is no more. More than anything, this film reminded me of my childhood (except for the abuse) during a time in my life when I'd shrugged off my childhood some years before and not even really noticed, I'd given it up and moved on to a life entirely devoid of it. The Radio flyer made me wake up and suddenly realise what I'd given up without really even noticing. From that day forward I immediately set about to change my life and myself, and I did.

This is going to sound corny but basically I rediscovered my inner child, I started down a path that has been ongoing over the past 6 years and has changed me so much, so much for the better, embracing and living that part of myself. I've been finding out who I really am. I don't think it was simply a case of the right film coming along at a crucial moment of my life, The Radio Flyer really did something very special, and I still look upon it as an incredible piece of work in all respects, an incredible film.

In closing I cannot fail to mention the music. I am a great fan of Hans Zimmer and this is among his very finest works. The sheer breadth and depth of emotional expression he has put into the score of this film is a huge part of what makes the film what it is to me. Like subtitles to a foreign language film, his soaring music is a crib sheet to the intense emotions this film will take you through. Find the soundtrack at all costs, it was sadly deleted long ago, I never expected to find it but amazingly did, after chatting with someone I met on a Hans Zimmer fansite guest book.

Watch this film, let yourself live the emotions, don't get bogged in trivial nitpicking of the ending, be that child again","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Radio Flyer\" is one of my most loved American movies.

The really great job of two boys, Joe Mazzello and Elija Wood, (in spite of terrible performance of T.Hanks at the beginning and ending...) with marvellous script of D.M.Evans and powerful and emotional directing of R.Donner plus Absolutely Incredibly Peerless Music Score of H.Zimmer allowed the \"Radio Flyer\" to win one of the first places in my family's rating of movies.

It's so pity that that very good movie was underrating by some movie critics.

I just can't help waiting to see it on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well...I like this movie first of all because it's very well thought of... and well..because the um...director and others chose an extremely great actor to play Mike....and also my last reason because ( my opinion) Elijah Wood is so so hot!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a really sad, and touching movie! It deals with the subject of child abuse. It's really sad, but mostly a true story, because it happens everyday. Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello play the two children or Lorraine Bracco, a single mother who just tries to make a home for them. While living with her parents, a man, who likes to be called \"The King\" comes into their life. He hits the youngest boy, Bobby, but the two brothers vow not to tell their mother. But finally she finds out, after the Bobby is hurt badly. The end kind of ruined it for me, because it is so totally unbelievable. But, except for that, I love the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ever sense i was a kid i have loved this movie. i have always been a fan of Joseph Mazzello. the kid had pure talent in both this movie and Jurassic Park. I have been looking for the DVD or VHS to purchase at a store near me i cant seem to find it i hope it goes on DVD! well anyways great movie. If anyone knows where i can find this please contact me at wrp24@adelphia.net . Also can anyone really explain what happened with bobby. was her real or was he fake and was he mikes imaginary friend and his escape? lol I'm clueless. my favorite part had to be definitely where they made the monster juice and spilled it all over the kitchen its funny but also a sad part as well because of what happens to bobby due to the mess.. i would've liked to see the boyfriends face because he played his part pretty good. i think the mother was a great actress i think her name is Lorraine Bracco or some sorta name like that.. well thats all please contact me

wrp24","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is just my all time favorite movie. Nothing special. It's just so incredibly detailed. Makes me cry just thinking about it. Geronimo Bill is the nicest guy I can imagine. Money is not important. Bamboo spears are important. You don't need money to get what you need. If you need something it will just come to you. If people would realize that the world would be a much better place. Whatever you do, don't do it for the money.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bobby and Mikey are two little boys who move across the country with their divorced mother to start a new life. Soon after the family settles in, their mom marries \"The King\" who ends up being an abusive stepfather, especially to Bobby. So Bobby decides that he will \"fly away\" from the abuse in his birthday present.

This movie was difficult to watch, especially the abuse scenes. It was hard to watch an innocent, playful little boy become abused and turn into a sullen scared, and withdrawn young man. The acting is excellent.

I cried throughout the last half of the movie. There were some funny scenes in it too like the Monster Brew and the dog that finds the pop bottles.

I wouldn't suggest letting little kids watch it. It was a movie that was painful to watch and yet it really really flew away.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I consider myself a huge horror movie fan. One night I wanted to just rent some newer horror movies to make fun of. Then, I rented Milo. I was so surprised by this movie. It scared the hell outta me. That's not something I can say very often. Usually Halloween only scares me.

Two other friends watched it with me, and were left with a disturbed feeling. A good feeling, if you ask me, after watching a horror movie. If you are unaffected, then what's the point.

This movie was original. It didn't follow the normal guidelines of a horror movie. That's why movies like Valentine bombed for me.

Of course, many are left with unanswered questions, as most horror movies do. It is worth the rent though.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is not at all as bad as some people on here are saying. I think it has got a decent horror plot and the acting seem normal to me. People are way over-exagerating what was wrong with this. It is simply classic horror, the type without a plot that we have to think about forever and forever. We can just sit back, relax, and be scared.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this was a get up and go horror movie with an intelligent cast and a director with great vision to really capture the mood of the story i highly recommend this movie","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Milo is an overlooked & underrated horror flick from the late 90's but the feel and atmosphere is more that of an 80's horror flick. Seems a bunch of little girls are taken to \"see things\" at the office of Milo's father, a gynecologist, and as a reward for getting to see what's there in jars (yes, a gynecologist plus something else...) one girl plays \"doctor\" with Milo. Hmm, his first patient and he lost her. Now Milo is a creepy little kid that always wears a yellow rain slicker, rain or shine, and he talks funny....but that's not all that's strange about him. Fast forward to the present where these girls are adults and there's a wedding planned for one of them but tragedy strikes and leaves one girl that came in from out of town with a choice of whether or not to replace her friend as a school teacher, which she does. And then strange things begin to happen again. Which of course involve this little kid in a rain slicker. This isn't overly violent or graphic but has a distinct creepiness that you don't find in many modern horror flicks, and it's well worth seeing. One wonders why it's so hard to find any good horror flicks in this day & age but here's one that's criminally overlooked and definitely worth your time if you check it out. 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What is he supposed to be? He was a kid in the past,... and the future? This movie had a lot of problems. Is he a ghost, or just a strong kid. Man,... what a piece of crap. I'm still confused. Also, is he supposed to be an abortion? Strange. Very strange. This movie will mess with your mind,... and it's not very scary,... just confusing. Why was he,... Where did,... What was the,... oh, who cares,... Milo isn't worth it,...

My score: 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Critics claim that this film is one of the worst films ever. Watchers also claim the same. But there is a flip side to that coin. They are wrong, very wrong. It's the most clever film I've seen in ages...

From beginning till end you see a story thats unrealistic. A story that reflexes the real world. This film is like a mirror. You see yourself in another way that people see you. To really understand the directors point of view, you have to see it another time...

When you see this film...Try to understand the story (and watch the background)...Listen to the lyrics of the music...And smell the industrial complexes...

This film is one of a kind. You'll hate it(most people do), or you'll love it(and understand it completely)

Ernest Hemmingway once said:'the world is a fine place, and worth fighting for'. I agree with the second part.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was great and I was waiting for it for a long time. When it finally came out, I was really happy and looked forward to a 10 out of 10. It was great and lived up to my potential. The performances were great on the part of the adults and most of the kids. The only bad performance was by Milo himself. There was one problem that I encountered with this (and others like it) movie. All of the characters I wanted to live were getting killed. Overall, I give this movie an excellent 9 out of 10. Maybe we should select better people to kill next time, though, ok?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I heard there was to be an ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] mini-series based on life in Changi [WWII POW] camp... with a focus on \"elements of comedy\", I was deeply sceptical and somewhat critical.

My father had served in the second world war. Such was the barbarity of the Japanese, he was able to talk about the horrors in and around Labuan (where he was stationed), until only quite recently. Along with my father, I had been awarded the fortune of knowing many great men (of stronger character and spirit than I shall ever have), who had witnessed acts of unspeakable barbarity at the hands of the Empire of Japan, and had never completely recovered. The name 'Changi' is destined to conjure horrific images for ages to come...

But upon viewing, I was highly impressed with the cast, the characters and the complex plot-lines of this wonderful series. I now regard 'Changi' as the highlight of my week, (bear in mind, I have viewed only three episodes so far... I hope the remaining episodes adhere to the standards set by the first three).

The black humour works uncannily well (however, the flatulence jokes are a little overdone), and while much of the horror has been suppressed, the series comes quite close in relaying the undaunted spirit of the survivors who were able to later continue with their lives in spite of the inhibiting memories.

The 'flashback' format of this series will be difficult for some to follow,

but I can not think of no better way to do adequate justice to the men who suffered deep emotional scarring proceeding internment... when painfully suppressed experiences are remembered, sometimes years after the horror.

One of the darkest chapters of the Second World War, the 20th century, and, (I would go so far as to say), in the history of mankind, is being relayed to a new generation through this series, and I hope it serves to relay the overwhelming adversity borne by the wartime generation.

Proceeding 'Changi', I don't think I shall ever be able to listen to the poignant tune 'on the road to Gundagai' in the same way again. Tune in...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My family and I enjoy this show and find it a fair thumb nail sketch of what the people went through.

My own father spent some time in Changi before going onto the Thailand-Burma Railway in \"F\" Force. Much as been said about the treatment the POW's received, I will just say that my father was 6 foot 1 inch and 196 lbs when Singapore fell, at the end of the war he was 5 foot 11 inches tall and 91 lbs.

No show could truly convey what the POW's went through, but this comes closer than most.

As the Ex POW's say, \"If you didn't have mates you didn't survive.\" This show succeeds in getting this message across.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having had a great grandfather be captured and sent to Changi during World War two I was hesitant to watch this when it was first screened on TV. My great grandfather kept a diary whilst he was in captivity and when he died over there his mates bought it back and I have been lucky enough to read it and feel I have at least some idea of what Changi was really like, first hand.

This is a fantastic recount of what happened to those poor blokes who were sent to Changi Prison and shows what hardship and cruelty they witnessed in order to protect their country. It is a terrific story of mateship, commitment and Aussie Spirit, that never going to give up attitude. It is worth watching if you like Australian History or anything to do with World War Two.

I enjoyed this mini very much and give it 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here we have a miniseries, which revels in in its flaws, and doesn't make us cringe because of them...it is excellent story-telling, which fuses black comedy, mateship (in a positive way), the pathetic waste of war, without the sheer unadulterated manipulation of a con-job like Life is Beautiful...it is an entertainment, not the meaning of life...and showcases the talents of actors both young and old...give it a go and tell us what you think...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has got to be one of Australia's best productions. I completely disagree with the comments made by 'RamiNour101'.

This series shows the depth of Australian mateship and the lengths they went to to help each other out. Episode Five 'Eddies Birthday' is a great example of this and it really captures the Australian spirit.

The music used throughout the series only emphasised the situation that the men were faced with, their longing for home and their loved ones. The numerous amusing renditions of The Road to Gundagai captures the spirit of the men and the fact that they never forgot home, and that it was little elements such as the singing of a song that took them home for a short while.

As for the comment about it being racist towards Japanese people, the only thing to be said is that you can't change what happened. The Japanese did treat the Australians very poorly in Changi and to represent it as otherwise would be very misleading indeed. The comment about the screenplay being in accurate is also false. These six stories that are told in the series are composed from real P.O.W experiences.

The actors were superb; the best being in my opinion, Matthew Newton. His performance as David in the first episode was gut wrenching. From being a city boy, to being another nameless face to his captors. We see him change dramatically in the first episode because of his violent attack in the jungle, and in further episodes we can see how that one event has changed him, he is more aware of what is really going on and is always one of the first to help out the other members of The Secret Nine.

Stephen Curry also deserves a mention. His performance in 'Eddie's Birthday' is amazing, going from the larrikin of the group, to being sick, weak and unable to take care of himself. The displays of mateship in this episode touch you on an emotional level and make you proud to be Australian.

I study WWII at university level and have found this series, if not physically truthful, spiritually truthful, as it captures the true spirit of what it was to be an Australian Soldier.

Well done to John Doyle for capturing the spirit of Changi.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've heard a few comments, particularly from prisoners of war, that CHANGI is not historically accurate, and that it is disappointing. Perhaps it is for those who actually had to live through this stuff, and much worse. But for the rest of us, who really have no idea of how prisoners were treated by the Japanese during World War II, CHANGI is a remarkable introduction. But CHANGI isn't a war documentary - if it had have been, then the historical accuracy aspect would have been paramount. It is a miniseries drama, with fictional characters and fictional situations (though based loosely on actual events I've heard and read about) - and at the centre of the story is the ideal of mateship. This group of young Australian soldiers, taken prisoner by the Japanese and held in appalling conditions for years, became mates through adversity and the strength of their friendships continued throughout their lives after the war. It is also a cultural study of the differences between the Japanese of the time and the western world, with its music, games and entertainment: in part 5, when it is becoming clear that Japan will lose the war after Germany has surrendered in Europe, the Japanese prison camp colonel insists that his country must study the culture of their prisoners - in order to defeat a people, one must defeat their culture - and to do this, one must understand it. All in all, Australia continues its rich tradition of producing exceptional television miniseries, and is an unrivalled world leader in this regard: vyeing for the AFI Award with CHANGI is MY BROTHER JACK, the adaptation of George Johnston's novel, and also a worthy winner. Miniseries in recent years include DAY OF THE ROSES (the story of the investigation into the Glanville train crash), KINGS IN GRASS CASTLES (the adaptation of Mary Durack's historical account of her pioneering ancestors), KANGAROO PALACE (about a group of friends from a country town in Australia who travel to London and change and grow apart), and the (somewhat disappointing) adaptation of Bryce Courtenay's powerful novel, THE POTATO FACTORY. Less recently: Nancy Cato's sweeping saga of life on the Murray - ALL THE RIVERS RUN; Cusack & James' brilliant novel about postwar life in Sydney - COME IN SPINNER; Colleen McCullough's outstanding pioneering saga - THE THORN BIRDS; THE RIVER KINGS; Ruth Park's novel THE HARP IN THE SOUTH; BODYLINE; EUREKA STOCKADE; ANZACS; etc..., etc... (Of course, there have been some not-so-good productions - for instance, MOBY DICK, DO OR DIE, ON THE BEACH, THORN BIRDS: THE MISSING YEARS; etc...) Generally, though, if an Australian miniseries comes your way, make sure you see it - and this goes double for CHANGI, a superbly directed masterpiece. Rating: 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As soon as I saw the ad for \"Changi\" on the History Channel, I knew I'd love it. It captured the ANZAC spirit fantastically - you would die if you didn't have mates around you. The characters of \"Changi\" were strong and each brought something different into the story, and the Japanese soldiers weren't criticised, but were depicted as normal soldiers doing what they thought was right, just as the Australians were doing. Direction, screenplay, acting and setting were all done wonderfully, with a clear easy-to-follow plot. Humour was the soldiers' key to survival, and it was great to see a mini-series about war actually have some sort of humour in it, which is usually difficult to do without offending people. From what I've read about soldiers in Changi PoW camp, this story is a very realistic approach to the three and a half years those Australian, British, New Zealand, American and Dutch men spent there. I would recommend this series to anyone, whether you are interested in war or not. 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Somehow, CHANGI lost out in the AFI Awards to MY BROTHER JACK. The latter, a high-quality adaptation of George Johnston's immortal novel, was outstanding - but, in my opinion, not as good as CHANGI. I have heard that many critics dismissed CHANGI as being irrelevant, unimportant, historically inaccurate or even disrespectful. Who and where are these critics? CHANGI is outstanding. More than that. Brilliant. It's not supposed to be a documentary - certainly I can forgive the actual Changi survivors (or indeed any survivors of a POW camp) for being disappointed with the production - but to the rest of us, CHANGI represents the remarkable power of mateship in times of extreme adversity. It contains a part of the Australian culture that appears to be diminishing as times become easier and less challenging, but which we should never forget: Australians were respected worldwide after Gallipoli and WW2 for their comradery and sense of humour. Rating: 96\/100. See also: GALLIPOLI; PARADISE ROAD; THE LAST BULLET; THE SUGAR FACTORY.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This would have to be by far the greatest series I have ever seen. I vividly watched every sunday night and purchased the box set as soon as it was available. this is a timeless play written by a fantastic Australian that people of all ages could relate to, whether they are Australian or not, however for those of us that are Australian it truly brings across the typical Australian icon. A must see 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Changi has a delightfully fresh script, acted superbly by both young and old actors alike. John Doyle has done an excellent job bringing humour to a tragic true story, keeping a sometimes sad story fun and engrossing, particularly to those of us not familiar with the events of South East Asia during WW2.

John Doyle's parallel story line successfully bridges the gap between past and present, allowing the audience insight into the long-term effect war had on the prisoners and their family's lives as well as providing the basis for an excellent narrative which nicely rounds out the tales, both individual and collective. Doyle deserves praise for this effort. We have in the past been delighted by his abundant and quick-witted humour as evidenced in his long running collaboration with Greg Pickhaver as `Roy & H.G.'

As the series is approaching half way, we are looking forward to how the story develops with anticipation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Never have i sat down for six hours straight to watch a miniseries, but Changi changed that. I'm not going to lie, I know some Aussie flicks can be pathetic and boring (actually, i quite like Aussie flicks myself but maybe I'm biased) but Changi is on a completely different lane. Although not historically accurate, as we are continually reminded, the show combines superb acting, an excellent script and the addition of humour to provide us with an entertaining and emotional perception of life in a POW camp in WWII.

Keep in mind, the show was not supposed to be a documentary so don't let any factual errors disappoint you.

This series exposes such creative writing by John Doyle (aka Roy Slaven)who is known more for his comedy than anything else, and an excellent director and actors move this creativity along perfectly. If you want to see how much hard work went into this series, visit the official website, it is really interesting and you'll learn a lot about true accounts of changi.

If you haven't seen Changi yet, make sure you are doing nothing for a whole day because you'll want to watch the series in its entirety.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this drama by cable TV. Although I saw just two series, I love this drama. I'm waiting for more series will be aired by cable.

Even though it describes horrible, absurd situation in a prisoner's camp, this one shows us an indomitable spirit, warmth, friendship and humanity. They don't know whether they can survive or not, but kept their hope strongly without being discouraged by adversity.

I know this movie is not realistic like other war documentary, but I don't want to blame for it. It makes me believe the strong will of people in the most difficult situation.

'Private Bill' , especially, this episode touched deep in my heart.

I remember every scene. I always hate mathematics. But after seeing this drama, I can understand something about mathematics... Mathematics is his connection between past and present, also symbolizes eternity.

'Time, light and memory framed in a circle.'

Like other victims of war, he lost his lover by irresistible fate. I'm immersed in his time and memory as if I experienced same thing.

He experienced the great loss but he has pure passion of study.

He started his study in the camp, his joy of realize,

I believe his dedication of study sustained him.

I saw it several times, but the meaning of this film never faded. Every time I saw it, I feel same deep emotion.

* Their songs are beautiful, harmonious,

I'm sorry that I can't listen OST.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This mini-series is iconic of the Australian spirit. While there may be what are perhaps considered glaring inconsistencies, the film portrays a spirit that is unique to Australia, and one that should be cherished. If anything, this mini-series demonstrates the Aussie sense of humour. The ability to laugh at the supremely ridiculous. Our willingness to have a laugh in even the most dire of situations. While a large part of this series focuses on mateship and how humour can be used as a means of survival, it also has elements of drama that are evoke real emotions. The main actors who appear are absolutely sensational and very convincing in their different roles. Capturing the essence of their characters perfectly. This mini-series should be mandatory viewing for all Australians.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Apparently this Australian film based on Nevil Shute's novel exists in more than one form. Beware heavily cut versions sometimes shown on cable or satellite, running anywhere from 95 minutes to 2 hours. Only the full 5 hour miniseries version tells the story properly. It is a very close realisation of the story, suffering only from editorial faults commonly found in TV movies: choppiness and episodic progression. But this excellent cast carries the story forward very well with generally good production values accompanying their work. Yuki Shimoda is notable as \"Gunso Mifune\", one of the guards assigned to accompany the women on their agonising trek. In the end he becomes a friend. You will agonise with him when his loss of face leads him into death.Helen Morse as \"Jean Paget\", pretty but not a great beauty (she resembles Sigourney Weaver a bit)registers just the right amount of spunk and winsomeness as the occasion demands. The miniseries properly emphasises the beautiful love stories, three of them: \"Joe\" and \"Jean\", \"Noel\" and \"Jean\", and \"Jean\" and Willstown. Gordon Jackson plays \"Noel Strachan\" appealingly, but as a somewhat younger man than Nevil Shute indicated in the novel. The third love affair I mentioned doesn't get quite the emphasis it is due, and the full significance of the title is diminished. \"Jean\" is devoted to the goal of bringing businesses to Willstown that will attract young women and girls and their civilising influence to this god-forsaken out back town. She wants to make it \"A Town Like Alice\"; Alice Springs, that is. We get only a few hints of this in several scenes. If you have the five hours to spare, this miniseries is a truly rewarding experience. Nevil Shute based his novel about the cruelty of the Japanese military in shunting a large group of women and children from one place to another on the Maylay Peninsula on a true occurrence. It happened on Sumatra, according to Shute, though, rather than on the peninsula. The crucifixion of \"Joe\" by a Japanese officer for stealing chickens to feed the women is probably fiction, but the cruelty of the Japanese in dealing with prisoners is certainly a matter of record.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this film at least 100 times and I am still excited by it, the acting is perfect and the romance between Joe and Jean keeps me on the edge of my seat, plus I still think Bryan Brown is the tops. Brilliant Film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember watching this series avidly and being so disappointed when it came to an end. Over the years since then, I have tried to find out if I could obtain a copy of it on either video or d.v.d., to no avail. However, I was delighted to find this website with details of it, only to be disappointed again at the point of purchase, that the videos available will not play on English recorders! This production was so wonderful, being absolutely accurate with Nevil Shute's novel, taking the storyline through after the end of the war, with Joe and Jean's subsequent life together - absolutely marvellous - and I just wish I were able to see it again, as since it's original screening, there have been no repeats of it on British television.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I raced to the library to check out this miniseries after having just finished listening to the marvelous \"talking books\" unabridged version of the book. The first half of this TV version is really very good, but it stumbles quite a bit in the second half. The relationship with the trustee is overplayed and conflicts are inserted between Jean and Joe that don't exist in Shute's story, unwisely in my opinion, as they greatly diminish the power of their love story. I was disappointed to find that the wonderful Bryan Brown's Joe seemed a lot cockier and much less appealing than the man in the book, but Helen Morse's Jean was really quite good. I think they would have had to make this a 10-hour miniseries to develop the outback story properly. But all that said, I did watch whole thing in more or less one go and did appreciate its merits, all the while wishing that someone would do a less soapy remake.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this film at least 100 times and I am still excited by it, the acting is perfect and the romance between Joe and Jean keeps me on the edge of my seat, plus I still think Bryan Brown is the tops. Brilliant Film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a sleeper - I've watched every miniseries that was ever on TV, some many times, and this one is the best. Wonderfully cast, superbly acted, and the characters are well-developed. Helen Morse perfectly fits the part of Jean Paget - strident, in control, sharp, and a bit belligerent. She bounces well off of Joe Harmon, the cowboy\/taciturn\/\"It'll be okay\" sort of guy. I was sorry that the movie didn't stick to the book, in that there was no romantic interest between Noel Struan and Jean Paget. For those who don't know, this is taken from a true story about English women marched around Malaya for 3 years by the Japanese, who indeed did not know what to do with them. Very few of them survived. Neville Shute talked to one of them, and this is her story. This movie deserves to be in everyone's collection who loves WWII stories.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This review contains what might be a spoiler if you never read the book or saw the cover of the video box. So if you want to approach the movie not knowing anything about it, except that I like it a lot, stop here...

The production values are not first rate, but the acting between the leads is, and they give the romance between them more life than Shute does in his novel (although I generally prefer the novel). My very faint objections to the film as opposed to the book is that the film dumbs-down some of the relationships with secondary characters, and between the lead characters in a scene toward the end of the film, to provide for some not at all realistic dramatic tension and as a general plot device. All this is handled much better in the book, with the result that I find the end of the book quite a bit more touching than the end of the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favourite books and I remember watching this series and loving it immensely. Sadly I have never seen it repeated or been able to get on DVD, but it made such an impact I have never forgotten it.

The lead characters were perfect for the roles, especially the lovely Bryan Brown and although the scenes in Australia were not entirely in keeping with the book at least they were there, unlike the film version with Virginia McKenna which missed that part out altogether.

I agree that Gordon Jackson's character of Strachan is entirely different from the book but he is still excellent. For your information \"MOLEY75\" \"Strawn\" is the gaelic pronunciation of \"Strachan\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you love the book, as I do, stop watching the video after Jean and Joe meet in Australia. Up to that point it is a fairly faithful rendition of the book, and the visuals are great. 10 out of 10 to that point and I've enjoyed it many times. After that, the story is seriously rearranged and revised in ways that really destroy the key part of the book, i.e., how Jean creates a town like Alice (Springs). In the early part, the major change is to make Strachan a 40-something bachelor instead of a seventy-year old widower. This rather skews this love story, especially when there are also small changes that contribute to making him more selfish and avaricious, such as: in the book, he intimates to Joe at the ship that he might find more than a letter waiting for him in Australia, but in the video he gives Joe no clue about Jean's whereabouts or intentions. The last hour of the 5-hour video scrunches and mangles the last third of the book. I see no reason why they threw in a fight between Joe and Jean -- it is quite out of character and seems to be just an Aussie dig at Pommies for telling them what to do. Then they bring on Strachan for the wedding (instead of some three years later) -- and have him read the toast!! -- very strange, especially in the context of the relationship between Jean and Noel as cast in the video. The whole wedding scene is the invention of the screenwriters. These abominations take up time in the last hour, which was already not long enough to do justice to the fascinating story of how Jean recreates Willstown as a place where she and Joe can both be happy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't count the times I have watched this, and although it differs from the book in story line the mood is still the same. The bond that two such diverse people give each other that surpasses trials and years is immortal. And that the element of the women prisoners was an actual event, that did happen to real people. The story is about the strength of character of ordinary people, people who just tried to survive a horrible time in their lives. And this also presented Australia in a real mode. The country is like all countries, areas that everyone loves, quaint country areas and desolate areas. But it gives Shute a stage for Jean's transformation from a lowly outback town to a family community.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jean Paget, Joe Harman, and Noel Strachan--all are unlikely heroes and survivors. Petite but strong Jean whose strength and resolve help save lives, marching hundreds of miles and with calm self-discipline and persuasive powers, Joe Harman (\"oh my word\") who took risks for Jean and the other prisoners, only to suffer the worst pain imaginable, and Noel Strahan, who trusted Jean regardless of the odds. Her good humor and hardiness inspire everyone around her, and those with the courage to go in with her are rewarded. The beautiful scenery and musical score adds to the adventure. Despite the length it was never boring to me. These ordinary people did extraordinary things and it is based on a true story. Someone borrowed my VHS a few years ago and I never saw it or them again. Learned my lesson, mates, and will buy another copy when it can be found. It's a shame the miniseries is not on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cannot believe it has been 25 yrs since I first watched this story on TV. I remembered to have been very much touched by it and was lucky to get the VHS tape several years ago. I did not watch it again until just recently. I have been watched it over and over ever since. I must have watched it 10 times in the past 2 wks.

The acting is superb, the story is compelling, and I am embarrassed to say that I did not appreciate actor Bryan Brown's talent until now. The playful facial expressions shown in the first half - when he gave Jean the stolen medicine in Malaya is such a contrast to his very reserved and nervous body languages shown in the second half: in their first drink together in Caines and the touring of the homestead. We have to wait until the wedding reception, especially the final dance scene to see his open display of affection for Jean. The same dancing eyes that first revealed his admiration in Malaya. Who wouldn't want to be his Mrs. Boong ?

While Joe changed from a cocky, almost bigger than life figure in the Malaya jungle to a somewhat self-conscious average Joe in his own backyard, Jean took the opposite road; her wartime experience seems to have given her new confidence. She wasted no time and went after what she wanted. She took steps to take what she could get - exactly as Joe had told her to once upon a time.

For me, all these transformations helps to show this is more than just a love story - this is a story about growth, courage and fragility in life. The solicitor -Noel is both a sweet and sad figure. He too gave much to Jean - he gave his last hope for love. At the end, he did what true love requires -- he put her happiness ahead of his own.

I happened to like the fight between Joe & Jean that was not in the book. I thought it's an appropriate and necessary addition for it helped to surface the inner struggles they both had to deal with in order to make their life together possible.

Now, I am older, maybe I understand life, love and loss a little better. This story touches me even deeper.

I am, however, surprised to see B. Brown has blue eyes in the promo photo shown on this site. He most definitely did not in \"A Town like Alice.\" Well, 25 yrs is a long time !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know where this movie was shot, but because it was shot on location, it has the authenticity that this story deserves. It is the story of a young English woman who is taken prisoner by the Japanese in southern Asia at the beginning of WWII, with a group of other English women. There is no prison camp for women so they are forced to march for months from place to place, because the Japanese don't know what to do with them. The courage and resilience of the English women, and the bravery of the Australian soldier who tries to help them, is the core of the movie. This movie is very long, maybe 10 hours, so you can watch it as it was shown on PBS, as a series, which actually adds to the feeling of the endless journey this woman makes from England, across this remote island, and finally Australia. Story, cinematography, location and actors combine to make this a movie not to miss. My only question is why this hasn't been released on DVD!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Gay Desperado\" is wonderful throughout. The banter between Leo Carrillo and Harold Huber is as funny as anything you would hear in a movie today. Best line? \"That would be my third choice!\" \"Diego\" is obviously the archetype for Kevin Smith's \"Silent Bob\". Lucien N. Andoit's black and white cinematography (particularly with the banditos' shadows) was striking. All I can say about Ida Lupino is, \"Thank God for DVD!\" You can go right to the scene where she is trying on sombreros and serapes and watch her standing in front of that mirror over and over again.

Lest I forget, that Nino Martini guy sings real purty, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If \"Love Me Tonight\" is \"the musical for people who don't like musicals\", it has to be said that \"The Gay Desperado\" is definitely not a musical for people who don't like opera. In fact -- despite apparently being based on a comic operetta -- it is not really a musical at all but a spoof bandit story with interpolated unrelated arias to show off the voice of one character; and what a voice it is.

Nino Martini, as the young singer Chivo who joins the bandit troop to get a spot on the radio (no, the plot doesn't make a lot more sense later on either...), has a glorious golden tenor whose style hasn't dated a day since the era when it was recorded. The trillings and warblings of some of his musical contemporaries belong to a bygone fashion, but it's very easy to picture Chivo belting out \"Nessun Dorma\" to a World Cup crowd and topping the charts in the process. Unfortunately, while he has an engaging grin and a decent dramatic range, he is completely incapable of acting and singing at the same time. The result is that the otherwise rapid-paced film grinds to a shuddering halt every time Chivo lays his hand on his breast and starts to declaim, and the viewer's tolerance of the result is likely to depend on his appreciation of operatic performance.

Aside from this drawback, the film is an enjoyable broad-brush satire on Hollywood conventions and the Mexican bandit stereotype in particular, which achieves the vital goal of all such spoofs in making its characters engaging enough in their own right to hold the viewer's interest when the joke would otherwise have grown stale. The bandit chief and his sidekick have the traditional double-act relationship, there is an enigmatic peon with a carved-teak face, and a spirited heroine (a young Ida Lupino) who performs the generic \"you say you hate me but you love me really\" routine with a refreshing twist.

Overall the film is entertaining and pretty funny, and I feel I did get my money's-worth -- but it can't be denied that the musical interludes, while admirable in their own way, introduce severe pacing problems.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"HUNT FOR JUSTICE is a Canadian television drama that has made it to DVD and that is reason for gratitude for those who hunger for educational dramas that inform us about facts of current history that somehow get buried in the media. The film is not a Hollywood production, it relies heavily on footage from court files, but it also introduces to many of us the act of heroism of Louise Arbour in bringing about the trial of Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic.

Louise Arbour (veteran Canadian actor Wendy Crewson) is a Canadian judge appointed by NATO as the Chief War Crimes Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. The film begins in 1996 when Arbour travels to The Hague to face the political obstacles that are preventing the Tribunal to bringing to justice the war criminals in the war Yugoslavia has been waging in Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia, a war that has gross evidence of crimes against humanity in the form of genocide, extermination camps, and other heinous abuses. The progress toward bringing the criminals to justice is hampered by generals (including one played by William Hurt) who fear a major World War if precautions against same are infringed upon. Arbour, with the keen help of her translator Pasko Odsak (Stipe Erceg), her staff including Keller (Heino Ferch) and the unexpected assistance from British Capt. John Tanner (John Corbett), forges ahead, focusing the impossible task of bringing all responsible parties to justice on three specific events. Two of the three top suspects are captured but during their trials each meets his end. This leaves only Slobodan Milosevic himself, and Arbour and her colleagues are successful in bringing the war criminal to justice in 1999.

There are several touching side plots employed in the telling of this well-documented tale, stories that make the point in history more personal. Some may find the film footage of corpses and prisoners and death camps too strong to watch, but they are necessary to bring home the purpose of the film. Wendy Crewson carries the power to drive the message home - the message that war crimes must never go unpunished. There is much current history to be learned from this film: writers Ian Adams, Riley Adams and M.A. Lovretta have condensed the information and made it dramatic as well. Director Charles Binam\u00e9 balances the docudrama with the story progress, never forgetting that he has a tale of intrigue to tell as well. HUNT FOR JUSTICE is worth watching! Grady Harp","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hunt for Justice is about the setup of Slobadon Milosevic for his trial in the Hague. While it was a little too clinical in presentation the subject matter could have gotten very depressing very quickly. A Canadian Judge, Louise Arbour, becomes the Chief War Crimes Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the UN in Yugoslavia. She battles everyone to pull out the evidence that sent Milosevic to trial. Not a bad docu-drama with class A directing and production work. The 'evidence' was disturbing by the shear discussion of the facts, happily they didn't go into too much detail and no real pictures of the tortured.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this movie to be educational, entertaining and very moving. I was impressed when I learned of just how much Justice Arbour had contributed in during her time in Kosovo.

Wendy Crewson is highly under rated and it is good to see her again in a Canadian production. Other easily recognizable stars are Leslie Hope (24) and John Corbett (Sex in the City.)

While the story line of this movie may not be completely factual it did leave me with the desire to learn more about the word of Arbour. A great movie for inspiring young women.

I say the movie is a \"must see.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed watching this movie! Only a few parts were slow, but it was only setting the mood and building up to the action. I thought this movie was very educational, it taught me more about my Croatian heritage. I also learned more about Louise Arbour, and I can say she has a very great influence on me. Time magazine named Louise Arbour one of the world's 100 most influential people in April of 2004. I recommend this movie to people that like historical movies (obviously). This movie was very dramatic, but still told the truth of events in the former Yugoslavia. Louise Arbour is a brave hero, and I'm glad they made a movie honouring her. If you see the movie, I hope you'll like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this was a thoughtful and well-shot and directed TV movie that took on a huge subject with precision and intelligence, and gives it a film treatment that would look great on a bigger screen -- the palette is a little muted for TV. if you're looking for a war action film or \"bosnia lite\", this isn't for you -- it's about an ordinary woman who took on an extraordinary challenge for humanity. if you want to learn more about the conflict and how the work of one woman influenced the world in a massive way, watch this film when it comes your way. i don't see that a lot of other TV films have dealt with the issue of genocide and ethnic hatred at this level. the story avoids obvious demonization of \"the bad guys\", and instead shows the denial and everyday hatred that resulted in deaths of thousands. i was moved at several points, and not in some manipulative Hollywood way with driving music and flashy mise-en-scene, but allowed to discover the horror and implications along with the characters. this is a film brave enough to let the content speak for itself, and keep the visuals understated to support it with dignity.

the actors do a helluva job at bringing the intense dramatic scenes to life. the scenes where victims give their testimony before the war tribunal are powerful, and Wendy Crewson, Stipe Erceg and Heino Ferch are excellent. William Hurt's British accent is awful -- no one else has given him a chance to play a Brit, and when he finally has it, he blows it! -- and although John Corbett's body was born to play a soldier\/commando, he's a little too gee-whiz nice, although he does a good job.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My friend gives me these 3 huge boxes. \"They're laserdiscs of Flash Gordon serials,\" he says. \"I'm gonna have some giant coasters,\" I say. But not so. This serial rocks. (But I had to whine & moan to almost everyone I knew to find a laserdisc player for em).

There is really a little of everything in this serial: There are lion-men, hawk-men, shark-men, Earthmen, & I guess you'd call em Mongo-men. The sets & costumes combine, Greek, Roman, Oriental, Egyptian and there's even armour like English knights. Awesome costumes. And some of it was a riot. Those horrible tights with shorts over em worn by Zarkov are beyond description. And the guys in the furnace scene seem to be wearing boxers.

It's also funny the way they renamed the octopus to an octosack, the orangutan to orangapoid, and the tiger to a tigron. There's even a dragon (a Godzilla-like creature who threatens Flash on a couple of occasions before being killed off).

You like the Invisible Man? This has got you covered. You like sword fights, wrestling (both animals & men), fist fights? Plenty for any taste. We have an underwater city, a sky city, a city on top of a mountain, and tonnes of secret passages and caves.

Hokey effects? Massive amounts. The sky city is supported by radium furnaces stoked like old-time steamships. The rocketships are \"powered\" by fireworks and have constant backfires and\/or humming noises. Lots of wires are visible holding things up (like food when Flash was invisible and of course rocketships). There's clouds out in space, but none around the earth when viewed from Mongo. \"Giant\" lizards show up briefly. Fighting sea creatures supposedly threaten Flash & co. on the way to the shark-men's underwater city. The \"gadgets\" in Dr. Zarkov's lab crack me up. And they seem to be the same ones no matter what lab he's in (he worked in Ming's lab and Vultan's).

And yeah, we have romance. Everyone wants Dale; Ming, Vultan, Flash. But at least one person wanted Princess Aura (Prince Baron) just not the person she would have preferred. In fact, it seems a lot of the sub-plots concern intrigue on the part of Princess Aura to try to win Flash.

Man I think the characters are awesome. That fat, horse-laughing, King Vultan was hilarious. How he managed those wings was pure artistry. And Ming! What can I say about Ming? He was perfect. They should have had him for the emperor in Starwars. Ming has got to be my favourite character in this serial. Princess Aura was quite a little character too. And she pulled it off nicely. I think she's a better actress than Dale Arden by a long shot. Even the sneaky high priest had a distinctive role. Zarkov was good, but not the strongest character---and he always stood in the background during fight scenes holding Dale. Now we get to Flash: Flash, of course, was the strong point, the leader, the hero---and he did it well. Crabbe is a good actor and this role fit him perfectly.

After watching this, I think I know where George Lucas got the main idea for Starwars. Watch this, you'll see what I mean.

If you ever considered watching an old serial (or any serial for that matter), this should be your first choice. The only reason I didn't give this one a 10 is because of a few story holes that could have been fixed easily, the way the giant lizards seemed just tacked in there, and a couple of weak characters (king of shark-men & king of lion-men).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After 66 years \"Flash Gordon\" still has an appealing scifi\/adventure\/epic feel that many of today's science fiction adventures strive for and fail to deliver. The only way to fully enjoy this serial is just to sit back and not pick at anything (hokey effects, dialogue, why Flash doesn't go for Princess Aura etc.). And as for you older people who saw \"Flash Gordon\" back on the serial screen or on T.V. \"back in the day\", if you want this fine serial to remain appealing to future generations, get your kids\/grandkids to watch this when they're young. It worked for me (Male aged 18 or under). 9 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Standard bearer of all movie serials, the definite good guy - Flash Gordon - versus Bad Guy - Ming the Merciless. Though the special effects seem awful by today's standards, for 1936 they were top notch. But the essence of the story is the battle between Earthman Flash Gordon (Buster Crabbe) versus Emporer Ming of Mongo (Charles Middleton). Crabbe and Middleton are terrific in their parts. And the supporting characters playing Dale Arden, Dr. Zarkov, Princess Aura, Prince Barin, Vulcan, and the rest are all very good. This serial is far superior to the 1980 movie, basically because Crabbe is much much superior to Sam J. Jones as Flash Gordon.

This serial is the standard bearer for all movie serials. No question about it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Flash Gordon was a first rate serial. I know there were a few goofs, however, i didn't watch it for the flaws. Buster Crabbe is Flash Gordon. He was not a trained actor but he gave a very good, convincing performance. Jean Rogers is pretty and at 20 yrs. old did, in my opinion, a pretty good job. Charles Middleton as Emperor Ming, is superb. He was in a lot of other movies, quite versatile, he could sing and dance. His portrayal of \"Ming The Merciless\", in all 3 Flash Gordon serials, was top notch. The rest of the cast also did a very good job. Well, boys and girls, get some popcorn, settle back and enjoy. John R. Tracy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Flash Gordon is, undoubtedly, the best of all American serials. In a date so early as 1936,Universal was capable of making such an entertainment story, and twenty years later when I watched it for the first time as a kid it involved me in a great adventure and emotion. Buster Crabbe was the hero we always wanted to be in our childhood, and Jean Rogers the beautiful girl we always dreamt to be in love with. Dragons, octopus, monsters,gorillas were also the attraction. Charles Middleton was a great presence as Ming, the Merciless. A true predecessor of George Lucas\u00b4s Starwars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Arguably the finest serial ever made(no argument here thus far) about Earthman Flash Gordon, Professor Zarkov, and beautiful Dale Arden traveling in a rocket ship to another universe to save the planet. Along the way, in spellbinding, spectacular, and action-packed chapters Flash and his friends along with new found friends such as Prince Barin, Prince Thun, and the awesome King Vultan pool their resources together to fight the evils and armies of the merciless Ming of Mongo and the jealous treachery of his daughter Priness Aura(now she's a car!). This serial is not just a cut above most serials in terms of plot, acting, and budget - it is miles ahead in these areas. Produced by Universal Studios it has many former sets at its disposable like the laboratory set from The Bride of Frankenstein and the Opera House from The Phantom of the Opera just to name a few. The production values across the board are advanced, in my most humble opinion, for 1936. The costumes worn by many of these strange men and women are really creative and first-rate. We get hawk-men, shark men, lion men, high priests, creatures like dragons, octasacks, orangapoids, and tigrons(oh my!)and many, many other fantastic things. Are all of them believable and first-rate special effects? No way. But for 1936 most are very impressive. The musical score is awesome and the chapter beginnings are well-written, lengthy enough to revitalize viewer memories of the former chapter, and expertly scored. Director Frederick Stephani does a great job piecing everything together wonderfully and creating a worthy film for Alex Raymond's phenom comic strip. Lastly, the acting is pretty good in this serial. All too often serials have either no names with no talent surrounding one or two former talents - here most everyone has some ability. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a Shakespeare troupe by any means, but Buster Crabbe does a workmanlike, likable job as Flash. He is ably aided by Jean Arden, Priscella Lawson, and the rest of the cast in general with two performers standing out. But before I get to those two let me add as another reviewer noted, it must have been amazing for this serial to get by the Hayes Office. I see more flesh on Flash and on Jean Rogers and Priscella Lawson than in movies decades later. The shorts Crabbe(and unfortunately for all of us Professor Zarkov((Frank Shannon)) wears are about as form-fitting a pair of shorts guys can wear. The girls are wearing mid drifts throughout and are absolutely beautiful Jean Rogers may have limited acting talent but she is a blonde bombshell. Lawson is also very sultry and sensuous and beautiful. But for me the two actors that make the serial are Charles Middleton as Ming: officious, sardonic, merciless, and fun. Middleton is a class act. Jack \"Tiny\" Lipson plays King Vultan: boisterous, rousing, hilarious - a symbol for pure joy in life and the every essence of hedonism. Lipson steals each and every scene he is in. The plot meanders here, there, and everywhere - but Flash Gordon is the penultimate serial, space opera, and the basis for loads of science fiction to follow. Excellent!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As previously stated in one of my great reviews, the Universal Pictures'Trilogy of FLASH GORDON should not be classified with the other serials. For,indeed the three of these have made a sort of celluloid-electronic mythology for a punchy, war phobic mid twentieth century world. They stand alone in many peoples' minds as THE example of just what a cliff hanger was.

We can recall seeing Buster Crabbhe as a guest on NBC's late night talk show, TOMORROW, hosted by Tom Snyder. This was circa 1979-80. During the interview Mr. Crabbe was asked about his personal fitness habits. He credited weight training and swimming, coupled with some sound dietary habits-which included vitamin and protein supplementation.(And would you believe it, he smoked several cigarettes!)

When questioned about his career, Mr. Snyder of course got to the subject of his portrayal (and strong identification with) the character of Flash. Buster stated that he had read and enjoyed the feature in its original medium, that is a comic strip the property of Hearst's King Features Syndicate. He stated that he had thought that it would not work once transferred to the screen! Luckily he was wrong.

As for the 1st serial, it was a very good adaption of the original continuity from the Sunday Color Comics. The world is about to end because of impending collision with Planet Mongo.It's up to independent working Dr. Zarkov to rocket to the wild planet to change its course. He enlists the aid of Flash and Miss Dale Arden, newly acquainted parachuters from airliner, landing in Zarkov's property.

The Serial has excitement through out and manages to make one feel that there is always some other peril lurking just outside the film frame. The costuming and decor is varied,from Romanesque to Oriental to Art Decco. It would be easy to surmise that this was due to frugality on the part of Universal,but once again this was being faithful to creator,cartoonist Alex Raymond's visual concepts.(just look at the old strips as reprinted in many collections) The rockets were used before in JUST IMAGINE! (Fox 1930), a science fiction musical comedy.The other scientific lab equipment was provided by Universal's prop dept.,being the top Hollywood company doing Horror and SciFi.

The cast features Jean Rogers(Dale Arden) and Priscilla Lawson (Princess Aura)who get into a good girl vs. bad girl battle over Flash. Charles Middleton portrays Emperor Ming in a sort of overly melodramatic villain,but makes it work. Zarkov(Frank Shannon)is toned down from the sheer madness that he suffered in his appearance in newsprint. (by the way, ever wonder how Zar-KOV has a brogue?) Richard Alexander makes a fine, powerfully built Prince Barin, ever helpful and so noble.

Comic actor Jack \"Tiny\" Lipson is the surprise of the cast, stealing scene after scene as a lecherous, Henry VIII like scoundrel turned ally, King Vultan,ruler of the Hawkmen. Among the others, most notable is Jim Pierce as Prince Thun of the Lion Men. Pierce,like Crabbe, had also portrayed Tarzan in a film-but he later married Tarzan Creator, Edgar Rice Bourroughs' daughter, Joan.

FLASH GORDON and the two sequels, FLASH GORDON's TRIP TO MARS(1938) and FLASH GORDON CONQUERS THE UNIVERSE(1940), have been a staple juvenile fare for generations,first in the movie houses then in Television release. Like fine wine, they seen to get better with age.

We're all so glad that Mr.Crabbe was wrong.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the most famous of all movie serials! Still interesting today although it does have an \"old movie\" look to it. The second serial looks better but simply does not equal this one. Actors have a good time , especially Middleton and Lipson. Great editing by the Universal expert crew. The musical score was tracked in from Universal's \"Destination Unknown\", \"The Invisible Man\", \"The Black Cat\", and \"Werewolf of London\". And what great action music it was! If there was a choice for all-time best serial, this (arguably) should be #1.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this took me back to my childhood in the 1950 's so corny but just fab no one ever could play FLASH GORDON like LARRY BUSTER CRABBE, just great. i have two more series to view flash gordon's trip to mars and flash gordon conquers the universe cannot wait

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the 60's Cleveland television audiences could watch a episode of \"Flash Gordon\" as part of the Ghoulardi Show (11:30PM Friday). This was the best mockfest material any of us in junior high had ever seen. We would have regular \"sleepovers\" (although we did not call them that) just to get in on the fun of watching this stuff with a group of friends. Then the next week we would quote our favorite cornball lines from the latest episode.

Watching it today provokes much the same reaction. But if you can stop laughing at the dialogue, the lame creatures, the silly costumes, and the horrible spaceships long enough, there are some good things I did not appreciate the first time through. The production designers built some excellent sets, both the rooms and the laboratory devices. Charles Middleton's \"Ming the Merciless\" character was the all-time best screen villain, certainly up to that time and arguable better than anyone since. Jean Rogers is staggeringly beautiful.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The brainchild of comic strip pioneer Alex Raymond, \"Flash Gordon\" was the grand daddy of all sci-fi epics. This serial is the first time Flash was brought to celluloid life. Despite it's low budget, this is a great space opera.

The story begins with Earth doomed to apparent destruction, when the Planet Mongo comes hurtling through space on a collision course. Maverick scientist Dr. Zarkov is headed off for the approaching planet in a self-made rocket ship, convinced he can do something to stop the runaway celestial body. He gets some last minute recruits in the form of resourceful athlete Flash Gordon and beautiful Dale Arden. Once they reach Mongo, their problems really begin. They run afoul of dastardly Emperor Ming the Merciless, conqueror of his world, who has some ambitious plans for Earth.

The rest of the serial revolves around Flash's desperate attempts to save the earth; the assorted alien cultures he encounters; the allies he makes; space ships he flies; the battles he fights, and the monsters he slays.

Brilliantly conceived by Raymond, \"Flash Gordon\" features classic archetypes from legendary myths and fables of antiquity. Echos of famous tales, like the sagas of Troy and Camelot and Sherwood Forrest are seen here. You have the dashing, handsome hero, on a quest to save the kingdom (Flash); The evil king (Ming); The old wise man (Zarkov); The lovely damsel in distress (Dale); the seductive siren (Aura); loyal allies (Thun, Barin, Vultan); Plus monsters, dragons and assorted beasties.

Flash is a modern Robin Hood, Jason or Beowulf. Ming is Prince John or Aggamemnon. Dale is Helen of Troy or Gwenevere or Maid Marion. Zarkov is Merlin or Odysseus. (Or Gandalf) Thun\/Barin\/Vultan are the Merry Men or the Knights of the Round Table.

You get the idea.

You can't help but notice how many ideas from \"Flash Gordon\" would later reappear in STAR WARS. The cloud City; The ice World; The forest moon; The scrolling opening text (From the second serial); There are others, but you get the gist. The whole sci-fi genre owes a great debt to this timeless classic.

Buster Crabb is the perfect action hero, and I personally think he's better at this sort of role than any of the current crop of action stars. He also played Buck Rogers and Tarzan.

Charles Middleton is the embodiment of diabolical nastiness as Ming. Sure, he seems a bit melodramatic today, but that was what audiences expected from their bad guys in the 30's.

Jean Rogers is our hero's love interest Dale Arden, and I had such a crush on her when I first saw this as a boy. I can readily understand why Flash always rushed to her rescue. She's the quintessential good girl, to counterpoint the seductive manipulations of Aura, the quintessential bad girl.

The supporting cast seemed perfectly chosen to emulated their comic strip counterparts, and despite the now-silly looking FXs, there was a lot of thrilling action in this groundbreaking serial.

An all around fun romp and the beginning of the sci-fi genre in cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i originally seen the flash Gordon serial on PBS,and thought it was fun and awesome,i overlooked the special effects of the rocket ships with sparklers,and the big dragon monster with lobster claws,who cares this is 1936 and it was a serial,so each week they would show a new chapter, buster Crabbe played flash Gordon 3 times,in all 3 serials.then in 1939 he played buck rogers,in 1933 he played Tarzan the fearless.he was a very busy actor.beautiful jean rogers played sexy dale Arden.frank Shannon as professor zarkov,and Charles Middleton played the evil ming the merciless.he makes Darth Vader look like a boyscout.the serials were very close to the Alex Raymond comic strip.space travel was just a pipe dream at the time.not to mention ray guns and television.this one stands out as the best serial ever.the sequel flash Gordon's trip to mars is 2 chapters longer,the next flash Gordon conquers the universe is only 12 chapters.and then there's the natives of mongo..,hawk-men, lion-men,shark-men.the feature version leaves out the shark-men scenes. for the full effect you must see the complete serial.i heard George Lucas was inspired by flash Gordon when he did star wars.flash Gordon was from universal studios.and the music on the soundtrack is from many universal movies like bride of Frankenstein,werewolf of London,Dracula's daughter,etc;even today flash Gordon continues to delight people young and old.10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved \"Flash Gordon\" as a child and watching the series again on DVD brings back such fond memories. Each 15-minute episode features the adventures of our hero Flash, the lovely Dale Arden, and intrepid Dr. Zarkov on the planet Mongo, with Flash escaping death at every turn: The Shark Men nearly drown him, he faces the Fire Monster in the Tunnel of Terror, and he's in mortal peril in the Static Room!

The characters are still fun: Buster Crabbe is every bit the blonde dreamboat hero and Jean Rogers is a delicate and beautiful Dale Arden. Princess Aura still plots to steal Flash for herself, King Vultan of the Hawk Men still has his booming laugh and angel wings, and Ming the Merciless, Emperor of the Universe, is still giving everyone the evil eye and the creeps.

This serial probably wouldn't interest children today with its hokey effects - oh, that spaceship! - but it's a fun bit of nostalgia for those who liked it the first time around. The actors play it straight and don't play down to kids. I appreciate that young viewers were expected to read the chapter synopses which had pretty big words in them.

I'm glad this came out on DVD. It's a lot of fun to revisit this classic sci-fi serial.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was a child when I saw this serial, a bit after seen Buck Rogers one, both characters performed by the same Buster Crabbe, and I must acknowledge that these films have always been part of the best entertainment I've ever had. The fight against Emperor Ming was one thing but I was more interested to know about the final fate of the love triangle of Flash with Dale and Aura. Barin came and persuaded Aura to forget Flash, very innocent termination of her obsession for good-looking Flash. The serial has no offensive and really violent scenes and can be watched by all audiences. Another thing is that I learned floating in water looking the way Crabbe did it when fighting against shark men. The soundtrack was also nice although it was used previously in another film of Boris Karloff's Frankenstein. It would be nice to have the DVD of this serial provided that it comes with subtitles in Spanish (not yet available).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't understand all these bad reviews. I believe this movie was one of the best in the Puppet Master series. Being made on a low budget, one can comprehend why the special effects and acting were not spectacular, but they were not completely horrible.

Greg Sestero brought a lot of charisma to the role of Andre Toulon. He has a lot of potential, and I hope to see more of him soon. And though the cinematography was not excellent, and there was minimal violence and gore, this film was a lot of fun. I am a big Puppet Master fan and have grown to expect blood and gore from the films of this series, but I can say that I was never bored through the entire course of watching Retro Puppet Master. So, if you ever get an opportunity to see this movie, don't automatically regard it as unworthy of your time. Give it a chance. You might like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Six-shooter, Tunnel Sergeant, Dr. Death, Pinhead, Cyclops, and Blade help the young Andre Toulon take out Sutek's Egyption henchman in the best sequel this series has seen.

Retro Puppet Master is atmospheric with many sets, quality acting and some fun puppet FX. What it lacks in gore, it makes up for with an interesting well-paced plot.

Best Quote: Dr. Death: \"Don't you know, my friends? Smell the sulfur, see the smoke...\"

This is easily the best Dave DeCoteau film I've seen. The actors do a more-than-credible job: Jack Donner as \"Azfel\" turns in an inspired performance, and the young Toulon does well with the puppets. Oh, and the ring-needle is cool.

John Massari's score is a nice symphonic take on the original Puppet Master tunes by Richard Band, keeping the movie playful and eerie. It's rare for a Full Moon score to actually add something to a film, and this one does.

Unfortunately, Dave Allen didn't seem to be affordable enough for Band and Co. in the late-90's and beyond, so all of the puppet action is done rod and string. There's no stop motion such as the famous and funny scene in the original where Pinhead's looking for his pinhead. And, of course, as with all of the Full Moon fare of this time period, RPM was shot in and around Castel Studios in Bucharest, so most of the bit parts were cast to Romanians: hearing their \"Parisian\" accents was a bit annoying.

All in all, this is probably one of the top-10 Full Moon films. It's certainly the most inventive of the Puppet Master sequels.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First off, I Hate Sci Fi Stuff, And Although This Movie got a little Sci Fi at times, That's Allright, Because At Least It Focused On Andre Toulon. In the last 3, Andre seemed to have kind of been Mentioned, but the Stories Never really focused on him, which made me mad. What also makes me mad is The Amount of 0's it Got on the Voting Chart. Give It a Rest People. If you saw this Movie and Liked it, Please vote for it. Please. What I Loved About this Movie is that It went back to Where it all started. When Andre first learned the Secret to Life. I would Recommend Renting this if you Have seen a Puppet Master Movie before and liked it. But not renting it if this is your First Time viewing one from the PM Collection, Mainly Because you might think all the Puppet Masters are as \"Dull\" as this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the kind of movie that you rent when you are incredibly tired, or impaired in some other way... The acting in this movie is so bad it seems intentional, and to let you know how bad the special effects are, there is one scene when the puppets are coming alive where you can see most of a hand holding the puppet, moving it about. The movie looked as if it was filmed with a camcorder. When I saw this movie for the first time, a fistfight nearly erupted when my friends and I were calling each other names from this flick, that's how terrible it was. If you enjoy getting mad at movies, I recommend this to you, otherwise, flee as though your very life depended on it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is great to see a new batch of puppets creating havoc in this series. I found this chapter a lot of fun. In fact, it would probably be my second favorite in the series. This movie has very little violence and is only rated PG-13. This is notably different from the other R-rated puppet master movies which were loaded with gore and violent mayhem. The lack of violence does not diminish the fun though. This film also has notably better special effects than the last movie in this series. Good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is probably one of my favorites so far, although I have the first one and have seen Curse, Legacy, and vs. Demonic Toys. The only one better than this one is PM vs. DT. Curse is the worst one in the series, Than the first one, and then its Legacy. I recommend people to see this and vs. DT. Those ones who say this stinks are so wrong, the story is well written and it is a sweet movie. This is a classic movie even younger kids can watch and not be as scared when watching the others. Well this is my review, you can call me Gipdac,( its easy to know where that came from: 101 Dalmatians series, you can watch it on Toon Disney at 4:00 A.M.). Oh and don't laugh, I'm a guy, you will see more of my reviews in good time. If you want to know why I watch it? I'm 12! Word of advice: Have a mental meal, arrrrroooooooooo! I also agree with you motter-1, but why people like the others is because they're more thrilling than horror, and because the puppets are made to look scarier. Also, you can call me Gipdac.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"And she really was beautiful (Laraine Day, that is) - herself, her part, and her performance. An engaging story of selfish vs. selfless love, for the same man, wealthy heartthrob and dipsomaniac Robert Cummings. One of his bouts of inebriation leads to an incident that enrages the local community and tests the mettle of the two sisters (Jean Muir and Laraine Day) that are close to him (and to each other). Their comfortable and somewhat superficial milieu is up-ended as the two girls confront the ensuing crisis and respond to its conflicting demands of prudence, integrity, loyalty, and love, with consequences that are profoundly different for each of them. With the old vanities and niceties abandoned, their real characters are revealed in enthralling contrast.

A wonderful find on TCM!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Robert Cummings, Laraine Day and Jean Muir star in \"And One Was Beautiful,\" a 1940 film also starring Billie Burke. At one hour and 15 minutes, this looks to have been a B movie. Cummings is a playboy, Ridley Crane, whom many women desire, including two sisters, Katherine and Helen Latimer (Day and Muir). Katherine is the more earthbound of the two who likes to fix cars, and Helen is the blonde social butterfly with the beautiful gowns. Ridley arrives back in town, and, believing he's not going to be at a party, Helen decides not to attend. Since the party is given by a family friend, their mother (Burke) sends Katherine in a pinned up dress. Ridley is there, and the two connect. But Ridley is into more superficiality, and when he sees Helen at a dinner party, the two pick up where they left off and go to a club. He becomes terribly drunk, and Helen at first refuses to ride in his car because he won't let her drive. After walking awhile and breaking the heel of her shoe, she gets into Ridley's car when he drives by. He passes out, and she takes over the wheel, accidentally hitting and killing a bicyclist.

Ridley can't remember anything, so Helen lets him take the blame for the death. The heel of a woman's shoe is found in the car, and Katherine sees her sister bury her shoes - plus, something in Helen's manner makes her realize that Helen isn't telling the truth. Ridley is convicted and goes to prison, and Helen marries a man she doesn't love and leaves for South America.

This is a wonderful film, even though at the time, this wasn't an A-list cast. Cummings is playing a part that Robert Taylor would have played (it's an MGM film) - he's handsome and very amiable, even if he doesn't have the dazzling looks of someone like Taylor. Laraine Day is a favorite actress of mine, someone MGM loaned out constantly because they didn't know what to do with her. Why, I wonder - a wonderful actress with a great face and voice, she livened up many a film. This one is no different. Her Katherine is determined, sympathetic and totally lovely. Jean Muir is a lousy actress.

So who was the beautiful one? We all know even if MGM didn't.

Highly recommended little gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Disney's Buena Vista Pictures presents a wonderfully told fact-based sports drama directed by actor Bill Paxton. Photography is superb, but story sometimes lumbers along. This film is about the 20 year old amateur golfer Francis Ouimet(Shia LaBeouf)and his competition in the 1913 U.S. Open. What a story; a once-in-a-lifetime chance for a supposedly incapable young man to play along side the best golfers of the time, including British champions Harry Vardon(Stephen Dillane)and Ted Ray(Stephen Marcus). A storybook ending leaves a knot in the throat. The cast also includes: Peter Firth, Elias Koteas, Marnie McPhail, Robin Wilcox, and possibly stealing the show is Josh Flitter, who plays Eddie Lowery, Ouimet's caddy and best friend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Both Disney and Bill Paxton did a fine job in conveying a story that is based in fact. You do not have to like the game of golf to appreciate the story of one man's struggle to overcome the odds. It could have been based on any sport or simply on any other situation which involves competition, though this one just happens to be related to Golf. The only problem I have with the story is that I would have liked to see a bit deeper into each of the main characters, esp. Mr. Ouimet. Mr. Francis Ouimet is a typical young man of his times, turn of the century America, where \"class lines\" are well delineated and woe be it to anyone who deigns to try to rise above his \"class\" standing. I did a bit of historical research and my biggest question was indeed answered, to my satisfaction. Although the circumstances are a bit different than those portrayed in the film, I came away with a feeling of content. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I believe you will too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is not a movie that I would typically watch at 2:30 in the morning, but I got into it and couldn't stop until it was over.

Shia LaBeouf demonstrated that he is not just a young actor here, but could handle more demanding roles. The fact that he has been handed those roles in the last two years is testament to his ability.

It was really his movie. Sure, there were others involved, but they pale in comparison to his role.

This was a time when gold was reserved for the privileged. This victory opened it up to the masses, much the way that Tiger Woods has opened golf to all races.

Like Harry Vardon (Stephen Dillane) said to Lord Northcliffe (Peter Firth): \" ...if Mr. Ouimet (Shia LaBeouf) wins tomorrow, it's because he's the best, because of who he is. Not who his father was, not how much money he's got, because of who he bloody is! And I'll thank you to remember that.\" Go get charged up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shia LaBeouf has impressed me before with his acting ability, but I can honestly say that I very much look forward to his next efforts...his portrayal of Francis Ouimet, a 20 year old caddy who ignores his father's insistence that golf is not his place in life and enters the 1913 US Open tournament in his hometown...the beginning of the movie does drag a bit, but it's necessary to set up the underdog subplot that Shia works so well...the entire cast is well-chosen and they work very well together in a story that, based on the actual event, has an ending everyone can discover before seeing the movie...but even knowing that information doesn't spoil the fun...Josh Flitter is delightful as Eddie Lowery, Francis' caddy, who keeps him grounded and loose while at the same time proving to be an invaluable part of Francis' effort...Stephen Delane is outstanding as Harry Vardon, the legendary British golfer who Francis idolizes yet does not fear...and who knows the background Francis comes from as he, too, had humble beginnings...Bill Paxton takes a formulaic movie and makes it worthwhile...bravo Mr. Paxton, and bravo to the cast...from the imagery to the story to the people who bring it alive, this is a movie to get, enjoy, and revel in...it's nice to have movies like this that we can feel good watching...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Rainy day with not much to do. We were surfing the movie network channels and found this one just starting, so we gave it a chance.

The more we watched, the more we became engrossed in the story. Its the old story of working class underdog trying to make it in a sport which at the time (1913 I think) was usually played by the wealthy upper class but this movie was every bit as interesting as Seabiscuit and this is also based on a true story.

The acting is believable and the casting is brilliant. AND . . . . we are NOT golfers, so please don't miss this one just because its about golf. Any individual sport would serve the plot, because it's about the people. Golf works well for this story because of the class distinction and snobbery that seem to involve some who play the game.

Bottom line . . . . Its a feel good movie. It's well put together and isn't it always fun to see those who think they are better than others get taken down a peg or two.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like your sports movies to be about dignity and the best values then this'll work for you big time. Oversentimental in places? Sure, of course it is - and proud of it. It is the biggest and best ride in the Carnival and should be enjoyed as that.

Big production values, simple telling, with creative shots: it is not complex, is a very nice and remarkably sweet film. It really feels like a labor of love from Bill Paxton; and I bet his son gets that.

The build-up is slow enough to be enjoyed, the conflicts feisty, and the British vs. Americans handled with a degree of vaudevillian villainy, but the dignity between the two main transatlantic protagonists is always to the fore. I have minor gripes: the score wants to be James Horner but is too overblown, and there are too many close-ups, and panning shots for 2005, but if you want a straightforward, decent, and good-looking sports film then this is it.

So here's the thing, and I feel like I know my film, but I actually liked it more than Seabiscuit: which is a better film, but Greatest Story is simply Disney at its core and hugely enjoyable! Thanks, Bill.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When i first saw the movie being advertised i thought it was going to be another Disney movie that almost goes straight to video. I finally got around and rented it. I thought it was going to be bad because i couldn't see Shia in any other role than his recently cancelled show \"Even Stevens\". When i turned it on i was ready to turn it off from boredom in about ten minutes. It started a bit slow and i couldn't understand the beginning because the years didn't make sense then they explained that later in the show so i was relieved of wondering about that. All and all i thought it was a good movie and i would recommend it. The cast was top notch and even though i'm not a fan of golf it easily kept my attention with a good plot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When you think of golf movies, you think of Caddyshack, but what if there are kids around? Go right to this movie! Disney uses is proved formula to make a movie that the adults and the kids will enjoy. The acting in this movie, in my opinion, is quite good and the leading cast, for the most part, is very young! This movie is also suprsingly filmed very well and unique, seeing all the angles of the golf game. I think this movie should be up for some academy awards for film editing or something like that because the entire flow of the film is top notch. Though the ending might be a little predictable, the movie does well on its own! It also shows that you do not need swearing, nudity, or violence to make a great golf movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movie has a decent story in my opinion,very good fight scenes but i was a little bit disappointed by the end of the movie.i think that it was a way better if lydie denier knew karate also or if she knew to use some weapons,her character has become more interesting too and she was a decent opponent to cynthia.i think when the director filmed the final 'battle' between cynthia&denier he wanted to finish the movie earlier so he didn't care how the end was going to be.all in all i think that fans of cynthia rothrock will be very satisfied watching this movie.it's not like 'yes,madam'! or sworn to justice but it was entertainment enough and cynthia looks awesome in this movie so my rate for this movie is a solid 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'The Merchant of Venice' is one of Shakespeare's better-known plays and is still regularly performed in the theatre. Incredibly, however, this film would seem to be the first-ever English-language version made for the cinema rather than television. There were a number of versions made in Britain or America during the early days of the cinema, but these were all silents.

The reason for this neglect of the play may be connected with sensitivities about the play's alleged anti-Semitism, a subject which has been even more sensitive since the rise to power of the Nazis in 1933. (This may explain why all previous versions were made during the silent era; in 1908 or 1922 it would have been easier to portray Shylock as a straightforward villain than it would be today). Yet in my view the film is not anti-Semitic at all. It should be remembered that during Shakespeare's lifetime there was no settled Jewish community in England; the Jews had been expelled by Edward I in the late 13th century, and were not permitted to return until the time of Cromwell, some forty years after Shakespeare's death. As far as we know, Shakespeare never travelled abroad, so it seems quite possible that he himself never knew any Jews personally or experienced the effects of anti-Semitism at first hand. The play is not simply about the Jewish question, but is, among other things, an analysis of the corrosive effects of religious prejudice. It may, in fact, be a coded examination of the mutual antipathy between Catholics and Protestants in Tudor England (something of which Shakespeare certainly would have had first-hand experience) and an appeal for greater tolerance between them.

Then as now, traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes had always depicted Jews as avaricious, but Shylock's principal sin is not avarice; if it were, he would certainly have accepted Bassanio's offer to pay him six thousand ducats, twice the amount borrowed by Antonio. Rather, Shylock's besetting sin is anger, and the root of his anger is the way in which he and his fellow-Jews are treated by the Christians of Venice. Not only are Jews in general regarded as second-class citizens, but Jewish moneylenders such as Shylock are particular targets for abuse, even though the services they provide are necessary to the Venetian economy. The play shows the corrupting effects of prejudice. Not only do views of this sort corrupt the Christians who hold them, they can also corrupt the Jews who suffer abuse. Shylock's vindictiveness is out of all proportion to the wrongs he has suffered. By spitting on him and calling him a dog, Antonio behaves like a boorish bigot, but boorishness and bigotry are not generally regarded as crimes deserving of the death penalty. Moreover, Shylock seeks to revenge himself on Antonio not merely for the undoubted wrongs that Antonio has done towards him, but also for all the wrongs, real and imaginary, that he has suffered at the hands of the Christian community, such as his daughter's marriage to Lorenzo.

It is to the credit of the film's director, Michael Radford and of its star, Al Pacino, that they understand all these issues. Pacino's Shylock has, initially, a sort of angry dignity about him that gradually gives way to vindictive rage and finally, after his humiliation in the trial scene by Portia's reasoning, to pathos. We see clearly that he has been the instrument of his own destruction, but we can still sympathise with him. In my view, none of Pacino's performances that I have seen have ever equalled those he gave in the first two 'Godfather' films (not 'Scent of a Woman', for which he won an Oscar, and certainly not 'Godfather III'), but 'The Merchant of Venice is the one that comes closest to those benchmarks. The other acting performance that stood out was Lynn Collins's luminous Portia, speaking her lines with great clarity and simplicity and bringing out the intelligence and resourcefulness that make her character more than simply a romantic heroine. I was less impressed with Jeremy Irons's Antonio, who seemed too passive. Antonio is a complex character; part loyal friend, part melancholy contemplative, part religious bigot and part enterprising capitalist. Although Irons captured the first two of those aspects, it was difficult to envisage his Antonio either spitting on someone of a different faith or hazarding his all on risky trading ventures.

Radford's interpretation of the play was attacked by the film critic of the 'Daily Telegraph' who, although he admired Pacino's performance, disliked the period setting and argued that Shakespeare needs to be placed in a contemporary setting if it is to have 'relevance' for a modern audience, citing a recent stage production which set the action in Weimar Germany. I would disagree profoundly with this approach. The theatre and the cinema are quite different media and, while there have been some striking modernist approaches to Shakespeare in the cinema (Trevor Nunn's 'Twelfth Night' comes to mind), a traditionalist approach is often the best one. (I preferred, for example, Zeffirelli's 'Romeo and Juliet' to Baz Luhrmann's). The idea that we can only appreciate Shakespeare in a modern guise is sheer intellectual laziness; we are not prepared to make the effort to see our greatest writer in the context of the Elizabethan society that produced him, but rather prefer him dressed up as an ersatz twentieth-century man.

Radford's traditional approach not only enables us to appreciate that bigotry and vindictiveness are age-old, universal problems, but also makes for a visually striking film. In the play, the scenes set in Venice itself are characterised by turbulent action; those set in Portia's country house at Belmont are happier and more peaceful. In the film, the Venetian exterior scenes were shot on location against a backdrop of misty, wintry grey skies, similar to the look achieved in 'Don't Look Now'. The candlelit interiors, with faces brightly lit against a dark background, were reminiscent of the chiaroscuro effects of a Caravaggio painting; I suspect this was quite deliberate, as Caravaggio was a contemporary of Shakespeare. By contrast to dark or misty Venice, the Belmont scenes (shot in an enchanting Palladian villa on an island in a lake) were characterised by sunshine or peaceful moonlight.

This is one of the best Shakespeare adaptations of recent years; an intelligent and visually attractive look at a complex play. 8\/10.

A couple of errors. We see a black swan on the water in front of Portia's house. These birds are natives of Australia and were not introduced to Europe until well after 1596, the date when the film is set. Also, the portrait of Portia in the leaden casket is painted in the style of the Florentine Botticelli, who was active about a century before that date. Lynn Collins may be reminiscent of a Botticelli beauty, but it seems unlikely that a late 16th century Venetian lady would have had herself painted in the manner of late 15th century Florence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michael Radford has done an excellent job bringing this difficult play to the screen. He has taken a play with a reputation for anti-semitism, and shown us that Shakespeare knew quite well the humanity of the Jews. Radford said after the screening, and I agree, that Shylock is his first tragic hero, the first of his characters to be undone by a driving, compulsive need for revenge. He also points out, quite rightly, that a man who was anti-semitic could not have written Shylock's speech of \"If you prick me, do i not bleed?\" Radford is himself of Jewish descent and he has picked out the good and bad of all characters with delicacy and honesty. no character is free from flaws; no character is evil. Radford has placed the play in the 16th century, which gives a lush background of Venetian politics and decadence on which to project Shakespeare's words.

If you get a chance to hear Radford speak about the film, I highly recommend you take it, since he gives details about life in 16th century Venice that illuminate a lot of the choices he made and give considerable extra depth to the viewing. I'm hoping that the DVD will come out with extensive commentary.

Jeremy Irons does a gorgeous portrayal of Antonio, a man who resigns himself to bearing the burden of his past misdeeds. Lynn Collins, a relative unknown, gives us an absolutely flawless, stunning, and detailed job as Portia. Not only is Ms. Collins beautiful - she also gives Portia layers of intelligence and humor prior to the trial scene i've rarely seen in any production of this play. the rest of the cast also does a terrific job, with a notable performance by Kris Marshall as Gratiano, and a beautifully subtle work by Allan Corduner as Tubal, playing the foil to Shylock. Finally, while Al Pacino pulls out his usual strong (and loud) performance, his best moments are when the camera focuses on him and he says no words, but you can see all the emotions and madnesses flowing into and out of him as he perceives his fortunes changing.

If you like period movies, I cannot recommend this movie enough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The inherent problem with any staging of 'The Merchant of Venice' has never been the pseudo-controversial anti-Semitism, but the fact that there are two story lines wildly different in both tone and content; a frothy romantic comedy and a searing tragedy. While mixing genres was all the rage in the sixteenth century (and mocked by Shakespeare in Hamlet), it rarely fails to grate with modern audiences. As a result, most directors are forced to place an emphasis on one storyline at the expense of the other, and it is no surprise that the decision falls in the favour of Shylock.

Like so many of Shakespeare's great tragic heroes, Shylock continues to fascinate after 400 years because he is such a difficult and complex character. Pitiful, proud, angry, vengeful, weak, arrogant; his behaviour defies simply analysis and continues to be argued over. He is flawed not because he is a Jew, but because he is human. Rarely do modern screenwriters imbue their creations with such richly textured contradictions, and it is to everyone's benefit that we have Shakespeare to draw on for inspiration.

Shakespearean language is wild and rambling, saturated in multiple meanings, word play and metaphor. To be understood it must be wrangled and tamed by an actor with the strength and knowledge to do so. When an actor fails, the words pour forth in a torrent of incomprehensible words, but when he succeeds, the English language springs to life with an immediacy and vibrancy that takes your breath away. Al Pacino is one such actor, and here displays an incredible level of clarity and control that, were there any justice, would sweep every award in the offering. He meets the challenge of presenting Shylock head on, and delivers an extraordinarily subtle and nuanced performance. It would be a crime if we never got the opportunity to see what he does with King Lear.

The supporting cast is noteworthy. Jeremy Irons gives an original take on the familiar Antonio, presenting an older, quieter figure that displays the unsavoury contradictions between medieval chivalry and ugly prejudice of the time. Joseph Fiennes is a revelation as he matures beyond superficial eye-candy to actually inhabit a character for once. Lynn Collins is the only disappointment. Many of Shakespeare's women are underwritten and require an actor to really work hard to bring them to life, and Collins' Gwyneth Paltrow impersonation seems a little flat and unsuited to the darker tone that Radford is aiming for.

The design team must be acknowledged for creating a unique and thoroughly believable vision of Late Renaissance Venice. The city has not looked this ominous since 'Don't Look Now'. Taking full advantage of extant locations and natural light, the film has an appearance of authenticity that is greatly enhanced by the dark and timeworn costume design. All, again, are worthy of award recognition.

The financial backers of films such as this must be commended. With a budget of $30 million, they must go into such a venture in the full and certain knowledge that they will never make a profit, and yet they invest nonetheless. We can all be grateful for it, as the result is a remarkable adaptation that is sure to be a benchmark for many years to come.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this at the Toronto International Film Festival in the beautiful Elgin Theatre. I was blown away by the beautiful cinematography, the brilliant adaptation of a very tricky play and last but not least, the bravura performance of Al Pacino, who was born to play this role, which was perfectly balanced by an equally strong performance from Jeremy Irons.

The film deftly explores the themes of love vs loyalty, law vs justice, and passion vs reason. Some might protest that the content is inherently anti-semitic, however they should consider the historical context of the story, and the delicate and nuanced way in which it is told in this adaptation.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am always impressed when a director (and this case director\/screenwriter) takes a piece of classical text - and makes it come alive. Sure, Shakespeare's text can give you goosebumps even when hammered out with self-importance, but to see a production where true inventiveness makes wonderful words even more so - by the provision of context or nuance not found in the stage directions is simply awe-inspiring. There are many troubling things about the play. It is a racist play about racism - and that still sticks. I have never accepted Jessica's desertion of her father without any acceptable reason. I have never accepted the Christians' position of sanctimonious self-righteousness. But, brilliantly, there is a text prologue which helps us understand the times and politics in which the story is set, and mercifully, much of Jessica's part is cut.

The text is quite stripped down with many passages cut. But, I only noticed one line which was cut at the moment when I expected to hear it - and it was replaced by a look that said it all. This economy and judicious editing has given us a gripping movie - not just a film of the play.

And at last, there is a rationale as to why Antonio is so loyal and generous to the undeserving\/unrelated Bassanio - you can almost feel Antonio's pulse start to race when he catches glimpse of Bassanio passing by in a gondola, or arriving for a visit. But it is as subtle as that - no more. I was spellbound.

There were many other highlights. I felt the arguments during the trial to be heartbreaking. And, the suitors' trials are hilarious.

Add all that to glorious cinematography and costumes that resonated with the times, and you'll understand why I can't wait to see it again. And again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is a risky business to film such a lavish production of \"The Merchant of Venice\". It could be a stodgy, wooden, period piece, or it could be laughable for its excesses. This version is neither. While I am not completely sold by Al Pancino's very restrained Shylock, he does give a competent and honorable performance. Jeremy Iron's Antonio, is as always with his tortured-self roles, riveting. Some of the lesser roles seemed to be a little to much in the spirit of boisterous fun, \"a boy's own Venician adventure story\", but the central plot is efficiently and sympathetically moved forward through the film.

It goes without saying, that the location shots, costumes, and interiors were breathtaking, almost to the point of distraction.

One thing, on which I do not wish to comment on, is the anti-semetic content of the play. The film is as sympathetic to the predicament of the Jews as possible while still portraying Shylock as the instrument of his own self-destruction. It is a sad comment that four centuries later, the director of this film found it necessary to comment on his nuanced view before the premiere screening at the Toronto film fest.

This is a beautiful film, and I look forward to several viewings.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw The Merchant of Venice in London last week. Great acting by Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons, Joseph Finnes and Lynn Collins. Compare to other movies based on Shakespeare's play, this production has made the play so easy to understand and follow. Bravo to Michael Radford for directing such top actors. The costume and the scenery are great and since it was filmed on location in Venice it gives the film and authentic flavor. I had read the play over thirty years ago at school and the emphasis was on the characters' anti-Semitic behavior toward the Jews and the cruelty of the Christians. I do not know if this movie is going to be controversial but in any case I am sure that it will get few Oscar nominations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is about a Jewish moneylender and his bond to extract a pound of flesh from the wealthy merchant Antonio, the forfeiter of a debt. The Jewish moneylender, of course, is Shylock and he is given such a towering performance by Al Pacino that even outstanding actors like Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes, and Lynne Collins fade into the background. The film is set in 16th century Venice and director Michael Radford relies on setting, mood, and realism to tell its story, rejecting lavish period costumes or a modern setting with rock music to appeal to a wider audience.

Radford slices the play's three-hour length to a manageable two hours and eight minutes and also provides some historical background. In the opening narration, he tells us how Jews came to England, were subject to increasing persecution, and eventually expelled from England. They were forbidden to own property, could make profits only by lending money at interest, and were forced to live in a Venetian \"geto\", a forerunner of darker events to come. In the film, the merchant Antonio (Jeremy Irons) spits upon Shylock in public, yet feels no shame in going to the usurer to borrow 3000 ducats to help his friend and suggested lover Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) to properly court Portia (Lynne Collins), a wealthy heiress. Though Shylock has been insulted by Antonio, he agrees to loan the money without interest for three months on the condition that forfeiture of the bond grants him the right to exact a pound of flesh from Antonio's heart.

The play is primarily a drama of hatred and revenge, but like many of Shakespeare's works there are touches of broad comedy as well. Here the comedy involves three pairs of lovers: Bassanio and Portia, Gratiano, Bassanio's friend, and Nerissa, and Lorenzo, another friend of Bassanio, and Jessica, Shylock's daughter. Portia has offered herself to the person who can pick the right treasure from one of three boxes, made of gold, silver, and lead. The Prince of Morocco chooses the one of gold, the Prince of Aragon the one of silver and both are disappointed. Bassanio, however, loves her for herself and opens the leaden casket to find the portrait within. Radford's adaptation conveys a remarkable feeling for time and place. Portia's residence at Belmont suggests one of those splendid summer homes complete with immaculate gardens and art treasures hanging in every room and contrasts well with the grungy look of Shylock's city with its dank alleyways.

When it becomes clear that Antonio cannot repay the debt, Bassanio returns to Venice, leaving Portia behind. When he arrives, the loan is in default and Shylock is demanding his pound of flesh. Even when Bassanio, backed by Portia's wealth, offers many times the amount in repayment, Shylock is intent on revenge not only for the loss of the money but for a lifetime of outsider status. The duke, who sits in judgment, will not intervene as Portia enters in the guise as a lawyer to defend Antonio. It is here that the film reaches its dramatic heights as all parties come to court to achieve a final resolution.

The Merchant of Venice is not only about an unpaid debt but also about the estrangement of Jews from Christian society and their desire for belonging. It has been one of Shakespeare's most controversial plays and analysts have debated for a long time whether it is an anti-Semitic play or simply a play about anti-Semitism that reflects the prevalent view of Christian society in Elizabethan England. Although Shylock is definitely a caricature, he is an ambiguous figure and there are many indications that Shakespeare views his flaws as human failings, not Jewish ones. The Duke recognizes that he is simply a man who has failed to adhere to the compassionate language of the Torah.

In the monologue, \"I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? \u0085If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?\", Shylock shows a universal humanity, expressing the equality of all men. Though we are horrified at the sentence he wishes to carry out, we can feel his pain accumulated over the years. Pacino's performance brings new vigor to the text and his often over-the-top persona is replaced with a gentler, more understated demeanor that brings understanding to his cause.. During a Toronto International Film Festival interview last September, Radford said about Pacino, \"\u0085when you work with a brilliant actor, you have a great machine. It's a bit like driving a powerful car. You have to dare to do it.\" He has dared and we are all the beneficiaries.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seriously, where is Al Pacino's Oscar nomination for this one? Is it that we take him for granted at this point in his career? Pacino here is extraordinary.. He gives a complex, heartbreaking performance as Shylock, the Jewish money lender.. the movie as a whole was quite great, with beautiful shots of Venice to look at and a pitch perfect score to listen to.. the other actors all do a fine job as well, but the real reason to see this is Pacino.. I have seen all the nominated Oscar performances of 2004, and I must say that Pacino was snubbed.. blame it on the anti-semitism associated with the play, the lack of campaigning by the studio, the late release date with no major push, or most likely, all of the above.. in my mind, the best performances of the year belong to Jamie Foxx in Ray, Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda, and Al Pacino in The Merchant of Venice..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michael Radford, the director of \"The Merchant of Venice\" makes a tremendous job in opening the play, as he makes it more accessible for everyone to have a great time at the movies watching this thorny account of a horrible time in history. The luscious production of the Shakespeare's play is a feast for the eyes with its rich detail of the Venice of the XVI century.

This is a story of revenge, prejudice and justice, as imagined by William Shakespeare. Having seen the play a few times, we were not prepared about what to expect. Mr. Radford takes care of presenting the story with such detail so it can be easily understood by everyone. Also, he has used a version of English that makes more sense, rather than relying on the original text. In fact, the way Shylock speaks in the film, doesn't shock at all, being he, a member of a minority that has been marginalized by the Venetian authorities and the Catholic Church.

Al Pacino tremendous portrayal of Shylock shows a man that is vulnerable, arrogant, revengeful, mean, and totally human, all at the same time. Mr. Pacino sheds light into the character of the man who is defeated in court by a technicality. His own daughter has left him and his whole world seems to be caving in on him. At the end of the film, we see a man that has been reduced to being the target of hatred and ridicule by everyone.

Lynn Collins, as Portia is a happy discovery. Having seen her in lighter fare, she not only surprises, but she makes the best of her role and her time in front of the camera. She shows us she is a woman with a high intelligence, who comes to the help of her husband and his best friend, who risked his own well being in trying to help Bassanio get Portia's hand.

Jeremy Irons plays Antonio, the man who seeks Shylock for a \"bridge loan\". After all, he knows his ships will be returning with fortunes from abroad soon. Antonio gets much more than he bargained for in agreeing with Shylock to the terms of the loan. Antonio's best laid plans go astray when he is suddenly unable to fulfill his obligations. Mr. Irons gives a subtle performance.

Joseph Fiennes, makes a good appearance as Bassanio. His good looks and his charm make an impression on Portia, who clearly sees a soul mate in this young Venetian as she knows he is the one for her. Also, in smaller roles, Kris Marshall, Zuleika Robinson, Charlie Cox, contribute to make the film an enjoyable experience.

Ultimately, it's Mr. Radford's triumph because of the vision he gives us of Venice and its citizens during a horrible time in the history of mankind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Merchant of Venice 8\/10

(This review assumes a basic knowledge of the story and so may be thought of as containing spoilers to anyone unfamiliar with the plot.)

As a film version of the famous Shakespeare play, Merchant of Venice does what few adaptations have done since Polanski's rather gritty Macbeth: it takes the spirit of the play and brings it out not just as well as, but better than the play alone could readily achieve.

Lord of the Rings Director, Peter Jackson, has argued that in adapting a book or play there are three options: attempt to replicate the original as perfectly as possible, use the original idea as an inspiration but take full license for cinematic change, or (the one he avowedly preferred) stick to the original as much as is cinematic ally viable but make such changes as are necessary for the film and while remaining faithful to the intention or spirit of the original.

In Macbeth, Polanski used the rain-sodden beaches and realistic rapes and murder to convey what a bloody and horrific period the play was set in, thus bringing to mind the horrific context in which the characters make such ill-advised decisions. It differs from (say) Branagh's Hamlet, which achieved new heights of faithful rendition, but otherwise offered little new. Macbeth, on the other hand, maybe enabled audiences fresh to Shakespeare to appreciate some of the drama's fullness without extensive study; similarly, more familiar audiences might find a greater depth than the unaided stage performance could accomplish. Such interpretation plays a vital part if audiences are to fully engage, not only intellectually but also emotionally, with the points Shakespeare wanted to make.

Radford's adaptation of Merchant of Venice does just this. It takes crucial moral dilemmas involving religious bigotry or the keeping promises and, with minimal messing of the Bard's holy tome, conveys them faithfully within the spirit of the original story.

The first of these, religious bigotry, gives meaning to Shylock's otherwise outlandish behaviour. We see the Jews of the period relegated to a walled ghetto, only allowed out if wearing an identifying red cap. Not being allowed to own property, one of the few ways they can earn a living is by money-lending. This makes them both useful to their Christian oppressors and at the same time the object of their vilification. The idea behind (both old and new testament) biblical prohibitions against usury probably stems from not making a profit by helping one's friends. This is extended by the bigoted Christians to curse those they spit on (we see Shylock not only spit on, but fellow Jews thrown into the waterways for sport - in an atmosphere that can only be described as threatening).

The topicality of the film is curious, since the bigotry of right wing Christianity (as personified by Bush-following Americans) has turned full circle, as they are now the main supporters of Zionism, and the Jewish political leaders bite at their Palestinian neighbors much as Shylock tries to bite at Antonio (once he thinks the law gives him the power to do so). The psychology is self-evident - kick a dog repeatedly and it will become vicious. The circle easily continues as the victims of oppression themselves easily lose their sense of moral values and become oppressors.

The stringent sleight of hand that the disguised Portia uses to save Antonio has some merit, both as a clever interpretation of the unsophisticated law that the Venetians of the play so rue and also as a moral pointer. Shylock may 'have his pound of flesh' according to his contract, but may not have any blood. An easy analogy could be made as far as warfare and terrorism goes - it is much easier to justify fighting among combatants or attacking ill-doers if soldiers or evil-doers are the only victims - when there is massive collateral damage, as when innocent citizens, including women and children, are killed in their hundreds, the warmongers' arguments (whether those warmongers be Israeli, Palestinian or US American) carry far less popular support.

There has long been much argument whether Shakespeare was being anti-Semitic in this story. One wonders if he had to adapt the ending for a largely Christian audience who had little dealing with Jewish people. Far from teaching him a greater good, the ending enforces Christianity and humiliation upon Shylock - a course likely simply to perpetuate pent up resentment. Both camps look just as bad - one simply holds more power than the other. The slight amelioration of the judgment simply gives the Christian judges a better public image, or as Bassanio so acutely (observes when choosing the caskets and solving the riddles to win Portia's hand):

In religion, What damned error, but some sober brow Will bless it and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament? There is no vice so simple but assumes Some mark of virtue on his outward parts.

Of course, the bigotry applies to organised religion (rather than spirituality), especially when organised for political purposes, but one that easily goads ordinary god-fearing people who are not in the habit of splitting hairs. The kindness, mercy ('Chesed' in Judaism) which is so fundamental to true Christianity, is something also practiced to a wonderful degree in Judaism as in most creeds. The Jewish faith distinguishes between kindness and charity, ways of practicing both effectively, and ways of making it part of one's being rather than just an outward show. Both Shylock and Antonio are bigoted and use their respective faiths to abuse those of another faith. While Shakespeare maybe pointed up the chasm between the goodness prescribed by different faiths and its absence in practice, the film version reduces much of the window for interpretations of anti-Semitism and brings a greater degree of realism to the psychological causes.

The keeping of promises (the men to their wives) is dealt with less well, as are the comic elements inherent in the cross-dressing sub-plots. Bassanio, however strong his love for Antonio (are there homosexual elements there?) cannot make sound moral judgements when showing his gratitude to the 'judge', and so breaks his promise (for which Portia forgives him, displaying a triumphal character for women, not only as supremely intelligent and witty but also as more truly merciful and considerate of others than her bigoted male counterparts, including her husband.)

Some of the acting is a bit stilted, and there are too many regional (English) accents, but on the whole Merchant of Venice delivers a fresh and rewarding reworking of Shakespeare. I enjoyed the acting, and also the very beautiful soundtrack by Hayley Westenra and others, singing ballads penned both by Shakespeare and Edgar Allen Poe. All in all, Merchant of Venice is a not inconsiderable achievement of British (as far as any film can be said to be of a particular nationality these days) cinematic tradition.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Venice, in 1596.Jews are separated from the good Christians.Bassanio, a young but poor Venetian loves the fair Portia, who is a wealthy heiress.So he approaches his friend, a merchant called Antonio for three thousand ducats to travel to Belmont and propose Portia.All of Antonio's ships and merchandise are busy at sea, so he turns to the moneylender Shylock, the one of Jewish faith.Shylock does not like Antonio, for he spat on his face.He offers Antonio a three-month loan at no interest, but if he will not pay the money in that time, he will own a pound of his flesh.Also, Shylock's daughter Jessica elopes with the Christian Lorenzo.The Merchant of Venice is based on William Shakespeare's play that's believed to have written between 1596 and 1598.I read the play last summer and now I've seen the movie, made in 2004 by Michael Radford.I liked the play, and I don't quite agree with the accusations of it being anti-Semitic.The Jewish character does not appear as an inhuman monster, even though he's ready to cut a piece of Antonio's flesh.There's a lot of depth in his character, which all comes out in his speech where he asks \"If you prick us, do we not bleed?\" and so forth.There is much more human in Shylock's character than in one of Antonio's, who spits on the good Jew.Al Pacino is unbeatable as Shylock.He gives such a strong performance.Jeremy Irons is also terrific as Antonio.Lynn Collins is most beautiful and brilliant in the role of Portia.Zuleikha Robinson does great job as Jessica, and Charlie Cox as Lorenzo is also very good.Kris Marshall plays Gratiano, and he does a good job.In the role of Nerissa we see Heather Goldenhersh.Mackenzie Crook plays Launcelot Gobbo.As in Shakespeare plays usually, also this one contains most brilliant dialogue.The movie paints a fantastic portray of the era.It deals with some great issues, in a Shakespearian way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My guide for the quality of the a movie is if I'm still thinking about it after leaving the theater. I'm still thinking about this one the next day, which doesn't happen often.

The scenery (a reasonable guess for 16th century Italy), costumes, lighting, cinematography are all excellent. It is a beautiful film visually.

Characters can never rise above the script they must recite, but these actors made the most of their material, which is excellent. This is one of Shakespeare's best plays, which people will still enjoy another 400 years down the road. All of the principals were interesting and enjoyable.

Those who say this is anti-semitic must be deaf and blind. If anything, it is anti-Venitian-16th-century-Catholic. While Shylock plays a man controlled and tortured by the hurts he has suffered, it is clear that the society in which he lives is largely to blame. The script clearly places his personal responsibility where it belongs, as well.

A great film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Merchant of Venice is a fantastic movie. It's very true to the original Shakespeare play. If you saw Jeremy Irons in Casanova and liked his performance, this is a movie for you! If you saw Joseph Fiennes in Shakespeare in Love and you enjoyed his performance, this is a movie for you! If you saw Al Pacino in Donnie Brasco and liked his performance, this is a movie for you! It is a very enjoyable movie and if you're studying Shakespeare like me, this is a great movie to see!! The only problem with this movie is that you can't let the little ones see it because is has a wee bit of nudity in it. But other than that, it's a really good movie!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A few thoughts before I get to the heart of the film: 1) I have never seen so many bare breasts in a film before, displayed in so many non-sexual scenes -- it was weird; 2) Joseph Fiennes, where have you been? You charmed us in *Elizabeth* and *Shakespeare in Love*, and then you went away for awhile. Mainstream American wants more! Okay, I'm a college English professor, I have read this play many times, and this is probably the best film version I've seen of it. While individual aspects of other productions may have stood out, this is the overall package put together well. Pacino is no Olivier, but he doesn't need to be, so get over it! The film's cinematography is stunning and not just because of the bare breasts. Venice is portrayed amazingly, and you do get a feel for really being there. Portia's residential island is amazingly beautiful, and the lighting is always tinted the proper way for the scenes' appropriate moods.

The anti-Semetism in this film\/play is hard to watch, especially at the end. Pacino's dropping to the knees and clutching his religious artifact is perhaps the most powerful moment of his on film since *The Godfather Part III* (when Michael's daughter is gunned down on the opera steps). Is the play anti-Semetic? Sure. Is *Othello* racist? Sure. Take it for what it is: a commentary on the Elizabethan era, not a commentary on today.

Fiennes is underutilized in the film, but still a pleasure to watch. The women in the film are alright; no one really stood out here, but they do blend in nicely with the scenery. Jeremy Irons and Pacino are excellent in the two juiciest roles, adversaries until the end. I've always felt Irons was underrated (I still get chills when I hear his voice from *The Lion King*), and Pacino is Pacino.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"William Shakespeare's plays are classified as comedy, tragedy, or history. Some of his most memorable --and most often read -- creations provide us with wistful humor, gentle poetry and hilarious slapstick. Some of them survive as unforgettable dramas of compelling depth and gravity. Regardless, he was able to write with unparalleled skill and inventiveness, contributing greatly to our young language. So in what category lies The Merchant of Venice ? I was very surprised to find it is one of Shakespeare's comedies. I had never before read it nor seen it, but after watching this most recent film version I have decided it is neither and it is both. This is one of many questions the viewer must try to answer when coming to terms with what is clearly a perplexing and deeply troubling moral tragedy.

The players are introduced quickly, and simply. One of them, firstly, is Venice itself; director Michael Radford filmed the Venetian scenes in the actual city, creating an impressively vibrant, bustling backdrop to the play's proceedings. To this scenery enters the youthful Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes), returning to Venice to see a dear old friend, Antonio (Jeremy Irons). It seems the poor Bassanio has heard of a princess whose father has died and has left to any potential suitors a lottery of sorts. Waiting at the fair lady's island estate are three small trunks,

only one of which contains \"images of the princess\". He who can guess the right one, using only blind intuition and the cryptic teasers written upon them, will be bestowed the father's huge fortune for life. Oh, and his daughter and her eternal love in marriage, I forgot to mention. Here the light comedy of Shakespeare takes over the movie. This farcical plot element drives the story and also fills up much of the film's screen time, as a number of painfully eager opportunists arrive at the island, humorously vying for and failing to earn this very wealthy hand in marriage. But before any of this occurs Bassanio, very much lacking in finances, entreats Antonio to loan him three thousand ducats to pay for the lengthy journey he must take to have his shot at the prize.

Antonio, himself nearly penniless, must reluctantly embrace humility by seeking the financial aid of Shylock (Al Pacino), one of countless Jewish usurers who keep the sagging economy afloat yet are scorned and persecuted to no end by the city's zealously Christian majority. Thus they dwell in society's underbelly, and it is here the two borrowers must go. Shylock does not hesitate to remind the two men of a certain incident where Antonio insulted and spat on him in the city market, and he proudly rebukes this man who frankly has a lot of nerve now coming to ask for help. But help him Shylock does. He even erases any kind of interest on the loan, most likely feeling he has no reason to be concerned if Antonio will be able to repay him within three months. Still, Shylock's one contractual demand is a pound of Antonio's flesh, should he renege on their agreement. This is an unsettling request, to be sure, for Antonio and Bassanio as well as for us. But it appears that despite his justifiable pride Shylock does not really anticipate seeing such a gruesome act occurring.

So here the dramatic groundwork has been laid. And while the film goes off to explore its gentler side with its love lottery and mistaken identities, there still looms the gloomy prospect of the loan itself. In the end, what will become of this ominous agreement? Meanwhile we are left at turns to explore the true central character of Shylock. Al Pacino has ample dramatic weight to carry here, and he does so with convincing grit and passion. There are times when he is given room for the theatrics we have come to expect from such a colorful actor. But his most impressive scenes are the ones where he internalizes this energy, showing a conflicted personality: honest, sincere, and proud, yet brooding, vengeful and entirely remorseless. This is one of Pacino's most heartfelt performances to date. And while the rest of the cast play their roles creditably and convincingly, it is Pacino who really owns the film -- especially toward the end, when Shakespeare upends this seeming romantic comedy with a wallop of a third act.

I shall not reveal much here; all I can say is that it involves the initial loan -- a mighty shoe one expected would drop sooner or later. And does it ever. By the end Shakespeare has raised a host of dilemmas for his audience: seemingly unresolvable questions of faith, morality, law, and mercy are thrown before us through the final scenes, and while by curtain's close the playwright's position may seem clear to some, we are left completely at odds. There are winners and losers in this one, but have the winners earned their spoils with good reason, or have they in a larger sense ended out losing as well? Has virtue been rewarded, or simply flouted? Has justice in fact this time been just? By the play's finish some fates are painfully clear, and unequivocally sealed. But the audience are to be the ones who really decide the verdict for all of those involved. And for some the verdict is still out for the play as well. Comedy or tragedy? The author has cunningly veiled the intense courtroom finale with an ending of light mirth and pat romantic resolutions. Is he saying that all is well that ends well, or is this his final, ironic condemnation? The play's humor serves to set us up nicely for such a heavy crash. And while it is also what unfortunately keeps The Merchant of Venice from achieving the greatness of so many of Shakespeare's other works, it is still engaging, amusing, and thought-provoking beyond measure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Merchant of Venice\" was one of Shakespeare's most popular plays during his own lifetime, but it has fallen on hard times during the 20th century because of its undeniably anti-Semitic content. The play has also been called schizoid in its careening from comedic scenes to tragic ones, leading some to say it is two plays trying to coexist as one. Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes, who played William Shakespeare in \"Shakespeare in Love\") is in love with Portia (Lynn Collins, superb), but needs to borrow a considerable sum of money to woo her. He goes to his sometime gay lover Antonio (Jeremy Irons), who hasn't the funds on his person, but takes out a loan from the Jewish usurer Shylock (Al Pacino). Shylock is amused and offended that Antonio, who insults him for his religion, now comes to him for money, but he offers it, on the condition that the penalty for defaulting on the loan will be a pound of Antonio's flesh. Which is, of course, what happens. Bassanio and Portia offer Shylock considerably more then the original loan instead of the pound of flesh, but Shylock, distraught after his daughter leaves him and marries a Christian, refuses to take it. Portia, in a scene where the audience is never quite sure where to place its sympathies, deprives Shylock of what should be legally his, and then strips him of his wealth and religion. Shylock was originally essayed as a cartoonish villain, but modern actors and directors have turned him into a tragic figure, railing against the injustices of 16th century Venice. Al Pacino does an excellent job as Shylock, and Jeremy Irons is good as Antonio, but I think that Lynn Collins' work as Portia is the best part of the play. Portia is one of the few notable female roles in Shakespeare's canon, and Collins is wonderful in the part. Joseph Fiennes is more than a bit dull, however; I've never particularly enjoyed his often overwrought acting style. I give \"The Merchant of Venice\" an 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There were at least a half dozen silent-film versions of Shakespeare's \"The Merchant of Venice,\" and there have been several television productions. But no one has ever gotten around to making a big-budget theatrical feature from the play . . . until now. Given the nature of the play\/s most memorable character, Shylock the Nasty Jew, it's a good guess that the little unpleasantness that transpired in Europe in the late 1930's and 1940's may have dampened filmmakers' enthusiasm. Sure the main motivation for Michael Radford's new film is to provide Al Pacino with a chance to shout, bray, brood, mutter, and be tormented - all of which he is quite good at. Like Richard III, the role of Shylock is a scenery-chewer's dream. It is ridiculous to call Shakespeare an anti-Semite, since he never met a Jew. Jews were banned from England from 300 years before his time to some decades after his death; and its unlikely that he ever traveled abroad. On some level, Jews might as well have been a mythological race to him. But, while Shakespeare may not have been anti-Semitic, his play certainly is. Pacino gives Shylock a strange accent that is probably meant to suggest the slightest hint of Yiddish. Unfortunately, the result is a 16th-century moneylender with the unmistakable diction and cadences of Fozzie Bear. Radford's version begins with a crawl about the wretched teratment of Jews and then spot Antonio (Jeremy Irons) gratuitiously spitting on Shylock (Pacino), who's really just standing around, minding his own business. Will buy it when it comes out on DVD, for sure! Sarge Booker","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"having never actually seen anything by this beloved of the luvvies, let alone a production of merchant of venice, i cant comment on how faithful it is to previous adaptations of the play so i will treat it as just another movie that tries to be more than novocaine for the eye MoV is an instantly gripping movie about a young lover bassanio (fiennes) and his merchant friend antonio (irons) and a Jewish money lender shylock (pacino)

plot summary

bassiano is broke and needs money to woo the lovely portia (collins), he goes to his friend antonio, who sypathises with his friends predicament, so borrows some money off shylock

now antonio does not like jews in general and shylock in particular and shylock bitter and twisted from the abuse he has suffered from antonio in particular and christians in general agrees to lend antonio the money on condition that if antonio does not repay the loan by the agreed deadline, shylock will cut a pound of flesh from antonios body

comment

the movie is breathtakingly beautiful and acted and spoken in such a way as to force you to think about what each line means, this in turn causes the viewer to gain insights into the characters and their motivations

it seems to me to be a movie about the choices that shylock makes, and how making wrong choices leads to shylocks ruin

from the moment shylock demands his pound of flesh he is doomed, for rest of the world is against him and connives to bring about his downfall

this disturbed me greatly, normally in a movie when a victim gets a chance of revenge against those who have harmed him either the victim succeeds or makes the villain see the error of his ways leading to a big hug

not in MoV the victim quickly becomes seen as the villain and is stripped of his fortune and faith

this movie is a powerful and subtle portrayal of casual anti semitism which shows how a whole society can turn on a minority and make it seem like the victim is really the offender

i was blown away by this movie 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"one of my favorite lines in Shakespeare.

i.e. *we're not finished with you by a long shot* so not only does Shylock not get his pound of flesh, or the 3,000 or the 6,000 or the 36,000 (each of the 6 parts were a ducat) ducats, in a matter of minutes he is ruined by having to forfeit all his possessions. and his daughter has long abandoned him already.

vengeance is a dish best served cold. but Shylock's attempt at revenge totally backfires.

I suspect this play was and is popular because it caters to the wish we have for justice. but the hard reality is the world is engulfed in injustice and most of it stands. a few big names get tossed in jail, sme gang punks lose their turf to the 'good guys' but in reality most of the time it's the other way around.

but not in this play. the long howls of racism and antisemitism forgets that it could well have been any other social outcast group that gets the comeuppance, it's just that the money lenders of the time were Jews and therefore the needs of the story line puts Shylock the Jew into the role of villain.

Merchant of Venice is my 3rd favorite work by Shakespeare, 1 and 2 being Hamlet and Macbeth. this production gives excellent treatment of the moral of the story. the scenes with the suitors alone is worth watching. also the awkwardness of the new husbands squirming and minimizing the fact they let the rings so easily slip away that they had sworn to keep forever. in real life, this trick is the thing that spouses coyly use to remind their better half that promises MUST mean something and not be made frivolously. there is far deeper significance to this play than just the comedy\/dramatic aspect. it is about loyalty, commitment, and love.

well worth watching over and over.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"People have often been uncomfortable with \"The Merchant of Venice\", due to its anti-Semitic subject matter. Fortunately, this movie avoids that, opting instead to show how anti-Semitism reigned supreme in 16th century Europe. The story, of course, is that Antonio (Jeremy Irons) needs money so that he can help Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) ask for Portia's (Lynn Collins) hand in marriage. He gets the money from Jewish usurer Shylock (Al Pacino), who demands a pound of Antonio's flesh if the latter doesn't pay back the loan. When Antonio can't pay back the loan, Shylock is determined to get what is owed him.

We would expect this cast to do a good job, and they don't disappoint. It is yet another testament to what a great actor Al Pacino is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"hello. hello and goodbye. but, before i go, i want to talk to you. i just want to quickly mention a few keys points about this film. the first being erotica. especially homo-erotica.

yes, well. let us begin. When a man and a man love each other very much they fuse together in a spectacular, not to mention tender, explosion of cinema which we call merchant of venice.

the homo erotic love was sensual at worse. and even more sensual at best. it was hardcore and emotional. it touched me inappropriately and I'm pretty sure i touched it back. and when no one was looking i touched myself a little too.

i laughed because portia was denied. she was second in line to our friend, the homo erotic love. oh antonio. antoni. just toni. i love you. more than you loved that guy. whos name may or may not have contained an \"B\". he was well ugly.

antoni was very greasy. he lathered his body in an encasement of his own hair grease and sensual juices and proceed to writhe accoss the screena and present himself to the guy with the name i like the movie in conclusion, go see the movie if not for the homo erotic connotations, for the love of a man such as antoni. just toni.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"William Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice portrays 16th century Venice. Al Pacino plays Shylock, a Jewish loan shark who plots revenge on a Catholic that has looked down on him. The movie is a slow moving plot in the beginning that builds up throughout the two plus hours. The film gives a very good and believe appearance to it's characters, especially Pacino. When hearing that Pacino plays a Jew one might think that it would not work looking at Pacino's previous mobster type movie roles. Nonetheless it works very well, credit must be given to the costume designer's and director's of the film. The look of all the characters fits well with the time period the play takes place in. The costumes look like the Renaissance appearance one might envision to be.

The film portrays a very anti-Semitic vibe. From the first minute to the last it is shown how the Catholic's try to take advantage of the Jews in every way they can, even to the point of keeping them locked away in \"ghettos\" and not allowing them to regular jobs. In comparison to The Passion of the Christ, another recent film that people believed to be very Anti-Semitic, Merchant of Venice makes Passion look like a Jewish holiday. The film shows how the Jews, or at least Shylock wanted revenge for the mistreatment that the Jews received. The location shots also seem very timely and the scenery is at times very beautiful or very ugly depending on the scene of the film, making it just that much more realistic. Showing the beautiful and the ugly can also be seen as anti-Semitic because the ugly is usually shown around the Jews and the beautiful around the Catholics.

Although the film clearly attempts to have a serious aura certain parts do add a bit of humor to the act. The oh so serious trial between Shylock and Antonio (Irons) adds a bit of humor when Portia (Collins) and Nerissa (Goldenhersh) come into the trial and decide who will be the victor and the defeated. That in itself might not be funny, but seeing it that they were women dressed up in disguise as men one might find it to be pretty amusing. The whole cross dressing scene, as compelling as it was could have probably been even more memorable had the make up artists and director Michael Radford taken notice that the two women still look like women and could easily be recognized. The director also could have seen into the fact that the women are speaking through their regular voices instead of trying to sound like men, which in part takes away from the scene but doesn't kill it entirely.

Overall the film gets a 7 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say? The little kid inside has always had great affections for the following...giant robots, giant monsters and a cackling, megalomaniacal lead villain and this movie delivers on all counts. As an adult, it's easy to point out the many flaws in this film and to say hey it's really only a bunch of episodes taken from a children's TV series strung together. Despite all of this, I find the ending very moving and the content surprisingly adult in nature. Tremendous Fun if a little nonsensical at times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a cherished movie from my childhood!! I can still hum the theme song at the drop of a hat!! I remember getting to stay up late to watch this movie with my father, usually two to three times a year. We always referred to it as \"Giant Robot\". Although the effects in this movie are crude compared to today's standards, they were perfect for this movie's genre. I am also a BIG fan of the Japanese \"Monster\" movies, so this movie fell right in to place with the others. It's been years since I've seen this movie & would love to get my hands on a copy of it to share with my 8 year old daughter.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember running home from school almost every day to catch KTLA's channel 5 monster movies, but never did I run home faster then when this movie was scheduled. Somehow, the idea of being a boy and having a giant robot as a friend appealed to me in a very unique way. Sure, I pretended to be Spiderman, Batman and other superheros, but I really wanted to be Johnny Sakko over any of them.

I have not seen this movie in 30 years and I can still remember it vividly. Who can forget the way Giant Robot shot missiles out of his fingers! Or how about the way Ghuillotene threw his fingernails to make explosions! Geez, I can even still whistle the theme music that plays at the end, which is so tragic that I remember crying myself to sleep a number of times!

Only one other movie has the kind of magic that this movie does in my mind and that is the Wizard of Oz. But I have seen that movie many times since I was a kid. Of course, the Wizard of Oz is a true classic whereas Voyage Into Space is low budget nonsense. These two films shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence but to a young boy it isn't high production values or continuity that capture your heart, its flying monkeys and giant robots!

P.S. My cousin use to do a very accurate impression of Giant Robot (he pronounced it \"Giant Robutt.\") If you recall, Giant Robot had a particular way of shooting his missiles and my cousin had it down cold. I made him repeat the routine endlessly for my personal amusement.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you love Japanese monster movies, you'll love this action packed battle pitting an alien invader, intent upon conquering the Earth, and a \"Giant Robot\" with an armory of super weaponry. The alien, \"Emporer Guillotine,\" from the planet Gargoyle, has a army of thugs called, (of course) \"the gargoyle gang,\" as well as an endless supply of immense hostile creatures that are routinely loosed upon the Earth to smash buildings, make loud noises, panic the populace, etc. A little kid, named Johnny Sokko, has the Giant Robot at his beckon call, and sends the Robot, as needed, to beat up, and then blast these creatures. Johnny joins a group of \"good spies\" called Unicorn, and endeavors to help save the world.

In spite of the campy nature, unintentionally humorous dialog, and the fact that the target audience was obviously children, this movie has non-stop action, colorful characters, decent special effects, and just happens to be downright fun to watch. Battle scenes are well executed, and frequent, as the storyline requires. The good guys and bad guys both made sure they had an inexhaustible supply of bombs, lasers, ammunition, and schemes to attack each other. In spite of the fact the movie was constructed from edited episodes of a TV series, the plot actually develops, and reaches an ultimate conclusion.

The film has a positive outlook and appeals to everyone's (especially kids') desire to destroy evil in its many forms. Kids may be the target audience, but it's fun for everyone to laugh at its comical silliness; yet, at the same time, root for the good guys to prevail and \"save the world.\" The acting is cheesy in places, but that is the charm: there are several lines of corny dialog (possibly translation errors or possibly intentional jokes by the movie makers), and you'll find yourself quoting these absurd lines later.

Admittedly, this film is not high in production quality or budget. However, for what it is, campy sci-fi, it's enjoyable for some laughs. I recommend it to anyone with a sense of humor for that sort of thing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, I admit it, I'm 40 and still shed a tear every time I watch Johnny calling back his Robot at the end.

\"Robot, now stop! Don't do it, stop the attack...Robot, what are you doing, Robot... Robot, where are you going\u0085Robot, come back! Robot...Robot please! Don't do it, you'll die... Robot... Robot, please comeback! I need you here\u0085Giant Robot... Robot! Giant Robot\u0085\" -Johnny Sokko, The Last of Emperor Guillotine

Of all the Tokusatsu thats out there, Giant robot has a special place in my heart and will always be there. I credit it with getting me into everything sci-fi and anime when i was a kid.

LIVE ON GR!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Four or five episodes of Johnnie Socko and his Flying Robot edited together. Amusing giant robot battling giant monsters tale aimed squarely at kids. Parents of course will go crazy since the action is violent with the robot\/monster battles resembling professional wrestling and the human on human violence the sort of stuff you'd find in the Al Capone St. Valentine's Day School and Gangster Training Academy. I liked it, but then again I grew up on the series. If there is any problems, other than the \"men in suits\" effects variety is that the movie plays like a series of episodes stitched together, with a climax coming every 20 minutes. Recommended for those who've run out of Ultraman or Godzilla","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I was growing up, Voyage into Space was my most favorite movie. I remember the time when KTLA (Channel 5) ran the movie for the whole week and me and my sisters watched it every single day! I still remember every part of that movie. The ending was so sad when Giant Robot got blown up along with Guillotine and then watching Johnny Sokko with all the tears running down his face calling for Giant Robot. There should have been a sequel to the movie, in which Giant Robot somehow survived the explosion. :) I can't believe that there are so many other Voyage into Space fans still out there. I really want to buy the movie when it comes out on DVD, but my sister said that the ones out there now are bootlegged and probably bad quality copies of the movie. I don't know why they haven't released it yet, since it's been over 40 years now. I think Voyage into Space was made back in 1968. Only now, my second favorite Japanese monster movie of all time (The War of the Gargantuas) is finally coming to DVD and being released on Sept. 9th and I can't wait! :) Now if only they would do the same with Voyage into Space. Giant Robot, Johnny Sokko, and Voyage into Space will never be forgotten! In my eyes and probably many others too, it will always be a childhood classic to me! :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've noticed that a lot of people are taking Opera to task for the way Betty reacts to the murders. I think they are basing these complaints on how they imagine a \"normal\" person would react. The thing is...Betty is not a \"normal\" person, due to traumatic events in her childhood. She has problems way way before the movie ever even starts...and by the end of Opera...in my opinion...she has become totally unhinged.

---------------------SPOILERS--------------------------------------- You have to keep in mind that when she was a very small child she witnessed her mother's lover commit at least one brutal murder while her sadomasochist mother was getting off watching it.

She was raised by a woman who achieves sexual release tied up watching girls get hacked, slashed, and strangled to death. That does not make for a healthy home life. I think it's pretty easy to conclude that her mother would have employed all sorts of emotional manipulation and negative reinforcement to ensure that her daughter never snitched on her. It is also likely that at her impressionable age, Betty might have been deeply confused by what she saw. Is this just something that adults do, etc.

Betty obviously looks up to her mother...I mean...she's become an opera singer just like her. If mommy likes it it can't be bad, can it...mommy can't be bad, can she? She couldn't tell the police on her mommy or this mysterious hooded fellow she associates with mommy.

Betty has a lot of deep-seated emotional issues. Her mind has for years been trying to block out the memory of what she saw her mother doing...but it keeps coming to the surface, manifesting itself in the form of horrible nightmares, skull-throbbing migraines, a dependence on relaxation techniques, and sexual frigidity She associates brutal violence\/bloody death with sex on a subconscious level. There's an inner struggle between the part of Betty that has confused murder\/sex and the part of her which believes these things to be wrong.

After she's seen her boyfriend murdered by the hooded man...she calls the police, yet is unwilling to give her name. The part of her that thinks murder is wrong forces her to make the call, but the part that is ambivalent won't allow her to admit personal involvement. The ambivalent part of her takes control before she can go all the way. So she walks away from the phone in the rain...and when she's picked up by the director she's acting surprisingly calm, not as upset as you would think a \"normal\" person would be...because the part of her that's been blocking stuff since she was a child is trying its damnedest to block the horror of what she's just witnessed.

The state of affairs in her life all contribute to an impasse within Betty's psyche. Her singing career is starting to bear fruit...she's going to be a great opera singer like her mother was. But is she going to become like her mother in all ways? In the darker ways? Or will she be able to make her own path? Add this to the re-emergence of the hooded man murdering everyone around her.

It's not until the hooded man kills Daria Nicolodi's character that Betty really takes an active role in defeating the killer. Here's someone who loves Betty, who's supported her wholeheartedly in her emerging career, who is in fact a maternal figure in Betty's life now since mommy's dead. Imagine how terrible it would be to lose your real mother and then to see the woman who is the closest thing you have to a mother get shot through the eyeball.

I could go on...but I won't. The main gist of what I'm saying is that the character of Betty is a lot more complex than most of the reviewers on here have been willing to acknowledge.

Opera is one of Argento's best...and not just for the visuals alone (although they are truly magnificent) and not just for the inventive murders (although they are). There is a depth here...and attention needs to be paid.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although many have mixed feelings about this latter day giallo thriller from Argento, it still stands as another lavish testament to the cinematic brilliance that is Argento.

A young opera singer has her first break out performance and suddenly finds herself the subject of obsession for a crazed maniac.

In a way, Opera is like a modern-day giallo take on Phantom of the Opera blended with all the glorious style and color that one would expect Dario Argento to deliver. Argento makes terrific use of inventive camera techniques, reoccurring symbols (like those ravens!), Gothic atmosphere, and truly gruesome murder sequences. One scene especially (which involves a peep hole and a gun) will knock viewers right out of their seats! Story-wise the film also manages to be gripping with some strong suspense and given great atmosphere by Claudio Simonetti's gorgeous music score.

The cast does some satisfying performances. Cristina Marsillach is good as our leading lady. The late Ian Charleson does a nice turn as the director, as does Urbano Barberini as an investigator, Daria Nicolodi as Marsillach's agent, and William McNamara as Marsillach's ill-fated lover.

Opera is terrific latter day Argento, and perhaps the last of his great works. It's sure to please his fans and even create some new ones.

**** out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Betty is an understudy for the lead in a production of Verdi's Macbeth. When a car mysteriously hits the lead, Betty is thrust into the spotlight. Opening night is a smashing success and Betty decides to leave the after-party to celebrate in private with her boyfriend. But when the boyfriend leaves the room, Betty is grabbed from behind by an unknown black-gloved, masked figure. The unknown assailant ties Betty to a column, gags her, and places needles under her eyes that will cause incredible damage and pain should Betty close them. The boyfriend returns to the room and is stunned to see Betty in such a predicament. He's even more shocked when the killer grabs him and shoves a knife through his lower jaw with such force, the tip of the knife can clearly be seen in his mouth. And Betty has been forced to watch all of this. So begins Betty's terrifying ordeal with a killer not just intent on hurting her, but also on forcing her to watch as he mutilates her friends.

Opera gets classified as a Giallo, but to me, it differs in quite a few ways from the model. Less emphasis is placed on the mystery elements of the story than in something like Argento's Tenebre or The Bird with the Crystal Plumage. The black-gloved, masked killer may be omnipresent, but the clues and red herrings normally associated with a good Giallo are absent. Instead, Opera is all about the tension of an unknown killer and making the audience uncomfortable. The focus is on the grisly death scenes, Betty's fear, and the killer's obsession with Betty.

Opera features what I think are some of Argento most artistic death scenes. When the killer grabs Betty after her boyfriend leaves the room, you're sure that Betty's had it. But the sadistic killer only wants to force Betty to watch as he brutally stabs her lover in the neck \u0096 the knife emerging in his mouth. It's a well shot and designed scene. And those needles in the eyes \u0096 brilliant. Or, take the death of the seamstress. At first her death seems like an ordinary, run-of-the-mill murder. But when the seamstress accidentally swallows the killer's locket, what started out as just another death scene turns it up a notch as the killer uses a pair of scissors to cut the girl's throat open to get his chain. Finally, there's the most famous death scene in Opera that I'm amazed with each time I see it \u0096 Mira is shot in the eye while peering through a keyhole. That scene displays a lot of what I like about Argento. It's got style to burn. As implausible as it may be, it's creative, memorable, and a blast to watch.

Argento certainly wasn't the first Italian director to concentrate on eye mutilation, but in Opera, he's taken eye trauma to a new level. Needles holding eyes open, a bullet in the eye, and ravens pecking out an eye are all part of Argento's vision (pun intended). And these scenes do have the effect that I believe Argento was going for. The first time I saw the killer putting those needles in Betty's eyes, I couldn't stop blinking. It actually had a physical effect on me. What is it about the eyes that make them such a target for abuse in Italian films?

To be fair (and not sound like such a fanboy), there are problems I have with Opera that keep me from rating it as Argento's best. One of my problems is with the air duct system running through Betty's apartment building. While I don't doubt there are air duct systems in older apartment buildings that connect the apartments, the ducts in Opera are HUGE. I'm no expert, but I sincerely doubt any building like the one in this movie would have had such mammoth air ducts. It doesn't seem practical at all. And don't you think someone would have done something about them long ago to keep criminals and nosey neighbors out of the other apartments? It's convenient for the plot, but it's not very realistic.

But I suppose my major problem with the film comes with the finale. What's up with that ending? It feels totally out of place, tacked on, and like a bad afterthought. I'm not sure what else to say other than it's horrible.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Opera\" is one of the greatest achievements in horror genre. This masterful picture has everything what should be in the pure horror movie:good, captivating story, a lot of symbols, wonderful visuals and plenty of gore. The killings are very shocking and bloody. An unforgettable atmosphere of dread and fear. A must-see for a true Argento fan, so if you get a chance watch it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're OK with the outlandish work of Italy's premier horror director\u0097able to accept his outrageous story lines and flamboyant style\u0097then you should have a great time with Opera. If you don't, then you won't.

Cristina Marsillach plays Betty, a beautiful young opera understudy who is given a shot at fame (in an avant-garde production of Macbeth) when the star of the show is hit by a car. As any thesp who has 'trod the boards' will know, Macbeth is a production that carries a curse\u0097and Betty soon discovers that the show in which she is now the star is no exception: a killer is systematically offing the staff at the theatre\u0097and poor Betty is forced to watch by the sadistic murderer (who tapes needles under her eyes to prevent her from closing them!).

With the help of a little girl who crawls through her air-conditioning ducts, her director and agent, and a few ravens who have seen the murderer's face (!!!), Betty discovers the killer's identity, and the truth about her mysterious past.

Let's face it... Opera is one crazy film, with its preposterous plot-turns, convoluted death scenes, and an ending that beggars belief. And whilst director Dario Argento has never been one for, shall we say, conventional story lines, this particular giallo is so daft, and features so many of his trademark stylish touches (all ramped up to the max), that it's almost as if, with each successive film, he is seeing what he can get away with (at times almost parodying his earlier work).

This is exactly why I find the film such fun!!!

Argento's camera movements are absolutely incredible: gliding, creeping and, in one amazing scene, even swooping around the opera house above the audience; the power of Verdi's music is combined perfectly with the synth majesty of Claudio Simonetti's score, providing a suitably grandiose accompaniment to the sumptuous visuals; and several outstanding set-pieces (featuring Sergio Stivaletti's nauseating gore FX) go to prove that no-one does death better than Argento (check out one character's stunning demise, in which a bullet passes through a spy-hole in a door in slow motion, and straight into their eye!).

7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I finally managed to get myself a copy of Dario Argento's Opera, and I tell you ... that was about time !! It was the last Argento movie I had yet to see and I'm a fan of most of his work. I reckon that most of his work is extremely important for the genre of horror but some of his movies tend to disappoint ( like Phenomena ). But the plot idea of Opera always appealed to me and it turns out I was right !! I enjoyed every shot in Opera and I was fascinated by this movie for the first minute till the last. Out of all the Argento movies, Opera went straight to the number one spot and I hope I can encourage as many people as possible to see this one as well.

The script and plot-idea of Opera is rather simple. Especially compared to Argento's previous movie Phenomena that had too many ideas in it, and ended up being a mess. The plot of Opera is creepy and chilling but at the same time it's an excellent satiric comment - almost a spoof - towards the opponents of explicit violence. ***SPOILERS*** A young opera singer ( the gorgeous Cristina Marsillach ) is being stalked by a horribly sadistic murderer. During every massacre he commits, he forces Betty to watch his actions with her eyes wide open. There are needles attached to her eyelids and when she closes them, they're getting torn apart. ***END SPOILERS***. To this simple - yet effective - idea, Argento adds a lot of horrific elements like ravens, the classic piece ( and curse ) of MacBeth and the whole atmospheric location of the opera building and the music. Especially the presence of the creepy ravens are and extra value. Ancient masters like Edgar Allen Poe already knew these black birds have a lot of mystery hanging around them, and Dario Argento knows it as well.

The violence and gore is very well presented in Opera and that's what makes this a true Argento picture. His best in my opinion with Profondo Rosso as a close second. I surely hope to recommend this movie to a lot of people among you. Especially for fans of the ( Italian ) horror business, this is an absolute must ! Favorite \"Rewind\"-scene : Argento shows his visual talent the best in the scene where Betty's friend is getting shot in the eye while she's trying to see who's in front of the door.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A young theater actress reluctantly accepts her first major part in a staged play as Lady Macbeth thanks to the mishap of the production's diva falling in front of a moving car. A success winning her accolades, Betty(Christina Marsillach)finds instead horror as the one responsible for getting her to this point terrorizes her in cruel ways.

First her stage manager boyfriend, Stefano(William McNamara)is viciously stabbed with a knife while she has to watch, rope-tied to a pillar in his uncle's vast mansion, keeping her eyes from closing thanks to needles scotch-taped under her eyes, with pricking a result if she blinks. Allowing her to escape, Betty again finds herself in this unfortunate position, when a specific gold chain is found on her Lady Macbeth wardrobe that had been torn to shreds by the madman after killing a series of crows which escaped from their cage in the equipment room, by the clothing designer who is first knocked to the floor by an iron and subsequently stabbed heinously by a pair of scissors(..to cap off this nasty scene, the chain falls into her throat with the killer having to cut open her throat to find it; while not specifically elaborating this act, Dario uses the ripping sound of the scissors for optimum effect with the camera often retreating back to the victim's dead face). Having nowhere to turn, Inspector Alan Santini(Urbano Barberini, playing him cold and bland at Dario's request)promises to catch the psycho as Betty relies on her few remaining friends for comfort, the theater director Marco(Ian Charleson, of GHANDI & CHARIOTS OF FIRE who would later die of AIDS;A sad footnote, Dario revealed in an interview that Charleson informed him at the end of the shoot that he was HIV positive)attempting the stage after a successful horror movie career despite being rejected by critics, and pal Mira(Daria Nicolodi, Dario's former squeeze), her agent and confident. But, the serial killer is quite driven and a showdown between them will, of course, occur in the theater as Marco has added an interesting change to the production using the crows at his disposal.

I think this is Dario at his most savage & nihilistic. Although he has certainly made later gruesome films(..such as his Masters of Horror entries and SLEEPLESS would suggest), this film really ups the ante in pure violence towards the victims of the psychopath. His method of forcing Betty to watch was admittedly a gag by Dario regarding the type of audience who like to look away from the more horrific parts of horror movies. I found myself rubbing my eyes every time she just has to blink(..brilliantly, Dario shoots the pricking from point-of-view achieving a tormenting effect from our perspective as if we were the ones with the scotch taped needles holding our eyes open). I like how Dario will show the widened eyes of Betty, horrified at what she's being forced into watching, as little blood tears down the needles when she has no choice but blink. The photographic work of Ronnie Taylor is impeccable, such as the crow's point-of-view shot in the theater at the end as it searches for the killer. Or, when the camera \"travels\" through rooms in the theater following the killer who wishes to see his muse from a box seat. Or, the dream sequence where we are taken into Betty's memory of an event regarding her mother's death by a certain killer, donning the same mask and gloves as the one causing her trauma at present. The highlight, in my opinion, is the peephole bullet-fire sequence, masterly staged by all involved as the camera follows a bullet which shoots through the eye of a victim, exploding from the back of her head, going through a telephone Betty planned to use to call for help. We even get a crow pecking the eyeball from the killer(..to add to this vicious scene, the crow is shown with the eyeball rolling around in it's beak). Only aspect I didn't care for, often pointed out by naysayers of the film, is the \"final\" ending which I personally felt was a bit unnecessary, but I guess Dario wanted to point out that Betty was indeed not like her mother, a woman with sadomasochistic tendencies which, in a twist, relate to why the killer torments our heroine. The rock music used during the violent scenes didn't bother me, because I felt that those moments of wicked graphic attacks needed a jarring thud which heavy metal can often provide.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Opera (the U.S. title is terror at the opera) is somewhat of a letdown after some of Dario's other movies like Phenomena, Tenebre, and Suspiria. (i still can't find Inferno anywhere.) it's one of those movies that has a great first half but midway through it's like someone started slowly letting the air out of the screenplay and logic.

the basic plot involves a beautiful opera singer who is being stalked by a deranged obsessed fan. this killer begins killing people close to her in a most unique fashion. he binds and gags her and tape tiny sharp pins under her eyelids so if she tries to close her eyes she'll gouge out her eyes. this forces her to watch while the killer murders her acquaintances in typically brutal and gory Argento fashion.

unfortunately, about midway through the film becomes sluggish and illogical. (this is especially directed towards the killer's motivations. i still haven't completely figured out why he's such a nut.) the ending especially come out of left field in the worst possible sense.

but, for about the first hour or so this is some of Dario's best filmmaking and the camera work is breathtaking. too bad it couldn't maintain it through to the end.

rating:7","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Opera\" is a great film with some wonderful,imaginative imagery.An opera singer(Cristina Marsillach)is being stalked by a killer who forces her to watch him murder everyone she knows by tying her up and taping needles under her eyes.This idea of the needles comes from the fact that Argento doesn't like it when people cover their eyes while watching his movies.\"For years I've been annoyed by people covering their eyes during the gorier moments in my films.I film these images because I want people to see them and not avoid the positive confrontation of their fears by looking away.So I thought to myself 'How would it be possible to achieve this and force someone to watch most gruesome murder and make sure they can't avert their eyes?'The answer I came up with is the core of what \"Opera\" is about.\"-says Argento.Plenty of suspense,wonderful cinematography and brutal,gory murders.One guy is stabbed in the throat with a knife causing a gushing wound,Daria Nicolodi gets shot in the eye while looking through the peephole,etc.For anyone who hasn't caught this one yet,give it a try.Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even if it's not labeled as a Slasher flick, it has all the elements. The fact that slashers are well known for it's low budget, lame plot, cheesy effects, and everything you may add, it doesn't means that there can't be good slasher movies. \"Opera\" fills the description. Even though it's part of Italian giallo; which is far from being a slasher sub-genre.

Dario Argento proves that he deserves the label of one of the best directors in Horror. \"Opera\" is one of the most stylish Horror movies from the past 30 years. Though the movie takes place in a beautiful, shinning place; the situations and gore turns it to be one of the scariest places ever used in a Horror movie.

I think of \"Opera\" as a stylish Slasher although there's in depth plot and character development. The cheese factor often used in most Slasher flicks is not present here but in exchange we got a suspenseful, visually stunning gore tale. The movie's plot is simple (as in every Slasher). There's a psycho in the opera that is somewhat obsessed with the lead actress\/singer and forces her to watch gruesome deaths. The death scenes are extremely gruesome and are the best thing about the movie. The infamous \"peep-hole\" death scene is the highlight of the movie in my opinion. It's a terrific death scene that none other than Argento could release. The knife through the neck (and mouth) is another gruesome scene but less violent than the scissors death. The gore in \"Opera\" will please the wicked and lovers of violence.

What I didn't like about the movie is the lack of coherence or logic. I mean, after watching the first death, the lead female, calmed as if nothing happened gets a ride home and doesn't makes much of a big deal about what she saw. Also, she's left alone in home and doesn't take security measures. Still, the suspense in the movie makes you forget the lack of logic. Argento knows how to create tension and how to scare the subconscious. For example, when Betty's friend tells her that someone was watching her from outside she freaks out and sets suspense in case that something happens.

The direction of the movie is great. For an Italian giallo it's excellent. Argento's creative POV shots are impressive. The ravens also added a creepy feeling to the movie. Argento add his unique spice.

\"Opera\" is one of the most underrated but popular through the Horror community for these reasons, in my opinion: -the peep-hole death scene (brilliant) -the ravens attack in the end -the opera setting -the knife through the neck and mouth -the heavy metal score combined with Opera music (this music never freaked me out before) -the killer's ferocity

The only thing I don't like about \"Opera\" is the heavy metal songs used in death scenes. It's OK to disturb the audience but I think that the Opera music could've added a creepier feeling. Still, the \"shocking\" use of heavy metal is a singular disturbing aspect in the movie.

Watch \"Opera\" even if you don't like gore. There's a lot of suspense and tension that could scare the most skeptical person. This is no \"Suspiria\" but it deserves to be among Argento's finest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After the lead actress of the opera is killed in a car accident, her young understudy, Betty, is brought to the forefront. That's very lucky for her, with one problem: she has an admirer that has decided he will kill all her friends and make her watch. What is his connection to the opera, and what is his fascination with Betty?

I love Dario Argento with every part of my body. And I'm not an orthodox fan, I think. Many people, particularly critics, praise his earlier work (\"Suspiria\" and \"Deep Red\") but really frown on later films, such as \"Sleepless\", which I liked. My favorite, \"Phenomena\", is usually vastly underrated. \"Opera\" tends to fall somewhere in between. Some consider it one of his last great films, others see it as part of his so-called decline. I loved it.

The picture is crisp, the music is great (unlike other critics, I love the metal soundtrack), the female lead is someone I can feel for (not unlike Jennifer Connelly from \"Phenomena\"). And the imagery... wonderful. Great cinematography, and some amazing kill scenes. The concept of taping needles to a person's eyes so they cannot blink... brilliant. My assistant Tina thinks this looked fake, but even if it does, the idea is more than enough to pay off. And some great effects, like a knife blade coming up inside a man's mouth? Awesome.

Jim Harper calls the film \"stunning\" and calls attention to the \"innovative cinematography, well-constructed shots and exceptionally violent murders.\" I agree with this completely -- one shot follows the camera through winding tunnels, and there is a very interesting visual use of crows throughout the story. Mike Mayo likewise calls it \"visually fascinating eye-candy\" and lauds the \"crisp editing and flowing camera-work\". It's really a wonder that this is not one of Argento's more highly-praised works.

Argento returned to the opera with \"Phantom of the Opera\", which was a bit of a failure despite the casting of his daughter Asia and Julian Sands. Even more interesting, this same year offered the release of Michele Soavi's \"Stagefright\", which (like \"Opera\") has a killer loose inside a theater killing off the people involved with the presentation. Both are great films, with Soavi's more on the slasher side. (Soavi actually served as second unit director on \"Opera\"... you can make your own conclusions.)

My only complaint with this film is the length and pacing. While it is very beautifully shot and the kill scenes are glorious, they are not as frequent as they should be. The first one takes over a half hour, and then we get down times between them. The lead actress should be in constant terror, but she is given time between kills to calm down as if everything is normal again. Not cool, Dario. We need to keep the suspense low and the intensity high.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An opera diva has an accident, which leaves the door open for her understudy to take over the role. Betty (Marsillach) is now the star of Mac Beth, but someone hiding in the trenches has an opera of his own planned out. He gets his kicks out of tying Betty up, putting needles under her eyes (so she cant close them) and murdering members of the opera company before her very eyes.

\"Opera\" is certainly one of Argento's more ambitious films, like mixing it up with Shakesphere's Macbeth there is of course the fact that the opera performed in the film is Giuseppe Verdi's version of Macbeth but also Argento, just like Shakespeare uses ravens as an omen of death and misfortune. And like the ravens circling the castle Dunsinane, foreboding the demise of the scheming Macbeth, the ravens in OPERA play a key part in the downfall of the killer. Furthermore just like in the old play the murderer acts on the exhortation of his lover. But I don't want to go as far as saying OPERA is intended to be a remake of the either The Phantom of the Opera or Macbeth, the similarities are far too subtle. It's just a typical Argento masterstroke, and with it he gives this otherwise quite basic thriller a vivid hue of Gothic mystique.

Although this movie does have it downsides like the heavl metal soundtrack just doesn't fit in with this movie and the final scenes in this movie are a bit strange.

All in all \"Opera\" is something of a flawed masterpiece but still good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being both a Dario Argento fan and a Phantom of the Opera fan, I was dying to see his first take on the story, before the so-bad-it's-good \"Dario Argento's Phantom of the Opera\". The film is just terrific, even the plot, which here is one of Argento's best at a coherent story. The way he turns a classic romance story into a creepy slasher is just terrific. The film has a very nightmarish feel, which helps on keeping you on the edge of your seat. The colors have never been better in an Argento film since the jaw-dropping \"Suspiria\". The murders are clever and gory, all done in Argento's trademark style. The thing with the eyes in this film is just unsettling, and done some much better than in Fulci's splatter. The acting is so-so, but once you seen the movie more times you understand the characters' motivations better, and you get used to it. My two biggest complains about it is the use of rock music. I think it was a clever idea to mix beautiful opera fragments with heavy-metal, but it's not executed very well here. The ending is VERY disappointing, which is the worst thing about the movie, seeming to echo Argento's previous \"Phenomena\", but done terribly, it just didn't need to end that way. The same thing happened in the director's cut of \"The Exorcist\". I wished they kept the original ending. But still it's a fantastic motion picture and really a must-see, if only for Daria Nicolodi's memorable murder sequence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beware the Scottish Play! In his riveting and harrowing Opera, Dario Argento returns to classic form, regaining the composure he lost while filming convoluted and delirious psycho- shockers like Tenebre and Phenomena. Indeed, predicated on a simple narrative that is offset by opulent set pieces, imaginatively brutal murder sequences, and refined photography, the film feels like the Argento we once knew. Opera's only real infraction is its lack of a score by Goblin, who provided unusual, iconic, and timeless music for many of Argento's greatest films (the opera selections used here are wonderful, however).

The production is filled out by several competent actors. While she's no Jessica Harper, Annabella Sciorra lookalike Cristina Marsillach manages enough pluck and compassion to grasp the role of the tortured heroine. Ian Charleson is interesting as horror-film-helmer- turned-opera-director Marco. And Daria Nicolodi is fantastic as always, even in her relatively brief role (watch the making of featurette on the DVD for a hilarious interview with Nicolodi about her role -- clearly brash and resentful over the end of her relationship with Argento!) Fans of Stage Fright (another excellent 1987 giallo, directed by Michele Soavi, who served as the second unit director for Opera) will barely recognize the final girl from that film, Barbara Cupisti, as a stage manager here (I think it's the glasses that do it).

With me, it's often the little things that matter, and Argento's fascination\/obsession with solitary nightmarish images makes him my ideal filmmaker. Opera is full of minor details that left me smirking. For instance, I love that we never see \"The Great\" Mara Czekova's face. I also love the scene where the killer is scraping the tip of his\/her deadly sharp dagger across a television screen showing Betty's performance as Lady Macbeth. Finally, I defy even the most grizzled slasher veterans not to cringe as the \"pin grates\" are placed over Betty's eyes.

In short, Opera is a clean, tense, and taut thriller. With its solid performances, lucid focus, and literate cinematography, it begs to be in the same league as Deep Red and The Bird With the Crystal Plumage. Might Opera be the last great giallo?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Horror-genius Dario Argento is one of my personal favorite directors, and his films \"Suspiria\", \"Phenomena\" and \"Profondo Rosso\" range high on my personal all-time favorite list. \"Opera\" of 1987 is yet another tantalizing and brilliant film that no Horror lover can afford to miss, and that will keep you on the edge of your chair from the beginning to the end. This stunning and ultra-violent Giallo could well be described as the master's nastiest film, which is quite something considering that Argento's films are not exactly known for the tameness of their violence. The violence is extreme and very stylized in a brilliant way that makes Opera a film censor's nightmare.

- Warning! SPOILERS ahead! -

Just when Betty (Christina Marsillach), a young opera singer, is becoming successful, a murderous and incredibly sadistic psychopath starts stalking her... The murders are truly brutal, and of particularly sadistic nature. The killer attaches needles to the tied up Betty's eyelids, so she has to keep them open and watch while he brutally murders people close to her in abhorrent ways. When done with the butchering, the killer releases Betty and leaves, just to come back for other friends of hers...

As usual for Argento's films, the violence is extremely graphic and very stylized. \"Opera\" truly is a brutal film, and what a stylish and atmospheric film it is. This film is absolutely tantalizing and pure suspense from the beginning to the end. The performances are entirely very good, especially Christina Marsillach is brilliant in the lead. A stunning beauty and great actress alike, Marsillach fits perfectly in her role of the talented singer, whose fear and horrid experiences are slowly making her crazy. Other great performances include those of Ian Charleston as a Horror film director who is directing an Opera, and director Argento's real-life girlfriend Daria Nicolodi, who has a role in many of his movies. The camera work is excellent as in all Argento films and The huge Opera House is an excellent setting that contributes a lot both to the film's beauty and its permanently creepy atmosphere. The score, which is partly classical music and partly heavy metal is great too, even though I slightly missed Goblin's brilliant Progressive Rock Soundtracks that are such a distinguishing element of most other Argento movies. \"Opera\" truly is a terrifying and absolutely breathtaking Giallo experience. This is an absolute must-see for any Horror lover, and I highly recommend it to any other film-fan who is not too sensitive when it comes to extreme violence. Excellent and absolutely tantalizing!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Often considered Argento's last \"great\" film, this entry into the giallo canon is unquestionably better than any Argento film that has followed it (though I have yet to see \"Mother of Tears\"), but to call it his last \"great\" film might be stretching it a bit.

The directorial and stylistic flourishes - the hallmark of all Argento films - is indeed present, with some of his sequences of suspense ranking up with his best (the \"peephole\" sequence is especially memorable), and the cinematography by Ronnie Taylor is outstanding (the fluorescent lighting is beautiful).

However, the narrative - which is hit and miss in all of Argento's films - is missing here. There is indeed a potent sense of mystery and intrigue, but the plot resorts to what is essentially a string of murder sequences, with one following the another, leaving no real time to fully construct a right, focused mystery to be solved. All of this results in a climax that is... well... anti-climatic, as the film did not invest enough interest to make us truly care.

Regardless, this is recommended simply due to the masterful direction and beautiful imagery that Argento evokes. I wouldn't' recommend this as a starting point for Argento's films, however (for that, I would recommend either \"Deep Red\" or \"Suspiria\"), but if you enjoyed those, or even any giallo, then this is a very good addition to your viewing repertoire.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Betty is as an understudy in a production of Verdi's Macbeth who is asked to go on when the diva is hurt in a car accident. However, in the grand tradition of \"The Scottish Play\", the production seems cursed with problems, not least of which is some madman slicing up the crew. Unfortunately for Betty, the killer seems to have special plans for her ...

This is one of several must-see Argento mad-slasher flicks, in this instance primarily for the extraordinary photography by the great British cameraman Ronnie Taylor. I haven't measured it, but I reckon around two-thirds of the shots in this film involve either pans, dollies, tracking or cranes - the sheer amount of camera movement is just astonishing and makes the movie ten times more exciting than a standard thriller. The imagery is wild and dizzying - closeups of the heroine's eyes forced open with nails, a swooping glide around an opera house from a raven's point of view, shots of the killer's brain squirming, a bullet fired through a peephole, a swallowed chain dug out of a victim's trachea. Conceptually it's just amazing and could only be realised by this director. The movie isn't without some shortcomings though; the cast are variable at best - Marsillach and Barberini are both a bit shaky (and his dubbing in the English version is appalling, even by Italian standards), although Argento regular Nicolodi is fun and Charleson gives a thoughtful performance in a role that is more than a little autobiographical (a horror director much maligned for his remoteness and reliance on technique). The material is a nice three-way mix of The Phantom Of The Opera, Shakespeare and slasher flick, scripted by Argento and his usual collaborator, Franco Ferrini, with shifty suspects galore and the usual disdain for boring expository scenes to explain what's actually going on. Full of all sorts of different music - Brian Eno, Claudio Simonetti, Bill Wyman, Puccini, and of course, Verdi. The scenes in the beautiful opera-house were shot at the Teatro Regio in Parma. For some bizarre reason the UK print of this movie has the alternative title Terror At The Opera.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No matter how much it hurts me to say this,the movie is not as good as it could have been.Maybe I was misled by the countless exaggerated reviews here on IMDb,but I expected so much more...

Sure,the idea is a good one,the violent scenes and the camera-work are outstanding,the imagination of genius Dario is breathtaking, but the movie is \"soiled\" by a couple of mistakes that I find unforgivable. First of all, am I one of the few people who feel that the Heavy Metal music played in the most intense scenes simply rips the atmosphere apart??? With a different kind of music (Goblin????) during the \"needle\" scenes,it would have been SOOOO intense!... Instead,the soundtrack destroys any chance for tension... Secondly, the final killing scene and the last few moments of the movie are simply silly and uninspired. I don't want to say \"amateurish\", cause I love Argento's movies.The ending left me feeling empty.Talk about a final impression! This is hardly what happens in most of Dario's films! Though,admittedly,Suspiria also suffers from a rushed finale (even if most of it is brilliant)....

In short,watch this movie,try to make the most of its good points,but be prepared for some bad ones as well. This is NOT a perfect movie by ANY means.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of his lesser known films, many horror fans have yet to catch this Dario Argento offering, which is unfortunate. It is underappreciated mostly because of the fact that really not enough people have seen it. The film boasts grade-A Argento gore, with his customary close-ups set to savage rock scores. While it true that this script is not very complex, it is not nearly as bad as other entries in its genre, or his own personal resume for that matter.

This movie symbolizes more of the 'dread' that he likes to portray in his films by his own admission. Worth a good look on any night.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I consider myself a casual fan of Dario Argento. For every really good flick by him (such as \"Deep Red\" and \"Tenebre\"), there seems to be one that's equally uninspired (his output since \"Opera\" has tended to disappoint). Still, there's no denying that when he's at his best, there are few horror directors who can top him. I consider \"Opera\" to be Argento's finest work.

This is definitely the film where all of his trademarks are present. There's no well-developed characters and the plot makes very little sense once you begin to scrutinize it. Still, think of Argento as an European equivalent of Brian DePalma - the style is all that matters here, so much it becomes the substance. Typical to Argento, there's some beautifully filmed murder sequences. Those unfamiliar with the man's work may perceive that as a sadistic remark (and it may be, considering the often time misogyny of them), but its really true. Argento stages murder with an intricacy to eye-popping visual detail. He truly makes graphic violence an art form. Plus, his direction and the look of his films is impeccable.

Fortunately, \"Opera\" is one of his most frightening products. Argento is the only director whom I feel booming rock music works well for horror sequences (when others attempt to pull it off, it comes across as cheesy). The acting varies, with Cristina Marsillach playing a beautiful and reasonably sympathetic but never particularly animate young opera performer. The rest of the actors are workmanlike and get the job done, but again, with Argento, the acting is never the point. Its the beautiful colors, the terrifying violence, and the overall fever dream \/ nightmare atmosphere. (9\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dario Argento is a filmmaker I'm slowly getting into, following the iconoclastic efforts of Deep Red and Suspiria; he's not a filmmaker to always care directly about silly things like \"plot\". That might be his one minor (but, for me, apparent) liability: he won't let a little thing like common sense screw up his plan for his elaborate killing sequences, as his killer(s) can go through any kind of elaborate set-up of being invisible, until revealing past the point of the POV tracking shots of said psychopathic killer. But it's thrilling to see a filmmaker take chances like this anyway, of a pure Italian aesthetic making its way into the soul of a Hitchcockian warp (in fact, as a note of interest, if one has recently seen the Scorsese short film where he took three pages of an un-filmed Hitchcock film, which also took place in an Opera, Argento had it beat by almost twenty years, probably with no knowledge of the text). It's also unabashedly 80s (CD players and heavy metal and the hair, oh my!) and with an absurdity that makes it all the more palatable to swallow.

The story is simple: an opera of Macbeth is being produced, with high-stylized pyrotechnics and trained ravens. There's even a talented up-and-coming star replaced at the last minute, Betty, played by Marsillach. But a murder occurs during the premiere- interrupted not by that but by a falling light- and now the killer is after Betty! She can't go to the police (how can she let out that the opera is really cursed?), but will that matter in the face of a killer who won't let up? One has probably seen premises like this played out in other Argento films- girl being chased by a killer- but it's how Argento, like De Palma, constructs and executes his sequences, and adds a distinctive flavor of his own to add touches of bizarre humor (the breakout of the ravens to attack the killer, and the subsequent version of pointing out in the lineup), a kind of over-stylization ala Leone (the bullet through the peephole through the door probably inspired a similar shot in Kill Bill 1), and even sado-masochistic inspiration with the pins taped to Betty's eyes, more than once!

Argento puts his actress through the wringer, and she's all game for it, even when things seem to just go into 'what-the-hell' territory (I was throwing up my hands almost saying I give up when she is led down the secret passage by the little girl, as if suddenly we're in Aliens now). And through such dark genre material Argento keeps the violence thick and fresh, the suspense about as much as that with opera music coming right out of a speaker of a stereo system, and a cinematographer who may have had a few drinks (and rightfully so!) during some scenes the way they're shot and vibrate to a heart-beat. It should be considered trash, but it's elevated past any limitations of the genre by the ballsy attitude of the director, this in spite of a silly ending- sillier than anything that preceded what came before it (thanks little lizard)- and an attempt to break the Macbeth curse, which, unfortunately, didn't seem to happen in real life on the set of Opera. 8.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Opera' (1987)

Director: Dario Argento (Deep Red, Suspiria) Screenplay: Dario Argento and Franco Ferrini (The Church, Sleepless, Demons) Photography: Ronnie Taylor (A Chorus Line, Sleepless) Music: Claudio Simonetti (Phenomena, 'Goblin')

Story: Betty (Cristina Marsillach) is the Lady Macbeth understudy of a very stylized staging of Verdi's Macbeth opera. Betty's time to shine comes when the diva star breaks her leg before opening night when she is hit by a car running away in a tantrum. The famous curse of Macbeth takes a more sinister and calculating turn when right away the body count begins to rise. It seems Betty gets her first fan via a stalker who ties her up and tapes needles to her eyes to force her to witness the grisly murders of the people around her. Story: 3 of 5

Acting: Acting in a lot of these Italian films can sometimes be hard to judge. English, Italian, French, German, Spanish can sometimes all be in the same flick as they usually speak their native languages making dubbing rule of thumb and hard to judge. I usually cut them some slack in the area as a result. Acting: 4 of 5

Direction: Giallo maestro Argento enters again the genre helped pioneer. 'Opera' shows him at the top of his game with an exquisite blend of gore, tension and beauty. Direction: 4 of 5

Visual: This has to be one of Argento's best looking films. Gorgeously filmed by Taylor, 'Opera' features some stunning and inventive camera-work that keeps the film running fast and hard and keeps the eye-candy coming. The camera always seems to be in notion whether it is a wonderful shot of the camera going up a spiral staircase or a sequence towards the end of a bird's eye view of said bird circling the crowd at the opera house. Visual: 5 of 5

Audio: Frequent Argento collaborator Simonetti (through his various bands Goblin, Demonian and solo effort) compliments the screen action with zeal as his score touches from the classical (Verdi) to metal musings (with a little help from Brian and Roger Eno and Bill Wyman) and lends music muscle to the screen's bloody gristle. The sound design give you all that you need from stabbings to gunshots, fire to screams and masterfully remastered on the Anchor Bay disc in glorious 6.1 for every crunch and caw. Audio: 5 of 5

Technical: The editing keeps the film flowing and moving wonderfully. Combined with the camera-work, the editing help keeps the surreal dreamy imagery flowing. The exquisite opera house is one hell of a location and perfect for staging the horror version of Macbeth. One can't end a review of an Argento film without having to comment on the kills. Argento dispatches characters with glee this time around with a brilliant stabbing sequence, crow eye-gouging and the film highlight of a gun blast through a keyhole into the eye and out the back of the head shot that once again sends Argento's ex-wife Daria Nicolodi to the movie morgue. Priceless! Technical: 5 of 5

Wrap-up: A nearly flawless giallo that suffers from a slightly unnecessary epilogue in Switzerland that delivers all the visual thrills that Argento fans crave.

Overall: 4 of 5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is standard fare from a director who as long been amongst my favourites.

Even though its very flat in comparison to a lot of his other work but its Argento and this may be biased but I'm gonna be giving it a good review anyway.

It does contain a lot of good ideas. The subtle voyeuristic element. The needles under the eyes. The gory and disturbing deaths. And the Argento clich\u00e9 flashback.

Downsides include the heavy metal soundtrack, acting and the ending.

All the film is made worth it for the birds in the theatre sequence near the end.

A fairly good film from Argento but he as done better. A lot better!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Opera was filmed in synchronization with a variety of other mass media productions (start point for Opera is the initial appearance of the raven eye):

The Wizard of Oz (synch start points are third MGM lion roar, Dorothy's third knock on Tin Man's chest in the orchard, and Dorothy's third heel click; synchs with Gone With The Wind)

Prince of Darkness (synch start point is the music score start point)

Electric Ladyland (original release version songs and sequence only)

Rocka Rolla (original release version songs only)

Sad Wings of Destiny (original release ...)

Sin After Sin (original release ...)

Stained Class (original release ...)

Hell Bent For Leather (original release ...)

Point of Entry (original release ...)

Screaming For Vengeance (original release ...)

Defenders of the Faith (original release ...)

Turbo (original release ...)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Opera opens with a very close-up shot of a bird's ever-watching eye and thus begins one of Argento's most bizarre, and enjoyable, features (my second favorite in fact, behind Deep Red). Granted, at times, the movie is pretty absurd (the lack of real concern after murders, the bird attack, the burnt dummy, that ending\u0085) but this is Argento's fantastical world and once you come to terms with that, you'll find that it works. I do not mean to completely dismiss these faults though, rather that the artistry of the film more than makes up for them. For example, the aforementioned bird attack is completely over-the-top in theory, yet look at the wonderful execution of it; crows flying in chaos, adding their enraged squawking to the driving rock beat, the crowd in panic as seen through the circling, bird's-eye view camera-work, and then the focused attack; aria of terror indeed. Argento's amazing, flowing cinematography is on full display in Opera, and clearly one of the film's highlights. I also enjoyed the soundtrack of operatic themes and rock music, a nice contrast of music with each used effectively (the rock kicks in with the murders in perfect timing and gives the scenes a very frenzied feel). The sound effects deserve a nod too, stabs, scissors, beaks, and all.

Inspector Alan Santini: \"I've seen a lot of your movies. Yes, you're really an expert in this field. I'd be very interested to know your opinion.\"

Marco: \"I think it's unwise to use movies as a guide for reality, don't you inspector?\"

Inspector Alan Santini: \"Depends what you mean by reality.\"

Being that this is a giallo, stylish murders are a must and Dario does not disappoint (the \"bullet through the door\" scene is quite possibly one of the greatest deaths ever shot, if you'll forgive the pun). The black-gloved, deep-voiced, pulsating brained (cool shots!) killer is cold and brutal, and having him tape pins under our heroine's eyes so that she was forced to watch the murders was a nice touch. That all said, as a giallo, Opera doesn't quite have as good of a mystery as it should. The killer is kept secret from the audience well enough but there's little effort in the film devoted to actually solving the murders. This, and the strange ending, could've used more work. Despite these problems though, Opera still manages to be a worthwhile and satisfying horror film.

One final note: it was nice to see a movie, for once, show the correct view through binoculars (just a circle, not two circles together)! Nice eye for detail, Dario!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Title: Opera (1987) Director: Dario Argento Cast: Cristina Masillach, Ian Charleson, Urbano Barberini, Daria Nicolodi Review: The only other Argento movie I had seen was Suspiria and that one blew me away with its style, colors and spooky story line. I next decided to go with Opera as I had been told it was one of his best. Man, I think I'm discovering what will ultimately be one of my favorite horror directors.

Opera is about a young opera singer who gets her big break when the main star of a creepy modern opera take on Mc Beth gets hit by a car. Betty is the understudy so she gets to do the part herself. Too bad for her there's a psycho after her who makes her watch the brutal murders of her friends and co-workers.

Wow, Id heard good things about this here flick, but I wasn't prepared for the level of greatness to which this film would take me. Yeah the movie has its shortcomings to which Ill get to later. But for the most part the movie blew me away.

First off, this movie is not as filled with lots of colors as Suspiria. I was expecting it to be a bit like suspiria in that department, but no, to my surprise it had its own look and feel. The film is somehow devoid of color. It does have lots in colors in certain scenes (like the masterful kitchen\/living room sequence) where Argento fills the screen with lush greens and blues, but for the most part the film has a grayish, black tone to it all through out and I liked that it had its own distinctive look.

The real stars of this show are the incredibly well orchestrated death sequences. Wow. Every death scene was like a work of art. Beauty in destruction. These are not just your typical hack and slash death sequences, these deaths were carefully constructed to shock and get the most out of its situations. Loved every second of them, there's plenty of blood and mayhem here, but with style. Not gonna spoil em though.

Then there's the direction. Man, there's some really original and beautiful shots on this one. I loved the inventive use of the camera on this one. You thought that Tarantinos shot in Kill Bill vol. 1 where we see the bullet coming out of the chamber of the gun was original? Well this is the movie he lifted it from! I honestly believe that Tarantino was heavily influenced by this specific movie with certain scenes in Kill Bill Vol. 1. Heck in the making of feature he mentions that the whole scene with Beatrix in the hospital and Elle Driver coming to kill her was influenced by Italian Giallos, and here my friends is the proof of that. Anyhows, Tarantino references aside, this movie has some amazing camera shots, like those scenes of the crows flying through the crowd in the opera house...great stuff. And a main reason why Argentos becoming one of my favorites.

The acting from most of the cast was alright, but the best by far was Cristina Marsillach as the tortured young opera singer Betty. The looks in her eyes as the murders were being committed were great. The rest of the cast was a little wooden and stiff, but nothing that would deter your enjoyment of the film.

There were very few things I didn't like about this movie. First off logic was thrown out the window in certain scenes. Specially those involving Bettys reactions after shes seen the murders. It seem to me that for the longest time, she just went on about her business, not telling anyone about the whole thing. Not even the police. I mean if you see someone brutally murder a loved one in front of your eyes...you don't just walk away from the murder scene and continue with your life. Someone would have connected her to the murders. She might have even become a suspect herself...but no. Also the ending is a bit anti climactic. You'll have to see this to understand, but it seemed a bit unnecessary the way the film ended, it felt like it could have ended earlier. It would not have felt so redundant. But thats about it, not real big problems for me really since I was enjoying the rest of this beautiful film.

I've still got a lot of Argento territory to cover...but I'm devouring every step of the way like if I was eating a plate of the most expensive caviar. This guys really good. I think of his films as works of art, and I've only seen two of em! Cant wait to discover the rest of his films. Argento, you the man!

Rating: 41\/2 out of 5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you don't like Italian horror, you won't like this film. On that note...

\"Overall... it was a terrible experience... Many things happened. Vanessa Redgrave was scheduled to be in the film, and she pulled out. One of the actors was crushed by a car. I was engaged to be married, but by the end of the picture that was finished. My father died during the shooting... all kinds of things.\" -Dario Argento on the making of \"Opera\"

I was truly impressed with Argento and the film he made here-- especially against such harrowing circumstances. The whole mystique of \"Macbeth\" and its curse on those who attempt to stage the play adds untold volumes to \"Opera.\"

Throughout the film, Argento imploys some of his most clever (and audience directed) tricks. A young opera singer, Christina, is stalked by a violent psychopath who forces her to watch a series of brutal murders. By taping several sharp blades to Christina's eyelids the killer makes it impossible for her to close her eyes, \"Take a good look. If you try to close your eyes, you'll tear them apart. So you'll just have to watch everything!\"

It is clear that Argento put great care into constructing the faux \"Macbeth\" opera on-screen, and his hard work pays off. Add to this several unforgettably brutal murders, an incredibly tense chase sequence, and the genius use of POV to portray a certain character (the role Vanessa Redgrave pulled out on, thank god) and you've got one of the best Italian horror films ever created.

That said-- it's still Italian horror. Why Christina never seems to tell anyone about this brutal murders is beyond anyone's comprehension. Some scenes might be difficult for certain viewers to stomach, but personally I felt more tension towards Christina and her eyes than any of the brutal slayings in the film. The finale to \"Tenebrae\" had my stomach churning more than anything in \"Opera,\" but that's probably just me.

And the last five minutes... Argento wanted it, he filmed it, and he's fought to keep it in the film. Absolutely no one likes it, myself included, but it's not enough to ruin the rest of the film for me. It remains one of Argento's best films to date.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The murders in Opera are not actual murders as much as they are symbols of past events and parts of Betty's own fractured personality. In fact, Betty is the same person (a male) that Suzy Bannion is in Suspiria, only a decade later in life (Suzy was a boy of ten who befriended another boy of ten with a more mild version of his own background).

It helps to think of Betty's luxury apartment as a military barracks bay; she spends most of her time in her bedroom in bed next to her stereo it seems, and other parts of her apartment seem foreign to her somehow, as though other people live in those other rooms.

Dario Argento's movies sync with a wide array of Rock music, as well as Funk (Dario starts the syncs right at the beginning of his films, the flash of the eye in Opera, and the start of a drum roll in Suspiria). There are also standard movies that Opera (and Suspiria) sync with. For example, Opera syncs with with a record album by Judas Priest called Priest ... Live (as does Suspiria), and Suspiria syncs very well with a Kiss record album entitled Kiss Alive II. Movies like Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, The Image, and The Vampire Happening are sync movies Argento uses which deal with the same subject matter as Argento's films. These syncs, along with many others reveal Betty to be a male who suffered sexual torture at the hands of his father since birth (even in the womb according to a certain Anne Rice novel entitled Lasher).

Anyway, large budget films are occult works which relay spy information collected by occult means, all in synchronized symbolic\/alchemical fashion. Usually, the sync point in a film is the beginning of the sound score, or it is the first image of the film beyond any film company lead-in. Sometimes it is more creative. The heavy metal music used in Opera and Phenomena are simply music syncs that were deciphered out of other films that Argento's movies sync with, an intellectual game of sorts among the elite within the industry.

So, Betty doesn't respond normally to the murders she witnesses because she didn't ever witness a murder of any real person. \"She herself\" simply suffers soul murder; she witnesses her own \"murder;\" this individual's father almost dropped him down an abandoned mine shaft in Arizon at age 4, in 1970; he was on the verge of falling off a wood plank his father balance him on before dad changed his mind and grabbed him and yanked him back off it; the kid felt nothing consciously. Memories of sexual torture are lost to this individual via extreme sexual repression, and the vague memories which remain are of the big, square, deep hole in the desert and no significance is placed on this memory because of the lack of conscious trauma (the \"loss of trauma,\" also a \"buried trait,\" is portrayed in the 1975 film entitled The Image). Those sausages up in the attic in Suspiria are each individual memories of the first three or so years of a life (Toys In The Attic).

The reason Betty (or Suzy) is a female character is because the individual Christina Marsillach's character mirrors is a male who has been trained into a female role of sorts since birth (all of the DVD's of the Simpsons cartoon sync with Suspiria), with his very nature having been molded along \"queen\" lines (The X-Files episodes sync with Opera). This has even altered his body to be \"beautiful\" in the way a woman's is. Behavior alters genetics. A more recent movie entitled Death Proof deals with the same ideas and the same individual.

Virtually the entire life of this person is mirrored on large budget films, record albums, and books made since 1966, and father prior to 1966 and after. The Scorpions album entitled Virgin Killer is a Suspiria sync album, the original album cover acting as a symbolic mirror image of the fall through the skylight.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I rank OPERA as one of the better Argento films. Plot holes and inconsistencies? Sure, but I don't think they impair this film as much as many other reviewers seem to. A lot of elements that are in many of Argento's films are kinda \"off-the-wall\", but that's part of the draw of his films...

Short story: psycho stalks the opera's new leading lady. The typical Argento twists and turns ensue, leading up to a decent payoff of a climax. Not Argento's best, but I still pull this one out from time to time. Definitely worth a look if you like his other stuff - just don't get this one mixed up with the abysmal PHANTOM OF THE OPERA remake that Argento did, that one is truly awful... 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Devil in the Dark\" is William Shatner's favorite episode. It is also one of my favorite episodes. The program is pure Star Trek because it deals with one of the series' main themes: the respect for other life forms. I do not think one could get a clearer example of one of the show's most interesting ideas. In this episode, Kirk and his crew have to confront a monster that is killing miners on a distant planet. The story is an excuse to explore the right that humans have to destroy creatures that are a vital part of the environment. Today's concerns with environmental causes make the show more relevant now than ever before. It is extremely well written and performed with gusto by our beloved cast. One memorable sequence involves Spock joining with the mind of the monster. Plenty of tension between Spock and Kirk (they want to solve the problem using different methods) adds to the fun. Shatner and Leonard Nimoy do some of their best work here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I sympathized with the plight of the first man, Schmitter, we see killed in this episode. He reminded me of the trepidation associated with being a lone security guard at night somewhere - the type of work I did briefly about 20 years ago. Of course, I was never in danger of being burned to a crisp, as the colony chief (Lynch) is fond of describing. The monster in the dark here, murdering members of a deep mining colony, creates a scary impression in the first act. We don't really see it in the early scenes and, as many of us realize, the best monsters are sometimes left to the imagination. 'Big and shaggy' is one voiced description, but it actually turns out to resemble a big, lumpy pepperoni pizza, skittering along the ground like a silicon centipede - a limitation of the show's budget, unfortunately. This also shows in the latest matte painting, famous to Trek fans, the only way to convey a long shot of the mining operations.

But, the whole theme of this episode is about what's on the inside, rather than outward appearances, anyway. Sure, this Horta, a newly-discovered silicon-based life-form, looks like a mindless monster at first glance. Thanks to Spock's telepathic ability (probably the best use of a Vulcan mind meld for plot purposes), we learn it's a highly intelligent, even sophisticated creature. Besides Spock's instrumental use of his talent, McCoy gets to supersede his usual medical routine - healing a creature resembling rocks or asbestos. He also gets to utter one of his most famous lines, \"I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!\" I found it very true-to-life in his scene where he exults in his success, though he's unable to get Kirk to share in his enthusiasm - Kirk's too busy organizing results. The episode throws unexpected turns in character & motivation at the audience as the story progresses; Spock champions the need to possibly preserve this discovered life as Kirk takes his usual stand on preventing the deaths of any red-shirts (no half measures, as in \"The Man Trap\"). But later, it's Kirk who, for some reason, holds back on firing a killing blast, as if the heat of the hunt had worn off and he'd had time to reflect on Spock's point (I believe it was during this episode's filming that Shatner learned his father had died). Uncharacteristic for most of the first season, this has a happy ending. The conflict stems from the needs of basic capitalism, such as meeting standard quotas, versus protecting the natural environment and its inhabitants - a space age version of protecting owls from the tractors of modern advancement. Somehow, despite many killings and a sense that everything could go to hell at any moment with one raised phaser, Kirk and Spock manage to broker an agreement which satisfies everyone. I guess people and silicates are more reasonable in the 23rd century.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kirk and the crew are visiting a federation mining colony on a remote planet rich in mineral resources. The Devil in the Dark is the Horta, a very unusual silicon based life-form which tunnels through solid rock. The Horta has been killing miners and, it is decided, must be destroyed. But how?

It is hard to continue this review without writing a spoiler, so instead I simply concentrate on the technical aspects of the episode and touch on its themes. The special effects are OK, but many of the scenes with the Horta look a little absurd. The acting is fairly average for TOS. Some of the miners are a little awkward. Nimoy has the most difficult role of all in Devil in the Dark, and he pulls it off well.

Why is this still a favorite of mine?

Devil in the Dark is really an anthropological and ecological morality play disguised as an adventure. More than many episodes of this great TV series, it brings home the importance of maintaining an open mind and at least some degree of empathy toward others. Plus, it involves one of the most interesting, if not probable, plot twists in the original series.

Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of all the episodes of all series, this one holds the closest to Roddenberry's original tenet. According to the book THE MAKING OF STAR TREK, in Roddenberry's writer's guide to his story writers, he states that any alien creature, no matter how hideously ugly, impossible to believe, benign or malicious, MUST hold some semblance of humanity that the TV viewing public can empathize with and\/or relate to. Devil In The Dark's HORTA, which resembles nothing more or less than a large blob of cow dung, is a mother protecting her babies, those ball-shaped silicon nodules the miners keep finding throughout the mine passages and destroying, because they have no idea what they are! This is one of my absolute favorite episodes if only for that!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This may not be the most exiting or incredible episode they've made, but in my opinion it remains as one of Star Trek and the Sci-Fi genre's most original episodes. Most ideas from retro Sci-Fi series especially including Star Trek has been reused several times, this one the other hand remains mostly as a one time triumph. This among the episodes that impressed me the most towards the end.

Another thing I like with this episode is how it has accomplished to create such and exiting and captivating story with such few special affects. Now without criticizing the episode I must admit the effects are very dated, but then again what can you expect from a TV show from 1967? But still the creature (\"Horta\") in this episode is basically just a carpet with some coloured rubber on it. Yet you forget this after about 1 minute and you only start thinking about it as what it's supposed to be. Also the caves don't exactly look like rock, but again you forget it after a few minutes. This episode is a living proof on how good acting and a good story, can make you ignore the visual effects.

The acting from the main cast is as usual great. This episode features the series second mind meld by Spock and is one of my favourites. So to say it simple Leonard Nimoy is definitely a scene stealer here, and his acting is excellent. Not that Kirk or Bones don't get their share of the episode but Spock is the most intriguing in this one. i like the fact that the episode is not about one specific character but evolves around the trio handling an alien problem. Also it's nice to see an episode who doesn't only happen on the Enterprise.

Like most Star Trek episodes this episode tells us to have an open mind. I won't spoil the story, but evolves around what in the start seems like a typical monster story. It has killed several humans and therefore must be killed. But is that really all there is to it? I can assure you that the explanation in the end, will not disappoint you. This is still my favourite Star Trek TOS episode and i give it a 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hey, it's only TV. Sure, it's STAR TREK, the most beloved bla bla, and this is a great one, but it's all relative. What it boils down to is a guy in elf ears grooving with a swatch of pizza-colored shag rug.

There's a kind of THIRD MAN noirishness to the tunnel hunt, and it's creepier than many episodes of what is after all one of the better TV shows. The suspense is actually suspenseful. The peril really feels perilous. As a little kid I think I cried when Spock told me that this hideous creature was as sad, scared and horrified as the people it was eating. This was one of my early lessons in empathy, a lesson reinforced by the EMPATH episode which was, if less thrilling, even more melancholy.

What bothered me when I was five was that this thing, which looks like meat and tomato barf, somehow actually consists more or less of rock. Now that kind of choice might seem visionary, a hippie designer's idea of through-the-looking-glass one-universism, but it might also just smack of the drug era.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really thoroughly enjoyed this movie. For one it didn't have the corny special effects that the big budget movies have. The acting was decent in this one, only you can tell right off the bat that it's dubbed, but once you get over that fact, and that you can't switch languages on the DVD version it's cool. The plot line was very unique, you take a situation like a heat wave very common around the world, especially in Frankfurt which I've been to many times, and you take a garbage strike which happens often enough in this country and you have a recipe for disaster. i loved how the hordes of rats just went everywhere and how the idea that if you picked up the garbage, that's the last thing you wanna do, you pick it up, the rats don't get what the want, they are in essence following the garbage pick up, so you ask well if garbage men are on strike , who picks up the garbage, private contractors, anyway military wants to quarantine off the city oops wrong thing to do, then you would have all the rats take over the city, then throw in a mayor who wants to keep a lid on the budget, and line her pockets, you have a realistic movie, and the female lead is also a pleasure to watch on the screen, a very decent movie i thought, wish more were made like this, another small nitpick is the depiction of Frankfurt could have been done a little better, but for the average viewer who's never been to Frankfurt... i was born in Germany and been to Frankfurt many times.. it won't matter, but all in all a great big thumbs up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was recently shown subtitled not dubbed, on Australia's Special Broadcasting Service. I thought I read here that there is sometimes an assumption that *Revenge of the Rats* is a sequel. In fact, the rats are getting revenge for something that is done within this movie, or in human history. There is no prequel as far as I know.

Now, let's get The Pied Piper of Hamelin out of the way. Perhaps this tale crossed my mind when I was watching the film, but that's all. There was the use of the word \"coffers\" at the end of the movie. A dazed mayor tries to justify her actions by saying \"the coffers were empty\". \"Coffers\" isn't a word you hear around much these days, unless you read folk tales to your children, as I do. Since seeing *Revenge of the Rats*, I've read two versions of The Pied Piper of Hamelin. Now I see the comparison. A metaphorical fat but literally ugly mayor promises more than the city can afford, to get rid of the rats. This is about as far as I can follow the analogy. The children are not led to a door in a mountain, with one lame boy left behind to tell of a land of winged horses and fountains, where it is always spring and everyone is always happy.

There's a lot that is quite mainstream about this movie. The romance and the resolution especially. The female characters have potentially powerful roles in society but are really quite impotent. Where this film is quite rebellious (as compared with American cinema) is that it is anti-authoritarian. The helicopter pilot is sacked by the mayor for \"doing good\". The mayor and local government are portrayed as corrupt and pandering to big money. Finally, it is left to one doctor in Frankfurt to solve an epidemic of a fatal and contagious disease. Apparently there is no national Infectious Diseases authority to co-ordinate things or send in back-up.

I'm not a horror aficionado, so any horror I do see is usually mingled with humour. Right from the rat in the blood bank you can see this is going to have the right balance of horror and comedy for most viewers; the huge number of rats is impressive and the horror fans seem to be satisfied too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sometimes a movie is so bad it's kind of good. This movie was made in Germany and is dubbed in English, so you have to get past that. The acting also was stilted and forced, other than what was done by the real rats, who IMO did an excellent job of acting the part. Snaps to the rat wrangler. Anyway, the mayor of the city has decided to cut costs and the local garbage collectors go on strike as a result, thus leaving large piles of trash everywhere. This storyline has been used before, not to mention has happened in real life (too often unfortunately) and the audience is not in for any surprises. But this is fine. We know what's going to happen and when, and sometimes an audience needs a movie where a lot of brain cells are not necessary to follow along. We have our hero, down to the chiseled face and body, the semi-hero(s), and of course our heroine, who happens to be the doctor, but only still in training, though it is she who discovers what really is going on when so many people end up sick and dying, and not just from a rat bite. Of course the villain must die (okay, all the villains, meaning the rats), and the ending scene is one of those that reminds the audience that a sequel is in the works. This is one of those movies that you just sit back and enjoy for what it is and what it is not.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This wonderfully witty comedy-drama wowed the crowd at the Philadelphia Film Festival, whipping them into wild applause at its conclusion. Buttressed by adept performances by a nuanced cast, sturdy execution by director Jeff Hare, a brisk pace, and one of Peter Falk's best performances in years, the film emerges as a loving homage to the highs and woes of family life.

Falk excels as Jewish ninetysomething Morris Applebaum, a wildly eccentric Shakespearean thespian who decides to end his life, but not before rounding up his three grown children and throwing a \"big fat Jewish suicide party.\" The film brims with indelible delights. There's Morris's \"tushy room\"; Laura San Giacomo's passionate rendering of Morris's cynical daughter; rapid-fire comedic dialogue that recalls the work of Neil Simon and Woody Allen; the wry timing of David Paymer, who plays Morris's tightly wound psychotherapist son; and Morris's patented egg creams (but be careful, drinking them too fast will cause a nasty brain freeze). It's all enveloped in a feel-good, intimate atmosphere set in New York City.

Director Jeff Hare proves to be a master craftsman, drawing out memorable performances from his cast and lending the film a mirthful humanity. I was fortunate to see an earlier film by Hare: the dark and powerful \"Perfect Little Man,\" starring Neal McDonough (\"Minority Report\") as a Los Angeles man spiraling into madness. The visceral grit of \"Perfect\" and the nostalgic breeze of \"Checking Out\" are a testament to Hare's eclecticism and wide-ranging talent. I'm looking forward to checking out his future work.

I heard \"Checking Out\" lacks a distributor at this point. Some wise company would do well to pick up this crowd-pleasing gem, for it's a potential box-office titan in the vein of \"My Big Fat Greek Wedding.\" Most nobly, it would give people around the world a chance to experience the joys of this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was a rare treat to see \"Checking Out\". I was touched by the characters, laughed a lot at the wonderful script, and was deeply moved by the genuine emotions magnificently portrayed by this ensemble cast and especially by Peter Falk. In fact, one of his scenes in the kitchen of his apartment with his children where he tells of his experience of his life, his deep love for his wife and his decisions about his life going forward is so profoundly real that it is at the highest level of the best Academy Award-winning performances. He is a consummate actor who out-did himself in this film. The screenwriter offers a combination of literary knowledge, timing, a gift for dialogue and hilarious situations that had me laughing out loud in the theater. I highly recommend \"Checking Out\" to everyone wanting to enjoy quality storytelling superbly acted.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At the 2005 Phoenix Film Festival, it was no secret which film ranked at the top of everyone's viewing list. Checking Out (2004)brought crowds of film lovers to Scottsdale's Harkins Cine-capri. Festival attendees who waited in line for hours, were turned away at the door, despite the two-theater screening capacity.

Checking Out (2004) is a beautifully-made moving picture; an inspiring comedy for a wide-range of audiences to enjoy. The director, Jeff Hare, blends traditional film technique with a new twist of creativity, capturing Peter Falk at his greatest and most sentimental moments (usually shown in intimate close-up shots) on the silver screen.

With its uplifting mix of witty humor and narrative plot development, Checking Out (2004) is a landmark independent film, well-deserving of your attention.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was fortunate enough to catch this film at the Phoenix Film Festival and I must say that I very much enjoyed it. When I asked the Director if he had attended Film School I was very much impressed that he had not. Films like these don't come from people without talent. To get a start in commercials and then produce a heart felt family comedy like this shows real range. I'll certainly be keeping an eye on what he does next. As a good indie movie should, the film is very character driven. As apposed to your average Hollywood movie, which are mostly plot driven. The Film centers on a Jewish family in New York, the Applebaum's, who have all been invited back for their fathers \"suicide\" party. The film is stock full of witty, quick, jabbing, dialogue. The fact the small Jewish family is obsessed with being Jewish and anyone who is Jewish grounds the unrealistic situation of a \"suicide\" party in reality. Director Jeff Hare does a wonderful job at pulling the characters out of the actors and bringing them to life on screen. The production design brings the sets to life with lots of attention paid to small details making the setting feel like a home that's been lived in for 40 years. The editing keeps up with the dialogue in such a way that it makes you sit on your seat wondering who's going to stab who with the next witty phrase or punch line. And when appropriate the film slows down to let the audience dive a little deeper into the meanings and motivations hidden inside these lovable characters. If you're a fan of Woody Allen or films like \"As Good as it Gets\" go see this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Checking Out\" is a very witty and honest portrayal of a bizarre family that happens to be Jewish. Judaism plays virtually no role in the film, but American Jewish culture & behavior gets thoroughly sent up... it a loving way. I wish the movie dealt with the religious perspective on the topics it explores, because I think that would have been interesting.

I've never been a Columbo fan so I wasn't familiar with Peter Falk - he's a lot of fun to watch. It's great to see Judge Reinhold, Laura San Giacomo & David Paymer again - why don't they work more? They're all hilarious. The script is terrific with a lot of memorable one-liners I'll be sure to use with my own family. Watch for Gavin McLeod (Captain Stubing!) as the doorman.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Checking Out' is an extraordinary film that towers above most film production. Its refreshing, witty humor is never an excuse to remain superficial. To the contrary, the film explores multifarious facets of the human spirit and human relations. Its warm approach promotes tolerance and acceptance of diversity and recognition of that which unites all people. The characters are charming and amusing, reflecting those idiosyncrasies that we can all laugh about in ourselves. The quick dialog and witty banter will keep you on your toes, and you may find yourself trying to contain your own laughter, as you won't want to miss a single phrase! You'll probably want to see it in the cinema and then again (over several more times) on video, and each time you will discover something new. After each viewing, you are sure to feel warm and uplifted.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Morris and Reva Applebaum had been the toast of Broadway in its heyday. At ninety, Morris is a widower. He summons his sons--the psychotherapist and the BMW car dealer--and his daughter, the television writer\/producer--to attend a party in his honor, after which he will euthanize himself. Literal-minded creatures that they are, they take what he says at face value. He leads them, his grandchildren, and some others including an African-American-Jewish psychiatrist reminiscent of Godfrey Cambridge, on a merry chase through Manhattan as they try to stop him or dissuade him.

The comedy totally works. The performances are excellent. Peter Falk is in top form. This film does more than deserve an audience: it deserves popular success.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The timing of this film being released could not be better, particularly in light of all the turmoil in this world today. The film is a heartwarming, endearing and witty a piece. If you have siblings and still have parents alive, this will hit home well for the viewer. If you've lost your parents, then it will touch you deeply. The laughs come frequently, the ensemble cast works very well together and are believable. This film is intelligently written and the lines that come from each of the actors make the viewer laugh out loud frequently. There are moments that will bring tears to your eyes as well. I would recommend this film to anyone who respects the importantce of family and can follow an intelligent film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw \"Checking Out\" at the Philadelphia Film Festival. What a terrific combination of a heartwarming storyline and a great cast. Director Jeff Hare has done an outstanding job of inviting the audience into the disjointed, yet hilarious world of Morris Applebaum and family. The family life is presented in such a way that we enjoy the crazy antics yet feel the real pain and concern they have for one another.

Typically I am not a Peter Falk fan, but he IS Morris Applebaum and plays the role with great humor and humanity.

I hope that everyone gets to see this wonderful movie and enjoy it as I did.

Hats off to the Director, Cast, and Crew for a job well done!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I too was fortunate enough to see \"Checking Out\" with Peter Falk at The Phoenix Film Festival. This is an extremely sweet character driven film that leaves the audience enthralled in the Applebaum's plight in life. More than funny, each character in the family contributes priceless comic relief that not only spurs laughter but inspires a few joyful tears as well. Peter Falk was born to play this role. He plays a 90ish \"young\" father of three who brings his adult children together in what could possibly be one of the most important times in his and their lives. The 2 day journey that the Applebaum family takes though the delightful backdrop of New York (with carefully selected characters), not only leaves the audience wanting more, but nourishes ones own sense of family. \"Checking Out\" is a must see film, not only for all those who cherish family, but also all those who don't!!! My thanks to the director who took the chance to bring this GIFT to its audience. Robin Sly, Scottsdale, Arizona","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this film at the phoenix film festival today and loved it. The synopsis was listed in our program as \"an old Shakespearean actor invites his three children to his suicide party\". I wasn't sure if I was going to see it because when I read about it I liked the idea of a \"suicide party\" it sounded very interesting to me, but \"old Shakespearean actor\" had me worried that the film would be kind of dry and boring. But I decided to give it a try. I am glad that I did. It was not dry and boring in the least, that dialogue was great, funny in a clever way, but not pretentious and difficult to understand. Peter Falk was terrific in this role, he stole the show. I also was pleasantly surprised by Laura San Giacomo's performance, usually she bugs me, but I enjoyed watching her in this film very much. I think Judge Reinhold's part could have been done better by another actor, at times he seemed kind of cheesy and it looked like acting, not like you were just watching this character. But the movie was so good I was able to forgive one actor's awkwardness. I would recommend this film to anyone and have already told a few people to see it as soon as it is available to the general public. Who knew suicide could be so hilarious?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wonderful story that should be seen by all families. The story, acting, and production values are all first rate. I highly recommend \"Checking Out!\"

Peter Falk is marvelous as an aging actor who wants to decide when he will die, so he can continue to know how things will end and not be \"a member of the audience.\" His three children rush to New York to confront him and try to change his mind. There are, of course unresolved family issues to be addressed, and the script and actors handle them well and with great humor.

The story is about a Jewish family, but it could easily be about any other family. Well, maybe not a WASP family. The siblings have issues with each other and also with their father. I loved the writing and directing, as well as the acting. All in all, a humorous and touching film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peter Falk shines as 90 year old Morris Applebaum, the patriarch who has decided it's time to \"check out\" after holding a final, blow-out bash. His three children, Lauran San Giacomo, David Paymer and Judge Reinhold are notified\/invited by letter and immediately arrive on his doorstep to deal with their eccentric father. There is a great father\/daughter chemistry with Laura San Giacomo, whose character happens to undergo the most growth from the ordeal. It's a well rounded example of your average, dysfunctional family and their memories, pains, growth and ignorance\/tolerance of each others' lives. The musical score is one you'll enjoy and the one liners are well timed and hilarious. Although I found the actual \"Checking Out\" party a let down, the rest of the film is sure to make you laugh, cry and leave the theater with a smile on your face. Move over \"Big Fat Greek Wedding\"....the \"Big Fat Jewish Suicide\" has arrived.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peter is top notch, he is acting, and looking great. feels like watching a live play, great camera works, and i was sad it was over. Can not wait until it is on the big screen. Super cast, this could be a big hit. I like the way the kids interact as sister and two brothers, really made me think of my own brothers going through a situation like what Peter, the happy father who thinks he will end his life after a big party... The colors and sets were delightful to the eyes, helps so much to draw you into the film\/play... I was so happy to see Peter not be Colombo, this guy could always act, and now this is a movie that gives him that range. I recommend you take your family to this movie. Perhaps the teenagers will not get much from this, no guns, fast cars, dumb lines, stupid fart jokes... but your adult kids will love it. Good show for a night with them.

Jason","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first heard that the subject matter for Checking Out was a self orchestrated suicide party, my first thought was how morbid, tasteless and then a comedy on top of that. I was skeptical. But I was dead wrong. I totally loved it. The cast, the funny one liners and especially the surprise ending. Suicide is a delicate issue, but it was handled very well. Comical yes, but tender where it needed to be. Checking Out also deals with other common issues that I believe a lot of families can relate with and it does with tact and humor. I highly recommend Checking Out. A MUST SEE. I look forward to its release to the public.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I understand \"Checking Out\" will likely be released in Theatres in the USA in June 2006, and on DVD in November 2006. My recommendation is to not miss \"Checking Out\"!! This Comedy Film will entertain everyone, who will all relate to the characters, family relationships and multiple social issues that are portrayed. \"Checking Out\" will make you laugh throughout with quick fire clever humor built into almost every line, and may make you poignantly cry in a touching positive way as well.

The subject of suicide is dealt with in a comical way, that at the same time may help people considering it understand the impacts this act may have on those their life has touched and on those who love them. Lets hope that \"Checking Out\" can have a positive impact and help prevent those considering suicide from acting it out, especially in the 16-25 age group that has the highest rate of suicide in the USA.

The script is wonderfully written, perfectly casted, and loaded with synchronicity and meaningful flashbacks in time, whose significance become more apparent throughout the film and especially at the ending. I believe the script is worthy of an Academy Award Nomination for \"Best Screenplay, Play to a Movie\" ( The Phoenix Film Festival honored \"Checking Out\" with a \"Best Screenplay Award\" ).

The cast is loaded with great actors that out do themselves, and have a long track record of great performances, acting award nominations and wins. I feel Peter Falk's performance in \"Checking Out\" is worthy of an Academy Award Nomination, and is the most challenging and wide ranging of his career. Laura San Giacomo's performance and chemistry with Peter Falk as her father is masterful, and was recognized at the Palm Beach International Film Festival with a \"Best Actress Award.\"

Even the teenage characters in the movie shine and are played by young acting phenoms Dan Byrd ( Movies: A Cinderalla Story with Hilary Duff; 3 Young Artist Award nominations, Won 1 ) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead ( TV: Monster Island, Wolf Lake, Passions, Touched by an Angel; 2 Young Star Nominations ).

Director Jeff Hare and Producer Mark Lane wonderfully develop the characters, their interrelationships, and the story line of this entertaining, enjoyable yet complex script.

The film editing keeps the pace of the film moving quickly, only appropriately slowing in the poignant scenes, so that the audience will never loose interest from the beginning to the end.

Don't miss this film that you can take the whole family to see and all will enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Checking Out will be released Friday September 15th, 2006. through the AMC theater chain starting in New York City. Times Square, 66th and 3rd Ave, West 84th Street. This film has been one from the heart, for the heart. Mark Lane, Jon Karas,Richard Marcus, Jeff Hare, Dana Harrloe,Matt Jensen Ed Abrams, Nick Pike, Peter Falk, Laura San Giacomo, David Paymer, Judge Reinhold, all the cast and crew knew from day one that this film was something special. The need to comfort the elderly is intended, the closeness of family is more apparent now then ever. I would recommend this film to all ages and races. This story rings the truth to anyone with or without family.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is hilarious, bright and insightful. Though perhaps the story would work well involving almost any ethnic group, the inherent Jewishness of the characters gives extra meaning to the bounty of wonderful dialog. There were so many social issues covered in the plot that for that reason alone it would have been worth seeing; -but the real treasure was in the warm laughter that spread throughout the appreciative audience. The medley of complex characters with their various strengths and weaknesses play out their roles with all the pathos and humor one would expect from the Shakespearean drama their lives seem to parody. This is a film about family; - about the often fragile, sometimes invisible binding together of diverse personalities and lifestyles, first among siblings and parents, and inevitably among the larger family of friends and even strangers. The technical aspects of the film have given the movie a pace and development that keep the viewer intrigued until the final scene. Peter Falk is amazing, as always, in his role as family patriarch Morris Applebaum. Strong performances by a fine cast include a surprise guest. Don't miss this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie last night at the Phila. Film festival. It was an interesting and funny movie that had some endearing and moving scenes. Peter Falk was excellent as was the rest of cast. They were believable and played their roles well. The movie may have gone a bit long and the conclusion was okay. The audience laughed at the right places. The family dynamics were terrific and though this was a Jewish family, they could have been Italian, Irish or any other including Greek. I recommend this film if you are interested in laughing at a subject that isn't often handled that way. IOT makes you think about the consequence's of your actions and how they affect others in your life and those who are not clearly in your life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many movies try to take universal themes and make a comedy; but few will rise to the occasion like \"Checking Out.\" The movie is brilliant. The dialogue is well written and true to form. The acting is absolutely prima. Peter Falk has given a truly great performance - as an actor; as an actor. He is able to carry the cast to greatness. Another great performance is given by Laura San Giacomo. She is such an intriguing actress. Her performances take one by surprise. She delivers no matter what role she is asked to give - from wacko in Stephen King's \"The Stand\" to her television performances. However, \"Checking Out\" allows her to shine. It is a role she is meant to play. The film is brilliantly directed by Jeff Hare. He was able to bring out the best in his cast and his direction - in every aspect - made the film a wonderful treasure. Jeff Hare was able to make a difficult theme laughable and yet profound. He gives us an up close and personal look at why indie films need to be made. The directors knowledge of his cast and script are extended to the finished film. The results are superb.

Hopefully, it will be made available to large audiences because this is one you won't want to miss. It has the potential of being the sleeper hit of 2005 - in the fashion of \"My Big Fat Greek Wedding.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the premier of this movie during the 2005 Phoenix Film Festival and was very impressed with the skill Director, Jeff Hare, exhibited in bringing this timely topic to the screen. The cast of characters meshed perfectly and allowed us to examine the issue of a senior wishing to die on \"his own terms\" in a very warm and humorous way. Peter Falk was brilliant as Morris and the supporting group of family members and friends were perfectly cast in their roles. The interaction of the family, friends and outsiders with Morris created a realistic view of how families address the issue of their parents aging and their wishes to die with dignity.

Although this movie is ostensibly a movie about a Jewish Actor and his family, it is truly a movie about all families. The jokes the family and Morris crack during this romp through the life of a \"Force of Nature\" are fresh and realistic. Childhood rivalries, adult successes and failures, and hope for the children are integral to this screenplay. While many will question how you can make the topic of suicide \"humorous\", I thought the treatment logical and timely. If you are not afraid to shed a few tears or laugh at the quips of a family struggling with this issue, then you MUST SEE THIS MOVIE.

The movie was awarded \"Best Picture\" at the Phoenix Film Festival.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In \"Checking Out\", Peter Falk plays an elderly New Yorker who summons his children home so that they can be with him before he plans to commit suicide. As the movie progresses, we get to see everyone's flaws and other problems. While some people may interpret this as a \"heartwarming\" movie, I mostly enjoyed it for Peter Falk's character not letting anything get him down, and even engaging in a little lewdness now and then.

So, it might not be the best movie ever, but still worth seeing. I've long thought that Peter Falk has the perfect look to play this sort of role, what with his glass eye and all. Also starring Laura San Giacomo, David Paymer, Judge Reinhold and Shera Danese (Falk's real-life wife).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Take someone you love or want to love and go see this film.

It touches you in all the right places.

All the other reviewers here have said it all.

Perhaps the cynical will not be impressed.

They only seem to like the stuff that leaves you depressed for days.

This film is Ga-run-teed to stay with you for life.

I am so gratified that the Director is not USC trained.

This validates my premise that there is too much mediocrity and conformity in film these days.

It is because of the USC lockstep mentality and inbreeding.

Hooray for Jeff Hare and Richard Marcus, cast and crew. Well Done!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Film exhibits dear irony, shaggy-dog roundabout story lines woven with subtle cultural references, Classic parallels, masterful use of rich saturated color, and fabulous rendition of chase scenes a'la Keystone Cops.

The ensemble work of the cast and entire crew is Charming. Literally. How else could I go on so?

This film speaks to everyone. The deft and poignant use of so many universal archetypes: That's what makes this Film so deep down satisfying.

As a mature student of film, I find Checking Out contains all the vital elements. Sure and Bergorra, it's not the GODFATHER, but would serve perfectly as follow up; Tragedy's mandatory Satyr play that sweetly binds our collective cathartic wounds.

Get thee to a theatre and see this film, you will be treated to a unique masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is well made, it is beautiful and wise. It is heart-warming. It is great. And again it shows how great Peter Falk is... he is fantastic and he even gets better, the older he gets! Thank you, Peter Falk! Thank you very much for this gem of a movie!

This movie entertains. There is lot of wisdom in this movie. There is lot of humor in this movie. There is life in this movie... and meaning. This movie shows, how life can be.

Peter Falk is in that movie. He is just great! Where is the Oscar for Peter Falk? He deserves it so very much.

Peter Falk just turned 80. I do sincerely hope that there will be more movies!

Walter J. Langbein","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A hilarious comedy by the best director ever, Oz Scott. The list of eighties TV icons goes on and on. Milano (Who's The Boss), Yothers (Family Ties), Stone (Mr. Belvedere), Robinson (Night Court), Jackee (227), D'abo (Wonder Years), Walston (Mr. Hand!!!). It is one of the funniest movies ever. Great lines, meaningless subplots, cheesy, bad acting. It is about a group of high school kids who need to pass drivers' ed. Mac from Night Court needs them to pass their final exam, or he'll be fired. Great performance by Brian Bloom as the jerk\/kinda cool guy Riko Conner, but is nothing compared to B.D. Wong's Kiki (pronounced kee-chee). A great movie for all ages, so bad it's good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I LOVED this movie when I was younger, and I have actually been looking for it again!! I would love to watch it again!! The information is all correct, but the cover doesn't look like it would match - I can't say for sure though. From what I remember, the movie was about these kids (Alyssa Milano, Tina Yothers, etc.) in a driving class, and it also shows the mischief they get into outside the class. Edie McClurg was Alyssa Milano's mother in the movie. I remember I really liked it so if anyone knows where I can get a copy (preferably DVD) of the movie listed above (with those stars in it) I would love to know. Thank-you :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To understand \"Crash Course\" in the right context, you must understand the 80's in TV. Most TV shows didn't have any point. The sitcom outpopulated the drama at least 3 to 1. They were still figuring out where the lines were so that they could cross them. (TV Shows like \"Hail to the Chief\" was quite the bold step!) This made-for-TV movie \"Crash Course\" featured an All-Star cast, bringing together members from all the 80's classics: \"227\", \"Family Ties\", \"Who's the Boss?\", et al. Directors must've had a certain penchant for those all-star movies then. Still, this movie offered very light fare and a simplistic view of heroism and maturity. And that's not bad sometimes. Viva Soleil Moon Frye.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This video has heartfelt memories. It has a great cast and all the actors did a great job. I have been searching to buy this video. If anybody knows of where I can purchase, please e-mail me. I really want to add this to my collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Halloween 666 (1995) The producer's cut review!

Halloween 666 starts of with a recap of the horrific ending to Part five. If you thought the last chapter was dark, this one will really blow your mind. A mysterious \"Man in Black\" has raided the Haddonfield Police Department freeing Micheal Myers. In the process poor Jamie Lloyd was abducted by strange cultists. What they want with her? Who knows, but let's just say her long suffering will end soon. Doctor Loomis is back spending the rest of his twilight years trying to stop Michael Myers from killing any more innocents (good luck). A friend of Loomis, Doctor Wynn comes back after a four sequel hiatus to help the good doctor. Another old face from part one guest stars as well.

This dark and dreary sequel was dismantled during the post production editing. For some reason the distributors felt that the final product wasn't worth the average horror film watcher's time. So they decide to dumb it down. Then after having the film sit on the shelf for several months it laid an egg at the box office. No matter what they did to the film, they made it worse. They should have left well enough alone. Hey, the film company knows better than the filmmakers now....don't they?

Producer's Cut :Highly recommended

Released version: Not recommended","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a really interesting Halloween film. I wasnt to thrilled with the whole Thorn theory but it still makes for a good film. I liked getting to see Tommy Doyle back but sadly Donald Pleasance died right after shooting. The film had a really REALLY bad director who didnt give a flip about the series, from what I heard treated Donald bad, and wouldnt let Danielle Harris come back as Jamie. Its like he was just trying to bring down the film, but I still liked it. There were alot of cuts and music changes and if you're lucky you can get the Producers Cut which features over 40 min. of never before scenes. With those scenes it turns into a whole new movie. Check it out if you have the chance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow, \"The Curse of Michael Myers\" what a great film. Suspenseful, entertaining, creative and a clever plot which I love. Many hate the 'Thorn' concept, I love it. I think that it gives the Halloween series some plot. Marianne Hagan is a wonderful actress and turns in a excellent performance, especially for her first film and Paul Rudd and Donald Pleasence are great also. My only complaint is that why wasn't Danielle Harris in this film as Jamie? She wanted to return, but the producers said no. I thought J.C Brandy was great, but I love Danielle Harris. Still, I love Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. I think The Shape's mask looks the best in this film and George P. Wilbur is the best Michael Myers ever. Incredibly creepy and suspenseful, Halloween 6 rules!

I adore this very violent, but immensely enjoyable film. The Halloween horror series - by far the best in the Genre.

10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For some reason, I always enjoy movies that people hate, when I really don't think they're that bad - and this is one of those films. In the case of this movie, I think it is way too over-criticized, I really isn't that bad of a film at all. In fact, I think this is one of the better sequels. \"Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers\" begins on the night before Halloween, where Michael brutally murders Jamie Lloyd (who was taken captive by the \"Man In Black\" in part 5) after she gives birth to his baby. We are then introduced to the Strode family, who is now coincidentally living in the old Myers house (which seems to change in each film). Kara and her son Danny are the main characters, along with Tommy Doyle, the now adult boy who survived the original killings. They must fight together to save Jamie's baby from an evil cult that takes care of Michael, while Michael himself is driven to kill by an old Celtic ritual where he must sacrifice an entire family in Haddonfield.

This is surely one of the best sequels in the series, in my opinion anyway, and I can't understand all of the hate it has gotten. It had some nice suspense, an interesting plot (but sometimes confusing, I'll admit), some scary moments here and there, and plenty of gore and knife slashings to appease all of you gorehounds. Not all of the acting wasn't particularly great, but it was convincing enough for me. Marianne Hagan is the leading lady and she is very likable. Paul Rudd plays a grown-up Tommy Doyle, and is also very talented and plays his part nicely. The rest of the supporting cast (besides the brilliant Donald Pleasance) isn't much to praise, but it wasn't too bad either, all things considered. I'm still not sure if giving an explanation for why Michael kills was completely necessary, but it turned out to be okay in the end and I wasn't upset with the way they tied everything together. The open-ended conclusion was also kind of eerie, but could have been something more.

I have also seen the infamous \"Producer's Cut\" of this film, the original cut of it, and I think that in some respects, it is better. It further explains the Thorn curse that drives Michael and has some extra scenes that really helped support the film, plus the ending was a lot better in my opinion. It felt more natural than the conclusion that we're given in the studio cut of the film. I wish that Dimension would release this alternate version of the film, because I personally think it is better. The chances of that are very slim though.

Overall, \"Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers\" is a very good sequel and will please all of the fans of the series. This movie isn't the best of all horror movies, but it's definitely worth renting if you want to see Michael do his thing. Just don't expect brilliance, and you'll enjoy it. 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is pretty good as it is, but the unreleased Producer's Cut is my favorite movie in the series after the original. Jamie's story is handled differently, the death scenes are done 10 times better, there's more footage of ritual type stuff giving more story about Micheal, Jamie and her baby. There is also an alternate ending which is also better. Why they didn't release this version instead I have no damned clue. If you can find this version, see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This sequel is brilliant and is the last film Donald Pleasance (Dr.Loomis) worked on before his death. I loved the new direction the film took with the story instead of just Michael Myers wanting to kill his family. I love this whole series and apart from the first and second movies this is by far the best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i bought this in the budget department last week. i had halloween and halloween II already, and since i aim to collect every horror film ever, i chose this. after all, the 1st two were good.

this film is pretty intelligent to tell the truth. it seems to create the correct atmosphere, and has a nice \"history of michael myers\". it uses the old locations from the original, and the main character is the kid whom laurie strode babysat that fateful halloween in 1978...

the climax also is fairly satisfying. anyways, it is A LOT better than H20, which frankly, is absolute crap.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...dislike this movie and everyone would understand why. The plot is poor, so is the acting. But in my opinion it is better than Halloween 5, although even this does not give many surprising moments. A few scenes are really well directed. But these few moments do not deliver the reason to rent it. I do not despise violence in movies, but H6 features extraordinary strong and bloody scenes which do not fit to the tradition of the Halloween-Movies. The most sucking aspect about H6 is the lack of tension. No comparison to the first masterpiece.

Halloween 6 only gets 4 out of 10 stars from me. If you want, rent it. But don't expect a great horror-experience....

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although I brought this film by accident (I thought it was the original Halloween(stupid eh!)) I was surprised by how good it was, many sequels just continue the events of the previous films, this however tried and succeeded in explaining the events of the prequels, why does Michael Myers kill people and how come he seems to have supernatural abilities. I thought this was a top horror film full of action, suspense and surprises, I'm very glad I brought it. I've given it 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Halloween:The Curse Of Michael Myers is probably the best sequel out of all of the Halloween flicks. Jamie, serial killer Michael Myers' niece, bears a baby who is then taken by the Man In Black from the conclusion of Halloween 5. A kind nurse helps Jamie escapes but Myers quickly tracks her down and kills her. Jamie's baby is found and rescued by Tommy Doyle, one of the kids Jamie Lee babysat in the original film, and Myers arrives in Haddonfield and begins to kill off the Strode clan living in his old house. The film concludes with scenes revealing clues to Michael's evil, the identity of the Man In Black, and a close to the whole Dr. Loomis\/Michael Myers storyline. I highly recommend this brilliant horror masterpiece.

Halloween:The Curse Of Michael Myers is Rated R for strong graphic violence, extreme gore, brief sexuality, language, and brief nudity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I personally LOVE this film amidst the Halloween series. I've found, after watching it with many friends, that you enjoy it completely, or find it absolutely unbearable. Personally, i've watched it dozens of times, and it never gets old. There is a great back story within the movie itself, and a lot of different things are finally explained. It's a rather short movie, at just shy of 90-minutes, but it's definitely a thrill ride.

The shape seems to be pretty brutal in this film, but the acting is still there with the way he walks, stalks and kills. There are a lot of neat little screen shots with Micheal appearing in the background, which adds more of a spooky element to the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This review is based on the Producer's Cut:

'Halloween 5' was a major disappointment at the box office way back in '89. Personally, I've always loved it and am proud to have it in my collection. But because of it's failure and also because of rights issues, it would be 6 years before we would see another installment. The film had the makings of being one of the best, if not the best in the series. A hardcore fan writing the script, the return of not only Donald Pleasence as Dr. Loomis and George Wilbur as Michael Myers, but also the return of the character of Tommy Doyle from the first film, a major studio backing the project, and a Fall release all made the film sound like a hit in the making. So what went wrong? I'll give you two good reasons: Re-shoots and poor editing. Due to a bad test screening and also the unfortunate passing of Donald Pleasence, the film was changed, and not for the better. The film, like parts III and 5, tanked at the box office and earned negative reviews from both critics and most series fans. But then, thanks to the magic of bootlegging, the original cut leaked out and many fans, including my self, were very happy. I will end this portion of my review by saying this: This film is, so far at least, my favorite 'Halloween' film and I'm not afraid to admit that.

Pros: The score is simply spellbinding. Has some of the best writing and dialogue of the series. 'Halloween 4' emulated the original in that it was more about suspense and mood instead of blood and guts, and 6 is the same way. Great performances, especially from the late and very missed Donald Pleasence. Moves at a breathtaking pace. An interesting explanation for Michael's evil and why he won't die. Some brutal kills. Some pretty chilling moments, my favorite being the one involving Kim Darby's character. A lot of really cool nods to the previous films. Some good surprises. Like the previous two sequels, this one has an awesome cliffhanger ending.

Cons: Though the explanation for Michael's evil is fascinating, it does make him a little less scary. Since when can Michael move around from place to place so fast?

Final thoughts: This was the first 'Halloween' that I saw in the theatre. I was so excited because I really had thought 5 would be the last and then I heard this was happening. I enjoyed it at the time, but over time I saw it for what it really was: A great movie trapped in an OK one with a terrible ending. Why did the filmmakers have to listen to the people at the test screenings? If they had released this superior version it may have done much better and the series might not be stuck in the mess it's in right now.

My rating: 5\/5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow, I can't believe i'm the first and only one to post a comment on this great movie.

Although the movie itself seemed interesting enough the real thing that attracted me to this one is Matt lillard, granted most people probably either think he's too caffeine happy or just plain sucks but we're both the same age and from the same generation and i've watched this guy so many times that he's one of my favorites now. This is one of the few movies where he is the big shot and main star kind of like in SLC Punk, another great Lillard film.

Baiscally this is storywise your usual heist movies but with more twists than anything, which start to amount to craziness. Also very notable in this movie is another great actor named vincent D'onofrio, a very under appreciated person in the film industry. The woman in the movie is a newcomer and she isn't too bad although you know they hired her mainly for her accent and the nude scene =)

It's a game of jack vs jill vs bob as each want to reap the rewards but share with no one. They all try to get eachother to kill off the other and it's a timebomb waiting to explode. Matt shows his true prowess as the scheming JAck who initially starts the whole scheme. Vincent and woman play a couple of art thieves who are in need of money due to a lack of business. Vince's character is a bit deranged and skitz's throughout the movie but that only add to the intensity of the film.

The surprises left and right are well welcomed and the ending is very non cliche and makes you feel happy, well maybe that depends on the type of endings you like. This movie kept me very interested besides the fact Matt was in it, it's a great movie and i'd highly recommend it to anyone who likes movies. Critic's probably won't like this movie, but they don't watch movies cause they like movies anyway.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Im a huge M Lillard fan that's why I ended up watching this movie. Honestly I doubt that if he wasn't in the movie i would of enjoyed it as much or even watched it but once I did watch it realize the story was pretty decent. A bad ending I must say but I did see it coming. It's a low budget movie and some of the actors weren't really good but all in all I rated this movie 7\/10.

The suspense of wondering what Lillard was actually up to was what really keeped me interested in this movie.

Its a good rental!

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must warn you, there are some spoilers in it. But to start it off, I got \"Spanish Judges\" on February I think. It was mention it was the last copy, but as I see, it wasn't back-ordered. But either way, I have it. I thought it was good. I wanted to see this mainly because of the great actor, Matthew Lillard (I'm surprised no one on the reviews mention the scar) although it is kind of low budget, getting enough money to make this film would be worth spending. Man, what a good actor.

The story it about a con artist known as Jack (Matthew Lillard) who \"claims\" to have merchandises called The Spanish Judges. If you don't know what Spanish Judges are or haven't seen the trailer for this and this is the first review you have read, I won't even say what they are. I figure it would be a big twist of no one knew what it was. He needs protection, so he hires a couple who are also crooks, Max and Jamie (Vincent D'Onofrio and Valeria Golino) as well as a crook that goes by the name of Piece (Mark Boone Junior). He has a girlfriend who won't even tell anyone her name because she's from Mars, as she said. So they (mainly Jack) call her \"Mars Girl\". Everything starts out fine, but then it turns to one big game. A game that involves some lust, lies and betrayal.

There was some over acting in it (Matt and Valeria, as well as Tamara, were not one of them). There were some scenes they could've done better and the score could've been a little better as well. Some of the score was actually good. The theme they used for the beginning and the end (before the credits) was a good song choice, that's my opinion. The fight scene in the end could've been a little longer and a little more violent, but what can you do? One more comment on Matt: Damn, he plays a smooth, slick con man.

I know this is a review, but I need to make a correction towards NeCRo, one of the reviewers: Valeria Golino is not a newcomer. According to this site, she has been acting since 1983. To me, and hopefully to others, she is well known as Charlie Sheen's Italian love interest in both the \"Hot Shots!\" movies. But good review.

Although I think it's one of the rare films I've seen and it's really good (which is why I gave it 10 stars above), I will give the grade of what I thought when I first saw it.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After reading some of the earlier nasty remarks, I had to put in my two cents. This show was NOT, despite what that goon in Essex thinks, the worst thing that ever aired on TV. I think most of today's TV is much worse (when is this stupid \"reality\" fad ever going to end??) and there isn't a current show I can stand to watch. Gimme the stuff I grew up with. I'm a 1965 baby and not ashamed to admit it.

This show has been my all-time favorite for almost 30 years. I was in high school when it originally aired and I think it helped me to hang on throughout those miserable days. I was such a misfit back then, and \"Fantasy Island\" appealed to my imagination. As I was a budding writer in those days, it provided incredible opportunities for me to practice the craft. What a wonderful premise! I won't say it didn't have its faults. Sometimes the scripts were pretty bad, and some of the problems seemed trivial; but it could be good too, and it was a blast to watch and still is. As for the cheesiness factor, well, I think it's unfair to label every single 70s product as cheesy. There was a lot of great stuff back then and this was among the ranks. (BTW, most of the seasons aired in the 80s!!) My favorite episodes came from seasons 2, 3 and 4 mostly.

To those who disparage Herv\u00e9 Villechaize for his heavy French accent and his short stature: GROW UP and LEARN SOMETHING! It's so easy to make fun when you're \"normal\" and \"perfect\". That man made the best of what he was dealt in life, and if you don't like it, that's just tough. Have a little compassion. He's been dead 15 years, and how easy it is to cut down someone who can't defend himself. There's just no shame anymore.

I love this show. So it looks dated. Hate to tell you this, but we didn't have splashy special effects and Blu-Ray discs. We were lucky to have VCRs. Live with it. Accept it for what it is, and that's just plain fun. \"Escapist TV\" describes it perfectly, and that's what it was for me -- an escape from my rotten real life. And it's still a lot of fun to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, if you would judge the movie to now a days it wouldn't fit in to well.If you watched FI now the stage and everything was pretty cheese ( I agree)But weren't all the movies in the 80's like that(Gilligan,Wonderwoman,aso).But too the people born in the early to mid 70's or earlier it has a cult status. Evertime the plane was on approach Tattoo would run up the tower ring the bell and with his accent would yell \"Da Plane BOSS Da Plane\" and you would wonder what everybody's wish would be.People who are born in the mid 80's or later wouldn't understand the hippe because if you watched it now.It don't have a Harry Potter,Jurassic Park Computer animation FX.It was just a stage where you probably could even almost see the wire attached to a guy who's wish was too be able to fly.But to us during that time it was a FANTASY ISLAND.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Museum of the Moving Image here in New York recently put on a comprehensive retrospective of Jacques Rivette's films. Having fallen in love with his \"Paris Nous Appartient\", I decided this was not to be missed.

Largely through extended shots and flexibly structured scenes, the movie depicts two avant-garde theater companies preparing their renditions of Aeschylus' \"Seven Against Thebes\" and \"Prometheus\". Additionally, we are shown the directionless day-to-day lives of two individuals distantly connected to the companies: a working class woman named Frederique who finds creative ways of hustling men out of their money, and a young man named Colin who visits local caf\u00e9s posing as a deaf-mute, and plays shrill harmonica at the patrons until they pay him to go away. The first four hours or so are devoted to establishing the characters and their patterns, before a somewhat loose, whimsical plot finally emerges involving a conspiracy and the decoding of clandestine secret letters.

The film is largely about life on the fringe of society. The theater companies are a despairing affair, using their elaborate, emotionally draining exercises (which are really something to watch) to distract themselves from the fact that their acts are unlikely ever to be staged or even seen. Colin and Frederique both have very few friends, who only briefly find any excitement or purpose after the conspiracy touches them, as they are spurred to find out more about it. The film meditates on the consequences of rejecting normal society in several memorable sequences, including a long shot of Colin as he wanders the streets of France shouting poetry to himself. As such, the film has been referred to as an analysis of 1960's counterculture.

There is not a frame of the film that is not bursting with energy and vitality. The fact that much of the dialogue and movement is improvised makes the characters much more spontaneous, much more immediate. The camera also becomes an important character in this regard; throughout the movie boom shadows are visible here and there, or other similar errors, yet they seem natural and fit with the flow of the action because the camera is so important a player therein.

More than anything for me, the film seems a great example of another way of making movies, a venue for film outside the usual pattern. For me it was a mind-opening experience, even more than \"Paris Nous Appartient\", though the latter bears many similarities of theme and structure. A must-see for anybody pondering the nature of art.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that Pierre L\u00e9aud, or his character, to be precise, is really outlandish but with grace: I also remember the chess player, and of the girl who seems to be appearing by chance in his home, something really curious...the woman acting as the lawyer, is to me one of the most beautiful actresses ever seen on the screen...but I must admit that the plot is too inconsistent to be taken seriously....The character who plays as the lead theater actor is really nice, especially when he's annoyed by the new actor, the one in purple t-shirt...also, the scene where the bearded actor - who belongs to another company - directs the stage is really fascinating and relaxing, as it often happens with this movie - for example, when they drink tea, they just make you want to have a cup...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the very La Nouvelle Vague.One of the best films of the New Wave and I dare say one of the first ten ever made! Why? The atmosphere, the story,the actors (actress) are all brilliant. This is the theater, a fairy tale, the life, the film.Paris. Thank you Mr.Rivette.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One has to be careful whom one tells about watching 12-hour long films. It could become easy for people to assume that this is some kind of regular occurrence - in fact, even in the world of 'arthouse' cinema, such mammoth running times are extremely rare, for obvious reasons. This is one thing that Hollywood and art cinema share in common: the generally accepted running time of 90-120 minutes, with a minority of movies that dare to approach, but rarely exceed, the three-hour mark.

For this reason, a film like Out 1 (runtime: 729 minutes) is a challenge for even the most hardened cinephile, and it goes some way in explaining why it has only ever been screened on a handful of occasions and remains extremely hard to find.

Originally devised as a TV series by maverick Nouvelle Vague director Jacques Rivette, it raised little interest from the French networks, and wound up being given a brief theatrical run instead (Peter Watkins was forced to do much the same with his brilliant nuclear war pseudo- documentary The War Game, although that had more to do with state censorship than issues with running time). Shown a couple of times in 1971, Out 1 has re-emerged at a handful of Rivette retrospectives over the last two decades, and many who have seen it, including esteemed US critic Jonathan Rosenbaum, have acclaimed it as one of the greatest films of all time.

Is it? Well, yes, if you like Rivette. That alone is a big 'if', as Jacques Rivette has never been a commercially successful director. Only two of his films were hits (Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974) and La Belle Noiseuse (1991), both superb), and many remain difficult to find on DVD today (Out 1 only recently became available over the internet after a rare videotape was uploaded). Nevertheless, he is greatly respected within the film community, and with good reason - his playfully surreal narratives, sense of pacing and use of improvisation set him apart as one of cinema's most unique and satisfying film-makers.

Out 1 deals with a theme that re-occurs throughout Rivette's work: the nature of acting, particularly in the context of theatre and improvisation. His fascination with acting make Rivette's films a far more collaborative process than many of his contemporaries, as the improvisational aspects allow actors to have a far more active role in determining how the film comes together. Out 1 is roughly divided into four major narratives, gradually intertwining and blurring as the film develops: two consisting of acting troupes, each trying to devise post-modern theatrical adaptations of Aeschylus plays; the other two individual petty thieves (played by Nouvelle Vague icons Jean-Pierre L\u00e9aud and Juliet Berto) pursuing eccentric methods of making money; and an overarching plot involving a mysterious Balzac-inspired conspiracy centred around an organisation known as 'the thirteen'.

As with any Rivette film featuring a 'conspiracy' narrative, the mysteries and secret organisations are little more than a red herring. As the characters are slowly explored and revealed and their plans and interpersonal connections break down, the film becomes increasingly symbolic of post-1968 ennui and the decline of the ideals of that era. For a film made in 1971, these were remarkably prescient themes; another French director in Jean Eustache would tackle this topic equally satisfyingly in his 1973 masterpiece The Mother and the Whore. But this is not the limit of Out 1's scope.

Comprised of eight episodes of roughly 90 minutes each (the beginning of each episode has a brief, abstract black-and-white still montage of the events of the previous chapter), Out 1 is no less watchable than any quality TV series, and may even be better experienced on a one-episode- at-a-time basis. This is not to say that it doesn't remain challenging even when viewed in segments. Like most Rivette films, it uses the first few hours to simply establish the characters before embarking on the plot, of sorts, and some of those early scenes (particularly the sequences depicting the actors' heavily abstracted 'exercises') seem interminably long. These scenes are important, however, not just as an exploration of the improvisational acting methods that play both a literal and a metaphorical role in the film, but as a method of adjusting the viewer to the somewhat languorous pace of the film. Paradoxically, long takes make long films far more tolerable for an audience, and this understanding of pacing has led Rivette, along with more modern directors like Michael Haneke and B\u00e9la Tarr, to create films with less commercial running-times that nevertheless retain the capacity to leave viewers enthralled.

In a film that is in many ways about acting, the acting is fantastic. Many famous Nouvelle Vague faces appear, including the aforementioned L\u00e9aud and Berto, the outstanding Michel Lonsdale and Rivette regular Bulle Ogier. Even another legendary director in Eric Rohmer has a great cameo as a Balzac professor who appears in a pivotal scene. The people and architecture of Paris c. 1971, though, seem to have an equally significant role - the city landscapes, crowd scenes and interested onlookers freeze Out 1 in time, a document of a place at a point in history.

After a little more than 720 minutes, the film ends on an impossibly brief, enigmatic note; yet, the exhausting journey that the viewer has taken is so full of possibilities, intricacy and spontaneity, that one would be forgiven for wanting to start all over again from the beginning, or see the next twelve hours in the lives of these characters. For those who have watched many kinds of cinema and think they have seen everything the art form has to offer, Out 1 is a reminder that cinema has the potential to be so many more things and diverge in so many more directions than current conventions allow. For film-makers, film critics and artists of all disciplines, this is something to be cherished.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie! So worth the long running time. I need help with the ending though....

*SPOILER*

The final shot of Marie at the end - Is this to suggest that she is still searching for Renaud? or possibly that she was the one who wanted to reinvigorate the 13? (she seemed to be the one who delivered the initial letter to Colin in the first place) I don't quite understand it, but I know I really liked it. So if anyone has seen this and remembers it or has just seen it, please elaborate on the ending.

Thanks","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The recent history of Hollywood remakes of ghost\/horror films from the East has been dismal. This film will inevitably suffer the same fate, so get a copy on e-bay or similar.

It is well photographed and the sound is superb. Viewing on a good screen and with a good 5.1 or DTS enabled sound system is recommended. Obviously it is subtitled, so if that puts you off, then I wouldn't bother with this. Dubbing rarely works and simply would not do here.

It is also genuinely frightening, with excellent performances from a cast who will be unfamiliar to Western audiences. I would particularly single out the stepmother character, who was utterly brilliant. The ending will have you wanting to watch it again, if you can cope. The plot is relentless, and offers no comforting moments of release along the way.

If I do have a small criticism, there is perhaps a detectable influence in certain scenes from the Japanese version of The Ring. We have, however, accepted straight copies of other peoples' ideas for Western films for years, and so my point is a limited one which did not prevent me from giving it 10\/10. I believe most fans of this genre will derive huge \"pleasure\" from this film which I for one hope goes down as a classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"A Tale of Two Sisters\" is a brilliant South Korean psychological horror that left me speechless.The film offers some delicious moments of ghastly horror and is extremely creepy.The small cast of actors is truly excellent,with lead Im Soo-jung being especially memorable in the lead role.The direction by Kim Ji-woon is well-handled and the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous.The plot is slightly confusing,but some scenes are wonderfully eerie.The action is rather slow,but I was not bored in the slightest;I was extremely curious and intrigued.The house,where the film takes place looks incredibly menacing and isolated.\"A Tale of Two Sisters\" is along with \"Ringu\" and \"Kairo\" one of the most original Asian horror films I have ever seen.Watch this masterpiece as soon as possible.My rating:10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Beauty. The Terror. The Poetry. The Horror. The Innocence. The Guilt.

Maybe that's just about all I should write in this comment for A TALE OF TWO SISTERS. The best thing is to just watch this movie without knowing anything about it. I myself didn't even know one single thing about the history of the two girls when I went into this movie. I just took a look at the nice cover-art, didn't even read the synopsis on the back and popped it into DVD-player. I only knew that it won several prices on festivals around the world and that it came highly recommended.

The DVD-cover read \"The Most Frightening Film since THE RING, THE GRUDGE and DARK WATER\". Though the frightening-part might be right, you can forget about the rest, because the only thing A TALE OF TWO SISTERS has in common with those movie is... a ghostly apparition with long black hair. It's even a bit unfair to compare it with those famous Japanese movies, because this Korean movie has a lot more to offer and is in fact a bit more complicated and intelligent than those others.

This movie simply is a small masterpiece, and here are some reasons (without telling anything about the plot): The movie itself caught me off guard at least two times with clever surprise-twists. And just when you think you've had the conclusion (whether you get it or not, that's irrelevant for the moment) and you think the movie will end... this movie goes on a bit longer. The cinematography is amazing, using bright colors during the day and dark shades at night. The camera-work is excellent with the director sometimes choosing impressive, if not, innovating angles. Some shots are pure poetry (e.g. the top-shot with the two sisters at the lake). It all looks very stylish. There are only four main characters, but the intrigue surrounding them is intense. The story itself starts a bit slow, but there's a lot of variety in tone and emotions to keep it interesting. There was even one scene (when the girls took off towards the lake) that suddenly had me remembering Peter Jackson's HEAVENLY CREATURES. But when the horror kicks in, it's quite effective. There are also a few successful surprise-scares in it. Damn, I jumped right up from my sofa. The musical score is great, and at times when it's not supposed to be scary, I couldn't help but noticing that it had sort of an Italian feeling to it. A bit strange for a Korean movie. But nevertheless, a great score. So much care went into every detail of this film, including a perfectly balanced surround sound.

I also think that calling A TALE OF TWO SISTERS just a horror movie is giving it not enough credit. It's more a mysterious horror-drama that works both on a psychological and supernatural level. No matter how you look at it, this is Asian horror that ranks way up there amongst the finest. It might not be gory, but it gets pretty scary at times and the subject matter is pretty disturbed. So if you haven't seen it yet, then find a copy, pop it into your DVD-player, go with the flow and make sure you give this movie your full attention for it's 110 minutes running time.

There, I hope I did a good job praising it without spoiling anything.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Perhaps I'm one of the only avid horror fans who thinks that the recent overload of Asian shockers is so over-hyped! Films like \"Ringu\" or the \"The Eye\" \u0096 which are praised all over the world \u0096 simply didn't convince me and they looked more boring than frightening. Well, this blunt opinion doesn't go for the South Korean gem \"A Tale of Two Sisters\". This is a stylish and utterly complex psychological terror-tale that REALLY gets under your skin! The plot, based on a local folklore tale, might be a little too confusing to get this film listed among the all-time greatest genre achievements, but the atmosphere and tension-building surely provokes feelings of great respect. This is one of those few films that are impossible to label: the events in \"Two Sisters\" qualify as mind-bending horror as well as intense family drama and a deeply psychological portrait. Besides a mesmerizing story, \"A tale of Two Sisters\" also has all the great elements that I feel are usually missing in Asian horror films like compelling music, good acting and innovative camera-work. The mansion were the family events take place is brilliantly illustrated like a truly creepy place where secrets and danger lurk behind every door. Several sequences (like the dinner with relatives or the nightly appearance in the girls' room) are pretty much the ultimate in eeriness. They really made me feel uncomfortable and I do like to believe that I've seen my share of spooky horror. \"A Tale of Two Sisters\" is a terrific movie-adventure and a definite must see for Asian film fanatics. A little warning for people with a short attention-span, though: this movie forces you to have your eyes and ears focused at at all time. It's also a film that requires repeated viewing, even though no one will never really \"get it\" for a full 100%.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love horror films, but I think they work way better when they hide a dramatic impact behind (The Devil's Backbone, The Exorcist, for example). This is that kind of film, and it's not only eerie and terrifying when it has to be, it is also really beautiful. A Tale of Two Sisters starts really slow, so if you're in a hurry to see ghosts in the first 20 minutes you will be disappointed. Actually this is not a ghost story \u0096though there are some. It's something more complex, and it's done in such a way that it beats Ringu and The Grudge out of the ring no sweat. A Tale\u0085 is a way more clever film than those huge cultural hits, because it really cares for its characters, and the direction is flawless. Every detail in this film will leave you breathless if you're the kind of person who loves to pay attention to details while watching a movie. The acting is superb, specially from the stepmother and the main girl. Those two are worth the price of the ticket alone. Do yourself a favor and watch this awesome film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This review is long overdue, since I consider A Tale of Two Sisters to be the single greatest film ever made. I'll put this gem up against any movie in terms of screenplay, cinematography, acting, post-production, editing, directing, or any other aspect of film-making. It's practically perfect in all of them \u0096 a true masterpiece in a sea of faux \"masterpieces.\"

The structure of this film is easily the most tightly constructed in the history of cinema. I can think of no other film where something vitally important occurs every other minute. Quite literally, Ji-woon Kim seems to have made a movie that practically taunts the viewer to dissect it on the most detailed of levels. A seemingly insignificant object may be shown \u0096 a rack of dresses, two diaries, a drop of blood emanating from a floor crack, a bottle of pills, etc. \u0096 but upon meticulous inspection turns out to be so much more \u0096 a clue that helps to make sense of that particular scene (or perhaps the movie in total), which almost always contributes a stirring reflection upon the psychological concepts that lurk in the background until the viewer's intelligence prompts them to spring to the forefront. Such an event might occur a handful of times during any other movie, but in A Tale of Two Sisters such events occur in such a rapid-fire, relentless fashion that the viewer must watch the film in a perpetual state of alertness, lest they miss something important. In other words, the content level of this film is enough to easily fill a dozen other films. How can anyone in their right mind ask for anything more from a movie than this? It's quite simply the highest, most superlative form of cinema imaginable.

The most commonly cited criticism of A Tale of Two Sisters is nicely summarized by Zaphod B Goode, who falsely claims that the story is an incoherent, unresolved mess that uses confusion to instill a false sense of intelligence because it does not provide a final set of facts underlying the intriguing questions. He posits that Ji-woon Kim tossed up a dozen possible explanations and left it at that. In reality, however, nothing could be further from the truth. A Tale of Two Sisters provides a series of unassailably objective facts that help the viewer to identify the EXACT occurrences of each and every scene of the film. If our good friend Zaphod had been paying attention, he would have noticed \u0096 for example \u0096 the series of obvious flashbacks which provide enough factual information to make sense of the film. These flashbacks convincingly contradict Zaphod's assertion of complete subjectivity. The objective elements of A Tale of Two Sisters are so obvious to anyone willing to see them that the mere assertion of a lack of objectivity can only call into question the patience of a viewer who apparently does not want to put forth even the slightest effort whatsoever to see them. Can Ji-woon Kim really be faulted for the impatience of viewers who lack the desire to understand his film? I think not.

Please note that I will not insult the intelligence of critics such as Zaphod that cannot \"get\" A Tale of Two Sisters, because it really has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence as much as a lack of persistence. The movie spells itself out so effectively that the only possible explanation for confusion is a lack of effort on the part of the viewer. Yes, this film does require a rather significant amount of puzzle-solving, but the pieces fit together to create a beautiful picture. You need only put them together. Remember, the screenplay was written by someone with the picture already in mind \u0096 he simply separated the pieces and placed them skillfully throughout for the purpose of providing a magnificent cerebral exercise that \u0096 when completed \u0096 bestows an ultimate form of satisfaction and state of awe.

Don't misunderstand me. There are films that seem to start with an incomplete picture and try to create a puzzle that is insoluble by design. Spider Forest (2004), Perfect Blue (1998) and Donnie Darko (2001) are perfect examples of this. A Tale of Two Sisters is not. It's ironic that Zaphod claims Darko to be more masterfully constructed than A Tale of Two Sisters, especially considering that Darko not only provides almost NO objective facts but also a twist ending that is the quintessential deus ex machina clich\u00e9 that could be dropped at the end of any movie ever made in order to provide the ultimate in faux intelligence. I'm ashamed of myself for mentioning the two films in the same sentence, but the contrast is an important one. Although it does perplex me that Zaphod would cite a movie that crumbles when exposed to even the slightest intellectual effort as a way of criticizing a film that only becomes discernible thru a significant application of intellectual effort. He apparently likes his \"intelligent\" films in the most superficial form possible. This is evident when he makes 17 consecutive questions in his review that are answered quite convincingly by the film itself. Just read the threads by Opiemar within the IMDb A Tale of Two Sisters Discussion Forum. Anyone who carefully reads those threads and still asserts a lack of an objective solution to this film may as well stop watching intelligent films altogether because the answers are so damned OBVIOUS.

I'd like to say more, but I've come to my 1,000 word limit. All that has been said here needed to be said. So be it now said!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw \"A Tale of Two Sisters\" last night and really enjoyed it. I've been a big fan of Asian horror films recently and think that this is a strong entry from South Korea. There aren't many jump out at you scares as in the usual American horror film, but the director does maintain the off-kilter and foreboding mood very well, especially in the awkward character interactions with each other. Most of the scares are more conceptual and plays on everyone's \"there's something under the bed\" fears from when they were a child, but in this case, it's the closet and the sink. I also liked how the director was able to capture just how dysfunctional this household is through scenes such as the first dinner that the characters have together. He's also good at revealing people's inner life and fragility through simple scenes such as the stepmother wiping off her make-up in the mirror or her sitting in front of the flickering TV. I think this film is mainly an exploration of guilt and the consequences of living with that guilt hanging over you.

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD (DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE TWISTS OF THE MOVIE REVEALED) I was following the story pretty well, but did start getting confused during the bag dragging part. However, I think the flashback at the end definitely tied everything together. The film is very much like \"The Machinist\" in the way two of the character's joint guilt eventually leads to mental breakdowns and delusions.

Here's my interpretation of the film. The Su-Yeon that we see after the girls supposed return to the house is either the delusion of Su-Mi or the actual ghost of Su-Yeon that only Su-Mi can see and interact with. The initial stepmother that we see is, in my opinion a delusion of Su-Mi. There is a real stepmother, however, and she first appears in the film when she's wearing the gray pantsuit. I believe it's the real stepmother that the father is talking to on the phone throughout the first part of the movie and she doesn't appear until he pick her up and brings her to the house. The stepmother before that point is imagined by Su-Mi (perhaps part of her split personality?) That explains the bizarre dinner party sequence when the stepmother's brother looks at her like she's crazy and doesn't remember anything that she recounts. I think it was Su-Mi acting out her stepmother part of her split personality. The film shows this later in the bag dragging scene and scenes such as the stepmother wiping her make-up in the mirror, which is revealed later to actually be Su-Mi wiping her make-up in the mirror.

I think the ghosts in the house aren't entirely imagined by Su-Mi, and are either of Su-Yeon or the mother or both. In the final flashback, it is revealed the Su-Yeon was wearing the green dress and had the hairpin in her hair when she died. This is the green dress that they showed before on the ghost sitting at the dining room table while the stepmother was looking under the sink. Also, it's the hairpin that Su-Yeon was wearing in the flashback that appears on the floor when the stepmother is looking under the sink.

The real stepmother, in the end, gets punished by the ghost of Su-Yeon who comes for in a scene a little bit like The Ring. After that, the flashback scene ties it all together in terms of how both the stepmother was mainly responsible for her death, while Su-Mi unintentionally played a supporting role.

I wonder if the \"mother\" that Su-Yeon sees when she goes up to her room to cry, in the flashback, is a ghost already. Perhaps by that point the mother had already killed herself in the closet. That's left ambiguous.

Other things that are suggested, but not clearly explained in the film is that it seems like the stepmother, at some point, was a nurse, perhaps taking care of the mother and somehow may have contributed to her death too. It's not clear when her relationship with the father began and whether it caused the mother to kill herself. It's also suggested that the mother had mental issues too, requiring a nurse. The stepmother alludes to this when she tells Su-Mi, you're beginning to take after your mother. I don't think she meant just physically.

Also, if we accept that the initial stepmother that we see is actually Su-Mi, then there's the suggestion of incest too, since the father sleeps with her. Is that why Su-Mi freaks out and shouts, \"Don't touch me\" each time the father reaches for her in a later scenes? Is that the \"filthy things that you've done\" that she alludes to in a later conversation with the father? This film is interesting in it's capacity for different interpretations. A few of the scenes, however, were kind of derivative, such as the woman in the black crawling around scene, which reminded me of the herky-jerky movements of Kayako in the Ju-On\/The Grudge films. Also, the final scene where the stepmother finally gets her just desserts is reminiscent of The Ring. Furthermore, just the idea that some characters may be ghosts is taken from \"The Sixth Sense\" or \"The Others\".

Overall, I enjoyed it, however, and it will be interesting to see how the Hollywood remake (that's already in production) turns out. I have to be honest, I liked both \"The Ring\" and \"The Grudge\", so I'm not one of those snooty types who insist that remakes can't be good too. One remake that I'm really excited about is \"Dark Water\" coming out this summer. I haven't seen the original Japanese version yet, but both films are definitely on my to-see list.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film two years ago in the cinema, and fell in love with this dark tale of two brooding teenage sisters coping at home in their large country house with their father and step-mother. Their relationship with their step-mother is strained to say the least, with the step-mother appearing to be increasingly becoming unstable in her battles with the younger girls. The film though slants with Oriental style ghost effects and horror, which adds a strange and unsettling aspect to the story that on first viewing is not clear, but is all the more intriguing.

The direction is incredibly good, and the acting is stunning, with the step-mother in particular incredibly good swinging from one mood style to another in the film. The large house adds eeriness, and there are enough points in the film where you will jump out of your seat. This film to me clearly shows why Korean cinema is possibly the best most original in the world at the moment. You simply don't get anything like this in the Western World, sadly,and really i can see it being influential on film makers around the world in the next decade.

Highly recommended viewing in my opinion, a real joy and scare...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two sisters, Su-mi (IM Soo-jung) and Su-yeon (MOON Geun-young) return home with their father (Kim Gap-soo). Eun-joo (YEOM Jeong-ah) welcomes them but Su-mi's manner is bitter to her. Su-mi hates Eun-joo because the father let her act like the house wife after the sisters' mother died. Seeing her attitude, Eun-joo is getting to treat the sisters coldly and there grows a tense atmosphere among them.

As if called in by the atmosphere, series of mysterious things occur in the house. When Su-mi is hanging her dress in her wardrobe, there have been already hung a lot of dresses of the same design. When she put her diary into a drawer, she finds another diary of the same kind there. When she is sleeping in her bed with scared Su-yeon, a nightmare awakes her and she finds a woman standing on her -- and a hand dangles out of the woman's skirt!

Mysterious things occur to the other people, too. On the evening of next weekend, Eun-joo's brother and his wife visit the family and they have a dinner together. Eun-joo cheerfully talks about a crazy man she met when she was a child, but nobody is interested in her talk. She says the crazy man annoyed the brother, but he says he doesn't know anything about the man.

Listening to their talk, the brother's wife has a panic.

After the dinner, the conflict between Eun-joo and the sisters becomes at its worst. Eun-joo pulls Su-yeon into a wardrobe and locks her in it. Su-mi saves the crying-out sister and complains to their father what Eun-joo has done to his daughter. But his response is unexpected. \"Give me a break.\" says he angrily, \"Su-mi, please. Don't make me tired any more.\"

And the following words out of the father's mouth are more shocking than what they have seen in the house.

To tell the truth, I hate horror movies. Although I seated myself at a theater because my intuition told me the movie was something different, I was regretting what my curiosity had made me act when it started showing. The regret, however, had changed into joy for expectation ten minutes later.

This film is a tragic mystery more than a horror -- painful more than horrible; beautiful more than sensational. That may have a hard core horror fan disappointed, but for a mystery fan like me, this film is a must see. (9 out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watch many movies, but presently my genre number one is Asian horror. I have just bought this DVD and I initially found \"Janghwa, Hongryeon\" an intriguing but confused film, since I had not understood many parts of the story. But I saw in IMDb Board a message titled \"Explanation of a Masterpiece (all your questions answered) Faster load\", written by opiemar, and I was really impressed with the high quality of the explanations this user provided to viewers like me that missed points of the story. I would like to congratulate opiemar for his excellent work and suggest him to write a correct summary of this movie in IMDb to help and guide other viewers.

In the end, I agree that \"Janghwa, Hongryeon\" is a great Korean film, but I do not give ten in my vote because very few people can afford to see the same movie more than once, like this film demands, and without the great support of opiemar, I would not be able to understand the story as a whole. I intend to see this movie again in a near future. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): \"Medo\" (\"Fear\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This isn't so much a review of A Tale Of Two Sisters as it is a discussion of some of the smaller plot details, so I advise you NOT to read this review if you haven't seen the film, because doing so will absolutely ruin a few surprises for you.

In a way A Tale Of Two Sisters is far from original, at least from a purely superficial aspect - some of its iconography is taken straight from Ring or Dark Water, while the storyline itself (especially what Brendt Sponseller calls the \"rubber reality\" aspect of the narrative) is reminiscent of films like Fight Club (lead character interacts with someone created in their mind), Mulholland Drive (character creates alternate reality in a psychogenic fugue), as well as other minor aspects of Lost Highway, Jacob's Ladder, and basically every film under the sun dealing with mental illness, plus Amenabar's films (The Others, Abre Los Ojos), Memento (particularly with regards to the torturous nature of memory), et al. Thankfully all these similarities do not detract from the film's overall emotional impact, and I personally found A Tale Of Two Sisters an extremely moving and rewarding experience.

Many people have commented on the \"confusing\" nature of the narrative, but I personally found the storyline to be fairly self-explanatory, even if it is in part portrayed in a non-sequential manner. The narrative only becomes confusing for some because, midway through the final third, the story switches from a purely subjective setting (ie. Soo-Mi's warped perception of reality) to an objective one, with a flashback at the end explaining the origins of Soo-Mi's nervous breakdown and subsequent mental illness. The shift in emphasis is bound to throw some people off guard, but structurally I found it somewhat reminiscent of aforementioned Mulholland Drive (even though we're not dealing with a character's perception of reality via a dream but instead their own schizophrenic tendencies - something which, in turn, reminded me of another Lynch movie, Lost Highway). To be honest, I don't really regard A Tale Of Two Sisters as a Horror movie as such, but rather a tragic story of a family's breakdown as well as an honest look at a character's mental illness (and I hasten to add that fans of psychoanalytical cinema are going to love this film).

That aside, the cinematography in A Tale Of Two Sisters is incredible and visually this is one of the most beautiful films I've seen this side of Wong Kar Wai's 2046. The performances are also fantastic without exception, and I expect to see more of the four lead actors in the future; not to mention the music, but then east Asian films without a great soundtrack seem to be few and far between these days.

It's very likely that some people will look past the finer artistic points of A Tale Of Two Sisters and simply dismiss it as \"yet another Asian horror film\", oblivious to its aesthetic beauty and honest psychoanalytical approach. But then each to their own. If you can ignore some of the film's platitudinous aspects and simply take it for what it is at heart, ie. an extremely tragic, heart-breaking story, then I see no reason not to recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many horror fans complain that horror has scarcely progressed in the last twenty years. I was inclined to agree with this until the influx of Asian horror films, a trend which has admittedly grown dull. However, it has produced some true classics, and A Tale Of Two Sisters, for me at least, stands out as an exceptional piece of cinema, and perhaps the best horror film in a very long time.

Based vaguely on a Korean folktale, it tells the sad story of two mentally-troubled sisters residing with their father and stepmother. After experiencing a few problems on their first night back at home, they determine to stick together and deny their stepmother access to their close relationship. The tension rises and there is the inevitable snap. But what happens after this requires more than a pair of eyes, as the story takes several twists, and the scares become more emotional and quite real. By the end, you may need a few moments to absorb it all and piece it together in your own mind, but it is exactly this pairing of horror and mystery that pushes it beyond the definitions of these genres and makes it an instant classic. One to watch again and again, if only to work it all out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Every high praise word fell way short before the height of this movie. This movie is the true example of how a psychological horror movie should be.

The plot seems to be a bit confusing at first viewing but it will definitely explain a bit about what's going on and you really want to view it for the second time. But after second viewing you will start to join the pieces together and then you will know how amazing a movie can be.

A word of advice for slasher flick fans stay away from this movie. This is not your dumb ass teenage slasher movie, in which you just switch off your brain and sit in front of the screen just to see big b**bs and lots of blood.

If you want to heighten the psychological horror factor of this movie then watch it all alone with a great home theater system that supports Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1ch, without any of your ill mannered friends that crack jokes on a really tense situation. And don't forget to switch the light off.

My points on different aspects:-

Direction = 9\/10 Acting = 8\/10 Atmosphere = 10\/10 Sound Effect = 9\/10

Total = 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie certainly deserves to be placed within the genre of horror, but not for obvious reasons. The horror of \"A Tale Of Two Sisters\" lies not with sudden shocks or large helpings of CGI guts and gore; it is a psychological horror movie which piques the viewer's curiosity from the start and builds a suspenseful aura of mystery and questions throughout. Best of all, the ending does not provide a clear answer, pushing the viewer to analyse what they have seen and make up their own mind about what really took place.

Do not be put off by the seemingly slow pace at which the movie begins, and don't expect to be jumping out of your seat immediately. This is not the conventional hack-and-slash movie with orchestral stings designed to make you scared of nothing in particular. \"A Tale Of Two Sisters\" slowly builds an atmosphere of terror, a terror of the unknown and a fear of things which evade explanation until the very end. Even when the final conclusion is revealed, it is not so heavy-handed and obvious as to make the entire film fall neatly into place. The movie requires its viewer to reflect back on what they have seen and to try and square this with the frightening revelation of the final scene. Some things will still be open to interpretation, and this is one of the joys of watching a film such as this.

The true fear of \"A Tale Of Two Sisters\" lies not in shocks or conspicuous scares; it is a psychological, gut-wrenching horror that defies convention and expands a genre to proportions hitherto unexplored by the traditional horror film. It is no exaggeration to say that this film stands apart even from the so-called 'Asian Horror' genre. Indeed, it would be a mistake to align \"A Tale Of Two Sisters\" with films like \"Ringu\" and \"The Grudge\". This movie can be understood from a variety of standpoints, some requiring no suspension of credulity, others embracing the supernatural wholeheartedly.

Whichever way you choose to interpret this film, it is one that demands an open-minded approach, rewarding viewers regardless of their preconceived notions on Asian cinema or horror in general.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let me just say - I love the horror genre to the extent that I see every single one that I can get my hands on regardless (except really low quality b-movie horrors which I could do without) and recently have become a big fan of Eastern horrors. Little did I know that a Korean horror would be the one that tops my list beating off heavyweights such as the Japanese Ringu (or the American Ring), or even quality US movies such as the Sixth Sense and The Others, and the widely acclaimed Hong Kong horror 'The Eye'.

Previously 'The Ring' had stood as my favourite horror but it seems to me that I prefer the beauty of 'The Tale of Two Sisters' any day - the story is extraordinary and rather open to interpretation thus allowing repeat viewings although chances are you'll want to watch this again and again just because the movie is so masterfully shot... the story is likely one of the best in the genre to date. The acting is top notch too from the entire cast and the scares when they come have the potential to rattle you like anything within the Ring - I did find myself glued to the screen at those points unable to take my eyes off.

Still I am glad it didn't come back to haunt me later that Sadako\/Samara did from the Ring - after all such feelings are unpleasant and The Tale of Two Sisters leaves you with an uneasy feeling, but one that hopefully won't leave you without sleep but leave you satisfied that you have seen something quite special. But do remember.. if you don't understand the plot after the first viewing, a repeat viewing is more than advised.. I personally didn't have time for this since it was late so I flicked through scenes on the DVD, some numerous times until I had a good synopsis in my head and after looking on the net, seemed Ihad pretty much nailed it on the widely agreed interpretation. And the satisfaction from solving a puzzle like that is wonderful.

All in all - a masterfully crafted horror that is unlikely to produce the same 'level' remake (its been purchased by Dreamworks) simply because of the Korean content and everyone is advised to catch this in the theaters or on DVDs while they can... its one of the best you will get. Unfortunately due to the type of movie this is, there is no way to even talk about the story without spoilers so its best to do what I did - watch it without knowing a single thing except its 'a tale of two sisters'! And be prepared for something that is unlikely to be matched for some time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If there is such a thing as beautiful horror, this film is one of the best in this genre. It is a horror movie, which despite not being void of gore scenes relies more on psychology and masterful building of the tension in order to create thrills. And it is one of those movies so beautifully filmed, where each scene is a full world of symbols and details, all serving the scope and genre that it can be called but beautiful.

It is not an easy story, with two sisters returning to their father and step-mother mansion after having spent some time in a psychiatric institution. They cope hardly with the death of their mother and they try to protect a world of theirs, defending them against the adult world. So the film seems to be at its most external layer. Actually the film slowly evolves to something very different, at slow pace, but no frame is lost to convey the sense of thrilling beauty, so I will not say much more. Watch it, it is one of the best in the genre of Far East horror films that conquered recently the world cinema and it really shows that they succeeded to do it for good reasons.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Three words: Piece of Art. This film is just great. It's beautiful, sad, frightening and thought-provoking at the same time. The score constantly stays in my head, the acting is wonderful the scenery scary and beautiful at the same time.

It was more by chance than on purpose that I saw this movie. At the time I decided to watch this movie I was just bored and read lists of Asian films, which maybe good. Well, I saw the title \"A tale of two sisters\" which sounded very interesting. Then I read the summary of the plot and decided \"You don't just watch this film, you've gotta buy it\". Said, done. I bought this film and was hooked from the very first minute.

The plot kept me interested from the beginning till the end; the twist near the end of the film made me scream. I really didn't see something like this coming. And the ending scene made me cry...it just made me cry. It was so sad.

Well, I recommend this film to anyone who wants to see a film that combines an interesting plot, with scary scenes and atmosphere. Although you should be aware of the fact that the ending is, as I mentioned before, a very sad one. But this just fits in the mood of the film, doesn't it?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To most of us, life is an unfolding process of love. For others like Soo-mi, however, it is dominated by darkness and fear. Based on the Korean folk tale Jangha and Hongryun, Kim Ji-woon's brilliant Gothic horror story A Tale of Two Sisters revolves around two sisters, Soo-mi (Lim Su-jeong), and Soo-yeon (Mun Geon-yeong), who are part of a dysfunctional family that live together in a creepy Victorian-style mansion. Feeling alienated from the world, they cling to each other for survival with the older Soo-mi obsessively protecting the younger Soo-yeon against danger. For Soo-mi, however, not coming to terms with the circumstances surrounding her mother's death means mental illness and a mind at odds with reality.

While we may recognize staples such as haunted houses with apparitional sightings, doors that open and close on their own, a cruel and overbearing stepmother, and other events of high strangeness, A Tale of Two Sisters superbly explores deeper psychological meanings including the inability to let go of inner demons and the misplaced desire for revenge. Soo-mi says \"Do you know what's really scary? You want to forget something. Totally wipe it off your mind. But you never can. It can't go away, you see. And... and it follows you around like a ghost.\" There is a time line but it is left for the viewer to unravel. The plot cannot be summarized, only suggested and the film keeps us wondering whether what is happening on screen is objective or subjective.

In the film's opening, Soo-mi, an obviously disturbed young woman, is being questioned by a doctor in a setting that looks like a mental institution. When the doctor asks her to describe what happened \"that day\", the film flashes back to when Soo-mi and Soo-Yeon return to the home of their father Moo-hyeon (Kim Kap-su) and stepmother Eun-joo (Yum Jung-ah). The stepmother is hostile and resentful and the father is passive and distant but it is obvious that it is Soo-mi who is really hurting. As the girls try to readjust, they are constantly frightened by a presence in the house, which may be nightmares or supernatural occurrences.

Soo-mi sees a figure at the foot of her bed that hovers over her and oozes black blood, a dinner scene in which the guest apparently sees a ghost hiding under the sink and goes into convulsions, a monster emerges from between the legs of one of the sisters, people mysteriously disappear from photographs, and many other maniacal schizophrenic devices to keep the viewer dangling on the edge of insanity. While we sense that much of the story is the projection of someone's mind, we do not know whose and the film keeps us constantly challenged, at least until an important clue is offered in the film's second half.

Shot in gorgeous low-light cinematography, A Tale of Two Sisters has a unique elegance and other worldly beauty that transcends all the scares, and there are plenty. It is haunting in more than one sense of the word and its images may stare back at you when you least expect or want them to. While the film may not offer the weary traveler much in the way of light, it shows us where we can end up if we opt for the darkness. In the words of a wise observer, \"Blame is never the answer - whether it is blaming yourself or others. Rather, the answer lies in stepping out of judgment entirely - both of yourself AND others. Forgiveness and understanding have great power of healing.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you consider yourself a horror movie fan, chances are you've seen Hideo Nakata's Ring and Dark Water. They're superb, and Ring's making its way smoothly into Hollywood (maybe Dark Water will be adapted soon too?). While Ring is almost 100% pure heart pounding and nerve breaking, a tale of two sister is both nerve breaking and mind twisting.

Along with The Other I consider this Korean flick a brilliant and smart ending horror movie. The only flaw this movie has is some consider its first 20 minutes rather slow. It's actually typical with Korean and Japanese movies. I consider it carefully planned rather than slow, think of it as \"calm moment before the storm\". With thorough introduction of characters, imho viewer will get involved more intimately with the character, one of Korean and Japanese movies strongest point.

Like Ring, a tale of two sister doesn't overdo ghastly appearance. Rather they let our mind do the intimidating job itself. That way it's scarrier and horrifyingly classy at the same time. I won't be surprised if Hollywood remakes this movie after bringing Ring and Grudge\/Ju-On over(This flick is not that good by the way, I rate it 5.5). Don't miss it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The idea is not original... If you have seen such kind of story before, you would know what the ending would come out after watching for the first twenty minutes... the script, the positioning of the actors and the screening is too obvious... If you haven't seen such story before, it is definitely a good experience, you will enjoy the twist at the end...don't forget to watch it again after you know the \"truth\", you will even more enjoy the plots... Even though I have a right guess at the very beginning, I still couldn't help stick on my seat till the end...

Conclusion: A must see!! This one from Korea is better than any recent movies of the genre from Japan...forget Hollywood!

Don't miss it!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must say I'm an avid horror movie fan, and currently I can't get enough of foreign horror. Since US horror really depends too much on gore.

This movie is fantastic. This movie reminded me a lot of M. Night's SIXTH SENSE. The way the film was directed was great. The director took his time to set everything up. It took about a good 40 mins just to set the movie up into a horror movie. I thought the movie was just a drama. This movie just builds up and the pay off isn't too much.

I've never done this before, but this is the main reason I liked the movie.... I actually screamed out loud because one scene just startled the hell out of me... which is kinda pathetic.... but for a film to do that, it's great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"typically, a movie can have factors like \"arousing\", \"good feel\", \"sense of purpose\", \"plot\", etc. There's always something that can be taken out of movies, its just a matter of how compelling the reason is, for me to own it in my collection. 'Tale of two sisters\", as they call it when it was released in my country, has tremendous feel and an eventually (mostly) self-explaining plot. i love horror movies that revolve around a house. titles that come to mind are \"The Others\", \"The Haunting\", \"The haunting of Hell House\". this movie will be a another great example that i will remember. the movie had extremely rich colour, in the way the house was decorated, in the clothes that the characters wore, in the open-skied daylight scenes that is in contrast to most horror movies, which, typically makes use of desaturated tones and gloomy environs (think Honogurai mizu no soko kara, Dark Water, which is another show i like) that gives this film a sense of aesthetics and joy when it wasn't in its, more, gripping moments. the characters are extremely believable. this may be partly attributed to the familiar setting of this movie. maybe domestic issues are easier for both myself as well as the actors to identify with, and the actors become their characters with exceptional finesse. the director toys with timelines, in order to give the audience the story in bits and pieces, allowing them to come to their own terms of interpretation, instead of presenting everything in a linear fashion. this is a positive aspect of this film, in my opinion, and, perhaps, it is my interpretation of this movie that allows me to find it enjoyable. i would definitely look out for this on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Disgused as an Asian Horror, \"A Tale Of Two Sisters\" is actually a complex character driven psychological drama, that engulfs the viewer into the problems of a seemingly normal family. I was really surprised at the depth of this movie. Director Ji-woon Kim's decision to focus more on telling a story rather than providing cheap scares, has proved a correct one. Creating one of the most ingenious new horror movies.

\"A Tale Of Two Sisters\" tels the story, as it's name suggest of two sisters Su-mi and the younger Su-yeon, who after spending time in a mental institution return home to their father and apparently abusive stepmother. From then on we witness how the sisters deal with their stepmother's gradually rising aggression and erratic behavior. To say what would happen next would be to be spoil the entire experience. So I'll just leave it at that.

The plot is very tightly written. With the characters nicely fleshed out. Ji-woon Kim's focus on a small cast offers a much more detailed view on them and their relations to one another. Furthermore each of the four main cast has a vastly different role and type of character. From the protective Su-mi, the weaker Su-yeon, the visibly uninterested father to the stepmother's frantic and later deadly behavior. There is great sense of mystery, with a lot of the plot not revealed up into the end and even after that the movie still leaves a great room for interpretation. Even after watching it once, the viewer will be compelled to see it at least once more so that he can gain a better understanding to it.

The actors superbly fit their roles. It is especially hard to create strong, emotional scenes in psychological movies but it is a great joy when one succeeds in creating them and this is a prime example of such a feat. Ji-woon Kim's direction is slow paced and gripping, building up tension for the film's horroresque scenes. While few in number those moments are strong and quite frankly terrifying. The cinematography and score are top notch further helping to establish an atmosphere fitting that of a psychological film.

\"A Tale Of Two Sisters\" is a demonstration how the horror genre is in fact so much more than a simple thrill ride. With it's strong focus on character and mystery this is one complex movie that could easily seduce you in watching it again and again just so that you can understand it better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say about this film that won't give you any preconceived notions when you see it? Very little. The plot has to do with the return from hospital of a teenage girl after she broke down. What follows after that is the movie. It is one of the creepiest most mind blowing films of the past several years. Everything about the film is just slightly off center and leaves you feeling ill at ease well after the film has ended. It is not a perfect film. The film has problems in its final half hour which make an already confusing story, even more confused.(If you've read any number of other comments here on IMDb and elsewhere you'll know that a great deal of time has been spent trying to unlock what actually is going on) I'm not sure what I actually think of this film beyond the fact that it scared me and disturbed me in ways that most well known horror films ever have. If you like horror, and don't mind not having everything clearly summed up I suggest you try this since it will more than likely make your skin crawl.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another Asian horror movie packed with intense, and creepy moments. Another Asian horror trademark is the complexity of the plot, which is here as well. MAJOR SPOILER WARNING!

The movie starts pretty simple - two sisters go to live with their dad and stepmother after being put in a mental institution after their mother hanged herself. The sisters seem very hostile towards their mother - especially the elder one - and they seem to ignore their father. All goes smoothly until the mother locks the young sister in the wardrobe and the elder sister tells her father. Then it hits you, \"your sister has been dead for years now\" It turns out the older sister is still not recovered from the death of her mother and what we didn't know is that the wardrobe the mother was hanged in fell on the younger sister and killed her as well.As for the stepmother she is the alter ego of the older sister - revealed when the stepmother (actually the sister's alter ego) is sitting on a couch when the real stepmother walks in! I hope it has been made clearer for confused Asian horror fans out there.

Finally - my favourite scene is the scene where the father invites friends over for dinner and one of the friends starts to choke which erupts into a panic attack. Very creepy! 7 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Tale of Two Sisters\" has to be one of the creepiest films I've seen recently. In the end there is no actual supernatural element, despite what one is led to expect throughout the film. The story seems to be about two sisters, who, upon returning to their father's home after some sort of absence (later revealed to have been a stay in a mental institution) are forced to deal with not only a seemingly schizophrenic and possibly bi-polar stepmother who lashes out at the younger of the girls when the mood strikes her and cheerfully tells them she's prepared a special dinner at another time., but some presence as yet unexplained. It is later revealed that the younger sister is dead, and exists only in the troubled minds of her older sister, who was unable to save her, and her step-mother, who was callous enough to let her die. Much about the specifics of the strange family is not revealed in the film, but it definitely leaves a viewer with a creepy feeling and a nagging hint of confusion. Definitely not light viewing; watch this one when you really want to think about what you've seen. It's a hell of a puzzler.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best movies I have ever seen...

It's so full of details and every time you see it you'll find new things... Like then the father is in the shower but still only hears one voice, and when the girls flute, they can't do it at the same time cause then there would be two girls, and there aren't.

I have some problem finding out, about in the middle of the movie their \"Uncle\" visit them, but why does his wife freak out?!? Else a fantastic movie.!!! The best Asian movie ever.

I hope people will enjoy it. There have been so many movie, where the main character is skit-so (The machinist, Secret Window and so on), but this movie is way better than them!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We open in a doctors room of some sort. A girl is escorted to a seat across from the doctor. He asks her questions. Silence follows. He continues to ask questions, ignoring the girls obvious traumatised atmosphere.

The story is about two girls who are taken home, after spending some time in a mental home after an 'incident' that happened before hand. They are greeted on their arrival by their trying-way-too-hard-to-be-nice-but-so-totally-evil Stepmother, who the girls obviously hold resentment for. As time goes on at home, the evil Stepmother finds new ways to torment the girls. And, to top it all off, there is a vengeful ghost that is far from helping the girls' recovery...

This film is amazing. It has twist, turns, and definitely leaves you a lot to think about without not making sense. The relationship between the two girls is so heartwarming, it almost makes you cry at some points (I know I had a teary moment of two, specifically 'the cupboard scene'). But what I love most about this film is the total feeling of dread all the way through to the rolling credits. The soundtrack is faultless, the furnishings in the house, and the use of colour are fantastic. A pure joy for the eyes. This is a definite must-see for all Asian Movie Fanatics. Or ANY sort of movie fan! An easy 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a cut above other movies of the genre: genuinely suspenseful, intelligent, brilliantly acted and visually stunning. Yes, the plot can be confusing - but that's partly what makes it pack such a punch. Watch it twice if you can. You'll get almost as much out of watching it when you know the twist than you do from watching it the first time.

Don't be put off by the fact that this film comes from Korea, a country not too familiar to most Western audiences. While there are elements of the film that are culturally specific, the underlying themes are all too universal - guilt, anger, loss, madness and retribution. All of these are handled superbly by Lim Su-jeong as Su-mi, the lead character. Also worthy of particular mention is Yum Jung-ah, who delivers a deeply creepy and unsettling performance as the stepmother.

While it has its scary moments, this is not really a horror flick as most people would imagine it. It's more a psychological suspense story with an element of mystery. It grips you from the start and will keep you guessing until the end - and possibly beyond!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I`ve seen this movie twice, both times on Cinemax. The first time in it`s unrated version which is soft-core porn at it`s best and the second time in a trimmed down (cut all the sex and most of the nudity out) version which was entertaining in a typical beach movie sort of way. The unrated version has a tremendous sex scene with Nikki Fritz, a dude and a bottle of oil which is out of this world (no pun intended). Unfortunately, in the trimmed version that scene is almost completely chopped out, as are all the other sex scenes. Rated or unrated it is still fun to watch all the siblings of bigger stars (Stallone, Sheen, Travolta, etc;) trying to act. We also get appearances by B-queen Linnea Quigley and Burt Ward (Robin from the old Batman series).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Is this a bad movie?

Of course, what were you expecting from a movie called \"BEACH BABES FROM BEYOND\"?

It is a \"BABES in BIKINI\" movie and has no pretensions of being otherwise. Given, this is not \"A ROOM WITH A VIEW\" or \"SCHINDLER'S LIST.\" If you wanted a film like \"A Room With a View\" then you would not be looking at Beach Babes from Beyond. But if you are looking for a good Babes in Bikini movie with almost no plot, this is the one for you. This flick delivers on what it promises and then some. It is pure 100% adolescent fun.

There were lots of BABES in and out of bikinis. The movie was quite funny and great to watch. These were some of the most beautiful women I have ever seen on home video.

Every high school kid should watch at least one bad movie like this. This is actually one of the most memorable movies I have ever seen. So unashamedly, I say again...If you are going to watch only one \"Babes in Bikini\" movie, this is it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a great movie! It was a completely enjoyable adolescent fantasy. So what makes a movie great? Technical details? I think that if that were the sole criteria, our culture would be the poorer for it. So this movie is to \"The Godfather\" as new wave music is to Mozart. The point is, it is one of the best movies of it's type I've seen. The women are all beautiful (as are only seen on California beaches when movies are being made). It has a little of everything, a kind of battlestar gallactica meets baywatch meets the playboy centerfold video meets Wayne's World. There is plenty of charm and a reasonable (albeit predictable) storyline that keeps you interested until the next bit of eye candy graces the screen. Joe Estevez may not have his brothers career, but does a good job of bringing focus to the story as the eternally adolescent Uncle Bud. Contains plenty of expected absurdities such as female rock band playing without the guitars plugged in. (Was that intentional?) If you're attracted to the box, rent the video, you won't regret it. As is promised, it is good non-violent erotic fun!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Finding this piece sandwiched between a stale prequel and a rehashed 80s machomovie on a UPN affiliate's midday Saturday program would be misleading. It deserves better and definitely uses its talented leads' best attributes to its maximum advantage. Bracco and Walken team to provide a movie that while perhaps predictable to those familiar with their genre, do the streetwise, 'troubled minds' routine that they are so good at portraying. For a chance to ride a psychological roller coaster a la Fuqua's \"Training Day,\" dive back into the world of early '90s TV movies to find \"Scam\"!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's strange how the least known movies sometimes end up amongst the best you've seen. This movie has all the elements of a standard modern day thriller, guns, techno, baddies, cash, etc, and yet it stands out from your average Hollywood also-ran. I would credit this to two very charismatic people. Christopher Walken has a cool confidence and Lorraine Bracco is one of the warmest and sexiest women I've ever seen on screen. Another major reason why this film stands out is coz the setting shifts to Jamaica after the beginning. The Jamaican resort is so beautiful you'll wish you were there sitting by the pool at night, with a Run'n'Coke. . . .I know I did. I'm very glad I saw this movie - it was just too nice to miss!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A quite easy to watch tale of 2 thieves, with that love\/hate type relationship between them. Chrisopher Walken stars and is very good as the silent rogue with a scam bigger than he's letting on.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I LOVED this movie. You can't buy it, rent it, or find it... but it's a keeper.

Wonderful chemistry between Braccho and Walken... and Ferrar....

Terrific non stop action and reactions.... loved it.

I've watched my pirated copy maybe 6 times in the last decade... each time showing it to someone who never heard of it.

Find this movie and watch it.

So many films are on TV over and over again - without any of the wit and style of this little film.

I didn't know it was made for TV... my copy is an 8 track I pirated years ago... I hope it lasts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching this little movie is a sheer delight from start to finish. The story is always entertaining, the tension never loosing up. The whole cast is wonderful. The teaming of Walken and Bracco works to perfection, it is almost like an echo of a classic screwball romance. Bracco is very sexy and really funny as the scam artist who fights for her independence. For some reason they gave Walken a very strange make up and the weirdest haircut I can imagine \u0096 it's sort of a parody of the one Burt Lancaster had in Elmer Gantry. For me it added to the pleasure. It's the first movie I saw Miguel Ferrer in, probably one of the most under-appreciated movie actors of his generation. He's very good in a small role as Bracco's pimp. Even the Jamaican thugs are a sight to behold. I can highly recommend this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie the day it opened in NYC, at the Ziegfield. At the time Madonna was not quite the cultural icon she is now. She had a couple of hits, was very good in \"Desparately Seeking Susan\" and I had tickets to see her in concert at Giants Stadium.

\"Who's That Girl?\" gives Madonna an actual role to play, which is not just a variation of her own personality. She does the madcap\/heroine routine better than you might think. Griffin Dunne is very well cast as the man around to witness all the shenanigans.

The story involves a huge cat named Murray, a bride-to-be who has slept with every cabbie in NYC, a mean father-in-law, and a key. There are a lot of car chases and cops trailing their path. All the elements of a screwball comedy intact.

Sir John Mills is seen briefly. He shares a glass of champagne with the leads and has the greatest apartment on the Upper West Side, complete with a rain forest and everything.

Compared to most Madonna movies (the ones I've been able to tolerate anyway), this is fantastic. On its own, its not that bad. 6\/10.

PS The concert was lousy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So, Madonna isn't Meryl Streep. Still, this is one of her first films and a comedy at that. Give her a break! Sure, the movie is mediocre at best and pales in comparison to its earlier counterpart w\/ Katherine Hepburn, Bringing Up Baby. For what it is, though(a piece of fluff), it's quite a bit of fun to watch. I've yet to hear anyone that slams Madonna's acting skills back it up w\/ evidence or even adjectives other than \"awful\", \"bad\", or other such vague descriptive words. If you wanna see bad acting or justify the argument that singers should stick to singing, how about Whitney Houston?? She's had the most undeserved commercial success of any actress in history and couldn't act her way out of a hatbox. The American public obviously cannot discern the difference between a credible performance in a movie and star power. I think Madonna has always been at least credible in her movies. Get real people. Madonna-bashing is so 90's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you like Madonna or not, this movie is hilarious!! I am a Madonna fan and did see this in the theater at the time of its release. However, over time it has not lost its silliness and pure fun. Sure there are some bad lines & cheesy acting but the whole film is just a screwball comedy with Madonna actually carrying the whole film with great bombast. She is cute,funny, and is the only comedic role of her movie career. Madonna usually just plays 'herself' in roles but watching her as Nikki Finn in this film, she really seems like somebody else for once. Of course the film is directed by James Foley (who filmed the dramatic and haunting 'At Close Range' with Sean Penn & Christopher Walken) and co-stars Griffin dunn ('After Hours') who is also brilliantly cast and has fun with the material. The story is nothing genius and don't expect some climatic ending but if you are ever in the mood to watch a fun, clean, 80's romp or if you are a Madonna fan than this is a MUST SEE. The Soundtrack is also very notable and contains 4 Madonna songs: the #1 hit \"Who's That Girl\", the #2 hit \"Causing A Commotion\" and the beautiful and one of her best ever ballads \"The Look of Love''(Top 10 Hit in the UK) and \"Can't Stop\" a left over pop ditty from the 'True BLue' sessions the year before. It is only on VHS but will soon be available on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I kid you not. Yes, \"Who's That Girl\" has the distinction for being one in a string of Madonna's films that bombed, but I actually liked this movie more than \"Desperately Seeking Susan\". In \"Susan\", Madonna's character is relegated to being second-fiddle to Rosanna Arquette and is not given much to work with. No disrespect to Rosanna, but in WTG Madonna plays this zany, outrageous character, only done in an 80s style. While it may seem \"cheesy\" today, this is actually one of Madonna's best and one of her most underrated films.

Madonna plays Nikki Finn, an ex-con who is sent to the slammer for a crime she didn't commit. She's being released from jail after four years of good behavior. Griffin Dunne, who is also a very underrated actor, plays Louden Trott, a lawyer who has the unpleasant task of picking her up from jail to take her to the bus station. Of course, when these two get together, that's when the madness happens. Sir John Mills has a small role as the rich businessman who has a huge mansion in the middle of Manhattan with a rainforest(???) on his roof.

This movie parodies everything. Rich people, the sleazy characters who live in Harlem and totally destroy Louden's Rolls-Royce, the gay cops who follow Madonna and Dunne around town, and Dunne's stuck-up fiance Wendy Worthington who has purportedly slept with every cab driver in New York City (played by Haviland Morris, who was Jake's girlfriend Caroline in Sixteen Candles). Hilarious! Plus, Dunne is also in charge of a rare breed of leopard reminiscent of \"Bringing Up Baby\". Plus, Madonna had a great platinum blonde 80s look back in those days and the movie has a great soundtrack. Throw this all into the mix and you have the zaniness of WTG.

Madonna is the queen of deadpan acting. There are times in the movie where she says a line totally straight and surprisingly, it turns out to be funny! That's how some of the best comedy should be played - straight. Madonna should have done more comedy and it was a shame that she did not choose to do so. Later on she became much more controversial and got into more of the dark, sexually-charged roles in the notorious movies \"Body of Evidence\" and \"Dangerous Game\".

Some people say Madonna cannot act, and that is fine, people are entitled to their opinion, but I believe the real problem is that people cannot see the difference between Madonna playing a character on film, instead they still see only Madonna and that is main reason why she is given more respect for her music than for her movies. It's still a fun, screwball comedy of the 80s. Not for everyone, I'm sure some of you will dislike it, so I would recommend it mainly for Madonna fans, but you never know, you might be surprised and like it!

Interesting note: One of Madonna's friends from her early-80s New York club days, Coati Mundi, who plays Raoul, was a member in the bands Kid Creole and The Coconuts and Savannah Band.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't listen to what the critics have always said about this cute, charming little movie. Madonna is GREAT in this clever comedy. I worked at a video store for several years and suggested this movie to lots of customers- no one EVER brought it back and screamed at me for telling them to rent it. Everyone always enjoyed it. It's actually a great movie for kids, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie!! Sure I love it because of Madonna but who cares - it's damn funny!!! *ALANiS Rocks*. When I first saw this film in the theatres back in 1987, I thought it was all out hilarious! Madonna is so funny and I love her dubbed accent and wacky\/funky look. The all-time funniest part is when Madonna(Nikki) screams at a man who is about to get into a taxi. And also when Griffin Dunne(Louden)trips and falls at the apartment interview scene. **ALANiS Rocks**. Madonna's character Nikki steals\/shop lifts and fools people throughout the whole movie - her hilarious antics are enough to keep you on the floor the whole time. \"Didn't rob nothin', when you rob a store you stick up the cashier. We busted a few tapes, there's a bit of a difference\" I love that!!! It's classic. ***ALANiS Rocks***. I don't know why this movie got slammed the way it did. I see nothing wrong with it - course maybe if you're a huge Madonna fan then whatever she does is just awesome. Anyone out there who wants to see some funny, classic entertainment then watch \"Who's That Girl?\" And another very important fact that of which should be known to all man kind or at least to all that exist, ALANiS will always \"rock ya\" completely to the end! So does Madonna in this film, and just entirely! Her acting is superb!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"What's his name?\" \"Loudon.\" \"Loudon what?\" \"Clear.\"

That gag still gets me, TWENTY ONE years after the film was released.

I loved the film back then and I love it today. I must have watched this a hundred times back in the day, and when I bought the DVD recently I could still remember some of the dialogue.

Madonna plays Nikki Finn, a young woman jailed for a crime she didn't commit. When she gets out she decides to seek revenge.

Griffin Dunne (whatever happened to him?), plays an attorney for his fianc\u00e9e's father (John McMartin). The future father-in-law asks Loudon to take Nikki from prison to the bus station and to make sure she gets on the bus, as part of a supposed new public relations programme. A seemingly easy task, but there are complications aplenty, some funny dialogue, and some admittedly stupid-but-funny scenes along the way.

Madonna has a stupid voice in this film, which until I was able to watch with subtitles made one or two lines of dialogue incomprehensible for me (hence only 8\/10), but on the other hand I can't imagine her doing it in her normal voice.

This film shows Madonna's comic side (too lacking these days, perhaps), and she genuinely is funny in the role. Dunne makes a great foil, while Haviland Morris is perfect as the uppity fianc\u00e9e.

Yes, it's predictable, yes, the jokes could be better, but I think this is a great film and will happily sit down and watch it 100 times more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am really sad that that this film has got so much negative criticism. I think it is a nice little comedy and really funny. The humour in this film is kind of warm and innocent and I like it. I also like Madonna's character and I do not agree that she played herself. She has created a character and a sympathetic one.

My favourite scenes were the fighting scene on top of the sinking car and where Madonna climbs over the fence in a fancy dress to claim her love. The humour in the film has a slightly syrrealistic touch and perhaps it is not everybody's cup of tea. But it's their problem, not of the film.

I found this film wholesome and sunny. In fact, the day I first saw it I was incredibly sad for some reason and this film lit up my day. And Madonna can act. Just take off your glasses of negative thinking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Madonna gets into action, again and she fails again! Who's That Girl was released just one year after the huge flop of Shangai Surprise and two after the successful cult movie Desperately seeking Susan. She chose to act in it to forget the flop of the previous movie, not suspecting that this latter could be a flop, too. The movie received a bad acceptance by American critic and audience, while in Europe it was a success. Madonna states that \"Some people don't want that she's successful both as a pop star and a movie-star\". The soundtrack album, in which she sings four tracks sells well and the title-track single was agreat hit all over the world, as like as the World Tour. The truth isthat Madonna failed as an actress 'cause the script was quite weak. Butit's not so bad, especially for those who like the 80's: it's such a ramshackle, trash, colorful and joyful action movie ! At the end, it's very funny to watch it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If this film had been made in the 50's or 60's, critics and fans alike would have praised it. I myself, enjoyed the film from beginning to end. It's not a timeless piece, and has not aged well over the years, but it is enjoyable to watch, nonetheless. As for Mrs. Ritchie's acting in the film? Not the best on the planet -- but it adds to the film's unique slapstick comedy-aspirations, and showcases Madonna's (often underrated) sense of comedic timing. Madonna plays Nikki Finn, an ex-convict who was framed for a crime she didn't commit. Griffin Dunne plays the hapless future groom\/puppet who is sent to escort her from prison to the bus station, where a series of unfortunate events occurs, thus creating the plot. (And there *is* one, folks!) Give the film a shot. You might be pleasantly surprised at how funny it really is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had seen this movie before, but I could not remember it was this fantastic: it has a fun plot, Madonna fumbles around the city with pumas etc. causing a commotion. And the music is just perfect! And the happy ending! Who\u00b4s that girl is a great choice for a romanticist like me. In my opinion this could be even the best Madonna movie I have ever seen! 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fantastic, Madonna at her finest, the film is funny and her acting is brilliant. It may have been made in the 80's but it has all the qualities of a modern Hollywood Block-buster. I love this film and i think its totally unique and will cheer up any droopy person within a matter of minutes. Fantastic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For late-80s cheese, this really isn't so bad. There are a lot of pretty funny throwaway one-liners (\"That was grand theft!\" - \"Thanks!\") and Madonna gives a fine performance; nothing award-worthy here, but that goes for Razzies as well as Oscars. I'm curious to know if the movie would have been better received if she had used her regular (pre-British influenced) speaking voice rather than the hyper-Bronxy accent used instead. Oh well. As a side note, I got to meet one of the actors who played one of the motorcycle cops through my work; he said that it was a fun film to work on but gave me the sad news that the actor who played Buck the UPS delivery guy died about a year after Who's That Girl","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the funniest, most romantic, and most musical movies ever; definitely worth renting\/buying especially if you have a taste for older style of cinematography.

The animals and the songs alone will make you smile while watching the movie. A definite must for Madonna fans. :o)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is so good! I first seen it when i was six, then i bought it recently and i still love it, im 15 now. Plus, the acting was great, and Madonna is my idol and she did a phat job! Alot of people didnt like this movie, and i still to this day dont understand why.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why does everyone feel they have to constantly put this movie down? It is cute and funny (exactly what it is meant to be). Madonna wasn't out to prove herself as an Oscar calliber artist with this movie anyhow! She was just doing what the character called for, and she did it well. I loved her in this movie; it is my second favorite Madonna movie after Evita. The soundtrack is excellent too. It is no better or no worse than any cheesy 80's flick. To all the critics, just don't take it so seriously and you might have fun watching it. Madonna is a goddess!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I see a movie, I usually seek entertainment. But of course if I know what genre the move is, then I will seek what it is meant to do. For example, if it is a deep film, I expect the film to rile thoughts up in my cranium and make me ponder what it is saying. But Who's That Girl? is not a deep film. But it is entertaining, nonetheless. It's a campy sort of film that's a joy to watch. There's barely a boring moment in the film and there are plenty of humorous parts. I've watched it when I was younger. The cast is always entertaining as usual. I had a small crush on Griffin Dunne even though he wasn't the typical male heartthrob at the time. Haviland Morris also stars. And late Austrian actress Bibi Besch is here too! Overall, a delight!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nikki Finn is the kind of girl I would marry. Never boring, always thinking positively, good with animals. Okay, as one reviewer wrote, a bit too much peroxide, lipstick, and eyebrows (Only Madonna could get away with that). But that's why I love Nikki Finn, she's not your ordinary girl. She makes things happen, always exciting to be around, and always honest. Sure, she steals, but she doesn't rob or murder (unless you're out to do her in). She knows which rules can be broken and which ones should be obeyed. She knows what to take and what can't be stolen. If you need a favor from her, she's in 100%. Bottom line: She knows how to enjoy life. Nikki is always loving (which is why she has a way with wild animals), and completely dedicated to those she loves, and who love her.

Who's That Girl? She's the girl for me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't been a fan of Madonna for quite sometime now, however, I thought I would comment on this film.

This film mistaken. One of them, as well as Madonna, was panned by the critics. They were highly mistaken and many potential viewers were turned off by the bad reviews.

First, Madonna does an excellent job in this movie which was one of her first. She plays a ditsy blonde in the film, she is far from a ditsy blonde in real life. Most critics were somewhat prejudiced by her singing fame and didn't give her a fair shake. When you view this film I hope that you understand that the accent and the goofiness is just acting. She was absolutely hysterical as was the film.

Griffen Dunne is another person who was not given a fair review in the film. If you take a look at his filmography, you will see he is quite an accomplished actor.

As far as the movie itself, this is something similar to pretty woman, but came 3 years before the Roberts, Gere success. It's a goof-ball comedy with lots of site gags, slapstick and one liners. Some of the comedy is deadpan and takes a comedy aficionado to really appreciate the more subtle humor.

I know this doesn't tell you much about the movie, however, I hope this helps dispel any belief that this is a poor movie. It is absolutely worth renting for an enjoyable night of great fun.

Peace.

Gary","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i have to rate this movie at a 10. i'm sorry but i think it's classic comedy. then, if you're rating it to other Madonna movies...well, what? you wanna tell me it wasn't her best movie ever? didn't Mira Sorvino win an Oscar for almost the same performance not ten years later? please, this movie deserves much more credit than it gets. plus, i like to think of it as an A+ sociological study into the lifestyles of the 80's. remember when you could shoplift from Sam Goody and Cartier in the same day? remember when women wore bushy eyebrows proudly? so it was no \"Last Emperor\", it was still good. there are certain movies i'd be willing to watch everyday. three, actually, that pep up my day and make me smile. if you like \"Who's That Girl?\" then i'd also recommend \"Party Girl\" and \"Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nicole Finn (Madonna) is just being released from prison. Although she is ordered to go by bus to Philadelphia, she wants to stick around the place she was arrested. This is because she claims she has information that would clear her record. Louden (Griffin Dunne) is assigned to escort her to the bus by his future father in law. Louden will be driving around the city anyway (in his future mother in law's Rolls Royce), picking up the wedding ring and a rare big, big cat for an eccentric collector. Nicki, however, starts the ensuing mayhem as soon as she jumps in the Rolls to take over the driving. Between big cats, taxi drivers, hit men, bridesmaids, and a wedding cake with guns, lawyer Louden knows he's not in Kansas anymore. Is there a way out of the madness? This film is a wild trip down comedy avenue. Madonna and Dunneare perfect foils to each other, making their connection uproarious, as they play out their roles as an ex-con and an uptight, button-down lawyer, respectively. The script is laudable in it's ability to send the viewer into fits of hysteria as one implausible scene gives way to the next one, and the next. Everything secondary, from the supporting actors to the scenery to the costumes, are also quite nice. If you know someone who is in need of a jolt of joy, rent this movie for them. You will both be cheerio pronto.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had seen this movie as a kid and loved it. I loved how spunky and full of energy Nikki is, and how she mostly ruins Louden's perfect yuppie life and corrupts him and turns him on to her crazy ways. As a kid in the 80's I saw New York exactly the way it was portrayed in this movie, the domain of Madonna's character, with wild animals running rampant and hideous bald men chasing people around and causing havoc. Now as an adult I find I love the movie for the same reasons, and even more so for the love story woven into the crazy antics of Ms. Nikki Finn. Although I would still love to go anywhere and find an indoor atrium like in this movie. Pure beauty and genius.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dashing Errol Flynn brings his usual flair for drama in this historically flawed but entertaining film of the life of George Armstrong Custer. The dashing, jovial Flynn essays Custer from his days at West Point as a reckless, headstrong cadet, through the Civil War years in an extraordinarily generous and partisan interpretation of history, and finally as the nonpareil Indian fighter whose blunder at the Little Big Horn is excused as a sacrifice by Custer of his command as a way of exposing the corruption of government officials and post traders as well as a protest of the unfair treatment of the Plains Indians. Olivia de Havilland, Flynn's co-star in several other films, scores as the devoted, adoring Libby Bacon, and Anthony Quinn looks the part as the fierce Sioux chief Crazy Horse. The film's battle scenes are excellent. The Civil War battles are brief and are shown as several vignettes in which Custer, seemingly supported by just a handful of troopers, hammers the Confederate army into submission. Custer's last fight against the Indians is a grand spectacle, a savage clash between red men and white, with no quarter given in a wild mix of military might between determined fighting men. Great direction, cinematography, casting and wonderful music by Max Steiner make this film a Hollywood classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All in all, an excellent movie from that time and source (coming from Warner Brothers as it was peaking in craftsmanship and style just before WWII), provided you don't take it at all seriously. The movie really makes no claim to being historically accurate, and is certainly no more or less accurate or believable than say, JFK. (This one may actually be more honest about it, though, as it essentially admits along the way that it's not to be taken as particularly fact-based, but more of a stylishly semi-heroic portrayal.) It's worth noting that audiences of the time were no more naive about the story than we are today; the NY Times review conceded that audiences would \"dismiss factual inaccuracies sprinkled throughout the film,\" described the biographical account of Custer's life as \"fanciful,\" and pointed out that the presentation of Custer's motivations regarding the final events were at odds with various historical accounts. They could have really gone overboard in building up Custer, one supposes, but they succeed admirably in depicting him as not necessarily the sharpest or most diligent guy around, but appropriately determined, principled and inspirational.

Flynn and DeHavilland, doing their 8th movie together in 7 years (and their last), are so comfortable together, and play off each other so easily at this point, that it's not too difficult to overlook how thinly their courtship is written here. With a first-time pairing, it would be hard to imagine what could really draw Elizabeth to Custer, but these two make it work. The movie is also missing their director from their previous seven films together (the greatly underrated Michael Curtiz), but given that he had worked with them on the previous year's similar-themed Santa Fe Trail, it's understandable if he chose to opt out of this one. (They all started together with Captain Blood and The Charge of the Light Brigade - both terrific - so we can't really blame them if they started having a tough time keeping it all fresh.)

Raoul Walsh, the director here, is certainly more comfortable with the action sequences - which are outstanding - and everything else outdoors. The interior scenes are a little more uneven, but the studio craftsmen succeed in compensating for that very well, as does Warner Bros' outstanding cast of \"usual suspects\" and new faces (Greenstreet, Gene Lockhart, Anthony Quinn, Arthur Kennedy, etc). I would have liked it better if Kennedy's character had been a bit less standard (I generally like his work), but here he seems to be hitting roughly the same notes in every scene; the part could have been better written - and I suppose they might have been unsure of what he could handle, as he'd only been in films for one year (Walsh probably took him for this after doing High Sierra together).

Various highlights include the depiction (probably imagined) of the genesis of \"Garryowen\" as the cavalry theme. The last half hour is particularly outstanding, especially with the parting of the leads echoing the end of their screen partnership, followed by the final battle scenes. A thoroughly rousing adventure.

8 of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Custer Legend, a la Warner Brothers Epic. There's no casting against type here, with the flamboyant Flynn as the flamboyant Custer in this rousing tribute, not only to Custer, but to the men of the 7th Cavalry. The story traces the life of the famed 'Boy General\" from his turbulent days at West Point to his final fight at the Little Big Horn. Great liberties are taken with facts here, and we are presented with a Custer that is much more sympathetic to the plight of the redman than history relates. But this one is done on such a grand scale, the battle scenes alone provided employment for every extra in Hollywood. Down beat ending and all, this is great fun!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a wonderful film as a film - it gets an 8 out of 10. As a filmed piece of accurate history...one wishes to be more loving, but it is a 5 out of 10. And I think I am actually being very charitable.

What was he like - that man of horse and saber who was the youngest \"boy\" general in the Union Army of the American Civil War, and ended dying with all his command in the greatest military victory of the North American Indian tribes? Opinionated, militant, bumptious, bloody-handed, ambitious, clever, too-clever, Indian-foe, Indian-friend(?), and national hero. His death in 1876 was treated as a national tragedy and pushed him into a position of fame equal to Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, and Grant\/Lee, and Sherman\/Jackson. It is only with a growing awareness of the mistakes made in his career - the overly ambitious hot-spur, that his reputation declined. Yet to this day, George Armstrong Custer remains the best recalled figure in our history's military annals to lose his last battle (I can't really think of a similar one - maybe General Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright, forced to stay with his men on the Bataan Death March - but Wainwright survived the March and the Second World War).

Custer has appeared in more films than far better generals, due to the Western adventures and Little Big Horn. Pity that the details of the real career were never handled so lovingly as Raoul Walsh and Errol Flynn handled them in this film. But even in 1941 the legend was still potent. Olivia De Haviland portrayed Libby Custer, who was recently pointed out in another film review on this thread survived George until 1933, so her effective handling of the story was still in place eight years later. Custer was seen as our wayward but brave knight errant, and with the shadow of World War II looming closer we had to keep the myth and bury the truth. John Ford would have fully understood this and approved it.

So we get the view that he was a hot-spur, but he was patriotic. Although almost pushed out of West Point by demerits (which was true), Custer was in the class of 1861, and it would have been really stupid to be picky about such a fighter that year. You see, most of the so-called military talent from West Point (from Robert E. Lee down) was southern, and joined the Confederacy. The Union needed every northern \"Point\" man they could find.

Custer's Civil War career should be given closer study - he was attached to the staff of General - In - Chief George B. McClellan, and distinguished himself in the Peninsula Campaign and other eastern front warfare. But he was a cavalryman - and he would rise under the watchful eyes of Grant and Sherman's buddy Phil Sheridan in the latter parts of the war. In particular he served with dash and distinction at the battle of Cedar Creek, which ended the threat of the Confederacy in the Shenandoah Valley. It also hit Custer hard on a personal level (his close West Point friend, Stephen Ramseur, joined the Confederacy and rose to a position like Custer - mortally wounded, Custer sat with Ramseur all through the latter's last night alive).

Following the war things fell apart. He wanted to make his brevet - Major Generalship permanent (it wasn't, as it was a battlefield promotion). They only had a Lt. Colonelship to give him in the shrunken army along the frontier. He tried to play politics, making the error of supporting President Andrew Johnson on a political trip in 1866, and finding most Northerners hated Johnson as an inept idiot. He supposedly admired the Indians (he certainly was eloquent in writing of them and the West), but he caused a genuine military massacre in 1868 of Indian women and children that ended with a court martial. Later, during the 1870s he would support Indian claims against a ring of politicians (that went up to the Secretary of War, William Belknap) who bought and sold Indian trading posts for profit. It ruined Belknap, and left a black eye on the Grant Administration. It put him into the doghouse with Grant and Sherman (who was Belknap's former commander), and Sheridan barely saved his career. Then he was sent on the final Big Horn Campaign. And immortality arrived.

That career is worth a real film, but would it be too critical? Should we hold a man of the 1850s - 1876 to the standards of 2007? Would we like that done to us in a hundred years? Certainly it could happen, but I'm not sure we'd like it.

Custer (1941 style) fit Flynn like a glove, with his giving the closest to a \"dance\" performance in any of his major films. His final movie with Olivia De Haviland is underlined with a melancholy due to the fate of the hero's character. In support actors like Sidney Greenstreet, Stanley Ridges, Arthur Kennedy and Anthony Quinn did very nicely as friends, foes, or even treacherous sneaks (Kennedy). As an entertaining piece of myth making it remains high - but as a study of a complex military hero it is not what it should be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although this film changes reality to make it more heroic and entertaining, sometimes fantasy is more enjoyable than real life, and also nothing could be more real than Errol Flynn playing Custer. This remains the best film made about Custer. The music of Max Steiner is magnificent and also all through the film the Irish song \"Gerry Owen\", which was a favourite of Custer is played. The film should have more villains, because they try to concentrate all the bad guys in Arthur Kennedy. The relationship between Flynn and De Havilland flows like in no other off their films together, and director Raoul Walsh with his experience in outside scenes with a lot of actors is at his best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film over Christmas, and what a great film it was! It tells the story of Custer (played by Errol Flynn) during and after his graduation from Westpoint. Although I've heard that the film isn't very historically accurate (Hollywood never is) I still enjoyed it as I knew little of the real events anyway.

I thought Errol Flynn was brilliant as Custer and has since become my favourite actor! His acting alongside Olivia De Havilland was brilliant and the ending was fantastic! It brought me close to tears as he and Ned Sharp (Arthur Kennedy) rode to their deaths on little big horn.

I had always known that Errol Flynn was a brilliant actor as he was my dads favourite actor, and I grew up watching his films as a child. But it wasn't until I watched this film that I realised how great he actually was.

I'll give this film 10 out of 10!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"great historical movie, will not allow a viewer to leave once you begin to watch. View is presented differently than displayed by most school books on this subject. My only fault for this movie is it was photographed in black and white; wished it had been in color ... wow !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Whether one views him as a gallant cavalier of the plains or a glory hunting egomaniac, debates about the life and military career of George Armstrong Custer continue down to the present day. They Died With Their Boots On presents certain facts of the Custer story and has taken liberty with others.

He did in fact graduate at the bottom of his class at West Point and got this overnight promotion on the battlefield to Brigadier General. His record leading the Michigan Regiment under his command was one of brilliance.

It was also true that his marriage to Libby Bacon was one of the great love matches of the 19th century. Libby and George were married for 12 years until The Little Big Horn. What's not known to today's audience is that Libby survived until 1933. During that time she was the custodian of the Custer legend. By dint of her own iron will and force of personality her late husband became a hero because she would not allow him to be remembered in any other way.

I think Raoul Walsh and Warner Brothers missed a good opportunity to have the Custer career told in flashback. Olivia DeHavilland should have been made up the way Jeanette MacDonald was in Maytime, and be telling the story of her husband and her marriage from the point of view of nostalgia and remembrance. Even then the cracks in the Custer legend were appearing, but if done from Libby's point of view, they could be understood and forgiven.

Sydney Greenstreet gave a fine performance as General Winfield Scott. The only problem was that Scott had nothing whatsoever to do with Custer, he was retired and replaced by George B. McClellan in late 1861 while Custer was still at West Point. I'm not sure they ever met. But Greenstreet does a good characterization of the ponderous and powerful Winfield Scott. A nice Mexican War story should have been what they gave Greenstreet instead for his very accurate portrayal of old Fuss and Feathers.

The film though is carried by one of the great romantic teams of cinema, Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHavilland. This was the last of eight films they did together. The last scene they ever did for the cameras was Libby's farewell to George as he leaves to join his regiment for what will prove to be his last campaign. Both their performances, Olivia's especially, was a high point in their careers at Warner Brothers. We know through history that Custer is riding to his doom, that and the fact that this was their last screen teaming give this scene such a special poignancy. If your eyes don't moisten you are made of marble.

As history They Died With Their Boots On leaves a lot to be desired. As western adventure that successfully mixes romance with the action, you can't beat this film at all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"George Armstrong Custer is known through history as an inept General who led his rgiment to their death at the battle of Little Big Horn. \"They Died with their boots on,\" paints a different picture of General Custer. In this movie he is portrayed as a Flamboyant soldier whose mistakes, and misdeeds are mostly ue to his love for adventure.

Errol Flynn plays George Armstrong Custer who we first meet as an over confident recruit at West Point. Custer quickily distinguishes himself from other cadets as beeing a poor student who always seems to be in trouble. Somehow this never appears to bother Custer and only seems to confuse him as he genuinely does not know how he gets into such predicaments. In spite of his poor standing, he eventualy graduates and becomes an officer in the United States Army. Through an error, Custer receives a promotion in rank. Before this can be corrected, he leads a Union regiment into battle against the Confederates. His campaign is successful and Custer becomes an unlikely national hero. Custer returns to his hometown, marries his sweetheart, Libby who is played by Olivia De Havilland. Libby is a very supportive understanding wife who steadfastly stays by his side and follows him into the frontier as he assumes leadership of the Seventh Regiment of the Cavalry. Custer becomes a man of honor who strives to keep peace with the Native Americans. To prove his intentions, he enters into a treaty with Crazy Horse, the leader of the Sioux . When that treaty is jeopardized by a conspiracy to spread a false rumor of gold being found in the Black Hills, Custer sacrifices his own life as well as the lives of the men under his command to prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocent settlers.

Errol Flynn dominates each scene in which he appears. He successfully portrays Custer as being flamboyant, arrogant, romantic and funny depending on the mood of the scene. Olivia De Havilland's depiction of Libby Bacon Custer as the love of his life lets us see his tender, more gentle side. The Chemistry between DeHavilland and Flynn, who had acted together in several other movies, is so smooth and it almost makes the viewer feel like they are playing themselves and not the parts of Custer and his wife. The other actors portrayals of their characters truly enhance the performances of Flynn and De Havilland. Anthony Quinn as Crazy Horse, Sidney Greenstreet as General Winfield Scott , Arthur Kennedy as Edward Sharp are among the other actors whose roles have made this movie entertaining.

The reviewer would rate this a 4 star movie. While it is not historically accurate, it is very entertaining. The movie has a little bit of everything. It has adventure, comedy and romance, so it appeals to a large variety of audiences. The casting of the characters is excellent and the actors give believable performances which makes you forget it is largely based on fiction instead of fact. The reviewer especially likes that the Native Americans were not shown to be the bad guys but just showed them as wanting to protect their sacred land.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is awesome!!! there is no partnership quite like Errol, and Olivia. there love is genuine! I'm 24, yet this flick is as captivating now as I'm sure it was 60 years ago. Raoul Walsh is an under-rated genius, his direction is so sweeping, so broad, yet so intimate. the last scene between colonel custer (Flynn), and his wife (de havilland), almost brought me to tears (Not easy for a 24yr old guy!!), its so heart-wrenching. there is also a deep Christian message implicit here, the faith Custer has in taking your glory with you, and the trust, and fidelity of his wife to the extent of letting him go, in order that he fulfils his moral duty to protect the innocent civilians from certain massacre. there is no movie that deals with these issues quite like this. a must-see for anyone who wants to look at this defining moment in American, and military history, from the inside. patriotic, for all the right reasons. i knew Errol Flynn was a star, and De havilland was a screen legend-this only confirms my suspicions that they are among the very greatest!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The saving grace of this film is its humour. Playing up to the strengths of their star, Warner Brothers cast their version of General Custer as a cocky, dashing, irreverent prankster with a romantic streak and an unexpected strain of idealism; it was Robin Hood all over again, and Flynn blossomed in the role. All his best action pictures made use of his talent for mischief and comic timing, and this one was no exception.

It also benefits from the return of former co-star Olivia de Havilland, despite an earlier agreement to break the partnership; the part of strong-minded Libby Custer is a better role than the sweet love-interest types she had grown tired of playing for the studio in Flynn's later films, and after seeing the script he had specifically requested de Havilland be cast so that she could do justice to the part. In this final collaboration, she piles all her considerable acting skill into what is, at heart, basically a romping adventure movie, and the screen chemistry is rekindled -- for once, she and Flynn get the chance to develop their characters beyond the initial romance into an old married couple, to equally winning effect.

The Flynn\/de Havilland pairing and the streak of comedy are what have provided this film's durability, when most of Flynn's other Westerns -- held in such affection by the contemporary American public, although allegedly not by their star -- have long since been forgotten. The action scenes are fairly cursory (despite, ironically, the death of an extra in a fall during one of the filmed charges) and the villains of the piece turn out, schoolboy-fashion, to be the same people who were horrid to Our Hero on his very first day at West Point, and thus continue to frustrate him throughout his career. It cuts down on the cast list, but it's a trifle too morally convenient.

However, these are quibbles largely irrelevant to a film that never set out to be more than a rousing piece of entertainment. Ably aided and abetted by a sterling group of supporting players (memorably including Anthony Quinn in an all-but-wordless role as the Sioux leader), Errol Flynn gallops his way through the plot courtesy of his usual arsenal: charmingly sheepish looks, unexpected sweetness, mischievous twinkles, flash-point indignation, cheerful fellowship and sheer high-octane charisma. He's a reckless braggart, but you can't help but like him. And it's hard to go away without the tune of \"Garryowen\" threading its jaunty way through your ears for many days thereafter.

This is one of Flynn's lasting hits; it also contains a surprising amount of good acting amongst the fun, and is a film worthy of being remembered.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Errol Flynn at his best as Robin Hood of the West, fighting military red tape, confederates , indians and carpetbagger business crooks singlehanded to his great and final heroic end. Not to forget the ever reliable O. de Havilland as Lady Mary of the west. Never try to link this story to the facts and the real persons, it doesn't work out. Just enjoy it, because nobody ever claimed to make documentaries when Raoul Walsh and Errol Flynn co-worked.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although \"They Died with their Boots On\" is not entirely historically accurate it is a very entertaining western. Not only is Flynn the perfect Custer, the character actors are superb. Besides the action portion of the movie Flynn and DeHavilland's love scenes are very touching and believable.(Flynn and DeHavilland were very fond of each other in real life). Flynn was always so tormented for being not taken seriously if only he knew that there were very few actors who could play the characters he played and play them well!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a history of Custer, this insn't even close (Custer dies to help the indians? I am sure the other members of the 7th Cav weren't consulted in THAT decision.) But as a western, this is fun. Flynn looks, and acts, the part of the dashing cavalier. And the \"Garry Owen\" is always nice to hear!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Naturally, along with everyone else, I was primed to expect a lot of Hollywood fantasy revisionism in THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON over the legend of Custer. Just having someone like Errol Flynn play Custer is enough of a clue that the legend has precedence over the truth in this production. And for the most part my expectations were fulfilled (in an admittedly rousing and entertaining way).

Yet even in this obviously biased (and much criticized) retelling of the Custer story, I was struck by some of the points made in this movie that, sometimes subtly but nevertheless solidly, seemed to counter the typical clich\u00e9s of manifest destiny and unvarnished heroism usually found in Westerns of the early 20th century.

For instance, even while this film attempted to whitewash it's hero, certain scenes still suggested the more flawed and foolish character of the real-life Custer:

1) His initial entrance at the West Point front gate, in which his arrogance and pompousness is a clear aspect of his character.

2) His miserable record at West Point, which seems to be attributed as much to Custer's cluelessness about the demands of military service as any other factor; there are moments in the way Flynn plays Custer at West Point where he seems downright stupid.

3) Custer's promotion to General is not only presented as a ridiculous mistake, but it plays out as slapstick comedy. I half-expected to see the Marx Brothers or Abbott and Costello wander into the scene.

4) Custer's stand against Jeb Stuart at Gettysburg is not whitewashed as brilliant military tactical leadership, but is presented as reckless and wildly lucky.

5) Custer's drinking problem is certainly not ignored.

And although the music and some of the ways the Indians were shown in this film were certainly reinforcements of the racist stereotype of the ignorant savage, it still came as a surprise to me that the movie actually went into some detail as to why the Indians were justified in attacking the whites who were moving into their land, and fairly explicitly laid the blame for the battles in the Black Hills squarely at the foot of the white man. In fact, no one can argue that the clear villain of the piece is not Anthony Quinn as Sitting Bull, but Arthur Kennedy & Co. as the white devils making the false claim of gold in the Black Hills. Sure, that part of the story is true, but I didn't expect to see it portrayed quite so unequivically in a movie like this.

And one other thing: usually in these films it is the Indians who are portrayed en masse as drunken animals seemingly incapable of the basic common sense to avoid getting falling down drunk any time they get near alcohol. In this movie, it is actually the troops of the 7th Cavalry, and not the Indians, who in at least two scenes are portrayed this way.

All in all, this movie slips in some surprising moments in the midst of the Hollywood bunk.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is good for entertainment purposes, but it is not historically reliable. If you are looking for a movie and thinking to yourself `Oh I want to learn more about Custer's life and his last stand', do not rent `They Died with Their Boots On'. But, if you would like to watch a movie for the enjoyment of an older western film, with a little bit of romance and just for a good story, this is a fun movie to watch.

The story starts out with Custer's (Errol Flynn) first day at West Point. Everyone loves his charming personality which allows him to get away with most everything. The movie follows his career from West Point and his many battles, including his battle in the Civil War. The movie ends with his last stand at Little Big Horn. In between the battle scenes, he finds love and marriage with Libby (Olivia De Havilland).

Errol Flynn portrays the arrogant, but suave George Armstrong Custer well. Olivia De Havilland plays the cute, sweet Libby very well, especially in the flirting scene that Custer and Libby first meet. Their chemistry on screen made you believe in their romance. The acting in general was impressive, especially the comedic role ( although stereotypical) of Callie played by Hattie McDaniel. Her character will definitely make you laugh.

The heroic war music brought out the excitement of the battle scenes. The beautiful costumes set the tone of the era. The script, at times, was corny, although the movie was still enjoyable to watch. The director's portrayal of Custer was as a hero and history shows this is debatable. Some will watch this movie and see Custer as a hero. Others will watch this movie and learn hate him.

I give it a thumbs up for this 1942 western film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now this is more like it!One of the best movies I have ever seen!Despite it made very well on all aspects,this movie was put down solely for not being too historically accurate.Loosen up!There are tons of historical movies out there that were forgiven for not being too historically accurate and many of them do not even come close to how grand,how entertaining and how captivating this movie was!Now this is what a movie ticket is all about!You will get exacty what you want from this movie's genre and all naysayers are those with the anti-Flynn syndrome.This conservative rooted syndrome is very closely related to the anti-Elvis,anti-Ali,anti-Clinton,anti-Kennedy syndromes,usually caused by fear of charming individuals who have unconventional beliefs.If the viewer of this movie is open minded and has the ability to separate politics from art,you will find this movie not only one of the best classics,but also one of the best movies of all time.I rate it the second best western ever, right behind Wayne's The Cowboys........","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film is excellent. One of the most noteworthy things about it is that Flynn's performance is superb. This is worth stressing, as he was often derided as an actor by Bette Davis et al.

I remember the scene where Flynn gets Arthur Kennedy drunk in order to take him to his doom at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. The cold, calculating look on Flynn's face as he does so is extraordinary - much better than the much vaunted Spencer Tracy or many other stars could have done.

The other thing to note is the excellent performance by George P. Huntley Jr as Lt \"Queen's Own\" Butler. It is baffling why he stopped making films shortly afterwards - one would have thought that he would have been set up for years after as a character actor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's true that \"They Died With Their Boots On\" gives a highly fictionalized account of George Armstrong Custer's (Errol Flynn) life and career, but a remarkable one, especially with regard to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Because it is not a given that a 1941 movie tries to portray both the US-American cavalryman and Native American leader Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn) in a favorable light. I'm almost tempted to say that \"Little Big Man\" in its unqualified anti-Custer stance seems unbalanced by comparison. Further, one should not be mislead by the title of the picture \u0096 this isn't just a movie about the Battle of the Little Big Horn, it's a movie about that shows the unreliable West Point cadet, the famed Civil War hero, the Indian fighter, and, last but not least, the husband.

The movie begins with Custer's time at the West Point military academy, where his recalcitrance and insubordinate behavior lead to frequent demerits. During a punitive military exercise, he meets his future wife, Elizabeth Bacon (Olivia de Havilland), who, like Custer himself, is a native of Monroe, Michigan. Custer intends to court her, but the outbreak of the Civil War calls him away. Custer's legendary bravery is shown in a sequence of battle scenes, the greatest of which is devoted to his engagement with legendary Southern cavalry general Jeb Stuart during the Battle of Gettysburg. While on leave, he travels to Monroe and courts Elizabeth, who promises him her hand in matrimony. Immediately after the war, Custer and Elizabeth Bacon are married.

With the Civil War over, Custer is demoted, doesn't get a real command, and has to go through the painstakingly slow process of promotion in the small, professional American army. As he starts to drink, his wife intervenes in his behalf with former general-in-chief Winfield Scott. Custer is given the command of the US 7th Cavalry, which he trains to be an elite unit. Neither Custer nor Crazy Horse are desirous of battle, but greedy businessmen and corrupt politicians decide to build a railroad through Indian lands in clear violation to earlier treaties. Custer explicitly acknowledges the justice of Crazy Horse's cause, but rides into battle to do his duty as a soldier, exposing the conspiracy of the moneyed interests in a letter he writes on the eve of battle.

\"They Died With Their Boots On,\" though short on historical accuracy, is as good as war movies and Westerns in the 1940s got: Both Custer and Crazy Horse are played by major actors, neither the Indians nor the Southern Confederacy are denigrated, and the courtship scenes with beautiful Livvy de Havilland are just charming. The only minus, and that's why I can't give this picture a full 10, is the undercurrent of racism in the portrayal of African American servants; Elizabeth's servant Callie is the stereotypical, overweight, good-natured, superstitious black mammy.

It is also interesting that the movie does not find fault with either Custer or Crazy Horse, but with the greed of the railroad companies pressuring Washington politicians with semi-criminal methods into breaking assurances they had given to the Native Americans. Just a couple of years later, the insinuation that American entrepreneurs could even think of doing anything remotely questionable would probably have been taken as a hint that the film makers were communist sympathizers.

Needless to say that \"They Died With Their Boots On\" omits the fact that Custer's overly aggressive tactics often bordered on the foolhardy, greatly overstates the importance of his engagement with Stuart, and doesn't mention the lack of reconnaissance prior to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Nevertheless, Custer was seen as a war hero by his contemporaries and had some spectacular exploits to point to in the Battles of Brandy Station, Gettysburg, Trevilian Station and others, though his feats of arms were not as decisive for the Civil War as \"They Died With Their Boots On\" suggests.

In any event, \"They Died With Their Boots On\" is a well-made war movie with Western elements, three outstanding performers (Flynn, Quinn, and de Havilland), and offers a positive view of Native Americans as well as a negative one on big money, which wouldn't be seen in major Hollywood productions for decades to come. It would deserve a 10 if it weren't for the racist minstrelization of African Americans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The historical inaccuracies of this film have been well documented. It was never intended to be serious history but an entertaining saga and there it succeeds. Errol Flynn was never better as this role was tailored for him. Olivia DeHavilland was never more beautiful. Arthur Kennedy never more villainous. Anthony Quinn never more noble than as Crazy Horse. It had much humor and pathos and held your interest throughout. The one historical aspect I found most glaringly inaccurate was the final \"Last Stand\" which occurred on the banks of the Little Big Horn. The film version was filmed in a desert with no river in sight. However, I still consider it marvelous entertainment typical of Hollywood's golden age.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When one stops to recollect upon the frequent on screen teaming of Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHavilland, \"They Died With Their Boots On\" (1941) is most likely the film remembered best. It is the sweeping saga of General Custer (Flynn) - told from the time he enters West Point military academy and falls for the luscious Elizabeth Bacon (DeHavilland), through his tenure during the American Civil War, and finally with his death at Little Big Horn. Director, Raoul Walsh mounts his historical epic on the laurels of highly questionable recanting of historical texts, rewritten by screen writers Wally Kline and Aeneas MacKenzie, until truth and fiction are warped all out of proportion. Hence, the battle against Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn) is portrayed as a crooked deal between politicians - California Joe (Charley Grapewin) and a spuriously absent corporation which wants to reclaim the land Custer gave to the Indians through the systematic genocide of the Nation's first peoples.

Flynn, who cleverly plays Custer as though he is one part Arnold Schwartzenegger to two parts Albert Schweitzer, has never been more ignoble. He literally oozes charm and sex appeal from every pore that easily melts the heart of his loyal heroine. Resident Warner stock players, Arthur Kennedy and Sidney Greenstreet deliver marvelous cameos that appear to have far more depth and character than is actually written into the material for them.

Overall, then, despite its loose rendering of history in favor of a good romantic yarn, \"They Died With Their Boots On\" is ample film fodder for a Saturday matin\u00e9e or Sunday night cooing with one's sweetheart. Warner's DVD is pretty nice looking. Although film grain is often obvious, the gray scale has been very nicely rendered with deep, solid blacks and very clean whites. Some fading is obvious during scene transitions. The audio has been very nicely cleaned up and is presented at an adequate listening level.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"BEING Warner Brothers' second historical drama featuring Civil War and Battle of the Little Big Horn, General George Armstrong Custer, THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON (Warner Brothers, 1941) was the far more accurate of the two; especially when contrasted with SANTA FE TRAIL (Warner Brothers, 1940), which really didn't set the bar very high.

ALTHOUGH both pictures were starring vehicles for Errol Flynn, there was a change in the casting the part of General Custer. Whereas it was \"Dutch\", himself, Ronald Reagan portraying the flamboyant, egomaniacal Cavalryman in the earlier picture, with Mr. Flynn playing Virginian and later Confederate Hero General, J.E.B. (or Jeb) Stuart; Errol took on the Custer part for THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON.

ONCE again, the Warner Brothers' propensity for using a large number of reliable character actors from the \"Warner's Repertory Company\" are employed in giving the film a sort of authenticity, and all is really happening right before our very own eyes. Major roles are taken by some better known actors and actresses, such as: Elizabeth Bacon\/Mrs. Custer (co-star Olivia de Havilland), Ned Sharpe (Arthur Kennedy), Samuel Bacon (Gene Lockhart), Chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn), \"Californy\" (Charlie Grapwin), Major Taipe (Stanley Ridges), General Phillip Sheridan (John Litel), Callie (the Bacon's Maid, Hattie McDaniel).

THE rest of the cast is just chock full of uncredited, though skilled players such as: Joe Sawyer, Eleanor Parker, Minor Watson, Tod Andrews, Irving Bacon, Roy Barcroft, Lane Chandler, Spencer Charters, Frank Ferguson, Francis Ford, William Forrest, George Eldridge, Russell Hicks, William Hopper, Hoppity Hooper, Eddie Keane, Fred Kelsey, Sam McDaniel, Patrick McVey, Frank Orth, Eddie Parker, Addison Richards, Ray Teal, Jim Thorpe (All-American, himself), Minerva Urecal, Dick Wessel, Gig Young and many, many more.

THE film moves very quickly, particularly in the early goings; then sort of slows down out of necessity as the story moves along to the Post Civil War years, the assignment of Custer as a Colonel in the 7th Cavalry and the ultimate destiny at the Little Big Horn, in Montana. Under the guidance of Director, Griffith Veteran, Raoul Walsh, the film hits a greatly varied array of emotions; from the very serious, exciting battle scenes and convincing historical scenes; looking as if they were Matthew Brady Civil War Photos. As with most any of Mr. Walsh's films, he punctuates and expedites the end of many a scene with a little humor; but not going overboard and thus risking the chance of turning the film into a comedy (farce, actually).

AS previously mentioned, this is much more factual than its predecessor, SANTA FE TRAIL (last time we'll mention it, honest Schultz, Scout's Honor!). However, that is not to say that it wasn't without a few little bits of \"Artistic and Literary License; as indeed, just about any Biopic will have. It would be impossible to make any similar type of film if indeed every fact and incident were to be tried to be included in the screenplay. Perhaps the most erroneous inclusion as well as the most obvious invocation of Literary License is that business about Custer's being accidentally promoted to the rank of Brigadier General. It just didn't happen that way, yet the \"gag\" both helped the film to move along; while it underscored the whole light, carefree feeling that permeated the early part of the film.

DIRECTOR Walsh and Mr. Flynn collaborated in giving us what would seem to be a characterization of this legendary Civil War Hero that was very close to the real life man. And they did this on top of the recreation of an incident, being the Massacre by the Lakota Sioux, the Cheyenne and the Fukowi of Custer and his 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn. At the time of its occurrence, June 25, 1876, \"Custer's Last Stand\" was as big an incident and shock to the Americans' National Psyche as were the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) or the Atrocities perpetrated by the Islamic Fascists to New York's Twin Trade Towers and the United States' Armed Forces' Headquarters in the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia on September 11, 2002.

JUST as so many films of that period of WORLD WAR II (and the years immediately before), there were so many incidents in it that were, if not intentionally done, were demonstrations of virtues that would be needed in time of another Global Conflict, such as we were in by the time of THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON was finishing up its original Theatrical release period.

POODLE SCHNITZ!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I blame \"Birth of a Nation\" myself - for commencing the long-running tradition of Hollywood travesties of history, of which there can be few greater examples than this. Apart from getting the names of Custer and his 7th Cavalry, Crazy Horse and the Sioux and President Grant spelt right, the geography correct and the fact that Custer and his men were indeed wiped out to a man, the rest just takes hyperbole and invention to ludicrous limits. Throw in some downright hackneyed scenes of the purest exposition, (try Custer and his wife's learning of the phony \"Gold Rush\" to excuse the invasion of the Sioux territory, Custer's testimony in front of Congress pleading the rights of the Red Indians and to top it all, Custer's storming into the president's office to beg to return to his post), honestly there's plenty more of the same, some of these scenes almost comical in their corniness... ...And yet, and yet, it's still a great actioner with Flynn as dashing as ever, DeHavilland as beguiling as ever, the young Anthony Quinn getting a start as Crazy Horse and director Walsh as barnstorming as ever in his depiction of crowd scenes and of course the tumultuous action sequences. Ford taught us in \"Liberty Valance\" to believe the legend before the truth. Here I think we're closer to the legend of the legend but hey, it's only a movie and a rollicking, wonderfully enjoyable classic Hollywood movie at that!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first viewed \"They Died With There Boots On\",about 1970 and though it has been many years since,this film and its impression remain.the cast was good to excellent and the lead man was truly heroic.When I first saw this film I knew the wisest as well as the only real position to have was to enjoy this film as a rousing bit of entertainment and then some.I felt then as I even feel now that the Silver Screen does not as such provide for a true depiction of much of anything let alone The Life of George Armstrong Custer,however the Director Raoul Walsh was to contribute to the real value represented in this film when I watched a semi-documentary with other great directors like Vincent Mennelli wherein these central figures talked about there accomplishments with valuable comments providing a glimpse into the Hollywood mind set.This is what I considered something of interest and where all of this became terribly interesting and very enjoyable.Yet, there have been so much made of all the problems with the silver screen and its story telling ability that some of the enjoyment has been lost and perhaps you would find that to be true here as well.Custer ranked 34 in a graduating class of...34.Much has been made of Custer's final class ranking,but of the 68 cadets who entered the Military Academy with him in 1857,half of them had already flunked out or quit by graduation day,June 24,1861.It is suggested in the movie as the various instructors are determining if a soldier is fit for command and then they come upon the name of George Armstrong Custer and there is to be certain an exchange between the two sides and here is where the Sargeant on Duty says in almost a low tone even to suggest as if that came out by accident\"His squadron would follow him to hell,\"Your at attention Sargeant,reprimands Tape.If Iam not mistaken when Flynn shows up at a initial battlefield it acknowledged that Custer did not see action right away and indeed he was doing work as a reliable attach\u00e9 to not only Sheridan,but Hancocks forces as well only to end up for a time with the Army of The Potomac under General George McClellan.There is some truth to the audacity attributed to Custers battlefield heroics as was illustrated when in a counterattack ,\"young Custer spurred his horse to the lead and boldly plunged in among the stunned Confederates.As a lone Union Soldier surrounded by rebels,Custers audacity shone through.He accepted the surrender of several enemy soldiers,including a rebel captain.Yet most outstanding was that in this action he personally captured the very first Confederate battle flag taken by the Army of the Potomac.This notable act of courage marked him as an officer of great battlefield promise.\"Robert L.Bateman-Armchair General.There is a problem here and that is the telling of the story and the truth as to George Armstrong Custer,the story is good Hollywood entertainment perhaps even great entertainment but for whatever reasons all that could be told was changed for entertainment purposes.Though this maybe jumping the gun it might be well to know that Tom Custer was to lose his life at the \"Little Big Horn\" only a few feet from where George Custer was to die as well.They were brothers and Tom Custer to this very day holds a honorable distinction of being amongst a very small group perhaps only 3 others to have been awarded the Medal of Honor twice in his military career.The list of engagements that the motion picture shows indicate that Custers indeed was an active young officer.He was not with Union forces at either Chancellorsville or for that matter Fredericksburg however he was with them at the Battle of Antietam and at that point in time he was actually promoted to Captain by General McClellan but that was not to last as McClellan was soon to be replaced due to the historical fact that The Army of The Potomac had the means,and the information(discovered wrapped around some cigars was General Lee's plans to split his forces)and yet he failed to act for some 17 hours.It can be speculated that the war could of been over then and there had that occurred but when McClellan failed to act President Lincoln replaced him permanently and the promotion was lost as a result. Custers greatest victory may of in fact come at Gettysburg,Pa.His forces which occupied an area called cemetery ridge at the field at Gettysburg in the summer of 1863 were able to defeat a Jeb Stuart Led Cavalry of some 6,000 rebels with but a force of 2,300.I Think the heroics at Gettysburg by Custer are worth some discussion.There is speculation had in the movie that Custers appointment was a blunder, well you better guess again because not only did Custer have men in his corner but he established a petition to present to the Governor of the State of Michigan which by the way was relatively new to the Union Cause and where preparing to form Cavalry regiments.Though Custer was severely admonished for that kind of shenanigan when he showed up in all that Gold Braid it was not by accident as you would be led to believe.The truth be told Custers defense at Gettysburg prohibited Jeb Stuart from having lunch at the Unions rear stores and vitally protected that flank.This action by the way occurred and it was timed to coincide with Picketts Charge so to make for the greatest likelihood of success.It was a critical victory and Custer was at his bravest and best.His men did follow him to hell and lived to tell about it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After working on 7 movies with director Mickael Curtiz (The Adventures of Robin Hood are their best achievement), Errol Flynn got tired of his dictatorial direction and decided to work with the great Raoul Walsh. This reunion is a happy thing for cinematography. THE DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON is their first and best film together. Raoul Walsh portrays the General George Armstrong Custer (Errol Flynn) from his debuts at West Point, to the Civil War and finally at the battle of Little Big Horn. It's true the film shows a too heroic portrait of Custer, but that's not important. What is important, is the fact that we are transported with the passion and glory carried by the characters. Who can forget California Joe, the great \"Queen's Own Buttler\" with his song \"Garryowen\", the touching Mrs Custer (Olivia de Havilland), the diabolic Sharp well played by Arthur Kennedy ?

An eternal blow remains on this epic and tragic freso.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you keep rigid historical perspective out of it, this film is actually quite entertaining. It's got action, adventure and romance, and one of the premiere casting match-ups of the era with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland in the lead roles. As evident on this board, the picture doesn't pass muster with purists who look for one hundred percent accuracy in their story telling. To get beyond that, one need only put aside the history book, and enjoy the story as if it were a work of fiction. I know, I know, that's hard to do when you consider Custer's Last Stand at the Little Big Horn and it's prominence in the history of post Civil War America. So I guess there's an unresolved quandary with the picture, no matter how you look at it.

There's a lot to take in here though for the picture's two hour plus run time. Custer's arrival at West Point is probably the first head scratcher, riding up as he does in full military regalia. The practical joke by Sharp (Arthur Kennedy) putting him up in the Major's headquarters probably should have gotten them both in trouble.

Ironically, a lot of scenes in this military film play for comedy, as in Custer's first meeting with Libby Bacon, and subsequent encounters that include tea reader Callie (Hattie McDaniel). I hadn't noticed it before in other films, but McDaniel reminded me an awful lot of another favorite character actor of mine from the Forties, Mantan Moreland. So much so that in one scene it looked like it might have been Moreland hamming it up in a dress. With that in mind, the owl scene was a hoot too.

As for Flynn, it's interesting to note that a year earlier, he portrayed J.E.B. Stuart opposite Ronald Reagan's depiction of General Custer in \"Santa Fe Trail\", both vying for the attention of none other than Olivia de Havilland. In that film, Reagan put none of the arrogance and flamboyance into the character of Custer that history remembers, while in Flynn's portrayal here it's more than evident. But it doesn't come close to that of Richard Mulligan's take on the military hero in 1970's \"Little Big Man\". Let's just say that one was a bit over the top.

The better take away the picture had for me was the manner in which Custer persevered to maintain his good name and not gamble it away on a risky business venture. That and his loyalty to the men he led in battle along with the discipline he developed over the course of the story. Most poignant was that final confrontation with arch rival Sharp just before riding into the Little Big Horn, in which he declared that hell or glory was entirely dependent on one's point of view. Earlier, a similar remark might have given us the best insight of all into Custer's character, when he stated - \"You take glory with you when it's your time to go\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Warner Brothers tampered considerably with American history in \"Big Trail\" director Raoul Walsh's first-rate western \"They Died with Their Boots On,\" a somewhat inaccurate but wholly exhilarating biography of cavalry officer George Armstrong Custer. The film chronicles Custer from the moment that he arrives at West Point Academy until the Indians massacre him at the Little Big Horn. This is one of Errol Flynn's signature roles and one of Raoul Walsh's greatest epics. Walsh and Flynn teamed in quite often afterward, and \"They Died with Their Boots On\" reunited Olivia de Havilland as Flynn's romantic interest for the last time. They appeared as a couple in seven previous films. This 140-minute, black & white oater is nothing short of brilliant with dynamic action sequences, humorous romantic scenes, and stern dramatic confrontations between our hero and his adversaries. One of the notorious errors involves Colonel Philip Sheridan who is shown as the commandant at West Point before the Civil War. Indeed, Sheridan was a lieutenant at this point. In fact, the commandant was Robert E. Lee as the earlier Flynn film \"Santa Fe Trail\" showed. Another historical lapse concerns Lieutenant General Whitfield Scott; Scott was not the commander of Union troops throughout the Civil War. Warner Brothers presented Custer as a drinker (probably because Flynn had a reputation for drinking), but in real life Custer neither drank nor smoked. Nevertheless, these as well as other historical goofs do not detract from a truly splendid film.

\"They Died with Their Boots On\" opens with Custer riding into West Point Military Academy arrayed in a fancy dress uniform with an African-American carrying his luggage and tending his dogs. After the sergeant of the guard realizes that he has turned out a honor guard for a future plebe instead of a high-ranking foreign general, the sergeant turns Custer over to a ranking cadet Ned Sharp (Arthur Kennedy of \"City for Conquest\") to take charge of him. Sharp plays a practical job on Custer by installing him in the quarters of Major Romulus Taipe (Stanley Ridges of \"Task Force\") who promptly runs Custer out. Naturally, the volatile Custer attacks Sharp in a public brawl. General Phil Sheridan (John Litel of \"The Sons of Katie Elder\") is prepared to dismiss Custer from West Point for conduct unbecoming. As it turns out, Sheridan cannot expel Custer because Custer has not enrolled. Once he enrolls, Custer establishes a mediocre academic reputation with alacrity to fight and accumulate demerits galore. When the American Civil War erupts, West Point graduates cadets who have not completed their education and rushes them into combat. One of the last cadets hustled off to war is Custer. Avid as he is to get into the fight, Custer encounters his future wife, Elizabeth 'Libby' Bacon (Olivia de Havilland of \"Santa Fe Trail\"), and they pledge themselves to each other, despite Mr. Bacon (Gene Lockhart of \"Carousel\") who detests the sight of Custer. It seems that Bacon ran across Custer at a saloon and insulted one of Custer's friends and our hero reprimanded Bacon.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, Custer desperately seeks a transfer to a regiment, but Major Taipe has him cooling his heels. Custer befriends rotund Lieutenant General Winfield Scott (Sidney Greenstreet of \"The Maltese Falcon\") and they share an appetite for creamed Bermuda onions that becomes one of Custer's characteristics. Not only does Scott see to it that Taipe assigns Custer to the Second Cavalry, but also Custer appropriates Taipe's horse to get to his command. During the Battle of Bull Run, 21 July 1861, Custer disobeys orders from none other than Sharp, strikes his superior officer and holds a bridge so the infantry can cross it. Wounded in the shoulder and sent to the hospital, Custer receives a medal rather than a court-martial. When Confederate General Jeb Stuart threatens the Union Army at the Battle of Gettysburg, in Pennsylvania, Scott is shocked by the chance that the South may triumph. When a brigadier general cannot be found, Scott goads Taipe into promoting the first available officer. A mistake is made and Custer is promoted. Incredulous at first, Custer embraces the moment and cracks Stuart's advance. After the war, Custer idles down and starts boozing it up with the boys at the local saloons. Sharp shows up as a crooked railroad promoter and with his father they try to enlist Custer to serve as the president of their railway so that they can obtain funds. Eventually, Libby intercedes on his behalf with General Sheridan, who was in command of the army, and gets him back on active duty as the commander of the 7th Cavalry. When he takes command, Custer finds the 7th cavalry a drunken lot and is not surprised that Sharp commands the liquor at the fort. Meanwhile, Custer has his first run in with Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn of \"The Guns of Navarone\") and takes him into custody. Of course, Crazy Horse escapes, becomes Custer's adversary, and they fight.

Once Custer has quelled Crazy Horse and the Indians, Sharp with Taipe as a government agent conspire to destroy a peace treaty with the Sioux and other Indian nations. They also see to it that Custer is brought up on charges for striking Taipe in a saloon brawl. On his way to Washington, Custer discovers the perfidy of Sharp and Taipe who have drummed up a gold strike in the sacred Black Hills. Settlers rampage in and the Indians hit the warpath. Custer sacrifices himself and his 600 men at the Little Big Horn in a slam-bang showdown against 6000 redskins. \"Stagecoach\" lenser Bert Glennon captures both the grit and the glory. The long shot of the 7th Cavalry leaving the fort at dawn is spectacular. As an added premonition of Custer's imminent demise, Libby faints after he leaves their quarters for the Little Big Horn. \"They Died with Their Boots On\" benefits from a top-notch Max Steiner score that incorporates the regimental tune \"Gary Owen.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Errol Flynn's roguish charm really shines through in this entertaining and exciting, but historically bankrupt biopic of the famous (and some would say infamous) General Custer, that follows his career from his first day at West Point, through the Civil War and out west to the battle at The Little Big Horn, all the while butting heads with rival Arthur Kennedy and romancing pretty Olivia de Havilland.

Some might say that Flynn, who delivers a great, flamboyant performance as the general, is basically playing himself playing Custer!

A lavish production (that should have been in Technicolor) well directed by Raoul Walsh, They Died With Their Boots On features some truly well-staged battle sequences. Also, it's a real treat to see Anthony Quinn playing Crazy Horse.

The previous year, Flynn played Jeb Stuart opposite Ronald Reagan's George Custer in Santa Fe Trail (also with de Havilland), another action-packed Warner Brothers production designed to make you fail history class!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While I can't say whether or not Larry Hama ever saw any of the old cartoons, I would think that writing said cartoons, file cards, and some of the comics would count for something.

For fans of the old cartoon, this is pretty much a continuation of the same, except with a few new characters - and a more insane Cobra Commander.

We still have all the old favorites too, but on a personal note, one thing that always irritated me was this \"Duke in charge\" stuff, when there are tons of other *officers* around instead.

The battle sequences are similar to the old series as well; the main trick here seems to be the CGI. It's overall pretty good, if not a little over-the-top.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Felix is watching an actor rehearse his lines: \"A ham, A ham! My kingdom for a ham sandwich!!!\" The dramatic guy that tells Felix he'll \"have to sacrifice my art and go into the movies.\" He's in tears. Felix just looks at him like he's nuts, and shrugs his shoulders. The old guy tells Felix to \"go ye forth\" and find money to finance a trip to Hollywood. Felix thinks, \"How does he expect me to get the money?\"

In minutes, of course (this is a cartoon), he spots a shoe business owner putting up a \"bankrupt\" sale on his store. Felix comes up with a plan to bail him out and the man promises the cat $500 if it works.

Well, it does but the man wants to go alone and leave Felix at home. In an outrageous scene, Felix transforms himself into a briefcase and that's how he gets to Hollywood, transforming himself back to cat when they get there.

We then witness Felix's attempts at getting into show business. His audition scenes are very funny, especially with his imitation of Charlie Chaplin. In addition there are caricatures of some famous silent film stars and executives. In all, quite a bit of material is in this 9.5- minute cartoon. It's amazing how much more you can get in an extra 2.5 minutes, assuming most animated shorts are seven minutes in length.

At any rate, there were a number of laughs in here and more zany things you could only see in a cartoon, like Felix have a sword duel with giant mosquitoes! Crazy stuff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This short is one of the best of all time and is proof (just like most of Charlie Chaplin's work) that sound and color are not requirements for quality work. In fact, this cartoon uses (and may have started) some of the gags and devices that became standard in animation in later years, like caricatures of celebrities (including the afore-mentioned Chaplin. While the characters are silent, they do \"speak\", by use of word balloons, just like in the comics. Given that Felix started out in newspapers as a comic strip, this device is a natural. The atmosphere and style of the short is completely harmonious with that of the comic strip while adding another dimension (literally and figuratively) and makes this short a delight to watch. Well worth taking the time and effort to get. Most highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A gem of a cartoon from the silent era---it was re-discovered by CARTOON NETWORK, and was broadcast for likely the first time in decades, if ever.

What makes this so enjoyable are the varied cameos...Douglas Fairbanks is attacked by giant mosquitos; Will Hays pays a visit as 'boss' of Static Studios; as well as appearances by Chaplin, Keaton, and William S. Hart. The image of chewing gum decimating the shoes of the populace (a money-making idea for Felix's near-bankrupt shoe-=salesman boss) cannot be described--it must be viewed. A terrific cultural gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Felix in Hollywood is a great film. The version I viewed was very well restored, which is sometimes a problem with these silent era animated films. It has some of Hollywood's most famous stars making cameo animated appearances. A must for any silent film or animation enthusiast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Since this cartoon was made in the old days, Felix talks using cartoon bubbles and the animation style is very crude when compared to today. However, compared to its contemporaries, it's a pretty good cartoon and still holds up well. That's because despite its age, the cartoon is very creative and funny.

Felix meets a guy whose shoe business is folding because he can't sell any shoes. Well, Felix needs money so he can go to Hollywood, so he tells the guy at the shop he'll get every shoe sold. Felix spreads chewing gum all over town and soon people are stuck and leave their shoes--rushing to buy new ones from the shoe store. In gratitude, the guy gives Felix $500! However, Felix's owner wants to take the money and go alone, so Felix figures out a way to sneak along.

Once there, Felix barges into a studio and makes a bit of a nuisance of himself. Along the way, he meets cartoon versions of comics Ben Turpin and Charlie Chaplin. In the end, though, through luck, Felix is discovered and offered a movie contract. Hurray!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have certainly not seen all of Jean Rollin's films, but they mostly seem to be bloody vampire naked women fests, which if you like that sort of thing is not bad, but this is a major departure and could almost be Cronenberg minus the bio-mechanical nightmarish stuff. Except it's in French with subtitles of course. A man driving on the road at night comes across a woman that is in her slippers and bathrobe and picks her up, while in the background yet another woman lingers, wearing nothing. As they drive along it's obvious that there is something not right about the woman, in that she forgets things almost as quickly as they happen. Still though, that doesn't prevent the man from having sex with her once they return to Paris & his apartment. The man leaves for work and some strangers show up at his place and take the woman away to this 'tower block', a huge apartment building referred to as the Black Tower, where others of her kind (for whom the 'no memory' things seems to be the least of their problems) are being held for some reason. Time and events march by in the movie, which involve mostly trying to find what's going on and get out of the building for this woman, and she does manage to call Robert, the guy that picked her up in the first place, to come rescue her. The revelation as to what's going on comes in the last few moments of the movie, which has a rather strange yet touching end to it. In avoiding what seemed to be his \"typical\" formula, Rollin created, in this, what I feel is his most fascinating and disturbing film. I like this one a lot, check it out. 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went into \"Night of the Hunted\" not knowing what to expect at all. I was really impressed.

It is essentially a mystery\/thriller where this girl who can't remember anything gets 'rescued' by a guy who happens to be driving past. The two become fast friends and lovers and together, they try to figure out what is going on with her. Through some vague flashbacks and grim memories, they eventually get to the bottom of it and the ending is pretty cool.

I really liked the setting of this one: a desolate, post-modern Paris is the backdrop with lots of gray skies and tall buildings. Very metropolitan. Groovy soundtrack and lots of nudity.

Surprising it was made in 1980; seems somewhat ahead of it's time.

8 out of 10, kids.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was surprised how much I enjoyed this. Sure it is a bit slow moving in parts, but what else would one expect from Rollin? Also there is plenty of nudity, nothing wrong with that, particularly as it includes lots of the gorgeous, Brigitte Lahaie. There are also some spectacularly eroticised female dead, bit more dodgey, perhaps, but most effective. There is also a sci-fi like storyline with a brief explanation at the end, but I wouldn't bother too much with that. No, here we have a most interesting exploration of memory and the effect of memory loss and to just what extent one is still 'alive' without memory. My DVD sleeve mentions David Cronenberg and whilst this is perhaps not quite as good as his best films, there is some similarity here, particularly with the great use of seemingly menacing architecture and the effective and creepy use of inside space. As I have tried to indicate this is by no means a rip roaring thriller, it is a captivating, nightmare like movie that makes the very most of its locations, including a stunning railway setting at the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even if you're a fan of Jean Rollin's idiosyncratic body of work, you will be caught off guard by this exceptional foray into science fiction territory. For once, there's not a single diaphanously gowned vampire girl in sight ! True to tradition, the budget proved way too tight to realize the director's vision entirely. Yet this is largely compensated by his obvious love of genre cinema, dedication to his craft and sheer ingenuity. Jean-Claude Couty's atmospheric cinematography makes the most of the foreboding locations and Philippe Br\u00e9jean (a\/k\/a \"Gary Sandeur\") contributes a startling soundtrack that fortunately doesn't resemble any of the sappy stuff he composed for hardcore.

Shot in and around a Paris office block before and after working hours, the film was largely cast with porn regulars Rollin was already quite familiar with from his \"Michel Gentil\" cash-gathering XXX efforts, most notably French f*ck film royalty Brigitte Lahaie in the demanding lead. Playing Elisabeth (rather well, I might add), she's picked up wandering a nearby highway one night by Robert (Vincent Gard\u00e8re), driving home at the end of a long work day. Barely able to piece together the string of events that got her there, Elisabeth seems to lose her memories mere moments after events occur, even forgetting Robert's name and heroic savior role before their night flight comes to an end at his apartment. Prior to making love, she rightfully describes herself as a virgin (further credit to Brigitte's thespian skills that she can handle the line so convincingly, being after all one of the more active adult actresses of the '70s) because she cannot recall a single touch preceding his. Because of this nifty bit of context, the relatively long sex scene that follows totally eschews the gratuity of other \"commercial\" interludes Rollin has had to include in other works to assure funding.

When Robert leaves for work, he's inevitably erased from Elisabeth's feeble mind. A mysterious doctor (comedian Bernard Papineau effectively cast against type) and his menacing assistant Solange (striking porn starlet Rachel Mhas) move in on her during her protector's absence and take her back to the place she turns out to have escaped from. Here we get one of the movie's strongest scenes as she's re-introduced to her roommate Catherine (the late Cath\u00e9rine Greiner a\/k\/a hardcore performer \"Cathy Stewart\" in a quietly devastating turn), both girls desperately supplying fictitious shared \"memories\" for one another in a bid to outrun their inevitable fate. That deterioration is not solely limited to the mind becomes painfully clear when they are served lunch and Catherine's unable to control her movements in trying to eat a spoonful of soup. It's also Catherine who gets to voice the filmmaker's compromise with the demands of commerce as she urges Elisabeth to get naked and hold her because sex is all they have left now that both mind and physical faculties have deserted them.

Several rather explicit - if not quite hardcore - sex scenes make up the movie's mid-section and French porn aficionados should recognize the likes of Alain Plumey (a\/k\/a \"Cyril Val\"), Jacques Gateau and Elodie Delage, along with a blink and miss bit from future porno princess Marilyn Jess whose rape at the hands, mouth and member of Plumey was only present in the film's rarely screened XXX version FILLES TRAQUEES. The pivotal part of V\u00e9ronique, a girl Elisabeth almost seems to remember and whom she seeks to escape anew with, is beautifully handled by the exquisite Dominique Journet - in her unforgettable debut - who would go on to play a sizable supporting role in Franco Zeffirelli's LA TRAVIATA. The six feet under ending reveals the deteriorating condition to be the result of a nuclear spill, the quarantined \"patients\" ultimately leaving a barely breathing empty shell, unceremoniously disposed off in a fiery furnace. The final shot offers a particularly heartbreaking variation on that of Chaplin's MODERN TIMES as Elisabeth, approaching complete meltdown by now, and a wounded Robert stumble along the railroad bridge, clumsily clasping each other's outstretched hands.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Night of the Hunted\" stars French porn star Brigitte Lahaie.In fact,many of the cast members in this slow-moving production were porn actors at the time of its frantic filming.This film is certainly different than Rollin's usual lesbian vampire flicks,but it's not as memorable as for example \"Lips of Blood\" or \"Fascination\".Lahaie plays an amnesiac hitchhiker who can't remember who she is or where she came from.Most of the film takes place in a modern apartment complex,where Lahaie is being held by some kind of medical group that's treating a number of people with a similar condition.Anyway,she escapes from the monolithic office tower where the affected people are held.On a highway outside of town,she meets a young man,who stops and picks her up.\"Night of the Hunted\" offers plenty of nudity,unfortunately the pace is extremely slow.The atmosphere is horribly sad and the relationship between Brigitte Lahaie and another asylum inmate Dominique Journet is well-developed.Still \"Night of the Hunted\" is too dull to be completely enjoyable.Give it a look only if you are a fan of Jean Rollin's works.7 out of 10 and that's being kind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at the Rotterdam International Film Festival 2002. This seemed to be one of the less popular films on the festival, however, as it turned out, all the more interesting.

The story, of an actor trying to come to grips with himself and his environment after withdrawing from a drug addiction, is based on actual facts. Moreover, the characters playing in the film are the real people living this experience over again, this time for the film, which is partly set up as a stage play. Not only do they all happen to be good actors, Jia Hongsheng's parents are actors in real life as well, the methods used in highlighting their relationship towards Jia are very effective.

Jia Hongsheng is the actor of some Chinese action films late eighties start nineties. Later you can see him in great films such as Frozen and Suzhou River. In between these two career paths Jia becomes a drug addict and looses all drive to act or even do anything productive, except for making somewhat futile attempts at becoming a guitar virtuoso.

I like the way the writer of the scenario choose to emphasize on his behavior after withdrawal more than on the horror of drugs. We really feel the pain and struggle Jia is in. At the same time we hate him for the way he treats those around him.

The film draws the viewer into a tiring pattern Jia seems to be caught in, dragging with him his parents and sister who try to take care of him. Because there are personal 'interviews' with the characters we feel like we are getting to know Jia not only through himself but through others as well.

The film has a heavy feel, but scenes of Jia cycling through Bejing and partying with his friends lighten the tone. So does the bitter humor in a lot of events throughout the film. The music is beautiful and stayed with me for a while after. This is a film that might not easily appeal to many people but for those interested in the more serious and modern Chinese film this is a strong recommendation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My wife is a mental health therapist and we watched it from beginning to end. I am the typical man and can not stand chick flicks, but this movie is unbelievable. If you want to see what it is like for someone who is going through these type of struggles, this is the movie for you. As I watched it I found myself feeling sorry for him and others like him.

***Spoiler*** Plus the fact that all the individuals in the movie including the people in the mental institution were the actual people in real life made it that more real.

A must see for someone in the mental health profession!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must say, every time I see this movie, I am deeply touched, not only by the most painful four years of Hongsheng's life, but also by how his family deals with his drug addiction. It is also true that getting addicted to anything, such as drugs, alcohol, or pornography, cannot only hurt you, but also hurt your most important people in the world: your family. Since family is the #1 priority in the Asian culture, it takes guts for the circle to gather together and show one person how much the family loves him\/her. this is actually the first Chinese movie that I actually enjoy, not for the fun of it, but the elements surrounding it (superb acting, touching story, great direction) make this movie worth watching. What stands out the most is that Hongsheng and his family act out the story themselves instead of having some B-movie actor trying to imitate the real person. It shows the genuineness of the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie on IFC. Which is a great network by the way to see underground films. I watched this movie and was thinking it was going to be pure drama and a story line that doesn't hold water. But it really was a worth while watch. The main character is in such rough shape, and you hate to see him deny help, but no matter what you just can't hate him. His devotion to The Beatles and John Lennon is a great metaphor for his life and the helplessness he feels.

The atmosphere of the film is also great. At times, you feel like you can see what he sees, feel what he feels in some situations. This movie does not leave you wanting to know more, or disliking a loophole in the plot. There are NO loopholes (in my opinion). I have always been a fan of foreign films, especially now with movies being made so poorly in America. I really enjoy the foreign settings because I feel it can take you on a trip, and sometimes understand a different culture. This movie did all those things to me and more. Please watch this movie and if you're new to foreign films, this is a great start.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie from beginning to end.I am a musician and i let drugs get in the way of my some of the things i used to love(skateboarding,drawing) but my friends were always there for me.Music was like my rehab,life support,and my drug.It changed my life.I can totally relate to this movie and i wish there was more i could say.This movie left me speechless to be honest.I just saw it on the Ifc channel.I usually hate having satellite but this was a perk of having satellite.The ifc channel shows some really great movies and without it I never would have found this movie.Im not a big fan of the international films because i find that a lot of the don't do a very good job on translating lines.I mean the obvious language barrier leaves you to just believe thats what they are saying but its not that big of a deal i guess.I almost never got to see this AMAZING movie.Good thing i stayed up for it instead of going to bed..well earlier than usual.lol.I hope you all enjoy the hell of this movie and Love this movie just as much as i did.I wish i could type this all in caps but its again the rules i guess thats shouting but it would really show my excitement for the film.I Give It Three Thumbs Way Up!

This Movie Blew ME AWAY!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Quitting\" may be as much about exiting a pre-ordained identity as about drug withdrawal. As a rural guy coming to Beijing, class and success must have struck this young artist face on as an appeal to separate from his roots and far surpass his peasant parents' acting success. Troubles arise, however, when the new man is too new, when it demands too big a departure from family, history, nature, and personal identity. The ensuing splits, and confusion between the imaginary and the real and the dissonance between the ordinary and the heroic are the stuff of a gut check on the one hand or a complete escape from self on the other. Hongshen slips into the latter and his long and lonely road back to self can be grim.

But what an exceptionally convincing particularity, honesty, and sensuousness director Zhang Yang, and his actors, bring to this journey. No clich\u00e9s, no stereotypes, no rigid gender roles, no requisite sex, romance or violence scenes, no requisite street language and, to boot, no assumed money to float character acts and whims.

Hongshen Jia is in his mid-twenties. He's a talented actor, impressionable, vain, idealistic, and perhaps emotionally starved. The perfect recipe for his enablers. Soon he's the \"cool\" actor, idolized by youth. \"He was hot in the early nineties.\" \"He always had to be the most fashionable.\" He needs extremes, and goes in for heavy metal, adopts earrings and a scarf. His acting means the arts, friends--and roles, But not the kind that offer any personal challenge or input. And his self-criticism, dulled by the immediacy of success, opens the doors to an irrational self-doubt, self-hatred-- \"I didn't know how to act\" \"I felt like a phony\"--and to readily available drugs to counter them. He says \"I had to get high to do what director wanted.\" So, his shallow identity as an actor becomes, via drugs, an escape from identity.

Hongshen's disengagement from drugs and his false life is very gradual, intermittent--and doggedly his own. Solitude, space, meditative thinking, speech refusal, replace therapy. The abstract is out. And a great deal of his change occurs outdoors---not in idealized locations but mainly on green patches under the freeways, bridges, and high-rises of Beijing. The physicality is almost romantic, but is not. The bike rides to Ritan Park, the long spontaneous walks, the drenching sun and rain, grassy picnics, the sky patterns and kites that absorb his musing are very specific. He drifts in order to arrive, all the while picking up cues to a more real and realistic identity. \"I started to open up\" he says of this period in retrospect. And the contact seems to start with his lanky body which projects a kind of dancer's positioning (clumsy, graceful, humorous, telling) in a current circumstance. If mind or spirit is lacking, his legs can compel him to walk all night.

Central to his comeback is the rejection of set roles. To punctuate his end to acting and his determination to a new identity, he smashes his videos and TV, and bangs his head till bloody against his \"John Lennon Forever\" poster. He has let down his iconic anti-establishment artist---but he's the only viable guide he knows. He even imagines himself as John's son (Yoko Ono), and adopts his \"Mother Mary\" as an intercessor in his \"hour of darkness\" and \"time of trouble.\" (the wrenching, shaking pain in the park--hallucinatory and skitzoid ordeals) \"Music is so much more real than acting\" he says. And speaks of Lennon's influence as \"showing me a new way.\" In the mental institute, the life-saving apples (resistance, nourishment) reflect Lennon's presence, as does Hongshen's need to re-hang his hero's poster in his redecorated room.

If Lennon's influence is spiriting, Hongshen's father's influence is grounding. Although father and son are both actors and users (drugs and drink), it is Fegsen's differences from his son that underwrites his change. For the father is more secure in himself: he accepts that he's Chinese, a peasant in a line of peasants, a rural theater director. And he exercises control over both his habit and his emotions. It's this recognizable identity that drives Hongshen to treat him like a sounding board, sometimes with anger and rage, sometimes with humor (the blue jeans, Beatles) and passivity. In his most crazed, and violent exchange with his father in which he accuses him of being a liar, and a fake, he exposes more of himself than his father: \"all the acts I acted before were bullshit... life is bullshit.\" And to Hongshen's emphatic \"you are NOT my father,\" he softly replies, \"why can't a peasant be your father?\"

Under these two teachers and with much additional help from his mother, sister, friends, inmates at the rehab inst., he makes some tangible connection to a real (not whole) self. As the long term drug effects recede, so does his old identity. Indebtedness replaces pride, trust distrust. Integrity banishes his black cloud. All his edges soften. \"You are just a human being\" he repeats endlessly after being released from the strap-down incurred for refusing medicine. Back home, lard peasant soap is fine with him now. And his once \"rare and true friendships\" begin again as is so evident in the back to poignant back-to-back fence scene with his musician buddy. Hongshen says of this movie: \"it's a good chance to think about my life.\" And I might add, become a New Actor, one bound to art and life. Like Lennon, he has gained success without a loss of identity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is amazing because the fact that the real people portray themselves and their real life experience and do such a good job it's like they're almost living the past over again. Jia Hongsheng plays himself an actor who quit everything except music and drugs struggling with depression and searching for the meaning of life while being angry at everyone especially the people who care for him most. There's moments in the movie that will make you wanna cry because the family especially the father did such a good job. However, this movie is not for everyone. Many people who suffer from depression will understand Hongsheng's problem and why he does the things he does for example keep himself shut in a dark room or go for walks or bike rides by himself. Others might see the movie as boring because it's just so real that its almost like a documentary. Overall this movie is great and Hongsheng deserved an Oscar for this movie so did his Dad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I felt this film did have many good qualities. The cinematography was certainly different exposing the stage aspect of the set and story. The original characters as actors was certainly an achievement and I felt most played quite convincingly, of course they are playing themselves, but definitely unique. The cultural aspects may leave many disappointed as a familiarity with the Chinese and Oriental culture will answer a lot of questions regarding parent\/child relationships and the stigma that goes with any drug use. I found the Jia Hongsheng story interesting. On a down note, the story is in Beijing and some of the fashion and music reek of early 90s even though this was made in 2001, so it's really cheesy sometimes (the Beatles crap, etc). Whatever, not a top ten or twenty but if it's on the television, check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Maybe I'm reading into this too much, but I wonder how much of a hand Hongsheng had in developing the film. I mean, when a story is told casting the main character as himself, I would think he would be a heavy hand in writing, documenting, etc. and that would make it a little biased.

But...his family and friends also may have had a hand in getting the actual details about Hongsheng's life. I think the best view would have been told from Hongsheng's family and friends' perspectives. They saw his transformation and weren't so messed up on drugs that they remember everything.

As for Hongsheng being full of himself, the consistencies of the Jesus Christ pose make him appear as a martyr who sacrificed his life (metaphorically, of course, he's obviously still alive as he was cast as himself) for his family's happiness. Huh?

The viewer sees him at his lowest points while still maintaining a superiority complex. He lies on the grass coming down from (during?) a high by himself and with his father, he contemplates life and has visions of dragons at his window, he celebrates his freedom on a bicycle all while outstretching his arms, his head cocked to the side.

It's fabulous that he's off of drugs now, but he's no hero. He went from a high point in his career in acting to his most vulnerable point while on drugs to come back somewhere in the middle.

This same device is used in Ted Demme's \"Blow\" where the audience empathizes with the main character who is shown as a flawed hero.

However, \"Quitting\" (\"Zuotian\") is a film that is recommended, mostly for its haunting soundtrack, superb acting, and landscapes. But, the best part is the feeling that one gets when what we presume to be the house of Jia Hongsheng is actually a stage setting for a play. It makes the viewer feel as if Hongsheng's life was merely a play told in many difficult parts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film on September 1st, 2005 in Indianapolis. I am one of the judges for the Heartland Film Festival that screens films for their Truly Moving Picture Award. A Truly Moving Picture \"...explores the human journey by artistically expressing hope and respect for the positive values of life.\" Heartland gave that award to this film.

This is a story of golf in the early part of the 20th century. At that time, it was the game of upper class and rich \"gentlemen\", and working people could only participate by being caddies at country clubs. With this backdrop, this based-on-a-true-story unfolds with a young, working class boy who takes on the golf establishment and the greatest golfer in the world, Harry Vardon.

And the story is inspirational. Against all odds, Francis Ouimet (played by Shia LaBeouf of \"Holes\") gets to compete against the greatest golfers of the U.S. and Great Britain at the 1913 U.S. Open. Francis is ill-prepared, and has a child for a caddy. (The caddy is hilarious and motivational and steals every scene he appears in.) But despite these handicaps, Francis displays courage, spirit, heroism, and humility at this world class event.

And, we learn a lot about the early years of golf; for example, the use of small wooden clubs, the layout of the short holes, the manual scoreboard, the golfers swinging with pipes in their mouths, the terrible conditions of the greens and fairways, and the play not being canceled even in torrential rain.

This film has stunning cinematography and art direction and editing. And with no big movie stars, the story is somehow more believable.

This adds to the inventory of great sports movies in the vein of \"Miracle\" and \"Remember the Titans.\"

FYI - There is a Truly Moving Pictures web site where there is a listing of past winners going back 70 years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bill Paxton has taken the true story of the 1913 US golf open and made a film that is about much more than an extra-ordinary game of golf. The film also deals directly with the class tensions of the early twentieth century and touches upon the profound anti-Catholic prejudices of both the British and American establishments. But at heart the film is about that perennial favourite of triumph against the odds.

The acting is exemplary throughout. Stephen Dillane is excellent as usual, but the revelation of the movie is Shia LaBoeuf who delivers a disciplined, dignified and highly sympathetic performance as a working class Franco-Irish kid fighting his way through the prejudices of the New England WASP establishment. For those who are only familiar with his slap-stick performances in \"Even Stevens\" this demonstration of his maturity is a delightful surprise. And Josh Flitter as the ten year old caddy threatens to steal every scene in which he appears.

A old fashioned movie in the best sense of the word: fine acting, clear directing and a great story that grips to the end - the final scene an affectionate nod to Casablanca is just one of the many pleasures that fill a great movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film in a sneak preview, and it is delightful. The cinematography is unusually creative, the acting is good, and the story is fabulous. If this movie does not do well, it won't be because it doesn't deserve to. Before this film, I didn't realize how charming Shia Lebouf could be. He does a marvelous, self-contained, job as the lead. There's something incredibly sweet about him, and it makes the movie even better. The other actors do a good job as well, and the film contains moments of really high suspense, more than one might expect from a movie about golf. Sports movies are a dime a dozen, but this one stands out.

This is one I'd recommend to anyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a recreational golfer with some knowledge of the sport's history, I was pleased with Disney's sensitivity to the issues of class in golf in the early twentieth century. The movie depicted well the psychological battles that Harry Vardon fought within himself, from his childhood trauma of being evicted to his own inability to break that glass ceiling that prevents him from being accepted as an equal in English golf society. Likewise, the young Ouimet goes through his own class struggles, being a mere caddie in the eyes of the upper crust Americans who scoff at his attempts to rise above his standing.

What I loved best, however, is how this theme of class is manifested in the characters of Ouimet's parents. His father is a working-class drone who sees the value of hard work but is intimidated by the upper class; his mother, however, recognizes her son's talent and desire and encourages him to pursue his dream of competing against those who think he is inferior.

Finally, the golf scenes are well photographed. Although the course used in the movie was not the actual site of the historical tournament, the little liberties taken by Disney do not detract from the beauty of the film. There's one little Disney moment at the pool table; otherwise, the viewer does not really think Disney. The ending, as in \"Miracle,\" is not some Disney creation, but one that only human history could have written.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Actor turned director Bill Paxton follows up his promising debut, the Gothic-horror \"Frailty\", with this family friendly sports drama about the 1913 U.S. Open where a young American caddy rises from his humble background to play against his Bristish idol in what was dubbed as \"The Greatest Game Ever Played.\" I'm no fan of golf, and these scrappy underdog sports flicks are a dime a dozen (most recently done to grand effect with \"Miracle\" and \"Cinderella Man\"), but some how this film was enthralling all the same.

The film starts with some creative opening credits (imagine a Disneyfied version of the animated opening credits of HBO's \"Carnivale\" and \"Rome\"), but lumbers along slowly for its first by-the-numbers hour. Once the action moves to the U.S. Open things pick up very well. Paxton does a nice job and shows a knack for effective directorial flourishes (I loved the rain-soaked montage of the action on day two of the open) that propel the plot further or add some unexpected psychological depth to the proceedings. There's some compelling character development when the British Harry Vardon is haunted by images of the aristocrats in black suits and top hats who destroyed his family cottage as a child to make way for a golf course. He also does a good job of visually depicting what goes on in the players' heads under pressure. Golf, a painfully boring sport, is brought vividly alive here. Credit should also be given the set designers and costume department for creating an engaging period-piece atmosphere of London and Boston at the beginning of the twentieth century.

You know how this is going to end not only because it's based on a true story but also because films in this genre follow the same template over and over, but Paxton puts on a better than average show and perhaps indicates more talent behind the camera than he ever had in front of it. Despite the formulaic nature, this is a nice and easy film to root for that deserves to find an audience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although I'm not a golf fan, I attended a sneak preview of this movie and absolutely loved it. The historical settings, the blatant class distinctions, and seeing the good and the bad on both sides of the dividing line held my attention throughout. The actors and their characterizations were all mesmerizing. And I was on the edge of my seat during the golf segments, which were not only dramatic and exciting but easy to follow. Toward the end of this movie, \"Seabiscuit\" came strongly to mind, although \"The Greatest Game Ever Played\" is far less complex a story than that film. In both cases, the fact that the events really happened deepened my interest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was extraordinarily impressed by this film. It's one of the best sports films I've every seen. The visuals in this film are outstanding. I love the sequences in which the camera tracks the ball as it flies through the air or into the cup. The film moves well, offering both excitement and drama. The cinematography was fantastic.

The acting performances are great. I was surprised by young Shia LaBeouf.He does well in this role. Stephen Dillane is also good as the brooding Harry Vardon. Peter Firth, Justin Ashforth, and Elias Koteas offer able support. The film is gripping and entertaining and for the first time in my life actually made me want to watch a golf tournament.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow, here is another great golf movie. That's at least three in the past few years that I've really enjoyed, that were well-done, beautifully-filmed and inspirational. The other two were \"Bobby Jones: Stroke of Genius\" and \"The Legend Of Bagger Vance.\"

This is a true underdog story, if there ever was one. To have an amateur defeat all the professionals and win the United States Open Golf Tournament is an unheard-of feat. I believe this is the only time in the 100 years it has ever been accomplished. How much of this film is fiction embellished for dramatic effect, I don't know. I do know that I plan on reading the book, and I know that in real-life, Francis Ouimet had a three-stroke lead in playoff with just two holes to go, unlike what we saw in the film.

Whatever. Francis Ouimet's victory over golf legends Harry Vardon and Ted Ray is fact. It is an amazing story and the filmmakers did a super job in presenting it here. It isn't something just for golf fans; this is a fun movie. Kudso to actor-turned-director Bill Paxton for an outstanding job.

Yes, a lot of this is just plain golf but there are subplots such as Ouimet's relationship with his father and with a pretty young woman who is obviously interested in him. It's also a touching story of someone giving a little kid a chance. The movie also deals with Vardon's demons of coming from the wrong side of the tracks and trying to make it in an elitist's sport, which it was at the time for both Europeans and Americans.

Shia LaBeouf is winsome as Ouimet as is Steven Dillane as Vardon. For those who don't know, Vardon was like the Tiger Woods of his day, maybe even more unbeatable. In the film, Vardon is pictured as a warm, nice guy; a genuine human being. the other major competitor, Ray (Stephen Marcus) is shown as somewhat of a brutish nasty guy.

The fourth main character of this golf story might be the coolest person in the film: a fifth-grade boy who winds up being Ouimet's caddie in the Open. He (Josh Flitter) brings a lot of humor and charm to the movie.

If all of this - a playoff with the huge underdog against two mighty pros and having come down to the last hole - were not true, you would think, \"Oh, man, this is so hokey. Who could believe this?\" That's what makes this true-life story fun to see finally captured on film. As with another sports film of 2005 - \"Cinderella Man\" - here is another excellent movie that got unjustly ignored when it came to awards. I guess nice films don't win awards.....just the hearts of their viewers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie gives golf a high mark, it was well acted and well directed. Giving you a view of history that some non-sports fans will enjoy. The historic factor alone gives it a high rating, the Brookline golf course was really done well. I am in the northeast and have seen Brookline as a fan, and as someone who loves the game. The movie was well done on all levels. A MUST SEE 5 stars. The acting was superb, Disney has another winner in its bag of Great movies. If for no other reason watch the film to give hope and encouragement to young people whom may not see the hope in their life. I would tell you that the setting, while in the late 1800's and early 1900's is very realistic. The costumes and dialect were right on the mark as well. Above and beyond the call of duty for a golf film. A Must see for fans and non-fans alike.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As you know \"The Greatest Game Ever Played\" is about golf. I used to snicker at the over-dramatic title, but through great visual display credited to director Bill Paxton (better known for his acting in Twister and hilarious supporting roles in Aliens and True Lies) we find out that this has much more meaning than a game.

Though the movie is about golf, it seems as though the sport is just the framework for what is really going on. What is really going on is a story of individuals being told they can't fulfill their dreams, be it age or social status. A conflict between a son's wishes and a father's demands. An English golf legend looking to bring the title home with the country breathing down his neck.

Shia LaBeouf (Even Stevens) plays Francis Ouimet, a caddy with a God-given talent who was never permitted to play golf in the first place. Despite the resentment of the upper class \"gentlemen,\" it was undeniable that Francis had a gift. What posed a greater threat was the discouragement of his father played by Elias Koteas (Sugartime, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) who felt that playing a mere game will never improve their poor living conditions. With the continued support of his mother, Francis eventually comes face to face with his idol, the golf legend Harry Vardon (Stephen Dillane).

More impressive than the game itself, was the movie's cinematic achievement. This proved that storytelling is successful through pure cinema. The entire movie could've been told without dialog. There are scenes in the movie that build strong suspense and powerful emotion with only pictures. In one particular scene, Francis Ouimet swings and the entire crowd turn their heads to watch the ball fly into the distance, all but the face of Harry Vardon looking intensely at Ouimet without a flinch. The ways in which the golfers visualize the course offer more aesthetic enjoyment.

A pleasant supporting cast completes the whole. Peyton List plays the love interest and looks worth playing for, and Josh Flitter plays a lovable caddy that keeps Ouimet focused as the pressure bogs him down. Golf fan or not, you'll appreciate the film for its beauty and its reminder that cinema can be a great medium to tell any story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not a sports fan - but I love sports flics! So, why ... what is a great sports flic ... this one. And the storytelling style, is very fine.

If you are looking for a reliably fantastic 2 hours of entertainment, \"Greatest Game\" qualifies mightily. Here is a movie that moves. Bill Paxton has gone to the same Director school as Ron Howard - a.k.a. Richie Cunningham, \"Happy Days\". That is not bad. Look at the immense body of fine work that Ron did after moving behind the camera.

Bill like Ron was a great actor, but will be a superstar director if \"Greatest Game Ever\" is the indication of things to follow.

Wonderful cinematography - fantastic direction - fine acting, especially by Elias Koteas, Shia LeBeouf, Marnie McPhail, Josh Flitter, Stephen Marcus, Justin Ashforth.

This is a must see film not just as \"feel-good\", nor \"sports film\", this is very good cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"if you watch this at home on DVD or Bluray! be sure you have great sound system. the musical score through this is what moves you through the movie. I have watched the movie several times and thought it was great but after just up-grading my home theater sound system, what a difference. I will be watching this movie many, many more times.

if you do not have a great sound system. find a friend who does and watch it there.

also watch the extra stories and behind the scenes extras that come with it (the BR or DVD.) the interview of Quimet in the 1960's talks about his scholarship fund...but for those times just boys got it. today I hope some of it goes to girls.......","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I will divide my review into following 5 categories each accounting a maximum of 100%(if perfect) ________________________________________________________________

Visual Pleasure:[100%] This is extremely pleasing movie visually. I had a great time watching it. Golfing scenes are very well shot and the dramatic effects on the green were quite amazing. I also loved seeing the old wooden golf clubs and the bag.

Director's Work:[70%] Bill Paxton is more associated to acting but this film shows he's got talent. Did a decent job.

Acting:[90%] Shia LeBeouf was very good in his role of Francis Ouimet(this guy can ACT well). The rest of the cast was also good.

Entertainment Value:[100%] I enjoyed every minute of it. It was overwhelmingly entertaining.

Script:[91%] Based on a true story and therefore it makes the film that much more special. It was intriguing right from the start and loved every scene till the very end.

__________________________________________________________________

My Advice: Definitely a MUST watch for all the Sports lovers especially Golf(You all will love it). Anyone who is looking for a nice entertaining movie and doesn't hate Sports can watch it.

_____

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At 20 years old, Francis Ouimet (Shia Lebouf) as his whole life ahead of him - in a way. The son of an immigrant family living in the late-19th to early-20th Century-era United States, class was a very limiting fact of life. If one is born poor, one stays poor; if one is born into the bourgeoisie, one has a tiny bit of opportunity; if one is born into the wealthy class, they essentially have it made in the shade. British gold champion Harry Vardon and Francis' golf idol (played by the criminally underrated Stephen Dillane) is the exception that proves the rule. Born and raised in a poor British family, his accomplished skill at golf allowed him to rise from the dirty mess of the poorest slums to the lush greens of the English country clubs. He has not forgotten this life lesson. Francis wishes to follow in Vardon's footsteps and similarly uses his great skill at golf to get into the 1913 US Open at age 20. But a tough course and formidable opponents (including Francis' idol Harry Vardon) are not all that Francis must deal with as a less-than-understanding father and cruel societal framework stand in his way of living his own dream.

I know what you are thinking - I thought it too - a Walt Disney produced film about the 1913 US Open starring the irritable Shia LaBeouf holds the possibility of being entertaining but it cannot possibly be a great film. Well, I am here to encourage you to think again. Despite what it may look to some on paper, The Greatest Game Ever Played is one of the best sport films in creation.

As with every great sport film, The Greatest Game Ever Played includes many exciting sport scenes but it is not a film *about* golf - it is a character centered film about using one's talents, following one's dreams, and breaking out of class barriers. Where The Greatest Game Ever Played works excellently as a themed sport film it also works just as well as a period film - the film's featured costumes and sets being the next best thing to actual time travel. The film also simply *looks* great and virtually unknown music composer Brian Tyler set the film to a wonderful piece of music. The cast is great as well with a subtle but powerful Stephen Dillane as British golfing champion Harry Vardon, a hilarious Stephen Marcus as man's man golfer Ted Ray, a hammy Josh Flitter as Francis' pre-teenaged caddy Eddie, and a surprisingly good Shia LaBeouf in the lead role as Francis. Actor Bill Paxton (Apollo 13, Titanic) turns director here for the second time (directing a full-length feature) in The Greatest Game Ever Played. He produces a fine product - incorporating plenty of heart, ingenuity, and an attention to detail in the making of the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oh my god what a story! This movie is very good and it had to be God who had this happen! You did a awesome job.The acting was really good you picked the right actors for sure. This movie is so good I am really glad you made this because if you had not then I would have never ever known about this story because I am not a big golf fan and I think it is kinda boring so thank you. I really enjoyed it and that is why I gave the movie a 10\\10.I liked Shia Labouf too he was perfect for the roll of Fransis Quimet. I hope most of that stuff you put in there was true also. Oh and some parts were funny and others I was just really happy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought that this movie was incredible. I absolutely loved it, even though my brothers didn't that much. The special effects were outstanding, and this movie is about my favorite sport; golf. The only thing that was disappointing about this amazing movie is that it is hard to watch two times or more in a row. This movie just absolutely tops everything else I have ever seen. It was everything I would expect out of a movie. I just loved it. Also, it was pretty kid-friendly. This movie helped me realize that when you put your mind to it, anything is possible. I would give it a pure 10\/10! It was better than The Legend of Baggar Vants, and the two Pirates of the Caribbean movies combined. Absolutely amazing. Loved it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The focus of the key relationship in a young man's life, that of his relationship with his father, was excellently portrayed in this movie, \"The Greatest Game Ever Played.\" The movie captured the essence of how important it is for a father to validate his son and let him know that he has what it takes to follow his dream.

It didn't matter that economic and social class mores presented obstacles to be overcome by both father and son. It also didn't matter that others were acclaiming the son in exuberant celebration. What mattered the most was that he saw his father's hand and then his face of approval. The real life challenge for both father and son had been met.

Considering that in real life the hero of the story kept his amateur status and became a businessman pretty much verifies that all that went before the match was the training ground for a valid father and son relationship.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED (TGGEP, 2005) is an amazingly uplifting, infectious underdog film that never (really) devolves into sappiness or heavyhandedness. Yes, it takes several liberties, as most Hollywood films do, but those liberties are forgiven as they actually add to the film's enjoyment, not detract from it. In fact, there are a lot of truthful moments in it. You can really tell that it's a \"Rocky\" type film from the film's outset, but who cares? Directed by none other than Bill Paxton (I know, right?!), it's expertly done and immensely watchable!

TGGEP tells the story of Francis Ouimet (played with confidence, cockiness, and class by superstar-to-be Shia LaBeouf), an amateur golfer from a working class Irish-French immigrant family living in Brookline, MA, in the early 1900s. Ouimet qualifies to play in the 1913 U.S. Open. Included amongst his competition is the legendary Harry Vardon (played with immense class, dignity, and ferocity by Stephen Dillane). Ironically, Vardon is the 2nd underdog in this flick! The film starts in 1870s Scotland where land developers tell the youngster that they are building a golf course on his home and that golf is a game not for the likes of someone like him. Francis undergoes some of the same prejudice as a boy in early 1900s Brookline. The stories converge at the 1913 Open.

What's ironic is that even as an adult and multiple major champion, Vardon is still an outcast in British society due to his upbringing. Francis learned much about golf from reading Vardon's books on the subject and Vardon is his idol all growing up. Unbeknownst to Vardon, they actually met back in 1900 in Boston after Vardon, who won that year's Open, was touring when Francis was only 7.

In addition to Francis and Vardon, entrants in the 1913 Open include Vardon's friend and champion Brit Ted Ray (boisterous Stephen Marcus) and classless, chest-thumping two-time defending champion John McDermott (Michael Weaver). The film really does a good job of showing the different personalities of these men.

Redheaded Marnie McPhail is ingratiatingly serene and stunning as Francis' supportive Irish mum and veteran Elias Koteas gives a stern, reserved, taciturn performance as his French dad. Addtionally, plucky young Josh Flitter (as Francis' pint-sized 10-year old caddy Eddie) almost single handedly steals the proceedings.

Paxton throws in a lot of modern details, such as special effects zooming-in shots to show the scoreboard positioning of the players and CGI for a lot of the golf shots to keep the film exciting and at a brisk pace so as not to make the film too much of a period piece. But the film still convinces us of a specific time and place.

What's interesting is that, while Rocky-like, this is all based on a true story! So the ending is satisfactory on so many levels. An entertaining film about golf set in the early 1900s...Wow!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am not a golf fan by any means. On May 26 about 10:30 PM the movie started with a scene in the late 1800's. Old movies I like but not golf however, within the first scene a young boy (Harry Vardon) is awaken by the voices of men. He goes outside to inquire what they are doing and is told they are going to build a golf something... So , then I turned the television off but something stirred me and it was back on. The movie is excellent. We then see this young boy now a man; professional golf player who is haunted with visions from his childhood. Then we meet the true focus of the movie Francis and the decisions he makes for golf. You meet his mother and father who want to protect him from the class thing that is so obvious during the period. Then there is little Eddie Lowery his caddy with encouraging words and little pushes that are instrumental in Francis winning. Don't want to give away too much . I was up until 2 A.M. This is super please see the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is first of all a good, exciting story, with well developed characters. But all the other details are well crafted on top of that, leading to a wonderful film. Don't let the Disney label lead you to think this is dumbed-down or only for kids -- it has a lot to offer to all ages, whether you like golf or not. One of the more impressive things is that the film manages to make a golf game look really exciting. And speaking as one of many who can't abide golf on TV, this is no small feat.

The first half of the film does a good job of laying out the basic characters with their motivations and backgrounds, enough that you end up liking all the important competitors once the pivotal match begins halfway through. Sure, you root for Ouimet's character all along, but his primary opponents are likable and interesting in their own right. The background layer is important once the golf match becomes a match using minds as well as golf clubs, since you get a good understanding for what each person's strengths and weaknesses are as the play progresses.

The computer effects are flashy, but they do help the story more often than not. The directing has all sorts of clever golf shots, and the period costumes and sets are really top notch.

There are a few small quibbles -- many of the minor characters seem a little too stereotypically cast from the class warfare mold, but this is forgivable with the major characters so well drawn.

Shia LaBoeuf playing Francis Ouimet is, as usual, callow and sympathetic. But the real standout is Steven Dillane, playing Harry Vardon. He rarely moves his face, but his intense, often sad, eyes and minor changes of expression say so much.

Ouimet's caddy Eddie Lowery, played by Josh Flitter, steals the scenes he is in. After you see the film, Google to find the actual photograph of Ouimet and Lowery at the tournament, to get an even better appreciation of how incredible this match truly was.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was blown away by this film. I'm one of those people who just takes a risk with movies that don't especially appeal to me sometimes, and I've got to say this one paid off. I mean, Wow! Even my young boys enjoyed the film (5 and 6 at the time), though I'm quite certain this was not geared to their age groups.

This movie was clean, too, which is a great plus. It is so great to sit down to a movie you thoroughly enjoy without profanity, violence (except one very brief scene) or anything else one is likely to find morally objectionable.

This movie brought you along on a journey you are so ready to believe because of the great acting. You feel the vast range of emotions portrayed along with the characters.

I never thought a golf movie would have me at the edge of my seat, but I couldn't help being intensely interested in how this one would turn out. I have nothing to compare it to since I have neither watched golf in reality or on film before, but everyone did a great job in keeping the pace and emotions captivating here. The score also did wonders; excellent, excellent score.

Even if you don't think this would be your kind of film, watch it. You may be pleasantly surprised. I certainly was.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was peeved that the best make-up academy award went to Dick Tracy, a horrible film with horrible make-up. The Nightbreed (based on the better titled \"Cabal\" novella) look terrific, the acting is excellent and David Chroneburg makes for a truly creepy and terrific antagonist.

The plot focus's on Aaron Boone, who has recurring nightmares about a society of monsters living under a cemetery. Is he making it up or are they real and calling to him? His Pyschologist (Chroneburg) convinces him he's a murderer, a slayer of families.

Troubled and suicidal, Boone seeks refuge in Midian but the monsters don't want him at first. He is also tracked by his girlfriend, Lori who refuses to give up on him even after he dies and comes back cold and monstrous.

But Decker isn't about to let Boone continue on. He raises the locals on an all out assault on Midian, like a holy war in gods name led by the devil.

Barkers themes of misunderstood monsters may come from his experiences as a homosexual male, but they are always strong and honest. Nightbreed turns the genre on it's head. The monsters are just trying to survive and want to be left alone, but man is hunting them.

A 20+ minute longer cut was originally submitted by Barker, but the studio chopped it into this fractured masterpiece. Barker is hard at work trying to locate the missing footage for a directors cut release. Until then, this version will have to do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What's fun about Barker's Nightbreed is that it's the story of a human on a rampage, a deadly threat to monsters everywhere. In this one, the monsters (the night breed of the title) are the \"good\" guys. It shares its sense of celebrating the different, the twisted, and the dark with the first Addams Family movie, and much of Tim Burton's work. It also has the goriness that one expects from a piece by Barker.

Especially fun is the performance by Cronenberg as the truly evil human doctor who is bent on destroying the Nightbreed. As happens in most classic monster movies, the villagers surround the monsters' castle with torches and pitchforks. Only this time, the modern setting replaces the castle with an old mausoleum and the rustic \"weapons\" with guns and bombs. And this time the sympathy you felt when you saw Frankenstein's monster burned in the windmill is the very center of the movie.

This isn't a masterpiece, and even Barker has done more interesting, and certainly more chilling, work. But it's pure fun, it looks great, and remains light without mocking itself. Worth a look!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nightbreed is not only great, it is also unique, even taking into account other Barker's movies, which never lack originality. An amazing adaptation of a very interesting idea for a book. For the horror genre, it has quite a few of subtle symbolics and references. Certainly a lot of fun to have, a a bit to think about, if one cares to. And, not to forget, a nice music score. Well, the special effects, as usual, get old faster than anything, but that is probably the only drawback. I've just seen it again after ten years, and I still find it something to recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't ask me why I love this movie so much...Maybe it came at a time in my life I desperately wanted to fit in, maybe it is the amazing monster effects, maybe because I enjoyed the novel \"Cabal\", but It's probably because I LOVE Clive Barker. I think it's fair to warn you the movie and the novel have no true resolve and like me you'll probably have a WTF moment at the end. At least two sequels were planned but never came about due to the fact the movie flopped for a few reasons. The studio made drastic cuts to the film cutting a good 30 or so minutes out of it and they did a HORRIBLE job promoting it. The adverts made it look like just another cheap slasher showing mainly the \"Button face\/Mask\" Decker character. This is a movie about the monsters! About fantasy! About a place called Midian! It's a story where the monsters are the good guys. There is truly nothing else out there like it! It's not a movie for everybody I suppose but it stands as one of Clive's many great works. Sit back and be prepared to be taken to Midian - where the monsters are.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nightbreed is definitely my most favorite movie, I've worn more than one tape as it is. The make-up is awesome, the story is lovely. It takes a few different twists and isn't quite as deep as the story it's based on (Cabal, by Clive Barker) but for a movie adaption it stays very true to source material. The only problem with this movie were the producer's vain attempts to turn it into a teen slasher movie, hence the changed ending to allow for sequels *eye rolls*. Apparently someday we're going to be getting a Director's cut that will (I hope) clear up this bit of nonsense. Until then, I'd suggest it to anyone who like dark fantasy type horror as opposed to Freddy\/Jason\/Micheal type slashers. I really don't know what would be comparable...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Adapting his own novel \"Cabal\" for the screen, author \/ screenwriter \/ director Clive Barker fashioned this marvelous story of outr\u00e9 horror and fantasy. Craig Sheffer plays Boone, a young man who becomes suspected of being a serial killer. The cops gun him down in front of Midian, on the surface a cemetery but which is actually a haven for monsters that have been shunned by society. When they lay claim to Boone and make him one of their own, this causes repercussions for everybody, including Boone's sweet girlfriend (the very cute Anne Bobby) and dubious psychiatrist (a most enjoyable David Cronenberg).

\"Nightbreed\" displays the kind of wild and twisted imagination that I don't see in movies all that often. For one thing, Ralph McQuarrie, an old hand at conceptual art having worked on such films as the initial three \"Star Wars\" entries, helps Barker to create excellent visuals for \"Nightbreed\", starting right away with the opening credit sequence. The visual and makeup effects are elaborate, and production design and cinematography quite impressive. Barker and crew do a wonderful job at creating this whole other world with compelling characters. It's colorful and flamboyant entertainment and is a pleasure to take in. And of course there's the strong sense of social commentary regarding intolerance and bigotry, not to mention the heavy consequences that can result from a person's actions.

Great supporting performances add to the fun. Cronenberg oozes lots of malevolent intent and is a real gas as the bad doctor, while Charles Haid is a fine love-to-hate-him type of antagonist, a rather nasty police captain. Doug \"Pinhead\" Bradley once again gets buried under heavy makeup as the weary Lylesberg, and is solid as a rock. Hugh Ross is great fun as Narcisse, as is Catherine Chevalier as Rachel (as an added bonus, she bares her breasts in one sequence). Simon Bamford, who played the \"Butterball Cenobite\" in the first two \"Hellraiser\" pictures, turns up here as well. There's even a cool cameo by 50's and 60's sci-fi star John Agar.

Danny Elfman supplies another of his fantastic scores, and Barker leads us steadily through the intriguing story towards a terrific apocalyptic showdown.

\"Nightbreed\" is an excellent genre film worth checking out for anybody who hasn't seen it. I give it a hearty recommendation.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're looking for an original horror flick, this might be the one for you. It's strange and at times lingers on stupidity, but it's just such a good looking, nice sounding and original movie, it never fails, except maybe during the over long climax. \"Nightbreed\" is a must see for horror fans, or for fans of monster movie make-up.

Boone (Craig Sheffer) has been having dreams of a town called Midian full of mutant creatures. In therapy, his psychiatrist Dr. Decker (horror director David Cronenberg) has come to the conclusion that Boone is a murderer, and gives him hallucinogenic pills, and tells him to turn himself in. After almost getting killed, Boone ends up at the hospital, where he runs into a mental patient who also knows about Midian, and tells Boone where to go. Midian, located in a graveyard, is inhabited by vile mutant creatures that don't let Boone in. After escaping with only a nasty bite, Boone is shot dead by the police, who were lead to his location by Dr. Decker. But Boone isn't dead. The bite causes him to live, and he goes off to Midian. Meanwhile, Boone's girlfriend Lori (Anne Bobby) tries to find Boone and get to the bottom of this. When Dr. Decker also finds out about this place, chaos ensues.

The plot seems long and complicated, but it really isn't hard to understand. The plot, among other things, makes this movie really interesting. The make-up effects are astounding. The creatures look unique and amazing, and make this a very appealing film. To add to more senses appeal, we have a musical score by Danny Elfman, that is both lush and bouncy, and fits the film like a glove. The shots in the movie are also set up beautifully. The cinematography is lovely, and the movie sets up an atmosphere that is never broken. Even the acting is good, with the biggest surprise being director David Cronenberg giving a great, menacing performance as the man, who for one reason or another, wants to see Boone dead. It's odd for a horror film to be this well done.

The problems with the movie...well there are a few, but the positives outweigh the negatives. The script features the occasional lame jokes to try and add some humor, but almost every one falls flat. The mutant creatures look great and for the most part are well acted, but sometimes it feels like they are just posing their awesome makeup for the camera. The worst part of the film would have to be the climax. It takes so long, and is just constant chaos. It's the portion of the film that moves from individual characters and nice tight knit shots, to fiery explosions from each direction and violence happening to characters we don't know or care about.

Overall, this movie is amazing to look at. It's a well done horror film, but even with that said, it has the occasional failure in character's lines, and a messy climax. Nonetheless, this is one to check out.

My rating: *** out of ****. 101 mins. R for strong violence and language.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why didn't critics like this movie?? I don't get it. This is easily my favorite Clive Barker effort. \"Hellraiser\" is a bit too rough around the edges (the film just never leaves that stupid house) and, lets face it, \"Lord of Illusions\" doesn't move at all!!! I have loved Barker's writing for years, especially his \"Books of Blood\". Terrifically entertaining. He has a vicious side to him that is totally unlike a Stephen King. He freely mixes in his own homosexuality and odd religious and occultic elements. I love love love love it. I also realize , however, that Barker is as much a dark fantasy writer as he is a horror writer. And fantasy just isn't my bag. Puts me right to sleep. Always has. I also think Barker works best with short stories. His novels tend to wander a bit. That was my experience when trying to read \"The Damnation Game\". It started out well. Then 100 pages in I thought \"where is this going?\" because it wasn't going ANYWHERE.

I read \"Cabal\" (the book Nightbreed was based on) and thought it was good. I ESPECIALLY like the elaboration on Decker's character. The way the mask talked to him and controlled him. I like the way Barker simply presents it. Black and white. There it is. He gives it a simplicity that's attractive and believable. When asked why Decker kills he says (simply) \"Because I like it\". Probably something Jeffrey Dahmer said at some point.

But I actually liked the film Nightbreed better than Cabal. I adore the visual attention to detail that Barker gives to his films. ADORE IT. I think it is just beautiful. Lord of Illusions had some of this as well. Some of the drawings in the beginning, during the Nightbreed credit sequence. It's like an entire vocabulary Barker dreamed up just for the Nightbreed world. I'd be curious to know how much was purely his design. I know he is an AMAZING artist who his own style and language as an artist.

Nightbreed is also (I think) BArker's most entertaining film. It moves very quickly. Well edited. It doesn't drag like Lord of Illusions does a little bit. Very quick. Everything in it is just perfect. It also works as a fantastic and scary little slasher movie. The stuff with the killer in the beginning killing the family and later tormenting the old man in the shop is really scary stuff. That mask is frightening. I'd be curious to know if Barker designed that as well. It's not just a hokey Jason or \"Scream\"-type mask. Something about it is really disturbing.

Anyway, this is a great flick. Definitely check it out if you haven't seen it. Highly recommended. One of my favorite horror films of all time. In my opinion Clive BArker's best. It IS scary and violent though, be warned","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched Nightbreed for the first time since seeing it in the theater almost 20 years ago, and while I remember liking it at the time, I don't remember being blown away by it like I was today. I really can't complain about anything in this movie. Craig Scheffer is excellent as the lead character of Boone. I never understood why he hasn't had a more successful career, because most of his early work is outstanding. As good as Scheffer is, Cronenberg is even better. His portrayal of the psycho Dr. Decker is unforgettable, and steals the show. The rest of the cast, which includes Doug Bradley is very good, save for the ridiculously over the top redneck sheriff. The visuals are good, and in some shots great. The Danny Elfman composed score is as good as it gets, and is among his best work. The ending was epic, with nonstop action for close to twenty minutes. Overall, Nightbreed is a tremendous accomplishment for Clive Barker, and ranks as my favorite of his movies, just slightly ahead of Hellraiser. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this film. The way these mutants looked, along with the tone of the film, is very good. Plus, David Cronenberg as Philip K. Decker was great! It makes me wonder if his personality is exactly the same in real life (except for the killings of course).

I was impressed with the creatures for this film, although this movie probably had a somewhat low budget, the mutants\/creatures\/monsters looked great, especially from 1990. This is definitely a unique film and not crap. It makes me want to go find a read the novella it's based off of. This is an interesting film because it shows how humans can be monsters and the \"monsters\" are the one with humanity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As an avid reader of Clive Barker, I truly anticipated this film prior to it's release... I was not let down. \"Nightbreed\" is a horse of a different color. Rich in the underlying decay of western civilization and dripping with alternative existence in a way we have never seen before. Barker is at his best when he allows us to peek into his world of unprecedented horror, yet showing us the other side of the coin. Here the \"Monsters\" are the hideously beautiful beings, while the humans are the deceptively ugly creatures of self indulgence. We soon learn that we were wrong all along. By far my favorite performance by the often under-used Craig Sheffer, and the added bonus of David Cronenberg as \"Decker\" is a cast best seen then believed. The \"Monsters\" are portrayed flawlessly by a bevy of English creature masters, whom many also brought the \"Cenobites\" to life in \"Hellraiser\", including \"Pinhead\" himself Doug Bradley. \"Nightbreed\" is an absolute must see for any fan of the horror genre, and anyone who needs just a little (Something) more out of their horror story. This IS Clive Barker at his finest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'd love to see some tie-in between NightBreed, The Fury, and the X-Men Series, sort of the way the second Outer Limit's Series would tie-in particular stories and plot-lines after the fact, to create a Story Arc although one was never intended. I'd also like know if some more information - anecdotal or otherwise, exists anywhere about the relationship and\/or collaboration between Clive Barker and David Cronenberg. I simply can't get my mind around the fact that David Cronenberg appeared as a mere actor in a Clive Barker film. Does any additional information on the subject actually exist? Finally, it's been 17 years since the film was released, and I had hoped there would've been a sequel by now. Does anyone out there know if there were any plans in the making that never came to fruition, or if in fact there are plans even now for a sequel?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a horror story alright. But perhaps not as you know it. The real monsters in this flick are humans. While the monsters, are human and prey. As weird as that may sound I see this as \"Monsters Inc\" for horror film fans.

Sure, the effects are of a std horror film, the monsters are there as in any monster based film, the gore is there as well, there even is a slasher in the shape of Dr Decker (played by David Cronenberg; I see flash of Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane in Batman Begins here - or is it the other way round?). And it is Decker &c who are the bad guys. The monsters want mainly to mind their own business, warding off intrusive humans more or less misguided, wanting to join there society.

By the end of the film you actually grow to like the quite little monsters (and the dog) - not perhaps what you had expected from the first few scenes....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely love this movie. I just managed to get a copy and saved it to watch on my birthday. This movie brings up several questions. One is. Who are the monsters of this world? To be different is just that. Different. The real monsters hide behind masks of ordinariness. They are those that everyone considers \"a nice quiet bloke\" who \"didn't bother anybody\". Or they are worse they are the characters such as played by Croneberg. Men who draw pleasure and power from carving up people and creating their own Books of Blood. I love the shapeshifters, people with gifts and those that may be abhorent for people to look upon. This movie touches on and explores what IS normal. Who are 'other' and what fear does to some. Even though I gave this movie 10 I am still sick of women who either scream or are so set in their ways that they cant see what is happening and being a vehicle for the things that destroyed Median. My other complaint was why didn't they ever make a second film. I for one would have loved to see a continuation of this most intriguing story that keep me captivated from beginning to end","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a perfect example of Barkers cinematic gifts to the horror\/ monster genre. I thought this movie did a great job of keeping the feel and look of the novella and comic books (or actually, the comics may have come second, I forget). This movie was made for Barker fans. It helps to have read the book beforehand, but isn't that important if you can follow a film. I saw to anyone who is on the fence about this film, read the book, then re-watch the film. You might find a new respect for the movie. I came to this movie a big fan of Barker already, and having read the book prior, loved the film instantly. There are great cameos, makeup, writing, directing, etc in this film. This movie does something that most monster\/ horror movies fail miserably at, show the monsters. They are there in full color, not hidden in shadows, and taking most of the screen time. Unlike other films that use quick cuts or trick lighting to hide the creature, this movie celebrates the grotesque, and casts them into the forefront as the good guy. Two thumbs up Clive. We're waiting for the Thief of Always :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wish there was a category to place this in other than Horror. It simply isn't. Granted it has it's horrific moments, however I don't feel that makes it a horror film. I will give that this movie could have been better. A million little things could have been changed to make it better.

That having been said I love this movie. I'm often sad that people misunderstand the whole point of it. It has always been clear to me that the point of this movie was to say... things aren't always what they seem. Sometimes 'evil', isn't.

Barker was at a Con I went to and he did a little talk then watch the movie thing. It was very interesting. Many things he wished to put in the movie couldn't be, and a chunk was cut out of the movie that he believed to be long lost. This was a chunk that helped shed light on Boone and his Girlfriend, as well as some other details.

I know some people are bothered by not having more information about all of the 'breed' in the background, however I always felt that gave the movie a more 'real' fleshed out feel. I have read the novella this was based off of as well as many of the comics. Because of this, the movie just always seemed like a staging ground for the whole story. A much more involved story that sadly has never has a chance to live.

Despite all of the flaws this movie might have I believe it has a lot to offer. The 'monsters' are wonderful, very imaginative. While the acting is sometimes a bit stiff there are some very quotable lines. Whenever I watch it I find something new. Keep and eye on Boones chest toward the end. At one point Decker stabs him and shortly after Boone falls on a card table. He ends up with a card stuck to his chest. This card stays there for a while even after Lori pulls the knife out. It stays there until Boone casually removes it. I love that. That was a lovely little detail I thought.

Basically what I want to say is that... if you are looking for a horror movie, don't watch this. If you believe that at times men can be more evil than anything we have ever dreamed up. This is the movie for you. This is a movie about how men destroy what they don't understand or fear.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is Clive Barker's masterpiece in my opinion. The movie has a great storyline and some amazing make-up and effects. The one thing I would love to see happen is a sequel. The movie was set up for a sequel and with improved technology the second movie could be incredible. David Cronenberg must appear in a sequel as well as Craig Sheffer. But this particular movie was a great original, creative and entertaining idea and I could watch it over and over again. Cronenberg was perfect in this movie and Sheffer added an interesting spice to the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For a movie like this, there's always something to follow by in years to come. Clive Barker, the man who brought \"Hellraiser\", makes a horror movie that is part-Goth, part-Mythology, and all horror in-between. \"Nightbreed\" are a bunch of mutants who only come out at night, and roam the place called Midian. Now a man name Boone(Craig Sheffer) claims to suffer hallucinations he goes to this shrink Dr. Decker(David Croneberg) who \"helps\" Boone with his problems. Unaware of this situation, Decker claims to be a purist which he's only a hate-monger in disguise. Boone however, goes into Midian and make the claim that he's one of the mutants there. But a mutant named Peloquin(Oliver Parker) sees Boone as meat! His bite however, spares Boone so after he is killed by a gauntlet of fire arms, he's one of them now. After being mislead by Decker, Boone does everything in his power to protect Lori(Anne Bobby) from him. Lori saves a mutant from the sun, and in return helps the others as well. I liked the lady mutants one who gives a smoky \"kiss of death\" and the Porcupine Woman who dreamed Boone show off her power that is so seductive and deadly at the same time. I've enjoyed this horror movie all the way, and the rule of it is, never trust a shrink! Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I experienced Nightbreed for the first time on television a year ago and i was pleasantly surprised with the results.

Clive Barker is said to have revitalised horror with Hellraiser but this is a film that effectively stalled his cinema career somewhat. What an unfortunate thing to happen because, like the inhabitants of Midian, this film seems to be misunderstood.

Barker has created a cross-breed of genre staples in this story - it begins as a traditional horror film but soon becomes a fable regarding mans inhumanity to man. Evoking sympathy for the devil is tough at the best of times but when the characters are as visually demonic as they are in this film it becomes nigh on impossible (cue the child!). The practically Klan-like human insurgence (pitchforks and holy wrath!) at the films conclusion becomes doubly upsetting in the face of what has gone before. As a parable of ethnic tension and white supremacy this film can be quite evocative.

I pity those who will not see the film from this angle and think of it as Barker's fantastical indulgence gone too far. We have a genuine forgotten gem here and the sooner the studio and Mr Barker make nice and devote some time to it - the better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film 'Nightbreed' is one of the best horror films I have ever seen. Overall, I'm not a big fan of horror films, but there is something about this film that is more atmospheric and different from any other horror film I have ever seen. Many horror films i've seen i've enjoyed watching, however, as they are based on horror, I know that the stories are unreal, as they are fictional, therefore I can't take them all seriously. Nightbeed, on the other hand, is a unique horror Genre as it has a feel of realism that i've seen in very few other horror films.

This films story on how a man gets murdered and ends up living with the undead in an underground cemetery shelter with undead monsters is the kind of story a person would get from a dreaming Nightmare as its a very unique and original storyline. Most horror films i've seen are all quite fake, but because Nightbreed was so incredibly sophisticated and geniously directed with superb acting, especially by Craig sheffer (Aaron Boone) amazing special effects, great lighting and fantastic dialogue, I found this film to have a sense of depth and maturity with no silly fake horror parody, whatsoever, that many other horror films have. Nightbreed, as well as being horror has elements of thriller, romance and action all rapped in one. If you haven't seen this film, I recommend you watch it, as I rate it a 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is masterly directed by Clive barker, he really knows how to establish a rapport between the audience and the characters. I think there is a sequel missing for this one, Barker should have dedicated to the sequel for this movie instead of doing the boring Lord of illusions, that is one I think was a real garbage. But I also think that because of this and because of the lack of the sequel NBreed has become a dark cult classic of horror films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Clive Barker of Hellraiser fame has written and produced a fantasy horror film that is funny and exciting.

The make-up done by Bob Keen and Geoffrey Portass was fantastic. It took quite an imagination to come up with these mutants that lived underground. It was really a treat to see the quality of work.

It wasn't particularly horrible, as the worst creature was actually a human serial killer.

I just saw Craig Sheffer in Shadow of Doubt the other day and he did a good job in this film also. Nothing spectacular, but fair. This was only Anne Bobby's third film, and she was good also.

The ending was spectacular and the rednecks got their just desserts, as did David Cronenberg. Ha!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let me say from the outset I'm not a particular fan of this kind of film, but Nightbreed holds a certain fascination for me with a message about perspective.

Back in the old days, the folks who inhabit Midian would have been called Zombies, the undead. And according to what Clive Barker has given us certain members of human kind, in this Craig Sheffer are born with the potential to become part of that world.

Psychiatrist David Cronenberg at first looking like the mild mannered professional has taken unto himself a fanatical mission to rid the world of the Nightbreed. He tricks the police into killing Sheffer, but Sheffer goes to a graveyard named Midian cemetery where the Nightbreed congregate and live underground.

Sheffer has also left a girl friend, Anne Bobby, who still has feelings for him even after he's been killed and is now one of the undead. She tries in her own small way to be a bridge to humankind.

Clive Barker's creatures are a pretty gruesome looking lot and are not particularly fond of humans. But it's plain to see that if humans left them alone, the Nightbreed in turn not bother with them.

Your sympathies are definitely with the Nightbreed especially after seeing a fanatic like Cronenberg and redneck police chief Charles Haid in action.

Clive Barker's been an out gay man for some time now and some have suggested to me that the Nightbreed is a metaphor for gay people. I can see where that would come in, especially since there are a whole lot of people who don't even think of gays as anything human because they're taught that way.

Granted Nightbreed is pretty bloody with a lot of gratuitous violence, but it also does make you think and I do like the way Clive Barker does turn traditional theology on its head and makes Craig Sheffer a kind of messiah for the Nightbreed creatures.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Delivers great acting and greater Special Effects. Stars David Cronenberg, one of my personal favorites, as Decker. It's special effects on the monsters were so good, you thought they might be really deformed. Clive Barker, however demented, scored a perfect 10 on my list.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nightbreed blew my mind the first time I saw it. And it's held up quite well over the years. The sets and monster effects work, are some of the best I've ever seen. Nobody I know seems to have seen this film, which I believe tanked at the box office, because of the lack of interest in horror, in the early nineties. It plays like a dark, horrific fairy tale, and is a lot deeper, then you'd think, with a strong message against bigotry, presented by a rich mystical past, that Clive Barker created. What sucks is the film ends on a really cool sequel note, that we'll probably never see. My only minor gripe is that Craig Sheffer is only a passable actor at best, and the the project might have benefited with a better actor in the part. Just a minor complaint though as Sheffer does alright. I had a similar issue with Scott Bakula in Barker's Lord Of Illusions, not really a terrible performance, but I just didn't like him in the role as much as I would have other people.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Featuring some amazing and wonderful characters, a new mythology, superbly designed and executed sets, Nightbreed is a great film.

Sadly the lack of a well known lead actor lead to the film finding obscurity.

Perhaps also the homosexuality of the director lead to the film being unwittingly censored by the white audience the film decries.

None the less the film is a treasure of the monster movie\/superhero genre.

A sequel featuring Highlander style flashbacks to different epochs in history would be interesting.

Another idea would be the foundation of the new Midian. Perhaps in Texas somewhere or the swamps of Lousiana with crocodile men and a traveling freak circus.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this years ago, and it's entertaining, but not profound. The basic story is of a young man who dreams of Midian, though he's not sure where it is or even if it really exists.

Spoilers Follow: He finally visits it, gets transformed to a Nightbreed creature by being bitten by another one. Then, he has to help the other members of the Nightbreed because they're being attacked by Canadians. (Save for the accents, they all act like Good Ol' Boys. Not much in tune with the Canadian psyche, eh?) Someone observed for \"monsters\" or \"Nightbreed,\" substitute \"Jews,\" and for the Canadians\/humans, substitute, \"Nazis,\" and you're supposed to get an insight into the struggle by the monsters versus the humans. Well, maybe.

One major objection I had was that while the underground city was interesting, it was rather ramshackle and, frankly, dirty. This must be a convention for movies with underground settlements. One would think that if the monsters were the good guys, some would have at least a little sense of decor.

The storyline is a tad thin, but that's to introduce characters. But it's entertaining enough for a repeat view.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Western Union\" is something of a forgotten classic western! Perhaps the reason for this lies in the fact of its unavailability on DVD in the United States. However, all is not lost as it has now appeared on Region 2 in England. This - being a blessing in some ways - is not only incongruous but totally ironic when one considers that a movie depicting the founding and establishment of such a uniquely American organization as The Western Union Telegraph Company is without a Region 1 release. It beggars belief! It simply doesn't make sense!

Produced by Fox in 1941 \"Western Union\" was directed by Fritz Lang. This was only the second occasion the great German director undertook to direct a western! He had done an excellent job the year before with Fox's \"The Return Of Frank James\" and would have only one more western outing in 1952 with the splendid \"Rancho Notorious\". Lang was no Ford or Hawks but with \"Western Union\" he turned in a fine solid western that holds up very well. Beautifully photographed in early three strip Technicolor by Edward Cronjager it boasted a good cast headed by Robert Young, Randolph Scott and Dean Jagger. The female lead is taken by Virginia Gilmore who really has little to do in the picture. An actress who never made anything of her career. Her presence here is merely cosmetic.

It is curious that Robert Young has top billing over Scott! It is clearly Scott's picture from the very beginning when we first see him in the film's terrific opening scene being chased by a posse across the plains. Young doesn't have much to do throughout the movie and seems out of place in a western. He just looks plain silly going up against Barton McLane in a gunfight! An actor who never really distinguished himself - except perhaps with \"Crossfire\" (1947)- Young appeared in a string of forgettable romantic comedies in the forties and fifties culminating with his greatest success when for seven years he was TV's \"Marcus Welby MD\" in the seventies. He died in 1998 at the age of 91.

\"Western Union\" recounts the connection by telegraph wire of Omaha and Salt Lake City. Scott plays a reformed outlaw hired by Western Union boss Dean Jagger to protect the line from marauding Sioux and to also take on McLane and his gang who are trying to destroy the line for their own devious ends. Robert Young is the young engineer from back east who joins the company and vies with Scott for the affections of Miss Gilmore. Some comic relief is provided by - and irritatingly so some would say - by Slim Summerville and John Carradine turns up in a meager role as the company doctor.

Altogether though a spanking good western, albeit on Region 2, but in sparkling good quality that fans will be delighted with. My only crib is that there are no extras, not even a trailer and that terrible cover with those dull graphics. UGH!

Footnote: Interestingly the associate producer on \"Western Union\" was Harry Joe Brown who later with Randolph Scott would create a partnership that would produce some of Scott's finest westerns in the fifties.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I doubt if the real story of the development of Western Union would ever have gained a real audience. Instead of talking about the building of the telegraph system out west, it was the story of board rooms, dominated by one of the most interesting (and disliked) of the great \"Robber Barons\": Jay Gould. Gould picked up the struggling company and turned it into a communication giant - and part of his attempt at a national railway system to rival Vanderbilt's. But this, while interesting, is not as exciting as the story of the laying of the telegraph lines themselves. At least, that is how audiences would see it. Jay Gould died in 1892. Had he lived into the modern era, and invested in Hollywood, he probably would have agreed to that assessment too.

The film deals with how the laying of the telegraph system is endangered by Indians, spurred on by one Jack Slade (Barton MacLane). Slade, a desperado, is not happy with the development of a communication system that will certainly put a crimp in his abilities to evade the police in the territories. He is confronted by the man in charge of the laying of the telegraph wires, Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger), Creighton's associate Richard Blake (Robert Young), and a quasi-lawman Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott), who is Slade's brother. Blake, an Easterner with little understanding of the West, is romancing Creighton's sister Sue (Virginia Gilmore), but finds it hard to get used to his new surroundings. But he does become a close friend of Shaw, especially in trying to confront Slade.

Slade was a real Western criminal, by the way, and the subject of a section of Mark Twain's ROUGHING IT. He was hanged in the 1870s. But he did not have any involvement in stirring up Indians against railroads or telegraph companies. However, MacLane makes him a memorably evil, and totally vicious type. His killing of one of the major characters is done suddenly and from behind - and he views the corpse as though he has just got rid of an annoyance. But Lang is responsible for that, as well as other touches. Look at the sequence with Chill Wills, where he is on a telegraph pole repairing it. He spits tobacco juice several times while talking to Young, who gets a little splattered. Then there is an Indian attack which we watch from the ground level. At the conclusion, Young suddenly gets splattered again, but it's not brown but red that covers him. He looks up at the pole's top, and there is Wills with an Indian arrow through him.

It is an exciting film to watch, and well worth catching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While escaping from a heist of a bank, the outlaw Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott) helps Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger), the chief-engineer of the Western Union that is surveying the Wild West and had had an accident with a horse. In 1861, Vance regenerates and is hired to work for the Western Union with the team that is installing the poles and cable from Omaha to Salt Lake City. Vance and the engineer from Harvard Richard Blake (Robert Young) flirt with the gorgeous Edward's sister Sue Creighton (Virginia Gilmore) and she chooses Vance. However, his past haunts him when the outlaw Jack Slade (Barton MacLane) steals the Western Union cattle disguised of Indians.

\"Western Union\" is a good but predictable western directed by Fritz Lang. The story shows the difficulties of the brave and idealistic men responsible for installing the telegraph through the West, facing thieves and Indians. The entertaining story has action, drama, romance and funny situations, but with the exception of the identity of Jack Slade, there is no surprise in the story. Randolph Scott gives another magnificent performance with a great cast. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"Os Conquistadores\" (\"The Conquerors\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hard to believe this was directed by Fritz Lang since he mostly directed crime dramas and mysteries. This movie has a cast that includes Robert Young, Randolph Scott, Dean Jagger and John Carradine. Scott plays an outlaw who tries to go straight and leave his old gang and winds up saving Jagger's life. Jagger works for Western Union, a telegraph company that plans to have telegraphs out west. Jagger hires a lot of men to make sure it is done because they have to worry about Indian attacks and bandits. Scott is in charge of the men and Young is a telegraph expert who can't shoot a gun but can ride. Scott meets up with his old gang who want to stop them but Scott can't tell anyone. It's a pretty good western and Lang should of directed some more westerns.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fritz Lang directed two great westerns: \"Western Union\" and \"The Return of Frank James\". The Frank James movie equals \"Jesse James\". \"Western Union\" is one of Randolph Scott's great westerns. I have never seen Robert Young in a western before; he is terrific as the telegraph employee. This is the only movie I can think of that is about the telegraph company opening up in the west. It is a high-geared story about the telegraph in the west, a triangle love story, and about loyalty.

The supporting cast is superb. Dean Jagger, who made a few westerns, plays the telegraph manager. Virginia Gilmore, who plays Mr. Jagger's sister, is the love interest in the movie. Ms. Gilmore had a short career in movies. She quit films in 1952 and became a drama coach. She is primarily known as the first Mrs. Yul Brynner. It is great to see Slim Summerville in a movie with Mr. Scott again. They were in two other great movies: \"Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm\" and \"Jesse James\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film in the theater way back in the 40s when I was a kid and always remembered the ending. There is nothing like the first impression but some movies are always a treat each time they are viewed. Something just resonates with them. This is one of those films and I agree with another reviewer who said Fritz Lang should have directed more westerns. To add to it I have always liked Randolph Scott and Robert Young. In fact, Robert Young stars in what I consider my favorite movie if I have to name just one, not an easy thing to do. That film is Northwest Passage. It led me to the superb historical novels of Kenneth Roberts. Western Union likewise led me to reading Zane Grey's novel which, in this case turned out to be one of those rare cases where I like the movie better than the novel. Not that Grey's novel is a bad one; I just like the movie story better. The movie in no way resembles the novel. It is a completely different tale, one of the biggest departures from a book I have seen.

I can't add much to the other reviews except to say I agree with many of them. I, too, wish it would be released on DVD. \"Whatever happened to Randolph Scott happened to the best of me.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If Western Union isn't exactly the real story of the construction of the Transcontinental Telegraph, it certainly does capture the spirit and dedication of the people involved with the project.

Dean Jagger is the man in charge and one fine day he's thrown from a horse and sustains some fractured ribs. An outlaw on the run, Randolph Scott, finds Jagger and is ready to steal his horse, but changes his mind and brings Jagger to help. Later on he's hired by Western Union and works for Jagger.

Jagger also hires a young easterner played by Robert Young who's an engineer. Young is doing one of his few loan out films away from MGM for 20th Century Fox. Both Young and Scott become friends, but rivals for Jagger's sister Virginia Gilmore.

Western Union has plenty of action, enough to satisfy any western fans. The telegraph crew has to deal with outlaws, Indians, and your garden variety labor troubles.

Slim Summerville as the timid cook and Victor Killian as the frontier character assigned to guard him have some of the funniest scenes. They both provide some good comic relief.

Fritz Lang got good performances from his cast and kept the film moving briskly along. Western Union is solid western entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best western movies ever made. Unfortunately, it never got the recognition it deserved. The storyline, the action and the music was in my mind, one of the best. I give it a double A+. Randolph Scott gave a terrific performance along with the other members of the cast. The ending was one of the best of any western made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lang does Hawks as well as Hawks does in the first part of this extraordinary Western, before settling down into typical deterministic, dark and guilt-haunted Lang for the finale.

This is one of those films that shows its greatness almost instantly but at the same time very subtly. Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott) is on horseback and being pursued, we know not why -- he stumbles on wounded Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger) and decides to take his gun and horse, but discovering that Creighton is in a bad way, decides to fix him up first. This is conveyed mostly through facial expressions and very brief, clipped dialog - in 2 minutes we know that Shaw is an outlaw, but basically a good guy. Shaw ends up helping Creighton on his way to civilization, then disappears.

Cut to a few weeks or months later, with Creighton on the mend and in charge of an expedition to lay telegraph wire going west from Omaha. He hires Shaw as a scout, who tries to leave when he finds out that Creighton is in charge; but Creighton wants him anyway, repaying a debt and sensing something quality. Also hired is a tenderfoot, son of a benefactor of the project, but atypically the Easterner Richard Blake (Robert Young) is quite competent as he shows right away in an amusing but exciting bronco-busting sequence. Both of the hires vie for Creighton's sister Sue (Virginia Gilmore) who - again not typically - seems quite as able to take care of herself as any man. The camaraderie between the three men, the comedic elements involving an unwilling cook and various rough and tumble types, and the wonderfully played light romantic elements dominate the first third of the film and reminded me more of Howard Hawks' \"Red River\" or \"Only Angels Have Wings\" than most Lang - but they are so well played and the action progresses so naturally that it doesn't matter, and doesn't alter our pleasure - if it does perhaps change our expectations - as the more usual Langian themes of the haunted past, dark secrets and the immense pull of the easier, destructive and evil ways come to dominate the later part of the film. Shaw's old pals come back to haunt him as the the wagon train and its wires move westward; attacks mount on the crew, and Shaw has to wrestle with what, if anything, he is to tell Creighton about his tortured relationship with Jack Slade (Barton MacLane), leader of the outlaws.

Beautifully shot in early Technicolor and moving fairly seamlessly from sound stages to western locations, this is for my money easily Lang's best western and one of his very best films, conveying as potently as any of his films the tragic inability of men to escape their pasts and build a new future. Scott is as good as I've seen him, showing more with a flick of an eye than a lot of actors can do in a paragraph of dialog, and the rest of the cast is uniformly fine. The inevitable showdown between Shaw's past criminal life and his potential future is extraordinary, and a surprise even for a longtime Lang devotee such as myself; and even in 1941 it seems there was no place more fraught with meaning on the margins of civilization than the barbershop and the dusty street outside. You can get a shave, you can feel like a new man, but you can't really ever be one as long as the old ties are still holding you back.

Genius.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here's another of the 1940's westerns that I watch whenever it comes on TCM or FMC, because although it may be flawed historically, it is extremely entertaining and well acted, plus it's got Randolph Scott, my favorite actor second only to Gary Cooper-Well, OK, fourth behind COOP, Charlton Heston, and Gregory Peck. But the film itself, to me anyway, is reasonably historically accurate and as I said before, well acted and \"flows\" very well-I bet I've seen it 50 or 60 times, and enjoy each viewing more than the one before. I have it on tape from TCM but would buy it in a minute if it ever came out on DVD. See it if you haven't- I guarantee you'll like it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a sort of hidden gem. It has little to no promotion, no fanfare, no classic status, and it deserves all of the above! One of the great directors of cinema, Fritz Lang, has created a real gem in this excellent western. A fine cast led by Randolph Scott (in probably one of his greatest performances), the always sturdy Dean Jagger, Robert Young as a surprisingly accomplished dude plus many veteran character actors: Chill Wills, Slim Summerville, John Carradine, Barton MacLane and others in an exciting Zane Grey story of the laying of the Western Union cable across country. It has tense drama, sprinklings of humor and great effects. It's reminiscent of DeMille in ways and yet Fritz Lang leaves his own stamp on it. At very least this is a damned good western!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WESTERN UNION tells in melodramatic fashion the stringing of telegraph lines between two points out west. Siblings Dean Jagger and Virginia Gilmore work for Western Union, and Randolph Scott and Robert Young work for the Creightons. Indians and some bad white guys get in the way, but nothing can stop America's progress. This sense of manifest destiny is greatly enhanced by a first-rate musical score and vibrant color photography. Scott is a bank robber looking to mend his ways, and both he and engineer Young vie for the attention of the perky Gilmore. Lots of great character actors help keep the large production moving forward.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Western was set in 1861 and had to do with the creation of the first transcontinental wireless lines that were laid by Western Union. While nice guy Dean Jagger (sporting lots of hair) did his best to get this done, there was a bad guy just waiting to undo this for his own selfish reasons. So, it's up to either Randolph Scott or Robert Young to save the day.

This is certainly one of the better 1940s Westerns I have seen and it nearly garnered an 8--it was that good. However, for the life of me, I have no idea why Fritz Lang was assigned to direct this film--after all, he knew nothing about Westerns. His forte was drama--and I guess this movie is a drama of sorts--just set in the old West. Strange, yes, but it seemed to work out okay, though I wonder how this great German director felt about being given this job.

As for the rest of the film, it's exceptional--with vivid color, great location shooting and very good acting. As usual, Randolph Scott put in another relaxed and realistic performance. I was surprised, though, with Robert Young being also cast in the film, but it was a good casting decision--he was supposed to be a Harvard-educated Easterner. When I saw Barton MacLane was also in the film, I pretty much assumed he'd be the \"baddie\" and my thoughts were well founded, since he made a career out of playing jerks! As for the script, it seemed pretty ordinary for the most part, but the final showdown between Scott and Barton MacLane was a lot better than I'd hoped--making this movie ending on a very high note.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ASCENDING to power in 1933, Hitler and his \"National Socialist German Workers Party\", which of course we all know as the Nazis, tightened their grip on the country more and more as the time went by. Early in their rough-shod trampling of the German People, they called any and all artists, newspaper men and film makers into their Nazi HQ in order that the may be informed of just what the newly declared \"Third Reich\" (aka 'Empire') expected of them.

WHEN the Master Director from the German Cinema's Silent Impressionist and Expressionist era, Mr. Fritz Lang, was called in to meet with Herr Goebels; he listened attentively and said nothing. Immediately after leaving the Minister of Propaganda's office, Herr Lang went directly to the train station and took a passenger directly to Paris. Not even going back to his residence, Fritz Lang did not return to Germany (at least not until many years later. He remained in France; eventually immigrating to the United States of America.*

MR. LANG went right to work in America; creating a variety of most enjoyable, solid and substantially literate upper echelon movies for many a year. Included in this sm\u00f6rg\u00e5sbord of titles is today's lucky subject, WESTERN UNION (20th Century-Fox, 1941).

TYPICALLY a film about the Old West and Pioneer Days needed both quality as well as quantity of cast. WESTERN UNION qualified on both requisites. We are treated to a fine array of starring talent as well as a supporting cast which makes just about every minute and each scene a delight to our senses.

HEADING up the playbill are Robert Young, Randolph Scott, Dean Jagger and Virginia Gilmore. Others prominently displayed are folks like John Carradine (playing not a vampire or other scary guy, but a Physician), George \"Slim\" Summerville (veteran character actor, Silent Film veteran and graduate of Mack Sennett's Keystone Comedies), Chill Wills (always dependable supporting player and former singer in \"The Avalon Boys\") and burly bad guy Barton MacLane. Added to this mix, we have names like Russell Hicks, Victor Killian, Minor Watson, George Chandler, Addison Richards, Irving Bacon, James Flavin, Francis Ford, Frank McGrath and Kermit Maynard (Ken Maynard's bro).

PROMINENT in those American Indians featured are: Chief Big Tree, Chief Thundercloud and Mr. Jay Silverheels. Also featured is that one great representative of the Aboriginal Peoples of North America is that great, singularly impressive and memorable example of the Red Man, the Louisiana Native, Iron Eyes Cody (born Espera DeCorti of Sicilian immigrant parents).

THE filming of the fine outdoor scenes was done on location in Arizona and Utah and rendered in the highest grade of Technigolour available. (There is no Monument Valley; but then, that's the Province of Mr. John Ford.) IN some respects this film is a far more amazing accomplishment than we might think; for it took a sort of pulp magazine story, adapted it to the tastes and idioms of the pre-war America of the late thirties and early forties. All of this being done by a German born Director who was only had been in Hollywood and America for the shortest length of time.

IN its final analysis, WESTERN UNION, while it may not be the most historically accurate example of the Western Genre; we just don't care. It scores in all of the necessary categories needed for a great night at the movies! SO, who really cares about little details such as \"accuracy\"?

WE give Mr. Lang and 20th Century-Fox a rating of ****!

NOTE: * We just saw a special on PBS station WTTW, here in Chicago that was all about all of the Film Actors, Directors and other Artisans whom the Nazi rise to power caused to take refuge in America and Hollywood. (It seems that Movie Folks and Scientists were the biggest Export for Germany at this particular time; being that the Scientists who built the Atomic Bomb, as well as the future NASA people, came from Europe at this time.)

POODLE SCHNITZ!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Scientist Carl Lehman (well played by David McIlwraith) gets blown up something terrible in a deliberate chemical explosion. He has his brain transplanted in the body of a nearly indestructible metal cyborg suit by his evil colleagues who are led by wicked obsessive fellow scientist Alex Whyte (a perfectly hateful portrayal by Richard Cox). Lehman embarks on an all-out killing spree. It's up to nasty mercenary Hunter (a wonderfully loathsome turn by the divine Pam Grier) to put a stop to him. Director Jean-Claude Lord, who previously helmed the under-appreciated slasher psycho thriller \"Visiting Hours,\" stages the plentiful action scenes with considerable verve and maintains a zippy pace throughout, thus ensuring that this flick sizes up as an enjoyably trashy sci-fi\/horror action outing. Paunchy character thesp Maury Chaykin easily cops top acting honors as disgusting fat creep Burt, who in the movie's single most tasteless sequence has a brutal fistfight with Lehman's pregnant wife Lauren (a winning performance by the lovely Teri Austin). Stan Winston's nifty make-up f\/x and Paul Zaza's thrilling score further add to the overall sleazy fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"as a fan of robocop, i always loved this movie. i seen it when it first came out, and finally i bought it on DVD from Brazil, it was never released in the us on DVD. i like the film, but like everything else in this world, everyone has their opinion, love it or hate it. no matter what a movie does, someone will always say \"why didn't they do it another way?\" in other words you cant please everyone. if you love robocop, you will love this film. to me, its so unique thats its not cheesy, or silly like a lot of lower budget movies. this film always kept me interested. i can see a few scenes that robocop borrowed from here, but tell me what movies don't do that? a lot of films use other ideas from other movies, and sometimes change them around. fun film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Looks as if the Robocop writer has been wholesale looting The Vindicator. This is a very solid horror\/action movie about a man set up in an accident to be used in cruel experiment. Anyone who have seen Robocop knows the story. Watch out for Pam Grier as a bitchy and darn good looking assassin. This highly effective, violent and bloody horror movie may not be to everyones liking, but this Canadian outing is well worth seeking out for anyone who is fan of the genre. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The combination of amazing special effects and oscar worthy acting makes the Vindicator one of the most important sci-fi films of recent years. For some reason still unknown to me this gem was found in a bargain bin, why some worthless human thought it right to dirty a modern classic by relagating to a bargain bin is beyond me. I have never been so terrified by a man in tin foil and random bursts of fire. Forget Terminator, Robocop, Aliens, and other films that blaintly ripped off this masterpiece, the vindicator is an unstoppable force.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is an evolutionary piece - from Terminator to Robocop .

Stan Winston did the SPFX !

In this film, a scientist working in a sinister robotics company with a really creepy boss(they always are) gets is killed by them in a horrible lab explosion and has his brain placed inside an indestructible robot body .

The rest of this movie goes on with a romance angle as this Cyborg\/Man regains consciousness and wreaks havoc while trying to communicate with his wife, played by the gorgeous(back then in 1986) Terri Austin . (He tries to reconnect with his old life, like in that scene in RoboCop)

The rest of this movie is about breaking things, while trying to defeat the evil his evil boss from recapturing him for some ill-defined 'turn humans into cyborgs' project .

This film pays homage to previous movies like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL - - as the cyborg breaks free like the giant robot Gort does .

Except for the 'Frankenstein Suite' designed by Stan Winston, this movie's production values are typically Canadian: SLEAZY ! !

Pam Grier stars in this film as an hired killer-commando, a cheap role of the likes she was doing so much of during the 80's .

As for a Sci-Fi Horror B movie, out of 4 Stars, this film ranks about a <3","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu (1976) is a vastly underrated early work by director John Woo. The film stars Dorian Tan (Tan Tao-liang) and features Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung and James Tien in significant supporting roles. Many people believe, or have been lead to believe by deceptive advertising, that this is a Jackie Chan film. This is not a Jackie Chan film, Dorian Tan is the star but Jackie gives one of his best (most serious) early performances.

The Hand of Death is about a Shaolin disciple named Yunfei (Tan) who is sent on a mission to assassinate a Shaolin traitor named Shih Xiaofeng (Tien) and protect a revolutionary named Zhang Yi (Woo). Along his journey Yunfei meets up with a young woodcutter named Tan (Chan) and a disgraced sword fighter (Chang Chung) known as \"the wanderer.\" Both men have suffered at the hands of Shih and want to take revenge. The three team up to defeat Shih and his eight bodyguards and escort the revolutionary to safety.

The martial arts action is above average under the direction of Sammo Hung. Dorian Tan uses his trademark high kicks very effectively as the \"Northern eighteen styles kicks\" along with some \"Southern five styles boxing.\" Sammo Hung and Jackie Chan provide excellent martial arts performances as well. James Tien is not the greatest martial artist on the Jade screen but does an acceptable job. Some of the early fights are a bit slow and seem over choreographed but the final showdowns featuring Chan, Tan and Hung are very good.

Director John Woo provides plenty of interesting character development in the film, which is refreshing. The cinematography by Leung Wing Kat is very stylish, unique and beautiful for a kung fu film of this era. Joseph Koo's music: a combination of soft flutes and 70's \"Shaft\" style orchestral pieces is kung fu cinema at its best. Hand of Death is not Jackie and Sammo's usual kung fu comedy. Hand of Death is a serious, straightforward revenge driven story.

Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu is an underrated classic in the old school kung fu genre. The film is one of the best artistically of its time and a preview of the great things to come from Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung. Hung's great choreography is put on display here before his directorial debut and Chan's early charisma and talent can be clearly seen.

Hand of Death is a solid, stylish old school kung fu film and a brilliant early work of the legendary John Woo.

Kung Fu Genre Rating 7.5\/10

Wanderer to Tan (referring to his new weapon): \"The Little Eagle Wing God Lance.\"

Tan: \"Just a knickknack.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE HAND OF DEATH most definitely rates a ten on a scale of one to- due, in no small part, to John Woo's masterful direction, coupled with Kat's superb cinematography: some of the leisurely tracking shots alone are worth the price of a rental; there are moments when this one borders on becoming an art-house film. Both James Tien and Sammo Hung make for the kind of villains you can't help but love to hate. Tien is particularly good as the baddest of the bad. It's a role reversal the likes of which I don't think I've ever seen before (Tien normally played a hero and, in fact, with his moustache, I didn't even recognize him at first). Sammo's goofy \"buck teeth\" only make an already unsavory character seem even more flawed; that he also happens to be a skilled martial artist makes him even less likable- in a villain you love to hate kind of way. His choreography of the fight scenes throughout is fantastic. Jackie Chan appears briefly (early on and late in the going) as a blacksmith, and I believe I actually glimpsed Yuen Biao somewhere along the way. Tan as the lead is nothing less than magnificent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is amazing. You will NEVER laugh harder. It's a target. No, I think it's...yes it's...A BOOB! This movie gets funnier by the second--like when Jackie Chan's character finally dies in his final fight scene. This movie is velly velly seekwet like treasha! Congrats if you buy or rent this. You'll never return it, in my opinion. I didn't, and I haven't found it in a store since. I watched this movie once and I was forever in love with Kung-Fu action flicks. If you're looking for an amazing film in the realm of great production value, good or even mediocre acting, and good special effects...this is NOT that movie. If you're looking for laughs and timeless wonderment, pick this up for a dollar and you'll probably never let it go. With friends, popcorn and drinks, it's the perfect evening.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This program was on for a brief period when I was a kid, I remember watching it whilst eating fish and chips.

Riding on the back of the Tron hype this series was much in the style of streethawk, manimal and the like, except more computery. There was a geeky kid who's computer somehow created this guy - automan. He'd go around solving crimes and the lot.

All I really remember was his fancy car and the little flashy cursor thing that used to draw the car and help him out generally.

When I mention it to anyone they can remember very little too. Was it real or maybe a dream?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently visited the Magic Kingdom as an adult with my mom, her best friend and my adult sister. Disney World is often mistakenly perceived as a place for just children, but when you see quality shows like Mickey's Philharmagic, you realize that the magic of Disney is for everyone! It was such a great show that we left the theater and turned around and got in line again. And then a third time. It was absolutely breathtaking. I would encourage anyone who goes to Disney World to check out this show, which is not just a show but a world wind, fun filled ride with Donald as he once again lets his temper get him in trouble!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not a Disney fan at all, but I happen to be in Orlando for a friend's wedding. So my traveling partner and I went to Disney for a few days. I haven't seen a good 3-D effect in, well..ever. So I usually try to stay away from these presentations. The 3-D effect in this was so good. I'm a grown man of 38, and even I wanted to try and reach out and touch. It's THAT good! Word of advice. At the end, look to the back of the theater on the wall. Put it like this...the first time I saw it, the effect wasn't working. So I told my friend...\"It would have been nice if....\" My friend said, \"That's exactly what happens. It's not working for some reason.\" It's an awesome show. You will NOT be disappointed!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's not a movie, but an experience!

Not the usual eye candy I thought it would be. Too many things are happening at once, your senses almost couldn't handle it. A product of cutting-edge technology (we were torn between just sitting back to enjoy the show and putting our 3D glasses on and off to decipher the magic), the music is great (it's a concert!), the Disney characters are in it (and you get to BE part of their world), it's funny, it's magical, it's exciting--I know this is beginning to sound like an advertisement--but it really is that awesome! Beats Christmas in bringing out the kid in you!

This attraction alone already makes going to Disney all worth it. ;)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the best 3-D experience Disney has at their themeparks. This is certainly better than their original 1960's acid-trip film that was in it's place, is leagues better than \"Honey I Shrunk The Audience\" (and far more fun), barely squeaks by the MuppetVision 3-D movie at Disney-MGM and can even beat the original 3-D \"Movie Experience\" Captain EO. This film relives some of Disney's greatest musical hits from Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, and others, and brought a smile to my face throughout the entire show. This is a totally kid-friendly movie too, unlike \"Honey...\" and has more effects than the spectacular \"MuppetVision\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The three-part series ended last night on PBS, which I believe was its first wide exposure to an American audience. The richness of its text and the unique quality of its filming are high points. It seems very novel to view and hear an action play employing the vernacular of Georgian England, Jane Austen's filmed drawing rooms being the primary example of that form of speech. Yet it is the scope of drama overwhelming the senses that makes quaint language fit perfectly into each and every scene. Such bold exposure to an old reality is evocative of literary giants like Tolstoy or Shakespeare while at the same time entertaining in the manner of a C. S. Forester or Patrick O'Brian sea saga. The universality of basic human condition lies at its center.

Narrator Talbot as played by an actor with the almost perfectly appropriate name of Benedict Cumberbatch (surely not even Dickens could beat that one!) alternates between stodgy jingoism and extreme vulnerability, an acting tour de force. Indeed, I cannot recall among this very fine cast any misstep of interpretation. That is a tribute not only to the actors themselves, but to the director as well.

The most impressive element, however, is how perfectly life aboard a man-of-war en route to Australia in the early 1800's is presented. That is especially true of how the motion of the ship becomes almost a character itself, something sea stories rarely take into account except as backdrop. Anyone who has ever experienced mal de mer in person will recognize it instantly, and appreciate all the more how difficult it must have been to recreate within the context of filming.

This is no fanciful Pirates of the Caribbean. Some effort must be expended in attaining an understanding of its nuances.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the second part of this beautiful period piece set on a ship sometime in the 19th century. Golding's book must be responsible for some of the superb dialogue but everything else was good too! I especially liked the way they created the period and feeling of being on the ship so well. For me this had a feeling of completeness about it which I know I won't be able to convey in words... Perhaps it was the way they mixed in technical and historical details about sailing in the eighteen hundreds to the story without messing it up. Benedict Cumberbatch was excellent, as was the rest of the cast. It's not often a mini-series sends me to the \"zone\", but this one did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Meticulously constructed and perfectly played, To The Ends Of The Earth is a simply astonishing voyage out of our reality and into another age.

Based on William Golding's trilogy, these three 90-minute films chronicle the journey towards both Australia and experience of youthful aristocrat Edmund Talbot (Benedict Cumberbatch) aboard an aging man o' war in the early 19th century as he heads for a Government position Down Under.

Among the crew and hopeful emigrants sharing his passage are a tempestuous, bullying captain (Jared Harris), a politically radical philosopher (Sam Neill), a canny 1st lieutenant who's worked his way up from the bottom (Jamie Sives) and, fleetingly, the first brush of love in the form of a beautiful young woman (Joanne Page) whose ship literally passes in the night.

Quite aside from the astonishing degree of physical historic accuracy, director David Attwood and screenwriters Tony Basgallop and Leigh Jackson have a canny eye and ear for the manners and stiff etiquette of an earlier time, crafting a totally convincing microcosm of the Napoleonic era.

Shipboard life is one brutal, monotonous round of seasickness, squalor and danger after another and as Edmund becomes entangled in the loves, hopes and miseries of his fellow passengers he experiences a delirious whirl of life's hardships, Man's inhumanities and his noblest sentiments.

Those who enjoyed Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World or Patrick O'Brian's series of novels on which it was based will love this \u0096 for everyone else, it's a whole new world to discover.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was swept into this series just as surely as the sea would sweep me into its grip. Although it started out slowly, I found that the realism in depicting the ship, the variety of characters and lively dialogue keep me watching. The protagonist was destined to be challenged, grow and change on this voyage and I wanted to be there for it. I was not disappointed. The series took you from humor to tragedy and everything in-between, often in the same scene, the same breath. There was a wealth of emotional overlaying, interaction and expression--relentless and compelling to observe. The movement of the ship added an almost fanciful component to the many scenes, making the characters ill one moment and adding humor the next.

Edmund Talbot is a complex character, the likes of which we don't see often. We may know where the captain stands or Mr. Prettiman, but they are older men, set in their ways. Talbot was young and arrogant, still learning, testing himself and being tested. He struggled getting along with others and made mistakes like a real person would but had a heart that could be touched, that grew with each hard-taught experience. I appreciate the excellent characterization; it's too rare in movies and television.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While all of the Fleischer\/Famous Studios \"Superman\" cartoons are excellent, \"Billion Dollar Limited,\" the third in the series, is probably the best of the lot in terms of overall animation, plot, and pacing. Why it wasn't even nominated for an Oscar as Best Animated Short for 1942 (Incredibly enough, only the first one was) in inexplicable.

Here, Lois Lane is assigned to cover the transfer of one billion dollars in gold to the U.S. Mint. Masked gangsters in their super-powered (for 1942) car take off after the train, determined to get that gold. Without giving too much away, what ensues is a thrill ride for both the characters and the audience, with truth, justice, and Superman triumphant at the end.

As they did in all the Fleischer\/Famous Superman cartoons, Clayton \"Bud\" Collyer and Joan Alexander, who played Clark Kent\/Superman and Lois Lane on radio, have the voice work honors here, and Fleischer perennial Jack Mercer gets a little to do as one of the bad guys, as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When one watches the animated Superman shorts of the 1940s, the similarity of the plots can become a bit boring - the adversary is most often a mad scientist in a hidden headquarter, threatening Metropolis with some evil invention - death rays, mechanical monsters, electric earthquake, magnetic telescope, what have you.

This one is refreshingly different. The bad ones drive around in a car, shooting and bombing, but the center of action is the gold train (on which Lois Lane travels, as the only press reporter, it seems). Train movies have their own typical ingredients, from the 1903 Great Train Robbery on, and quite some are featured here: decoupling cars in motion, running on the roofs, taking the steam locomotive from the tender in the back, fighting with the engineer, a switch turned to deroute the train on a side track, the fall (of people or the whole train) from a high bridge... it's all in the few minutes of this lovely piece.

But it wouldn't be a Superman film if he didn't do some incredible feats (involving balancing and high-precision placement) to ultimately win the day. If you're a fan of train movies, don't miss this. It's in the public domain and can be legally downloaded from archive.org.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Millions in gold is traveling by train to the US treasury. Traveling along is Lois Lane to report on it. Along the way the train is attacked by masked thieves. They detach the car with the armed guards in it and attack the remaining ones. This leads to a vicious fight between the remaining guards and the thieves. The thieves overpower them but then Lois Lane jumps in. She beats the thieves off the train (at one point using a gun) but the train starts to careen out of control. Lois can't stop it and the thieves will stop at nothing to get the gold. Good thing Superman is on the way!

Fast, exciting, non-stop action. Probably one of the best of all the cartoons. Just great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A SUPERMAN Cartoon

A huge shipment of gold is being sent across country by train. Using ultra-modern techniques, a sophisticated gang of hooded thieves try to waylay the gold. With intrepid reporter Lois Lane as the only passenger on board, it's Superman to the rescue. But now that it's become a runaway train, can even he stop the BILLION DOLLAR LIMITED?

This was another in the series of excellent cartoons Max Fleischer produced for Paramount Studio. They feature great animation and taut, fast-moving plots. Meant to be shown in movie theaters, they are miles ahead of their Saturday Morning counterparts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was so heart warming. A true testament to an actors real life everyday ups and downs.It was truly a wonderful experience to share the passion of the actor on film and respect for what it must have taken off screen. This film is a reminder to everyone to go for there dreams!Never give up!Hurray for The Stand -in!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this was a really cute movie - inspiring (makes me want to try acting)- I LOVE Kelly Ripa and it's nice that I can watch this in addition to All My Children - I've already watched it 3 times! Of course I also loved seeing Joe Barbara - especially since Another World went off the air!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fun story of a regular guy with big dreams, this low budget film really hits home showing what it is like trying to become an acting success. Great performances by Lou Myers and Brian's neighbor, Alex. I giggled alot and even cried a little.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many funny scenes about the people that you don't normally pay attention to in a movie and what they have to do to get work and what happens once they do. Lou Myers was very funny as Half-Step Wilson. Any guy that has a tight group of friends can relate to many of the non-movie related scenes scattered throughout the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anyone who has ever gone on an audition can certainly relate to this one. Great story of an aspiring actor and the pressures he must deal with both personally and professionally in order to make it to the big time. Lou Myers, as Half-Step Wilson, provides many hilarious moments.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The original The Man Who Knew Too Much brought Alfred Hitchcock acclaim for the first time outside of the United Kingdom. Of course part of the reason for the acclaim was that folks marveled how Hitchcock on such a skimpy budget as compared to lavish Hollywood products was able to provide so much on the screen. The original film was shot inside a studio.

For whatever reason he chose this of all his films to remake, Hitchcock now with an international reputation and a big Hollywood studio behind him (Paramount)decided to see what The Man Who Knew Too Much would be like with a lavish budget. This is shot on location in Marrakesh and London and has two big international names for box office. This was James Stewart's third of four Hitchcock films and his only teaming with Doris Day and her only Hitchcock film.

I do wonder why Hitchcock never used Doris again. At first glance she would fit the profile of blond leading ladies that Hitchcock favored. Possibly because her wholesome screen image was at odds with the sophistication Hitchcock also wanted in his blondes.

Doris does some of her best acting ever in The Man Who Knew Too Much. Her best scene is when her doctor husband James Stewart gives her a sedative before telling her their son has been kidnapped by an English couple who befriended them in Morocco. Stewart and Day play off each other beautifully in that scene. But Doris especially as she registers about four different emotions at once.

Day and Stewart are on vacation with their son Christopher Olsen in Morocco and they make the acquaintance of Frenchman Daniel Gelin and the aforementioned English couple, Bernard Miles and Brenda DaBanzie. Gelin is stabbed in the back at a market place in Marrakesh and whispers some dying words to Stewart about an assassination to take place in Albert Hall in London. Their child is snatched in order to insure their silence.

For the only time I can think of a hit song came out of a Hitchcock film. Doris in fact plays a noted singer who retired from the stage to be wife and mother. The song was Que Sera Sera and I remember it well at the age of 9. You couldn't go anywhere without hearing it in 1956, it even competed with the fast rising Elvis Presley that year. Que Sera Sera won the Academy Award for Best Song beating out such titles as True Love from High Society and the title song from Around the World in 80 Days. It became Doris Day's theme song for the rest of her life and still is should she ever want to come back.

In fact the song is worked quite nicely into the plot as Doris sings it at an embassy party at the climax.

Instead of doing it with mirrors, Hitchcock shot the assassination scene at the real Albert Hall and like another reviewer said it's not directed, it's choreographed. You'll be hanging on your seats during that moment.

This was remake well worth doing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alfred Hitchcock's more assured telling of a film he made twenty-one years earlier is infinitely superior to the original. Hitchcock said himself that his first version was the work of an amateur, and although it certainly isn't a bad film, he does appear to be right. That being said, this remake, although definitely better, still isn't among Hitchcock's best work. That's certainly not to say that it isn't good, it's just more than a little overindulgent, and that drags it down. Hitchcock seems all too keen to drag certain elements out, and these are parts of the film that aren't entirely relevant to the plot, which can become annoying. Some of these dragged out sequences, such as the one that sees James Stewart and Doris Day eating in a Moroccan restaurant are good because it helps establish the different culture that our American protagonists have found themselves in, but for every restaurant scene, there's an opera sequence and it's the latter that make the film worse.

The plot follows a middle-aged doctor and his wife that go to Morocco for a holiday with their young son. While there, they meet a French man on the bus and another middle-aged couple in a restaurant. However, things go awry when the French man dies from a knife in the back, shortly after whispering something to the doctor. The holiday then turns into a full blown nightmare when the couple's son is kidnapped, which causes them to cut it short and go to London in order to try and find him. The film has a very potent degree of paranoia about it, and it manages to hold this all the way through. In fact, I would even go as far as to say that this is the most paranoid film that Hitchcock ever made. Like most of Hitchcock's films, this one is very thrilling and keeps you on the edge of your seat for almost the entire duration, with only the aforementioned opera sequence standing out as a moment in which the tension is diffused. There is also more than a little humour in the movie, which gives lighthearted relief to the morbid goings on, and actually works quite well.

The original version of this story was lent excellent support by the fantastic Peter Lorre. This film doesn't benefit from his presence, unfortunately, but that is made up for by performances from the amazing James Stewart, and Doris Day. James Stewart is a man that is always going to be a contender for the 'greatest actor of all time' crown. His collaborations with Hitchcock all feature mesmerising performances from him, and this one is no different. (Although his best performance remains the one in Mr Smith Goes to Washington). Stewart conveys all the courage, conviction and heartbreak of a man that has lost his child and would do anything to get him back brilliantly. In fact, that's one of the best things about this film; you are really able to feel for the couple's loss throughout and that serves in making it all the more thrilling. Doris Day, on the other hand, is a rather strange casting choice for this movie. She's definitely a good actress, but she's more associated with musicals and seeing her in a thriller is rather odd (even if she does get to flex her vocal chords a little).

As I've mentioned; this is not Hitchcock's best film, but there's much to enjoy about it and although I'd recommend many Hitchcock films before recommending this one, I'll definitely give it two thumbs up as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many people have the irritating habit of dying before completing a vital message, thus confusing the hero, not to mention the audience...

Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and his wife Jo, a former musical star (Doris Day) are vacationing in Morocco with their son, Hank (Christopher Olsen), when they meet Mr. and Mrs. Drayton, a British couple (Brenda de Banzie and Bernard Miles). They are also befriended by a charming Frenchman, Louis Bernard (Daniel Gelin), who invites them to dinner but then cancels at the last minute...

The MacKennas go to a restaurant and end up having their meal with the Draytons, when they spot Louis Bernard...

The next day in the market place, they are caught in an assassination intrigue... While they are wandering in the local market, the crowds suddenly scatter to reveal an Arab fleeing from his pursuers... Dr. McKenna stands amazed as the Arab falls into his arms, a knife sticking out of his back...

Gulping his last breath, the dying man mutters some words and collapses... Dr. McKenna is completely taken aback when the Arab's hood falls from his head and he is revealed as Bernard in disguise... McKenna is left knowing too little, but as far as the assassins are concerned, too much...

To prevent Dr. McKenna from revealing what he knows, the conspirators kidnap his son as a hostage... The film is primarily concerned with the dilemma of kidnapping\u0097how to get the little boy back safely... The subplot about the assassination is just the setup...

The film is a breathless escapade... The death of Bernard comes suddenly and points out that death comes when we least expect it...

Stewart is charged with emotion as the Midwestern doctor, accidentally involved in political intrigue... His perceptive facial expressions and indignant delivery made him convincingly human\u0097a person we could easily identify with... It is his temperament that actually sets the pace for the entire film...

By 1956, the lovely Doris Day had won increasing esteem as an actress as well as a singer... She had been particularly strong opposite James Cagney in the Ruth Etting's biopic, 'Love Me or Leave Me,' but she was still unsure of her basic Thespian talents...

The casting of character actor Reggie Malder as the assassin, is brilliant... The man looks like a menace and his effusive portrayal radiates evil...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alfred Hitchcock shows originality in the remake of his own 1934 British film, \"The Man Who Knew Too Much\". This 1956 take on the same story is much lighter than the previous one. Mr. Hitchcock was lucky in having collaborators that went with him from one film to the next, thus keeping a standard in his work. Robert Burks did an excellent job with the cinematography and George Tomasini's editing shows his talent. Ultimately, Bernard Herrmann is seen conducting at the magnificent Royal Albert Hall in London at the climax of the picture.

James Stewart was an actor that worked well with Mr. Hitchcock. In this version, he plays a doctor from Indiana on vacation with his wife and son. When we meet him, they are on their way to Marrakesh in one local bus and the intrigue begins. His wife is the lovely Doris Day at her best. She had been a well known singer before her marriage and now is the perfect wife and mother. The film has some good supporting cast, Brenda DeBanzie, Bernard Miles, Daniel Gelin, Alan Mowbray, among others, do a great job in portraying their characters.

Although this is a \"light Hitchcock\", one can't dismiss it as a failure. \"The Man Who Knew Too Much\" is a change of pace for Hitchcock's fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many reviewers seem to prefer the original version of The Man Who Knew Too Much, which I have not had the opportunity to view. By itself, the '56 version is a very well done film. The run of mid-to-late fifties Hitchcock films (including \"Rear Window\", \"Dial M For Murder\", \"Vertigo\", and \"To Catch A Thief\", as well as this film) is one of my favorite periods in his career. In The Man Who Knew Too Much, Jimmy Stewart throws himself vigorously into his role as always. Doris Day is very believable in the role of an atypical Hitchcock blond. I thought there was nothing fake about her performance. Her character may not have been written as strongly as the original, but she's definitely not reduced to the role of a passive, \"Yes, dear\", pretty thing on Jimmy Stewart's arm.

There were some really clever lines written for Hank (the couple's son who later gets kidnapped) in the opening scene on the bus- it's too bad Christopher Olsen read them so woodenly. It's rare to see a good performance from a child actor in the 50s, though. Most of the rest of the supporting actors in this film were very competent, though- most notably the assassin (played by Reggie Nalder).

Some little touches that make this film undeniably Hitchcockian- the use of non-English dialog, especially French (something Hitch did on a much larger scale in \"To Catch A Thief\"); the use of foreboding, Arabic music in the hotel when the assassin appears; Stewart and Day talking to each other in the church, singing their words to the tune of the hymn; the Albert Hall scene, specifically showing the musicians and the assassin's accomplice following the score, building up tension, as well as the percussionist getting the cymbals ready; and finally the assassin's gun as it appears from behind the curtain. It moves so slowly and precisely that it must have been done mechanically (an effect Hitch used at the end of \"Spellbound\", also).

All in all, The Man Who Knew Too Much is a fun film to watch. It's not as deep or as heavily laden with symbolism as some of his films (\"Vertigo\", \"Strangers on a Train\"), but all the same it is one of my top five Hitchcock masterpieces.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A film that tends to get buried under prejudice and preconception - It's a remake! Doris Day is in it! She sings! - Hitchcock's second crack at 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is his most under-rated film, and arguably a fully fledged masterpiece in its own right.

This is, in more ways than one, Doris Day's film. Not only does she give the finest performance of her career, more than holding her own against James Stewart, but the whole film is subtly structured around her character rather than his. This is, after all, a film in which music is both motif and plot device. What better casting than the most popular singer of her generation? Consider: Day's Jo McKenna has given up her career on the stage in order to settle down with her husband and raise their son. This seems to be a mutual decision, and she doesn't appear to be unhappy. But look at the way Stewart teases her in the horse-drawn carriage over her concerns about Louis Bernard, implying that she is jealous that Bernard wasn't asking her any questions about her career. This is clearly a recurrent joke between them - she responds with a 'har-de-har-har' that denotes the familiarity of this gag, suggesting that she has a certain latent resentment about her confinement, and that they both realise it.

After their son has been kidnapped, Stewart insists on doping her before giving her the news. This is a cruel scene, brilliantly played by both actors, which illustrates the power imbalance in their marriage - he is seeking to control and subdue her reactions, in essence using his professional knowledge to suppress her voice in the marriage just as his medical career has suppressed her singing career.

The potency of that voice is demonstrated in the Ambrose Chapel sequence, when she has to reign in its highly trained clarity and volume to blend in with the congregation of female drudges - they almost act as a warning of what will become of her if she continues to suppress her talent. At the Albert Hall, it is her need to cry out, to exercise those impressive lungs, that saves a man's life, and in the Embassy finale, it is her talent and reputation that allows them to locate their son. By contrast, all of Stewart's masculine activity is counterproductive - his visit to the taxidermist is a dead end, he gets left behind at the church whilst everyone else moves on to the Albert Hall, and his efforts there only succeed in getting the assassin killed, thus depriving the Police of potentially useful information. It is only when his action is joined to his wife's voice, in the rescue of Hank from the embassy, that he actually succeeds in doing something useful.

Far from being forced into the film to give Day an opportunity to sing, 'Que Sera Sera' acts as the first musical device in the film, foreshadowing the nightmare that is about to engulf the McKennas; 'the future's not ours to see' indeed. It also neatly prepares the way for the finale, in which the close bond mother and son share through music will allow Doris to save the day.

The most famous sequence in the film makes music the central feature - the build up to the assassination attempt in the Albert Hall. This lengthy wordless sequence may be the single most extraordinary thing Hitchcock committed to film, the ultimate expression of his belief that films should be stories told visually. We see people conduct conversations in this sequence, but we never hear a word they say. We don't need to - the images say everything. It is also his most exquisite suspense sequence, with the pieces moving slowly into place as the music builds. The editing is incredibly tight, matched to the music perfectly. There isn't a frame out of place - anything that doesn't relate directly to the assassination is giving the viewer a sense of the environment, the geography in which all this is playing out. It builds slowly, but by the end the suspense is nearly unbearable. When Jo screams, it isn't just a relief for her, but for the audience.

The Ambrose Chapel sequence is witty, and particularly effective for anyone who has had to sit through a service at a particularly stick-in-the-mud Nonconformist church. The Embassy sequence seems a little flat after the Albert Hall one that preceded it on first viewing, but second time around actually seems more effective, with the final walk at gunpoint really benefiting from the gorgeous use of Day singing in the background, reminiscent of the music-as-ambient-noise in 'Rear Window'. The score as a whole is subtle, allowing the music from on-screen sources to be foregrounded effectively.

Bernard Miles is a low-key villain, a little banal, but with a dry wit. He's outshone by Brenda de Banzie as his wife, who walks a fine line between sinister and sympathetic. Just look at the way she smokes a cigarette whilst her husband preps the assassin - her stance is pure gangster's moll, belying the Middle-England exterior, but she clearly has a soft side, and possibly maternal feelings towards Hank.

Stewart is excellent, although if Hitchcock really did always cast him as 'Everyman', as the Director's daughter seems to think, then it confirms that Hitchcock had a cynical view of his audience. Stewart played a hypocritical intellectual who espoused fascist ideology in Rope, a voyeur who mistreated his girlfriend in Rear Window and an obsessive necrophiliac in Vertigo. Day is nothing short of phenomenal. Just look at her reaction to the news that her son has been kidnapped - she never overdoes anything, but neither does she sell it short. This is one of Hitchcock's most emotionally effective films. He never lets us forget what the stakes are for the McKennas; they feel the most fully human of all his central characters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Man Who Knew Too Much\" (1955) is Alfred Hitchcock's own remake of his 1934 thriller about a married couple (James Stewart and Doris Day) on vacation in Morocco where they got caught up in a nightmare that include murder, espionage, assassinations and the worst of all, kidnapping of their 10-years-old son. The movie which Hitchcock himself considered superior to the original is a great fun. Stewart and Day have a good chemistry together. The film is filled with the wonderful comical scenes and dialogues as well as the scenes of chilling suspense.

The inclusion of \"Que Sera, Sera\" proved to be a stroke of genius because rarely the song fits the content and plays such an important role in the movie like \"Que Sera, Sera\" did in \"The Man Who Knew Too Much\".

Hitchcock also treats us to the live music playing from Arthur Benjamin \"Storm Cloud Cantata\" for almost ten minutes while scene in London's Royal Albert Hall where the assassination of a very important politician was attempted takes place and both, the scene and the cantata are simply marvelous.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie, which was directed by Alfred Hitchcock, was brilliantly made. It starts with a family of three, a doctor (James Stewart), his wife (Doris Day)- who is a former stage singer, and their young son- my guess is about 10 years old, who are traveling through Morroco for leisure. On the bus, the bump into a French government agent, and they are a little too nice to him. He is killed at the marketplace after finding out the information he sought. He wants to carry this information out to someone, so he goes to the only person he, even slightly, knows: James Stewart. The antagonists kidnap their young boy and say if he tells anything about what the agent told him, his son would be killed. Stewart has to travel to London, because that is where his son is, and where the assasination that the agent told him about would be. The movie is very suspenseful. There are many twists and turns (typical Hitchcock movie). Also, it has just the right amount of comic relief. In addition to all of that, it won an Oscar for Doris Day's performance of \"Que sara, sara.\" This movie is very good. It is hard to find a problem about it. I would certainly reccomend it to all Hitchcock fans and all suspense fans. I give this movie an \"A-\" only because it is a little bit predictable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I put this second version of \"The Man Who Knew Too Much\" to my Top 10 Hitchcock movies. Together with \"Frenzy\", it's probably the most argued film among the fans of Hitchcock. I consider it far better than, say, \"Rebecca\", which has gained unreasonably much appreciation.

The film contains many ingenious scenes (most of them have been mentioned in other reviews), but that's something to be expected from Hitchcock. It takes almost half an hour until things really start to happen, but that time is used for preparing the following happenings, which are full of intriguing suspense.

If you can ignore the clumsy rear projections, the only weakness of this film is the main villain, played by Bernard Miles, who is a rather flat and undeveloped character. Luckily, there is a creepy assassin in the form of Reggie Nalder. And Hank, the little boy, isn't as irritating as most kids in old movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hitchcock's remake of his 1934 film concerns about the known story of McKenna marriage(James Stewart, Doris Day, in the first version Leslie Banks, Edna Best) along with their 11-years-old son travelling through Morocco during vacations. In a bus they know a sympathetic French person(Daniel Gelin, in the old version Pierre Fresnay). While they are in Marrakech they also know a couple(Bernard Miles and Brenda De Banzie) and happen suddenly on the scene of a killing, the dying whispers a political message.Then the child is abducted to ensure their silence and McKenna gets help to Morocco's Inspector Buchanan(Ralph Truman).

This is a superb movie about a family who stumbles on to an obscure international conspiracy and then they're forced into action is excellently played by James Stewart and Doris Day. This exciting film displays suspense, intrigue, tension, and interesting drama well written by John Michael Hayes and Charles Bennett . Packs an ordinary theme of the suspense magician: innocent people become caught up in a cobweb intrigue and uncanny, intelligent villains. Colorful and glimmer cinematography shot in Morocco and London studios by cameraman Robert Burks, though with excessive transparency for Marrakech scenes. Lavish sets by Henry Bunstead, Hitchcock's usual, and working until his recent death. Of course,the highlights are the happenings of the famous Royal Albert Hall of London assassination where a sneering killer, Reggie Nalder, tries to execute while composer Bernard Herrmann is conducting orchestra. Besides at the climax Doris Day singing \u00a8Que sera, Que sera\u00a8, meantime her son suffering risks, the song won Oscar for Ray Evans, Jay Livingstone . The story was ferociously reviewed for its double characters but today is considered a classic movie and fairly entertaining. Rating : better than average, Hitchcock's enthusiastic no doubt will enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and Jo McKenna (Doris Day) travel to Morocco for a holiday where they meet a mysterious man named Louis Bernard (Daniel G\u00e9lin) on a bus.The next day this man is murdered, but before he dies he tells Ben a secret; an assassination will take place in London.The crooks kidnap the couple's son Hank (Christopher Olsen) making sure Ben won't reveal their plan to anybody.Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) is a very intense thriller.The acting is superb as it always is in Hitchcok's films.James Stewart is marvelous.Doris Day is a delightful person and actress and she gets to show her singing talents as well.The song Que Sera, Sera has an important part in the movie.This movie is a movie of many classic scenes.In the final scenes at the Albert Hall, done without dialogue, you can barely blink your eyes.This movie is fifty years old now.Time hasn't decreased its power in any way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Man Who Knew Too Much\" falls into that Hitchcock middle ground that characterized many of his films during the 1950s: not a masterpiece of suspense by any means, but an awful lot of fun nonetheless.

James Stewart and Doris Day play a vacationing couple who get caught up in a plot heavy on foreign intrigue. The famous climactic scene takes place at a classical music concert, where someone is going to be assassinated during a particular cymbal clash in the score. The impish Hitchcock of course lets us know what that point is, so that the race to stop the assassin becomes a nail biting race against the cymbalist.

So much of this movie reminded me of the 1978 Chevy Chase\/Goldie Hawn comedy \"Foul Play\" that I have to believe that film was inspired by this. Neither film is a big deal, but both are easy to enjoy.

Grade: B+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ostensibly a story about the young child of Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. The kid gets kidnapped to keep his parents quiet. They know something about a plot to assassinate the ambassador of an unnamed country during a performance at Albert Hall in London.

The movie is rich in Hitchcockian incidents. A friendly but opaque Frenchman seems to grill the innocent Stewart -- a doctor from Indiana -- a little too intensely to be merely idly curious. Later the Frenchman shows up in Arab disguise, a knife in his back, and whispers some information about the murder plot to Stewart. Stewart tells his wife -- Doris Day looking very saucy indeed -- but refuses to cooperate with the police and risk his son's life.

Instead the couple try to track down the assassins, buy them off, and get their son back, taking them from Morocco, where Hitchcock has given us his usual tourist's eye view of the customs, locations, and food, to London. There is a hilarious wild goose chase involving a set-to between Stewart and the staff of a taxidermy shop. The staff are more concerned about guarding their half-stuffed specimens than anything else, and they shuffle around protectively holding the carcasses of a leopard and a swordfish. In the course of the scuffle, Stewart manages to save his throat from being cut by the swordfish bill, but is bitten on the hand by a stuffed tiger, the action boosted along by Bernard Hermann's bumptious score. The scene ends with Stewart rushing out the door. Hitchcock ends it with a shot of a lion's head gaping at the slammed door. There is also a running gag, well done, about some visitors waiting around the couple's hotel room in London, waiting for things to be explained.

There are two serious issues that are lightly touched on. One is the relationship between Stewart and Day, which is not as rosy as it ought to be, considered as a bourgeois ideal. She's been a stage musical star for some years and is internationally known. And she's given it all up to marry an ordinary guy who happens to be a doc. That's understandable in, say, a nurse or a flight attendant or almost any woman other than an international star with a promising career in her own right. It isn't delved into, but the edginess is noticeable, as it was not in the original version. It reminds me a little of an exchange between Joe Dimaggio and his then-wife Marilyn Monroe, who had just returned from entertaining the troops in Korea. \"Oh, Joe,\" she gushed, \"did you ever see ten thousand people stand up and cheer?\" \"Seventy thousand,\" muttered Joe, former hero of the New York Yankees.

The second problem is one of allegiance. Who is of greater social value? One's own young son? Or an unknown ambassador. Do we put ourselves or our loved ones at risk for the sake of national stability? Day is faced with this dilemma in its starkest form at the climax in the Albert Hall. Her solution opts for allegiance to political stability, although her motives are problematic. Does she scream to save the ambassador's life, or does she do so just to release the anxiety that is overwhelming her? (Cf: Alec Guiness falling on the detonator at the end of \"The Bridge on the River Kwai.\") The photography is extremely good, and the settings can be menacing, even on a quiet street in a residential neighborhood of London. It's mid-day, and Stewart is alone and determined, but frightened too. There are footsteps echoing on Gulliver Street from someone, somewhere. Is he being followed? Is his life in danger? And where the hell is everybody who lives on this street? Hitchcock pays such close attention to location details that we can make out the garden wall bonding of the bricks beside him.

The director had a rare disagreement with Francois Truffaut while being interviewed for Truffaut's otherwise laudatory book. Truffaut argued that the earlier version of \"The Man Who Knew Too Much\" lacked the depth of the later version. Hitchcock replied, \"It seems to me you want me to make films for the art house audience,\" but finally agreed that the 1930s version was the work of a talented amateur and this version was the work of a professional. No argument there.

This is Hitchcock pretty much near his zenith.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I hate to admit it, but I didn't find it to be one of Hitchcock's best but nonetheless a riveting, climatic thriller. In a remake of Hitchock's 1934 movie of the same title, Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) \u0096 the man who knows too much - and his wife Jo McKenna (Doris Day) are holidaying in Morocco with their son Hank (Christopher Oslen) when there is a case of mistaken identity and caught up in the web of an assassination plot. The conspirators go to extreme lengths to prevent them from interfering with their plot: kidnapping their beloved Hank.

I found it surprising that Doris Day, who I usually associate with Rock Hudson comedies, was cast in a Hitchcock film. As I was watching it, I soon realized that this was more of a family film compared to Hitchcock's other works (example: Psycho) and she had singing ability needed to pull off \"Que Sera Sera\", which she did beautifully. She was well cast as herself and James Stewart had chemistry, which helped make the couple believable.

In comparison to the great director's other works I believe this isn't as good, but it is still a exceedingly entertaining family thriller\/mystery. There is also the added bonus of Que Sera Sera, which turned out to be a smash hit for Doris Day. Well directed, well acted. A fine film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been getting into the Hitchcock series very much lately. I find myself always renting one of his movies when I'm at Blockbuster or Hollywood Video. Like I said before, Hollywood is loosing it's touch incredibly, I needed a reminder that there are terrific films out there. Not to mention, I want to be a film appreciator, not a movie buff. Is there any better way to do that than with Alfred Hitchcock's movies?

The Man who knew too Much is another great and exciting thriller starring Alfred's favorite leading man James Stuart and the woman who steals the show Dorris Day. They play husband and wife who go on vacation with their son, but when a spy tells James some information that could arrest another spy, his son is kidnapped and held for ransom. James seems to just doubt Dorris and her ability for ideas on how to get their son back, but she makes a great comeback and just about ends up being the hero of the flick.

The acting again, I would say that Dorris was the one who outshined the whole cast. James did a great job keeping up, together these two made you sit down and never budge throughout the film. I loved the little bit of comedy at the end that Alfred added. You'll see what I mean. I would always highly recommend this film, despite not being the best Hitchcock film, it's still a treasure.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"James Stewart plays Dr. Ben McKenna, who, with his wife and son, are tourists in an Arabian city. They get caught up in the middle of a murder scene. The victim whispers something in Dr. McKenna's ear, and he is told to do something.

Later, his son is kidnapped. The kidnappers turn out to be a man and woman he knew, but the woman is a bit softer than the man.

The song, \"Que, Sera, Sera\" (Whatever we'll be, we'll be,\" is one of the best songs ever sung in any movie.

Doris Day play's Stewart's wife, and she sings the song mentioned above. Her performance is Oscar worthy. I'm surprised she wasn't even nominated.

My Score: 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If there's one good suspenseful film, this is one of them. James Stewart puts on a dazzling performance as American Dr. Ben McKenna who, with his wife and son, are in Africa on tour. They stumble on a murder scene, and Dr. McKenna's son is kidnapped hours later.

Before you can say, \"Fasten your seat belts,\" Dr. McKenna finds out too much about a assassination attempt and tries to stop it. However, other people know he can be dangerous, (dangerous to them, that is) and try to dispose of him.

Eventually, Hank, the son, is found alive and well.

If you like suspenseful movies, this is the one to watch.

My Score: 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This isn't among my favorite Hitchcock films, though I must admit it's still pretty good. Among the things I really liked were the presence of Jimmy Stewart (he always improves even the most mediocre material) and the incredibly scary looking assassin (who looks like a skeleton with just a thin layer of skin stretched over him). Although it cost the studio a lot of money, I didn't particularly care for Doris Day in the film--she seemed to weep a lot and belts out \"Que Sera\" like a fullback. Yes, I know that she was supposed to sing in that manner, but this forever made me hate this song. Sorry.

The other complaint, though minor, I had about the movie was that it was a little \"too polished\" and \"Hollywood-esque\". The original version (also done by Hitchcock) just seemed a lot grittier and seedier--and this added to the scary ambiance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alfred Hitchcock's remake of \"The Man Who Who Knew Too Much,\" is usually not considered to be as good as the original, but for me it is one of the best films ever. I prefer it over \"Vertigo\" and \"Rear Window.\"

Like \"North By Northwest,\" it is the story of an average man who is unwillingly thrown into the world of international intrigue. James Stewart plays the father of a son who is kidnapped because he is mistaken for an international spy. He will do anything to make sure he gets his son back and protect his family.

While the original was good for it's time, it is hard to watch by today's standards. The remake has excellent production quality, an endearing Doris Day, and a really creepy villain.

Don't bother to rent this one because you will want to see it over and over.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Am I the only person who believes this American version is far better than the 1934 English film? The English version has no suspense, looks antique and very low budget, and has unexceptional acting (except for Peter Lorre). The 1956 version, besides having top production values, shows James Stewart as the perfect 'innocent' American abroad, and gives Doris Day her best role ever. Of particular note is the music - the music of the American film is almost classic; compare the \"Albert Hall' sequences of both, and you will agree that the Bernard Herrmann music is far more exciting than the original version (even though it's basically the same music!). The only flaw in the 1956 film is the ridiculous encounter in the taxidermy shop. I would appreciate any argument that can prove to me that the English version is better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Film is the One which you fall in love with. Alfred Hitchcock shall always remain over the top of any directors of his time. The most influential aspects about his films are sheer Simplicity & Gripping Drama. The another best thing about Hitchcock's films is a Definite & Gripping End.

Any thing said about \"The Man who knew too much\" is less. The Cinematography, Acting, Dialogs & Camera Works are magnificent in this Movie. The Song \"Que Sera Sera\" at the end shall remain in our memories for life time. The film is so enjoyable from start to end that we never know when it ends. Rarely would Hitchcock include humor in his films, this film has comic scenes which fits in to the movie.

This film is absolutely brilliant & as good as Vertigo.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of master director Alfred Hitchcock's finer films this is the story of an American and his family (James Stewart, Doris Day, and their young son) who are vacationing in north Africa. Stewart is a doctor and Day is a world famous singer. They meet a Frenchman who speaks the native language and helps them out of an incident on a local bus. Later one, the Frenchman whispers something into Stewart's ear after he is attacked and dying. The rest of the film is a puzzle as Stewart tries to save them and solve the mystery. The movie is steeped in mystery and strangeness from the exotic locale to the odd occurrences. You never really know what's going on in this film, why people are appearing, until the end and even then you're not sure. The final scene takes place in Albert Hall and is one of the most famous in film which lasts for 12 minutes with no dialog. Hitchcock had originally made this film in 1934.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Less a thriller than an colorful adventure with suspenseful elements, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH should not be really be compared with such Hitchcock masterpieces as VERTIGO, REAR WINDOW, or PSYCHO; it is instead more akin to such enjoyable romps as TO CATCH A THIEF and NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Shot largely on location in Morocco and London, the film tells the story of a married couple (James Stewart and Doris Day) whose holiday is interrupted when they innocently run afoul of an assassination plot--and when their young son is kidnapped in order to insure their silence.

James Stewart and Doris Day are quite effective in their roles of the All-American couple, and the characters are given an unusual twist: Stewart, a midwestern doctor, is outgoing but has a touch of \"the ugly American abroad\" about his personality; Day, who plays a popular stage and recording star who retired upon her marriage, has a suspicious nature. These qualities of personality and background play extremely well into the story.

THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH contains a number of famous scenes; both the scene in which Stewart drugs Day before telling her of the kidnapping and the very complex Albert Hall sequence, involving what seems hundreds of cuts, are very powerful. Less often noticed, although to my mind equally if not more satisfactory, are the more subtle scenes in which Hitchcock combines an edge of suspense along with perverse humor, as when Stewart attempts some detecting at a taxidermist shop and Day belts out \"Que Sera, Sera\" (written for this film) in a most unsuitable way at an embassy cocktail party.

Although THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH lacks the depth and impact of Hitchcock's greater work, it remains an enjoyable film and one that compares very well with his work as a whole. It's Hitchcock-light, but recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't believe this movie only scores 7.4! This surely ranks up with the best of Hitchcock's movies such as VERTIGO or MARNIE. The only reason I can think of why the score is so low, is that for the most part, THE MAN... renounces violence and certainly won't get a diploma in \"sex and crime\".

What it derives its tension from is not violence, it's the reckless energy of these criminals that take a child from his parents and are ready to kill the kid if the operation fails. Today, having seen a lot of hardboiled kidnapping movies as Mel Gibson's RANSOM, this seems normal, but in the 1950s, where family was all in contemporary America, the thought of such a crime surely has stirred up emotions a lot.

And this tension still works for me, today. Yeah, these guys are selfish, ignorant bastards, disturbing in how they act: It's a deal for them, and they want to be \"good businessmen\", disregarding the fact that business here is kidnapping kids and assassinating politicians in the opera!!

What makes the movie great, however, are the creative aspects, the kinky ideas of Hitchcock, the outrageously disturbing scene in the church (which brings it to the viewer's attention how alone, how abandoned the protagonists are, nobody caring, nobody helping, the people in the church just going home...), the meeting with the owner of that shop stuffing and preparing dead animals (which stresses the somewhat \"oriental\" flair the movie has from the opening scenes abroad), last not least the role of MUSIC in this movie.

Music is the key principle here, as ***SPOILER*** the assassination of the targeted politician is to be done exactly in the moment of a loud orchastra tutti\/gong; so Hitchcock lets the camera follow the orchestra score and you now it will happen in a second ***BANG*** And then, of course, DORIS DAY singing Que sera, which became more famous than the movie itself; she sings it to notify the kid of his parents being in the embassy...

All in all: A classic!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1956's The Man Who Knew Too Much is exceptional entertainment. To those who prefer the 1934 original, I will say that that one is faster paced and wittier. However, even though the American version was (heaven forbid!) a big budget blockbuster, I believe it blows the British version out of the water. I think this is one of Hitchcock's 10 best-no small feat considering he made over 50 films and many of them were among the greatest of all time. I find so many things to love:

1)James Stewart, America's favorite everyman for so many years, does an excellent job playing the distressed father here. He can make any film enjoyable, and working with such a likeable character in such a gripping story, he had me rooting for him very intensely. Leslie Banks in the original is nothing in comparison.

2)Doris Day. Yes Doris Day. Despite all the criticisms directed toward her, I think she makes the loving wife\/mother an extremely sympathetic person. I disagree with the negative remarks towards her character; just because she is soft-spoken and gentle it doesn't mean she is docile and helpless. I don't want to spoil anything, but she does make a crucial discovery by herself after her husband has failed. She gives the story a level of warmth that just wasn't there in the first one, and for those who care about that this version is the way to go. And I loved Que Sera Sera; I think it is one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard and deservedly won its Oscar. It elevated the film to another level.

3)The Albert Hall sequence. I don't think it was too long at all; I think the suspense built the whole time to that terrific crescendo and Hitchcock's direction in this scene was absolutely brilliant. And the assassin was truly frightening.

4)The ending really put a smile on my face; even after the aforementioned scene was over I found the rescue scene to be exciting and it was great to see the charming family together again. The last line in the film is highly amusing. I don't think the film started out slowly; Hithcock was trying to get us to know and like the McKennas and he did a great job. I wasn't a huge fan of the kid playing Hank, but I didn't have a problem with him. Since Hank was Ben and Jo's kid I cared about him too; it's not like he was a brat or anything.

I found no major flaws in this movie and so many major and minor virtues. Way to go Hitch!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lovely little thriller from Hitchcock, with lots of nice shenanigans surrounding a murdered spy, a kidnapped child, a nasty church, a foreign plot and some random taxidermists. Jimmy Stewart is as ever a great hero for Hitchcock, the story rips along to its cool climax at an embassy function, but it lacks the brooding menace of Hitchcock's black and white, low-budget original. Nevertheless yet another wonderful film from the great master's stable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some people say the pace of this film is a little slow, but how is this different from any other Hitchcock movie? They all move very deliberately and, as a point, have spurts of suspense and brilliant montages injected through it. This movie gives us just the right amount of comic relief which make the suspense scenes seem all the more suspenseful. The Albert Hall scene is one of the best examples of Pure Cinema that exists in Hitchcock's collection (the best probably being almost all of \"Rear Window\"). Pure Cinema for Hitchcock meant a series of usually small pieces of film fit together without dialogue, in order to tell the story visually. This is, of course the basic definition of the Albert Hall sequence, as well as the shorter staircase sequence at the end of the picture.

Not many slip-ups by Hitchcock here, and the acting is superb especially by Doris Day in a rather surprising serious role.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is another enjoyable and entertaining Hitchcock film. James Stewart and Doris Day are incredible in this movie. Bernard Herrmann appears as himself near the climax.

The scenery and locations are great, except the one scene early on where the background was obviously fake, which doesn't make sense to me since scenes before and after were in the same setting and they were real location shots. I've heard that Hitchcock did this on purpose sometimes.

The reviews for this movie seem to be mixed. I think this is a better than average Hitchcock movie. Very entertaining and it has a great light comical scene at the end.

I rated this movie 8 out of 10.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Unfortunately, due to a sluggish start, I can't say that this is one of Hitch's best films. It very excellent none the less. The film stars Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day as parents who get caught up in a political assassination plot and must try to get their kidnapped son back. They both give excellent performances, not surprising of course. Really, however, I was most impressed with Hitchcocks amazing use of music. The climax at the Opera house was fantastic, and using a live orchestra to create music and suspense at the same time was pure genius. Absolutely fantastic suspense came out of that scene. Also, the use of Doris Day singing \"Que Sera, Sera\" was excellent. Especially when it is transposed on scenes at the end of the film. So, this film to me ends up being Hitchcocks best use of music that I have seen to date. Unfortunately it had a slow start, or I could have recommend this film a little more highly. Even then, it is still well worth a look. 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Man Who Knew Too Much{1956}is a remake of a film that Alfred Hitchcock made in England in 1934 with the same name. In my opinion, his later effort is far superior. Many critics and fans of Alfred Hitchcock will argue that the remake is mediocre and doesn't have the spine tingling suspense of the original with Peter Lorre. In both films the plot is essentially the same, except the original is set in Switzerland and the remake in Marrakech . It tells the story of a married couple {James Stewart and Doris Day}vacationing with their young son and meeting a suspicious man, that is very curious about their past. It just so happens, he's an agent that's looking for a couple involved in a plot to assassinate a world leader.Then he gets stabbed in a Marrakeck market because of it being found out that he's a spy,and proceeds to fall into Stewart's arms.Dying,he tells him the whole story of the assassination plot.Stewart and Day then find out that another couple they met were the couple the agent was looking for and have kidnapped their son.The film contains excellent performances by Stewart and Day,in a straight dramatic role,as worried and frightened parents.This film proved that Doris Day could act in suspenseful dramas as well as carefree musicals.The direction by Alfred Hitchcock is top-notch.The film keeps you on the edge of your seat every minute.The scene in Albert Hall is a classic.The original is so slow-paced and drab.I don't know how people can compare the two.Just watch the remake and you'll enjoy it.I give the movie a 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent cast, story line, performances. Totally believable. I realize the close knit group that exemplifies the Marine Corps. But this movie brought fear to my heart. The marines let principles be damned. It seems that this film was based on real life incidents. It shows how difficult it is to go up against the establishment. Anne Heche was utterly convincing. Sam Shepard's portrayal of a gung ho Marine was sobering. And Eric Stoltz as her attorney was so deft balancing his loyalty to the Corp but also his loyalty to his client, while high above on his tightrope. He knew what his true course of action had to be. But he was pulled apart by his immersion in the Marine tradition, loyalty to the Corps above all else. I sat riveted to the TV screen. All in all I give this one a resounding 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Certainly this film has the ring of truth about it, as it purports to be based on actual occurrences at a Marine base. It deals with the attempted cover-up by the local Marine commander of unacceptable conduct by a Marine major which resulted in his being shot to death by his former girl friend, a Marine captain. The man and woman had been lovers, but the captain attempted to break off the relation when she discovered her boy friend was married. He continued to stalk her, going so far as to fire his side arm in her direction at one time. Finally he broke into her home, attacked her with a knife, and was shot twice with her service pistol and killed. The civilian prosecutor ruled the killing self defense, but the Marines decided to charge the captain with murder. The major, you see, was a decorated hero from Vietnam, and an old friend of the commanding colonel at the Marine base. The captain, too, had made some enemies in her motor pool command, rejecting some male advances in a very butch style.

There is considerable psychological freight motivating and controlling the actions of the principal participants in this drama, which the very capable cast gets across nicely. The director and editor, however, seem determined to obscure the happenings as much as possible with frustrating flashbacks and shifting points of view. You're lucky if you know where you're at most of the time. Bear with them, though; it's a worthwhile story as the captain's court martial trial unfolds, and it seems every man's hand is against her, even her attorney at times.

The verdict? Well, after all, this is rather a suspense story, so you'll have to see for yourself. There is a kind of \"pacifist\" message folded into the film, but forget about that. Sure, \"war is hell\", but sometimes it can't be avoided. We'll need those Marines then, even if they aren't always the best champions of fair play internally. As Kipling says in his poem \"Tommy Atkins\":

\"It's Tommy this and Tommy that, And Tommy wait outside. But, it's room for Mr. Atkins, When the troopship's on the tide.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie reminded me of the live dramas of the 1950s- not like the recent \"Failsafe\", which seemed more of a stunt than anything else, but a TRUE moral drama that is both engaging and thought-provoking. Anne Heche is more than credible as the army officer having an affair with her superior, played by Sam Shepard, and Eric Stoltz is wonderful as her lawyer defending her against the military establishment. I found myself waiting for THEIR affair to begin, if only because they look so good together. This movie is apparently based on a true story, and it's a relief to be asked to think about real issues for a change.

Directed by Christopher Menaul, who also did The Passion of Ayn Rand (with Stolz) and the Prime Suspect series, this is a movie with panache and style and is absolutely worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spoilers !!! To understand what really happened first you have to be a warrior, to stay alive in real war, to think off-line,analytically,critically and not linear. Otherwise you will come to false conclusions that Maj.Gray was dumb or unstable person. Truth is something completely different. He was firm hardened veteran and only way he could be killed by Capt. O'Malley is that he wants her to kill him. It was his way out. He choose it. He was not man who will retire. If you've never been on a first line you can't understand it. He intentionally prepare his own suicide. First he seduced Mary Jane, than intentionally acted as a dumb, than stageed argue - shutting incident before witnesses (to protect her later after she done what he wants her to do if it comes to trial), than gave her son a bullets (to assure he could load her gun later), came that night, loaded her gun, woke her up, put her gun in her hands, acted as he was attacking her, after shot first time he raised knife and cried \"One kill\" so she shot him again and before died he put knife off like he was trying to took him back again after first shot. He also gave her a message with his last cry. \"After first kill everything will change inside your mind and destroy your life, this is the the only way for me to die as a man, yet to be killed by somebody I love is my choice and my only prerogative, war and army is not what you thought so far, grow up finally and save your life till you can\". She left military life at the end. She did understand him. And he did not die in vain. The man who helped him to prepare all that and after to carry out the trial and the outcome of that trial was Col. Sam Doran with help of Lt. Tim Macy. Macy didn't know what is really going on and what will be the outcome but did what he was expected to do. He took photos of Mary Jane and Maj.Gray by order of Col. Sam Doran who gave that order because Maj.Gray asked him to do that. After she refused to leave army (what Col.Doran asked her to do) Col. Doran convinced prosecutor to charge her with a premeditated murder (he knew she cant be found quilty) instead of manslaughter (there was some possibility to be found quilty) with taken photos. Col.Doran also suppress argue-shutting incident to escalate to prevent prosecutor to have any doubt about premeditated murder charge but let it be revealed during the trial what greatly influenced the jury. I have no doubt about outcome of that trial. Why Col. Doran did that way? Because he will do anything Maj.Gray ask him to do. Why? Because he saved his life on a battlefield. Why Mary Jane choose to go to trial? Because she was a person who have integrity, a principles. And that is why Maj.Gray choose her. It has to be somebody deserving, somebody honourable. Keeping his secret about what really happened that night she also prove her honour.

Miroslav","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The fact that the movie is based on a true story contributes to a better and, of course, more realistic experience and keeps the viewer focused on the basic theme of the movie. The story is filled with unexpected twists which keeps the viewer at all times from figuring the ending out. In one moment you think that something happens to Coach Jones or Radio. Well it does, but certainly not what you'd expect.

The film becomes at no point boring or too sentimental and the acting performances by Ed Harris & Cuba Gooding Jr. are some of their best in my opinion. The ending puts a long lasting smile on your face and makes you wonder if what you are doing is right. Well I guess that was what Michael Tollin & Mike Rich were trying to do. First-class movie.

Esbj\u00f8rn Nordby Birch. Denmark.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"EXCUSE ME!!! HellOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CUBA GOODING,Jr. Should Have Won An Oscar For His Portrayal In This Film!!! He WAS the film! While the film may be lacking in some areas, Cuba was awesome... and for me, this is the best role that he has ever played! The scene in the movie where he finds out that his mother has died made me break down and cry IN THE THEATER!! I guess I could really relate to this film because I saw the same treatment of people just like that at my own school growing up... what a tragedy! Getting to see the \"real\" Radio and coach at the end of the movie was really special too! If you can watch this movie and not be moved to tears, you need a heart check! If you liked \"Simon Birch\" and \"The Mighty\", you'll love \"Radio\" too! I wish they made more movies like this...Radio is the Real Deal!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best films I have ever seen! How anyone can knock this movie just befuddles my imagination! First of all, Gooding's and Harris's performances were simply spectacular, especially Gooding. That is the only way I can describe the acting: spectacular! You have to imagine how difficult it would be to play a character like that and pull it off; then you see Gooding, and his performance was magical. As for the plot, since it was based on a true person, it goes where the lives of the characters go. For all the action buffs, it might be a little slow, but then it's not an action film. I definitely give this movie a 10. It deserves nothing less!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Corniness Warning. As many fellow IMDb users already know, I'm not a corny, cheesy person. If you don't want to read this kind of review, then go.

To tell you the truth, you're hearing this from a man who laughed through Titanic and almost broke his parents' tape from continuously rewinding the propeller scene.

---Spoilers---

One day, I went off to the theatres with two friends to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star, last year in August. The boring trailers rolled on until one started off so calmly. It was for Radio. The moment I saw the trailer, I just had to see this movie on opening weekend. When that weekend rolled along, Scary Movie 3 was out too so many teenagers were there waiting in line that Friday night. It turns out the movie sold out and those teens were so desperate to see a movie, they went and also sold out Good Boy and Radio. I couldn't get a ticket and the following weeks, I was busy with more important things. About 5 months later, my friend rented Radio. He let me borrow it and I watched it in my room. I'll tell you this now, this is the ONLY movie I have ever seen that got me crying EVER. When Radio's mother died, it just came out automatically. The next day, I went off to Blockbuster and bought the DVD.

Well enough of my stupid personal story, let me tell you about the movie.

Cuba Gooding Jr. stars as a mentally challenged man nick-named Radio. Ed Harris co-stars and this movie is directed by Mike Tollin. Based on a true story, Radio is a teenager who has a life by spending most of his day alone. He goes around with a shopping cart picking up whatever he can and is always carrying a radio around. He's got his own collection. At the end of every day, he goes home to his mother. He never went to school until later in the film. One day, Radio passes by the local high school while the football team is practicing. A football flies over the fence and Radio picks it up and continues on. Ed Harris plays Mr. Jones, the football coach. They meet and this is the life of Radio.

Throughout the whole movie, Radio and Coach Jones spend quality time together, both teaching each other things. It is beautiful to see how the movie goes to the highest joys, the lowest lows, and just seeing Radio live his life. You will laugh, cry, and live the life of Radio with him. This movie holds a special place in my heart along with Toy Story and others. This is a must-see for the whole family, by yourself, or if you're someone who just wants a great drama. Radio is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. Radio will never be forgotten by me. Never.

As Ed Harris' character said greatly near the end of the movie:

\"We're not teaching Radio, Radio is teaching us.\"

My Rating: 8\/10

Eliason A.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not much to it but a validation of small town values and the embracing of a mentally challenged young man into its heart.

I read some of the reviews and was surprised at some of the hostility it engendered. I felt Cuba Gooding handled the part with dignity and respect unlike Sean Penn's drooling fool portrayal in \"I am Sam.\"

The fact that this is based on a true story makes it all the more heartwarming. Sports are taken seriously in small town high school America (and elsewhere, I suspect) and I felt the portrayal of these competitive students opening their hearts to one less fortunate rang true, at least for me.

The coach was never forced to choose between his daughter and Radio but rather came gently to the decision himself under Radio's loving and open ways. Very well done to all. 7 out of 10.

Debra Winger, we need more of you in pictures!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was unusual: a modern-day film which was ultra-nice. In fact, it was so nice it bordered on being too hard to believe in parts. As I watching this based-on-a-real-life story, I was thinking, \"nobody is this nice, this tolerant.\" Mainly, I was referring to Ed Harris' role as \"Coach Jones.\" I think they went a little overboard on his character, but that's better than the reverse: showing him worse than what he was in real life. Odd to see Harris playing the role, too, since he has a long resume of playing nasty, profane characters.

Anyway, I never complain about a nice, feel-good film, and it is nice to see a bunch of well- meaning, kind people. Those folks direct their friendship, love and compassion to \"James Kennedy,\" better known as \"Radio,\" a mentally slow high school kid played by Cuba Gooding Jr. The story takes place in the mid 1970s in South Carolina. Gooding does a nice job with the role, too. However, like Sean Penn's role of a mentally-challenged man in \"I Am Sam,\" an hour-and-a-half of a character like this is plenty. After that, the loudness of those guys gets tiresome to hear.

Note: It was interesting in one of the documentaries on this DVD to find out that, in real life, in took years for \"Radio\" to make his transformation, not months as shown in the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. where cast perfectly in this film. It's a heart-warming story that reaffirms the belief that we can all make a difference if we just care. I think there was a lot of realism with the characters. The screenwriter didn't incorporate racism in the film in a way that most films do, which I thought created a more realistic story line.

Writers tend to inject incidents of racism in an attempt to create realism but usually go overboard.

There are so many towns like this one where people of different races live harmoniously. Ed Harris should have been nominated for an Academy Award because he was great as a leader and coach, realistic as a father and showed a warm caring side when helping Radio.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Can a mentally challenged black youth be a catalyst to unite people in a South Carolina town? The answer appears to be that in spite of his handicap, James Kennedy, understood much more than what he was given credit for and went to become a fixture in the sports scene. Also, the film is saying how many of us overlook people with problems that can be helped if only we have the patience Coach Jones showed to the young man because of his own guilt in his heart.

\"Radio\", directed by Michael Tolllin, is a formula film inspired on a true story. Yet, the movie is not a complete failure because of the inspired performances the director was able to get from his wonderful cast.

Coach Jones is instrumental in getting the young man, who is called Radio because his passion for collecting them, involved in sports, a passion he discovers in this retarded man who has had only hard knocks in his young life. Coming from a poor background, Radio, lives with his mother who is protective of him and questions the coach's intentions. Radio is seen by the school kids as a mascot, at first, then, his sunny disposition wins him the acceptance of everyone because he is a good person without an ounce of malice in his body.

The film owes a lot to Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. who make a great pair as the coach and Radio. Mr. Harris, one of the best actors of our times is never boring in anything he graces with his presence. He gets the essence of the principled coach who sees the possibility to make amends for something that bothers him from his past. Cuba Gooding Jr. is also at his best portraying the mentally challenged young man.

The supporting cast is excellent. S. Ephata Merkerson, one of the best actresses of her generation, does interesting work as the mother of Radio. Alfre Woodard, another good actress plays the high school principle with style. Debra Winger, only has a few scenes in the film.

\"Radio\", while being sentimental, will warm anyone's heart because it shows how we tend to see some people are in our society that we know nothing about and how quick we are to judge them. Michael Tollin puts a lot of ideas in the proper perspective for us.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Radio' is a beautiful movie based on a real story of the mentally challenged James Robert Kennedy, nicknamed 'Radio', and the football coach from the T.L. Hanna High School, Harold Jones.

Cuba Gooding, Jr. is excellent as Radio! I would never imagine to see him in a serious performance, specially because most of the movies I watch with him are comedies. Ed Harris is great as Harold Jones, but this actor IS great, so this is not anything new.

The mentally challenged young man called James Robert Kennedy, always walk around the T.L. Hanna High School, without bothering anyone and almost not noticed. One day, when the football's ball is throw near him, he decides to stay with the ball, for the impatience of Johnny Cash, one of the best players from the football team and also one of the most unpleasant guys you would ever met. One day, Cash decides to punish James, mocking him with other football players and even go so far as to tie him up.

When coach Jones discovers that horrible act, he stays angry and punish all the team, deciding for this day on to help James, who gets the nickname 'Radio' because of his passion for radios in general.

The movie shows how Radio becomes an adept assistant, helping the team train despite hardships from the players, and even getting respect from basically all the people who lives in the small city.

I would recommend this movie for everybody who wants to watch a real and beautiful story. It has a life lesson,specially showing us how a person can make a difference, even not being what we call ''normal''. Radio has a big heart and is incapable to hate anyone, and that's a thing that we all should apply to our daily lives.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Radio is a true story about a man who did what he felt, in his heart, was the right thing to do. The viewer will be compelled to wonder what he or she would have done. The adversity that coach Jones and Radio both faced was both tragic and predictable. People did not understand; nor did they want to understand. But in the end, the power of circumstance forced people to understand and appreciate so much more than they did before it happened. Radio is a mentally challenged youth who understands very little, besides three of the most important things the are too often forgotten as we mature: Intuition, compassion, and love. Coach Jones is a high school teacher who cannot ignore the plight of the underdog who is just trying to play a bad hand of cards in the best way that he knows how. It was sad the way coach Jones and Radio met. The practical joke that terrified the life out of Radio was enough to make you want to severely punish, not only the boys involved, but every boy who knew what was going on and did nothing about it. However, on the positive side of the scale, the incident led to a friendship that would influence so many lives in the kind of way that most of us believe only happens in the movies. This movie is a real life fairy tale and not to be missed. Ed Harris was his usual brilliance. Gooding was flawless. Radio is an inspiration.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm normally not a Drama\/Feel good movie kind of guy, but once I saw the trailer for \"Radio\", I couldn't resist. Not only is this a great film, but it also has grreat acting. Cuba Gooding Jr. did an excellent job portraying James Robert Kennedy, a.k.a. \"RAdio.\" Ed Harris also did a fantastic job as Coach Jones. I was pleasantly surprised to see some comedy in it as well. So for a great story, great acting, and a little comedy, I give \"Radio\" a 10 out of 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Radio was a very good movie, and honestly, i never cry in movies. But it had me pretty close to tears. It really got to me when Radio's mom died and he just wouldn't get out of his room. I felt really sad about how, if you were mentally retarded, you wouldn't really be able to understand death. I really liked the movie, and It's a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a movie you'll either love or hate. I loved it. If you are looking for suspense, great special effects, action, sophistication, cynicism, etc. you won't find it in this movie. It is a feel good movie, sentimental, positive, uplifting. The heroes of the movie are Coach Jones (played by Ed Harris), a man of strength and integrity, and Radio (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) a mentally retarded man who finds a way to contribute to his world. I guess I didn't find this movie to be \"sentimental hogwash\" as so many did, because it felt very real to me. I know people like these. I've seen jocks who think it's fun to pick on the vulnerable. I've seen men of integrity stand up for the vulnerable. I've seen people who think high school football is serious business. I've seen people who know what really is important in life. Any of these people could have been people I knew. I did laugh; I did cry. I left the movie feeling good, remembering that there are people like Coach Jones and Radio in my world. If there aren't people like them in yours, you might not like the movie. If you don't like a movie that shows the better side of human nature, you'll hate it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cuba Gooding Jr. and Ed Harris are touching. This movie is really surprising. It was enjoyable from start to finish.

The story is about mentally challenged man who helps out with a football team.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Inspired by True events, Radio is one of the best acted, heart felt dramas I seen widely released in sometime. It definitely is one of the year's best films of 2003.

Radio stars Ed Harris, who is Oscar worthy nonetheless in this film, as football coach Harold Jones. Coach Jones has been teaching football all his life and loves the game. However Coach Jones does not spend much time with his wife and daughter played by Debra Winger and Sarah Drew. One day Radio, played by Cuba Gooding Jr., in his best performance since Men of Honor, comes by the football field while the coach's team is practicing for the game. Some members of the team, then tie up radio and throw him into a building. They then bang on the building and finally Coach Jones suspects something is wrong. He comes over and helps Radio, who is frightened, and from that point on Coach Jones and Radio shares a very special bond. Radio becomes the highlight of every football game and really enjoys participating in the football games and at school events. He also becomes Coach Jones's main interest in life over football which at first was his main priority before both his family and Radio.

The movie deals with all sorts of real life problems including what your priorities are life, accepting people for who they are even if they are different, death, and family relationships. The movie touches upon all those issues and more and is extremely well done and director Michael Tollin should be very proud of this film. The thing I liked most about Radio was how real it felt. The performances were like watching something in real life occur right before your eyes. Radio had a great mix of comedy and drama. Some parts were quite funny yet other parts were very serious and sad.

In conclusion, I feel that Radio was very overlooked by Critics only getting average reviews. They must have there heads up there butts because its amazing how this film can only get 2 star reviews and something like school of rock can get 3 or 4 stars it doesn't make any sense to me. Also the performances as I mentioned before are top-notch and Oscar worthy. In my opinion, both Ed Harris, who I think is underrated as an actor, and Cuba Gooding Jr. should both get some kind on nomination for this movie. Radio is one my favorite movies of the year and gives me reason to still see some of the big Hollywood movies. My final rating for Radio is a 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cuba Gooding,Jr. will win the Oscar for BEST ACTOR in 2003.And Ed Harris will win for BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR. What a beautiful and poignant film it is but be sure to bring along a box of tissues because if this film doesn't get to you, then you have ice water in your veins.

It was 1976. The setting was in South Carolina and the Civil Rights Act was about ten years old. We have a white high school football coach and teacher, Ed Harris. Then there is a black retarded frightened but pleasant fellow, Cuba Gooding, whose greatest possessions, including a radio, are piled into a shopping cart which is also used as his bicycle.

Ed Harris takes a keen interest in the fellow for a reason explained much later on in the film. He gives Cuba the nickname \"Radio\" and what follows is an absoutely riveting, engrossing, poignant exploration of the human soul.

The movie is nothing short of a masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As one who frequently goes to the movies, I have to say that this has been one of the most impressive movies I have seen this year. Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. gave outstanding performances allowing viewers to get lost in the various emotions and really feel for the characters. It is nice to occasionally see a movie that does not depend entirely upon special effects but allows the characters of the story to touch the human psyche on many levels. I wish Hollywood would produce more movies of this calibre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very moving movie about life itself. The challenges a handicapped person must face in a land that expects perfection is brought to the forefront for all to see and hopefully understand. It should teach the bigots of society that we are all humans, and while some of us are gifted with a mind, heart and sound body, there are decent human beings that exist in the world that are not as lucky, or maybe, we're the unlucky ones. We don't always see the beauty in the world because we're wrapped up in our 'blind' ambitions, and see it only in one light \"what can this world do for me!!!\". Maybe we all wish we were like Radio, a loving happy individual...who loves everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just got home from seeing \"Radio.\" I've not seen such an inspiring story in a long time. My kids are ages 8 and 5 and I would like to take them so that they may \"feel\" the message as I did - you should seek to find the best in people and love them for who they are, not judge them for their differences. Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Ed Harris both deserve Academy Awards for this movie. I don't know why we can't have more movies like this, rather than the junk that is served up at theatres on a daily basis.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cuba Gooding Jr. is back on top! Jesus, he did a great job in this film! I LOVED this movie. Its one of those feel good movies that makes you want to run out and volunteer at a mission or something. Anyway, I would recommend seeing this movie in a heartbeat! Well worth the price of admission. And as for Cuba Gooding Jr., just give him his next Oscar right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Having read the unemployed critic's, review, I went to a screening of \"Radio\" not knowing what to expect. Thankfully, the unemployed critic now appears, to me anyway, a frustrated film director\/movie critic. His review is callous and totally uncalled for!

This is a movie that will make you laugh, it will make you cry and in the end it will give you a moment of pause!

To paraphrase a line delivered by Actor Ed Harris in the final Barbershop scene \"...and all this time that we thought we were teaching Radio, truth is...He was teaching us. He treats us all the time, like we wish we treated each other, some of the time!\"

Yes the movie tugs at the heartstrings. Yes it is emotionally manipulative and yes Cuba Gooding Jr. (In an Oscar worthy performance) is a little over the top at times (See the Christmas day dance scene) but you know what? SO WHAT! Every once in awhile the community of America needs to be reminded what tolerance can do for our great country. We need to be reminded how great we CAN be.

This is a solid cast. I was particularly pleased to see S. Epatha Merkerson, portraying Radio's mother, do something outside of Law and Order. I always wondered, is Ms. Merkerson a great actor or is it the quality of writing delivered buy a strong cast on Law and Order. After watching this movie, it is easy to see that she is indeed a very fine actor.

Also joining the cast in small but important and powerful roles is Alfre Woodard as the Principal, Debra Winger in a career-resurrecting role of Coach Jones's wife and Chris Mulkey as Protagonist, Frank Clay.

We cannot over look Ed Harris's performance as Coach Harold Jones. After reflecting on this movie and having grown up in the Deep South my self, It is hard to truly appreciate Mr. Harris and his contribution to this film. As Coach Jones, Ed delivers a quiet, rock solid performance, that of a man on a mission. Coach Harris will not let the town or circumstances divert him from what he knows in his heart, is the right thing to do.

If you see this movie, make sure you hang around for the end credits. You will be in for a treat as the real James Robert 'Radio' Kennedy, now in his mid 50's, is shown, still leading the T.L. Hanna Football team on to the field every Friday night.

One final note. If you were a teen in the mid to late 70's, this movie is worth the price of admission, for the sound track alone!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this was a really well written film. I've heard of Radio the person before this movie was even created and I can't begin to describe how good Cuba Gooding Jr was in it. It will make the women cry, everyone laugh, and most everyone will leave smiling.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent performances and a solid, but not overplayed story, helped this movie exceed my expectations. This movie was far better than I was expecting after some of the reviews I had read - but frankly those reviewers just got it wrong. Very inspiring and uplifting. Highly recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Radio will have you laughing, crying, feeling. This story based on a true story is the perfect movie for a couple to view. There's enough for both. cuba Gooding Jr.portrays the title character to perfection. His performance is worthy of an academy award nomination.The compassion of the movie is obvious. The movie evokes many emotions. I sincerely enjoyed this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Call it manipulative drivel if you will, but I fell for it. Sure, there could have been more character development. Yeah, there could have been better cinematography and less of a constant \"movie of the week\" score, but Ed Harris was impeccable, Cuba Gooding adorable and touching, and let's face it people, in real life, how many of us really get to know the motivation of others. Not many. We did get a little glimpse into the coach's motivation (a very provocative dialog in my opinion, not to be soon forgotten) so in my opinion, this was a lovely tribute to one human being who broke out of his \"comfort zone\" to reach out to another human being, and in the mean time, touched the lives hundreds more. A lesson we all need to me reminded of. Why is it that the right thing to do is so often the hardest thing to do? I recommend this beautiful little movie to anyone with a heart. You won't be disappointed. And bring your Kleenex. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was an excellent acted, excellent directed and overall had an excellent story. Ive had real life experiance with a boy like 'Radio'. At the football program in my town, weve had a mentally challenged boy every year practice, travel, and have fun with the football team. This movie is really true and i can identify with it 100%. A boy like 'Radio' just needs to feel like they belong to something; they need to feel like their life is worth living. Thats how 'Radio' feels and thats why that type of program is set up at my high school. This is a very touching movie that im glad has been brought to the big screen. My dad and I loved it and i will always remember this for being a movie that tells a riveting story of the goodness and kindness of man!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'A Tale of Two Sisters', or 'Janghwa, Hongryeon', is a true masterpiece. Brilliant psychological thriller, heart-wrenching drama, and gripping horror all wrapped up in one beautifully orchestrated package. From the intricate plot, to the beautiful cinematography, to the absolutely perfect casting, every aspect of this film is extraordinary.

For fear of revealing too much concerning the plot, I will just say it is very satisfying. While it may appear to be a little difficult to understand at first, it does a good job of explaining things in the end. And whether you prefer psychological thriller, drama, or horror, I promise you will not be disappointed.

From a technical standpoint, its nearly flawless. The set, the cinematography, lighting, and especially the soundtrack, all are captivating. The waltz seemed an odd choice at first, but proved to be an ingenious choice.

As for the casting, we're talking absolute perfection. I'm Su-jeong is totally convincing as the defiant, yet troubled Su-mi. Mun Keun- yeong is equally convincing as her emotionally traumatized sister Su-yeon. These two girls were magical on the screen. I will certainly be looking into their other films. Yeom Jeong-ah is deceitfully cheerful and hauntingly evil as the stepmother. Finally, Kap-su Kim gives an excellent performance as the weary, broken father.

I truly love this film. If you have yet to see 'A Tale Of Two Sisters', I strongly recommend locating a copy. It is a real gem, worthy of anyone's collection.

(10\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Richard Abernethie, a very wealthy man, has died and his relatives have assembled for his funeral. Included in the funeral party is Abernathie's youngest sister Cora Galaccio. While none of the family has seen Cora in at least 20 years, they all agree that Cora was always a bit different. So when Cora says something about Abemethie having been murdered, most laugh it off as one of Cora's eccentricities. But someone is obviously taking Cora seriously. The next day, Cora is found dead in her bed having been beaten violently. Is there a connection between the two deaths? It's up to Hercule Poirot to find a killer.

After the Funeral is one of the most well put together episodes of the entire Poirot series. I've always been a fan of this particular Agatha Christie book and, from what I remember, the movie is as faithful to Christie's source material as any of the Poirot installments. The mystery is top notch with plenty of clues, suspects, and red herrings. And as I've written before, I always enjoy an Christie story where Hercule Poirot gathers everyone together in a drawing room for the final reveal. It might be old fashioned, but that's the way I like it. Getting beyond the plot, technically and artistically After the Funeral is a winner. Sets, editing, direction, and cinematography are as good as you'll find in one of these movies. The acting is equally impressive. I've come to expect an enjoyable performance from David Suchet as Poirot and he doesn't disappoint here. The rest of the cast is just as strong with Monica Dolan giving an especially noteworthy performance. Other than a minor quibble with the rapid fire way the characters are introduced, I've got no real complaints. It's a good show all the way around.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Count me as being one who is happy to see no Hastings in this episode. The poor-man's Dr. Watson does nothing for me, as he simply drags down every scene he's in. Japp is often necessary to the story as the representative of officialdom, and a little Miss Lemon is fine for seasoning, but Hastings swings from painfully dim to over-mannered in different episodes. If I have to sit through one more vacuous \"Oh, I say there!\" I'll take the gas-pipe.

As a general rule, the more Poirot you get in a Poirot story, the better. Every line for Hastings is one taken away from Poirot. And I've never read the books, so I really don't care about fidelity to Christie's characters. A lot of viewers\/reviewers seem to have a problem with separating the movies from the books. If you want the book as written, then read it. I don't see the point of watching the television version if you know what will come next at every stage. Theatre is not prose - don't expect a transcription.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This production was quite good. The usual fabulous scenery, interesting, quirky characters. It was just so strange not to have Captain Hastings, Miss Lemon, and Poirot's office\/residence, so prominently featured in the original PBS\/BBC mysteries.

In the original series, so much took place at the office. Hastings reading the paper, while Poirot \"exercises his little gray cells.\" Miss Lemon pitching in whenever needed.

Poirot without Capt. Hastings would be like Holmes without Watson ... he can most certainly solve the crime, but it is not as interesting.

And what would a Poirot mystery be without Hastings, with his impeccable manners, falling for some beautiful, unattainable woman.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In my work with the only nationwide non-profit organization, Security On Campus, Inc. dedicated exclusively to the issue of college campus crime prevention and student awareness I see all too often the type of campus violence and `cover-up' through secret campus courts portrayed in the movie `Silencing Mary.' In fact we receive numerous calls and requests for information every month from campus reporters such as `Mary' who are facing similar situations.

Its depiction of a campus rape and the subsequent crusade by `Mary,' the victim's roommate and a student journalist played exceedingly well by Melissa Joan Hart, for justice was very well done and accurately researched.

This was the first television movie that I have ever seen that I felt truly reflected and encompassed all of the various complex issues associated with how rape and other violent crimes are dealt with on our nation's college and university campuses. Although it would not be possible to address all of these issues in depth in 2 hours, this movie comes closer than any others I've seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I actually flipped to Lifetime channel by mistake, just as this movie was beginning, and ended-up watching it.

It certainly deals with a serious issue, probably more prevalent than we realize, in terms of this type of attack of a young woman by an ego-maniacal fellow-student, who feels he's above the system, and, unfortunately, often is.

The cast here was believable, and the performances credible. A lot of these Canadian\/Lifetime flicks are decidedly \"over-the-top.\" However, this is one I might label as \"under-the-top.\"

While appreciating the fact that it wasn't presented in an overblown fashion, this film somehow seemed like a record being played at a slower speed than proper, the 96 minutes seemed like many more, and it had the effect of looking like a shorter film, looped over-and-over, seemingly going on and on and on and ON - before reaching its inevitable and predictable conclusion.

Yet the engaging characters and performances made it better than the average film of this type, despite these criticisms.

And while these pictures often \"milk\" the climax, this one could have given it a bit more detail and length.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this movie. Many people refer to it as \"Sabrina the Teenage Feminist\". They do that with a lot of movies that Melissa Joan Hart is in. Still, she really surprised me in this movie because she was great in the part of Mary, who fights for justice when her roommate is raped. You could tell that Hart was extremely determined in this movie and it showed. I also liked Lisa Dean Ryan as Mary's roommate. She was very effective in making me feel sorry for her character after she was raped. Josh Hopkins was good as the cocky and egotistical rapist. Lochlyn Munro convincingly played his character. The acting in this movie is better than in most TV movies, in my opinion.

The movie was pretty predictable though. Also, I expected more from the ending, it was too abrupt. The delivery could have been better. But the performances and overall plot make up for these problems.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie definitely shows something and sheds light on what happens in most institutions today, and shows how one gurl just with the help of her newspaper manages to get things done, her editor has complete faith in her and doesn't publish something important, because it would harm her friend... and when it was the right time she took the necessary action.

The movie overall got a rating of 9 from me , because its got everything, i mean it keeps you entertained, and moreover, they have acted really well, for a TV movie, its really high quality acting that deserves alot of credit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw it at 5am January 1, 2009, and after a day i watched it again and i want to watch it again. Love everything (well, almost, so 9 stars) about it. No color, beautiful naive stories, funny gangsters, Anna, camera work, music. Well, sometimes you just want to listen little bit longer and the music just stops. But this is not a musical after all. I like Anna's acting, this naive wannabe gangster girl, how she speaks, holds the gun, everything makes me smile. No, it's not that funny, though i have laughed a bit at some moments, it's just so subtle. Excellent work by Samuel Benchetrit. Though 3d nouvelle seems weaker, but they are also gangsters, maybe even worse, cause they are stealing ideas. And the last scene is my favorite. Makes me feel so warm and.. romantic. Yes, i would recommend this movie for the romantic souls with a taste for such art-housish movies. And i don't agree with those comparing it to Pulp Fiction. It's not about action and twisted story, though all vignettes intersect. It's calm, and maybe too slow movie for most of the people. It's about characters, their feelings, very subtle. Anyway, probably this review won't be of much help to anyone (my first), just wanted to express my appreciation.

SPOILER: This movie doesn't have a Goofs section. Wonder, didn't anybody notice that hand in the 2 part when the kidnappers decided to go home? Looks like a part of crew, hehe. I know i should better post this in forums, but i don't agree with some policies here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a slightly uneven entry with one standout sequence involving an over-the-hill gang reminiscing in the diner that once - thirty years previously - was their hideout; one ho-hum duologue between two ageing rock musos; a noirish kidnap turned on its head and an opening sequence (plus epilogue) involving heist artist wannabe Edward Baer and current 'hot' property Anna Magloulis which has its moments. No movie in which Jean Rochefort appears can be dismissed lightly and here he shines as one of the over-the-hill quintet, indeed the film is worth seeing for Rochefort alone but each of the sequences has something to offer and it's definitely worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this black and white comedy noir yesterday at the London film Festival. Structurally, it has been compared to Pulp Fiction but it is perhaps closer to the structure of Amores Perros and the slacker mood of Kevin Smith's Clerks. Four stories intersect at a French motorway diner. The first vignette has Franck (Edouard Baer) bungling a hold up at the diner. The waitress, Suzie (Anna Mouglalis) takes pity and tell him her story. The second has two incompetent kidnappers, Leon (Bouli Lanners) and Paul (Serge Lariviere) take a teenage girl from her rich family. Unfortunately for them, she is suicidal and her family don't appear to want her back. The third is a dialogue between two ageing rock stars who bump into each other at the diner (Alain Bashung and Arno playing themselves). The final part is about four ex-criminals who smuggle their old partner out of hospital to visit their old hideout which has since been turned into \u0085 the diner. An 'epilogue' returns to Franck and Suzie to complete their story (not really an epilogue, more a conclusion).

The structure does not really work. The stories are not sufficiently intertwined as in Pulp Fiction. Nor is the diner crucial to the action to at least two of the stories in the way the car crash was crucial in the four stories of Amores Perros. The quality of the individual stories varies. The hideout story is a cute idea, with a couple of good gags, but does not come off; and the rock star reunion is pointless and dull. On the other hand, the kidnap story is hilarious, although its connection to the diner is tenuous. The most balanced and successful story is the Franck and Suzie one.

This film isn't entirely successful but has moments of interest and hilarity. I look forward to seeing more of Writer\/director's Samuel Benchetrit's work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brain of Blood starts as Abdul Amir (Reed Hadley) the leader of a country called Kahlid is close to death because of cancer, however if he dies Kahlid will tear itself apart without anyone to lead them so doctor Robert Nigserian (Grant Williams) & one of Amir's devotees Mohammed (Zandor Vorkov) have devised a plan to take Amir's dead body to America where mad scientist Dr. Lloyd Trenton (Kent Taylor) will transplant his brain into a fresh body & with a bit of plastic surgery no-one will ever know he was even dead. Things don't go according to plan though as when the time comes to transplant Amir's brain Trenton's freak assistant Gor (John Bloom) brings a dead body of someone that fell from a balcony, Trenton needed a strong fit living body & since there's no more time he decides to use Gor's body as a temporary stop-gap until another more suitable one can be found. Unfortunately when Amir wakes up in his new body he's not very happy at what he sees, I mean would you be if you found out your brain was inside a badly burned freak?

Also known as Brain Damage, The Brain, The Creature's Revenege & The Undying Brain this cheapo exploitation flick was produced & directed by the one & only Al Adamason & quite frankly I'm offended at the pathetic 1.5 rating Brain of Blood has on the IMDb, personally I think it's terrific fun in a so bad it's good sort of way. The highly entertaining script by Kane W. Lynn & Joe Van Rodgers is as loopy & silly as they come from sloppy blood soaked brain transplants to crazed mad scientists, from 7 foot tall acid scarred freaks who play with toy cars to 4 foot tall midget medical assistant's, from basement dungeons to rooftop chases, from car crashes to assassination's, kidnaps to screaming scantily clad women, from Regina Carrol's hair-do which should get it's own mention during the opening credits to teenage girls imprisoned in the basement for blood to a laugh-out-loud hilarious ending which includes some deep meaningful speech! It's all here & Brain of Blood has quality cheese stamped all over it, if your a fan of bad low budget exploitation flicks with a sense of fun then this film should be right at the top of your list of 'must see' films. Despite it's lowly 1.5 rating I am proud to admit that I liked Brain of Blood a lot, I thought it was an absolute hoot to watch, it slows down a bit at the end with a few too many shots of people wandering around doing nothing in particular but until that point it had moved along like a rocket, at only 85 minutes it's relatively short, it's difficult to second guess the barmy plot & I just think it's loads of campy fun.

This is director Adamson's masterpiece as far as I'm concerned along with Dracula vs. Frankenstein (1971) which he made a year before this. Those who have seen an Adamson film before will know about the none existent production values, cheap special effects & cardboard sets & that all adds to the fun, this film manages that fine between incompetence & seriousness to create a memorable viewing experience. I love the opening shot of Kahlid which is obviously just a photo of the Taj Mahal in India complete with statuesque people in the foreground! Regina Carrol's hair seems to be a separate entity on it's own, it seems to change styles between shots & is frankly horrendous, don't get me started about her make-up job either that she must apply with a a paint sprayer! There is another hilarious moment when we see Amir's body has been transported to America wrapped in what looks like ordinary tin foil, why is the question I asked myself, why!? The effects are variable, there's a terrible looking fake spider, Gor's burned make-up job is pretty bad although there is a surprisingly gory brain removal which is actually quite impressive.

The budget for Brain of Blood must have been practically none existent, I must admit I thought Trenton's lab was quite good with various computers & medical instruments although the rest of the film looks cheap & nasty. The production values are low, the music was taken from another film Beast of Blood (1971) & the acting is awful but in a campy fun sort of way.

Brain of Blood may have the best title for an exploitation film ever & as far as I'm concerned it's a highly entertaining piece of nonsense that I had a great time watching & laughing at. They just don't\/can't\/won't make them like this anymore, impossible to recommend to anyone looking for a good film but bad movie lovers should enjoy it. I liked it, but then again I'm just weird.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"American-made final entry in the \"Blood Island\" series of Filipino horror films concerns Abdul Amir (Reed Hadley), ruler of a fictional country. He dies of cancer, yet it's figured out how to bring him back: put his brain into a donor body. The mad doctor in charge (Kent Taylor) puts it in a highly unlikely body: the facially scarred giant manservant named Gor (John Bloom). A doctor friend of the ruler tries to remedy matters and put an end to the mad doctors' plans.

Film-making partners Samuel M. Sherman (producer) and Al Adamson (director) corral several actors they've worked with before, including Taylor, Adamsons' sexy wife Regina Carrol, Angelo Rossitto, Zandor Vorkov, and Vicki Volante. They tried to go for the feel of the previous \"Blood Island\" entries but one can tell this was made stateside. While not necessarily a \"good\" film, it's got a bunch of amusing elements to add up to an entertainingly trashy whole. A malevolent dwarf (Rossitto), gory operations, a rather unconvincing makeup job on Bloom, the political intrigue subplot, caverns full of cobwebs, etc. The narrative is actually pretty coherent, with plot twists thrown in here and there. I think it could have been trimmed a bit; some scenes drag. But it's got its fun moments and an ending people might not expect.

For this kind of thing, the acting isn't too bad. Both Taylor and Rossitto are fun; the latter seems to be having quite a good time in his role. Volante is appealing enough, and Williams is O.K. in the heroic role. In any event, it's nice to see all of these familiar faces in one of these films.

Absolutely nothing special, but as a trashy B \"horror\" (I use the word loosely, none of this is exactly scary) film, it certainly amuses.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film revolves around an Arabian leader (Amir) who dies and wants to live on. So a Dr. Lloyd Trenton is being paid to transplant Amirs brain into a \"willing\" participant. But in the Doctors basement his dwarf assistant Dorro (Angelo Rossitto) drains young girls blood for the doctors purposes. So meanwhile Doctor Llyod pays a man to kill the people who assisted Amir into the country (Which is Reed Hadley, Grant Williams, and various unknown bodyguards.). Grant is the only survivor when his car crashes off the road. While this has happened the doctors other assistant Gor is sent out to get a body for amir and hurts him so badly Dr.Llyod cant operate. Meanwhile, Grant finds Amirs \"girlfriend\" Regina Carrol and tells her his story. Grant sees the man who drove him off the road and Dorro kills him. Then since Gor failed to get a body D.r Llyod puts Amirs brain into Gors disfigured body. Then Grant and Regina go to the Doctors lab an

------------------------SPOILERS------------------------- find out his secret. Soon Amir (Gor) are prancing around killing people and in the muddle of what I think is plot Dr.Llyod has a brain-ray gun which hurts Amir on command. It turns out Dr.Lloyd wants a country in which all scientists can work without law. So then Regina dies. and at the end Amirs new body (I think) say that it shall be a new country blah blah.

I still don't get the ending but overall this was a very enjoyable piece of smelly cheese.This film features Grant Williams in his second to last film roll. I recommend it for any fan of Al Adamson or if you like Brains.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I felt compelled to comment on this film because it's listed as the fourth lowest-rated sci-film of all time on the IMDb. WHAT!?!? Sure, this movie is crappy, but it's HILARIOUS! It's not awful on an Ed Wood level, it's more surreal and uneven.

There are some classic moments in the film. The brain surgery is gross and great- and even nuttier when you consider that the film was rated PG! Gor chasing after his dolly before getting battery acid dumped on his face- \"Mine! Gimmee!\" Zandor Vorkoff's speeches at the beginning of the film- \"Before Amir, Kali was but another weak nation struggling to break free from centuries of stagnant feudalism!\" Angelo Rossito also has some great lines- \"No, Gor! No!\" \"You want these keys, don't you, my pretties?\" It is absolutely wrong that this is the 4th lowest-rated sci-film on the IMDb because it is ENTERTAINING. No matter how bad a film is, if it still manages to be weird, quirky, unsettling, or entertaining, it has merit and doesn't deserve to be dumped on and dismissed. I won't defend most of Al Adamson's films, but this one, along with Dracula VS. FRANKENSTEIN and BLOOD OF GHASTLY HORROR, are entertaining enough to make up for their awfulness.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Totally disgusting and cheap bawdy humor. I loved it!!! It is the most disgusting and totally horribly acted film, except for Nicolas Read, who plays an un-dead Court Jester, to comic brilliance. But being that as it may, I laughed so many times and I have to hand it to the film makers, it wasn't pretentious or ordinary in any way. Raping, fighting, zombies vomitting on their rape victims. What other movie has this? Not for the quesy, but with a pizza, a bong, and a six pack of beer, you got it made, if you have a cast iron stomach and a juvenille sense of humor like myself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw this on TV I was nervous...whats if they messed it up? Millions of families like mine that live with a brain damaged man, in my case my Dad, would be let down. I watched it with my Mum and we both ended up crying, it was so accurate and captured how the family feels as well as the person having suffered the brain injury. The actors were all wonderful and I had no complaints, my Mums told me she hasn't been able to stop thinking about it. I hope this program made many people aware of what it's like living with brain damage and what it's like for the families. More programs like this should be made, I was surprised at how good it was and it's really shook me up emotionally.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was blubbing like an idiot during the last ten minutes of this exceptional piece of television. I have to say that the idea of sitting down to view 90 minutes of what was bound to be pretty depressing material on a Sunday, was not a welcome one. The thought of yet another, over worthy, BAFTA winning possibility did not enthuse me......However the end result knocked me for 6. This is some of the best television I have seen in ages. For years I was under the impression that all originality had left the BBC's drama department. Our Friends in the North was the last production that truly blew me away and that was 10 years ago. However faith is restored and honour is satisfied. David Tenant was incredible! So many actors I can think of would have really gone to town on a part like this, but never once did I see Mr Tenant as an actor or as the Doctor, all I saw was Alan Hamilton. I haven't had my heart wrenched this much since Daniel Craigs performance as Geordie Peacock all those years ago. Sarah Parish was also incredible and I really hope this role brings her better roles in the future. All of the cast were great but special mention must go to the director who really placed us inside Alans head. The toaster scene, in particular, made me feel quite queasy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm so glad I taped this film when it came on BBC last month! It blew my mind, so gut wrenching and real. David Tennant is absolutely fabulous in this, even though his character isn't always that easy to like or identify with. The final scene where he plays the song just broke my heart, those eyes....

I'm guessing that he made this film in between the Dr. Who series, and that makes it even more of an achievement for me. I just love Dr. Who and yet I saw absolutely nothing of him in Mr. Tennants portrayal of this man who knows that he has changed and struggles to create some sort of new identity and life.

great little intense drama!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Recovery is a well-judged and balanced drama of a sensitive subject that doesn't sentimentalise the main characters. David Tennant and Sarah Parish bring to the fore the complex and conflicting emotions of a couple deeply in love struggling to come to terms with the personality changes they both endure and also must make to survive a tragic accident.

Tennant, as Alan, brings humour as well as a dangerous lecherousness, as an engineer recovering from a memory loss brought on by a road accident. Alan is not portrayed simply as a victim but as human being with feelings doing the best he can to make sense of his new life. Sarah Parish's Tricia is not a clich\u00e9d stand-by-her-man housewife who will do anything to support her husband. She struggles with falling out of love with Alan, as the man she once new and loved is now a completely different person - a stranger to her.

Contrary to some opinion, this - in my view - makes perfect Sunday night viewing. Too often, we are shown soft family dramas or detective series, like Heartbeat, which rot and putrefy the brain. Programme commissioners seem to think that the traditional day of rest is also a day when our minds go to sleep. More challenging and thought-provoking drama like Recovery would seriously change the situation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"David Tennant and Sarah Parish's brilliant acting had me in tears as many of the scenes were so familiar to me. My husband suffered a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage in 1977 and required a major operation which involved lifting his brain and plugging the leak. Like Tricia I was naive enough to expect that he would return to being his former self. After over 25 years of loving and caring for him he abandoned me without warning to go and live with a woman he hardly knew. He then petitioned for and I am now going through a divorce. I do hope the programme helped people to understand what it is like to cope with brain injury.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Recovery is an incredibly moving piece of work, handling the devastating effects of brain injury on not only the individual, but the entire family. Without resorting to preaching or Hollywood sappy endings, Tony Marchant's drama presents a family in crisis in a realistic way.

Highest praise goes David Tennant and Sarah Parish for their incredible performances. I had presumed before watching the drama that I would see some of their previous on screen relationship in Blackpool bleed through-- but it never does. Neither actor is recognizable from any previous work, and I didn't see either of them as an actor playing a part during the entire 90 minutes. In addition, Harry Treadaway's performance as the son just on the cusp of starting his own life in university was fantastic - throughout the piece, he shows the torn nature of a teenage boy thrown into the unwilling role as man of the house,

At times, nearly every character in the drama is unsympathetic. As the viewer, I wanted to give each of them a good smack to wake up to reality, stop moping, and start adjusting to the rotten but very present change in their lives. But under the same circumstances, I see myself acting like any of them - switching between trying to show the stiff upper lip to desperation to escape to anything, including behavior that is completely unlike myself. It's the show's greatest strength - truth, without sugar coating, to force us all to think what we'd be able to do under the same circumstances.

This is a difficult, but must-watch show. I hope that it somehow manages to be shown in the U.S.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A touching movie about a talented woman who struggles with a society and a love that structurally underestimate her. The issues are subtly addressed and timeless, as many of the depicted difficulties between man and woman still exist in Dutch society today. This movie is a tribute to all modern women without dwelling on feminism. Not only the story is well told, the acting and the scenery are great as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nynke is a classy filmed movie in the same style as the Oscar winning film Character (1997). But this comparison immediately urges me to add that the latter was quite more exciting...

Sure, Nynke is a beautiful historic & costume drama (with fantastic acting by Monic Hendrickx!) in which you witness the personal growth of 'Nynke van Hichtum' in her marriage to Pieter Jelles Troelstra. The subtitle of this movie is 'a lovestory'. So it starts, and ends with their marriage.

But THAT is where the director makes a crucial mistake! Nynke's exciting, independent life started when the marriage ended. She wrote several children's books and travelled around the world. What a great life she has lived. But Pieter Verhoeff puts Nynke back in the trammels of convention that depressed her and that she struggled out of: the thought that her life extended just her marriage to Troelstra, being no one else but the mother of their kids.

Let's all hope for Nynke II!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This wonderful film is a love story, and shows that not all relationships are destined to last. Even so they can be great & worth the pain & suffering of breakup.

Director Pieter Verhoeff gives us an insight of the period around 1900, the way society (mis)treats women, and how a very strong woman (Nynke) deals with. With great costumes, landscapes, lovely music and good actors and acting this photoplay draws you in for the length of the movie.

At first the ending is a bit sudden, a page describing the rest of her life scrolls. On reflection this is a great (the best) way to have your own fantasy create the rest of her life.

This was the second movie for me that had people sit while the end titles scrolled by (The first being Schindler's List). Apparently the movie had this effect on everybody.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great movie. Good acting ,a wonderful script. It's exciting to find out what the people are thinking and how they react on the situation they are in. A pity about the ending; a 'page' of text of how Nynke's life went on, instead of moving images was a poor choice. I hope this movie attracts a lot of people; it's worth it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Flipping through the channels I was lucky enough to stumble upon the beginning of this movie. I must admit that it grabbed my attention almost immediately. I love older films and this is or should be considered a classic! One of the most wonderful rarities of this movie is that the main character was not only female but she was also a bad girl. I highly recommend this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is still alive and kicking today thanks to the presence of Alan Ladd. This is good in one way because the movie has some interesting things to say, but bad in another because everyone who watches it expecting that tough-guy Ladd is going to hoop through his usual paces, is going to be mighty disappointed. Without fanfare or introduction, Ladd is suddenly introduced in the third reel. True, his role is a key one but it's small and likely to get lost in the shuffle. There are many key roles in former newspaperman Martin Mooney's ambivalent screenplay which hits out at all political alliances and quite ruthlessly denigrates Reform candidates. It's the lovely and extremely talented Joan Woodbury who ties the various strands of the wide-ranging story together. Unlike the usual Hollywood production, the plot actually proceeds in a series of jumps, much like the films later turned out by the French \"New Wave\", though easier to follow here, especially if you are aware that the film's original title was Paper Bullets. Nonetheless, some of the film's narrative and character switches are a little disconcerting, particularly in the role played by Jack LaRue who has wisely elected to act the part in a strangely non-committal way. One of Jack's best acting jobs ever, but no-one is likely to notice, alas!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The plot of this movie is as dumb as a bag of hair. Jimmy Smit plays a character that could have been upset by the ridiculousness of the story. He is evil and a wife beater. It's a character as far from his NYPD and LA Law roles as you could possibly get.

If you've thought he had the looks and the acting chops to play the really bad boy role, her's your present.

But!!!!!!!! Mary Louis Parker wears black miniskirts and little black minidresses throughout the movie.

She has always had some of the greatest legs in the history of the movies. This makes the movie well worth it for this leg admirer.

I'd buy the DVD for this reason only if it was available.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the kind of film one initially selects to make up the numbers from video rental.....only to discover an under-rated entertaining and enjoyable movie!! The opening sequence of the police arriving at a dark and rainy house wherein the \"wife\" has committed murder.......or is it??....and the remainder of the film seeks to unravel what really happened....OK...the film is a bit \"campy\"...but has good editing and dialogue.....professional acting.....often humorous......and the very last scene with the facial expression is one of the best of its' kind......definitely worth watching.....deserving at least a 7 or an 8!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this one on cable and I was very surprised. Steady direction and some good performances accent a twisty and very engaging story. This one will keep you up all night thinking about what was real and what wasn't. Check out Jason Scott Lee in the Lou Diamond Phillips role!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I was in 7th grade(back in 1977), I was asked to read the novel that this was based on as part of my English class studies. I can remember being very touched by it and excited when a TV version came out a year later.

Kristy McNichol was a popular TV actress when this film was produced and was already playing a daughter in a dysfunctional family on the hit TV series \"Family\". It was clear that she had the range and ability to pull off this part. I recall her as being a bit \"stiff\" at times, but over all she does a good job. She carries the movie well.

Esther Rolle is fantastic as the domestic who appears to be the only one in the household that seems to truly care for her. Barbara Barrie as the somewhat frightened and slightly neurotic mother is also good, as is young Robin Lively (who would eventually appear as the black widow Lana Milford in \"Twin Peaks\")as the sweet younger sister who seems to be the focus of the parent's affection. Bruce Davidson is also appropriately appealing as the German soldier of the title

The best performance, however, belongs to Michael Constantine. It is truly powerful and merited more recognition than it got at the time. The bitterness and coldness he expresses makes the scenes in which he appears difficult to watch, but makes it much easier to understand the quiet desperation of the rejected daughter. Constantine gives everything the right intensity and seems to have a good understanding of the underlying psychological motivations.

The film differs from the book only in some small ways. It is wonderful and inspiring to watch, and I hope that it gets released again on to video or DVD.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A touching story told with tenderness: awkward young Jewish girl in WWII America befriends an escaped German POW who is hiding out in her clubhouse. They discuss their lives and beliefs (he's anti-Hitler), she sneaks him food, he becomes her only friend and ally. All this reminded me of the much-better theatrical film \"Whistle Down The Wind\", where Hayley Mills befriends convict Alan Bates, but you certainly can't fault the direction here, which is smooth, or the performances, which are sterling. Mature in her pre-teen years, Kristy McNichol carries most of the picture and never hits a false note. Suddenly, when the prisoner is discovered (and Kristy is found out as well), the movie gets very tough. Her father, shocked and ashamed that his child would consort with \"that Nazi\", lays into her with a quiet fury I have seldom seen before (he tells her \"You are dead to me,\" which must be devastating for a little girl to hear). The final scenes don't cop out; there are no big reunions, no hand-holding climaxes. The girl has to face the world, and in doing so learns a bitter lesson about neighbors, friends, and family. A startling film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Summer of My German Soldier\" was one of the many TV movies that became a staple of the small screen in the 1970s (others were \"Brian's Song\", \"Sybil\" and \"Someone's Watching Me!\"). It portrays a Jewish girl (Kristy McNichol) befriending a German POW (Bruce Davison) in WWII-era Georgia. One of the things that the movie shows is that many of the German soldiers weren't really Nazis, but were just drafted. Watching the movie, I got a real sense of how things must have been in the South back then; I mean, can you imagine being a Jewish person accused of supporting the enemy?

So, I certainly recommend this movie. I believe that it's always important to show the things portrayed here. Occasional overacting keeps the movie from being a full-scale masterpiece, but they usually do quite well. I hope that the movie eventually comes out on DVD. Also starring Esther Rolle and Michael Constantine (the \"My Big Fat Greek Wedding\" patriarch).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't seen this movie in 30 years so I don't know if I would like it as much as I did when I was 12. At the time, however, I loved this movie. This is a great \"starter chick-flick\" for young pre-teen girls. Be careful of the ending, though. There are tears and harsh emotions.

Looking back at it from a 2008 perspective (with so much more knowledge of child psychology, politics and political correctness), I think it would be interesting to watch again. Patty's uncaring, abusive father, indifferent mother and favored sister all contributed toward making her vulnerable and starving for companionship. Patty was sad when Anton left. She was heartbroken when he was killed. The rage that was directed toward her afterward was shocking. After all, she was only 12 years old.

The thing that I most strongly retained is how this movie taught me even \"enemy\" soldiers are people too. Not all German soldiers were hateful Nazis. When I was older, I saw TV shows like Hogan's Heroes and The Rat Patrol which also made the point that the \"regular\" German soldiers were not the same as the Gestapo.

\"Regular\" soldiers were drafted. The Gestapo were handpicked among volunteers for their special attitudes of hate. I believe that one of the privileges of being a Nazi was that they had special assignments and, therefore, didn't go into battle. Their specialties were interrogation and torture.

Later, during the cold war, I would think about Russian soldiers and remember SOMGS. We were taught that the Soviet Union was \"evil\". But the reality was that Russian soldiers weren't out to destroy America. They had a job. Their government probably told them that our government was out to destroy their way of life. Which, in a way, was true, since the US fought to end Communism.

The lesson is still applicable today. German soldiers were not the same as Nazis just as Muslims are not the same as Al Qaeda.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was one of the best I have ever seen. Just the other day I was reminded of this movie by something on TV. It came back to me like a dam flooding over. I have never been more touched by a movie than by this one. After the movie was over I actually could not quit crying for about 2 hours. No movie has ever moved me that way before. I was 15 at the time of the movie and have not seen it since but am hoping I can find a copy to buy so that I can watch it whenever I want to. If someone suggests you see this movie with them, GO....you will not be disappointed.

Peggy Fries","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a study piece for my english class, but it's depth and meaning has amazed me. Since we're looking closely into all the facts and characters in this film, its and interesting tale of love, hate, war, and prejudice. Well Recommended!

Story: A girl named well-off jewish Patty Bergen meets an escaped prisoner of war, she then hides him in her playhouse in her huge gardens, and as they get to know each other, they begin to see the others qualities, and they earn each others love. Patty's father despises her and treats her like dirt. Anton (the prisoner of war) almost blows his cover to protect her, but patty manages to stop him before he is seen by anyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie should have easily qualified as a film

that best promotes human understanding among people.

It may be rather annoying to even try to comprehend that a young Jewish southern girl could would give shelter to an escaped German prisoner of war.

Kristy McNichol depicts an amazing portrait of the unhappy, young girl thirsting for acceptance and love. Michael Constantine gave a remarkable performance as her difficult father and Esther Rolle, as the maid, Ruth, gave a superb Emmy-winning performance as an understanding maid caught up with these events.

Bruce Davison portrays the German who is supposedly not guilty of Nazi atrocities. This is how his role appears. He has escaped, but he joined the German army and he might have been a member of the Hitler youth movement.

The action takes place in 1944 Georgia, in a rural area. The townspeople are filled with prejudice. Even the FBI inspector acts as if he would like to get something on the Jews. Notice the opposite interpretation that as McNichol is in bed, Davison is hunted down and ultimately shot. It is interesting to see that society views McNichol as a traitor for harboring an escaped prisoner of war. The film also deals with an extremely complex relationship that exists between father and daughter. Constantine's outburst at his daughter at the end is some acting. As the mother, Barbara Barrie, is given little to do. It was annoying that she is stereotyped as the typical Jewish mother with that loud shade of lipstick on her lips.

Memorably done and well worth viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely loved this show. Never understood why it was called Bug Juice though. I must have been about 13 when it came out. I remember they ran it over the summer holidays on channel 4, between re-runs of Pugwalls summer and Saved by the bell or something like that. I remember sitting there and wishing i was at summer camp too - ha ha. All the kids in it looked to be having so much fun, it was all about \"discovering who you are\" and \"growing up.\" First kisses and all that stuff. I remember there was this really cute guy in it, i think he was the main reason i got up in the mornings that particular summer. They should have more teen docu-soaps like this, i thought it was great!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bug Juice changed my life. I Know it sounds strange, odd , weird. But it did. I am from England, Bug Juice never aired there but five years ago i went on vacation with my family and saw it on the Disney channel. Once i saw this TV series I was hooked I wanted to go.It took a lot of convincing to my parents to allow my brother and I to go to Waziyatah. I have been going since i was 12 and it was my forth year this summer. If you are a teenager reading this come to this camp it changes your life. you make life long friends at wazi. It doesn't matter who you are or if someone at home doesn't like you everyone likes you at camp. You have so much fun. If you want to have a look go on to www.wazi.com and check it out for yourself. It is so much fun I Love it there It is my Home Away from Home","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those of you who have no idea what Bug Juice is or was, it was a children's reality show about real kids living at summer camp. Bug Juice is the show that inspired me to go to camp. It was full of romance, friendships, fights, overcoming your fears, and dealing with the struggles of living away from home for 2 months. It was an amazing show that is no longer shown on t.v. regularly, but is amazing non-the-less. The show was never dull and always attracted my attention. It's really nice for kids who have never been to a summer camp to really see what it's like before going. Plus Disney did a really good job of picking camps to showcase because who wants to see a show that's at a camp for like only a week. The length of the camps where perfect for this show, and the environment they where in was fantastic. They where camps all over the U.S., that each provided unique activities for the campers. It was a truly amazing, unscripted show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film got roasted by the boys at MST3K, but it's actually a neat and nasty piece of low-budget film noir. The plot is tight, the characters are believable (within the good-boy-gets-obsessed-with-bad-girl genre), the pacing is solid, the climax is well-handled, and the cast is bolstered by several fine character actors. True, most of the time you want to hit the protagonist with a brick, but he's actually quite effectively creepy when he plays the mastermind. The scenes between him and his dad are quite powerful, in a minimalist kind of way. Sure it's depressing, but that's the point. Good movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The entire civilized world by now knows that this is where Emil Sitka says his immortal \"Hold hands, you lovebirds.\" But Shemp Howard, Professor of Music, steals the show. Watch him tutoring Dee Green as she fractures the \"Voices of Spring.\" Watch Shemp as he shaves by a mirror suspended from the ceiling by a string. Watch him as he gets walloped by Christine McIntyre. Watch him, and you will laugh and learn. Moe is no slouch either. Watch him as he attempts to induce a woman to sit on a bear trap. Larry, as usual, is the Zen master of reaction. All in all, one of the very best Stooge shorts. You won't find one weak moment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, the other reviewers have pretty much covered the main points of this great little gem, i.e. the story started out in life as material for Buster Keaton's silent classic \"7 Chances\". Comedy, or acting in any genre for that much, is merely interpreting a scene and lines that someone else has written and performed before, if it's not a totally original creation. Here we have The Stooges essentially doing material that was written and performed by someone else and yet for a low budget, short time span of a film, they're handling things just fine. Regardless of what the credits say on their films, real \"stooge-philes\" know that they had a lot of input on lines and direction. They took their work as seriously as a surgeon does a vital operation. Words spoken by Emil Sitka himself during a documentary about the boys. Here, what appears to be their usual anarchy over something so simple as getting married, is actually organized chaos. Every line is perfectly timed with a related physical action. How many comedians are around today that can claim such mastery? Most obviously the Seinfeld crew but none others that I've seen in the last 35 years of watching TV. The critics will always \"pooh pooh\" The Stooges or Laurel & Hardy and others but then again...who ever remembers the critic's names or what they said? Simply watch, laugh and enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Clyde Bruckman borrows the premise of this short from Buster Keaton's \"Seven Chances,\" recently tepidly remade as \"The Bachelor.\" In the original, Buster has 24-hours to get married in order to inherit a large sum of money. In this version, musical teacher Prof. Shemp has only 7 hours (After all, it is a short!). This is one of the better Stooges shorts due to the storyline and wonderful routines (Including the telephone booth scene with Moe & Shemp, reminiscent of Laurel & Hardy's \"Berth Marks\" and the Marx Brothers famous stateroom scene in \"Night At The Opera - here the boys hold their own in their variation of this routine). I'm not a huge Stooges fan, but this one should be noted by any student of comedy as one of their very best since the early 30s shorts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Gargle with old razor blades. Can I help it if I'm not cousin Basil? I think the piano's out of tune. Ginger Grey. This is your little snookums.\" Laughs throughout the entire 20 minute short as the boys spoof gold diggers and opera singers. They even manage to show us how to properly demonstrate to some attractive ladies how to handle both a rifle and a bear trap. Wonder how many times they rehearsed the scene with the phone booth. Adding Christine McIntyre and Emil Sitka, 2 frequent collaborators, to the mix makes it even better. Only Vernon Dent is missing. The Stooges did some great individual scenes, but this was their best overall.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Stooges are back and funnier than ever. \"Brideless Groom\" in my opinion was probably the best Shemp flick.

Shemp has the opportunity to inherit $500,000(which was probably more than a million dollars compared to today) from his dead uncle. BUT! There is a catch. He has to marry someone that day by 6 o'clock. Shemp is a bachelor with not too many admirers, except for one high pitched aggressive annoying singing student of his. But he doesn't want her, he wants someone a little more on the Victoria's Secret model type of women. But obviously he has no choice since he's no Collin Ferrel himself. But when it is printed in the papers that he is to inherit all that money if married, his ex girlfriends are on the \"I want my man back\" attack!

What a great stooge flick! This is up there with thewinners of all stooge flicks!

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the very first Three Stooges short with Shemp that I saw, and it is one of my favorites!

That is what I really liked about Shemp when he returned after Curly's stroke, he did not try to be like Curly, he was his own character, and that is what I admire! Shemp is my favorite third stooge, I like him more than Curly, but I like Curly as much as I do Shemp. Shemp is great, he's funny, he's silly, he's SHEMP!

I really loved the scene where he dropped the nickel and Moe got into the booth with him to find it and they ended up getting tangled in the wires and really badly hurt!

But what I really thought was scary was when Shemp had his face smashed against the glass of the phonebooth, he looked like a deformed Professor Snape!

Poor Shemp, he had a lot of bad things happen to him in this short, but that is just typical Three Stooges, they always have a lot of bad things happening to them!

This short is another must see for Three Stooges fans!

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Almost certainly the best Three Stooges short with Shemp, 'Brideless Groom' is as good as any of the trio's best shorts featuring Curly. Memorable Stooge moments abound. The opening with 'Professor' Shemp giving voice lessons to homely, untalented and lascivious Miss Dinkelmeyer (Dee Green), wincing at her horrendous singing notes and fighting off her advances, is an excellent example of Shemp Howard at his best. Many considered him the most naturally funny of the Stooges.

Later, when Moe and Larry try to help him get spiffed up to find a wife (and claim $500,000), Shemp thinks he has cut off his head when his mirror gets flipped backward. Fixing the mirror, he cries with relief, \"THERE I am\u0085and pretty as a picture!\" \"Yea,\" Moe quickly replies, trying to hem his slacks, \"of an APE!\"

The best scene (and maybe Shemp's best with the trio) comes when he pays a call on attractive young Miss Hopkins (Christine McIntyre). Mistaking him for long-lost \"Cousin Basil,\" she smothers him with hugs and kisses (also leading to a hilarious bit between Moe and Larry in the hall), not giving him a chance to explain his true identity. Suddenly the REAL Cousin Basil calls and she goes berserk, slapping him repeatedly and accusing him of taking advantage of \"a poor \u0085. helpless\u0085defenseless \u0085 woman!\" That final line is delivered as she socks him in the jaw (with a real punch, according to Shemp and crew members), knocking him through the door and into the hall in a perfectly executed gag. \"What happened, kid?\" Moe asks. \"Can I help it if I ain't Cousin Basil?\" Shemp asks before passing out.

Other classic bits include Moe and Shemp getting tangled in a phone booth, trying to find a lost coin, Larry getting slapped because of Shemp's bad looks (his face pressed against the phone booth glass), and the great girl fight in the Justice of the Peace's apartment. The great Emil Sitka delivers his classic line (inscribed on his tombstone), \"Hold hands, you love birds\" over and over as his apartment is trashed.

I prescribe 'Brideless Groom' as medicine for anyone who thinks the Stooges' glory years ended when Curly left. True, Shemp didn't have as MANY great shorts with the group as Curly, but that was due to an increasing lack of support from Columbia and his (and the others') advancing ages. When Shemp was healthy and the trio was given decent material to work with, they were still on the top of their game.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For the record, I am a Curly fan through and through. But I do have to say that in reality, Shemp wasn't really that bad. Yeah, he might have lacked the same kind of slapstick that Curly had, but in his own way he was hilarious. At least he wasn't as bad as Joe Besser.

In BRIDELESS GROOM, Shemp plays a music professor (Stooge? A professor? Yeah right), who recently inherited a half million dollars from a dead uncle, and Moe & Larry have to prepare him to marry a woman by six o'clock that night, or no money.

This was one of the Stooges' first skit with Shemp, before they started recycling their material. Perhaps it isn't surprising that Shemp was part of the Stooges before Curly came into the picture, so he seemed natural at this. The slapstick gags are hilarious, especially this one scene with Moe and Shemp in a phone booth. Essential Stooge short to be honest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A Three Stooges short, this one featuring Shemp. Of all those involving Shemp I've seen, this is my favorite performance by him in a Stooges short. The basic plot is that Shemp must get married by 6 o'clock that very evening if he's to inherit the half a million dollars a rich uncle left him in his will. So Shemp sets out to get himself a bride but finds it a tougher road than expected, that is until they learn of his inheritance money. Best bits here involve Shemp shaving, Shemp and Moe in a telephone booth and Larry on piano as accompaniment to Shemp's voice-training session. Also the sequence where Shemp is mistaken as Cousin Basil and its outcome proves hilarious.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not wishing to repeat what everyone else has noted, I will only say this:

Nearly everybody says they loved Curly best... but I will put BRIDELESS GROOM up against ANY of other the Stooges shorts.

I think it's the most hilarious from start to finish, as well as being the most re-watchable.

The off-key singing student... Christine McIntire's \"Cousin Basil\" routine, and of course Emil Sitka's J.P. are highlights, but only around the Stooges' impeccable timing and the great writing too!

Nuff said.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are one or two other Shemp-era shorts I like more (i.e. SCRAMBLED BRAINS), but I think one can say--without much argument--that in this particular episode, Shemp gives his greatest comedic performance as a stooge after rejoining the team in 1946.

Scene for scene, this episode hardly lets up: from Professor Shemp Howard's voice lessons with the glass-shattering Dee Green, to his futile attempts to win a dame's hand in marriage (this is your little snookums... will you marry me *click*) to the uproarious finish, it never fails to keep me in stitches.

I would be remiss not mention that immortal scene with Miss Hopkins (the always lovely Christine McIntyre). Btw, isn't she rather under-dressed and over amorous in greeting the man she thinks is her 'Cousin' Basil? Who knows, maybe the actual Basil was a \"very\" distant cousin, which makes it legal in some states (as far as I know). >:-]","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Three Stooges has always been some of the many actors that I have loved. I love just about every one of the shorts that they have made. I love all six of the Stooges (Curly, Shemp, Moe, Larry, Joe, and Curly Joe)! All of the shorts are hilarious and also star many other great actors and actresses which a lot of them was in many of the shorts! In My opinion The Three Stooges is some of the greatest actors ever and is the all time funniest comedy team!

One of My favorite Stooges shorts with Shemp is none other than Brideless Groom! All appearing in this short are Dee Green, the beautiful Christine McIntyre, Doris Houck, Alyn Lockwood, Johnny Kascier, Nancy Saunders, and Emil Sitka. Green and McIntyre provide great performances here! There are so many funny parts here. This is a very hilarious short. There is another similar Three Stooges short like this one called Husbands Beware and I recommend both!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It may interest people to know that this film was made without any recourse to Phoolan Devi herself and, when she did finally see parts of it, was so enraged that she announced that the film was not to be shown in India or she would cover herself in petrol and set fire to herself. I do not know whether it was shown at all or not, but given her standing at the time as a rising politician, I doubt it. Since then, I saw a report that she has been ousted from office and charged with further crimes from her Dacoit days, and has gone into hiding as a result.

Her own concerns aside, this is an excellent film, made all the more so by its refreshingly brutal approach; none of the rose-tinted melodrama one might expect from a typical indian film. It should be stressed that concerns about how feminist the film's messages really are and the like are essentially irrelevant: it's a true story. Her misgivings are, it seems, not with what is depicted but with the way in which the film depicts her.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie over 5 years ago and the subject still infuriates me, as it should. Her anger and initiative were inspiring. Not that I would takeover an army and kill people, but the scene at the well and at the rebel strong hold will never leave my mind. This is a great film but be prepared for the strong subject matter.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The true story of Phoolan Devi who became a national hero in India because she fought for her rights as a woman but in a violent manner. I was surprised to see a powerful film with strong images come out of India instead of the Bollywood art trash classics they churn out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent movie. Phoolan had no role model's to base her actions on, yet was able to bring about very necessary change to a land that was living in darkness when it comes to female treatment. I like the fact that it was a real story rather than made up, it added to the horror of the story, & the triumph.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that the movie was really good. Subject, acting and Nusrat Fateh ALi Khan's music were marvellous. Although the director has succeeded in showing the status of women in rural areas and how they suffer at the hands of male-dominated culture, he has neglected Phoolan's character a bit and has focussed more on the violence faced by her.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Bandit Queen in 2005, over a decade after it was made amidst widespread controversy in India. The language, the stark treatment and the natural acting (by a relatively unknown cast for that time) might have been even more shocking at that time for an Indian populace more familiar with fantasy cinema. The film, the cast, and Shekhar Kapoor, deserve accolades for the breakthrough effort.

The plot is not very different from a typical revenge drama made in various forms in India. In fact, there have been several fictional accounts of this particular story itself. The reason why this stands out is that it's supposed to be a first person account of someone who actually went through all this, and a lot else that doesn't find place on the screen, and survived to tell the tale. Survived long enough to see her story made into a movie at least. Phoolan Devi didn't live very long after being released from prison in 1994.

The film scores on several counts. The cinematography is brilliant. The music is apt. The cast, many of whom became more familiar names later, is very good. But the screenplay is patchy. Things move too fast and in jerks at times. It's understandable though, because there are just too many strands that need to be tied together to make it all cohesive. Or maybe I felt that because I have read Mala Sen's book, which is a more detailed and better, though obviously not as shocking as the visual, account of Phoolan Devi's travails, and which is purported to be one of the main sources for the film.

There are some factual ambiguities too. According to Phoolan Devi, she wasn't present when the Behmai massacre took place, and despite claiming to be the dictated account of Phoolan herself, she is shown to participate, and in fact initiate, the massacre. Then the final scene where Phoolan surrenders shows her touching the feet of the Chief Minister, while in reality she had surrendered to a portrait of Mahatma Gandhi. Symbolic value only, but shows that Phoolan didn't want to show servitude to a living, ordinary person. It would have been nice to show the Chief Minister to have some resemblance to Arjun Singh, who many remember was the CM of Madhya Pradesh then.

But these are small chinks in this eminently well-made movie, a rare gem to come out from the mainstream Indian film industry, made by a man who before this was known best for the ultimate masala movie of the late 80s - Mr India.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Irrespective of the accuracy of facts, Bandit Queen is a true story, its true because the themes it deals with hold as much truth today as they did way back in 1994. This movie is violent, powerful and thought provoking.The protagonist is a woman of flesh and blood, whose adversity brought out the best(or worst) out of her. Keeping the subjectivity aside, there is no doubt that Phoolan's character from a young girl of 8, who is married off by her father to clear a debt(pun intended), to a gang leader who goes on to become a leader of the lower caste, has evolved into a champion in her own right. Her portrayal is so powerful that the viewer is even willing to forgive her for a massacre.

I can understand if the western audience is not able to appreciate this masterpiece, Bandit Queen needs to be 'studied' in the Indian context, and not just checked out in stereotypes. I may not be able to sell it on its universal appeal but its certainly a must watch for the Indian audience, its a shame that the movie had a delayed, overtly censored release in India.

Bandit Queen is the story of a woman who fought against two odds in India, being a woman and that too a lower caste, her rebellious nature and inability to just give in caused her the most horrible experiences in life, which only went on to strengthen her into a self proclaimed goddess. She responded to violence with violence and dint become the submissive woman society wanted her to be. Call it divine justice or judiciary failure, had she killed a single person she would have been hanged, she killed 24 and got revered, respected and glorified.

P.S # Whoever found her character \"psychotic\", needs to be sodomized at 8, gangraped by 10 men at a go and paraded naked. Then they should be asked- How normal do they feel?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film's subject is poignant and very real. It happened. One can debate some artistic liberties taken by director and scriptwriter. The subject is what makes the film tick--nothing else. I saw the film for the first time after the real Phoolan, was gunned down in New Delhi and had served several years as an elected Member of Parliament in India. By the way, she was not the first untouchable elected to Parliament, as some reviewers stated. The so-called \"untouchables\" have been elected to the Indian Parliament for decades in reserved constituencies.

While Shekhar Kapur as a director is a hero to many India, because he made commercially accepted international films---\"Bandit Queen\" and \"Elizabeth\" (and a tolerable kiddie movie called \"Mister India\", which was accepted by the average Indian audiences)---and even got Oscar nominations for Elizabeth, I do not place him as a top notch film director from India. He fails in every department as a director except perhaps that he succeeds in getting some above-average performances from his actors. Subtlety, finesse, charm are not easy to find in his films--melodrama brims in them.

His idea of using Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan's vocal rendering of the song in the early parts of the film, was perhaps his single major achievement on the undistinguished sound track of \"Bandit Queen\". And then perhaps the creaking doors during the gang rape sequence. Otherwise the film looked like a spaghetti western with sex and violence minus the great music one associates with them.

If you are looking for a good living Indian film director who makes realistic cinema of international quality--it is not Shekhar Kapur's movies you should see; it is the later works of three Indian film-makers Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Mrinal Sen, and Girish Karnad and of course Muzaffar Ali's \"Umrao Jaan\". It is unfortunate that none of those directors had the financial support that Kapur had to give them and their films an international viewership. For instance, Sen's \"Oka oorie katha\" made in Telugu, or Satyajit Ray's \"Sadgati\" based on Munshi Prem Chand's \"Kafan\" are more complete as films to an intelligent viewer dealing on the state of the untouchables in India. Sen did not have to resort to graphic sex and violence but merely suggested them. Of course, Sen's nugget did not make headlines, while Kapur's effort hogged them.

To Kapur's credit, he is articulate and used his limited talent and modest resources in the Mumbai film industry to take his products beyond home audiences. For that effort, I salute Kapur. But \"Bandit Queen\" will remain a great subject awaiting an accomplished director to deal with it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with Andy, this is a good movie. Kevin McKidd's character is believable throughout the film. We're forced to hate him and latterly sympathise with him. Paula Sage who plays Roberta puts in a good performance too. It's thought-provoking and emotive without any slush over-production. Credit to director Alison Peebles and writer Andrea Gibb for that. A very worthwhile viewing. The pace of the film is just right, raising just enough interest in the subject matter to reel you in, rather than bombard you with facts in a documentary style. Nice little soundtrack to go with the film too, again used sparingly, not to distract you from storyline. Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very moving and thought provoking film that raises issues of mental health, terminal illness and euthanasia. Sound a bit too heavy? It is a little, but this is all treated in a realistically straight forward way within a story of the changes that take place to the family who have to deal with these things. This is a positive story of facing up to life and responsibility that isn't overwhelm by the subject matter.

Afterlife is beautifully shot and crafted film set in modern times and dealing with modern issues. It is a character driven, enthralling film with a strong cast and some very good performances.

Unfortunate it is not the sort of film that always performs well at the box office, so catch it while you can.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not an easy film to like at first with both the lead characters quite unlikeable but luckily the heart and soul of the film is Paula Sage's touching performance which drives the film into uncharted waters and transcends the rather awkward storyline. This gives the film a feeling of real truth and makes you think you've seen something special.(7\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great example of very none Hollywood film making which is very thought provoking, moving and not without a sense of humor, Kevin McKidd and Paula Sage are superb.

I actually watched it on late night TV and I can see why I missed it in the cinema, its not the sort of film that the multi-screen \"mega\" cinemas show nowadays, mores the pity.

I am going to look for the DVD. Not for those who prefer, the current trend towards special effects and no story. If you liked the best selling book \"The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time\", you'll enjoy this film.

This film ranks beside the best of Scottish films, such as \"Small Faces\" and \"trainspotting\". All films which Kevin McKidd also star in.

Highly Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is based on a play, and is the second adaptation of this work. Paul Sorvino plays the basketball coach of a team of players that against all odds took home the championship 20 years ago. They have all met for a reunion. Terry Kinney plays James, a Junior High principal, and will quickly get on your nerves with all his whining and feel sorry for me role. Vincent D'Onofrio, as Phil, plays an obnoxious businessman with just the right amount of \"money\" cockiness. Tony Shalhoub is George, the current Mayor of the town, and appears to be on the verge of some sort of breakdown. Gary Sinise plays Tom, a writer, turned alcoholic, and in my opinion, is excellent in the role. While they are all suppose to be celebrating their championship, conflicts, jealousy, and fighting abound. As the men come to terms with what was, and is now, they are forced to look at their lives in a non-pleasant way. It's unusual to have a group of men talking and crying about what could have been, and I found it interesting watching them relate to each other. It's not the best movie I've seen, but it's certainly good enough for a viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is based mainly on the emotions and interactions of people. There are only three locations (the school, the store, and the coach's house) that are really used. It's primarily at the coach's house, however. A movie doesn't need special effects or amazing views to be amazing in itself.

Four friends who had bonded during their basketball days meet up. One is rich, important, and has no real love outside of money. One wants to be mayor again, but his competition is turning him sour. One wants to be superintendent of the school and take care of his family. One is a traveling alcoholic.

First off, I love the actors in this film. They've all been household names to me. They proved their worth here.

One of the most pivotal moments is when Tom, played by Gary Sinise, blows up on the coach. He yells and rants about how the coach cheated in the winning game. His blows the coach's whistle and yells back his catchphrases - \"Forgive me Father, for I have sinned!\" It's amazing to watch, with energy that just chills you.

Highly recommended to anyone who understands human emotion and doesn't need shiny effects to interest them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On the outside, this film is better because of Vincent D'Onofrio (Law & Order: Criminal Intent), but this film is equally as good as the 1982 version. In some ways, the 1999 version is better because it's more up to date (a decade as compared to the 27 years. The actors in this film were great, like Terry Kinney (McManus of HBO's \"Oz\") as James Daly and Tony Shalhoub (USA's Monk) and Gary Sinise (CSI:NY). Obvilubuly, dialogue was changed for contemporary audiences, nut much of the writing remained the same. There were stuff that wasn't in the 1982 version that gave this one a boost in drama and comedy, but in the end, this film was just as great at the 1982 one. Character-wise: Vincent D'onofrio playing Phil Romano was excellent, better that Paul Sorvino. It's a match up between Stacy Keach and Terry Kinney in terms of James. As for George, I would praise Shalhoub. And between Martin Sheen & Sinsise as Tom, I would say Sinise wins.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an astonishing film: a romantic thriller with a convoluted but perfectly constructed and devastatingly symmetrical plot, brilliantly buttressed by the use of recurring visual motifs. Everything in it is beautifully filmed: the women, the apartments; but more amazing is the devastating juxtapositioning of images, almost every scene has echoes of another. This is a story told in light, in colour, in many almost-parallels. Every time I watch it, it fills me with delight.

The acting is great too. Romane Bohringer is stunning as a woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown: everything about her changes with her mood. Vincent Cassel plays a very different role to his part in La Haine; but no less excellently: shifty and sympathetic at the same time. And Monica Bellucci - ah!, Monica Bellucci, well, put simply, she plays (is?) the world's most perfect woman. There's one small scene about three quarters of the way through where she does nothing more than smile; yet in that instant, says more than hours of Hollywood junk.

One cannot do justice to this film without at least mentioning the superb, sequential climax: sad, shocking, ironic and subtle in turn. But if one moment captures the brilliance of this work, it's the scene at the start of this fabulous denouement, the prospect of which has been teasingly laid before us throughout the entire story. Yet when the moment comes, it is handled so delicately, so briefly, so deftly, that on reflection it makes you gasp. Only a director of staggering confidence would dare to underplay this vital point. But the confidence is justified. Cinema doesn't come much better than this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"L'appartement\" has to be among the best French films I have ever seen (along with \"Hatred\", also starring Vincent Cassel, and those great Gerard D\u00e9pardieu\/Pierre Richard movies). Cassel and Bellucci are amazing in the leading roles. Aside from \"Brotherhood Of The Wolves\" and \"Dobermann\" I have not yet seen a bad movie with this couple. \"L'appartement\" sucks you in from the beginning and the twists and turns keep you thrilled until the very end. Fragment storytelling really hasn't worked this well since \"Pulp Fiction\". Let's just hope there won't be a godawful American remake of this unique romance\/mystery-thriller. (EDIT: Guess what! A godawful American remake has been made!)!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a fabulous film.

The plot is a good yarn, and is imaginatively told in a series of flashbacks and alternative points of view. What was deliberate, and what was coincidence? Who is in love with who?

You get the chance to put yourselves in the shoes of each of the characters in turn (sometimes literally), and this helps define each character to a satisfying depth.

With a bit of effort following the twists and turns, you can understand each of the characters; and key events in the film are reshot from the point of view of different people.

Take the opportunity if it comes again to your arthouse cinema; it looks good on the big screen.

More than keeping you guessing, the plot twists to such an extent that you just sit and watch what unfolds - I defy anyone to predict!

But more likely you will need more than one viewing - I saw this at the pictures on its original release three times, and it got better each time.

The acting was very good, with a standout performance by Romane Bohringer as Alice torn in three directions by the three other characters in the ensemble.

A classic. The second-best film of the 1990s.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Forget the recent dire American remake which sadly tarnished the reputation of the French original by virtue of the director's involvement in both. This is a deftly- drawn romantic 90s noir with many twists and turns. It works best as a Gallic ode to Hitchcock's Rear Window, because the notion of voyeurism is the constant theme that fires the intricate screenplay. The story is stunningly realized, like a Picasso painting, offering multi-perspectives on the same event and demanding the viewer's participation throughout. The settings, music and haunting score are wonderful as well as the excellent contributions from the cast. Watch it more than once.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this film for the second time tonight after about three years and it was as wonderful as before...

There are more than a dozen modern stunning French films from en couer de hiver to the three colours trilogy and all of them are special. This film is one of them. A true delight with so many great things going for it from the homage to Hitchcock to two beautiful ladies in Romane and Monica. While Monica is very beautiful, Romane is a very sexy lady and steals many of the scenes she inhabits.

I am not sure why people think this film is convoluted as the scenes are such a perfect blend of past and present acting as a counterpoint to the characters' own remarkable journey that the film simply flows and you barely realise that 116 minutes of beauty and mystery have left the viewed enchanted and bewitched.

Like most French and European films this story would never translate across the Atlantic as no studio could capture the magic without throttling the life out of it with the Hollywood bleaching common to most movies that become lost in translation. Americans make brilliant films, but not of this type... perhaps if they let someone like a young Polanski work on it then maybe they would not totally butcher an English version...

For those who do not watch subtitled films you will spend a lifetime in ignorant bliss. For those who can read then you would be spiting yourself to miss films like this...

I would describe this as Neo-Franco-Noir, but only to cheese off the reviewer who called this film elitist. I think I saw him doing an add for four-and-twenty-pies. He thinks Romane Bohringer is a type of French Mayonnaise...It is arty in the way that Pulp Fiction is arty...but with more Gallic savoire faire...

10 out of 10 with every viewing...and has anyone got Romane's phone number...she is the perfect French Salad Dressing...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wonderful story about the consequences of obsessive love with the beautiful romantic back streets of Paris as its location. We're transported through time and see the plot develop from the perspectives of the three main characters as the mystery unwinds.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I watched L'Appartement with my girlfriend, she sighed: \"How complicated!\" And she is right, of course. When you are used to simple, one-linear plots, especially violent hero vs crook schemes, L'Appartement is hard to follow. A couple of the negative reviewers here also have missed one or more important points. Other whine about the confusing flash backs. Come on! This is not the kind of movie from which you can leave to visit the toilet, come back and get hooked again within a few seconds. This one demands full concentration and a keen eye on details. Then it is really not that hard to figure out what's happening and when. The director has left more than enough clues in all scenes.

The first 3\/4 of the movie centers about the question: why did Max and Lisa split? The film, as my girlfriend remarked, begins as a romantic lovestory, suggesting that two lost lovers will find each other again. Having experience with French movies, I predicted that the story pretty soon would get a sick twist and I was right. In the end of the first part it becomes clear, after many twists and turns, that Max and Lisa were manipulated by Alice. Max did not know, that Lisa had left and why. Lisa did not know, why Max did not contact her in Rome and left her without a trace, when she returned to Paris. The only one who did was Alice and she had her own reasons to keep her mouth shut.

After both Max and Lisa have found out the truth, the question of course becomes: can Alice's manipulations be undone? Well, of course not, time has passed by and things have changed.

Many European movies use a story telling technique I fully enjoy. There is no exposition of the basic conflict in the beginning, after which two (or more) interested parties try to decide in their own advantage. Instead the spectator is gradually fed with bits and pieces of the plot and hardly knows more than the main characters. L'Appartement is a fine and subtle example of this technique. In the first half Alice seems to be a side character; slowly it becomes clear, that she is key figure.

Acting is simply great. Vincent Cassel is perfect as the somewhat naive and impulsive character, who risks a secured life just to hunt a dream from the past. Monica Belucci is very beautiful of course, but also competent. Jean Paul Ecoffey provides the necessary comical touch. Romane Bohringer is very convincing as the neurotic woman, plagued by feelings of guilt and regret.

The only reason I did not gave it a 10 is the somewhat unsatisfying end. Of course it was necessary because of the desired symmetry. After all the events Max is exactly on the point where the movie begun, only wiser and sadder. Alice has paid for her sins. But still the little twists on the airport are a bit artificial. Max too easily exchanges Lisa for Alice; Alice too easily decides to reject Max, who has been her dream for so long; Max too easily returns to his fianc\u00e9e. But then again, I don't know how how this could be achieved without sacrificing the elegant symmetry. I guess sometimes artists have to give up realism for beauty.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This sad romance is untellable because the director decides to break its narration and to offer the points of view of each characters. So, there are a lot of flashbacks, of re-shooting of the same scene. But, it would be an extraordinary moment of cinema to put all the fragments in order to see the result!

And it would worth it, because it's for me, just one the best French movie ever made!

It has everything:

Cast: first steps of Monica Bellucci and Vincent Cassel! Such a presence and such voices, even for a hard-of-hearing! It's symbolic for them to have fallen in love with this movie!

Directing: his camera is bright, alive, plays with the sets or can be mysterious with long close-up \"\u00e0 la David Lynch\".

Cinematography: the light is beautiful, between gold and rust, like their love!

A never-seen before Paris: It's a Paris out-of-time of more accurately, a composite of a lot of districts! Huge search here! It's look like Gotham City, modern and old at the same time!

Music: Not the big orchestra but in perfect tune with the frames. And the song of Charles Aznavour made me discover this great singer!

Ah, \u0085 the story! As I said, it's a love story but rather tragic: Saying that love can be for nothing, that it doesn't make all people happy or isn't guaranteed for a sweet ending is great because this message isn't often told! Love is passion, which is derivative from the Latin \"pain\". You can suffer a lot when you are in love! Because of the Why .. ?, of the endless waiting, the lack of courage, the indecision.

And when you can ease yourself, fate, destiny, god (?), devil (?) can stab you in the back , just because you arrive too soon or too late, and above all, because love means 2 in a world of billions! A lot of things can happen and as much stories can be written! So, what's love?

Personally, I lived some moments like this: in a car with the dear one. Her mobile rings and you know it's her \"special friend\" whom she kisses goodbye (and not you, even if we are always together). So, you want to go out of this car to leave them together, to not hear the sweet but cruel words but you can't, because an amazing hard rain just started!

I found that this movie depicts those moments of tragedy as no one else!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Apartmente'L is one of the most interesting movies that I have ever seen. I experienced extreme frustration while watching this movie as I was gunning for the two leads to reunite. That never happened in the end which disappointed me to no end. But the ending lends an even more cynical touch to a generally cynical movie. It is not a movie which people are likely to rewatch but one watch itself will have a deep impact on people. As of now I haven't rewatched the movie and I don't think I will.

The story follows the experiences of a man, Max, who is engaged to be married to Muriel. He remembers his old girlfriend Lisa(he considers this the love of his life) as he listens, by accident, to Lisa talking on the telephone. Thus he tries to find Lisa. Here starts his extremely frustrating search for Lisa. There are many layers to this movie. There are undercurrents of jealousy, vouyeurism and so on. There is also another character called Alice who is involved in the whole confusion. The movie then moves through a whole range of twists and finally leads to an ending which could be interpreted in many ways. It is fascinating how this movie has only four main characters but the clever writing makes it interesting and unique. What I love about the fact is that a movie about obsession, jealousy is done in such a light hearted manner. It has a very fast pace which is probably the reason why it can appeal to a large audience. The main character, Max, has shades of grey and I felt the ending was perfect. I don't think he is supposed to be a clean character considering the fact he is searching for his long lost love while he is engaged and he also has a fling with Alice.

The character of Alice is even worse. Her manipulation and her compulsive lying can really irritate viewers(that is the point, I guess). The scene where she breaks down in front of Lucien really shows another facet of her character. It shows a side of her that wants to be accepted and that she is tired of all the lying and the games and she wants to lead a normal life. In the end, she understands that she needs to get away from it all. The ending lends a cynical touch. Because it seems as if Max's love for Alice is temporary and fake. It is as if to say that love in general is a temporary emotion and it is better to choose the safe option(i.e Muriel) than to pursue something that is so fleeting(i.e Lisa or Alice). In many ways this is not really a romantic movie but a satire about romance(in a way).

The performances deserve high praise. Vincent Cassel as Max gives a great performance. He perfectly portrays the confusion of a man who is not really sure about his engagement. His geeky looks are an added advantage as it fits the character perfectly. But the real star of the movie is Romane Bohringer as Alice. Her nuanced portrayal of a woman who is jealous of Alice and is in love with Max. The scene where she screams \"I am a nutcase too\" really shows her desperation and her yearning to live a normal life with a man who loves her.

Btw I also thought lesbianism is another interpretation that can be drawn from this movie. Alice's actions can be explained in many ways. And her unreasonable obsession with Lisa may also be explained as a manifestation of a lesbian desire. It may be far-fetched considering she encourages Lisa to forgive her current boyfriend. But I got the feeling that she was a lesbian for a long time. She also avoids questions from Lisa regarding a boyfriend. She spends a whole lot of time with Lisa and she is happy during that time. That may lead many to question her sexual orientation.

Overall I would give it a 9\/10. I think it deserves it but I subtracted one because of the rewatchability factor. I think it is a perfect movie otherwise.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this film again, I believe for the sixth time. I will doubtless see it many more times. This is one of the most brilliant French films ever made. Although the film is mysterious, even more mysterious is what happened to the writer and director, Gilles Mimouni. For ten years he has not made another film, and this was his only one. The story and execution of this ingenious film are perfect, and it is clearly paying homage continually to both Hitchcock and Buster Keaton. The split-second timing of the movements is just as carefully controlled as the scene where the side of a house falls on Keaton in 'Steamboat Bill Junior', and he is only not killed by inches. In this film, people stoop and turn and pass one another unawares, and if they had been one second off, they would have collided. The storyline thus walks a tightrope of chance events to such an intense degree that you cannot take your eyes off the screen for even a millisecond, or you will miss something crucial. The haunting, albeit intentionally repetitive, music by Peter Chase is reminiscent of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo', and the whole film has the same eerie quality, but whereas Hitchcock had one woman be two women, Mimouni has two women be one woman, thereby inverting the plot structure. There are passing references to other Hitchcock films, but it is 'Vertigo' which is central to the inspiration of this film. The theme may seem superficially to be obsessive love, but the film is really about the magic of everyday chance events, the invisible threads behind the tapestry, the ineffable. Everything is hyper-charged with passionate love and desire, but the desire transcends its object and struggles towards something behind and beyond the object. That is why it is so easily transferable from Lisa to Alice, when it is realised that it is Alice who is more mysterious than Lisa, and it is Alice who truly embodies the Eternal Mystery. The film is ultimately 'made' by Romane Bohringer. She is so fascinating that she outshines Monica Bellucci, which is really something to pull off, considering that Bellucci is a knockout beauty, whereas Bohringer is what the English call 'plain'. However, Romane Bohringer had even at this early date more than mastered the art of 'personality dominance', whereby beautiful girls fall by the wayside and don't get noticed because Romane is being so fascinating you can't take your eyes off her long enough even to look at the beautiful girls, and you end up only thinking of her. Most of us remember, I'm sure, her father Richard Bohringer lying in a bathtub listening to opera in the film 'Diva' many years ago. I would rather watch Romane than Richard lying in a bathtub, but there seems to be some genetic secret to being fascinating, because Richard Bohringer is spellbinding too, and he isn't even a woman. Romane looks as if she may turn into Anna Magnani when she is much older, and that means she will get an Oscar, if someone can only write another 'Rose Tattoo' for her. The girl has so much passion inside her, she could set the Seine on fire. Wouldn't it be wonderful if she and Julie Delpy teamed up? This film made wonderful use of Paris locations. But where is this 'square in the Luxembourg'? It looked like Place Furstenburg to me. Maybe I missed something. I must watch the film another six times, just to study the precision of the timing and who brushes past whom, and make sure I've got it right. The whole thing is like ten gigantic simultaneous chess games played blindfolded by a grandmaster. How thrilling it all is! Romane, you can look through my window anytime! Mimouni, come on over, let's discuss impossibilities, unlikelihoods, coincidence, synchronicity, everything that is going on that is invisible and how it effects the visible. And once again, we have here the spirit of Breton's novel 'Nadja' embodied in a great French work of art. More! More! More!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a clever story about relationships and a display of three main categories of players in the game of relationships: playboys (Max), manipulative women (Alice) and the fools who may be indeed in love (Lisa, Muriel and Lucien).

Max and Alice are very unlikeable and perhaps despicable characters but who are always in control in the game leaving their partners around in the dark. But as the profusely discussed ending tells us, as veteran players as Max and Alice were, they would be happy to part ways anytime they see fit as if the game was just announced to be over and each one of them could not care less to get on with his or her own life and play another game with some other anonymous people when another opportunity presented itself. Lisa, Muriel and Lucien might be the ones who felt like investing something real in a relationship, only not being able to realise that they were the baits in the game and the ultimate losers (as far as what we were shown is concerned....who knows if they are also advance players of some sort in their worlds not shown to us on screen).

This is a very fast-paced, delicately crafted and seductively witty story with an enticing execution by the cast. It also deserves some deeper thinking: how much is real in a game of relationship?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All credit to writer\/director Gilles Mimouni who fashioned this winding, twisting tale of deceit and betrayal. While keeping the utmost control, he maintains the audience at arm's length, never allowing them to become completely aware of the goings on. Even his clever denouement has you guessing.

The three central performances are also top class, with Vincent Cassel, Romane Bohringer and Monica Bellucci doing their utmost to add to the mystery. Jean-Phillippe Ecoffey supplements strength in his supporting role. To give away plot details or character specifics would not be fair.

Thierry Arbogast uses the camera effectively to sweep us through this enigma, and Cardine Biggerstaff's editing keeps the story a step ahead of us. The theme from Peter Chase is sublime in its marriage to the ideal of the script.

Many may say Gilles Mimouni is trying to confront several deeper issues on the them of love. For me this is simply a haunting, elusive riddle that weaves a fascinating web. Only the French are capable of such tantalisation. Hollywood would have ruined this with a happy ending.

Monday, March 2, 1998 - Hoyts Croydon

No-one does thriller quite like the French. When they get it right, they really get it right.

Vincent Cassell is intriguing as the deceptive Max, Romane Bohringer obsessive as the new Lisa, and Monica Bellucci is mysterious as the first Lisa. The plot from Gilles Mimouni is a whirlwind of deliberate deception and fatally crossed wires.

All credit must go to his manipulation of the clever plot, and the performances from the three leads. As Lucien, Jean-Phillippe Ecoffey is strong and emotional.

Friday, January 15, 1999 - Video","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"since the plot like Vertigo or Brian DePalma's Obsession, till to the score by Peter Chase that reminds the sounds of Bernard Herrmann, this little pearl seems to be sight from fews. Remarkable playing by Romane Boeringer and Vincent Cassel in a bohemian Paris portrayed from the famous Thierry Arbogast. A little cult! It is a pity that the only version available on DVD are the french one and the English. Directed by a controversial artist as Gilles Mimouni, it could be considered a little homage to the Cinema masterworks. It is a french movie, and as all of them, not for all, we could say a d'essai cinema. Even if not so publicized, it could be remembered for several reason.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A lot has already been written about the film itself, so instead of adding to the noise I just want to say a few words on the two female actors.

It has to be a daunting prospect for any actress to star, in a sense, versus the spectacular Monica Bellucci, but Romane Bohringer pulls it off to sensational ends. A film starring Monica Bellucci where I fall in love with the other girl?? That's not supposed to happen.

It's been said a thousand times, but Monica Bellucci strikes the saddest figure in modern cinema. I have never before seen such innate sadness. She would not be out of place breaking Lon Chaney's heart.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this tense and character-driven romantic tragi-comedy, we are given an insight into the intertwining lives of four thirtysomething Parisians. At the centre is Vinz Cassell's portrayal of Max. A starry-eyed Romeo, he falls head over heels for beautiful stranger Lisa (Bellucci). Encouraged by his put-upon best friend Lucien (\u00c9coffey, in an understated but effective performance), he wins her heart and they live happily ever after... that is, until the scheming, neurotic and obsessive Alice (the versatile Romane Bohringer) becomes very involved in the lives and loves of the other three.

The rich plot is thickened by a curious chronological jumble, and the movie emerges as an intricate jigsaw, the eye-candy of picture-postcard Paris at the heart of it all. The use of colour does not go unnoticed, particularly in Lisa's spectacular apartment (presumably accounting for the film's title), where the reds and yellows provoke the fires of passion and lust.

The audience can relate to Max: he truly wears his heart on his sleeve and is constantly punished by irony and circumstance for it. In one memorable scene, our fated lovers (agonisingly separated by a 'choreographed' misunderstanding) narrowly miss out on the chance meeting that would surely reunite them. Independent of one another, they travel to the same destination: her on the Metro, him in a taxi, practically t\u00eate-\u00e0-t\u00eate. Yet fate seems to have it in for them, and the audience is captivatingly teased.

The performances in this film are really what make L'Appartement stand out. I still cannot understand why Vincent Cassell is not a big star outside France. He has presence and diversity in abundance. Monica Bellucci (Cassell's real-life spouse at the time of writing) has recently found fame in the Anglophone film industry, but perhaps for the wrong reasons - true, she is divinely beautiful, but behind that is a talented actress who can dominate a scene in classic 'leading-lady' style, which many British and American actresses dismiss in favour of the all-too-easy 'subtle' approach.

All in all, watch this film! I doubt you'll be disappointed. It is gripping, satisfying, amusing, sad, lavish, and a lesson in artistic film-making.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An obsessive love story, where the characters have been extremely convincing. I think this film highlights the talent of professional actors. Specially for Vincent Cassel who wouldn't (at the time it was filmed) be the first character you think of for such a role. And yes he did succeed to seduce the beautiful Monica Belluci, beyond the film, during this creation. I can only say, that this film should have been released at it is in the USA, instead of thinking of doing a remake. It is simply so french, almost perverted....and yet so true...this film should stay untouched...

A director that should definitely get more projects as this kind of subject requires the right amount of ingredients to not make it a flop..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"L'Appartement is, I think, a very purposeful Hitchcockian film. The plot was rife with symbolism (ie the white and red roses) and plot twists which wrapped themselves up neatly. The look was very Parisian and pulled you closer to the story. I saw it in London and very much regret that it is not out on video in the states","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think the film makes a subtile reference to rouge of Kieslowski, as the whole atmosphere gives me a feeling of red. It seems to be that a lot of the backgrounds contain red, think of the tea-room f.e. I also think this is one of the greatest movies of the last years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Magnificent, original, beautiful movie. The acting is great, the settings en decors are superb (Paris at its best- but then the real Paris, not the famous settings) and the music will do also. A brilliant storie, very detailed, which I just very much love.

The best French movie I've seen (and French cinema is very good)!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not all movies should have that predictable ending that we are all so use to, and it's great to see movies with really unusual twists. However with that said, I was really disappointed in l'apartment's ending. In my opinion the ending didn't really fit in with the rest of the movie and it basically destroyed the story that was being told.

You spend the whole movie discovering everyone and their feelings but the events in the final 2 minutes of the movie would have impacted majorly on everyones character but the movie ends and leaves it all too wide open.

Overall though this movie was very well made, and unlike similar movies such as Serendipity all the scenes were believable and didn't go over the top.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"several years ago i saw this film, without subtitles, on television, and despite me not understanding a word of what the characters were saying i still got the general idea, and the mood of the film fascinated me no ends.

at long last i saw it again a few weeks ago. my heart skipped when i saw the picture in the television guide, and for 8 days until the film was really shown i told everybody i knew to go and see it. the story reminded me a bit of alfred hitchcock's vertigo. a slow, brooding film about a guy who one day believes he sees the girlfriend that disappeared years before. what follows is a wild rollercoaster ride of flashbacks, changing perspectives and really inventive twists in the plot, and at the end of the film i was left breathless. i had definitely not got what i had expected (and i had actually already seen the film!). be prepared to be confused.

9 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very enjoyable french film. This film has many twists and turns in the plot and is superb. I have found that when I lend this DVD out to a friend it seems to do the rounds before getting back to me!! It is really all about a man making sure he finds the right girl to settle down with.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a wonderful thriller I watched many times and never can get enough of.It's all about the obsessive love 5 people have for eachother in Paris, (un)lucky coincidences, false identities.The music makes it really gripping.There are hardly any flaws in the characters,just the end is not very credible,but a definite \"must-see\" still.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this. It starts out as a fairly normal, slightly ponderous French art movie and then all of a sudden, halfway through it's turned on it's head. This part is brilliant as you realise you have been watching 2 plots not one. Sadly, the ending doesn't make much sense, which is a great shame. Oh yes, and it's brilliantly filmed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gilles Mamouni is playing with the audience with the story of Max (Vincent Cassel) in search of his biggest lost love (Monica Bellucci) just before to get engaged to another woman. Mamouni uses many flashbacks sequences without warning so the best way to know where we are in the story is to watch for the actor's haircut. Oherwise it can get very confusing... Still a strong film debut for Mamouni, beautifully photographed by Thierry Arbogast (the 5th element, the Messenger), and Monica Bellucci is a darling to watch ... I felt a little disappointed near the end so I gave it 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So here's a bit of background on how I came to see this movie. As you probably know, this is the original French film, that was then remade (quelle surprise) by Hollywood as Wicker Park. Well I avoided that movie like the plague when it was first released, simply because, a) I knew it had absolutely nothing to do with Wicker Park, and living in Chicago, I didn't see why they called it that - it was filmed in fricking Canada for a start! - b) I have a very hard time bothering with pointless remakes, done purely because Hollywood thinks we're too bone idle to read a few subtitles (I am dreading the remake of Infernal Affairs by the way) and c) I can't stand Josh Hartnett, 'nuff said there.

However, I came across WP on TV the other day, probably about half an hour in, and I have to say initially, it made no sense at all, until about half an hour from the end, when it started coming together. By the end, I was really surprised to find myself really into it, and then the ending just seemed so good - a perfect combination of story, passion and ending with possibly one of the greatest musical choices I've ever seen (heard??).

Since then I've heard a lot about the L'Appartement vs. Wicker Park argument and looking at WP, I still say it has bugger all to do with Chicago, but there seemed something about it that I liked, so when it was on again, I watched it again - unfortunately, still missing the first chunk (I've still yet to see it!), and I still thought it was pretty good. Heck, even Josh Hartnett seemed good! But I was curious about L'Appartement and wanted to see what all the fuss was about. So I waited and waited to catch l'Appartement somewhere somehow. Netflix let me down, so I ended up getting a copy from some website in Ireland. And I've just watched it.

It's really kind of weird, but a good weird. A classic French film. Great acting, Romane Bohringer is an absolute gem - sorry, but she acts Monica Bellucci off the screen in every scene. Vincent Cassel was a weird choice for the lead but by the end he works. And I've seen Jean-Philippe Ecoffey in a lot of movies and I just love him - the scene where Alice dumps him in the restaurant and he just looks like someone's told him his puppy's been run over was excruciating! But, I can honestly say, having seen WP and pretty much expecting that to have been a scene for scene copy (as about 75% of the rest of the movie had been - maybe in a different order, but come on, the scene with the coffee in the glasses?? Word for word!!), you can imagine my surprise when I watched the ending of L'Appartement!! I can literally say I was blown away - hmm, a bit like poor old Lucien was through the cafe window really! So, be prepared, if you've seen Wicker Park and you fancy taking a look at the original like I did, do not make the mistake of expecting an identical movie, because you'll either be disappointed, or exhilarated at a piece of French movie history - a prime example of how you can watch a movie, think you're going to watch a pithy happy ending, and get whiplash from the total spin in the opposite direction right at the end. Definitely catch this movie. Oh and while you're at, maybe not too near the same time, but down the road, take a look at Wicker Park, it'll surprise you too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is easily my favourite film. A tragic romance intertwined with a complex mystery whose threads are all but invisible until they all unravel at the end in one fantastic rush. Sheer brilliance.

I'd love to see some more of Gilles Mimouni's work, but at least according to imdb, he hasn't made any other features. Has the high quality of this work made producing another too daunting a task? Has he moved (back) into some other sphere of creative endeavour? I certainly hope this won't be his final feature but I can't really blame him if he decides to stop with this gem as his only contribution to the world of feature films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A movie visually graceful but interesting is mainly the plot. The film depicts a zigzag progress of exploring the main actor's innermost feeling. Max, who has lived in New York for two years and intend to marry a girl he met there, comes back to Paris and unexpectedly meets his ex-girlfriend whom he still fancies very much but finally finds out the one he loves the most in fact is her best friend. Non-linear narration thus many flashbacks and every part are articulated quite well. The three women Max has met symbolize something we must pursue although possibly having no clear picture about the underlying motivations. His fiancee is the one he needs rather than the one he loves and thus completely no loyalty we can see. She gives him also no love but only stability. True love also cannot be found in his relation with the ex-girlfriend. Merely a fantasy for him to escape - many things very romantic he has done for her but almost nothing seems amenable. The one who really animates Max's life in fact is her best friend. The equilibrium achieved at the end is not identical to the initial equilibrium because Max has understand much more about his innermost feeling. The nonlinear structure makes the progress of searching look more complicated. Not equally ingenious as \"Pulp Fiction\" but things seem much more natural in \"The Apartment\". Max is not the only character who undergoes a transformation and in fact interesting is also the description to Romane Bohringer. The good cinematography also makes her and Monica Bellucci look very beautiful. A good commentary of today's love and undoubtedly a film worth seeing.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A slick production which holds the interest from the very first scene where Max is choosing a ring in a jeweller's shop. Much of what follows reminds us of Shakespeare's \"A Mid-summer Night's Dream\" in which Demetrius and Lysander fall in love with each other's girl-friends. Here Max and Lucien both prone to love at first sight get mixed up with Lisa and Alice, and Alice complicates things when she calls herself Lisa. On top of the merry mix-up, Max is inclined to get involved in incidents which bring back memories of two years ago. And because Max has a lot of these dreamy episodes we are subjected to one flashback after another,too many in my opinion because at first viewing of the film , I wasn't quite sure if I was in the present or the past.There is much running down corridors, stairways, through doorways, into elevators etc. I accept all that in a fast-paced film but do we have to have so many people colliding with each other? After four collisions it ceases to have any impact, if you'll excuse the pun. High marks for art design! The apartment itself is really beautiful with its tasteful decor, but I do ask myself how a couple of young women can afford such luxury in Paris. Saving a person intent on suicide from jumping out of a window is always exciting and it is in this film too when Max almost exits at the same time. However a kiss or two soon makes him feel better. If you can manage to find your way through all the flashbacks, you'll finally find yourself at the airport where Max's devoted sister gives him a most affectionate kiss. It can be said it is she who resolves the complications of love, like Puck in a \"Mid-summer Night's Dream\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great comedy, highlighting what it was like to live next door to racist bigot. But also shows that both main characters are actually as bad as each other. Based on the hit ITV comedy, this is very politically incorrect. And its all the better for it, comedy after all is to entertain. The movies only real drawback is there isnt much of a plot. However the cast are as great as usual. Jack Smethurst and Rudolph Walker make one hell of a team, playing off each other in a oneupmanship kind of way.It's been many years since i saw this movie and last week was finally able to buy it on dvd. The fact that the movie still contains genuine laugh out loud moments, means that i can recommend this movie, just like i would of back in the 1970's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One year after 'Love Thy Neighbour' made its I.T.V. debut, it followed the route taken by 'On The Buses' and 'Steptoe & Son' by graduating onto the big screen, in a picture made by Hammer Films. It opens with a stirring patriotic speech lauding the virtues of England's green and pleasant land, then cuts to a shot of Eddie and Bill walking up a street, arguing furiously. This escalates into a strange sequence of white and black neighbours vandalising their each other's homes. At least the original theme tune is retained ( even if it is sung by someone other than Stuart Gillies ).

The local paper - 'The Gazette' - is holding a contest to find the best neighbours, the winners landing a Mediterranean cruise. Barbie suggests to Joan that they should enter. The thing is, can Bill and Eddie stay friends long enough to win it? That's the main part of the plot. The film is by and large episodic. One chunk is lifted directly from Season 1, namely Bill and Eddie going to the Club pretending to be on 'union business'. In reality they're going to see a stripper ( not meeting two girls ). Another portion of the movie has Bill, along with other black factory workers ( in the series he was the only one ), breaking a strike Eddie has helped bring about by various ploys ( including being smuggled in through the gates in beer barrels ). While another ( seemingly inspired by Powell and Driver's 'For The Love Of Ada' ) sees Eddie's talkative mother ( the magnificent Patricia Hayes ) getting friendly with Bill's father ( Charles Hyatt ).

The climax to Episode 1 Season 1 reappears in an expanded form. Bill once more puts on paint and a towel to terrify Eddie, but his friends join him, and they dance round a drum containing a naked Booth, so that they can pretend to cook and eat him. Eddie then has to make his way home in the nude ( surprisingly, there is less nudity here than there was in Episode 2 Season 2 ).

The film ends with the Reynolds and the Booths winning the 'Love Thy Neighbour' contest, and taking the cruise together, but there's an unexpected twist involving Joan's sex-mad brother Cyril ( James Beck - 'Private Walker' of 'Dad's Army' ), who is working as a steward.

This is your typical '70's sitcom-into-movie, with all the faults usually prevalent in such films. The laughs are scattered about, and interest wanes after about half an hour. The cast is augmented by familiar faces such as Melvyn Hayes ( cast as 'Terry', a character from Episode 2 Season 1, played on that occasion by Leslie Meadows ), Bill Fraser ( as the factory manager ), Anna Dawson, Andria Lawrence ( who seems to have been in every '70's British comedy film, mostly cast as nymphomaniacs ), and Arthur English. The director, John Robins, was also responsible for the 'Man About The House' movie.

Funniest moment - while Eddie sleeps in a quiet part of the factory, Bill paints his face black. The first he knows of it is when the manager's secretary screams in terror. The tables have been turned!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From today's point of view it is quite ridiculous to rate this film 18 (or X in the US). The film has a sexual, yet sublime erotic story to tell, but the pictures are rather innocent. Throughout the movie you feel and see the spirit of the late 60s and early 70s in the fashion, the dialogues and the typical experimental cinematography and lighting. And this is exactly the part that makes it worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As with FOOTPRINTS (1975), I became aware of this one purely by accident: it was mentioned in a review of THE LIBERTINE (1969), which I researched when that film turned up on late-night Italian TV, as being in a similar vein; incidentally, I missed out on that screening of THE LIBERTINE (though I acquired it via the same channel later on) but did manage to watch the film by way of a rental of the English-dubbed R1 DVD during my sojourn in Hollywood in late 2005\/early 2006. Actually, in view of the enthusiastic reviews for it, I was let down by THE LIBERTINE \u2013 being too light-hearted in nature for what was essentially a serious theme (the sado-masochistic relationship between a young couple)!; to be honest, for much of the time, I was afraid that THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN would go the exact same route\u2026but was subsequently amply redeemed by a wicked (if not exactly unpredictable) final twist.

The film concerns the freethinking social attitudes and dazzling creative arts prevalent in this era: an eminent philanthropist (Philippe Leroy) invites a female journalist (Dagmar Lassander) at his fashionable home for the week-end; however, it transpires that he\u2019s a misogynist who distrusts all members of the opposite sex and would rather dominate (or even kill) them! Therefore, for the first half of the narrative, we see the heroine enduring pain and humiliation at Leroy\u2019s hands (including being forced to make love to a dummy in his own image!)\u2026until the tables are subtly, but unsurprisingly, turned: she not only emancipates herself from his control, but teaches him that Man and Woman can co-exist harmoniously \u2013 except that Lassander\u2019s following her own personal agenda as well!!

The leads are perfectly cast, and the film itself often darkly comic for those in the mood; furthermore, it\u2019s greatly abetted by a typically effervescent \u201cEuro-Cult\u201d score (from the ever-reliable Stelvio Cipriani) and the imaginative \u2013 even outr\u00e9 \u2013 look (the giant structure depicting the lower section of the female form, with a steel-trap where its sexual organ should be, seems to emanate from Freud: incidentally, this prop figured prominently in stills I\u2019d seen previously from THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN\u2026but it barely registers in the film proper!). Other bizarre touches include the preposterous radio program \u201cSexual Aberrations And The Stars\u201d, and an idyll at a castle belonging to Leroy\u2019s family complete with secret passage through the wardrobe and a dwarfish manservant. One of the highlights, then, is easily Lassander\u2019s erotic dance virtually in the nude \u2013 an episode which actually spearheads the \u2018humanization\u2019 of Leroy; eventually, the two characters have a \u2018showdown\u2019 in the latter\u2019s pool \u2013 amusingly set to a Spaghetti Western-type theme!

In the long run, for all its stylishness, the film emerges as inferior to the similar but much more extreme contemporaneous Japanese masterpiece by Yasuzo Masumura BLIND BEAST (1969). Finally, it\u2019s worth noting that THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN was distributed in the U.S. by film-maker Radley Metzger\u2019s company Audubon Films; he would even employ its production designer (Enrico Sabbatini) for his own CAMILLE 2000 (1969)! To get to the edition I watched: apart from the usual shortcomings in the English-dubbing department, the presentation here was further marred by a rather washed-out appearance and brief instances of distracting extraneous noise on the soundtrack! By the way, there seems to be some confusion with respect to the film\u2019s running-time: its length given on various sources ranges anywhere from 84 to 108 minutes \u2013 all I can say, however, is that the copy I own ran for 87 minutes!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had a great time watching Femina Ridens a couple of mornings back, somewhat hungover. For most of the film its pretty much a two hander, showing the games and weird relationship of crazy doctor Philipe Leroy and stunning Dagmar Lassander. I'd seen her before in a couple of Fulci films dying gruesome deaths, but here she is young hip and beautiful. The film is pretty predictable and certainly mild on the exploitation front, but entertaining throughout owing too its marvellous colourful kitsch feel. The set design, music, lighting and cinematography are all classic late sixties Italian style, a surreal feast for the eyes and ears and though the general thread of the plot is not too difficult to foresee there are more than enough unusual events and memorably bizarre sights and sounds to keep things interesting throughout. Both leads are pretty good, and it bears repeating that Dagmar Lassander is really, really fine. The music, by Stelvo Cipriani is gnarly too, perfectly suited to the images. Director Pierro Schivazappa has come up with quite a cracker here, but its not perfect. Though very alluring, there's little substance here and the exploitation elements are about as mild as can be. I guess this gives it a sort of charm and innocence but I can't help thinking that the subject matter could have done with more sleaze, more threat, that sorta thing, especially since its pretty simple to figure whats going to happen. This is I suspect a bit pointless for stronger exploitation fans and certainly not for people wanting sex or much nudity. Its more of a light, fun pop art affair, lovable but insubstantial, like bubble bath. Recommended mainly for those fond of the 60's, Dagmar Lassander, or sweet set designs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It could not have come from a different country nor from a different time. This movie simply oozes psychedelia influenced late 60s Italian cinema. So, pseudo serious and sexually free. Sumptuous settings and dreamy music make this a visual and aural delight. Plus we get the lovely Dagmar Lassander, surely at her very best looking. The kinky goings on make for a wild ride and if the romps amidst the Mimosa towards the end seem overlong it is but another rather charming trait of the time. You were probably expected to split those few minutes between the screen and your girlfriend and it does of course herald a twist in the proceedings. It might have been better if Philippe Leroy didn't look quite so odd with his fraying red hair and twisted facial expression. He does well though and has many silent moments where Dagmar is cavorting and he has to show a mixture of love and hate. Not an ordinary narrative film by any means but for those who like that something different, this is certainly that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you need that instant buzz that only late 60s\/early 70s Euro sex movies can give off, then look no further for you have just stumbled across the mother lode ! Subsequent TV director Schivazappa's exercise in psychedelic porn (of the soft core variety) may not generally be considered as a classic of its kind but it knocks many better known titles from the likes of Tinto Brass, Jess Franco and Joe D'Amato for a loop. Radley Metzger sure was hip to this way before anyone else when he picked up this marvelously twisted little number for US distribution through his company Audubon. Gorgeous cinematography (favouring symmetrical compositions) may elicit cries of 'pretentiousness' from those who swear by shoddy skin flicks shot in someone's backyard. Hey, as far as I'm concerned, it's their loss for this is one thrill ride of a movie with twists so, well, twisted that you may not even believe them after you have actually witnessed them on screen ! Dagmar Lassander (immortalized as the gone to seed landlady from Lucio Fulci's HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY) has never looked more exquisite than she does here, subtly portraying the innocent (?) researcher held hostage by mad medic Philippe Leroy (with all the art-house favorites to his name, you wonder whether he has the good humor to mention this one on his c.v.) as their initially violent 'relationship' turns to S&M-tinged love story. Nothing is what it seems however in this sick and imaginative gem of a movie with several truly erotic moments achieved with surprisingly minimal nudity. I for one was completely baffled and enchanted by the way Schivazappa chose to suggest oral sex during one scene (I'll let you find that one out for yourselves...) and Lassander's gauze-clad boogie to an impossibly groovy 60s tune should have become iconic in a way similar to the image of Sylvia Kristel reclining in that wicker chair in her EMMANUELLE days. You may not know this film just yet, but trust me, once seen you'll never forget it !!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dr. Sayer(Philippe Leroy), a wealthy physician with psychological issues regarding the opposite sex, kidnaps an employee, Maria(Dagmar Lassander), a free-thinking liberal woman who believes men must be the ones \"fixed\" instead of females. Sayer retreats to his palatial estate, running Maria through a humiliating series of mind games, threatening to molest and kill her. Sayer's desire, it seems, is to dominate her body, mind and soul, making her his sexual slave, obeying his commands, adhering to his every wish and whim. After resistance, at first, Maria slowly teeters towards his objective, but has plans of her own..she says she wishes to help Sayer relinquish his sadistic behavior towards women, so that he could love and not feel such yearning desires to harm. It seems that Sayer has her under his grip, agreeing to certain rather embarrassing scenarios(..such as lotioning his toes, \"making love\" to a blow-up doll which is a recreation of himself, often spending time topless, and even getting hosed down when she slaps him hard across the face bringing blood from his nose)which almost break her, but something happens as the troubled doctor slowly falls in love with Maria..and through what appears to be a desperate attempt to end the madness, Maria gains an upper hand, toying with Sayer's lust for her body.

More of a battle of wills, a kind of sexual warfare where it seems one is in charge when in fact the other truly has the upper hand. Through a great deal of the film, Sayer mistreats Maria, forcing her(..it seems)to submit to his series of psychological games of a sexual nature. Her attempts to escape fail because his home is such a well designed fortress..it's a typical European art deco kind of palace, fashioned and orchestrated by a man who has kept to this weekend retreat of his for quite a spell(..it features walls and doors opening at his command, with an area quarantined off for his \"victims\"). But, once Maria seemingly downs a bottle of pills as a result of her anguish at his hands, the tables are turned and she has him where she wants him. He finds that he actually craves her and Maria uses this to her advantage, playing hard to get when Sayer wishes to embrace and ravage her(..and, I could understand his frustration because she has this allure that can drive a man crazy)

I felt the film works, ultimately, as a war cry for women, their empowerment and uprising against men who have the notion that they should always have control, sexually and mentally. The \"twist\" finalizes this ideal. I couldn't swallow Sayer's fate because of his rigorous cardiovascular activity and exercise regimen..we see how he develops his toned athletic figure, and how this regimen is part of the normal routine every weekend before the true mind games with his victim begin. If he is so well fit, and spends such time developing himself for the extracurricular activities which follow his regimen, how could he suffer the fate which follows his finalizing the deal with Maria at the end when she stops resisting his advances?

Maria, he would later admit, is the first he's actually kidnapped; others from the past, call-girls, were paid for their services so that Sayer could feel the power of dominating a woman, even if it's all a fictitious charade brought about by a deeply troubled individual with an inability to connect with the opposite sex. The spontaneous decision to do so, to take a leap from the norm, costs him more than he could ever know.

All this psycho-sexual sub-text is rather fascinating to see unravel, but Dagmar Lassander, such a yummy sex kitten, was my reason for enjoying it so..without her, I couldn't have liked it as much because she's vital as a victim worth striving to obtain. Perhaps the film's highlight, the delicious dance as Lassander, clothed in gauze(!), unravels the wardrobe exposing her breasts to a jazzy score..it's the kind of sexually seductive moment that makes your mouth water and forehead sweat. Dagmar Lassander must've been a joy for fashion designers because she wears those clothes so well..she has this kind of cool, a sophistication and screen presence along with her beauty and seductive powers, Dagmar transcends the part to create an iconic character which would define her career..even if the film isn't well known(..I found about through word of mouth). The provocative nature of the script and risqu\u00e9 subject matter might not appeal to certain crowds as it deals with sex(..and pain) in many different forms, the dialogue quite illustrative and elaborative. At times, I couldn't help but chuckle at Sayer's comments towards an imprisoned Maria, regarding how he enjoys making women suffer, and the thrill he gets at forcing them into a type of slavery(..in an attempt to make the words poetic, it all feels rather hokey). But, Dagmar is the real reason to see it, and the film, to me, works at it's best as a fetish film, a possible male fantasy with this seemingly prim and proper idealist, captured and held against her will, forced into a precarious situation, her fate possibly at the mercy of a complex and possibly dangerous masochist. Her submission, and how she reacts towards his aggressive behavior with her(..there are times where she unfolds to a wavering desire to embrace him, unveiling a possible attraction towards him which, in itself, might startle some who watch it)are among the most fascinating highlights of this exploitation feature. My other favorite scene, besides the dance, is the piano concerto with Sayer fondling Maria as she plays a soothing melody.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shameless Screen Entertainment is a relatively new and British (I think) DVD-label, specializing in smutty and excessively violent cult movies \u0096 mostly Italian ones - from the glorious eras when everything was possible, namely from the late 60's up until the mid-80's. The label's selection feels like a crossover between the oeuvres of \"Mondo Macabro\" and \"No Shame\" (they probably even borrowed the name of the latter) and they already released some really rare sick Italian puppies like \"Ratman\", \"My Dear Killer\", \"Killer Nun\", \"Phantom of Death\" and \"Torso\". \"The Frightened Woman\" was completely unknown to me, but since fellow reviewers from around here, whose opinions I hugely value, described it as one of the greatest and most mesmerizing psychedelic euro-sexploitation movies of its era, I didn't hesitate to pick it up. This is a very weird film and probably not suitable for about 99% of the average cinema-loving audiences. If you're part of that remaining 1%, however, you're in for a really unique treat. The style, atmosphere and content are similar to Jess Franco's \"Succubus\" and Massimo Dallamano's \"Venus in Furs\", yet they're both widely considered as classics whereas \"The Frightened Woman\" is virtually unknown. It's all a matter of profiling and good marketing, I guess. The story revolves on a literally filthy rich doctor (he lives in a gigantic secluded mansion, owns multiple old-timer cars and has a very impressive collection of artsy relics including a life-size mannequin doll replica of himself) with a bizarre and slightly offbeat attitude towards women. He considers them a threat for the survival of the male race and thus spends his days kidnapping, humiliating and sexually abusing random he picks up from the street. Dr. Sayer then abducts the ambitious journalist Maria with the intention to completely crush her female spirit, but he slowly falls for her. Just he starts to believe in actual love, she strikes back with a vengeance. This really isn't for everyone, but if you can appreciate moody & sinisterly sexy ambiances, bizarre scenery toys and psychedelic touches that seem utterly implausible and surreal, you can consider this one a top recommendation. It's slow, stylishly sleazy and totally bonkers\u0085 Shameless Entertainment, all right!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now, I am not prone to much emotion, but I cried seeing this movie. It certainly has more appeal among blacks than other ethnic groups, but there is something here for everyone. The classic song \"It's so Hard to Say Goodbye\" really makes this one worth watching at least once.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film set the standard for African-American film excellence when it was made. I heard on various stories on the film through time, that there was a push for an Academy Award nomination when it was released. This film plays on various emotions, and you definitely feel for all of the characters. Sure, some of the acting is a little wooden, but fortunately, those parts aren't pivotal. The music is sensational, and if you don't think the ending is a tear-jerker, you have no heart in your chest. If you watch \"Cooley High\", you will see that many, many films have copied various elements from it in order to strengthen their own films. The biggest example of this is \"Boyz N The Hood\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Read This:

BOYZ 'N THE HOOD IS A SCENE-BY-SCENE, COMPLETE RIP-OFF OF THIS MOVIE.

Two friends in the hood, one's focused on intellectual pursuits and the other is an athlete. The friend who's an athlete gets involved with the wrong people and gets killed. (The athlete just happens to be Washington from 'Welcome Back, Kotter'.)

It makes me mad that people don't know this. It blows my mind everytime I go into a video store and Boyz 'n the Hood is in the 'Drama' section while Cooley High is in 'Comedy'. It's an embarrassing disgrace. This movie is both funnier and more dramatic than John Singleton's rip-off. At least Singleton could have had the dignity to speak out that his film was homage to Cooley High, but no, he never said a word. Boys 2 Men, however, named their hit record after this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the very first movie I ever saw in my life back in 1974 or 1975. I was 4 years old at the time and saw it at a drive-in theatre. I did not grasp that this would be a classic at the time (I went to sleep about twenty minutes into the movie). After seeing it on the television-along with two of my other favourite movies Car Wash (my favourite movie) and The Wiz which seemed to come on every year about the same time all together-about 40, 50, 75 times I knew that here was a movie that I would have as one of my favourites. Those three movies were the only live action shows that I could watch as a child.

I would not consider this to be a blaxploitation movie but rather an urban interest movie.Cochise and Preach reminded me of some of my uncles especially the Wild Irish Rose that they drank. My mother also told me about some of the quarter parties that she attended and that some of the things that occurred in the movie were similar in nature to what occurred in real life. If you are one of the two or three black people over thirty who hasn't seen this movie yet then I recommend that you buy the DVD right now. I'm glad that I was around to witness some of the goings on of the era.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Cooley High\" is one of my favorite movies EVER!!! I think I saw this movie years ago on late night TV with my mother when I was little and I thought it was so funny. This movie was also referred to as a \"black American Graffiti\". Glynn Turman is wonderful as Preach and Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs is great as Preach's friend Cochise. There are some other great characters in it as well, and this movie has a lot of humor packed into it. From the beginning of the movie where Cochise goes to Preach's home to get ready for school to the sad ending of Cochise's funeral, this movie is one that will get you laughing all the way. There are a lot of scenes in this film that I like a lot. The scene where Pooter (another one of Preach and Cochise's friends) go to the zoo with them and gets the gorilla's feces thrown on his shirt (very gross, but funny as well), the first scene in the street corner cafeteria, the quarter party at this girl's house which became a disaster due to a fight, and some others are wonderful to watch. This movie even has a wonderful companion soundtrack album, which is packed with a lot of wonderful Motown hits and artists from the early 60s (only 6 songs on the soundtrack were done in '75, while the rest were from the '60s). The movie is mainly about two friends who dream about getting away from their impoverished and rough neighborhood after high school, but their futures seem almost out of reach, due to their innocent joy ride in a stolen car that two other hoods were responsible for, and Preach's relationship with his girlfriend, Brenda (played by Cynthia Davis) almost gets put in jeopardy. Go out and rent or buy this movie, and be ready for a load of comical entertainment!!! Get the soundtrack, too. It is a lot of fun as well!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cooley High is such a great film that even with the period's sound track, urban landscape, wardrobe and slang...it still doesn't feel dated. The sound track by the way is a timeless classic in itself.

Instead it absorbs you right into it. That is a staple of a good movie. From start to finish it doesn't miss a beat and I never grow tired of watching it.

It's ending is unique in the respect that it's one of the saddest and at the same time uplifting of all movie endings. There may have been a few since (Backdraft comes to mind) but Cooley was the first and much more emotional.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cooley High is considered one of my best all time movies. It certainly reminds me of days of my youth growing up in the cities of Cleveland and Chicago during the early, mid, and late 1960's. What ever happened to Brenda and Pooter? Some one need's to track those two down. Brenda for her beauty and Pooter for his innocent wit. They both deserve to be recognized even 31 years after this film was debuted. I think a lot of the fans of this movie would like to find out what happened to them as well as others who acted in this fun filled movie. I certainly think this movie should be entered into some type of MOVIE HALL OF FAME. All of the cast of this movie was great. My opinion is of \" Cooley High \" is turn back the hands of time, those were the fun years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...instead, watch it as a great coming of age tale about African American males in the mid 1960's in the ghettos of Chicago. For all of you out there under the age of 50, \"What's Happening\" was a light-hearted rather quirky sitcom with very few serious moments that lasted four years (1975-1979) concerning a group of young African American high school kids living in a working class neighborhood. I liked it a great deal - it just has no real connection to this film. \"Cooley High\" started out as being the basis for \"What's Happening\", but its serious nature did not register well with test audiences, so it was redone as a comedy, even though the credits on \"What's Happening\" still read that it was based on this movie.

This film starts out light, but touches many aspects of life unique to the turbulent 1960's and also some other aspects of growing up that are timeless. The guys deal with sex, betrayal, joblessness, hopelessness, and even early death. The ending is quite powerful and serious, and the film has a great Motown soundtrack. Highly recommended. Unfortunately, this film is not new enough to be played on premium cable channels and not considered old enough to be considered a classic movie and played in the few venues for those films either.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This this coming of age dramedy set in Chicago in the early 60's, we follow a group of highschool friends as they navigate through the ups and downs of their lives. The two central characters are Leroy \"Preach\" Jackson (Turman) and his best friend Richard \"Cochise\" Morris (Hilton-Jacobs.) Both of these boys have promising futures. Preach is a great writer but a lazy student, and Cochise has just received a college scholarship for basketball. When they're not hanging out at the local diner shooting craps with their friends, or hanging out at a friends house or chasing girls, they're skipping school, riding the trains through Chicago or going to quarter parties on the weekends.

Things go wrong when Preach and Cochise make the mistake of getting involved with two hoods and go joyriding in a stolen car. The police pursue them and they are arrested. But thanks to the efforts of a concerned teacher (SNL's Garrett Morris) they are released. But the two hoods are not, and vow to get revenge on Preach and Cochise, thinking they blamed the whole thing on them.

This movie is very episodic, but it still works because thats what life is, a series of episodes. Some funny, some sad, some romantic, some bizarre. The film never gets boring because all the characters are so well played and realistic, and the situations are all believable and relatable. Like Preach romantically pursuing a beautiful girl, or a party turning violent when some asshole decides to start a fight, or dealing with a bratty younger sibling. But even when a situation isn't personally relatable, like the guys pretending to be undercover cops to con a hooker out of some money so they could get all their friends into a movie, the sequence is still hilarious.

'Cooley High' was the basis for the classic 70's sitcom 'What's Happenin!' which aired on ABC from 1976-1979. Even though the show is most famous for the character Rerun, he is not in this film, nor is there any character remotely like him. The humor of that show was very broad, but still funny. The humor of 'Cooley High' is truer to life, and thus more entertaining.

Additionally, the soundtrack is wonderful. Classic songs from that period by Diana Ross & The Supremes, The Temptations, Martha & the Vandellas, and Smokey Robinson play throughout the film, adding to the fun, youthful, exuberant tone of the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cooley High was actually a drama with moments of comedy. It was a reflection of high school life back in the day. I attended Coolidge High in Washington, D.C. from 1976 to 1979 and much of what was in Cooley High was an every day thing at Coolidge. As a matter of fact after the movie came out everybody started calling Coolidge \"Cooley High.\" Getting high, shooting dice, chasing girls, basement parties, and fights, that sums up high school life for many in D.C. back in the day. I can't forget Motown because Motown music began and ended many a day back in the 70s. The hits just kept coming. However, Cooley High adds a layer of humanity over the craziness because when all was said and done just like in Cooley High my classmates and I had a lot of love for each other. And like the characters in Cooley High there was life after high school, but there was nothing like waking up every morning and experiencing each day to the fullest from homeroom to seventh period. Thirty years later we are getting ready to celebrate those good times. Cooley High is definitely a period piece that just gets better with time because like it or not the only thing left from those days are memories, some good, and some bad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie was very good when it came out, I attended Cooley High and Cooley upper grade center ,around 1968 i was also home coming queen and grew up and lived in the area of Cabrini Greens, i knew a lots of people in the movie, it was nice to see friends in the movie that lived in the area also, and they had a chance to be a star that may have been a once in a life time experience for them, i had good times growing up on the north side and tough times i can relate to the movie Cooley High is no longer standing but a person like myself and others still remember the fun we had growing up attending Cooley High, there is a lot of history around this north side area to be told .","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film held my interest from the beginning to the very end with plenty of laughs and real down to earth acting by the entire cast. Glynn Turman, (Preach Jackson) is the star of the picture playing the role of a smart guy who likes poetry and had a very sexy girl friend. Lawrence Hilton Jacobs, (Cochise Morris) was an outstanding athlete at the Cooley H.S. and even won a scholarship to a famous college. There are scenes in this picture with the Chicago Police Department chasing all these dudes in a Cadillac and a visit to the Lincoln Park Zoo with monkey dung being thrown around. The music is outstanding and there is great photography around the City of Chicago. Great Film, enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At the surface COOLEY HIGH is a snappy ensemble comedy masquerading as a period piece (set in the early 60's, complete with a flawless Motown soundtrack). But there's SO much more to this film - it gets better every time I see it. The cast of unknowns (at the time) is excellent, and it is notable as an all-black-cast film that doesn't fall into any Blaxpoitation clich\u00e9s - at times COOLEY HIGH almost feels like an updated, urban neo-realist film, with lots of edgy humor added in. At times, the rather tight budget does show, but the constraints actually serve the film well - there's a grit and honesty of emotion here that lends the film an immediacy lacking in most similar-minded films (like Schultz' later CAR WASH, which was more popular, but largely pointless) Warm-hearted but also true-to-life, this might be one of THE sleepers of the 70s - celebrated at the time, it seems that few film freaks know about this one today. Their loss - this is a fine, fine film.

The bare-bones pan-and-scan DVD (no widescreen!?!) is testament to just how little cared-for this excellent film is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You want a movie that'll take you places? Well this is a good pick. If you were an adolescent in the era portrayed in this film--the hayday of Motown--or if you want to reach back and see what your parents made so much noise about, I suggest you pick up this flick and give it a watch. At the risk of sounding cliche, you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll reminisce and remember. You'll go back to a time when school violence was a fist fight. You'll recall with fondness your best friends from school. It's a feel good movie with an edge of angst and pain and realism--misconceptions, losing friends, deciding what to do with your life. I think everyone regardless of race, age, socioeconomic standing can pull something from this movie and really enjoy it. So take a couple hours out of a lazy day and check out this film; there are much worse ways you could spend your time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some people may call \"Cooley High\" the same sort of thing as \"American Graffiti\", but I wouldn't. For starters, in \"AG\", everyone was white, whereas in \"CH\" they're all black. Moreover, this one has a Motown soundtrack. Specifically, the movie focuses on several working-class African-American students in 1964 Chicago and their antics. The movie deals mainly with home life and relationships. In their apartments, we see that there's never any dad around. But these young men always know how to live life to the fullest.

One thing that really distinguishes this movie from most other portrayals of black people is that the teenagers in this movie are portrayed as very responsible, worrying about missing school. Two really funny scenes are the gorilla scene, and the one white guy in the movie. But overall, the main star is the soundtrack. It is truly one of the best soundtracks in movie history (we even have it on vinyl here at home). A classic in the real sense of the word.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A gem from Japan, where so many of the world's best films are being made today. Stylistically, this isn't anything all that special. It's just a simple drama (with some comic overtones) about recognizable people going about their lives. Yuko Tanaka, best known for voicing the character Lady Eboshi in Princess Mononoke, plays a 50 year old spinster. She's takes pride in her health, spending each morning in a vigorous workout as she delivers milk up and down the steep hills of Nagasaki. After she is done with this part time job, she works her regular job as a clerk at a grocery store (called S-Mart, which made this Army of Darkness fan giggle). Along her milk route lives a 50 year old man, whose wife is dying. It turns out the milk woman and the man, a child services worker, dated in high school, and each apparently still have something of a crush on the other. The film actually has some major narrative problems. When the screenwriter actually wants the two unrequited lovers to unite, he uses a pretty unbelievable deus ex machina technique. The climactic sequence is also really forced. But most of the film is beautifully small and observant of the two main characters, as well as many side characters. The film also has several subplots that seem like they will eventually weigh the film down, but never end up doing so. I think the best thing in the film is Tanaka's heartbreaking performance as the lonely milk woman, who has resigned herself to being alone for the rest of her life. Whatever the problems were, the film mostly transcends them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lead actor Yuko Tanaka fulfills so much in the exceptionally meditative \"The Milkwoman,\" a tranquil canvass on missed chances in the life of a 50-something woman, charting her routine with sincerely poignant motives. Played out in the picturesque, tranquil town of Nagasaki, Akira Ogata's unconventional romantic film, so to speak, is less a straight-out melodrama than a deliberate introspection of its characters' surrender to their current lives as a result of a tragic past that forced them to a choice they did not call for.

Perfectly embodying the requisite world-weariness subjected to a spiritless routine, Tanaka plays Minako Oba, a middle-aged woman who, before her work shift at a supermarket, takes it upon herself to deliver bottles of milk among the residents of the hilly Nagasaki. One of the houses she constantly passes by to make such a delivery is that of Kaita Takanashi (Ittoku Kishibe), a local government employee caring for her terminally ill wife (Akiko Nishina). Minako and Kaita were high school sweethearts who, courtesy of an ignominious event concerning their parents, separated ways since then.

Opening his film with the foreboding narration of a young Minako vowing never to leave Nagasaki, Ogata does as such with the narrative, patiently sticking with Minako as he, deftly aided by Tanako's understated yet highly effective performance, follows her -- whether she's having chitchat with her aunt (Misako Watanabe) on being single, or when she jogs up and down the countless footsteps of their hilly town to distribute milk -- as she and Kaita gradually overcome the hindrances that kept them apart for years. Such unhurried development may not suit viewers weaned on fast-paced narratives but for the rest, it's a heartfelt introspection that affects powerfully and emphatically.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I guess those who have been in a one-sided relationship of some sort before will be able identify with the lead character Minako (Yuko Tanaka), a 50 year old woman who is still in the pink of good health, as demonstrated by her daily, grinding routine of waking up extremely early in the morning to prepare for her milk delivery work, where she has to lug bottles of Megmilk in a bag in a route around her town like clockwork, to exchange empty bottles for full ones, and to collect payment and issue receipt. And there's always be that one delivery stop that's right at the top, needing to scale a long flight of stairs in order to achieve customer satisfaction.

And peculiar enough, that stop happened to be a stop delivering to a man with whom she has been in love with for almost all her teenage to adult life, and not having the product appreciated, but poured down the sink. Having gone to the same school, we see that they're not talking to each other, and in their daily life always seem so close physically, but yet so far away. There's no eye contact, save for cursory glances by chance, and little acknowledgement of each other's existence. We learn that they share a past that probably destroyed all notions of being together, where clear attraction between the two was hampered from developing further by the earlier generation.

While I thought Minako was an interesting woman in herself, one who has kept her feelings suppressed for so long, one can only wonder what kind of damage it would do. If I read that the original Japanese title means \"At some time the days you read books\" and it's accurate, I felt the movie had a wonderful finale with that shot of her well stocked bookcase, likely alluding to the fact that she's not alone after all, and had probably fallen back on her crutch of sorts to deal with the pain of being alone, and back to a lifestyle which she had already been accustomed to for 50 years. Besides immersing herself in two jobs, she has those books which serve as a form of escapism, and occasionally pens little sweet nothings to song dedication shows on the radio.

Yuko Tanaka did a commendable job as the emotionally strong woman resigned to her fate and her decision to love none other, her object of affection, Takanashi (Ittoku Kishibe) was a more interesting character who has more facets. Staying true to marriage vows, he spends significant amount of screen time looking after his sickly bedridden wife (played by Akiko Nishina), while juggling with his job of social welfare in the Children's Affairs department in City Hall. I felt that as a childless couple, the job provided him a means to care, not for his own, but for other people's children, the troubled ones who are neglected and left to fend for themselves. In a rare moment of rage, we see how he angrily chides such wayward parents who don't appreciate and wastes their children's lives away.

The story by Kenji Aoki provides little quirks to make its characters appeal and successfully attempted to provide a lot more glimpses and dimension into them as well, such as how Takanashi is a hopeless Haiku poet despite being a member of the Haiku club, and supporting characters such as the aged Minagawa couple, where Masao (Koichi Ueda) lent some comical though sad moments as he slowly turned senile, while wife Toshiko (Misako Watanabe) narrates and brings us through this love story of a single woman at 50. Even Akiko Nishina's performance as the bedridden wife was nothing short of arresting, with her character's enlightened state of knowing her husband's past, and making unselfish, and painful decisions in her sickly state.

It's what you can expect from a typical Japanese romantic movie, sans young, nubile leads as star-crossed lovers, but with all other elements in place such as romantic set ups, love songs and those quintessential restrained but affectionate behaviour. I thought the story was in danger of going down the beaten track when unrequited love gets consummated, but director Akira Ogata managed to steer clear of the usual melodramatic moments in such stories, though the story did call for some obvious plot development into the final act that you can predict, especially if you're already way past your Romance Movie 101.

Not being your average lovey-dovey story, I thought The Milkwoman told a strong story with unrequited love as a central theme, and frankly a recommended romance movie (though told at a measured pace) if you're in the mood for some bittersweet loving, reminiscence, and seeking to live without regrets.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The storyline of The Milkwoman is a simple one of unrequited love that despite the passing of decades still remains strong. Now 50 years old, Minako Obha (Yuko Tanaka) lives alone and works two jobs \u0096 one as a checkout clerk in a supermarket, the other as a milklady, doing her daily round on the hills of Nagasaki. One of her stops is at the house of Kaita Takanashi (Ittoku Kishibe), a government official who tends to his terminally ill wife Yoko (Akiko Nishina). Minako and Kaita used to see each other as school children, but after the death of Minako's mother and Kaita's father, who it seems were having an affair together, their own relationship was destroyed. Lying in her sick bed, Yoko knows however that her husband's feelings for the milklady aren't completely gone and, for the sake of Kaita after she has died, she attempts to engineer a means of bringing them back together.

While the story might be simple, the emotions it deals with and the means by which it expresses them is really where the heart and beauty of the film lie. The film takes its time to show the simple daily routines of each of the characters, their actions being recorded by an old lady who is writing their story for a book while looking after her own husband who is showing signs of dementia. In the process it depicts the social circumstances of people from different ways of life, how they interact with each other on a daily basis, how relationships form, and how past and present can collide. The director handles this marvellously with a strong structure and visual style. It's only later in the film that the story starts to follow a more conventional and inevitably melodramatic path, as if it is indeed being constructed to fit the narrative structure of the book that is being written. It's all validated by the emotional depths the film touches, represented most effectively in the exceptional performance of Yuko Tanaka.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a story of a long and awkward love. The daily life of a woman of 50 years old and some people around her is depicted. Her daily life is so ordinary and routine that I doubted who was the real lead character in the beginning. Then the audiences know that the woman and a man who was her high-school class mate had very tiny connection. The woman has been doing the same job - a milk-woman and a supermarket casher - so long. There are so many slopes that delivering milk bottles is a very hard job. The man had married another woman, who is now dying of cancer. He works at the City Hall and devotedly cares her at home. They never look straight nor talk each other, but they never forget each other.

The original Japanese title means \"At some time the days you read books\". But of course when the man said \"Now I want to do what I've always wanted to do\", it was to hug her and make love with her. She writes to a radio disk jockey that \"If God gives us time to talk, we need at least a whole day\". Dreaming of that day, she has been sublimating the desire in hard work and book reading. I personally know a woman who has loved a man for long years, even after he married another woman and died for an accident. Therefore the story setting is not that special. Rather, this movie well portrays unspoken romances in many ordinary men and women. Through this movie, you will recall your romance that is lost long ago. This is a movie with lasting effect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was really well written and was very entertaining.There was great acting in it too. Luke Perry did a very convincing job. (like he always does)If you are looking for a eventful movie to watch this should be at the top of your list. There is a mixture of comedy, drama, and action. You can literally feel what the actors are feeling at points. I was very impressed by this movie. The special effects were very well done. The whole movie was very convincing. This movie is one of my favorites. What happens is North America could be torn apart and Jack and his team have to try and to stop an eruption by destroying North America. It was a very cool and creative idea. I loved this movie and i know you will too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is interesting to see what people think of this movie, since it is, in fact, quite unique (though it bears some of the trademarks of Clive Barker's writing). Even though it might seem a bit cynical to say so, the movie is just intricate enough to deflect those that need standard Hollywood plot hooks, and layered, so that if you expect to be fed, you will see a normal monster flick with lots of monsters and a disjointed plot.

Those who need a linear, specific and untangled plot line will hate this movie, because the story lies, like in the novella, partially between the lines, or in this case, partially off screen, in comments and the imagination.

Another possible hang-up is the ending, of which I can say, without spoiling it, that it is not entirely good and not entirely bad. It is, in fact, not very defined at all, which I know sends some people into raging tantrums about that they didn't get to know what happened, but to me, and to many others, I'm sure, just adds another dimension to the story - the dimension of speculation, and, in addition, the point that great disruption has a tendency to cause ripples that extend quite far.

There is definitely moral here, but of a rather different kind than the standard Hollywood in-your-face-at-the-end-of-the-movie sort of display. Summing that moral up is simple, even though it is not quite that simply displayed; prejudice and the human tendency to hate the different.

I love this movie, even though, as many of the reviewers have noted, the expressions of the actors (with the exception of David Cronenberg, who does a wonderful appearance) are rather tacky. I'm not sure they are entirely to blame for their rickety appearance and lack of depth, though, seeing that these are common problems in converting literature to screenplay.

All in all, this is a great movie, provided that you do not expect it to be a standard horror movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the film that first indicated to me what a great actor Martin Sheen really is. He modestly claims that Charlie is a better actor, Charlie can't hold a candle to him.

I found it suspenseful and thoroughly enjoyed the intertwining of the love story with the main plot (and I usually HATE love stories). There's a great plot twist at the end that struck me as being fully credible, particularly in the early 80's time period, and probably now also.

The final scene had me on the edge of my seat. This film roundly illustrates that treachery is often doled out by those we trust, while declared enemies have more in common than they suspect, and finally, that human compassion can be found where we least expect it.

irenerose","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must admit, when I first began watching this film I had no clue what was going on. So the beginning was a bit confusing for me. However, that did not diminish my enjoyment of the movie. The characters reveal themselves to be more complex than they may first appear, and that is what makes this a memorable film. At first I heard this was a real \"Hollywood\" movie. Although it obviously lacks the stereotypical \"guns and fists\" element, the convincing performances of talented actors such as Martin Sheen and Sam Neill more than make up for it. I'd rather see a film with more substance than shooting any day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film on hbo around 1983 and I loved it! I scoured all of the auction web sites to buy the vhs copy. This is a very good suspense movie with a few twists that make it more interesting. I don't want to say too much else because if you ever get a chance to see it, you'll be glad I didn't say too much!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Out of the 600 or so Spaghetti Westerns made this has got to be in the top twenty somewhere. Can not believe this hasn't received any reviews! Gemma is excellent in this. Van Johnson is good too though his dubbed voice is a little off killter but that's the charm of the Italian style. Beautiful photography and some excellently staged action. All the supporting characters are well played. The severity of the racist streak in the bad guys is pretty tough even by todays standards which creates an emotional depth to Gemmas character in some of the situations that take place. Absolutely FANTASTIC score by Luis Bacalov. See this is in the wonderful Wide screen DVD from Japan. A spaghetti must have.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In post civil war America the President, (Van Johnson), travels to Dallas and is assassinated by corrupt officials and businessman interested in installing the vice President whom they can blackmail due to incriminating documents. A gunman (Guiliano Gemma) convinced that his black friend is wrongly accused of the assassination aims to uncover the truth. Tonino Valeri directed this fascinating, if flawed film which obviously is an allegory for the Kennedy assassination. The film may wrongly present blacks as slaves working on plantations in Texas but the film is nonetheless enjoyable and presents an interesting interpretation - that Kennedy's death was the result of a coup de tat- which many Americans could not accept at the time. Oswald's murder is replayed here as the black accused of the assassination is murdered by the men responsible, on route to Fort Worth prison. This moment in the film is more melodramatic than Oswald's death with his various escorts shot down before his over the top death scene. Nonetheless this is definitely one of the more interesting and worthwhile spaghetti westerns. Worth a look!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a gripping story that borrows elements from the Kennedy assassination, and uses them successfully to create an excellent western tale.

The movie has a good music score, though it relies on repeating the title theme a little too much. Giuliano Gemma and the rest of the cast are superb. This is a more cerebral than usual spaghetti western that relies more on story than action, and it succeeds because the story is excellent. This is not to say that there is no action in the movie. There is plenty, and it is very well crafted. This movie pulls you in right away, and keeps you absorbed til the end. You'll always be wondering what's in those documents everyone's after. It also has some biting commentary on American politics.

This movie shows why Valerii, in my opinion, is in a three way tie with Sollima and Corbucci for second place in the rankings of spaghetti western directors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tonino Valerii's \"Il Prezzo Del Potere\" aka. \"The Price Of Power\" is an excellent and enthralling Spaghetti Western that mirrors the Kennedy assassination. A great leading performance by Giuliano Gemma and an excellent score by Luis Bacalof are just two of the many reasons to watch this movie.

In 1881 Texas is divided into those who appreciate the abolition of slavery and just want to live in peace, and those who, after 16 years, still want to reinstall the confederacy. In spite of warnings, President James Garfield, who wants to establish a new policy of equality, decides to visit Dallas, where corrupt law enforcement officials are planning his assassination. Bill Willer (Giuliano Gemma) and two of his friends, a black man named Jack Donovan (Ray Shaunders), and a crippled guy named Nick (Manuel Zarzo) are determined to prevent the President's murder.

Since James Garfield was not assassinated by racists, who wanted to reinstall the confederacy in Texas, but in Washington DC by mentally unstable Charles Guiteau, the storyline of \"Price Of Power\" is, of course, historical nonsense. Since the movie, however, doesn't claim historical accuracy, but tries to allude to the 1963 Kennedy assassination in Dallas, the fact that the story is fictitious is legitimate.

Giuliano Gemma delivers an excellent performance as the main character Bill Willer, Benito Stefanelli is great as the villainous and corrupt Sheriff Jefferson. Some other good performances are those of Ray Shaunders as Bill's black friend Jack, Warren Vanders as Arthur McDonald, the president's adviser, and Fernando Rey as Pinkerton, a villainous rich businessman. The Score by Luis Enr\u00edquez Bacalov is great, the cinematography and locations are great and (such as in Valerii's earlier \"Day Of Anger\") remind a lot of Sergio Leone, for whom Valerii used to work as an assistant director for \"A Fistful Of Dollars\" And \"For A Few Dollars More\".

All said, \"Il Prezzo Del Potere\" is, after \"Day Of Anger\", another excellent Spaghetti Western that shows both the great talent of Giuliano Gemma as an actor and Tonino Valerii as a director. \"The Price Of Power\" is a must-see for Spaghetti Western fans, and I also highly recommend it to everybody else. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was unfamiliar with this film, until I saw it included in a list of the Top 20 Spaghetti Westerns I recently came across (following the marathon I made these last few weeks of films from the subgenre); it was auspicious, then, that the film had to turn up almost immediately on late-night Italian TV (for the first time, I'm pretty sure, in a good number of years)!

Unfortunately, the cable reception of the channel on which it was broadcast hasn't been great lately: I recorded the film on VHS but I decided not to keep it due to this factor; as it happened, the very next day I watched the film, I found out that it was available on a Region 2 DVD from Italy (featuring an interview with uncredited scriptwriter Ernesto Gastaldi) - and, having been sufficiently impressed, I decided to order it there and then, even if I knew that I wouldn't be getting to the DVD for quite a while as I like to allow some time between one viewing of a film and the next! A brief parenthesis here: when I recently purchased a spate of Spaghetti Westerns on Italian DVD, I opted not to order Sergio Sollima's FACE TO FACE (1967), since I was under the impression that it was a bare-bones affair; however, I've just learned that the disc actually contains an interview with the director (as had been the case with THE BIG GUNDOWN [1966], which I bought). It did seem baffling to me that Sollima wouldn't offer similar contribution to that film's DVD edition when he actually considered FACE TO FACE as his favorite work (as per the director's talent bio included on the Blue Underground Region 1 disc of yet another Sollima Spaghetti Western - RUN, MAN, RUN [1968]); the trouble is that I loved THE BIG GUNDOWN so much that I followed it with a viewing of FACE TO FACE via the recording I owned made off Italian TV! I did order the DVD of that film now - especially since it's still discounted - but as I said with respect to a second look at THE PRICE OF POWER (although I may still check out Sollima's interview when the disc arrives)...

O.K., rant over: the film under review is quite an unusual Spaghetti Western and a very interesting, indeed ambitious one at that, being a transposition of the JFK assassination case to an Old West setting! Actually, it's reminiscent of Anthony Mann's terse black-and-white thriller THE TALL TARGET (1951) - which dealt with an assassination attempt on the life of then-U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. It features one of the most popular Italian stars from this subgenre, Giuliano Gemma, in what is perhaps his most impressive Western role (many of his other films tended to have a light-hearted bent). The supporting cast includes at least two other notables: Van Johnson (in one of his few and mainly unremarkable Italian films) as the American President killed in post-Civil War Dallas and Fernando Rey as the head of a conspiracy of Southerners - who not only plots his assassination but also conveniently maneuvers the new acting U.S. leader, Johnson's Vice-President, by means of blackmail!

Benito Stefanelli also makes a good impression as a corrupt sheriff who pursues Gemma all through the picture, and with whom he's engaged a couple of times in a 'duel in the dark' - with the guns resting on the floor rather than in their respective holsters and the only light in the room provided by the end of the cowboys' cigars! Also involved is Ray Saunders as Gemma's black sidekick whom the narrative eventually turns into the doomed \"Lee Harvey Oswald\" figure. Stelvio Massi - who later cut his teeth, as director, on a number of poliziotteschi - is behind the film's luminous cinematography; similarly, Luis Enrique Bacalov supplies yet another great \"Euro-Cult\" score - which is different enough from the style of Ennio Morricone as to be equally distinguishable. Valerii's direction here may mot be as imposing as that in other Spaghetti Westerns but he handles the proceedings efficiently enough (the final gunfight is especially nicely done); the film is certainly one of the more underrated entries in the subgenre and, for those so inclined, the novelty of the plot line alone should make it one to look out for...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"PRICE OF HONOR aka PRICE OF POWER is an ambitious Western melodrama, light on the action, which seeks to tell an Old West version of the JFK assassination. In 1881, the president travels to Dallas and is shot from a window while parading thru town in his carriage. Corrupt officials have carried out the murder and have a humble slave take the rap. Our hero, the earnest but bland Giuliano Gemma, aims to unravel the conspiracy. An engaging story, audacious for its subject matter, but entertaining despite the paucity of shoot-em-up action. The film is a 7 out of 10, despite the poor presentation of the DVD, which is overly dark with poor sound. Look for a good copy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Babette's Feast, for me, is about healing: mending the schism between spirit and body in orthodox Christianity. This puritanical community in remote Denmark is missing an adequate appreciation of all of God's gifts in creation. They have taken the dualism of St. Paul to an extreme, and stress the life of the \"spirit,\" not the life of the \"flesh.\" Both elderly sisters, in their youth, were frightened by the lure of love and the temptations of life outside their simple village. They, and their parishioners, cling to the narrow biblical interpretation of their former leader, and the sisters' father. The aging congregation has become testy and quarrelsome, and the sisters don't know what to do. Enter Babette, a French stranger, and someone to whom they can show kindness. They have no way of knowing that she will ultimately return their kindness and give fertile soil to their dry, dusty theology. Babette will give everything she has, and in the process, will teach the sisters and their flock about grace, about sacrifice, about how sensual experience (as in the bread and wine of the Eucharist) can change lives, and about why true art moves us so deeply. When they can forgive each other, and themselves, they can focus on God's love that unfolds before them in a concrete way in the present. As a minister, and an artist, I can't recommend a movie more highly. True art and true grace!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Flawlessly directed, written, performed, and filmed, this quiet and unpretentious Danish film is an example of cinema at its best, and if a person exists who can watch BABETTE'S FEAST without being touched at a very fundamental level, they are a person I do not care to know.

The story is quite simple. In the 1800s, two elderly maiden ladies (Birgitte Federspiel and Bodil Kjer) reside in remote Jutland, where they have sacrificed their lives, romantic possibilities, and personal happiness in order to continue their long-dead father's religious ministry to the small flock he served. One of the women's youthful admirers sends to them a Frenchwoman, Babette (St\u00e9phane Audran), whose husband and son have been killed in France and who has fled her homeland lest she meet the same fate. Although they do not really require her services, the sisters engage her as maid and cook--and as the years pass her cleverness and tireless efforts on their behalf enables the aging congregation to remain together and the sisters to live in more comfort than they had imagined; indeed, the entire village admires and depends upon her.

One day, however, Babette receives a letter: she has won a lottery and is now, by village standards, a wealthy woman. Knowing that her new wealth will mean her return to France, the sisters grant her wish that she be allowed to prepare a truly French meal for them and the members of their tiny congregation. The meal and the evening it is served is indeed a night to remember--but not for reasons that might be expected, for Babette's feast proves to be food for both body and soul, and is ultimately her gift of love to the women who took her in and the villagers who have been so kind to her.

The film is extraordinary in every way, meticulous in detail yet not overpowering in its presentation of them. As the film progresses, we come to love the characters in both their simple devotion to God and their all-too-human frailties, and the scenes in which Babette prepares her feast and in which the meal is consumed are powerful, beautiful, and incredibly memorable. There have been several films that have used food as a metaphor for love, but none approach the simple artistry and beauty of BABETTE'S FEAST, which reminds us of all the good things about humanity and which proves food for both body and soul. Highly, highly recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sublime--perfect--profound--a true lesson on the idealized meaning of life. We get completely caught up in the life journeys of Martina and Phillipa and

Babette. Their yearnings, desires, sacrifices resonant long after the movie has ended. Seeing it years ago--as it was gaining a great deal of notoriety at the audaciousness of its subject matter--half the movie being a single dinner--the audience was \"oohing and aahing\" as some of the courses took their final

glorious shape, laughing at the reaction of the diners, as they became totally seduced by the gustatorial pleasures being introduced to them by Babette, and being totally surprised at the turn of events at the end of the film. Subsequently seeing the film years later after my own twists and turns of life, I realized just how profound the film is. On this viewing tears flowed freely. The film's

meditation on the passage of time and the way it uses a seemingly simple story to comment on life and love and art and generosity is truly something to

cherish.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Stephane Audran is the eponymous heroine of this beautifully measured study of a small Danish community towards the end of the last century. Two beautiful and musically talented sisters give-up their own prospects of happiness and marriage in order to look-after their ageing father. One day, a French woman, Babette, comes to work for them. After some years she wins the lottery and is determined to do something for the sisters who have taken her in. Her solution is to prepare an exquisite and sumptuous feast, which changes the lives of all those invited. This is a film about human and cultural interaction, reflected in the changing language of the dialogue from Danish to French, and especially between the dutiful sobriety of Protestant northern Europe and the sensuousness of the Catholic south. It is also about human needs, and how warmth and kindness can be expressed and stimulated through the cultivation of the senses. A profoundly uplifting film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The dead spots and picture-postcard superficiality of \"Out of Africa\" just about buried any interest I might have had to read Isak Dinesen. So when my brother bought me \"Babette's Feast,\" and knowing it was based on a Dinesen story, I didn't exactly race to the VCR. But as the titles rolled, it became clear that this was no ordinary movie. Jutland (where it's set) is not Africa; the chill mist that collects on the camera shots is not inviting. The cold, forbidding sea; the heavy, gray clouds; the pale, icy green cliffs--translate to hardships that show on the faces over which director Gabriel Axel draws the curtain. The craggiest is Bodil Kjer's as Philippa; amid the myriad merits of this movie, the most memorable is that face. It stands like a map laying before us the cherished wonder of her minister father's apostolate; like a maze of long-overlooked fjords where the complications of her congregation's perseverance and commitment hang like gleaming escutcheons.

I gather it's Dinesen's point how the world is drawn inexplicably to Christian dedication, when Philippa is rejected by her only serious suitor (because he fears he'll never measure up to the rules and rigors of her small religious clique), and he returns to find her mistress of whom he regards as the greatest chef on the continent. I figure it's also her point that Christ answers the doubts and regrets of those who give up worldly success (Philippa's sister Martina rebuffs efforts by a visiting baritone (Jean-Philippe Lafont whose jolliness creates an uplifting counterpoint to the sparsity of spirit that surrounds his discovery) to turn her into an opera star; the title character leaves France and an enviable reputation and seeks sanctuary as the servant of two spinster sisters) to pursue artistic triumphs for only God and those closest to Him to witness. But it's Axel who weaves the asperity of these people's lives with the richness of Martina's voice and Babette Hersant's table and effects a sumptuousness you'd never expect from a movie about sacrifice, faith, and religious conviction.

What sets this movie apart from other religious movies is its sly humor. \"Babette's Feast,\" that is, the banquet itself--a posthumous commemoration of the minister's 100th birthday--is a beautifully orchestrated clash of sensibilities that delivers comic moments by an ensemble of actors that are unparalleled in their subtlety. It's just this deft comedy that enriches the solemn sentiments at closing. Together they do something pious movies seldom do. They leave a believer tremulously hopeful and unexpectedly resolute and humbled.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie came aside as a shock in the eighties.Far from trends,that is to say in the heart of sincere creativity,Babettes gaestebud stands as one of the finest movies of its time.Stephane Audran,the wonderful actress of her ex-husband Claude Chabrol's greatest achievements (le boucher,la rupture,les noces rouges,all unqualified musts for movie buffs)gave a lifetime performance.To see her prepare with love and affection her meal is a feast for the eyes.All the people who saw this masterpiece actually tasted,ate Babette's culinary triumph. But the most moving part of the story is its conclusion:Babette was a great French chef,she was famous,now she found a new homeland but her heyday is behind her and she won't never be allowed to come back to her dear France.So the two old sisters do comfort her:In heaven,there will be huge kitchens where she cooks for eternity.While sharing her fortune with her new friends,Babette changed their life,she gave them pleasure and a magic evening they would remember forever.In this simple but extraordinary screenplay,human warmth is everywhere,and I wish everybody a Babette's feast,would it be only for one starry night...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you find the first 30 minutes of this film to be so slow that you wonder why you're watching it, don't give up. Also, hearing the Danish language is a bit new to most North Americans, who don't see and hear a lot of Danish films. Anyway, as the film progressed it got better and better and the viewer is rewarded for his\/her patience.

Being a fan of the movie, \"Out Of Africa,\" this film piqued my interest because it's based on a short novel by Isak Dinesen (Karen Blixen), the major character in that film.

The meal - Babette's feast - was amazing. I'm no chef, but I was impressed! How one interprets the story, too, varies, I suppose depending on how much you read into this, and where you stand religion-wise. If the latter, how you look at the definition of \"legalism\" can affect how you interpret this story.

In any case, it's a fine film, but don't watch this if you're dieting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Babette's Feast\" and \"The Horse's Mouth\" are the two most insightful, accurate films on what it is to be a real artist. The key lines in \"Babette's Feast\" are not, as some other commentators here have said, \"an artist is never poor,\" but two lines that come before and after it:

\"I was able to make them happy when I gave of my very best. ... Throughout the world sounds one long cry from the heart of the artist: give me the chance to do my very best.\"

I spent nine years producing experimental multi-media music theater in San Francisco, raising money for productions that involved dozens of singers, actors, designers, etc., and the artists I supported stretched every penny in their effort to do their very best. They were just like Babette: they were desperate to get every dollar necessary to do their very best work. Babette's art is fine French cooking, and for her to perform her art at its very best costs 10,000 francs. When, after years in political exile from France, isolated with two caring spinsters on a bleak Scandinavian coast, she suddenly gets a windfall of 10,000 francs, she does what every real artist would do: she sees that she unexpectedly has the chance to do her very best, and so she does it. She spends all the money so that she can do her very best work as an artist. The twist in the movie is that we don't know she is such an artist, until she is actually cooking and serving the meal. Up until then, she appears to be just a working-class French lady who haggles a bit with the tradesmen, and is very serious (her husband and son were murdered in Paris violence in 1871).

To such an artist, it is secondary whether there is an audience for the art that is competent to appreciate it. That is why the author set this dinner in a community of people who could not possibly have any understanding of what they are receiving. Babette did not cook this meal as a gift to the two spinsters, or to the religious community. It was not her goal to achieve a reconciliation or spirit of good feelings among the members of the little religious sect. Indeed, she never once leaves the kitchen to speak to any of them. After the meal, she is sitting alone, sipping some wine, not paying the slightest attention to how the guests reacted. She is basking in the satisfaction of finally having the chance to have done her best as an artist.

That is why it is so satisfying, and so important to the story, that the General unexpectedly shows up -- for, as Babette knows instantly, a general will know what she has placed before him, and will appreciate it. For there is a sort of tragedy in a great work of art being shown to an audience that lacks even one person competent to appreciate it. She is glad, very glad, he came, in fact he is the only guest she ever mentions during the entire dinner, the only one she singles out for special treatment -- not either of the spinsters. But she did not plan the meal knowing that such a person would come to receive it.

To anyone who has had the chance to enjoy a real first-class Parisian dinner, as I have (my father was Naval Attache to Paris in the 1980s, and I had my honeymoon in France), this dinner, and Babette's satisfaction in making it, and the pleasure it brings to the diners, is absolutely convincing. If any art has the power to suffuse the recipient with a sense of joy, it is a fine French meal cooked and served in France. This movie makes a claim about the transformative effects of great art on the recipients. Before the dinner, the members of the little religious sect are quarrelsome, dredging up old resentments. The old hymns fail to restore good fellowship; people ignore them, talk over them. But the shared experience of sensual great art -- for the people can enjoy the tastes of the foods and wines even if they have no conception that they are experiencing great art -- contents the people, puts them in a forgiving mood, reconciles them, and by making them happy, encourages them to love each other, and thus has a god-like sacred effect of bringing peace. This is the claim found in the modern art movement today -- that art can supplant the traditional religions in making mankind more peaceful. Thus, contrary to those commentators here who say that this film speaks for the power of Christian belief, it is more accurate to say that the film claims that art can heal wounds that Christian ritual cannot. After all my years in the art world, I have to say that this claim -- that art brings peace that religion cannot -- is overblown and invalid. But it is a pretty conceit and it is the second main theme of this beautiful film.

One last note: at Babette's arrival at the spinsters' home, a particular French general, Galliffet, is named as the person who in 1871 executed Babette's husband and son, and imposed a military rule that she had to flee. At the end of the film, as the General tells the story of the magnificent meal he enjoyed in Paris many years before (before 1871), at the conclusion of some military maneuvers, it turns out that this same Galliffet was his host at the meal. As the General tells the story, French general Galliffet praised the chef of that meal as the greatest woman, the only woman he would risk his life for. Of course, that woman was Babette. Thus, ironically, the same French general who said he honored Babette above all other women was responsible for driving her away from France forever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If not the best movie ever made, \"Babette's Feast\" is certainly among the most loving. This is a wonderful exploration of the meaning of artistry, generosity, loyalty, and grace. Humor is mixed with tender longing; characters are treated with searching honesty but also deep respect. There are meditations here on memory, fate, old age and faithfulness. Marvellous camera work by cinematographer Henning Kristiansen: seldom have wrinkled faces looked so luminous in the candle-light. The meal is accompanied by delicious period music, Brahms, Mozart and simple folk hymns. Enjoy this feast for the eyes and the spirit, for as the General says: \"Mercy and truth have met together, and righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is almost unknown, but it is very good. In a lonely Danish town, two old sisters live remembering a far youths, when, due to a strict puritan education, they had to reject happiness. Lonely, then, the live in a dignified austerity, until Babette, who flies from Paris, frightened by the horror of the war, arrives. In few time, she will be able to turn the goodness and love she received when she arrived. A good lottery prize lets her organize a great banquet, following the best rules of French gastronomy. All neighbourhoods are invited (all fanatically puritans). They accept, but they pact to not show any trace of pleasure or enjoyment, as it would be a sin. However, the seductive force of the delicious meal they eat, that they become seduced by the sensuality of French gastronomy. The banquet end in a very felt, though quietly, happiness. The love between humans has awaken. The miracle of rise the human kindness due to the pleasure of the sense has begun. The movie is surprisingly good, but it is not for all tastes. During most of the movie, nothing happens, all is so quiet and so peaceful, that during many minutes, you can only see the life of the inhabitants of the town. But, as the movie develops, it becomes more precious, when Babette wins the lottery prize (after 30min movie), the show begins. The author is able, with a perfect directing, to show us how Babette prepares the banquet, how she mixes all the ingredients with the most wonderful one (Love), all told in a quiet delicious way, with a perfect knowledge of photography and acting. Then, as the banquet goes by, the quality in showing us how the mood of all eaters changes due to the meal, only with first shots, with impressively filmed scenes one after another is simply astonishing. In addition, the tact with the colours and the photography is also superb, almost every scene of the movie is like a picture, so work is involved there. If you are able to admire good cinema and are able to realize that sometimes the way on telling you something rather than what is told is more important, this is your movie. If you happen to like good meals and just love the good gastronomy, probably, you'll feel amused, as most feelings of the movie will be familiar to you. An Oscar totally deserved. The only problem is its slowness at setting up the story, but, I can forgive it (I hope everyone too)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film says everything there is to say about religion - I wish it were required viewing for all bigots and would-be clericals.

The story, set in a turn-of-the-century Danish villages is about two very religious sisters whose late father was a rigid priest who discouraged all their dreams of love and exploring the world and its many beauty. They are now old and their life and beauty spent. Their quiet new help - whom they \"teach\" to cook - is Babette (played by the lovely Stephane Audran who graced so many of her husband Claude Chabrol's films). The life in the village is simple and the stark direction reflects that.

When Babette wins the lottery, she requests a chance to prepare a feast - a true labour of love. The course of the feast and its Chief Guest reveal messages of love and spirituality and how there are many ways to love God and life.

This is a must-see for the devotion with which Babette prepares the feast and for the speech the General gives at the end. Possibly the best international film of the 1980's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some have commented on the subtitles not being a problem in this film - I beg to differ - the nuisances in the facial expressions and subtle interactions between the characters is such that you can not afford to take your eyes away for even a fraction of a second. I tried to watch, on the DVD, in English to overcome this problem (don't make this mistake the result is a travesty). The only way to get the full benefit is to watch it two or three times in quick succession so you know it and then ignore the subtitles. An acting master class - not in the dialogue but body language.

It is the little things - the postmaster\/shop keeper puffs out his chest and goes in to get his cap before delivering a letter from !France!. The General's bemused expression as his delight in a bunch of perfect grapes elicits a biblical reference with a profundity worthy of 'Being There'.

The cinematography is awesome and the bleak minimalist village with its washed out colour just accentuates the sumptuousness of the feast when it comes. I have a friend who claims to be descended from the Borgias and who's family motto is 'If it is worth doing, it is worth doing to excess' - Amen.

I laugh out loud and cry each time I watch this film","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A gentle story, hinting at fury, with a redemptive message and glorious celebration. The photography is wondrously well executed. Cinematographers look at this kind of film to hone their craft not just for what the eye can do to enhance a story, but what the right camera vocabulary can do to heighten an emotion. Feeding the soul is by definition what this movie addresses, but with an elegance and grace of delivery that simply doesn't not happen much anymore, at least with this degree of taste, restraint and finesse. If you care about story and character development, this is a also a great movie to see as an example of what simple lines and the right delivery can do to completely fill out a character's impression. Match all this with a film score that is almost minimalist in character and also perfectly conceived, and you'll \"get\" this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can think of no movie that better captures the concept of grace, in a theological sense. The well-intentioned religiosity of a small congregation, gone awry after the death of their leader, robs from them the very thing they preach: grace. The costly gift of a humbled Parisian culinary genius returns them to their calling to love one another, and humbles an aging general concerned that he's wasted his life. CHOICES is a central theme, as well as grace. At the same time, artistic gifting is recognized as having a powerful, transcendent role to play in everyday life, and the life to come. Impossible to improve or ignore. This is a life-changing film for those who hear its message.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, you can look at Babette's Feast as some sort of slap at Puritanical Christianity, but it is much more than that. The surface story of how a gifted Parisian cook flees Paris after one of its revolutions by the middle classes and finds herself cast ashore in Jutland in the north of Denmark is simply the grease that allows the deeper tale to develop.

Babette is an artist, one of the small army of people who are driven from pillar to post over the centuries by fatuous politicians, vane, greedy and arrogant, who kill beauty for profit, something that politics always does, pace National Endowment for the Arts, which simply institutionalizes creativity for propaganda purposes.

Babette is on her last legs as she arrives in the tiny village where two virginal sisters reside seeing over their diminishing flock of devotees to their late pastor father. They live on salt cod and black bread gruel.

Babette shows these simple pious people that God is in pleasure and sensuality as well as behavioral and mental purity. She also shows them how that mental purity can lead to control freakishness, something we all know about in these days of the neo-authoritarians in government who would limit our personal freedoms because they are somehow a crime against the state, or as they would tell us, humanity.

Babette cooks up a bang-up French dinner to celebrate the 100th birthday of the late reverend. The daughters and their flock think it is the devil come amongst them and vow not to notice the food or drink.

It is at this point, in the preparing of the meal, payed for by Babette's winnings in a French lottery, that I begin to tear-up. It is a poignance brought about in comparison to the daily vulgarity and mendacity that floods our consciousness from morning to night via the media and power-mongers manoeuvring to gain advantage over all of us out here in the dark.

The simple sophistication of Babette's art spits in the face of all the pretentiousness on display in our modern society, and it hurts to watch it played out so exquisitely in this splendid film.

It is, along with Fanny och Alexander (Bergman), my favorite film ever, yet I can only watch it once in awhile because, like a rare bottle of wine served with Blinis and fresh oysters, it is something that must not be over-done.

A great, great film that should be in every movie-lover's library.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The French Babbette appears at the modest house of two Danish sisters wet, cold, and alone. Fleeing revolution in Paris, she seeks refuge in an obscure religious community on the windswept Jutland coast.

Unbeknownst to those who so generously take her in, she is a great chef, an artist of food. Babette gives herself to her adopted community through thrift, productivity, and shared faith. She leaves only when she wins the French lottery--10,000 francs. She returns laden with exotic cargo, the makings of a single meal commemorating the birthday of the sister's father, the community's founder.

This meal looms darkly in the minds of the pleasure-denying faithful but its subtleties are translated by an aging military officer who, as a young man in Paris, learned to appreciate the sensory experience unfolding here. The meal is the film's climax, a communion of love in the transitory artistry of food--unaffectedly uplifting about art, love, and the meaning of life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In all this dogma fuzz, please note that this is the Danish masterpiece of the 20th century. The humour, the fate, the sorrow is so clean - so simple - so touching.

This movie is a masterpiece. Go see it. There's nothing more to say.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Food always makes a good topic in movies, as \"Chocolat\" showed. \"Babette's Feast\" is the same type of thing. Babette Harsant (Stephane Audran) is a French cook who flees her native land after the repression of 1871. She moves to a very religious Danish village. The people in this village simply have no use for joy. That is, until Babette cooks them one of her exquisite meals.

It's not just that this movie deals with bringing fun to a place that has never known it. Like other Scandinavian movies (and non-Hollywood movies in general), it shows that a movie can hold your interest without the use of explosions, car chases, etc. This is one movie that you can't afford to miss.

One more thing. Do you think that the Danish word for \"feast\" sounds a little bit like \"tastebud\"?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know whether this film hits my heart the way it does because of the feelings of friendship, love, closeness to others or the warmth of that transformation Babette's cooking creates, but when the feast starts and for the rest of the movie, I choke up often.

Yes, this is a feel-good movie, but without a speck of mawkishness or facile sentimentality. Please note that elements of the plot are discussed. Babette's Feast tells its story with restraint and care, and it lets us discover for ourselves the values of grace and love. All we need to know is that Babette Harsant (Stephane Audran) was a French refugee who was given shelter by two aging sisters in a tiny community on the coast of Jutland. The sisters lead what remains of their father's flock. He was a pastor of conviction who taught that salvation comes through self-denial. The sisters made their sacrifices to duty and faith. Those who still remain honor the now long dead pastor's teachings and his spiritual guidance. Still, as they have grown older the tiny community has become querulous and argumentative. The sisters do what they can. For the pastor's 100th birthday, Babette wishes to cook the dinner for the small group the sisters will invite. The sisters reluctantly agree, but when they see the supplies Babette has ordered, they and their guests become uneasy. They are used to the community's usual fare of dried cod, boiled, and a soup made of bread, water and a little ale. Even though Babette over time has made improvements, what they are seeing now seems close to godlessness. At the dinner also will be a visitor, General Lorens Lowenhielm, who years earlier had chosen ambition over his love for one of the sisters.

What do we experience? There is the austerity of the aging community's faith and the stone, wind-swept cottages they live in. There is the warmth by candlelight of the sisters' small, crowded dining room. And then there is the transforming power of Babette's artistry as we watch her cook, watch Erik, a young boy helping her, serve and pour, and watch the old parishioners, with the help of fine wine and exquisite cooking, gradually rediscover their community and love and friendship. The General serves as our unexpected guide because he is the only one who knows what extraordinary dishes they are eating. The General tells a story to his uncomprehending dinner companions, a story about a famed woman who was the exemplary chef at the famed Caf\u00e9 Anglais in Paris. \"...this woman, this head chef, had the ability to transform a dinner into a kind of love affair...a love affair that made no distinction between bodily appetite and spiritual appetite.\" He, too, is being transformed into a man who will accept what he has become and yet will always know the value and the love of what long ago he chose not to accept. An old couple kiss. Two old men remember past friendships. And Babette, who spent all that she had won in a lottery on this dinner, has had an opportunity to be the artist she once was in France, an opportunity she accepted with love and friendship.

Babette, now as poor as she was when she arrived penniless years earlier, will continue with the sisters. The general in a carriage with his aunt returns to her estate. And the elderly guests leave the sisters' home to return to their own cottages. They pause and look at the clear night sky and the stars overhead. They spontaneously hold hands in a circle and dance and sing this hymn...

\"The clock strikes and time goes by Eternity is nigh. Let us use this time to try To serve the Lord with heart and mind. So that our true home we shall find. So that our true home we shall find.\"

They smile at each other. All has been reconciled.

Babette's Feast is a wonderful movie, full of restrained emotion, unspoken understandings, wisdom...and, of course, a meal that will leave you with a growling stomach as you exit the theater. If you win a lottery so you could afford what Babette created and have her skill and artistry, here's what she served:

Potage a la Tortue (a rich turtle soup), served with amontillado sherry Blinis Demidoff au Caviar (small buckwheat pancakes with sour cream and caviar), served with Veuve Clicquot champagne Cailles en Sarcophage with Sauce Perigourdine (boned quail stuffed with foie gras and truffle in puff pastry with truffle sauce enriched with Madeira), served with Clos de Vougeot, a fine burgundy Salade Cheese and fresh fruit Baba au Rhum with glacee fruit and fresh figs Coffee and a fine brandy","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched this film this morning and I found it to be a great showing of the richness of faith. Babette gave them another way to look at life; not a replacement, but an enhancement. She shared all that she had with those who gave what little they had to her. I see the story of God in here. He sent his only son to man. Man could not possibly give anything that would equal that. So, for our small sacrifice, we are given an ultimate treasure and are transformed because of it. In this film the bickering townspeople have so consumed themselves with a small interpretation of God. Babette showed them that life and God can indeed be beautiful in it's fullest sense. The love that God's son showed to man is the love we should show to one another and our lives will be the richer for it. Even the film is a metaphor. It seems slow in the beginning, but the investment of time and attention to detail is rewarded in the end. It was truly a feast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It has started quietly. If your are looking for an action-packed movie this is absolutely not the right choice. All characters are slowly depicted on the scene. Stroke after stroke on the scene canvas. None can take away his hands to the priest and so the sisters lifespan devotion can only remain into the village. Philippa and Martina know their destiny, belong only to the village. So when you understand that, you are on the movie scene, in the village that becomes the whole known world in that time. When, no technology can let you imagine anything else than the campaign, the village, the sea. You feel the rhythm of that ancient village's life. Watching the movie in a cold snowy late afternoon can cause you to approach this evening dinner with some sumptuous expectations ...

The final sentence that give a title to Babette's sacrifice far from Paris: An artist is never poor.

Superb photography. Many situations depict portraits and landscapes as they were styled on canvas there, in Jutland, in 18th century.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those movies which get better with each viewing. I watched it three times and actually registered on IMDb because I wanted to comment on it. Movies \"about food\" have been done before, some of them are really good - as, for instance, a certain Japanese comedy which aficionados of Asian cinema will know anyway. But this one really is in its own league. At its core is a protestant Christian parable symbolizing the ideal of kindness but, far from being dogmatic, it also addresses the \"good\" in each and every of us, regardless of our religious beliefs or lack thereof. There is a pervading understatement and refinement in Babette's Feast but this makes the message of the movie, if anything, stronger, not at all weaker. If you cannot attend the extraordinary physical banquet offered by Babette, you're still welcome to this feast of the soul. Highly recommended!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie embodies the soul of modern \"elite\" foodculture, even though the movie is 17 years old. The standing principle in the movie is: Food is more than just nourishing matter. It is also a powerful symbol and a medium for culture itself. The main characters literally get drunk on the finest wine and food, become inspired by idealistic thoughts and culture, as they let go of their puritanism and passion-denying table manners. Karen Blixens shortstory makes use of the difference between North Europe and South Europe, to point out their inherently different approaches to food. As the strict and and rather dull scandinavians get infused with \"Eros\" from south, the party gets going. So what are you waiting for? Go watch it.....again!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sometimes it is difficult to watch films with subtitles (in this case Danish) but the watching is worth it. As the story progresses, the reasoning for the choice of two sisters, to take care of their father, is questionable but their society is different. Their choice leaves them alone until a French woman comes. There may be a question on why the French woman came to their place to stay and this is never fully developed. The feast which happens later as a result of unexpected funds from France is a source of unusual pleasure to all who attend and something they have not experienced before. It provides a fitting thank you for the kindnesses given to the guest. Filmed with a dark aura and the display of poverty, it is a beautiful experience for the viewer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is one of the finest movies i have ever seen....the stark scenery...the isolation...the ignorant bigoted people hiding behind their religion...a backdrop for some wordliness and sophistication...the acting is completely natural...but for me as a\"foodie' the best is the actual choosing and preparation of the feast..i have spent time in paris and know the cuisine well...whether or not the cafe anglais really exists i don't know but i do know of similar establishments and babette's menu and choice of wines are authentic...and of course the end where despite themselves the perfect meal mellows them back to friendship is the only ending there could be..this is a 10 out of 10 film and should be seen by anyone with enough brain and taste to understand it","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film offers many delights and surprises. When Achille and Philippa beautifully sing a duet from \"Don Giovanni\" that perfectly describes their situation in the movie, you appreciate the subtle layers of this excellent film. The story unfolds in 18th century Jutland and the use of period music played on period instruments is just one more fine touch. You share General Loewenhielm's exquisite joy in his partaking of the Cailles en Sarcophage even though you are just watching a movie - but you do wish for just a small sample to savor.

Babette is an artist whose medium is food. Perhaps no other art form allows the artist to share her creations so directly.

The main theme of this movie, the potential that the sharing of food has to transform how people see each other and how they see the world, is much the same as the theme of \"Chololat,\" but \"Babette's Feast\" does not hit you over the head with its message. The townspeople are conservative puritans, but not exaggeratedly oppressive. You come to understand and respect them and ultimately to appreciate their humanity.

Many issues are raised for you to reflect on: the nature of art, the contemplation of paths taken and paths not taken, the relationship between the spiritual and the physical, the effect of environment on behavior, the taking of life to give life, among others.

The only disappointment for me was General Loewenhielm's speech delivered at the climax of the meal. I expected deep heartfelt observations, but I got some vague mystical ramblings. The speech had such a minimal impact that I hardly remember it.

But this understated film leaves a lasting impression. The warmth it generates is in contrast to its austere backdrop. You will leave the theater wanting to go out and dance under the stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is no need for me to repeat the synopsis rendered by Glenn. The black and white rendition is even more powerful in portraying the bleakness of country village life at that time. The deep measure of friendship shown by Babette toward the two elderly sisters touches the heart strings. The supporting cast is excellent and their performances superb, it would not be fair to single out any one character since the entire story depends on the cast as a whole. I cannot put my finger exactly on why I rate this movie so highly since I am not a professional critic; individual viewers may or may not agree with my rating since enjoyment of this type of movie is always in the eye of the beholder.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Simply one of the greatest films ever made. Worthy of sitting alongside such European masterworks as THE RULES OF THE GAME, GRAND ILLUSION, NOSTALGHIA, ANDREI ROUBLEV, 8 1\/2, WINGS OF DESIRE, VIRIDIANA, THE NIGHT OF THE SHOOTING STARS, LA STRADA, ORDET,THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, THE FOUR HUNDRED BLOWS and MADAME DE... Both a blessing...and an almost perfect work of art.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie begins almost achingly slowly, a \"romance\" (yawn) that seems to ramble off course (all part of the plan...) Then, roughly one hour into this solemn movie is The Feast. It's worth paying attention to that first hour. The Feast is still solemn, but humorous. Suddenly, the withdrawn and slightly petty characters come to life, and everyone (you AND the characters) leave feeling enriched by the experience.

Women will love this. Christians of all sorts will enjoy the profound faith demonstrated by the characters. Not my favorite movie of all time - no dinosaurs OR laser beams, after all - but definitely a movie I am happy to have seen. Not to be missed.

Jim","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Feels like an impressionistic film; if there is such a thing.

The story is well told, very poetic. the characters well developed and well acted by the interpreters (or interpreted by the actors :)).

The film delights in its own sumptuous emotions at times and works well, unless you hate such emotion in movies - not so in my case.

It's a very humanistic film.

The landscape and even the extraordinary situation of the displaced cook are very poetic in their own right.

Well done.

A good classic for any good film collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this in a theatre back in 1982. I expected a stupid T&A movie. That's not what I got.

It's basically about three teenage boys trying to have sex. We get the expected sex jokes and scenes--but, for once, they're actually pretty funny!

Yeah, they're stupid but I enjoyed them anyways. Also, there was a surprising amount of male nudity.

Then the movie, about halfway through, takes a sudden dramatic turn as one of the boys (winningly played by Lawrence Monoson) falls in love with a girl. Then the jokes stop and things get very dark. I'm not going to give away what happens but I was very surprised at the sudden turn in events. The movie brings up some very important subjects and treats them realistically and with intelligence. And it has a real heart-breaking ending.

I'm giving this a 10 because this is probably one of the best teen sex comedy\/dramas ever made. It mixes fantasy and realism together and works! What more can you ask for? Also it has a GREAT soundtrack.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Perhaps this movie was meant to be nothing but funny. Maybe it was meant to get teenage boys excited at all the nudity in it. But what I got out of it was actually something that many people believe in. And that is, \" Nice guys finish last \".

There is a line in Angel Heart from Lisa Bonet's character that says \" It takes a bad ass to make a girls heart beat faster. \" True. Most likely. Women always say that they want the flowers and the candy and politeness and whatever. But ( at least at an early age ) they end up going for the good looking, slimy, disrespectful, untamed guy. The one they know they can't conform to their beliefs. And that is part of the attraction. After all, what is exciting about a guy that is already the way you want him to be? I believe this may have happened to Boaz Davidson. And what he has to say in this film that is disguised with sex and nudity and parties and everything else that teens can relate to, is that you will get your heart broken. It happens to everyone and it will happen to you. And that is a strong final statement in the film. But having said all that, the movie is fun. It is funny and it shows the antics of highschoolers quite well.

This is a rare film that is sleezy enough to please the teenage crowd it caters to but also intelligent and poignant enough to show what it;s like to get your heart broken. No highschool film has ever done this better. Like I said, I think the writers must have experienced a situation like this first hand. Maybe we all have.

This is an old film, but if you ever come across it gathering dust on a shelf in your local video store one night, pick it up, you may be surprised. It is a hell of a lot better than Never Been Kissed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I was in 10th grade me and my buddy were up late at his house and were flipping around cable and started watching this movie. We watched it because it looked kind of funny and because it had boobs. But then the ending came and we just sat there completely speechless. I think after a minute of watching the credits roll he just sort of whimpered \"Oh dude.....\" It goes from dumb 80's teen sex comedy to nihilistic realism so quickly that it catches you off guard. I have been trying to rent this movie for years and have not been able to find it - and nobody has ever seen it except for me and my friend - so it seems. But now it is available! I highly suggest renting it and brace yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spoilers in this review! Despite a few highly improbable scenes, including the boys in PE measuring their penises in a contest and the few obligatory teens-trying-to-get-laid vignettes, this movie captures the painful essence of high school in ways that few teen films have ever done. It achieves this by not only showing the trio of friends, Gary, Dave, Rick, as smoking, drinking, ever on the prowl teens, but also dwells on the nature of friendship itself as these three friends have their loyalties tested. This film is a snapshot of the time when childhood ends. For the shy romantic Gary, when he sees the lovely Karen for the first time he falls instantly in love. The awakening emotion in Gary is writ large on the screen, and he proves his love for her by taking her in when she is jilted by her lover. This love for Karen signals the end of Gary's innocence, as the bonds with his two best friends will be tested, and broken, over the course of the story. The confident ladies man, Rick, is the person in high school we all secretly wish we were: handsome, cool, and always has the impossibly beautiful girls in a swoon. Rick turns out to be a cad, but you have to bear in mind that his character is only 17 years old. He panics and makes a bad decision. From Rick's perspective, the story is also about finding the one girl of his dreams, a bad breakup, and then at the end reconciling. The look on Rick's face as Gary walks in and sees Karen kissing Rick, shows that he at last understands that his best friend and he love the same woman. As in real life, you don't bow out because your friend has an unrequited love. This is the tragedy of the film. Rick is no villain, and constantly through the film he reminds Gary and Dave that they're his best friends. The soulful quality of Gary's performance, however, is the heart of the story. Lawrence Monoson is a beautiful loser. He does everything right, his heart's in the right place, and he's consumed by love for Karen. Yet, Karen, in the end, is not moved by Gary's devotion and kindness. Karen represents all the people in the world who take in without giving back, who exist in a vacuum of their own ego and never stop to realize the emotional damage and trauma they inflict on others. This film is brutal in its statements on love and friendship, but that's what makes it unique among teen films. It ceases being a comedy and becomes a hopelessly romantic film, albeit one doomed to a tragic conclusion. Anyone who has ever found the girl of his dreams and did not win her, will understand. The heartrending crushes of high school are every bit as real as the emotional strains of adulthood, and this film will remind you of that in bold strokes. Gary's final reversal, as he drives away with the inscribed locket, is as poignant a moment as any in cinema. One feels, after watching this, that it's really made of two movies. The first part is a silly teen sexploitation film, and once the story begins, it's a strongly affecting drama. A terrific movie. It should also be noted that the soundtrack was prescient in its selection of many rising stars including The Police, The Cars, Devo, Oingo Boingo, The Plimsouls, The Waitresses, Gleaming Spires, and Phil Seymour.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best and most under rated teen movies ever made.

I saw this growing up and it was, and is one of my favorites, maybe not as popular as \"Fast times\" but just as great.

There is a serious side to this movie, as mentioned by other reviewers it starts as a comedy and morphs into a drama about halfway through. That's the beauty of it though and what sets it apart. You get it all. Humor(not unlike that of \"Fast times\" ), Drama, and a GREAT GREAT soundtrack.

I personally think every kid about to enter high school should see this, it would give an idea about the journey their about to embark on. Cmon-what kid watching this, wouldn't be able to relate to SOMEONE in the movie? The fact that it becomes so serious halfway though is also cool and just superbly well done.You don't even see it coming. Definitely a lot of surprises.

SPOILERS:DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

Great, knee slappping humor.(who could forget the scene between Gary and Camilla?). I can still hear it:\"Oh my big strong burrito!!\" Priceless!!

Some of the scenes between Gary and Karin are hard to watch(particularly the final scene of coarse). There are SO SO MANY women like Karen out there who would have made the exact same choice she did. Think about it-how many women reject men with hearts of gold(like Gary) for jerks? I know I've done it-and so have many females I know. This movie will inspire discussion and, despite the countless times I've seen it, still leaves me filled with admiration for the film makers and performers. Everyone will find someone to relate to in this movie or what's more likely more then one person.

Lastly, the music used is just great(a lot of Cars, u2,lots of obscure(now) songs from the 80's.-an 80's purist's dream.)

But make no mistake, it is not the music that makes this movie unique, it is the story itself, plain and simple. One of the best of it's kind and a teen movie classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes it's a Fast Times wannabe, but it's still decent entertainment.

Some of the comedy parts are really funny. The scene when the three guys visit the Spanish lady is hilarious, with a little flamenco music in the background. The reaction when her sailor husband comes home is a riot. The guys' exploits in dealing with crabs are funny as well when they try to \"drown them\" and when they visit the pharmacist.

The abortion scene is a Fast Times ripoff too, but it does do a good job of capturing the terror of the situation. You really feel for what Karen is going through, and for Gary in his mad scramble for cash to pay for the abortion and accommodating her recovery.

The ending is painful to watch, but refreshingly realistic. First-time viewers will not be prepared for it and it will be a shock.

There is a decent eye-candy for guys with young girls and the milf Spanish lady, but heterosexual guys will probably want to skip the penis-measuring competition.

Underrated soundtrack too. Check out early, early U2(!), The Cars in their prime and an appropriate tearjerker song by James Ingram for the surprise ending.

Some people will hate it and it is somewhat dated, but those who like teen flicks or grew up in the early 80s should like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have always liked this film and I'm glad it's available finally on DVD so more viewers can see what I have been telling them all these years. Story is about a high school virgin named Gary (Lawrence Monoson) who works at a pizza place as a delivery boy and he hangs out with his friends David (Joe Rubbo) and Rick (Steve Antin). Gary notices Karen (Diane Franklin) who is the new girl in school and one morning he gives her a ride and by this time he is totally in love. That night at a party he see's Rick with Karen and now he is jealous of his best friend but doesn't tell anyone of his true feelings.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Rick asks Gary if he can borrow his Grandmothers vacant home but Gary makes up an excuse so that Rick can't get Karen alone. But one night Rick brags to Gary that he nailed her at the football field and Gary becomes enraged. A few days later in the school library Gary see's Rick and Karen arguing and he asks Karen what is wrong. She tells him that she's pregnant and that Rick has dumped her. Gary helps her by taking her to his Grandmothers home and paying for her abortion. Finally, Gary tells Karen how he really feels about her and she seems receptive to his feelings but later at her birthday party he walks in on Karen and Rick together again. Gary drives off without the girl! This film ends with a much more realistic version of how life really is. No matter how nice you are you don't necessarily get the girl.

This film was directed by Boaz Davidson who would go on to be a pretty competent action film director and he did two things right with this movie. First, he made sure that there was plenty of gratuitous nudity so that this was marketable to the young males that usually go to these films. Secondly, he had the film end with young Gary without Karen and I think the males in the audience can relate to being screwed over no matter how hard you try and win a girls heart. Yes, this film is silly and exploitive but it is funny and sexy. Actress Louisa Moritz almost steals the film as the sexy Carmela. Moritz was always a popular \"B\" level actress and you might remember her in \"One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest\". Like \"Fast Times at Ridgemont High\" this has a very good soundtrack and the songs being played reflect what is going on in the story. But at the heart of this film is two very good performances by Monoson and Franklin. There is nudity required by Franklin but she still conveys the sorrow of a young girl who gets dumped at a crucial time. She's always been a good actress and her natural charm is very evident in this film. But this is still Monoson's story and you can't help but feel for this guy. When the film ends it's his performance that stays with you. It's a solid job of acting that makes this more than just a teen sex comedy. Even with the silly scenarios of teens trying to have sex this film still manages to achieve what it wants. Underrated comedy hits the bullseye.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What looks like a ho-hum Porky's rip-off turns out to be quite a touching film about being young and in love.

The story concerns three friends, Gary, Ricky and David, who spend their after school hours looking for sex. When a new girl arrives in town Gary falls head over heels in love with her.

The film goes from being a sleazy sex film to an examination of teenage insecurities. It is funny and sad at the same time. It never completely gives into that love story formula that seems prominent in every movie made. You know the guy meets girl, guy loses girl, guy gets girl back in the final frame formula. That formula is tossed aside after guy meets girl. Maybe that is why I liked the film so much.

The soundtrack is especially good and the ending is a definite tear jerker. It also might be one of the most realistic endings I've ever seen in a love story.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ahhh...the '80's. 1982 makes me think back to the really crazy time we were facing in America. Fresh off the \"Do What Feels Good\" '70's, \"The Last American Virgin\" comes as a wolf in sheep's clothing as yet another 'teenage sex comedy' from the glory days. Oh sure, there's sex, but, I can't think of another movie--OK, this and \"Fast Times at Ridgemont High\"--that really wasn't killing time between topless teenage scenes--there was some pretty good stuff here amongst the cleavage.

The movie follows three hormonal friends. Gary (wanting to lose his virginity), Rick (stud incarnate), and David (overweight, but, not inexperienced) as they try desperately hard to make sure Gary joins the world of manhood. But, a funny thing happens on the way to the kegger--Gary falls for Karen (pretty brunette who loves the bad boys), and can't seem to follow through with any sexual conquest that David and Rick can facilitate. Only trouble is, Rick and Karen get hot and heavy and Karen skips a period. It's Gary who is by her side as she goes to get her abortion, and it's Gary who truly cares. But, who is Karen dancing with by film end...Rick. Subtract the \"R\" and add a \"D\" where necessary.

What separates this film from others from the '80's we think about is that, by god, they attempt some real drama here, and not of the \"my parents just pulled in the driveway variety.\" And, you know what? I bought it.

It wasn't sloppy. It wasn't far-fetched. And, when Gary sees Rick dancing with Karen at the house party at the end of the film, I actually felt sorry for the guy. Our teenage Romeo actually believed in unrequited love--and when his heart was broken at the end, it all sort of touched me.

So, all the T&A aside, there's an actually pretty believable and engaging story here. Oscar worthy? Not by a mile, but, I don't know that I'd lump it into the \"let's get laid\" category, either. Like \"Fast Times at Ridgemont High,\" they actually were trying to do a true film here, letting the hi-jinx in between fall where it may.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spoilers: This movie has it's problems, but in the end it gets the message across. I liked it because it ends the way things really do. The nice guy tries and tries, gets his heart broken several times, but in the end there is no typical hollywood ending. It ends the way such things always end, or at least always have in my own and friends' experiences. Anyone who thinks that the ending to this isn't how it really happens, as the first comment seemed to, believing that the girl would come around, realize she's dating an asshole who treats her bad because he doesn't care about her at all is either naive or lives in a more perfect world than I. I give it 7\/10, extra points simply because it wasn't afraid to end on a down note, give no real resolution, just the main character left heartbroken, confused and alone as so many men of countless generations have been before.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Last American Virgin\", along with \"Fast Times at Ridgemont High\" is one the last great teen films ever made. It is tender tale of envy and unrequited love set in the early eighties. Much-maligned by critics that it was a sophomoric, banal attempt to recreate the magic of \"Fast Times at Ridgemont High\", these same critics fail to recognize that the two films were actually filmed concurrently during late 1981, and released at only slight intervals from one another. Either way, the studios would never allow such a bold and uncompromising portrayal of the issues many male teenagers are confronted with as they reach their sexual maturity. Especially considering the heart-wrenching discovery the protagonist, Gary is confronted with in the end. American Pie this is not. The story revolves around a trio of male teenagers, and their mostly unsuccessful sexual pursuits. Gary is the least successful of the group, hence the tagline LAST AMERICAN VIRGIN. Secretly, Gary lusts after Karen, who is involved with Rick, his best friend. Rick and Karen begin having sex, and Karen gets pregnant, only to be dumped by Rick, who is not interested in the obvious responsibility which lies before him. Gary glides into help Karen, which leads to the aforementioned, unexpected conclusion. Overall as a film, I find it was very successful as a comedy, as a commentary on the sexual dilemmas of young men, and a remarkable coming of age tale dealing with issues such as envy, unrequited love and abortion, which are just as pertinent today as they were over twenty years ago. Also, it has one of the rockingest soundtracks ever made!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It plays like your usual teenage-audience T&A movie, but the sentiment is incredibly bleak. If it was made today, it'd be considered an art house movie. It goes through the usual routine of a guy trying to get laid, but the results of his efforts are harsh and cruel and unsatisfying.

The whole teen flick formula is adhered to, but nothing turns out the way you'd expect. Imagine a director's cut of 'It's a Wonderful Life' where, at the end, James Stewart wasn't allowed to return to the real world. An incredible film that subverts all of the expectations of the genre. It makes you feel dirty afterwards: there is no redemption for the characters. I'm amazed it ever got made. The eighties version of Detective Story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"as i said in the other comment this is one of the best teen movies of all time,and one of my personal favorites. to me this movie is the second best teen movie of all time. second only to the breakfast club. the last american virgin is also maybe the most honest teen movie of all time. it's underrated,and pretty much an unknown movie to a lot of people. it comes on TBS maybe once a year,but sometimes longer. the first half of this movie is a sex comedy with a few honest scenes. then the second half is pure honest,and most of the time serious. with only a few comic scenes. in my opinion this is the best soundtrack of all time. i've never heard this many great songs in one movie before. there are 4 love songs in this movie that i think are some of the best love songs in history. the movie is about a pizza boy named gary who is a virgin. hes in high school who has a couple of best friends. his two friends are sex-sarved teens. the first half of the movie is pretty much sexual misadventures. that are very funny. gary is major in love with the new girl in school. he later finds out that his best friend is going out with her. he also cheats on the side. you can feel the love gary has for this girl very much. you can feel it even more in the second half. gary's friend turns out to be a creep. but his other friend is pretty cool. the movie shows how mean people can be. you can relate to a lot of this movie. the plot sounds like your typcial teen sex comedy. but it's so much more than that. it's a very honest movie. it's also very 80ish which i love. if you love the 80's or grew-up in the 80's,rent this movie. but there may be some people that don't like the 80's,but still may like this movie. i first saw this movie back in 1987 i think. it's very entertaining,and very funny. it combines very touching moments with very funny moments. it's an underrated gem! i have the movie. i love it! i give the last american virgin ***1\/2 out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was release when I was 15 and I could easily relate to the themes the film portrayed.

That was over 24 years ago and I haven't seen the movie since. This time around I cringed at some of the acting but still appreciate the film for what it is.

Life is not always fair and the good guys don't always win in fact I think the movie did well to reflect that especially as a teenager the pricks always did better with a lot of girls. Also it doesn't matter how nice you are you cannot make someone like you. Girls\/boys like who they want to like no matter how hard you try otherwise. Sometimes you just gotta let go and say next.

Gary does a good job showing the intensity of his feelings for Karen. This is so true of teenagers when they get fixated on someone.

I remember sitting around with mates laughing our arses off at some of the antics. The acting is not quite there compared with Fast Times at Ridgemount High but it kicks ass over this movie simply because FTARH has a lame viewer friendly ending where as this movie has a realistic ending. Nice guys finish last!! Gary comes across as pretty lame cringe worthy material but we all know guys like this who are far to sensitive. We all know a David, fun guy who makes you laugh.

Some people on here bag the ending but hello the ending is exactly what can happen in real life. Some chicks just go back for more no matter how bad the dude treats them, especially at that age. I have experienced that first hand.

Great sound track too!! U2 \"I will follow\" - Jesus is it that old??","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I watched this movie in my adolescence, I attempted for the soundtrack. Some bands of the soundtrack I still didn't know. However, during the film, I already noticed her quality. U2, Blondie, Police. , Quincy Jones , Commodores .Sensational soundtrack.

In Brazil, there is a long time this film didn't pass in TV. Today, he passed in cable TV and I remembered to access the site to do the comment.

The End of the film surprised me a lot, but it is what happens in the real life. Not always, what thought about being the ideal, it is what happens.

The life brings us a lot of surprises.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really like this movie. I like it not just because it's a great early 80s movie with a GREAT soundtrack but I found that it has some thought-provoking moments. They are just moments; not the entire film. It's definitely not like \"Less than Zero\".

The scenes deal with typical peer pressure and also with more difficult problems, like the betrayal of trust. These problems are not easily resolved or forgotten by the characters. Certain scenes will stand out and invite reflection on one's own teenage experiences and how those experiences may have affected one's character and outlook as an adult.

You can watch this movie and think about the problems young adults must face, and about your own experiences. Or you can just pay attention to the boys' quest to de-virginize themselves! :) Either way it's a good movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Reality before reality TV? Copy of \"Fast Times at Ridgemont High\"? A precursor to \"Say Anything\" that's grittier? I can't decide, but the soundtrack *is* the 80's--Blondie, Journey, REO Speedwagon, Devo, Lionel Richie, AND U2--I can't believe this, they would never throw all those genres together in a teen movie of today.

I remembered this like a teenager--mainly the sex parts and not a hint of the altruism. Why? I was a horny teenager in the 80's. Watching it again, I just can't describe how much I love that Rose, play by Kimberly Richardson, turns out to be the voice of \"Pepper Ann\" in the 90's, and she was almost 30 when she was in Last American Virgin, playing alongside 16 year-olds--fantastic! Complete cheese, reality, fantasy, and comedy--with a sincere cherry on top.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't think I will include any spoilers but If I do, I can cover my butt. \"The Last American Virgin\" came in a time were such teenage coming of age\/high school sex romps were the rave. Films such as \"Prepies\" (1984), \"Hot Times\" (1974) and the popular \"Porky's \" (1981) were making mucho money. Yet it is the \"Last American Virgin\" the one that actually has a more serious plot story amidst the nudity and sexual situations. It is the often told tale of three high school buddies who want to lose their virginity. The go to the wrong places (prostitutes), the dangerous ones (older woman with jealous boyfriend) and the convenient ones (luring their high school female counterparts). The movie has a lot of funny moments, and although the cast did not produce a single major movie star, it is worth remembering for a fantastic 80's soundtrack that includes: Devo, The Cars, Journey and others. By today standards is raunchy and might have grabbed a NC-17 rating, but is a well told story of how sometimes personal fixation can only bring pain,while love might be right in front of us. It is a little piece of 80s Americana and worth having in your movie collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i totally loved this movie, tried to buy it and can't find it. a must see, a movie you can watch again and again, funny but also a tear jerker in one. really good album for the movie. it's a really good 80's movie, i wish i could find a copy to buy this movie, cause i would,the actors in it acted really good.there's a lot of people out there that probably could relate to this movie.that's what makes this movie so good. so go out and try to rent this one, you won't regret it. it's an older movie but it's worth watching, i would not be surprised if they made a remake of this movie soon, but i'm sure it would not be the same. anyone who hasn't seen it, go rent it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie for the first time just a short while ago. If you ask me it does not get the credit it deserves. It is a little like American Pie meets Fast Times at Ridgemont High but with more depth. It handles the same issues as both movies, but in a way that holds with it some grain of truth. The ending is sad, but that is how life is. I think everyone should see it. I have it on DVD form, and it took such a long time to find it too. That should say something, heh and another thing I will add is that it is quite difficult finding the soundtrack. I believe they stopped it, but the soundtrack to this movie is amazing. It has songs by artists like The Commodores, U2, Devo, REO Speedwagon, The Cars, KC and the Sunshine Band, and many more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie when I was about 12 years old. It has been one of my favorites since... It's so perfect in all it's glory complete with awesome soundtrack, cheesy dialog, and it was both hilarious and terribly sad. The first movie I really just had a fit about at the end... I won't ruin it for you guys but boy is it a tear jerker... I just remember feeling SO sad for Gary! What a bunch of cool characters in this movie it's genius!!! They are all so great even the nerdy girl Gary doesn't like...(she had a nice little body though). I can't believe all the girls go for Rick he is such a sleaze ball with his handkerchief tied around his neck!!! ha ha ha... When watching this movie be prepared for lots of sex jokes complete with sexually transmitted diseases(almost). But a love story at heart with real problems, dealing from insecurity to life altering decisions that make you think and feel genuine sorrow for the cast. I love this movie !!! If you like Valley Girl another all time classic you will too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i see there are great reviews of this film already, i've got a few points to comment on, reasons i thought there was something special about this film...

first and foremost, the film is realistic. it may not seem realistic to an adult who has forgotten what it was like being a teenager, but that's really the kind of superdrama that goes on amongst teens all the time. second, the good guy, the guy who treats women with respect, doesn't get the girls. that's the way it is, in real life just the same! he's too nice for his own good. people are just selfish. third, it was nice to see a fat guy who had some self-confidence. i mean, that role already takes confidence from the actor, i'm not just talking about the character. overall i thought the film was a positive surprise that secretly hides amongst wacky, partyin' teen sex comedies at the rental shelf. don't get me wrong, it's not all sad, it's a good laugh as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Last American Virgin (1982) was one of the few teenage comedies that I really enjoyed. The subject matter and the acting was well above the usual tripe that Hollywood was (and still is) cranking out these days. But for awhile, the smaller studios were producing movies about teenagers that wasn't toned downed or soften for the kiddies. The men pulling the strings behind this production were from your friends from Cannon.

Three teenage buddies are trying to lose their virginity whilst still in high school. They'll do anyone or anything to achieve their dream goal. The sensitive one of the group (Andrew Monsoon) what's to find the right girl while his two best friends will take whatever they can get. One day, the kid finds his perfect girl (Diane Franklin). But fate would play one of their foul tricks. His best friend moves on in and sweeps her off of her feet. After knocking her up, the sensitive kid helps the girl get back on her feet and pays for her abortion. He still has feelings for her and tries to win her heart. Meanwhile his best friend has a very violent falling out over getting her dream girl preggers. Still, he tries his best to get her to love him. The night comes when he pops the question to her. But his heart is shattered when he sees her dancing with his former best friend. In tears, the kid leaves the party.

What I enjoyed about this movie was that it pulled no punches. Instead of being filled with phony situations, it was very realistic, honest and brutal. The movie's filled with it's share of funny moments and hysteria. I have to recommend this film for fans of teenage comedies.

Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many teenage sex comedy movies come and go without much fanfare, however, every so often a movie might come along thats honest, funny, entertaining AND memorable. The Last American Virgin is a special movie that has found its place and has stood the test of time blending all four ingredients. This film follows three friends (Gary, Rick and David \"The Big Apple\") misadventures into the world of first-time sex and true love. Along the way they learn hard lessons and the value of true friendship. We follow hopeless romantic Gary (The main character) on his quest to win over the girl of his dreams which leads him down an uncertain road with a surprise twist at it's ending. If you haven't been lucky enough to see this movie yet, by all means take a look...sprinkled with many memorable 80s songs throughout the movie to keep things moving at an even pace. L.A.V. truly is an original film, a rarity among films of it's genre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is absolutely the best movie I have ever watched. At the age of 12 I was up late and ran across the movie. It was on the USA channel, Gilbert Godfrey's Up All Night. I will never forget. At the time my friends and I were really struggling with different issues, some sexual. You know 12 is a very rough and weird age. It seems you are stuck in between being a little girl, and being a young lady. This movie really helped to answer a lot of questions for me. I now have a daughter that is 12. Have been searching for a couple years for this movie. If it ever does come out on DVD I would be the first to buy. Would recommend for any parent to watch this with their child when they reach that very rough and difficult age.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Eric Bogosian's ability to roll from character to character in this 'one man show' exhibits his true range as a character actor. Each persona has their own message to convey about truth, society, class, drugs, etc. This is an absolute Must Have for anyone who is a serious fan of acting! His performance contains some of the most Hilarious and Real moments I have ever experienced as a viewing audience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very well directed version of Eric Bogosian's stage play. Well worth checking out for Bogosian's great characters and for anyone who wants to see how to bring a play to the movies correctly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't understand why more people have not commented on this, other than the fact that perhaps not very many have seen it. It's an amazing cast of characters, one after another after another, all done by the guy who wrote the play. If you don't like filmed plays, you may not like this (after all, plays usually don't look good on TV), but it's a one-man show that will have you paying attention throughout. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a big fan of this film and found the TV mini series \"Children of The Dust\", the version fans should look for. At least 20 minutes or more are cut on the DVD version of this film.

I would also suggest viewers who enjoyed this film to check out the book there is a more rounded storyline with Corby\/Whitewolf and Rachel, more on Black History and Buffalo Solders. There were two many storylines for the series or this film.

Sidney Poitier only shows he gets better with age, the talent just keeps growing the chemistry between his character of Gypsy Smith and Regina Taylor were wonderful viewing. I also enjoyed the Billy Wirth\/Joanna Going storyline, they seems to play off each other well.

Billy Wirth is of course the \"Model of Indian Vision\". The look, the attitude, the dream of every woman who was wanted to be carried off in one of those romance novels by a native hero. Worked for me also.

Much more could have been done with this storyline but it did give the viewer a brief glimpse of racial problems back in the 1880's, white take over of native schooling, lack of Black pioneers to setup towns in the west. Michael Moriarty (Maxwell) as always a great actor comes across as a very caring and confused teacher, not sure if the \"whites\" should be interfering with native culture.

For anyone who enjoys characters and watching them change this film is for you. I thought the chemistry between Poitier's character and that of the orphan Whitewolf very moving and thought Wirth and Poitier worked very well together. Billy Wirth did some of his best scenes when working with Poitier.

Going got on my nerves sometimes when you want to just stop and shake her or give her a \" wake-up and grown-up\" call. But on the whole it was a great evening of entertainment.

Look for the two tape version of this mini series if you are a fan you will really see the difference.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has to be one of the best movies we have seen and we highly recommend it for it's exposure of the injustices of bigotry. Billy Wirth is an incomparable actor and truly awesome as Corby\/White Wolf. However, felt the story would have been enhanced if his character had more scenes. This is a movie that can be watched over and over without tiring.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i LOVED THIS MOVIEE well i loved the romance part with COlby and the girl...Rachel (?) 4got her name....i honestly was only interested in those too. i loved them in the movie i want to see more movies like that. but please no more sad endings where they cant be 2gether! =( it made me cry! but the romance between them. the plot the trauma everything was great. =) i just was more into Colby and Rachel. ha ha =) everything about this movie was thrilling the kind to keep you glued to your seat. because i sure was. Honestly my only personal want would be more focused between the couple (Colby and Rachel) and at least a decent ending. I hated the ending, a better one could have been more thought out, not the fact of forcing COlby to his death and Rachel having a son. The ending would have killed the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't know what film or version Jeff saw, but this entire film was awesome, not just Poitier and Going. The story was riveting, suspenseful and engaging. And for the guy complaining about historical accuracy, get real. Yes there were some Black deputy marshals in the Indian territory, but they had no authority to arrest Whites outside of Indian territory. As a rule, they did not \"patrol\" but exercised warrants on criminals only. I did find it odd that Corby didn't seem to have \"any' Indian friends. I know their numbers were diminished but it still strikes me as strange. Even as Corby returned to his people, his Indian cohorts remain faceless and nameless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a very nice soft-core movie for both men and women. Plenty of nudity\/sex, but without the overall raunch you'll usually find. They could not have done a better job in casting as the entire ensemble was stunning. Trust me guys, if you want to get your woman in the mood, get something with Bobby Johnston in it! And I'm sure lovely Monique Parent, Samantha McConnell and the rest of the ladies would do it for any heterosexual male. Unfortunately, Bobby and Monique do not share a scene together and if you are aware of a movie where they do, please PM me! I'd love to know. The photography was much better than usual. So was the story. Predictable, but nice, sweet natured and romantic. At the very least it was not one of those annoying predictable murder mysteries full of bottle blonde women with huge fake breasts. I give this 7\/10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of Keli McCarthy's best. This movie is filled with sex, and nudity. It has gorgeous, sexy women and some sexy settings.

Believe me, there are many spicy and steamy sex scenes but not as hot as the women. We have outside settings, a hot tub, beds of course, and some other nice places to have sex.

Monique Parent is great in the opening sex sequence where she behaves like a naughty girl. Keli is amazing, she's extremely sexy and performs in at least 4 hot sex scenes. My favorite is when she has sex during a picnic or something like that. She has this short dress removed and the rest you can go figure it out! Renee Rea also has a sexy sex scene where again, she demonstrates that beautiful cute faces can also perform great in soft core sex movies.

The most memorable scene in my opinion comes near the ending. It's a double sex feature that has to do with hottub sex, intense sex! and Kelli McCarthy receiving it REAL hard so loud that the couple in the hottub feel interrupted. The scene is long, steamy, VERY explicit, and fun. My favorite from 2001.

The other good scenes include Keli getting it on the woods (really kinky); then dressed as a bride.

Renne Rea, always super gorgeous, dressed like a skater girl has a steamy sex scene. Nice!

Please, watch this movie if you enjoy b-soft core sex. It's among the best from the new millennium. I had a blast with it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow, I've sure seen quite a bit of Kelli McCarty this summer. I didn't know this woman made so many softcore flicks in the past three years. It's like seeing a future softcore star blossom in front of me, much like Michelle Hall did a couple of years ago.

\"Passion's Peak\" is the third quality softcore flick I've seen Kelli McCarty in, with \"Girl for Girl\" and \"House of Love\" being the others. \"Desire and Deception\" was okay, but it wasn't spectacular. There's spoilers in this review, so read only if you want to.

The story begins with Christina (Kelli McCarty) heading out of the big city and to the mountains. She has inherited a house from her dear departed grandmother and plans to turn it into a mountain lodge. Before she can even set her things down, some woman named Kim (uncredited in this film, but quite the aggressive one) begins booking guests to stay there. Now she has to get the house into shape quickly--in comes Chip (Bobby Johnston), a childhood friend, to the rescue. Chip helps her get the house in workable condition. She hires two local slackers to work in her lodge--Chip's sister Bait (Samantha McConnell) and her sex buddy Hank.

Now the guests start coming. The first to arrive are Eric and Linda (Flower), two stereotypical money-first lawyers. Linda and Eric get into a huge argument during a dinner party halfway through the film which leads to their breakup; sad stuff there. Next, there's romance novelist Sophia, played by B-movie goddess Monique Parent. She's using that silly alias Scarlet Johansing again, and she's got a very professional look this time--with blonde hair, of course. It wouldn't be Monique if she didn't have at least one scene where she plays with herself--and she obliges, during one of Eric and Linda's sex scenes.

James and Shene (Devinn Lane--yes, the porn star Devinn Lane) show up for a little weekend getaway as well. Unbeknownst to Shene, James and Christina have quite a history. James and Christina used to date, but Christina broke it off to head to this mountain lodge. James comes up to the lodge to get Christina back, but his plan backfires. Christina spills the beans to Shene, which causes Shene to walk out on him and down to the local bar to strip for the locals. Shene ends up in the sleeping bag of the now-single Eric, and they leave together. Bait realizes she wants something more than just sex with Hank, and Christine finds true love with Chip, with Sophia soaking it all in and writing it into her next romance novel.

In fact....if you ask me, this whole movie played out like a romance novel. I don't know if the screenwriter was going for that effect, but I sure got that impression. Sophia had some of the best lines in this film, playing up the idea that this is a live-action romance novel. She seems to enjoy all the fighting and backstabbing going on.

Now to the sex. There was a fair amount of it, and it was the usual bump-and grind stuff. Monique did her fair share of moaning in her two sex scenes. This film was tapeworthy, and the story will actually keep the audience somewhat interested in between the sex scenes.

Women: A- (Monique was simply Monique. Out of all the softcore actresses I've seen over the years, she's the best at acting, in my opinion. She can really act and be sexy, which is why she's holding on to the #1 position in my Skinemax Top 10. Kelli McCarty is better at doing softcore films than she is on the soap opera \"Passions\"; I don't know why she's not doing more of these. Flower was merely background scenery for the most part in a limited role. Samantha McConnell continues to impress me, and Devinn Lane is yet another hardcore actress crossing over into the softcore realm and doing a halfway decent job at it.)

Sex: B (It was good, but not awe-inspiring spectacular. Plenty of moaning. Don't watch the R-rated version, trust me....most of the good stuff is taken out. My grade is for the uncut version.)

Story: B (A solid storyline which throws in a contrived \"Ooh, the building inspector's gonna shut us down\" subplot toward the end which messes up things. The underlying story between Christina and James was nice, and Sophia's dialogue, full of the metaphors and imagery usually found in romance novels, was a nice touch.)

Overall: B+ (I found this movie to be quite entertaining. It's not a surefire Softcore Hall-Of-Famer like \"Girl for Girl\" is, but it's a respectable addition to the Skinemax collection.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with the Aussie's comments for the most part. However, there id seem to be a fairly decent plot, if unoriginal. Christina (Kelli McCarty) inherits a rural property that she intends to open a mountain lodge. She gets reacquainted with Chip (Bobby Johnston) whom she had known when she was growing up in there. The plot thickens when James (Paul Logan) arrives with his new stripper friend, Shene (Devinn Lane) because Christina had been James' stripper friend in years gone by, and the implication is that James had done her wrong somehow. To add interest to the movie Sophia Linn (Monique Parent) a romance novelist shows up as a guest at the lodge, as do Eric (Sebastien Guy) and Linda (Flower), pair of lawyers from the city. James sicks the local building codes inspector on Christina's business as one of his dirty tricks to shut her down. So the question is, \"How far will James go to sabotage the lodge and will he succeed?\"

Watch for Devinn Lane here and in \"Beauty Betrayed.\" She seems to be making a transition from the hard core business to the \"R\" world. Another notable is Samantha McConnell, playing the role of \"Bait,\" clearly the most outrageous character name in the movies!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The director, Ramin Niami, delivers the goods with Somewhere in the City. This hilarious farce, I believe, is in the tradition of a Mel Brooks comedy. Niami pokes fun at New York society by creating the believable, eccentric, and tragic characters of one tenement apartment building bringing them to life from the very opening one shots that introduce them. Peter Stormare's performance as a gay Shakespearean actor is absolutely award worthy and the film in general does a good job at showing the hopelessness and laugh-ability of self-centered ambition. Sandra Bernhard is cast perfectly as the straight, self-obsessed therapist. I really enjoyed Sandra's performance immensely especially since I haven't really been a very big fan until now. Bai Ling, Ornella Muti, and Bulle Ogier round out an international ensemble par excellence. I loved the scene with Robert John Burke and his gang of idiot criminals who couldn't plan a robbery if their lives depended on it. With a cameo appearance by Mayor Ed Koch and a solid performance by Paul Anthony Stewart, the revolutionary momma's boy, Somewhere in the City entertains without missing a beat.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I put this film in the queue on a whim after a recent trip to NYC, and I couldn't believe I'd never heard of it anywhere! It has all the makings of a cult classic, starting with the characters. They are archetypal roles we recognize from every stretch of daily life, but were so nuanced and fully realized by the actors playing them (Peter Stormare and Bai Ling's performances were particularly strong). Their interactions are poignant and grounded while at the same time brimming with a subtle, quirky humor that is (sadly) all too rare in American films these days. Writer\/director Ramin Niami does a beautiful job of weaving these scenes together into a funny and moving portrait of a city of the past. Highly recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film did a wonderful job of capturing NYC stereotypes at there best. If you want a simple, cute story however, you won't find it here. The related tales are woven together in a manner that does an excellent job of capturing the close-knit yet contrastingly anonymous lifestyle that is Manhattan. A perfect watch for those who enjoy and can laugh at New York life in its most natural state.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite its New York setting & New York characters, 'Summer in the City' is not an American movie, it is better than that. What is most unusual is the mixing of styles and genres. Director Niami's shows a deft touch in combining comedy with tragedy, pathos with drama.

The secret of Niami's success appears to be a smorgasboard of great characters - each could have their own film built around them - and then filling them out with beautifully realized performances from one of the most wonderfully eclectic casts one would struggle to find in the same country let alone in the same movie, ranging from Bai Ling to Ornella Muti, Robert Burke to Peter Stormare who here reveals that he has a lot more in him than the bad guy stereotypes he plays in Hollywood pictures. Even Sandra Bernhard is funny here !

An added bonus, cream on the substantial cake, is John Cale's soundtrack.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was enchanted by Niami's debut. I hope that we'll soon see more of his work. I was lucky enough to catch the film during its brief NYC run and it struck me as a worthy successor to such downtown 80s flicks as Desperately Seeking Susan and After Hours, but with a gentle European whimsey that made it fresh and fun. A strong ensemble cast playing mostly against type was a pleasure. And I thought the complexly inter-threaded plots were just right. Sandra Bernhard puts in her best performance since King of Comedy, while Peter Stormare is hilarious, and Ling Bai touching. See it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This picture is an interesting saga of the struggle of pioneers led by Daniel Boone in the wilderness of Cumberland Gap while being threatened by hostile Indians. A treacherous Frenchman is the cause of all the trouble between the settlers and the red men while Boone tries to convince the Indians that the pioneers only want to build homes and live in peace. The film has a certain appeal because it is not a polished production but there are good action scenes, although somewhat violent for its time. The cast is comprised of B actors but they are all good, especially Lon Chaney as the Indian chief. Bruce Bennett is okay as Boone but is a bit too clean cut and soft spoken to be believable as a frontiersman. The dialogue is rather trite but the scenery lends itself to the realism of the Kentucky backwoods.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show has to be my favorite out of all the 80's horror TV shows. Like Tales from the Darkside, also from the same creators, this show is a rare gem. If you agree with me, PLEASE sign this petition I started, to get the word out for Monsters and get it out on DVD. Here is the petition address: www.petitiononline.com\/19784444\/petition.html Some of my favorite episodes would have to be Glim glim, and Rain Dance. I also loved the opening intro with the monster family. That used to creep me out! One of the things I would have to ask the DVD creators to include would be the organ sound heard right before where the commercial break would be. I don't know if any of you remember that part but that's one of the main things that brings back memories to me. I mean, come on! War of the Worlds the TV series already has been released on DVD, so I say Monsters, and also Tales from the Darkside, and Friday the 13th the series should be released too! We the fans need to speak our minds! We need this awesome show on DVD so PLEASE spread the word!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was one of the best half-hour horror\/suspense\/fantasy shows of the eighties, without a doubt. Granted the show had a barely capable cast with every single episode, and it stank as far as production values (i.e. the sets) went, but darn it I have to give it some credit for being gutsy with the plots. I mean the plot of each episode was edgy enough that even I, a hardened horror movie, shock-film, and 70's grind-house buff got a little sickened and creeped out. Great show, just great, regardless of what the other reviewers have said here. My favorite episode was called \"Bug House\", yeah that was the title I think? Anyhow it still gives me the willies every time I think about it to this day, almost 20 years after it first premiered. Other shows like \"Tales From The Darkside\", \"The Outer Limits\" and (of course) \"The Twilight Zone\" were definitely better production values-wise, but in my opinion they ain't got a thing as far as plot lines go when compared to this sick little show! It definitely paved the way for the even more graphic cult classic phenomenon that was, \"Tales From The Crypt\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that it's great how Chiller picked up this series and showing it for this generation. Film making has come such a long way especially with the special effects and for one to be able to watch archived shows that they never knew existed, they will certainly be able to see the progress compared to now. MONSTERS is neither lame nor spectacular but it is entertaining. It takes creativity for the types of story lines they came up with and each generation seems to have it's own horror series. This particular series was not as horrifying as the Friday The 13th, The Series, nor as adult oriented as the Freddy's Nightmares..it was something that an entire family could watch and still get a laugh and a fright at the same time. I am happy the Chiller Channel shows it in their line-up, I am just about caught up on the episodes I missed when I was growing up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One reasons why they call the 80's, \"The Awesome 80's\" is quality television. Shows like the Wonder Years, War of the Worlds (the series), V, Amazing Stories, and many more have always left an impression to each \"fortunate\" one of us that in time will always find a way to reawaken itself. To top that, here comes Monsters! A series quite unique of its own, and a theme fully dedicate to - monsters. May it be the good, the bad, and the morbid.

If you're a fan of classic shows or if you have the fascination of horror films then this one is absolutely for you. Provided you can find this rare gem.

Even the newer generations will be in awe with some of the episode with its grittiness, it's indiscriminating use of gore effects or its story telling power and simplicity. I guarantee, because I'm 23 :).

Be sure NOT to miss this!

Although, it's a show seemingly forgotten by the modern world, it will always be with those who can always remember...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"www.petitiononline.com\/19784444\/petition.html An excellent TV series that should be captured on DVD. This was a show I rarely missed. I found a petition to bring it back on DVD. I recall one show where this obese lady wore a pair of glasses that let her food talk to her. Needless to say she could not eat her friends so she starved to death. Another episode had an accountant visiting an underground sewer & subway security branch. The accountant wanted to shut down the funding for the project. As it turns out the security branch was underfunded to fight the cannibalistic creatures that lived in the dark. www.petitiononline.com\/19784444\/petition.html","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anyone familiar with horror films knows that most of them are not scary at all. Some people enjoy gorefests with subpar story lines and character development. I personally enjoy horror films that focus on atmosphere and interesting concepts (e.g., A Tale of Two Sisters, Kairo, etc.). Whatever the type of horror film one personally likes, there are only a select few that really scare you. Noroi is one of them.

This is a documentary-style movie, which means that the entire film is a compilation of video clips that are linked by the legend of a demonic entity named Kagutaba. The premise is that a journalist filmed his own footage by interviewing people associated with the demonic rituals associated with Kagutaba, then compiled footage from other sources that link with his research. What results is a relentlessly chilling experience that feels very real and very disturbing, despite the fact that the story itself is fake.

Some have compared Noroi with The Blair Witch Project, but the only similarity is the documentary style. One obvious difference between the films is that Noroi scares the viewer by linking events to one another using different sources. For example, the journalist records the exterior of a house that he is researching and sees something strange on the porch. Later in the film, a clip from another character's home video introduces that very same strange occurrence. The viewer's memory links the two incidents and chills start running down their spine. Another example involves a television show with a child psychic who answers every single question correctly except for one. In fact, her answer is so wrong that the viewer may wonder what the filmmakers were thinking. Later on, however, that wrong answer turns out to be linked to an extremely disturbing event. This is intelligent film-making indeed.

Another difference between Noroi and Blair Witch is that Noroi provides not one, but two very long finales, the second of which is placed a minute after the credits start to roll and is the single greatest scare scene in the history of horror cinema. I do not say such things lightly. It totally wrecked me in a wonderous way.

Other aspects of film-making are well done. The legend and ritualistic background of Kagutaba are very interesting and most of the actors did a good job. The only over-the-top performance comes from a guy who's supposed to be crazy anyway, so that's expected. The cinematography is intentionally gritty because all of the footage is supposed to represent videos shot on camcorders. Japanese films are not known for their special effects, but the effects used here were awesome. In some cases they create an other-worldly feel (e.g., the static interference or the first finale) but in other cases they are alarmingly realistic (e.g., the second finale).

When all is said and done, Noroi goes down as the scariest film I've ever seen. I would go so far as to say that there is no film in existence that provides such sheer terror from beginning to end like Noroi does. See it now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Never posted anything here before, but after watching Noroi I just felt that I had to write down my thoughts about it.

Firstly do not compare this to Blair Witch, this movie deserves far better than that! Simply put, Noroi is (probably) one of the best horror movies I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot!).

I really liked how the movie presents itself not as a standard horror flick, but as a documentary filmed by a reporter (i think?) named Kobayashi and his cameraman. Without spoiling to much about the plot, I can say it that it starts with Kobayashi doing research on a series of seemingly unrelated events, that turns out to be connected to something far more darker and sinister.

While the story might not be that original in itself, what really hooked me with Noroi was the incredibly eerie atmosphere. If you're looking for cheap scares and seat-jumping scenes this movie might not be for you. This movie is all about the mood it presents, with haunting images and a general feeling of foreboding suspense. The documentary style filming just makes it farm more believable.

This is also helped a lot by the acting which is superb, although not perfect for the general part of the movie! Far better than in most other movies in this type of genre.

Well enough ranting from me, I highly recommend Noroi to everyone, it is suspenseful, creepy, well acted and the first movie that has scared me in ages.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This review contains some small, yet significant, spoilers.

---

I just finished watching my copy of Noroi...

...and it was GREAT! This might sound cheesy, but several times during the film I forgot it wasn't real XD The acting is convincing, although the acting from Masafumi Kobayashi (playing himself, I think...) seems a bit hokey at times. Marika Matsumoto (Yuka in Takashi Shimizu's Rinne) seemed to change levels of believability throughout the movie: sometimes she's REALLY good, then the next moment she's really cheesy (especially at the end's exorcism and subsequent re-possession.

A character that was ridiculous at first was Mr. Hori, a man covered in tinfoil believing \"ectoplasmic worms\" are coming to eat everyone. He provides unintentional comic relief at the beginning (acting like the stereotypical alien abduction-type victim) but near the end has some really creepy scenes.

The plot was very interesting and really kept me wondering how everything tied together. There are some things that aren't really explained (like a mass suicide in a Tokyo park and where the reincarnated Kagutaba-boy came from) but everything else turned out fine. The ending has GOT to be one of the most unnerving, if not the scariest, sequences I've ever had the pleasure to witness.

All in all, Noroi is a very fun way to spend 2 hours and the new Hong Kong R3 DVD provides great picture and sound (most importantly the English SUBTITLES- Engrish free!) for a great J-Horror experience. I highly recommend picking it up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"NOROI follows a documentary filmmaker, Masafumi Kobayashi, as he slowly uncovers something mysterious and evil that's leaving a trail of dead bodies in its wake. After interviewing a woman who claims to hear loud baby's cries coming from the house next door (where there is no baby), Kobayashi heads over to talk to the neighbor. He's greeted with hostility by the unhinged, disheveled woman (Maria Takagi) who answers the door (and promptly slams it in his face) and gets a peek at her 6-year-old son through a window. Strangely, both the woman and her son disappear just days after his visit (leaving behind a pile of dead pigeons on their back porch), and the woman who first complained about the noises, as well as her daughter, are both killed in a mysterious accident not long after that. This piques Kobayashi's interest and he sets out on a quest to find out what's going on. He soon uncovers that those with psychic abilities and extra-sensory perception seem to be tuning into something sinister, unexplainable and possibly even apocalyptic. Well-known 10-year-old clairvoyant, and TV celebrity, Kana (Rio Kanno) seems to think we may all be doomed, but she mysteriously disappears before she can be of much help. Another female psychic\/actress (Marika Matsumoto) becomes involved, as does Mr. Nori, a mentally unstable kook\/psychic who wears a hat and jacket made of aluminum foil and thinks people are being eaten by what he refers to \"ectoplasmic worms.\" Clues eventually lead back to the site of a small village that's now covered by a lake, and the legend of an ancient demon known as Kagutaba...

Unlike many other hand-held horror flicks, this one depends just as much on the plot as it does reactionary first-person scares. Thankfully there's something of a storyline here, a very interesting and intricate one at that, so it doesn't rely on glimpses of horrific things through spastic camera-work every once in awhile to keep your interest. The way Masafumi travels around following leads in search of the truth - with well placed jolts along the way - reminded me somewhat of THE OMEN in its pacing. The film also doesn't entirely consist of footage shot by the documentarian, but weaves in news reports and television variety shows as if what we're watching is an already completed documentary. That helps to break up some of the monotony usually associated with films shot in this particular style. The performances are good enough not to harm any of the realism of the 'actual' footage either. Overall, it's a well-made horror film, with lots of plot shifts, some suspense and quite a few genuinely creepy moments, that's well worth checking out. My only real gripe is that it could have used a little trimming here and there and seems to go on a bit too long. Otherwise, pretty good stuff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't praise this film enough. It had a lot of that hand-held, first-person shaking camera which I love (and some hate, because it makes them sick), like REC, Cloverfield and Blair Witch Project.

It is a long movie for its kind, but I didn't even notice because the film was so interesting. By just showing the footage from a paranormal reporter's work the movie keeps up the pace, making it a real-time experience for the viewer.

While I would never call this film the \"scariest horror ever made\", I'd have to say it's certainly one of the best I've seen. The fear factor here is constructed by details in the images, camera glitches, events linked to one another which lend a very mysterious and haunting tone to the movie. The horror is more in what is not shown, but left to our imaginations. The ending is perfect, and be warned that you might have nightmares afterwards. A second viewing is highly recommended, though.

Watch this one alone in the dark, don't expect anything and you'll have fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a great fan of horror, especially Asian horror, I have seen tons of movies, but this one is outstanding. Why? It does have a plot (which is unfortunately quite rare among horror movies). The actors did a good job. It feels like a real documentary film (even if it's not). It does not get boring for a moment. The director cleverly combines the plot with the acts of a certain Japanese magic cult (perhaps this cult never existed, but still, it's believable). It reminded me of the similarly great movie \"Forbidden Siren\".

To me the one and only annoying thing about the movie was the character Hori, the psychic, but this is subjective.

I recommend this movie to all fans of quality horror.

9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I, for one, absolutely loved this movie.

It is not a \"typical Asian horror\" where you would see a gruesome looking ghost (usually a woman) that is going around scaring people. You barely see any ghosts for a majority of the film, but the way this movie keeps you interested in the plot and characters is genius. This is not the movie for you if you're into gore (e.g. Saw, Hostel) or \"surprise scares\" where stuff pops out at you (Hollywood horror, slasher films), but this movie has an underlying \"creepy\" factor throughout the entire movie which I loved. Noroi is a progressive and somewhat experimental approach to horror amongst the ridiculous remakes and unoriginal crap being released by Hollywood in today's society.

Please don't let the documentary-style of filming turn you off (why should it?!). It is far superior to the Blair Witch Project because, for one, the acting in Noroi is brilliant and it really makes you really feel like you're watching something you're not supposed to be seeing.

Noroi is definitely one of the best horror movies I have ever seen. Only a few films have made it into my Top 5 horror; and this movie holds a solid #1 spot on my list.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A documentary filmmaker explores seemingly unrelated paranormal incidents connected by the legend of an ancient demon called the \"kagutaba.\"

From the looks of it, the film looks like one of those camcorder movies that have been popular these last few months, even one that's going to be released next week (PARANORMAL ACTIVITY)! However, unlike movies like CLOVERFIELD, REC, and BLAIR WITCH, where most of those movies are in complete chaos and mayhem with all of the shakiness, this one is basically shown in a traditional documentary style. It has TV excerpts and interviews and the scares are very subtle, well, excluding the last 20 minutes where we go into the chaos effect and where the fear factor is raised up tremendously.

And it works. The film is very engrossing and it makes you think. Yes, you heard me right: It makes you think. You have to pay attention to those unrelated details given throughout the film and the payoff is great when, in course of the film, these things start to intertwine one another. The film is also very slow moving, which, in this case, is a good thing. We, as the audience, get to absorb the details shown on screen, however subtle or blatant they are.

Above all, it's a frightening little film. I'm a person who is scared of ghosts and the paranormal more than killers who slashes away teenage victims so yes, the film gave me some nightmares. There are some images in here that are really disturbing to watch, including one closer in the end where it makes you go \"What am I looking at?!\" Well, it's better left unanswered. There are around ten reoccurring characters in here, all of which gave authentic performances in their roles.

The only thing I don't like about the film is the ending because most questions are left unanswered. The question \"That's it?\" went though my mind. It left a bad taste in my mouth. However, the rest of the film is just engrossing and really frightening. Don't see this alone in the dark because you'll regret that choice. Also, I can see in a couple of years that Hollywood would remake this film. That will be interesting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another hand-held horror means another divisive movie that fans should still seek out and make up their own minds about.

Imagine a cross between The Blair Witch Project and The Grudge and you're close to the overall content of this movie. It's another videotaped horror but this time most of it is edited together in readiness for a video doc that was never completed by a supernatural investigator who disappeared.

I certainly had a feeling of dread while watching this movie (does anyone do dreadful better than our Asian friends?) but the creepy moments, the genuinely creepy moments, were sadly a bit fewer and farther between than I had hoped. I also felt that I was two or three steps ahead of the investigator when apparent \"revelations\" appeared throughout so I certainly can't recommend this as highly as [*Rec].

Having said that, it would be remiss of me not to highly recommend any film that goes on at length about ectoplasmic worms, contains at least two subtly spooky ghost moments and made sure that I had to put the lights back on for a while when the sun went down.

Check it out if you have been enjoying some of the other hand-held genre releases of late. And the finale is a hair-raising doozy.

See this if you like: The Last Broadcast, Pulse, Angel Heart.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like a lot of horror fans out there that went looking for the next great scare flick, we plundered the Asian horror market for whatever we could get our hands on, leaving no dark haired ghost lady unturned. We had good reason to do so, the Asian market had spawned such terrifying wonders as Ringu, Dark Waters, Juon - the Grudge, and a Tale of Two Sisters. By the time Takashi Miike started ripping the mick out of the genre with One Missed Call in 2003, the market seemed to be drying up, leaving it open for mockery and derision, despite the continued Hollywood Remake Machine working full steam ahead. Now, don't get me wrong, there were still plenty of good Asian horrors being made, the likes of Marebito and Shutter, to mention but two, will stand as minor genre classics some day. But the lank haired ghost lady had definitely had her feed at the party, and was time to take that success-drunk tramp home to bed! Then along comes a film like Noroi - The Curse. A film that is smart enough to pay subtle homage to it's roots, yet throws the rulebook out the window whilst doing it. What I'm about to describe in terms of plot will probably make you think there is nothing new here at all. The film is a documentary about one of Japan's top paranormal investigators as he receives stories and tip offs on ghostly goings on. He starts investigating the claims by a woman that she regularly hears a baby crying in the house next door, yet there is no baby there, apart from a middle aged woman and her son. These two disappear sharpish when the reporter pokes his nose around, but strange other coincidences start popping up. A psychic young girl, a mentally ill clairvoyant, a pretty young actress who had a strange vision, a lot of dead pigeons, and a very sinister demon by the name of Kagutaba, leading to a truly terrifying showdown in a small historical town...

To say any more on the plot might ruin the fun a bit. The film is shot in 'faux documentary' fashion, and incorporates footage from TV shows and news reports, and the labels via subtitles lets you know where you are in terms of the time line. The film has drawn more than a few comparisons to the Blair Witch Project, but apart from the shooting format and the creepy trip through the woods late at night, the comparison ends there really.

What is refreshing about Noroi is how it doesn't pander to modern horror audiences. If you are expecting croaky ghost ladies to pop out of the attic, look elsewhere. The film's strength lies in it's slow, gradual build up of terror, a terror so profound that it will stick with you for days after watching it. The climax is pretty damned freaky, but just when you think the film is over, you get treated to the 'real' ending when the credits start to roll, and sweet holy f*ck, is it a killer. In terms of acting, it is mostly convincing. You get some 'comedy' relief from the crazy, tin foil covered clairvoyant, but that soon dries up half way through the film. The film also has a slightly 'nastier' feel than a lot of Asian ghost horror, as there is a violent streak to some of the events too.

Overall, Noroi is one to watch on your own, late at night. Not since my first viewing of Ringu ten years ago have I been so delightfully creeped out watching a horror film. It is one that will itch away at you until it is too late, then it is under your skin. Just let yourself go to this one completely. And not a lank haired ghost lady in sight?? No wonder it has barely been released outside of Japan, let alone had an American remake lined up yet. Check this one out if you can, essential viewing in my books!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beyond The Clouds is a hauntingly beautiful, elegiac work of art. The overall softness of the light that this movie is bathed in, makes you want to touch the screen. The autumnal mood conjured up could only been achieved by a director who has seen many summers of experience. Or, to put it another way, an old man. I know of no other movie that captures and uses the softness of light and seasonal mood with such ravishing quality as Beyond The Clouds. Nearly all the people in this film are beautiful, unless your idea of a beautiful woman is a pneumatic blond bimbo, that is. The dialogue doesn't really matter too much, not that there is much of it anyway, and as for storylines, forget it. Some films exist just as visual experiences, this is one of them. Don't bother if you want \"simple entertainment\",this not for you.

I could enthuse about the visual perfection of this movie for days, but I won't. If you are at all interested in cinematography, photography, film direction etc., watch this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here's another Antonioni that will be rediscovered again and again as soon as it comes out on tape or DVD. I saw it a few months ago when it ran for the first time (even in metropolitan movie capital L.A.!)for a couple of weeks and then disappeared (art house audiences seem to have opted for their own special territory, where older favorites like Antonioni and Resnais are only welcome as occasional curiosities).

At first I was disappointed, thought the pace to be unbearably boring, and that the man had lost a chance (for years Antonioni had found it difficult to find financing)at an advanced age to add another masterpiece to his canon; but knowing Antonioni for what he was and how I had at first reacted to Blow-Up and the Passenger, I refused to pass judgment until I had seen the film again. I went back the next day and I should not have been surprised that the film kept pulling me in, making me aware of things I had thought about and lost track of throughout my life, driving home, in a contemporary setting, points exposed for the first time some forty years ago in 'L'Aventurra,' forming an environment of subtle moods so characteristcally and fascinatingly alienated in tone (and quite comedic actually) that I couldn't get enough. The scene with Malkovich sitting on the fancy colored swings on the windswept beach, with the weather so beautifully silver skied, and the Eno\/U2 track in the background flowing through at just its rhythm, had been my favorite; it still was, but now the whole film was just as great! What a strange phenomenon, the complex simplicity or the invisible complex which Antonioni's eye alone seems to be able to pick up and communicate. The odd thing is, though it does look at first glance like a softcore porno of some kind and it does feature plenty of sex and the maddeningly gorgeous Sophie Marceau and plently of other international stars to distract you, this film is unmistakably Antonioni's to its core, but you will not sense to what a profound extent, until you have seen it a few times and got used to its rhythm. For example, it is quite a funny film with a deep sense of humor, something I did not notice at first, but was turned on to by another critic, and noticed to much delight on further viewings (4 before they pulled it and would've gone back for more). If this film had been promoted right and people guided to a certain extent as to how to approach it, I have no doubt it would have succeeded on the art house circuit like most of Antonioni's '60s films. But the '60s are no more and the film will have to find its audience on the small screen where half its beauty will be lost even in a letterboxed DVD version (if and when it's released). I urge all film nuts general or esoteric to see 'Beyond the Clouds' and add a piece of magic to the tragic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw the movie a couple of years ago and was totally and utterly impressed but its sensuality. It is one of the most touching films I have ever seen, though it might appear a little bit pretentious and artificial - too much beautiful, if you will. Anyway, one thing is for sure - the camera man has done a great job - each picture deserves to be cut off the film and displayed as a separate peace of art, comparable to the Chirico's or Bernard Buffet's paintings.

The music forms a perfect background for the story, especially U2's one played between the first and the second novels at the beach scene. As for the casting - I cannot be objective since I like Sophie Marceau and Jean Renaue very much and cannot add more to the praising comments of others.

However, the very fact that many people (critics and those sophisticated in cinema) criticized the movie made me watch it with a more critical eye for the second time. No doubt, the setting is splendid and the casting is gorgeous. But this is somehow not enough to make a comprehensive and cohesive film. The second novel (when Sophie Marceau tells her story to Malcovic is somehow superficial and does not tell much about the motivations of the people involved - was it only about shooting a beautiful and sensual love scene with the naked Marceau or what?). Apparently, it does not add anything to the idea of the movie and even the husky voice of Malcovic is being unable to link it to the main plot.

Other stories are more justified and are really beautifully shot, which indulges many of the logic fallacies within them. The scene when Jean Reneau is overlooking the city through the huge window of his apartment on the top of the high building is absolutely incredible. The feeling of moist air and fine haze, which is being spread by the first \"Ferrera\" scene can literally be sensed through the screen. No doubt, Antonioni is a great master of shades and semi-shades. My favorite novel is the last one - the most romantic, deep and meaningful - I guess that it the most Antonioni-like one in the whole movie - almost a parable.Probably, the overall positive impression from the movie is mainly due to the last one shot somewhere in a small Ghotic Italian town, with its winding narrow streets and crooked pavements, fountains with the l'eau potable and monumental cathedrals... It was laconic but really touching.

I hope that my impressions and comments on the movie, however chaotic they are would motivate somebody to spend an evening watching it (it works better with the home theater, having somebody caring by your side, than in the movie theater). Enjoy.

I beg your pardon for the imperfect English and any possible misspellings","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a special film if you know the context. Antonioni, in his eighties, had been crippled by a stroke. Mute and half paralyzed, his friends -- who incidentally are the best the film world has -- arranged for him to 'direct' a last significant film. The idea is that he can conjure a story into being by just looking at it. So we have a film: about a director who conjures stories by simple observation. And the matter of the (four) stories is about how the visual imagination defines love.

The film emerges by giving us the tools to bring it into being through our own imagination. The result is pure movie-world: every person (except the director) is lovely in aspect or movement. Some of these women are ultralovely, and they exist in a dreamy misty world of sensual encounter. There is no nuance, no hint that anything exists but what we see; no desire is at work other than what we create.

I know of no other film that so successfully manipulates our own visual yearning to have us create the world we see. He understands something about not touching. No one understands Van Morrison visually like he does. Morrison's Celtic space music is predicated on precisely the same notion: the sensual touch that implies but doesn't physically touch.

Antonioni's redhead wife appears, appropriately as the shopkeeper and she also directs a lackluster 'making of' film that is on the DVD.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was stunned by this film. Afterwards, I didn't even want to see any films for a long time- any other film would be so unsatisfying by comparison.

For many, it may be the worst of Antonioni- very slow, without an engaging conventional story line, microscopic examinations of human emotions and interactions- and the worst of Wenders- verbose, confused transcendentalism. It is composed of short distinct episodes linked by Wenders' typical meandering hero's stream of consciousness, so it doesn't produce the temporary oblivion of escapist cinema.

But for fans, the worst is the best and the disjointed story line is sketching a single poetic image that stretches across the film. Wenders and Antonioni create a discourse between their segments that seeks out the heart of things.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not really sure what to make of this movie, especially after seeing a great film like La Notte. Unfortunately I saw this in German during an Antonioni film festival at the Frankfurt Film Museum, so I didn't get to hear Malkovich's great voice. He is supposed to tie together four stories about couples in Italy. However, as good an actor as he is, Malkovich cannot rescue the most ridiculous of the four stories portrayed here: a woman who comes up to him at a waterside cafe near a shop she owns and blurts out about how she killed her father nearby. Then the two of them go home, have sex, and he leaves. It seems as if Antonioni lost the subtlety had in earlier films (like The Passenger) when dealing with sex and replaced it with blatant nudity.

However nonsensical the storyline is, the film features two things that make it watchable: eye and ear candy. The actors and actresses are all beautiful people, and the cinematography is marvelous - scenes in old Italian cities contrasting with a bit in a tall apartment building overlooking a city (reminiscent of La Notte).

The ear candy, however, is what really makes the film worth watching. U2 and Brian Eno collaborated on \"Your Blue Room\" and \"Beach Sequence,\" both of which set the mood perfectly in the film. The songs are available on \"Passengers: Original Soundtracks 1.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beyond the Clouds is in many ways the weirdest film I have ever seen. Not for its Cult appeal, gore, or even for its ideas, but because of the elements that combine to make this a masterpiece of cinema. Beyond the Clouds was directed by Michelangelo Antonioni, one of Italy's most famous directors. However, if you gave this film only a quick watch-over, passively I mean, it would seem one of those melodramatic and often pointless romances. This movie deserves great attention, to the point of embracing all its cheese. By cheese I don't mean a slice, but a whole brick of cheddar! The music seems like it's from some Italian porno, the story and dialogue like they are from a corny Japanese soap, and the metaphors are so obvious you want to smack yourself on the head.

But once you get passed all this, you are engaged in an existential work of art. The cheese feeds into the subtle filming and draws our attention, perfectly, to what needs to be known. The basic plot is of four chapters, unrelated, and all about love. What we learn is that no matter what happens or what is said, people cannot communicate to each other. Instead they can only communicate through each other. I suppose that's why the dialogue and plot is so cheesy, because the conversations are overly irrational with lack of causality and people's reaction overly melodramatic.

I left that film thinking to myself; maybe all life is one big melodrama. We judge our feelings towards others as real and purposeful. I hate, because I have reason. But what does the hated think? Maybe they think that my hate is stupid and arbitrary. In other words, melodramatic.

So melodrama is actually an existential function. A corny romance is simply human interaction put under a magnifying glass, allowing us to see the futility of who we are and what we do.

This is a great film, I recommend it to all!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was stunned by this film. I have been renting Antonioni's films\/rediscovering them, and this film showed me the climax and fruits of his 50 years of directing. What an eye for setting, color, and detail! I have never seen such visual beauty and poetry filmed before. I had to stop after the first story and hold back the tears. Yes, beauty moves me, like it moved Keats to write Ode on a Grecian Urn. This movie is made for the mature, emotionally and intellectually, audience. Those hoping to see physical action and soap opera will be disappointed. I will have to see this film several times before I can truly appreciate it and judge it. This film should be required viewing for all cinematographers and directors.

Possibly a truly great film, on the order of Kurosawa's Dreams.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film for the first time last night. I have been thinking about it all night and this morning. I cannot say that it was my favorite film, at least not yet. I need to see it again.

The cinematography is stunning. Each shot has a lyricism that one would expect in a film that has Wim Wenders's name attached to it.

It is always tempting to see de Chirico in any picture of rows of orders vanishing into the gloom, but in this case the analogy fits. In many ways the figure of Malkovich walking through the fog and wind of Ferarra echoes the shadow of the off-canvas statue that haunts Milan in the major works of the Italo-Greek painter. He is slightly menacing, a presence who watches and, in his capacity as a film director, exerts influence on the entire story.

The dedicated Wenders fan cannot help but think a little bit of Damiel and Cassiel wandering through the streets of Berlin, watching all but not directly interacting with the inhabitants. And, following the Himmel Uber Berlin metaphor, the angel (or in this case Malkovich the Director) gets to interact with one of the stories.

At this point I have to bow out of taking this line of criticism too far. I need to see the movie again. I am fairly sure that this is the thread that will bring Malkovich's monologue together.

Perhaps his musings and pontifications are pretentious, empty dialog that sound good but cannot possibly be parsed into real communication. Maybe that is the whole point of it. No one can make that judgment with any degree of certainty or authority until having done his homework.

We must be careful when throwing around the word \"pretentious.\" It is easy to write off anything that smacks of the intellect as pretension, but that leads to a terrifying mental state, one in which the only conversation seen as genuine, earthy or authentic is the most banal. When we shun all discussions of philosophy, God, existence, meaning and all that brain candy, we are setting our culture up to die a slow, stupid and ugly death. Perhaps this is the warning that Wenders and Antonioni are giving us. It certainly is not the only theme of the film, but I think that it cannot be ignored.

The other (and most obvious) leitmotif is that of satisfaction. There is a lot here on that, and a thorough review of all the subtleties and consequences of the development of this leitmotif would well exceed the 1000 word limit for this review.

My advice is to see the film. But I offer a caveat: it is not an autonomous film (at least I don't think so yet). Some films interact with the intellectual and artistic thinking of their times so much that the viewer needs to have a background in the Zeitgeist before approaching the film. Par-dela les nuages is one of those films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even though the story is light, the movie flows so beautifully and its visual so tranquil and poetic that it could almost carry the whole movie.

The film consists of four interconnected stories, all about different aspect of attraction between man and\/or woman and how it frequently is ethereal. Their true desire seems to be always something that they cannot hold onto, it will flow out like a handful of sand.

I thought the most intriguing story was the last one where the more unattainable the woman was, the more the man desires her. It parallels her deep love for god, who is infinitely out of reach, but never closer to her heart.

A very good movie. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This the the final feature film that Michelangelo Antonioni directed, with the help of Wim Wenders, and adapts from his short story collection \"That Bowling Alley on the Tiber\". Beyond the Clouds contain 4 short stories with familiar themes that we've come to be accustomed to from his earlier works, and sums up those themes in vignettes which are weaved together via Wenders' directed scenes involving John Malkovich's The Director character. However, most of the stories seemed to offer little or no depth that we're used to from an Antonioni movie, while Malkovich's narration of supposed depth rattled on with unclear diction that sounded a tad pretentious and out of place.

Nonetheless, all four stories seem to touch on chance encounters, and extremely quick romances that played out more like lust at first sight, perhaps due to the lack of time (since they're short stories anyway) to allow for a more layered approach to carefully define and craft the characters as we know from a typical Antonioni movie. And the obsessive approach here is for the characters to disrobe to showcase a lack of deeper connection sacrificed for the immediate satisfaction of the flesh. Maybe this is the point to want to bring across with an observation of the more modern relationship?

The first story, Story of a Love Affair That Never Existed, tells the romance between Silvano (Kim Rossi Stuart) and Carmen (Ines Sastre), who meet when one asks the other for directions to a hotel, and later meet at a cafe. It's as if Fate is playing games on them when they meet, but part and meet again much later, but like the games people play, it's almost like a L'Avventura or a La Notte with the lack of communication, and of the expectations from the man.

John Malkovich's director character takes central role in the next short, who exhibited some really lecherous looks toward a girl working at a shop, played by Sophie Marceau. She is deeply disturbed and made to feel uncomfortable, but somehow plucked up the courage to approach him, and in what I thought was to scare him off, tells him her background that she murdered her father by stabbing him 12 times. But in a flash these two are off toward bedroom gymnastics.

The next short, Don't Look for Me, is the longest of the lot, with Peter Weller playing a cheating husband who has to choose between his mistress (Chiara Caselli) or his wife, played by Fanny Ardant. Perhaps the more star studded of the lot, with Jean Reno also stepping in for a coda at the end of it, which sort of expands the little universe in which this short exists. But unfortunately Reno's involvement also got relegated to some stifle of laughter as it goes into the implausible domain with laser quick romantic tanglements. There was a key element adapted from L'Eclisse with a kiss between a couple through a glass panel too, while the introductory tale about the story of souls was quite interesting. If there's a negative theme here this short wants to play upon, it'll be the duplicity of man.

In between this short and the next was a small scene which reunited our couple from La Notte, Marcello Mastroianni and Jeanne Moreau, where the former was painting a landscape which was reminiscent of that in Red Desert. Finally, we have the final shot This Body of Dirt, with Vincent Perez as a young man going after a girl (Irene Jacob) whom he just met, and falling in love with her, only to realize that it is a love that is too late. It's a relatively talkie piece, just like the first story, with the characters engaging in conversation while walking the streets of the city they're in, which sort of brings to mind Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise.

While on the whole the movie may have succeeded as individual pieces, they never quite measure up as a combined effort given the \"excuse\" to link them up was a film director's exploration of possible stories and a look for inspiration for his next film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you speak French or can put up with sub-titles, you will really enjoy this movie. If on the other hand you just want to see God's most beautiful creatures, this is a must see. Not an ounce of silicon in sight. Zalman King eat your heart out. Sophie Marceau's body is the epitome of perfection and everything I had ever fantasized about. Her part is even in English. Even the fact that she was nude with John Malkovich did not detract for her beauty. Sophie is a ten if ever there was one. Chiara Caselli and In\u00e9s Sastre are 9.5s. Oh yeah, it is a pretty good story. Several little vignettes are woven together in a sort of Six Degrees of Separation style.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"amazing movie. Some of the script writing could have been better (some cliched language). Joyce's \"The Dead\" is alluded to throughout the movie. Beautiful scenery and great acting. Very poetic. Highly recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First, the positives: an excellent job at depicting urban landscapes to suit the mood of the film. Some of the shots could be paintings by De Chirico. Sophie Marceau, beautiful.

The negatives: the stories are hard to believe. Unreal, uni-dimensional characters preen and posture 100% of the time, as if they were in some kind of catwalk. This is neither the Antonioni of his earlier, much better movies nor the Wenders we've all come to know and appreciate. Malkovich is excess baggage in this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"looks like the bet movie I've ever seen. not too much for intelligent perception but so rich for perception sensitive. Antonioni is comparably wise to his movie. Malkovich's so organic, roles are so true, situations are so real. I've change my world outlook after this cinema. I'm a beginner literati in Russia -- country of Tolstoy and Dostoevskiy -- and I'm quite sure watching Antonioni is good and fun for russkies, because I and we do understand his point of view. so I don't understand his lesser raiting on IMDb. I'm sure, speaking from Russia and our people, we like Antonioni because of his romantic soul and positive sensation of surrounding reality","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Beyond the Clouds\" is an over-the-top artsy group of four vignettes each a offering a glimpse into a man-woman relationship from the tenuous to the turbulent. Although the film offers superb cinematography, some exquisite visual beauty, and a cast of fine performers, there's little meat on the bones of this fragmented work. A taste of a relationship cannot impart the fullness of it and synergism suggests that much more can be accomplished with one story in 2 hours than with four. Nonetheless, \"Beyond the Clouds\" will be fodder for dilettantes and a visual feast for the all albeit superficial, stilted, and lacking in substance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wonderful cast thrown into modern mystical romances for the intellectual grown ups. Yes, they too need a love story to stir those hidden urges without the Hollywood fluff. This all under the masterful direction of Antonioni and Wenders who both love to pin his characters in exotic locations and have them dwarfed by the surroundings with long wide shots. It is great to see that there is lust in the mid-life crises sector.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Antonioni with Wim Wenders --some of the best of the best. story-character-visuals. Like most of their works, it is not really aimed at the children or the childish. Don't miss the genius contained in this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's just stories, some we wish happen to us, some we wish never happen to us, all about unfulfilled desire. The locations and nude bodies are beautiful, but after the second story all I could think was 'it takes more than just beauty to create a real film'. Then of course the film unfolds. The stories are moving except Sophie Marceau fails to communicate her story in this film. Malkovich plays the story for both of them though. The voiceover fails to link the stories but helps Malkovich to provoke some thought.

I'd say it is worth seeing and the best of Antonioni I have seen. Given his age - remarkable!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"NVA combines eastalgia-humor, military comedy and teen movie. Although it is somehow typically German-movie-like sentimental, I think it's a great and very funny movie. You will not only laugh in NVA but also get a bit of an insight in the Eastern Germany armed forces of the late 1980ies and how the young recruits as well as the professional soldiers experienced the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the German Democratic Republic.

You will enjoy NVA if you liked Sonnenallee (another movie directed by Leander Hau\u00dfmann), but not necessarily if you enjoyed Good Bye Lenin which is much more serious and less obviously funny.

The acting is acceptable. But watch for former boy band singer Kim Frank who has only two facial expressions: natural and shocked saucer-eyed!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't quite know why some people complain about this film not being a comedy and at the same time being too unrealistic. If it had been realistic, there certainly wouldn't have been much comedy. I also don't think that a comedy needs to make you laugh aloud twenty times. There was much subtle humor, sweet feelings, and Kim Frank just portrayed a dreamy character. In real life, there are many people whose facial expression doesn't change much so Kim Frank keeping his was quite all right. The ending was quite unrealistic, I'd say, but happy. It's a light-hearted movie with a feel-good ending. I liked it. Loved it, actually. A serious part was Krueger going to Schwedt, and I'm glad they didn't show what happened to him there. Showing how he was when he came back hinted at it quite clearly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Do not expect a classic military comedy, which claims to make fun of the military while only enhancing a militaristic outlook. Instead it deconstructs the elements that make the military such a murderous machine. Kind of East German version of \"Buffalo Soldiers\".

\"NVA\" works on a meta-level that it sympathizes with its heroes' attempts to escape from army drill any which way they can. It's not about loud laughs but about long lasting smiles. Utopian, of course (in one scene you will be shown the harsh reality), but very thoughtful.

Just to fill the required 10 lines: Do not go into that movie if you have been an army officer and liked your job.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was to me a fairly enjoyable watch, I mean it wasn't great but it was one of the better horror movies of late. It seems to have been low, almost state benefit budget size but it has it's charms like the lovely ladies in it. The atmosphere was good also (which is what is missing froma hell of a lot of horror movies these days). The acting was your typical 80's low budget affair, that being in case you don't know is that it is \"dud\" acting. But that is what Lucio Fulci's movies were full of, they like this movie had atmosphere what they were lacking in storyline and money etc. They more than made up for in the horror & gore & atmosphere for the movie it's self.

It is just a typical low budget horror movie that is watchable, I watched it all the way and I love horror movies. I've seen movies where I just turn off within 10 to 20 minutes or sit and fast forward it if it's on video, or skip scene's on the DVD. This movie didn't make me want to do that, I sat and watched it all the way to the end, without wanting to skip parts.

I would have liked it however if the zombie type folk in this were a little more scarier as they were about as scary as having Freddy Kreuger as your babysitter, not. But seriously though if they were a little better it would have been low budget perfection, maybe.

The music in this movie was top notch stuff, ideal horror music so it was. I've seen horror movies where the music is good or average but it could have been better, thank goodness though this movie didn't have nay of the Metal music in it.

I've been a die-hard Metal fan since 1990 but in horror movies metal music spoils it, the movie looses atmosphere a lot when any type of music other than a score is playing. So i'm glad there was no music in this movie other than just your typical score which was rather creepy, well done.

It could have use \"Profane Grace - Epitaph Of Shattered Dreams\" on it though. As it is keyboard music no guitars no nothing except \"really\" creepy keyboard tracks. Like track one \"Forever Sleep\" you hear the wind blowing all the way through it and some goose bump inducing keyboard music that follows it. Ever track on that cd is the same, ideal horror music at it's best, it would have suited this movie perfectly.

The only unattractive chick in the movie to me was the one who got chibbed\/killed (or so we are led to believe) and hung up as a scarecrow, only to get free and try to escape later. Every other woman in the movie was lovely indeed, a big 9 out of 10 for them all except the one I mentioned above.

I wish that Hollywood (mainstream side of things) would give money to Romero and the guy who made this movie. As giving it to them for movies is way better a decision made than giving it to a goon muppet called Paul Anderson of the \"resident evil\" mince.

Well done guys, it is not bad, not bad at all, I loved the part at the end credits when they kept showing you clips of them making the movie (behind the scene's) Not many movies do this kind of thing, which I thought added a little to the movie, as it also showed you some outtakes of sorts and that's always a good thing if you ask me.

Rating for this movie 8\/10, rating for the lovely ladies in the movie 9\/10, rating for the atmosphere in the movie 9\/10, rating for the score for the film 9.5\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was surprised that I liked this movie. But it reminded me of a 2004 version of the first Friday the 13th. There were a number of cheesy elements, yet at the same time there were many cool ones. The story line was good--predictable if you have seen more than one or two horror movies, but full of one-liners to make it worthwhile. There are some memorable scenes worth watching. A few issues I had with the plot had to do with the continuity of the characters. For instance in the opening scene the scarecrows (which were humans on stakes, whose blood was drained to grow the crops), looked very real, but later in the film they looked more like fake scarecrows wearing blue colored masks. There were more than several gaps in the plot, and the acting was mediocre, but at least it sounded like how real people talk, unlike Hollywood movies where the dialogue is really fake sounding when you think about it. The culmination of the last scene, when the main character says \"I'm not a Baker, I'm a Connell!\" and lops the head off of the scarecrow is satisfying, as his friends have for the most part been killed off by these creatures at that point.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"David Suchet is Agatha Christie's mustached detective Hercule Poirot in \"After the Funeral,\" produced in 2005. Anyone who has heard David Suchet speak with his own British accent knows what a shock it is, because his accent as Poirot is so perfect and organic to the character. Suchet is the Poirot of Agatha Christie's books, and although I confess a love for Peter Ustinov in the role, his portrayal doesn't have that much to do with what Christie wrote.

In this episode, Poirot is asked by a solicitor friend to investigate the possible murder of one of his clients. Enroute on the train, the solicitor recounts the events after the death - a strange will disinheriting the expected heir and the pronouncement of the man's sister that he was murdered. When Poirot meets the family, he discovers adultery, lots of secrets, another will and murder.

The story is excellent with rich production values and a wonderful, detailed depiction of the time period. All of the acting is superb, particularly from Monica Dolan, who plays Miss Gilchrist. Poirot here is without Hastings, his beautiful office, or Miss Lemon but he's effective nonetheless.

I had the privilege of seeing David Suchet on Broadway in \"Amadeus.\" Breathtaking. What an actor - when he's playing Poirot, all I see IS Poirot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Aunt Cora had always been tactless, and her well-bred family ignored the remark she made after her brother Richard's funeral: \"He WAS murdered, wasn't he?\". They remembered it the next day, when Cora was found brutally murdered with a hatchet...

For some reason, the POIROT movies this year have been far from faithful to the original book. I was disappointed about the changes made in CARDS ON THE TABLE-- my favourite Poirot book. AFTER THE FUNERAL is my 2nd favourite Poirot book, and I was scared the story would be destroyed. It wasn't! The movie was nearly page-for-page faithful throughout, right down to the killer's motive! All the actors were wonderful, but my favourite has got to be Monica Dolan, who gives a great performance as Miss Gilchrist, the companion to the late Aunt Cora. Without a doubt the best Poirot movie ever!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those of you still in the dark, I will not spoil this Christie, as it is definitely one of her finest works, and I stress that you should see it whenever you next have free time! If any of the adaptations are to be watched before (or in lieu of) reading the book, I would suggest \"After the Funeral\" for the following reasons.

I wanted to praise the performance by Monica Dolan (Miss Gilchrist), whose employer-companion Cora is brutally murdered at the outset of the film. Her portrayal of a shocked, nervous, insignificant woman is actually moving, especially when she has a moment of personal connection with Poirot, another person who travels alone in \"the journey of life.\" And when the murderer is being revealed in typical Poirot denouement fashion, Dolan's reactions to the revelation are acting at its finest: you feel as angry at the murderer as you do sympathetic to Miss Gilchrist... something uncommon in Christie lore.

Although there are a couple of discrepancies between novel and film adaptation, as per usual (the business of the will perhaps making less sense in the film), the unbelievably lavish recreation of post-war England, thoroughly high calibre of acting and directing, and preservation (if not heightening) of Christie's mystery and intrigue render these discrepancies insignificant.

Bravo Suchet, Dolan and the whole team for crafting this masterpiece of murder mystery theatre, and the producers who gave it the green light! Encore!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After The Funeral was absolutely superb, and by far the best episode of the season. I was disappointed with Cards On the Table, that started off so well but let down considerably by the last half hour, and I didn't know what to think of Taken After the Flood, though I do remember being confused at the end. After the Funeral as I've said is one of my all time favourite Poirot episodes, up there with Five Little Pigs, Sad Cypress and The ABC Murders. I was afraid that they would ruin the story, but instead it is very faithful to the book. Now I will say I don't mind changes to books, and try not to compare movies and TV adaptations to their sources, except when the book is a masterpiece and the adaptation doesn't do it justice. That's why I disliked some of the Marples like Nemesis and Sleeping Murder, and so far out of the Poirots The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Taken At the Flood and Cards on the Table are the only ones that really did disappoint. Everything else ranges from good to outstanding, even the recent Appointment with Death, despite the many deviations from the book, which I admit isn't a favourite, was surprisingly good, thanks to the marvellous production values, stellar ensemble performances and outstanding music score. Back to After the Funeral, the production values are fantastic. It has a really cinematic feel to it, and the stunning photography and splendid scenery and costumes made it a visual feast for the eyes. The music was very stirring and even haunting, and the entire cast give wonderful performances. David Suchet is impeccable as always as Poirot, and Geraldine James and Anna Calder Marshall are just as terrific. But for me, the standout was Monica Dolan as Mrs Gilchrist, she is up there with Donald Sumpter and Polly Walker as the best supporting actor\/actress in a Poirot episode, that's how good her performance was. All in all, a must see, one of the best Poirot episodes by far, and one of the more faithful ones too. 10\/10 Bethany Cox","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film on the A&E channel this past weekend. The mystery was okay, I was not able to guess the culprit before the end. But I enjoyed the characters and their development much more than the mystery. There was a mystery about some of them, especially George Abernathie, performed by the wonderful Michael Fassbender, and George's cousin, Susannah. In fact, the story of those two characters left me wanting to know more. From what I've tried to glee about the Agatha Christie book of the same title, I think this film did not follow it to the letter. Very good performances by the actors involved, especially Fassbender and the lady who played Cora\/companion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some less than inspired opening string music notwithstanding, we somehow know that from the word go this is heading straight for the \"big fun\" drawer. By the time we observe Monica Dolan (in a truly genius bit of casting) delightfully goofing it up as Cora early on we're already hooked, but it is only later on when she reveals herself in her marvellous screen creation, that deranged, scheming, maleficent queen of murder and deceit posing in the guise of the uptight Miss Gilchrist, that she not only effortlessly steals the entire telemovie for herself but quite simply blows off screen anyone who comes near her, including the ever well measured David Suchet who himself seems to be somewhat bedazzled by her acting talents and, very gentlemanly, allows her to take centre stage. Dolan is the true engine of the film and her Miss Gilchrist a genuinely well rounded character in this Christie rendition, helped by a zesty script and the sprightly paced direction - and also by the rest of the cast led by Geraldine James and Dominic Jephcott, who all display signs of sympathy for the given material and play with relish accordingly.

The production values are spot on as usual, and if there are any weaker links they might be located in the comparatively substandard music score to the majority of later Poirots, and also perhaps in the lacking of a genuine Italian-born actor for the role of Cora's husband. Other than that, this is an hour and a half of pure televisual delight which is as self indulgent and entertaining as it is lovingly put together.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As most other reviewers seem to agree, this adaptation of 'After The Funeral' is very good indeed. Always one of my favourite Poirot stories I was worried that it might be 'messed about with'. Well, it was a little bit but ONLY a little bit and the end the result was thoroughly entertaining. David Suchet continues to be well nigh faultless as Poirot and (as others have pointed out) the other star of this show is Monica Dolan who surely could not be bettered as Miss Gilchrist. I also really enjoyed Fiona Glasscott who was spot on as the cutting Rosamund Shane but really, the casting was quite impeccable throughout!

One point is knocked off for the adaptors not being able to resist cramming too many revelations into the final fifteen minutes. The business with the will and house deeds was all a bit unnecessary although I didn't mind how they tightened up the structure of the Abernethie family (in the book the family tree IS really quite complicated). The final moments when the murderer is revealed however are really incredibly well done and I found the very end, when they all leave Enderby, quite touching. This is really one of the very best of the Poirot series so far.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although I have definitely read this particular Agatha Christie book at some point, I didn't remember anything about it except the name \"Abernethie\". Which is a good thing, because seeing this story unfold without knowing how it will play out allowed me to appreciate once more the sheer GENIUS of Agatha Christie: the way she misleads you and then pulls the rug out from under your feet is the main reason for her success and timelessness. In addition to her stories, the excellent production values, beautiful locations, wonderful music, top-notch acting, elegant directing, etc. are the reasons for this series' success and timelessness - and all those virtues are present in \"After the Funeral\". A word of advice: be alert right from the start - there are clues dropped all over the place even in the opening sequence! There are some quite unnerving moments as well, in contrast to the peaceful-looking English-countryside locations, and some small touches of humor. A must-see for mystery buffs, and just a very good film in general. (***)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Reading through the comments, there seems to be a lot of nonsense about the emotional banality of La Pianiste. I find this hard to comprehend given the outstanding performance by Isabelle Huppert. Huppert is gripping - she manages to convey perfectly the woman on the edge, full of self-hate and delusion.

The film is wonderfully paced and judged. It would be so easy to portray the lead as a ridiculous figure - consider the scene in the porn store for instance. Somehow, Huppert is able to carry it off, partly because of her brilliant performance but also because the director makes her surreal life real and identifiable.

Don't ignore this film. It is one of the most startling and engaging films (and performances) I have seen.

Trust Boris!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movies made me suffer and I LOVED IT! LOVED IT! It haunted me for days. I think Erika is the kind of character you simultaneously loathe and lament. The most terrifying sex scene ever caught on film. This is the best of Haneke's work so far. He is the only living director to redefine pace since Kubrick. The violence in this film is gorgeous. In a word, the film is about self-hatred. In a sentence, the film is about trying to find love in order to stop hating yourself and finding that that is a hopeless hope.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, I felt like I had been gutted after first seeing it. But not until the next day did I begin to see the true brilliance of this creation. I won't repeat much of what has already been said by those who appreciate the film, but there is one new area I want to touch on... **SPOILERS** Why exactly did the teacher put the broken glass in the student's pocket? Most reviewers have noted that it only reflected her cruelty and reaction to an unsatisfactory performance. I must disagree. Watch the scene again. Huppert is moved to tears as she watches her student playing on stage. The student is quite an expressive girl (crying & vocalizing her fears)- just the opposite of Huppert's character. There is a scene later in the film, after the girl is injured, when Huppert discusses the accident with the girl's mother. The mother, visibly upset, states \"We gave up everything so she could study piano\" and Huppert immediately snaps \"You mean SHE gave up everything, don't you.\"

So it was my thought that Huppert was simply saving this young expressive student from her own destiny. She didn't want the girl to end up like HER, repressed & hardened, condemned to a life of recitals...gradually killing the soul in the pursuit of perfection. Maybe she saw herself on the stage years ago, before things grew bad. Maybe she wished she had escaped when she was that age. Is she ruining the student's life, or simply freeing her?

For me, that realization made all the difference in what I experienced through this film. Brilliant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this movie, just once, and I'm looking forward to see it again and again. Dear David (from Beligium), why did you bother to write a comment on this movie? I only think we can think about you (after reading you comment), is that you're provably a non-sexual person (like Erika in the movie), and you are not ready for the new cinema that is coming up. I guess you are a bit old, and sexual expression is not part of your \"visage\". The Cannes Film Festival is by far the best movie festival, and I'm is my pleasure to say, that this film was awarded with: Best Actress, Best Actor and Grand Prix. Isabelle Huppert is magnificent, as always, who would do this movie like her? One of her best performances ever. The music is fantastic, and once more Michael Haneke puts reality in the big screen. It's like a Dogma95 kind of movie, because of the topic. Try to see it.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Be prepared for the Trip to Haneke's \"La pianiste\"...The psychological sickness of the main character, wonderfully played by Huppert, goes beyond any limit you could expect. The most stunning part of it is that you start feeling compassion for the character Erika. Trash-Sexuality (no nudes scenes though), perversion, masochism, incestuous relations...Haneke gives us a crude meal, heavy to digest; sometimes, the only way you can escape the extremism of some scenes is to start laughing at it. The \"mise en sc\u00e8ne\" is maybe not the most appealing part of the movie, it has obvious austro-germanic, sometimes scandinavian notes : static, long scenes, but never boring. The vienna settings, the french language used, make the whole look like a european blend. The permanent germanic music Background (Schubert) is beautifully chosen. Above all, both of the Cannes awards for best actors are well deserved: one of the greatest performance of the year by one of the greatest french actress ever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is utterly amazing. From the performances of Huppert, Girardot, and Magimel, to Haneke's screenplay and direction there is not a single misstep. The film may put some people off with it's hard sexual subject matter and with it's slower pace, but it really is a masterful piece of cinema... so do not let it's challenging ways keep you away!

Powerful, and deserving every award it won in Cannes!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Piano Teacher\" is all about Huppert's character; a middle-aged classical piano instructor with a stoic facade behind which lurks a powerfully compelling aberrant personality. Unsatisfying as a story but intriguing as a character study, the film follows the Huppert character through the term of her anguished relationship with a pupil delivering superb performances in the process. Not for everyone, \"The Piano Teacher\" will play best with those into foreign films and character-driven dramas dealing with dark issues. (A-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Noel Coward is perfectly cast as a suave, vain, selfish well educated, upper class publisher. The literary crowd that congregates at his office is equally lacking in depth and seems concerned only with their status and success. They constantly meet at Noel Coward's publishing office in the hope of gaining favor for their next book and to make sure they are not left out on the latest gossip in the artistic realm.

Cora is a young idealist and poet who believes her love can change Noel Coward and that they can establish a long lasting relationship. She ends her relationship with her fianc\u00e9 to become Noel's lover. However Noel returns to his playboy ways after 6 months and ends the relationship. This breaks Cora's heart and she eventually returns to her fianc\u00e9 who has since lost his job and self respect after losing Cora.

The story picks up when Noel Coward leaves New York City by plane chasing after a new lover, a concert pianist who is just as shallow as he is. However a storm is encountered and the plane crashes into the sea killing Noel. God takes pity on him and grants him one month on Earth to find someone who will cry for him, otherwise he is condemned to wander the Earth, never to find rest, for all eternity.

The climax takes place on a dim, rainy night and ends with a prayer and a miracle. A strange redemption occurs. The death experience teaches Noel the true values of life, although his former associate artists are incapable of understanding his message.

The film has beautiful music and the scenes are classic film noir. Unfortunately it is not on DVD or VHS. For those who enjoy this type of movie it is a classic masterpiece. Noel Coward's dialog is sharp and witty and no one could play the part better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** It's easy to see why the script for this film won an Oscar. At least during the first half. My head was spinning from all of the snappy lines whizzing by. Noel Coward plays a New York publisher (`Why don't you publish books that you like?' - `What? And corrupt the public?') who charms and manipulates his many hangers-on. Then he dies in a plane crash and the story turns into a bizarre Flying Dutchman take-off in which Coward must find someone who truly mourns him before his soul can rest in peace. Very enjoyable until it gets bizarre. Viewed at Cinefest in Syracuse in March 2003.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i saw this film over 20 years ago and still remember how much i loved it. it really touched me, and i thoroughly enjoyed noel coward's work in it. highly recommended: atmospheric and touching.

i think of this film from time to time, and am disappointed it hasn't enjoyed as much of a revival as many classic films. hadn't realized til i searched for it today that it won an academy award for best original story for ben hecht and charles macarthur.

basically it involves a nasty character who destroys another's career and is cursed because of it. he dies, but is allowed redemption if he can convince someone to shed a tear over him. the bulk of the movies shows him in pursuit of this goal. well written and lovely. i had known him for his plays so i was surprised to see him in this role on TV late one night in new york. a must see if you ever have the opportunity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a unique film, as it gives us our only chance to see the young Noel Coward in all his ironic glory. Because he seems so reserved & detached he's perfect for the role of an unloved cad who matter-of-factly uses all those around him. However in the deadly serious (no pun intended) last act, when Coward must make like the Flying Dutchman, he's much less comfortable.

But his way with an epigram is peerless, and Hecht & Macarthur have given him some gems (Macarthur, really -- he was the wit of the pair).

The film is superbly lighted by the great Lee Garmes, but has little camera movement aside from a storm sequence. Hecht and Macarthutr cared about one thing -- getting their dialogue on screen. (NOTE: H&M themselves have blink-and-you'll-miss-'em cameos as bums in the flophouse scene).

The most notable supporting player is the one and only Alexander Woolcott, notorious Broadway columnist and close friend of both Macarthur and Coward, who appears as one of the bitchy authors always kept waiting in the reception room of publisher Coward.

Curious that Woolcott would agree to do a film that clearly lampoons the legendary Algonquin Round Table, of which he was a founder, and Macarthur something of an auxiliary member.

The Scoundrel actually won an Oscar for best story, though that victory is probably due more to Coward's imposing presence than any brilliance in the plot. It's Coward, Woolcott, and the dialogue you remember...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Marigold is by far the best \"outsider's\" take on Bollywood I have ever seen. (I didn't grow up with Bollywood, but I've seen a few hundred of them now.) I'd say it leaves Gurinder Chadha, Mira Nair, and even Merchant and Ivory (of Bombay Talkie) almost in the dust. Willard Carroll, the director, really loves Bollywood, and he has the self-confidence to allow us to know it - there's humor, but no arch, ironic distancing, no \"of course I don't really mean this\" stuff. As Jerry Lee Lewis would say, he \"gets it,\" and so he can let us have it too - the joy of a Bollywood movie experience, along with touches that are supplied by a westerner's stepping into the story-teller's role.

It's a story about a caustic, bitchy, beautiful American B movie actress (she's only been in movies with numbers in their titles, like Fatal Attraction 3) who finds herself in a different Bollywood movie from the one she went to India to be in (Kama Sutra 3 has folded its tents while she was en route, apparently because its producers are now in jail). Salman Khan, in real life a Bollywood mega-mega star, is the dancing master of the delightful written-on-the-fly movie she has now been pulled into (\"is this before or after I go blind?\"), and through the sweetness of his mildly psychically gifted character, she learns more than how to find her inner ecstatic dancing ability.

The strong beginning gives you both Bollywood - a super-energetic troupe of dancers in front of the Taj Mahal (both funny an familiar to the western viewer, as well as providing the high-velocity musical thrill we love in a Hindi movie), and Salman on screen from the outset - no Bollywood 20 minute wait for the hero. He has on an Indian costume embellished with Kit Carson-style Western movie fringe (all in white).

Ali Larter's actress character is pleasing to the western viewer - she's blonde, which is \"traditional\" for a \"white\" person in a Bollywood movie, and visually understandable casting - but she's a robust girl, not the ethereal kind of blondie we're usually presented with, and she's a more or less three-dimensional total bitch, carrying on profane and abusive cell-phone conversations with a boyfriend and agent in the US.

We also have scenes of women who are having problems with each other going out to a bar to deal with them - the capacity for people not getting along to relate and have emotional conversations is traditional in Hindi movies, but we seldom see much of any such thing going on between women (other than the discussion between mother and daughter about the daughter's choice of groom), let alone \"strangers\" - unrelated people - let alone bar-going. So the spirit is the same, the details are fresh, and I was completely delighted by this.

I only saw it once, at a preview showing, attended by the director, a fine speaker and question-answerer - he and Salman got to be \"brother-like\" good friends over the making of it, he loves India, he has plans to make a Wizard of Oz movie in India. I can't get too detailed about songs when I've seen them just once, except to say I liked them all. They range from a happy parody of the Bollywood number in the movie-within-the-movie - the ladies' costumes, with Leghorn hats and seashell-cased bodices (it's a beach scene) on flowy dresses - are worth the cost of a ticket alone -- to a lovely reflective many-scened romantic song in a sadder and more serious part of the movie.

Mix of Hindi and English in the music, and it works.

Salman Khan gets a lot of credit from me for openness to unusual projects - this and Jaan-e-Mann - and good judgment about which ones to be in. Carroll said he was full of suggestions and ideas all along the way, and totally fine (i.e. not narcissistic at all) whether Carroll accepted or rejected them - clearly just a pro who loves being involved and collaborating.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Marigold at a preview showing a few days ago, and found it to be a thoroughly engrossing and enjoyable film. The film is about a not-so-successful American actress who goes to India to act in a low budget film, only to find herself stranded there when she finds on arrival that the film's financing has vanished, along with the producers and investors. A chance encounter with an Indian film shooting nearby leads her to be hired for a small dancer role in that. Since Indian films incorporate a significant amount of singing and dancing, this is a problem for Marigold, who has two left feet, not to mention a personality so tightly wound-up and thorny that she can hardly hear the music, let alone feel it, as Prem, the choreographer of the film, advices her to do.

But \"prem\" -- the word, not the person -- means \"love\", and Prem -- the person, not the word -- seems to embody that emotion in the way he deals with all around him, whether it be his production assistant friends who introduced Marigold to the shoot, the narcissistic and arrogant leads of the film, or the bitchy and uptight Marigold herself. Soon, under his expert tutelage and endearing treatment, Marigold finds her feet -- literally and figuratively.

I must say a word for those not familiar with the use of song and dance in Indian films. Unlike American musicals, the story progresses through these dance numbers, as plot developments unfold, and character transformations occur in parallel with the dancing. It should also be pointed out that Indian dance is about a lot more than mere movement. An essential part of it is the enactment of the dancer's feelings and emotions while telling the story of the dance. This is the main purpose of the dance and the dancer.

That Marigold reaches this stage of accomplishment is demonstrated in a stunning dance number about midway through, when Marigold, while performing the dance she is required to do for the film-within-the-film, also expresses her love for Prem. It is an amazing performance by Ali Larter, especially when one considers that she is not used to dancing in her films, or emoting her character's feelings via dance. It shows her skill as an actress, as well as how much hard work she has put into the role.

Of course no romantic film can work without a credible Prince Charming. Salman Khan, who plays the role of Prem, fits the role to a T. Even when it turns out that he is a Prince not so charming, he does not lose the audience's sympathy. Salman has been ruling Hindi cinema (sometimes called Bollywood) for many years now, and it is worth remembering that his first leading role was also as Prem. He is completely charming, sweet, adorable, sexy, and vulnerable. For those who have never encountered him on screen before, be prepared to be hit with mega doses of sheer magnetism! He and Ali Larter make a lovely pair, and are as well matched in their acting as in their appearance.

Will they manage to work out their problems? It doesn't seem possible as we hear the last song of the film, a lovely blending of fact and fantasy, reality and metaphor. The ending certainly took some of the audience I saw it with by surprise, but they were left satisfied. The songs are used very cleverly. They are in Hindi, unsubtitled, for the film-within-the-film sequences, and in English for other occasions. But their meaning is always clear from the context and choreography.

Marigold is a very satisfying romantic comedy -- yes, there is quite a bit of humor as well in it. The Indian locations and costumes give it a fairy tale quality, befitting a story which can be likened to a modern fairy tale.

If you are or have been curious about Indian cinema, but were hesitant to try it, this is an excellent introduction. It captures the color and vibrancy of Indian films, not only in the costumes and jewelry (which are quite impressive), but also in the lively dances and world sound music.

If you are a fan of Ali Larter, you should watch it for her excellent acting in portraying a selfish, demanding, \"high-maintanance\" woman who nevertheless has an inner attraction that inspires the love of two men. If you are a girl, you will enjoy admiring Ali's lovely costumes and ogling her hunk of a leading man. If you are a guy, you can not only admire Ali in her sexy costumes, but learn from Salman Khan what it takes to bring out the loving heart even from someone as edgy as Marigold.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mention Bollywood to anyone with a slight familiarity with the genre and the images usually conjured up are of tacky, over the top musical numbers peopled with costuming that makes Vegas seem a bastion of conservatism. This perception is not helped by the whiff of condescension that permeates most movies that have approached Bollywood from an outsider's perspective. Willard Carroll's romantic comedy Marigold, however takes a different tack. It is not a nudge-nudge wink-wink look at those silly people and their clueless antics but a sincere appreciation of Bollywood for its vitality, its lack of irony and self-consciousness.

It is obvious that the director has a tremendous affection and respect for Bollywood while at the same time is bemused by its kitschier aspects. And if you have a familiarity with Bollywood, you can appreciate what he does here in making a true hybrid of Bollywood and Hollywood movie conventions. From one of the opening shots, a flashback of the Salman character as a child by the sea, talking with his grandmother (played by Helen! - how many Salman movies start with this same premise?) to the flashback sequence that is incorporated into the movie that Marigold and Prem has been filming, anyone who has seen enough Bollywood movies will recognize these references. The story itself incorporates tried and true conventions from both Hollywood and Bollywood as well \u0096 the fish out of water meets duty-to-one's-family-at the expense of personal fulfillment. The structure of the film follows the typical Bollywood plot line of the more comical set up of the first half giving way to a more dramatic resolution of the second. Yet ultimately the sensibility of the film is that of Hollywood, with its understated, wry humor and its story of a woman learning to believe in herself, to reach self-affirmation.

You couldn't have a movie inspired by Bollywood if there weren't any musical numbers and this movie does not disappoint with seven of them. Unlike Bollywood, however, the songs do not pop out of nowhere and transport its characters to a European locale or Goan beach; they exist as musical numbers that are part of the film that is being made, reminiscent of how musical numbers were justified in Busby Berkeley movies as being part of a stage show. Or they come out of a situation where music already has a reason to be there \u0096 a sexy nightclub scene where Prem teaches Marigold to dance or a beach scene where there are musicians (including a cameo from the playback singer Shaan) performing. All reflect the emotional state of the protagonists at that point in the movie. Often the music will take a conventional song from one genre and put a twist on it from the other. So in one of the highlights of the film where Marigold comes into her own, the song picturazation is fairly typical of its genre \u0096 the female star singing and dancing among a line of women \u0096 but in this case it's blond Ali Larter looking like a total natural Bollywood film star, emoting and lip synching to the Hindi lyrics with no subtitles.

Also synonymous with Bollywood are sumptuous visuals and Marigold fulfills that aspect beautifully thanks to some of the top talent working in Bollywood today. The cinematographer is Anil Mehta who was also the cinematographer for Lagaan and Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam. The choreographer is Vaibhavi Merchant and production designer is Nitin Desai, both from Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam and Devdas. You can really see the influence of Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam on this film \u0096 in fact, the illuminated floor in one of the numbers was originally from Dholi Taro Dhol, which coincidentally has an embedded Marigold pattern.

As for the cast, Carroll obviously has a penchant for spotting acting talent as evidenced by Playing by Heart \u0096 one of the first movies for both Angelina Jolie and Ryanne Phillippe. And in this film he again hits the mark with Ali Larter. One of the main reasons the film works is because of Larter. She makes a bitchy, unappealing character sympathetic and her subsequent transformation believable and she is smart, funny, and sexy because she is smart and funny. She and Salman share excellent chemistry and that is one of the film's biggest strengths.

Salman Khan plays the role of Prince Charming here as filtered through his iconic role as Prem. This is old school Prem, however, so expect a quiet, subdued Salman - those used to him in his usual stripping avatar may be disappointed \u0096 or relieved! It's a sincere and sensitive performance from him marred only by poor enunciation of his English lines.

With a refreshing lack of cynicism and unabashed embrace of romantic love, the film is a love letter to Bollywood and Hollywood movies of yore.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had no expectations (never saw previews for \"Marigold\") and enjoyed the characters, contemporary music, and sharp dancing in this light-hearted movie. Even though 98% of the dialog is English (great thing for me), I wish the DVD had subtitles to help with some of the quick moments when the character's accent can be difficult to understand. I wouldn't judge this movie against Bollywood films, but just on it's own merits as fun entertainment (a musical people movie).

I'm hooked on Ali Larter as an actress (and her interviews in the Bonus Material indicate she is a nice person). I have since watched this movie several times (gets better each time).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just finished watching Marigold today and I'll begin by saying that I found this DVD on the shelves of Blockbuster. While strolling around looking for something new and good to watch, the picture of Ali Larter caught my attention.

After drooling over Ali Larter, I picked up the cover and continued to glance around the cover. From the looks of it, I thought the costumes were a bit over the top. And then I saw the other Indians on the cover and figured this was some kind of spoof film or something like that.

When I flipped over the the synopsis part and saw Salman Khan, I did a double take. Salman Khan in an American film with Ali Larter in a DVD at Blockbuster? Because Salman Khan is to Bollywood films like Mel Gibson is to Hollywood films, I had very high expectations for this film: it HAD to be good! I am very pleased to say that Marigold is a phenomenal film! It far exceeded any and all of my personal expectations!

I suppose a film like this is what happens when you have a decent script, a talented, experienced, knowledgeable and goal oriented director, two incredible actors playing the lead roles and just a very hard working supporting cast and crew! Khan and Larter appear to have really great chemistry together and both shine on the big screen: they look really good together. The musical numbers weren't bad at all, which was surprising, considering how cheesy and long Indian films' musicals are these days. And you'll be happy to know that the Indian costumes are very far from being cheesy as you'll get.

The beginning of the film was kind of slow, the middle was really good, the scenes leading to the climax were pretty dramatic, but the ending was just awesome! I have a few gripes and complaints about the DVD, however. While I loved the widescreen aspect ratio of the DVD, I didn't like the fact that several other things were left out of the DVD. For starters, there are no subtitles. Now English being my first language, it's not a problem. However, when some of the Indian actors and actresses spoke, it was (at times) difficult to understand what they were saying; captioning would have helped.

Another thing that I would have appreciated on the DVD would be a blooper reel or some kind of collection of outtakes. And lastly, how about a menu feature that would allow us to skip right to the musical numbers? Man, some of those songs were really good! On the flip side, I throughly enjoyed watching the making of Marigold.

I have tons more to say regarding the awesomeness of this film and how much I liked it, but I don't have the time nor do I want to keep on writing why I enjoyed it so much. I hope that Salman Khan does more English films in addition to his Hindi films and I certainly hope this Hindi film will not be Ali Larter's last Bollywood film. And I encourage the director to continue making Bollywood film hybrids featuring Salman Khan, Ali Larter and other big name actors - just make sure the scripts are original and good.

10\/10 - this is just a great love story film that your entire family can enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you have ever seen a Bollywood movie, you know they are longer than most movies due to the multiple song and dance routines (each one is over five minutes long). Fortunately, this one has fewer song and dance routines and fits into the \"standard\" movie length. Don't get me wrong, I like Bollywood movies, but tend to fast forward through the song and dance portions. I bought this DVD because I am an Ian Bohen fan. Although his role wasn't as large as I hoped, he still had a good amount of screen time. And his character was much different than his other roles.

Overall, this was a good movie. Like most Bollywood movies, there is at least one element of controversy\/conflict of the traditional Indian culture. But true love triumphs over adversity and a happy ending is had by all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you are looking for a movie that doesn't take itself seriously... than Haggard is for you. I must say before i write anything more, that if you have not seen any of the CKY (Camp Kill Yourself) videos than the movie most likely won't be AS funny. My advice is to watch a few clips of those videos that Bam and his friends made. Haggard does not take itself seriously AT all, and that was never the purpose. Throughout the movie you will have random moments that have nothing to do with the plot, which may get annoying but its nothing that is out of control. Even through all that the plot does stay focused and the story of Ryan Dunn's character does unfold quite nicely. This plot i have been told is based off a true story (for the most part)of Ryan Dunn's ex-girlfriend. Brandon Dicamillo is by far the best character in the movie. He has a lot of talent and knows how to make people laugh. He stole the movie if you ask me. Overall I love this movie for its simplicity and straight up weirdness. Its a Bam movie people, its not going to be normal. Haggard is filled with hilarious quotes that my friends and I constantly used since the first time we saw it. I've seen the movie 6-7 times and still find new things every time. The soundtrack is just as good. Everything from Gnar Kill to New Order and some techno. Just don't go into the movie with high expectations, let it all unfold and then judge it for what it is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie Haggard is one of the funniest movies of all time. It features the cast from CKY (the movies) and also has a GREAT soundtrack. If you have seen any CKY or Viva La Bam you will notice that everybody (from those two) are in it. Including Bam's parents and many other people.

The story is about Ryan Dunn's girlfriend Glauren (Jennifer Rivall) cheating on him, and him trying to get back at her. He does this by having Valo (Bam) and Falcone (Dicamillo) vandalize her house. There are many different characters with many different stories.

There is great music on the soundtrack. Bands such as Him & Her, CKY, Gnar Kill, Daniel Lioneye. Iggy and the Stooges Pop, and New Order.

If you do not like Viva La Bam or CKY (the movies) I doubt you will like this. If you DO like that stuff...this movie is great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie at a video store and, being the Bam Margera fan I am, had to rent it to see what it was all about. Since I have a huge and stupid (note the word stupid) sense of humor, I found this movie absolutely hilarious. Some of the parts are pointless and random, but that's what makes them so amusing. You'll need to think things like getting slapped in the face and bashed on the head with a watermelon are funny in order to appreciate this movie. I was really impressed.

I was also surprised at the acting. These people actually did a good job. Nothing Oscar worthy, but well enough to get past the amateur level. Teens and young adults would probably find this more entertaining because of the modern slang and situations used. I wouldn't suggest watching this with your parents and vice versa.

All in all, the acting was great, the script was hilarious, and the story is really something you can relate to.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't know what to expect from this. I always considered Bam Margera and the CKY crew a team of knuckle heads devoted to to doing stupid things for entertainment. I didn't know that they could act. But everyone who acted in this movie pulled off good performances. The hilarity of the 'aaaaagh!' scene mixes in with Ryan Dunn's depression and his revenge against his ex-girlfriend perfectly. At times the movie some scenes seem pointless but at the same time they're funny. I recommend this to anyone who likes a good laugh but this film may not appeal to those that prefer detailed story lines and a series of twists and turns.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first heard of this movie, I was mildly interested. The plot seemed like an opportunity for hilarity and Bam Margera as an actor and director seemed like something that might be good. When I found out the movie starred Ryan Dunn, I was even further interested (I was a fan of Homewrecker when it was on... Yeah, I'm that lame). However, I didn't have much faith in it being to good. When I sat down to watch it, I was afraid I was wasting my time.

But even just five minutes it it became apparent that I'd been wrong.

I thought that the comedy of this film was delightfully idiotic, and definitely not suited for all kinds of people. The acting was rather good, much better than my expectations. I thought that it was rather easy to relate to Ryan's character, which gave the movie a center that was believable. This is key in a movie as outrageous as this (and is probably why I was not a fan of Borat).

The movie is not suitable at all for younger people, DUH, and will definitely create more than it's fair share of awkward turtles if watched with parents. But it's a good one for you and your buddies on a movie night.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie and I watch it everyday. I think that although the acting isn't all that great, it's really just a bunch of guys having fun with a script. I had been looking all over for this movie, for almost a year, and when I found it for thirty dollars, I just had to get it. It is now, by far my favorite movie of all time. It deals with relationship failure, and at the same time making a joke of it. I loved all the parts with Don Vito, especially the one where Valo asks him for a grape when they're sitting on the porch, and He tells him to eat the one rolling down the porch. IT really portrays him as he really is. The part in the \"Making Of\" really touched me, when they adressed Brandon Novak's addiction to heroin, and how much his friends and family were trying to help him. A new movie that's in the making, called \"Dreamseller,\" is in production, which is about the story of Novak's dreams, shattered by his addiction.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One word for it. Hilarious. I haven't watched at movie like this in a long time. At points in the movie, I totally forgot it was a movie, I just felt like I was back watching Viva La Bam, or even watching say, my own friend going through something like this. It was realistic and I liked how Bam, Ryan, Raab, Rake, and Brandon and the rest of the guys didn't try to hard too actually act. They, to me, were just acting like their famous idiot selves. There were a few scenes that I adored more than others, like Raab in the shower, holy, I laughed so hard. He honestly was probably my favourite character besides Bam's. He really, in my opinion, made the movie just a bit more hilarious. It's basically a must see for any fans of the CKY crew:]","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie with hopes of a good laugh but when I watched it I didn't stop laughing for weeks, they are such bad actors and it made this movie so much funnier to watch. ( BTW Ryan Dunn didn't eat the toy car, he shoved it up his ass) The random appearances from the skaters and Vitos parts were great. Gimme some grapes Vito.! No Valo, your grapes are at the store. I wouldn't recommend any one under 13 to watch it, frankly they wouldn't understand half of the jokes in or what they are talking about. I love VLB and after watching this movie I couldn't help but go buy it or the Viva La Bam series. What is the deal with this stupid comment thing? It has to be 10 lines what kind of Bull-sh1t is that? I should be able to write one as long or in this case as short as I want. I'm just going to keep typing until it tells me I can actually send it. Its just a waste of time, I expected to just say what I wanted, it wasn't too much but then I'm told I have to keep putting more in and then it corrects my spelling, so what if I didn't spell something right, you get what I mean still. This is ridiculously long.

~Those who live by the Sword get shot by those who don't~","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Haggard: The Movie\" is well written, well directed, and well acted. There are many laugh out loud moments and some terrific skateboarding scenes featuring Margera. The scenes of West Chester, PA are filmed beautifully and the script is just downright funny. What I like about the movie is that instead of being another sappy love story or another version of \"Jackass\", it takes a darkly funny look at break-ups from a different perspective. Most break-up films feature a naive woman jilted by a cheating man. She then goes on to find Mr. Right and gets to tell her cheating ex to get lost. This movie takes a look at the emotional roller-coaster of a jilted man... without taking itself too seriously. Ryan Dunn does an excellent job as the jilted man and with Bam Margera and Brandon Dicamillo as your best friends trying to help you through this rough time, how can you take anything too seriously? It is obvious that Margera and Co. are incredibly talented both behind and in front of the camera. I look forward to their future films and endeavors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"haggard doesn't even need to be graded, since it was never designed to be graded like Oscar-winning movies are and it was never intended to have won an Oscar (obviously). if you just look at some of the stuff that Bam and Bran tried, like the fast-motion shots, it comes across as a film thats something more than just cky or jackass (even though those are cool too). For pure enjoyability i definitely give this film a 10; almost every scene made me laugh until my sides hurt, like falcone's trail movie. If you haven't seen this, see it and then buy it. Personally my favorite character is brandon (falcone), he's just so smooth and natural and random that its hilarious, he freestyles great (with the action figures) and makes up the funniest stuff- lol a diamond mountain bike? haggard is definitely a movie that in overall humor is only rivaled by anchorman and napoleon dynamite.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film had everything i need in a film: - Women, skateboarding, violence, music by H.I.M and Tony Hawk!!! the artwork and camera effects in this film is amazing. The music in this film is the best I've heard in any other film. Each track goes so well with its scene. I thought the acting was really good considering none of Bams crew have been in scripted films before. Although the whole concept of the film is the story of Ryan Dunn and his girlfriend (Glauren) who is sleeping with Hellboy behind his back is a predictable and age old story. They way its acted out is very unpredictable, for example: Falcone and the gas tank, Raab Himself, Dunn breaking bottles behind the wawa and all the Don Vito scenes. This films is a must see!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"totally genius film from the CKY crew......(not the jackass boys.....johnny knoxville, chris pontius, steve-o etc are not in this

film). OK so maybe they'r not the best actors but its not what you call a serious film......but hey there havin fun and its totally funny to watch. who doesn't want to see don vito dressed as a roman emperor!

a total must if you like viva la bam or CKY............ an amazing soundtrack provided by the almighty HIM, CKY and others...... check out the extra features on the DVD especially Bran's freestyle

Chinese rap number two......seriously hilarious........... check this film out........you wont regret it......... 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have never before seen a movie quite like this, nor as funny. I laughed my goddamned ass off and have watched it repetitively. Infact I am watching it now. Chad from CKY is hot too. Anyway if you never liked it, blow it out your ass, you have no taste. The movie involves Ry (Ryan Dunn) having just broke up with his girlfriend turning to Valo (Bam Margera) and Falcone (Brandon DiCamillo) for help in finding out exactly what she done with \"Hellboy\" (Rake Yohn), and with the help of Raab (Chris Raab\/Raab Himself) they do just that.

The fender bender scene and the scene with Cactus at Record Bin were hilarious.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know what it is about the crew from CKY, but everything they produce seems to be genius in its simplicity and stupidity. Haggard is so incredibly dumb and funny that it's almost comedic excellence. Sometimes it makes absolutely no sense, but who cares?

It made me laugh my ass off. A must-have for the CKY\/Jackass aficionado!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I personally found the film to be great. I had it on pre-order for a month and watched it twice the day I got it in the mail, and several time since.. Yes, the time lapses may be a bit much, but the rest of the movie clearly compensates for it. All amature cast, yet the acting was right on for each part. The plot itself is just... haggard! There's no other way to describe it. Who makes a movie about someone getting f**gered!??? BAM, thats who. Genius. Simply genius. Two thumbs up. I would be honored to work with him any day, any time, on any thing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is simply awesome. It is so hilarious. Although the skating and other montages are played out, the comedy is awesome. Raab Himself and Brandon Dicamillo are hilarious. There will be moments when you can't breath you're laughing so hard. Plus, there are scenes that you can watch hundreds of times and still laugh. This is one of the funniest comedies I've ever seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If your expecting Jackass look somewhere else this an actual movie and for the budget well done the acting isnt top noth neither is the writing but the directing was there and so was the story definetly worth the rent and possibly the buy if you really enjoy it like i did. But for the person who just likes jackass rent it first.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie kicks ass, bar none. Bam and his crue have out done themselves with this film. Since I got the DVD (4 days ago) I have watched it three times and it gets better every time I watch it. I can't wait for Grind to come out in theaters. If its anything like Haggard it will be worth the wait.

Thanks, JTcellphone","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie was fantastic. If your a fan of Bams' cky videos, jackass, or his show Viva la Bam, you cant help but like it. I have a few friends who aren't fans that enjoyed it, and others who thought it wasn't that great. Those who didn't like it were mostly female friends, they really didn't appreciate some of the crude humor, that personally i think made the movie so funny. I'm pretty sure the entire movie was filmed in Bams home town, which includes a lot of his regularly visited locations. The cast of is made up of all his friends and cky buddies, and also includes some big name pro skateboarders too. The soundtrack is phenomenal, with music by HIM. In my opinion, Haggard has it all. A great plot, characters you'll never see anywhere else. Plenty of humor great music and a cast that was dedicated to the project.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had been waiting to see this movie for so long and finally got to yesterday. In summary I'm glad I finally did. The humor is off the wall hilarious. The plot is so unbelievably believable that it has to have at least some truth for it . If anything stood out in this movie it is most definitely the coffee shop scene. I have been there every guy has . You get dumped. You find out that your ex has fooled around with some guy who you are sure is an asshole. Now every time you see anything for the next few days you just get horrible thoughts of this placed in all the wrong areas . She is screwing everyone and everyone knows it. I could probably watch that man lick and finger his wallet all day long and look back at myself and laugh for having been there too .","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Set in Bam Margera's hometown of Westchester PA, 'Haggard' is a semi-true story about the life of Ryan Dunn and his buddies Falcone and Vallo.

Dunn has been dumped by his girlfriend of 2 years, Glauren, who is now seeing a beer swilling, long haired metal head named 'Hellboy' and this is driving Dunn insane with jealousy.

In a desperate attempt to find out the truth about what is going on between Glauren and Hellboy, Dunn pays his friends Vallo and Falcone to break into her house and produce evidence of the affair, with somewhat disastrous results for all concerned! I found this movie very funny, maybe partly because I am a total Jackass and CKY fan, and it has to be said that a lot of the humour will probably be lost on those that do not have prior knowledge of Margera insane brand of 'comedy'.

The movie contains much that will be of interest to skaters, not least the cameo appearance of skateboarding legend, Tony Hawk as a police officer. There are also cameo's from Bucky Lasek, Brandon Novak, Jason Ellis, and Bam's long suffering parents, April and Phil.

The DVD extra's include music video's from CKY (featuring Bam's Brother Jess on drums), and Bam's favourite band, HIM (Bam's character in the movie takes his name from HIM frontman Ville Vallo) There is also a documentary and a \"too hot for jackass\" skit.

In summary, as I said before, this movie will mainly be of interest to skaters and Jackass\/CKY fans, but I do feel that Margera and co have made a great effort with 'Haggard' and I for one, thoroughly enjoyed it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While some of the things in Haggard are dumb and unnecessary, the overall package is good.

Haggard follows Ryan Dunn and his friends Valo (Bam Margera) and Falcone (Brandon Dicamillo) trying to win back Glauren (Jenn Rivell), Ryan's ex.

The story is followed and developed surprisingly well, it doesn't wonder off and become an episode of Jackass or Viva La Bam, although it does have a side story which doesn't hurt the main story.

And, for all the Bam fan boys (And girls) there are multiple sequences of Bam skateboarding, perhaps the weakest aspect of the film. Phil makes 2 surprisingly small appearances, even Don Vito got a bigger (but pointless) roll.

If you are hoping to see a comedy and escape Bam's craziness, then stay away from this movie, otherwise, enjoy the time you spend with it, if you can find it. There are some truly funny scenes in this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I bought this movie just to see Bam because i was really loving him, but after seeing this i don't like him much. I mean, his acting was good and everything i guess, but whenever it showed the totally unnecessary skate scenes i was just saying to myself, \"Alright, we know you're a professional skateboarder, now can we get back to Ryan Dunn?\" Dunn, Rake, and Brandon really made the movie in my perspective.

I noticed that Jenn Rivell, (obviously), and Missy Rothstein were both in Haggard, but who Bam was dating at the time? Anyways, i actually enjoyed Haggard and i think it's really like no other movie i've ever seen. It's sort of in it's own category.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just bought this movie yesterday night, and I LOVE it. Everyone did great acting in it, especially Ryan Dunn and Bam Margera. The whole plot was great, and as Dunn said in the extras on the DVD, they made it seem like he was reliving the whole thing all over again. This movie has made my number one spot in my favorite movies! I can't stop replaying scenes over and over again, just to see it again. I've never done that with any other movie. I would definitely recommend this to other people to watch, because it is such a great movie, and if you like Bam Margera, it's a perfect movie for you!! The little montages that they show in between every scene are just great. I think that those have to be my favorite parts of the movie. They are very sad, with mostly music from the band 'HIM,' which of course is my favorite band.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alright, let me break it down for ya... Haggard is probably one of the funniest pointless movies you'll ever see. It's got a mixture of a unique storyline about a guy having girl troubles and everything going backwards for him mixed in with countless humorous scenes that will keep you laughing throughout the whole movie, basically, if you've seen jackass or the CKY series, you'd know what to expect for humor, considering it has most of the people from those movies. Overall... i just had to give it a 10\/10 because its one of my favorite movies of all time.

~F0rs4k3n

(P.S.) Haggard rules!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Haggard: The Movie is the real life story of Ryan Dunn, and his girlfriend who cheated on him, also with the help from his two friend, 1. A skate boarder who lives for nothing, and, 2. A trying-to-be funny scientist (which doesn't really work) played by Bam Margera and Brandom Dicamillo.

The film Haggard The Movie also has a lot of the characters from Jackass, etc, but to say it was written by Bam Margera and Co. this is a very weak attempt, seems to me like it was written when he was bored, or as a project with they did not pay a lot of attention to.

The films also stars Bam's girlfriend Jennifer Rivell, who plays Glauren, Ryan's girlfriend who basically cheated on him, again very bad acting by Jennifer, another actor that some people may be interested in is Steve a.k.a Hellboy, played by RakeYohn, which his character does not seem to be with the story, again bad acting, also this character does not really have a lot of lines in this film which basically makes it very boring. but worst of all, is Raab's character, the voice sound like a smoker who basically has throat cancer, also i think he could have been improved! Overall i think the characters in this film aren't with the story, like in one scene, it would be on one certain character, a minute later, a different scene, different character.

To say that this is supposed to be a film, sort of a documentary, its not played by the characters as a documentary, the acting makes you think that its a cheap attempt at making a film with your spare time.

Towards the middle of the film we start to lose focus on the main character Ryan Dunn, although a lot of the attention is on Bam and Brandon.

In conclusion this film is OK, if you laugh at things that aren't very funny, stupid stunts, terrible acting and the occasional nude scene!, Also i think there there are too many scenes of just no talking and just music! 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having read all of Sarah Waters books i was eagerly looking forward to a BBC adaptation of Fingersmith. Especially since Tipping the Velvet had been done so well by old familiar Andrew Davies.

I was not disappointed with the results, in fact i think this might be on a par with TTV; both romantic and entertaining. And not as so many ignorant people would have you believe, a pointless lesbian romp. Having been a fan of Elaine Cassidy's since seeing her guileless turn in Felicia's Journey i thought she embodied both hard deception and a growing fragility as Maud. Her transformation was believable and impressive to watch. I recognised Sally Hawkins as Zena Blake from Tipping the Velvet, a small role primarily so i didn't have as many expectations but she was astounding in the role of Sue Trinder. Her eyes were mesmerising conveying everything from rage to absolute despair. The two of them acting together, combining these talents made this drama unmissable. Of course Imelda Staunton was amazing as usual, she is unmistakably a national treasure and the supporting cast were all of a high standard. Even the direction from the fairly unknown Aisling Walsh used contrasting yet beautiful shades of blue for Briar and brown for London.

However as much praise must be given to Ransley the script writer. To turn a 600 page book where every line is of the highest quality into a three hour extravaganza is a huge feat. He illuminated the main revelations at a steady pace whilst giving us plenty of back-story and character development at the same time. He has my full admiration.

In conclusion, a brilliant adaptation where all involved gave 100% and making this one of the best BBC dramas i've seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love Sarah Waters's Fingersmith, and was worried about the TV adaptation as I'd been disappointed by the BBC's version of Tipping the Velvet (which although beautiful to look at was let down by Keeley Hawes not being able to sing, and Rachael Stirling not being able to act). Fingersmith is a very tightly plotted novel with breath taking twists and turns and I wondered if this could be done justice to in just 3 hours.

I needn't have worried. The adaptation was excellent, very little cut out, and went along at a cracking pace (although I did wonder whether if you hadn't read the book, would you miss things?). It had the look and feel of a BBC classic costume drama and i kept having to remind myself that this is a contemporary book.

The acting was stellar. Sally Hawkins acting her heart out as Sue Trinder, and Elaine Cassidy, a slow burner, who by the end of the story was incandescent as Maud Lilley. The love, the passion, the realisation of the acts of betrayal both would have to perform, were written on their faces. It was a joy to watch.

I hope Rachael Stirling was watching: that's how you play a Sarah Waters character!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having read the book prior to watching this adaptation you would think that it would have lost some of its thrill. However, the story is so clever I could never tire of it.

Sally and Elaine really put their hearts into their roles and brought out so much of the characters. I fell in love with the story and the women all over again.

Beautiful to watch thanks to direction, settings and costumery. Despite the plot speed of television, I don't feel that anything important was lost in transit. It had me on the edge of my seat throughout with lots of wonderful stomach-trembling moments. Enjoyed it thoroughly. This is the kind of television I have been waiting for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had never read any of Sarah Waters' novels, or watched Tipping the Velvet. I only heard about Fingersmith when i was flipping through \"The L word\" websites. The storyline of Fingersmith interested me, yet i passed it away, thinking \"Lesbian in Victorian period, that never ends well, i have enough of those lesbo series and movies that go no where\"

However, during Christmas my local DVD store gave Fingersmith a discount, i brought the DVD, and my life has never been more colourful

This mini series deserves to be cherished and praised. The acting is so great that i call it rare. Sally Hawkins, Elaine Cassidy, Rupert Evans, Imelda Staunton, and many more that i can't name all, brought light and darkness to their characters. Just by a little gesture, a little look, a little touch, they made their characters real and as a viewer, i couldn't help it but take them home, keep them close.

Fingersmith, sets in Victorian area, is a story of Sue-a thief who loves and lives with her \"Family\" of pick-pockets. Little did she know that her fate is linked to Maud Lily-a somewhat shy, timid girl grows up in a Mansion miles and miles away. Maud's mother left her a fortune, but Maud herself can't touch it, unless she married. Worst of all, Maud's uncle makes sure she never will by keeping her prisoned in the house.

Enter Mr Gentlement, a charming, good-looking thief with a heart as bad as any. He wants Maud's fortune for himself, and in order to do so he sets Sue up as Maud Lily's maid, asking Sue to Persuade Maud to elope with him. as time goes by, Things would be simple, if Sue didn't fall in love with Maud.

And things would be simple, if the story was what i have just told. I do not wish to spoil, so i would like to stop there. But i can asure you that everything is twisted and turned before you can even aware of what has happened. Once it happened, you then question what would happen next. On top of that, the story is filled with passion unlike any others. There are no self-searching, sexuality questioning, \"Oh my god do i like girls\" moments, because the girls in Fingersmith are buried so deep in their own darkness that they barely be able to care. the story with such twisted plot moves as smooth as water, running passionately, but strangely calm.

Weeks have passed since i watched \"Fingersmith\", yet Maud's eyes still haunt me, and Sue's words still warm my heart \"You pearl, you pearl, you pearl\", she said. And such pearl it is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm usually disappointed by what the media dubs \"lesbian\" movies these days: murderous bisexuals; psychotic murderous lesbians; women who experiment with other women, but end up with men at the end; ridiculously good-looking women who only get w\/ each other to turn men on, etc.

Thankfully, FINGERSMITH is on a very high pedestal above this garbage. It is a credible love story acted MARVELOUSLY by every cast member, down to the least of the supporting actors. Aside from having a very engaging central conflict, the romance between the heroines is well developed and believable thanks to Cassidy and Hawkins.

I have also seen TIPPING THE VELVET, but FINGERSMITH is far superior to the former, both in character\/conflict development and the quality of the acting.

FINGERSMITH is both satisfying and enjoyable to watch, offering lesbians everywhere a great follow-up act to BOUND.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was indeed an amazing adaption. I missed the first episode so I unfortunately missed out on the bonding between the characters and the smooth flow of the storyline. But as soon I watched the second and then the third instalment I was just blown away. I ordered the DVD less than a week later and unable to wait for it to come I went straight out and brought the book. From the moment I opened it I was hooked, I just couldn't put it down. I decided to finish the whole book before I dare watch the DVD at all. I preferred the book because it got inside the characters minds, you could understand totally where they were coming from and what there role was within the story. They missed a lot out of the adaption which was disappointing as the book is a master piece and I think they could have done it superbly if they had been able to stretch it over a longer period of time. But considering only being able to be fitted into a 3 hour slot I think it was done excellent. It followed the main twisted storyline brilliantly. And the actors which were enrolled as the main characters where amazing! The love making scene was pure beautiful. It was so tender and loving and just showed how natural homosexual love can be. I was totally blown away with both the book and the TV adaption! I loved both of Sarah Waters previous novels and also found the Tipping the Velvet adaption quite enjoyable. But when I read and watched Fingersmith I knew none of her previous novels\/adaption could beat it. Sarah Waters has indeed exceeded herself this time! I recommend that you watch this adaption! If Tipping the Velvet wasn't your thing, then don't let it put you off this one. Fingersmith is a whole new ball game. It is a beautiful yet dark twisted story about love, greed and betrayal...

A MUST SEE!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is always difficult to bring a 450 pages book down to a three hours film. I read the book before, and I found the BBC production dealing with this difficulty in the best way possible. The qualities of the book haven't been lost: the dense and lively depiction of a fingersmith patchwork family in London in the 1860s, the cold and obscene cruelty in which Maud is brought up, the characterization of different social groups by different ways of speaking, the unexpected and surprising twists of the story, the way the film makes the spectators look different at the same scenes when they are told first from Sue's point of view then from Maud's one. The main actors do very good, and especially the growing love between the two women is convincingly developed, with a first culmination in a very tender love scene between the two and finally forgiving all the evil they were ready to do and did to each other, because they still love each other.

For each of her books the author, Sarah Waters, has thoroughly investigated what life was like in British 19th century. While in Tipping the Velvet it was the world of the vaudeville theaters and the beginning of social movements, in Affinity the dreadful reality of women penitentiaries and the fashionable evocation of spirits, in Fingersmith she depicts the public ceremony of hanging people in London and the inhuman treatment of persons supposed or declared disturbed in asylums based on the reading of sources and scientific research. This is very well transferred to the film so that the corresponding scenes show a high grade of historic truth. I highly recommend this film production because it offers three hours of colorful Victorian atmosphere, vivid emotions, and suspense.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was incredible!!!! I did not know the back story on it so I needed to let it unfold before me on DVD. It had many twists and turns but still kept the story fresh and exciting. The acting by Elaine Cassidy was in a word Brilliant as well as Sally Hawkins. The storyline is rich with plausible occurrences as well as fresh ideas from the present.

There is truly something about Ms. Cassidy's eyes that leaves \"a mark.\" This movie is a refreshing look on the way in which we look at the 'victorian times' and how we view that society. A very worthwhile watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie recently and fell in love with it. I loved the storyline and the actors. It has a little of everything. I was completely taken by the unfolding of the story. It has so many surprises along the way. I highly recommend it. In fact, I loved it so much that I ran out and bought the book. I felt I had to read it in order to appreciate the art in the writing behind the movie. I also wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything that was in the book but kept out of the movie. I recommend people who love the movie to read the book because there is enough difference in the book, especially in the second episode, to want to read it. It has become my favorite movie. I am now a Sarah Waters and Elaine Cassidy fan!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I never dreamed when I started watching this DVD that I would be totally mesmerized by it within minutes. The story was completely absorbing and entertaining. The acting was superb. The biggest surprise of all was how I would be so completely enchanted by the love these two young women radiated across the screen. Their initial physical encounter for me was by far the most tender, romantic, delightful, vicariously enthralling love scenes I have ever witnessed on film. I literally stopped breathing. I could not believe the chemistry between the two actresses. With no nudity or graphic sex, they conveyed more passion and titillation than any American production could ever hope to evince. Bravo to the author, the screenwriter, the director and the cast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This TV adaptation of Sarah Waters' novel was so lovingly done I can hardly find the words to appreciate it. Not since \"Tipping the Velvet\" (also highly recommended) have I seen such a performance by the lead actresses, this time by Sally Hawkins and Elaine Cassidy. They acted with their souls, and this is what gets across to the audience! The supporting actors were well chosen, too, they made a great ensemble.

For those who think the story is just about a lesbian relationship - no, this is only one part. The other main theme is the betrayal of the person you love. And the plot has some further surprising twists. So the movie should be interesting for straight people or guys like me as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Historical drama is one of the areas where the British just can't be beat. So while i'm not a huge fan of the genre, i can usually be persuaded to watch something lite this if it's British and with decent actors.

I have never read anything by Sarah Waters, which is of course something i should do. Hence i didn't really know what to expect from this. I had heard that there would be a lesbian love story, but not much more. While watching it i found it to be a lot more interesting than i had anticipated. Without saying too much the twists and turns of the plot are unexpected as well as well-crafted. Although there were almost a twist too many somewhere, it took me a minute to get everything straight.

Production values are good, the actors are very solid and the pace is decent, although i found it to be a bit slow in the last half-hour. That might just be me though, i usually have a problem with movies dragging on after the plot is more or less finished. All in all though, this is a fairly enjoyable three hours. I recommend it to anyone interested in historical dramas.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The chemistry between Sally Hawkins and Elaine Cassidy was incredible. They were thoroughly convincing and genuinely likable in their roles. Imelda Staunton played the conniving Mrs. Sucksby brilliantly. Despite the fact that she was a dastardly opportunist, she somehow managed to have you sympathizing with her in the end. Rupert Evans played the slime-ball gentleman with sheer charm and snark. He was a scene stealer. The story itself was very unique, as was the manner in which it was told. The Victorian England setting featuring two lesbian lead characters was intriguing and delightful. There were some fantastic and unexpected twists and turns that really kept the audience engaged in the story. A wonderful cast and excellent story made this film superb.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is definitely one of the finest of its kind,. A Victrion age story of love, and, grit. The depth of its story line is one that will stir the inner most emotions of love, and hate, with some very interesting twists, this is a must have movie for not only the lesbian audiences, but, for all viewers. I can't say much more or I will spoil the experience for a new, young audience who might just be coming out. Another fine work for Sarah Waters. It also is a great way for Sally Hawkins to win over audiences who only get a brief glimpse of her talent in another Sarah Waters work, in \"Tipping the Velvet\".. It is also a must see..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"BBC's 3 hour adaptation of the novel by Sarah Waters...\"Fingersmith\". Life is tough without money, especially in Dickensian London. Dark deeds lead to despicable dilemmas.Is love really just a luxury for the rich and free ?? Elaine Cassidy as \"Maud Lilly\" and Sally Hawkins as \"Sue Trinder\" both give fantastic performances as the leading ladies asking this question ... OF EACH OTHER ...whilst Rupert Evans shines as the delightfully bad \"Gentleman\".. with great support from Imelda Staunton's \"Mrs Sucksby\", David Troughton's \"Mr Ibbs\" and Charles Dance's \"Uncle\". The plot twists and turns and I wasn't sure I could be led to care about characters able to hurt and use each other in this way... but somehow.. i do care... and thats because of the quality of the performances... love feels like love .. hate feels like hate... betrayal .. confusion.. well hopefully you get the idea and hopefully you will get the DVD and enjoy.( Elaine Cassidy is just great in this.. gorgeous in fact.... i have to declare i am in her fan club... Hi Elaine : )","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow! Where to start?

This adaptation of Sarah Waters' third novel is one of my all-time favorite movies!!!!!

I'm not to big on fiction novels (seriously I NEVER read fiction), but the book is just as FABULOUS as the film! Or should I say the film is just as FABULOUS as the book?! I JUST LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!

Anyway, I put off watching this three hour long film (2 part series on DVD, 3 part series on TV\/book) for about a year and half. It simply did not look that interesting...BOY WAS I SO WRONG!

I became immediately immersed into the rich and suspenseful plot...utterly enthralled! Just like the book, you cannot stop watching\/reading. It grasps your attention for the entire 3 hours...and when it does end...you wish it hadn't.

The story just flows so beautifully and you'll be wondering where the time went.

The lesbian subplot was just icing on the cake! The parts I love most are the subtle facial expressions and glances\/eye contact between the two characters. You really feel their desire for one another and yet they cannot act upon it.....until they must.

May I point out that the \"lesbian theme\" is an important part of the film, obviously, at the heart of the film is a genuine unexpected love story, but it is most certainly not what the whole movie is about. For me that's what makes this story so unique and intriguing. I've never read or heard of anything like it. Sarah Waters is pure genius!

The twists and turns it takes leaves you hanging on the edge of your seat. Seriously! My hands were clasped on to my couch with every surprising plot twist and I even yelled out several times (\"OH MY GOD! NO WAY! THAT DID NOT JUST HAPPEN! DID IT?\")...I NEVER do that!

The only negative thing I have to say about this film is that I wish they'd added more from the book. But obviously having the adaptation be restricted by time they couldn't add everything that I would've liked. How awful it is though...I think I'm just being brutally selfish now...forgive me.

The last 20 minutes does seem a little rushed. However, they put all the important bits in where even if you only watch the film and choose not to read the book you will be most satisfied with the outcome.

The actors are just SUPERB! BRILLIANT even! Sally Hawkins (Sue) and Elaine Cassidy (Maud) have such great on screen chemistry they steam up your television set. Simply electric! The emotions...the desperation...the struggle each of them feel is expressed seemingly effortless by these wonderfully talented actresses. Rupert Evans plays such a good bad guy as Gentleman. I found myself seething every time he came on screen, but loving it because he's just so damn cute and somehow still charming even though you want to wring his neck. Imelda Staunton gives yet another fantastic performance as Mrs. Sucksby. She's such a warmhearted actress you cannot help but love her...even when the character she's playing isn't as delightful. Everyone else in the cast were perfect! They really represented the characters well and were just as I imagined them to be after reading the book.

This is a must see for any film buff! Actually, ANYONE and EVERYONE should see this movie AND read the book! Chances are you won't be disappointed!

10\/10 stars from me! There are only four other films I have given that same rating too. Its very rare for me to actually enjoy a film so much that I give it 10\/10. This is one of those films. Fingersmith is truly a masterpiece!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not exactly sure why I ordered \"Fingersmith\" from Netflix -- probably, because I enjoy BBC dramas, it was on a list of recommendations. I had no idea what I was about to see. The plot, which I will only describe in general so as not to spoil it for anyone who will see it after reading my review, has more twists and turns than a mountain road in the Rockies, of the sort that customarily appear in \"caper\" movies. They are very unusual in a period drama. Not having read the novel (and I do not intend to do so), I was totally unprepared for the surprise that ends the first segment on the DVD and equally surprised by the subsequent twists and turns. Nonetheless, it is extremely well acted by the two young principals (by Sally Hawkins,in particular, as Sue and by Elaine Cassidy as Maud) and, in key supporting roles, by Imelda Staunton as the mother figure in a house of thieves and by Charles Dance as the rich uncle who collects pornographic materials and who rescues young Maud from the mad house where her mother lived to be his secretary. The lesbian affair between Maud and Sue is the \"big news\" in the movie, but really not its centerpiece. The centerpiece is a plot to steal the fortune that Maud is due on her 21st birthday. The turns and twists in the plot add tension, though not much credibility, to the movie. However, no viewer is likely to doubt that Maud and Sue will somehow end up together -- improbably -- as the credits roll. Although one has been raised as a ady, and serves a collector of pornography, and the other is a pickpocket posing as a lady's maid, the author obviously means for them to live together in the end. It's a bit difficult to swallow, since each has conspired to cheat the other. Despite these reservations, I liked movie well enough. It does not quite deserve the praise that others have lavished on it. The most fearsome and interesting scenes take place inside the madhouse where one of the two young women has been confined until she is able to escape and return to London to bring the story to its unexpected conclusion. Sally Hawkins (Sue) is a very impressive young actress, able to convey her character's cascading and changing emotions with her facial expressions and her eyes. No doubt we'll see more of her. I certainly hope so.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story was well plotted and interesting by itself. However, it is difficult for me to write the review of this film without spoiling you. To avoid that, I am not going to talking the story here.

I regard this film as a good adaption of Sarah Water's book, as compared with the previous one \"Tipping the velvet\". I read the book first and then watched the DVD later. The film did retain most of spirits of the main characters in the book. Of course, due to the time limitation, the film in the last 30 min seemed to be in a rush to cover the part III of the book. Therefore, it couldn't illustrate well the scene when they all met in the the kitchen of Mr. Ibbs's place and those after that (even the book seemed to me to be a rush on that kitchen scene). Despite that, the film actually did a good job in representing the story. It really worth watching. It's still unclear when BBC-America can broadcast this film. That's pity.

PS: noticed that the ages of Maud and Sue were set to be 20-21 instead of 17-18 in the book; the latter is more reasonable while the former is more close to the ages of actresses.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"London 1862, a young orphan named Susan Trinder (Sally Hawkins) grows up amongst the petty thieves known as Fingersmiths, under the guidance of Mrs. Suckerby (Imelda Staunton).

One evening, Richard \"The Gentleman\" Rivers (Rupert Evans) pays them a visit.

Rivers has an elaborate plan to defraud the wealthy heiress, Maud Lilly (Elaine Cassidy).

Susan agrees to help for a cut of the money, and is quickly installed as Muad's maid.

Upon arriving, she discovers that Maud is virtually a prisoner in her own house, as Uncle Chritopher (Charles Dance) controls every detail of her life.

As the plan begins to unfold, Susan finds herself developing an intimate relationship with the lady of the house.

Adapted from the novel by Sarah Waters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After watching Tipping the Velvet by Sarah waters i decided to watch Fingersmith, the characters were just as good in both performances, though missing Rachael Stirling in the adaptation of Fingersmith.

The story line overall was of a good choice, the twisting and the unravelling of the characters were amazing! Excellent watch only missing Rachael Stirling!

If you do enjoy the romance of two girls this isn't one of the best films to watch.

It takes on a different spin from Tipping The Velvet but just as good.

Would recommend it to everyone!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have never read Sarah Water's book. Although I have not read the book, the 3 hour movie is very interesting. It begins with an interesting storyline with a twisted ending. I have to say these 2 actresses are amazing. Sally Hawkins is stunning successfully portrayed the character in love with her mistress and betrayed by her love. Their romance slowly blossoms as they spend more and more time together. The love making scene is very tender and emotional, well acted. The end is quite intriguing and these 2 ended up together after all they have been thru, which is a bless. Overall, it is a great movie to see, a very interesting plot with excellent performances.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this series after Tipping the Velvet, for which I gave 10\/10 grade. I had read user comments on this and I expected an equally good series, or if possible, even better. At this point I must emphasize that this series is good, and it definitely captured me throughout it and thus worth watching. However, I didn't enjoy it as much as Tipping the Velvet, for the following reasons:

1. Less passion, love, and related sexual content. There were surprisingly little emphasis in these elements, which I held integral for a love story. Fingersmith felt like a watered down version of Tipping the Velvet.

2. Similarly, as in Tipping the Velvet, the story had three parts: the beginning, a shocking second part, and the ending. The second part should have been the climax of the story (as in Tipping the Velvet), but instead it was almost totally skipped, perhaps due to inability to make shocking but believable asylum content. The series should have been in three parts, featuring two cliffhangers, with a lot more focus on the second part.

3. Almost no weight was given to what Fingersmiths were and how it affected their personalities. I found it rather annoying that the series did not properly address such central topic.

4. The ending was much more hasty than in Tipping the Velvet. Fingersmith left several interesting plot lines open.

Despite these shortcomings, Fingersmith is a good series, and well worth 7\/10. However, it is not a classic like Tipping the Velvet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a funny, intelligent and, in a sense, realistic comedy about a 14-year-old trying to live her first love while on vacation, and also about the complex, sometimes amusing, sometimes touching, relation between a divorced father and her growing daughter... and about how far a women (not only Nicole, the teen-ager) can go to get the man she loves! I laughed a lot with this lively scenario that never drags.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My Father The Hero used to be my favorite movie when I was Younger. It's about Andre, a divorced french man who wants to take his beautiful daughter (katharine heigl} on a vacation, hoping to get a little closer to her. But of course, Nicole isn't that easy to get along with, she just started puberty, i'm guessing. She is angry and hurt that her father was never there for her and decides to give him a hard time. One day at the beach, Nicole meets handsome Ben, and she makes up a wild story about her and her dad. The whole island gets involved and the movie turns into a hilarious wild entertaining movie. I would give My Father The Hero 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a great movie this is. I found it full of the delightfully unexpected pain of being a single father of a teenage girl. And it is set in a tropical island 'paradise'as well.

Gerard Depardeiux brings his special European flair to this story about a divorced father of a teenage girl. They are on holiday together and she begins to add to the excitement on the island in many unexpected ways. But you will need to see the film for yourself to see all the hilarious situations they find for themselves.

There are a few cult classics which all teens should see. This movie should be added to the list. In addition to Dirty Dancing, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Rocky Horror Picture Show and Animal House, My Father the Hero should be required film study. Watch it as if you had a teenage daughter and you'll be rolling with laughter. Watch it with your teenage daughter and prepare to be laughed at for months.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think is a great and a VERY funny movie. The story is so funny. The daughter Nicole brings her father Andre, in some very embarrassing situations In an effort to impress the boy of her dreams, the daughter pretends that her father is her lover.You just have to see!! Heigl is lovely as Nicole, perhaps too lovely; I'm not sure why she'd need to lie to hook anyone? Gerard Depardieu Acts very great in this comedy film, he is so fun to watch. If you like comedy and romantic film you just have to see this!!! I think you can see this film many time, and you will still have a good laugh.

In an effort to impress the boy of her dreams, the girl pretends that her father is her lover.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"MY Father the hero is sweet, funny and cute. Gerard Depardiu is awesome as Andre, a divorced father who takes his fourteen year old daughter Nicole(Kathrine Heigl) to the Caribbean for vacation.While there, his daughter meets a guy named Ben(Dalton James. To impress him, she tells him that Andre is her lover and that her father is in jail for armed robbery and her mother is a prostitute and that she ran off with her pimp. Everyone on the island is soon under the impression that Andre's a child molester. Andre is between two relationships. One with Isabelle(Emma Thompson, who makes a cameo in the end of the film) and Diana(Faith Prince from Spin City). My father the Hero has many funny moments. Like when he's at a talent show and everyone tells him to play something french. So he plays \"Thank Heaven for Little Girls\" from Gigi. Everyone gets disgusted and leaves. My Father the Hero doesn't deserve a 5.1. I think it deserves a 9.0.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have a problem with the movie snobs who consider Americans to be uncouth semi - literates unable to appreciate the subtlety of the more sophisticated Europeans,les Francais,les Italiens...just about anybody from le continong to whom English is a foreign language.If the humour in \"My Father the Hero\" is different from that in \"Mon Pere ce heros\" it is because the French sense of humour is different from that of the American.Not better,not \"more clever\",just different. If you think it is crass for Hollywood to \"borrow\" from the French cinema just consider how much the French cinema has borrowed from Hollywood in the first place.Where would Belmondo and Delon have been without Bogart?Truffaut without Hitchcock?Jerry Lewis - not known for his subtle and cerebral style is idolised in France.Go figure........ Monsieur Depardieu is exceptionally good as the hapless divorced father of a precocious 14 year old daughter on holiday in the Bahamas together. Unbeknowst to him,she presents him to the other people at the hotel as her lover so as to make herself more interesting to a boy she has her eye on .Not surprisingly,complications ensue. There are \"hommages\" to \"Green Card\" and \"Cyrano de Bergerac\" amusingly inserted and M.Depardieu goes along with it all very good - naturedly. He does a good Maurice Chevaler impression with \"Thank Heaven for little girls\" which is in fact funny and rather poignant as his audience,all of whom believe him to be the lover of a 14 year old girl,get up and leave two - by - two as he warbles away,blissfully unaware of what is happening.When he turns round at the end of the song to acknowledge the expected applause the expression on his face is priceless. Without him the movie would be very average indeed.With his huge shambling figure dominating the screen it is a lot of fun.No pecs,no six pack - just a real proper human - type being.Formidable!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is another case of Hollywood Arrogance presuming to eclipse French Style. The original, Mon Pere ce heros, was one of the most charming films of 1991 so naturally the accountants in Hollywood thought they could hire Depardieu and phone the rest in. They did, however, take the precaution of hiring Francis Veber to write an English version albeit one utilising virtually every word of the original. Depardieu brings his Gallic charm and Katherine Heigl shows all the promise that is now paying off. The thing is that when the French make a sort of Lolita-lite they get away with it because the 'dirty French postcard' thinking works in their favour; here the Hollywood idea of lightweight subtlety is to have Depardieu (totally unaware that his daughter has let it be known he is actually her lover), prevailed upon to play and song 'something French', launch into a spirited version of Thank Heaven For Little Girls. See the original.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favourite movies EVER... I have seen it about a million times and would never turn down the opportunity to watch it again. In fact, I love it so much that I REALLY wanted to check out the resort where it was filmed on my upcoming vacation... does anyone know the name of it? If so, please email me!!! I watched this movie for the first time when it was first released and I was about Nikki's age and for the longest time I bugged my dad to take me to away somewhere because of course I expected the same thing to happen to me! It's just such an amazing setting and such a cute puppy-love story. This is a definite DVD collector's must!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a funny movie, there's not a lot of those. OK, the plot is a bit disturbing, but very original. A teen trying to get even with dad, because he hasn't been around and almost sending him to jail because she lie to impress an older boy, how could that not be funny? Plus it not the typical movie featuring teens. First remake i've seen, that is better than the original, the only problem with both: Gerard Depardieu. With another actor this would be a perfect 10, because he plays all rolls the same way, sucks. Another problem it's all the women melting over him, that's not remotely believable, he is not attractive!, y had a rubber troll that was better looking than him, come on!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best romantic movies I have ever seen. Especially girls who can identify with Nicole will love it(not only because of the handsome Dalton James) I also liked the music very much. A highlight was land of the sea and sun from baha-man. So watch the movie and enjoy it","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is one of my all time favourite films. its one of those films where i know every line but can still watch it repeatedly without losing interest. i always throw on this film if I'm going on holiday, or if i don't want to go to the gym, just seeing Nikki's gorgeous body will give me the motivation i need. Its an easy to watch film which always keeps me smiling but i know it wont be everyones cup of tea, but if like me you love films that are shot beautifully and have comedy, romance and an interesting plot you will love it. It is filled with great characters and Ben and Nikki are both gorgeous so anyone can stare at something appealing. BOTTOM LINE......YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT A TRY! I watched it on TV one day by fluke and loved it that i had to go out and track it down which took some time and i could watch it everyday. MY FATHER THE HERO I LOVE YOU!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this film, it is excellent and so funny, Ben is FIT and i wouldn't mind meeting him on holiday!! I rate this film a 10 because its gr8 and i hope they never re make it because it would never be the same. Funny bit is wen Andre is looking at the moon,and he shouts at Nicole to 'come outside and look at the moon' that bit always makes me laugh and never gets old. Another thing is Nicole looks a lot older then 14... but shes a gr8 actress. But i need help with something Does n e 1 no the name of the song played at the end wen Nicole and Andre are dancing??? Its really bugging me because i want 2 no what it is because its a nice song!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's one of my favorite movies as much because of the location and music as the story line. Don't matter how many times I watch it, it doesn't seem to ever get old. I can almost say all the lines along with the characters now. The movie is supper funny and really sweet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can honestly tell you that this movie is the most awesome movie ever!!! If you are in the mood for a comedy, I totally recommend this movie! So, here's the summary. There is this girl(Nikki) who is fourteen and a half and she goes on a vacation with her father(Andre) whom she hasn't seen for about two years. She expects the vacation to be totally boring, until she meets this boy(Ben), who is much older than she is. So, to try to impress him she says that she isn't on vacation with her father, but her lover. This is a hysterical movie from beginning to end, and I highly suggest it. So rent it and enjoy!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At first it seems the topical romance movie where a girl meets a boy and fall in love, but the point is that this movie has a feeling others don't have.The first time i saw it i couldn't see it complete because i had to leave.But while i was walking along i thought i must see it again but i didn't have any opportunity by then.One year went by until i saw this movie in a not-free channel and i saw it and i recorded it too.I saw it once,twice...until 200 times and not kidding.I did know all the dialogues by hart and i don't know why but i saw it everyday and never got bored.And i have to say that I'm not used to see a movie more than twice.The act is very good.Gerard Depardieu is a talented actor and katherine heigl too.I would like her to be in a good movie because i think she can do it.On balance,it's a movie i can't take out of my mind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Perhaps the best movie ever made by director Kevin Tenney (well, his Witchboard is not on the top of my all-time horror list), this one is a strange, fascinating mixture between Pin and Child's Play, both better than this one, but not so better. Sure, the plot is contrived and perhaps too predictable, but the actors are good, Rosalind Allen is very pleasant to the eye (and so is Candance McKenzie - God bless her for the shower scene!), the child actress is very good in interpreting the disturbed daughter and the Pinocchio puppet is scary enough to give you a few thrills down the spine. For a B-movie not bad at all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movie is the best horror movie i have ever seen. the acting is terrible and the plot leaves a lot to be desired but the puppet gave me nightmares for weeks. seriously, if you have little kids don't let them see this. of course i am a little biased because of an irrational fear of puppets and midgets. also a body double cameo by the guy who does mini me verne troyer. and some gratuitous nudity, a must in any low budget horror movie. all other horror movies will forever be judged against this in my book.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know what you're saying, \"Oh man, Pinochio is not scary!\" but this movie goes beyond alot more than a maniacal pinochio. Behind it tells the story of a mother and her daughter who is oddly attached to her doll Pinnochio who seems to talk to her. The only weird thing is that noone else can hear the doll except her. In the end is shocking revelation that, as did I, will shock you. Watch it. Give it a try.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(This review contains a huge spoiler, but I don't know how to explain how cool it is without giving it away) I saw \"pinoccio's Revenge\" a while ago.

Now, you might think it's just a rip-off of Child's play. Indeed there are similarities.

However, Chucky was a possessed doll who works independently of the kid. It is POSSIBLE that Pinoccio is possessed with a demon or cursed or something. however, the puppet itself is actually completely inanimate. The KID is insane, and THE KID is the one killing people! Everyone, including the audience, the survivors and the Kid herself thinks it's the doll. But it's the KID.

The nudity is almost a pity, because otherwise I could tell everyone to see it, because it really is an interesting horror movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What the heck do people expect in Horror films these days anyway. Does is HAVE to be something grisly like 'SAW' or it's just crap...??? Now, I don't claim to be an all knowing expert, but I'm about 47, I've seen and own literally thousands of films and I honestly think this director really gave this film a good, sincere effort. Believe me, I was getting ready to cringe as soon as the dialog started, ASSUMING it was gonna be awful and I was pleasantly surprised. It's no Mamet script, that's for sure; but COME ON!!! with all the HORRIBLE garbage out there, ESPECIALLY in Horror, I thought this one was WAY closer to the top of the pile than most.

The director used a lot of neat, clever camera angles; the soundtrack was excellent and moody, perfect for the atmosphere needed for this kind of film. The editing and timing were very good. And it DIDN'T resort to the tired, worn clich\u00e9 of excessive 'slasher' violence; for example ***** MINOR SPOILER ***** During an absolutely delightful and fully gratuitous (but tasty..., uh, I mean tasteful) nude shower scene I FULLY expect her to get sliced and diced; but, AMAZINGLY we just get to enjoy her heavenly loveliness and that's it ***** END MINOR SPOILER ***** Also, the tension was built very well, leading up to a nicely ambiguous ending where you are not quite sure what's what. ***** SPOILER ***** Especially where in the scene where the psychiatrist leaves the girl and Pinnochio alone in the office; WE see the doll actually talking to her, but in the video recording we do not. Also, the Mom sees Pinnochio moving about and being quite nasty; so, are BOTH the Mom AND daughter mentally ill...??? Also there is the original 'killer' and what the Mom had surmised about a possible Evil influence. But even with all that, we are STILL not quite sure WHO was doing the killing ***** END SPOILER ***** So, all in all, I believe that it was a good, strong, sincere effort to create some good ol' Early Full Moon type style and with a LOT of restraint on the violence. And with no typical SLEAZE thrown in for no reason (just the lovely, innocent, beautiful shower scene, which I will remember to the end of my days... : ) Compared to the absolute MINDLESS drivel out there, a DEFINITE, strong 8\/10!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The comments of the previous user are harsh indeed. One wonders if they have even seen this beautiful sweet film. As for being so nasty about it in front of the writer\/director..well thats just plain rude! For those who grew up in the eighties, it is an artful piece of nostalgia and a sweet story well acted and produced. Irish film-making sure has a lot of bitter angry people involved with it and the spleen venting comment made about this is evidence of it.. As people we have a choice; give out and moan about the people who actually go out there and make stuff or make something yourself.. I know which one is easier... Do yourself a favour and watch this film and see how a short film is made... you won't be disappointed","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this at The Tribeca Film Festival, in the family section. I'm not sure either of my kids really got the movie, but I have to say that it was a wonderful short film.

'Nostradamus and Me' is an interesting short film about the hopes and fears that we all felt growing up in the 1980's, which in turn, extends to how my kids feel today. Then, we had Regan, today, we got Bush. Instead of Nuclear War, we have Terrorism.

I really identified with the main character, and I myself dated a 'Curehead' in high school. We all felt like 'nothing mattered' when we were 16, but it's great to see a film where they discover that everything matters!!!

Again, I probably wouldn't have put this in the family section...there were a few too many curse words for younger children, but it was a wonderful and enjoyable film to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at the Galway Film Fleadh the year it won best short film. I have to say that i thought the direction was fantastic and the performances from the key cast members were very memorable. Both of the main cast are definitely names to watch out for.

The final shot over the cliff was mesmerizing and i for one would like to find myself there if i was waiting for the end of the world to happen. The kiss was definitely a great payoff, done with great enthusiasm's!!

I can only assume that the film was shot on film, and i have heard that the DOP won an award at the Tribeca Film Festival for his work on this film and i must say.... well deserved.

I would recommend this film to anyone who was a teenager in the 1980s. It brought back some great memories and some scary ones.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is absolutely the best 80s cartoon ever, maybe the best cartoon of all time. It had everything action, adventure, thrill, and much more...

I can't imagine how hard it was for Ruby-Spears company to make this great cartoon, there has been spent a lot of money for this masterpiece of work and it was worth it, for example just the beaming down scenes were hard because I wouldn't call the 1980s for a great technology year with computers like now in the world we live in so the beaming down scenes were excellent!

The cartoons will never be the same as they were before, that is why I hope that they all will be released on DVD specially The Centurions as it's my favorite. I have the whole complete set of 65 episodes on DVD-r but it's not the same because if they were released on DVD the people in the world would be able to buy it and see the DVD's in almost every store which means a lot to the fans. My good friend Ted made this petition to either get the show back on TV or better on DVD, that is if we get many requests to get them back on DVD.

So please help us by signing the petition at http:\/\/www.petitiononline.com\/6600F\/petition.html","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The centurions is one of the best cartoons ever and it needs to be put on TV and DVD so people can have younger generations enjoy such a good show that is far better than the garbage they have made in the last 14 years. I have a petition online that is at the website address Http:\/\/www.petitiononline.com\/6600F\/petition.html that originally was trying to get this show on five days a week but is now trying to get this show onto DVD since the TV station it was focused on has bad public relations. We all need to convince the people who own this show to put it on DVD so it can be seen by future generations. Also since now Hasbro Toys owns the toy line of this show we might want to try to convince them to make a live action movie of it just like they have done with Transformers and sometime this year G.I.Joe. We need good cartoons like this one to come back and be enjoyed by the younger generations. Please do sign this petition so we can one day have DVDs of the guys who are famous for yelling \"Power Extreme!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had such high hopes for Teletoon Retro to air this but instead of having shows such as this, ones that don't get the treatment that they deserve, they air things that I may have seen dozens of times before.

The Centurions was the highlight of my pre-teen years. I know that may seem a little bit clich\u00e9d but it's true. After Duke from G.I. Joe, Jake Rockewell is another one of those cartoon characters that I really had a crush on.

It's too bad that Teletoon Retro doesn't see it the same way people of my generation do. Otherwise Teletoon Retro would be a lot better than it is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Children of wax\" also shown as \"Killing grounds\" is an interesting mixture of genres. Some might think the purity of the genre can be only for good but to me the eclectic symbioses is very entertaining. It is also in it's story the mixture of thriller and the popular action as well as the combination of the historic masterpiece and the ethnic plea for tolerance. This film is built with the starry presence of my favorite actor the perfect Armand Assante but it is also marked by the acting of a shooting star \u0096 Hal Ozan .We have recently seen him in the TV series on HBO called \"Sex\" . \"Children of wax\" is entertainment for the audience but the same time it has an everlasting moral for the ethnic tolerance. This is a wise way to seminate welfare. Discussion on the contemporary troubles of our days can be made with attractive means in this is very positive side of the film \"Children of wax\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a very descent remake of the famous Fritz Lang's masterpiece \"M- Murder\".It is well made and with a entertaining key to speak about pretty serious events and contemporary problems in Eurobe but not only the whole world.The ethnic intolerance is such a huge evil and very contagions nowadays. So \"Children of Wax\" or as it is known in US distribution reveals the question of German and Turk hatred in an amusing way.No doubt it is well appreciated to be taken for distribution by the great Weinsten brothers.And there is another fact I liked most is the participation in this movie of the favorite actor of Lars von Trier the great Udo Kier who shows to play with such a pleasure for the Bulgarian film director Ivan Nichev.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brilliant work. Marvelous actors dissolve as brave and courageous characters .All unforgettable parts in a more than intriguing and capturing action \u0096thriller. The casting is perfect. Both from the side of the stars like :Armand Asante, Bernhardt, Kier ,Denier. But as well for new faces .I was very impressed by the young actor who plays the boy gang member- Mustafa. You trust each one from the Turkish gang. Very convincing is Michael Barral and all white power followers. I admire the music beat of the main theme of \"Children of Wax\".This sound track is a charming mixture of Turkish, hard rock and Udo Kier's humming\u0085 And in the same time Children of Wax \"a tale focusing on racial conflicts .The intolerance and brutality between the skinheads and the Turks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This BBC version of an Agatha Christie book shows the pitfalls of following a book too closely. Christie's books tend to move at a gentle, sometimes even sedate pace, and \"Evans\" is one that certainly does. It also has a solid school of red herrings to confuse the plot. This version is extremely faithful to the book, which results in a very slow, involved story. As a Christie fan, I gave it 7 stars, but it takes 3 hours to make its way through a relatively action-free story. I appreciate some of the tightening of plots that the BBC did for its later Christie productions much more.

In the end, this movie is a leisurely pleasure, highlighted by the breathy waif Francesca Annis who brings considerable charisma to her role and plays off James Warwick very well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this television version of a Christie mystery story when it was shown back on Channel 5 in New York City in 1980. At the time I was surprised it was not shown on Channel 13, the Public Television Station that showed most of the Masterpiece Theater programs, but (aside from some Dorothy Sayers \"Lord Peter Wimsey\" stores, and THE MOONSTONE) the BBC productions rarely dealt with British detective stories. Another series, THE RIVALS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES had dealt with stories set in the Victorian and Edwardian period, so a period charm was involved in getting those stories onto Channel 13.

The plot of WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS? dealt with a young couple stumbling upon a dying man who's only last words are the question of the title of the story (the novel was originally called WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS?, but subsequently was retitled THE BOOMERANG CLUE). The young couple start investigating the murder, and trace the crime to a set of people who surround a questionable doctor (Eric Porter). Despite the warnings of the father of the hero (John Gielgud), the hero (James Warwick) and the heroine (Francesca Annis) pursue their investigation - even as it gets murkier and more dangerous. The death of another suspect by suicide increases the apparent dangers as the killer starts looking into silencing the two amateur detectives.

It's not a bad film, although I agree it was a bit too long for a single night's entertainment (if it had been done like later Miss Marple episodes with Joan Hickson, or the Hercule Poirot episodes, in two parts it would have been better). But it has it's strengths. One is the proper use of Porter as chief suspect, and a clever scene later in the film where he appears to be spying on the young couple who are investigating the mystery. If you stick to the film, you will be in for a fair surprise later on.

But it has one failing. When dealing with a Christie novel the figures in the story have to be in a rigid schedule of movements so that the reader might be able to figure out what the secret of the plot is. I will only add that if you hear the dialog at one point, and how a little boy was almost killed (but wasn't), then you will find all the parts of the story coming together, and what the villain's motivations were.

Except for that and the lengthy time the telefilm takes to tell it's story, it is quite a good film, and worthy as one of the best programs based on a Christie story in the period when their was a sudden renaissance in films based on her novels.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great adaptation of the Christie novel. Surprising attention to authentic period details for the time (Many films of the mid-1970s-early 80s that try to do 1920s-early 30s look far too mid-70s-early 80s for my liking, so expected the worst here, and was gladly proved wrong)The costumes and sets are very well done. I liked this production very much \u0096 largely due to the adorable Francesca Annis' portrayal of a carefree bright young Lady \"Frankie\" and James Warwick's charming Bobbie. The pair would go on to portray Christie's Tommy & Tuppence, which is funny as some contemporary book critics compared Frankie and Bobby to her earlier characters of Tommy & Tuppence. The supporting characters were equally well done \u0096 the over the top Mrs. Rivington (acted by Miss Marple-to-be Joan H.) and \"Badger\" is played perfectly as the post WWI, \"Bertie Wooster type.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Unfortunately this original mix of action and laughs is kept from cinema fans as it sits rotting in the Columbia vaults for all eternity. A shame since this may be Jack Starrett's strongest film and features a witty script by a young Terrence Malick and fully realized performances by its two leads Stacey Keach and Frederic Forrest who turn to a life of crime so they can get the money to open a seafood restaurant. Many standout scenes include interrogation by bathtub and electric razor, and an intense shootout in an abandoned building as it's being torn down by a wrecking ball!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This interesting lost film (written by Terence Malick) stars Stacy Keach and Frederic Forrest as two wacky, Southern brothers on a quest to open a seafood restaurant. Margot Kidder was never prettier and Forrest should have been nominated. Originally titled The Dion Brothers, this light-hearted flick with a violent ending is a pure joy!

Where is this film? I've been searching for it for 30 years. Keach was still great back then and I'm surprised it doesn't have more of a cult following (maybe it does). These guys are a crack-up with more ambition than brains, but totally lovable dudes!. A 7 out of 10. If you can dig it up somewhere, you'll have fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Considering this film was released 8 years before I was born, I don't feel too bad for over-looking it for such a long time. Back in January of 98 though, I attended the Second Annual Quentin Tarantino film fest held in Austin,Texas. The particular theme of films this night was \"Neglected 70's Crime Films\" and boy was her right. \"The Gravy Train(or The Dion Brothers, as it appeared this print)\" was an absolute gem. Wonderful performances, quirky characters, smart plot, hilarious comedy, and just an all around great time. Rarely do you see a Crime film that is so entertaining and fresh. Margot Kidder in one of her earliest film appearances is extremely sexy as well. I hope some cable network gets a hold of this film and allows many more to see it. In the meantime, go to an indie video store and hope they have it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I happened to catch about the last 45 minutes of the movie,late night about 8 years ago. What a wild and funny 45 minutes.I was absolutely knocked out by chase-shoot-out at the end that takes place at night ,inside an old hotel that's being torn down with a wrecking ball....Incredible. I vaguely remember Stacy Keach ,stealing a cop car, faking being a cop and strong arming some winos....Wino to Keach\"Hey,why Ya hasslin us?...Keach\"It's my job\".You're correct. They don't make them like that anymore.Great movie. The golden70's...Hopefully it will see the light of day as a DVD along with other lost treasures...Hickey and Boggs being one such.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I managed to record THE DION BROTHERS, off broadcast TV, (with the commercials), back in the early 80s. I've loaned it to many friends, all of whom agree it's one of the best B \"bandit\" movies ever made. One day, while walking to my NYC apartment, I saw Stacy Keach shooting a scene for his TV series, Mickey Spilane. We had a moment to chat, and I told him how much I enjoyed THE DION BROS, and considered it a pure classic. He thanked me, and said it was one of the best, and most memorable film experiences of his career. He was very friendly, and sincere, and I was grateful for the few moments he took to chat with a fan. This is one classic that needs to be on DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another one that slipped by the radar of most anyone. This little B produced gem is so full of new ideas in an old genre and so absolutely refreshing and inventive, that a dreadful feeling about the lack of cojones in today's cinema slowly overtakes your body. The final set piece is so innovative in its setting and style that it prefigures everyone from Tarantino to John Woo. Oh, and if you think \"dying lines\" are all cliche, wait for the dying line of FF. A piece of dialogue that could have torn you with laughter will take your heart. A true pleasure. Seek it and see it. You won't be sorry.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"These immortal lines begin The Jack Starret directed masterpiece,'The Dion Brothers'. The plot centers around two blue collar West Virginian brothers (Stacy Keach and Frederic Forrest) who commit robberies in hopes of using the money to open a seafood restaurant!!? What follows is quite an adventure, and many comedic events ensue. The action scenes are all top notch and consist of some nicely realized shootouts. The latter of which is absolutely amazing and occurs in an abandoned building being demolished by a wrecking ball! The film was written by now famous director Terrence Malick and features an early appearance by Margot Kidder. All in all, an excellent hidden gem of the 70s and easily one of the finest action\/comedy hybrids every made. Hopefully it gets a decent widescreen DVD release soon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've tried to remember the name of this movie for years and years. Finally, read something today, 03\/09\/2005, that mentioned Stacy Keach's name, and it reminded me that I had seen a movie that he was in in 1974 at the Atlanta Film Festival, so, I did a Google search for Keach's movies and found The Gravy Train. We were supposed to see Duddy Kravitz at the film festival, but for some reason they were unable to show it, and instead substituted The Gravy Train. We were terribly disappointed that we weren't going to be able to see the much hyped Duddy Kravitz, and had heard nothing of The Gravy Train, and have heard nothing of it since.

However, I recall we were pleasantly surprised at how good the movie was, and as I recall, it was quite humorous. Would love to find it on tape.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nothing great here but a nicely acted story about an abused deaf wife (Fonda) of a small time crook (Bochner)who gets involved with one of her husband's plans and his mistress. Sutherland and Weber are cops drawn into what turns out to be a unmysterious murder investigation and the story just flows along.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"excellent drama. very dark. i have never seen california photographed in such a way. bridget fonda as the deaf wife beaten by her husband is superb. the film gripped me from start to finish. very understated performance by sutherland. the direction was very european. amazing to get such a performance from fonda.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bridget Fonda has disappointed me several times over the years, but she had my attention in BREAK UP. It's true the story is missing critical details in several places, but I just kept scrutinizing Fonda for clues about what was meaningful in the story and she didn't let me down. The look in her eyes in the last scene, as she musters up courage to, literally, put one foot in front of the other toward her uncertain future is one of the most dramatic and significant examples of face acting ever. I believed her completely, possibly because I've known and admired several \"tough broads\" who survived similar abusive situations. And they did this without becoming man-haters, but that's my own hopeful projection of Fonda's character at the BREAK UP.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I adore the Ln Chaney version of \"Phantom\" and I appreciate Webber's version if only for the growing interest in the book, wish I find more of a mystery slash horror with the romantic aspects downplayed. I don't approve of the fact that Andrew Lloyd Webber made the relationship between Raoul and Christine less restrained.

Luckily since this is a comedic short with only Erik and Christine this version doesn't even have to bother with any other characters.

I thought I would still be waiting for another version to match up Lon's performance. I was dead wrong. Leslie Nielson is fabulous as Erik though, of course this is a spoof. It's still brilliant.

I especially appreciated the fact that Erik looked more like a living corpse than an accident victim. I still have as of yet to see a Phantom like that, other than Lon's.

However, I do not recommend this short if you don't like spoofs. Because this is in no way supposed to be taken seriously.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was never all that impressed by Night Gallery, but this one episode stands out.

A TV network executive auditions an odd act - a young, nerdy boy who proceeds to make prognostications. The exec dismisses the whole thing as a flaky waste of time until both predictions come true the next morning.

What first seemed a parlor act becomes a hit show as the kid's predictions prove consistently accurate.

Then, one day, he refuses to do the show. Facing imminent showtime, everyone's at wit's end, even threatening him with legal action if he doesn't fulfill his contract and make his daily predictions.

The young boy relents, and foretells a seemingly utopian tomorrow.

After the show, the befuddled executive asks for an explanation, only to learn why the complete truth is too terrifying to reveal.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When you read about this film you wanna cringe. I have seen it countless times and yet I cringe myself! So what is the attraction here? I think that for me, it's the offbeatness of the romance. I find it super refreshing to have an oddball coupling between this NYC Jimmy-Breslin-like columnist and a down-on-her-luck (health-wise) ballerina. You feel embarrassed for Paul Sorvino at his unsubtle approach to wooing this woman. Like the guy in the bar who can't take a hint. He's a bit overweight (at least as a would-be suitor for a ballerina. Hope that doesn't sound unkind) and possibly a tad too old for her. Nice change of pace from Greek God wooing Super-model. The Bill Conti score has stuck in my head all these years later, which is a pretty good sign. However some of the acting is just dreadful. A subplot involving a young Puerto-Rican boy befriended by Sorvino's character is just hilariously bad. But the opening scene where Ditchburn is warming up to Carole King draws you right into this story. Good luck finding it. You'd think that Lifetime would be re-airing this or even WE, but I haven't seen it on in quite a few years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This one gets better with each new look. Certainly one of Paul Sorvino's best roles. Outstanding music score which was also outstanding on sound track LP (so why no CD?). One the very early dolby stereo sound film releases. By the way, the original 35mm theatrical trailer for this is really GREAT!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a wonderful movie. I've only seen it twice, and I've been looking for it again for ever. I'd buy it if I could find it. While it's sad, it shows three things -- how much a man can love a woman, how hard some people want something and how hard people work to overcome their limitations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now, I've seen many many B-grade films in my 15 years of living, and I must say that this was one of the better ones. I personally enjoyed the real estate and the storyline, but it did suffer from amateur acting (although Adrienne Barbeau did give a decent performance as Lisa Grant). Joseph Bottoms couldn't hold his part well enough to be considered good. The other performance which really fit the film was that of Barry Hope (Barney Resnick). It begins with an eager real estate agent taking an Asian couple through a house, only to find there's a dead girl in the shower of the showhome. It progresses with detective speculating, and introduces the key characters with reasonable grace. I think that for any person who's in for a giggle at the over-the-top drama the victim realtors provide during the over-the-top gory scenes, this truly is a gem... XD Who am I kidding? It's not that great, but worth a watch if you're insanely bored.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't see why everyone is bombing this so much. I thought it was a great fun time that sadly wasn't popular enough to be that famous. Believe me I have seen much much worse than this. If you want a bad movie see blood shack or the alien dead or something. So what this is normal slasher fare but better than most. And it is watchable. This movie also has one of the best soundtracks I've heard. Some of the music is very suspenseful. And the death scenes are cool too. We see a very bloody body in a bathtub with the words SOLD written in blood on the mirror, and we also get a cool double beating by a toilet plunger! with razors attached to it! This was a good fun 80s slasher that's definitely worth your time despite what others say about it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It would be so easy to dismiss an alien abduction movie before even seeing it - as I did - but this is well worth a look. If you think about it, its not an easy subject matter to handle but this film manages to suspend disbelief which in itself is a feat for such a way out subject. Casting the main character as a doctor was a sensible move which lends credence to his willingness to believe in the possibility of alien abduction. Vosloo plays it very sensitively involving us in his pain and confusion at the weird events that befall himself and his wife. Special Effects are used sparingly but to shocking effect and at times the movie is totally gripping but sadly there are a couple of points where the plot wanders and leaves some confusion. Also, after building to a tense climax the ending is something of a let down. The supporting characters were unnecessarily weak (the alien hunter) or menacing (the psychiatrist) which also served to detract.

But all in all it raised some interesting issues amongst which was a telling line \"How do think animals feel when we experiment on them\".

The concept of \"lost time\" was also thought provoking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I put in the DVD expecting camp perversion from the creators of Society and Re-Animator, and was quite surprised to become involved in an authentically suspenseful tale. Acting was top-notch (nice to see Vosloo in a protagonist role after a long string of villains), the storyline involving, and the few twists fairly surprising. I figured I would fast forward through much of it to get to the abduction scenes, but instead watched it through, only being let down at the very end.

Maybe I'm being too lenient, but as I stated before, I wasn't expecting much more than alien sex. Of course, if you ARE looking for some hot alien sex, you will be let down. It was mostly quick-cut exam table nonsense with a blink-and-you'll-miss-it glimpse of an interesting 'impregnator' alien.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie will undoubtably not go over well with some, because most of the horror is mental. But it does have a little something for almost everyone, including a couple of really cool abduction scenes with aliens. The film makes extensive use of alien abduction mythology, while also showing a bit more intelligence about some facets of abduction myths than you would expect out of a movie. Jillian McWhirter is excellent in what had to have been a grueling performance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An odd beam of light penetrates the bedroom of Dr. Craig Burton(Arnold Vosloo)and his wife Sherry(Jillian McWhirter)as they are making love. About two hours are unaccounted for as they embrace seemingly unharmed. Under hypnosis during a session with psychiatrist Dr. Susan Lamarche(Lindsay Crouse), Craig discovers that his wife was impregnated by aliens. Sherry resists this notion as absurd and is quite happy to relay news to her husband that she is indeed pregnant. Ecstatic after their trying for ages to get pregnant, Sherry is frightened at Craig's persistence of the fetus not being his..this stems from a check on his low sperm count with odds especially high that he could in no way have impregnated his wife. Awkward, troubling experiences with the fetus inside her leads Sherry to some scary discoveries..her doctor, David Wetherly(Wilford Brimley)finds that the ultra-sound gives some unusual results of the developing infant's appearance, but it's Craig who notices that it resembles an alien! Sparks ignite cutting out the electrical equipment, even shutting off Wetherly's pacemaker! Through hypnosis, Sherry reveals the experience of her abduction, but Lamarche believes her problem is psychological not physiological. With no one believing his wife's alien impregnation theory, Craig turns to sociologist Dr. Bert Clavell(Brad Dourif), whose work is in the studies of alien life and abduction. But, Bert is reluctant to help Craig who will go to the ends of the earth to save his wife's life from possible harm. Tragic results occur as Lamarche and others try to keep Craig from his goals of \"cutting the thing out\" believing he is mad. Craig will still pursue his task trying to drag Bert down this path with him.

Grim, absorbing horror tale about one man's struggle to save his wife from the harm of beings no one else believes exist. Thankfully, Dourif's character isn't some quack nutjob but an intelligent doctor who wishes to learn more, but his pursuit of the truth of aliens isn't hostile..he does hope to learn from Sherry, but isn't incredibly demanding in this goal. The story is told realistically..it's easy to understand why others might deem Craig off-his-rocker. Vosloo doesn't take the character too far, but expresses the distress of his current situation. How can he save his wife from this hostiles and prove to others that he's not nuts? McWhirter deserves credit for the demands of the difficult abduction scenes where her unfortunate character is naked on this table being probed and molested by these things. Crouse is fine in her limited, but important role as the voice of reason in a situation where her clients seem out of control psychologically. The monster effects are icky and effective. I think the film works quite well and director Yuzna deserves credit for restraining himself for this film at least. The final twenty minutes as Craig tries to perform his \"removal surgery\" with a scared Bert watching the crazy situation escalate is nail-biting.

You know, fans of \"Fire in the Sky\" might dig this flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"<-----Minor Spoilers!----->

A woman gets pregnant, but not by her husband. She develops 'something' inside her, or at least thats what her husband thinks. They go through a lot of hard times, while she is on the brink of a nervous breakdown. The husband contacts an UFO professor, and with his help they try to find out what is wrong with her.

<-----Minor Spoilers!---->

The story could have been a bit better, or at least be made less predictable, but the movie is catchy and it got me and my sister hooked through the entire movie without a problem. The acting is very good, and the filming is much better than normal, if you compare this to your normal b-alien movie. The effects are good, and something is happening every second of the movie. The characters are really likable, and apart from a stupid nurse in on\u00e9 scene, they are all very convincing in their roles.

I thought it was a good movie, and can recommend it, if you like alien\/monster-abduction movies!

7\/10 - The story could have been a bit less predictable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First, let me review the movie. This movie creeps me out, and I don't even believe in aliens! However, the movie has its flaws.

There are three acts to this movie. Act One is perfect. It sets up the movie, and really builds up the creep factor. I must say the score is great! Everything is set up and it's set up perfectly.

Act Two begins when Jillian, playing Sherry Burton, goes to the shrink. They hypnotize her, and she recalls the abduction. Act Two ruins the film when the aliens show up. \"Screaming Mad George\" did the effects for the aliens. I must say they did a good job, except with their depiction of the \"Gray\" aliens. No offense, but the Grays looked like inflatable door prizes.

On a side note, I liked how they treated hypnosis in Acts One and Two. If you paid attention, you would notice that the husband and wife had two different memories. In the husband's version of events, the blue light zaps them and his wife says, \"Somebody's here,\" or something like it. It makes sense. The husband is concerned for his wife. \"Someone\" may hurt her. That's his issue. However in her version of events, she says, \"Help me!\" She does not say \"Somebody's here.\" This also makes sense. The aliens are after her. Wanting her husband to help and save her is her issue. Now back to the film.

Act Three turns the film into a gore fest. It begins with a \"strange\" ultrasound procedure. It's a typical gore fest, but it does have a surprise ending. I won't ruin it because it's actually an interesting development.

The DVD and commentaries takes itself too seriously, but if you think Wilford Brimley saying \"Horsesh**\" is funny, you might want to check it out in the cast interviews section. Now on to my praise of Jillian McWhirter.

I could only hope Jillian will read this. I had never seen her before, but wow, what a performance! Let me tell the rest of you this. First of all, this is supposed to be a serious film. The details I will now describe may sound campy and fun, like \"Humanoids From The Deep\" (1980), but it really isn't. Got that? Okay.

Jillian is hot, naturally good-looking. She is naked for a lot of the film, a good thing. Unfortunately, she is usually being assaulted, terrorized, and raped, a very bad thing. However, she must act in a lot of this film naked. She gets points for overcoming that. She has to act happy, sad, horny, afraid, and physically hurt all in the span of a few moments. The turnaround of emotion is astounding! She has to cheer for joy when she learns she's pregnant. She has to scream in terror when the aliens take out her guts. She has to act very angry when her husband suggests that the baby isn't his. She has to act like she's in denial, saying nothing is wrong with her baby, when her husband says otherwise. A denial, I should note, that is really forced upon her by the aliens controlling her. I am talking Oscar-caliber performance here!

Then there is the rape scene. It's disturbing, but since it's just some rubber alien, it's not too bad. In this scene, the alien is not a \"Gray\" alien, so I will describe it. The alien has tentacles, and it's kind of like a table. Jillian is on the table-like part, restrained by the tentacles. By her head is the alien's head. The alien's head is long, and it flips down so that its head is now above Jillian's legs. Then, the alien's hey-nanu-nanu comes out of his forehead. It's forehead! Sounds pretty campy, right? Well, Jillian plays it straight, and she pulls it off! She has to act like an alien with its hey-nanu-nanu coming from its forehead is raping her, and she pulls it off! It's a very intense scene, but that's not what makes it. You see, this scene is done in a flashback. What makes the scene is Jillian's performance recalling these events. She is just lying in a hospital bed under hypnosis recalling the alien abduction, but her acting here is more intense than the actual rape scene! How many actors can pull off a performance in a scene that describes a rape that is more intense than the scene with the rape? Not many! However, Jillian does it.

I could go on and on. Jillian, if you ever read this, I want you to know that I, (name withheld) alias of MegamanX-1, believe you are the best actress ever. You are the best actress ever! I could only hope you read this and take it with you always.

As for everyone else, \"Progeny\" (1999) is an Okay to Good film. I would recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Progeny is about a husband and wife who experience time loss while making love. Completely unaware of what this bizarre experience means they try to go on with their lives. The hubby begins questioning the bizarre event and gets help through a very annoying psychiatrist. He comes to believe that aliens are responsible for this lapse in time and that the unborn baby he once thought was his and his wife's actually belongs to the aliens.

If ya ask me, this is a great scifi\/horror story. Taking a highly questionable real-life scenario involving alien abduction and hybrid breeding is definite thumbs up from this guy. I love all things related to aliens and this story definitely delivered some good ideas. So if you also share an interest in things extraterrestrial, you should be pretty happy with Progeny. At least story-wise anyways.

Unfortunately the movie overall is pretty average. With average acting by all actors. Yep, even by the consistently awesome Mr. Dourif, who still does deliver the best performance. Though the black head doctor, delivers his lines really well. There are a few points in the flick where some of the delivery is cringe or laugh worthy, which is fine in my book. I like them cheesy and this had a little bit of some nice stinky cheese, and I mean that in a good way.

Anyways, with a less than stellar script you can't really blame all the actors. I especially didn't care for the Mother Hysteria the film went for. She wanted a baby so badly that she'd neglect and dismiss everything her loving husband (who's a doctor!!) said to her. It almost reached a point where you actually didn't care what happened to her.

The Progeny is another flick by Brian Yuzna from the icky-sticky film, Society. Again he delivers some slimy effects, and again he delivers a pretty unique tale of horror. If you're into scifi\/horror or are a fan of Dourif and or Yuzna films, there's no real reason not to check out this flick if you get the chance. A generous 7 outta 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've taken another look at this film and still consider it pretty good. Chloe is one of the few hardcore stars who really can act. She appears occasionally in soft core such as \"Body of Love\" and \"Lady Chatterly's Stories\" on Showtime. I thought Nicole Hilbig did OK too with her nice body and charming accent. Too bad she's not in more films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thank you The FilmZone for showing this sleazy soft core sex flick at 1 a.m. I truly enjoyed it. To be honest, I expected a lot more from a sexy cast with McKayla, Dru Berrymore, and of course, the talented Chloe Nicholle (as Rebecca Carter).

The production values are truly bad mainly because of the low budget but a little more effort wouldn't harm. For example, the cinematography makes it look like a hard core porno movie. There's absolutely no effort in lightning. But let's ignore that fact because let's be honest, we watched \"Pleasures of Sin\" because of the high amounts of sex.

The sex factor is pretty good and offers steamy, explicit scenes. Chole Nicholle delivers the best performance of the female cast.

So my advice is , watch this movie if you are in the mood for good explicit sex or just watch it if you are a fan of Mrs. Nicholle.

Recommended only for the sex scenes; don't expect anything else.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There's not much anyone can say about this flick....the plot is quite simple: Two police officers (who also happen to be lovers) are using a brothel as a stakeout in order to catch a criminal, with the help of the \"lady of the house\", played by hardcore pornstar Chloe. As anyone can guess, there's a few plot twists and some blurred alliances, but the writing was just horrible, even for a softcore movie.

I've read some previous posts about Nicole Hilbig's accent (she plays the female cop). Yes, it's hard to understand what she's saying at times, but I think I've placed it. I did some sniffing around....I think she's from Germany, hence her odd-sounding accent. She makes an impression even without speaking, however...she's got a great looking body.

There were a couple of \"from behind\" sex scenes in this movie that were quite graphic for a softcore film....excellent work there. The three-way scene toward the end wasn't bad either.

*SPOILER ALERT*

I kinda knew the female cop was gonna turn into a part-time call girl at the end. She enjoyed her three-way WAY too much.

*END SPOILER*

I'm not gonna nitpick about the story TOO much, seeing as this is a low-budget, direct-to-video softcore flick. However, it just seems like I've seen way too many movies in this genre with a similar type of storyline.

Women: B (Chloe and Hilbig were okay as the eye-candy) Sex: B+ (scenes were kinda short, but good) Story: C (a recycled plot, but whatever works, eh?) Overall: B-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie awhile back and can't seem to track it down. Does anyone know where I can get a hold of it? I feel it is worth seeing again.

I'm sorry to say I had never heard of Chloe Nicholle until this film. Yes she can act. When I first began to track this movie down I mistook it for another one of her movies, Sex Spa. The plot seems similar to me but the roles are reversed.

This is the first film I've seen Dru Berrymore. I looked up some of her other films and I feel she looks better as a blonde.

I agree this is a good introductory movie. Not too soft. Not too hard. You got to start somewhere.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this to be a pretty good example of a better soft core erotica film. It has a reasonable plot about the madame of a bordello caught up in a police scheme to nab a wealthy crook.

Hardcore porn star Chloe Nichole again shows her genuine acting ability. She will occasionally appear in soft core such as \"Body of Love\" and \"Lady Chatterly's Stories. Nicole Hilbig, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired in her role as the female cop.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Enigma is a computer part which scrambles Russian messages, so that America can't understand them. They can only be read by the intended recipient. The Americans know that the Russians are going to transmit a message revealing the plans of five political assassinations they want to carry out.

So they send in former defector Holbeck (Martin Sheen) to grab the scrambler and substitute a false part, so they'll be able to decode the message, and block the assassination attempts.

However, as we listen in on the Americans heads of the spy organisation, we find that they already have the scrambler, and they want Holbeck to try to steal Enigma, only to convince the Russians that they don't already have it. They don't expect Holbeck to succeed. That way the Russians, who had stopped transmitting with Enigma, just in case, will begin transmitting again.

Enigma is in the computer in the office of Dimitri Vasilikov. Somehow Holbeck must gain access, and in order to do that, he must find out when Vasilikov will be out. He sends in his former girlfriend Karen (Brigitte Fossey) to seduce Vasilikov, so that she can look through his papers and find out his scheduled movements. Karen is glad to do it, as they tortured her father, a university professor, to death.

Because we know that it's better for the Americans if Holbeck fails, the movie becomes even more intense as a spy thriller. We find ourselves hoping he can survive against the odds, especially as he uses ingenious methods to beat the Russians at every turn.

But what's this? Are Karen and Vasilikov falling in love? Will Holbeck win Karen back, or will she actually end up with Vasilikov? The romantic twist lifts this spy thriller, already worthy of a ten, even higher, for its originality. The writing, the direction, and the acting all combine to make this new and fascinating twist a compellingly realistic one.

You find yourself at the edge of your seat, gripping your armchair, not only for the excitement of the spy story but for the intensely beautiful romantic love story as well. The two themes are interwoven perfectly, right up to the end. You really want both sides to win. So who does win, in the end? You'll have to see the movie and find out, won't you!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this old black and white talkie. At first I didn't recognize Harold Lloyd as Mr. Cobb, a missionary to China coming home to find a wife. There were many twists and turns in Mr. Cobb's attempts to clean up city hall. His methods of making the punishment fit the crime would likely be illegal, but this is not a movie based on reality. This would be a perfect movie for children except that there is female near nudity (pasties only on Grace Bradley)! The old telephones are enchanting. The only fault is a problem typical of the day - Caucasians are used to represent Chinese men. This is offset by the positive way the Chinese are portrayed. They are the wise, good and friendly guys. Trivia - a Bekins truck appears in the movie when the police run out of Black Marias.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film would be considered controversial today, but is still very funny. The racial stereotyping is done from the view of humor & not hate. This film strips off & shows how corrupt politicians already were in the early 1930's. This film proves it started before the 1970's & beyond when it has accelerated in the United States. Lloyd is still in his typical genre here, even though his character was raised in China.

The meaning of a Cat's Paw in this instance is a person who is running for political office but is being used by the established political machine to advance their agenda. In other words, they think this guy (Lloyd)is harmless when he runs for office. Then when he gets elected, he surprises them.

This same theme is used later in James Stewarts film Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Stewarts is more famous & has a stronger message. This film is more clever & subtle which are Harold Lloyds trademarks.

There is still the heart of romantic comedy hidden with the facade of the movie but today's mainstream audiences would still appreciate the political humor & the ending is absolutely priceless. I wish someone could beat today's political system in this way. I was surprised how much I enjoyed this film & find myself wishing Harold had done more like it during the 1930's.

At least we have this one. I think the person who is quoted most in the movie is fictional Ling Po. I always thought Confusicus was the wise one but this one makes me believe the wisdom of China was not limited to him & is a vast field of comedy Lloyd mined in this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This production was quite a surprise for me. I absolutely love obscure early 30s movies, but I wasn't prepared for the last 25 minutes of this story. If, by any chance, you're not convinced in the first half, hang in there for the finale. Of course, you must look at the blatant racism as being purely topical. A fascinating viewing experience, but I think THE CAT'S PAW is not available on video\/DVD yet. Watch your PBS listings!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i honestly dont know why so many people hate this movie, i have always thought that it was one of my absolute faves. the fight with tiger and his men rocked, the fight with the pirates with the axes rocked, the whole skit with everyone trying to avoid one another in the house is pure genious...ok so it didnt have the requisite kick ass final confrontation but the manchus were pretty good. i give it a 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Project A II is a classic Jackie Chan movie with all the kung fu, crazy stunts and slapstick humor you expect. Not as good as the prequel but still it is a great movie if you just want something fun to watch. The story is simple, jackie chan versus the evil men. So if you want a movie that you don't have to be a braniac to understand, i would suggest this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dragon Ma (Jackie Chan)is back, having rid the seas of the dreaded Pirate Lo. Back on land, he is assigned to the police force, where he is to clean up corruption and crime in a local suburb. Along the way, he is caught up in the fate of several Chinese patriots attempting to secure sympathy and support for their revolutionary cause. The Chinese Manchu government is after these revolutionaries, and anyone that stands in their way is in trouble, even if they are in the police force. I had big expectations for this movie after i saw Project A. But sadly I was a little disappointed. There is just too little action compared to the first film. There is just one good fight scene until the big ending. That fight scene is in the \"gangsters place\" and its good, a lot of people flying all over the place and hard kicks and punches are throw. Jackie Chan and his stunt team don't disappoint here at all. The ending is very entertaining, Jackie Chan shows us why HE is the best stuntman in the world. Really exciting stuff! The only bad thing with the ending, is that the fights are too short and forgettable. Conclusion: Many funny moments, good acting and crazy stunts. But not enough fighting for a top rating.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sequels are a capricious lot with most nowhere near the stature of the original. Sometimes you find a sequel that is considered better than the original, some critics (such as John Charles) have stated that Project A2 is better than the original, I disagree somewhat but this movie is still a worthwhile follow-up and fits well in the output of brilliant Hong Kong action cinema in the 1980s as well as Jackie's own oeuvre. I do wonder how with such an awesome release of great films that his later films were not as good. He only has directed two films in the 1990s and none past that, but he has had much clout in many of the films where he is not officially the director.

Earlier in 1987 Jackie had brain surgery following a disastrous fall in the filming of Armour of God. This encouraged him to work on his next film close to home. This did not encourage him to stop risking his life and his stunt team for our amusement. What resulted is a smash hit at home that eclipsed the original in box office tallies (31 million HK dollars compared to 19 million for the original).

Jackie Chan is once again police officer extraordinaire Dragon Ma and he is ordered to work with \"Three Wan\" Superintendent Chun (Lam Wai, Royal Warriors) who is the only Chinese police officer allowed to have a gun yet is thought to be staging arrests to make himself look better and ignoring the crimes of a triad lord named Tiger Au (Michael Chan Wai-Man, Dragon Lord). Apparently Chun has too much power to be taken down directly, but he is relieved of the Sai Wan district (now he is \"Two Wan\") which Dragon Ma takes over. This inefficient and corrupt office will soon get a makeover and there is a great scene where three officers, who do not know who they are dealing with, attempt to assault Ma to teach him a lesson about complaining about police officers. He soon has that district ship-shape and Tiger Au taken care of. The fight choreography and stunts with Tiger and his men are quite awesome. My favorite stunt was a beautifully brutal fall from the second floor into a large vase and that vase did not appear to be soft.

Meanwhile a couple of subplots are happening. There are pirates who have survived from the first film who are looking for revenge and food. Then there are revolutionaries including Maggie (Maggie Cheung, In The Mood For Love) and (Rosamund Kwan, Casino Raiders) who are trying to raise funds for Dr. Sun Yat-sen to overthrow the Qing Government as well as government operatives who are trying to find these rebels. Throw in a mixture of corrupt Hong Kong and British Cops as well as legitimate ones and you have a stew that is getting a bit too many ingredients, but yet still seems to coalesce. This works well when there is a Marx Brothers influenced scene (the Marx Brothers have done this type of scene a few times with The Cocoanuts (1929) being the first) at Maggie's place where everyone is looking for someone while hiding from someone else. Many weeks were spent on this scene alone and the effort certainly shows.

There are several faults with the film. There is a certain didactic nature that creeps in the film that seems a bit out-of-place \u0096 especially one small speech towards the end that Jackie gives when dealing with the Mainland revolutionaries and the extremely easy conversion of the pirates that survived from the first film. Female characters are once again underused and under-appreciated, especially Maggie Cheung. I was not as satisfied with the continuance of the plot as much as the first film either. The individual scenes dominate my feelings for the film instead of thinking of this movie as a cohesive whole. I do not fault the film for not being able to have Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao like the first though (I have heard the main reason behind this was that those two were filming Eastern Condors, but I do wonder if Jackie could have waited a small while to get them to perform in this \u0096 they would work together for the last time the following year in Dragons Forever), but they are missed.

I found this to be quite an enjoyable and well-made film and it is rightfully regarded as one of the better comedic action films of the 1980s. This film is also quite good in a few unexpected places. The art direction is superb (Eddie Ma Poon-chiu), the costumes are exquisite, the cinematography is good and the movie looks quite authentic. But the stunts, comedy and the action is what I remember this film for. There is a chase involving a handcuffed Dragon and Chun that is superb (part of the axe throwing scene would be used in Shanghai Noon). The last twenty minutes is full of awe-inspiring hits, falls, chili-peppers as a mouth-mace (Jackie writes in his autobiography about how he used real peppers in this scene; you can see him in a lot of mouth pain during the outtakes at the end) and is a worthy conclusion to this movie. The most famous stunt from this sequence is his homage to Buster Keaton from Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928) with the exception that there is no hole and only a weak section where his head pops through.

Fans of Jackie and\/or Hong Kong action cinema should consider this a must own and watch. I certainly do.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hi! Being able to speak Cantonese, I found this very funny and was able to all the jokes that one might not get due to language barriers. The fight scenes are spectacular and it's a good movie. However, I have my criticisms. First of all, I find that it is not as good as the first one Project A -GO AND SEE THAT NOW! :-) Reason is, SPOILERS AHEAD-DON'T READ ON IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM!!!!!) because in Project A, Jackie ends by fighting his enemy; the man he is sent to kill, Sanpao. That is what he has been striving to do all the film and the showdown is spectacular. But in A II, hough he fights Chan, the showdown scene between Jackie and his nemesis is not long enough and the bulk of the action is against the Empress's men. They are not nearly as \"bad\" enough and have only played a minor part in the film in relation to Jackie so though their fight sequence is spectacular, they are not the ones Jackie is hunting throughout the whole of the film, so thus leaving the viewer slightly unfulfilled. However, this is just my humble opinion so don't take it word for word-go and see it yourself! It is a great film in it's own right! Take care and hope your admiration for Jackie grows! Yours Sincerely, Ian PS. You know the police chief in A II? He's the same guy in First Strike-nice to know he's still going strong!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I hate to say it, but I really do think this one's overrated, and I love Jackie's films. It's got more plot behind it than usual, but unfortunately, though it has some great stuff, I find it to be a bit slow. All in all, I say it's entertaining, but not great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Kramer vs. Kramer\" is a terrific drama about an unhappy woman who walks out on her husband and young son. The husband now has to take up the responsibilities of taking care of the boy. As he does, they get to know each other better. But then, the mother and wife returns, and she wants custody of the boy. \"Kramer vs. Kramer\" has lots of drama with some wonderful bits of comedy thrown in for good measure. Dustin Hoffman won his first Best Actor Oscar for his brilliant performance here. Most people say his performance in \"Rainman\", which won him his second Oscar, is his best. He was great in that film, but I disagree that its his best. In my opinion, the best performance of Hoffman's career is in this movie. Scene after scene shows us why Hoffman is one of the best American actors working today. He's also funny at times. Also giving a terrific performance is Meryl Streep, who wasn't as well known when she made this film like she is today. Streep, like Hoffman, also won her first Oscar (for Best Supporting Actress) for her work in \"Kramer vs. Kramer\" as the wife and mother who tries to find herself after walking out on her family. Justin Henry, who was only 8 years old when the film came out, is wonderful as Hoffman and Streep's son. He won an Oscar nomination for his role here, and still to this day he is the youngest performer to receive an Oscar nomination in a competitive category (Best Supporting Actor). Jane Alexander is also fine as a conserned family friend. She too got an Oscar nomination (for Supporting Actress where she lost to co-star Streep). \"Kramer vs. Kramer\" is a great film from start to finish. Writer-director Robert Benton has made a film that's absolutely unforgettable.

**** (out of four)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This outstanding film has about the best acting that you'll ever see, and that alone makes this a must-see. The entire cast is excellent, but then again, it had to be in order to keep up with Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. It didn't take me long to get hooked on this film, and aside from a courtroom scene that is merely good, this is top-notch entertainment. This is a rare film that actually deserved all the Oscar recognition that it received. See it for yourself and you will definitely not be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although credit should have been given to Dr. Seuess for stealing the story-line of \"Horton Hatches The Egg\", this was a fine film. It touched both the emotions and the intellect. Due especially to the incredible performance of seven year old Justin Henry and a script that was sympathetic to each character (and each one's predicament), the thought provoking elements linger long after the tear jerking ones are over. Overall, superior acting from a solid cast, excellent directing, and a very powerful script. The right touches of humor throughout help keep a \"heavy\" subject from becoming tedious or difficult to sit through. Lastly, this film stands the test of time and seems in no way dated, decades after it was released.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kramer vs. Kramer is one film to hold on too and not forget. It isn't one of the most popular films ever made and is certainly one of the weakest best picture films, but it does not mean it still isn't important. I thought the movie was well done and made you just want to watch more and more of it. The performances were the best positive for the film and Dustin Hoffman played one of his best roles he's ever done as the lonely workaholic who has to take care of his son, as his wife separates from him. Billy, who is Hoffman's son, played another great performance along with Meryl Streep, playing the depressed mother of Billy. Kramer vs. Kramer is not one of the greatest films and is not a perfect 10, but it succeeds in making the film worth watching and worth caring about it. Certainly, one of Hoffman's best films he's ever done. I highly recommend it.

Hedeen's Outlook: 9\/10 ***+ A-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After a decade of turbulent unrest, American movies began to switch gears and turn their cameras away from war-torn battlefields, political corruption, and general social unease to the more intimate world of family dysfunction. The toll the selfish Baby Boomers began to take on the American family as they grew up and had kids of their own was making itself felt.

\"Kramer vs. Kramer\" is one of the first of these dysfunctional family dramas that would continue to be so popular throughout the 1980s, and it's one of the best. It gets a rather bum rap now, because it's known as the film that beat \"Apocalypse Now\" for the 1979 Best Picture Academy Award, but comparing these two films is like comparing a banana to a marinated chicken breast: they're not remotely the same, but can't we enjoy them both? Director\/writer Robert Benton doesn't try to do anything fancy with his movie; its strength lies in its performances, those of Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep particularly, playing a divorced couple fighting childishly and selfishly over their son. The courtroom scene in which they duke it out for custody, and in which each is forced to hurt the other in terrible ways, is devastating, and feels authentic. The movie doesn't present Hoffman's solid dad as a hero, or Streep's straying mom as a villain. They're neither good or bad as people -- they're simply bad at being married.

The film is tear-jerky at the finale, but not in a manipulative way. It earns its right to elicit sobs.

Grade: A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I consider myself lucky that I got to view a wonderful movie with two marvelous actors. \"Kramer vs. Kramer\" was great to me because I think I could relate to it.

Unfortunately, my parents are divorced. Even though I was older than Billy in this movie, I felt his pain and confusion. Having two parents who you thought were happy and end up hating each other is the worst. Through this movie, actually, I think it made me realize that my parents are people too, and they had as just much pain as my sister and I had.

Back to the movie, this was a good one. Yes, it's dated and Meryl and Dustin are very young. But I would recommend this for a lot of people, because I think most can relate in some way. There are funny, sad, happy, and relieving moments that are carried away terrificly by these great actors. It's a good movie and deserves more credit than a 7.5.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think not! I mean yeah if you compare this film to The Godfather, or maybe a little older film like Casablanca, or maybe even a little newer film like The English Patient. It doesn't have the camera work or the cinematography like these other films, but that doesn't mean that this is a bad movie, or does it? I think the reason why this film is underrated is because a lot of people always compare it to other great Oscar winning films (you should never do that) which makes it hard to understand the beauty and the realism in this movie. In the categories Best Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role and Best Actress in a Supporting Role, this film really deserved all of them. The magnificent Dustin Hoffman gives us, once again, one of his best performances. A couple of times in this movie I forgot that it wasn't his son because it was just so real! I have never seen a film about relationships in different families where it was so easy for the actors to play that specific role but still so beautiful. So Dustin Hoffman passes the test with flying colors, in my opinion. There are a few actresses in the world who deserve to be called the best: Katherine Hepburn, Meryl Streep, Jane Fonda and Ingrid Bergman (I can't help it, I think she's great). Meryl Streep, even though she's in a supporting role, is amazing and real and you just can't help but being drawn ed to her talent and the way she makes it hers and real. Wow, that's all I can say. Justin Henry was great considering his age, his tears and his relationship with his mom and dad was beautiful, so I say good job to cute little Justin Henry.

While I was watching this film for like the third time, alone, I couldn't stop crying. I tried but I couldn't. Thank god I was alone! This is probably the purest film I have ever seen. Other films that were nominated for Best Picture was Apocalypse Now, Norma Rae, Breaking Away and All That Jazz. I'm ashamed, cause I haven't seen any of them, but from what I've heard, Apocalypse Now is great but when I heard about Norma Rae I only thought of Sally Field. I think that considering the other nominees, this film deserved it's five Oscars, and that it'll continue to touch and make other people cry for a long time in the future, just like it has for the past 28 years. Good job all the actors and actresses in this film for giving us great performances and memories from watching this film that we won't ever forget.

Thanks for your time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No, this has nothing to do with the sitcom \"Seinfeld\" or its eccentric and hilarious character Cosmo Kramer. In reality, \"Kramer vs. Kramer\" is a fine drama movie, without a doubt one of the finest of its kind and one of the greatest movies ever. I'm glad that it won more Oscars than \"Apocalypse Now\" because it really deserved such glory.

\"Kramer vs. Kramer\" is an excellent film, so well made and so perfectly balanced that I wouldn't change anything about it in any way. There is nothing wrong with the film. It's film-making of the highest quality. And it stands the test of time, too. Not only it doesn't look any dated, but also its cultural impact is long-lasting and its realistic story remains just as significant as it was when it came out in 1979. A timeless classic. They don't make movies like this today.

This movie is dramatic, realistic, simple but brilliant, intense, powerful, sweet and even tragic and depressing sometimes. Yet, it has fine humor as well. It has no special effects, but who cares? This is not the movie or place to discuss such thing. For a movie like this, such thing would be pointless and absolutely unnecessary.

The story is very interesting. The actors's chemistry is just perfect. All of the actors are great, but the 3 main ones are the very best. Dustin Hoffman, a brilliant actor, has his greatest performance ever here as the lovable but distant workaholic Ted Kramer. Meryl Streep is great as Ted's wife, Joanna. And cute little Justin Henry is terrific as the loving but sometimes stubborn Billy, son of Ted and Joanna.

The soundtrack is all instrumental and wonderful. The opening song (by the guitarist Frederic Hand) is brilliant. The rest of the soundtrack is mostly Antonio Vivaldi's classical music and is simply dazzling.

This motion picture has also an incredible development of the characters. See the character Ted Kramer: a workaholic who becomes an amazing father after being left with no choice but to take care of his son, trying to adjust these new responsibilities with his job after being left by his wife Joanna. With this, Ted learns about the most beautiful things in life, but also realizes how though life is, with the problems in his job and the return of Joanna, who wants the custody of their son. But even Joanna changes for better and the ending is an unexpected surprise when one sees this for the first time.

This movie has also some though things, such as courtroom scenes where both Ted and Joanna face brutal character assassinations unleashed by the lawyers. Another though thing to see is when poor Billy falls off a jungle gym with his toy (a plane) and gets seriously injured on his face. But then again, the scene is very well made and what comes next is very intense: his father runs quickly and crosses numerous blocks, ignoring the traffic to take his son to the hospital.

Overall, this is a movie which is a good lesson of life.

This should definitely be on Top 250.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The marriage of an upscale New York City couple with child falls apart when the wife wants out (\"It took a lot of courage for her to walk out that door!\" a neighbor tells us); the busy, distracted husband takes on the \"motherly\" responsibilities and grows closer to his son, but soon the wife returns. Highly manipulative picture doesn't give us a very realistic familial unit (with young Justin Henry certainly not resembling the product of a marriage between Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep!), but the dynamics are intriguing and involving, and director Robert Benton keeps the pace popping with lots of cleverness, marvelous classical music, canny editing and surefire bits of humor. Streep's character is designed to be a cold, self-centered witch, but I was ready to feel a lot more for her than Benton probably wanted. It all has to be painted in terms of black and white, good and bad, with Hoffman learning how hard his wife had it and getting a second chance at being a good parent. The film never falters from its preconceived path, and very fine acting nearly saves it, but I'm not sure where Benton was steering the film in the final act, and the closing scene is awfully abrupt. *** from ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kramer vs. Kramer is the story of a marital breakup and the consequences of same. They can be devastating to the partners and even more so to a minor child which in this case is played by Justin Henry.

What I really did like about Kramer vs. Kramer, it's greatest strength as a film is the way that parents Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep are presented to the audience as whole people with many sides to their nature. Though the film is slanted in Hoffman's direction and more about his relationship with his son, he's not presented as any kind of saint, nor is Streep a completely black villain. Hoffman's a career oriented man in the advertising game. He's pretty much ignored his wife's dreams and aspirations, still it's a big shock to him when Streep says the love's no longer there and she wants out. She also wants out of being a mother, at least for a while.

Hoffman and Henry make do the best they can. The pressure of being both parents causes Hoffman to lose his job and he has to take a lower paying one in another agency. At that point after over a year, Streep decides she wants custody.

Both parents make compelling witnesses and state their case beautifully, but in these situations, the tie is always broken in favor of the mother.

Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep won their first of two Oscars respectively for this film, her in the Supporting Actress category. I'm not sure how these things are decided, Streep does get less screen time than Hoffman if that's the determining factor. The film does focus on Hoffman's relationship with his son and his evolving realization that he has his share of the blame for the marriage failure. As for Meryl it's a Hob's choice for her as it is for many women, to balance a career and motherhood. The conflict in her psyche registers for all to see on the screen.

Dustin Hoffman may have won that Oscar partly for the same reason that Spencer Tracy picked up his first, by performing the impossible task of not letting a scene stealing child steal the film. Children with their lack of inhibitions are natural actors and Henry is great because he comes over as a real kid, not a Hollywood kid. I wonder if Hoffman saw Captains Courageous and saw how Spencer Tracy dealt with Freddie Bartholomew. Dustin could have done a lot worse than channel Spencer Tracy in his performance.

Kramer vs. Kramer also won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director for Robert Benton and Best Adapted Screenplay. It's an intelligent and compelling drama about adults falling out of love and trying to deal as best they can with it for themselves and their child. Don't miss it if ever broadcast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen many Dustin Hoffman's movies like Straw Dogs or Rain Man and I liked them, but his characters are much to often calm or even shy persons. I expected him to be in this movie the same as he was in Straw Dogs, but I saw a totally different person. He was much more energetic in this film and kinda reminded me of Al Pacino in Serpico. The movie was very interesting from beginning to the end. I liked the way Dustin Hoffman's character was ready to do just about everything to stay with his son. This movie is also revealing. Personally, I think it shows that people should learn to find a compromise them self without involving other people into issue.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kramer Vs. Kramer is a near-heartening drama about shocking, drastic augmentations of the two subjects of a failed married couple. Meryl Streep, in the throes of her trademark maternal sensitivity, plays an unhappy stay-at-home mother who feels confined to such a role and within the first five minutes of the film leaves her inattentive husband, in a fantastic performance by Dustin Hoffman, to find another role for herself. Hoffman is dumbstruck, having absolutely no idea what to do with himself, having taken so much for granted that he doesn't know the first thing about getting his son to school in the morning.

Hoffman seamlessly characterizes this husband as such a juicy load of setbacks. He is restless, relentless and impatient, but even though the positive side to those three adjectives should include just the opposite, he is unremittingly fixated on whatever he turns his head to. He's been focused on his career in advertising, and when he is left to raise his son Billy all by himself, chaos ushers in immediately. He's the one throwing temper tantrums and quitting angrily halfway through an activity. After awhile, as he befriends his neighbor and Joanna's former friend, played by sexy Jane Alexander, Hoffman cools his jets enough to understand why his wife left. In the meantime, his boundless energy redirects towards raising Billy and he loses his job.

The custody battle of the title is a brilliantly grey circumstance. Even if the ending is a little unmotivated, subjectified for the audience, the last line and the last shot still have that witty screen writing touch that seemed to diminish after the magical 1970s.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Certainly when I saw this movie at HBO, I was bit erratic in following the plot, but it catches my attention when seeing Dustin Hoffman in it. Honestly I'm not enthralled watching old movies, but then in the long run it changes my point of view. Seeing this stirring film made me experience once again couching at my seat not noticing my tears suddenly roll down my cheek, and then after, let loose a heavy sigh in realizing the impact of what I've just witness. Kramer vs Kramer was indeed one of the best classical drama movies I've witnessed for a long time that even I, myself couldn't imagine how it touched me. The story was strongly emotional, but is not saturated with such. The characters weren't unrealistic for their roles; they possess qualities that make viewers like them whatever position they have in the film, like the role of Meryl Streep, she was a mother who honestly concede her mistakes at the past but then she's confident to stand up her emotional motives to get what she desires in a fair and square battle. Dustin Hoffman was way too outstanding, I can't even fathom how this guy could play seriously difficult roles and suddenly jump into another role which is completely different, then performed it well. Even though I have already seen the movies a lot of times, when I seat back and lounge at my home scanning worth movies to peer and buy a time for it, catching a glimpse for Kramer vs Kramer will make my experience another worthwhile moment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Normally, movies stay out of the realm of \"domestic drama,\" and for good reason: who wants to intentionally seek entertainment from a story about what they or those close to them have to deal with in real life? Divorce hurts an incredible percentage of American families of all classes and custody battles are ugly and necessary parts of it. That's not escapism -- the number one reason the average person turns to movies -- that's sad reality.

Normally, divorce or custody is simply part of a greater story and affects the way we understand it or relate to its characters. \"Kramer vs. Kramer\" focuses on it and asks us to understand why we do it and why that makes it so troubling. That's a challenge for both this film and its audience: turn something so real into something that can capture our attention and then make us not feel spiteful as the mirror is held up to our face. Writer\/director Robert Benton definitely achieves both and in impressive fashion in adapting this novel by Avery Corman.

The story, as one would expect, is quite simple: Big business advertising man Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) comes home to find his wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) is leaving him and their 7-year-old son Billy (Justin Henry). Ted then must quickly learn to be an active father in the boys' life and as soon as he does, Joanna brings a custody suit upon him.

To make an Oscar-winning drama about something so generic and particularly dialogue- heavy first takes tremendous acting talent. You don't get much better than Hoffman and Streep. Hoffman is in his prime in this role: his first Oscar win after three other notable nominations. He creates a thorough character, one whose self-centered and quick-tempered ways clearly change as he learns to be a better father and the sole care-giver. Streep wins her first Oscar in only the second major role of her career as a woman who doesn't get much screen time but must communicate both inner torment at her decision to leave as well as renewed sense of identity when she returns to take custody. Streep does so effortlessly. The young boy, Justin Henry, who at his age was the youngest competitive category nominee in Academy Awards history, plays the embodiment of all 7-year-old children exceptionally well.

Benton's writing and direction takes these performances to the level where we see deeper into this family's troubles than we do our own and thus reconsider our thoughts about love and raising a family. Benton's previous notable credits (\"Bonnie & Clyde\" and \"Superman\") wouldn't indicate a strong command of family drama, but the man can flat out write. Numerous scenes give us strong visuals that show us much more than the typical family scenarios they depict. The first morning that Joanna is gone and Ted make's Billy french toast is a classic that perfectly demonstrates all the talent going into this movie in a scene that happens in Americans' kitchens every morning.

You'll rarely see a story as straightforward as \"Kramer vs. Kramer\" done better. There aren't any surprises at the end or twists and turns that will keep us desperately glued to the screen. The film then has to rely on its talents and they are all sure-fire, delivering a new understanding of a subject that's so familiar.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this film was quite good and quite entertaining for a film heavy on emotion. I agree with what another user wrote about the script being sympathetic to the three main characters. I think that this is what what made the film good. It didn't villainies either Mr. or Mrs. Kramer and it was refreshing, I think, to see two people essentially work the issue out on their own and eventually do the best thing for Billy. And, although it was a little strange, I actually liked the music in this film as well. For some reason the music seemed appropriate for the journey that the three main characters embarked upon. This movie flowed quite well and didn't doodle, like some emotionally heavy films tend to do. It dealt with a serious situation but didn't take itself too seriously. It simply told the story in a straight forward way and it worked quite well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you asked me to pick the best acted movies ever made, this movie would be on a short list along with 1951's Streetcar Named Desire. I imagine i'll discover some others that qualify, but Kramer vs Kramer is an outstanding exercise in naturalism. So its a very satisfying experience on that level: just watching the marvelous, probing performances of Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep and the child Justin Henry in particular. One of the best child performances ever.

But I also find it very satisfying to watch, because its such a thoroughly involving story - it always makes me forget my own problems. It has such excellent narrative drive. Once you stick Kramer vs Kramer on, and Alice Kramer leaves Ted to juggle work and their young son, telling him nothing more than she has to discover herself - you keep watching to know that everything turns out okay for them. And even once you know how things do turn out, each moment of the ride just rings so brilliantly true that its a joy to watch it happen again and again.

Make no mistake - Kramer vs Kramer is not light entertainment: its a very realistic portrayal of the effects of divorce on everyone involved.

10\/10.

For one of the best scripts (born out of conversations between Benton and Hoffman, who was going through a divorce at the time) ever written, executed and performed beautifully and faultlessly. Not to mention what a great, involving story it is. Put simply, a perfect film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember going to drive inn with my parent and sister. I was in grade 5, and still a kid, and the drive closed down 4 years later, but the film still lingers in my memory. An adult movie, which a kid finds entertaining. That is a mark of excellence. Hoffman is one of hollywoods better actors, and this film proves it. I like the Billy put down the ice cream scene, and I remember the SCTV version in there film I factory myself. Remember Joe Flairty crying. Please email me if you like the SCTV skit. Not a bad film at all, it is a story about a father, and his son. Touching and intertaining, I love the part where Hoffman talks about Killroy, and how the streets change. Worth a second watch. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The child actor certainly deserves a lot of credit. It was a pretty weak field for Best Picture that year. I think \"Apocalypse Now\" should have taken it, but the Academy probably felt it was too violent and strange, plus Vietnam was still too recent. Meryl Streep was tremendous, as always, playing a very unlikeable character. I don't usually compliment directors, but I really liked that bit with the elevator doors. Grade: B","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Good drama movie about a child custody case with great performances by all the actors.A good example of what an excellent script can do to propel a simple story to a much higher quality.The screenplay was just average though and this is what kept the movie from the list of the all time best dramas.Still,the great acting makes this movie a good one to see if you are a fan of court dramas or a big fan of the lead actors.The movie really should have been a tad longer though for more excellence but that would really be nitpicking......","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Life was going great for New York City advertising artist Ted Kramer. He had a great job and a loving wife. No, actually, his wife wasn't so loving, for when Ted returned home late from work that night his wife, Joanna, had a suit case packed and was heading out the door. He tried to stop her, but she just got into the elevator and out of Ted's life. Well, now in addition to his job he's now got to mind the house as well as their 6-year-old son, Billy; Ted assured his boss that his wife's leaving would not affect his job performance in any way. It did however affect his performance as a father. He blew up when Billy spilled punch on his client artwork! Well, some time later Ted and Billy receive a letter from Joanna, and it was obvious from her letter that she wasn't coming back. Ted was distraught. Well, he was late coming home from work on Billy's birthday, which made Billy sore at him.

Ted was late to work one day and his boss yelled at him because he had missed a very important client meeting. When he got home, he yelled at Billy for sneaking ice cream during dinner. Then later he truthfully told Billy that the break-up between he and Joanna may have been his fault, not Billy's; Ted invited a good friend, Phyllis Bernard over that night, and well, Billy got his first look at a naked woman. When Ted took Billy to the park the following day, he fell off the jungle gym and landed face-first onto his toy plane. Ted literally ran him to the hospital where they had to administer stitches. After that, life began taking a downward spiral for Ted. Then one day out of the blue he received a phone call from none other than Joanna! They met in a corner caf\u00e9. At first they have a pleasant conversation but then Joanna informs him that she has returned to collect her son and take him with her. Ted would have none of it and stormed out. Well life got even worse for Ted when his boss, Jim O'Connor, took him out to lunch and abruptly fired him. Not only that but Joanna was choosing to sue for custody of Billy, and without a job, Ted didn't stand a chance in hell for winning. He hired himself a lawyer, John Shaunessy, who charged a pretty penny: $15,000 exact change. And that's IF they win.

Ted was also able to find a new job. It was actually a step down from what he used to do with a considerable cut in salary but he accepted with great determination. Finally the court date, January 9, 1980, arrived. Judge Atkins presiding. Joanna took the stand and Shaunessy proceeded to question her about why she left Ted and about her other relationships and how they were failures. The next day, Ted took the stand and Joanna's lawyer really grilled him like a cheeseburger. Ted's good friend Margaret took the stand as well and she really didn't help matters. Well, the judge took some time to think it over and sure enough, one day Shaunessy informs Ted that he lost. Joanna got sole custody of Billy. How typical! Always ruling in favor of the mother. Well, Ted and Billy were just devastated about parting ways. They had a tearful goodbye when suddenly Joanna stopped by. She and Ted have a little talk and well, rather than just give away the ending, let me assure everybody that everything turns out alright for everybody!

This was a very good movie. Dustin Hoffman was very good. He earned that Academy Award. I've also seen him in Hook, Meet the Fockers and Rain Man, which he also won an Oscar for. Meryl Streep was good. She also got an Oscar. Justin Henry was good too, so where was his nomination? I guess the Academy had a rule against giving Oscars to children, but the rule was lifted when Haley Joel Osment came along. This movie has great drama, light comedy, and is very subtle. It does a good job of holding your attention. I was watching Rain Man on TCM the other night then this came on after and I just couldn't help but watch. And that's what you should do. If you like Dustin Hoffman or Meryl Streep or movies of this genre, then I recommend Kramer vs. Kramer! A gripping film about the pangs of two divorced parents fighting over their child. I liked Ted's little speech about ruling in favor of mothers all the time. What was it about sex that makes a good parents? Actually, that's how they have the child. But seriously, he's right. Why always rule in favor of the mother because she's a woman? Also in the cast, George Coe, Howard Duff, who passed away in 1990, and Howland Chamberlain who passed away in 1984. Watch for an up-and-coming JoBeth Williams in the nudity in the hallway scene. Anyway, see Kramer vs. Kramer today!!! Good movie!!

-","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ever since `Midnight Cowboy' I have been on the lookout for films with Dustin Hoffman and have mostly not been disappointed. Ever since `Kramer vs Kramer' I have been on the lookout for films with Meryl Streep and have mostly not been disappointed. She gave a superb performance, really one of her best, in `Sophie's Decision' and I lapped her up in `Out of Africa'. That these two actors came together over 20 years ago for `Kramer vs Kramer' was definitely a very good idea: the result is an excellent character drama with a theme which is still very relevant in today's society.

On divorcing everyone has a pretty bad time, though the kids seem to suffer most\u0085\u0085\u0085..Beautifully handled by Robert Benton in some original directing presenting some memorable scenes: even the passageway takes on character and should be included in the cast! And as for the breakfast scene with Billy (Justin Henry), just simply magnificent. Just how do you get an eight-year-old to act? Benton managed it, and of course with Hoffman there seemed to be good electricity: the result is certainly engaging, endearing, and convincing. Justin Henry's performance must rank among the best 5 or 6 kids' performances of all time. The best thing, once again, was the naturalness, there was no going over the top, so frequent these days.

This film came up again on the small screen the other night, though I have had it in my video collection for years: it is still worth watching and paying attention to everything. Around 7\u00bd out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Moving beyond words is this heart breaking story of a divorce which results in a tragic custody battle over a seven year old boy.

One of \"Kramer v. Kramer's\" great strengths is its screenwriter director Robert Benton, who has marvellously adapted Avery Corman's novel to the big screen. He keeps things beautifully simple and most realistic, while delivering all the drama straight from the heart. His talent for telling emotional tales like this was to prove itself again with \"Places in the Heart\", where he showed, as in \"Kramer v. Kramer\", that he has a natural ability for working with children.

The picture's other strong point is the splendid acting which deservedly received four of the film's nine Academy Award nominations, two of them walking away winners. One of those was Dustin Hoffman (Best Actor), who is superb as frustrated business man Ted Kramer, a man who has forgotten that his wife is a person. As said wife Joanne, Meryl Streep claimed the supporting actress Oscar for a strong, sensitive portrayal of a woman who had lost herself in eight years of marriage. Also nominated was Jane Alexander for her fantastic turn as the Kramer's good friend Margaret. Final word in the acting stakes must go to young Justin Henry, whose incredibly moving performance will find you choking back tears again and again, and a thoroughly deserved Oscar nomination came his way.

Brilliant also is Nestor Almendros' cinematography and Jerry Greenberg's timely editing, while musically Henry Purcell's classical piece is used to effect.

Truly this is a touching story of how a father and son come to depend on each other when their wife and mother leaves. They grow together, come to know each other and form an entirely new and wonderful relationship. Ted finds himself with new responsibilities and a new outlook on life, and slowly comes to realise why Joanne had to go.

Certainly if nothing else, \"Kramer v. Kramer\" demonstrates that nobody wins when it comes to a custody battle over a young child, especially not the child himself.

Saturday, June 10, 1995 - T.V.

Strong drama from Avery Corman's novel about the heartache of a custody battle between estranged parents who both feel they have the child's best interests at heart. Aside from a superb screenplay and amazingly controlled direction, both from Robert Benton, it's the superlative cast that make this picture such a winner.

Hoffman is brilliant as Ted Kramer, the man torn between his toppling career and the son whom he desperately wants to keep. Excellent too is Streep as the woman lost in eight years of marriage who had to get out before she faded to nothing as a person. In support of these two is a very strong Jane Alexander as mutual friend Margaret, an outstanding Justin Henry as the boy caught in the middle, and a top cast of extras.

This highly emotional, heart rending drama more than deserved it's 1979 Academy Awards for best film, best actor (Hoffman) and best supporting actress (Streep).

Wednesday, February 28, 1996 - T.V.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is probably the best cinematic depiction of life in a Manhattan ad agency: the pressure to perform; client and agency demands; the parties; the creativity; the money; the cool surface with powerful corporate undercurrents.

Toss in parenthood for Dustin Hoffman.

The movie is textured and deep. It follows his internal relationship as he tries to understand and live with what's going on; his relationship with Meryl Streep (and her friend, who becomes his friend), and his the relationship with his son.

While Meryl Streep was great, did she set the record for least screen time to win an Oscar? She sure can deliver when she is on, though.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this film on 3 different occasions.On the first occasion,I was bowled over by this film.It appeared as a very kind film to me.I hated this film as a sentimental garbage on my second viewing.However my third viewing reasserted my belief that it is a good film.There is a lot of emotional power in this film especially scenes of emotional confrontation between Mr Kramer and Madam Kramer.There are some scenes in which Meryl Streep appears a cruel person despite the fact that she is a beauty in real life.Dustin Hoffman appears as a lost hero unable to grapple with the recent task of his child's custody.There was even a controversy on the sets of this film.According to the master cameraman Nestor Almendros there was a shot in which he just escaped getting hurt as the character of Mr.Kramer,in order to show the intensity of his anger,decides to break a glass hard.Luckily nothing happened to Nestor.Kramer versus Kramer shows the destruction of a family structure.It also tells how family must be maintained if there are kids involved.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a phenomenal movie. Truly one of the best movies I have ever watched. I am a serious critic and it takes much to stir me, but this movie had all the right combinations for \"stirring\". The passion of the actors,without the overacting, the aching for all the characters involved, the serious and subtle truths about marriage and divorce, all make this a must see movie, despite the fact that it is 1970s. This is definitely not an \"old movie\", but a classic\/vintage movie. I hope you engage with it as I did when you consider how volatile relationships of all kinds can be, when you also consider how deep pain associated with love can be and how the hardest decisions to make will always be the most painful, but once they are made the pain will subside, but only gradually. This movie certainly demonstrates that the most volatile relationships are not necessarily weak relationships and that leaving certainly is not synonymous with lost\/lack of love. The 'crafting' of this movie certainly emanates from a place deep within someone's heart and mind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"KRAMER VS KRAMER won five Oscars, including Best Picture of 1979. This intense and deeply moving family drama follows an advertising executive whose life is turned upside down when his wife of eight years, walks out on him, leaving him to care for his son and build a relationship with him he never had. Robert Benton's incisive screenplay presents us flawed, but real human beings with hearts, souls, and brains. For instance, in the scene where Joanna announces to Ted she's leaving him, she doesn't just storm out the door...she gives him the keys, her credit cards, the dry cleaning ticket, tells him which bills have been paid, and informs him she has withdrawn from their bank account the same amount of money she had when they were married, no more. This decision to leave was not a whim...it was thought about and Joanna felt, with no other option than to leave, if she was leaving she was going to do it properly...and with no specific plan in mind, she did not think it right to take Billy. Dustin Hoffman won an Oscar for his Ted Kramer, a man so obsessed with bringing home the bacon, he had no clue that his life at home was crumbling into pieces. Meryl Streep also won an Oscar playing Joanna, the unhappy wife who we feel sympathy for in the beginning of the film but that all changes when she returns for her son. Hoffman is at the top of his form here. I always tear up during the scene where he tries to explain to Billy (Justin Henry, Oscar nominee) why his mom left and he does it all in a stage whisper or when he meets Joanna upon her return and slams her drink into a wall (a Hoffman moment not in the script that Streep was not told about in order to get a natural reaction). Justin Henry hits all the right notes as Billy, the confused little boy who doesn't know why his mom is gone and doesn't know how to communicate with his father. Jane Alexander also got an Oscar nod as Ted and Joanna's neighbor, Margaret, who has switched allegiances by the film's conclusion. This is an intense family drama but there are laughs to be had here too...Billy and the chocolate chip ice cream...Billy pouting because Ted is late picking him for a party...Billy catching his dad's one night stand (JoBeth Williams) on her way to the bathroom stark naked, but it's the moments of human drama you remember...Ted running through Manhattan with Billy in his arms to get to the emergency room after BIlly falls off the jungle gym...Ted getting fired right before beginning his custody battle and instead of making a scene, he tells the guy in a whisper...\"Shame on you.\" And of course, the finale where Joanna tells Ted she's not taking Billy, which I found a little hard to swallow. Why would she go to all that trouble of suing for custody and then just change her mind? But this is a small quibble regarding a wonderful movie, masterfully directed by Robert Benton and flawlessly performed by a top-notch cast. A must-see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Academy Award winning 'Kramer vs. Kramer' follows a snazzy businessman Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) and his divorce with his bored wife (Meryl Streep). One day Ted's wife leaves him and their child in search for a better life, forcing Ted to become closer to his son (Justin Henry). The two bond and become very close (but only after some friction), and just as everything is going perfect Ted's wife comes back to town and wants sole custody of their son. Ted then goes on a mission not to let his son get taken away from him, and fights his wife in court. Dustin Hoffman gives a tremendous performance along with Meryl Streep, and young Justin Henry is impressive. It's a sad emotional roller-coaster of a movie, but it's a very well-made and inspiring film. The film took the Oscar for Best Picture at the 1979 Academy Awards, along with Best Actor for Hoffman and Best Supporting Actress for Streep. If you don't mind a tearjerker, 'Kramer vs. Kramer' is a great film to watch. Grade: B+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Inexplicably, I watched this movie for the very first time just a couple of days ago, and understood from the very beginning what all the fuss is about. This movie held my attention from beginning to end, and ran me through the whole range of emotions (and might have helped me discover a few I never knew about.)

Dustin Hoffman absolutely shines as Ted Kramer. He is absolutely convincing as a man having to juggle at least three different challenges in life: jilted husband, workaholic ad executive and loving father. Meryl Streep as Joanna Kramer was less central to the movie simply because Joanna was absent for a good part of it, but when she was on screen she gave Hoffman a run for his money. The true standout, though, (in my opinion) had to be young Justin Henry as Billy Kramer. Children are always the innocent victim in a marital breakdown, and Justin seemed absolutely natural and completely believable in this role as he deals with the conflicting emotions around his mother and his adjustment to life with Dad, only then to have the confusion around why he should have to leave his Dad when it was his Mom who walked out on him. Young Justin didn't seem to miss a beat in this very difficult role.

All in all, this is an excellent, Oscar-worthy movie whose only weak point was what I thought to be a truly disappointing decision to go for the sappy and happy ending, which was totally unrealistic considering the destructive custody battle Ted and Joanna had gone through. But there's not much else to complain about here.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say about Kramer vs. Kramer? On the surface it's rather simple but underneath it deals with emotions greater than life itself. It delivers many fantastic moments, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry. You sympathize with the characters and you care about them. Many films fail at this, Kramer vs. Kramer is a success.

I think everyone would agree the acting is superb. Once you watch Kramer vs. Kramer, for some time the acting in most other films starts to feel plastic and unemotional. The actors seem to get along well with their roles and the characters really live on the screen. There's some beautiful chemistry between them. I think the best performance in the film comes from the young Justin Henry. He's different from any other child actor I've ever seen. He's amazingly natural.

Also, there's some kind of neurotic beauty in Meryl Streep. And Dustin Hoffman delivers one of the best performances of his career! The story is very well written. It's simple but complicated at the same time. The concept is the simple part, the feelings associated is the complicated part of it.

If you haven't seen this film yet, you're definitely missing out! See it now!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just as Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) is about to get a break in his professional life his frustrated wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) finally gets up the courage to leave him, leaving Ted to care for their five year old son (Justin Henry). Being a single parent proves to be quite the chore for Ted, and he suffers professionally but also learns there's much more to life than a career as he continues to bond with, and really get to know, his own son. But then Joanna returns and intends to get her son back, which leads to a cruel custody trial.

Kramer vs. Kramer is a superbly well written and magnificently acted human drama that will only leave the most cold-hearted a viewer untouched. Hoffman's growing relationship with his son is so well portrayed and the film never takes an easy way out. It always feels very real and thanks to the film's low-key approach it makes even more of an impact and can easily work upon multiple viewings, the film's dramatic impact does not lessen.

Easily recommended; 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although this was a low budget film and clearly last minute, it holds a certain charm that is difficult to pinpoint. I tend to believe it is the scriptwriter- Grant Morris (see Dead Dog), who, despite the warped plot line injected a fantastic slice of humour, sorely missing in many of today's box office hits. Definitely a must see for a Sunday afternoon laughfest. Speaking as a true single girl, and very sceptical this film did not inspire me particularly, but did ignite a small flame of hope for a lovelife. Not my lovelife, so much as my slightly crazy neighbour's lovelife who lets her hamster sleep in her bed with her. She may find someone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just love this movie and I have my TV programed to record it when it comes on again on Nov. 2nd. It is a really nice love story with a twist. The song that is played at the end of the movie is one you would not think would be a big hit but it is a song that stays in your head and I am now trying to find that song so I can hear it and play it. I really have no style of the shows I see or the songs I like to hear and there for makes me pretty open to seeing things new with an open mind. I would like to say there is some parts in this movie that is not meant for the whole family to watch. This movie does show skin. It is kinda like a lifetime movie for women, about women. I say watch the movie and you may just like it as much as I did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I actually found out about Favela Rising via the IMDb website. I have a particular interest in Afro-Brazilian culture and films. Favela Rising is one of those gems that gives a new meaning to human transformation. Beautifully documented and filmed by Jeff Zimbalist and Matt Mochary its the story Anderson Sa, a former Rio De Janeiro drug trafficker who after the deaths of family members and friends becomes a Christ-like, Malcolm X, and Ghandi all rolled into one. Sa formed AfroReggae, a grassroots cultural movement that uses Afro-Brazilian hiphop, capoeira(Afro-Brazilian Martial Arts)drumming, and other artforms to transform the hopeless and most times angry youth into vibrant, viable, caring community loving individuals.

A few years ago I remember going to a screening of City Of God (Cidade De Deus) and walked out of the theatre completely numb. The images were grim yet stunning and you couldn't take your eyes off the screen. I remember how hopeless some situations were in the Favelas and how decadent the society was due to the governments neglect. How drug trafficking was a way of life, how indifferent the citizens of the slums were because death was an every day occurrence. Like City Of God Anderson Sa talks about how the people of the favelas were also desensitized. He talks about the police corruption, and how the communities were so immobilized by drugs and gangs that you couldn't visit family members in other Favelas you had to meet in a neutral location. Unlike City of God Anderson Sa's grassroots movement AfroReggae provides solutions to the anger, the hopelessness.

There was one part in the documentary where Anderson, in the spirit of a preacher approached some youth and asked them to join AfroReggae. These jaded youth were so scarred by everyday survival and violence. Their role models were drug dealers and this is what they aspired to be. Anderson told then that drug dealers don't live very long. There was reluctance of course but five months later he was able to get some of the youth to join AfroReggae.

The visuals in Favela Rising are beyond amazing. Its clear to me that Jeff Zimbalist and Matt Mochary are not only great story tellers but visual artist as well. This is a must see documentary! There are some really magical and transforming moments in this documentary. I don't want to spoil them for you. I want you see it for yourself. Please tell your friends, academics, youth counselors, family members about this wonderful film. It will make you care about the world and our children.

I would give it eleven stars!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Favela Rising is a documentary about the slums of Rio, the favelas, specifically the most violent one, Vig\u00e1rio Geral. According to this film, a lot more kids have died violently in Rio's favelas over the last decade or so than in Israel\/Palestine during the same period -- a fact astonishing if true, which shows how under-recognized this social problem is in the rest of the world. This is an important topic, especially for those who see hope in grassroots efforts to marshal the neediest and most at risk through a vibrant cultural program. This is a compelling documentary, if occasionally marred by a somewhat too personality-based version of events and by grainy digital video and film that sometimes may make you think you need to have your eyes examined.

Drug lords rule in the favelas and gun-toting teenage boys are the main drug dealers, like in parts of Colombia. Fernando Meirelles' movie City of God\/Cidade de Deus has been accused of celebrating violence (Cidade de Deus is another of Rio's many favelas). But the early section of Favela Rising shows that in fact favela boys do celebrate violence and want to deal drugs where the money and the action are. It's cool to carry a gun there, cool to work as a drug trafficker: it's fifty times more profitable than the earnings available by other means.

Mochary first discovered the AfroReggae movement and its leaders Anderson S\u00e1 and Jos\u00e9 Junior while visiting Rio for a conference and quickly persuaded his friend and mentor Zimbalist to quit his job and come down to help make a film with his own promise to fund it. S\u00e1's eloquence and charisma and a startling twist in his life make him the center of the film and its chief narrator, but like the favelas themselves the film teems with other people. No doubt about the fact that S\u00e1 is a remarkable leader, organizer, and artist.

Vig\u00e1rio Geral is compared to Bosnia: shooting there was very dangerous. Anderson S\u00e1's friendship and protection and caution and diplomacy in the shooting enabled the filmmakers to gain access and shoot detailed footage of their subject matters while (mostly: there were close calls) avoiding any serious confrontations with drug lords or drug-dealing cops. They also trained boys to use cameras and left them there on trips home. That resulted in 10% of the footage, including rare shots of violent incidents including police beatings. It's hard for an outsider to keep track of police massacres in Rio. There was one in the early 1990's that looms over the story and inspired S\u00e1, who ended his own early involvement in drug trafficking to lead his cultural movement. The cops are all over the drug trade and if anybody doesn't like that the ill trained police paramilitaries come in (often wearing black ski masks) and shoot up a neighborhood, killing a lot of innocents.

This is pretty much the picture we get in Meirelles' City of God, except that this time S\u00e1, Junior, and the other guys come in, starting in Vig\u00e1rio Geral but spreading out eventually to a number of other favelas to give percussion classes that attract dozens of youth -- girls as well as boys. Their AfroReggae (Grupo Cultural AfroReggae or GCAR) program, formed in 1993, is a new alternative way of life for young black men in the Rio ghettos. It leads them to leave behind smoking, alcohol, and drugs (that's the rule) to explode into rap, song, percussion, and gymnastics in expressive, galvanic performances. Eventually the best of the performers led by S\u00e1 wind up appearing before big local audiences with local producers, and their Banda AfroReggae has an international recording contract.

Other centers and groups have been created by or through the GCAR over the years in Vig\u00e1rio Geral and other favelas to seek the betterment of youth by providing training and staging performances of music, capoeira, theater, hiphop and dance at GCAR centers.

The performance arts aren't everything, just the focal point. GCAR is also a movement for broader social change Gathering public awareness through such performances, the centers also provide training in information (newspaper, radio, Internet, e-mail links), hygiene and sex education, to seek to bridge gaps between rich and poor, black and white, and to offer workshops in audio-visual work, including production of documentaries. The program is currently active in four other favelas.

There are many scenes of favela street and home life in Favela Rising and they look very much like the images in City of God with the important difference that the focus and outcome are very, very much more positive. Not that it isn't an uphill battle. And the corruption of the police, the inequities of the social system, and the indifference of the general population of Brazil are not directly addressed by any of this. But there's a scene where S\u00e1 talks to some young kids in another favela, cynical boys not enthusiastic about AfroReggae and determined to work in the drug trade as S\u00e1 himself did as a boy. S\u00e1 doesn't seem to be convincing any of them despite pointing out that traffickers don't make it to the age of fifty. But we learn that the most negative boy in this group, Richard Morales, joined the movement five months later. There's also the account of a freak accident that disabled S\u00e1, but with a positive outcome.

It would be great if the images were sharper and clearer and if the story were edited down a little, but this is vibrant, inspiring material and represents committed, risk-taking documentary film-making and it's nice that Favela Rising has been included in seven film festivals and won a number of awards, including Best New Documentary Filmmaker at the Tribeca Film Festival. It's currently being shown at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) in London. However, a wide art house audience in the US seems somewhat unlikely.

Included in the SFIFF 2006.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm surprised with the questions and issues this documentary has brought up in the reviews here, specially because they're indeed interesting questions. Surely, the ones who could best address it would be the makers of the film themselves. Nevertheless, I think I can shed some light upon something that I think has been overlooked, which is, in my opinion, the purpose of the film, what it is about and what it's trying to convey. What's its message after all? At the risk of pointing out the very obvious, I'll start saying the filmmakers have an intention. They're trying to tell a story, extract meaning out of it and get a point across. With this in mind, we can shoot down many of the criticized points, particularly the ones involving what people expected in contrast with what the filmmakers were really trying to show. Causes and consequences of violence? The film is not about that. It's not \"enlightening Non-Brazilian audiences\" about the Brazilian favelas' issue? Well, who wanted to do that? Is AfroReggae this or that and supported by whom? It doesn't matter in this context. Not enough women in the film for your tastes? It's not about equality or the feminist cause. Every little detail about Anderson's life, mother, son, family and all the aspects and the workings of the AfroReggae movement? Well, don't be so picky because it doesn't matter. There's just so much length a story can have before it can't become a film anymore. If the authors were to show everything everyone is expecting, they'd have to make a 6 months TV series instead. If you are expecting all that, you approach the film the wrong way.

The film is actually about two individuals who started a movement. Two individuals full of ideals. Two individuals who thirst for change. Two individuals trying to do something about all the wrongdoing going around them. Individuals who went rock bottom and wanted to get up again. It's all about finding purpose in life, drawing inspiration from misery, changing the destiny and becoming something else than what they were destined to be -- criminals and drug dealers for that matter. It's about achievement and hope and not about the cruel reality of violence in Rio de Janeiro, though it's an integral part of the film given that's what the characters are constantly surrounded by. Unexpectedly and not without a reason, the film ends up centered much more on Anderson's course through difficulties in life. This is because they were faced with Anderson's accident while they were shooting the film. I'm not sure about this, but they may have even seriously considered ending the filming right there, leaving behind all effort spent. But Anderson wanted to keep going. And so they did, risking to lose in having a film with a bit of an identity crisis, considering the sudden change of course, but gaining in showing someone overcoming such a devastating happening. It's very evident for who watches it that the film begins about AfroReggae and winds up about Anderson. It's very unique in this sense (the shift of the story line). Maybe their only sin is not making it evident upfront, which may initially rise expectations that will go unfulfilled.

As for the importance or ordinariness of Anderson, I'd say not everybody wants to change the whole world, end all violence, feed all the hungry, be like Mahatma Ghandi, be as known as Mother Teresa or whoever other known personalities there are. It's much easier to relate to and draw inspiration from someone who is, such as everybody else in fact, trying to transform his or her own harsh life, raising problematic kids, coping with permanent injuries or diseases and even managing to pay the bills by the end of the month. To understand the movie you have to see that's about leaving behind a past of involvement with drugs and crime, making up for it, and trying to persuade others not to go down the same troublesome path. Though you can criticize if the way they chose to do it is effective and doubt the ideology of the method, you cannot deny their intentions.

Also, the perception that Anderson is special or a chosen one may have partially something to do with the fact that the filmmakers became very involved in the lives of the characters they were depicting. As much as becoming friends with them. There's no way it wouldn't tint the whole movie with a more favorable light over Anderson. If a dear friend becomes paralyzed in an accident, it's not just a fact, you make a big deal out of it. And this is not necessarily bad. It's not much that they treat him like \"a chosen one\" as much as they go to great lengths trying to show him as a seed for transformation and source of inspiration.

In conclusion, don't watch this documentary for the scenes of the reality of poverty and crime it contains, watch it for what it is much more, an inspirational story.

Nike-Ad-like? Seems just damn good and professionally made to me and doesn't affect or detract from the intentions of the film. Romanticized? Speculate on its credential as a documentary if you will, but why not when it's supposed to cause reaction and inspire? Isn't trying to better people's lives through music and dance -- the essence of what the subjects are trying to do -- romanticizing the very own reality? Pardon me, but showing just the plain facts is what reporters do and you can watch it on TV every night.

If I wanted to become a filmmaker, I wish my first film would also be this great.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For once a story of hope highlighted over the tragic reality our youth face. Favela Rising draws one into a scary, unsafe and unfair world and shows through beautiful color and moving music how one man and his dedicated friends choose not to accept that world and change it through action and art. An entertaining, interesting, emotional, aesthetically beautiful film. I showed this film to numerous high school students as well who all live in neighborhoods with poverty and and gun violence and they were enamored with Anderson, the protagonist. I recommend this film to all ages over 13 (due to subtitles and some images of death) from all backgrounds.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Scintillating documentary about how a small group of idealistic young men have used music, art and dance to unify and heal the community of Vigario Geral, one of the most violent slum neighborhoods in Rio (\"favela\" means neighborhood in Portuguese), offering to its young people a positive alternative to the lethal gangster world of drug traffickers.

In their feature film-making debut, Zimbalist and Mochary have crafted a movie that is breathtaking because it works on so many different levels. As social document, it gives the facts we need to know to have a context for understanding the significance of the particular story told here. The story itself is well developed, with a strong narrative arc, and, for added measure, it is shot through with keen suspense. There's an arresting, charismatic central protagonist, Anderson Sa: he's a savvy natural leader, articulate, courageous, spiritually evolved, a talented performer, a visionary who walks his talk.

There's also plenty of music and dancing to entertain. There are talking heads \u0096 mainly Sa and his closest associate, Jose Junior - but they are presented with imaginative cinematic brilliance. The editing nicely mixes footage of differing themes, punctuated only occasionally by a few fact-filled still texts. The pace is as lively as the music. A lot gets accomplished in 78 minutes.

Grupo Afro Reggae, the neighborhood social club that Anderson, Junior and a few others formed in 1993, deploy music and dance as the weapons to go up against the drug lords and the duplicitous police. They teach percussion skills to any kid who wants to join a class, along with dance, martial arts, a community newspaper. The only requirement for kids to belong is no smoking, no drinking, no drugs. There is a subtle, soft sell spiritual fabric running through the movement, loosely based on the Hindu God Shiva, the destroyer of old habits.

Jeff Zimbalist, who also was the lead cinematographer and the editor, is a Modern Culture and Media student at Brown University. He burnished his chops editing feature documentaries for PBS and others, and he teaches film at the New York Film Academy and elsewhere. Matt Mochary, like Andrew Jarecki (\"Capturing the Friedmans\") did a few years ago, recently came to film from the business world.

Zimbalist and Mochary together won the award for best new filmmakers at the 2005 TribBeCa Film Festival, and \"Favela Rising\" was tied for the best film of the year in awards made for 2005 by the International Documentary Association. I could go on for pages about Afro Reggae, Sa, and this movie. A way better idea is simply for you to go see it! My grade: A 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The producer, Matt Mochary, stumbled upon the film's subject, Anderson Sa (leader of the AfroReggae music movement), when on a Hewlett Foundation trip to Rio de Janeiro. Mochary was so moved by Sa's story that he called his friend, NYC filmmaker Jim Zimbalist, who quit his job and joined Mochary in Brazil to work on a documentary on Sa, Rio's favelas, and the culture of violence.

The first part of the film shows you the culture of violence in Rio's favelas (shantytowns where the poor live) via footage of police raids and assaults on the residents. The footage is graphic and shocking.

Rising from the negativity of the favelas is the charismatic Anderson Sa, who overcame a possible career in drug dealing to start the AfroReggae movement, which combines elements of Afro-Brazilian culture, Reggae, ska, and other elements into a fast-paced, percussion heavy style of music which has since spread to other parts of the world. You can't help but be carried away by the music, especially when you see the local children get involved in Sa's school, which he founded to keep kids out of drug gangs. The rest of the film follows Sa's meteoric rise and his positivity changes many of the children's lives to seek a life beyond drug running. SPOILER: Just when the filmmakers thought they had wrapped filming, an unbelievable life changing event occurs of which the resolution has to be seen to be believed. The film then continues and you are gripped in your seat until the end.

This film is a response to \"City of God,\" and a worthy one at that. The bleak situation portrayed in that movie is countered by a real example of how favela dwellers can overcome the dire situation they are in and use their resources to constructive ends. You can't help not liking and rooting for Anderson Sa to succeed.

This film is terrifically shot, fast-paced, and is quite absorbing. Judging by the overwhelming response of the audience at last night's SilverDocs screening, the film should get domestic distribution in the US and the thumping soundtrack should be released as well. Keep an eye for this superlative documentary--it is excellent!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Unlike the previous poster, I liked the celluloid treatment. It looked good, and made the movie that much more enjoyable to watch. To me, it didn't detract at all from the power of the documentary's content. In fact, I felt the slickness of the look allowed me to just lose myself that much more in the content. The previous poster was fair to liken the style to a Nike commercial; it definitely has that look. But for my tastes, it worked really well (and I am far from a fan of Nike commercials).

In my opinion, this is how documentary film-making should be done. I can't wait to see the next installments from these promising filmmakers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those who expect documentaries to be objective creatures, let me give you a little lesson in American film-making.

Documentaries rely heavily on casting. You pick and choose characters you think will enhance the drama and entertainment value of your film.

After you have shot a ton of footage, you splice it together to make a film with ups and downs, turning points, climaxes, etc. If you have trouble with existing footage, you either shoot some more that makes sense, find some stock footage, or be clever with your narration.

The allegation that the filmmakers used footage of locales not part of the movie (favelas next to beautiful beaches) does not detract from the value of the film as a dramatic piece and the particular image is one that resonates enough to justify its not-quite-truthful inclusion. At any rate, you use the footage you can. So they didn't happen to have police violence footage for that particular neighborhood. Does this mean not include it and just talk about it or maybe put in some cartoon animation so the audience isn't \"duped\"? Um, no.

As for the hopeful ending, why not? Yes, Americans made it. Yes, Americans are optimistic bastards. But why end on a down note? Just because it's set in a foreign country and foreign films by and large end on a down note? Let foreigners portray the dismal outlook of life.

Let us Americans think there may be a happy ending looming in the future. There just may be one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Canadian film-maker Ron Switzer delivers a solid, non-stop thrill ride of relentless horror with the superb 1991 sci-fi film \"Science Crazed\". A hideous monster takes revenge on his mother, a police officer and tenants of an apartment building. Brilliant practical make-up and special effects designs create a truly terrifying monster, especially when lurking through the atmospheric shadows and smoke of the gloomy apartment settings. The characters are developed beautifully with outstanding and surprisingly touching performances from an ensemble cast. Produced by Donna Switzer, newcomer Ron Switzer also penned the film's face-paced script, weaving together an engaging roller-coaster ride of twists, turns, and terror that keeps you guessing until the last frame. Science Crazed will no doubt leave you haunted long after the shocking conclusion. Highly recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sam Firstenberg's \"Ninja 3:The Domination\" mixes martial arts with \"The Exorcist\" like horror.The horror elements thrown on screen are simply laughable,but the film works as a mindless action\/martial arts flick.The fight scenes are well-choreographed and exciting,and the film is never boring.So forget stupid dialogue,lame acting and annoying soundtrack-grab some beer and check this one out!Highly recommended!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This might be my favorite so bad it's awesome film of all time. like many pre-teen children of the 80's repeat viewing of revenge of ninja spawned a ninja phase of my childhood. Man i thought Sho k. was badass back then. Jet Li could wup him with both legs in a cast! This movie has insane crossovers that include flashdance,the exorcist and the Lee Van cleef ninja TV show. ugh. but as a friend of mine says anyone can get a good movie made it takes true genius to make a film that starts with a ninja surviving 17 shotgun blasts long enough to take over the body of arobics instructor to get revenge. wow. While previous commentors have metioned the sword flying out of the closet on the string no one has yet metioned the powerful love scene. Where the sexy leading man cop takes off his shirt to reveal a mane of backhair. The fun never ends. Rent this!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a pretty silly film, including what may well be the least erotic come-on ever to make it to the big screen (the heroine pours V-8 all over herself and invites the hero to lick it off -- yuck!). And yet it also features the resplendent Lucinda Dickey in what is far and away her most erotic performance. In those long ago days, women -- even action heroines -- with real muscles were a rarity, and I can still remember the way my jaw dropped when Dickey took off her shirt, revealing the most powerfully built female back and biceps I'd ever seen. Dickey's beauty and vitality carry the film: she could have been a female Schwarzenegger if anybody had had the vision to promote her.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've always been fascinated by ninjistsu, who would know that it will go further than beyond. In \"Ninja III\", it's fun creepy and intriguing. A ninja gets shot up by the police, and uses his spirit for revenge. The victim, a lovely young woman named Christie(Lucinda Dickey). She falls for the cop who was involved in the shooting. The love scene where she pours the V8 on her body knocked me out! The ninja's death gets the attention of another in Japan named Yamada(Sho Kosugi) he comes to America not only to save Christie, but to put the ninja back to the grave. Simply because he put out Yamada's left eye with a shuriken(throwing star). The fight scenes were excellent. I liked the part when the plywood falls on Yamada, and he splits it with his foot. And when he was caught, he tells the officer Christie was involved with that everything will be fine. Rule of thumb: Never under estimate a ninja. He took out the other cops without killing them. And he did his thing without worry. Of course, Chirstie did her best trying to put the ninja in his place for using her a tool for revenge. It was a good movie, great for martial arts buffs. 3 out of 5 stars!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is the greatest ninja film ever made in my opinion and if you haven't seen it then its worth watching. I would rate this film a 10\/10 if you want to see more then check out http:\/\/uk.geocities.com\/ninja3thedomination The opening sequence where the evil ninja is killing everyone in his way is excellent his character is the best. He then has to possesses ayoung woman who finds him dying. She then has to take revenge on the cops that killed him which means there's more killing and action. But only a ninja can destroy a ninja so she and her boyfriend who is also one of her targets enlist the help of Yamad(Sho Kosugi) to release the evil ninjas spirit and destroy him.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing this movie, I have no choice but to write a review in the hopes that there are others like me out there who were blown away by the rocket fueled ninja action and white hot sexual titillation that is Ninja III: The Domination.

We all know that Sho Kosugi rocks. That is a given, but how about Jordan Bennett's ultra macho interpretation of his character police officer \"Billy Secord\"? Bravo Mr. Bennett, bravo. You prove early on, while trying to seduce the buxom Christie (played to perfection by one Miss Lucinda Dickey of Breakin' fame)that you are not afraid to take chances on your craft. I particularly enjoyed how you do not feel the need to step in and attempt to help her as 4 thugs try to rape her outside her gym. Oh you could have helped sure, but by standing there and watching you let her know who was boss. Secord will wear the pants in this relationship. I also enjoyed how Mr. Bennett was not afraid to repeatedly take off his shirt or wear the wife-beater tank top despite his gorilla like shoulders and back. Back and shoulder hair are hot and Secord knows it. And How about Lucinda Dickey? All I can say is \"KABOOM\" - I see a sex bomb getting ready to explode. She's got all the right moves as both a temptress and a martial arts whiz. The chemistry behind Dickey and Bennett is what makes this movie tick. You'd think she would hate him because he's kind of a cheesy jerk, but no my friends. The animal magnetism is too strong to resist, and they bond like crazy glue. Sho Kasugi is not as prominent as you might think, though still a main character, which is fine by me because all I wanted was more Bennett and Dickey. He does seem to wear a lot of eye makeup which was nice to see. The special effects? Wow. That is all I can say. I will not give away the ending but let's just say it will not disappoint. I love Ninja III: The domination, and can only hope that there is a Ninja 4. I give it a 5 out of 5 throwing stars. disappoint.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent plot line makes this movie one of the classic, cult ninja flicks of all time. The plot being that this woman's soul is possessed by an evil ninja spirit. I mean to be honest if i could obtain ninja ability through possession I would. Furthermore, for being in the 80's and such the fact that the ninja aspect was far greater in this particular decade is evident and despite all that, Ninja 3 The Domination manages to keep it original from the American Ninja cookie cutter molds that plagued the 80's for so long. This chick is definitely Michael Dudikoff on steroids.... I mean the first American ninja was great but let's get real folks it has nothing on Ninja 3","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an action packed film that makes me feel very peaceful and relaxed every time I see it. The film (short of its conclusion) demonstrates that in the face of extreme odds, it is still possible to prevail.

This film is very refreshing, and likely to be banned at any moment. Get a copy of it before the thought police burn every copy they can find. They don't want you to have hope for the future, or to think you have a chance.

On the other hand, should Political Correctness fail to supress it, this would be an excellent movie to release on DVD. Such a release could contain interviews with the writer and director, and related goodies. I'm sure it would sell some copies, and I would be one of the first to buy it.

- Mincka","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are few movies that have the massive amount of non stop ninja action as Ninja III: the Domination. This is a story of love, redemption and revenge, however, this is mainly a story about flipping out and killing people for no reason at all. If you've been searching for a movie where a ninja goes absolutely nuts and takes all kinds of people to their graves just because he's a ninja and he can do it, this is the movie for you. I can't think of any movies to compare this to, because no movie is this awesome. Wait, oh, have you ever seen the thing with two heads? There is a part in that where the titular thing is riding around on a motorcycle and about a million cop cars are chasing it\/them around, but they keep crashing and what not BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CATCH THE THING WITH TWO HEADS!!! Well, that is kind of what Ninja III is like. I highly recommend this film especially if you like the following things: Ninjas, swords, Lucinda Dickie from Breakin' and Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, video games about being a bouncer in a bar, ambiguous and underdeveloped love stories or \"good\" ninjas.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow. I've never seen nor heard of this film. It just came on tv (2:00 am) and I am in complete awe. Setup: a bunch of rich fat cats are out golfing. One knocks a ball into the rough. It lands by a NINJA!!!! A tuxedoed man walks over to pick the ball up. The ninja grabs it. Crushes it in his hand. Man pulls gun. Ninja pulls blowgun. Ninja blows dart into gun barrel. GUN EXPLODES!!!! This is just the beginning of the greatness, people. Everyone must see this movie. 10 big ol fat stars from trusty.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"for many and many years, gaijin have visited japan for learning martial arts, instead of acquiring any knowledge on it, gainjin have been told only nihonjin could achieve the excelent performance required to show some techniques in a \"public\" performance such as a movie...

this one special movie, made by sho kosugi, not only shows all of those techniques and skills, but also teaches many and many lessons on how to achieve them, and one can verify that by seeing a LUCINDA DICKEY performing fantastic and unforgettable acting skills in NINJUTSU...

I strongly recommend watching this movie more than thrice, because three times is not enough to seek out hints and tips given so easily by sho kosugi to those who really seek knowledge itself, the gnosis...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is probably the only female Ninja movie ever made. It's great as a B film and the action sequences are a lot of fun to watch. This movie is just so deliciously 80's. You'll never see another film like it. Check it out for some 80's retro fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is surprisingly good. The ninja fighting sequences were unbelievable. I haven't see all Sho Kosugi's films but this is probably the best of those I've seen. Probably the most impressive fighting sequence was at the beginning when ninja killed about 20 people, that was one of the most impressive ninja fighting sequences I've ever seen. Another good fighting sequence was at a cops funeral where the ninja provide more people to bury. The last fight was also very impressive. Also I kinda liked the soundtrack of this movie. The story was good enough for a ninja-movie, actually it was kinda different from other ninja-movies. So if you are a fan of ninja-movies, you'll probably like this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had never seen this movie before it aired on a local cable sci-fi network. It reminded me of the Irwin Allen TV series of the late 60's (Time Tunnel etc). Excellent effects (they beat Star Trek 5 done 20 years later, but then that wasn't very hard to accomplish).

I found the script very intriguing and mature for this type of production. They would have needed a few touch ups to tie some loose ends on the characters' level, but for a kid movie its surprisingly interesting (especially the the glimpse at futuristic euro- politics, surprisingly similar to today's European Union!)

The plot is indeed reminiscent of Twilight Zone in general (as other users have pointed), but in this case it's a compliment.

Great sets, by the way!

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the question that astronauts Roy Thinnes and Ian Hendry ask themselves when they discover a parallel world of Earth always hidden on the far side of the sun in this 1969 cult science fiction melodrama, released here in America as JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN. The plot of the film was devised by British writers Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, the creators of such TV shows as \"UFO\", \"The Thunderbirds\" and \"Space 1999\". It is exceedingly weird at times, betraying the influence of \"The Twilight Zone\" and even Stanley Kubrick's classic 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. The visual effects work of Derek Meddings, who would also later work on SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, holds up surprisingly well under the last three decades of special effects advancements; and while they are not really on the same exalted level of the Kubrick film, they are very superb. If you don't anticipate a STAR WARS-type of a film and can overcome the occasionally trite dialogue, DOPPELGANGER is a good film; it was good enough for me to rank it a '7' and consider it an undiscovered sci-fi gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this film, the astronauts sent to explore a newly-discovered planet must deal with several dilemmas, and they do so intelligently. The film approaches it's main plot theme in a unique way, and unfolds it gradually, though it can be guessed beforehand.

The acting is very good, though sometimes stiff, as some late-60s acting can be. It can also be somewhat wordy and even melodramatic, especially after the plot theme reveals itself. Visually, it has a scene that resembles one in the previous year's \"2001: A Space Odyssey\", and that tends to date the movie. Some of the actors went on to star in the 1970 TV show \"UFO,\" which is delightfully campy and worth checking out on DVD.

Despite these small points, the space flight itself is realistic, and considering this was 1969, the scenes inside the cockpit of the spacecraft also had a realistic look. (Look for some 1990s\/2000s video technology in use, too!) One thing: I suspect a love scene has been cut, but I can't prove it! It would have been a distraction anyway.

Unlike most Sci-Fi films, this film will make you think about the plot, and that's well worth a look. I'm pleased to have this film in my video library.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All right, I'll grant you that some of the science in \"Doppelganger\" (or \"Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun\") is kind of dopey.The idea of an entire planet existing undetected (because we can't see it on the other side of our sun) doesn't hold up at all - any Astronomy 101 student knows that another planet the size of Earth would cause gravitational perturbances in the motions of other planets. That's how astronomers deduced the existence of Pluto, after all, and that's how they find comets and asteroids and moons on a regular basis.

And the idea that a mirror image Earth somehow evolved in almost perfect parallel to our Earth, down to English speaking scientists and human counterparts for each human born on our Earth...that takes things out of 'hard science' fiction and into \"Twilight Zone\" territory. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it requires a major suspension of critical thinking to accept and enjoy.

But man, this movie knocked my socks off as an adolescent. I was still used to fairly cheerful, upbeat science fiction films when the hero won through in the end - even \"2001\" could be interpreted as having an 'upbeat' ending.

But in this case: Thinnes attempted to dock with his orbiting mothership so he could return to his own Earth, only to be bounced back out of his docking berth (Something about 'the polarities not being reversed because his 'doppelganger' wasn't doing the same thing. Apparently Thinnes' 'doppelganger' had decided he was happy in his new home.) Thinnes' ship started the descent back to the CounterEarth launch site, and I was certain that he would somehow get the damaged craft to land safely and try again, armed with the new info that would let him and his backers succeed. He was The Hero after all, and the Hero always wins through in the end.

Instead, Thinnes couldn't maintain control of the crippled craft, and the ship's subsequent crash into the launch site was so horrible and devastating that it killed everyone (except for the chief project leader) and destroyed all records of the project and Thinnes' existence. Thinnes never got to go home, and he perished uselessly, his secrets never revealed.

Except for the Planet Of the Apes series, I had never seen such a sad and downbeat ending, and it always stuck in my mind - especially the ferocious devastation of the crash scene near the beginning of the move (you knew that spaceship was NEVER going to fly again!) and the one at the very end.

I'd love to see this movie again, and see how well it held up over the years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Interesting premise; interestingly worked out; the strongest feature of this film is the emotional tension of the astronaut who knows a truth, but is unable to convey it to others. Overlook the weaknesses and just enjoy the movie, but be prepared for a certain level of suspense.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fans of Gerry Anderson's productions will recognise several actors and vehicles from UFO (which was made after Doppelg\u00e4nger) - as well as sound effects from various Anderson series. Barry Gray's excellent music (mostly unique to this film) adds to the feeling of familiarity. For these reasons alone, I think any Gerry Anderson fan would find Doppelg\u00e4nger worth getting.

Judged simply as a film, it has to be said that Doppelg\u00e4nger is flawed. It is known that there were major problems during production, and I suspect this is why there is a time-consuming plot thread that ends abruptly and appears to have no relevance to the rest of the story. Presumably time\/budget constraints prevented the relevance from emerging!

Distractingly, the special effects range from outstandingly good - better than any 1960s film that I know of - to disappointingly bad.

Nevertheless, even with these flaws, Doppelg\u00e4nger's main story is well told and keeps the viewer (or, at least, this viewer) engaged throughout. The ending is perhaps not what one might expect from Anderson, yet at the same time it is typical of Anderson, and it is certainly appropriate. To find out what I mean you'll have to watch it for yourself. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Gerry Anderson's first live-action foray in the way of a major motion picture that benefits from incredible model FX work and,a great Barry Gray music score. The reel-to-reel analog computers, in the far-off year \"2069\" (I guess Anderson really wanted a safe date of a 100 years later!) are a hoot to see as are the guru-jacket fashions, but one could easily accuse 2001 of the same violations, but no one could have foreseen some things as they turn out. This film was the springboard for the series UFO the following year, and in fact not only had the same FX people, and producers but many of the cast were regulars in that show.

It always comes off like an \"alternate history\" future more than anything else-the \"Apollo-like\" rocket used in the lift-off, it always seems like this is really another planet than earth. Given the \"alternate earth\" plot, one would assume that was the feeling they wanted. We end up with an ending that posits more questions than answers. That because the \"other earth\" exists every movement, event and thing said is duplicated as it's happening on both worlds. Because of that given, and the sun in between, the two versions of the same person (in this case Glenn Ross, astronaut) can never meet. A complete accident discovered the planet in the first place when it would have most likely stayed a secret forever.

Filmed mostly in Portugal with FX work in England, it's a must-own for any Gerry Anderson fan. I have the Image bare bones DVD from a few years ago now out of print, but one hopes Universal will re-release it with, perhaps extras and even a Gerry Anderson commentary.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Journey to the Far Side of the Sun is about the discovery of a planet on the other side of the sun which shares the same orbit as earth and therefore has been undiscovered until a space probe on the far side of the sun photographs it. Of course two astronauts (Roy Thinnes & Ian Hendry) are sent to explore it but due to a malfunction they crash & find themselves back on earth only 3 weeks into their six week journey. Of course they're berated (at least Thinnes is, Hendry is gravely injured) and grilled and asked why they turned back on their mission but it's claimed that they didn't. Until Thinnes seems to notice a few very odd things about being back \"home\". This is excellent if somewhat talky at times, and the sets and feel aren't a far cry from \"Thunderbirds\" territory but will live actors for once. It's no big \"Star Wars\" type production but more quiet science fiction that one has to think about a bit. Well worth seeing and it's criminal that the DVD is out of print. 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw that this film was being aired on late night TV I initially decided to give it a miss. I am glad that I then started watching. Yes the special effects are the same as Gerry Andersen's puppet shows. Some of the actors\/actresses are from his other productions, he obviously used the same composer later on, as the cheesy soundtrack could only have come from one of his productions, and the plot is as slow as a wet weekend. Get by all that and you have a film that shows up intriguing possibilities. Is there a planet on the far side of the sun? Is it a duplicate earth? Is everything about it reversed and if so do they speak English in reverse? I love this dated SF if only for Gerry's wonderful model cars, planes, buildings and spaceships. Some of them are not so far fetched as they seemed back then. And did you see the European Space Centre logo? Very reminiscent of the Euro logo of today. Suspend belief and spend a couple of hours watching this, you will be glad you did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This lesser known film starring Roy Thinnes (From TV's Invaders) is actually what I consider a lost gem. It was made at a time where the story was more important that the special effects (though the effect are fairly good for its time). A scientist theorizes that there is another world in Earth's Orbit directly behind the sun. Since the sun always blocks it from us we can never see it from Earth. Roy Thinnes is selected to go on a mission to get to this world. I don't want to tell the rest of the plot because it will give the rest of the movie away. Let's just say there are some real surprises.

The movie is British and has that good British flavor of acting that was in such TV series like The Avengers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of my favourite films, whenever it is on, although I do admit one time missing it when it was on Foxtel last year.

Despite the age of the film it doesn't look like that and the story even though it'd been done a thousand times before still felt entertaining. There were one or two little niggles for me in the story but I looked past them and just enjoyed the film for what it was.

Overall I give it a 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie in the early 70's when I was about 10 yrs. old on TV. It was on after school, and as I watched, I was so drawn into the whole idea of the two astronauts going on a mission to another undiscovered planet, that I asked my mom if I could get the cassette recorder out. She let me. So I wrapped the cord of the mic around the Channel knob, so the mic was hanging in front of the speaker. This movie is the first one I ever paid enough attention to - and cared enough about to record. (Just the audio - there were no VCRs at the time.) The plot will have you hanging onto every word.. every minute of this film.. The ending will blow your mind. After watching the Journey to the Far Side of the Sun.. You will Have flash-backs in your mind about it for a long time. I did replay the audio recording for many years... and \"saw\" it over and over in my mind. Then - maybe 15 years later.. when VCR's were common, and they sold tapes in stores.. I always looked for it.. but never found it. But when the Internet came along one day I searched for it and purchased it in a second. So.. after about 30 years after seeing it for the first time - I got to see it again. WOW!~~ It was spectacular! Just for reference.. I must have watched it 50 times since.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent Anderson production worth comparing with the best episodes of UFO or SPACE 1999 (first series). Of course it isn't some SFX extravaganza or Star Wars pseudo-mystic tripe fest, but a subtle movie that has a slow pace, yet it conveys the creepy, eerie and uncanny atmosphere of the best Anderson productions: for lovers of 'cerebral' sci-fi. Lynn Loring's voice is ABSOLUTELY AWFUL. SFX are good for this kind of product and acting is good as well. Two astronauts visit a planet on the opposite side of the sun but crash land home instead...or do they? Ah, videophones! Every now and then peddled as the next 'everyone's gadget next decade' but still to happen 40 years later. The device of Earth's twin planet on the opposite side of the sun also returns in Gamera tai daiakuju Giron (1969), so who copied whom?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Doppleganger', ( or 'Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun' as it is more commonly known ) was written ( with input by the late Donald James ) and produced by Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, best known for their 'Supermarionation' television shows such as 'Thunderbirds'.

The international space agency Eurosec discovers the existence of a mysterious planet on the other side of the sun, and proposes a manned flight be sent there. The committee balk at the exhorbitant cost, and shelve the project. But when a security leak at the agency is discovered, fearing that the Russians might get there first, the project gets the green light.

American astronaut Glenn Ross ( Roy Thinnes ) is teamed with British scientist John Kane ( Ian Hendry ). After weeks of gruelling training, the Phoenix blasts off, heading for the unknown.

Three weeks later, their ship crashes in what appears to be a bleak, mountainous landscape. Ross survives, but Kane is badly injured. A light is seen moving towards them...

I will leave the synopsis here. Until this point, the film has been gripping, with excellent special effects ( by Derek Meddings ) and music by Anderson's resident composer Barry Gray ( why it has not been issued on C.D. is a mystery ). But when Ross and Kane crash land, and we discover the secret of the alien world - it is a duplicate of our own, everyone on it is the same, the only major difference is that things are reversed - it becomes less interesting, and ends with a shattering anti-climax. I think the cinema was the wrong place to do this idea, in fact Gerry & Sylvia later did something similar on their 'Space: 1999' show. Ross risks ( and ultimately loses ) his life in an effort to return to Earth - his Earth. But why? The new Earth is so similar he might as well not have bothered.

Roy Thinnes had recently done 'The Invaders' television series, and gives a competent performance ( pity there weren't more scenes like the one where he rows with his wife ). Ian Hendry is good as 'Kane', but vanishes from the story too soon. Several actors went on to appear in the Andersons' 'U.F.O.' such as Ed Bishop and George Sewell. Blink and you will miss Nicholas Courtney ( 'The Brigadier' from 'Dr.Who' in a tiny role ). But the acting honours go to the late Patrick Wymark as 'Jason Webb', head of Eurosec. The character is not far removed from 'Sir John Wilder', the one he played in A.T.V.'s 'The Power Game'. Webb is such a devious character he is marvellous to watch. Herbert Lom's contribution ( as a spy with a camera hidden in a false eye ) amounts to little more than a cameo.

Like I said, the special effects are marvellous, as are the sets. So the film is worth watching, but do not expect very much to happen once the action moves to the mirror planet. With a stronger script, this could have been another 'Planet Of The Apes' or - dare I say it - '2001: A Space Odyssey'.

In Anderson's productions, he made the future seem like a great place, an adventure playground where science was cool, everyone had swank cars whose doors opened vertically, sexy women, and absolutely no suggestion that anything is seriously wrong with the world. We are in the future now and people are still watching 'Coronation Street' every other night. How disappointing. If a mirror Earth really exists somewhere, one hopes that is a better place than this one. If all the women there look like Lynn Loring or Loni von Friedl, I will be on the next flight!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Journey to the Far Side of the Sun\" (aka \"Doppelganger\") is an entertaining, Twilight Zone-style sci-fi offering from Gerry and Sylvia Anderson (the team behind Space: 1999, UFO, Thunderbirds, Fireball XL-5 and others). In the film, Roy Thinnes (of the \"Invaders\" TV show) and Ian Hendry star as astronauts sent on a flight to a planet which shares an exact orbit of the earth, but on the opposite side of the sun; hence previously hidden from view. A pushy European space flight director (over-acted by the late Patrick Wymark) gets the flight fast-tracked and after rigorous training , the astronauts are good to go. Thus begins the best sequences in the film, the launch, flight and landing on the 'other' earth. Dazzling rocket miniature work (by Derek Meddings) and a dream-like, elegant spaceflight (somewhat reminiscent of the best moments of \"2001: A Space Odyssey\") are easy highlights of the movie. The landing on the \"doppelganger\" earth is both exciting and eerie. After this, the Twilight Zone aspect of the film kicks in; with a plot lifted almost whole from the classic TZ episode, \"The Parallel.\" That aside, the film is still solid sci-fi, with some intriguing 'mirror-world' stuff to chew on (backwards writing and left-handed handshakes, for example). Less successful are the scenes depicting a mid-21st century earth; where all the men wear turtlenecks and Nehru jackets and all the women wear mini-skirts. Some of the relationships with women in the film are very 'non-PC' by today's standards as well. And (in the most consistent failing of most 20th century sci-fi) the computers, telephones and other hardware are all big, colorful and clunky (right out of Patrick McGoohan's \"The Prisoner\"). No one foresaw the digital microprocessor age! If one can accept these failings in foresight, the movie is very interesting, with a solid lead performance by Thinnes as the troubled astronaut. And with a nice, 1960s\/early '70s style nihilistic ending! For fans of retro sci-fi (like myself) this is a \"Journey\" worth taking!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have fond memories of watching this visually dazzling film as a child in the late 70s\/early 80s on wor-tv (now upn-9) in NY. Though a product of the swinging 60s, this film has hardly aged. The effects are just as wonderous as 2001, and in some ways superior (the model work is flawless). With an attractive cast, great color photography and set design, and an evocative score, JTTFSOTS is a winner!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this in the 70s on syndicated TV and admired its production values, which were high tech for the time. The remastered video is rich and colorful, far more intense then the pale 35 mm TV prints. This movie deserves more attention: it paved the way for UFO, Space: 1999 and even Star Wars with its detailed miniatures and cleverly conceived gadgets. Sure, the story of an alternative anti-matter planet Earth has been recycled a hundred times since Star Trek, but the beauty of this film is its self-conscious European flair for design: from the Rolls Royce space engines to the \"Euro Sec\" letterhead business paper, JFSS or Dopplegangers as it was called in Europe is enjoyable for the imaginary vision of Europe in space in the shadow of the Superpowers. Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's ambitious epic gets a little tedious when the American astronaut finally realizes that he is on the doppleganger Earth, and everything is literally downhill after the poetically graceful shuttle boarding sequence. A mediocre story is helped along by a grand and lyrical classical score by the late great Barry Gray, the John Williams of Britain.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a huge space buff, and at nearly 44, I've just discovered this flick for the first time. I came at it in a roundabout way from Space 1999, then UFO. I went hunting for other Anderson creations and found this was their first live-action work. What a home run! I actually heard about this movie many years ago, but never knew what it was called, so I'm happy to have found it by accident.

These Andersons were nothing short of amazing in their writing, the execution of the completely believable and realistic-looking models, the quality of acting, etc.

I don't think it looks dated at all. Let me tell you... I'll take good old models over the fake-looking CGI crap of today ANY TIME! Seriously, most of the rocket scenes looked pretty real. They had it down to a science! If you choose to think of what you are looking at as real, it isn't hard to actually believe it.

Also, the amount of detail in set designs, the beautiful photography, the whole look... man, I wish I could go back to that time! They knew how to make great movies in the 60's. Personally, I've lost all interest in Hollywood movies today. Anybody with a budget can do CGI. I hate it! Bring back the models! Think of all the people that style employed! Anyway, I am ranting. :-) If you like good sci-fi that's very well-done, you will do yourself a service by watching this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has been a favorite of mine and is entwined with the Christmas Holidays for me for two reasons: (1) growing up in the 1960s, everything was space-related from advertising to television programs and even Santa Claus found himself in spaceships during that era; and (2) I saw this movie during a Christmas shopping trip when I was ten years old and it brought back fond memories of my favorite TV shows when I was even younger (\"Supercar\", Fireball XL5\", and \"Stingray\",). Therefore, I am a tad biased when it comes to this movie for personal reasons.

That said, as a long-time student of film, this is mainly a movie for fans of Gerry Anderson (and Barry Gray; oh, that gorgeous score!) whereas the casual movie-watcher will be put off by the future-vision-from-the-past (dig those wild cars, commercial aircraft, clothes, etc.) and the so-called \"plot twist\" which will cause some to groan. However, if you can look past the post-\"2001: A Space Odyssey\" desire to make a science fiction film with a \"far out\" story line, and if you enjoy imaginative special effects, then you will enjoy this gem from an era when man had just walked on the Moon and people were still looking up at the stars in wonder and hope for the future rather than looking down at the banal trappings of the actual 21st Century.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a gem...an undiscovered Gerry Anderson classic.

The origins of both \"UFO\" and \"Space 1999\" are obvious from this movie, including the cast list which includes the late Ed Bishop and George Sewell who both went onto \"UFO\".

It is unfortunate that Anderson, despite his many TV successes, did not get a chance to develop his talent on the big screen. Just think what he could have done with the movie version of \"Thunderbirds\" (which he quite rightly disowned himself from!).

I'm sure if you give \"JTTFSOTS\"\/\"Doppleganger\" a fair chance you'll appreciate it's good qualities.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Written by science fiction veterans Gerry and Sylvia Anderson. This space fantasy is aptly directed by Robert Parrish. Experienced American astronaut Colonel Glenn Ross(Roy Thinnes)agrees to a manned flight to the far side of the sun. The mission is to be controlled by Jason Webb(Patrick Wymark)and his Euro Sec Space Agency scientist John Kane(Ian Hendry)will accompany Ross. The two will explore a newly discovered planet that is in the same identical orbit as Earth...except it is always hidden on the other side of the sun. Ross is the only one to make it back to earth and has a very incredible story to tell. Special effects may be better than the story line. Nonetheless fun to watch. The cast also includes: Lynn Loring, Loni von Friedl, George Sewell and Herbert Lom.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're a film student, or were one, or are thinking of becoming one, the name Battleship Potemkin has or will have a resonance. Sergei Eistenstein, like other silent-film pioneers like Griffith (although Eisenstein's innovations are not as commonplace as Griffith's) and Murnau, has had such an impact on the history of cinema it's of course taken for granted. The reason I bring up the film student part is because at some point, whether you'd like it or not, your film professor 9 times out of 10 will show the \"Odessa Stairs\" sequence of this film. It's hard to say if it's even the 'best' part of the film's several sequences dealing with the (at the time current) times of the Russian revolution. But it does leave the most impact, and it can be seen in many films showcasing suspense, or just plain montage (The Untouchables' climax comes to mind).

Montage, which was not just Eistenstein's knack but also his life's blood early in his career, is often misused in the present cinema, or if not misused then in an improper context for the story. Sometimes montage is used now as just another device to get from point A to point B. Montage was something else for Eisenstein; he was trying to communicate in the most direct way that he could the urgency, the passion(s), and the ultimate tragedies that were in the Russian people at the time and place. Even if one doesn't see all of Eisenstein's narrative or traditional 'story' ideas to have much grounding (Kubrick has said this), one can't deny the power of seeing the ships arriving at the harbor, the people on the stairs, and the soldiers coming at them every which way with guns. Some may find it hard to believe this was done in the 20's; it has that power like the Passion of Joan of Arc to over-pass its time and remain in importance if only in terms of technique and emotion.

Of course, one could go on for books (which have been written hundreds of times over, not the least of which by Eisenstein himself). On the film in and of itself, Battleship Potemkin is really more like a dramatized newsreel than a specific story in a movie. The first segment is also one of the great sequences in film, as a mutiny is plotted against the Captain and other head-ups of a certain Ship. This is detailed almost in a manipulative way, but somehow extremely effective; montage is used here as well, but in spurts of energy that capture the eye. Other times Eisenstein is more content to just let the images speak for themselves, as the soldiers grow weary without food and water. He isn't one of those directors who will try to get all sides to the story; he is, of course, very much early 20th century Russian, but he is nothing else but honest with how he sees his themes and style, and that is what wins over in the end.

Some may want to check it outside of film-school, as the 'Stairs' sequence is like one of those landmarks of severe tragedy on film, displaying the ugly side of revolution. Eisenstein may not be one of the more 'accessible' silent-film directors, but if montage, detail in the frame, non-actors, and Bolshevik themes are your cup of tea, it's truly one of the must sees of a lifetime.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Quite a lot has been said about this film and its landmark importance in forming the language of film. If you are interested in film history, to truly understand the innovations Eisenstein brings to the medium you might try viewing Potemkin along side most any film made before it (those of D.W. Griffith offer a good contrast). It should be allowed that Eisenstein was not the only montage theorist and the principles of montage editing would likely have been discovered by another given time. However, even today, few directors have approached the skill with which Eisenstein created meaning through the combination of images at such an early point in the evolution of the medium.

If you are not interested in that sort of thing, Potemkin is still one of the most beautiful and moving films ever made. You should see it, buy it, and tatoo it to your chest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Battleship Potemkin is a celluloid masterpiece. The direction of

Eisenstein is truly a sight. The film chronicles a ship of disgruntled

sailors who are tired of being mistreated by their superior officers.

Eventually, the sailors finally have enough of the abuse and send the

officers packing. During this time period, there was a shortage of film

stock in the Soviet Union. The goverment wanted to get their message

out to the people so they started a National Film Company and one of

the members was Sergei Eisenstein. The films were shot on miniscule

budgets and the shortage of film stock forced Eisentein to be careful

and selective with the footage that he shot. In the end, Eisenstein had

to reuse footage in order to make a feature length picture.

The most famous of the action set pieces in this film is the much

talked about massacre on the steps. This scene was spoofed in Bananas

and most recently in Brian De Palma's The Untouchables. If you want to

learn film-making, I strongly advise you to watch Battleship Potemkin.

It's one of the essentials.

A+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A milestone in cinematic history, 'Bronenosets Potyomkin' is one of the handful of great films out there that richly deserves to be called a classic. It was the picture that made Sergei M. Eisenstein a figurehead of film-making at the time. And today, it is still remembered as the wonderful piece of cinema it always has been.

'Potyomkin' is a film that NEEDS to be seen as one entity, not to be picked at. Don't just watch those clip shows where they only present the 'Odessa steps' sequence and then move on to 'Citizen Kane' or 'The Godfather', see it all in it's glorious 75-minute running time to really understand and enjoy it. Don't expect every infinitesimal detail to be perfect though, I mean the acting of the '20s silent era makes 'Scooby Doo' look like a master of understated realism, certain plot points may seem illogical and some of the battle sequences look dated, but it is still an immensely enjoyable movie.

The most memorable moments in the film are the mutiny on the battleship, Vakulinchuk's body falling off the ship, the sailor under the tent at the end of the pier, the mother holding her dead child, the baby carriage on the Odessa steps and the lion rising up to roar as further carnage ensues. For each new pair of eyes that look upon it, 'The Battleship Potemkin' comes alive once again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Originally supposed to be just a part of a huge epic The Year 1905 depicting the Revolution of 1905, Potemkin is the story of the mutiny of the crew of the Potemkin in Odessa harbor. The film opens with the crew protesting maggoty meat and the captain ordering the execution of the dissidents. An uprising takes place during which the revolutionary leader is killed. This crewman is taken to the shore to lie in state. When the townspeople gather on a huge flight of steps overlooking the harbor, czarist troops appear and march down the steps breaking up the crowd. A naval squadron is sent to retake the Potemkin but at the moment when the ships come into range, their crews allow the mutineers to pass through. Eisenstein's non-historically accurate ending is open-ended thus indicating that this was the seed of the later Bolshevik revolution that would bloom in Russia. The film is broken into five parts: Men and Maggots, Drama on the Quarterdeck, An Appeal from the Dead, The Odessa Steps, and Meeting the Squadron.

Eisenstein was a revolutionary artist, but at the genius level. Not wanting to make a historical drama, Eisenstein used visual texture to give the film a newsreel-look so that the viewer feels he is eavesdropping on a thrilling and politically revolutionary story. This technique is used by Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers.

Unlike Pontecorvo, Eisenstein relied on typage, or the casting of non-professionals who had striking physical appearances. The extraordinary faces of the cast are what one remembers from Potemkin. This technique is later used by Frank Capra in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Meet John Doe. But in Potemkin, no one individual is cast as a hero or heroine. The story is told through a series of scenes that are combined in a special effect known as montage--the editing and selection of short segments to produce a desired effect on the viewer. D.W. Griffith also used the montage, but no one mastered it so well as Eisenstein.

The artistic filming of the crew sleeping in their hammocks is complemented by the graceful swinging of tables suspended from chains in the galley. In contrast the confrontation between the crew and their officers is charged with electricity and the clenched fists of the masses demonstrate their rage with injustice.

Eisenstein introduced the technique of showing an action and repeating it again but from a slightly different angle to demonstrate intensity. The breaking of a plate bearing the words \"Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread\" signifies the beginning of the end. This technique is used in Last Year at Marienbad. Also, when the ship's surgeon is tossed over the side, his pince-nez dangles from the rigging. It was these glasses that the officer used to inspect and pass the maggot-infested meat. This sequence ties the punishment to the corruption of the czarist-era.

The most noted sequence in the film, and perhaps in all of film history, is The Odessa Steps. The broad expanse of the steps are filled with hundreds of extras. Rapid and dramatic violence is always suggested and not explicit yet the visual images of the deaths of a few will last in the minds of the viewer forever.

The angular shots of marching boots and legs descending the steps are cleverly accentuated with long menacing shadows from a sun at the top of the steps. The pace of the sequence is deliberately varied between the marching soldiers and a few civilians who summon up courage to beg them to stop. A close up of a woman's face frozen in horror after being struck by a soldier's sword is the direct antecedent of the bank teller in Bonnie in Clyde and gives a lasting impression of the horror of the czarist regime.

The death of a young mother leads to a baby carriage careening down the steps in a sequence that has been copied by Hitchcock in Foreign Correspondent, by Terry Gilliam in Brazil, and Brian DePalma in The Untouchables. This sequence is shown repeatedly from various angles thus drawing out what probably was only a five second event.

Potemkin is a film that immortalizes the revolutionary spirit, celebrates it for those already committed, and propagandizes it for the unconverted. It seethes of fire and roars with the senseless injustices of the decadent czarist regime. Its greatest impact has been on film students who have borrowed and only slightly improved on techniques invented in Russia several generations ago.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sergei Eisenstein's most famous movie has truly withstood the test of time. The story of a mutiny aboard a warship in 1905 does have the feeling of Soviet propaganda, but does a good job showing the conditions that led to the revolt. The scene on the Odessa steps should remain seared into anyone's mind.

Okay, so \"The Battleship Potemkin\" wasn't actually the first movie to use montage, but they did a great job with it here. Certainly any film history class should show this movie. It's a great historical drama (although I will admit that I don't know how accurate it is). A 10\/10.

Oh, and we should have learned by now that \"Potemkin\" should be transliterated as \"Potyomkin\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Eisenstein created the Russian Montage Theory, and this film is his finest example. It took years before someone could utilize his ideas and make them work (The Limey, 1999). Nonetheless, the baby carriage scene really demonstrates the discombobulated nature of RMT. Granted, like most movies, it gets long in some parts, the beauty of the film is amazing. One of the best silent films I have ever seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The silent film masterpiece Battleship Potemkin (1925) was commissioned by the Soviet government to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the uprising of 1905 and to establish the event as an heroic foreshadowing of the October Revolution of 1917. Ironically the film's director, Sergei Eisenstein, was one of the earliest and most influential advocates of a formalistic approach to film art. Subsequently, Eisenstein's formalism and suspect politics would cause innumerable conflicts with government agencies insisting on \"socialist realism.\" Influenced by the Russian film theoretician, Lev Kuleshov, and through him by D. W. Griffith's Intolerance (smuggled into Russia in 1919), Eisenstein constructed his films from a \"collision\" of rapidly edited images, a montage of shots varied in length, motion, content, lighting, and camera angle. Without question the most memorable illustration of Eisenstein's stylistic approach - and probably the single most cited and studied sequence in world cinema history - is the \"Odessa Steps\" sequence in Potemkin.

In structure Potemkin is a \"five reeler\" divided into five narrative parts, an organization clearly derived from the five-act arrangement of Western drama. In \"Men and Maggots,\" Eisenstein dramatizes the pre-revolutionary oppression and discontent of the battleship's working class sailors as the situation inevitably builds to mutiny. Even before the sailors and their upper class officers\/masters are visually introduced, Eisenstein establishes revolutionary conditions symbolically by the collision editing of waves breaking violently and ominously at sea. Onboard ship we witness crowded, unsanitary conditions. Eisenstein emphasizes the sailors' dehumanization with shots of arbitrary lashings, harsh labor, and - most memorably - the maggot infested meat intended for the evening's meal. The ship's nearsighted physician is brought forward by the other officers to declare the meat perfectly suitable to be served with the dark soup, boiling like the sailors' rage. In accordance with Marxist maxims, the church also fails the men, and we see one of them smashing a plate inscribed with words from The Lord's Prayer from two different camera angles (in perhaps the first deliberate \"jump cut\" in cinema history).

Identified by inter-titles as \"Drama on the Quarterdeck\" and \"An Appeal from the Dead,\" Potemkin's second and third parts depict the actual mutiny and the onshore funeral of its leader and first hero of the revolution, Vakulinchuk. United by Vakulinchuk's appeals to brotherhood, the initial mutineers are joined by the entire crew in an attack on the officers. A chaotic scene ensues whose violent passion is served well by Eisenstein's editing techniques. The officers' quarters are trampled and symbols of their privilege are destroyed. The ship's doctor is thrown overboard, accompanied by dramatic crosscuts to the maggot-ridden meat and his eyeglasses metonymically dangling in the rigging. Tragically, Vakolinchuk's death is the price paid for the revolt (no omelet without breaking eggs) and he is laid out with dignity on an Odessa pier. Hundreds of ordinary Odessa citizens gather with the sailors to honor him and to pledge \"Death to the oppressors.\" Shots of fists clenching and unclenching signal the birth of revolutionary consciousness.

The complex and unforgettable Odessa Steps sequence constitutes the film's fourth act. It begins with uplifting music and a series of close-ups and medium shots on the elated faces of diverse people on the shore and selected objects (parasol, eyeglasses, baby carriage). Suddenly (as exclaims a title card in huge letters) the music stops and lines of soldiers with drawn rifles and fixed bayonets appear at the top of the steps. Here Eisenstein releases the full force of collision editing as nearly a hundred shots are pieced together to contrast the panicked mayhem and victimization of the citizenry with the relentless assault of the soldiers driving the citizens down to the trampling horses and flying sabers of the waiting Cossacks below. The mise-en-scene is framed by a statue of Caesar at the top of the stairs and a church at the bottom, symbolic metonyms for Russia's oppressive institutions: tsarist monarchy and the Orthodox Christian church.

Punctuating the sequence are two scenes involving mothers and children. In the first, a mother and young boy who had been introduced among the joyous faces in the crowd are among the slaughter's first victims. The boy is shot, but the mother continues running until close-ups of her face convey her horrified gaze at the son's fallen body being trampled by the crowd. With a much slowed editing pace, the camera follows the mother as she carries the lifeless body of her child up the stairs to confront the soldiers (shown only in a diagonal shadow line). They summarily shoot her dead. After this lull, the carnage continues for another several dozen cuts until a second mother is shot through the stomach (the womb of Mother Russia?) as she tries to shield her baby in its carriage. In a scene famously imitated in The Untouchables, the carriage incongruously slips down the staircase. Horrified faces of huddled citizens watch the slow progress to its doom. When the carriage reaches the bottom there is a cut to a Cossack wielding a sword and a classic Kuleshov effect suggests what we do not actually see: the slaughtering of this pure and symbolic innocent. The final series of shots in the Odessa sequence is of three stone lions, one in repose, one sitting up, and one roaring. The editing animates them into a visual metaphor of the people's awakened rage.

Somewhat anticlimactically, the fifth act returns us to the battleship as the mutinous sailors flee on the high seas and await an encounter with other ships from the fleet. They and the viewer expect retribution, but when the meeting occurs no shots are fired and instead all the sailors wave and throw their hats in the air in a symbol of comradeship. Eisenstein was rewriting history at this point since the revolution was not successfully launched for another twelve years. But that quibble aside, Battleship Potemkin stands as one of the seminal works of the silent film era, and it retains extraordinary cinematic power.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Battleship Potemkin was said to have been a favourite of Charlie Chaplin. It presents a dramatised version of the mutiny that occurred in 1905 when the crew of the Russian battleship Potemkin rebelled against their officers of the Tsarist regime.

The film is a textbook cinema classic, and a masterpiece of creative editing, especially in the famous Odessa Steps sequence in which innocent civilians are mown down in the bloodshed; the happenings of a minute are drawn into five by frenzied cross-cutting. The film contains 1,300 separate shots, and in 1948 and 1958 was judged the best film ever made by a panel of international critics. The Battleship Potemkin is in the public domain, in some parts of the world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On June 14 1905, during the Russian Revolution of that year, sailors aboard the Russian battleship Potemkin rebelled against their oppressive officers. Frustrated with the second-rate treatment they receive, and most particularly the maggot-infested meat that they are forced to eat, the ship's crew, led by the inspirational Bolshevik sailor Grigory Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov), decide that the time is ripe for a revolution. And so begins Sergei M. Eisenstein's rousing classic of Russian propaganda, 'Bronenosets Potyomkin \/ The Battleship Potemkin.'

The film itself is brimming with shining examples of stunning visual imagery: the spectacles of an overthrown ship captain dangle delicately from the side rope over which he had been tossed; the body of a deceased mutineer lies peaceful upon the shore, the sign on his chest reading \"KILLED FOR A BOWL OF SOUP;\" close-up shots of the clenching fists of the hundreds of spectators who are finally fed up with the Tsarist regime; a wayward baby carriage careers down the Odessa Steps as desperate onlookers watch on with bated breath (this scene was memorably \"borrowed\" by Brian De Palma for a particularly suspenseful scene in his 'The Untouchables'); the barrels of numerous canons are ominously leveled towards the vastly-outnumbered battleship Potemkin.

However, the film itself is best analysed \u0096 not as a fragmented selection of memorable scenes \u0096 but as a single film, and, indeed, every scene is hugely memorable. Though divided into five fairly-distinct chapters, the entire film flows forwards wonderfully; at no point do we find ourselves losing interest, and we are absolutely never in doubt of whose side we should be sympathetic towards.

The film is often referred to as \"propaganda,\" and that is exactly what it is, but this need not carry a negative connotation. 'The Battleship Potemkin' was produced by Eisenstein with a specific purpose in mind, and it accomplishes this perfectly in every way. Planned by the Soviet Central Committee to coincide with the 20th century celebrations of the unsuccessful 1905 Revolution, 'Potemkin' was predicted to be a popular film in its home country, symbolising the revitalization of Russian arts after the Revolution. It is somewhat unfortunate, then, that Eisenstein's film failed to perform well at the Russian box-office, reportedly beaten by Allan Dwan's 1922 'Robin Hood' film in its opening week and running for just four short weeks. Luckily, despite being banned on various occasions in various countries, 'The Battleship Potemkin' fared more admirably overseas.

The film also proved a successful vehicle for Eisenstein to test his theories of \"montage.\" Through quick-cut editing, and distant shots of the multitudes of extras, the audience is not allowed to sympathise with any individual characters, but with the revolutionary population in general. Eisenstein does briefly break this mould, however, in a scene where Vakulinchuk flees the ship officer who is trying to kill him, and, of course, during the renowned Odessa Steps sequence, as our hearts beat in horror for the life of the unfortunate child in the tumbling baby carriage. The accompanying soundtrack to the version I watched, largely featuring the orchestral works of Dmitri Shostakovich, served wonderfully to heighten the emotional impact of such scenes.

One of the greatest films of the silent era, 'The Battleship Potemkin' is a triumph of phenomenal film-making, and is a significant slice of cinematic history. The highly-exaggerated events of the film (among other things, there was never actually any violent massacre on the Odessa Steps) have so completely engrained themselves in the memory, that we're often uncertain of the true history behind the depicted events. This is a grand achievement.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Battleship Potemkin is now the oldest film I've seen and it is also the first silent film I've seen. I heard a lot of good things about this movie so I got the tape out at home and I watched it. When it ended I just thought that this was a classic masterpiece. The story is based on the real-life Russian Battleship Potemkin. You wouldn't think it but some of it was sad and disgusting. Sad being that the mother dies and the pram rolls down the stairway and disgusting being they have to eat rotten meat with maggots in it.

Today it is still considered to be one of the best silent and Russian films ever made. I think that everyone should see it (if they can find it.) You will be presently surprised at how good it is. It's a must see classic. 5\/5.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are only a handful of movies that were made on such a grand scale and made such a difference in the art of movie making.

\"Bronenosets Potyomkin\" is one of these movies, and it should be on anyone's list looking to learn more about the history of cinema.

Grigori Aleksandrov & Sergei M. Eisenstein directed this groundbreaking film that documents the horrors taking place on a Russian battleship. When the sailors finally retaliate against their superiors, the locals embrace the them, and support them. Things get ugly when a group of soldiers are sent to the small town to take care of business. What follows is one of the most imitated scenes in the history of cinema. Anyone who has seen \"The Untouchables\", and \"Bronenosets Potyomkin\" knows exactly what I mean.

Overall I think this movie raised the bar for film making just as \"Intolerance\" did a few years earlier. If you do not mind silent films, do yourself a favor, and see \"Bronenosets Potyomkin\".

If you don't like silent films..... watch \"Bronenosets Potyomkin\" anyway.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I did something a little daring tonight when I watched this movie. I attempted to wean myself from silent movie scores. Sure, when this film originally was distributed, a piano score was probably played with it. Oftentimes, the director would choose the score himself (Charlie Chaplin often composed the scores of his later silent films). But most of the music you hear on VHS tapes over silent films is in no way the same music that was supposed to be played when the film was first released. And, then again, there were plenty of silent films that were played without a score. I do not know the history of Potemkin's score, so I decided to watch it for the medium this piece of art was produced within - film.

Soon after I turned the music off, unaided (or should I say unimpeded) by the musical interpretation of the emotions on screen, I became utterly attached to the film. Visually, it is easily one of the most stunning of all films. Eisenstein was a master of composition. The editing, possibly the cinematic technique Eisenstein is most famous for (montage), is extraordinary. The mood of this film is anger, and it stirred my passions violently.

It takes a lot of effort to enjoy a silent film, especially a drama, but films like Battleship Potemkin prove that this effort is entirely worth it. Come on! You owe it to yourself to watch this film! Your education is incomplete without it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was surprising that a silent film could be so easy to watch. The economy with which it has been edited and the films structure itself are the main elements that contribute to this.

The film really captures the spirit of the revolution that it is dealing with - you really sympathise with the sailors and citizens. Of course, this film has it's own agenda, but as it is a practically redundant cause, it can be viewed as a piece of entertainment in a much clearer sense.

The tension created on the screen is excellent - starting with the battleship itself, and then moving onto the mainland. Things escalate believably and for a film of it's era, it really is quite unflinching in revealing the sacrifices made by the characters in the film.

This really is worth sitting through, (that is if you can adjust your modern viewing habits for 90mins).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"the movie touches the soul of the audience very much,some scene in the movie is ultimate and tears comes out automatically,i'm surprised by seeing this movie that any director can direct this type of movie in the year 1925.as a student of cinema i can say this movie helps a lot to understand use of montage.first time when our teacher told us about this movie means genre of this movie we thought nothing could be there in this movie to understand but finally when sir explained it then we came to know how great this movie is.lastly i can say it helps a lot understanding films.and being a cinema student i can the viewers that they can see this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The photography and editing of the movie is exceptional for the time period. Eisenstein builds upon each scene of the movie leading to the the sailor's revolt and the massacre at the town. As much as the movie is a high point in the cinema, it is also an example of SZocialist Realism. by 1925 the Soviet government actively used the arts, including film, as a means to spread the message of the revolution. Eisensteins portrayal of the revolt on the Battleship Potempkin offers the viewer insight into the message of the Soviet elite. Marxist theory and perspectives of class struggle are demonstrated as the sailors who represent the oppressed workers and the officers who represent the elite of society. Much of the film demonstrates the communist party message and how film was used as a tool of propaganda.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILERS Every major regime uses the country's media to it's own ends. Whether the Nazi banning of certain leaflets, or the televised Chinese alternative of Tianamen Square, Governments have tried to influence the people through different mediums since the beginning of time. In 1925 though, celebrating the failed mutiny of 1905, the Russian Communist Government supported the creation of this film, Battleship Potempkin. A major piece of cinematic history, it remains powerful and beautiful to this very day.

Set aboard the Battleship Potempkin, the crew are unhappy. In miserable living conditions and with maggot infested food, they are angry at their upper class suppressors. Now though, after the rotten food, enough is enough. Led by Grigory Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov), the crew turn upon their masters and fight for their freedom.

As far as propaganda goes, \"Battleship Potempkin\" is perfect. Presenting a positive light on the first, unsuccessful, communist mutiny, the film was a useful Soviet tool. Eighty years after the films release though, and the USSR has disappeared completely off the map. The amazing thing about this film though is that whilst the country it's message was intended for has disappeared, the film remains a powerful and worthy piece of cinema.

Written and directed by Sergei Eisenstein, the film is surprisingly a joy to watch. It is true, that it is far from what we would nowadays consider 'entertainment', but the film is a beautiful piece of art.

Whether it be the scenes aboard the boat or the often talked about scene on the steps of Odessa, everything about this film is perfectly made. The music is powerful and dramatic, the lighting is flawless, even the acting, whilst slightly overdone, is perfect for the piece. Basically, there is no way to fault this film's end product.

It's impossible to know how the Russian people received this film upon it's release. Praising a country which has not existed for fifteen years, it's difficult for us to know the full spirits that the film inspires. As a piece of art though, it is magnificent. Beautiful from start to finish, it is far from an easy watch, but it is well worth the effort.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This 1925 film narrates the story of the mutiny on board battleship Potemkin at the port of Odessa. The movie celebrated the 20th anniversary of the uprising of 1905, which was seen as a direct precursor to the October Revolution of 1917. Following his montage theory, Eisenstein plays with scenes, their duration and the way they combine to emphasize his message, besides he uses different camera shot angles and revolutionary illumination techniques. The \"Odessa Steps\" sequence in Potemkin is one of the most famous in the history of cinema. The baby carriage coming loose down the steps after its mother has been shot was later recreated in Brian d' Palma's The Untouchables. It is clear that the film is one of the best ever made considering its time and how innovative it was though you need a little bit of patience and to be a real movie enthusiast to go through its 70 minutes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Eisenstien's \"Potempkin\", (Bronenosets Potyomkin), is among the finest films ever made and possibly the best of the silent era. Eisenstien was a pioneer of film form and his use of montage editing has influenced films to this day. The Odessa Steps massacre footage is as powerful today as it was when first seen over 70 years ago. DO NOT pass up the chance to see this film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a benchmark in non-mainstream cinema history. The use of montage represents a quantum leap from the relatively simple juxtapositions of Strike (Eisenstein's 1st film). Take the scene on the steps and note the repeated shot of the soldiers descending, to reiterate the point of the horrors that actually did happen! A highly intelligent monumental film, a must see for all Film students!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on actual events of 1905, silent film THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN concerns an Imperial Russian ship on which abominable conditions lead to a mutiny. Shocked by conditions on the ship, citizens of the port city Odessa rally to the mutineers' support--and in consequence find themselves at the mercy of Imperial forces, who attack the civilian supporters with savage force.

POTEMKIN is a film in which individual characters are much less important than the groups and crowds of which they are members, and it achieves its incredible power by showing the clash of the groups and crowds in a series of extraordinarily visualized and edited sequences. Amazingly, each of these sequences manage to top the previous one, and the film actually builds in power as it moves from the mutiny to the citizen's rally to the massacre on the Odessa steps--the latter of which is among the most famous sequences in all of film history. Filming largely where the real events actually occurred, director Eisenstein's vision is extraordinary as he builds--not only from sequence to sequence but from moment to moment within each sequence--some of the most memorable images ever committed to film.

To describe POTEMKIN as a great film is something of an understatement. It is an absolute essential, an absolute necessity to any one seriously interested in cinema as an art form, purely visual cinema at its most brilliant, often imitated, seldom equaled, never bested.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\/*may contain SPOILERS, but of course it does not matter :) *\/

Battleship Potemkin is one stunning spectacle of haunting images. The visual direction is (well, and has been) inspiring, the sheer scale of the film is impressive, and the technique is certainly pioneering. What is really amazing is, to my mind, the depth and effectiveness of a film, devoid of proper literary script, sound (save the soundtrack), decent image quality, the faux-profound (self-)referentialism of today, exceptional acting, pretense, etc. What you get is a purely visual experience to be remembered.

BTW, the previous poster noted: \"Eisenstien felt after a lot of suffering to give the heroes what they wanted. The problem is that you think Eisenstein is building up to a big final fight and then he tricks you. It's a little cheap. I would've rather seen a huge final action scene.\"

I must warn you, that the end is not cheap, and Eisenstein wasn't being generous to the heroes. History, however, was. Potemkin really did go through the squadron as it was shown in the film.

Finally, I'd strongly recommend seeing Battleship Potemkin to anyone more or less seriously interested in cinema. See it with a fellow movie buff, it kept me talking for hours. However, if you tend to consider films, generally accepted as \"great\" or \"classic\", to be \"slow\" or \"boring\", this film might not be for you yet. Not much cheap entertainment here.

For me though, it is a full 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The famous closeup of their breakfast meat, crawling with maggots still is recorded by fire in my neurons or the wind filling the right places of the sails, the fog better than Carpenter's THE FOG cos is the real terror bursting out from human history instead of pirates ghosts. But , I tell ya' something: Not even the magnificent scene in homenage performed by Brian Di Palma with the excellent music of Ennio Morricone in The Untochables (filmed in slow motion)can equal the effect of the original masterpiece of the crowd climbing down the ladders. We see not merely the baby stroller but I remember the hand of a baby stepped by militar boot, someone with no feet escaping at the last minute, someone wearing glasses (then a cut edition) and then the same glasses broken by a bullet that passed through....mini stories in a single scene.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Have wanted to see this for a while: I never thought I'd be watching it in a damp Trafalgar Square, London with 15,000 other people and all to a new score by the Pet Shop Boys.

Quickly, that experience specifically. A new departure from PSB, it seemed to suffer from the same problem the miniaturist Hugo Wolf had when he wrote his opera Der Corregidor: the long structure was a chain of short ones, i.e. songs. PSB produced a more fluid, integrated score although it was quite static on its own terms. Neither could they resist song: a setting of the subtitled text worked in this respect a free standing meditation on the action of the Odessa steps massacre during the action of that sequence itself was, I'd go so far to say, counterproductive. Overall it was very exciting though, which is surely what Eisenstein was trying to achieve.

It is a very exciting film with choppier editing taking the place of acceleration of tension or action. In fact the film, though beautifully shot and passionately acted (it has a silent film melodrama, but not in the excess of the Hollywood comic style) breathes through its careful editing pacing specific shots with a sense of the rate at which the audience will take them in. And there's a huge range of perspective too; either he had a lot of cameras or the sequences on the harbor and steps took a great deal of time.

Super film, which can be assessed irrespective of sound, as that's how the finished product would have been conceived. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After reading a biography on the last Russian Tzar (Nicholas II), and his failure to secure the army's support, I decided to give this film a try.

I watched it with a completely open mind, not knowing anything about it (except its reputation).

These are the things that impressed me the most.

1) The shots of battleships, and the soldiers used as extras. More than once I stopped to think \"if this was done in this time and place, 80% of this would have been computer-generated\".

2) The Realism in it. From the maggot-infested meat to the shot of the sailor with his candle and the legend \"Killed for a bowl of soup\", this movie makes no concessions to the PC cause (which, thankfully, hadn't been invented yet).

3) The slow descent into madness of the Odessa Steps sequence. From the first shot, when the limbless man appears, you get the idea something might be wrong; since the overall shots are composed, though, you end up feeling comfortable in your surroundings. Then an amputee appears, and people start falling in dramatic poses. Still, the shots are composed... until the Cossacks appear into scene, and the incredible shot juxtapositions appear. This scene is easily worth the price of admission.

4) The fact that this movie is 100% unadulterated propaganda. Then again, when Rambo fought in Afghanistan he also was having something to do with \"propaganda\"; only a different kind.

Overall: a film marred by a bit of a slow narrative. Nevertheless, Metropolis, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and this movie are perfect examples of inventive, edgy movies that are still remembered for their merits today. They really make modern movies look boring and repetitive.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had before a feeling of mislike for all Russian films. But, after seeing this film I haven\u00b4t. This is a unique masterpiece made by the best director ever lived in the USSR. He knows the art of film making, and can use it very well. If you find this movie: buy or copy it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best films I've seen from the silent era (sad to say, I've yet to see too many with the exception of Chaplin\/Keaton stuff). Very visually brilliant, with insanely influential style in editing and composition. Really unique (especially for its time) camera angles and extremely hectic editing. Definitely a must see for the film nerd.

The downside is that it is a bit too in your face about its politics (I have no problem with politics in film, as long as they are subtle or at least somewhat ignorable as a backseat to the story). Also, it's not an \"entertainment\" film, which is fine, but it's not something I'm going to watch a billion times. This is art, plain and simple, like it or not.

Worth an A+ for influence alone, but based on personal enjoyment, I give it an A-.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just finished watching this film. For me, the most outstanding work in this film was the music score. While many silent film scores work very well with their scenes, I feel that this is the best score I've come across. The mutiny scenes in particular worked extremely well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some users are confused about the identity of the armed men walking down the steps in the \"Odessa staircase\" sequence. These men are not Cossacks but regular army troops.

The Cossacks arrive at the scene a little later and they are the men on horses slashing at the crowd with their sabers.

To experts on Russian history: Correct me on this if I'm wrong.

But there are a couple of lines in the movie that apparently no one has commented on. After the takeover of the Potemkin, someone in the crowd on shore says, \"Kill the Jews!\" This is on screen for only a couple of seconds but it is there.

How cruelly typical of history, not just in Russia but in so many other countries, to immediately, unthinkingly and instinctively blame Jews for any domestic trouble!

Perhaps other parts of the movie are not historically factual but the outcry against the Jews is all too real. Comments, anyone?

Also, why can't speakers of English learn to pronounce the name as \"Potyomkin\" instead of as \"Potemkin\"? There's a need in Russian to distinguish the two possible pronunciations of \"e\": as either \"ye\" or as \"yo.\" Sometimes two dots are used to distinguish these two pronunciations but usually the difference simply has to be memorized.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you think piano teacher Erika Kohut (Isabelle Huppert) in Michael Haneke's film \"LA PIANISTE\" is the ultimate degree in the personification of derangement, perversion and darkness, I've got news for you: the piano teacher in Elfriede Jellinek's novel \"LA PIANISTE\" (on which the film was based) is twice as \"repulsive\", \"disgusting\", \"deranged\" and even more fascinating -- though there can't be words enough to translate the level of artistic proficiency that Isabelle Huppert has reached here, above all other mortal actresses in activity today. And who else could have played this character with such emotional power, complete with the best piano playing\/dubbing an actor could deliver?

In the novel as in the film, there are two big antagonists to the \"heroine\" Kohut: her own mother (wonderful, wreck-voiced Annie Girardot, in a part originally intended for Jeanne Moreau) and Austria itself. The mother personifies Jellinek's perception of her native Austria as a country that deceptively and perversely encourages racist\/fascist (or at least authoritarian) behavior, sexual and emotional repression, and, let's say, \u00fcbermensch ideals which are impossible to keep today without the danger of a mental breakdown.

\"La Pianiste\" also deals with a very powerful and delicate issue: how dangerous it is to reveal your innermost fantasies to the one (you think) you love. We tend to think our own sexual fantasies must be as exciting to others as they are to ourselves, which may turn out to be a huge, embarrassing and sometimes tragic mistake. Here, Kohut learns (?) the lesson in the most painful and humiliating of ways.

It must be mentioned that Elfriede Jellinek is one of the best-known and praised authors in Austria and Europe (well, now she's got a Nobel Prize!) and that autobiographical passages can be inferred in her novel, as she herself was a pianist and had a reportedly difficult relationship with her mother. The novel also includes long passages about Kohut's childhood and adolescence so you kind of understand how she turned into who she is now. Haneke chose to hide this information in the film, forcing us to wonder how she got to be that way (don't we all know a Erika Kohut out there?). But he very much preserves the fabric of the book in his film: unbearable honesty, to the point where most secretive, \"horrendous\" feelings painfully emerge -- envy, cruelty, violence, jealousy, hate, misery, sadism, masochism, selfishness, perversion etc. All of them unmistakably human.

I thought \"La Pianiste\" was a deeply moving film, very disturbing and thought-provoking, with a handful of unforgettable scenes, and that's just all I ask of movies. It also made me buy and be thrilled by the book, discover a fantastic author I hadn't read before, and listen again and again to Schubert - so, my thanks to Haneke, Jellinek and Isabelle!!! On the other hand, if you're looking for light entertainment, please stay away. My vote: 9 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at the 2001 Toronto International Film Festival. La Pianiste reinforces the \"Austrians=grim\" thesis I'm formulating. Isabelle Huppert won a well-deserved Best Actress award at Cannes for her portrayal of a woman who, in her efforts to attain the artistic ideal, loses her humanity. Trapped by her talent, she suppresses her emotions and her sexuality until they can only be expressed in twisted and terrifying ways. When a younger student falls in love with her, our hopes rise, but are soon dashed by the realization that she cannot experience love the way others can. It is too late for her, and the film's final 30 harrowing minutes are, tellingly, devoid of the beautiful music that carried the first 90 minutes. The message seems to be that the music itself is not enough without the life and beauty it's describing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Isabelle Huppert must be one of the greatest actresses of her or any other generation. \"La Pianiste\" truly confirms it. As if that wasn't enough, Annie Girardot plays her mother and Annie Girardot is one of the greatest actresses of her or any other generation. So, as you may well imagine, those pieces of casting are worth the horror we're put through. Isabelle and Annie play characters we've never seen before on the screen. A mother and daughter yes but with such virulent fearlessness that sometimes I was unable even to blink or to breath. Personally, I don't believe in the director's intentions, I don't believe they (the intentions that is) go beyond the shocking anecdote and the ending made me scream with frustration but I was riveted by the story written in the face of the sensational Huppert and the fierceness of Girardot's strength. I highly recommend it to cinema lovers anywhere and to the collectors of great performances like me, you can't afford to miss \"La Pianiste\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michael Haneke is known for his disturbing movies like \"Funny Games\". This time he adopted Elfriede Jelineks \"Die Klavierspielerin\", which is probably her best work so far. Jelinek always writes about abusive behaviour in families, and especially of the suppression of women in a patriarchal society.

Erika Kohut (Isabelle Huppert) works as a piano teacher at the Viennese Consevatory. She still lives with her mother (Annie Giradot), they even sleep in the same bed (already a hint of something strange). Erika bullies her students the same way she's bullied by her mother and secretly watches porn movies and plays sadomasochistic games with herself. A student, Walter (Benoit Magimel), falls in love with her, but she refuses to simply sleep with him. She wants to play her games with him, but he's disgusted. He reluctantly follows her rules, which means disaster for both of them.

Haneke has a very clear picture language, everything is filmed in a almost spartanic way, so the complex characters and story are enhanced.

People who don't know Austria very well may be don't realize how essential the setting is for the story. Jelinek (as well as other great Austrian writers like Thomas Bernhard) suffers from the coldness and casualness in Austrian families and society. Austrians (at least Viennese people) are often unable to articulate their pains, wishes, they suppress their emotions, so there often enough is no real love, affection and nearness in their families. In a society, where it's more important to show a perfect facade to society (even if this means to protect crimes within families as Erika and her mother protect Walters rape of Erika to avoid a scandal) than to deal with your emotional problems it's probably no wonder that Sigmund Freud founded the psychoanalysis in Vienna. Erika has a cold and distant relationship with her mother, they only time they share some emotions is very violent and not at all loving. Erika replaces her hidden emotions with wishes for violence, so that she can finally release some feelings. But she has nobody who really wants to speak about her emotions so in the end she has to stab herself to ease her inner pain.

Isabelle Huppert shows her best performance of her career (as well of most other actresses). With a unsmiling face you often see only a hint of emotion in her face, a quick smile, a glance with her eyes. And in the end her pain is masterly displayed without a single tear.

Benoit Magimel and Annie Giradot also turn in powerful performances, but the movie belongs to Huppert.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the first twenty minutes we are swept away by several powerfully portrayed emotions: a suffocating and overbearing mother has a violent argument with her live-in 40yr old daughter; a piano teacher (and professor of music)'s love for her pupils expressed in unswerving critical appraisal; the joy that music can inspire both in the listener and the performer. Within this short space of time our senses have been assaulted convincingly with very real characters. We are also swept away by powerfully performed music and shown the difference between great and mediocre performance with a lot of attention to nuance. Such material alone would have been the basis for an outstanding film of widespread appeal. But the trend in French cinema being what it is, it goes deeper, exploring the repressed sexuality of the teacher, the expression of sexual freedom and subsequent breakdown within a context of passionate attraction, and the inevitable cycle of real abuse. We are drawn to her suffering and, at least initially, wonder how much suffering may be related to the accomplishment of genius, particularly in the composers she admires. The Piano Teacher contains graphic dialogue and depictions of sex and brutality in scenes that some people might rather not watch. The scenes are essential to the dilemmas which the film seeks to raise and so can hardly be called gratuitous. A great film it may be, but mainstream viewing it is not.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Erika Kohut is a woman with deep sexual problems. At the start of the film, we see her arriving home late. When her older mother protests, Erika goes into a frenzy, attacking the older woman without pity. Erika, as it turns out, is a musical teacher of a certain renown in the conservatory where she teaches. When we next see her, she is the model of composure, but she shows a cruel side in the way she attacks a young male student because she feels he is wasting his time, and hers. The same goes for the insecure Anna, a talented girl who Erika hates, maybe because she sees in the young woman a promise that she is not willing to promote.

At the end of the day, we watch Erika as she goes into an amusement area and proceeds to one of the cabins where pornographic material is shown. Erika is transfixed as she watches the things that are being performed on the screen. On another occasion, Erika comes to a drive-in where a movie is in progress. Her attention goes toward a parked car in which, two lovers are performing a sex act. The camera lingers on Erika as she is lost in reverie watching what the two lovers are doing, until she is surprised by the young man inside the car. Erika flees horrified she's been discovered.

When a wealthy couple invites Erika to perform in a recital in their opulent home, she meets an eager young man, Walter, who is related to the hosts. Walter is immediately taken with Erika's playing; the young man is a talented pianist himself. His eagerness to compliment Erika is met with skepticism on her part. Walter decides to audition for Erika's master class, and is accepted.

Thus begins Walter pursuit of Erika, who is taken aback when she realizes what the young man's motives really are. In turn, Erika, begins to fantasize about Walter in ways that only her mind could, imagining what she would like him do when, and if, they get together. Walter gets turned off by the letter Erika has written to him, detailing sexual acts that are repugnant to the young man.

The film's ending, reminded us of the last sequence of Mr. Haneke's current \"Cache\". We are taken to a concert hall where Erika is going to perform. She is seen stalking the lobby looking for the arrival of Walter, who goes on into the hall without noticing her. Erika's expression to the camera reveals a lot more of her state of mind in that last minutes of the film. As she flees the lobby area after inflicting a wound on herself, the camera abandons her and concentrates on the building's facade that seems to stay on the screen for a long time.

\"La Pianiste\" is a personal triumph for Isabelle Huppert. This magnificent actress does one of her best appearances on the screen, guided by the sure hand of Michael Haneke, one of the most interesting directors working today. Ms. Huppert's works with economic gestures, yet, she projects so much of her soul as she burns the screen with her Erika.

The supporting cast does wonders under the director's guidance. Annie Girardot, always excellent, is perfect as Erika's mother. She seems to be the key of whatever went wrong with her daughter. There is a hint of incest that is played with subtleness in the context of the film. Benoit Magimel is perfectly cast as Walter. This young actor does a wonderful job in the film as the young man, so in love with a woman that is possessed by demons, that he'll never be able to chase away or get her to love him in a normal manner.

Michael Haneke films are always disturbing to watch, yet they offer so many rewards because he dares to go where other men don't. The magnificent music heard in the film are mainly by Schubert and Schumann, two composers that are Erika's own favorites. The movie is helped tremendously by Christian Berger's cinematography.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After I saw \"La Pianiste\" several years ago, I said to myself that I would never see it again, so powerful and disturbing it was. Time went on but I could not get the movie and its main character, Erika Kahut out of my mind. The story of a respected Piano teacher in Vienna Conservatory, cool and collected on the surface, an expert in classical music, with the inner world so dark and disturbing with the demons of fear, self-loathing and self destruction strong enough to ruin her demanded more than one viewing. I read the book \"The Piano Teacher\" by Elfriede Jelinek, the controversial Nobel Prize winner in literature that the film is based on and after reading it I saw the film again. Second time, all pieces of puzzle came to the right places. Not very often an outstanding harrowing book is transferred to the screen with such brilliancy as \"Le Pianiste\". Three actors gave outstanding performances. Franz Schubert's Piano music, \"soaked in the morbid humanity\", is another bright star of the movie.

I only have one problem with Haneke's vision. There is a scene in the film where Haneke made some changes to Erika's character comparing to the novel. In the book, the furthest she went to reveal herself to Walter, the young student in the conservatory who became attracted to her, was in a letter. As soon as he realized what he was dealing with and showed to her how much he was repulsed by that, she had stopped communicating with him. Erika of the book would never chase Walter to throw herself to him. She kept everything inside - she did not like to act, she was not a chaser - she loved to watch. The big scene during the hockey game was not necessary. It tried to make Erika sympathetic (and of course, Huppert was heartbreaking) but it took the mystery that surrounded her - Jelinek did not write that scene, it sounded and looked false in otherwise excellent film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As with all Haneke films, make your own decision--don't be swayed by what you read and if you are interested in someone using the medium of film for their own unique ends, see it yourself. Isabelle Huppert is stunning in this film--combined with Haneke, these two never pull their punches. Haneke reels us in with the lure of golden boy, Benoit Magimel, but this is an anti-romance as much as Funny Games was an anti-thriller. You'll have to force yourself to watch much of it and the catharsis is much more in the range of sustained anxiety than any kind of emotional release but it's incredibly nervy and thought provoking; Haneke continues to hold up a mirror to how desensitised Western civilization is or has become. People may turn their noses up at this but it's only taking what Solondz did in Happiness a few steps further. While grounded in reality, much of what Erika (Huppert) does can be viewed as emotional metaphor. I'm not recommending it but I wouldn't dissuade you either...it definitely divides people but given it's largely about repression--that's no surprise.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, those who are faint at heart should definitely avoid this film. Even those, like me, who are desensitized to most graphically violent and sexual acts in movies should beware. I'm not telling you to steer away from the film, but be aware that what you're about to see is some disturbing material. Definitely not a pleasing film to watch, but nothing is put on screen strictly for shock value. But I must admit, when I watched the film for a second time, I had to skip to the next chapter when the \"razor blade scene\" came up.

The main character is one of the most unsympathetic sympathetic characters I can think of, but we start to better realize the humanity of her character later in the film's second act. In one scene, she stuffs broken glass in one of her student's jacket pocket after being dissatisfied with her apparently unsatisfactory performance and getting nervous when in front of a live audience. The student goes into her pocket and cries out with pain as she stares at her blood-stained hand. Next to the razor blade scene, that disturbed me most. The student's mother is not much more sympathetic than she. When she gets word that her daughter won't be able to play, she talks about it like she also got also her hand injured, being one of those spoiled mothers who tries to torture her daughter into becoming an overachiever.

Though the film intrigued me and caught my interest for the most part, I felt more needed to be explained about Isabelle Huppert's character. When a woman is fascinated by sadomasochistic porno movies and engaging in that behavior herself, you want to understand the root of the problem. The movie establishes that she wants desperately to be loved. Then why the hateful attitude towards everyone? Why does she receive sexual pleasure from pain?

The acting is terrific and I liked the glossy, stylized lighting. Altogether, it's not a film I'd recommend if you're in the mood to be entertained, but as I said it's very intriguing. And I'm sure if I watched it a few more times, I'd be able to spot certain subtleties that'll shed more light on aspects of the film I didn't realize initially.

My score: 7 (out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At the end of my review of Cache, I wrote that I was intrigued with Haneke as a film maker. This is what led me to get the DVD for La Pianiste, which I just finished watching about a half hour ago.

It's all been expressed, here at IMDb and in many of the external reviews - the gruesomely twisted pathology that would 'create' an individual like Huppert's Erika, who is still trying, after years and years, to please her mother, at the expense of everyone and everything else in her life, beginning with her self. She's repressed everything that would free her from her self-imposed bondage, including, of course, her sexuality, which has literally imploded, to the point of madness, to where she can no longer even begin to comprehend what a genuine loving impulse would feel like.

This is a graphic portrait of a severe emotional cripple, one who never found the strength to get out of her childhood situation and become a functioning adult. I think this subject relates to all of us - we're all striving for autonomy, but there are needs, so many conflicting needs, most of which are not even on the conscious level. It also deals brilliantly with the contrast between what one fantasizes about, sexually, and the reality of those fantasies, as well as the consequences of choosing to share one's sexual fantasies with another human being. Huppert's character gets what she asks for in the course of the film, and it is hardly the emancipating experience she had imagined it to be.

Regarding the much-discussed scene in the bathroom: I really appreciated how this sequence had all the possible erotic charge (for the viewer, I mean) sucked out of it because of the prior scene, where she put the glass in the girl's pocket. By the time she's acting out her let's-see-if-this-guy-is-worthy scenario in the bathroom, we've already found out that she's dangerously disturbed and so it's not a turn on, her little domination session with our poor unsuspecting dupe.

I think another incredible achievement of this movie is how, about halfway through it, I completely forgot that it was not in English and that I was reading sub-titles. That has never happened before, in any foreign movie, and I've seen quite a few.

In this film, like Cache, the ending is not all wrapped up in a nice little tidy bow, but unlike Cache, we do at least get some sense of finality, despite the fact that we do not even know for sure whether Huppert's character is alive or dead. After experiencing La Pianiste, when it comes to Michael Haneke, I am, needless to say, more than a trifle intrigued.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Isabelle Huppert portrays a talented female piano teacher who is staid, unfriendly and distant in public, and bitter towards her students. Privately, she seethes with violence and frustration, and her sexual life is solitary and perverse. She lives with her overbearing mother, who obsessively drives her to become noticed (and so advance in life) as a talented pianist. The key to the characters of both mother and daughter is 'obsession.' These characters cannot change their impulses anymore than a rabbit caught in headlights can avoid death.

The piano teacher meets a young, attractive, talented pianist who from the beginning is attracted to her. They start a relationship in the most unconventional way, but from the outset she makes perverse and violent terms that he must perform on her, which sickens him enough to want to terminate the relationship before it has really begun.

The film ties itself to the female lead. Isabelle Huppert amazes with a brutal, completely convincing performance as the piano teacher. She cleverly shows a woman who is drawn to beauty and perversion, but her violence is fed by her perverted impulses. As a film that is so character driven, you know it would not work half as well, had she acted poorly.

This is powerful, intelligently acted, and intelligently and sensitively adapted from the novel. The camera work also suits the film. There are what I can only think to call, framing shots where the director holds a scene and forces the eye to dart about. This is done extremely effectively against a blank bathroom wall, and is a further testament to the director's mastery.

Expect to be disturbed and sickened by this film. But, be brave - have the guts to go and see it. This is a very private look into essentially one person's life, but do not expect to be entertained in the Hollywood sense....there are no car chases in this film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I totally disagree with the comments of one of the critics before me who bashed the film. Having read the book, being impressed by it although this is a kind of literature that you cannot really LIKE (similar to Hubert Selby's writing) I expected being shocked but the effect was more subtle than this. Isabelle Hubert is a brilliant actress who manages to convey a multi-layered character. There are many scenes that totally focus on her and her subtle changes and I can imagine few actresses who would do so well, with so much disregard for their own reputation or image. There is this coldness, distance, cruelty and at the same time there's this helplessness, hurt and pain. There's a person who's in control and controlled at the same time. Maybe this is not realistic - although when you read the newspaper you'll read about much worse than this - but there's a truth to it that is very difficult to bear. I think it's an excellent film but I did not enjoy watching it.It's not boring but there are times when I wished it would end. BTW, her male counterpart is very well acted as well (and I think well chosen, too).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, I must say that I love this film.

It was the first film that I saw from director Micheal Haneke and I was impressed that how good the direction was good !

Haneke surely knows how to direct actors. What I found intresting is also Haneke's scenario. At first, you saw a woman who is very straight and seems to be a good piano teacher and very well loved and respected from everybody in her entourage. Then you realise that she has a mother who is a controle freak and is too much present in her life. Now you know that she is deranged, that she has emotional problems, but you don't know exactly what. And then you fall into her dark side, but her dark side is only reveal when a student sendenly fall in love with her. She can't controled herself anymore.

The roles are very complexed and difficult to play, but Isabelle Huppert is marvellous in her role and she deserves the recognition she had at Cannes Festival. Benoit Maginel is very solid too, but a little bit eclipse by Huppert's performance.

There is one thing that I found strange in the scenario is how the character played by Magimel is not very credible. He is too talented! It is rare that a person is a piano virtuoso, but pass the most of the his time to play hockey and study... It think that it is a weak point, but only a minor flaw.

I just saw the movie once, so I can't do a very complete critic, because I didn't analysed the movie. I like what I saw ! so I give the film a 8.5\/10

Oh yeah... as for the end, Haneke showed that he really wanted to shock his audience. A motivation that don't think is necessary to make movies, but Haneke does it with style and precision, that is why his film is better than Baise-Moi for example.

Vince","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Overall I found this film good: exceptional acting with disturbing scenes (some essential, some useless) and weak second half. CONTAINS SPOILERS The film is divided in 2 parts. I thought the first half of the Pianist was terrific. We meet Erika Kohut (wonderful Isabelle Huppert), a piano teacher, and get introduced to her world. She is single, struggling to find her space against an over-protective and borderline tyrannic mother. We understand that she has lost or has seldom experienced love as a physical+emotional chemistry: she protects herself by being sharp and offensive to people, releases her sexual tensions in sex-shops, as a voyeur, or in sadistic self-mutilations ... This first half is very clinical and builds an incredible tension in the film, almost unbearable.

Then comes Walter, a young, handsome and outgoing man (played superbly by Benoit Magimel). Though he gets to feel Erika's coldness in the beginning, he seduces her and slowly wreaks Erika's fortress. He loves her deeply but she needs him to fulfil her sadistic desires. Then when she is about to fall for him, he is disgusted by her world and in the end we discover that Erika is unable to love or feel at all (especially since Walter is portrayed as someone impossible not to love). This is the second half of the film, very touching as we see Erika's inability\/inexperience to love lead her to self-destruction. This second half seemed less mastered by Haneke, and sometimes had non-credible (ie. too shocking) scenes which paradoxically lessened the drama.

Of course, this is a crude film at least in the French version: you see porn sequences from the sex shop, daring mutilation and sex scenes. The much talked-about fellatio scene between Magimel and Huppert was quite good I thought, and is central to understand Erika's sick relation to love. As to the actors, Huppert is marvelous all through the film, Magimel gets better and better up to perfection, and Girardot (the mother) is excellent.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If it is true that sadomasochism is a two-sided coin which contains the whole in the diverse expression of its opposites, then the cinematic portrait of Erika Kohut has its reality. Professor Kohut treats her piano students with a kind of fascist sadism while longing for the same for herself. Her outward expression projects her desire. That is why she can hurt without guilt or remorse.

Along comes talented, charming, handsome young Walter Klemmer (Benoit Magimel) who is attracted to her because of her passion and her intensity. He wants to become her student so as to be close to her. She rejects him out of hand, but because of his talent the Vienna conservatory votes him in. He falls in love with her. Again she pushes him away, but he will not take no for an answer, and thereby begins his own descent into depravity and loss of self-respect.

The question the viewer might ask at this point is, who is in control? The sadist or the masochist? Indeed who is the sadist and who the masochist? It is hard to tell. Is it the person who has just been greatly abused both psychologically and physically, who is actually lying wounded on the floor in grotesque triumphant and fulfillment, or is it the person who is rushing out the door, sated, giving the order that no one is to know what happened.

But Erika is not just a sadomasochistic freak. She is a sex extreme freak. She wants to experience the extremes of human sexuality while maintaining the facade of respectability. Actually that isn't even true. She says she doesn't care what others think. She doesn't care if they walk in and find her bleeding on the floor because she is in love. Love, she calls it. For her sex and love are one and the same.

At one point Walter tells her that love isn't everything. How ironic such a superfluity is to her. How gratuitous the comment.

The movie is beautifully cut and masterfully directed by Michael Haneke who spins the tale with expert camera work and carefully constructed sets in which the essence of the action is not just clear but exemplified (as in the bathroom when Walter propels himself high above the top of the stall to find Erika within). He also employs a fine positioning of the players so that they are always where they should be with well timed cuts from one angle to another. This is particularly important in the scene in which Erika, like a blood-drained corpse caught in stark white and black light, lies under her lover, rigid as stone. Here for the most part we only see her face and the stark outline of her neck with its pulsating artery. We don't need to see any more.

The part of Erika Kohut is perfect for Isabelle Huppert who is not afraid of extremes; indeed she excels in them. I have seen her in a number of movies and what she does better than almost anyone is become the character body and soul. Like the woman she plays in this movie she is unafraid of what others may think and cares little about her appearance in a decorative sense. What matters to her is the performance and the challenge. No part is too demanding. No character too depraved. It's as if Huppert wants to experience all of humanity, and wants us to watch her as she does. She is always fascinating and nearly flawless. She is not merely a leading light of the French cinema; she is one of the great actresses of our time who has put together an amazingly diverse body of work.

I think it is highly instructive and affords us a wonderful and striking contrast to compare her performance here with her performance in The Lacemaker (La Dentelli\u00e8re) from 1977 when she was 22 years old. There she was apple sweet in her red hair and freckles and her pretty face and her cute little figure playing Pomme, a Parisian apprentice hairdresser. Her character was shy about sex and modest--just an ordinary French girl who hoped one day to be a beautician. Here she is a self-destructive witch, bitter with hateful knowledge of herself, shameless and entirely depraved.

Huppert is fortunate in being an actress in France where there are parts like this for women past the age of starlets. (Hollywood could never make a movie like this.) In the American cinema, only a handful of the very best and hardest working actresses can hope to have a career after the age of about thirty. Huppert greatly increases her exposure because of her ability and range, but also because she is willing to play unsympathetic roles, here and also in La C\u00e9r\u00e9monie (1995) in which she plays a vile, spiteful murderess.

Do see this for Isabelle Huppert. You won't forget her or the character she brings to life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a superb game for the N64 with superb graphics and a great one-player story-line and even better multi-player game best played with 4 people.

The many levels and options for weapons mean that this is one of the best games around for years.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two years after its initial release, Goldeneye still sits atop the field of first-person shooters for the Nintendo 64. Even the Quake and Turok series have not had the combination of graphic detail, sound quality, enemy intelligence, challenge and overall fun that bring me back to this game over and over again. The missions each have specific objectives that force you to think as Bond, not just to shoot up every baddie that pops up on your screen, but also to avoid cameras, disable security systems, rescue hostages, protect the Bond girl, and so on. Q gadgets abound in this game, including the famous watch. The game is loosely based on the movie storyline, including all the major characters and the best scenes of the movie, from the dam bungee-jump to the prop-plane escape to the tank chase through St. Petersburg. Even the layout is preserved where possible, so you'll recognize various situations if you've seen the film. Other levels are added to challenge the player and string together the scenes a little more. With each difficulty level the mission objectives are more difficult, the enemies smarter and the bullets more lethal. I still have not gotten through the 00-Agent levels. Cheats can be opened, not by entering codes or pushing buttons, but by completing certain levels within a certain time frame, and additional characters can be opened up for the multiplayer. The multiplayer is still the best among the first-person shooters. It's not as crisp as Turok but it doesn't slow down nearly as much... tons of options give your friends reason to blow each other up over and over again, and one more time just for kicks. There are better games for the N64, such as Zelda and all things Star Wars, but Rare has continued their streak of outstanding games with a first-person shooter that has not and will not be surpassed until they top themselves in 2000 with Perfect Dark.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best bond game made of all systems. It was made of the best bond movie of all time. If you don't have the game Goldeneye you should rent it and if you don't have the movie Goldeneye you should rent it also to better understand the game. The best bond game of all!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was actually satisfied when i played this game.The graphics were something new.The missions were great.But yet,I felt i wanted more out of this game.For a James Bond game its pretty good but not as good as his other games.It would be great if they could make a 360Remake for it.It would be much better then.This may just be cuz I'm into games as Resident evil,Dead rising and those kind of games.So it could be better but it was OK to play.One thing i absolutely hated about this game was Natalya!She was irritating dying all the time and she couldn't run either.I recommend this game for those who like FPS games more than i do.7\/10 STARS","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Movie about two Australian girls--Debbie (Nell Schofield) and Sue (Sue Knight)--and what happens when they become girlfriends of two surfer guys.

I caught this at an art cinema here in America in 1981. Technically I was still a teenager (I was 19) so I was interested in seeing how Australian teens acted. Script wise there's nothing new here. It shows the usual teenage adventures dealing with dating, sex, suicide etc etc. I always knew what was going to happen before it did but I was never bored. What I found interesting was, despite the accent and a few changes in clothes and hair, these teenagers aren't much different than American teens. They had many of the same difficulties and hang-ups. Also this was based on a book from a real surfer girl and her true life adventures and (I heard) it was a faithful adaptation of it. The acting was just OK but the actors were attractive and this was well-made and pretty interesting. So this is no unsung masterpiece but a pretty accurate portrayal of what it's like being a teenager and trying to be with the popular kids. I give it a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that this movie belongs to the 'Aussie trash' pile, but it's fair to say that there are no Academy Award nominees here. What must be considered is that most of the actors in this film weren't actually actors as such, just kids with nothing better to do at the time. There were many others that were offered roles in the film but turned them down to go surfing up the coast; all things taken into account, it really wasn't a bad movie for its time. In some respects it's really not unlike today's times, where peer pressure is still alive and kicking, just without the mobile phones, computers and other similar gadgets that kids lived without, unlike this generation. Anyway, I have to rate this flick as an old fave that I watch once in a blue moon and never take too seriously...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Debbie Vickers (Nell Schofield) and Sue Knight (Jad Capelja) want to become one of the cool girls in their high school. Uncool and ugly girls had two options, be a mole or a prude! Debbie and Sue imitate them by using their cheating practices in an exam. Two of the cool boys, Garry (Goeff Rhoe) and Danny (Tony Hughes) ask them for their answers and they all get busted. After a bawling out from the headmaster (Bud Tingwell) the cool girls meet them outside in the playground and confronted them about whether they \"dobbed\" on them all. As Debbie and Sue hadn't the cool girls invited them to the \"dunnies\" for a smoke. They then start to hang with them on weekends at the beach, watching all the boys surf. Sue ends up going out with Danny and Debbie with Garry. A lot of usual teenage action takes place including sex, drugs and rock and roll. Garry has an eventual overdose of heroin which makes Debbie face the inequalities of life and she decides to learn to surf instead of just watching the boys. They are not happy but watch her, calling names, and eventually Debbie masters the board. A cool early 80s Aussie film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Would you like to know why French and Italians love\/hate each others? Would you like to have a glimpse of history that drives our lifetime? So, go to watch Virzi's film (in original language, of course) and you can look at a wonderful Monica Bellucci who finally speaks her native language from Citt\u00e0 di Castello (Umbria, just at the border with Tuscany). And the rest of the characters speaking Livornese (lovely Sabrina Impacciatore and all the others). Daniel Auteuil definitely in his shoes with Napoleon. A lot of fun, a real fresco of the Elba Island landscape, and a picture about the political reasons to kill or leave alive a tyrant (good for all times).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Martino, a young teacher in the island of Elba, has been formed by Maestro Fontanelli, an excellent educator, to be his own man and to say whatever he thinks, something that gets him in trouble at the school where we first meet him because he is teaching revolutionary ideals. The island is in a frenzy because of the arrival of one of the most influential men in European history of the 19th century. Napoleon is coming to his exile, not exactly a high point in his life.

With surprise, Martino is chosen to accompany Napoleon who is writing his memoirs and is in need of help for his own project. The young man comes from a sea merchant family. His brother and sister want him to go on an commercial expedition, but Martino has decided his place belongs in Elba because he will try to assassinate Napoleon. Little deters him after his mentor Fontanelli is tried for treason and condemned to be shot by a firing squad.

Martino finds his consolation with the much older Baroness Emilia, a beautiful woman. In his own interaction with the deposed emperor, a different kind of man emerges. Napoleon is seen as a more human person who really enjoys the company of Martino, not suspecting with the plans the young man's own plans for him. Unfortunately, Martino is not able to put his design into action because Napoleon has other plans in mind.

Paolo Virzi, the director of \"Caterina va in citta\", shows why his early promise is still there. Mr. Virzi also collaborated with the screenplay, which is based on a novel by Ernesto Ferrero. The director shows he is as good in intimate drama as well as with this type of spectacle. Alessandro Pesci, the cinematographer, does an excellent job with the images he was able to get.

Elio Germano, a young Italian actor is the best thing in the movie. He is playing against more experienced players, yet he manages to convince us he is the idealist youth trying to get justice to what he perceives is a noble cause. The great Daniel Auteuil is a more subdued Napoleon than one would expect from anyone's interpretation of this larger than life man. Monica Belucci is the love interest of Martino, but she has little to do. Omero Antonutti plays Fontanelli.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Screened this morning for the press at Roma film festival, \"N - io e Napoleone\" is easy to love. First of all it can count on great production values, as very few Italian films nowadays can, with wonderful settings and costumes. The cast is great too. Director Virz\u00ec constantly speaks of the young lead Elio Germano as \"a young De Niro\". Now, of course he is going a way too far, but sure the boy can act. I loved his performance, and he did a great job with the (tuscan) accent. Daniel Auteuil is a great actor and did very well as Bonaparte. It's really great to see him acting in Italian, I hope to see him working in Italy again very soon. The supporting cast worked well too - people like Valerio Mastrandrea or Sabrina Impacciatore may seem unlikely choices, but they all gave fine performances. Even Massimo Ceccherini, best known for appearing in his own moronic films and in trashy TV reality shows, fitted in well and was actually funny. The low point of the cast was the \"Diva\" Monica Bellucci. Sure, she was slightly better than usual, but she managed to look (and sound) utterly unnatural even in the part of baronessa Emilia, in which, with a good dose of self irony, she used her own umbro accent. The script, by veteran Furio Scarpelli and Virz\u00ec himself is clever, with lots of laugh out loud lines, and a few very emotional moments too. Sure, the ending left me puzzled. The message is kind of ambiguous: the whole film says that political ideals can bring you to blind hate, but if you get closer you will learn that the object of your hate is after all a little human being like everyone else, sometimes funny, sometimes sad, sometimes pathetic, so that suddenly it's difficult to hate him; then, in the last few minutes it says that after all it would have been better to shoot him in the head at the beginning. Personally, I dislike very much this notion. \"Io e Napoleone\" is still a pleasant film, the best presented at the Festival so far (the other being Fur and the Hoax). My rating is 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I learned a thing: you have to take this film like a funny period comedy, if you don't want to be disappointed. The film's enjoyable because it's a delicious comedy. I think the over-hype damaged it: the too much glorified Monica Bellucci appears in few scenes and isn't so good as they wanted to let you believe. She sounds unnatural, false: the best actress in this film is Sabrina Impacciatore, who speaks with a perfect Tuscan accent and shines together with Massimo Ceccherini. Elio Germano is very, very good: the most promising young Italian actor, according to me. Daniel Auteuil looks like Napoleon, but I preferred other actors. So, the most hyped performances were also the worst.

Costumes and production design are okay: sure, American period movies are more accurate about these things because have bigger budgets, but the Italian ability rewards the lack of money. A nice period comedy, in short, with a first-rate casting (except for Bellucci and Auteuil).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found it charming! Nobody else but Kiarostami can do so little and, yet, get so much. You might think I'm weird, but I was so charmed that I couldn't speak during the movie. While during other movies I comment a lot. The short movie made by him for Lumiere et Companie, the one with the eggs, that one is unbeatable in my heart, but this is wonderful, too. I liked it better than Ten. Kiarostami is, maybe, the best director in my opinion, because he can see things! He doesn't need to use a lot of stuff \"brought from home\" to illustrate his images, he simply grabs a camera. Not many can do that.. Maybe I don't know to much about movies but I don't care about complicate stuff, all someone has to do is touch my soul. Kiarostami does.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie gives Daniel Wu his chance to do a great action movie, but I really find Emil Chow's character really great, gutsy but determined to righting wrongs. Plus the main terrorist, it gets me wondering his revolution, makes me wonder if he is doing this for good or bad.

A movie that tells us about Todd, an amnesiac terrorist being tricked as an undercover until he learns who he really is. The consequences that he makes from his terrorist family, gives him a the choice of redemption.

Purple Storm was one of the best ones that I have seen this year. The movie really stands out when it is filled with tremendous action scenes set-up by Stephen Tung Wai, which won the best action sequences in the Hong Kong Awards. (9\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Here we've got an intelligent mixture of typical hongkongmovieshootouts, worlddestructionthemes and intelligent filmmaking. Not that the script has not its big holes and a few specialeffects are a bit cheaplooking. But the cinematography is a optical treat and the soundtrack is first rate. The blend of fast actionsequences and colorful slow, sometimes nearly poetic parts, has no comparison in its kind of movie, so a classification is rather hard. The closest genre is a disaster or terroristmovie with deeper human and political notes than usual. Well worth to be seen worldwide in cinemas. But i am hoping this for so many other (mostly asian) movies before and nobody seems to believe me. Unfortunately.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I started watching this expecting the worst, i was happy to find that the film turned out to be enjoyable, slightly confusing in parts, like when they all justs started singing. It gave me a chance to see Daniel Wu in action for the first time, he is a better actor than i thought, at times he seemed a bit out of place. I thought purple storm deserves its Hong kong legends release, as it is different to most other HK films, it is about a mans emotional struggles when confronted with memory loss, it may sound corny but when he eventually pieces out what and who he actually is it really makes the film a lot more interesting. Once you get into the film you will find it keeps you gripped to it, as if you miss one bit then a lot of the film wil make sense, for example i missed a bit at the start and i recommend to anyone that watches this that they do not miss any of it. So i can say that this film was worth watching and a grateful surprise for me, that i enjoyed it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Labeling this film a \"lesbian love story\" is about as accurate as calling Pride & Prejudice a \"straight love story.\" There's just so much more to it than that.

Yes, the main character is a lesbian, but her story is classic bildungsroman, a journey from childhood to adulthood, from sexual innocence into maturity, from personal blindness to self- discovery. There is a stylistic element of camp to the film's direction, but it is not a hindrance; rather it serves to underscore the staged and dramatic parts of the main character's life.

Those who know Anna Chancellor from the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice will certainly be amazed with her here. Rachael Stirling is stellar as the main character Nan, and Keeley Hawes is all wide-eyed goodness as her lover Kitty Butler. Chancellor might have the stand out role, that is aside from Sally Hawkins who plays Zena Butler. This film is not for the faint of heart, but it's not a piece of pro-gay advertising either. It's a real story, with real comedy and drama, an engaging story with compelling characters, and well worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tipping the Velvet has just three weeks ago been released in the UK and already I watch as countless letters flood to the national papers and TV guides, claiming that it possesses a thin plot, weak performances and an even weaker script.

You find me incensed. This is heresy.

I would really like to dispel all doubt by first congratulating Andrew Davies on enabling Geoffrey Sax to create this wonderful dramatization of Sarah Waters' novel by cushioning him with such a fantastic script. Kudos. But I fear I must now change tack.

I saw one of the premiere TV guides here in the UK (which shall remain nameless) relentlessly describing Tipping the Velvet as a \"lesbian love story\". If they are, and I assume they are, trying to promote interest in the film, then this is completely the wrong way to go about it (aside from the phrase being a disappointingly inaccurate description). By saying such a thing, they are either a) turning away those who would instinctively be repelled by \"that\" subject matter or b) attracting a class of people who will only watch to see some \"serious girl-on-girl action\". Buy a video! Through this display of serious inconsideration, this and other magazines are cheapening what is a brilliant adaptation of one of recent literature's greatest works. Tipping the Velvet is a story of love, of passion, of moving on, of loss, and of heartbreak. It's not a lesbian love story. No siree.

The end result is a stylish affair, with excellent performances all round (particularly from Stirling, Hawes, Chancellor and May). Direction-wise, it's intoxicating and immersive - sometimes, fast-paced, sometimes not - but it never ceases to be anything less than compelling. As a whole, it's polished and well delivered, the sex is undertaken with tenderness and delicacy - and although many will not class it as a real \"film\", it will remain among my favourites for some time to come.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This wonderful 3 part BBC production is one of the sweetest love stories that I have seen in a while. The actresses display a very high level of talent, especially Rachael Stirling as Nan Astley. She is funny, seductive and cute. The love making scenes and the close up kisses are very erotic regardless of one's sexual preference.

The characters are well defined and very believable. I guess this is a by-product of a good adaptation from a well written novel.

A truly remarkable well paced drama that picks up speed quickly after a couple of boring (but necessary) scenes in the beginning.

My vote: 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm glad I read the Sarah Waters novel first, since I had my own pictures of the characters in my head at the time. The ones cast for this production, however, were not at all disappointing - in fact, after I got used to Rachael Stirling as Nan, I think Nina Gold did a damn fine job in the casting department. (Can Keeley Hawes be more delicious?!)

The BBC has done it again: this is a wonderful production of a very good book, and they have done it up in style. If you can get your hands on this (VHS, DVD) be sure to get the 181-minute version (the uncensored one.) It is a marvelous journey, albeit a bit rocky at times, that you won't regret taking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have nothing but praise for this mini series. It's only about a year and a half old but I have seen it twice already; with greater enjoyment the second time than the first. I'm seriously thinking of watching it again soon since I find it spiritually uplifting.

It is a very tender romantic drama with such beautiful performances, sets, costumes, music and scenes that it has a resonance which places it almost in a league of its own among mini series.

Some others have commented on the difficulties of living as a lesbian in Britain in the 1890s. Nothing especially difficult about that; it was only male homosexuality that was against the law as poor Oscar Wilde experienced to his great cost and as a great loss to the literary world. Anyway, I digress.

In my view, this is essential television. It is perhaps one of the greatest tragic romantic dramas since Romeo and Juliet, although not in the conventional sense.

10 out of 10 from me.

JMV","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is surprising that a production like this gets made these days, especially for television. Considering the strong sexual themes and explicit lovemaking scenes, not to mention lesbianism, this has been given superb treatment and direction.

The sets and costumes are flawless, the direction is stylish and the characters are likeable. There is a fair amount of humor but it has surprisingly dark interludes. The protagonist is really a tragic figure, but not devoid of happiness. Also, this production avoids the mistake most films\/shows make when dealing with homosexuality\/lesbianism. The characters are very human. It seems that to allow people to be comfortable with watching gays and lesbians on TV and movies most shows fill it full of cliches and make the characters obsessed with being gay. Not so with this. In Tipping the Velvet, the protagonist is hardly aware of what being lesbian means!

The BBC have made some wonderful productions in the past, and this adventurous period piece only confirms their standard of excellence on all fronts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think Andrew Davies did an admirable job of taking a magnificent book which emulated the pace and styling of a Victorian novel and turning it into a moving and entertaining film. I'm glad I read (twice) the book first which is usually the case for me. I know that one must view a novel and a film as different media and judge them accordingly. But, still, it's often hard to read the original material after a film gives away the best parts.

I realize that Davies is a very good adapter, but I wish the producers had chosen a woman to write the screenplay. Davies, as he admits in the commentary that accompanies the film on DVD, wanted particularly to emphasis the more scatological bits in the book. I certainly enjoyed those, on film as in the book. But Davies missed a half-dozen moments that are so excruciatingly, painfully tender which he could have incorporated if his sensibility were more feminine.

I also would take issue with his use of the book's primary symbol, the rose.

As the screenplay was plotted by Davies, the denouement was inevitable and appropriate. But I really think that author Waters' final nod to the rose symbol was much more interesting. And I preferred way the novel let Nan \"come of age\" than the way Davies chose.

One quick comment about the four actors who essay the primary roles. They are all wonderfully talented -- well, except for the singing and dancing, perhaps -- and, moreover, their physical presences are so much what the mind's eye sees when reading the novel before seeing the film. I thought they were all terrific.

I recommend that any lesbian and anyone who loves good fiction, add BOTH the book and the DVD of TIPPING THE VELVET to their bookshelves.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For every fan of coming of age tales, this 3 hour adaptation of the

Sarah Waters novel is pure fun. Cinematic nods to Baz Luhrman's

kinetic style, as well as to all those prim and proper period pieces

ever present on the BBC (where you're likely to have seen almost

every prominent member of this cast). It's rather bawdy and over

the top in spots, but that's just what the novel called for. The cast

is appealing and, in the cases of Anna Chancellor and Hugh

Bonneville, perfect. In the case of Rachel Sterling, as our heroine

Nan, you simply must overlook the fact that she's far too pretty to

ever be mistaken for a boy and run with it. It's a fantasy, after all.

Some fans of the novel may be put out by the various changes in

character (particularly that of Jodhi May's character, Florence), but

the changes all work toward the greater good of this teleplay and

provide an overall high quality entertainment value.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Out of the top 24 lesbian films in my library, I must rate this one as the number one film of all times. This film will go down in history as the best in it's genre. It is a story about a girl (Rachael Stirling) who goes from riches to rags and from rags to riches, with her first love (Keeley Hawes) popping in and out of her life. It is set against a Victorian background in the 1890's, which makes it an ideal setting for some of the best entertainment in the industry. This film spared no expense for music and costumes, and the make-up Rachael and Keeley wore while on stage in the Halls only added to the film's diversity.

No matter what kind of films you favor, I can guarantee this film will not only amaze you, but will keep your attention through all three episodes. This film will be played and enjoyed for decades to come. The unrated DVD collector's version is a must for anyone's library. Rachael Stirling and Keeley Hawes was the best choice for the casting in these two roles, and they played them extremely well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Tipping The Velvet\" is one of the modern day television productions that prove that some television can be just as good or even better(as this is) than what you see at your local theater.

If you want to read the plot, read this and if you want other details skip down to the next paragraph. This is the unforgettable portrait of an unconventional young girl named Nan who works as a naive oyster girl,until she discovers her repressed homosexuality when she falls in love with a successful woman named Kitty who dresses as a male for her stage profession. The young girl soon joins the act as another male impersonator and they are a major hit. Soon the both of them embark on a tender affair. Kitty eventually becomes enveloped in a marriage of convenience and ravages young Nan's heart. From then on, Nan works as male impersonated prostitute to men looking to have sex with boys, then she becomes the private sex slave to the evil and sadomasochistic Diana where Nan experiences severe emotional abuse. When that ends badly, Nan is on the streets again where she recalls a young woman named Florence; a good-hearted socialist who had the true potential of being a wonderful partner. That's where Nan will discover the power of socialism and learn how to get back to fame.

The region 1 transfer is of exceptional picture quality, there is a very good scene selection, an eloquent photo gallery and a fun interview between novelist Sara Waters and the film's writer Andrew Davies.

The sets, costumes, cinematography and music are gorgeous. The acting, writing and directing are extremely strong and filled with realism, class and originality. I loved the film and the novel. Section III in the film is much different in the film than in the novel, because section III in the novel is great written down, but isn't screen material. I will be brave and say that I love the films interpretation of it much more.

This breathtaking historical ingeniously combines Drama, Comedy, Erotica and Romance to vibrant perfection in a way that is both deeply moving and spiritually uplifting. For every mature and open-minded adult who has ever felt the pleasures, pains and power of falling in love and living life to it's fullest. A revolutionary production; an absolute must-see!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a lesbian, I am sick and tired of being portrayed in movies and on TV as a sad person, forever vacillating between suicide and homicide, but never destined to find happiness?

If, like me, you are fed up with Hollywood's anti-lesbian propaganda, you'll breathe a sigh of relief at this delightful offering from the BBC. Nan Astley is the daughter of an Oyster-house restaurateur who \"wonders why she can't feel the way she should about Freddy\" (one of the local lads who has his eye set on her). She falls \u0096 and falls hard \u0096 for Kitty Butler, a male impersonator with a visiting theatre troupe. Nan accompanies Kitty to London as her dresser\u0085

Not everything that happens to Nan is pleasant in this story, and some of the things she does are not squeaky-clean either - but she will win your heart, and her story of love triumphant will leave you with a beautiful lump in your throat at the end.

If you are a lesbo-hating macho man or a homophobic housewife, or some brand of religious fundamentalist who believes that homosexuals should die and go to hell, this series is not for you. But if you have a heart, and you believe in love, you will cry at the end as much as I did!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tipping the Velvet (2002) (TV) was directed by Geoffrey Sax for BBC television. The basic plot is a coming-of-age story for the protagonist, Nan Astley, played well by Rachael Stirling. As a teenager, Nan works in her family-run oyster house. Everyone expects her to stay at home, then marry an appropriate husband, and settle down to family life. Nan expects this too.

Everything changes when Nan meets Kitty Butler (Keeley Hawes) a beautiful and talented performer who dresses in men's clothes and captures the hearts of her audience. The audience includes Nan, who is sexually attracted to Kitty in a way in which she's not attracted to her boyfriend.

The remainder of the film follows Nan to London and through her ups (sort of) and her downs (horrible) as a lesbian and sometimes male impersonator.

As is typical for the BBC, every role, no matter how small, is performed by an excellent actor. The BBC has a depth and breadth of performing artists that is truly marvelous. None of the supporting actors stands out in my mind--they were uniformly good. Both Stirling and Hawes are wonderful, and their acting carries the film along.

It's always sad to be reminded of how difficult life can be for someone who doesn't fit society's mold for what is normal. I know it isn't easy for lesbians even in the U.S., even today. Imagine the obstacles to love and happiness for lesbians in Victorian England. We've come a long way, but we still have a long way to travel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie. Not because of the romantic story lines between women, but for the visualization of human strength, despair, and liberation. This film is a must see. Entertaining! Emotional! Captivating! All the characters are very well written and portrayed by some very talented actors. This story is a story of self discovery and sexual awakening. A journey of the mind, body and soul. You find yourself identifying with the characters and at some points, even the storyline.

I do have to say that I recommend watching the movie first, then read the book. If you read the book first, you will be slightly disappointed. The screenplay adaption cut out a lot and some things were changed. Some for the better and some for the worst.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A young woman leaves her provincial life for a new one in the city and there she meets another woman with whom she falls in love with. Their relationship turns physical quickly and they both believe that they are soul-mates, until one day, the provincial girl comes home to find a man in their bed. Her lover then reveals to her that their relationship was just an experiment and she really likes men. Um, kinda like the Anne Heche and Ellen Degeneres thing. So, anyway, the provincial girl, broken, torn and shattered by this discovery moves out and begins to discover what the real world is all about as she falls into the hands of all sort of vindictive and salacious people in 19th century England.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie. I watched it over and over when i rented it from Netflix.It had a lot of substance and meaning for me. I think many people will enjoy it.I have read and seen quite a few lesbian stories over the years and am happy to say they are getting better and better in how they are presented.They tend to have a more positive feel for the life style and feeling's of gay women.Its nice to see two women find themselves and be as happy as others in this society.I think it is apparent that more and more movies with this theme will grace our theaters and TV screens.Many producers and directors are realizing that Lesbians live very full and wholesome lives and that we have wonderful stories that should and can be seen by individuals as well as families without hesitation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I rented this movie, I half expected it to be a low budget, plot less Indy film, but thought I'd give it a try. I started watching Part 1 and couldn't pull myself away till it ended 3 hours later. It was by far one of my absolute favorite films of all time. From the writing to the directing to the performances, I was laughing, crying, and singing all the way through Nan Astley's rite of passage from innocence to adulthood. Rachael Stirling is phenomenal in this film. I had never heard of her before, but now I will forever remember the vulnerability and strength I felt in her performance. She, Keeley Hawes, and Jodhi May are incredible as they guide you through the emotional turmoils that most feel as they deal with an alternate form of sexuality. The fact that the film is set in the 1890's not only educates the audience about homosexuality in that time period, but makes a statement about our society today. You must see this film and, probably like myself, you'll be making a trip to the store to add it to your collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This BBC series is astonishingly good fun. I'd only seen a few minutes before I knew I had to own it and watch it again with all my friends. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone prudish, but almost anyone else is going to enjoy it--from the cinema snob to the entertainment-hungry masses. The lead character is a lesbian, but it's still worth watching if that's not your thing.

Rachael Stirling is incredible in a lead role that stretches her into a dazzling assortment of emotions and situations, some of a bizarre nature. No one who saw this series would ever say she can't act. She makes us laugh, cry, get turned on and slap our foreheads in amazement.

You can't really compare this story to anything else. It's not a rehash of style or plot. It's entirely it's own beast\u0097part comedy, historical drama, erotica, coming-of-age tale, musical and more.

Gotta praise the BBC for making this story. I can't imagine anyone in the (overly prudish and formulaic) U.S. ever doing it. So, stop reading about it and go buy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Both the book and the film are excellent in their own right. They do differ slightly but that enhances and not detracts from what is an excellent script and acting. The historical atmosphere, the young girl looking for love, the amazing background of music hall and the voyage into the lesbian world of London early twentieth century make this an exceptional movie. Andrew Davies as the scriptwriter excels himself as he writes this lesbian love story with such sensitivity. Rachael Sterling and Keeley Hawes are both excellent actresses and give these parts their best. The rest of the cast are very good. If there was higher than 10 out of 10 I would give it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Andrew Davies adaptation of the Sarah Waters' novel was excellent. The characters of Nan and and Kitty were superbly portrayed by Rachael Stirling and Kelley Hawes respectively. The whole series was a total joy to watch. It caught the imagination of everyone across the board, whether straight or gay. I wish there could be a sequel!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Over the weekend i watched the movie Tipping the Velvet and if I was to have to score this movie out of 100 I would have to give it 100 no question asked. I am a true believer in true love and this movie moved me in alot of different ways and the actors fit the parts without a doult. But I have to say that the ending was not so great for I did not see that spark in Nancys eyes when ever she looked into Flo's eyes, as her eyes sparked each time she looked at Kitty, Kitty only had to be in the room or in Nancy's thought and Nancy would just glow fron that spark. Kitty told Nancy that she could not find her and that she looked for her, but could not find her. Kitty was ready to give it all up to get Nancy back. In Kitty's eyes you could see Kitty's pain. I believe that Nancy should have let Kitty see that thier love is true and strong and that she would not let her go that easy. You need to make a part two and have the two make it together, but you must not let anyone else play the roles it has to be the real Kitty & Nancy or it'll never work. My mother once told me that true love is just not real. I am no fool I know that we all have a true love out someplace just waiting for each of us and I believe with my life that Nancy's true love really is only Kitty and Kitty's true love is only Nancy. Come on lets play the game the right way, the only way. Let Nancy's eyes shine again.... Kitty lost her everything, by losing Nancy. And Kitty is not to be the only one to blame. I am gay myself and being gay is not easy!! WAKE UP!!! in 1889 I'd not want to be gay, Kitty was lost deep inside herself and in 1889 maybe the right thing to do was to be married to a man. Even though you love a woman. Kitty needed Nancy to stand up to her needed Nancy to fight for her. Myself I remember how deeply I loved this girl and I let her get away because I thought I was doing something wrong and I went back to my ex-boyfriend. I thought I was doing the right thing, but I know I was wrong to let go of her and I will pay for the rest of my days,for like Kitty I could not find her anyplace. I heard that she is married to a man in the U.S.A someplace. I even heard that he beats her. I guess in the end we both lose. Give the two girls one more chance life can be very lonely if you are not true to you and your loved one.

Thank You, Kristen Ann","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was one of the most emotional movies I have seen. Passion, Pleasure, Pain, Despair, Sorrow, Healing, Cleansing and Love.

The entire movie was spellbinding. Everything was done so well; the adaptation from the book, the actors, the sets, the camera shots.

This movie touched me deeply in so many ways. It reminded me of the despair that loosing your love can have, and the time it takes to heal that wound. You may love again, but will always be risking the pain that comes with separation.

Is this not one of the most important age-old questions?

\"Is it better to have love and lost?

Than to never have loved before?\"

-Ascension","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The BBC surpassed themselves with the boundaries they crossed with Tipping the Velvet. In the past they've been 'daring' with Dennis Potter's works but this mini-series (as it was screened in the UK) is superb. Andrew Davies work is top notch - I've not read the Sarah Water's novel but I can imagine he's done it real justice. I comment on the bawdiness - most men have watched it for that - proved to be a main talking and selling point when originally advertised. The fact is, it portays the lesbian side of society in the 1800s - a time when most thought it was old men and rent boys - well it was - lesbianism took place mainly behind closed and often respectable doors.

You can also look at Tipping The Velvet as a 'love story' - it actually is - as well as 'self discovery' that many gay\/bi and straight people go through and comments on this occur and repeat all the time.

If you've not seen it yet - either repeated on TV or on DVD - get it - you'll be in for a treat - and even the production and filming of it is perfect. Just try to hide your blushes in parts - like I said - 'bawdy' is the order of the day - and beware a 'phallus' or two!

Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best lesbian films i have ever seen! This series brought joy and sadness of true love. Being set in the 1800's was an amazing look at lesbian lives and desires of lesbian women. The cast was beyond expectation! Rachael Stirling is an amazing actress, i have never seen her other works but her portrayal of Nan made me connect with her feeling her heartache and pains and love. The one thing i feel most important is connecting with the characters in anything i watch. If anyone has doubts on seeing this film...Think twice! This is a must see series. Well done again to BBC! We need more lesbian films that portrays real love and hurts, like this one. Living in Canada i had this DVD imported and i am so thrilled to have purchased it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Andrew Davies adaptation of the Sarah Waters' novel was excellent. The characters of Nan and and Kitty were superbly portrayed by Rachael Stirling and Kelley Hawes respectively. The whole series was a total joy to watch. It caught the imagination of everyone across the board, whether straight or gay. I wish there could be a sequel!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So far only the first episode has been shown, and a great fuss has been made about the lesbian sex scenes. But for those who bother to look past that they will find an incredibly beautiful love story and one that has in this episode ended in an upsetting climax\/cliffhanger. I have found the story so powerful that I have been inspired to read the novel on which this fantastic series has been based.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a superb TV series, it's sympathetic and for once realistic! portrayal of lesbian women is delicately handled and well done. On top of that the directing is wonderful and the settings sumptuous and rich, a real treat. If you missed the first one I advise you watch next weeks, 9PM, BBC 2","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This drama apparently caused a bit of a stir six years ago when it debuted on television - not taking in much TV news myself, it passed under the radar; but after having seen it, I'm not surprised that it did cause a stir. Not particularly because of the content (although it is a bit more 'offbeat' than the usual TV fodder) - it has more to do with the reactionary media in this country. Anyway, this three part series is based on a book by Sarah Waters and puts its main focus on lesbians - although the plot also has room to explore some other 'dark' sides of sexuality. Our main character is an oyster girl named Nan (short for Nancy) from Winchester. She is bewitched by female to male drag performer Kitty Butler after seeing her at a theatre show and soon begins attending all of her shows - eventually catching the eye of the performer and becoming her dresser. It's not long before Kitty is offered a chance to play on bigger stages in London and having become good friends with Nan, she invites her along for the ride. The act gets bigger when Nan takes to the stage also and the pair becomes a stage duo...but Kitty breaks Nan's heart, leading her into an odyssey within London's seedy underbelly.

I must admit that my DVD collection contains no shortage of sleazy and sordid films so there wasn't anything in this one that was enough to shock me. Despite being rather jaded to it, I have to say that I'm still surprised at anyone who says this film went too far; naturally there is some lesbian sex and other stuff, but it's never exploitative or overused and the film really couldn't have been made without it. The main focus is always on the story; and the story is really well done. The film is almost three hours long in total, but if anything that isn't long enough to get everything across. Sarah Waters is obviously an inventive writer, and the film remains interesting for the duration. The acting is solid as you would expect, but I must admit that I found lead actress Rachael Stirling awkward and hard to get on with at first; although she grows into her role well as the film progresses. The execution is a little bit of a problem and director Geoffrey Sax is a bit too gimmicky for my liking. The story does get a little bit sappy towards the end also, which is a shame because this film is at it's strongest during the dark moments (episode 2 being the high point of three for me). There's not really a defined point to the film - or at least not one that I could see. That's not important as far as I'm concerned; however, as Tipping the Velvet tells a good story and more than surpassed my expectations. Worth checking out, for people that like this sort of stuff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to say it is a sign that this film appeals to all ages if somebody by right should be shielding themselves away from anything remotely homosexual absolutely loves this thing.

I thought every last bit of this film was amazing and the casting was superb, but I have to say Anna Chancellor...where have YOU been all my life.

Having previously seen Anna in several other things I was completely blown away by how magnificent she was.

Diana Letherby may not be the most lovable of the characters but she could certainly take me home if she fancied...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was recommended to me by a friend that said it was cute and cuddly for a \"lesbian sexuality Flick\". Boy was he wrong. I guess he just didn't get it. Growing up not understanding and then discovering yourself thru trial and tribulation is more like it.

The characters are full and vibrant and the story has enough fun thrown in thru the theater performances to keep anyone interested.

Rachael Stirling as \"Nan\" goes thru so many tries at finding the love she desires only to find it was the one person she was scared to reveal all too, and ran out on. Johdi May as \"Flo\" was remarkable. spent a couple hours trying to recall where I've seen her before, only to discover she was The quiet sister \"Alice\" in \"Last of The Mohicans\" Luckily,I was raised in a liberal family and had no issues with trying a movie like this. So many people are missing out on flicks like this. I'm glad I took my friend's advise and tried it. But, I'm sure I enjoyed it more the he.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm doing a thesis on blurring the boundaries: the female cross dresser and am using Tipping the Velvet the book as my main text, any comments on gender and sexual identity, gender and sexual confusion, gender as a performance, gender as a fiction, gender imagery, cross-dressing as an erotic fantasy and as revolution, the effect of the male costume etc etc would be much appreciated! But a bit off the point has anyone seen Sergio Toledo's 1987 film Vera? Its about a young lesbian possibly transsexual cross dresser..I'm dying to see it because I think it'd be really helpful...Does anyone know where I might get a copy of it? I've tried amazon and a few other sites but no luck...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have noticed that people have asked if anyone has this show. I have all 26 episodes that aired in the U.S. and will be willing to share these with anyone interested. All I require is that you supply the VHS tapes or Blank DVD's I have them on both formats and pay for shipping. My email is creator67@pipinternet.net, just send me an email and your request and I will notify you and we can make the arrangements. The quality is very good and they are very enjoyable to watch especially if you have not been able to see them since they aired in the 60's. It was one of my favorite shows as a child and hold a very special place in my heart because it brings back a lot of memories of my childhood as well as other shows like Ultraman and Astroboy.

Peter","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Giant Robot was the most popular Japanese TV serial ever seen on Indian TV. It was targeted to children and we saw a robot for the first time in our life.

Many Indian children must have even seen a machine for the first time outside the school textbooks.

The serial also showed a child in an adults organization fighting evil. No doubt, many of us who have seen Giant Robot in our childhood long for our own robots and as a stopgap arrangement look upon our computers in the same way.

This show also portrayed ideal adults, (referring at Jerry, Johnny's buddy friend and Unicorn chief Azuma). We grew to respect Japanese progress and still view Japan as the ideal Asian nation.

BTW, at that time, there were no satellite TV channels in India and the govt owned broadcaster did not show much of Disney cartoons. I guess that was how child serials like giant Robot got appreciated. Nowadays there is Pokemon etc but they are no so fascinating or alluring as Giant robot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie travels farther on 8 gunshots, 2 kisses and 100 clich\u00e9s than should be possible. Yet it still works. Brilliant.

As I was driving home from the theater, I tried to figure out how it got away with movie staples like the pages of a novel manuscript blowing across a beach or the impossible series of fortuitous coincidences without the entire audience standing up and screaming, \"I've seen that a million times before! And you've pushed beyond the edge of believability!\" But the actors were so enchanting and the screen so filled with believable extras that I forgot to care. A friend who saw it with me said it transported him to Paris so perfectly that he was disappointed when we left the theater and realized we were still in Indiana.

Overall, a romantic-comedy-thriller with subtlety, wit and elan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's wartime drama - WWII, with French and Jews and Germans, but this one is somehow fun, earnestly so. Director Jean-Paul Rappeneau co-wrote the script to his well-received film \"Bon Voyage\" (2003). Unlike director Bertrand Tavernier's \"Safe Conduct\" aka \"Laissez-passer\" (2002), w-d Rolf Schubel's \"Gloomy Sunday\" (1999), or w-d Claude Berri's \"Lucie Aubrac\" (1997), \"Bon Voyage\" is as chipper as its title sounds - c'est la vie (whatever) - and we have the beautiful talented Isabelle Adjani to thank for. It is her delightful performance throughout as the center of attraction (and attention), the cause and effect of it all, that made the film so enjoyable as it is. Hell, what's another derailment of her plan and expectations - will worry about that another time. The backbone of the story does revolve around a pair of young enthusiasts: Gr\u00e9gori Derang\u00e8re as Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric and Virginie Ledoyen (from Francois Ozon's \"8 Women\") as Camille. The incomparable G\u00e9rard Depardieu, the witty Yvan Attal (of \"My Wife is An Actress\") and versatile Peter Coyote (juggling French, English and German here) are some of the stellar cast involved.

There are many characters coming and going in this plot of a movie, and how it's all juggled is a skilful knack that requires no analysis - Rappeneau is simply a genius. The story just builds upon itself, one episode after another, or even with overlapping events, but never confusing - that's the delight of it all, somehow every detail turns out right on the screen and we just lap it all up like a tastily presented French dessert, literally so. There's thrills, trills, tender hesitant moments and taut ominous escapes, all playing out in front of our eyes.

From reading the Director's Note on the Sony Pictures Classics' Bon Voyage official site, Rappeneau indicated this is his most personal and successful work ever. Depicting Bordeaux 1940 from memories of his childhood years is very much close to his heart and he \"had worked and reworked the script for almost 3 years.\" This film is a labor of love all round, the cast and crew complementing the director's passion and a formidable script by collaborative writers along with the director and his son Julien - adaptation efforts by Gilles Marchand, Patrick Modiano, and J\u00e9r\u00f4me Tonnerre.

Music by Gabriel Yared (varied in tone from his previous film scores like \"The English Patient\" or \"Talented Mr. Ripley\"), who provided a befitting theme that kept the pace and rhythm of the plot going - almost like a train going non-stop, reflecting Adjani's Viviane's vivacious energy (even when she's tired), keeping her going as she meets whatever comes, walking on with head held high and stylish attire always, no looking back, let alone time for regrets.

Ah, mustn't forget the wonderfully translated, skilful subtitles by Ian Burley, who also did subtitles for films in Italian: \"Bread and Tulips\" (2000) aka Pane e tulipani, \"The Last Kiss\" (2001) aka L'ultimo bacio, and Tom Tykwer's \"Heaven\" (2002).

If you find this much too light a wartime relationship drama, try w-d M\u00e4x F\u00e4berb\u00f6ck's \"Aim\u00e9e and Jaguar\" (1999, in German, based on a true story) with brilliant performances from Juliane K\u00f6hler as Aim\u00e9e and Maria Schrader as Jaguar.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Paris, a few months before the Nazi invasion, the manipulative actress Viviane Denvers (Isabelle Adjani) uses her former sweetheart Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Auger (Gr\u00e9gori Der\u00e0ngere) to hide the body of a man killed by her. Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric hits the car, the dead man is found and he is sent to prison. When the Germans invade France, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric escapes with another prisoner, Raoul (Yvan Attal), and they become friends. In the runaway to Bordeaux, they meet in the train Camille (Virginie Ledoyen), the young assistant of the physicist Professeur Kopolski (Jean-Marc Stehl\u00e9), who is trying to leave France with his research of heavy water. Once in Bordeaux, the group meets Viviane with her new lover, the minister of state Jean-\u00c9tienne Beaufort (G\u00e9rard Depardieu), and is chased by a German spy, the journalist Alex Winckler (Peter Coyote), while Paris is falling and the population is confused.

What a delightful and magnificent romantic adventure \"Bon Voyage\" is! The excellent and complex screenplay has action, romance, war, comedy, espionage, drama and lots of characters, played by a fantastic cast, indeed a constellation of stars; the direction is stunning; the music score is wonderful. I really loved this marvelous film, and I have to finish my review due to my limitation of adjectives to describe such a gem. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): \"Viagem do Cora\u00e7\u00e3o\" (\"Travel of the Heart\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Director and auteur Jean-Pierre Rappenau was 8 years old during the spring of 1940 as France's Third Republic disintegrated in a matter of a few weeks. It was a time, he says, when \"all the adults were a little bit insane.\" He and the production staff have lovingly and meticulously recreated that world in a film where all the characters are essentially fictional. The structure, a classic farce, is ideal for the period as multiple plot lines zip and intersect only to come together in a logical, satisfying conclusion. The peg for this plot is Frederic, played by brilliant newcomer Gregory Derangere, who is fully up to playing opposite Adjani, Depardieu and Ledoyen. The real strength of the film is in its supporting performances. M. Rappeneau has cast the film exquisitely with actors who volunteered ideas for both action and dialogue and who know and prove that it is possible to fully realize a character with just two short sentences of dialogue. Though not yet as widely influential as Renoir's 'Rules of the Game,' 'Bon Voyage' richly deserves to be a companion piece to that classic. Though it demands a lot of the audience, it gives much back. One of its demands is tolerance for a certain coyness and misdirection as to the exact genre we are watching: a crime melodrama, no, a spy thriller, ah, a romantic comedy. Recommend it to cinemaphile friends. Just be sure to let them discover for themselves that it is a romantic comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Bon Voyage\" has the fast pace that in some ways reminds me of the Indiana Jones\/Star Wars films -- it's as if you're on a fast train or roller coaster.

It's billed as a romance, mystery, thriller, and farce; it's all of that and more including candid observations on the reactions of French society during the Nazi invasion at the start of WWII. And it's also an exhibition of juggling that involves 7 main characters. The scenes all seemed historically accurate (to my eyes) and gave an excellent feeling for the period.

All of the actors were well cast and gave great performances but IMO the most superb was that by Isabelle Adjani who played the role of an opportunistic, self-centered French movie star; not only did she quite convincingly play the role of a young actress perhaps half her age but she also played her amorous wiles convincingly yet in such a way that the audience sees she's only half serious and more complex as a person than just a gold digger. Her character and energy propel the film through from beginning to end. It wasn't until I read Roger Ebert's review that I discovered she was 48 years old at the time of the film. What beauty!!

I appreciated the ending -- it's satisfying but lets you write your own conclusion as to what happens to the main characters.

As another User Commenter observed -- do NOT arrive late; you need to be there from the opening scene. Good advice.

I gave it 9 of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On its surface, this is one of the most classically entertaining action\/comedy\/romance films I've seen in a long time, reminding me of pleasurable old \"Saturday-afternoon\" movies that had just the right balance of unexpected twists, well-timed humor and integrated action. Beyond this, though, there is our knowledge of this film's context. It has the same elements of \"Casablanca,\" but is set just before many of the characters would truly understand the seriousness of what was happening to their country (and the world) and the consequences of some of their own behavior. This adds a strong note of irony to the humor (we sense that one of the female characters has a radical change of hairstyle in her future). This is a film that you will not regret watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I went to see Bon Voyage, I expected a good, skillful multidrama on the order of Grand Hotel (1932) and Les Enfants de Paradis (1944). It was better than that. With few exceptions, none of the characters were totally good or totally evil--just as in real life. The acting was wonderful, especially those who played Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric, Raoul, and Camille. The photography was amazing, as it recreated the period perfectly and managed to be shot in\/around Bordeaux during a time of new public works but managed the \"look\" of June 1940. Costumes and make-up were accurate. There is so much in this movie that it's worth a second viewing. It's exciting, funny, and, ultimately, touching. N.B.--Be sure to see it in a theatre with good quality projection. It's in wide-screen, and in the theater where I saw it (the Clairmont in Montclair) the first 30 minutes had the subtitles at the bottom in focus but the actors' faces slightly fuzzy! This was ultimately corrected but detracted from the pleasure of the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An interesting pairing of stories, this little flick manages to bring together seemingly different characters and story lines all in the backdrop of WWII and succeeds in tying them together without losing the audience. I was impressed by the depth portrayed by the different characters and also by how much I really felt I understood them and their motivations, even though the time spent on the development of each character was very limited. The outstanding acting abilities of the individuals involved with this picture are easily noted. A fun, stylized movie with a slew of comic moments and a bunch more head shaking events.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"More and more french cinema demonstrates that's the only one able to confront Hollywood's, and to spend high amounts on money in their movies. If Bon Voyage had been made in the USA no one would be surprised. Perfectly set in France, in the 40's, when the Nazi invasion, technically irreproachable, and with some of the most international french actors (Depardieu, Adjani, Ledoyen...). Bon Voyage centerers on two parallel stories: an scientific and his disciple (Ledoyen) who tries to hide one of his discoveries (a kind of water that may work as an atomic bomb) from the Nazis; and a poor guy in love with a well known actress (Adjani), which ends up in prison accused of a crime he's not committed in order to protect her.

Bon Voyage seems to have been made in the old style, without unnecessary camera movements and effects. Without big turns in the plot. As I said before, regarding to the production itself they've made a great job. But the main problem with this movie is about the script. Is it a spy-movie? A romantic comedy? A spy comedy? A comedy of intrigue? It's not clear. That makes Bon Voyage a little unbalanced. When you think you're watching a comedy, suddenly changes to another story-line, a more dramatic one, more slow... I think they should've focused in one of the lines of argument (the one about the spy plot) and left the romantic parts in the background.

My rate: 6.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One comment said it wasn't a comedy...Mistake! It was a delightful comedy of a period of history that doesn't lend itself easily to that genre. Very busy...and active film from beginning to end. Often the shots out the window of the train, or car, were just beautiful. An enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours in a theater. All the French historical figures, like Charles de Gaulle and Petain and the some of the people involved in the French Resistance were included in the script, which might send those who are unfamiliar with the collapse of France under the German invasion might want to research. The characters were engaging and the actors portraying them were excellent. Recommend it, 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even if it won't give one more than previous posts here (like Ruby Liang's very good one) i wanted to share my own point of view. Hope my English is understandable.

Bon voyage is a rhythmic, light but deep presentation of the French unorganized come-down, but also courage and charm. All along in a brilliantly reconstituted 1940 France with many details (from Bordeaux luxurious hotel occupied by Government HQ and attacked by useless high class French, to Parisian coffees near Le Pantheon \/ rue Mouffetard and 1930s cars) G\u00e9rard Depardieu and Yvan Attal give their second roles a brilliant taste;) Isabelle Adjani and Virgnie Ledoyen are very credible in their drastically different roles, and Gr\u00e9gori Derang\u00e8re makes an bewitching performance:)

Much lighter than average (e.g. American) war times movies, and focused on the civilians, Bon voyage shows a lot of things about french issues (even to a French guy like me), some of them quite deep.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Was in the mood for a French film and saw this at Blockbuster. What a little gem it turned out to be! Not sure how I missed Gregori Derangere all these years, but he is fantastic. Such innocence and grace! I love his face and the way he moves. Isabelle Adjani was hilarious--reminded me of Nicole Kidman's over-the-top performance in Moulin Rouge. She looks the same as 20 years ago...truly remarkable. Gerard Depardieu has not held up nearly as well, but his acting continues to amaze. He's perfect in this film. Will probably buy this one, I enjoyed it so much. If you want to see another great French movie, rent Joyeux Noel. Stunning.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that the costumes were excellent, and the hairdressers also performed well. It has the very authentic feeling for that period of time.

I don't know if it was the computer magic or if it was real. Some of the big scenes have hundreds of extras in the background. I was especially impressed with the scene of that bridge.

the main character the actress also performed well, she showed us a nervous, witty woman who knows how to use herself to seduce men to get what she wants.

some of the scenes were hilarious. Even though it was about 2 hours long, but it was never boring. a very good entertaining movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First, a word of caution. The DVD box describes this film as a comedy. I don't think that was the intention of anyone connected with the film other than some marketing morons. While light and a little bit funny in places, it is NOT a comedy and if you expect that you will be disappointed.

I had never even heard of this film and had absolutely no expectations one way or the other. Considering that the other two DVDs I picked up were big disappointments, I was so happy when I saw this film. The acting, writing and direction were excellent. The story itself definitely interested me, as you don't usually see films about the final month of France before the Nazi takeover in 1940. It gave some insight into the parasites that gave up so quickly and agreed to partitioning their beloved country. Along the way, there are plots involving a selfish and weak actress played very well by Isabelle Adjani--who looks marvelous after all these years. She kills an ex-lover and then finds a poor sap to take the fall. This sap escapes from prison and finds her--with another lover--a high government official and weasel played by Gerard Depardieu. In addition, a subplot about a Jewish physicist trying to smuggle deuterium out of the country is introduced and eventually this becomes the main plot. The story has a lot of nice twists and turns, a light sense of humor (without trying to be a comedy) and some genuine suspenseful moments. Together, they create a nice package this is sure to please.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Bon voyage 2 days ago and I found it an excellent production. The film is supposed to entertain, and it does! It emulates the style of the American screwball comedies of the 30s, but Von voyage is more refined. Adjani and Depardieu are simply excellent in their roles. The plot is simple. The film starts with people involved in many situations that, apparently, should have nothing to do between them. It is very funny how those situations become linked during the film. It is good to see a French film with this kind of sense of humor. I find it, principally, a film in which love is the main theme. Peter Coyote as the German spy in France shows once more to be an excellent actor, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this DVD in the library and based on the jacket notes, it looked like it might possibly be interesting: a black comedy set in 1940 France, just as the Germans are marching in. (\"Boy, that should have them rolling in the aisles\u0085\") But it does! This is a clever, original, suspenseful and funny film. I don't recall seeing anything like it before \u0096 foreign or U.S. That the writer\/director can find humor when we know part of the outcome (the Germans will occupy France for four years) is remarkable. That he does it with such charm is part of the delight. What starts off as black comedy and fluff even ends up having a couple of serious moments \u0096 including a race to spirit out a cache of \"heavy water\" (which was part of the preliminary research for the A-bomb) and a quick History 101 intro to the beginnings of the collaborationist Vichy Government that would govern Southern France for much of the German occupation.* But don't let any of that that scare you off: the movie itself is funny, charming and romantic and races ahead at steady clip.

One of the best things about it is the combination of actors we've seen many times (Adjani and Depardieu) and others we've never heard of before. Along the way, there are two star-making turns: Virginie Leydoyen and Gr\u00e9gori Derang\u00e8re. Both are impressive, but Mr. Derang\u00e8re is especially so. According to IMDb, he was in ten films before this one \u0096 but he also won the Cesar as \"Most Promising Actor\" for this role, so apparently he was not all that well known even in France. He is a combination of romantic lead and comic actor \u0096 and he makes it all seem so effortless. You may be reminded of Cary Grant in \"Bringing Up Baby\" and \"Arsenic and Old Lace\" \u0096 it's hard to do comedy on film because the risks are enormous that the actor can come off looking inept. But Grant pulled it off charmingly, and this guy does also. I should think we're going to hear more about him in the future.

To be sure, this film won't please everyone \u0096 there's a little bit of violence, although nothing you don't see on TV every day. But if you're up for something original, you may feel after you've seen this that you've unearthed a cinematic gem.

* The so-called \"spoiler\" in this comment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bon Voyage is fun for the audience because it combines the requisite silliness of a comedy with just enough sobriety to keep viewers actively engaged and invested in the outcome. Most importantly though, the film is also historically instructive; it captures the tension of the so-called \"phony war\" and, later, the French aristocracy's flight from Paris ahead of the German onslaught. Yet Bon Voyage is not a \"war movie.\" It is a comedy about the lives of a handful of people set against the backdrop of extraordinary times. Bon Voyage conveys the chaos, confusion, and emotional bewilderment of a nation of the brink of collapse and the wide spectrum of French reactions to the new political order. This film is a comedy which entertains the audience, a romance which skillfully utilizes many clich\u00e9s, and a story of a handful of people whose nation is collapsing around them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A terrific, fast-paced screwball-like comic strip\/drama\/farce set against France's 1939 implosion. Played with wide-eyed, straight-faced intensity by a talented cast and chockablock with action, satire, social commentary and authentic period details, from slick brillantined hairdos and marcelled hairdos to a fleet of Citroen \"Tractions,\" a rollicking soundtrack and brief but credible impersonations of Charles de Gaulle and Marshal Petain.

It's simply some of the best entertainment recently shown on screen, devoid of presumption and \"message.\" If movies were trains (and there is a creative recreation of a trip on a steam-driven train that works despite there being no steam locomotive --an expensive prop, no doubt) this would be a TGV.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"[Minor spoilers follow]

Steve Allen opined that topical humor about serious events might be found by many to be acceptable based on the formula: Tragedy+Time=Comedy. 1939 before the German assault on Poland was hardly a fun period and subsequent events, including the Blitzkrieg (following the Sitzkrieg) which took Germany to the Channel, resulted in the heroic evacuation at Dunkirk and gave the world the sickening spectacle of a supine France prostrating its honor before the Nazi conqueror.

The stuff of romance, comedy and a big dollop of serious drama? Yep. Director Jean-Paul Rappeneau, with a well-matched and outstanding cast, creates in \"Bon voyage\" a pastiche of events and scenes from history and from imagination that is hugely entertaining.

Viviane Denvers (the sloe-eyed and beautiful Isabelle Adjani) is France's top actress as war clouds gather over Europe (what an overused cliche, sorry). A veteran self-venerating bedhopper with many affairs to her credit, her inner motivation seems to be \"Whatever is good for Viviane is good for...Viviane). Following a premiere of her latest film after which a minister in the incompetent Reynaud administration, Jean-Etienne Beaufort (Gerard Depardieu in an unusual role for him), signals his interest in her, she goes home only to tiredly encounter an ex-lover who doesn't understand the word \"no.\" She decisively resolves that issue but then frantically and histrionically enlists another former beau, the still besotted Frederic (Gregory Derangere), to help deal with the mess in her flat. Frederic is a novelist-in-expectation.

A comic accident that once again highlights, almost as a public service message, the importance of working windshield wipers puts Frederic in jail on most serious charges. Fortunately the breakout of the Germans from their static positions forces a wholesale transfer of prisoners to the south of France but our boy escapes, making his way there privately rather than as a ward of the state.

The panic and fear in France as the Germans swept to victory is well portrayed and a new twist enters the story. Who should Frederic encounter but the truly gorgeous young research assistant, Camille (Virginie Ledoyen) who is accompanying the obligatory Jewish refugee scientist, Professor Kopolski (Jean-Marc Stehle). Kopolski has some bottles of \"heavy water\" he needs to get to England. Of course the Germans musn't latch on to this vital ingredient for you know what (this part is pure fiction-there was never any heavy water in France in 1940-just Perrier). And Camille is so winsome as well as dedicated.

What next? Peter Coyote as a supposed French journalist, Alex Winckler. Be tipped off as to his name. He's really an officer in the Abwehr (German military intelligence: a spy). And he used to bed Viviane too (and wants a reprise of their affair). Apparently the kind Kopolski is the only major male character who doesn't want to have it off with the actress.

What follows is a series of adventures and mishaps that are seamlessly integrated to produce a very fast-paced and enjoyable film. Partly a tribute to and a bit of a spoof on \"Casablanca,\" this is is a remarkably funny movie (except for the heavy Nazi bits).

Isabelle Adjani deserves kudos for the best portrayal I've seen in years of an adorably cute total narcissist with few if any redeeming features. And Depardieu, disloyal to Reynauld and ready to jump ship and join the traitor, Petain, is convincing as a man whose ardor for Viviane exceeds his diluted sense of duty to the Republic. As a human being in power at a critical moment in French history, Beaufort is mundanely vile.

Not shown in too many theaters, \"Bon voyage\" should be available for purchase or rental soon. See it!

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie takes place during the year 1940 and the French are about to loose the war.

The movie includes all genres: comedy, romantic, murder and history. It is probable the historical part may be not as probable as the rest.

It is not, however, a big laugh movie but the occasional large smile!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Set in the 1794, the second year of the French republic formed after the execution of Louis XVI, this film portrays the power struggle between the revolutionary leaders Danton (Gerard Depardieu, at his finest) and Robespierre (a commanding performance by the Polish actor Wojciech Pszoniak). The moderate revolutionary Danton has returned to Paris from his country seat where he has been since being deposed as leader of the Committee of Public Safety in the previous year by Robespierre. He is opposed to \"The Reign Of Terror\" which has resulted in the executions of thousands of citizens, mainly by guillotine, who are thought to be opposed to the Revolution. Danton is confident of the support of the ordinary people and tries to persuade Robespierre to curb the bloodletting. But Robespierre and the Committee are afraid that the popularity of Danton will lead to them being overthrown, and put Danton and his supporters on trial for being traitors. This was the first French language film made by Andrzej Wajda after he had arrived in France from Poland. His Polish film company was closed down by the government due to his support for the Solidarity trade union, which had opposed the Polish government in the late seventies and early eighties. His previous film \"Man Of Iron\" (1981) had dealt with the Solidarity union and its leader Lech Walesa, and it is easy to draw comparisons between the relationship of Walesa and the Polish leader General Jaruselski, and that between Danton and Robespierre. Danton\/Walesa are the voice of reason opposed to Robespierre\/Jaruselski who continue dictatorial rule despite having lost the support of the people they claim to represent. The film is based on the Polish play \"The Danton Affair\" written by Stanislawa Przybyszewska in the 1930s, and on its release the film was criticised by some for being static and theatrical. But what the film does is to concentrate on the behind-the-scenes meetings of the Committees and the scenes in the National Assembly and the courtroom rather than the activities on the streets of Paris.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"French cinema had always been very strong when comes the time to present historical subjects. 95 % of the time, they never make errors. This film is of one of the best of the genre, due to very very strong acting by Depardieu and Pszoniak. Wajda work, as the director, is truly a wonder. Everyone should see this great film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Danton was a hero and one of the founders of the French Revolution of 1789. This movie is set five years later and the revolution has morphed into something ugly. While initially the revolution promised freedom, at this point the small committee running the country is extremely repressive and is a dictatorship. Danton and his friends were angry at how the country wasn't better off in 1794 than it was BEFORE they got rid of their king, so they begin criticizing the government. The movie begins as the printer who makes critical pamphlets concerning the government is beaten and his business is destroyed. So much for \"liberty, equality and fraternity\"! So, as a result of being silenced this way, Danton et al begin publicly criticizing the government. Eventually, Robespierre (the leader of the committee) and his cronies trump up charges, have a show trial and get rid of the dissent. Some have mentioned that the Polish director, Wajda, also intended this to be a criticism of his own nation--which, at the time, was Soviet-dominated and very repressive as well. This makes sense as you see the movie unfold--especially when the government destroys all dissent \"in the name of the people\".

The acting is fine, the story compelling and I have no major criticism of the film. However, I really wish the ending had been handled differently. Especially because other than history lovers and French people, most probably have no idea that this execution helped to end the government. AFTER this purge of Danton in April 1794, Robespierre himself was executed in July 1794 because the country had just had enough--plus, those surviving Frenchmen knew that they, too, would face the guillotine sooner or later if this sick system remained in place. Some sort of an epilogue would have been nice--such as showing the soldiers coming for Robespierre. He responded by trying to kill himself first, but he only succeeded in blowing off part of his face--still alive, he was guillotined shortly afterward. This would have been a dandy little epilogue and could have been done in about five minutes. However, not showing a connection between Danton's death and the fall of the government is an odd thing to omit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best movies on the French Revolution ever produced. Being a person well versed in the the period I was amazed at the level of detail. The costumes are spot on. Even the detailed little day to day items such as ink wells, serving plates etc are all perfect. As an American living in France who has access to the sites in the movie through his membership in various historical associations such as the Napoleonic Alliance I can not over state how impressed I was with the visual accuracy of the film.

The dialogue where known is virtual quotations and the where not recorded is in character. I was extremely pleased with this movie and am disappointed that it is not out on DVD yet. This is how historical drama should be done. Must see....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If there were two parts that the physically towering, ugly-charismatic actor G\u00e9rard Depardieu was born, as a Frenchman, to play, it must surely have been Cyrano de Bergerac and the orator Georges Danton. Here he dominates the film both through the breadth of his shoulders and the power of his voice; his charisma carries the part despite the fact that it is made clear that the character has as much blood on his hands as any of the rest of them. Danton feasts while the people of Paris starve... but he is the one man who can challenge the tyranny imposed by the dreaded Committee of Public Safety in the name of 'freedom', and he is presented as the hero of the film -- despite the fact that the source play practically idolises his opponent Robespierre!

For those who know the characters from history, there is interest to be had in identifying the minor parts: the frog-faced Tallien, Couthon the cripple, Fouquier-Tinville the tribunal's prosecutor, the dashing fop St-Just, the epic painter David. But the script cuts little slack in this respect; names are often late in coming if minor characters are identified at all, and there is no Hollywood-style 'info-dump' to make sure that the audience can place events in their historical context. The film takes it for granted that you know what has gone before, and what will happen after -- sometimes it takes too much for granted, as when it relies on a close knowledge of dates to provide the sting to its tail in the fact that Robespierre followed Danton shortly to the scaffold.

Considered as a film, it's not entirely satisfactory in that it ebbs away towards the end. The structure of the story leads up to some great confrontation between the protagonists in the courtroom or some dramatic climax to the trial, which, thanks to history, never actually happens. Things just fizzle out: there is no revolt, there is no overthrow of tyranny, there is no assumption of power by the victor, there is no triumph on either side. It may be historically accurate, but it's not entirely satisfying as the outcome of a screen scenario -- it seems an odd place to stop. As others have commented, it might have been more logical to take events up to the end of the Terror and show in apposition the fall of Robespierre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film tells upon the title role,Danton(Gerard Depardieu),confronting against Robespierre(Wojciech Pszoniak) during the French revolution.The film is based on real deeds,they are the following: Danton(1759-1794) as lawyer participated in the overthrowing of the king Louis XVI and the proclamation of the Republic,being Minister of Justice in the Convention(1792)and founder of Cordeliers club.He proposed creation revolutionaries committees as the committee of public salvation which he presided but was substituted by Robespierre,starting a period of revolutionary dictatorship known \u00a8the Terror\u00a8(1793). Besides in the film appear other historic personages as Camille Desmoulins(Patrice Chereau,now a famed filmmaker)Louis David,Saint Just(Jacobino),Tallien..

The picture especially narrates the happenings surrounding the facing off of the principal figures,one-time partner revolution ,and posterior execution,although gives results a contemporary parable about the modern Poland,thus Danton is Lech Walesa and Robespierre is Wojciech Jaruzelski who was the Prime Minister imposed the martial law in Poland and with similar name than actor played Robespierre . Gerard Depardieu is excellent in the title character and magnificently portrayed, also in secondaries roles are awesome actors as the recently deceased Jacques Villeret(Dinner game,Crimen in paradise)and Angela Winkler(The tin drum). The motion picture is well directed by Andrzej Wajda ,considered the best Polish director.The flick will like to historical cinema buffs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great movie to look at, since it so nicely directed by Andrzej Wajda but at the same time I wished the movie would had some more depth in it, in terms of its story. It's an historically relevant movie about the last days of the French revolution but yet the movie forgets to focus on the character's motivations making the movie perhaps a tad bit too shallow to consider this a brilliant and relevant movie to what.

Somehow it doesn't make the movie any less great to watch though. It's made with passion and eye for detail. every aspect about the movie is good looking, such as its settings, costumes and camera-work.

Also the story still works out as powerful, though at the same time it could had been so much better and more powerful with a just bit more character development and insight historical information. Guess if you're completely familiar with the French Revolution and the stories of Danton and Robespierre in particular, this movie will be a perfect one for you to watch.

It's somewhat typical for a French movie to tell a story slowly and subtle, without ever stepping too much in detail. Often this works out charmingly but in this case the movie could had really done with a bit more depth. Other than that, this movie is still one fine example of French cinema, despite the fact that it's being directed by a Polish director and stars lots of Polish actors in it as well.

G\u00e9rard Depardieu is great in his role, though the movie also decides to concentrate a lot on many other different characters. The movie perhaps has a bit too many characters but each and every performance is a great one, so this doesn't really ever become a big complaint, other than that it slows done the story a bit at certain points.

A great movie that could had been brilliant.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was very curious to see this Wajda-Depardieu outing, plus the time period is definitely fascinating. Being a Wajda fan, I was disappointed, and that may be an understatement. The film never really took cinematic flight -- there's no foundation for the animosity between Danton and Robespierre, etc.

Basically, the script was weak (adapted from \"The Danton Affair\"). And yet, the direction was masterful...it's Wajda, afterall! Also, there were some amazing actors BUT they never really grab the audience's attention like they should. Depardieu comes off as a quasi-goofy, nonchalant Danton...not exactly the image we have in mind. Woijech Pzsoniak is incredible, as usual, but again the script puts up limits even actors of great talent can't break down. Andrzej Seweryn and Bogoslaw Linda pop up ... as Bourdon and Saint-Just...and if you're familiar with Wajda, then you'd know them.

Overall, I was disappointed with this much-lauded film. Great cast, great director, but no quality foundation. Bad, undynamic script. We need to get in Danton (Walesa) and Robespierre's (General J) mindsets... what are their motivations? Eh...who knows? One likes women, the other powders himself? Riiight. Ok, so if you're looking for a great French Revolution movie I HIGHLY recommend \"La Revolution Francaise\"...it's in two parts and oh-so-great! Excellent performances, in-depth script, juicy tid bits...definitely a satisfying experience!! Klaus-Maria Brandauer is a much better Danton than Depardieu...the wonderful Andrzej Seweryn apparently took some notes from \"Danton\" and is BRILLIANT as Robespierre. SEE IT! NOW! As for Wajda fans -- you're better off with \"Man of Iron\/Marble\", \"Promised Land\", and the like. Cheers!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Unlike http:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0098238\/ this movie provides no background information. We are shown a snapshot of the fall of Danton, his mock process and execution but, unless one studied the revolution quite extensively, it is difficult to understand where characters come from ( Fouquier-Tinville, Philippeau, Desmoulins, Robespierre... ) and thus to appreciate them for what they are: Danton and Joe Blobb could be the same person to the viewer. For example Robespierre & Desmoulins were close friends since their youth, and this explains how Robespierre acts. Those who know the facts, though, will easily orient themselves and appreciate this good movie with actors delivering solid acting, no useless subplots and good reconstruction of the times. Desmoulins and Danton are the best characters, but all do a good job, even the 'demented' Saint-Just portrayed as sort of psychopath. 'Terreur' was a period of massacres whose importance hasn't been fully documented and that -for the most part- were driven by ambition, greed and the settling of personal disputes, fed to ignorant sans-culottes as the next epochal step against tyranny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is more than the story of Danton. It was a joint Polish French production filmed at the time of the beginning of the end of the Soviet system. It probably helped spur the Solidarity movement's union activity. It is more about Poland in the 20th century than the French Revolution. Solidarity began the end of the system. This film itself is historical by it's very existence....the rest is History.

Robspiere, aka. totalitarian leaders. Danton, aka. Walensa. When one watches this film, one must remember the snowball which began in Poland.

Actually, it could be useful for seeing the superpower struggle within the only superpower left.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many American pea-brains who worship and support the political half-truths of hucksters like Michael Moore would do well to sit through this movie more than once and see how hypnotic manipulators can scare, intimidate and lie to an underinformed public and get the people they fear or loathe killed, spindled and mutilated. Robespierre in this fine epic kills the opposition by remote control, all in a fit of self-righteous devotion to his principles. We get the impression that Robes felt it quite justifiable to snip off his opponent's heads, even as he sent his minions out to trump up false and misleading charges against the State. Today, the captains of our rotting media institutions are much more sensitive that Robes...they merely murder your character with innuendo and false charges laid down without foundation or sources. Witness Dan Rather's attempts to assassinate W's character on the eve of the 2004 election, or the constant drumbeat that the 2000 election was stolen, although constitutional scholars continue to scoff at such irresponsible drivel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cinema, at its best is entertainment. If one is to question every aspect with which one finds room for disagreement,and much of recorded history is based on contemporary opinions - often biased - then one should leave the cinema, because their prejudices will always spoil their enjoyment. When I spotted an airplane flying overhead in a film dated 33BC I was amused. The background scenery in \"Casablanca\" is absurdly fake. So, do I set up a moan & say that the film failed to convince? Fiona, relax and enjoy some excellent acting. Wajda's decision to cast the protagonists as French & Polish was inspired. one was immediately aware of which side each of the main characters was representing. No need to dwell on the authenticity of the wigs. This is powerful cinema. If there is a political message which is still relevant today - have a dinner party - a Ch\u00e2teau d'Yquem with the foie-gras; a Puligny Montrachet with the entree; some Polish Vodka sorbets and perhaps a 1961 Ch\u00e2teau Lafite-Rothschild with the beef - and discuss the political aspects of Danton until you drop with fatigue. Danton would surely have agreed?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not a bad movie but could have been done without the full frontal nudity of a 10 year old boy in one of the opening scenes. This movie has excellent dialog; which is certainly common among foreign films. Foreign actors still know how to act as opposed to American actors who let the CGI, stunts, and special effects do all the work for them. This film is just good old fashion acting. Gerarde DePardieux did an excellent job as always. The costumes and scenery are accurate with the time. My only complaint is that they should have dubbed the English words over the french instead of using subtitles; this could just be because I hate reading subtitles.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the offset, I knew this was going to be a terrific movie, the pace, the cinematography, personalities indigenous to the Dallas area, the diversification of characters, not to mention the director Oliver Stone and of course Eric Bogasian...The film starts out on a Friday (suggestively occult in the first place) and begins with a radio station in Dallas that is hosting their number one talk show, The Barry Champlain Show (Based on the Talk Radio Host Alan Berg)...Barry (Eric Bogasian) is the abrasive radio talk show host and his job is such whereby it is compulsory to pontificate all of the sensationalistic nuances of the radio audience feeding into his show...He attempts to commiserate with a bunch of societal deviates turned lonely, vulnerable, obscene phone callers who have the masochistic craving to be publicly vilified, Barry Champlain is effective in coping with this precarious ilk, by socially debasing them rather than simply subjugating them to mere admonishment...New technologies serve a stigmatic purpose for the Dallas radio audience, and paramount concepts take a backseat to perversion, talk about \"Baseball Scores, Orgasms and People's Pets!!\"

The whole thing is a cacophony of drug-induced diatribes and a potpourri for psychopathic paranoia!! This high profile cannon fodder is something that Barry Champlain thrives on!!! The convoluted pathos, the deranged proclivities deeriving from inaneities and puveyors of pornography and the overall pop culture afflictions serve as volatile ammunition for Barry Champlain's stilted battleground!!

The setting for this movie is perfect in that there is a two thousand foot drop in terms of ideology.. In the the center of Dallas there is an overbearing sense of cosmopolitan awareness, whereby 20 miles away resides a significant chapter of the Ku Klux Klan!!...The play is based in Denver,that is where the actual story takes place, other small theater plays depict the cities of Louisville, Atlanta and Cleveland. Dallas is the city where the film takes place, I thought it was an excellent choice!!...This movie illustrates how people have a horrid and erroneous and deadly misconceptualization of the Jewish people in America, whereby they control the banks, their agenda is different than everybody else's and their intellectual literature leads to perversion!! These preconceived notions compound Barry Champlain's overall dilemma!!! Barry Champlain's personal undoing is whereby he is irascible and non-responsive to his alcoholism, and his abrasive and politically controversial nature is his ultimate undoing, this is what makes the film so believable!!

The characters in the movie were well portrayed, Dan, the tailor made for middle management hatchet man (played by Alec Baldwin) who was constantly monitoring Barry Champlain's every move!!..Laura, his girlfriend, also his producer, will constantly feel Barry is someone who is always misunderstood!! Ellen, his ex-wife, is a recipient of Barry's anguish and selfishness, but cannot quite relinquish her feelings for Barry regardless of the path of personal destruction he winds up resorting to!! The Dallas radio audience is a melting pot of socially misplaced retro-bates who are dementedly amused by their own real shortcomings!!!...In part, everybody's hang-ups including Barry Champlain's own hang-ups are what do Barry Champlain in!! His audience ogles depravity, solicits amelioration and ultimately becomes Barry Champlain's pet project for prescribed sinners!! Social culture conflicts become Barry Champlain's downfall!!

This movie is superb!! In my opinion Oliver Stone's best picture, including Platoon and Natural Born Killers..That statement in of itself tells you how magnificent a film Talk Radio is...The story consulting and acting and co-producing of Eric Bogosian is simply compelling!! The camera angles, the dialogue, the haunting character portrayals, all top notch..The cinematography of the Dallas skyline at the end of the movie is terrific!! Dallas has the dubious distinction of being deemed a mega metropolis...So now, just like Los Angeles and New York, there are crack baby cases too numerous to count, low cost housing neighborhoods from Hell and budgets cuts that will mean there will be a significant number of people who will be dead by this time next year!!!!...Dallas asserts it's status as a major metropolitan area in the precarious manner by which human debauchery prevails!! The city has it's lynching radio listeners who have given a pejorative spin to the marvel of nationwide air wave communication!! These are the culprits in the movie!! The ghoulish tabloid derelicts who want to meet the big bad wolf, and their decadent curiosity has morally obliterated \"The last neighborhood in America\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When you think 'Oliver Stone' the movies that come to mind would be his biggest and most controversial ones like Platoon, JFK, Born On The Fourth Of July, or Natural Born Killers. Talk Radio usually doesn't. It's a pretty small movie, actually. More than half the movie takes place with Barry Champlain at his radio station talking into his mike. But believe me, this is one of Oliver Stone's greatest movies and should NOT be missed.

Above all things it's a character study. Barry Champlain is a rude, self-destructive, risk-taking talk radio show host who says one too many things and starts to get in trouble with his boss, his lover(s), his fans, and even some Nazis. He doesn't like his audience and callers and a lot of them don't like him (eithor that or do like him, but have no idea why). But, at the end he says on his show: \"I guess we're stuck with each other.\"

See Talk Radio, even if you don't like Oliver Stone movies. You might be surprised. I sure was.

My Rating: 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In one of the more under-seen films of the late 1980's, at a time when Oliver Stone was riding high with Platoon and Wall Street (and before his opus Born on the Fourth of July), he co-scripted and directed this look at the world of radio, specifically one radio host in the middle of Texas. This man is Barry Champlain, in a once-in-a-career turn from Eric Bogosian, who wrote the original play and also co-wrote the script. Barry is like a mix of Howard Stern and one of those pundits you hear on the radio stations many of us might turn off. He's got ideas on his mind, opinions, and he's not only un-afraid to speak them, but also to stand up against the phone callers. The callers, indeed, are the driving force in the film, as Barry has to combat against the mindless, the obscene, the racist, and the purely absent-minded. As this goes on, he also has to contend with his boss (Alec Baldwin) and a hit or miss deal to go nationwide, outside the confines of the Southern way station he's in.

While after seeing the film I felt curious as to see how it would've been done on stage (I'd imagine it was a one-man show, as Bogosian has had several on the side), the direction of the film is phenomenal. Stone has been known, almost typecast, as a director who loves quick cuts, the limitless effects of montage, and effects with the styles of camera-work and other little tricks, that give his films in the 90's a distinctive, almost auteur look. But in the 80's he had this energy and feverish quality to the look of the film, and wasn't as frenzied as the other films. In order to add the proper intensity that is within the studio and head-space of Barry Champlain, he and DP Robert Richardson make the space seem claustrophobic at times, gritty, un-sure, and definitely on edge. The scenes in the middle of the film, when Barry isn't in the studio, are fairly standard, but the style along with the substance in the radio scenes is among the best I've seen from the Stone\/Richardson combination.

And one cannot miscalculate the performance of Bogosian, who can be obnoxious, offensive, angered, passive, and everything that we love and hate in radio show hosts. There is also a funny, near distracting supporting role for Michael Wincott as Kent\/Michael\/Joe, who prank calls him one night, and the next gets invited to the studio. These scenes are a little uncomfortable for a viewer, but it does get very much into the subculture head-space of the 80's that Barry is as intrigued as he is critical of. The stoner may not 'get it', but as he says to him \"it's your show\". Indeed, it's hard to cover everything that goes on within the talk, and there is a lot of it. But it's never boring, and like Champlain himself, it's not easy to ignore. And when Bogosian goes into his climactic tirade on air, with the background panning around in a continuous 360 spin, it becomes intoxicating, and a reason why freedom of speech is so powerful.

Stone has been synonymous as a filmmaker of hot-button issues, who takes on subjects that were or still are controversial, and gives them a life-force that isn't always great, but is all his own. Here his skills and ambitions don't get in the way of Bogosian's- it's boosted, if anything, making an extremely skilled vision of what is essentially a near one-man show, which in and of itself is already well-written.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** For some strange reason Oliver Stone's \"Talk Radio\" based on the Stephen Singular book \"Talked to Death\" and the films star Eric Bogosian's play, about the 1984 murder of Denver talk show host Alan Berg, has never gotten the recognition that it so rightfully deserved. The 1988 movie was prophetic enough to recognize the underground movement that was developing in the farm and hinterland of America. A movement that spawned, some seven years later, the likes of an angry and disgruntled Gulf War veteran Timothy McVeigh who's hatred for the US governments actions in Wacco Texas lead to his and friend,Terry Nichols, detonation of the US Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 that took the lives of 168 people, the worst act of terrorism on US soil up to that time.

The movie is, as far as I know, the first time that any major branch of the entertainment media mentioned and elaborated on the rural militia novel \"The Turner Diaries\" by the late William L. Pierce, that has since become a chilling underground classic. \"The Turner Diaries\" forecast a domestic and utterly disastrous terrorist attack, like the Oklahoma City bombing, on a US Government Federal facility which was the FBI Building in Washington D.C.

Dallas radio station KGAB talk show host Barry Champlain, Eric Bogosian, is the top rated show in the Dallas listening area and is now about to go national. Barry get's his high rating by his razor sharp wit and abusive behavior when he's on the air. Taking on all comers and ducking no issues, no matter how unpopular or taboo they are, has gotten Barry to be the most listened to as well as hated man on radio. Barry being a showman at heart and not thinking that his talk can lead to violence keeps up his abrasiveness to his call-in listeners as his rating go up to the celling. But there are those in the listening audience, mostly ultra right wing types, that don't take too kindly to his in your face attitude. One of them decides to take matters into his on hand at Barry's expense.

Powerhouse performance by Eric Bogosian as the tragic Barry Champlain who crossed the line from entertainment to hard reality in his actions on the radio. Thinking that he's not that important to be sought out and murdered for his on the air opinions which is enemies dislike he found out only too late that there are those out there who are crazy enough to do to him on the outside. Also in the movie \"Talk Radio\" is a very young Alic Baldwin as Barry's boss Dan who tries to have him soften his tone but in the end goes along with his talk show style since he's killing the competition not realizing that in the end it's him that he'll end up getting killed.

Both Ellen Green and Leslie Hope are the two women in Barry's life his ex-wife Ellen and now lover and talk show producer Laura whom Barry uses to his advantage and almost ends up losing both of them at the same time. The 1988 film \"Talk Radio\" is so far ahead of it's time that even if you watch it now in 2005 you still think that it's too disturbing to be shown to an over sensitive and delicate American public.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen it a few times and get completely glued to it every time. It is very suspenseful and intense. To describe it sounds boring but it is amazing. It is the kind of movie where you need can't miss a thing, but if you soak it in it sticks with you long after it ends. Now thinking about it I don't even know what Stone was trying to make us see. Just the story of Alan Green? I don't think so. It was a look at ignorance, stupidity, self-absorption, and a guy just loosing his grip. Maybe he had more grip than the listeners though. I didn't like Barry but still seemed worried about him for some reason. I was perplexed at why I couldn't get him out of my mind when the movie ended. I wish I could see inside Olive Stone's mind for this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Talk Radio\" is my favorite Oliver Stone movie, though he has made many great ones including \"Salvador\", \"JFK\", \"Natural Born Killers\" and \"Platoon\". But I like the intimacy of \"Talk Radio\", a cinematic expansion of Eric Bogosian's searing stage play that was based on a real life account of a Dallas talk show host. Working with ace cinematographer Robert Richardson, Stone turns what could have been a very set-bound exercise into a visually arresting ideological battle that presents a radio station as an arena of war. Bogosian is devastating as tortured on-air spouter of abuse Barry Champlain and conveys the conflicted, destructive nature of his character with conviction and a generous dose of self-loathing. Alec Baldwin, as his Alpha male boss, strikes the perfect note as a man driven nuts by a guy whose monstrousness he helped nurture. Ellen Greene is fantastic as Barry's sweet ex-wife who ends up becoming another target of his vicious personal vitriol. Stone and Bogosian fill every frame with interest and every line of dialog with sweet poison and cutting ambiguity. John C. McGinley, as Barry's long-suffering screener\/technical producer Stu, turns in a hilarious, sharp performance, as does the great Michael Wincott. The film is a flawless, underrated masterpiece of superb writing, awesome acting and brutal, uncompromising direction. The Stewart Copeland score is brilliant, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I tend to be inclined towards movies about people who choose to cross the barriers of censorship, and express what they really want to express. Eric Bogosian's character of Barry is like Howard Stern, but much more intelligent. The character itself is very fascinating. As an Oliver Stone film, I guess I was expecting more. The film sags a bit during the third act. Plus, it's pretty obvious that \"Talk Radio\" is based on a play, with its long dialogue scenes. But overall, the film works. Bogosian is great in the lead, and the fact that he also wrote the play from which the movie was based on probably helped him. If you want to check out one of Stone's greater films, I better suggest you check out \"JFK\" or \"Salvador.\" This is not his best work, but a good movie nonetheless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have never been a great fan of Oliver Stone, often because I have found his films to be forced, preachy and generally flawed. The two Stone films I truly like are JFK and Talk Radio, yet Talk Radio takes the cake for being Stone's finest achievement. Stone is a director whereby you are either a fan or you are not, it is safe to say that before watching Talk Radio I was not fond of the guy and considered one of the most overrated directors in the film industry, though after watching Talk Radio some of my perceptions have changed. Talk Radio is an unsettling and amusing attack on what is now known as \"reality TV\".

Talk Radio follows a self-indulgent, dysfunctional, determined, hysterical, outrageous and perplexing radio host, named Barry Champlain who hosts a controversial late-night radio show in Dallas. Quickly becoming well known for his bold and quirky air-presence he becomes a late night sensation, whereby depraved junkies, delinquents, racists, sociopaths, sickos, perverts and morons call in to be ridiculed on air. The film shows the rise and fall of the man's career, carefully making an accurate portrayal on freedom of speech. Originally adapted from a stage-play, the film attaches itself to the theatre theme that it was originally built around, wonderfully conveying the film's fierce nature.

With the ferocious energy and non-stereotypical air, Talk Radio brings all the hilarity behind \"crass media\". It remains even more poignant today than it was in the late '80s. The film goes into depth studying the likes of arrogance, self-obsession, offensive behaviour, controversy, hypocrisy and ignorance. The film shows through a controlled manner how it is good to have a personal opinion and freedom of speech, yet it is something that should be used wisely rather than shamefully blunt. Stone tries to show how freedom of speech is a crucial importance in life, but is something that we should be wary and cautious about. The film asks the question of \"is our main protagonist just the same as the sad people who call up the show?\"

Stone fabulously creates the film's key set-piece (the radio station) with an ambition and cold atmosphere. He then succeeds in capturing the isolation, fear, ambiguity and the dangerous emotions that are built up at the radio station. Eric Bogosian is perfectly cast as the isolated, self-absorbed and complex genius, Barry Champlain. He fits the role perfectly letting off his lines with such enthusiasm, urgency, perplexity, brusqueness and ultimately the bold hilarity of his offensive nature. The performance brims with spark, which was evidently robbed of an Oscar nomination. His voice suits the character, being that a primary element of a radio host and his power of acting along with tragedy and comedy works brilliantly.

There is a strong use of editing in Stone's films and Talk Radio boasts some of his cleanest, most rhythmic editing. He uses beautifully controlled camera techniques, which differ from being calm to suddenly becoming turbulent. There is a vibrant energy behind the film, with its raw and wonderfully delightful script working as a centre-piece for the greatness of the film. The striking and virtuous cinematography stands out in the moments inside and outside the studio, most impressively capturing the city at night. Not forgetting the hauntingly heartbreaking and yet darkly funny climatic \"spiral to decline\" is ultimately remarkable cinema.

Talk Radio is an essential modern masterpiece, I am certain you will be surprised by just how great it really is. I highly recommend Talk Radio for anyone interested in media or film. Talk Radio is a fine example of top-notch, intellectual and insightful entertainment, which still packs a well-earned wakeup call. Finally, if it was not for Eric Bogosian the film would not be the fun, delightful and enduring masterpiece it is today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oliver Stone is not one to shy away from a movie or theme for that matter. He is eager to confront people with their fears or show them their ugly faces in the mirror. Look on his CV for proof! This movie is not an exception, quite on the contrary, it is another gem, that unfortunately not many have seen.

As controversial movies go, this is one that you should be thankful for. A movie that should encourage you to think about you, the people next to you. The prejudices that do exist and that everyone of us has in one form or another. Either we like to admit it or not, but it is easier to categorize people and be like \"Ah he's 'xyz', yeah he must be like ...\". Now I might be reading too much into it, but I don't believe that. I believe that Oliver Stone is a very intelligent filmmaker and that he was aiming for those things. And if that's something you want to explore (as a movie or within yourself), than watch this film and be excited!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Never having seen an Oliver Stone film before, nor any films starring Eric Bogosian, I didn't know what to expect from this film. Having toyed with the idea of buying it for a while, I finally got it for free as a supplement with a Sunday newspaper and I was hugely impressed.

It tells the story of Barry Champlain, a talk radio host who can be incredibly rude towards his callers, often putting them in their place before they realise what's going on. Though this is what has made him a popular radio show host, it has also earned him numerous enemies.

The acting in this film was hugely impressive with not one dud actor in it. Eric Bogosian is brilliant as Barry Champlain, the troubled talk radio host with Alec Baldwin turning in a strong performance as Barry's boss, Dan. It also features the voice of, and cameo appearance by, Michael Wincott (my reason for wanting to see this).

The story was really well written as, despite his arrogance, you feel for Barry as more about his troubled life is revealed and you see how vulnerable he really is.

I'd recommend this film to anyone as it is captivating and, more importantly real on numerous levels, two of which being that is was inspired by the life of an actual talk radio host and the fact that you do actually get radio show hosts, and callers, like the ones featured in the film in reality.

High recommendation and 10\/10.

Aye yours, Cat Squire","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Probably one of his lesser known films, it suffers from the same lack of exposure as Salvador in that its actually one of his best.

Written by and starring Eric Bogosian, Talk Radio tells the story of an opinionated radio phone-in host who upsets the wrong kind of listener. The film is important, and has much to say on the issues of free speech and just how free it should be, and you can easily tell that it started life as a stage play. Know what you're getting into before you sit down to watch it and you'll be fine.

There isn't much to the acting really as Bogosian pretty much steals the film, he wrote and is given licence to rant, I couldn't take my eyes off him and that was part of the fascination many of the listeners had; the people who hated him wouldn't turn off in-case they missed something.

Not for everyone, but a very good drama and overall a very good film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Talk Radio is of course, probably not the most well known of Stone's films, but don't let that put you off, this film is ripe for discovery, I defy anyone not to be entranced by it. Along with the best performance of 80's cinema by Eric Bogosian, for me (along with JFK)this remains Stone's finest moment. Stone doesn't seem to comment much on it these days and didn't do a director's commentary on DVD like all his other films. Stone has nothing to be ashamed of, most directors would kill to get a shot @ a film like this.

The claustrophobia of the studio is intense and the opinions of Champlain are still very crucial arguments for today. The \"legalise all drugs\" speech is powerful and you might find yourself agreeing with him.In my opinion the film is about freedom of speech and how sometimes people don't like hearing things they don't agree with.The speeches and conversations with the listeners are very compelling, even disturbing, a chill ran down my spine when a crazed man calls Champlain saying he has to rape again because the city drives him crazy is totally shocking.The tension is sometimes unbearable with a scene when Heavy metaller Kent becomes unhinged, of course Champlain does himself no favours by ridiculing him. Champlain(or should I say Bogosian) is fearless in film and performance, totally mesmerising, a shame th@ Bogosians other big role was the villain in Under Siege 2(dear god!!)One scene th@ didn't ring true was when Barry's boss Dan(Alec Baldwin) gets him to calm down, Barry doesn't seem to be the kind of person who shuts up and does as he's told, it seemed a bit contrived and clich\u00e9d.The scenes outside the studio are criticised for being too formulaic, it's true because Stone is trying to make the film more cinematic and allow the viewer to see Champlains beginnings but it doesn't entirely work.

It is a brilliantly cinematic film with extreme close-ups, deep focus, extremely fast cuts a fantastic 360 set which is used for the final breathtaking monologue. Must see cinema, it makes it rare because it was ignored @the time but is now receiving attention again which it so richly deserves. A classic th@ should be studied by generations of film students.

10 out of 10 for inventive use of \"Bad To The Bone\" before T2, brilliant supporting cast including John C Mcginley(Dr Cox from Scrubs) as the sleazy Stu, Leslie Hope(24)as Champlains girlfriend, John Pankow and Alec Baldwin as the suits and Micheal Wincott who plays three roles( a very underrated actor), the tension between the listeners and Champlain which is very heart-racing @ times and of course kudos to the stars Bogosian and Stone for such a fantastic piece of cinema. Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alright, the first time I seen \"Talk Radio\" was in a video store for only $2.00 on VHS believe it or not, and I looked at it and I thought it might be about Howard Stern, because I just looked at it for about thirty seconds, then just didn't see it again. Then I went to another store about a month later and I found \"Talk Radio\" on DVD for only $5.00. So I see it was directed by Oliver Stone, and I picked it up. So after the film was over I was speechless. I have never seen such a film like this. Here's the main plot, then i'll tell ya what I thought of it.

It is about a Dallas talk radio host Barry Champlain, a Jewish radio host who talks about whatever other people bring up and he interupts, and is taking everything seriously. Now, a network wants to put his show live everywhere in the U.S. So Barry's show gets a lot of interesting phone callers like Chet (a neo-natzi), Kent (a rock n roll drugged kid), John (rapist), and others. Now some of the callers sound like the same actor\/actresses. But still I think it fits okay.

Now what I love a lot about this film is the dark corners and the paranoid atmosphere of the radio station. The dark music in the background fits very nicely too. It has a flashback scene in the film also how he started with radio, which I think they did good on.

But the great thing about the film is ending. I was surprised by it, and it kind of makes you feel paranoid a little about the phone callers off the air and everything about it is wonderful. It also tells you how to say the right things to people over a big city like Dallas. One of Oliver Stone's underrated\/weakest films mentioned, but I think it's his best in my opinion.

But definitely get this film if you like films with paranoia-feel like films with a dark atmosphere with sinister music in the background. I still watch this film a lot of the times now when i'm bored, as matter fact I watched it tonight. Yeah, if ya wanna really get the sinister feel to the film, watch it at nightime with the lights off. I may sound crazy, but it makes the film better!

Another thing I forgot to mention is that the reason I don't think the film did so well was maybe in my point of view because of the title. 'Talk Radio.' It doesn't sound very tricky or anything, it's kind of plain. A better title like the book \"Talked To Death\" or maybe \"The Abusive Radio Host\" or something catchy and not plain \"Talk Radio\". Or maybe because of Universal Pictures? Oliver Stone usually didn't do Universal I don't think. Paramount might have been a good company. I don't know, something about this film didn't do so well, but I love it.

\"Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can cause permanent damage.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Barry Champlain is a radio phone-in talk-show host in Dallas, whose no-holds-barred ideas on a plethora of social issues disturb and offend many of his callers and listeners. Is Barry a media messiah in search of truth, or a social misfit out to assault his audience ?

This is an intense, provocative character piece about a man with almost no redeeming features who at the same time seems to be onto some really profound philosophy. Though co-written and directed by Stone, this is really Bogosian's piece all the way and he gives an astonishingly hard-edged and penetrating performance from which there is no escape. Barry is at times one of the most loathsome characters imaginable, spewing bilious misanthropy at everyone around him, particularly those who care about him. But at the same time he is also strangely empathetic, hypnotic, sage, even lovable. Bogosian's hawkish features burn into the frame, with his green eyes constantly darting around as if permanently seeking an answer to some riddle. The movie is essentially an angry, self-righteous rant against all the bigotry, injustice and banality in the world, culminating in a wild three-and-a-half-minute rotating single shot of Barry delivering the ultimate I-hate-everything speech, but boy does it pack a punch. The support cast are great, particularly Greene as the ex-wife and Baldwin as the boss. Robert Richardson's keen photography manages to keep the single radio studio set looking interesting and there's a tense score by Stewart Copeland, with a moving coda featuring that endearing phone-music piece, Telephone And Rubber Band by The Penguin Cafe Orchestra. If you're unfamiliar with Bogosian, check out his amazing talent in this flick - like his contemporaries, Bill Hicks and Denis Leary, he's someone who rarely appears in the mainstream media, purely because his writing is so out there. I find Stone's movies variable; I don't much care for his big successes, but when he is more ordered and objective, as with this (or Salvador and Nixon), he is much more incisive and arresting. A great primal scream of a picture, based on a play by Bogosian, inspired by the true story of Alan Berg, a Denver radio talk show host who was murdered by neo-Nazis in 1984.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Absolutely nothing. The movies that are great in this world are not recognized unless they are filled with gunshots, explosions, and death. This movie is filled with a man talking about showing you a more complex character than has been seen in many movies.

When a movie is incredibly fast paced but stays mostly in one location it has to be the work of a genius. Surprisingly enough, it is, this movie is directed by Oliver Stone and therefore is one of the best directed films of our time.

This movie's screenplay was co-written by Oliver Stone and Eric Bogosian (Barry Champlain, main character.). With Oliver Stone's help, the screenplay was created as a seamless, rolling script which keeps you interested the entire time if you have any amount of intelligence. If you have an open mind about any subjects, and the wit to comprehend others, then this movie is something which you should find some way to watch, immediately.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WOW, a masterpiece of a movie not to be missed.

I had no idea what this movie was when I started watching it late night. I didn't find out it was a Stone film until after the film when I went on IMDb. Watching it, I was mesmerized. The cast, especially Eric Bogosian is just superb. One of the best scripts and camera work ever...The movie drew me in and kept me entranced until the very end...I did not dare blink for fear of missing something...Amazing how a small-budget film can be so engrossing and well made while huge-budget films that feature tons of action and computer generated special effects can be so incredibly boring. Don't miss this film...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I chose this movie really for my husband-who works in radio broadcasting. I thought that it would be more of a movie that he would enjoy and relate too, though it was from the eighties-so it was a little dated. This movie really draws you in. At times you just want to strangle the host, Barry. At times you just want to send some of the bigots who call in to a true concentration camp. At times you really feel sorry for Barry, because he has truly gotten too big for his jeans if you know what I mean. It was on the Drama channel on Encore-so I am thinking this is a true story. If you truly love dramas you will love this, even if you don't know all the ins and outs of the broadcasting business. If you are an Alec Baldwin fan and are watching it to see him, you shouldn't. His part is really a bit part in this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oliver Stone, always ready to make politically-themed movies, makes another one here. \"Talk Radio\" is loosely based on the career of Alan Berg, a radio talk show host in Denver who was murdered by white supremacists. In this case, the character is Barry Champlain (Eric Bogosian), an outspoken talk show host in Dallas who loves nothing more than to irk the people who call in. As it is, most of the people who call in are a bunch of pigheaded racists. And things may be heating up more than anyone realizes.

Bogosian's performance brings a light comical tone to an otherwise serious movie. I really liked the scene where he jabs at a redneck who calls in. Granted, I wouldn't call this Oliver Stone's greatest movie ever, but it's a good reference in an era when media gets more and more concentrated. Good performances by Ellen Greene and Alec Baldwin also help.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent and highly under-rated from beginning to end. One of Oliver's best. Well Scripted, Directed, Shot, Acted and Stuarts Copeland's soundtrack (Trivia: the music during the end credits vaguely sounds like a late 90's Pop hit by \"Spacehog\" Band

Eric and Cast are Brilliant, let alone the Callers. What a whirlwind of emotions. It make's your hair stand on end. (...\"Necks will be broke and whips will Crack\"--in a old female southern accent.. Yike! creepy. Scary than any Horror Movie.

10 out of 10

Em","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Talk Radio sees a man somewhat accidentally stumble through life, indeed the American Dream, from whatever bog-standard and everyday job he has in a store; to presenter of a local radio show before going right the way through to the same job only later syndicated nationwide. It's a role he adopts out of his own aggression and natural mannerisms, a frothing mad approach to freedom of speech as he attacks just about everyone and everything, even those that often call up to agree with him or compliment him. His role as a man that rants on all things good, evil, right, wrong, political, religious, moral and immoral is something that people seem to take to in one form; that of 'it's entertaining and worth tuning in for', but additionally on a plane of rejection and antagonism \u0096 two things born out of the very things seemingly encouraged in professional working life in the Western World. This, towards a man as he gets to the very top of his game by way of the American Dream and dealing in freedom of speech as people take to a man but do anything but take to what it is he says.

Talk Radio begins with a montage of tall, towering buildings in a business based area of Dallas, Texas. The skyscrapers are shot from a ,ow angle and tower over the viewer plus everything else in the general vicinity as this voice of one man tears through the images, belting out statements and information on items as these monolithic buildings dominate out screen. They are the very physical representation of capitalism, while the voice of what we learn to be a radio DJ is the oral representation of the free west; personal speech and opinions on anything and everything. Stone will finish his film in the exact same manner in which he started it, although the film is anything but a circular journey of any sort as the characters undergo monumental changes in both what they witness and their general livelihood. Rather, the shots of the buildings act as an anchor around which the study is observed. The ideologies and ideas of a way of life exist; people subscribe to them, but it does them more harm than good; before the re-establishment that this proud way of life still exists and will continue to exist in churning out the sorts of people on display in the film until someone or something drastically changes things.

The DJ is Barry Champlain, a man with a radio show on a local Texan station dealing with just about anything. Champlain's somewhat carefree attitude to some pretty explosive content is established when he flies from one call with a bigoted man whom recently visited a Holocaust museum to a young drug addict whose girlfriend has supposedly overdosed and onto both the berating and mocking of a pizza shop. To us, the content comes across as quite shocking; to these people, everything seems to be business as usual which plants some serious seeds of both doubt and horror within the minds of us, the newcomers to all of this.

What Barry's show is about, nobody ever seems to really establish: everything and nothing. Indeed, time is taken in the form of either jingles or dialogue that the shows immediately pre and post Champlain's show are on specific subjects; gardening, for instance, and are hosted by calm speaking and methodical people whom, I'm sure, do not flit from one random or extreme to another all the time raising the stakes. One wonders what Barry's jingle is, the kind that plays around about lunch time during someone else's' show: \"Coming up later, the Barry Champlain show! Featuring the village idiot and psychotic drug abusers!\" Indeed, his show's introductory piece carries a matter-of-fact tone, a shouting at the audience, as a loud rock track accompanies it.

Barry's success arrives in the national syndication proposal. It's born out of confrontation and a relationship built on the contempt he has for his listeners and that they have for him. The furthering of the material and the upping of the stakes ought to call into question just how far they think they can take this, and whether this progressing down a track for sake of entertainment is really worth it. It is when the show reaches this level of broadcast that Barry seems to come unstuck for the first time in his broadcasting life, when a supposed serial rapist calls in and leaves mostly everyone slightly stunned. It's at this point the camera pauses on Barry, and by way of depth of focus, encompasses those same looming, towering buildings the film began with which stand outside of the window, directly behind Barry. They remain tall and proud. Specifically, of the ideologies they've been built on and this furtherance of freedom of speech in broadening Barry's show nationwide as one man climbs his profession's ladder suddenly clashes with the sort of content that's being offered. Everything reaches a point too far, and that with freedom, ought to at least come a sense of clarity rather than a mere revelling.

Oliver Stone made Talk Radio right in the middle of both a fascinating and explosive period of film-making he had in the late 1980s. In this time, he produced a series of really well received films in a pretty short space of time; beginning with one of my favourite war films in Platoon before continuing with the quite brilliant Wall Street and eventually finishing with 1991's JFK. One might even say that this run continued on into the mid-nineties with Natural Born Killers. Talk Radio is like its lead character in the sense it's loud, booming, stark and confrontational. It isn't anti-capitalism, as much as it is focused on drawing a line between what is perceived as entertainment and what is just going too far for sake of popularity and riches. Talk Radio is certainly a film that sticks in the memory.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Eric Bogosian gives as great a performance as you'll ever see in an Oliver Stone film. His Barry character is an assault rifle disguised as a man and he blows away anyone, on or off the air, that offends him. Adapted from Bogosian's stage play, \"Talk Radio\" is a vicious and frightening ride that doesn't let you off until it's too late. By then, you've become familiar with the fringe of racists, rapists, paranoids, wannabe assassins and mere prank callers who listen, speak and lurk in the dark of Dallas nights.

Stone behaves himself, if that's even possible, letting Bogosian dominate every scene, from Barry's humble beginnings to the make or break point when his radio show can reach national syndication. The rest of the cast are uniformly excellent as the lovers and\/or co-workers that all have being used and tossed aside by Barry in common.

The only thing I'd change is the recurring theme music, \"Bad To The Bone\". I'd have used Bachman-Turner Overdrive's \"Not Fragile\". A better song, one I haven't heard in a film so far and a driving, relentless tune whose ominous riff is like the true soundtrack to Barry's life.

Listen if you dare!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With boundless, raw energy and an uncompromising vision, Talk Radio brilliantly explores the public's fondness for reducing strangers' private problems into entertainment via the radio.

Eric Bogosian is sensational as Barry Champlaine, a rude, in-your-face talk radio host. He's a natural for this kind of role, and fine tunes one of the most impressive, interesting radio personalities I've ever seen on screen. The timing and delivery of his insults to his various callers are strokes of genius.

Alec Baldwin also shines as Barry's boss. He demonstrates the same explosive cynicism that he would later display 1992's Glengarry Glen Ross. But the supporting role that truly stands out is the stoned, seemingly brain-dead teen played by Michael Wincott. You have to see it to believe it.

Oliver Stone and Robert Richardson do a great job with the photography, which is almost entirely confined to a single broadcasting room. The claustrophobic feel of the movie perfectly mirrors its tone. After all, one of the major points of the film is exploiting people's private moments to draw an audience. Stone demonstrates that these moments are often too private for the whole world to experience.

Talk Radio is a film with strong emotional and cerebral impact - the likes of which are seldom seen today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oliver Stone hits the bull's eye with this film, aided chiefly by Bogosian's electrifying screen presence and biting, brilliant screenplay. Every moment crackles with a steadily-growing tension, climaxing in a truly, memorable movie-going experience. If there was ever an indication of a writer and a director's ability to meld two highly volatile temperaments into a seamless union of creativity, then this is it! The result is a powerhouse achievement, made more timely now perhaps because of our culture's disturbing fascination with celebrity, and it's distorted interpretations of fame.

An ultimate indictment of our society's increasing morbidity, and self-sickening hunger for the next big thrill.

A film not easily forgotten. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the darker side of human nature.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a film about passion. The passion it depicts is largely misdirected, even for the leading man. But therein lies the incredible power of this film: it shows us that what we believe can be contaminated by nonsense, and can even lead us to do things that are destructive -- to ourselves or others. Moreover, those who try to escape from acquiring passion (watch the druggie who visits the studio) also risk self-destruction.

The world needs to hear the message of this movie more often.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In my opinion this is the best Oliver Stone flick -- probably more because of Bogosian's influence than anything else. Riviting stuff -- full of dread from the first moment to its dark ending.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is totally mindblowing. It manages to be thought provoking, funny, tragic, and cinematic yet claustrophobic.

Although the flashbacks are unnecessary, the film maintains a pacy, punchy grip and the performances are all excellent, in particular Alec Baldwin, and the mesmerising Eric Bogosian as the film's anti-hero, Barry Champlain.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very cool movie. The ending of the movie is a bit more defined than the play's ending, but either way it is still a good movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When it comes to movies, I don't easily discriminate between crap, pure crap and masterpieces. I believe this movie is an absolute masterpiece and it's hard to keep me entertained for more than 90 minutes. This movie ran SLOWER than Mystic River and Harry Potter 3 combined and I still managed to stay riveted to my seat. For me, it was the passion that Eric Bogosian put into his performance. It's extremely difficult to pull off such a stunt and manage to garner any positive effect from it. Bogosian probably nailed one of the toughest single-man performances in modern cinema. I didn't have any respect for Bogosian until the end of the film. The entire monologue minutes before the inexorable climax was the turning point, it was the key that turned me around. This man hit a point so low that he knew he could never recover from it. The corporate boys congratulated him on the performance. His blistering prose made even the slimiest one in the cavalcade shake his head in awe. It made me realize that personal integrity and hypocrisy don't matter in the world of talk radio, even in the corporate world for that matter. Stone may have been pushing some uber-liberal agenda but it was the actual movie and production that got my attention. Oliver Stone is a minor master of the moody. The final third of the film had probably the best lighting and cinematography I have seen in any film. Stone artfully makes the DJ booth feel like five-by-seven cell in a nineteenth century prison. Visually speaking, it appears that Bogosian's only friend is the black foam that absorbs his routine vitriol. He speaks and it doesn't speak back. It's a sad metaphor considering the way he treats the people who handed him his success. Stone and Bogosian carved out a stunning film of a man who is trapped in both a prison of walls and a prison of self. This man is confined to his own volition and he can never escape it. The scene that made me realize his conundrum was when he was unwilling to his ex-wife back. He preferred his own prison instead of the world on the outside. Every story has a conflict and it came down to the simplest of all conflicts: man versus himself. 'Talk Radio' presents this conflict in an intelligent, gripping, and artful fashion. There are no hidden messages in this film and the progression of events should be expected by any astute viewer. I just leaned back and let my mind be grasped by this film and I loved it. It's unheralded, unseen, and it will never receive its due recognition. Let's hope it stays that way because gems deserve to be found and then hidden again. It's a gem because I found it in the discount DVD bin at my local Wal-Mart store. For $5.50, it was worth the half-hour I spent digging trying to find it. I did and I got more than my money's worth. This is one of the best movies ever made and that is worth ten reasons alone. Ten reasons give a score of ten.

Here ends my rant!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sonny Chiba, as everyone knows, is the man. In this film, he portrays Mas Oyama (1923-1994), a real martial artist who fought over 50 bulls with his bare hands\u0085and won (interesting guy\u0085look him up). Anyway, Chiba only kills one bull in the film but it's a memorable scene and as the liner notes say, right up there with the zombie vs. shark scene in Zombi! The film also offers up loads of hand-to-hand combat and a decent plot to boot, though I don't believe all of it is true. This film is the first of the Oyama trilogy Chiba made and is recommended for fans of martial arts action. Finally, three neat little tidbits; part of the opening theme was used in Kill Bill Volume 1, Oyama himself appears in the opening sequences, and that is because he trained Chiba in real life for five years!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mas Oyama was the most successful karate master of the late 20th century. He rejected the \"training\" of the karate clubs of the time focusing on an intense no holds form of training. He eventually built his system into a huge business empire with hundreds of schools across the world, without compromising his teachings. The testing in the Kyokushin schools are still some of the most physically challenging tests any martial art school requires. One non- physical hardship Oyama faced was prejudice due to his Korean ancestry and he spent time proving that loyalties were to Japan and Japanese Karate. This movie series was part of that effort although anyone who had the chance to meet Oyama (I did) would never question his allegiance to Japan. In this series, Oyama's most famous student, Sonny Chiba, is called upon to portray his master.

Oyama arrives from the countryside where he has been training alone. He challenges and makes short work of the established Karate schools he encounters. Disgusted by the state of karate, Oyama returns to his lone training. He eventually picks up a student, falls in love and gets in the way of gangsters who are allied with the established karate schools. In the middle of this is the legendary bullfight with a mad bull. How much of the film is true is questionable.

That Oyama could kill a bull with his bare hands is true. He was called on to repeat this feat numerous times. There are filmed instances of Oyama actually doing this, although sometimes the bulls seemed to be tethered as Oyama was getting on in years. Sonny Chiba portrays his master with conviction and the karate is quite good. Chiba may not have been the best karate practitioner but, at this point in time, he was certainly above average.

As a whole the movie is good, much better then most martial art films in the drama department. I always wondered why it's not more well known. Possibly it the very realistic depictions of martial arts. People are shown getting tired and hurt unlike 99% of action film where the hero is a limitless fountain of energy and each blow instantly dispatches an opponent to death. Chiba seems so exhausted at one point that it hurts to watch. Perhaps viewers rather not have their entertainment reflect reality so closely.

Recommended especially for martial artists.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oddly enough, the Independent Film Channel showed this film a week AFTER it showed KARATE BEAR FIGHTER--even though the bear film was the second in the trilogy and this film was the first!!! What were they thinking?! While all three of these films are supposedly based on the life of this great Kyokushin Karate master, you can't help but think that they MUST have embellished the story quite a bit--especially in this first film. Sure, the guy evidently DID fight and kill a bull and later a bear (in fact, he fought and killed MANY bulls during his career), but in this film set in the early 50s, at the end of the film, the hero actually fights about 60 guys and kills many of them brutally. I just can't imagine that this really occurred. So I did some checking and found that while many of the details are correct, some of this film is pure bunk! Yes, he DID kill a man in self-defense and YES he did follow the widow and her son and spent a year working for them--trying to get them to forgive him. But the end of the film is great to watch but hogwash. Seeing one of his opponents get a staff thrust through his head and all the other gory details couldn't have happened or else the Japanese government would have locked Oyama up to protect society! The film is entertaining and the fighting is excellent. There are no complaints about the action or acting. The only minor complaint is the camera work--which is a tad sloppy during some of the fight scenes. Despite this minor complaint, this is a most enjoyable film. In many ways, the wandering Karate master theme is pretty reminiscent of the Zatoichi films--which are also lots of fun to watch but many of the exploits are truly impossible.

FYI--There is an Englished dubbed version of this film entitled \"Champion of Death\" and I just saw it as well. It's not a bad dubbing and it was letter boxed (a big plus), but still I prefer the subtitled version.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the 2nd of his Historical Martial Arts films, Chiba portrays his real life sensei Mas Oyama. The film even recreates Oyama's incredible feat of killing a raging bull with his bare hands (Oyama did this feat over 50 times in real life). Dynamic fight choreography featuring authentic Kyokushinkai techniques. Ironically this is one of the rare Sonny Chiba films in which he DOESN'T tear out or rip off body parts of opponents. A must see for Sonny Chiba fans definitely one of his top 5 films","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I attended a screening of \"Fierce People\" at the 2006 Woodstock Film Festival. I hesitate to label it a \"premiere\" of any sort, since it was shot in the spring of 2004 and had its world premiere at Tribeca in 2005. It played several festivals that year. Release seemed imminent, then it disappeared. Poof. Vanished. Or so it appeared to the film-going public. Rumors of a theatrical or DVD release have popped up now and then, but all proved unfounded. Then this screening was announced. Perhaps one can call it a \"re-premiere?\" It certainly felt as if I was witness to a buried treasure. And what a treasure it was.

I suppose one could characterize \"Fierce People\" as a coming-of-age drama. But it also has elements of comedy and tragedy, as well as mystery. And a bit of farce thrown in. In short, real life. That makes it hard to pigeonhole, which puts it more into the category of an indie as opposed to a Hollywood movie. But its high production values, big budget feel, and star caliber cast seem at odds with the indie label. So let's call it a hybrid. And, perhaps, that's why it's been \"lost.\" It defies categorization.

Meet Finn Earl (Anton Yelchin), 15, whose father is absent. In fact, Finn has never known him. But he sees him and hears him via the collection of home movies sent from South America. Dad is a renowned anthropologist, and has made a name for himself by setting up shop with the Yanomani, the tribe of \"Fierce People\" who live to kill and, well, procreate. All their activities are built around those two \"tasks,\" and Finn is captivated by it. Mom Liz (Diane Lane) is also somewhat absent. Although present physically, she is lost in a world of cocaine and alcohol. So Finn becomes an adult in his little solitary world with his reels of film.

One summer, Mom decides to drag Finn along with her into the wilds of New Jersey. A massage therapist, Mom has catered to a wealthy client, Ogden C. Osborne (Donald Sutherland, in a tour de force performance) and he has invited her for an extended house call at his palatial estate. Osborne's \"tribe\" includes an assortment of eccentric rich kids, servants, and village idiots among whom Finn will find himself part of his own anthropological study. Will his experience with Dad's films help him survive life as a visitor to this tribe? Will he be accepted? Or will he be seen as an outsider, concurrently struggling with his own identity as an adolescent? Such is the stuff of fairy tales, and I suppose this would be if not for the dark underbelly which director Griffin Dunne and writer Dirk Wittenborn have infused into this magnificent story.

With Anton Yelchin's voice-over, intercutting pieces of Dad's home movies, Finn must learn to go back to being the teenager he never really had a chance to be, stop being the parent to his Mom, allow newly-sober Mom to be parent to him, and learn responsibility on the way to adulthood the way it should have taken place all along. Yet he needs to make this transformation in a dangerous, dark world where playing with fire is folly to this fractured family.

This is, first and foremost, a story-driven film and Griffin Dunne emphasized as much in the intro to the film. He bought the rights to Wittenborn's novel even as it was being written, and Wittenborn's own screenplay comes to life in the hands of the masterful Dunne in a way that's a work of wonder.

This is also largely a character-driven film, and Sutherland has never been better. His star turn as Osborne stunned those around me and will likely leave you amazed as well. Diane Lane's character ultimately exhibits so many personalities that it's hard to imagine another actor pulling it off so well. She is breathtaking. But more than anything, \"Fierce People\" is Anton Yelchin's film. He has a long resume as a child actor but preciously little as a teen. Other than the little-known \"House of D\" (also a gem), he is best known as Byrd on TV's \"Huff.\" In January, he will be seen in \"Alpha Dog\" (also sitting on the shelf since 2004, a film I saw at Sundance this year and in which he is the \"heart and soul\"). His performance here goes far beyond what one would expect from someone so young, and is nothing short of spectacular.

This complex, quirky film has remained out of sight long enough. \"Fierce People\" is a treasure filled with light and shadow, comedy and tragedy, joy and pathos, but mostly wonder.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this was a very good movie. Someone said it was 'sick' so they couldn't watch it. I think if you realize its rated R then you will be prepared for the nudity and drug use. It is a good story and the acting is amazing. Just can't be a prude to appreciate it! Its basically about a mom who does drugs and wants to get clean so she calls a very wealthy old friend and he moves them to his estate and crazy things happen. I guess it is a drama. I am just so sick of people who don't like movies because of cursing or nudity. That is the world we live in. You obviously aren't comfortable with yourself if you can't see things like this movie. And it's rated R. So, that should tell you from the beginning that its not all peachy happy rainbows. I liked it. I think you will too!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was lucky enough to see this at this years Tribeca film festival. I was stunned by how well made and how entertaining this wonderful little film was. Director Griffin Dunne has done a great job assembling this film that has several characters and several story lines that blend so smoothly and seamlessly. The main story involves the family and it is very thought-provoking and entertaining story that involved the viewer in every scene. The film as a whole has credibility and integrity, yet still has that commercial edge - an \"indie\" movie for the masses if you like. The performances by the cast are all excellent but it is Diane Lane who shines the brightest. Diane Lane is simply sensational in this wonderful film and should be Oscar nominated. Early days I know, but Lane acts her socks off here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't imagine why it hasn't been theatrically released yet. It's got a great ensemble cast, with Sutherland, Lane, and especially Chris Evans doing spectacular work. Wake up, studio execs!

The story is based upon the experiences of the author\/screenwriter, growing up as the \"poor kid\" in an extremely affluent community, where class is everything, and makes a difference in every aspect of life, from clothing to justice.

During the film's Q&A, the author was asked about his experiences, and particularly what we don't know about the ultra-rich. He said they aren't stupid, they're very smart (as opposed to how they may portray themselves), they've got plans, and they are a threat!

In many ways, this film is extremely timely.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed Fierce People. I discovered the film by accident, searching through my On-Demand movie lists trying to find something interesting to watch. The film is mostly about class in America, and it quickly grabs your attention. The characters are smart and articulate and the story doesn't stick to the usual Hollywood rules.

The main protagonist is Finn, a precocious, but underprivileged 15 year old who spends his summer with the Osbourne family. Donald Sutherland plays the patriarch, Ogden C. Osborne, the seventh richest man in America. Diane Lane plays Finn's mother, a friend of Ogden who is also a habitual cocaine user and a slut. The Osbournes own a large estate and seems to live by their own rules. At first they seem charming and sophisticated but the super-rich are different. They are used to getting their own way. The film is enjoyable mainly because it has crisp intelligent dialog, superb acting and a story which takes unexpected turns. It is also an R rated movie, so it's not entirely wholesome.

The cast is excellent. Anton Yelchin is believable and sympathetic in the demanding role of Finn. Sutherland and Diane Lane have never been better. Chris Evans is impressive as Osbourne's devious grandson. Kristen Stewart is good as the pretty grand daughter. High quality movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A brilliant and sensitive movie with interwoven plot lines. As a general warning, the movie turns quite dark about half way through. As sudden as it is, this is a change that I found fitting to the themes of the movie, particularly the comparison of the Ishkanani to the filthy rich, and (as is said by Finn at the end) how each person makes up the tribe, and how the whole tribe is reflected in each person.

Anton Yelchin (Finn Earl) is spectacular in this movie. He is probably best known as Chekov from Star Trek or Kyle Reese in Terminator Salvation, but he's been in a whole plethora of movies you've probably never heard of (Alpha Dog, which is another brilliant performance on Yelchin's part, House of D, Hearts in Atlantis, to name a few...) The point is that this kid really takes this movie and makes it his own. Other excellent performances from Diane Lane and Donald Sutherland are what takes this movie up a notch, from great to excellent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"To the eight people who found the previous FIERCE PEOPLE comments by \"Psycolicious Me\" and \"Topdany\" \"helpful,\" as well as to any future site visitors who see them before their authors delete them: these negative critique's are not only shorter than the site guidelines mandate, but they are entirely bogus, nonfactual, incorrect, and misinformative. For instance, Blythe's dad is in a coma, NOT dead--Maya and Finn even visit him in the hospital. Furthermore, it was estate deer poacher Dwayne--NOT Blythe--who knocked up Jilly the maid, etc., etc. So if you have ADD which makes you incapable of focusing on the simplest details, please keep your condition to yourself by not pretending to be Siskel or Ebert. Otherwise, include a disclaimer with your comments!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the opening scenes of FIERCE PEOPLE (an interplay of tribal customs as photographed by the anthropologist father of the young narrator Finn Earl, demonstrating why this South American tribe of Ishkanani is so fierce) the direction of the film is nebulous: are we watching a dark comedy about comparing life in the New York streets to uncivilized peoples, or is this a message film of a more serious intent? But as the story develops this fine line between entertainment and philosophical impact becomes increasingly clear. Griffin Dunne's direction of Dirk Wittenborn's adaptation of his novel may be a bit careless at times as it strays from rational plot development, but in the end there is a strong enough final impact to patch up the holes he created.

Our narrator Finn Earl (Anton Yelchin) lives with his coke-addicted masseuse\/sexually obsessed mother Liz (Diane Lane) in New York, waiting for the summer when he is to join his anthropologist father on a field trip to South America (a father he knows only from letters and videos), when a drug bust abruptly changes their lives: one of Liz's wealthy clients Ogden Osborne (Donald Sutherland) rescues the down and out family and moves them to his ten acre estate, the epitome of wealth and power. In exchange for being Osborne's private masseuse, Liz and Finn can live in the mansion with the 'filthy rich' Osbornes - daughter Mrs. Langley (Elizabeth Perkins) and grandchildren Bryce (Chris Evans) and Maya (Kristen Stewart). Osborne and his physician lead Liz on the drying out path and Finn bonds with Osborne and his grandchildren, and despite the disparity in poor versus wealthy, the living situation works - for a while. Incidents occur to alter feelings and Finn is attacked and raped by a masked assailant, a turning point for the film and Finn's view of the Osborne family. Osborne reveals his past to Finn and together they manage to discover the truth about Finn's troubling incident - and also about the fierce disease of the wealthy class.

The film uses many clips of tribal activity during the film, drawing some disturbing parallels for some of the more challenging scenes. For this viewer that works well, but when the director elects to place tribal individuals in full regalia within the context of the Osborne estate, the concept feel contrived, as though the audience has to be forced to 'get it'. The various subplots between maid Jilly (Paz de la Huerta) and Finn and the introduction of an obese retarded chalk artist Whitney (Branden Williams) push the credibility edge of emphasizing the line between the wealthy and the 'lower class', but the performances by Sutherland, Lane, and Yelchin are strong enough to make us forgive the film's lapses. Not a great film but one with a lot of worthy ideas splashed around on the screen of a project that often feels lost in its struggle for direction. Grady Harp","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is an adaptation of a Dirk Wittenborn book, which I did not read. young Finn Earl lives with his Mom Liz (Diane Lane) in a cramped lower East Side New York Apartment. he dreams of joining his Anthropologist father studying a fierce tribe in South America. Liz has boyfriends and does coke. when he is caught scoring coke for her, one of her customers (Liz is a legitimate masseuse) a rich Mr. Osborne bails her out in return for being his full time personal masseuse in his huge estate in New Jersey. They are driven there in a limo with her strung out lying in the back seat with her dress hitched way up and panties showing. (this and a few low-cut dress scenes is the only exploitation of Ms. Lane. some may be disappointed but I'm sorry she had to do all that stuff in \"Unfaithful\" to make the A-List. That lady has more talent in her little finger than Streep, Roberts, and Sally Field do in their entire BODIES and its time she was given her due.) when they arrive Finn makes friends with Osbornes grandson Bryce, and has a coming of age with his new girlfriend, granddaughter Maya. Liz meanwhile joins AA and dates an AA doctor. She miraculously cleans up instantly. Finn however does a lot of drugs along with sex with his new friends. Bryce seems like an OK guy but gets jealous when Osborne takes Finn on a hot air balloon race instead of him, and this leads to tragedy.

the genius of the story, (and movie) is that they cut from the violent acts of the Fierce filthy rich Blysdale tribe to the Yanomano warriors. It's a little implausible though that when Liz finds out what happens to her son she merely demands action from Osborne and does not either contact the authorities or settle it Thelma and Louise style. there are elements of a Gothic Romance with a revelation by the village idiot. Also they do almost no plot or character development prior to the move to Blysdale. Liz, for instance, like Lane's Pearl Kantrowitz in \"Walk on the Moon\" had an unwanted pregnancy with Finn at 18 and felt trapped. This is in the book but not the movie. Still, these are minor shortcomings. The movie will be in full release 12\/31\/05 over a year after the original release date, and I just couldn't wait.

There were lots of Red Carpet moments in the theater I saw the movie at, with almost the whole cast...except Diane Lane!! $#%#Q$ Director Dunne said she was off filming a movie. I know she didn't promise to be there, but I came from way out of town and it would have been such a thrill to see her in person. The movie is a definite Best Picture contender, as for acting?? Sutherland was quite good, and so was the boy who played Finn. Lane was magnificent as always, but I only recall one or two emotional scenes, when she catches Finn with drugs \"lets get f****d up together mother and son\" and with Osborne \"your twisted grandson...\". She would fare better with a supporting actress nod but it wont work that way. unless they give it to her for a \"body of work.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Went to the premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in NYC and I absolutely loved the film!!! I am Diane's #1 biggest fan and of course, as always, she gave a magnificent performance!! I have seen every single one of her movies and I must say that this is one of my new favorites. Diane was funny and moving and just took my breath away. Donald Sutherland was surprisingly humorous but also a good amount of serious. Anton Yelchin is just a wonderful young actor and gave an amazing performance. All in all, I recommend this film to anyone who can appreciate an excellent movie. 10 thumbs up!!! I would definitely go see it again and again and again. This is the best film of the year so far!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Returning from 20 years in China, a young missionary refuses to become THE CAT'S-PAW for a gang of hometown hoodlums.

This movie was a bit of a departure from Harold Lloyd's previous movies. Comedy derived more from dialogue, often rather serious, predominates here, rather than the elaborate sight gags which powered Harold's classics of the past. There are some splendid moments, however, which are pure visual fun, as when Harold attempts to follow a convertible down a crowded street, or when he desperately tries to keep a nightclub stripper from losing her clothes. There is also the climactic scene, set in a Chinatown basement, in which Harold gleefully jumps unabashedly into the darkest comedy. But most of the humor derives from Harold's refusal to be the patsy of the criminals who've run his hometown for years.

And it's quite a collection of crooked politicians & thugs Harold finds himself up against, played by a bevy of fine character actors: George Barbier, Nat Pendleton, Grant Mitchell, Edwin Maxwell, Alan Dinehart, Warren Hymer & stuttering Fuzzy Knight. Pert Una Merkel is on hand as the tobacco stand girl who catches Harold's eye and keeps him intrigued by her no-nonsense outlook on life.

Movie mavens will recognize Samuel S. Hinds as Harold's missionary father; Charles Sellon as an elderly Stockport clergyman; and Herman Bing as a German gangster--all uncredited. Also, showing up for only a few seconds as an attempted kidnapper, is Noah Young, a familiar face from Harold's silent films, here making his final appearance in a Lloyd picture.

Fox gave the film fine production values, especially in the opening scenes set in China.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It has to be admitted that the best work of Harold Lloyd ended with his last great silent comedy \"Speedy\" in 1928. After that he enters sound films (like Chaplin and Keaton and Laurel & Hardy and W.C. Fields) and does do better than Keaton, but not as well as the other three. Chaplin was rich enough to make his own films as producer (but he paced his films so there were five years between productions). Laurel & Hardy were under the protection of Hal Roach, so production standards for their shorts and sound films were pretty good. Fields first worked with Mack Sennett, than with Paramount, and then free-lanced. Lloyd tried the route that Chaplin took, but with less success.

He produced his own films, but unlike Chaplin he did not own his own studio. Also his first two choices were not good (especially \"Feet First\"). But he did begin to choose more wisely and \"Movie Crazy\", \"The Cat's-Paw\", and \"The Milky Way\" were all good choices. These three (and possibly \"The Sin of Harold Diddlebock\") were his best sound ventures. They are all entertaining, but none are up to \"Safety Last\", \"The Freshman\", \"The Kid Brother\", or \"Speedy\".

Of the top four sound films \"The Cat's Paw\" is the most controversial. Ezekiel Cobb's solution to ridding the city that elects him mayor is very extreme for the tastes of 2005. Or is it? When a movie is made dictates what it's politics are: \"The Cat's Paw\" is from 1934. That second year of the Roosevelt New Deal (itself rather controversial for heavier government involvement) movie audiences saw films like \"Gabriel Over the White House\" and \"The Phantom President\", where our leaders did extra-Constitutional actions to rid the nation of internal enemies (and to force disarmament around the globe). Even Cecil B. De Mille got into this act with \"This Day and Age\", where a bunch of teenagers use rats to force a gangster to confess his crimes.

To us, the use of violence to force anyone (even a bunch of goons and boodlers like Alan Dinehart's gang) to confess is repellent. After all, the Supreme Court has protected us from confession under duress. What we forget is that the reforms we are thinking of did not occur until the Warren Court and the Burger Court made them. For example, although Mr. Justice Sutherland's opinion in the Powell (\"Scottsboro Boys\") Case of 1932 guaranteed every criminal defendant had a right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright did not extend this to ordering court paid counsel to defendants until 1962. The Miranda Case, with it's now well-known anti-self-incrimination warning is from 1963. Nothing like this were considered necessary in 1934.

If you study other movies of the period up to 1954 (and even to 1960) tricks are used to get confessions - Kirk Douglas confesses his crimes in front of witnesses in \"I Walk Alone\" while Burt Lancaster holds a gun to him. When Lancaster leaves, Douglas sneers about confessing under duress, only to see the gun is unloaded. Suddenly he realizes that (legally - in 1948) he has confessed without duress. Hate to say it, to any civil libertarians reading this note, but what Cobb\/Lloyd does to Dinehart and his pals in the conclusion of \"The Cat's Paw\" was not only legal, but would have led to their jail sentences in 1934. We may call it heavy handed, fascistic, or horrid, but it would have worked legally when it was thought up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What is often neglected about Harold Lloyd is that he was an actor. Unlike Chaplin and Keaton, Lloyd didn't have the Vaudeville\/Music Hall background and he wasn't a natural comedian. He came to Hollywood to act; and he discovered he had a knack for acting funny -- first in shorts, then in features. He made a name for himself as \"Lonesome Luke\", a Chaplin knock-off; with the \"glasses character\" that made him the all-American boy rather than a grotesque, Lloyd found his stride and his movies became some of the best produced during the silent era.

He developed a reputation as a \"daredevil\" in some shorts, and retained this in some of his best movies (\"Safety Last\", \"For Heaven's Sake\", \"Girl Shy\"). He was more popular than either Chaplin or Keaton during the twenties and he became very rich before the advent of sound.

The first sound movies were often disasters. To get the most out of their \"sound\", too much dialog was used in many movies.

Lloyd's acting skills were, after two decades, geared for silents. He didn't have a bad voice; its high pitch suited his \"glasses\" character. And his sound films weren't the unqualified disasters of legend. Yet silent movies had been raised to a high art (especially Lloyd's, which did not stint on budget and were extremely well-crafted); with the introduction of talkies movies had to learn to walk again and they made some missteps.

Though he tried to move with the times and embraced sound, Lloyd's best bits from his early (overly talky) talkies were still visual -- such as the scene in \"Movie Crazy\" where he appears to be riding in a swank car, but actually \"hitched a ride\" on his bicycle.

Trying to recapture the daredevil antics that made him famous, as he did in \"Feet First\", was misstep. (In \"Safety Last\", his best movie and the one that, deservedly or not, shoved Lloyd in the box as a \"daredevil comic\", he played a determined young man, climbing to the top. \"Safety Last\" had a natural structure that ascended to his character's scaling the side of the building. He was obviously afraid, but his fear added to the humor. In \"Feet First\", he arrived in a precarious building-scaling position by accident; his frantic cries for help detracted from the humor. His character was pathetic and cringing, aspiration to save his neck -- possibly an accurate statement of the 1930s, but not amusing).

Harold Lloyd was not mired in the past, like some wacky Norma Desmond. He embraced sound and tried to take his movies in different directions, growing and changing with the industry. When \"Feet First\" failed he left the daredevil business and made a satire on the talking movie industry, \"Movie Crazy\". Just as he had to flounder through many movies as \"Lonesome Luke\" before carving his place in movie history with the glasses character, he had tried several directions in sound movies before hitting his stride in sound, which he did with \"The Catspaw\".

In \"The Catspaw\" he plays a missionary's son reared in China who unwittingly gets elected mayor as a front for corrupt political interests. When he finds out the truth, he sets himself the task of cleaning up the town. Only in his early forties, Lloyd could still act the brash young man.

Yet \"The Catspaw\" was another box-office failure, and Lloyd made only three more movies, including \"The Milky Way\". Of his chief competitors, Chaplin still had silent movies in him and Keaton was hopelessly mismanaged. \"The Catspaw\" and \"The Milky Way\" suggest Lloyd might have mastered sound comedy if he had been a little younger, or if audiences had given him the benefit of the doubt after his early sound fiascoes.

Though the movie has been unfairly maligned about the way Lloyd's character cleaned up the town, it suits him. From his days in \"shorts\" Lloyd wanted to scare his audience, and the climax of \"The Catspaw\" achieved it yet again, in a surprising way; until the trick is revealed it appears gruesome, and then come the laughs.

Viewed as a product of its time, \"The Catspaw\" is charming and funny. A very well-written sound comedy, well-acted by Lloyd. Directed by Sam Taylor, its curious blend of drama and sly humor make it look almost like a Frank Capra or Preston Sturges comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

As a Harold Lloyd fan, i agree with the other reviewer's comments, EXCEPT that I feel that \"Movie Crazy\" was his best sound film; \"Cat's Paw\" is a close second. (But, this is just MY opinion).

This film is a \"hoot\" from beginning to end and, in many scenes, George Barbier (the crook that gets him elected mayor) almost steals the show! (Especially at the end of the film).

One wishes that Una Merkel's character would be a bit more sympathetic to Harold, especially as the film progresses. Only in the last few minutes of the film do we find out her true feelings for him. (And, even then, there is no \"romance\" - kissing, etc).

This is a Must-See film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie caught me by surprise. For years I have avoided many of Harold Lloyd's sound pictures (as well as those of Keaton) because they have a generally well-deserved reputation for being lousy compared to the silent films because the basic formula has been lost. However, when I saw this film I was pleasantly surprised to find I actually liked it,...once I accepted it really was not a \"Harold Lloyd\" film (despite him starring in it). This is because although it is nothing like the style of his earlier films, it IS highly original and Lloyd isn't bad playing a totally different type of character.

As I mentioned above, the formula of the old films is almost completely missing here. Lloyd does not do the old familiar stunt work, the romance is quite unlike his early screen romances, and the plot is just plain weird! Instead of the usual roles, he is the son of a Chinese missionary who returns to America for the first time since he was a small boy. Because of this, though he looks like an American (except for his white suit and explorer's helmet), he thinks and acts a lot like someone who is Chinese. In many ways, he's very naive about America and is like an innocent among wolves. Early on, he meets a man who turns out to be a local party boss. This boss ALWAYS produces a losing candidate for the mayoral race--because he is bought and paid for by the corrupt mayor to produce a \"token\" candidate who has NO CHANCE of winning. Well, the old geezer who they traditionally run for office just died and he decides to run the naive Lloyd--he hasn't a prayer of winning! Well, the unthinkable happens and Lloyd wins!!! This, and Lloyd's decision to clean up the town greatly upsets the old political machine and they stop at nothing to destroy honest Lloyd. Just when it appears Lloyd is headed to jail on a trumped up corruption charge, he creates a scheme that is 100% impossible and very illegal to get signed confessions from the crooks. However, despite this, it is incredibly funny and a great ending. So, my advice is at the end, just suspend disbelief and enjoy.

An important note: This movie is definitely NOT politically correct. The word \"Chink\" is used repeatedly. I found it offensive but considering the times, I ignored it as you should too. If, however, you are someone who CAN'T and like being angry, I suggest you never watch movies anyway--as you are bound to become offended again and again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those of you looking for the crazy stunts that typified a Harold Lloyd silent comedy, this is not the film for you. What The Cat's-Paw gives us is an interesting and atypical character for Lloyd who was trying to establish himself in sound.

For me the closest movie comparison to Lloyd's character is that of Peter Sellers in Being There. For all the education that Lloyd has received in dealing with the world, he might as well have been brought up in isolation as Sellers was.

But where he was brought up was as a missionary's child in China and I don't know how much Christianity he and his family were able to teach the Chinese, but young Harold has learned the wisdom of Chinese philosopher Lin Po whom he quotes constantly like a fortune cookie aphorism. As it turns out Lin Po turns out to be one wise dude.

Anyway Lloyd's father Samuel S. Hinds has decided his son needs some education in the modern world of 20th century America and he sends him back to be the guest of the pastor of the home church which sponsors the mission. The pastor there is the perennial candidate of the 'reform' movement of that town of Stockport. But no sooner does Lloyd arrive and the pastor dies.

Now the reform movement is a sham and the pastor a patsy of the political bosses who need a straw-man opponent in every election. They decide Lloyd just might be a better patsy than the guy who just died.

Of course as it goes in these type of films the patsy proves to be not so easy a proposition. In fact Lloyd constantly quoting from Lin Po, the way Charlie Chan used to dispense wisdom proves quite the adversary for the crooks who run Stockport. In addition Lloyd gains the admiration of Una Merkel, as cynical a dame as Jean Arthur was in Mr. Deeds and Mr. Smith.

The Cat's-Paw is still a nice political satire though it did not establish Harold Lloyd as big a comedy name as he was in silent films. A nice cast of players was selected by director Sam Taylor topped by George Barbier who plays a political boss who discovers Lloyd and actually proves to have a streak of honesty in him.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"_Saltmen_ is a long film for its genre, and quite often the pace is much slower than that expected by Western audiences. That being said, I enjoyed it thoroughly both in terms of interesting subject matter and the magnificent images this film contains. Some of the scenery is truly breathtaking, and there is enough of interest that most should be able survive _Saltmen_ with minimal use of the fast-forward.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A documentary about a nomadic tribe in Tibet going out to a dry lake to get salt does not sound very appealing. But this is not a popcorn movie but a visual cultural feast whereby you partake of a rapidly vanishing morsel of humanity. The superstitions, the epic songs and poetry, the faith of a people who truly believe in following their own unique patterns of life are something the West had in the times of Homer but that is now, unfortunately, completely foreign to most of us in the \"developed\" world. We have lost the spiritual serenity that comes from following well established patterns of life, often with dire mental consequences in our increasingly soulless society. The film makers have woven us intimately into the fabric of these materially poor but spiritually rich and scrappy saltmen. And made us see that there was more to life than the shopping mall and pop culture. So disconnect your land lines, turn off your cells, turn off the driveway lights and sit back and ease yourself into a timeless adventure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think Gerard's comments on the doc hit the nail on the head. Interesting film, but very long. It's definitely the antithesis to the new school of flashy, sexy, Moore-style docs. There is no narrator, no facts or side info interlaced, and no other gimmicks. What you see is what you get - a glimpse into the vanishing world of the Saltmen of Tibet. As a huge doc fan, I was surprised how much I lost attention with this film, namely due to the length and lack of dialogue. In the end though I would recommend it if the subject matter sounds interesting to you. It's beautifully shot, informative, and presents a valuable (and closing) window into the way of life of the Tibetan saltmen (and women :) - all important attributes of a good doc. But do put on a big pot of coffee, it'll help.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a beautifully filmed movie that questions the future of all indigenous peoples, especially nomadic tribesmen. Focusing on the Saltmen of Tibet, the film moves at pace that may make some western viewers uncomfortable. For some peoples, life still proceeds at the same pace which it has for thousands of years. This film follows a group of tribesmen on their annual two month quest to get salt. Their tribe lives its life in a traditional manner (slowly by modern standards) and always accounting to their many gods. This is a remarkable film, one which will preserve a piece of what may, unfortunately, become history. Well worth the time. Don't be in a rush when you see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An apt description by Spock of an all-powerful fop into whose clutches fall the crew of the Enterprise. This was one sector of space our starship should have avoided: first Sulu & Kirk simply disappear off the bridge; a landing party follows them to the surface of an unknown planet and encounter Trelane, a seemingly aristocratic man dressed in attire from an Earth of many centuries past. But he demonstrates abilities of someone or something far beyond human and doesn't register on McCoy's medical tricorder. The officers manage to escape back to the ship but, like some bad cosmic penny, Trelane keeps popping up. He brings them all back, including some female companionship, to continue his games. The dilemma now takes on elements of 'The Most Dangerous Game' out in space and there's an exasperating, even infuriating aspect to the crew's utter helplessness before such unbridled power.

What really makes this a great episode is the memorable performance by guest star Campbell as the overpowering but not all-knowing alien. His character is obviously an early version of Q, who was introduced 20 years later in the pilot for the TNG series. Trelane's confrontation scene with Spock stands out among all the strange drama which unfolds. As usual, Kirk quickly begins to look for possible weaknesses in his new nemesis, despite being quite outmatched. The answers to exactly what or who Trelane is are right in front of us the whole time so, when we do learn the truth, it makes complete sense in view of Campbell's pitch-perfect acting. He indulges himself constantly, preening before some unknown audience, remarking on things with a flair which is infectious but not quite right - we can't quite pin it down at first, but there's something missing here. Every few minutes, his tone becomes sinister and the crew now appears to be in serious danger. In a way, you can't take your eyes off him, always waiting to see what he does next. Actor John de Lancie captured that similar tone as Q on the Next Generation series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In \"The Squire of Gothos\", Kirk and his crew encounter a powerful super-being, who keeps the Captain, \"Bones\" and a few crewmembers captive for no apparent reason. I could be wrong, but I think this is the first Star Trek episode I ever saw and the program that made me hungry for more. It is not one of the best episodes, but the rock-solid premise of an alien being who putting the Enterprise's crew in a corner, is the kind of situation that makes the show so much fun to watch. In a way, the super-humanoid anticipates one of Star Trek's most famous characters, Next Generation's enigmatic \"Q\". This episode is also memorable for creating a unique situation: it is the first time Uhura is part of the action and the story allows the viewer to see what an endearing character Uhuara can be when the story allows her. Too bad the show never fully explored this iconic figure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I did enjoy watching Squire Trelane jerk around the crew in this episode, though after a while the whole thing just seemed a little too long. Sure, the histrionics were kind of funny for a while, and the ending was a pretty good way to wrap the whole thing together. I think the problem was that I enjoyed seeing Trelane when he was full of bravado and fun, the fun seemed to vanish when Trelane became vindictive and nasty. Talk about a mood killer--going from the obnoxious but affable host to the guy sentencing Kirk to death! But, despite this, the episode was enjoyable and worth my time. For die-hard Trekkies, this is a must-see, for others it's just a pretty run of the mill one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"General Trelayne is a super-being who wants to play a little game with the crew of the Enterprise. A lot of extremely unlikely and nonsensical stuff seems to be happening, and Trelayne seems obsessed with the human practices of warfare and murder. He seems to need to experience what he imagines to be a thrill and has created a human environment (though a few hundred years out of date) in which to play out his fantasies. The environment is subtly inauthentic, and the crew immediately begins to spot the inconsistencies. Pretty soon it becomes clear that Trelayne is not just an immature god, but a very fallible one. Regardless of how you feel about this one, stick around for the Twilight Zone-like ending. It is well worth it.

As many have pointed out, Trelayne's character inspired the more developed and amusing on-going character Q - and you can see in John DeLancie's construction of that personality more than just shades of Campbell's Trelayne. It is fun to compare how the four captains we have seen coping with Q all deal with him so radically differently.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Squire of Gothos is one of the \"sillier\" episodes of Star Trek, and therefore one of the most entertaining ones. The entertainment factor is, generally speaking, fueled by the stand-off between William Shatner and the episode's hilarious guest star, William Campbell.

During an unspecified routine mission, Sulu suddenly vanishes into thin air, and Kirk follows soon after-wards. Spock immediately begins looking for his missing colleagues (and, though he'd hate to admit it, friends), while the two stranded crewmen must deal with the mysterious, all-powerful, flamboyant Trelane (Campbell), the self-proclaimed Squire of Gothos, a being capable of creating or destroying anything he wants through the sheer power of his mind.

At first sight, the plot may seem recycled from previous episodes (honestly, are there any sci-fi shows that didn't feature at least one God-like character), but that feeling vanishes pretty quickly thanks to the script's winning use of exaggerated humor, all conveyed through Campbell's deliberately camp performance: his Trelane is essentially the Trek version of a spoiled child in the body of an adult, while his ignorance-fueled curiosity for the human race (his knowledge is quite limited) probably served as inspiration for Gene Roddenberry when he came up with the character of Q for the Next Generation pilot, some two decades after this episode aired.

In short, the key to appreciating The Squire of Gothos is this: \"silly\" doesn't necessarily equal \"bad\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw the movie, I thought it was sweet - a family movie. For the rest of the night and over the next couple of days, though, clever moments and funny lines kept creeping back into my thoughts and our conversation... There's a lot going on, classic elements of farce, good character acting, and Wendie Malick's story line is just hysterical. Labelling it a \"feel-good movie\" belies the wit and fun - it's smarter than it seems, just like \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is not your typical Hollywood fare, though the pickings are so bad I often tend to stay away from movies rather than be disappointed. However, this little low-budget gem is thoroughly loveable and enjoyable and definitely a keeper. The actors are as varied as the characters they portray, the Buffalo setting is charming (what a pretty city), and the story sparkles. The lack of gratuitous violence, sex and the \"f\" word doesn't detract in the least! Take the kids, take grandma, take a break from Hollywood! I give it an 11 out of 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would recommend this film to anyone who is searching for a relaxing, fun-filled, thought-provoking movie. The absence of sex, vulgarities and violence made for a most pleasant evening. I especially enjoyed the Buffalo scene, but that's probably because I live a short distance from there. Even so, this film could have been produced in any city; it's the theme that's so important here. I'm just grateful that Manna From Heaven dropped down on us. Try it...you'll like it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thoroughly enjoyed Gabrielle Burton's story of a mysterious gift and how it effects it recipients in the past and present. The talented Burton family of five film-making sisters, an author mother, and dancing dad offer a charming plot, respectfully edited for clarity , memorably chosen songs, and a beautifully filmed piece that made me laugh and cry as the characters' vulnerablility invited me into their predicamant. There was a farce-like attitude about this work with touching undertones of innocent wonder. Fanatastic","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We went to see Manna from Heaven, my husband, two friends, and I and we all enjoyed the film. The characters are funny, the story is amusing and so much like real life. I think that is what I liked most, just seeing something believable, no murders, no sci-fi, just good, clean fun. It is something you could take your children or elderly parents to and not worry. How many of those are around anymore!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the wasteland that Hollywood Productions have become of late, this movie - in and of itself - is truly \"MANNA FROM HEAVEN\"!!!

In what could best be described as a \"cute\" movie, approximately 350 years of movie acting experience (allright - give or take 100 years!) joyously lights up the screen to tell a tale of deceit, remorse, and redemption about a Catholic Family in Buffalo, NY.

Truly well-positioned to take its place in the \"feel-good\" movie genre, this quiet little independent film by the Burton Sisters' FIVE SISTERS PRODUCTIONS COMPANY will leave a smile on your face and joy in your heart, all while renewing your faith in mankind.

From the spectacular opening scene shots of Buffalo, NY to the final credits, the film manages to tell a tale that could have been told of any family, anywhere. Yet, somehow this particular gathering of family and \"family by association\" in a small, non-descript house in Buffalo more than fits the bill. If you've never been to Buffalo, you'll leave the theater with thoughts of \"shuffling off\" for a visit! Shots of the city landmarks and surroundings help to bring a quaint, down to earth tone to the film - which suits it just fine. The quiet beauty of the \"Queen City of the Great Lakes\" compliments, rather than detracts from the tale that is being told. If only more movies would take advantage of the natural beauty of this country's \"second cities\" instead of running off to a soundstage somewhere, the end results would be so much more believable.

Great performances by Shirley Jones, Frank Gorshin, Wendy Malick, Jill Eickenberry, and the rest of the ensemble cast prove again that true talent outlasts Hollywood's \"flavor of the week\" any time!

GO SEE THIS MOVIE!

You've wandered in Hollywood's desert for too long!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"`Manna From Heaven' is a delightfully compelling film.

Within the shifting paradox of values in middle-class Americans from 40 years ago to the present day, the plot tweaks the concerns and hopes of an interesting range of `Damon Runyonesque' characters.

Their struggles with moral dilemmas, dotting on `what might have been,' hopes to yet fulfill youthful dreams, romantic yearnings, and `hit it big' combine to make a most entertaining film. Rather than relying upon `in-your- face' sexual explicitness, the burgeoning relationship between Inez and Mac\/Bake is classically subtle but clear. His untying the knot in her shoelace at the Art Gallery and their heat in their poker game is outstanding

The script's crisp writing is skillfully interpreted by an outstanding star and supporting cast. One of the few films I have ever fone to see twice in its opening run, `Manna From Heaven' definitely warrants national distribution.

Conrad F. Toepfer","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a native of the city where the story takes place, Buffalo, NY, it's fun to see the local sites but the story line is so local and fun, too!

The small scale promoting of this film requires strong word of mouth to accomplish the wide viewing it deserves. Please make this film the success the Big, Fat Greek Wedding was.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being from the Buffalo area I was well aware of the movie having read many articles in local publications. I was most impressed with the movie, especially its clever plot, the acting and the local scenes. Nice to see so many older, quality stars in the various roles. I feel that especially those of us over 50 will find the movie excellent and you can leave the theater feeling that your time was well spent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this move beautiful, enjoyable, and uplifting. Initially the local sites in the film, which was filmed here in Buffalo, intrigued me. Later I found myself lost in the power of the film. How do you repay a gift from God? The ability of characters to rise above their base natures and respond to the touch from God warmed my heart. The entire audience applauded at the conclusion of the film. I left the theater with a lilt in my step, joy in my heart and hope for the human race. What more can any film do? Hollywood, I hope your paying attention. America does like positive, upbeat films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a great cast for this movie. The timing was excellent and there were so many clever lines-several times I was still laughing minutes after they were delivered. I found Manna From Heaven to have some surprising moments and while there were things I was thinking would happen, the way they came together was anything but predictable. This movie is about hope and righting wrongs. I left the theater feeling inspired to do the right thing. Bravo to the Five Sisters.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Manna from Heaven is heavenly. This is a movie for the family -- teens and grandparents can enjoy it together. But it isn't syrupy sweet or silly. The characters really are \"characters\". The plot is somewhat complex and you have to pay attention, but it's like putting a puzzle together as it all falls into place bit by bit. The period beginning is like watching an old photo album, or remembering back when. It's extremely well done with very accurate hairstyles and costumes. The story moves along quickly with twists, turns and lots of fun.

A special treat is to watch the large cast of familiar faces, many of whom we haven't seen in much too long a time. Part of the fun is to recognize and name them mentally as they appear, though this can be distracting. Cloris Leachman by the end of the film looks as if she's had a make-over on \"Oprah\". I had never seen Faye Grant in a movie -- only knew her as Grace's mother in the TV series \"Saving Grace\". She was great, even minus the southern accent. And I didn't even recognize Shelly Duvall. The five sisters who created this very lovely film are a very talented quintet and Sister Theresa is a heavenly treasure.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two things can happen when an ensemble cast is brought together. Either you are left walking out of the theater asking, \"Why?' or you receive MANNA FROM HEAVEN, a delightful comedy from the Burton Sisters, whose mother not only provided inspiration but the screenplay itself. Ursula Burton, plays Theresa, a nun whose friend's and family had always believed she was touched by G-d. When money falls from the sky the clan use young Theresa's faith that the money was gift from the heavens to allow all their dreams to come true. Years pass and we find Theresa returned home to her native Buffalo. She comes to the realization that the gift needs to be repaid and calls together her friends and family, (Academy Award winners Shirley Jones, Louise Fletcher and Cloris Leachman) to return the debt before Easter Sunday. The money has long since been spent and all the characters find themselves in financial difficulties. Shirley Jones and Frank Gorshin, are a husband and wife con team that teach the all important lesson's in life, of how to dress for winter in Buffalo and my personal favorite, \"they expect you to take the silverware,\" when visiting a restaurant. The audience can only hope that if Theresa does reach her goal that that someone won't run off with the money. The movie teaches us that it is not money, but ourselves that make our and other's dreams come true. Every action has an outcome not just for you, but the community around you. When looking into the mirror we see ourselves as we'd like to be, MANNA FROM HEAVEN, answers the question of how other's can see the image we'd most like to reflect. The Burtons have done a superb job directing the cast to break out of their shells and create new and inventive characters. In the day of multi-million dollar budgets, this low budget Indy proves it is not the cash in hand, but true talent that will draw the biggest laughs. Wendie Malick (The American President, Just Shoot Me) adds a special flavor to this already talented cast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My wife and I struggle to find movies like this that are clean and yet enjoyable for adults. If you can't find a cinema that is playing it, call your cinema and request it. Bravo, Five Sisters Productions for courage, tenacity and creative endeavor!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't know much about this movie going in- my roommate kind of dragged me into it. I was so pleasantly surprised! The plot really grabbed my attention and held it, and the characters are well-drawn and realistic. The screenplay is very clever and funny, and the cast does great things with it. And the best part is that it managed to be entertaining without any explicit sex or violence! If this movie comes anywhere into your area you really should go see it- stand up for this little film, it is worth it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If Hollywood had the wellbeing of the audience at heart we would see 20 films a year with the kind of wholesome fortitude that is behind this film. There are several experiences of personal growth in this movie and while the characters ARE still very human even the lessons learned are not that greed will profit you, or do-unto-others-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-you-are-okay-with-it, no, this is what our sad, desensitized lives need, more sense... more love... more do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-done-unto-you... more HOPE. (thanks Ursula!) This movie has an intelligent wit, not \"yo' mama\" cracks that run rampant in the so-called comedies. People need to feel good. This movie will make you feel good and possibly inspire you to better your life, and the lives of others. sidenote Every person counts in ticket sales. This is a truly independent film. If you want more quality films you have to support them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At a time when Hollywood thinks that louder, faster, and bloodier are better, Manna From Heaven is comedic and touching look at something we've all thought about: What would I do if a load of money fell from the sky.

Interestingly, it took the characters many years to realize that the money hadn't made a single difference in their lives. They all become what they were destined to be. Unfortunately, in most cases, what they became was unhappy, in spite of their good fortune all those years ago.

While Manna offers the familiar Hollywood storyline of Good vs. Evil, or in the case, Generosity vs Greed, what sets this film apart is that Good wins out by converting Evil, not by crushing it.

I think the important message of this film is that you can change the world... even if you do it one person at a time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Witticisms, colorful characters, family relationships, coping with hardships, living with fun and humor. This film has it all and more. What a great 'every man (and woman)' story, with a top notch plot and script. It offers just clean fun, lots of laughter, many smiles and pure entertainment for the whole family. Other reviewers describe the story some. I'll just offer this comparison teaser \u0097 it's part \"Best of Show,\" \"Grumpy Old Men,\" \"Millions,\" and some other comedy and life flicks rolled into one.

This gem of a film most likely had limited release and is probably not very available to rent. But, it's now out on DVD and I highly recommend it for purchase. If you like good old-fashioned fun and entertaining films for the family, you can't miss with \"Manna from Heaven.\" This film is a sure fire cure for the blues or to chase the gloom away on nasty weather days or rough times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Inspired casting, charming and witty throughout. Much like the currency in the opening moments of the film, the story floats along magically until you are emotionally \"invested\" in its outcome. The city of Buffalo has never looked better! Kudos to the Burton Sisters and the entire cast for a job well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw the movie last night w\/o knowing anything about it (nothing else out seemed interesting and I had a Buffalo connection to this movie - UB grad). It was a very enjoyable movie. Liked the pace (it picks up after a slow beginning) and story. Well written plot and good character development and relationships. Highly recommend it to anyone who likes to see movies that have interesting stories. Found myself talking about this movie afterwards over a few beers - most discussions don't last more than a few minutes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thoroughly enjoyed Manna from Heaven. The hopes and dreams and perspectives of each of the characters is endearing and we, the audience, get to know each and every one of them, warts and all. And the ending was a great, wonderful and uplifting surprise! Thanks for the experience; I'll be looking forward to more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Its a feel-good movie that made me feel good. Some in this genre can be sickly sweet, but this script is restrained. The movie is funny and fun. The acting is great.

If this were a musical, I would have left the theater humming the tunes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Manna From Heaven is a light comedy that uses exaggeration of human foibles to entertain the audience. Throughout the film there is the expectation that goodness will surface in each situation. The result is that the movie goer finds himself\/herself sitting with this silly grin on his\/her face, peace in his\/her heart, and high expectations for human kind. Watching this movie was a most pleasant experience. (I would venture to say uplifting experience, but some would say that sounds corny!!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a great movie, and safe for the entire family (which one doesn't see much of anymore. My wife and I and 15 year-old son loved it. Even though you had an inkling of how it would end, it continued to be a fun journey, and the final ending surprised us. There should be more movies like this!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No bullets, no secret agents, a story that is entertaining, funny, and believable. Met some of the producers\/actors in this film at the theater. They seemed as interesting in person as their characters on screen. You may not hear about this movie on TV with high-dollar ad spots, but it is definitely worth checking out. I have spent $8 for a movie ticket on a lot of other movies that weren't this entertaining. Looking forward to future projects by this production company.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Really enjoyed Manna From Heaven. If you liked My Big Fat Greek Wedding you will like this too! Once the story line is set it begins to keep you guessing the outcome. I think we'll be hearing more from Five Sisters Productions. I know I'll be watching for their next movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"MANNA FROM HEAVEN is a terrific film that is both predictable and unpredictable at the same time. You know that the characters after finding out that the so-called \"Gift From God\" was actually a loan, will pay back the money and that everyone will be happy at the end, but how they get there is not as obvious. The scenes are often funny and occasionally touching as the characters evaluate their lives and where they are going. The cast of veteran actors are more than just a nostalgia trip. Frank Gorshin, Shirley Jones, and Cloris Leachman prove that they are capable of more than playing the Riddler, Mother Partridge, or Mary's friend Phyllis while Jill Eikenberry and Wendie Malick play characters different than we have seen on their TV series. Ursula Burton's portrayal of the nun is both touching and funny at the same time with out making fun of nuns or the church. If you are looking for a movie with a terrific cast, some good music(including a Shirley Jones rendition of \"The Way You Look Tonight\"), and an uplifting ending, give this one a try. I don't think you will be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was really a pleasure to see; the dialogue was - for the most part - absolutely outstanding (I thought the women's roles were a little better written, which is a nice surprise). The performances were uniformly very good, too. Frank Gorshin overdoes it a little when he goes into his various cons, but this might be his overcompensating for what I see as weaknesses in how the character is written; he's VERY good otherwise. Harry Groener does similarly well with a slightly underwritten character (Tony), overdoing some of the character's angrier scenes slightly. Ursula Burton is excellent as Sister Theresa, really carrying the film through some of its weaknesses. Seymour Cassel and Louise Fletcher are a little underused here, though I liked their work as always. Shirley Jones, Wendie Malick, Jill Eikenberry and Faye Grant are very good also (I couldn't help thinking Grant reminded me a little of Catherine O'Hara here); Cloris Leachman rather tears into her role, with reasonably good results.

I wish there had been more of a sure hand behind the camera, though. Sometimes the framing or staging seemed a bit off, or awkward. The closeups seemed overused (or erratically used) to me. And we don't always go from scene to scene as smoothly as we'd like. Some of the \"tough guy\" approach to the federal agent (music, costuming) was too over the top for me as well. And the few fantasy sequences didn't really work. But there are things that were VERY well done; the opening sequence set in Buffalo around 1970, for example. And, frankly, all of the scenes regarding Theresa's church work (I suspect the writer and actress liked the character a lot, which helps). The scenes between Malick and Eikenberry are VERY good.

The plot is probably a bit overcontrived - there seem to be a few too many schemes going on at once to keep them all straight at times, and the coincidences got to be a little too much. And I was a little bothered by the ending (should we REALLY be rooting for their biggest con yet to succeed?), but the ride along the way is very enjoyable. It would be nice to see more independent movies like this one made.

7 of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1959 was a landmark in the world of film. Several great directors of the classic era were releasing career capping classics that ranked among their best. Just a look at the titles is instructive, Hitchcock's North By Northwest, Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot, Howard Hawks' Rio Bravo, Douglas Sirk's Imitation of Life. Add a couple from the previous year, Orson Welles' Touch of Evil, Hitch's Vertigo, and Nick Ray's Wind Across the Everglades, and you've got a pretty good summing up of what was possible within the classic Hollywood style.

At the same time, two films appeared that hinted at a whole new way of making films. One was Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless, the other was John Cassavetes Shadows. The two films had certain things in common, largely improvised acting by non stars, handheld cameras, low budgets, and a certain youthful, jazzy swagger. In certain ways, though, they couldn't be farther apart. Godard was still a believer in the director as arbiter of style. He knew more about film than most Hollywood producers, and Breathless was filled with the iconography of the classic crime film. Cassavetes, on the other hand, was an actor, and a refugee from New York's underground theater scene. His first film shows him little impressed with the cinema, and a big believer in actors. Godard's film constantly references it's own artifice, whereas Shadows aims for a certain kind of naturalism.

It doesn't reach it, mainly because naturalism is a myth, particularly in cinema. But it feels powerful, kinetic but lilting like the cool jazz on the score, certainly the main inspiration for the filmmaking style on display here. It ultimately doesn't hold together, mainly because Cassavetes' actors here are amateurish beatniks, where Cassavetes style requires strong, imaginative actors. His later work with Gena Rowlands, Ben Gazarra, and Peter Falk blows this out of the water. Due to the director's technical inexperience, some bits of dialogue had to be redubbed later, which defeats the freshness of the improvisation. Still it's fascinating to watch, both for the great moments (like the scene where Leila Goldoni talks about her dissapointment with losing her virginity) and to watch a groundbreaking artist finding his way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The remarkable, sometimes infuriating, often brilliant films of John Cassavetes occupy a unique position in American cinema\u0085 Low-budget, partly improvised, inspired by cin\u00e9ma verit\u00e9 documentary, and related to underground film, they have nevertheless frequently managed to reach a wide and profoundly appreciative audience\u0085

After drama studies, the young Cassavetes quickly made his name as an unusually unrefined, intense actor, often appearing in films about disaffected, rebellious youth such as \"Crime in the Streets\" and \"Edge of the City.\"

Setting up an actors' workshop, he worked to transform an improvisational experiment into his feature debut\u0085 The result, \"Shadows,\" taking three years to complete and partly financed by his performances in TV's Johnny Staccato, was a breakthrough in American cinema\u0085 About the effect of racism on an already fraught relationship between two black men and their sister, two of whom pass for white, the film is impressive for its irregular, seemingly formless style and naturalistic performances\u0085 Plot was minimal, mood and emotional apparent truth were everything\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had never seen a film by John Cassavetes up until two years ago, when I first saw THE KILLING OF A Chinese BOOKIE in a Berlin cinema, which I found interesting, to put it diplomatically, but not so special, I instantly wanted to see more of his work. Since then, I tried - with an emphasis on tried - watching his other work, SHADOWS in particular. I must admit, it took me a a while before I actually enjoyed the film. At first the unpolished, raw and improvised way Cassavetes it was shot, put me off somewhat and I thought of it as an original - absolutely - but flawed and dated experiment. But now, upon reviewing, these little imperfections make it look so fresh, even today.

Shot on a minimal budget of $40,000 with a skeleton six person crew, SHADOWS offers an observation of the tensions and lives of three siblings in an African-American family in which two of the three siblings, Ben (Ben Carruthers) and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni), are light-skinned and able to pass for white. Cassavetes demanded that the actors retain their real names to reflect the actual conflicts within the group but saw the film as being concerned with human problems as opposed imply to racial ones. Cassavetes shot the film in ten minute takes and jagged editing, a reaction against 'seamless' Hollywood production values. Cassavetes main inspiration - at least in the cinematic style the film was shot - were the Italian neo-realists whilst also professing admiration for Welles' pioneering spirit. The use of amateurs and improvisation might resemble some of the Italian neo-realist directors, but with his bebop score by Charles Mingus ans Shafi Hadi, the film feels very different, very American, unlike anything made before really.

The song with the feathered girls, \"I feel like a lolly-pop\" (or something) feels like light years back to me, ancient history. But no matter how dated it might look, it still makes a delightful time capsule of late Fifties New York today. I think it's this is one of the first films made aspiring filmmakers realize they could shoot an independent film, without Hollywood, improvised and without a real budget. Seymour Cassel, who acted and was involved in SHADOWS, claims it was Jules Dassin's THE NAKED CITY (1948) that was the first and inspired them all, but I think this was the one that really opened the eyes of aspiring independent American filmmakers.

Camera Obscura --- 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Cassavette's decided as his first film, obviously as one shot on a shoestring in New York, to not even have a script with dialog, and delivers a 1959 feature equivalent of Larry David's Curb Your Enthusiasm- all the actors know what to do and say and even have the right look in their eyes when they talk. In other words, it's one of the most realistic looks at the beat generation, jazzed sweetly in it's score and telling a tale of racial tensions. A group of black siblings are the center-point, with one trying to get better gigs than the average strip-club, and has a sister, much more light-skinned than him, who gets entwined with a white man in a relationship, which shatters both sides. The film, however, isn't exclusively about that; Cassavettes likes to have his characters wander around New York City (which not many films did in 1959\/1960) and his style of storytelling is like that of the improvisational jazz artists of the day. Dated, to be sure, but worth a glance for film buffs; Martin Scorsese named this as one of his heaviest influences.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It ends with the declaration that \"the film you have just seen was an improvisation\"-at once making you feel like an idiot for thinking an improvisation was an good movie, and astounded at Cassavetes' genius...once again. Of course, Cassavetes told some guy it wasn't really an improvisation per se, on his deathbed, so...it's the story about a light-skinned black woman, Lelia, who passes for white, and her family: another passing-for-white brother named Ben, and a black-black brother named Hughie. When she falls in love with a white jerk named Tony, he is unpleasantly surprised when he finds out she's black, and from there it goes on about the three main characters' individual aspirations and shortcomings. Hughie is a jazz singer in the process of becoming a failure, Lelia's still hopelessly depressed over Tony, and Ben is angsty and violent in general, in desperate need of something to shock him out of his stale patterns of existence. Overall, I suppose it's really about stasis vs. change in human life. I suspect that Cassavetes had the plot organized enough, and it was just the dialogue that was improvised. The dialogue itself is very uneven - sometimes somebody will say something very memorable, other times it's memorably awkward. What's amazing is the extent of the amateur actors' embodiment of their characters. Cassavetes went through the acting class he was teaching at the time he decided to do Shadows, whispered in the ears of the ten best students, and this was the result...the guys playing Ben and Hughie are very good. At first I didn't like Lelia, but as the film progressed you see more and more she's one of those actors who gets better as the tension and drama builds - not necessarily the best with small talk. Shadows is hailed by many as the forerunner of the indie film movement (made in 1959) and it's definitely recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1st watched 8\/26\/2001 - 8 out of 10 (Dir-John Cassavetes): Well-done early independent film by Cassavetes introduced a style that was much different than what Hollywood shows it's audience. This movie also introduced some very taboo subjects, especially the actual racism that probably was prevalent all over the country but was not displayed by the mostly white controlled filmmakers of the time. About the only black actors that had much respect at this time were the ones that acted and displayed personality like whites(aka. Sidney Poitier). Besides this, the idea of ending a film without truly concluding the relationships that began leaves many moviegoers dumbfounded but actually makes the viewers realize that life is like this(it goes on...). I prefer this kind of an ending because it makes you think more about the characters and what may happen next and the conclusions are not just laid out for you. The movie follows the lives of people(particulary a couple of people who have a brief relationship and happen to be opposite skin colors) then we watch what happens when the white man realizes what he's done. This is done very well and makes the movie very special. The acting is supposedly done improvisationally which makes the movie even more amazing. I guess you can say I liked this movie, if you can't tell. If you can find it check out this classic early independent film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In many ways, the filmic career of independent film-making legend John Cassavetes is the polar opposite of someone like Alfred Hitchcock, the consummate studio director. Where Hitchcock infamously treated his actors as cattle, Cassavetes sought to work with them improvisationally. Where every element in a Hitchcock shot is composed immaculately, Cassavetes cared less for the way a scene was figuratively composed than in how it felt, or what it conveyed, emotionally. Hitchcock's tales were always plot-first narratives, with the human element put in the background. Cassavetes put the human experience forefront in every one of his films. If some things did not make much sense logically, so be it.

One can see this even from his very first film, 1959's Shadows, filmed with a 16mm hand-held camera, on a shoe string budget of about $40,000, in Manhattan, with Cassavetes' acting workshop repertory company, and touted as an improvisatory film. The story is rather simple, as it follows the lives of three black sibling Manhattanites- Benny (Ben Carruthers)- a trumpeter and no account, Hugh (Hugh Hurd)- a washed up singer, and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni)- the younger sister of both. The film's three main arcs deal with Hugh's failures as a nightclub crooner, and his friendship with his manager Rupert (Rupert Crosse); Benny's perambulations in an about Manhattan with his two no account pals; and Lelia's lovelife- first with a white boy Tony (Anthony Ray), who does not realize light-skinned Lelia's race, even after bedding her; then with stiff and proper Davey (Davey Jones), who may be a misogynist.

In the first arc, nothing much happens, except dark-skinned Hugh gets to pontificate on how degraded he feels to be singing in low class nightclubs, and opening shows for girly acts. He dreams of making it big in New York, or even Paris, but one can tell he is the type of man who will continue deluding himself of his meager skill, for the one time we actually get to hear him sing, he shows he's a marginal talent, at best. That Rupert keeps encouraging him gives us glimpses into how destructive friendships work. But, this is the least important of the three arcs\u0085. While this film is better overall than, say, Martin Scorsese's first film, a decade later, Who's That Knocking At My Door?- another tale of failed romance and frustrated New Yorkers, it has none of the brilliant moments- acting-wise nor cinematographically- that that film has. It also is not naturalistic, for naturalism in art is a very difficult thing to achieve, especially in film, although the 1950s era Manhattan exteriors, at ground level, is a gem to relive. While Shadows may, indeed, be an important film in regards to the history of the independent film circuit, it certainly is nowhere near a great film. Parts of it are preachy, poorly acted, scenes end willy-nilly, almost like blackout sketches, and sometimes are cut off seemingly in the middle. All in all it's a very sloppy job- especially the atrocious jazz score that is often out of synch with the rest of the film, as Cassavetes proved that as a director, at least in his first film, he was a good actor. The only reason for anyone to see Shadows is because Cassavetes ultimately got better with later films, and this gives a clue as to his later working style.

The National Film Registry has rightly declared this film worthy of preservation as 'culturally significant'. This is all in keeping with the credo of art Cassavetes long championed, as typified by this quote: 'I've never seen an exploding helicopter. I've never seen anybody go and blow somebody's head off. So why should I make films about them? But I have seen people destroy themselves in the smallest way. I've seen people withdraw. I've seen people hide behind political ideas, behind dope, behind the sexual revolution, behind fascism, behind hypocrisy, and I've myself done all these things. So I can understand them. What we are saying is so gentle. It's gentleness. We have problems, terrible problems, but our problems are human problems.' That this film is 'culturally significant' is true, but that truth is not synonymous with its being 'artistically significant'. It is in the difference between these two definitions where great art truly thrives.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the end credits of \"Shadows\", after we read 'directed by John Cassavetes', some white letters on the screen can be seen: \"The film you have just seen is improvised\", they say. I am always pursuing the fact that words are so important in movies since filmmakers started using them because, basically, there's no film without a screenplay and many other reasons.

Cassavetes pursued the same goal, and he believed in the freedom of words; \"Shadows\" is the perfect example. It's a film with no real main characters, with no real main plot lines; it's mostly people in different situations, talking. Yes, some of the situations are connected but Cassavetes, apparently always in a rush to get to the talking, uses a fast forward technique when the characters are going somewhere or escaping from someone and are not speaking.

Appearances are everything in this movie. For example, there's a brilliant score, full of jazz influences and a lot of fantastic solos, and there's one character that says he's a jazz musician and plays the trumpet (Ben, all the characters' names are the same names the actors'). However, we never see him play the trumpet or jam with a band; he doesn't even talk about music and just wanders with his friends around the city. They do talk, a lot, and about anything that's in their minds; going from how intelligent each of them are to the hilarious analysis of a sculpture.

\"Shadows\" is funny in its intellectual references in parts like the one above, because these friends are not cultured. The only important female character in the film (Lelia), though, wants to be an intellectual. But again, she has one very interesting conversation with an older man at a party, about a book she's trying to write, and about how to confront reality; but nothing to do with being intellectual. At that same party, a woman is actually making an intellectual statement, full of complexity, and asks a guy beside her: \"Do you agree?\". \"Yes\", he says, but you can tell he doesn't know what she's talking about.

Another character, a singer (Hugh), talks about his glory days in occasions, and we see him perform only once; but no references to the musical industry there. The focus of Cassavetes is the singer's relationship with his manager (Rupert), which most of the time involves chats about trivial stuff and not real 'musical' talks. So the trumpet player's important deal in \"Shadows\" is the time he spends with his friends; the intellectual wannabe girl's is her way of handling romantic relationships (one of the movie's strong points) and the singer's is the bond with his manager\u0085Appearances.

The reason why performances are not important in this movie is simple. Cassavetes needed people who could master improvisation, without mattering if they were actually good. I believe some of them aren't, but they surely know how to improvise in a scene, and you can notice how well they do it. \"Shadows\" is not about performers; it's about a way of making cinema, based on the magic of conversation; and there you could say that performances mean something.

That's why in every conversation the camera is like a stalker, constantly on the eyes of every character, constantly looking for the expressions that come with natural speech. There's a scene where the trumpet player and his friends are trying to pick up some girls. They are three, so each of them sits beside one girl (the girls are three two) in three different tables. They all talk at the same time and the camera shoots through the table, and sometimes the friends look at each other, while they say whatever they are saying\u0085It's natural.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What is there to say about an anti-establishment film that was produced in a time of such colourless void, social indifference and authoritarian contentment. Cassevettes first major independent film was not an instant box office success and still has not received the critical attention it deserves. I draw comparisons to this wave of American independent projects consisting of such 'Beat' filmmakers as Robert Frank and Harry Smith with the burgeoning scene emerging in Paris in the late 1950's known as the French new wave.

They discussed poetry and philosophy and vulnerability at a time when the rest of the culture was obsessed with rediscovering American cultural supremacy; even at this stage this peculiar, highly spontaneous brand of filmmaking fought against the establishment of such political lexicons and bigots that held the development of the arts in check in the mid twentieth century.

Cassevettes film examines race relations and portrays man as weak in the face of love because we, as a culture, are blinded by our own race bias and prejudice. The great element to most of Cassevettes work is that his films have almost a reversal minimalist effect; a mental reaction is evoked through subtle character relations, not so much imagery. This is why his work seems to linger because he takes a more intimate approach to defining charcters that rely less heavily on explicit actions and more upon interpretation.

Although my favourite Cassevettes film is 'Husbands', this one is his most important.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watching John Cassavetes debut film is a strange experience, even if you've seen improvisational films before.

The first thing you notice is it's roughness. Right off, it's obvious some of the characters are screwing up their lines. But then you step back from the situation, as you sink deeper into these people's intimate exchanges and you ask yourself: \"Do I ever stumble over MY words?\" The answer of course, is sure, we all do. It's unfortunate that most of the gaffes in this respect come early in the picture, because, by about twenty minutes, you've sunk so deep in you wouldn't know it if a bomb went off behind you.

The next thing you notice...or maybe you notice it hours or days after the film ends, is that you never saw any substantial plot, yet the themes and the poetry of the dialog and characters never leave you. In fact, the treatment of the role race plays in the everyday lives of these characters is always there, but it's so ephemeral that even they aren't aware of how it's informing their opinions of themselves, their self-consciousness, their perceived status, or the fate of their relationships.

The title is appropriate because you get a full spectrum of blacks, whites, and grays...and not just in the skin pigmentation of the characters. Leila Goldoni (truly remarkable here) is an afro-American\/Caucasian, her two brothers are white and dark afro-American. The irony is that they exist in what is undoubtedly the \"hippest\" most tolerant atmosphere of the time...beat-driven upper east-west Manhatten...and there are still conflicts within and around themselves.

I don't think I've ever seen a movie with such a subtle delivery or technique. It's a lot like absorbing a really great piece of gallery art and then just nodding off in bliss as you think back to the images it evoked days later.

Great mastering and extras on the Criterion disc. Arguably the first truly experimental independent film ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Shadows\" is often acclaimed as the film that was the breakthrough for American independent cinema. Whether thats true or not, it is an undeniably important film, one whose influence can be traced all the way to today's Sundance fodder. Here is a film which tackles controversial topics of the day (namely racism), and refuses to give easy answers and show them in a manipulative fashion. Also, it deals with sex in a frank manner that Hollywood wouldn't even discuss until \"The Graduate\".

Still, the question remains is it as powerful today as when it was originally released? The answer is yes. While many important films are hard to watch and dated nowadays, \"Shadows\" retains every ounce of emotional resonance when viewed now. It deals with racism as a personal issue and not a political one, so its still relevant. Plus, it works as a great time capsule, capturing the 1950s beat generation and New York art scene in a way possibly no other film has.

On a technical level, its admittedly uneven. Cassavetes had yet to gain full confidence as a director and the choppy editing reflects the film's low budget. Still, the film's story is remains powerful. Plus, the acting, considering the inexperience of the cast and improvisational nature, is phenomenal. All around, the actors create realistic characters, ones who remain sympathetic despite their often less than admirable actions. \"Shadows\" is absolutely mandatory viewing for film buffs. (9\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shadows breathes the smell of New York's streets like no film before it. This kick off of Cassavetes' directorial work is as atmospheric as political and the initial spark for a renewal in American cinema.

Maybe it solicits for watching Cassavetes' first work in a double feature with another debut, Godard's \u00c0 bout de souffl\u00e9. Both films shaped the cinematic production of their countries beyond decades and both breathe a peculiar lightness and jauntiness which was later rarely achieved by those filmmakers in their career.

Shadows tells from three Afro-American siblings, Ben (Ben Carruthers), Lelia (Lelia Goldoni) and Hugh (Hugh Hurd). The story is set in the New York jazz milieu and the driving rhythms on the soundtrack play a main part for the feverish, sometimes almost dreamlike atmosphere which draws through the entire film. There's not much happening in the plot. The everyday life of the three siblings is defined by problems in love relationship or in their jobs, but on both levels normality deceives. Without moralizing gestus, Cassavetes simply describes the mechanism of racial exclusion, in public and in private life. It was, regarding to the cinematic depiction of racism, a breakthrough film in the US.

This film owes also a lot to the performances of the three leading actors which were all almost completely unknown before. Especially Ben Carruthers established with his energetic portrayal the image of a new self-conception of young, urban blacks in America, an image which characterizes Spike Lee's films of the 80s and 90s. Revealingly, none of those three doubtlessly extremely talented actors was able to start a big career afterwards. Hollywood wasn't and isn't ready to ethnically expand its star system, and that is why Goldoni, Hurd and Carruthers only found small artistic niches in TV and independent films later on.

Perhaps Shadows is one of the less \"beautiful\" films ever shot, and one of the most beautiful ones at the same time; a film of shades and spaces, with a camera that merely watches the stream of life in the crowded street corners, bars, hotel lobbies, apartments, inducing an intriguing ramble through New York's vibrant streets.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seven months since a revelatory viewing of Faces, I finally found a rentable DVD copy of Cassavetes' first feature. Shot on a shoestring in Manhattan and in his acting workshop on ad hoc sets, Shadows was the culmination of months of improvisational rehearsals, in which the (mostly amateur) actors developed bonds with one another, invented their characters, and polished their techniques to give their filmed performances just the right tenor of spontaneous familiarity. This intimate approach led to some incredibly daring work in Faces\u0097i.e., Seymour Cassel cramming his hands down Lynn Carlin's throat in an attempt to revive her from an overdose\u0097just as the actors' utter conviction here yields blisteringly honest moments like Lelia and Tony's post-coital assessment of their relationship and Ben's revulsion at a black woman's touch as a manifestation of his racial confusion and self-loathing. A homemade production in the best sense, the out-of-sync dubbing and sound recording, and the granular cinematography and up-close camera setups, build an immersive atmosphere that perfectly suits Cassavetes' nuanced vision of human relationships as perpetual works in progress, marked by desperate emotional fluctuations and wistful attempts at communication and understanding. Charles Mingus's largely improvised jazz score is an ideal complement to the film's vision of living by the moment, a mantra by which Cassavetes worked and seemingly lived.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It should be noted that this movie was not \"improvised\" (as you're probably thinking of it), despite what the title at the end suggests. The movie was heavily scripted and rehearsed - Cassavetes didn't have enough money to support the inevitably high production costs of an \"improvisational\" sort of movie, even if he had wanted to produce such a thing. The \"improvisation\" of the movie is contained in the actors' performances, and the emotions that they draw out of the lines.

That said, allow me to say that this is a stunning work that I'm sure I'll come back to again and again. The depths of emotion that Cassavetes is able to draw out of the smallest gestures and interactions is incredible. I have no idea how he was able to direct such amazing performances out of the actors, especially under the conditions he worked. This is truly a magnificent landmark of film that I would recommend to anyone interested in exploring beyond the Hollywood mold.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hey; Belmondo! Look there's Anna Karina! Great American improvised New Wave (or Independent you want to call it that), not as good as Godard or Truffaut, and not flawless, but hey such realism, style, warmth and humor. I love that NY accent; \"you don't know nothing!\"; \"forget about it\". Just like the French New Wave, it's about young people; partying, falling in love or just hanging around. Lelia Goldoni is so cute; she's adorable; wonderful. Ben Carruthers' also good, reminds me of Belmondo. A film you won't forget.

A steady 26.5 out of 31 ;-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Improvisation was used to a groundbreaking degree in this film, but it only functions as a novelty. No greater truth about the situation is got by asking the actors to improvise. The performances are not improved by improvisation, because the actors now have twice as much to worry about: not only whether they're delivering the line well, but whether the line itself is any good. So that's why the performances in many Robert Altman films are often really hestitant - because the actors aren't really confident saying lines which they've made up, and therefore aren't sure are any good.

And, quite honestly, often its not very good. Often the dialogue doesn't really follow from one line to another, or fit the surroundings.

It crackles with an unpredictable, youthful energy - but honestly, i found it hard to follow and concentrate on it meanders so badly.

Nevertheless, a fascinating raw piece of film, and commendable 100% for taking the power over the green light into the street.

There are some generally great things in it. This joke, for example:

I'm a dancer. What sort of a dancer, like a ballet dancer? Oh no... exotic.

And the whole party scene its in, the following trip to the park, and the scene where the boys go looking at statues.

2\/5. I wouldn't say they're worth 2 hours of your time, though.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"12\/17\/01 All I can do with this film is improvise on my impressions. I wasn't given the \"changes,\" don't know the \"score,\" and am not schooled in the genre. I always had problems following chord changes anyway (trumpet player, y'know), so I was pretty well limited to doing the basic \"keep the tune in mind\" and ad lib around that. What jammed me up about this incredibly moody black and white blues piece was the knot it gave me in my head and heart in trying to figure out whether to go with the ensemble or pick out a path along the tune (story.) I guess I went with the tune as usual; I kept getting lost on the changes--too deep, extensive, over my head, probably. Still, it was a gas to try to keep pace. I admired the actors' playing to the theme and story line. I didn't see some things or heare things others seem to: I didn't feel the light skin gal was \"trying to pass\" as much as she was either oblivious to the color issue or was trying to ignore it--at first: later she came back fighting. The brooding light skin young man (his trumpet noodling mas ludicrous) was ambiguous, ambivalent, and --perhaps his best feature--remote. What, I thought after the shadow-curtain closed on this provocative piece--is the foundation of a thing like this? Is it a way of finding \"reality\" by setting up a stage, peopling it with expressive characters and giving them a melody and theme? Is it any more real or truthful than a well-crafted script--without the benefit of editing and revising? Is improvisation heroic, \"artier\"?--moreso than crafted work? Where is there greater or clearer truth: in retrospective art\/craft or in fabrication and reformation? Well, I am still lost in this question. I loved the film; it got me lost in a cool blue foggy evening, where I just had to go home and get out my horn. Guess what? I broke out in a twelve-bar blues riff, tried and true--couldn't make myself stray from the tune. Reality is just too scary. jaime says give them a 7 and more. I'm on break.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"slow moving but smart. passes you by as if you lived it. filled with thought provoking Ideas art Race and being cool. that one thing hit me hard was the ideas about the rock n' roll lifestyles.

all the performances were improvised i will say it again ALL THE PERFORMANCES WERE IMPROVISED sounds like a gimmick but its not it makes these characters real and like some one you would hang with. this also an amazing thing when you think about how strong the character are in this film. right from the beginning in the title sequence it immediately establish Ben as an outcast by the way he moves though the crowd

Okay it breaks down like this if your a person who lives the jazz\/rocker lifestyle of cool you will like it if your smart and understand great cinema from total crap you will love it and if your both then it might be you fav

but if your none of these then you will probably think its boring and say it doesn't follow \"one line\" and write a crap review like Ben_Cheshire","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Twins Effect, starring some of HK's most popular stars provides one of the most enjoyable film experiences to come out of HK in sometime. It has something for everyone, action, comedy, horror, romance, and some drama. This film can't be taken too seriously, otherwise you'd go in dissapointed, but if you leave your brain at the door, and just watch the film for some fun, you're bound to enjoy it.

Great special effects, excellent action, cute Twins, cool HK actors, FUN film!

I'd recommend it to anyone!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A vampire prince falls for a human girl, unaware that her brother is a famous vampire hunter. That's the underlying theme of this martial arts romp which borrows ideas from \"Underworld\" and \"Buffy The Vampire Slayer\" but manages to maintain a style of its own. I was bemused by the UK and Hong Kong title \"The Twins Effect\" as there are no twins involved in the story. It turns out that the two main female characters are played by Hong Kong pop stars who perform as \"The Twins\". Don't let this put you off. These girls can act (at least well enough for this type of film) and add a lot of charm to the proceedings. Jackie Chan turns up for a couple of cameo appearances adding a dash of his own brand of slapstick mayhem to the proceedings. All in all this is great fun for those who like their vampires served up with a helping of tongue-in-cheek humour.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lotsa action, cheesy love story, unexpected actors and overall great fun. The special effect are acceptable\/decent, some of the fighting is kinda neat with some interesting acrobatic moves. The overall story moves along, and is cheesy enough to keep you wondering when the inevitable is going to happen, although there is a bit of a twist (just a small one). The overall naivety of the movie make it quite whimsical at times. Cute enough chicks too what more could you want. PS. if you're gonna review a movie like this, try to review it in terms of the category the movie would fall (not necessarily where it was intended to fall). ie don't bomb out good cheesy movies!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not sure what version of the film I saw, but it was very entertaining.

I did not know who the \"Twins\" were (Gillian Chung and Charlene Choi) before seeing this movie and I think the English translation of the title is somewhat misleading.

The martial arts are very nicely done. I especially liked them, because there was a lot of judo\/grappling that was filmed very nicely. Donnie Yen (see him in Hero, great performance) as a director is great as he knows how to shoot these scenes.

Everything seemed to flow for me, except there is one scene where the girls are on the rooftop fighting with bamboo poles. It has really nothing to do with the plot, but it's still entertaining.

Overall, this is one of the better (modern) HK action flicks I've seen in a while. Although cheesy in some respects, it still pulls it off.

Definitely a 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like a very expensive Buffy episode peppered with plenty of humor. Lots of wire and stunt kung fu. The Twins Effect goes on the list of classic must see HK films. The vampires have a cool blend of hopping ghost type and the pretty boy European style. If you get the opportunity to see this one in the theatre it is worth a 30 minute drive, otherwise buy the import DVD before someone screws it up by giving it a bad dub.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you go into the Twins Effect looking for a pure Hong Kong movie experience you will be disappointed. This is not to say it is bad, but it is NOT a traditional Hong Kong action movie, running in a similar vein to Shaolin Soccer and Kung Fu Hustle. It's resolutely silly and juvenile, so if you want a good bit of serious Hong Kong action, look to a John Woo or Yuen Woo Ping movie. This movie's got a lot of flak for it's silliness and I thought the first thing I should do would be to explain what you're getting into, as it's disappointed a lot of purists.

For the non-purists and those with more forgiving tastes though, Twins Effect is a delightfully silly kung-fu comedy. I liked it a lot for a variety of reasons, not least it's wonderful female leads who spark off each other in a thoroughly entertaining comedy double act. I believe this is the first movie of it's type they've been in, but they hop, kick and fly about like seasoned pros.

The patently ridiculous plot is handled with a great deal of care and attention, and the movie is quite knowingly written, making a lot of the movie laugh out loud. The comedy really is the most prominent thing here, and it's a subtle, gentle comedy as reliant on words as inanimate objects going flying a la Stephen Chow. It has to be said the slapstick is immense fun too. The sequence with the disco-dancing vampires is a total classic.

The action is a blend of two genres really. It falls between the 'period drama' wire-and-sword fighting (which comes in more toward the end) and the comedy fighting style of Jackie Chan, coming out with a blend that though a little derivative at times is always exciting to watch and occasionally throws up some genuinely innovative encounters.

All this is great, and the movie is tremendous fun all the way through. Despite this, it does have a few sticking points. For instance, Twins Effect is in many ways much more westernised than kung-fu fans are perhaps used to, the inevitable comparison to the Blade series is definitely sound as an example, though Twins Effect is honestly much better than Blade ever managed, especially for fighting action. Personally, it was also a bit of a shame to see the excellent Anthony Wong (the hissable villain from John Woo's classic Hard Boiled) so underused, but the younger audience this is aimed at are unlikely to notice this or indeed know about Hard Boiled or his other movies, so this is only really a personal gripe.

If you watch this with an open mind, you'll probably enjoy it greatly like I did, but you must be firmly aware it is a COMEDY, not a balls to the wall kung-fu movie. Keep that in mind and you'll be fine.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie, as my Chinese girlfriend informed me, features two well-known Hong Kong pop stars. While this may make the movie a mere marketing stunt, I found the acting acceptable, and they're both cute.

The story is pretty poor overall. The vampiric traits and weaknesses are, however, used in humorous ways, and created some uniquely entertaining bits. The quarreling between the two girls made me chuckle, and this gave a fine balance together with the well-executed action scenes to create an entertaining movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With a film starring the Twins, Ekin Cheng and Edison Chen, nobody should expect a masterpiece of cinema. What you do get, however, is a fun film which is easy on the eye and the brain. There are loads of Hollywood-style vampires (no hopping Chinese bloodsuckers here), cute girls, handsome heroes and the occasionally very funny moment. And Jackie Chan.

Sure, the kung-fu relies heavily on wire work and CGI. Sure, the script reminds you of Blade. And sure, the whole affair is instantly forgettable.

But for a truly enjoyable piece of cinematic fluff, you would be hard pushed to find better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well don't expect anything deep an meaningful. Most of the fight scenes are pretty decent. The two leading ladies are quite endearing but their lack of HK action background shows at times. The ending maybe lacks something but I quite enjoyed it none the less. The cheesy humour isn't probably going to appeal to anyone who hasn't watched a bunch of HK films but if your down with that sort of thing and have a couple of hours to fill with something meaningless you could do a lot worse than this. (OK so you could do better but.......)

Certainly on a par with most of the Hollywood blockbuster action drivel.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that there was too much action in the end? Don't you think that too? There was romance, adventure that just like told me to put 9 to this movie but action place was too long. I liked Reeve a bit. I didn't understand why did he have to die. I thought that one of the girls gonna die too but my lucky! No one else who I liked didn't die! How about you? What did you liked? I saw the movie twice actually. And after that I bought that too. It was worth it! Who did you liked best (person)?. The book was really, really, really cool. And the actresses and actors too. Everything was perfect....... What was the song name in the end? Will someone answer my questions too... PLEASE, please please?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fun mix of vampires and martial arts is a bit of a mess plot-wise and the acting of those who dubbed the voices is almost universally bad, but the premise is engaging, the fight scenes are fast and flashy and the movie is often quite amusing. It's a shame the story is such a wreck. There are a couple of places where I had no idea what just happened, it was almost as though five minutes had just been cut out and you were suddenly at the next scene without knowing how you'd got there. The movie is poor at explaining things and some things don't make a lot of sense, but the movie moves along breezily so its flaws barely register. Not a great movie by any means, but definitely a fun one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Twins Effect - Chinese Action\/Comedy - (Charlene Choi, Gillian Chung)

This vampire action comedy is one of my favorites for the very fact that I was thoroughly entertained throughout the entire movie. First of all, the characters are memorable, contributing a myriad of classic scenes. Charlene and Gillian are naturally cute, charismatic, and humorous. This movie was my first exposure to them, and all I wanted to do was reach through my television screen and give them a REALLY BIG HUG. The remaining cast did well in their supporting roles, including Jackie Chan, Karen Mok, \"The Duke\", Josie Ho, Edison Chen, Anthony Wong, and the vampire bad guys (one of which looks eerily familiar to Will Ferrell). Even the abominably horrible Ekin Cheng was good in this one. Good characters are important, of course, because they avoid the feeling of boredom by keeping things interesting between action sequences.

And speaking of action, this film has plenty of it. More importantly, there is an emphasis of quality in the fight choreography. One aspect that helped in this regard is the featured weapon of the protagonists \u0096 a sword with a retractable spear-ended rope. This weapon, in and of itself, opened up a variety of moves that would have been otherwise impossible. Josie Ho and Gillian Chung, in particular, perform some wicked aerial maneuvers using these devices.

In addition, the swordplay is superb, and is highlighted by two great sword fights \u0096 one taking place during the opening train station sequence and the other occurring in the church finale. In fact, the blade-wielding maneuvers showcased in this film put some other highly overrated fan favorites to great shame, and I truly feel sorry for those who would cite the horribly choreographed garbage seen in Ashes of Time, Storm Riders, or A Man Called Hero with the well-planned, precisely executed sequences seen in The Twins Effect. It's not even close.

I can't understand why this film gets so much criticism. I'm sure die-hard apologists for the Hong Kong \"Golden Age\" will hate this because it doesn't fit into their narrow-minded view of what Hong Kong action should be. We should learn from the downfall of John Woo - a one trick pony who never learned how to re-invent himself. We don't need another clone. We need something different. The Twins Effect is one good example.

This film was so good that it actually set me up for being disappointed at other Chinese movies with the same actors and actresses. This especially applies to Ekin Cheng, whose other films almost always suck \u0096 and yes, this includes the obscenely overrated and exploitative wuxia crap mentioned in the previous paragraph. Even The Twins have never been able to match the value of this movie when both were lead actresses in a film, although they have managed to hit some good films when either one or the other takes the leading role (e.g., Beyond Our Ken, Good Times Bed Times, House of Fury) or when one or both are in supporting roles (e.g., Colour of the Truth, New Police Story, Just One Look). The Twins Effect 2 should have been a direct sequel, instead of a family fantasy. I am still yearning to see Charlene and Gillian team up and kick some butt in another movie, but the fact remains that The Twins Effect hits on all cylinders, optimizing their charisma while avoiding a descent into annoyance (as in Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 de la Rose Noire).

All in all, this film has everything one needs to be entertained. And may I remind the reader that it is precisely this \u0096 ENTERTAINMENT \u0096 that judges the greatness of a movie, more so than artsy dramatic elements or meaningless awards from established academies of critics who usually have no idea what they are talking about.

In the end, the Twins Effect is a CLASSIC not to be missed.

Rating = 5\/5 stars

P.S. \u0096 The Hollywood execs decided to slaughter this film when it was released in the U.S. by renaming it The Vampire Effect and cutting out 20 minutes of footage, which includes parts of the action scenes. However, the final fight of the U.S. version does have a better soundtrack than the original version. Therefore, I purchased both versions, which allows me to first watch the original until about the 1:20 mark, and then swap discs to watch the final fight on the U.S. version.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The twins effect is a vampire martial arts movie available in Cantonese with English subtitles. It is a Jackie Chan production and he does make a special guest appearance, although it is not for those that liked Shanghai Noon\/Knights and the other recent Hollywood flicks he has become known for, this film is a lot more special than that.

It was originally called The Vampire Effect but as a very popular Chinese female pop duo called The Twins (Charlene Choi and Gillian Chung) took the two leading roles the title was changed to cash in on their fame.

The film will appeal to three types of audience: those who love martial arts films, those who love vampire films and those who loath the rubbish films Hollywood generally churns out.

The premise for the film is that vampires are about and a secret society seeks to hunt them down before we all become snacks for the undead. This bloody work is carried out by some martial artists who drink a little vampire blood to give them the edge they need, well it must be thirsty work! Things are going pretty much for the course until a particularly nasty European vamp finds out that he if he obtains a set of keys held by all the vampire princes then he can walk around in sunlight etc and generally eat when ever he wants to. To say anymore on the plot would spoil the enjoyment of watching the film.

The twins consist of one assigned vampire slayer (Chung) and the sister (Choi) of another. It is the twins that really make the film; with some of the freshest and funniest acting going. The fight scenes they carry out are fast and furious and well choreographed with a mix of genuine athleticism and wire work. To add the cherry on the cake the twins are both quite lovely to watch too.

The direction is crisp and the script is sharp. There are only 3 things that let this film down: the make-up for the vampires is quite poor, Jackie Chan seems to be in the film just for the hell of it and adds nothing to its content, and some of the slapstick comedy attempted by the male vampire hunter is quite lame. Thankfully the twins save the day bringing an originality to the film normally only found in European films. The best scene for me was one of them (Choi) communicating only by screaming, her ability to convey her thoughts through this medium was a comic delight.

Their are many other touches of originality in this film - I particularly liked the coffin complete with surround sound stereo and TV screen! And it is the films' many original touches and acting that stops this from being a tired old flop and turns it into a must see movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watch a lot of Vampire movies. I KNOW vampire movies. Hammer Films have always been my favorites. Christopher Lee will always be the best Dracula.

Vampire Effect is a fun movie from the beginning to the end. The dubbing is not great, but I also like Godzilla movies, so I am used to badly dubbed movies. Anyway, I liked this movie very much. The SFX are great. Even though Jackie Chans part in the movie has nothing to do with the plot and seems to be added to sell the movie, he is enjoyable in it. The Fang work is excellent. The acting is not great, but this could have something to do with the bad dubbing. Maybe the actual language would sound better with the movie if I could understand it. I am sure the movie Gone With The Wind sounds worse in another language.

I own this on DVD and would not part with. I have it sitting on my bookshelf next to my Hammer Films DVDs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this movie okay, it just could have been so much better. I was expecting more action than what I got...which was more of a comedy than anything else. Granted, it was serious in parts and it had a good fight scene here and there for the most part it was more romance and comedy with some action and no horror at all. Which is hard to do with a vampire movie. A vampire hunter loses his partner and must train another, his sister is going through a difficult break up, but she is being pursued by a vampire of all things. Granted, this vampire is rather nice and not into sucking blood. So that is all there is really to it except for a plot of another vampire after certain royal vampires so he can gain ultimate power. Some of the problems with this movie is that its plot went here and there and the movie had a very uneven flow to it, that and it seemed to shift genres a bit much too. One minute action, the next pure comedy. However, the girls were cute, there is good action, the comedy was worthy of a chuckle or two and Jackie Chan makes a rather energetic appearance or two. This movie probably just needed more development in some areas such as the villain who is basically not really explored at all. So for a movie with a few good fights and a chuckle or two this is rather good...though why was it rated R? I have seen stuff we have made that is PG-13 that is a lot worse than this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This splicing of THE SEARCHERS is one of the weirdest films I've ever seen, filmed by a Briton in a strange, unfamiliar Mexico. It's often said that the best films about America are made by foreigners, who can approach the familiar with an outsider's eye. But this crackpot film is something else. Though set ostensibly in post-Civil War America, this isn't an America recognisable from myth, cinema, TV etc. The film has an air of timeless fable about it, while dealing specifically with Western mythology.

Director Harvey uses the title horse as a focus for interconnecting stories, all dealing with the traditional Western clash of the primitive and civilisation. The former seems to have the upper hand. The vast scrub and desert of the film's landscape is unbroken, ripe for allegories of the mind. The only brief sites of civilisation are a stagecoach of missionaries and landowners, and their hacienda, from both of which derive behaviour that is anything but civilised.

The basic story intercuts three stories. In one, an aimless deserter, Pike, having lost his trading partner, steals a miraculous horse, Eagle's Wing, so-called because of its grace and speed. In the second, an Indian, White Bull, owner of this horse, waylays a stagecoach, and kidnaps one of its female occupants. In the third, the Spanish men sent to find her ignore this quest in favour of a murderous, plundering spree.

Although a revisionist Western, the treatment of the Indian is problematic. Unlike Pike, his character is never explained, forever inscrutable, denied a voice, except for an excruciating snatch of song. When he's not a strange Other, he's a symbol, whose role isn't entirely worked out - at one point a savage brute, at another he epitomises nature and freedom.

But Pike notes at the beginning that the film will attend to the period of primitivism before civilisation. In many ways the film resembles 2001 - A SPACE ODYSSEY, especially its opening sequence. Part of the film's power lies in the connections made between the three disparate characters, forcing us to view the mythic struggles and quests in a different light. Indian culture and Catholicism is linked by superstition, ritual, greed and murder. Both Pike and White Bull are musical and alcoholic. White Bull is demonised by both Pike and the abductee as a 'bastard', unwittingly revealing the tactic of illegitimacy used by colonising whites who infantilised the natives, becoming themselves 'necessary' fathers.

Unlike a traditional Western, concerned with making history, civilisation, and progress, this film is a double detective story, interrogating the past, tracks, remains.

What gives this film its remarkable uniqueness, I think, is, despite Maltin's racism, its Britishness. The climactic stand-off is more like an Arthurian joust. The film itself bravely eschews dialogue for the most part, creating the kind of visual and aural tapestry Malick missed in THE THIN RED LINE, and something few Hollywood directors would have dared. The existential doubling and quest motifs are more European myth than American (resembling another British Harvey Keitel movie, THE DUELLISTS).

Most astonishing is the use of nature. Most Westerns use landscape as an awe-inspiring backdrop: there is little sense of actually living in the West. In many ways, EAGLE'S WING is like a Powell and Pressberger film, with nature a powerful, pantheistic character in its own right - alive, dangerous, hostile, beautiful. There is a sublime scene reminiscent of A CANTERBURY TALE, when jewellery left as a trap by White Bull in the trees is suddenly blown in the wind: there is a haunting, tingling, magical, thrilling effect more reminiscent of the Arabian Nights than a horse opera. Heartstopping.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There must have been some interesting conversations on the set of Eagle's Wing, with Martin Sheen straight off Apocalypse Now co-starred with the actor he replaced on Coppola's film, Harvey Keitel. A real unloved child of a movie, dating back to the last major batch of Westerns in 1979-80, it was much reviled at the time for being made by a British studio and director (conveniently ignoring the fact that many of the classic American westerns were directed by European \u00e9migr\u00e9s), which seems a bit of an over-reaction.

The plot is simplicity itself, as Martin Sheen's inexperienced trapper finds himself fighting with Sam Waterston's nonosyllabic Kiowa warrior over the possession of a beautiful white horse, the Eagle's Wing, across a harsh and primitive landscape in a time \"before the legends began.\" Aside from Caroline Langrishe's captive Irish governess, the supporting cast have little to do (Stephane Audran never even gets to open her mouth) and it is a little slow, but Anthony Harvey's film does boast terrific Scope photography from Billy Williams and a good score from Marc Wilkinson.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An unusual, revisionist western, well worth watching. Despite a slow start, the film builds \u0096 with scarcely any dialogue and no subtitles \u0096 an increasingly involving and intense, almost existential portrait of life in the harsh environment of the Western desert. The growth of the lead characters is worth waiting for, and the strong central cast bring a real sense of desperation to the struggle for ownership of the all-important horse. How interesting that this was made by a British director. I hope he's smiling now: I get the impression the film was largely ignored by contemporaries; but time works its usual alchemy, and hidden gold shines out as it inevitably must. One note jarred for me: the revisionism is only carried so far. Sam Waterston as an Indian? - granted he plays his part with real emotion and intensity, but really, couldn't one American Indian actor be found to do the job? But his scenes with Caroline Langrishe have an intimacy which contrasts nicely with the immense landscape around them.

Forget big, bankrupt Hollywood versions of the past, men with big chins and swirling music; this one is all about a primeval struggle between protagonists who, stripped of all the trappings of 'ordinary' life, come to understand what is worth fighting for. Impressive.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On first viewing this movie seems to be some kind of fairy tale about a beautiful and significantly white horse once seen never forgotten. However viewed strictly within the context of the story the implication is that to survive in the immediate post-Civil War America, one had to have a horse, and not any old horse but a truly great one. And Eagle's Wing is such a horse. But for a man to be worthy of such a horse is another matter. Who should own it? The Native American or the AWOL soldier? The story throughout pits primitivism against civilisation. As has been said by other commentators it is ironic that it took an English director to perceive this fact, and then develop this simple theme into a western like no other you're ever likely to see again. The film is basically about this beast and the savage harshness of the environment and the people who scrape a living from it. The photography and the soundtrack are exquisite. Martin Sheen's performance is a revelation. This film, released in the same year as Sheen's other great performance as Willard in 'Apocalypse Now', hints at his abilities which somehow were never given such a free rein again. More's the pity. A comparison of the two stories throws up the surprising similarities between them - not least that both films chart a man's journey into his soul in order to find redemption. Whereas Willard is redeemed I will leave it to the viewer to decide if Pike is eventually. The ending is fabulous in the true sense of the word, and very moving; be warned. Altogether this is an extraordinary film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"8 points for take on probably what really kinda maybe more what it was like back then. American Indians probably stole more than killed. Who really knows? Nice slower odd pursuit means it has a pace and... interesting and unique. Thankfully not another mindless shoot em up. I thought this would suck at first, I wound up getting wrapped up... nice treasure... good job! I have hopes nobody dissects this film. When the entire movie unfolds you have many unique twists, impossible to determine what will be next. The characters are human and have either honor or not... passion or not... forgiveness or not. Wound up loving the White Horse, the Indian, Sheen even the damned desert. All good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Eagle's Wing\" is a pleasant surprise of a movie, & keeps the viewer interested. I didn't know anything about it being made by the British until I read the other viewer comments. I can understand why it won an award for cinematography, for it was brilliantly presented & must have looked magnificent on a vast theatre screen.

It seemed to be a lot more realistic than most westerns, in portraying how the West was more truly won. As well as the complexities of the characters it presents. The Indian-Sam Waterson character is particularly intriguing. He seems to be brutal in the savage environment he is conditioned to, but displays remarkable respect for the frailties he witnesses in the white men & women he encounters. He is not friendly or sensitive to these intruders in his lands, but he has a limit to his sense of vengeance, even a compassion when he is in a position of power & observing the wilting white man bent on revenge, as well as the girl he kidnaps after capturing a stagecoach. As such, his character seems complex but congruous to the harsh lands he lived in & which were threatened by these intruders he is not heartless in his dealings with.

The magnificent horse he rides is a critical link & it is interesting to note how this Indian handles it, compared with the Martin Sheen-character who has it in his possession & power for a time. \"Eagle's Wing\" is an unusual Western, a genre I am not drawn to, but I really appreciated this excellent offering, which I would rate second only to \"A Man Called Horse\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have just read what I believe to be an analysis of this film by a lyrical Irishman. Lovely to read.

However, a concise analysis of this film is that it is a interweaving of the seven deadly sins with the four types of justice.

Envy, greed, pride, sloth, anger, etc. and justice in the forms of retributive, distributive, blind, and divine.

I could demonstrate three examples of each, one for each of the three protagonists; however, it is much more fun to note them for oneself.

This is an excellent film.

Don't miss it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The mere presence of Sam Waterston as an Indian, is enough to put this movie in the must-see category. He is both beautiful and very subtle, with no lines whatsoever. He is tender with his kidnappee, and yet we can see he is among the proudest of all young Indian Men. Martin Sheen is just a dumb cluck who decides to challenge Waterston (White Bull) for a gorgeous white horse. Other sub-plots are really unnecessary. I don't understand the part played by Caroline Langrishe, as the poor girl who White Bull kidnaps...I don't know how she keeps her hands off this beautiful Indian man! It's a lot of fun, though; especially if you're a Waterston fan. Man, he looks GOOD in this one!!! Harvey Keitel's role isn't even worth mentioning, to tell the truth! But, rent it and enjoy! Actually, I do believe that if the music score was better, it would've been a more dramatic film...the music is so bad, it's distracting. Still - there's Mr. Waterston!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw \"Eagle\u00b4s wing\". I do not really know why this movie was made. What is the message of this story? Nevertheless I liked it. There are some exciting scenes in it. I appreciate a strong performance by Martin Sheen. Harvey Keitel is less convincing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the pleasure of seeing this short film at the Miami film festival this past Saturday and let me just say I was astounded. It was the only film out of the whole program that I loved. It is beautifully shot, composed, edited, acted and written. After the screening I saw the director at a party and asked him what he was doing next. He said that he was working on finding financing for the feature version of the short. He described some scenes to me. It sounded like the kind of first film that launches the greats into the industry. If you ever get a chance to see this short I highly recommend taking it. Hats off to star crossed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched this short at the PlanetOut Movies.

Starcrossed was a very sweet, sad, little movie about two brothers that are in love. There is some great, subtle acting from both the male leads. Often times movies with this subject matter seem to get too caught up in the controversy and shock value of the plot that they forget that there is an actual story. Luckily writer director James Burkhammer does not do this, and instead lets the story play out with honesty. The sequences of the two boys first falling in love are very sweet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've watched many short films in my day. Often I find them either too compressed (throwing too much information at the viewer in the short amount of time they have to run), too \"artsy\", or lacking a clear-cut vision. I can say none of these things about Starcrossed. In this review, I'll do my best to avoid any dramatic spoilers, but I'll also assume that the reader understands that the theme of this film is brotherly incest.

As with any short film, the story is fairly simple, straightforward and easy to digest. It's clear that the film attempts to shine a light one one of modern society's most deeply held taboos. This film succeeds in every respect. In the fifteen minutes of running time, I found myself feeling a gamut of emotions. With only a little dialog, the viewer is rapidly pulled into the most personal moments and thoughts of these star-crossed brothers.

From the opening scene set in their early childhood, one can see the very close relationship the brothers have. When the film progresses to the present day in the next scene, the excellent acting and honest, heartfelt performances remind the viewer that love can come in the most unexpected and harsh way. As the relationship progresses, any disgust the viewer may initially feel is quickly replaced by sympathy and emotional distress as the viewer suddenly realizes that there can be only one possible resolution. And the aftermath of that resolution is heart-rending.

Anyone with an open mind would do well to watch this film and absorb its message. If nothing else, it boldly and honestly challenges the viewer to reexamine some of our deepest beliefs on the shame-filled and secretive taboo of incest. Though the film is only fifteen minutes long, it resonates in the viewer long after the credits roll. This is perhaps my favorite short film I've ever seen. I can't recommend it highly enough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've just seen this movie, and it made me cry. It's a beautiful drama about two brothers falling in love, and i think it's a good idea, especially for the closed-minded, to watch this one. I have come to love the short-film genre after just having seen a couple, because they have to make an impression on you so fast, and i have to say that this one definitely sat it's mark. It described some things, that i haven't ever really thought about that way, incest for one.

I have to admit that i did not care too much for the ending. Just once i would like to watch a gay-themed movie without wanting to kill myself after wards. They seem to pretty much always end in tragedy. It was 'cute' though, how that they had to be together, even if it was in death.

I gave it eight stars, and i recommend it too everyone, cause i think it gives an 'inside-look' in the world, that this movie make you enter.

Thanks for listening, enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First and foremost I would like to say, that before i watched this film i considered myself an accepting individual. Someone that cared about others, appreciated others, found no\/barely any judgment against other people, and this film has (i think) changed my life or viewpoint dramatically. When i watched it, I didn't know particularly what it was about, i knew it was about some type of forbidden relationship, but other then that I was clueless, and as I began to see what was taking place between these two wonderfully depicted characters, i was in shock, disbelief, confusion and surprise. The first time i watched it, i was blind. Blind to their love, to their intimacy, to their connection, to their pureness as human beings, to their relationship. I watched it a second time, because i finally figured out how hypocritical I was being, saying to myself and others, \"Oh i accept all types of people, and try not to judge them\" while still judging this wonderful and amazingly insightful story, because of my fear I suppose. The second time I watched this film, I opened those eyes of mine that had stayed closed the first time, and really looked, not at the type of taboo relationship part that I'd heard about all my life, but simply at two human beings in love. And I loved it, i loved the storyline, i loved the slightly broken yet strong individual people in the film, i loved the sharing of feelings, and i loved the strong bonds created. It is a really eye opening, beautifully done film that made me cry at times, and I hope that people who read this and are going to watch the film eventually, remember that everyone deserves love, no matter what shape or form it is presented in....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i guess if they are not brother this film will became very common. how long were they can keep this ? if we were part,what should they do?so natural feelings,so plain and barren words.But I almost cried last night blood relationship brotherhood love knot film.in another word,the elder brother is very cute.if they are not brothers,they won't have so many forbidden factors\uff0cfrom the family\u3001society\u3001friends\u3001even hearts of their own at the very beginning.The elder brother is doubtful of whether he is coming out or not at the beginning .maybe the little brother being so long time with his brother and even can't got any praise from his father\uff0cthis made him very upset and even sad,maybe this is a key blasting fuse let him feel there were no one in the world loving him except his beloved brother. and i want to say ,this is a so human-natural feeling ,there is nothing to be shamed,you may fell in love your mother\u3001brother\u3001sister.Just a frail heart looking for backbone to rely on","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some movies want to make us think, some want to excite us, some want to exhilarate us. But sometimes, a movie wants only to make us laugh, and \"In & Out\" certainly succeeds in this department.

Indiana high-school teacher Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is going to be married to fellow teacher Emily Montgomery (Joan Cusack) in three days, but the whole town is more excited about the Oscar nomination of former resident Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon). But when Cameron wins an Oscar for playing a gay soldier, he thanks his gay teacher, Howard, for inspiration. What follows is Howard denying it in an hilarious set of mishaps in a truly screwball fashion.

Kevin Kline is great, exuding gay stereotypes. Joan Cusack really has a knack for screwball antics. Debbie Reynolds is utterly hilarious as Howard's mother. And Bob Newhart is also a hoot as the homophobic principal.

Gay screenwriter Paul Rudnick really achieves a delicate balance here. He knows the stereotypes and exploits them in a way that's mostly tolerable to conservative Midwesterners and yet mostly inoffensive to the gay audience. It's not exactly progressive, but it's funny and inoffensive, and definitely a step up from the previous year's \"The Birdcage.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is a teacher who is about to get married. Then, one of his former students wins an Oscar for a film in which he plays a gay soldier and thanks Howard in his acceptance speech, outing him as being gay too! This film follows the aftermath as reporters descend on Howard's village and he tries to convince everyone that he is straight.

I love this movie! Kevin Kline is wonderful, it has some really hilarious moments and it always leaves me feeling great with an enormous grin on my face. Consequently, it's one film that I enjoy watching as often as possible. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In & Out is a comedy with a simple premise. It admirably succeeds in the mission of being funny and entertaining.

The comedy in this film ranges from the ridiculous to the sublime, physical comedy exists alongside dry humor, with a nice veteran turn by Bob Newhart. Kevin Kline is predictably in excellent form in this film, alongside Tom Selleck not playing to his expected \"square jawed\" leading man type. Mr. Selleck plays his humor well and displays a nice sense of comedic timing. The cast makes this film successful.

Not all films with homosexual themes are made to advance some sort of sinister, hidden Hollywood liberal agenda, in point of fact this film was simply made to entertain, and if any part of this films makes the viewer think, then it was a byproduct of the well-acted work by a terrific cast of professionals. Frequently tongue-in-cheek, I found myself laughing at the right moments. A solid \"B.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In & Out was a funny comedy with good performances by Joan Cusack, Tom Selleck, Matt Dillon, and Kevin Kline. The thought of Kevin Kline being gay was very funny. If I was him, I would hate to say I'm gay at his own wedding with his family, friends, and his going to be wife there. Very seldom would that ever happen. I also loved when he was dancing around when the voice on the radio was talking to him. I'd say that In & Out was a silly comedy with a lot of laughs and giggles. This is a recommended comedy and Kevin Kline had a great performance as a gay guy. Trust me you'll like this movie.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this because my cousin is an extra in one of the wedding scenes. I read somewhere that Oz and Rudnick wanted to poke fun at liberal message movies, but the climax ends up being right out of one of those movies. Also, some of the humor is a bit on the cloying side, Joan Cusack was too over-the-top for me, and someone has a strange timeline re the Oscars. Still, there were more than enough funny moments, like the kiss scene, the wedding that isn't, and the scene with the principal, to enjoy this. Kline as always is good, but for me, the real surprise was Selleck, whom I'm not a big fan of, but pokes fun at himself nicely here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this again after having not seen it since it first came out (in '97), and it still made me laugh out loud. It's skillfully written, Kevin Kline and Joan Cusack are both perfect in their roles, and if you can look at Bob Newhart in this movie and not chuckle, you're more of a man than I.

For that matter, I think the scenes where Tom Selleck kisses Kevin Kline, where Kevin Kline listens to the \"How to be a Man\" cassette, and the post-(almost-)wedding scenes w\/ Joan Cusack are three of the funniest scenes in any movie.

Sure, the last scene is a bit of an excuse for a happy ending, but...few movies are perfect.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** I loved the set-up and consistently laughed throughout the entire movie. The acting was great, with my favorite part being Howard's (Kevin Kline) attempts to be a \"manly man\". The fiance and parents did a great job as a supporting cast. Spoiler Warning: The acting of his conservative family's acceptance and attempts to be polite were heartwarming and believable. My only problem with the end was the fact that Howard was actually gay. The movie is set-up as a \"be who you want to be\", but the movie actually does the opposite. Howard's logic behind his \"discovery\" is the fact that he loves Barbra Streisand's movies and enjoys dancing to music. His mannerisms and tastes appear to be gay, and it isn't until it is pointed out to him that he realizes it. Rather than setting Howard free, it pigeon holes him. Oh, he likes to dance to music, than he must be gay. His confession at the marriage felt like a bending down to society's wishes. In the end, the movie becomes a gay rights movie, which was not the original course. It almost becomes bland with the rest. I believe the movie would had been ultimately better had Howard been straight. It would have been truer to the message.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this movie many times and i never get sick of it. it is about a man coming out of the closet, that he doesn't know he is in. Kevin Kline's character is a teacher and when one of his former students announces Kline's character is gay the people in his town start to speculate whether he is straight or gay. Kline's character starts to wonder if he is straight or gay too. The acting is absolutely fabulous and hilarious by all the cast. I found the movie very funny and heart-warming. i love this movie, it makes you laugh and makes you feel good while watching it. i recommend this movie to everyone, you will have a great time watching it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hollywood movies since the 1930s have treated gays as lepers. In condemning homosexuality, the film industry has reflected only what the repressive society of its day espoused as an ideology. For example, in the 1962 Otto Preminger melodrama \"Advise and Consent,\" straight actor Don Murray was cast as a queer congressman who commits suicide rather than confess his alternative lifestyle. Gay movie characters have covered a lot of ground since \"Advise and Consent.\" In the 1997 movie \"In & Out,\" (**1\/2 out of ****), heterosexual actor Kevin Kline is cast as a homosexual teacher who comes out of the closet on his wedding day. While the conservative Hollywood of yesteryear stipulated that the congressional queer in \"Advise and Consent\" had to commit suicide, the liberal Hollywood of today dictates that the gay English teacher should be embraced rather than maced.

Basically, \"In & Out\" preaches good citizenship in the garb of a politically correct comedy. Director Frank Oz and scenarist Scott Rudnick endorse honesty as the best policy because honesty always ensures happiness. High school teacher Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline of \"The Big Chill\") will be happy only after he comes out of the closet, just as his once-fat-but-now-thin fianc\u00e9e Emily (Joan Cusack) will only feel happy when she can ditch her diet. Ultimately, the movie contends that straight society will accept gays when homosexuals can act with greater honesty and candor about themselves. The happily outed gay tabloid reporter played by straight actor Tom Selleck here effectively dramatizes this open-minded commentary.

Rudnick's lightweight script embellishes the true life incident that occurred at the Oscars when Tom Hanks paid tribute to a high school teacher. In \"In & Out,\" Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon), a blond, Brad Pitt style bimbo type actor, wins the Oscar for impersonating a fruity foot soldier. Drake honors his mentor Howard Brackett during his acceptance speech. Not contend to stop there, the candid Cameron reveals to a live, television audience that Howard is gay! Suspicion, paranoia, and horror set in as the media descend upon the sleepy town of Green Leaf, Indiana. (When would a no-name high school English teacher's sexual deviance spark such massive media concern?) Among those reporters lurks Peter Malloy (Tom Selleck of \"High Road to China\"), and he wants to do a week-long exclusive one on Howard. Howard, however, wants nothing to do with the witch-hunting media, especially the pesky Peter Malloy. Howard denies Drake's gay charges to everybody, including his fianc\u00e9e and his mom. Malloy lingers because he smells a scoop. The revelation has turned Green Leaf upside down. High school principal Tom Halliwell (Bob Newhart) squirms nervously with all the media coverage. Halliwell warns Howard that were his marriage not imminent, he'd have to give him a pink slip. Meanwhile, Peter bets Howard that his marriage to Emily will fall through at the last moment and he'll be there to record the result on camera.

Howard resorts to audio tapes about macho men. He struggles to reform himself. But Howard's efforts are futile. Guilt swells up inside him. And then there is Peter Malloy, who rags him to come clean about his homosexuality. Finally, at the altar in the sight of God, Howard bursts. Of course, bride-to-be Emily Montgomery is floored by Howard's gay confession. Predictably, the school fires Howard, but he shows up for graduation. Drake shows up, too, and rushes to Brackett's defense. Not only has the school stripped Howard of his job, but they've also given his teacher-of-the-year award to somebody else. Drake appeals to the principal and wins Howard the unanimous support of the community.

The biggest defect in Rudnick's contrived script is Howard himself. Rudnick has created a character too chaste to be true, either by gray or straight standards. Howard Brackett looms as more of a saint than a sinner. He helps one student gain admission to college, and he coaches the track team. How often do you hear of an English teacher doubling as a coach, too? Everybody at his high school adores Howard. He doesn't have a mean bone in his body. Further, Rudnick and Oz ask us to believe that nobody else in Green Leaf is gay. Where are Howard's gay friends? Are they too scared to come to his defense? No, \"In & Out\" is not targeted strictly at homosexual audiences. Oz, whose screen credits include cute comedies like \"Dirty Rotten Scoundrels\" and \"House Sitter,\" as well as Rudnick teeter on a politically correct tightrope. \"In & Out\" is not a gay recruiting movie. The filmmakers show no interest in what prompted either Howard or Peter Malloy to prefer the gay lifestyle. Instead, Oz and Rudnick are only interested in shoring up a thin premise: Is he or isn't he gay? They flesh it out to involve the community response to the answer. Finally, when Howard admits that he is gay, the filmmakers devote the rest of the movies to showing how a conservative, Norman Rockwell-like town can accept him despite his difference.

The most shocking scenes in \"In & Out\" is probably when tabloid reporter Malloy does a lip lock on Howard. Straight guys kissing each other in a movie about a gay identity crisis are as hilarious as they are phony. Kline and Selleck grind their faces together in what appears as more of a head-on collision than a closed-mouth kiss. Nothing at all like the controversial 1994 British movie \"Priest,\" \"In & Out\" emerges as an engaging but labored piece of social propaganda with its okay-to-be-act message. If \"Ellen\" weren't the TV equivalent, \"In & Out\" would probably be heading toward TV as a new sitcom. Watching \"In & Out\" is not so much about dealing with the issue of gay or straight, but how to be a decent person in the last days of the 20th century. What makes \"In & Out\" a tolerable comedy about sexual intolerance is its equal opportunity cheers and jeers about queers and steers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The funniest performance was by Shalom Harlow, as Matt Dillon's supermodel girlfriend. She was more interesting to me than all the lead actors. This movie got it all wrong; even the most dependable actress of the century, Joan Cusask, was not able to rise about the ridiculousness of the plot. I did enjoy hearing \"Macho Man\" by the Village People over the closing credits. The rest of the movie might have been tolerable if it were to rise to that level of energy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A beautifully constructed and brilliantly acted comedy. There is not a person in the cast who does not acquit himself (or herself) with hilarious distinction. However, the real star of the film is the unseen director, Frank Oz, who brings all the madcap sensibility and wit to this farce that he brought to Miss Piggy's encounters with Kermit the frog. This is a not -to-be-missed film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While amiable and amusing for gay audiences, Frank Oz's film \"In and Out,\" about a closeted gay teacher who has been outed on national television by a former student, has been sanitized and deodorized to appeal to the larger and more profitable straight viewers that patronized \"The Bird Cage.\" Although audiences likely patted themselves on the back for being tolerant and liberal enough to see the film, the movie revolves around Kevin Kline's Howard Brackett, who is a grossly stereotyped gay man. The movie asserts that a tendency to dance to disco music, revel in Barbra Streisand movies, and dress well indicates one's sexual orientation. Like \"Queer Eye,\" the film actually takes a backhanded slap at straight men and stereotypes them as slovenly, dim witted, and lacking in taste and culture. OK, so \"In and Out\" is only a comedy, but even comedies send messages that can hurt.

Unfortunately, at the center of the film's humor lies a somewhat pathetic character. Howard is middle aged, deeply closeted or in self-denial, and evidently has never had a sex life. A three-year engagement to a female teacher in the school where he works is described as a series of sunsets, long talks, and watching \"Funny Lady.\" Fortunately, Joan Cusack plays Howard's intended, Emily Montgomery, and she steals the show throughout. Most of the film's funniest moments belong to her, although Kline's attempts to resist dancing during an instruction tape on macho behavior are hilarious. He is a gifted physical performer, but the film gives him only few moments to shine. Matt Dillon also stands out as the student turned actor, and the clip from his Oscar-nominated film about a gay soldier is hysterical. However, despite the movie's gay theme, there is no boy-meets-boy romance, and only one male-to-male kiss, and that smooch is about as erotic as the one between Michael and Fredo Corleone in \"Godfather II.\"

Although well intentioned, \"In and Out\" fails to address the injustices and prejudices that it illustrates. Howard is fired from his teaching job despite his outstanding performance and credentials, yet little outrage is expressed. Most of the characters are more upset about the cancelled wedding than about Howard's self-realization, which seems to take place overnight, and his abrupt and unjust dismissal. Not surprisingly, Howard's parents, endearingly portrayed by Debbie Reynolds and Wilford Brimley, and his students rise to support him. However, the sugary finale is as embarrassing to the audience as it evidently was to Howard Brackett in the film. The movie would have been more refreshing if it had revolved around a gay man who dressed like a slob, was a rabid fan of football, drove a station wagon, listened to country music, and lived on fast food. Despite some good performances and funny situations, \"In and Out\" perpetuates stereotypes and, whether they be positive or negative, stereotypes should be consigned to the dustbin of social history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Howard (Kevin Kline) teaches English at the high school in a small Indiana city. He is finally getting married to Emily (Joan Cusack), much to his parents delight. The town is abuzz, too, because one of its own, Cameron (Matt Dillon) has been nominated for an acting Oscar. Everyone, including Howard and Emily, is watching the Academy Awards on television as Cameron is declared the winner! In his acceptance speech, Cameron announces that he was able to fulfill his role as a gay military man, in part, because of lessons he learned from a gay teacher he had in high school. You guessed it, its Howard! But, Howard has never \"come out\"; in fact, he believes he is straight! With the whole town, and members of the media, waiting and observing the happenings, will Howard and Emily go ahead and get married? Or, is Howard truly gay and realize he can not go through with the ceremony? This is a wonderful, funny, and humane film about a gay man and his situation. As the man-who-did-not-realize-he-was-gay, Kline is excellent and touching. The rest of the cast is equally fine, with Cusack a stitch as the mixed-up fianc\u00e9 and Dillon, Bob Newhart, Debbie Reynolds, Tom Selleck, and others on hand to delight the audience as well. The costumes are very nice and the setting in the lovely Indiana heartland is beautiful. Then, too, the script, the direction, and the production are very, very nice. But, the insightful, humorous, and the thoughtful look at the gay population is the film's best asset, no doubt. For those who would be offended by a gay-themed film, yes, just skip over this one. But, for everyone who wants to laugh heartily, and gain a better understanding of the gay situation at the same time, this is definitely the best film out there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing this a long while ago, and I knew most of the concept, but no detail, so I'm glad I watched it again, from director Frank Oz (The Muppets Take Manhattan, Bowfinger). Basically new star Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon) has just won the Academy Award for his latest, where he plays a gay soldier, and he does the usual \"thank yous\", he even mentions his past school English teacher Howard Brackett (Golden Globe nominated Kevin Kline), and he outs him as gay! Howard is determined to clear his name, and get out of the media spotlight as a denying gay man, especially as his marriage to Emily Montgomery (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Joan Cusack) is on the way. So it comes to the wedding day, and when it comes to Howard saying yes or no, that is when he outs himself, and admits to himself and everyone, that he is gay. This of course gets him fired as a teacher, but everyone stands at the graduation day to out themselves (in support), and Cameron even shows up to clear things up, so that everyone, especially school head Tom Halliwell (Elf's Bob Newhart) knows it's okay to be gay. Also starring Tom Selleck as Peter Malloy, Debbie Reynolds as Berniece Brackett, Wilford Brimley as Frank Brackett, Gregory Jbara as Walter Brackett, Glenn Close, Whoopi Goldberg and Jay Leno. The highlight of the film has to be when Kline can't help dancing to Diana Ross's version of \"I Will Survive\", that must have been what convinced him of his sexuality. Kline is always good, Cusack is a surprise Oscar nominee, and all supporting cast members do their bit too in this very funny comedy. Very good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first, and far better, of Kevin Kline's two gay roles. (The second is the dreary \"De-Lovely\" in which he played Cole Porter.) Inspired by Tom Hanks' emotional acceptance speech for \"Philadelphia\" in which he outed his high school drama teacher, the nominated film in this version was obviously more \"Forrest Gump\" than \"Philadelphia\". Here the Hanks character is played by Matt Dillon.

The reaction scenes in most of the film are very funny and, as has been often pointed out, are especially effective as done by Kevin himself, Debbie Reynolds, Tom Selleck (a brave move since he was himself the target of such rumors, which he denied!), Bob Newhart and Joan Cusack as the eventually jilted bride-to-be.

Tom Hanks' actual teacher criticized the graduation scene saying people don't act that way in real life. But this is a farce and not real life. That being said, it is not as effective as it might be and the misdirection of the final \"wedding scene\" which makes it look like Tom and Kevin are about to get hitched I found rather pointless, annoying and a cop out.

The highlight of the film for me is, of course, Kevin's scene with the how-to-be-a-real-man audio tape and it is hilarious but certainly not at all realistic when the tape reacts to Kevin's actions.

On the whole, a hoot!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is truly a funny movie. His dance scene done with the tape is one of the funniest scenes I can recall. I thought the \"I am gay\" scene at the high school graduation ceremony a bit surrealistic, though it was funny. While watching it for the third time, I started to pick up on a little small segments that I had missed. One was when Matt Dillon's girl friend, a classic ditz, tried to use a dial phone which she had never used before. Kevin Klein made this film successful along Tom Selleck. This was also the first time I could appreciate Debbie Reynolds; she proved that she can be funny. She confirmed this in the TV series 'Will and Grace.' One discovery that I found after the third viewing is Lauren Ambrose of '6 Feet Under' fame. She sticks out with her red bangs, but it is obvious that this is one of her first films. Bob Newhart is also very funny at the high school principle.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Joan Cusack steals the show! The premise is good, the plot line interesting and the screenplay was OK. A tad too simplistic in that a coming-out story of a gay man was so positive when it is usually not quite-so-positive. Then again, it IS fiction. :) All in all an entertaining romp.

One thing I noticed was the \"inside-joke\" aspect. Since the target-audience probably was straight, they may not get the gay \"stuff\" in context with the story.

Kevin Kline showed a facet of his acting prowess that screenwriters sometimes don't take in consideration when suggesting Kline for a part.

This one hit the mark.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movie is extremely funny and enjoyable,with suitable, funny and experienced casts. I find this movie enjoyable not only by the elements of humor but also the music in various scenes. Kevin Kline, a good comedian has done a good job at being funny in many parts of the film along with Tom Selleck who is amazingly different from many of his other films. The humor within this film are goofy which makes various exaggerations within many scenes, especially the beginning bits. Joan Cusack is also remarkably funny and exaggerated; and the same goes for all the other casts. This film has many elements of goofy humor and is enjoyable if you want to laugh.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kevin Kline offers a brilliant comic turn in the 1997 comedy IN & OUT. Kline plays Howard Brackett, a small town history teacher who excitedly sits down to watch the Academy Awards this year because one of his former students (Matt Dillon) is a nominee. He is nominated for his performance in a film where he plays a gay soldier and when he wins, he thanks Howard in his speech for inspiring him because Howard is gay. Now this floors Howard because he as no clue why thus guy would say this on international television. Howard is even engaged to be married (to Joan Cusack, in an Oscar-nominated performance)so he has no idea where Dillon;s Cameron Drake got the idea that he is gay and finds he has to defend himself to everyone at school but is shocked that no one seemed terribly shocked by what Cameron said on the Oscars. Howard has a birthday party where he is given birthday presents like the soundtrack to YENTL and ends up explaining to his guests why Barbra Streisand had to make FUNNY LADY. His parents (Wilford Brimley, Debbie Reynolds) are shocked but promise to support their son, even if he is gay. He also gets a visit from an out of town reporter (Tom Selleck) who wants to do an article about him because he's gay too. The moment when Selleck plants a big kiss right on Kline's lips is a classic. But all of these little things have Howard actually questioning his sexuality and wondering if he really is gay...much to the aggravation and frustration of his fianc\u00e9e, Cusack, who is beyond confused. The scene where she leaves a bar in her wedding gown and stands in the middle of street screaming about the lack of single straight men in the world is a classic. But what I like about this movie is the way Kline fully invests in the role and was not afraid to look foolish or look gay. There is a fabulous scene, probably the most famous from the film, where he buys a record, on how to be macho, and the guy on the record is talking about how real men don't dance and a disco tune comes on (I WILL SURVIVE if memory serves)and the narrator on the record says no matter what you do, don't dance, but Howard can't help himself and he ends up shaking his groove thing all over the room. It's hysterically funny and Kline plays it with sincerity and gusto. The film is not pro or anti gay...it's just a deft and amusing character study about a man trying to figure out exactly who he is. Wonderful film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"IN & OUT, in my opinion, is a very hilarious movie. I thought that Cameron (Matt Dillon) was wrong to say that Howard (Kevin Kline) was gay. The part I liked most was Howard's bachelor party. This was because they were cracking jokes about a lot of things, including Barbra Streisand films. I also thought that Emily (Joan Cusack) looked very beautiful in her wedding dress and that Howard looked good in his tuxedo. My favorite quote of IN & OUT is, \"Is everybody gay? Is this 'THE TWILIGHT ZONE'?\" That was absolutely hilarious! The one character I couldn't stand was Sonya (Shalom Harlow). This was because she was VERY conceited and snobby. In conclusion, I recommend this movie to all you Kevin Kline fans who have not seen it. Be prepared to laugh HARD and have a good time when you see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After reading the comment made about this movie, and currently watching it, I can understand how the person felt about it. The decisions made were after listening to common sense. When the movie came out, I had heard the information as to how it came about. The storyline was made from an actual event. During an award show, an actor, thanking the li'l people, attributed the award to a former school teacher, unexpectedly outing the person.

Of course, many people come 'out' of the closet most every day. Each outing is different for each person. In real life, the outcome of any individual is gonna be different as well. And a willingness to accept who they are is the most important thing in life to reach personal happiness. For those around them, the joy and honest acceptance can make life much more fuller. For the movie, the outcome of how Howard is out'ed is a lot more comical than real life. And the acceptance of the community showed the others that Howard was himself and nothing else.

Overall, the performances were crazy. The memorable quotes and use of music add to the stereo-types out there in the world, but taken with tongue and cheek humour. It's a movie. Sit down, watch with an open mind, and laugh your head off.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Paul Rudnick (Jeffrey, Addams Family Values) wrote this frothy tale of a mild mannered school teacher (Kevin Kline) who is outted on the Academy Awards by a former student-turned-actor (Matt Dillon). The rest of the film deals with the absurdities revolving around this setup -the effect on the town, his fiancee (Joan Cusack), himself- and climaxes with an everybody-loves-everybody finale.

If you're an angry gay rights activist or a naive youth looking for an accurate portrayal of a man's struggle to come out or a 'true' depiction of gay life, then save yourself the trouble and rent something else (maybe Beautiful Thing) or read a book (Giovanni's Room). If you are able to understand that this film was inspired by the piousness of Tom Hanks's speech on the Academy Awards when he won for Philadelphia and pokes fun at Hollywood culture and small town ignorance and you have a fondness for '30's screwball comedy (Bringing Up Baby, Holiday, The Palm Beach Story) then enjoy! Far from being a biting satire, the film tries for the exuberance of a Preston Sturges farce and comes damn close. No, it's not 'deep' or 'powerful' -neither were Romy & Michelle, 9 to 5, or Young Frankenstein- and it doesn't pretend to be; it keeps it's tongue-firmly-in-cheek. It gets too preachy and maudlin for its own good toward the end and sure some of the jokes are a bit stale (there's also a locker room scene that could have been cut) but after sitting through countless comedies that misfire, it's like a breath of fresh air.

Kevin Kline and Tom Selleck are wonderfully game while Debbie Reynolds and Wilford Brimley add fine support. The excellent Joan Cusack's award winning performance is stellar and the great Bob Newhart is, well, Bob Newhart.

The fact that many have been offended by In & Out is as absurd as the mentality of the townsfolk it pokes fun at; personally, I was more offended by Philadelphia. I'll take harmless fluff over sanctimoniousness anytime.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is halfway to being a top movie. The opening section, which spoofs Hollywood \"social message\" films is absolutely brilliant. It is a riot from start to finish.

The second section, which introduces us to the main characters of the story is really great too. We get a lot of great comic setups, top notch performances, and the dialog is really dynamic.

(Spoiler warning!)

The one think that really annoyed me about this film though is the ending, which I think contradicts everything that went before. My interpretation was that this film was taking the mickey out all the silly prejudices and innuendo of small town gossip and national tabloid sensationalism. I loved that the film was championing the cause that a person's sexuality is NOT determined by their hobbies, idiosyncrasies, fashion sense or whatever. And then the ending goes and re-enforces all the gossip and stereotypes that the movie successfully lampooned in the first place. It turns out everyone was 100% right!!! (godamit!) This was very disappointing to what was actually a great story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Lonely among us\" definitely is one of the best first season episodes. The storyline, although somewhat confusing, creates a lot of suspense, supported by the creepy synthesizer-driven soundtrack. This is a typically \"alien body invasion\" scenario but finally turning out to no evil purpose (the death of assistant chief engineer Singh to me was an accident). The two delegate species deliver an entertaining frame (best make-up so far) finally adding a little black humor to the series (the final scene). Patrick Stewart obviously enjoys stepping out a bit of his Picard character and exploring some new terrain as does Data by posing as Sherlock Holmes (another all time classic). The special effects are also convincing and director Cliff Bole did his job well. He is the first one trying to compensate Trois lack in acting ability by improving her looks. She does look beautiful in some scenes and the neck of her dress improves her appearance a lot. Picard's \"lightning-scene\" on the bridge gives him a slight air of the emperor of Star Wars \"Return of the Jedi\" (which is a personal impression but made me smile).

There's also some playing with the lighting of the corridors (simulating night aboard) and the first moving camera, pulling back from Picard when he's entering the transporter room to beam into the cloud... Nice work. The clever cutting, creating continuing dialog through different scenes (Troi's hypnosis report) rounds up the impression of a really well crafted TNG episode. The first one, where even Wesley Crusher seemed almost tolerable...

The ending however is a bit confusing, just as if the producers were running out of time. \"P for Picard\" is a little far fetched and his return far too easy but that can be left aside regarding the many strong moments this episode has to offer...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This episode introduces us to the formal dress uniforms worn here by Captain Picard, Commander Riker, and Lieutenant Tasha Yar. The plot of this episode deals with 2 groups of separate alien delegates, The Anticans and the Selae who try to capture and eat each other at every turn. The 2 sides really hate each other, and it is up to Riker and Tasha to contain them and keep them out of trouble.

Meanwhile a mysterious spacial anomaly goes around the ship injuring and killing a few of the crew members. But at the end of the episode this same spacial anomaly possesses a valuable member of the crowd. Will they be able to rescue him so that they maybe able to continue on with their on going mission of space exploration?

Note: This episode marks Irish actor Colm Meaney's second appearance on TNG after \"Encounter at Farpoint.\" He portrays one of Tasha's \"yellow-shirted\" security guards.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"GoldenEye is a masterpiece. The storyline is amazingly depicted, the characters beautifully animated and the weapons are tyte. The storyline is so interesting, even when you complete every single mission, to get more levels you have to beat them on a higher difficulty. And the multiplayer mode is so tyte. You pick the weapons you want to play with, then play. Me and the three of my friends, along with my brother, always play Goldeneye. If you don't have this game, I suggest you buy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ever since I've been allowed to play Goldeneye once again, it's been impossible to get my mind off it. I'm surprised I could have gone without it. It is, without a doubt, one of the greatest games of all time. I have never played any other shooting games, but I know that this one rules above all. Most people blame it for too much violence, but I find that ridiculous. There may be a few graphic antics, but there's far worse out there.

Most importantly, it's fun. With an awesome arsenal of weapons such as the RC-P90 and the classic Golden Gun, you'll go through several challenging levels from the movie, completing crucial objectives and fending off swarms of guards. There are tons of awesome cheats to get and even two secret levels that you will only earn if you have the true skill. Goldeneye is also one of the greatest multiplayer games ever as well. You can choose several characters from the movie, classic villains from old 007 movies (Baron Samedi, Oddjob, May Day, and Jaws), and guards in the game. Chances are you and your partner(s) will be laughing so hard as you blow each other away that you'll look like Bart and Lisa Simpson watching an episode of the Itchy and Scratchy show.

So if you don't have the game, don't rent it: Just buy it. It's too good to be true. For cool Goldeneye stuff, check out Detstar.com's Goldeneye website. Every James Bond lover will dig this game big time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Quite simply, Goldeneye is the single greatest N64 game to date. The learning curve is just about perfect, and you'll still be playing it with your friends months on, as the multiplayer mode is nothing short of exceptional.

The system for acquiring cheats for once requires some degree of skill, rather than simply knowing which buttons to press, and the challenge of Aztec on 00 agent level is astonishing.

All in all - it's the best game I've ever played on the N64","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"007's Goldeneye is one of the best N64 releases ever.

Better than this game? Well...Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Star Wars: Episode I-Racer and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time are far better and superior games. But I still love Goldeneye.

This is the best adaptation from a movie second only to Star Wars adaptations. The story is perfect. It's like you are in the movie itself.

The graphics are excellent. The movements are extremely realistic. The enemies' artificial intelligence are the best part in this game. I loved playing the stage in which James and Natalya break from the Janus base as the Goldeneye prepares to burn it. Escaping without sounding an alarm was very difficult. Eluding cameras and controlling your fire are great aspects in the gameplay.

It's also the toughest game I've ever played. N64 games are usually very, very easy. Goldeneye is the one exception. I'm still trying to beat the 00 Agent difficult level, but winning the easier levels was already a great victory. I loved when Alec Trevelyan asked: \"For England James?\". I answered: \"No, for ME!\" It happened just in the moment I blasted him to death. Just like in the movie. I love accomplishing every objective.

The multiplayer gaming is even better. At first I got killed every holy second. Now, I know how to win. I love forcing my playmates by playing at License to Kill.

The music and sound are astounding. Super Mario 64 looks like an Atari next to this. The only thing I still wanted to hear was the Goldeneye theme song, that plays at the end of the movie.

After Zelda was released, I nearly forgot I still had this game. It's still excellent, even if it's already surpassed. I hope other 007 games are produced.

Fantastic job Rareware! Nintendo was very smart to release this game on the N64 exclusively. Magnificent job Nintendo!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favorite James bond in games because: The missions are fun to play they have lots of action in them they can be hard that makes them fun to do the weapons you use are good. The way James bond look in this James bond games is pretty you can see pierce brosnan in him which is cool and all the other characters in this game look like the actors that played them in the movie. There is no way that you can't have a good time playing this game i loved it.Also the game follows the movie pretty much maybe a few added thing but it pretty much follows the movie. Also the this James bond game has pretty good graphics for Nintendo 64 and to bad there was no voice over actors in this game but who care as long as the game is fun to play.

Overall score ******** out of **********","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There isn't much that comes close to the perfect-paced storytelling and suspenseful action-packed levels as \"GoldenEye\". When it came out, it was the greatest game of all-time, and even today, it stays strong.

I will admit that this game did get boring after a few months of playing, and by not playing it again until two years later, I was thrust back into its greatest, almost as if I was playing it for the first time again.

There are 20 action-packed levels, which is probably the most of any James Bond game to date. Probably the most unforgettable one is the Tank level, which was likely the most explosive video game sequence at that time. And the first-person shooting as well as usage of Q gadgets is what James Bond fans are always dying to use.

Frankly, as a James Bond fan, I look for aspects of a true James Bond experience, which are now showing up in the PS2 games. So this game, while it has some great action and usable gadgets, I was somewhat expecting a little more, even back in 1997. I also disliked that this game didn't have Q or M or Moneypenny, or anyone from MI6. While watching the movies, Bond interacts with these characters at least a few times throughout each movie, but they are nowhere to be seen in this game. And vocal dialogue would have made the game more lively rather than the text dialogue they wound up using. They had the technology. They just didn't use it.

Probably the most annoying feature of this game is that in some ways it follows the story of the movie precisely, and other ways it's incoherent. For example, there are two many levels where you have to protect or save Natalya, even though in the movie she can take care of herself. There are also some unnecessary levels, like the Boat level where you have to disarm some bombs (which is not in the movie), which adds nothing to the storyline whatsoever. There are even some levels where you rescue Natalya, but at the beginning of the next level, she's captured again. How?

Oh well. Even those little things can't really put this game down. And while I do prefer the newer games, this Bond experience is definitely one you won't forget.

8 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"GoldenEye 007 is not only the best movie tie-in game of all time, but it is perhaps the most influential first-person shooter ever to hit the gaming-console market. If you aren't aware of the plot of this game that's not a problem, because essential it is the same as the popular James Bond movie, GoldenEye, which was released in 1995- two years prior to this game's release.

This is a game that is filled with techniques and styles that would be mimicked in many future games to come, and it gives the player a wide variety of objectives, and difficult challenges. The A.I. is smart (especially on higher difficulty settings) and the environments are complex enough to provide entertainment, as well as difficulty to any gamer.

The introduction of logical hit-points on your enemies is a great feature. Even bosses in this game can be taken down with a well-aimed shot to the head. It is this type of realism that really makes you feel like your James Bond and that you can sneak in, sneak out, covertly taking out henchmen as you go, or springing alarms and having to go through massive shootouts. Because of this there are many ways to beat the game, and limitless possibilities for how you accomplish your tasks. AKA: You can take easy ways or hard ways of beating levels...and if you don't have a strategy guide you'll have to find out those paths by yourself (which, I might add, is incredibly fun if you want to waste a day away).

This is one of those games that the more you play it the more you're able to value its contributions to the gaming industry. Each time I play it I notice aspects that have been replicated in many following FPS games. So if you have a Nintendo 64 go ahead and dust that sucker and order a used copy of GoldenEye 007, because trust me, as a Bond fan, and a casual gamer I can say that this game is highly recommended for all those who want to step into the shoes of James Bond, or just have an awesome, intense gaming experience.

(Also make sure to look out for its sister game, Perfect Dark, which is also on the N64, following the same controls, and very similar weapon uses.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We've all played Halo and Socom and GTA and Resi etc. but none of them can stand up to GE007. The game itself is great. I have literally burned out my N64 playing this great game, along with Zelda OOT. This game along alone built the mold that is essential for all modern shooters. on top of that the multi-player is great. The Story mode itself is worth playing a hundred times over and more. Its a great game for when your board and you want to just shoot up some people and there are endless unlock ables. (cheats, Aztec, Egyptian, god knows how many Multiplayer charries, and the three difficulties as well as the famous '007' difficulty Our modern games are great but when you sit down and play this game you get a certain feeling that few other games can give you. And with the Online capabilities of newer shooting games we rarely see this old two on two death match style. and when we do its no where near as good as this games. And when you get bored of the story, there are endless mysteries, glitches and easter eggs to be found and taken advantage of.

This is definitely one of the greatest shooting games of all time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first played this around 98' or 99' when I was with my friends.I thought the game was really great,and loved it.

The game is simple.On one player mode,you go around as James Bond and complete missions in different places like an Arctic wasteland or a city.My favorite was one with a tank.On two player mode,you and a friend choose from any character you wish and go all out with a fight.Through out the area you are in,you will find ammo and weapons to help.From hand guns to rifles to lasers and even your fists work.

Again with player two mode,there are lots of places to go,and some to unlock.I find this game really fun,but also very suspenseful.Because,you never really know where your opponent is,and it's surprising to see them behind a door where you are going.

This game gets ****(1\/2) stars or of ***** Very good!Go play it sometime!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You wear only the best Italian suits from Armani, hand stitched and fitted to your exact measurements. Your automobile is the finest that German engineering has to offer, and is equipped with as many gadgets as horses under the hood. You're a member of the finest polo clubs, frequently dine at restaurants such as Spago, and are always accompanied by at least two of the most beautiful women in the world. Your pocket watch doubles as a nuclear explosive, while your trusty pen can also be used as a semi-automatic .22 caliber gun. You snow ski in the Alps, go deep sea diving in the Caribbean, sky dive over the Andes, and all the while your hair is never, ever, out of place. You are Bond, James Bond, the world's most renown spy, favorite son of the good Queen, bad boy of the British SS, and perhaps the most desired man in the world. The character of James Bond was created by Ian Fleming, and is the movie industry's longest lasting icon, being the subject of over fifteen films spanning over four decades. The latest man to play the role is Pierce Brosnan, who took over the role of James Bond from Timothy Dalton in 1996, and made his 007 debut in Goldeneye.

This is the setting for the first major title developed by a third party on the Nintendo 64. Goldeneye, developed by Rare for Nintendo, has been on the market for some time. Its continued dominance in the sales charts is just one testament to how good this game is, and no review library would be complete without it.

Let's face it -- most of the time movie-licensed games are flops. Although the two seem like a good mix, the results, for the most part, have been horrendous. Games like Cliffhanger, True Lies, Lethal Weapon, and not to mention all the Star Trek flops, are ammunition enough against this mix. And for the record I am not a fan of movie licensed games, especially if I've seen the movie. At least that's how I used to think. In the case of Goldeneye, I had more reservations than normal. While not a bad movie, Goldeneye the film didn't have that much appeal to it, and I don't rank it in the top ten amongst Bond movies. As a game, however, let's just say it's a completely different story.

The game is a first-person shooter, and in order to be successful, you'll need at least as much brains as brawn. For those who have seen the movie, which I imagine is most of you reading this, the story is very consistent and follows the path of the movie with little variation. A plot to control the world's most dangerous satellite, Goldeneye, has begun in the USSR, and in the process a beautiful woman has been captured. Your missions will be many, the danger extreme. You will have to rely on your wits and experience to get you through the most grueling missions the world has ever known. M will brief you as soon as you're ready. Good day, James.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In my personal opinion i think this is the greatest video game ever created! I first played this game at my friends house years ago, the very next day I went out and got my own. Since that day close to seven years ago I have not stopped playing it. I can't help it I just can't get bored of it. I've been addicted to other games on other, much newer systems but I keep coming back for more Goldeneye. Every mission is amazingly fun and challenging, the multi-player mode was like none other. I hope you can be as fortunate as I was to have played four player multi-player mode because I had brothers and friends who would get together and play this game all the time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This game has cartoon graphics, not much violence and really short levels - then why do people say it is so brilliant?!? Because it always holds your attention, it captivates you and refuses to let go! You will try for hours to try and find that damn flight recorder, try to work out how to get into the room without alerting the guards, etc! The levels are short only when you know what to do - until that, you will spend hours trying to figure out where to find correspondences, where to find helicopters and so on! And you'll have fun all the while you are doing it! Well worth a rent!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ever since I first played it in 1998, GoldenEye has been one of my favourite video games. In fact, I recently bought an N64 purely so that I could own it and play it more often! The game is pretty much near-perfect: the single-player mode does a fantastic job of immersing yourself in Bond's shoes, with varied mission objectives, convincing weapons, and great level design. Even though the enemies' artificial intelligence is pretty basic by today's standards, that only adds to GoldenEye's appeal. The method of obtaining cheats (completing levels within a strict time limit) was also innovative when the title was released, and even now I still haven't cracked some of them!

The game comes with a wonderful multiplayer mode for up to four players, and while this isn't as advanced as the Combat Simulator in the game's sequel \"Perfect Dark\", it is still incredibly satisfying to blast your opponents to smithereens with a barrage of RC-P90 fire! ;-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can be said about one of the greatest N64 games ever? That the action is fast enough to keep even a seasoned FPS veteran sweating bullets quite literally? That the graphics are great, down to the explosions that everyone loves to see? That nothing is quite as fun as playing multiplayer mode, and shooting your friends and siblings in the back with submachine guns?

Very little beats Goldeneye 007. About the only thing missing was voice acting, and a bit more intelligence in the enemy soldiers. If you have an N64, and you like shooting people and things crossed with espionage, get a copy of this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This game requires stealth, smart, and a steady hand. The gameplay is simply the best; on top of that though are the interesting extras - bullet holes stay in the walls, enemies react to specific points where they have been hit by bullets, there are tons of motion captured animations that make the enemies seem very real (for instance when looking through a window at a guard he will stand there swatting flies away, sneezing, or scratching himself), the list goes on. This is the best licensed\/movie conversion ever and it puts you in the shoes of the suavest super spy. This game is the best reason for owning an N64.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This game is not exactly the best N64 game ever. Sure, it's good, but only when there's 4 players. Without 4 players, the only fun thing to do is take remote mines and see how many people you can kill. But half of this game are levels where you have to save Natalya, so you'll have to limit your use of remote mines in those levels, and that gets quite boring. The graphics don't exactly reach the level of Super Mario 64 or even Mario Kart 64. And if you're talking a great multiplayer in a 1st-person shooter, you'll have to go with Perfect Dark. At least you can play \"multiplayer\" by yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"definitely the best game for N64 ever. I most say i was farely disappointed with tomorrow never dies, but the world is not enough promises to be better then goldeneye (according to the website).I love goldeneye so much i find something to do every time I play it. I have even made up my own missions for the levels. Multi player is the best of any game out there, and the graphics are astounding even now. The first day I got this I remember wishing that they would go back, and make all of the bond movies into games. Can you imagine driving that speed boat in live and let die and making those incredible jumps, or fighting off ninjas or fighting jaws in the spy who loved me and moonraker. (i think fighting him in those games would be more fun then in the aztec) what about chasing Sanchez in the gas trucks or scalling St. Cerils in for your eyes only. oh well let me get back to the game at hand. All of the levels are unique and make for very fun killing environments. there are many places to hide so you can sneek up on people (especially statue park) well this game is not worthy of renting you really need to buy it today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my favorite game for the Nintendo 64 platform. I've played many different first-person shooters, and I've never really liked any of them much, but this game has a certain something that I can't put my finger on that makes it an amazing amount of fun. Maybe it's the extraordinary detail put into the game. Maybe it's the fluid movement of the characters. Maybe it's the gadgets and weapons. Maybe it's the suave character of James Bond. Whatever it is, this game never seems to get old no matter how many times I've played it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 2023, in a world ruled by the economical interests of the great corporations (and not by the people will or politicians), Kam (Bobbie Phillips) is a human hybrid and IBI (International Bureau of Investigation) agent. She is denominated a `sub'(from sub-human), and her genetic composition is 80% human and 20% animal. She has a combination of genes of cougar, that gives her strength and flexibility; falcon, that giver her a increased capacity of seeing and hearing; and chameleon, that gives her the power of camouflage. In the first film, she was a very seductive and amoral woman, using sex to achieve information. I do not have watched the second yet, but in this third one, the story is full of action. A group of scientists has been developing a new and dangerous form of power generation for fifteen years. The research has not been concluded yet, when one of them betrayal the other and steals the research. The problem is that, due to its molecular instability, a black hole will be created and will suck the whole planet. Kam saves Dr. Tess Adkins (Teal Redmann), the survival of the team of scientist, and tries to retrieve the dangerous invent from the hands of the `bad guys'. There is a very strong `sub' in this gang that causes many difficulties for Kam. This action and sci-fi television movie is better than the first one, recalling `The Terminator' in some parts of the plot. Bobbie Phillips is a very beautiful actress, and her outfit is very cool. I am becoming a fan of this good entertainment. Fans of sci-fi movies will not be disappointed. Now I am trying to buy `Chameleon 2'. My vote is seven.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bobbie Phillips, who in her own right has amassed a great list of credits as a hard working Hollywood actress, shines in this third installment of UPN and Village Roadshow's Chameleon series. In this installment, the sexual innuendo has been toned down with Kam showing a caring maternal side towards a recently orphaned genius teen. Bobbie delivers this role to the viewers with great panache'. The action and stunts were the best in the series.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Fame' (1980) is brilliant. It's got all these qualities that made the late 70's movies so great. It is proud of its directness and not ashamed of being over the top.

What really matters here, is the journey, not the destination. Ignorant idiots with soap opera mentality, will never realize that 'Fame' is about the struggles, anxieties and triumphs of these young people, not about their careers.

Ironically enough, none of the very talented actors of 'Fame' made it in Hollywood. 'Fame' marked the end of an era. The end of artistic freedom and experimentation and the beginning of commercialization and political correctness. It's the last statement of a generation that had a voice of its own.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A recent survey of children in the UK re-enforced the notion put forth by this film 27 years ago. That being more than anything else, young people want to grow up to be somebody famous. It used to be doctors and firemen that kids wanted to be. Now, everyone wants to be famous. Fame is a story of a group of kids accepted into the High School for Performing Arts in New York City. We seen them first audition, then take classes and learn about life for the next four years. The film has a lot of fine qualities, but ultimately leaves you feeling a little unsatisfied.

Alan Parker's bold directorial style fits the story pretty well. The film has been classified as a musical, but more than anything it is a drama. Musical numbers and dance routines break out here and there, and Parker keeps them as close to realistic as they really could have been filmed. The acting is for the most part top-drawer with a few exceptions. The pacing is a little off, particularly toward the end of the film, but by that point, the story has already taken a few wrong turns anyway.

First off, the auditions at the beginning of the film should have weeded a couple of the principle characters out. It seems unlikely that anyone would show up and audition for one department, then stumble their way through admissions to another. Some of these people just don't look that talented or interested to begin with. Once the first year of classes gets going, the film settles into a nice groove. The interaction between students and teachers is very well handled, and it leaves you wanting more. The film begins to lose itself later on as we see more and more of the students' lives out of school. Some of these people just aren't worth caring about.

The film's biggest mistake is making the Ralph Garcy character so prominent. This guy is a boorish; self-centered jerk. A \"professional a-hole\" as he proudly declares on stage during his comedy routines. The audience is supposed to somehow feel for this guy and his tragic personal situation, but I was just hoping they'd throw his butt out of school. Irene Cara, Maureen Teefy, Paul McCrane and the late Gene Anthony Ray are the people you'll care about by the time this film is over. Try as I might, I still can't develop abs like Gene Anthony Ray had in this film.

Overall this film is good. It is memorable, interesting, and full of daring scenes and performances. It runs maybe a little too long, and perhaps some of the wrong characters get fully developed while others kind of hover in the background. The musical numbers are great, and there is even a surprise or two waiting to be discovered by the time the film is over. Though not perfect, Fame will be a film that lives on in one way or another for many years to come.

7 of 10 stars.

The Hound.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I truly hate musicals because music numbers just start out of the sudden and usually spoil scenes, but this one is completely different - it's simply brilliant. Plot perhaps isn't any challenge for the viewers, but the simplicity of people life stories makes this movie great.

I've seen it at least dozen times and still I'm not tired with the plot, characters or music (I just love the soundtrack - it's the only soundtrack that I've really wanted to have and most probably will remain the only one that I owe).

For me it's a must-seen kind of movie, great characters compiled with entertaining songs and a lot of things to think about after the movie end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"High school. Years and decades later, some look back on it with fondness, others with embarrassment. But few find it easy to forget. It's one of the most critical phases of our lives, when changes come fast and furious whether we're ready or not. No longer children, not yet adults, irresistible forces buffet us, pushing and pulling us in every direction.

\"Fame\" did its best to capture this turbulent, chaotic period for its cast of young characters. For the most part, it succeeded. It meandered, but did feel like a slice of life. This movie holds a special place in the hearts of the Class of '80. We had just bid farewell to a decade, and soon to the end of three or four stimulating and sometimes difficult school years. We were headed out into the cold, cruel world, leaving home for college then parts unknown. As we approached our watershed event, this newly released movie was like a two-hour yearbook for us. We couldn't escape the titular song on the radio. That was us up there on the screen. Those were our friends, rivals and classmates as we had faced our own dreams, frustrations, successes and failures.

It's especially poignant for those who attended any of New York City's other elite, top-tier high schools, especially Stuyvesant, Bronx HS of Science or Brooklyn Tech. Like the kids here, we were considered the best of the best. We had no auditions, but instead rigorous entrance exams. Perhaps even more than the Performing Arts kids, we were expected to change the world, although not necessarily become famous. Like them, not all of us made it. But the pressure cooker environment fostered extraordinary camaraderie and esprit de corps, not unlike the toe-tapping \"Hot Lunch Jam\" in the cafeteria. On our own graduation day, our spirits soared almost like the jubilant crescendo in the rousing finale. The film leaves us fittingly on a single, triumphant note at the end of \"I Sing the Body Electric,\" pointing to the blindingly bright, boundless future and all the promise it held.

\"Fame\" couldn't have been set anywhere else. This story never would have worked in a small or suburban school. Los Angeles has a stronger identification with movies and television, but NYC is a mecca for all of the arts. Home not only to what was then called PA, but also world-renowned Juilliard, NYC is a cultural center unmatched by any other city in the world. It's also a time capsule of the rest of the city of the time, showing the seediness, grit and dirt that was endemic of a New York still struggling back from the fiscal crisis that had nearly bankrupted it. But most of all, it showed the vitality, since muted by the inroads of Giuliani, Disney and tourism.

What I wouldn't give to be young again. But with \"Fame,\" at least I can remember what it was like.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of course this came out right at the beginning of the 1980s. Of course it did. Those drama students dancing in the street to Irene Cara's famous theme song, it's an indelible eighties leg-warmer style image. But there's more to the film than that. There's deprivation, and one man's struggle to learn to read, and a struggle with sexuality, and an attack on a child, and one girl tricked into taking topless photographs, and contemplation of suicide. In the end, though, it is also about that song.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In New York, a group of freshmen join the High School for the Performing Arts after being well succeeded in their audition. For four years, their dreams, deceptions, success, love and personal dramas are disclosed though the insecure Doris Finsecker (Maureen Teefy), the homosexual Montgomery (Payl McCrane), the aggressive Leroy (Gene Anthony Ray), the hopeful Coco (Irene Cara), the ambitious Ralph Garci (Barry Miller) and their friends until their graduation day.

Twenty-eight years ago, \"Fame\" was a great success, with the story of teenagers seeking a spot in the show business, and I loved this movie and the soundtrack on CD. I have just watched \"Fame\" on DVD, and presently I would say that it is a good movie with a great potential only, but with too many flawed subplots. The story follows too many characters and leaves many situations without answer. I do not know whether Alan Parker had edition problems to reduce the running time of this movie, but what happened, for example, with the ballerina that goes to a clinic for abortion? What happened with Leroy and his teacher, did he fail due to his grammar problem? What happened with Coco after undressing her blouse in the apartment of that crook? The musician that plays synthesizer and his proud father are left behind in the subplot. Anyway, \"Fame\" is still a delightful entertainment and a cult-movie for me. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"Fama\" (\"Fame\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If your looking for a movie with fantastic music, nice cast and a storyline that is not to difficult to understand; FAME is for you.

I have several scenes that i love in this movie; some make you laugh, others make you contemplative. The editing i think is wonderful, really fast and often funny. Shure, maybe there would have been some more potential in the whole thing, all the story's stay somehow on the surface; maybe a bit too many characters are involved.But I don't care, because the real stars are...

...the musical scenes! One of my favorites: the hot-lunch-jam sequence. That piece is just so raw, funky and filmed in a special way (handcamera-style in \"music-hell-breaking-loose\"), its just electrifying! I miss this raw energy in todays music-clips; the only similar energy I found perhaps in Bette Midlers \"the rose\", all of the concert footage.Its about capturing something \"wild\" that is \"realy\" happening, and not doing it just perfect; take by take.

So, FAME is a wonderful nostalgia-trip to when synthesizers where heavy and walk-mans not available.I recommend it once a year; sure not for everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Fame\" is a very well done portrait of the students who inhabit New York City's High School of the Arts. The film focuses on a group of students who dream of making it big while they perfect their craft at the now famous school. Director Alan Parker allows each of the highlighted students to mature on screen, allowing you to feel a connection with each one. The music here is infectious and fun. The dancing is exciting and fresh. The film eventually became the basis for an Emmy-winning television series starring Debbie Allen and some of the other actors from the film. One of the more enjoyable \"dance\" films of the 1980's. Received Oscars for music. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was well done but it also made me feel very down at times as well. For anyone that is considering show business this is a must see as it shows the raw deal in what goes on for these struggling workers. The soundtrack was definitely cool and the acting and dancing complimented it nicely. Some of the student's attitudes might have been a little far-fetched like Leroy's especially because I'm sure someone like that would've been kicked out immediately for refusing to read and such if this was the real High School For Performing Arts. The Coco screen test is hard to watch for any people out there with weak stomachs, please heed my warning. While it's very gritty I know it's the truth on what happens so in this respect the movie is right on. Overall it's entertaining and even though some parts drag on the majority goes by really quickly.

Final Grouping:

Movies: Probably would've skipped this one.

DVD Purchase: Not something I'd need to see again and again.

Rental: Worth renting at least once in your life!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Do not miss this picture that defies ages. With no hesitation, a masterpiece. Not only the script and the music but also choregraphy, casting,

cut : everything contributes to the perfect achievement. Now nearly 25 years ago and still amazing of maturity, art and

sensitivity. Available now in DVD, do not miss either. The transfert is perfect

and the sound re-boosted. One mystery remains about this superb work : why the actors did

not succeed better after this flashing start ?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We enjoy a film like \"Fame\" because we imagine we are there ourselves - music, dance and drama students, enjoying our self expression. This film had humour, entertainment and must be an inspiration to young people to have a go at the performing arts. Bravo \"Fame\". Certainly worth 8 out of 10!

Chris","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fame is one of the best movies I've seen about The Performing Arts. The music and the acting are excellent. The screenplay and Set Design are also excellent. My favorite part is when all the students start Dancing and making music in the Canteen. I can see this movie any number of times, and never get bored. I give it 8 1\/2 on 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw Fame when it first came out. It deals with the high school class of 1980, which was coincidentally my year of graduation. I saw the movie in the summer between high school and college and, being a performer myself, it holds a special place in my heart.

The biggest criticisms of Fame usually have to do with continuity, and there are definitely some story lines that either are not completed or don't make sense. However, those problems are more than made up for by the passion and emotion of the characters and the incredible music.

I saw it again recently and was surprised that I still loved it as much as I did the first time. Fame is often compared to Flashdance, which I don't think is fair. Although Flashdance has some great music and Jennifer Beals is gorgeous, I think Fame is vastly superior in the development of its characters and the complexity of its stories. For anyone who truly loves the arts, this is a must-see movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Film follows a bunch of students in the NYC High School of the Performing Arts. There's Coco (Irene Cara) a black singer who WILL make it to the top despite everything. She's helped by Bruno (Lee Curren) a white musician. Then there's Doris (Maureen Teefy) who wants to be an actress--but she's shy and scared. She becomes friends with Motgomery (Paul McCrane)--purportedly the only gay student in the school and is romanced by Raul (Barry Miller). Then there's Leroy (Gene Anthony Ray--who sadly died in 2003) who's homeless and a great dancer--but can't read. Then there's various teachers (Albert Hague, Anne Meara stand out) trying to teach the kids.

The songs are GREAT (the title tune and \"Out Here On My Own\" were nominated for Best Song--\"Fame\" won), the dances are energetic and the young cast shows plenty of ambition and talent. BUT this film misses the boat in the drama department. Many plot lines are brought up and completely left open-ended by the end of the movie. Why did Coco do a porno? Did Doris and Raul remain together afterwords? Did either make it? How about Montgomery--what happened to him? And did Leroy ever graduate--and how? There are too many long speeches (Raul has two) and moments that just lead to nothing. I'm assuming there were cuts in the script--I can't believe the movie just left all this open.

Still, it's worth seeing for the acting and, again, the music. There's basically not one bad song and the dances go full force (and at one point stop traffic--literally!). My favorites are \"Fame\", \"Out Here...\" and \"I Sing the Body Electric\" which is a great closing song. So I recommend it but can only give it a 7--the script really needed to tie up loose ends--and it didn't.

Trivia: They wanted to shot this film at the actual School for Performing Arts but couldn't get permission. The dean of the school read the script and said there was way too much swearing in the film. That is true--there is a LOT of foul language but that's how high school kids talk. Avoid the TV version which abysmally overdubs it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fame was released in the U.S. a year before I was born; I was too young to ever remember the original version of Fame- and yet I heard and read numerous things about it. Such as the fact that it spawned a TV series and that its soundtrack was led by the Irene Cara, Giogio Moroder hit, 'Fame'.

Fame was arguably the first of its kind to portray and showcase the world of performing arts in the form of a feature length film. The lives, the struggles, the hurdles the students and some of the teachers undergo themselves were under the eye of the viewers.

The performances were great, yet one which caught my eye in particular was Gene Anthony Ray, who played the troublesome yet promising Leroy. Angry, frustrated and at first rude, his character later became less angry and frustrated and more committed to his studies- not just with the practical in the performing but in the theoretical too. Irene Cara was good as Coco- the scene with her taking her blouse off while some pervy director was filming her was rather discomforting to watch-, as well as Paul McCrane for his amazing portrayal of a vulnerable but closeted homosexual trying to cope with life and enrolling on a performing arts school in New York, after he had been kicked out of the military when he told them he was gay. Ralph played by Barry Miller was interesting but at times, his character did grate on my nerves.

The choreography was excellent, there were some good dance numbers involved and the 'hot lunch' scene in the cafeteria was worth watching. Another scene that was great was when the 'Fame' song was played and all the kids started rushing out into the streets of New York and danced wildly and without a care in the world. It was a street jam like no other.

The only star to ever truly benefit from this in the long run was and is Debbie Allen- she later became a producer, director and star- though she mostly worked behind the scenes on shows such as Everybody Hates Chris and The Fresh Prince of Bel Air. Paul McCrane later went on to star alongside Peter Weller in the movie, 'Robocop', where he played a villain and E.R. as the judgemental, obnoxious Doctor Romano.

British director Alan Parker shot this really well- he allowed the performers to dance, act, sing to their hearts content without wanting to interfere with and affect their styles.

Throughout the duration of the movie, we see the various stages the students encounter during their 4 years- from their auditions to freshman year, all the way up to graduation in New York's High School For The Arts.

Fame is one of those movies which caters for or is aimed at a particular audience that isn't necessarily the general mainstream movie loving community- it is definitely NOT for everyone.

I for one enjoyed it because I have an interest in the arts- not technically in terms of being a performer because I am not one but as someone who appreciates that creativity and artistic expression can be channelled through hard work, commitment and passion towards what one does with their talents. Therefore, if you are an aspiring dancer, actor- or just someone who is creative, you might be interested in a movie such as this- though whether the events in Fame are anything like what it is in a performing arts college\/school in real life, then that is a completely different matter altogether.

The 2009 remake of this movie was released recently and frankly, it virtually pales by comparison.

As for the original Fame, almost 30 years on though yes it is a bit dated but it is still a great movie, nonetheless.

It's not an outright classic but as a 80s cult classic, in line with other 80s dance hit movies, such as Footloose and Flashdance, Fame hits the spot. Isn't it a coincidence that all those dance movies begin with the letter 'F'?

Gritty, moving and intriguing, this one is worth a watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie tells the story of nine ambitious teens trying to follow their dream at the infamous New York High School For Performing Arts: Coco, the singer, Bruno, the modern Mozart, Lisa, Leroy, and Hilary, the struggling dancers, Ralph, the comedian, and Doris and Montgomery, the actors. While they all think they have what it takes to really reach their goals, they are going to need a lot more than just their talent. They will have to deal with rejection, heartbreak, education, pain, and love in order to achieve their fame.

\"Fame\" is one of the most entertaining, classic, and inspirational movies of all time. It has everything a teen drama\/musical should have: extremely catchy, entertaining, Oscar-winning songs performed by the amazing Irene Cara, stunning dance numbers, a very attractive cast that makes you believe in the characters, and a great story, including the heartbreaking scene when Coco meets the video camera.

Like I said, the cast is awesome. Irene Cara can really act, and it's not only her singing that makes her shine here as Coco. Lee Curreri is very good as Bruno. Barry Miller brings a lot of humor to Ralph. Maureen Teefy is great as the outcast Doris, and look closely, and you'll see Paul McCrane of \"ER\" as Montgomery.

This is truly an amazing film. \"Fame\" really touched me and inspired me to keep following my dreams as an actor and singer. Any movie that moves me this much is a winner in my book. A must-see! The film really touched me and inspired me to follow my dreams as an actor and singer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie and its subsequent TV series followup has become the iconic stand-in for what is great about America.

Fame is famous for its music and performances. There are several standouts including Irene Cara, Paul McCrae, Anne Meara*, and the superb Gene Anthony Ray. The latter who plays a walk-on dancer with no academic or other than \"street\" credentials is an amazing personality and is worth watching for what is essentially a portrayal of himself. A wonderment to behold, as one king was apt to say.

The plot follows an interesting format - chronological at times, genre at other times, personalities in some cases ... but, it all really ends in a kind of mush.

Where Parker succeeds is in pushing this movie into periodic overdrive - with the extremely poignant and sometimes beautiful and outright campy music score that matches the performers step for step.

The climax of the film is a climax for all times. And this climatic complete cast of many many talented musicians and dancers and music is thankfully repeated throughout the credits. These are one set of credits that are well worth sitting through ... an achievement for the ages. The music by Christopher Gore is a gift to behold.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has become an iconic stand-in for what is great about America.

Fame is famous for its music and performances. There are several standout actors, singers, and dancers, including Irene Cara, Paul McCrae, Anne Meara*, and the superb Gene Anthony Ray.

The plot is not the movie. It follows an interesting format ... but, it all really ends in a kind of mush.

Where Parker succeeds is in pushing this movie into periodic overdrive - with the extremely poignant, sometimes beautiful and outright campy music score & performances.

The film's climax is a song-dance fest of musicians,dancers, & score by Christopher Gore. A wonderment to behold.

* An interesting note about the magnificent and superbly talented Anne Meara ... sometimes talent must reside in the genes ... Ms. Meara is married to one Jerry Stiller and is the mother of Ben Stiller ...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I expected FAME to be an uplifting film but it ended up the opposite. The overall plot which follows the lives of several determined students attending a performing arts school has strong potential. However, FAME builds its characters up beautifully and then leaves us with so many questions when its over. I was very surprised when the graduation scene pops up -- we thought the DVD had skipped or something. All of the characters have internal and external conflicts of some sort and virtually none of them are resolved when the movie ends! You might think there are too many characters, but its probably too many scenes. Its evident the film was cut up and shortened because its sometimes lacks transition. I think Laura Dean as Lisa Monroe is my favorite character. I really connected with her character's ambition and following her heart. Boyd Gaines as Michael, the stereotypical poor student who can't read but is a divine dancer, is also very good. I didn't especially like Irene Cara's character of Coco, but this is not Cara's fault since her script is weak and her character is not fleshed out. Her voice is beautiful and hearing her songs warrants watching the whole film. In summary, the film could use many improvements, but the quality actors and great music earn its place in film history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although at first glance this movie looks like the story of your parent's high school life (and many people will try to tell you that this movie is WAY outdated)... and I admit that that was MY first impression.... but honestly,the 'lessons' that are learned by the heroes\/heroines are def. NOT outdated. Who doesn't want to be famous? And who doesn't want do be accepted my their peers? And the homosexual guy-isn't there a whole controversy today about gay marriage, blah, blah? This movie, though released in the 80's still addresses some of the biggest issues in today's world. This movie does have a little too much profanity and nudity for my taste, though. (thus the 8\/10 rating)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Fame\" had been one of my favorite movies for years! It is not just an 80's musical movie of \"that\" high school in NYC, it is LEGENDARY- people no longer refer to the High School of Performing Arts but \"the Fame school\"!!

The characters are real, they are not \"Hollywood\" and their stories are real. The film follows them through the four years of school, starting with a powerful monologue by one student at Auditions and finishing with a spectacular graduation show.

Apparently some find the broadway show better, however it is my opinion that you should definitely see this movie anyway, and then have your own view. For anyone who enjoys movie watching and would like to have the \"classics\" down, this is surely one of them. It is an example of one of those movies that was really great, with actors that we loved for those 2 hours, and then never saw them again... they are classic \"Fame students\".

make FAME live forever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well,I am a dancer so automatically I liked this film. The only thing I didn't like was they didn't have much dancing as I thought there would be. But I have to say the it was a good dance film. I think there should be more songs too. But it was a good film as i said before! My rating 9\/10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great cast, great acting, great music. Each character in this movie had their own stories and personalities and it's vivid. A great movie not to be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fame, I think, was the best movie that I have ever seen. In ways it was funny and dramatic, but that is what makes a movie. True, it has a few loose ends, actually a lot, but I still think that it is a terrific movie. Some of the funny things happen in the audition at the beginning of the movie. I think it is hilarious when the girl tries to act out O.J. Simpson in \"The Towering Inferno\" and Raul\/Ralph goes around to every art department saying that his father was great at every one. He says that his dad danced with the Rockets and left Ralph his tap shoes. The Rockets, as far as I know, are made up of women. And the tap shoes were just regular shoes with bottle caps on the bottom. Also the guy who read the lines of Juliet in the Romeo and Juliet play was funny. One thing about the movie that just turns me on is the music. I have never heard anything like it!!! My favorite song is \"I Sing the Body Electric\" and my second is the theme song itself \"Fame\". Irene Cara has a great voice and is a great actress. I like the way the movie focused on many ethnic groups. It showed all of the kinds of people there actually are in what is now called \"La Guardia School of the Performing Arts\". This movie showed the triumphs and trials of many young performers, including Angelo, Doris, Bruno, Coco, Montgomery, Ralph, Leroy, Hilary, and Liza. They all had a hard time, but made it their own way. This movie could have added on about another 30-45 minutes (before the graduation), but it is still my favorite movie no matter what!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had always wanted to see this film and the first three-fourths proved I hadn't waited in vain. But what the hell happened in the end? I mean, don't get me wrong, I liked the film. It definitely made me nostalgic of the realistic, unique NYC of the 80s that we have lost thanks to Giuliani. But it's missing another half hour!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I truly fell in love with the characters. They were very down to earth but each and every one of them had a hidden dark side. Sort of a mystery. David Graysmark, himself, was an enigma. The secret fears and just secrets in general that he had. There was a whole side of him that the other characters knew nothing about and it left the audience either wondering or assuming. There was always a part of this man that he would keep hidden away, yet he'd share a little of himself too. He was the strong male lead character and I admire that type of character. Billy Moses himself is an incredible actor who could do just about any type of part! He's an amazing talent and a good man. His fans love, respect, and support him endlessly.

Since this show he's gone onto many other projects and has stretched his acting ability quite a bit more and quite well. Kudos to him and all the other actors from this show for doing such an excellent job! I wish them all well. I wish the series would've continued on! It's such a shame it didn't!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When it comes to those eerie and uncanny little crime films, the sorts that revolve around characters that are bordering on scum and inhabit equally scummy surroundings, and additionally carry that wavering and bleak feel thanks to some pretty grotty cinematography and some very black comedy; Dead Bodies is the sort of film Paul McGuigan wishes he could make. Alas, the maddening and sporadic Gangster No. 1 as well as the equally all over the shop, but interesting exercise in surrealism mixed with realism, effort entitled The Acid House are the only ones of his we've got to go on so far. Dead Bodies is Robert Quinn's piece based on a Derek Landy script, a film that straddles the line between psychological horror and neo-noir; intermingling elements of crime and terror with themes linked to morality and unnatural, obsessive disorders.

McGuigan's British based crime efforts carry that wavy and distorted feel, like witnessing somebody's nightmare and having front row seats in the process. His films are able to disgust is some areas and amuse in others what with their outlandish and all-over-the-place approach. They carry a very dream-like sensibility despite being grounded in a very realistic, down-trodden, grimy looking world \u0096 the real world with as much-an emphasis on the horror and the terror of the situations his characters spawn than anything else. Dead Bodies is a film that tackles both some pretty harrowing character driven situations as well as a brief inclusion of a study of a delicate psychological mindset, only here, the film balances both the eccentricity of its characters; the terror of the scenarios they find themselves in and the questions of morality that arise much better.

Dead Bodies is effective and rather simplistic without ever feeling like manipulative. Its suggestive and knowing tendency to want to hammer home exactly what people are thinking and feeling does not detract from the experience. Early on, we meet Tommy McGann (Scott), a young lad whose girlfriend Jean (Davis) dominates him, his life and the screen whenever she's on for the brief time that she is. The point as to the fact his situation of living in a less-than desirable house; with a job stacking shelves and a partner he doesn't get on with at all well is put across in a distinct manner. As is the manner in which the audience are given distinct permission to dislike Jean what with the bratty, spoilt and expectant attitudes she so clearly possesses. Later on the film will linger, rather obviously, on a police officer's face as suspicions and tensions rise in what is clearly a cheap and easy way to tell the watching audience that our hero is not quite out of trouble just yet.

But compare this to Gangster No. 1, in which such is the episodic and misguided approach McGuigan applies to the material; that a vital, vital plot point arises when a character is spotted leaving a building by someone else out on a 'random drive' in a scene set several months after the previous one. The feeling isn't as grounded nor fulfilling. Dead Bodies' set up is dominated by Kay Davis' Jean; a would-be femme fatale just itching to pick a fight of some sort but just not really being able to find one. She has lead Tommy jumping through rings; going there, doing this and that without Tommy ever really reacting in the manner he could, principally because he is controlled by her promises of sex. The beginning builds a certain amount of tension because of Tommy's underplayed reaction to what's going on and it culminates in a distinct release when the initial incident happens, and Jean dies.

If the set up is simple enough then that's one thing, but the pinch of the project is the manner in which Tommy decides to rid Jean of his hands by burying her without informing anyone of her death bar a best friend. Things tighten when it transpires there was a second dead body in the exact same place Tommy buried Jean, with suspicions, denials and general trouble the all round ingredients of the day. It is at this point the film blurs the lines between noir and horror; indeed Tommy inhabits rather-a large, ominous, spooky and even Gothic house which he shares with an elder relative whom inhabits the upper areas of said house. This evokes memories of Hitchcock's 1960 film Psycho and Bates' set up that he has with his mother, and where she's positioned. It is additionally no coincidence this would-be place of horror is the setting for Jean's unfortunate demise.

The placing of a dead body right in the hands of the hapless, male lead in order for it to act as the initial incident is a classic set up for any noir; from Ulmer's 1945 film Detour right up to a more recent, and more contemporary compared to Dead Bodies, 2006 film entitled Big Nothing. What this film unfolds into, is a twisted; rather unpredictable and quite frightening tale of genre hybridity and mind games told under a palette of distinctly drained visuals. The voice-overs and the treading on the fine line that the lead does for most of the film between right and wrong aid in pushing it into a realm of the neo-noir; if we consider the fact that the lead is, essentially, innocent and his murder charges are unfair then that's one thing, but his attitudes towards Jean initially saw him act without thought and his covering up of her death is the anti-thesis for dropping the murder charges. Dead Bodies is taught; entertaining to watch without ever feeling exploitative and provides a consistent tone for the rather nasty physical and psychological content being explored.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Late night on BBC1, was on my way to bed but curiosity piqued at a contemporary-set Irish film so I stayed to watch for a few minutes and then stayed to the end. I have to admit that the main attraction was the only English actress, Kelly Reilly, who is stunning to look at.

This is billed as a black comedy, which is one of the hardest things to pull off. It should be the perfect blend of horror and horrible laughs so that in the end you don't know why you're laughing - for me Martin Scorsese's After Hours (1985) is the best example. Dead Bodies is more black than comedy but the plot rattles along and spirals down towards further blackness. I didn't spot the final twists in the tale as some other posters here did so I was suitably surprised.

As a snapshot of the Irish film industry in 2003, it all seems rather worthy; it doesn't look like they spent too much on the making of it so it had a chance to make its money back. The script could've been a whole lot sharper but the acting was on the whole pretty good. I'm glad I watched it, flaws and all, tho I don't think I learnt much about Ireland today, especially their policing methods!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For the 1980s, this is a very dark movie. At this point, filmmakers were beginning to operate under the assumption that all films require smarmy comic relief (which, of course, is taken to the extreme today), flashy action scenes (even more overdone today), or steamy sex scenes.

Hutton and Penn are stupendous in their roles as childhood friends turned Soviet spies. Penn in particular is brilliant as hapless drug dealer Daulton Lee.

What you have here is a true thriller\/drama. There is no eye candy to speak of, but the story is so compelling and the acting so superb that (hopefully) most people wouldn't miss it. There are a couple amusing scenes, in particular the one where Penn tries to get his Soviet benefactors involved in a major drugrunning deal.

Well worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent drama about 2 alienated, spoiled punks who go afoul of the federal government, each for his own reasons. One, a druggie, just wants to score some bucks for his next fix, but the other has a far more sinister agenda fueled in part by a resentment of his father. Good performances and a hot script makes this a winner.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is something about true stories that makes them so much more interesting than fiction. I guess it is the fact that truth has always been stranger than fiction. The Falcon and the Snowman tells the true story about Christopher Boyce and his buddy Daulton Lee. Boyce (Hutton) is a former alter boy and intellectual, trying to find an occupation that can support and entertain him. His FBI father is able to pull some strings and get his idealist son a job working in the defense department. Boyce has few responsibilities and seems to be complacent drinking and goofing around with his co-workers. However, as time goes on, Boyce starts to learn top secret information that causes him to doubt the morality of his government. The idealist Boyce soon sees the illegal operations that the CIA is carrying out in above all places, Australia. Boyce eventually decides that he will leak some of the top secret info he is privy to, to the KGB. Of course, Boyce's mistake is the assumption that because the USA is doing bad things, the USSR is the good guy. Over time, Boyce and his drug-dealing buddy Lee (Penn), start to sell their top secret information to the KGB. What was once idealism, turns into capitalism and espionage. The strength of this movie is the incredible performances by Hutton and Penn. Although one of them starts off with the best intentions, they will both soon find themselves in an unending downward spiral. Great direction, music, everything. Not only a great film, but one of my all-time favorites.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie does an excellent job of taking us all the way through the dark tunnel of espionage, from the inception through the ultimate reckoning. The movie's impact is made even deeper with the realization that it is based on a true story. Timothy Hutton provides us with a quality, understated performance and Sean Penn demonstrates why he is one of America's finest living actors. As with \"Midnight Express,\" this movie should make us all think twice about doing something we shouldn't be doing in a foreign country.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Schelesinger's career as a film director was extraordinary. We had watched this film when it first came out, but wanted to see it again when it showed on cable recently. The film has a faded look, as one watches it today, but still, it is interesting because of the intense performances of the two principals.

If you haven't seen it, please don't read any further.

Chris and Daulton were two childhood friends that came from upper middle class backgrounds. Chris went to enter a seminary to be a priest, but gives up. Daulton became a small time drug user and trafficker. The two lives seem to run parallel as the pair become involved in an illegal activity that will prove their short sightedness. In fact, it shows how both young men miscalculate in their attempt to fool the CIA and the Soviet Union. These two, in a way, were so naive in thinking they could pull something that bigger, and better equipped people couldn't even imagine could be done.

Chris' motivation is legitimate, as he feels outraged in discovering the underhanded role of the agency for which he works in dealing with other nations, in this case Australia, something he finds by sheer coincidence. When he involves Daulton, we know the whole thing is doomed because no one into drugs, as he is, will ever amount to anything. In fact, Chris and Daulton had no conception of the scope of what they are trying to do, or its consequences.

Timothy Hutton was at this period of his career, an actor that was going places. He had proved he had talent with his work in other films, so it was a natural choice for Mr. Schlesinger to select him, a choice that pays off well. Sean Penn, also was a young actor who showed an intensity, like one hadn't seen before. In fact, at times, Mr. Penn, reminded us of a young Robert Mitchum in the making. Both actors' contribution to the film is incredible. One can't think who could have played this duo but them.

\"The Falcon and the Snowman\", while not up to the par with other great John Schlesinger's movies, is an interesting look to our not too distant past.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Set in the 1970s Los Angeles, Christopher Boyce has just dropped out of seminary school and returned back home were his father gets him a job where he monitors intelligence documents. His old friend Daulton Lee is a ratty cock drug-dealer, and gets caught in a set-up and must choose between becoming a narc or facing a long stint in prison. When up on bail, he jumps and heads to Mexico City. Chris offers Lee in a partnership to be his messenger to sell secret papers to the Soviet Union embassy in Mexico City, because of the disgrace he feels about the US Government's control over weaker countries to their own gain. But over time the two begin to clash with their motivations and find themselves in something bigger then they had originally intended.

Director John Schlesinger has spun out such films like the respectable \"Midnight Cowboy\", \"Marathon Man\", \"Sunday Bloody Sunday\" and \"Day of The Locust\". While \"The Falcon and the Snowman\" might not be held up that high, there's no question that this sombre espionage drama (inspired by a true incident) is an unjustly overlooked character portrait. Everything about it, is quite a subdued affair with no real grandeur qualities hitting a massive mark. The driving factor of the film has got to be the admirably versatile lead performances of Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn as the two ambitious young lads Chris and Daulton. Penn is especially good with his uneasy intensity, which works well off Hutton's superbly cool-and-collected turn. What starts off as easy, we watch the situation gradually crumble, as the two amateurs find themselves really out of their league. The strongly detailed and symbolic (predatory behaviour) plot mainly centres on the pair's relationship and that of their reasoning's for their actions, which eventually shows us the knotty developments that led to their downfall. The plan opens up like a wound to never properly heal, due to Daulton's drug addiction, which really makes him go off the rails and leaves Chris to pick up all the slack. The searing political aspect is there, but it focus on the themes of idealism (Boyce) and greed (Lee) to get its point across. Both don't mix and results show. Suspense is justified through its stimulating pot-boiling script and character interactions then that of any visual gimmicks. Action is very little, but still there's a pressure induced style to Schlesinger's assured and realistically dark 'n' gritty direction. Pacing is mostly well handled, although some sequences do seem to wallow on for too long, but however it grips you as it plays on its authentically paranoid tone to slowly build up to an exploding tight latter end. Adeptly fleshed into the technical production is an airily harrowing music score and professionally poignant cinematography. The supporting cast are exceptionally fine with Pat Hingle, Lori Singer, David Suchet, Boris Leskin, Jerry Hardin and Joyce Van Patten. Also look out for Michael Ironside in a tiny part as a FBI agent.

A mostly outstanding spy-film that benefits largely from talented lead performances and by not playing the usual stakes. It's more an emotional ride, then a complex one of twists. Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A great film in its genre, the direction, acting, most especially the casting of the film makes it even more powerful. A must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Falcon and the Snowman is the true story of two college-age rich kids from L.A. who become spies for the Soviet Union. One, played by Penn, is already a drug smuggler up to his eyeballs in trouble. The other, played by Hutton, lands a position at an aerospace firm where his job is to man a top-secret cable facility. There he learns of some of the dirty tricks employed by the CIA on foreigners that America doesn't like. Don't forget that the movie is set the early 70s, the time of Vietnam and Watergate. Appalled at what he's learned, the Hutton character decides to betray his country and convinces his buddy to join him. Neither of them is long on brains, it is not long before they're way in over their heads with no way out.

This is not a thriller, and is rather slowly paced. If this is not a problem for you, then it is well worth the rental.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're interested in learning about the 'real' side of spying, this movie is for you. Unlike 007 movies, this shows how things really go down in the world of espionage. Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn both give outstanding performances in this not-so-well-known film. Certainly worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN is a superb example of an anti-80s film. While many other films of the decade in general lacked substance, this film is pure substance. There's nothing stylish or fake or superfluous about it. It boasts two superb performances: Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn as lifelong friends Christopher Boyce and Daulton Lee, respectively. Hutton, Penn, and Tom Cruise were a triumvirate of early 80s actors who all looked headed to much bigger and better things (all 3 starred in TAPS). While Penn and Cruise's popularity soared, Hutton has been largely forgotten about, and that's a shame. Actually, Hutton is the first of the 3 to win an Oscar for supporting role in ORDINARY PEOPLE in 1980, but I think his performance in this movie is even more outstanding.

Hutton really captures the post-Vietnam war rebelliousness in his character Chris Boyce. A failed seminary school student, Chris has a love-hate relationship with his father, well played by the great character actor Pat Hingle. The scene where Chris quotes the poem his father thought he'd long forgotten is a particularly powerful one.

Chris gets job at Dept. of Defense and uses his hatred of U.S. gov't and its foreign policy to sell seemingly useless plans of old projects to the Soviets. He gets his buddy Daulton, a hyper drug-dealing self-server, in on it to be the courier of the project plans on microfilm. While Chris is doing it based on his beliefs, Daulton is doing it strictly for the money. The Soviet liaison is excellently played by David Suchet. Penn and Suchet have a real quirky chemistry and it's a kind of funny set of exchanges between them. But, make no mistake, this film is anything but that. It is a serious character study about pessimism, malaise, paranoia and mistrust.

Again, the leads make this film. Hutton delivers a brilliantly understated performance as Chris, a rather smart young man who had so much potential. Penn, as usual, does a tremendous characterization as Daulton, a pathetic loser who acts before he thinks, and most of the time doesn't think at all. The ending of this fact-based film is very saddening on several levels. A truly powerful character study.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is based on the true story of Christopher Boyce and his friend Daunton Lee. This fascinating story takes place around the time of the Whitlam Dismissal, in which during his time as a clerk for TRW, Christopher was privy to classified correspondence which admitted the CIA's involvement in Australian political and union circles. The movie shows several scenes involving Gough Whitlam (transmitted over US TV), where events take place which confirm the classified documents that Christopher had read previously. The removal of Gough Whitlam was an organized CIA coup. Elsewhere in the film, it was mentioned that most people have no idea about the level of deception that goes on, ultimately to ensure that the US is used as a vehicle to promote certain policies at the behest of everyone else. In the current age, nothing has changed.

Christopher's life was profoundly affected, read shocked, by his knowledge of what and how the CIA shapes foreign democracies, including the democracies of allied nations to the United States. Christopher reacted, probably not in the best way at the time, by selling top secret information to the Soviet Union with Daunton Lee acting as his exchange. Eventually Christopher and Daunton were captured and convicted of treason.

On 23rd May 1982, whilst serving time in US prison, Christopher Boyce agreed to a one and only interview with Ray Martin of 60 Minutes Australia because it was the Australian connection that profoundly affected him. It caused a furore in the Australian media for about a week, then it went hushed.

I liked the movie's symbolism of the falcon, and in it Chris was called the Falcon, and Daunton the Snowman (drug connection), but in reality the title \"Falcon\" was not something that was used by Chris.

Christopher Boyce: Criminal or Man of Conscience? You decide.

Resources: http:\/\/www.playitforwardoz.com\/boyce.html","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the movie, \"The Falcon and the Snowman\", when they were showing Christopher Boyce around the complex, the satellite in the background was the actual Ryholite satellite that is now in space. TRW allowed interior shots. TRW also allowed both interior and exterior shots for one of the original Star Trek TV series. (The episode is the one where Spock goes blind when a string of satellite lights are activated to kill the aliens). Christopher escaped jail (Lompock) and was featured on America's Most Wanted. He was drinking in a bar when the show aired. He said, \"Hey, that's me\". Needless to say, he was captured and transfered to a maximum security jail.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Falcon & the Snowman\" offers some of the best acting from its two leads. Hutton, in a brilliantly understated role, calmly portrays the confusion and angst of a man who seemingly turns traitor for no other reason than as rebellion against his father. Penn, as the co-conspirator basically just along for the ride and drug-money, explosively turns in one of the strongest performances of his multi-talented career.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on the true story about Christopher Boyce (Hutton) and Daulton Lee (Penn), and their involvement in selling American secret Government documents to the Soviets during the 1970s. Boyce works for the Government, and his job is to guard these particular documents, which ultimately disillusions him about his Country's affairs and practices. He then enlists his drug-dealer friend, Daulton Lee, who has become a wanted man, to be the courier for these sensitive documents. Lee infiltrates the Russian Embassy in Mexico, and makes contact with Alex (Suchet), and they both begin to play the espionage game.

Lee's interest is purely about money whilst Boyce is acting out of anger towards the system he is involved in. Alex believes Lee to be the inside man in the American government. Things start to become array when Lee's drug addiction and reckless behaviour in handling the courier position offsets both Alex and Boyce. Lee becomes more paranoid, and the initial espionage game becomes more deadly and consequential for everyone involved.

This is a true spy thriller without the cheesy action. The character motives and analysis of real-life subjects is sympathetic but very well written, and the film cleverly interweaves the real-life events with underlying political themes about human predatory behaviour. Where a bigger nation uses their political power to control the smaller nations. Well directed, and intense in parts, especially where the protagonists become immensely in over their heads in the spy game. Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn give amazingly riveting performances in a film that questions authority and yet there is no simple answer to the political message or the complexity of that system. The plight of the protagonists becomes the underlying message within 'The Falcon and the Snowman', and makes it a clever political thriller with a poignant element about society, human relationships, and the American system. Great film!

****1\/2 out of *****!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is one of my all-time favorites. I think that Sean Penn did a great job acting. It is one of the few true stories that made it to film that I really like. It is in my top 10 films of all-time. I watch it over and over and never get tired of it. Great movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The belief in the Big Other as an invisible power structure which exists in the Real is the most succinct definition of paranoia.\" \u0096 Slavoj Zizek

This is a review of \"Marathon Man\" and \"The Falcon and the Snowman\", two films by director John Schlesinger.

Though Hitchcock and Lang brought the \"conspiracy thriller\" to Hollywood, the genre only blossomed in the late 60s and 70s, with films like \"The Parallax View\", \"Z\", \"Marathon Man\", \"Capricorn One\", \"The Manchurian Candidate\", \"Three Days of the Condor\" and \"All The President's Men\". This was the age of Vietnam and Watergate, the public deeply suspicious of all political leaders.

The genre remained quiet in the 80s and early 90s, until the \"X Files\" TV series sprung to life. With taglines such as \"The Truth Is Out There\" and \"Trust No One\", the series posited a world of vast conspiracies and government plots, the common man at the mercy of all manners of ridiculously elaborate schemes. The only way out of the maze? \"Fight the future!\" as the tagline of the series' final season proclaimed. It was apparently our duty to trawl through the labyrinth of information, discovering some elusive \"truth\" that ensured our own freedom.

This trend ended with the boom of the internet, conspiracy thrillers now giving way to \"conspiracy documentaries\". The internet generation lapped up such independent documentaries as \"Loose Change\" and \"Zeitgeist\", whilst in the mainstream Michael Moore titillated his audience with stuff like \"Fahrenheit 9\/11\". All these documentaries believed in a \"secret order\", a cabal of wealthy politicians and businessmen who conspire to reduce human rights and enslave the world. They struggle to create a mono-myth, linking various conspiracies and hidden agendas into a single, all encompassing narrative that explains the purpose and point and future of everything.

This need to \"streamline narratives\", to make them more \"efficient\", is reflected in the scientific community, who battle to create a \"Grand Unification Theory\" and ultimately a \"Theory of Everything\", merging everything from Quantum Mechanics to Special Relativity into one giant all encompassing formula.

So ultimately, the \"conspiracy thriller\" is rooted in man's desire to have control. The modern subject is one who displays outright cynicism towards official institutions, yet at the same time believes in the existence of conspiracies (an unseen Other pulling the strings). This apparently contradictory coupling of cynicism and belief is strictly related to the demise of the big Other. Its disappearance causes us to construct an Other of the Other (conspiracy) in order to escape the unbearable freedom its loss causes. Conversely, there is no need to take the Big Other seriously if we believe in an Other of the Other. We're therefore allowed to display cynicism and belief in equal measures.

Man thus seeks to assert control over a wayward universe, to create a kind of paternal babysitter (be it God, a mathematical formula, a conspiracy theory, an explanation for violence\/conspiracies\/murder\/war etc) who provides meaning and symbolic order. The Big Other provides reassurances to the believer. It's a \"lifestyle choice\", akin to religion, in which his place in the world is dependent on sheer irrationality.

The problem with most \"conspiracy thrillers\", from the innocent days of Hitchcock's \"Topaz\" all the way up to modern fare like \"The Da Vinci Code\", are two fold. Firstly, they are not incorrect in suggesting that something is \"wrong\" amongst the \"elite\" or \"best people\", but they are incorrect in individualizing and personalizing processes that are social, collective and systemic, an approach which implies that it is just a question of personal morality rather than social structures. Secondly, and most importantly, these \"conspiracies\" ignore the fact that the Big Other simply doesn't exist. There is no symbolic order pulling the strings.

Some modern \"conspiracy thrillers\" (\"Eyes Wide Shut\", \"Existenz\" etc) acknowledge this, with their untangleable webs of lies, accidents, truths and half truths, nothing ever adding up, nothing ever making sense, the real and the hyperreal, the truth and the desire, all blurred, without any identifiable ground zero, but these are mostly films by intellectual directors.

Compared to these modern \"conspiracy thrillers\", \"Marathon Man\" and \"The Falcon and the Snowman\" are positively archaic. \"Marathon Man\" is a about a grad student (Dustin Hoffman) who gets embroiled in his big brother's business (Roy Scheider), which unfortunately has to do with spies, guns, double agents, diamonds and evil Nazi dentists. Scheider is suave, Hoffman is excellent and Schlesinger hits us with some neat visuals (the reveal of the Eiffel tower is stunning), but what's most interesting about the film is the way that its various plot lines don't intersect until the 1 hour mark. Even then, it takes a further half hour for things to start making sense. Unfortunately, the film ends with a clich\u00e9d showdown between the villain and the good guy, everything neatly resolved and explained.

\"The Falcon and the Snowman\" is a bit more ambitious. Sean Penn and Timothy Hutton play two friends who sell government secrets to the Soviet Union. Hutton works at a civil defence contractor and smuggles information out of his office and into the hands of Penn, a small time drug dealer who has no qualms selling to the KGB. Penn does this strictly for the money, whilst Hutton is disillusioned with the American government (particularly its attempt to depose the leader of Australia) and so sells the secrets strictly because he hates how his country conducts crimes and games of espionage. In other words, the film is about a conspiracy undertaken as a response to conspiracies.

\"Marathon Man\" \u0096 7.9\/10

\"The Falcon and the Snowman\" \u0096 8\/10

Aside from an oddly slapstick car crash and its clich\u00e9d ending, \"Marathon Man\" is an effective thriller, with several neat scenes. \"The Falcon and the Snowman\" is even better, Penn turning in a memorable performance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Director John Schlesinger's tense and frantic film tells the true story of Christopher Boyce and Andrew Daulton Lee, two young men who sold United States government secrets to the Soviet Union in the early 1970's.

Timothy Hutton plays Christopher Boyce very competently. He is a young man very disillusioned by the CIA's underhanded activities in allied Australia. Sean Penn, as the doped-up, drug running Andrew Daulton Lee, is outstanding.

The competent and professional direction of Schlesinger, along with some very good acting, make \"The Falcon and the Snowman\" an espionage thriller not to be missed.

Tuesday, February 4, 1992 - Video","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Falcon and the Snowman\" is the story of two young men, a CIA employee and a drug dealer, who become disenchanted with United States foreign policy and sell state secrets to the Soviet Union. The events of the film are based on a true story.

Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn are convincing in the lead parts and develop interesting characterizations. The supporting cast also performs well, notably with a performance from David Suchet of Hercule Poirot fame as a seasoned Soviet agent.

The film is generally effective at setting out its premise and developing it and giving a sense of two boys caught in something they did not properly understand going in. However, it does seem overlong and cumbersome at points in the middle. The ending, however, is tense, stunning and effective. There are some catchy rock songs included in the soundtrack, but also unfortunately a repeated mellow synthesizer track that doesn't fit with a spy story. There are other spy films more worth seeking out than \"The Falcon and the Snowman\", but it is a decent film none the less.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this moving was intriguing and absorbing; however, the story was a little choppy and hard to follow at times. Although the two principal actors did a great job, just seeing Senn Penn acting with every fiber of his being and stealing every frame made this a very memorable movie. Later movies have revealed him to be a not just one-role actor: he also showed comedic flair in Sweet and Lowdown. Surprisingly talented and not the light-weight I used to think he was.\/","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Christopher Boyce (Oscar-Winner:Timothy Hutton) gives up on being a priest and he's returning home for an uncertain future. When his best friend Daulton Lee (Oscar-Winner:Sean Penn) is a drug dealer, who's always gets in trouble and enjoys taking drugs a bit too much. When Christopher gets a job by working in a top secret government place titled \"RTX\". Boyce and Lee both have wealthy families, which they hoped to make it out of their own. When Boyce decides to take secret documents out of curiosity, which these documents are supposed to be destroyed. He decides to sell these secret documents for a cheap price for the Soviet Union with the help of his best friend. But both of them never knew how far they will go for sealing documents for a living and since they are both amateurs. Both of them have betrayed their country for top secret information.

Directed by the late Oscar-Winner:John Schlesinger (The Believers, Eye for an Eye, Midnight Cowboy) made an interesting character drama about two young men taking the wrong path in life. Oscar-Winners:Hutton and Penn are both extraordinary good in the film. The movie is even occasionally funny and quite disturbing at times. David Suchet nearly steals the show as the man, who works for the Soviet Union. This picture has a familiar cast in the supporting roles. It was quite underrated, when it was first released. Despite some great reviews by some of the top film critics. This picture is actually based on a true story. There's some flaws in the storytelling, like these two leads characters but overall, it's a movie worth seeing. Based on a novel by Robert Lindsey. Screenplay by Oscar-Winner:Steven Zaillian (American Gangster, Hannibal, Schindler's List). (****\/*****).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My father has worked with top secret information in the DIA before and he is the one who mentioned this movie to me. When I was a kid I would always ask him what would happen if he gave away secrets and he recommended this movie.

In the movie it really puts 2, almost completely different FRIENDS! in a tangle they never really knew what the outcome would really be. The snowman, Daulton really cracked me up because the movie portrayed him as just some drug pusher that did not know what he was arguing about, and in the movie it seemed like he got the worst of everything. The falcon, Chris is just a guy that wanted to express his feelings on U.S government in a very radical view.

For movie lovers this is a must see!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am not a fan of Sean Penn, but in contrast to my German colleague whose review appears here, I think he was perfectly cast as the neurotic, druggy character in this film. He has every nuance perfected and reminded me of several acquaintances who had similar tastes in \"recreational chemistry.\" I saw this film but once, 10-15 years ago and this is the only part of the film that was etched indelibly on my mind. I don't say it very often, but in this case I will: Bravo, Sean Penn! As for the story line, well, it's based on fact, and as such, it is a tragedy that people would sell their country's secrets to the then enemy. Again, Penn has shown what you can do if you disagree with the administration. Use the freedoms you have, paid for in blood; don't break the law.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is very good in term of acting and plot. The events and the setting (i.e. how Chris gets the job, Chris's work environment, the face-to-face between the two sides, etc) thereof, on the other hand, are found to be less than realistic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"True stories make the best stories don't they? There's always something enjoyable about a story, be it novel or movie or whatever, simply by the fact that it's real makes the story all the more fascinating. This movie is based on a true story of two young American men, one a government employee and falcon enthusiast\u0097Chris Boyce (Timothy Hutton)\u0097and the other\u0097Andrew Daulton Lee (Sean Penn)\u0097is a drug dealer. These two begin selling government, mostly CIA, secrets in 1975 to the Soviet Union.

The film focuses on the human aspect of the two men, as well as their growing personal problems (especially Penn's character with ever-worsening drug addictions), rather than glorifying their status as traitors to America, which would, no doubt, hurt the film's credibility in the US. Boyce gradually becomes more cautious and eventually frustrated and paranoid as their dealings drag on and they dig ever deeper into treacherous territory. Daulton becomes more dependent and addicted to cocaine and heroin as he becomes more frightened, and more desperate to maintain control over a situation he has no control over\u0097on top of which, he already has problems with the law. The torment of Boyce and Daulton's families because of the way they lead their lives is also well portrayed and adds well to the idea that espionage against one's country, even if thought to be done justly, leads only to major problems and the ruination of lives\u0097including the degradation of the friendship and trust between the two main characters.

Here's the breakdown:

The Good:

--Hutton and Penn each did extensive research on the characters to capture their individual look and feel, so they're portrayed with extensive depth and realism.

--The acting is excellent.

--The atmosphere of paranoia builds quite well.

--The story is fascinating, and of course, as one based on actual events, it has some added kick.

--Nice sets.

--The Soviets working with the Boyce and Daulton are portrayed very well, and not stereotyped or given evil consciences just for the sake of making them look bad.

Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help:

--The music is alright, nothing perfect though.

--Sound effects are occasionally a little iffy\u0097such was the case with a lot of films from the seventies through the eighties.

The Bad:

--Chris Boyce (Timothy Hutton) has a relationship with a woman that we hardly know. Because of Boyce's trouble brewing with the US and Soviet Governments, her life can be put in jeopardy\u0097but this isn't as expanded upon as it feels it should've been. Minor problem, though.

The Ugly:

--The apparent simplicity required to sell government secrets is a little unnerving. Nothing like a constant state of unreadiness to keep the masses feeling as unsafe as possible.

Memorable Scene:

--Seeing the first CIA report accidentally sent to the wrong place with the reason being, \"rough night.\"

This was another film that suffered massive delays due to the controversial content of the story. Studios and producers didn't see how a movie about two American traitors could ever be accepted by American audiences. Luckily, it's filmed and portrayed with a high degree of class and quality. Of course, it helps that the traitorous anti-heroes aren't portrayed heroically\u0097more like a couple young men who've made gross errors in judgment in their lives. As such, it becomes a very human drama, and one portrayed very well and very believably.

Acting: 9\/10 Story: 10\/10 Atmosphere: 8\/10 Cinematography: 8\/10 Character Development: 9\/10 Special Effects\/Make-up: 8\/10 (little quantity, high quality) Nudity\/Sexuality: 2\/10 (one scene in a strip club) Violence\/Gore: 7\/10 (no gore, just some violence) Music: 7\/10 Direction: 9\/10

Cheesiness: 0\/10 Crappiness: 0\/10

Overall: 8\/10

If you like films about espionage and spies, then you can't go wrong here. If you like dramatic films with a strong focus on the humanity of the characters, then this may also work for you. Highly recommended.

www.ResidentHazard.com","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"... sings David Bovie in this movie. BUT IT IS!!! It's ALL about America, so don't be ashamed to watch it. Just think, if you can, to prevent more damage... You know, you're just the same regular guy next door, so, be careful! One of the best critics of \"common\" mind and friendship. Still don't care? Go for it for the music - it's worth a try, just close your eyes and Pat Metheny and David Bowie will touch you so deep you'll start to scream! And while watching, if you'll dare to open your eyes, please don't do the popcorn&stuff, you're gonna miss quite a lot. You may think that it's not worth, but, think twice - and don't look at your neighbours lawn - you never know what to find there... Is It worth? Try it! Just don't die or gloat over it...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Falcon and the Snowman is based on a true story. Christopher Boyce, and Andrew Daulton Lee, (the titular traitors,) played by Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn, received their code- names from the KGB. Why? Boyce was an avid falconer and Lee was a coke head. The movie is based on a true story. It's based on the book of the same name. Another reviewer asked what was their motivation? Disillusionment it ain't. Ideology it ain't. (Pardon my bad grammar,) but I'm making a point here. What was it if it wasn't disillusionment or ideology? In a word, greed. By the time of the Boyce-Lee case, money became the great motivator and not ideology. Don't believe me? Then look at the Walker Family Spy Ring which was broken in the late '80s. Three spies did the worst damage to our national security in the '70s and '80s. John Walker, who began his career as a spy in the '60s, Christopher Boyce, and Andrew Daulton Lee. All three sold out this country for thirty pieces of silver. If you aren't familiar with that phrase, I suggest you read the Bible.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Take a young liberal idealist Christopher Boyce (Timothy Hutton) put in a top secret classification in a government front company because of his father's position team him up with a no'count drug dealer Daulton Lee (Sean Penn) who is wanted by the police and needs a new source of income and you have a recipe for espionage. Sean Penn played the part of the punk drug dealer with a certain sang froid probably out of particular verisimilitude with such raunchy types. The gall Penn carries with him in every situation is unique; he even suggests the Soviets run drugs for him.

I've seen the movie over and over again and each time I see something new. It seems to me that a major problem with US spy organizations is its inbreeding which leads to the hiring of an obviously unsuitable candidate by reason of temperament and inclination for a government front company.

I do recall when the Falconeer escaped from prison and led the authorities on a wild goose chase. I see that despite the escape he is now released. A pity the Soviets are no longer around to accept the wretch! A Cheery Cherio!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This anime recounts the tale of the Battle for Mamodo King. Every 1,000 years, 100 Mamado children are sent to Earth to fight to determine who will be their next king (in the original Japanese, the creatures are Mamono, which literally means magic\/evil object). Each Mamado is paired with a Human partner, and given a magic spellbook. The Human can use this book to unleash incredible powers in the Mamodo, and when a Mamodo is defeated, their spellbook is engulfed in flames (alternately, a Mamdodo's book can be captured and burned directly). After that the Mamodo returns to the Mamodo world.

The titular character is Zatch (Gash in Japan), a 6-year old mamodo with electric powers. He is paired with Kiyomaru Takamini, and 14-year old genius. Zatch is initially reluctant to fight, but learning that some Mamodo are evil and deciding the battle for king is wrong, he decided to fight to become a 'kind king'.

Zatch Bell has drawn comparison to Pokemon, but a better comparison is to Digimon. Like Digimon, the Mamodo and Human have a one to one, symbiotic relationship. Also unlike Pokemon, both shows have an actual plot.

Zatch Bell features character growth and evolving relationships, and some fairly adult story lines (like love vs racism; slavery; mind control; etc.). It even has some decent plot twists and mysteries.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am NOT one to like those Anime Cartoons (eg.Pokemon,Dragonball Z,Naruto), But Zatch Bell is Different in my opinion.Zatch Bell is more Exciting, has better characters, and doesn't focus so much on a sort of weapon or Mamodo as much as the episodes i've seen,Such as it The Episodes \"Big Brother Kanchome\", \"Zatch vs. Kiyo\".Zatch Bell Really focuses on the Life of The Strange Zatch,The Smart Kiyo,The Clueless Suzy,and the WeIrD Ponygon.Zatch Bell is probably my Fav Cartoon for now,but I encourage others to watch 1 Episode of it, you'll most likely will like it!

-Robbie H. (aka Vectorman)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just wanted to inform anyone who may be interested that the the movie \"New Jersey Drive\" was my personal favorite off alltime. I admire the work Nick Gomez and Spike Lee put into this masterpiece of a movie. This movie made quite an impression on me because of its realness and its appreciation of detail of life in urban New Jersey. It struck a chord with me, personally, because I grew up with friends like those depicted in the movie. It further made an impression with me because I used to spend time in Teaneck several years ago, so some of the characters were kept \"real\". At times, this movie seemed like a documentary because you didn't know whether or not these were real events taking place. Although movies like \"Boys in the Hood\" and \"Menace II Society\" grab more attention, I personally feel these movies were somewhat \"enhanced\" to appeal to a broader audience. \"New Jersey Drive\" was an uncompromising piece of \"in your face\" reality. Lee and Gomez covered every detail in this urban drama from the music, clothing, slang, and location.Unlike some of the movies I mentioned earlier, the actors performed as if they weren't \"actors\". Nothing was compromised in order to make good \"theater\". The only misfortune to come from this movie was the fact that many people \"slept\" on it. I look forward to more works of art from Nick and Spike in the hopefully near future.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being from eastern PA, right on the border of Northern New Jersey, I still get a feeling like this was a documentary more so than a movie. I have friends from New York and New Jersey and this film represents the kind of lifestyle that \"still\" exists today in lower income area's outside of the \"Big City\" lifestyle. If you have not seen this movie and ever wondered what REALLY goes on in the urban jungle, check this movie out. No really big name actors, its as if they just pulled these guys off the street and said act, which adds to the realism of the movie, the performances are FANTASTIC none the less! SEE THIS FILM!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very realistic movie. It's the most realistic I've seen on urban youth. The actors were great. I will look out for more films by Gomez. I had never heard of the film until someone mentioned it recently. I bought it on DVD. I was impressed. I haven't seen anything come close to life as I know it in Philadelphia. This comes real close - in fact, one scene where there is an accident (I won't spoil and give details), reminded me of a nearly identical situation in Philadelphia. At first I thought Gomez took the scene from that real-life event, but then I realized that he made the film a few years before that situation. I also agree with the point that this film didn't try to broaden its appeal by putting in Hollywood crap. Gomez also directed \"Laws of Gravity\" - I am eager to see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie brings to mind \"Boys 'n the Hood,\" \"Menace to Society,\" \"South Central\" and others of its ilk and even shares actors with some of them. The film's \"us vs. the law\" mentality is underscored by the all-black neighborhood vs. the nearly all-white police force. Here the cops are so bad they seem like caricatures and in one scene they even ambush the boys as they drive by in a car they've just \"liberated\" from its owner. It's like a bushwhacking from an old Western, but the contemporary setting makes it look all too real.

The story centers on young Jason Petty and his buddies, to whom school is just an inconvenience that takes time away from their \"real occupation\" of boosting cars. This happens to be Newark, N.J., a rust-belt city low on jobs but notoriously high on crime. In fact the problem is so severe that the cops all have \"Car Theft\" written on their backs, to show that an entire unit must be devoted to this particular crime.

The boys use a \"slim Jim\" to gleefully break into cars and go joy-riding, as if it's no big deal. They only run into real trouble when the police ambush them. The vicious, Nazi-like Lt. has a vendetta against the boys, seeing them not as human beings who might be worthy of redemption, but as human targets. In fact, he's a little reminiscent of that sadistic Nazi officer of the Warsaw ghetto, who shot down Jews for pleasure in the film \"Schindler's List.\" When the boys steal a police car in retribution for the ambush, things predictably go downhill fast. They are severely beaten by the cops and Jason finally ends up in prison. Clearly these are \"bad boys,\" who'd steal your car in a minute, but the film wants us to see them as anti-heroes, showing Jason protecting his sister and his friend taking care of his own grandmother. The film left us wondering whose side to take and who to feel sadder for: the boys whose lives are going down the drain, the honest citizens whose cars are being stolen left and right and who could be caught in the crossfire of a shootout at any moment or the city of Newark itself, the spirit of whose law is being betrayed by brutal, soul-dead cops.

In spite of the over-the-top portrayal of the latter, the film offers a realistic-looking rendering of the ghetto, of the protagonists and their families and of the culture of car theft in a city where there appears to be only 2 career paths - law enforcement and crime. Strangely, the entire subject of drugs is never mentioned.

The filmmakers (including producer Spike Lee) are obviously biased against the Newark police, who, we hope, are not as bad they are portrayed here. Nevertheless, they've given us yet another a strong, affecting story about the inner city and black youth gone awry and Sharron Corley is fine as Jason.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I lived in that area (Hoboken and Jersey City)for about ten years. This film certainly captures the feel of that time and place. The dialogue is very good, the music is right and scenarios realistic. As another poster said, it looks almost like a documentary.

I like the way it humanizes these kids, who probably would have rather have been born in Westchester, but fall into what kids fall into. It just so happens that area is pretty rough.

They over-demonize the cops quite a bit, but that's to be expected. I'd say the acting is good all-around, too.

It gives the viewer some sense of how this idiocy is caused and gets blown out-of-proportion. Hopefully, the new mayor of Newark is making progress.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WOW I Love this movie. This is definitely added to my list of Ghetto Movies.

Juice - Starring Tupac 'I don't giva F***' Menace II Society - O-Dawg 'I'll smoke Anybody, I just don't giva F****' New Jersey Drive - Hey they steal cars in broad daylight they obviously don't giva f***

New Jersey Drive is the best hood movie ever. It is at the top of the list, menace II society is second, and juice is third, Clockers is really stupid.

The soundtrack for New Jersey Drive is Pwnage too Mac Mall & Young Lay - All about my fetti is heard through out the movie.

Lords of the underground - Burn rubber, another good song, and so is Ill & Al Scratch - don't shut down on a player

If your a fan of GTA-SA you'll freaking love this movie, AND The amazing soundtrack. The soundtrack is basically Rap about stealing cars ^_^ SWEETTTT Movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought Nick Gomez's look at the gritty streets of New Jersey, where car-jackings are at an all-time high, was both thought-provoking and entertaining. This is just as good as movies like Boyz n the Hood or Menace II Society or Above the Rim. I thought the actors and the scenarios were suitable, it had a gritty realistic feel to it and was very atmospheric, whether on purpose or by raw coincidence. I liked this movie a lot, an underrated gem i found on TV and glad i caught it. Go watch this movie if you get a shot. If they don't have a DVD, they should release one. Well done Nick Gomez. IMDb Rating: 5.9. My Rating: 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is pretty good, it actually is like a good wine, it gets better the more you watch it. The pace is pretty slow for such a high octane topic, but the cinematography is beautiful and surreal. There is a cool blue tint that \"rides\" the whole film. There is also one great performance in Gabriel Casseus' performance of the character \"Midget\". He is terrific. Why doesn't this guy work more. If the film got better support, he probably would have.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ingrid Bergman (Cleo Dulaine) has never been so beautiful. Gary Cooper as \"Cleent\" so perfectly cast as a laconic Texan who knows this gal is up to no good. When the two lock eyes at the French Market, we know this match will be full of sparks. When they stroll in her garden in her restored French Quarter house and the love theme plays it is a dream for all us romantics.

The costumes are lovely; the set decoration makes you wish the \"Quarter\" was just that way. And that Saratoga still had that hotel with the wide veranda with all the old biddies gossiping.

From Edna Ferbers novel, the story is of revenge for old wrongs and the fights over who would run the railroads in the early days of that industry.

In the Saratoga scenes, Florence Bates as a grand dame steals every scene.

But it is the scene of Cleo taking on the little lawyer her New Orleans relatives have sent to buy her off that is a Magic Movie Moment. After Cleo has bested him in the negotiations, he looks at her with longing and says \"may I say - you are very-beautiful\". And Cleo with a happy, wicked smile says \"yes, isn't it lucky.\" You want to shout \"YES\"!!!

One of my all time favorite romantic films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fantastic movie, and very overlooked. Gary has never been more handsome, and Ingrid is more beautiful than in ANY other film. If you don't believe, just watch the movie. Every cast member is wonderful; the love scenes between Gary and Ingrid will make your pulse race! The story is great, the script is Oscar caliber. Don't miss this film!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Saratoga Trunk\" is a 1945 film starring Ingrid Bergman and Gary Cooper. It's based on a 1941 book by the great Edna Ferber. Subconsciously she may have had Gone with the Wind on the brain; parts of the story reminded me of GWTW.

Set in the 1890s, Clio Dulaine is an illegitimate child who returns from New Orleans from France with a mulatto servant (Flora Robson) and a dwarf servant, Cupidon (Jerry Austin). She has given herself a Countess title and claims to be a widow. Her mother killed her father by accident, and his family shunned her. Clio takes over the old homestead with the idea of embarrassing her half-sister and the wife of her father, which she does by calling great attention to herself. Her plan is to marry someone very wealthy who can give her the security and respectability she craves. Then she spots Clint Maroon (Cooper), a Texas gambler, and falls for him. The two have a volatile relationship - and he doesn't have any money, so she can't marry him - so he leaves for Saratoga Springs. Eventually the Dulaine family has enough, and their attorney gives her $10,000 to get out of town. She does. She goes to Saratoga Springs and goes after the owner of the railroad, Bart von Steed. But Clint is always around.

Bergman is beautiful in dark hair and wearing the period costumes, and Cooper is drop-dead gorgeous with that incredible 300-watt smile of his. How she could resist him is beyond me. And the love scenes - whoa, what chemistry! The supporting cast is excellent, Robson and Cupidon creating interesting characters, and Florence Bates giving an excellent performance as a socially prominent woman who takes Clio under her wing, knowing she's a big fake.

The film runs a little long, and some of the acting may seem old-fashioned today, but it's an absorbing story filled with atmosphere and vivid performances. The ending won't come as any surprise. It's a fun journey, though.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I gave this movie a 10 simply out of my sick obsession with Ingrid Bergman:) lol. I really think she was the best actress to ever grace this earth with her talent and all of her movies are absolutely wonderful (even when they are awful) because SHE is in them. If it hadn't been her and Vivien Leigh (as it had originally been desired I hear) I would have given it a 9.0 Simply because I love Viv but probably not as much as I love Ingrid. And any other actress would have made it maybe a 6. It's a good story, two wild people falling in love in a society where it bad to be bad. Reminds me a little of GWTW except laced with a more highbrow attitude. Gary Cooper is very handsome as usual and of course his voice never changes the entire film, but hey Ingrid makes him seem so amazing and dashing and 20 times hotter than he probably should be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to admit I am prejudiced about my vote on this film, but I have strong reasons as I know some of the true history that was given the Hollywood treatment here. Edna Ferber's novel upon which this is based is from an era where real names can't be used. In a way, this film is all smoke & mirrors. Even though it was released in 1946, it was filmed shortly after Casablanca. Ingrid Bergman is at her most radiant in this movie as a brunette.

She plays a beautiful woman who is trying to trade on her beauty to get a rich husband. Today that is a gold digger, but in this social era, she is desirable & the kind of woman who makes all the men want her, & all the old snooty society types talk of her & avoid her, while wishing they were her. Ingrid is at her best & plays this role well.

Some sympathy for Ingrids character is raised in the New Orleans section of this film as she manages to get a decent belated tomb for her scandalized mother as part of the settlement by her relatives to get her to leave New Orleans. The snooty family of relatives there are so scandalized by her that they will do almost anything she asks to get her to leave town.

Gary Cooper is good in this film though he already appears to be aging a bit to play a dashing Texan Bachelor\/Gambler. He pulls it off well considering that handicap which he appeared older than he was due to his real life chain smoking. Flora Robison as Ingrid's Maid got nominated for an Oscar as supporting actress in this film. Jerry Austin as Cupidor was over-looked in many ways for his role but is the only comic relief in the film & does it well.

When the film moves to Saratoga, it depicts accurately how important Saratoga was in that era. I like the sequence when Bergman walks to the Saratoge Spring to get some of the \"sulfur\" water which everyone considered so healthy then. When she drinks some she forces herself not to make a face and comments how good it is & that she must have more.

The real history is the railroad battle which really occurred on the rail line in Tunnel, New York- which is the actual Saratoga Trunk the film title is derived from. This battle actually happened in 1869 between agents for Andrew Carnagie & J. P. Morgan. The line was the economic key to the country in 1869 connecting coal country & the east coast. The references to it are throughout the film are very real. There is even some dialog describing Carnagie as a \"Scot\" though the reference is vague & unfamiliar to anyone not knowing the history around the battle.

The railroad line & the railroad tunnel in Tunnel, New York (zip code 13848) still exist although the film was shot in California. The real tunnel is about 1 mile long. It is still part of a key freight line today, years after this occurred. I grew up there. Gary Cooper's line in the film while he is riding the train into the tunnel is right, it is still \"mighty pretty country\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I grew up in New York City and every afternoon ABC would show the 4:30 movie- Saratoga Trunk was one of the first movies I remember watching as a kid. I loved this movie and it has stayed with me for years. I recently watched it again and still thought it was great - maybe I am just a romantic - but I thought it was well done. I do not want to say this movie was good only because of the main actors - I really did not know who they were when I first saw this movie - I guess I just knew quality acting as a child. Both Bergman and Cooper were excellent. I especially loved seeing old New Orleans during the time period of this movie . If you ever get a chance to visit New Orleans - you should watch movies that show the city during that time period - when you get to see some of the old homes in the French Quarter(not just Bourbon Street) or uptown, you can truly imagine life as it was 100 years ago.

I love old movies - this one to me is a good flick!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would rate this film high on my list of Ingrid Bergman films. Ingrid's beauty aside, her talent is evident in scene after scene. She was sad, mean, witty,

snobbish, flirtatious, delightfully funny, loving, tender, sorrowful, distressed, happy, etc. You name it, she was all those things and more. -And so

convincing. Ingrid plays a notorious woman (Clio) who comes back to New

Orleans and falls for a Texas gambler, Gary Cooper (Clint). I especially loved the scene where they are sitting at the dining table saying nothing, just staring at each other. She, in an elegant white gown and he in a handsome white cowboy

outfit, sitting there looking at her adoringly. What chemistry! What love!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie when I was in elementary school, back in the 1960s. I was fascinated with the character played by Ingrid Bergman and it was my introduction to the French Quarter of New Orleans. The first part of the movie is the best as she comes back to exact some revenge on her father's wife and daughter (her mother had been driven out in disgrace). During this time she meets the wonderful Clint Maroon, played by Gary Cooper. The chemistry between the two is great. The second half of the movie takes place in Saratoga, NY (the Saratoga of the title) and I never enjoy it as much as the New Orleans setting but it's still very good. I give this movie a ten - partly out of nostalgia but mostly because it's just a darn good movie and the characters besides those of Bergman and Cooper are equally wonderful (Flora Robson comes close to stealing the scenes from Bergman). It used to be shown on TV periodically but it's shown rarely if ever - it would be a good one for one of the classic movie stations to pick up and put into their programming cycles.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Perhaps this movie is a little too long, but it still has some charm 45 years later. The main roles seem more appropriate for Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh. I could care less about Gary Cooper, but Ingrid Bergman is fine, particularly in dark hair. The movie is worth seeing for the supporting cast: Flora Robson is terrific as a mulatto servant. She is a white woman in blackface, and can have an expression of evil or of a voodoo mistress. Jerry Austin as a servant dwarf has a delightful role, that keeps you chuckling despite some overlong scenes. Speaking of scenes, Florence Bates steals most of the ones she is in as a dowager social lady. I didn't understand the outcome of the railroad fight at the end of the movie, and the last scene was pure Hollywood dreck. It's an odd feeling when you realize the film title refers to a railroad rather than a piece of luggage!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This short film certainly pulls no punches. The story is of a butcher who wrongfully kills an innocent man who he believes has sexually molested his retarded daughter. The film goes onto depict how the butcher serves his time, and returns to life with his daughter in care, and having to come to terms with a life with no future.

The graphic opening scenes of a horse being slaughtered, and the full frontal birth of the butchers daughter puts you a brutal frame of mind that stays with you throughout the film.

The snappy flow of the film is very direct and adds to its brutality. Consequently alot of ground is covered in the 40 minutes. You are taken in fully with the butchers non-life - particularly after he loses his daughter to social services and his business. His story continues in the excellent film Seul Contre Tous","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was my first Gaspar Noe movie I've watched and I have to say I was shocked. I don't mind gore in generally, but this isn't even gore , it's real butchering. For some of you a couple of scenes may be impossible to see and I mean really disgusting. Leaving aside these aspects, the main ideas revealed here and the dialog are quite brilliant. When you are given a strong argument against bringing a new life into the world and the manner in which it is given, you can't stop and take a minute to think about it. The actors did their job well, representing general masks of a handpick few people found at the bottom of a diseased society. The movie is full of metaphors, but I'll let you figure them out. Don't watch it if you want to have a lite, relaxing time. I recommend this movie to all those of you who want something to think about or simply watch something different of what you find in your average cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the forty minute film that introduces us to the character of the Butcher, who will later be examined more thoroughly in the feature Seul Contre Tous. In this film, it follows the early period of his life from 1965-1979, but focusing on the late seventies. The first images are of a slaughter of a horse, then the birth of a baby, the Butcher's daughter, who we quickly see growing up each year. The Butcher (played by Philippe Nahon in both films) is a man bitter with the world. He hates many things. His anger comes to a head when a man assaults his autistic daughter. The Butcher then maims the wrong man, and finds himself in prison.

This film follows the butcher's life to just after his release from prison, then Seul Contre Tous takes over from there. I watched the films the wrong way about, Seul Contre Tous first. Try and watch this little film first if you can.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The short film which got Gaspar Noe on the movie map, introducing us to his horrific, but thoroughly interesting character The Butcher, played brilliantly by Phillipe Nahon. Noe's direction here has all the hallmarks of his later films, showing he was carving his own voice and style from the beginning. His sudden cutting along with harsh, loud noise, skipping flashbacks and many other techniques all are used to disconcert the viewer. And it certainly works. Also, he is not afraid of showing violence, as viewers of Irreversible will know. Here the violence is equally powerful, and in the sequel Seul Contre Tous, it is almost unbearable.

The film opens with a horse being killed. It is shot in the head, and we watch it writhe on the floor, its pool of blood flowing out. We then see a human birth in all its bloody glory, the daughter of The Butcher. He was orphaned in WWII, and has grown up hating the world, and everyone and everything in it. He serves his customers, but his interior monologue constantly reminds us of his thoughts- he wants them all dead. His daughter Blandine Lenoir, who would also reprise her role six years later, is the only thing he cares about, and we watch them grow older together. She is however mute, and the subject of bullying and toying. The Butcher's relationship with her is almost incestuous, bathing her when she is old enough to do it herself etc,but this is explored more in the next film. When she is attacked by a man, the Butcher explodes with rage, stabbing an innocent man in the mouth. He goes to prison, taken from the only things he wants- his shop and daughter. In the short 40 minutes we see all this and more, his time in prison and release back to his world. Because of his daughter's state, autistic as well i think, she is bland, does little except stare, and is under the full control of her father. The film continues in the exceptionally bleak Seul Contre Tous. If you can, watch these two films, this one first. It has some truly excellent acting, but is very difficult to watch because of the relentless tone.

7 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would say that this film is disturbing. The brutality is depicted in a very sick way, it's like a psychosis in 40 minutes. In the same time, it is a cruel introspection in human behavior. The scenes are ferocious, starting with the butchery of the horse and ending with the brutal sex scene in the kitchen. Every emotion is exploited to extreme, the frustration of the butcher, the love for his daughter almost incestuous, the rage when he finds out she has been abused, every feeling is so natural and so wrong. This film delivers the truth about human nature in a very honest and brutal way. The message of the film is that one's life can change in a second as a consequence of one's behavior and that the most primitive emotions are the most powerful and can determine one's acting. I'd loved the unique manner of filming, the simplicity and the brutality accompanied with the silence in which only inner thoughts pierce through.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an amazingly well-filmed early talkie adaptation of the Eugene O'Neill play. Its major drawback is a static camera, and as a result it comes off much of the time as the filmed play it is, which is a pity, for it's a good piece of primitive moviemaking, made at a time when sound was posing all kinds of technical problems, and as a result most films were experimental whether or not this was their maker's intention. Garbo is as mysterious and charismatic as she was in her silent films, and her entrance is still classic. Her voice is strangely deep, almost boyish, which only enhances her already seductively eccentric persona. As her boyfriend, Charles Bickford is appropriately virile,--he was apparently born craggy--and a perfect counterpart to the divine Garbo. His Irish brogue is not bad at all, and he seems always a natural man of the sea, very O'Neill-like in his independent, brooding nature. As Garbo's (very) confused father, George Marion seems truly from another time. He has the sort of face and voice,--open, unmannered, totally without guile--that has vanished from the earth. Marie Dressler is also in the O'Neill swing of things. Her blank expression and intensity around the eyes speaks volumes, as she plays her boozy character as a woman at times bordering on psychosis. Poetic license, perhaps, as this is not in the script, but we can forgive Miss Dressler's excesses; she is too good at it not to. The story ends with a movement to the next thing, as distinct from resolution, which isn't the author's cup of tea; and those who like their films neatly worked out in the end will be disappointed by the absence of any real surprise. In Anna Christie we are in O'Neill country, a place of sea, storms and fog, a feeling of all-pervading and damnable uncertainty, which we would now call ambivilance, or anxiety neurosis. Rather than analyze this mood the author simply and wisely presents it, as weather, land, ocean and people intertwine and address one another in a unique language we feel priveleged to have heard.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Garbo's first spoken words in this 1930 film electrified audiences and became part of Hollywood legend. Garbo had become a star in her first American film, The Torrent, in 1926. And audiences waited til this film to see if Garbo could make the transition to talkies. She did. And while Pola Negri, Vilma Banky, and Renee Adoree fell by the wayside because of their accents, Garbo sailed on for another decade. Despite the staginess of this film, Garbo is really excellent, especially in the opening scene with the equally great Marie Dressler as Marthy. The two great stars trade dirty looks and sharp words as they size each other up while they have a few drinks and set the tone for the remainder of the film. Garbo was 25; Dressler was 60. Charles Bickford is OK as Matt, and George F. Marion is good as Old Chris. Marion originated this role on Broadway in 1922 and also played it in the 1923 silent version with Blanche Sweet. This Eugene O'Neill play is a true classic yet, oddly, was never filmed again. Anna Christie ranks as one of Garbo's greatest performances. And despite the staginess of the film and the grimness of the story, she is truly a marvel. See this one for Garbo and Dressler!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"78 years ago...the premiere of \"Anna Christie\" advertised by the slogan \"Garbo Talks!\" The film runs for 16 minutes and the viewers reach the climax of curiosity: Greta enters the bar and gets through a long awaited transfer from silence into sound: a few seconds closing her silent era and, at last, Greta Garbo says a historic line: \"Gimme a whiskey, ginger ale on the side and don't be stingy, baby!\"

\"Anna Christie\" (1930) is the movie by Clarence Brown that introduced a great silent star Greta Garbo to talkies. Nowadays, we can only imagine what serious transfer it was for actors and actresses. The careers of many were bound to end - something we hardly or not at all see at present. And it was no coincidence that it was Clarence Brown who directed the first talkie with the Swedish beauty. Garbo trusted the director after two of his great silent productions, FLESH AND THE DEVIL (1926) and A WOMAN OF AFFAIRS (1928): movies that achieved a smashing success at the box office, both with Garbo in the lead.

But we are in 2008 and that fact about the movie, now purely historical, appears to be of minor importance. The question for today's viewer is not what Garbo's voice sounds like but if the movie is still watchable after these 78 years. In other words, we all strive to answer the question if the movie has stood a test of time. Has it?

When I recently watched it, I came into conclusion that, except for some minor technical aspects, including static camera, \"Anna Christie\" is still very entertaining. It's, on the one hand, a wonderful story of a life, of a reality that the young woman faces (being based on Eugene O\"Neill's play), and, on the other hand, an artistic manifestation of true magnificence in the field of direction and acting. Let me analyze these two aspects in separate paragraphs.

CONTENT: Chris Christopherson (George F Marion), a heavy drinker, lives a life of a sailor, on a barge. Although his days are filled with sorrows, he is consoled by a letter from his daughter Anna (Garbo) whom he hasn't seen for 15 years. She says that she will come back to him. He starts to change everything for better; however forgets that his daughter is no longer a child lacking experience but a 23 year-old woman who has got through various sorts of things on a farm in Minnessota where she lived and worked. Moreover, he forgets that she has a right to accept another kind of male love in her life... This brief presentation of the content not from the perspective of the main character but the one which is introduced to us sooner than Anna (her father Chris) makes you realize how universal it is. Simply no letter from the whole text that life appears to be has been erased after all these years. Cases discussed here in 1930 are still meaningful and valid...

PERFORMANCES. There are not many characters in the movie, but there are two that really shine in the roles. It is of course Greta Garbo herself who did something extraordinary in her 15 year-long phenomenon, the presence that strongly marked the history of early cinema (something I have already discussed in many of my earlier comments on her films). But here, Garbo is slightly different. I admit that there are moments in this movie when she does not feel very comfortable with her role. That seems to be caused by her new experience with sound in English; however, her performance is, as always, genuine and unique. But that is what everyone has expected from Garbo. The true surprise of the movie for the 1930 viewers and also for us is Marie Dressler as Marthy. She is excellent in her facial expressions, in her accent, in the entire portrayal of a drinking woman who looks at life from the perspective of \"hitting the bottle.\" Her best moments include the conversation with Anna Christie in the bar preceded by her hilarious talk with Chris. The rest of the supporting cast are fine yet not great whatsoever (here the German version makes up for it). Particularly Dressler, except for Garbo herself, constitutes an absolutely flawless choice.

If you asked me what I like about \"Anna Christie\" nowadays, that's what I would tell you: it's a classic movie. However, there is one more thing that I must mention at the end. It is humor, wonderful wit that is noticeable throughout. Although the content is quite serious and \"Anna Christie\" in no way carries a comedian spirit (the only Garbo's comedy was NINOTCHKA), there are such moments when you will split your sides. Don't skip, for instance, Anna and Matt's visit in the fun park, particularly at the restaurant where he orders milk for her thinking how virtuous and innocent she is, beer for himself and where suddenly Marthy joins them by chance...

\"Anna Christie\" is a perfect movie for classic buffs and a must see for all at least a bit interested in the true magnificence of performance. If you are fed up with many of those modern starlets, seek such movies out and you shall be satisfied. Very worth your search!

Skaal Greta Garbo! Skaal Marie Dressler! Let us drink a toast to the great jobs you did in the movie! Skaal after all these years when wine tastes much better and your spirits are with us in a different sense...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For Greta Garbo's first talking picture, MGM wisely chose Eugene O'Neill's Pultizer Prize winning 1921 play ANNA Christie.

Also wisely, the producers backed Garbo up with not one but two members of the Original Broadway Cast (George Marion as Anna's father, Chris, and James T. Mack as Johnny the Priest - transmuted to \"Johnny the Harp\" for films so as not to offend).

This little change is interesting. Like too many films accused (by those who want MOVIES to be MOVIES and ignore their origins) of being \"little more than filmed stage plays,\" the problem is not the play but the movie makers who wouldn't be more faithful to the property. By diluting a great cinematic stage work so it wouldn't offend anyone, or opening it up because they COULD, too many lose the very qualities which made the piece worth filming in the first place.

Fortunately, the respect the studio had for both O'Neill and Garbo allowed ANNA Christie to survive the normally destructive process admirably in Frances Marion's generally sensitive screen adaptation. Wonder of wonders, Marion even allows the POINT of the scene where Garbo's Anna reveals her past on \"the farm\" to the man she badly wants to marry and the father who sent her there in tact! What the League of Decency must have thought of that!

The source play's greatest problem has always been that Chris's friend Marthy tends to walk away with the first act and then disappears from the last two so that Anna can take stage - the two sides of the genuinely good woman men don't always recognize.

The perfectly cast Marie Dressler (who had cut her teeth on the Broadway stage as well before going to Hollywood) is the perfect balance for Garbo's Anna in this area as well and the fast moving film at only 90 minutes, doesn't allow us too much time to miss her - one of the few benefits from atmosphere being shown rather than eloquently described in the original - AND screenwriter Marion is wise enough to stray from O'Neill to bring Dressler back for a touching scene two thirds of the way through the film that will remind many of Julie Laverne's second act appearance in SHOW BOAT.

Anna and Marthy's early scene together on screen (16 minutes into the film) taking each other's measure and setting up all the tension of the rest of the story is among the most affecting scenes in the entire piece. Not to be missed.

ANNA Christie is great tragic play and a good film drama. It's hard to imagine that a latter day remake, which would almost certainly lose the grit and atmosphere of this 1930 remake (it was first filmed without sound in 1923 - also with George Marion's original Broadway Chris) could improve on this excellent filming.

The internal scenes hew closest to the play, but the exteriors shouldn't be missed by anyone with an eye to atmosphere. While the background screen work is not to modern technical standards, the backgrounds give a better glimpse than most films of the era of the actual world in which the screen play is set (especially in the New York harbor).

Nearly all Garbo's naturalistic performances of the sound era have held up superbly (only the too often parodied death scene from CAMILLE, 7 years later, will occasionally draw snickers because of the heavy handed direction and the parodies), but this ANNA Christie, together with the variety of her 1932 films, MATA HARI and GRAND HOTEL, and the sublime Lubitsch touch on her 1939 comedy, NINOTCHKA (\"Garbo laughs!\"), surely stand as her best.

O'Neill fans who are taken with this play at the edge of his lauded \"sea plays,\" should track down the fine World War II shaped film released in the year before the U.S. entered the conflict, THE LONG VOYAGE HOME (1940). It is almost as skillfully drawn from those sea plays as this one is from ANNA Christie, and features a youngish John Wayne in one of his rare non-Westerns supporting a fine cast of veteran actors showing him the way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'd read all the negative reviews for \"Anna Christie\". You know, the gripes about the static camera, out-dated acting and wordiness of the screenplay. But when I viewed it yesterday I found it remarkably affecting and enjoyable. Yep, Clarence Brown's camera remains stationary for the most part, and I'm pretty sure one of the microphones was concealed in the ship's light. Yep, there's a lot of dialogue and no spectacular action sequences. It's an early talkie with primitive technical aspects. But... then there's Garbo, Marie Dressler, George F. Marion and Charles Bickford, all proving that great acting is timeless.

I believe \"Anna Christie\" is still one of Garbo's most iconic performances. And it's a wonderful performance from the Divine One, in a role that is really quite atypical for her. Yes, we've seen Garbo weary and almost beaten, yet never with bags under her eyes or her knocking back shots of whiskey. Garbo played so many (delightful) costume roles, that to see her play a contemporary woman is fascinating. She's not weighed down by heavy dresses or make-up. This performance seems quite raw from Garbo.

The plot, from the O'Neill play, follows weary Swedish ex-prostitute Anna, and her reunion with her boozy, seaman father. Anna's had enough trouble for any girl of twenty, as she tells drunken, slovenly Marthy (Dressler)in a bar. She finds solace in a life at sea, and romance with a rough-hewn, but good-hearted, fisherman (Charles Bickford). But her past threatens to ruin it all.

Charles Bickford is overlooked in Garbo's long line of (largely inferior) leading men. He's one actor who can actually share the screen with her and not get swallowed up by her magical presence. The pair have great chemistry together and seemed to enjoy working with one another. Dressler can never be accused of underplaying, and once again the grand dame is up to her old tricks, but she's terrific and convincing in her role, never annoying as in the dreadful \"Dinner At Eight\". I've never really heard of George F. Marion before, but he was wonderful as Garbo's father.

This is Pre-Code, and rather gritty and dark by MGM's standards. I really enjoyed it, and while it may creak in some places, it's still wonderful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"And with those words one of the great movie publicity campaigns came to a conclusion. 'Garbo Talks' and she spoke those words in her first sound film, an adaption of the Eugene O'Neil play Anna Christie.

Unlike with some other players and some other studios, MGM took great care in finding the proper vehicle for Greta Garbo. Many players who were fine in the universal medium of silent film would lose their careers because of talkies. Their heavy native accents would get in the way, some didn't know any English.

It was no accident that Anna Christie was chosen for Garbo. First of all it being authored by one of America's leading playwrights, it was the kind of literary property that would have appealed to her. Secondly since the title role was someone who was Swedish, the accent could be explained. Finally a lot of the kinks from early talkies had been worked out, even though Anna Christie still made use of title cards.

Like most of O'Neil's work it's short on action, but long and deep on characterization. The story takes place on the New York waterfront where Garbo as Anna has come to live with her father George Marion. Marion ran away to sea years ago when Anna was a baby and Marion abandoned his wife. Anna has had to do what she could to survive in the adult world and that includes prostitution.

Marion of course is glad to see her, he even kicks out Marie Dressler, the old waterfront crone he's been living with for years to make room for his flesh and blood. Of course both Marion and Garbo have their problems adjusting to each other, not made easy when they give shelter to a sailor played by Charles Bickford who takes a fancy to Garbo.

Marion is repeating his role from the original Broadway production. The role of Anna on stage was done by Pauline Lord. Anna Christie ran for 177 performances in the 1921-22 season on Broadway. It's one of O'Neil's best known works and one that's revived frequently.

Of course Garbo's performance with perfect diction even with a Swedish accent was acclaimed and her future in sound films was assured. Greta Garbo received an Oscar nomination for Best Actress and the film also got nominations for Clarence Brown as Best Director and William Daniels for Cinematography. Daniels should especially get a lot of kudos for the way he photographed the waterfront scenes. And Brown created the mood around the waterfront where the film is set.

Eugene O'Neil's work is timeless so Anna Christie even with a lot of the trappings of early sound films does not date the way many films of that era do. Garbo also shows she mastered the subtlety needed to work in the sound medium. Anna Christie is a classic, all the way around.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is worthwhile despite what you may hear. The performance of Marie Dressler (I hope I am spelling it right) as a drunken old sot is reason enough to see this film. It is an amazing performance. She is in a drunken stupor in three scenes for a good long while and she never does the same thing twice. You can actually smell the alcohol when she is done. Amazing. And Greta of course speaks her first lines on film and shes great. The Eugene O'Neill story is solid and like most O'Neill stories, very deep and intense. This is not light entertainment but if you appreciate those great character actors from the 30's and 40's you will like it. Some of the film is technically fuzzy but all in all worthwhile.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anna Christie (1930)

Anna Christie has some terrific parts, and some amazing performances, and yet it should be even better than it is. It has drama. Some of the scenes are really atmospheric, and if the interior shots around the table are a bore, other shots at night and at sea are really pretty exciting. Then there are the nearly historical, lively scenes set in Coney Island (even a brief jittery roller coaster ride), and the episode where two women are behind a netting in separate beds, and visitors to the midway can throw balls to try to tip them over, and the women (scantily dressed) egg the men on is weirdly sexual come-on kind of way. All the while Garbo (at the front of the crowd) watches.

Garbo of course is what makes this movie more than just another very good early talkie. She plays all sides of her character. She is coy and skeptical and in some kind of inner anguish. She laughs and cries, withdraws and pushes outward. In some ways it's a forward looking, remarkable movie (directed by Clarence Brown, who has a whole series of significant films from this pre-code sound era).

Though based on a successful Eugene O'Neil play, it's the writing that struggles a little as the actors seem to go through the paces at times. Marie Dressler is great in that exaggerated way she almost trademarked. And then there is Greta Garbo, who really does have a natural presence, even if it seems she's overacting, just slightly, at times (but then, so is everyone else). Garbo is of course famous first as a silent actress, and this is her talking film debut. Audiences loved her enough that she made a German language version the following year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Greta Garbo stars in 'Anna Christie', a very early 1930 MGM 'talkie', the first time 'Garbo Talks'. 'Anna Christie' is a powerful movie but not for everyone. The movie is filmed like a stage play, short on sets and cinematography, long on dialogue and dramatic characterizations. Eugene O'Neil who wrote the play 'Anna Christie' is known for his dark work and Garbo's character Anna Christie is a bleak figure with a tortured past.

The sound quality on the DVD was mediocre. Not helping matters is that George F. Marion who plays Anna's estranged dad, Chris Christofferson, is verbally hard to understand. Marion gives a good performance as the old drunken seamen who\u2019s teetering on insanity with his fixation of the evil 'devil sea'. But his dialogue is written with a very heavy Swedish accent, this is true to O'Neils original play. Marie Dressler's dialogue as Marthy Owens is equally hard to understand. Dressler believably portrays a broken down old drunken women, a 'wharf rat'. Her dialogue also is true to O'Neils original play as is Charles Bickford as the Irish seamen, Matt Burke who pursues Anna in a troubled relationship. Garbo is actually the easiest to understand.

The films strong point is Greta Garbo. She delivers a gut wrenching performance as the victim of neglect and abuse, leading to a life of prostitution. Garbo was a huge star at the time and considered one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood. Here her look isn't glamorous, it's tortured. Her body posture nearly doubles over in agony. She scrunches her face to become a pathetic creature on the screen. Garbo conveys these angst-ridden feelings to the viewer to convince us of her misery.

This is dark subject matter and Garbo brings it to life. It\u2019s not light fare, not fun, not for everyone. \u2018Anna Christie\u2019 is strong emotions dredged up from the depths for examination, this is one helluva ride.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Viewing both of these films concurrently is not a bad idea to get a sense of early film production and acting for the camera styles. I give the nod to Garbo(but not by much)in regard to her naturalness. Robeson is majestic. But his performance is aimed for a large proscenium theater. Something else that struck me was the movies themes of empowerment for women and minorities. There hadn't been any films coming out of Hollywood yet that allowed the voices of marginal characters like Anna and Brutus to take the foreground. These were very progressive films for their time. It's quite probable that O'Neill saw the writing on the wall way before everyone else did about the future of America.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Anne Christie' was Garbo's 14th film and the first in which her husky Swedish voice was heard. She plays the lead character, Anna, who has struggled with being abandoned by her father Chris (a drunken barge owner played by George F Marion), and with the misfortune of the life she has has to lead to keep her head above water.

Meeting Irish Matt (Charles Bickford) may mark the turning point for her ... or does it? Garbo looks and sounds great in this drama which, although looking rather clunky and moving at a slow pace, still manages to interest and engage an audience nearly 80 years later. Marie Dressler makes an impact in the role which gave her a second flush of movie success in films such as Min and Bill, Dinner at Eight, and Emma; while Marion and Bickford are more than adequate.

An interesting slice of movie history. Garbo would do better talkies in the years following, but 'Anna Christie' will always be remembered for the first time she talked on screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The magnificent Greta Garbo is in top form in this, her first talkie. She gets fine support from the rest of the cast which includes Charles Bickford the rugged sailor who captures her heart. Ms. Garbo gives a great performance as she usually does as the estranged daughter of a sea captain who returns after fifteen years. Also in the cast is that great actress Marie Dressler. A great movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"039: Anna Christie (1930) - released 2\/21\/1930; viewed 3\/10\/06

On October 24, 1929: Black Thursday, the stock market crashes. Now the country and indeed the world will look to Hollywood for escape from the worldwide Great Depression.

BIRTHS: Anne Frank, June Carter, Yasser Arafat, Bob Newhart, Barbara Walters, Doris Roberts, Ed Asner, Dick Clark, Roy E. Disney, Gene Hackman.

DOUG: At long last, our Odyssey resumes in earnest with Greta Garbo's first sound film, a simple character study called Anna Christie. An excellent performance from Ms. Garbo, who showed right off the bat that her talents could carry over from the silent era (I wanted to see some of her silent work, but Netflix doesn't seem to be stocking them. How odd). One thing I noticed over and over was the way the Swedish accent sounds, like replacing the letter J with a Y sound. Anna ends up being the only character I liked; I didn't really care for her estranged father or her would-be suitor. It looks like the sound-recording systems are getting better (nobody leaning in to talk into the mystery-can), but the camera still isn't moving. We'll be sure to watch for that to change as our odyssey continues.

KEVIN: Our first film of the 1930's is the first sound film of silent starlet Greta Garbo, Anna Christie. This is a very simple movie, with only about five different locations where we spend long stretches of the film's 89 minute running time, often with a static camera. It was great to see Marie Dressler in sound as well, and quite hilarious as what we hear is an endless chain of heartfelt yet inebriated slurs. I very much enjoyed Garbo's performance, as she sustains the film through even the most meandering moments. I didn't really like George Marion or Charles Bickford, maybe because I wasn't sympathetic to either of them, so I was relieved and excited when Anna finally stands up for herself and shows them that she doesn't \"belong\" to either her estranged father or her muscle-bound Irish boyfriend. It's also great to see that renowned silent screenwriter Frances Marion hasn't missed a step going from silent to sound.

Last film viewed: Speedy (1928). Last film chronologically: The Love Parade (1929). Next film: The Blue Angel (1930).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Viewed this GREAT Classic film of Greta Garbo and thought her performance was excellent. However, the German film version which had English captions was her greatest performance. Greta Garbo even mentioned to the press that the German film was her favorite where she had to make the change from Silent films to sound. Greta had a high pitched voice and had to take lessons in order to lower her voice for her future roles in films. This story was very sad because Greta Garbo(Anna Christie),\"Ninotchka\",'39, was abused on a farm by young boys and her father left her years ago as a sailor and then as a coal barge captain. There were many scenes of Old NYC, the Brooklyn Bridge, Coney Island and the sky line of Manhattan. Charles Bickford(Matt Burke),\"Days of Wine & Roses\",'62 a Classic veteran actor gave a great supporting role.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i loved the great lighting and was warmed by this story of American working class society and seaport life in the first half of the 20th century. i was drawn in by the timeless watchability of this realistic performance. see and feel the star power. melancholic \"greek\" comedy. Anybody in the mood for a shot with a beer back?...or a little ginger? Hey, waterboy !!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This short was the first short released by Paramount Famous Studios and was one of several done by the studio showing Popeye engaged directly against the enemy, most often the Japanese. While Warner Brothers, Disney and, to a lesser extent, other studios, did shorts often depicting Germans as foils, the majority of Famous Studios efforts focused on the Japanese. Given Pearl Harbor and Popeye's naval ties, this is quite understandable. This is an average short. Seein' Red, White an' Blue and Spinach For Britain have aged better. But it's still worth watching. Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This World War II Popeye cartoon had some very good sight gags in it, and its decidedly above-average for its genre. It was nicely drawn, too, with some great angles, good detail and....well, lots of interesting sights.

What it amounts to is Popeye out at sea in his little boat and accidentally running into a small Japanese boat, with two guys on it. (Incidentally, why were the \"Japs\" always pictured with big, round glasses and bucked teeth?).

Anyway, these harmless-looking Japanese sailors want Popeye to sign a peace treaty. Oh, boy, thinks the gullible Popeye, \"wait until the Admiral sees this!\" In one of those great artwork scenes I was alluding to above, we slowly see how that little Japanese ship is really a big destroyer.....and Popeye is in deep....um, water! \"Why, you double-crossing Ja-pansies!,\" yells our Sailor Man.

How he gets out of the situation is fun to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you are very sensitive when it comes to extreme racial stereotypes, this cartoon is not for you. But if you are strongly interested in seeing a rare piece of wartime animation, come on in!

In this cartoon, Popeye is patrolling the seas and discovers what looks like a Japanese fishing boat. The two Japanese fishermen trick Popeye into thinking that they want a peace treaty signed. But looks can be deceiving; the fishing boat turns out to be a Japanese navy ship! What follows is considered today to be morale-boosting propaganda.

Be forewarned, the representations of the Japanese in the film are done in a mean-spirited fashion. Keep in mind, though, that there was a war going on at the time. But I strongly recommend this cartoon to those who are interested in the WWII era.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE FEELING of the need to have someone play the role of Arbiter of Public Taste and Political Correctness always manages to get under our skin. It does seem that these self-appointed, self-superior, pseudo-intellectual types do appear everywhere; be it in one's family, church or bowling league.

THESE are the guys who would have society completely disregard and ignore all that went before us; unless, of course, whatever 'it' is does not fly in the face of today's \"acceptable\" language, mores and general \"standards\" of \"proper\" behavior.

SO it is that these latter day, high tech book burners have targeted a great deal of what was Hollywood's greatest achievement; namely their participation in our own Allied Propaganda via their unselfishly crafted message and theme films.

COLDLY brutal in its generation, the Banned Code and List of Now Unacceptable extends into the Wartime Cartoons that don't meet with the new touchy, feely socially engineered 'official' attitudes; which these \"Thought Police\" have foisted down upon us.

WE were truly surprised to see that there seem to be volumes of such animated short subjects. The majority we are aware of are from Warner Brothers' LOONEY TUNES and MERRIE MELODIES; featuring Bugs, Daffy, Elmer & Porky, all in conflict with Hitler, Goerring, 'Il Duce', Tojo and the like. Surprisingly though, we found an ample supply of cartoons from MGM, Walt Disney, Lantz, Paramount-Famous Studios and the Brothers Fleischer.

YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP (Famous Studios\/Paramount Pictures, 1942) is a prime example of just what we're talking about.

BEING virtually indiscernible from the cartoons that were the output of the Studios of Max and Dave Fleischer before the 1941 business coup-de-tat that moved them out, bringing the new name of \"Famous\" Studios, YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP bore none of the bland plot elements that would reduce the latter day Popeye Cartoons down to the level of the ultimate formula short movie.

WE all remember how we'd have Popeye and Olive Oyl together. Enter Bluto, usually the exponent of wolf whistle and an on acceptable on-screen version of a Male reaction to feminine pulchritude. Olive falls for Bluto's less than honorable attentions; until he gets a little too physical and invariably blurts out, \"Hey Babe, how 'bout a kiss?\" At this point we hear \"Help! Help, Popeye and the diminutive sailor shows up to save the day; replete with the obligatory can of Spinach! DO we exaggerate, Schultz? ONCE again this JAP SAP cartoon is nothing like any of that. Oh sure, it follows the storyline of now having Popeye in the U.S. Navy. The Brothers Fleischer put the little guy in the service in 1941 to conform to the mood in the country and as an open gesture of support for the men now being conscripted in the first Peacetime Draft in United States History. Max and Dave even put Popeye in service aboard the mythical Battleship, the U.S.S. Pensyltucky.

OUR point is just this. YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP and others like SPINACH FER Britain aren't cartoon vehicles for comic relief in the Theatre's program at all in the true sense. Rather they are a sort of grouping of Editorial Cartoons much like those from any \"Great Metropolitan Newspaper\". These animated shorts, much like those still one panel illustrations, have characters that are highly symbolic and representative of Nations, Ideas and Ideals, such as a just and lasting Peace. In most cases, the hero (Popeye, Bugs Bunny or whoever) is alone with the symbol of the Enemy. Both are highly exaggerated visual metaphors for abstract concept and thought; even if they are cloaked in humorous trappings for wider palatability.

OUR liberal stupidgencia (the antithesis of intelligencia) may not see themselves this way; but for this sort of behavior, they are no more than Neo Nazi Book burners.

PLEASE, allow the future generations to view and appreciate a view of past happenings that is both Historical and Humorous.

POODLE SCHNITZ!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If it were possible to award a 10+ .... this would be the one film I would choose.

I remember catching this film on TV many, many years ago - and fortunately being prepared enough to video it. Now my video copy is getting old, video technology is outdated and I'm starting to worry that I may not be able to enjoy the delights of this movie for much longer.

As a wildlife film it is superb. As a film about the relationship between man and nature it surpasses anything screened before or since. How can the film industry allow such a classic to go unnoticed and forgotten? If such a thing as a lobby\/pressure group exists to push for the re-release of this film, count me in and send me the details pronto.

My guess is there's a mint to be made by anyone able to re-release this in today's market.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie alone when i was an early teen in my hometown in India, at a time when the only thing that fascinated me aside from girls were Tigers. I came home after watching it, with a glazed look in my eye, wanting to be that bloke in the movie that befriended the Tigers. What a movie and what a moment that was! The theatre I saw it in does not exist any and has given way to a shopping mall. I don't know how i'd feel about it now after so many years and do not want to spoil a childhood memory by finding this movie available on DVD or something similar and not finding it interesting anymore. I have learned from previous experience that a childhood memory is often tarnished when one travels life's jaded highways occasionally trying to rediscover their unadulterated past by way of movies, only to find its gushing innocence completely soppy and not welcome anymore. And I do not want to throw away the experiences of a memory of this movie into the wind. I do not have kids, so i probably am being selfish in leaving this movie in a sepia toned area of my brain, not wanting it on DVD. But if you are at a precocious age and want to recollect in later years memories of an endearing childhood, try to watch this film(if you can ever). It'll be really worth it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is one of the best memories I have from childhood. Having always loved Tigers my Mum took me to see it.

It is absolutely amazing. Its is one of those films that leaves a lasting impression on you. The image of Tigers running through the snow with it all spraying around is still in my head some 25 yrs on, not many films have managed that, As other comments have said photography is stunning. A must see. I have also been looking for the film for some time with no luck at all. :-(. Checking Amazon every now and then reveals nothing, not even listed. If anyone does know of a source, please contact me or post here. Tim","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember this film,it was the first film i had watched at the cinema the picture was dark in places i was very nervous it was back in 74\/75 my Dad took me my brother & sister to Newbury cinema in Newbury Berkshire England. I recall the tigers and the lots of snow in the film also the appearance of Grizzly Adams actor Dan Haggery i think one of the tigers gets shot and dies. If anyone knows where to find this on DVD etc please let me know.The cinema now has been turned in a fitness club which is a very big shame as the nearest cinema now is 20 miles away, would love to hear from others who have seen this film or any other like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I collect films on Super-8, and managed to snag a full length print of this one last week on E-bay. It looks like at least for the moment, this is the only way to see this film in a country having NTSC video. I have seen it available on Region 2 DVD many times, but never Region 1.

I just finished watching it a few minutes ago and I am amazed by it. It's a powerful testament to freedom and finding your own place in the world. The photography and music were wonderful, and I really felt empathy for some of the characters.

I kind of like the idea that I was probably the only one in the USA watching \"When the North Wind Blows\" tonight!

Long Live Avakum!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I managed to obtain an original BBC broadcast of this film on video and loved it so much I had to try and locate the original video in its original box; thanks go to Ebay.

Deleted on any format since 1990, this exceptional wildlife film is finely constructed and well acted. Directed by Stewart Raffil (MAC & Me), the scenes of leaping Tigers running through the Alaskan wilderness is nothing short of stunning and its timeless tale of a trapper trying to survive on his own in the frozen wastes with two young tiger cubs is moving on each viewing.

Why no major company has picked up this movie to distribute on DVD is a big wonder; but makes it that extra special to know its also hard to locate.

If you find this film by chance or eventually track it down to add to your collection, make sure never to let it vanish out of your grasp. Films of this calibre, as shown, don't come often.

A true masterpiece in every sense of the word, and highly worthy of its praised comments, \"WHEN THE NORTH WIND BLOWS\" will sink deep into your heart as soon as you see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of my favourite films, dating back to my childhood. Set in the remote wilderness of Siberia at the turn of the century, a small community is stirred when an extremely cold winter forces two tigers to come down from the mountains in search of food, preying on outlying farms. In this atmosphere we are introduced to Avakum, a hermit fur trapper, who lives out in the wilds, as he comes to the village to sell his annual catch to Boris, his close, and rather only, friend in the village, who runs a store. At Boris' request, Avakum accompanies his friend's arrogant son, Ivan, on the hunt for the menacing tigers. Personalities crash and tempers flare as the older, more experienced Avakum criticises Ivan's amateur methods, an encounter noticed also by the other members of the hunt. On the second day, the hunters sight their prey and give chase. In a thick wood, Ivan wounds one of the tigers, which then attacks the hapless man. Avakum, seeing Ivan tangling with the enraged beast, fires, but accidently hits Ivan. He kills the tiger as it flees. The other hunters arrive on the scene, suspicious.

Back in the village, the doctor works to save the wounded Ivan. Avakum attempts to leave the village, but is confronted by Ivan's friends. The trapper brushes them off however, and speeds off with his dog-drawn sled. The young villagers swear after him that they'll come for him if Ivan dies, which he later does, but before dying explains to his father that it was an accident. Old Boris, upon learning of his close friend being run out of the village, straightens out the gathering \"lynch mob\" and goes out after Avakum, to find him and set things right. And so the main story begins.

A simple film, it raises the conflict of man and civilisation versus nature, mainly Avakum's struggle to survive alone out in the wilderness. The winter landscape is very well filmed. Perhaps the strongest element in the film is the soundtrack by Jimmie Haskell. Very sentimental and evocative, the main theme reminiscent of Albinoni's Adagio. Other movements reflect Russian styles, as well as a couple of folk music type tunes.

Unfortunately, this film is not available to buy, to my knowledge, which is rather a shame. The copy I own, recorded off TV nearly twenty years ago is slowly deteriorating. This film is a must see for those who can appreciate it, if they can find it. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another \"must have\" film. Henry Brandon is a favorite! I was so surprised when I learned years ago that he was from Germany because he sounds & looks so typically American! And wasn't he great in \"The Searchers\" as Chief Scar??!! Another of my favorites, I have it & watch it over & again. Now if I could add this one to my collection, it would make my day! This is a great wildlife story & film for all ages. The scenery is so absolutely beautiful & the plight of the endangered snow leopards is told with such great emotion it will spark the interest in endangered species in anyone, especially children. If I could I would give a copy to all of my grands & great grands!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie in 75 and this movie was a kind of open mind to me about how important is to care the Natur and the Wild life. When i got a Dog in 83, i called him TRUSKA ( In Movie..Avakun's dog ) to never forget this movie.

By the way, i HAVE a Copy this Movie, but is in Portuguese Language and the quality is not so good like a DVD or a New VHS ( i recorded almost 20 years ago and in SLP speedy.. so the quality is not so good..)

If somebody wish a Copy.. i'll try convert to DVD and i can send for you OK?

Ot's a great movie and i agree that is a movie to be always watched.

Waldemar Braz - Sao Paulo\/Brazil","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are many things to admire about this film, but the thing that got me above all others was the part of an eccentric recluse, the sort of role that Hollywood loves & romanticizes but which here is absolutely convincing & unlike any character I've encounterd in film or in life. Also a very convincing & disturbing depiction of Tourete's syndrome","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Henry Thomas, and Robin Tunny, are a couple of the most underrated performers in the business. It's beyond me as to why they haven't received more recognition than they have. This movie is a perfect example of how boundless their abilities are.

Acting out the lives of folks who could be referred to as a bit odd seems to be their speciality, and if these characters ain't odd, I'm at a loss to find anyone who is.

The story is funny, romantic, dramatic, complicated, and tragic. I hated the ending, but if I hadn't, I wouldn't have loved the story as a whole. So there ya go.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Niagara, Niagara is a stunning and heartbreaking story about the two outsiders Seth and Marcy. Robin Tunney gives a fantastic performance as Marcy suffering from Tourette's Sydrome, getting sicker and sicker as the movie progresses. This movie is not very optimistic and it's very hard emotional, but at the same time very romantic. It's hard to explain, but see it and find out for yourself. It's definitely worth it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow! I caught this on IFC recently after I watched But Im A Cheerleader. Id never heard of this movie but the description sounded remotely interesting. I went in with low expectations and now I must say this is one of the best love stories ever in film. Robin Tunney does an excellent job portraying a person with tourettes. The relationship between the two and just the slightest details in the film are so acurate and believable. I usually hate \"romance\" and love films but this movie truly touched me. I so recommend this movie to anyone with the ability of vision.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not only is this a very interesting exploration of Tourette's and how we react to people in our lives, it has some of the most well-filmed views of a bleak northern winter landscape. There's nothing pretty about this film, but it stays with the viewer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is truly worth seeing - Robin Tunney excels and Henry Thomas proves that he's one of those rarities, the child 'actor' who grows up to become a real actor. The characters are perfectly drawn, and in the wrong hands because of their depth, they could have been unconvincing - but all the actors are simply astounding. The cast of this movie has to rank up there with that of \"Girl, Interrupted\" (both movies coincidentally star the brilliant Clea Duvall). The score and music selections fit perfectly, and there is plenty of action to prevent the movie becoming just a character study. If you want the story, you won't find it in this review, but I will say that the climax will haunt you for a long time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like movies about quirky people. \"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest\" is maybe my all time favorite, so one can imagine I had a blast with this one. It's definitely not one to watch if you want to walk off smiling. This movie is unpredictable and intense. Some scenes are downright frightening, even after multiple viewings (because this kind of stuff really can happen). It will most definitely keep you on the edge of your seat for the whole ride. And after you see the ending, if you're not deeply disturbed, you really should check yourself for a pulse.

The acting was phenomenal. Marcy, with her rather extreme case of tourette's, shifts from quirky-cute to utterly terrifying, sometimes appearing so out-of-control that she looks like the undead. Seth was great, too. The focus of the movie definitely does not fall nearly as much on him as it does on Marcy, though he happens to be the one that gains the most momentum as a blossoming character.

It's a classic love story with some unconventional twists, and it's also my favorite love story next to \"True Romance.\" There are two bad reviews for it up here, but one of the people who gave such a review didn't have his facts straight and admitted to not seeing the whole film, while the other was just looking for some Hollywood thrills without the deep characters (and perhaps was a little thrown off by the apparent shallowness of the plot, seeing as the end goal revolves around stealing a black bobbi head from a toy store). The point is that this movie is not for those who want to see something \"normal\" or \"lighthearted\". This one is messed up and indie as can be, and won't let you go until the heavy climax.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have watched this movie time and time and time again - each time it makes me laugh, it makes me think, and it makes me cry. Robin Tuney does an incredible job of portraying Marcy (and I'm kind of glad that Kate Winslet and that other lady turned down her part) its just one of those rolls that you know that no one else could have even compared.

Its a beautiful love story of these 2 very different people in crappy situations that team up together. They stand beside each other no matter what, even if it is in an odd situation and crazy ways.

I'll tell you now its not for everyone - out of everyone I've shown it to I'd say the results are 50\/50 - but if you like it, you'll love it and want to share it with others! 10 stars all the way!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I tuned in to this movie because there was nothing else to watch. I was immediately sucked in by the characters.

Robin Tunney is nothing less than spectacular in this film. Her portrayal of a mentally ill woman is both moving and 100% believable. Really, this sort of thing is not easy to do. She pulls it off fantastically.

We know early on this film is going to end tragically, but you cannot take your eyes off of it. The characters do stupid things, but unlike most Hollywood movies where people do stupid things because the plot demands it, these people do stupid things because the are not right in the head - and the things they do are completely consistent with their characters.

This is just a great example of film making IMHO. Great writing, great acting, great directing. A film for people who think film can be more than mindless entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Niagra Niagra was certainly not the best movie I have seen. However., I cannot describe the way the movie made me feel while watching it and how I felt as it ended and also how I feel about it now. Very few movies have such an effect on me. I like them or I do not. I look at Niagra Niagra as a work of art. We all see something in it and it may remind us of something or it may instill fear or fun etc... This movie had me in not the best mood. In fact it left me feeling empty somehow. I guess because the lives these two persons led were so empty in so many ways. They had no direction. Their only direction was to have no direction. They had many problems to deal with and I guess needed to get away from what could not have been a happy life. But on the way things really only got worse. A steady decline from where it started. It was sad as it was so well acted and I guess we have all most likely seen someone in some situation that may in some way resemble the situation these folks were in. They might have had a good life if they had any idea how. But it Wes clear they did not know what to do. So they kind of Rambled to someplace they had heard about. No real goal. They had no idea how to have a goal. They had no idea how to overcome the life that was set before them. I felt bad but could not stop watching the movie. Only good actors can make me feel so much about a movie that I would not like if just anyone played the parts. These two did a great job to the point you just did not see the acting. I am very impressed and want to buy the movie when it is available on DVD. You know. It left me feeling a little like Leaving Los Vegas did. But again it is in a class of its own. Not a great movie but well worth an hour or two on the right day. If you are a person who has problems I would not suggest you watch it. It could depress you. It depressed me and I have not the conditions these folks had. JimmyJoeJetter","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Because it's late and i'm running short on vocabulary, i will describe this film as \"beautiful and heartbreaking,\" begging the forgiveness of those who cringe at such cliches. Robin Tunney does an amazing job portraying a young woman in the clutches of tourette's syndrome - her character was absolutely sincere and convincing, and i will follow her career wherever it goes because of this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really liked this picture, because it realistically dealt with two people in love, and one of them having a disorder. Though the ending saddened me, I know that that was the best way for it to finish off. I would recommed this to everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best movies I ever saw - a classic \"Matrix\" movie. For many years, I have been trying to get it on VHS or DVD - to no avail. The German movie\/TV industry still prefers to let valuable cultural contributions (and this is Fassbinder, after all!) rot away and collect dust in some archive rather than distribute it commercially (and make a lot of money with it if that is what stimulates them instead of the promotion of creative thinking). Though, the WDR once told me if I paid DM 200.00 to check the copyright (non-reimbursable), and then DM 8 per minute of copying, plus the cost for the materials, then they will consider preparing a (single!) copy for me. Some way to sell something! The same problem we have with many other TV movies or series like \"So weit die F\u00fc\u00dfe tragen\", \"Sonntagseltern\", \"Kellerkinder\", and others. Excellent TV series - never to be heard of again. Germany, wake up!

UPDATE from March 2007: Last year, I finally could get a DVD copy from the \"Mittschnittservice\" of the WDR for about 50+ Euro. Great!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In these days of ultra-fast processors and the Internet, coming up with a movie like \"The Matrix\" may seem merely the next step from coining the term 'cyberspace', but do you remember what computers were like in 1974? Right. To come up with the notion of virtual reality back then is truly an amazing feat of the imagination. Fassbinder's movie, of course, has none of the massive gunslinging and pyrotechnics, and a lot of 'artsy' elements instead, but the atmosphere it creates is intense and poses the question how we can know what is real in a dark and gripping manner, making this a chiller and a thriller for the mind. It also takes it up a notch on more recent VR stories: if you get out of one cyberspace, can you be sure you didn't just emerge into another level of virtual reality?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw this film the first time I was very impressed concerning the kind of atmosphere the director creates. It is also very interesting to see how they imagine the near future in the year 1974. If you see the film you will see a lot of sets and customs which are called freaky and modern again today.

The topic of the film deals with the old question \"What is real and what is illusion?\". If you see \"The Matrix\" you will find a lot of similarities. But the two films are not comparable at all because \"Welt am Draht\" is art and \"The Matrix\" is entertainment. If prefer the first one.

Unfortunately I lost my video copy of it.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"During my teens or should I say prime time I was \"eating up\" all kinds of SF novels every day of the week. It was in the Sixties and Seventies when TV was not such a important leisure time killer like today, one night in the mid seventies I watched the movie on TV I think it was ARD and I was stunned. I was impressed in a way that I can almost remember each scene even today.

Nowadays I observe my kids playing the SIMS or something like that and I think we are close to what that Fassbender Movie expressed. I also would highly appreciate if I could buy this movie on a DVD. But in vain I tried almost everything to get a hint where. The movie MATRIX cannot touch by far the quality and the state of art of this movie. And by the way by now we do not have a glue if we were a superior reality or just one of a couple simulation models. Probably after our death we definitely will know...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The SF premise isn't unique (although it pretty much was back then), but the focus is a completely different one than in other artificial reality films. Especially during the first part it is an elaborate crime picture, that uses the SF premise to tell an unusual crime story in which the forced detective tries to solve a mystery with the obstacle of vanishing characters and unhelpful witnesses who don't have to lie to be unhelpful. Instead of an unreliable narrator we have an unreliable world.

In part two we follow the main character's struggle for sanity and it turns more into a psychological examination of a character in an extreme situation. He knows his very existence is nothing more than electrical impulses, how does he deal with this knowledge? He knows that there is a world that is more real than his, but he is trapped in an artificial world, a world where nobody can understand him. The problem of thinking of knowing something essential about the world that nobody else knows or wants to believe is a very real one that many of us can identify with. For me the film transports this hopelessness very well, with its dreary, artificial atmosphere which also supports the factual artificiality of the film's world.

Other than 'The Matrix' or 'The Thirteenth Floor' it's little concerned with evoking a sense of awe for its artificial reality plot, instead it very much focuses on the psychological aspects. Philosophy is only in so far interesting in that certain philosophical concepts are essential in how they shape and alter the character's perception of the world.

Arguably it is longer than it has to be (which isn't a problem if you are as captivated by it as I was) and part 2 runs pretty low on steam.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is an interesting fact that metaphysics by Platon and Aristoteles, formal logic and abstract ontology form about those sciences that most people are not interested in. But then, around one thousand years after Aristoteles, the computer began to usurp the human thinking, and the humans who were refusing to reflect questions of being other than biological, physical and chemical ones, suddenly felt paralyzed because they could not cope with the consequences that this computers would bring \"over night\". R.W. Fassbinder's \"Welt Am Draht\", together with Tarkovsky's \"Solaris\" and Godard's \"Alphaville\", is probably the first movie who took the philosophical questions of emerging computer science as a basis of a story to be told in a movie. The confusing questions about identities and realities are cleverly built into different interwoven criminal stories which the audience really tries to follow because it is interested to solve the cases. Fassbinder was a master to sell highly abstracts contents to his public by embedding theoretical knowledge into practical, appetizing forms. The basis problem to understand is that an identity defines a reality, but on the other side, a reality also requires identity in order to be perceived. The idea of a person with multiple identities is known to us solely from the standpoint of psychiatry. However, logically spoken, the only reason why we have just one identity, is the fact that our logic has only two values (right and false). Now take a logic with just one more value, i.e. with three: Then, as you can easily see, you have already three identities. What happens now, when, let us say, Dr. Stiller gets killed? Then, it is quite possible that only one of three identities is abolished and the other two remain and are able to rescue the individual from death. Another question is, if a person with multiple identities actually feels these identities at once. The idea, however, to display such sets of identities in a up-down or down-up way as shown in the scene with the elevator in the hotel, is misleading, since identities and hence realities are not structured in Hierarchical, but in a Heterarchical way. Strictly speaking, there is no \"artificial identity\" either, since each identity is defined over two objects who share all of their features with one another. Therefore, the idea of assuming that every individual has just one single identity is nothing but a consequence of ancient two-valued logic either (a second identity would imply that a person, at the same time, exists and not-exists). But now look around and see that one and the same object (which is by definition self-identical) is perceived by every subject in its own way. If therefore every subject sees an object differently, why should it no be possible for the single individual to open the borders of his two-valued individuality-corset, with the effect that different persons can exchange their different Individualities? Fassbinder would five years later pick up this topic in his masterpiece \"Despair. A trip into the light\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes!!!! Fassbinder and Ballhaus are at the top of their game, back in 1973! It's about the same subject, but in my opinion it's a much better movie than THE MATRIX (1999), at least it was 200 times cheaper! Very nice camera work by Michael Ballhaus and the wonderful \"Albatross\" by Fleetwood Mac at the end. Fassbinder is creating a very moody tone for the whole film. It's a shame this movie was never released on DVD. But now after 37 Years they finally came to the conclusion, that this TV-Movie, is not only one of the best Fassbinder films (altough there are quiet a lot best Fassbinder films), it's a brilliant example for a science-fiction movie, done without much money. Buy it!! Watch it!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The acrobatics mixed with haunting music, make one spectacular show. The costumes are vibrant and the performances will just boggle your mind! Simply amazing!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"being a high school student,i have to take a health class. this year, the topic is drugs. we learn about the harm they can cause a person. from what we talk about, i still believe and know that drugs can really mess a person up. anyway, my teacher wanted us to watch this. naturally, we groan and start to sleep, but like the rest of my class, i actually did enjoy this movie. it was totally real, and not sugar coated at all. the characters were amazing and believable. even the plot was outstandingly realistic and believable. what i liked about this movie mainly was how it got the point of the effect's drugs can take on an abuser, and the consequences the person has to deal with. everyone reassures themselves that nothing bad will happen to them. well lets get serious. anything can happen in a small town, even to your best friend, like Sam and Chris. this movie shows it. a person can really learn a lot from watching this. it was pretty effective.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is about three teens who have been best friends for the longest time, and go on the most messed up ride of their life. When Heroine becomes the choice drug in their town, these three teens find themselves wrapped up in it all. This movie portrays heroine addiction very well, and is something you can't stop watching. MTV has never been the best at doing made for tv movies, but this one has to much good content to not watch it. I enjoyed this film, at the beginning I thought it would be the worst movie I've seen, but then as it went on it got better, and I couldn't turn away.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say? I couldn't sleep and I came across this movie on MTV. I started watching it with every intention of changing the channel if it started to get lame as so many anti-drug movies do but I got sucked into this movie and I couldn't stop watching. Nick Stahl did an amazing job with his character, and in my opinion he really made the movie something worth watching. I was interested in purchasing the soundtrack to the movie (or even the movie itself) and MTV.com was no help at all, but believe it or not Amazon.com is taking pre-orders for the August 5th release of the movie on DVD. I know I had a hard time tracking it down, and I'm sure other people might have had the same problem. I'm buying my own copy so I can drool over Nick Stahl while bawling my eyes out at the same time thanks to the emotional storyline!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie yesterday night and it was one of the best made for TV films I've seen. It was very well directed and the acting was superb, very convincing. The music was good and the cinematography was beautifully shot. Take out the hopelessness out of Requiem for a Dream and you get wasted. An excellent depiction of the world of drug addiction and its consequences given in a very open way in wich anyone can relate to. cudos to mtv for giving us a good flick for a change from !*$*% like Crossroads.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wasn't planning on watching wasted when I saw the MTV preview but since I had nothing better to do or watch on a Sunday night I watched it.

Wasted was no Requiem for a Dream but it was a very good movie considering it was made by MTV. One thing that drew me to watching it was Summer Pheonix the sister of the late and wonderful River Pheonix stared. I suppose talent runs in the Pheonix family because she was good and so is Jaquien though niether are River. Nick Stahl also gives a great preformance as a junky jock. There isn't much else to say about wasted. It was a dark depressing and insightful look into the lives of three small town junkies. I recomend it to those who like the subject. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this movie tonight(5th Nov. 2005)for the first time. I wanted to watch it cause I saw the basketball diaries(Leonardo Di Caprio) and loved that but this was far more heavy going. I think it had a good depiction of drugs to an extent. I empathize mostly with Nick Stahls character, probably because if I someone I was crazy about was on that stuff I'd want to help them get off it. A promising student and athlete who spends all his time training and studying-well it's understandable that he'd want to try teenage life(the crazy side of it) and in his efforts as what begins is helping his friend he ends up addicted because he wanted to see what it is all about and because of his horrendous family situation which results in his most tragic death. A truly sad film but one flaw i noticed is that you don't get a good enough insight into the damage it does to families but apart from that, excellent performances on a truly heartbreaking movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was amazing. Never before have I seen such a film that brought me to the harsh reality of drug use quite like this one. There is no glamorizing, sugar coating, or glorifying heroine. This movie shows the true struggles, pain, and loss people go through when dealing with this drug. Good film, decent emotionally packed acting, and a great storyline. A much watch!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spoiler begin The movie focuses on three friends, Samantha (Summer Phoenix), Chris (Nick Stahl), and Owen (Aaron Paul). The movie starts out with Sam and Owen as the drug addicts, and Chris, the track star, as the one who takes care of them. As things get increasingly worse at home for Chris, he asks Sam what the drug is like. Sam is out of rehab and sober by this point and tells him it makes everything better. Chris then catches up with Owen and they start using. It takes chris two times till he is a \" full time member\". After some trouble with a dealer and a confession to Sam, she gets in again. So begins the downward spiral for them. Chris od's when he breaks a promise to Sam (I want some of the movie to be a surprise). He dies, Sam gets in to college to be an Architect, and Owen gets arrested. so ends the story

Spoiler ends. minor spoilers throughout

Nick stahl is amazing. He will have an Oscar one day. His portrayal of Chris was Heartbreaking. He was the only one that felt real in the movie as far as drug use goes. Aaron Paul who played Owen acted as if he were on speed not heroin. Summer Phoenix was fine, she is talented but what can i say Nick Stahl stole the movie. His drugged eyes, his slow movements, everything was perfect.

The writers needed to show withdrawls in the movie. That is a main reason why people don't want to quit. Other then that there are hilarious scenes (the mall scene, and the Backstreet boy scene,man Stahl nailed the reactions right on the head.), Touching, sad scenes (Like the scene between Sam and Chris in her bedroom after he gets beat up, i bawled, and the park scene.). It was realistic too. Like S am using again when Chris wanted to flush the drug down the toilet, and Chris using again after he goes to Own's, even though he had been clean for two weeks, the pull was too strong. it is all realistic.

Watch the movie for a great cast, great music, and a semi- truthful account of drug addiction.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this movie the night it premiered on MTV. Usually to me MTV Movies are kind of stupid but this one was so good. Summer Phoenix is an amazing actress and I thought that Nick Stahl was good too. If MTV started showing more movies like this I would probably enjoy the channel a lot more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this a good while ago, but i just cant get over it. I have looked everywhere to try and find out where i can get a copy of it but i have not been able to get a hold of it. I really reccomend this movie and if anyone has any info about how i can get a copy then let me know. thanx","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am from Texas, and live very close to Plano where the actual deaths occurred, so I might be a bit biased in saying that \"Wasted\" is a film that you just can't get out of your head.

Stahl, Phoenix, and Paul all play their characters very realistically. You truly believe that they are everyday high school students who just happen to be heroin addicts. The drug content is handled very graphically as well - although everything that happens in the film serves a purpose, and each moment the characters spiral further downward is heartbreaking. I definitely recommend this film to anyone. Once you watch it, it sticks with you!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was awesome and the two guys nick and aaron are hotties!!!!! I wish i could watch it over and over. I loved the plot and whole concept of the movie. It is great and I wish i had taped it last night.Nick I love You!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"keys to the VIP is BS.

rob cavaliere vs Justin in season two.

I went to school with rob cavaliere and Adriana Doria. you may remember her as the last girl he was \"picking up\". this was when the \"angry girlfriend\" came by, they made out and \"left the club together\". They were good friends at father bressani chs in woodbridge.

whether or not rob planned it or they asked him to do it, men should know that what they are seeing is not real and the guys on here are douche bags. especially that episode.

one more line to fill space.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Keys to the VIP is one of the most entertaining, informative and hilarious shows that is on television right now. The idea is original, and well executed, as it manages to preserve the reality aspect, but still remain entertaining. All of the judges have a razor wit. They're not the nicest at all times, but if you're looking for comfort, go watch a chick flick. Say what you like about validity of the show, but it is absolutely real. I know people who have competed on the show, and they have confirmed this.

If you want to laugh, watch this show. It is on of the best comedy shows ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm sure all of the Canadians on IMDb are all too familiar with Canadian content, and how much of it is... well, shall we say, lackluster. There are a select few Canadian shows that are actually worth watching, however, this is definitely one of them.

Simple premise. Two guys picking up girls in a bar with certain guidelines and rules, add in some witty and clever commentary from a group of surprisingly likable self-proclaimed \"Alpha Males\" and you have yourself some very entertaining programming. Each episode is solid. If the \"players\" are sub-par, there are some awkward moments to be had, and there is some gentle fun poked at them. If the \"players\" are good, it leads to moments that you just have to stand up and applaud, and some comical praise lavished at them.

The premise is kind of trashy, I know, and as a guy who usually takes pride in the fact that I'm elevated himself above typical, terrible reality television, it takes a lot for me to admit that this show is actually funny and enjoyable.

One thing that must be pointed out is how The Comedy Network did a terrible job marketing this show. For the longest time, I didn't even know the premise, and all I knew was that there was somehow a shirtless guy who \"loves cougars\" involved. However, after actually watching the show, I was surprised by how surprisingly slick it looks for Canadian content (despite a pretty lame opening credits sequence). So give it a chance. I have yet to find someone in the target demographic (18-30 year old males) who have actually watched the show (and not just the annoying commercials) who hasn't liked it.

Bring it back for a third season, Comedy Network. It actually has a good premise, as opposed to some other Canadian shows you've had (cough*girls will be girls*cough). I usually reserve 10\/10 ratings for \"works of art,\" but I just have so much fun watching this show and I think that it has been unfairly judged my many, that I just had to.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The fact that reviewers feel very intensely negative towards the show is an interesting fact all its own. If you dislike it so much, don't watch it.

Certain reviewers assert that you have to be dumb, dim-witted, or plain old primitive to enjoy this show. Au contraire, my friends. I am not claiming that all the contestants are smart. There are smart ones, and there are dumb ones. But I WOULD argue that they probably have a higher average IQ than the average reviewer on this website. Thats right, I said it. There is a lot to be said for the science of seducing girls. I'm sorry, but please withdraw all sticks out of your asses, and realize the reason you hate these guys is that they threaten you.

Those oblivious to social sciences, and more specifically, the science behind mating are clearly going to miss the boat completely.

One thing is clear: The clubs aren't the only places to meet girls. I personally think that the worthwhile women don't even go to clubs, so that they won't fall prey to men like the ones we see on the show. But what are men like these???? Apart from the ones whose games stink, they are the epitome of men. They are men who meet women in the most difficult situations. These are men who take ownership of their own sexuality. These men don't beg for their girlfriends to not break up with them, and these men don't say \"OK\" to the phrase \"let's just be friends\".

Sound familiar???? In fact, these are the very guys you're afraid of when you take your special long term girlfriend to the club. We all are. These guys know what women like. (again, only the ones who have \"game\")

And even the ones who are bad...they are worth a laugh!

If you have gone out to a club, and actually interacted with the people around you, you should find this show entertaining.

Look, I am at a loss for why there is so much hate for this show. My best guess is that it aggravates the insecurity in men who have had bad experiences in clubs, or threatens men who believe women are beautiful self-less creatures who just want a nice guy to buy their attention.

I personally love this show. It is pure entertainment, and best of all, its REAL. It is a very perceptive take on the most recent state of sexual psychology. Sex roles have never been so different from before, and this show provides a very real view of that,

I think it actually takes some intelligence to take away something positive from this show.

This show appeals to a certain target market, and if you're outside of that, then I guess you shouldn't tune in to the show. We could say this about any other shows though, couldn't we?

Grow Up,

ApolloHelios","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The show itself basically reflects the typical nature of the average youth; partying and picking up chicks is the common weekend goal at the clubs. People frown upon the show due to its \"perverted\" idea of picking up girls using technique and strategic characterization, but truth be told, practically every young guy is out doing it at the club. Overall, the show really appeals to the younger population, as we like to see the outcome of a \"player's\" performance at the club, as the show offers a comical approach made possible by the judging panel.

10\/10; a cool, fun and thrilling series that allows the audience to really interact. Good Job Boys.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great show despite many negative user reviews. The aim of this show is to entertain you by making you laugh. Two guys compete against each other to get a girl's phone number. Simple. The fun in this show is watching the two males try to accomplish their goal.

Some appear to hate the show for various reasons, but I think, they misunderstood this as an \"educational\" show on how to pick up chicks. Well it is not, it is a comedy show, and the whole point of it is to make you laugh, not teach you anything. If you didn't like the show, because it doesn't teach you anything, don't watch it. If you don't like the whole clubbing thing, don't watch it. If you don't like socializing don't watch it. This show is a comical show. If you down by watching others pick up girls, well its not making you laugh, so don't watch it. If you are so disappointed in yourself after watching this show and realizing that you don't have the ability to \"pick-up\" girls, there is no reason to hate the show, simply don't watch it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sure, it seems like there is only about 17 minutes of actual content in each episode, but it is certainly fun to watch. You might find yourself cringing in your chair as buddy sticks his foot in his mouth and gets shot down, or chuckling and shaking your head when some ridiculous line actually works. The panel of hosts have more of a good-natured, friendly (dare I say Canadian) style of commentary compared with cutthroat US reality programming. I think the people who complain about this show don't get the joke. They are taking the show more seriously than the show takes itself. Keys to the VIP is a great caricature of reality shows, sports TV culture, and the club scene. I hope they do another season, and I'd be interested to see if a US version appears. It's certainly a fun, original premise.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't say this show is perfect. Perhaps all the previous commenters remember the old Tuesday 10:30 slot taken up by the childish humour of butch Elvira Curt (\"There's a space shuttle humping a 747!\"). Oh the glory of scrambling to hit any button on the remote to make it change.

Face it, comedy can't pull a Showcase and create the comedic genius of the truly Canadian Trailer Park Boys. But hey, they try.

This show is by far one of the better original shows. However, none of the following will find themselves laughing at the apparent \"players\" who showcase their stupidity in picking up girls:

a) \"Dumb\" Girls - Obviously, they can't realise that they are just like the girls on the show. Oblivious. Jump on the man meat, you can call yourself a whore tomorrow and get his name. He looks good, he must be popular and nice. HAHAHAHA!!! Oh but you'd never do that! Nobody would... if they knew it was happening

b) Unsocial guys who think women like nice guys - Obviously seeing these guys succeed at what you fail at or don't even get to experience is going to make your primal rages boil. Watch more closely, they get shot down most of the time. They say stupid crap.

c) Girls with respect for one another - Obviously seeing your separate distinctly female species get caught up in real world situations is wrong wrong wrong. Nobody gets played. Women are not objects, they can't be played, because they are all very faithful angels who are going to clubs to converse politely with one another without fear of guys trying to pick them up.

Oh wait... hmmmmmmmm

As much as EVERYBODY will say that this show is not funny, and that it doesn't teach you anything, I have to take the opposite side. The show is very good at detailing the way relationships work for both men AND women. The way they think, and the way they think each other think, and social hierarchy. Its funny to see and hear the guys make absolutely idiotic comments to things the women say (\"My grandfather died recently\" \"Oh... well are we having fun tonight?\").

Besides, its a club. The place people go to have fun, and get laid. No matter who you are, you're going to a club to get or give attention to someone. Guys go there to test their game and pick up girls. Girls go there to flirt with guys and find the one that sweeps her off her feet the best. Lighten up!

If you're a guy, learn a thing or two about different approaches and the different effects they have. If you're a girl, learn what these \"studly\" man whores really think like, and learn to tell them apart from genuine guys. Next time you get broken up with by one of those douchewads, realise its not because of him, its because you're dumb and thought he was the greatest guy ever when he was quite clearly a dick to you the whole time","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this has to be one of the best and most useful shows on TV. keys to the v.i.p. demonstrates some of the best seduction techniques and the humor that goes along with the techniques that are not up to par. to the person who wrote the negative comment, i only have one thing to say. stop hating on us because we are better looking and have more game then you. have you ever seen the inside of a club or do you just watch it on TV. and your so called female friend. she is not attracted to us because if guys like me saw her in the club, we would just walk right by and talk to the hot girls, like the ones on the show.

STOP HATING watch keys to the V.I.P. and improve your game","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are too many people on this board who have obviously missed the subtle wit of this series.

This show is great because it's a hilarious parody of itself. Guys who are self-proclaimed studs are given a fair chance to convince us of their seduction abilities until they \"hit the field\" just to expose their complete lack of \"game\" on national TV \u0096 it's absolutely hilarious and the guys who are actually skilled are extremely compelling to watch as they effortlessly seduce the pretentious women that frequent these trendy nightclubs!

It celebrates unique charisma when deserved and mocks delusional douchebags when deserved. Either way, it's always entertaining because, unlike other dating shows, it perfectly captures the authentic awkwardness and excitement of a \"pickup\". I highly recommend this show to anyone with a sense of humor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think it is a brilliant show with cool talking heads and very cool action. 2 guys who pretend to be masters in women seduction demonstrate their skills at different night clubs and 4 experts (pickup artists themselves) comment on them, choosing the winner. Their jokes are amusing, and some participators are really fun to watch. More so, this show really teaches men how to get in touch with women, lots of expert's comments are useful while you may see how it works in the field. Actually I think this is one of the best TV shows and I totally recommend this to all men, who like women.

ps\/ pardon for my broken engrish.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For all losers who gave it negative review,its because you probably have sex once in 2 years,or you are in LTR with one girl for years. And guess what ? She is going to cheat on you when player like those on that show approach her somewhere.Off course any male who is not as good as these guys are going to hate them and hate the show. And that one chick who thinks this show is meant to mock these guys.. its more actually how to show clueless man how to pick up woman.What these guys are doing it way better then what most man are doing-not approaching at all.For anybody who has open mind I recommend to read the book \"the game\" by neil strauss.It deals with similar theme as this show","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know what the last reviewer is talking about but this show is pure entertainment. Basically 2 dudes are put in competitions at a club to pick up girls in 3 different scenarios. They mix up the scenarios for each show so it is not the same every time. The panel of 4 judges is not afraid to call people out or admit it when they recognize game. They will break down what the guy did wrong, and what they guy did right. Some contestants are weak, some are strong but what happens is always entertaining. If you are a guy that goes out, you can relate. I've seen weak game, I've seen strong game, and this show is for real. No doubt.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Keys to the VIP, an original series by the Canadian Comedy Network (comedynetwork.ca) scored big with this entertaining, yet inspirational gameshow. This show is hosted by four funny, good-looking guys who judge others on their 'game' (ability to pick up women). Each episode features two guys who go head-to-head in various pick-up games. There are three different sections and the winner scores a night as a VIP in an exclusive Toronto night-club.

Being a guy, I naturally find this show hilarious. We all know that it's hard to confront women and watching these guys do it naturally sparks the curiosity of men. The guys who compete on this show might even give you a few pointers -- if you pay attention.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't mind what this socially retarded person above says, this show is hilarious. It shows how a lot of single men are in a bar atmosphere, and also shows that women are not as gullible as men think they are.

The contest aspect of the how is really cool and original. Its not the standard reality show that we are all used to now a days.

Give it a chance everyone, we are only one episode in, we finally have some Canadian programming that isn't absolute crap. As Canadians what do we normally get, Bon Cop, Bad Cop, or Corner Gas. Come on people show that we are all not as prudish as the previous reviewer.

Way to go Comedy Network, giving a new show a chance. The panel is funny and the contestants so far are pretty good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's pretty evident that many of your nights were spent alone. If you watched 5 minutes of the actual show instead of watching the commercial you would have seen one of the greatest television shows in Canadian history being made. Too bad you would have been watching it alone. Probably the reason you hate it... no game. Keys to the VIP is hilarious, light and funny. Guys are going to eat this show up. My game is tight and I can hardly wait to get on this show. The chicks were HOOOOOT and the clubs kicked ass. I'll be watching every week. It makes me wonder why more great shows like this one aren't being made. Now it's clear that the talent in Canada has the ability to produce American quality television.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Polish brothers are unique film artists, and they've really pushed the envelope here. A fantasy that has points in common with \"Wings of Desire,\" \"Northfork\" tells the story of a '50s era small town in the middle of nowhere that is two days shy of being inundated and submerged thanks to the U.S. government's desire to make a reservoir on the place where the town stands. It's a wry parable about loss and remembrance, featuring angels, dreams, premonitions, and the most hilarious government reclamation functionaries since \"Repo Man.\" The performances are all outstanding, especially Nolte and Woods. I've noticed in reading down some of the comments that there are people who were offended simply by the fact that the Polish twins use elliptical storytelling tactics, and I want to say, that's one of the things that makes this film so great: its willingness to embrace the mysterious as an aspect of everyday life. David Mullen's cinematography is stunning. Highly recommended; if you've suffered a meaningful personal loss, such as the death of a parent, I would even call this film necessary viewing. - Ray","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When Northfork debuted at the Cannes Film Festival, many people didn't like it because they felt it was boring and too slow. While I agree that it was slow (one of the slowest movies of the year), in no way was it boring. As Roger Ebert said, `there has never been a movie like Northfork.' I usually don't agree with Ebert, but for once he speaks the truth. Although John Sayles' Sunshine State may have some of the same immediate themes, nothing that I have ever seen or known of can even compare to the striking originality of the Polish Brothers' Northfork.

Northfork is a perfect example of how many times it's better to trek an extra few minutes to go to an art-house film instead of the latest Jack Black movie. The plot isn't some hackneyed, cookie-cutter plot; it's just so strikingly original. A small town in Montana named Northfork has a dam nearby that is about to be taken down. Therefore, the entire town must be evacuated. Some people, however, just don't want to leave. In a side plot, a young orphan (Duel Farnes) is very sick and bedridden; he's being taken care of by Father Harlan (Nick Nolte). The boy imagines himself as a fallen angel, so to speak, who help him out through his time of sickness.

Although much of the movie is straightforward, some of it could give David Lynch a run for his money. There's odd weather patterns, a weird, wooden, huge dog thing, and symbolism that would make Fellini proud. It's not as overall confusing as a Lynch film, but it's still quite odd. That's what makes Northfork so great: it's so out of the ordinary and yet so simple and plausible.

Northfork has a magical feel to it: it's almost like you're watching something you're not quite sure what it is but you feel entranced by it. As I said earlier, I agreed with Ebert on how this movie is unlike any other. However, I disagree when he says that it is `not entertaining'. He goes on to say it's just `enthralling.' Perhaps he just thought he should give it good reviews because everyone else is, but in lieu of how slow it was, I still thought it was very entertaining, something many dramas now can't do.

Northfork may not be the quickest movie or the most popular movie, but if you can get to and through it, you'll be extremely surprised, as I was.

My rating: 8\/10

Rated PG-13 for brief sexuality.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A dreamy, stunningly atmospheric film takes place in a small town of Northfork, Montana in 1955. The government officials arrive to evacuate the town about to be inundated by a new hydroelctrical dam. There are the other visitors in the town, the angels from another time but they only seen by a dying boy Irvin. A local priest (Nick Nolte in a quiet heartbreaking performance) takes care of the boy. Irvin pleads with the angels to leave the place with them...

There is some unearthly quality in the film, some dignified mourning and sublime sadness when you suddenly realize the inevitable finality of everything - humans and their relationships, cities, countries, civilizations, the whole world as we know it. Death and birth have something in common - we go through them in the ultimate loneliness.

I cannot recall the film that affected me in the same way and as deeply as \"Northfork\" did, the film so beautiful and so tender, so quiet and so powerful, so heartbreaking and so moving. Even now, after several weeks since I saw it, tears come to my eyes when I only think of it.

After I saw it, I had to talk to somebody about it. I sent a PM to one of my friends and I asked, \"Please tell me what I just saw?\" And my friend replied with the words, \"You just saw one of the greatest films of modern times. One of these days others will see the light.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"It all depends on how you look at it \u0096we are either halfway to heaven or halfway to hell,\" says the priest Rev. Harlan in \"Northfork.\" The Polish brothers' film is an ambitious one that will make any intelligent viewer to sit up, provided he or she has patience and basic knowledge of Christianity. The layers of entertainment the film provide takes a viewer beyond the surreal and absurd imagery that is obvious to a less obvious socio-political and theological commentary that ought to provoke a laid-back American to reflect on current social values. The film's adoption of the surreal (coffins that emerge from the depths of man-made lakes to float and disturb the living, homesteaders who nearly \"crucify\" their feet to wooden floor of their homes, angels who need multiple glasses to read, etc.) and absurd images (of half animals, half toys that are alive, of door bells that make most delicate of musical outputs of a harp, a blind angel who keeps writing unreadable tracts, etc.) could make a viewer unfamiliar with the surreal and absurdist traditions in literature and the arts to wonder what the movie is un-spooling as entertainment. Though European cinema has better credentials in this field, Hollywood has indeed made such films in the past \u0097in \"Cat Ballou\", Lee Marvin and his horse leaned against the wall to take a nap, several decades ago. \"Northfork,\" in one scene of the citizens leaving the town in cars, seemed to pay homage to the row of cars in \"Citizen Kane\" taking Kane and his wife out of Xanadu for a picnic.

The film is difficult for the uninitiated or the impatient film-goer\u0097the most interesting epilogue (one of the finest I can recall) can be heard as a voice over towards the end of the credits. The directors seem to leave the finest moments to those who can stay with film to the end. If you have the patience you will savor the layers of the film\u0097if you gulp or swallow what the Polish bothers dish out, you will miss out on its many flavors.

What is the film all about? At the most obvious layer, a town is being vacated to make way for a dam and hydroelectric-project. Even cemeteries are being dug up so that the mortal remains of the dead can be moved to higher burial grounds. Real estate promoters are hawking the lakeside properties to 6 people who can evict the townsfolk. Of the 6, only one seems to have a conscience and therefore is able to order chicken broth soup, while others cannot get anything served to them.

At the next layer, you have Christianity and its interaction on the townsfolk. Most are devout Christians, but in many lurk the instinct to survive at the expense of true Christian principles, exemplified in the priest. Many want to adopt children without accepting the responsibilities associated with such actions.

At the next layer, you have the world of angels interacting with near angelic humans and with each other. You realize that the world of the unknown angel who keeps a comic book on Hercules and dreams of a mother, finds one in an androgynous angel called \"Flower Hercules.\" While the filmmaker does give clues that Flower is an extension of the young angel's delirious imagination, subsequent actions of Flower belie this option. You are indeed in the world of angels--not gods but the pure in spirit\u0097and therefore not in the world of the living. The softer focus of the camera is in evidence in these shots.

At another layer the toy plane of Irwin becomes a real plane carrying him and his angels to heaven 1000 miles away from Norfolk.

The final layer is the social commentary\u0097\"The country is divided into two types of people. Fords people and Chevy people.\" Is there a difference? They think they are different but both are consumerist.

To the religious, the film says \"Pray and you shall receive\" (words of Fr Harlan, quoted by Angel Flower Hercules). To the consumerist, the film says \"its what we do with our wings that separate us\" (each of the 6 evictors also have wings-one duck\/goose feather tucked into their hat bands but their actions are different often far from angelic as suggested by the different reactions to a scratch on a car).

The film is certainly not the finest American film but it is definitely a notable path-breaking work--superb visuals, striking performances (especially Nick Nolte), and a loaded script offering several levels of entertainment for mature audiences.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a shame this movie is rated PG 13--it is really quite suitable for anyone--though young kids might not follow it too well.

It belongs to that wonderful genre of serio-comic ghost\/angel stories that would have to include everything from Capra's \"It's A Wonderful Life\" to Wenders's \"Wings of Desire.\"

The photography is stunning, the acting first rate, and--wonder of wonders--the tone is uplifting.

My only criticism is that there is not much ambiguity in the film. The two interwoven stories seem intriguingly mysterious at first; but they resolve themselves a little too nicely for my taste. As the director points out in his commentary on the DVD, all the ingredients of Irwin's story are on his bedside table. The symbolism is just a trifle too pat for me.

But what a lark! My favorite scene has to be when the relocation team tries to get breakfast at a diner. This is practically theatrical in its magic--a tour de force of witty acting--subtle, playful, and positively rhythmic--coupled with striking cinematography and an acute eye for the grotesque.

\"Northfork\" is funny, touching, gorgeous to look at, magical (with the above reservations) and has not one single car-chase.

An easy nine stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The third film from the Polish brothers is their best, most beautiful, imaginative film yet. Though many audiences will have a problem with Northfork's lack of traditional dramatic structure, \"Stick with it, Jack!\". The plot is difficult to summarize, so just know that the story includes: agents trying to evacuate a city, God in a cowboy hat, the selling of angel wings, and a sick orphan (but it all works). M. David Mullen's extraordinary photography makes almost every frame exciting and wonderful to look at. The performances of the actors, working with the Polish Brothers' inspiringly offbeat script, are pitch-perfect and give the film its emotional punch. The strong-willed audience member will be moved by the mythology and folk tale of the story, the comic and moving actors, and finally the incredible courage and command that Michael Polish shows behind the camera. Again all of these incredible and seemingly disjointed elements come together magnificently in one of the most incredible things you should run out and experience. A great, great, great movie!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michael Polish's hypnotic \"Northfork\" is a film that will stay in one's memory for quite a long time. This exquisitely crafted movie that Michael and Mark Polish wrote, is visually one of the best things that came out last year from the world of independent films. The movie is splendidly photographed by M. David Mullen, with a haunting score by Stuart Matthewman.

If you haven't seen the film, perhaps you should stop reading here.

The idea to set the film in Montana was a great coup for the Polish brothers. Never has the majestic views of the country and mountains been so vividly captured as in \"Northfork\". We don't need any color! The beauty is in the dark tones of the film that enhances the story of the desolation in this remote outpost.

At the center of the story is Irwin, the sick child under the care of the mysterious Father Harlan. This boy is seen in his bed where the kind priest is administering the medicine for his body. But is he really there at all? We watch him interacting with the odd group that we first encounter around the cemetery. There are two freshly open graves. Will one of them be for Irwin?

At the same time, another plot line plays parallel to this first theme. We see the six men in black that have come to the area in order to remove from the area as many people as they can. This will be the bed for the man made lake that will be created. Their reward is one acre and a half of lake front property if they move a certain amount of people.

The third story line centers on the mystical group composed by Flower Hercules, Cup of Tea, Cod and Happy. They are following a possibility of a link to an angel that has been injured in this area. When Irwin meets them at the cemetery, he offers to help, only if they take him away at least a thousand miles from here. We watch as the quartet examine the feathers the boy has placed among the pages of his bible. Could Irwin be that angel?

The closing sequence show us all parties leaving Northfork in different directions. The men in black riding their automobiles, perhaps going home to enjoy the newly acquired properties given to them as a reward. The mystical group is seen boarding a plane and taking off for a higher place. We also realize that the child in Father Harlan, in spite of the medicines and the care he received from the saintly figure, has died.

Michael Polish got one of the best ensemble acting from all the principals. Nick Nolte, as Father Harlan turns a low key performance in his portrayal of this kind man. James Woods, as Walter, one of the men working for the developer, does a fine job. The biggest surprise is Duel Farmer, who makes an excellent impression as Irwin. This child actor, with the right guidance, shows great promise.

The mystical group is brilliantly acted by Daryl Hannah, Robin Sachs, Ben Foster and Anthony Edwards, the man with the funny spectacles. Peter Coyote, Mark Polish, Ben Foster, and the rest of the cast are flawless under Mr. Polish direction.

The beauty of the film relies in its simplicity. Mr. Polish's vision will haunt one's memory. The images of Montana, as perhaps an unreal landscape is one of the best things in American films in quite a while.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The stark, cold landscape of Big Sky Country, with its majestic snow-capped mountains juxtaposed to barren plains, is put to poetic use here in this Lynchian fable\/slide picture show about death and melancholy from the young and talented Polish Brothers (who previously treated indie movie fans to the bizarre and fascinating \"Twin Falls Idaho\"--a film about a young woman falling in love with two brothers who happen to be Siamese twins). A little orphan boy is dying, and a town is about to flooded in the name of progress (in the form a damn and hydroelectric power plant). With its eerily pleasing music score, minimalist dialogue and character development, and uncanny fantasy sequences involving some very unique angels, the Polish brothers put their focus on what every good film artist knows a film should be about, the moving pictures...the images, the scenes...paintings of deep beauty captured on celluloid. This is best to be viewed late at night so that the haunting imagery can linger in your mind and wash over you as you drift off into sleep. The fact that all of this was done on a shoe-string budget of less than two million dollars puts Hollywood with their bloated film costs and hollow movies to shame and indicates something grand to come from the Polish brothers in the future.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is a rare and fine spectacle, an allegory of death and transfiguration that is neither preachy nor mawkish. A work of mature and courageous insight, Northfork avoids arthouse distinction by refusing to belong to a kind. Unlike the most memorable and accomplished film to impose an obvious comparison, Wim Wenders' 1987 Wings of Desire (Der Himmel \u00fcber Berlin), it sustains an ambivalence in a narrative spectrum spanning from the mundane to the supernatural. This story of earthly and celestial eminent domains in the American West withholds the fairytale literalness that marked its German predecessor in the ad hoc genre of angels shedding their wings with obsequious sentimentalism. Its celestial transcendence, be it inspired by doleful faith or impelled by a fever dream, never parts ways with crud and rot. This firm grounding redounds to great credit for writers and directors Mark and Michael Polish.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Imagery controls this film. The characters, although interesting, ultimately take a back seat. The first scene I remember is a framed black and white shot of the ocean, that then opens to full screen and color. The bubbling of the water gives way to a small coffin that breaks the surface. The theme of the movie here, being that death can be accepted and brought into the realm of the living.

Water as an ultimate consciousness, as a tool of God, is used to here to force people to get their \"houses\" in order (Judgment Day). The dead have to be accounted for and lifted to a better place. Whatever one has left unresolved or unsettled, will be washed away. There's no clinging on to the past, to a buried memory of what was.

This movie has been compared to O, Brother Where Art Thou, and the threat of water and its use as a cleansing force is similar to that film. What's different in this movie is that the coming of the water is knowable and so, again, the emphasis is on what needs to be done with the here and now.

I agree that the some of the scenes are reminiscent of a David Lynch work. Take, for example, the dinner segment with the deep-voiced and androgynous waitress. One gets the same surreal feel from the setting and odd character as one does with the backwards talker in the scene from Fire Starter. The difference is that Lynch attacks us with the image to express the psychological processes of a troubled character, whereas this film seems to use surreal elements to create a moral message. The men in black suits can't have anything they want-they must be patient and accept what is available.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At first glance a film like Northfork, a town set to be flooded in 1955 and a group of 6 characters who are sent out to evacuate the remaining townspeople, could be just an ordinary film. As we soon meet a remaining priest taking care of a sick child, a greedy land owner, we could be set up for a simple story we could all easily digest. However, when one is first introduced to this film, you notice the amazing wide open cinematography and a scene involving a church hall missing a wall that opens up to the pastures and scenic view of the mountains with cattle grazing. It soon becomes clear that after this scene and a few of the towns peoples introduction, that this is no ordinary film and no ordinary story, it is something very special and unique.

At first glance things are not as clear, but the cinematography and landscape that the viewer is witness to is stunning, and the characters that inhabit this small soon to be extinct area are just in word amazing. It's what can either draw you in closer to this qwerky film, or either have you bored sitting there waiting for something to happen.

The films deep spiritual and dream like qualities, give it a slow and methodical approach which I am sure will bore some viewers, but if you are patient with it and see the bigger picture, the film is great to witness.

Rating 8 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently attended Sundance as I have often done in years past and was treated to the small pleasures of the edgy little indies, the glut of dark comedies and the now predictable portraits of dysfunction. But then I saw Mark and Michael Polish's 'Northfork' and I remembered why I so fell in love with the movies in the first place. 'Northfork' sweeps across the screen with visionary daring and harkens back to the seminal early work of Terence Malick and the existential landscapes of Antonioni. It's an impossible film to easily explain which is one of its many strengths. Suffice it to say it's an adult fairy tale with many carefully layered levels of meaning. It reawakened my imagination and cast an imposing shadow over all the other films I saw this year. It is a work of meticulous craftsmanship and a sophistication of writing not seen in most American movies. I plan to revisit this film several times when it comes to my neighberhood theater. For it is a beguiling piece of magic and mystery, a haunting work where one can roam the plains of Montana in search of angels and the very nature of heaven and earth. The cast performs this luminiscent piece with striking conviction particularly James Woods and Nick Nolte who remind us of the nerve and daring displayed throughout the course of their careers. Maybe 'Northfork' will help us find a new wave of American cinema where excellence in craft and writing become more the norm than the exception. See it when it comes your way and take your friends for the questions will be many and the thoughts and feelings spurred by seeing 'Northfork' will awaken memories of great movie once seen in your past and now hopefully may be returning with the advent of the Polish Brothers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After some further thought about this film, I find it's far too easy to dismiss this as the Boy's dream. I have actually received some spiritual strength from Northfork.......Angels do exist....we definitely are entertained by Angels....most of the time we aren't even aware of it..... At a point of spiritual and emotional turbidity in my life, I personally really needed this film. Yes, as I wrote before, it speaks to so many......can't wait to get to Heaven...

\"Being so sick of all of the FX and Formula stuff, I found this film to be genuine Cinema. All I can say is it touched me in so many ways, that I still am sorting it all out. North Fork is a wonderful film. One that brings the viewer's mind out of the gutter and into the heart. The spiritual aspect is so very intriguing to me. Pay attention, as you'll need to use the brain and heart God gave you to follow the story. I think it's possibly a bit over the heads of some, but I feel those are the individuals it speaks to most importantly. I want to view it several more times, just so I can take it all in!

The Industry needs to study this film to realize we do exist.

My thanks to all involved in the making of this film.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved the movie \"Northfork\". I knew nothing about the movie before watching it. Therefore, I had no outside influence or information to guide me in what I was seeing unfold on the screen. In retrospect I would advise anyone interested in the movie to watch it if for no other reason than the quality actors who appear in it. Do not read anything about the plot, story line, or evaluation of the movie. In fact STOP reading anything further in my comments although I believe they are general and would not spoil the movie for you, I don't want to diminish the value of the movie to you. Find your own path of meaning in this film or it is diminished in its potential.

In general, I found the 3 benign strangers in Northfolk puzzling. As the movie unfolds, they could qualify as three entertaining escapees from a mental hospital or, the dreams and hallucinations of a sick and feverish young boy, or three angels \"sent\" to find the \"lost angel\".

The sick and perhaps dying boy works to convince the three \"strangers\" to abandon the search for the lost angel, become his guardians (mother & father), and take him safely far away from Northfork (no less than 1000 miles). He even declares that he is the lost angel to try to manipulate them all to be his guardian. Only one of the three responds to the boy on a positive basis. The other two have no real enthusiasm or passion for this involvement.

The priest who is nursing the sick boy demonstrates a depth of caring for people and a deep conviction toward his faith. He transcends the desolation and emptiness of Northfork and its people; he is the light of goodness and hope to both Northfork and to the movie viewer.

Near the climax of the movie, the boy and new guardian journey over land to a field where a plane waits. They board to find the other two strangers also on the plane; in fact one is the pilot. The engines start and the plane takes off.

Who are the 3 strangers? If only one stranger was interested in helping the boy why were all three on the plane? Where is the plane going? Did the other two find the \"Lost Angel\"? Is there a lost angel and if so who is it? Who are the six men dressed like undertakers? If all of this is just the sick boy's feverish dreams, how did one of the 3 strangers end up reaching out to help one of the men dressed like an undertaker when he jumped and hit his head(neither the boy or strangers had contact with these men)?

One or two sentences written under the title telling people what this movie is about is a tragic mistake (this is not a spoiler, it's statement about advertising only). So if you haven't seen the movie, Northfork, the questions above show only a few of the interesting and fun forks in the road of thought when you view the film Northfork. If you read the advertising summary of the plot of the movie before you watched it previously, maybe you ought to look at some of the questions above and watch it again... I know I will.

Terry","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"NORTHFORK is above all a masterpiece of widescreen cinematography. For this alone the film is well worth one's time. The stark, wide open plains and badlands of eastern Montana are captured in the spare, muted earth tones of autumn or early spring. The gigantic grey cement Fort Peck Dam is the film's protagonist. The film comments both subtly and not so subtly on about a dozen issues of Western Landscape. The dialogue can be trying at times, yet the images and concepts are powerful enough to lift the film. The 1950's period works so well here and is executed so well. I think that the passing years will be kind to this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An Eko-centric episode the \"?\" explores the aftermath of the tragic events that rocked the castaways in the previous one. As the main characters John, Locke, Sawyer, Kate and Hurley come to terms with the incident in the hatch, Locke and Eko set out to find out where Henry took off to. As it turns out Eko is on a mission of his own trying to figure out the symbol ? which Locke had drawn on his sketch. We see flashes of Eko's life in Sydney as a priest who comes in contact with his brother through a stranger. We also witness the tragedy that struck the hatch boil down to a room temperature as Michael continues to remain a mystery.

An excellent LOST episode with many interesting turns.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The second \"Mr. Eko\" episode has somewhat less interesting flashbacks than the first (\"The 23rd Psalm\"), but in just about every other department it is one of the best episodes of Season 2, advancing the series' mythology\/background as well as the characters. A new Dharma Initiative station - The Pearl - is discovered by Locke and Eko, and the orientation film that they find and watch inside completes Locke's transformation from a believer (\"Orientation\" - after the end of the film: \"We're gonna have to watch this again\") to a doubter (\"S.O.S\" - \"Did you push that button, Henry? I need to know\") to a non-believer (\"?\" - after the end of the film: \"Do you want to watch this again? - \"No, I've seen enough\"). Terry O'Quinn's performance is powerful as usual (\"every single second of my pathetic little life is as useless as that button\"). Meanwhile, Eko takes his place as the man who becomes sure that he was brought on the island as part of his true destiny, which is to continue pushing the button. Other high points of \"?\" are a startling, unique dream sequence where person A has the dream as being person B (this is the kind of bold idea that the current season of LOST could use much more of), and the haunting scene of Libby's last word before her death, and the way Jack and Hurley cannot possibly know its true meaning. ***1\/2 out of 4.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In this episode, Locke and Eko go searching for the \"?\" symbol that we saw during the lock-down on a previous episode. Michael, having shot Ana Lucia and Libby, struggles with his actions as Libby inches closer to death.

The most interesting thing about this episode (I think). Is during the commercial break. Locke and Eko find a hatch under the plane that killed Boone in season one, and a new training video ends with \"Copyright, The Hanso Foundation, 1989\" In a following commercial break, a rather bizarre and nondescript commercial advertises \"The Hanso Foundation\" (a planted commercial), and the website advertised (www.sublymonal.com) leads the visitor through a world of information about life on the outside of LOST's storyline. A must see for all fans!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While sleeping, Mr. Eko is assigned by his brother Yemi (Adetokumboh McCormack) in a dream to go with John Locke to disclose the meaning of the \"?\" symbol. With the pretext of chasing Henry, Mr. Eko brings John with him and they find a second hatch called \"Pearl\" underground the question mark symbol marked on the field, where a video explains that the other hatch is a psychological experiment and people behavior pressing the buttons of the computer every 108 minutes are actually subjects. Meanwhile, Jack unsuccessfully tries to save Libby.

In this episode, John Locke loses his faith in the island when he finds that they have been monitored in the hatch. The disgusting Michael sees the anguishing Libby wishing that she was dead, while Hurley, Jack, Kate and Sawyer are suffering her pain, in a deep emotional contrast. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): Not Available","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Uzak (2002), a Turkish film shown in the U.S. as \"Distant,\"

was directed, produced, written, and filmed by Nuri Bilge

Ceylan.

This movie is a gritty and somber version of the clash between a \"city mouse,\" Mahmut, played by Muzaffer \u00d6zdemir, and a \"country mouse,\" Yusuf, played by Emin Toprak.

Both men are superb actors, and the plot allows them to demonstrate their acting skill. (Tragically, Emin Toprak died in an automobile accident shortly after the movie was completed.)

In most country cousin\/city cousin tales, the contrast between rural and urban life styles is portrayed in a humorous fashion. In this film, there's little humor or even warmth. Both men

have lost touch with human society. Mahmut 's work as a

commercial photographer for a tile company gives him no satisfaction. He has divorced a woman he clearly

still loves, and has no satisfying human relationships.

Mahmut has lost his job because of a factory closing in his small town, and doesn't have the skills or the energy to find work in the city. His human interactions are primarily confined to silent observations of the other people who cross his path. He's clearly a warm and caring person, but can't express these qualities in an urban environment.

The cousins don't relate well to the world, and they don't relate well to each other. Neither makes an effort to act in a way that would provide an opportunity for bonding or closeness.

In a sense, this film portrays an opportunity wasted.

Conceivably, each cousin could have provided at least part of what was lacking in the other's life. Instead, they steer parallel unhappy courses. The two men are distant throughout, which is a situation suggested by the film's title.

One of my friends mentioned the masterful way in which Ceylan builds detail upon detail. These details ultimately tell us more about the characters than we might have learned by simple exposition.

Uzak was shown as part of the Rochester Labor Film series. It's not a \"labor film\" in the traditional sense of that genre. It is a labor film because it demonstrates the harmful effects of unsatisfying work (Mahmut) and unemployment (Yusuf).

This is a quiet, absorbing, dark film. Although it doesn't make for happy viewing, I walked out of the

theater realizing that I had seen a truly creative and

important movie. This film is worth finding and seeing!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"People must learn to watch what is up there on the screen. This is a great film that is based on a slow, careful gathering of details which serve to establish the personalities of these two men. The passivity of Yusuf (Emin Toprak), the country cousin, is well described by his fear of talking to women. He has at least three chances to start a conversation with a young woman and loses all of them. He has many decades of bachelorhood ahead of him, and maybe unemployment as well.

Mahmut is a different case. He got out of the small town by working very hard (we imagine), and his resentment of slackers like Yusuf is palpable (he leaves crumbs on the expensive carpet--the slob!). We are shown a group of friends talking about Tarkovsky among other things, and we note that Mahmut feels regret--but only slight regret--that his work has become commercial over the years. The gulf between the cousins just gets wider and wider. The mouse trap theme is wonderfully vivid, it brings out the compassion and confusion of Yusuf, and the cold-blooded problem solving of Mahmut.

I was reminded of two classic films of men driving each other nuts: Les cousins by Chabrol (the rich boy with Hitlerian pretensions played by Brialy is always in my mind) and Kiss of the Spider Woman (William Hurt can't figure out why everybody's so mean). Nuri Bilge Ceylan takes his place among the dozen important directors now active. I just hope that in future he will come to rely on collaborators, instead of directing, writing and shooting his films himself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It has taken me about a year now after seeing this film to write about it. Lord knows I have wanted to, after witnessing it I knew I saw something I hadn't seen before but wasn't sure why. Now after reflecting for quite some time I know, it's these characters that even now I still can't stop thinking about.

Distant briefly and slowly tells the story of a relative (Yusuf) who comes from the rurals to live briefly with a well off to do photographer (Mahmut) in the city in hopes to find employment. However it becomes clear that after Yusuf hypothesizes the idea of being a sailor and his employment prospects dim, that he's really searching for something else, some sort of purpose in his life.

Through all this soul searching we are taken through seasonal surroundings that are filmed exquisitely. The context in which they happen makes the scenes more powerful in 2 particular ones when a girl Yusuf has been following suddenly meets up with her significant other, and the look of Yusuf's face as he looks into a basket of fish and the shot and light that reflects off his tortured face. That scene in itself has to be one of the most gorgeously filmed pieces I have witness in I don't know how long.

In the end Mahmut has his own demons too, but ends up confronting his relative that he is not really trying to find a job and is forced to ask him to leave, in a scene that is very simple but has the feeling of true heartbreak.

What the viewer is left with is lots of reflecting and pondering for these 2 people who everyone can see a piece of themselves in. You should not be put off by the pace of this film it is truly worth every single breathtaking second.

Rating 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am very thankful that the small college town of Abingdon, Va.- near Bristol, TN. and home of the famous Barter Theatre where Gregory Peck once acted- managed to get an art film festival togather and show this film there. Abingdon is two and a hour hours from where I live, but the trip was worth it in every sense of the word. UZAK\/DISTANT is an amazing, brilliant, jarring, emotional, captivating film. As a Turkish-American, this film was not only a testimony as to what life in Turkey is like; but on a larger scale it tells the world of what it is like to be Turkish whether one lives in Istanbul, Berlin, Montreal, New York, or Omaha. It may be two hours in length as opposed to five minutes, but this is effectively our Bob Marley song. There are so many wonderful scenes in this film. It is very difficult to choose just a random few. But, for me, one telling scene takes place in a Beyoglu (downtown Istanbul) cinema. The title character, played by Mehmet Emin Toprak who sadly died in a car accident shortly after this film's completion, follows a very attractive young woman down a staircase to the cinema's main auditorium. She goes into see \"Vanilla Sky.\" As the image of Tom Cruise is reflected from a glass, we sense that Turkish men are competing with Tom Cruise for their own women's affections even though Tom Cruise is nowhere to found in Beyoglu. The scenes shot across the Bosphorous shores are also quite revealing as they symbolize the beauty, yet desperate empty gulfs, which are a painful fact of life in Turkey. In this film, the gulf separates lovers and families. A simple, empty packet of Samsun (Turkish brand) cigarettes and a dying mouse jump off the screen the way seagulls did in the 1982 Serif Goren-Yilmaz Guney film \"Yol.\" Many of Guney's films, including \"Yol,\" \"Suru- the Herd\" (1978- completed by Zeki Okten) and \"Baba-The Father\" (1971) have been considered by many to be the best Turkish films ever made. Without Guney's sometimes overblown social-political anger (especially in his last film, the 1983 prison drama \"Duvar-The Wall\"), \"Distance\" captures the essence of Turkish life quite remarkably. This is a crowning achievement for a director who in my view can already be proclaimed as the Turkish equivalent to directors like Tarkovsky, Bresson, and Ozu. I can't wait to see his other films!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Reading some of the other reviews of this film, i was reminded of both good and not so good aspects of it. But overall, i have to say it is one of the better films i have seen from any number of genres or countries recently. More than anything else, it avoided many of the typical traps of more recent international cinema, like taking nice pictures of landscapes or being 'hip', 'fun' or imitating American films like pulp fiction. The film is unique in many ways. For one thing, it is a film about relationships in which sex plays no role (unusual, especially for foreign films). It is also a film about two men's relationship to each other (also unusual - not a 'buddy film', no homosexual tension, no ego\/phallic competition). It uses little dialogue, but communicates a tremendous amount. It is a simple story, yet full of complex details which are easily understood by any human being and universal in their relevance. I did not find the film dark or depressing (everything would seem this way if you watch Hollywood happy ending films all the time), but rather a true reflection of human emotions. For instance, in the scene where Mahmut realizes his cousin is gone is you see both his feeling of relief, that the cousin is gone and yet regret, that he pushed him away. Who has not felt such ambivalence - when losing a friend or lover, or in some other situation? It's rare to get these kinds of real human emotions displayed on film in a non-clich\u00e9 way. As far as culture is concerned, or this being a Turkish film, i feel it strikes the very difficult balance between being a 'Turkish' film - about realities which more apply to that place (the greater struggle to make it in a Turkish city versus a European one; the greater contrast between country and city), and a universal, human story which didn't necessarily have to be set in Turkey. In this day and age where people around the world are consuming culture and fetishizing it, this film does not try to entice us as 'Turkish', nor does it try to communicate it as a 'harsh reality', or 'that's how Turkey\/Istanbul IS'. And yet the cultural elements are there. I think the comparison to 'lost in translation' that somebody made is quite good. Everyone, at least in the US, was raving about that film. I personally thought it was mediocre at best. It was well put by someone as a vague story which supposedly was supposed to deal with 'disorientation' that happens to people living or traveling overseas. Even if the film was supposed to be humorous, the characters and their motivations or crises were never clear (even for a 'lighter' film or comedy, this is necessary). And i found myself being treated to a typically 'orientalist' story of the alienated Amerian overseas. Going back to 'Distant', as for the idea that this is bad acting, or too slow, or has no plot, I'm sorry but people who say this know nothing about film making and maybe nothing about being human, no offense. You do not have to be a film aficionado or cultural connoisseur to appreciate this film. This film will be two hours of your time well spent!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's probably a year since I saw Uzak, but it has left strong memories of the two main characters, jaded photographer Mahmut and his naive cousin from the village Yusuf.

It's a long film with very little dialogue and a quite limited plot. This has evidently annoyed a fair few viewers. But the film constructs such a painfully believable portrait of Mahmut and Yusuf that there's just as much emotional tension as in the paciest thriller.

Just to be clear, there's no padding in this film -- in the long pauses where no one speaks there as much happening in the characters' emotions (and in yours, watching them) as you could bear. Go to see it awake and alert, and you'll be gripped rather than anaesthetised.

Uzak rings true in so many ways, and that sincerity is probably its greatest accomplishment. People don't grapple with events and problems, so much as with each other. In fact, in the whole film, there's probably not one point where the main characters (Mahmut, Yusuf and Mahmut's ex-wife Nazan) are not opposed.

Much of it is true the world over: country cousin Yusuf's perhaps wilfully naive expectation that a job on a ship will drop into his lap; Mahmut's urbanised cynicism and unwillingness to sympathise with Yusuf.

Other truths are more-specific to Turkey: Yusuf's incomprehension that Mahmut might be tolerating his stay with gritted teeth; Yusuf veering between macho ambition and wide-eyed awkwardness when he tries to get to know a woman.

Uzak is undoubtedly a pretty bleak film, and one Ceylan's strengths is not to beat us over the head with the themes he explores. For me at least, I believed entirely in the behaviour of his characters. All the little failed attempts to connect and petty cruelties ring so true. And yet I didn't leave with a message that \"The world is like that\", but instead I got \"This is how we sometimes treat each other.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hysterically painful; perhaps the kind of movie Chekhov would have made had he made movies. What's really funny is that the two cousins have so very much in common (many descriptions of their relationship on this site are dead wrong).

What's really funny and uncomfortable about these characters is that they just can't bring themselves to talk to each other - or anyone else! It's horrible. If you've ever been too shy, worried, self-involved, or just plain scared to talk to someone (and who hasn't?) you'll definitely see yourself in this film. And it won't be pretty.

It holds a mirror up to the audience and says, \"If you don't like what you see... change it\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those who are like me and are used to watch and enjoy high budget Hollywood films, on huge screens with a surround audio, this film seems to be so distant. However it surprised me how close can it be to any human while I watch it. It is so natural that you feel like nobody wrote a scenario or nobody directed it. You are the director and you are writing the scenario while you watch it. For me, the time I spend on watching a film is the only time which I go to another world. This film is the first sample for me which shows that it is not always a must to watch millions of dollars of budgeted films, surround audio capabilities to go to another world. This films sends you to another world (or maybe makes you return back to yourself) without millions of dollars of budget, or technical capabilities. I felt like that I'm reading L'etranger from Camus.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When you're watching Distant you know you're not watching a French movie, there's little sex and it's mostly elliptical and people don't talk that much here, there are a few lines scattered here and there and a couple of important conversations, just to let you make sense of what's going on. It doesn't look American either, there aren't any car chases or shoot-outs or violence, unless you consider the killing of a mouse an act of blood or the daily tension of getting by a subdued catastrophe. At times, the relatively long-held medium-distance shots may remind you of 'contemplative' Asian cinema, but just reminds you, the director doesn't push things to the radical minimalism of some Taiwanese filmmakers but then again, this is not a Taiwanese movie, it's a Turkish movie. I don't know what that means, I don't even know if that's supposed to mean something.

The movie doesn't have a plot proper and yet, those few lines, those somewhat long-held shots and that often mitigated tension gradually build a sense of something happening, a sense of 'plot', for lack of a better word, that grows on you. By the end of the movie you may get the feeling you're going to miss those two cousins who have many things in common but are worlds apart.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a film about loneliness and how the distance \u0096 physical and emotional -- between people tends to stultify relationships.

The narrative is simple to the point of banality: a young man Yusuf (Emin Toprak), from a rural village, arrives in Istanbul to stay with his older and successful cousin Mahmut (Muzaffer Ozdemir); Yusuf wants work in the big city. After trying for a few weeks to find work without any success, the strain of having Yusuf living with him is too much for Mahmut. They quarrel \u0096 nothing physical, just verbal. Eventually, Yusuf goes, leaving Mahmut alone again. End of story...

Except for the fact that the performance of the two men as relatives is one of the best on film. Much is said visually; dialog is used to bring out disagreement, distrust, hostility, and insecurity that exist within and between the two men.

There are many visual gems in this film. For example, while searching for work, young Yusuf, needing a relationship, tries in vain to gain the attention of various young women around the city. The look on his face, as he is thwarted every time, says it all.

Or, wanting a cigarette, Yusuf opens the door to the balcony of Mahmut's apartment and lights up in the frigid December air, leaving the door open; Mahmut, eventually gets up from his work desk, walks to the door (all glass) and the cousins just look at each other for what seems way too long a time. Then Mahmut closes the door, leaving Yusuf out in the cold. The metaphor is complete.

Or, Mahmut cleaning up after Yusuf, grudgingly and with increasing anger; and all the while, Yusuf wastes his time chasing skirts instead of looking seriously for work, and spends Mahmut's money on a toy for a nephew\u0085 Yusuf is emotional, untidy, impulsive, and vulnerable. Mahmut is rational, logical, self-confident and a demanding control freak: the right-brain, left-brain dichotomy beautifully played out by two actors who say more with a look, a gesture, a frown than any words can convey.

But, Mahmut is not completely emotionless: he still loves his ex-wife who tells him that she's off to Canada with her husband-to-be. Mahmut affects a distant and confident friendship with his ex, and makes sure that she is okay about going. He wishes her well. He says goodbye. He leaves the coffee shop where they were talking. Later when she calls to say a last goodbye, on the way to the airport, Mahmut goes there and secretly watches as she leaves. The poignancy of the emotion on his face, as she disappears through a door, is worth the wait.

All in all, this is a standout piece of work by the two main actors and the director, Nuri Ceylan. Some might argue that the pace is too slow; but life goes slowly for much of the time, especially for those who are alone. The camera work is relatively simple also: choose the scene, set up the camera and lighting, and let the actors move across the scene, enter the scene and leave the scene, all the while keeping the camera still. There were a few panning shots, some high-angle tracking shots, a few rural scenes \u0096 but much of the film is shown as though on a stage with a fixed camera and a wide angle lens. Except for TV and radio music within the story, there is no music sound track. And, there are those many long silences as the two men sit and watch TV together and\/or engage in very limited conversation.

I saw this movie on TV so I was amused to see that, on a few occasions, I was watching TV as they were watching TV also. The silence in the movie matched the silence in my house (I was awake, all others in bed); my chair and position matched that of Mahmut's as he watched TV. Quite eerie, giving me a sense of almost 'being there' with him\u0085 And, I guess I was, in a sense.

I'll say no more, because I want you to savor the other scenes that I haven't described. It's not a movie for everybody, for sure. More than any movie I've seen, it shows just how much we die when we are all alone \u0096 just as we are all alone when we die. Mahmut's face, as it fades to black in the final scene, will stay with me for a long, long time...

Highly recommended for serious movie buffs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first time I saw the poster, I was stunned by its tranquility and beauty. Then the city of Istanbul has been haunting in my mind ever since.

Not much dialogue, not much music, the whole film was shot as elaborately and aesthetically like a sculpture. It itself is a landscape.

Actually there are a lot of things going on in the film, but the director deliberately omitted most dramatic parts and leave them to our imagination, thus creating a really flat life. **(mild spoiler)One can see Mahmut's ladylove crying in the toilet and then going out without a word but not their fight; one can see Mahmut accompanying his mother in the hospital but not her struggle from illness. The most dramatic scene in the film to me is Yusuf laughing out loud for the toy soldier he bought for his niece,** and that's when it almost broke my heart to see this boring, lonely life bursting out in such a way.

With all the trivialities in life weeded, the story presents us with pure inner world of all the characters, their sadness, anxiety, loneliness, regrets...And as the story unfolded, I sort of finally grasped their desperate situation where their emotions were really no way out if no outer things intervened, which is exactly every loner tries to keep at all cost, especially for an irresponsible artist like Mahmut.

I've just finished my second watching. Last night, I crouched into my quilt, had some Vodka beside my bed and went through the whole film in a trance. I felt two real lives going on, one outside the screen, one inside the screen. I felt free from all those loneliness and anxiety 'cause the people inside were experiencing it. I just had myself removed from all those things.

We cannot deny the universal problem of communication, and loneliness even puts us far towards it, and it becomes a vicious spiral. I bet Mahmut still didn't figure out a way of living in the end. That's why he stepped out of his room to try to find the answers from the outer world, the coldness and landscape.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Following the collapse of Yesilcam (Turkey's answer to Hollywood) in the mid '90s few but the most prescient of observers could have foreseen such a recent pique in the Turkish film industry, arguably built upon the work of ex-photographer Nuri Bilge Ceylan.

Uzak is the director's third feature and forms something of a trilogy with his two earlier pictures (Kasaba and Clouds of May), following similar themes and techniques. The film finds Mahmoud, a commercial photographer, living alone in a small Istanbul apartment only visited occasionally by his brusque, married lover. Yusuf, his nephew, has left his village home after the closure of a factory and the loss of his job. The younger man stays with Mahmoud while fruitlessly looking for work in the city, drinking in caf\u00e9s and nervously observing young women he never approaches.

The film's title is translated as \"Distant\", and the film beautifully illustrates every possible connotation of the word; Yusuf's physical distance from his home, Mahmoud's emotional distance from the world around him and the generational distance between the two men.

Ceylan's films rarely contain heightened dramatics, instead allowing full and rich characters to develop from within the tightly framed, static shots. He acts as director, producer, writer, cinematographer and co-editor and casts friends and family in many of the roles. Such a confined, insulated approach to film-making might be expected to lead to films hard to infiltrate and connect with for most viewers, making Uzak's undoubted humanity all the more impressive.

Ceylan is, however, a better cinematic formalist than dramatist, taking the reigns from such past masters of cinematic language as Ozu and Tarkovsky. After viewing Uzak, I can think of few better suited to the task.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like all good art, this movie could mean different things to different people. To me it means that failing to open your hart to the others could rob you of happiness and leave you with an empty live. The convenience of the selfishness is like the junk food: it feels good, but eventually could make you sick.

Almost everything I see in the US is a commercial mass production of action garbage, shallow dramas, and stupid comedies, and this sensitive, deep and poetic movie really touched me. Thank you, Nuri Bilge Ceylan (and all the other in the cast)!

Ivan Yanachkov","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is not a film to impress you with high budget, high-tech shots, fast camera movements or glimmering costumes thought by an overzealous and hungry director. But it's a film by a director who is also a very good photographer, who has a very good sense of looking at things as a human, not as an half-god unlike most of the directors. This is not a film in which actors and actresses try to give their best 'performances' with unreal or, at best, learned gestures and mimics. Rather, it's a film in which they act as real as it can be. Actually, they are not professional actors at all. The dialogues between the main characters, their expressions, their feelings are as real as they can easily be yours in real life. You tell the same lies to the people around you with the same regrets that you avoid to express with words. You show the same signs of nuisance to an unwanted guest. This is the same feeling of disconnection that you get in modern city life. And this is your chance to see yourself from outside, impersonated by the main characters. I saw all of the films of Nuri Bilge Ceylan, incl. his short film Koza (Cacoon) thanks to those who puts it in the DVD. Many would compare him with Tarkovsky, Ozu and maybe Bresson or Bergman as he is emerging as a true auteur. And he is sincere in saying that his films are not to make money but to give a meaning to his life. That is the kind of sincerity you'll find in Uzak.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the last film of a trilogy by the brilliant Turkish director, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, whose last film Mayis Sikintisi -which was very Cehovian- was shown in prestigious film festivals. Differing from his previous films, the story of 'Uzak' is set on Istanbul which is one of the most crowded cities of the world. However, in Ceylan's film, we do see only minor traces of that huge crowd. Rather he choose to focus on two characters, one photographer and one of his relatives who comes from his small village to find a job on transatlantic ships. The photographer, who -we understand that- has also immigrated to the city, seems to be inhabited the customs of the city life, not only in material sense. In his relation to his relative, we see him first as caring and tolerant, however, when he could not find a job, our suburbian character starts to be disturbed for sharing his private 'space' with someone whose leaving date becomes ambiguous. I will not reveal the tactics he develops in order to pull his relative out of his life to prevent any harm on your viewing pleasure, but it is enough to say that Ceylan shows us the tactics that we acquire within the routine of suburbian life; 'tactics' to keep our own private space, 'tactics' in order not to communicate with other people, 'tactics' to prevent our relationships from gaining a complex nature (since our own experience, we believe that, is complex enough).

Ceylan's film presents a clear picture of what a human being becomes within the borders of modern (or postmodern ?) city by depicting the two characters in different manners. But, he doesn't condemn any of the two characters for doing this, rather he uses the power of cinematic language to underline this difference. For example, in search of new opportunities, we always see the character coming from the village in open spaces. Even within the house, he prefers balcony as his favourite space. On the other hand, we see the photographer always within the closed spaces, and generally at his home. Although there are more than 10 million people out there, and lots of adventures, lots of interesting things to discover (or are there any?) he prefers sitting at home, watching TV, etc. His home is like his temple, a kind of sacred place.

Everyone living in a big city, and conscious of the experience he is living through, will find something belonging to himself in Uzak. If you like this film, I am sure that you will like Ceylan's other two films, Mayis Sikintisi (The Clouds of May) and Kasaba (The Town). Go and find them!.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Perhaps many viewers who got frustrated by this film live their lives without ever thinking deeply about life itself. What i want to point out here is that \"distant\" is not only an art-house film but one of the best art-house films. From all the art-house films I have seen, \"distant\" is the one that really stands out as a glittering piece of gold. It is even fair to say that this film's cinematography and depiction of human emotion surpass Tarkovsky's Nostalgia. One commentator got it right, that sex, a jaded, common feature among foreign films, is surprisingly lacking in \"distant\" and in a good way. What is most remarkable about \"distant\" is that it captures the details of life we usually ignore and the rich essence of our existence that often gets buried under the din and visual extravaganza of our commercialized world. Fortunately \"distant\" doesn't have that much to spare the audiences and what we see on the screen is a bare portrait of human beings.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The only complaint I heard about this film was that it was slow. Though, perhaps this is the point. The two characters clash unforgivingly and the slow build-up of tension between them is anxiety-producing. The intricate and subtle gestures and minimal dialog take the tension to a point where an otherwise normal argument shocks the audience. Istanbul and the outskirts are dreamy, scenery captivating, and the plot is thrilling - not in that \"look, the hero blew up yet another car and he's now flying with his motorcycle\" kind of way, though. I had chills down my spine as the characters moved in and out of each other's spheres and watched the fog engulf Istanbul.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A study of one of those universally familiar, physical and\/or emotional states: isolation. I think the film also comments on cultural displacement too.

The film presents the experiences of two Turkish men (cousins). One has money (and the comforts that come of having 'made-it' with a steady income); the other has none and goes in search of work. Neither are happy. Expect no celebration of life here - this is loneliness, warts and all.

The film succeeds in offering a powerfully bleak traverse across the 'low lands' of the human condition. Brave film-making. Well-acted and well-shot in my view (outdoor shots by the harbour being my own favourites). A film that should inspire gratitude in anyone who is not a stranger to happiness and fulfilment in life (not to mention employment); everyone else will find a companion in this film. A film with all the warmth and pace of an ice-floe. Expect a bitter pill, not a 'happy pill.'","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\u00fd th\u00fdnk uzak \u00fds the one of the best films of all times and everybody must realize this movie.I m a Turkish boy and a big cinema fun. and in this days our cinema industry is highing up.And UZAK is the best Turkish film of last ten years.and maybe one of the best films of all times.director nuri bilge ceylan is quite amazing.telling story,characters,atmosphere is wonderful.he is a minimalist director and tells about routine event family,dreams,expects,life.tells about you ,tells about me,tells about us.I promise you will find a piece of your body in this movie.cinema life welcomes a new director.he is waiting to realize.I promise yo you will love this movie please watch it","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nuri Bilge Ceylan's 2002 film Distant (Uzak)- his third feature film (his first was 1997's black and white The Small Town- Kasaba), is a significant step up from his good but flawed 1999 film Clouds Of May (Mayis Sikintisi). The earlier film had potential, but reeked of a small budget and improvised quality in the worst ways- plot holes and wooden acting from amateurs. That Clouds Of May succeeded on any level was a testament to Ceylan's talent as a budding filmmaker. However, Distant is Ceylan's arrival on the international scene as a great artist, one who has many of the same qualities as other great filmmakers like Ingmar Bergman (although his screenplay is not as dialogue-heavy it is just as brooding, and he lacks Bergman's penchant for close-ups- his shots are usually long shots for exteriors and medium shots for interiors) and Yasujiro Ozu (whose penetrating scenes of contemplation Ceylan reconfigures). The bulk of the film takes place in snowy hibernal Istanbul (the fact that it snows in Turkey will likely surprise some), which lends the film a definite Bergmanian feel, as well as reminding one of some of the bleak snowy urban images from Krzysztof Kieslowski's The Decalogue. The natural images invoke the best of Werner Herzog- as they tend to go on a beat or two longer than standard film theory would dictate- which is what makes them even more memorable, while the urban landscapes range from the nearly Precisionist compositions of Michelangelo Antonioni to the cultural hagiography of Woody Allen- one shot of a bench overlooking water is a direct quotation (read steal) from Manhattan, save the lack of the Brooklyn Bridge in the background. In another scene, Ceylan similarly quotes a famous shot of a ship in the harbor from Ozu's Tokyo Story. Yet, like all great artists, Ceylan makes his appropriations his own art, by slightly altering them and keeping them apropos to his own film's needs\u0085. Distant is a film whose title suffuses the characterization within the film and the feeling some viewers will have toward them, but it does not describe the film itself, for scenes stay with one long after the film ends. Perhaps the most memorable scene and image of the film comes when Mahmut stalks his ex-wife at the Istanbul airport, and watches her with her new husband as they head to board the plane that will remove her from his life forever. As he watches her, from a distance, we see her catch just a glance of him watching her. Will she leave her husband and return to Mahmut? Not in this film. He pulls back behind a column, and Nazan merely turns her head back to her future. Mahmut is her past, and she knows how to best move on- just keep moving. Mahmut will never get it. Most rarely get such moments of insight into themselves of life. That some viewers will get the film, and that Ceylan gets his own powers of creation, shows that ignorance can teach, as long as one moves about it. Distant does, albeit it at just the right length.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My interpretation is that the term 'distant' is used in the sense of the opposite of 'warm'; people who are not warm toward others. The film reminds me of the teachings of the Dalai Lama in 'The Art of Happiness' where his main point is that the key to happiness is connecting with others. Not only are the characters in the film insular, but they are also humorless, charmless, shy, quiet and unfriendly. These characteristics appear to prevent them, amongst other things, from forming and enjoying relationships and being able to talk about and deal with their problems. And as a result they are terribly unhappy. I see it as a strong vindication of the Dalai Lama's teaching (I'm not a Buddist by the way). If you are one of the people who thinks that their behavior is a natural response to living in a large city then I think you may be right but I recommend the Dalai Lama's book. City life need not be like this.

I can see why some people found it boring - it does drag a bit in places and the characters are not particularly likable. And it does contrast to Lost In Translation where the insular characters are much more likable and do connect with one another even though they don't connect with people generally.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Distant\" is a slice-of-Turkish-life flick which follows the mundane activities of two adult male cousins; one a photographer and the other an unemployed underachiever. There's little doubt that auteur Nuri Bilge Ceylan is a work in progress with considerable talent. However, this little foreign minimalistic arty dramady is so full of empty filler and so devoid of story or anything engaging or provocative that it will likely appeal to only the most avid devotees of cinema and mainstream audiences should look elsewhere. I personally grew quickly bored with the slow pace of the film and found myself fast-forwarding through the empty spaces - and there are many - between dialogue, plot development, and denouement. \"Distant\" is a very nicely done bit of esoterica. (B-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"so, i won't disagree with the critics but I really was not all that moved by this movie. i was a little hesitant to rent it,as I am going through some of the same things the protagonist is supposed to be experiencing. yet, i did rent it thinking that I might experience some catharsis, or at the least understand that I am not alone. while i understood the protagonist's irritation with his careless cousin, I didn't feel his internal struggle with isolation as much as I would have liked. i felt that much more emphasis was placed on his disruptive cousin overstaying his welcome. it is a beautifully filmed movie, and I did really appreciate the use of silence to bring out the feeling of isolation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First time I ever saw this was at a friends house. It ended up in his parents hands by a fluke; some videostore\/bicycle repair shop!! went bankrupt and treats like this was up for grabs. We saw it two times in a row and almost wet are pants how hard we laughed.

I've seen historical documents like Ninja Mission and Plan 9 from Outer Space, and they still remain good runners-up in comparison to this one.

Almost 15 years after first contact it is now considered the best cult movie of all times (in my circles); I've showed it to all my friends... We now have a tradition of searching for movies in the same category: the un-rateable one.

It can't be explained or reviewed in any normal way because every scene, every take, every move, contains at least one mistake regarding editing, dialouge, directing etc.

For any cult-movie buff this is the ultimate prize, the gem of all gems.

Raiting: As for craft it can't be rated, because it would even be an insult to homemade videos of birthdays and weddings.

As for pure amusement it is the funniest movie I have ever seen; funnier than any comedy ever made past or present. Anything less than a 10\/10 should be regarded as an insult to good sense of hum our.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Death Promise\" is a lost 70's exploitation gem and deserves to be seen. Technically somewhat of a mess and boasting a stock of amateur New Yawk types, this film never bores. I highly recommend tracking this down. It's a hoot and a half.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie stands for entertanment. Its the funniest movie I have ever seen. The lines, the acting. And the clothes, wow, talk about 70:s. If you ever see this little gem, buy it. Its worth every penny. By the way, the opening song is awsome. If anyone know where I can find it. Plese, send me an E-mail.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the classic low budget 70's movies, this film was found in a bargain video shop in London for only 50p. (interestingly, the package lists the star of the film as 'Charles Bone', who sounds like a porn star, but once the credits role it's obvious that the picture is aligned to far the right of the TV screen, so that all the cast members have the last letter missing from their names)

From the moment the narrator lamely introduces us to the situation that the desperate tenants of a grimy New York City apartment block, you know you're in for a rollercoaster ride of fromage. The direction is from the 'Ed Wood one-take' school - if one or two extras were looking at the camera crew, then what the hell?

The films finishes with a plot twist that puts The Usual Suspects to shame. Buy it now.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A group of evil businessmen need to knock down a building to build a huge complex, but they can't remove the tenants. The tenants and businessmen with their hired thugs clash until the film ends with one of the funniest fights ever! The guy with the ginger hair who goes 'eeeeehhhh' every time he throws a punch and the other guy who poses with a knife in his mouth instead of fighting, only to be beaten off camera, make this essential viewing if you like to laugh at films rather than with them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Curse of Monkey Island\" is a treasure; in my opinion the series as a whole was the holy grail of adventure gaming, not to mention LucasArts.

But to return to \"Curse,\" whats beautiful about CMI is that its not afraid to be itself. It does deviate from the first two but still remains faithful to the Ron Gilbert productions (if only the same could be said about the 4th installment of the series!). The voice work is impeccable, with Dominic Armato playing our favorite protagonist Guybrush Threepwood. The animation, while quite different than the classic pixelated characters, is done beautifully. It really is just absolutely gorgeous. And the music is fantastic! Its never annoying and you never have the urge to turn it off.

Although I'm not too big a fan of romance, the romantic scenes and themes are not at all overpowering. They also have the rare ability to come off as sweet instead of cheesy. That says a lot from a girl who routinely falls asleep during chick flicks.

Then, of course, is the classic MI element of humor. CMI is quite adept at delivering deadpan lines, altogether absurdist humor, and simply good fun. Gary Coleman makes a cameo as a budding young entrepreneur, and world events are discreetly jabbed at without stepping out of the bounds of the game.

Its not entirely fair to compare CMI to MI and MI2 because it truly is in a realm of its own. Personally I can never find a favorite between the 3 as they all are quite different from each other. However, if you want a swashbuckling good time with the flair of the classic series, I insist you give this game a shot. You will NOT be disappointed.

10\/10 stars, hands down.

- Emily N","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Curse of Monkey Island. Released excactly 6 years after the success of Monkey Island 2. You would think with Monkey Island 2's wierd ending that it would finish Monkey Island once and for all. But, it all turned out to be a trick to lure Guybrush into captivity. But enough about that, the whole jist of this is that Monkey Island has returned, and the voices are just phenominal. If LucasArts were to make a movie\/cartoon of Monkey Island, this would probably be what it would look like, and sound like. It's plot is real good, and everything about it is just awesome. If you haven't heard about the Monkey Island series, buy the Monkey Island Archives or The Monkey Island Booty Pack and play through all the games starting with The Secret of Monkey Island, then Monkey Island 2, and The Curse of Monkey Island. Monkey Island 4 was real good, but this one tops them all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had only written one review on IMDb prior to this, as I consider most games as unworthy of the time and effort...Curse of Monkey Island is different.

Having played and been impressed by Monkey 1 and 2, I had great expectations for the third release...and was not disappointed. The first thing that hit me was the substantially improved graphics. Don't get me wrong, for games made in 1990 and 1991 respectively, Monkey 1 and 2 were ground-breaking and provided the goods well, but CMI steps up and delivers a superb cartoon-style game-play which is both fun and satisfying. All scenes and settings have been carefully crafted and well thought out, and suit this type of game perfectly. The animation\/CGI is a mixture of realism and exaggeration; a fantastic combination in this case.

For me the script has been crucial in the success of the previous two games. The CMI script is clever, appropriate and, above all, absolutely hilarious. Added to this, the script is now audio unlike the previous two where speech is displayed in text format at the bottom of the screen. Dominic Armato's voice is perfect for Guybrush: witty, clear and slightly naive. All other voice talents fit their characters perfectly, especially Earl Boen who is the voice behind LeChuck. I loved every single character throughout the game: not just their personalities and wit, but the way each character is animated superbly and distinctively. Whilst on the subject of audio effects, the soundtrack is worth a mention. The soundtracks for Monkey 1 and 2 were both monotone, and despite this were very effective at giving atmosphere and representing a change in mood. CMI's soundtrack is, once again, a step up. Each scene is complemented by a catchy, subtle, playful and piratey (if that's a word) tune. With a change in setting or mood, the music also adapts, adding to the entertainment and amusement that the game offers.

The whole idea behind Monkey Island is to solve puzzles and problems in order to progress. This might sound easy, but is actually devilishly tricky in many places. Some may be put off by the level of logic and amount of thinking that goes into Monkey Island, but in reality this makes the game even more entertaining and fun, and also adds to the replay value. The option of \"The Curse of Monkey Island\" or \"The Curse of Monkey Island: Mega-Monkey\" (which involves trickier and more abundant puzzles) suits players of all abilities and also gives good cause to play the game at least twice. Whatever difficulty level you choose, you are guaranteed a different game each time you replay, with numerous speech options and other puzzles to solve that don't affect the outcome of the game, but are just there for fun. The most entertaining section of the game is Ship Combat, and the sword \"fights\" that follow. These were particularly well thought out and make the game completely worthwhile. Add to this a stupendous story that is non-violent and suitable for all ages which will keep you hooked and wanting more until the very end.

Finally in conclusion, a uniquely special mention must go to the designers of this game. The way each complex puzzle and problem is thought out is simply astonishing. Whilst gathering up items and objects during game-play, you can't see how each one is going to help you progress, but with a little thought and perseverance solutions present themselves, and for that the designers of CMI must be highly commended.

10\/10 for the best game I have ever played (not an exaggeration)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Curse of Monkey Island has always been my favorite of the series. A vibrant visual look, an excellent soundtrack and brilliant voice-cast all create a memorable and humouristic adventure.

Graphics wise the game is definitely not a let-down. Though some corners have been cut the over-all feel of the game is reminiscent of Disney Feature Length Animations. The gameplay is simple and even a novice will get the hang of it soon enough. The game also offers a little extra for the more experienced players with its Mega Monkey Mode.

The voice-cast is one of my favorites. Dominic Armato's sympathetic voice makes Guybrush complete and Alexandra Boyd is simply charming as Elaine. Earl Boen makes for a wonderfully sinister yet over-the-top villain, LeChuck. Also the game's charm is added by memorable characters like Wally (Neil Ross), Murray (Denny Delk) and one of my personal favorites Haggis McMutton (Allan Young, voice of Scrooge McDuck). My hat also goes off to the late, great Kay Kuter and his memorable secondary-role as Griswold Goodsoup.

Michael Land's tropical and wonderful soundtrack once more graces the Monkey Island adventure, comprising of some of the best tunes in the business. The game isn't perfect and some locales are not as well detailed as other, but I had no gripes with the simple ending of the game which I found very satisfying.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another fantastic offering from the Monkey Island team and though it was a long time coming and had to survive the departure of Ron Gilbert it's another worthy installment. My only gripe is that it was a little short seeming in comparison to the previous two, though that might be because of a glorious lack of disk-swapping. Roll on MI4.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On account of my unfortunately not being able to find them anywhere, I have not gotten to try any of the other entries in the series, although I certainly would not mind, and trust me, I have looked. For anyone who does not know, this is a point-and-click adventure title. That means that the mouse is what you use to interface with everything that you can do so with in this, though there is one particular case in this where that is inaccurate. I won't spoil it here, for anyone who haven't yet tried it. Nevertheless, regardless of how little experience you have with computers, you can sit right down and try this. There isn't even terribly many bits of this where you need to be fast or have swift reflexes. Heck, you can adjust the speed of the text(if you have it have subtitles on), and thus, of the talking in it, and it's not enormously awkward or forced when slow. Accessing your inventory is easy, as well as combining or using items. Clicking and holding down the button at anything you can affect gives three options for what to use with it(be it a person, a specific part of the surroundings or an object): Hand(push, pick up, open, etc.), eyes(examine, look through, etc.) and mouth(eat, converse, etc.). This all adds up to a welcoming, friendly environment, where you can approach the plentiful puzzles(the amount of them is varied, based on which of the two difficulty settings you try this on) at your own pace, and explore and take in the dozens of individual, creatively done characters and areas in this to your heart's content. The length of this will be determined by how much time you take to do such(you'll hear no blame from me, they're worth it), and your skill at figuring out the solutions. There are a few points in this where you get to decide if you want the harder way of completing that or not. This can be enjoyed by anyone, from any age. There's no material that isn't acceptable for children. This is one of the products that help prove that that very fact does not have to mean that it is intolerable for older audiences. The animation is quality work, smooth, everything moves as it should, and the 3rd dimension honestly isn't that sorely missed when trying this. The story-telling is well-done, and you're never unclear as to what is going on. There are numerous well-directed cut-scenes, kept in the same colorful, mostly bright 2D world as the rest, with well-done camera motion. \"Cartoony\" is an appropriate word to describe this, and not only the visual style. It can be applied to all of this. The entire world of this is very similar to, but not quite the same as, ours, with a mix of past and present, inhabited by people and filled with things that we can sort of recognize or understand at least portions of, but the absurdity makes them funny. That would have to be one of the greatest strengths of this, right there: It's hilarious. A lot of that comes from the lines spoken(what is said as well as how it is), and those who dig British efforts with focus on verbal, the likes of 'Allo 'Allo or the BlackAdder franchise will want to check this sucker out. However, there are several different types of jokes, including, but not limited to the following: Satire, cleverness, dark, spoofs, irony, gross-out comedy(not exactly my favorite aspect of this) and more. There's self-awareness, with the lead addressing you, personally, and, for example, explaining why he isn't going to do what you just asked him to. There are references to pop culture through a couple of decades. Almost all of it works, hardly any gags fall flat, and if you aren't in stitches during this, my best guess as to the reason would be that it's simply not compatible with your sense of humor... a situation that warrants no judgment, and if one suspects that could be the case, and wishes to find out, I suggest the demo version, where you, for free, can see if you care for the brand of play and\/or laughter. The plot is well-written(nearly all of this is, really), develops nicely throughout and keeps your interest well. The audio is all excellent, crisp and well-done. The sound effects are spot-on. The music is well-composed with no exceptions. The voice acting is impeccable, with a celebrity or two. Armato is fantastic as Guybrush Threepwood(gotta love that name), whom you control. Boen is incredible as LeChuck, the deceased(and still threatening) zombie villain. The designs are immensely well-done, highly imaginative and all fit. In spite of the relatively limited disposition of our hero when it comes to pirate deeds, you do get to engage in some. Steer a ship, board that of others, and match blades in a rather unique, and marvelously thought up, way. The re-playability lies mainly in the choices, during dialog, etc. This is linear, with a tad freedom as far as the order goes, so the buccaneer sitting down with this, for at least the second time, has not got that large an amount of possibilities as far as being challenged by this goes, unless he or she has forgotten what to do in the meantime. Ah, nothing is perfect. Anyone who would care to delve into a thoroughly well-crafted and fascinating fictional universe, and crack up countless times should get a real kick out of this. The good kind, not the ones that hurt and potentially leave bruises. Don't forget, kids, do *not* eat books... that is just begging for a paper-cut. I would wager a guess that those who like the others would appreciate this one, too. And they're not the only ones who may get into this. I recommend this to, apart from members of aforementioned group, any fan of this genre of VGs, as well as anyone to whom this review appeals. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The curse of Monkey Island is a brilliant video game and its a stroke of genius from the video game designers at lucasarts to have created this sequel. All the characters are brilliant, the voice overs for the characters were realistic and funny. A lot of effort went into this game and it deserves the 10 i gave in the vote, keep up the good work lucasarts!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was my second experience of the Monkey Island series, the full seven years after I had been shown the first game. What was my response? \"Oh, great, we're playing a cartoon.\" I'm glad my brother shut me up then and played on, because the jokes caught my attention once again, as well as Armato's wonderful voice-acting of Guybrush - not to mention everyone else done well (I still think CMI's Elaine sounds better than EMI's). The cutscenes do well to illustrate something happening, and the art of both the game and cutscenes are excellent. When we found the CD with the originals, Secret and LeChuck's Revenge, we were both ecstatic and spent hours working through Revenge - one such moment was where we just sat down and blew half a day on it. However, CMI has to be the Monkey Island game I've played the most, especially for the return of swordfighting and combat on the high seas. That moment when you encounter Kenny and he tells you he's gone straight and then, \"I'm running guns!\" had both my brother and I in tears from laughter. And that's not the best part of the game, not by far.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Destined to be a classic before it was even conceptualized. This game deserves all the recognition it deserves. At a time when first-person shooters like Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament are garnering all the attention of computer gamers, graphic adventures are a dying breed. With great pun and humour, The Curse of Monkey Island is a game that people of all age groups would enjoy. Life can only improve after playing The Curse of Monkey Island. *prediction* the sequel Escape from Monkey Island is already destined to be a classic too. I guarantee it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a huge die-hard Monkey Island fan, I fugured this one would be terrible since Ron Gilbert didn't make it. Boy was I surprised! Although it's still not as good as the first two, it has the comedy that I wanted. I was a little nervous about the new graphics, new SCUMM engine, and just the fact that it was on a CD. But it all came together, and it was interesting to finally hear the voices of your favorite characters. I especially enjoyed that SWORD FIGHTING had returned. And the whole story about finding the big uncursed ring was just incredible. Go ahead and try out this two-CD adventure. And now we can rejoice, because Monkey Island 4:Escape from Monkey Island is coming out REALLY REALLY soon! This fall!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say? Curse of Monkey Island is fantastic. The story is good and solid, but appropriately silly, the jokes are hillarious, the puzzles are puzzling... you couldn't ask for more in an adventure game. The \"You don't need to see my identification\" bit is in itself well worth buying the game for, not to mention Murray, who has become the hot topic among many of my friends (only some of whom have played the game). You will love this game. And if you don't, too bad!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First I played the second monkey island game, and I liked it despite the low quality graphics and sound. Then a few months later, I found out a new game was made. I tried it out and liked it a lot. First thing you notice is the great graphics. The areas are huge, colorful, and detailed, with lots to explore. The game requires you to use your brain, a lot, as always. The game is challenging, with all point and click games, frustrating. The jokes haven't gotten old a third time around. The animated cut scenes are a great addition to the game also. This is the best MI game out there, perhaps the best P&C game too! If you like cartoony games that play like a movie, get this game!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lucasarts have pulled yet another beauty out of a seemingly bottomless bag of great games. If any further proof was required that they rule this genre of gaming, then this is it. Before actually playing the game, there was a little concern about how the writers were going to keep up the pace of gags after the first two games. Fears were rife that it was going to wear a bit thin.

Play the game and see how quickly those fears are allayed. From the introductory video with Guybrush in the dodgem boat (!), to the closing stages in the funfair, the jokes just keep on coming. I was a great fan of the first two games and the other Lucasarts works (Day Of The Tentacle, Sam & Max, etc) and this one does not fail to deliver the quality. You will not be disappointed. (Well, I wasn't.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"By now, the game's stale, right?

The jokes have been done. Its all over. The creative genius which drove this game for the first two games was gone, after all.

Wrong.

The game is still intact, the jokes are here, folks. Sure, they're all rehash, but so was Monkey Island 2. And 1, for that matter.

The difficulty is well placed, somewhere between the slightly easy 1 and the ridiculously hard 2. The ship fighting sub-game is badly innappropriate, in the tradition of sub-games. And this game has the best joke of the whole series. When asked for your membership card to an exclusive beach, always select \"You don't need to see my identification.\" Its worth the price of the game by itself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Michael Kehoe has accomplished quite a feat, especially considering it is only his second start as writer, producer AND director. Generally \"first timers\" lack vision and direction when helming a major production but \"Dominion\" proves Mr. Kehoe is going places in Hollywood! Set with beautiful scenery, Dominion boasts experienced cast members (especially Thomerson & James) who communicate Kehoe's vast vision with exceptional clarity. Few films can mix the slasher\/horror genre with a genuine action\/adventure feel, but Dominion accomplished this completely. This film certainly qualifies as one of the top-notch films in both of these categories. If you are looking for fast-paced action with more than a modicum of suspense, look no further. I look forward to Kehoe's future projects with great enthusiasm. Well done!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very well written movie full of suspense right up to the end! The setting is beautiful in contrast to the frightening action taking place there! It is not your typical suspense movie, but a movie well packed with interesting twists and surprises which leave you wanting and hoping for a sequel. I recommend this film to all suspense lovers!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a real thriller! It was exciting from shortly after the start till the very end! If you are a real suspense nut, this is the movie for you! The characters were very well developed and the scenery was beautiful. The story was very well written, similar to some others I have seen, but quite different in several ways. A must see!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Dominion\" is a good movie,but not original.It blends some elements of slasher movie and adventure flick.The setting is wonderful,the acting is acceptable and the film is fast-paced and exciting.Highly recommended for any thriller\/adventure buff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I read the comments about this movie before watching it and wasn't expecting much, but as a B movie it's a curiosity. I guess you have to be a certain type of person to enjoy this kind of thing, but I seriously thought it was awesome. People should watch it just for the experience because it's totally one of a kind. Don't expect much of it. The acting is poor, transitions were obviously done on a PC, etc. Definitely a B movie, but nonetheless really worth checking out. Very funny. Mild gore, and some questionable themes, so probably not something to show your Gran, but for the more adventurous viewer I'd say it's a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ABC's version of the life of the late Pope: They put it just slightly ahead of CBS's version and it may have suffered from that but the program itself was excellent. It moved fast since it only had two hours (with commercials also taking up time) to cover this great man's long life, but Thomas Kretschmann admirably was up to the challenge.He did a remarkable job in conveying the emotions and strife that John-Paul endured.He-unlike the CBS biopic- played the role from youth to old age and managed to seem \"realistic\" at both ends of the scale.His credibility never wavered.He has an amazing range and depth. It is a shame that the program could not have been longer and more detailed but working within the time frame they did have,I think they did an excellent job bringing it to the small screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great movie about a great man. Thomas Kretschmann is first rate as in all of his other movies.I would never have envisioned him as Pope John Paul. It speaks volumes for the casting director. Why do they keep casting him as German officer in the movies? And he only came to universal attention after \"the pianist\"? Of course he looks so hot in the uniforms. I know a lot of girls drool over his handsome face. But this guy is a great actor and has such great potentials. If you don't believe me, go watch \"Stalingrad\". I hope he will get a lot of excellent roles in the future with more diversity. Otherwise, what a heartbreaking waste of great talent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first heard that this movie was going to be made, I was very excited to see it. The ideas to make a movie of this caliber, as good as it was, must have been very difficult. I wasn't really sure if anyone could encompass all of the Pope's many amazing qualities in a movie, but the movie did his memory justice. In my opinion the most important task was to reveal to the people who the Pope started out as. To his days in Poland, all the way to his last days in the Vatican, this movie followed every aspect of his life. Thomas Kretschmann, the man who played the Pope in his adult life and on, did a very good job at getting the emotion across. Overall this movie was educational, but also very entertaining.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've just seen this movie in a preview and I can only recommend to watch it. It was about 90 minutes long and when it was over I felt like it could go on for hours. The stories of the protagonists are so realistic and you feel really at home. The movie basically consists of dialogs but I wasn't bored a minute. 18 people of really different characters and each one of them acted out so well. I had to laugh, felt awkward, was sad and still felt happiness. All in all it is a movie that shows the different kinds of people in our society, the way they communicate and how love has changed and nowadays is handled as an economic thing. Dating becomes something that is similar to an audition. The whole audience loved it. So please watch it if there's a possibility. You'll love it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Currently playing at the 2007 German Film Festival in Australia http:\/\/www.goethe.de\/ins\/au\/lp\/prj\/ff07\/enindex.htm thanks to Peanutqueen and especially AriesGemini for her rundown on the actors in this ensemble cast.

In Australia these movies were sub-titled in English and while French movies here often get a mainstream release, German movies are still to gather that sort of commercial audience. But like BMWs and Mercedes when Germans get it right I really like their films. Like PQ the time here went so quickly, lots of laughs from the audience as each of the 9 men and 9 women moved down the speed dating line 5 minutes at a time.

While many films are overlong this one I could have watched much more of. It had the sort of characters and character development for a series. Given time I will re-read AriesGemini100 review and reference the actors I liked and their other work with a view to keeping an eye out from them. I agree....most of these actors will go onto bigger and better things. Some very good character actors in this fine film. I did see it in the program listed as a mockumentary. Mock or otherwise it felt very real. And quite romantic in it's way.

Viva la Deutcsh!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hey, this Ralf Westhoff seems to knows a lot about people! We have nine women and nine men taking part in a speed dating event, each person has five minutes to talk to each opposite. A good idea to make a movie out of these conversations. And even better: it works very, very well! The dialog is witty, original and authentic, each person is subtly characterized, without falling into the clich\u00e9 trap, something that is unusual for German movies, remember: All these years, we Germans were tormented with silly zeitgeist comedies such as \"Workaholic\" or \"Stadtgespr\u00e4ch\".

But now the time has come for young German directors to do their own thing and take the risk of producing movies which are entertaining and funny AND intelligent and sensitive at the same time. The timing of \"Shoppen\" is good, too: Although it presents mainly dialog, it keeps the tension and interest. After a while, you actually become curious to see how this man and that woman would do. Some of the participants meet later on for a two-some, it's fun to see them interacting together in \"real life\". Of course, the film has a few drawbacks: it's not very cinematic (but can such a movie be?), the musical soundtrack could have been better, but all this is only marginal.

The most important thing about this movie: We have some damn good actors here. Imagine this: All of them are still pretty unknown even here in Germany (most were derived from the Munich or Bavarian theater scene). But I predict that out of the 18 main actors, at least 11 will quickly become very well-known in the movie and TV scene over here. It's great to see so many fresh and at the same time talented faces. Well-done!

For those who want to read more, here's a rundown of all 18 actors:(spoilers!)

Sebastian Weber: Silent waters are deep! Memorize his \"Flower garden\" monologue, you can win any woman's heart with this one.

Anna B\u00f6ger: A hell of a woman! Every time she opens her mouth, you can't help but laugh and feel good. Listen how she pronounces \"asshole\" and calls the pink shirt guy a \"B\u00fcrscherl\"!

Felix Hellmann: The \"B\u00fcrscherl\" from above is fun to watch. The inconvenient truth is that there are too many of those guys around. His looks somewhat reminded me of Flo Weber of \"Sportfreunde Stiller\".

Katharina Schubert: This woman has everything: love, hope, despair, beauty. Her \"do you want children\" scene is a classic. A great actress of whom we will hear again, no doubt.

David Baalcke: Now is this guy a loser or not? Almost as authentic as Paul Giamatti in \"Sideways\". I hope this is NOT method acting.

Julia Koschitz: The \"good looking\" woman in the circle. Julia used to play theater in my hometown, kudos! I think she will appear in many TV series to come.

Martin Butzke: The revolutionary guy catches the cutest and most conventional woman in the end. Would you like to share a taxi with this guy?

Kathrin von Steinburg: She gave a stunning performance in \"Tatort\" last year. Her trance-like performance in this movie is no less. SEE her beautiful face and HEAR her dirty laugh. The best scene in the movie belongs to her.

Matthias Bundschuh: I know these \"write down everything\"-guys back from school. I'm not sure whether the hot blond got her allergic reaction because of him or his cat. Matthias' portrayal of such a chicken is outstanding.

Mediha Cetin: The sister-in-law of my ex-girl-friend was the same talker like her. The day I met her was the only day in my life I needed tranquilizers, so bad remembrances here.

Thomas Limpinsel: The \"nice and desperate guy\" in the circle. Limpinsel has a comical talent that is way better than most so-called \"comedians\" on TV.

Lisa Wagner: The victim of Sebastian's \"flower garden\" metaphor. Lisa's face is funny and full of melancholy, her story made me feel good and sad at the same time, wow!

Oliver B\u00fcrgin: The \"good looking\" man in the circle. No wonder he catches Julia in the end. These two really fit together. I think he will appear in many TV series to come.

Julia Heinze: The \"cute, conventional\" woman. I hope she won't be underrated: Julia's face changes from naive to hurt to furious are great!

Stephan Zinner: The \"nature boy\" from Partenkirchen likes cooking, eating \u0096 and good sex. Watch the body language between him and the hot blond! Zinner usually plays CSU politician S\u00f6der on stage!

Anja Klawun: The \"bargain girl\" has some good moments, but, beg your pardon, fails (like most actors) in playing a drunk on screen.

Christian Pfeil: Plays the arrogant and narcissistic guy. Couldn't believe that this very actor owns two art-house cinemas in Munich.

Tanja Schleiff: Plays the girl who sleeps with every man around. I'm sure many male visitors will go for her. I have heard she can do dramatic roles as well, so I'm curious.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In complete contrast to the previous correspondent here, I thought Shoppen Munich (as it was billed when shown with English subtitles here in London at the German Film Festival in November 2007) was very funny, very well acted, and excellently scripted.

It's quite audacious to design a 100-minute film that consists exclusively, and relentlessly, of talking heads. But I think Ralf Westhoff succeeded with wit and \u00e9lan. No standard filmic devices of, say, following a character's soul-baring pronouncement with some meditative minor-seventh-chord music and long-shot nature cutaways. But when someone said something that revealed their souls - well, we were hustled on by the man with the timer for yet another superficial introduction. Which is, of course, the point: the hurtling tickbox superficiality of thirtysomething urbanites, where everything is down to a quick question and answer.

Maybe most films are so clich\u00e9d and stupid that we English are ready to laugh at any vaguely intelligent and uncontrived cinema, but I can promise you that at the screening tonight (Curzon Cinema, Sun 25 Nov 2007) the full audience bellowed with laughter most of the way through. So I wasn't the only one guffawing!

My girlfriend (who speaks German and has lived in Munich) thought it was hilarious. I (who don't speak German and have not been to Munich, I think) thought it was hilarious. I'd recommend Shoppen (Munich) to anyone (especially couples...) looking for a smart, witty, original, wise film about the superficiality of modern relationships and the bewilderment of the generation who feel they've missed out on the happy-ever-after stuff first time round.

NB In the English subtitled showing in London, the subtitles (which were very good) were shown completely underneath the slightly reduced picture, not inside it. I thought this was a Good Thing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's not hard to imagine what the main problem for a screenwriter is who wants to have 18 equally well written characters with about the same amount of screen time in a movie that last around 90 minutes. It's almost impossible not to fall back on stereotypes and that is also what writer-director Ralf Westhoff does here. Very few of the characters can be recognized as people that you and me know in real life, many of them are just characterized with two or three attributes and stay vague. I am aware of that but still think that \"Shoppen\" is successful, namely that it accomplishes just what it wants to. It is a film with very well written dialogue, extremely good acting and a film that made me laugh out loud really often. I don't think that this film wants to make a deep going analysis of loneliness in our modern society, or that it wants to be moral commentary on speed-dating. It's a movie about something that exists and people and their motivation to use it. Funny and entertaining.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is full of interesting ideas. Some scenes are truly hilarious. The dialogs are witty and colloquial. The tension in the film comes not so much from the 'murder mystery' plot as from the relationship between the characters. The film tells two stories in parallel.

The first story involves the characters played by Trintignant and Kassovitz. Trintignant is an ageing drifter, with a somewhat ridiculous macho toughness, who is followed by a naive young man played by Kassovitz with plenty of good-natured smiles. Many good moments in the film come from the contrast between the two characters, for example when Trintignant tries to teach Kassovitz how to be intimidating.

The second story tells how a salesman,played by Jean Yanne, gives up his job and his wife to find the murderer of a young friend. Yanne plays the part with a kind of aggressive irony. I wish I could describe this better.

After a while the viewer understands how both stories are connected and they meet indeed in the end, in a surprising but also logical ending.

The film is a successful mixture of the witty but superficial gangster films the director's father (the celebrated Michel Audiard) used to write, and the \"typical french film\" with lots of psychological depth and lots of care in the display of emotions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jacques Audiard's directorial debut See How They Fall aka Regarde les Hommes Tomber is our old friend, the film with two different stories that gradually converge and turn out to be the same story after all, simply told from different sides. It's a shaggy dog story, with Matthieu Kassovitz's simpleton following unlucky-in-cards drifter Jean Louis Trintignant with mutt-like devotion that even stretches to killing for him when he's asked to repay his gambling debts in kind. Meanwhile, in a slightly different timeframe, Jean Yanne's over-the-hill travelling salesman becomes increasingly obsessed with finding the hit-man who put his cop friend into a brain-dead coma, his life, income and relationships gradually stripped away as he gets closer to his prey. Yet while it may offer the perfect setup for a modern-day neo noir, the film is often more surprisingly playful, more interested in quirks of character and a slightly skewed sense of humor (aptly served by the occasional ironic captions and Alexandre Desplat's half-jaunty, half-discordant score) than the traditional thriller set pieces and plot mechanics.

Unfortunately the film is ill-served by one of the worst Region 1 DVDs released in recent years: the picture quality on Synkronized's disc is so poor at times you keep on expecting to see the audience's heads in front of the picture like a pirate disc.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, I know that's clich\u00e9. Taken on its surface, this is a bad film- perhaps in a league with \"Plan 9 From Outer Space\". The dialog is suspect (but the Singlish is quite enjoyable...), the plot is not quite believable, Gavin's character overacts excessively. While watching the movie, somethings happen that truly make you wonder... Handsome and Kim making out on a tank, Gwen eating a banana in a bath, just about everything Gavin says and does (\"psssssssssssssssycho!!\"). These things taken separately are perhaps flaws. Taken together, however, they are merely quirks. Watching this movie with an open-mind (especially if you're not familiar with Singaporean culture), and with an open-minded group of friends is guaranteed to deliver a lot of laughs and a memorable time. You can't go into this movie expecting a masterpiece, or even expecting to take anything serious at all. If you can take this film for what it is - an underdog film about underdogs, filled to the brim with its own quirks - then you should have a good time watching this one! I've already seen it three times and I wouldn't hesitate to watch it three more times!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The quintessential housewife and perfect mother, Donna Reed (as Donna Stone) could do it all. Settle spats between the children or neighbors, take care of her hard-working pipe-smoking pediatrician husband, Alex, and still have a stack of pancakes, three types of breakfast meat, and a tall glass of milk and OJ ready for the kids every morning before breakfast.

Over the course of the past fifty years, we've lost sight of the idealistic stay-at-home mom, family meals together at the kitchen table, and preparing dinner for a hard-working husband when he comes home from work.

I wish the show were available on DVD- I'd discontinue my cable altogether!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While I agree this was a 1950s sitcom, I don't feel it was \"typical\". Firstly, Donna Reed was a STRONG woman, unlike the regular 50s sitcom moms. She made a stand for women's worth and equality (remember the episode where the TV announcer says \"just a housewife\") and Donna stands up for all women do and represent, especially those that don't work outside the home? And when the women rebelled against something in the series, it was not something trivial...it was always something to show that women have the right to be treated with the same respect as men. Remember, Donna Reed was married to the show's producer, so she had much more input into making hers a more powerful character.

The children were intelligent, but not precocious. They were normal kids. And they could ACT.

Something else that made Donna Reed Show stand out was not only did the children LOOK like their parents, but you could feel the chemistry between all the actors in the real life situation, which then came out in the characters. Shelly Fabares and Paul Peterson have often written and remarked that they were treated like the children of Donna Reed and Carl Betz, and that the adults were fiercely protective of the child actors, and treated them accordingly. Donna and Alex also had somewhat of a sexual chemistry that wasn't seen on the other family shows. And the characters could be flawed, and in major ways, and yet, accepted for the flaws and mistakes. These were not super parents that did no wrong and had no emotional highs and lows. They were normal people acting as normal people.

Women's rights, drug abuse, child abuse, single fathers, poverty, children who need good health care but can't afford it...it was all shown on this show. Pretty groundbreaking for the era.

Donna Reed show didn't last for eight years without a reason. And it could have possibly endured, had it not been for Tony Owens and Donna Reed divorcing.

This show is highly underrated and should be shown so that other generations can appreciate quality.

In summary, I agree with the original poster, who obviously cares for the show, but I think that the Donna Reed show has SO much more to offer than casual entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like a lot of stars of the big screen as their careers wound down, so many turned to television where probably they secured their reputations for posterity. Donna Reed is a case in point.

I don't think Donna Reed ever thought that Donna Stone was anything challenging, not to a woman who had won an Oscar for playing a very different type in From Here to Eternity. She was certainly better prepared to play wife, mother, and homemaker Donna Stone after having played Mary Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life.

Donna was always beautiful and wise and ever helpful with the problems of her kids and her husband. Carl Betz was not an idiot, he was a pediatrician who had his office attached to the house. Talk about the man being ever ready in a crisis.

Though this was the Donna Reed Show because Donna's husband at the time, Tony Owen produced it. Yet it lasted as long as did because of the popularity of the two children, Shelley Fabares and Paul Petersen. Fabares had that best selling teen record Johnny Angel which she introduced on the show. She successfully made the transition to adult star, most known for her role in Coach as Craig T. Nelson's wife.

But Petersen was a bubblegum teen idol back in the day. The Donna Reed Show dare I say got most of its viewers because of him. It's forgotten now, but Petersen also had a best selling record, My Dad. Didn't do half as well as Johnny Angel.

Now Paul Petersen runs a support group for former child stars like himself. So many of them end so tragically, it's good work that he's doing.

The Stone family was the quintessence of Middle America. They lived in a suburb near Chicago, they led wholesome lives. Mom and Dad were always there for the kids. Of course the problems they had usually were nothing more than breaking curfew.

It's this series I believe was the model for the TV town of Pleasantville where Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon are sucked into.

I have pleasant memories of The Donna Reed Show. Easy to take, but not too seriously.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was five when the show made its debut in 1958 and at a later point, was a regular viewer. I remember that I really enjoyed the show, along with \"Leave It To Beaver\", \"My Three Sons\", \"Ozzie and Harriet\", \"Dick Van Dyke\", reruns of \"I Love Lucy\", \"The Real McCoys\", etc. I am now enjoying the first season of \"Donna Reed\" on DVD and have watched the first two episodes. Donna Stone is shown to be an intelligent, well-mannered, problem-solving, serene, stay-at-home mom, similar to June Cleaver and in contrast to Lucy Ricardo. In episode 2, I especially like how Ms. Reed becomes a surrogate dad, trading in her dress for sweats and boxing gloves, while teaching her son how to defend himself physically against a much larger bully. While none of the mothers in the neighborhood I grew up in, including my own, exactly met the idealistic standards portrayed by Ms. Reed, it is refreshing to see good manners and intelligent decision-making prevail at the end of the day, in contrast to today's accepted standards of vulgarity, selfishness and indifference among one's neighbors. I cannot imagine Jeff and Mary Stone being told by their parents that trespassing in their neighbors' yards is okay, leaving a dog outside to bark all day is acceptable, or telling their mother to \"shut up\" in a supermarket in front of everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has become one of my favorite movies and certainly one of the best westerns I have ever seen. Having a soft spot for the genre (westerns are \u0096 or were, since they are no longer made very often \u0096 morality plays that too often have been denigrated by critics with intellectual pretensions), I purchased the DVD, sight unseen, because I had read enough about William S. Hart's work (much of which he wrote and directed) to pique my interest and thought I should have at least one of his films in my video collection.

I must admit that I approached the actual viewing with some trepidation. My previous experiences with silent cinema \"classics\" had left me feeling let down. Chaney's The Phantom of the Opera, Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Fairbanks' The Mark of Zorro were fine, but not nearly as good as their reputations would lead one to expect. They were either too long, or too theatrical, or both.

The Toll Gate, however, emerged as a pleasant surprise.

It is a story told in a simple and straightforward manner. Black Deering (played by Hart), leader of a notoriously successful outlaw gang, thinks the time has come for group to disband, before its luck runs out. He is, however, opposed by his chief lieutenant, Jordan, who goads them all into one last holdup by promising great wealth but leads them into a trap in which he is complicit. Everyone is killed except Deering, who is taken prisoner. When his captors recognize him as the man who once saved a number of soldiers and settlers by warning an outpost of an impending Indian attack, they allow him to escape. Free, he tries to find honest work but is snubbed and ridiculed and ultimately must rob again to survive. Soon, he is pursued not only by the sheriff's posse but also by Jordan (now prospering from the reward money he has collected) and his henchmen. His flight leads him to a remote cabin inhabited by a single mother and her little son. After some initial misgivings, they take him into their hearts. Deering sees a chance for a new life but, with the posse and Jordan closing in, realizes that this may not be possible.

Hart was the first great western star and the first to inject realism into the genre. As one of the pioneers of movie-making, he created many of the characters and situations that have become clich\u00e9 in westerns for more than ninety years. What keeps his movies interesting, however, was his ability to go beyond the clich\u00e9 (perhaps his imitators did not go far enough) so that the material appears fresh and innovative, even now. Three such instances in The Toll Gate illustrate this:

1) In one scene, his character shoots into a crowd in an attempt to kill Jordan, and kills a bystander instead. A subsequent close-up shows that he is clearly frustrated. The frustration, however, comes not from the fact that he has gunned down a man who had hitherto caused him no harm but that he missed his intended target.

2) In another, as he flees from the posse, his \"borrowed\" horse steps into a gopher hole and breaks a leg. Hart pulls out his gun to put the animal out of its misery but, before pulling the trigger, gives his head a sad, loving pat, as if to say farewell to an old friend.

3) And finally, after he has strangled Jordan and thrown his body over a cliff, he returns to retrieve his guns and spots his adversary's pistol lying on the ground nearby. He steps forward and gives it a swift kick before mounting his horse. It is a simple gesture but it underscores the deep loathing he feels for the man who betrayed him and his comrades.

And I love the title, The Toll Gate. It is allegorical in its implication that a man cannot begin a new life until he has paid for the sins of his old one. Deering's payment comes in the form of sacrifice. Today's more sophisticated audiences may not buy into that sentiment entirely but it can still work on you if you let it.

Viewers who like their videos in pristine condition will undoubtedly object to the DVD's picture quality, especially the badly deteriorated final reel. I don't mind at all. That a copy of this 1920 movie even exists at all is a miracle since prints of so many other silent movies have been lost. If you bear that in mind and look upon the film as a piece of history, its visual flaws are not that difficult to accept.

William S. Hart was born in 1870 in New York but grew up in the Minnesota and Wisconsin where he learned to speak Sioux and Indian sign language. He counted Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson among his friends and collected Remington paintings, so his knowledge of the West was first-hand. If his vision seems overly romanticized by today's standards, it is nevertheless rooted far closer to reality than the spaghetti westerns of the '60s and '70s and the revisionist works that followed. Both the star and his films are overdue for re-evaluation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From a bare description of THE TOLL GATE's major plot elements, one might think it's a revisionist Western of the 60s or 70s.

* Our hero is a robber, killer, and arsonist;

* the love interest is a single mother whose shiftless husband abandoned her and their child;

* twice our criminal hero is \"unofficially\" released by authorities in return for some good deed, and this is presented as a praiseworthy act;

* the only acts which are presented as truly evil are the betrayal of one's family and the betrayal of a criminal associate;

* the hero tries to go straight, but turns back to a life of crime after he can't get a job;

* the hero is on the run from both a sheriff's posse and a criminal gang;

* the hero's final redemption is accomplished by strangling a man with his bare hands and tossing his body over a cliff;

* and the \"good bad man\" ends the film by sending the young mother and her child back to civilization and riding off alone into the Mexican desert, never (presumably) to pay for his life of crime.

Just goes to show you that there is nothing new under the sun.

Of course, THE TOLL GATE doesn't display quite the cynicism or moral nihilism of its successors: the hero's redemption is set up when he surrenders to the posse after reading a passage from the Bible. Can't quite imagine Clint Eastwood doing that.

THE TOLL GATE an excellent movie by any standard, and Hart was a very fine actor, not given to the broad histrionics often used to convey emotion in the days before sound.

9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am really surprised that this film only has a rating of 6.4 as of the time I did this review. While not exactly a great film, I do think it's one of the best films Dietrich did and it's a shame it isn't more highly regarded. I think a lot of the reason I liked the film so much is that the usual silly Dietrich persona as the \"\u00fcber-vamp\" isn't present and her role required her to actually act. I just hate seeing film after film after film in the early days of her career where she seemed more like a caricature or clich\u00e9 than a real woman. I don't necessarily blame Dietrich for the silly vampish films she made in the 1930s--audiences loved them and they did make her famous. But here, she showed she really could act. After all, just looking at her in films like MOROCCO, BLONDE VENUS and THE BLUE ANGEL, who would have guessed that she was well-cast to play a Gypsy! I was quite prepared to hate the film because of this casting decision, but it worked--she was pretty believable and a lot of fun to watch as well! The film is, essentially, a vehicle just for Ray Milland and Marlene Dietrich--the other supporting characters are very much secondary to the movie. Milland is a wanted spy in pre-WWII Germany and in his efforts to escape, he stumbles upon a rather frisky lone Gypsy (Dietrich) who instantly takes him to be a fulfillment of prophecy--in other words, her new lover! Milland is quite stuffy but reluctantly agrees to travel in her wagon--even putting on body paint and piercing his ears to make him look like a Gypsy (hence the title to the movie). Over time, he slowly starts to realize that underneath her very uncouth exterior is quite a woman and romance slowly blossoms.

The film in a word is \"charming\". A nice romance with a good dose of comedy and fun--just the sort of picture you wish Hollywood still made. Also, please note the performance of Murvyn Vye as \"Zoltan\". He was very magnetic in the short time he was on film and I just loved his deep and beautiful voice.

Finally, a sad note to consider. While the film is set in Germany, no mention is made of the upcoming Gypsy Holocaust. During the war, throughout German territory, the Nazis exterminated a huge percentage of Gypsies and so the final nice ending to the film is a tad far-fetched.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having recently purchased Universal's Marlene Dietrich DVD collection, I was somewhat reluctant to watch \"Golden Earrings.\" The idea of a 40-something Marlene Dietrich as a gypsy in a war-time romance seemed unusual, and implausible. I should not have worried. With all the professional talent that went into these old movies, it's hard to miss, really. The movie was a joy to watch; it's a classic.

The most interesting thing about the film was Dietrich, who pulls off the gypsy role perfectly. The makeup, lighting, photography, and her performance all add up to make a really startling and memorable character. I had never seen Dietrich play a \"good\" woman convincingly before--but she does here! She played a lot of heartless vamps in those great Sternberg films, so it is refreshing to see her in a more down to earth, relaxed role, playing an exotic but very human character.

Overall, a very nice romance. The love story is believable, optimistic, and the happy ending is extremely satisfying.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film opens in a stuffy British men's club full of gents in leather chairs smoking cigars. This is Denistoun's world. A messenger delivers a small box to him which he opens to find a pair of gold earrings. The site of the earrings sets off a reminiscence about the time he spent in the company of gypsies. The rest of the film is flashback.

Golden Earrings has been a long time favorite of mine and is probably the most romantic movie I know. Dietrich plays against her usual type. Here she's dark-haired, earthy and not in the least bit mysterious. Instead of a femme fatale, she'a tower of strength and energetically sets out to use all her resources to help Denistoun survive and reach his goal. To make sure that he's a really convincing gypsy, she pierces his ears and has him wear her dead lover's golden earrings. With his clothes and some grease, she transforms him from an effete British gentleman into a wild and sexy looking man.

When I was growing up I used to hear the song \"Golden Earrings\" which is sung in the film. I think the tune is hummed a little by Dietrich. \/There's a story the gypsies know is true \/That when your love wears golden earrings \/She belongs to you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is exceptional in that Marlene & Raymond present outstanding performances. The acting in this film is the greatest strength of the production, but the script, direction, and editing deserve applause. There is an extraordinary chemistry that exsists between the two stars. If you like Marlene, and you like Raymond, you'll love this film..... (It's a classic that compares with Casablanca.)

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Those reviewers who have complained that this movie lacks plausibility or has problems of construction are missing the point. This is a wonderfully camp romance, with plenty of Play, gypsies! Dance, gypsies! music, that both sends up exotic love stories and celebrates them. Buttoned-up Ray Milland makes an amusing foil for a Dietrich with black hair, tattered scarves, and tons of jewelry. The character's eagerness to feed Milland and look after him more closely resembles the good German hausfrau Dietrich was off the set than her mannered vamp roles. Censorship being in force, it's made clear that they share a caravan on platonic terms only, with Milland fighting off Dietrich's advances with a determination remarkable for a heterosexual bachelor who might be killed any day. His only excuse is that she smells, so perhaps a stuffy, fastidious Englishman might indeed be put off.

In the small role of Milland's young companion on his secret mission, Bruce Lester adds a note of camp of a different kind. We are told at the beginning that he hero-worships Milland, and indeed he rather fawns on him. When, after they are separated, he meets Milland, now transformed into a brown-skinned gypsy with a shirt open to the waist, his glowing appreciation of the disguise even further suggests that not only Dietrich is romantically infatuated with Milland.

Despite the wonderfully improbable characters and sequence of events, the growing love of Milland for Dietrich and his acceptance of the non-rational aspects of life is rather touching. And when, on their last night alone before he escapes, he says that each of them now contain half of the other, the two have become one, and then darkness falls, I think we can assume that the censor decided to give them a break! One goof--at the beginning, Milland, who is supposed to be English, refers to a lieutenant, using the American pronunciation. (The English say \"leftenant.\") Since Milland was British, he must have been saying it that way because the American movie-makers feared that American audiences would be distracted and confused by the British style.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story takes place in rural Germany on the eve of the second world war, a unique setting, with a couple of British agents being held by the Germans in a farm house. Since they aren't technically at war yet, it seems as if both sides must have realized what was coming. Both agents (Bruce Lester and Ray Milland) escape into the countryside and split up. Milland happens upon gypsy woman Marlene Dietrich one evening as she's alone at her camp preparing dinner. Their encounter is an amazing and captivating scene, not so much for Milland but for Dietrich, who takes sexy sultriness to a whole new plane. Milland disguises himself as a gypsy in order to hide from the Germans, but he remains committed to his mission, to do with locating the scientist who knows the formula for a new poison gas but who also isn't a committed Nazi. The Hollywood take on gypsy life and customs is predictably portrayed, but the underlying knowledge that they would be one of the targets for extermination by the Nazis adds a certain tension. The film straddles the line between being a serious story about the poison gas and the urgent search to get the formula, and a colorful though not too convincing love story between Milland and Dietrich. However, they're both very good; it's the fault of the film that didn't give them or their relationship enough dramatic realism, relying on and exploiting obvious cultural differences for questionable comedic purposes. Nonetheless, there are some tense and interesting points here and there, the surprise meetings with German soldiers and Gestapo agents, where Dietrich does a great palm reading and Milland nearly as good faking one, and a dinner party of Germans of various stripes at which the announcement comes over the radio that Germany had been attacked by Poland and everyone stands and does a stiff arm salute. Mitchell Leison may have missed some opportunities here and there, but he fully took advantage of others.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An especially delightful film to those of us who saw this when young because after all it was meant for the young to watch - when viewing it again as an adult it's better if rose-tinted spectacles can kick in. It was the first of the 16 Jungle Jim films and later TV series chunky Johnny Weismuller went on to do for Columbia (in the last 3 films he had to use his own name though as they'd lost the rights) after getting the sack from playing Tarzan for Sol Lesser. Johnny Sheffield also gave up playing Boy to become Bomba the Jungle Boy in a series of 12 films.

Jim and party go on perilous safari to hunt down the hidden temple of Zimbalu manned by an obscure tribe of devil doctors who seem to have the secret of a poison that might also be a cure for polio. Edgar Rice Burroughs probably approved. After 16 years talking monosyllabically Weismuller seemed awkward stringing sentences together, not that it mattered. On the swift march we meet many of the interesting but generally playful denizens of the jungle, barring the sinister crocodile going to eat the leading lady with her leg caught under a twig and the surreal elephant stampede (stock footage squeezed into a corner of the frame). Skipper the dog and Caw-Caw the crow had many adventures, none of which turned out essential to the plot in case you were concentrating! The biggest problem with the film is the farcical climax, which can be exciting but also unfortunately remind you of the end of a serial part \u0096 and the original excellent serial had been made 12 years prior. Although personally I wouldn't have minded this going on another couple of hours as well!

The only thing heavy about this was Weismuller; in so many ways an enjoyable kids film from the old days - not recommended for serious adults so I love it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is one of the best of Stephen Chow. I give it a nine out of ten.

I was surprised to see that Shaolin Soccer was rated on top of all singsing's movies. Unbelievable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I felt sorry enough that this film is not popular at all even in Hong Kong. However, for all die hard Chow's fan, this will be a masterpiece that shud not b left out. This is \"Mo Lei Tou\" (a comedy style that based on unrealistic and ridiculous plot pioneered by Chow) at its peak. The plot is totally absolutely ultimately 1000 times more ridiculous than any film that u can imagine. The dialog is awesome. No single part of the film cool down for u to stop laughing.

The plot look simple but crazy enuf for u to start laughing. It begin with Chow starring a junior magistrate (a corrupted one of course)caught into jail when helping an innocent married woman he love at first sight to clear her from a murder charge that plot by evil minister whose son was actually the real convict. Chow escape from jail and run away as a refugee. He intend to go to the capital to see the Emperor and report the conviction. On his way, he manage to pick up 2 lovely women, one from circus, another one a prostitute while in the mean time mastering supreme skill to quarrel and bad mouth from the thin Mama-san (who happen to be his future in law). Finally, he able to force the Emperor to re-open the case by black mail the Emperor whom he meet him in the brothel. The Emperor made him a highest level judge to judge the case tgt with the evil minister. He manage to setup some brilliant but hilarious plots to force the convict to commit the crime, execute him while thrown the evil minister to jail.

The plots are really hilarious and ridiculously brilliant. Also not to forget the tremendous dialog that include some brilliant bad mouth quarrel between Chow and the Mama-san, quarrel between the fat Mama-san and thin Mama-san to inspire Chow to learn the quarrel skill later and also quarrel between Chow and the evil eunuch Lee near the ending. Beside that, some of the scenes are brilliant too.

One thing that need to mention is that to really understand the film and catch up 100 % of all the elements correctly, this will be a must to master Cantonese really well. Which may be the reason why early age Chow movie receive moderate response only from Asian world. However, when Chow film began to spread his influence around the globe, hardcore fans like me found that his film is no more that funny like the old time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I LOVED this movie because Bobbie Phillips can REALLY FIGHT! I always hate when actors are not believable in action parts. It was great to see, no offense, but a WOMAN who can skillfully perform martial arts and fighting. If you compare this with most action movies with females you will DEFINITELY see what I mean. They don't have to cut up the shots with someone that can fight and it flows better. I was VERY impressed. I hope there's more!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am awed by actress Bobbie Phillips and her superb skill as an action star! This movie is propelled by her wonderful acting and terrific action prowess. I am a fan of sci-fi but I must say that this film exceeds most science fiction films in it's cinematography and mostly it's utilization of an actress whose presence supersedes the plot which is fine but is nothing new. Even though it looks as though this film was made for television, in my opinion it is better than most theatrically released films of its kind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great job! Was very exciting and had great stunts. A show that really rocked. Was a great job by all who worked on this one; and especially the acting on Bobbie Phillips' part. This would have been great on the big screen. Would like to see more of these movies of the week or perhaps a weekly series. This was great entertainment and am glad I watched! By far the best of the three. Keep up the good work UPN and Bobbie Phillips. I'll be looking for the next one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was surprised to catch this on TV Friday, and I enjoyed it. Between the presence of Bobbie Phillips and the numerous references to everything that could be considered \"cyberpunk\", this was a fun movie to watch. I enjoyed the story, which reminded me of a book I've read (\"Earth\", David Brin), and was fun to see on TV. Bobbie looks great, but I also enjoyed her performance as Kam because she did seem different from everyone else. But the greatest thing about this movie was the atmosphere that has been described in books by Gibson, Sterling, and others. It was just fun to see it on TV.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show was incredible!!! I've seen all three and this is the best. This movie has suspense,a bit of romance,stunts that will blow your mind (GO BOBBIE), great characters and amazing locations. Where was this filmed? Will there be more? I really liked the story line with her brother. Looking forward to Chameleon 4 and to see how the world is saved yet again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen and enjoyed all of the Chameleon movies and I must say they keep getting better & better with each one. Bobbie Phillips is Fantastic and my granddaughter wants to be just like her. I'm glad they brought in a \"Brother\" character for Bobbie (Kam) so we can expect to see more exciting shows. Bobbie is beautiful, sexy, and sweet, and independent at the same time, and everything any female could desire to be!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Boogie Nights was without a doubt the best film of 1997. I could watch this movie over and over and over and still love it. I'm in no rush to watch that overblown romance\/disaster epic Titanic again. The fact that Boogie Nights did not even receive a Best Picture nomination just goes to prove how predictable and narrow-minded the Academy is. Only Atom Egoyan's The Sweet Hereafter and Robert Zemeckis's Contact came close to being as great as Boogie Nights. No other filmmaker in recent years has come even remotely close to making a film as good as Tarantino's Pulp Fiction -- until now. Paul Thomas Anderson rose to the challenge and succeeded. Just as Tarantino gave John Travolta's career a kick, P.T. Anderson has given Burt Reynolds the kick that his career needs. Boogie Nights will also undoubtedly make stars of Don Cheadle, Heather Graham, and John Reilly. Overall, a wonderful film. The best since Pulp Fiction. Maybe even better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A small town kid working in a big city becomes a huge star and then spirals out of control. It shows you the rise to fame and then fall from fame and back to a little rise. Great cast of actors, and a great director = a great, great movie called Boogie Nights.

P.T Anderson. An amazing director who made Boogie Nights amazing. From the moment the movie starts to the moment it ends you can feel how beautiful this movie is. Some scenes are breathtaking, literally. A great story, a great movie. Mark Whalberg was fantastic, Philip Seymour Hoffman was wonderful as he is in everything. Thomas Jane also was magnificent and although he only had a small part he played it to perfection. There is one scene in this movie I can't get over, \"The Drug Deal Gone Bad Scene\" it was amazing, music acting and cinematography combined to make it amazing. I hadn't seen Boogie Nights and thank god I did, its so well rounded and I am now a HUGE fan of PTA (Paul Thomas Anderson).

Do whatever you have to do and watch this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Altman and Scorsese have twisted sex together in one of the greatest American films of the past 20 years. Boogie Nights didn't make a huge initial splash, and I still don't think it's received the credit it deserves. The immediate clamor surrounding the film (\"Some porn movie with Marky Mark\") was wholly without merit. What Paul Thomas Anderson has created is no less than a stunning representation of the pursuit and subsequent loss of the American Dream (if such a thing still exists).

For those of you who have been living in a box (or a confessional) for the past 8 years, Boogie Nights tells the literal rise-and-fall tale of young Eddie Adams (Wahlberg). Eddie is just a dopey kid from Torrance, California who wants something more out of life. His room is soaked in muscle-bound, naive Americana. His dreams are far bigger than his potential, but not quite as large as his...special gift. His bald-headed southern gent quickly raises the attention and eyebrows of the booming, omni-present adult film industry. Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds as the film's twinkle-eyed Papa Bear) gets wind of Eddie's hidden talent and decides to put him in a movie.

Before you can say \"deep-throat,\" Eddie has changed his name to Dirk Diggler and exposed his massive member to a wide-eyed public. Fame and fortune make Dirk's acquaintance, as do a bevy of local porn celebs. His friends and co-workers become his makeshift family, but it soon proves to be a Sunday picnic like no other. As the feel-good 70s give way to the coke-addled, video-friendly 80s, Dirk & Co. begin a dangerous backslide.

Anderson put everything he had into this glorious, moving epic. It sizzles and never fizzles. Nary a frame of this monumental picture is wasted, and the characters and their dialogue live with us long after ELO fades from the soundtrack. See this one immediately. And then watch it again.

And again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This picture's following will only grow as time goes by. Better than any of the best picture nominees in 97 and it rewards repeated viewings. I've seen it three times now so I know. Anderson was compared to some of the great American directors (Altman, Scorcese, Tarantino) and he may have those influences but chances are, after a few more films, he'll be considered part of that short list himself.

One last note: Julianne Moore's \"Amber Waves\" will resonate in the memory long after other 90's movie characters have faded. THE best performance of the year -in any of the four categories.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sometime ago I watched a video of Paul Thomas Anderson in which he express the big interest that he has in porn films and how this industry could've produce better films and in consequence a complete genre and not just sex in video tape. Paul Thomas Anderson put his own believes of porn industry in the character played in a terrific way by Burt Reynolds. His name is Jack Horner, a director whose biggest dream is to make a \"real\" film that can keep the viewer in suspense because of the great dramatic story and, at the same time, exciting with the beauty\u0085 and with the \"big cocks and tits\". Soon as he meets Eddie Adams (Mark Walhberg), he believes that he has found the new star for his films. And that's how the story of the young Eddie in the porn industry begins.

The film begins with a sequence inside a night club where we can see all the persons that will be part of Eddie's life and later we can see them outside the porn industry, living their daily routine. But soon we can see them inside the porn industry and after only one party, the story of the new Eddie begins, the story of Dirk Diggler. All of them will taste the real success with Dirk as the main star, winning lots of prizes and helping Jack to make real his biggest dream with a series of films about Brock Landers, the new character of Dirk. This sort of exploitation films are an amazing success and for Jack are his firsts \"real\" films. But here is the beginning of the end and the beginning of the \"horrible 80's\" when there is going to be $ex, DRUGS and Rock & Roll for Dirk and pals. But we all know that the excesses can destroy any person and the erectile dysfunction can destroy any porn star and here the film focuses in their lives after the total success and how everybody is having a real bad time with many problems due to society's bad look to porn industry and to a period with many excesses. In Dirk's decadence, after trying and failing in the music industry, there's a brilliant sequence that can resume in a perfect way how the things are going for Dirk and his friends. That sequence is the one of his first drug deal, with the appearance of Alfred Molina, which ends in a total mess. Is funny for us and a terrible experience for Dirk and pals but there's always a solution if you get back in what you know and when Dirk is back, Brock is back.

Well I haven't mention most of the characters in my sort of a summary but I must say that all are amazingly well developed. The cast is just superb with the best performance that I have seen of Mark Walhberg. Julianne Moore has a powerful performance in a really moving character; Reilly, Macy, Hoffman, Heather Graham, Guzman, etc are just memorable, all of their characters with funny and sad moments.

Finally, I really love the amazing cinematic style of Anderson here with a unique view to the porn industry of the late 70's and early 80's. I used to say that \"Magnolia\" was my favourite of Anderson but right now, after watching all except \"Sidney\", I can't say that I have a favourite because I love them all!

PS: somewhere I read that this film is the \"Scorsese film\" of Anderson so I'm more than sure that if you love \"Goodfellas\" and \"Casino\" you will love this one too. I f*cking love \"Boogie Nights\"!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some time ago I saw this when HBO was showing it and from what I saw of it, it seemed like a good movie. so I'm in Blockbuster today and I see it there with the DVD'S and I decide what the hell. So I rent it. After I finished watching it I was in shock of how good it was.

This movie just touched my heart. Everything in it was so amazing. The stories, the actors, the dark humor, the MUSIC!!! Oh don't get me started on the music in this film. PT Andderson is one of the greats. Definitely the best thing to come out since Quentin Tarantino(a god.)

After I finished the first viewing I watched it again with Anderson's commentary (I was suprised on how such a cool guy he is.)

Anybody who is interested in movies at all should watch this movie, if they haven't already. Anderson is obviously a film lover. In the movie he rips off so many other directors tecniques. Such as the pool scene with the camera following the girl through the water. Obviously ripped off from \"I Am Cuba.\" But I have no beef what so ever with that. The film is very respectable with it's ripoff's.

I recomend this film to anybody who can deal with some of the content of the film(porn.)

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a classic that will be able to hold up with drama's to come simply because of the fact that it is shot with a 70's style and it's a story about the 70's. It is funny, action-filled, entertaining and sad at the same time. It has the effect to pull you into the lives of these poor folks and the consequences for their actions. 4 STARS!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The three names that mean the most to this film are Burt Reynolds, Mark Wahlberg, and Julianne Moore. These three deliver the strongest performances, but the entire cast does a wonderful job. The film although about the porn industry does not let itself get out of hand with it's own sexual premise. On the other hand there were many scenes that involved drug use and although important to understanding the characters lifestyle, I think there was some overkill in this department. Paul Thomas Anderson has not done a great deal of directing, but he may have been picked for this film based on his 1988 work \"The Dirk Diggler Story.\" One thing that was brilliantly portrayed is the family like atmosphere between the characters as they work, live, and party together. Although not a typical family they certainly seem to care for each other. The wonderful soundtrack really helps give you a feel for the period during a time when disco was the rage. There are many disco favorites on it and some other wonderful songs as well.

The story is about a gifted young man named Eddie Adams (Wahlberg) that gets invited into the porn industry. He changes his name to Dirk Diggler and becomes and adult film star almost overnight. Jack Horner (Reynolds) is the director that takes his films very seriously as he believes his work is more than just pornography, but that they are true art. However Dirk becomes overly dependent on drugs and soon heads down a dangerous road where he stands to loose everything. Although a greater focus is placed on the character Dirk there are subplots for the other characters and their trials in life. You will find yourself wishing for and hoping their situations improve. All-in-all a well done film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sometimes the Academy doesn't recognize the potential of some films, or doesn't nominate them because they are controversial or strong. Sometimes they are nominated, but don't win anything (I hope this doesn't happen this year with \"American Beauty\"). This is exactly what happened with \"Boogie Nights\", which was the best film of 1997. The Academy preferred to give the best picture Oscar to \"Titanic\", a purely commercial and hollow film, and other awards to the overrated \"Good Will Hunting\" and the irritating \"Full Monty\". The other pictures which were nominated in the main category were \"L.A. Confidential\" and \"As Good as it Gets\", great movies, but \"Boogie Nights\" is still better and should have been remembered in more categories.

This amazing film tells the story of Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg, in a surprisingly great performance), a 17 year old barman who takes the attention of Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds, in a redeeming acting), a director of porn films. Eddie has a special 'gift', and this helps him to get into the world of porn movies. He changes his name for Dirk Diggler and starts to make a huge success. But fame... doesn't last forever. Other characters also have their parallel stories- Amber Waves (Julianne Moore, perfect), Buck (Don Cheadle) and others, including Rollergirl (Heather Graham), an actress who accepts to do anything, but she has to be wearing her roller shoes.

What could have been a banal, trivial film, turns into a perfect, memorable one in the hands of Paul Thomas Anderson. What makes \"Boogie Nights\" such a great film is its execution, added to a clever, well written screenplay, great soundtrack, etc. Each character is very well developed, and each of them has his\/her importance in the context. Each feeling, weakness, fear, emotion is explored, resulting in a masterpiece of the modern American cinema.

\"Boogie Nights\" is a strong, impacting picture that should be seen by everyone who really likes cinema. Under a plot that seems banal at first impression, there is a wonderful story of highs and downs, things that we face in our lives. It is an amazing portrait of the end of the '70s and the beginning of the '80s, exactly an age of highs and downs. That's what makes this film so special and a true masterpiece.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What a movie! It has undeniably entertaining subject matter (unless you're a prude) and a mature, funny, and complex script from Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia, Hard Eight). PT Anderson will undoubtably be around for some time. The evidence is here in this epic and ambitious masterpiece. Every character is expertly played and touching and fully-shaped. From Burt Reynolds as Jack Horner (the director) to Julianne Moore (his movie-star) and Mark Whalberg (as Dirk Diggler) they all are fabulous. And the story? WOW! Honest look at business and failure and consequences and family. One of the best movies of all time! i give it a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Boogie Nights\" is a masterpiece it tells a great story with flair an great direction from a very talented director. This film features a cast which turn in outstanding performances. Though the subject matter is very controversial but it is handled with great care by very talented people. This movie has an unexpected emotional impact also, you will remember it long after it is over.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a absolutely masterful stroke of genius by Paul Thomas Anderson the writer\/director of this movie. It really examines the pluses and minuses of the world of porn and consequences for your actions living in a world literally fueled by sex, drugs, and rock n' roll. Only of the finest casts assembled with Mark Wahlberg, Burt Reynolds, Heather Graham, Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Don Cheadle, Philip Baker Hall, and others.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As long as you can get past your puritanical instincts and realize that pornographers are people too, you'll realize the depth p.t. anderson gives to his characters. Also, an incredible soundtrack. The songs are so tightly tied to their scenes, you won't be able to hear them without thinking about the movie again.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is worth the price of admission alone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An interesting companion piece to true documentaries of John C. Holmes. Unfortunately, it doesn't deal with what ultimately killed Holmes, and it certainly could have benefited from doing so. Burt Reynolds and Mark Wahlberg got the most praise for this, but I felt the true stars were Julianne Moore as the cocaine-sniffing mother wannabe, Don Cheadle as a black man struggling with identity as pornstar\/stereo-salesman in some wild getups and William H. Macy, who's wife is the ultimate slut. Not to mention a nearly unrecognizable Alfred Molina. Macy's new year's eve bash and Cheadle's chance for a better life after a donut shop robbery gone wildly wrong are probably the two best scenes in the movie, or at least the two best shot. What this movie does best is show how power can easily corrupt in its various forms. However, none of the characters apparently learn anything from their dark downward spiral as they all rebound and return to their normal lives.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has it all. Great actors, good dialog, drama, comedy, and excellent writing and directing by Paul Thomas Anderson. I have seen this film several times and enjoy it more each time. It doesn't get old, it is consistently entertaining and stimulating. Easily Burt Reynolds best role, and he does a great job. John C. Reilly and Don Cheadle also give excellent comedic performances. There is not a weak element in this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the best film of 1998 and one of the best of the 90's. Yes, it is a rip off of Goodfellas. But as the saying goes, good poets borrow, great poets steal. And PTA has stolen brilliantly from some of the best, plus added some genius touches of his own. I gave this a ten (which is very rare for me).

The main reason I am commenting on this though (cause i could just rave all night) is all those people who have seen it on VHS standard issue...what are you thinking? This deserves the FULL SCREEN experience. Look at the ratio it was shot in! I saw it 5 times at the cinema and haven't bothered to watch it on video.

Nuff said!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a masterpiece. It was exhilarating from beginning to end. Writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson's story about a porn star is told with style, grace, humor, even poignancy. The actors and the characters they play are all first-rate, including Mark Wahlberg in the lead, who proves himself a solid actor and can carry a film. Burt Reynolds gives perhaps his best performance ever as a porno director who discovers Wahlberg. The film recreates the late 70s and early 80s with dead-on accuracy, from the disco scene that begins the film to Wahlberg's Don Johnson \"Miami Vice\" outfit that he wears in the final scene. Most regular moviegoers who see this film will no doubt compare it to PULP FICTION, but it really has much more in common with the films of Robert Altman and Martin Scorsese. The film is a triumph in style. The opening tracking shot that begins the film is just as impressive as the ones in THE PLAYER and ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS. The editing by Dylan Tichenor is simply phenomenal. I couldn't believe the editing didn't receive an Oscar nomination (GOOD WILL HUNTING was a better edited film?!). The best scene in the film has to be the one with the firecrackers. I had butterflies in my stomach because the scene is incredibly intense. When I saw the film a second time, I had the exact same reaction to the scene. Unfortunately, it may not have the same impact on TV as it did in a theater with good stereo sound. It's a shame that many people didn't see this movie during its theatrical run, because it is the best way to watch it. Anderson's use of widescreen will suffer on TV (so get the DVD or a letterbox tape). It is amazing how easy Anderson makes it all look, because this is only his second film. The music, sets, costumes, photography, offbeat characters, sex, violence, happiness and heartbreak are captured by a guy who is clearly in love with filmmaking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Boogie Nights follows a theme that is extremely familiar to gangster films (although it doesn't fit into that genre itself) - the rise and the fall. We see the rise of several individuals, some of them from complete obscurity, to achieving great heights ... and then falling from grace due to their excesses.

I believe that this is the first feature by writer\/director Paul Thomas Anderson, and it's a great start! I saw elements of other directors' influences, such as Robert Altman, but the film holds its own in originality and plot development.

Character development is the movie's finest feature. I really identified with all of the characters and felt their pain and their success with them. All of the performances were brilliant. (It was especially good to see a small part performed by real-life porn veteran, Nina Hartley).

Basically this film combines comedy and tragedy with the result being one of the best films of 1997, which was snubbed at the Oscars (probably due to the \"racy\" - as they would say - subject matter, and the general conservatism of the Academy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Possibly the finest moment of TV, at least in my memory, as millions could watch Shakespeare's gripping Kings cycle (Richard II - Richard III) play out on prime time TV (I believe it was on Friday nights). No word was left out, and the plays awoke in me (who was then in elementary school) a thirst for history and a hunger for Shakespeare and drama.

Let's see these reissued on DVD. What a set this would be!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I believe it has been over 40 years since I saw this series, yet memory of it hasn't faded a bit. This would be a natural for DVD re-issue, it seems to me. Many of the performers have gone on to greater fame (Robert Hardy, Sean Connery, to name a couple); though it was a smallish role, I still remember Judy Dench, then in her 20's, as Katherine of France (Henry V). She was very lovely then as now.

There is a hint on this site that the series was filmed in color - is this so? Who of us would know - virtually no color TV in those days. Mores the pity, no VCR's; if so, some might have recorded it. As a way of teaching English history, this series made it come alive in ways few class room teachers can manage.

What a fine re-issue this would be!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All right - it was in black and white and probably on 2\" tape - which means the BBC wiped it, right? But it stays in my mind from all those years ago (1960??) as a perfect slice of history enlivened by the most innovative editing and wonderful actors full of youth and bravado.

I WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN! Are you reading this, BBC? Find your original 2\" tapes or the 35mm film, deal with the actors and directors for the rights, and re-issue! I know, I know, some of them are dead, some of them are missing in action.

Where else will I be able to see Mary Morris as the 'serpent's heart wrapped in a tiger's hide'? Where else will I be able to see Paul Daneman do 'Now is the winter of discontent....'? Or Robert Hardy deliver his speech about 'that idol ceremony'?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this mini-series when I was in high school. I remember it as being absolutely brilliant and compelling. At the time, I knew none of the British actors in the series, but have since learned that some of today's stars performed in it, including Sean Connery (the original James Bond among many other roles), Judi Dench (Queen Elizabeth in \"Shakespeare in Love\" among many other roles) and Eilene Atkins (probably best known for creating \"Upstairs\/Downstairs\" but also superb in many acting roles). Like the other commentator, I would like to see it again. I'm certain the production remains timeless, and I would hope that it has been or will be released on VHS or DVD. If you get a chance to see it, do not miss it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This series has recently been unearthed and excerpts can be seen, at least within Britain, via http:\/\/www.screenonline.org.uk\/tv\/id\/527213\/index.html Presumably there is some hope that the series may eventually become available more widely. The problem is that this series was followed by the series THE WARS OF THE ROSES that had a similarly stellar cast and which has been available to cable TV, or at least crowding the market.

The two series are quite different in dramaturgy; THE WARS consolidates the plays through extensive rewriting and shifting of scenes; AN AGE OF KINGS follows Shakespeare more closely. Both series benefit from integral casting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watched this on KQED, with Frank Baxter commenting, as I recall. Have never seen it since, but would like to find out where it is available.

It is amazing how good something can be, but be in black and white, and have zero special effects. In fact, amazing how much BETTER something like that is!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was so very long ago (1960), but I have never forgotten this series and often wished it would reappear. So taken with it, I corresponded with Mr. Rathbun, then president of Standard Oil, which sponsored the presentation on PBS. He sent me a photo of the tapestry (actually a charcoal rendering) used behind the credits.

To the opening theme music of Bayco's \"Elizabethan Masque,\" my family and I gathered around our black & white TV to drink in Shakespeare's words as spoken by a group of excellent but relatively unknown players (at least to American audiences at the time).

We were introduced to such actors as Sean Connery, Dame Judi Dench, Tom Fleming, Patrick Garland, Julian Glover and Robert Hardy. I have continued to enjoy their accomplishments ever since. One of the most interesting things was the way in which the actors continued to age in their respective roles as Shakespeare's \"King\" plays were presented, perhaps for the first time, in chronological order.

I wish I could tell those actors just how much that series meant to me.

If \"Age of Kings\" could be revived on VHS and\/or DVD, it would so please those of us who long to see it again and those who missed it the first time around.

GOOD NEWS! PBS HAS JUST ISSUED A DVD OF \"AN AGE OF KINGS\"! SEE THEIR JULY 2009 CATALOG, PAGE 19, OR CALL THEM TOLL FREE. I JUST ORDERED MINE!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I followed this entire series when I was a child in grade school, by choice, not because it was required for school. I used to read the plays at the pace of the series. The experience gave me a life-long love for Shakespeare and history. It even gave me a bit of an acting bug, although at an amateur level only. Whenever I read any of Shakespeare's history plays, the images that come to mind first are from this black and white production, seen on a big \"furniture\" TV set with a rabbit ear antenna, with all the \"ghosts\" and wobbles that go with that.

Although the sets were minimal, if I remember correctly, that was totally irrelevant because the acting was so good. At the time I had no idea who any of the actors were. Now I see that many of them have become well known over the years. I particularly enjoyed Hotspur and Hal, whom I now see were played by Sean Connery and Robert Hardy. I would dearly love to see this available in video, especially since many of the plays are seldom performed and even fewer are available on video. It would be valuable also as a document of mid-20th century televised play production.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A great production, that should be revived\/rebroadcast. I doubt that it would be out of date! I'd love to hear from anyone who knows whether videos exist of this series, or any other information about where it could be found or viewed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 1961, this series was shown on local TV here in southern California. I and many others have been petering BBC for tape or DVD ever since. Now all of a sudden, here it is on Amazon. I pre-ordered in January and now here on March 30 it arrived. It was a long wait (48 years). Was it worth it? So far I have just watched Richard II (I've only had the DVD since 2 o'clock) and I can truly say YEA!!! totally worth the wait. The acting, direction, and production are superb and even better than I remember. The production is in B & W but somehow it fits. The video is clear and very good, the sound is flawless. Further proof of how timeless Shakespeare truly is.

I gave this 10 stars even though I have only seen 1 of the 8 plays. I am sure that when I have seen them all I will change my rating to at least a 12.

It's currently in stock at Amazon (US region 1) at a reasonable price.

I'd better stop now so I can get back to watching. Next up is Henry the IV, part 1 of which is my all time favorite Shakespeare play.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My introduction to a lifelong love of Shakespeare. My brother was 5 and I was not quite 7 when WTTW Chicago broadcast An Age of Kings. It became a family ritual to watch, including the reruns. As an autumn series, my father used to buy us a rare treat for the Midwest--pomegranates; and my mother would pop corn on the stove. Wonderful acting from actors whose names meant nothing to me then (although I will never forget the achingly young Sean Connery as Hotspur), but do now! And they published the scripts in paperback so we could follow along and figure out the language. I managed to memorize most of Richard III over that. So glad to see it coming out on DVD! Highly recommended for all ages and any level of familiarity with Shakespeare or English history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anyone who enjoyed this series when first broadcast (I rushed home from school to see it) now is of a certain age so I can only add my comments to those asking for a DVD release to enable those of us to relive the memories of first transmission before it simply becomes a piece of unremembered TV archive history. If so many old TV series from the sixties and seventies can be released, why not this? Surely the rights clearances can't be that difficult. Most of the Shakespeare lines I can quote comes from this iconic series and I remember swapping them with my school chums as we tried to outdo each other's memories of the text. Peter Dews rightly deserved the credit for having the foresight to bring it to the screen. This surely was public broadcasting at its finest. Robert Hardy and Sean Connery fighting to the death - it's riveting stuff and from the beginning of the BBC Television's golden age. Come on BBC. Clear it and license it please. March 2009 So finally the DVD is here and congratulations to those who have made it happen. The picture quality is remarkably good and the performances every bit as good as the memory thought. Now all those who clamoured for it must buy it and relive those magic moments.

UK viewers. Given the series was made in the UK by the BBC using British actors it's strange that the DVD release is not available there on Region 2 (Europe) DVD and can only be imported from the US and played on modified players. It seems hardly likely that there are major rights issues, perhaps the market was felt to be too small so why on earth wasn't it released 'region free?' so everyone could enjoy it?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been trying to track The Age of Kings down for many, many years.My theater life was filled with the actors in this series. At the time, in 1960 I was not able to follow all of it, as I was myself working in the theater, lots of night work. Now in retirement I LONG to have this and keep it to myself. Please, please can it not be issued on DVD, I would not mind what it cost. I see that there are others out there who feel the same. What can we do to get this done? Something as great as this should not be sent into oblivion. I have to write two more lines. OK I can do that by saying that I want this series more than anything in the world. Just to be able to watch some of the finest actor of our age playing out the finest words of our wonderful Shakespeare. Isn't that enough! A Uzmen","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I smiled through the whole film. The music is great. The story-telling is great. It's a wonderful film. This picture is made with respect and a true love of the sixties.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"MY DINNER WITH JIMI is a glimpse at Howard Kaylan's giddy and vertiginous ride to fame with his 60's Folk-Rock band, The Turtles. The Turtles were kind of a 'second tier' act during the sixties, but the film clearly demonstrates that they could eat, drink, and party with the Titans of Hippie Culture. And, not only that, they had the musical chops to back it up. Many of the stellar acts of the era are seen as they interact with the band at work and at play. This provides my only complaint about the film. Almost from the beginning of the movie, one sees that it is nearly impossible to find actors who can convincingly impersonate such recognizable stars. Too often during the film, I felt that I was watching an engaging exhibition of phony wigs and mustaches. But, if you are a fan of the music of The Turtles, or The Swinging 60's, in general-this might be the film for you. And, don't forget to view The Extras. There is a very funny (and informative) bit by band members, Mark Volman and Howard Kaylan, about their disastrous experiences with managers and agents.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Superb and charming. Justin Henry is beautiful as a blissed out and mischievous Howard Kaylan, lead singer for the top ten hit making band, The Turtles. The real magic is the titular sequence with an academy award worthy turn by Royale Watkins. A performance that completely captures the mystical and yet down to earth Jimi Hendrix. Not many films, unbelievably so, can find the essence of a special moment in a life and times. I'd like to see this available at any home video retail outlet without any hassle. Uh..what's the deal?

Thanks Eddie. A worthy addition to the history of the psychedelic sixties. A definite twinkle in the mind's eye.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm from Ireland and I thought this film had the odd minute or two where accents where a little off but no worse than any Brad Pitt or other American doing the accent. Furthermore, I have rarely seen any British actor handle an American or Canadian accent except for Colin Farrel in Minority Report. This film is a little film and it was entertaining. No it wasn't a Blockbuster Hollywood production but frankly I'm sick of that shite. I laughed more than a few times and had a good time. It was definitely worth the rental. The main character is a spoof on other hard British gangsters. At least that's the way I saw it. If you go in expecting a $100 million dollar production you'll be disappointed. Enjoy it for what it is- a small entertaining film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that New York Times film critic Elvis Mitchell wrote the best one line review of In the Mood for Love when he said that it is \"dizzy with a romantic spirit that's been missing from the cinema forever.\" How true those words are! Truly romantic films are so rare these days, while films that include plenty of sex and nudity (which are often portrayed in a smutty and gratuitous manner) abound. So, given this cinematic climate, Wong Kar-wai's latest film feels like a much needed breath of fresh air. In the Mood for Love is about the doomed romance between two neighbors (\"Mr. Chow,\" played by Tony Leung and \"Mrs. Chan,\" played by Maggie Cheung), whose spouses are having an illicit affair, as they try \"not to be like them.\" But after hanging out with each other on lonely nights (while their spouses are away \"on business\"\/\"taking care of a sick mother\"), they fall madly in love, and must resist the temptation of going too far.

Several factors are responsible for making In the Mood for Love a new classic among \"romantic melodramas,\" in the best sense of that term. First, the specific period of the film (i.e. 1960's Hong Kong) is faithfully recreated to an astonishing degree of detail. The clothes (including Maggie Cheung's lovely dresses), the music (e.g. Nat King Cole), and the overall atmosphere of this film evokes a nostalgia for that specific period. Second, Christopher Doyle's award-winning, breathtakingly beautiful cinematography creates an environment which not only envelopes its two main characters, but seems to ooze with romantic longing in every one of its sumptuous, meticulously composed frame. Make no mistake about it: In the Mood for Love was the most gorgeous film of 2001. (It should also be mentioned that Wong Kar-wai's usual hyper-kinetic visual style is (understandably) toned down for this film, although his pallet remain just as colorful.) Third, there is the haunting score by Michael Galasso, which is accompanied by slow motion sequences of, e.g. Chan walking in her elegant dresses, Chan and Chow \"glancing\" at each other as they pass one another on the stairs, and other beautiful scenes which etch themselves into one's memory. The main score--which makes its instruments sound as though they're literally crying--is heard eight times throughout various points in the film and it serves to highlight the sadness and the longing which the two main characters feel. Fourth, Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung both deliver wonderful performances (Leung won the prize for best actor at Cannes) and they manage to generate real chemistry on screen.

The above elements coalesce and work so nicely together to create a film that feels timeless, \"dizzyingly romantic,\" and, in a word, magical. In the Mood for Love, perhaps more than any other film of 2001, reminded me why it is that I love \"going to the movies.\" And I guess that is about the highest compliment that I can pay to a film.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's easy to see why many people consider In the Mood for Love to be Wong Kar-Wai's best film. The toned down appeal of the film, centering on the studied view of a relationship put through an emotional ringer, is a retread into Happy Together territory but without the hyper-kinetic patchwork of jarring film stocks and hyper-saturated sequences that have become a trademark of Kar-Wai's films since Chungking Express. Like Soderbergh's The Limey, this is a different kind of curio for Kar-Wai; where dialogue and plot are forsaken by mood and composition in order to create a tale of two delicate lives in a seemingly confining emotional stasis.

It's a testament to the genius of Kar-Wai that he is capable to making such a simple tale so resonating. Chow Mo-Wan (Tony Leung) and Su Li-zhen (Maggie Cheung) move in next-door to each other within the same apartment building. He's a journalist who dreams of publishing martial-arts novels and she is a secretary at a shipping company. Their eventual coupling is obvious from the beginning but the pleasure here is the way that Kar-Wai ambiguously paints such a journey with his grand masterstrokes.

The key to the success of the film is Kar-Wai's use of the interior space, playing with foreground and background planes in ways that are similar to the works of Polanski. During the wooingly sensuous first half of the film, Kar-Wai isolates Leung and Cheung within shots in such a way that the second person in a conversation is never visible. Kar-Wai is concerned with environment and space here, creating a cramped emotional dynamic between his characters. It's also telling that Kar-Wai never chooses to focus on the physicality of Mo-Wan and Li-zhen's spouses. Their faceless partners are noticeably absent from the film, as they are tending to their own love affairs with each other.

This is not to suggest that In the Mood for Love is a confining experience because Kar-Wai manages to inundate his film with broad splashes of hypnotic camera movement and sound. There is one shot where Cheung's slow, sensual rise up a metaphorical stairway turns into Leung's descent down the very same stairwell; their movements perfectly compliment each other, bookending the shot and creating a sense of erotic duality between the two figures. Their souls have connected but they have yet to physically unite. The erotic displacement of these scenes is both fascinating and frustrating, as two star-crossed lovers reject physical consummation due to their humble fidelity.

Other scenes in the film are punctuated with brief slow-motion shots of Cheung erotically moving through her interior surroundings, set to Mike Galasso's hauntingly beautiful score. Cheung's dresses beautifully compliment her exterior space as she moves slowly through her surroundings. Her movements slowly build up to what seems to be an inevitable fusion between Li-szhen and her dream lover even though the seduction process seems to be entirely sub-conscious.

If I make it seem that these two characters are more like two birds unleashing pheromones on each other, it probably isn't that far-fetched of a statement. The tight bond these two characters have with their internal spaces is almost as intense as their relationship to the exteriors. The film rarely moves into an exterior space and when the camera does it is usually to peak through oval windows and symbolic bars that always remind us that these characters are like confined animals. Kar-Wai continues to tease us even when the lovers get close enough to touch, shattering the couple's proximity to each other by shooting them through mirrors or through gaps within articles of clothing located inside of a closet. Mother Nature even seems to respond to their love lust, often unleashing a soft crest of rain over the characters after their bodies have glided near each other.

Kar-Wai's hauntingly atmospheric shots of a waterfall allowed Leung's Lai Yu-Fai to experience a cathartic release in Happy Together, even if Leslie Cheung's Ho Po-wing was not there to enjoy it with him. By that film's end, love was so inextricably bound to the act of war that a third man's muted declarations of love signaled Yu-Fai's realization that his dreams of seeing a waterfall would bring him inner peace, even if it would not bring him back his lover. Mo-Wan's journey terminates within the confines of a crumbling temple. His own emotional depletion is paralleled nicely with the political climate of his country, and the absence of Li-szhen is only made tolerable by the fact that Kar-Wai allows Mo-Wan to experience a release of sorts. Mo-Wan caters to an ancient myth and his secretive release into a crack in the temple leaves him capable of living his days with the hope that all his loss and heartache somehow served a higher purpose.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In 60s Hong Kong, a man and woman move in the same day into adjacent apartments with their respective spouses. Soon they suspect their ever absent spouses of having an affair with one-another. A strange bond emerges between the man and woman as they cope with their sadness by taking turns playing each other's spouse, before a more complex bond emerges...

No summary can do it justice, for Hong Kong auteur Wong Kar-Wai's \"In the Mood for Love\" is nothing short of a miracle. A story about sadness that manages to be touching and at times funny. A romance that never feels forced or fake. No doubt the director's method has a lot to do with that.

Directed from an inexistent screenplay (though the concept largely flows from a Japanese short story) to favor improvisation, the film is immediately set apart by the freshness of it's performances. All the film revolves around that and the rest is pure enhancement. At the core of the film are two characters that will ease into your heart and stay there long after the end credits roll: Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung are simply amazing and no language barrier undermines a single fragment of immediacy and truth they display. The additional material is also top-notch: the films is magnificent to behold (in part lensed by \"Hero\"'s Christopher Doyle) and the music is heartbreaking.

This is something everybody must see, if only because it is by far the most heartfelt, mature and authentic \"love story\" out there. Unmissable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was recommended this film as one of the best love stories ever told. And as I am huge fan of love, I bought the tickets and sat myself in the theatre. After 90 minutes I left the theatre with nothing but disappointment and the theme song as the only positive thing of the film. I was appalled at the story itself, that two people can love each other but be so afraid as to never act it. I just couldn't go passed the language barrier and the cultural barrier. The second time I ran into it... I was in a different mood, no longer had any expectation ... and had more patience, more relaxed mind to \"see\" the film... and as soon as I opened my eyes, I discovered the love... the beauty of the film. I went beyond the language and the love story and saw the acting (not even for a moment did I ever felt like they were acting!) and the cinematography. The first time I heard a definition of what a film is, I was told that it should be a chain of perfectly balanced photographs (shots) and this is the film to match the description. Almost every shot has an idea behind it, and combined with the music... and the light effects... the result is just a masterpiece! And a masterpiece is just something that you must have in your collection of films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I fist watched the movie, I said to myself, \"so a film can be made like this.\" Wong Kar Wai's gorgeous poetic love story captured me throughout and even after the film. I must admit this is one of the best love movies, maybe the best of all, I have ever watched. The content and the form overlaps perfectly. As watching the secret love we see the characters in bounded frames that limits their movements as well as their feelings. Beautiful camera angles and the lighting makes the feelings and the blues even touchable. I want to congratulate Christopher Doyle and Pin Bing Lee for their fantastic cinematography which creates the mood for love. Also the music defines the sadness of the love which plays along the beautiful slow motion frames and shows the characters in despairing moods. And of course the performances of the actors which makes the love so real. Eventually, all the elements in the film combined in a perfect way under the direction of WKW and give the audience the feeling called love.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I won't bore you with story and plot lines, as they have been presented many times already on this page, so\u0085 It's been along time coming since I have seen such a film. Beautiful, elegant and restrained, with a narrative pace to match. A film with sensitivity and understated qualities that is rare in these times of clich\u00e9d plots. The beautifully subdued photography, saturated in rich luxurious colors, and for lack of better words, each frame is filled with an air of tension. The settings and locations are used repeatedly but the film manages to breath new life into them each time they featured, there always seems to be a key prop, light fixture, or set piece to slightly clue the audience as to where we are in the characters world.

The acting reminds me of the \"The Bicycle Thief\", not the style, but the fact that you forget that you are watching two actors engaged in their craft. There is meaning behind every gesture and almost every movement has assigned significance to explain the inside world of the characters, the relationship, the feelings, and situation of the two lovers. The dialogue is sparse but like the rest of the movie, is imbued with meaning. Speaking of meaning, the soundtrack is infectious. Used here it becomes a story telling device. And although the film is of Chinese origins, even a song sung in Spanish by Nat King Cole imparts the film with subtle meaning. The orchestrated soundtrack is repetitive, but the repetition is what makes it comfortable. It is used in conjunction with the story, and not just a means to put music to action, or to cue the audience to feel a certain way at a certain plot point.

I would not recommend this film to anybody, I fear most people would be jaded by the calm flow of the story, but I would recommend it to someone who is looking for an alternative to the romantic schlock that fills the multiplexes on our side of the world. I must say that I was completely taken by this film, and continued to watch it night after night. The story takes time to present itself and bears repeated viewings as very few films in this genre are open to such a broad interpretation. A very beautiful movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two people living in the same flat complex find their partners are having an affair with each other. As they try and piece together how it happened, they also embark on an emotional journey that aches for a resolution\u0085

Building on his previous success with Happy Together and Chungking Express, Wong Kar Wai gives us this rather old fashioned and marvellous story of reawakened passions, yearning and unrequited love.

Possibly, In the Mood for Love is not to everyone's taste. It wanders in rather lazily at 98mins: not particularly long for a film, but it appears longer because not a lot really happens. But this lazy feel conceals a quite tightly constructed film. Most of the story is cunningly woven around a series of set piece role plays, where the characters act out presumed scenarios between their respective spouses, trying to work out how the affair started. I say cunning because, of course, this makes it difficult for the audience (and the characters) to tell what is \"in-role\" and what is genuine.

If all this sounds rather arty and self-conscience, that's because it is. Unashamedly so. And it is played to perfection by two of Hong Kong's finest, Maggie Cheung and Leung Chui Wai, with some excellent support from Ping Lam Siu and Rebecca Pan.

It is also a virtuoso performance by Wong Kar Wai, who treats the audience to a sensory, and sensual, overload. Bringing together Christopher Doyle (who later deployed his lush, over-ripe style on Hero) and Pin Bing Lee (whose beautifully understated style can be seen on Springtime in a Small Town) was cinematographic genius. It has all the bold beauty of Doyle, without, frankly, the Athena-poster cheesiness of his work on Hero. The music, as always with Wong, is prominent. From Nat King Cole singing in Spanish, to the haunting strings of the main theme, it perfectly matches the eclectic beauty of the images.

All in all a top film, whether judged on plot, acting, cinematography or soundtrack. Similar to, but more accessible than, Wim Wenders' Wings of Desire, this is a beautiful, old fashioned story about love lost and regained.

And watch out for Tony Leung's hotel room 2046, which presaged Wong's recent film of the same name.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The most attractive factor that lies in this masterpiece of a film is not the beautiful lead actors. It isn't their outstanding acting and sizzling chemistry either.

To me, it is the mis-en-scene of the entire movie. The settings, the lighting, the props... all add to the mood for love between the main characters. A whiff of smoke from Chow's cigarette tells us his state of mind, the ever-changing tight-fitting cheongsams of Lizhen reflects the constraints of decision-making, the ruins of Angkor Wat ties in with the deteriorating relationship of the two leads.

The excellent use of mis-en-scene gives the film just the right amount of feel needed to flesh out the complicated nature of the characters' relationship. The film leaves the audience fruitlessly yearning for more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Set in 1962 Hong Kong (in turbulent times, as we are informed), this extremely intimate story of a failed romance between a two married people tied to their traditions manages to recall the essence of old Hollywood in scene after scene of lush colors, evocative yet restrained sensuality (as opposed of the requisite sexuality and occasional nude scenes which has become part of the norm of a romance in film), and the use of facial expressions to suggest subtle changes in mood or communication. It's not hard to see the influence of Marguerite Duras here, since she is known for minimalism in storytelling as well as describing powerful drama using the art of verbal and non-verbal conversation between two characters with a strong bond as well as the use of re-enacting scenes that could eventually take place in both the characters' lives. From Hiroshima MON AMOUR to MODERATO CANTABILE, her pen is strongly visible here from the moment we enter the cramped rooms of Mr. Chow (Tony Leung) and Mrs. Su Li-zhen (Maggie Cheung) to the last scenes which explain the intensity of regret that he feels as he recalls the opportunity which was lost in reaffirming this relationship.

The plot even resembles something that Duras could have written: Mr. Chow and Mrs. Su Li-zhen, neighbors in a tenement apartment while both being fairly successful professionals, begin to discover in the most banal of ways that their spouses are cheating on them, and they discover quite naturally, it's with each other. The question is, should they act upon what they also feel towards each other or not be like their partners? Every scene plays with the notion that at any moment they will give in to each other, and at one point, it is suggested that eventually they do though as intrusive as the camera is in detailing to us their encounters (which seem to occur on a daily basis as seen by the frequent changes of Cheung's dresses), we never see it. And just as not seeing either of their spouses heightens their own love story, not seeing them carry through with their attraction makes the eventual separation even the more bitter because at every moment we want for something to happen -- some catalyst -- and the only one which comes is when Leung reveals to her that he loves her, followed by his quietly brutal revelation that she will never leave her husband, which implies that neither will he. It also gives us a glimpse of what culture and timing can do: from a Western point of view, a consummation of their romance into a more solid, lasting affair would have been possible especially in the 60s, but as it's Hong Kong, cultural values are markedly different.

Performances here are of the high order: it's very easy to play a torrid love affair, but to continually play a repressed, platonic relationship that is brimming with desire only barely suggested is hard and makes all the sensuality more cerebral than palpable or visual. Cheung and Leung smolder and their blighted chemistry lingers long after the credits have rolled.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WARNING: SPOILER,SPOILER,SPOILER!!!!

This is written for filmgoers who may have walked away from \"Mood for Love\" perplexed and confused about paths the main characters choose in life. From reading other comments and reviews it seems that many viewers and critics missed some very important details which may have prevented them from enjoying this delightful tease of a movie.

We are so use to seeing blatant SEX in narrations that we forget that there was a time when filmakers would suggest the \"dirty deed\" by simply showing the slack-mouthed couples ride off in a sleigh or haywagon only to return into the next scene with a bulging gut or a fat toddler stuck to the hip...\"Meet your child\".

The director chose the same nostalgic approach in telling the story of Mr Chow and Mrs Chan. Last warning...SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Mr Chow fools Mrs Chan into showing her real emotions when they rehearse his departure forever. Next scene: Mrs Chan leans her head on Mr Chow in the taxi and says \"I do not want to go home tonight\". Translation: \"Let's Do It\"

Why then did the couple just not do the modern thing of dumping their cheating spouses,get a divorce,raise their love child and live happily ever after? The answer is that this whole story takes place in Hong Kong during the Sixties. A bastard would live in a bleak life of shame if he were the child of an adulteress;whereas,a \"legitimate\" child could live a tragic but noble\/honest life if his mother chose to raise him away from his cheating \"father\"-the invisible Mr Chan. In short,Mr Chow and Mrs Chan sacrifices their relationship for the future of their child.

That is why Mr Chow,upon learning that Mrs Chan lives alone with a little boy gives a knowing smile and ends his dreams of making Mrs Chan his Mrs Chow. He then,also realizes why Mrs Chan went to all the way to Singapore to be with him,only to reconsiders at the last momment and leave..,choosing to never see him again.(But not before taking some unnamed keepsake) Mr Chow lives with this wonderful secret with no one to tell. No one,except for a crumbling temple wall and of course we the viewer,...but only if we listen carefuly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beautiful film set in 1962 Hong Kong about a man (Mr. Chow) and woman (Mrs. Chan) who become close friends when they suspect their spouses are having an affair. Stylistically, the film is also beautiful. Wong Kar-Wai uses a lot of slow motion and close-ups on parts of the body (feet, hands, waist). The film itself has a reticence and properness that suggests its time period. It's sexy without showing everything. Wong Kar-Wai also doesn't allow the audience to see what the spouses look like, suggesting that Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan should be together. Smoking is even made to look elegant with close-ups of the curls of smoke. A really lovely film. Just prepare yourself for the ending.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Hong Kong, 1962, the editor Chow Mo-wan (Tony Leung Chiu Wai) and his wife, and the secretary Su Li-Zhen Chan (Maggie Cheung) and her husband simultaneously move to an old building. Each couple has just rented a room in apartments on the same floor. Their wife and husband stay most of the time away from home, and Chow and Li-Zhen have the same habits: they like kung-fu stories and noodles and soap from a restaurant nearby the building. Their close contact becomes friendship and a sort of platonic and repressed love. Later they realize that their mates are having an affair, Chow falls in love with Li-Zhen, but her shyness and probably repressed condition of married woman keeps her love in a platonic level. 'In the Mood for Love' is a very slow, beautiful, melancholic and romantic love story, with a wonderful photography and soundtrack and a very unusual edition. The film had not had a screenplay, and the actors were never sure about what they would be shooting. Later, the director edited his story based on the footages. When Chow moves to Singapore, there is a gap of many years in the story until 1966, when its conclusion is intentionally open and not well defined, leaving questions such as who is the boy with Li-Zhen. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Amor \u00c0 Flor da Pele' ('Love on the Surface of the Skin')","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILER ALERT!!!

You can listen to Wong Kar-wai's movies like a radio play: Invisible vibrations between the characters, the rooms where they stay in, the rhythm that presses them ahead, attraction and dislike - the whole spectrum of the atmosphere is played back by the sound track. The dialogue is mostly completely unimportant.

The narration is similar to a childish amorous look at a beautiful woman and a sad man whose sorrows are noticeable, but helpless. \"In The Mood For Love\" is told from a child perspective, but the child never appears as a narrator. The aesthetic of the film is developed by an extreme light and color dramaturgy, harsh cuts, an unattached, almost documentary camera and a complex, unobtrusive sound.

The genius use of Nat King Cole's \"Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps\", whose mysterious power grows the more often it is repeated and the melancholic waltz helps in the graceful choreography of the two protagonists. Maggie Cheung in her beautiful dresses is brilliant, the perfect vis-\u00e0-vis to the handsome, stylish Tony Leung. The audience assumes a romance between them, but Wong just sees sad resignation. The two potential lovers are revolving around each other like satellites, knowing that they never will share the same orbit. You wish that they will find each other. They won't and the emotional power of their non-love-sex-relationship makes the movie immensely fascinating.

It is about broken luck and unspoken love. In all of Wong's films these are the leitmotives. Love, whether it comes too early or it comes too late to take the one and not the other person. The yearning of the characters that is never satisfied, their loneliness, the mourning, and the luck that they experience when it is too late.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this film is wonderful film for students of film. in mainstream American film it is common to see stylistic techniques used to draw the audience into the movie. in this film, the director uses stylistic techniques to push the story forward.

this is a love story that offers no sex. to be honest, i can't even recall the characters kissing. rather, the plot focuses on the emotional ties between the two characters.

i would not recommend this film for everybody. it is not very accessible. it is very slow moving and the subtle. it is a difficult film and mostly not entertaining.

i would reccoment this film to people who want to see something different. it is a piece of art. the soundtrack is most beautiful and visually, every frame is a photograph. and most beautiful of all, it's not visually stimulating for the sake of being visually stimulating. every frame illustrates a little bit more of the story...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kar Wai Wong's incredibly impressive romance that is to me, perfect. Set in 1960's Hong Kong. As we are shown, this is set in a turbulent time. Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung play Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan. A man and a woman who meet each other in a Hong Kong apartment, in which they both move in. Chow Mo-wan works for a newspaper company. Su Li-zhen Chan is a secretary. Two very different people. Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan create a special bond after they both find out their spouses, constantly away are committing extra-marital trysts. With each other.

The characters of Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan are nothing short of amazing. Both Leung and Cheung manage to strike such amazing chemistry with one another, it's better than any Hollywood romance that is put out today. Combined. The film is all about the focus of the two leads and their feelings after the infidelities of their partners. Kar Wai Wong manages to create such strong character development between these two characters, you really start to feel for them. Leung and Cheung are both wildly amazing, are better than any Hollywood pairing shown on the screen today. Combined.

There's nothing much else to describe Fa yeung nin wa other than beautiful, energetic romance that also features a moody, atmospheric piece with gorgeous cinematography. So much elements of this movie help create it to be flawless. As well as Kar Wai Wong and the acting, the cinematography from both Christopher Doyle and Pin Bing Lee is haunting. Beautifully understated. The shots from Kar Wai Wong help makes your mind create a world of it's own. A world that creates these characters. Original, melancholic and nostalgic. This film is incredibly unforgettable.

The costumes created by Kar Wai Wong regular William Chang are absolutely beautiful. Cheung, who wears an elegant, ankle-deep, beautifully patterned dress in every scene. She's a scene-stealer. Her costumes say a lot about her character and an emotion is fitted in all of her dresses colours which are vividly and smartly used. Highly original. Chang, also the production designer creates a brilliant setting for the movies moody piece. Especially with the help of the marvellous music used in scenes and masterful film editing, again by Chang. William Chang seems to be incredibly versatile and is an unsung hero for this movie.

Overall, this movie is one of the best from this millennium. Incredibly compelling and filled with nostalgia. The shots are mesmerising and haunting. Kar Wai Wong somewhat proves to be a master at the top of his game. The acting; music; cinematography; editing; production; costume and direction all help create ONE small, little perfect film. A masterpiece in romance film-making. Visually spectacular. Overall, a masterpiece to film-making. A film that reminds me of old classic Hollywood, was the one that never was. Never forget Fa yeung nin wa. I know I won't.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beautiful, emotional, and subtle. I watch this movie at an art center with a smaller screen in a film room with 95% of senior citizens. I wish bigger cinema like Lowes around here would show it. Great cinematography by Wong and Christopher Doyle. Since I understand cantonese, it's a lot easier for me to understand the movie. As simple as the story goes, many English speaking viewers didn't get the whole story. Three old ladies next to me keep yapping and have no clues about the movie.

Spoiler; They were surprise when I mention that Mr. Chow did sleep with Mrs Chen and they have a son. She went to Singapore trying to tell him but didn't.

Spoiler

The mandarin translation of the movie title actually means flowery like moment or memory. The phrase usually used to describe beautiful and wonderful memory that was inpermanance and short. The whole movie pretty much fit the title. Not to mention the flowery \"Cheung Sam\".

My favorite scene was definately the street corner in the alley. It looks so beautiful, the sun shining on the old and faded wall, at night in the dark, in the rain, truely a poetic moment. I felt a strong sense of intimacy of their relationship seeing them standing against the wall and talk quietly. I felt a terrible heartache when Mr Chow was rehearsing his departing moment, and Mrs Chen cried on his shoulder.... Bravo Wong Kar-Wai!

As much as I like this one, Chungking Express still top my favorite. However, I'll give this one a 10 as well. As a point of reference, CTHD only got 7.

If you love art, you will love this movie. Don't miss it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For a long time I did not know weather I liked this film or not. This is surprising, because I usually do know, but because the film did not go anywhere, I was a bit confused.

Two people move into a somewhat communal household setting. Finding their spouses constantly working or away on business trips, their attention, out of sheer loneliness, wanders to each other. After a platonic love affair, the male lead played by Tony Leung Chiu discloses that he has a mistress on the side. Su Li-Zehn, played by Maggie Cheung is hurt, even though their love affair has not been physically consummated. Chiu leaves the country, only to come back years later, when everything has changed.

For the cynic's part, the film is correct. By never actively or actually touching the part of love, but only approaching it, the film, admittedly says more than so many others have on the subject. It is also true, I think, that nothing good could have come if they did go on to have the affair. At least that's the feeling I get.

If we are to believe it, however, when Garica Marquez writes that \"...love is a state of grace; not the means to anything but the alpha and the omega, an end in itself,\" then this film falls miserably short of this, as do all others. Or, if you are inclined to entirely incomplete minimalism, hits it right on the mark. What films in history have achieved, approached, or sustained this phrase, if for only a short while? My honest feeling in memory is that about two. When Harry Met Sally suggests effectively this romantic perfection; and the getting is all in just getting there. It is interesting that in When Harry Met Sally, this is done in the course of wooing, rather than in its attainment. Can't anyone say anything good about love after it has been achieved by two individuals? Nicholas Spark's recent film The Notebook comes closer to this perhaps than any other film; are we to believe that once love is achieved it flies of the radar only to exist in perfection in some other dimension, or, more true perhaps, becomes latent vehicle for other ends?

In the Mood for Love is an honest film,with gorgeous and generous cinematography worthy in all respects of the best that Almodovar has to offer, yet all it manages to say in the end is that \"Life is sometimes like this.\" Now this is by no means a diffident thing to say, especially if said well, but the problem really comes at the end of the last act when Kar Wai Wong tries to round out the film by relating, only for the second time, a broader historical theme that plays in the background of the relationship which has just taken place. This is a worthy effort, and the variation on the musical motif played throughout the film is rather brilliant, but the theme's relatively spare indictment plays too little to have much more than a superficial effect on the holistically inclined audience, leaving the viewer to split the difference, a mistake in any film. A director should know where he is going, and how to get there. But in all honesty, it is only one wrong turn. However, as anyone knows, all it takes is one notable imperfection to spoil the perfect barrel of honey.

The effort, though, is definitely worth while; trying to let a historical theme broaden and round out the film and raise it beyond the micro-meaning of the couple, but without any real foreshadowing, it is the crucial mistake. In a word, and unfortunately, it is too little too late. It is also, I think, too much of a challenge for the non-Asian viewer not familiar enough with China's history to appreciate completely this sweeping stroke.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WHAT AN AWESOME FILM!!!!!!!! I came out of the theatre feeling stunned. The film that I had just seen was one of the best films I have seen in my life. I had my eyes glued to the screen. It's very symbolic, visually lush, beautifully shot, and gorgeously told. It's basically about two people who move into a flat and live next door to each other with there partners, who are assumed to be having an affair with each others partners. Assuming this, our two heroes act out what they think their partners are getting upto. There is an obvious repression of feelings for each other, with the use of vouryistic camera work, body language, and symbollic stairways. It's a visual feast, and hard not to like. Some of the story gets slightly confusing but that's nothing. The ending is one of the most beautiful (and anti-hollywood) endings I have ever seen in my life, and visually amazing. The films haunting score adds to the mood. I highly recommend this film to anyone with an open mind, and respect. What a superb film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"as with many of Wong's films, a lot of people find them to be boring and confusing. Well i like them and i like this film too. I went out and rented it on dvd and i watched it 3 times. It is a very subtle movie that provides an intoxicating experience. for those who did not enjoy it...... you just wasted 2 hours of your life.... too bad...muhahahahaha.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"In the Mood for Love\" a teasing allegory of loneliness and longing. Here is a film without sex, or even kissing -- and it is no doubt one of the sexiest and definetly the most thought-provoking and psychological romance I have ever seen.

Telling the story of two people who coincidentally, live in the same apartment, and are a door away from each other. The film, like and unlike \"Random Hearts,\" is about how two people come together via the affair of their two lovers. Only once they receive this news, they take the time to think about the consequences of an affair, and each other's feelings towards having just broken-up -- and whether or not the two people are willing enough to fall back in love.

What's terrific about the film is the way director Wong Kar-Wai, presents each character's way of dealing with loneliness. With Maggie Cheung's character, he'll show her, in a repeated montage: leaving work, going home, watching her neighbors gamble, head to the noodle shop, leave the noodle shop, and bump into her attractive age-equal, played by Tony Leung. This is a clever, if not subtle and knowing technique to present loneliness. For it is when you are alone, when you find yourself falling into a loop. This movie worked for me because I can identify with that feeling.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having seen many of Wong Kar-Wai's other movies (Happy Together, Fallen Angels, Ashes of Time), I knew what to expect coming in to the theatre; the cinematography would be lush, the use of space and perspective would be varied, the acting would be superb, and at least one of the characters would be consumed by an ineffable loneliness. These are, after all, precisely the techniques that make Wong Kar-Wai's art what it is. What I was not expecting was the degree to which I was drawn into a film that some reviewers dismissed as \"unfinished\" and compelled by characters who \"seemed consumed by ennui.\"

I find it interesting how people can be so utterly unmoved by a film that so vividly displays emotions and settings many of us take for granted or work ardently to forget: the overwhelming sense of grief stemming from being betrayed; the guilt aroused by the thought of becoming no better than the betrayer; the mundane yet profoundly intimate moments of relationships, where the need to express oneself verbally is utterly superfluous. This is what Wong Kar-Wai attempts to portray in the film and what he achieves so well.

Too many Americans are consumed by the need to have every moment of a film filled with stock dialogue; witty banter, disaffected sarcasm and overwrought confessions seem to be the pinnacle of the \"best\" American film has to offer. Wong Kar-Wai sees things very differently. Instead of the character needing to keep the audience apprised of her every feeling, perception or belief, Wong's characters make their feelings and understandings known clearly by facial gestures, body positioning, and, yes, silence.

If viewers merely contemplate this film from the standpoint of character development and action, then they may be disappointed by what it has to offer. If they are willing to let themselves try and intuit what the characters are feeling, then they may feel quite differently about what Wong has to offer them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of, if not THE most visually beautiful film I have ever seen in my life...there is so much to learn here in how to play with the camera, color, costumes and set up a shot. The work that went into the official film web sites in English and French also give you a good idea of the sheer beauty contained in the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sensitive, extremely quiet paced love story between a married journalist and his young and atractive neighbor, she too also married. They lived their love for a time but the obstacles and the fear of hurting their families and children invites to a separation. A reflexive look on delicate question like love, friendship, honor and loneliness, always present in human lives, whether you are an American or a Chinese. I give this a 7 (seven)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How do you describe perfection? In-the-Mood-For-Love! Maggie Cheung and Tony Leong practically dance on the screen and give stellar performances that stay with you hours after you've left the theatre. Every scene in the film resonates with the powerful combination of superb cinematography and shot selection, top-notch acting, and the sensual soundtrack. Nat King Cole singing in French absolutely sets the tone for the whole movie. Maggie and Tony look marvelous, with Maggie slinking about in some truly glorious cheongsams and Tony always looking dapper. I've seen this movie several times already, and everytime I see it I find something new to rave about. Love it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Chinese film title of \"In the Mood for Love\" is \"fa yeung nien wah.\" It can be interpreted as \"those blossoming years (that once were).\"

The whole film is a well-composed piece. A complex love story told in simple visual approach. Writer-director Wong Kar-Wai has choreographed a dancing of the hearts - it's she, it's he, it's love. I can hear Galasso's theme: dum dum-dum, dum dum-dum, and the strings - almost like heartbeats. A piece with prelude, stanzas, and epilogue.

Director optimized the use of music (Michael Galasso's score, Nat King Cole singing in Spanish, and Chinese songs\/tunes). The rhythm and lyrics prompt viewers to what she and he is feeling\/thinking rather than verbal dialogs. I can hear Nat King Cole giving us the clues: \"Aquello\u0085ojos verde\" (that thing, fling, eyes green) plays when the two meet, and \"Quizas, quizas, quizas\" (perhaps\u0085) when she's undecided.

Nostalgia pervades throughout the film. Design details plentiful: handbags and ties; Japanese rice-cooker novelty; the ridged pattern green glass cups & saucers and plates (I remember Dad treasured those at home); mahjong session; kitchen area; bedroom furnishings; the thermos for the take-out noodles that she swings when she walks. Maggie Cheung, slender and shapely, looks exquisite in those fashionable patterns & colors of the traditional Chinese woman clothing - 'cheung sam'. Every change of her dress denotes another day, another time in the story. Wong Kar-Wai is resourceful that way.

The scenes may be of the same place, but it's of a different mood, advanced to the next stanza. Up and down the stairs to the won-ton noodle stand. Standing by the wall around the corner to the apartments as the rain pours. Along the corridor, back and forth, to his writing corner.

Trivia: So she helps him with his writing of his martial arts novel. Maggie would be able to help as she's been in kung fu\/martial arts movies. \"Eastern Three Heroes\" 1992 is a fun action movie with Maggie Cheung (Thief Catcher Chat), Michelle Yeoh and Anita Mui as three super heroes fighting evils.

If you appreciate Tony Leung's performance, don't miss \"Chungking Express\" 1994 (in the second segment - romance rhythm with a difference), and \"Happy Together\" 1997 (an intense, emotionally colorful painting of friendships, faith, and fate), both written and directed by Wong Kar-Wai.

Being able to understand the Cantonese and Shanghainese dialects, and having visited the official site, I realized the epilogue was not quite completely translated. Here's sharing my version of the Chinese captions:

It was kind of an unbearable encounter All along she has kept her head lowered Giving him a chance to get closer He didn't have the courage to be closer She turned around, walked away.

That time and place had come to past. All that belonged, no longer exist. _______

Those vanished years, seemingly separated by a glass gathering dust, can see, yet cannot grasp.

All along he has longed for all that's past If he can break through that dust-gathered glass He will walk back into the times long vanished. ________

Wong Kar-Wai's \"In the Mood for Love\" brings to mind the simple poetry and wisdom of Rumi, the Sufi philosopher - the 'inner and outer,' the 'spirit and body' of life, love and living.

[Resend. Revised. ruby_fff 2\/22\/01]

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The notion of marital fidelity portrayed in the film seems outdated today, but it is exactly the main characters' adherence to that notion which makes the entire story so touchingly tragic. It is this notion that ennobles them and allows them to stand out, to, as they refer to their respective spouses, \"not be like them\".

As Tony Leung said in the film, love just happens. There doesn't need to be a rational explanation as to how it happens, it simply does. Despite their not wanting to stoop to their respective spouses' level, it happened. Fidelity, social mores, and timing all conspired against this relationship coming into fruition. Simply being in love is far from enough.

I had the misfortune of sitting beside a young couple (still in university from the snippets of conversation they kindly shared with me throughout the entire film, and uninitiated to the pains of lost love and missed opportunities). Their gross inability to digest the subtleness and the deeper emotions evoked made me realize just how much a film such as this, as well as other Wong Kar Wei's work, is wasted on the local audience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two hours ago I was watching this brilliant movie which overwhelmed me with its imprisoning photography. It is quite understandable how it won the prize of Best Camera in Cannes 2000. Close ups predominated it. Close ups of walls, humans and of many other things. The warm colored lighting (which is also usually by the director) gave the movie a warm atmosphere. Only two persons are principally to be seen in most of it. An interesting music and especially three songs or themes accompanied the movie nearly all the time. Each one of these themes represented a certain atmosphere during the whole movie. Silence and slow movements characterize the movie. Some scenes were extended moments or a serious of close-ups. Not only Tony Leung deserves a prize for his superb acting since Maggie Cheung was also so brilliant. I wonder how many dresses she was wearing in the different scenes. The story was also connected somehow with the history of Hong Kong and the region the 1960s. This prevented me from understanding some details of the it especially at the end. In short I would recommend the fans of artistic movies to watch it in the cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For those who like their films full of exploding planets and extreme violence, this is definitely not one to see. In fact, there is very little plot at all (or, at least, very little that could not be summarised in a few seconds: A meets B. Mr A falls for Mrs B and has an affair with her. A and B then fall in love and wonder (at great length) whether to have an affair themselves).

This is Cantonese Visconti. Story there is none, but what you DO get is a succession of wonderful images and poignantly trivial music which convey the slow passage of the central characters' emotions. There is also the chance to see one of the world's most beautiful women in a succession of stunningly elegant outfits. For my money, it's worth seeing for that alone. How could this woman ever have been an action heroine? She looks as though she has stepped straight out of the pages of Vogue.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The plot of \"In the Mood for Love\" is simple enough: A married man and a married woman (though not to eachother) slowly develop a romantic attachment to one another. The film's pace is numbingly slow and precious little actually happens between the two. Yet the backdrop of Hong Kong in the early 1960s and director Wong Kar-Wai's keen sense for capturing the beauty of the setting as well as the principal characters make this film a joy to watch. Actors Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung are both excellent and Wong Kar-Wai has done an extraordinary job in capturing the feel and nostalgia of the past (something so many films and directors try to do but usually fail miserably). There are so many little details that add charm to the film (a trademark of the director) and the colors and cinematography are what send this otherwise simple story over the top as a marvelous cinematic achievement. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i thought this was a beautiful film. it is not my favourite of his films - chungking express holds that spot - this one is quite different from anything else i have seen of his. it is slow (but not annoyingly so) - it takes its time and ponders the characters.. there is minimal movement in the frame - the camerawork is wonderful. the acting is great. the film feels like a long warm comforting drink.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I Feel the Niiiiiight Heat! I feel your HEEAAAAAAAAAART-beat! Something ain't right!\" Theme song written by B.J. Cook from Skylark- David Foster's old band and wife. She also wrote the memorable theme from CBC's \"Airwaves.\" OH Night Heat! What a program! Well-written, well-acted and totally classic. Crime solvers and a good team and a dash of humour at the end. I'd like to think this is really what detectives do\/did. Giambone was a real favourite! On a Canadian tip, I learned EVERY Canadian actor's name and style from guest spots done on Night Heat. Everyone passed through the Night Heat set and like Law & Order, it was story-driven so you could just watch and enjoy without a lot of character melodrama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This lasted several years despite the late hour it was on.

Like a lot of 80's crime dramas, it looked cold. Both physically and figuratively. This isn't a bad thing though. And the (obviously) low budget actually worked in it's favor. Gritty during a time when 'slick' was in.

Allan Royal's wraparound segments as the news writer gave it a slight edge.

The only actors I remembered were Scott Nylands (Earthquake) and Tony Rosato (SCTV). The cast of barely knowns was a good thing because one could see the group as a whole and not as a bunch of people supporting a 'star.' And yes, that's a young Clark Johnson (Homicide) in a recurring spot.

I hope a DVD release is in the future. Someone out there wanna get on that?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i just wanted to say that when i was young my favorite t.v show back in the day was night heat. I loved the characters and the plot of the show. I thought that it was an excellent show and still do to this day. I enjoy watching the reruns and I am a big fan.I love the way the characters played off one another.I would always stay up late to watch my favorite show with my mother who also was a big fan. Now I can enjoy watching my show again and listening to the theme song.Which I thought was a cool song for the show.My favorite characters were Scott Hylands and Jeff Wincott.I enjoyed watching these handsome guys take down the bad boys.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The BBC and HBO teamed up to create \"Dirty War\", a 90 minute TV movie about a terrorist \"dirty bomb\" attack in London. The film gets down to business quickly as it packs both the terrorist and the government anti-terrorist efforts into the film leaving little room for human interest subplots. On the terrorist side we follow the bomb from the smuggling of radioactive materials to assembly to deployment to detonation. On the government side we see PR and training exercises, intelligence gathering and analysis, interdiction, post-detonation response, and follow up. The film also imparts a sense of how Al-Qa'ida type terrorist cells are organized, the radical Islamic terrorist mentality, and terrorist strategies. A sort of anatomy of a \"dirty bomb\" incident, \"Dirty War\" will answer many questions lurking in the minds of a public becoming ever more aware of this insidious threat. (B)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well this movie certainly was in keeping with the current times. No happy endings, super-heroes, or miracles here. Just down-to-earth fiction to stimulate our minds along the lines of terrorism, and what-ifs. Kudos to Percival and Mickery for an excellent screenplay and superb direction by Percival. Films like this are needed to keep us aware of what is out there. If every peace-loving man and woman on earth reported obviously suspicious activities I believe terrorism could not thrive. This movie showed just how hard it really is to subvert these terrorists, even with good intelligence. Even though the film is a bit propagandist against Islam (the use of a Muslim police officer as a main character) I believe it was entirely realistic. There was meant to be shock-value in the bombing incident. As a very clever tool to relay the humility and indignity of people caught up in an attack such as this, they showed full nudity of women being decontaminated post-attack. It didn't take me long to realize that this was meant to even further instill into the viewer that thought, i.e., we are not in control of everything in a situation like this. Although this took place in London, with the usual high-level British acting, it makes a statement for any part of the world. Great movies don't have to be blockbuster epic productions, and this movie is very very worthy of viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Daniel Percival's \"Dirty War\", a BBC production made for television was shown recently on cable. The film has a documentary style in the way it goes after the people that caused the near holocaust in one of the big metropolis of the world, London. In fact, this film, produced in 2004 is almost a cautionary tale of the events of the following year, in which terrorists set explosive devices in the public transport that killed innocent people that were in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

The film impresses for the pace the director and the production team gave to the project. There are no dull moments in the movie as we watch the preparation by the terrorists and the people that are following their dirty work. Although the inevitable happens, it's amazing just to think what would be the consequences if a real 'dirty bomb' was planted in such a densely populated area.

The last images of the film have a chilling effect. The mob scenes and the way the whole area is contaminated send shivers of fear, thinking how it could possible happen anywhere.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a pretty good made for TV flick of the 'what if' variety. As in, what if terrorists exploded a 'dirty bomb' in a big city, in this case, London. Lots of poking at folks that say 'we're all set in the event of an emergency' that then reveal that they're not exactly telling the full story. And is anyone prepared for something like this? You can bet not. This shows the material for the bombs being smuggled into the country, the making of the bombs, the secrecy and double lives that the people behind it lead, etc. It also shows public servants (i.e., firemen) giving their all to save people when they aren't getting any help, when the government doesn't want to send anyone else into the affected area. Also shows how woefully inadequate 'preparations' are for any such occurrence, as the government talks everything up but then stands there with their mouths hanging open as the tragedy unfolds. And could this happen right here in the good old USA? Well, unless you've been living in caves for the past 20 years something already has, to an extent, and don't bet that anyone would be prepared for something of this nature. This is fairly realistic and yes, even scary. Well worth seeing but just hope nothing like this ever really happens. 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I lived in London most of my adult life before I moved stateside so missed this film when it came out and only saw this now on HBO. I disagree with anyone who thinks this should have been a Hollywood production, the UK team gave it a chilling and foreboding atmosphere from day one and I was on the edge of my seat for the last 30 minutes wondering what was going to happen to my home city. And of course,nine months after the film comes out 7\/7 happens. Yes, the truth is stranger than fiction. Having lived in both countries, it is also clear the likelihood of this happening in the UK is much greater than in the US, muslims live in ghettos and isolate themselves in the UK, in the US they assimilate much more readily.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was really interesting... it also is quite shocking as the similar events of the movie occurred only 10 months after the movie premiered.

it was interesting seeing the problems that could be encountered and realistic enough to show that no matter how prepared you think you are - you aren't. if this was made for an American audience - it would be different because they would have used this as a full propaganda film and not as a wake call which the BBC did! it still is propaganda, in some extend - no film today with these themes can not be - but it dealt with the issue successfully.

a film that should be shown in all terrorism\/counter-terrorism courses but will not because it shows faults which is not allowed to be acknowledged! A great film in which the BBC took a few risks and unfortunately, London does not need a fictional tale any more, due to the reality of July 7 2005.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film is partly a thriller and partly a public-service announcement when seeing the events through the perspectives of politicians, terrorists and of course victims. In this smart drama lessons are given about contamination and surviving chaos while meantime the backstage look at the way crisis is managed prompts viewers to distrust guardians and to be scared by assailants. The film, originally aired on BBC, gets to arouse effectively doubts on official prepareparedness. Performances are proper, understated though never terrific. The flick is just a beginning, a provocative start leading to a larger discussion but it gets to work in my opinion, giving the right thrills and causing the audience to reason and to ask itself questions.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dirty War is absolutely one of the best political, government, and well written T.V. Drama's in the 25 years.

The acting is superb, the writing is spectacular.

Diry War reveals the true side of why we are not ready to respond to a Nuclear, Biological, and Radiological Terrorist Attack here on American soil.

Dirty War should be made into a major motion picture - It's that good! I highly recommend this great drama to everyone who desire to know the truth.

This T.V. drama reveals how British Intelligence (MI5 & MI6) attempt to expose a terrorist plot and conspiracy to destroy innocent victims -because of England's involvement in the Iraq War.

The scenes of different parts of London, England are also spectacular.

Dirty War is a must see!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seeing this film brought back to me memories of 9\/11. The first thing I remember of that morning was seeing TV pictures of an airplane flying into a large building, and my immediate thoughts \"Must be a preview for a new Tom Clancy film\".

This was not a Tom Clancy film. This was certainly not a British version of \"The Sum Of All Fears\". The typical Tom Clancy film or novel has a relatively small cast, a linear plot, and usually some sort of resolution. This film had neither. Sure, what I saw directly on screen was a small cast, a plot, and a vague resolution, but, like 9\/11, the point was that reality was so much larger and more complex.

I work in systems planning, and the reality of the disaster preparation exercise, and the disaster itself, is painfully obvious. It's impossible to prepare for a disaster like this, nor will it be any more possible to deal with this when it happens.

From the argument between the police (Not enough is being done to prepare) and the politicians (Giving everybody on the tube a gasmask would cause panic), to the constant loudspeaker announcements (You are in no danger to your health, but don't go home before we decontaminate you), and (Don't eat, drink, or smoke before we decontaminate you), I was on edge during the entire film. Not the slightest urge to channel surf.

This film was 90 minutes in length. It could have been twice that, and still not shown all the possible details. Instead, it left enough unsaid to allow each of us to imagine the details, each of us in our own way. That made it so much more real to me, than any Tom Clancy film.

I lived in London once, and just off the Edgeware Road. And I took the train from Waterloo station many times. As I watched Dirty War, I kept telling myself that this is only fiction. Right now.

Allah and Jehovah willing, this film will remain fiction, and sometime in 20 or 30 years, my nephews may watch this film and remember the early 21st Century, and the panic we felt too much. Hopefully to the same degree as I feel currently, when viewing memorabilia of the Cold War with the Evil Communist Regime of the mid-20th Century, and remember \"Drop and cover\" exercises in school.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before seeing this picture I was quite skeptic, I don't like movies with an agenda nor do I appreciate being scared into thinking like the writer. I was also afraid this would be like the 2-part mini-series \"10.4\" which had a far-fetched concept, little relation to the real world and very poor execution. At the beginning is says: \"This film is fiction, but the events portrayed and the information about UK emergency planning are based on extensive research\"; and the general feeling is that you're not being sold on an idea, but that you're being taught a lesson in civil awareness. The message that is being conveyed is obvious from the start: It is coming and we're not prepared. The use of real places and a scenario which not only could happen - There are plans for when it does - all add to the disturbing effect the movie will have, on even the most cynical of viewers. The movie's perspective is that of the society and it stays away from heart-breaking personal moments, which won't convey the message, so none of the Romeo-Juliet drama we're used to.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really liked this movie. I watched it last night on the Public Broadcasting System. The part I liked about it was the fact that they dealt with issues of today not in the future or the past. They basically had some terrorists take a van or two and rent them out to be car bombs. I think what the movie could have showed was people in different countries at the same time. It did show the fact that England, or any other country, isn't prepared for an attack on the magnitude that they showed. I have never heard of any of the actors or actresses in the movie so I can't really say if they are normally their parts. After the movie, they had this panel of experts talking about if something like that could happen here in the U.S. It was a thought-provoking discussion!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was a riot, it pokes fun of \"Madonna - Truth Or Dare\" in all the right places. I love Madonna & I love Julie Brown. How could I ask for more..Julie's spoof of \"Vogue\", entitled \"Vague\" was hysterical.. \"Kelly LeBrock thinks she's great, she's just cold boogers on a paper plate\". \"Brooke Shields, Dawber, Pam personality of Spam\"!! I could've died! And just wait till you see what she can do with a watermelon!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Julie Brown hilariously demolishes Madonna's attempt at a rockumentary with gut ripping humor and truly original and catchy songs that rival Madonna's own. Cinematography and sets are top notch.

Kathy Griffin and Chris Elliott offer their own injections of comedy that enhances and compliments this film. Appearances by Bobcat Goldthwait and Wink Martindale, as themselves, is an added bonus.

It's hard to tell if Brown's performance is meant to insult or playfully tease Madonna, though I hardly think the Material Girl would find humor in it.

My Favorite line: \"Why don't you come here (to the Phillipines); all they eat is dog and I'm a vegetarian.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Medusa: Dare to be Truthful\" is an outrageously funny parody that is a fine companion to the original, \"Madonna: Truth or Dare\". Julie Brown's brilliant creation skewers Madonna's highly entertaining documentary (although it wasn't exactly daring, insightful, candid, or truthful) with a faithfulness to detail, right down to the packaging. I highly recommend this for Madonna fans, Julie Brown fans, or anyone who enjoys sharp and clever parody.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of Julie's greatest tributes to music, alongside her \"Trapped in the Body of a White Girl\" album. To quote the great Medusa \"Dare to go bare, just wear your underwear, you'll get a ride home everytime\" - Wow!!! Now that is some good advice. \"You can dance, at my party! Yeah, justify your dance shoes!.....You're invited to the party in my pants. Yeah come on boy let's dance, at the party in my pants\" Julie Brown is hilarious!!! It is almost sad that this video is only 51 minutes long, but every minute is awesome!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This parody is cleverly done: from the songs (Express Yourself becomes Expose Yourself, Like a Prayer is now Party in my Pants and Vogue is now Vague) to the fake interviews of the cast of the show, this movie is hilarious. Remember Madonna saying she didn't know about the rain season in Asia? In this one, she doesn't know about the volcano season. It is a precious jewel. They got a lot of money on that spoof, and it pays off. Highly recommended!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After all these years, I am puzzled as to why Julie Brown (West Coast) isn't a household name or a hugely famous comedic star. She is one of the funniest females on the planet. In this spoof, she takes on Madonna who is one of her favorite targets. She is Medusa, a hugely successful singer, like Madonna who also happened to have documentary \"Truth or Dare.\" Julie Brown spoofs Madonna as Medusa who came from Wisconsin, the land of dairy and beer. I remember the segment where she went to Wisconsin to visit her family and a grave. I don't remember if it was a parent or her pet. I remember somebody saying that Medusa did nothing original. She was just copying others. I have to say that I hope this spoof documentary is available on DVD somewhere. Julie Brown was at her best mocking and spoofing others.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Normally I try to avoid Barbie films, but this one was unmistakably awesome. Kudos to the graphics and character voice overs. It all flowed well. This enchanting tale is a great spin off of others, but is well worth buying! I don't have kids, but the kids I babysit, (including boys) find it intriguing and love the extra features on the DVD. I honestly don't know why this is rated so low, but for kids, especially your Barbie lovin' 8 year old will love this. Its not straight forward and predictive like most movies are. This \"childrens\" film has excellent morals and shows teamwork. It has no swearing, bits of romance (if your old enough to figure it out) and beautifully written storyline. Thats why I am giving it a ten out of ten!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My 5 year old daughter is very into the Barbie series of movies. I've had mixed feelings about that - not wanting her to buy into the whole Barbie-doll image of things, and recognizing that the movies are a marketing ploy to convince young girls to buy more dolls and make more money for Mattel. This morning though she asked me to watch this movie with her, and - it being a lazy Saturday morning and with not much else to do - I agreed. I don't know if the movies have been made to help market the dolls, which seem to be losing their appeal a bit from what I've heard or if the dolls are there to market the movies (or, more likely, a bit of both) but whichever is the case, I have to admit - somewhat to my surprise, this wasn't half bad.

It's a fun and imaginative story full of magical places and people and memorable characters (both good and evil.) Essentially, Annika (\"played\" by Barbie) has to find a way to build a \"wand of light\" to reverse the evil spells of the wizard Wenlock, who among other things has turned her sister into a flying horse and her parents into stone. The animation here was pretty good - not Disney-calibre (if one thinks of Disney as the standard to aspire to) but generally pretty good, and while the movie is obviously tailored to young girls rather than middle-aged men, I still found there were enough twists and turns to make me wonder how it was all going to turn out. It's true that there were some holes in the story, or at least some logical inconsistencies, but again one must remember the target audience, who wouldn't really think of such things. This is an all around decent family movie. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would have to say that in general Barbie Movies have impressed me. I have a 5 year old Barbie fanatic niece and she watches them all the time so needless to say I have seen quite a lot of Barbie these holidays, but I am not sick of them.

This film, visually, has a lot to offer, especially the backgrounds, and the animation of the characters has improved with each new movie. One thing I noticed in particular was a vast improvement in the animation of Barbie's hair in this film. It has a lovely range of excerpts from classical music and I think that this is great, as it exposes a new generation to the classics. This film is well worth ago, especially if you have young relievers. They will be entertained for hours!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For once a Barbie movie that is good. I'm 18 and a embarrassed to say this but I'm hooked on these movies. I hated Barbie when I was younger but the movies I love. Shiver is so cute and I've fallen in love with him. He's so cute as the polar bear and totally in love with Aiden. Oh man I'm in love with Shiver. I love Annika determination not to give up on hope and eventfully it works. I love this movie and hopefully they will be other good ones. Barbie & Swan Lake is other brilliant movie. I would recommend this movie to children of all ages (even boys) because the movie is that good and I'm hard to please. Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus is a movie that is enchanting and exciting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For a kid's movie, this is great. As an adult and mother, I enjoyed watching the movie with my daughter. There is a lot going on in this movie. The following *might* be considered a *spoiler*... Barbie learns courage and learns not to judge others so quickly in this movie. She also learns not to give up hope and to master her anger. I loved the sense of teamwork you get from watching Barbie and her sister and friends solve the puzzle. There's nothing in the movie I found offensive or inappropriate for young viewers. In fact, I felt that the moral messages of the movie were superb and well done.

The animation was pretty good. I really enjoy the ice-skating scenes and think that they were very well done. There's a lot of action in this film, so I suspect that most kids would enjoy it... not just the ones that are really into Barbie. My daughter actually picked it out because of the Pegasus. She loves horses. But she enjoyed the movie very much. My daughter is autistic, and was able to sit through the whole movie and enjoy it. She really liked the action scenes and any parts with horses involved.

One thing that I was thinking about was that many people object to Barbie (and Ken) because they are so beautiful. Yet, I think that kids, just like adults like to look at beautiful people and things. It's natural. As adults, we enjoy watching beautiful movie stars too. It's wonderful though, that the Barbie character and her \"boyfriend\" have a lot of personality. While it's fun to watch pretty people, it grows old if there is no substance behind the pretty face.

Overall, I'd say this is a great movie for kids and parents will enjoy it, too. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just want to comment to the woman above, that the movie DOES credit Beethoven in the begging. In the beginning credits they show it. Thank you. I think this is an amazing movie. They picked just the right music for the mood of the movie, the animation is wonderful, and they picked the voices for the characters very well. It teaches children to never give up, and to always have hope. Princess Annika doesn't give up , and it shows children that they can do the same. The movie also has humor in in for all ages, parents and children, to laugh at. The colors in this movie are great, and kids can really feel good while they are watching it. I watched this movie for the first time, now I am a huge fan, and I'm sure your child will be too. Walmart sells tons of Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus stuff, so your child can continue to enjoy the movie even when they aren't watching it. Thank You!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Heard about this film a long while ago and finally found it on ebay for five bucks. I wasn't expecting much but wow, was I ever surprised. It's a story of a boy and girl in love trying to escape an evil king who wants the girl for himself and takes place in a huge castle, reminds me of ICO for PS2 because some shots gave you a sense of vertigo.Sounds pretty standard but this movie is insane! It's hard to believe such an original animated feature was made in 1952. Also, the king was probably one of the creepiest character's I've seen in a long time, with a feminine walk, weird eyes (usually crossed), and a soft but scary voice. The only problem I had with the film was that the boy and girl had no personality and hardly even any lines except for calling for mr. wonderbird (A large talking green bird)to save them. The animation was fantastic in most areas but some cells were missing from some scenes which sucked. It's incredibly original with flying police and giant mechs and even laugh out loud funny at times, it's a real shame this is such an obscure title because it's really a good film. Check it out sometime.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(Review is of the original 1950's version not the restored 1980's one) In a land where the king likes no one and no one likes the king a shepherdess and a chimney sweep from two nearby paintings come to life and run off. A portrait of the king, who loves the shepherdess, kills the real king and takes his place. A huge bird, the wonderbird of the title, acts as a hero of sorts and helps out our two lovers.

This is a strange strange movie... no surreal, very very very surreal.

The style of the background is very European while the characters are Fliescher meet Warner but early arty Warner of the non major characters. They move in both realistic and cartoon like manners.

This is an odd movie and it takes a bit to get into it but Peter Ustinov as the bird is a riot, his kids and the puppy are wonderful. There are cops in rubber ducks and a bear design that makes you smile.

And there is deep philosophy in the film, about the existence of a world out there...out beyond a Metropolis subterranean city.

This is a really neat movie. There is something just so odd and unique about it that rewards you if you stay with it for the whole ride. Its not perfect but what the hell.

This is a movie to search out. If your local bargain DVD bin has the capcom version (paired with Alice in Paris) buy it. It should run you under ten bucks, probably around five and the price is absolutely worth it especially when you realize it comes with two full length cartoons, two short cartoons and several neat commercials and other fun things.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WONDERBIRD, certainly an unbelievably refined cartoon, drawn in a deliciously old\u0097fashioned way, and sensationally old\u0097fashioned in almost any respect, takes place in a kingdom ruled by a mean and heinous monarch; accordingly, the kingdom, or at least what we see\u0097the surroundings of the king's palace, seems devoid, uninhabited.

A few inhabitants there are\u0097away from the Sun\u0097in the withered underground city.

An advice\u0097call it an allegory, call it a parable, only do not call it a fable.

Because IMDb encourages prolixity, and maybe for other reasons as well, I will add that this cartoon is the work of the great Paul Grimault.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the great tragedies of life is that Disney is so very successful at everything that they do. If they were not, we might have more unique little gems of animation such as \"The Curious Adventures of Mr. Wonderbird.\" The story is that an evil king has usurped the throne of a place called Up-And-Down-Land (I could have the name wrong). He is hated by everyone. His favorite hobby is shooting birds, and at some point in the past, he presumably killed the wife of Mr. Wonderbird (a bird, played with typical flair by Peter Ustinov) leaving him with four young chicks to raise. Meanwhile, we see that another of the evil king's hobbies is painting. He has done three paintings in particular: a self portrait, a painting of a shepherdess (which he has fallen in love with), and a painting of chimney sweep (of whom he is jealous). One night, the shepherdess and the chimney sweep climb down out of their paintings and run away together. The self portrait of the king climbs down out of his frame as well, and does away with the real king (You think I'm making this up? Its the real plot) and sends the royal police force after the young lovers. Mr. Wonderbird then assists the lovers in attempting to escape the King's forces.

The plot is wonderfully surreal, and the setting Up-and-Down-Land is an incredibly imagined place, full of towering buildings accessible only by elevators. Its an equal mixture of the worlds of \"Metropolis\" and \"1984\" and the drawings of Dr. Seuss.

Watch it for a very unique viewing experience that doesn't fit the standard formula for most animated features.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just picked this up in a decent if not outstanding DVD version for one dollar at Wal Mart.

Run out and buy it.

I'm fairly sure that this version is the short, incomplete version released against the animator's wishes in the late Fifties, but even so, at a buck it's an *incredible* bargain.

This film was syndicated in small chunks as a serial to local TV stations in the early 60s for the kid's shows that almost every station ran on weekday afternoons in those days - \"Mr Bill and Bozo\", \"Monty's Gang\" (Channel 4, Greenville SC) and \"Captain Grady\" (channel 13, Asheville NC - which is where i saw it). It made such an impression on twelve-or-so-old me that i immediately recognised it when i spotted it in Wal Mart tonight and grabbed it.

Wonderful. You should get it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was surfing through IMDb one day, when I stumbled across \"The Curious Adventures of Mr. Wonderbird.\" Noticing how obscure it was, I decided to set off looking for it. Thanks to Digiview, it didn't take me long, so I bought it for a dollar, and when I got home, I watched it, although I must say, I was quite impressed.

Three of the paintings in a king's apartment, a shepherdess, a chimney sweep, and a self-portrait of the king (who is just as selfish and sadistic as the actual king himself) come to life one night while the king is sleeping. The shepherdess and the chimney sweep escape, while the painting of the king calls the police in order to capture the couple. Fortunately for the couple, Mr. Wonderbird comes in to help them, often mocking the police and the king.

The back of the DVD case describes this film as \"a surreal visual delight and an underrated entry in the history of classic animation.\" I couldn't agree more with it, considering that much of the backgrounds look rather bizarre, and many of the characters are weird, which include the depressed citizens of an underground city and hungry lions that are calmed by the music of a blind man (who kind of looks like Andy Warhol), not to mention Mr. Wonderbird himself is somewhat eccentric. The film is very creative and mostly fun to watch, and its only flaw is that it can be slow moving. But overall, this film was very good, and it comes recommended by yours truly.

Grade: B+ (Awesome)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw 'Begotten' last night, and I'm of two minds on the film.

On one hand, I appreciate it for being the total invert of a Michael Bay film. No dialogue, extremely stylized grainy B&W photography, some of the most genuinely horrific imagery ever set to film, and a very compelling use of sound (which nobody else seems to have really picked up on yet). It's a reflection on a theme, and it dares go where most filmmakers do not not only in terms of images, but of production and concept. It's a movie that most people don't understand, and if you read through these comments you'll find a lot of people whose lack of ability to figure this film out results in them shrieking about 'pretentiousness' with the fervor of a gibbon rattling the bars of its cage at feeding time. It genuinely shocked and disturbed me, and the last time a film managed to do that was a while ago.

On the other, this is a thirty-minute short that sprawls out to over an hour and a half. I understand that there might be artistic merit in using repetition and monolithic pacing as a bludgeon, but in this case it just doesn't help everything hang together. Imagine being approached by a ragged man on the street who grabys you by the shoulders and says something that completely confounds the core of your being... but then, instead of leaving your shattered and gibbering in his wake, he just keeps talking and talking and talking. By the end of the movie, I found myself glancing at my watch now and again.

This is not entertainment, people. This is disentertainment. This is how you deprogram people who just watched \"Glitter.\" If you watch movies to be entertained, this will frustrate, confound, and possibly anger you. You don't approach 'Begotten' like a chocolate cake you want to eat because it tastes good. You approach it like something on the menu you have never heard of before, something you see furtive glances of through the kitchen door, something that's dark and glistens and twitches on its platter; something you order not because it will taste good, but because you just have to know what it's like.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't watch this film while, or soon after, eating.

Having said that, Begotten will stick with you for the rest of your life, like it or not. Based on the nihilistic philosophy that life is nothing more than man spasming above ground (to paraphrase the title sequence\/introduction), this will more than likely contain the most intense and grisly imagery you'll ever see in a film.

There is no dialogue, only image after image describing the cycle of life. The film's combination of stark black and white photography compounded with some truly creepy background sounds work to drive home the maker's message.

The movie begins with God (portrayed as a bandaged and obviously insane man) slicing open his torso with a straight razor and subsequently dying in his own filth. After his death, Mother Nature emerges from his corpse to impregnate herself with his blood and semen and gives birth to Man, represented by a maggot of a human convulsing on the earth.

The landscape is a barren waste, populated by hulking shrouded humanoids who eventually happen upon Mother Nature and Man. After a slew of violent scenes depicting the rape of Nature and destruction of Man, these humanoids proceed to pound the remains of the corpses back into the ground, and the cycle of life begins anew.

I actually rented this from Blockbuster one night, based on the cover art and hype content, but this is definitely not a Blockbuster-type film. Don't expect narrative, dialogue or any pulled punches. This is intense imagery based on a dark subject.

I give this movie some high marks for the filmwork and audio, but I don't think I'll be watching it too often, if again. I like my movies dark and unique, but this one is exponentially more than I expected.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The visual effectiveness of this film is unmatched by anything I've seen. And the work required to make achieve it must have been incredibly long and tedious (you don't just stick \"Kodak Grainy Film\" in your camera to get this look). Don't watch this film to be entertained, watch it to be visually stimulated, watch it to be challenged and provoked in your thoughts on film and any other topic that comes to mind, religion will likely be one thought.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first heard of Begotten when a girlfriend of mine picked it up in a \"cult classics\" section of my local video retailer. She knew I liked obscure artsy movies so I rented it and brought it home. It sat on my TV for a couple of days and then I put it in the VCR just before going to bed. I thought that maybe I'll see what it's like first then devote more time to it the next day. What followed was that it actually woke me up. I sat through the entire film and loved it. After I went through the closing credits I watched it again. Only after you see the closing credits do you get an idea of who is who. After you know that you can watch it again with renewed appreciation. Don't listen to the people that tear this movie apart. It's not for everyone. If you're someone that doesn't like reading subtitles than this movie isn't for you (not that there are subtitles, there's no dialog at all). If you're someone that actually owns Rush Hour 2 then this movie isn't for you.

This movie is truly original and inspiring. It does what other movies have never done. It looks like nothing else and is bolder than just about everything out there - from 1989 to the current date. You can tell that everyone involved in the making of this movie truly love the art of what they do and understand what can be captured in cinema form.

If you're looking to be \"entertained\" then the movie isn't for you. However, it is pure escapism in some extreme way and in film form. It's like someone attached wires to my head and taped one of my worst nightmares. But this nightmare makes sense if you really sit and watch the images, dissect the action of the actors, and don't sit there noodling your guitar passively but watch and not blink.

People compare it to Eraserhead but Begotten is so much more. I'm not joking when I say it is my favorite movie. It's an important film, visually stimulating, mechanically inspiring, and hypnotic. One review I read about it is very true though, \"no one will get through Begotten without being marked.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even though it doesn't really matter to the film, this is a Creation myth. God (a convulsing, bloody figure in a chair) cuts his organs out with a straight razor and dies in His own filth. Mother Earth rises from his corpse and impregnates herself with his seed, giving birth to Man. It is, however highly unlikely for you to figure any of this out without reading a synopsis first, and it's not especially important to the film that you do, as it's more a surrealistic art-house imagery thing, all in inky, processed black and white. A sick, bleak atmosphere is created with the stark photography and minimal sounds (mostly water dripping, groans, scrapes, etc.) but each scene goes on a bit too long and so does the film as a whole. This could've been great as a short film, and the God killing himself scene was excellent and extremely creepy, especially being the first thing you see, but it's hard to be patient when it goes on for so long and you don't even know what you're seeing for much of the time.

Still, a good film for the original style, images, atmosphere and content.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"E. Elias Merhige's existentialist experiment in the enduring is definitely one hell of a boring watch. This is like something Alexander de Large was forced to watch in \"A Clockwork Orange.\" But, despite just how unwatchable this film really is, it is a success.

If you are reading this and have not already seen the film, then it is too late. For me, at least, the payoff (after 3 separate viewings with lots of break in between mind you) was seeing the list of characters *after* the story was told. That's when the simple message hit home. But i wonder if Merhige could have told a 5 minutes story in about 30, instead of 78.

However, seeing as how the cast of credits is displayed prominently on the front page for this movie, the cat is already out of the bag and you surely will only appreciate this film if you appreciate existentialist film making from the early 20th century. Even then, you might puke.

4\/10 (but i commend Merhige for crafted a piece of art, even if it is unwatchable)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I want to preface this review by saying that I have no idea what \"Begotten\" is truly about. All I really know is that in the beginning God kills himself, in turn birthing Mother Earth, who proceeds to impregnate herself with God's semen. She then births a son. The rest is pretty subjective, and you have to interpret it in your own way.

How I chose to interpret the film was this; God killing himself signified the start of the scientific revolution, when people started questioning the doctrines imposed by the church, like the geocentric view of the universe and etc. Mother Earth symbolized people starting to think for themselves and reject the church's \"it happens like this because God says so\" views. The Tribal people were the church lashing back at them, trying to force Christianity down their throats. I'm not exactly sure how Son Of Earth fits into all of this. Mother Earth and the Tribal people seemed to be fighting over him, so maybe he represents the freedom of people or something to that effect.

I have no idea what the final parts of this movie are supposed to mean. Bludgeoning, raping, then dismembering Mother Earth and Son Of Earth and grinding them into the ground like a mortar and pestle could mean anything, but that is where the fun of this film lies; You can interpret it any way you want. There doesn't have to be a definitive meaning to it, you can let your mind wander. Sometimes you don't even know what you are supposed to be looking at because it is shot in a weird angle or it is too fuzzy.

The only thing that disappointed me was that I was expecting a truly terrifying film. I was going into it thinking I was going to get a phone call immediately afterward with a foreboding \"seven days\" warning. What I got was pleasantly different. It was not scary at all, but it stirred my imagination. Trying to decipher the movie's cryptic message was a creative challenge. There were many scenes that were in fact beautiful. Mother Earth just after she was born and the final shot of the forest path come to mind.

So overall I would have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It is certainly the most abstract movie I've ever seen, but that's not a bad thing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"E. Elias Merhige's Begotten is a one of a kind, surreal depiction of the mankind's treatment of religion. There are a couple of different ways you can interpret things, but the plot itself is simple: A god disembowels himself, and out of his corpse springs mother earth. Mother Earth then felates the god's corpse post-mortem, and then impregnates herself with what remains of his seed. Following this, she gives birth to a messiah figure who quivers, presumably in infancy, but possibly with terror at being brought to life on earth. This all takes place in the first 15-30 minutes, and after that, the rest of the film consists of robed figures dragging the messiah (who is incessantly quivering, or seizing) across a desert landscape. The robed figures pause only to brutalize the messiah, then continue to drag him around.

There are a couple of ways to interpret this, depending on your level of optimism and your world view. It can easily be interpreted as a bleak nihilistic atheist allegory about the total lack of apparent power that Christian \"deities\" can be perceived as having in a modern society that only invokes their names to advance its own selfish goals. Or you can interpret it as a postmodern pro-Christian allegory, in which you view the film as being about how mankind has twisted Christ's message around so much that it's original purity and innocence can no longer have relevance in a world where that message and image are inappropriately used to endorse everything from interpersonal violence, to war, to totalitarianism.

The visuals of this film are phenomenal, and you will not see anything like it, period. If you can, watch the original VHS release, I recommend it. I'm not sure if the visuals are changed on the DVD, but I have seen clips of this streaming on you tube and the effects are seriously diminished. On the VHS version, Merhige achieved TOTAL BINARY CONTRAST. Meaning, there basically aren't any mid-tones except for some grain in some of the shots. Other than that, this film offers the rare opportunity to see PURE white and PURE black, and the result is stunning, hallucinatory, and quite unsettling. This film makes Film Noir look positively washed out and mediocre. The shots fade into each other in a surreal manner that recalls Un Chien Andalou without completely aping it, for an effect that has been called a filmic Rorschach test.

That being said, the film can certainly try a viewer's patience and commitment. There isn't any dialogue for starters. The only sound throughout the film is a fairly constant loop of crickets chirping, peppered occasionally with the gurgling and death rattles of the dying deities, and an amelodic droning synthesizer texture. Personally, I find that the film is best enjoyed listening to experimental industrial music like the instrumental NIN remixes from the Downward Spiral era, more abstract noise\/experimental music like F*ck Buttons and Odd Nosdam. It also works quite well with apocalyptic black metal. Basically any music with extreme textures and\/or hypnotic rhythms. That's one of the most amazing and versatile aspects of this film, it is PRIME for postmodern re-contextualization, like projecting it during a performance of avant-garde music, or composing avant-garde music to accompany it.

Once the messiah figure is born, there really isn't much change for the rest of the film, meaning that you are basically sitting through at least 45 minutes or more of the messiah figure being drug around the desert and beaten. It looks bleakly beautiful, but there isn't really anything new unfolding. It helps to cement the filmmakers intentions of communicating that for thousands of years now people have been using Christ's name and image for personal benefits, but can be tiresome to a casual viewer or someone with a short attention span. Basically, if you are looking for a modern horror film with suspense, look elsewhere. If you are looking for a unique film experience, and you aren't particularly fond of mainstream Hollywood cinema, this could be your quivering messiah.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Begotten is certainly an experience, and a out of the ordinary experience at that. The use of colour is fascinating and at times, frustrating. A LOT of what happens on screen is incredibly difficult to make out. Your view is either obscured by a sudden bizarre change in colour and tone, characters in the way and random cuts to the sky. The sound is very haunting and a welcome addition. It really aids the nihilistic and hopeless tone that smothers this film.

As for what Begotten is about, the \"rape of the environment and rebirth\" theory feels pretty accurate to me. But I wouldn't spend a lot of time focusing on the meaning, it's virtually unimportant. It's clear the director didn't want to explain anything. He simply presents it as it is, and if you want to search for a meaning that's up to you.

Watching Begotten is definitely not a walk in the park, but I was captivated from the opening. It really is like watching a person's worst nightmare. What we see is at times distressing and very unpleasant, but there is a surreal dreamlike beauty in there. If you're an art-house\/experimental fan and you haven't yet seen Begotten, make it a priority. I doubt you will ever forget it. I sure know that I won't.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Begotten.The magic.The Terror.The slight boredom.

That \"Begotten\" is for acquired tastes goes without saying,you don't just happen to watch it unless your friends are real art-house movie buffs.You must dig the weird,the macabre,the bizarre.You must dig cool flicks.And you must dig to find diamonds.

\"Begotten\" is one of the most visually dazzling and mystifying films ever known to man.The visual part is something to behold,something no one can prepare you for.But since the film is devoid of any type of dialogue,the visual part is pretty much the only part....\"Begotten\" is a visual film.The soundscapes created for the film are magical and groundbreaking but still....the sight of it....

God commits suicide in a particularly gory scene then from his corpse rises Mother Earth who impregnates herself with God's semen and gives birth to Flesh on Bone,a retarded child.She then abandons him,and he gets tortured by heathen-like creatures.Mother comes back (to save him?) but she and her son get murdered by the horrible creatures.

The film is about the meaninglessness of life,and about the fact that we come to this planet to suffer and to die,and that when something dies something else is born etc.Nihilism.

The film's no.1 quality is of course the visuals,the setting,those haunting images,this other-worldly quality....After you're done watching,you feel like an alien.It's THAT mesmerizing.

When people say it should last 30' instead of 70' they're right.No they're not,it could last 40'.It's just that everything happens to such a slow pace.In fact,the plot summary I provided is all that happens in the film,like no kidding.Still,it's....I don't know....Glorious...

...Like a flame burning away the darkness...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A warning to potential viewers of this experimental film: the nature of the imagery and the effects are such that this is one of those types of films that should really be seen ON film, projected. The pixellation created by digital transfers sucks a lot of depth and adds a lot of noise to already abstract and grainy film. However, since this movie is pretty much unavailable in any format, I suppose you'll have to make do with what you can.

Anyway, this most excellent artistic endeavor comes courtesy of the guy who would eventually give us Shadow of the Vampire. It's a dark and dirty film of the genesis of the elements (as far as I can glean from the character names) through a process horrifying and surreal. Begotten is a very good example of what is known as abject art, a stylistic approach that seeks meaning through the visceral more than the thematic.

And visceral describes it. Not very much stuff happens in the movie technically, but the levels of emotion it'll put you through are innumerable. The very repetitiveness of some of the imagery creates a mesmerizing catch over the senses. The sound editing and score in particular are immaculate, and serve the imagery incredibly well.

Fans of this film would do well to check out the collections of short films released through Other Cinema DVD, Experiments in Terror I, II, and III. Movies such as these make me more and more certain that the realm of true horror resides in the abstract, abject, and non-narrative, rather than in spooky tales of ghosts and axe-murderers.

--PolarisDiB","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There have been many (well, more than a few in any case) attempts over the past 30 years to create film that has an \"otherworldly\" appearance. Supposing that this is a Film Director's wish to distance himself from other movies, or simply to gloss over the low-budget and shabby look, \"Begotten\" is on the top echelon of this pile.

Apart from the peerless \"Eraserhead\", anyway.

Merhige's painstaking process of artificially degrading his film changes it's structure completely (imagine what this film would have looked like in glorious, standard Technicolour) - It can almost be envisaged as an artifact from another, unknown culture. Some images are so far removed from what we expect to see on the screen, they disturb mainly as they are dislocated. This is not \"Last House On The Left\" disturbance, more like leaving-your-cave-for-the-first-time-and-seeing-the-sun disturbance.

Watch this Fever-Dream if you get the chance, and relish. Remember, they make other, more standard films every day. They can wait.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is not a story. It's a bunch of psychic needles reaching for your subconscious. If you wait for a story you'll be bored. But if you give yourself over to it you'll be inside it's dreamworld within 10 minutes. The vague but disturbing images of pain and torture in a desolate landscape leave room for your own fantasies. The strange soundtrack that gives you the feeling of isolation, the visual echoes of the crucifixion of Christ, the pulsating light and deep dark shadows, they all reach to your subconscious to fill in this mind-space. I found myself trembling and unable to escape in front of my television. It was like dreaming with eyes wide open. A strange nightmare, a bad trip, a religious experience... it touched me deep inside and marked me for live. It freed my mind and gave me one of that rare experiences of loss of personality, and merging with the world of archetypes. A little freedom for the soul. A violent freedom however.... Not a nice movie, but a very strong and unforgettable one. Literally my text has no spoilers. For me the great surprise of this film was the unbelievable intensity of it, and describing this can be understood as a spoiler. The less you know about this film as you watch it, the better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"God cuts himself with a straight razor, afterwards, he gives birth to mother earth, which then gives birth through gods semen, son of earth.

This is a one and a half-an-hour movie that sort of depicts a dark version of how god created the world. Its surreal, dark and poetic. The most important aspect of the film to me is the visuals. Its shot in a very grainy black and white film, using both slow-motion and normal shooting. Sometimes even fast film and stop-motion. The scenes are long and dragged out, that sets a very weird mood. No sounds were recorded when filming (i think), sound effects were added afterwards, such as criccets, water and other ambient sounds, repeated over and over. As you might understand this movie is certainly not for the impatient person...

I often felt it was similar to David Lynch's Eraserhead, only this one is even harder to understand, and even more dragged out, but that's okay for me, I like that kind of stuff. Its certainly not entertainment (at least not the Hollywood kind) so if your going to check it out, i recommend you set yourself up for it. Be open minded, and except something like the end of 2001: a space odyssey.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sui generis. Folks, I'm not going to lie to you; Merhige is a one or two hit wonder, but what a film (it almost excuses SUSPECT ZERO). I'm also not going to pretend to understand it completely; half of what makes it what it is is trying to second guess what the hell they are doing on the screen because of the chiaroscuro.

Richard Corliss says, \"It is as if a druidical cult had re-enacted, for real, three Bible stories -- creation, the Nativity and Jesus' torture and death on Golgotha.\" That's not a bad description, but there seems to be more to it than the seemingly one-to-one religious correspondences.

There's an environmental theme right up near the surface -- note that toward the end (after the barrenness of the landscape) there are large pipes not unlike those on a construction site. Oh no, he's going to say look at how people are raping mother nature. One rarely sees a dead metaphor in action, and with this much hyperbole, but to see it acted out is way grislier than language implies.

And yeah, if you just want something to sync with a death metal soundtrack, it does have the requisite atrocities. But as for myself and others like me, it's an important art film that should merit a Criterion collection release. Ranks right up there with Murnau's FAUST.

~ Ray","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What this movie is not: Cool, Entertaining

What this movie is: Visually Interesting, Difficult to get through, Intentional

I feel that this movie puts the viewer (if he or she is willing) through a clip of time where they experience a world without language. Much like how animals must experience the world. You don't really watch this movie as much as you witness an awful series of events in what \"feels\" like real time.

Consistently, it goes on much longer than is comfortable. This movie could be edited down to a 20 minute short and it would be a totally different movie. It would be cool and entertaining, but the experience would be lost. I have seen a lot of cool movies, but I have never experienced one like this. If you can get your head in the right place for this one, you should be able to really appreciate (but likely not \"enjoy\") what they accomplished here. 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This kind of angst can only be inside a young person who seeks very seriously his religion and his place in this world. As the text in the beginning of the movie says, these pictures are dead: They are the past already, and have been right from the moment when the product was ready. But that is only for the maker of these \"products\": Maybe to somebody, who is in the same frame of mind (I think very many people, at least of those who are seriously interested in religion, go through the same terrible angsts and doubts in their personal development). And that, of course, is the reason that art is made in the first place: Identification and consolation amongst fellow human beings.

This film uses very well the \"classic\" technics of the experimental cinema. And this is where those technics are to my opinion in the best possible use: As an instrument in telling stories and creating atmosphere to them, not just as a pure abstractions or as an end in themselfes. Those \"tricks\" have already been made many enough times. Some other movies that I imagine have influenced\/inspired this director, are \"Eraserhead\" and \"Nosferatu\". It's interesting how these technics make this movie totally timeless: There is nothing contemporary in this movie. Or nothing from any other specific time either. It could have been made a thousand years ago.

It is interesting in this story how these people treat this new born holy child: They use it selfishly in their own purposes, and don't even try to listen to him. They beat him, rip off his intestines and castrate him. They drag his (living) body forcibly from place to place. And they do the same kind of violence to his mother. The story also reminds me of the Borges' short story \"El informe de Brodie\". Also the critique towards the practices of the Christian institutions reminds me of the great \"El Topo\".

Unpleasant watch at times, but beautiful. Very simple, thought and concentrated. Very strong movie, almost too strong. The whole human energy has been concentrated to this. Also this movie shows that when you have the passion and ideas, you can make a movie with a round zero budget.

But I have to admit, it was a bit hard to watch for a \"contemporary\" viewer like myself, because of the experimentality. It was so slow and demanding. But after all, worth the suffering. I have to give ten points just for the effort that somebody makes this kind of movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely like this film a lot. It is not very entertaining, but it's a feast of bizarre and stunning images! There's no dialog ,only some background sounds and noises. If you are into something completely different and original, and enjoy the obscure and bizarre...then you might like this work of art. Ik looks like a film made with the very first camera ever made ,in a time where strange human-like beings live and perform their bizarre habits. God has killed himself with a razor and gave birth to Mother earth. Mother earth impregnated herself with God's semen after an act of fellatio, and gives birth to a son \"Flesh on Bone\". What follows are inhuman acts of ritualistic torture, rape and murder for purposes we do not know....or do we?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"not really sure what to make of this movie. very weird, very artsy. not the kind of movie you watch because it has a compelling plot or characters. more like the kind of movie that you can't stop watching because of the horrifically fascinating things happening on screen. although, the first time my wife watched this she couldn't make it all the way through... too disturbing for her. runs a bit long, but nonetheless a worthwhile viewing for those interested in very dark movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, this is an art film and a good one at that. I loved the presentation and way it was shot. Very cool. Certain scenes were some of the more graphic horror sequences I've ever seen. This film did scare me, not because of suspense or shock, but because I was deathly afraid that I'd soon see something REALLY appalling. That did happen in a few places, but mostly at the beginning. This film also dragged and the 74 minutes seemed long. However, if you're into film you have to see this. To date, I've seen nothing like it. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anyone who correctly identifies the opening images as God killing himself without reading the end credits certainly deserves a free ticket to a rest home in Transylvania. I would imagine this as being a favorite movie at \"Twin Peaks\" dark lodge on movie night if time existed there. I would think that a better title might have been, \"How much fun can you have with someone who's almost dead in the forest with only neolithic technology?\" The answer, it would seem, is quite a bit. So, despite the silly \"God Killing Himself,\" the uber-pretentiousness (an apt phrase taken from a previous letter), the more clearly \"Alistair Crowley - Hi, I'm the Beast, deal with it!\" than Christian cosmology (I can't believe another viewer had the thick-headedness to see the Judeo-Christian Bible in this)... despite all of that... this is a daring, important work that most people should not see. I am both impressed and creeped out that it was made at all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved it, it was really gruesome and disgusting. I thought that the tearing of the human flesh was thoroughly provacative. the way that it was depicting the human crucifix about Jesus Christ was really interesting. The tearing about limbs and jaws was awesome brutally gruesome. Don't watch this if you have a weak heart, you wouldn't be able to stand it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Begotten is one of the most unique films I've ever seen. It is more, to me, a study of sound, light and dark, and movement than a real story. The type of thing you see as a video instillation at the museum of modern art than a film enjoyed at the local theater. I'm not going to try to interpret the images of the mother nature, the beasts in cloaks, the twisted and tortured body of her \"child\". Some things just defy interpretation.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Begotten is black and white distorted images. It looks like it could have come from the nineteenth century. However, the sound is crystal clear, minus the sync and the addition of calm nature sounds.

This movie was very critical of the struggles of life. It shows a single mother and child in a violent world that thrives on the innocent. The mother is very oblivious to her surroundings. This leads to lots of torture, pain, and death. You may watch it many times and see different symbolisms, plot devices, and basically \"what does it mean?\".

If you appreciate art in movies then you will love it. Otherwise, don't bother.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thank God for the Internet Movie Database!!! When I first got this movie I watched it every night just before before bed and was getting something different out of it every time. But no matter how I sliced it, it came up disturbing. The black and white and all the twitching really freaked me. You stare at the screen unsure of what you are looking at, and just when you think you got it, it becomes clear and it's something completely different. The imagery is VERY disturbing, twitching and straight razors do not sit well with me in any movie. Still everytime I watched it, I was interpreting it somewhat differently (there is no dialogue, ya know), so I decided to check the IMdB for the plot summary. Boy that throws me for a loop, I had no idea that was supposed to be God. Now I'm going to watch it with this in mind and see what happens....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"if you are dating a girl that is into wicca!

many parts of this movie were killer and the feeling you get from this movie while watching it and immediately after is enough alone to sit through it all but some things really bothered me about this film that i cant really put my finger on...

i definitely think that this movie is one that any art student or photography student should see b\/c of the camera style and graininess that ive never seen but that is just it...it looks like an art student made it and the plot if there is any is so jumpy that you really need to be on a lot of drugs to get just what is going on","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has to be one of the most beautifully morbid films I have ever seen. Merhige has created a living painting that unfolds with horrific violence, sex, and a minimalist retelling of the life of Jesus Christ. The high contrast and thick layer of grain make you question yourself as to what you are really seeing at times, but the use of texture, combined with the extreme contrast, create an incredible viewing experience. This film is not for everyone. I think you have to keep an open mind and not be so quick to condemn this film for its content, which if extremely rough, but does make a fairly important statement about creation, god and humanity. Whether this film is a work of art, or shock value trash is open to discussion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the pleasure of seeing Saltimbanco live before seeing the video version of the show. While nothing can compare to actually being there, the people behind the video did an amazing job of capturing the flavor, the feel, the sensation and so much more. The wonderful performances of Saltimbanco's stunningly amazing troupe are beautifully captured throughout. The video flows as smoothly and artfully as the production itself. A wonderful experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I purchased this video on VCR tape in a good-will store for US 50 cents. I have taken quite a few videos I purchased back for them to sell to others after I viewed them considering the 50 cent cost as a rental. This is the only one that will never go back. It is an explosion of artistic talent, color and sound. I don't know if I should calls it circus, dance, or both. It is bigger than life itself. They will only be able to do this well for just a few brief years in their life. These are the performers for the performers. If Gene Kelly and Burt Lancaster were alive today and saw them live they would be awe-struck. I would lend it to others to watch but I know if I do that I will never get it back.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This performance leaves you with no wishes. We saw it in Offenbach, Germany, and it is breathtaking. We only got the cheap tickets at the far back but still had a view over everything that happened. If you ever get the chance to see this live then GO! It is worth the trip and if I were you I would wait a good half an hour after the show to 'cool down'. The performances are breathtaking and all around the tent there are colourfully dressed performers that are there to distract, help, smile and generally make the whole tent come alive. The music - live music!! - is as good as the CD-version: perfect! I bought a DVD later but the show that was filmed had less colourful costumes. It's the atmosphere in the tent that sweeps you from your feet. A great trip for old and young, and a great film, too","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow, don't watch this thinking it's going to be a relaxing circus evening! It will keep you on the edge of your seat all the way through. Circus has never been more colourful, more exciting and more breathtaking! The whole concept is truely amazing. You're taken into the world of Cirque Du Soleil and are left with a thousand thoughts when you leave. There's only one thing left to do: get the CD and\/or DVD and live through it again and again and again. Get addicted! It's well worth it! Must be next to the most beautiful thing on earth and one of Cirque Du Soleil's best programmes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fascinating and amusingly bad, Lights of New York is the first all talkie feature and one that almost never saw the light of day.

Two naive barbers (Eddie and Gene) from out of town get involved with bootleggers and end up fronting a speak. When a cop is shot by one of the bootleggers the police start to close in, and the Hawk (who shot the officer) decides to pin the murder on Eddie instructing his henchman to \"take him for a ride\". But it's the Hawk himself who takes the bullet in a twist that will surprise few.

Shot in one week at a cost of $23,000, \"Lights\" was originally meant as a two reeler but Foy took advantage of Jack Warner's absence to extend it to six. When Warner discovered this he ordered Foy to cut it back to the original short. Only when an independent exhibitor offered $25k for the film, did Warners actually look at the film, which went on to make a staggering $1.3 million.

Seen now this is an extremely hokey piece, with acting that ranges from the passable (Eugene Pallette) to trance like (Eddie's Granny in a particularly risible scene) and much of the playing is at the level of vaudeville. Since it's an early talkie (4 part-talkies preceded it) that's about all the characters do, and very slowly at that. The script feels improvised, visual style is non existent (apart from the shooting scene done in silhouette) and scenes grind on interminably. Title cards are intercut which redundantly announce characters and locales.

Despite all this \"Lights\" is a compelling experience, as we watch actors and crew struggling with the alien technology, and changing cinema for ever.

Catch it if you can","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"LIGHTS OF NEW YORK was the first \"all-taking\" feature film, coming in at a brisk 57 minutes and directed by Bryan Foy (of the famous vaudeville family).

The story has two dopey barbers (Cullen Landis, Eugene Palette) yearning for a chance at \"big city life\" and getting involved with gangsters and bootleg booze. One of the guys gets framed for the murder of a cop but is saved at the last minute by a gun moll (Gladys Brockwell).

Much of the story takes place in a night club called The Night Hawk, which is run by a crook named Hawk (Wheeler Oakman) who has his eye on a pretty chorine (Helene Costello) who is the girl friend of Landis. Costello gets to do a brief dance, and we hear Harry Downing (made up to resemble Ted Lewis) sing \"At Dawning) in his best Al Jolson style.

The acting ranges from good (Palette and Brockwell) to awful (Oakman). A couple of the actors muff their lines but then keep right on with the scene. As noted elsewhere this was intended to be a short 2-reeler and was made on a shoestring budget. Yet the sound quality is surprisingly good, the voices all register clearly, and there is a neat cinematic touch in the silhouette death.

The film was a box-office smash even though it was shown as a silent film where theaters were not wired for the new sound technology. No one expected this little film to gross an amazing $1.3 million. It briefly made stars of Costello and Landis and certainly launched Palette on his long career as a star character actor.

Co-stars include Mary Carr as the mother, Robert Elliott as the detective, Eddie Kane as the street cop, and Tom Dugan as a thug.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lights of New York was the first all-talking feature film. There had been, of course, The Jazz Singer, released in Oct. 1927 as the first feature film incorporating synchronized dialog. However, this film released in July 1928 is virtually unremembered for its place in film history. It had started out as a short, but gradually more was tacked on until - clocking in at 58 minutes - it accidentally became the first all-talking feature film. It opened to a grind house run and to Warner Bros. surprise, made over a million dollars. That was good money back in 1928.

The plot is quite simple. Two country barbers naively buy into a barber shop on Broadway that fronts as a speak-easy for \"The Hawk\", a gangster. When they learn the truth they can't afford to get out, because the younger barber, Eddie, has all of his mother's money tied up in the place. Kitty is the younger barber's girlfriend, and gangster Hawk (Wheeler Oakman) has an eye for turning in his older girlfriend (Gladys Brockwell) for a newer model - chorus girl Kitty(Helene Costello). A cop is killed while trying to stop the Hawk's men from unloading a shipment of bootleg liquor, and the Hawk sees it as an opportunity to frame Eddie, thus getting Kitty for himself.

This early talkie is loads of fun for the enthusiast of these pioneering works. Sure, the plot is elementary and the dialog stilted, but there is something you don't see much of in early talkies - background musical scoring. Vitaphone had originally been used for this very purpose, and here they are still using it for musical accompaniment along with the dialog. And there are singing and dancing numbers! The scenes in Hawk's nightclub are used as an opportunity to show off what films could never do before - musical numbers. There is even a wild-eyed emcee with some heavy makeup left over from the silent era that is a hoot to watch.

Vitaphone could not go outdoors at this point due to the static camera booths, so the scene in the park between the two lovers Eddie and Kitty is simulated - and cheaply. The greenery looks like something out of an Ed Wood movie or perhaps a high school production of \"Our Town\".

Gladys Brockwell, as the Hawk's castoff girlfriend, delivers her lines with punch. She's a real trooper considering what lines she has to deliver. To the Hawk - \"So you think you can have any chicken you want and throw me back in the deck!\". Huh? mixed metaphors anyone? And then there are her final lines \"I've lived, and I've loved, and I've lost!\" Did someone get paid to write this dialog? Brockwell was making a good success of her talkie career after scoring some triumphs in silent films (the evil sister in \"Seventh Heaven\"), when a fatal car accident cut her career short.

Then there is Eugene Palette - the older of the two barbers in our story. His frog voice, natural delivery of lines, and cuddly appearance gave him a long career as a character actor usually appearing as a put-upon family man\/businessman with a gruff exterior and heart of gold. In fact, Mr. Palette is the only member of this cast who still has a notable career in films just three years after this movie is released.

Finally there is the question of \"where is that microphone hidden?\" Microphones were still stationary at this point, and it's fun to figure out where they've hidden it. There is one famous scene, though, where everybody can pretty much figure it out. Hawk is in his office talking to his two henchman - who seem to comprehend as slowly as they talk - about \"taking Eddie for a ride\". If you watch this scene you'd swear the phone on the desk is a character in this film. It's front and center during the whole conversation. The microphone is likely planted in the phone.

There is something heroic about these pioneers flying blind in the face of the new technology of sound. You have silent actors who are accustomed to using pantomime for expression, vaudevillians who know how to play to a live audience but don't know how to make the same impression on a Vitaphone camera booth, and you have dialog writers either trying to write conversation as compactly as they did title cards or filling up films with endless chatter.

Check this one out. It is not boring, moves fast, and is loads of fun if you know what to look for. And no, I don't expect this one to ever be out on Blu-Ray, but I hope that the folks at Warner Brothers add it to the Warner Archive soon so everyone can see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Lights of New York\" originally started out as an experimental two reel Vitaphone short that eventually snowballed into the first all talkie feature film. Helene Costelle was supposedly one of the most beautiful actresses in Hollywood and sister to (in my opinion the real beauty) Dolores Costello, who seemed to get all the breaks. Poor Helene is best known for appearing in this pretty dreary film that bought a revolution to Hollywood!!

Two bootleggers on the lam in \"Main Street\" convince a couple of small town barbers to try their luck on Broadway. The barbers Eddie (Cullen Landis) and Gene (Eugene Palette) don't realise that their barber shop is soon a cover for illegal bootlegging activities. They soon do realise it and regret the day they left their small town. The only thing keeping them going is the loan that Eddie's mother gave them and that they desperately want to pay back. Eddie becomes re-acquainted with Kitty Lewis (Helene Costello) a girl from his home town who has made good on Broadway. Kitty is worried about \"Hawk\" Miller (Wheeler Oakman) who is always hanging around her but Eddie, innocently, thinks she is exaggerating as \"Hawk\" already has a girlfriend Molly (Gladys Brockwell) but to reassure her he gives her a little handgun to frighten unwanted admirers away. \"Hawk\", who has killed a police officer and has the \"Feds\" closing in, decides to frame Eddie. Meanwhile Molly is getting pretty fed up with \"Hawks\" treatment of her and after a showdown where he tells her he is after a chicken and not an old hen the stage is set for - Murder!!!

The fact is it isn't completely awful, apart from gangsters and showgirls alike speaking in their best elocution voices and that was still happening in films in 1930. Gladys Brockwell (if a trifle melodramatic) and Eugene Palette (quite natural) were okay and were the most seasoned actors in the cast. There was no John or Ethel Barrymore to be seen - Cullen Landis and Helene Costello soon returned to the obscurity from which they had come. I also didn't notice much of the \"hidden mike\" - where people had to be grouped around different objects ie a telephone or sitting on a couch before they could engage in conversation. People who saw it at the cinema probably started to think that all policeman talked in that flat monotone as that trend continued in many early talkies ie \"Little Caesar\" (1930). In any case they were probably intrigued by the novelty of a completely all talkie - with some singing and dancing - film in 1928.

Recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an important historical film since it was the the first all-talking feature film.

The film was made for a mere 23,000 dollars.

It grossed over a million dollars upon its release.

This film all so helped define the gangster melodramas that were to become the bread and butter of the Warner's studio in the 1930's.

The popularity of this film ended the silent era more so than its more famous part-talkie predecessor, the Jazz Singer. The film deserves its place in history and not as a mere footnote.

The only actor who might be remember today that is in it was Eugene Palette.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As far as I know this was my first experience with Icelandic movies. It's such a relief to see something else than your regular Hollywood motion picture. Too bad that movies like this one have a small chance of succeeding in the big world. I can only hope that people watch this by accident, by recommendation or other...

Because it's really worth while. I left the cinema feeling really sad. I couldn't get the tragic destiny's of the characters out of my head. And it impressed me even more when I thought of the complexity of the film. Not only was it a tragic story, it had excellent comic reliefs and a very good soundtrack.

If you have the opportunity, watch it! It's really thought provoking and made me ponder a lot.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is the best film i have seen in the last 5 years. Surely, it will be in the same row with such masterpieces as The Platoon, Apocalypse Now, The Doors, The Dog's Heart (Russian film). Really, the play of the boy and his parents is so good that you can't even say that they \"play\". No, they LIVE as if it was happening to them. Notice the smile on there faces when the main hero agrees to go for a walk with them. The hate and love in one piece. And the final scene!

Really, i'm still under impression of that film. It's very hard, even impossible to combine the humor and the tragedy, but if you succeed (and Frederikson did) the impact would be twice strong.

I compared it with \"ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST\". I like this film either (and the novel itself is good, too), but after Frederikson's movie it seems simple. (the same difference I noticed after i watched the film \"American history X\" and \"ROMPER STOMPER\" - the latter is deeper). I mean Milos Forman only showed the material point of view of the problem. You watch it, then you say Yes, it's a good film, i like him, i don't like her, and that's it. But \"Angels\" leave you a wide base to think. There are no bad and good boys in the film. Cause each of them have the right to behave in the way they do. Like the girlfriend of one of the patient. Of course she's young and is pregnant and that is a problem for her that his husband is in the clinic, but the feelings and emotional experience of her exfriend are even stronger (the result is his suicide). Why ask him what have he done? Aren't you insane yourself to ask? Why do not support him, help him, understand him? Finally, it is even funny when those people talk to each other. They say genius things! There are a lot of things I would like to say about this film, but i'm not so good in english. But i'm sure, those of you, who have watched the movie, understand me.

Good luck!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Reading the other comments here at the IMDB, I had very high expectations before seeing 'Angels of the universe'. I wasn't disappointed, and giving the movie an 8, I would say that I can justify that grade.

The movie has some incredible acting, especially by the main-person, Pall. The supporting actors are also doing a very good job like the patients in the mental institution, the parents and the siblings of Pall. The music is also worth mentioning, supporting the movie throughout, giving depth and feeling.

Although the movie is very scandinavian, it doesn't leave out some humour and has a sort of objective authorship about Pall's life. Still, if you want to see a cheesy comedy or something light-weight, this is not for you. It is a story about people with mental problems, about the way they are being dealt with in society - but most of all, a story about Pall.

I recommend this movie to all movie connoisseurs. It is one of the best movies that has ever come out of Iceland, if not out of Scandinavia.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First at all: If you like watching movies I recommend you NOT to watch this one. Why? Afterwards you won't appreciate any other movie so easily anymore...

Actually I don't wanna give rise to any excessive expectations but it is almost frightening how perfect, intense and beautiful this work of Einar Gudmundsson is. When in most movies there is at least one aspect spoiling the whole thing, like good actors but horrible dialogs or a nice scenery but low budget cinematography \u0096 in \u0084Angels of the Universe\" there is nothing of this ambivalence. Really everything is just great, even (and not least) the soundtrack with the magnificent Sigur R\u00f3s.

In this story about Pall, a student that goes schizophrenic after being dumped by his girlfriend, especially the dialogs (and monologues) deserve some attention: together with (and sometimes in sharp contrast to) the plot they range from depressing and fatalistic to the whole opposite of comical and totally absurd. What is more, they are often (with quotes from Hegel and Shakespeare) of such a poetic beauty that the movie almost drifts into a surreal sphere and is only saved to the real world by its incredibly authentic actors.

One of the other comments was already referring to another point: This movie is no trivial entertainment for relaxing in the evening. Despite of several comical reliefs in between it is largely disturbing, partly cynical and bitter, and most of all sad. It is a modern poetry about a life of insanity with all its emptiness, rage and solitude.

Finally: When you've seen the movie \u0096 watch it again. There are some great visual metaphors and allusions in it that you realize only when you look twice and connect them with the \u0084moral of the story\". And of course: read the book, it contains a lot more of the small funny stories in between and also makes you understand some things in the movie a bit better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie I've seen many times. I read the book , Englar Alheimsins which was written by Einar M\u00e1r Gu\u00f0mundsson who received the Scandinavian book awards for the work. The movie does not start on the same place as the book starts. It happens in Reykjav\u00edk and the main character, P\u00e1ll is young and having a good life with his girlfriend. But as she breaks up the relationship with him, he starts to get some headaches which make him annoyed and angry. And soon he starts to have big mental problems and then the movie begins. Soon he is puted in the Icelandic Mental Hospital called \"Kleppur\" and there you get to see some great characters like Viktor who thinks he is Hitler and \u00d3li who thinks that he writes all the \" The Beatles\" songs and sends them to them with mind transporting. Ingvar E Sigur\u00f0usson who has the role of the main character P\u00e1ll does is so work so well that it leaves you breathless. Also the music in this movie is mad by SIGURR\u00d3S and just for the music's cost you should see the movie. Overall a great movie meant to be seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is about Paul(P\u00e1ll) a young man who sinks into the harsh world of insanity and his stay at the mental hospital \"Kleppur\" and his friends. Victor(Viktor) who during his education in England started to think he was Adolf Hitler. Peter(P\u00e9tur) who took to much LSD and tried to fly of a roof top the fall left no broken bones or physical damage only insanity, he is obbsesed with China. Oli Beatle (\u00d3li B\u00edtill) Oli has spent most time at the hospital although Viktor is slightly older then him, he claims he wrote every single Beatles song and send it to them by telepathy

The novel is better then the movie and covers all of Pauls life from birth to his death, there is a long time since I saw the movie but if I remember it right the movie doesn't cover Pauls childhood.

\"Englar Alheimsins\" is funny,sad and powerful if you haven't seen it watch it NOW! and read the novel first it makes the movie better","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having a close experience with one such patient is probably the best reason why I had my heart rushing throughout the entire film. Intense, sensible, moral and revealing, and don't forget to check out the marvellous sound track. Really good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film by Fri\u00f0rik \u00de\u00f3r, director of Children of Nature, is powerful. It has great music by Sigurr\u00f3s and good acting. It shows how sad insanity as a disease can be. There are many good jokes but the humor is dark. If that is not a problem then you should see this film. Note though this is not a comedy but a drama.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film very succeed in the Film festival in Karlovy Vary, Czech rep. Logically. It' s based on a very good book, excellent actors, good camera, the best director and ICELANDIC. It was probably the most black comedy I've seen.

I really DO recommend it to you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie Angels of the Universe is a pure masterpiece and it proves once again that you can make a brilliant movie on a low budget, e.g American Beauty and Blair Witch Project. The Director Fridrik Th\u00f3r Fridriksson gives the novel Englar alheimsins a new life on the white screen. The movie is a breakthrough in Icelandic film making because it's the biggest and the greatest movie that has been done in Iceland.

The music in the film, played by Sigurr\u00f3s, is very symbolic for the film, it is absolutely brilliant. I recommend everybody who are able to think to go and see this film as soon as possible, you won't be disappointed. I would bet on this film to win the best foreign film award next year \u0096 all over the globe!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If this film doesn't at least be selected for an oscar nominee for best foreign film I'm going to stop waking at nights watching the event. Fridrik Thor Fridriksson has proven that money isn't the key to making a good movie but originality. Out of a cold country comes a warm but thought-provoking film of a mentally ill man and his struggle against an insane world. After an insight like this, you question whether or not the man is crazy or the world he lives in.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is stunningly free from storytelling. It's a pure experience where the music overshadow the visual impression. - Words cannot of course enough express what should be expressed, but it is the requirement of the chattering classes that chatter is put forward, entered into production lines of mediocrity and therefore a necessity in order to express any sensible thought or opinion about something which should not need to be degraded by chatter. Therefore these elaborate opinions are put forward to satisfy those empty minds which need to be filled by noise that you will not find however hard you try in this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is great. Best acting i have ever seen in my life. Ingvar E Sigur\u00f0sson is the best Icelandic actor, and of course Hilmir Sn\u00e6r and Bjorn j\u00f6rundur. Great music and sound. Cold hard reality about a struggle of a man that has a lot of problems and the people in his life. Black humor mixed with great acting and this European art movies style, it works, it comes together in a the best Icelandic movie ever made. I say to you.\" See this film, you will not regret it\". I gave it 9 stars. If you see one Icelandic film in your life...See this one","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is based on a true story. The author of the novel bearing the same title, Einar M\u00e1r Gu\u00f0mundsson, had a brother, who turned mentally ill. I found this film very moving, following the main character's path down into illness, to see how he tries to cope with life after diagnosis, and how he makes friends at the mental institution, it all is very convincing. There are quite a few splendidly funny incidents also in the manuscript. The title of it gives nothing away concerning the story. You must watch it to understand ... and listen to the music, which is twisting and turning your heart and soul upside down and back as the film moves on. A must-see for everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Englar Alheimsins are very good movie. She happen on a mental home in Iceland. Ingvar E. Sigurdsson is in a leading role and is good. Other good actors in this movie are Baltasar Korm\u00e1kur and Bjorn Jorundur. I like this movie she is very good. I voice with this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some people drift through life, moving from one thing or one person to the next without batting an eye; others latch on to a cause, another person or a principle and remain adamant, committed to whatever it is-- and figuratively or literally they give their word and stand by it. But we're all different, `Made of different clay,' as one of the characters in this film puts it, which is what makes life so interesting. Some people are just plain crazy, though-- and maybe that's the way you have to be to live among the masses. Who knows? Who knows what it takes to make things-- life-- work? Writer\/director Lisa Krueger takes a shot at it, using a light approach to examine that thin line between being committed-- and how one `gets' committed-- and obsession, in `Committed,' starring Heather Graham as a young woman who is adamant, committed, obsessive and maybe just a little bit crazy, too. Her name is Joline, and this is her story.

\tAdmittedly, Joline has always been a committed person; in work, relationships, in life in general. She's a woman of her word who sticks by it no matter what. And when she marries Carl (Luke Wilson), it's forever. The only problem is, someone forgot to tell Carl-- and 597 days into the marriage, he's gone; off to `find' himself and figure it all out. When Joline realizes he's not coming back, she refuses to give up on him, or their marriage. Maybe it's because of that `clay' she's made of. Regardless, she leaves their home in New York City and sets off to find him, which she does-- in El Paso, Texas, of all places. But once she knows where he is, she keeps her distance, giving him his `space' and not even letting him know she's there. She considers Carl as being in a `spiritual coma,' and it's her job to keep a `spiritual vigil' over him until he comes to his senses. And while she watches and waits, her life is anything but dull, as she encounters a young woman named Carmen (Patricia Velazquez), a waitress at one of the local eateries; Carmen's `Grampy,' (Alfonso Arau), who is something of a mystic; T-Bo (Mark Ruffalo), a truck driver who has issues concerning Carl; and Neil (Goran Visnjic) an artist who makes pinatas and takes a fancy to her. For Joline, it's a journey of discovery, during which she learns a lot about Carl, but even more about herself.

\tThere's a touch of humor, a touch of romance, and some insights into human nature in this quirky film that is more about characterization and character than plot. And Krueger presents it all extremely well, delivering a film that is engaging and entertaining. Her characters are very real people, with all the wants, needs and imperfections that make up the human condition; a rich and eclectic bunch through which she tells her story. We see it from Joline's point-of-view, as Krueger makes us privy to Joline's thoughts and therefore her motivations, which puts a decided perspective on the events as they unfold. That, along with the deliberate pace she sets that allows you to soak up the atmosphere and the ambiance she creates, makes for a very effective piece of storytelling. There's an underlying seriousness to this subject matter, but Krueger chooses to avoid anything heavy-handed or too deep and concentrates instead on the natural humor that evolves from the people and situations that Joline encounters. And the result is a well textured, affecting and upbeat look at that thing we call life.

\tHeather Graham takes hold of this role from the first frame of the film to make Joline a character totally of her own creation. She immerses herself in the part and gives a performance that is convincing and believable, adding the little personal traits and nuance that makes all the difference between a portrayal that is a mere representation of a person, and one that is real. And for this film to work, it was imperative that Joline be viable and believable-- and Graham succeeds on all fronts. Her screen presence has never been more alluring, and her vibrant personality or even just the way she uses her eyes, is enough to draw you in entirely. it's all a part of the character she creates; there's an appeal to Joline that exudes from her entire countenance, who she is inside and out. She's a likable, agreeable person, and because you've shared her innermost thoughts, you know who she is. It's a good job all the way around, beginning with the way the character was written, to the way Graham brings her so vibrantly to life.

\tAs Carmen, Patricia Velazquez is totally engaging, as well. Her performance is very natural and straightforward, and she uses her instincts to effectively create her character. She has a charismatic presence, but is less than flamboyant, and it gives her an aspect that is attractively down-to-earth. She is refreshingly open and up-front; you get the impression that Carmen is not one to hold anything back, but is totally honest on all fronts, and that, too, is part of her appeal. And, as with Joline, this character is well written, and Velazquez brings her convincingly to life.

\tOverall, there is a number of notable performances that are the heart and soul of this film, including those of Luke Wilson, Casey Affleck (as Joline's brother, Jay), Goran Visnjic, Alfonso Arau and especially Mark Ruffalo as T-Bo, who, with very little actual screen time, manages to create a memorable character.

\tThe supporting cast includes Kim Dickens (Jenny), Clea Du Vall (Mimi), Summer Phoenix (Meg), Art Alexakis (New York Car Thief), Dylan Baker (Carl's Editor), and Mary Kay Place (Psychiatrist). A film that says something about the value of stepping back to consider The Big Picture-- reflecting upon who we are, where we're going and what we really need-- `Committed' is an enjoyable experience; a ride definitely worth taking. 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Joline (Heather Graham) sets out after her husband Carl (Luke Wilson) who disappeared to clear his head about himself and their marriage. Joline, who is committed to their marriage starts her journey to find Carl, yet on the way discovers a lot about herself. On her trip she encounters a bountiful of interesting characters who unknowingly help her find her way.

In my eyes this is a classical road movie, which moves just at the right pace (some viewers may find it too slow). Throughout the movie it keeps its humorous note while Joline responds to the craziness of the world around her with a warm, knowing, sometimes sad smile. All actresses and actors give wonderful performances and the musical score is immaculate. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jolene (Heather Graham) operates a night club in NYC and lives with her husband, Carl (Luke Wilson), a photographer. After about 500 days of marriage, Jolene comes home to find a note from Carl that he needs \"some space\" ....and a bouquet of daisies, her favorite flower. Jo promptly puts the daisies in the blender and presses the button. Soon after, she embarks on a journey to find Carl somewhere out west because, after all, she is \"committed\" to Carl. However, when she finally tracks him down in Texas, Jo camps out near his home, at first,, hoping to find clues to his decision to leave. She meets a gorgeous sculptor-neighbor (Goran, can't spell his name!) but Jo discourages his attraction to her. When she learns Carl may have a new girlfriend, she decides to consult a Mexican-American mystic (Alfonso Arau) for advice. Jo is committed but does that mean anything to Carl? This is a very imaginative, quite humorous look at the marriage vow. It's quirky script and offbeat style is downright infectious. Graham is just great as the jilted woman who is having a hard time letting go. Wilson does not give his best performance but is adequate as the mixed-up husband. The rest of the cast is quite nice, however, with Goran the gorgeous one wonderful as the sexy neighbor. The scenery, both in New York and in Texas, is very lovely and the costumes are fresh and fun. If you like romantic comedies AND independent films, this one is made to order for you. It walks to a different beat that is most attractive but still delivers in the ultimate happy ending category.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie could be likened to \"comfort food\" for the soul. Anyone who has ever tried and tried to save a relationship could relate to this movie. So many parts of it are so hilarious and so many parts are so heartbreakingly true. It's not perfect in its production or even its dialog, but the story is unique which is saying a lot for modern \"romantic\" comedies. Luke Wilson is bland at best, but Heather Graham does an exceptional job in my opinion. Give it a try - despite the trite looking DVD cover.The character of Joline brings a lot of issues up in our culture of self-service. She asks us if commitment is really for the other person or ourselves. Truly, it is ourselves. Following through on promises (anywhere from marriage to an errand for a friend) is a great feeling. Anymore, our word is nothing but a shapeshifting puff of smoke. Joline is like a wake-up call. We must be conscious of our words and commitments, they mean more than we think. At the same time, we must not commit to someone who is incapable of doing the same.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I get the feeling that Lisa Krueger is easy to overlook. I personally found her first film, 1996's Manny and Lo, to be a wonderfully detailed character study and the performances were uniformly wonderful(with special credit to Mary Kay Place). The film played for a week or two in major urban centers and vanished. One or two critics really liked it, but many viewed it as slight. Krueger's second film, Committed, was released this year (2000) (after nearly two years of delays) and it similarly vanished. And once again critics dismissed the film as slight and pushed the film aside, at most praising Heather Graham's screen presence, but rarely her acting ability. And once again, for me, Committed is a solid success. I feel as if Krueger has a genuine voice and a personal visual style and these are traits that shouldn't be so easily ignored, simply because she works on a very restrained canvass.

The title has several meanings, but mostly it refers to Joline (Graham)'s refusal to let her husband Carl (Luke Wilson) flake out and leave her. She follows him from New York to El Paso and becomes one of the most appealing stalkers in recent cinematic history. Her respect for her marriage vows leads her to Mexican mysticism and self-discovery. And yep, the plot is just that simple and thus, just that easy to ignore.

Joline, of course, is the crying voice of a generation whose parents divorced at a rate nearing fifty percent. And for me, her personal revolution against broken promises and a legacy of deceit is fairly intelligent and powerful. Confident in the belief that people just don't have enough faith in each other, Joline inevitably has to discover that her beliefs aren't in synche with those of society at large. Several comments her have referred to her character as one-dimensional and I'm afraid that that's a simplistic reading of the film. Or perhaps even a misreading. If Joline were just an innocent, she wouldn't be interesting at all. It's the fact that she understands the world and refuses to play by the rules of the \"normals\" that makes her so interesting. Sociologically, she's a complete deviant.

Krueger sometimes falls into moments of cutesy dialogue and her direction of this film has a rather odd over-reliance on shots of clouds moving across the El Paso skyline. However, her mistakes are fairly rare and in this film, as in Manny and Lo, it's the performances that carry the day. Graham has never been better because she's never had a character as perfectly tailored to her as Joline. For the first time in her career, Graham seems comfortable playing an adult, even one in slightly arrested development. She carries the film perfectly. Luke Wilson and Casey Affleck (as Joline's brother) both have a number of fine moments, as do Alfonso Arau, as a Mexican Mystic and Mark Ruffalo and T-Bo, the slightly psychotic truck driver. As in Manny and Lo, the characters are part of their environments, well detailed totally organic creations. These characters may sometimes seem pointlessly quirky, but they make sense in their context. Even Goran Visnjic, as an artist turned on by Joline's devotion, fits in in some strange way, even though his character's foreigness is never discussed.

For me, this is a movie that gains depth looking back. Another commenter here spoke of the stereotypical Mexican portrayals. And again I'm tempted to call that a misreading. Joline is looking for self-justification. She knows that her commitment is out of control, but she's looking for any spiritual avenue that can help her make sense of herself. Arau's character understands that most people don't believe in him and he plays up his own faith when he sees a woman who respects him.

I guess I can understand how this movie could be viewed as underwhelming, I'd simply disagree. It's consistently funny, frequently hilarious, and all of the characters exude a warmth which is quite wonderful.

I'm giving this one a 7.5\/10 and when I log in the vote here, that'll go up to an 8.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this film! It has a great heart and great bones. I stumbled onto it by chance and I had no recollection, not even an inkling, of this movie from promos or reviews or word of mouth. \u00a0 I remember reading, many years ago, a journalist who commented on the value of watching movies without having them contaminated by the pre-judgement of reviews or the false shill of the promos. \u00a0And this seems to be the single most common source of the critics' negative reaction to the film: \u00a0it failed to meet expectations of it being a comedy, or a slice of life, or character driven. \u00a0I had no expectation about the film, and so it was comedic - but I only laughed once or twice - without being a comedy; it was about a person, but so eccentric that it wasn't slice of life; it was about a character, but the character was so intelligently optimistic and trusting of her instinct to life, that it wasn't the angst-driven sentimental melodrama so typical of American 'serious' film - as I wrote that I realized that writer\/director Lisa Krueger managed to poke fun at this schlock American sentimentality in the husband! \u00a0And very cleverly too! And Kreuger was able to keep the cloyingly sentimental ending from the screen, when the wayward,\u00a0not\u00a0prodigal, husband returned with his tail shrunk between his legs.\u00a0Bravo, Ms. Krueger, bravo! \u00a0(Now I will be watching this film again, as it is getting better and better as I reflect on it.) \u00a0\u00a0

Graham's performance as Joline is brilliant. I loved how subtly but completely she was able to portray and convey intelligent awareness of her committable commitment to honouring her words and actions - she knew that in keeping her word with a band, or friends, or husband that she was setting herself up to ridicule and\/or disappointment in a world that was unable to honour commitment as she was able to do. But even with that strength, she was fully connected to humanity, and embraced with a fully committed heart their frailty and failures. The character of Joline was amazingly well acted, and I left the film surprised that I had no recollection of awards nominations for it. Okay, not that surprised, as American awards tend to go to women in 'serious' roles, filled with angst and the proper amount of nudity, which this film did not have. What it has was far better, which was heart in this woman's discovery of herself with the assistance of new friends and a self-deprecating shaman.

I admit to being a bit of a soft touch for eccentric characters who manage their peculiarities while remaining honest and true to themselves as they move through the minefield of what comprises 'proper' societal behaviour and 'acceptable' interpersonal discourse.\u00a0So, if people must conform to normality in your world, then this film will not be to your liking. \u00a0And that was, it seems, one of the common threads in the critiques.

And I am always a sucker for a good play on words when it raises questions of human behaviour and ethical\/philosophical values. Until this movie I hadn't made the emotional connection between being committed (to a cause or honesty or something) and being committed (to an insane asylum). At what point does one's commitment to a personal sense of truth and action in life become a one way ticket to insanity? This sounds like a simple question, or one that is easily dismissed as being rhetorical. But is it? And yet few of the critics - I think maybe two, commented on this aspect of the film either directly or indirectly.

A lovely film. 8\/10.

\u00a0","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Joline (Heather Graham) married Carl (Luke Wilson) and about five hundred and some days later, Carl is very depressed and leaves her, expecting to `clean the fog' in their lives. Joline faces her marriage as an important commitment to the end of her life, and decides to look for Carl in Texas. She is very supported by her brother Jay (Casey Affleck), who meets her in the border of Mexico. There, Joline meets the confused Carl and realizes that she can not change his decision, while Jay knows Carmen (Patricia Velasquez) and starts dating her, and in the end `life goes on'. This movie is very unpredictable, having a very different story. I believe it is an independent production. In some parts, it is a little slow and boring, but there are certain dialogs that makes this movie worthwhile. I liked it, and my vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): `Rebeldes At\u00e9 o Fim' (`Rebels Until the End')

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In an industry dominated by men and in lack of products with a female mark on it ; is it always nice to see a film shown from the woman's point of view. I would welcome more films from female writers and directors , and I think lots of other women with me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a truly great and beautiful movie. The underlying theme of this movie is the innocent child (Heather Graham as Joline) struggling to make her naive wishes for how the world should be make sense while being incessantly beaten down by the real world. It's not an unhappy movie, though - exactly the opposite. It's a funny movie with a sad side, but just thinking about the movie makes me feel so happy. Near the beginning of the movie, beautiful, vulnerable Joline confronts a drug addict attempting to break into her friend's car. She reasons with him, convinces him to seek help, and gives him $30 as a start. At the end of the movie, he reappears to pay her back, explains that he is off drugs, doing well, and he thanks her. I can hear the cynics groaning. Of *course* that would never really happen. This movie doesn't take place in the real world. It takes place in the world we wished we lived in. The sad part is realizing we don't live there. The happy part is knowing there are people wishing we did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is depressing that many people don't understand this movie. To get caught up in the peripheral elements is to miss the true meaning of this film. This film speaks to the minority of people who actually believe in love and truth. It points out that in todays society too often people say what sounds good at the moment with no intention of backing things up when things get rough. as someone else stated that is evident in the number of divorces. Some people actually believe marriage is forever. Forget about stereotypes or anything else, but rather focus on what is important following your heart and fighting for who you believe in. I liked the ending because it would have been easy to go with a sappy one but came instead with the reality that committent is great, and you should fight with everything you have, but sometimes that still isn't enough. Too often people just give up and forget about the magic of love. late.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Heather Graham is not just a pretty face,she is also an extremely talented actress. She adds a unique flavour to the movie. Overall,it's an intelligent and yet compassionate look at love,marriage and relationships.I thoroughly enjoyed it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Committed\" is all about Graham as an irrepressible optimist who goes in search of her self-estranged husband who has gone in search of himself which all leads to a sort of kookie, upbeat comedic odyssey involving a bunch of side characters and issues. A fresh, fun, and unpredictable little flick, what \"Committed\" lacks in story it makes up for in good naturedness and subtle morals and maxims. If you enjoy this little chick flick, which received slightly above average reviews by critics and public alike, you might want to check out Lisa Krueger's hit Indie \"Manny & Lo\" (1996). (B)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was sad that COMMITTED lasted only two weeks in Dallas theaters. I thought this movie had a lot going for it. The script was funny, full of subtle emotional shifts, and it had a good message. The acting was great. Everyone did a superb job, especially with the script's subtleties. Heather Graham not only has beautiful eyes, she has *expressive* eyes. For that matter, all the actors were attractive! Why it didn't do well in its theatrical release, I don't know--other than the studio didn't seem to have much of a push behind it. But it deserved to do better, and I hope it does well on video. It's certainly one of my favorites for the first half of 2000.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once the slow beginning gets underway, the film kicks off and really becomes quite a lot of fun in many unexpected ways. The ensemble cast is really good, with Heather Graham perhaps being the weakest of them. Casey Affleck as her brother is really good and extremely likeable , if you catch my drift.

I highly recommend the film if you just want to have to good hours. Teenagers should really enjoy this film - it says a lot about relationships.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't hate Heather Graham because she's beautiful, hate her because she's fun to watch in this movie. Like the hip clothing and funky surroundings, the actors in this flick work well together. Casey Affleck is hysterical and Heather Graham literally lights up the screen. The minor characters - Goran Visnjic {sigh} and Patricia Velazquez are as TALENTED as they are gorgeous. Congratulations Miramax & Director Lisa Krueger!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have watched this movie at least ten times. I do not agree with the previous comments. This is a tongue in cheek movie and some of the acting is meant to be stilted. Men like Paul Cowley are few and far between, women like Linda, unfortunately, are a dime a dozen. The sad thing here is that although similiar relationships like this rarely lead to murder and frame ups, it is an all to familiar scenario. Boy worships girl, girl doesn't know he exists, they grow up, man sees woman he fantasized about down and out and rescues her. Bottom line, she never did love him-he came along at the right time and she used him. Thomas is excellent as the nerdy but adequate Paul. His portrayal is sensitive and touching. Madsen is perfect as the femme-fatale. What really moved me was the final scene. Paul says he eventually cried, but not for Linda, his wife, but for the unknown girl he had watched from a distance so many years ago..and longed for..and loved. And I loved the close-up of Thomas at the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I viewed Linda, and it is a Top-Rate Movie! The lives of Paul and his wife, Linda, who he adored as a young man and finally married. They meet another married couple, Jeff and Stella, and the foursome become very good friends. But, their friendship takes a Twisted Turn after vacationing together at Varona Beach....A Twist that never returns the married couples to their former status as friends.

Linda is A Must-See!!!! The acting by Virginia Madsen is acceptable; however, Richard Thomas steals the movie with his incredible acting...and the emotions that he displays.

A Wonderful Movie! \"Lotta Honey\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is important and only fair to remember that, at the time this short was produced, a state of war existed between the United States and the Empire of Japan. Add to that the enormous ill-will that the beginning of the war created, as well as the Bataan Death March and other incidents and the only thing surprising about this short and others is that there weren't more of them. One other thing: my only problem with this short is that it seems to try to be funny, but it isn't. I'm not sure that anyone connected with it really tried to make the jokes work, or even cared. It would have been far better if they had done what Disney did with Education For Death and been totally serious. But this short gets a bad rap and shouldn't be judged out of context. The times were different then and that is an important consideration. Anyone expending energy trying to save the world from a sixty-year old cartoon needs to take a step back. As do I, expending energy defending that same cartoon. This should be available to interested parties, even if not in wide circulation. Not a nice cartoon, but sometimes life isn't nice. Recommended","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There was a video out in America called 'Cartoon Scandals' that featured about an hours worth of banned cartoons.

Most of them were WWII era. That's where I first saw (and heard of) this one.

The rooster during the opening news broadcast turns into a vulture with an Asian face saying 'cock-a-doodle-doo please.' After that it's eight minutes of propaganda played out like a newsreel.

Viscously racist, but when you look at it as the piece of history it is, it can (and should) be forgiven.

Slicing ration cards to make sandwiches.

Showing the ruins of Rome while calling Moussolini 'Ruin #1.'

A minesweeper using a broom.

A manned bomb with the pilot saying 'RET ME OUT OF HERE.'

And of course the stereotyping. Every Japanese was drawn with big teeth, constantly bowing, and saying 'please' at the end of every broken sentence.

The funniest bit? The air raid siren that was two bowing men stabbing each other in the tush with pins. \"oooo-OOOOOO\"

Hey AOL. Let this one out. It deserves notice. My wife laughed at this. And she's 100% Japanese.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I consider this film to be a complete masterpiece - actually I consider it to be Fernando Fragata's best work and undoubtedly the best of all Portuguese movies. I don't think you can come across such a \"zero budget\" kind of film as impressive and astonishing as this one.

The direction is done with perfection at an incredible fast pace and the music also composed by Fragata is mostly excellent. The story is creepy and humorous at the same time, and it is certainly an advanced study of the old saying \"Misery loves company\" kind of situations intertwined with a mind boggling mystery. A more than perfect recipe to glue the viewers' eyes to the screen from frame one to the last.

It's been called Neo-Hitchcock, and I'll agree. Much like the best Hitchcocks, it kept me guessing during the entire film and most of my suppositions were far for what ends up being smartly revealed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yesterday I finally satisfied my curiosity and saw this movie. My knowledge of the plot was limited to about 60 seconds of the trailer, but I had heard some good critics which caused my expectations to increase.

As I saw the movie, those untied pieces had been combined in a story that was becoming quite intriguing, with some apparently inexplicable details. But in the end, everything is disclosed as a simple succession of events of bad luck, \"sorte nula\" in Portuguese. Above everything, I felt that the story made sense, and everything fits in it's place, properties of a good script.

I must also mention the soundtrack, which helps the creation of an amazing environment.

And if you think of the resources Fernando Fragata used to make this film, I believe it will make many Hollywood producers envious...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite its ultra low budget, \"Sorte Nula\" is the most successful Portuguese film of 2004. And I must say, a well deserved success. What I love about \"Sorte Nula\" the most is the intricate detail that Fernando Fragata went to keep you interested as to what is going on and just what will happen next. It's very detailed and superbly advanced for a seemingly simple love-story-gone-bad thriller. What's even more enjoyable and ironic about this is the fact that the characters are in the same situation, not one of them knows the entire story and are left to their own assumptions making \"Sorte Nula\" a cut above the rest. This is definitely not a film you want to walk out on for a bathroom break as you will undoubtedly miss something important. I feel one of the film's major attributes would have to be the environment that it establishes. It's creepy but hilarious at the same time. I read somewhere someone quoting this film by saying, \"...it's was like watching Hitchcock...\" and I couldn't agree more!! I love movies like that, where you have to pay attention to EVERYTHING in order to fully understand what is going on. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is probably one of the best Portuguese movies I ever saw... I absolutely enjoyed the plot, because by the way the story was developing, you would get more involved on how their world was really upside-down... There is just only one part that doesn't really seem to fit in the movie, which is the girls' strip... It does not add anything important to the story, it looks like it's just there for a men entertaining purpose. The ending is a bit unexpected, though, at the same time, somewhat expected. If you don't understand, then follow me: after so many strange occurrences, the viewer is so used to oddities, that ending the movie with totally unexpected relationships (Like Mimoso and Susana) sounds totally natural after seeing the rest of the movie. But, most of all, Sorte Nula is a movie that makes you think hard trying to solve the mysterious occourings, laugh your head off with their unlucky lives and mess with your perception of what can happen in just a few minutes, when you turn your back away from something... for all that, I rate it 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Sorte Nula\" is the #1 Box Office Portuguese movie of 2004. This extreme low budget production (estimated USD$150,000) opened during Christmas opposite American Blockbusters like National Treasure, Polar Express, The Incredibles and Alexander but rapidly caught the adulation of the Portuguese moviegoers. Despite the harsh competition, the small film did surprisingly well, topping all other Portuguese films of the past two years in its first weeks. The film is a mystery\/murder with a humorous tone cleverly written and directed by Fernando Fragata who has become a solid reference in the European independent film arena. Did I like the film? Oh, yes!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Since frame number 1 you know the good guy in the suit and necktie is doomed\u0085 He has no luck (\"Sorte Nula\"), or so he believes with that music on the car radio, and the dubious talk by his best friend and company associate who is taking him to parts unknown through a desert road. Alberto wished simply to be left alone, to take a flight abroad next day, with\u0085 well, someone we're left guessing.

The film goes a long way \u0096 that'll find short \u0096 to a closing scene with the man hearing the same music on a cab to the airport. In between, a number of lucky people have found different ways out of the story, some dying, some being born, others falling into harrowing distress. This time he's really doomed\u0085 Or is he? The film is a sort of one-man show by director Fernando Fragata who only left the sound recording and the special effects to other, competent people. Those who typically reject Portuguese films due to sound problems and unclear speech recording, must go searching for other topics to criticize this time. The car crash (this isn't spoilers, the film is too clever for THAT) makes for a great scene, and apparently was done with cheap equipment. (US Studios take notice: you may spare a dollar or two by hiding competent Portuguese directors!)

The rest was done by Fragata, from the script to the dialogue, from camera work to editing. If part of the dialogue were ad-libbed, then he again must be congratulated for the acting direction, and the casting with mostly inexperienced actors. A large number of non-speaking parts are credited, but most of those people were used for the music video clip and the making of, used extensively in the film's promotional trailer. The cast has a dozen actors and actresses, of whom ten relevant persons, and a huge number of relationships \u0096 that are revealed step-by-step, in a thrilling, suspenseful way, reminiscent of the best genre authors. 'Alfred Hitchcock' (qv) and 'Claude Chabrol' (qv) do come to mind, by the cat-and-mouse play between the director and his public, and the nature of his characters.

I recommend this thriller and comedy to Portuguese language speakers and, if the film gets to have a decent translation of its colloquial dialogue, to anyone abroad who enjoys those genres.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is fantastic! A sick and twisted tale of coincidence and deceit.

The story is meticulously and ingeniously constructed. It is really a perfect mixture: it has all from suspense to humor and the story is told with lots of originality... The film is built up like a puzzle which is assembled piece by piece, and resolves the story... For the viewer there are plenty of surprises till the end!! I also had a little impression that the director has been inspired by some Hitchcock work. I've also seen films before where you see the same event happening from different points of view but this film goes beyond that. In this movie everything is built upon what happens to a body that appears and disappears and appears again in a different location. Every actor in the story has his own secret and we come to realize it in a way that contributes to assembling the puzzle.... I loved especially the dark humor scenes...which made laugh the whole theater.... This movie is a must see for everyone!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is a surprising movie that gets you in your chair waiting for the last minute of the film, leaving on your leaps a sweet taste of: ... I want more! There are very good actors, Portuguese actors that have a lot of experience in the world of theater and films. It is not a million Euros budget film, but still we can see the destruction of a car in an excellent perspective that gets you in the movie. If you have the opportunity of getting your hands on this excellent film, don't wait for another minute: just see the film! I think that Portuguese film are increasing the quality. Watch out Spanish producers... The Portuguese are getting a high quality standards. I saw the film and I'm waiting for more...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You can't watch this film for a history lesson. This was the first I had heard of the Ma Barker saga, but I could tell almost immediately that the facts were way off. And with a little internet research I realized I was of course right. Ma Barker sure as hell isn't the sexy, calculating woman the movie portrays her as, and apparently did not orchestrate all the bank robbing schemes, kiddnappings, and murders that her criminal boys carried out.

But don't expect a brilliant crime drama. The script and the acting are adequate, the gunfights are excessive and mostly unrealistic, and there is a very laughable slow motion death scene. So why did I give it a 7 out of 10?

Because it was damn entertaining. The gunfights are fun to watch but there are some deeper themes that emerge between them. The movie has a strong sense of ego intimidation among it's cast of alpha males, each of whom has his own agenda. And I appreciate the minimal use of swears for the period. The set pieces are great, reproducing a convincing 1930s era.

So watch this film like you would a cult film, and take the excessive bloodiness and ruthlessness in stride with the cheesy ultra serious comments from the FBI man who wants to take the Barkers down at any cost. Inotherwords, don't take it too seriously, just have fun with it. And if you like this, you'll love Serial Mom.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was given a DVD of Public Enemies and was expecting it to be the 2009 version but it wasn't - it was this! Sure, it wasn't the greatest movie I have ever seen - not by ANY means - but, heck folks, it was worth more that 2.8 out of 10! When I saw that abysmal rating on IMDb, I wondered what I was going to get but, since the disc was in the player, I settled down to watch it. As other commentators have pointed out, Public Enemies is NOT a historical movie per-se - and I noted that, unlike the 2009 version (which I haven't seen yet) IMDb doesn't categorise it as such.

Come on people! It's a STORY based on some real people - that's all! If I wanted a history lesson, I'd sit at this computer and read Wikipedia or something. Ma Barker (actual name Arizona - or Arrie - Barker) was NEVER even charged with any crime and, as other commentators have already pointed out, she probably never even took part in her sons' activities. They sent her to the movies when they were \"working\"! (I hope she wasn't as critical as some of those who watched this movie!)

Theresa Russell had the never-too-easy task of portraying a woman from the age of 17 right through to her death at the age of 52 - from a young girl running from home to the hardened mother of four hoodlum sons. I think she did it pretty well. The cheeky little smile she used in more than one scene was classical! OK, I will agree with some of the critics that the direction of this film was below par and I sympathise with the actors over that. Theresa should have told the director to forget the topless shots - they didn't contribute to the story. Maybe some bigger-name stars would have managed to inject some of their own expertise into overriding the poor direction whereas the second-graders weren't quite that brave. Who knows?

But, whilst this was certainly no block-buster, it WAS worth more than 2.8!! I have all my DVDs on a personal database where I score them BEFORE looking at the IMDb score (although that sometimes influences slight changes later). I take what I get on it's own merits rather than holding one movie up against others of the same genre and this one I felt was entertaining enough to get 6.8. (Yep, I'll accept that such a practice does tend to depend on my mood at the time, but then isn't that also true of those who vote on IMDb?) However, you may imagine my surprise when I looked at IMDb and saw the pitiful score it got here.

Given the surprise, I decided to read a few of the other comments in the hopes of understanding the low rating and I noticed that they are quite polarised. I agreed with those who said the movie was worth watching and came to the conclusion that some people are just hard to please. Well, since some were absolutely scathing, why don't THEY get out there and make some better movies? I will look forward to the gems they must be able to turn out! On the other hand, if they can't do that, then why don't they just shut up?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this movie was good, I loved the plot, I loved the shoot out scenes, except for a few, they were not needed and i also enjoyed Ma's character, she was a rider I liked that. I do have to say that in this gangster movie the actors were picked well because sometimes some actors just don't fit the role. However though i hate to say it, but I hated the ending, I felt as if it should have went in a different direction. Also it would have been better with a little more details, its based on a true story but there was so much of the facts left out but other than that it was good. If you enjoy movies on the past gangsters you'll enjoy this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie had a lot of ups & downs...The storyline is strong, while telling the saga of Ma' Barker growing up, & then her misadventures with her boys and the FBI..Theresa Russell is very talented and her beauty even shines through, as Ma' Barker, in Public Enemies. The Direction of Mark L. Lester, while not as good as in \"85's Commando was still very interesting.

Eric Roberts, plays a short-lived part as a security guard, turned thug(and Ma's Lover), and Alyssa Milano plays a prostitute, who hangs with the gang. Frank Stallone, plays a thug who helps out the gang, & while one of his exploits, gets one of Ma's boy into trouble, he gets himself out, in a final way, so to speak...

I was perplexed, intrigued & captivated, throughout this movie..So it makes me wonder what movie all these others who voted it so low watched!..For all those wondering..Umm the FBI was actually that bad in the beginning, didn't have tommy guns like the outlaws had, & were thus at quite a disadvantage, whenever they did get into shootout's with gang's of that era..Since everything I saw represented the 30's, I felt it was more realistic than many other movies made portraying that era...It is in may ways like a train wreck happening..You don't want to watch, but JUST have too..Enjoy!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found this flick enjoyable and involving to watch, and I'm surprised it's rated so lowly. Actually I can see why it is; I imagine it's the fans of Eric Roberts and Alyssa Milano that have been giving most of the 1s and 2s, because if you put the tape into the machine expecting to enjoy watching something starring either or both of these two then you could be rather disappointed. Eric appears for about half an hour towards the end of the movie, and Alyssa for about 5 scenes in the second half, and in those she says little and wears less (although never nude if that's what you're looking for, stick with embrace of the vampire). Although they're always a pleasure, it's a pity she, or Eric, don't get much screen-time yet I still give this an 8.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"PUBLIC ENEMIES is a kind of throw-back to those early 1960's gangster biographies like PORTRAIT OF A MOBSTER, MAD DOG COLL and KING OF THE ROARING TWENTIES. Although made on the cheap, the film has a great deal of energy and the acting over-all, particularly by Eric Roberts and Frank Stallone is quite good. Theresa Russell might seem too glamorous as Ma, but she has some very good moments. There are two action scenes worth noting: a shoot-out in a hotel, and a machine gun fight in the middle of the street between the Barkers and the FBI. Both sequences are nicely done, and compared to other low-bidget gangster junk like DILLINGER AND CAPONE, this film shines.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 80s were overrun by all those HALLOWEEN\/Friday THE 13TH slasher-style horror movies, so this is something of a relief.

Ten unbelievably annoying teenagers (would you want to hang out with these jerks?!) decide to throw a Halloween party at a local former funeral parlor called \"Hull House\". During a \"past life s\u00e9ance\" a demon is accidentally released, and each person becomes possessed and kills off the others.

This all sounds very EVIL DEAD\/DEMONS-ish, but Tenney lends some directorial style to the proceedings, there are some good one-liners, the music is excellent, the Steve Johnson prosthetic make-up FX are scary and Linnea Quigley is quite fun as a boy-crazy bimbo who pokes out eyeballs with her fingers and does an amazing new thing with a tube of lipstick!

Great fun on a no-brainer level! After checking out the breakdown of the voting and the other posted reviews, I don't understand how this only received 4 out of 10 (?!)

I give it, 8 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great horror film for people who don't want all that vomit-retching gore and sensationalism. This movie has equal amounts of horror, suspense, humor, and even a little light nudity, but nothing big. Linnea Quigley isn't over the top as she was in \"Return of the Living Dead\" where she danced naked on a crypt, but she is still essentially the same slutty character. Cathy Podewell is a virginal and chaste character before going on to \"Dallas,\" and we are also introduced to Amelia [soon Mimi] Kinkade,the sexy and sinister would-be dark matron of the house. As she and Linnea are possessed and take over the house, they reanimate the bodies of their dead friends to scare the limits out of the survivors. I've heard a lot of people compare this movie to \"The Evil Dead,\" but if anything, this movie is a rival to that one the same way Freddie rivaled Jason.This movie series though is far superior to that one !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Night of the Demons is a great movie and an excellent example of how good low-budget can be. Sure, much of it is fairly predictable, but somehow it's still much more enjoyable than the crap we see these days being passed off as \"Horror\". I give the gore a solid 9, and the Demons' one-liners are actually funny. I'm still creeped out by \"Stop looking at me!\" The soundtrack is well done, I was surprised to hear \"Stigmata Martyr\" from Bauhaus! There is also some very nice T&A on display, as well as some hella good make-up effects. The second film in the series is pretty good too, but avoid the inferior third one. Night of the Demons may be dated, dark, and low-rent, but it still has a lot of potential. It's definitely worth a rental at least. Give it a chance tonight, just stay away from any old makeup! (you'll understand when you see it!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I originally saw this movie in a movie theater on Times Square in the late eighties. Who would have thought this film would spawn two sequels and have this cult following.Night of the Demons was like most other films that came out at the time.A group of horny teenagers find themselves trapped in some isolated local and then are killed off one at a time in various gruesome ways.Come to think of it the formula still is used and still seems to work as evidenced by Saw II that I recently saw.

I saw Mimi Kinkade at a Fangoria convention about six years ago and she was so gentle hearted!I guess that makes her a pretty good actress if she could make a career out of playing this demon possessed woman in all these horror flicks.Anyway, I just this film again on VHS cassette and this movie still holds up.A little slow at the beginning as I remembered when I first saw it but then it quickly picks up pace. One of the eighties horror classics and worth a look!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"any movie that has a line of dialogue that goes something like this....\"Judy's getting ready for her date, Butthole!\" has to be good! I found this on DVD unrated, unedited and was pleasantly surprised, a lot of hard work was put into making this movie. I actually enjoyed this more that a lot of 80s movies I have seen. Great addition to my movie collection.

The buildup was great, sets up the scares for the rest of the movie. Loved the GORE and the T&A. I never thought eyeballs being gouged out would look like popping boils, the color of the eye splatter was gross! I keep thinking that \"Rog\" looked like Tiger Woods but more black, anyone agree?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely love this movie! Evil Dead has NOTHING on this film! Night of the Demons 2 and 3 are a total bore fest, but this one is a classic. It's super cheesy and the acting is alright at best, but what more could you want from an 80's horror movie? Stooge has some of the best one-liners to ever hit the screen in this one. (he's my favorite character) A lot of people talk about the lipstick scene in this movie, but my personal favorite is the ending, sadly enough has nothing to do with the main characters, when the old man eats his left over Halloween apples in a pie, and his throat is mangled from the inside out. The sound track is awesome. The scene with Angela dancing is totally creepy, especially after the strobe light comes on, and you can see her jump from one part of the floor to the next with every sound of a camera shutter click on the song that's playing. The make-up effects in this movie are pretty sweet; Angela gave me nightmares as a kid. If you're the type of person who demands perfection out of your filming experience, you might want to give this one a pass. But, if you're like me, and you really dig the whole Halloween, haunted house with the demons clich\u00e9, than this one is definitely a must own.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing this film in the theater and liking it. I happened to stumble upon it on fear net last month and watched it again and found it better with age. First of all for those of you who describe this as 80s cheese if you objectively compare it with the horror flicks of the past 2 decades it compares quite well if stacked up against films in its unique horror sub genre which I would term action\/horror as opposed to psychological horror such as \"The Shining\" or \"the exorcist\".

Furthermore for its budget this film really delivers the goods (or in this instance bad). The film actually has some character development and gives enough of a history of the infamous hull house to get the atmosphere right before the characters set foot in the front door. The film also has several hilarious one liners and gives the appropriate mood that a creepy horror flick should have. If you compare NOD to contemporary big budget horror films such as \"I am legend\" (The Vincent Price version was much better) this film really stands out. Modern horror flicks have become almost completely dominated by CGI. Most have no plot or character devel at all and are completely predictable. The special effects dominate these movies from start to finish and the characters are 24k plastic. If this is 80s horror cheese I'll take it over 95% of current entries in the genre.

On a closing note seeing NOD again made me remember the beautiful Jill Terashita and wonder why I have not seen her in more films horror or otherwise. Jill on the odd chance that you read this- I think you are gorgeous and should have been in more films. Lastly, if you like action horror flicks you will probably like this one a lot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must say. This is easily one of my FAVORITE movies to watch on Halloween. The halloween party, the horrid acting, the guy dressed like and extra from Miami Vice. GREAT GREAT GREAT!!!

*********************SPOILERS***************************

I have a huge place in my heart for random 80's horror flicks and this one reached out and tugged at my heart strings. I always passes this flick at Blockbuster and always laughed at the cover of the box. Now every weekend I would grab a random movie I had never seen before...one weekend it was Angelas turn. She seemed to have been taunting me for months. So I took it home put it in and spent most of the movie underneath the blanket.

For me, it was terrifying and gross. And not just the acting! Some of the things they came up with for this movie was AMAZING. I can honestly say the best part for me was watching Suzanne (played by a fellow iowan) stick a tube of lipstick through her nipple. It was random and I loved it. Watching creepy Angela FLOAT through the hallways and hearing her creepy demon voice was enough to have me awake ALL NIGHT LONG!

It isn't one of the most clever or best acted horror movies. But its 80's cheese and its got all the elements you need. Creepy Goth Kid, Virgin, Slut, Naked Girls, Scary House, Bad Acting, oh and did I mention Naked Girls? All the elements were there and were put together in such a way that made for one of my fave movies. Kudos to the filmmakers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was great don't understand the disrespect it get's. I first scene this in like 87-88 and it was actually scary, If you are an 80's horror fan you should have no problem with this film it has everything that makes 80's horror great. I got to meet a few of the actor's and they were cool. What is not great about a creepy old house,demons,crazy party & horny good looking young people. The dialog and the special fx made this movie a classic. This film also took care of one of those classic rumors about horror the black guy does not alway's have to die in the end.Even though this movie was great there is one thing that remains undiscovered to me what really happened to the old couple at the end was it on purpose or not that little side story thing alway's had me puzzled.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember watching this film as a kid and I was in complete awe of it, I couldn't take my eyes of the television. This movie has it all for horror fans! This movie had no funny moments expect a couple of one liners by stooge(who was my favorite character in the film) kevin tenney directed this jewel and did a wonderful job with a low budget, I thought the end was awesome the only thing that could stop them was by surviving the night they were unstoppable killing machines! the effects done by steve johnson we're excellent I would recommend this movie to anyone who has a love for low budget horror movies because as the old saying goes they don't make them like this anymore. The sequels were pretty good too, but not as good as good as the original. This is a must have in any horror collection, buy it if you can find it you won't be disappointed","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this young people trapped in a house of horrors movie. Not just because I'm a huge Linnea Quigley-Jill Terashita fan, but because it is a lot of fun and actually scary at times.

The special effects are awesome, especially Linnea's scene with the lipstick and towards the end when almost everyone is dead and possessed.

Plenty of nudity provided by Linnea and Jill, plenty of humor, cool soundtrack, high body count, etc...By the way, if you have never seen this one, try and buy\/watch the Unrated version which has more gore and some scenes the rated version is missing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie took me by surprise. The opening credit sequence features nicely done animation. After that, we're plunged into a semi-cheesy production, betraying its low budget. The characters, typical American teens, are introduced slowly, with more personal detail than is usually found in movies like this. By the time the shlitz hits the fan, we know each one of the characters, and either like or hate them according to their distinct personalities. It's a slow uphill set-up, kind of like the ride up a slope of a really tall roller coaster. Thankfully, once the action kicks in, it's full blown old school HORROR! Steve Johnson's make-up effects are awesome. Equal in quality to much bigger budgeted films. And the scares are jolting. Kevin Tenney delivers his best movie ever, with heart-stopping surprises and creepy suspenseful set-ups. The tongue-in-cheek, sometimes cheesy, humor marks this film as pure 80s horror, as opposed to the sullen tone of earlier genre fare like \"Night of the Living Dead\" or \"Hills Have Eyes.\" But for true horror fans, this one is worth checking out. Play it as the first entry on a double bill with the 1999 remake of \"House on the Haunted Hill.\" The set-up and character dynamics are so similar that you really have to wonder what film they were actually remaking?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The 80's is largely considered the decade in which horror decided to have fun. Sometimes, there were some definite brains behind it all (\"Evil Dead II\", \"Night of the Creeps\" and \"Return of the Living Dead\" for example) and then there were those movies that were mindless but had a definite low rent charm and were perfect for a night with beer and friends. Movies like \"Pieces\" and \"Blood Diner\" stacked rental shelves in the 80's and 90's, offering little in intelligence or craftsmanship but plenty in dumb entertainment. Kevin Tenney's 1988 movie \"Night of the Demons\" is a part of this tradition-stupid, poorly acted and not an original bone in it's body, but dammit if you don't have a good time.

The plot is so simplistic it just had to come from the 80's: a group of dumb teens played by a bunch of actors in their mid to late 20's decide to go to a party at Hull House thrown by Angela (Mimi Kinkade) and Suzanne (Scream Queen legend Linnea Quigley.) Well, Angela and co. decide to throw a s\u00e9ance. This turns out to be as Will Arnett's \"Arrested Development\" character Gob would call it, a \"Huge Mistake,\" because a demonic force soon possesses Angela, and starts to get to the others as well.

Take \"The Evil Dead\", \"A Nightmare on Elm Street\" and your average dumb dead teen flick, throw them in a blender, and \"Night of the Demons\" is what you get. The movie is anything but original, and really, it's not a good movie. The whole thing is insanely derivative, the acting is terrible, the jokes often fall flat, the characters are annoying (especially the character of Stooge) and the plot holes are numerous. That out of the way, it's still a lot of fun. So why?

Well for one thing, the make up and gore effects are top notch, with some really memorable moments (especially a nasty and just plane odd bit with a tube of lipstick) that really stick out. It also rarely if ever takes itself too seriously, yet with the exception of some terrible puns, plays it straight and never wastes the audiences time with winking self awareness. Plus, there's a definite energy and enthusiasm to the whole enterprise that's almost impossible to resist. Yeah, it's nothing special, but it knows that, and it couldn't be more proud of that fact. It's a goofy party horror movie, and it never pretends to be anything more.

It might not be a classic, but \"Night of the Demons\" is a good example of horror junk food done right. It might not be too memorable or original, but sometimes you don't want a fancy beer. Sometimes you want a Budweiser.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A group of obnoxious teens go to a former funeral parlor for a Halloween party. They get trapped inside, and become possessed by demons that they have accidentally awakened. The possessed teens start killing the others off and seem to be led by Angela (Mimi Kinkade) who floats and talks in a really deep voice. The remaining teens that haven't been possessed yet are forced to fight off the demons and try to escape the house.

This is a pretty decent horror film with great special effects which include Linnea Quigley (who has a couple nude scenes as usual) gouging out a guy's eyeballs and pushing a tube of lipstick into her nipple. There's also a scene where a couple has sex in a coffin and a guy getting his tongue bitten out. This is a great film to watch with a bunch of friends late at night while eating some pizza. The terrible acting and atrocious dialog almost ruins it though. Overall, I would give it a 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This isn't the video nasty Night of the Demon as there are more than one. Actually, there is only one, but it multiplies.

After it inhabits Suzanne (Scream Queen Linnea Quigley), she passes it on to goth girl Angela (Amelia Kinkade) through a nice long kiss.

Next, we see Linnea showing us her quigleys in the bathroom. She shows a lot more as Jay (Lance Fenton) thinks he is in for some fun.

Soon, everything literally goes to hell as bodies drop one by one and are possessed. Judy (Cathy Podewell) and Max (Philip Tanzini) are the last two trying to escape. Max isn't much help, leaving it to Judy to figure a way out.

The makeup was absolutely fantastic, and the only thing that kept this from being even better was the extremely long build up to the action.

The old man (Harold Ayer) who appears in the beginning will be back and get his just desserts.

Linnea Quigley may be the Scream Queen, but Cathy Podewell definitely showed the greatest lungs in this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's the old, old story : kids have a party in an old house, demons are unleashed, death and gratuitous nudity ensues. You all know it, it's still a lot of fun.

Many people (okay, many horror fans, to be specific) have fond memories of this movie and it's always with slight trepidation that you revisit an old movie to see if it's still as good as you used to think it was. Luckily, this is.

It has something for everyone (well, everyone who happens to be male, I suppose). From a fun title sequence to a shoplifting scam involving cunning use of Linnea Quigley's ass to the \"mirror\" scene to the full on demonic fun, this is a blast from start to finish.

The girls are cute, the guys are . . . . male, the death scenes are well done with some good gore effects and, unlike some horrors from the era, this actually keeps a good sense of atmosphere and even tension throughout. Don't get me wrong, it's still fun first and foremost but it offers some nice, freaky moments that should please most genre fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I neglected this film when I used to go to the movie store but then the curiosity got to me and I decided to check it out. I loved it!!! The movie starts off with Judy and Jay heading for a Halloween party at the abandoned funeral parlor Hull House. Then we meet a few more characters, Angela and Suzzanne ( the hosts), Frannie, Max, Rodger, Sal and Helen. Then of course they start to party and when they''re really in the mood they decide to have a s\u00e9ance which awakens a demon. The demon possesses Angela and she starts her gruesome slaughtering. Will they survive the Night of the Demons.

The movie was overall great. The gore was fine but the nudity provided by Linnea Quigley (Trash from ROTLD) once again screws it. I never was a fan of hers and never will be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A bunch of mostly obnoxious and grossly unappealing teens go to a creepy, remote, rundown old mortuary located nearby a cemetery to attend an anything-goes all-out Halloween party being hosted by freaky occult-obsessed oddball Mimi Kinkade and her vacuous, boy-hungry bimbette friend Linnea Quigley. The loutish, profane, beer-guzzling, sex-happy dipstick dimwits hold a s\u00e9ance as a joke (very bad idea, 'cause the desolate old dive is naturally said to be haunted by demonic spirits). Of course, that ill-advised s\u00e9ance awakens those decidedly grumpy and hostile evil spirits, who gruesomely kill and possess a majority of the kids, turning them into ugly, fanged, clawed, boil-faced murderous ghouls who wreak the usual grisly havoc throughout the duration of an especially long, dark and harrowing night of pure terror.

Yep, this is essentially your umpteenth vigorously graphic and unrelenting wall-to-wall cheap shock-ridden \"Evil Dead\" rehash, replete with closed-off, there's no easy way out claustrophobic single self-confined setting, outrageously excessive splatter set pieces, an incessantly pounding hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, a total sense of gloom'n'doom-laden grim nightmarishness, and vibrantly in-your-face manic careening cinematography (the expected headlong rush-inducing hyperactive hand-held camera-work, smooth, sinuous tracking shots, crazily tittled camera angles, even the camera on a dolly doing a gracefully gliding 180 degree figure eight). Fortunately, Kevin S. Tenney's slick, assured, stylish direction keeps the extremely threadbare and derivative proceedings thundering along at a speedy clip; moreover, Tenny gives the film an attractive polished look and effectively creates a certain crudely energetic and enthusiastically grotesque spooky ooga-booga carnival funhouse atmosphere.

However, Steve Johnson's marvelously gory and imaginative make-up effects are the true star of the show. Bloodthirsty highlights include disgusting fat slob Hal Havins (who played a similarly irritating obese a**hole role in the immortal \"Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-A-Rama\" around the same time) having his tongue bitten off, Quigley shoving a whole tube of lipstick in one of her breasts (yow!) and gouging a guy's eyes out while she's making love to him (double yow!), a libidinous teen couple getting offed while doing exactly what you think in a coffin (the chick has her neck snapped while the dude has his arm chopped off), Kinkade setting her hands on fire, and, in the film's single most nasty scene, a mean old man has his throat slit from the inside out after eating an apple piece laced with razor blades. The trashy'n'thrashy rock score likewise smokes. And then there's Kinkade's incredibly wild, sexy and uninhibited demon dance, a sizzling number accompanied by a flickering strobe light and startling jump cuts that Kinkade choreographed herself. Okay, so this overall doesn't amount to anything more than a completely mindless and pointless, albeit quite nicely mounted and enjoyably vulgar hunk of blithely sleazy fright flick junk, but if you're in the mood for entertainingly brain-dead lowbrow horror scuzziness this cheerfully crass and juvenile dross does the trick just fine.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The eighties produced a lot of gory little horror flicks, most of them within the slasher sub genre - thus putting this film ahead of most of the rest of its ilk. Night of the Demons is something of a cross between the ultimate gore film, The Evil Dead; and haunted house-cum-slash flick Hell Night. Films like this usually feature a deranged\/deformed madman as the lead bad guy; but here we have bloodthirsty demons, which is always more interesting than a lunatic if you ask me. There's also a lot of comedy in this film, and the first third of the movie could easily be the set up for a straight comedy film. But once the characters enter the central location; a sinister funeral home known as 'Hull House' - the film morphs into the horror film that you would expect given the title. The plot line is as simple as you'd expect it to be, and we follow a bunch of kids that decide to put on a Halloween party inside said funeral home. This turns out to be a bad idea, however, once it transpires that the house is possessed; and the demons start to inhabit the kids' bodies! Their only salvation lies on the other side of the underground stream...but finding the gate to the grounds isn't as easy as it sounds.

The film's centrepiece is the Gothic mansion where the action takes place. This creaky old house makes for a great horror film location; the fact that it used to be a funeral home only adds to this. Director Kevin Tenney shoots the house well, and a particularly good job is done of establishing the fact that the house is in the middle of nowhere and escape is difficult. The comedy towards the start of the film is generally very funny, and I was hoping it would keep up the laughs once the horror starts. The film does have its comedy moments when the kids enter Hull House, but it's never overly funny and it's obvious that horror is the film's main aim. Not that this is a problem; but the Night of the Demons could have been a lot better had it fused these elements properly. The characters are pretty much what you'd expect from this sort of film; but the acting suits the movie well, and it's clear that the young cast had a good time making this movie and it translates well to the screen. The effects are good in that they suit the film well, and as most of the death sequences are well executed; it's a good bet that most people won't get bored watching this. This isn't a classic or must see film; but I can highly recommend it as it offers a good time and will appeal to fans of silly horror fodder.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Night of the Demons (1988) was another in a long line of \"teen\" horror films that were released on video and pay-t.v. during that mecca of film making the eighties. But unlike most of the crap that was being peddled around, this one was actually a decent watch. A group of bored \"teenagers\" decide to party Halloween night away with a pair of bizarre sisters (Mimi Kinkade and Linnea Quigley) at the infamous Hull House. Your usual cast of stereotypical teenagers are invited to the party. But an average teenage bash turns into a night of terror as they try to survive Halloween night when they undead residents of Hull House decide to crash the party. Who'll survive this night of bloodshed and horror?

A nice horror film that is best seen in the unrated version. If you watch the R-Rated cut then you'll miss all of the splatter effects and nudity. Stay tune for the amusing epilogue! A gory film that was followed by an equally entertaining sequel. For horror fans only!

Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Much more than ANY other film from that period, Night of the Demons represents the brainless and hugely enjoyable horror pastiche. It's undemanding fun with loads of nasty make-up effects, gorgeous looking (and horny) teenagers and adorable clich\u00e9-elements. A group of party animals, led by the alternative Angela, goes to celebrate Halloween in an abandoned funeral home that carries an eerie urban legend. It all starts out typical and \"innocent\" with dancing, drinking and the occasional flirt between youngsters that can't keep their hormones under control, but pretty soon a bloodthirsty demon possesses the hostess. In the most ingenious ways you've ever seen, the rest of the cast gets slaughtered viciously only to return as hideous creatures prowling for blood. The thing that makes this film better than most cheesy 80's horror films is finds a good balance between light-headed camp and atmospheric horror. Some sequences really are creepy and the funeral house setting supplies Night of the Demons with an excellent tone. Director Tenney makes great use of the set pieces (coffins, a crematorium, endless dark hallways\u0085) and his young, enthusiast cast obviously love what they're involved in. The terrific make-up effects by a whole team of artists and designers are of course the obvious aspects to love and horror fanatics will absolutely love the large amount of severed limbs, poked out eyes and crushed skulls! The ultimate highlight however is Linnea Quigley's trick with the disappearing lipstick! This nymphomaniac bimbo shoves an entire tube of lipstick in her nipple and continues her sexual murder spree! Terrific! Night of the Demons received two sequels during the 90's and, although they're still definitely worth checking out, they focus more on comedy than chills.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kevin Tenney's \"Night of the Demons\" is an enjoyable horror film that reminds me a little bit \"The Evil Dead\".On Hallowen night,a group of teens throws a party in Hull House,an abandoned funeral home on the outskirts of town.Lead by Angela,they perform a seance-like ceremony and accidentally awaken the evil spirits that inhabit the place.One by one,the uninvited evil force possesses the teens,turning them into bloodthirsty demons.\"Night of the Demons\" is a perfect horror film.It is scary,gory and pretty atmospheric.The characters are well-developed and the gore by Steve Johnson is pretty good.There is a gruesome impaling,a tongue being bitten off,fingers shoved into eye-sockets,etc.The scene,where Suzanne(Linnea Quigley)shoves a tube of lipstick through her nipple is a hoot.Give this one a look.Followed by two sequels.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw \"Night of the Demons 2\" first before I saw \"Night of the Demons\". Unfortunately, my old Blockbuster thought it was a good idea to have the sequel, but no first one. Looney, huh? Now, I think all horror fans need this movie. It's like McDonald's, you know it's bad for you and you'd rather have The Cheesecake Facotory(or whatever pricier restaurant you prefer), but you can't help but just wanting the cheap stuff.

Night of the Demons has it all: your innocent, sexy, goes by the rules chicka-dee, your token black guy, that surprisingly doesn't get killed. You're slutty girl, you're slutty guy, you're dark girl or guy, the goof ball, the cheesy settings of a haunted house, bad acting, and lots of unnecessary nudity. Isn't this stuff great? I mean, I know deep down in my heart of movies that this was pretty bad, but it was a good bad for horror movies. Horror fans should enjoy and dig in!

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Night Of The Demons is definitely one the definitive cheesy 80's demons horror flick in the same vein as the brilliant Evil Dead and Demons movies. This movie combines boozy sexually active teens and demons into one hell of a fun movie. A definite welcome addition after the 80's were overrun by slasher flicks, it was nice to see something a little different.

The plot follows a group of teens who all meet up for a Halloween party at hull house which used to be funeral parlour, hosted by Angela. About 40-minutes of boozing and sexing eventually leads to a demon or demons finding their way out of the furnace and possessing each and every one of the teens. Add some snazzy make-up effects, lots of gore, and cool-looking demons and you've got yourself a sweet 80's cheese-fest that would be ranked as one of the best demon-related films in many horror fans' lists.

Firstly I loved the setting for this movie, \"Hull House\" is really creepy and scary and the perfect setting for a horror movie and plus when the Demons emerge, that's when the action really kicks in and it becomes a night of terror and fear. This movie spawned 2 sequels, the first one in 1994 which was okay but nothing come pared to this and the third one titled Demon House was absolutely horrendous. This is one of those horrors that has definitely stood the test of time and remains a true gem of mine for many years to come.

All in all a fun cheesy flick with Demons that's definitely worth checking out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film gave me probably the most pleasant surprise of any I've ever seen. It was not a big-budget production and its premise, middle-age amateur jazz musicians get an unexpected professional engagement at a Catskills-like resort, seems rather modest. What's not modest is the film's success. This is a little slice-of-life movie that is most entertaining throughout. Director Frank D. Gilroy also wrote the script and it's full of interesting subplots and unexpected twists.

The actors are journeymen who do a solid job. The biggest revelation to me was Cleavon Little. He plays a professional musician who is hired to fill in for an ailing band member. His attitude immediately clashes with the others. While they see it as an opportunity for big fun and a once in a lifetime thing, he sees it as his job and not a particularly interesting one. This leads to conflict but when the group gets in trouble, he steers them through. Little, who died too young, really showed me he was a fine actor with this film.

This movie is a true sleeper, the kind that a film fan always hopes to discover. I recommend it wholeheartedly.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This little film brings back a lot of memories, both fond and foul, of what can and does happen when one is a working musician. The not so pleasant accommodations for the band, the management of the venue jumping up and down telling you what to play, the sheer ecstasy of the applause.............. Far from being farcical it is, in fact, very accurate in the way it depicts musicians, professional and otherwise, who have travelled a great distance to perform a season of gigs at a venue. There are those times when everything goes perfectly, there are those other times when you immediately start to miss your partner and wonder what the hell you are doing this far from home. In the end you have to make the best of it because there is no other way out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My wife and I endorse all the positive comments below, made by other IMDB members. While this is no box office smash hit it has a special charm all of its own. Genuine and heart-warming.

We saw this on video, at the end of a long day. We were very tired, and in bed. Normally in a situation like this my wife drops off to sleep within minutes, that is, unless it is an exceptional movie and this one kept us both entertained right to the very end.

Perhaps younger viewers in their teens and twenties would not like this, but for the rest of us it is a true gem! See it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Gig\" is a tight, funny and poignant little movie about a group of friends that have gathered together on a regular basis to play Dixieland for fun. The group unexpectedly lands a real paying job, in musician's parlance; a \"gig\".

They travel to upstate NY for a two week gig at a summer resort minus one member, who bows out due to contracting cancer. At the last minute, they hire a professional to take his place. Things get sticky as an over-the-hill Frankie Valli type attempts a comeback at the resort and tries to utilize the group as his band.

The attitude the professional bass player gave the guys rang true. By signing up to play the two-week gig, they were taking bread out of the mouths of someone who needed the job to feed his or her family. While Pop, Rock, Rap, Country and Western, and R&B stars make money off of albums. Jazz musicians have to travel abroad to make a living. Almost nobody gets rich. The guys living their dream also cost others a needed income.

I believe that almost everyone who can play a musical instrument with some proficiency dreams about playing a paying \"gig\" one time or another, Woody Allen and Kevin Bacon are two popular examples of this amateur-to-professional crossover. I especially recommend this movie to anyone who has ever played music professionally. My mom, who was a musician, LOVED it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is almost never seen today - the only reason I can enjoy it again and again is from a slightly worn out VHS copy I made when the film was shown on TV in 1991 here in England.

An ensemble cast are obviously enjoying themselves and this is reflected to the viewer. A razor sharp script helps things along, and once you've seen this you will want to watch it over and over again.

Wayne Rogers is the 'star' but everyone contributes to a great film, with a great jazz soundtrack to boot. There are emotional moments during the film, but never to the point of sickly sweet sentimentalism - these are guys on the trip of a lifetime, and they convey that excitement wonderfully.

Highly recommended if you can actually get to see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an enjoyable movie. Its very realistic to the \"wonderful world of music\" I've been there and done that. It shows a human element in each character and the realism that nobody is perfect. These amateur musicians weren't all that bad players. Cleavon Little's character, Marshall Tucker, was played very well. Marshall was no saint himself. Here he was getting paid to do a job and he's giving these guys a hard time about everything in the van on the way up there. You don't bite the hands that feed you. I do find it hard to believe that a player with the jazz experience he has, claims he does not know any of the dixieland tunes. He has a tremendous sense of predicting chord changes to tunes he does not know. Not common, but not unheard of either. He delivers a true and harsh message at the end of the movie when he tells the clarinet player, \"its not a religion, devotion is not enough.\" On that level, he is correct, although I think the clarinet player could have handled the job. He was practicing his butt off and vocal accompaniment music is not that hard to read. Very enjoyable movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a wonderful new movie currently still showing in cinemas in my country. Its director, the Calabrian Gianni Amelio, is in my humble view perhaps the only contemporary Italian director, along with Nanni Moretti, to deserve being called great (that is, apart from the old masters who're still around and occasionally still churning out movies). It's one of my greatest regrets that contemporary Italian cinema has been ailing since the mid-70s, mostly due to a dire lack of funding and nurturing of new talent, something which can be transferred to most fields and which makes Italy one of the most static industrialised countries of our time production-wise (both in an industrial and cultural sense)... unlike, say, China. And this, among other things, is precisely the subject of Amelio's latest movie. Few directors can speak to me about the true, present state of my country and the world as Amelio can, yet his pictures also have a precious timelessness and universality. And for those already worrying that they may be slow, ponderous and worthy - rest assured: of the ones I've seen they most certainly aren't, at least not if you're used to quality European cinema.

The basic plot outline: Vincenzo Buonavolont\u00e0 is a technician at an obsolete steel plant factory somewhere in Italy, probably the North. He is played by Sergio Castellitto, one of contemporary Italy's most versatile and talented actors. When a major Chinese steel company purchases some of the Italian steel plant's industrial machinery, Vincenzo, who struggles to make himself understood with the non-Italian speaking Chinese director, tries to tell him that the machine is defective and its converter needs substituting, an element he's working on custom-building himself. He warns them that not doing this might have very dangerous consequences. Meanwhile a young Chinese woman called Liu Hua acts as interpreter between the two men, but seems to struggle to find adequate translations for some of Vincenzo's technical jargon. The Italian eventually loses his patience with her, virtually pushing her aside and asking her to hand him the Chinese-Italian dictionary so that he can do the translating himself.

Despite Vincenzo's warnings, the following morning he finds that the Chinese factory director and his employees have returned to their own country while not heeding his advice about the adequate use of the industrial machine at all. Thus Vincenzo, equipped with his great integrity, sets off for China. And here begins an endlessly fascinating road movie through China, a very topical 21st century Odyssey through the Asian Giant. A latter-day Marco Polo's quest for the secrets of the mysterious nation? Not quite. As in all of Amelio's movies, the journey itself becomes far more important than whether its ultimate \"mission\" is carried out or not. In fact, the way in which the point is literally brought home, not without a touch of humour, is a lovely, poignant paradox and irony, which made my eyes well up while I was simultaneously smiling. The spectator is let in on the secret that Vincenzo's trip was ultimately completely useless, but he himself doesn't know it, and goes home a satisfied man, a deluded innocent. At least, you figure, he's happy. Sort of.

The journeys that Amelio's characters embark on totally uproots and strips them down to their bare, human essentials. They are momentarily without name, status or someone to put in a word for them. These Theo Angelopoulos-like themes are also explored in Lamerica, actually my favourite Amelio movie, closely followed by La stella che non c'\u00e8 in order of personal preference. In the 1994 movie Lamerica, two Italian racketeers travel to Albania to \"do business\". Just like Vincenzo, they intend to go there, do what they have to do and then go back home. Instead, one of these two Italians accidentally ends up on an almost Homeric journey through this devastated land just after the fall of Communism.

But let us go back to La stella che non c'\u00e8: once Vincenzo is in China, he predictably discovers that the seemingly \"simple\" task of handing the converter to its new owner is anything but straight-forward. The piece of machinery's new location is seemingly almost impossible to determine, unless he embarks on an arduous journey through China. When he comes across Liu Hua, the young interpreter he'd mistreated now working as a librarian, he tries to speak to her but she reacts in a hostile manner, informing him that because of him, she'd lost her job as interpreter back in Italy. Played by the relative newcomer Ling Tai, Liu Hua soon becomes a Virgil to Vincenzo's Dante when she grudgingly figures that she could do worse than to act as guide and interpreter for the Italian on his trip (obviously for a consistent sum of cash). This young Chinese actress may not have the beauty of Ziyi Zhang, nor the movie star glamour of Gong Li, but her charming, expressive and pretty face oozes a combination of defiant strength, intelligence, dignity and wry humour that'll make her features difficult to forget once you've seen the movie. Furthermore, she and Castellitto have wonderful emotional chemistry as co-stars.

Amelio weaves dramas that are serious, poetic, mythical, post-neo-realist and humorous all at once, while maintaining a heart-warming ability to explore the fleeting essence of humanity in everyday, commonplace circumstances. A documentary-like naturalness conceals what is actually a meticulously conceived tapestry of faces and places, a vista which also manages to incorporate a cinematography of breath-taking beauty. The photography here is functional yet gorgeous, as befits a movie on the displaced in an industrial and emotional wasteland.

Amelio's observant eye is a grown-up, disillusioned one, yet also never a cynical or misanthropic one. The masterful camera angles also often gives a sense of Vincenzo's alienness in the eyes of the Chinese, bringing home a sense of objectivity and cultural impartiality that's very rare in movies about a \"familiar\" Westerner exploring an \"unfamiliar\" non-Western country. I cannot recommend this movie enough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I went to the cinema, I expected not much. I knew nothing about this movie but it was the only movie I could see, 'cause I was in a small town then. So I saw this movie and I was fascinated! \"La stelle che non c'\u00e8\" is a trip through the new industrial China and it shows it honestly! You see most of the time the ugly places of China, and you see what really happens with this new industrializing. The main characters are sad but hopefully people. He's the naive Italian guy who can't believe what he see's. She's a translator from china who's missing her son. Sometimes sad, sometimes funny but every time poetic! A wonderful movie with wonderful actors! So only one star is missing!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a modern Marco Polo, from Venice to China, here we come Amelio, again, taking on the task to render us the grey area in the middle of two worlds in solid colors. Eroded by globalization's collateral damages, the pessimistic vision of Europe is mutual with Chinas.

The view of that charming but puzzling country is dealt from below, devoid of any claim to learn or impose opinions. Reality, nonetheless, is harsh. Abandoned and exploited children, beehive-homes, backward areas is the OTHER china we ignore. Vincenzo (Castellitto), a technician of a steel factory, is one of us. His voyage to China is a pretext to understand, to learn from the inside a country where progress and third-world problems live together in an infamous balance. It's not exactly clear if Vincenzo knew by the first time that the mechanical component was already been fixed, I think so; anyway is a minor aspect. Liu, the Chinese girl, is the key of the whole film. She carries on her back a lot of difficulties, she's got the strength to overcome, but how could she fight with little money and little help ?

The realistic and unbiased view of the facts by the girl, refusing Vincenzo's money, touched me a lot. A pack of bank-notes can't get back her husband, her baby (forced to treat like a stranger for the Law), protect her by scorns. Liu knew his intentions were benign and kind, far from a cold charity act. Their friendship is beautifully narrated, the way it grows step by step, dignified and formative, unique. A priceless legacy to keep.

Some scenes are stunning, either for the acting (Vincenzo crying on the ferry) or by the dialogues (at the restaurant, on the railroads). Besides a careless editing and a pretty lazy start, \"La Stella che non c'\u00e8\" is brilliant and sharp just because chronicles the untold verities.

In competition at 63rd Venice Film Festival, plenty bet on Tai Ling for the Mastroianni Prize, dedicated to emerging stars. She definitely deserved that award.

[8\/10]","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The missing star\", who competed for the Golden Lion at 2006 Venice Film Festival, is a film that, when you think about, the first adjective that comes to your mind is: intense. Intense looks, intense sequences, this movie's intensity captures the viewer since the very first scenes at the steelworks, in Italy (I couldn't recognize the city, maybe Genoa or even Naples), although the pace is quite slow.

Vincenzo Buonavolont\u00e0, the male lead, and with him, all the audience, sees a completely different China than a normal Westerner imagines: horrible high-rise building with about 8 hundred flat owners inside, skyscrapers, desolation, fog, scrapers and cranes everywhere, but also the beauty of the Yangtze Kiang river, that will soon become a big lake because of the controversial dike that will wipe a lot of towns out. China is a country under construction, but, under all these colossal public works, there are still poverty, backwardness and unfair laws.

We can relate more easily to this story because Gianni Amelio, the expert director, chose two phenomenal leads: Sergio Castellitto, a well-known actor in Italy, and the Chinese surprise Tai Ling, a total unknown girl that gives an as intense interpretation as Castellitto's.

The film is not perfect, there are some flaws here and there, but that doesn't mean it's a mediocre film. Try to see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Vincenzo Buonavolunta, a man that has spent years working at a steel mill, as a maintenance man, that the Italian owners are selling to the Chinese, comes at the end of the meeting where the purchase is being arranged because he wants to tell the new buyers of a flaw he has discovered and he thinks he has the solution. He doesn't exactly endear himself to the Italian old management, or to the new Chinese owners. He even fights with the translator about the exact term he wants to use in expressing his concern.

The next thing we see is Vincenzo arriving in China trying to contact the new owners. To his amazement, there is someone new in charge, as Mr. Chong, the man he tried to warn in Italy, has been fired. His next quest is getting to the woman that was the translator, Liu Hua. He finds her working in a library, but she tells him, in no uncertain terms, she blames him for being fired from her position. Liu, who sees the desperation of Vincenzo, agrees to accompany him to find his steel mill plant.

Thus Vincenzo and Liu begin a voyage through some of the bleak countryside that involves traveling by train, steamship, bus and truck, to remote parts of the giant country. Finding the correct factory proves to be elusive, at best, but Vincenzo discovers a life that is completely alien to him, as well as finding a kind soul who doesn't hesitate to help the Italian man, in spite of her initial distaste for him.

Gianni Amelio's film is a sort of travelogue. He takes the viewer into unknown territory. Some comments compare Vincenzo to Marco Polo, the great Italian traveler, although the similarities are not quite tangible. The film keeps our attention in the early stages of the trip, but it starts getting somewhat less enjoyable as Vincenzo gets stranded after separating from Liu. Mr. Amelio is an interesting director, as he clearly demonstrates with this film for which he worked on the adaptation of Ermano Rea's novel, which we haven't read.

Sergio Castellitto is the sole reason for watching the film. This versatile actor brings a lot to the movie, which, in a way, is a tour de force for him, as he is seen in almost every frame of the picture. The combination of Amelio and Castellitto proves to be a winning combination. Ling Tai, who is making her debut as Liu Hua, has some lovely moments and shows good chemistry with her co-star.

Luca Bigazzi photographed the Chinese landscape in all its bleakness. We see a China that is not picture post card pretty. Mr. Bigazzi captures all the greyness, so typical of the areas where the film is set. Franco Piersanti's musical score serves the film well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on the best-selling novel \"The Dismissal\", The Missing Star, the latest film by acclaimed Italian director Gianni Amelio, is the story of the growing friendship between an older Italian maintenance man and a young interpreter he hires in Shanghai to be his guide through China. Vincenzo Buonovolonta is the Maintenance Manager at a steel mill in Italy that has been shut down and the blast furnace sold to China. When Vincenzo (Sergio Castellitto) discovers that a control unit in the furnace is defective and potentially dangerous, he travels to China to find the steel mill where the part has been sold in hopes of preventing a fatal accident.

The film, of course, is about the journey not the destination to use a familiar clich\u00e9 and, on that journey, we are privy to an engaging look at China with all its immense beauty and complexity, via the outstanding cinematography by Luca Bigazzi. The film takes us to Shanghai, Wuhan, Chongquing, Baotou, and a trip along the Yangstze River showing us coastal areas that are scheduled to be flooded when the Three Gorges Dam is fully operative, a Chinese mega-project that has resulted in the displacement of 1.2 million people. The trip brings the travelers face to face with poverty, overcrowded housing, and children left to fend for themselves.

The film revolves around the relationship between Vincenzo and translator Liu Hua (Tai Ling) who first meet in Italy where his impatience with her translations at a dinner meeting causes her to lose her job. When he tracks her down in Shanghai she is working at a library and resistant to Vincenzo's approach. Looking at his offer to help him in his travels in China as little more than a well paying job, she reluctantly agrees to accompany him. Their relationship, however, grows as they move from city to city, her interpretive skills much in evidence to help the bewildered Vincenzo who does not own a cell phone.

As they slowly open up to each other, they expose each other's vulnerability and the film delves into their past and present life and how they arrived at their present situation. We meet Liu's son (Lin Wang) at the home of her grandmother. In China's one child policy, he is one of the unwanted children who have been \"hidden\" since the father of the boy abandoned the family. Although the meeting between Vincenzo and the boy is casual, their relationship becomes central to how the story plays out.

Castellitto is an excellent actor (though one longs for a younger Enrico Lo Verso in this role). However, he is emotionally distant throughout the film, his expression rarely changing from a far away hangdog expression. Though Tai Ling brings a great deal of presence to the role, her relationship with the much older Vincenzo never seemed real to me and the ending seemed to exist only in a reality known as the movies. Though Amelio is one of my favorite directors, coming on the heels of the brilliant Keys to the House, Missing Star is a disappointment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based upon the novel The Dismissal by Ermanno Rea, in essence the story's about the slow friendship that develops between an Italian maintenance technician Vincenzo Buonavolonta (Sergio Castellitto, who can be seen as the villainous King in Prince Caspian, and was the lead in Bella Martha) and a Chinese translator Liu Hua (Ling Tai). They set off actually on the wrong foot, with the former chastising the latter for her inaccurate, and slow translations of what he wanted to tell a Chinese delegate who had bought equipment that is faulty. Vincenzo wants to do the right thing, which is rare in these days, and that is to tell the prospective buyers upfront the faults as well as the intricacies that their purchase would bring, and given that he's disturbed by the fact that the deal still went ahead, he takes time off to craft a component that would set things right.

But that also means to travel to China in search of the elusive machine, which proves to be well hidden, and seemingly having vanished without a trace. With the initial reluctant help of Liu Hua, they set off in this treasure hunt from city to city, which brings us to lesser seen sights of China, away from the Beijings and the Shanghais, to cities like Wuhan, with industrial like backdrops such as steel mills and nuclear plants with their smoke stacks dotting the scenery. The mighty Yangtze River also makes an appearance. Along the way, the usual trappings of such travelogue styled movies come into play, such as the learning of culture, ideals, food, and basically, the understanding that the world is without strangers, if only one makes an effort to try and connect. While hints of some romance between the two leads are suggested, it rarely made itself to be a moot point, until perhaps late in the movie (hey, opposites attract, no?)

Besides the major industrial plants and factories, We get to see various cottage industry, like seamstresses working in sweat shop like environments, and I believe Cotton too, along with noodle making. As a film, it provided me the travelling opportunity without leaving my seat to observe, and credit to it for not passing judgement from a moral high ground on exploitation and the likes. And kudos too for the movie to engage in dialogue based on the characters' native tongues, rather than (and I shall not name names here) some other movie \/ cross-cultural collaborations where dialogue is forced-dubbed and came off unnatural, and truly irksome. Some might deem the supporting characters to be too kind too, always opening their arms and doors to a foreigner, but I would like to imagine that maybe in the more rural areas, people in general tend to be more sincere, friendly and basically not get caught up in the rat race to trample on others, or be trampled upon.

If there's a message to take away from the movie, besides the fact that I mentioned that the world is without strangers, is a reminder to myself that some of the stuff I deem important, may not be so to others. Importance is something one places upon something else, and its basis really depends on how we define the boundaries we set. So given our finite lifetime, I think I should lighten up a bit more, live and let live, and sometimes bask in the illusion that ignorance could be bliss.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of Stan Laurel's best solo comedy's, before the 1927 teaming with Oliver Hardy. Laurel is a very good actor in the film, and provides good comedy. The best scene in the film is when Stan dances with Mae Laurel (his real-life common law wife), at the Cafe Espanol. Stan does silly dances that are funny, without you hearing the music. I will recommend this to any Stan Laurel fan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you want to see a film starring Stan laurel from the Laurel & Hardy comedies, this is not the film for you. Stan would not begin to find the character and rhythms of those films for another two years. If, however, you want a good travesty of the Rudolph Valentino BLOOD AND SAND, which had been made the previous year, this is the movie for you. All the stops are pulled out, both in physical comedy and on the title cards and if the movie is not held together by character, the plot of Valentino's movie is used -- well sort of.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mud and Sand is one of Stan Laurel's spoofs of the popular movies at the time, this one being of Rudolph Valentino's Blood and Sand (hence Stan being Rhubarb Vaselino). While partly inconsistent on characterization (how did he defeat those bulls in the beginning is not explained), this was mostly funny from beginning to end with one of the best sequences being a dance he does with his then common-law wife, Mae Laurel. Another funny sequence concerns his reluctance with romancing a femme fatale, Filet de Sole, while his wife, Caramel, is waiting for him that shows some glimpses of his later innocent character with Oliver Hardy. Well worth seeing for anyone interested in seeing Mr. Laurel's early work before his fateful teaming that made him popular around the world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seeing Laurel without Hardy in a film seems strange, yet it's entertaining all the same. It's a well done parody of what became a classic silent film and it showcases Stan's talents very well. While his pictures with Oliver Hardy were great, these early solo efforts give you an idea of how skilled he was at his craft and how great he might have been had he continued in the tradition of Keaton and Chaplin as an individual star on his own. The dance sequence with his real-life wife in the caf\u00e9 scene is the best part of the picture, and has some pretty funny bits to go with Laurel's excellent dance steps. And the bullfight climax is a gem, as even the bull takes a pratfall. And I like the irony in the scene where he's buried in hats and comes up wearing his familiar Laurel and Hardy bowler hat. As much as I love the Laurel and Hardy team and feel that there was never a funnier comedy duo on screen during their prime, it's nice to see them on their own once in a while (check out THE FIGHTING KENTUCKIAN that Hardy made with the Duke as another fine example.) Dale Roloff","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw this movie for the first time I didn't believe my own eyes. In front of me there was a great -and well done- parody of Valentino... see Stan Laurel bullfight that way is like to see an excellent fencer in action! It's a very good parody, rich of ideas, with a clever and charming Stan... old and good like whiskey. (or the booze-up after that)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Stan Laurel, it's been noted, first made a real name for himself by appearing in short parodies of popular feature films in the 1920s. He certainly demonstrates himself to be an excellent comic actor and performer here in \"Mud and Sand\" (a parody of Rudolph Valntino's \"Blood and Sand\"), but I think a film like this really works not because Laurel was a great satirist but because it allows the audience to jump into the comedy already familiar with the situation and scenes. Laurel can then let loose with his inspired gags without either having to create context or to do without it. I watched this the day after watching \"Blood and Sand\" itself; it certainly enhanced the experience to know what was being parodied and where.

The scene where Laurel's character (Rhubarb Vaseline if you believe the title cards, or Rhubarb Vaselino if you believe how his name gets written on the chalk board) bilks his mother out of money with a two-for-you, two-for-me trick is funny on its own because it's a great gag, but it's extra funny if the viewer is aware how it is taking the air out of Valentino's extravagant and melodramatic promises to give his mother any luxuries she desires.

This is the best Stan Laurel solo work I've seen. It's just plain funny -- even more so if you have had a chance to see the source material.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Stan as a bullfighter, and a good one, is quite a surprise. Usually overshadowed by Oliver Hardy, this silent short allows him to take the lead, and the limelight.

One can only draw the conclusion that his character \"Rhubarb Vaselino\" was a parody of the many Rudolph Valentino movies of this era.

Be prepared to laugh yourself silly at some of the dialog, and keep an eye on the special effects.

I viewed this on DVD in a Vol.1 & 2 collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Stan Laurel comedy short is a cute little parody of the Valentino film BLOOD AND SAND. If you've seen BLOOD AND SAND, then you'll probably appreciate this film and laugh at a few of the scenes that mock the Valentino film. However, if you have not see that movie and just watch this film, you'll probably not be very impressed--though I really liked the title cards, us the word \"bull\" was used repeatedly in very funny ways.

Stanly plays \"Vaselino\" a bullfighter who seems pretty dim-witted and wins only because the bulls seem to lazy and non-aggressive. Even the bull at the end of the film who has supposedly killed ten men is obviously just a domesticated bull.

Not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but still a cute and harmless film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has all the qualities to be good, Stan -singing (?), dancing, falling- is very funny, I think he handled his character in the best way possible. it's a parody and very well done, maybe times can change, there's another audience, but if you want to laugh, come on, see it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Critics and audiences both pretty much panned this movie, but I actually didn't think it was too bad! Even the critics I normally agree with thought it was crap, and I normally despise PG-13 \"horror films.\" So this means one of two things: either (1) I'm too easily pleased, and my taste in movies has dwindled over the years, or (2) 'When a Stranger Calls' isn't nearly as horrible as it's made out to be. Now, to be fair, some of the criticisms of the movie are true--there's not much character development, and not much happens in the story. But man alive folks, how much were you expecting from a movie about a babysitter being stalked? Cut them some slack! As a former babysitter who was watching this flick late at night with the lights out, I can safely say the stalker dude was one creepy mofo! Who knows? I guess stuff like this just gives me the willies.

Yes, I admit I had fun watching this, and I don't care how big of a minority that puts me in. ;)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With all the shoot em up, blood horror movies that have come our way in the last little while \"Saw, Hostal, Saw 2, The Hills have eyes\" Yes, they have their place, don't get me wrong! I went to see \"When a stranger calls\" with my buddy the other night! Why? Because it's a remake of the 1979 classic, which at the time was excellent and scared the you know what out of everyone! I didn't know what to expect. However I was pleasantly surprised! It was a film made of mood, atmosphere, suspense! Because remember people, what you can't see, what you think you see, what you can't hear, or what you think you hear, is far more scarier then what you do! If you love films with mood, creepiness, suspense and atmosphere!! You'll love it! It brought it back to the roots of the original Halloween. Thumbs up, a solid 8.5 out of 10 Remember folks, it's well done! not perfect! It's spooky, not bloody, It's creepy, not gory! It was nice to see a film come a long like this. Our minds have been conditioned and warped by the glitz and shock value of modern day horror movies, we forget, what's really scary.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having seen the original when I was 13 (and, yes, I was stupid enough to watch it while babysitting!), I was excited to see this remake.

Camilla Bell did a great job as Jill Johnson. And the fact that a teen horror flick could be made in the year 2006 without tremendous vulgarity and gore, made it even that much stronger of a film. I had a great time trying not to chew my fingernails off!

This film won't win anyone an Oscar, but it is entertaining and worth the matin\u00e9e price ticket I bought to see it. I think girls around the world should watch the original and the remake...and then determine to never babysit again.

All I can say is, I'm glad I'm too old to babysit! There's just something about being in a dark creepy house with sleeping kids that makes this movie classic. No blood, no gore...just good psychological fun! WINNER!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this movie. I'm not a big horror movie buff so i couldn't comment on similarities between this and other movies of this genre, but i found this movie quite captivating. the story line, albeit a little obvious, had some genuinely scary\/tense moments and the acting (particually of the lead female role) wasn't bad in anyway

Overall i'm a little surprised at the low rating this movie has gotten. I watch a lot of movies (working in a video store tends to help) and this really isn't as bad as people seem to think. I do have some criticism though. The final call from the cop was terrible, almost overacted, the dead girl in the bathroom looked liked she was having a little sleep (probably from the amount of tequila she mentioned she drank) and the children's reaction to what was happening instilled in me the hope that they were ultimately killed

hope this helps some people","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Im a big horror fan and I quite enjoyed this remake. With all these horror remakes floating about I think this is one of the better attempts.

I watched it with my two little sisters and I think it made it even better as they were quite scared. Also with the shouting at the screen \"Dont do that!\", \"Not that way!\", etc. I thought there were some good little jumpy moments and it built the tension well.

Camilla Belle is absolutely stunning in the lead role and a very good actress - So she holds your attention well.

Overall a decent film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While i read all of the complaints about this movie before i saw it, i still had interest from the preview. I don't know if it was because i was expecting a bomb or what, but i really enjoyed the movie. The I was not very frightened at all until the second half of the movie, but even then it wasn't very bad at all. I think that most of the scenes and false alarms were realistic, if a little too coincidental, but it was necessary to move the story along. I think that the house and surrounding area is the perfect setting for this type of movie, it is beautiful and huge, but then the same qualities that are attractive become scary. I also think that the light arrangement worked extremely well because not only did they turn on upon entry, but there was no way to keep them on, so the house stayed dark outside of the small section Jill was in.

Speaking of Jill, i thought her part was acted pretty well, at first it wasn't as believable, but after a few phone calls it was fine. In fact the scenes where she is frightened are acted perfectly. And, finally, someone got the fire poker right. I can't tell you how many times when i hear a noise at my house i grab the fire poker, and it was a nice touch for her to do the same, even though she idiotically forgets it when she needs it most.

In regards to the plot holes, the movie is not perfect but almost every hole can be explained, and part of the mystery is how he got in..exactly, how long was he watching her? how did he get out to kill her friend? and when exactly did the gardener die? overall, i enjoyed it and i was surprised how quickly it went. It kept my attention, and i wanted to see how it ended, although the ending was very brief and left a bad taste in my mouth. My only complaint, other than the ending, was the lack of character development. They could have added ten minutes with her and her friends or something to make us feel bad for her situation more, to give us a taste of her personality and to give us foreshadowing to how she will handle the situation(for example, the scene where she debates whether to go back for the kids, it looks like some scene is missing at the beginning that talked about her only caring about herself or something).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't watch very many 'horror' movies, but one night I sat down and watched this with my cousins. Now, we're teenagers, so we tend to make fun of a lot of things, but honestly, the acting here really wasn't very good, especially at the beginning. One line that stood out was when Scarlett says to Jill and Tiffany, \"This is so... high school!\" while the next scene shows Jill walking past a sign with their High School name on it... Many parts at the beginning reminded me of a corny, badly-written, badly-acted Lizzie McGuire episode. However, as the story progressed, and the cast moved on to just about only Jill most of the time, I was able to appreciate the movie more. Camilla Belle did really well in this movie, and I think that the other actors and actresses ruined the movie for her. And I must admit, this was one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. Well, no, there weren't big monsters and white faces appearing in dark corners and possessed dolls, but the thing that made this movie scarier than ones containing those things is that it really could happen. And this movie really reminded me of what really IS scary... We all know we're not likely to stumble upon the living dead any time in our lives, but the idea of having a murderer inside the house you're babysitting at could really happen. The only flaw with this movie is that it's one of the most clich\u00e9 movies I've ever seen. It has everything in it that any horror movie has ever had- turning the keys and the car starts, shadows in the corner, turning the corners of the stairs with suspense, turning around and seeing a dead body, ending a fatal scene quickly with waking up from a dream, etc. At the suspenseful scenes, it was very predictable, but overall, I would give it a 7\/10. It's definitely worth seeing.

By the way, This is my first review, so I don't know if any of those things were spoilers.. But just to be safe...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't listen to most of these people. ill give you a better review of this movie which me and my friend love! Its about Jill Johnson, played by Camilla Belle, who babysits at the Mendrakis' house and someone breaks in. if you're wondering how he got in the house, he went through the garage most likely. so anyway, don't listen to, \"the worst acting\". it has amazing acting. with a great story. I think that there are 2 benefits that Jill has. 1. shes a fast runner and is on the track team. 2.she got out alive! lol.

it is a cool movie and quite scary. check it out, you will be happy with this masterpiece. don't listen to the other people on the site. its very good. trust me, i am good at reviewing movies. I'm a future movie critic. i totally want to buy this movie. and you will too when you see it. it is amazingly awesome.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When A Stranger Calls is actually a pretty good movie. I had never saw the original and so when I watched this I thought it was unique. When When A Stranger Calls was advertised on the television the trailer gave away the ending. Well, I never saw the trailer so when I saw this film I was surprised at how good it turned out to be. I walked by it one day and decided I'd buy it and now I'm lucky I did, because I thought it was a very pleasing movie that is a nice little film to own. It is getting a lot of unfair treatment, and if you're interested in this movie at all, don't listen to all the negativity. Camille Belle is not as bad of an actress as everyone makes her out to be, and she did a great job in this movie, so all you haters get over yourselves, lighten up, and actually try to enjoy this movie for what it is; A fun, teeny bopper, popcorn flick. If you haven't seen it please do for it is a lot more enjoyable than a lot of the other slashers being made recently...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is about a girl who's not going to a bonfire only because she's baby-sitting that night. Nothing weird about that, right? Until ... The phone rings. Until ... The phone rings again. And again ... And again. Those are not some stupid prank calls. This is for real. If you wanna see how the girl reacts, just watch the movie.

Great atmosphere filled with scary sounds. Very well performed by young Camilla Belle who got the lead role. I see in her some great potential to become a good actress. This is more than only a decent thriller, I have no idea why it's so underrated. Anyway, on my opinion this movie deserves more than only 4\/10. 24% of all voters rated the movie with 1. Get serious, people. You couldn't get a better thriller for a title like this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Simon Wests pg-13 thriller about a babysitter who gets disturbing prank calls while sitting at a mansion is neither original nor exciting enough to be called a good film. Although there are some elements of suspense, good eye candy and decent characters, the film is just another I know what you did last summer, as it falls short of being taken seriously. The performances were alright, but nothing special with this flick, i say skip it, unless you are looking for a mediocre movie, you can find better films than this on lifetime sometimes, okay maybe not lifetime but at least USA or somethin, haha....

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was recently at a sleepover birthday party with five other girls all my age (eleven.) All of us, thinking it would be some harmless little movie such as Jaws decided to rent it along with Rat Race. (We watched Rat Race after When a Stranger Calls as to ease our fear.) We put the movie on at 11:00 at night and lay together in our sleeping bags hiding behind covers for most of it. I screamed five times which is unusual for me as I get scared in movies but never scared enough to actually scream.

All of us were terrified to even leave the bedroom as we were all positive the Stalker (Jenkins as we called him for some reason)would get us. I played a mean trick; one everyone was all dozing off once Rat Race was over I hid under my sleeping bag and said quietly and lowly \"HAVE YOU CHECKED THE CHILDEN?\" They all SCREAMED like nuts and were so scared. All in all I would rate this movie a 9. The only thing I didn't like was that 1. There were too many false alarms when Jill thinks the Stalker is there and 2. The kids never woke up during the whole thing until Jenkins kidnapped them and hid them in the cupboard at which time all they did was cry like babies. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes thriller. But one thing: I AM SO NOT BABYSITTING PAST 9:00 PM EVER AGAIN1!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A hundred miles away from the scene of a grizzly murder in small town American, Jill Johnson (Belle) settles in for a night of babysitting. With the children asleep and a beautiful home to relax in, she locks the door and sets the alarm. But when a series of eerie phone calls from a stranger says that she \"check the children,\" Jill panics. Fear to terror when she has the calls traced. And what the police find turns the perfect babysitting job into a 16-year-old's worst nightmare. There aren't any other lead actors in this movie. Camilla Belle is the main star with a cute face. The day she arrives to babysit, she really has no idea what in the hell really awaits her.

If I were in a house like the one Jill was in. I would explore everything that is around. The fridge would be the first person I would looks at, but I'm a male and I don't babysit. But what I found funny was the size of the house. I was thinking, would the movie be the same if the house weren't so big? Anyone could get lost in that huge house, but this movie needed a house with a massive size.

Camilla Belle has a cute face, a perfect smile but it's like for a movie like this, the lead actress needs someone with experience. I found Camilla not that good. I don't know maybe she thought that this could be her breakthrough role. I do like her, she is a cute girl but someone to have a role in this movie has to be someone how is different to take it.

This movie wasn't scary. I also found this movie more like a \"chick flick\". I think the only reason this was released during the SuperBowl Weekend was that the guys stay home and watch the game and the girls go out to go see this. It also seems like a type of a movie when girls will enjoy more than guys. But I did like this movie but for how it is. Girls just like tog et scared or scream. This was just a pretty decent movie.

Maybe anyone could like this movie. There are many PG-13 horror films that never succeed. This was on its own level. So I kinda liked this movie. I give it a 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you have ever babysat in a house you didn't know, or if you saw the original and enjoyed it then this will be a good choice. Ignoring the reviews and what was posted here, I went ahead and rented this movie because of the memories of how the original scared me as a teen. This movie has (of course)changed some of the original story to relate to todays teens, such as the babysitter is in trouble for going over on her cell phone minutes and has to take on a babysitting job to pay her bill. However, it sticks to the original story line pretty well. If you can relate to the babysitter, not knowing the house and it's usual pops and cracks it is quite suspenseful. When the killer is shown he is very creepy and you find yourself yelling at the girl to \"GET OUT OF THE HOUSE\". If you have never babysat or been in a situation like this then you probably will not be able to relate and will not like it. It's all about understanding her fear.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"People say that this film is a 'typical teen horror movie'... well it's a horror movie with a teenage girl in it.. what do you expect! It's a good film, I counted 3 actual screams in the audience whilst the film was on and it was a very jumpy scary film. I wasn't bored in the film at any point and I was even on the edge of my seat at one point. The only thing that was slightly bad was that it was a tiny bit slow in getting into the actual storyline but this all led up to why she was where she was and why what happened, happened. The acting was good, the scenery was good and the storyline was good too, I hope to see a 'When A Stranger Calls 2' in a few months! Good film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All you need is great house, a babysitter and a phone. Simon West directs this thrilling and chilling remake of the 1979 original. This version is more of a thriller than a horror flick. Emotionally tense with an escalating fear factor. Jill Johnson(Camilla Belle)needs to work off an excessive cell phone bill; she takes on the task of babysitting the two children of Dr. and Mrs. Mandrakis(Derek de Lint and Kate Jennings Grant). The house is a beautiful 1970ish wood and glass masterpiece. Secluded and peaceful. The kids are already in bed, the wind builds and is joined by down-pouring rain. The phone begins ringing, ringing, ringing. The babysitter is soon in a frantic mode of survival in fear of the creepy stranger on the other end of the phone.

Belle is great as the innocent, smart and strong teen babysitter. The voice of the stranger on the phone is that of Lance Henriksen, while the physical stranger is played by Tommy Flanagan. Also featured are: Katie Cassidy and Brian Geraghty. Kudos to James Dooley for the atmospheric original music.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was skeptical before going to this because of the horribly assembled trailer which made it look like an equally horrible movie. I was nicely surprised by how much i did not waste my money. I believe the films success comes from how creepy it really is and how the environment of the house is. Little things like the sensor lights create a true uneasy feeling. The shadows and ominously cold feeling of the house make it easy to tell that no matter how much you know horror films, anything could happen in the film. The acting is by no means perfect, nor were they bad. The main character is convincing even given the annoying teen dramas that surround her. In the end, I was thoroughly impressed with the film in most aspects.

It is definitely a film i would recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen both movies and I saw without a doubt the re-make is the best, I know a lot of people would disagree those who have become fans of the original will most probably not like this re-make, but i thought it was well thought out and definitely scary, It was so good I'm going to see it again tonight, the original creeped me out because they kill the children, i mean who does that in movies anyway....but in this one the children have at least half a chance...The only bad part about this movie is when the babysitter (Jill) Walks towards the sounds she hears and runs outside into the bushes to check for someone, clearly no one in their right mind would do that whilst babysitting, so that is the only thing i found wrong with the movie, and even so they probably had to put that in there to build suspense, i don't want to give too much away for all those who have not seen it, i recommend you do instead of listening to all these people saying its crap and worse than the original, it would be a better movie for teenagers, as it displays things that most of us are scared of, but when i was in the movies there were at least 10 adults over the age of 70 in there watching it, and they enjoyed it, if they enjoyed it i think you will to! I give it a 9 out of 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Boogie Nights is perhaps one of the greatest examples any would-be filmmaker should take a long hard look at. Sure, you could spend loads of quality time reviewing the clasics from Hitchcock to Scorsese; but lets follow suit for the modern generation and study half-heartedly.

Where to begin, I suppose one could look at the film as simply a story, perhaps even docudrama which focuses on the late 1970's porn industry-and what an industry it was! The other half could focus on the incredible detail one brillant filmmaker can achieve simply by using polyester and *ahem* rubber. But honestly, Boogie Nights brings back the pure, no-bul!shi$, in your face kind of cinema I haven't experienced since the film greats of the 1970's...ironic...or stroke of genius. The story is full of richly detailed characters, all of which you either can relate too, love, or hate; but the impact is clear-you are feeling something for them. Among the characters the two performances which stand out are: Burt Reynolds as Director Jack Horner, and Mark Wahlberg as Eddie Adams\/Dirk Diggler. Julianne Moore is also brillant, as is Heather Graham...but if I focus on any one actor it would have to be John C. Reilly. John's performance is a perfect balance of comedic timing and character driven emotion...I'm a sucker for the line \"Ever see the movie Star Wars?...People say I look like Han Solo.\" Anyway, the look of the film is incredible, the Director of Photography and Director\/Writer\/Producer, have come up with a vibrant colour, and flashy style that compares to Martin Scorsese, and Stanley Kubrick(in terms of his perfection of his craft); but with creating his own unique look, and pushing the edge with the longest single shot I'ver ever seen...that being the New Year's party sequence.

The music, like in any great film, is a character of its own. At times, it consumes oneself with sorrow or grief...but mainly its all about fun, dancing, and having a good time; the spirit of the 1970's. OK, back to the performances.

Burt Reynolds plays the character of Jack Horner, a porn director who feels the burden of what the future of \"film\" means to his genre. The awful transition from shooting on film to recording on magnetic tape. The lose of his art, as it were...and the changes in mentality to the people he works with. Walhberg adds the perfect blend of innocense and sexual bravado needed for the character. For all those individuals who have seen Burton's Planet of the Apes, pay no attention to the performance of Wahlberg in that film...rent boogie nights and see what a difference a good script can make!

Julianne Moore plays the would-be mother to all, and with that comes the torment and anguish she feels, as life imitates art; and she loses all those close to her. Heather Graham is the eye-candy, but later holds her own, and steals some of the scenes from even the great Mr. Reynolds himself. Each character is multidimensional, rich with life, and performed by actors that seem to be picture perfect for the part.

The film itself is often funny, tragic, exciting, and provides a uncompromising look into the turblulant lifestyle of the fast-pace 1970's. It makes no excuses, and tells no lies; and offers the audience a trip back. But even more importantly, the movie gives us a grand example of how films should be made; and a new director whose bold visions bring back art in film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Paul Thomas Anderson's stylish and compelling take on the 70s porn industry follows Eddie Adams, aka Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg), through six years of sex, drugs and disco. His chance meeting with pornography director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) starts his career as one of the greatest adult actors of the time. Dirk's character is based on real-life porn actor John Holmes, who, like Dirk, was renowned for being extremely \"well-endowed\". This is where Dirk finds initial success.

The main themes in Boogie Nights are the obvious ones relating to a film of this genre; pornography, drugs, sex, betrayal, violence and music. Boogie Nights deals with the pornography theme with some control. It is not overplayed and the sex scenes are surprisingly minimal, but mentally explicit when they take place on screen.

Throughout the film cocaine is abused enormously, and the film's setting, Los Angeles 1977-1983, reflects the popularity of the drug at that time, which the film captures perfectly. However, Boogie Nights does not promote cocaine, as there are some scenes involving addiction and overdoses. For example at Jack's party, they find a girl who has recently, and graphically, overdosed; blood pours from her nose and she begins an unconscious fit. The film, before this scenes, has been fairly upbeat and comic, but from this point it foreshadows the darkness that it will occur.

The music scenes are executed brilliantly, from superbly-staged disco scenes to a down-and-out Dirk singing terribly in his new music career. The soundtrack too is excellent, featuring tunes from The Emotions, ELO, The Beach Boys and the unforgettable Sound Experience. The standout scene in the whole film comes down to the music; Dirk, Redd Rothchild (John C. Reilly) and Todd Parker (Thomas Jane) visit drug dealer Rahad Jackson's (Alfred Molina) house in order to make some quick cash from selling phoney drugs, but Night Ranger's Sister Christian, which is playing in the background, increases the intensity of the scene incredibly, proving that music can bring so much more depth to a scene. Boogie Nights is filled with those kind of scenes, which makes the film even more fantastic.

The standout performance in Boogie Nights is Burt Reynolds as the enigmatic, yet moody, film director. In the scene where he attacks a young guy for slating his movies, it is a complete shock for the audience, because before this point he has been pretty mellow and content. Other notable performances are Julianne Moore, Heather Graham as the beautiful Rollergirl, John C. Reilly, and Mark Wahlberg, who delivers the performance of his career.

Boogie Nights is also a surprisingly original film, using common themes but filmed in its own sharp and realistic way. Anderson's approach has been fully captures these characters in a time when nothing seemed to be going wrong, or at least until the 80s arrive. From then on, things turn very dark indeed, and all signs of the recognisable characters and situations from the first part of the film have gone. This does not, however, reduce the high level of engaging entertainment that this film offers.

Boogie Nights was not a box-office success, earning only \u00a32 million at cinemas in the UK. But this is not the film's, or the director's concern. Anderson recognises quality, not popularity, which is evident in his three other films, Hard Eight, Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love. I would recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a simple parable filled with excellent and variable situations, because at the end of this film you will realize that Boogie Nights is a simple morality tale, but one which will stay in the mind days after you watch it. Boogie Nights is at once shocking, hilarious, devastating and both visually and audibly outstanding.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is not so much of a review as it is a testament that it has been proven, yet again, that the Academy rewards money, not artistic accomplishment. And I must say I am saddened that this usually artistic and intelligent band of imbd members have left this off the top 250. Boogie Nights is powerful, raw, and gutsy through script, direction and acting. Very few movies can claim this triple crown.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the things that I like about PT Anderson, is that he has the guts to take talent that most people push to the side or have pushed to the side and makes them stars. Case in point, a washed-up... Burt Reynolds delivers a great performance in this film. And if proving Adam Sander can be a great actor (Punch Drunk Love) wasn't enough... here comes Mark Whalburg... like you've never seen before.

I think many people pass up \"Boogie Nights\" cause they are anti-porn, or just flat out hate the adult industry and can't overlook that aspect of this film. But underneath that is a great story about characters losing everything and battle to regain themselves. There is a beautiful film... and it's too bad that enough people see that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Boogie Nights is full of surprises, nothing quite prepares one for it its soul. Yes, it does have soul, whilst tackling the tackiest of subject matter, with both a wry smile and respect. Brillantly cast and wonderful character development, the performances somehow combine the best of stage acting with improvisation within a cinema verite style.

The plot proved richer than I expected and the underlying themes are teased out quite profoundly as each \"B grade\" human being is brought, through crisis, into perspective.

A sociologist's dream case study, the film resonates the raw truth of what we all know about self-esteem, parental love and lack of it, attention\/love deficit and its manifestation in adulthood, the desperate need to belong. Something for everyone here.. almost camouflaged as issues of untouchables and their separate milieu but of course they are universal.

The film works on a number of levels. The ironic loop is that the milieu portrayed exists only because of the voyeur, who happens to be watching the film...

Boogie Nights is non judgmental of its subject matter and characters, a rarity. It deserves every accolade it has achieved and more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Boogie Nights is one of the best films to come out of the 90's and I'd go so far as to say it should be in the IMDb top 250. I can actually understand why many would dislike it, due to the subject matter. I personally feel however as many do, judging from the aclaim this film's received by viewers and critics that it's topnotch film making.

The direction and acting in this film surpass good and reach the level of brilliance.There is not one scene in this movie that isn't amazing. The individual characters reach out and touch you. Given that this is a movie about the porn industry, one wouldn't imagine the sex scenes could be handled with such sensitivity but they are. The direction is among the best I've ever seen-and I've seen a lot of films.

The film isn't about one particular personal individual's story, it's about many.It's a character study about people who have many layers to them and who maybe in an industry most would find alien but who still dream the same dreams and have both bad and good to them. Boogie Nights draws you into their story from the beginning, and though the film is long(I believe almost 3 hours) you honestly don't even notice. And when it ends you kind of don't want it to....

I'm not easy to impress, meaning there aren't many movies I'd give a 10 of 10 rating to but this is one. Beyond the multiple character study, is the use of music in the film. I have never, in all my years of seeing movies seen music tell a story as well as in this movie.There was such flawlessness to it, you know it's not something your gonna see everyday.

Burt reynold's performance was perhaps the best I've ever seen him do, and Mark Wahlberg is incredible(I'm astounded there are still people saying he doesn't act well. I don't know how anyone viewing this could possibly think that)but the person who really surprised me was Heather Grahem(Rollergirl) who is absolutely fantastic in her role, in particular the one memorable scene with Burt Reynolds in the Limo, towards the end.

Again, I'll echo other IMDb reviewers in saying this movie is not for everybody. But I still think this was topnotch.10 of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The brilliance of this story delivers at least one skillfully crafted message to each viewer in the audience. This story is about success, it's about failure. It's about the choices you make in life and the choices others make for you. The story deals with self realization and determination on a scale so large, no camera angle could cover it. Within the grasp of each scene is resides an element marked for depiction within your imagination. Keep this in mind as you watch the movie; it's more than eye candy. The sexually suggestive, rarely explicit scenes serve only to distract and entertain you during the tedious process of character development.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I rented Boogie Nights last week and I could tell you, when I watched the film I had a blast. If you think that when you watch the film you will get sicked by the porn. I mean yes, if your not a porn person who can't bother being by it, than this isn't the film to see. But the thing is, the whole film isn't really about porn. Well halfway through the film is about the porn industry but the other half is about the character development and the bad situations these characters go through. The actors played there roles perfect, especially Mark Wahlberg, John C. Reilly, and William H. Macy. The sex scenes, of course are terrific but mainly focus on the character's hype in porn films until there struggles. Excellent film, one of the best!

Hedeen's Outlook: 10\/10 **** A+","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What has to change in today's attitude towards films like Boogie Nights is the approach. The approach is awful! Comparing it to Pulp Fiction, seeing only the pornography, and all its aspects.. come on people, there is more than that in this beautiful motion picture. And to all the sceptics, hasn't Paul Thomas Anderson proved himself worthy time and time again? Magnolia is one of the main reasons I watch American films at all and still have faith in this \"Industry\" that film-making is today.. And what about There Will Be Blood? That is a film that will stay in film history whether u like it or not! Yeah, you! The so-called consumer.. you know something: F#*k you! you don't deserve this, you don't deserve anything. So many artists today struggle to get recognition and it has become increasingly difficult to make serious films, even mainstream, because people just wanna see celebrities doing stupid stuff.. like that sell-out Britney spears.

Anyway, this was very painful for me to say because I don't want to see this, i don't wanna believe that today all it matters is the adding up of numbers.. sales revenue and sales return.. I want to see magic, the magic that Fellini, Bergman and Kurosawa brought and created through the language of cinema.. Because thats what PTA is doing.. he is creating magic!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everything that you need to know about the pornography of the late 70s and early 80s is all wrapped up in Paul Thomas Anderson's BOOGIE NIGHTS. Although the film is completely fictional, it is actually supposedly based on the story of porno kingpin John Holmes.

In Southern California in 1977, Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) is working as a busboy in a nightclub. One of the regular customers is pornographer Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) and two of his starlets, Amber Waves (Julianne Moore) and Rollergirl (Heather Graham). Jack and Eddie meet and Jack realizes that Eddie is well...a little...gifted.

So Eddie stars in Jack's films under the pseudonym of \"Dirk Diggler.\" He becomes a \"big\" porno star (no pun intended) and seems to be on top of everything. Then comes the 80s when video replaces film and Jack's porno empire begins to collapse, along with Dirk Diggler and everybody else working in the field.

BOOGIE NIGHTS is a really well-filmed drama. There is a little bit of violence, but P.T. Anderson makes it more stylized. And it kind of is a scathing approach to the degradations of pornography, especially when VHS became the standard medium for making pornos.

A lot of bizarre and unique characters are introduced. William H. Macy has an interesting role as someone working on the films, whose wife keeps having sex with everybody. I especially liked Don Cheadle's role as Buck the stereo salesman. The best performance is BOOGIE NIGHTS was definitely Burt Reynolds. A 90s classic!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Boogie Nights' uses its protagonist, Dirk Diggler, as a metaphor for accumulated celebrities from a decade in America's shameful past, which was comprised of an unexpected rise in pornography, therefore resulting in an abundance of corrupted youth. Its lead character borrows traits from a various assortment of genuine actors, involving himself in many illegal affairs that have been dabbled in by celebrities in Hollywood, and all-too-often exploited by the press. It seems like the sort of tall tale that might appear on an E! True Hollywood Story special. Drugs, sex and violence -- the American Dream. But what goes up must come down, and the bigger it is, the harder it falls.

Dirk Diggler's dreams are huge, as is another valuable asset on his body. Dirk's real name is Eddie Adams, a Californian who dreams of becoming a star. He believes that God gives one great talent to every individual on the planet, and his gift is a rather unusual one. After falling out with his mother, Eddie leaves home and meets the sleazy Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds), an adult film director who offers him work. Eddie eventually becomes a major porn star, representing the leading \"actor\" in most of Horner's films. With newfound success, Eddie is told that he needs to invent a new alias for himself, and so Dirk Diggler is born.

Eddie\/Dirk himself is primarily based on infamous porn star John Holmes, whose life story was adapted in 2003 with 'Wonderland', which starred Val Kilmer. 'Boogie Nights' is unarguably the better of the two, proving that movies about pornography can be made without disgusting its target audience: regular cinema-goers.

The film takes place in 1977, an era of artistic pornography -- filmmakers truly believed that they could compensate for the low points of X-rated features by adding deep stories and mesmerizing atmosphere. In a way, the film's director -- Paul Thomas Anderson -- implements a very artistic approach to the project, resulting in a gratuitous and artistic movie about a period in American history when smut was indeed both gratuitous and artistic. Anderson's style is so deep, and so distinct, that we soon feel as if we are reliving the era first-hand. Not a moment goes by where we are unconvinced of the time range dealt with in the film.

All was not happy on the set of 'Boogie Nights'. Prior to filming, Anderson approached Reynolds repeatedly, asking him many separate times to play the role of Horner. Eventually, Reynolds agreed, but claimed that the film was horrible and the worst role of his career, publicly disowning it, before being nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award and suddenly shutting up. A year before, Anderson had suffered title disputes over Sydney\/Hard Eight. He preferred the latter title for his film, and New Line Cinema thought the former was more marketable. He essentially lost the battle, and Anderson wisely avoided title disputes this time around by inserting the words \"boogie nights\" into his movie through the mouth of a character.

The casting of the film is one of its finest aspects. The Paul Thomas Anderson regulars are here, as well as a whole top-notch cast of first-timers. To name some of the more well-known stars: John C. Reilly, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Luis Guzman, William H. Macy, Heather Graham and Julianne Moore. But the entire movie essentially borders down to Mark Wahlberg, as Eddie, who is surprisingly convincing in his role. Wahlberg, previously known for his singing career and disappointing Hollywood pursuits, has all the necessary traits to portray such a character. This is his best role to date.

Anderson knows how to captivate his audience and take complete control of every scene. When Jack Horner first meets Eddie, Anderson slyly uses stars in the backdrop, a sign of things to come, and hidden symbolism as finely acute as it can be. The opening scene is three minutes, a long tracking shot that follows Jack and Amber into a night club, where most of the characters are first introduced. It reminds me of the discussions regarding tracking shots in Robert Altman's 'The Player' -- it works so brilliantly in Boogie Nights, and is the first indication that Anderson knows what he is doing behind the camera. His style is fast-paced in the vein of Martin Scorsese, where shots zip around quite quickly but never seem rushed. Incidentally, Anderson references two classic Scorsese shots -- the closing De Niro mirror speech from 'Raging Bull' and the tracking nightclub scene from 'GoodFellas'. Anderson is a young, growing director who is remarkably mature in story and direction, despite his age. Whereas his first feature film, 'Hard Eight', was noticeably wise and poignant, 'Boogie Nights' is even more so.

'Boogie Nights' began as an effort of love on Paul Thomas Anderson's account. Having filmed the extraordinary Hard Eight in 1996, Anderson's film is pragmatic to such an extreme that it almost seems genuine. Boogie Nights invigorates us with its gratuitous content, occasionally bordering on the verge of pornography, only it is far more sophisticated than such trash. It is a blazing, wonderful modern-day masterpiece that is as mind-numbingly explicit as it is wild and stylish. Arguably Anderson's best film and among the greatest -- and most important -- projects of the last decade.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dead Man Walking, absolutely brilliant, in tears by the end! You can not watch this film and not think about the issues it raises; how can you justify killing (whether it be murder or the death penalty) and to what point is forgiveness possible (not just in a spiritual way). Don't watch this film when your down! But WATCH IT!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just to clarify, Matthew Poncelet wasn't a real person, but a character combination of 2 killers who were BOTH convicted and sentenced to die for a murder of two teenagers.

I read the User Comments and they react as if Matthew was real. The character is based on a mixture of two killers, Elmo Patrick Sonnier and Robert Lee Willie (who murdered separate people) and the murder itself was based on the one Willie committed. The conflict of both Willie having someone else present and both parties swearing the other did the killing is worked into the story as well.

Prejean's approach is unique in that she not only is ministering to the convicts as they wait for their death and aiding them in taking responsibility for their actions, she also reaches out to the victims' families, to help them know that the convict did, indeed feel remorse for what they did-effectively aiding both parties.

Everyone posting here seems to have strong beliefs on the Death Sentence. It's not my place to say it's right or wrong-in theory punishing death with death makes some sort of Karmic sense, however denying a person their freedom for the rest of their days, although costly, makes more sense to me-being stuck in a small room 23\/7 (with one hour of exercise)for the rest of their days to be reminded of the cruel thing they did seem a more apt punishment-they are technically alive, but denied living. Say someone killed someone so they could get out of the responsibility the person they killed required (like Susan Smith killing her poor kids by shoving her car into a lake). I find it fittingly ironic that they would not get that \"freedom\" they craved and would now have to spend the rest of their days imprisoned.

Prejean's point comes through the story very well. She has my respect-she manages to find that balance-she isn't supporting a killer, she is guiding them to accepting what they did. If they didn't feel some kind of remorse, they wouldn't be asking for spiritual guidance.

Ona final note, when Poncelet apologizes to Delacroix parent for killing his son, the parents of the girl who was also murdered mutters something about why he didn't apologize for her death. I think the point was that throughout the movie, Poncelet denies killing both kids. There is doubt in Prejean's mind he did both killings-there is a friend who was sentenced but not to death-my thought is that Poncelet killed the Delacroix boy and the other man murdered the girl-hence Poncelet was taking responsibility for what he did. Had he been responsible for the girl's death, he probably would have apologized for that as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before seeing this film, I suggest the viewer puts away any expectations that the victims of the crimes depicted will get equal treatment and consideration as the perpetrator. There have been many films about crime victims. This one is about the murderer.

\"Dead Man Walking\" finds realism in simplicity of the story: there are no crack lawyers coming to save William Poncelet and no dramatic story twists. The film does not attempt to put him in a good light; he is guilty, he is repugnant, is a racist, and was responsible for heinous murders. Given all this, we are asked to do something very difficult: look at him as a human being despite his crimes. In this way, the film challenges the notion that the death penalty provides \"justice\". Whether you are for or against the death penalty, the film raises questions about whether the guilty can find redemption, inequity in the justice system, and the appropriateness of the death penalty.

Great performances by both Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn. In particular the last moments of the film show the true depth of Penn's ability.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie many years ago and it has never left my list of all-time best films ever made. When I first watched it, I was just beginning what has become a life-long passion for justice. It gave an interesting perspective of the death penalty and also gave me a few things to think about.

When you have a cast like this one, you are right to assume it is going to be nothing short of fabulous. This is, by far, the best role I have ever seen Sean Penn play (along with I am Sam). He nails the role, doesn't glamourize his actions while doing so. He manages to maintain a level of debauchery throughout the movie that I think was very important. Up until the very end, he does not try to be seen as anything more than what he is. He is a sick man who regrets his past, but still makes excuses for it. He ends up able to redeem his sense of self-worth as much as a convicted (and guilty) murderer can through the aid of Susan Sarandon's character, Sister Helen Prejean. Her character taught me about good will towards others without making me forget how horrible a person's actions can be and without making excuses for them.

The supporting cast was also top-notch. I was surprised to see a small cameo of Jack Black in this film given the funny-man he has become today! I loved this movie for both personal reasons and just because it was a work of cinematic art. And, in my opinion, this is one of the rare exceptions when the movie far out-did the book.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has two new features in relation to the message conveyed by other equally good movies about death penalty and executions. Those are the stress also given to the drama endured by victims' parents -- without for that reason disguising the hatred and desire of revenge they feel or lessening the horror that execution represents -- and the Christian vision of all the questions implied. We must also point out that in this movie the sentenced man is not the usual nice innocent person we see in other movies dealing with executions which doesn't lead us to abandon the idea that a penal execution is no more than a legal murder anyway. Last but not least we must mention the extraordinary emotional weight put on the last moments of the execution course with all the catharsis shown by the convicted's last words and the detail with which the act of the execution itself is viewed in a parallel cut with images of the murder scenes in the forest to stress that we are being confronted with another murder so pitiless as the latter but performed in a cold and supposed \"legal\" way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have just seen this broadcast on Channel 4. Having seen some of the earlier comments here I think I would like to state firstly that I am not in favour of the death penalty. With that out of the way, I was expecting great things of this film, but it just didn't quite deliver. Dead Man Walking is very cleanly done, with good performances all round, and a good script. In fact it's hard to fault it artistically. However, I felt that although it attempted to confront the issues surrounding capital punishment, it seemed to become sidetracked by the religious\/moral stance (hardly surprising given that the main character is a nun). Although I'm not a heartless individual, I didn't really empathise with any of the characters in the story. If you don't take religion seriously then you probably won't see much in this film. I think that Peter Medak's Let Him Have It was a much more powerful and moving film, and I would strongly recommend anyone considering watching this to go and see that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the more lucid statements against the death penalty ever filmed, quite a frontal attack against the most disgusting way of doing justice. The final sequence, with that parallel between the crimes that the convicted Poncelet committed and his own execution are just superb.

No, what about the work of Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon? It leaves you breathless, they're two giants and their performances achieve the highest levels of emotion.

Tim Robbins put clear that he's not only a good actor, he's a nice director as well.

*My rate: 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"1st watched 8\/31\/1996 - (Dir-Tim Robbins): Very thought provoking and very well done movie on the subject of the death penalty. Deserved more recognition and publicity than it received.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While it may not be his most laugh-packed film, MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE stands as one of Charley Chase's most satisfying farce comedies, twenty minutes of clever sight gags, nicely choreographed physical comedy, and amusing quips (rendered via title card, of course) all based on a wacky and wildly implausible premise. We're told up top that this is \"a story of homely people-- a wife with a face that would stop a clock --and her husband with a face that would start it again.\" Soon we meet buck-toothed Charley Moose and his wife Vivien, who has an enormous nose. But there's no point in discussing plausibility when our plot hinges on such a patently unbelievable series of interconnected coincidences: i.e., first, that Charley would have his overbite corrected the very day his wife would have her nose fixed, second, that each spouse would keep their respective cosmetic surgeries secret from the other, and third, that when bumping into each other in public afterward, Charley and Vivien wouldn't recognize each other. Sounds like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it? Multiple stretches is more like it. Clearly, we're in the world of farce here and just have to roll with the silly plot twists, so as long as you can relax and forget about plausibility you're likely to enjoy this short.

MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE gets off to a leisurely start as the various complications of the story are established, but things pick up once Charley and Vivien have \"met\" and made a date to attend a party together at the home of Charley's dentist. They each rush home excitedly, enter separately and are at first unaware of each other's presence. (Mr. & Mrs. Moose appear to be quite wealthy, incidentally, as they live in a mansion the size of a luxury hotel.) There follows a beautifully timed sequence somewhat reminiscent of Buster Keaton's THE NAVIGATOR in which husband and wife dash about the house without ever quite meeting up face-to-face. And once they arrive at the party the comedy really kicks into high gear as Charley is forced to dance with gawky wallflower Gale Henry. Henry, an estimable player in her own right who starred in many short comedies dating back to 1914, is hilarious as the dance partner who brings great vigor but little grace to her dancing. There's also an elegant cinematic touch during this sequence, when the camera pans down to show us only the shoes of Charley, Gale, Vivien and Vivien's dance partner, yet we're able to follow precisely what's happening between the principles by watching their feet.

Unfortunately for Charley and Vivien the party they're attending is raided, and from there on the complications multiply when they manage to escape the police dragnet and return home. When Charley realizes that his newly-prettified wife was attempting to step out with another man he resolves to each her a lesson . . . while conveniently forgetting, of course, that he was attempting to do the very same thing. The last few minutes of this film offer some of Chase's funniest physical comedy, capped with a good sight gag for the punchline. MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE leaves the viewer with a warm glow, and surely ranks with the most amusing comedies produced by the prolific, sadly underrated Charley Chase.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From start to finish, this 1926 classic two reeler from the Hal Roach Studios seems to sum up what was fun about the 20's. It stars the now forgotten comic genius, Charley Chase and was directed by the legendary Leo McCarey, who was unknown then but would earn his keep with Roach and graduate to greener pastures in the 30's and 40's. Recently released onto video and disc, this is one of the ten best examples of silent screen comedy and should be seen by audiences of all ages. Although today his star has virtually diminished, Charley Chase was considered the leader in the short subject comedy field in the waning years of the silents. He helped the careers of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy before they were brought together as a team, Leo McCarey and a host of other talents. It is a shame that he is all but remembered today. Check out this little gem of a film. Once you do, you will be seeking out other films from this classic comic. He had his hand in over 300 films and many of them survive. Rediscover this lost giant of a film from a bygone era and its giant star.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"(***Minor spoilers***)

If there's something in the world of silent clowns that puzzles me, it is that Charley Chase never got his well deserved \"break through\" in the movies. Oh well, maybe it isn't that strange, really, inasmuch as he never starred in any full-length features. But when I think of it, such an explanation makes it all only more mysterious -- because why the heck didn't Chase get any offers to play the leading lead in features? One explanation is that his character, no matter how amusing, was simply too realistic to suit a longer story; without the burlesque elements that Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Langdon and other comedians possessed, it can be assumed that the comedy he made and which worked so well for twenty minutes would get repetitive after a few more reels. I don't quite buy this, though, as Chase's gag construction is magnificent and could, I believe, at its best maintain the interest of viewers alone for a longer period; at least I am tempted to think so when MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE runs the show.

Mr. Moose isn't extraordinary handsome, and Mrs. Moose is hardly a \"classic beauty;\" he possesses the truly biggest front teeth of any human being on the planet, and she has a remarkably large nose. Both of them takes plastic surgery without the other's knowledge, and when they meet by accident just a little later, he doesn't recognize his wife and she doesn't recognize her husband. A number of hilarious misunderstandings begin, with many clever gags all the way through. I don't think I'll reveal anything further, to make the viewing more enjoyable for you. Because if you're a fan of silent comedies, or even if you aren't, MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE offers so many memorable moments within such a short time that I would look upon it as a downright shame not to see it; silly indeed, but no less extremely funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay. To enjoy this silent comedy short you MUST suspend disbelief concerning the major starting point for the film. If you can't then you'll probably be more likely to score this film a lot lower. Charlie Chase has a HUGE overbite and his wife has a nose large enough to have its own area code. Unknown to each other, they have both been saving to have surgery to correct these defects. Apparently, plastic and dental surgery was better back in the 1920s because neither seemed to have any need to recuperate from these major surgeries and they looked just dandy right away!! Okay, remember I said to ignore this, right?! Okay, well you also have to then ignore the difficult to believe idea that both could then meet and have no idea the other is their spouse. Okay,...now that you allowed yourself to accept these two silly premises, the film gets really, really good.

Charlie makes a pass at her and she makes a pass at him. Both are shocked and thrilled because no one has ever really considered them attractive. So, because of this new vanity they agree to go on a date. But, they both sneak back home--not wanting their spouses to know! Anyway, they meet later and are quite attracted to each other. But what about the poor spouses supposedly at home? Well, they both learn that the other is married and both anticipate their marriages will result in divorce because they really want to be with each other! Late in the film, Charlie figures out that the woman really is his wife and he goes through a very funny sequence where he plays both the boyfriend and the old husband--by changing his clothes and putting in false teeth when he plays the hubby! It really is a laugh riot to see him bouncing in and out of the room as he appears to be fighting with another person! You really have to see it to believe it. However, the wife sees an ad with Charlie's before and after photos and knows what's happening. In the end, they both feel pretty foolish!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Mighty Like A Moose is one of many short films Director Leo McCarey did starring Charley Chase. What a dandy it is! Charlie and his wife both undergo plastic surgery to improve their hideous appearances unbeknown-est to each other. They then meet at a party and become smitten with each other. Now they can't allow each other to find out they're cheating. That's the preposterous premise of this frantic farce. Vivien Oakland, one of the few comic short leads to have a flourishing career long after the silents, is perfect as Charley's long of nose wife. Charley has an awful case of buck teeth, which are quickly dispatched at the dentist's. After a party is raided by police for no other reason then to practice raids, Charley and his wife frantically try avoiding each other at home for fear the alterations in appearances become known. Both have been photographed with their new features at the party. The hilarity back home culminates in Charley trying to teach the no-good-nick cheating with his wife a lesson. The no-good-nick of course is the new Charley, which his wife comes to realize long before Charley teaches a lesson in faithfulness. This is one of Charley Chase's better efforts. *** of 4 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"yes barney is nonsense now but when i was a kid it made perfect sense.

i haven't gotten any smarter but i enjoyed it. as a child i was mocked because no one could say my name so i changed it. ever since i was 4 I've gone by the name Tina from barney because i could relate to her being from a different culture. i'm 17 now and barney is a huge part of my life . ...my name came from it.... i cant dis the show i grew up with no matter how stupid it seems now.

i don't care if i get blocked i have nothing more to say. they shouldn't make the minimum 10 lines because some people just don't have much to say. OK done","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't understand why everyone is hating on Barney. If you hate the show so much, then Don't WATCH IT! Its stupid how everyone is changing the \"I love you\" son to \"I hate you.\" If you don't like it, fine. Whatever, thats your opinion. But there is no point to degrading the show, when it isn't even that bad. OK, so its corny, and yes, it has its flaws, but its a kids show. Kids don't want to be sad and miserable, they want to be happy. And Barney helps that. And even in the show, there are moments of sadness and anger and etc. And yes, Barney uses magic. But the kids see Barney as a figment of imagination. Kids need a place to escape to express themselves. The world is a miserable and hard place. We all need a place to express ourselves, and be happier. Barney does this to us. This show is great. I watched Barney when I was younger. Yes, some people find it stupid. But I watched it, and I'm top of my class. It might not necessarily make you smarter, but that's not the point. I believe that the point of Barney is to provide a place where kids can be kids and the spirit of childhood can be expressed. Where imagination lives on. So many teenagers now are unimaginative and are scared to express themselves. Barney helps encourage that. Barney helped me to not be afraid and to just show myself for who I am. I'm a sophomore at high school now, an AP student with a 4.0, a drama student with a love for theater and art, and with a new baby cousin who loves Barney. I watch it with him and enjoy it and sing along with it. Yes, its corny and silly, and whatever, but its great for kids. Who wants to be an adult who doesn't have time to have fun? Im a kid at heart and I love Barney. Its great for kids and those who are a kid at heart.

Its a great show for babies and toddlers. So stop hating. Say that you don't like it, but stop it with the \"Dumbest show ever\" or \"Barneys a load of bull\" or whatever. Keep it to yourself. Take a chill pill or whatever. Here's something: I never liked Sesame Street. But you don't see me going: \"Grover is a load of bull\" or \"Cookie Monster should die\" or whatever. I hate all of the BULLSS**T that people say about books or movies, like Barney or Twilight. If you hate it, OK, whatever. No one cares. Don't go saying hate things about it, cuz you might just offend someone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Barney is about \"IMAGINATION\" what you guys do not have if my preschooler never wanted to play pretend like they do in that show then i would be worried. What 2 or 3 year old actually gets all that anyways its all about the colors and the singing. For those of you saying that all they do on Barney is eat junk food and recommend Sesame Street better well what about \"cookie monster\" thats all he eats but i haven't seen anyone comment that one. I do agree that sesame is a better educational show but barney is just like a show for fun don't be too serious if you didn't like your child watching TV and worried about them understanding things you don't believe then you shouldn't be propping them down in front of the TV in the first place because all of that is fake everything is fake actors are fake so why don't you take your fake brains and put it to use and think if you have a problem with a fake television show for kids then turn it off and play with them yourselves and teach them what you want them to learn not BIG BIRD or Bert & Ernie or barney someone who used to watch all those shows and turned out fine.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was a bit surprised to see all of the hate comments on here. Sure it's not the best kid's show, but don't people stop despising Barney this much after the fifth grade?

Okay, everyone hates Barney. Okay, I think his voice and songs are annoying. Okay, he's kinda creepy and strange. I'm fourteen years old, so I know well enough. But here's the thing. Kids? They LOVE this show.

When I was a little kiddie of two or three, my parents spent more time chasing me around the house than they did anything else. Nothing could hold my attention for more than ten minutes. Face it, that's how toddlers are. Even the most patient ones can't sit still long enough to give their parents a break. There's too much to do and see and explore, too much trouble to get into.

And then came Barney. I don't know exactly what it is about the purple dinosaur that's so amusing to children, but they sure do love it. I know I did. I was hooked on the show, and wanted to watch it over and over. Yes, the songs kind of drove my parents nuts, but to be able to watch their kids learning, and being excited over something that can really hold their attention span, it's worth it. I learned my ABCs and 123's, the magic words and brushing your teeth. I'd grown out of it by five or six, of course, but by that point at least I was a little more patient, and gave my parents a break.

My nieces and nephew all went through the Barney stage growing up, much to their mother's delight. I know what keeps Barney on the air. He entertains. Of course there's Big Bird, Ernie, and Oscar, and they're great, too. But at the toddler stage, it seems that more kids prefer the big singing dinosaur. And that's enough for me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK. Is Barney the best children's show of all time? Of course not. But in some of the comments left by other members of IMDb you would think it was a multi million dollar production with high class actors and a ridiculous budget for special effects. Well guess what? It's Barney for God's sake. He shows children good behavior, good manors and that it's OK to be who you are. For those of you who find him annoying that is because you are not five years old and the show was not meant for you. To the IMDb member who wrote the review on the first page I think you may have gone a little too far. Did you actually describe a Sesame Street character as \"down to Earth\"? Grow up everyone, this is a great show for preschoolers and actually does help children learn in a fun and creative way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can understand how Barney can be annoying to some, but the hatred he gets is very ridiculous. Barney was made simply right from the beginning and simplicity isn't bad, especially for the young ones he entertains. I personally find this show to be very underrated period. Barney & Friends is a very educational show in my opinion and even 17 years after its debut (and nearly 21 years after the character's debut on home video), he proves time and time again that he still appeals to young children. Maybe less so than in the early 90's where Barney was the Hannah Montana of the time, but he's still a classic. As a fan of Barney myself, I feel that I should defend him in a way that doesn't seem like spam. The way the purple guy teaches things may be very simplistic and unrealistic, but would you rather have them hearing about war? Be thankful some one (a costumed dinosaur, but still) is there to comfort kids and let them be kids simply. In this day and age, I feel that we rush our kids to grow up and Barney is there to say you can still be a child at heart. In addition, many of Barney's lessons on current episodes about plagiarism, being honest, and yes... even death, could appeal to everyone, not just his target audience. Besides, our children need to learn to be kind and respect others for who they are, and he helps them do that. In short, Barney may be annoying to some people and I completely understand why, but cut him some slack. All he and his friends (along with HIT Entertainment, his production company) are trying to do is help kids not only learn necessary skills, but to have fun and to also look at the positive parts of life. If more people listened to their children's favorite character and viewed him through their eyes, maybe we wouldn't be so negative about him and possibly life itself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this show when I was younger. It is a really good show to watch. It is very educational for children 1 to 8 years old. Barney is definitely super DE duper. B.J. is pretty funny. Babie Bop is very cute. The kids are very cool too. This show is about learning about numbers kinda like sesame street but different type of show and characters like Barney the purple dinosaur, B.J. the yellow dinosaur with a baseball hat on his head, and Baby Bop the cute green dinosaur with a pink bow. The first one that started was very old Barney and Friends show. But then the second one was different to be new episodes. Also the last one in the 2000 was new scene of Barney's park. They also have a show of Barney at Universal Studios in Florida where you see Barney, B.J., and Baby Bop and then when the show is done you get to go play, shop and meet Barney. It's a very good show watch this show when you learn about many things you will like it the movie, and the live show at Universal Studios Florida.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to hold Barney drilling my head every day; well.. I guess there must be reasons. First, I'm convinced that our kids are not stupids, they are just kids, but they know (my 1 and a half years old son \"selects\" what to see) what's nice or disgusting. Did you see the news? Do you think your kids HAVE TO KNOW the reality as it is? Maybe..or maybe not; we (the adults) have the responsibility about what we want for our kids, and what to teach them. A film of drug dealers? news about massacres in Middle East? Of course, the kids must know there is a Real Life, but... they are kids; let's give them some mercy. What do you want for them? If you wanna have kids trained on weapons or the best way to kill a neighbor, go ahead, impose them Lethal Weapon, Kill Bill, any manga's anime, tell them Santa's a depraved who enters through the chimney directly to violate them. I want illusions for my son (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Barney and Friends is the best; in fact, the show have a lot of defects, I read other comments and I agree with most); maybe the happiness is made of dreams, or illusions. At least, I want to teach him to grow WITHOUT FEAR BUT CAUTIOUS, that learns to think and believe that everything is not serial killers or hijackers, whom they're reasons to worth to grow. That, at least, he can be a little happy with his own dreams. So, parents, don't underestimate your kids; they know what they want.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sigrid Thornton (SeaChange) was seemingly born to fill the role of Cato's Philadelphia Gordon, in this story that is often compared with Margaret Mitchell's American Civil War classic Gone With the Wind. Waters (Heaven Tonight) is in arguably his best role also as her larrakin love interest, and the two leads head a wonderful Australian cast in this, arguably the most well-known and best-loved of Australian miniseries. It's

an outstanding production all round, though don't try watching all of it in one hit, and it deserves to be remembered as a magnificent portrayal of life in pre-Federation Australia. Rating: 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As an adventure mini-series, this is about as good as it gets. I viewed it when it was originally shown on HBO. Sigrid is totally believable in her role as Philadelphia, and the whole production was first rate! See all 400 minutes of it if you can. I highly recommend this mini-series. Amazing that I can't rate it officially, but for you readers\/users I will let you know it's a solid 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw All the Rivers Run on TV when I was a kid and loved it. It was great seeing a mini-series that was set and filmed in a place so close to home. Living fairly close to Echuca, I loved going to the historic port to see the paddle steamers. The first one I ever had a ride on was the Pevensy(Philadelphia in the movie). I love how it takes its time to let the events unfold. Nothing feels rushed as most movies are today. The acting was fantastic. All the Rivers Run was perfectly cast and I just love the crew of the Philadelphia. Mac is always amusing to watch with his trademark raw onion sandwich after a big night out. Easily deserves a 10 out of 10 and is one of my favorites mini-series of all time along with the Dirtwater Dynasty.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Recently finally available in DVD (11\/11\/08), Severo P\u00e9rez' film...and the Earth Did Not Swallow Him (1994) is based on one of the most highly regarded and discussed novels in Chicano literature. Tom\u00e1s Rivera's ...y no se lo trag\u00f3 la tierra\/ ...and the Earth Did Not Devour Him (1972) is still generally acknowledged by many critics and serious readers as the classic Chicano novel. Originally written in the Spanish characteristic of South Texas and also translated into English, Rivera's novel continues as an indispensable presence within the Chicano literary landscape.

Perez' film, originally made as a highly-rated American Playhouse PBS production has taken some time to be released in DVD. One can only wonder about this matter because its high quality is not an issue. The film, and now DVD, however, remains, so far as I know, the only cinematic adaptation of any Chicano novel and clearly is a tribute to Earth's incredible staying power. This cinematic version also strikes an exceptionally deep-rooted nerve that is, I maintain, both specifically ethnic, yet also generally universal. Doubts about Earth perhaps might have arisen because it is too \"ethnic,\" too alien from a basic American mainstream, too much a \"foreign\" art indie, too limited in economic resources. Yet, Perez in his version of art, in my opinion connects very effectively, artistically, and creates a sharply-etched portrayal of a Chicano migrant collectivity that focuses on daily family life. As far as a production done with relatively limited economic resources, its lovely cinematographic work and haunting music go much beyond its available funding. Simply viewing the film makes manifest this film's (or DVD) artistic value.

Briefly, \u0085.and the Earth did not Swallow Him portrays in a neo-naturalistic way the plight, the suffering, and the despair of Chicano migrant laborers as they follow the crops northward from South Texas to Minnesota in 1952. The local priests bless the beat-up, overstuffed vehicles of these Chicano laborers who can no longer find work in the area and must follow the agricultural trail of the migrant worker northward. This Chicano collectivity, like the depression-era Joads in Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, forms an epic tide, driven by economic need, a survival instinct, and anguished despair, and ultimately a barely flickering faith. A tribute to these people of the earth, a collective hero, the DVD is centered on a focal family, and most especially emblematic is a young protagonist within the family, a boy, perhaps twelve or so. This work then, also, functions as a bildungsroman. Ultimately, the viewer's sense of identification is generated through the experiences, subjectivity, and the struggles of the protagonist. Poverty, alienation, child labor, illness (sunstroke and a pregnancy death), discrimination, school absenteeism (the boy's escapism from the bullies of discrimination is spent lying down in a lovely, peaceful cemetery) are laid bare as matter of fact\u0097yet, also symbolically. Worse still, the problematic conflict between the youngster and his mother goes beyond socio-economics and political conflict, into deeper realms of psychology and metaphysics. In a desperate but artistically rendered struggle, the youth battles his mother, an archetypical Mexican-American traditionalist, a representative of god's will, content with prayer, resignation, consolation, and acceptance. The rebellious youth cannot believe in a god that would permit such evil and suffering to be visited upon them. How can God be so cruel, he asks, since his little sister is certainly purely innocent, as to come down with serious illness in the fields? At this point, the boy must overcome obstacles even more daunting than poverty and discrimination. The issues now include death, doubt, and despair, and lack of meaning. And he has few resources available to him\u0097strength of character, his own will power, his intelligence, and a powerful survival instinct. In this desperate, but artistically rendered struggle, the unnamed youngster, the central figure, feels the necessity of his enduring, of his achieving a heightened sense of meaning, and, the viewer hopes, a renewed and strengthened Life Force that can serve as an inspiration to Chicanos and others.

This stark battle makes use of a plot device just touched on by the original work to tie the episodic work together: missing immigrant laborers from Mexico who leave no trace upon their death, although this DVD deals not with Mexican but Mexican-American migrant laborers A highly existential work: anguish and despair; a quest; a focus on a Project; and redemption\u0097all under the auspices of free will in spite of the deterministic socio-economic and religious circumstances.

Perez has a long list of credits basically as a documentary filmmaker. His many awards are confirmatory. The producer Paul Espinosa is also well-known and has been likewise honored for his work. The 1994 film, in fact, won and deserved a number of awards: first place, audience favorite at the Santa Barbara Film Festival in 1995; first place at the Cairo Film Festival; and a number of other well-deserved awards.

In my opinion this film and DVD, Earth, by Perez is the best Chicano film that has been made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was very moved by the young life experiences of a man who rose so high in the academic world. A hard life surrounded by the love of a close family and extended family of companion workers created a person able to succeed in the world. For the most part the Hispanic culture is shown as I have always observed and admired - hardworking, optimistic, and truly family oriented. The points of religious superstition were quite authentic to the Catholic church. Without a doubt,the actress who played the mother deserves an Academy Award. Her prayers for her missing son moved me to tears. I will recommend this stunningly thoughtful film to my friends and family.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie \". . . And The Earth Did not Swallow Him,\" based on the book by Tomas Rivera, is an eye-opening movie for most people. It talks about the exploitation that migrant farmworkers go through in order to survive.

Sergio Perez uses impressionistic techniques to depict Rivera's story. He uses sienna and gray-scale effects to depict some of the scenes, and he uses specific photographic techniques to make the scenes look like they took place in the 1950s.

Perez also gives life to the film by using time-appropriate music, including balladeering and guitar playing.

I feel that it is a good film to view because it shows in detail how migrant farmworkers live, what they do for entertainment, and their beliefs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Subconscious Cruelty\" has to be one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen.Still it's extremely grim and gory at times,so fans of politically correct mainstream horror garbage shouldn't bother.The film mixes many wonderful visuals with plenty of sleaze and gore.It is extremely odd,vicious and disturbing,so fans of bizarre cinema won't be disappointed. My favourite segment from \"Subconscious Cruelty\" is \"Human Larvae\" which shows us a twisted relationship between a young man and his pregnant sister.The birthing scene is particularly nasty and not easily forgotten.The last segment \"Right Brain\/Martyrdom\" has to be seen to be believed.It's incredibly harsh and blasphemous with scenes of genital mutilation and grisly torture.We see Jesus Christ captured by three naked females who mutilate him,ripping flesh from his chest,licking a wound on his knee and pissing on him.There is also a Jesus statue with a projection of a swastika on it.\"Subconscious Cruelty\" is a truly memorable film that should be seen by fans of extreme cinema.Check it out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First off - this film will not be for everybody. There are scenes of extreme graphic violence and \"disturbing\" images that by their nature alone will turn off many possible potential viewers. Obviously from the reviews on this board - SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY has divided those that have seen it. I'm among the ones who liked it very much for several different reasons. I feel this was a very ambitious (and quite competently pulled off...) undertaking for a bunch of 18\/19 year olds with no budget and little experience. I think that each aspect of the film - the direction, the acting (though the character's performances are more likened to stage or free-form performance because of the nature of the film...) the production, the FX, the score\/sound design - all are far superior to many films I've seen that exceed these kids budget and experience ten-fold. I honestly haven't been this impressed with an \"art-house\" style horror film since Nacho Cerda's GENESIS...

First off - I'm not going to pretend to understand and\/or grasp all of the graphical content in this film - but knowing that this wasn't a straight-narrative type of film when I went into it, I wasn't disappointed with how it played out. SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY is 4 relatively short vignettes that all sort of revolve around the theory of right brain\/left brain lust\/anger\/psychosis vs. restraint\/compassion\/\"normalcy\". To very briefly give a synopsis of each \"chapter\":

OVARIAN EYEBALL basically just has a naked girl who has an eyeball cut out of her abdomen. I'm sure it's symbolic of something - I don't think I was paying that much attention at that point and this one blows by pretty quick.

The next \"episode\" - HUMAN LARVAE - is a nihilistic, horrific, genuinely creepy story of a guy who's both in love with and repulsed by his pregnant sister, who gives into his growing psychosis which leads up to the shocking conclusion of that particular chapter. HUMAN LARVAE is the best of the bunch in my book, and will probably get under your skin. The dead-pan narrative dialog accentuates the growing tension as you know something horrible is going to happen - but you're not quite sure what it is. Do yourself a favor and if you are interested in seeing this film - don't do too much research on it. Come into it with an open mind and an iron stomach and I think you be pleasantly surprised, especially with this particular episode.

REBIRTH has a bunch of people in a field screwing the ground and blowing trees and stuff. Apparently an \"arty\" interpretation of the rape of the earth or something to that effect. Not bad, but this one is pretty short too and I sorta missed the point on it...

And RIGHT BRAIN\/MARTYRDOM seems to be about religion and religious hypocrisy and also along with HUMAN LARVAE, has some of the \"hardest\" images\/messages of the whole feature...

OVARIAN EYEBALL isn't anything to write home about, mainly because of it's very short running time but does make a decent segue into the insanity to come...and REBIRTH is also kind of short and not quite as thought provoking, but HUMAN LARVAE (especially) and RIGHT BRAIN\/MARTYRDOM are so off-the-wall and well done that they more than make up for the other parts. I think the main reason that I liked this one so much is that as \"shocking\", \"repulsive\", \"violent\" and \"excessive\" as it is, it is also done very beautifully and you can tell this was a real labor-of-love from those involved. Nothing about the film feels cheap or rushed, and even if the content isn't completely decipherable, it's undeniably original - and that alone up's the points some in my book. Not that every \"weird art-house\" film that has an unintelligible plot should be praised for it's \"originality\", but SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY is the type of film that I do think I'll watch a few more times in the near future to see what other interpretations I may gain from it. Again, this film is ABSOLUTELY not for everyone - with some VERY extreme scenes of gore, murder, rape, incest, sacrilegious imagery, etc...that is definitely there to shock the viewer into taking a harder look at this film. I have to say it worked for me, and I'm anxiously awaiting the Hussain\/Cerda collaboration that is rumored to come next. Check this one out if you have the stomach for it - 9.5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Finally watched this shocking movie last night, and what a disturbing mindf**ker it is, and unbelievably bloody and some unforgettable scenes, and a total assault on the senses. Looks like a movie from the minds of Lynch (specifically ERASERHEAD), Buttgereit, and even a little of \"Begotten\". What this guy does to his pregnant sister is beyond belief, but then again, did it really happen or is it his brain's left and right sides doing battle. That's the main theme of this piece of art, to draw a fine line between fantasy and reality, and what would happen if the right side of the brain that dreams and fantasizes overtakes the reasoning and logical left side. And the music in this movie is unbelievable, a kind of electronic score that is absolutely perfect. Even though this movie is totally shocking and pretty disgusting in some of the most extreme scenes (including hard core sex) you will ever see in any movie, I viewed it as a work of art, and loved it. And that music still amazes me, I have to try and find the soundtrack if is available. Watching \"Subconscious Cruelty\" is a real event, and not something the viewer will easily forget. And a note to gorehounds, this is a must-have.

Warning... Be careful buying this movie, because some prints have fogging on the graphic sex scenes and extreme gore, especially the copies from the Japanese release.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Subconscious Cruelty\" has to be one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen. \"Salo\" and \"Cannibal Holocaust\" didn't bother me that much, but there's a strange psychological element to \"Subconscious Cruelty\". This film invades your subconscious mind with shocking taboos, surrealist visuals and one of the most unsettling film scores and sound designs. Repulsive at times; yes, but its visual flair can be compared to Avant Gard directors such as Alejandro Jodorowsky, Dario Argento, Dusan Makavejev and David Lynch. Take the most extreme elements of those 4 directors and throw in the graphic violence of a film by Luico Fulci, and you might be able to guess what you're in for.

The film is divided into 4 parts. The first part \"the Ovarian Eye\" is real short. A narrator tells us about the the parts of the brain and its functions. Then a nude woman gets her stomach cut open and an eyeball is pulled out. The second part \"Human Larvae\" is kind of like the film \"Eraserhead\" but with incest. It deals with a man's sexual obsession with his pregnant sister. Where's Frued when you need him? The third part is my absolute favorite. It reminds me of \"Begotten\" and Jame's Broughton's 1972 short film \"Dreamwood\". In this segment people have sex with the earth. Men hump bloody holes in the ground, girls masturbate with tree branches. The branches bleed when broken. Watch in horror as a man gives fellatio to a knife sticking out of a woman's vagina. These people really know how to get in touch with nature.

The last part of the film is the most disturbing and at times it borders on hardcore pornography. This part of the film made me think of Jodorowsky's \"the Holy Mountain\", \"Sweet Movie\" and \"Cannibal Holocaust\". I've never been more disturbed in my life by what I witnessed. A business man gets his privates pulled apart by fishhooks. Yuck and Ouch! Two women urinate on a Christ figure and proceed to cannibalistically eat him like communion bread and sodomize him with a tree branch. Poor guy. The last part was so extreme that if I ever watch the film again, I'll have close my eyes or slightly fast forward. Karim Hussien and Mitch Davis are obviously very talented, To think they did this project in there early 20's. Hussein went on to direct the Tarkovsky influenced \"Ascension\" (2002) which is a much better film and he co-write the screenplay for Nacho Cerda's after dark horror masterpiece \"the Abandoned\". \"Subconscious Cruelty\" is a fascinating and unsettling journey; with images that come from the unthinkable realm of everyday human minds. Well, sort of.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, it's safe to say that Subconscious Cruelty is one weird film! Supposedly an insight into the human mind, Subconscious Cruelty is comprises four macabre and bizarre tales of the extreme. The first segment, entitled 'Ovarian Eyeball' is really just a warm up, but it's good in that it gives the viewer an idea of what to expect from the next three segments. It simply sees a naked woman laid out on a table, while another woman cuts into her abdomen and pulls out a human eyeball! I've got no idea what the point is, but it certainly makes for visceral viewing. The following story is the best of the bunch, and takes in the \"old favourite\" sick movie theme of incest. The segment follows a man who lives alone with his pregnant sister. He's repulsed by her pregnancy - yet he wants to have sex with her anyway, and naturally he gets his way. This story stands out because of the monotonous and 'matter of fact' narration, as well as the ending - which doesn't fail to deliver the shocks. This segment is well acted, well filmed and easily the highlight of Subconscious Cruelty.

Naturally, the next two sections aren't as good as the second one; so the only way from there is down, but director Karim Hussain still manages to pull something out of the bag before the film ends. He doesn't do it right away, however, as the third segment is the weakest of the film, and simply sees a lot of people have sex with the ground. It's very surreal, and therefore memorable for that same reason; but there doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it, and I was in the mood for something a bit more morbid after the second section. The film ends on a high, however, as while I'm not entirely sure what the point was - the final segment features the film's best imagery. This segment focuses on religion, and certainly isn't for anyone that values it! Director Karim Hussain has achieved something here - as while this collection of four 'extreme' stories doesn't come together as a complete whole, the film almost feels tasteful as it's shot in such an eloquent and eye catching manner. The director would seem to have been imitating the highly respected surreal director Luis Bu\u00f1uel, albeit with gore, rape and incest; and if you ask me, he hasn't done a bad job at all. Not for everyone, but certainly worth a look for extreme fanatics!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Going into this movie I knew two things about it. I knew that it was a real extreme flick, and I knew that it was somewhat artsy. Both appeal to me in their own right, but when placed together it can be something truly unique. And this was damn right, without a doubt, unique. Like I said above, it is an artsy film. The way they used some intense sound, it reminded me a lot of an Aronofsky film. Visually I haven't seen anything like it. The cinematography and lighting were done very well. The movie seriously uses visuals and sounds better than anything I've seen in a while. Especially when you consider the experience these young filmmakers had (couple 20 year olds), you really have to take your hat off to them.

The movie isn't easy to describe or even discuss. There isn't an actual story\u0085.you could say it revolves around the right and left side of the brain and how they control your life\u0085I think. It's four segments, or four ideas brought alive through visual and auditory extremes. There is some talking hear and there, but it's mostly a non-speaking film.

The first segment is the shortest and it revolves a naked body and an eyeball. Try and guess what happens\u0085.wrong. The second segment is my favorite. It involves a brother and a sister (who looks a little like Sarah Silverman, but with bigger boobs). The brother is crazy and the sister is somewhat of a whore. I would say this is the most extreme of all the segments, and the most well made. The gore effects in this one were great. The third segment revolves around a bunch of naked people sexing it up with mother earth. It's probably considered the weakest of the bunch, but still is smart and well made. The fourth segment is probably the strongest of the film and I'd also say the deepest. For myself I'll have to view this a couple times to understand what's truly being said. I know that it tackles Christianity in a way that would most likely make your mother feint or throw up\u0085.give it a try.

Subconscious Cruelty was recommended to me and I'm proud to say this is now in my movie collection. It's extreme, violent, gory, very sexual and surprisingly pretty damn thought provoking. The next line I'm about to say has been used in almost every review I've read for this film. \"This movie is not for everyone.\" Now ain't that the truth. If you're into extreme films and\/or you're just a lover of film that wants to see something different\u0085.check this out. 8 1\/2 outta 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Karim Hussain's masterpiece of art\/gore--this cat is definitely a talent to look out for. We have in this several longer vignettes interspliced with some shorter segues. This is all in all a very powerful film that relies on its intense graphic imagery and symbolism and it is not for all viewers.

The film kicks off with a short called OVARIAN EYEBALL. Very short segment that has a nude woman placed on a table naked. An unseen woman's hand covers the supine woman's face with a red cloth and makes an incision in her abdomen out of which an eyeball stalk is extracted. I've got nothing too much to comment on this one due to its brevity.

HUMAN LARVAE is one of the films lynchpins and it is a totally unflinching portrayal of a perverse act committed by a disturbed man who has an incestuous love for his pregnant sister. This is one of those \"must be seen to be believed\" type things. I will say that this film has some of the best effects I've seen in an indie horror film but the subject matter will make this an undeniably unpleasant experience for most (not me though--I live for this!).

REBIRTH could have been cut out of this film all together. This is the film's weakest segment and it has a bunch of nude people f!cking bloody holes in a field and whatnot. Very short but this one kind of blows the film's momentum.

RIGHT BRAIN\/MARTYRDOM is one of the most profane representations of religious imagery that I have ever seen and it totally kicks ass. Think \"P iss Christ\" or menstrual blood paintings of the Virgin Mary. Very hard sexual\/sexually violent\/gory imagery is presented in this piece and it is definitely not for anyone who will be offended by sacrilege.

Subconscious Cruelty is one of the best films I've seen under the banner of extreme horror it will be a very divisive film amongst horror fans and the filmgoing public in general. Some will call it trash, some will call it brilliant. I don't see much middle ground. I thought this film was pretty damn original and I will recommend it to anyone who is adventurous enough to try it. 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I finally got hold of the excellent Sazuma DVD of this film which is loaded with interesting extras. I have read quite a lot about it, and I unfortunately missed it at the Stockholm Film Festival. It doesn't quite deliver as I thought it would but it is still worth watching if you like strange and unique movies. I much rather watch this again than any of the recent so-called horror films vomited out of Hollywood these days. What detracts from the experience for me, is certain music cues which sound dated and rely too much on cheap synth sounds. For me, all these tonal\/harmonic elements of the score could have been lifted out, and replaced by David Kristians excellent sound design. But that is just my opinion. Otherwise this is a daring, angry picture with welcome meditative and poetic parts, like the fading of the photograph sequence which is beautiful. I look forward to seeing Ascension, and I applaud Mitch and Karim for their efforts in producing non-mainstream cinema. They are a great inspiration as I soon embark on my own short film production.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When you have waited years to see a film that you have heard on the grape vine about obviously your expectations are high right? f**k yeah!But when this baby dropped through my door little did i know what f***ed up visuals would grace my TV and warp my fragile mind. First off Karim Hussein is a film fan like all of us growing up on a diet of Argento\/Fulci\/lynch etc.....and it shows in this film, but in a good way. Although i didn't really know what the hell was going on on my first watch of this gem i was just amazed by the visuals,the lighting and of course the performances from everyone who was involved Karim must have truly believed that he was going to push the boundaries in film-making(which trust me he does)and that he was going to have a hard job convincing the actors to do the same........

So what can i tell you about \"subconscious cruelty\"?Well without spoiling it....its a deep insight into the human psyche with images of violent and sexual madness which toils into madness.....a truly unforgettable experience.......

keep you eye on Karim Hussein he can only go onto better things.....

I viewed the full uncut print of subconscious cruelty on a double disc DVD from Infliction films which is loaded with extras.....please note there is a censored hong Kong release out there avoid this version.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The dreams of Karim Hussain are to be feared. When the right hemisphere of his characters overpowers the left, shocking images of blood, dismemberment, and various abominations are released. Religion won't save you, nor will mother nature or your own family. Hussain's dark poetry, because that's what this film really is, destabalizes all institutions of sanctuary.

`Subconcious Cruelty' is a current crowd pleaser on the horror\\fantasy festival circuit. The film's opening meditation on madness is both well written and profound. The protagonist's desire to profane the birthing process which brought him into the hell he inhabits unfolds with horrific and credible illogic. From here the film continues deeper into the subconcious and tackles mother nature. Hussain offers depictions of lusty pagan fertility and writhing mushroom madness. Nature is exposed as blood-drenched and violent in Hussain's frightening enlightenment.

`Subconcious Cruelty' is disturbing to all and rewarding to those who see past the shock into the mature themes of life, lust and madness this very worthy film explores. CJ Goldman deserves kudos for his special make-up, as do David Kristian for unnerving sound design and Teruhiko Suzuki for score.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i\u00b4ve seen this piece of perfection :-) during the fantasy filmfest in berlin and when i went out of the cinema i felt like being \"drugged down\"! i\u00b4ve seen a lot of films but there are just a few that i\u00b4d call perfect like koyaanisqatsi or fight club-subconscious cruelty is definitely one of them!!! half of the people went out of the screening in berlin and i can understand them absolutely! this is not a movie for \"normal\" people with dreams and illusions! a person that is living in his\/her dreams day by day not wanting to see all the horror in our life and on our planet will be very shocked by this film! if someone reads this now who has seen s.c. and also thinks it\u00b4s great: just contact me-so far i haven\u00b4t met anyone who shares my opinion-it\u00b4d be cool!!! this film earns 10 points out of 10!!! finally i\u00b4m really sorry for my bad english-i\u00b4m not a studied person!!! (und das ist auch gut so *g*)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I\u00b4ve been able to see this great movie at the Fantasyfilmfest in Berlin and when I went out of the cinema I felt like being drugged down *g*! I\u00b4ve really seen lots of movies and there are just a few I\u00b4d call perfect like Fight Club or Koyaanisqatsi! Subconscious Cruelty is now one of them! Half of the people watching it in Berlin went out of the room and I can understand this absolutely because it can be a real shock for someone living in his\/her perfect world day by day dreaming his\/her dreams not thinking bout the horror on our planet-in our life! I don\u00b4t think I have to describe the story of the film for you because of the people having already written on this page! It\u00b4s a movie that shows everything and more!!! Gets 10 points + from 10!!! It\u00b4d be cool if you people who have also seen it loving it would write me an e-mail!So far I haven\u00b4t met anyone as impressed and pleased by it as I am!!! Finally sorry for my bad english-I\u00b4m not a studied person (und das ist auch gut so!!! :-))))))","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chokher Bali was shown at the (Washington) DC Filmfest April 15, 2005. The director, Rituparno Ghosh, was there to give a short introduction and answer questions afterwards.

As always, I think Aishwarya did a fantastic job. I can understand those who think she should be been more aggressive or more bitchy, but would that really be realistic in 1904? Possible, maybe; realistic, I'm not so sure. I think her interpretation was valid, although there could certainly be other ways to do it.

I hate to use the word, but this was the most \"inaccessible\" of the Indian movies I have seen so far. I know a fair amount of Indian history, Hindu religion, etc., but the level of detail here was far beyond me. Clearly you would have a much better understanding of the movie if you were intimately familiar with Hinduism and its customs, esp. as they were c. 1904. I missed a lot of things--one of them being the fact that the mother-in-law would want Binodini in the house as sort of a counter-weight to her daughter-in-law Ashalata.

*spoilers* Ghosh had several things to say that explained the movie much better for me. First, the original Bengali version was 20+ minutes longer. So what was left out? Apparently three main things: a beginning segment where Binodini (Aishwarya) leaves E. Bengal for Calcutta. According to the director, different characters are speaking W. Bengali vs. E. Bengali--setting up some of the political comments later. Of course all of this is lost in the Hindi version, and certainly to a non-Indian like me, it wouldn't have mattered anyway--but a set-up of the Bengali situation sure would have. Next, there was a segment where Binodini was writing a poem--a sign of her independence, etc. Finally, some more business about the jewellery. So, although some people think it was too long, I think the original, longer version would have been clearer.

The women's hair was apparently another sign (Ghosh again)--the mother-in-law had short hair (short hair for Hindu widows), her sister--also a widow--had longer hair (more modern!), and of course Binodini\/Aishwarya had extremely long waist-length hair (rejection of status of widowhood).

The ending really threw me--all of a sudden Binodini, who had never had a political thought, is writing a political manifesto? Whoa! Ghosh explained that he was in Locarno, at a film festival, when the subtitles were done. The subtitles use the word \"country\" throughout Binodini's letter. Gosh said a more appropriate word would have been (I forget his exact word) something like \"self\" or \"independence\"--she was talking about her own liberation and \"finding herself\"--not about Bengal, India, and the British. So why does Binodini just disappear the day after finding Behari again? Apparently because during her stay on the Ganges she realizes that she doesn't need a man--any man--to define\/complete her. She can just be herself. So she rejects Behari, who she threw herself at a few months (?) before, and just goes off. Of course I'm not sure how she buys her next meal, but that's another question.

The red shawl (Ghosh again)she buys represents \"revolution\" as well as \"passion.\" I'm not 100% sure why she puts the shawl on the dying woman, but perhaps she is rejecting passion\/revolution? The binoculars, which Binodini uses throughout the movie (to watch Mahendra and Ashalata, the boat on the Ganges, etc.). She is being a voyeur to see a life she yearns for but can't have. At the end (I missed this!) she leaves the binoculars on the table with the letter, showing that she doesn't need them any more--she's going off to lead her own life.

Finally, the Tagore quote at the beginning saying how he apologized for the ending... Apparently Tagore wrote this as a serial, hooking his readers with the sexy widow bits. But at the end he sold out to conservatism and had Binodini kneel down at the feet of Mahendra and Behari, begging their forgiveness. One of his students (?) wrote to Tagore taking him to task for his sell-out ending...and Tagore replied with his apology for the ending. In the movie, of course, Ghosh goes in the other direction.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Chokher Bali \u0096 A passion play.

Based on Rabindranath Tagore's novel of the same name, this is a classic tale of deception, adultery and relationship exploitation. Set in 1900 Bengal, director Rituparno Ghosh transformed the Nobel Laureates' acclaimed literature into a delightful visual treat.

Tagore's story elaborately deals with the Bengali society, through his central character, the rebellious widow, who wants to live a life of her own. We are taken into the picturesque part of Bengal, where we meet our heroine, the beautiful, young widow Binodini (Aishwarya Rai).

Despite her gorgeous looks, two handsome men, the rich Mahindra (Prosenjit Chatterji) and his friend Behari (Toto Roychowdhury), denied marrying her.

Mahindra chooses a naive Ashalata (Raima Sen) over Binodini and marries her. Leaving behind the country life, the free-spirited Binodini accompanies Mahindra's mother to Calcutta as a caretaker. Soon, her friendship with Ashalata flourishes. It looks like, the two, addressing each other as 'Chokher Bali' (sand in the eyes), share an enduring bond. The English-speaking Binodini captures a special place in the house. But, soon, she unmasks her real face. Manipulating good-natured Ashlata, Binodini gets closer with Mahindra and fulfills her sexual desires.

When, she is thrown out by the enraged mother of Mahindra, Binodini seeks solace from a reluctant Behari. The remaining part of the story shows how the lives of these four characters crisscross and culminate in an unimaginable climax\u0085 Aishwarya walks through the role\u0097a manipulative, rebellious lady, still gaining the viewer's sympathy\u0097with a ballet dancer's elegance. The other lead artistes\u0097Prosenjit Chatterjee, Raima Sen and Toto Roychowdhury\u0097are equally brilliant, in enacting their characters.

While Tagore penned this 'mould-breaking' story at the turn of the 20th century, the very idea of widow marriage was a taboo, even among the upper class! Narrating the nations' freedom movement in parallel, the author asserts the importance of individual freedom from the caged life. Kudos to the art director, who gave life to the early 20th century Bengal, and applause to the cinematographer for capturing those sets with verve.

This 'passion play,' by Tagore, has been fervently converted to the screen by the ablest filmmaker without loosing its originality.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw 2 hour version of Choker Bali. I cannot say that is long. The movie has a certain natural pace to it and does not seem to lag at any time. The costume and the set are reminiscent of what we would see in old movies.

Aishwarya Rai has done a good job of acting. It is indeed a mature role with enough scope for acting within the story. The script also supports the story very well. Aishwarys acts as the unfortunate widow whose husband dies in the first year of marriage. The movie is about the passions and desires of such a character and the conflict she faces with the downtrodden condition of widows in those times.

Her best friend in this movie is played by Raima Sen has also been well-handled. Her innocence and her admiration of Aishwarya's capability to speak English and act educated has been done very well. These are indeed some of the prevailing mindsets of those times. We can see how far we have come from such an era!

The movie speaks of womens liberation as subtle line of the story. I found the development of the story very similar to Ghare Bahire also written by Tagore. It does rope in some action from the independence struggle and puts in contrast the struggle for Indian Independence against the silent struggle for womens rights.

A well made movie definitely worth watching. Aishwarya's acting: par excellence. Rituparna has handled the story with great care. Yet another classic from Rabindranath Tagore.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I concur with what mallicka.b has said. The movie is portrayed in a way which appears to be a kind of vilification on the original content. Emotions aren't conveyed properly. I guess a couple of not-so-good performances also contributed to its mediocrity. In my view, Tabu would have been a much better choice for such a role instead of Aishwarya Rai. In some of her scenes, she looks a bit lusty, which is not ultimately what the movie should have portrayed. I also noticed a bit of over-acting in some of her scenes. I'm a bitter critic of Aishwarya Rai :) Can't help it; sorry for that. 'Raincoat' was a good movie by Rituparno Ghosh. And I saw Choker Bali after seeing Raincoat; I was not at all impressed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I bought the DVD a long time ago and finally got around to watching it.I really enjoyed watching this film as you don't get the chance to see many of the more serious better quality bollywood films like this. Very well done and but I would say you need to pay attention to what is going on as it is easy to get lost. When you start watching the movie, don't do anything else! I would actually advise people to read all the reviews here...including the ones with spoilers, before watching the movie. Raima Sen gave her first great performance that I have seen. Aishwarya was easily at her best. All performances were strong, directing and cinematography...go watch it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What do you do if you're Aishwarya Rai, coming off of a blockbuster film like 'Devdas', with some skeptical critics still relentlessly unsatisfied with your astounding performance or convinced by your strong screen presence and stellar acting skills, what do you do? Go home, sit down and pout? No. If you're Aishwarya Rai, you sign yourself up for the next strong period piece that comes along and continue to prove yourself worthy of all the praise, kudos, great scripts and equally great roles. And that's just what she did with and in 'Chokher Bali - a passion play' where she stars and shines as Binodini, a young widow who causes controversy way ahead of her time. Directed by Rituparno Ghosh {who later goes on to direct her in the equally stellar 'Raincoat'}, Prasenjit Chatterjee {Devdas in Bengali} costars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Hindi version of the film is 121 minutes. Set in Bengal in the early 1900's, the film (based on Tagore's novel) draws an analogy between the British colonization of India and the subjugation of women. An educated and beautiful woman, Binodini becomes a widow within a year of her marriage, but she does not accept the constraints imposed on her as a widow by her society. The film has a beautiful look to it but perhaps Aishwarya Rai is out of her depth in portraying Binodini's strong character with its subtle combination of idealism and deviousness. Binodini's idealism does not come across, and as a result, the analogy between women and colonization remains somewhat buried.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Its very tough to portray a Tagore novel along cinematographic lines.And if you forget an obscure production of 1967 then its the first time that chokher bali has been done on a grand scale. Overall the sets looked fantastic with the right touches for making a successful period drama.Prasenjit,so used to doing crass commercial stuff made a good effort.I saw the Bengali version and found that Aishwariya's voice was dubbed,which made her dialog delivery a bit poor. While the director did a good job portraying each of the characters with finesse,yet there was very little in the way of meaningful plot,probably a lack of the story itself.However the development of the characters including those with minor roles seem to be the strongest point.Its tough to make some Tagore stories into films,as only the visual parts seem to get realized.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It seems a lot of Europeans and Americans see Indian movies for the wrong reason; I see some people are complaining that this movie did not have any dance sequence! A class apart from their Hindi counterparts, Bengali movies tend to be more realistic. Rituparno Ghosh is one of the best young directors in India, being widely known for his choice of subjects for the movies and the strength of his scripts. 'Chokher bali' is a perfect example. A faithful adaptation of the Nobel laureate Tagore's novel dealing with the pursuit of sexual pleasure of a Bengali widow, the director gives a new dimension to the much acclaimed and controversial work.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie at the Locarno Film Festival in Italian-speaking part of Switzerland.

Aishwarya Rai is good-looking.

I rate this movie 7\/10 because of its nice moments.

* spoilers ahead *

It has some really nice cinematic moments in it, specially at the end.

Though my general feeling is this is too long (over 2 hours and 40 minutes) and containing too much dialogs. And nearly no dancing at all.

Clearly a Bollywood movie like Lagaan or Devdas is quite a different kind of movie compared with Chokher Bali.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When i watch this movie i too get excited when seen bed scenes of miss world. She has beautiful and charming body. When cute lady do bed scenes and show her fully nude body... i think male have hard to resist....i think its time for cute girls like hrishita bhatt also do nude scenes. At least no one wants to c nude body of ugly women like Seema biswas to c in bandit queen.I concur with what mallicka.b has said. The movie is portrayed in a way which appears to be a kind of vilification on the original content. Emotions aren't conveyed properly. I guess a couple of not-so-good performances also contributed to its mediocrity. In my view, Tabu would have been a much better choice for such a role instead of Aishwarya Rai. In some of her scenes, she looks a bit lusty, which is not ultimately what the movie should have portrayed. I also noticed a bit of over-acting in some of her scenes. I'm a bitter critic of Aishwarya Rai :) Can't help it; sorry for that. 'Raincoat' was a good movie by Rituparno Ghosh. And I saw Choker Bali after seeing Raincoat; I was not at all impressed","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you go to the cinema to be entertained, amused, so as to fill up your time, do not go out of your way to watch this film.

If you go to the cinema to appreciate the depths of human-kind, the feelings of real people, to explore the characteriology of personalities, if you go to the cinema to absorb magnificent photography, be sure to put this film very high on your list, preferably in first place. The experience is profoundly rewarding, causing the intelligent viewer to make diverse reflexions over the meaning of life itself. With 'Mar Adentro' Alejandro Amen\u00e1bar has surpassed the best he has done to date, and even redeemed certain deviations in his earlier films which smacked a little of being aimed at Hollywood. This is not the case with this visual poem put to music: Hollywood could never get anywhere near the effect of this tinglingly inspired human - and humane - story.

In no way should one interpret 'Mar Adentro' as an apologia for euthanasia; this story, based on the real life of the Galician fisherman Ram\u00f3n Sampedro, is a cry from the bottom of the heart for life and love, a reaching out for human compassion, for understanding emotions. Sampedro was an articulate and intelligent man who after a diving accident off the rocks of the Galician coast as a young man was condemned to live the next 27 years in bed. 'Condenado a vivir' (2001) (TV) was the first version of this man's life on which I have already commented. However, Amen\u00e1bar has succeeded remarkably at portraying this man, with his permanent enigmatic smile and witty sense of humour, in an equally articulate and intelligent way.

And Javier Bardem rose to the occasion, met the challenge head-on, complete with a Galician accent, producing an electrifying, compelling, enthralling performance, such that the actor and the fisherman become fused into being the same person on screen. Here, indeed, is an occasion to doff your cap, and softly mutter 'chapeau'. Bardem is driven on in his task by a magnificent cast, especially Bel\u00e9n Rueda, Lola Due\u00f1as, Mabel Rivera, Celso Bugallo (Los Lunes al Sol) (qv) and Clara Segura, Galician and Catalan accents taking prominent part.

Amen\u00e1bar produces wonderful dialogues as these six rotate among themselves one-on-one, or in groups, with excellent chemistry, thus demonstrating that this young Chilean-born Spanish director is an artist who knows what he is at and how to get his results; his global concept of the film includes his own music, interspersed with pieces by Beethoven and Puccini on Sampedro's record-player.

Whilst viewing 'Mar Adentro', I found myself a couple of times comparing him and this film with Stephen Daldry and his masterpiece 'The Hours' (qv). I refer to the way in which the dialogues work with tenseness and passion and that careful sense of timing in each scene.

Javier Aguirresarobe's photography is superb as usual. As I have mentioned elsewhere on IMDb, he does not simply film the events and scenes - he captures even the feelings and the atmosphere of the moment, deftly catches that look in the eyes, light and shadows, such that his work behind the camera is at once another player in the story. A superb artist.

'Mar Adentro' is another landmark in the history of Spanish cinematography, among the best five or six works of art produced here in the last 25 years. This film places itself alongside such cinematographic art as 'El Sur' (qv), 'Los Santos Inocentes' (qv), 'El Abuelo' (qv), 'La Lengua de las Mariposas' (qv), 'Las Ratas' (qv), 'A Los Que Aman' (qv), and I think I must add 'Te Doy Mis Ojos' (qv).

Superbly orchestrated story of a real man, and those who loved him around his bedside: not to be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Many more eloquent reviews than this have described the quite spectacular acting, casting and styling of this film. It appears that the only negative reviews focus on a perceived imbalance in the film's handling of the core moral question (euthanasia).

This film is, bar the final scenes, meticulous in stressing Ramon's belief that he's not making some grand point but merely that, for him, a life devoid of dignity is a life not worth living. We, as viewers, see an enormous amount of dignity in his life - we see family and friends and culture and, but for its physical limitations, a life fully lived. Central to the tragedy of this film is that there is really only one person who thinks that Ramon's life is not worth living - and that is him.

To watch this film and say that the only counter argument comes from the visit of a bumbling priest is a nonsense. The priest's visit is pure farce, a direct assault on the simplicity of the Spanish Catholic Church's response to the issue of euthanasia. However, the sister's parting words to the priest momentarily expose the powerful 'pro-life' sentiments quietly underpinning the entire film. We are constantly encouraged to see the hope and the beauty of a life lived with love. As the film progresses, we may gradually be encouraged to understand Ramon's reasoning but we are never reconciled to his decision.

I do not remember a film which moved me and provoked me as much as this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Greetings again from the darkness. Director Alejandro Amenabar creates life against all odds in this based on a true story version of one man's struggle to control his destiny. The great Javier Bardem is fascinating to watch in his role as Ramon. His eyes and head movements leave little doubt what is going on in his mind. The dream and fantasy sequences are not overused so prove very effective in explaining why he wants what he wants. Rather than force us to answer the euthanasia question, the real question posed is , What is Love? At every turn we see people in love, looking for love or dying to be loved. The script is tight and keeps the film moving despite being filmed mostly in one room. The supporting cast is wonderful and we truly feel their pain and how each family member deals with Ramon's decision. This is a gem and deserves to be seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Director and co-writer Alejandro Amenabar didn't make things easy for viewers of his taut, a bit overlong but very disturbing story, accurately based on a Spanish man's struggle to obtain assisted suicide. \"Mar Adentro\" (\"The Sea Inside\") is gripping and its impact far exceeds the time spent in the theater.

With the award-winning Canadian movie, \"The Barbarian Invasions,\" folks got to see a family along with a coterie of devoted friends address the wish of a beloved albeit irascible man to end his life. In that movie, the center of attention suffered from progressive, incurable cancer and his descent into a terminal stage was fast. Emotional as the scenes were, death was inevitable - the question was how gentle could it be made through solicited intervention.

Ramon Sampedro (brilliantly played by Javier Bardem) is a different story. For well over two decades he's been a quadriplegic because of a diving accident. (Very sharp viewers may detect a terrible irony as to why he ended in that condition because of his improvident dive.) Once a world traveler and lover of beautiful women, he now lies trapped in an immobile body, his every need attended to by a truly devoted family who willingly surrender much of their privacy and time to sustain their beloved relation.

Rosa (Lola Duenas), a single mom of two small boys, enters the Sampedro household out of what might have been mere curiosity to learn about the paralyzed man's plight but she becomes both an emotionally supportive centerpiece for Ramon as well as an amusing but occasionally aggravating presence. A nice performance by Duenas.

The problem, of course, is that Sampedro isn't sick in the normal sense. He may well live for decades more with proper care. So his softly but persistently voiced desire to end his life with \"dignity\" creates a moral dilemma for friends and relatives who, not surprisingly, react from different ethical and religious perspectives.

Ramon is the poster quad of a group dedicated to changing Spain's laws concerning assisted suicide. \"Death with Dignity\" is their watchword. Gene (Clara Segura) is a sensitive activist who enlists the aid of pro bono publico counsel, Julia (Belen Rueda). Julia has her own health issues which carry an indefinite but catastrophic prognosis. Happily married to a devoted spouse, she bonds emotionally with her client.

What follows is an acutely sensitive interplay of values and emotions. Ramon lives with his brother and wife, their technophile teenage son, not the intellectual Ramon is, and his aged dad who can't stop grieving over his son's cataclysmic descent into absolute helplessness.

The moral and legal issues are played out through excellent acting and short vignettes including a courtroom scene in which formalism triumphs over any judicial interpretation that might take into account Ramon's feelings and views. It may be Spain but the issues are alive in most countries, including the U.S.

Especially amusing is a shouted, first floor to bedroom, debate between Ramon with a drop-in, lecturing Jesuit priest, also a quadriplegic but one whose hidebound dogma casually masks the absence of a soul.

Special kudos to Mabel Rivera, Ramon's sister-in-law-Manuela, for a wrenchingly authentic portrayal of a strong woman who holds the family together. And the same compliment fulsomely extends to Belen Rueda, Julia, who segues from objective advocate to close friend to a woman hurtling towards a dark fate.

The director imposes no value judgments allowing each character full range to express his or her feelings effectively and, at times, movingly. Like \"Dead Man Walking,\" this movie can support any view about its deadly subject.

No one can stop a person from committing suicide if he\/she is determined but the universal tragedy of the world's Ramons is that without assistance, life in a body in which only the heart beats and only the head can move is a sentence no court could pronounce on the most depraved of criminals.

The cinematography is well-matched to the story and the beautiful Galician scenes are an intended contrast to the limited views the once globe-trotting Ramon experiences from his special bed.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This small, quiet, harmonious movie grows into a masterpiece on human dignity. It is intelligently structured, filled with meaningful little details and important side-plots. It tells a story of one man with great humanity without positioning itself politically, but fostering life as a precious right (not an obligation) and underlining individual's right to choose. It enjoys the richness of different landscapes (mental and physical) and languages (important detail). Outstanding acting by each of the actors, especially unbelievable Javier Bardem. His screen-presence has such a force that you forget that this is fiction. The movie has a wonderful rhythm, it is beautifully shot and outstandingly directed. It takes real talent to make a movie on such a difficult theme with understanding, humour and heart. Six stars out of five.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This story about a man's 28 year struggle for a death that would liberate him from his already dead body becomes a masterpiece to be remembered,thanks to a team of artists in a state of grace. Directed, written,edited and scored by Alejandro Amenabar, it touches you from the very first images, and doesn't leave your eyes and your heart to rest until the last credits, thanks to Alejandro and a group of wonderful actors and actresses at their best. Bardem is an acting animal:One of those few comedians that can make a masterpiece from almost any character, the supporting actresses are great in their roles and the story is told with such a sensibility that one laughs and cries in the same minute, as we used to do with the great old masterpieces. The year's best film in all senses. 10 \/ 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had the privilege to watch Mar Adentro last Friday, and I am still shocked by its beauty, the powerful work of every single actor and actress and Amenabar's unbelievable ability to narrate the story of Ram\u00f3n Sampedro, who was well known in Spain for asking for a legal euthanasia, lost the court cause, and eventually died in front of a camera drinking a glass with poison, freezing all our hearts with his determination not to go on living forever immobilized because of an accident.

Before watching the movie I was already mesmerized by the strong symbology in its title, which I would translate as \"Into the Sea\" and not as some suggest \"Out to sea\", and which is taken from an original poem written by the man this story is about. Then I watched the movie. Oh my friends. This is Cinema with a capital C. The narration flows to take you to the heart of every single character: Sampedro, reincarnated in a Bardem that you forget from the very beginning, is in the center as a man full of sense of humour and full of hope, and his hope is to die, because for him, the life he is living is not worthy to be lived. The rest of the characters but one dance around him and respect his decision because they see him as a human independent being (forgetting he depends on the others for everything), even though they do love him so much. And this is what the movie is about: love. You can feel it, you can breathe it in the skin of every character. You witness the growing of the feeling within three women who meet him in the movie: Gen\u00e9, the member of the association that defend his right to die with dignity, his friend, her story in the movie is the hope for us the lucky ones that can live a normal life in this world; Rosa, the woman who meets a good man in the middle of her list of broken relationships and pain in the hands of all the men who used her and despised her; Julia, the woman who shares a tragic destiny with Ram\u00f3n, and eventually acts in a way we cannot but only understand.

However, before meeting these women Ram\u00f3n knew what was love like, because you cannot meet him without loving him, and he is deeply loved by his abnegated family: Four characters unique in their humbleness and bravery, each with their own thoughts about his decision, each thought respectable in its own way, because the terrible thing about this story is that nobody is to blame for what happened. That, sadly, life sometimes is that terrible. From this familiar quartet I specially liked Mabel Rivera's work as Ram\u00f3n's sister in law, Manuela: a terrific performance.

I would like to draw attention to three episodes that are for me the best climax points I have seen in a long time, and if you haven't seen the movie don't read this, pass over this paragraph and read again from the next one starting \"Mar adentro\", let the movie show its secrets to you. The episodes I loved were: 3. The best love scene I have seen in a movie, when I really felt love invading the screen, is when Ram\u00f3n dreams awake that he is flying to meet Julia in the beach and they kiss each other. 2. Gen\u00e9 speaking by phone with Ram\u00f3n, the day before he is going to do it, and he tells her it is better they say goodbye at that very moment, not to put her in trouble with the authorities. And then she knows it is the last time they are going to talk, and she has fought for his right to die... but she does not want to lose him, because she loves him as a true friend, and even though she is respecting his decision at all cost. 1. The best. A young Ram\u00f3n in the beach, looking at his girlfriend under the sun, jumping to the water from the rocks to a sea that is retreating. We see the crash, we hear his voice recalling what happened and claiming he should have died that very moment. The face of Bardem, face downward, shown to us from the bottom. And the hand of a friend who pulls him from the forehead and brings him back to a life that will be a hell for him in the next 30 years. There are many others, like the impressive ending, in spite of the fact that in Spain we know too well what Ramon did.

Mar adentro did not deceive me, Amenabar never does, but this time he has to thank the actors that took part in the project, and who maybe took it personally, because this is not just a movie, it is an elegy to a man who died alone when he was asking to die \"legally\", which meant for him, as Bardem pointed out, dying with the people he loved and who loved him around.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Alejandro Amenabar, the young and talented Spanish director, clearly shows us he is a serious film maker. Anyone doubting it, should have a look at his latest film \"The Sea Inside\". This is a movie that has been rewarded with numerous accolades, not only in Spain, but throughout the world, wherever this wonderful movie has been shown.

If you have not seen the film, perhaps you would like to stop here.

Ramon Sampedro is a man confined to bed. Being quadriplegic, he depends on the kindness of strangers for everything. Since his accident, Ramon only thinks in one thing alone: how to end his life! This is the moral issue at the center of the story, based on the real Ramon Sampedro's life.

Mr. Amenabar tells the story from Ramon's point of view. There is nothing here that is false or manipulative on his part. After all, he relies on facts that were well known in his country as this case became a \"cause celebre\" in favor of euthanasia, a theme that no one in that country wanted to deal with in Spain.

With its background of being a predominantly Roman Catholic country, Spain has evolved into one of the most democratic societies in Europe, a distinction that is more notable because of its long years dominated by a dictator. Yet, in spite of the advances in that society, the idea of taking one's own life, is something not clearly understood by the majority of its citizens, who still considered this subject as something that could not be done in their country.

Ramon Sampedro was a man that loved life. He lived an intense life as a young man when he enlisted as a sailor to discover the world. Having no money, this was the only way for him to see other lands, experience other cultures. Ramon's love affair with the sea, is something that people in Galicia learn to love from their childhood. Imagine how that same friendly sea is the one that takes away Ramon's life, as he knew it! In a second, Ramon goes from a vibrant young man into a vegetable!

Ramon's family is shattered by the experience. Suddenly they must leave everything aside to take care of him at home. His brother and sister-in-law, are stoic people that deal with the situation as a matter of fact. Their lives become something of an afterthought, because Ramon's life comes first. They tend to the sick man without protesting, or blaming Ramon for the sacrifices they must make to keep him alive.

That is why, in their minds, the Sampedros can't comprehend Ramon's wishes to end it all. Haven't they given up having a normal life to take care of him? This moral issue weighs heavily on these uncomplicated and simple people because in their minds, they are doing what came naturally.

The second subject of the movie is the legal issue of the euthanasia and the well meaning people that suddenly enter Ramon's life in their desire to help him put an end to his suffering. There's Julia, the lawyer who is herself handicapped and suffers from a rare malady. There is Rosa, the fish cannery worker who becomes infatuated with Ramon.

Javier Bardem, makes a brilliant Ramon Sampedro. His transformation is total. We don't doubt from one moment he is no one else but the paralyzed man on that bed. Mr. Bardem can only use his face in order to convey all the emotions trapped inside Ramon. Mr. Bardem makes this man real. This is perhaps Javier Bardem's best role of his career. He surpasses his own award winning performance as Reynaldo Arenas, the late Cuban poet he portrayed in \"Before Night Falls\".

In the supporting roles, Belen Rueda, makes an impressive appearance as Julia, the woman fighting her own physical problems. Lola Duenas is also effective as Rosa, the kindred soul that loves Ramon deeply. Celso Bugallo, as Ramon's brother shows a man at a crossroads of his own life. Mabel Rivera makes a compassionate Manuela, the sister-in-law that never asks anything of life, but tends to Ramon without questioning why she has to do it, at all.

Mr. Amenabar also has composed the haunting music score for the film. He is a man that never cease to surprise. One wonders what his next project will be, but one wishes him success in whatever he might decide to do in the future.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Spain, the former sailor Ram\u00f3n Sampedro (Javier Bardem) has been quadriplegic for twenty-eight years and is fighting in court for his right of practicing euthanasia through an association that defends the freedom of choice and leaded by his friend G\u00e9ne (Clara Segura). Ram\u00f3n is introduced to the lawyer that is defending his cause, Julia (Bel\u00e9n Rueda), who has a degenerative fatal disease; and meets Rosa (Lola Due\u00f1as), a lonely worker that has been abused by men. Their relationship changes the behavior and viewpoint of life of Rosa and Julia.

The Chilean Alejandro Amen\u00e1bar is, in my opinion, one of the best contemporary directors. His filmography released in Brazil is composed by excellent and original movies: \"Abre Los Ojos\", \"Tesis\", \"The Others\" and \"Mar Adentro\". Javier Bardem is probably the best actor in Spain in the present days. Their association produced this sensitive drama about a very polemic theme, the right of committing euthanasia. This drama is never corny or depressive, since the screenplay uses humor as a relieve valve in the most dramatic situations. The performances of the cast are perfect, with characters having and defending different positions regarding this unpleasant theme. The dialogs and lines are very solid and intelligent. I noted in IMDb plot outline that this movie is based on the real-life story of Ram\u00f3n Sampedro. Unfortunately, neither the movie nor the DVD gives this important information. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): \"Mar Adentro\" (\"Sea Inside\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE SEA INSIDE a film by Alejandro Amenabar.

Almodovar has always single handed the flag for Spanish cinema for years now, out of nowhere came Amenabar reinventing genres and injecting some new blood to the otherwise malfunctioning Spanish industry, now in a big gamble he switches from psychological terror to social drama, well the big ones would be, are audiences ready to embrace the swing and more important can he hold the flag? This is the story of Ramon Sampedro, a sailor that in his twenties was paralyzed from the neck down in an accident at the sea and his fight with the Spanish government for the right to end his life. The story has the traces of an afternoon made for TV melodrama and the only way this is going to work is through words and honest performances and they both come in spades. Mateo Gil and Amenabar co-write in a way where the audience is not meant to be lead blind to a death end but they are encouraged to make up their own minds in the process and that is a brilliant stroke, this is not a movie pro death but a movie in favour of the ultimate illusions of our time LIBERTY. There is a few laughs spare a long the way, like when the church comes home in a wheel chair to deconstruct Sampedro beliefs but is mostly a valley of tears through out, punches coming from all fronts even when you think you are safe his father that to that point didn't make any sense comes up with the most moving line of the entire movie. It is a heartbreaking experience specially when Sampedro seems more full of life than most the people wandering the streets and everyone around him tries to convince him of the wonders of life even those who are helping him to die\u0085 but when you strip a man of his dreams\u0085 The film is almost exclusively built on close ups bringing a claustrophobic feeling that makes the audience more sympathetic with Sampedro. That's for the actors a huge challenge that must construct their whole performances with their eyes and the eyes don't lie. Bardem was not granted his second Oscar nomination, probably in favour of Eastwood, but in my opinion he was the only one who could have shadowed Jammie Fox. This role reminds me of the great Gregory Peck in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD where the acting looked effortless and I reckon Bardem has reached that status where the line of what is acting and what is real has become completely blur. I was never fond of his early work but since Almodovar's LIVE FLESH he is on a roll, LOS LUNES AL SOL, THE DANCER UPSTAIRS and the Oscar nominated BEFORE THE NIGHT FALLS made him an international star and although he and Banderas come from the same Almodovar background is fascinating to see how different paths they took and how Bardem has now become a real reference for Spanish cinema in the whole world. A golden globe, 14 Goyas, jury prize at Venice and probably an Oscar with permission from THE CHORUS BOYS, Amenabar directs, co-write, edits and puts music to a high caliber drama, he has pull it off\u0085 what about some Science Fiction now? Whose life is it anyway?****.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The true story of a Spanish paraplegic, Ram\u00f3n Sampedro, who fought for decades for the right to be euthenized. This film, along with the Best Picture winner of the same year, Million Dollar Baby, caused a stir that year with their depictions of disabled persons desiring death. Both advocates for the disabled and (unfortunately for the disability advocates) conservative pro-life groups protested both films, and their Oscar nominations. The nominations also came during the entire Terry Schiavo debacle, just to put it all in some historical perspective. The protests, especially from the disability groups, against Million Dollar Baby make some sense \u0096 the film clearly depicted, without wavering, the life of a paraplegic as worthless. The film's central character, Maggie Fitzgerald, becomes a paraplegic, doesn't seem to get any counseling whatsoever, no help whatsoever, and immediately wants to die. The film is, honestly, pretty dumb and uncomplex. The Sea Inside, based on the true story, is certainly a lot more thoughtful on the subject. It most likely got railroaded into the same category as Million Dollar Baby without its protesters having even seen it, an incredibly common phenomenon. The film does give time to many different sides of the argument. And it immediately declares that the wish to die is that of the protagonist and the protagonist alone. It is guilty of a couple of crimes, though, and I'd still understand why disability groups could have a problem with it. First and foremost, there's the protagonist's meeting with a paraplegic bishop. I don't look kindly on the way he's depicted. His orally operated wheelchair is depicted as absurd, and there's almost a comic sequence where his effeminate, boy-toy servants are dragging him, in his chair, up the stairs. He can't even reach the room in which Ram\u00f3n is located, and one of the boy-toys is forced to carry the conversation between them. I had to think, gee, maybe if Ram\u00f3n lived in a slightly more wheelchair-accessible household, he wouldn't spend his entire life in bed, and might find life more fulfilling (who knows how closely the film depicts the reality). Director Amen\u00e1bar (The Others) also includes some laughable scenes that try to make this film about suicide more life-affirming, like a cross-cut sequence where Ram\u00f3n looks thoughtful and his lawyer's baby is born. But besides a few ugly moments, the film is very good. It hurts that someone may want to die when they have the ability to bring so much joy and insight into the lives of others. However, in the end, our lives do belong to us. Shouldn't we have the right to choose? The film's strongest asset is its supporting characters, and the actors who play them. It depicts how Ram\u00f3n's fight and decisions affect those around him with a beautiful precision. The family members in particular are great, and Ram\u00f3n's final departure from them is absolutely heartbreaking, and had me in tears. My favorite performance in the film comes from Lola Due\u00f1as, whom I also felt gave the best, or at least certainly most undervalued, performance in Almod\u00f3var's Volver last year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie tells about the real life story of Ramon Sampedro, who lived for 27 years lying in bed after having broken his neck, and fights a battle to get legal permission for someone that can assists with his death.

Javier Bardem is one of best actors of his generation. Consider this: he has to carry this movie with only his face! Unbelievable that he didn't even got an Oscar-nomination. Now we can all see that the Academy is a joke! The supporting cast was terrific! The optimistic Rosa, his lawyer Julia, the rest of the family...Each and everyone has his\/her own opinion about the fact that Ramon wants to die.

Whether your for or against euthanasia, put your opinions aside, because this movie deserves to be seen by people all over the world! Half way through the movie I started crying and it didn't stop until the credits rolled. This movie is so heartbreaking but also wonderful to watch and I can't wait to see it again. I give it a 9\/10, and in my opinion it is by far the Best Film of the year so far.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"-Facts (I): \"Mar Adentro\" relates the well-known (at least in Spain) story of Ram\u00f3n Sampedro, a Galician quadriplegic who killed himself (helped by some friends) after 28 years prostrated by his condition. Judges had denied several times his petitions of active euthanasia.

-Facts (II): \"Mar adentro\" becomes THE MOVIE OF THE YEAR in Spain. Everyone talks about it: politicians, singers, ordinary people... Everyone likes it, even the critics' opinions are unanimous. The film wins a lot of prizes (Golden Globe, Oscar, Goya...) and annoys catholic community and life-lovers quadriplegics. A star is born.

-Facts (III): The intensity and the quality of the actors in \"Mar Adentro\" are just amazing, and this makes mi wonder how come we have to watch the same bad young actors in the most of Spanish latest movies. I don't know if Javier Bardem is a great actor or a great imitator (there's quite a difference between one thing or the other); anyway, his job is just impressive, as well as Lola Due\u00f1as', Bel\u00e9n Rueda's, or the job of all the guest starrings. This is (the actors selection) the strong point in Amen\u00e1bar's movie.

-Facts (IV): Alejandro Amen\u00e1bar learned his lesson there at the Cinema School, there's no doubt about it: he's got a privileged brain. He takes good control of each and every one of the technical aspects, he knows what the audiences want, he knows how to touch the right chord, even if that turns him into such a demagogue (just like Spielberg is -one of Amen\u00e1bar's idols-).

-Facts (and V): If you criticize a movie such as \"Mar Adentro\" it will seem like you have any kind of trouble with the moral issue the story tells about. There's a trap in this kind of pictures: you have to differentiate between the movie itself and the moral concepts. If you don't like \"Schindler's List\" that does not mean that you agree with Hitler's philosophy (or do you?). So, for me, it is a good film and an extraordinary story (since it is a real story that makes it much more extraordinary). Grandiloquent, self-kind, and everything but neutral (no matter what Amen\u00e1bar or Bardem have said about it: those characters that are not in favor of euthanasia come to no good at all!!). 50 % Hard \/ 50% way too sentimental.

-Epilogue: \"Mar Adentro\" wouldn't be by no mean in my ranking of the best 50's Spanish movies of all time. Nobody has special merits in the story but Ramon Sampedro himself. He IS the movie. Now, Alejandro Amen\u00e1bar is gonna become the more international Spanish director ever, maybe he'll go to live to Hollywood; but some of us would like to watch him filming a simple story, without bit final twists, without living dead nor dying alive... \"The Others\" is still his best movie.

*My rate: 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As I expected would happen, too many reviews of this film (from professionals and amateurs alike) have focused as much if not more on the film's ideology. That's because The Sea Inside (aka Mar adentro) is a film about euthanasia. Specifically, it's a true story about an infamous Galician named Ram\u00f3n Sampedro, who fought for many years for the right to assisted suicide, who was denied that right by the Spanish constitutional court, and who--well, I don't want to ruin the ending of the film for you.

The real life Sampedro catalyzed a national debate on euthanasia in Spain. Now with producer\/director\/writer\/composer\/editor Alejandro Amen\u00e1bar's (Abre Los Ojos, 1997, and The Others, 2001) \"biopic\", The Sea Inside, another rhetorical aid has been provided in the international debate on this hot button issue.

But as I keep saying (to deaf ears?), your opinion, pro or con, on the film's ideology shouldn't affect your rating of the film. You're not supposed to be rating the philosophical or political messages that Amen\u00e1bar wants to make. You're supposed to be rating the film, as a film. Maybe that's a bit too idealistic, as none of us can likely completely divorce our evaluations from our ideological biases, but idealistic or not, that's the goal.

So forget about the philosophical and political issues for a moment. As a film, Amen\u00e1bar has turned in one of his most elegant and mature works to date. He does not focus on societal debates. He does not focus on Sampedro's legal\/political struggles. He focuses on Sampedro as a man, living out his days confined to a bed in his brother's home.

Sampedro, played here in an amazing performance by Javier Bardem, was a quadriplegic. As the film begins, he has been a quadriplegic for 26 years. That condition was brought about, as Amen\u00e1bar shows us through marvelously shot flashbacks, by a diving accident--Sampedro was distracted by a beautiful woman, miscalculated the water, dove in, snapped his neck, and almost drowned. As a quadriplegic he eventually began writing poetry, some of which was published in a book entitled Cartas Desde El Infierno (\"Letters from Hell\"); in real life Sampedro's book became a best seller in Spain. Perhaps taking Sampedro's artistic work as a cue, Amen\u00e1bar has created an elegantly poetic film.

Most of The Sea Inside is set inside Sampedro's bedroom. The focus in these scenes is Bardem's complex and sublime performance. As a quadriplegic, Bardem is limited to moving his head and talking. He has mastered subtle changes of expression and inflection to convey a deep character with a multifaceted, intellectual approach to life. Bardem and Amen\u00e1bar have Sampedro often waxing philosophical in understated speech, but there's always a combination of a wicked sense of humor, passion for the aesthetic--including music and women, and a sadness and even occasionally bitterness not far below the surface. Different underlying emotions occasionally break through like waves on the skin of the ocean.

The people Sampedro interacts with most frequently facilitate this in complex ways. These others include his sister-in-law, Manuela (Mabel Rivera), who has been his chief caretaker since Sampedro's accident; his brother, Jos\u00e9 (Celso Bugallo), who is one of the vocal objectors to Sampedro's wish to die, and with whom there is an underlying unresolved issue (it seems like maybe Jos\u00e9 was the one to save Sampedro from drowning?); his nephew, Javier (Tamar Novas), who is perhaps the most understanding towards him; a right-to-die advocate, Gen\u00e9 (Clara Segura); a pro bono lawyer, Julia (Bel\u00e9n Rueda), whom he wanted because she had a degenerative disease, CADASIL (Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy with Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy), and would thus by more empathic, and who he falls in love with; and Rosa (Lola Due\u00f1as), a local woman who works at a cannery and moonlights as a DJ, who heard about him from the media, who wants to convince him to desire to live, and who falls in love with him.

The bulk of the film consists of these characters interacting with Sampedro in his room. There are also a few other ancillary characters, including Sampedro's father, who remains oddly distant, and a notorious and media-conscious priest, Padre Francisco (Jos\u00e9 Mar\u00eda Pou), who does his best to change Sampedro's mind via philosophy\/theology (in a scene often mistakenly characterized as \"comic\"--it has an attendant comic element, but the scene is primarily very serious).

That most of the film takes place in Sampedro's room ingeniously gives the couple significant changes in setting greater impact. Sampedro's room has a nice, big window, which he says he is satisfied with as an observation point on the world. Maybe even more importantly, he regularly imagines the window as a launching pad through which he flies across the hillsides to the ocean, which he always loved, and which has been the most influential force in his life--it provided his living when he was younger and took his mobility away. Amen\u00e1bar gives us a fantastical sequence of Sampedro imagining one of his flights to the sea. It is beautifully shot, with low angles (presumably from a helicopter) of the hills rushing by, until we follow a stream to the wide-open ocean, which in this film represents freedom, the infinite, and natural forces.

The other significant change of setting arrives with Sampedro finally taking to a wheelchair (he otherwise refused them, saying they \"mocked his immobility\") to make an appearance in court to help plead his case. Amen\u00e1bar gives us a poignant, melancholy travelogue, shot subjectively, of Sampedro viewing life and the world in action from the car window.

Whether you agree with legalizing euthanasia or not, it's difficult to deny that this is a well-acted, well-scripted and well-constructed film. You may not believe that it's a ten (and that's even more unlikely if you disagree with legalizing euthanasia), but it's still worth watching as a fine example of artistic, sophisticated film-making.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE SEA INSIDE (2004) **** Javier Bardem, Belen Rueda, Lola Duenas, Mabel Rivera, Celso Bugallo, Joan Dalmau, Alberto Jimenez, Tamar Novas, Francesc Garrido, Jose Maria Pou, Alberto Amarilla, Nicolas Fernandez Luna.(Dir: Alejandro Amenabar)

An inspiring tale of a living death; Bardem is superb

The true life account of Spanish quadriplegic Ramon Sampedro and his petition to fulfill his desire for euthanasia by the right to die may not be considered a likely source of inspiration but this film is just that.

Sampedro (played superbly by Bardem) was a virile, energetic young man when he lost the function to his limbs after a tragic diving accident (recounted horrifically in flashback with a visceral jolt to the senses) and for nearly thirty years lay paralyzed in bed while his loving family cared to his every need. Although his abilities to move were nil his mind was very much active and proved skillful as an inventor, poet, author and artist that kept his mind busy until he could no longer bear the thought of living longer in his stunted condition.

Enter beautiful yet also afflicted with a crippling disease attorney Julia (the ethereal Rueda who matches Bardem beautifully as if they were indeed soul mates) is hired to see through Sampedro's final wish to end his life and in turn becomes an aide de camp when he begins to open up to her like to no one ever before. Not too long has time passed and Julia begins to investigate her charge's past discovering many letters hidden away by his family. When Julia confronts Ramon with this he at first is reluctant to discuss any thing with her but eventually he agrees with her that this may help his case and the project becomes a book in the making \u0096 a memoir\/biography by way of free-style poetry and prose.

The film is a heartbreaking tale of the human spirit and how love eventually triumphs over heart ache in many forms including for Ramon the unlikely love he shares with a complete stranger named Rosa (Duenas) a single mother who sees him on TV one day inspiring her to bicycle to his remote farmhouse in Spain to get to know him and possibly change his mind about ending his life.

Filmmaker Amenabar, who co-wrote with Mateo Gil the fascinating screenplay, allows some fantasy into the mix when Ramon envisions himself magically leaving his bed and flying across the bucolic landscapes to the eventual sea where he suffered so many years ago the cruel twist of fate that has imprisoned him for three decades. The film is not a complete downer with a sly wit and occasionally humorous tone throughout that doesn't dilute the impact of the story's final act. Kudos also to the remarkable make-up job by James and Jo Allen do a tremendous job in aging the vibrant Bardem to an aging man to full effect that should get them an Acadamy Award nod.

Bardem and Rueda deserve Oscar nominations as two people with so much in common and despite Rueda's Julia being married to a loving, doting husband, that a pair of people so made for one another it is down right impossible they were never together to begin with. That's just one of the cruelties that rings true but it is not by definition of the film as its whole; it is a must-see and one of the year's best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw Mar Ardentro and felt that I had to comment on this film. Euthanasia is a difficult topic in any field and unfortunately is can sometimes distort the true value of a movie. Many people have raved about the excellent cast and it's beautiful imagery\/camera-work. Certainly Javier Bardem is an actor that brings something extra to each film he makes. To say that he encompasses the real Sampredo is a little silly since I don't think that any of the reviewers have known Sampredo personally. To lie still and use a certain charm is a acting skill that although well performed doesn't constitute a 'perfect' performance. Bardem just does what he does well...and that's it. The camera-work is beautiful and evokes feelings and perspectives that the movie itself lacks to deliver. Sampredo here is shown as a man that is bend on dying so much that he leaves his loving family behind and marries a woman that he only seeks out when the other will not help him in his quest for a dignified death. Now I'm not here to say anything about the right for or against euthanasia. The problem is that when commenting movies like this you can hardly escape it. The movie's subject is so strong that you're almost compelled to discuss the movie in that strong subject matter. I find it a weakness for the movie -unintentionally- portrays Sampredo as a unsymphatetic character. Someone who is much smarter then his family as portrayed in the simple cousin that doesn't \"get\" the double layered poem directed towards him. Someone who will leave a loving and caring family because HE thinks his life is undignified. A scene that is juxtaposed to the female lawyer who according to the movie makes the \"wrong\" choice ending up in a far state of dementia thus indicating that Sampredo's choice was the right one. The woman that constantly seeks him out is almost disregarded for the beautiful lawyer but suddenly is married by Sampredo when she agrees to help him die. These choices make Sampredo into a calculated figure no matter how charming Bardem portrays him. Argumentive I would say it doesn't convince fully and I kinda think that Amenabar didn't intend on adding this unbalanced element in his film. For a young director it's still an impressive film and it certainly has it's strong moments (the discussion between the priest and Sampredo for instance). The camera-work IS impressive and the film is well acted. But 10 out of 10...no the movie doesn't reach that excellence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I suppose it's quite an achievement to be able to present to an audience a true tail about a frail man; a tail in which the protagonist will spend the majority of the film on his back, in a bed and totally unable to move. And yet the achievement is in the film's effectiveness as a dramatic piece; as a recollection of a true story and I guess as an argument as to why people should have the right to die if they so wish to. But the film isn't a political statement and perhaps thankfully it shies away from too many scenes of debate although it does include one for the sake of argument anyway. More-so, this is one of those foreign language films that presents its lead character as a cripple whom can do nothing but talk to the people around him and yet is able to come across as engaging and compelling anyway.

So rather than be an out and out argument, the film is more a sweet yet timely dramatic piece about another person wanting something or in search of something; the only difference is that by attaining this 'goal', it would mean the termination of a someone's life and it would be achieved by not physically going anywhere. Javier Bardem plays real life Galician Ram\u00f3n Sampedro, an individual who at a much earlier age dived into a clearing of water that was too shallow for such activity. This rendered him bedridden for the rest of his life and his wish to die is the focus of Chilean director Alejandro Amen\u00e1bar's film. We've seen so many films in our lives in which characters have certain 'goals' or targets one must meet before the film is over to provide a satisfactory experience for the audience, but the change of pace in The Sea Inside is gentle; it does not involve young, energetic, attractive heroes going off to do battle in far off places but a real person after something that means so much to them.

Even if you do have a strong policy, either pro or anti-euthanasia, you may find yourself hoping Ram\u00f3n gets what he wants at the end of it all anyway. The film sets its tone very early on with Ram\u00f3n giving a speech on why he wants to die to watching family members, immediately introducing the situation and subject to the watching audience who may not know what the film is about. Interestingly, some of the family members are 'anti' what he wishes which might place any audience member that feels strongly about the subject in their respective shoes. But the purpose of this set up is to tell the audience 'No, this isn't one man after something who incidentally has the whole of his family backing him to the end'. Quite easily, the film could've gone down a route in which it is the Sampedro family vs. everybody else but some are anti-Ram\u00f3n's idea; some are too young to acknowledge what's really going on and others are seemingly too distraught to even have an opinion other than they just want Ram\u00f3n to stick around a bit longer, they love him after all.

The Sea Inside is a following of a story revolving around a victim of sorts. Ram\u00f3n is a quadriplegic and it is his perspective we see things from. This is something that may disjoint viewers or have the film come across as quite odd given we are being presented with a film from the point of view of a victim rather than an instigator or a lead character in a film that is always inducing the cause in the cause and effect drive. But this is no criticism and it's a credit to the director for delivering such an approach in the effective manner in which it is. The film asks questions; it offers a scenario to its audience. If you were in Ram\u00f3n's position: what would you do, or think about or dream of or talk about? Consequently, dreams about lawyer Juila (Rueda) are not so much shot for the audience's pleasure as much as they are an ever so slight window into one man's escapist fantasies from his predicament.

The study of Julia intensifies somewhat later on when a she begins to share certain similarities with Ram\u00f3n and that is when she begins to have strokes that are a result of a disease of her own. This trait seems timely in the progression of their relationship and adds a further ingredient of connection on top of an already engaging friendship. This is because Julia feels the physical pain and restriction, not in a sense that she isn't able to get up and walk, but I think she realises the value of life given how emotionally bad she felt beforehand. While the film is based on a true story and covers the subject of euthanasia, it feels like more of a down to Earth drama about a man in a situation in which he is prepared to fight for what he wants but must do so verbally. It's refreshing to see films like The Sea Inside as it not only references history and gives us an insight into that but as a stand alone film, delivers on an emotional and engaging level.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a soap-opera drawing upon an applied ethics idea. A movie about human suffering and death is not necessarily a good movie. I didn't get any emotion from it, the ideas are not at all new, the tension lacks, it becomes tedious towards the second half but towards the end I think it becomes quite interesting in a burlesque way. I mean you have this middle-aged, paralyzed bald guy who gets more women than Don Juan. He doesn't seem to suffer as much as you would expect from someone completely paralyzed for over 28 years, he has no issues with God (and one would probably expect that too), the people around him seem to be the perfect slaves (I can't get out of my mind Bergman's Cries and Whispers, similar to this one in many respects, which simply bursts with emotions, and not all of them humane) etc. This movie is the perfect recipe for housewives who look for some emotional thrill but don't expect to be blown away. The movie is worth seeing among all the cynicism we get today for its sincere intention to present a modern ethical issue without any desire to arouse the viewer. Amenabar doesn't rub your face in it and he doesn't take sides, he doesn't want to make us fanatics for a particular idea. Still I have no clue as to why this movie was so highly regarded.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A friend of mine asked: \"Doesn't one have to be pro-euthanasia in order to like this movie? Is it a mistake of the movie to infer most quadriplegics want to end their lives?\" Interesting questions.

As far as I can see (correct me if I'm wrong), there is only one quadriplegic who wanted to end his life in The Sea Inside. Think Ram\u00f3n Sampedro addressed this in the movie as well. It is he who wants to die. It is he who is fighting for his right to decide his death. He is speaking for himself and not other quadriplegics. Though his pioneering work, depending on one's perspective, may prove beneficial or damaging to quadriplegics down the road, his primary objective is a personal one. But one thing this movie does (my opinion anyway), is that it forces us the viewers to ask ourselves the inferring questions my friend so succinctly put forth.

After my first viewing of The Sea Inside, I walked home in a conflicted blur. I struggled to reconcile with this exasperating notion; why would Ram\u00f3n want to die? Given the love, care and sacrifices so unconditionally showered on Ram\u00f3n by the people surrounding him, why would he doggedly cling on to his hurtful decision? Then, on my second viewing, a shared thought between Ram\u00f3n and the lawyer lady entered my consciousness. It threw up a telling observation: \"...total dependency comes at the expense of intimacy.\" Most human beings crave for such an intimacy. Of course, how much we value such \"needs\", depends largely on the individual.

As a person with a familial-biased sensibility, I empathised strongly with the caregivers in this movie. Why can't Javier consider the sacrifice and the love from his family and friends? Is he blind to it all? I would think not. The miracle of The Sea Inside therefore, is its insightful depiction of a very humanistic tug of war. When we are faced with the guardianship of a sane but incapacitated loved one, whom has expressed a calm, conscious and rational intent to die, what then is the right thing to do? Is caring for and keeping this loved one alive, against his or her will, a pious gesture? Does it show up the worth of our love? Or does it merely soothe our \"selfish\" fears of irreplaceable loss? With so much understanding accorded to caregivers, wouldn't their invalid charges, by submitting themselves to the total dependency of others for survival, also be an overlooked act of sacrifice? Rhetorical or not, how much is \"dignity\" worth to an individual? Is living (or dying) with dignity a privilege or a right? If we really care and love a person, should we also respect their eventual decisions in life (as in death)? A torrent of questions the movie might have asked, answers to which, I'm in no position to provide.

In our eagerness to intellectually demarcate the merits of pro-life or pro-choice, we run the risk of ignoring a sea of grey that's engulfing the people most intimately affected, the caregivers and the ones they care for. The Sea Inside hence attempted to present the delicate yet complex relationship dynamics between them. Intuitively, this film understands one thing; that the nature of \"sacrifice\" is never one-sided. In this tug of war, we should endeavour not to win arguments, but to intently observe and hopefully determine, who is the \"stronger\" party to make that sacrifice.

The Sea Inside is a sobering film. It opened my eyes to things I don't wanna see. And for that, I am grateful.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen 'The Sea Within' today and I loved it. The actors of the movie are wonderful (specially Javier Bardem, of course), but I thought that Bel\u00e9n Rueda would have a better role. Lola Due\u00f1as, Clara Segura and, specially, Mabel Rivera perform excellent interpretations. And I cannot forget Celso Bugallo and Joan Dalmau (brother and father of the protagonist).

There are two technical aspects I loved very much: Aguirresarobe's photography and the score by Amen\u00e1bar himself. I liked the song, 'Negra sombra' ('Dark Shadow'), by Luz Casal with music of Carlos N\u00fa\u00f1ez.

In short, I think that the Spanish Academy should choose 'The Sea Within' in order to compete in the Oscar Awards. I liked other Spanish productions, such as Almod\u00f3var's 'Bad Education', but Amen\u00e1bar's film is much better than them. 'The Sea Within' deserves all the awards.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Since many other users have already explained and commented the storyline, I won't do it.

However, I'd like to restate that Bardem's interpretation is terrific, as also are those of the other actors and actresses in this film.

Reading the previous comments I've noticed that some people criticize the fact that the film doesn't show points of view opposed to euthanasia and that those little present are ridiculed. In my honest opinion this is far from true.

There are many characters that move in a gray zone between loving Ram\u00f3n Sampedro and wanting him to stay, and understanding his desire to die. Most obvious of those are the family. For instance, Ram\u00f3n's sister-in-law never talks for or against euthanasia. Another such character is Gen\u00e9 (the social rights activist) who, in the last moment, tells Ram\u00f3n to re-think it all. The scene clearly shows that she doesn't want him to die.

Then there are characters who are clearly against euthanasia. Ram\u00f3n's brother is clearly against it, as is his father (\"There's only one thing worse than the death of son, and it's having a son that wants to die.\") Other users have commented that the discussion between Ram\u00f3n and the priest is ridiculed and filmed to make us think that Ram\u00f3n is GOOD and the priest is BAD. Well, no doubt the scene is comic, but that doesn't mean the priest is caricatured or ridiculed. From my point of view, the comedy in this scene comes from the fact that the priest is trying to convince Ram\u00f3n to keep on living using arguments totally alien to Ram\u00f3n's thinking. The priest's speech goes on the line of \"God gives and God takes\", \"We aren't the owners of our own lives, they belong to God\"... and so on. The comedy arises from the fact that Ram\u00f3n is atheist and all the priest is saying to him is therefore nonsense.

This film is the antithesis of manicheism, it leaves the spectator the chance to think on the subject and make up his\/her own opinion. And above anything else is a chant of FREEDOM.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once again Almen\u00e1bar has provided us with a top quality film. This director is amazing, and he's proven that he's equally talented and effective when crossing genres.

The excellent character development of the movie, through dialogue and personality quirks, but with more subtle details as well (Ramon's father's gaze), allows the audience to identify with the protagonists very closely, making the importance and emotional impact of the events which take place all the more profound. The visuals are at times, simple, at times stunning (the dream to the beach), and I think Almen\u00e1bar's films really benefit from the fact that he also composes the music - it matched the film's varying moods flawlessly.

More than just a film about euthanasia, which in itself is an important issue, this film tackles the duality of a man who at times genuinely seems to enjoy life (albeit in a quite limited way), and yet one who is unswerving in his desire to die. The overwhelming sadness of the film is punctuated by well-timed quips of humor, which seem all the funnier because they provide a welcome respite from the melancholy you will certainly feel.

Although clearly in favor of euthanasia, this film does an excellent job representing the myriad points of view of Ramon's friends and family. Most poignant was Ramon's father, when he said, despondent, \"There's only one thing worse than losing a child. That the child wants to die.\"

Excellent writing, acting, directing, cinematography, music - 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\" I have wrestled with death. It is the most unexciting contest you can imagine. It takes place in an impalpable grayness, with nothing underfoot, with nothing around, without spectators, without clamor, without glory, without the great desire of victory, without the great fear of defeat, in a sickly atmosphere of tepid skepticism, without much belief in your own right, and still less in that of your adversary. If such is the form of ultimate wisdom, then life is a greater riddle than some of us think it to be.\" Marlow in Joseph Conrad's \"Heart of Darkness\"

It's difficult to make lyrical the subject of death in any work of art. Yet movies have recently made bold attempts to humanize it to the extent that it is embraced as a part of the cycle of all living things, and it can be chosen rather than legislated. \"Chosen\" is the operative word for Alejandro Amenabar's Sea Inside, based loosely on the true story of the Galician sailor Ramon Sampedro. It is a drama about euthanasia without prejudice clothed in love, poetry, and friendship. If it sounds like Barbarian Invasions (2003), in which a cancerous professor says farewell to lifelong friends and loves before he takes his life, then you are right. In fact, Sea is better because it spends more intimate time with the protagonist before he goes, a remarkable feat with not one of those moments in the least dull or uninteresting.

Javier Bardem as Ramon has expressive eyes and commanding voice for the romantic quadriplegic, a combination of tough realist and poetic sufferer. Belen Rueda plays the disabled lawyer Julia, who becomes an imaginary lover for Ramon, increasing in radiance as her life degenerates with disease. Added to the already almost soap opera circumstance is Lola Duenas as Rosa, a blue collar visitor who initially tries to dissuade Ramon from seeking death but quickly falls in love with him. Talk about romanticizing disability\u0097This guy has unbelievable luck attracting substantial women, and he can't move a finger. But talk he can, proving the ultimate argument about what women want: love that speaks, not just makes.

I will refrain from mentioning the major motion picture now up for an Oscar that features euthanasia as its climax in order not to spoil the experience for first timers. Sufficient it is just to say both films are successful in opening up both sides of a contentious subject without forcing a specific point of view. The religious right has a right to complain that the former film and Barbarian Invasions celebrate suicide; it has no right to accuse the beautifully balanced Sea Inside of the same.

\"A life in this condition has no dignity,\" Ramon says. The irony is he conducts himself with supreme dignity that makes anyone question his determination to end his life. \"The Sea Inside\" is a formidable entry in 2004's Oscar nominations for best foreign language film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first saw \"Before Night Falls\", Javier Bardem had just been nominated for an Academy Award. I thought \"he's got it!\". He didn't. I watched \"Mar Adentro\" last night. Please give it to him this time... This is an actor. Convincing, touching, emotional, brilliant. See also \"Los Lunes al Sol\" and you will understand what I am talking about. He is an absolute chameleon and I swear it's not only the result of make-up work. This movie is so beautiful, so well done, the characters are so real. Congratulations to Alejandro Amen\u00e1bar (how about a Best Director nomination?). I also have to mention the make-up artists. I can't think of another word but magnificent. I really hope this movie gets the recognition it deserves. As far as I am concerned, it already has...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is probably the best movie filmed in at least the last five years. I've always believed that making people cry is far more difficult than making them laugh. If you want to see 400 adults crying out loud in the same room, go see this movie. It's breathtaking. Javier Bardem performs the role of his life. You will cry, you will laugh, you will smile... The most deserving fact is that in Spain everybody knows about Ramon Sampedro. Personally I knew the full story and even the end of it. So, the excellence of the movie is in the way that the story is told. And in this field, Amenabar is a THE master.

This movie is a MUST.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Tesis\", \"Open your eyes\" and \"The Others\" were proof of Amenabar's talent and skill as a filmmaker, but (in my humble opinion) were also flawed films in their attempt to outsmart the audience, always offering one turn of the screw too many, favoring cheap thrills, twists and turns over depth and resonance. Lucky for everyone Amenabar chose a subject for his new film that would not allow a surprise ending, focusing on characters and the emotional ties that bind them.

The result is a little miracle of a film, beautifully written, photographed, scored, acted and directed. Everyone involved in this film delivers a carrer-high performance,behind and in front of the cameras, from the wonderful cast (Bardem shines, but Mabel Rivera, Celso Bugallo, Clara Segura and Lola Due\u00f1as give the film an amazing authenticity) to Aguirresarobe's exquisite lensing.

The film taps on many relevant issues and emotions effectively , it addresses heart and mind with equal power and delivers a final punch that stays with you long after the credits roll. This is a brilliantly executed film that not only will stand as a landmark in Spanish cinema, but will surely become a pleasant surprise when it opens in the abroad (Sony Classics has paid a record 6 million dollars to distribute it) Don't be surprised it it manages to get in the Oscar race... There's no stopping Amenabar...

Buen trabajo, Alejandro!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's now 2005 and 15+ years since this cartoon first aired. I haven't actually watched it seriously or closely in about 10 years. Now that I'm an adult in my 30s I can look back with a serious eye as I watch the episodes again.

In concept, the cartoon is partly an homage to the classic Looney Tunes but also its own original show. There are a few episodes that are structured like the old cartoons. For example, there is a singer that attacks Buster and so he exacts revenge on this singer's concert -exactly like the old Bugs Bunny cartoon. The ensuing cartoon is similar to Looney Tunes, just in a different era. If you look at the old Looney Tunes, they did an awful lot of stuff exactly like Tiny Toons did. The old Looney Tunes made a lot of social commentary and parody. There were celebrity impersonations. There were a lot of corny period jokes, slang, and dialog. The comedy was surreal and wacky. You can say this exactly for Tiny Toons as well. The comedy styling is 'spiritually' the same. Most definitely a throwback to the classics which hadn't been done well (if at all) in cartoons in the decades prior to this show. We recognize the cultural references in Tiny Toons and we can roll our eyes when something we don't like comes up. But the reason we don't think Looney Tunes are corny is because we weren't alive back in the 40s. Also, Looney Tunes was original back in those days but today cartoons are rehashed over and over. So it's easy to perceive Tiny Toons in an unfair light due to our exposure to current events and our overexposure to cartoons in general.

There certainly are differences in many respects - the timing, the delivery, and obviously the duration of the shows. They are two different styles from two different periods, being done under two very different circumstances - Looney Tunes being made for adults in theaters and Tiny Toons being made for kids watching TV. Even so, they did a good job making an original show with original gags AND still paying homage to and patterning after the comedy stylings of the old Looney Tunes.

Since Tiny Toons had a lot more time to play with, they had some genuine moments of great animated inspiration. You only have to look at episodes like 1 minute to 3, the baby Plucky toilet episode.. there are so many more. For example, one of the best comedy dialog exchanges ever animated is in ThirteenSomething when Babs and Buster are on the phone in a split screen, hoping each misses the other. The miscommunication is spectacular. Notably, the character development in this episode and in several others (usually the ones penned by Deanna Oliver or Sherri Stoner) is rather good. The female characters were taken seriously as personalities and developed, unusual considering the opposite is usually true for cartoons of that period.

This was the first modern cartoon that had lots of both pop culture-referential and self-referential humor. This was way ahead of its time. Tiny Toons really opened up a door for writers to take comic liberties that are so common in the cartoons today, instead of doing the boring old crap we endured as 80s kids. Yes, I loved Transformers and Thundercats, but Tiny Toons totally jumped away from all that. It was a breath of fresh air. Bakshi's New Adventures of Mighty Mouse may have been a precursor, but Tiny Toons made this surreal style of comedy cartoon writing a real success.

As a kid I totally overlooked some jokes. For example, one episode is an homage to the Marx Brothers that I completely ignored as a teen. Now I have a newfound respect for it. There are so many inspired gags that I never noticed that are genuinely brilliant. It's that kind of comedy that makes me think of Looney Tunes and Family Guy. I NEVER noticed that kind of comedy as a kid. I've been thinking this for most episodes I watched recently.

You'd notice these kinds of things if you actually WATCHED the show. Unlike some other reviewers here who I know are unfairly judging it, I've seen all the episodes and have thought about them thoroughly, exposed both as a kid and as an adult.

You can tell there was an awful lot of care taken with the voice acting too. I'm not talking about just the main characters, but the side characters were done really well and creatively too. But back to the main characters, some of the main characters were brilliant. Tress MacNeille had, in my opinion, her best performances in this cartoon. She hasn't been the same since. Rob Paulsen also did some incredible stuff here, too.

This is all not to say the show didn't have some bad episodes. It had plenty. It had a lot of mediocre ones, too. But by far it certainly had a lot of genuinely funny episodes. Especially back when it first aired it was actually funny to watch.

Out of 10 I give the show an 8.5 - and kudos for pushing the envelope and breaking down the doors leading to a new era of cartoons.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"They just don't make cartoons like they used to. This one had wit, great characters, and the greatest ensemble of voice over artists ever assembled for a daytime cartoon show. This still remains as one of the highest rated daytime cartoon shows, and one of the most honored, winning several Emmy Awards.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"OK, the show was a little uneven, but I still loved it. I found the main two bunnies annoying, but Hamton & Plucky were always amusing.

I really want the Baby Plucky episodes on DVD (or even VHS). Please release those!

Specifically the \"Potty years\" episode aired on 11\/22\/91; the \"Going up\" episode aired on 9\/17\/92 and the \"Minister golf\" episode in 11\/92.

They are the funniest bits of the whole series and even over a decade later we still reference these bits!

(I have nothing more to say, please reduce the minimum to something like 5 lines and rewards us for brevity!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After the success of \"Muppet Babies\" Warner Brothers chalked up \"Tiny Toons\". But instead of making Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and all the rest of the Looney Toon gang kids, they created new animal characters who were kids with their own distinct personalities but personalities that nonetheless mirrored their predecessors. The leads included Buster & Babs Bunny (no relation, which became their running gag or catch phrase), Plucky Duck, Hampton Pig, Dizzy Devil, Shirley 'the' Loon, Elmira, Montana Max, Furball, Sweety, the rats and assorted animals of Perfecto Prep, and the original Looney Toons cast themselves. The \"Tiny Toons\" lived in Acme Acres and attended Acme Looniversity, where the Looney Toon gang worked as teachers who served as mentors to the younger generation the ins and out of comedy.

During the show's run, various pot shots were taken at the Bush SR. administration, pop culture, and coupled with various other gags and spoofs.

Buster & Babs, arguably the show's main characters, as mentioned above, were similar to Bugs Bunny in some respects, but they also had their own differing personality ticks and comic styles, namely, Babs' tendency to impersonate anyone and everyone, while Buster, capable of being a great goof himself, usually played straight man (or straight rabbit) to Babs' antics. Plucky Duck was a virtual copy of Daffy Duck (not screwball Daffy but egomaniac Daffy), with nearly as big an ego as Daffy and just as much of an obsession with upstaging the Buster & Babs as Daffy had with upstaging Bugs, though he usually fell flat on his face in his attempts, yet he remained strangely endearing through out. Hampton was an even more shy version of Porky Pig, and he had the thankless job of playing Porky to Plucky's Daffy. Shirley, the blond duck gal, was a new age valley girl type whom Plucky would go in and out of phases of mocking or vying for her affections. Dizzy was the purple version of the Tasmanian Devil. Furball was the silent Sylvester and Sweety was the pink Tweetie bird. There was also the purple female skunk who longed for a boyfriend and the pint sized versions of Wile Coyote and the Road Runner. Evil was defined in the form of Montana Max, a rich kid who was always out to make a buck or make people's lives miserable. There was also Elmira, a deranged animal lover whom everyone feared. And then there was Godo Dodo, an odd thing-a-ma-gig creature who had no clearly designated species except that he was from \"Wacky Land\" or something like that.

Pop culture references included Batman (quite frequently actually), Michael Jackson, Vanilla Ice, Dances With Wolves, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, Supergirl, fast food joints, the Ten Commandments, the Twilight Zones, Saturday Night Live and even the Simpsons, among others.

Not only funny, but it also managed to be warm and touching, something it's successor \"Animaniacs\" never quite attained. Also followed by \"Taz-Mania\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being a 90's child, I truly enjoyed this show and I can proudly say that I enjoyed it big time and even more than the classical WB cartoons.

I don't know why; early 90's cartoons had something special; I don't know if it was the uncertainty atmosphere, a generational change, whatever. But \"Tiny Toons\" kept the 90's vibe and delivered one of the most popular, funny, and underrated cartoons ever created.

The memories are murky but I can only say that I enjoyed every single episode and product related to the show. Easily, none other cartoon made me laugh in a tender way (before getting into dark sitcoms oriented for teenagers).

The characters were all funny and had the peculiarity of not having a true lead character. Every single character was hilarious and deserved to be called a lead.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I used to watch this show when I was growing up. When I think about it, I remember it very well. If you ask me, it was a good show. Two things I remember very well are the opening sequence and theme song. In addition to that, everyone was ideally cast. The writing was also very strong. The performances were top-grade, too. I hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I haven't seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, if some network ever brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a cute little French silent comedy about a man who bets another that he can't stay in this castle for one hour due to its being haunted. And, once the guy enters the house, it looks much more like a crazed fun house or maybe like the after-effects of LSD!! While there ARE ghosts and skeletons, there is a weird menagerie of animals, odd special effects and gags as well. It's awfully hard to describe but the visuals alone make the film worth seeing. HOWEVER, understand that the self-indulgent director also had many \"funny gags\" that totally fell flat and hurt the movie. His \"camera tricks\" weren't so much tricky but annoying and stupid. IGNORE THESE AND KEEP WATCHING--it does get better. The film is fast paced, funny and worth seeing. In particular, I really liked watching the acting and mugging of Max Linder--he was so expressive and funny! Too bad he is virtually forgotten today. For an interesting but very sad read, check out the IMDb biography on him.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dakota Incident is a curiosity for several reasons. It will be obvious from the start that it was made long before anyone ever thought of political correctness. Although, the Ward Bond character softens the edge with \"maybe we can communicate with them, after all they're humans, too\" type of dialogue. His part stands side-by-side with the preacher attemtping to communicate with the Martians in War of the Worlds. In fact, it's uncanny. The title is curious too. Use of the word \"Incident\" contributes an importance and sophistication to the film that probably didn't hurt boxoffice. The contrived assortment of characters and Linda Darnell's fancy dress and hat are wonderful dated touches that make Dakota Incident a cool western artifact from the mid-fifties.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A widely unknown strange little western with mindblowing colours (probably the same material as it was used in \"Johnny Guitar\", I guess \"Trucolor\" or something, which makes blood drips look like shining rubies), nearly surrealistic scenes with twisted action and characters. Something different, far from being a masterpiece, but there should be paid more attention to this little gem in western encyclopedias.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't seen this film since it came out in the mid 70s, but I do recall it as being a very realistic portrayal of the music business ( right up there with Paul Simons \"One Trick Pony \" ..another vastly underrated film IMO )

Harvey Keitel does an excellent job as a producer caught between the music he believes in , and the commercial \"tripe\" the record company \"suits\" want him to work with.

Since I spent my entire career in the music business as a composer \/arranger \/producer, I can really vouch for the verisimilitude this film possesses.

If it should ever come out on DVD uncut, I'd buy it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay...it's 2005 and when you finally get to look at this film, you will probably exclaim that it is dated. But here's the thing, the screenplay was bold, the exposure of the music industry at that time was as bold as well...and it took some time for this to get music that was created by African Americans to be promoted on the same level as white acts. In some cases it still is - but back in the 70's this film addressed some of the \"background\" many never knew. Now we've got \"American Idol\" - \"Pop Idol\" and other such things that allow us into the minds of the \"record execs\" and how they think they should market something that sells and not market talent.

When I was a kid, I loved the Earth, Wind and Fire release of \"That's the Way of the World\" which contained some of their biggest hits: \"Shining Star\", \"Reasons\", \"Yeanin', Learnin'\" and the title. Little did I know this was a SOUNDTRACK of a MOVIE...until I moved to Los Angeles and got the wonderful \"Z\" Channel.

The \"Z\" Channel showed this film as part of a \"Harvey Keitel\" retrospective. Gee, I had no idea Harvey Keitel DID so many movies -- and when I saw this one, I was surprised. This movie is not a cinematic masterpiece, but it does deserve more merit than it got. It's a nice little film. More than a \"vanity piece\" for Earth, Wind and Fire, Harvey Keitel does a great job as a torn record executive trying \"to fight the system\". There are a lot of lessons to be drawn from this, and a lot of \"insider\" trade that was exposed.

If you can find this uncut...it's worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Harvey Keitel gives a typically top-rate performance in one of his first-ever lead roles as brash, ambitious, uncompromising young staff producer Coleman Buckmaster, a real talented hot shot with a discerning \"golden ear\" and the son of a famous jazz pianist to boot. Coleman's eager to cut some tracks with the smokin' R&B outfit the Group (none other than Earth, Wind & Fire in their awesomely funky prime), but his rigidly commercial greedhead label A-Chord Records run by uptight, mob-connected middle-of-the-road square Jerry (a properly unhip Ed Nelson) wants him to record a hit single for the hideously insipid Carpenters-like pop pap trio the Pages, an allegedly squeaky clean bunch which includes smarmy pedophile step-dad Franklin (a perfectly vile Bert Parks), bitchy, neurotic daughter Velour (a fine, flighty turn by perky, comely brunette Cynthia Bostwick), and hedonistic smack addict son Gary (former 50's juvenile sitcom staple Jimmy Boyd). The extremely naive and idealistic Coleman must learn pronto how the music business truly works and play the lowdown dirty game as best he can or else he'll lose both the Group and his credibility.

Adopting an acrid, incisive, corrosively harsh and unsparingly biased script from syndicated columnist and rock journalist Robert Lipsyte, director Sig Shore (who's most famous for producing \"Superfly\") shows a decidedly cynical and unflattering depiction of the various bribes, pay-offs, broken promises, back-stabbings, duplicities and double-dealings which are an unpleasant, yet intrinsic part of the largely corrupt rock music business, with particularly thoughtful thematic asides concerning Art vs. Commerce, fighting to retain one's artistic integrity, and the then recent push to homogenize rock into bland, useless, creatively stagnant mainstream respectability. Moreover, this gritty, downbeat gem offers a rare fascinating, minutely detailed and wholly believable backstage glimpse at the recording process as recording booth console cowboy Coleman struggles gamely in his own words to \"make chicken salad out of chicken s**t.\" Appearing in nifty bits are disc jockey and legendary \"fifth Beatle\" Murray the K as leering, lecherous DJ Big John Little (Velour bites his hand after Big John paws her thigh during a live on-air interview!), New York soul DJ and host of NBC's \"Friday Night Videos\" Frankie Crocker as his own jazzy'n'jivin' self, R&B singer-songwriter Doris Troy (she penned the lovely \"Just One Look\") as a church pianist, and tubby, bald-pated 70's blaxploitation favorite Charles MacGregor as a priest at a wedding. The rather poor sound and Allan Metzger's sloppy cinematography inadvertently add to the film's overall ragged, rough-around-the-edges documentary-style authenticity. Although technically a bit lacking, this movie overall still rates as one of the great, most bitterly pessimistic unsung behind-the-scenes rocksploitation gems from the 70's.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would like to know if anyone know how I can get a copy of the movie, \"That's the way of the World\". It's been about 30 years since I've seen this movie, and I would like to see it again. Earth Wind & Fire transcend the nation globally with their inspirational music and themes. It was unfortunate that this group didn't take off like their counterparts in the early 70's, but as previously stated, racial tension existed in the United States which prohibited equalized exposure for the African American musical groups. It is good to see that Earth Wind & Fire continuing their success. I would like to add this movie to my collection. Someone please help me if possible. Thank you for your attention. Milton Shaw","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When Melville's \"Pierre; or The Ambiguities\" hit bookstores in 1852, his first publication since \"Moby Dick\" a year earlier, the public response was similar to that found among the IMDB reviews of \"POLA X\". Newspapers even published headlines like: \"Melville Insane!\" which, of course, he wasn't. But, when one compares the writing styles found in \"Moby Dick\" and \"Pierre,\" one finds in the latter a sharp departure from the simple and often declamatory style found in the former. Clearly, he was mimicking the overly florid style of the now-forgotten Victorian Romances that were easily outselling his immortal \"Moby Dick.\" He was not content, however, to turn out the sort of product that his publishers wanted, and that surely would have sold. His version of a Victorian romance was a twisted, cynical one, perhaps, but brilliant in its synthesis. The alternate title: \"The ambiguities\" is quite appropriate. As Pierre searches for, and thinks he finds, truth, we become more and more uncertain what and whom to believe. As he searches for happiness, he becomes more and more miserable.

\"POLA X\" is a fascinating adaptation of this novel, set in modern or nearly modern France. Though, in some ways, it leaves little to the imagination, and shows us graphically the incestuous relations that Melville could only hint at, the ambiguities which make the novel and its message so alluring are perfectly in tact. The questions it raises are ones that few films have thought to ask, yet the answers are left to the viewer.

I recommend a reading of the novel, which is much shorter than \"Moby Dick,\" before seeing this movie. I hope more people discover this tantalizing film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At times I really wonder\u0085 when I look at the comments here it seems as if most people have seen a completely different film than I have. I've just seen it... and liked it. Not in the way, that it made me happy, but in the way of having seen a good film!

The film needs some patience, yes. And yes, the main character is REALLY annoying, but that I'm sure is by intention.

Maybe it really makes a difference if you watch this film in a cinema or at home. Most people watch films at home like they are listening to elevator music. This movie definitely doesn't fit as background noise.

And no. Good directing doesn't mean having five laughs or explosions a second. Good directing means following your subject and keeping the story and actors together. And while that doesn't work out perfectly, at least I think it works quite good.

I liked the photography and sets, even if they brink on the surreal at times. The opening scene is really special.

I also liked the acting \u0096 Guillaume Depardieu is NOT playing Pierre. He is acting the role of a Pierre who is himself playing a role! Pierre is not the romantic hero that he so hard tries to be, he is a presumptuous and self-righteous idiot, a downright weakling who by and by harms all the people he claims to protect. That even his love for truth is simply a pose is beautifully demonstrated by his ongoing lying and not even once asking questions or explaining himself.

People are wondering where this or that person came from and other stuff: No character who is seen for more than two scenes is left unexplained, there is enough information scattered throughout the film on everyone.

And even the strange building begins to make sense as soon as the target practicing is seen: Remember that Isabelle fled from a war zone - and obviously this is a refuge for fighters in a civil war, most likely Bosnia (which was still going on, when the film was produced). At least that's what is hinted at by the story Isabelle tells Pierre when she first meets him and by the later scene where Pierre shows Isabelle the book with his father on the cover, which is surrounded by books on Bosnia.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No one would ever question that director Leos Carax is a genius, but what we wonder about is: is he an insane genius? So many people hated this film! I am normally the first person to accuse many French directors of making offensive, boring, disgusting and pretentious films (such as the horrible recent film 'L'Enfant' and the pointless and offensive 'Feux Rouges'). But strangely enough, I actually think that 'Pola X' is an amazing film, made with great skill and passion by a master of his craft, and containing remarkable performances. The film does carry melodrama to more extreme lengths than I believe I have ever seen on screen before. But then, Carax is extreme, that we know. The film also contains what I consider way over-the-top Trotskyite or Anarchist fantasies and wet-dreams, what with a mysterious group of young men training to fire machine guns at the bourgeoisie in between playing Scott Walker's rather fascinating music in a band which has its recording sessions in an abandoned warehouse filled with squatters and fires burning in old steel barrels. Guillaume Depardieu plays a rich young man in a ch\u00e2teau (whose step-mother is Catherine Deneuve, and he wanders into her bathroom while she is naked in the bath, by the way). But he suddenly 'snaps' completely when he discovers that his deceased father, a famous diplomat, had fathered an illegitimate daughter who had been effectively disposed of by Deneuve as an inconvenience. This is because the sister suddenly turns up as a kind of Romanian refugee with wild dishevelled hair, expressionless face, and little ability to speak French coherently. Depardieu then transforms himself into a 'class hero' of the far left and wants to kill or destroy his family for their hypocrisy and corruption, and lives in squalor and extreme poverty, while scorning a vast inheritance. He then commences an incestuous sexual relationship with his half-sister, which is shown in an explicit sex scene which has offended many people, though I have no objection to it, as I think people are far too hysterical about sex, especially in America, where apparently it never happens. The intensity of the acting and the filming make this unlikely scenario come off as an experience of powerful, if depressing, hyper-melodrama. The differences between Carax making an extreme film like this and the numerous extreme French films which I think are pretentious and disgusting are (1) that Carax is an excellent filmmaker, and (2) he is seriously attempting to explore a meaningful, if harrowing, extreme emotional condition, whereby a human being disintegrates and turns against his background. Many would say that the extreme elements in this film were gratuitous, but I don't agree. I believe Carax was genuine, and was not making an exploitation picture at all. It is very difficult to defend a man who goes that far and who, for all I know, may be a complete madman, but I believe he deserves defending for this remarkable cinematic achievement.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie starts off somewhat slowly and gets running towards the end. Not that that is bad, it was done to illustrate character trait degression of the main character. Consequently, if you are not into tragedies, this is not your movie. It is the thought provoking philosophy of this movie that makes it worthwhile. If you liked Dostoyevsky's 'Crime and Punishment,\" you will probably like this if only for the comparisons. The intriguing question that the movie prompts is, \"What is it that makes a renowned writer completely disregard his publicly-aproved ideas for another set?\" The new ideas are quite opposed to the status quo-if you are a conservative you will not like this movie.

Besides other philosophical questions, I must admit that the movie was quite aesthetically pleasing as well. The grassy hillsides and beautiful scenery helped me get past the slow start. Also, there was use of coloric symbolism in representing the mindstate of the main characters. If these sorts of things do not impress you, skip it. Overall I give this movie a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pola X is a beautiful adaption of Herman Melville's 'Pierre; or, the Ambiguities'. The comments on here surprise me, it makes me wonder what has led to the overwhelmingly negative reaction.

The shock value is the least appealing thing about this film - a minor detail that has been blown out of proportion. The story is of Pierre's downfall - and the subsequent destruction of those around him - which is overtly demonstrated in his features, demeanour and idiolect. The dialogue and soundtrack set this film apart from any other I have seen, and turn a fundamentally traditional storyline with controversial twists into an unforgettably emotional epic.

I can't stress enough the importance of disregarding everything you have heard about this film and watching, as I did, with an open mind. You will, I hope, be rewarded in the same way that I was. I felt on edge and nervous from around the half-hour mark, however the film is far from scary in any traditional sense. It will leave you with 1,000 thoughts, each of them at once troublesome and thrilling. I know I'm gushing here, but I feel the need to make up for the negative perception of this film. It's the best I've seen all year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with \"johnlewis\", who said that there is a lot going on between the lines in this film. While I do think the pacing of this film could be improved, I do think that the complexity of the relationships between the characters is fascinating.

Examples :

Pierre is going to marry his cousin, even though his love for her seems very cousin-y ?

Pierre and his stepmother have a rather...curious relationship.

Pierre, Lucie, and Thibault seem to have a triangular relationship, and the actual points to the triangle are not quite certain...

Lucie's brother is a bit of a eunuch, or is he ?

And Isabelle, who is she really ??

Overall, I think it was worth my time. An interesting film, and one that makes me want to read Melville.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched Pola X because Scott Walker composed the film score and I admire his music a lot. Frankly, I expected a somewhat pretentious and possibly incoherent French movie. I was wrong. The vision of the film quickly managed to engage my attention to the fullest - starting with the opening sequence, which shows black and white footage of military airplanes throwing bombs at graves at the sounds of music and Scott Walker's beautiful wailing voice. The film explores the identity crisis of Pierre (Guillaume Depardieu - a brilliant choice for the role) and his consequential (self-)destruction. The story is divided into two parts \u0096 the first depicts Pierre's carefree life in a beautiful house in the French countryside and the second follows his utter personal disintegration after he abandons everything and moves to Paris to live in squalor with his supposed half-sister. Both parts contain some amazingly stunning photography \u0096 the first very colorful and bright, the second utterly gloomy and nearly apocalyptic - adding up to a true aesthetic feast. Pola X is a fascinating and quite unique movie experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Leos Carax has made 3 great movies: Boys Meet Girls, Mauvais Sang, Les Amants du Pont Neuf. In fact those films were not that great but it has the violence of youth, the beauty of juvenile wilderness. Carax in these three movies was well aware of what cinema was, but he tried to make his own vision of the art, without thinking about about all he have seen, but using it and melting it into his times. Pola X is a very different movie because Carax made Les Amants du Pont Neuf, a monstruosity of 20 millions dollars, a film that has destroyed everything on its way. After such a movie you can't do another one in the same point of view. So Leos Carax has to changed, and he did. The movie isn't as beautiful as its first, it's more reasonable, no more studio, no more dreamed Paris, Carax has entered at last reality. It's not clean anymore, it's not poetic characters. Carax have become a romantic in the german sense of it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Leos Carax is brilliant and is one of the best film and camera guys in the business so it should come as no surprise that Pola X is an almost perfect filming of the most gut wrenching story ever. Seriously. If I could have figured out some way to climb inside my video monitor, I would have thrashed Pierre to within an inch of his life. No one has the right to be that self absorbed and that stupid, both at the same time, except maybe Heathcliff in Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. After spending 134 minutes with Pierre, I need a large glass of brandy. Never have I been so angry at a main character. Ok, having said that, Pola X is a stunning movie with one of the few totally honest sex scenes I've ever seen in any film....which means another piece of brilliant filmmaking....and I'm talking graphic here, by the way. Pola X will beat the hell out of you, though, so make sure you're up for it if you decide to watch it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've tried to reconcile why so many bad reviews of this film, while the vast majority of reviews are given a rating of between 7 and 10. The reason may be this film is kind of hard to describe in a positive review, although a few have done that quite nicely already. This film is confusing, depressing, and doesn't have a happy ending. I still gave Pola X a rating of 10, because it is basically for me literature and art combined on film. That is really my favorite kind of filmmaking. I've only seen two of Carax's films: this one and Mauvis Sang. As with this film, I'm being somewhat pretentious when I call this one of Carax's best films- but I am. Carax has a minimalist style. If that type of film does not appeal to you and is boring, then it would be best not to watch this. But Pola X was less minimalist than Mauvis Sang, so it had quite a lot of intensity for a thriller- at least for my taste. I found it quite interesting and absorbing. The two lead roles did an excellent job acting. (I mean the lead and the young woman he thought was his half sister.) Catherine D. is always great, but her role was not very large or significant in the story. But everyone did a fine job. I thought the cult stuff was great. It may have not been very believable, but that is due to its being rather abstract. There is a lot going on between the lines in this film. This is a very Freudian psycho-thriller.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Oh my GOD ! I can truly say that Maya Angelou is one of the world's most intriguing and important people, especially of my culture. She is incredibly inspiring and her story is the story of a great woman ! When I first picked this movie up I thought to myself the cast was wonderfully put together now lets see them in action ! Maya Angelou is already my favorite PoetEss and now one of my favorite actresses and speakers. I believe she is the greatest of all time. This movie had me on the edge of my seat and reaching for Kleenex while at the same time reminding me that no matter where you come from if you decide that you are going to be great then you will be great ! And Ester Rolle played a wonderful supporting role...... 100% AWESOME...and now even \"I know Why the Caged Bird Sings.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is an excellent teaching tool as a pre-study of \"To Kill a Mockingbird.\" In conjunction with a study of the novel itself, \"...Caged Bird...\" can be used as an independent literary study or as an introduction to TKM.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I first watched this movie I thought it was a very strange movie. But I know that the director almost always has a purpose when he makes a movie. So I decided to watch it one more time. The second time I watched it I realised that Albert Puyn is a very talented and a very original film maker. In the beginning the viewer was told that the movie took place a decade after the fall of the communism in the eastern Europe. But they had clothes and cars with a design typical for the 1950's. They had plutonium which I think is a symbol for the futuristic trade. I think that it means that the movie's real time is not specified. The music in the movie is creating a long music video which tells some parts of the actual story in the lyrics, specially for the intro and the outro.

Albert Puyn is using red and blue back-color when he's showing the symbols for communism (red) and the capitalism and western world (blue). One can notice that Ice-T, has the name Mao (communism) and that when he's in focus the back-color is red. The american cop, starring Burt Reynolds, is always filmed with blue back-color. The club where Mao and his gang hang out is also with red back-color. Crazy six is pendling between the red and the blue color.

The white little dog that Mao had in the beginning symbolize, I think, the controlling force. Mao had the dog in the beginning but the cop took it in the end. That symbolize, I guess, the fall of communism and the replacement of the capitalistic way of thinking from the western world in Eastern Europe.

I think Crazy Six is a very well-made movie. Albert Puyn creates an sci-fi\/action movie with a politicial depth. It's a different but a very special movie about the communism fall in the Eastern Europe.

I'm looking forward to watch another spectacular movie of Albert Puyn.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Albert Pyun delivers a very good action\/drama about a junkie who tries to rip-off a big crime-lord. A lot of style and many very cool actors. Burt Reynold is excellent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The numbers don't lie, 109 people have voted for this film. That says a great deal about the standing of one of the most intuitively insightful comedians of the late 20th century. And for those of you who know the work of Bill Hicks, if he were alive today, imagine what he would have to say about the boy president from his home state? That his short career remains unrecognized is a sad situation and this film, or rather these two films explain why. First, you see how his talent was obvious from the start, again and again, those who knew Bill Hicks always say he was not only funny, he was also unique. The film also shows how the quality of his material was too challenging for many in the entertainment industry. His drinking also contributed to his career problems, but that is less evident in this film. And then the second film is a complete performance. If you have never seen or heard Bill Hicks, this is a wonderful introduction to the person and his dark but intelligent humor. Especially due to the fact that the topics are now almost 14 years old, yet remain ironically up to date is underlined by the fact that many of the events took place under the first President Bush.

Watching them together - first the biography and then the performance - makes you aware of how greatly talented this young man was, how quickly his life passed and how the American media can sometimes act as the great big homogenizer. Let's make sure nothing is too provocative, nothing will be too interesting And the result? Well, as the man himself said, go to sleep America, your government is in control........... In his lifetime, at least in Great Britian this artist was recognized for his talent and was successful there. 11 years after his death, 109 people at IMDb can say something about the film. After you've seen them both, I hope you understand why more people should be listening to Bill Hicks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A genius. My genius. I remember the exact second in 1994. I was sat in a pub in Shropshire, England. I recall the exact seat. \"Bill Hicks dies of cancer\" said the headline in the NME. I felt like someone had punched me in the stomach. Buy this DVD. If you don't find something in it one way or the other I'll be astonished.

RIP Bill, I wish so much you were still here.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This documentary about the life and comedy of Bill Hicks features bits from Hicks' \"Revelations\" and other stand-up gigs. It also features interviews with fellow comedians and people in the industry who knew him, as well as reporters and journalists who talk about how his political commentary was raw and brutal.

I enjoyed it very much. I had already seen \"Revelations\" but the comedy clips were still refreshing. It's a nice balance of comedy and documentary that will explain Hicks' popularity to non-fans and please those who are already familiar with him.

I rated it a ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'll put this as plainly as possible for those of you unaware of Bill Hicks' legacy. He was quite simply the greatest stand-up comedian in the world, almost certainly in my opinion the greatest that ever lived (his stand-up idol being the great Richard Pryor, whose battles with addiction he paralleled). His death in 1994 went barely noticed in the popular media, coming just weeks after Kurt Cobain had committed suicide. His tragic death at such a young age eclipses any sense of the injustice that he was criminally ignored during his life, of course. But the harsh truth is clear as day: nobody has stepped up to claim his mantle. There is not a stand-up comedian alive with nearly the skill and invention.

The observation is made in the affectionate tribute `It's just a ride' that stand-up comedians often view the job as a stepping stone to richer pursuits - lame movies and morally-driven sitcoms, made to occupy - but never enrich - the lives of an unimaginative audience. It's everything that Bill Hicks spoke against. His sermon was always a rallying cry for people think for themselves, to scrutinise authority, to come together as one race.

His appeal continues to grow with every passing year since his death. His star will continue to shine long after so many lesser lights have blew out. Once you've been exposed to his brilliant, intelligent, but ultimately compassionate output, you will be enriched and rewarded.

The man himself was fond to quote Dylan: `To live outside the law you must be honest', he said. Bill Hicks was honest, beyond that he was the funniest of them all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Well-known comedians meekly admit they wish they could do real satire like Bill Hicks. Inbetween these pitiful testimonies, we are treated to what an exceptionally talented comedian can achieve when he could otherwise be chasing fame and fortune. He didn't get his own talk show, but at least he was no one's puppet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This video is a fantastic testament and insight into the work of Bill Hicks. Thought provoking barely begins to describe it.It's funny and moving and educational and a whole host of other things that are good for you. Make sure you see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've never really been sure whether I liked this documentary or not. It was shown on Channel 4 before a cut down version of Revelations, and is on the Revelations video tape before the uncut show. The documentary is basically friends of Bill saying how great he was for an hour with video clips of the show mixed in, a bit like a trailer for the film you're about to watch. It also features David Letterman grovelling like a worm for dumping Bill off the his show before he died, the reason? Bill made a joke about how Pro-Life people should picket funerals, and Letterman had Pro-life advertising. Anyway look out for the video as Revelations is Bill at his ranting best :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a case where the script plays with the audience in a manner that serves only in extending this story to 90 minutes. Story starts out in 1969 where a young girl named Faith (Cameron Diaz) travels to Europe with her boyfriend Wolf (Christopher Eccleston) but she dies under mysterious circumstances. Then in 1976 Faith's sister Phoebe (Jordana Brewster) decides to travel to Europe as well and try and find out what happened to her sister. In France she looks up Wolf who has stayed there and she wants him to help her retrace the steps her sister took and answer some questions. He is reluctant but decides to travel with her. Along the way he fills in the gaps of the occurrences and tells Phoebe that Faith had joined up with the Red Army who are an extremist group that is involved in terrorism. Phoebe and Wolf engage in a romance and this complicates the trip to Portugal where Faith died. Their is several things wrong with this film and it all has to do with the script. First, the romance between Wolf and Phoebe is all wrong and does nothing for the story. It rings completely false and comes across as forced. It seems weird that Wolf would engage in a romance with his dead girlfriends sister. Secondly, Wolf knows completely what happened to Faith but only lets out little chunks of information every 15 minutes or so. Wolf will look at Phoebe every 15 minutes and say, \"There is something I didn't tell you\"! Gee, thanks a lot Wolf! If Wolf had come clean the first time he talked to Phoebe then the film would have been over in about 30 minutes. Another thing that bothered me was that I don't think this film recreated the 1960's at all. Diaz wears hippie clothes but the time period just didn't ring true. I did enjoy a few things like the authentic locations where the film was shot. It is a very good looking film and the scenery is beautiful. The performances are all good especially by Brewster and Diaz. Besides \"The Fast and the Furious\" I had never really seen Brewster in anything. But after watching her performance in this film I came away very impressed. She's very good here and I hope better roles come her way. The script is told in a very contrived way and the film never comes across as believable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jennifer Egan's novel was brought to the screen by Canadian director Adam Brooks in a film that, based on some comments from contributors to this forum, sounds a bad proposition, but in fact, it's much better than one is led to believe.

This is a story about two sisters who loved one another dearly. Faith, the fair headed and happy-go-lucky hippie girl, takes her younger sibling, Phoebe, under her wing. Phoebe plainly loves Faith; when the older one decides to follow her boyfriend Wolf to Europe on a summer vacation from Berkley, she promises she will send Phoebe a post card every day. Faith does that, until the cards stop coming in and one night, some time later, the family receives a phone call to inform them Faith has died under tragic circumstances.

Phoebe can't forget Faith. That is why after some years pass by, she decides to take the same route the older sister took. She takes the cards from Faith and visits each place, starting in Amsterdam, then moving on to Paris and she wants to end up the trip in Portugal, where Faith encountered her untimely death.

In Paris, Phoebe hooks up with Wolf, who by now, is not a hippie anymore and is living with his girlfriend. Wolf, tries to persuade Phoebe into abandoning her trip and to go back home; she suspects that Wolf holds the key into solving the mystery, and as she is going to depart for Portugal she makes a discovery when she finds a picture that clearly contradicts Wolf's version he has told Phoebe. He feels guilty and, against his girlfriend's wishes, decides to accompany Phoebe to the town where Faith died. The story changes at this point and we go back in flashbacks to what Faith experienced in Europe and what happened in her final days.

The best thing in \"The Invisible Circus\" are the performances of the principals, something that Mr. Brooks has to take the credit for. The big surprise is the range of Cameron Diaz, who, as Faith, seems to select light comedy parts, when she is quite able to do good dramatic work under the right director. Jordana Brewster is seen as the older Phoebe and makes a wonderful contribution to the film. She is a stunning beauty with what seems to be a naturalness for acting. Christopher Eccleston is Wolf and shows he also is capable of doing more serious drama. The sweet Camilla Belle plays the younger Phoebe quite convincingly. Blythe Danner appears as the mother of the girls.

The European locations are gloriously photographed by Henry Braham. The film is also enhanced by the musical score of Nick Laird-Clowes and Petra Haden's original song. Elizabeth Kling edited with great elegance. Ultimately, this film shows Adam Brooks in great form as he gives the right tone to the adaptation of the novel and gets rewarded by having the right cast doing wonders for him.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cannot for the life of me understand why the rating here for this movie is so low. This was one of the most beautiful films I have seen this year. It really struck a chord with me. I had been anticipating this film for several months and I thought to myself, there's no way it can possibly live up to the expectations I had for it...seeing as how I built it up in my head as much as I did. Well needless to say, not only did it meet my expectations but it far surpassed them. Jordana Brewster and Cameron Diaz were excellent in every way. Their acting superb by far. They were both in their element and completely natural for the roles. The locales were absolutely gorgeous. Every shot filmed was perfectly captured and fit the mood and atmosphere beautifully. I found this film very touching and took it very close to heart. I would even contemplate saying this could be one of my all time favorites. At the very least, certainly I could see it again and again.

I swear I couldn't find one fault in this film. It's hard to say that about any film. I would highly recommend this one. It's touching, it's meaningful, and it says a lot about human nature and family.

10 out of 10. Well done by all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So it isn't an epic, but for people experiencing anything similar

(sibling suicide) it might be an interesting way of therapy. An

imaginative narrative and some fine acting makes it time well

spent. For some reason, it hasn't really caught on in the audience,

something I do believe is a result of the main theme. Why did she

commit suicide? Clearly, this is hardly something that US

moviegoers will flock to, had it been an European production it

probably would have reached its audience in a much greater

extent. It is however, a movie that although the realism tainted by a

shimmering romanticized glow, gives the viewer a whole hearted

impression.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The plot of this film is not complicated. A very attractive young girl goes to Europe in search of the reasons for her older sister's suicide ten years earlier. There she meets up with her sister's former boyfriend and together they travel to all the places her sister went, and gradually the reasons become clear.

But what makes this film so special, and soar above the limited plot, are the beautiful portrayals of the characters. Although the older sister's boyfriend is a drop-out hippie, he has noble ideals, moral standards and incredible strengths. And although the older sister, who we see in flashbacks, shares these ideals, she doesn't have a sense of limitation or balance, of how much is too much. And although the younger girl is fiercely loyal to her sister's memory, she gradually finds the strength to face the fact that her sister was only a normal girl, after all.

The most special moment in the film is when the young girl and the sister's boyfriend finally stop fighting their attraction to each other. I can't recall ever seeing more beautiful, touching, romantic tenderness in lovemaking in a film!

In all these ways this is a truly beautiful film, a film to be treasured, and to be seen again and again. 9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen this film three times and each time I appreciate it more. I think Jordana Brewster should have received an Emmy nomination for her real and natural performance. Many of us who were Phoebe's age at this time the story takes place will understand how real it is. Life for most of us is neither softly glowing romantic or harshly cynical pessimism. It is a blurred balance, and this film captures this balance. It is well constructed, too, with so many fine details in its composition. Like the film or not, judging from the extraordinarily high ratings it gets from the demographic of females under 18, we can know that this movie reveals some important truth about how young women see themselves in the world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this on late, late Mexican cable and I have to rant about it. The title was translated as \"Secretos\" (Secrets). Well there's a secret that has an important part in the movie but come on, ! We are not stupid. We know there's a novel behind this.

Anyways, the movie is pretty interesting and it's carried by it's solid ramatic performances. The always beautiful and stunning Jordana Brewster and Christopher Eccleston deliver great performances and have such great chemistry between them. Cameron D\u00ecaz is also good although she has minimal on-screen time. Blythe Danner is perfect and his last appearance in the movie is touching, sad. Great performances.

Jordana's character and her sister's ex-boyfriend travel to Europe in order for her to deal with his demons and understand why her sister died. Through flashbacks, we learn the sad truth and we can't help but feel sorry for the whole family. The ending is truly moving.

So there's nudity but it's minimal. In fact, the sex scenes are artsy and do not intend to be steamy or sexy.

To be honest, I kept watching it for Joranda Brewster's on screen charming and beauty. And I ended up liking the story and the dramatic presentations.

Give this movie a try if you like solid dramatic features. Great movie. The last, last scene was very sad.. The two little sisters through flashbacks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is 1969. Phoebe(Camilla Belle) is an 11 year old girl growing up with an idealized vision of her 19 year old sister Faith(Cameron Diaz). Faith is the doer, the truth-seeker, the fixer of all the wrongs in the world. Then one day, Phoebe and her mother Gail(Blythe Danner) receive word that Faith is dead. Faith has killed herself. Both Phoebe and Gail are overwhelmed by this news and, although saddened, Gail mourns. Phoebe can't let it go. Phoebe decides to go to Europe and find out what happened.

It is now 1977. Phoebe(Jordana Brewster) is 18 and decides to go to Europe over the objections of her mother to discover the truth. When alive, Faith was inseparable from a man she called \"Wolf\"(Christopher Eccleston). Though Wolf claimed not to know anything about Faith's last days, Phoebe convinces him to tell her everything. Within days, Wolf realizes that he hadn't let go of the past either and he joins Phoebe on her pilgrimage to Portugal.

In the end, Wolf is able to tell of Faith's decent into drug abuse and his own guilt at not preventing the suicide. Although angry, Phoebe realizes in the end how human and fragile Faith really was.

I liked this movie. I'm old enough to remember the bank robberies of the Red Army and I was 10 in 1969. This story was familiar ground for me. I can still remember young men trying to decide if they should go to Canada or not to avoid the draft.

The story is simple, but probably occurred several times in real life during that period. Camilla Belle was enjoyable and fun to watch as she portrayed the young adoring sister excited by what was happening around her. Jordana Brewster slid easily into the role of the older Phoebe. Blythe Danner was the ever supportive mother, a role she is all too familiar with on American TV, unfortunately. I would have liked to see her with stronger material to work with. Cameron Diaz played the immature anarchist perfectly. Though at times, her performance of a 1960s activist seemed to come off a news reel. Of all the characters, it was Christopher Eccleston's Wolf, that made the most growth. When we are introduced to the character at the beginning of the movie, we can see he is a worldly man. He is a patient and kind man filled with anger at the world's injustices. In the end, he realizes the direction he and Faith are headed is wrong and begins to \"grow up\" deciding he should fight against injustice in his own way. Faith refuses to join him in this and it eventually leads to her death. Eccleston's Wolf is the most real of all the characters.

I recommend this movie. It was enjoyable and thought provoking. \"The Invisible Circus\" is rated TV-MA, but there is very little cursing, sex or violence in it. The subject of the movie is the reason for the rating.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If I look hard enough, flaws can be found in this film, primarily with the script. I found the character of Wolf not totally convincing. However, those were my only \"complaints.\" Because when this movie started on Cable, I was just going to record it and watch it later. However, from the beginning, with the eerie music and Cameron Diaz doing her spaced out 60's dance, I was riveted. I never got up until the movie was over. It seemed like I never even blinked.

The acting of Cameron Diaz and Jordana Brewster was excellent. The scenes were beautiful, the girls were beautiful, and the music was haunting and very touching. The story was quite unique and at times had a surreal quality. The viewer would tend to like the picture more if they had a good understanding of the state of mind of young people in the 60's and 70's, especially in America. Many of the scenes basically succeeded in showing something of that era that is hard to pin down. It was a bit more complicated than the simplistic statement that they wanted to change the world and ended up disillusioned, although that may be the most obvious aspect. Phoebe learns more and more about this as the movie progresses.

One aspect that didn't seem to be covered by the other reviewers that might bear mentioning, is the way the two daughters seem to drift through life after the death of their father. They both had adored him, and his presence had been a stabilizing factor in their lives and obviously he had loved them dearly. We read so much today about boys who lose their fathers too soon, only to lose their way themselves. This film covers the ripple effect of the loss of the father on the daughters left behind, first on the older sister Faith, then on to her younger sister. Their mother feels inadequate to try to be both parents. This type of dynamic is not covered in hardly any other movies, especially in so many different layers of plot and subplot. Phoebe's inner struggles of reality versus perceptions are gradually peeled away like layers of an onion.

Speaking of plot, this movie should rate higher than it has here. I kept waiting for some great conspiracy to be found out concerning the death of Faith. How it did resolve itself surprised me, even if others may have guessed much sooner.

Maybe not for everybody, but I could watch this movie many, many times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One way or the other, you can't get away from the basic message. The strong survive. Those who are psychically or emotionally sensitive, leave. They leave a hole behind in the lives of those who love them. A hole that is seen in it's finality as selfish. That's what Phoebe realizes in the end. Just prior to helping Wolf heal from his self-blame. She can accept closure to the missing ...of her sister. Beautiful European scenery. A lot of truth in it about idealism and addiction to the next big moment. For a moment, I thought of the Baader-Meinhoff gang who was around in the early 70s. I liked this movie as it reflected a time when I came of age myself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must admit this is one of Cameron Diaz's unheard of films and i was also surprised that she had an important role but she was not the lead. I was very touched by it as i really can identify the pain of the loss of a loved one as i have experienced it from close quarters.

Both Camilla Belle and Jordana Brewster were really good in their portrayal of the protagonist Phoebe and i must also hand it to the casting people for finding two actresses who look so alike that i really thought they were sisters(in real life). This is one of those movies Cameron did for the sake of acting and not for star billing.She looked the part of the gorgeous ,rebellious hippie who wants to change the world though sometimes she comes off as a rebel without a cause.

Coming from a dysfunctional family where her only source of strength being her big sister Faith, little girl Phoebe is understandably very upset when faith leaves for Europe. As she grows up she goes off in search of her sister and gradually gets disillusioned by the truth about her sister and falls for her sister's boyfriend.

Great story and equally great location shooting around European.I will watch it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved it. I had just sat through half of \"The Glass House\" (turned it off...god what a morass of predictable plot and bad acting) and then I saw this movie. I thought it was terrific. Loved both Cameron Diaz and Jordana Brewster in it. I liked the escapism of the whole setting, the traveling around Europe in the 60's thing - yet they made it more realistic by showing the dark side and all of the bad things that could happen. It held my attention completely, even if I did think that parts were unbelievable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a father of four in his forties I thought this film made compelling viewing - if not edge-of-the-seat stuff. I deserves a far higher rating than the 4.3 that it had when I wrote this. (I gave it 7.)

I agree with some of the comments about the characters but Cameron Diaz was, again, sparkling in yet another very different role. The plot was a little silly but the point of the film for me was beautifully summed up in the final, quite surreal, sequence. A moving ending for any parent.

I could imagine that a young, single bloke might find the film quite boring but for other people not fixed on high doses of testosterone would find something sweet in this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Serendipity. I thought I was off to a bad start, bringing home the wrong dvd in the case of \"The Intruder\". Rental stores' staff! So I did not want to see this film but I am glad I did. In all probablility my chosen movie would not have been as superb a slice film as this delectable and delicate taste of what independants in both US and Europe can do together. Seven years apart, two heroine sisters embark on fantastic journeys through early 1970's post-student demo \/ Baader-Meinhof Europe. Sumptuously shot in the Algarve, Portugal; and in Berlin, Paris, and Amsterdam (reminiscent of the feel of the exterior shots in Paul Verhoeven's early masterpiece, \"The Fourth Man\"), it's touchingly acted by Brewster , Diaz and especially Christopher Ecclestone.The story unveils itself along an abstracted plot, capturing the ephemeral emotions of these characters as they confront their relationships and see idealised images of each other and themselves shattered. A movie with great refinement and taste. Not for Arnie Commando fans, which is probably why the reviewer upstairs is so wide of the mark in 'his' claims that this is a girly film. Daft criteria. Wrong too. Well worth experimenting with.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An interesting movie with Jordana Brewster as a young woman who travels to Europe in an attempt to find out what became of her older sister (Cameron Diaz) who mysteriously died years earlier. Brewster is very good and keeps you involved despite some unrealistic plotting, such as having her amazinly find and start a romance with her dead sister's much older boyfriend (Christopher Eccleston). Still, mostly good. GRADE: B","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, I AM \"the target market\" & I loved it. Furthermore my husband, also a Boomer with strong memories of the '60s, liked it a lot too. I haven't read the book, so I went into it neutral & I was very pleasantly surprised. It's now on our \"Highly Recommended\" video list.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i must say that this movie had a great cast, locations, music and camera work. Cameron Diaz was great, she had a very exciting roll, very uproarish, while Jordana Brewster had a serious roll yet still capturing one. for me Jordana's very nostalgic, she reminds of a female classmate of mine! what realy got me in this movie were the very skillfully planned camera work and the choosing of the locations. the story is very talently written. it is a must see one. the one's who are into mystery movies should watch this one, i guarantee you all that it'll keep you in your seats till the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Take away all parts of the movie that were \"present\" day and stick to the flashbacks. Then you would have had a great story. Faith and Wolf's story and their relationship was the best part. Diaz and Eccleston were wonderful. Brewster was ponderous to sit through. Surprised to see Blythe Danner as mom. She was great. Also look for Patrick Bergen as the father, always like him (Sleeping with the Enemy). This is a very hippy, save the world, kind of film. Don't care for it much, but I recommend seeing it for Diaz's performance alone. She has excellent range and it should be used more. Eccleston is, as always, compelling. He's wonderful!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Talk about your classics! Ernie Fossilus (the Foss from here on out) came up with a cute and creative trailer totally spoofing Star Wars. This gem is so jammed packed with tributes and gags I laugh every time! Not only that, when Star Wars did a re-issue with new special effects, Hardware Wars did the same! Talk about a spoof that just won't die! There's a reason George Lucas calls this his favorite parody. He was so impressed, he even hired the Foss to work on \"Return of the Jedi\" (Don't believe me, check his entry in IMDb!)

This has to be the first, and in my opinion, the best parody ever done. I think the Special Edition was a bit overdone, but on reflection, I think it's PERFECT for the modern day re-release of Star Wars, and goes to prove that sometimes, it's wrong to mess with perfection.

Yes, it's only 10 minutes, but it's well worth your time.

You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss $3 goodbye! Well, maybe 15 for the DVD, but you'll be real happy you did.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hardware Wars is a hilarious, 12 minute short film parody of the original Star Wars movie which was released just a few months after Star Wars in 1977. This film uses household appliances as space ships and Star Wars look-a-like actors to send you rolling around on the floor in uncontrollable fits of laughter. This film has won many awards at film festivals and was the film which inspired Mel Brooks to write his Star Wars parody movie called \"Spaceballs\".

This is my favorite parody film and I recommend it to anyone who is familiar with Star Wars and has a good sense of humor.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This ranks as my favorite movie of all time. It's the best spoof of a science fiction movie ever; the fact that it was a sendup of Star Wars just made it all the better.

I love slapstick. Think of this as the Marx brothers or the Three Stooges meet Star Wars. The writing is hilarious. The effects are a hoot. The free association that goes on guarantees all sorts of things coming out of left field. (I almost wet my pants when the Wookie Monster accosted the Princess.)

Space Balls was a much longer movie, but only had about 15 minutes of good material in it, and I felt sort of ripped off afterwards, like buying a burger that turned out to be mostly filler. Hardware Wars, despite being only about 15 minutes long, would be worth paying a feature price, IMO.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the kind of film that might give you a nightmare, besides that it's a lot of fun.

Hardware Wars is the only good spoof on Star Wars, other films like Spaceballs have failed. This is the only good spoof film I have ever seen, it doesn't rip-off Star Wars, it makes fun of it, and that's what spoofs are supposed to be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The first half hour of \"Homegrown\" was rather boring and not absorbing, but as the film progressed, so did my interest in the characters and the plot. Several scenes are really scary and you fear for the main characters who you actually grow attached to. The story is about three hired hands on a hidden illegal marijuana farm in southern California. They witness the murder of the farm's owner, Malcolm (John Lithgow), and they take over the weed for their own. The three rather simple-minded farm hands soon get swept up into a scary world of mafia and local interest, while all of the time trying to convince everyone that Malcolm is still alive. While the movie had several faults and a slow beginning, it turned out to be worthwhile. 7\/10 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an awesome movie, and if you haven't seen it, you should go to the video store right now and rent it. First off, the cast is superb. Not only does it have current stars, like Ryan Philippe and Billy Bob Thornton, but it also has your stars of yesteryear like Judge Reinhold. It also has numerous cameos by actors like Jon Bon Jovi, Ted Danson, and Jamie Lee Curtis. Second off, the story was quite good also. It was interesting how they took a plot for a stoner movie, and almost made it dramatic. It takes the drug situation in the United States, and instead of giving it a comedic face like in \"Half Baked\" it has a true, life lesson image like \"Traffic\". So watch this movie, if you're a stoner it will give you insight into something you love, if you don't do drugs it will give you a more realistic view of drugs than either side wants you to see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"what a great little film, lots of good roles from some random stars. Basically there are these pot growers that get caught up in a comical adventure. At points the film makes you believe everyone is going to end up dead! Which adds to the comedy. When the character of John Lithgow (3rd Rock) re-appears - its impossible not to imagine the trip, this may have caused, like a total paradox. The film is full of twists and turns that keep you guessing all the way to the end. Billy Bob Thornton Astronaut Farmer) is brilliant, in fact looking back, the character is fairly similar in the fact he holds the family of pot growers together. Everyone involved in this film should get a big thumbs up.

As i say' the final scene is a dream; however a nightmare at the same time. I love it when Hank Azaria (carter) says at the end do you think we should do this every year? I felt my self wishing they would.

I'm not going to say this film is good for everyone, but as a lover of stoner movies i give it 10\/10. - My advice have a joint ready; kick back and enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fun romp...a lot of good twists and turns! (and we were not even baked!)

Didn't know this movie even existed until watching the extra trailers on a Monty Python DVD...(oddly it was there along with The City of Lost Children, and The Adventures of Baron Munchauhsen)

The plot keeps you wondering throughout.

The acting was awesome...Hank Azaria shows his talent again, Bill Bob is Billy Bob...(wecis?)

Definitely worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fun romp...a lot of good twists and turns! (and we were not even baked!)

Didn't know this movie even existed until watching the extra trailers on a Monty Python DVD...(oddly it was there along with The City of Lost Children, and The Adventures of Baron Munchauhsen)

The plot keeps you wondering throughout.

The acting was awesome...Hank Azaria shows his talent again, Bill Bob is Billy Bob...(wecis?)

Definitely worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not your ordinary movie, but a good one. Billy Bob is very funny in this movie, the way he talks, what he says etc. I was kind of surprised when i saw it, cause i just thought it was a normal comedy, but it was more than that. It had a very good story, great characters and a good balance.

Favorite part: Probably when Billy Bob is running around in his robe shooting at the rippers","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Anyone who gives this movie less than 8 needs to step outside & puff a couple. Great story.

Reality is for people who can't handle drugs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After seeing the trailer it was an easy decision not to see this film. I mean, I don't care for stupid \"stoner comedies.\" I'm sure it was also an easy choice for a lot of people to get together, smoke a bowl and go check out this flick with the guy from The Simpsons and some guy named \"Billy Bob.\" Should have been a good time, but the film's just not that funny--too bad somebody had to go and bum their high.

Unfortunately, I found out that the trailer was misleading after it had already left the theaters, so I had to wait for the video. I really enjoyed it. Nice locations, quality production and excellent performances from the entire cast. Looking back at it, the plot twists weren't totally unexpected, but I didn't find it cumbersome because the premise was so engaging.

So why was this absorbing drama marketed as a comedy? Did something happen to the producer, leaving the associate producers to do the marketing by themselves?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If it wasn't meant to be a comedy, the filmmakers sure goofed. If they intended for it to be a comedy, they hit the mark. Our critic says Homegrown is a wonderful film filled with family values and community spirit, recommends it for all audiences, and says that he really liked Jamie Lee Curtis's performance. It deserves a theatrical re-release.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You looking for a comic drama with suspense and an ensemble cast? Well locate this little sleeper. John Lithgow and Billy Bob Thorton are great in this little plot twister. Don't forget the cameo by Jamie Lee Curtis. A touch of the 60's, a touch of \"the Prince and the Pauper\", and dash of that homegrown gold makes for a greast little story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was good. I can't say it was one of the best, but it still was good. The only reason that I watched it was because of Ryan Phillippe. He is soo hot! (Don't get mad Reese). But I think that it was sort of funny- not a laugh your head out kinda thing, but still O.K.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"B.B. Thornton proves to be a great actor in this little seen movie. Thornton really gets into his characters--literally. I caught this on cable one night and enjoyed it. Too bad it was released nationwide in theaters the same year as \"Fear and Loathing\" and \"Half-Baked.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Homegrown is one of those movies which sort of fell through the cracks, but deserves better. When I first saw it, I had a luke-warm reaction. But, over time, it's really grown on me--no pun intended ;-). The more I see it, the more I appreciate it. The writing is top-notch, as is the acting. Throw in a few surprising cameos and good direction, and you end up with a great little film.

It's also good to finally see Hank Azaria get a chance to shine in a starring role. And Thornton delivers his usual quality performance. Even relative newcomer Ryan Phillippe delivers, playing a friendly innocent with wit and subtlety.

On a side note, Homegrown is simply a \"must see\" if you're a Billy Bob Thornton fan. It appears Stephen Gyllenhaal was influenced by earlier Thornton projects like One False Move and Sling Blade (though Homegrown is certainly a lot more tongue-in-cheek than either). And Thornton's role as a character who is both sophisticated and down-to-earth is a perfect match for the actor.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This delightful movie tells the story of buds. And it's incredible. You'll laugh, and you'll smile, and you'll laugh. It's really all about the laughs. When Jon Bon Jovi is funny in a movie, it's a heck of a movie! 'nuff said. Now go watch it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We all want to fall in love... The experience makes us feel completely alive, where every sense is heightened, every emotion is magnified... It may only last a moment, an hour, an afternoon, but that doesn't reduce its value, because we are left with memories that we treasure for the rest of our lives...

I love watching people fall in love... It must have something to do with the excellent chemistry between the main characters...

Mark Elliott, a charming sensitive American war correspondent, arrives in Hong Kong at the dawn of the Korean war... He finds in Han Suyin an awesome beauty of true grace...

Han Suyin, a lovely Eurasian doctor is captivated by Mark's tenderness and insight...

It was instant attraction when they first met... The two commence a passionate affair, leading them to fall deeply in love...

Their love is so strong, so wonderfully expressed that highlights Elliot's married status, and the difficulties of the troubled time of the Korean War, communism and race relations...

Holden is an inspired choice for the role... Not only does he have an imposing screen presence, but he brings the perfect mix of enlightenment, compassion and emotion to the part...

Opposite him Oscar Winner Jennifer Jones, perfect in her oriental look, radiantly beautiful in that traditional and modern Asian-inspired Cheongsam... Jones floods her role with personal emotion giving her character a charismatic life of its own... She delivers a heartfelt performance turning her character into a woman who undergoes a spiritual and emotional awakening...

Her scene in that verdant hill where she takes refuge is exquisitely touching specially when we heard Mark's voice whispering: \"We have not missed you and I... that many-splendored thing.\"

Henry King - who has established himself as a masterful director of romances - spreads the theme tune (by Alfred Newman) in the air above the cosmopolitan harbor... His film is colorful, elegant, with excellent cinematography and set design...

Nominated for eight Academy Awards, this beautiful and sensitive motion picture won three: Best Costume Design; Best Music and Best Score...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Those prophetic words were spoken by William Holden (as a war reporter) to the beauteous Jennifer Jones (as a Eurasian doctor), explaining his failing marriage on the beach. They start an affair, despite huge odds of adultery and racial issues. In Hollywood of the 1950s, interracial romance was allowed but only with dire consequences at the end. Beautiful Hong Kong scenery (although some beach scenes look studio-bound), a famous title tune, poetic script, lovely background music (by Alfred Newman), great costumes, outstanding performances, especially Jones (directed here by Henry King, who also did \"The Song of Bernadette - 1943, an Oscar for Jones) still make this a world-class romance weeper.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie will likely be too sentimental for many viewers, especially contemporary audiences. Nevertheless I enjoyed this film thanks mostly to the down-to-earth charm of William Holden, one of my favorite stars, and the dazzling beauty of Jennifer Jones. There are some truly heartwarming scenes between the pair and the talent of these two actors rescues what in lesser hands could've been trite lines. The cinematography of Hong Kong from the period of filming is another highlight of this movie. All in all, a better than average romantic drama, 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two great stars and a legendary Director created a magnificent throbbing love story that is memorable and moving on so many levels.

Henry King directed Jennifer Jones in her first hit Song of Bernadette and he again directs Jennifer Jones in this film and Miss Jones is perfect in this role and gives a edgy, beautiful performance that captures the conflict in the character and Bill Holden who hit home run after home run in the l950's with a series of smash hit films beginning with Sunset Blvd, Stalag 17, Born Yesterday,Country Girl, Picnic, and of course River Kwai is superb in this role.Hard to imagine anyone but Holden in this movie I loved the ending and cry every time I see it. For anyone who has ever loved and lost, you will understand. For those who haven't, you won't.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Holden and Jones SIZZLE in this movie, but not in the way we think of sizzling today -- it's very subtle and under the surface -- yet palpable. Jennifer Jones, in particular, is SO SEXUALLY HOT in this film (much more than a caricature like Monroe EVER was) because she creates a real woman -- with ALL facets of womanhood: She's intelligent, intuitive, graceful. She's desiring AND desirable.

There's a scene on that famous hill, where she's lying down in the grass, looking up at Holden, and the expression in her eyes is X-rated, yet in the context of the scene and character, in makes complete sense. You don't need to have it all said in the dialogue -- spelled-out like the crude obviousness in most modern films. It's all there in her eyes -- sexy yet elegant. What a stunning, under-rated actress she was. (I saw her MADAME BOVARY for the first time recently and was equally blown away.) I'll take her over Bergman, Davis, or the two Hepburns any day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film in the mid 60's when I was a teenager, and it moved me so much, in fact the end scene where Han Suyin hears of Mark's death, and then rushes to the hill in disbelief, where you then hear Mark's voice saying \"Give Me Your Hand\", and then the image of him disappears, the butterfly with it's superstitious meaning, the music, the shattered emotions of Love of Han Suyin, just left me sobbing my heart out. I was outwardly crying bitterly, my mother and sister looked up and were shocked at my reaction. I just left the room to be on my own. Fortunately I do not react like that any more BUT I always cry at the end. I love everything about the film, the music mostly, the costumes of Han Suyin, and location. The beauty of Jennifer Jones and the handsome William Holden, they were both at their best. I have the VHS and DVD of this wonderful movie. I also have two versions of the Music & Lyrics by Arthur Newman and Sammy Fain. I also have the book A Many Splendored Thing by Han Suyin. I recommend this film 100%","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Directed by a veteran Hollywood director Henry King who began his career still in 1915, Love is a Many Splendored Thing was one of his last great films. It was based on a bestseller by Han Suyin called simply A Many Splendored Thing the phrase that was borrowed by the author from the poem The Kingdom of God by Francis Thompson where that many splendored word `love' was used in quite a different and rather transcendental context meaning the love of God. Made in the \u009150s, the film marked along with works by such directors as Douglas Sirk and Vincente Minnelli a sort of renascence of melodrama, its florescence and reaching yet again a peak of popularity.

The story begins when a handsome American reporter Mark Elliott played by William Holden yet once again typecast in one of his irresistible `playboy' roles comes to the Hong Kong and meets there a young and pretty Han Suyin (Jennifer Jones) of half-Chinese half-English origin who is working as a doctor at a hospital and whose husband was recently killed by the Chinese communists. Instantly Mark feels a rather strong attraction towards her but at the beginning his deep feelings are not quite reciprocated by Han's heart left cold after the death of her husband (`I believe in human heart now only as a doctor'). But very soon she yields to the persistent courting of tempting as hell Mark and both of them enter a passionate relationship apparently stoppable by nothing, even by the fact that Mark is unhappily married and his wife doesn't want to give him a divorce or social differences and prejudices caused by Han's Chinese origin. But still it's the fate that has a final word to say in determining the fairness of the eternalness of such a blissful loving relationship for no matter how enduring the two assume it to be the merciless time is waiting in a rather alarming form of death, prepared at any given moment to prove its impermanence.

Undoubtedly one of the most romantic films ever made, Love is a Many Splendored Thing features fine performances from William Holden and Jennifer Jones, wonderful Academy Award winning musical score by Alfred Newman and extremely romantic, touching, heart-warming but ultimately heart-breaking story. Don't miss that many splendored film. 8\/10

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have just sat through this film again and can only wonder if we will see the likes of films like this anymore? The timeless music, the tender voices of William Holden and Jennifer Jones leave this grown man weeping through joyous, romantic scenes and I'm not one who cries very often in life. Where have our William Holden's gone and will they make these moving, wonderful, movies any more? It's sad to have to realize that they probably won't but don't think about it, just try to block that out of your mind. Even so, they won't have Holden in it and he won't appear on that hill just once more either. You can only enjoy this film and watch it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Love is a Many-Splendored Thing\" is set in Hong Kong in 1949-50, and tells the story of the relationship between Mark Elliott, a white American journalist, and Han Suyin, a half-Chinese half-European doctor. This story of a mixed-race love affair was quite a daring theme for the fifties, and, as it often did, Hollywood tried to soften the blow by casting a white actress as the supposedly non-Caucasian woman who falls in love with a white man, something that would be regarded as politically incorrect today but was quite acceptable then.. (Think, for example, of the casting of Ava Gardner in \"Show Boat\" or Natalie Wood in \"West Side Story\") The setting of the story in a British colony was also perhaps a way of exploring racial issues in a way that would cause less controversy in America. Suyin loses her job in a Hong Kong hospital because her British superiors take exception to the fact that she is dating a white man, whom she is unable to marry because his estranged wife will not grant him a divorce. As was sometimes the case, European colonialism was made the whipping-boy for some of America's own failings. Imagine the furore that would have been unleashed had a similar film been made about a black or mixed-race woman doctor in a hospital in Alabama.

Besides racial issues, the film also raises questions of international politics, referring to both the Communist seizure of power in China and the outbreak of the Korean War. Han Suyin was a real person and a well-known author of the period; in reality she tended to support Mao's Communist regime, but here she is shown as firmly anti-Communist. This is not, however, primarily an \"issue\" movie about either racialism or politics, but rather a romance, a good example of what would have been known at the time as a \"woman's picture\". Such films, although mostly made by male directors, were mostly aimed at female audiences. They dealt with love and romance- often unhappy romance- from the woman's point of view, and had a strong female character in the leading role. The genre often provided roles for actresses older than the heroines of standard romances. Earlier examples were normally in monochrome, but by the fifties they generally, as here, used lush, sumptuous colour.

Although a Chinese or Eurasian actress would have been more convincing in the role, Jennifer Jones, does a very good job as Suyin. I found William Holden, as Mark, rather uncharismatic, but this does not matter much as Suyin is very much the dominant figure. She is screen much more than Mark, and the film examines her family and professional life much more than it does his. Although Jennifer was still strikingly beautiful, she was in her mid-thirties, rather older than most romantic heroines of films of this period. Holden was about the same age, unusually for the fifties when \"boy-meets-girl\" often meant \"older man meets girl\".

The film is not particularly profound, but is well-made with some attractive photography, particularly of Hong Kong itself, reflecting the growing trend in the fifties for shooting on location rather than on studio sets. Seldom can Hong Kong have looked so beautiful; the view from a hill overlooking the city takes on a special meaning, as this is where Suyin and Mark go for their romantic assignments. The overall mood is one of poignant, doomed romance, a mood heightened by the atmospheric photography and the musical score, including one of the most memorable movie themes ever written. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Age cannot tarnish the beauty of this East-west love story for me. Ignoring the famous and lovely title song and its lyrics, what we have is a dramatized biography of two remarkable people caught in a moment of counter-currents involving social conformity, bigotry, war, doubt, and the need for immense courage. With Hong Kong as the backdrop, this movie tells the story of a Eurasian doctor and a U.S. journalist who meet and fall in love during the Korean War. As Mark Elliott, William Holden is intelligent, breezy and a bit weak; Jennifer Jones is perhaps well-nigh-perfect as Dr. Han Suyin, by turns doubt-torn and ecstatic, eager and hesitant. Others in the large cast include Torin Thatcher, Isobel Elsom, Murray Matheson, Virginia Gregg, Richard Loo, Soo Yong, Philip Ahn, Jorja Curtright and Donna Martell; many of Hollywood's best oriental actors played smaller uncredited parts also. The script by John Patrick followed Han's exquisite novel closely; the direction by Henry King was solid as always. The thrust of the storyline is how unwilling Han was to fall in love with Elliott, with her busy and demanding schedule as a doctor and her doubts about their future; and how unafraid he was, despite the intolerance and interference they faced as their affair became known. The film is unarguably physically busy, interesting and often beautiful also. The hill to which the lovers go to be apart, the lovely bay where they swim are set against an already busy and crowded business city, large social events, and teeming streets, hospital corridors, and traffic-filled arteries. With cinematography by Leon Shamroy, Ben Nye's makeup and Helen Turpin's hairstyles, the great work by set decorators, sound and lighting, art department and all concerned, this has to be one of the most memorable productions set in a major non-U.S. city of all time, and one of the most difficult to capture on film. Yet what one remembers most here is the lovers, thankfully not extremely young, facing the odds against them and assessing exactly what they are--then going ahead as if love mattered and those conditions which are set up as barriers to love do not., The climax of the affair is Mark's going back to war; thereafter Han receives his letters, even after she knows he is has been killed; they seem messages from a better wold. A world where hope is all that matters, courage is the price of admittance to that world, and it is always summer on a high and windy hill set apart and above a zone where beauty and individual desires can be victimized, made subject to ill-fortune or brushed aside by militant forces of evil. Truly, love is a many-splendored thing, Dr. Han says; and this movie stands as one of that doctrine's shining proofs, lucent as a pearl, timeless as a Chinese proverb and lovely as polished jade set against a rough background.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I regard this loving, and sensitively written story, to be one of the screen's true masterpieces. After having seen this film, originally on the silver screen with my mother, in Los Angeles, California when it first came out, many years passed before I would have the opportunity to experience it again. The beauty, quiet simplistic elegance and tranquility of the film to me, set it aside from many, many others of its kind. Yes, tears still come to my eyes when I see it, and hear the refrain of that once in a lifetime song. perhaps still, today my number one all-time most beloved film. I would hope, this classic love story will be enjoyed, and appreciated, by our future generations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film immediately catches the eye, with the atmospheric aerial views of a very pretty Hong Hong. Filmed in those rich colours of 1950 films which modern blockbusters never seem to capture. Probably a sign of those times, because this is not a high powered, seen it all before film, full of havoc and violence. The havoc and violence are there though, in the backdrop, with thousands of refugees trying to get out of China This is a very moving and compelling story, full of hope and love in a tragic time, in recent history. The story of two people from different cultures falling in love. And the build up to them trying to overcome this is the heart of this very fine and moving film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is based on the book, \"A Many Splendored Thing\" by Han Suyin and tackles issues of race relations between Asians and Whites, a topic that comes from Han's personal experiences as an Eurasian growing up in China. That background, and the beautiful Hong Kong settings, gives this love story a unique and rather daring atmosphere for its time.

Other than that, the story is a stereotypical romance with a memorable song that is perhaps more remembered than the movie itself. The beautiful Jennifer Jones looks the part and gives a wonderful, Oscar nominated performance as a doctor of mixed breed during the advent of Communism in mainland China. William Holden never looked better playing a romantic lead as a journalist covering war torn regions in the world. The acting is top notch, and the chemistry between the two lovers provides for some genuine moments of silver screen affection sure to melt the hearts of those who are romantically inclined.

The cinematography really brings out fifty's Hong Kong, especially the hilltop overlooking the harbor where the two lovers spend their most intimate moments. The ending is a real tear-jerker. Some may consider sentimental romances pass\u00e9, but, for those who enjoy classic Hollywood love stories, this is a shining example.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Based on the 1952 autobiography \"A Many-Splendoured Thing,\" \"Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing\" (1955) tells the story of Han Suyin, focusing on the romance that Han, a widowed Eurasian doctor in 1949 Hong Kong, had with a married American correspondent named Mark Elliott. \"I don't want to feel anything again, ever,\" Han tells Mark soon after they meet, but the two soon develop the mutual irresistibles for each other, and who can blame them? Mark is played by William Holden at the near peak of his hunky-dude period (the following year's \"Picnic\" would be the peak) in this, the first of three films over the next seven years that would find Holden in China (1960's \"The World of Suzie Wong\" and 1962's \"Satan Never Sleeps\" being the others). And Dr. Han is here played by Jennifer Jones, who, although not a Eurasian (unlike yummy Nancy Kwan and pretty France Nuyen of those other exotic Holden films), does a credible job of passing as one. Whether dressed in cheongsam, European frock, surgical gown or (hubba-hubba!) bathing suit, Jones looks ridiculously gorgeous here. No wonder East meets West in this film so dramatically! With its two appealing lead stars, breathtaking Hong Kong scenery, beautiful CinemaScope and color, Oscar-winning costumes and that classic, Oscar-winning title song that wafts through the film like a lovely incense, \"Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing\" turns out to be quite the winning and romantic concoction. Han herself supposedly did not care for the picture, so I can only imagine that great liberties were taken with her source material. Still, I enjoyed it. And if the film's ending causes a tear to come to the eye, just remember Mark's words of wisdom: \"Life's greatest tragedy is not to be loved.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film always hits me hard emotionally at the end. Though the issues of the film - interracial romance and adultery - were controversial at the time, this film goes way beyond those narrow parameters of ground breaking novelty and trail blazing uniqueness. Here we have a true love story, as written by the woman involved in this love affair, told in a brilliant aggressive style that extols the virtues and glory of mad passionate love. I \"love\" this endorsement of the only emotion that makes life truly worth living. Jennifer Jones is full of grace and William Holden is simply magnificent in his role as a reporter. A wonderful film that only people who have been in this kind of love can really appreciate and understand. And for those who haven't yet been in love, even just the hope that one day lightning can strike for you makes life worth living - because love is worth having even if but for a short time - even if you lose - because love is the \"stuff\" - the essence - of life. This film works for me. A warmly felt experience!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The beautifully engaging song with the same name as the film won the best song Oscar in 1955.

Love is a many splendored thing.

It's the April rose that only grows in the early spring.

Love is nature's way of giving a reason to be living.

That golden crown that makes a man a king.

Once on a high and windy hill

In the morning mist two lovers kissed and the world stood still.

Then your fingers touched my silent heart and taught it how to sing.

Yes, true love a many-splendored thing.

How can we forget such a beautiful song. Henry King, the director, had the privilege to work with Jennifer Jones twice that year for this film and the greatly under-rated film \"Good Morning, Miss Dove.\" Jones was nominated for \"Splendored Thing\" but she could have been easily nominated for Miss Dove as well.

William Holden is just great as the war correspondent sent to report on the Communist revolution in 1949 China. His love for Jones, an oriental doctor, was endearing and so memorable to watch.

While the ending is not pleasing, this is still one of the greatest romances ever put on the screen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It stars war correspondent William Holden separated, who falls in love with a stunning Eurasian doctor Jessica Jones set against the stunning backdrop of Hong Kong. The cinematography is magnificent as they rendezvous on a hill overlooking Hong Kong. The story deals with racial tensions, society frowning on mixed relations and extra marital affairs. But what I love about it is the strong character of the heroine portrayed by Jessica Jones, who is a Eurasian doctor, who stays humble and steadfast in her altruistic mission and stays loyal to her love. Despite that, she gets sacked at her hospital for cavorting with a married man by gossipping high rankers. One day William Holden is called to the Korean war which he covers and then that ill fated day, she gets the news of his demise. The end, of course is tragic, I cried when she went to their hill. It was a very sweet ill fated love affair. It defeats all the odds, the fact that she got fired from her job, how his wife would not grant him a divorce yet their great love persevered--they experienced a great love despite it all. I personally do not believe in extramarital affairs, and think he should have not started something when he was bound to someone else and she should not have allowed herself to let it happen, but despite that a truly magnificent movie. I think the heroine overshadowed the hero. Jessica Jones is sultry and gave a magnificent performance although I thought it strange they didn't not hire a real Asian actress or someone with Asian blood. I agree with one review, Jessica Jones oozes sexuality when she lays on the ground and looks up at William Holden speaking calmly but her eyes say come take me now.

I find it a pity most great films were made before I was born, it seems many Hollywood movies are lacking in depth, great acting and depend entirely on stunts and heavy sex scenes. This is truly one of the greatest ill-fated love stories in movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After many, many years I saw again this beautiful love story, thinking about how would I, half a century after, react to a film which made so many girls cry and sigh at that time, when I was just an male adolescent trying to understand women's behaviors, in a small city in Brazil.

This time, however, what caught my attention in the film was something very different, namely the insistence with which the physician Dr. Han Suyin (Jennifer Jones) makes clear to the journalist Mark Elliott (William Holden) her special ethically condition as an Eurasian. In fact, she is constantly putting emphasis on this point in their relationship, repeating she is willing to assume her love for him and carry it on in a \"occidental way\", provided that, by doing so, she is not betraying her Chinese side. Its seems to the spectator that Suyin is eagerly making efforts to establish a very subtle conciliation between those two unstable and opposite aspects of her culture, for they will immediately engage in overt conflict in her mind at a minimum failure in her attempts to control them.

Therefore, Suyin's attitudes always leave poor Elliott \u0096 a determined, brave and extremely practical man \u0096 anxious and perplexed, without knowing how much importance to give to her words. For him, whose love for her is plain and simple, the situation is totally clear: if we love each other, let us make a couple and begin immediately a life together. \"Not so fast\", is what she seems, verbally and non-verbally, to answer him all the time.

In fact, Suyin's Chinese portion would never allow her such a level of pragmatism. And, as she goes on and on reinforcing this much aimed equilibrium between those two worlds inside herself, she also frequently signals to him that also a very peculiar trait of Chinese culture is deeply rooted in her mind, namely the constant \"raids\" on the real world by invisible beings from an spiritual or non-physical world. For Suyin is always alerting Elliott about how dangerous is life, not because of any objective and concrete threat (as would be the perpetuation of the English colonialism or the eminence of a Japanese invasion), but due to the threats of plenty of cruel and harmful gods and other mystical and mythical beings over the poor, fearful and vulnerable human beings.

In fact, it looks like a whole bunch of Chinese deities are permanently on the watch to make people's life totally miserable. Because of that, mothers must dress their precious male babies in girls clothes, so that they are not taken away by jealous gods; everyone should always be ready to make loud noises to send the clouds away, in order to avoid their covering the sight of the moon; peasants are advised that they should shout loudly \"The rice is bad! The rice is bad!\" to protect their crops from being stolen by deities; and, in a funeral, it is recommended that the dead's family be isolated from the other people by curtains, so that the gods don't take advantage of their sorrow and fragility.

In other words, Suyin introduces us to a culture in which the supernatural has a real existence, as if a rather disturbing pantheon of malign and sadistic gods are always on the verge of negatively interfering with the most banal acts in anyone's daily life.

As the story takes place in Hong Kong in 1949, it should be clear that China really was, at that time, almost a semi-feudal society, while the country from which Elliott had come from was not yet dominated by the fierce capitalism that, launched by the USA after the first oil shock in 1973, took charge of the whole world. Therefore, at least in one aspect, both sides of Suyin's Eurasian personality were still much more innocent than they would be today.

A lot of History came into being since those old days. As to China, the main fact is that, after several phases of a communist regime, the country finally reached, in the last two decades, the condition of a very aggressive economy much more properly described as State capitalism. And, what happened to that old spirituality that so much enthralled Suyin in Hong Kong, in 1949, and with which she used to impress so much an impassioned Elliott, under that tree on the hill behind the hospital? It is gone, completely gone! In brief, if that story took place today, Elliott would not find it necessary to go to China to propose to Suyin in the presence of the Third Uncle and her entire family. In fact, both men would now be incomparably closer to one another, in their huge pragmatism, talking business as usual!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On a second viewing, this is still a wonderful romance that is, in my opinion, much better than the film it came paired with on my 2-DVD set, the Leo McCarey weepie classic \"An Affair To Remember\". Yet it seems to have fallen out of favour slightly (Only a 6.6 rating here on IMDb, and dismissed by many critics as \"gooey slush\"). How sad, because this is an intelligent romantic drama with very good work by the two leads, Jennifer Jones and William Holden. If anything the film should be well-remembered for the gorgeous colour cinematography and the unforgettable musical score. I don't much like Valentine's Day but it gave me an excuse to watch this movie again, and I'm glad of it. While I still think Holden's character death is too heavily foreshadowed, taking suspense out of the final scenes, this film is very moving and I really enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is the best one forever upon the warm feelings of this real love story during the Korean war by the story of Hy sun the Eurasian doctor and Mark Elliot an American corespondent at the shadow of different habits between east and west upon his quotation in the love scene between two lovers when he invited her to dance (The relationship between east and west must be close) in spite of Chinese habits and customs that destiny made their great role by appointing between them to replace the pains for both (Elliot suffered from failure marriage ) and (Hy sun suffered from the harmful shoot of her husband by Chinese communists at the time of Mao Ze dung in 1949).

She could not stop the decision of destiny in spite of her practical profile because love has a magnetic spirit for everyone seek for happiness , soul and brilliant memory as the final quotation by the voice of Elliot after his death and the sadness receive for Hy Sun for this hard situations when she went to the hill the source of this love under the tree to say goodbye for his body and live with his soul among their souvenirs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cliche romance drama movie with very simple plot but very good cinematography and script.The screenplay,directing and acting was also good.The flow of the movie is kind of manipulative in order to bring the audience to tears through the excellent love music and circumstance which works but later on after the movie,makes one feel raped in a way.Jones makes her character very memorable and lovable though.A deeper story could have reaaly taken this movie to a higher level but still,the movie delivers for it's genre.Only for hopeless romantics,big love story fans,big soap drama fans,50's Cinemascope cinematography fans and fans of the lead actors.....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I always loved that scratchy voiced guy in all those westerns. He was the sidekick (Jingles) in the Wild Bill Hickock show back in the fifties. In this he has the perfect vehicle for his wonderful bragging character. He is harmless and no one believes him, but he is non-flustered and goes on anyway. When you have a guy like this, there's no challenging because the details aren't there to quibble with. Of course, in this episode, he is taken on board a space ship by a group of aliens who have no sense of humor and believe everything they hear. They don't have the word lie in their vocabularies. As it turns out, he is so insufferable that they can't handle him; and then, of course, there is the secret weapon. See this just to watch Andy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the few comedic Twilight Zones that's actually really good. We have Floyd The Barber from Andy Griffith Show,The stock in trade Old Geezer dude from Many old westerns,and lovable old Frisby. It also has that cool spacecraft interior that I believe was used in the Sci Fi classic Forbidden Planet.Or else The Day The Earth Stood Sill.Plus the new guys in town are driving an exotic Renault(I think) sports car back in the days when European automobiles were known as \"Foreign Jobs\" in the U.S.. The whole idea of harmonica as weapon is a hoot.And the fact that Frisby's buddies love him despite being the fact he's a total BS artist is a heartwarming moment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The above profile was written by me when I used the nick of OldWereWolf56 which is still my email address. I still believe Andy Devine's character of Frisky is the best Twilight Zone's episodes ever and I watch this episode at least once a year as I consider Frisby to be a fortunate man as he has many friends who love him dearly.

In case many of you are too young to remember, I'm 61, Andy Devine hosted a children's entertainment show in the 50's I believe called Andy's Gang. On it he had three assistants: a cat named Midnight who played the violin, a mouse named Squeaky who played an a hand organ and a devilish toad named Froggy who's could appear and disappear at will embarrassing many of Andy's funny guest stars like Billy Gilbert.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The jazz soundtrack makes this seem like a Clint Eastwood movie.

In fact the whole thing strikes me as Burt doing Clint. The story is good and the movie is full of one liners that I carry with me to this day. (Reynolds to bad guy: I'm gonna pull the chain on you pal, because you're f'n up my town. And you wanna know the worst part? You're from outta state!)

Highlights: The Technics 1500B reel to reel is nice set dressing for audiophiles!

Charles Durning coming unglued while listening to wiretap tapes of prostitutes having (sort of) phone sex. (You'd have to see it, trust me, it's hilarious.)

Brian Keith plays against type as a tough guy. (And does it well!)

Bernie Casie's preoccupation with Zen.

Rachel Ward. WOW! (Where'd she go?)

Doc Severinsen and the Tonight Show band play their rears off as usual. (Joe William's guests on vocals. Manhattan Transfer re-recorded \"Route 66\".) The soundtrack lends class to the whole affair.

Need I say more? It might be Reynold's best film ever.

(Yeah, he plays himself, as usual, but it works!)

Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't seen every single movie that Burt Reynolds has ever made, but this one (which I've just finished watching, for the third time) may very well be his best! It suffers only from some slow stretches; Burt perhaps tried to make it more \"arty\" than it should have been. On the other hand, he managed to avoid many of the usual cliches in the presentation of the \"tough cop\" role he plays (notice, for example, the scene in which he attempts to kiss Rachel Ward for the first time, or the fear he expresses just before the final showdown with the indestructible Henry Silva). In fact, Silva and those two ninja assassins are three of the most memorable villains of cop thrillers of the 80s. The film also has some offbeat touches, a surprising amount of humor, a brutal and gripping fistfight and many well-directed shots. (***)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sharky's Machine finds Burt Reynolds as a narcotics cop who after a failed buy and bust that wasn't his fault, but that got a few people killed in it, he finds himself demoted to the vice squad in Atlanta.

The prestige is hardly as good as the narcotics beat, but it does have its fringe benefits. One night after a roundup of working girls where one of their books falls into their hands, the guys ask for surveillance on Rachel Ward's place. She's an expensive item, servicing both notorious mobster Vittorio Gassman and law and order gubernatorial candidate Earl Holliman.

Their surveillance however records a murder and the rest of the film is Sharky and his new colleagues from vice trying to solve this prestige case.

Though it's a Burt Reynolds film and those usually have some humor to them, the comedy is kept in check as the film turns as deadly serious as Dirty Harry. It was reported in fact that Clint Eastwood was offered this film.

Look for some good performances by fellow vice cops Bernie Casey and Brian Keith and by Henry Silva the coked up brother of Gassman who does the dirty work of the organization and loves his job.

It's not a bad film, a mixture of Dirty Harry and Laura. Why Laura? You'll have to see Sharky's Machine for that answer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"That's how Burt Reynolds describes this film, which happens to be his best ever. He plays Tom Sharky, a vice detective who's on the trail of an international mobster (Vittorio Gassman) and the man he's financing to be the next governor of Georgia (Earl Holliman). In the novel by William Diehl, the story is more complex because the guy's running for president. This is a very long movie that feels more like three hours instead of two. The filming in downtown Atlanta and the Peachtree Plaza hotel sets the mood just right for the story. Reynolds doesn't do much laughing in this one compared to his comedy films. He's very serious here, especially in the beginning of the movie because he gets demoted for a dope bust that goes wrong. At times though, the movie plays more like a voyeuristic drama than a crime film with Burt trying to get close to the mobster's woman. Only towards the end of the film does the violence get cranked up that leads to the bang bang climax. Just like the great jazz score in DIRTY HARRY by Lalo Schifrin, Sharky's Machine features an excellent urban jazz soundtrack with many guest stars including Chet Baker, Julie London, Flora Purim & Buddy De Franco, The Manhattan Transfer, Doc Severinson, Sarah Vaughan and Joe Williams. Al Capps handles the score with magic. This movie has become one of the best crime dramas ever. Check it out.

Score, 8 out of 10 Stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Burt Reynold's Direct's and star's in this great Cop film, Reynold's play's the Sharkey of the title, who is a tough cop whilst working in undercover a drug bust goes wrong, and is demoted to vice,

The machine of the title refer's to the motley crew Reynold's's assemble's to bring down a crooked governor who is involved in high class prostitution Cocaine and contract murder,

The motley crew is played by Brian Keith, Blackploitaion favorite Bernie Casey, Richard Libertini,(as alway's quirky as an ace sounds-man) Charle's Durning, as the chief, The beautiful English rose Rachael Ward play's Dominoe a $1000 dollar's a night hooker whom Reynold's's protect's and eventually fall's for, When staking out an apartment used by the governor.

Italian actor Vittorio Gassman, play's the High stake's pimp, who has a deadly gang of triad's at his disposal, And Henry DeSilva, play's His psychotic brother hit man who is highly strung On prescription painkiller's and angel Dust,

The action packed finale see's the remaining member's of the 'Machine' Engaged in a deadly shootout with Desilva, which culminate's in one the Most spectacular stunt's ever put to Celluloid,

Alas Hollywood has ran out of idea's and is contemplating a remake of Sharky's Machine! Why bother a 25th Anniversary Special Edition DVD would be ideal, not a silly ass remake,","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***SPOIERS*** Atlanta crime auctioneer with Burt Reynolds,Sgt. Sharky, and his tough and well oiled \"Sharky's Machine\" Let. Frisco, Charles Durning, and officers Papa & Arch, Brian Keith & Berney Casey, breaking up the Atlanta crime Syndicate who's on the verge of putting \"Their Man\" in the Geroria Governor's State House.

Busted after messing up a major drug police sting operation, with the drug dealer and a number of innocent pedestrians shot and killed, Sgt. Sharky was transfered into vice. Busting hookers johns and perverts Sgt. Sharky finds a list of call girls in the wallet of a top Atlanta pimp and after bugging one of the call girls apartment it turns out that she's having Don Hotchkins, Earl Holliman, a candidate for governor as a regular costumer.

As Sharky starts to investigate this strange arraignment he finds out that the good family man, married with five children, Hotchkins is also on the payroll of Vittorio \"Victor\" Gassman the mob \"Godfather\" of Atlanta.The high-price call-girl Dominoe, Rachel Ward,who's involved with Hotchkins is tired of being a hooker and want's to leave Victor's stable of call-girls and live with Hotchkins as his live-in mistress after he gets elected governor of Georgia, which is already a forgone conclusion, but their's only one slight hitch; will Victor let go of her.

Tangling with the Gassman Syndicate the corrupt Atlanta police and city officials, as well as the local Chinese mob, Sgt. Sharky ends up losing most of his men, including two of his fingers, as he brings down the Gassman Mafia in a final shoot-out with the his Mobsters at the famous Atlanta Peachtree Plaza Hotel's.

Statueques and beautiful Rachel Ward as Dominoe is thought to have been murdered by Gassman's drugged-out hit-man Billy Score,Henry Silva,who blew her face off with a shot gun but in reality it turned out that he really killed Dominoe's call-girl room-mate Tiffany, Aarika Wells, with Dominoe away in the country.

Sharky, who was in love with Dominoe from afar, found out the truth about her being alive and to the surprise and shock of mob kingpin Victor Gassman is going to use her, by getting Dominoe to testify against him, to put Gassman and his mob away for good but the cunning and vicious Victor wasn't going to go willingly and let Sharky know it sooner then he thought.

Blood spattering shootout at the Peachtree Plaza Hotel in the films final sequence with Shark'y Machine having it out with the almost indestructible junkie hit-man Billy Score. Shooting it out on the hotel stairway both Billy Score and Sharky's machine member Arch come face to face with Billy's drug induced invincibility clashing with Arch's Zen reality alerting philosophy in what can best be said to be a battle of two cultures: West and East.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was one of those films I would always come across (be it on TV or cheap DVD), but never struck me to give it a shot as I thought I wasn't missing out on much. It was on one night and I thought oh well\u0085 why not. A good decision too, as I would kick myself for taking so long to get around to it. For me it left me impressed, as it's up there with Burt Reynold's best features ('Deliverance', 'White Lightning' and 'Boogie Nights') and streams back to those 70s\/80s gritty, hardboiled urban crime thrillers that weren't afraid to be forebodingly obscure and go out of their way to set-up characters, pack-it with realistically brutal force and effectively incorporate the local locations (Atlanta being the case here) to the fold with grounded photography. In certain shades it kind of reminded me of 'Dirty Harry', but that's loosely. However it's saucily honed blues score with its simmering kicks, funky shifts and unhinged sounds, very much had me thinking of Lalo Schifrin's pulsating score he orchestrated for 'Dirty Harry'. The music soundtrack on the other hand is hit or miss.

Sgt. Tom Sharky was an Atlantic narcotic agent before a slip-out during a bust saw him demoted to vice work. Along with his new squad they come across a prostitution ring, which catches their interest due to fact it's owned by one hard-to-track and to convict crime lord. What they dig up involves a prominent government figure and a call-girl which can give them some important names, but they must get to her before she's made a target.

Burt Reynold's acts, but also directs in an unyieldingly firm and muscular fashion which would suit his laconically hard-nosed performance and Gerald Di Pego's thematically hard-bitten and taut screenplay (that was adapted from William Diehl's novel). Well he does show some sort of heart\/insightful thoughts amongst that armor within the scenes involving the fetchingly able British actress Rachel Ward, be it the stake-out scenes when he's watching her from another building (and slowly becoming infatuated by her) to when they finally come together, but these latter interactions mid-way through do slow up the momentum but give it noir like strokes. The performances are fairly spot on with Reynold's formulating a great rapport with exceptional actors Charles Durning, Earl Holliman, Brian Keith, Richard Libertini and Bernie Casey. The scathing profanity and witty dialogues between these guys were a blast. As for the corrupt villains, Vittorio Gassman builds imposing strength and power, but it's Henry Silva (who seems born for these roles) icily cunning and unstoppable turn that makes the show. Where his appearance seems to outline things to come and help them fall into place. Plus his adrenaline-filled and violent cat and mouse climax with Sharky and his team is brilliantly done.

The exciting action passages might be quick and dry, but remain lethally violent like an immensely teeth-grinding interrogation sequence. Some handy, old fashion filming techniques add to the suspense. The intriguing material keeps it quite tactical being character derived, but when we think its smooth sailing it offers up a blunt surprise or two along with some intensely brunt confrontations.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dirty Harry goes to Atlanta is what Burt called this fantastic, first-rate detective thriller that borrows some of its plot from the venerable Dana Andrews movie \"Laura.\" Not only does Burt Reynolds star in this superb saga but he also helmed it and he doesn't make a single mistake either staging the action or with his casting of characters. Not a bad performance in the movie and Reynolds does an outstanding job of directing it. Henry Silva is truly icy as a hit-man.

Detective Tom Sharky (Burt Reynolds) is on a narcotics case in underground Atlanta when everything goes wrong. He winds up chasing a suspect and shooting it out with the gunman on a bus. During the melee, an innocent bystander dies. John Woo's \"The Killer\" replicates this scene. Anyway, the Atlanta Police Department busts Burt down to Vice and he takes orders from a new boss, Frisco (Charles Durning of \"Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou?\") in the basement. Sharky winds up in a real cesspool of crime. Sharky and his fellow detectives Arch (Bernie Casey) and Papa (Brian Keith) set up surveillance on a high-priced call girl Dominoe (Rachel Ward of \"After Dark, My Sweet\")who has a luxurious apartment that she shares with another girl.

Dominoe is seeing a local politician Hotchkins (Earl Holliman of \"Police Woman\") on the side who is campaigning for governor but the chief villain, Victor (Vittorio Gassman of \"The Dirty Game\") wants him to end the affair. Hotchkins is reluctant to accommodate Victor, so Victor has cocaine snorting Billy Score (Henry Silva of \"Wipeout\")terminate Dominoe. Billy blasts a hole the size of a twelve inch pizza in the door of Dominoe's apartment and kills her.

Sharky has done the unthinkable. During the surveillance, he has grown fond of Dominoe to the point that he becomes hopelessly infatuated with her. Sharky's mission in life now is to bust Victor, but he learns that Victor has an informant inside the Atlanta Police Department. The plot really heats up when Sharky discovers later that Billy shot the wrong girl and that Dominoe is still alive! Sharky takes her into protective custody and things grow even more complicated. He assembles his \"Machine\" of the title to deal with Victor and his hoods.

William Fraker's widescreen lensing of the action is immaculate. Unfortunately, this vastly underrated classic is available only as a full-frame film. Fraker definitely contributes to the atmosphere of the picture, especially during the mutilation scene on the boat when the villain's cut off one of Sharky's fingers. This is a rather gruesome scene.

Burt never made a movie that surpassed \"Sharky's Machine.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm a fan of B grade 80s films in which the hero is a bit of a bad guy, a strong male, who finds love - and this film delivers!

Towards the finish you do not know how Sharky will not be killed (and doesn't he take a beating! Realistically portrayed I believe). However he does and it's not via some overdone 'Die Hard' stunt. The 'past it' team he works with comes together, hence the title. His team are all characters - people on the sideline at work because they don't quite conform. These portrayals are funny and sympathetic - they have a real feeling to them. They're up against an iceman of an assassin, with a good team of his own. The result is a great film noir.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Burt Reynolds' riposte to Clint Eastwood encroaching on his redneck comedy turf with his orangutan comedies was to make his own Dirty Harry in Chicago-style thriller, Sharky's Machine. Originally intended for John Boorman but in the end directed by the star himself, it's an out-and-out commercial package with Reynolds a narc who gets busted down to the Vice Squad (literally - they're in the basement) who sets out to nail a mysterious crime lord who is backing Earl Holliman as the next governor. You can guess the rest, but while Reynolds tends to lose sight of the story at times he has a good eye for individual scenes and almost gets a performance out of Rachel ward as the high-class hooker he falls for. The romantic subplot is unusually well developed, there are a couple of good action scenes and some nice touches, such as having Vittorio Gassman's lookalike villain a mirror image of the hero or Reynolds and a killer both staking out a witness from adjacent apartments in the same building. One of the star's better films from his glory days, it's no classic but it makes for a more than efficient Saturday night special.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While he was great in Boogie Nights, I think that this was Burt Reynolds' best performance. He's also a great director and has made a tough, violent movie that doesn't hold back (a hooker's death by 12 gauge) and is an excellent detective story with some great actors (Brian Keith, Bernie Casey, etc.) and an outstanding jazz soundtrack. 10 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is Burt Reynolds'\"Citizen Kane\".Tragically nothing else he was ever involved in came close to approaching \"Sharkey's Machine\".It seemed to me that he put everything he had into it.It is a movie that is in love with movies.The opening sequence where Detective Sharkey single-handedly rescues a bus-load of hostages is an immensely exciting piece of cinema. Everything moves so quickly once it has started to go wrong that it appears to take on a life of its own,a brilliantly achieved effect. It looks cold,tense and dangerous on Mr Reynolds' streets. The precinct house looks dirty and tired,full of desperate people on both sides of the law,shouting,cursing out,trying to do deals or just stay alive.Into this underworld descends the recently demoted Sharkey - a reward for a bungled drugs bust(caused by a corrupt cop) - he and his team are part of the vice squad.Information they pick up concerning a crooked politician leads them into the world of high-class call girls and ruthless drug barons. Watching the apartment of one such call-girl(Rachel Ward)Sharkey falls in love with her portrait on the wall(I know,I know)and when a woman's body is found with its face shot off in one of the rooms,he thinks its her.(Well,I did say it was a movie that loved movies). The scene where she walks in on him works beautifully,even if you have seen the original. The film is full of good touches,I particularly like Charles Durning's war story,subtly acted and shot in sharp contrast to Sharkey's abduction and torture which is suitably harsh and brutal. I must mention Vittorio Gassman and Henry Silva as two disparate but equally evil brothers with absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever. They are \"full on\" every time they're on screen and are no loss to society when their time comes,Mr Silva's end being extra special indeed. As has been mention,this is a Clint Eastwood movie that Clint never made.The biggest compliment I can pay \"Sharkey's Machine\" is to point out that in my opinion Clint Eastwood couldn't have made a better job of it. The soundtrack is of an equally high standard,featuring Sarah Vaughan,Joe Williams,Julie London,Chet Baker and other top class artists. Randy Crawford's \"Street Life\" plays behind the title sequence,and I can never hear it without ,in my mind's eye,seeing Sharkey striding along the sidewalk. Like other correspondents I have never understood why this film was a bit of a flop.I hope it is due for a critical revision,particularly at a time when so many cop movies and shows without a quarter of its energy , freshness and sheer joie de vivre are lauded from the rooftops. If you're ever tempted to think of Burt Reynolds as a burnt - out one - trick pony,put \"Sharkey's Machine\" in your video machine.I promise you won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great just great! The West Coast got \"Dirty\" Harry Callahan, the East Coast got Sharky. Burt Reynolds plays Sharky in \"Sharky's Machine\" and I enjoyed every minute of it. Playing a maverick narcotics cop in Atlanta, GA is just what everyone wants. Instead of suspension, he's sent to vice squad. Like in the Dirty Harry movies or any other cop movies, the captain is always going to be the jerk. When I was a kid, I was curious what that movie meant \"Sharky's Machine\". Well I knew who played Sharky, I wonder what his machine was. It was his GROUP of fellow cops. After uncovering the murder, he goes all out to find the perp. When it turns out to be a big time mob boss, Sharky doesn't play around. When he gets the other prostitute into safety, Sharky fights back hard and good despite losing a finger to the thug. And I also like the part where the bad gets blown out of the building through a plate glass window. That was the BOMB! Randy Crawford's \"Street Life\" really put the movie in the right mood, and the movie itself is really a great hit to me, ALWAYS! Rating 4 out of 5 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the best thing Burt Reynolds ever did . . . . nice combination of suspense and humor, with an excellent supporting cast, this is a very well written and credible urban drama with a great sound track as well . . . makes you wonder why Reynolds doesn't direct more movies . . .","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An intense, dark action drama with unusually rich support from Casey, Keith, et. al, many of whom get the best roles of their careers and run with it. The film is oddly shaped -- often the action slows down just to let the characters get caught up in odd but well-done seemingly improved dialogues -- during the stakeouts, almost all of the \"Machine\" get caught up in perfectly delivered humorous monologues -- and Reynolds the director deserves mucho credit for having Reynolds the star step back and give them room. And unlike most action films, you really get to like the characters, which makes the 2nd half, when their various destinies good and bad unfold, unusually affecting. The combination of character development, brutal violence, a jazzy soundtrack (Tarantino must be a fan -- watch this & then \"Jackie Brown\" and you'll see what I'm talking about)make this occasionally flawed film (The bad guys are a bit melodramatic) one of the better modern cop films, and in my mind superior to many of the overrated modern noirs such as \"Body Heat\" & such.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think this is one of Burts top five movies, along with Deliverance, Smokey and the Bandit, Boogie Nights and City Heat. He also directed this one so he had a talent for that too like his buddy Clint Eastwood. I wish he made more films like this or even a sequel to Sharkys Machine than the likes of Stroker Ace or Cannonball Run II. This is a tough, gritty cop thriller with Reynolds at the top of his game. Having the beautiful Rachel Ward in it of Thorn Birds fame helped too. Henry Silva is the bad guy and he always does a good job at that. The film also a great soundtrack too. I highly recommend this, wish it was on DVD in the UK, an audio commentary from Reynolds would be great as well. ***7\/10***","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Without a doubt, the best Burt Reynolds film ever! Even better than Smokey and the Bandit. This was probably the first real bloody cop thriller of the 1980s and delivered the perfect blend of humor, action, mystery and style that is missing in today's films.

This one has it all: A psychotic Henry Silva jacked up on PCP, $1,000 a night call girls, ninja assassins and Burt Reynolds getting his fingers sliced off, one by one, with a butterfly knife. The film is based on the novel by William Diehl who also wrote PRIMAL FEAR, another one of my all-time favorites. This movie is worth watching just to see Henry Silva get shot six times, crash through a window, and fall thirty stories from the top of an Atlanta high-rise. This is probably the coolest stunt in Hollywood history, performed by legendary stuntman Dar Robinson.

Robinson also played \"Moke\" in the Elmore Leonard movie STICK, also starring Burt Reynolds. Stick features another great Dar Robinson stunt. Robinson falls from a Miami apartment building and unloads all six shots from a .44 magnum on his way down. Very cool stuff.

SHARKY'S MACHINE is my favorite police drama. I never understood why this film flopped the way it did. If Burt did more films like this, he would've built a better reputation for himself. He proves to be a talented director with Sharky, as well as a gifted actor. Burt is supported by Brian Kieth, Charles Durning, Bernie Casey, Richard Libertini, Rachel Ward, and everyone's favorite bad guy Henry Silva. PLEASE remake this classic film! Get Affleck and Samuel L. and some other hot actors and you've got a great movie just waiting to be filmed.

I give it a 9 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Meester Sharky, you look so ... normal. You would never get a table in this fancy cocktail restaurant\/bistro. I, on the other 'and eat grapes and pate 'ere every day. You like my fur coat with all the fine trimming? My enormous golden rings of gold? Or maybe you like these blonde, 'ow you say?, bombshells, who are all qualified in aerobics and naked petanques, who decorate my long, maroon velvety sofa like so many soft boiled larks on a plate of pan fried foie gras and figs. You like? You can't have! Zey are all mine.

You will never possess 'er as I possessed 'er. Domino was the best, apart from Maman. You do not understand the art of lovemaking. Just look at your inferior moustache. It is almost funny to me, non, to think of that ludicrous protuberance on your silly face, as you snuffle around Domino's love hillock like the piggy seeking the truffle in the forest, the forest heaving and swaying in the hot winds of desire! You lose again Sharky.

When I make love to the women zey know, Sharky, zey know. Zey learn, zey learn until zey become the teacher. Not nano-maths, the arts of love. Domino was the seedling which I watered. I watered her so very often. Everywhere Sharky. Her scented petals, her proud stalk, everywhere. She will wither under your ridiculous hose, like the souffl\u00e9 removed from the oven five minute too soon.

I must go now Sharky, you bore me so with your disgraceful behaviour. It is you who will be flushed down le pissoir like the smelly thing.

Bon chance!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Burt Reynolds stars as an undercover cop who is after a crime boss.. Rachel Ward as the high price call girl he falls for..Burt does well in this role and I think he would've done well in more roles like this..

Rachel Ward is beautiful and sexy in her part..good pacing and story but something is missing in the equation.. on a scale of one to ten..7","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Sharky's Machine\" is clearly a Burt Reynolds vehicle designed to allow the star room to strut his talents and he spray-paints the machine, the film plot, with colors from other films and other styles, offering a variety of moods within a nourish story.

Made in 1981 at 119 minutes (lengthy for the time period), the film did well, with box office grosses at $37,800,000. It had a lot going for it: Burt Reynolds actor and director, a solid one-two punch; a William Diel novel adaptation, and the south land of Atlanta Georgia, at this time, a land of opportunity for film production out of Hollywood.

Reynolds' Tom Sharky falling in love with Rachel Ward's Dominoe the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold is here echoed as it was in \"Hustle\" when he played opposite Catherine Deneuve, and that film also had a corrupt politician at its core, but with downbeat ending not the Hollywood happiness in \"Sharky's Machine\".

The story is pure Detective procedure\/actioner. Sharky a narcotics detective mismanages up a bust of a drug dealer, causing the killing of some innocent bystanders, and gets demoted, literally transferred downstairs to vice, to deal with perverts, and other m misdemeanors that 'upstanding' cops consider latrine duty. His new digs offers him the chance to meet many equally upstanding officers who are doing the dirty jobs no one else wants. When some attention is pointed toward a certain pimp Sharky looks over some evidence and discovers that one particular prostitute Dominoe (Rachel Ward) - Dominoe is being shielded by police forces and political forces and Sharky sets himself up a 24-hour surveillance force to watch her. During the time he watches he learns that the current Governor-elect Hotchkins (Earl Holliman) is visiting Dominoe, as is a slick Italian gangster Victor (Vittorio Gassman). Before the police can build a case with the evidence, Billy, Victor's brother, a coke-snorting gunman (Henry Silva) shoots through the door of Dominoe's apartment seemingly killing the beautiful Dominoe, but when Sharky discovers that the murdered victim was actually a roommate Tiffany (Aarika Wells) Sharky confronts Victor and tells him that he is going to have him arrested. Sharky is captured by some Ninja killers lead by Smiley (Darryl Hickman) and is tortured for information to lead to Dominoe, but Sharky overpowers them and arrests the Governor and in a heated chase kills Billy after he has killed Victor.

Reynolds wants to exhibit the inner workings of a hardened policemen falling in love, but the police-story plot, flavored with noir element, and Reynolds ability at cinematic development tends to slick over the dynamics of the relationships.

We come to learn something about some of the men and this leads us to reason why they are working towards their pensions in vice, instead of fighting real crime- this element of the film seems sketchy under Reynolds' off-handed direction and performance.

There is always uniqueness to a Reynolds film. He likes to hire stars, either character actors or others and then allow them to improvise, sometimes with varying results.

With his crew in \"Sharky's Machine\" he gets some fine moments, and sometimes some overblown grandstanding but always a sense of ensemble and good-natured-ness. With Reynolds as auteur it works.

Reynolds, the actor\/auteur always seems to be smirking at himself and the viewer as if to say it's all fake, but good fun.

Great line: In the scene with Victor when Sharky throws down the gauntlet \"You're walkin' all over people like you own 'em ,and you wanna know the worst part? You're from out of state.\" This seems to be the greatest insult the officer can throw at a criminal.

Reynolds made the film in Atlanta at his career point have shot himself reading the phone book and would have surely targeted and demographic.

The film did mark the appearance of Rachel Ward who was nominated as New Star of the Year in 1981 by the Golden Globe.

Reynolds has always had presence and star power and has chosen to make films close to home, Georgia.

I got my DVD from half.com for $7.99 and unfortunately it doesn't contain any commentary or making-of features, which is a shame. Maybe the next generation will have them.

The movie is still a lot of fun and both Reynolds and Ward are great-looking actors in their prime.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In short if you want to watch Burt Reynolds best films than this one must be included. If you don't like Burt you may still like this. If you love Burt this may become one of your favorite movies of all time! Being from Atlanta it does hit home but it's also nice to see a cop\/action\/drama that takes place somewhere other than NY City, Chicago, Miami, or LA. The film is funny at points with & good plot & good performances from a great supporting cast (every character is real & the bad guys are not so one sided they are really well thought out)A nice offbeat romance in the 2nd half & it has some good old fashion shootouts & fistfights (no CGI thank God REAL ACTION!)

If Clint Eastwood did his best impression of a Burt Reynolds movie with \"Every Which Way But Loose\" & \"Any Which Way You Can\" then Burt responded with his best Clint type flick with this, & it comes off great!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Burt Reynolds directed this action movie and (surprise!) he is actually a pretty good director. This movie starts off well as Burt's attempted bust of a drug dealer is botched, and he is demoted down to the vice squad. The ensemble cast has some pretty funny scenes as Brian Kieth is always eating something, Bernie Casey has more class than all of his co-workers combined, and Charles Durning loses control of his squad.

The vice cops stumble on a high-priced call-girl ring that may have something to do with a series of murders. Sharkey spends days staking out Dominoe's (Rachel Ward) apartment, and starts to really adore her from afar.

Just when they are getting close to the crime leader, Dominoe is murdered. I won't give away any of the surprises in the plot, but the first hour of this film is great.

Unfortunately, the screenplay gets very clich\u00e9d and unbelievable after that.

Why would Burt Reynolds confront the crime boss with his big secret? Sure it makes the guy sweat, but it causes many more cops to be killed. And it is not believable that Dominoe and Sharkey would make love after they have know each other for one day, much less while their lives are in danger. And at the end, what happened to all the police that run into the building with our heroes? Isn't there a SWAT team? Also, the film never actually tells you how all of the bad guys are connected, and why they have to kill so many people.

There is a very effective torture scene on a boat near the end of the film, which is probably the only really nail-biting scene of the film. It is a shame that the climax is a typical shoot-em-up. Still, this film is certainly entertaining if you like crime and action movies. Don't think about the plot holes, and you will have a good time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the tradition of \"neo\" film noir flicks like \"Chinatown\", this film focuses on a crime mystery in a bleak realm with a bit of character insight blended in. The typical noir characters thoughout, including the cop out to prove himself, a damsel in distress and a bad, bad guy. Sharky's Machine gets a 9 out of 10 for its cinematography first, plus its direction, story, strong character acting and superb jazz score. Available on DVD, though the soundtrack itself is out of print (but available \"used\" on some auction sites). Filmed on location in beautiful downtown Atlanta (novelist Diehl's hometown) and the uncluttered, circa 1979 look of the city would make an old-time Atlanta citizen or visitor long for the old days before 12-lane interstates crisscrossed the city, a cinematographer's dream at that time. This was Rachel Ward's first USA feature film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sharky's Machine is a crime drama set in early 80's Atlanta. It stars Burt Reynolds as a renegade cop who is hellbent on stopping crime and corruption in his city. The story is about a dirty politician who is at the top of a crime ring that has been brining the city to it's knees. Sharky's link to bringing down this syndicate is a high-priced hooker that he falls for during the course of the movie. The action sequences are well done for the early 80's and the soundtrack \/ score are pretty good. The acting is B-level but this is a pretty decent film to have in your DVD collection.

Overall 7\/10

Peace

Buggieblade","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sharky's Machine is easily one of Burt Reynolds best efforts. It also stands as one of the best contemporary crime dramas. Erotic and violent, the movie distinguishes itself by setting the story in Atlanta, and delivering a chaotic detective case, to you(the viewer), on a silver platter. Dedicated and determined, Sharky must stop the murder of Dominoe, a lovely lady of the night, who's clientel is anything but ordinary. Before long, Sharky's crimefighting Machine uncovers a conspiracy of the highest order, which threatens to corrupt the inner body of Atlanta. As a resident of Metro Atlanta, I recall the excitement in town during the movie's production. Sharky's Machine goes to great lengths to give an accurate portrayal of Atlanta. Twenty years removed and 2,000,000-more people later, the film stands the test of time. Trust me, Atlanta has not changed. One of the highlights of the picture is Dar Robinson's daring stunt(a classic, symbolic ending). It was even featured on That's Incredible, ABC's reality show of the period. It's just too bad that Hollywood does not make enough films like this one. Kick back, each your popcorn, and watch sterling silver cinema action.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was very impressed with the latest production from Mick Molloy. As a fan of his, I was used to a different kind of humour than displayed here. He wisely opted with a more subtle, broad style of comedy in Crackerjack, rather than his usual low brow, in-your-face ramblings. It is, at times, inconsistent and un-even, but a decent script works past that, and makes for some entertaining viewing. Directed by Paul Moloney (who has directed almost every Australian TV series imaginable), Crackerjack tells the story of Jack Simpson, a bloke that belongs to his local bowls club for the sole reason of parking. When the club hits financial trouble, he is forced to bowl competitively in an attempt to raise the funds to save the club from becoming a poker machine haven. A familiar, and successful formula, that is handled well. There is no denying that the film owes it's success to the great casting of Molloy. He seemed to have a great rapport with Samuel Johnson, and excellent chemistry with Judith Lucy, and while the character is probably not a far stretch from his own personality, you can't help but wonder why he hadn't tried his arm at film earlier. To smooth out the in-experienced cast, the delightful Frank Wilson and Bill Hunter support, and often steal their scenes. They are two fine actors and the pair cruise through their roles with ease. Had it not been for the huge success of 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding', Crackerjack would have made it to number 1 at the Australian box office, but when you consider what he film is about and who is involved, even making it to number 2 was an outstanding effort. All in all, a witty, feel-good movie. Great cast, great crew, and a great soundtrack, combine to make one of the better Australian films of 2002. 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"WORTH IT FOR: If not for Mick Molloy's work, then for Judith Lucy. She brings her usual classy style of unbridled foul-mouthery to the role, and steals the show in parts.

IMHO: I'm not much of an autograph hunter, but I have collected 3. The first is Samuel L. Jackson's, the other 2 are in this movie: Tony Martin and Mick Molloy. Altho Martin only makes a cameo appearance, Molloy not only stars but co-wrote and co-produced this flick. I've been a fan of their for years now (apparently I was the only one laughing during the on-set urination in the first episode of the short lived The Mick Molloy Show), so I went in to this with high expectations. I'm happy to say I wasn't disappointed. With Mick doing a lot of the work on this thing there's plenty of his usual trademarks. Phrases like \"blow it out your arse\" and \"these bowls are s***house\" are all over the place, aswell as plenty of Winnie Blues being sucked down. It's also the sort of stupid, original story you'd expect from someone like him. This is like one of those cliqued, American, sporting comedies where they make a baseball team out of prisoners or something. But rather than trying to make a dull American sport like baseball or gridiron interesting, this movie focuses on a sport usually left to grey army: Lawn Bowls. But the main difference between this and other sporting type comedies is that this is actually very, very funny. What's even better is that even tho the subject of this movie is a young lout joining an old folks game, it's never insulting to the elderly, and it never gets sickeningly soppy or anything. It's just good laughs at genuine 1972 prices. Mick is great in the first real acting role I've ever seen him in, as is Judith Lucy and the rest of the cast, but then most of them have had a lot of practice... This is the best Australian comedy I've seen in a long time. Go see it and learn the joys of Lawn Bowls!

IT'S A BIT LIKE: Major League?

SCORE: 8 \/ 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Crackerjack is a simple but feelgood movie where the good guys are very good and the bad guys are very bad and the central character is tempted by both sides.

The combination of the central character being played by Mick Malloy and the central setting being the local lawn bowls clubs drew an unusually broad crowd ranging from large numbers of teenagers to large numbers of senior citizens - and all laughed at the comedy.

As would be expected of a movie with Mick Malloy and Judith Lucy there was quite a bit of swearing, but it was not overdone and the audience I sat with certainly enjoyed it!

Mick Malloy did a good job as the lazy bloke who joined the bowls club (three times) simply to get parking spaces (one for himself and two for leasing to others at a premium) but who has everything fall down on him when he is required to play or lose his membership.

Judith Lucy does a fine job as his local journalist\/love-interest and there are fabulous performances from Bill Hunter, Frank Wilson, Monica Maughan, Lois Ramsey and many others.

John Clarke's dour role as the bad guy is not one of his funniest but he gives a solid performance.

The not so subtle swipes at pokies provide a bit of a serious note to this otherwise light comedy.

I'm sure that those who enjoyed The Castle and The Dish would also enjoy this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the first feature film from Australian comedian Mick Molloy. Mick wrote the film with his brother Richard with help from John Clarke, another comedian and actor. Mick & John also have starring roles along with several other iconic Australian actors - Bill Hunter, Frank Wilson et al. The basic premise of the movie is that slimy Jack Simpson (Mick Molloy) has become a member of a Lawn Bowls Club for the sole purpose of getting a free car park near his work. The Club is in dire financial straits and calls on Jack to help. John Clarke plays the clubs arch nemesis - he is trying to take the club over and turn it into a \"Poker Machine Slum\" Jack and the other club members band together to try and save the club with many funny twists and turns and Jacks eventual redemption. This is quite a clever little movie. It is well above Mick Molloys usual gutter humor. It is pretty well written and well acted. The older Aussie actors are brilliant (Bill Hunter, Frank Wilson Monica Maughan and ors) The film meanders along rather then going at break neck pace, but that adds to the charm of the movie. There is low level coarse language.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Crackerjack, starring Mick Malloy & Judith Lucy - both part of the cast in the early 90's Saturday night comedy show \"The Late Show\", Bill Hunter, an Australian movie icon and John Clarke, who we still see regularly on Australian TV along side Brian Dawe.

Crackerjack, losely is about a guy in his early 30's (Jack Simpson, played by Mick Malloy) who pays his yearly memebership at the local bowls club in order to get a few car park spaces for which he uses himself and rents out to others as cheap inner city parking.

The club falls on hard times, and pulls all the resources and memebers together it can, Jack gets a phone call telling him to turn up to next Saturday's bowls match or lose his membership (and conseqently his car park space)

I wont spoil the rest, but the film is funny, light hearted and contains everything a good aussie film should.

If your not Australian, then some of the jokes and humour will no doubt baffle you, if you are an Aussie - do yourself a favor and sit yourself down to Crackerjack.. Its now available on DVD, I already have my copy!

10\/10.. Awesome flick!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was reticent to see this flick before reading the external reviews and user comments posted here. Why? Firstly because Mick Malloy's humour can (in my humble opinion) be pretty crass and over the top, evidenced by his ill fated shemozzle of a television show some years back. And secondly because good Aussie comedy films are sadly as rare as the Tassie Tiger.

Sensibly Mick has restrained his natural comedic exuberance in this surprisingly watchable movie. Who would have thought that a bowls club would provide the setting for one of the funniest Australian films in years. The cast is excellent with familiar local old timers all putting in believable performances.

Interesting to see John Clarke playing the villain in this piece. It's a one dimensional part but JC still adds a touch of class, as always. Good to see Judith Lucy also getting a Guernsey or should I saw bowls uniform on the big screen. She's a real talent, pity a number of her retorts were expletives. Her own material is a lot wittier. Interesting character though. Bowls reporter on a local rag. How low on the journalist food chain can one get!!

Crackerjack may not be the funniest film I've seen this year but it's certainly an enjoyable diversion, well worth a look. Lots of other people obviously agree with me as it's headed to be the biggest grossing Australian film this year. Good to see someone finally make a quirky, gentle comedy without trying to sledgehammer the laughs like so many Australian 'comedies' before it.

Finally a bit of trivia. If you're wondering which Aussie Rules team Mick supports check out the flag on his workstation. Also look out for his old partner in crime, Tony Martin doing the announcing in the final bowls scene.



","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A fairly typical Australian movie where the underdog saves the day inspite of himself. I guess there is no real reason to see this pic if you have seen \"The Castle\" or \"The Dish\". It still leaves you with a positive feeling at the end and it as good or better than most Hollywood stuff.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very comical but down to earth look into the behind the scene workings of an Australian bowling club. The way they deal with various problems such as takeovers, memberships and general running of the club, not to mention the car parking dilemma was well scripted.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While not for everyone, Crackerjack is a delight to watch, with tongue planted firmly in cheek. The likeable character of Jack Simpson, played by Mick Molloy, is scamming the local \"bowlo\" for free parking and making a couple of dollars on the side, selling the parking space to work colleagues. When the Bowling Club members need to raise some money to save their club, they call upon Jack to join their bowling team and play competition bowls.

Filled with Aussie Charm, the laconic wit of Mick Molloy is showing through (he also co-wrote the script) reminding this viewer of his earlier work in Radio. Perfect Aussie casting with Bill Hunter as Jack's bowling mentor Stan Coombes, John Clarke (of The Games fame) as the ruthless businessman and rival bowls club owner Bernie Fowler, with Samuel Johnson as Jack's flatmate Dave, and Judith Lucy as the jaded Journalist, Nancy.

Initially, I figured only fans of Molloy would like this flick but judging by the number of the blue rinse set exiting the cinema chuckling, this is a film for everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Considering the appalling track record of Mick Molloy since going out on his own, I had rather low expectations of Crackerjack. Even the promotional posters for the movie had me nervous. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that I'd received free tickets to the preview, I would have resisted the pressure from the missus (who thinks Mick's a hunk - there's a worry) to pay money for it.

The first few minutes of the movie had me worried - it starts with one of Micks tired \"get angry at insignificant things\" routines, but that was given a neat touch, which at least made it a little refreshing. The rest of the script was pretty good, and very light hearted - even the typical Mick Molloy (and Judith Lucy) humour was delivered well and whilst I never had to pick myself up from the aisles, it generated a lot more chuckles that I was expecting (and it was consistant).

There's nothing new in the plot - pretty predictable, but it moved along quickly between one-liners and other jokes - I never felt it harboured on any element too long or too short; Mick must have worked hard on polishing his script. There were a one or two \"Late Show\" in-jokes, and one or two jokes that only Melbournians would get - but certainly there's plenty of generic stuff in there for a wider audience.

Something that I found disappointing was the relative unfunnyness of John Clarke - he just didn't seem to work as the bad guy, but that doesn't detract from the movie too much.

Over all, I enjoyed this Australain comedy, and was pleasantly entertained for the duration of the movie. I left the cinema with a decent sized grin - a pretty hard thing for an Australian comedy to do in my books. 7.5\/10

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Coming from Oz I probably shouldn't say it but I find a lot of the local movies lacking that cohesive flow with a weak storyline. This comedy lacks in nothing. Great story, no overacting, no melodrama, just brilliant comedy as we know Oz can do it. Do yourself a favour and laugh till you drop.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Crackerjack is another classic Aussie film. As so many Australian films like The Castle, The Dish and Sunday Too Far Away, it goes somewhere that hasn't been widely explored in film before, this time it is the game of Lawn Bowls and bowling clubs. Crackerjack is a much slower paced sports movie than many you will find such as Remember the Titans or Million Dollar Babybut the characters involved are athletes in their own right. This movie is a show case of a large area of Australian culture and features a sport that is popular and on the rise of popularity in Australia. Mick Molloy presents a classic, unforgettable character. It really is a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Crackerjack is a funny movie, everyone at the bowlo has seen it and all say the same. The wheel of cheese was a great part of the movie, also the loud speaker \"dear Mr so and so you have left you right indicator on\". Or when Jack goes home and lays down on the couch and cracks a beer, \"bowls is hard work\" cracked me up. And when his roommate shows interest by joining the club and calling bingo number. Jack buying all the raffle tickets to win the meat tray. Bloody great movie if you are into lawn bowls as you can relate to it, if your not a lawn bowler forget it i think. The Evans Head Bowlo would rate as the best club in Aus, friendly people, great company.Hi to Evans Head Bowlo Steve","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Crackerjack is a hit and miss film set in the Australian suburban lawn bowls club of Cityside. Mick Molloy plays a scammer who has been scoring free parking spaces at Cityside. When the club is put under pressure to install poker machines in it's premises they need to raise $8000 to keep this from happening. The club needs new members to help and this is where Mick molloys character comes in and has to bowl to save the club. With many up and coming and aging Australian actors Crackerjack is a hidden gem. Be warned though most of the jokes are for those with a knowledge of lawn bowls but there are many amusing sight gags that provide comical relief. Sam Johnson and Judith Lucy co-star. Overall the movie should be recommended for people who play lawn bowls or have played but there is enough other material in there for an amusing play if you have a slight understanding. If you enjoy Australian humour I suggest you get you're bowling whites on and head on out to the theatre because this is the premiere lawn bowls comedy of the year(also the only one).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International Film Festival. The film's title and in fact much of the outline of the film is from the Robert Graves poem Beauty in Trouble. Jan Hrebejk directs a screenplay by Petr Jrchovsk\u00fd from a story by Hrebejk and Jrchovsk\u00fd. the story begins in 2002 when Prague is hit by one of those devastating 100 year floods that destroys the household of Marcela (Ana Ceislerov\u00e1) and Jarda (Roman Lukn\u00e1r) and their two children Kuba (Adam Misik) and Lucina (Michaela Mrvikova). Because of the moldy conditions where they now live Kuba's asthma is life threatening. Marcela works and Jarda runs a chop shop out of the garage they live next to. Jarda's shady occupation runs him afoul of the law and one of his theft victims becomes infatuated with Marcela. Evzen Benes (Josef Abrh\u00e1m) is a wealthy businessman who divides his time between Italy and the Czech Republic and offers to care Marcela and her two kids. Jana Brejchov\u00e1 is Marcella's mother who lives with her common-law husband called Uncle Richie played by Jir\u00ed Schmitzer in probably the film's best role. Rounding out this excellent cast is Em\u00edlia Vasaryova as Jarda's mentally fragile mother who gives any money she gets to the local religious charlatan. There is a lot going on here for a small film and it's good story with a great script and a lot of comic relief. Ales Brezina provides the music score with additional music from Czech singer Raduza and Irish singer Glen Hansard. There is a lot to like about this film and I would give it an 8.0 out of 10 and recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was an excellent movie! I saw this at the Karlovy Vary IFF in the Czech Republic, and it won an award there. This is the first film I've ever seen from Jan (the director), and I was impressed. It's a great story about love and family. The movie has a great balance of comedy, romance, drama, and suspense all in one. I will not give away any of the plot, but this is a well-made film, and I would watch it again if I had the chance! The cinematography\/editing is great, the film simply flows, and the characters are warm, and they are the kind that one can relate to. I hope you can enjoy this film as I did. If anyone knows where I can find this in the United States, or if they plan on releasing it on DVD anytime soon, please let me know!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beauty in Trouble (Kr\u00e1ska v nesn\u00e1z\u00edch) is not a great title. All the descriptions of this film fail to capture what it really is \u0096 an adult fairy tale. A poor girl is wooed by a prince. The \"girl\", Marcela, played by the stunning Anna Geislerov\u00e1, has an Isabelle Huppert beauty, with a red hair, face and figure that are beguiling, sexual, and endlessly fascinating. She has a louse of a husband, but they have great sex. The kids listen to the lovemaking through walls. It's rough and passionate, as the sex of the working class seems to often be portrayed in film. But it's also for us to recognize that this is the thing that binds them together in an otherwise incompatible marriage. The husband, a professional car thief, is eventually caught and thrown in jail. How she got into this marriage we don't know, but she is not exactly a high-class herself. But she's beautiful, intelligent (we assume) and loves her gorgeous and resilient kids. She deserves more. And she may get the life she deserves - eventually. (no spoiler!) She is forced to move back with mom after her husband is sent to jail. Mom has a hideous second husband (read ugly stepfather). He is a real horror show. He borders on being a child abuser to the kids. He's obsessive about cleanliness, but ungraciously farts at the table, all the while demanding manners and decorum from the kids. He's real low class socially handicapped wretch. Mom puts up with him, like Marcella's husband, at least he's lusty - hideous but horny. The ambivalent, confusing, layered characterizations are what make the film so powerful and interesting. These characters have flaws, some seemed driven by class, some by innate character. These flaws and details of character are charming one minute and contemptible the next. The audience really has to negotiate conflicting feeling of class, sexuality, ambition, commitment, and the role of a woman as mother and wife through the quickly changing terrain of the story. At the bottom line, as with many films like the wonderful Icelandic movie \"Thicker Than Water (Bl\u00f3\u00f0b\u00f6nd), the children can be the victims. What's right in the end may be what's best for the children \u0096 who are our salvation and our future. It's a theme played out these days in films ranging from Pan's Labyrinth to Children of Men. Foreign. Cinema is recognizing in intricate morality tales that life is confusing, brutal, unfair and, as adults, we must get our act together in order to pass something worthwhile to the next generation. If we give in to our baser instincts, we may lose ourselves and the world in the process. The extraordinary and complex and colorful characters in Kr\u00e1ska v nesn\u00e1z\u00edch speak to the qualities of what makes a man, what drives a women, what embodies hope, what is class - is it economic status of the fabric of one's character? The film is richly human as embodied by the very last 2 shots, which moved me incredibly and unexpectedly. The director's choices are so subtle and intelligent that to compare this to an American film seems unfair. Americans sometimes seem to lack the desire to consider that paradoxes in human nature don't offer set resolutions. But here, perilously couched in ostensible fairy tale for adults, are interesting moral questions. Don't be fooled by the simple story; this is a great movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film by the well-known Czech director and writer collaborator Petr Jarchovsk\u00fd is remarkable for its particularity but annoying and distracting in its details. Taking its theme and title from a Robert Graves poem, it deals with a woman with several men and some obnoxious relatives in her life who's trying to survive and protect her two children, 15-year-old Lucina (Michaela Mrvikova) and little blond asthmatic Kuba (Adam Misik).The poem is much in evidence, but the theme--it gets a little lost.

Marcela (Anna Geislerov\u00e1), the Beauty, and Jarda (Roman Lukn\u00e1r) have lost everything in the Prague floods of 2002 and have nothing left, it seems, but good sex, which they go at with such a vengeance in their tiny apartment that Lucina and Kuba, in front of the telly, must hold their ears against the noise. Hrebejek relishes such explicitness and skates on the edge of embarrassment or shock. There's no good explanation precisely why, but financial desperation has led Jarda to processing stolen cars in the big garage that adjoins his flatlet. His car-thief cohort drives off a posh Volvo the easygoing Benes (Josef Abrham) has left with the keys in the ignition while visiting a large property he owns. Benes is a super-nice guy, but no fool. His Volvo is wired for tracking by satellite in cases like this and that leads the cops straight to Jarda's garage and he and his cohort are off to jail.

\"Beauty in trouble flees to the good angel,\/On whom she can rely,\" begins the Graves poem. But actually this fracas leads Benes to Marcela, when he meets her at the police station. He introduces her to sushi and how to drink wine and plies her with a picture book about Tuscany, where he, though Prague-born, owns a lovely villa and has lived most of his life. He's here to reclaim the house in Prague now occupied by a couple with an ancient and infirm mother, whom he allows to remain. Benes' every gesture is benevolent, even though he doesn't prevent Jarda from going off to jail.

In the circumstances Marcela must retreat with Lucina and Kuba to depend on the charity of her mother, Zdena (Jana Brejchova) and the far less tender mercies of Zdena's present husband, the scrawny diabetic Richard Hrstka (Jiri Schmitzer)--who, for the kids, starting when they commit the cardinal sin of consuming his dietetic cookies, proves to be the uncle from hell. Jiri Schmitzer hijacks the film at this point, and never quite lets it go. Even in the final scene he is a figure of leering menace. It is surprising that the obnoxious Richard doesn't sexually abuse one or both of the children. He is insistent that Marcela needs to get out on her own, and when Benes offers to take her under his wing he and Richard become improbable allies. Improbable--perhaps implausible. Why should Benes like him? But then, what is Benes's whole story? About some things the film gives too much information and about others, not enough.

Clearly the \"good angel,\" Benes is infallibly kind--and a polished, good-looking older man whose manners befit his Italian upbringing. It's only at the end, when he's pushed to the limits over his Prague property by the devious occupants, he proves that he is not one to won't lie down and be walked over.

Also to be dealt with is Jarda's religious fanatic mother Sdena (Jana Brejchova), and her interactions with Zdena and Richard are something to watch. But she is just another wild card that does not augment the deck.

The poem has been set to music in a Czech translation and is sung on screen by the accordionist-vocalist Raduza, first in a tiny scene, then in a more extended one staged at a prison performance witnessed by Jarda and the car thief pal. If you revere Hrebejk as an auteur you may relish this sequence; otherwise it tends to feel gratuitous. Also included are a number of songs by Glen Hansard\/Marketa Irglova of the Oscar-award-winning Irish musical film 'Once,' including the latter's theme song, \"Falling.\" They feel more out of place than they would otherwise because of their familiarity from 'Once'--though this film came first.

Hrebejk's people are arresting; even little Koba has his Shakespearean-child moments and a wealth of charm; but the director and his writer seem unable to resist the temptation to digress and to over-expand. The property hassle Benes endures may be useful for showing he has a tough side. But such an elaborate demonstration wasn't necessary. The acting is fine, and there is a wonderful with quirkiness and specificity, but the basic themes of love, sex, and money get lost in the shuffle and Marcela's conflicts and how she resolves them never become clear. It's fine that there is no resolution and true to the theme and to Graves's poem that Marcela still has hot sex with Jarda during a revisit to Prague after moving to Tuscany with Benes and her kids. But there are too many questions remaining about what to make of the obnoxious Richard or of Jarda's annoyingly pious mother (Em\u00edlia V\u00e1s\u00e1ryov\u00e1). How come all of a sudden we learn Koba is getting letters from \"India\" purported to be from his dad, who's in prison? When did that come about? Interesting details, hastily pasted in. This seems a world in which you can't see the forest for the trees.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First I have to admit that I have had some doubts about the director. He has done some movies (with Jarkovsky) about the recent \"czech=east\" history or more precisely about families (individuals) how did they survive some historical moments. But it was always like the chines food sour-sweet. This movie was totally different. It was pure, it shows the bones of life, it shows the variations of human natures. This film is an excellent piece of art (story, acting, picture, music) but it shows you the life around you in much brighter light that we don't want to see. By the way I have saw it on a DVD (with English subtitles) but I am afraid that in the USA I wont be able to get it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Wow. At first I thought who writes these things! How hard is that choice between a man who offers you and your children wealth, respectability and security as opposed to a husband who offers you only oppression, abuse, degradation and poverty. However our choices are not always as clear cut cut as one would think. Indeed the wealthy gentleman was all a woman could aspire to and yet... the pull of her husband, her sexual desire for him was almost overwhelming. What to do, what to do?? As a viewer you became as confused and misdirected as she was. Anyway what I really came on this site to gush about was my admiration of the voice of the Engish, I thought, although it is actually the voice of an Irish singer in the film. Looking him up I find he is Glen Hansard, whom I had never heard of before that day. What a find. I am so grateful. Wow, what a voice! What a day! Thank you BIFF!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you liked this movie, be sure to check out others directed by Hrebejk - you are in for a treat. This is unfortunately not his best, but still million times better than an average movie from the mainstream cinema. It explores relationships, especially the abusive ones, has some powerful as well as sweet moments and great acting. Some plot inconsistencies, clich\u00e9s and hollow moments spoil the overall effect. To the previous reviewer and his comments on the Czech psyche: an interesting approach, but I do not see this movie becoming a Czech blockbuster. Those folks are rather spoiled by their movie makers {check out also stuff by Sverak, Gedeon} and this one lags a bit behind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the major successes to The Decline of Western Civilization, filmmaker Penelope Spheeris' indie breakthrough, is that it can perhaps appeal to non-punk fans as to the hardcore ones. More importantly, it captures a moment in history before the movement became completely \"market-worthy\", when bands would play (or, at the least, try to play in some cases) in dank, dirty clubs to an audience that had as much self-respect as they had respect for the bands. For the fan, such as myself, there are precious interviews with some of the quasi-legends of LA's punk-scum, some dead, some still living and still hard-working in the scene.

Performances and interviews include the likes of The Circle Jerks, X, Black Flag (in the pre-Henry Rollins days), Catholic Discipline, Fear, the Alice Bag Band, and most memorable (in my opinion) being the Germs. While I knew of a few of the bands and performers in the film (The Jerks and Black Flag mostly), I had only heard rumors about lead singer (the late) Darby Crash, and from the footage in the film he seems to be one of the, if not the, epitomes of the punk movement. He doesn't take himself too seriously, he loves to drink, sometimes when he speaks it's complete gibberish, and the attitude he brings on stage is both funny and in a free-form way exhilarating. A performer like that would probably scare Steve Miller and Jackson Browne out of their skins.

Decline of Western Civilization may not turn on every non-punk fan that seeks this film out (it's hard to find on video), but it shouldn't necessarily turn them off either. Like a kind of anthropologist that's sneaked into the party, Spheeris gets the behavior of these people down pat, their motives, their likes and hatreds, and the power that was their on and off-screen personas. A few of them almost come off as normal, some don't, but they're only offensive to those who aren't too open to things. On top of that, the film is a must-see to the kinds of kids that think they're punk fans just because they listen to Good Charlotte and Blink-182: if you want to get the real scoop on the movement and genre of rock you profess to love, give the pioneers a chance. A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Kind of a guilty indulgence nowadays, this used to be required watching when i was in high school. It really is a great illumination of the burgeoning punk scene in LA in 1980. As the bands play, Spheeris prints the lyrics in subtitles, which is of course necessary if one really wants to know what the guy is screaming into the microphone. But also it turns the camera's POV into that of tourist, passing through this alien world. The band interviews reveal an honest approach to the music that really doesn't exist anymore. Then again, it's not as easy to come by $16\/month former-church closets like Chavez of Black Flag does. How many unheard of bands do you know that aren't trying like the dickens to get a record deal? These guys just didn't care. And who can't love the commentary of the little French dude who used to be the \"singer\" for Catholic Discipline (of which Phranc was a member). His gritty voice delivers one of the best soliloquies ever captured on film: \"I have excellent news for the world ... there's no such thing as New Wave.\" Whew! What a relief!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The rise of punk music was scarcely documented on film and most people tend to focus on the happenings of other cities such as London or New York. Penelope Spheeris managed to preserve a snapshot of Los Angeles circa '79-'81 which proves a vibrant and diverse art\/music community had spawned which rivalled any other. To some, the bands read like a who's who of now legendary American punk; Black Flag, X, Circle Jerks, Germs, Fear. Purists argue that vital bands were missed (Weirdos, Zeros, Flesheaters) and that the movie was the cause of an onslaught of suburban poseurs and macho violence. However, the issues touched upon in the film remain relevant, the intensity of the music remains unmatched and the influence continues to be seen and heard in the cliques\/fashions of today.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spheeris debut must be one of the best music documentaries of all time. And as far as I know it's also the only one that focuses on the L.A. Punk Explosion of the early eighties. It's all there: not just great, great bands like Black Flag, Fear, X, the Germs, whose names may not mean much to you today, but whose influence on today's alternative rock music can not be over-estimated, but also the promoters, the media and first of all the audiences - the punks - all portrayed in a manner that makes you laugh, shudder and gasp with astonishment about the energy, the anger and the fury these youths put into their music. Where is that today? The eighties may have sucked big time when it cames to mainstream music, but the underground was rocking. If you need a proof for that, watch Fear's performance in Decline. Unmatched. Great film! How come this is not available on vid, LD or DVD? P.S. The follow-up Decline Pt. II is hilarious, too","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If I assume that you know what this film is about, I am also forced to assume that you've come to this review knowing that you will probably watch it regardless of what I say. If all this rings true - read on - you are likely to find some consonance with at least part of this review. If you're undecided, or not really entirely certain what happened in the late '70s and early '80s in the urban and suburban youth music culture, you should probably read one of the reviews which pretends to be objective instead.

Although I didn't grow up in California, the American punk scene was the first music scene I ever truly lived in. At the height of the hardcore I was immersed in from about 1979-1981 everybody had a band and the only common denominators between bands and indeed members of their audiences were:

* the rejection of conformity

* tolerance and enjoyment of difference

* a desire to have fun - hard and fast

Hairstyles, politics, dislike of authority figures, and violent slam-dancing were not integral to what I experienced, though there were certainly cliques or factions who tended to be intolerant of those who did not dress, speak or act \"punk\" enough. And there was often a certain amount of unearned credit extended from some of these cliques to those who tried really hard to live down to the fascistic paradigm of anarchic, self mutilating, angry young cop-haters.

Although the interviews with audience punks in Penelope Spheeris' excellent Cal-Punk documentary \"Decline of Western Civilization\" present a very narrow view of the subculture some of us enjoyed, the interviews with the bands, club owners, promoters and even the security people are much more representative of at least my own perspective and memories of 'the scene'. nevertheless, it is possible for those who approach this with prejudices about what punk is to experience this film without having their preconceptions challenged. Unfortunate as this is, the blame for it rests solely with those who promote, believe in or feel comfortable with stereotypes - Not the film-makers. Don't blame the messenger.

The music presented here is not going to be for everybody - nor even most. It's not the most crude stuff out there, but it's loud, obnoxious, fast, and less concerned with technique than with raw energy.

For me, seeing early Black Flag with Ron Reyes singing, X, Fear and the Circle Jerks was worth far more than the cost of this hard to obtain film. As much as I like The Germs, seeing Darby Crash for the mess - and the nice guy - that he was left me a bit cold. Nevertheless, the scenes of Darby playing with his pet tarantula while \"Shut Down\" droned on and on in the background were precious. The X interview is also great.

Spheeris' straightforward documentary style is supplemented by wild pans and zooms during the musical segments. During the interviews, framing is used very nicely to provide context for whatever is being said. Considering her experience and the budget, Spheeris did as well as anybody could have with this film.

Recommended for those who appreciate what this film is actually about, and for those who have forgotten those few years of fun, honest, direction-less rebellion before Amaerican punk was co-opted into yet another flow within the musical mainstream and the stereotypes became more important than the basic philosophy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let start off by first saying that I have been a punk fan most of my life. I always kind of had a lack of respect for the LA scene of the early 80's, which The Decline of Western Civilization documents, with the exception of X and Black Flag, being more of New York and English punk guy. After I saw this movie that completely changed. The people shown may look like a bunch of idiotic, strung out kids who think they might accomplish something beyond street-Cree through their lifestyles, but it is a great display of hedonism at it's best, coupled with some fun, loud rock n roll. One of the best scenes, and actually most insightful, is the interview with Claude Bessy of Catholic Discipline, or 'Kick-Boy' as he was known to Slash magazine readers. Originally from France, he rants about punk like a dirty old Frenchman and clues in viewers to many aspects of the punk, or DIY, attitude to music, politics, and life in general. Darby Crash of the Germs comes off as a complete idiot most of the time, but the Germs' performance of Manimal is pretty decent, complete with a young Pat Smear. Black Flag's performance with Chavo Pederast on vocals (it was filmed a couple of years before Henry Rollins joined the band) is decent, and X and FEAR give the best performances in the movie. Look out for the interviews with the young punk kids. You'll hear some of the funniest things you have ever heard in a documentary. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The decline series is amazing and director PS can't get enough credit for making these movies. I'm slightly surprised to see that not very many people have seen this one, or the other two, but their worth unearthing if you want the picture of punk in the trans-formative years between the late seventies and early eighties. The film starts out with a blistering collection of clips played over music from the band X. Many interviews with bands and punker's that offer an enlightening perspective as to what surviving was like on the low rung of the mainstream rock ladder. No internet, crappy jobs, and all out hostility collide in this genre. For new kids who haven't heard of these bands or are just starting one themselves this movie is a true lesson in how to rock. All the band performances (and there are many) are awesome, especially FEAR who never cease to amaze me. This and the second installment are amazing time capsules offering those who care a rare glimpse into the lives of these crazy people. It's true punk, like in the interview with Darby Crash's girlfriend when their recalling a painter who mysteriously\/suddenly died outside their house and it took a week or so for them to figure it out, they take pictures next to the guy and everyone including the EMT's had a chuckle on this one, and in true form the interviewer asks the girlfriend if she was sad or upset that this guy had died while painting their house, the response \"no i hate painters\". How about Black Flag renting their apartment\/rehearsal space for 16 dollars a month! My jaw almost fell off at that moment seeing as i'm renting a ten by ten closet to practice in for 400. Between watching this and Deadwood i feel like i was born in the wrong time period, just missing those cowboy days and nights of the old way. The people and bands associated with the movie paved the way for what harder music today is, and they did it in their own unique way. Brilliant film, ten stars, see part 2 as well its equally awesome, part 3 though, i don't know what to say about.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Absolutely one of the 10 best music films Ever! A totally essential educational experience for any music fanatic--Especially young rock\/punk fans today...understanding the beginnings of any particular \"artistic\" movement absolutely requires understanding the roots of the music,as well as the mindset and musical environment of the times....not to mention the political and social factors involved at the time. And,besides all that,this documentary is flat-out rock-n-roll F U N !! Do Not Miss It!!! that said,can anyone tell me when,if ever, \"the decline of western civilization\"...part 1,( Not part 2,the metal version) will be made available again..hopefully on DVD?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I LOVE this film. It was made JUST before the LA punk scene changed for the worse. It perfectly preserves the mood and attitude of that time and place. I feel really lucky to have been present at the filming of four of the bands at the Fleetwood that night. The only part that doesn't fit in too well is the sections with Catholic Disipline and their socio-political commentary. I didn't see too many people who were into that at all. The rest of the film shows attitudes that I witnessed a lot; people dealing with hard lives, or taking a swing at the music industry and\/or lousy hippies. I don't think I've seen a documentary that captures so authentically and personally the subject matter being covered.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! The Decline of Western Civilization......what a great title eh? And of coarse a great movie. This is the best concert film I have ever seen. A close second being the Talking Heads movie \"Stop Making Sense\". I first heard of this movie when Waynes World came out in 1992. I looked at the director's name Penelope Spheeris and thought cool name, what else has he directed? I thought the first name was pronounced like envelope. After some time looking in movie guides I came across the critically acclaimed Decline and realized Penelope was a woman.....my Mom corrected me. I spent 8 years of my life trying to track this down. I finally saw it on VHS in Vancouver, where I currently reside. It was worth the wait. This captures the LA punk movement very well. This is teen angst at it's best folks. My favourite is the band the Germs who need subtitles for the lyrics because Darby Crash sings so crazy, you cannot understand it. I laughed when I saw this. The band Black Flag live in an abandoned church and the band X are a very intelligent bunch. Also laughed at the letter some idiot writes in to Slash Magazine about how we do not need to save the whales, there are countless miles of ocean for us to pour toxins in! I became a huge Penelope Spheeris fan after this, and saw all her punk movies-Dudes was OK, and Suburbia is a cult classic! I own both of these on VHS. She is a true underground film maker and I love her stuff. I would have loved to have seen this movie in 1994 when grunge was so popular. I was a big Nirvana fan then, but alas I saw this in 2002 and by that point I had grown out of grunge and now I listen to Crystal Method\/Fatboy Slim. Quite a change of pace, I know, but what can you do? But if you want a true depiction of the punk movement this captures it better than anything. Much better than 1991: The Year Punk Broke. This is a tough movie to track down, but if you get your hands on it, rent it, even if you don't like the music it is an excellent piece of work. Now days it might be easier to find with DVD's being so popular. By the way Penelope produced a little known Albert Brooks movie called \"Real Life\" which I also own. Very funny stuff in todays reality TV craptacular! Rent Decline......Highly recommended! Thanks!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie in the theater when I was 14 and it changed my life. I immediately cut off my hair and began buying all of the records of the bands in the movie. These were some of the seminal bands of L.A. punk rock caught on film at the peak of their powers. Bands like Black Flag (pre-Rollins), Circle Jerks, Fear, X, and the Germs have few equals in the history of punk music. I can't believe this film has never been put out on video or DVD. Great movie for fans of punk rock.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

First of all, I reviewed this documentary because I had an interest in the subject it portrayed, the LA punks.

I listened that music and I loved that music and I read a lot of the small zines that were made in the early 80's and that were not so easily achieved in Finland.

So if you don't like this kind of music why you write here about it? I like this kind of music, it speaks my soul, thus I know punks from all over Europe & Americas, so why do you, who find this music \"repugnant\" care to comment at all?

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

First of all, I reviewed this documentary because I had an interest in the subject it portrayed, the LA punks.

I listened that music and I loved that music and I read a lot of the small zines that were made in the early 80's and that were not so easily achieved in Finland.

So if you don't like this kind of music why you write here about it? I like this kind of music, it speaks my soul, thus I know punks from all over Europe & Americas, so why do you, who find this music \"repugnant\" care to comment at all?

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spheeris debut must be one of the best music documentaries of all time. And as far as I know it's also the only one that focuses on the L.A. Punk Explosion of the early eighties. It's all there: not just great, great bands like Black Flag, Fear, X, the Germs, whose names may not mean much to you today, but whose influence on today's alternative rock music can not be over-estimated, but also the promoters, the media and first of all the audiences - the punks - all portrayed in a manner that makes you laugh, shudder and gasp with astonishment about the energy, the anger and the fury these youths put into their music. Where is that today? The eighties may have sucked big time when it cames to mainstream music, but the underground was rocking. If you need a proof for that, watch Fear's performance in Decline. Unmatched. Great film! How come this is not available on vid, LD or DVD? P.S. The follow-up Decline Pt. II is hilarious, too","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Penelope Spheeris (of \"Wayne's World\" fame) made her mark with the documentary \"The Decline of Western Civilization\", about the LA punk scene in the late '70s and early '80s. Most of the documentary features interviews with the punks and footage of concerts (which often turn violent). Overall, we get to see how the punk movement was a reaction to the hippies: whereas the hippies were into being natural, the punks wanted to have themselves as altered as possible, what with spiked hair and all. But also, we see how they're really disaffected and sometimes becoming skinheads.

Anyway, this is a really great time capsule. We're not really sure whether we want to long for that era or feel repulsed by it. But this is definitely not a documentary that will leave you neutral. Truly worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best films made about the 80 punk scene. I saw this a few years back on a \"bootleg\" copy and was amazed. Very few of todays kids know the true roots of punk and this movie shows some of the 80s punk legends such as The Germs and shows how it was back then. Nowadays so much punk has gone mainstream with MTV and radio and its nice to see the true underground rebellious movement of the original scene. Darby Crash (of The Germs) is one of my heros and this film shows why. A must see for all \"punks\" and anyone curious about the 80s punk scene","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The One and the Only!

The only really good description of the punk movement in the LA in the early 80's. Also, the definitive documentary about legendary bands like the Black Flag and the X. Mainstream Americans' repugnant views about this film are absolutely hilarious! How can music be SO diversive in a country of supposed liberty...even 20 years after...find out!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First off, let it be known that I came into this movie not for the music; actually I find it repugnant. Really, I was interested in the psychology of the punk subculture. On this point, the documentary did fairly well. One disagreeable aspect was the numerous scenes in which songs are played and the hyped-up band and belligerent crowd are shown running amok. If you've seen the first such scene, you've seen them all. This superfluity is party made up for by printing lyrics for some of the songs. With these, the audience is able to somewhat connect mentally with the band. The lyrics are of far more interest than the jumble of sounds projecting from the speakers. I don't know why all the lyrics were not printed. Scenes without lyrics slow (ironic eh?, given the many references to the speed of the music) the flow of the movie. Also insightful were the interviews with fans and bands, though there is a letdown when the latter band's interviews prove to be not nearly as enthralling or humorous as the first two. Overall, a good movie that I'm glad I saw. I'll check out the follow-ups if I ever get a chance.

Favorite quote: He tried to hide the fact that he couldn't play by rubbing peanut butter over himself and breaking glass.

Broad punk generalization: Though their disgracefulness, lack of vocabulary and hygiene, and drug-induced obliviousness is often hilarious, in the end it is understood that punks are just pathetic juveniles who rebel just for the sake of rebellion as seen through sophomoric lyrics and naive attempts to philosophize and politicize (disregarding Black Flag, who are slightly less misguided than their peers).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm astonished how a filmmaker notorious for his political left-wing fervor could make such a subtle, non-sanctimonious picture. If you're for capital punishment, you'll still be for it after seeing this. If you're against capital punishment, you'll still be against it. But whatever your stance is, this movie will, at the very least, make you reflect on why you feel the way you do. There's not one false note in the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tim Robbins did a masterful job directing this film. I say this because he avoided convention and clich\u00e9. He also oversaw superb performances from Susan Sarandon (who won an Oscar for her role) and Sean Penn. Even more amazing, Robbins doesn't patronize. He just tells the story and lets the events play on the viewer's mind. This is so effective because it allows the viewer to form his own opinions on the death penalty, one of the most controversial subjects of our time, without being unfairly manipulated in either direction. I can't recommend this film enough, 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'It's easy to kill a monster, but it's hard to kill a human being.'

Set in St. Thomas Housing Project and Angola Prison in New Orleans, \"Dead Man Walking\" is the true story of Helen Prejean (Susan Sarandon), a Louisiana nun Sister who befriended Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn), a murderer and a rapist bound for a lethal injection machine for killing a teenage couple\u0085 Sister Helen agrees to help the convict and to remain with him till the end\u0097an act never before attempted by a woman\u0085

At their first meeting, Poncelet swears to the nun that his accomplice was the one who shot both of the kids and pleads her help for a new trial in order to convince the pardon board hearing to spare his life\u0085

The film challenges the audience to actually give some thought to the human consequences of the death penalty, but gives voice to angry bereaved parents whose kids were shot, stabbed, raped, and left in the woods to die alone\u0085

As Poncelet's execution looms closer and closer, his character is seen deceptively complex, harboring doubts about the rightness of what they were doing to him\u0085 In one moment, we hear him sensitive asking for a lie detector test to let his mother know that he is innocent, in another we see him furious playing the victim, blaming the government, drugs, blacks, the kids for being there\u0085 Poncelet never understood that he has robbed the Percys and the Delacroixs so much, giving them nothing but sorrow\u0085 They are never going to see their children again, never going to hold them, to love them, to laugh with them\u0085

In the scenes leading up to his execution, the death-row inmate drops his terrible facade and reveals his identity\u0085 Luckily both Sarandon and Penn are here exceptional\u0097carrying out successfully an exquisite, tangible harmony of souls\u0085 When Sarandon was looking at Penn, she was projecting compassionate eyes brimming with tears\u0085 She asks him to visualize her as he dies\u0097 ''I want the last thing you see in this world to be the face of love''\u0097in that moment, we truly believed that she'll be the face of love for him\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In a world in which debatable and misunderstood subjects can be listed endlessly, this powerful 1995 film takes on one at the top of that list; moreover, it does it objectively and realistically, and with a sensibility and sensitivity that makes it a truly great film by anyone's measuring stick. And to add some irony to it all, even the subject matter of this film has been widely misunderstood, as it is wrongly perceived that this is a film about the pros and cons of the death penalty; it is not. At the heart of `Dead Man Walking,' directed by Tim Robbins, is a subject that in reality is possibly the most misunderstood of all, and with good reason, because it just may be the hardest thing there is for a human being to really-- and truly-- understand. And it is what this film is actually all about: Forgiveness. Real forgiveness; not excusing a heinous crime or the perpetrator thereof-- not saying that what's happened is okay-- but finding the strength to go on, and to do so by choosing life.

\tDirector\/screenwriter Tim Robbins has crafted and delivered a faithful adaptation of the novel by Sister Helen Prejean, in which she discusses her involvement with the death-row inmates to whom over the years she has ministered her faith in God. As chronicled in the film, what for her was to become a lifelong pursuit of not only justice, but human dignity, began with a simple letter from a death-row inmate at the Louisiana State Prison at Angola. Sentenced to death for rape and murder, Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn) was reaching out to anyone who would listen, when his letter ended up in the hands of Sister Prejean (Susan Sarandon), who soon found herself venturing into a territory of which she had absolutely no knowledge or experience. And Robbins has successfully captured Sister Prejean's emotional and turbulent journey succinctly, while managing to keep it devoid of any maudlin sentimentality, which makes it not only real, credible and believable, but makes it a poignant and thoroughly emotionally involving experience for the audience. Through the medium of the cinema, what was once a personal, significant emotional experience for Sister Prejean, becomes one for everyone who sees this film, as well.

\tFor her soul-stirring, impassioned portrayal of Sister Prejean, Susan Sarandon deservedly won the Oscar for Best Actress. Sensitive and fraught with emotional depth, her performance is incredibly touching and real, especially in the way in which she conveys Sister Prejean's underlying natural fragility and vulnerability, which she adamantly tempered with the toughness she needed to carry on with her endeavors on behalf of Poncelet (and in reality, a total of five since she began). Whatever your point of view regarding the matters examined in this film, Sister Prejean is without question an individual of heroic proportions, which Sarandon exquisitely personifies here; and she does it without resorting to any superfluous melodramatics, but rather by keeping it real, by subtly and humbly exploring the humanity of the person in a very believable expression of characterization. It's an extraordinary performance, arguably the best of Sarandon's brilliant career.

\tTurning in a career-best performance, as well, is Sean Penn, who was nominated for Best Actor for his portrayal of Poncelet (he lost out to Nicolas Cage, who won for his performance in `Leaving Las Vegas). Perfect for the part in every way, Penn has quite simply never been better, before or since. He effectively presents Poncelet as a real person, rather than as an overblown caricature of a monster capable of perpetrating the crimes depicted here. Not that it makes Poncelet any less despicable; just the opposite, in fact. It makes it genuinely disconcerting to be faced with the fact that someone who looks like a guy who could live next door to you could be capable of such things. And that's the strength of Penn's performance-- it's so disturbingly real, presented with depth and nuance; you have but to look into his eyes to find the imperfections of a troubled soul. A terrific performance, and -- as good as Cage was in `Vegas'-- Penn should have received the Oscar for it.

\tIn another stand-out performance, Raymond J. Barry is memorable in a supporting role as Earl Delacroix, father of one of Poncelet's victims. With limited screen time, he nevertheless develops his character in such a way that enables you to empathize with him, as well as with Sister Prejean, as it is through him that we are given some insight into just how complex and seemingly tenuous her position is, at least on the surface. Barry presents Delacroix in such a way that gives the necessary balance and perspective to the story, which is ultimately extremely effective and helps to underscore the message of the film.

\tThe supporting cast includes R. Lee Emery (Clyde Percy), Celia Weston (Mary Beth Percy), Lois Smith (Helen's Mother), Scott Wilson (Chaplin Farley), Roberta Maxwell (Lucille Poncelet), Margo Martindale (Sister Colleen) and Jack Black (Craig Poncelet). It is doubtful that this film will change anyone's mind one way or another about the death penalty, but that was never the intention; what was intended, was to make a thought-provoking, emotionally involving film, which is exactly what Robbins has accomplished with `Dead Man Walking.' Regardless of your personal point of view, this film will have an impact, and hopefully will open some minds to the true nature of forgiveness. For, as we see through the character of Earl Delacroix, true forgiveness is not something one merely decides to do, but is a task that can become a lifetime's work. And it's possibly one of the hardest things in life to effectively accomplish; and you come away from this film with an appreciation for individuals like Sister Prejean, who has selflessly dedicated her life to helping those in need, and to filmmakers like Robbins and Sarandon for bringing her to life for millions of people who otherwise would never have known her. I rate this one 10\/10.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Dead Man Walking\" is a piece of incredible filmmaking. All the acting is top-notch and realistic, and the script examines the issue of the death penalty from both sides, paying equal homage to both. Above all, this is a deeply moving story of redemption, of death with dignity and loss of ego. Any film that deals this courageously and maturely with such incredibly difficult subject matter deserves a rating of 10\/10. Thank you, Tim Robbins!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Dead Man Walking\" is one of the most powerful movies I have ever seen. I find it hard to believe that anyone, after having seen the movie, could feel indifferent about the film or its message. Tim Robbins does not try to impose his ideas and beliefs on the viewers, but manages to make a film that are in most ways sympathetic to both views on the death penalty -- whether it is right to murder a murderer or not. I have always known where I stand in this question, even as a child, and this movie -- despite the fact that it does not really take any sides -- made me even surer in my conviction that it can never be right to murder *anyone*.

Sean Penn is absolutely brilliant in his portrayal of Matthew Poncelet, his nomination for an Academy Award was very well-deserved. Even if Nicolas Cage does a great job in \"Leaving Las Vegas\", I would have been happier if Penn had won the award. Susan Sarandon is also brilliant and she deserved the Academy Award she won. And Tim Robbins certainly deserves the vote I have given this film: 9\/10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"it was very sensitive very deep. It's my favorite all the time you can't see movie more deeper than this incredible movie. susan sarandon made her role as matured mind actress, and she realized her role. She deserved the award. She convinced me with for being a nun. The music was very impressive and sensitive. Really i liked this deep masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How do you know if a movie is good or not? It is the impact it has on you that makes the difference. \"Dead Man Walking\" upset me a great deal. I watched it twice. I don't know if I will be strong enough to watch it again. No, I did not feel good at all after watching it, but the film was as successful as it can be.

Robbins did a great job in incorporating all aspects of this controversial topic. He avoided making an argument that could easily be seen as biased or subjective. I hope that many people get to see \"Dead Man Walking\". I believe that anyone who supports or opposes the death penalty so enthusiastically should see the movie.

I don't know what else it could take to finally convince everyone that this relic from ancient times does not have a place in modern society anymore.

The movie itself does not make an argument for or against death penalty. It describes reality. The reality is the best argument against the death penalty.

A 10\/10 for great performances, good filmmaking, and for the most important film made in years

Thank you, Tim Robbins!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must have seen this movie about four or five times already, and it gets better with each viewing. Suffice it to say: This is the best film I've ever seen. And I think I've seen a lot.

But I've always wondered why this film got so shunned in some reviews or ratings. For example, take the IMDb Top 250. Why does it rank only at #216 (as of today)? Surely, the answer's not in the film itself (because that is nothing but flawless), but in its reception. The film caused controversy in its portrayal of compassion for a convicted murderer and its anti-death penalty attitude. And so, obviously, the more conservative-minded user probably didn't like the film (as you can see from some of the other comments). So DEAD MAN WALKING gets a ranking that's nothing but ridiculous in relation to its quality. Those people didn't understand what the film wanted to say, and maybe they didn't WANT to understand, being pro death penalty. So now I get it: It's all political. You're pro death penalty- you don't like (and therefore don't want to hear) what the film has to say.

I'm truly sorry there are still so many people out there who simply tune out when a new perspective questions their beliefs.

Mr. Robbins, your movie's issue split people's opinions. Some reconsidered their point-of-view, some simply didn't listen, but you made a very important point. Your movie will probably never show up on any \"TOP 100 MOVIES OF ALL TIME\"-list, but it'll be remembered, long after films like Braveheart or Babe or Apollo 13 (all of which were unjustly preferred over your film at the Oscars 1996) are forgotten. Congratulations, Mr. Robbins, and thank you for this important piece of filmmaking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best ever. Direction, fotography, a thrilling and dramatic history, wonderful soundtrack and, most of all, the incredible credibility of Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn, the best and most underestimated \"under-40 generation\" actor. After seeing this movie i guess if there's anyone who couldn't have any doubt about giving death to another man, in spite of the ugly things he could have done?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really enjoyed this movie. It challenged my emotions and beliefs, making it a true piece of artwork in my book. The acting was unsurpassed. I would never watch this movie with anyone I could not cry around, I don't think I cry harder to any movies, maybe because it makes me look at myself, I dunno. It is a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I read the book before seeing the movie, and the film is one of the best adaptations out there. Very true and faithful to the book. Sean Penn and Sarandon are amazing. Robbins is a talented filmaker and I wish he would add more to his repetoire. He made the film very haunting and intentionally slow-paced to add depth. An especially brilliant bit of filmaking was the reflection of the victims appearing in the glass of the execution room at the very end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The greatest effort plus the finest cast ever assembled in a movie by The Director Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon And Sean Penn on the front row. Someone said that this movie is good because directed and written by Tim Robbins but i convince you that Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon had give me a truly superb performance that i cried my heart out. Their acting is so real! No doubt about it that this movie is rated 4 and 3\/4 out of 5!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a story of a Catholic nun as an advisor of convicted killer on death row. The movie describes what she does as a nun, who does not have any productive role. She might have had doubt in her actual role. But eventually she does the role only a nun could do, who has nothing but faith in Christ. In America, there are so many movies that describe condemned criminals or jails. Those scenes, especially execution, are too much different from Japan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Susan Sarandon is, for lack of a better word, incredible. In my opinion (and yes I do understand that not everyone will agree with me here), she is one of the greatest actresses EVER and should have at least 2 oscars to her credit. I mean, that was an AMAZING performance in Lorenzo's Oil (but then I think every performance of hers is amazing) and they gave it to Emma Thompson...what was that about??? And by the time she got this oscar, she'd been in the industry for some 25 years. I couldn't think of anyone who deserved it more, especially for a performance as brilliant as her portrayal of Sister Helen Prejean. But then again, she is over and above all the artificiality of Hollywood and doesn't need an oscar - people know she's good anyway.

This film carries some very deep, thought-provocing messages, so needless to say it is not to be taken lightly. Tim Robbins, of course, can't escape credit here. You would think that, because of his person feelings against the death penalty, the portrayals made in this movie wouldn't be accurate. However, both sides of the death-penalty debate are given even weight. On one side, you see the interesting side of Matthew, the human side which makes witnessing his death rather heart-wrenching. At the same time, you see the way he savaged his victims and the constant torment of the understandably grief-stricken parents. One word for Tim - BRAVO.

A brilliant movie and, like I said, a well-deserved and long awaited oscar for Susan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Dead Man Walking\" is a film not about the death penalty, but about the people involved in a death penalty case -- the killer, the families whose kids were killed, the nun who becomes his spiritual advisor, and what happens. It tells the story with little fanfare but a lot of compassion and sensitivity. I have it on DVD, and every time I watch it (not often, it's never an easy film to watch) I'm more impressed by what Tim Robbins and the entire cast did here. So revealing that it could be a documentary, so compelling you can't take your eyes away, so subtle and yet so powerful... \"Dead Man Walking\" is nothing short of a masterpiece. It doesn't matter whether you're for or against the death penalty (or even have no opinion), this movie will have you thinking about the issues for sure. It takes a courageous screenwriter and director to look this material in the face without flinching even once, and everyone involved in the film pulls it off -- there isn't a single scene that rings false. A masterful film, but don't expect light viewing... to some, the final scenes could be more graphic than anything imaginable, even though no blood or violence is shown. You get drawn into this film and become a participant, and there's a character for just about everyone to identify with. 10\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the most human and humane of movies that I have seen in a long time. The ironies abound, Susan Sarandon as a nun, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon in a movie that doesn't preach but neither does it condemn. It is cinema verite at it's best, and yet the story is fictionalized from several real events.

Which of the two is more amazing, Sarandon or Penn? It is easy to say who is more likeable, but it is hard to say who is more convincing. they are simply magnificent.

You may think that all killers should be killed or you may argue that life without parole is no life and that death is more merciful. whatever your personal feeling, this movie gives you a chance to pause and reconsider.

At the end one simply wants to sit in silence and reflect. That is what great drama does, it gives catharsis, it creates a moment in time, a shared memory that touches our humanity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Tim Robbins makes a wonderful film. His wife (susan sarandon) gives a wonderful performance as the sister Helen Perjean who wants to help Mattew Poncelet (Sean Penn) who is accussed of murder and who also will die of an injection... 120 minutes of splended acting and touching scenes is what you get. Great acting and it is a film that gives something to think about!

Susan Sarandon deserves the oscar of 1995 best actress. It is probably one of her greatest films ever.

I didn't see 'The Craddle will Rock\" but I sure have to see more films of Robbins.

Rating: 9 \/ 10 or ***1\/2 out of 4. Go and see.....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is about a very delicate argument and if you are searching for something that makes you think here you are right. Tim Robbins has made a wonderful job and the result is a kind of docu-drama that should be shown in schools (for the strong themes treated). What about the actors? Well, they are simply great; Susan Sarandon is truly 'the face of love' and Sean Penn is unbelievable as almost always. An absolutely must-see!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was the most thought-provoking capital-punishment movie ever! It refused to seem one-sided and the emotions felt throughout the story are as real as it can get. This movie had one of the most 'human' (And I use this term in a good way) compassionate religious character ever! This movie actually caused me to go out to find and read the book (Which is rare for me). Sister Helen exerted more of a spiritual tone than a religious(Which is also rare). And it presented both sides to the issue so that people on both sides who watched the movie wouldn't feel that a point was left out. And we have the director to thank for that. This is not a film for entertainment. But it is film that delivers a message that can reach to the core of your heart. I can't think of another film like it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you think about it, it's nearly unbelievable that a film could be made about the death penalty (one of the world's most controversial topics) that offends neither those for nor against. It's a testament to Tim Robbins' extraordinary intelligence and sensitivity, traits that can be seen in his acting roles as well (Shawshank Redemption, Jacob's Ladder).

This film in fact hints at a subtle compromise between the \"for\" and \"against\" camps... so subtle that it can't be put into words, subtle to the point of vanishing, yet one gets the sense after watching the picture that a compromise is possible, that somehow it can be worked out if only we look deeply enough...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Having read most of the comments I feel like I have a word to say as well.

What bothers me most is that most people here are think that this movie is either pro or con to the subject of death penalty and whether it worked with them. I remember having read an article back in 1995 when the film was published (yes, it has interested me so much ever since I heard that it would come out that I have not forgotten about the articles I read back then) in which Tim Robbins said that he did not want to make a movie to convince audiences of neither one nor the other.

And I think that is completely right. I have to admit that I believe that in the way he made this film he did tend a little bit to the anti-death-penalty-side, but nevertheless people are still allowed to make their own choice. And this is a very rare thing in American films.

I have shown this movie to many people since it came out and I have seen all kinds of reactions. Death-penalty-supporters became opponents or became even stronger in their belief. And many death-penalty-opponents (including me) grew stronger in their belief that death penalty should be abolished everywhere in the world. But I have even seen opponents turn into supporters. This and the fact that people here seem to fight about it shows to me that there are really many ways of looking at it. So whatever effect it has on you, the important thing is that it makes you THINK.

This is one of the few movies that really gives you the choice, that does not shy away with a simple path by making the convicted either bad or innocent. This may be a tough thing for people who prefer being entertained or tought a lesson. There is no lesson here you need to find one yourself.

Everyone praises the acting, directing and the music but since this has been said so many times the I will not repeat it all again.

So if you have not seen this yet, do so - if you dare to be challenged!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Finally a gangster Movie worth watching!

Jennifer Tily should get nominated for her role as tough murdering femme fatal!

This Movie flies like a bird , just a fast paced non stop Gangster Mayhem!

Jennifer Tily is just so beautiful and bad in this Movie.

I was shocked to find Faye Dunaway still lives! The cast in this movie are so fitted to their roles.

A real cool soundtrack rides along side and you get swept into the Spanish soul of this film.

The story is original deep and poetic.

This Flick has a lot of Substance and never rests.

The gang of Spanish Fire just set everything on screen alight.

Damian Chapa Is a Joy to watch and a Movie Star.

Sit back and enjoy the ride.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was lucky enough to see a test screening of 'El Padrino' a couple months ago in Santa Monica. I was blown away. You don't see films like this anymore. In the vein of Scosese, Chapa deftly tells the tragic story of Kilo as he maneuvers the tough streets of LA to rise above the ranks to become a drug lord of Escobarian proportions. The characters are complex and conflicted. The emotions are real. The action is fast and furious. The stunts are expansive. And Tilly is HOT. She hasn't looked this good since her 'Bound' days. I'd recommend this to anyone. It's a fantastic homage to the epic action films of the late 80s and early 90s. And to all the naysayers out there\u0085 watch it again; you obviously had your eyes closed the first time. Congrats to all involved in the film. I'm counting the days until the sequel is released. Anyone have a date on that?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was simply amazing.The writing was incredible as well as the directing and acting.The story instantly gets you interested.This movie is one of those movies that has your heart pounding the whole time.As always Damian Chapa is brilliant,his on screen acting is as powerful as any Hollywood actor.The cast in this film is perfect.Each character made the story more complete.The cinematography was captivating and it uplifted the movie.I was totally stuck to the screen and couldn't stop watching it,there was no getting up for popcorn or anything.This movie is one of the best all year,maybe even the best.Definitely rent this movie,I recommend it this movie if u want to see great filmaking or just for pure entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Film was one that I have waited to see for some time. I was glad to find it has been everything anticipated. The writing of this film has been so finely crafted and researched far beyond what is seen by the audience. I found it amusing that so many people watching will not read between some very important lines but indeed if not the movie will make sense in a different way and is very brilliant. The film has many stories and characters woven together around this one Character Kilo , a Man whom has rose from the streets amidst many woes and become a very powerful criminal. After spending some time in Prison Kilo finds a loophole in the justice system and through a disturbing turn of events is released only to find everything is not at all what it seems. Kilo Finds himself going up against the higher realm of society and Political royalty in order to make clear how important a Man's Word is and stands for. A war begins as the street is in arms against Lords of wealth and corrupt Power.

A build up to explosive and powerful non stop twists and turns. This film will leave you riveted. I found the cast of this movie to be outstanding and is not a Movie to be ignored. Excellent. Go Rent It Today!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i am finally seeing the El Padrino movie, from what I can see it is an incredible film, and lots of action Damian Chapa is good director, But I must admit I love his acting the Best.

Also I saw the behind the scenes it was edited by some lady named kinga, she needs to go back to school and learn how to edit.

However the film El Padrino is a pure 10 action epic. Why cant most people who direct put together films that keep you wondering what the plot is? I am so happy to see someone I know to be a real great actor become a great director also.

I am one of those people who love to see artists make it.

B.S.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just want To say that this movie was excellent .

I loved it from the beginning until the end.

The acting was great .The director did an amazing job and I would like to see it again.

Jennifer Tilly did a very good performance , The guy that interpreted his father (Manny) was another great actor BUT I CAN NOT RECALL HIS NAME .

I can't wait for El Padrino II.

Damian Chapa looks so good and I think he is one of the most talented actors out there. There is pleanty of Latin actors that do a great job like it is shown in this film!

Rent It!!! Rent it !!! Rent it !!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was a modern day scarface.It had me on my toes.This movie is one of those rare epic films that makes you want a sequel.I especially liked Damian Chapa his performance deserved an academy award,which he deserved for his performance in blood in blood out.The only thing I didn't like was the behind the scenes because it didn't show the intensity that the movie had,and i would have like to have seen less narrated scenes.But the movie was great and it is in my top ten movies of all time.Plus the acting was great there wasn't a bad scene in the movie,I loved it ,Jennifer Tilly was perfect as well as all of the cast.I can't see how anyone wouldn't like this movie it was a great.Definitely a must see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love Movies that take you into them. A movie that actually leaves you feeling weak when its over and this kind of movie is rare.

Damian is so talented and versatile in so many ways of writing and portraying different Characters on screen. This movie has a cutting edge to it. A main stream cast for such a low budget. Why is it that a Man with this much talent and Charisma , ( not to Mention sex appeal in ways beyond most other actors ) can do this with so little money to work with????? These Actors really believe in his script and Raw talent as a Director, writer and Actor. I am so pleased to know such a modern day genius is out there , letting is passion for Art drive him and taking us as an audience with him. Damian I have heard of you through so many different circles and do not let the Jealous people of this world get to you. Martin gets this , Fellini got it and you will always get it. The fire and passion in you is what we love to watch on Screen. Thankyou for being different and having the guts to write like you do. You are a one of a kind Director, do not listen to the empty vessels.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a picture perfect action\/drama\/and thriller, every scene has you sucked in.I watched this movie and was amazed by how many talented actors were in the movie.Damian Chapa especially was great,he played his role perfectly.The story was made for these actors.The characters make the movie so realistic. This movie very simply gets an A plus from me.Definitely watch this film,it compares with scarface ,but has a more in depth story.This movie not only gives you a good picture of the gangster life,but it also gives you the characters emotions,and at the end you really feel for the main character.Watch this film!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw the film and am very pleased to see a film so different in character and story to the stupid,mainstream American major productions. Its a film with a background interesting for young as much as all age- groups. Contrary to certain reviews the audience seems to split my evaluation as the film is very successful wherever yet exploited worldwide. For example in Netherlands is was ranked number 3 . Negative statements must be respected but one should expect such to be guided on a fact basis. If you have the chance view the film and enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I absolutely recommend this movie to anyone who wants to be entertained.The directing,acting,and the story is brilliant.Definitely up there with films like scarface and the godfather.This movie makes your heart race.Damian Chapa as well as all of the cast was amazing.I would definitely rent this movie.Damian Chapa deserves an academy award for his acting,and for the way he portrayed the life of a gangster.This movie is a soon to be classic,and an all around brilliant piece of film-making.I loved it and I give it 10 stars.In a sentence the only way to describe it is a film without any flaws.Watch this movie and you'll see what i mean. 2 thumbs up!!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"We just finished screening El Padrino in Australia. A phenomenal piece of film work. We look forward to seeing many more films from Mr. Chapa in the future. It was wonderful to see such a well put together film with such suspense and a story that shall remain an instant classic. Seeing a film with great quality truly outlines Chapa's serious potential and his adept skill as a writer, actor, director, and filmmaker. Chapa has impressed many with his triumphant performance in \"blood in and blood out\" and now he has proved to all who have see his works his potential to become a critically acclaimed film maker with genuine artistic control. With his lead role Kilo Vasquez being a perfect combination between Milo Velka from \"Blood in Blood Out\" and Al Pacino from \"Scarface\" the film will do wonders for us here in Australia.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just finished screening El Padrino in Germany. A great film. We look forward to seeing more films from Mr. Chapa in the future. It was wonderful to see such a well put together film with such suspense and a story that shall remain an instant classic. The ending with little ambiguity leaves the story open for a sequel. Seeing a film with great quality truly outlines Chapa's serious potential and his adept skill as a writer, actor, director, and filmmaker. Chapa has impressed many with his triumphant performance in \"blood in and blood out\" and now he has proved to all who have see his works his potential to become a critically acclaimed film maker with genuine artistic control. Something that few film makers can afford.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen this film more then once. Actually El Padrino was one of the best feature films that I have seen in a great deal of time.

There was a big cast Jennifer Tilly, Faye Duanway, Brad Dourif, and Damian Chapa who really shined like a real star in this part of Kilo.

I heard this film was shot for under two million dollars. I have seen films shot for 33 million that cant compare to the quality and production value.

Damian Chapa why are you not getting offers and more film work!!! EXCELLENT JOB!!!!!!!!!! I cant wait to see the sequel, and I hope it has the same action.

Jennifer Tilly has made a cult classic character with Sabeva.

Damian Chapa moves coolly in every scene much like the movie stars of the 40's and 50's So sick of seeing these non charismatic actors like Ben Stiller getting all of these films when there is talent like this that have something to show. a great film.

GO GO GO KICK SOME BUT IN SALES EL PADRINO!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"El Padrino has just been released in Europe and is really kicking ass. This film with its great cast - Damian Chapa ( Blood in Blood Out ), Robert Wager, Jennifer Tilly, Robert Wagner and many more ) - is the best gangster movie since SCARFACE. A Film that everyone MUST SEE. 2 hours full of action with fantastic unbelievable stunt !!!!

GRACIAS JENNIFER !!!! We are eagerly waiting for part 2 !!!! Does anyone know if there will be one ? Keep up the good work !!! I loved it !!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some martial-arts purists think that comedy was the worst thing that could have happened to the old-school kung-fu flick; and it is true that the introduction of comedy into the genre signaled the end of the \"chop-socky\" period in Hong Kong film. But the fact is, one can only carry-on a primarily physical exhibition of prowess for just so long, then everyone gets bored with it. And that's really why the chop-socky died and how the Hong Kong \"New Wave\" action film was born: the producers, the actors, the directors all just got bored with hitting people for ninety-minutes straight.

Given that, and given the fact that Liu Chia Liang is a professional director with a considerable list of films in his resume, this film has to be seen as something other than just another kung-fu comedy. Rather, it is a comic film within the martial-arts genre, and in fact one of the best ever made.

What Liu has done with this film is really a pleasant surprise: he has taken a martial-arts plot and re-constructed it along the lines of a Hollywood-style musical! Complete with episodes of singing and dancing! It was around the time of the making of this film that some film-makers and film fans began to recognize that the cinematic performance of martial-arts (really derived from the acrobatics of the Chinese opera) has more in common with dance than with fighting. (I will continue to point out this connection until most Americans realize what they are actually supposed to look for when watching a martial arts film - well-choreographed body movements, using the plot of an action film as an excuse for their performance.) At any rate, quite clearly Liu Chia Liang made this connection and decided he would explore it close to its limits.

The result is an incredibly charming entertainment, filled with marvelously human characters attempting miraculous kung-fu (and tripping over their own shoelaces as often as not when they do so). and the film being set at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, allows Liu the opportunity to explore the nature of the Westernization and Modernization of China that contributed so greatly to the making of the China we know today. So the film has considerable historical import as well.

Also, fans of Stephen Chow's recent Kung Fu Hustle should really watch this movie carefully, as Chow clearly learned from it before the making of his own film.

A very amusing, well-made film. Oh, yes, and the kung fu in it is really, really good.

Purists won't admit it, but this is probably director Liu's best film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the great modern kung fu films. A lot of the reviews seem to miss the point that the comedy is based on a quite subtle at times (at other times right in your face) contrast between old and new China. Kara Hui for instance is called a country bumpkin and gets into trouble whenever she tries to adapt to the new but in the end to save her families honour dresses as an old fashioned heroine in contrast to the modern military style of Hsiao Ho. Gordon Liu seems to have played his part for laughs playing off his serious, monk persona with silly wigs and a guitar. The end fight is simply fantastic and ends in a defeat for Johnny Wang rather than death. Kwan Yung Moon should be mentioned for his great playing of a thug with 'invincible armour' - simply terrific. And Kara Hui does some magnificent acting and fighting. A great film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're looking for a kung-fu action movie, look elsewhere. While there are fighting scenes, the film revolves around its provincial protagonist, who struggles to find her way in Americanized Canton. Unlike most \"kung-fu comedies,\" the action scenes are used to reinforce the comedy, instead of the other way around.

Cheung Booi is a statement about the farcical nature of kung-fu movies, where the stars always seem to find some reason to fight. Instead of some grand drama about honor and respect, minor misunderstandings cause the characters to yell at each other and start beating each other up.

My Young Auntie, as it's known in the West, is the story of Cheng Tai-nun, played by Kara Hui, who is a young woman who marries an elderly landowner to keep his holdings from falling into the hands of his greedy and corrupt brother. After he dies, she moves to Canton to live with her nephew, played by director Lau Kar Leung, and his son Ah Tao, played by Hsiao Ho.

The basis of the irony is that although Cheng is the same age as Ah Tao, her manner is more akin to her status as his step-great-aunt. While Ah Tao speaks English (extremely poorly), plays the guitar and goes to costume parties, Cheng utterly fails when she tries to adapt to her lifestyle in Canton, complete with makeup, revealing gowns, high heels and dance scenes.

What makes this movie great is its realization. Lau Kar Leung is perhaps one of the greatest, if not the greatest director of his generation in Hong Kong, and Kara Hui won \"Best Actress\" at the first Hong Kong Film Awards in 1982. Also, this is arguably Hsiao Ho's finest performance. His chemistry with Hui is remarkable, and although he went on to have a storied career in kung-fu comedies, often working alongside Sammo Hung, he has the perfect combination of athleticism and comedy. As the romantic tension and intrigue build in the second half of the movie, his entire countenance changes. No longer does he easily jaunt through life without a care in the world. He becomes the straight man and his cohorts the Kramer, Elaine and George.

My one complaint is how suddenly the comedic aspects of the film die off during the conclusion. The film transitions from outright farce to dramatic intrigue with little but a change in incidental music. But there is a certain symmetry in it. The film begins focused on the intrigue, focused more on Lau Kar Leung's character, and it ends that way, too. But the final scene returns to the movie's comedic roots, giving conclusion to both aspects of the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My Young Auntie is unique in a lot of ways. First this is Hui Ya-Hung's (Kara Hui) first action film. Second She was actually doing the fight scenes after having a surgery done to her a few days before filming. Third this movie is off the chain.

The movie starts out with Wang Lung Wei trying to take the inheritance from his brother. His brother then has Kara to marry him so Wang can't take the treasure. The story is pretty good leading everything to it's rightful place.

In comes the action, what can I say that hasn't already been said for movies like this, or Disciples of the 36th Chambers, The Victim, or even the Magnificent Butcher. The fight scenes are what sales movie, and this one won't have any problem doing so. Liu Chia Liang and Wang Lung Wei engaged in a fight that you have to see to believe. Why have these two men not fought each other more is beyond me.

I don't want to spoil anything really, but you have to see My Young Auntie to get the full blast of excitement. My only gripe is that Yuen Tak was not used as broad as he was used in 3 Evil Masters, or even Invincible Pole Fighter (8 Diagram Pole Fighter) to excellent must see movies. 9.2\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a fine example of why the Shaw Brothers are among the finest directors (probably the best in the Kung Fu category). The movie is well paced, the story is excellent and intriguing, and while the humor may not be in your face, it is nested within the character interactions. Once the story builds up, and the characters begin to assess the situation does the whole tower come crashing down in one of the best fight scenes (tiger, crane and crab Hung Gar are very present). There is even a scene that mocks 18th century Western social events, and ends with clever and entertaining fighting. The movie ends with a sudden, cheesy moment, but if you are a fan of the Shaw Brothers, you'll understand that the cheese is just a topping, and not the main course of the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Critters 4 ranks as one of the greatest films of the twentieth century. The word classic has never been so aptly used as in describing this mind-blowing epic. I agree that the original Critters is the best of the series, but the claustrophobic tension of the space station in which Critters 4 is set really must be seen to be believed. I strongly recommend this to anyone interested in seeing one of twentieth century's major film landmarks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie would had worked much better if this was the first Critters movie, this is a low-budget movie with only two (2) Critters shown on-screen. Why this looks like a fail is because this is the last Critters movie and it's so low-budget that it seems the director made the whole movie with his own pocket money. However, I did like this movie, I compare it mostly with the third movie (which were bad). Critters 4 have a more serious tone in it, the first half of the movie (even without seeing one Critter yet) you have a scary feeling watching it, too bad they didn't \"milk\" out the Critters, I mean even if they only had two (2) puppets they could still have used them on-screen a lot more. The Critters also have different deaths in this movie which made this a little special, especially at the end with the frozen Critter. Ug has a promotion in this part and is different in this movie which took me by surprise. Lastly I liked this one because it also has some kind of conclusion to the series, so at least we won't see a Critters 5 anymore. Oh, one last thing, I missed one scene in this movie, we never see a Critter shoot a spike from its back, maybe these puppets didn't have that feature, but I was very disappointed not seeing that (in Critters 3 we see a lot of spike shooting, which was the only good thing I liked about that movie).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Critters 4: This movie was continued after the 3rd critters movies. This one was released in the same years as critters 3 was released in 1991. Critters 4 takes you in space as they hunt for the humans in a space ship. I doubt if there will be a Critters 5 because the ending for the 4th was quite a good ending, which brought the end to the critters as there was no more left. I give this movie 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Critters 4 is a good movie. A bit of a twist to the series, as it takes place in space, not in an earthly community. Good Effects and Acting make this movie a must see. I would recommend this to Horror\/Science Fiction fans everywhere.

10 out of 10

Fans of Horror Movies like this should Check out Puppet Master, Skinned Alive, Sleep Away Camp, Slumber Party Massacre, and other Full Moon Pictures flicks. For other recommendations, check out the other comments I have sent in by clicking on my name above this comment section.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just do not see what is so bad about this movie. I loved this movie! I thought this movie was the best film in the series. Though part 3 is the best in the series,I still gave this film 10 out of 10 because it is great. I don't see what everyone hates this movie. Who would not want to see just a little bit of critter action. I wished that Brad Brown would of appeared in this one because it might of made it a little better. Those who like a little bit of drama because...wait I won't tell you,you will just have to watch it. This film also contains a few popular actors who are...(I won't tell you because I hate it when people give spoilers so I do not want to be one of those people). Well I guess that is all I have to say about this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What's there not to like?

I caught this again tonight and marvelled as to Hugh Bonneville's capturing of the essence of Philip Larkin without resorting to tics and caricature.

There are many layers to the depiction of the complexity of the main character and Hugh brings them to life. His prudish mother, his unresolved issues with his father and his inability to commit to one woman.

His poetry is interlaced throughout and some scenes are caught in his recounting of them to the wife of a friend whom he later propositions but quite casually, almost innocently. It is not difficult to see where his attraction lay for the many women who fell in love with him (and knew about each other, to boot, and continued to see him!)

Cerebral, fun-loving, jazz aficionado, loyal friend. It is always more than looks, women moved beyond his baldness, deafness and short sightedness. And a beautifully nuanced performance by Eileen Atkins as his mum is an added bonus.

9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am a big fan of Larkin's works, I believe that he was amid the greatest 20th century poets. The film itself does a great justice to the bard of Hull. Wonderfully portrayed by all the players in their roles. Bonneville does do a service to the sexually repressed Larkin, he avoids an impression and strays from becoming a caricature. The use of his poetry was the highlight of the piece itself. Rather than acting out the massive intensity with which Larkin felt, the use of his words themselves give a better insight into plot and add a much more sombre but altogether more fascinating atmosphere. Most enjoyable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Brought Philip Larkin to life in a way that is worthy of the greatest performances of all time, and not just the ones that are measured by popularity. It shows a stark portrayal of Larkins life as the greatest unrecognized poet of his era - which is exactly how he would have wanted it, such was his disdain for cankers and medallions. It dramatically exposes the raw beauty in the intense sadness of Philips observations of our relationship with our own mortality, and lays it our in a way that seems to have missed even the great philosophers. for anyone interested in profound observations of our relationship with life, love and death this is a must.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ONE NIGHT AT McCOOL'S \/ (2001) *** (out of four)

By Blake French:

\tAccording to Harald Zwart, the director of \"One Night at McCool's,\" this film is \"a dark comedy about the power of women over men, and how a group of people can all perceive different realities. It's the same story told from three different points of view, and each time we tell the story, we try to reveal a little bit more about what actually happened, which nobody really knows.\"

\t\"One Night at McCool's\" marks the feature film directorial debut of Zwart, an award winning commercial and music video director who began making short films when he was eight years old. I always get nervous when a director of commercials and music videos turns to filmmaking. We have seen so many examples of how these guys think they are making another advertisement or music video for TV with their productions. Zwart resists that tendency. He captures a specific humorous truth in \"One Night at McCool's,\" from an inventive, complex screenplay by the late Stan Seidel, even if it is often somewhat perplexing.

\t\"One Night At McCool's\" features three men who share their separate experiences about a particularly beautiful young woman. In some ways, this movie is the comedy version of \"American Beauty,\" but in others, it is a world apart.

\t\"It all started one night at McCool's\" explains each of the three men to their various listeners. There is Randy (Matt Dillon), a tender at the local bar, and his cousin, a lawyer named Carl (Paul Reiser), who stays until the place closes. Detective Dehling (John Goodman), arrives when the saloon becomes the crime scene of the dead boyfriend of a female fatal appropriately named Jewel (Liv Tyler). Randy is the first to see her, as an individual treats her unkindly. He stands up for her, and before you can say SEXY, they are having vigorous sex and she moves in with him. At first, Randy is reluctant: \"The sex and the violence, all in one night \u0096 it's a little much.\" But who could turn a jewel like Jewel away.

\tJewel changes the lives of each of the three men. For Detective Dehling, she pulls him out of a hole of grief since his wife died. For Carl, she makes him forget his loving family and nice little suburban household. For Randy, she lights a few fires, both positive and negative, the later persuading him to contact a bingo playing hit man named Burmeister (Michael Douglas) to put an end to her deceptive ways.

It is interesting how the movie perceives the three different chronicles-even the costuming of Jewel is relative to the man telling the story. Dehling sees Jewel as a beautiful, mesmerizing gift from God. Carl sees Jewel as two sexy legs and lots of cleavage. Randy is unsure what to make of her, an awakening to his otherwise boring, road to nowhere life. The most intriguing element of this movie is Jewel herself, however, deliciously played by the always delightful Liv Tyler (\"Armageddon\"). She is not really interested in the men, but what they can offer her. Her motives are all too simple, not truthfully diabolical or evil; she is simply a young lady who has learned at an early age that she can get what she wants out of life through her beauty.

\tThe film has a lot of fun with its material. From the enthusiastically entertaining cast, to its violently hilarious showdown, \"One Night at McCool's\" takes advantage of most of its humorous ideas. What makes the movie even funnier is how the three men's points of view differ. The actors have a lot of fun with their characters, too. Goodman is curiously whimsical; Reiser fits his kinky, squirmy part quite well; Douglas is sly and mysterious in one of the movie's funniest performances; Dillon gives his character arrogant personality, even though Randy is a lackluster nobody; Liv Tyler is dazzling. She injects Jewel with the perfect amount of boastful charisma and tantalizing wit. She reminds us of Mena Suvari's intimate performance in \"American Beauty.\"

\t\"One Night at McCool's\" is the first film to come from Michael Douglas' new production company, Furthur Films. It is a creative, genuine, and sexy production. Along the way we often become caught up in the twisty structure, but that is a natural response to a movie that intentionally interweaves several angles to a single story. The movie ends on a note that is both black and comedic. This is another one of those comedies in which serious events take place in a humorous way; i.e., the black comedy. Many films of this genre come across as either too black or too lackadaisical. \"One Night at McCool's\" is one of the few that actually work.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One Night at McCool's is a very funny movie that is more intelligent than what it should be. Its form is more sophisticated than what I expected, and its randomness was superb. The thoughts behind the movie (mysogeny, sadism, stupid men) are are infantile. That's what I have to say about this movie is that not only does it hate women, but it loathes men. It doesn't have any sympathy for any of the men, really. It seems that way because of the form, but the ending says it all. Nobody cares.

The form has the first 2\/3 of the movie told in flashback by three characters: Dillon, the stupid bartender; Reiser, the mysogenistic stupid lawyer; and Goodman, the stupid, holier-than-thou cop. The story is therefore always perverted by their own self images and altered realities. Reiser's BBQ fantasy is a great touch. In the end, we never really know the truth, and nothing is what it seems. Dillon was never that innocent, etc.

Actually, the rest of the movie is funny too. From the randomness of the last 5 seconds of the movie to the overly-obviousness of Tyler's manipulations, the movie seems to have an energy all its own. Everything is just out of the blue, and nothing seems to make sense. Do we really care if it does? No.

It is also a very dark comedy, but has a shallow presentation. Think Nurse Betty, or Jawbreaker. Very candy coated outside, dark chewy inside. If you like your movies random, dark, or just purely mean, see this movie. This one will satisfy your urges for the strangeness that is One Night at McCool's.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must admit, I liked this movie, and didnt find it all misogynist. It could be subtitled, three ways of looking at LiV Tyler. Three different men become obsessed with the same woman,and tell their stories to very different characters;One man(John Goodman) tells his story to a priest(the very funny Richard Jenkins).For Goodmans charcter, the Liv Tyler character is an idealized saint, the second coming of his sainted wife,Theresa.For Paul Riesers character(who tellls story to a shrink(a fine, understated performance by the great Reba Mcintire),the Liv Tyler character is simplyan object of (kinky)sexual fantasy.Finally Matt Dillons rather dimwitted charcter tells HIS side of the story to a sleazy hit man, played by Micheal Douglas.All three of these narratives of obsession are told simultaneously,and all are amusing. Finaly the film ends in a bizarrely funny climax, that I wont give away.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a very good black comedy, with a great view on how different people have a different perception of the same situations. The three main characters each met a girl named Jewel, played by Liv Tyler, who is a different male fantasy for each of the three men. Each of the three men go through the same situations, but when they tell of them to other people, their perception of the situation is very different from what the other two say. That is a very good concept, probably not entirely original but it works very well in the movie. The plot is very good, very bizarre and extreme, which makes it a good black comedy. The acting is equally good, not one of the actors seemed out of place or out of their league. The comedy is very black, pitch black in some scenes, and a lot of people will definitely be offended by it, but fans of black comedy will probably enjoy it. Overall, this movie is not for everyone's taste, but most people who like black comedy will probably love it, as it is definitely one of the better black comedies. 7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is never going to be on a list of the top 50 films of all time, but if you're compiling a list of \"fun films\", this isn't a bad place to start. Liv Tyler is amazing, captivating and luscious, and everyone else is dead-on right for their parts. It's a 21st century counterpart to \"Tom Jones\" -- in other words; just good, bawdy fun. I think that this may be Tyler's breakthrough film on her way to major stardom. With no nudity she oozes sex in this film. It's no wonder all the boys give her toys. How could they help but do that for a helpless, innocent such as Liv's Jewel?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Liv Tyler. Liv Tyler. Liv Tyler. Yeah it's hard to keep your mind off this fetching beauty (giving an radiantly picture-perfect performance), as she simply has tongues wagging. 'One Night at McCool's' is a dementedly quirky and raunchy black comedy with old-fashion shades tied in to its familiar, but smartly crafted and chaotic narrative which has three men lusting after the one women and she's milking it to her advantage. When you see Tyler, no wonder why they are infatuated and would do anything\u0085 that's anything to see 'her' happy and living 'her' dreams. Just like Tyler, there's something rather intoxicating about this feature in that we see the likes of Matt Dillon, John Goodman, Paul Reiser (who's great) and especially Michael Douglas (who plays the hired assassin with cool-ease, but a questionable hairdo) really having a good time with their roles. The consuming plot opens up with the main three characters (Dillon, Goodman and Reiser) telling their story of how they came to encounter this divine presence and the eventual affects that she's having on them to lead to an insane climax. There's an unpredictable chain of events (ranging from fruity to sensual), where everything would virtually tie in together with a certain ironic (snowball) twist of fate for the characters (that see them leaving their reserved comfort zone to fulfill this girl). Howard Zwart's direction is colorfully zippy balancing the script's quick-fire gags and frenetically fun, if complicated situations. One of the best under-the-radar comedies in the last decade, which will have you under Tyler's thumb.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movie makes me laugh by even just thinking about it. such a smart comedy! very precise yet easy. the casting can not be any better. all actors are the best choice of their roles and they all play precisely the best, and there is no stupid laughs or shouting through out the whole movie. layers and the progress of story work perfectly together and the rhythm flow smoothly. the greatest of all is when the Village People's YMCA is cued in, it brings out the importance of the Indian's statute which was only briefly brought up previously in the movie, which makes the smartest and funniest climax among many comedies. I give it a ten especially a lot of times comedies are so underrated.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One night, barkeeper Randy (Matt Dillon) rescues Jewel (Liv Tyler) from her jealous boyfriend Utah (Andrew Dice Clay). He takes Jewel to his home. But Utah comes back and wants Randy to open the safe at Mc Cool\u00b4s. Suddenly a shot - Utah\u00b4s dead. Then... ...I\u00b4ll better stop here to tell the plot. That\u00b4s like to explain the story of \"Wild things\". What I found so interesting, was the fact that the plot (written by Stan Seidel, his first and his last work - he died in July last year...) was told from 3 perspectives - the 3 men that fall for Jewel. Everybody of them sees her from different eyes - like John Goodman as the detective, who tenderly falls in love with her because of being remembered of his dead wife...

No wonder that the guys fall for her! Liv Tyler - she\u00b4s a real jewel. She made the big screen shining! She played her role as if she was in a 40\u00b4s noir- thriller. Sweet - but in the same time she was the cool vamp who walks over dead body\u00b4s and uses the men for her needs. And, of course, Michael Douglas. How could I forget him? Mr. Burmeister, the Bingo-playing killer - he was quite cool!

But in the last 10 minutes there was a little bit too much slapstick for my taste - it weakened the atmosphere. That part began when Paul Reiser (as Randys cousin Carl) putted on his leather dress for Jewel. The \"YMCA\"-song didn\u00b4t fit so much here... ... but altogether, \"One night at Mc Cool\u00b4s\" is a pretty COOL film-noir parody!

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Liv Tayler in her sexiest movie!

She incorporates the \"Femme Fatale\" role in an astonishing way, while in the same time she manages to appear a super sexy woman while keeping the \"sweet girl\" stand and not being over-wicked like other similar movies (e.g. \"Femme Fatale\" with Rebecca Romijn)

Until this movie, Lord of the Rings was the only movie i ever saw her (Im hooked on with LotR)

Point: By LoTR I had shaped an opinion that the role of the pure-sweet woman was the only role that Liv Tayler could interpret, but when i saw \"One night at Mc Cool\" I absolutely changed my mind. She is the sexiest woman ever!

Therefore as a film is a mediocre common comedy with a \"confusing\" plot","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very funny movie. Michael Douglas' \"do\" is worth watching this flick for if for no other reason. I'd like to see him do more of these low life roles. He was terrific, as were all the performers.

The film struck me right off as an American Roshomon, only funnier and easier to watch because it was in American and didn't need no stinkin subtitles!

In a funny movie with a laugh every minute or so, two of the best were with John Goodman (not someone I am crazy about) - 1. He is telling the priest about Jewel doing something he liked and says \"I had to wipe the smile off my face.\" The visual shows he is not smiling and clearly is a guy who never smiles, but probably doesn't know it. 2. The scene at the end between Goodman, all suited up for Jewel in his cop uniform, and grappling with the be-leathered Reiser hunched over a table... and the two of them then protesting that they are not gay to another character who happens on the scene - this alone deserved a special Comedy Academy Award.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you don't have anything better to do, then go ahead and rent this movie, it's intelligent, funny it will sure have your attention busy for a while.

I discover it by surfing channels in a boring Sunday, it was on cable, and for the faces I saw, I thought it may worth the try, it made me laugh and for a movie in a Sunday with nothing else on TV, it was OK.

Liv Tyler looks amazing in the movie, even though her acting is not what I expected, it's kind of poor acting and for the rest of the crew, I liked Reba in her role as a Dr. also I found interesting seeing the guy from the sitcom \"What I like about you\" playing an almost gay lawyer.

As for J. Goodman I found it, as always a very good performance, Michael Douglas plays a small role but His characterization was hard for me to identify him..

It's also a good movie to watch with company.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay. Here's the thing. I've read through the comments of other viewers --- some trashing the film and some saying it's the funniest, darkest, blackest comedy ever made. Whiffs of Tarantino, etc. Well, not exactly. But, guess what? It's still an enjoyable and, ultimately, funny film. Not brilliant, not trash. Liv Tyler gives a great performance and you absolutely cannot take your eyes off her. She's a woman with very strong decorating ideas...Matt Dillon, a greatly underrated and under-used actor, is wonderful, as ever. He always manages to stride that delicate line between scruff and soul, and he pulls off the comedy beautifully. Ditto John Goodman (though the religious overtones, probably funny in the script, really don't work). Paul Reiser is very good --- definitely better than he was on TV.

The usually unbearable Michael Douglas is actually great in this role. As for his coif, well, see the film. Between this and \"Wonder Boys,\" you're actually reminded of the fact that Douglas can act. The movie will make you laugh in parts. Okay, not exactly belly-laughing, but definitely in the I'm-amused-I'm-very-amused category. If you're renting this expecting to see another \"Pulp Fiction,\" forget it. But if want something kinda hip and kinda fun, this is a damned good choice.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Each guy Liv Tyler meets loses their head over her, not, of course, without some small encouragement from Liv. Liv is at her beautiful best, with Matt Dillon tops among the paramours. Interesting initial premise, to tell story from perspective of each dupe, degenerates into sitcom-style finale (not unlike Blame It On Rio, with which it has more than a few similarities). Worth watching nonetheless.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One Night at McCool's is one of those films that starts with an awful amount of promise but as the film goes on it becomes silly and loses it's way big time. Liv Tyler plays a manipulative woman who tries to get her own way by flaunting her body to every man she meets ,all of which fall under her spell.There are a few funny moments in this but they get fewer and fewer as the film deteriorates into a comedy farce. Michael Douglas who plays the assassin is good as is Liv Tyler, although she does look like she had put on a bit of weight since armaggedon. This is ok but is only memorable for the scene in which Liv Tyler washes her car, you will know what i mean when you see it fella's! Shwing!!!!! 7 out of 10 (just).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, maybe this movie not a revolution. But it a very good piece of entertainment, and it's Liv Tyler's variation of Alicia Silverstone's \"Clueless\" or Cameron Diaz' \"There's something about Mary\".

Liv plays a femme fatale, which just wants to have an own house and all kinds of material comfort in it. And well she does everything to get just that... even crimes. Many crimes. And she drops every boyfriend which doesn't cooperate to get these things. Additionally, she actually doesn't mind to have some additional lovers beside her current boyfriend.

This movie is even funnier to watch if one knows that Liv is actually of zodiac sign cancer - and cancer are reported to be very domestic. So the character Liv played here is actually a parody of a cancer !

I was alone in cinema when I watched this one. That was quite comfortable because I could laugh as loud as I wished all the time - but it also felt strange, as if nobody was actually interested in this movie ?

I myself liked it very much. The acting was between very good to excellent, especially the main actors where brilliant. There where enough jokes, many of the black kind, and good dialogues.

This is a trash movie, and it is full of black humor. If you like this kind of movies, try this one !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this movie at a premiere-party in Mr. Zwarts hometown Fredrikstad. There, between directors, musicians and other Norwegian celebrities I laughed and laughed... I just couldn't stop. If you like a comedy with black humor, sharp lines and excellent acting - this is one flick you HAVE to see! It's like mixing \"True Romance\" with \"The Wedding Singer\" and add a dash of \"Mad about you\" Hilarios!

10 Points!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I rented this movie without having heard (or read) anything about it. What a shame! This movie is intelligent, witty, hilarious, fast-paced, and realistically ridiculous. The characters manage to get developed without relying too heavily on clich\u00e9d, tired stereotypes. It was refreshing to watch. I couldn't help thinking that marketing would have helped lob this not-so-mainstream movie into the starved-for-intelligent-comedy mainstream. The quality of the dialogue and the ease with which the actors execute a huge range of awkwardness, heartbreak and comedy is so rare these days--I felt that the actors must have really enjoyed participating in something this rich. How is it that National Treasure was number one at the box office for three weeks in a row--it is so weak in too many ways to mention. I guess I'm just happy that movies like \"Seeing..\" are still being made somewhere out there.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I channel surfed past this many times, mainly because the synopsis sounded so cheesy, so \"Love American Style\". However, it turned out to be quite good, very well done. The two stand-out features are the dialog and acting. Great cast. The premise is actually well executed and there aren't too many weak moments. I guess what I was most amazed by was how often you thought the wheels are going to come off the cart, and instead, the cart just banks the turns, so to speak, and the movie keeps flying. There are some nice little sub-plots, particularly the relationship that develops between the character played by former Conan sidekick Andy Richter. Also, want to mention that the music accompanying it was good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Why this film was only released in 4 states is beyond me. I thought this film was a divine story. The name says it all: Seeing Other People. This movie has more logic than laughs, which I suppose is why it works so well. Common sense also makes an appearance in what would seem to be another puerile sex comedy. Alice is getting her feet frozen in the cold, when she feels irrationally about the way she might perform for her fianc\u00e9, not just sexually, but as a partner, and friend etc. This starts what seems to be an almost archetypal journey for the both of them. One fling after another leads to trouble, as if it wasn't a bad idea from the start. Witty dialogue and comic set-ups make this one funny as hell! Nicholson and Mohr set the tone of the film early on, and keep the promise they anticipate. Other highlights are Lauren Graham, Andy Richter, and Helen Slater(in her first theatrical film in 10 years!). Climax begins to take an insane turn, but a simple ending makes this one far more enjoyable than most movies today. Mohr fans will see something different in his Ed character, and fans of Helen Slater will enjoy her shiny moments of a quick, but excellent come-back. Any Richter takes home the award for most moralistic character. Romantic and funny, or just plain fun. Seeing Other People is a gem, which needs to be noticed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sophisticated sex comedies are always difficult to pull off. Look at the films of Blake Edwards, who is arguably the master of the genre, and you will find just as many misses as hits. For, if a film of this nature ever fails to work, it can never fall back on the tried and true toilet humor of a teen sex comedy [i.e. \"American Pie\"], or warm the audience with the sentimentality of a romantic comedy [i.e. Julia Roberts' entire career]. It can only maintain a push to the end, and hope that the audience can appreciate the almost required irony of it's resolution.

Written by husband\/wife team Wally Wolodarsky and Maya Forbes, \"Seeing Other People\" opens with engaged couple Ed & Alice [Jay Mohr & Julianne Nicholson] only seconds away from rear-ending the car in front of them. As the frame freezes, we unexpectedly hear the thoughts and fears of both characters. From here on out, we welcome that the story about to unfold will enjoy a point of view from both sexes.

Two months shy of their vows, Ed & Alice already look and act like an old married couple. In an early bathroom scene, their actions alone show us just how comfortable they are with each other and how long they have been together. So when the line to propel the plot forward is uttered - expectedly from the least likely of the two - it is as if the very relationship itself is calling for a change, even if it means it's own destruction.

Once all the ground rules are set [Ed can not sleep with her mother or, for that matter, Salma Hayek], the two head off in their separate directions in the hope of finding some meaningless sex to strengthen their relationship. At first, everything seems to go as planned as their daily trysts only help to fire up the passion between them. But predictably, as the deeper emotions of regret and jealousy begin to emerge, they soon find themselves growing apart and on the verge of breaking up. All of these actions leading to a resolution you may or may not like - depending on your own degree of cynicism.

For a comedy like this, you need a solid cast with supporting characters just as strong as the leads. And director Wolodarsky does not disappoint. Here he has cast two of my favorite actresses as sisters - Julianne Nicholson & Lauren Graham - and allows them to play to their strengths. For Nicholson, who has always reminded me of a young Shirley MacLaine, she brings an air of naivete and vulnerability to Alice even when her actions seems less than so. And as for Graham, an actress who has proven she could outperform an entire Howard Hawks ensemble, she steals every scene she is in with an edgy \"no BS\" persona.

As for the guys, Jay Mohr is serviceable here as is Josh Charles. \"Malcolm in the Middle\"'s Byron Cranston has to be applauded for taking on a British accent and letting it all hang out. But the real treat here is Andy Richter and his sub-plot involving single mother, Helen Slater. While his scenes almost seem to belong in another movie, they are by far the funniest and his dead panned delivery steals the show.

For an independent production, \"Seeing Other People\" has a more personal and introspective feeling - something that would be noticeable absent from a big Hollywood film of this kind. Not to mention that this film also has some genuinely funny moments - unlike, say, most Hollywood comedies in general.

Rating [on a 5 star system] : 3 1\/2 stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Intense, funny, witty, and more than anything, social comedy on the ways of adult dating and it's results-be it good or bad. Mohr and Nicholson are engaged couple two months away from a wedding date, when a bizarre event at their engagement party forces Nicholson to re-think the relationship and start to date other people so she won't feel so pristine when it comes to sexual experience. This leads to a disaster of events following Mohr, Nicholson, and their cohorts. Very intelligent and needed in this time of clumsy, condescending comedy, while containing your usual variety of comedic, sexual, and frustrated characters(especially Charles as a sexually frustrated sex fiend...very annoying) who even they seem to get the right feel to this heart felt commentary.

The film goes the way films should go these days, showing that guys are sensitive at heart and have morals. Most of the male characters are the moralistic, straight forward eyes, while the woman are the fresh faced street prowlers who will stop at nothing to get pleasure. Guys will be appreciative of the message made for guys with self respect, however it is easy to assume that most males who DO see this film will use it's message of male sensitivity cover up any flaw or trait that a female might find offending. Still, the writing formula uses this as a tool to pave the way for it's male leads, particularly those of Mohr, Richter, and finding the director in a cameo as a sales man!

The females are by far the most promiscuous as they speak of nothing but pleasure and what it would be like to... with someone else. They have amicable traits though, even though they are covered by the image of sex driven kittens. Very funny stuff.

On another level, the film follows some of it's ensemble into different relationship work. Richter meets up with a stressed divorc\u00e9e(a VERY remarkable and noteworthy performance by the always reliable Helen Slater) named Penelope who is divorced with a son who hates her for splitting with his father. As the two go deeper into a relationship, human interest is revealed and both the comedy and tragedy of divorce and starting anew are studied.

By the end of the film, Mohr and Nicholson have become way to deep over the heads to see what's coming next, and it is up to what they have learned about each other and themselves to decide what will come next. It becomes appropriate and dramatic at just the right time.

Wallodorski's direction is emulated very well when the characters learn to face each other after all that has happened...with the right ending.

All in all, this film should have been released nationwide, and I should hope that it is up for some Academy Awards...maybe Helen Slater can finally get the recognition she deserves. Anywho, this film is a no hits miss, give it all you got romantic sex farce, displayed very maturely and aesthetically.

Great film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This indie film is worth a look because of the enormous talent of its creators, Wallace Wolodarsky and Marsha Forbes. Mr. Wolodarsky has directed the young cast, and he is to be praised for this effort.

The premise of the film is a cautionary tale of the danger for wanting something one can't have. Which is the story of Alice and Ed. After living together for a while, Alice suddenly gets restless because she imagines she's lacking experience in the sex area. Alice and Ed's relationship, while not an example of ideal happiness, is a comfortable way to share their lives with one another. That is, until the moment Alice and Claire, her sister, happened to bump into a sexual encounter by another couple that has no clue of being observed.

This incident makes Alice reevaluate her own sexual life with Ed; she finds it lacks substance. When she proposes 'seeing other people', Ed is shocked, to put it mildly, but not wanting to contradict Alice, he decides to go along. What happens next is that both Alice and Ed enter into a world that's been unknown to them. The people they meet, in the end, are not worth the trouble. They sadly realize at the end, they were made for each other.

The film is worth watching in order to see the amazing Julianne Nicholson, who we happen to have liked in another indie film, \"Tully\". Ms. Nicholson reminds us of a young Shirley McLaine; she projects such a luminous quality about her, that is hard to take one's eyes from her whenever she is in a scene. This young actress proves she is an accomplished performer who gets better with each new appearance. Basically, she carries the movie. Her Alice is a study in contrasts. Alice is a decent woman who thinks she is inadequate in pleasing Ed because of her inexperience.

Jay Mohr, is an excellent match for Ms. Nicholson. Both do wonders together. His Ed is perfectly credible. We have known people like him. Deep down inside, he is a good person, who suddenly gets himself in a situation he didn't call for, yet, he goes along only to discover he is too decent and not cut out for a life of gratuitous sex with the willing women that have no problem with a tumble in the hay, just for fun.

The rest of the cast is wonderful. Lauren Graham does some amazing work as Claire, Alice's yuppie sister. Andy Ritcher is also wonderful as the grounded Carl, the nerdy friend who finally finds out fulfillment when he meets Penelope, a single mother. As Penelope, Helen Slater, makes a felicitous, albeit of a short, appearance in the film.

The director is enormously gifted, who will no doubt go places because he shows he is well suited for the job.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best romantic comedy I've seen in years. Not the kind of slick over the top Hollywood stuff by Ben Stiller or Adam Sandler and a lot less syrupy than a Hugh Grant epic. Julianne Nicholson and Jay Mohr are perfectly cast and both deliver smoothly professional performances as the engaged couple who decide to spend a little time sowing their sexual oats before marriage. Instead of playing it strictly for laughs the writers and director concocted a nice blend of human feelings and comedic action. Nicholson is just great as the awkward seductress and Mohr does a great job as the man who reluctantly enters into the game but soon finds himself enjoying his flings a little too much. We see just enough of the supporting characters to nicely round out the plot without distracting from the main story. Andy Richter (earnest friend) and Helen Slater (distraught single-mom) are particularly good. There is enough meaning and emotional complexity to make this a lot more than a standard boy-girl farce. Indeed, with just a little better pacing and a tiny bit more cutting this film would be a top ten comedy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"[WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS]

Written by husband and wife Wally Wolodarsky (who also directed) and Maya Forbes, this indie film is one of the better romantic comedies in recent memory.

Jay Mohr takes a break from playing smarmy weasels to be the nice guy faced with the fact his fianc\u00e9e wants to bed other people and he's allowed to do so, too. Julianne Nicholson, who was so good in \"Tully,\" plays spunky and vulnerable with great gusto. Too bad she doesn't get the recognition she deserves.

Good supporting performances help immensely, too. Lauren Graham, who made last year's \"Bad Santa\" memorable, plays the jaded, cynical sister to perfection, Bryan Cranston (the dad on TV's \"Malcolm in the Middle\") gets a few funny, raunchy moments, and Andy Richter plays a genial guy who falls for a single mother - Helen Slater in a credible, albeit familiar, role as a mousy woman.

What surprised me most about \"Seeing Other People\" was how funny it is. There are some genuine laughs here. Ed's first attempt at meaningless sex gets some great lines, and there's a m\u00e9nage a trois that elicits one of the most truthful reactions from a man as the male fantasy gets tweaked.

The film's premise isn't unusual, but I liked that it was Alice (Nicholson) who thought of it, much to the chagrin of Ed (Mohr). Given the genre, you know that no matter how good her intentions are, Alice's plan is doomed. We see how the couple works through this strange situation. Initially, Alice and Ed are turned on by the idea, but then the human element sets it.

I appreciated Forbes and Wolodarsky not turning this into a cheap sex romp. Yes, there's sex and nudity, but there also are real emotions at work here. The \"other people\" Alice and Ed befriend don't want to be the objects of casual sex; they have feelings, too. In one case, too many feelings.

Granted, some scenes run one joke too many, the Richter-Slater subplot isn't necessary and Alice does something truly uncharacteristic. But that's forgivable because Mohr and Nicholson generate such tremendous intimacy and honesty - check out the scenes where Ed rummages through Alice's underwear drawer or his reaction to her announcement about ending the experiment - that no matter how much we might enjoy their little game, we root for this couple to succeed.

Unfortunately, this film got little, if any, publicity and a limited release. Hollywood studios, whose romantic comedies often veer on the unfunny, turgid and unsurprising, would do well to learn from this intelligent and funny film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, the movie did turn out a lot better than i expected. It's not boring and it's not unoriginal. It's really not a silly romantic comedy. The situations the characters put themselves in are very unusual, of course, we're still talking about a movie, but the main characters are indeed plausible. Donald is, of course, an exaggeration, but he's just a pawn in the movie, a means to prove something. The ending isn't one of those ridiculously happy, always the same, moral containing pieces of crap you can usually see in movies of the genre. I genuinely liked it and i'm hard to please when it comes to this particular genre of movies. It's worth a watch. Besides, it's better directed than other movies, the story line always stands up, the characters themselves stand up. And they do not experience this miraculous change and love is not revealed to them like a holly god given artifact, yada, yada. At the end of it all you actually see yourself going through it all, the movie makes you feel something, you may even learn a thing or two. It's not the usual hope-producing, tissue moistening idiocy. It's a good movie, not a consolation prize for teary women around the world.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Plot: Ed and Alice are engaged. They live together and are living the dull life. He has slept around before meeting Alice. She has a lot less experience. She decides she needs to sleep around before marrying. He very reluctantly agrees they should both see other people for a while.

At first he is not really into it. His wild days are behind him and he is simply content. Until one day Alice comes back and tells him she made out with some random guy; who of course starts to fall for her.

Of course this is a BAD idea which causes extreme strain on the relationship.

Good movie. You can see the train wreck coming but still good.

Worth a rental.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I happened into the den this morning during the scene where Ed was engaged in the 3-Way and thought my wife was catching up on some early morning porn! Much to my surprise it grabbed my attention and I rewound it and we started watching it at 4:30 in the morning! What a very entertaining, rich, funny and well developed plot line and script. We both thoroughly enjoyed it, my wife so much that she shared the experience with her girlfriends at work! Going on to recommend it and say what a \"kick\" she got out of it. I am in my late 40's and she in her early 50's. I think this movie would have appeal to both young and old. An unexpected, very enjoyable surprise. Nice work! Thanks! Two thumbs up!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I paid attention and enjoyed the very rich expressions capability of the main actress, Julianne Nicholson. I don't have words to describe how much have I been enchanted. All the actors and actresses played well. Especially I noticed the solid good character who has been consistent in foreseeing the future - Andy Richter who played Carl. I think that the idea to show a variety of friends and relatives with different opinions, and the several consulting meetings, is like the real world. Jay Mohr who played Ed, the future husband, also played very real behavior. But, I want to emphasize again the point of very rich expressions repertoire which Julianne Nicholson is capable of and does so naturally, was overwhelming for me. Indeed, the subject which this movie handles seems to me as very important and touches strongly meaningful thoughts of many people. I've seen this movie several times and have not been bored. It raises again and again in my thoughts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was hugely impressed with this movie, if for nothing else than for the comedy. It might not be the edgiest, wittiest humor at all times, but I found it appropriate to every scene.

The flow of the film is certainly a bit jumbled, almost confusing sometimes, but that is how the characters feel. Sometimes, we're watching a bit of slapstick and other scenes revolve around a decisive discourse on relationships. This might be a bit frustrating to certain viewers, but it brought me closer to the characters' dilemmas of irregular chaos.

The acting is great from everyone. I'm a huge Andy Richter fan, but I wasn't head over heels for his part like everyone else seems to be. He did very well, but Julianne Nicholson and Lauren Graham stole the show for me, both in their respective ways. Jay Mohr performs as expected, if you've seen him in other films. I've always liked him.

Overall, the movie is very funny and offers some nice foundations for a few types of relationships. When it comes to relationship questions and problems, some films try to surprise. There's nothing surprising about the conclusions offered here, but it's entertaining to watch them be revealed throughout the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie. It's a lot of laughs. The acting is good and the writing is really sharp. I'd rather see a hundred movies like this than THREE LORD OF THE RINGS repeating and repeating themselves.

It's a low budget affair and seems to be shot on DV but looks good and Jay Mohr and Julianne Nicholson are great together. Why do you have a ten line minimum? I'm not a critic, just a patron.

I doubt very much that Quentin Tarantino could write a picture this funny without filling it with masturbatory gratuitous violence. This movie should be seen on more screens than just one. I laughed from beginning to end. >","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Seeing Other People\" is a daring romantic comedy about a couple named Ed and Alice (Jay Mohr and Julianne Nicholson) who are engaged and plan to be wed soon. They live together but are both having doubts about their relationship. Alice realizes she's had so few sexual relationships in the past, she might just be marrying Ed because she's never felt anything else. So they agree to begin fooling around with other people for a while to test their own relationship.

The movie balances a prescient question - by focusing too much on the \"What if?\" aspects of life, can it in fact do the opposite and only make you feel more constrained? When Ed begins having sex with a college girl he begins to become addicted and almost forget about Alice - when he realizes this, it scares him.

I hadn't heard anything about this film in advance but I enjoyed it. It's not extremely well-made and definitely has that purposefully low-budget indie feel to it - but it's a lot better than most romantic comedies out there in the mainstream today.

Check it out if you get a chance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this movie the other night on one of the movie channels and I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. This movie was so funny I went out and bought the very next day. I love this type of comedy. It just seemed so real in the way the actors react to the different situations here. I was Rollin. I had never even heard of it and just started watching because of the title \"Seeing Other People\". The title caused me to give it a shot and I'm glad I did. I laughed so hard that it hurt. Now it's part of my collection. I definitely recommend it to all those that enjoy smart-ass type of comedy. I will be watching this one over and over.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Joe (Wes) & Jim (Adam) re-acquaint us with the beauty, isolation (psychological as well as physical) and utter terror of \"murder most fowl\" in the Navaho Southwest. Characterizations, settings and plot continually build .. . even if at times the personal asides leave us wanting \"more\" .. . with some interesting alternative choices as to \"who done it?\" Flashbacks (e.g. Peter Fonda . .. good to see him) provide clues but they don't go where you might think. Comic asides (e.g. the Preacher) are mild and appropriate. Where \"Skinwalkers\" and \"Coyote Waits\" start to drag .. . \"Thief\" engages the clutch and four-wheels you around the next corner, never quite sure what's there. Disagree with Joe Leaphorn's manic comment to Jim Chee to \"slow down\" for the potholes. Wrong ... there are no potholes in the plot, just tracks to follow. On to the next episode! Great photography (as always), appealing characters and more to explore!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I hope Robert Redford continues to make more films like this. Hillerman's books are wonderful, and as a young child raised in the Southwest his stories hit home! Adam Beach is a highly under rated and under used actor. Wake up Hollywood, not everyone thinks that your Mel Gibson's are cool! Many movie goer's today want to see films that make you think. I have seen all of the Redford\/Hillerman series. They are thoughtful, scenic and have great plots. I'm hoping that if enough people write to Robert Redford he may decide to make a few more! Thank you Adam Beach and Tony Hillerman for great entertainment! If anyone get's a chance to read Tony Hillerman's latest book do so! It's great. I also recommend traveling through Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado. Stop at every view site and feel the setting of Hillerman's books. Amazing experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film for me and my wife is more entertaining than all the bloc-buster violent thriller\/mystery\/murder movies that abound. It is about real people making the best of their lives. They just happen to be Indian and the main characters are in law enforcement. The realistic acting and the great scenery more than make up for the slightly implausible plot. The sound track is by BC Smith, who also did the soundtrack for Coyote Waits, and is great. Adam Beach plays a tribal policeman who is a little bit accident prone and Wes Studi is the stoic consummately professional detective. There are many other fine either supporting or cameo roles by Graham Greene, Tantoo Cardinal, etc. We have also seen Coyote Waits, another adaptation of a Hillerman novel, and we greatly enjoyed it too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i think this show is awesome!!! i love it, and i love Fabian (not in a romantic kind of way) but if i was there i would totally support Fabian like Haley did, and the other girls, yeah!! i mean if they're rood why don't you want to fight them back!! Fabian is the only who have guts to confront people and say what he thinks, not just stay and suck it!!! FABIAN 100%!!!!! i love Haley too, because shes like a normal girl who doesn't want to be with cows and bugs and grass everywhere, and sleep in a warm bed with servants, i mean, if you have the chance and the money why wouldn't you do that!!! and Fabian too, Fabian brought pizza and just like 2 or 3 people said thanks, i mean he spend money!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A grumpy old baronet, happily unmarried, decides to send for his three grown-up illegitimate children and provide them a home at his manor. To his surprise, he finds himself bonding with his uninhibited American daughter. Can he find satisfaction in his new role as THE BACHELOR FATHER?

This 1931 film, in which he gives a robust performance, marked the arrival at MGM of elderly Sir C. Aubrey Smith, very soon to be one of Hollywood's most valuable character actors. With his great hooked nose & beetling brows, Sir Aubrey looked every inch the part of the duke or general or statesman he would play so often. The acknowledged leader of the British community in Hollywood, Sir Aubrey would also champion the game of criquet in Southern California. He would remain very much in demand in studios all over town, right up to his death in 1948.

The film's top-billed star is Marion Davies. Best remembered today as the mistress of media mogul William Randolph Hearst & the chatelaine of Hearst Castle, the most fabulous residence on the West Coast, she was actually a very talented & pretty comedienne. For a few years, Hearst attempted to make her the queen of MGM (with her own production company & a huge bungalow-dressing room) but the studio already had several other queens - Dressler, Garbo, Shearer, Crawford - and he eventually moved her to Warner Bros. Here Miss Davies gets a chance to joke & clown and her scenes with Sir Aubrey are entertaining.

Her love interest is played by Ralph Forbes, a handsome young British actor who was just starting to find good films (THE TRAIL OF \u009198) as the silent days ended. He had all the qualities for major stardom, but sadly it was not to be. Celebrity would come to Ray Milland, here making one of his first screen appearances. Halliwell Hobbes & Doris Lloyd also appear to advantage.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This 1931 comedy gets better with every viewing because of the comedic talents of Marion Davies and a terrific performance by C. Aubrey Smith. Smith plays a gruff old man who gathers his grown children (from his younger days as a rake) in his declining years. One is American (Davies), one English (Ray Milland who looks about 18), and one Italian (Nina Quartero). There are some surprises as the plot moves along with Ralph Forbes(was has no appeal at all) falling for Davies.

Davies and Smith are just wonderful together and very touching. Davies also gets to do a few dances and make a few \"big\" entrances. And of course Davies is just gorgeous.

Halliwell Hobbes, Doris Lloyd, Elizabeth Murray, Guinn Williams, Edgar Norton, and David Torrence co-star. Had they given out supporting Oscar awards in 1931, Smith might well have been nominated. He's just excellent in this this gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"toplines this ok comedy about an aging father (C. Aubrey Smith) who decides to gather his grown children from around the world. Davies is working as a chorus girl in New York when she gets the news that \"daddy\" wants her. Hmmmm, sounds familiar. Davies' considerable talents as a comedienne save this otherwise so-so comedy as she upsets the staid British countryside with her brazen American personality. Not as sharp as some other Davies comedies, but still worth a look. Ray Milland plays her long-lost \"brother.\" Doris Lloyd, Elizabeth Murray, and Halliwell Hobbes are all fun, too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the better Marion Davies talkies - and one of the few to allow her to exhibit her skill as a physical comedian which was so endearing in her silent films. OK, so she does a clunky tap number, but even Ruby Keeler's dancing from the era does not hold up for younger generations. The problem here is the script. The story falls into unbelievable melodrama in the last reel. It's quite stagey, and is obviously adapted from a play... but not well enough. Still, there is some snappy dialogue and slapstick throughout. Worth a look.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This delightful, well written film is based on a New York stage play bearing the same title where Sir Aubrey (knighted Sir Charles Aubrey Smith in 1944) originated the role he plays in the film. Here, in 1931, we see him in the early part of his acting renaissance in the very early era of \"talkies\" and in the character role that he would make his own until his death in 1948 after finishing his last performance in Little Women which released in 1949.

This engaging play is about an elderly British aristocrat who locates his illegitimate children and introduces himself to them, having brought them to his manor in England.

Marion Davies plays his daughter-by-error and it's a tour de force for her. She is all at once endearing, impatient, shallow, enchanting, wise and compassionate while creating an indelible and beguiling character that remains well ensconced in the memory.

The 26 year old Ray Milland appears here in a small but prominent role having already appeared in seven other pictures then only in films for a bit more than two years.

The film should be enjoyed as a representative of 1931 Hollywood factory production of course and as such is not flawless. However, it's a charming pleasure from first scene to the last.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"In Love and War\" is a simple feel-good TV-film, and should be viewed as such.

(Possible spoiler)

It is the story of a WWII British soldier, Newby, captured with his commando by the Italians and imprisoned in a former orphanage. As the Italians surrender to the Allies, the commando is freed, and attempts to flee. However, the Germans arrive and the commando is captured again. Only Newby, injured, remains at large. The rest of the film recounts how he is hidden and protected by the Partisans, and his survival.

(End of spoiler)

Based on a true story, \"In Love and War\" is a refreshingly straightforward film. Half comedy, half romance, the story is simple and unambiguous. The 'atmosfera' is warm and sunny, and the various stereotypes (the desperately unorganized or romantic Italians, the serious stern-looking Germans and the phlegmatic and pragmatic British), although unoriginal, are still humorous. Nicola Piovani's musical score also adds to the Mediterranean flavour.

Although it is far from being a \"Tea With Mussolini\" or a \"La Vita E Bella\", \"In Love and War\" is a sweet simple film that will put a smile, and maybe even a little tan, on your face.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have just watched this movie for the first time today, and just loved it...

Yes it is simple in it's storyline, the sweetest love story,and how any female could not fall in love with Callum Blue beats me...

The scenery in Italy was as you would expect, Beautiful, the baddies lost in the end,and for the two lovebirds to be reunited at the end, was wonderful, but that scene where a certain Italian was sweeping away the confetti after Eric and Wanda's Wedding, perfection!.

Have a cup of tea and watch a fantastic movie, yes, better have a tissue ready and be enthralled, I know I was and hope to get it on DVD real soon. All the actors played their parts perfectly, this was a WW2 film you could believe in as it was so realistic, and without going over the top as in other films...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie - the actors were wonderful and suited their roles. The story itself was great (and true, the setting was perfect and the message about human response to the war, danger and risk was exceptional. The person who wrote the music score also did the music for Life is Beautiful (another favourite of mine)- his comment was apparently that \"...this was not a like an English movie, it was like an Italian movie.\" I think he's right! Callum Blue is perfect for the part of Eric Newby. I recommend this movie to everyone who wants to watch a story that is true and morally uplifting as well as a beautiful love story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This early Warner Brothers talkie \"Son of the Gods\" (1930) deals with the racial intolerance that Anglo-Saxon Americans show towards the Chinese. Chinese-Americans are treated like second-class citizens, and whites hold them in nothing but contempt.

Prolific scenarist Bradley King based her screenplay on Rex Beach's novel about a young, impressionable Chinaman, Sam Lee (Richard Barthelmess of \"Only Angels Have Wings\"), who experiences racial prejudice first-hand when the girls that his college chums bring along for a party reveal their racist sentiments about Sam once they learn about his heritage. Sam goes to his father, Lee Ying (E. Alyn Warren of \"Gone With The Wind\"), who is a wealthy Chinaman with offices not only in New York City but also in San Francisco. Sam feels deeply wounded by the racial slurs and he wants to leave New York and go where he cannot be hurt by Americans. His patient father warns him that racism is a fact of everyday life and the only solution to racism is tolerance. Sam has yet to learn this lesson. He refuses to take any more money from his father and catches a ship to London, England, peeling potatoes while he is on board.

During the trip, he encounters a British playwright, Bathurst (Claude King of \"Arrowsmith\"), who needs some help writing a play about the Chinese. Sam and he strike up a friendship and Sam furnishes him with cultural information about Asians. While they are relaxing in France, Sam meets a beautiful young woman, Allana Wagner (Constance Bennett of \"Two-Faced Woman\"), who falls madly in love with him. It seems that Allana and her wealthy father are vacationing in the same motel. Everybody at the motel knows about Sam being a Chinaman with the exception of Allana. Sensitive about his racial heritage, Sam holds Allana at arm's length until she convinces him that nothing could change her mind about him. They fall madly in love together. Allana's father drops the bomb on her when he reveals that Sam is a Chinaman and all the memories of living in San Francisco and dealing with coolies floods Allana's mind. She storms into the dining room at the motel and publicly flogs Sam with a riding crop in front of a room filled with on-lookers.

Of course, Sam is terribly devastated by this reversal of events. He thought that Allana loved him but she didn't. About this time, Sam's father Lee Ying falls tragically ill and Ying's secretary of sorts, Eileen (Mildred Van Dorn of \"Iron Man\") sends Sam a telegram about Ying's illness. Predictably, Sam rushes home to New York to be at his father's side. Since his public humiliation, Sam has vowed to show no kindness to Anglo-Saxon Americans; Eileen is an Irish-Catholic and probably one of his few white friends. Lee Ying dies and Sam assumes control of the business and he practices his anti-White racism, until he learns that he was an Anglo-Saxon foundling that a San Francisco cop on the beat gave to Lee Ying and his wife to bring up. The cop forgot about it until two white busy-bodied social worker types wanted to take Sam away from the Yings. Sam learns this revelation about the same time that Allana comes to New York and falls ill. During her illness, she utters his name repeatedly in her sleep and her devoted father goes to see Sam and requests that Sam visit her in order to help her recover. Unbeknownst to Allana, Sam does visit her and she improves, but she has no memory of his visit, merely a hazy notion. Eventually, Allana learns the truth about Sam not being a Chinaman and they marry and live happily ever after.

This socially conscientious Warner Brothers\/First National Pictures Release contends frankly and unflinchingly with the race issue for the first hour or thereabouts before the revelation that Sam has no Chinese blood running in his veins catches both him as well as the audience by surprise. The reconciliation between Allana and Sam stretches credibility, despite their self-professed undying love for each other. However, in the name of a happy ending that would erase all the negativity that came before it, they wind up in each other's arms.

The capitulation on the race issue with the revelation that Sam isn't Chinese damages some of the film's moral power. Incredibly, \"Son of the Gods\" is a Pre-Code film that almost seems prudish; for example, Sam is an American, not Chinese! Constance Bennett gives a wonderful performance as a petulant beautify and she holds your attention when she whips Sam with her riding crop. Claude King is good as Bathurst, and E. Alyn Warren is convincing as Lee Ying. Interestingly, Warren made a career out of portraying Asian characters. Richard Barthelmess is flawless as Sam; he delivers a highly nuanced performance. Despite its age, \"Son of the Gods\" is a son of a good movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A wealthy young man, raised as a SON OF THE GODS, must confront his Chinese heritage while living in a White world.

Although the premise upon which this film is based is almost certainly a biological impossibility and the secret of the plot when revealed at the movie's conclusion makes all which has preceded it faintly ludicrous, the story still serves up some decent entertainment and good acting.

Richard Barthelmess has the title role as the sweet-natured Oriental whose life is terribly complicated because he looks Caucasian. Barthelmess keeps the tone of his performance serious throughout, gazing intently into the middle distance (a mannerism he developed during Silent Days) whenever his character is indecently misused. He makes no attempt to replicate his classic performance in D. W. Griffith's BROKEN BLOSSOMS (1919) and this is to his credit. Beautiful Constance Bennett is the millionaire's daughter who makes Barthelmess miserable. She is gorgeous as always, but her behavior does not endear her to the viewer and her terrible illness in the final reel is kept mercifully off screen.

Multi-talented Frank Albertson has a small role as Barthelmess' improvident buddy. Serene E. Alyn Warren and blustery Anders Randolf play the leading stars' very different fathers, while Claude King distinguishes his brief appearance as the English author who befriends Barthelmess.

Movie mavens will recognize little Dickie Moore, uncredited, playing Barthelmess as a tiny child.

The original Technicolor of the flashback sequence has faded with time to a ruddy tint. The shot purporting to be the South of France instead looks suspiciously like Avalon on Santa Catalina Island, off the coast of Southern California.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Interesting story and sympathetic treatment of racial discrimination, Son of the Gods is rather too long and contains some hammy acting, but on the whole remains a fascinating film.

Story about a Chinese passing as White (Rchard Barthelmess) starts as Barthelmess leaves college after being insulted by a trio of brainless co-eds. He embarks on a world tour to discover himself and ends up as secretary to a British playwright (Claude King). In Monte Carlo he meets beautiful Alanna Wagner (Constance Bennett) and they fall in love. But when she discovers he is Chinese she goes berserk in a memorable scene.

Plagued by guilt and love, Alanna goes into a mental spiral and makes a few attempts to contact Barthelmess. After his father dies he takes over the business (banking?) and dons Chinese garb as a symbol of his hatred of the White race that has spurned him. After a San Francisco detective tells him the truth about his birth, Barthelmess makes the decision to honor his Chinese father and mother.

And I agree that one reviewer here never saw this film. Alanna declares her love for Sam BEFORE he tells her of his recent discovery. And that makes all the difference in this film.

Barthelmess and Bennett each have a few scenes where they chew the scenery, but on the whole this is a solid and interesting drama. Frank Albertson is good as the nice college pal, Claude King is solid as the playwright Bathurst, Bess Flowers has one scene as an Oklahoma Indian, and E. Alyn Warren is the Chinese father, Dorothy Mathews is nasty Alice. Not so good are Anders Randolf as Bennett's father and Mildred Van Dorn as Eileen. Also note the gorgeous blonde to the right of Barthelmess at the roulette table. What a stunner whoever she was!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't think this cartoon was as bad as some may think. Of course, I was only five at the time it came out. But, I did find it very entertaining at the time and would still give it a look today if given the opportunity. Batman and Robin being voiced by Adam West and Burt Ward was a nice touch, and gave it a sense of familiarity for me as I was also watching re-runs of the campy 1960's live action show \"Batman\" at that age. This cartoon also introduced some new twists I had forgotten all about, like \"Bat-Mite\" for instance. Looking back on it, I'm sure he was likely as annoying as many think, but he didn't bother me much at the time. The best I can recall, his voice sounded like a cross between Dumb Donald and Orko. Gee, I wonder why? :) Anyway, give it a look if you can and make up your own mind. You might be surprised.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This one of the best and funniest comedy series i have ever seen! All characters are brilliant.

Mr. Slatt (David Bamber) is a very very irritated man, irritated by everything and anyone.

He wants to do things and handle situations as best as he possibly can, but he never gets it right and only gets himself deeper and deeper in trouble. Not supported by his wife Janet, who only tries to get him deeper and deeper into the trouble he is getting himself into (and really does not need the help at all!).

All characters are played\/portrayed brilliantly. Just imagine sending your kid(s) to a school like this.

It is unbelievable that people do not like it (maybe some don not get the many many plays on words, that are featured many times per episode).

It is also unbelievable that there is still no DVD release of it. There are only 2 series!

So please, release it, let it go! So the fans can and will enjoy it!

Try it, you might just like it!!!

Just some names & words from the series: Pumpman, Man Helmet, Hot Bitch, Mount Suzy, Travis Fellatio, Cockfoster, Arshead (and many many more).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"And I do not understand why the show gets so much beating. In my opinion this show really is excellent. Well the first two episodes were not that great but it picks up a load of momentum at the third episode. Which seems to be typical for a Steve Moffat sitcom. I would rate it among the best sitcoms Britain has ever produced.

The show itself is a farce at its best, it is not along the lines of Fawlty Towers, but you definitely can rank it as high as a Black Adder, Coupling, or The Young Ones! I am watching the first season, and all I can say is that I am happy I bought the DVD!

The problem probably with this show is and why it got smacked so hard, according to the internet, that the original press release compared it to Fawlty Towers, and everyone was disappointed it was not! Well even Green Wing is closer to Fawlty Towers than this show, all I can say is clear your mind from every prejudice, give the show at least a run until (including episode 3) and then decide for yourself!

All I can say is thanks Steve Moffat for writing it and thanks for the entire staff pulling it off!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Cure is an outstanding real-life drama that deals with a very sensitive subject. It is the story of the profound and dear friendship between two boys, Eric and Dexter. The latter has acquired AIDS from a blood transfusion. Thus he and his mom (Annabella Sciorra) have become outcasts, shunned by the public and labeled as dangerous company, basically due to a common lack of public knowledge of the disease.

When Eric (Brad Renfro, known from 'The Client' and 'Apt Pupil') and his mom move into the house next to them, he has to deal with public insults and the fear of catching AIDS himself. However, Eric overcomes his fear and risks everything. At first he starts talking to Dexter, but eventually he climbs over the fence and joins the witty boy (played by Jurassic Park's Joseph Mazzello) and his games. Very quickly he develops a real friendship with Dexter, who is delicately built and frail due to his condition.

The central theme of the movie \u0096 the theme which makes it pervasively authentic and tragic at the same time \u0096 is how Eric and Dexter try to find the ultimate cure. At first they experiment with all kinds of plants and leaves \u0096 which is very naive, but also genuine at the same time, as it shows how young kids deal with such heinous diseases and how strongly they still believe in the magic of the world. When they hear about an alleged cure which has been developed in the South, they do not hesitate and take off for an adventure that will bring them even closer together and symbolizes the ultimate quest for hope.

So they board a raft and head southwards on the Mississippi River. What starts as a real adventure becomes a dangerous undertaking, which is emotionally intriguing and instructive at the same time. The scene when Dexter reveals his fears and talks about the end of the universe, where everything is dark and cold, Eric hands him his sneaker, a symbol that wherever the boy may have to go, Eric is and will always be with him; he will never have to be alone. This sequence, which is one of the most compelling ones of the movie, features a very convincing interaction between the two actors, who manage to avoid awkward and corny dialogs and deliver a very genuine performance that is eventually smashing in its tenderness and honesty.

I will not go any further in outlining the plot, as I do not intend to give away too much information. The ending however is emotionally tough and makes the audience so much a part of the tragedy that everyone who watches the movie will feel personally affected. This aspect makes this movie so strong, so outstanding and so convincing. The emotional burden on every character is so real and so thrashing that even the tougher members of the audience might need some hankies.

A 10 is doing justice to this movie and is not too high a rating. There is hardly any other movie I have seen in my life so far that handles such an emotional issue with so much wit and sensibility. It is the story of how two boys make each other's life richer and how they teach each other lessons of life. Thus Dexter overcomes his isolation and sadness, and Eric learns what really counts in life; and both of them realize how much of a gift real friendship is when it comes to the hardest moments of life.

This movie is tragic \u0096 but its message is sheer inspiration.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For unknown reasons this beautiful masterpiece didn't get well-deserved recognition and has been vastly under-appreciated by many American movie critics. So it's easy to understand that I've met lots of troubles trying to find this movie. Finally I watched it and it was so beautiful, sincere and poignant that for the first time in my life I watched one movie five times in one week after getting the tape. The story is focused on the friendship between two young boys Erik and Dexter, eleven and twelve years old, who are very different from each other but they are becoming the best (and only) friends. The beauty and sincerity of their friendship have been shown in the Cure so sincere and naturally as it has never been before. There are so many beautiful, heartfelt and poignant scenes (particularly on the river), which strike the heart and can't leave any human indifferent to them. The movie also is full of incredibly powerful and emotional symbolism, (particularly strong with Erik's shoe) which also greatly increases visual impression from such beautiful work. The story, written by Robert Kuhn, is well written and on the contrary to overwhelming majority of modern Hollywood's products practically every scene, every phrase and every sentence in the movie is meaningful and bring something important about characters and relations between them. Peter Horton, who as I know had no major experience in movie directing before, showed his great abilities and talents in this sphere. The cinematography is also superb with perfectly selected locations for the movie, but the most important is perfect acting, which with all above mentioned makes The Cure one of the best movies ever. Both Brad Renfro as Erik and Joseph Mazello as Dexter created wonderful atmosphere of sincere friendship and magnificent chemistry between two main characters. Only one this movie (I haven't seen most of their other works) is enough to name them as one of the best actors of their generation. Annabelle Sciorra also give a terrific performance as Dexter's mother. It's terribly sad that such talented actors didn't get wide recognition, while numerous overrated stars enjoy enormous publicity and huge salaries. Finally it would be unfair not to mention amazing soundtrack written by David Grusin, and terrific Mark Cohn's song (one of the best songs that I've ever heard in the movies) My Great Escape. So all that I can say about The Cure is one simple word \u0096 great. At any point of view this movie is a beautiful, heartfelt and inspiring work of all people involved in making of this masterpiece. I have to credit all those people who put their hearts and souls into the movie and Universal Pictures, which among numerous formulaic commercial projects has found a way to make such a beautiful movie. But such movie so rarely come to movie theaters that very often studios themselves don't realize what gem they have made that they're unable to provide respective marketing campaign. The only one minor drawback about The Cure for me is its short length (only 97 minutes).

I don't want to write more about the movie because it's simply impossible to put its beauty and sincerity into words, so if you have any opportunity for watching The Cure, rent it or buy it and you wouldn't be disappointed.

10 out of 10. Sorry for my bad English.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the most touching films I had ever watched. No movie has effected me the way this one did. This is a great film and you have to see for yourself. I'm normally impregnable with these sob story movies but this one did it for me. I was in tears at the end. You'll yearn for the friendship that is portrayed in this movie. If I can give this movie a billion stars I could.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Unbelievably close to real life feelings and emotions captured by Joseph Mazzello as a hemophiliac child affected by AIDS and his new young neighbor, a wanna-be tough redneck played to perfection by Brad Renfro. Although the story may seem slightly farfetched (the two boys attempt to river-raft several hundred miles to find a doctor who claims to have the cure to AIDS), the emotion, actions and interactions of all characters involved are tragically close to real life. Being a \"big brother\" to a boy in a similar situation who died a few years after this film was released, I strongly recommend this picture to anyone who has ever wondered what really happens in the life of a child with AIDS. Superb direction by Peter Horton creates the perfect mood and setting for each scene and draws the viewer into the various emotions affected by friendship, illness, prejudice and the final parting of two friends who fought hard to overcome adversity.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had seen The Cure when I was a kid and I loved it then. Now, years later, I got a hold of a copy almost by accident, and watched it again. Being a kid, you don't really have the ability to procure things for yourself that you want, that is usually a prerogative of your parents - but when I watched it again now I felt sorry that I did not do more to get a copy of this movie back then, and consequently almost forgot about it until today.

This really is a beautiful movie. It tells the story of the unlikely friendship between a hard-edged, misfit kid - who takes his cues from his horrible, abusive mother - and his neighbor, a slightly younger boy who has AIDS.

Right, you say. Another one of \"those\". A tear jerker. A bucket movie. A morality tail. Yeah, I know, I hate those too. Only this one isn't. It is one of the very few movies among those many I have seen that pulls off a very rare trick: it conveys a truly sad story (and yes, a morality tale) but without a single moment where it feels cheesy, forced or in any other way \"hollywoody\". It shows a REAL relationship between two REAL boys, who interact as REAL kids do. And through that interaction the good-natured, loving character of the older boy, Eric, starts to shine through his \"tough-guy\" persona, as he takes on a kind of big-brotherly care for Dexter, his HIV-positive younger neighbor. Together, they embark on an adventure to find a cure - which to Erik seems to be just around the corner - so that all this silly AIDS thing will go away and they can be friends forever.

The production is top notch. But, of course, what really carries this movie, is the performances of the two leads - Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello. Especially Mazzello, who is simply stunning - he does convey a sense of frailty needed for an ailing boy, but at the same time he manages to make Dexter a truly energetic and determined character. He shines at the scene where the boys confront Pony: his impulse to protect his older friend lunges him forth, drives him to say what he says - and only afterwards, the horror is depicted on his face, as he realizes that what he himself said is true: his blood is poison... Renfro also has his moments, in particular the scenes with his mother: he depicts perfectly how this macho, street-wise kid is left completely frozen and numb when faced with his abusive, storming mother, and can't get a word in to contradict her as she forbids his relationship with the ailing boy out of her fear and ignorance. Annabella Sciorra also gives a memorable performance as Dexter's mother, who ultimately becomes, in a sense, a mother figure to Erik as well.

I've first seen this film when I was at school back in America, and loved it - not at all a given concerning movies of this sort. But the behavior of the kids in this movie was so real, I could easily relate to them. Ironically enough, the teacher who had shown us this movie (a wonderful woman, I'm still in touch with her) got in trouble for it, as some uptight parent complained about it having the scene when the two boys are looking at a Playboy... Pathetic. Seriously, will Americans ever get over this ridiculous phobia, I do not know. There was a hardly-distinguishable shot of a playboy cover in the movie and thus it is not shown in schools... how sad. Kids need to see this movie. It is more inspiring and educational than all the \"official\" after-school specials put together.

Oh, and one more thing. I know I'm rambling, but nevertheless... The score. It's great. I am a musician, and as such I know Dave Grusin from his records: he is a well known Jazz pianist and record producer. Up until this movie I really did not know that he did movie scores as well, even though when I later checked I found out that I had unknowingly watched several movies he worked on. Really, a wonderful job there.

All in all, a solid Ten. I'd recommend this movie to anyone. And I'm definitely going to see it with my younger siblings - they can use watching a film like this among all the standard special-effect hysteria they usually see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very nice movie! I was browsing the channels on my TV and I usually ignore the channels that air drama movies but then I saw this channel that airs old school movies and it is where I saw this movie. At first, when I saw the title \"The Cure\" I thought it's gonna be boring but then I got hooked when I saw Brad Renfro was in this movie (because of one of my favorite movie of all time is \"The Client\" where Brad also stars). Then the scenes was getting better and better. The story is so beautiful and very touching! I cried hard in this movie which I don't usually do. Great casting! and there are so many beautiful lines\/quotes in this movie which is very striking and made me cry hard! Now, I bought my own copy on DVD and I always recommend it to everyone!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Way back in 1996, One of the airliner pilots where I used to work gave me a copy of this film. He told me that It'll make me cry. I never believed him and we even made bets. After seeing the film....I cried a bucket! Even after the seeing the film, I found myself in the bathroom crying. It was actually the most touching film I have ever seen. I like the part where Dexter's mom confronted Eric's mother the line went something like... \"your sons' best friend just died today..and it's not gonna be easy...if you ever lay your hands on him again...I will kill you!\" The last part where Dexter took Eric's shoe was a scene that never left my mind until today. Honestly, just thinking about it makes my eyes teary. A story of what true friendship is all about. My girlfriend loved it too... She hated me for letting her see the film. I cried a bucket, she cried a river.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The subject of children being terminally ill is difficult and saddening but 'The Cure' successfully portrays the idea that it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom and, if anything, children need to have hope and delight in their lives if they are to find peace before the end. It is also a film of remarkable bonds of friendship and the innocence of childhood.

The film sees Erik, a dysfunctional adolescent boy with a distant mother, moving into a new area where their next-door neighbour is eleven-year-old Dexter, who contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion. After his initial fears and ignorance over AIDS are allayed, Erik befriends Dexter and their almost fraternal friendship sees them embark on a journey down the Mississippi to where they have heard about a New Orleans doctor who claims to have found a cure for the disease.

The talent from the two young leads of Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello, who play Erik and Dexter respectively, is exceptional. Brad was able to portray Erik's harder edge without comprising the subtle childish innocence inherent to the character while Joseph depicts the sense of vulnerability to Dexter's character but injects the right amount of boyish enthusiasm and zeal to highlight that his illness doesn't mean he still isn't a child who wants to run and play like any other eleven-year-old boy. The pair's interactions create a feel in the audience that these are two boys who are genuinely close and they carry the film well. Annabella Sciorra also delivers a touching performance as Dexter's mother Linda, who adores her son and delights in seeing him thrive with this new friendship to Erik and eventually becomes a surrogate mother-figure to the other boy.

Set against an excellent soundtrack, 'The Cure' is a very bittersweet film that manages to flawlessly weave the story of boyhood friendship that survives unflinchingly in the midst of prejudice and terminal illness without resorting to sappiness or unnecessary saccharine sweet scenes. A very interesting reflection in the film is that is it the adults who have the problem with Dexter's AIDS status whereas the children, even the 'bullies', come to accept him as they would any other. What is also very touching is how, despite Erik's streetwise nature, he is the more naive one in his determination to cure Dexter while the younger boy has this haunting sense that he knows his fate but is swept away by his best friend's enthusiasm for a cure.

I highly recommend 'The Cure' for it is rare to find a film that is simultaneously sad and uplifting.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The best movie about friendship! Especially between an AIDs infected person and a \" normal \" person. This is a great movie for everyone to see even though there is strong language used. I have seen it 25 times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even though this film is 11 years old, I just rented it yesterday, and I found it to be a really touching film. The story of true friendship in the face of a very real monster is an inspiration and quite touching.

While I did not care much for the amount of language used by some of the young actors--especially from Renfro--I understand that art is imitating life. Renfro once again does a magnificent job of the rough-and-tough, very (and I mean VERY) disturbed wannabe bully (his role in The Client comes to mind), and Mazzello does a wonderful job of the witty, somewhat quirky, Dexter--a child who realizes that his life must end too soon.

While there are so many touching and funny moments in the movie, I have to say that my favorite was when the boys were cornered by Pony in the abandoned church, and Dexter (Mazzello) cut himself, saying his blood was poison. While very resourceful, and somewhat amusing seeing a grown man running away from two little kids, it's one of the hardest scenes in the film.

Definitely check this one out, but prepared with your Kleenex--you'll need it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember when this film came out, and watched it a few times on VHS. I was so glad when it was FINALLY released on DVD. I was hoping for widescreen, but at the point would take what was available. I love how they used color in the film, the outdoor scenes are so alive with color. The trees are the greenest I've ever seen. Most of the film was shot in Stillwater, Minnesota, a beautiful town located on the St. Croix River. They must have really scouted locations for filming, because they did a great job. The story is well written, and directed. I would rate this as one of Peter Horton's best. I'm also surprised that Andrew Dintenfass (the director of photography) hasn't done more. He did an incredible job. The acting also rates up there. It's amazing to see two actors of such a young age pull off this type of film. Annabella Sciorra did a great job as Dexter's mother. Who wouldn't want her as a mother.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When the movie \"The Cure\" starts, we find out about a young man named Erik (Brad Renfro). Erik is a teenage boy living with his paranoid mother, and living next door to him is a young boy named Dexter (Joseph Mazello). One day, Erik and Dexter connect and head up to the supermarket, where Dexter gets his first taste of Butterfinger. When Erik learns out that Dexter has AIDS, he tries leaves-and-water tea to make it better. But when the front cover of The National Enquirer says a New Orleans doctor has found the cure for AIDS, the two boys will stop at nothing to get to New Orleans for the cure.

In my opinion, \"The Cure\" is easily one of the best friendship movies ever made. It shows unconditional love between a boy, his (new) best friend, and his best friend's mom. Everything is so well done, nothing needs to be changed. Not only do I give this a 10\/10 for being a fantastic friendship movie, but it also is a sad, but humorous, and fun AIDS movie. And the tragic finale with Dexter's contraction of AIDS is enough to make me shed a tear. Very well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Cure is a fantastic film about a boy with AIDS. I've cried about 4 times watching this film and it's just so sad. I can't promise everyone will cry watching this but it will make you want to. Very emotional and very sad, The Cure is a must-see movie. It shows you the meaning of friendship and love and is an extremely great movie.

At first I didn't think it would be as great and wondered why my mum always cried watching it. But now I know it's a stunning film that is so original and is so close to real life situations, unlike most of the other films that doesn't make sense. Words cannot describe the greatness of The Cure, you just have to see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really liked the movie, thought it was very entertaining as well as dramatic. But I just had a question about the music is the movie. I haven't been able to find any kind of soundtrack(if there even is one). And specifically ,I was wondering if anyone could tell me the name of the song that is playing while the boys are going down the river on their way to New Orleans? I thought it was something along the lines of \"My great escape\", but I've searched on the internet, books, pretty much everything I could think of to try to, and I just can't find it anywhere. If someone could help out it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was such a beautiful film. Such an amazing performance from Joseph and Brad. Very innocently written and performed. A must see !! I cried my eyes out almost through the entire movie. This is a movie that every family should sit down with their children to watch, it does teach us all a very important lesson in life and how we should be approaching the harsh subject of AIDS, how we should be teaching our children to cope with it and people around them. Not only with AIDS, but with any terminal illness. I hadn't even heard of this movie until I scrolled through t.v. one day and happen to run across it. I recommend everyone to watch this, just don't forget your box of tissues. More movies should be made like this one. Extremely heartwarming.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For all the viewers who have seen 'The Cure' would agree with me on this comment that it is a superb movie and is very heartwarming. Joseph Mazzello and Brad Renfro prove their star quality in this movie, along with Dexter's (Mazzello) mother Annabella Sciorra.

When i first watched The Cure on TV, i didn't know what to expect, but as i watched this masterpiece it soon became clear what it was about. Dexter an 11 year old boy who is plagued with AIDS, sits around his backyard playing with his toys when one day he meets his next door neighbour Eric, which at first is a little awkward for the 2 boys, but they soon became good friends.

During the film, i kept wondering what would happen to the two boys, as they kept me wondering. I wondered how the heck they would get to New Orleans sitting a door with a sea biscuit under it pulling an inflatable crocodile behind it. There were other great scenes throughout the movie.

But the part that reached out to me was the part when Dexter's health started to deteriorate. You just couldn't help but wonder if he was going to make it but towards the end you find out. I thought at the first prank they played, that Dexter was really dead he obviously wasn't, silly me. But when they play the third, something is very wrong. Dexter doesn't get up to laugh nor does he show any kind of laughter. At that point the victim of their prank soon announces that poor Dexter had died. At that part i lost it. I balled my eyes out, and from that scene onwards i was crying. You just have to. As the end nears you start to understand Eric's loss and then the movie ends on a nice note with Dexters shoe floating ever so slowly down the river.

Overall this movie was excellent. It has laughter, adventure, emotion and sadness etc. When you put that in a blender you get an excellent, must watch film. Peter Horton has done a great job directing this film and i believe its certainly one of his best. But for now, i will try to search for this movie on DVD, if it exists that is. Once again a superb movie that will take you on an emotional rollercaoster.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*** Contains spoilers ***

A lovely film this, starring Brad Renfro and the ever wonderful Joseph Mazzello. I like Joseph Mazzello, out of all his films I've seen to date I've loved every single one of them for many different reasons and The Cure is no different. Brad Renfro does very well in this movie as well. The Cure is a drama\/coming of age movie from the viewpoint of an ill child and his friend.

The basic idea is: Dexter (Joseph Mazzello) has AIDS. He ends up befriending the kid next door (Brad Renfro) but Erik's mum is very narrow-minded, ill-informed and somewhat \"thick\" when it comes to Dexter's illness. She thinks AIDS is contagious like the Common Cold so doesn't want her son going anywhere near Dexter.

After many attempts at making their own cure with no success, the boys go on their way to New Orleans to find the cure after reading a pamphlet about it. After getting their kicks from Playboy magazine, Dexter's health goes south shortly afterwards and as his health detoriates, there's still enough life in the boy alongside Erik for two pranks of pretending to stop breathing. Unfortunately, poor Dexter does indeed die from his illness, leaving poor Erik behind to wonder why he couldn't find the cure. Throughout the movie he ends up bonding more with Dexter's mother than his own.

It is a very heartwarming movie to watch and is not absolutely perfect (movies rarely are) but you won't care less about that as you get involved in the film more. A must for Joseph Mazzello fans, one of his best performances ever. Very well recommended must-see movie - if you can find a copy :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Junior high and high school teachers will find \"The Cure\" an excellent teaching tool, both as a companion to \"Huckleberry Finn\" or as a stand-alone lesson. Although AIDS is supposed to be the main theme, the strong sup-text of friendship and love, as they evolve between Eric and Dexter, is a powerful message for teenagers. Writing prompts centered around the symbolism of the tennis shoe are particularly effective. I also suggest directed class discussion about how Eric evolves from manipulative user to loving friend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There was nothing else on tv yesterday afternoon, so I thought \"okay, let's watch this.\" I didn't know the plot and I had no expectation whatsoever, I was thinking in a few minutes or so I will channel surf again. But then story started to unfold, and the characters played beautifully by the two boys. The story did have unrealistic parts and scenes, but overall it was a real good movie. Very well worth watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although flawed in it's view of homosexuals, this movie will shed light for the viewer about the myths and inaccuracies concerning AIDS. Despite the depressing subject matter, this film depicts a warm friendship between two boys, and will make you laugh as well as cry. Very well-acted by all, especially Joseph Mazzello and Brad Renfro. The language is a little strong, though appropriate, and it's an entertaining and intelligent film for the whole family. But remember to have the Kleenex ready!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A tale of a young boy, Dexter (Joseph Mazzello) with AIDS who befriends a rough and tumble boy (played by Brad Renfro) his exact opposite, The Cure is sad, if a bit too soapy, pull at your emotions \"message\" movie with it's heart in the right place. For that fact alone, it's a recommended view. The highlight might be just watching them finding friendship and hanging out with each other when no one else accepts them.

However since the real story centers on the boy's AIDS - things take off when one day at the local supermarket, Dexter's eye catches a checkout tabloid magazine that states a New Orleans doctor has discovered the cure. Both of them, obviously a tad naive, make it a plan to set out for New Orleans in whichever means possible. Which kinda pulled me two ways. It's a mite heart warming and I hate to nit-pick, but I found the plot wanders in a melodramatic, predictable sense and the proceedings have a coat of gloss over them like only movies can do. I couldn't escape the tugging notion I was watching a road trip movie about self discovery, sickness and growing up. For instance, I know they're young, but I found it a real task to belief in the things these boys do. Like boiling tree leaves and drinking the hot 'tea' or eating an experimental diet of chocolate bars because they believe it will combat the ravaging disease. To say nothing of them making a cross-country voyage as they do with no legal or downright scary repercussions. Still misgivings aside, those movie conventions you come to expect, it's a story worth seeing particularly with family.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was truly a heart warming movie. It is filled with so many messages. Loyalty, friendship, sickness, death, and the paranoia society has concerning anything they don't understand. I have shed a few tears during certain movies, but this movie kept the tears flowing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Cure\" is a very touching and poignant drama. The film focuses on two neighborhood boys who become good friends. One of the boys has AIDS. The boys become good friends despite Erik's apprehensiveness at first. The film shows the boys journey to discover \"the cure\", which is in Ohio according to \"The National Examiner\", and how it affects their relationship. The acting is wonderful (I have never seen Annabella Sciorra do better), and the movie is just plain touching. I couldn't stop crying with the shoe scene. This is a good tearjerker. Keep the kleenex nearby. 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Cure is one of the few movies I rated 10 out of 10. I mean, everything is flawless for me in this motion picture. I saw it almost a year ago, and yet I remember many of the scenes, especially the final touching scene that comes with the credits.

The two boy actors clearly gave everything they could and this greatly contributes the excellent storyline, making the film perfect.

The message is clear - friendship, and it's displayed throughout the whole thing.

I have nothing more to say here. Simplicity is one of the things I love so much about this film. And of course, it's fun and moving at the same time, suiting people of any age.

10\/10, nicely done!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Let me start out with saying I was VERY surprised with the production value of this movie. I managed to catch an early showing and I have to Say this is the BEST (if not only) Christian film to hit theaters since The Passion.

Don't let the PG-13 rating scare you off, the rating is appropriate because of the serious issues that are dealt with in this film (divorce, teen pregnancy, drug use, and suicide), but nothing in the film is gratuitous. This is definitely a movie that a Junior High youth group could see without upsetting (most) parents, and the message is wonderful. The best part is this is not a film FOR Christians, it is a Family film without the cheesy 7th Heaven feel.

The laughs are there, and several times in the theater everyone was laughing, the bits of humor were natural and didn't seem scripted or forced, and that made for good pacing in such a serious film. Teens and young adult, both religious and otherwise, will be able to identify with many if not all of the characters in the film, and I was surprised to see such issues dealt with in this kind of film. The plot is not in any way predictable, and by the end hits closer to home than many will admit. Christians, fortunately, are not shown as all mighty know it all's of \"The Word\", but instead people just trying to understand life. Humans make mistakes and no one is perfect, not even in this film... not by a long shot.

The acting is top notch, the writing spot on, and you aren't hit over the head with all the preachy Christian rhetoric. This is a great film that will make you and your teens think, talk, and perhaps question their own morality (or lack thereof). If you want to see a quality family film in January check your local listings for this film, and you might learn something about yourself.

And I am a 25 year old male that just wanted to see a free movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Such an awesome movie -- I was transfixed the entire time and so emotionally overcome in the end! The two young male actors in the movie were more than compelling in their performance as their friendship and support of one another was quite believable and I thought the comparison\/contrast between their respective home lives vs. health situations were made so very real between them. The success in bringing this movie to life was obviously a team effort so to actors, EP's, producers, writers, directors, and all of production I say, \"WELL PLAYED!\" Having missed the credits at the beginning of the movie (it was being shown on HBO), I was so very surprised that I had to actually research (albeit briefly) the internet in order to find the title of this movie -- something so great should have been known by me -- a clear indication that this movie must be re-released!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So glad I have HBO right now. I didn't plan on watching a movie today, but when I got home and saw that the next movie on HBO was this one I decided (based on the description) to at least give it a shot. I'm so glad I decided to watch this movie! Maybe this movie just caught me at a vulnerable moment (I'm a little stressed out, got a huge test to be studying for), but it definitely gave me quite the perspective on friendship not to mention taught me a valuable lesson on empathy. I'm currently one year away from graduating from pharmacy school and the whole scene involving the doctor and the nurse was definitely a learning point for me!

Anyhow, I just wanted to post up letting the world know this is an amazing movie and not to be missed. There is definitely something for everyone in this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had never heard about this movie when it was given to me to translate, so I didn't know what to expect. I checked it out on IMDb and got curious. It didn't take long to realize that this was a gem. Outstanding performances, great story, and it's both well directed and well written. It's hard to compare it to other movies, but \"Stand by me\" comes to mind, although it has as many differences from \"The cure\" as similarities. The tale of an extraordinary friendship between young boys, plus the dramatic and humorous elements are the most obvious similarities between this movie and \"Stand by me\". Other than that, \"The cure\" is a fine movie in its own right, well worth a wider recognition. It's dramatic, but also adventurous, sad, but also humorous. I can't think of a single thing that bothers me about it. Having said that, I don't want to give the impression that it is a \"perfect movie\", whatever that means, but rather that I enjoyed it immensely, was very moved by it and wouldn't change a thing in it. I won't go into a detailed description of the story\/plot, partly because it would be either too general or too revealing, and partly because you can find that information elsewhere on the site. In closing, I can only say: Wonderful movie, see it if you get the chance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On more than one level, I can relate to what happens in this movie in a very personal way. And all I can say about it is, that it's true, what Dexter's mom tells Eric at the end of the story: he actually did 'cure' her son, by taking away his sad feelings and his loneliness.

This movie emphasis a philosophy I can very well agree with. We are all going to die one day sooner or later. In the end, it is not the amount of time we live, but the fun\/good times\/happiness we have during that time. It is not the quantity, but the quality that counts.

I guess all other words used here would only keep you any longer from getting to see this movie, if you haven't already. I really would like to see it released on DVD. Definitely it would be added to my 'all time classics' right away!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would just like to say that The Cure was a fabulious movie to help inform how people who are HIV positive have to function in life. Expecially a young boy who cant go to school because he could contaminate someone. and the ignorance of the boys who called them FAGGOTS. that just shows how much children are not educated about aids.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Working the night shift in a seedy police station, stumbling through life in an alcoholic haze, Detective Mickey Hayden can hardly be said to have a firm grasp on reality to begin with, but when a bump on the head unleashes terrifying psychic visions, things get truly weird. Soon he's on the trail of a serial killer and unraveling the mystery of his beautiful first victim, the elusive Alice.

The role of an embittered burn-out seems tailor-made for Keifer Sutherland and he makes the most of it. The plot's typical serial killer stuff, but it has enough quirks, twists, and genuine surprises to raise it above the usual genre fare and even make up for a painfully low budget. (One wonders what this film could have been if there'd been money for a few more rewrites and a few more takes.)

All in all, 'After Alice' is a pleasant diversion for anyone, but for fans of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' books, it's a real treat. From the topsy-turvy reality in which things are rarely what they've seem, to more obvious references -- a killer called 'The Jabberwocky', who leaves playing cards on his victims' bodies -- there's an 'Alice' reference at every turn. Below is a list of the ones I uncovered. Since finding them yourself is half the fun, I've marked them as spoilers.

SPOILERS

Cast of Characters

Mickey - In a sense he's Alice himself wandering through strange landscapes, encountering odd characters, but Harvey, recognizing his true nature, identifies him as the hapless, bumbling White Knight.

John Hatter (Mickey's boss) - Is he really 'mad'? You be the judge

Claudette - An African-American transvestite. Obviously, the Black Queen

Margaret Ellison - Mickey calls her the Red Queen, but her brutal nature suggests, more specifically, the Queen of Hearts.

Gideon Wood - Suspected of being the Jabberwocky killer, his ambiguous role is more suggestive of a snark (or a boojum perhaps).

Harvey - His role as unofficial guide to 'wonderland' and his name, evocative of another famous cinematic rabbit, makes me think he must be the White Rabbit

Dr. Vera Swann - Her last name and relationship with Mickey suggest the White Queen.

Other Connections

Mickey's adventures begin when he chases a man in white and falls down a (rabbit) hole.

Mickey drunkenly tells his cat to stop grinning at him (Cheshire Cat)

The killer is revealed 'through the looking glass'.

The climatic showdown ends in a swirl of playing cards, just as Alice's adventure did in the book.

The statues in the garden look like giant chess pieces.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"People watch movies for a variety of different reasons. This movie didn't have the big budget, there's no special effects, no car chases and there's no explosions. Actually reality doesn't have much of these either. At least not in my life.

This is a very real movie about very real people, none of them perfect in any way but together they are put into a situation where they learn to explore and accept what is different and that in turn makes order out of chaos. I am not prepared to limit the possibility of parapsychology, since I'm neither an expert nor use the full extent of my own brain.

So watch this movie for the characters. It is brim-full of a whole cast of wonderful quirky folk.

Within the first three minutes Kiefer Sutherland enacts Detective Michael Hayden's life superbly and he keeps developing the character throughout the movie. Excellent acting, very believable.

Henry Czerny could not have been cast better and the rapport between his 'Harvey' and Kiefer's 'Mickey' enhances the oppositeness of their characters.

I thoroughly enjoyed the cranky landlady, 'Mrs Ramsay', I'm sure she and my mother-in-law are good friends!!!

There's a host more of these wonderful characters but space is limited here so watch the movie and enjoy them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ALICE is the kind of movie they made in the 30's and 40's. Never attempts to be an \"event\". Just wants to entertain. And it does. I was surprised by Kiefer Sutherland. In a role that could be a cliche, he made it real. The plot does make allusions to ALICE IN WONDERLAND. A guy dressed in white does go through a hole and Kiefer does fall down one. Like ALICE the plot does twist and turn, but with a freshness you don't see in small movies. I loved the direction, Sutherland, just a very fast paced and interesting movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Another brilliant portrayal by Kiefer Sutherland who plays Mickey Hayden, a cop dealing with psychic visions of murdered victims. I absolutely love movies dealing with the psychic realm, and I wasn't disappointed with \"Eye of the Killer\" (AKA After Alice). I only wish the movie had been released theatrical first.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really liked this movie. If other people want to give it an average around 5.0\/10 that's their choice. I would give it 10\/10. Sutherland's performance as a private eye is totally awesome. The story is amazing, human, exciting, intelligent. The dialogue is good. The story might not be perfect but anyway - the mood of the movie is good enough to compensate for that. Moreover, the ending is incredibly cool and their the jig-saw puzzle really comes back to together. So anyway I liked it. I also thought the female lead actress performed very well. I'm not a big fan of detective movies but this one was really good, also because it doesn't give a damn about conventions of the supernatural.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this film was excellent, quirky and different to the usual run of the mill 'disengaged cop catching serial killer' film. Kiefer Sutherland was brilliant as usual - I really don't think I have seen anything that he has done where he has not acted brilliantly. The dialogue was funny at times lightening the mood, and the plot engaging. Thanks to other reviewers for showing the link with Alice in Wonderland - I hadn't picked up on those. I would recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of Kiefer Sutherlands (as I am) and to anyone who wants to watch an entertaining film for a couple of hours. It was a shame that it wasn't released at the cinemas for a wider audience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ANOTHER great performance by Kiefer Sutherland. I love his movies, because he always plays his role very well. For a low budget film, this was done very good, and kept me on the edge the whole time. I love these type of movies, and I was glad I caught it on. I'll be buying the dvd or tape for sure.

9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Aah yes the workout show was a great. Not only did many women get in shape, but many teenage boys got a great workout as well. I am not saying that the show was in any way not appropriate for family viewing, but if you check the other works from the shows producer, you will find more adult themes in his works, which are also excellent. Many of the viewers looked forward to the show, men and women alike all gained good information and a wonderful release,from the workouts. The girls were perfect, and Beautiful, the show is a classic and should do well in syndication. The show should still be on, as there are never enough choices to view when it comes to health and beauty.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"after my daughter was born in 1983, i needed to lose weight. i tried the 20 minute workout and i was hooked. i lost about 50 lbs. it was the most weight i ever lost in my life. i can't believe this show is forgotten. it would be a blessing if you started a cable channel strictly for exercise and included the 20 minute workout. i think this was the best workout video ever made. i wish i could purchase it somehow and somewhere. the routine was easy to learn and you did work up quite a sweat. the workouts they have today are too complicated and too hard to learn. please do your best to get this video back in circulation. i pray it will be a blessing to all who see and use it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just want to say that I was thrilled to find these comments about the show. I have tried online searches for info about the show in the past with no luck. I LOVED the show. I have a hard time getting motivated to exercise but this show made it fun. As another comment mentioned that it wasn't so complicated as the routines nowadays. It was an ideal workout that got the job done! I would give anything to be able to buy a copy of just one workout. I remember many of the moves but not nearly all of it. Somebody please try to get it back on the air and also make it available on DVD. It is so great to know I wasn't the only one that loved that show! Thanks for making my day!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So funny is the perfect way to describe this 12 minutes spoof of the original Star Wars. Hardware Wars is incredibly funny. It is presented as the trailer of the space epic Hardware Wars. The joke is this: imagine Star Wars played by bad actors and incredibly bad special effects. The characters include the \"intergalactic boy-wonder\" Fluke Starbucker, the \"ace mercenary and intergalactic wise guy\" Ham Salad, Darph Nader, \"villain\" and a host of other fantastic characters. It is impossible not to laugh as you watch this 12 minutes treasure. It's stupid but it's fun. You will laugh from the start to the end, and you will feel the need to watch it again, and again, and again, and again... And you will laugh every time you see it!!!

10 out of 10. The funniest 12 minutes ever made. You will believe it lasted a minute!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Nothing is sacred. Just ask Ernie Fosselius. These days, everybody has a video camera, and a movie is hardly out before the spoofs start flying, quickly written and shot, and often posted directly to the internet. Spoofs are hot these days, and we go out of our way to make sure filmmakers don't get off on their own self-importance. 25 years ago, when the first Star Wars was made, it was a different world. Filmmaking was the playground of a select few and spoofs were very rare. Then God gave us Hardware Wars. It was shot to look cheap (or was it just cheap?) and the audio was obviously recorded after the fact. Does that take away from the experience? HECK NO! That's what makes it so great! It was raw and unpolished, and hit relentlessly on some of the more pretentious moments of the original movie. From Fluke Starbucker waving around a flashlight instead of a lightsaber (I did that when I was young!) to Chewchilla the Wookie Monster, to Auggie Ben Doggie's \"nah, just a little headache\" remark, this film short is as much a part of the phenomenon as any of the actual Star Wars films. Rent it. Buy it. Borrow it from a friend. And may the Farce be with you. Always.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't seen \"Hardware Wars\" in years, but I remember it as one of the most hilarious events of human experience, and it was over far too soon. Every aspect of this movie was hilarious, and it was even better than \"Star Wars.\" I laughed. I cried. After watching it, I asked a family member for a moment with three dollars just so I could kiss it goodbye (I'm kidding about the last one). I love it when Ham Salad's sidekick\/co-pilot tries to eat Princess Anne Droid's cinnamon hair buns, and the Darph Nader character is just hilarious! This film would be great to watch back-to-back with \"Thumb Wars,\" and I sincerely wish there could have been a \"Hardware Wars, Episode II: The Umpire Strikes Out.\" (Was there?)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Out of all the parodies of Star Wars I've seen, this is probably the funniest. Not because of the premise, Star Wars with simple electronics instead of spaceships, but because of how poorly acted it is. This is purposely overacted, and it makes it hilarious, and since everyone knows its purposely overacted, no one complains. The special effects were also purposely as awful as can be, and include a toaster on a visible string that shoots toast, and an egg beater on a string. This short is funny for any fan of Star Wars (which I'm not), or anyone that has 15 minutes to kill. Great short!!

My rating: *** out of ****. 13 mins. Not rated.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The hysterical Hardware Wars is finally out on DVD. HW has earned its niche among parody classics and is not only a riotous little 20 minute short but a staple in low budget film production classes, which is where a lot of the film's cult status is derived from and resides. With the DVD, not only do we get a chance to revisit the original parody (4Q2, Cinnamon-Bun Head, Ballistic Toast, et al) that Ernie F. did in 1978, but there is a lot of additional material showcasing the Fosselius wit. Antique Sideshow is a dead-on parody that is very funny but makes a statement about the confluence of ignorance and greed at the same time. The Director's Commentary is also hysterical, as is the Creature Feature which parodies taking a film out on the talk-show circuit and actually IS based on taking HW out on the talk show circuit, albeit the public access circuit. I'd love to see Ernie, Michael Wiese and crew take on some other, contemporary overblown and overbudgeted targets to parody -- like just about any film that Hollywood churns out at $100 million a pop these days -- not so much the crafty films like Spider Man or Men In Black (actually parodies themselves!) but any number of overblown, overhyped, overwrought and overpriced features.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Done on a spare change budget of twenty bucks tops, this cheapie thirteen minute short cheerfully parodies George Lucas' legendary '77 sci-fi blockbuster \"Star Wars\" in the most infectiously dumb way imaginable. Writer\/director Ernie Fosselius delivers a winning and often gut-busting blend of ludicrous sound effects, ineptly staged action scenes, cruddy (far from) special effects (you just gotta love the cheesy scratched-on-film lasers, tinfoil asteroids, and household appliances ... eer, I mean spaceships being swung around on obvious wires), badly dubbed in dialogue, shamelessly hammy acting, and Richard Wagner's rousing piece of classical music \"Ride of the Valkyries.\" The characters are presented in suitably broad strokes; my favorites are whiny wimp Fluke Starbucker, venerable Jedi knight Auggie \"Ben\" Doggie, and hateful arch villain Darph Nader (who spouts nothing but incomprehensible gibberish). Moreover, 4-Q-3 is clearly based on the Tin Man from \"The Wizard of Oz\" while Artie Deco is definitely a cheap vacuum cleaner. This film's true masterstroke is casting legendary voice actor supreme Paul Frees as the narrator; Frees' deliciously rich and plummy histrionic tones add immensely to the considerable silly, yet sidesplitting tongue-in-cheek merriment (choice lines: \"You'll laugh! You'll cry! You'll kiss three bucks goodbye!\"). A total hoot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this little gem totally by accident back in 1980 or '81. I was at a revival theatre to see two old silly sci-fi movies. The theatre was packed full and (with no warning) they showed a bunch of sci-fi short spoofs (to get us in the mood). Most were somewhat amusing but THIS came on and, within seconds, the audience was in hysterics! The biggest laugh came when they showed \"Princess Laia\" having huge cinnamon buns instead of hair on her head. She looks at the camera, gives a grim smile and nods. That made it even funnier! You gotta see \"Chewabacca\" played by what looks like a Muppet! It was extremely silly and stupid...but I couldn't stop laughing. Most of the dialogue was drowned out because of all the laughter. Also if you know \"Star Wars\" pretty well it's even funnier--they deliberately poke fun at some of the dialogue. This REALLY works with an audience! A definite 10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Undoubtedly the funniest movie I have ever seen. It's definitely worth the fourteen minutes it takes to watch. I will never look at my kitchen appliances the same way again. Bob Knickerbocker deserves an Oscar. \"Relax, kid. It's only a movie\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just got the DVD for Hardware Wars, in a shiny new package, looking irresistable. Stuck it in my DVD player to find a slew of extra fun stuff. The extra content on the DVD is even longer than the movie. For those of you that have (shame!) never seen Hardware Wars, it one fantastically silly Star Wars spoof (of Episode IV, of course). Household appliances (such as irons, toasters, vacuums, and a waffle maker) stand in for Ty-fighters, X-wings, R2D2, and the death star. Instead of Princess Leia, we have Princess Ann-Droid, complete with Cinnabon hairdo. You get the point, I'm sure. Mad silliness, and a fun ride for any Star Wars geek (like me!)

Now, the DVD - wow! A director's commentary where he basically goes off on the movie, making fun of himself and the project throughout. An interview with Fosselius on Creature Features (remember that?!) and hilarious \"director's cut\" and \"foreign version\" of the movie (all jokes of course). Anyway, this is great. I loved Hardware Wars in the theater, and am so glad for having the DVD in my collection - wedged in between MST3K: the movie and Thumb Wars!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Fourteen of the funniest minutes on celluloid. This short parody is at least as much a part of the Star Wars saga as Phantom Menace, and far more entertaining, if you ask me. Hardware Wars was the first in a long line of SW spoofs which form their own subgenre these days. I hate to describe it too much-it's so short that the premise is just about the whole thing. Suffice it to say that many of the most popular and familiar aspects of Star Wars have fun poked at them. Household appliances such as toasters and vacuum cleaners portray spaceships and robots, the Princess Anne-Droid character wears actual bread rolls on her head instead of the famous coils of braided hair, and Fluke Starbucker is even more of a dork than his original, if that's possible. Ernie Fosselius is one crazy son-of-a-buck-he's also the source of Porklips Now, the Apocalypse Now spoof.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was a schoolboy when I watched this film for the first time. The next day I knew that all pupils of our form watched it and all were fascinated by the film as I was. I think the same situation was in all forms of our school and in the whole Soviet Union. Later I watched it every time it was shown on TV and want to watch more. I think that comparison with \"Back to the Future\" or other Sci-Fi films is not appropriate. \"Gost'ya iz budushchego\" is unique in many ways, once you have watched it, you never forget it.

This film is full of belief in peaceful science achievements, full of belief in the beautiful future of our world. It's not only the film, but also a forecast of many scientific inventions and achievements. The time shown in the film is the year 1984 (the year of its creation) and the year 2084 (where a schoolboy Kolya Gerasimov has traveled for some time and where his friend Alisa Seleznyova was from). The year now is 2005, many inventions and achievements predicted in the film are not realized yet. Such as \"Mielophone\" (a device, which can read thoughts of any animal and human), expeditions to Venus and Mars (as easy as going for a picnic in the weekend), creating and launching of the satellites as a homework for pupils, easy to drive flying machines (which completely replaced automobiles), biorobots, \"historical identification\" of any kind of material or creature performed in a couple of minutes, and many others. Meanwhile, some of them nowadays became much more realistic than they seemed in 1984! Just wait for 2084 :-)

The film also depicts typical Russian schoolboys and schoolgirls (and does it so naturally!). With their inventiveness, curiosity, humour, dreaminess. Look for example at Fima Korolyov, you could find such character in nearly all forms of every school of the Soviet Union, similar character was in my form too! Alisa Seleznyova... I myself, as well as many my classmates fell in love at first sight with her! By the way, later an actress who played Alisa became a scientist - I think she was as much influenced by the film as people who watched it on TV.

Beautiful idea, beautiful realization, beautiful actors, beautiful music, beautiful song \"Prekrasnoye Daleko\" (\"The Wonderful Far-Away\")... Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful...

The last thing I want to say is that different remakes and \"new versions\" of the song from the film and even the film itself were made later and spread on TV and in the Internet. All they are not even comparable with the original. I should not even comment them, my comment is only about the original. So, request the original and enjoy it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Guest from the Future tells a fascinating story of time travel, friendship, battle of good and evil -- all with a small budget, child actors, and few special effects. Something for Spielberg and Lucas to learn from. ;) A sixth-grader Kolya \"Nick\" Gerasimov finds a time machine in the basement of a decrepit building and travels 100 years into the future. He discovers a near-perfect, utopian society where robots play guitars and write poetry, everyone is kind to each other and people enjoy everything technology has to offer. Alice is the daughter of a prominent scientist who invented a device called Mielophone that allows to read minds of humans and animals. The device can be put to both good and bad use, depending on whose hands it falls into. When two evil space pirates from Saturn who want to rule the universe attempt to steal Mielophone, it falls into the hands of 20th century school boy Nick. With the pirates hot on his tracks, he travels back to his time, followed by the pirates, and Alice. Chaos, confusion and funny situations follow as the luckless pirates try to blend in with the earthlings. Alice enrolls in the same school Nick goes to and demonstrates superhuman abilities in PE class. The catch is, Alice doesn't know what Nick looks like, while the pirates do. Also, the pirates are able to change their appearance and turn literally into anyone. (Hmm, I wonder if this is where James Cameron got the idea for Terminator...) Who gets to Nick -- and Mielophone -- first? Excellent plot, non-stop adventures, and great soundtrack. I wish Hollywood made kid movies like this one...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that Gost'ya Iz Buduschego is one of the best Russians minis for teens. I think i were near 6-8 parts of the movie. \"One boy form 6th grade found a time machine in the old house where nobody lived. And he goes to the 21st century, just 100 years in future. In future he meat pirates, they tried to steal a \"milafon\" - machine to read minds and a story started...\" Soundtrack for that movie was very popular in Soviet Union. Everybody loved that movie which was on TV every year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spending an hour seeing this brilliant Dan Finnerty and his \"Dan Band\" perform their special on Bravo is the most enjoyable hour I've ever spent watching TV. This young man (Dan) is such an incredible talent, as a singer, performer and even dancer. He can go from the cheesiest of ballad pop songs, all of which have only been sung by women, to hip-hop, rock, also songs written for women.. This guy can do anything. I've seen him live at least 11 times, so I was not expecting just how well that his show would adapt to a television or film format, but all reservations went away instantly when the show started because of Dan's overwhelming star quality.Do yourself a favor and watch this, or better yet, buy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I laughed my ass off for an hour. I had no idea who Dan Finneity was. Why haven't I heard of Dan Finnerty before? He's hysterical and so are his backup singers. They make all of these women songs that we would never wanna hear a new experience. They blow these songs away. This was on Bravo last night. Why isn't this Dan guy like \"ultra famous\"? Great voice! Charisma to burn! He blew me away with this show! I just read on the internet that he was once a member of \"Stomp\" I guess there isn't anything he can't do. I saw \"Stomp\" at a UCLA theater years ago and those guys were amazing. This show last night was done by Dreamworks! Does that mean that Spielberg did this? Why don't they star this Dan Finnerty in a movie. There was a standing ovation at the end of this show and every time the camera's cut to the audience, everyone was so into it, singing along or dancing. The whole show had this amazing energy. My only complaint was that it was not longer, but looking back, when you see how much energy these guys put out, I guess it would be impossible for any human being to perform with such gusto for over an hour. Man I loved this show!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was really one of the most enjoyable specials that I have seen on TV. He is just an incredible performer. His personality shines through in each one of the songs that he does. I really wish this was available as an uncut DVD so I could watch it over and over without the -beeps- for explicit language. I have not had the chance to see him live, but that is something that I really want to do now. I can't forget his backup singers. They really added a lot of substance and humor to the show. With their campy style, and flamboyant dance moves, they really complement the true talent of Dan. I wish there were some more of the songs that are on his live CD, which is also incredible. It is refreshing to see someone like him perform. Just so incredibly personable and real, I really can't say enough good things about Dan and this show. Once again, I just wish this was available as an uncut DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This Bravo special is one of the most purely entertaining things I've ever seen on TV. Unlike Me First & The Gimme Gimmes (the worlds foremost Punk-Supergroup\/Cover-Band), The Dan Band really must be seen to be appreciated.

On paper, The Dan Band is just a one-joke act- guy sings girly songs and inserts gratuitous profanity into the lyrics. If you listen to their \"Dan Band Live\" CD, that's all you'll get, and it'll get old quick. (I only bought it because it had some songs that weren't on the TV special.) But what's made Dan Finnerty a Hollywood cult hero is his amazing stage presence. This guy OWNS his audience for every second he's onstage. And the backup singers are a large part of the visual punchline as well. As for the actual band- they stay out of sight for the most part, but are certainly much more energetic and enthusiastic than your typical lounge-act backing band. Hopefully, a DVD version will be released soon- there were almost certainly some songs cut and although the heavy censoring adds a bit of unintentional humor, it also removes the INTENTIONAL humor.

If there is any sense in the world, the Vegas casino owners will soon be fighting over who can build Dan his own showroom faster.

\"Re-------member my name...FAME!\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Dan Finnerty and the Dan Band are so-o-o-o-o-o good, they must be seen to believe. Does anyone out there have a copy of the Bravo concert for sale?? Please, if there is an upcoming release, let us all know. I checked the Bravo site, but there is no future date scheduled for a repeat performance by the most appealing guys ever choreographed, the Dan Band. What great energy they exude, flinging themselves about with cute American-boy attitude, based on butch sensitivity being wrapped up in sequins and tears, making men and women alike fall in love with them. I hope enough people can influence the powers that be at Bravo to bring the show back into our lives, as a semi-annual special.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Note: I've tried not to give away any important plot twists (or the ending) but if you're concerned about that, please think about viewing the film before reading further--Thanks!

This was obviously a fairly high budget production, released by Paramount. The story follows the (supposedly true)exploits of hiway-man Jack Shepard in 1700's London. He was a locksmith who got blackmailed into a life of crime by the nefarious \"Thief-Taker\" to save his brother's life. After being double crossed by the Thief-Taker, we turns into a sort of Robin Hood type figure and gains the support of the common folk. He proceeds to make escapes from several prisons (including the infamous Newgate) as well as having time to \"entertain\" numerous noble ladies.

I really enjoyed the film, even though the plot was a bit predictable. The film was shot in Glencree and Wicklow Ireland and the sets were very well done and seemed realistic. I think Clavell captured the bustling atmosphere of London in the 1700's quite well and I enjoyed his creative use of camera angles. And, unlike many films depicting this period, Clavell pulls no punches in showing us the deplorable conditions in which the poor lived (in one scene several folks fight over a meat pie that has rolled through the filth in the street).

Overall, I really enjoyed this film. I will admit that it lacks the wonderful scenery and underlying political commentary that Clavell's next film The Last Valley has (a parable to the Vietnam War), but it still merits a viewing or two. It is regrettable that it has not ever (to my knowledge) been released on video or DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When commenting on this film, one must realise that it is based on a true story, and must therefore be reviewed for the quality and accuracy of it's portrayal of the events, as well as its entertainment value. It may well be implausible that Jack Shepherd should surrender twice to Jack Wild because Wild had captured Edgeworth Bess. None the less, it happened. It must also be noted that the director was young and inexperienced, which explains why he relied upon tried and tested techniques. There were occasions when Clavell did not have the confidence to follow the script as written. The film would be better if he had. And yes, I used to have a copy of the script (Stanley Baker's copy - one of five), which I returned recently to my father, Rafe Newhouse, the writer.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Even though I saw this film when I was very young, I already knew the story of Wild the Thief-Taker and Shepherd who famously escaped from Newgate prison.

Apart from the liberty taken right at the end, the film more or less faithfully follows the true story. The temptation to bend the facts which is the hallmark of so many so-called historical films is resisted in this film and the film makers must be praised for that.

Of the performances, There is scarcely a poor performance, and Tommy Steele is ideally cast. Also good is Stanley Baker as the Thief-Taker and Alan Badel is good as always.

Because the film sticks to the facts, it makes it suitable to be watched by all the family.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that just sums up this film. Watch it and you'll find out why. The acting of the lead character John Keem is really, really bad and he has no on screen charisma whatsoever. It's very funny because of this thought, as is the ending where Keem beheads the bad guy despite the fact he is unarmed and has surrendered. Brilliant!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Richard Norton really lights the screen up in this Portland, Oregon based martial arts masterpiece. Norton, an Aussie heartthrob, plays the evil Mr. Milverstead who runs a successful import\/export business both smuggling arms and participating in the female flesh trade. Usually the women are plucked from his favorite dance club with the help of a squad of goons the most well known of who is Bolo Yeung, playing the role of Ice. Trouble comes for Milverstead when a new cop in town John Kim (Britton Lee) is out to avenge his dead partners murder at the hand of Milverstead's organization. If you have time to see only one martial arts movie this year, don't miss this classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those films that, for whatever reason, just clicked with me. Everything about it is right. Eric Roberts laconic, nice investigator, his voiceover narration, the twisting plot, Dan Hedaya and Denis Lipscomb given good roles, the settings, the paintings in the artist studio scenes, the end credit sequence and the wonderfully haunting theme music that perfectly encapsulates the mood of the whole film. If I have any reservations it is about Beverly D'Angelo as the femme fatale, but she plays her final scenes beautifully. I think that director Matthew Chapman was trying for a sort of 'Chinatown' feel to the whole thing. It didnt work. But as a murder-mystery its a gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is a coveted member of my movie library. While not a mainstream film, it is, in my view, a highly effective film noir in which Eric Roberts is totally underrated as an actor. (I would qualify him as a much better actor than his sister, Julia, who is overrated, but that's another review...) Roberts plays the down-on-his-luck ex-reporter with the perfect mix of narrative precision and jaded idealism: two ingredients that are part and parcel of any effective film noir. The first-person narration by Roberts enhances the quality of the movie, and keeps us guessing on the real motive behind the crime.

Set in Palm Springs, everything about the setting in the movie progresses slowly as a metaphor for the theme of oppression: Asch (Roberts) is oppressed by his past; the police are oppressed by the rich residents of Palm Springs who treat them as servants; the rich, meanwhile, are oppressed by boredom (watch Johnny Depp's classic performance as the insightful rich kid who only wants to be loved...); the isolation of each character is omnipresent and is further augmented by the heat and isolation of the desert.

There is an audience for this film if they're looking for a more contemporary version of film noir. While there are elements of the film that might have been tighter, I recommend getting a copy of this film and putting it right between The Big Sleep and Chinatown in your movie library. (The film is based on the Arthur Lyons book, CASTLES BURNING, and if you like Roberts's acting in this one, you may want to get a copy of The Ambulance, in which he showcases his funnier, lighter side.) BEST LINE IN THE FILM: \"Careful? Careful of what? I should've asked. Only fools ignore the strange warnings of trailer park ladies.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ex-reporter Jacob Asch (Eric Roberts) is hired by an acquaintance (Raymond J. Barry) to find his ex-wife and son. Asch heads to Palm Springs and quickly locates the ex Laine (Beverly D'Angelo) with someone he believes to be the son (a young Johnny Depp). But things turn out to be a bit more complicated as Asch discovers former white trash Laine has definitely married up in the form of millionaire Simon Fleischer (Dan Hedaya) and her first son is nowhere to be seen.

Director\/writer Matthew Chapman is channeling BODY HEAT here and this mid-80s neo-noir is watchable enough thanks to an all-star cast and nice locations. D'Angelo was still looking good around this time, so she makes for a good femme fatale and isn't afraid to show some skin. However, the mystery isn't very compelling in the end. Co-starring Dennis Lipscomb, Emily Longstreth and Henry Gibson. Chapman made several thrillers in the 80s, but his \"biggest\" career achievement was co-authoring the screenplay for the infamous COLOR OF NIGHT.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Night Crossing' is about an enormous barrier designed not to keep enemies out but to keep its own people in\u0085

'Night Crossing' is about a very long border fencer equipped with silent alarms and automatic firing systems\u0085

'Night Crossing' is about the denial of the basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness\u0085

'Night Crossing' is about the fear and pain that afflict so many families\u0085

'Night Crossing' is about one attempt to risk a crossing through the border zone\u0085

'Night Crossing' is about a loving father whose only desire is to give his boys what should never have been taken away from them\u0085

'Night Crossing' is about a disturbed mother who wants her babies and her husband alive\u0085

'Night Crossing' is about a caring husband who wants his family to be together but in a better place\u0085

'Night Crossing' is about children who want to be free to reach at anytime the sky\u0085

'Night Crossing' is about a hot-air balloon handcrafted and built by two families\u0085

'Night Crossing' is about a balloon which could go just high enough to crash or catch fire and explode\u0085

'Night Crossing' is about two determined men who want their family to climb into a hot air balloon and float away to 'liberty'\u0085

'Night Crossing' is about the fear of getting caught by an evil regime\u0085

'Night Crossing' is about a sensible man who can't let bad dreams stop him\u0085

'Night Crossing' is about an icy policeman who wants every lookout tower on full alert\u0085

With exquisite music by Jerry Goldsmith, Delbert Mann's 'Night Crossing' makes us realize the true value of freedom\u0085

Final thoughts:

There are a few moments in everyone's life, certainly in public lives, that can define a person...

For those of us old enough to remember the Reagan presidency, seeing the clips again in the wake of his death makes it seem like those events happened just yesterday, or last week. The voice, the expressions, are all so familiar. But for a large percentage of people, these events might as well have happened fifty years ago, if not more. They are part of the distant past. President Reagan is a name, and not much more. President Gorbachev is another name, and not much more. So how can we remember these two men who had such a huge impact on their country?

Reagan and Gorbachev worked together to tear down the Berlin Wall and to steer their superpower nations away from nuclear confrontation\u0085","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie Night Crossing captures the feelings experienced by the vast majority of East Germans during the period 1961-89. I lived in West Berlin during most of 1967 and travelled through The Wall into East Berlin on a weekly basis. Why? Excitement, crossing a border into a Soviet governed country, experiencing the smells and the feel of East Germany, which is why Night Crossing is excellent, it captures that very feeling, and it is exciting. I was arrested by the Vopos in Checkpoint Charlie and accosted by a man in his leather coat and dark glasses I am led to believe was Stasi. When I watch the movie I can smell cheap diesel and cooking oil, I can see the outdated vehicles, the drab clothing the public wore and the lacklustre produce in shop windows. It brings back memories of realising just how lucky I was to live in a free country. In 1988, I toured the DDR from East to West, North to South. East Germany had changed little since 1967. The Trabants, constantly breaking down, were still the main mode of private motorised transport, the shops still featured nothing much to tempt me, uniforms were still commonplace, but the people, the ordinary people were open and nice once you had gained their trust. Watch Night Crossing, it's as close to the truth as any movie you will see on divided Germany, even closer than two other favourites The Spy Who Came In From The Cold and Funeral In Berlin.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A real surprise. Not exactly family entertainment from \"Disney\". Some violence, lots of tense moments, and a great story, based on fact. The theme of \"Night Crossing\" is, determination wins. Never losing sight of their objective, two East German families risk it all, in their daring balloon escape to freedom. The story is both harrowing and heartwarming. Time is not on their side. The East German Police are closing in and the outcome far from certain, until the very end. If you are looking for a good evenings entertainment, that contains no nudity, and limited violence, then I highly recommend \"Night Crossing\". It is pure entertainment. - MERK","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie accurately portrays the struggle life was for the typical East German. Watched by the secret police, friends and coworkers, most easterners simply existed.

The Strelzyk's and the Wetzel's were two families that decided they weren't going to take it anymore.

Despite the extreme danger involved in escaping to the West, they feel the rewards far outweighed the risks. John Hurt and Beau Bridges, portraying the respective family heads hit upon the idea of flying over East Germany's heavily fortified border.

There are tense moments as they gather and jimmy-rig the necessary materials for the flight. They work their day jobs and construct the balloon at night, right under the noses of the authorities, one of whom is Strelzyk's neighbor (Klaus Loewitsch).

The first attempt, involving only the Strelzyks, ends in failure when the balloon crashes just a few yards from the border. The crashed balloon is discovered by border guards and an relentless search begins for the conspirators who are determined to try again. With sales of materials being closely monitored Peter and Guenter still manage to procure bits and pieces of cloth with which to construct a second balloon for their nail biting escape to freedom. The film also features a heartwarming and effective soundtrack by the late Jerry Goldsmith.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that this film has become an important record of the most horrifying aspect of the East German regime - the imprisonment of its people by what the regime called its anti-fascist protective wall. It is a document of desperation and courage not to be missed. I would however like to comment on the actual location of this escape. It did not happen in or around Berlin as supposed by some respondents and was nothing to do directly with the Berlin Wall. The escape balloon was flown over the Iron Curtain which not only divided Germany but it divided the whole of Europe at that time. The balloon took off from P\u00f6ssneck, 170 miles south-west of Berlin in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) and flew 14 miles to Naila in Bavaria and freedom in West Germany. The opening of the Iron Curtain in Hungary in 1989 preceded the fall of the Berlin Wall later that year. Whilst the balloon flight created entertaining suspense cinema, it should remain as a monument to those who lost their lives whilst attempting to escape from East Berlin, other parts of the GDR or other Soviet-controlled states.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was surprised as I watched this movie, how much it had 'encaptured' me. No the actors didn't act like typical 'Hollywood' actors, but that's not always bad either, as this film proves. Quite different from the Disney standard, it is a refreshing turn none-the-less! They also give you a taste of what it was probably like without being 'educational'. A movie everyone should both see and enjoy. Many people love arguing over 'accuracies' in any movie of this type, but just getting the basic idea has plenty to offer. Mild gripe; East and West Germany, viewed on any map, would have West Germany on the left side, East to the right. The movie at times, sets you back slightly, because about half of the scenes have West Germany on the right side of the screen, and other times on the left side. Even during the same events, they shift back and forth. Perhaps, just a little more consistency would have avoided this mild distraction. Go See It!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I grew up outside of Naila Germany(where they landed),every detail of the film was 100% authentic,the power lines that they flew over,the nosy neighbors,the grandmother telling the kids that they cant watch west German TV,etc..This movie brings back lots of good memories to those that are European,a great production from Disney...The same movie in German has Klaus Lowitsch and Gunter Meisner using their own voices for translating the English version into German...for the German version they also use Cookoo birds ,a bird that is native to Germany as background noise to let you know that you are in Germany..I showed this move to many of my German relative and they really liked this movie.(these people made made a prototype balloon which they had to give up because the materials that they used was too porous and the other 2 balloons that they used for the escape.The burner problem was solved when they turned the propane cylinders upside down.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say about this film other than the narrative is one of the most exciting in film history...and based on a true story! Being old enough to remember the Berlin Wall when it was still used to contain a country, this film gives you a dark insight into the grim incarceration of East Berliners, and their desperate attempts to escape, no matter what the cost. The film follows the lives of two families , who decide to escape using a hot-air balloon manufactured by themselves. Forever fearing arrest by the authorities, under scrutiny by neighbours, they have to calculate a plan to reach the other side of the wall. A tense & thrilling story of courage and determination which truly pays homage to all those who succeeded and failed the treacherous journey to West Berlin and freedom.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fun movie! The script is awful but the quality of actors saves the day. John Hurt is perfect, as is Jane Alexander. Beau Bridges is fair and the actress who plays his wife is very weak. The story is the true star. Based on a true story, the pace moves well and the whole concept of escaping East Germany sucks you in and holds you. Joyous ending provides enough elation to compensate for script. Don't expect Academy Award quality but it's a great ride for the whole family.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Probably grossly underrated by all who never experienced the hell of living under communist regime. Although, it seems hard to believe, all of it happened, actually the reality was even worse than the movie. It resembles Orwellian fiction, only this is no fiction. John Hurt is excellent as always. Yes, the screenplay is not full of action, but life is not either. Plot is breathtaking. Yes, people were shot, yes thousands of them. Their 'crime' was that they wanted to leave communist 'paradise' without government authorization. At times the movie drives tears in your eyes. We need more movies like this to really appreciate what America provides for us. Excellent movie, highly recommend! God bless our country, USA!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"And I do. Peter Falk has created a role that will live on forever in TV land! And I'm grateful for that. This isn't one of his finest hours, though. Columbo goes to college and basically teaches how he solves a crime, and yet there are bad guys who go ahead and think they're smarter than he is. What all us fans know is that Columbo needs a worthy opponent. Without a great enemy, how can he be the hero in the wrinkled coat? Still, it's better than NO Columbo, and I'll wait and watch the next one as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I felt that way when I saw the episode in its original run and still agree when I watch it on reruns. You had the culprits totally mocking Columbo throughout the episode and treating him like he has down syndrome. And in the end you see their shock when Columbo gets them dead to rights and arrest them. You also get a realistic reaction from the arrogant preppy killers. They stillcouldn't give Columbo his props and say he just got lucky. I like the formula where there is an elaborate crime, the killer(s) totally underestimate Columbo, and then you get their realization that Columbo was totally playing the criminals. I recall in the first few episodes of the post 1989 episodes they weren't following that formula and this was the first episode that I was pleased with.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Columbo is guest lecturer for a criminology class. The students invite him along for their after-class get-together. Transiting the nearby parking garage, they discover their regular teacher, next to his car, dead from a gunshot wound. (No, Columbo was not after the man's job.) As a class project, Columbo involves the students in his sleuthing.

Two students, tentatively identified by the viewer as culprits, were in the lecture hall for the entire class. Furthermore, surveillance camera tapes of the parking garage show that no one other than the professor entered or left after he was last seen unexpectedly departing the lecture hall.

Reversing the normal routine, Columbo is the one that is pestered by the evil (?) duo, eager for progress reports and an ear for their theories. Forensic evidence is almost nonexistent. Solution of the case hinges on some eventual and interesting good luck.

On first viewing, it seemed that Columbo had swallowed whole the culprits' misdirection; however, on repeat viewing, small details revealed that not to have been the case at all.

This reviewer has yet to tire of \"Columbo Goes to College.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After all these years of solving crimes, you would've expected criminals to know that they can't afford making mistakes with him, especially not with regards to talking much. This time

Columbo goes to college, and actually explains his entire technique, but for some reason the murderer still doesn't pay enough attention. However, this still creates wonderful scenes and delightful dialogues.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"or any stories reminiscent of the Leopold and Loeb case, you may find this movie entertaining. The cast includes Robert Culp,with Stephen Caffrey and Garrison Hershberger as the college students.

Peter Falk is his usual self, pretending to be tricked by the precocious students. Caffrey (\"Longtime Companion\", \"Buried Alive\") is excellent, and should do more of these menacing roles. Basically the two frat buddies become tired of their demanding parents, who expect nothing less than academic perfection, attendance at the best schools will only be financed if they conform. There is an excellent scene wherein Culp rakes Caffrey over the coals after he gets a low grade, threatens to cut off his trust funds and Caffrey later says to his friend: \"I hate him, I want him dead\"...

All is not well in Beverly Hills. This is always an excellent theme. I believe this film came out in 1990 right after the Menendez killings. If you watch \"Menedez, a Killing in Beverly Hills\" and then compare it to this film, you may find some interesting parallels.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sorry to repeat myself over and over, but here's another great Columbo episode. I guess that's why I'm such a fan - most episodes really are great! The best episodes always have a standout feature of some sort, and in this case the murderer and his accomplice are possibly the youngest ever Columbo villains.

After watching a lot of episodes where Columbo and his adversary act like close friends, it's good to see an episode where tempers fray and bad feelings rise to the surface. It just gives an episode a bit more drama and bite. Columbo is rapidly onto the fact that the two students who claim to be helping him are not very secretly laughing at him and feeding him false clues. He happily plays along, deliberately turning up the bumbling in front of them to make them underestimate him! But of course he knows instantly when they are talking baloney.

The murder itself is another complicated one, along the lines of The Bye Bye Sky High IQ episode, with a sophisticated chain reaction of events that manages to kill the intended target while providing the assassins with a seemingly watertight alibi. In the intervening years between 1978 and 1990, the technology has moved on from record players and firecrackers to remote control car locking systems and hidden cameras.

Stephen Caffrey puts in a great performance as Justin Rowe, the obnoxious, spoilt student. Gary Hershberger is low-key but good as his \"yes-man\" friend Cooper Redman. And it's nice to see Robert Culp as Mr Rowe, Justin's dad.

A very satisfying episode in all ways.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At the end, it is clear that the murderers planted the murder weapon in Mrs. Columbo's car and it was at the police ballistics lab.

But where did the gun under the hood, used in the demonstration, come from? Wouldn't the murderers have cleared out the stuff under the hood? They had a whole week? Or did Columbo's cops replicate the camera\/gun under the hood used in the demonstration? How did they do that without breaking and entering the car? Perhaps this is why the murders seemed surprised at the end. But how could Columbo have replicated their camera\/gun device and gotten it calibrated to their key fob? Columbo must have gotten the gun back from ballistics and had it re-planted under the hood of the car, and been very lucky that the rest of the device with camera was still there and transmitting.

This was a 10\/10 show until this glaring plot error at the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is, without a doubt, one of my favorite Columbo episodes ever. The acting is very well done, the music is very catchy, the script is ingenious, and the direction is fabulous.

Peter Falk, who acts brilliantly in every Columbo episodes, acts particularly well in this episode.

Also, great performances from Stephen Caffrey, Gary Hershberger, Alan Fudge and Robert Culp.

The ending is absolutely brilliant and I love the way Columbo describes it.

This is a Columbo movie that WON'T, go amiss.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The casting of Robert Culp is probably the only decent move the production team made with this film. Falk and Culp were marvellous, but as culp was not Falks nemesis this time, chemistry was lacking. Columbo is only as strong as his opposite number, and this time he didn't have one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Caddyshack 2 has a dreadful reputation, due only to the fact that it is a sequel to a highly-held classic. People have criticised the film on a lot of grounds, but they all ultimately hark back to the fact that this is not Caddyshack.

I would begin by saying that we should just take Caddyshack out of the equation and consider this film on its own merits, but I think that would be unfair. The movie does have a lot in common with its predecessor. The class-related themes of 'snobs versus slobs' and the desire to fit in to a class above your own are as prevalent here as they were in the first movie. The two things that are truly lacking here are Bill Murray and Rodney Dangerfield, who are replaced with Dan Ackroyd and Jackie Mason respectively.

Now I am not about to try and argue that Ackroyd comes close to Murray in the movie, but Jackie Mason is an admirable successor to Dangerfield. He comes off as a cross between Dangerfield and Arnold Stang, but without biting too heavily on either. I wouldn't say that he is anywhere close to being as funny as Dangerfield is in Caddyshack, but there is a whole lot more point to his character and his dilemma in the film.

Chevy Chase only pops up and handful of times in the movie, which is another common complaint. Maybe these particular naysayers didn't notice that he only popped up a few times in the first movie. For my money, his scenes here are a lot funnier, if somewhat over-directed.

While I'm on the subject, it is really the over-direction of this movie that brings it down. It comes across as far more self-conscious in its attempts to get a laugh. Many of the jokes are laboured and there's far too much of the Gopher, who seems to have taken on a far more anthropomorphic personality and a voice, just in case we didn't grasp the idea that its meant to be funny.

Characters are similarly hammered home, particularly the smarmy yuppy kids. Jackie Mason rarely misses a beat, and is consistently likable and very funny, but we didn't need the tango sequence at all! The director is clearly not of the same school of thought as Harold Ramis. Not to suggest that Caddyshack was subtle, but the jokes here are just a little overcooked, and most of them are unnecessarily embellished with a quirky music cue.

All things considered, this is a fun, goofy movie with something to say about class and identity that very few movies at the time were saying. Don't be put off by the appallingly low rating on IMDb, check it out for yourself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seriously. If this had been the first Shack movie, it would have been passable as funny, silly and goofy. Light satire commentary on the class system would make this an enjoyable late-night rental.

However, everyone wants to compare it to the first film, and maybe that's not fair. The first film is a cult classic; what could possibly follow it up? Nothing. So take this second film as a stand alone, and it certainly has its moments.

Jackie Mason is amusing, doing his best Rodney-wannabe impersonation. Is he as good as Rodney? No. Are his lines as good? No. But he is funny. The rest of the cast falls in line as being decent, but not outstanding. You'll recognize faces amongst the cast and wonder how they got to where they are today.

The film is predictable, but aren't most in this genre? Again, it's not the best comedy you'll see, but if you like Cannonball Run-type fun, you'll enjoy this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The only critic who counts is yourself. I think this is a great movie. Much better than the original.

In \"Caddyshack\", Rodney Dangerfield is funny, but obnoxious. He was asked to do the sequel, but things got in the way. Jackie Mason shows the saying that \"less is more\". He is funny, but a man with real family issues, a more rounded person. It's no drama, but a movie that makes you feel. Actually in some points, you feel sorry for Jackie Mason, especially when his daughter walks out on him.

It has a good soundtrack, and overall, a good sorry. A good end to the series.

In the TV show \"Alf\", Alf says that he cried in \"Terms of Endearment\". The wife , Kate Tanner, played by Anne Schedeen, also says he cried at \"Caddyshack 2\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the most interesting things is that this 1988 film is highly touted as an `in-name only' sequel. There's nothing wrong with that except this: The return of Chevy Chase as Ty Webb. This connects the viewer to this character (from the original Caddyshack in 1980,) and makes fans thinking or wanting Caddyshack II to be similar to the first one.

There are rumors that Rodney Dangerfield was supposed to return. He carried a big part of the first film, so his return would have put Caddyshack 2 over the top. Jackie Mason is the `new' Rodney for this movie and does a decent job, even though their comic deliveries are way different. Dan Aykroyd was great but not in the film enough. He should have been involved to the tune of how much screen time Bill Murray got in the first one. Robert Stack (Airplane!) was good in the `new' Ted Knight\/Villian role. (We miss you, Ted!) Danny Noonan should have been back. So many others could have returned to show us what happened to their characters eight years later. Bushwood should not have undergone the total makeover it did. Instead, the characters involved, rather than the club itself, should have been the main focus like they were in the first one. When you watch this film, keep in mind that it isn't a major sequel and you may think it's another good or bad eighties comedy. Fans of the first should see it but don't be shocked when the comparisons between the original and Part II are so far apart.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like Richard Pryor, Mason never got the material he deserved. Whatever you know of him is probably wrong. Get past the accent and go see his stand-up. You'll be very surprised -- he's one of the best stand-ups I've ever seen and I have seen a lot of stand-up comedy (from Lenny Bruce to Eddie Murphy to Jerry Seinfeld to Chris Rock -- Jackie Mason is definitely up there). He's known for being a comic's comic. Even Howard Stern said he is one of the top 3 funniest comedians ever.

The accussation that Mason is no Dangerfield is ridiculous. Dangerfield is known for having been a huge Mason fan. Dangerfield's career was going nowhere for a long time until he started following Mason's shows. That is when Mason provided Dangerfield with inspiration for his, \"get no respect\" routine. While I think Dangerfield is great, see them both do stand-up and you'll see Mason is the better comedian.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have no idea why everyone hates this movie to call it garbage a travesty an unexceptable sequel is just unfair i mean what else could they have made for a sequel then. Cause seriously I think it should have had a sequel (Rodney Dangerfield) says: hey everyone were all going to get laid and then a little dancing goffer and thats it thats the end of Caddyshack even though the film rating on first one was (R) and the second one was (PG) it was still lots of fun .

(7\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i am in a vast minority here. i also didn't much care for the original caddyshack, aside from the chase\/murray duo scene and select rodney jokes. okay, break it down: rodney vs. jackie- both jewish and have similar humor. rodney's a bigger name and more distinct. jackie has an incidental and more observational approach to his jokes and is more 'up yours' in this sequel. jackie's attitude toward everything is memorable and in a way, inspirational! his quick lines and over-confidence left me wishing i could express myself in such a way. rodney was good, but there wasn't enough of him, and he was more 'in your face' and dismissive. jackie, in a rare film appearance, makes a perfect sub for rodney (come on, a gun shaped hair dryer?!?!) really, look at the little things!

stack vs. knight- both play snobby yuppies very well. ted knight, despite his wonderful tv\/film career, kinda shows his age. but, he does pull off the snobbish demands of the part and we want to see him fall. ted looks kinda weak and is pretty annoying, playing his anger and frustration too slapstick, while stack is more incidentally snide and vengeful; you really hate him and enjoy see him constantly fail. stack wins with me.

murray vs. aykroyd- well, both had great, vintage SNL-like scenes with the ever-present and enjoyable chevy chase (ty webb). i did like the murray\/chase one better. murray plays his great, annoying, chatty character with obvious improv skill and is loveable- yet annoying. and the exact same can be said for aykroyd. both get annoying after a while, but it's a tie.

i really loved part 2 over the first. they are 2 totally different mooded films. part one is more drug\/bathroom\/sex humor with a cast full of great names. part 2 uses golf as a backdrop for a 'stick-it-to-the-rich' type of comedy that makes one feel better about being working class. 80s script? yes. a bit far-fetched? yes, but wasn't the first? an insult to the sport of golf? yes, it's a movie. thin story? yes, it's a comedy with actual humor- not 'dances with wolves'!! besides- part 2 has a much better soundtrack!! PLEASE- DON'T EXPECT THIS TO BE A SEQUEL TO PART ONE!! IT IS 98% ITS OWN MOVIE AND SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THE NAME 'CADDYSHACK' IN IT. that said, i am a big fan of caddyshack 2 and it is a great exponent of 80s fluff entertainment with quality humor. VIVA JACKIE MASON!!! to all the reducers- lighten up! it's a great comedy of its own. randy quaid was wonderful, jonathan silverman was wonderful, heck, everyone was!! all this chatting and now i feel like watching it! i think i will","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Amazing, one of my favorite movies way down at the bottom. Guess I can take some pride in not liking what \"the general populace\" tends to go for. Jackie Mason is hilarious in this movie, and so's Randy Quaid. I can never get enough of his \"strong-arm\" tactics, just like in Moving. He was also notable in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Love that guy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The only conceivable flaw of this film is it's title!! Please stop comparing it to the first! I did in my previous review only to separate it from the first. If you haven't seen the movie and are curious, TOTALLY forget about the first and invent a different name for this. There is nothing alike and has a mood all its own. This is a great exponent of screwy mid-80s comedy. I seriously doubt such big names in this cast did the movie because they were broke or even wanted to remake the first. Anybody who ever wanted to give a kick to the snobbish aristocracy should love this little opus. I maintain, the only reason this is in the IMDB bottom 100 is because of its title. I usually hate movies like these (i.e. adam sandler, will farrell, farrelly bros....), but this movie just keeps me laughing hysterically. I dunno, maybe it's like a bad relationship I can't get out of or just a ridiculous guilty pleasure. Either way, this is the single most underrated movie of the 80s behind 'The Stunt Man.'

Robert Stack- WE LOVE YOU!!! (1919-2003)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this movie.

No one I know likes it, but I do.

I didn't like it as much as the first one but it was still good. The script and plot may not have changed at all, but the story was better than Caddyshack 1.

The only reason I didn't like Caddyshack 2 is...

NO RODNEY DANGERFIELD!

I think the movie would be better if Rodney Dangerfield had Jackie Mason's part. Although I did like Jackie Mason in the movie, it would be alot better if they kept Rodney Dangerfield.

Another flaw in the movie, that I didn't hate as much, was Dan Akroyd. The movie was done 8 years after the first one. Bill Murray, \"Carl\", could've quit his job as an assistant greenskeeper and joined the military, you know? If Warner Bros. had thought of that, it could've made the movie better, also.

This was my comment for Caddyshack II.

I give it 8.2 out of 10

It could've been better, but good nonetheless.

If you've seen Caddyshack 1 and are debating on whether or not to see Caddyshack 2, I say give it a try.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One has to take Martin & Lewis like a dash of salt & pepper. Why does Martin put up with Lewis? Then again, why do all the women in this movie like Jerry? Because he is innocently likeable! Martin sings a few good songs (lip-sync'd at least once) and Jerry manages to kiss more girls than in all his other movies combined. I generally find that I can take just so much of Jerry's antics before they become aggravating. BUT.... in this film, watch when Jerry gets stuck outside on a submerging Navy submarine! EXCELLENT! Buster Keaton should have been proud. I give the film a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is not especially well written. The songs are not memorable. The cast, however, squeezes a lot out of this Martin and Lewis in the Navy situation. They both look great as young sailors. They are believable. The scenes on the submarine show how cramped it must have been on those underwater missions in the 1950s and before.

Lots of sailors in many scenes. Hundreds perhaps, in a big outdoor exercise field, and again in a boxing arena.

You will see James Dean in his scene. He does stand out even though he is an extra here. In a scene where Jerry walks across a busy street we see some of his \"almost accident\" comedy which he would bring into play years later in The Patsy.

Dean giving Jerry boxing instructions is a good comedy skit to watch for. Jerry in the boxing ring shows his high energy that was his trademark in the late '40s and early '50s. Dean and Jerry dancing is a bit of a treat. Not great, but better than most non dancing movies.

Worth seeing if you don't mind black and white. Good ending.

Tom Willett","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This B&W film reached the spartan movie house of my Frisian village about 18 months after its release. In those days much of our full-length comedy fare hailed from Denmark (Nils Poppe anyone?) so this movie struck like a thunderbolt -- it had me weeping with helpless mirth, ROTFL as we'd now put it. OK, so some of the sight gags were in fact recycled vaudeville 'schtick', but how was this 'barefoot boy with cheeks of brass' to know that at the time? In any case, my favorite scenes had Jerry's unique brand of frantic clowning, like that Hawaii boxing match.

Seeing \"Sailor Beware\" again fifty years later I still guffawed loudly at the goings-on. Granted, without the nostalgia component it would probably be just another fair-to-middling comedy. But then, another movie that once had me in stitches even more helplessly, the Spike Jones outing \"Fireman Save My Child\", now seems dated and stilted apart from some too-short orchestra bits and Doodles Weaver scenes. Must be some special ingredient that makes Martin & Lewis product stay fresher longer. To me this one at least rates eight out of ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I went to see this film because Joaquim de Almeida was in it. Joaquim had a fairly small part, so it was good that I liked the film on it's own. In fact, I liked it a lot!

The film centers around two characters, Albert and Louie. Albert is a shy, retiring sort, and Louie... well Louie is not. The story revolves around Louie's request to Albert to let him come over to Albert's place for just a little while. Louie has just gotten out of prison.

Albert and Louie have known each other since childhood, and of course whenver they do something together there is trouble and it's Albert who always takes the fall.

The action of the film is based on the adventures that ensue from Louie's visit. On The Run is a chronicle of mad-cap, zany, situations. However, Bruno de Almeida and scriptwriter, Joseph Minion (After Hours), don't always take you where you expect to go. There are twists and turns that add depth to this film. Of course there is plenty of outright comedy, but there is much subtle humor here as well.

There are some downright good performances here as well. Albert is played delightfully by Michael Imperioli. He's getting fairly well-knownthese days from the HBO series, The Sopranos.

Louie is played by John Ventimiglia, who imbues his character with a lovable, child-like quality. (no matter what he does, you just gotta love Louie!).

Both these actors are excellent in their individual characters. With Imperioli, you'll want to hug him and bring him home to Mom. Ventimiglia, well, you won't know whether you should slap him or bring him home (and NOT to Mom!).



There are other stand-out performances as well. The character of Rita is played by Drena DeNiro (yes, Robert's daughter). The audience adored her. In talking with the others who saw the film it was fun to discuss whether it was Albert or Louie who was their favorite of those two. But, everyone loved Rita!

Is this film perfect? No, I can't say that it is. There were many times I wished the director had had a bigger budget to work with. There were some scenes that cried out for more budgetary freedom. (Give this guy a decent budget to work with and I believe you are going to see a film that will make you stand up and notice.)

The ending sequence was a bit of a victim of budget. Yet, budget or no budget, the ending screen shot, in my opinion, brought together the talent of actor and director into a memorable, emotionally effective scene.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just watched this movie over the weekend, and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it. The 2 Italo American actors are excellent as usual (Michael Imperioli and John Ventimiglia). It is obvious that the director was influenced by 2 great films of the past directed by Italians. Primarily he was influenced by Dino Risi and his film IL SORPASSO. It is the story of 2 young men who meet by chance and become friends. One is extroverted and the other is introverted. They enjoy the whole day together and by the end of the day, the shy one learns that there is more to life than his usual routine monotony. The same thing happens to Albert De Santi. Unfortunately, IL SORPASSO has a very similar ending and this apparently influenced the director of ON THE RUN because he uses the same technique but with a twist. I had expected something but was surprised to see that it turned out to be the opposite. If you watch both movies you will understand. The other film that influenced the director is AFTER HOURS directed by the great Italian American Scorsese. I highly recommend all 3 movies !!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't let the rating of 5.9 (as of this writing on 12-8-02) fool you, this is one excellent film.

I cannot fathom how this got such a rating considering being so solid at all levels. The direction, acting, cinematography--all good. The story is interesting and original and my only inkling as far as understanding why the rating is such, sits in the fact that it is probably the type of movie that people rating might not normally see.

I equate it to playing modern rock for an 80 year old. You might be young, brought up on it and love it, but he or she has not been and as a product of a different time and taste--doesn't care for it.

If you like films and can handle movies based more on real people versus those comprised of mindless action, enormous flashy budgets and mediocre talent, give this one a try next time you see it on...

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught \"On the Run\" at the Screening Room in New York and was immediately seduced by its true independent spirit. Starring Michael Imperioli and John Ventimiglia from The Sopranos cast, \"On the Run\" sets us up in a 24-hour wild ride in the city that never sleeps, as we follow the meanderings of an introspective sales agent who is suddenly dragged by his long-gone school companion, just out of jail. In fact he has escaped from it and is \"on the run\" looking for some action and a glimpse of life amidst the great metropolis. Powered by great performances, this movie gives us back the old feeling of 70's pics, with both characters rediscovering themselves as they blaze across town bumping into wild events and locals. An elegy to a certain side of New York that seems to be disappearing, \"On the Run\" displays great sensitivity and humour. I predict it to be a cult classic that urges to be discovered: future viewers should definitely surrender to this nocturnal trip.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie deserves the 10 I'm giving it.

But it's not the 10 that you'd give to movies like 'The Godfather' or 'Goodfellas' or 'Psycho'. This is the kind of 10 you give to a movie which just makes you laugh,over and over again! It's the most horribly written and directed movie, yet it doesn't fail to entertain. It has the most amateur effects, yet you enjoy every moment! I saw this movie today on TV, and I didn't want to move away! Read the following dialogue to know why!

(Whole college is standing around Manisha,who has just undergone a rape attempt and the guys who attempted the rape are asking for forgiveness)

Bad Guy 1: Please forgive us!

Bad guy 2: Yes,we won't do it again.

(No response from Manisha)

Akshay: Come on,forgive them!

Manisha: I don't know...

Akshay: You are a beautiful woman, and even dead men can get aroused by you! And these are living young males! Don't blame them!

Pancholi: Yeah Manisha..

Manisha(To Suniel): What if they tried to rape your girlfriend???

Suniel: I'd break their hands,legs and kill them.But anyways,just forgive them..

Akshay: Yeah if you don't forgive them then it will be as though you are too arrogant about your beauty!

Now that is a true masterpiece of a dialogue! This movie never fails to entertain, mainly because there are so many goofs and unrealistic situations! The bad guy (Munish) can do basically anything..He can blow a sandstorm from his mouth, or he can get a motorcycle from his backside and just as easily make it disappear again.

Every actor takes turns to speak..One line from Akshay,then from Suniel, then from Arshad, then Aftab, then Nigam. It's the main rule followed by the director, so that equal screen time is given to each guy. And then there's the all powerful pendant, which can cause even a speeding car to go right through you without you being harmed! All these things make it an enjoyable movie, and I can watch it over and over again. I think this movie can go into the comedy hall of fame if there is one..

The only problem is that it wasn't trying to be funny.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All the people who voted a meager 1 on this movie, this is all I have to say: You guys have not matured enough to enjoy cinema of this kind. It takes a certain amount of dedication to reach that level of appreciation. And that is the segment of people this movie was aimed at. Not you average movie-goers by any chance! . Back to the movie. This one was a gem all right and definitely an inclusion in the Bollywood hall of fame. I'd give it an all time rank of no # 2, surpassed only by Kanti Shah's legendary Gunda. This movie had an impeccable story line and created a beautiful blend between a fantasy and sci-fi. Pan's Labyrinth would have in fact been ashamed of the balance created between the parallel stories. And now do i really need to mention the stellar cast and even stellar-er (that is a word from NOW) performances from them (a special mention goes to Mr. Nigam for the best debut ever in any movie on this earth). Every actor in this movie had been very carefully chosen and the role were tailor made for them (and for their age too, I must add). Manisha Koirala still looks like she's 18 and wow man, with that figure I would have raped her too. Are you wondering where did this rape thing come in suddenly? Yes, a rape is what the premises of this movie is based on. And that is so not like your average Bollywood type movies. If you are an atheist or an agnostic by any chance, this movie is again a must for you. Because this movie can heal your faith. I don't think it'd even be going too far saying that this movie can cure cancer. Only the people who need it the most fail to appreciate its power, charm and undying beauty. Tchch, so unfortunate!

Only flaw in this movie: In your dreams, baby! This was flawless.

Only minor complain: The director failed to star Mithun Da as well.

I won't ruin it for you any further. Just go and watch it. TODAY. And if you like it, here are some more recommendation from me. Gunda, Desh Drohi, Aparichit, the old Ramsay Brothers horror movies, Loha, Indra the tiger and Sivaji.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is without a doubt the best I have seen in my entire life. The stellar star cast is only an added bonus over the amazing special effects, and profound story and sublime choreography. The movie is about an ancient love affair that folds down into the modern world. Two lovers in heaven incur the wrath of a great sage and are cursed. Subsequently the woman is born again on earth. While she is in college, she is raped and commits suicide. The rest of the movie basically focuses on the hunting down of the people who were associated with the rape, by her lover who possesses superhuman strength and the mastery of several languages. Sonu Nigam delivers a very mature and deep performance in this film, and all the other actors do almost as well. Te action scenes with Akshay Kumar are mind-blowing, and must not be missed. You simply HAVE to watch this movie!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you want to have a great time then this is THE movie to watch.

Take the premise - There is this college which admits people with minimum qualifications of BA, B.Com, M.Com, MA, MBA, MCA, B.E., M.Tech and BCA. So you have to take into account the time consumed and thus it is obvious that all students are 40+ Also the school admits students of a 'heavier' dispensation and has a course of P.Hd in weight loss and the only student who failed this course is Manisha Koirala. Only she was a snake in the past life. Still not convinced? OK read on.

Here's a scene. Akshay Kumar, a college student, is chased by Arman and he takes out a bazooka and shoots him! Then throws grenades. Then one of the grenades hits Akshay. But doesn't die and continues to fight, Arman, the snake, plunges a half foot dagger into Akshay and stomps on it but Akshay is still there. Then Akshay gets on a jet ski and follows Arman. They fight and Arman chokes Akshay underwater and finally Akshay is dead. So we think, as soon as Arman is out of the picture Akshay swims away to Raj Babbar, Principal of this college + Boxing Refree + Parapsychology ka professor + mumbling priest.

But no one, I repeat no one takes the cake but a certain Mr. Nigam. You gotto watch to learn more. :-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When a saboteur blows up a controversial government research lab, two experimental animals are loosed in a small community in Washington State. One is a dog with unusual intelligence. The other is an \"Outside eXperimental COmbat Mammal\", or \"OXCOM\". Because of reasons divulged further into the film, the oxcom hates the dog, and so is trying to kill it. Watchers concerns the accidental involvement of Travis Cornell (Corey Haim), his mom Nora (Barbara Williams) and his girlfriend Tracey (Lala Sloatman) with the dog and oxcom, as two National Security Organization agents, Lem Johnson (Michael Ironside) and Cliff (Blu Mankuma), track them down.

Many comments are made about Watchers being very different than the Dean Koontz book that serves as the launching pad for the film. This is true. But it should not affect your rating. If you want the book, read the book. Judge the film on its own merits, not how closely it matches the book. Bill Freed and Damian Lee, who wrote the screenplay, are just as much artists as Koontz is (that's not a quality comparison, just a statement that they're all artists). So is director Jon Hess. Their job as filmmakers isn't to slavishly follow the book as if it were a script. They're adapting the book, as artists, to make a unique artwork. It's based on the book. Not identical to it. You have to loosen your preconceptions\/expectations when you watch the film, because you're going to be experiencing an artwork that you are not already familiar with, even if you've read Koontz' novel.

So, is Watchers a good film? It's pretty good, not excellent. Good enough to earn a \"B\", or an 8. Hess begins things on the right foot with one of the most beautifully filmed explosions I've seen in awhile. Unfortunately, he trips a bit immediately afterward as we listen to some very thick, jargonistic exposition. After that scene Watchers threatens to become a clich\u00e9d 1980s film as we first meet Travis and Tracey.

Veering towards clich\u00e9 is a tendency continually threatened. But it is only a skew. More often than not, Hess is able to transcend well-trodden territory with a number of interesting twists: Both Travis and Tracey are from single parent homes, with their genders flipped. Both have unique, mature relationships with their parents. Although this is a horror film, a major focus is a cute, intelligent canine, and it often feels as much like an adventure film as it does horror, a thriller, or sci-fi, which are all genres it touches upon. Hess introduces a large cast of characters, some not entering until late in the game, yet the film is never confusing and no characters feel as if they are left in the dust--all of the threads are nicely tied up in the end. The structure is also complex in that there are two major villains, the second becoming less obviously ill-intentioned as the film progresses, until a twist accompanied by brutal violence makes one antagonist clearer. Soon after, Hess gives us a nice moment of doubt with the other antagonist.

The biggest flaw in my eyes is a dreaded, common one with horror films since at least the 1980s--the \"attack\" scenes are shot too darkly, too close, too out of focus, and they're edited too choppily. It makes it extremely difficult to tell what's going on, which saps most of the tension from scenes that should be a highlight. Surely, part of Hess' motivation for the style, and this is the typical justification for this problem, was worry that the creature would come across as humorous and\/or fake rather than frightening and suspenseful. In my view, presenting the audience with a dizzying blur isn't a satisfactory solution. We only get to see the creature costume\/makeup clearly towards the end of the film. It was well done enough that better shot and edited attack scenes would have brought the film up to at least a 9.

Regardless of the degree of correspondence between the novel and the film, Watchers presents a gripping story using smart, alluring characters. It is frequently a nail-biter and the horror scenes are more feral than you might expect, if not exactly gory (although there is a fair amount of blood in a couple scenes). Watchers tends to be underrated because of misconceptions about the role of film when it comes to adapting literature--don't pass it up or summarily dismiss it based on a misconception.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would consider myself a fan of Dean Koontz; having read a number of his novels and liked them all, but unfortunately I never got around to reading Watchers so I'm left with no choice but to rate this film on it's own merits rather than comparing it to the book that I haven't read. I went into this expecting something awful, and while I didn't exactly get a brilliant horror film; I am lead to believe that it's fans of the book that are rating it down because as a film in it's own right, Watchers is an entertaining and somewhat original little horror movie. The plot obviously takes some influence from Predator and begins with an explosion at a research lab. It's not long before a rancher is killed by some strange beast and the boyfriend of the dead man's daughter has picked up an ultra-intelligent runaway dog. A secret Government agency is soon on the case, as the murders continue. The boy continues to be fascinated by the dog's intelligence, but it somehow ties in with the murders and the agency is soon on his tail too.

The script for this film was originally written by Paul Haggis, who later disowned it. I don't know why \u0096 the writing here is nowhere near as ridiculous as his 2004 hit Crash! Anyway, the main reason this film works is undoubtedly the dog, who aside from being rather cute, is also the best actor in the film. Corey Haim, hot off the success of The Lost Boys is the human lead and actually has a rather good chemistry with the dog, although it is a little bit ridiculous seeing him talk to it most of the way through the film. The plot is rather convoluted and as such the film is more than a little bit messy; but the ridiculousness of it all pulls it through during the more awkward moments. Michael Ironside also appears in the film and does well as the 'bad cop' side of the Government agents. The monster is, of course, one of the most interesting things about the film and the way it goes around killing people is always entertaining and gory; although unfortunately we don't get to see a lot of it and when we finally do it's rather disappointing - obviously the filmmakers had seen Bigfoot and the Hendersons! Still, this is the sort of film that can be easily enjoyed despite the numerous problems and I'd recommend to any undiscerning viewer of eighties horror.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watchers is a fun movie if it's not taken too seriously, the novel written by Dean R. Koontz is obviously a lot better but the movie itself is entertaining in it's own way. The film has a lot of changes for the novel Watchers, the one difference is the main character Travis. In the book he was an adult and an retired Delta Force soldier while in the film he's a teenager. Watchers has it's good points, the film does have some gory scenes in parts. I'm a fan of Micheal Ironside and it was cool to see him in this film, he always does a great performance in all his films. The OXCOM costume looks kind of cheesy but the camera never really shows the creature fully until near the end of the film. The dog Einstien was impressive since it was well trained.

The film sees two genetic experiments escaping from a lab, a dog and a monster. Both experiments are linked telepathically since the two animals are part of a military project were the dog would infiltrate an enemy base then the Creature would attack and eliminate them. The Dog finds a teenager named Travis who takes him home and discovers that he's intelligent and so he names the dog Einstein, meanwhile the OXCOM is roaming around killing people and gouging out their eyes, two Government agents are sent to find the two experiments before this incident gets out of hand. Soon Travis learns that his not safe as the OXCOM is drawn to the dog and will stop at nothing to kill him and anyone in it's way, so Travis and his mom go to rescue his girlfriend who's being held at the hospital by the two agents. They then hideout in the woods while the Government agents and the OXCOM are not far behind.

Watchers is not a great adaptation of Dean R. Koontz novel but it is a entraining 80's horror flick, some fans of the book may not want to watch this since it's not faithful to the book but fans of cheesy 80's horror movies may want to check this out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love dogs, and the most interesting character in this movie is a Golden Retriever. He is smarter, better looking and more interesting than any of the human characters. Like many other contributors I have not read the book but I doubt that having done so would change my opinion of the movie. It is predictable from the first five minutes on. No surprises. Mad scientists create a monster that gets loose and a teen age boy and his wonder dog collaborate to destroy it. All in all the movie is a dog. But as I said, I love dogs and will therefore give this movie a 7\/10 rating. Watch it if it comes on TV, rent it if you are bored and nothing else catches your eye, but don't buy it unless it is on special.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Bears about as much resemblance to Dean Koontz's novel as Jessica Simpson does to a rocket scientist. If you've read the book, I suggest you put it as far out of your mind as possible before watching the movie.

Watchers is your typical \"Boy meets dog, dog turns out to be super-intelligent government lab experiment, dog and boy are pursued by super-intelligent and emotionally disturbed monster created by same lab, and, oh yeah, did I mention the shady government agents pursuing the monster pursuing the dog?\" movie.

Corey Haim is the boy, Barbara Williams is his mother, Michael Ironside is one of the evil government guys, and Sandy the dog is, well, the dog (named Furface here; Einstein in the book).

The monster effects are ridiculously cheesy, much of the dialogue is laughable, the script rarely makes sense or is believable - a good example is Haim's character's unquestioning acceptance of the dog's intelligence, as if every Fido off the street can type messages on a computer keyboard or bark once for yes and twice for no! Hmm, it's gotta be the puppy chow, right? Haim's performance is enthusiastic but shaky, as he carries off the stupid dialogue with the least amount of skill. Ironside has been the highlight of many a bad movie, and this is no exception. He easily gives the best performance of the movie, although I'm compelled to add that the dog (who's a pretty darn good actor himself!) comes in a close second.

All in all, an atrociously dumb movie, and yet . . . And yet I watched it three times within a week. And yet I can't help liking it. Hey, what can I say, I have a taste for junk - and Michael Ironside (not that I've ever actually tasted Michael Ironside- I'm sure there are laws against that). But any movie that can make me laugh that hard (yes, even unintentionally) can't be all bad. Chalk it up to a guilty pleasure, a \"yes I know it's insultingly stupid but I like it anyway\" movie.

It's tough for me to rate this. On a normal scale I'm forced to give it a D-, but on my own personal cheese scale, it gets bumped up to an A-.

Yeah, I know. I'm weird like that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i can't believe people are giving bad reviews about this movie! i wonder why......maybe because of the book..... i have to admit, it really doesn't follow the book... for sure...the book by dean koontz is much better... but the movie is also good as well!!! it has the suspense...the acting are good... especially michael ironside, whom have given a superb acting in this movie!!!

come one guyz...give this movie a chance...there are still lot more worse movie than this....like sum of all fears...phantoms...the da vinci code...this are some of the worse movie i have seen...really boring if compared to watchers which really have great elements in the movie...this movie contains great suspense and non stop action!!! i'm looking for this movie...but it is really hard to be found on DVD...

by da way...i really recommended this movie to everybody... watch it!!!! you will never regret !!!

10\/10*","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Scary in places though the effects did leave something to be desired unless you have bad eyesight or are afraid of the dark. However most of the acting was convincing and most of the effects were well done. I thought the creature looked a bit too much like a man in a gorilla suit for my liking. It reminded me of the original pink panther film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I went to see this documentary on Communist bloc musicals, I was expecting something totally demented, along the lines of a Communist \"Cop Rock.\" Some scenes did deliver, including a rousing clip from a Soviet film called \"Tractor Drivers.\"

You'd think that moviemakers given the task of making ideologically correct musicals that sing, dance and espouse the Party line face insurmountable odds. And yet, one of the surprises of \"East Side Story\" is that some of the films presented actually looked promising. One was a mid-1950s East German effort called \"My Wife Wants to Sing,\" in which, as the title implies, an unhappy hausfrau seeks to launch a singing career over the objections of her traditionally-minded husband.

Another genuinely interesting-looking movie, also from East Germany, was called \"Midnight Revue.\" In this film-within-a-film, the producers spoof their own creative plight with the story of a group of filmmakers under Party orders to make a musical. (The on-screen filmmakers themselves get to do a musical number about avoiding \"too hot\" subjects very reminiscent in tone of the 1957 movie \"Silk Stockings.\")

The documentary is marred by somewhat insipid narration, but it's still a lot of fun to watch. (Look for the closing dedication to the person who made it all possible.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"East Side Story\" is a documentary of musical comedy in Stalinist Russia and later in the eastern European satellite comedies, with many clips from the films and commentary from the survivors. Although some of the Stalinist films look laughingly bad (The Bright Road (?) being a notable exception), the films from the sixties actually look pretty good. \"My Wife Wants to Sing,\" \"The White Mouse,\" and \"Midnight Revue\" look particularly entertaining. The producers had to contend with the censors, who had the power to decide what was politically correct, which led to some confusion, humorous in retrospect, since the people whom the censors were trying to appease were the very people who supported making the films to begin with! Since musical comedies were fairly rare behind the Iron Curtain--there were only something like forty made in forty years--they had a disproportionate effect upon their audiences, who made major hits of some of the films.

I notice that the sound for the sixties films was much better. The directors often had to make do with antiquated equipment, and stringent power regulations--they had to film in seven minute takes or less--and dangerous officicrats.

I also notice that \"West Side Story\" seems to have had a strong influence on \"Hot Summer.\" The later films may not measure up to \"Singin' in the Rain,\" but they certainly look like they beat the hell out of \"Bye Bye Birdy\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I wonder if I could take sitting through a whole musical comedy from Russia or East Germany or other countries that for decades put out almost always propagandistic film, anti-fascist films, anti-war films (as this documentary points out) that just reflected the dark, grueling times under Stalin and life behind the Iron curtain. It's fascinating then to see the other side of the coin, the sorts of clowns and rebels with music at their side to try and please the masses more often than not stuck in the Socialist walk of life. One film actually seemed rather impressive, called Jolly Fellows by the pioneer of the very small group of musical filmmakers, Grigori Aleksandrov. From the clip(s) I saw of that film, I'd wager that it was one of the only works to actually step out of itself and go into just wild, manic, make-you-laugh kind of mode. But as this film shows, if you were a filmmaker looking to entertain, it better be with a 'message'.

Through interviews, some occasional quasi-dramatizations (of Russia\/Germany\/etc's sort of motion picture association) at the censorship table, and clips, one gets the full picture of what it was like- both behind the scenes and on the screen- to just make sheer entertainment for the masses. Some of the films (well, most of them, as apparently only 14 screened over 40 years in the countries mentioned) made a good chunk of change, but for what purpose really? One also gets drawn into the culture of it all, how it differs greatly from the American way of 'if it works, make em while they're hot' attitude. But at the same time, perhaps out of this repression, some interesting, funny, and (from what I saw) up-beat films were made. They might've been fairly typical of what was asked to be shown to the masses, under Stalin's fond but demanding terms, like life with tractors. It gets to be even juicier a story though as we get shown what it was like in the 60's, the last wave of musical comedies, as rock and roll and pop tunes finally hit their airwaves.

In short, some good stuff...but only if interested, really. I was shown the film in a class on documentary films, and half the class fell asleep. So be warned on the one hand, though on the other if looking for it, it can make for a really rewarding trip into European film history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"East Side Story entertains and informs about an unknown part of Cold War history. What is the purpose of any documentary? To inform the reader through commentary and footage. This one succeeds at both. You will never find many movies whose clips you get to see in here because some of them have been destroyed and some are unaccessible.

You get to see and her music from musicals made in East Germany, Russia, and other countries under Soviet Control. It shows you that the people who made these movies and the people who watched them all look for same things a Westerner would look for, which are pretty women and men singing and dancing on the streets with smiles and (hopefully) white teeth.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When one thinks of Soviet cinema, the propaganda masterpieces of Eisenstein or the somber meditations of Tarkovsky generally come to mind. They're great films sure, but generally not the most entertaining material out there. However, the countries within the Iron Curtain apparently enjoyed their escapist musicals just as much as the states had. In fact, from the 1930s up until the 70s, forty of these song-and-dance extravaganzas were released to much adoration by the public. However, they are completely unheard of in the West, so this documentary attempts to rectify that situation. It does a terrific job of both showcasing these films and putting them into the proper cultural context. Despite the fact I've never been a fan of musicals, I found this documentary to be completely compelling from beginning to end. It goes to prove that, no matter how many films you manage to see in your lifetime, you're only skimming the surface of whats out there.

As for the film clips themselves, they're very entertaining. While some of the musicals are blatant propaganda showing workers singing of how much they love working under the regime, some of the films (particularly the later ones) look quite accomplished from a production standpoint. Plus, they are all extremely campy because of how alien they are to my western eyes. There's a few similarities between them and the American musicals I'm used to, but the presence of strict government enforcing of a message gives them a surreal edge. They certainly don't resemble the musicals made in the West. This documentary is both one of the most bizarre and entertaining films I've seen in recent memory, and its an absolute must-see for any film buff. (9\/10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the eighties, Savage Steve Holland put out three movies, two of which are classics of what seems to be a very small genre, absurdist teen comedies. The third \"How I Got Into College\" does not measure up to \"Better Off Dead\" and this one, mainly because of it's lack of John Cusack and Curtis Armstrong (Except for a tiny cameo).

One Crazy Summer is an underrated movie, with lots of great characterizations and gags. As I recall, Savage Steve's movies were vilified as being brain dead at the time and after three movies he drifted into children's TV. We could use more movies from the likes of him.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thus starts \"One Crazy Summer\", the evil twin of \"Better off dead..\". How can any movie be bad when the opening lines are sung by David Lee Roth?

This movie is a total blast. Pairing again John Cusack with Curtis Armstrong, but this time adding Bobcat Goldwaith to the mix has great, funny results. Hyperactive Bobcat grates the nerve of everyone around, Curtis \"Ak Ak\" is the son of a deranged military with pacifist tendencies, and Demi Moore (with natural breasts... wow!) as the love interest of, once again, chronically depressed Cusack.

The story is, well, simple enough. The laughs are there, but both Savage Steve Holland films have a certain quality to them... they are funny, but they are also sweet. The scene where Curtis finds a blown up doll in the target practice beach, and begins musing about how a little girl won't be able to sleep was dumb, funny and touching. The animation used throughout is quite surreal. \"The Boat\" is hysterical (complete with Watsamatta U. sail and Odie plush doll). Overall, a fun film, though not as good as \"Better off dead...\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Affable aspiring cartoonist Hoops McCann (a wonderfully engaging performance by John Cusack) and his best buddy George (the deliciously deadpan Joel Murray) go to Nantucket for the summer following graduation from high school. Hoops, George, and several newfound pals come to the aid of Cassandra (Demi Moore at her most charming), a singer who's family house is being threatened with demolition by the greedy Beckersted clan. Writer\/director Savage Steve Holland offers an often hilariously wacky and zesty nonstop barrage of admittedly broad and dumb, but still very funny jokes. The constant madcap lunacy has a real giddy, good-natured and infectiously inane vitality to it that's impossible to either dislike or resist. Moreover, the lively and enthusiastic acting from a fine game cast adds immensely to the zany merriment: Bobcat Goldthwait as the spastic Egg Stork, Tom Villard as his goofy brother Clay, Curtis Armstrong as the sweet Ack Ack Raymond, Mark Metcalf as evil rich jerk Aquilla Beckersted, Matt Mulhern as the mean Teddy, Kimberly Foster as the fetching Cookie, Joe Flaherty as the gung-ho General Raymond, William Hickey as cranky Old Man Beckersted, Jeremy Piven as smug preppy bully Ty, and John Matuszak as hulking biker Stan. Isidore Mankofsky's slick cinematography, the hip thrashy soundtrack, Cory Lerios' cool rockin' score, and the funky animation are all uniformly excellent. Single funniest scene: Egg in a Godzilla suit terrorizing a posh dinner party. An absolute hoot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a simple fact that there are many of us from the 80's generation who grew up loving those loopy John Cusack comedies made by Savage Steve Holland, and while I prefer there other more bizarre, out-there flick, Better Off Dead, it's hard for me to dislike One Crazy Summer, a movie I grew up loving wholeheartedly as a kid into my teens. OCS was a follow-up to Better Off Dead, returning Cusack and Curtis Armstrong from that film.

Cusack is Hoops, following graduation pal Joel Murray(George)to Nantucket for the summer to each some fun on the beach. Hoops finds himself embroiled in a feud with a blonde, buff punk named Teddy Beckersted whose lecherous father has designs on bulldozing over homes of a neighborhood to build a giant condominium. One of the homes, needing it's mortgage repaid belongs to Demi Moore(Cassandra). There's a sailboat race which might be their only hope of saving Cassandra's grandfather's home(..he had recently passed), but it has been won by Teddy over the past many years, and Hoops is deathly afraid of boats over water. But, with the help and motivation of newfound Nantucket friends(..such as Bobcat Goldwait and Tom Villard as auto-mechanic twin brothers!), George, and budding love-interest Cassandra, perhaps Hoops can come to terms with his fears and win the race to save the neighborhood. Armstrong has a supporting part as the son of a kooky, manic weapons salesman, General Raymond(..SCTV's Joe Flaherty in an inspired bit of casting), Ack, who uses the training from his father to assist Hoops and company in their goals to win the race.

Memorable scenes include Bobcat getting stuck in a Godzilla suit(!)running rampant across an entire model of Aguilla Beckersted(Mark Metcalf, barely recognizable as Teddy's rather unhinged pops)'s condominium, Hoops being chased by deranged cub scouts wishing to perform first aid, George a victim of toxic flatulence, Bruce Wagner's nutty Uncle Frank's increasing insanity every time he tries to better his chances to win 1 million dollars from a radio show, and the wonderful Billie Bird as George's grandma who actually bills the group after a meal! Jeremy Piven as(you guessed it)a brutish jerk who associates with Teddy and causes trouble for Hoops and his posse, the yummy Kimberly Foster as Cookie(..Teddy's girl who attempts to make-out with Hoops while he attends a luncheon with his father), and the one-and-only William Hickey as Old Man Beckersted, who will not reward his son and grandson an inheritance if they lose the sail boat race. Demi Moore is cute, but this is Cusack's vehicle, though Bobcat and Villard steal most of the scenes their in. Again, some delightful animation from Holland are sprinkled throughout the movie(Hoops is an artist, appropriately). If you like his movies, I highly recommend the underrated, How I Got Into College.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say about this movie except that it is great fun!

John Cusack plays Hoops McCann a recent High School graduate who has two choices, learn to take up the family business of street sweeping or spend the summer at Nantucket with his pal George Calamari (played hilariously by Joel Murray) and his zany friends.

When I say zany, believe me, it can't get much zanier than the Stork brothers, Egg (Bobcat Goldthwait) and Clay (Tom Villard) and Ack Ack Raymond (Curtis Armstrong). Throw in a little girl named Squid and her weirdo mutt and a great performance by Demi Moore and you have the makings of a split your sides laughing, movie.

The laughs flow freely in this movie and the story line, though the typical good versus bad and good conquers, is great with the twist of a regatta as the showdown.

I would recommend this movie for anyone who likes loads of laughs and a feel good time. If you like to thoroughly *enjoy* your movies, then you can't miss One Crazy Summer!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ok, so there's always people out there that seem to make it a point not to like movies because they're good, but instead choose to like movies based on how depressing or boring they can be, or whether they're from a foreign country. All that aside, One Crazy Summer is the perfect example of what a great American teen comedy should be. The jokes are a good mix of slapstick (a la Bobcat Goldthwait), surreal (Bobcat under the inspired direction of Steve Holland), and dry (John Cusack, one of the most morosely dry and funny actors in American cinema), and there is no character in this movie who does not deliver at least one funny line (ok, except Demi Moore).

Yes, it's immature, yes, it's screw-ball, yes, Bobcat dresses up like Godzilla and trashes a scale-model of a seafood restaurant. It's also funny as hell. Watch it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Cusack stars as Hoops in this silly little movie that has to be one of the best of the eighties teen comedies.Believe it or not Demi Moore is his co star...If you love the eighties,grew up around that time,or are an angst ridden teenage artist get ready to laugh.Wait until you see the cartoons..what a riot....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If I ever write movies or make them, i would want one of them to be like this one. I enjoy the goof-ball sense of humor and jokes contained within. This movie does stupid things without looking like it. The names of the places and characters are priceless, Generic New York High School, Squid Calimari (George's sister), etc...genius. I've seen this movie so many times because it was a cable tv staple while I was growing up, of course I didn't get all of the jokes back than but it was still funny.This movie is a time-less classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One Crazy Summer is a fun and quirky look at love through the eyes of Hoops McCann. what could have been hokey and dull is one of the freshest and most energetic comedies ever. Savage Steve Holland reteams with John Cusack to make the ultimate summer movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"80's comedies (especially ones with John Cusak) are awesome. Almost all are hillarious and instant classics and this film is no exception. Plenty of nods to other films (i.e. Godzilla and Jaws) through out the movie that are so hillarious you'll be laughing for hours. Some may complain that the movie is a little corny at times but hey it was the 80's and things were always a little cheesy. Throw in a young Demi Moore and an even louder Bob Cat and you have a laughfest on your fans. If you haven't seen this, you better soon!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really love anything done by Savage Steve Holland, the writer\/director of this great movie. Also see \"Better Off Dead\" and \"How I Got Into College.\" Wonderful! Anyway this movie is really humorous and delivers some unexpected things. Where else but in this movie can you see Demi Moore as a talented singer and Bobcat Golthwait as a twin? I recommend this to anybody looking for some old fashioned slapstick comedy (George with the turtle raft), not to mention some really well written sarcasm (the Christmas tree on the roof of the car). This movie constantly throws you unexpected things even after you've seen it 100 times like I have! Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is from much of the same creative team behind \"Better Off Dead\", but is not quite as good as that amazing teen comedy. Its a lot of fun, but its all over the place and just not quite as funny. Curtis Armstrong is used to less effect (he was incredibly funny in \"Better off Dead\", Bobcat Goldthwaite is hilarious, Cusack is good, Demi Moore is Demi Moore (only with better hair here.) Overall its fun, and as a person from Cape Cod, it catches the feeling of an 80s Cape Cod summer very effectively. For some reason, this film feels more \"mainstream\" than \"Better off Dead\". There isn't quite as much left field absurdity going on here. Again, if you are a fan of John Cusack and Savage Steve Holland its definitely recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I seem to notice that a lot of people have never seen this movie, and those that have usually dismiss it as garbage... that's pretty bad really.

The first time I saw this movie, I admittedly was almost one of those people... thank God I'm patient, otherwise I would have never found such a classic.

As goofy as this movie is, it's also a must have for anyone who is either a fan of 80's movies, or just happens to have a sense of humor.

I know that there are a lot of people out there that will tell you that this movie is sort of derivative of Better Off Dead... so what if it is? They were both excellent movies!

I can honestly say that Savage Steve Holland is a genius! 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the follow-up creation to Better Off Dead. In a competition, Better Off Dead would win hands-down. But for star power, One Crazy Summer outshines Savage Steve's better script. Problems with One Crazy Summer (OCS): casting. Better Off Dead (BOD) was cast so much better. Friendship: OCS shows Cusack giving hateful looks to Bill Murray's little bro. Trouble on the set?? More outrageous friends in OCS, but more genuine friends in BOD. Plot was good. You'll predict some of it, but even the predictable parts go further than you think they could. So, even though this is Better Off Dead's ugly stepsister, it's worth a look. See Demi Moore before the plastic surgery if for no other reason. John Cusack fans, you gotta see it, just to say you have. If you don't like Bobcat Golthwaite, I'm sorry. I don't like him either, but you can't escape him in this one. At least he does a great job in the film doing a tribute to another movie monster. Editing needed help on the beach, but for most part, not much to complain about. Overall, it's good and funny. But try not to compare it to BOD or you'll find it lacking. *sigh*","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is classic 80's humor. If you were a teen in the 80's this was a summer hit to go see. It was a early look at those now super stars. This and Better off Dead just are fun and silly movies to sit back and enjoy. Everyone can admit they had a crazy summer when they were a teenager. Even crazy family and friends like these characters. To be introduced to some of these characters was so much fun. The uncle who is crazy sitting every waking moment at a radio waiting to win a million dollars, the grandmother who only likes the granddaughter and handed a bill to the kids after dinner, the twin brothers who look nothing alike, and to meet hoopz was so much fun. This may not of won an award but it is just a fun movie to get lost in one afternoon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie for the first time in 1988 when it was on HBO and I loved it!! It was so hilarious I have seen it too many times to count. I love the Stork brothers and the pitiful, ugly dog, Bosco! My favorite quote form the movie is, \"It's so ugly, it should be put to sleep.\" I also loved it when the little sister slaps the girls on the back and their faces stick that way. I love John Cusack and Demi Moore in this movie too. They were great. This movie brings back memories of my college days when I first saw it. I rented the movie countless times and watched it over and over. My college roommate and I just couldn't get enough of it.Who couldn't love this crazy movie?! I want to buy a copy on DVD, does anyone know where I can get it?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"One Crazy Summer\" is the funniest, craziest (not necessarily the best), movie I have ever seen.

Just when one crazy scene is done, another emerges. It never lets you rest. Just one thing after another. The soundtrack is great. The songs are the right ones for the scenes.

It is also a clean movie. Little that is dirty in it.

Of course, it has the story of the guys you wouldn't trust with your lunch money, taking up a challenge, and winning over people with more resources. Who'd want to see it if they failed? There is a serious side, in that parents and children do not live up to each others' dreams. One should always have an open mind, and weigh all the options. This applies both to parents and children. In \"One Crazy Summer\", the parents are wrong. This is not always the case.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i adore this film as much as any one adores viewing whatever it was they saw when they were young. it was one of those films that Home Box Office showed every other day throughout my youth. this film is forever lodged in my brain. For someone who didn't grow up around this film, you may have become spoiled by the ADD cycle we've been in since the mid-90's and may find it more difficult to appreciate this gem. cool this is, as my sis was doped up on \"better off dead\" before i saw this (of which i raped & loved)-and no one, NO ONE can deny the embrace of awkward teenage humor in American cinema in the 80's - this gave birth to everything we have found tiresome in teen comedies..because with all the overuse of slow-mo, the current soundtrack, the new tech. I wonder if cinema will go back to these roots... THIS IS the teen comedy...YES!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is sort of similar to \"Better Off Dead\" as it has some of the same stars. This one though isn't quite as good. Granted it is rather funny and enjoyable, there is something about \"Better...that I like, well better. This one has these guys going to Nantucket to spend there summer vacation. While there they meet this girl who's trying to save here house from this guy who wants to turn it into a lobster restaurant. This guy really doesn't seem to like lobsters, cause in one scene he sticks it into boiling water and puts in a stethoscope so he can hear it scream. The main character is torn between this girl and the girl of the son of the guy who wants to make the restaurant. Somehow or another this leads to a big boat race showdown, kind of like in \"Summer Rental\" though it works a bit better here and fits into the plot a little better. Though what is the deal with boat races at this time? Was there some weird fascination with them? For the most part this movie delivers laughs at a good clip, but \"Better Off Dead\" was still better cause it was the first and the jokes worked better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I usually have a difficult time watching a TV movie, the extra long commercial breaks will break my concentration and I give up and find a good book. This one however made me put up with the adds and stay with it to the end. I realize the movie was based on a true story but it was not brought out why it took so long to find Denny? They had his name and I would presume his social security number. While he did move around a lot it would seem he would be found as soon as his number was entered for a job etc. The actors seemed a bit old for the part and a buried metal object when dug up had no rust. These were only technical glitches and did not take from the file. For a LifeTime Movie it was better than most.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a nice little lifetime movie about a guy (Peter Coyote) who's living the perfect suburban middle class life when late one night the police suddenly bust into his home and arrest him for the murder of some guy 27 years ago.

In his prison cell Coyote recounts to his wife the fateful events of 27 years ago and how he came into contact with Wayne Kennedy the man who he supposedly killed.

From here the story is told in flashback fashion and the more you learn about Wayne and Coyote and how they came to meet and what happened when they did the more interested you get.

The acting isn't anything to crow about, although the guy who plays Wayne Kennedy is pretty creepy enough. The real strong point of the movie is that mystery of what actually happened on the mountain. The wife spends the movie running around digging up clues to the mystery and each time something new comes up we are treated with another flashback revealing more of the mystery. It's actually pretty well.

So as far as Lifetime TV movie's go this little flick comes highly recommended.

Enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I gave this 8 stars out of a possible 10. It had an excellent plot, and Peter Coyote and Michele Lee, as well as the rest of the cast, did their parts well.

Both Peter and Michele were too long in the tooth for the ages their characters were supposed to be, and their children in the film, obviously would have been better suited being their grandchildren.

I missed the first ten minutes of this film, so I don't know just how that body turned up after 25 years and got traced back to Denny Traynor (Peter Coyote's character), but I had no difficulty picking up on the storyline.

Barbara Traynor (Michele Lee) is stunned when her long-time husband, Denny is arrested for a murder in Oregon some 25 years previous, a state Denny claims he was never in.

However, as evidence piles up against Denny, his story changes. Then his story changes again and yet again, until Barbara doesn't know what to believe.

Barbara makes up her mind, however, to get to the bottom of the mystery whirling around the fateful time Denny and a young girl named Sherry accepted a ride from a stranger named Wayne Kennedy, that ended in murder.

I found the film entertaining, well paced, and it kept me guessing as to what had really happened between those three people.

From what I saw during the closing credits, this seemed to be based on a true story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Peter Coyote was the only name that I recognised from the cast list, so I wasn't too keen on watching this film. The only comment on IMDb was positive, so I watched it on late night T.V. I would recommend this movie as a good late night viewing. It's better than a lot of this genre. The plot is excellent, the acting isn't brilliant, but it's not bad. I don't usually like flashbacks but in this film they work. As I've stated, I didn't recognise any of the cast by name, but I recognised Michele Lee, who gave a decent, hard working performance, as the woman wanting to stand by her man, who is lying to her. (Was it Knots Landing?) Anyhow, she's wearing really well. Note: You may enjoy it more, if you miss the first few seconds of the credits. I did and it helped me. When you see the end credits, you'll get what I mean The Wayne Kennedy character, who is really weird, takes this to a 7 rather than a 6.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A stolen shipment of Vigoroso, the mexican Viagra; a beautiful girl who is trying to rebuild her life and to leave her husband, a boss of the italian Mafia; a young sheriff who falls in love with his old sweetheart. This is the plot of \"The Shipment\", a country comedy located in small town of Paradise, Arizona. Despite its simply and classic story, the movie (directed by Alex Wright) has its fun moments: when Elizabeth Berkley (as Candy Porter), looking at a Vigoroso green pill, says: \"What\"s this? A mint candy?\". Or when the girl enters the sheriff\"s house and finds him completely naked. Or when the Vigoroso shipment ends up in THAT lake, at the final sequence... The cast offers some nice performances: by Matthew Modine as the sheriff of Paradise Valley, who still loves his old girlfriend; and by Elizabeth Berkley, who\"s character still loves her old boyfriend... The supporting cast, including Nicholas Turturro, Paul Rodriguez (as the mexican Jos\u00e8) and G Michael Gray (what kind of teeth...), makes a pleasant work, too. Not an Oscar material, but not so bad. A fun comedy without pretence.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"- The Best Bit : When the dull mobster (Nicholas Turturro) calls out to the runaway (Matthew Modine) \"Shane !.. Come Back Shane !\" and when the older wise guy asks him \"What Are You Doing ?!\" he replays simply \"Enjoying My Time !\" Actually like me at the moment !

- The Most Creepy Part : I've been wondering all the time of watching : where did I see that girl before ? where ? where ? Till I found out while the closing credits.. OHH MY GOD ! She's (Elizabeth Berkley) .. From the showgirls' fiasco ! But I just couldn't recognize her with her clothes on ! To tell you the truth I felt a brief tremor. She's really cute and nice but maybe Hollywood had no mercy at all !

- The Most Sexy Bit : When (Berkley) says \"Do You Mean The Stuff Which Gives You A Boner ?!\".

- The Most Dull Thing : The retarded assistant after a day and a night in the back of the car is still alive and healthy at the end !!??, moreover the Mexican smuggler took 3 bullets (at the same car !) and he's not dead either !!??

- The Most Ugly Thing : All of those murdered people, as well as the numerous (F) ward to a boring extent !

- The Most Beautiful Thing : The crazy clever script with all the funny characters and the tumultuous situations, the acting looked sweet also especially from (Paul Rodriguez) who stole the show for (as he had the best dialogue Also !).

- The Most Disappointing Thing : Although the direction didn't mess about the story's wittiness at all but in the same time it didn't give it a unique touch, a matchless signature, some kind of insane hilarity like the one in the story itself. However maybe the low production wronged it well ! And of course the easy tasteless music which could be like that because of cheap production too !

- The Most Confusing Part : (Matthew Modine) is a talented guy but what did he do exactly to be out of Hollywood's \"A\" list of stars ?! What could possibly be the thing he made (or didn't make !) to end up in light independent jest like (The Shipment) ?!!

- The Most Absent Scene : Where did (Jose) the Mexican smuggler go at last ?! I thought that we'll see him again at the end, smuggling once more as the surviving little criminal who, in a brief gimmick like this, could materialize the continuous disorder of such a world.

- The Most Question I had After The End : When we'll see (The Shipment - 2) ? As I'm so eager to see that fine small comic hurly-burly atmosphere again !

These were my own answers. If you interested in giving answers of your own for this questionnaire, please E-Mail me.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of those movies that are very underrated. Again i am voting for an underrated movie. This movie has a good story line, maybe a bit farfetched but it could happen. Sean Astin(one of my favorite actors) again shows us a good performance. The guy does a great job in acting but never gets recognized for his roles. He has done well since the goonies. Not only him but Louis Gosset JR. does a swell job. I thought maybe this movie would have made more money in theaters but who cares about money anyways. All around this is a good movie that will have you at the edge of your seat at times and the plot will keep the movie moving itself. I enjoyed this movie and hopefully the rest of you will as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that Toy Soldiers is an excellent movie. It's one of the only movies that, aside from some well known actors, has an unknown cast that can actually act. In my opinion, the plot is captivating. It keeps your attention without having an outrageous story that couldn't possibly happen in real life. I think that everyone would enjoy this movie. Sean Astin always seems to pick the perfect movies to be in that showcase his talent. He's very underrated and doesn't get the recognition that he deserves. Other movies that he has been in other actors have been in the spotlight but this movie and Rudy really showcase him because he is the main character in both. I hope that he someday gets the accolades he deserves for his acting. If you want to see a great movie you need to check this one out and if you are a Sean Astin fan you will definitely like this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Colombian terrorists hold hostage a military school in the U.S. until their demands are met. The students decide to fight back. Will they be able to do it?

Silly premise but the film actually works. The group of kids who fight were all up and coming when this film came out in 1991: Sean Astin (looking very cute); Wil Wheaton (looking miserable); Keith Coogan; George Perez (the token Latino who is very handsome, very muscular and is mostly shown in nothing but tight underwear); T.E. Russell (the token black guy) and Shawn Phelan. None of them are very good actors (except Astin), but who cares? This is a mindless action film. The only other good performances are from Denholm Elliott (having a ball as the headmaster) and Louis Gossett Jr. as the dean.

Other than that--there's lots of action, suspense, explosions and little brains. In other words---FUN!

Only complaint (and this is minor)--it's a bit too long (there are THREE endings) and there is LOTS of casual, bloody violence (the R rating was well-earned). Still, I enjoyed it a lot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best \"Bloke\" movies from the early 90's and whilst slightly dated, its one of those movies that would never get made today, which makes it very special! In fact, a very similar movie was made in the 90's called \"Masterminds\" and it was a PG variation on the same theme, but it was nowhere near as fun or realistic for that matter.

So what's so special about this film? It's the comradre between the main characters and the against all odds theme of the film. Sean Astin is very likable and has starred in some of the most memorable films of the 80\/90's, particularly \"The Goonies\". He also went onto greater things with \"Rudy\" and \"The Lord of the Rings\" Trilogy, but \"Encino Man\" is a good trip down memory lane. Will Wheaton from \"Stand by Me\" lends nice support to the film and Andrew Divoff is a terrific villain. Louis Gossett Jr sleepwalks in his role, but he does add some brevity to the film, particularly his relationship with Astin's rebellious nature.

So how's the action? By today's standards, it's rather tedious and cheap looking, almost like a TV movie, but the production values are good and the violence is actually quite nasty for a film involving school students. However, the director makes up for the limited budget with some nicely suspenseful moments and well placed humor.

So park your brain at the door and enjoy this fondly remembered action flick, but don't expect Oscar material!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first seen this movie like a year and a half ago and I loved it, I decided to get the DVD last year for my birthday.. It has the right amount of suspense, action and drama.. This movie is about prep school called The Regis School and its packed with rebellious kids, in which one kid William Tepper (Sean Astin) has a hard time adjusting due to prior rejections from other schools cause they couldn't control his rebellious act and now at The Regis School committing more acts of a rebellion there school gets taken over by terrorists on a random day and which the real reason is because the leader Luis Cali's (Andrew Divoff) father has been sent to prison,and the leader will do anything including killing the students, setting bombs and so forth in order to get his father back.

Along side William Tepper, is his rebellious friends at the Regis School, one in particular is Joey Trotta (Wil Wheaton) in which this guy holds a troubled past of living in a Mafia family and being sent to The Regis School because of hating his father for who he is and which now he must deal with these terrorists taking over the school, so William, Joey and there friends must band together to stop these terrorists from violent acts and hazardous tactics.

This movie was really awesome and I believe people should notice it more because when people think of a good hostage movie they would say \"Die Hard\" and even though I would have to agree with them, they need to recognize that Toy Soldiers was a good thriller, it sure had my heart beating because the students are my age and I would be scared to confront terrorists like these if they took over our school ... But overall this movie is really worth a good 112 minutes of your time and If I had a decision to rent or buy it... I WOULD BUY IT! I recommend it with a lot of hype! 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is really good. Original ideas in the film and a great terrorist action film. Only second to die hard and die hard with a vengeance, this film has suspense and a good plot. I would recommend it to anyone with a taste in films like mine; Action, terrorism and gangster\/mafia.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sean Astin pulls off another amazing performance in \"Toy Soldiers\". He plays the highly intelligent prankster, Billy Tepper along with Wil Wheaton and Keith Coogan who play his best friends, Joey Trotta and Jonathan \"Snuffy\" Bradberry. During a regular day at Saint Anselm's school for boys, a group of dangerous terrorists take all the boys and teachers as hostages and threatens to blow up the school if the leader, Luis Cali (Andrew Divoff's), father isn't released from the American prison, but these aren't just ordinary boys that are taken hostage, most of these kids are the sons of very powerful people in America and half of them were expelled from other schools before they came to Saint Anselm's. They're mouths and actions just may get them killed. When the government is desperately trying to figure out a way to help, Billy, Joey, Snuffy and some more boys decide to take matters into their own hands.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"didn't sound like it was from a fantasy film. The film is dark, with dark overtones. The soundtrack way too uplifting to the point it intruded on the visuals. I'm sure they were aiming for something militant, but it just didn't work. The scene when Astin is attempting to escape is a perfect example. Why does it sound like the Goonies? There is no comedy, there is no brightness to this!!

The idea of the movie is great, and the acting is very good as well. I enjoyed everyone's performances. It's available on Netflix's online viewing.

Definitely worth a viewing, but write your own soundtrack!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Picture this. Someone makes a film about the Columbine or Virginia tech massacre only the film is directed by the guy who did home alone (i know this isn't but bare with me) and stars Sean Astin off of Goonies!! picture the terrorists being overpowered by buckets of water on top of ajar doors and marbles and this is why you need to see the film. unfortunately it doesn't go all the way by actually having the skateboard lying on the floor for the evil Mexicans to trip on but its halfway there you have to give it above 7 for that but not a 9 because it didn't go crazy enough. Pity, its seemed like it would be comical cheesiness, well worth a cult status","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"These kinda movies just don't get the credit they deserve. This is my 2nd all time favorite movie, (Stand By Me being 1st.) The reason I watched this movie was because Wil Wheaton was in it and he is my most favorite person in the whole world and I think he done an amazing job in this movie and so did Sean Astin. I just watched it last night actually and it just amazed me. Everything in the movie is very exceptional. The script, the acting, the screenplay. I was on the edge of my seat 80% of the time, and if my mom wasn't in the room I would have absolutely balled whenever Joey Trotta (Wil Wheaton) died. I did not see that coming!! At all!! I was real surprised when I heard that it wasn't real popular back in the 90's. I was born a few years after it came out so, of course, I didn't go see it in the theaters, but im sure I would have if I would have been alive. If any of my friends watched this, they would be like, \"uhh okay?\" but thats just cause their not cool enough to appreciate work like this. If you haven't seen this movie, or are wanting to watch something that is the bomb, this is the movie for you to watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i haven't seen this in years but when i was about 6 i first saw this on VHS and i must have watched it at least 10 times. now like i said its been awhile so i might screw up the plot but i remember some Columbian terrorists taking a prep school hostage with demands for the head terrorist(the \"wishmaster\")father to be released from prison. now i could just check the plot here on IMDb but i'm pretty sure thats right. any way, a group of boys at the school decide that they're not gonna just sit around and wait to die so they decide to fight back. this film has always been stuck in my mind. there are so many images that i haven't forgotten like Joey's(i think?)death scene or billy spitting in the terrorists sandwiches or the one kids(no idea of his name)fake asthma attack. just a great film. it may be films like this that have given me my tolerance for film violence because if i remember right this movie is pretty graphic. guys getting mowed down by helicopter machine guns, a special forces guys hand getting blown off by a grenade(not sure about that but i seem to remember something like that towards the end)and the most bloody being the lead terrorist getting capped in the head in gory detail. great action, great humor, good acting, wonderful film experience. i've got to watch this again after all these years!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This came as a huge surprise for me. I had never heard of this movie when I first saw it, and the title really pointed towards something else than a great terrorist\/hostage situation at a high school. Toy Soldiers has the best from it's time period of the early 90's, where action movies were light-hearted and very enjoyable. The action is good, the plot is interesting and way over the top, the bad guy is a one-dimensional hateful douchebag (which is great), Louis Gossett Jr. is in it, it's simply a feel-good movie which I thoroughly enjoyed.

You can't go wrong with this one if you like action. I give it a solid rating of 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm seldom partial to movies about smart-assed teenagers who have problems with authority, but \"Toy Soldiers\" has grown on me with repeated viewings. This is as much a movie about Billy Tepper growing up and becoming an adult as anything else, and I give credit to Sean Astin and writer\/director Daniel Petrie Jr. that they don't make a big deal of that, but let it just unfold and sneak up on you. The camaraderie of Tepper's friends, their grief over Joey's death, and their joy at their survival, all are genuinely moving. And, I have to admit, I take a certain patriotic (and perhaps slightly reptilian) glee when the U.S. Army guys finally move in and righteously kick some narco-terrorist butt. Ooh-rah, General Kramer! And the heroic Robert Folk score is the cherry on top. I'm sure I could find a hundred reasons not to like \"Toy Soldiers,\" but as long as we don't take it TOO seriously, I don't see the need. This is one of the most entertaining \"bad\" movies in my pantheon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Quick summary of the book: Boy, Billy Tepper, about 12 years old is school's main trouble maker, and if he gets kicked out of one more school he'll be sent off to boarding school. His upscale boy's school in Switzerland (or somewhere like it) gets taken over by Arab terrorists, why I'm not really sure. Billy has no friends, and likes to use his laptop to hack into his school's database. He, with the help of two teachers thwarts the terrorists' plans, and save the entire school. The book wasn't bad, but was sooooooo clich\u00e9.

Now about the movie; they switched Arab terrorists to Cuban terrorists, and make Billy about 17 and the leader of his group of friends. They like to get into trouble, but normal teenage stuff. This movie was believable. Maybe not realistic, but the characters are real. You can watch Billy, Joey, and the rest of the guys and see real kids acting out the way they did (or at least wanting to).

Great action scenes. Not everything goes as planned for either side. Overthrowing the terrorists was messy, and good guys did get hurt. I won't say who, but it is heart wrenching (I know, I use that word a lot). Sean Astin is excellent. As a teenager he usually played the dopey best friend. This movie proved once again that he could play the leading man, kid, whatever. The only performance that may have upstaged his was Wil Wheaton's, who played the only son of a New Jersey mafia man. He hated his father, and everything he stood for. (A far cry from Wesley Crusher) Usually this genre of film is one I watch for the soul purpose of making fun; but not Toy Soldiers. The story line flows, the dialogue is usually believable. I can't think of a single moment where I found myself shouting at the TV \"Oh that would so not happen\" Great movie that should be in everyone's collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have loved this movie since I saw it in the theater in 1991. I was 12 then and Wil Wheaton was my favorite actor and adolescent crush. I am now 23 and I still love this movie. The best part about it is whoever I am dating loves it too because it is a total macho-guy movie! It is wrought with enough action and mayhem to keep men with the shortest attention spans glued to the screen. I only wish that it was available on DVD!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's really not worthy of a 'best picture' consideration, but as entertainment goes, it does the job! This is one that I've watched, with pulse quickening every time, at least a dozen times.

Most of these actors were unknown at the time this was done, and we can recognize them from other work. Those that don't have current name recognition probably don't want it.

This was a fun ADVENTURE. Sort of like The Little Rascals if they just had to be serious.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one worth watching, although it is sometimes cheesy, it is great to see a young Sean Astin, and this ends up being quite an entertaining and humorous action movie. I watched it many times when I was young, and now still enjoy it when I pop the old vhs into the machine (I happen to own a copy). So sit back with this movie, let reality go for a little while, and you will be able to have a few good laughs and an enjoyable hour and a half.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, it's not a great cinematic achievement, but Toy Soldiers is a fun and entertaining movie. The young cast does a great job with both dramatic and comedic aspects of the story, and I particularly liked Shawn Phelan as Derek\/\"Yogurt\". I've seen this one plenty of times over the years, and will probably see it several more. Just don't think too much and you'll love it - enjoy!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the best movies I've seen. The acting is good, the plot is solid, and the whole movie is very believable, which adds a lot to the movie. I rate this at least a 9.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not only does this movie have a great title but quite simply is the greatest drama I have ever watched. The viewer is irrestiblely drawn into the movie involving 5 young men working together to try and overcome insumaintable odds, Sean Astin as Billy Tepper is brilliant along with great supporting roles from T.E.Russell, Wil Wheaton and Shawn Phelan, the guidance and leadership of Gosset's and Astins characters makes the movie so much better. As time goes on the movie keeps gathering momentum and its a dissapointment that none of the young actors made a name for themselves in the film industry after this wonderful movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is my all time favorite movie! It has great acting, cute guys, and a great plot. Sean Astin is great in this movie! It has funny moments, sad moments, and happy moments. Who could ask for anything more? This movie is GREAT!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"oh boy !!! my god !!!! what a movie this one !!! this is probably the best movie by Sean Austin and Louis gosset Jr !!! i have seen all the comment for this movie...and most of them loves this movie very much!! but i don't really understand why it only got 6.1 in IMDb list??? this one should above 7.5 !!! the plot and the script are completely perfect !! the acting are superbly well acted!!! Sean Austin...will wheaton...Louis gosset Jr....have given an incredible and awesome performance in their career!!! this movie contain a lot of action!!!

just one thing i gotta say....WATCH IT !!!!!!!!!

10 OUT OF 10 STARS !!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a perfect example of great escapism! I loved this film and was sucked in from the very beginning. Sure it's just an action flick, but isn't having fun what watching movies is all about?

The cast of this film are very strong with likable characters. The friendship between the boys is so realistic and appealing, it's heart warming and hilarious to see a group of teenage boys interact - especially this group of boys!! Sean Astin makes a great rebel, successfully avoiding being a precocious teenager.

If you want fun, watch this film! I thoroughly enjoyed it even though I was watching it on a very dirty and old VHS that was terrible quality (Go DVD's!)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently rented this movie as part of a nostalgic phase I'm going through. I was born in 1980, and so film from mid-80s to mid-90s has quite an important place in my growing up.

This particular movie was one of my favourites, and so I was thrilled when it became available in the UK. It hasn't become worse with time, it is still a great fun film, with plenty of excitement in its own way. Sure, it pales in the shadow of bigger, larger budget films, but don't let that stop you enjoying this.

Worth a rent, or even a purchase at the discount prices you'll find it for.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Toy Soldiers is an okay action movie but what really stands out is the amount of effort that the scriptwriters and director put into portraying American counter-terrorist forces accurately. Just check out the end credits--there are more than a dozen US military officers and officials listed. The movie accurately portrays the FBI as having control of the hostage situation but turning it over the US Army's Delta Force (who are unnamed in the movie as the Pentagon was still denying their existence at this time) once the President waived the Posse Commitatus Act of US Code. The US Army forces at the end are accurately dressed and armed for the time. And even the use of an AH-64 Apache for air support--which might seem a bit over the top, is not terribly unrealistic. Far more expensive and frankly better movies have portrayed American counter-terrorist forces with far less accuracy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Toy Soldiers' is the story of five misfits boys (most noteably being Sean Astin, Wil Wheaton, and Kieth Coogan) attempt to save their school from a terrorist invasion after the American government imprisons the leader's father. Lou Gosset Jr. plays the headmaster of the school, a headstrong guy who tries to instill in his students a sense of discipline.

'Toy Soldiers' is a funny and pretty cool action, and certainly the better of hostage-crisis-at-school movies. I think most of the appeal comes from the teen cast, but also, the terrorists don't come off as completely useless whereas in some movies, they never seem to be quite the intimidating group that they should. Trapped inside the boarding school, and threatened to be killed if the military or police interferes, this is a very formidable challenge for these group of guys who plan to save the school. They're actually pretty clever about it, too.

I was surprised that it was a pretty good movie. It keeps a steady pace and doesn't get ridiculously sentimental or anything like that. Astin and Gosset Jr. give good performances.

I, too, agree that this is an underrated action movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm sure the film contains certain gaps in logic, but I was so enthralled by it that I really didn't care. The movie plays out like a fun, lighthearted teen romp combined with a Schwarzenegger-type action flick. It's packed with action, packed with excitement and has some humorous moments as well. Sean Astin is fun to watch, and I haven't seen Louis Gossett, Jr. since I saw \"Diggstown\" in theaters. He is a fine, underrated actor and I love watching him on screen. I just wonder what he's doing now. Unfortunately, he might be starring in a lot of those direct-to-video flicks. Hopefully, my assumption is wrong. Anyway, this is a fun, edge-of-your-seat thriller and I definitely suggest you check it out.

My score: 7 (out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Being raised at the time this movie was released has probably influenced my shallow mind, but still, this isn't a bad movie by any means. It's a movie about a hostage situation involving a prep school populated to some extent by endearing teenage boys who can't seem to get out of trouble. What's wrong with that? It doesn't have any big special effects, but so what? Who needs special effects? Cinema's decline began around the same time that special effects were popularized. A coincidence? I think not. It turned movies with potentially good plot and feelings and turned them into a big, substance-less light show for innocent kids and the self-medicated. Well, you know, not all movies need special effects. About three fourths of the movies on the IMDb top 250 are without special effects, but almost all of the Top Grossing movies of all time have some special effects. Think about it: Star Wars, E.T., Ghostbusters, etc. All good movies, but the rest of the top-grossing movies are usually cliched tripe with non-sensical plots and lots of eye candy. Well some movies don't need ny of that junk.

Excuse me for going off on a tangent, which I normally do, but I'm just so fed up with that special effects junk. Back to the point: Toy Soldiers is simply a great movie. I admit, some of the content is a little corny and ripped off, but so what, every movie rips off another to some extent. Think of Resovoir Dogs. Countless \"appreciation\" sites dictate the fact that beloved Quentin Tarentino, who I admit I like, has copied many, many, many movies in the making of his first major film Reservoir Dogs. Many say that the entire plot is ripped off almost scene for scene from japanese and chinese gangster movies which Mr. Tarentino loved so much, and probably still does. Sorry once again for the tangent.

Toy Soldiers is fun. It has the whole insubordination from teenagers to unwanted members of authority, i.e. hostage takers. It's fun to see kids take over when they're being held to something they don't want to do. Hell, teenage angst-inspired rebelion was the key topic to a great majority to 80's comedies. Plus there's the tension and thrill of having the characters use fire-arms and knock out the bad guys, etc. Plus there's some emotional points to the film. When one of the characters dies the others have to cope and adjust. It's not perfect acting but it beats most of the other tripe out there.

In short, Toy Soldiers is exciting, interesting, and fun. How dare you jaded blowhards rate this movie poorly! Shame on you all!

Personal rating: 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't understand how people could not like this movie. You have Gossit Jr., the kid who played the main character in Stand By Me, Sean Astin, and many other great actors. Lots of action and fun that you don't see in today's movies anymore. It's really a shame.

This is an underrated movie that is among other great movies like Let's Get Harry. The 80's and early 90's created such great movies that will never again be topped by today's standards.

They tried to somehow recreate this movie in Masterminds, but came up short with some really bad acting. The only thing that movie had going was Patrick Stewart, but obviously that wasn't enough.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I liked this movie. That's pretty much all I can say about it. Lou Gossett did a good job, even though I'm still very disappointed in him after all the Iron Eagle movies. And even if I was smiling on the inside when the first main teenager dies (I won't give it away) it was done in a nice, fitting fashion. Pretty much everyone in this movie does a good job, so check it out! It's another one of those movies I found real cheap, so I bought it, and I recommend the same.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is just really Great. I don't know why. I alway have a weakness for Damian Chapa. It's not Scarface, but still I really enjoyed my self. This is a film I can see more than ten times. He really try's to make a good movie, but he just can't do it. I feel pity for him, so maybe it's a bit of a sympathy vote. I can't help it, but I just can't give it less than 9 stars. Everyone should have seen this once in his life. To see how to make a cheap film work. I live in Holland and bought this film for only one euro! That's 1,50 dollar. I would have also bought it for ten euro. Great Great Great. On a little dutch film site this film gets a 101 votes. Here only a 260. That's not so much more. So people all over the world. Buy this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think it was a pretty good film. It shows how someone grew up in an environment that created a rich and powerful man but unfortunately because of his ambition and the people around him it led to his destruction. It shows that you can't trust anyone especially in a world that deals with a lot of money and envy.The character that I mostly liked was Sebeva. She was another ambitious, powerful and ruthless woman in a man's world who loved and respected Kilo. She also knew that business was business and a dangerous one. Everything she did was risky but got the job done. She helped Kilo become rich with her connections. Overall, I really liked this film and have it in my collection and waiting for El Padrino 2.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie was better than what i expected. I was working on the movie set for a short period of time when Damien was making this film.The gun fire, stunt and acting came out pretty good on the editing tip.All thou the the music wasn't all that great. Better music would have top this film.Some of the music sound like the hippie days. Damien remember you have gang violence gangster's some oldies or hip hop would have did it. It was more realistic than blood in blood out.The casting was picked real well.Suspectentertaint did a good job in this film.The movie brought back a fill of a life style i use to live. But than at the end you do not always win. And in my history thats how it was.I adapted to the movie the first time i watched it.Damien Congratulatoins on this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this movie and I recommend it to anybody.Damian Chapa and Jennifer Tilly played their roles perfectly.Just the characters alone pull you in to the movie.The directing was also magnificent.The most creative shots I've ever seen.I was stuck to the screen throughout the whole movie,not one scene was slow.The movie also has a lot of action packed scenes,cars blowing up,etc.The movie is just an all around masterpiece. If you like real entertaining movies then watch this because you'll be on the edge of your seat the whole time.I put this movie on my top ten all time list,because there is never a dull moment in the movie,and that is my type of movie.2 thumbs up,all the way up!!!!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is the Latino Godfather. An unlikely mobster bridges the gap to some unlikely alliances and forms an empire. I enjoyed the action and gunfights along with the brash acting and colorful characters. This movie is no Oscar winner, but definitely entertaining. Hey, who needs an Oscar anyway?

Chapa has got some balls to direct& act ( I think he produced it too?) this movie. Reminds me of another filmmaker who likes to do it all, Robert Rodrigez. Keep it up, is there a sequel in the works? There are a bunch of strings that need to be tied. Son comes back and avenges dads death?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There has been a political documentary, of recent vintage, called Why We Fight, which tries to examine the infamous Military Industrial Complex and its grip on this nation. It is considered both polemical and incisive in making its case against both that complex and the war fiasco we are currently involved in in Iraq. Yet, a far more famous series of films, with the same name, was made during World War Two, by Hollywood director Frank Capra. Although considered documentaries, and having won Oscars in that category, this series of seven films is really and truly mere agitprop, more in the vein of Leni Reifenstal's Triumph Of The Will, scenes of which Capra recycles for his own purposes. That said, that fact does not mean it does not have vital information that subsequent generations of World War Two documentaries (such as the BBC's lauded The World At War) lacked, nor does that mean that its value as a primary source is any the less valuable. They are skillfully made, and after recently purchasing some used DVDs at a discount store, I found myself with the opportunity to select a free DVD with my purchase. I chose Goodtimes DVD's four DVD collection of the series.

Rarely has something free been so worth invaluable. While there are no extras on the DVDs, and the sound quality of the prints varies, these films provide insight into the minds of Americans two thirds of a century ago, when racism was overt (as in many of the classic Warner Brothers pro-war cartoons of the era), and there was nothing wrong with blatant distortion of facts. The seven films, produced between 1942 and 1945, are Prelude To War, The Nazis Strike, Divide And Conquer, The Battle Of Britain, The Battle Of Russia, The Battle Of China, and War Comes To America.

Overall, the film series is well worth watching, not only for the obvious reasons, but for the subtle things it reveals, such as the use of the plural for terms like X millions when referring to dollars, rather than the modern singular, or the most overused graphic in the whole series- a Japanese sword piercing the center of Manchuria. Yet, it also shows the complexities of trying to apply past standards to current wars. The lesson of World War One (avoid foreign entanglements) was not applicable to World War Two, whose own lesson (act early against dictatorships) has not been applicable in the three major wars America has fought since: Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq. The fact that much of this series teeters on the uncertainties of the times it was made in only underscores its historic value in today's information-clogged times. It may not help you sort out the truth from the lies and propaganda of today, but at least you'll realize you are not the first to be in such a tenuous position, nor will you be the last.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Has there ever been an Angel of Death like MIMSY FARMER in Barbet Schroeder's 1960s heroin opus? Sort of Jean Seberg with a hypodermic. Pink Floyd score. Despite some ultimately insignificant weaknesses, a classic, shamelessly ripped off by Erich Segal\/Noel Black for their inept JENNIFER ON MY MIND (1971), although Tippy Walker, playing a similar character, is herself very junkie-appealing in the latter mess. MORE, though, is terrific, a great 60s drug movie and, simply, an important document of its time. Very much a cult film so join the cult.

No American movie then, as far as I can remember, charts the same territory. MIMSY's an astonishing archetype, elevating this into mythic realms. Not for the faint-hearted. Great sex scenes too.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like most people, I was interested in \"More\" solely because of the Pink Floyd soundtrack, which has turned out to be the only Pink Floyd album that I still listen to after all these years. It was quite a surprise to run across the film in a local video store, in a digitally remastered version. It was an even bigger surprise to find that it is a pretty good movie.

Visually it is quite beautiful, especially when the two main characters are cavorting on the rocks on the Spanish island of Ibiza. And the use of the soundtrack music, which as far as I can tell is exclusively by Pink Floyd, is excellent. It was a joy to watch the film with my copy of the album alongside me, mentally ticking off each track as it was used in the film. Dave Gilmour's brief \"A Spanish Piece\" was the only one I didn't hear, and several tracks are used quite prominently, especially \"Cymbaline,\" \"Main Theme,\" and \"Quicksilver.\" That latter track is tedious on the soundtrack album but works very well during the title sequence of the film, resurfacing at least once later on. Maybe now I can appreciate it on the album, now that I have some visuals to accompany it in my mind.

The plot of \"More\" is a little hard to take at times, especially in the early going, when the film appears to be merely a vehicle to demonstrate the hipness of those involved in making it. But eventually the film proves that it has much more than that to offer, as the plot becomes more focused. Why does Stefan take heroin? Why does ANYBODY take heroin, fully knowing the possible consequences? The film does not attempt to answer that question directly, but Stefan's heroin use seems a logical extension of his single-minded pursuit of pure pleasure.

I strongly recommend this film to any Pink Floyd fan who has an appreciation of the vastly underrated \"More\" soundtrack. I also recommend it to anyone who has an interest in sixties counterculture and how it was portrayed in the media. I have no idea how realistic this movie is, since I am too young to have experienced the sixties firsthand, but it does seem to capture the spirit of the times in a way that no other movie does.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"More\", maybe, is mostly remembered for the excellent soundtrack composed by Pink Floyd -in 1969 they weren't superstars yet. Actually they made an album with the film music, no fan can miss it!

But this is also the first film of German-French director Barbet Schroeder: it's a cult movie. When it was released, censorship everywhere cut several scenes of sex and drugs. It is also one of the first films to treat explicitly the theme of drug slavery.

A German boy travels to Paris and meets an American girl: they fall in love. Together they search for sun and exoticism. But it's a too high price love: she initiates him into drugs.

In the Sixties anti-drug campaigns were not like today, there wasn't much information. On the contrary, in many milieus taking drugs was a sort of spiritual experience... So it's quite surprising to see a film of that period which describes a nightmarish heroin experience.

The film is simple, not vulgar at all and shot in a \"cinema-verit\u00e9\" style. Actors Mimsy Farmer and Klaus Gr\u00fcnberg are very convincing. \"More\" is a document of the end of the Sixties -and a document of the end of the hippies illusions as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A German freshman, Stefan hitch hikes to Paris during summer break were he falls for a mysterious young woman he meets in the Paris freak scene. He then follows her in the famous isle of Ibiza, the hippie joint were meets Wolf, a man who throws Hitler-Jugend knives, owns bars and hotels and keeps Estelle under his thumb with dope. The couple tries to escape Wolf, Stefan gets hooked with dope and jealousy for Estelle, who's groovy and a free spirit. Great photography and music, plot is quite usual for the period but it's not an exploitation kind of movie, cold and dramatic. The moral is quite strong (he was looking for the sun...) but I would not say it's a film against drugs even it puts enphasy on drug use.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would be interested to hear from the director, Barbet Schroeder, as to why he decided to make More his first film, and more specifically what his interest in hippies- or rather this form of the Euro-hippie paradise- and about their demise. The film is, at least, true enough to keep one interested, but in its own kind of truth it's strange, biased. It's a given heroin (aka, \"Horse\") is awful stuff, rotten, the conclusion for many a dumb-headed drug user that sees that as the be-all-end-all, because it basically is: after that everything else stops, that becomes the life, and it's either a continuous run for more of the same or death. More starts off as something concerning a romance between a New York girl and a German man, but it becomes something else, for better or worse (sometimes both in the same scene).

It's basically about two \"young\" people, Estelle and Stefan, who meet in a city where Stefan has come as a sort of wanderer away from his home country. She's wandering too, sort of, and is maybe too friendly with a big-time pusher named Wolf. They end up on a remote island somewhere nearby and, after a somewhat daring grab for some \"horse\" by Estelle, they also find a pad in the form of a seemingly remoter house along the seashore. Schroeder's comment on youth and sex and drugs isn't too simplistic, which makes the film actually lucid and intelligent so many years later. It's both direct and subtle, more about the characters and then about the fact that what he's depicting could in other hands just be a propagandistic hippie-exploitation picture. Perhaps most pleasantly, and this is just a guess, Schroeder uses as inspiration the sort of long sequence from Bergman's Summer with Monika: two kids in an inexorable connection, some good some definitely not so good, set against (too?) perfectly shot landscapes.

On the one hand, I should mention that there are problems, some big ones in fact. The performances aren't very convincing throughout; a few scenes strike some power or have the actors in a good connection with one another, but Klaus Grumberg overplays himself even if he is an ornery German by nature (in that case I would've preferred Klaus Kinski in the part to make it crazier but deep enough for the subject matter) as does Farmer to her own degree. And there's gaps of naivet\u00e9 in the screenplay that keep it from being as deep as it really thinks it is. On the other hand, there are two big things going for it: Nestor Almendros, the great cinematographer (i.e. Days of Heaven) is DP and is a big boost for a first time director like Schroeder. Nearly every image is seen with an awesome purpose or artistry, be it a shot of the cliffs by the sea or sun or something as simple as the seemingly natural light of a room.

The other thing is Pink Floyd, probably the main reason I and many others have heard of the film in the first place (years before I knew really who Schroeder was I saw the \"More\" soundtrack whenever I looked up Pink Floyd albums). It's very good music throughout, occasionally the mind-blowing variety that gives them the reputation they deserve. Some of it, too, is a little tedious, even as it is a movie that concerns free love and lots of drugs and sometimes both at the same time. I wouldn't rank it anywhere near as high as a Meddle or Animals, certainly not Dark Side, but it too helps to elevate the subject matter another notch, particularly when one least expects it or in low tones or floating in and out of buildings as Stefan or other walks on the streets. It's almost better atmosphere than the movie itself deserves, but overall More is still worth watching as a period piece- dated, but potent, like a less ambitious but more substantial Zabriskie Point.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"17\/02\/09 \"More\" (1969) Dir: Barbet Schroeder

For a film that most viewers have agreed is pretty average, I'm impressed by quite how many differing interpretations have been offered of it. I've only scoured the web quite briefly and I've already been informed that \"More\" is: a 19th Century-style romance, an allusion to the story of Icarus, a plain film full of dull people, and of interest only to Pink Floyd completists. It's fair to say, then, that critical reception is mixed. I would argue that these wildly disparate readings of Barbet Schroeder's 1969 directorial debut are proof enough that \"More\" is anything but a pretty average film.

Neither is it a masterpiece, of course. I approached \"More\" as I did \"Easy Rider\" and Antonioni's \"Blowup\" - as a 'time-capsule' film, a snapshot of an era - despite the differences in pace, style and content between these movies. They all have similar flaws - either vague or downright unlikeable characters, acting that seems slightly adrift from reality, relaxed editing, and abrupt endings that have left viewers indignant. These movies never try to be persuasive or meet the audience half way - they are what they are, man. This in itself is not a problem as long as we are left with a souvenir of the experience. Thankfully, \"More\" offers several truly memorable images, sounds and suggestions to the viewer, and this is what saves it.

Stefan is a young man who arrives in Paris fresh from his studies in Germany. The first part of the film follows him as he falls in with a group of French hipsters, accompanies them to devastatingly cool and self-conscious parties and bars before meeting Estelle. The two characters become sexually and romantically involved and he promises to follow her to Ibiza, against the advice of his friend Charlie. This is where the Icarus thing comes into play - she is the Sun, he is pursuing her. You may now be able to guess how this all ends.

Ibiza is an idyll so far away from the bustling urgency of the over-populated Paris that the naive Stefan knows he must be on to a good thing. Estelle remains elusive and erratic, and the island has a less desirable underbelly. Up until now I had cared little for either of these characters and their unfocused pursuit of somewhere to be really free, but once the action is pared down to just these two the film becomes poignant quite suddenly. During just one single wistful exchange of dialogue in the remote villa they inhabit, the place where their volatile love crystallises, I went from watching with a fading optimism to being utterly enraptured. I can't think of many other films that have done this.

The relationship between Stefan and Estelle is real and human in that we can see it go from life-defining intimacy to disillusionment and cruel coldness. They take a lot of drugs and cavort naked on the terraces, the rocks and beaches. Their lives revolve around nothing but each other and the beautiful Mediterranean surroundings. For a while, their situation is the very essence of freedom, emotional openness and experience for its own sake. But Stefan is not in control, and this is the downfall of more than just his future on Ibiza.

Pink Floyd's score is a perfect fit for the exoticism, the intimacy, and the foreboding of \"More\". It is one of the most memorable inclusions, along with the mosquito netting around Estelle's bed, and their hallucinogenic exuberance around the windmill (which appears on the soundtrack album's front cover). A scene in which they take acid to escape from heroin withdrawal is illustrative of the fundamental flaws of the couple - they cannot 'land' without a crash. Maybe they've come too close to what they wanted.

Stefan never makes contact with any family or friends from before his arrival in Paris. We are left to presume they have no idea where he is. While other 1960s Counterculture movies dwell on debauchery, excess, the media and voyeurism, Schroeder has instead presented us with a story focused upon one man, who backs himself into a little corner somewhere in the world and quietly disappears.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have become a big fan of the work of Barbet Schroeder, so maybe I am already a little biased by now, but I think this movie is great, although there may be a few lengths. It is a romantic unromantic view of the Great Liberation in the later sixties, stylistically amazingly polished (great set design!) and in my opinion still very watchable.

Basically this is an ironic re-telling of the story of Adam and Eve who are driven from paradise after having tasted the \u0084forbidden fruit\" which has turned from an apple into a hypodermic filled with heroine. The woman seduces a man into using it thus accelerating his doom. I say accelerating as the guy seems to be doomed and bound for an intensive life and an early grave right from the great title sequence onwards. There is no place for any hope.

Although the story is rather sad, I was captured by the beauty both of the beautiful location Ibiza and Mimsy Farmer. I found her character was at once shallow, enigmatic, endearing, annoying, interesting and boring. Somehow she represents what men see in women in a basic, unoffensive way. Architecture and built artifacts in general are put to very good use \u0096 which seems to be a Schroeder trademark of sorts.

There is even some humor, mainly delivered by Stefan, the German main character and his accent. His main nemesis is not a snake but an older German of dubious reputation \u0096 and provider of the heroine - called Wolf. Although it is a German name and Stefan is German, he pronounces it verrry English and in fits of jealousy spits the name out at his girlfriend in regular intervals \u0096 becoming a boy who cries ... At times Stefan has to work in order to earn a \u0084cellery\". At one time the guy goes snorkeling and afterward awkwardly clambers up a rock with his rubber flippers \u0096 never has male frontal nudity been funnier in movie history.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"if you get the slight enjoyment out of pink Floyd's music you will love this movie. the score is completely pink Floyd and of course the drug element plays a major part in this movie giving you the doubts about life within the weakest moments. this movie also touches the heart with the story about love and the people around you ... there is also a huge connection with the world around you with the environment of a personal island.this thing tell me i need ten lines to sum up a movie but i am done that is all you get that is why this movie is a 6.1 which is a major upset to any movie with a score like this. take a look at requiem for a dream and the fountain .... equally good scores for our generation but overestimated","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is simply one of the best movies I have the privilage of owning. It took me years to come up with this movie and it was well worth it. The movie is meant to be anti-drug propaganda but turns itself into the opposite while not even halfway through the movie. The relished look on the faces of the players as they receive their bounty of drugs is pleasing to all those who observe. Untill the final phase pf their drug induced lives, heroin comes for its say. YIKES! This is the anti-drug message that was so fabulously sought. The soundtrack for this movie kicks butt! By far it is one of Pink Floyds best albums ever! If ever the chance, take a look, listen, and moment to witness a spectacularly made movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Odd one should be able to stumble into \"Classe Tous Risques\" only by chance; it should be on any \"best of film-noir\" list, including IMDb's.

Lino Ventura is as good as ever; knowing of his dire, delicate family situation gives extra weight to his almost expressionless face and brief dialogues. Belmondo's restrained performance under Sautet's firm direction only shows what a wonderful actor he could - and should -have been.

\"Classe Tous Risques\" is utterly mininal, dry and cold, without Melville's artistic scenery, pretty faces and fancy cars. It is almost film-noir meet neo-realism. Davos' few, hard words to his children describing their life of secrecy from there on get a hold on your throat to the end of the film.

The final sentence of the film - a voice-over telling of Davos' end in no more than ten dry, sombre words - leaves you with a hard punch in the stomach.

A true jewel in the great crown of French film-noir.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The film Classe tous risques directed by Claude Sautet was not a film, to be honest, I had ever really heard of until the Film Forum in NYC said that they would have a 2-week screening of the film, with new English subtitles. When I also read that it was in the vein of the classic French crime films ala Jean Pierre Melville, I jumped at the chance to check it out (at best it would rank up with his great works, and at worst I would get some good popcorn in a great theater). It was well worth the admission, as Classe tous risques is one of those kinds of French films that is just waiting to be re-discovered (or discovered for the first time). With terrific, tense diligence, Sautet keeps the suspense at a tight pitch for the first forty minutes of the film, keeping a good (if not great) middle section, and then ending it up with what is always expected with these films, but with fascinating motivations by way of the characters. With a film in the vein of this sort, you know how it will end, but it's the cool, observant journey that counts.

The film features a performance with some real truth and honesty, amid the \"old-school\" criminal's code, by Lino Ventura as Aldo, who at the start of the film (one of the best beginnings to a film in this genre and country) steals a hefty amount of money with his partner in crime). When there is a sudden, ugly twist of fate on a beach late one night, Aldo is again on the run with two little kids. He gets the aid of Eric Stark (Jean-Paul Belmondo, a role in tune with Le Doulos only with a smidgen more humanity and charisma), who is also a thief and drives him into Paris. But there are some problems with some of Aldo's old business partner's, and one old score may be just the right ticket. A couple of times the plot may seem to be leisurely, but it isn't. Like Melville, Sautet doesn't allow any fat to his story, and it's a very tightly structured film, with some good doses of humor here and there (I was sometimes grinning at the audacity of the criminals in the beginning chase sequence, and also with a particular woman who had a finicky thing with her cat and a fish).

Along with a fine score by the great George Delerue, exceptional cinematography, and a mood that is seldom met let alone matched now adays, Classe tous risques is a reminder of that bridge between the real old-school film-noir, and the latter day crime films. Gangsters in these new sort of \"thug-life\" movies have a 1000th of the class and honor of the thieves in this film, and is a second banana to the works of Melville and Jules Dassin (a compliment I assure you). That it has a good realistic, moral edge helps as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film at Telluride Film Festival in 1997, where one of the screenwriters, Jos\u00e9 Giovanni, was being honored. It ranks highly as a great noir-crime-drama, incredible performances by Belmondo and Lino Ventura. The attention given to every character, and complex psychological portrayals, detailing loyalty, treachery, love, and hope, are tremendous. It is an excellent drama, an excellent thriller, and an excellent film. Up there with the best of Melville. (The title in English 'Class all risk,' in French 'Classe tous risques' is word-play on 'Classe Touriste,' meaning 'Tourist Class'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Classes tous risques\" is one of the best \"gangsters\" films noirs France has ever produced.Perfect cast :Lino Ventura,a young Jean -Paul Belmondo (who made \"a bout de souffle\",Godard's thing, the same year),Marcel Dalio and a fine supporting cast ;brilliant script by Jos\u00e9 Giovanni -who also wrote \"le trou\" Becker's masterpi\u00e8ce the same year!What a year for him!;wonderful black and white cinematography by Ghislain Cloquet.And taut action,first-class directing by Claude Sautet,who surpasses Jean-Pierre Melville .Whereas the latter films gangsters movie with metaphysical pretensions,which sometimes lasts more than two hours,Claude Sautet directs men of flesh and blood,and the presence of the two children adds moments of extraordinary poignancy which Melville has never been able to generate .And Sautet avoids pathos,excessive sentimentality:the last time Ventura sees his children,coming down in the metro (subway)is a peak of restrained emotion.

Ventura portrays a gangster whose die is cast when the movie begins.He thinks that he can rely on his former acquaintances ,but they are all cowards -we are far from manly friendship dear to Jacques Becker (\"touchez pas au grisbi\" ) which Melville was to continue throughout the sixties-sometimes abetted by mean women (the film noir misogyny par excellence),living in a rotten microcosm,ready to inform on -we are far from Jean Seberg's simplistic behavior in Godard's \"opus\"-.

Cloquet works wonders with the picture:the scene on the beach in a starless night when the two children see their mother die after the shoot-out with the customs officers is absolutely mind-boggling.

There's a good use of voice-over,which Sautet only uses when necessary;thus ,the last lines make the ending even stronger than if we have attended the scenes.

Claude Sautet had found a good niche ,and he followed the \"classes tous risques\" rules quite well with his follow-up \"l'arme \u00e0 gauche\" (1965) which featured Ventura again and made a good use of a desert island and a ship.Had he continued in that vein,France would have had a Howard Hawks.In his subsequent works ,only \"Max et les ferrailleurs \" (1971) showed something of the brilliance he displayed in the first half of the sixties.He had become ,from \"les choses de la vie\" onwards,the cinema de qualit\u00e9 director who used to focus on tender-hearted bourgeois in such works as \"Cesar et Rosalie\" (1972),\"Vincent Fran\u00e7ois ,Paul et les autres\" (1974) or \"Mado\" (1976)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Classe Tous Risques (The Big Risk) is repeatedly recommended every time I look up a Jean-Pierre Melville film that I had to give it a watch as soon as possible. Since I've been discovering Melville and seemingly working backwards through his filmography, it would be easy for me to mistake this as one of his films, but it was made in 1960, by Claude Sautet, before Melville would come and stake his claim on french neo-noir.

Classe Tous Risques has two of the best lead men of the time, Lino Ventura and Jean-Paul Belmondo. Ventura plays Abel, a gangster exiled in Italy with his wife and two kids, who wants to come back to Paris because the police are closing in on him. After a roaring and fast paced opening with a big surprise, Abel eventually gets hooked up with Eric Stark (Belmondo) who wants to get into the criminal underworld. Stark becomes Abel's chauffeur and eventual only friend in an underworld that turns it's back on Abel after everything he's done and been through. The film shows the the duality of the two men, the older Abel at the end of his time after tragedy strikes him, and the younger Eric starting off the same way Abel did, falling in love with a beautiful woman who sticks with her man despite the world they are a part of. It never ends pretty for them, or their loved ones. Its one thing to see a individual criminal come to his demise, its different when he has loved ones he risks taking down with him.

Much like Melville's film, the seemingly simple story gets more subtlety complicated as it goes along. As usual, as what I feel with Melville's films, it left my head spinning (in a good way) and dying to re watch it again to pick up what I missed the first time. Classe Tous Risques is a definite keeper.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Career criminal and crime boss, Abel Davos (Lino Ventura) has been on the run for more than 10 years, hiding out in Milan, Italy. In his absence, he has been sentenced to death in his home country of France for his crimes. Disillusioned with his life in Italy and with the police there closing in on him, he decides to return to his old stomping ground in Paris. Sending his wife Therese and two young sons ahead to Nice, Abel and his next in command Raymond Naldi do one final heist, to fund their new lives back in France. The heist proffers a meagre half million francs, way less than their sources had suggested, despite this and with the police in chase they both make it to Nice, where they hideout briefly. After stealing a pleasure boat from a local, they aim to make it to San Remo a tourist spot where they will blend in more readily, but they are stopped by armed customs officers on a deserted beach, a shoot out ensues and Therese and Naldi are both killed. A now wounded Davos with two kids in tow is going to be easily spotted by police, so he calls on his old friends in Paris to send help, but they have moved on since their old friend went into hiding and are not too inclined to take a risk themselves, so they send small time thief, Eric Stark (Jean Paul Belmondo) to rescue him. Davos is disgusted that such a lowly thief is sent to his aid, despite the fact he hits it off immediately with the charming Stark, he sets out to find out why he has been snubbed, but their betrayal doesn't stop there.

Classe Tous Risques (aka the Big Risk) was written for the screen by former death row inmate and crime writer Jose Giovanni (Le Trou, Le Clan des Siciliens), with Ventura already on board for the project, Giovanniwanted someone unique to direct the project, Ventura suggested an assistant director that had caught his attention on a previous project,one Claude Sautet, best known at the time for assisting Georges Franju on Les Yeux sans Visage. Sautet immediately agreed and the rest as they say is history. Sautet crafted a fine gangster film, that plays heavily on characters and relationships. Davos constantly in hiding has plenty of time to reflect on his life, past, present and future, his friendships that no longer seem to be what he believed they were, his now deceased wife and what will become of his two young sons. Ventura as a character actor has always amazed me, being both comfortable and convincing in both the police and criminal fraternity, here his world weary performance is sublime and powerful as his world crumbles all around him, as the loneliness and solitude of a man on the run kicks in. Ventura's former profession as a pro wrestler gets plenty of use as he throws parisien hoodlums around with a consummate ease. Belmondo as Stark enlivens the other storyline within the film, that of his budding relationship with a girl he meets on the road trip. With his forthright charm, his coming clean to this woman in danger that he is but a \"Voleur\" and that \"the only good thing about me is my left\" as he knocks out her aggressor, is also a joy to behold, as she falls for him anyway. Belmondo's performance was overlooked at the time, as Godard's A bout de Souffl\u00e9 was released only three weeks previous, Godard attaining the credit for discovering the new kid on the block, his versatility within these two films, being there for all to see and admire. Sautet's film is a classy affair, using plenty of attractive locations, the film also has very sparse dialogue, Sautet preferring to let the actors do the work with the merest of looks or glances sufficing to further the story, needles to say this Noir fan will be checking out more of Sautet's work in the future.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Classe tous risques\" feels like the granddaddy of \"The Sopranos\" in mixing the criminal and the domestic, and of the buddy film to feel as contemporary as \"Reservoir Dogs.\"

Even as these gangsters are affectionately entangled with wives, children, lovers and parents, they are coldly ruthless, and we are constantly reminded they are, no matter what warm situation we also see them in. They can tousle a kid's hair - and then shoot a threat in cold blood. The key is loyalty, and the male camaraderie is beautifully conveyed, without ethnic or class stereotypes, even as their web of past obligations and pay backs narrows into suspicion and paranoia, as the old gang is in various stages of parole, retirement, out on bail or into new, less profitable ventures. An intense accusation is of sending a stranger to perform an old escape scenario. It is a high point of emotion when a wife is told off that she's not the one the gangster is friends with, while virtually the only time we hear music on the soundtrack is when he recalls his wife.

Streetscapes in Italy and France are marvelously used, in blinding daylight to dark water and highways, from the opening set up of a pair of brazen robbers -- who are traveling with one's wife and two kids. Rugged, craggy Lino Ventura captures the screen immediately as the criminal dad. And the second thug is clearly a casually avuncular presence in their lives, as they smoothly coordinate the theft and escape, in cars, buses, on boats and motorcycles, in easy tandem. This is not the clich\u00e9 crusty old guy softened with the big-eyed orphan; these are their jobs and their families and they intersect in horrific ways.

The film pulls no punches in unexpectedly killing off characters, directly and as collateral damage, and challenging our sympathy for them, right through to the unsentimental end, which is probably why there was never an American remake.

It seems so fresh that it's not until Jean-Paul Belmondo enters almost a third of the way into the film, looking so insouciant as a young punk, that one realizes that this is from 1960. Sultry Sandra Milo has smart and terrific chemistry with him, from an ambulance to an elevator to a hospital bed.

While the Film Forum was showing a new 35 mm print with newly translated subtitles, it was not pristine. The program notes explained that the title refers to a kind of insurance policy and is pun on \"tourist class.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've only seen about a half dozen films starring Lino Ventura, but this one seems very much like the others. He plays a laconic criminal--one who is short on words and subdued yet occasionally explosive. Given his quiet persona in such films as ARMY OF SHADOWS and SECOND BREATH, I've noticed that his minimalist style of acting is extremely effective. In other words, because he is so quiet and mannered, when he does bad things you tend to notice. And, like these other films, he also has a very strong, though twisted, moral code.

Abel Davos (Ventura) and his partner, Lilane, are both living in Italy and are career criminals. Both grew up in France and eventually had to flea due to their criminal activities. Now in Italy as the film begins, they continue to live the life of thugs and the heat is on to catch them. Oddly, instead of running to yet a third country, they decide to go back to France--even though Davos has been tried and convicted in absentia--and if he's caught it could mean a life in prison or the death penalty. Much of the first third of the film concerns their covert return.

Unfortunately for Davos, the return doesn't go perfectly and now it seems as if every cop in France is looking for him. Additionally, the reaction of his old compatriots in crime is not at all what he'd expect. In fact, their tepid response to his return ends up unleashing a series of terrible events towards the end of the film.

Along the way, Davos meets and is taken in my a stranger, Eric Stark (Jean-Paul Belmondo). Despite Davos seemingly having no friends, Stark and his lady friend try their best to make his return successful. What throws another monkey wrench into this, though, is Davos' two very young sons--what is Davos to do with them--keep them with him in his hiding place?

Overall, this is a very good crime film--sort of like French Film Noir. Unlike American Noir, the many French versions I have seen have a more realistic as well as bleak outlook to them. Fatalism reigns supreme, that's for sure! The acting is first-rate (especially from Ventura and Belmondo), the direction very sure and the writing very nice, though I am sure many won't like the ending. It just seems to be tacked on--like an afterthought. I understood why they did it this way, but can also see how it might leave many unsatisfied. As for me, it did leave me a tad flat. Otherwise, an exceptional film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Classe Tous Risques (The Big Risk) is a French gangster movie that doesn't try for style. That's why it has style. Because the movie is so underplayed and so matter-of-fact, it becomes more and more involving. And because Abel Davos is played by Lino Ventura, we wind up emotionally invested in this taciturn, tough killer who loves his wife and kids, has an encounter with customs agents on the shore near Nice at night that neither he nor we expect, and who proves just as willing to shoot a cop or a betrayer with as little emotion as flicking off a bit of lint. We first meet Davos in Italy with his wife and their two small boys, one about 9 and one 4.

\"This man was Abel Davos, sentenced to death in absentia,\" we're told. \"On the run for years, he had watched his resources dwindle, even as his anxiety kept him on the move. With the Italian police closing in each day, France was again his best bet. Maybe he'd been forgotten.\"

Davos was a top gangster in Paris who took care of his friends. That was several years ago. A heist to give him money to return to France goes very wrong. Now he's hiding out with his two kids. He calls his friends in Paris to help him out. He and his kids need to get from Nice to Paris but the police are hunting him and they've set up roadblocks. For Davos' two best friends, time has passed and they've moved on. They don't want to put themselves at risk, and for what? Obligation gives may to caution. So they hire a young thief, Eric Stark (Jean- Paul Belmondo), to pick up Davos and the children in an ambulance, then to drive to Paris with Davos heavily bandaged and the children hidden. We're on a journey where Davos' options are increasingly limited, where he must find ways to have his children cared for, where he realizes there are no more ties of friendship, where betrayal seems likely, and where quite possibly his only friend left is Eric Stark.

This somewhat cynical movie works so well because it does its job without fussing about. There are no trench coats with pulled-up collars, no toying with the melodrama of the gangster code so many French directors have loved. Classe tous Risques gives us Abel Davos, a man who once was somebody, who now is sliding down to be nobody, and who reacts with violence and resignation.

Lino Ventura dominates the movie, yet when he is paired with Jean-Paul Belmondo a curious chemistry happens. Ventura as Davos is grim and worried about caring for his sons. He is humiliated by his situation. He is a tough man who sees killing someone, if needed, as just part of the business he's in. Belmondo as the young thief who initially is sent to be an expendable driver and winds up being a friend to count on, provides the brightness that keeps the movie from being just one more ride down the elevator. Belmondo was 27 and looks younger. His unlikely star power as a lead actor -- broken nose, under-slung jaw -- shines right off the screen. He makes Erik a match for Ventura when they share a scene. And Belmondo's scenes with Liliane (Sandra Milo), the young woman who becomes his girl friend, radiate charm and good-natured sex appeal. The ending is bittersweet fate, and without a stylistic posture in sight. We hear Davos say, \"Abel's gone. There's nothing left.\" It would be well worth watching Classe tous Risques to learn what he means.

There are many fine French gangster films. I'd place this one right there with Touchez Pas au Grisbi and Bob le Flambeur. To see one of Lino Ventura's finest performances, watch Army of Shadows.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a Black and White film from France,

Simple plot, gangster on the run seeking & getting help etc. We have seen this type film many times over the years. What makes this film different are mainly its acting & style. All the actors perform quietly,No one yells & hardly anyone loses his temper. There are quite a few deaths, some surprising. There are beautiful women as well, but no sex scenes. No car chases either.

JUST talking\/ It is so refreshing to listen to people talk, & here we must read subtitles as well.

The acting is near perfect by all. especially the lead played by

Lino Ventura & in a smaller BUT vital role Jean Paul Belmondo. These 2 actors were among the best.

I said above the film is flawed, There are a few script deficiencies in few spots, They are minor,The acting is the thing in this movie. Production is first rate as well.

Ratings: *** (out of 4) 88 points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with all the strenghts mentioned in the other reviews but there are some beats missing here that keep it firmly inside the genre of crime drama or film noir and limit it from being a great drama beyond the limits of the \"elements\" that make up film noir--not to say that the great film noirs aren't\/can't\/shouldn't be also great dramas, but this one isn't.

One other note the music in the film is used sparingly but I would say is used to accentuate the action more frequently than the wife elements.

Great set up to this film by the way with an abrupt sort of non ending ending that is either just right or a let down depends.

Spoilers follow as to some specifics.

The big turn in the story involves the children seeing their mother die, or it should be the big moment. But the children are never shown to react one way or the other. Neither cries, neither asks their father what happened, the kids are good actors and the reactions of the father are I suppose what matters but this is a big misstep. This is the heart of the story and the kids are kept mostly blank in their reaction. They really just have none, in the next scene they look as if nothing happened.

In like fashion there is a bond that forms between Belmondo and Ventura's characters. Belmondo says he knew the partner who was killed--but this is never explained and has no impact dramatically on Belmondo or anyone else. The Belmondo romantic subplot also strains credibility though it's convincingly acted. Ventura's character just lets Belmondo involve a total stranger in their escape plan for no reason. He doesn't even comment or seem to notice. Another gap.

The ending to the movie, and I won't spoil it, the ending happens off screen with a perfunctory voice over to tell you what happened. I guess this tries to make it feel more true to life, but again like these other missteps leaves drama off screen.

What's the point of not dealing with these issues? I don't know, other than maybe the goals of the film were limited to giving the audience what it wants from a crime melodrama--suggest some deeper elements, then move on to ignore them.

Too bad there is much to recommend this film, Ventura is very very good, but too bad it could have been a great drama as well as a crime story--as with IMDb favorite movie of all time THE GODFATHER. This film had potential. Would make for a good remake though if done in the U.S. more problems would probably sink the film, but in the hands of the right director this would be a good remake,though it's doubtful Ventura's performance could be topped.

So worth seeing but frustrating as a whole","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pulling in 2.6 million viewers, one has to wonder what everyone's opinions on the storyline\/plot is.

Reading the run down over at lifetime, I was led to believe that this would be an edge-of-your-seat thriller about a single mother being stalked and finally confronting the stalker. Sadly I was mistaken. While the main plot is interesting enough - Single mother run off road one night, then is stalked by same guy, the reasoning behind the stalking left nothing but a really bad taste in my mouth.

Laura Leighton plays the victim, and she does it well. Whether it was all those years on Melrose Place or not, she does well in this movie, playing a mother who would do anything to protect her son from harm, and she's looking pretty good too these days.

Leighton is really the only good thing about this movie. I think many people will identify with the main character, after discovering why the stalker is stalking, it will be a view-only-once type of movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not a bad MOW. I was expecting another film based on womens issues but was pleasantly surprised at the element of suspense. Sure, parts of the plot were pretty hokey but for the most part the movie kept me guessing. Was the nut bar connected with the ex husband, somebody in the tavern or was it the guy (person) that she cut off? Daniel Magder was excellent. I've seen him in Mom's on Strike and in Guilt by Association, both MOW's and he is very creditable, especially the way he challenges his mother the way a preteen would typically act.

Laura Leighton also played the typical mother (ex-wife) that both men and women can relate to. She was frustrated enough to seem real.

See it if you missed it. It's worthwhile.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"

Very good 1970s movie about mob operations in New Jersey. When a \"maverick\" gangster doesn't play by the rules of the neighborhood, sooner or later, it's time for elimination.

Joe Pesci was true to his character -- smooth and funny. He only gets better with age. His face and present day fame should not have been used on the DVD cover to sell this \"B\" grade movie as he was only the third billed star.

Dated 1970's printed wide lapel shirts and lesser quality background music make for a distraction. Nice to see the 1970's big cars.

However, the acting is good.

Nakedness on the part of Anne Johns was not needed to make this mob story work. And, she does not show up in the database as every acting again in any film other than this one. Too bad; she did a good job!

Moral of the story: Don't get your \"Don\" upset with you.

If you are wanting to see something different when you wake up in the middle of the night then check out this DVD. It was part of a three-movie-on-one DVD $5.88 special at the local discount store.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So ya think you've seen every Mafia movie ever made! Here's one that nobody every heard of. It's a low-budget, quickie B-movie - shot in the swamps of Jersey. For us mob-movie fans, it had a little bit of everything - sex, violence, cursing, and wise guys acting like \"gafones\". While violence dominated the movie, I found myself laughing at some familiar scenes I've since seen on The Sopranos and Goodfellas. Look for a 1977 version of the \"Badabing Girls\" in the beginning of the movie.

All our favorite mobster stereotypes were featured here. And, as for realism, \"fugettaboutit\"! Joe Pesci was superb, portraying the classic wise-guy character like we seen him do so many times over the years. This was probably his first shot, and it was a gem. Pesci fans should run to the video store to check out this flick. You have to look carefully for it since it goes by different names. My copy called it \"The Family Enforcer\". Here it is known as \"The Death Collector\". But whatever name it goes under, it's should be called - A Winner.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Has anyone ever read or heard comments by Scorsese or David Chase ( Soprano's Exec. Producer) about \"Death Collector\/Family Enforcer\"? I bought the DVD after not having seen it for a while on cable (like 20 years), but having seen \"Goodfellas\" and the entire \"Sopranos\" run to date. In retrospect, both guys must have seen Death Collector\/Family Enforcer and absorbed the flavor ,perhaps inspiring the tone for their masterworks, both of which the polar opposite of the romanticized Godfather trilogy. Being a Jersey guy, it is interesting to see how the Jersey meadowlands have evolved since the mid-70's. It is not the swampy dumping ground it used to be although once in a while a body will turn up in a local waterway. Also, it's a little bittersweet to seen a newly constructed World Trade Center in the across the river in the opening and closing scene. Who could have imagined?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw a version of this in a 4 DVD Mafia collection put out by Brentwood and I have to admit that it was a good film. The quality was a little worse for the wear, but it was a well acted and realistic drama involving low level New Jersey gangsters. Pesci once again though, steels the show!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surprisingly good \"Mean Streets\"-type crime drama. Foreshadows elements of \"Goodfellas\" and \"Casino\". Joe Pesci's first big role. Clever dialog. I think the Maltin guide gives this a bomb rating. I can only guess no one actually bothered to watch it.

Saw this at Tarantino's film fest and he said Scorsese used a number of these actors in Raging Bull.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with Vince, this movie paved the way for Goodfellas. The scene where Pesci was throwing peanuts at the piano player reminded me of his \"How am I funny?\" routine in Goodfellas. This is a highly underrated film and deserves some attention. As with many other mob films, the theme of The Death Collector rings true: Always respect the Don.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It was an interesting and entertaining movie well worth watching. The acting was decent but it may be out of date for some people. I was glad to see cast members of such highly acclaimed movies as \"Raging Bull\" and \"Goodfellas\" in this movie A great and dramatic ending and pretty good writing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Let me ask you one more question\" Ha ! what a great soon .. this movie was brilliant fantastic acting, great script. The only reason no-one noticed it was because of the low budget everyone will agree with me that its a cult just like \"Donnie Brasco\" it shows a young Joe Pesci once again as a mobster, this film is up their with the cults. its got some sopranos and some goodfellas chase got his idea for the sopranos when he watched this and Scorsese found Joe Pesci while watching it, that proves it must be a great am i right or am i wrong 'eh ?. I've got to admit they showed one brilliant scene where they were throwing peanuts at a camp piano player \"Stop with the friggen peanuts\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A very accurate depiction of small time mob life filmed in New Jersey. The story, characters and script are believable but the acting drops the ball. Still, it's worth watching, especially for the strong images, some still with me even though I first viewed this 25 years ago.

A young hood steps up and starts doing bigger things (tries to) but these things keep going wrong, leading the local boss to suspect that his end is being skimmed off, not a good place to be if you enjoy your health, or life.

This is the film that introduced Joe Pesce to Martin Scorsese. Also present is that perennial screen wise guy, Frank Vincent. Strong on characterizations and visuals. Sound muddled and much of the acting is amateurish, but a great story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"THE DEATH COLLECTOR is truly a wonderful film. Labeled as a MEAN STREETS ripoff, it has some really great stuff in it. A lot of the stuff in this movie would later be used by Scorsese himself, including the actors - Joe Pesci, Frank Vincent, etc.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"a very surprisingly underrated movie. very realistic. and authentic .with great Dialogue. being Italian, i can definitely relate to the situations and phrases used. I thought Joe Cortese was great. as a crazy mob cowboy type, and pesci and Vincent were great also. I liked the actor Criscuolo who played the boss. He was very authentic. i think the director Ralph devito was on his way to great things , but was cut down too early , maybe because he knew too much. i thought it was great. it deserved more airplay and recognition. it was a sleeper movie. great. very good. it really had good authenticity. it was well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Out of all the Mafia movies i have ever seen this is one of the best for many reasons. The acting from Pesci, Cortese and Vincent. The story is one of the best ever (In the mafia genre), as it realistic. The characters are people that lots of other people can relate to. This movie is also great as it's dialogue is good. It also has very realistic fights and action scenes. This movie also launched the careers of Pesci and Vincent. If it weren't for the success of this film, Casino and Goodfellas might not have been as good as they were.

Story 10\/10 Acting 9\/10 Realism 10\/10

OVERALL 10\/10

My fave Mafia movies are

1: Goodfellas 2: Casino 3: The Godfather Trilogy 4: Family Enforcer (The Death Collector) 5: The Sopranos (I know it isn't a movie)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First off let me say that this is probably in my opinion one of the 10 most underrated movies since this came out in 72. I absolutely loved this movie, it's very urban, gritty, no real Hollywood glam added to it.. you can actually feel for all of the characters in here, i love the blood just splattering abound in here. Joe Pesci was pretty good in here, but to me it seems like he was definitely outdone by the lead character Joe Cortese, now i don't know anything about him , but boy can he really act.. I believe this movie is probably true, because living in New Jersey,, living close to Philly, you here this kinda thing all the time. i think that if the movie had a bigger budget , and say Robert deniro as jerry's boss you would have a perfect movie, but hey who am i to argue, i was so engrossed by this film, that it is already up there in my mind, with Mean Streets. I wish Hollywood would go back to this urbanized, gritty display of movie making: it would serve them very well to do so. this movie is a great drama with great actors in it. and i highly recommend it to anyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't know if it's fair for me to review this. I'm not a fan of gratuitous violence. I've never understood the movie industry making heroes out of mob members and cold blooded killers. When The Godfather came out, I thought they had broken the mold, but the decades have produced a series of well-acted mob movies with major stars and directors doing them. This one is obviously low-budget, but it is certainly well done. At some point in all of these I feel like I want to take a shower. If such characters actually exist, it is hard for the soul. I always intellectualize that humankind will rise above this sort of thing. This kind of crud has to be stopped. I hope the people that go to films like this are more voyeuristic and less vicarious. I feel sort of the same way about slasher movies. Why do we have a fascination with death and dismemberment? In fairness, I am judging this on the acting and directing, and for what it is, it seems to work pretty well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just got this in the mail and I was positively surprised. As a big fan of 70's cinema it doesn't take much to satisfy me when it comes to these kind of flicks. Despite the obvious low budget on this movie, the acting is overall good and you can already see why Pesci was to become on of the greatest actors ever. I'm not sure how authentic this movie is, but it sure is a good contribution to the mob genre.....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great film about an American G.I. who quits the army to marry a German girl who saved his life in the last days of the war. She accepts, but does she do it because she really likes him, or because he can support her with easier access to food and such? Meanwhile, her brother and an old friend form an anti-American terrorist group called the Werewolves, their purpose to drive away the occupants (you might remember the same group playing a major part in Lars von Trier's film Europa (Zentropa)). James Best, best known for his role as Roscoe P. Coltrane in the 1980s television show The Dukes of Hazzard, is shockingly excellent as the American. He should have become a big movie star \u0096 at this age he reminds me very much of Warren Beatty. The other main actors are good, as well. Fuller's direction is quite good, using a lot of long takes again (although they are not nearly as complex as they were in Park Row; the long takes more often than not consist of long scenes with a lot of dialogue). The only problems lie in the script, as seems to be the case with all of the Fuller films that I've seen. It's not too badly flawed, but it ought to have been expanded, fleshing out major characters and parts of the script. Helga, the wife, goes through a major change, but completely off screen. Therefore, the emotional center rests squarely on Best's shoulders. Fuller also should have killed off the sick mother early in the film. I hope that doesn't sound too harsh! She just doesn't really do anything throughout the film except lie in bed. She has so few lines. But Fuller keeps bringing her up as the film goes on. I would have had her death solidify David and Helga's relationship myself. And the film ends too abruptly, and it lacks payoff. These aren't really the biggest flaws in the world (the way I described them makes them sound bigger than they are). 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of Fuller's (a combat veteran himself) early works of average quality, but accurately hits on the many conflicting aspects of life in postwar Germany. The main character starts the movie in Apr'45 as a Sgt with C Co, 157th Inf, 45th Div, which really did end the war in Munich as in the movie. (Same unit in the previous month had fought heavily in Aschaffenburg and then liberated part of the Dachau facility). To the uninformed the movie may seem confusing by flip flopping between showing the good & bad of the german people. But anyone who has been there or at least well read on it would know that most of what is portrayed in the movie are things that really did happen in 45-47 Germany. The only inaccuracy I noticed was minor: while on a boat cruise of the Rhine passing the remains of the Remagen bridge he comments he crossed there. But his unit really crossed well south of there - north of Worms Germany.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Samuel Fuller knows war, and is one of the only directors in American movie history who could accurately portray the horrific experiences of it in a form like the motion picture. His pessimism and idealism, if that sounds a little odd to mix together, work for him as a storyteller, and at the same time he's always out to tell the truth, however brutal (or put into melodramatic constructs) it can get. Verboten, however, deals with the post-war experience, as we only get in the opening scenes the big boom of WAR- in bold for a point. The opening shot is like one big exclamation point that seems to continue on into the rest of the scenes: a dead soldier on the ground, the camera pans up, we see another soldier shot down in war-torn terrain. Simple, direct language. Then Fuller punctuates the intensity with something interesting: the title song played over the opening credits as both irony and sincerity, and then Beethoven music over a shoot-out between Americans and the Nazis. Sgt David Brent (James Best) is shot, the battle goes on, and then it transitions to him being treated for his wounds.

It might lead one to believe that this will be a somewhat conventional WW2 flick (somewhat in that one usually wouldn't find Beethoven and, later on to an extent, Wagner put into these images), but this isn't the case. Instead, Fuller makes this a 'Coming Home' kind of movie, though not at all in the sense that 'this soldier comes home injured and so on and so on'. Instead of really going home, Brent stays on in Germany, as he's fallen head over heels for the woman, Helga (Susan Cummings, pretty good at pulling off the German accent), and wants to work in a smaller capacity in the military so he can marry her. What he doesn't realize is that a) she wants him more for money so she can get food for herself and brother, however this gets complex emotionally at the point of revelation to the slightly naive but heartfelt Brent, and b) there's an underground Hitler youth sect called the Werewolves, who want to pick right up off where Hitler ended- starting small, despite argument within the group- by attacking the very government that's now embedded in Germany to give them, as Brent describes, a \"blood transfusion.\" With this, plus footage from the Nuremburg trials, and (as narrated, I think, by Fuller himself) a quick, no-punches-pulled history of the Nazi war crimes piece by piece, we get a multi-faceted look at a society in the dire straits of an immediate post-war environment. While Rossellini handled it his own way with Germany Year Zero, Fuller tackles it with layers: first there's the love story, or what is the tragic downfall of a man who can't see anything past what he thinks should be reasonable, that it's his wife and a child on the way that he can't leave, until the revelation that he's (partly) been swindled. Baker and Cummings, along with Harold Daye as Helga's young, confused brother, perform at with the utmost detail to emotions; these aren't very easy B-movie parts, though they could've been that. Then another layer is the political one, the struggle of a society to come to grips with being conquered, and a mentality which is made sensationalized, to be sure, by Fuller, in respect to making the Nazi's a total no-gray-area thing: they're evil, particularly when they cancel out reason to meet their ends.

And finally there's the layer of style, which is strangely absorbing. This is probably one of Fuller's 'talkiest' films, which isn't a bad thing considering it's one of his best written scripts, as the characters don't talk simply or in too many platitudes (with the exception of a small scene where two characters talk about the Hitler youth as juvenile delinquents, which is actually, according to Fuller's autobiography, probably another layer to consider in the subtext and the 50s period of movies). And Fuller shoots this almost in a real European style, when he's not going for fight scenes or battles, as the editing isn't always very fast, and sometimes a cut won't happen for a full minute, or longer. There's an odd tension that grows out of this, especially when there's something said by a character that gets another one wild-eyed or suspicious; Fuller could easily go for a big close-up, but there's a more sinister, cold quality to not moving away from two people in a conversation without a simple over-the-shoulder deal. But when it requires it, like the big brawl outside the American military office, or the Nuremburg footage spliced into Franz's memories of the Werewolves, Fuller can be as stunning stylist as ever.

Very hard to find, but extremely worth it if you'r either a fan of the director's or of WW2 movies set in Germany- or even just a history-buff- Verboten! is an intellectual experience and a strong emotional one, with a cast that is better than expected from a B-movie, and an attitude towards the 'other' that is equally damning and thought provoking.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed this for a couple of reasons. The emotional tangle was at times confusing and imperfectly resolved, but the blend of newsreel footage with the film's narrative was often compelling. The other element that I appreciated was the depiction of the Werewolves, the fanatical Nazis who continued the fight after the formal surrender. I don't know of another film that deals with them. They assassinated Burgomaster Oppenhoff of Aachen on Palm Sunday, 1945, for example, and did create problems for the occupation. The film, then, challenges the sanitized version of victory and occupation with some gritty realities. The \"human issues\" are presented not so much through the characters here, but through the historical reality that was gripping those who had survived Hitler -- both conquered and victors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an excellent anime movie. It is well animated, has a good intricate plot and very good music. I understand that some may think of it as a little long, but I think that it is a good length and the animation is good traditional anime.

THREE CHARACTERS:

The way they use Tenkai is masterly. For example the body double showing up at all these locations adds to the ominous tone of the movie. The design of Tenkai is good too, the way he looks as a monk and in the end scene the armour he is wearing.

The old man Andou is down to earth and a very likable character. When Jiro meets him it's a turning point in the movie.

Sanpei, the Satsuma Shinobi who infiltrated Tenkais clan saves Jiros life twice. He stays in the background most of the movie though, but he is really one of the heroes of the movie.

THE PLOT: The plot is good. It is traditional without being unoriginal. The historical time it is acted out in is interesting, The meiji restoration. The treasure is sought after by Tenkai to restore the shogunate while when Jiro finds it he uses it to help the anti-shogunate forces overthrow the shogunate.

The way Tenkai tricks Jiro is interesting and has sort of a \"Hamlet\" feel to it. There is also a sweet irony to the fact that if Tenkai had not gotten Jiro to become a shinobi I don't think that he had been able to kill him in the end(Maybe by firearm, but not hand to hand combat weapons).

The plot with all the death makes it mostly very dark, but there's some light moments when we see some of Jiros childhood memories. All in all it's a good, dark, intricate plot.

THE MUSIC: The opening theme for example is very good with the electric guitar and drums. They occasionally in that piece use what I believe to be taiko drums, but i'm not sure.

There is a lot of good music. Like the one played while they are traveling to the Iga shinobi. I believe the piece is called \"Numatou\" and has an incredible flute in it. The flute might be a pan flute, but more probably a shakuhachi.

The end theme \"Kamui no komoriuta\" is calm and delicate. The vocals are beautiful and so is the song in general.

THE ANIMATION:

The animation, while good, is not perfect and the blood that runs down the characters do sometimes appear to be orange. The transitions are interesting and I think some transitions are very nice. One example of a nice transition is when Jiro and the Iga shinobi are running, there is the sunset in the background and the music is playing. The transition is simple, but effective and has a nice feeling too it.

MY FINAL WORDS: I think that the plot, the animation, the music and the characters make this into one of the best anime movies I have ever seen.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a great anime. True the animation is old but its still worth watching and has a better plot than Ninja Scroll, the problem that it was kinda long.

Japanese movie star Hiroyuki Sanada who played Ujio from Last Samurai played the main character Jiro and it was directed by Rintaro who did Galaxy Express 999 and Metropolis.

The anime has some good animation for an old anime, interesting characters like the main villain Tenkai and Ando Shouzan and of course lets not forget the beautiful musical scores in the film.

All in all this movie is worth watching for fans of anime, animation in general, action, and Samurai\/Ninja flicks. Despite the lows in the film that didn't the film from being a great film to watch.

Don't miss this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When I saw this movie at age 6, it was in the CHILDRENS' section at Erols Video because it was animation. We watched it and it was a whole different ball game! A very violent story and graphic deaths are VERY entertaining and compelling, but not for children. Avoid for family viewing, my mom nearly had a heart attack and ripped the video apart!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yes, I know, Roscoe Arbuckle didn't like to be called 'Fatty', but I couldn't resist the joke.

This is a fine Lloyd Hamilton short from his peak period, directed by Roscoe. The two work together with lots of good gags and Roscoe's usual attention to the details of shooting the picture in an interesting manner. Most comedians preferred flat lighting and a still camera to make them more interesting. Roscoe uses a couple of long tracking shots and some nice camera trickery to tell his story and to show Ham as a fine actor, as well as a talented comedian.

This story plays with some interesting themes, like Lloyd's classic MOVE ALONG: here it's about perceptions of reality and the confusion that movies make of them. Or you might choose to ignore such issues and laugh your head off.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Lloyd Hamilton was one of the most imaginative (and among the funniest) of all the silent-film comedians. Why is he utterly forgotten? Unfortunately, the original negatives for a large percentage of his films were lost when the Fox warehouse burnt in the early 1930s. Hamilton was not handsome or graceful like Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd; nor was he dapper, like Raymond Griffith. And unlike Harry Langdon and (again) Chaplin, Hamilton did not try for audience sympathy.

However, his films were hugely popular at the time of their original release, and they remain hilarious today. Oscar Levant once claimed that he asked Chaplin if there was any other comedian whom he'd ever envied, and Chaplin instantly named Lloyd Hamilton. The character most frequently portrayed by Hamilton on screen -- a flat-capped naff, with fastidious hand gestures and a duck-like walk -- was later adapted by vaudeville comedian Eddie Garr (Teri Garr's father), and further adapted by Jackie Gleason as his 1950s TV character 'The Poor Soul'.

'The Movies', directed pseudonymously by Roscoe Arbuckle, is one of Hamilton's most innovative shorts, and it's hilarious. We first see him as a country boy, bidding farewell to his family outside their homespun cottage, on his way to the big city. Then he steps away from the cottage, and we see that it's IN the big city, with traffic booming all round him!

Eventually, our hero ends up at a restaurant (uncredited, but it's the Montmartre Cafe in downtown L.A.) where all the movie actors eat between takes. There's an amusing gag when Hamilton's bumpkin character meets three actors in costume and makeup as Presidents Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt: this gag would have been funnier if the impostors looked more like the originals. Finally, our lad seats himself at a table, hoping to meet a celebrity. Sure enough, entering the restaurant and sitting at the very next table is a big movie star ... none other than Lloyd Hamilton! There's a very well-made double-exposure shot -- the join is nearly invisible -- when Lloyd Hamilton as himself greets Lloyd Hamilton as the country boy.

Sadly, Hamilton's peak period of creativity was very brief. He began his film career in crude slapstick films as one half of a double act (Ham and Bud, opposite Bud Duncan), and had a brief and blazing period of stardom in shorts during the late silent period. Sound movies were not kind to Hamilton, and he was quickly shoved down the cast list in some crude early talkies. Then he died young. Fortunately, 'The Movies' is quite funny, and a splendid introduction to this unique comedians' style. I'll rate it 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Buffalo Bill, Hero of the Far West\" director Mario Costa's unsavory Spaghetti western \"The Beast\" with Klaus Kinski could only have been produced in Europe. Hollywood would never dared to have made a western about a sexual predator on the prowl as the protagonist of a movie. Never mind that Kinski is ideally suited to the role of 'Crazy' Johnny. He plays an individual entirely without sympathy who is ironically dressed from head to toe in a white suit, pants, and hat. This low-budget oater has nothing appetizing about it. The typically breathtaking Spanish scenery around Almeria is nowhere in evidence. Instead, Costa and his director of photography Luciano Trasatti, who shot another Kinski western \"And God Said to Cain,\" lensed this horse opera in rather mundane setting around Tor Caldara, Lazio, Italy and Monte Gelato Falls, Treja River, Lazio, Italy. Nevertheless, \"The Beast\" qualifies as a Continental western because it deals with wholly unscrupulous characters and the action could be classified as film noir because the hero and heroine are trapped by intolerable circumstances that compel them to resort to criminal activities. Predictably, their well-laid plans backfire owing largely to the Kinski character. Indeed, the licentious Kinski character resembles a Wily E. Coyote type character. Consistently, he struggles to have sex with several beautiful women but either lawmen or outlaws frustrate each of his efforts. Ultimately, \"The Beast\" amounts to a tragic character study brimming with irony. The Stelvio Cipriani orchestral score sounds as if it were lifted by the Tony Anthony western \"The Stranger Returns.\" The Mario Costa screenplay takes place on the western frontier between San Diego and Mexico that is being terrorized by a notorious Mexican bandit called Machete (Giovanni Pallavicino of \"We Still Kill the Old Way\") and his gang. They prey on the stagecoach and nobody is safe from their depredations. The first time that we see 'Crazy' Johnny Laster he pauses to refresh himself at a stream and spots a gorgeous looking woman washing clothes. He creeps up behind her and attacks her, but a bigger man armed with a rifle intervenes and he has to flee. He shows up in a nearby town and a snuff-snorting gunslinger recruits him to help ambush a wealthy man, Mr. Powers, on the trail and rob him. They wind up killing him and getting no money. Mr. Snuff-sniffer accidentally leaves his snuff box at the scene of the crime and the sheriff arrests on suspicion of murder. 'Crazy' shoots his accomplice from his hotel room so that he doesn't have to worry about being implicated in the crime.

Meanwhile, a young couple in love are having trouble making their way in the world. Riccardo (Steven Tedd of \"Requiem for a Bounty Killer\") lives a Mexican couple on their ranch and helps them raise their real son Juan. In the village, Riccardo's lovely girlfriend Juanita (Gabriella Giorgelli of \"Stranger in Sacramento\") sings and dances in the cantina. Riccardo and Juanita plan to marry, but the last place that Juanita wants to settle down is on a dusty ranch. She dreams of living in the city, but life in the city requires more money than either Riccardo or she has. They team up with a blond outlaw name Glen (Paolo Casella of \"Shoot the Living and Pray for the Dead\") and they plan to kidnap Mr. Power's daughter Nancy when she comes to get her inheritance. Glen makes the fatal mistake of enlisting 'Crazy' Johnny to help them because Glen knows that Johnny needs the money to get women.

They abduct Powers' daughter and keep her at a remote cabin with Johnny standing guard over her. Meantime, Juanita masquerades as Powers' daughter and shows up in town to get the money from Powers' attorney Gary Pinkerton (Giuliano Raffaelli of \"Blood and Black Lace\"), but he grows suspicious because Juanita doesn't look anything like he remembered Nancy. Riccardo brandishes his six-gun and warns Pinkerton that they have kidnapped Nancy. Unfortunately for Riccardo and Juanita, Pinkerton can only lay his hands on $50-thousand because Machete has struck such fear into the hearts of everybody that the Powers' total inheritance cannot be shipped through the territory by stagecoach. Meanwhile, back at the cabin, horny Johnny tries to rape Nancy, but she outsmarts him, knows him out with a chair on the pretense of needing to be alone while she undresses. After she knocks him unconscious, she steals a buggy and drives it back to town. Johnny recovers, pursues her and murders her about the same time that Glen, Riccardo, Juanita, and Pinkerton meet him on the trail. They inform Johnny about the complications created by Machete's reign of terror and give him $12-thousand as his cut of the money. Pinkerton is aghast at the sight of Nancy's bloodstained corpse and threatens Johnny. Naturally, Johnny guns him down in cold blood on the spot.

Things really begin to deteriorate as the law in San Diego sets out to capture Machete. Glen, Riccardo, and Juanita return to Mexico while Johnny attacks two women at a ranch and narrowly escapes getting caught. He rides to Mexico, finds a cantina whore and is going down on her when a bounty shoves a revolver in his face. Johnny confesses that he knows where they can find more money if they will release him. Machete's men follow up on Johnny's tip and capture Juanita. The villagers join Riccardo to attack Machete and Johnny rescues Juanita but she dies later on after a big shoot-out. Riccardo is left standing alone now. Machete and his men retaliated against his step parents, not only killing them but also little Juan. Everything that Riccardo and Juanita dreamed up having goes up in clouds of gun smoke for an unhappy ending. 'Crazy' Johnny dies and never gets to assuage his lust. If you think about Costa's uncompromising sagebrusher, \"The Beast\" emerges as an interesting character study and an exercise in film noir in a western setting where everybody is punished.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Klaus Kinski popped up in a sizable number of spaghetti Westerns throughout the 60's and early 70's; he was usually cast in secondary parts as nasty villains. Kooky Klaus lands himself a juicy lead role as Crazy Johnny Laster, a foul, twitchy, and deranged sex maniac who comes up with a plan to abduct a lovely heiress in order to obtain her considerable inheritance. Johnny and his gang become wanted fugitives after the plan goes disastrously awry. Writer\/director Mario Costa ably crafts a sordidly compelling portrait of a severely sick and twisted piece of sniveling low-life work: the plot unfolds at a steady pace, the tone is appropriately gritty and serious, and the exciting action scenes are staged with real skill and brio (the shoot-outs in rock quarries are especially gripping and thrilling). Ironically dressed in white, oozing oily charisma from every rotten pore, and jumping on beautiful women every chance he gets, Kinski's Johnny makes for a fascinatingly creepy and monstrous brute. Kinski is simply spectacular as this gloriously repellent character; he receives fine support from the luscious Gabriella Giorgelli as sweet, fiery saloon girl Juanita, Steven Tedd as the cheery Riccardo, Giovanni Pallavicino as ruthless band gang leader Machete, Giuliano Raffaella as smart lawyer Gary Pinkerton, and Paolo Casella as Johnny's sensible parter Glen. Kudos are also in order for Stelvio Cipriani's moody and spirited score. Well worth seeing for Kinski fans.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A rare lengthy Kinski feature role as Crazy Johnny sex crazed outlaw who is wanted in San Francisco. Kinski's character is obsessed with raping women a sexual predator in the old west who has nothing more but stealing, raping, and killing on his mind. This movie maybe a major disappointment for many Spaghetti Western fans but not for many Klaus Kisnki fans. Overall it had two things going for it a great performance from Klaus Kinski and a great music score by Stelvio Cipriani.

Another story line which needed much more work done to it to be impactive but still fun to watch!

It would be nice to see this movie redone in the future. Since most old movies are being re-made nowadays.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a movie about the music that is currently being played in Istanbul. Istanbul was the center of the two Old World superpowers, the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Today, it is a megalopolis of almost 10 million. So it is to no ones surprise that a lot of music is being played in Istanbul, with a great variety of voices, styles, and influences from everywhere on the globe. It is Turkish music, of course, and I was fascinated by Turkish music ever since I bought my first record long time ago. The movie features different singers, instrumentalists and bands. Spoken comments from the musicians nicely illustrate the music being played, and the social context in modern Turkey. For my perspective, the most interesting comments were from Orhan Gencebay. Furthermore, the movies shows urban scenery mainly from Istanbul which is very pleasant to watch.

\"Crossing the Bridge\" is listed as a documentary and it includes music from minorities, e.g. Kurds and Roma. Other important topics are omitted such as Turkish jazz music, or music of the Armenians and Greeks.

This movie is strongly recommended for lovers of the music and culture of Turkey, the Balkans, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Middle East. It may also be worthwhile for those with a keen interest in the global effects of musical styles such as Rock and Roll or Hip Hop.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Crossing the Bridge: the Sound of Istanbul received one of the most rapturous applause from the audience when it ended and very deservingly so. I did not expect too much from a musical documentary but the movie proved to be much more than that. It was also a visual documentary of Istanbul with stark contrasts of old and new, western and eastern, poor and rich, modern and traditional. Black and white photographs of old Istanbul by world famous Armenian photographer Ara Guler were exceptional. But of course main theme was music, and by God, what a variety of it! It was in a way similar to Bueno Vistas Social Club; the love and the respect of the interviewer -Alexander Hacke here replacing Ray Cooder- for the musicians exuded from the screen and engulfed us all. The music was mostly very interesting. The jazz session by a group of Romany gypsies in a small Western Turkish town was mind blowing. I will not be surprised if the travel agents start getting group booking requests for Kesan after the movie is released. But I most loved Muzeyyen Senar who looked amazingly elegant in a sort of burlesque way and whilst tipping her \"Raki\" declared courageously: \"My voice and I are 86 years old!\" Well done Faith Akin. I bet there are many more Turkish musicians who are feeling left out: Go for Volume II please.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film offers you a fascinating trip through one of the most exiting cities of today - Istanbul - and its musicians. Do not expect a compilation of Turkish folklore or anything like that. Alexander Hacke, a German musician and member of the cult band \"Einst\u00fcrzende Neubauten\" travels to Istanbul to get to know the music scene. His sparse voice overs of what he experiences are a guiding line through the film. But mainly German-Turkish director Faith Akin lets various artists from Istanbul do the talking - and of course their music.

You meet a variety of personalities, big stars and street musicians, young and old, people playing many different musical styles. But this movie does not only introduce you to the sound of Istanbul. It also draws a compelling picture of Istanbul today and how Turkey has forged ahead in the last decade. The film characterises its protagonists with subtle humour, but never without respect. All of them share a passion for music and the belief in its power.

Akin again shows his talent to portray diversity lightheartedly when he brings you close to completely different musical scenes. After his award winning feature film \"Gegen die Wand\" (Head on) Faith Akin proves with \"Crossing the Bridge\" that he is equally able to touch, entertain and guide his audience in a documentary. If you have never been in Istanbul, you will want to go there after having seen the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is such an exciting documentary, it was by far one of the most fun films I've ever seen. I highly recommend it to anyone. It's such a fun look at different musical styles, exciting people at the crossroads between modern and traditional that is Istanbul, and great cinematography that captures beautiful scenes in Istanbul and Thrace. Watching the film made me want to book a flight for Istanbul right away.

Great footage of Ceza, a Turkish rapper.

Also his sister, Ayben rapping - she is awesome.

Priceless performances by amazing Turkish musicians Orhan Gencebay, Sezen Aksu, Muzeyyen Senar.

The gorgeous voice of Aynur, singing in Kurdish.

And amazing clarinet and signing of a romany gypsy group from Thrace.

Last but not least, Istanbul bands mixing Turkish music and rock, as well as trance music -- Baba Zula, Orient Expressions, Duman, and others...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is a very great film (documentary) about Istanbul and their people and it's music of every kind. Editing and the success of the director is very impressive. I've been interested with Faith Akin since I saw the \"Gegen die Wand\" (\"Head-On\") (\"Duvara Karsı\") and I admired his work very much but this one has been the most touching one for me so I'm here writing this. It is not just about Turks or something like that, it is a very good biography of a city and how music stay alive in it we can say. There are views of many people and so very variant ideas about even life and love. I liked it very much and I thing anyone and everyone should see it, NOT ONLY but especially the ones anyhow related with Turkey...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Akin's prize-winning 2004 movie Head-On\/Gegen die Wand depicted the appealingly chaotic world of a self-destructive but dynamic Turkish-German rocker named Cahit (Birol \u00dcnel). This documentary is an offshoot of Head-On and explores the range of music one might find in Istanbul today if one were as energetic and curious as German avant-rock musician Alexander Hacke of the group Einstuerzende Neubauten (who arranged the sound track and performed some of the music for Head-On) and had the assistance of a film crew and Turkish speakers provided by director Akin. You get everything from rap to the most traditional Turkish classical song, with rock, Kurdish music, and Turkish pop in between. It's as chaotic and open-ended a world as Cahit's, one where East is East and West is West but the twain\u0097somehow\u0097do meet.

Like Istanbul itself, which sits on the edge between Europe and Asia and brings the two worlds together while remaining sui generis, this is a m\u00e9lange that includes Turkish pop, Turkish traditional songs, Kurdish laments, Roma jazz musicians and group of street buskers (Siyasiyabend), lively and offbeat shots of Istanbul street life, and some talk on camera about synthesis and some personal and musical history by singers and musicians. Working out of the Grand Hotel de Londres in Istanbul's Beyoglu quarter where Cahit stayed at the end of Head-On while looking for his beloved, Hacke roams around the city with crew and equipment interviewing people and recording their music.

He begins with some loud rock by the \"neo-psychedelic\" band Baba Zula \u0096 these are musicians he bonded with while putting together Head-On's score and he stands in here for the absent bassist -- and by Turkish (including brave female) rappers \u0096 thus causing some oldsters to walk out of the theater early on and miss the predominantly tuneful and easy-to-listen-to sounds that makes up the bulk of the film. (Head-On's narrative excesses were tempered periodically by musical interludes performed by a traditional Turkish orchestra sitting outdoors on the other side of the Bosphorus.) Hacke gives us the opportunity to meet and hear performances by some of the best known living Turkish singers, including M\u00fczeyyen Senar, a lady in her late eighties whose aging, elegant musicians remind one of the way the great Egyptian songstress Umm Kulsoum used to perform. Hacke gets songwriter-movie star Orhan Gencebay to do a striking solo on the long-necked oud he's written all his songs on, and persuades the now elusive great Sezen Aksu.to do a special performance of one of her most famous songs, \"Memory of Istanbul.\" This is a coup, and so is the lament by a beautiful Kurdish songstress Aynar recorded in a bath whose acoustics are spectacular, if only they could have turned down the heat \u0096 singer and musician's faces stream with sweat. There is also a young Canadian woman, Brenna MacCrimmon, fluent in Turkish, who sings Turkish traditional folksongs with expression and fervor. The sound mix is of high quality throughout. One would like to see a sequel; many great exemplars of Turkish popular and classical music have necessarily been left out.

Film released summer 2005 and shown at festivals in 2005 and 2006. Opened at the Angelika Film Center in New York City in June 9, 2006.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like many other commentators here, I went in expecting a taste of music that would satisfy my curiosity - and got more than I asked for. I heard and saw a powerful, exquisite, sometimes haunting, sometimes touching, lyrical, sentimental (in the truest way) and absolutely stunning blend of music and musicians. Reminded me a lot of some forms of Indian music (East Indian) but at the same time was very very different.

Starting from the the first track by Baba Zula to the Kurdish singer Aynur (what a voice) to Siyasiyabend to the jam session (or 'Jugalbandhi ' as we call it in India) in the small Turkish bar ft. Selim Seslar (Big fan now :) ), I enjoyed every minute and wished it wouldn't end.

One of the best music commentaries I have seen and heard in a long time.

I am craving for a CD of the sound-track and hope I can find it online somewhere soon and also for old and latest albums from Baba Zula.

A day later, the music is still etched in my brain and I don't want it to go away. Turkey and specifically Istanbul now seem such beautiful and exciting places - and I am going to start saving today to go take it in.

Faith Akin - this is a gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you're a fan of Turkish and Middle Eastern music, you're in great luck. This film is a documentary of current music in Istanbul, spanning the traditional to the modern. It's very good. You could not do better if you went to Istanbul yourself. We get interviews with Orhan Gencebay, concert clips of modern musical icons, a road show with a Romani (Gypsy) audience, Turkish Hip Hop (surprisingly very very good), and much much more. Some of the best female vocalists I've ever heard. A Kurdish woman singing in a hamam (steam bath) who will rip your heart out. Lots of social and political background. If this is your thing, you'll have a grand time. I could barely sit still in the theatre.

CD soundtrack now available on amazon. Pricey.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Faith Akin has made me realize once more the deepness of my passion for this city called Istanbul. Being addressed as a city of cultural mosaics, Faith Akin has contributed to that addressing through the mosaics of music performed in the film. What's more, the climax of the film,in my opinion, is the scene where Muzeyyen Senar (a Turkish music diva) sings at age 86 as well as she had done in her younger years and rolls the raki glass in the air without pouring out one drop, which is a traditional act in raki culture. She is just marvellous. Sezen Aksu (a Turkish pop singer) with her mystical and meaningful looks at the end of her song which gives the film its Turkish title makes the scene no less than a climax. Last but not least, the wonderful scenery of Istanbul can make you feel nostalgic if you are away. Beware!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"By watching this film you will not only explore the \"Turkish music\" but will also explore the city of Istanbul with wonderful pictures and scenes from all over the important regions of the city.There are lots of delightful conversations with all sorts of musicians and their thoughts about music,culture.There is also discussions about the mixture of east and west like Istanbul has,how they make their music, how do they see themselves comparing to other country's musicians.It consists the music of Ceza,Duman,Baba Zula,Aynur,M\u00fczeyyan Senar,Orhan Gencebay..The Turkish Queen of Music Sezen Aksu...An important work of art!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"German-born Turkish director Faith Akin captures in his film the endless variety of the different styles in music and songs in Istanbul, a city that is a bridge between East and West, a city that is uniquely located on both sides of the Bosporus, in Europe and in Asia. Kurdish dirges represented by Aynur, who performs her own brand of Kurdish gospel music, passionate and melodic. We are introduced to Romany instrumentals, to Orhan Gencebay, who has been called the Elvis of Arabesque music - sounds of music are heard everywhere in the city as Faith Akin takes us into underground clubs, to the street performers, and to recording sessions. German bassist Alexander Hacke who comes to Istanbul to play and to learn about Turkish music quotes Confucius, \"To understand the place, you have to listen to the music it plays\". Akin's fine documentary does just that - gives us 90 minutes of music that helps to cross the bridges. For me, watching the movie was especially interesting because I recently visited Istanbul as a part of my vacation and spent four days there. The city fascinated me by its images, colors, crowds, vibrancy and visual beauty. Now, I can add the sounds of music to the ever-changing portrait of Istanbul.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ich will danke Herr Hacke f\u00fcr den Filme. Mein Deutsch ist nicht gut. Enschuldigen Sie.

First of all, i didn't know how diverse the sound of Istanbul, inspite i live in Turkey.Faith Akin and Alexander Hacke have made a different approach for Turkish music.Narrating, performing, seeing Istanbul and Istanbul Music from a foreigner aspect had given the real meaning of the music itself.

In this movie I had found out how different our(Turkish) culture is, how interesting our performers are, and how much respect they deserve. Unfortunately no one have been able to serve this kind of documentary before.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed: At first there is a gentle breeze And the leaves on the trees Softly sway; Out there, far away, The bells of water-carriers unceasingly ring; I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.

I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed; Then suddenly birds fly by, Flocks of birds, high up, with a hue and cry, While the nets are drawn in the fishing grounds And a woman's feet begin to dabble in the water. I am Iistening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.

I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. The Grand Bazaar's serene and cool, An uproar at the hub of the Market, Mosque yards are full of pigeons. While hammers bang and clang at the docks Spring winds bear the smell of sweat; I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.

I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed; Still giddy from the revelries of the past, A seaside mansion with dingy boathouses is fast asleep. Amid the din and drone of southern winds, reposed, I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.

I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. A pretty girl walks by on the sidewalk: Four-letter words, whistles and songs, rude remarks; Something falls out of her hand It is a rose, I guess. I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.

I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. A bird flutters round your skirt; On your brow, is there sweat? Or not? I know. Are your lips wet? Or not? I know. A silver moon rises beyond the pine trees: I can sense it all in your heart's throbbing. I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.

FOR YOU

For you, my fellow humans, Everything is for you, Nights are for you, days are for you; Daylight is for you, moonlight is for you; Leaves in the moonlight; Wonder and wisdom in the leaves, Myriad greens in daylight, Yellow is for you, and pink. The feel of the skin on the palm, Its warmth, Its softness, The comfort of lying down; For you are all the greetings And the masts winnowing in the harbor; Names of the days, Names of the months, Fresh paint on rowboats is for you Mailman's feet, Potter's hands Sweat on foreheads, Bullets fired on battlefronts; Graves are for you and tombstones, Jails and handcuffs and death sentences Are for you Everything is for you.

SEA NOSTALGIA

Vessels sail along my dreams, Over the roofs, ships in a feast of color, And poor me, Yearning for the sea year in year out, I gaze and weep. I recall my first sight of the world Through a mussel shell I pried open: The greenest water and the bluest sky And the rippliest of lump-fish... My blood still flows salty Where the oysters slit my skin. What a mad speed plunge was ours Into the high seas on the whitest foam! Foam bears no malice, Like lips Whose adultery with men Is no disgrace.

Vessels sail along our dreams Over the roofs, ships in a feast of color, And poor me, Yearning for the sea year in year out.

-- Orhan Veli

I could not have said anything better than what Orhal Veli Kanik said about Istanbul. About this movie, all I have is praise. A very nice and balanced introduction to a city and its music that connected Asia, Europe and Africa at one point of time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is one of the most memorable films I have seen. I went reluctantly with a Turkish friend who recommended it. I am not a very enthusiastic proponent of music documentaries, but when Aynur Dogan, a Kurdish woman banned for years from singing in Turkey, sings her piece, the theater was in awe. I would give my all to hear a CD recording of this haunting, gorgeous song. And she is just one of many artist interviewed and recorded, speaking of their experiences of performing in Istanbul. Even now, a month later, I remember the footage of Aynur singing in an acoustic auditorium, and I try to remember the music as it echoed in the cinema. Well done to Faith Akin, the director of this film, and his great idea to capture the many splendid sounds of such a cosmopolitan city. It would certainly encourage me to visit Istanbul.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Istanbul is a big , crowded city between Europe and Asia.Too many types of people living together there for hundred years.In this documentary movie you can see how music can give description about the culture of the owner race.

You would be able to hear too many types of music including rock , hip-hop , arabesque , alternative and more. Some of the musicians are famous in Turkey , some of them are famous also in Europe. The rest are just street musicians. Their music tell viewers , different faces of a city.

Impressive !","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Turkish culture is complete with lots of different cultures. different cultures have different styles of music. Istanbul is like the mixture of turkey. it has mostly the same language but different dialects. this documentary shows us these different kinds of music with different dialects and different instruments. you can watch reportings with singers and groups, their performances , their daily life and learn their thoughts of music. the movie includes not only the music of Istanbul but the life in Istanbul , how people communicate and what they eat and drink. the surprising part is although i live in Istanbul i learned lots of things from this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Turkish-German director Faith Ak\u0131n (\"Head-On\" & \"The Edge of Heaven\") follows German musician and \"Head-On\" soundtrack composer Alexander Hacke of Einst\u00fcrzende Neubauten to Istanbul for this documentary which delves into the modern music scene of the city from arabesque to indie rock and was screened out of competition at the 2005 Cannes Film Festival.

Alexander Hacke makes for an amiable guide as he travels around Istanbul with a mobile recording studio and a microphone in hand where he runs into and records the likes of classic rocker Erkin Koray, rapper Ceza, Kurdish singer Aynur Do\u011fan, Arabesque singer Orhan Gencebay and pop star Sezen Aksu as well as rock bands Baba Zula, Duman and Replikas.

The director has pulled together a diverse collection of popular performers and ground-breaking acts from what was at the time a highly competitive short-list to give an eclectic account of modern Turkish music as seen from the streets of its cultural capital which will enchant and entertain even if at times it seems a little rushed and unfocused.

\"Music can reveal to you everything about a place.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a great documentary and above comments make a brief summary of how great it was so I won't repeat the same compliments. But, Faith akin, being an Turkish oriented guy who probably knows about that country more than an ordinary European, falls into the trap of orientalism that other western artists usually fall. But come on man you are Turkish blooded and your movie could be deeper and could describe what's beyond \"beyoglu-old town\" It's a missed opportunity for Akinfor that reason. Performances by Muzeyyen Senar and Orhan Gencebay are peek of the movie and Ceza (a very talented and bad ass Turkish rapper) makes some trash talk about American gangsta rappers which I totally agree. I will recommend this movie to my American friends.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'Crossing the Bridge: The Sound of Istanbul' is one of the best music documentaries that I have seen lately and is more than a film about music. It is also a musical love declaration about a fabulous city, one of the greatest city in Europe and the world, one of the most important cities for Europe history and for Islam, the city that may bridge in the future Europe and the Middle East or may signify once again, as is already happened in history the precipice between two worlds.

Then there is the music. The interesting approach that the film takes with regard to music is that it starts from modern music, and we hear a lot of (good) rock and rap in the first third of the film. An then, like a backwards move in time the soundtrack takes us to the roots, to Turkish traditional music, to commercial romances, and to the exotic instruments that are basic elements in the landscape of Turkish music. In such a complex and conflict ridden country as Turkey is the film does not avoid some of the political aspects, like censorship introduced by the military rule in the 80s or the relevance of the songs of the minorities especially the Kurdish one. One of the best musical moments is actually provided by a Kurdish singer with a fantastic voice singing in a cathedral-shaped hamam (Turkish bath).

One gets to love the city and its music by the end of the viewing and hearing of this film. I have never been to Istanbul but after having seen this film I am sure that I want to visit this place soon.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A European musician and composer sets out to capture the musical diversity of Istanbul. A lover of experimenting with sound, Alexander Hacke (of the German avantgarde band Einst\u00fcrzende Neubauten) roams the streets of Istanbul with his mobile recording studio and \"magic mike\" to assemble an inspired portrait of Turkish music. His voyage leads to the discovery of a broad spectrum ranging from modern electronic, rock and hip-hop to classical \"Arabesque\". As he wanders through this seductive world, Alex collects impressions and tracks by artists such as neo-psychedelic band Baba Zula, fusion DJs Orient Expressions, rock groups Duman and Replikas, maverick rocker Erkin Koray, Ceza (Turkey's answer to Public Enemy), breakdance performers Istanbul Style Breakers, digital dervish Mercan Dede, renowned clarinetist Selim Sesler, Canadian folk singer Brenna MacCrimmon, street performers Siyasiyabend, Kurdish singer Aynur, the \"Elvis of Arabesque\" Orhan Gencebay, and legendary divas M\u00fczeyyen Senar and Sezen Aksu.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have been away from Istanbul for the last 10 years. During that time I constantly lived in London. When I have seen the movie I realised how much I am Istanbuler. I am not just from Turkey I am a part of Turkey. One of my part is Istanbul, the sound of the Istanbul, the people of the Istanbul.

Probably Faith Akin thought that he has done great musical documentary but I must say it is more than that. It is about putting nice blend of vastly different musics, cultures, approaches, politics, ethnics into a delicious pot...

As we all know Turkey to be precise Istanbul is always comes and goes between being eastern or western city. As one of the band member said Istanbul is a bi-cultural city. But much more a eastern city because we always tried to be a western city. It shows we've never been one.

This movie will catch from very first second. Music is excellent, people are fascinating. Especially Aynur and Sezen Aksu. Singers, band members! It is nice to see you all at a small cinema in Wood Green.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, I should point out that I really enjoyed watching this documentary. Not only it had great music in it, but the shots and the editing were also wonderful. However, all these positive things about the film does not change the fact that it plays to the orientalist \"East meets West\" clich\u00e9 that bothers many Turks like myself. Okay, this film tells the story of traditional and contemporary Turkish music in a very stylish manner which is a good thing, something that would show ignorant Europeans and Americans that this country is not just about murdering Armenians and Kurds. However, the problematic of the film is that it looks at what it defines as \"east\" from the eyes of the \"west\". I mean, like one jazz musician says in the film, maybe there is no east and west, maybe it is just a myth, a lie created by the ruling leaders of \"western\" countries in order to keep fear and hostility alive so that they could continue ruling the world and \"keep the cash flowing\"?

Why don't you think about that?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I may be a good old boy from Virginia in the Confederate States of America, but this man does it for me. That mustache gets me riled up. I remember when I first saw a video of his. That girl he beat was amazing. The depth of his acting when they cut to his weathered facade was a new level of masculinity. It reminds me of the granite sculptures of our Mt. Rushmore. If I could ask him one question, it would be,\"If you were a hot-dog, would you eat yourself?\" Will Orhan be doing a reunion tour? Take note from the greats like Gordon Lightfoot, true music from the heart never fades away. Vive La John Denver. Gracias my friend, O.F.F.L. (Orhan Fan For Life)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Forget all those sappy romantic movies involving notebooks and lip-locked couples who somehow manage to go to the great beyond together after a screen lifetime of over-simplified unrealistic romance. Forget all those shameless \"dog gives its life to save its family\" flicks (although I have to admit that I have a soft spot for them myself). Forget Ricky Schroeder already displaying his propensity to overact at a tender age (now that one WAS shameless!).

This TV-movie, which unfortunately never seems to get aired anymore, is the all-time champion of tear-jerkers, hands down. And a well-written and well-acted story to boot. Ann-Margret took a big chance in taking this role. Nothing flamboyant or sexy about her here, and that's a monumental achievement in itself. Based on a true story, she plays Lucile Fray, a terminally ill mother who chooses to struggle till her dying breath to find good homes for her ten children, instead of leaving them in the hands of unpredictable government agencies. Frederic Forrest does a great job as her husband, the good-hearted but unreliable breadwinner whose crippling arthritis and personal demons make him unable to care for the kids.

The film takes us through Lucile's heart-wrenching process of interviewing prospective parents and then watching her kids leave home. It also gives us the perspective of the children themselves, and of the father - grieving over the tragedy taking place now and the one sure to follow, and frustrated over his inability to do more. The scene in which the youngest of the children (Steven)is taken to his new home is the most heart-breaking I've ever watched. Now, I grew up as a \"hopeless romantic\", and have spent the many years since then growing myself a harder, more cynical shell. I usually find more to mock than to empathize with in the sentimental cinematic tripe foisted upon us these days. But this gem from the early 1980's still slays me.

I really wish that someone with a lick of marketing sense would release a DVD version of this drama. Among the special features one needs to include the Emmy Awards telecast the following year. A-M was nominated for this role, but the award for best dramatic actress went to Barbara Stanwyck for \"Thorn Birds.\" In what has to be one of the greatest moments in what is now a truly drab awards show, Stanwyck broke into tears during her acceptance speech and gushed out, \"Ann-Margret, I love you!\", which brought Ann-M to tears.

One final note. The IMDb rating for \"Who Will Love My Children\" is 6.4 as of this writing. However, over 75% of the ratings are in the 8-10 range (mostly 10's). Whatever kind of handicapping system this site uses to modify the overall ratings of the movies listed by IMDb, it completely misses the mark on this one. This one is the \"weeper\" of all time, and a darn good TV-movie to boot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie so long ago, but it remains in my memory as the saddest movie ever. I cried non stop. My mother will not ever watch this movie again because its almost painful to watch. Anyway, apart from that the story isn't exactly complex...Ann Margaret is dying and has to give away her 10(?) children. As if that isn't bad enough, it is during the depression and she has to break up the close siblings one by one. I guess this was very sad to me because I too am from a very large close knit family and could identify with each child's pain of leaving their mother and siblings.

Maybe I am a masochist but I would like to see this movie again because it was well done and the end, surprisingly, is slightly happy (so at least we could smile and sob simultaneously). It should come on TV sometime so I can see it again.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was just looking up \" who will love my children\" to buy, when I came across this web site and an entry made by a fellow Briton!! I am a great fan of this movie and would, and have, recommended it to all. What I found comforting is to find someone else who also finds comfort in the good will of others. I also have a son with Aspergers (amongst other things) and it is also a fear of mine to think if anything ever happened to me and my husband, that someone would not only want to take on just my beautiful 'normal' daughter, but my special and gifted son also. Missing home and being able to relate to people raised with the same values as myself has more meaning than you know. Living here in the US I have yet to meet anyone who has seen this movie. So to all of you reading this, if you have not seen it, make an effort to do so. It is a very moving experience, especially for anyone who is a parent, or even if you just have a sympathetic bone in your body, you will cry, and beg. After that you will count your blessings, And to anyone who has ever been through an experience like , or close to this one, my heart goes out to you. It makes me realize no matter how hard or stressful thing get, just remind yourself that there is always someone worse off than you. An amazing movie and what makes it more powerful is the fact that it is based on a true story. Do not be put off by how sad it is, at the same time this movie is heart warming, and makes you feel encouraged about the strength and goodness of mankind.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most definitely the saddest movie I have ever seen. A must see, just so you can walk away and realise just how precious your life and loves are. The acting is superb, the story line potentially 'real'.

Remains a firm favourite of mine even after all this time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Who will love my children has changed my heart, it made me cry all the way through, the most i cried with was when the family had to say goodbye to the baby, i cried the most with that, and each time a child was adopted, i cried when they had to say goodbye to their mother, it was sad for them to lose their mother, I felt sorry for the kid with epilepsy, i was glad he was adopted by the same family as one of his brothers. To me that boy i thought was the special one because he was going in a home. I feel that i am special because i am in a world with Aspergers Syndrome and sometimes when i feel down, i sometimes like to cry. I really enjoyed this movie, 10 out of 10. A true story, very good. Another movie that would bring tears to your eyes i think would haver to be Tuesday's With Morrie (http:\/\/www.imdb.com\/title\/tt0207805)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this movie when it was broadcast on television in February of 1983. I was in the hospital, having just given birth to my first and only child. I'll refrain from telling you the extent to which I was moved. Suffice it to say that the memory of the movie has remained with me to this day, almost 23 years later. I hope I can find a copy of this movie, if such a thing was ever made. This movie should be remembered fondly by anyone who ever saw it. However, I must admit that the fact it remains somewhat obscure is just fine by me. This way, it will always be a small secret to me and those who were also moved by it. I never saw Ms. Margaret perform a better part. Nor have I ever seen her in a more convincing role. I will forever respect her just for accepting such a lovely part.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched this film many years ago on TV and taped it from there I could never really understand why my own mother was upset watching it! It was because I was so young at the time. I have just sat and watched this film again I now have 2 children of my own and I had to try and fight the tears back but that didn't happen I was crying through most of the film It just go's to show how different you feel when you have children of your own! Such an amazing family such a heart wrenching film truly wonderful! Someone has said about 8 still living any more news are you all still in touch I would love to know! Touched by the film all over!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Who Will Love My Children\" Saddest movie I have ever seen. Definite 10\/10. Released on TV in 1983. Movie has been released on VHS. DVD release is a must, sooner rather than later. Mother dying of cancer, must find homes for all her children before she dies, because her thoughts are that her husband and father of the kids is not capable of caring for them once she has died. She manages to find homes for the children except one, a young boy whom is not wanted because he suffers from epilepsy. Very sad when your not wanted. In for a real good tear jerker, get your hands on this movie. I'm a male even I cried when I watched this movie. Not to be missed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has to be the ultimate chick flick ever. We taped it off the T.V. years ago and I've watched it about 30 times over the years. I hadn't seen it for about 12 years and just recently watched this movie. I'm not lying, I cried from the opening credits to the ending credits. This movie truly tears your heart out, even if you don't have children.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was still living with my parents when they aired this on dutch TV. Usually I was the one watching movies with the other's not caring. But somehow we all sat down and watched this movie. This kinda movie used to be aired at Wednesday-evening. It is the story of a woman who'll die soon. But before she dies she wants to make sure her ( many ) kids will have the best possible foster-parents. So we were watching this and my dad ( the most emotional of the four of us) started to cry. I followed almost immediately and before long my sister and mother were teared up too. There we were, totally moved by this simple but heartbreaking story. If you want a good cry, this is the one for you!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I originally saw this on its premiere in the UK. I was mesmerised by it, and it had me in tears all throughout its duration. I taped it off the TV for safekeeping, but over the years, it's worn out. And TV never seem to show it. Therefore it was a joy to find out that True Movies own the copyright and were showing it on their channels. This time, I taped it onto a DVD, so I can enjoy it again and again.

Lucile Fray (played magnificently by Ann - Margret) discovers she has cancer, and that it is terminal. Her husband has arthritis, and, although he is loving, he is an alcoholic, and would be incapable of taking care of their children after she has gone. Therefore, she has to find new homes for each of her children before she dies.

The acting is top notch, the music beautiful, and it has stood the test of time wonderfully (it still makes me cry!) If you ever get the chance, you would be silly to miss this. It is a wonderful film! A must see for everyone!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is based on the true story of Iowa housewife Lucille Fray, who got breast cancer after the birth of her 10th child. Realizing that the state would take the children away from her ineffectual, alcoholic husband, she devoted the last year of her life traveling around the state to find new homes for each of the children. A terrific script - which still holds up 20 years after it was first made. The grown children, many of whom had not seen each other since their mother died in the late 50's, were reunited on \"That's Incredible,\" prior to the film's airing in 1983. Barbara Stanwyck won the Emmy for best actress in a TV movie or mini-series, but during her acceptance speech, she went out of her way to single Ann-Margret out for her moving performance.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ann-Margret did the best job she has ever done in her history of film making. I felt as if she WAS Mrs. Frey. There might be one or two films of Ann-Margret's I have not seen since her film debut in \"Pocket full of Miracles\" with Betty Davis in 1961. I feel she has been totally under-rated in the industry. Though she was nominated for an Emmy Award for this role in \"Who Will Love My Children,\" she was overlooked. Like she was nominated for an Academy Award for her roles in \"Carnal Knowledge\" and \"Tommy,\" she was snubbed. Over all, I think everyone did a superb acting job including all the children in \"Who Will Love My Children.\" Yes, it is a sad movie (as true stories can be), but well worth the time. Thank you.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have nothing but praise for this movie and cast, especially Ann Margaret. But more importantly I have praise for my in-laws who were (are) the adoptive parents of Warren and Frank in real life. I met most of the \"children\" at Warren's wedding in 1989. This is an amazing story and is even more incredible to me knowing the family and what everyone went through. It is also enjoyable for me to see how my in-laws were portrayed in the movie. It was pretty accurate. My wife even enjoys seeing some little details such as a toaster that she remembered from her childhood. Yes, it is a hard movie to watch, but so amazing and heartfelt.

The beauty of this story for me is how many of the children passed through my in-laws lives and, as a result of marrying their daughter,and having Warren as a brother-in-law, how many I have met in mine. For the past 20 years this story has been a part of my life because of what my mother-in-law has shared with me. That and knowing Warren. For what it is worth, Warren lives in California with his family. He married his high school sweetheart, who he reconnected with at his 20 year high school reunion.

There was a show in the 1980's called \"That's Incredible.\" They had a reunion of the family who also got to meet the cast of the show.

For anyone's interest, the DVD is available in Great Britain and Australia. It is a tough video to come by here in the United States and I have not been able to find a DVD here, yet.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I blubbered like a little girl during the ending of this movie and I dare anyone else to hold it together without a sob. Absolutely heart-wrenching stuff, yet uplifting at it's core.

A great effort on the part of Ann Margaret who plays a terminally ill mother of ten who, knowing her arthritic steel-working husband won't be able to support the family when she is gone, arranges the adoptions of her children before she shuffles off. The role really deserved an Oscar.

You truly feel for this poor family as the dying mother gives her all to ensure that her kids don't end up in a poorly administered state orphanage system.

If you haven't seen it - get it if you can.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Starring: Ann-Margret, Frederic Forrest, Cathryn Damon, Donald Moffat, Lonny Chapman, Patricia Smith Directed by: John Erman \"12 Months to Live... So Little time to Plan a Future She Would Not Share. For the Sake of her 10 Children She Must Succeed!\"

Lucile Fray (Ann-Margret), is the caring mother of 10 young children. She is the loving wife of Ivan (Frederic Forrest), a man almost crippled by arthritis. She is also dying. Stricken by a terminal illness, she has only a few months left to live. Her husband, tormented by the painful truth, turns to the bottle and, with a broken heart, Lucile is forced to accept that he will never be able to cope as a father alone.

And so, for the sake of the children she loves so much, the young mother must make an agonising decision.

Inspired by real-life events, 'Who Will Love My Children' is a tribute to one woman's courage and strength - a story of sacrifice and of a dying mother's undying love.

One of the best films that I have ever seen Cried from start to finish.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is not a GREAT movie as tho the cast (especially the kids) admirably help to carry along this very sad yet contrived plot it is filled with clich\u00e9 upon clich\u00e9. Poor family in 50's mid America, dying mother, alcoholic father, 10 children (1 of whom has epilepsy) and an awful decision to be made. Its very easy to watch and some of the kids performances are moving without being sickly or naff. And little Frank and Warrnen steal the show for me with the last scene leaving me bawling no matter how many times I see it. A great rainy afternoon movie i recommend to all. Only those with the hardest of hearts could fail to be moved by it. Not on a par to Sophies Choice but a good TV movie equivalent!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The War At Home is so good it's become my new favourite show.Me and my neighboors Carly and April watch this together every Sunday and laugh at how true to life it is.I love how everyone is so sarcastic and so worried and they dwell on every little issue.Once someone does something stupid they never live it down and that is soooo how family is.The father always harps on all three kids about every little thing.I love how the parents have no idea how to deal with the kids.It's so true to real family life and the fact that the parents are so overwhelmed and have no clue how to solve their teenagers problems just puts the show over the top.The War At Home is so brutally honest,and so true to the world we live in that it has become a milestone for sitcoms to come.This isn't Happy Days or The Brady Bunch this is real life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is actually pretty good. Like all shows on TV, it has its good episodes and its bad ones.

I have read where people compare this show to Married with Children, and I suppose it is a similar show for the new generation. However, because of what was expected and allowed on TV in the days of Married with Children, that show was taken to great extremes to show that it was in fact, a television show, and not meant to be take seriously.

The War at Home has the luxury of being a bit more realistic. The parents talk to each other like real life parents often do, telling their children one thing, when they will turn around and do the opposite.

Sure, some of the content can be considered controversial. But I find this show really tries to maintain a sense of honesty. Like it or not, there are a lot of families out there just like this one.

Every episode does teach a 'valuable lesson'. Its just that sometimes the lesson is that you will not find a perfect solution for every problem that a family may encounter, and sometimes the solution is to pick the lesser of two evils. We all know that in some cases, as a parent, the only goal you can have is to keep your kids out of really big trouble, and hope that they learn right from wrong.

I respect the writers for attempting to keep the show true to life, instead of having some magical ending like the Cleaver family always had.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Like many situation comedies, \"The War at Home\" is getting better with each episode. The characters are starting to become real and I believe them as a family. I agree with many that the first few episodes were not that funny; I thought the show would be canceled for sure. But with the absences of \"Malcolm in the Middle\" and \"Arrested Development,\" \"War\" provides much needed live action comedy for FOX on Sunday nights. And when compared with the rest of the sitcoms airing right now \"War\" is an even better choice.

Its appeal, at least for me, lies in its real situations. Teenagers have sex. Not every parent likes how their kids are turning out. Parents fight and call each other names. But rather than relying on being \"mean\" like many shows, everything is nice in the end which is the number one rule of a good sitcom.

One detraction from the show is the narration during\/in between scenes. The \"Arrested Development\/Family Guy\" style of flashbacks work well enough but the narration can be too much.

So anyone who needs something to watch on Sunday nights should check out \"The War at Home,\" especially considering what is on the other major networks at that time.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show is verging on brilliant. It's a modern day Married...with Children. The scripts are witty, as they are sprinkled with clever sarcasm. They are also realistic, dealing with issues that face many parents of teenagers today. As well as the on going burden that you might not be the worlds greatest parent, and how is the best way to deal with this? However, at the same time, it manages to remain light hearted and fun. Which, with all the drama and action on television these days, is a very pleasant and welcome change. It is something you can sit down in front of for 30 minutes and relax, laugh and relate to. It isn't the world's most hilarious comedy. yet will make you laugh at least a handful of times an episode. Michael Rapaport is brilliant in the lead as Dave. He fills the big shoes that the heavily sarcastic script requires and then some. He and Anita Barone (Vikki) have fantastic chemistry and bounce off one another very well. This show has a strong future if it is marketed at the correct target audience, and put in the right time slot. Also, if Fox release it on DVD, the following will be stronger and larger. (As is a classic example with Scrubs.)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hilarious show with so many great stories, that it reflects the world today as we know it, in such a funny way it literally stole my laughters for other shows. I laughed so hard that I just found any other comedy shows unfunny. The unique confessions of each characters is a great original technique that just makes the show funny and very humorous. You may think that this is an average comedy show about hard life with a family. That's what I thought at first but I found out that it holds new and unique techniques that completely sets it apart from any other average comedy show. Michael Rapaport is a star. I sure wish that this show wasn't canceled.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm not from USA I'm from central Europe and i think the show is amazingly good. It can be easily compared with married with..children. My title says that it isn't show for conservative public. I mean i'm not so liberal but it may be slight difference between European conservatism and us cons. Anyway, show is starting to be very popular in our area and it's very bad that it contains only two seasons. Last episode opens many continuous and funny moments. Anyway I and many peoples would be glad if that would continue playing. The last thing i'm thrilled about this is some moral education very nice packed into humorous scenes. I mean i have seen many comedies that has over two and even more minutes of very sad in tragic scenes that absolutely don't fit into comedy. War doesn't contain something like that and is made for laughing. It's like The Simpsons and married whose also don't have any sad or even unfunny moments. I'm apologizing for my awful knowledge of English but I still hope that You will understand what I meant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The war at home is a splendid television series and I don't understand because she has been annulled. Please fairies something to continue with this very beautiful television series, with excellent and marvelous actors, good recitation and good situations, please we want the third series and even so many new episodes. I pray you!!!! I would like if possible somehow to make to reach this and mail the interested forehand, since I can tell you that here in Italy this series is very liked, as in other countries of Europe chest of drawers for example Spain. In effects as I have written above what strikes of this television series it is the good recitation of the actors and also the honest one with which numerous matters of true importance are treated. I think both one of the best American television series arrive on the Italian screens in these last years.I pray you!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was one of the few shows that my wife and I agreed on watching. I was upset to hear that it was canceled, especially because I didn't realize the ratings were so poor. As far as I knew it was doing very well with a lot of viewers. Almost all my friends and most of the people I spoke to watched the show. Now we are stuck watching either crappy shows or DVD's. How bad was the show doing? does anyone know the real results of the shows viewings? I know that when it went to Thursdays, it was more difficult for me to catch. Thank G*d for DVR's!

Anyways, this was a real surprise to know that there will be no more \"The War At Home\". If any other networks see this, PLEASE PICK UP THE SHOW!!!! PLEASE!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i really like this series. its funny and unique style of off the wall, sometimes controversial comedy, is a fresh take on the genre. whilst it is a sitcom, it stands out due to the what could be awkward subjects.

every aspect has a comedy turn, and the show really is very good. my favourite part of the program is the rather odd comments of the father, dave. his rants break the program up, and allow a really good flow. not perfect, because sometimes the comedy isn't laugh out loud funny, and the actors sometimes seem to be waiting for an audience response, but otherwise this program is good.

i strongly recommend this program, and am very sad that it has been cancelled. please make another series, and finish it properly","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have realized that many people have commented on the nature of this show being racist and homophobic, but I don't feel that is what this show is about.

The show is about parents who weren't ready for kids and are now not ready for teenagers. This show helps to bring humor to a very hard topic that is sometimes over looked: parenthood.

Yes we have all had shows that had families in it, for example: Family Matters, Step by Step, Family Ties, Full House....but it always would have the same old recipe to it's episodes. \"Steph\" cuts from school and gets caught by her father. They have a heart to heart conversation and music is played and it's over with a two week grounding that after an \"aww, Dad...\" gets a smile and the show is over. Where is the comedy in such a situation? Where is the realism? With The War at Home, you get real situations from a real father type figure. Most parents that watch this show hear some of the lines the parents put out and they either laugh (cause they know they've said it!) or they nod their heads (cause they know they've thought it and never had the guts to say it!) The War at Home has situations that bring out great comedy as a father thinking his son is gay. Doesn't sound funny, most think it makes the father homophobic, but the comedy comes in the bumbling father trying to talk to his son to open up. What parent knows the right thing to say, especially in a situation as this? I greatly recommend this show to anyone that I know has a sense of humor, and especially to anyone who is a young parent or was young when they had kids. You relate to a show like this when you are either.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't seen this funny of a show on fox in a long time, and the wait was worth it. The kids in the show have something that i can relate to on every episode, and even my dad will sit down and watch it. It is a show not for all ages that doesn't dumb down for kids. It is like still standing but to the next level. The stuff that everyone says is stuff that everyone says and actions that everyone does. It says stuff that we all think, but in a well rounded way of presentation. The first time i saw the show i could not believe that it was on fox, and that it was allowed to stay on the air after a few episodes, from Hilary's boyfriend choices to Kenny's boyfriend choices, it is well worth the watch.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Certainly not a great show, but better than most other sitcoms out there at the moment. It reminds of shows like Married With Children and Roseanne as they go to places not traditionally dealt with in sitcoms. It's sometimes funny even if you ignore the laugh tracks, but not rip-roaring hilarious.

Some of the characters are pretty funny (the gay friend) and some of the other drop-ins. This is also one of the few shows where the characters soliloquy (sorry for the butchered spelling) actually is effective and funny.

Is this an All in the Family or Seinfeld type show? Absolutely not. However, it is certainly better than a show like 'Til Deat (probably the worst TV show of any type out at the moment).

Oh and the mom is not too bad looking and the Hilary character is a little hottie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So many times, Bollywood has tried to remake Hollywood hits, only to produce total duds. Mercifully, Yash Chopra's interpretation of \"Sleeping with the Enemy\" is an extremely stylish and well-made films.

Shah Rukh Khan is obsessed with Juhi Chawla (who's looking her very best in here!). When he realizes that Juhi has a fiance in Sunny Deol, he stops at nothing to make sure she becomes his.

Every frame of this film is a delight to watch. Whether it's Shah Rukh chanting his trademark \"I love you, K...k...k...kiran!\" or the feel-good mushy scenes between Sunny and Juhi (who make a perfect match), you won't feel like leaving your eat in boredom.

Each and every song on the soundtrack is ear pleasing, especially Jaadu Teri Nazar and Tu Mere Samne. Like I said, Juhi looks like a Goddess in this film. Darr may not be SRK's best film (that honor goes to Baazigar), but it definitely figures as one of his most flawless performances! Sunny is OK. He's done similar roles before, but he's good.

Overall, Darr is g...g...g...great! ;)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I generally love SRK as a villain (how can you not?) and I believe that SRK and Juhi are a perfect match on screen as they both are actually more nice than pretty.

This movie is great to watch, although it has some major flaws:

1) the good guy (Sunny) - not only he's so much less attractive than Shahrukh(what in my opinion is soooooo important in Bollyfilms) but his role lacks character - it would be much better if there was a conflict between two strong personalities, instead we have a conflict between a personality and an average soldier

2) Kiran's and Sunil's reactions for Rahul's actions are unbelievably silly and naive even for a Bollywood production

But all this is not that important in comparison with the wonderful melodramatic atmosphere, great songs (really truly great)and (let's say it again) Shahrukh as a villain, I just love him when he's so pagal

A must-see (along with Anjaam, Baazigar and Duplicate)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The story of an obsessed lover (Shahrukh Khan) and the lengths he goes to get his true love (Juhi Chawla) who's already married to her husband (Sunny Deol). The film is considered one of Shahrukh Khan's best performances and won him acclaim from critics and audiences alike. Fear that your love may not be reciprocated, fear that you may lose the one you love, fear that your beloved could have a change of heart. In short, fear is the villain in every love story.

But in 'Darr' fear is the ultimate expression of passion, of obsession and of sacrifice. 'Darr' is Rahul's (Shahrukh Khan) story whose love and obsession for Kiran (Juhi Chawla) frees him from all fears of life & death. 'Darr' is Sunil's (Sunny Deol) story, whose enduring love and passion for Kiran gives him the courage to face the fear of death.

And finally 'Darr' is Kiran's story who is caught between one man's love and another man's obsession. She fears one & fears for the other. One stands for love, the other for life. In this battle between love & life, the supreme victor is love, because love always wins, in life & death. simply \"Darr\" is one of the best Indian films ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shah rukh khan plays an obbsessed lover who would go to any lengths to get his lady. Juhi chawla does a wonderful job of making the best of her character and sunny deol plays the hero and action man. this film is very good and i'd reecommend it to anyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Darr is a great movie! Shahrukh plays an obsessed lover who will do almost anything to win over his lady which in this case is Juhi Chawla. Little does Juhi know in the film that Shahrukh has a MAJOR crush on her and is constantly stalking her. I have to admit, some of the things he did in this movie were pretty creepy... like the threatening phone calls. Never in my life will I forget the line, \"I love you K..k..k..Kiran!\"

It's just too bad that Shahrukh and Juhi weren't exactly \"together\" in the film. But Juhi and Sunny do make a fairly good couple in the movie. Though Shahrukh's role was pretty psychotic, I still think he did a great job of playing it and can't possibly imagine anyone else doing that role. No wonder he got an award for Darr in 94'!

Juhi... what can I say??? She looks especially amazing in this film! It's not that she doesn't always look amazing in her other films, but Darr did give the public a wonderful image of her!

As for the music... it was excellent! Especially \"Jaadu Teri Nazar,\" one of my all time favorite songs. I also thought \"Tu Mere Samne\" was quite nice also.

A must see for everyone! Overall Darr deserves a 9\/10!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've never seen a Bollywood film before but I caught the first ten minutes of this, laughed myself silly and hit the R button on Sky+. I'm glad I did!! I hope I don't insult anybody (because basically, the BF and I loved it!) but we couldn't take it half as seriously as the actors did - especially the obsessed one (who, I understand, is a huge Bollywood star because we've seen him on the cover of lots of dvds since and i even saw a doll of him today in Hamleys!! The BF keeps on about this bloke - I am beginning to think HE'S obsessed! He keeps saying that it's strange for the traditionally good looking one to be the anti-hero of a film! But then we do like films that aren't your stock predictable Hollywood fare).

It was completely over the top but really good fun. If all Bollywood films are like this then we're watching more. I have had that bloomin' song in my head all week and I can't speak a word of Hindi! PS any recommendations would be appreciated!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie is a very good movie.one of the best from Yash raj films.The direction is incredible.The screenplay is brilliant.The story is excellent.It tells about Rahul who is obssed of Kiran his college friend.He is a full blown psycho doing things like talking to his mother on a phone(anyway she died 15 years back) etc.Kiran is engaged to Sunil.Rahul does everything so he can get her.He even trys to kill Sunil but he survives it.He even goes to the place where they are going to their honeymoon.The movie is every nes delight.Shahrukh is superb,Juhi is fairly good,Sunny is average,Anupham is okay and so is Tanvi,Dalip did good.The movie belongs to Srk.The dialogues are brilliant(Shahrukh ones and a lot if not the overacting and comedy).\"Jaadu Teri Nazar\" and \"Tu Mere Samne\" are absolutely melodious tracks.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pertty Kiran comes back to home after completing her college. She has got a nice charisma which always drawn men to her. Sunil Malhotra a dare devil navy employee is one such guy. He loves her deeply and even engaged to marry her. Rahul is another person who is insane and he also loves Kirrrran.

Sunil is very close to her family and is adored by everyone in his home. Kiran has never met Rahul, but then Rahul would kill anyone who comes between him and Kiran. So when Rahul comes to know that Kiran is in love with Sunil, what will he do ? Will he kill him or he himself will be punished for his devil acts.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Shahrukh Khan and Yash Chopra films have never disappointed. Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge is a romantic classic. Dil To Pagal Hai was fresh and perfect to watch. Mohabbatein remains as one of my favorite movies ever. And Veer-Zaara was magical. Darr, though not the best, is a romantic thriller that is different from the aforementioned movies, but definitely worth a watch. And SRK, who blew me away with an excellent performance in Baazigar, repeats a villain act. And this time he gets an experienced Juhi Chawla and Sunny Deol to support him.

Before I comment on the acting, it is not just the acting, but the wonderful script that makes it worth a watch. It is the writing that compliments the great acting. The story is gripping, but the characterization is what stands out. The comedy track goes along well. But the movie has the tendency of shifting at romance too much. The viewer is bound to lose interest and you will make a couple of yawns. But the movie is still good.

Shahrukh Khan is brilliant in his author backed role. Shahrukh Khan once again is sympathetic and cruel. You are bound to cry at the end. Juhi Chawla is decent. Her screams are bound to become annoying after a while. But in facial expression she is excellent. But her ending scene she is brilliant (though she was overshadowed by SRK). She has an author backed role that makes her very likable. Sunny Deol is adequate. His character was very likable, but too perfect. And it gets boring after a while. He does a good job though. Anupam Kher is really funny, but his role felt a little out of place. Tanvi Azmi supports well.

The songs are enjoyable and come at the right time. Jadoo Teri Nazar (Magic At Your Sight) is my favorite song, and presentation is very 90's film like. Tu Mere Saamne (You are in Front of Me) and Likha Hai (Written Here) are nice love songs. Darwaza Band Kar Lo (Close the Door) is a decent love song also. The instrumental song is danced to perfection as well as the naughty wedding song Solah Button. The movie may not be perfect, but it is well worth your time especially if your favorite actor is in it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen many of Shahrukh's movies and this is a very good role for him. He has such versatility, but he mainly stays in positive roles. As Rahul, he is very dark and disturbing, yet I found myself sympathizing with him much of the movie. If for nothing else, watch this movie for Shahrukh. He plays a very complex and real character very convincingly. The story is very typical and has been done before, but the character development is very strong and entertaining. The opening is a little confusing, but by the end, it doesn't matter. The songs I found very likable and give insight to what characters are thinking. Very clever. I think this movie was very good and recommend it to all Shahrukh Khan fans. It is a must see!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was Bollywood's answer to Fatal attraction and this is a classic film in its own right. Juhi Chawla was good and so was Sunny Deol but it was Shah Rukh Khan who shot to fame as the stalker. Since then he has become a favourite of the Chopra's (Dilwale Dulhaniya le Jayenge, Mohhabatein, Dil to pagal hai, Veer Zaara and Chak De India). Shah Rukh at first appears to be a villain but then towards the end you start to sympathize with him. The scripting was superb and the songs were chartbusters. My favourites are Too mere samne and Jaadu teri nazar.

After the dismal failure of the underrated Lamhe Yash Chopra fought back with Darr. The dialogues were memorable, the k..k..Kiran dialogue is often repeated. Since Darr Yash Chopra has slipped bit. Dil to pagal hai was bad but he redeemed himself slightly with Veer Zaara, which was far far better. This was Yash Chopra's last masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this movie is such a good movie shah ruck khan does a great job as the crazy mad villain who is totally obsessed with

the girl the story is fantastic the acting by all

characters like the girl and shah ruck and Sunny are all fabulous and i really love the first song especially how it comes back at the end oh and its so emotional if your a true shah ruck khan fan you have gotta watch this movie because its the best shah ruck khan movie ever he plays an excellent role and i wish he done more crazy man roles but u have to watch this what so ever this is a really good movie this is a really good movie you have to watch it it is truly amazing you have to watch it it is fabulous i can go on and on about this movie because it is a fun funny scary cool and totally fantastic movie in the world","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watch this movie just to see Shahrukh Khan say \"I love you,K-k-Kiran...\" It's both heartbreaking and frightening at the same time when he says this, from the beginning to the end. This movie made him famous, and I totally recommend it :D It's highly entertaining, the music's wicked and you will laugh right along with Shahrukh here...You'll genuinely feel scared for the hero and heroine and oddly enough you will identify with at least one of the characters. You will feel sad and happy and relieved and afraid at the same time. Go see this classic Bollywood movie with your good buddies and some lovely food and have a day in. And after you see the movie, have the songs and scenery playing in your mind...forever.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is just brilliant, SRK's acting is just amazing, the end is so incredibly sad, I cry every time I see this film, it's the kind you never get sick of, and can see again and again, an absolutely amazingly brilliant movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Darr (1993) was an incredible movie. In my opinion, it is one of Bollywood's finest. The movie itself triggers feelings of sympathy, fear, confusion, happiness, and sadness. Shahrukh's role was unbelievable, in fact he gave obsession a new face. Juhi Chawla's innocent and girlie character contrasted greatly with Shahrukh's fiery and passionate character. Sunny Deol's role made the \"good guy\" role seem like the \"bad guy\" one. The fact that Shahrukh, not Sunny, captivated the audience's attention proves that everyone has that helpless inner drive to pursue something that's not really in their hands. Even though the movie is several years old, it surpasses any recent one. The song \"Tu Mere Samne\" was full of passion and meaning. His personality fit the role perfectly. He should seriously consider re-starring in a similar film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Darr is an brilliant movie..It is 1 of my favourite films..SRK has done a mind blowing job in the movie....

this role couldn't have been played by anyone else because this type of role only suits SRK...

SRK plays a mental villain in the film..

SRK's performance in this movie is the best performance ever in boll wood...

SRK deserves an honour and an encouraging appeal for his fantastic performance...

Juhi also delivers an excellent performance..

Sunny Deol looked strong and physically fit in the film..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Darr was a Super Hit film, which was loved by many peoples. It tells the story of Shahrukh Khans innocent obsession for Juhi, who loves Sunny Deol. Honestly it was a entertaining movie, but if you look carefully its not too realistic. Shahrukh Khan keeps phoning Juhi and tells her that he loves her too bits. He gives an announcement in college that he Loves her, and gives her some nice surprises like beautiful photos of her. Unfortunately, instead of being flattered that a guy loves her too bits, she gets very very scared. I personally know 100s of people that get pranked by someone, and these people enjoy it, cos they play a long. Yash Chopra gives us a good film that does entertain, widely because of Shah Rukh Khan's character. Sunny Deol is suppose to be the main actor, but Darr belongs to Shah Rukh Khan delivering a Superb performance. Shah rukh Khan is literally the villain of the movie, but i would of been happy if he got the girl, because he loves her so dearly. Sunny Deol gives a decent performance, but he beats up all those guys on his own, and survives a brutal knife attack. Juhi Chawla is cute as ever in a fairly good performance. Some good songs including Tu mere samne being the best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Darr, although a copy of some Hollywood flick, is one of the best films I have seen. It is not only beautifully portrayed but also has great songs and beautiful scenery. Shahrukh is his usual self. His expressions and voice matches his character. I was pleasantly surprised by Sunny Deol's portrayal in the film. He is a bit romantic and lovable in the film, unlike his other characters in his other films.At times you feel like Justice hasn't been done to his character. Sunny was intended to be portrayed as the good guy in the film but ends up looking like the villain at the end. Juhi Chawla is beautiful and bubbly. She is her usual self. In short, A great love story with passion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This isn't far away from the trash that Bollywood normally makes but there's just something really good about it.

The title song is one of Bollywoods best and is haunting throughout. This is one of the films (along with Baazigar - a must see Bollywood film) that made Shah Rukh Khan and it's for this you have to check it out.

Other reviews give away the story - it is a fairly basic idea - ShaRukh definitely stands out and one of his final expressions right at the end made me give this film an extra star.

Its fairly cheesy but definitely worth watching if you are new to Bollywood or not! 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a hard movie to come by in the US, but if you can find it -- and you're interested in the life and music of Percy Aldridge Grainger, you're in for a treat. It's quite historically accurate. Richard Roxborough's Grainger looks astoundingly like Grainger at this period in time. Emily Woof's Karen Holten is quite a bit prettier than the real Karen, but that was an inaccuracy I was happy to discover (!). I think what really struck me though, was how well Roxborough captured Grainger's outrageous personality. Barbara Hershey's Rose was also a treasure. If she looks considerably younger than Rose did at that period, it is more than made up for in how well she captured Rose's obsession with Percy. It's an easy film to recommend. (I should note that when she saw \"Passion\" my wife had no particular affinity for (or knowledge of) Grainger and his music, but she was totally captivated by the film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Turner Classic Movie Channel has spent the month of January doing the films of one of my favorite actors, Robert Montgomery. His films are mostly rarely watched these days, except for those that were atypical for most of his career - meaning that the roles that frequently reappear on television are THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, THE LADY IN THE LAKE, JUNE BRIDE, NIGHT MUST FALL, THE SAXON CHARM, RIDE THE PINK HORSE, RAGE IN HEAVEN, THE EARL OF CHICAGO (in short the films he fought to get the roles in because they were not the usual comic fluff he usually appeared in). It's ironic that nowadays when one thinks of Montgomery's career it is the films that were mostly made after 1937 that are pushed - the ones that broke the original image that MGM and Louis B. Mayer pushed. The pity of this is that Montgomery was a gifted comedian, and saved many films from being routine.

PETTICOAT FEVER is one such film. Made in 1936 with PICADILLY JIM and TROUBLE FOR TWO it was a banner year of good performances by Montgomery, and helped lead to his being able to convince the powers that be at MGM to allow him to play \"Danny\" in NIGHT MUST FALL the next year.

PETTICOAT FEVER is set in Labrador, and Montgomery is a weather station operator there named Dascom Dinsmore. He has been living there for five years, and has not been in the company of a woman (except for Inuit women) for most of that time. He has a girlfriend of sorts named Clara (Winifred Shotter) who he sort of proposed to, but it's been two years since he has heard from her, so that he believes she has given up on him.

Dinsmore's world is rocked when Sir James Felton and Irene Campton (Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy) show up. They were flying to Toronto for a business meeting that Felton was to address. Felton is engaged to Campton, but Dinsmore finds her enchanting...and gradually she finds him equally attractive. Certainly the pompous, self-important, and hopelessly inept Felton is no competition (it is a measure of Owen's acting that he keeps the character entertaining even if one finds it hard to believe such a boob is a Canadian captain of industry).

There is something surreal about this film - probably due to the original play. While the \"Labrador\" scenery is quite phony looking it does serve it's purpose for the comedy (witness th polar bear sequence). But the height of the surrealism is the dinner Dinsmore serves his guests, a dinner of \"pemmican steaks\", which Owen eats with real gusto. Owen (a minor noble as a baronet) is dressed in normal clothing - a winter suit for the climate). But Montgomery is dressed in his suit of evening dress (as though attending a ball at the embassy). Loy, seeing him dress up, likewise puts on a gown. They are being served by Dinsmore's servant - assistant, the Inuit Kimo (Otto Yamaoka), who is wearing a suit of evening dress too - it turns out that it is Owen's! Owen, who earlier insisted that Dinsmore change into clothing more suitable to his station, is the only person who is improperly dressed for this dinner!! Montgomery was MGM's most elegant actor in a tuxedo or evening dress (Franchot Tone was the his closest rival). It is a toss-up in movie if Montgomery or Fred Astaire was the more elegant figure in such suits. Hard to decide.

The course of love does not move smoothly in comedy or drama. Clara shows up (we are tipped off too early about this at the start of the film when we see her on an icebound ship). Will Dinsmore break with Clara? Will Irene break with Felton? The film is funny, and Loy and Montgomery make a nice couple. They had appeared together in one other film, and both were in separate scenes in a second, before this movie. But this would be their last film together.

One last interesting point - at the start of the film when the credits are shown, you see illustrations of men and women in comic situations. They are based on the art work of John Held Jr., the great cartoonist\/illustrator of the 1920s and 1930s - who was the recorder of the flapper and \"Jazz Age\". It's an unusual choice - as it has absolutely nothing to do with the film's plot or Labrador.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, when it comes to plots, this film is far from believable and also a bit silly. Yet despite its many deficiencies, the film manages to work--provided you turn off your brain and just let yourself enjoy the zaniness of it all. If you can't, then you probably won't like this film very much at all.

In one of the oddest plots of the 1930s, Robert Montgomery plays a guy living near the Arctic Circle at a wireless station. How exactly he came to such a remote outpost is uncertain but into this very, very lonely and isolated existence come a steady string of guests--even though it had been years since he'd seen anyone but Eskimos.

First, Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy arrive when their plane crashes. They are supposedly on their way to Montreal--how they got THAT far off course is beyond belief! Reginald is a stuffy and dull fellow who is really worried about Montgomery, since Robert hasn't seen a woman in a very long time and Owen seems in constant dread that Montgomery is out to steal Loy for himself. As for Montgomery, that's EXACTLY what his plans are! For the longest time, you never really understand why Loy is engaged to Owen--since he is about as appealing as soggy bread.

Soon, Loy and Montgomery fall in love but this is all for naught when, out of the blue AGAIN, Montgomery's old fianc\u00e9e arrives to announce she's there to marry him!! Considering that for over two years she never wrote and refused to follow him, Montgomery naturally assumed the relationship was over--but the chipper and annoying fianc\u00e9e's sudden arrival is enough to destroy the plans Loy and Montgomery were making.

How all this is resolved is something you can just see for yourself. As for the film, that the plot is very silly and contrived--I can't defend this. BUT, it also is pretty funny and charming and I see this film as a kooky comedy that is just a step or two below contemporary films like BRINGING UP BABY. Silly, slight but also very charming. It's worth seeing despite not being especially believable.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Very well done acting and directing. This is a cross between \"The Last Don\" and \" Godfather 2\".One large plus for this production is that it is claimed to be a true story of Joseph Bonanno. With a better music score to create mood, it could have been a rival for both Godfather movies.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie have 4 parts and every is around 170 minutes long. Its based on true story of life of Joe Bonanno and it is telling all how he did see. So in some events we can notice that we heard different about it. Movie make you tied up for chair till the end, i think it is possible to watch all 4 in a row, and not notice i watched 2 in a row and 2 next day in a row. Acting in movie is OK in some scenes awesome but in general could be bather, but this movie is not about acting or special effects and glamor, this one show real thing and story is key to this movie. So the one who look for same spectacular Rambo\/matrix\/titanic movie you can skip this one. Good thing in movie is that follow the main story so you will not have long and boring love scenes or any different interrupt with something not important to crime business of Bonanno.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I found parts of this movie rather slow, especially the first part; the second part seemed to go a lot faster, but it's not totally clear to me as to why one part was faster than the other. I somehow managed to find it enjoyable. The acting was good, the writing was good (yet vulgar). There was also another good side to it: it was easier to understand than say, the Godfather movies. You knew who was on whose side, etc. All in all, the movie wasn't half-bad.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hollywood has turned the Mafia in to a production line of output ranging from the banal to the excellent and despite some good acting and a reasonable script (much of which is - for a change - true!) this \"home entertainment\" effort has to fall slap bang in the middle.

The script is not only obvious (all of the checklist boxes end up being ticked), but spends a lot of time trying to create a pastiche of the best of other people's work. The Godfather being the most obvious, but there are other references too. I won't bother naming them. Nevertheless it is a good taste borrower! The producer seems to set a quota for gunshots and murder (one at least every twenty minutes?) and the ending is weak and \"so what?\" I am told there are various versions of this production so that maybe that is just the version I have seen.

Gangsters don't make money they take money. Usually by fear. Some seem more in to the murder and mayhem side of the business than making money. They were the ones that were the first to go (in real life and here). \"You can't make money with a gun in your hand\" says Charlie 'Lucky' Luciano at one stage. One of the smarter gangsters, although all things are relative. He was a skilled white slave trader and a drug dealer before being bundled home to Italy.

The old school \"moustached Pete's\" were picked off by the new bloods who wanted the power and the money for themselves and to break free of the straight jacket of Italian\/Sicilian power (rarely doing business outside themselves). The young Turk knew they needed to be allied with other groups (most notably \"the Jews\" who knew how to launder money) and this is at least referenced and acknowledged. What isn't made so clear is that most immigrant groups had their own Mafia's - but most of them made their money and went legit. And why not? Who wants to die in jail?

Joseph Bonanno was a ruthless man prepared to kill if needs be , but not an unfair or stupid one. His story was tragic in that he could have made money in the over ground world and he showed a special skill in avoiding getting killed. With a little bit of luck attached, naturally.

Despite the range of respectable names and three actors in the title role (Bruce Ramsay, Martin Landau and Tony Nardi) there isn't the charisma or the talent to bring us in and feel anything. We are - merely - passive observers in a life we are glad not to have lead. The people shown here were born in to a cruel world but their only mark was to make it crueler.

If you can't get enough of the gangster genre that will be better than watching Godfather 1 & 2 for the tenth time and it is even better -- as basic entertainment -- than the horrible misfire that was Godfather 3.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone, but, this mimics life's reality in so many ways, and, if you are really honest with yourself, you will resonate with it in agreement in at least a few of the scenes.

The acting is not only believable, but convincing in a way that endears one to the characters. Moreover, it's funny, without trying too hard at it.

And, yes, I truly believe a sequel is warranted, here. See the movie, you'll understand why.

Highly recommended, especially if you like movies that have a real message.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"'This Is Not a Film' works because it is so true in what it is trying to say. If you ignore the dynamics of the plot and focus in on the message, you will see a little bit of yourself in the main character, Michael. Whether male or female, all of us have come to a point in our lives where we want to look back and reexamine a situation or a relationship. Did it really occur like we remembered? What went wrong? Michael's desire to find Grace is completely selfish. More than anything, he wants to make himself feel better about how things turned out. But even so, he is a sympathetic character because everyone is selfish when it comes to relationships. We would not be in them otherwise. As the film ends, I am not sure if Michael has learned anything new about himself or not. Our best gauge on the relationship is through his friend, Nadia. She is the soul of the movie and reminds us of how there are always two sides to every story. I found Michael to be pompous, arrogant, and just plain clueless. Which is exactly why I liked him. He is a real character. If you've ever wanted to go back and analyze a previous relationship, then this is a film for you. In closing, it is a film for everyone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It is clear this film's value far supersedes the cost with which the format (mini-dv) implies. In fact, the filmmaker embraces the format and incorporates it so craftily into the storyline that I forgot the fact that I was not seeing the typical 35 millimeter film. It has the core appeal of indie movies like Clerks & the work of Robert Rodriguez combined with a fantastic \"new take\" on the romantic comedy genre. \"This Is Not A Film\" is an honest film with honest portrayals and, it is a superbly paced narrative. There is not one point in this film where I felt a scene could have (or should have) been omitted. On the contrary, the director pulls amazing performances out of truly gifted actors and does so in extremely confining circumstances. From page to screen, this film is a worthy and relevant story that hits on so many levels (creative, technical or otherwise). I highly recommend it for all who enjoy cinema or those looking for a little charm in an otherwise devoid of charm medium.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most movies from Hollywood seem to follow one of a few pre-formulated and very predictable plots. This film does not and is a perfect example of what I watch IFC for.

There's a guy, Michael, and his girlfriend left him with out a word. He wants to know what happened. Is she OK ? Can he say goodbye ? Perhaps get some closure. He hasn't been able to contact Grace and in an effort to find her he has made a film asking for your help.

Michael figures we might need a reason to help him, so he tells us his story by reliving his relationship with the help of a friend ( Nadia ) to play the role of Grace ( the girlfriend who left)

Hind sight is 20\/20 and it is no different for Michael. By telling his story, and getting feedback from his friends, he realizes his mistakes and just how much he values what he has lost. This is unfortunately a lesson we all have had to learn ( or need to learn ) and is easy to identify with. That is what makes you want to hear more of Michael's story and wanting to know if he finds Grace.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an enjoyable project, that is not a film as the title suggests. Good performance by Nadia Dajani who re-enacts the role of Grace. I follows the re-enactment of what happens to Mike and Grace in New York City. She leaves, but he wants to get in contact with her. This project is his way of trying to getting in touch with her.

I saw it on IFC. I have heard that it will be released on DVD as well. I do like this trend of more independent projects. This is an example of a good project.

I hope that he finds her.

Take a look and be entertained.

KirbyEF","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"loved the story of a guy that tries to get his girl back....been there, done that, so i can relate...any way, i love the camera work, how occasionally the camera gets \"left on\", and they are just sitting there talking about the scene, or other stuff...or how the camera follows him around to find the cast and what not...i watched this on IFC sometime last year and i loved it, so i told a few of my friends about it, and some of them watched it, and they too loved it...check it out if you can, kinda girly, but its still a good film...I gave it a 10\/10 because of two reasons...one: i can relate...but anyone that has ever fallen in love and made a mistake can relate... two: its a really creative way to make a film, its like you are constantly there, right in the middle of filming...like i said, great film","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The whole town of Blackstone is afraid, because they lynched Bret Dixon's brother - and he is coming back for revenge! At least that's what they think.

A great Johnny Hallyday and a very interesting, early Mario Adorf star in this Italo-Western, obviously filmed in the Alps.

Bret Dixon is coming back to Blackstone to investigate why his brother was lynched. He is a loner and gunslinger par excellance, everybody is afraid of him - the Mexican bandits (fighting the Gringos that took their land!) as well as the \"decent\" citizens that lynched Bret's brother. They lynched him, because they thought he stole their money instead of bringing it to Dallas to the safety of the bank there. But this is is only half the truth, as we find out in the course of this psychologically interesting western.

But beware, it's kind of a depressing movie as everybody turns out to be guilty somehow and definitely everybody is bad to the bone...

Still, I enjoyed it very much and gave it an 8\/10. Strange, that only less than 5 people voted for this movie as of January 12th 2002....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The copy of this movie that I have seen is not very good. It's grainy and has almost no color in some parts. It switches back and forth between English and French, often in mid sentence, and sometimes even in the middle of a word! To make matters much worse, there are no English subtitles during the French language parts, which I think make up at least one quarter of the film. But, amazingly, the movie is still very understandable and enjoyable, even in this condition, and I think that says a lot about how well-made this film is.

This is a top notch spaghetti western with great acting, an interesting storyline, and an excellent music score. It also has a cool protagonist, a beautiful dark-haired girl, some strange characters and events, and an overall feeling of melancholy. This film has \"Euro\" written all over it.

I hope there is a pristine negative or print of this film out there somewhere, because it deserves a quality DVD release, and when it comes out I will be one of the first in line to get it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the late sixties director Sergio Corbucci made four spaghetti westerns in a row--the classics THE MERCENARY, THE GREAT SILENCE, THE SPECIALISTS, and COMPANEROS. Three of these, all except THE SPECIALISTS, are constantly turning up on ten best lists when spaghetti westerns are rated. Until recently all I had seen was a very poor quality compilation with some English, some Italian, a fuzzy picture, and it was nearly incomprehensible. Now, having seen a beautiful widescreen version with subtitles (still in two languages, however), I can safely include THE SPECIALISTS in that group of four classics. Johnny Halliday is very good as the charismatic Hud, a notorious hand with the gun returning to Blackstone to investigate the death of his brother, who was lynched by the townspeople for losing their savings. It involves a voluptuous beauty who owns the bank, a Mexican bandit leader, El Diablo, who was once friends with Hud, an honest sheriff who dreams of better days, and a small band of hippies--well, it was the late sixties, and hippies were everywhere, even apparently in our westerns. It's not a desert western, shot in the alps somewhere, and is lovely to look at. There is a bit more nudity than I expect in a western, but that's not a bad thing. Sylvie Fennec is lovely as Sheba, who may be Hud's niece, or dead brother's girlfriend...that's never made clear. This film deserves to be seen, and once again, we plea for a nice DVD with all the trimmings--I think THE SPECIALISTS would be as well known as any of Corbucci's other westerns, and that's high praise indeed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Cult film-maker Corbucci's rarest of his thirteen Spaghetti Westerns (of which I'm only left with WHAT AM I DOING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE REVOLUTION [1972] to catch) is one I only became aware of fairly recently via Marco Giusti's \"Stracult\" guide; it's an atypically bleak genre gem in the style of the director's own masterpiece, THE GREAT SILENCE (1968), complete with desolate snowy landscapes.

Johnny Hallyday, the French Elvis Presley, whom I first saw in Jean-Luc Godard's DETECTIVE (1985) is a curious but highly effective choice to play the loner anti-hero Hud (who, like Clint Eastwood's The Man With No Name from Sergio Leone's celebrated \"Dollars Trilogy\", is fitted with a steel-plate armor for protection); incidentally, I had 'met' Hallyday's stunning daughter Laura Smet at the 2004 Venice Film Festival but was distracted by the presence of her esteemed director, Claude Chabrol! Gastone Moschin is another curious addition to the fold (serving pretty much the same function that Frank Wolff did in THE GREAT SILENCE) but acquits himself well and is amusingly clumsy in the presence of a bathing Francoise Fabian; the latter, then, plays a greedy nymphomaniac of a banker's widow who seduces all and sundry in the pursuit of her goals. Sylvie Fennec has the other major female role as a farm girl looked after by Hallyday and who, at one point, is entreated into Free Love by 'hippie' Apache Gabriella Tavernese (with this is mind, it's worth noting that the movie features surprising but welcome bouts of nudity from both Fabian and Tavernese)! Incidentally, the anachronistic addition of a bunch of long-haired youths (who also engage in dope-smoking and revolutionary talk) is a somewhat half-baked attempt at contemporary relevance \u0096 but it all eventually adds to the fun (besides, even the black barmaid sports an Afro hairdo!).

Mario Adorf, too, enjoys himself tremendously with the smallish role of a larger-than-life Mexican bandit nicknamed \"El Diablo\" \u0096 who keeps a youthful biographer constantly by his side (an element which may have influenced Clint Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN [1992]) and, at one point, challenges the captive Moschin to a head-butting duel! Having mentioned this, the film also contains one very unusual 'weapon of death' \u0096 as Hallyday disposes of an adversary by kicking the cash-register of the saloon into his face! As always, the enjoyably fake fistfights are accompanied by over-emphatic sound effects; equally typically for the genre, however, the wistful score by Angelo Francesco Lavagnino emerges a most significant asset. Actually, the ambiguous ending is entirely in keeping with the film's generally somber tone \u0096 after Fabian's comeuppance at the hands of the locals, the hippies (who had previously idolized Hud) suddenly turn against him when wounded and terrorize the town (forcing everyone on the street and unclothed)\u0085but the unflappable gunman manages to lift himself up to meet their challenge (they, however, scurry away at the prospect of facing him!) and then rides out of town, leaving Fennec behind.

In conclusion, I acquired this via a good-quality Widescreen print in Italian albeit with French credits and the occasional lapse \u0096 about one minute of screen-time in all \u0096 into the French language (where, apparently, the original soundtrack wasn't available).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You gotta love the spaghetti western universe. The vision of a west where good guys get shot point blank with no warning, cartoonish villains chew the scenery in extreme close-ups, and the anti-hero walks away from the girl in the end. A lot of people call Corbucci's films 'depressing'. I find that a bit dodgy as far as descriptions go. I think bleak and unforgiving are more apt mostly because 'depressing' suggests a level of sentimentality almost every Eurowestern director ignored in favour of painting characters in broad strokes.

GLI SPECIALISTI must be seen in all its widescreen glory before it can take its proper place in the Sergio Corbucci canon. It's a beautiful movie. And it makes sense that Corbucci wanted to blow off some steam with COMPANEROS after the unremitting one two punch of THE GREAT SILENCE and this (although he would later revert back to his usual tricks with the foulmouthed SONNY AND JED). There's still a certain amount of caricature that detracts from the overall grimness of the movie, imo it hurts more than does any good to have a needless inclusion of three kids dressed like hippies skulking around town in search of gold and trouble. And it hurts to have Mario Adorf playing Mexican one-handed bandit El Diablo as over the top as he always plays his characters.

Those minor gripes aside there's more than enough here to wet the palate of the spaghetti aficionado. Shootouts galore, the population of an entire town reduced to crawling naked in the dirt, the typical iconic badassitude of the laconic antihero (played by Johnny Halliday), the moral bankruptcy of almost every character in the movie. Corbucci might never receive the acclaim of the more famous Sergio or the American patriarchs of the genre but you and I know that's a gross injustice for a very talented director. His dynamic shot selection, in depth staging with objects sticking close to the camera and receding in the background, his flair for quick pacing and feverish energy in moving a story that wasn't always all that along, the way he photographs open spaces, everything in his work makes me sure that if Corbucci was American and had emerged 15 years later along with Mann and Hawks, the Cahiers du Cinema critics would have lauded him as an auteur worthy of serious critical consideration.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great little short film that aired a while ago on SBS here in Aus. Get a copy if you can - probably only good for a few viewings, as you'll end up remembering the script - and it's the twists that make this film so funny. Well directed, and intriguingly scripted, it's an example of just how good low-budget short films can be.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When Jean seduces the young gardener for the sole purpose of annoying her husband little does she realise the explosive drama that is to follow.

The short scenario does not waste a word or a frame in this brief interlude in the day of a dysfunctional family. The lives of the father, mother and son are all linked in some way with the gardener. It's this fact that makes the script so intriguing.

For such a short film the production is every bit as professional as any major work and the casting is ideal.

A wonderful little film that can guarantee a few laughs from beginning to end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Screening as part of a series of funny shorts at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras film festival, this film was definitely a highlight. The script is great and the direction and acting was terrific. As another posting said, the actors' comedic timing really made this film. Lots of fun.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Zen and the Art of Lanscaping\", written and directed by David Kartch is a short film about a young man named David (his friends call him Zen) and what transpires in one strange day of his life. Zen works as a lanscaper for an upper-middle class family. The lady of the house tries to get Zen to help her cheat on her husband. Unfortunately, her son walks in on them instead of her husband. From this point on the movie starts to speed through many revelations between the characters along with the eventual involvement of the man of the house. \"Zen and the Art of Landscaping\" is witty, smart and overall very well written. The comedic timing of the actors is also very strong. It's a fun, light movie that I would strongly recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is good,but not Schaffner`s best. My favourite is Papillon and Patton,but this is a sad and very nice film. Kris Kristoffersen is good in this movie and really makes a difference. I am going to miss Schaffner and this is his last film.

A good film by a great director! 7,5\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Hi I have been looking 4 the soundtrack or a song from the film, does anyone know who sung the title song? I think it was called welcome home or coming home.

It is played throughout the film and for the end credits please can anyone help either the artist and\/or title of song thanks mike this is for all you movie buffs lets see if you know your stuff

Hi I have been looking 4 the soundtrack or a song from the film, does anyone know who sung the title song? I think it was called welcome home or coming home.

It is played throughout the film and for the end credits please can anyone help either the artist and\/or title of song thanks mike this is for all you movie buffs lets see if you know your stuff","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was a really nice surprise. I was up late last night and couldn't fall asleep. Not really thinking twice, I turned on my TV and HBO was on, and this film was just beginning. Luckily I saw the whole thing, and I am very happy I did. Because this film was very good. The actors were well-cast, and they did a surprisingly good job. Kris Kristofferson delivered a solid performance, there was a lot of substance behind his lines. This film made me realize he's a good actor. Brian Keith was great as his father, as was Trey Wilson playing the Colonel (this was Trey Wilson's final role before his untimely death. Too bad, he was a quality actor and seemed like a nice guy). Jobeth Williams also did a nice job as Kristofferson's American wife. As far as the direction, I had no idea Franklin J. Schaffner was the director until I read the review in Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide(this was the last film he ever made). Now I understand why this movie was so good. Schaffner also directed Patton, a truly great movie(I haven't seen his other great film, Papillon). While I was watching \"Welcome Home\", I said to myself, \"this director really knows what he's doing,\" not knowing that Schaffner had directed it. There's one really beautiful scene in a Thai orphan refuge, enough to bring tears to my eyes. Not only was this sensitively directed, but it was also directed in a very economical and taut way. There is nothing wasted in Schaffner's effort. The script was one reason this film is so good. The writer doesn't weigh the actors down with too many lines. It was written very simply but very effectively. It just shows you that a lot can be said with few words. This film also made me proud to be an American, at the same time that it showed you how beautiful ALL people are.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For me this wonderful rollercoaster of a film bears repeated pleasurable viewings. Its about the tangled lives of three very different people. Holly Hunter is the obsessive workaholic producer. Albert Brookes plays the unprepossessing but brilliant journalist. William Hurt is the affable but dumb new kid on the block, news anchor.

The classical love triangle emerges with the stunningly witty and self deprecating Brookes in love with Hunter but she of course is attracted to Hurt.

This film works on many levels. At the very least it is a brilliant comedy with the one liners flying so thick and fast that each viewing bears a new harvest of ones that you may have missed last time. Its also a film about attraction and unfulfilled romance.

But perhaps most importantly the film examines the modern obsession with physical appearance and its ultimate triumph over intellect as a valued human attribute. This is personified by the meteoric career success of the Hurt character in contrast to Brookes relative decline.

Despite being fifteen years old the film has some startingly relevant messages about modern news values and the continuing decline in journalistic standards.

This film is a classic in every sense and it is difficult to understand why it has been so neglected","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie is one of my favorite comedies of all time. The dialog is crisp, the pace is fast. Not only is this a clever comedy, this is an interesting look at what goes on behind the scenes in the television news business.

There are so many funny lines...a couple of my favorites:

Ernie Merriman: (sarcastically) It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you're the smartest person in the room. Jane: (seriously) NO, it's not, it's awful!!

Aaron: He must be good looking Jane: How do you know that? Aaron: No one invites a bad looking idiot to their room!

The performances of Holly Hunter, Albert Brooks, and William Hurt were absolutely brilliant! Even years later, I remember this movie well. Often forgotten is the wonderfully funny Joan Cusack! I love the scene where the newsroom personnel are racing to beat a deadline. There are so many funny scenes that it's hard to pick a favorite. I highly recommend this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Excellent movie about a big media firm and the goings on both on and off camera. Covering several years, the film centers on 3 upwardly mobile, young hopefuls, all striving for their place within the corporation. Well written dialogue, flawless acting, and a riveting story made for 2 hours of solid entertainment.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Essential viewing for anyone who watches TV news as it may help to become a little more sceptical, or even cynical. On a personal note I recall taking a course some years ago about being interviewed for TV - what to do, what not to do. The course instructors impressed on us that TV news was a \"branch of show-biz\". That depressing view, which is probably even more valid today than when it was made, is reinforced by this film. Never mind journalistic integrity, what counts is the ability to look good and smile nicely. And make sure you don't sweat on camera.

The interactions between the three main characters form the centre-piece, each with his or her own ambitions, capabilities and beliefs. Brooks takes these differences and sets them into the volatile setting of a TV news studio, and adds more than a pinch of love interest to the mixture. The result is a complex, if somewhat overlong, portrayal of how we compromise every day in order to meet our ambitions and take others with us. It is always entertaining, although the final scene was, perhaps, unnecessary given everything that had gone before.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm sitting around going through movie listings and not really seeing anything I want to see. My appetite keeps saying, \"Something like BROADCAST NEWS.\" That's what I want. Something smart and funny, with adult ideas and great acting and writing, and a directorial style that doesn't call attention to itself. This may well be Hurt's best performance (is this or THE BIG CHILL, to my mind): however eccentric, Hurt is smart, and to play an unintelligent person without making sure -- wink wink -- the audience knows -- wink wink -- hey, I'M not stupid... well, that's fine acting right there. Hunter is note-perfect, and Albert Brooks is a revelation. (And he can read and sing at the same time!) Great, great work.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"James L. Brook is one of those directors who always seems to take a quirky look at life. He isn't only the producer for \"The Simpsons,\" he has some classic comedies under his belt -- \"Broadcast News\" is one of them.

Although it doesn't match his later effort \"As Good As It Gets,\" \"Broadcast News\" is still a very clever, funny and witty movie about a television broadcasting station and all the problems they suffer. There's a great comedic sequence of physical humor where Joan Cusack is running around the building trying to rush a news tape to the editing room in a matter of mere minutes before it is to be broadcast live on TV.

This isn't only very truthful in terms of how hectic broadcasting stations are operated, but also a skillful and honest portrayal of human beings.

A low-key, subtle movie with good acting (especially from Hurt, who I don't always like so much) and apt direction.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I say sadly because if you see this movie now, you realize how low our media has sunk- all the warning signs are in this movie.

It's a great film, I think the last great James Brooks film, but others may disagree. It has rich characters (who are believable as well), great acting, great writing, and although the music got a little cheesy, I even liked that.

William Hurt has never been better. Holly Hunter is stunning. And Albert Brooks walks away with every scene he's in- this triangle of people is beautifully drawn and compelling and made the whole movie soar above it's vital and important topic of the News, and how it's slowly being compromised in our nation.

Watch this with NETWORK for a truly fun and frightening evening.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Broadcast News\" is directed by James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good As It Gets) and has a great cast, including William Hurt, Albert Brooks, and Holly Hunter. Everyone gives a good performance, but they're all too unlikable to really care about them.

Some parts of the film are really brilliant, such as the prologue, and the short scenes with Jack Nicholson. The main reason it doesn't entirely work, is it's a film that relies on the characters being amusing rather than amusing things happening to them.

You could consider it nothing more than a drama, but it's often too silly to be successful there as well. Still, the script makes it worth a watch. Certainly not for everyone.

7.0 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From producer\/writer\/Golden Globe nominated director James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good as It Gets) this is a really good satirical comedy film showing behind the scenes in the life of a news reporter\/anchor\/journalist or producer might be like. Basically Jane Craig (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Holly Hunter) falls for new reporter Tom Grunick (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated William Hurt), but correspondent Aaron Altman (Oscar nominated Albert Brooks) also has strong feelings for her. The network prepares for big changes, and sparks will fly with all members of the studio. Also starring Jack Nicholson as anchor Bill Rorich, Moonraker's Lois Chiles as Jennifer Mack, Mrs. Doubtfire's Robert Prosky as Ernie Merriman, School of Rock's Joan Cusack as Blair Litton, Peter Hackes as Paul Moore, Christian Clemenson as Bobby, Robert Katims as Martin Klein, Ed Wheeler as George Wein and Stephen Mendillo as Gerald Grunick. The comedy is subtle but strong, the romance has it's moments, and it is certainly a believable situation film. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen and Best Picture, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy\/Musical and Best Screenplay - Motion Picture. It was number 64 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"BROADCAST NEWS opens with a series of brief vignettes that are a clever way of starting a story about TV anchors who have no clue as to what they're reporting about.

At a speech before a group of would-be reporters, all of whom are bored by her presentation, most of them leave. When the last one exits, the co-host of the event says quietly to HOLLY HUNTER: \"I don't think there will be any Q&A.\" Subtle line in a brilliantly written low-key comedy, a farce about the show biz aspect of TV anchoring.

WILLIAM HURT is the inept news anchor who finds himself working with HOLLY HUNTER as the network anchorman. Hurt badly needs help in remedial reporting and Holly refuses to take the bait--at first. He knows he's only capable of looking good, but is not a reporter. He proves to be a quick study as long as his earpiece is working and he's getting all the straight info from executive producer Hunter.

Holly's other anchor friend (ALBERT BROOKS) helps by feeding her information she passes on to Hurt. Of course she becomes conflicted about her feelings for ace reporter Brooks and equally strong attraction to the pretty-boy anchorman Hurt, who's having his own dalliance with a pretty staff member.

You have to wait until twenty minutes before the film ends to find out which man she'll end up with. Brooks tells her that Hurt is the wrong one because he represents everything she's against. In this unpredictable comedy, there's no telling who Hunter (the neurotic heroine) will end up with.

Fittingly, HOLLY HUNTER, WILLIAM HURT and ALBERT BROOKS were all nominated for Oscars (Brooks in supporting role), as was the film itself and director\/writer James L. Brooks. All in all, seven well deserved Oscar nominations.

The script doesn't opt for a conventional happy ending--and, in this case, that's the only flaw for the brilliant screenplay. I felt cheated and somewhat let down by the wistful conclusion.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spunky journalist Holly Hunter produces investigative news reports for a major news network. She's a motor-mouthed maverick, dazzlingly good at her job and with little time for romantic relationships. Enter William Hurt and Albert Brooks, two men who vie for her love.

Brooks is an old school journalist who adores Holly because she represents everything good about journalism. They both believe that the media exists to test the Gods, educate the public and fight for truth. Children of the sixties, they embody hippie values. They're defenders of the public good. Knights who fight valiantly with pen and camera.

William Hurt, in contrast, is a far more complex character. Initially awkward, clumsy and self-depreciating, he gradually reveals himself to be a sexy and manipulative high achiever, skilled at climbing the corporate ladder. Unlike Holly and Brooks, he's symbolic of modern media values: news as spectacle, journalism as entertainment, news anchor as celebrity, truth as subject to editing board. We want to despise him and his blip-time junk food journalism, but we just can't quite manage it. He's playing the game by its own rules. Do we condemn him for lacking a moral backbone? Do we condemn the game? Can the game exist if its rules are disobeyed? How have these rules evolved?

This isn't Lumet's and Chayefsky's \"Network\", and so the film never bothers to answer or raise these questions. Content to keep things on the level of light comedy, it ends with Hurt being promoted to London Division and Brooks being booted to a tiny community network. Holly, having rejected both men, remains caught between them. The last bastion of media integrity, this spunky reporter remembers her roots, mourns the loss of Brooks and warns herself to be on the guard of future William Hurts.

It's a cute ending, but compared to \"Network\" the film seems positively trite. Chayefsky's vision is one in which global media, despite its ubiquity, offers less meaningful information. He foresees a world in which globalisation has homogenized cultures, information has become subject to corporatisation and a handful of media monopolies control all international news. This is a world in which the truth is subject to shareholder meetings and economic interests. A world in which viewer ratings determine content and opinion polls dictate top stories.

Perhaps this is why \"Broadcast News\", which longs for the glory days of journalism, ends on such a bittersweet note. It knows what the future holds. Made in 1987, its been living it for at least a decade.

But today, in the digital age, things are even worse. Mergers and acquisitions have left a very small number of massive firms dominating the communication landscape. With this has come the hyper-commercialism of content, the barrier between the creative\/editorial side and the commercial side all but collapsed. Today everyone might be able to start their own blog or website, but these are grass roots affairs. As the communication reach of the individual increases (due to technological progress - email, internet, electricity, air mail etc) the size of the individual's world increases likewise. He must project his voice both further and louder, futilely battling that deafening white noise, the incessant verbal static that is the global community.

So ultimately you need two things according to democratic theory. Firstly, you need a rigorous coming of people in power and people who want to be in power, both in the private and public sector. Secondly, you need a wide range of informed opinions on all important issues of the day. In a democratic society the media system as a whole should produce this sort of culture. Unfortunately, the structure we currently have in the global system works directly against the needs of democratic journalism and a democratic society.

8\/10 \u0096 This is lightweight stuff, but a witty script, some funny moments and a brief cameo by Jack Nicholson, elevate it above most other films about journalism. Interestingly, unlike most films about the media, it never dips into satire, and instead plays things as a straight love triangle.

Worth one viewing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Broadcast News {dir. James L. Brooks, 1987}

****\/****

Although it lacks the emotional punch of Brooks's debut feature, (Terms of Endearment) Broadcast News is a superlative film, with exceptional performances from each of the three leads and a script that feels as genuine and well-researched as a hard-hitting news report. Let it be known, this is a character film first and foremost and a satire second. In my mind it succeeds on both levels on its own terms. The film's characters are given surprising depth and dimension , while the satire remains sly and never bitter. Comparisons to Network are unnecessary because the films have two completely separate goals and attitudes. While also a great film, Network is a cynical and weary work; in other words, its mad as hell and fed up with the state of television. Network's style of satire feels more extreme and guerrilla. In contrast, the characters populating the news rooms of Broadcast News love and live for their jobs (sometimes to the detriment of their love lives.) They derive pleasure from the stresses and satisfactions of news reporting, just as the audience derives pleasure from watching this sweet and romantically realistic masterpiece.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Good drama\/comedy, with two good performances from Hunter & Hurt, but Albert Brooks steals every scene he is in. With a great script, this movie soars and gives everyone a chance to show their acting talent. And although Joan Cusack is not in this much, but she has one if not the funniest scene in the movie. The highlight of the movie for me, was Albert Brooks speech on the devil. Only one draw back is the fact it goes little slow in places. And I only got totally interested in Brooks role, not so much in Hunter's or Hurt's. I give this a 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"...there was \"Broadcast News,\" and what a good thing it was. This one just plain stands up and sounds its barbaric yawp in a manner that resonates two decades later.

There are moments -- especially with respect to the cutesy score -- when this film becomes a bit too eighties, or a bit too \"Sleepless in Seattle.\" Fortunately, they're few and far between.

One-third social satire, one-third romantic comedy, one-third drama, with three flawed but endearing people at its core, it's smart and moving and almost impossibly funny. Holly Hunter in particular may never have been more fun to watch in a comedic role. (And yes, I'm including \"Raising Arizona,\" her other star turn from that era, in this assessment.)

A legitimate classic.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you have not seen this late 80s film about the the Washington Bureau of a Network News station than I highly recommend it. It is a sad commentary on the direction of news reporting in this country but tells the story with wit. The characters are well developed and Albert Brooks performance is fabulous. He delivers all his lines with entertaining understated comedy. I am not an Albert Brooks fan at all so this was a welcome surprise. I have a friend who works as a producer for a local news station and he advised that this is close to reality so kudos to the films writer and director for doing their research.

Fun movie with a lot of insight into the World of Network News. It is not nearly as dark as another movie I also recommend in the same genre 'Network'.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't really know when it was that TV stations began preferring to have handsome men as their reporters - regardless of the mens' IQs - but it was clearly a problem by the time that \"Broadcast News\" came out, and the movie does a really good job looking at it. Portraying a love triangle between pretty boy air-head reporter Tom Grunick (William Hurt), intelligent but nervous reporter Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks) and producer Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), the movie pulls no punches. Probably the best line in the movie is when Tom says something like: \"I don't really understand any of what I'm reporting.\" And in the era of FOX News and such things, a movie like this becomes even more important.

All in all, definitely a movie that I recommend. Also starring Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles, Joan Cusack, and Jack Nicholson in a supporting role as the anchorman.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"TV News producer, Jane Craig (Hunter) meets Tom Grunick (Hurt), an up-and-coming news presenter, at a seminar, and their mutual attraction takes them back to her room. Romance, however, is cut short, when it emerges that Tom is, in his own words, \"no good at what I'm being a success at\", and Jane realises he personifies everything she hates about where TV news is going. The rub comes when Tom reveals he is about to join her news bureau in Washington.

Jane and Tom's initial attraction is therefore given a second chance, but will Jane be able to put aside her professional opinion of the man she finds herself attracted to - and should she? Aaron Altman (Brooks) is Jane's highly intelligent reporter colleague and confidante. Despite his obvious talent, Aaron's career is stalling as he lacks the confidence and people skills - and the classic good looks - to be the success that his new, less qualified and less intelligent colleague - Tom - is becoming. He is also concerned that his good friend Jane maybe falling in love with Tom, despite her better judgement, as it becomes increasingly clear that Aaron has his own romantic feelings for her.

This central romantic plot is set within the trials and tribulations of a TV news network office, where moral dilemmas and ethics are wrestled with quickly and where appearances and dramatic effect are becoming more prevalent and important.

This is where most of the bite comes from with well-observed comment and scenes. One of many moments is a scene where Tom meets the Network's top anchorman, Bill Rorich (a cameo role for Jack Nicholson), for the first time, and the camera focuses on their handshake. In a film full of great lines and dialogue, long and short, you realise a lot about these two men's character from this one quick shot of two hands.

The dialogue between characters is amongst the most intelligent and witty you are ever likely to find anywhere on film and in such abundance. Brooks gets the best portion of them, in line with his character, but even the briefest conversations that are incidental and perhaps over-heard by one or more of the characters as they move through a crowded room, should be listened to.

Hunter is a tour-de-force in this role for which she was rightly (and not alone) nominated for an Oscar, and for which she probably would have got if it was for a role in a film that didn't mock part of what had become a closely related industry - and against a strong performance from another actress in a more traditional feel-good, rom-com.

Brooks is also excellent as the constantly frustrated and occasionally too-smug-for-his-own-good, Aaron Altman.

Hurt, whilst possessing the looks and providing the personality required of his character, does not always convince that he is quite as dim-witted the character says he is or is supposed to be. He displays a latent intelligence that enables him to make the most of his apparent limitations, which may be plausible, but I don't think Hurt quite pulls it off. Apart from when he tells us he \"stinks\" or \"doesn't get it\", Hurt comes across as a bit smarter than that. Otherwise it is an effective performance, in a role where his character is compromised by its intellectual limitations, but Brooks and Hunter slightly overshadow Hurt's performance. It is the only negative thing I can say about the whole film, and who is to say that anyone else would have done it better, or come off any better, when next to Hunter and Brooks and their performances in this movie.

Support is ably provided by, amongst others, Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles and Joan Cusack, and there is also a bit-part role for Christian Clemenson of subsequent Boston Legal fame, and the briefest of bit-parts for Joan's brother, John Cusack, whose face you don't even see.

James L Brooks has provided us with many great TV shows and movies, and this film should rank up there with the very best of them. It may not have won any Oscars, despite seven nominations, but it did win plenty of other awards, and turned Holly Hunter into a star.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i thought it was terrific! very realistic and funny dialogue, and realistic action in a newsroom. i didn't like how the jennifer storyline is not really concluded or how the ending doesn't give us closure. holly hunter fit the part perfectly...she's one crazy actress. this movie is well worth seeing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a love story set against the back drop of television news. The three main stars, William Hurt,Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks create a love triangle whilst working at the Washington bureau of a TV network.

Tom Grunick(Hurt)is the handsome reporter who is being groomed to be a star.Jane (Hunter)is the producer who recognises that Tom lacks the intellectual gravitas to be a real journalist, but falls for him anyway.Aaron Altman(Brooks)is the man who shares her beliefs in journalistic standards is also the man who truly loves her.

Holly Hunter was nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award ,but lost out to Cher(Moonstruck!).She was robbed! This is Hunter's film.Her character Jane is smart,ruthless and totally driven. She is also hilariously neurotic. Her performance is perfect.Just watch her face when she watches the tape of Tom's interview of a rape victim. The scales literally fall from her eyes.

Wiliam Hurt's performance is less showy.He plays a man who is well aware that he is a himbo and a fraud,but is smart enough to know that his rise will be facilitated by people like Jane.He gives little hints of a man who is extremely calculating.

The film comments on celebrity, journalism,integrity and the commercial pressures on news in a medium that is focused on the bottom line. It predicted that news would be dumbed down, that standards would slowly be lowered due to commercial pressures.

Think about this:this film was released before the end of the Cold War and before rise of reality TV.Yet, it predicted the dumbing down of the news.Paris Hilton's release from jail was treated like a major news story! To see how prophetic this film is,just watch your evening news and note the set, the graphics and the presenters.Tom Grunick and his clones are well and truly alive!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not only do I think this was the best film of 1987, it's probably in my own amorphous list as one of the 10-20 best films I've ever seen. For whatever reason, I really connected with this movie, and it is one of the most personal films I had seen at that point in my life (I was 26). For better or worse, I strongly identified with the Holly Hunter character (and I'm a guy!). She plays an extremely bright, loyal and intense woman who couldn't figure out romantic relationships. There were so many things that she said in this movie that were things that I would say or have said to others in similar circumstances. And the ending of the movie I find to be so very, very sad.

Obviously, this role was the big break for Holly Hunter. Clearly, I was not the only one to think so highly of it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't actually seen a lot of movies with Holly Hunter, but seeing her in Broadcast News was a pleasant surprise. She is a hard-nosed journalist, Jane Craig, who has devoted all of her time to TV news show. Her colleague Aaron Altman has carried her torch for a long time without saying anything. The love triangle is completed by Tom Grunnick. He is the slightly aloof ex-sportscaster who is the new reporter. To Jane, he symbolizes everything she doesn't like about news reporting - turning it into edutainment, not serious business. Much to her surprise, Jane finds herself attracted to Tom.

Holly Hunter is doing a great performance as the perky journalist. But I don't quite see what she finds so charming about her new colleague, Tom. It's something with them that prevents us from getting up close and personal with him. Almost as impressive is Albert Brooks, who gives his all in the role of a professional who gives more than 100 percent for his job but doesn't get quite as much in return. Actually, for a while I thought he was Steve Guttenberg from Police Academy (1984). He has a few funny lines and if this was a Meg Ryan-picture, they'd call it a romantic comedy.

Running over two hours, a few scenes could have been edited or left out completely, eg. Jane's and Aaron's trip to Central America. Also, I'm a sucker for happy endings and had preferred a different ending than just a reunion between the three of them seven years later.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't like \"As Good as it Gets\" very much, but I am a big fan of William Hurt and Holly Hunter's work, so I decided to watch this movie. And the most surprising thing for me was the superb work of Albert Brooks. Here, in Spain, he's little-known, and only as a 2nd division version of Woody Allen in the West Coast. He played a great part, but Hunter and Hurt were good too, specially Hurt, in an relatively unusual role for him. Hunter played the role that reminds me a bit of her part in \"Once Around\" (Lasse Hallstrom, 1991).

Finally, the rest of the cast is great, too. Robert Prosky, one of these familiar faces of the american cinema, the ex-bond girl Lois Chiles, pretty good placed on that role, I think, the always perfect Joan Cusack in her early years; and specially the brief appereance of Jack Nicholson. Maybe he doesn't have any good scene, but it's Jack Nicholson, anyway... The Best movie by James L.Brooks, great story (well resolved), and superb cast for one of the, surely, best movies of the 80's","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Typically, I'm a comedy guy. I rented this at the video store under comedy, and thought \"Albert Brooks! Awesome!\" and rented it. It seemed like the romantic comedy, and I remembered I hated those, and had the full mindset of hating this movie.

Boy, was I wrong.

While this is a romantic comedy, it's acted by an amazing lead & supporting cast (Brooks, Hunter, Cusack, and Nicholson), and everything works well within itself. The script sounds real and not forced, like this could be happening in the news station you're watching at night. It takes your emotions and makes you enjoy Hunter and Brooks and loathe Hurt, which makes the ending a bit unenjoyable and fruitless, but it shows how you don't need a happy ending to end a movie, you just need a truthful ending, which is what everyone got. Not everybody's life ends well, and it shows in Broadcast News. Maybe people don't like the ending because it's not your typical happy ending associated with romantic comedies... but it works, it's real, and it's genius. Broadcast News is a classic in it's time, and a fine romance movie up there with \"Casablanca\". Well, maybe not that high, but it's the only other romance I can think of that I like.

Broadcast News: 9\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Movie watchers often say great movies must have 3 memorable

scenes to be considered truly great. Broadcast news doesn't have

three, it has twice that. This movie is extremely well written by

James Brooks. Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks have never been

better. I love this movie for many reasons. It is great because it

makes you laugh and it makes you cry. Albert Brooks has several

great lines and many unforgettable scenes: # 1(laughed) \"I can

sing and read, I am singing while I read,\" with Midnight Train to

Georgia playing in the background. # 2(laughed) Telling the

William Hurt character that \"You really blew the lid off of nookie,\"

after watching Hurt's report on date-rape. #3 (Cried) When Aaron

(A. Brooks) finally tells Jayne (Hunter) that he loves her and she

can't end up with Hurt's character because he represents

everything about journalism Jayne finds dispicable. Finally, #4 (laughed) who can forget the scene where Aaron

anchors the weekend news....hilarious. This movie should have won an Oscar! It has everything I love in

movies, great acting, intelligent script, and even a Jack Nicholson

cameo!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A truly terrific, touching film. Female melodrama at its finest, with a lot of comedy: great dialogue, characters and writing. Any woman can relate to the story because it's a classic: you're in love with \"Mr. Right\" but he has no interest in you until some guy who seems completely wrong comes along and you fall head-over-heels in love. But of course, it's not that simplistic. The characters are real and all of the performances are perfect. The movie is hilarious as well, every scene skewers society. I'd recommend this film to anyone who loves a well-written screenplay of humor and melodrama. You can relate to every character and the plot moves in unexpected directions. A great, underrated movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I loved this movie the first time I saw it. It gives such detail of what executives involved in the news industry will do just to get a story on the air: notably Jane Craig rushing Kenny to finish editing the piece to get it off, and then Joan Cusack struggling to get it in, and William Hurt, who according to Jane commits an incredible breach of ethics, fakes his tears during his date rape interview, a flaw that is pointed out by Aaron. Another high point is when Tom uses Jane for his own benefits, and then turns around and sleeps with Jennifer. The script is brilliant, and the directing is almost as good. All three main actors were great in the portrayals of their characters, Especially Holly Hunter, and Albert Brooks, whom is the funniest in the film. William Hurt is also very good. This deserved at least three Oscars, best actress(holly hunter), best supporting actor (Albert Brooks), and best picture. I liked the last parts of the film where it shows them reuniting 7 years later.

8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has everything going for it: Fully developed characters, a realistic portrayal of working Washington, bathed in warmth and humor that is uniquely Albert Brooks. The dumbing down of network news is even more of an issue now than it was in 1987. Remember, this was pre-cable! So satisfying to care about complex people attempting to achieve complex goals -- and it all moves along with lightning speed. Such a true to life depiction of friendships that teeter toward romance. See if you can spot John Cusack as the angry messenger! And do you recognize Peter Hackes from real life Broadcast News? Finally, if you're from DC, see if you agree with Holly Hunter's directions to cab drivers!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Spoiler Alert

I have never seen comments on a movie, that I disagree with more then the comments people made on this. One could learn from critical viewings of this movie. As an educational film, I rate it highly because it teaches \"how to succeed\"! We do not watch movies to learn; we generally watch for entertainment. As entertainment, I rate it low: the ending is downbeat and cerebral\/intellectual. This conflict results in my eight star rating. The movie follows Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), a television news producer. The network executive introduces Tom Grunnick (William Hurt), to study for the on air news anchor position. Tom immediately charms people with humbleness. Another potential news anchor has been waiting for years for his on air opportunity, Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks). Altman knows all news stories, inside and out.

The Network executive wants Grunnick on the air and Jane argues, saying Grunnick is not ready, he doesn't know the news. They do not listen to her. Forced to place Grunnick on the air, Jane contacts Altman to get information on the news story and relays Altman's comments through an earpiece to Grunnick while Grunnick speaks. We watch the sharp contrast between Altman's\/Jane Craig's words and Grunnick's, as Grunnick skillfully rewords everything Altman and Jane Craig say in his ear, in order to make it understandable, likable and entertaining the audience. Altman gets a chance on air and the network execs require him to seek coaching from Grunnick, the new guy. This new (news ingnorant) guy coaching him? This is something Altman does not see justified, but agrees reluctantly.

Grunnick coaches Altman and gets excited noting hundreds of Altman's shortcomings in appearance, audio and vocabulary. Altman never considered these things before, when he became an expert on the news itself. The complexity of understanding what Grunnick taught him, causes Altman to have a panicked sweating attack (\"Flop Sweat\") when he is on the air. Grunnick eventually becomes the top network anchor and Altman resigns prior to being fired. But Grunnick fails in his attempt for a romance with Jane Craig, because she finds out from Altman, that Grunnick sometimes fakes circumstances in order to make people like him. This turns her off of him. This sends the message that in relationships, we want people who are genuine and not trying to make us like them.

This movie sends the message that getting people to like you is the most important skill in a job, but it is especially true in Broadcast News. There are many people commenting on how this is the dumbing down of TV News and how Grunnick represents a good looking, but dumb guy or all style, but no substance. The opposite is true, Grunnick possessed skills and very complex intellect, to get people to like him, including the presence of mind to know exactly how he appears and sounds, when he is on camera (He coaches Altman to Punch a word in every sentence). Grunnick's flaw that costs him the relationship with Jane Craig, is that he is too driven to be likable and will fake a situation. Many people are calling Altman very intelligent or brilliant. Altman played by Brookes is not as intelligent as Grunnick and the \"Flop Sweat\" scene shows that his mind could not handle the complexity that Grunnick handles when on the air. Altman is angered by this fact that he knew the news and Grunnick suceeded more by getting people to like him. There are also people commenting that these things are exclusive to the TV News industry. The concept that winning friends is the most important skill in a job, is obviously, not popular, but my experience indicates it is true in most jobs. As an education on how to succeed, this movie is fantastic, albeit unpopular. Educational, yes, but it does not have an uplifting ending.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Or maybe not. Whatever anyone thinks of \"Broadcast News,\" good or bad, almost all the credit for that \"thinking\" belongs to writer-producer-director James L. Brooks. As a screenwriter (of which he has long been one of the best), it is not easy to savage an entire business -- in this case, the \"business\" being television news -- but to do it with a smile, a wink, a knowing nod and a laugh practically every step of the way. To do all that takes real talent, something Mr. J. Brooks has in abundance.

One user on this website, in his summary, asked the musical question -- \"Did Walter Cronkite act like this?\" Answerve: No! Of course not! And the reason for that is in Walter's -- uh, Mr. Cronkite's -- day, the only thing that mattered was bringing the news to the people. Same goes for John Chancellor and Chet and David and Douglas Edwards and Howard K. Smith. Sure, they had to pay lip-service attention to their ratings, if only to please their bosses. But all they REALLY cared about was THE NEWS ITSELF.

Now, of course, all that has changed. For the last 25-30 years in the network news business, the only thing that has really mattered is ratings, ratings, ratings. The bottom line. How many bucks will our news division deliver for the network? Don't believe that?

Let's consider \"The Big Three\": Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings (aka \"Stanley Stunning\"). All three have now been on the job at their respective anchor desks for the last 15-20 years (Peter actually got his first shot at the national anchor desk way back in the 1960s but was totally unprepared for the job). Of the three, Dan is the one with the greatest in-the-field training as a reporter. Personally, I think all three do terrific jobs as news anchors and are deserving of their positions. All of which has nothing to do with why all three are actually IN those jobs. All three are now in their 60's (Dan is pushing the big 7-0) and all three are still very good looking. And if you think they're still good looking now, imagine how good looking they were in their 40's, when all three were hired for (let's say, \"put in\") their current jobs. But do you honestly believe that any one of these three would have been \"put in\" had he looked like, let's say, Fred Gwynne (\"Herman Munster\"). Or like -- heaven forfend -- ME!!! Not only that, if Dan were retiring tomorrow, a younger (than he is today) Walter Cronkite would not be able to get his old job back. Why? Not pretty enough. And it would matter not a whit that he is, or once was, \"the most trusted man in America.\"

And this is what \"Broadcast News\" is all about. Tom Grunnick (William Hurt), the next pretty-boy-national-news-anchor-to-be who has trouble with a few minor things, such as thinking for himself, being able to write and knowing stuff. Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), the brilliant news producer with news business standards and ethics, all of which get thrown to the wind when even she falls for pretty-boy-Tom. And Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks, no relation to James L.), a top-notch newswriter and field reporter who has no hope for a national job because he \"flop-sweats\" behind the anchor desk. And many other such flawed characters whom you KNOW really do exist in the news divisions of the various networks.

\"Network\" blazed the trail. Eleven years later, \"Broadcast News\" carried the torch as a worthy successor. In the new millennium, what will be the next movie to savage the business of network \"news you can use\" ..... maybe. Or maybe not.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was completely drawn into the story, but I wonder if perhaps I shouldn't have been so sympathetic to the Hurt character's plight for respect. Because when it boils down, I really think that glam reporters such as Barbara Walters is the devil. ...or maybe the filmmakers were telling us that we're all unknowing supporters of fluff news stories.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Early 80's creature feature concerns a long abandoned gold mine that some intrepid miners are determined to check out. Naturally, they find no gold down there but one very hungry monster that slithers along in search of prey.

While I have to be honest and admit I found it dull at first (I personally prefer the thematically similar \"The Boogens\"), it actually grew on me as it went along. Now, the characters aren't too interesting nor the actors either. The closest to an interesting character is Morgan, played by Keith Hurt. In any event, female lead Terri Berland is quite good looking and Rolf Theison makes his domineering jerk an easy person to hate. The writer played by effects man Mark Sawicki wears thin quickly.

It begins in a comfortably predictable enough way, with a nighttime set piece in which two victims are claimed to get things off to an acceptable start. The monster itself is intriguing for its design (as you can imagine, it gets revealed a bit at a time until late in the game) and for being the product of stop motion animation when this process was no longer used very much. Director Melanie Anne Phillips (directing under the pseudonym of David Michael Hillman) and crew deserve some credit for their creation of atmosphere. They manage to make the film look quite claustrophobic and gloomy, and their use of lighting works well. The film does build in intensity towards a pretty good ending. Suffice it to say, they do the best they can on their low budget.

An obscure little item worth looking into for die-hard horror buffs.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Basically an endearingly chintzy and moronic $1.50 version of the nifty early 80's subterranean creature feature favorite \"The Boogens,\" this entertainingly schlocky cheapie centers on a nasty, squirmy, wriggling monster who makes an instant meal out of any unfortunate souls foolhardy enough to go poking around the notoriously off limits Gold Spike Mine. Your standard-issue motley assortment of intrepid boneheads -- hectoring hard-nosed mine boss, cute, but insipid blonde babe, feisty lady geologist, boozy, inexplicably Aussie-accented (!) seasoned old mine hand, charmless doofus, hunky, jolly guy, and, arguably the most annoying character of the uniformly irritating bunch, a nerdy bespectacled aspiring writer dweeb who's prone to speaking in flowery, melodramatic utterances -- trek into the dark, uninviting cave in search of gold. Naturally, these intensely insufferable imbeciles discover that the allegedly abandoned mine is the home of a deadly, ugly, multi-tentacled beast who in time honored hoary B-flick fashion proceeds to gruesomely bag the group one at a time. Directed, co-written, co-produced and co-edited with dumbfounding maladroitness by Melanie Anne Phillips, acted with dismaying flatness by a rank no-name cast, further marred by lethargic pacing, a drably meandering narrative, murky, under-lit, eye-straining cinematography, a shivery, redundantly thudding pseudo-John Carpenter synthesizer score, and a cruddy, herky-jerky stop motion animation wormoid thingie that's only quickly glimpsed at the very end of the movie, this extremely clunky, amateurish and hence quite delectably dreadful would-be scarefest commits all the necessary bad film missteps to qualify as a real four-star stinkeroonie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I think that this is a fabulous movie... I watched it constantly from the time I was 4 to about the time I was 8... However, watching it resulted in many nightmares. I particularly got them because of the guy that was always like \"the otherworld\" and his friends. I am 12, and I still get nightmares about it to this day. I can't fall asleep right now because I am thinking about it. I love this movie, but it is so scary! I definitely love this movie though, I have very good memories from it. Kate is very good at acting in this movie. Amazingly, I never realized that it was her! I also think that the graphics were very high quality, contrary to what some other people think","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the changing world of CG and what-not of cartoon animations etc. etc., Faeries was a warm welcome at least by me. I think it's important to show these sort of films once in a while, to preserve them and help remind us of where the originality and fun of cartoons actually came from. People were talking about how it is boring because of the graphics and stuff but hey! think about the films that will be considered boring if every film looked like the new state of the art ones everybody and their mother is making these days. Call me old-fashioned but I liked it. It's a wonderful story about supernatural beings and human beings and all it really needs from its audience is their imagination.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I cannot argue with other comments that the story line focuses more on the romance between the Mary Martin and Allan Jones characters, much in the manner of \"Showboat\", than on the life of Victor Herbert. But in the 1930's, would that have been a box office draw? Instead of the Life of VH, perhaps it should have been the Music of VH. There is an abundance of this.

For me, the thrill of the movie came near the end of the movie when Susanna Foster sings \"Land of Romance\". It has been over a decade since I caught this movie for a second time at a local 'old movies' theater. At first the audience was stunned; then it burst into spontaneous applause. I remember the shivers running up and down my spine. My trivia memory recalled the information provided to an inquiring public by a local journalist when the movie first came out back in the late 1930's. 'That note hit by Miss Foster was a far F above high C.'

She may not have had four octaves a la Yma Sumac but the then teen-ager certainly had a range!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Now I like Victor Herbert. And I like Mary Martin and Allan Jones. But it would have been nice to see a real biography of Victor Herbert. Walter Connolly as Herbert does have a decent resemblance to him in his latter years

Jones and Martin sing beautifully though. The Herbert music is just there to adorn the plot line concerning these two musical performers. Jones's John Ramsay is a frail character, very similar to Gaylord Ravenal in Showboat who Jones also played.

As for Mary Martin, it's a mystery why she never had a good Hollywood career. She did films with Bing Crosby and Dick Powell as well as this one. She performed well, but movie audiences didn't take to her. The best musical moment in the film is Jones and Martin in a duet of Thine Alone. The recordings I have of the song are individual and it was written as a duet. There's also a pleasant scene with Jones and Martin riding bicycles swapping Herbert songs as they ride.

The real Victor Herbert with his womanizing and his Irish patriot background and his musical training in Germany where he developed a love for all things German would have been a fascinating study. He was also a cello virtuoso before he turned full time to composing. I have to take strong exception to the reviewer who said Cuddles Sakall would have been a good Victor Herbert. Sakall as Irish, HELLO.

Nice movie, but the real Vic would have been so much better.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Challen Cates does a wonderful job depicting a conflicted bride, torn between the challenges that await her professionally, the memories of the freedom she thought she would have when in college (inspired by a famous author) and the safety of her pending marriage to a man she really doesn't love. This movie is definitely worth seeing--- as predictable as it may be, the acting is inspiring and real chemistry exists between Challen Cates and Malcolm Jamaal Warner.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie was a suprise for me while I was surfing from channel to channel... I don't know why but it filled in me with warmth and happiness. This is what a high budget movie can not do mostly. I liked it, this is \"a must see\" one...

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Most Christmas movies have a \"redemption\" theme but most are a variation on a very similar plot. This movie is wacky and has an unusual plot. You may need to hang in there for the first half where events may seem hard to believe for a movie (but not as unbelievable as real life - Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, says he's never made up anything in any of his cartoons - they're all based on real life stories told to him by his fans). The second half starts to fit the plot together. I enjoyed it.

BTW, one reviewer noted that the idea of someone not having cash available is not credible in these days of ATMs, but it's perfectly credible if you've lost your wallet - who carries ATM cards anywhere else while on a business trip?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"A Fare to Remember\" is a totally derivative, almost ridiculous movie, but has a warmth about it that makes it a very effective and upbeat holiday movie. It stars a pretty newcomer, Challen Kates, as a high-powered ad executive who, right before her wedding, has to rush from L.A. to Seattle to keep a client who has rejected every other presentation. She has transportation difficulties from the beginning and seemingly no money. This is the first dumb thing - were there no ATMs anywhere? She must make a fortune. At any rate, she meets a cab driver (Warner) who looks like a homeless man, and he drives her to her presentation and when she emerges with a huge box of beef jerky (the client's product), he's there to take her to the airport. All flights are canceled, so in order to get to L.A. for her wedding, she hires him to take her there.

Along the way, they bond and learn from each other. It's a very sweet movie though there is absolutely nothing new in it - it combines \"Six Days and Seven Nights\" and a few other films. But the chemistry between the stars is good, they're likable, and the acting is good. Look for Jerry Springer as the head of the beef jerky company and a cameo by Karl Malden.

This is a nice film to take in over the holiday season. It's on Lifetime.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A tender movie that represents how our daily life is a catalyst that causes us to change our thoughts, behaviors and emotions into people we're not. This story is a love story where true emotions arise. I credit Malcolm Jamal Warner (Win) and Challen Cates for outstanding performances . A movie definitely worth seeing, a holiday roadtrip that turns into an emotional turn-a-round. I suggest seeing it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I came across this movie while channel surfing one day; and decided to give it a chance. To my surprise I enjoyed this darkhorse movie. I felt some genuine chemistry between Challen Cates and Malcolm-Jamal Warner. It was such a lighthearted and warm movie that when it was over I felt upbeat. Sure, this movie was predictable from the very beginning, but I give it high marks for the way that it made me feel when it was over. I must admit that I have never seen Challen Cates before, but I feel that she can definitely act. When you combine her good acting with her cute face and attractive figure. She has the makings of at least becoming a well-known star.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is no denying it. Sci-fi on TV is difficult. There are so many problems that the genre brings with it. Like the need for a good budget, solid writing, decent acting. Perhaps the budget and the script writing is the departments where i feel most attempts have failed. So does \"Surface\" succeed? Not completely, but more so than most.

The way i see it, a good sci-fi show doesn't really need a lot of CGI to work, nor does it need a ton of money. What it needs is the capacity to create a larger-than-life feeling. The feeling that there is more than meets the eye, something to make me curious and willing to try and figure out how it's going to end. Adding the pieces of the puzzle and sometimes saying \"Aha!\" is what makes or breaks a show like this one.

\"Surface\" had a couple of flaws. First of all it's basic premise is not as exciting as it could have been, nor is the revealed story as exciting (or daring) as i hoped in the beginning. Also the TV-feeling is very present much of the time. All the way from the crappy CGI (that ranges from decent to awful) to the rather shifting quality in the acting department. Also it feels sometimes a bit too family-oriented in that it takes the edge of sometimes and becomes almost cutesy. But aside from these flaws it's an enjoyable show. Maybe not as spectacular as some of the other sci-fi shows out there. But it manages to keep me interested the whole season and it offers a couple of nice cliffhangers between shows as well. The ending for me is not that appealing. I don't like shows that end without ending so to speak, leaving the story unresolved. It's especially unfortunate in this case since the show seems to be canceled after the first season (it is as of yet undecided).

HBO is to me the benchmark for quality television. Their series have the best actors, the best production values and above all the most solid writing. This is not HBO-quality, but it's good for what it is. Good enough to want another season without a doubt.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the better sci-fi series. It involves character development, a few really tensionate moments and reasonable episode scripts. As one other commentator said here, it looked as if it were a mini series, not a full blown series with filler episodes and low budgets.

The problem with the show, which in short is a Godzilla series, is that it started too big, with incredible monsters, fantastic science, then it all boiled down to local Americans doing stuff. Then, the show ended too soon, since the Olympics were coming and hey! a sci-fi show is a sci-fi show, but half naked athletic people running around aimlessly is much more important. So they only did 15 episodes instead of the expected 22. The audience was small, too, as people didn't really caught it on at 20:00. In the end the suits did it. Trust a marketing plan to destroy anything that looks remotely original and promising.

Conclusion: you have a show with good special effects, stuff like huge monsters killing people or destroying boats, then going into genetic engineering, transforming people, human clones, end of the world, tsunamis. Also, the only fillers are scenes with aggressive rednecks or other annoying people being killed for their stupidity. The down-side is that after 15 episodes that prepare something huge, the show ends. No real ending, no closure, just a bitter taste of cloth in one's mouth, as if you just swallowed a piece of suit.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this show. It's truly unique. I was under the impression it was going to have more seasons. In anticipation of series 2, recently I purchased series 1 to re-watch it in order to be refreshed when part 2 started. Now after watching it I was excited and craving more, so I came to the site to see the schedule for the continuation. I am really disappointed to see there no longer are plans for a second series as I was eagerly looking forward to watching more of this story. I think they really dropped the ball on this one. There was plenty of story line left to build on and lots of unanswered questions. I'm now a very unhappy view and I hope that they would reconsider their decision and pick up the story where it left off.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am continuously amazed at the US networks. What is the matter with them? Yet another very very promising series axed after just 15 episodes and we are left not knowing what the hell happens to everyone. I really thoroughly enjoyed this show and am so annoyed that we will never find out what happens to the characters and the 'monsters' from the deep. This show had everything. Humour, suspense, action. What more could you want. Why oh why did the pull the plug on this? It just doesn't make sense. Buffy went on for 7 series as did Charmed and enjoyable as they were, Surface, Invasion and Dead Like Me were even better. Just because a show does not get terribly high ratings doesn't mean it's rubbish and if they gave it a bit longer probably more people would catch on to it and they would end up with a big hit on their hands. One season just does not give it enough time to catch on and the networks are far to eager to pull the plug. They should learn that like fine wines and cheeses, they take time to mature.

Bring Surface and Invasion back - P L E A S E !!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I like the show, but come-on writers, get some action in it! Quit dragging it on and on. You have a great concept and it could be a whole lot more. Miles (Jenkins) is great and performs as a kid that age should act in the situation he finds himself in. Hey, get creative with the creatures, they may have telepathic capabilities or other out-worldly powers. The kid actors in the series are very good and convincing. The parents of Miles do appear to be a little too out-of-sense as to what is going on, but develop this, come on! you have a great seed here and there can be a whole new twist to next season with a lot of new characters and creatures and all kinds of neat sci-fi stuff. If they could make a series on a witch, then you should be able to make one on these creatures and kids.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This DVD set is the complete widescreen 15-episode run of \"Surface\", a television show made by Universal in 2006. The full running time is 10 hours and 34 minutes plus a few bonus features (deleted scenes, cast interviews, special effects featurette). This was a relatively high budget show and much of the budget makes it to the screen in the form of quality production design and special effects.

Unfortunately 10+ hours is a lot of time and as typically happens with this type of stuff, the overall quality begins to fall off in the later episodes. I found the first 7 episodes (Discs 1 and 2) extremely engaging and the remainder a disappointment. \"Surface\" was produced, written and directed by Josh and Jonas Pate; and it appears that they were surprised by the success of the series and unable to cobble together enough good subsequent material as they rushed to fill the order for additional episodes. It even looks like additional writers were brought in for the later episodes because the characters (who were already the weakest part of the series) lack consistency with the way they were played in the early episodes. The series was canceled and although the last episode provides a conclusion of sorts there are still a lot of things left hanging.

It is basically a science fiction story about genetically created dragons; sort of a television blend of \"Jurassic Park\" and \"ET\". The story begins as a puzzle as a crew-less Navy sub is found adrift at sea, boaters on a Texas lake are sucked into whirlpool, a lighthouse in Africa is destroyed by a huge monster, etc. etc. And as long as things stay this vague there is a fair amount of tension and suspense. A human element is introduced in the form of three American families, one on each coast and one on the Gulf of Mexico. Laura Daughterty (Lake Bell) is a California marine biologist who discovers a strange creature rising from an undersea thermal vent on the ocean floor. Rich Connelly (Jay R. Ferguson) is diving with his younger brother in the gulf when a similar creature drags his brother away (never to be seen again).

Miles Bennett (Carter Jenkins) is a Wilmington teenager who finds some strange eggs floating in the ocean. He takes one home where it hatches into an \"ET\" type dragon. He will spend the rest of the series trying to hide his strange pet from his family and from the local authorities. These dragons may look like lizards but they are more like indestructible electric eels, firing electromagnetic pulses, causing lightning strikes, emptying the sea of fish, and reproducing like a bunch of randy rabbits when they find an undersea thermal vent of boiling water. As long as it's uncertain whether or not they're intelligent, extraterrestrial, or harmless the premise is interesting. Once you begin to suspect their origin it all gets very tired and predictable.

Jay R. Ferguson (a staggeringly bad actor in the tradition of David Hasselhoff) essentially plays the Richard Dreyfuss character from \"Close Encounters of the Third Kind\", so you know that with a better actor and a better director it could have been an interesting character. You will grow to hate this character more with each episode. Unfortunately what starts out as three parallel story lines is soon condensed into two as Ferguson and Bell (a low-budget version of Sandra Bullock) are soon paired up and involved in a series of moronic adventures almost as improbable as the stuff \"Jason Bourne\" gets himself into. You expect plot holes and the need to suspend disbelief in this type of show (that can even be part of the fun) but their adventures are not just totally implausible, they are utterly and completely boring. There are three consecutive episodes that feature Ferguson and Bell together in a submersible that will have you longing for the excitement of an all-day actuarial conference.

Jenkins (Miles) is the strongest member of the cast and the segments with his pet dragon (Nimrod) are inter-cut often enough with the boring Ferguson-Bell stuff to keep you watching. And these segments benefit from the presence of gorgeous Leighton Meester (of recent \"Gossip Girl\" fame) as his sister Savannah. Apparently the producers picked up on the importance of this to their \"teenage boy\" target audience and the one positive thing they did with the later episodes of the series was to introduce Linsey Godrey (Caitlin) as a \"first love\" interest for Miles. So as Savannah's screen time decreases Catlin is gradually phased in.

In retrospect they needed a third storyline to keep viewers sufficiently engaged and it would have been better to limit the adult melodrama in favor of a second group of young actors.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have bought the complete season of Surface. watched it in 3 days! I was so captured by the the plot, theories and basically everything about this show. The actor who plays Miles is great. Mile's sister, mother and father acted like real life family would. You could connect on so many levels it's fascinating.

I find animals are so wonderful, you can almost connect with them as a parent is to a child. It would be something if a creature of this sort of nature truly exists.

Am sadden, that Surface is not having a second season or at least four more shows. I have so many questions that need to be answered and hopefully maybe they will create more or maybe in a book.

Love the show very much. For those who haven't watched Surface, if you like sci-fi you need to watch this!!!!!!!!!!!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The problem with TV today is that people have been spoiled by \"lite\" TV viewing. This type of television show is the equivalent of elevator music or \"easy listening\" jazz. The typical viewers idea of \"continuity\" is remembering who got voted off the island last week and wondering who will be the next to go. Show them a program like surface, Firefly, Dr. Who, or anything with a plot arc of more than three episodes and...well, they'll just flip back to Survivor.

95% of the sheep watching TV don't want to rack their brains. They want excuses to not think. They want to make sure the \"boob tube\" lives up to its name...and they don't want shows that try and go any other route. Because of this, Surface and many other high-quality shows that should have lasted far longer have gotten the axe.

TV viewers don't want stories, or morals, or philosophy, or anything over a third grade vocabulary level. They want people eating earthworms, or over-dramatized \"real life\" series (no such thing! You cannot observe something without changing the very nature of what you observe) or hormonal shows involving groups of people having trysts and then bragging about it to their friends.

Today's television is nothing but a wasteland, and the few diamonds you can pick out of the dust are just tossed out because no one even knows what a diamond is anymore. Surface was one of those diamonds.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What can I say? I got up this morning and turned on sci-fi and watched half of the first season and figured it all out. Strange, unusual, and brilliant. It gives all potential, and to think at first I said this looks stupid. This has got to be the next best thing since X-Files, but as always nothing will ever take down that show in my opinion. I am telling you, it's scary and then suspenseful and then mellow. Towards the end you have Miles as a love puppy with a weird pet that is a new species. You have two people on the run from authorities. And a killer tsunami about to strike! Wow! And did I mention Miles pet is a potential killer(well the rest of his species is). Surface is a brilliant show with spins and twists that delivers it all.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***SPOILERS*** Whatever else can (or can't) be said about it, SURFACE is superbly crafted. The cinematography is simply stunning (to say the least) and the fx are nothing if not state-of-the-art. Conceptually, the show offers a little bit of everything- and for just about everybody (parents, kids, fantasy and\/or fx fans). CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND by way of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON with a bit of JAWS and GODZILLA thrown in for good measure, say. And there wasn't a single sour note struck acting-wise, either; some surprisingly solid casting, here. This series SURFACEd, seemingly, from out of nowhere and, by sheer dint of its straightforward storytelling, carried the viewer along for the better part of an entire season. All things considered, a job very well done. I only hope it reSURFACEs next season...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's not often that a TV series grabs me right off the bat; a recent chance download of the pilot for Surface had me glued to my seat for the entirety of the episode, after which I immediately set out on a fevered search to learn everything I could about this wonderful series. To my chagrin, I found out it had been canceled after a mere 15 episodes, despite its strong ratings and extremely favorable reviews. Such a shame.

Since then, I've acquired the remaining episodes, and found the first 5 or 6 to be among the best television I've EVER watched. Just fantastic from start to finish, and as another reviewer commented, I LOVED how they ended every episode with a huge finish. I imagine watching it each week I would've been screaming with tension and just captivated, desperately waiting for the next episode to be released. Growing up, I always heard that was how early serial movies used to do it, ending with a huge cliffhanger to get the crowds back into the theater for the next episode.

Well, it seems for some reason or another the suits decided to kill this off, and apparently the people behind the show must've seen the writing on the wall, because after episode 6 things definitely take a turn for the worse. I wouldn't say the episodes actually become BORING but a lot of the plot elements become a bit more clich\u00e9d, and I've got to say, the final episode really left me feeling cheated. I just wish the show's creators were given a fair chance. The *ONLY* other show that left me feeling like that was the first season of Stargate SG-1, which just resonated tremendously, feeling very \"true\", soulful and made from the heart. Surface was a great series, and maybe one day, some well-heeled TV lover will see all the outpouring of emotion about the show's cancellation, and bring back this show. One can hope, at least. :)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surface is one of the best shows that I have ever seen. NBC is so stupid for canceling a great show like this and worse of all only leaving it half complete. NBC or someone else should give Surface at least one more season just so it can be completed. It's as if NBC gave you a book to read and half way through it they decide to take it away from you and then you can never find out the ending. I just want to see what happens to everyone and most importantly see what happens to Nim. I think I can say this safely about most Surface fans is that we want to save Nim! Nim has taken all of our hearts away and then NBC just cuts them in two. Come on NBC, just give Surface one more season!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Someone asked why it was canceled I tell you why Because \"reality\" makes money. the show surface was canceled so that they could replace it with a \"reality\" show, this will haunt NBC, I and about half of my high school, about 1000 people total have vowed to boycott NBC, until they bring this show back. in my area (I don't know about other places) but they had a great thing going with the Sci-Fi channel where the Sci-Fi channel would show last weeks episode at 7:00 and then NBC would show the week's new episode at 8:00 this was great because it gave you a little refresher as to what happened in the last episode. I was so angry when I learned that the show was canceled and they were going to just leave them on top of the church like that!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i don't believe it sixty percent of voters voted this show as ten now how the hell is the rating a five point eight it impossible i don't get it, its totally pathetic i mean how. anyway the show is great the story is great and the characters are interesting, definitely a ten out of ten from me i think the creatures are cool they look great and i wish i had a nimrod great show great cgi hope there's a second series as a lot went unanswered in the first season and when is nimrod gonna get any bigger as the rest of the creatures are huge, again why is the rating so low when the votes were so high

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoy the show Surface very much. The show is very entertaining and it's a clean show. A Show like surface is interesting. It keeps my attention. It has compassion and suspense. I love all the cast members that are on the show. They are all very good choices. i think it is very important to have the right cast of Any show because thats what makes any show a success and of course the scenes and the show itself. Television has changed so much over the years. It has changed in good ways and in bad. I love to watch some comedy,action, suspense and romance. And scifi. But Surface is a show that I hope comes back for many seasons because it is a great show and its something that families can watch. My children are grown, but my husband and I enjoy watching these types of shows. I appreciate your time and letting me comment my opinion.

Thanks.

Paulette Blackwell","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When i started watching \"Surface\"for the first time i was hooked.It had everything i wanted in a show suspense,action,mystery,great plot,and a great cast of characters.My whole family loved to watch the show.It seems when there's a great show on TV the network usually cancels it like they seemed to do with this show.They go by the Nielson rating system which i think is stupid because there is a lot of junk that they seem to watch which the networks keep on the air.If only there was a way for everyone to vote on a show then maybe the good shows won't get canceled.When i watch TV now i only watch good shows so right now thats not watching a whole lot of TV.I hope that the network brings the show back but when they make up there mind with a dumb decision they seem to stick to it.I hope there's a lot of people out there that feel the same way.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I would like if they brought back surface. I really enjoyed the show along with my family. I felt the plot development and storyline were first rate. Like the other person said, it seems that everything gets reduced to the lowest common denominator. Nothing but bland, politically correct junk survives. Just look at the internet to see how many people were watching the show. Also it is not nice to leave us hanging as to what happened the all of the characters on the show. This is the same thing that happened to the time travel show I think was called 8 days but should have been called backstep. Did the Olympics kill surface? I know the writers strike killed another one of my favorite shows years ago called greatest American hero.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am new at this, so bear with me please. I am a big fan of Surface. I thought the script and the computer graphics were exceptional, as good as any Sci Fi flick I've seen at the theater. In February the TV guide said Season Finale, the announcer for the show said something to the effect of, \"...and now for the season finale of Surface.\" Season Finale, not series finale! I couldn't wait for fall to get here, to see was going to happen next. So fall gets here and it's nowhere to be found! If NBC isn't going to pick it up, what about Sci Fi or USA? It seems to me that Bay Watch didn't last long on ABC & then USA picked it up, and it went gang busters! (I bet ABC was chocking) Ha! If not a series, then at least a mini series, to give all us loyal fans closure. What happened to our guy's trapped in the church steeple? Was the creature in the chaple Nim? Did he have a grouth spert? Does the cloned guy come over to our side? There are so many unanswered questions. Thank's for listening to me babble!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This show has an amazing plot with good and recognizable actors (like the girl from Boston Legal and Boris the Butcher from Snatch). Even the extras and the kid, whom i thought from the commercial might be a weak link, surprised me with his skill. It's just the little things that the director needs to tweak. Like the guy who does the recap of the last episode at the beginning of each new episode needs to be fired. Having a narrator tell you what happened kind of ruins the story. The only other small problem I had was that sometimes they take too long to do things, but no where near as long as some shows like Prison Break. Anyone know when they will resume the season??","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"All I can say after watching the DVDs of the first season is that I can not believe NBC \"green-lighted\" this show. It's so different than what's currently in vogue save for Lost. Those who miss the X-Files just may have a worthy successor. Not as mysterious or intense as Lost, I find it to be overall more entertaining.

This kind of extended story is hard to make. I mean it could degenerate into childish dribble if most of the elements do not cohere together. But cohere they do and I think the cast is excellent, the writing sharp, the location and props first rate, and the special effects very good for a television budget. Sure it pushes what is plausible, but as it does it never gets so silly as to insult your intelligence.

Bottomline is that this is great Sci-Fi drama for the entire family. I doubt it will be a classic with a long run like X-Files, but in the meantime I recommend getting the DVD if you missed it like I did the first time around. This fall my must see shows has just increased by one more series!

PS: I just heard it got axed from NBC...Here's hoping Sci-Fi picks it up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surface, from the day its teaser first showed in the summer of 2005, was a tossup. On one hand, it seemed so high-concept and plot driven that to the passerby it felt like it would work out better as a motion picture (or several). Plus, it felt like it was NBC's attempt at a \"Lost-killer\". On the other hand, one may have realized that the story was too expansive to tell in a movie or two, and fans of Lost seemed intrigued.

So, after one (and possibly only) season on NBC, the show is on an indefinite hiatus that could either put it in the vault, on Sci-fi, or filling a gap in NBC's lineup in the summer or fall of 2007 or beyond. Its ratings were some of the better on the network (which isn't saying much), but the show has been taken off the air with no real official announcement of its future.

So, is it worthwhile? Yes.

Surface follows a continuing story format, driven by plot with next to no filler episodes. Almost everything that happens on the show is important to the plot, much like a motion picture. No filler episodes, which put a pain in your side when you missed an episode. Yet, the show's double-edge helped made up for that; Big things seem to happen every episode, but since it feels like a movie you end every episode feeling like little happened and you're left wanting more! That trait of the show, though shows how great it is. The cast is solid; the three main leads, including the beautiful Lake Bell as Laura Daughtery, put in a solid performance every episode, each driven by their own reasons for finding\/studying the creatures. The supporting cast, including Ian Anthony Dale and the brief performance by Rade Serbedzija fill out the cast well. The story is slow to start (my one regret; it doesn't really pick up until a 3-4 episodes in to the short 15-episode season), but the latter half of the season makes up for it. The visual effects are stunning (one's jaw will drop when you see an overhead view of one of the creatures 'attack' a ship), as well.

Many of the show's problems can be remedied by purchasing the complete first season and not having to wait a week (or three) to watch the next episode.

In short, if you've missed the first season and you're curious, go back and watch it. It's no Twin Peaks in terms of quirkiness, but the high-concept nature of it puts in in league with that, Lost, and other similar shows, with a flair for action and adventure. Enjoy it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surface was awesome, I don't know how many Mondays I survived at school just by thinking about the new episode of surface. I loved it, sometimes I had to call home and tell my mom to tape it for me. I was pretty upset when I heard it was cancelled, I mean jeez way to let us hang. So,they can have their new Tina fay comedy(you couldn't pay me to watch that, I think seeing the commercials made me dumber). I'm gonna miss my Monday night fix of Surface, even if my sister did make fun of me. although,kidnapped does look good and, they still have L&O: SVU (i think, i still have to check) (i only wrote the 2 lines above, because they said i needed ten lines).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I am sorry to see that SURFACE has not been picked up for the NBC 2006-2007 season. I guess market demand for inane game and reality shows on broadcast television, a reflection on our sense of culture, has conquered a good story. I hope and pray that some network picks it up so it will continue on as does STARGATE and it's spin-offs.

I also hope the producers find a venue where they can produce the level of Post Production they wished for in a TV Guide interview. Right now the reruns on Sci-Fi, marathons, will have to do. I for one would love to see where the story goes after the tsunami that ended Episode 15. I would like to find out the mastermind of the efficient effort to obfuscate the real identity of the creatures.

FYC Morningbear","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is the first sci fi series that I have seriously become hooked on since Star Trek, (and I haven't watched Trek in years). It takes the invasion theme in somewhat different directions, but has done it in a very exciting way. It also borrows from soap opera format, where it continues the arc throughout the entire year run of the series. The CGI definitely doesn't overcome the plot or the characters, except for Nim, the fledgling creature who is a pet with definite attitude. (Anything that would show what he really thought about the neighbor's yippy dog is A-1 in my book.) He was a stroke of genius.

I am left at the end of the finale asking questions (intelligent ones, I hope) and crossing my fingers and toes that NBC or someone else (Sci Fi, maybe) will continue to run the series and answer those questions.

A really great, classy show.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A new and innovative show with a great cast that keeps you on the edge of your seat. Lake Bell is wonderful..it is to bad that her other show \"Miss Match\" was canceled. I am just glad she came back on \"Surface\". I can't wait for the return of \"Surface\". This show is really something unique to watch. With an eerie underwater world that is akin to Jurassic Park, this show keeps you wondering what is next. Nim is adorable even if he is going to turn into something larger and much more ominous. There are so many generic shows out there that just seem to rehash the same old subjects. When something like \"Surface\" comes along you just have to say \"THANK YOU!\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this was a very good TV series and I would like to see it continue. It really got interesting there at the end and I really want to see where it is going from there. Some times we are to quick to kill a series without giving it a chance. I think this one needs a chance to go on, and I will definitely be waiting for it. The ocean is one of the places that man knows so little about and I think that is a mystery in itself. What is waiting for us beneath the waters of the world. It is even said that man maybe crawled out or slivered out of the waters many millennium ago. Is this a new evolution coming about? Are we going to move down the food chain or fight for our position?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"i have now seen the whole of season one and can say i have not enjoyed a show of this standard in a long time it great to see a show like this in the pipeline and hope that there are many on the way the season final was the best bar none cant wait for season 2 as far as i am conserned things can only get better like how will milles continu to change will rick get his family back and how will they get off the church roof with acting of this level it is easy to see why the show is such a big hit with people as long as people as making shows like this i will keep watching i think its hard now to come up with an original idea as so many shows have coverd a large range of subjects so to see one as original as this is refreshing","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surface was one of the few truly unique shows on TV last season. I can honestly say I modified my schedule so I could be home to watch every episode. Tons of action, suspense, science fiction, etc.

Story was of a boy who found an egg that hatched into a sea creature. The same sea creature that had killed the main character's brother and the woman character (oceanographer) had seen. Most people think it is a deadly killing machine but the one raised from the egg was very friendly.

Only problem is NBC canceled it so now we'll never know what happens... Hopefully Sci-Fi or some other channel will pick it up.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once again, there's dastardly government agencies stopping at nothing to prevent public knowledge of some momentous events. In this case, the discovery of a new underwater species that could threaten the planet's ecology. Although the creature is no E.T. he does seem to befriend one youngster, who protects it at all costs, not realising it is but an infant of the species and is going to get a lot bigger \u0096 and badder This 2005 series had a lot going for it. It is family drama, sci-fi, thriller with more than a few comedic moments. The characters are believable, well acted and well photographed. The show holds the attention. Of course, as with any sci-fi show, suspension of disbelief has to be achieved. And I think it is here. Alas, the series crashed after season one, so we never get a resolution. Infuriating.. There is a general comment I feel worth making here. Many TV networks and\/or film distribution companies cancel, quite arbitrarily, seemingly excellent TV series \u0096 particularly intelligent sci-fi ones. Now there may be some very good reasons for this, although the audiences are treated with utmost disdain and rarely told the reasons. This in itself is annoying. What really gets my goat is that, having cancelled the series, they then issue the thing as far as it's got, on DVD, in an obvious attempt to milk the cash cow as far as possible. For previous viewers of the series that's OK, they know what they're in for but \u0085 many of these unfinished series end on a cliffhanger. Two that come to mind immediately are \"Surface\", and \"Odyssey 5\". If you've heard good things about the series and not seen it you go and buy the blasted DVD and end up with an unresolved plot issue \u0096 it makes me very angry!! I enjoyed \"Surface\" immensely and didn't realise the poor characters would end up in a situation that looked totally untenable \u0096 and we'll never know what happened next. I believe that there should be a prominent notice on all such DVD issues, to the effect that the story is unfinished. Nowadays I check on TV series purchases (IMDB is an obvious excellent starting point) to find out whether a 'complete' series is really complete or not. Buyer beware.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Surface is one of the greatest t.v. series I have seen. The acting is great and the storyline enthralling. Each episode left me barely able to wait to watch the next. I especially thought Carter Jenkins who played Miles Bennett did a superb job...he is a very talented actor and I look forward to seeing more of his work.

I can't believe Surface only made one season...once again the public has let me down. It is hard to fathom that a great shows like this one would get canceled, while crap reality shows continue on year after year. Whoever made the decision to cancel this show really dropped the ball on this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If vampire tales are your cup of blood, then this Goth-fest based on the Anne Rice Vampire Chronicles should prove to be a satisfying experience. A veritable consortium of the undead in a contemporary setting, `Queen of the Damned,' directed by Michael Rymer, is a story of shadows and darkness, and of the unfortunate souls who dwell therein for eternity.

\tThe vampire Lestat (Stuart Townsend), bored with a world that no longer excites him, has been `asleep' for many years; but suddenly, the sounds of that world he hears from his extended slumber change, and liking what he hears, he ventures forth to investigate. What he finds is a world filled with new sounds, a new kind of music-- driving and penetrating-- sounds that assault the senses and make him feel alive and welcome. And he knows that at long last his time has come, that it is time for him and those like him to come out into the open and face the world on their terms. Toward that end he becomes the front man for a band-- a singer and performer unlike any the world has ever known. He presents himself as a vampire, and very quickly amasses a following that extends far beyond London (where it all begins), and will ultimately take him to Death Valley, California, where he plans to give a concert that promises to be beyond anything anyone has ever seen or experienced.

\tLestat is powerful, without question, but there are those of his kind who do not take favorably to the fact that he has revealed them, one of whom is Marius (Vincent Perez), a vampire powerful in his own right-- the vampire, in fact, who `made' Lestat so many years before-- and they are gathering, coming together and making their plans to meet Lestat at the concert. And they are not going for the music. But there is something else, as well: At one point Lestat has inadvertently awakened the `Mother' of them all, the most powerful of all the vampires, Akasha (Aaliyah), who is about to make her presence known to all, and especially to the one she has chosen to rule by her side as her King: Lestat. And at the concert, rest assured, Akasha will be in attendance, without fail.

\tMake no mistake, this is Lestat's story, and Rymer presents it amid a setting rich with atmosphere and with some exquisite moments, though his film has less bite to it than say, `Interview With the Vampire,' or `Bram Stoker's Dracula.' He sets a good pace, and there are some scenes that provide some real thrills, but overall the film isn't as soaked in menace as it could be, or as much as one might expect. In the final tally, in fact, the amount of flesh that is incinerated wins out over actual blood-letting, though there is more than a taste of gore, and more than a fair share of lips and mouths dripping with the red stuff. There's some good F\/X on hand, too, especially in the sequences that accentuate the speed of the vampires, as they move and hurtle through the air faster than the naked eye can discern. It's a decent job by Rymer, but he could have put more teeth into it had he played up the alienation hinted at by Lestat; as it is, you get a sense of his detachment, but not enough to get you totally involved.

\tIn `Interview With the Vampire,' Tom Cruise brought some charismatic star power to the role of Lestat, but Townsend is even more effective, with a look and an attitude that captures Lestat perfectly. He plays him with a sense of acceptance, and under closer scrutiny you may even find a hint of remorse and longing. It's a good performance, and one that sells his character convincingly.

\tAs Marius, Vincent Perez does a nice job, too-- he is, in fact, one of the strengths of the film-- though his character is a bit ambiguous; that, however, has more to do with the way he was written than with Perez's performance, which is quite good.

\tTurning in noteworthy performances, as well, are Marguerite Moreau, as Jesse, a young woman too curious for her own good; and the gorgeous Lena Olin as Maharet, Jesse's Aunt, who ultimately plays a pivotal role in the outcome of the drama involving Lestat and Akasha.

\tAnd as Akasha, Aaliyah is an absolutely riveting presence. What more can one say about her other than she is a gifted performer, with tremendous talent and beauty. And, tragically, she has left us much too soon.

\tThe supporting cast includes Paul McGann (David), Christian Manon (Mael), Claudia Black (Pandora), Bruce Spence (Khayman), Matthew Newton (Armand), Tiriel Mora (Roger) and Megan Dorman (Maudy). With a much stronger story than the usual offerings of this particular genre, Anne Rice fans, especially, will be pleased with `Queen of the Damned,' a film nicely crafted and delivered by director Rymer and his engaging cast. By focusing attention on the drama of the story-- and the way it's presented-- rather than concentrating on merely providing some cheap thrills, Rymer has succeeded in turning out a true horror film that is definitely a cut above, and one that just may whet your appetite for more of the same. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 7\/10.





","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite a few acceptable adaptations of the books' main themes, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED\/THE VAMPIRE LESTAT did not stay true to Anne Rices's complicated story telling. The deep layers that build up all the characters were shredded apart to only their surface, if not a completely different identity. The chronological order of the major events in the movie seemed warped and uneven.

However, there were quite a few things the movie did to deserve my rating of 7. One was that the film strongly captured the affect that Lestat (among other vampires)had to the public, especially young girls. The movie also did a fairly good job focusing on the importance of heredity and history that the vampires took pride in. The scenes of sensuality were also atmospherically satisfying.

The acting in QUEEN OF THE DAMNED was moderate, if disappointing. Stuart Townsend and Aaliyah have a surprising chemistry, though it only shows when the acting is at its best (not very often). The characters are nothing compared to the ones established in INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE. It also lacks the emotional intelligence of THE FEAST OF ALL SAINTS, which is a shame because Rice's Queen of the Damned book had that, and more.

This movie doesn't give all that it appears to be. The effects are dull and very disappointing. The extravagance needed in many scenes is not given, and the dialog is tiring. The settings for many scenes are not how I pictured them in the book, and I think that many of them weren't even taken from the story. There are only a few areas of incoherence near the beginning and middle of the movie, but it wraps itself up fairly neatly, giving the viewer a full story (if they had not read the book).

Somethings that I feel the movie needed include a good original score (Howard Shore or Elmer Bernstein), instead of the mix of rock music; though I had no problem with some of the songs. Another thing that would have made the movie better is better set direction. The scenery was boring as well as unclear, which is important in a story that moves around quite frequently.

Overall, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED was an unevenly disappointing yet somewhat satisfying adaption of the important novel. With a few simple changes, it may have been a very successful piece of film work. I'd recommend this movie for people who has seen INTERVIEW or have read the books, so that they can make their own opinion on the adaption.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although this movie doesn't have the darkness of the books, it is in my opinion a great movie. It's great campy fun with the beautiful Stuart Townsend as Lestat. He may not have the blond hair and blue eyes that are so vividly described in the book, but to be fair, he would not look good with blond hair, and Lestat is most definitely about looking good. He moves like the predator I always imagined Lestat would have.

The visual effects are pretty good, and the soundtrack is absolutely amazing. It's not Interview with the Vampire, so don't try to compare the two. Interview is Louis' story. This is a cut and paste version of Lestat's. In any case, I highly recommend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've seen this movie countes times now and still can't get sick of it. It's like a frickin' drug. I know a lot of people don't like it but there's something about it that just draws me in. Every single performance is spectacular, but Aaliyah is the one who steals the show. She not only played the role of Akasha she became it. Her body movement and beauty was captured exceptionally well. It's also nice to see that a black girl was chosen for the role of an Egyptian Queen (No, I'm not predjudice against white people, I am one). True it's not known what color the ancient Egyptians really were but this was a nice change. Stuart Townsend completely made me forget about Tom Cruise's portrayel of Lestat and Marguerite was striking once again. All in all it was a good time at the movies. For those who haven't seen it, be sure to watch it with an open mind and not take it too seriously. I mean, it's a movie about a vampire who becomes a rock star. Take it as that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It has very little to do with the books: half of the characters have been eliminated, the plot has been greatly altered, people's parents are changed for different characters . . .

However, if you watch it as an independent piece (try and forget you ever read the books) the movie is very well put together, everyone is very good looking, and there is even a sweet ending...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Despite the pans of reviewers, I liked this movie. In fact, I liked it better than Interview With a Vampire and I liked this Lestat (Stuart Townsend) better than Cruise's attempt. All the major players from the series were present: Talbot, Lestat, Armand, Maharet, Khayman, Pandora, Mael, Marius and a half-dozen more (albeit most of them in cameo). Marius, Lestat and Akasha were the main players (and Jesse of the Talamasca). Also, despite other reviews, I think this movie and the music was faithful to Anne Rice's portrayal and ethos, at least as I perceive it. Aailiyah was pretty good as Akasha, in places compelling (her first entrance and mini dance scene). The movie didn't capture the breadth of the books series but I thought it was a nice supplement.

I'm a big fan of this series mostly due to Anne Rice's style, sensitivities and treatments. And I found this movie a faithful and often superlative representation of the author's vision.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The movie, although not faithful to the original novels, succeeds in creating modern gothic vampire vision. Somebody tried to insult QotD calling it a 1,5h music video clip. Actually it is a complement. The everpresent gothic music combined with the music-video-like shots made the movie so moody - and \"Queen of the Damned\" is a mood-driven story.

I do not understand the die hard fans who complain on the modifications of the story. The plot has been modified to be less confusing for viewers who do not know the novels. The number of characters had been lessened and I have no problems with changing Lestat's maker or skipping Mekare's character. The biggest change - the romance of Lestat and Jesse - seemed a very nice addition to me.

Actually, I think that a faithful adaptation would be a complete failure. The slow and gloomy mood, that was perfect to XIXth century New Orlean and Louis's angst, wouldn't fit Lestat's rebellion and his music. And while the book can be slow, descriptive and combining multiple elements yet conveying them well, the movie simply cannot do it without turning chaotic. \"Vampire Lestat\" and \"Queen of the Damned\" can be split into at least three movies - the creators had to choose something.

Some of the special effects, like the flying or walking out of the flames were the only thing I actually didn't like in this movie. But Akasha's death was very nice. The cast was good, Stuard Townsend was convincing as Lestat, especially on the concert, but I preferred Banderas as Armand. I loved Jesse, Maharet and Marius though. And of course Aaliyah was perfect with her quasi-ancient-Egyptian accent.

So if you are into gothic music and vampiric dillemas of loneliness and eternity (and you don't consider books to be movie scenarios) \"Queen of the Damned\" is one of the few movies which show vampires as something more than blood sucking monsters. But please do not compare it to the \"Interview\" movie. It has a completely different style, precisely as much different as different were Louis and Lestat. Personally I find it thrilling first to watch a vampire's existence from Louis' \"bottled hunger\" point of view, and then switching to one devoid of all morals but surprisingly outgoing for a vampire, Lestat.

I'd give \"Queen\" 8 of 10 as it had some technical flaws, but I decided to give it 9 as it's vastly underrated by people who hate it simply because it didn't match their vision of the books, which can be clearly seen by looking at the votes breakdown.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought that this was actually the best vampire movie that I've ever seen. I've seen a lot too. The effects were great, and the casting was brilliant. It was an all around good movie. The makeup and costumes were great too. I would recommend it, but not for kids. It's not a children's movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After going to sleep out of sheer loneliness, Lestat wakes from a 100-year sleep to the sounds of a new music he wants to be a part of and the band \"The Vampire Lestat\" is born. His longing to end his loneliness and his \"living in the light\" attitude along with his music, anger his fellow vampires and awaken an evil that has been slumbering for thousands of years.

This film is not for those looking for a true book-to-film adaptation. Those who have read the books and expect to see it on the screen are in for a huge disappointment. This film will appeal to those who really enjoyed the \"Interview With the Vampire\" film.

There are a few plot holes and incongruencies, but as a whole, this film was satisfying. Stuart Townsend portrays Lestat with a sensuality and sexiness lacking in the previous film. The relationships portrayed in the film were very sexy and sizzling.

As a film, the story compels you and draws you in. Casting is wonderful. Loved this story and film. If you like simmering sensuality and sexual tension you'll love this film!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Queen of the Damned\" is one of the best vampire movies I had ever seen! The movie had suspense, action, and gore. The combination of the fierce demanding attitude of the Queen and the rock mood of our star, very well acted by Stuart Townsend, makes a wonderfully done movie that only this combination can create. I'm always the one to give advice to my friends and family members on which movies are worthy of renting and when they ask me if \"Queen of the Damned\" is worthy, I tell them it's worthy of buying. This movie is most for sure a must-have in all horror movie lovers' homes!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This has been one of the best vampire movies that I have seen in a long time. It was very seductive and alluring, I liked that it did not have the usual gore and carnage that comes along with most vampire movies. The music was excellent. It would be great if there was a sequel.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember disliking this movie the 1st time I saw it, but it has grown on me. I love the costumes and poses the actors make, the humor, the cinematography, the soundtrack. The scenes are very rich, and it moves very quickly. Every time I watch it, there is something new that catches my eye. Aaliyah as Akasha is probably the only thing that ruins it, but not enough.

Also, the Lestat in this movie IS different, it is not the same character. You can see that the character Armand has been given Lestat-like qualities because I'm assuming Anne wanted it in. But there is no reason to trash this movie just because it's not like books, it's a fascinating by itself.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"okay... first to Anne rice BOOK fans....

sure lestat's eyes are not blue...sure he isn't blond in this movie... but even though Marius is not lestat's maker...even though they COMPLETELY altered the story.....

how can u say its not a good movie..

this movie...is the BEST vampire movie i ever saw...and lestat is pictured perfectly in it....maybe not his features...but i don't think one can find a better lestat....the way he speaks...and the way he looks at mere mortals...his arrogance..and sheer love for fame is pictured flawlessly.

if u for once...consider it just a movie..and not try and relate every scene to the book...u will love the movie as much as i do.

now...to the non readers..

be prepared to fall absolutely in love with this movie....it has every thing....and the goth music...is like an added treat... the dialogues...are beautiful...and catching...and even though its a vampire movie..u will find yourself smiling...at the wit of the characters...and u will find yourself sympathizing with the vampires..

overall...one of my fav movies...!!10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have to say this movie is absolutely amazing. I don't understand why it got such a low rating. It has romance, music, darkness and vampires. Also Stuart Townsend did a great job of being Lestat, the acting was great. Also, normally I am not into that music, well sometimes. But I have to say in this movie the music fit it perfectly. If you like dark movies about vampires this is definitely for you or even if you don't there is a love story to this.But,all I can say is one word: Amazing! My Rating is defiantly: 10 out of 10. Anyway, I seriously suggest you watch it. I remember not seeing this for years, I watched it again about a year ago and im addicted to it again. lol. Great movie!!!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"***May Contain Spoilers*** OK, it wasn't exactly as good as expected in fact it was a lot different than I had thought it would be but it still turned out to be a pretty good movie.

I usually don't care too much for that type of music but in this movie it worked perfectly (I mean duh he's a rock star) but anyway I loved Stuart Townsend in this, and Aaliyah, although she had a small part in the movie was amazing.

And even though Tom Cruise played Lestat in the Interview with a Vampire, I have to admit that I am glad he turned down the role even though I normally hate when they use different people to play the same characters in like sequels and stuff.

Overall, the movie was great and I enjoyed watching it, even if there were parts that could have been better. Great vampire movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Personally, I LOVED TRIS MOVIE! My best friend told me about it so i rented it out a watched it. It's amazing! The music, the acting, the story lines the emotion, everything...... well except for one minor fact. Absolutely no loyalty to the books at all. I saw this movie before Interview with the Vampire and before i even knew the books existed, so i was shocked to find how many people actually hated the movie. I picked up quickly that the book fans weren't at all happy with the unfaithfulness, not wanting to be hypocritical (I hate the Harry Potter movies due to lack of book loyalty)i stayed silent. Eventually i picked up \"The Vampire Lestat\" and understood immediately why everyone hated it. It is completely different (The movie Queen of the damned is a combination of \"The Vampire Lestat\" and \"The Queen of the Damned\"). But i still loved the movie from when i saw it before reading any of the books. So if you haven't seen this movie or read the book watch the movie first or you'll hate it. If you have read the book then you have every right to hate this movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I quite this Anne Rice book adaption. While most of the film is filmed here in Australia it offers a great amount of scenery and a fantastic area to shoot in. Lestat (Stuart Townsend) has recently woke up from a long period time of sleep and has decided to betray his vampire oath by revealing himself to a band. When he becomes a popular movie icon his fellow vampires, understadebly, go mad and plot his death. Meanwhile Jesse (Marguerite Moreau) a orphaned member of the supernatural studies, who has an ancient vampire family tree, has become deeply obsessed with Lestat. Her boss David (Paul McGann) understands her obsession and revaeals his obsession with the vampire Marius, (Vincent Perez)who is an ancient vampire and the man who made Lestat a vampire too. Jesse is given Lestats diary and reads of his first killing and an encounter with the Queen of the Damned- Akasha (Aaliyah). When Lestat holds a concert in Death Valley he receives news that not only will angry vampires be there Akasha may come as well. Meanwhile Akasha has other plans. She goes to a vampire coven, a bar, and kills everyone in her path. With Lestat tempted with royality and loving care by Akasha the ancient vampires consisting of Marius and Jesses Aunt Maharet (Lena Olin) plot against them. Join Her Or Die?

I thought the film was fantastic, it had great fight scenes, great music and great locations. Aaliyah sadly passed away in a plane crash shortly before the films premiere, but she looked stunning on the set and off the sets.

I gave this film 10\/10 because it was a fantastic film and I urge you to see it!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In Queen of The Damned,Akasha(Aaliyah) was more sexy and had a bigger,demanding presence, she just caught your eye and attention. now the movie did have faults, like the lack of explaining Akasha's past. What i also Did not like was the that the movie didn't really explain or show more of what the relationship between Lestat and Akasha was\/ or was like.Akasha's (Aaliyah's) role was sort of limited in the movie and she didn't appear until the 2nd half of the movie and then to top it off, her(Akasha's) death came 2 quickly.But i liked how Akasha fought back when the ancients tried to kill her, because in the book the last fight between Akasha and The ancients was rather boring (they killed Akasha in like 2 secs).Akasha's head got knocked off in 1 sec and Lestat turned into the biggest punk in the world.

Aaliyah played Akasha very well and Stuart was perfect as Lestat, they could not have picked a better Akasha or Lestat. \"REST IN PEACE AALIYAH\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"quite good, don't expect anything high culture.......the acting is bad, the storyline fails, but it is still a fairly nice movie to watch. why? because it's dark, a little bit stupid, like unpredictable and just entertaining and fun to watch. do not expect anything, like i said, just see it for yourself and you know what i mean.

it is a movie, without a plot or memorable acting, but there are enough scenes that will make you laugh, cry or at least make you feel compelled to watch it to the end...

this is all i wanted to say....

7 \/ 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I haven't read the Anne Rice novel that this movie was based on, but who knows, maybe reading the book is cheaper than renting QUEEN OF THE DAMNED and is probably better for your health. It isn't that this movie is necessarily bad for your health, but a book can be very relaxing and certainly exercises the active part of your brain more so than this movie. You can count the number of pages by Anne Rice that I've read on one hand, but after seeing this movie and Interview with a Vampire, I get the feeling that she writes really good novels. The plots for both movies hint at a whole sea of deep and interwoven vampire history.

Still, Stuart Townsend's voice-over narration gets a heck of a lot more annoying than Brad Pitt's vampire narrative ever did, and you can tell that QUEEN OF THE DAMNED's limited production resources barely give enough flesh to the Anne Rice storyline. While Interview decided to go with lace and elegance, QUEEN relies on low budget special effects that try really hard to be taken seriously. One can see that the original novel had potential as a movie and that the production team focused its attention in the wrong places. The costumes and rock & roll stage could have been replaced with more blood and an eerier soundtrack.

However, I'll give credit where credit is due. The soundtrack is excellent. Korn and Disturbed had me down with the sickness bobbing my noggin like Butthead.

The film opens with a very cool Goth-rock zoom & splice montage, but after the first ten minutes or so, the directing degenerates quickly. It's as if the movie was so long that the director realized that there wasn't enough time and enough money to do an Anne Rice novel justice. What results are some mediocre vampire scenes and plenty of cheesy special effects. Unfortunately, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED fails to do the genre justice just as its John Carpenter counterparts fail to impress. Where are the yellow contacts? Where's the pale blue make-up? Scene after scene, I shook my head reminiscing about the days of Salem's Lot and Fright Night when low budget was done right.

There are redeeming qualities though that save this movie from being garbage. Props to Aaliyah, and may her soul forever rest in peace. She might have become a renowned actress, had her life not been taken from us so prematurely, for she did give this movie a decent performance with plenty of nice belly dancing. Did I mention that the soundtrack was good? Let's see, what else can I say? It wasn't too long. The Anne Rice novel could have easily been a three hour movie if an ambitious director like Francis Ford Coppola got his hands on it. There are a few twists and turns here and there in the plot. But all in all it was a legitimate rock and roll addition to the slew of second-rate vampire movies out there. The director of this movie went on to direct a new Battlestar Galactica mini series if that tells you anything.

JY

Jimboduck-dot-com","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Aaliyah blows all the female cast members out of the water, including the official love interest Marguerite Moreau.

I would have loved to see this movie play out as Akasha's power trip. Aaliyah is simply electrifying whenever she is on the screen. She does sensual, beautiful and menacing to the power of 10. Watching her take on a bar full of vampires is a sight to behold.

Lena Olin is cast in the ungrateful role of \"the older woman\", which is hugely unjustified. She looks fantastic and at 46 (according to the IMDb) still looks stunning.

The story unfortunately is very limited plot wise, we've seen it all before, etc.

The most heart wrenching is Akasha's death scene, especially keeping in mind what happened to Aaliyah after filming.

All in all, a remarkable vampire movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was looking in the TV Guide for movies that come from Germany and I found one called The Bunnyguards, so I watched it and I laughed myself silly! I wanted the DVD but its not available here (I could order it from Germany but it doesn't have subtitles) It was played again so I taped it and watch it from time to time.

Anyway, I looked for info on it and found out its real name is Erkan & Stefan, but I know it by its Australian title: The Bunnyguards.

Some people who I know from Germany do not like Erkan & Stefan because of their accents, but not being German myself, I didn't notice anything. The jokes are good, but some Germans might find their accents off-putting.

I think this movie is funny and if the DVD had English subtitles on all the extras (having a 2 disk edition with only the feature having subtitles would be bad) I would buy it up in a snap!

I recommend it to anyone looking for a laugh and a pretty good story.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I enjoyed Erkan & Stefan \u0096 a cool and fast story which didn't get bogged down in detail. Those two guys are great to see and are able to come up with new ideas all the time. The high quality of picture and cut support the movie a lot.

Erkan & Stefan show that the German film industry is capable of transferring successful Hollywood concepts with local `satire' into our cinemas.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Those two main characters Erkan and Stefan are a munich comedy act. I was wondering if this is one of these typical slapstick movies where the story is either not important or simply not existing. But when I saw this movie I was very happy that there is a cool story and the main characters really fit in it.

All in all very amusing and not a common german movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great movie. I was laughing all time through. Why? Well, I am from Austria, I can get along with the German (Bavarian) kind of humor. So I guess this movie makes only sense watching when you are German native speaker. Stefan and Erkan both are talking in a new kind of turkish-german accent, which became really popular in our Countries (GER & AUT). But of course they are very stupid. As in every comedy your personal humor will decide, whether thumb up or down.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all, i am from munich, where this movie takes place, and believe it or not, there are guys like Erkan and Stefan, including the silly dialect! I know their comedy show from the beginning and my main fear was, that the movie is just an assembling of their already known jokes, but it is not! The jokes are evolved through the story, and make, in their own special way, sense. But if you absolutely dislike Erkan und Stefan, hands of this movie. Everyone else - it's worth viewing!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I gave 9 of 10 points. I was sitting in tears nearly the whole movie, because I had to laugh!

The story of course wasn't excellent, but it also wasn't boring. Erkan & Stefan are assigned to become bodyguards for the beautiful Nina. While doing this job they come between the \"front-lines\" of BND and CIA. Of course the two are neither born bodyguards nor gentlemen, so they run from one disaster into another; and they do this in such a funny way, that when you watch some scenes you won't be able to stop the tears! As actors those two \"dumbly grinning\" characters do quite well, better than some so called professional.

You think, the speech of the two heroes is curios or \"pseudo-foreign\"? Well, if you hear quite a lot Turkish-German people in Munich speaking exactly like them, you will remember Erkan & Stefan. And maybe, in 10 years it might have become the common speech of the youth. (God forbid!)

So, if you like to laugh, watch this movie!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"These three directors are off to Good Beginnings. The three stories are remarkably well-done for independent productions and capture those traumatic feelings of \"coming out\" when you aren't really sure it's a good idea. I laughed at those veiled glances around the dressing room in \"Pool Days\"; I smiled at the notion that fans of Bette Midler, Judy Garland, and Barbra Streisand are assumed to be gay in \"A Friend of Dorothy\"(ie. browsing through the CD music racks); and I cringed over the \"jock\" in \"The Disco Years\" whose memory of sweet sex was now \"blurred\" by liquor. It all seemed so real. I look forward to more offerings from this trio of directors.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The trio are a pleasant, nostalgic journey to that first hint of desire--when it was still about simple exploration of the unknown--before we \"grew up\" and added those complexities of HIV status, emotional baggage and gotta-run-my-pager-just-went-off into the emotional mix.

The angst portrayed is pure adolescent angst, but it rings true in all three stories. Their sweetness and positivity make you feel good that you are gay. And those kinds of films are few and far between.

Good news! Both Boys Life and Boys Life 2 are now readily available on DVD as of September 1999.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's quite an accomplishment that three stories filmed by three very different filmmakers could be simultaneously so insightful about gay & bi-sexual relationships, and their struggles!

\"Pool Days\" is about the awkwardness of adolescence, and the mutual attraction between an older man and a younger one. A story about experience and vulnerability!

\"A Friend Of Dorothy\" portrays a common dilemma many gay and bi-sexual people experience at some point in their life: the intense attraction towards someone whom is heterosexual. Sensitively examined, this story truly left me feeling moved!

\"The Disco Years\" shows another version of a no-win situation: getting involved with someone who is not only confused about their sexual orientation, but is also terrified of being exposed as anything other than straight! A very empowering story for those of us who have experienced betrayal at the hands of a sexually confused and frightened person!

While these three stories will appeal to anyone who has an iota of empathy towards others, they will psychologically empower those who consider themselves gay, bi-sexual or searching. Each story is uplifting in its own unique way!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This trio of 30-minute short films on gay-related themes are all quite respectably executed. Each coming-of-age story is played out with pleasant charm and naturalness. This film deserves to be widely distributed and easily obtainable. However, it isn't. I had to order my video copy; none of the local video stores or even the libraries had it in stock.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This little short absolutely fascinates me.

The only thing I've seen thus far like it is some of the work by Sam Brakhage, the creator of Dog Star Man. However, where Brakhage is trying to unnerve by \"making us learn how to see again\" and provide us with an affront of head-ache inducing bright colors and flashes (which I still totally dig and embrace as high art...), this film I would characterize as very relaxing and hypnotizing. Man Ray's general use of spinning objects\/camera does not create so much of a dizzy feeling but a warm flow of senses, intermingling and going along with the gravity of the moving world around us.

An interesting conceit of this very short work is that as it goes along, objects become more and more recognizable until we end on a nude torso (of which I feel is the least feminine well-rounded breasts I've ever seen). The circles and spirals of shadow and light over the torso make it an object of surrealistic beauty, something that you could hang on your wall and delve over forever. It's because of this and other images in this film that I had to watch it again and again (eventually a total seven times) just because it utterly fascinates me.

--PolarisDiB","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After 10 viewings in 20 years I too think this was the Crazy Gang's best effort on film, with more cohesion in the plot than their next best, \"Alf's Button Afloat\". They were indeed a crazy trio of double acts thrown together mainly on stage, sometimes in front of royalty, until Chesney Allen retired in the '40's through \"ill-health\". He outlived them all by years. Apparently they were just as mad outside \"work\", regularly playing practical jokes on one another.

The Six Wonder Boys troupe head for I'll-Get-Her-To-Tell-Me (Alaska) to dig for the gold that was being found there. It seemed a better idea than going to Mansfield ... because they'd been there. When they get to Red Gulch they find their information was a mere 40 years out of date - they thought that the chips that were in the guilty newspaper they'd read tasted funny. But by then it doesn't matter as they've all fallen in love with Snow White and want to help her grandad find his long lost stash of gold. Baddie Bill \"M\" McGrew wants it himself however.

The number of verbal and visual puns is astonishing, but most of them will probably only make sense(?) to Brits and ex-pats interested in seeing '30's British b&w comedies. Imho nearly all of the gags and routines work, including the Gold If patter between Bud & Chesney and the \"Whistle While You Work\" pastiche - even the \"Always Getting Our Man\" Mountie inserts. A marvellous little film, in a rather tired looking condition but utterly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I had never read much about (or even seen stills of) the six-man British comedy group The Crazy Gang, but my positive experiences with their contemporaries Will Hay and Arthur Askey \u2013 and especially Graham Greene\u2019s high praise of THE FROZEN LIMITS itself (\u201cThe funniest English picture yet produced\u2026it can bear comparison with SAFETY LAST and THE GENERAL\u201d) \u2013 made me take the plunge with the bare-bones R2 DVDs from Network of this and their subsequent film GASBAGS (1941; see below), both of which were released earlier this year with virtually no fanfare.

A British-made Western is a rarity, but a British Western spoof is rarer still (CARRY ON COWBOY [1965] was still some 25 years away). Incidentally, going back to the Silent classics mentioned by Greene, the film seems to me to be more obviously indebted to THE GOLD RUSH (1925) and WAY OUT WEST (1937). Besides, it also plays like a variation on the \u201cSnow White And The Seven Dwarfs\u201d fairy-tale (which had just been immortalized on the screen via Walt Disney\u2019s animated masterwork) and where the seventh member is played by ancient comic and frequent Will Hay foil Moore Marriott; the Gang actually call pretty heroine Eileen Bell by that name throughout, and there\u2019s even an amusing sequence with the six of them preparing to go to bed and whistling the dwarfs\u2019 song from the Disney film!

Six comedians (three sets of comedy duos: Flanagan & Allen, Nervo & Knox and Naughton & Gold) may be the largest such grouping on film \u2013 though not all of their personalities emerge here: my favorites were big Bud Flanagan (looking a bit like Jim Backus), straight man Chesney Allen and moustached, squeaky-voiced Teddy Knox; however, bald Charlie Naughton often took the limelight \u2013 since he\u2019s the one on which the others always seemed to pick on. Still, it\u2019s Marriott who steals the film from his very first scene \u2013 where he contrives to impersonate every official in the dilapidated theater of a ghost town!; a very young Bernard Lee is also notable as the villain of the piece.

The Ore routine between Flanagan and Allen actually anticipates Abbott and Costello\u2019s famous \u201cWho\u2019s On First?\u201d (the film, in fact, hinges on a lot of wordplay for its humor \u2013 which doesn\u2019t necessarily travel, especially at this juncture). Nevertheless, there are several hilarious sequences throughout \u2013 a few of which even brought tears to my eyes: the opening scene where the Gang are defrocked by a band of angry creditors; their dressing up as Indians once they hit the Yukon; the Gang\u2019s ruse to make everybody rich with the same piece of gold; they all impersonate the sleepwalking Marriott to confuse the villains (a gag which may owe its origin to the Marx Bros.\u2019 hilarious mirror sequence in DUCK SOUP [1933]); the spot-on theater sketch which pokes fun at hoary melodramas; the surreal moment when, pursued by the villains, one of the Gang climbs a staircase that is part of the painted scenery in the theater; and especially towards the end, when a group of singing Mounted Police gallop ever so slowly to the Gang\u2019s rescue (despite being egged on by the increasingly impatient Ranger hero).

The thinny soundtrack and the frantic nature of the gags themselves made it hard for me to get all the jokes sometimes \u2013 subtitles would certainly have been welcome in this case. The Crazy Gang only made five films \u2013 with the first two also being well-regarded, OKAY FOR SOUND (1937) and ALF\u2019S BUTTON AFLOAT (1938), and a much later reunion (though Allen had, by this time, bowed out due to ill-health and been replaced by Eddie Gray) called LIFE IS A CIRCUS (1960; directed by Val Guest who, incidentally, co-wrote both Gang films I purchased as well as some of the afore-mentioned Hay and Askey vehicles!).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After getting thrown out of their last job and finding employment scarce in the United Kingdom, the six members of the Wonder Boys, better known as The Crazy Gang see an advertisement for employment in the gold strike town of Red Gulch in the Yukon Territory. It's from a newspaper clipping and on the back there's a story about Chamberlain saying the country better be prepared for war. Off they go to the Yukon and The Frozen Limits.

By the way, it's case of misplaced Chamberlains. The clipping is forty years old and it refers to Joe Chamberlain and the Boer War rather than Neville in the current crisis. But that's typical of how things go for this crew. I can see Stan Laurel making the same mistake.

Of course when they get there it's a ghost town inhabited only by young Jean Kent and her grandfather Moore Marriott. He's getting on in years and is a bit touched in the head. Marriott's got a gold mine that he's misplaced somewhere that he goes to in his sleep, that is when he's sleepwalking. The Gang better help him find that mine or otherwise pretty Ms. Kent won't marry stalwart trapper Anthony Hulme, but rather saloon owner Bernard Lee, a fate worse than death.

This was my first exposure to the Crazy Gang and I can see both why they were so acclaimed in the UK and why they never made any impact across the pond. The jokes come fast and furious and then were a number of things that the Code in the USA just wouldn't allow. The jokes are also strictly topical British and a lot just wouldn't be gotten over here.

The sight gags are universal, the final chase scene is worthy of anything that the Marx Brothers did in America. My suggestion is that if you watch The Frozen Limits, tape it if you have a working familiarity with British history and run it two or three times just to make sure you pick up everything. It will be worth it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Frozen Limits is a big screen vehicle for the artists known as The Crazy Gang. They were a group of British entertainers who formed in the early 1930s. In the main the group's six men were Bud Flanagan, Chesney Allen, Jimmy Nervo, Teddy Knox, Charlie Naughton and Jimmy Gold. Hugely popular in the variety halls the group were also darlings of the then Royal Family. The plot here sees them as the Wonder Boys troupe who set off to seek their fortunes in Alaska after reading about a gold rush in the newspaper. Only problem is is that when they finally get to Red Gulch it turns out they are 40 years too late!

I often cringe when I see the statement \"it's very British\" because it implies that those not of the British Isles may struggle to get it. The reason it bothers me is because in this www\/internet age I have garnered a ream of non British film loving friends who have been known to split their sides at the best of Ealing, Will Hay and the imperious Terry-Thomas. So, then, is it true that something such as The Frozen Limits is unlikely to be appreciated by a non British audience? Well yes it's true, so much here is topically British, but really it has to be said that the classic movie fan is pretty well versed in history, and when all is said and done the visual mirth here is universal. With the anarchic \"not\" so wild west make over an absolute winner. A winner that has every chance of being more appreciated by an American audience now than it will be by a British audience. Not all the comedy works, and in truth the \"big 6\" are trumped big time by a film stealing Moore Marriott. But there are skits and parodies here that deserve respect and a nod of approval from more illustrious comedy acts. You are unlikely to nearly fall off your chair like I did because of an Ovaltine gag, but if you be a classic comedy film fan? I feel sure that you will at the worst acknowledge there's some very talented people at work here.

Now then, dose the Mounties always get their man? 8\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939, but by then, almost all of Europe had fallen under the advance of the Nazi war machine. Entering the war, Britain virtually started from scratch, with scarce supplies and with an air force that was outnumbered by Germany ten to one. But the will of the Brits was firm, emboldened by their new Prime Minister Winston Churchill who declared - \"We shall never go under\".

On August 8, 1940, the Battle for Britain was on. However for the first time since Hitler's declared stance to conquer the world, he hit a wall. Though massively outnumbered, the British Royal Air Force went on the offensive, and in the span of twenty eight days in September and October of 1940, German Luftwaffe casualties climbed to two thousand three hundred seventy five lost planes and crew. Hitler's rage was seething, but he had to call a momentary time out. Responding later in the year, Hitler launched a massive fire bombing of London on Christmas Day of 1940. When I say that there has never been a disaster movie to rival the real live footage of London in flames during this assault would be an understatement. Perhaps the most surreal effect of this chapter in the \"Why We Fight\" series would be seeing British citizens emerge from their underground shelters following the bombing raids to resume what was left of their life above ground. Even as you watch, there is no way to comprehend the living horror these people must have gone through, as the city of London was left in virtual ruin.

Yet the Nazis were stunned and stymied as well. Everything Hitler wanted to believe about freedom and democracy was now turned on it's head. Instead of being weak willed and complacent like the French, the British were not going to give up without a fight. And fight they did, taking the air battle to Germany and responding in kind with attacks on the German homeland. It was a turning point, forcing Hitler to rethink his strategy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"With all of mainland Europe under his control Hitler prepares for the last obstacle in his way before heading for North America, Great Britain. With an overwhelming edge in aircraft Goering's Luftwaffe looks unstoppable on paper. Once in the air however the RAF tenaciously disrupts the paradigm by blowing the enemy out of sky air at a seven to one rate. The Battle of Britain rages on for a over a year as the Island nation is bloodied but unbowed providing crucial time for their American allies to produce more arms for the inevitable struggle.

Using more staged footage than the three previous documentaries in the Why We Fight series the Battle of Britain has a more propaganda like feel to it with the dramatized (some with unmistakable Warners music score ) scenes glaringly obvious to newsreel. In an ironic twist amid the devastation caused by German air attacks Beethoven's Seventh Symphony is employed to underscore the visual suffering. The story itself is one of remarkable courage by a defiant nation who refused to buckle under to the devastating attacks inflicted upon it by up until that point an invincible war machine. It is the 20th century version of the 300 Spartans.

There have been more exhaustively researched and better looking commercial efforts done on this battle since this film but the immediacy and motivation The Battle of Britain provided then will always make it a more valuable document of England during its \"Finest Hour\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two college buddies - one an uptight nerd, the other a rude slob - embark on a road trip through the country. On the way, they encounter a vicious vehicle that looks like an army tank combined with a monster truck, that tries to run their car over. They escape it, but only enrage the mysterious and dangerous driver more when one of them takes a leak in the top hatch while at a rest stop. Later on, they pick up a sexy hitchhiker who ends up getting involved in their life threatening situation. MONSTER MAN is an extremely entertaining horror-comedy that has some good suspenseful moments as well as some good gory ones. The two lead characters and their constant bickering is fun to watch all on its own and the end takes a TCM-like turn which was very well-done. Absolutely worth checking out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a perfect movie to watch with a loved one on a cold and snowy night. If you like a few laughs with your horror then this is the movie for you. The makings of a real cult classic. It has everything you would want to see in a horror movie. A beautiful girl, A hero, The buffoon, A MONSTER TRUCK and of course a family of mutant satanic killers. This one is full of blood,guts and gore. I strongly recommend watching this one in the wee early morning hours, and be careful of who sees you being entertained by the sounds of Monster trucks, Bad {But Funny } One liners and our Hero eating eye ball stew. Not as good as the Evil Dead but a close second. Just remember WARNING..... Do NOT EAT BEFORE VIEWING THIS FILM...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I know that Chill Wills usually played lovable old sorts in Westerns. But his role in this segment is something I've remembered for a long time. Wills could be a first rate villain. Yes, Burgess Meredith's Fall was correct! That look in Hepplewhite's eye! It expressed porcine greed, ignorance, and the threat of violence all at once. Quite a performance, I think.

The segment itself was a good one, too. Question: couldn't the little black bag cure alcoholism? I guess it did, sort of, with Fall. But the doctor would have been wise to apply the cure, if he had it, as quickly as possible to Hepplewhite.

There is one moment that was annoying but also necessary. And it is something that appears to recur in these Night Gallery segments. It's Serling's constant need to sermonize. For that's what we got, one more time, with Dr. Fall. I don't know what was more frustrating, losing the black bag and all its miracles or not being to stop Fall from preaching about the bag's benefit for humanity, all while rubbing Hepplewhite's greedy face in the mud, and, therefore, all but begging for Hepplewhite to strike out at him. But as I say, it was necessary. At least it was for me. Otherwise, we wouldn't have been able to see Wills' performance discussed above. All done without moving a muscle or speaking a word.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can understand why others reacted rather unpleasantly towards the climax yielding a twist that really is hard to take seriously. I think, though, that the build-up to it works rather well. The music, quite menacing and spine-tingling, really provides a spooky aura matching the unforgiving sound of a constant ringing telephone that is driving struggling English actress, Joan Matlin(Jean Marsh)bonkers. She's borrowing a pal's nice apartment while attempting to jump-start her career in New York City(..the city buildings outside the window look about as realistic as David Letterman's)and is unceremoniously welcome by a noisy telephone which rings quite a bit, followed by loud slams against the wall. Searching for answers regarding the one responsible for such disregard towards her sanity, Joan discovers that no one rents that room, and that a former tenant had in fact strangled herself. Without help from the manager, Joan will decide to find out for herself who is causing her such anguish. Joan discovers the room empty and the phone with a particular female voice which will haunt her.

The episode, I think, is a tour-de-force for Jean Marsh who is a one woman show. She's the only actress visible and we follow her through the crisis which slowly erodes her, the phone and the banging from that other room causing her much distress which grows into fear. Instead of leaving, Joan remains, so shaken by the noise and to the breaking point where she just wishes for the phone(..or whoever is ringing)to stop. The episode provides a possible answer as to who is plaguing Joan and why. A character named Beth comes into the story rather late as Joan struggles to find out whose female voice it was across the other line who knew her name on that dreaded phone she discovers in the room across from hers. The fate of Beth might just tell the viewer why Joan is being traumatized. I think this episode is an exercise in spooks instead of credibility;some didn't particularly like it, but I certainly did. I will admit that the phone, as a physical menace \"crawling\" towards Joan is hard to take seriously, not to mention it's attack on her, but I thought the intense opening twenty minutes before this were suitably chilling enough to make up for it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This \"TFTD\" episode from season one titled ironically \"Answer Me\" is a pretty well done and memorable episode, and it takes a shocking twist at the end. You have Jean Marsh as an over the hill and washed up actress from L.A. who's moved to New York City for an audition and she's living in an apartment provided by an old friend. Oddly every night she's kept awake by a ringing phone from the next door apartment, yet oddly enough the dwelling where the ringing phone continues to ring is unoccupied as the guests have been dead for many years. Finally she has to give in only she should have followed along and not answered the phone with no one home, as it's bad to get wrapped up in a phone with a life of it's own! Overall good episode a strange one though about a supernatural phone still it's suspenseful and it twists well at the end.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"My wife and I loved this film. Smart dialogue, great characters, clever plot construction. The pacing in this film is non-stop. Couldn't even get to the kitchen for some munchies. We have never seen Corey Feldman this funny. Taylor Nichols plays a good Fed...my wife loves him on that \"Married Man\" HBO show. The ensemble cast were all strong. The twist at the end had us cheering. That is why we give this film a \"Standing O.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This picture doesn't have any big explosions or expensive chase sequences. However, it does have really wonderful performances and an exceptional script that puts this at the top of my \"indie-must-see list.\" Taylor Nichols and James Remar are terrific together. The young cast surprised me with really consistent acting. Usually, indie pictures have some weak link, but there are no weak links here. Impressive. Go get this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie about a group of small town teens that decide to rob the local bank is excellent. Brian (Justin Walker) wants to get out of his small town, much like Jimmy Stewart in \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" However, unlike George Bailey, Brian is going to rob a bank to finance his dream of attending art school, even if his father is not supportive. The offer to Brian is to act like a customer and distract the guard. It's a tempting offer that if offered to many, I question what they would do. Anyways, Brian does it. When the Sheriff (James Remar) and his force surround the bank, things go from bad to worse. It's a standoff with even the Feds moving in to kill the kids if they have a clean shot. The Sheriff must prevent this and try to end the standoff in a peaceful way. Unfortunately, tensions rise, and the teens inside turn on each other. Some are out of control. The paper cutter scene is gruesome and hard to watch. Very intense!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this film. Tense with great characters. The kid from \"Sandlot\" is excellent as is Corey Feldman. When the kids storm the bank, it is pure adrenaline. Inside of the bank, it becomes a bit like a \"Lord of the Flies\" situation where they turn on each other. Justin Walker from \"Clueless\" is wonderful. I saw this on \"Showtime\" while channel surfing. It was a pleasant surprise. James Remar is also quite good here as the small town Sheriff. Taylor Nichols who I love from \"Barcelona\" does a nice job too as a Federal Agent. I recommend this film for any fan of bank robbery movies with a lot of good characters. I was shocked to discover that Roger Corman was a producer on this, since the film is not a B movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The efficacy of this picture was best proven on the intended target audience, namely teens. My 14-year-old son became so engrossed in this film that I rate it considerably higher than its imitator \"Mad City.\" It sparked debate in our household on issues such as peer pressure and loyalty vs. doing the right thing. For that alone, I rate this film a 10! Parents should watch it with their teens and discuss it afterwards.

I very much liked the smart dialogue and consistent acting. I thought that James Remar was adequate in his role, but the teenage cast really carried this picture. Other IMDB users have praised Corey Feldman's performance, which truly is inspired. All in all, I give this picture my highest recommendation. Go get this one!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was so well-paced that I don't think I actually blinked while watching. One intense situation after another kept me glued to the set. However, I would have liked to have seen Corey Feldman a lot more in this picture. He just steals every scene that he is in. This could be my favorite grown up Corey performance. The ending was clever and unlike other films which back away from severing body parts of likeable supporting characters, this film goes for it! I liked that it was not graphic blood and gore but left more to the viewer's imagination. Bravo. I literally had to wipe sweat from my forehead during this particular torture scene with a paper cutter. Ultimately, the film works because of its likeable lead character and the awesome presence of my all-time favorite bad guy, James Remar(48 Hours, remember?) I strongly recommend this film for anyone looking to break a sweat.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I recently rented this video after seeing \"Final Ascent\" by the same writer. I wasn't prepared for how intense this film would get. I found it engaging from start to finish, and was rooting for the teenagers to get away with their attempted crime. The ending was definitely disturbing with some of its implied violence, but well-done. I highly recommend this picture.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is like \"The Breakfast Club\" meets \"Mad City.\" It's got one plot twist after another with Justin Walker, Corey Feldman, and James Remar delivering really great performances. However, this movie is not for everyone. If you don't like movies that \"go all the way\" with regards to violence, then don't watch the last twenty minutes. My wife had to leave the room. Of course, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. This is a really gritty, realistic teen drama. I can't believe it came from B-Movie king Roger Corman. This film is a must-see for those who are not faint of heart. Highly recommended.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched the DVD version of BORN BAD and found it to be tense, gritty and, near the end, too graphic for the faint of heart. Justin Walker (Clueless) and Corey Feldman turn in superior performances. For a low budget film, this picture delivers. The depth of character and clever dialogue are two things not usually seen in a Roger Corman picture. Check it out on DVD!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"this is a great movie for all Corey Feldman fans. This movie has a great cast of young actors. a group of teens decide to rob a bank to get some quick cash, but all goes wrong when a security gaurd gets shot and they take hostages","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Born Bad is a well put together crime drama about a group of teenage kids. Teens as well as young adults would find this movie well acted and entertaining. The movie is similar to The Black Circle Boys in the sense that a bunch of teenage boys go around their town making up their own rules and not caring about the consequences.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As a camera operator, I couldn't help but admire the great look that this picture achieved. The performances were excellent, as was the story. Just when I thought this film was about to slow down, it didn't. Heart-pounding tension, great pacing through editing, and a score that knows when to be quiet all come together here under competent and capable direction. The camera was always in the right place. Love that.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just saw this movie on Showtime in the wee hours of the night. I was viewing the beginning with one eye open, but instead of drifting off to sleep, I became invested in this crafty, nail-bitter of a movie. It was very believable and engaging. I could have done without so much profanity(as with every David Mamet movie I see), but thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I know teenagers swear, but I don't need to listen to it. Anyways, the story had some interesting surprises which I won't reveal but if you have a chance to catch this movie on Showtime, I think you will enjoy it as much as I have.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As an adult, I am grateful to have caught this movie by chance when I was a teen. During the time, I was experiencing familial problems. This particular movie managed to capture what I was seeing from a closeted world. How much peer pressure is too much? I actually had to purchase this movie because it reached me on a level unlike most films try to reach an audience. How far might an individual go for social acceptance? Who is the \"bad\" crowd? Teenagers do struggle trying to find out the answers to these questions, but ultimately...who is the \"pack leader\" if there must be one? Is it the strong? The beautiful? Perhaps the person we just all seem to like? Could it be the moral character? As far as the movie goes, the cast worked together as if it were predestined. I only hope that more directors and producers try to create a piece of work that reaches all of us like this particular movie reached me. I wish I could vote higher than ten because this particular title deserves much more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This late 50s French study of disaffected youth (in their early 20's, actually--\"grown up\", but not yet settled down into the adult world) probably missed the mark by a mile in terms of being an accurate depiction of 1958 French youth (don't virtually ALL youth films made by adults do this? The ones that don't--River's Edge comes to mind-- are rare indeed), but director-writer Marcel Carne, of Les Enfants du Paradis fame, is too accurate an observer of humanity to NOT provide an insightful view of the essence of these characters. In a sense, the details are not important--you could change the details and set this film today and it would work just as well--but the loneliness and insecurity and superficial passion and self-righteous anger of the characters is captured well. The young Pierre Brice and Jean-Paul Belmondo are in supporting roles, but leads Jacques Charrier, Laurent Terzieff, Pascale Petit, and Andrea Parisy play the roles with subtlety and depth. There is also a fine jazz score, which you can get on the CD JAZZ IN PARIS--JAZZ & CINEMA VOL. 2. Unlike some who have commented on the film, I don't really see director-writer Carne as sitting in judgment on these characters--he seems as though he is an objective observer to me. Of course, these middle-class characters may seem like people who are spoiled and have nothing to whine about to some working-class viewers of the film, and I think Carne is certainly aware of this. For this American viewer (I watched a dubbed, fairly literally I'd say, version of this titled THE CHEATERS), the film provides an interesting window into the France of the 1950s. It also is self-consciously poetic (the scene on the ledge, saving the cat, is but one example of this) and has intellectual aspirations in that charming way that only French films can get away with--I can imagine the heavy-handed, melodramatic, shallow way this kind of material would have been handled by an American studio production, and the sensationalistic, moralistic, suggestive way this kind of material would have been handled by American drive-in\/exploitation filmmakers. I feel that Marcel Carne has captured the essence of that period between, say, high school graduation and when, by one's early 30s, people have largely settled into a routine, whatever that routine may be. Those willing to watch the film with an open mind and not fire away at the many easy targets it offers should find a serious and valuable study of people in their early twenties. And even if you don't want to do that, you can go in the other room while the film is playing and simply enjoy the fine soundtrack, with great 50s jazz and instrumental pop, including the wonderful original score by an American \"Jazz at the Philharmonic\" group including Coleman Hawkins, Dizzy Gillespie, Stan Getz (spelled \"goetz\" in the credits), Roy Eldridge, and Ray Brown.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First, I rated this movie 10\/10. To me, it's simply one of the best I saw since I was born (I'm 23, but I saw numerous films). The story is cruel, but reality is, too, not ? It went deep into me and stirred my bowels. I saw it about 5 or 6 years ago and it still shakes me - and I still remember it !

Second, there is no 'national preference' (this expression is a direct translation from the French) for this movie. I mean it's not because it is a French movie that I put it so high : it has really caught me when I saw it. Furthermore, I don't know well Marcel Carne's filmography, so I don't know if it is or not his best movie, but I know it is not his most famous : Hotel du Nord, Quai des Brumes and Les Enfants du Paradis are the most famous.

Third, the movie's in B&W, but it deals with inter-temporal problems of youth (not acne) like love, friends and studies in a modern way. It could even be remade frame-by-frame with actual young actors, a Dolby(tm) sound and special effects (a car crash), it would still be a great film !

Problem : Maybe is it a film to be seen by young adults (from 16 to 25 years old) - and above, of course - for its message to be well understood... Did I say it was a great movie ?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I blow hot and cold over Carn\u00e9. He really can be a puzzle for me. I think perhaps his inspiration left him a little earlier than it did for other directors of his generation. Certainly a man who came to maturity in the Thirties with the Popular Front seems ill at ease in the France of the Fifties, with its rampant commercialism and heavy American influence. He is almost thirty years older than his young stars, and it shows. The party scenes go on much longer than they should, as if he were trying to buy time for the anemic scenario to work. Roland Lesaffre's character--he plays Pascale Petit's older brother--seems to exist only to reassure the director that his old-style ideas are still sound.

At two hours, this picture is far too long. Still, let me praise Pascale Petit for her game performance; she was a natural who should have challenged Brigitte Bardot for sexpot supremacy, but somehow lost her way. Andrea Parisy is excellent too as the girl who gets pregnant and wants Charrier to marry her and make her baby legitimate (yes, they still thought that way in the Fifties). Laurent Terzieff is the only French actor who could play an anarchist convincingly: he is great here as he rescues a cat from death, then remarks he can't stand cats. Jacques Charrier only reminds me how mediocre he was as an actor, with that constant little grin and those blank eyes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's generally an accepted fact that Marcel Carn\u00e9's 1936-1946 movies are masterpieces and it's considered polite to say that the rest are mediocrities.This is an unfair opinion:at least ,two of the latter era are eminently watchable:\"Th\u00e9r\u00e8se Raquin\" ,his best post-war work,and \"les tricheurs\" (the cheats).

There's a strange evolution from the Prevert golden hour to \"les tricheurs\":in \"les enfants du paradis\" \"quai des brumes\" or \"le jour se l\u00e8ve\",true love is thwarted by the villains. In \"les tricheurs\" true love does not exist anymore:we deal with a bunch of young people who believe in nothing;falling in love would be incongruous for this youth.The adults are not the villains at all:Mic's brother and mother are kind people ,but she is beyond their command.Very few grown-ups appear anyway.

During two hours,the characters do not stop playing around,dancing,listening to jazz records(a music which was not still part of the bourgeois culture),and heavily drinking .When two of them discover they care for each others ,it will be too late.

The cast is rather good ,Laurent Terzieff as an existentialist cynic and Andr\u00e9a Parisy as a rich kid are the stand-outs.On the other hand,Pascale Petit and mainly Jacques Charrier(who married Brigitte Bardot the same year as \"les tricheurs\")do not possess the ambiguity their parts ask for.They are all smile,too sweet and to nice to be believable.

Oddly,\"les tricheurs\" was labeled \"nouvelle vague\"!When you know what the priests of this cinema school (the likes of Godard)thought of Carn\u00e9 ,it's really a good joke.But this disenchantment you feel throughout the whole movie is really disturbing.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Fran\u00e7ois Truffaut, Young Jerk of the \"Cahiers du cinema\", main bastion of the coming so-called New Wave, made a big show of hating this film and even accused it of dragging French cinema into mediocrity. Translation: Truffaut, who was terminally repressed sexually, was already jealous of the way Carn\u00e9 could make a huge success of a story that pushed all the right buttons of its audience and actually involved it into something important with all the trappings and seduction of sensuality. In other words, where the general public and many critics saw a perceptive sociological analysis wrapped in a beautiful film, Truffaut saw \"Girls on the Loose\".

Carn\u00e9, after all, had everything that would be severely lacking from the New Wave: intelligence, refinement, humour, a great talent as a storyteller, a great ear for dialogue, dazzling technical brilliance, the capacity to make his actors do what he wanted them to do, and a good dose of good taste. By comparison, Truffaut is a provincial bore with nothing to say.

A 50's tragic remake of \"Pride and Prejudice\", the French answer to \"Rebel Without A Cause\", an updated version of \"Children of Paradise\", \"Les Tricheurs\" tells a story of disaffected Parisian youth who have lost their way in an atmosphere of existentialism, sexual liberation and disrespect for traditional and religious values. Some (young) critics perceived Carn\u00e9's take on the subject as the moralizing slant of an \"older person\", whereas I think what happened, quite to the contrary, is that Carn\u00e9 being gay and knowing a thing or two about repression, felt an untold sympathy for the young iconoclasts in his story. Furthermore, this being a French film, there is no mistaking that the rebellion in question is essentially sexual, something that still had to be decoded in American films like \"Rebel Without a Cause\" and \"The Wild One\".

Carn\u00e9's young people are all supremely beautiful, graceful, elegant, spontaneous and intelligent. They are Gods and Goddesses. They drive the latest Vespas and the right cars. The cut of their suits, dresses and duffle-coats was a high point of the fashions of the last century. Their haircuts are still plastered on the wall of your local hairdresser. Their body shape, which they attained and maintained without effort, is still the modern Western ideal. They listen to the best jazz musicians. They know how to move, how to be sexy and how to make love \u0096 even though the pill hasn't yet been invented. They know how to negotiate different social classes and cultures. Unfortunately, they are defined by and live by the code of the gang and their own heartless rituals that exclude sentimentality and make a sin of romantic love. The only thing wrong with them is that their elders don't talk to them and vice-versa. The incidents depicted in this film got a lot of tongues wagging for a long time in France about the amorality and nihilism of youth while still making it a huge public and critical success.

This film is so stylish and gorgeous, I suspect the older viewers who watched it wished they could be like the people depicted in the film and quite a few young filmmakers or aspiring filmmakers like Truffaut developed a bad case of jaundice reflecting how they could never conceivably make a film as sexy or popular as this one, although they would be very good at eventually aiming for the nihilistic bits. On the other hand, given a certain clich\u00e9d aspect of the script (amorous misunderstanding leading to a medical emergency), one can only wonder at the horribly pious and puritanical mishmash Americans would have extracted from the same basic script if they had dared to tackle the subject.

Interestingly, the movie was filmed in the same basic locations as the American musical \"Funny Face\" a year earlier. Where Hollywood saw the picturesque aspects of the Rive Gauche and existentialism, Carn\u00e9 restituted its tragic and ironic dimension. Watch this trailer on YouTube: 19ZkKeoNjPo","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Emilio is a successful business man, a perfect father and a good husband. Or that is what everybody think. The perfect storyline he has carefully built all along these years will start closing around him all of a sudden. Will he be able to keep up with his own lies?

This is a very well laid out drama, with great acting and steady direction. Even though the plot is pushed up to the limit to increase the tension, the movie explores some of our worst fears... Do we really know the people we deal with? Can we be so sure?

The story develops at an increasingly faster pace as it reaches the point where Emilio is not in control of his lies anymore. A good deal of Spanish movies have interesting stories but are far from technical proficiency. The perfect rhythm and well shot scenes make the actors so credible, we get inside Emilio, and hate him, and suffer for him, as his situation gets more and more desperate. There is no need for any Spanish folklore, nor is this an attempt to create a Hollywood style flick. This is real Spain, 2002, and regardless the obvious unlikeliness of Emilio's life existing in reality, there are good chances somebody we know is not quite like the person he claims to be. Not just a great commercial product, it will let you wondering where lies can get us to. Can we keep up?

Well done.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Of course, how could he. He obviously co-opted several aspects from that excellent movie, which was also based on the sensational French case of the self-described \"doctor in the World Health Organization\" who murdered his family and himself when finally unmasked as a fraud. Emilio refers to his son as \"monster,\" he sings to the radio in his car, he hangs out on park benches, and he specializes in investment schemes to defraud his family and friends -- all of this and more directly lifted from \"Time Out,\" which came out the year before \"Nobody's Life.\" It's too bad because this movie is pretty good on its own, with good acting and writing. Whereas Vincent from \"Time Out\" is a much more subtle character who seems to have a sense of ethics even though at times it gets twisted into knots, the protagonist here seems devoid of any character at all save for his winning looks and charm. Seriously, the part where he used X-rays that show his mother-in-law's cancer to bilk more money from his father, then utilizes a subtle twist on the same scam to avoid eviction from his fancy home for failing to pay the lease on time -- it's almost too much. The guy has no shame whatsoever, In fact, he's more like the lead in \"Stepfather\" than some poor schmuck who gets fired and is so humiliated that he can't face the disappointment of his family and friends and feels forced to invent a shiny new life for himself, as Vincent did in \"Time Out.\" Thus, one could feel the tension mounting in \"Nobody's Life\" and the violent conclusion coming. One thing \"Nobody's Life\" has that \"Time Out\" definitely lacked was a love interest apart from the protagonist's trusting wife. It's not hard to understand how the sexy babysitter was able to fascinate and ensnare Emile to the degree that he ignored the danger of her natural curiosity and allowed it to lay bare his less than carefully constructed con. Given the reservations mentioned, this is a pretty good movie that we found entertaining. If you long for something touching on similar elements that goes a might deeper and is more intellectually and spiritually satisfying, I strongly suggest \"Time Out.\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It kept me on the edge of my seat. True, the story has a few plot holes, but the sheer tension of it, the way the director just keeps challenging the premise is simply fascinating.

Jos\u00e9 Coronado and Adriana Ozores are two of Spain's best actors (see La vida mancha and H\u00e9ctor) and here they appear as a happy upper-middle class couple. Beneath it all, the truth is that all of Coronado's life is a lie. He's not an economist, never went to college or does not work in Spain's Central Bank Reserve, as everybody else believes. We get a few insights as to how he kept up appearances or manage to do it, and while not very plausible it is still somehow believable.

The inner-workings of the scam are shown intermittently, but it is credible because Coronado is a source of self-assurance and assertiveness. He not only believes in the scam, he also believes in the film premise, and therefore he carries it.

Sure, it tests belief that a wife would not know the inner workings of a marriage's finances for almost 10 years, but again, since he's supposedly a brilliant economist.

It has been said, in a nationalistic tone, that the movie is not \"distinctively Spanish\", as if that were a litmus test for good film. True, no castanets or odd cabbies in this one, just a taut thriller. You'll want to know how this story ends once you start watching.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I just watched this movie at the Santo Domingo International Film Festival. While watching the movie I had the feeling that I have seen a movie with a similar story before...a movie with Ray Liotta but I can't remember much of it. Of course, this one is a lot more dramatic, especially at the end.

This is the story: Emilio's life becomes a lie that he can not longer sustain. After 20 years lying about his entire life to his wife, son and all the people he knows, the truth is chasing him and there is nowhere to go.

Watching Emilio make up lies is exiting and funny but after a while you get tired of the same thing...the affair with a young girl was supposed to ad something but it doesn't. Despite that the movie is still funny, exiting and involving. Either it makes you want to help Emilio with his lies or help everybody else catch him. I liked the analogies, photography and the good performances.

7.5 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I suppose this movie is not your typical Spanish thriller as it is based in a real story that took place abroad. The movie is based in the real story of French man Jean-Claude Romand, and the real case is much more gory and scary than the film. In the real story of Mr. Romand the family didn't escape, after years of lies he decided to end it all by killing his wife, two children, parents and dog, and although he tried to kill himself, it seems he didn't try very hard as he survived. I watched the movie with people next to me talking about how it could never happen in real life that all these lies went undetected, I was laughing as I had read the book about Mr. Romand, and knew it did happen. I like Jos\u00e9 Coronado in this movie, he offered us a good performance, as the rest of the crew.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay, I'll say it. This movie made me laugh so hard that it hurt. This statement may offend some of you who may think that this movie is nothing more than a waste of film. But the thing that most people don't get is that this movie was intended to be bad and cheezy. I mean, did people actually think that a movie about a killer snowman was intended to be a masterpiece? Just look at the \"scary\" hologram on the jacket of the movie and you'll find your answer. Instead, like the original Jack Frost (which I thought was just as funny), this movie turned out to be a side-splitting journey into the depths of corny dialogue, bad one liners and horrible special effects. And it's all made to deliver laughter to us viewers. It certainly worked for me.

For example: Anne Tiler (to her troubled husband): What makes you frown so heavily darling?

If that chunk of dialogue doesn't make you laugh, then you have serious issues. Who in their right mind would utter those words in real life? Of course, no one because it was meant to sound ridiculous! Just take one viewing of this movie with an open mind and low expectations, and hopefully you'll see what's so damn funny about Jack Frost 2.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Worst horror film ever but funniest film ever rolled in one you have got to see this film it is so cheap it is unbeliaveble but you have to see it really!!!! P.s watch the carrot","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seriously, I don\u00b4t really get why people here are bashing it. I mean,

the idea of a killer snowman wreaking havoc on a tropical island paradise is pretty absurd. The good news is, the producers realized it and made it a comedy in the vein of Army of Darkness.

Especially in the second half of the film, when the little killer snowballs attack, I laughed my ass off. For example, the put one of the little creeps into a blender (a la Gremlins 1) and mix it. After that, it morphs back into a snowball and squeals with a high pitched voice \"That was fun!\".

Bottom line - incredible movie, rent it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is better then the first. The movie opens up with Sheriff Sam .Then, Sam and Anne pack there bags up and head to the Tropicana while Jack tags along.

People are shot, get glass through necks, get squished by anvils, get stabbed with icicles, eyes gouged out, head explosions, drownings, hangings, lobsters shoved into faces, slit throats, freezing to death, killed by snowballs, arms are ripped off, melted by anti-freeze, icicles down necks, hit in face with pots and pans, fingers getting' bitten off, icicles through mouths, bitten on the neck, exploding people, toasted snowballs, and shoved in blenders.

The snowballs are hilarious, they put it into a blender and turn it on, then it says 'that was fun' they put in in a waffle thing and it gets burnt.

This is just a great movie. Then they start thinking of other ways to kill it, and the snowball replies, 'that's not nice'

It was worth then ten bucks spent to buy this.

10 out of 10 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Where to Begin, I like the scary snow-monster named Jack Frost. The whole concept works well for me, we thought he'd be back and he was. Changing the local to a tropical resort works. Seeing old friends and meeting new characters. Scott MacDonald does a great job as Jack Frost, you can tell when an actor has fun playing a villain, you can see it or in this case hear it in the performance. Yup, Jack Frost 2 is a welcomed sequel that is better then the first. I do have one complaint, the little Jacks or the Jacklings as I call them. They looked like hand puppets. I think they could have done a better job with the Jacklings, the mouth could have opened wider, but the CGI was good and as a whole the whole movie is worth watching over and over again. If you liked JACK FROST, then you will like this sequel. No questions or debate, 9 BIG STARS.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie has everything typical horror movies lack. Although some things are far fetched we are dealing with quality snow man engineers. The only preview i can reveal is that i cant wait for Jackzilla. Dare i say oscar winner. This is a perfect date movie. I advise all men for a nice romantic surprise see this movie with that special person.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The problem with so many people watching this movie is the mindset they watch it in. People come looking for a B-Grade horror film, or a \"So Bad It's Good\" movie. Jack Frost 2 is neither of these.

It is, to put it simply, a very good movie cleverly hidden inside a very bad one. To view it as anything other than a screwball comedy (easily funnier than all three absolutely meritless \"Scary Movies\" combined) is to misinterpret the movie on a basic level. It would be like watching Shawshank Redemption and then complaining that there were no explosions.

The premise is simple; the characters from the first movie, haunted by memories of Jack Frost, take a vacation to a tropical island. A new, improved Jack comes after them, now with essentially the powers of Hydro-Man from Spider-Man; essentially, he can turn from water to snow easily and quickly, divide himself, multiply himself, and, worst of all, he's managed to grow an immunity to his only former weakness...AntiFreeze.

What's sad about this movie is that the brain dead fans of the first Jack Frost (a simply HORRIBLE movie) can't appreciate the change of tone for the sequel. Just as Alien was a horror film and Aliens was all about action, Jack Frost was a weak attempt at gimmick horror and Jack Frost 2 is a cleverly written parody of the gimmick horror genre.

Most of the entertainment comes the live action actors, who serve admirably. Particularly funny among them are Ray Tooney (playing a caricature of a retired British Colonel from the early 1900s), Christopher Allport (offering an insane, hilarious spin on his wooden performance from the first film), and David Allen Brooks (taking the once serious role of manners to new, totally bizarre heights).

The lack of \"memorable quotes\" disturbs me.

As a horror movie, Jack Frost 2: Revenge of The Mutant Killer Snowman, rates a zero. But you have to understand, IT'S NOT A HORROR MOVIE.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"*SPOILERS*

I don't care what anyone says, this movie is friggin' hilarious. This is the sequel to Jack Frost, a movie about a killer snowman. The snowman is created when a convicted serial killer about to be executed is taken to the execution chamber, but the truck crashes with a truck carrying DNA manipulation chemicals that make human DNA bond with dirt, or in this case, snow. The first movie was just boring, and eventually the snowman is destroyed by pouring antifreeze on him.

Or so they thought.

This movie takes place about a year after the second. Some scientists resurrect Jack Frost by mixing the antifreeze with chemicals. No explanation is ever given for why they do this, they just do. Meanwhile, the sherrif who arrested Frost in the first is going to the Bahamas. Unfortunately, the snowman comes with him.

This movie has it all. It has talking carrots that can stand up, ice cubes that explode when you stick them in your mouth, and killer snowballs. Yes, killer snowballs. They even say \"Dada!\" like babies. I'll have to give the makers of this credit. The snowballs are some of the cutest little things ever dreamed up. I wish that I could get one as a pet. Frost finally freezes the island, as if a killer snowman has the ability to influence major weather patterns.

Then there's the actors. There's Manners, the FBI agent from the first movie, except here he's wearing an eyepatch. YARR MATEYS, SHIVER ME TIMBERS, I BE AN FBI AGENT! YARRR! And then there's the stereotypical British adventurer and the stereotypical black Jamaican with dreadlocks. And finally, Captain Fun. The fruitiest man on the face of the planet, bar none.

This movie isn't scary, but is is hilarious. I laughed my butt off the whole way through, and I recommend this for anyone who likes a good \"bad\" movie.

*** out ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Jack Frost 2, is probably the most cheesiest movie I have ever seen in my life. The complete title of the film, is Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman. Horror movie fans that have a taste for campy story lines, will be delighted to watch this. This film was straight to video, and for good reasons. Here's why: The acting, was so atrocious, and so terrible, that it could cause one to cry. The main character had no personality, and the actor's bad acting made it all worse. The screenplay was, was also atrocious. Each character always says a cheesy line, and add the cheesy lines to the bad choreography, then you have something bad. Second, the story line isn't really all that impressive, but since this movie was straight to video, it is forgiven. The director, and writer could have turned the idea of a killer snowman, into something cool, but they didn't. They story has lots of plot holes in it. In the beginning, a cup of coffee gets knocked into the fish tank, with the melted Jack Frost. Scientists try to restore his life, but they couldn't. Once the cup of coffee fell into the tank, Jack Frost was completely restored. Now he is immune to anti-freeze. In Jack Frost part 1, the main character's DNA got mixed up with the Anti-freeze that was used to kill Jack Frost. Since the main character is allergic to bananas, Jack Frost is too. Hence, here's my point. They say that Sam's DNA combined with Jack Frost's. But, one of the scientists had some saliva on the cup, so when it fell into the tank, the scientists DNA would have been combined with Jack Frosts. Another thing, the special effects weren't very good either. Here's the good points: Jack Frost 2 has lots of blood, that looks pretty realistic. Even though this movie is flawed to hell, it is still entertaining. Overall, Jack Frost 2 is an enjoyable horror movie. The first one was better though. 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Some will say this movie is a guilty pleasure. I loved this flick but I don't feel guilty about it. You can tell the whole cast and crew had fun making this movie. But Jack Frost 2 won't go over well with some people. Right from the beginning you can tell this movie will be cheesy and it definitely has an amateurish look to it. Well, if you get the privilege to watch this movie, after watching it remember that Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman is a pleasure, not a guilty pleasure. Now, because I can't fill up ten lines heres some great scenes:

**SPOILERS**

The three women on the beach had great deaths. The first one had Jack in a tree trying to drop icicles on one of them. He kept missing so he dropped an anvil on her. The next woman fell on a bed of icicles. The last one was stabbed in the eyes with tongs.

The other great one was where two surfers stoners are hanging out near a frozen pole. One of them gets their tongue stuck on it (of course). Jack Frost pulls him back a rips his tongue off while saying \"COWA-TONGUE-A DUDE!\". Well, you have to see it for yourself.

And of course, the snowball children kicked ass.

**END SPOILERS**

infinity stars","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Okay , so this wasnt what I was expecting. I rented this film just to see how it would be since I want to see the first one anyway. But , this film had B-movie all over it. But when I watched it I realized that it was very funny. For the first 30 minutes It was just how the snowman was kiiling people and one man losing his sanity. But , those first few minutes had some funny one liners in it. When He throws up the first of his little minions I knew this would be very very funny. They all act like the gremlins in the ninteen eighty four hit gremlins that it made it look like it was spoofing it and made me forget it was a B-movie. So if you like to laugh rent this one.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best silent dramas I've seen. As dark and shadowy as anything the German Expressionists produced, but featuring performances that were quite understated and naturalistic for the day. No camera mugging and no unintentional laughs due to wild-eyed arm-waving histrionics. Sjostrom gave a convincing performance as the drunken, mean-spirited and frightening David Holm.

Set mostly at night in a dingy Swedish slum, the film had a very claustrophobic set-bound feel to it, aided by the low key lighting and extensive use of irising.

There was a deep, and typically Scandinavian, sense of despair and hopelessness to the narrative: the film begins in a rather grim present, and then we're told David Holm's story in a series of flashbacks (and flashbacks within flashbacks--a pretty complex story structure for 1921), where his character is offered numerous chances at redemption, but he doesn't take them, and we know he won't take them, because we've seen him die drunk and wretched and mean as ever in the present. The penultimate scene is as dark as any I have seen in all of cinema.

The writing and directing is tight and intelligent, even by today's standards. In several instances, Sjostrom skillfully sets the audience up to suspect one thing, and then pulls out a surprise. The ending might not be such a surprise to some viewers, but I didn't see it coming.

This movie deserves a full restoration and DVD release. Or even a crappy budget release. It just needs to be out there so people can see and appreciate it.

9.5\/10, which rounds up to 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is a masterpiece to put it simply. Especially the double exposure made by the cameraman Julius Jaenzon. It is skillfully made even with the standards we are used to today seventy eight years later. Viktor Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m, the director, also plays the main character, David Holm. On the night of new years eve he is killed in a fight, and the legend says that the first one who dies on the new year, will have to work as a soul-collector in the form of a transparent ghost. There is a new soul-collector to be appointed every year.

The scene in which the alcoholic, David Holm, rises up from his dead body (like the soul is leaving his earthly body) in the churchyard (where the fight took place) is a real award for a filmloving eye. Also when the present soul-collector arrives with his horse and carriage is a beautiful but also a scary scene. David Holm recognizes this soul-collector as a drinkingfriend from earlier life. It is now his turn to take over. Just like Scrooge in Dickens story \"A christmas tale\", David is shown what his life and doings has led to for the people around him.

The film is about the danger of abusing drugs, in this case alcohol. It is based upon a book by Nobel prize winner Selma Lagerl\u00f6f. Viktor Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m filmed a few more of her books, but this is the one with the best outcome, maybe because this book is the most filmic of them.

","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Much said without words.

This is an excellent movie. It was made in color-not color as in today's films, but a special mono-color use (with shadings) that portrayed meaning, mood, sense and time. It should be seen in color, as it becomes an entirely different film. The story, by Nobel prize-winner Selma Lagerl\u00f6f, is effectively presented. One never has a clear sense of real, memory or phantom. Changes going on in Swedish society at the time are subtly layered. Most highly recommend. Try to rent it or find it on-line. I saw it in a Swedish film class and I want to add it to my film library.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Victor Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m's \"K\u00f6rkarlen\" plunges the viewer into life's lower depths for much of its running time, with grim scenes of alcoholic degradation, family violence and suicidal despair, but the most memorable passages involve the mythic image of Death itself. Here Death is embodied as a ghostly horse-drawn carriage, driven by a wretched sinner who was the last person to die on the previous New Year's Eve. For one year the wretch must collect the souls of the newly departed, and after twelve months of this horrible servitude the driver's own soul is finally released when the last person to die on December 31st becomes the new driver.

The scenes involving this carriage (the film was known as \"The Phantom Carriage\" or \"The Phantom Chariot\" in English-speaking countries) are eerie and mesmerizing, utilizing double-exposure cinematography that was quite sophisticated for its time and still effective when seen today. Most strikingly, the carriage travels to the floor of the ocean to collect the soul of a person who drowned. As fascinating as these scenes are, however, the bulk of the film is concerned with the downward spiral of David Holm, played by the director himself in an understated portrayal of a man who has given up on the possibility of living a decent life. In flashbacks we see Holm enjoying a pleasant day at the beach with his wife, children and brother, and he appears to be a perfectly ordinary guy. Abruptly, without segue or explanation, we then see Holm as an alcoholic wreck, in trouble with the law and alienated from his family. Ordinarily this leap from Before to After might feel like a story-telling deficiency, but in this case the filmmakers trust us to fill in the familiar, sordid details on our own. It's suggested that Holm has been led astray by his convivial friend Georges, the drinking companion who first relates the tale of the Phantom Carriage, but whatever the cause of his downfall Holm appears to be a lost cause, a mean-spirited drunk who takes perverse pleasure in inflicting pain on his family and in refusing to reform.

While David Holm is our central figure the story's true catalyst is a young Salvation Army nurse who takes a sympathetic interest in his case and doggedly believes in him despite his hateful behavior. When the nurse herself is dying-- indirectly due to her ministrations on Holm's behalf --she demands to see him, and thus inadvertently sets in motion a chain of events that will result in his recovery.

At times this film resembles Dickens' tale of Scrooge in its use of ghostly visitors who inspire a deeply flawed man to take stock of his life, suffer over his misbehavior, and reform. I was also reminded of Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m's 1917 drama \"Terje Vigen,\" in which a man returns from jail to find his house empty and his family gone (a sequence echoed here). The director also reiterates a standard theme of Scandinavian folklore, found earlier in his \"Berg-Ejvind och hans hustru\" (a.k.a. \"The Outlaw and His Wife,\" 1918) that no man can outrun his fate. This time, however, it could be argued that David Holm actually succeeds in evading his seemingly inevitable fate, for he's given an unexpected second chance to make amends.

Viewers expecting a plunge into the supernatural will appreciate the sequences featuring the Phantom Carriage of the title, but may not be prepared for this film's painful examination of a troubled man's alcoholic downfall. But those with a taste for intense and powerful silent drama will appreciate \"K\u00f6rkarlen\" in its entirety. It stands with the best serious cinema of its era and is certainly one of Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m's most accomplished works.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Victor Sjostrom's silent film masterpiece The Phantom Carriage has recently been released on DVD with a new soundtrack recorded by KTL. The duo, comprising American guitarist Stephen O'Malley and Austrian laptop artist Peter Rehberg, has conjured an extraordinary collection of sounds to accompany and accentuate the original film footage from 1921. An ominous banging sound introduces each Act and a medley of drones, guitar chords and feedback ebbs and flows as the grim drama unfolds.

As impressive as the new soundtrack is, the film remains the real star with its timeless rendering of a dark and dystopian fairy tale. According to this tale the last person to die before the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve is condemned to spend a year behind the reins of the eponymous phantom carriage, collecting the souls of the dead. This is the fate of the anti-hero of the film, David Holm, who is moved to painful scrutiny of his life following his untimely death and subsequent encounter with the driver of the carriage.

This film is often referred to as a horror film and although this is a fitting label, the real horror here resides not in the supernatural elements but rather in the depiction of human suffering at the hands of others. Sjostrom gives a remarkable performance as the drunken, spiteful and menacing Holm in life, and the wretched, frightened Holm looking back from the land of the dead and shrinking from his past deeds.

Striking imagery abounds throughout The Phantom Carriage and more than compensates for the inevitably limited dialogue. The ill-omened onset of midnight is powerfully illustrated through the image of a clock-face hovering alone in the darkening night sky like a second moon. Equally impressively, the dead are depicted through pioneering semi-transparent imagery and the scenes of the phantom carriage riding over land and sea remain chilling to watch.

Sjostrom's film deserves its place as one of the most esteemed silent films of all time and the new soundtrack by KTL is a superb accentuation of its themes. This is a must-see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This, unfortunately, is a little-known film.....i say \"unfortunately\", because it ranks up there with the \"classics\" of the American silent screen!

It's about a legend of a \"phantom chariot\" that travells all over the world, picking up the souls of those who have died. The legend says tha the last person to die on New Year's Eve is condemned to drive the chariot for the next whole year.

It brings to mind the sequence of the \"Ghost of Future Yet To Come\" in Dicken's famous \"Christmas Carol\".

The double-exposure effects of the ghosts (esp. when they interact with the \"live\" people) are EXCELLENT!

If you love silent films, you MUST see THIS; it will \"blow you away\"!

Norm Vogel

Norm's Old Movie Heaven http:\/\/www.nvogel.com\/film\/film.html","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sj\u00f6str\u00f6ms masterpiece and a movie that captures the swedish soul . It also served as a great inspiration for Bergman; the similarites between K\u00f6rkarlen and Smultronst\u00e4llet (with Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m in the leading role as Isak Borg) from 1957 is not a coincidence. Don't miss it for the world!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the New Year's Eve, the tuberculous sister of the Salvation Army Edit (Astrid Holm) asks her mother and her colleague Maria (Lisa Lundholm) to call David Holm (Victor Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m) to visit her in her deathbed. Meanwhile, the alcoholic David is telling to two other drunkards in the cemetery the legend of the Phantom Coach and his coachman: in accordance with the legend, the last sinner to die in the turn of the New Year becomes the soul collector, gathering souls in his coach. When David denies to visit Edit, his friends have an argument with him, they fight and David dies. When the coachman arrives, he recognizes his friend Georges (Tore Svennberg), who died in the end of the last year. George revisits parts of David's obnoxious life and in flashbacks, he shows how mean and selfish David was.

\"K\u00f6rkarlen\" is an impressive and stylish silent movie, with magnificent special effects (for a 1921 movie). The characters are very well developed; however, the story is dated and there is a weird and unexplained situation, when Sister Edit tells that she loves David Holm. Why should a enlightened woman love such a despicable man that wasted his life corrupting other people? Despite being religiously dated in the present days, it gives a beautiful message of faith and redemption in the end. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): \"A Carro\u00e7a Fantasma\" (\"The Phantom Coach\")","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"On a dark, gloomy New Year's Eve night, an ill nurse, her life slowly ebbing away, demands that David Holm be presented to her at once. We don't yet know who David Holm is, or why this nurse wishes to see him, but her only dying wish is to speak with him just one more time. On the other side of the town, nestled comfortably amongst the gravestones of the local cemetery, Holm (Victor Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m, who also directed) and two of his drunken associates merrily await the coming of the New Year. \"Here we can tell just when to drink the New Year in,\" exclaims Holm, casting a finger towards the large clock tower that looms through the darkness. Little does he know, however, that he will not be alive to greet it.

To pass the time, Holm cheerfully recites a ghost story. He'd once had a friend name George, \"a merry fellow\" who was \"smarter than the rest of us.\" On one New Year's Eve several years ago, George has broken up a potentially disastrous brawl, fearing that the final man to draw his last breath before midnight would be condemned to drive the phantom chariot for the next year, doing Death's bidding and collecting the souls of the deceased. \"And, gentlemen, George died last New Year's Eve!\" concludes Holm happily, not bothering to contain his mocking skepticism of the man's beliefs.

As fate has it, of course, an unexpected violent encounter results in Holm's death, just on the stroke of midnight. As the man's transparent spirit rises gingerly from his earthly body, he witnesses, to his horror, the distant approach of a phantom carriage. The driver, a frail cloaked figure - a sickle clasped tightly in his hand - steps down from the carriage and approaches. We are astonished to discover that the driver is none other than a decrepit George, preparing to pass on his ghastly duty to this year's successor.

Considering the era in which 'K\u00f6rkarlen' is made, the special effects in this film are absolutely superb. Cinematographer Julius Jaenzon used double-exposure photography to create the eerie, ghostly silhouette of the carriage and its damned driver. Even today, the end result is highly effective. A particularly impressive scene involves the phantom chariot travelling to the ocean floor to retrieve the soul of a drowned man. Another scene, eerily reminiscent of Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) in Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining,' involves Holm breaking down the kitchen door with an axe in order to reach his fleeing wife and children.

Genuinely ominous and unsettling in its execution, Victor Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m's 'K\u00f6rkarlen' is a fine work of cinema, successfully portraying Holm's steady alcoholic decline, his inevitable day of judgment, and a final hopeful possibility of redemption.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not as well known as the English, American, German and French cinema, though cinema from Sweden from the '20's was also quite good, interesting and revolutionary.

This is a movie that is made great by its story. The story is told in 'A Christmas Carol' kind of way, in which the death himself confronts the deceased with his past, present and what could have been. It's of course a story that concentrates on morals and it does this very well. The message comes across as very powerful and effective. This is of course also definitely due to the effective directing from the father of Swedish cinema; Victor Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m.

The story is based on the novel by other Swedish author Selma Lagerl\u00f6f. The story is adapted by Victor Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m himself, who perhaps should had taken out a few more elements, to let the story and movie flow better. It perhaps takes a bit too long before the movie starts to take form and the story gets clear but when the movie does take form and pace it becomes a really wonderful one.

The movie does not only have a great story, it also is a good looking one. The movie uses some early and effective effects and uses some different color filters to create the right mood and to indicate what it past, present and 'future'.

Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m did not only wrote and directed this movie, he also plays the main character. Of course the acting in the movie is over-the-top at times, by todays standards but not as bad as in for instance early German movies was the case. And after all, this movie is more about its story and morals than it is about the acting, so it really doesn't matter much, or distracts.

A really great and effective underrated silent-movie classic from Sweden.

9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"K\u00f6rkarlen (1921), a classic film with cult status amongst the silent movies, directed by Victor Sj\u00f6str\u00f8m, who also plays the male main role, is based on a story by Swedish novelist Selma Lagerl\u00f6f. The film tells the story of brutal drinker David Holm, who beats up his wife, neglects his children, seduces his brother to drinking and is blind for the love of nurse Edit (Astrid Holm). David sits toward the end of the year together with his boozing buddies in the city-park and tells the story of the Phantom Chariot (K\u00f6rkarlen): Who dies in the New Year's Eve night as the last one before dawn, has to serve one year long as driver of Death and release the dying souls from their bodies. But David gets into a fight with his buddies, suffers a hemorrhage and sinks dead on the soil. Meanwhile, the Phantom Carriage is approaching. The driver is nobody else than David's late friend Georges who seduced him into alcohol and died one year before. Since David refuses to get on the carriage, Georges forces him. Together, they drive to the stations where people live who suffered from David. They visit the nurse Edit whose love to David he was unable to recognize and whom he infected with tuberculosis so that she is dying now. But her unconditioned love to David will save his soul. Fulfilled with her spirit, they get to David's wife and children. David is able to prevent his wife from killing herself and her children, because she does not see a way out of the misery in which David has thrown her. They also visit David's brother, who has committed a murder after having been seduced into drinking by David. David asks Georges to go back into his body, because he finally sees that his way was wrong. Since it was Georges who had seduced him once into drinking, David's wish is granted, he gets a second chance, and Georges has to be one more year the driver of the Phantom Carriage in order to pay for his own sins. This movie belongs probably to the strongest and most impressive films ever made. Deplorably, it is still not available on international DVD.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Victor Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m was quite the master in this film, having starred in it, directed it and even wrote the screenplay! That's pretty amazing. While today few have any idea who Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m was, he might be familiar to Ingmar Bergman fans as the star one of Bergman's most acclaimed films, WILD STRAWBERRIES.

As far as this film goes, it's a very mixed bag. On one hand, you have to respect it because for 1921, it's a very good film. The idea of the Grim Reaper sitting down with a dead man to discuss his wasted life is pretty imaginative. Plus, the special effect of the Phantom Carriage is pretty convincing and technically speaking this is a well-crafted film. On the other hand, it's an amazingly dated and preachy film--more like something you'd expect to be shown in Sunday School instead of in an honest to goodness theater. Plus, some of the story elements just don't make sense. Instead of coming off as dedicated or good, the dying Salvation Army worker seems like a sap--a very sad and confusing sap. Why is she \"in love\" with this man? Am I missing something?

So, my recommendation is that if you are insanely in love with silents (like me), then by all means watch it. But, if you aren't a silent fan, this film might do nothing to convince you that this style film is brilliant because the story is so overly melodramatic and dated.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have just finished watching this film for the first time, and I must say that I am very impressed.

How bleak. How full of despair. How nightmarish. Incredible.

Visually stunning, several scenes are embedded in my mind...the first appearance of the phantom carriage...the soul of David Holm as it rises from his corpse...his spirit on his knees, pleading.

This film takes a simple story-that of the ghostly driver of the phantom carriage, doomed to collect the souls of the dead for a year-brings it into the present setting of the film and then uses flashbacks as a means to explain how David Holm ends up in his predicament.

I would love to see this released on DVD so that more might see it. Everyone should.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This landmark film can now be seen in two different versions on the Grapevine Video release which also includes the English translation of Selma Lagerlof's novel which she based on a Swedish folktale. The first version is the Swedish edit under the title of THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE. The second version is a reconstruction of the way it was shown in the United States under the title of THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT as released by Metro (before it was M-G- M). The actual US release has long vanished but a detailed review in The New York Times lets us know how the scenes were reordered for domestic release -- and both are fascinating to see. Each version of this film was presented at The Organ Loft in Salt Lake City with live theatre organ scores provided by artist Blaine Gale. A live recording was made of these performances and are included on the Grapevine Video DVD along with the novel and notes about the two versions. While THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE follows the order of Lagerlof's novel, THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT is in some ways easier to follow. Seeing the two different edits is an education in how silent films could be changed effectively for release in different countries.

Some viewers look at this film as a horror film which it certainly is not. This is a morality play with shades of the supernatural used to hit home its stark message. The directing and lead performance by the great Victor Sjostrom were way ahead of their time. It's easy to see why M-G-M brought him to Hollywood to direct such films as Lillian Gish in THE SCARLET LETTER and THE WIND as well as Lon Chaney in HE WHO GETS SLAPPED. In America he was known as Victor Seastrom. He would also star in the lead role of Ingmar Bergman's WILD STRAWBERRIES, giving a masterful performance. Bergman was greatly influenced by KORKARLEN or THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE in his earlier days.

This is a powerful film that is well worth taking some time to discover and study. The Grapevine Video release is an excellent way to do this.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The last person who dies before New Years, is cursed to drive the Phantom Carriage for a whole year, picking up the souls of the dead.

I saw a scene from this old silent Swedish horror film on Youtube, and decided to track down the whole movie. It was well worth the work finding it, because it's an absolutely amazing movie for the time it was made. It has a wonderfully eerie atmosphere. The old time horror film makers really knew how to create the perfect atmosphere. Sadly, many of today's film makers don't seem to understand how important setting and atmosphere are, and go for the cheap jump scares. The visual effects are excellent, considering its date of production. If you can find a copy of this, I highly recommend giving it a watch. 9\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Victor Sjostrom, who is the grandfather of Swedish cinema, directed this stark, existentialist film about atonement, betrayal, death, forgiveness, guilt, redemption, and the bleakest moments of the human condition. He stars as David Holm, a no good-nick who responds to a moment of kindness by returning to his drunken ways, only to later have to bargain for his soul with the driver of the phantom carriage: death.

Unlike many silent films during the period, the film is nearly absent scenes with over-acting. The pacing does becomes tedious with its overly familiar Dickensian narrative. However, examining the film in retrospect and in comparison to others of its time, it's a very daring and unique film. Audiences of the time were not exposed to such subject matter, and the cinematography is tremendous, symbolic, and accompanied by double exposure effects and multi-layered flashbacks. It's a genuinely creepy and frightening film for youngsters for sure.

Watching the film, it's easy to see the later influences this film had on Swedish master Ingmar Bergman. Most of the great Bergman themes are here on full display. Sjostrom, of course, later starred in Bergman's masterpiece on alienation and loneliness: Wild Strawberries. This would be Sjostrom's final performance as an actor. Sjostrom based the script on a novel by Swedish writer Selma Lagerlof. *** of 4 stars.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Once upon a time, in Sweden, there was a poor Salvation Army sister. At death's door, she requests, \"Send for David Holm!\" But, Victor Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m (as David Holm) cannot be located, because he is spending New Year's Eve in a graveyard, with his drinking buddies. Dying Sister Astrid Holm (as Edit) wants to see if praying for Mr. Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m's soul, over the past year, has produced any results; arguably, it has not. In the graveyard, Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m tells the story of \"The Phantom Carriage\", which he heard from his dead friend Tore Svennberg (as Georges). According to legend, the last person to die in each year must pick up the souls of all the dead people, until being relieved next New Year's Eve...

Director Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m, whose lead performance is very strong, combines with photographer Julius Jaenzon to create a visually appealing film. The great \"double exposure\" effect is used frequently, but never seems overdone; and, it doesn't make the film's other dramatic highlights any less memorable (for example, Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m's tearing of his sewn coat and axing of the door). A Selma Lagerl\u00f6f story probably wasn't one you could, or would want to, tamper with in the 1920s - which may, or may not be, why the ending of this film is a letdown. And, unlike similar spiritual stories, it's difficult to suspend your disbelief, if you think too carefully about what is really happening in \"K\u00f6rkarlen\".

******* K\u00f6rkarlen (1\/1\/21) Victor Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m ~ Victor Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m, Hilda Borgstr\u00f6m, Tore Svennberg","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a mistake to refer to any film of this era as a horror film. Most early German films with supernatural themes are not so much horror films as they are dark fantasies borrowed from the works of early German Romantics like E. T. A. Hoffman and others. In Fritz Lang's \"Der Mude Tod\" (also from 1921) Death personified takes a young man away from his sweetheart, but in Lang's film the characters' destiny cannot be mitigated by behavior. Neither of the young lovers deserves to die, but they are destined by circumstances to be reunited only in death.

In Victor Seastrom's \"Korkarlen,\" however, repentance is always an option. Destiny can be altered - and death deferred - through the characters' choices. Although scenes of the Phantom Carriage collecting souls are genuinely eerie, these horrific images of Death as the great leveler are compromised by Death's offer of redemption to the real monster of this tale, David Holm, a brutal drunk who, because of a perverse hatred of humanity, spreads tuberculosis and emotional misery to everyone he comes in contact with.

One New Year's Eve Holm is struck down in a fight with a drinking companion. As the first person to die on the stroke of midnight Holm must become the driver of the Phantom Carriage and collect souls during the new year. The Phantom Carriage, driven by an old acquaintance who had started Holm on his road to ruin, comes for his soul and takes him on a journey of self discovery. Along the way Holm sees the horror he has inflicted on his family and the people who tried to help him.

Perhaps my disappointment with the film's ending is a criticism of the Selma Lagerl\u00f6f novel on which the film is based. But I would have preferred to see David Holm unable to escape his destiny, and to see his repentance come too late to prevent his wife from poisoning his two children and herself, and to see Holm suffer for the consequences of his sins by being made to collect their souls. It would have been a fitting punishment and a horror more immense than witnessing the abuse he inflicted on others. In the film, however, the unalterable nature of destiny isn't the message; redemption is. The driver of the carriage allows Holm's spirit to return to his body, and he rescues his family in the nick of time. His repentance smacks of Scrooge's repentance in \"A Christmas Carol.\"

If the trite and sentimental ending does not offend you, there is still much to admire in the film's images. The special effects are astonishing when measured by the standards of the day, and still hold up, which is more miraculous when you consider that these double exposures were created inside a hand-cranked camera. Also, the restored film on Tartan's new DVD looks fabulous.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought it would be more fantastic a tale. But the subject is rather down to earth compared to the story about the Death carriage I was expecting. In fact there is much more of a social drama. As usual in the \"European authors' movies\".

Actors are interesting, not overacting as in the average silent movie. Images are not so good as to be stuck in your mind as in Bergman's Smultronst\u00e4llet.

This is true the comparison between the two movies is the main point here. Smultronst\u00e4llet begins with a vision of a Death carriage wherein Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m's character can see his own body. There are clocks without hands. He is compelled to look back on what he has done wrong. There is a vision of his happy family in the country. In K\u00f6rkarlen Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m's wife doesn't cheat on him before his eyes but she wants to flee with the little children because it would never get any better with him. Eventually, Edit's confession is some kind of a live judgement.

Well I would just add that Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m destroying the door with an axe because his wife locked it and plans to go away with the children reminded me of The Shining. Which was much more of a fantasy tale with Death hanging around.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Yeah, I guess this movie is kinda dull compared to some of Pam Grier's other films. The plot is overly familiar, the dialog stilted, and some of the acting isn't too good. But it's worth seeing for the lengthy stretch near the end of the film, where we see Ms Grier in a sexy blue wetsuit, with the zipper half unzipped. Yeah, it seems like a frivolous point when discussing an actress of Pam Grier's talent, but she also happens to be an extremely gorgeous woman, and back in the day, she had a body that wouldn't quit. It's nice to see it being showcased in a tight wetsuit. Rent the DVD, and then tell me I'm wrong. Can't, can you? That's because you know I'm right! :-) And yes, I really did give a 10 just for the wetsuit scenes! ;-)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sheba Baby, is another Pam Grier Blaxploitation film. It was one of Pam's less visceral films of this genre. Pam plays Sheba Shane, who's a Chicago gumshoe. Sheba's father is the owner of a small loan company, in Missouri. When local mobsters try to run her father of of business, Sheba goes after the bad guys.

Pam Grier had already made her mark in Blaxploitation films, by the time Sheba Baby came along. Fans of both Coffy and Foxy Brown, know that Pam is capable of an explosive intensity as an actress. In Sheba Baby, the fiery performance that viewers had come to expect from Pam, wasn't as evident in this film. Not that Pam doesn't kick-butt in Sheba Baby. She's just not as much of a runaway-train vigilante, as she was in her previous Blaxploitation films.

The supporting cast in this film, are a distinct disappointment. So Sheba Baby is Pam's film, through and through. And though Pam's a bit more subdued than in her other films, she still gives a compelling performance in Sheba Baby. This film is definitely worth your time, if you're an ardent Pam Grier fan.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sheba Baby is always underrated most likely because it has a pg rating instead of the usual r rating that a Grier movie gets. all that the pg means is that Pam doesn't take her top off, she takes her top off in every other movie she's been in though so. it is more exciting than Coffy, more action. it takes off slow but by the time she's on screen the thrills have started. like Dolemite d'urville martin is the heavy trying to get Sheba's father, but she ain't having that. she wages a one woman war against martin and his gang of cronies. the best scene is with a stupid pimp in his car which i'm still laughing about. i thought it would be stupid because of the pg rating but i was wrong it replaces sex with violence and in a blaxplotation film that can only be good!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If anything, William Girdler was an opportunist who wanted a piece of the action in regards to whatever was popular during the time. I mean, a blaxploitation flick in Louisville, Kentucky..who would of thunk it?!?! I can just imagine the enthusiasm he must've had getting Pam Grier, quite a hot item, to star in his picture. If you are pretty familiar with the genre, Girdler's Sheba, Baby doesn't necessarily stray too far from formula. Despite a change of venue, the film still deals with a ruthless businessman nicknamed Shark who muscles in on loan companies, using stooges to threaten them in order to get their signatures.

Grier is Sheba Shayne, a former Louisville cop working in Chicago who returns home at the request of her father's partner, Brick(Austin Stoker, Assault on Precinct 13). Sheba's father, despite Shark's bullying tactics(..his man in town is Pilot, a wannabe gangster, equipped with stooges who aren't that menacing, rather buffoonish in nature, so thin-skinned they hire hit men outside of town to shoot up the Shayne Loan building), won't give up his company, and this eventually costs him his life when a warning through the use of brute force, leads to his being killed. Sheba will get her revenge on all those responsible for his father's death. In other words, Shark's ass is grass..can you dig it?

Seeing Grier with a magnum is enough to sell this particular film, the novelty of the setting being in Louisville is part of the package. You even get to see a speedboat chase, Grier in shootouts with gangsters(..not necessarily the most polished kind one might be accustomed to seeing in a Chicago or New York during this period in blaxploitation), lots of blood spurting from bullet-riddled bodies torn apart by gun-fire, and colorful characters(..such as a wimpy loan shark in pimp-dress named Walker and Pilot who is one of the least scary mobsters you are likely to see)who show up during the film, most having the misfortune of coming in contact with a very angry Sheba. The plot itself is nothing special, but Grier is always worth watching, and Girdler orchestrates plenty of action sequences to keep his target audience entertained. A modest success for Girdler, and one of his more accomplished films.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pistol-packing Pam Grier takes names and kicks butt as the heroine in \"Asylum of Satan\" director William Girdler's entertaining blaxploitation actioneer \"Sheba Baby,\" co-starring D'Urville Martin and Austin Stoker. \"Sheba Baby\" is one of several tough chick flicks that Grier appeared in during the 1970s, including \"Coffy,\" \"Foxy Brown,\" and \"Friday Foster.\" The short-lived Girdler co-wrote this thoroughly routine private eye potboiler with producer David Shelton in one night and it features a headstrong female shamus that refuses to rely on a man to help her take care of business. Unfortunately, \"Sheba Baby\" isn't nearly as good as the blaxploitation movies that Grier made under the supervision of director Jack Hill. Hill helmed the African-American North Carolina native in \"Coffy,\" \"Foxy Brown,\" \"The Big Bird Cage,\" and \"The Big Doll House.\" Anybody that analyzes images of African-American women in cinema should be familiar with these epics. The chief problem with \"Sheba Baby\" is that our heroine gets too many convenient breaks. Naturally, the secondary villains are trigger happy clowns that couldn't hit the side of a barn with a howitzer. As the main antagonist, Dick Merrifield qualifies as both an egotistical as well as smarmy villain with choice lines like: \"Anything worth having is worth stealing.\" Additionally, composer Monk Huggins does provide a strong, atmospheric orchestral soundtrack, and the best song, with Barbara Mason warbling it, is \"Good Man Is Gone.\" \"Sheba Baby\" casts Grier as stylist Chicago gumshoe Sheba Shayne. She leaves the Windy City to return to her hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, to help out her father. When she arrives in Louisville, Sheba learns that her father, Andy (Rudy Challenger of \"Detroit 9000\"), is having trouble with a local black gangster nicknamed Pilot (cigar-chomping D'Urville Martin of \"Hammer\") who demands that Andy sell out his loan company to Pilot or die.

Initially, Pilot dispatches a goon squad to trash Andy's office, but our heroine's father catches them in the act. They turn Sheba's father into a punching bag. Interestingly, during the fight scene, Girdler rarely shows fists smashing flesh. Earlier, Andy's right-hand man, Brick Williams (Austin Stoker of \"Horror High\"), had sent Sheba a telegram requesting that she return to Louisville, but she didn't receive it immediately thanks to her lazy partner who didn't know where to find her. Brick and Sheba hook up, rekindle their romantic flames, and share a night in the sack. Brick spends most of his time urging Sheba to remain calm in the face of adversity. As a former Louisville, Kentucky, police woman, Sheba prefers to shoot first and ask questions second. After she arrives home, Sheba borrows her father's car and barely escapes being blown to bits. As she is walking out the door to get into her father's car, Andy receives another harassing call from Pilot. Previously, Andy had refused to discuss the prospect of selling his loan company to Pilot, but Andy changes his mind and agrees to talk with the hoodlum. A gratified Pilot warns Andy about the dynamite that has been attached to his ignition with a delayed action fuse. In other words, cranking up the car won't trigger the explosion; the explosion comes ten seconds later. Andy and Brick rescue Sheba before the car blows up. Earlier, Sheba had agreed to let her father handle his problems without her interference. \"Dad, I know you think I'm doing a man's job, but I'm not going to sit on the sidelines just because I'm a woman,\" Sheba tells him. After her near-death experience, Sheba vows to learn who sabotaged her father's car. She grilles an old contact from her days as a cop and threatens the guy with her gun to extract the information. Only after Sheba has ground the guy's face into a bucket of chlorine dust does he relent and tell her about a pay-off at the town's railroad museum. Brick accompanies Sheba and shooting ensues with a flustered Pilot getting away by the skin of his chin.

Later, Pilot sends a quintet of out-of-town contract thugs armed-to-the-teeth to trash Andy's office. These gunsels ignore their no-kill orders. Not only do they shoot the loan company office to ribbons, but they also blast Sheba's dad with a shotgun. Sheba retaliates in short order. Wielding her nickel-plated revolver, she guns down three of the four assailants Dirty Harry style. The last hit-man discards his weapon and pleads for mercy. Sheba has her finger on the trigger when Homicide Detective Phil Jackson (Charles Kissinger of \"Abby\") and a uniform cop arrive on the scene. At the hospital, Andy Shayne dies holding his daughter's hand. Naturally, Pilot is furious at this revelation and his fury borders on apoplexy. Afterward, Sheba tracks down a loan shark, Walker (Christopher Joy of \"Cleopatra Jones\"), and pries information out of him about the Pilot while she holds him at gunpoint in a car wash. This is one of the better staged scenes with lots of ominous shots of the car wash equipment whirling and humming. Walker warns Pilot about Sheba. Pilot and his henchmen confront Sheba in a parking lot and swap lead. Sheba flees on foot to a nearby carnival. While the police corner one of Pilot's men, she deals with the others. Pilot shoots one of his own accidentally and Sheba runs him down. She pins Pilot to a roller-coaster track and threatens to hold him there until the roller-coaster cuts his head off. Pilot manages to escape after he has spilled his guts to Sheba about the identity and phone number of the big man, Shark (Dick Merrifield of \"The Hellcats\"), whose reputation is so immaculate that Detective Jackson describes him as \"the guy with all the right answers.\" \"Sheba Baby\" isn't top-notch Pam Grier. However, the idea that our heroine can handle everything by herself without help from guys makes it interesting as well as entertaining chick flick.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Multiply named and strangely casted, \"One Dark Night\" aka \"Mausoleum\", is one of the better early horror video-rentals. Original and quite raw, we meet Adam West briefly in this film about telekinesis and teen-age headgames. Meg Tilly is dared into spending the night in a crypt by \"The Sisters\" a high-school gang of hair-hoppers in blue satin jackets. The initiation is interrupted by the recently interred body of a mass-murdering psychic wizard called \"Raymar\". Surprisingly awesome make-up and scare effects paints this chiller film with style and deliver a heart-pounding climax.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One Dark Night has a typical teen horror film set-up with a quite a unique twist. The ultra-brooding musical score and Gothic\/claustrophobic atmosphere adds greatly to this small film that delivers. Meg Tilly is excellent as \"Julie,\" and leads us through the maze of the mausoleum, giving a sense of foreboding and loneliness. The other teens are equally effective in their roles as is Melissa Newman, the ultimate heroine of the film. The special effects are excellent, though dated. This film is highly overlooked, but that may be good so that it was never ruined by endless sequels. There is a great, dark magic flowing through this film; once tapped into, you really get it and you're in for some fun. The double-disc DVD is available, though the original negative could not be found to restore the film. Maybe someday it will be located. I guess in some ways the carbon speckles in parts do help the film by giving it an old school respectability and making it more unexpected at the end when suddenly there are plenty of effects.

The second disc has a rough cut\/alternate version with a temp score version of the film that gives more explanation of the demise of two of the girls, very Poe-ish(\"The Cask of Amontillado\" comes to mind in a new way!) Also, great ending tension going in on the dark crypt opening. Not sure it had the punch for main stream audiences, but certainly worked for me and extremely creepy.. . also, there is a making of documentary that is interesting because it gives info on what was going on at the time with the actors, crew, director and writer; candid material, then current logos, discussions of shots and scenes, rehearsals. Very unique that this stuff exists for a small film back then.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I actually first watched One Dark Night in the theater & wrote a review of the film for my high school newspaper. I loved it then & I still love it. The storyline revolves around two people. First of all one woman learns that her father has telekenisis after his death. She then has feelings herself about the strange powers of her father even in his death. The mauseleum he's buried in plays host to the other main person, a high school girl doing anything to get in with a group of girls that just want to torment her & dare her to stay in the mauseleum all night to join their group. They go back in the night to scare her & find scares for themselves. The cast is led by Meg Tilly with supporting roles by Adam West and one of my personal favorites Elizabeth Daily aka E.G. Daily. Check this one out if you love 80's movies & cheesy horror movies, you won't be disatisfied.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"by the way it looks at the other comments made, it seems that a lot of people did not get the point to the flick. It is not centered around zombies, as a matter of fact they are not zombies at all, they are a device regenerated by the wizard to scare the girls to death, his main focus is on Meg Tilly, who he wants to help him finish the job that he died while doing in the first place, and what you get is a great flick with an awesome ending, it is hard to find on video, but every once in a while it shows up on HBO or Cinamax, check it out, I gave it a 10 and highly recommend it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well groomed, well behaved teen Meg Tilly must spend the night in a creepy mausoleum as an initiation into a high school club. Problem is a powerful psychic named Raymar was just buried there that day, but he isn't quite dead and he needs the life force of humans for his powers.

Obscure horror film offers plenty of thrills and chills, an appealing and likeable cast, and most superior special effects.

My rating: 7 out of 10.

One Dark Night is rated R for Violence and Adult Themes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Famous and mysterious recluse Raymar, who's some kind of lethal telekinetic psychic vampire, abruptly dies under bizarre circumstances. Nice girl high school student Julie Wells (a warm and sympathetic performance by the lovely Meg Tilly) wants desperately to be accepted by the snobby clique the Sisters (played to sublimely bitchy perfection by Leslie Speights, Robin Evans and the ever-cuddly Elizabeth Daily), so she agrees to spend a night in a creepy mausoleum where Raymar's body has been interred as part of an initiation rite. Naturally, Raymar still has his extraordinary powers, so it's going to be a very long and harrowing night of pure nerve-wracking terror for poor Julie.

Director\/co-screenwriter Tom McLoughlin (who later gave us the enjoyably tongue-in-cheek \"Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives\") eschews graphic gore in favor of creating a brooding and eerie atmosphere, but fails to pull this particular feat off because the first hour is way too slow, talky and uneventful to be remotely scary or suspenseful. However, I nonetheless still found this flawed fright flick to be oddly appealing and entertaining. The big poofy hairdos, a goofy music montage sequence, badly timed false scares (including the ubiquitous hand on the shoulder gag!), a scene at a glittery video game arcade, kids gleefully smoking pot, and the hilariously dumb teen slang (\"nerdle brain\"!?) give this picture a certain endearingly quaint 80's period charm. Hal Trussell's handsome, polished cinematography (I especially dug the smoothly gliding Steadicam tracking shots), Bob Summers' spooky, yet funky hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, and Tom Burman's splendidly ghoulish make-up f\/x are all up to snuff. The ever-stolid Adam West of TV's \"Batman\" fame merely takes up space in a nothing secondary part. The mausoleum makes for an impressively vast and unsettling main location. The grand finale with a bunch of ghastly rotting corpses popping out of their coffins and floating about qualifies as a marvelously macabre shock set piece. Sure, this baby definitely ain't some unjustly unsung gem, but it still delivers plenty of pleasingly silly and diverting cheesy fun all the same.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my favorite horror film, a close 2nd to 'Poltergeist'. I saw 'One Dark Night' when it first came out in theaters in 1983 at the theater where I worked.

I was born in 1963, so I have a certain love for '80's horror films, despite them being a little dated and the dialog not well written. What I thought was so original about it was that the phenomenon of 'psychic vampirism' has not been addressed (at least, to my knowledge at that time) and is a very real phenomenon.

I didn't care if Adam West was in it (nothing against him, but his supporting role was not memorable), but thought Meg Tilly was good casting. The little-known Donald Hutton (from 'Brainstorm' and 'Invaders From Mars') as an ambiguous scientist who oversaw studies on Ramar's abilities was sadly overlooked. As a gay guy, I was paying more attention to David Mason Daniels, Meg Tilly's unfortunate but gorgeous boyfriend. He's selling real estate in Texas now.

I felt the film 'realistic' in two ways: Raymar, who was discovered to have murdered 6 girls in his surreal apartment, had a funeral that was sparse in attendance, reflecting the fact that not only was he mysterious, a hermit, but a killer. As you know, these types are buried without fanfare. Second, if corpses were going to be telekinetically mobile, they would hover, dragging their feet. The filmmakers could have gone for the schlock walking, groaning, arms out-stretched zombies, but opted for what would be believable. Kudos! The buzzing electrical discharge from Ramar's eyes at his 'throne coffin' (like he's overseeing his kingdom of dead), cast an eerie magenta light in the mausoleum that will stay with you for years! If you've ever gone to a mausoleum, even on a sunny day, you will notice that they have their own rosetta lighting caused by stained glass windows. Don't get me started on the cavernous silence. Even Ramar himself looked like someone who could pass as an eccentric, perverted old man. The score was one-of-a-kind and memorable, and I keep kicking myself for not getting it on cassette when it first came out. The track shooting was done where it was supposed to be. I especially liked the carefully-planned characteristics of each corpse: the bride, the badly decomposed child still holding its teddy bear, the grandmother, the tall thin black guy, and the half-faced World War II vet, and the green-slimed eyed elderly gent who was the first to greet the 'Sisters' clique initiators. Even corpses can be good actors, I suppose. The only thing I had to groan about was the arm that came out of one of the vaults and choke Julie's boyfriend couldn't possibly be done unless a corpse was put in laying on it's stomach and feet first, but why? It looked a little to fresh too.

The film begins eerie, with us never seeing Ramar's face (until the last quarter of the film, which is like unwrapping a birthday present) as he is picking up teen girl runaways in his daughter's psychic flash. We then see coroners hauling his body away in his one bedroom apartment where we see he's experimented his telekinetic craft by phasing dishes into his wall. The rest does drag as the Heathers-like 'Sisters' group baits Julie into a final initiation by spending the night inside the mausoleum, but it is a well-placed build up to the unleashing horror later. The movie isn't bloody in any sense of the word. The goriest part is when Ramar's daughter uses a compact mirror to feed his power back to him, and he bubbles then melts. I've always felt that a power like Ramar's could never die and a sequel could be worth looking into. I can see it now: One Dark Night II: Turning In The Grave. But let's face it-The film stands alone. I heard the film had other titles, but the original fits.

A remake would be pointless. But if there were to be one, I would write better dialog, and lengthen some scenes such as show the studies on Ramar's abilities done in the lab instead of hearing about it on a tape recorder. In this information age, something like that would be well documented on DVD. And more corpses! Why just raise the ones in the mausoleum when Ramar's power could spread to the graveyard too? Let's just say I'd hate to be one of the persons who had to clean up the mess at the end of the climax; something that too can be shown. I think having one of the initiating Sisters recognize one of the corpses as a relative would have added some good if disturbing character. With CG effects, some awesome scenes with Ramar animating cremated remains would be off the wall!

Say what you will about,'One Dark Night' but it has it all. So see at least once in your life...or death!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought that One Dark Night was great! It deserves a 10! As to a statement made by one user, the dead WERE actually zombies in this movie. A dead person brought back to life IS a zombie, regardless of the method or cause for\/of being brought back to life. The \"zombies\" in this movie are used to frighten the girls, not to feed off of them, like traditional zombies. This movie is a definite star among horror flicks of the 80's. The score and atmosphere are quite eerie, and the audience is kept in suspense throughout the mausoleum scenes. The acting is actually convincing, with genuine expressions of horror at the sight of the undead. Although I enjoy all zombie flicks, this movie is a refreshing change from the typical \"flesh-eating zombie\" movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Julie (Meg Tilly) is a \"goody two shoes\" type high school girl who, determined to prove something to herself, allows herself to be subjected to the rituals of \"The Sisters\", a small-scale clique presided over by snooty, homecoming queen type Carol (Robin Evans). The Sisters propose that for Julie's final test she will spend the night in a mausoleum, preparing to drive Julie up the wall, but not knowing that recently deceased, ill-intentioned psychic Raymar is interred there and has plans to cause havoc from beyond the grave.

While this debut picture for Tom McLoughlin (\"Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives\" and \"Sometimes They Come Back\") is limited by its obviously low budget, it's what McLoughlin and his crew are able to do with it that counts. It's genuinely creepy, unsettling fare; it might have very well scared the stuffing out of me if I were under 10 years of age, and even at my current age, it still got to me to a degree.

Some of the effects look cheesy, but the decent looking corpses and gore are created by Tom Burman, an experienced makeup effects artist, who, while tending to be overshadowed by more famous names like Winston, Baker, and Bottin, has a good resume with other films like \"Cat People\" (1982) and \"The Beast Within\" to his credit.

What I liked most about it was a real sense of foreboding and atmosphere, an aspect missing from some of the current trendy horror movies being shown in our multiplexes.

Tilly is cute and appealing in her role, having recently completed her debut film work in \"Tex\" before joining this production. \"One Dark Night\" was completed some time before its release to theaters in 1983, where it actually did decent business during its first few weeks. The other actors do what they have to do well enough; familiar faces in the supporting cast include the equally appealing veteran singer \/ actress \/ voice-over artist Elizabeth (a.k.a. E.G.) Daily, Kevin Peter Hall, for once *not* playing some sort of creature character, but who unfortunately ends up with very little screen time, and none other than Adam \"Batman\" West. The director's wife Nancy, who would play Lizbeth in \"Jason Lives\", appears here as the spacey girl in front of the arcade.

It's decent B-level horror entertainment, maybe too cheap for its ambitions, and maybe not that slick (hey, McLoughlin *was* just starting out), but definitely good for some chills.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an OK early 80's horror flick in which a young girl (Meg Tilly) is wanting to shed her \"goody two shoes\" image and becomes part of a girl gang called The Sisters. Their initiation for her consists of spending the night in a mausoleum. Too bad the mausoleum is the \"final\" resting place of some psycho Russian psychic and he's not quite dead yet. Seems this guy was found in his apartment with lots of things stuck into the walls from his telekinetic target practice, plus there is a pile of young dead girls found in the closet. All proof that hitch hiking can be dangerous, so listen up girls. The daughter of this man (Reymar) is rather distraught about her father's death and is confronted by a man that said he knew Reymar and given a tape to listen too. Her hubby (Adam West, of Batman fame) is there to laugh and scoff, and not much else. But it seems that perhaps Reymar's daughter may also have some abilities that she doesn't realize. Anyway, having deposited their unfortunate pledge at the mausoleum, the rest of The Sisters take off to go get stuff (like masks, sheets, etc) to come back and scare the crap out of her, but little do they suspect what's going on and they get more than the crap scared out of them. For even in death Reymar is kind of a busy guy and he's reanimating lots of corpses for entertainment. And it would also seem that he has a thing for jail bait. Overall this is acceptable horror, nothing too intense but not terrible either. The DVD from Media Blasters also contains another version of the movie that's a rough cut, I guess, I only watched a little of it so I don't know how different it is from the theatrical release but from what I saw I guess it's a \"warts and all\" presentation. 7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Thorn-BMI is out of business, before they stopped making films they made a chiller of a movie. Using E.S.P. and telekinesis as the basis of the daughter whose father mastered a terrible power. Only in the death of her father did Olivia find that her father dubbed 'Raymar' from Raymarkovitch had really murdered 6 girls and was planning two more by using the technique of Psyhic Vampirism.

Our picture starts with 6 coroner wagons pulling in and music to match the grusome discovery of the 6 girls. Dead all with their eyes wide open in a closet. In the walls were all kinds of objects, the coroners men were pulling up an old man, when blue lightning hit the ceiling which caused a circular hole to form only made the film more bizarre!

If you like extremely chilling scenes this for you. Unless you can see dead bodies from years ago in each level of decay, don't view it without a friendly companion. Like \"The Changeling\" it has some heart stopping horror in it. I gave this a rating of 7 it's in color, actress Meg Tilly debuted in this film if you can find it see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"ONE DARK NIGHT is a highly overlooked and little known film from the early 80's that deserves an audience that I fear it will never get, and that's a damn shame. I have seen this film compared to others that have gotten a bigger name over the years, most notably PHANTASM, HELL NIGHT and MAUSOLEUM. This is a much different film than those and I don't see the comparisons other than the mausoleum, which is a bit similar to the one in PHANTASM, but not enough to make any real comparisons. I'm not sure how this one slipped through without a broader acceptance. Maybe it's all in the marketing, I don't know. Perhaps a remake would breathe new life into it, unless Raymar drained all the life out of it that is. I'm not too big on all the remakes that are abundant these days, but I think they do work well with lesser known films (except for the awful GHOST SHIP remake, which other than the opening scene and Mudvayne's Not Falling blaring, was utter crap). So if a remake of ONE DARK NIGHT would happen to fall into the right hands, I think it would make a lot of people go and watch the original. I know that's what I do if there's a remake of a film I haven't seen before. So anything short of a remake, I fear, would not bring this film back to life. Unless, of course, Raymar got his eyes on it.

Anyways, ONE DARK NIGHT is a must see for horror fans, especially 80's horror fans ('cause we all know that's when the best horror movies were made). Creepy setting. Fairly good acting. Very good story. Campy. What more could you want from an early 80's horror film? What's that... nudity and gore? Well, sorry. No nudity or gore in this film, but it's still great nonetheless! A solid 8 out of 10. Enjoy.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A bunch of sorority girls make a new pledge spend the night in a creepy mausoleum. Of course the recently deceased don't stay deceased for long and all hell breaks loose.\"One Dark Night\" is an enjoyable 80's horror with some ghastly dead bodies floating around that are being controlled by the spirit of a dead psychic Raymar.There is no gore and nudity,but the atmosphere of a mausoleum is very eerie.The acting is solid,but the script takes too much time to develop the characters until the final 20 minutes that Raymar finally breaks out of his grave.The cinematography is impressive and the the mausoleum is a great location for the climactic events.The film takes so long to get going and this is its major flaw.7 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Since Jason and his ilk took over horror films circa 1980 most every horror film has involved a group of hormonally charged teenagers being chopped to bits with the focus on the chopping and not the suspense.

This little film is different. Made in the early 80's it does what every good horror film should do - bring your worst fears to life while you sit around just knowing that these horrors are just around the corner. Then, you make those horrors simmer, just don't turn it into a lesson on the biology of butchering.

The story features Meg Tilly right before she had a short-lived turn with fame starting with \"The Big Chill\" and then slipped back into obscurity in the early 90's. Meg plays an outcast teenager who is just dying to get into the good graces of some classic mean girls. They tell her she can be part of their little group if she spends the night in a crypt. The mean girls intend to scare her and cause her to leave the crypt thus giving them a double reward - further tormenting the outcast girl and having an excuse to reject her.

Meanwhile famed occultist Karl Rhamarevich has died a bizarre death shortly after having claimed to have discovered a way to return from the grave and upon his return command great magical powers. His daughter doesn't believe this at first, but she listens to a tape about her father's experiments which included his successful animation of small dead animals and of his plans to emerge from the grave with the power to animate bigger game and draw further power from these animations. She also learns that she may have inherited her father's power and may be the only person who can stop him should he actually rise from the dead. I think you know where this story is headed, so I'll stop here. Did I mention the magician was entombed in the same crypt in which Meg Tilly's character is spending the night?

I will mention that the commercial DVD containing this film does look somewhat degraded compared to what you would expect from a film that was made so recently. I saw it on TV in the mid 1980's and I remember it looking better than this. The problem is that the original negative of the film was never located so the DVD had to be created from a print. This means it comes complete with dirt and scratches.

This is worth checking out for any horror fan. It was an independently made film and an example of the kind of unusual stuff that you could commonly find on late night TV until the infomercial turned that time slot into a vast wasteland circa 1986. Only TCM Underground airs this kind of film anymore.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this film when it was released to theaters. It's definitely one to remember, I had forgotten the title until recently. A friend found it via online search.

One Dark Night is rather unusual for the suspense\/horror genre of the time in that it contains no blood. It is of the teen fright variety yet the teens are respectable in their own ways. It's a nice, old-school film with props and scenes that reflect the times. Our hero rides a motorcycle with no brain bucket, for example.

As has been mentioned by previous reviewers, One Dark Night is currently available on DVD. The original negative was not available for the DVD transition. Some reel changes are a bit rough but this doesn't take away from the story. That being said, the colors are vibrant and the lighting is very good.

Adam West plays a rather smallish part in this film as RayMar's son-in-law. His role as an overbearing and indifferent husband is thankfully short.

The story builds over the course of the film. Unlike many horror films of the era, One Dark Night is a great suspense story that gives the viewer time to absorb what is happening.

The final 20 minutes or so of One Dark Night are what make it so memorable. RayMar's telekinetic abilities are used to open old graves in the mausoleum, pull the coffins out, open them and move the corpses around. Attention was afforded to great detail in the final scenes. The rotting, worm-riddled corpses look quite real.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I didn't know anything about this movie before I watched it. It seems to be a lesser-known teen horror from the 80's. What struck me were the ways it differed from so many other movies from that era.

The first thing I noticed was how slowly this movie builds. It doesn't do the typical setup of showing characters being murdered one by one. It takes its time building the back story, leaving a little bit of mystery about what might happen. I was almost starting to think no one would even really get hurt in this movie. But everything leads to the climatic sequence during the last 15 minutes, and then it gets fairly graphic (this was a bad time to take a snack break--I almost couldn't finish my pizza once it started).

The characters also seem slightly more three-dimensional than a lot of the cheap teen scare flicks. There conversations were refreshingly level-headed for the most part, as opposed to the over-the-top stereotypes you'd expect. For example, the girl who is the popular, snobby, queen-bee of the clique isn't constantly spouting insults at everyone, but is capable of having doubts and showing some consideration for others.

So, to summarize, I felt this movie was somewhat original compared to what I expected, and a little better made as well. It drew me in, kept me interested, and then let me have it. As I said, it's pretty gory during the finale, but almost family friendly much of the rest of the time. I don't need to own it, but I'm glad I discovered it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I also saw this at the cinema in the 80s and have never forgotten it, even though I have never seen it again anywhere.

I don't know whether if I did see it now it would seem dated, but remembering the storyline and comparing it to some of the terrible modern films I've seen on Zone Horror I should think it would stand up very well.

I can still remember his coffin sliding out and opening up and all the dead bodies becoming reanimated, and the blue lightning. Having seen hundreds of horror movies and still remembering this one, it must be good.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"One Dark Night\" is a staple in the 1980's low budget horror genre. Filled with retro puns, clothing and scenery, \"ODN\" transports the viewer to a simpler time, when horror films were just that... Horror!

Nothing so intense that you can't understand whats going on, the film tells a dark fable of what happens when you mess with the dead. Well acted by it's stable of scream-queens, and a fine directorial job by Tom McLoughlin, whom revels in the time and makes you believe what he's presenting. There is no \"Who done it?\" and certainly no big twist at the end. It is straight-forward and in your face horror from beginning to end, with a lot of 80's humor thrown in for added spice. I give it \"8\" simply because some of the special effects fall short towards the end of the film, but at least there is no CGI... Perfect film for new fans to the 1980's horror genre, or anyone looking to re-live a fun night of classic horror bliss.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"As part of an initiation prank Julie (Meg Tilly of Psycho 2) has to spend the night in a mausoleum, but Karl Rhamarevich, a master of telekinesis has recently died and been put in there. When Julie's fellow sorority sisters desecrate where he's housed the real terror starts.

This little flick had a good deal of atmosphere and I enjoyed the build up, plus the last twenty minutes are just plain great. Anyone who's looking for a lost gem of an '80's horror movie needn't look any further. Highly under-appreciated. Plus Elizabeth Daily is adorable.

My Grade: B

Media Blaster DVD Extras: Disc 1) Commentary with director Tom McLoughlin and co-writer Michael Hawes; and trailers for \"the Being\", \"Frankestien's Bloody Terror\", \"Just Before Dawn\", & \"Devil Dog\" Disc 2) Alternate director's cut (that's almost unwatchable due to a bad print) & Behind-the-scenes featurette","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was kinda surprised by the PG rating on the back of the DVD case. I certainly wouldn't want my kids watching this one. I think this would scare the crap out of a 10 year old.

Plot: A girl trying to fit in to the clique is hazed and tormented by the 'in crowd.' They talk her into spending the night in this creepy mausoleum (that reminded me of Phantasm...) and they proceed to torment her in the night. Little do they know, a recently deceased clairvoyant is coming back to life and raising the dead around them! It sounds awfully cheesy, but given the age and the budget, which was no doubt pretty small, this film is fun on many levels.

Watch for an early EG Daily as one of the in crowd brats. I enjoyed it and it scared my girlfriend.

7 out of 10, kids.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"You have GOT to see this movie... I saw it, as a 13 year old, at the theater, on my very first date... Fast forward over 20 years and I'm now gay (Thanks a lot One Dark Night!! LOL!). This movie creeped the hell out of me as a kid (mausoleums still do!), but as an adult, the thrill of this movie isn't in the storyline, but rather the hysterical laughs it holds... Highlights are listening to the names the teenagers call each other, from \"nerdlebrain\" (my personal favorite) to \"turkey\". Also, keep your eyes peeled for the scene where Carol (the blond, head sister) attempts to hang her phone up on a soda can (can't believe they didn't reshoot that!)... Other highlights include Adam West's overly dramatic outbursts and the gooey corpses. If you're a fan of true horror, I'd suggest this film just because, to me, it's almost a parody on horror. There is def. a creepy factor and the plot is a good one, but don't watch it if you want to be scared out of your wits (unless you're like 10 years old or something).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't describe the feeling when I got this crappy VHS rental cassette in my hands about 20 years ago. Somehow I got my father to rent it for me and I watched it twice with my little brother. Yes, we got nightmares. This film was originally rated as PG in the US, in many other countries, including Finland, it was restricted under 18 or 16. The film was aimed to teenagers, but this must be the goriest PG-rated film ever. There's no bad language or nudity in it what so ever. Originally made in 1981, stayed on the shelves for a couple of years before release.

This is an A-class B-movie, a true, well made 80's horror flick. A bunch of college girls decide to spent a night in a mausoleum, not knowing that a supernatural evil awaits...

You can almost smell the rotting flesh and feel the atmosphere of this movie. It's campy, utterly stupid, but they just can't make these movies anymore. There is definitely a certain feel to this 80's horror genre. This one is still effectively spooky and entertaining after all these years.

The effects are just oozing quality by Ellis Burman Jr and Thomas R. Burman. The make-up effects play a big part in this flick, otherwise it would've been just a boring teen slasher.

It's now available on DVD at last and it's a Special Edition DVD including some extras too. Commentary track is interesting.

(In fact, this version isn't so special after all. Below average transfer on DVD, some glitches and scratches here and there) At first it was going to be released by the Blue Underground but unfortunately it was canceled, so Shriek Show released it without restoring the print. Too bad!)

Great date-movie!

Recommended!!!

Note! I only gave 8 out of 10 because of the \"nostalgic values\", otherwise 6 out of 10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have great memories of this movie...

I was only 12 when it was released and it scared the bejesus out of me. I really miss my bejesus...

Zombies, graveyards, mausoleums, how can you go wrong? It's like Phantasm's retarded cousin.

This movie was released 1 year before the PG-13 rating was instituted.

I submit that One Dark Night is the GORIEST PG movie (not scariest, mind you) that has ever been released.

Can anyone come up with a gorier pick?

(FYI: I don't consider Poltergeist to be gorier...scarier, yes. But not gorier...)","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Flashes of lightning; a sprawling cemetery; the name of Adam 'Batman' West: all pop up on screen before the opening credits are even over, and yet, despite these rather naff elements, One Dark Night isn't as cheesy as it might first seem.

Meg Tilly (Jennifer's sister) plays pretty student Julie, who reluctantly agrees to spend the night alone in a mausoleum as part of her initiation into exclusive high school clique The Sisters. What Julie doesn't realise is that the other 'sisters' plan to freak her out with some ghoulish pranks\u0097or that the most recent body to be interred in the mausoleum is that of 'psychic vampire' Raymar, who feeds off the life force of scared young women.

Admittedly, this isn't the most original of set-ups, but thankfully there are enough inventive touches to help set this film apart from the competition, my favourites being the macabre sight of everyday objects embedded in the walls of Raymar's apartment, and the creepy manner in which mouldy corpses float through the cold marble corridors of the mausoleum during the excellent finale. Hal Trussell's impressive steadicam cinematography and Tom Burman's wonderfully macabre special effects also add immensely to the chilling atmosphere.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is my favourite movie of all time. And I always think of it as John Huston's requiem.

I must have seen it at least 20 times and never tire of it. The mood, the script, the singing, the dinner, it is like being invited into someone's home and observing the events and not able to participate even though you want to... It is a rare treasure, this movie and I cannot write enough praise for it.

It is cast incredibly well, with quite a few Abbey Theatre faces and also the wonderful tenor voice of Frank Patterson. Lady Gregory's poem recited in the movie is one of the most moving ever written. Anjelica's scene walking down the stairs as she listens to the song is one of the best performances every seen on film. I cry every time I see it..for all the right reasons.

We have all had love lost at an early age and weep for our young hopeful selves.

Donal McCann acted in far too few movies for my liking, he just loved stage work and stuck to it, and it is our loss that we do not have more of his performances on film as he does so much with this delicate role by expression and the portrayal of a deep love for his wife that will never be reciprocated and he conveys such inner sadness at knowing this.

If you want your movies action and plot packed avoid this, there really is no beginning, middle or end just a lens onto the characters at a dinner party in Dublin 80 years ago and all the little nuances and shadings of the personalities portrayed so beautifully.

Bravo to all who were involved in this production. 10 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Huston was seriously ill when he made his final achievement,and it's thoroughly his testament:uncompromising,difficult ,a thousand miles away from crazes and fashions,it will stand as the best \"last film\" you can ever dream of.A very austere screenplay,no action,no real hero,but a group of people coping with the vanity of life,the fleeting years and death.The party doesn't delude people for long.Admittedly,warmth and affection emanate from the songs and the meal,complete with turkey and pudding.But the passage of time has partly ruined Julia's voice,first crack in the mirror.Then the camera leaves the room where the guests are gathered and searches the old lady's bedroom.For sure,hers seems to have been a happy life,but it's a life inexorably coming to an end-A shot shows towards the end of the movie Julia on her future deathbed-.Maybe an unfulfilled life,because she remained a spinster,with no children to carry on .Only some poor things,yellowish photographs,bibelots and trinklets.... But are a human being's hopes and dreams all fulfilled?Look at Gretta.She 's a married woman ,about thirty-five,she's still beautiful and healthy but she knows something is broken.What Julia is today,she will be tomorrow,that's why,in her stream of consciousness,she goes back to her past,only to find out how harrowing her memories are: a young man committed suicide for her,a symbol of her youth now waning.The final monologue,if we listen closely to it,involves us all in this eternal tragedy,the doomed to failure human condition,John Huston's masterly lesson.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have watched thousands of movies in my life and I believe this movie is the most \"perfect\" movie that has ever been made. By perfect I mean the storytelling, the plot, the acting, the staging, the camera work, etc. (This is a lay opinion; I have no background in film production.) A lot of movies have perfect scenes, such as the bartender filing a report with the police officer in the movie Fargo. (Indeed, that scene could play well as a short.) In The Dead every scene is done to perfection, making the entire movie perfect. Perhaps, John Huston sold his soul to the Devil to make such a movie. Hopefully, Daniel Webster has gotten him out of the contract!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The entire movie, an artful adaptation of one of Joyce's \"Dubliners\" stories, takes place on the night of January 6 (Epiphany), 1906. Most of the film takes place at an annual party given by three spinsters (two sisters and their niece), where a group of upper-class Dubliners gather for an evening of music, recitations and dinner. While there is very little plot per se, the interaction and conversation among the group reveals much about Dublin in the early 20th century when the stirrings for independence were just beginning. The cast, all talented Irish stage actors with the exception of Anjelica Huston, are universally wonderful, and one actually feels he is a guest at the gathering himself. The poignant final scene, between Ms. Huston and the amazing Donal McCann, reveals much about the marriage of the characters. There is poignancy mixed with humor and insight, and for those who like quiet, thoughtful movies, \"The Dead\" is highly recommended. My wife is from Dublin, we make a ritual of watching this wonderful movie every January 6th. After many viewings it never fails to move me, and each time I glean something that I've missed before.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"So many literary adaptations are disappointments. There are many reasons for that, but usually it is the need to cut down a complex novel to the size of a screenplay. The Dead is unusual - it had to be 'padded', as the short story itself is a tiny, relatively short gem. It may in fact be the finest short story in the English language. In beautifully spare language it tells of the realization of Gabriel Conroy that his life, and the lives of so many around him are controlled by memories of the dead. Even his own wife of many years loved a man now dead more than him.

To bring such a short story to the cinema was always going to be tricky. John Huston did a magnificent job. He never gave in to temptation to play it up or use fancy technique to expand on the story. It is simple and true, with outstanding acting. The only slight miss-step is the use of music to accompany the devastating final soliloquy.

Its rare indeed for a movie version of a literary masterpiece to be itself a masterpiece, but I think its fair to use this term for this movie. Its not a bravura piece of film making, but it is simple and pure - I always think of Ozu's movies when i think of The Dead, its at that level of purity and simplicity and deep wisdom.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"An exquisite film. They just don't make them like this any more! We eavesdrop on an upper middle class family in Dublin in the early part of the 20th century. They are hosting an after Christmas dinner for their friends and relatives. Their table talk is just idle chatter but it is so well written that one is engrossed. Away from the dinner table some fine piano playing helps to create an intimate atmosphere as if one were there as one of the guests. Perhaps a bit too perfect for an amateur player, the odd mistake here and there would have added to the magic of this film. No real story but real entertainment and an object lesson for up and coming film makers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"It's a short movie for such immense feelings. The last 20 or so minutes are among the most intense in the recent years of the industry. Huston (John) is dying and only love can make the difference. The actor's work in the long evening scene is absolutely marvellous.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The last film of John Huston, the great American director of the Irish descent is an adaptation of the last short story in the early collection \"Dubliners\", of the greatest writer ever came from Ireland. The film is a family affair. The dying director made it based on the script adapted by his son Tony Huston from one of the most poignant, beautiful and profound short story ever written in this language and considered by many THE BEST English language short story. John directed his daughter Anjelica in what could be her finest screen performance. The film is short, only 83 minutes. It's got no action sequences, no plot, it is almost non-eventful, and it may seem slow. The guests, friends and relatives come to the party that takes place in Dublin during the Epiphany week in January 1904, at the house of two elderly sisters who give annual dinner with music and dance. What viewers see for the first hour, is the ensemble conversation piece. The guests talk, listen to the music, discuss the latest opera premiere, and make jokes, sometimes awkward. Gradually, the conversation turns to the long dead friends or relatives the memory of whom never faded away.

This is the film you have to stay with, let it pull you in, listen to what and how the guests at the party say, how they communicate. Pay attention to the body languages, to the looks at their faces when they drift away from the light, laugh, and music of the present to the long gone but never in fact left most precious memories where the Dead of the title are not dead but forever young and so alive. If you do, you will be awarded with the final scene of such emotional power and impact that it will always stay with you. It will break your heart to pieces, pull them together and put it back transfixed. The film as well as Joyce's story centers on Gabriel Conroy (Donal McCann as James Joyce's alter ego gave a very moving understated performance) as one of the party guests who arrives with his wife Gretta (Anjelica Huston). Gabriel is still in love, feels close connection to and fascinated with her. It is after the party, he discovers that even after many years of closeness, he does not know all about her past, her pains, her regrets, and the unforgettable emotions and loss she had lived through as a young girl, and he is no part of. For the first time, he looks at her and thinks of her not as the indelible part of his existence but as another human being with her own inner world, her own loneliness and sadness, and for the first time, \"a strange, friendly pity for her entered his soul.\" It is he who narrates the final most powerful and profound lines of the story: \"Snow is general all over Ireland. . . falling faintly through the universe, and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead.\"

If you have not seen the film or read the Joyce's story, please do. They are truly the works of Art that leave the everlasting impression and would change something in you to the best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Easily one of my three or four favorite films. Definitely one for the desert island. There is nothing `brilliant' about this film. Rather, it glows warm and welcoming. The audience is invited to a party and, like any good party, the joy comes in the interaction of the guests, and what you learn as you progress from one to the next. With apologies to Joyce, the film's title conjures up a number of ideas that keep audiences away. The film is not horrifying. It is not depressing. It is a beautiful look into a time that has past, within which people are growing up, and others are winding down. Some are frustrated, and others are serene. And all around, ever present throughout the evening, are the people, and the parts of people, that have been laid to rest. The words these exquisite actors are given to speak are perfection and, set to the music of the Irish brogue, are an auditory feast, particularly to us flat-toned Americans. About the lack of brilliance I referred to above, I take it back. There is no other word to describe the final scene between Anjelica Huston and Donal McCann. It speaks quiet volumes about \u0085 well, everything. Some lovely snowy evening, rent this film and just let it happen before you. No gunfights, no car chases, no dinosaurs \u0096 just film at its most sublime.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Huston finished his remarkable career with one of the most perfect and sensitive movies I've ever seen. For his farewell he decided to adapt James Joyce's beautiful short story, \"The Dead\", and made not only one of the most faithful literature-to-film adaptations yet, he also crafted a movie that more than 20 years later still surpasses a lot of contemporary cinema.

When I watched this movie a few years ago, as a student at University, I gazed in awe at the screen, marvelling at every aspect of the movie: acting, screen writing, direction, costumes, settings, music, cinematography. Thinking about it now, I still can't of anything I'd criticise it for. Huston just knew how to tell a good story.

A good deal of credit should also go to Tony Huston. He knew better than to meddle with a text that is not only perfection itself but already visual enough for cinema. Father and son let the story breathe and relish in the long, fascinating conversations between characters, and in the meaningful silences.

Donal McCann also deserves credit for the his performance as Gabriel Conroy. I had never seen him in movies before, nor have I seen him afterwards, but he gave one of the most moving performances I've ever seen.

All in all, The Dead is a fine cinematic experience, from a legendary director who never stopped being excellent.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There are so many '10 Best' lists which could easily fit \"The Dead\" - Best Screen Drunk, Best Literary Adaptation, Best Use Of Music Not Specifically Written for the Film, Best Use of Poetry, Best Screen Speech, Best Ensemble Cast and finally, perhaps, Best Film Ever Made. This was John Huston's last and greatest film, adapted by his son Tony from James Joyce's short story and set on the evening of the Feast of the Epiphany in the Dublin of 1904. It is confined, largely, to one setting, the home of the Morkan sisters, and not a great deal happens in conventional 'dramatic' terms. They entertain their guests; there is singing, dancing, recitations and much small talk but watching this film you can't imagine anywhere else you would rather be than in this company.

Finally, of course, it is 'about' much, much more. It is about love, loss and regret, those stable mainstays of great drama. In the film's closing scenes the tenor Bartell D'Arcy, (Frank Patterson), sings a song, 'The Lass of Aughrim' which conjures up in the mind of Gretta, (Anjelica Huston), wife of Gabriel, (Donal McCann), the ghost of her first and probably greatest love, a boy who died in all certainty of a broken heart at the age of seventeen, and suddenly Gabriel realises he has never really known his wife and that he has not been the great love of her life, after all. Emotionally, these scenes are incredibly powerful, firstly as Gretta recounts the circumstances of her lover's death and then as the voice in Gabriel's head sums up his own feelings. This is great cinema, the monologues superbly delivered by Huston and McCann.

But then all the performances are extraordinary. This is ensemble playing of the highest order and while it would be invidious to single out one performer above another, has the screen ever given us a more likable, genial or convincing drunk than Donal Donnelly or has poetry ever been delivered with such passion that Sean McClory, (the IRA man in \"The Quiet Man\"), brings to his reading of Lady Gregory's translation of 'Donal Og' here? Added poignancy is to be had, of course, from the knowledge that Huston himself was close to death when he made this film which seems to me the culmination of his life's work. Death may well be its central theme but viewing this film is a life-enhancing experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"For his last film, John Huston directed his daughter, Anjelica, in this adaptation of the story from James Joyce's \"Dubliners\", and he gave us one of his finest achievements to remember him by.

Joyce is about as impossible to film as anyone, but \"The Dead\" at least presents a traditional narrative to work with. Much (indeed, almost all) of the important information in the story lies in the spaces between the lines, in characters' thoughts and expressions -- there are big moments, but they're cerebral -- they're not the stuff of which movies are made. But somehow, Huston gets it right, and he manages a nearly flawless adaptation.

Anjelica is magnificent, and the movie is haunting and powerful.

Grade: A","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In print this is one of the greatest short stories ever written, brought brilliantly and poetically to the screen by this father-son team, working together, sadly, for the first and last time.It is fitting that John Huston should end his career on a high note by bringing the work of one of his favorite author's to the screen, in what is easily the best Joyce screen adaptation. Huston made a career of adapting great works of literature to film, usually quite successfully. It is sad, and somewhat puzzling, that Tony Huston pretty much began and ended his career in film by adapting what would be his father's final project and picking up a well-deserved Oscar nomination in the process.

I once had the privilege of sitting in the company of the great screenwriter\/playwright Horton Foote, who cited this film as one of his favorites in recent years (at the time it was still a fairly recent release). As a rather prolific screenwriter himself (and a brilliant screen adapter of his own works, as well as great authors such as Faulkner, Steinbeck and Harper Lee) he was obviously impressed with Tony Huston's first time effort, and possibly equally puzzled by his lack of output since then. If anyone has insights to share on the topic I'd be interested to hear more.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Not often it happens that a great director\u00b4s last movie becomes such a moving, brillantly performed and filmed masterpiece. The cast is excellent as well as the camerawork. What starts up as a merry coming-together of a group of well-educated citizens of an early-20th-century- Dublin turns into a dark, philosophic narration about all our fear from death and the sometimes dark shadows of the past. Thank You, Mister Huston, for this last piece of great cinema!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I believe John Houston's \"The Dead\" is a true classic. Not only was it Houston's final film, he is quoted as saying \"all I know about film making is in this film.\" The story, closely adapted from \"Dubliners\" by James Joyce, is a great ensemble piece featuring sterling performances by Angelica Houston, John's daughter, and a cast of English and Irish actors who bring the story to life. This is a film that should be part of any serious collection, not only because it is visually elegant, but because the story is timeless and very appealing. The film is not hurried, nor is it charged with action. Rather, the story unfolds from within the characters, who bring light and meaning to the dialog. The end of the film is stunning, poetic, and haunting. I recommend \"The Dead\" without reservation as one of the finest films ever made.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is really the only chance to see the magic of James Joyce's writing brought to life. His novels are all unfilmable (in any real sense) and this is the only long story he wrote. It was John Huston's last film and did not reach the screen until after he had died, and it is easy to see his touch of greatness. The Dead is poetical in its approach on the screen, telling us more about Ireland than any modern movie on the IRA and \"the troubles\" could ever hope to tell us. Hopefully more people will watch this film and get to experience the finest of both John Huston and James Joyce, and perhaps visit this story in your local bookstore (and discover that it is probably the greatest short story ever put on paper).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Naturally in a film who's main themes are of mortality, nostalgia, and loss of innocence it is perhaps not surprising that it is rated more highly by older viewers than younger ones. However there is a craftsmanship and completeness to the film which anyone can enjoy. The pace is steady and constant, the characters full and engaging, the relationships and interactions natural showing that you do not need floods of tears to show emotion, screams to show fear, shouting to show dispute or violence to show anger. Naturally Joyce's short story lends the film a ready made structure as perfect as a polished diamond, but the small changes Huston makes such as the inclusion of the poem fit in neatly. It is truly a masterpiece of tact, subtlety and overwhelming beauty.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've been waiting years for THE DEAD to come out on video, having pretty much worn my VHS copy to shreds. This is one of the most beautiful films ever made for the holidays. It takes place on the Feast of the Epiphany (Twelfth Night), and is a simple, poignant vignette of characters attending a dinner prepared by three Dublin women. Central to the story is a fairly loveless couple, a wife who once passionately loved a young man who died for her and a man who wants to feel the same kind of passion for his wife, but feels incapable. All of the performances are stunning, and the script weaves among the various characters at the dinner beautifully. Of course, its source material is James Joyce's short story of the same title, and much of his narrative structure is kept fully intact. John Huston's long career as one of Hollywood's greatest filmmakers had a truly fitting finale with this film, which was scripted by his son, Tony Huston; stars his daughter, Anjelica Huston; and is dedicated to his wife, Maricella. Thank you to Lions Gate for picking up the rights to this film and releasing it on DVD. For lovers of all things Irish or for folks looking for a literate, subtle, yet incredibly moving holiday film, this is a true gem.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"James Joyce, arguably, could write some of the best sentences in the English language, and his short story, \"The Dead,\" which ends his collection The Dubliners, contains\u0097in its finale\u0097perhaps the most perfect paragraph in the English language. It's fitting that John Huston, who held back in attempting to film this story, ended his career with it. As with The Red Badge of Courage and The Man Who Would Be King, Huston revered the literary source but made the adaptation cinematic. And with \"The Dead\" (which was completed after Huston's death by his son, Tony Huston) we get something nearly perfect in the marriage of literature and cinema.

Valuing all that cinema can do, as one of the commentators points out \"this isn't The African Queen\" (nor does it need to be), this is the kind of movie that is uncompromising for an audience. All of us slogged through Portrait of an Artist in school, and one needs to bring the maturity of appreciating how words and images in and of themselves can touch us. As with silent films, Huston seeks something pure here, and he works with the confidence of his many years and leaves the world a masterpiece that equals Joyce's original.

Many veterans of the Irish theater world are recruited to bring the story of a man filled with self-importance (and mock self-doubt) that's reinforced by the hosts of an annual party on the eve of the Feast of the Epiphany. What's in store for Gabriel Conroy is an evening of celebration, song, dance, poetry where he's asked to give the annual toast to the two sisters and their niece who host the party. He's distracted by the task wanting to rise to the occasion, and this distraction leaves him vulnerable for an earth-shattering experience, handed to him by his wife. While his ego is shaken when he hears a story from his wife's past, it's also a gift where all that seems to have mattered throughout the evening is swept away by the realization of impending mortality for all who are living.

And rather than trying to make the last famous paragraph of the story \"cinematic,\" Huston brings in a voice over and we hear those incredible words recited as we watch \"the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling.\" It's the perfect solution to a filmmaker's adaptation.

The cast is all we would hope. Since this is basically a testament to the power of the written word and how it brings us together through common experience each performer seems elevated by their role. Anjelica Huston as Gretta Conroy has a wide range to play, and her account of a young boy who once loved her sears not only Gabriel Conroy, but the audience as well.

When I think of Anjelica Huston, it's the transformation she makes in this film; and when I think of her father, it's this film I remember first.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Argentinian music poet, Atahualpa Yupanqui, once said that some folk music repeats similarly at any country of the world. They look the same but everybody consider them as their own folk music...

This film, as I feel it, is about the same music that repeats all over the world at some time of each country's history. First, a few listen it playing and try to make the others hear it. Then some, believe that they hear it, but they don't. Then, nobody says anything and some people appear to listen to it. And others recognize that they have heard it, but didn't think that others might be hearing it. Finally, everybody listen to the same music, and suddenly it doesn't sound any more...

Love and poetry, as a real nationalism and the legacy of a father to his children...

Why would he call the film, The Dead when nobody dies? The Spanish translation of the title refused to follow the same rule and we call it Dubliners, following James Joyce's title...

A nice 1900 Irish filmed postcard!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Saw this film at the NFT in London where it was showing as part of the BFI's John Huston season. I wasn't really sure what to expect and the first few minutes of the film gave very little away. In fact the rest of the film continued to give little away! No real plot, no action, no suspense, very little drama and, except for a short section at the very end, no scenery.

The result of lack of all of these features was, however, a wonderful film. I don't fully understand why, but I think that its understated nature made the film almost completely perfect. The acting, script and, most important of all, the casting were all spot on and I can't remember walking away from a cinema feeling so good, but I still can't work out why. I just know that I will be getting the DVD (this is one of those films that will, I am sure, be just as good on the small screen as the cinema experience, provided that you can find somewhere quiet to watch it!) and I will be watching it again soon. I will be also interested to find out what my family and friends think of it. I'm sure that it will not be everybody's choice but I am convinced that a large number will agree with my view.

9 out of 10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Huston made many remarkable and memorable films. Those most often and easily recalled were released long before his passing in 1987. It was that year, however, that reminded us that Huston was still at the top of his game as evinced by his faithful adaptation of James Joyce's acclaimed novella \"The Dead.\"

Once long ago, a very wise man called Doc asked me, \"Doesn't \"The Dead\" seem remarkably more vivid and bright than any of the other stories in Dubliners?\" I tend to think that it is. The story and film both contain some of Joyce's societal comments and criticisms, but for the most part, paint a warm and loving portrait of an Ireland Joyce himself so often railed against and would shortly leave.

Huston's handling of protagonist Gabriel Conroy, who realizes the world as he sees it is nothing more than an illusion, is simply remarkable. To claim that the film lacks plot is to miss the point. As with any of Joyce's Dubliners, plot--while most certainly present--is not the focus. Plot is merely a tool for the conveyance of the protagonist's epiphany. In addition to a seeming lack in action, there is quite frankly little dialogue in Joyce's short story for the director to lean on. Huston's ability to translate what Joyce puts in words into visuals is quite possibly the movie's greatest triumph. Feelings, thoughts...Gabriel's discomfort during the dance...all these intangibles leap to life and come within the viewer's grasp in Huston's portrayal.

To claim that Huston has softened his writer's criticism of society again misses the mark. While \"The Dead\" may be painted with a cheerful hue, the complacency and pretense of the film's characters is but a comment on society on a smaller scale: we are the toddling old aunts; the embarrassing drunk; the tenor with the sore throat; the wife with the sad, rain soaked secret; even the self-deluded middle-aged man.

But \"The Dead\" belies its title. It is not a dark story. Nor is it really that bleak. Forget for a moment the snow falling on the living and the dead and the inherent symbolism in it; forget the shambles of a life Gabriel awakes to at the film's end: it is only with the destruction of the illusions Gabriel has of himself and of his world that he can truly go forward. Such is the central point of the film. Such is the central point of our lives.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"The Dead\" truly is a work of art. Clearly, John Huston meant to show that he was still \"in the full glory of some passion\" by making it, even as his body was failing him. This movie is powerfully affecting and lingers in the mind long after it is done. Reading the Joyce short story certainly adds more depth to the characters, especially Gabriel's inner turmoil, but the essence is all there in this film. As a statement by an artist of his love of life and his craft, \"The Dead\" stands alone.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Because of the depth of his character studies and complexity of story lines, James Joyce's works do not easily translate into film. Yet John Huston, in his last film before his death, achieved a perfect translation of Joyce's story. He received great support from his son, as writer, and daughter, as actress.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Writers and directors, by the nature of their craft, stand back a frame from the action in their work to show insights about characters and situations. Here, Huston and Joyce have stepped back a bigger frame yet to show us the ultimate view of what it means to be human. Until it's very end the movie appears to be about nothing much, the kind of typical circumstances that fill every day life. It is not until the end of the very final scene that we realize that it is in fact about everything.

It is not possible to watch this final scene without simultaneously feeling pity, and also deep affection, for oneself and the rest of fellow beings.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"John Huston, actor and director better known for more robust fare such as \"The Misfits\" and \"African Queen,\" directs his daughter, Angelica Huston, in what would be his last film. Indeed, the film was released after Huston's death. Based on James Joyce's novella of the same name, \"The Dead\" tells the quiet story of a New Year's celebration in 1904 Dublin. Huston, his cast and his screenwriters, including his son Tony, have created a gem of a movie. The novella is among Joyce's finest works (as well as being the only one that is filmable). The film is a tribute to Huston's genius. He has taken a small,beautiful story and has made a small, beautiful movie. Donal McCann and Angelica Huston shine (although \"shine\" is too showy, too flashy a word to describe their quiet, understated performances). \"The Dead\" reflects the Huston family's love for Ireland and is, in its own quiet way, a fitting final movie for a legend.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is possibly the most perfect film I have ever seen - in acting, adaptation and direction. It is self-contained and of a kind, so there is no point in saying that it is better or worse than other great films, just that it can stand by itself as a perfect work of art.

And it was fun watching confused horror fans getting up and walking out!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this film in Austria when it first came out, and I was entranced by it. It is a passionate and deeply moving work that should be experienced by all connoisseurs of motion picture art. What a shame that it has never been released in DVD format. Perhaps one of these days that will be rectified, as it would be a shame indeed if one of the best films ever made was forgotten and left to fade away in some film vault forever.

Why is it that 'B' movies like 'American Wedding' and 'Eurotrip' get widescreen and fullscreen releases, and often a special edition with multiple commentaries and extras, while great art pieces like 'The Dead' are all but forgotten?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A rare exception to the rule that great literature makes disappointing films, John Huston's beautiful farewell to life and the movies is almost entirely true to the narrative and the spirit of James Joyce's short story, a tender meditation on love, death and time expressed in the events of a Twelfth Night party in middle-class Dublin circa 1910. Unpromising as the material might appear, the film succeeds by its willingness to tell the story on its own quiet, apparently inconsequential terms, rather than force a conventional cinematic shape of plot points and dramatic incidents upon it. Only once is the wrong note struck, when old Miss Julia (a trained singer and music teacher whose voice is supposed to have been cracked by age, not shattered) sings so badly that the audience burst out laughing when I saw this at the cinema. Fortunately, the mood of hushed and gentle melancholy is re-established in plenty of time for the moment of revelation between the married couple Gabriel and Gretta Conroy in a hotel bedroom as snow begins to fall outside. It's a sad story, I suppose, but the kind that leaves you feeling better, not blue. Especially recommended as a date movie - for people in love who aren't frightened of confronting the sweetness and sadness of life.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"When Melville's \"Pierre; or The Ambiguities\" hit bookstores in 1852, his first publication since \"Moby Dick\" a year earlier, the public response was similar to that found among the IMDB reviews of \"POLA X\". Newspapers even published headlines like: \"Melville Insane!\" which, of course, he wasn't. But, when one compares the writing styles found in \"Moby Dick\" and \"Pierre,\" one finds in the latter a sharp departure from the simple and often declamatory style found in the former. Clearly, he was mimicking the overly florid style of the now-forgotten Victorian Romances that were easily outselling his immortal \"Moby Dick.\" He was not content, however, to turn out the sort of product that his publishers wanted, and that surely would have sold. His version of a Victorian romance was a twisted, cynical one, perhaps, but brilliant in its synthesis. The alternate title: \"The ambiguities\" is quite appropriate. As Pierre searches for, and thinks he finds, truth, we become more and more uncertain what and whom to believe. As he searches for happiness, he becomes more and more miserable.

\"POLA X\" is a fascinating adaptation of this novel, set in modern or nearly modern France. Though, in some ways, it leaves little to the imagination, and shows us graphically the incestuous relations that Melville could only hint at, the ambiguities which make the novel and its message so alluring are perfectly in tact. The questions it raises are ones that few films have thought to ask, yet the answers are left to the viewer.

I recommend a reading of the novel, which is much shorter than \"Moby Dick,\" before seeing this movie. I hope more people discover this tantalizing film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"At times I really wonder\u0085 when I look at the comments here it seems as if most people have seen a completely different film than I have. I've just seen it... and liked it. Not in the way, that it made me happy, but in the way of having seen a good film!

The film needs some patience, yes. And yes, the main character is REALLY annoying, but that I'm sure is by intention.

Maybe it really makes a difference if you watch this film in a cinema or at home. Most people watch films at home like they are listening to elevator music. This movie definitely doesn't fit as background noise.

And no. Good directing doesn't mean having five laughs or explosions a second. Good directing means following your subject and keeping the story and actors together. And while that doesn't work out perfectly, at least I think it works quite good.

I liked the photography and sets, even if they brink on the surreal at times. The opening scene is really special.

I also liked the acting \u0096 Guillaume Depardieu is NOT playing Pierre. He is acting the role of a Pierre who is himself playing a role! Pierre is not the romantic hero that he so hard tries to be, he is a presumptuous and self-righteous idiot, a downright weakling who by and by harms all the people he claims to protect. That even his love for truth is simply a pose is beautifully demonstrated by his ongoing lying and not even once asking questions or explaining himself.

People are wondering where this or that person came from and other stuff: No character who is seen for more than two scenes is left unexplained, there is enough information scattered throughout the film on everyone.

And even the strange building begins to make sense as soon as the target practicing is seen: Remember that Isabelle fled from a war zone - and obviously this is a refuge for fighters in a civil war, most likely Bosnia (which was still going on, when the film was produced). At least that's what is hinted at by the story Isabelle tells Pierre when she first meets him and by the later scene where Pierre shows Isabelle the book with his father on the cover, which is surrounded by books on Bosnia.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"No one would ever question that director Leos Carax is a genius, but what we wonder about is: is he an insane genius? So many people hated this film! I am normally the first person to accuse many French directors of making offensive, boring, disgusting and pretentious films (such as the horrible recent film 'L'Enfant' and the pointless and offensive 'Feux Rouges'). But strangely enough, I actually think that 'Pola X' is an amazing film, made with great skill and passion by a master of his craft, and containing remarkable performances. The film does carry melodrama to more extreme lengths than I believe I have ever seen on screen before. But then, Carax is extreme, that we know. The film also contains what I consider way over-the-top Trotskyite or Anarchist fantasies and wet-dreams, what with a mysterious group of young men training to fire machine guns at the bourgeoisie in between playing Scott Walker's rather fascinating music in a band which has its recording sessions in an abandoned warehouse filled with squatters and fires burning in old steel barrels. Guillaume Depardieu plays a rich young man in a ch\u00e2teau (whose step-mother is Catherine Deneuve, and he wanders into her bathroom while she is naked in the bath, by the way). But he suddenly 'snaps' completely when he discovers that his deceased father, a famous diplomat, had fathered an illegitimate daughter who had been effectively disposed of by Deneuve as an inconvenience. This is because the sister suddenly turns up as a kind of Romanian refugee with wild dishevelled hair, expressionless face, and little ability to speak French coherently. Depardieu then transforms himself into a 'class hero' of the far left and wants to kill or destroy his family for their hypocrisy and corruption, and lives in squalor and extreme poverty, while scorning a vast inheritance. He then commences an incestuous sexual relationship with his half-sister, which is shown in an explicit sex scene which has offended many people, though I have no objection to it, as I think people are far too hysterical about sex, especially in America, where apparently it never happens. The intensity of the acting and the filming make this unlikely scenario come off as an experience of powerful, if depressing, hyper-melodrama. The differences between Carax making an extreme film like this and the numerous extreme French films which I think are pretentious and disgusting are (1) that Carax is an excellent filmmaker, and (2) he is seriously attempting to explore a meaningful, if harrowing, extreme emotional condition, whereby a human being disintegrates and turns against his background. Many would say that the extreme elements in this film were gratuitous, but I don't agree. I believe Carax was genuine, and was not making an exploitation picture at all. It is very difficult to defend a man who goes that far and who, for all I know, may be a complete madman, but I believe he deserves defending for this remarkable cinematic achievement.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This movie starts off somewhat slowly and gets running towards the end. Not that that is bad, it was done to illustrate character trait degression of the main character. Consequently, if you are not into tragedies, this is not your movie. It is the thought provoking philosophy of this movie that makes it worthwhile. If you liked Dostoyevsky's 'Crime and Punishment,\" you will probably like this if only for the comparisons. The intriguing question that the movie prompts is, \"What is it that makes a renowned writer completely disregard his publicly-aproved ideas for another set?\" The new ideas are quite opposed to the status quo-if you are a conservative you will not like this movie.

Besides other philosophical questions, I must admit that the movie was quite aesthetically pleasing as well. The grassy hillsides and beautiful scenery helped me get past the slow start. Also, there was use of coloric symbolism in representing the mindstate of the main characters. If these sorts of things do not impress you, skip it. Overall I give this movie a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pola X is a beautiful adaption of Herman Melville's 'Pierre; or, the Ambiguities'. The comments on here surprise me, it makes me wonder what has led to the overwhelmingly negative reaction.

The shock value is the least appealing thing about this film - a minor detail that has been blown out of proportion. The story is of Pierre's downfall - and the subsequent destruction of those around him - which is overtly demonstrated in his features, demeanour and idiolect. The dialogue and soundtrack set this film apart from any other I have seen, and turn a fundamentally traditional storyline with controversial twists into an unforgettably emotional epic.

I can't stress enough the importance of disregarding everything you have heard about this film and watching, as I did, with an open mind. You will, I hope, be rewarded in the same way that I was. I felt on edge and nervous from around the half-hour mark, however the film is far from scary in any traditional sense. It will leave you with 1,000 thoughts, each of them at once troublesome and thrilling. I know I'm gushing here, but I feel the need to make up for the negative perception of this film. It's the best I've seen all year.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I agree with \"johnlewis\", who said that there is a lot going on between the lines in this film. While I do think the pacing of this film could be improved, I do think that the complexity of the relationships between the characters is fascinating.

Examples :

Pierre is going to marry his cousin, even though his love for her seems very cousin-y ?

Pierre and his stepmother have a rather...curious relationship.

Pierre, Lucie, and Thibault seem to have a triangular relationship, and the actual points to the triangle are not quite certain...

Lucie's brother is a bit of a eunuch, or is he ?

And Isabelle, who is she really ??

Overall, I think it was worth my time. An interesting film, and one that makes me want to read Melville.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I watched Pola X because Scott Walker composed the film score and I admire his music a lot. Frankly, I expected a somewhat pretentious and possibly incoherent French movie. I was wrong. The vision of the film quickly managed to engage my attention to the fullest - starting with the opening sequence, which shows black and white footage of military airplanes throwing bombs at graves at the sounds of music and Scott Walker's beautiful wailing voice. The film explores the identity crisis of Pierre (Guillaume Depardieu - a brilliant choice for the role) and his consequential (self-)destruction. The story is divided into two parts \u0096 the first depicts Pierre's carefree life in a beautiful house in the French countryside and the second follows his utter personal disintegration after he abandons everything and moves to Paris to live in squalor with his supposed half-sister. Both parts contain some amazingly stunning photography \u0096 the first very colorful and bright, the second utterly gloomy and nearly apocalyptic - adding up to a true aesthetic feast. Pola X is a fascinating and quite unique movie experience.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Leos Carax has made 3 great movies: Boys Meet Girls, Mauvais Sang, Les Amants du Pont Neuf. In fact those films were not that great but it has the violence of youth, the beauty of juvenile wilderness. Carax in these three movies was well aware of what cinema was, but he tried to make his own vision of the art, without thinking about about all he have seen, but using it and melting it into his times. Pola X is a very different movie because Carax made Les Amants du Pont Neuf, a monstruosity of 20 millions dollars, a film that has destroyed everything on its way. After such a movie you can't do another one in the same point of view. So Leos Carax has to changed, and he did. The movie isn't as beautiful as its first, it's more reasonable, no more studio, no more dreamed Paris, Carax has entered at last reality. It's not clean anymore, it's not poetic characters. Carax have become a romantic in the german sense of it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Leos Carax is brilliant and is one of the best film and camera guys in the business so it should come as no surprise that Pola X is an almost perfect filming of the most gut wrenching story ever. Seriously. If I could have figured out some way to climb inside my video monitor, I would have thrashed Pierre to within an inch of his life. No one has the right to be that self absorbed and that stupid, both at the same time, except maybe Heathcliff in Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. After spending 134 minutes with Pierre, I need a large glass of brandy. Never have I been so angry at a main character. Ok, having said that, Pola X is a stunning movie with one of the few totally honest sex scenes I've ever seen in any film....which means another piece of brilliant filmmaking....and I'm talking graphic here, by the way. Pola X will beat the hell out of you, though, so make sure you're up for it if you decide to watch it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I've tried to reconcile why so many bad reviews of this film, while the vast majority of reviews are given a rating of between 7 and 10. The reason may be this film is kind of hard to describe in a positive review, although a few have done that quite nicely already. This film is confusing, depressing, and doesn't have a happy ending. I still gave Pola X a rating of 10, because it is basically for me literature and art combined on film. That is really my favorite kind of filmmaking. I've only seen two of Carax's films: this one and Mauvis Sang. As with this film, I'm being somewhat pretentious when I call this one of Carax's best films- but I am. Carax has a minimalist style. If that type of film does not appeal to you and is boring, then it would be best not to watch this. But Pola X was less minimalist than Mauvis Sang, so it had quite a lot of intensity for a thriller- at least for my taste. I found it quite interesting and absorbing. The two lead roles did an excellent job acting. (I mean the lead and the young woman he thought was his half sister.) Catherine D. is always great, but her role was not very large or significant in the story. But everyone did a fine job. I thought the cult stuff was great. It may have not been very believable, but that is due to its being rather abstract. There is a lot going on between the lines in this film. This is a very Freudian psycho-thriller.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is not a film is a clever, witty and often heart touching movie. It's a retrospective of a failed relationship between Michael Connor (Michael Leydon Campbell) and his estranged Irish girlfriend Grace Mckenna. Michael down on his luck decides to make a documentary replaying his whole relationship and what went wrong. He exploits his friendship with an actor he met at the gym Nadia (Nadia Dajani) who he gets to play Grace. The concept of this film is very original. Michaels relationship is shown from every point whether it's a high or low. Michael Leydon Campbell pulls off a fantastic performance that makes you want to help him find Grace. If fact most of the characters pull off great performances except the puzzler. The puzzler is needed to move the plot along yet seems too surreal to exist in a coffee shop. His monologues are often overdrawn and pointless. This is proved when he says \"Out of this chaos, we're all trying to create order. And out of the order, meaning. But in reality there is no such thing as meaning. Something only has meaning if we make it have meaning.\"

The commentary saves this movie. The commentary is done in the vain of This is Spinal Tap and has Michael and his brother explain the problems they had while making the film. Michael offers a very funny self conscious commentary that makes for some very good belly laughs.

Overall I'd give this movie a 7\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I was plagued by nightmares involving Sesame Street and the Muppet Show during my childhood. I loved the programs, but when I slept, I'd dream about muppets not unlike the ones on TV...but not quite the ones on TV.

They would speak gibberish and laugh and sing while eating each other and killing each other. They'd take a bite of their cute felt flesh and it would tear apart followed by arterial bleeding. NICE! But that was the past...I LOVE THIS SHOW! I saw Peter Jackson's MEET THE FEEBLES years ago and wondered why there wasn;t similar work out there. Well here it is, as sick, twisted and somehow socially potent the old Hobbit's vision.

If you like this show, and you haven't seen MEET THE FEEBLES, get it on Amazon or some such film source. You're in for a treat.

By the way, Clarence would totally kick Triumph's dog ass.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I'm torn about this show. While MOST parts of it I found to be HILARIOUS, other parts of it I found to be stupid and simply shock for shock sake. The off the wall parody of some of the cartoons are brilliant as indeed are a lot of the scenes with the children. However, I don't think it's clever getting little children to say rude things. It's not that I think \"oh poor children, they're being exploited\" - it's just that it's really not clever!! It's something that ANYONE could do, therefore making it as simple and pointless as making a paper airplane. In order to make this show better they would have to stick to the natural responses from children, which I think can be funnier than the scripted at time.

By far the funniest part of Wonder Showzen is Clarence, the blue puppet who wonders around the streets talking to and annoying strangers. It's really funny and it's mostly improvised. Seeing him in a long scene about the importance of patience test the patience of an EXTREMELY patient man, was by far the funniest scene in my opinion.

You should watch this show though because all in all it's very funny, even if it is stupid at times.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Seeing this show gives me respect for MTV, though i imagine that MTV sees this random, edgy material as its main selling point and is much less concerned with the pertinent truths it expresses.

I write and play music for a living and this show gets me really emotionally riled up. For me, Wondsershowzen serves a completely distinct function from most TV. Instead of dulling or distracting the senses, (which can be often really nice at times), it awakens my spirit of right and wrong. It makes me very uncomfortable, but in a very comforting way.

I don't think a lot of viewers absorb most of this show's content, but if they do, kudos to television viewers everywhere.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I love this show. My girlfriend was gonna get an abortion until we both watched Wonder Showzen one night. Luckily, she killed herself before the baby was born. Though technically I think it was considered a murder-suicide.

My first thoughts upon seeing Wonder Showzen? Now I know what God watches when He jerks off all the time.

Wonder Showzen is to television what a toaster in the bathtub is to my self-esteem.

You know how George W. Bush makes speaking gaffes all the time? Tyler wouldn't. Tyler's good. Tyler cuts his nails. He's Tyler. He's good. Tyyyllerrr...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Sex, drugs, racism and of course you ABC's. What more could you want in a kid's show!

------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------

\"User Comment Guidelines

Please note there is a 1,000 word limit on comments. The recommended length is 200 to 500 words. The minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Comments which are too short or have been padded with junk text will be discarded. You may only post a single comment per title.

What to include: Your comments should focus on the title's content and context. The best reviews include not only whether you liked or disliked a movie or TV-series, but also why. Feel free to mention other titles you consider similar and how this one rates in comparison to them. Comments that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site. Please write in English only and note that we do not support HTML mark-up within the comments\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"And I love it!!! Wonder Showzen will pick up a cult audience and once it's canceled, the DVD sales will go though the roof. This is a very funny show in it's own ways. It's a parody of children's shows, namely Sesame Street. Our puppet characters consist of Chauncy, a yellow furry monster with a hat, whose our host. Clarence is a blue lizard like thing that does his own segments where he goes out on the streets. Him is a weird dog like thing that refers to himself in the third person. Wordsworth is the smart one whose brain always shows. Then there's the newscaster and the pink puppet. It's a very funny show, not really as nasty as you'd expect, but more the situations. They take 7 year olds out on the street, tell them what to say, and have them make mean jokes that they don't understand. My favorite segments are Clarence's videos, especially when somebody doesn't want to be filmed. I prefer TV Funhouse, which was a similar show, but this is still a very funny show that I hope lasts for years to come.

My rating: *** 1\/4 out of ****. 30 mins. TV MA.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Quai des Orfevres takes too long getting going, with Clouzot so enamored of his back-stage milieu that he is almost in danger of forgetting the story. However, once it does, it's Clouzot at his best. Bertrand Blier (father of Bertrand Blier and co-star of his Buffet Froid) is the worldworn pianist who married beneath himself and who plans to kill the seedy studio mogul with designs on his wife only to find that someone has beaten him to it. Not only that, but his carefully planned but clumsily executed alibi falls to pieces, not least when a thief steals his car at the murder scene\u0085

The film really kicks into life with the arrival of Luis Jouvet's police inspector, a rather wonderful creation half Alistair Sim in Green for Danger and half world-weary Maigret with better dialog. In a neat running gag, his investigation is constantly conducted at the top of his voice against chaos and noise, whether it be the noisy typewriters of the police station or a loud rehearsal. The police station itself is a wonderfully realistic creation, a wealth of chaotic and telling small details that makes Steve Bocchco's once revolutionary 80's US cop shows look like antiquated museum pieces by comparison.

If Suzy Delair is a rather unconvincing femme fatale, the supporting cast more than compensate, with the beautiful Simone Renant a standout as the lesbian photographer in love with her from afar and constantly mistaken for Blier's lover by Delair and other interested parties (only Jouvet, similarly unlucky with women, understands and genuinely sympathises). With great black and white photography by Armand Thirard, this is a terrific little thriller with a nice twist ending and a lovely scene with a cab driver reluctantly identifying Renant in a police station. (Trivia note: Pierre Larquey, who played the playfully philosophical Dr Vorzet in Le Corbeau, turns up in smaller roles as a cab-driver in both Quai and Les Espions.)

The Criterion DVD is quite superb - great picture quality plus an illuminating extract from a French TV show featuring interviews with Clouzot, Blier and Renant.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Quai des Orfevres\", directed by the brilliant Henri-Georges Clouzot, is a film to treasure because it is one of the best exponents of French film making of the postwar years. M. Clouzot, adapting the Steeman's novel, \"Longtime Defence\", shows his genius in the way he sets the story and in the way he interconnects all the characters in this deeply satisfying movie that, as DBDumonteil has pointed out in this forum, it demonstrates how influential Cluzot was and how much the next generation of French movie makers are indebted to the master, especially Claude Chabrol.

The crisp black and white cinematography by Armand Thirard has been magnificently transferred to the Criterion DVD we recently watched. Working with Clouzot, Thirard makes the most of the dark tones and the shadows in most of the key scenes. The music by Francis Lopez, a man who created light music and operettas in France, works well in the context of the film, since the action takes place in the world of the music halls and night clubs.

Louis Jouvet, who is seen as a police detective, is perfect in the part. This was one of his best screen appearances for an actor who was a pillar of the French theater. Jouvet clearly understood well the mechanics for the creation of his police inspector who is wiser and can look deeply into the souls of his suspects and ultimately steals the show from the others. In an unfair comment by someone in this page, Jouvet's inspector is compared with Peter Falk's Columbo, the television detective. Frankly, and no disrespect to Mr. Falk intended, it's like comparing a great champagne to a good house wine.

Bernard Blier is perfect as the jealous husband. Blier had the kind of face that one could associate with the man consumed with the passion his wife Jenny Lamour has awakened in him. Martineau is vulnerable and doesn't act rationally; he is an easy suspect because he has done everything wrong as he finds in the middle of a crime he didn't commit, but all the evidence points to the contrary.

The other great character in the film is Dora, the photographer. It's clear by the way she interacts with Jenny where her real interest lies. Simone Renant is tragically appealing as this troubled woman and makes an enormous contribution to the film. Suzy Delair, playing Jenny, is appealing as the singer who suddenly leaps from obscurity to celebrity and attracts the kind of men like Brignon, the old lecher.

The film is one of the best Clouzot directed during his distinguished career and one that will live forever because the way he brought all the elements together.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is an exceptional picture with so much to recommend it. The acting and writing are terrific and there are lots of great twists and turns in the plot. As a French \"Noir\" film, its language is certainly a lot earthier than its American counterparts, but to me this just added to the realism. Additionally, I liked how non-glamorous everyone was--particularly the husband and the lieutenant. About the only negative, and the reason the film gets a 9 and not a 10, is because there was a glaring plot hole. Like another famous French film, Dr\u00f4le de Drame, the confusion between the cops and the accused could easily have been settled in the beginning, but the characters made rather stupid decisions. For this, you just need to suspend disbelief and keep watching--the payoff is well worth the wait.

This is simply one of the finest French films I have seen. Period.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First of all,there is a detective story:\"l\u00e9gitime d\u00e9fense\" by Belgian Stanislas Andr\u00e9 Steeman whose \"l'assassin habite au 21\" Clouzot had already transferred to the screen in 1942,with Pierre Fresnay and the same actress Suzy Delair.Steeman complained about Clouzot's adaptation for both movies.The movie from 1942 was excellent,but the \"detective story\" side had been kept,so why complaining?As for \"Quai des orf\u00e8vres\",Clouzot was now in a new phase of his brilliant career.After having directed \"le corbeau\" and been blacklisted,he had a lot more to say than a simple whodunit.Steeman complained essentially about the poor detective ending,which I will not reveal of course,but Clouzot focused on the social vignettes,on his characters's psychology,and he did not give a damn about the puzzle \u00e0 la Agatha Christie.By doing so,he becomes the genuine predecessor of CLaude Chabrol who has always been closer to him than to Alfred Hitchcock whom he admires much though. Suzy Delair has great screen presence,and you will love the song she really sings(she was a singer too)\"avec son tralala\".Bernard Blier gives ,as ever,a sparing of gestures and words performance,and he really pulls it off .Two characters are particularly interesting and disturbing:the first one,Dora,the photographer:she takes pictures of female models ,and Clouzot,by subtle touches,reveals us she's a lesbian.Of course,the word is never uttered(How could it be in 1947?) The police chief (fabulous Louis Jouvet) tells her:\"You and me,WE are not lucky with women.\"The portrait of this cop is very detailed:we learn a lot of things about him,not necessary connected with the Delair\/Blier plot:he's a widower ,with a son he adores and who runs into school difficulties,particularly in geometry.So we get to know all the characters in depth.One of the most important manifesto of post-war French cinema.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Director loves the actress and it shows. The actress inhabits the character, whom we love at first sight and sound. The character loves her jealous unprepossessing husband and he loves her. His childhood friend secretly loves his wife and the fact that his friend is a beautiful woman makes the love tragic and ironic. His wife is jealous of his childhood friend and thinks her attentions are out of secret love for her husband.

Then there is a murder and the investigating police lieutenant, who loves only his bi-racial son, and resents being taken from his company by the above characters, who have had some unpleasant contact with the deceased and are all lying to one degree or another, unravels the mystery with some of the most precise and authentic procedural detail ever captured on film.

And then there are the atmospherics of a post-war Paris, where coal is in short supply, music is filled with erotic longing and wistful memory, and innocence has long ago been washed away by the rain.

All of this in a milieu of magicians whose tricks don't always work, dogs who walk on their hind feet and express music criticism, hungry news reporters and exhausted cops.

And then there are many of the finest actors of their generation who have been through some very bad years directed by, to come full circle, a man who is in love with his lead actress and who, with full justification, was a respected friend of Picasso.

I've seen this film often and I love all of them and it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A nice, humorous mix of music hall (in the first third mostly) and police procedural mystery as the various suspects' stories start to collapse. The final exposure of the murder may come as a surprise if you don't watch closely. A gritty look at Paris of the time. You can ignore the final scene (the Hollywood ending). Louis Jouvet is best as the police inspector who seems to be just passing through, but is really on top of things.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The extraordinarily adorable Suzy Delair plays a statuesque performer obsessed with succeeding in the theater. Her husband and accompanist, played by Bernard Blier, is a composed but jealous man. When he finds out in a less than preferable way that his flashy wife has planned a rendezvous with a lecherous old businessman with the intention of advancing her career, he loses all control and threatens the businessman with murder. Now, at that point, I must stop describing the film to you because it skates on such thin ice with its twists, revelations, ambiguities and suspense that to imply any of it would endanger it. I am not sure how good or bad that is for this French police procedural emanating from the song- and-dance community, though it is certainly interesting that what we do know throughout is who did not do it. We just don't know who did.

The story depends upon the procedure of following clues, where ideal alibis fail and where cautiously created fabrications and deceptions disintegrate. Interestingly, this is a suspense film in which suspense is generated in spite of the knowledge one would traditionally think too much too soon.

Quay of the Goldsmiths is the least dark of Henri-Georges Clouzot's films. It's nowhere near as sinister as the shocking Les Diaboliques, as tragic as the riveting Wages of Fear or as eery as Le Corbeau. Maybe it is due to the vibrance of the dance halls and theater settings of 1940s France, which all work as the milieu of this crime thriller.

Clouzot both understands and approves of his characters, even the more rotten ones, where he has more of a vindictive streak with his other films. Where he may have had understanding for the scheming women in Les Diabolique or the truck drivers who sink to the level of risking horrible death in order to oust themselves from miserable life in The Wages of Fear, there isn't necessarily support or agreement on the part of the filmmaker, for these are characters who plainly made the direct decisions that determine their fate. All the characters in this more settling film have scenes and moments that endear us to them, even the harsh, cold detective played by Louis Jouvet, who worries about his young adoptive son amid all the trouble and despair that happens in his life at any time with the drop of a hat.

There is humor and unabashed sexiness, the latter mostly on the part of Delair, that neutralize the pressure to a degree. Clouzot was quietly practicing his craft, patient till he made his unrelenting later films, in which he would permit his audiences no pardon from the tension.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"H.G. Cluozot had difficulties working in France after he had made \"Le Corbeau\" in 1943 which was produced by the German company and later judged by French as a piece of anti-French propaganda. Louis Jouvet, an admirer of Clouzot's work, invited him to direct a thriller \"Quai des Orfevres\" where he played an ambiguous police inspector investigating a murder that happened in Paris Music Hall. Without each other knowledge, the seductive cabaret singer Jenny Lamoure (Suzy Delair) and her jealous piano-accompanist husband Maurice who is madly in love with her (Bertrand Blier, father of director Bertrand Blier) trying to cover up (without each other's knowledge) what they believe to be their involvement in the murder? Enters tenacious policeman (Louis Jouvet) who is determined to discover the truth. Jouvet practically stole the movie with wonderfully cynic and sentimental in the same time performance. \"His character, his eagle-like profile and his unique way of speaking made him unforgettable.\" \"Quai des Orfevres\", witty and atmospheric observation of human weaknesses was a great comeback of H.G. Cluozot, the fine director, \"French Hitchcock\".","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Is it a murder mystery? Is it a police procedural? Is it a back-stage look at seedy French music halls? Quai des Orfevres is all of these, but more than anything else it's an amusing comedy of infidelity, jealousy and love, set in post-WWII Paris. It may be surprising that Henri- Georges Clouzot, the director of such grim films as Le Corbeau or such suspenseful nail- biters as Diabolique and The Wages of Fear, is the director of this one. Clouzot, however, was a shrewd film-maker. \"In a murder mystery,\" he tells us, 'there's an element of playfulness. It's never totally realistic. In this I share Hitchcock's view, which says, 'A murder mystery is a slice of cake with raisins and candied fruit, and if you deny yourself this, you might as well film a documentary.'\" Quai des Orfevres is a wonderful film, and it's no documentary.

Jenny Martineau (Suzy Delair) is an ambitious singer at music halls and supper clubs. She's a flirt, she's sees nothing too wrong with using a bit of sex as well as talent to get a contract. Her stage name is Jenny Latour. And she really loves her husband, Maurice Martineau (Bernard Blier). Martineau is something of a sad sack. He's her accompanist and arranger. He's a bit balding, a bit chubby and jealous to a fault. Then we have their neighbor, the photographer Dora Monnier (Simone Renant). She's blond, gorgeous (think of Rita Hayworth) and capable. She and Martineau have been friends since they were children together. Dora, however, is definitely not thinking just of friendship when she looks at Jenny. Then comes along Georges Brignon (Charles Dullin), a wizened, rich and dirty old man, who often has Dora take \"art\" photographs of his young female proteges whom he poses himself. He offers a contract for a film to Jenny, and suggests a dinner at his home to discuss the details. Jenny is more than willing. Maurice is furious and forbids it. Jenny shouts right back at him, \"You're jealous of the rich! Well, I want my share of their dough. I'm all for royalty!\" \"You're dad was a laborer,\" Maurice shouts back. \"So what? Under Louis XV, I'd have been Madame de Pompadour! I'd have heated up their tights!\"

And after Brignon is found dead with a smashed champagne bottle next to his bleeding skull, there's Dora to try to make things safe for Jenny. But wait. Inspector Antoine gets the case. Antoine (Louis Jouvet) is a tall, tired, middle-aged bachelor with sore feet. He has seen it all. He served in \"the colonies\" with the Foreign Legion and returned with an adopted baby and malaria. The child is now about eight-years old and Antoine dotes on him. One of the first things Antoine discovers is not only did someone brain Brignon with a bottle, someone shot him in the heart. Who did it? Before long Jenny, Maurice and Dora all are making up alibis, lying and, at one or another point, confessing. How will Antoine discover the murderer? Will we have a chance to see some great music hall songs sung by Jenny Latour? Everything becomes clear, but only with time and Detective Antoine's persistence. We are left with many kinds of love leading to all kinds of motives, from hair-trigger jealousy to longing glances...and all played with a nice mixture of Gallic amusement.

Clouzot takes us to a Paris of seedy but not threatening neighborhoods, to downtrodden music publishers where tunes are played on the piano for buyers, to restaurants with discrete private dining rooms. Most of all, he takes us to the music hall where Jenny Latour often performs. We can see Jenny as she sings, with couples in the seats and single men wearing their coats and hats in standing room. And everyone smokes. The first third of the film, in fact, takes place largely in this milieu. With Jenny singing about \"Her petite tra-la-la, her sweet tra-la-la,\" we follow her from trying out the song at the publishers to a rehearsal to a saucy performance with Jenny in a feathered hat, a corset, gartered stockings and not much else.

Delair, Blier and Renant all do wonderful jobs, but it Louis Jouvet who holds everything together. He was a marvelous actor who disliked making films. The stage was his world, and he took on films only if he happened to like the director and to make money to finance his stage work. Jouvet was tall with a long face and broad cheekbones. He was not conventionally handsome but he had what it takes to dominate a scene. For a look at how skillfully he could play comedy, watch him in Drole de Drame. He's a fascinating actor. At one point he says, \"I've taken a liking to you, Miss Dora Monnier.\" \"Me?\" she asks. \"Yes. Because you and I are two of a kind. When it comes to women, we'll never have a chance.\" Jouvet brings all kinds of nuances to that line, from rueful regret to a gentle amusement.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Clouzot followed Le Corbeau, where no one knew who was penning the poison thus everyone was suspected, with another masterpiece, Quai des Orfevres four years later in which we know from the outset (or think we do) whodunnit. Top-billed Louis Jouvet doesn't appear for forty minutes by which time Clouzot has established a rich milieu of Music Hall, music publishers, etc and a fine cast of colourful characters; Angela Lansbury lookalike (Lansbury appeared in Woman of Paris that same year) Suzy Delair scores as the chanteuse whose desire to improve her lot inspires the jealousy of her husband\/accompanist Bernard Blier who follows her to the home of an elderly letch only to find he is already dead. From here things go seriously wrong, his car is stolen before he leaves the premises so his pre-arranged alibi is out the window whilst meanwhile, unknown to him, his wife confesses to the murder to the photographer neighbour, a closet lesbian in love with her, who volunteers to return to the crime scene and retrieve Delair's scarf and as long as she's there,thoughtfully wipes her prints of the murder weapon, a champagne bottle. At this point investigator Jouvet gets involved and from then on it's a case of keeping the plates spinning in the air. Clouzot's output was relatively small but virtually all of it was, as Spencer Tracey said in another context, 'cherce', with Le Salaire de peur and Les Diaboliques still to come. In short this is a must for French cinema buffs.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is so lovingly made you want to be part of it forever. The flics are straight but not without malice, the goods are transparent and evildoers are hardly there. Even the \"cabaret\" are so naive they'll make you daydream with nostalgia in comparison to anything available on TV. Blier is fine, if a bit one sided. Louis Jouvet is perfect, you just can't have a better copper. He has the best line: \"My dad cleaned other people's dirt, and I do the same\". Susy Delair is unbearable, but I guess in part it's the songs, wardrobe and hairdo. Simone Renant, on the contrary, makes a great femme fatale, if a bit silent. I didn't realize she may be a lesbian as IMDb user dbdumonteil and others rightly suggest.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"First, the obvious\u0097as a cop drama crossed with a funny melodrama, QUAY \u0085 is disconcerting ,straightly independent and a menace to banality. Jouvet's aplomb is put to good use in a tough cop performance immediately noticeable by its vigor and exuberant force; his Antoine is not so much a man of intellect, but a man of vast life experience and earthly instinct. QUAY \u0085 is not subversive in the sense that today's (and already yesterday's ) philistines enjoy using the word. It is Clouzot's most playful hour. He tended to adapt Steeman's books in a satiric note. (It's said that Clouzot was a big reader of detective novels.) As a director, Clouzot's firm hand is successful.

It is not a mystery or a thriller,but a satirical look at a Parisian couple and at the police's proceedings. Those accustomed with Clouzot's masterpiece LES DIABOLIQUES might find slightly disconcerting the multiplicity of things, styles, elements in QUAY \u0085.Here Clouzot speaks about many things, about a couple, and a hidden love story (Simone Renant's for Blier),about the entertainment's world and about old spinsters, about police techniques and an old bitter cop with a boy to raise, etc.. There is a note of exuberance\u0097not only in Jouvet's performance, but also in the film's conception.

Quay is a realistic crime drama made as a satire. It offers an outstanding performance by Jouvet as a tough police inspector. Antoine is an old cop with an adventurous past (he fought in Africa ,but did not climb the ranks' stair because of his independent behaviors); he lives with his son, a schoolboy; at work, Antoine is tough and merciless, an able inspector, bitter, intelligent and harsh. It is a role of great gusto, very picturesque. Jouvet composed his character of several defining traits\u0097his clothes, his expression, his funny accent, his brutality, and that mocking air \u0085.Antoine is not made to look more clever than plausible; when he interrogates Blier, Antoine makes mistakes ,and his talent is presented like the talent we meet in real life\u0097mixed with errors and lacunae and defects. Antoine's talent is one that comes also from experience, from daily observation\u0097it's not the almost supernatural _divinatory genius of almost all the famous detectives.

QUAY \u0085 is multifaceted\u0097it is a realistic crime drama, and also a satire and a melodrama. One can consider it among the first _filmic forays into the legendary toughness of the French police. Long ago Eastwood's and Wayne's harsh cops, there was Antoine.

The title is interesting, suggesting that this is a movie about the police, not about a case or a mystery.

As craftsmanship, Clouzot was perhaps the best and sharpest in France (in the way that Welles was). QUAY \u0085 is very true to Clouzot's nature\u0097a sardonic comic, sharp observations, much psychology, sharp, unsparing irony. The man was first\u0097class when he filmed something\u0097he knew what to shoot, what to choose\u0097see the introductory scenes of this film, with Jenny Lamour's great stage success. Each scene is memorably, _exemplarily shot. Clouzot's technical, stylistic aptitudes were amazing. His style is inventive, satirical, sharp, extremely limpid, ingenious.

Jouvet's style was exuberant, powerful, vehement. (Some disliked it precisely for these features. As he had been a great stage actor, his movie style was deemed as too theatrical, etc..) His Antoine is a fine example of what was meant by composing a role, by a composition.

Jouvet had a very peculiar physiognomy\u0097much like a menacing bird of prey\u0097somewhat like Van Cleef\u0097yet much subtler, nobler and more intelligent and distinguished. Jouvet had this predatory, ferocious air, and it is useful here, as he performs an old tough cop. One of QUAY \u0085's sides is that it is a Jouvet recital. He is immediately recognizable, identifiable by the quality of his play (I see that many, watching this flick, do not know it is a Jouvet movie\u0097which is an astounding quality in itself).

Fresnay and Jouvet are the two French actors that I admire the most; the first one was revealed to me by a Renoir drama (the famous one), while Jouvet by a Carn\u00e9 comedy. I was charmed to see that Clouzot gave leading roles to both of them.

To end, a word about Steeman; he wrote the novel used by Clouzot (who had previously adapted another Steeman novel, as a Fresnay comedy). Steeman was an old school mystery writer, in the Wallace vein. He became quickly outdated with the new hardboiled fashions. When I was 11 I have read one of his thrillers, and liked it much.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the best film I ever saw.

The performance of Louis Jouvet is fantastic. He really 'fill' his part, and this is wonderful. He's such a good actor that you can't think of anyone else to take his part.

And both Suzy Delair and Bernard Blier are good as standard french people, trying to defend themselves in the struggle born with a murder...

The story is breathtaking and well built. You can feel the ambiance of Paris for that period (which is about 1930-40), between two wars... The clubs, the old little buildings, the neighbors.

All those things contribute to make a great movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Henri-Georges Clouzot's film is quiet an example of the french transition cinema. A film between the realism of the postwar cinema and the full-of-magic and symbolism nouvelle vague. With some spots of the American classic films (but not imitating it) the director tales us a story about love, crime and the importance of points of view. We can find great actors too (Suzy Delair is impeccable).

Is interesting too, how we can find aspects of this film nowadays. Quai des Orf\u00e8vres inheritance is palpable in Woody Allen tradition. Plunging a crime situation in a picturesque environment. The naive ending is also typical in Steven Spielberg's good-ending films. And finally I would like to point out, the deja voo sensation during the photography session between Jenny Lamour (Suzy Delair) and Dora Monier (Simone Renant) in which the first one confess that she thinks her husband is being unfaithful and exactly with the woman who is photographing her. That scene is exactly the one between Natalie Portman and Julia Roberts in Closer (Mike Nichols, 2004).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great artists, always suffered while they were young. I could mention Mozart and Beethoven, but that is not the point.

This movie was made by H-G Clouzot whose family wanted him to succeed in the Law professions.

Its main star is Louis Jouvet who studied and practiced as as pharmacist before becoming \"The Greatest Actor\" and also director of France's Theater before and after WWII.

They both had health problems. Clouzot had TB while young, Jouvet had cardiac problems and died on a theater..

Such events shape the character of men (and women, of course). One might even say that today's Artists are so poor, because they had never suffered and fought for their lives.

To me, this is the greatest of Clouzot's movies. \"Wages of Fear\" is greater in \"suspense\", \"Diabolique\" also has more \"suspense\" and a better plot and is more about \"female evil\".

Quai des Orf\u00e8vres is more human. Clouzot was falsely accused by De Gaulle's entourage (mostly communists and Jews) of collaboration with the Nazis and banned from making films until until De Gaulle left France's Government in early 1946. De Gaulle came back in 1958, as President.

The main characters are all good souls: Jenny L'Amour may perform as a \"putain\" on stage, but she is not a \"whore\" (dictionaires make synonyms of those words, but they are not the same), loves her husband, and refuses the slight \"advances from her (presumably Lesbian) friend Dora, the photographer.

Maurice the husband is jealous and timid, but runs away from the scene of the crime. He is a coward because he fell in love with a woman and traded an eventually more upscale career for love..

Antoine, the detective (interpreted by the great Louis Jouvet, basically a stage actor, performs in this French \"Gray\" not Noir, as well as E.G. Robinson in \"Double Indemnity\") shows flair for pseudo criminals, tenderness for a Negro son(?), and compassion for the true author of the crime, because he remembers that is father cleaned the latrines at some nobleman's ch\u00e2teau!!

Clouzot was capable of slapping an actor's face in order to put him in the right frame of mind, but deep inside he was very human.

I have his horoscope in front of me. He had Venus in Sagittarius which means open-heartedness, devotion, charity and altruism. For those who do not believe in Astrology, my most sincere apologies...","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"What do you get when you have a tenacious, seasoned French police inspector by the name of Maurice Martineau is called to solve a murder case? Well, simply a very entertaining, fun film. The re-mastered black-and-white film \"Quai des Orfevres\" delivers the goods despite romance, jealousy and marriage that seem to just get in the way towards the truth of 'who done it?'

Inch by inch, technique by technique as seasoned by experience and intuition, the patience of this master Inspector etches into the truth -- but of course, with the help of a bag full of dirty police interrogation tricks.

Martineau is the centerpiece of this film. The use by director Henri-Georges Clouzot of raucous background music to intensify the drama in grand film noir style is a wonderful wrapper around the visual experience.

Martineau eventually solves the mystery and arrests the culprit. Hey, he is good!! But alas, Martineau, too, can keep a dark secret in his past. Who is that boy that is perhaps not his son?

Some things can never get solved -- even beyond the closing credits.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Should we take the opening shot as a strange frame??? I guess we have to. Anyway two women are behind a closing umbrella, they walk upstairs to the talent agency and we go with them...and then they are never to be seen again. Okay, how come not INSIDE the place, at the piano, or even outside with the SOUND of the piano, then track inside and over, a la Hitchcock??? So I guess Clouzot is already telling us in a not very subliminal manner that we are following a segment of postwar society: especially how he then uses a Citizen Kane=like song cut up into about five pieces to show the lady singing traveling from the talent agency all the way to her first roses and applause of her Vaudeville debut.

After that we are relentless observers of more or less small disgusting details of a defeated country getting off its war torn tattered knees. And nobody ever handled small disgust better than Clouzot. In fact, too bad he never tried Sartre's Nausea. Almost everything we see after the first few minutes makes us ever so slightly queasy. ....okay, okay I'm grossly overstating that, let's just settle for a general feel of a lot of the film. Look carefully, in fact, and you will even see one of the cops picking his nose. And in how many films has anyone ever done that. Then there is a very loud nose blowing bit in front of the photographer lesbian by the main cop, and notice that she does not, literally, blink an eye or raise an eyebrow.

The point of all this is an almost feverish immersion in contiguity, seemingly, until you can smell practically every scene as well as see and feel it.

As for the other aspects of the movie, others here have covered them in a lot more detail than I. But forget about the mystery here: this is the ultimate McGuffin. Clouzot is about as interested in the real killer as those two women coming in out of the rain in the first few seconds of the film and are never seen again. From beginning to end all he wanted to do was follow a bunch of people around, not even particularly interesting ones at that, and say, here look at this woman's twitch, that man's hitching of his pants in all their insignificance, years and years before Tina Turner was singing we don't need another hero. \\

Even the forced levity of the ending is bleakly done in a dilapidated part of Paris, and rather chilly bare walled apartment. With only the couples love for each other to see them through, as if to say there must be two or three million like you throughout the city, working your fingers off by the day for a little love at night.

From this it was just a short step to Wages of Fear and the ultimate in despair.

They don't even know how to make films like this anymore in the U.S. For that matter, they didn't even know how to very much in France then, much less now. The relentless detail of gesture makes even the neorealists of Italy look like bad psychologists. Which I guess makes Clouzot a kind of Rosselini on speed.

Very enjoyable nonsense, this movie. The only flaw, seems to me, and as was pointed out by another viewer, the lead woman is somehow not quite right. Everybody else in the film is just about perfectly cast.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Pretty good movie about a man and his wife who get caught up in murder and the police officer investigating the case. It starts off marvelously, but kind of hits a wall at a certain point. We're sure we know what happened, then a tiny plot thread that seems at first like a red herring pops back up and disappoints. Still, Clouzot's direction is great, and the acting is quite good. Louis Jouvet, who also co-starred in Marcel Carn\u00e9's Dr\u00f4le de Drame, gives the best performance as the clever detective. I wonder if the Coen brothers were influenced by this film when they wrote Fargo. Much like that film, the police officer doesn't appear until nearly halfway through, and then he becomes almost the focus of the film. There's also a lot of droll comedy surrounding him (although sometimes his methods seem sort of fascist).","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Ruthless mercenary Bruno Rivera (Paul Naschy in peak nasty form) betrays his pregnant partner\/girlfriend Meiko (well played by Eiko Nagashima) in order to have exclusive dibs on a fortune in stolen diamonds. But Meiko manages to seriously wound Bruno before he gets away. Bruno winds up in the swanky chalet of kindly rich doctor Don Simon (a fine performance by Lautaro Murua). He also attracts the attention of Simon's two hottie daughters: the fiery Monica (luscious Silvia Aguiler) and the sweet Alicia (nicely essayed by the lovely Azucena Hernandez). However, Bruno soon realizes that something is very amiss about the isolated place and plans to escape as soon as he can. Meanwhile, the bitter Meiko tries to find Bruno so she can exact her revenge on him. Naschy, who wrote and directed as well as stars, concocts one of his strangest, most twisted and perverse horror vehicles ever with this little seen oddity. The offbeat plot and mysterious atmosphere become more weird and unnerving as the story unfolds, eventually leading to a genuinely startling surprise downbeat ending. This film further benefits from occasional moments of graphic gore (watch out for the memorable sequence with one poor guy being devoured alive by vicious flesh-eating pigs!), Alejandro Ulloa's slick cinematography, and a decent sprinkling of nudity and soft-core sex. Good supporting turns by Roxana Dupre as sassy maid Raquel, Pepe Ruiz as amorous playboy Don Serafin, and Julia Saly as the deranged Teresa. A pleasingly grim and worthwhile shocker.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After I first saw this, I thought, \"Wow, this is the most spectacular movie, visually-speaking, I've ever seen.\" Since that time, I've seen some that topped it but it still ranks as one of the best in that department. I'm just disgusted the long-awaited DVD was so poorly done, the quality of this transfer hardly better than the VHS tape.

The jungle scenes are filmed in Cameroon, and \"lush\" is the best adjective to describe what you see. Except for jungle sounds, \"seeing\" is certainly almost everything in the beginning as there is almost no \"hearing,\" no dialog until Tarzan (Christopher Lambert) befriends Ian Holm and vice-versa....so be ready for that, if you haven't watched this film.

Story-wise, all I'll say is this is not the Tarzan many of us came to know in Johnny Weismuller films.....but that's not a complaint. For those craving action, and don't care about cinematography as I do, you just have to get past that silent introduction period

In this Tarzan version, our hero goes back to Scotland (his roots), adapts to that environment (for the most part....and a little too quickly for credibility, frankly) and then returns to the jungle without Jane. This is supposedly more true to the Tarzan books, written by Edgar Rice Burroughs.

The special effects in here were done by Rick Baker, one of the best in the business. Sharp DVD or not, this is still a stunning film to view and very interesting throughout its 2 hours and 15 minutes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"SPOILERS Edgar Rice Burroughs's famous character was adapted thousand of times for the screen til one's thirst is quenched, notably during the thirties and the forties by Hollywood. Its productors made Tarzan one of the most successful cinema characters. Several years later, Hugh Hudson decided to make a more ambitious version of the monkey-man and it's a more natural, more wild and more down-to-earth Tarzan that he gives away here. Hudson skilfully avoids the clich\u00e9s that you usually grant to Tarzan such as his famous scream or his friendly pet, Cheetah. Not only, are we far from the designed and invented character made by Hollwood but we are also far from the film set used to make his stories. The movie was partly made in Africa (more precisely in Cameroon). The movie introduces two obvious parts: the first one which takes place in the jungle where Tarzan lives among his adoptive friends, the apes and considers himself as their lord. But he ignores his real origins. The second one in England where Tarzan discovers the English society. Ian Holm epitomizes the link between the two parts and Hudson avoids all that could make the movie falls into the ridiculous thanks to a clever screenplay. Indeed, Holm teaches Lambert basic rules of manners so as to behave correctly in the English society and the result works. Moreover, in the second part, no-one ever laughs at Tarzan and he's even really appreciated. As far as the end is concerned well it's a both bitter and happy end. Happy because Tarzan comes back to the jungle and meets again his adoptive close relatives. But bitter too, because this homecoming means that the Greystoke line won't be ensured and is condemned to disappear... Christophe Lambert finds here, his first (and last?) great role. Sadly, he'll never equal the achievement of his performance in this movie and he'll play in poor and insipide action movies. Nevertheless, as I said previously, a clever screenplay, a performance of a rare quality, some impressive natural sceneries (both the jungle and the English country and we get a gorgeous movie. It's also an excellent rereading from a popular novel. So why is it only rated barely (6\/10)?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Greystoke is without doubt the best tarzan movie I have ever seen. Christopher Lambert portrays a very believable man trying to return to the world of mankind alongside the fantastic Ian Holm. The struggle of John to leave the jungle and the apes who raised him is quite stirring. Some very memorable scenes including where Lambert makes the jungle noises to the romantic interest, and the scene where he witnesses his ape father's death. Tarzans feelings for both worlds is well developed and really makes you feel for him.

An excellent and underrated movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you are looking for a modern film version of Buster Crabbe or Johnny Weismuller's overcoming the machinations of unscrupulous, white safari guides or cunning, black tribesmen, while saving the animal kingdom, this is NOT the movie for you. This is a recounting of the Tarzan \"legend\" from its beginning in intelligent, adult terms. It is beautifully filmed and faithful to the Edgar Rice Burroughs stories.

Tarzan is no action hero, but a man torn between two worlds - the natural and the civilized. In a stunning performance, Christopher Lambert portrays this angst with absolute realism. If he slips up just once the cat will be out of the bag: the audience (especially the adult audience targeted by the film) will laugh, and the film will completely lose its grip. It will plummet into the cheesy depths. But Lambert never lets that happen. (Forget what you may think of him in other movies; when I saw this film at the theater on its original release, I thought he deserved an academy award.)

The supporting cast is uniformly excellent, as other commentators have noted. I disagree with most of them in that I didn't find anything wrong with Andie McDowell's performance. I wouldn't have nominated her for an academy award - the role is undemanding - but she is completely up to it, such as it is. I don't know why her voice was overdubbed, either.

The cinematography of the African segment of the tale is absolutely beautiful. It captures both the beauty of the African wilderness and the exotic expectation it holds in the collective imagination of those who have never been there. The scenery is lush and exotic, and the colors are vivid.

But this is also a \"period\" film, and the cinematography also magnificently depicts Victorian England - the countryside, the city and the interiors. The costumes are outstanding. The soundtrack is beautiful without being overwhelming or obtrusive.

There are some disturbing scenes - especially for animal lovers - but no more disturbing than a few scenes in Dances with Wolves. This is an excellent film about the conflict between civilization and nature, personified in the young Lord Greystoke, convincingly portrayed by Christopher Lambert.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This begins a series (which I'll hopefully keep up every week-end) of films that came out during my childhood \u0096 in this case, it's one I've only managed to catch now. It was clearly intended as the last word on the subject, which basically had been debased to the level of hokum over the years; however, in its uncompromising striving for a serious-minded approach (a sure measure of which is that the protagonist is never once referred to by the name he's been known all this time the world over!), the film-makers rather lost track of the fact that the thing was intended primarily as entertainment! Consequently, we get a decidedly staid representation of events \u0096 with more care given to meticulous period reconstruction than in providing a functional thematic environment for its mythic jungle hero! Even so, Christopher Lambert rose to stardom \u0096 as did another debutante, Andie McDowell, playing his love interest (named Jane, of course) \u0096 with the title role, which he handles creditably enough under the circumstances. However, Ralph Richardson (to whom the film is dedicated, this being his swan-song) steals every scene he's in as Tarzan's natural grandfather who, in spite of showing obvious affection for his long-lost kin, can't bring himself to forget tradition in an effort to understand his predicament; the hero, in fact, is much more comfortable interacting with primates (even contriving, after having gone back home, to save his adoptive 'dad' from captivity). The film is otherwise very good to look at (with cinematography by Stanley Kubrick regular John Alcott, no less), features an appropriately grandiose score as well as remarkable make-up effects (by Rick Baker) \u0096 and, while essentially disappointing as a Tarzan outing, retains considerable value nonetheless as a prestige picture of its day.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I really liked the first part of this film in Africa for about an hour or so until the animal cruelty by civilized humans in Scotland got to me in the second half and made me so sad I couldn't watch some of it. However, this was done by the filmmaker to make a point that early natural scientists ruined everything alive they didn't understand by \"studying\" it literally to death without considering the rights and comfort of the animals studied, which we know now shouldn't be studied anywhere but in the natural world they inhabit, and as unobtrusively as possible. I do recommend this film as it was a mostly serious and honest story of Tarzan and made a point of showing the gross animal cruelty that was rampant in the 19th century scientific world as well as the pure and simple, beautifully primitive life Tarzan lived as a young man who was found as a baby and raised by chimps after the violent death of his parents in the African jungle.

Christopher Lambert was wonderful and very soulful in his life of Tarzan role, as was Ralph Richardson in his last film role as Tarzan's ultra-rich, nobility-reeking gramps in Scotland. Andy MacDowell was pretty and pretty good as Tarzan's gussied-up and civilized \"Jane\" in her first movie role. From his charismatic work in this film and his very haunting eyes, I cannot understand why Lambert did not later become a big star, but his really bad movie choices later may have done him in. The terrific Ian Holm, as a wounded Frenchman in Africa helped by Tarzan and who then escorted Tarzan back to his previously unknown, ancestral home in Scotland, was great as always.

I am so glad Tarzan got sick of and didn't stay in the animal-cruel civilized world at that time and went home to Africa in the end to live out his life with his gentle and loving ape \"relatives\" who raised him instead of staying in Scotland and living like royalty, which would have ruined him if it didn't kill him first.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes is based on the classic book Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs and is a more faithful adaptation to the classic book, the film has some great scenery like the Jungles of South Africa to the Greystoke mansion, the acting is also great. Chirstopher Lambert did a great performance as Tarzan, it was also his first English speaking role. The film has some funny moments, sad moments and touching moments that makes this a real classic.

The film sees a boat crashing in the Jungles of South Africa and some time later they have a son named John, the Apes go into the hut and one of them kills the Father. The Apes then take him to where they live and adopt him as one of their own, as the years go by John grows up and learns to be more like the Apes. In his teens his Foster Mom gets attacked by Native Hunters and soon killed by them, years later a group of people are going to Africa on a expedition. After setting up camp they're soon attacked by the Natives, most escape but Capitaine Phillippe D'Arnot is left behind injured by some of the arrows. After hiding he meets John now an adult who takes him to his home and takes care of his wounds, after a while Phillippe starts to teach John how to speak English and teach him that he's not one of the Apes but a person. When Phillippe goes to leave John goes with him, after sometime they arrive at Greystoke manor where the Sixth Earl of Greystoke is shown his long lost Grandson, John is shown his bedroom and picture of his true Mom and Dad. John also meets Jane Porter and slowly as they get to know each other he begins to have feelings for her, when it's Christmas the Sixth Earl of Greystoke slides down the stairs killing himself. John then starts to miss the Jungle and wants to return but Phillipe tells him to stay since everything they had done would be for nothing. John is then torn between his life as a Greystoke and the Lord of the Apes.

Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes is a great classic that should be seen. 10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Beautifully filmed, acclaimed director Hugh Hudson (Chariots of Fire) creates a story that brings the entire legend of John Clayton, Lord Greystoke and Tarzan of the apes to life with reverence and dignity, and with a scope not heretofore seen in Tarzan films. Christopher Lambert makes his starring debut as the young Lord, raised in the wild by a female gorilla after his parents die in Africa. Later returned to what is to him an alien world, that of class and privilege, he feels totally out of place. Once he learns what has happened to the apes that raised him and their world he realizes that he must go back. A sad but triumphant story told against a background of fantastic vistas. This is one of those films that is a must for every Cinemaphile's collection.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I don't understand why it is so underrated on IMDb.. This movie is just the perfection.. The better adaptation of all times of the myth of Tarzan! As a french, I can say that this is the better role of Christophe Lambert, ridiculous in a lots of movies, but here absolutely wonderful, charismatic, incredible! The plot is great, well told, the story magnificent, the direction, the atmosphere, the music, every things are perfect! How believe these sequences with the Elgar music, just simply perfect..

Greystoke is truly an unbelievable movie, underrated here, I don't really know why, but really appreciated","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"..especially by Lambert. This is the essential Burrough's Tarzan that I grew up reading when I was a kid. I have read a few negative reviews on this film and couldn't help but wonder what their issue was. They obviously didn't see the movie I did or they were expecting something that was more akin to the Saturday afternoon serials.

This was the Tarzan that was of the novel and the film makers should be applauded for tackling the source material and taking it seriously. Lambert was excellent. I still think he is one of Hollywood's most under-rated actors. This was a movie that he shines in.

The photography and the apes, done by Rick Baker both were amazing. You definitely felt the since of the jungle. The 2nd half, Tarzan's attempt at being civilized really pulls you into the emotional conflict he had was forced to resolve.

I highly recommend this film","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is both an entertaining and a touching version of the classic tale, also quite intelligent, not of the 'Me Tarzan, You Jane' school at all.

It's the famous story of a child reared to manhood in the jungle by apes. A titled British couple (the wife pregnant) is stranded in the African wilds after a shipwreck. After the parents' deaths, the baby is raised in the jungle by apes. Twenty years later, this young man (i.e. Tarzan) rescues a wounded Belgian explorer, nursing him back to health. The Belgian discovers evidence that his rescuer is the young Lord Greystoke and returns him to his rightful estate in Scotland, where he must adjust to civilized society.

The movie is sort of divided into two parts. In the first half, we see Tarzan in his jungle environment. Not being an expert, I am unaware as to the realism of its depiction of ape community life, but it is certainly entertaining. For me, the more moving section is the second half, when Tarzan must meet his real family, develop language skills, and adjust to aristocratic British society, all the while wooing Jane (Andie MacDowell). He is portrayed as a 'noble savage', whether in the wild or in elegant Edwardian parlors. By contrast, the upper crust is depicted as often far more barbaric than the jungle Tarzan left.

Christopher Lambert is fantastic in his sympathetic portrayal of Tarzan in both the jungle and civilized environments. He conveys a real sense of his confusion and conflict, torn as he is between the two very different worlds, his original ape family and his new human one. Sir Ralph Richardson, one of the old British legends, is brilliant as always in the role of Tarzan's grandfather, the Sixth Earl of Greystoke.

The film focuses more on Tarzan's struggles in adapting to civilization and his inner conflict than on his jungle exploits. This unusual take on the old classic makes it both the typical dramatic adventure but also, above all, a moving personal story. I wasn't surprised to note here that its director is the same individual, Hugh Hudson, who also directed Chariots of Fire, another brilliant movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"There is absolutely no doubt that this version of Tarzan is the closest to Burroughs' vision. While he gladly collected his royalties from the films produced during his lifetime, he frequently made it clear that they were little more than the bastard children of his tales. The film studios' ludicrous obsession with casting Olympic swimmers as Tarzan was beyond laughable. I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that they did not set their sights on shot-putters.

Prior to this film, the most faithful adaptations were in comic strips and comic books. As fine as some of these were, we had to wait seven decades for a filmmaker with the integrity to respect the character as he had been created.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Where this movie is faithful to Burroughs' vision, it is excellent; where it departs from Burroughs, it is superb. It is a tale of family, of the seeking of a father by a real and emotional orphan. Lambert's speaking of one of the most anguished lines in all of cinema \"He was my Father!\" is enough to bring tears to the eyes of the most cynical critic. Not a perfect motion picture - the notorious over-dubbing of McDowell's voice by Glenn Close is unconscionable and only explicable in terms of a very British error - but a fine if flawed masterpiece and a noble farewell to Sir Ralph Richardson.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Don't let the wildly varying reviews of the movie deter you. You'll love it or hate it according to your own tastes. However, if for no other reason, see \"Greystoke\" to experience the excitement of a great actor grabbing your heart as he breathes life into his role. Ralph Richardson was not a great actor for how perfectly he could handle Shakespeare; rather, he is to be remembered for his sensitive treatment of every character he portrayed. He was never indifferent to his responsibility as an actor. His reading of the part of the Sixth Lord of Greystoke, his last performance, is to be cherished by all who love the theatre.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I must confess that I don't remember this film very well. But, certainly I liked it. I think it was the best adaptation from Burroughs novel, really. And of course it's one of the best movie from Christopher Lambert.

A good movie about Tarzan, as cult as the ones with Weissmuller.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The greatest Tarzan ever made! This movie is done in a way that no other Tarzan ever has come close in doing. It has every thing in it that you would want in a Tarzan movie. No other Tarzan movie ever has or ever will portray the character this well. I would say that if you have seen a Tarzan movie and liked it you should see this one you will love it, and if you have never seen Tarzan you should see this one and forget the rest of them.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before I review this film, I must make a confession that is rather a bold statement to make as a film reviewer. Anyone who has already read any of my previous reviews may know that I've always been controversial in a low-key sense, giving high marks for flops such as \"Captain America\" and 1985's \"Creature\" and panning such film classics as Alistar Sim's \"A Christmas Carol\" and \"Shakespeare in Love.\" With that in mind, this confession might not come as a surprise:

The simple fact is, Christopher Lambert is probably one of my favorite actors. Woah, now, don't start getting crazy on me just yet. Let me explain myself: I by no means think he's the greatest actor in the world. I clearly confess that he is not. He is certainly no Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins, but I would say that his acting ability is probably somewhere up there with at least Bruce Willis. What I admire about him, however, are the human qualities that he brings into his action heroes. He is just an average guy who laughs and cries and bleeds, who is a hero because he has to be, not necessarily because he wants to be. It takes a lot, in my opinion, to be able to bring out those qualities in a character (especially in the movies he's worked in), and Lambert's heroes are a far cry from Schwartzennegger's or Stallone's. Quite frankly, Lambert's characters are easier for me to relate to. Hence, he's not the greatest actor in the world....He's just a personal favorite.

I can't say that same, however, for his films. However much I appretiate his acting, it would be foolish not to confess that his choice of films leave something to be desired. Most of them are, quite frankly, terrible, and any ridicule that he's gotten over the years from me isn't due to his acting, but rather his bad choice in scripts.

With that in mind, I can say that his debut film, \"Tarzan,\" is one of his best films and probably his greatest performance. As I mentioned, it is effective becasue of the humaness he brings to the role, and for how seriously the director, writers and actors handle the material. This is a far leap from the B-movie action adventures with Johnny Weismeller from the 1940's. In fact, I would hesitate to call it an action movie. Instead, it is a serious drama that takes all of E.R. Burrough's material seriously, showing Tarzan's quest to discover his real family in Scotland after realizing that he doesn't fit in as a \"white ape.\" He is torn in between his old family and his new one, which includes a wonderful Sir Ralph Richardson in his final role. In an attempt to adapt to humans, his ape instincts also kick in, and he can't decide what he loves more: His real family, or the one that he's always known. All in all, it is a wonderful commentary on society, and a wonderful character study.

If nothing else, it launched Lambert into international stardom, which continued will into the 1980's with films like \"Highlander\" and \"he Sicilian.\" Unfortunately, it didn't last. But just wait a while....His latest career moves such as \"Gideon\" and \"Resurrection\" have proven that though he still have a long way to go, he's a competent enough actor to be able to perhaps make a... ahem.... comeback if he'll just pick his roles better.

For now, however, here's the verdict on his first film:

*** out of ****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I thought this was a very daring representation of the old hokey 'Tarzan' concept made so popular by Hollywood, Weismuller, et al.

Yes; there is a lot of silly stuff. But then, the idea is silly. It is almost unbelievable that a human baby could be sired to adulthood by chimpanzees. I am tempted to say completely unbelievable, but that the concept has never been tried. And there is certainly a bit too much anthropomorphism for comfort. Though under the circumstances I can see how that would be very difficult to avoid. We also now have a much greater insight into the issues of acculturation, and know that a human raised from infancy without human behavioural prompts would ultimately never learn them in adulthood.

Still, if you can get your head around that lot, there's a great deal to admire that is both imaginative and daring. Lambert does the beast thing with tremendous aplomb. I am tempted to say that it is the most convincing and sympathetic role I have seen him play. There are plenty of other excellent performances too. Not least of which are Sir Ralph Richardson and Ian Holm.

What is particularly disturbing - and rightly so - is the simian perception of humans. We get to see ourselves almost from the point of view of the poor, dumb, helpless brutes over whom we so routinely lord it. And it demonstrates well how the phony 'civilisation' and 'morality' with which we cloak and justify our conduct, is no more than an expression of own selfishness and arrogance. It may seem a little overstated at times, especially in the hideous museum dissection rooms, but what we see isn't just a truth about the Victorians; its a truth about the way we are today. It's one that needs to be stated, and cannot be stated often enough. Holm's character's obsession with the 'ray-zor' as a symptom of civilisation - as if to possess facial hair were a primitive condition to be scorned - is an excellent case in point. Primitive bearded readers take note.

The story is depressing. Ultimately it's a tragedy. Because even though he returns to the jungle and the freedom from moral tyranny that is truly human 'civilisation'; we know he's doomed. Before the third millennium is 50 years old, wild simians will be hunted into extinction as bush meat, and their environment developed for agriculture and mineral exploitation to gratify insatiable human excess.

In the end, it's a tale about ourselves. The path to extinction that other simians tread, must eventually be followed by humans.

Highly recommended for its ethical take, despite the hokey moments.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While it comes no closer to the Tarzan of Edgar Rice Burroughs than, say, the Johnny Wiesmuller flicks did it does have it's own peculiar, and entertaining, slant on the story. Its a well done Tarzan movie. Nice scenery, good photography, workable continuity, and a Tarzan yell that echos the one described by Burroughs. The players all perform well. The only bad points I found were, I think, related. It moves slow in places. That slow movement? Makes this picture to long. It could easily have been 15 to 20 minutes shorter, which I think would have helped with the natural flow of the plot line and the character development. But the rest of the film works well enough to carry it over these two rough spots and still leave the viewer satisfied with the flick. Short version of all the above ... Its a very GOOD Tarzan movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Watch it with an open mind, it is very different, nothing's cutesy about this. Very well done realistic tale of Tarzan. The animatronics chimpazees are well done for '84, Christopher Lambert was brilliant imitating chimpazee language and behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if he took lessons from Jane Goodall.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen most of the Tarzan episodes. Certainly the rated X with O'Keeffe & Bo Derek, which is totally deplorable.

I have seen this version several times since it was originally shown.

All the cast had memorable parts, great acting the Ape sequences.

Last night I viewed same on Spanish station and other than some French dialog all in Spanish.

As far as Hudson not wanting Andie's voice he did nothing until the very end. He viewed the dailies and could have hired a dialog coach.

It seems silly that a story about apes and a man raised by them all speaking gibberish that Hudson attacked Andie.The story line in the movie was that she was an American cousin. The last time I checked Carolina was in the USA.

She was beautiful in movie and her eyes, and gorgeous hair, alabaster skin mystified all us males. She did not have to resort to Bo's level.

She has remained a LADY throughout the rest of her career and should look at this movie (half her life ago),as a starting point. Her performance, sincerity, made this movie enjoyable, believable that a half wild man could ascertain her inner beauty.

Great sending point for Sir Richardson, he did steal the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I have seen most of the Tarzan episodes. Certainly the rated X with O'Keeffe & Bo Derek, which is totally deplorable.

I have seen this version several times since it was originally shown.

All the cast had memorable parts, great acting the Ape sequences.

Last night I viewed same on Spanish station and other than some French dialog all in Spanish.

As far as Hudson not wanting Andie's voice he did nothing until the very end. He viewed the dailies and could have hired a dialog coach.

It seems silly that a story about apes and a man raised by them all speaking gibberish that Hudson attacked Andie.The story line in the movie was that she was an American cousin. The last time I checked Carolina was in the USA.

She was beautiful in movie and her eyes, and gorgeous hair, alabaster skin mystified all us males. She did not have to resort to Bo's level.

She has remained a LADY throughout the rest of her career and should look at this movie (half her life ago),as a starting point. Her performance, sincerity, made this movie enjoyable, believable that a half wild man could ascertain her inner beauty.

Great sending point for Sir Richardson, he did steal the movie.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Although films about Edgar Rice Burroughs famous Rousseauian hero Tarzan have been seen by movie goers for almost a century now, this is the definitive version of the story. Greystoke is the actual story of the origins of Tarzan as set down by Edgar Rice Burroughs way back in the second decade of the last century. I've been assured by experts.

Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes are probably the most filmed fictional heroes in history. I've no basis in fact for saying that, just a gut feeling. The most popular Holmes was Basil Rathbone, the most popular Tarzan was Johnny Weissmuller. And films that they made with both those characters will be criticized no end by purists.

But Greystoke is the real deal, a faithful adaption of Burroughs first story concerning the origin of his hero. I can't think of another film which shows that Tarzan learned French before English, but that is shown here and it's only natural since it was a French survivor of a massacred safari played by Ian Holm who discovers Tarzan who has been raised by the apes since his parents who were shipwrecked on the African coast died there after his mother gave birth.

His parents were in fact the son and daughter-in-law of the Earl of Greystoke and the surviving Earl, played by Ralph Richardson is of course overjoyed to learn he has a grandson. Of course there are others who don't welcome the new heir back in society.

One who doesn't is Andie McDowell playing of course Jane. She does not communicate with Tarzan in answer to his grunts and monosyllabic commands. Tarzan speaks a concise English, French, and understands the language of the apes as well. As for the language of love, Tarzan and Jane need no lessons.

Greystoke earned three Oscar nominations for best makeup in regard to the apes, best adapted screenplay and a posthumous nomination for Ralph Richardson for Best Supporting Actor. It should also have rated a nomination for cinematography of the jungle scenes in Cameroun and the scenes of the British Aristocracy in several landmark places like Hatfield House and Blenheim Palace.

For Burroughs purists, Greystoke is the real deal.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"How his charter evolved as both man and ape was outstanding. Not to mention the scenery of the film. Christopher lambert was astonishing as lord of Greystoke. Christopher is the soul to this masterpiece. I became so enthrawled with his performance i could feel my heart pounding. The entireity of the movie still moves me to this day. His portrayal of John was Oscar worthy; as he should have been nominated for it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I remember seeing this film in the theater in 1984 when I was 6 years-old (you do the math). I absolutely loved it. I was Tarzan for the 2 weeks after seeing it (climbing the furniture, jumping around making monkey sounds). It started a fascination with Tarzan and monkeys, but oddly enough a longer lasting love for Christopher Lambert (keep in mind that I saw Highlander very shortly after this). 1984 was the last time I saw that film, until about a month ago. It happened to be on cable as I was getting ready for bed at 3:30 am and even though it was late and I was tired and I had to be at work at 9:00 am, I stayed up to watch this movie that I loved as a kid.

Upon viewing it I realized that it was not that great of a film and even odder then that, that Andie MacDowell's voice was dubbed by someone else. Ian Holme was of course solid as usual, and surprisingly the monkey suits still kind of held up, but what was most surprising was how good Lambert was as Tarzan. He was great! The depth he managed to capture in so few lines, his primal body language and most importantly his ability to bring this character through its extremely large ark, were just amazing.

As I stated earlier I am Lambert fan, but I'm used to Highlander, The Hunted and Fortress. In this film he was really quite good and it is a shame that he never got a chance to portray a character with such depth again.

So to make a short story way too long, I was a little disappointed that the film was not that good, but I was glad to see that Lambert was good and I do not regret staying up until 6:00am to see it.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is one of the most enjoyable teen movies I have ever seen (and that I wished was released to video). It was released the same year as another great comedy in which Tim Matheson played a role \"Animal House\" (Which is probably why it was overlooked).

One of the most memorable parts of this film would definitely be the soundtrack, which could have and should have been a formal label release. The soundtrack features a lesser-known 70's act named High Inergy whose song \"We are the future\", played a marquee role in the movie's Prom scene. I remember purchasing the group's album \"Steppin' Out\" as a kid mainly because of the look of the girls and not necessarily for their musical talents.

The closing song is one of the best ballads I have ever heard, and I can still hear it in my head. I wish I knew the group's name so that I could look for it somewhere in cyberspace.

If you liked films such as \"Over the edge\" and \"Rich Kids\", I think this is one that you will enjoy as well.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Slipknot is a hardcore rock band from Des Moines, Iowa. Nine band members who all wear customized boilersuits, and personalized, homemade masks (eg. #6's clown mask, #0's various gasmasks, #8's tattered + torn crashtest dummie mask with dreadlocks). The music itself seems to walk the finelines between sane and otherwise, yet is performed so brilliantly and psychotic.

\"Welcome To Our Neighborhood\" sounds rather a generic title, but the footage itself is something else. Interviews with the band, soundbites from their latest, selftitled album, 2 live performances, and one banned-by-MTV music video (a brilliant homage to the classic Kubrick film \"The Shining\"), the movie clocks in at not even half-an-hour, but is certainly worth it. It is perfect for introducing any metal\/hardcore fan to Slipknot.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This DVD usually sells for around $20. I wouldn't pay this much for the DVD if I had known what I was getting, but regardless this is a pretty good disc. It displays the Knot in all their glory, with footage from their concerts... playing Surfacing, Wait and Bleed and Scissors among other tracks, including the \"Spit it Out\" music video, which was apparently banned from MTV.

Slipknot, for those who don't know, is essentially a symphony of the damned: nine masked men who display total chaos on stage, with machine gun drums, squealing guitar and vocals that will tear your face off and leave you wanting more. For those who've never seen Slipknot before, I cannot recommend enough you get this DVD... probably off eBay or Amazon so you can get a better deal.

A short, though well made show of the Knot.

Seven out of ten.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I did it too. When i first saw the band, i dismissed them straight away without even listening to the music. Then one day, out of sheer curiosity, i bought the cd and fell in love with it. So i bought the video. hold onto your lunch kids, this isnt going to be pretty! the video was excellent - a great opportunity to hear the music, see some of the promo videos, and meet the band...although i *still* dont know how they can cope with wearing those masks all the time! a must for all fans of the band, and fans of alternative music in general","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Slipknot is a heavy metal band from the great city of Des Moines, Iowa in which the rockers wear their own distinguished mask (I know someone already said this, but I need to fill up space for this review). The band members are Joey, Mick, 133, Sid, Clown, James, Corey, Chris, and Paul. This band is one of the best new heavy metal bands in my opinion and should be heard by everyone that loves hardcore rock. Another good movie is called \"DISASTERPIECES\" which shows the band's performance at the London Arena. The \"My Plague\" video was shot there and is included on the DVD. The most kick ass song they made is also on there (Sic). So if you love the band you need to see this and if you love heavy metal music then you have to hear this band.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I can't remember exactly where i heard of them first, but i listen to a little of one song and liked it. Went and bought the cd and had finally found the type of music i like. I heard about this video and knew i had to have it. It has a lot of clips from them playing in concert. Let me tell you, watching this video doesn't even compare to them in concert. I've seen them twice in concert and don't want to ever miss a chance to see them again. The other two things it has is some interview, and even a video for one of their biggest songs. couple little side notes...i saw them at ozzfest 2001 and they ruled there, but seeing them in a smaller inside stage was much better (they had some really cool things to do with being able to cut out the lights) the other, in case anyone wonders, votary means a devout follower.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"From the golden period of British films, this has my vote for one of the funniest of all time. Screened yesterday at my Film Society to a rapturous audience, I was astonished at how well the comedy has lasted (made in 1950!). It is really down to the expert timing and inimitable playing from two of the finest actors Britain has produced: Margaret Rutherford and Alastair Sim. Adapted from a play by John Dighton, this farce is briskly handled by director Frank Launder. The plot is simple: A ministry mistake billets a girls' school on a boys' school. I will always laugh when I think of this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"One of the flat-out drollest movies of all-time. Sim and Rutherford are at their best matching wits over the predicament of an all-boys and all-girls school sharing the same quarters. Slapstick has never been this sophisticated.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film, without doubt, is the clearest example of the British humour the Germans can't understand. One-liners run rampant in a film spawning one of the greatest series of films in British cinema history (St.Trinians). The story of bureaucratic incompetence amid post-war trials enables Frank Launder to direct maximum talent from all the cast. It's probably the only film in which Margaret Rutherford meets her match, in Alastair Sim, for forceful characterisation (she still wins though). Joyce Grenfell (bless her) and Richard Wattis both deserve mentions in Dighton's masterpiece of English etiquette and stiff upper lip under pressure.

No Rutherford\/Sim\/Grenfell fan would be without this in their collection. Absolutely brilliant. Why 9\/10? Only 83mins long.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The Happiest Days of Your Life showcases some of Britain's greatest comedy talents of its time in a traditionally farcical and upper-class-twit like fashion. Generally it is a whistle-stop tour of stuffy English behaviour with the girls-only school providing a great setting for the dotty goings-on. Margaret Rutherford, Alastair Sim and - most especially! - Joyce Grenfell are all fantastic, giving us a lot of laughs as they express their utter horror at what they are having to deal with. As the film moves on, things get sillier and sillier with the tour around the school for the parents being a suitably crackers high point.

At this point I will give special mention, again, to Joyce Grenfell and her wonderful character Miss Gossage. She is so extraordinarily innocent, silly, apologetic and ineffectual that she seems to steal the whole film. She provides the greatest laugh of the film when she flirts with a male teacher (\"Call me sausage!\").

Whilst some of the film is slow or dated, and not always very involving, it still maintains most of its sparkle and barely pauses for romance. Good for a silly, harmless giggle.

7\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"The play is cleverly constructed - begin with the porter, Rainbow - & let the audience see the background unfold through his eyes. The film follows the play with great faithfulness, working, no doubt, on the simple premise that it couldn't be bettered. Now throw in a host of superb character actors - & the result is a resounding triumph.A definite must-see.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"After a long run in the West End this charming film re-cast Margaret Rutherford as the Headmistress 'Miss Whitchurch' in this financially successful adaptation made in 1950.

All interior shots took place at Riverside studios in Hammersmith, London. The exterior scenes were filmed on location at a public girl's school near Liss in Hampshire. During the 12 - week shoot both Margaret Rutherford and Joyce Grenfell were staying in a hotel nearby and would often visit the school during the evenings where they would happily enjoy the company of the real school mistresses.

Although the film's script contains only two original lines from the original play the leads and supporting actors are in fine form and you can only feel sympathetic for their predicament especially in the final scenes.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A bumbling error at the Ministry Of Education results in Nutbourne Boys School having to share with St Swithin's School For Girls. This bemuses the respective head teachers of each school and leads to all manner of chaotic goings on, however the two are forced to come to an uneasy alliance in the hope of averting major trouble.

The Happiest Days Of Your Life is based on the John Dighton play from 1948, with Dighton writing the part of Headmistress Whitchurch specifically for Margaret Rutherford. Replacing George Howe from the play in the role of Headmaster Pond, is Alastair Sim, and here in lies the crowning glory of this filmic adaptation, Sim & Rutherford are perfectly wonderful, bouncing off each other to keep what is basically a one joke movie, highly entertaining. Directed by the gifted Frank Launder, and produced by the equally adroit Sidney Gilliat, The Happiest Days Of Your Life is a quintessentially British movie, obviously a precursor to the St Trinians franchise, the film entertains the children with it's high jinks clash of the sexes heart, whilst tickling the watching adults with its very saucy undercurrent. Thankfully the chaotic ending cements all that has gone before it to leave this particular viewer with a grin as wide as Nutbourne Rail Station, great fun 8\/10.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film was made thirteen years before I was born but I still think it is the wittiest, dottiest, most harmless piece of fun ever made. It simply could not go wrong with the cast of superb British character actors it boasts.

Where to start? Alastair Sim-peerless; Margaret Rutherford-ditto;the wonderfully alkward, innocent Gossage, played to perfection by the imperious Joyce Grenfell. The caddish Victor Hyde-Brown (a Guy Middleton special) and the rest of the staff sum up post-war middle-class England to a tee.

The humour is sometimes obvious, but it is of that special \"Ealing\" variety and is never offensive.

I have watched this film more times than I care to remember and still laugh like a drain at the antics every time. The storming of the dorms occupied by the girls school, the magnificently-planned but ultimately doomed twin tours of the school and the chaotic ending involving the arrival of a third school to add to the anarchy, are priceless.

It's an old clich\u00e9 I know, but they really do not make them like that anymore. How I wish they did. If you haven't seen it, please do, you won't be disappointed.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This film is just plain lovely. It's funny as hell and as old as the hills. The acting is superb and it's fascinating seeing post-war Britain and how we used to behave in those days. This seems to have been some pre-runner to the St. Trinians films (given the Alastair Sim and Margaret Rutherford connection - there's also a very young George Cole in there who appeared in many St. Trinians films) but I don't myself understand the connection. It was shown on BBC4 recently after a biography of St. Trinians creator Ronald Searle, however I missed enough of the biography to miss the connection with this film. Anyway a great film in its own right and something that should be preserved for all time!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"\"Gaming? Nicotine? Fisticuffs? We're moving in a descending spiral of iniquity!\" So says the head of St. Swithen's upon inspecting the master's common at Nutbourne. The faculty and students of St. Swithen's have been ordered to share facilities at Nutbourne to avoid German bombs during World War II. Then there's the masters' library. \"The Diary of Samuel Pepys? Abridged...well, that's something to be thankful for. What's up here? The Memoirs of Casanova? Wasn't that the book we caught Jessica James reading in the closet? Decameron Nights! Well, really! What ever else this place may or may not be, it's no place to bring carefully nurtured girls!\"

Yes, a terrible mistake has been made by the Ministry of Education. Nutbourne is a school for boys. St. Swithen's is a school for girls. And what makes this one of the best post-WWII British comedies, Nutbourne's head master is Wetherby Pond...played by Alastair Sim, while St. Swithen's head mistress is Muriel Whitchurch...played by Margaret Rutherford.

\"St. Swithen's?\" says Pond. \"You don't mean to say that yours is a school for boys and girls?\" he asks one of the early girls. \"Only girls\" she says cheerfully. \"Does this mean, sir,\" asks one of Nutbourne's teachers, \"that we are to expect 100 young girls?\" \"It means that not only have the ministry made a mistake in sending a school here at all, but that it is guilty of an appalling sexual aberration!\"

Margaret Rutherford's Miss Whitchurch, as positive and immovable as a battleship, intends to make the best of it, by briskly taking over Nutbourne if possible. Alastair Sim's Pond is exasperated up to his big bald head and is determined to salvage his school. In the meantime, there are 100 young girls and 170 young boys to be fed and places found for them to sleep (along with all their teachers). The cooks and caretakers, totally put upon, walk out. Miss Whitchurch and her girls, however, are up to the cooking tasks. \"Come now, Angela,\" she says to one girl who is trying to stir something in a big pot, \"haven't you made porridge before?\" \"Yes, but no one ever had to eat it.\" \"That's a defeatist attitude, my dear. Stir it well and don't shilly shally.\"

Things are hardly going well when Pond discovers four governors from a school he hopes to lead are arriving at any moment to see for themselves how well led Nutbourne is. And Miss Whitchurch learns that four wealthy and influential parents have just arrived to see how their daughters are doing in the new -- boy free, they were told -- facilities. The only solution? Miss Whitchurch and Pond, their teachers and their students, concoct a split-second shifting of classes to give the allusion that Nutbourne has no girls and that St. Swithen's has no boys. After the parents inspect a dorm and leave for a class, the girls in the beds duck under and the boys who'd been hidden under leap up into the beds, just as the governors walk in. The boys are observed at rugby and, as soon as the governors turn their backs, the goal posts are taken down, nets for lacrosse are put up, and just then the parents walk over to observes the girls. One parent spots her daughter in a science class, then moments later sees her in a choir practice, then moments later.... \"There's Angela again,\" she says to Miss Whitchurch. \"Why so it is,\" she replies, hustling the parents out to avoid the governors who are approaching just around the corner. \"The child's quite ubiquitous.\"

When we leave Nutbourne, everything has been discovered. The students are milling about. The teachers are dazed (except for two who are kissing.) The Education Ministry has just sent several more busloads of students. The parents are speechless but the governors are not. \"We're waiting for an explanation,\" one says sharply. Pond holds his head and shudders. \"Can't you see I'm trying to think of one.\"

The film moves from one complicated and ridiculous situation after another, braced by a very funny script and two hugely comedic performances by Rutherford and Sim. Sim's droll exasperation and Rutherford's implacable determination are so well matched that's it's a shame this is the only movie they ever made together. Joyce Grenfell, as Gossage, St. Swithen's tall, awkward, loping sports teacher gives them some competition. If you keep your eyes open, you'll also find some amusing references director Frank Launder works in, including a gong at Nutbourne that looks just like a midget version of J. Arthur Rank's, a faint echo of the zither theme from The Third Man and a shot stolen from David Lean's Oliver Twist, except this time the little boy walks up holding his porridge bowl and says, \"Please, sir. I don't want anymore.\"

Frank Launder and his partner, Sidney Gilliat, were responsible for some of the best films produced in Britain during the Thirties, Forties and Fifties. They wrote, produced and directed, sometimes doing one, sometimes the other. In one way or another they were responsible for such first-rate films as Green for Danger (with a masterly droll performance by Sim), I See a Dark Stranger, The Lady Vanishes, Night Train to Munich, Wee Geordie, The Belles of St. Trinian's, The Rake's Progress and many others. With The Happiest Days of Your Life, Launder wrote and directed while both produced. It's one of their best.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Before watching this movie from beginning to end, I happened to just catch the last half hour. Ordinarily I don't watch a movie if I haven't seen it from the beginning, but a friend had it on and once I started watching it I couldn't stop.

I'm really surprised this movie didn't get a wide theatrical release. This is quite a funny movie (often gallows humor) , and the monster and monster truck in it are quite menacing. The monster makes Leatherface look pretty, and the monster truck is a like a cross between a World War I German artillery vehicle and a giant coffin.

A timid twenty-five year-old virgin guy is on a long drive to stop the woman he loves from getting married. His ex-best friend tags along and rags on him constantly. They're menaced on the road by a vintage black hearse and the aforementioned monster truck. They also pick up a hitchhiker, played by the very sexy Aimee Brooks.

I also watched the animated trailer with the director's commentary, and the electronic press kit and I found those both to be interesting. I would bet that the feature commentary with the director and the two male stars is pretty enjoyable too, but I have so many other movies to watch I've never seen before....","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Well, it has to be said that Monster Man is a huge mess of a film, but somehow multiple different genres and a clich\u00e9d plot come together to make one of the most enjoyable modern horror films I've seen in ages! The two biggest styles that the film mixes are a 'Road Trip' style teenage comedy and a 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' style redneck horror vibe, and while one gets in the way of the other quite often; director Michael Davis manages to keep things moving thanks to the fact that the constant shift in tone means that we're never quite sure where the film is going to be taken next. Things start out worryingly as we're introduced to two characters, both irritating in different ways. Adam is a wussy virgin, while Harley is a fat big-mouthed \"A-hole\". They're both driving across the desert to attend the wedding of some chick they both liked in high school. After a couple of strange events, they pick up a hitch-hiker, and then find themselves being chased by some maniac in a monster truck for reasons unknown...

The idea of someone being chased by someone else in a bigger vehicle is hardly original, but the way the monster truck is used here is one of the film's biggest assets. The truck itself looks spooky because it's so haggard and rusty, and the fact that it bounces around the screen makes the unfolding action exciting and suspenseful. After a while, you begin to get used to the characters and once Aimee Brooks enters the fray, things start to look up. The teen comedy side of the movie actually works pretty well, as Justin Ulrich is always on hand to deliver some entertaining lines of dialogue and the scenes between the dorky virgin and the hot female hitch-hiker are interesting enough. Just when you think the film couldn't possibly get any messier, things take a turn for the weird in the final third. Without spoiling things, it has to be said that Monster Man features the sort of ending that couldn't possibly be seen coming, and along with the twist, is a big surprise. Some people may feel ripped off by the sudden turn at the end - but I actually thought it worked quite well as it fits the film in that nothing here really fits... Overall, this isn't a 'great' film by any means - but if you're looking for some silly entertainment, Monster Man should hit the spot!","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"A beautiful woman, a backwoods, inbred monster man, a super sweet monster truck, a road kill zombie brother and 2 friends...one anal retentive, overly sensitive nerd and the other a foul mouthed, adolescent slob. Throw them all together with a dash of Jeepers Creepers, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Road Trip and you've got Monster Man. A hilarious horror\/comedy outing that never sets out to \"say something\". It's a simple, straight forward laugh fest. Unpretentious and well made, this horror\/comedy is at its heart, a buddy flick. This film offered some hilarious and sickening set pieces. I highly recommend this to fright fans looking to be entertained.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This was on Showtime the other night, and I figured it was going to be another made-for-video crap fest, like \"Earth vs. the Spider\" or any of those other HBO horror shorts. Instead, I found a comedy\/gore classic. It was legitimately funny, and surprisingly, the acting was quite good. Even my wife, an overall horror-hater, agreed and was laughing at parts. In addition, the FX were high-quality.

Overall, the film felt like a parody of Joy Ride\/Jeepers Creepers, and the 2 main characters reminded me of the pair from Shaun of the Dead. Definitely worth watching, but don't take it seriously.

The End.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"If you took a really good jack black movie, added a little jeepers creepers, and then a dash of joyride with a hint of texas chainsaw massacre and house of a 1000 corpses...you would have MONSTER MAN! i went into this movie, not really expecting much at all, but i wound up really enjoying the movie. the whole premise is really cheesy, a monster man in a monster truck chases down people, but it is so funny that the writer\/director doesn't expect you to take it seriously. justin urich is a comic gem and should have a very promising career. he is identical to jack black. the only problem with the film is the unbelievable hero role played by eric jungmann. but overall, if you are looking for a really really fun movie that will crack you up until you are rolling in the aisles, and at the same time, scare the crap out of you...check out this film.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"While driving in a highway to the wedding of his beloved Betty-Ann, Adam (Eric Jungmann) is surprised by his former schoolmate Harley (Justin Urich) on the backseat of his car. Adam has broken off with the inconvenient and moron Harley because of Betty-Ann. Along their road trip, Harley makes fun of some rednecks in a bar and later their car is chased by a giant monster truck on the road. After some incidents, they give a lift to the hitchhiker Sarah (Aimee Brooks) and sooner the trio is terrorized by a scary monster driving the monster truck.

In spite of having one of the most annoying characters I have ever seen in a horror movie, the irritating Harley, \"Monster Man\" is a surprisingly good trash horror-comedy. The story is a collection of clich\u00e9s, beginning like \"Joy Ride\" or \"Duel\"; then it turns to one of the countless rip-offs of \"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre\"; there is a surprising twist, ending with a hook for a sequel. There are hilarious scenes, Aimee Brooks is extremely sexy and this film really entertains. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"Monster Man\"","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I saw this on Zone horror and fully expected it to be compete crap like most of the films they play , however I was pleasantly surprised. The film revolves around 2 friends and a maniac in a monster truck who is chasing them (i know it sounds crap but its actually quite good) , the film is creepy when it intends to be and is laugh out loud funny in parts (and not in an unintentional way either, it is well paced and is a lot of fun as well as being very gory , there's some very funny black humour thrown in as well. Its not the most original movie but so what. If your after Shakespeare then this is not it , if your after a fun movie then this should be fine","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Adam (Eric Jungmann) and obnoxious best friend Harley (Justin Urich) are driving cross country to a wedding. Along the way they pick up sexy hitchhiker Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Then, for no reason, a monster truck keeps trying to run them off the road...and maybe kill them. Who is doing this and why?

Pretty good horror film. Its energetic and full of flashy direction which gets you right into the action. It's also a horror comedy. Most of the humor is infantile and REALLY gross but actually somewhat funny. Also this movie really piles on the gore at times--but that's a GOOD thing! The acting is OK--Jungmann overplays his nerd role a bit much; Urich is stuck with the hopeless role of the foul-mouthed, sex-obsessed best friend--but pulls it off; Brooks is good too in a limited role.

BUT I could see the \"twist\" ending coming long before it happened and logic totally disappears at the end (especially the rescue). Still, this is a gory, sometimes funny and sometimes scary horror movie. I give it a 7.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I first saw this on Demand. Or on TV. I'm not really sure. But this has got to be my all time favorite movie ever! I mean, this movie has blood, gore, laughs and chills through out the movie. I recently ordered \"Monster Man\" from Amazon and i've been watching \"Monster Man\" ever since i got it. Trust me, you will love this movie.

P.S. The commentary on the DVD is way funny. They also said something about \"Monster Man 2\" during the commentary. Let's hope they make \"Monster Man 2\"! If you have the chance, rent the movie or buy it. You will absolutely LOVE it! This is the best movie that has come out in 2003.

10\/10","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"In the veins of Jeepers Creepers and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Monster Man surprisingly well-made--though mindless--little horror. Throw in a little buddy-comedy, nice gore and intense scare. It's hard no to say that Monster Man is really entertaining. The low budget seem pretty obvious, but it doesn't effected the presentation of the movie in general and put more big budget horror movies in shame.

Yes, the plot somewhat generic as possible. Pair of friend, Adam (Eric Jungman)and Harley (Justin Urich) are driving cross country to interrupt the wedding of a woman Adam has always loved. While Adam is more nerdy type, Harley is a self-proclaimed ladies man and very offensive loudmouth. Adding a bonus to the plot, then they picked up a sexy hitchhiker, Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Things turn into nightmare when a monster truck with scary face drive stalking them. When dead body starts counting, they must do the race against the time before their own life on risk.

The plot is obviously reminiscent of many prior famous horror movies, but Michael Davis as the writer and director succeed in keeping the tension. The scare is build well enough, where characterization is never be the best, but fairly okay. The script also littered with comedies that works for the funny moments and they quite enjoyable rather than annoying and also wait for the twist in the finale. It's hilarious and shocking in the same time, which is pretty amusing.

As conclusion, Monster Man surprisingly entertaining. It deserves more attention in the big screen. It proves that big budget doesn't make an effective horror movie, but skill does! Something that the director has shown and delivers.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Great horror comedy from Michael Davis.Iwas laughing so hard i almost peed! Great acting from Eric Jungman as the good guy who saves the day & great performance by the Jack Black-esquire like performance from Justin Urich. He was just divine in this film. This guy deserves to be a big star. Also,Aimee Brooks was good in the film as well as the girl in danger along with the guys from a killer reminiscent of Jeepers Creepers. The gore to was given in copious amounts & i loved it.I just hope they release a not rated version. Great low-budget Horror Comedy. The dead cat in the hotel sex scene is just gruesomely funny! ***** out of *****","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Two city guys are driving through Hicksville USA when a rusty monster truck suddenly appears and repeatedly attempts to run them off the road.Having picked up a mysterious blonde hitchhiker,they pull up at a truck-stop full of redneck amputees,one of whom warns them of 'the demon out there'. But they don't listen.Big mistake!\"Monster Man\" by Michael Davis mixes comedy with horror surprisingly well.The film borrows heavily from \"Duel\",\"The Blair Witch Project\",\"Jeepers Creepers\" and \"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre\".The story is pretty silly,but there is enough gore and violence to keep splatter freaks happy.I enjoyed especially the performance of Justin Urich,which offers the film its comedy relief.Still the complete lack of suspense is hard to forgive.Give this one a chance,if you have some time to waste.7 out of 10.Did I mention that Aimee Brooks is sexy?","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"This is a surprisingly great low budget Horror\/Comedy, it's funny and pretty well made, with good performances and a really cool twist ending!. All the characters are pretty cool, and the story while unoriginal is very good, plus Eric Jungmann(Adam) and Justin Urich(Harley) had fantastic chemistry together. One of the funniest moments in the film for me is when Adam is trapped in the bathroom, and Harley wakes up to find that monster truck sitting there, and decides to take a p*ss in the truck, and Aimee Brooks is just plain sexy!, plus this is one of the best low budget Horror films I have seen in a long time. It's very gory, but in a comical way, and I thought it was very well written as well, plus Michael Bailey Smith is fantastic as the Monster Man and had some wicked makeup!. It's similar to films like Joy Ride, Duel, Jeepers Creepers, etc, etc and it has some suspenseful moments here and there, plus The gore effects are really well done for the most part. This is a surprisingly great low budget Horror\/Comedy, it's funny and pretty well made, with good performances and a really cool twist ending, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Michael Davis does a very good! job here, with great camera work, good angles,good use of colors, and using a great setting, plus he kept the film funny and at a very fast pace.

There is a lot of gore!. We get extremely bloody nose bleeds,gory impaling's, bloody stabbings,guy is cut in half by a monster truck, human remains in a cooked stew, guts all over the place,guys guts fall out,pencil in the eyes,bloody slit throat,bunch of people walking around without limbs,gory dead squirrel,heads are squished,severed limbs,bloody and mangled corpses,decent amount of bloodshed,one very gory scene at the very end and more!.

The Acting is very good for a low budget film. Eric Jungmann is fantastic here as Adam, he was a nerd but a very likable one, he had fantastic chemistry with Justin Urich, had some cool lines,and I just loved his character, he also seemed to be enjoying himself,and he was especially good at the end!. Justin Urich is excellent as the ass of a Best Friend, however I just couldn't help but love him as he was very funny, and often stole a lot of the scenes, I really dug him!. Aimee Brooks is gorgeous, and did great with what she had to do, she had good chemistry with Jungmann and like Jungmann was especially good at the end, as I loved her mysterious character. Michael Bailey Smith is wonderful as The Monster Man he was very creepy looking, had some awesome makeup, and is now one of my favorite slashers!. Rest of the cast do fine.

Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1\/2 out of 5","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Just got around to seeing Monster Man yesterday. It had been a long wait and after lots of anticipation and build up, I'm glad to say that it came through and met my expectations on every level. True, you really can't expect too much from hearing the plot rundown, but after reading some of the reviews for it, I was ecstatic. I mean, what trash fan wouldn't want to see a gore flick about a deranged inbred hick mowing people down with his make-shift monster truck? I went in expecting a cross between Road Trip and The Hills Have Eyes and got so much more. This was a horror comedy that actually worked. The film makers got it right when it came to making you squirm and making you howl with laughter at the same time. Kudos to Michael Davis for going all out with the gore and pushing the envelope with the sickass humor. Let me list just a few reasons why I love this movie so much: First off is the story. It's been done to death in so many other flicks. A college guy gets wind that his childhood crush is getting married. He, being the 25 year old virgin that he is, hops in his Vista Cruiser and decides to take the road trip to confess his love, hoping that she will fall head over hills and all that good jive. Hidden in the backseat of his station wagon, is good buddy Harley. Harley is the loudmouth, former friend, who laughs and talks just like Jack Black in High Fidelity. You can't help but like the guy, but if he was your friend in real life, you'd have to keep a whiffle ball bat handy(laugh all you want, but have you ever been hit with one?) to keep him in check. So, he's a little on the obnoxious side, to say the least, but you can tell that he's a loyal friend, deep down...Anyway, they're on the road and when they stop in a bar, they aggravate the locals. Now they're being stalked by a leatherface clone in a monster truck. That's it. Yeah, along the way they pick up a gorgeous hitchhiker but I'm too lazy and hungover to go into that right now... so just watch the damn movie.

Second thing I love was the humor. This one had some of the sickest laughs of any movie since Cabin Fever. Just how messed up is it? Well, I won't even go into the whole cat scene and as for the \"corpse burrito\" thing, I'll leave that to your virgin eyes as well. The bar full of amputees was somewhat disturbing and that guy who looked like John Turturro bothered me too. Harley, although a totally obnoxious frat-boy type, can really sling off the one liners. Love the clogs, by the way. I need a new pair..

The GORE. This one pours it on heavy. While the first hour plays out as a demented road comedy, the last third is all about blood and guts. If the movie hadn't kept such a light tone throughout, it would have been a little disturbing, but seeing how it was all played for laughs, there is no way possible that you will be bothered by it. If you're still in your seat by the time it comes, you'll probably see the humor in it too, but seriously, there were buckets and buckets of the red stuff. There was a big plot turn that I DIDN'T see coming and when the credits rolled, I was completely satisfied. I had gotten exactly what I came for and I'm really glad that I bought it. Much like Cabin Fever, it's going to get a lot of replay.

The Look of the movie was outstanding. There was this deliberately cheap look that made the whole thing scream late 80s and I loved the exaggerated colors. It's obvious that Monster Man was done on a relatively low budget, but much like Cabin Fever (sorry I keep comparing the two) it actually works in the movie's favor. Cabin Fever was an ode to the 70s greats, this was the 80s answer to that. So take that for what it's worth. No CGI here. This is what we all needed. I'm not exactly sure why it didn't get a theatrical release because this is everything that Jeepers Creepers SHOULD have been. Thank god for Lions Gate.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I got this as part of a competition prize. I watched it, not really expecting much from an obviously low budget production. I laughed myself sick!There are obvious references to other films in the horror genre - Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Friday 13th etc. All the standard clich\u00e9s were there - long drive through partially arid and somehow menacing countryside, inbred red-necks, mysterious vehicles tracking you - throw in some really good humorous scenes (siphoning petrol from the camper-van) and dialogue (\"f*****g virgin? That's got to be an oxymoron..\" and you have one of the best spoof horror films for years. I particularly liked the way our reluctant hero used his stress-related nose-bleed to great advantage..","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I got Monster Man in a box set of three films where I mainly wanted the other two but still had a very pleasant time with it. It blends horror and comedy to reasonable effect, helped out considerably by the decent performances of Eric Jungman as the geeky lead, Justin Urich as his a hole friend and Aimee Brooks as the love interest. The film is fairly predictable and mines ideas from a host of other films, but stays fun throughout, with some good gruesome gore thrown in. Sure it doesn't measure up to the classic gory comedies, but this still does fine. Director Michael Davis even manages one or two creepy scenes, such as in the bathroom, or the bar. The film is watchable throughout if a little messily plotted and written and for me it only lost it a bit towards the end when the Monster Man of the title starts to resemble a member of Slipknot and the film tries to go more horror style but isn't twisted or convincing enough. The final moments are a trifle weak as well. Still, despite lack of much suspense and overall silliness, this is a good example of unpretentious, often gnarly splatter comedy that should endear itself to fans of the same.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"Five minutes in, i started to feel how naff this was looking, you've got a completely unheroic hero and his overweight fool of a friend. Seen it all before, yeah right. I was getting ready to be bored out of my mind for a good few hours. This is something i have become quite used to... haven't we all. Then after a few minutes of testosterone fuelled insults and such, the truck appeared. Okay the filming techniques used to make it look fast were clumsy, but who cares! That truck is amazing! Soon however that is taken away again and we're back to the geek and his overweight friend. But now i'm satisfied that at least it won't be too terrible. I then proceed to be amazed again and again by the cleverness of the film. There are so many jokes at their expense, it's like everyone in the world is in on this except the two of them. The mind behind the makeup and effects was a genius i swear it. Believe me, if you are a man you miss so many of the jokes in this film, there is so much here that only a girl can understand.

Brother Bob is by far the best hillbilly killer that can be found anywhere, the fact that he's sewn together just adds to the effect. There are of course some really dud science facts in here, but isn't that always the case. When our 'hero' is having a nose bleed and using the blood to lead brother Bob to his death, now that is rubbish. There is no way a nose bleed can be that bad and not mean a severed artery or something. I'm all with the use of too much blood, but that is taking it a little too far. The incest jokes are a little predictable but funny nonetheless. And the way brother bob meets his end is more than classic. Overall, this movie rules, it really breaks out of the overacted melodramatic strain of horror that we got so much of in 2003-2005. The end of this move simply could not have been better.

This is a definite must watch for anyone who likes their horror with several side orders of gore and attitude.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"} {"text":"I caught this movie on the Sci-Fi channel recently. It actually turned out to be pretty decent as far as B-list horror\/suspense films go. Two guys (one naive and one loud mouthed a**) take a road trip to stop a wedding but have the worst possible luck when a maniac in a freaky, make-shift tank\/truck hybrid decides to play cat-and-mouse with them. Things are further complicated when they pick up a ridiculously whorish hitchhiker. What makes this film unique is that the combination of comedy and terror actually work in this movie, unlike so many others. The two guys are likable enough and there are some good chase\/suspense scenes. Nice pacing and comic timing make this movie more than passable for the horror\/slasher buff. Definitely worth checking out.","label":1,"label_text":"positive"}